format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The effective action is an important quantity of the quantum theory. Defined as the Legendre transformation of the path integral, it provides us with an instrument to find the true vacuum state of the theory under consideration and to study its behavior taking into account quantum corrections. Slavnov–Taylor (ST) identities are also an important tool to prove the renormalizability of gauge theories in four spacetime dimensions . They generalize Ward–Takahashi identities of quantum electrodynamics to the non-Abelian case and can be derived starting from the property of invariance of the tree-level action with respect to BRST symmetry . ST identities for the effective action have been derived in Ref. .

Slavnov–Taylor identities are equations involving variational derivatives of the effective action. The effective action contains all the information about quantum behaviour of the theory, and in quantum field theory it is the one particle irreducible diagram generator. Searching for the solution to Slavnov–Taylor identities can be considered as a complementary method to the existing nonperturbative methods of quantum field theory such as the Dyson–Swinger and Bethe–Salpeter equations. The solution to Slavnov–Taylor identities in the four-dimensional supersymmetric theory has been proposed recently . In the procedure to derive that solution, the no-renormalization theorem for superpotential  has been used extensively. In this paper we will suggest that this point is not crucial and that arguments similar as those given before  can be used in the nonsupersymmetric case. In the approach developed below there are no restrictions on the number of dimensions and renormalizability of the theory. We require only that the theory under consideration can be regularized in such a way that the Slavnov–Taylor identities are valid and that BRST symmetry is anomaly free, as in the case, e.g., in QCD.

We argue that the functional structure of the auxiliary ghost-ghost $`Lc^2`$ correlator in nonsupersymmetric gauge theories is fixed by Slavnov–Taylor identities in a unique way. In this correlator $`L`$ is a nonpropagating background field and it is coupled at the tree level to the BRST transformation of the ghost field $`c.`$ According to our assumption, the vertex $`Lc^2`$ is invariant with respect to ST identities and this then gives the following quantum structure for it:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}𝑑x𝑑y𝑑zG_c(x^{}x)G_c^1(x^{}y)G_c^1(x^{}z)\frac{i}{2}f^{bca}L^a(x)c^b(y)c^c(z)}.`$ (1)
As one can see, the main feature of this result is that the effective ghost field $`c`$ is dressed by the unknown function $`G_c^1(xy).`$ This dressing contains all the quantum information about this correlator. We can use the structure of this correlator as a starting point to find the solution for the total effective action.

The solution to the Slavnov–Taylor identities found in the present paper imposes restrictions on the ghost part of the effective action. For example, it means that the gluon-ghost-antighost vertex can be read off from our result for the effective action (70):

$`G_m(q,p)=iq_m{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_A(q^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}_A(k^2)\stackrel{~}{G}_c(p^2)}},`$ (2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_A`$ is the Fourier image of a function that dresses gauge field, while $`G_m(q,p)`$ is the gluon-ghost-antighost vertex, $`q`$ is the momentum of the antighost field $`b`$ and $`p`$ is the momentum of the ghost field $`c`$, and $`p+k+q=0.`$ Another feature of the result obtained here is that the physical part of the effective action (70) is gauge invariant in terms of the effective fields dressed by the dressing functions $`G`$. In the result (70) for the effective action information about quantum behaviour of the theory is encoded in a finite number of dressing functions and in the running function of the coupling.

The paper is organized in the following way. In Section 2 we review some basic aspects of BRST symmetry and Slavnov–Taylor identities for the irreducible vertices. In Section 3 we show how to obtain the functional structure (1) of the $`Lc^2`$ correlator. In Section 4 we obtain the correlator linear in another nonpropagating background field $`K_m,`$ thus fixing the terms in the effective action which contain ghost and antighost effective fields. In Section 5 we describe higher correlators in $`K_m`$ and $`L.`$ In Section 6 we make a conjecture about the form of the physical (pure gluonic) part of the effective action and then in Section 7 we consider renormalization of it to remove infinities. A brief summary is given at the end. The questions of consistency of this effective action within perturbative QCD are investigated in a second paper . For simplicity, in the present paper we focus on pure gauge theories in four spacetime dimensions with $`SU(N)`$ gauge group. No matter field is included in the consideration, although their addition does not change our results.

## 2 Preliminaries

We consider the traditional Yang–Mills Lagrangian of the pure gauge theory

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{1}{2g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[F_{mn}(x)F_{mn}(x)\right]}`$ (3)
The gauge field is in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. A nonlinear local (gauge) transformation of the gauge fields exists which keeps theory (3) invariant. This symmetry must be fixed, Faddeev–Popov ghost fields  must be introduced and finally the BRST symmetry can be established for the theory that in addition to the classical action (3) contains a Faddeev–Popov ghost action and the gauge-fixing term.

To be specific, we choose the Lorentz gauge fixing condition

$`_mA_m(x)=f(x).`$ (4)
Here $`f`$ is an arbitrary function in the adjoint representation of the gauge group that is independent on the gauge field. The normalization of the gauge group generators is

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aT^b\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^{ab},\left(T^a\right)^{}=T^a,[T^b,T^c]=if^{bca}T^a,`$
and we use notation $`X=X^aT^a`$ for all the fields in the adjoint representation of the gauge group, like gauge fields themselves, ghost fields, and their respective sources.

The conventional averaging procedure with respect to $`f`$ is applied to the path integral with the weight

$`e^{i{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{\alpha }f^2\left(x\right)}}`$
and as the result we obtain the path integral

$`Z[J,\eta ,\rho ,K,L]={\displaystyle }dAdcdb\mathrm{exp}i\{S[A,b,c].`$
$`.+2\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle }dxJ_m(x)A_m(x)+i{\displaystyle }dx\eta (x)c(x)+i{\displaystyle }dx\rho (x)b(x)).`$ (5)
$`.+2\mathrm{Tr}(i{\displaystyle }dxK_m(x)_mc(x)+{\displaystyle }dxL(x)c^2(x))\}.`$
in which

$`S[A,b,c]={\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[F_{mn}(x)F_{mn}(x)\right]\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\left[_mA_m(x)\right]^2\right)`$
$`2\mathrm{Tr}\left(ib(x)_m_mc(x)\right)].`$ (6)
Here the ghost field $`c`$ and the antighost field $`b`$ are Hermitian, $`b^{}=b`$, $`c^{}=c`$ in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. They possess Fermi statistics.

The infinitesimal transformation of the gauge field $`A_m`$ is defined by the fact that it is a gauge connection,

$`A_mA_m_m\lambda ,`$
where $`\lambda (x)`$ is an infinitesimal parameter of the gauge transformation. This transformation comes from the transformation of covariant derivatives,

$`_me^{i\lambda }_me^{i\lambda },_m=_m+iA_m,\varphi e^{i\lambda }\varphi ,`$
where $`\varphi `$ is some representation of the gauge group. To obtain the BRST symmetry we have to substitute $`ic(x)\epsilon `$ instead of $`\lambda .`$ Here $`\epsilon `$ is Hermitian Grassmannian parameter, $`\epsilon ^{}=\epsilon ,`$ $`\epsilon ^2=0.`$ Thus, the BRST transformation of the gauge field is

$`A_mA_mi_mc\epsilon .`$ (7)
In order to obtain the BRST transformation of the ghost field $`c`$ we have to consider two subsequent BRST transformations

$`_me^{c\kappa }e^{c\epsilon }_me^{c\epsilon }e^{c\kappa }=e^{c\epsilon c\kappa (c\epsilon )(c\kappa )}_me^{c\epsilon +c\kappa +(c\epsilon )(c\kappa )},`$ (8)
where $`\kappa `$ is a Grassmannian parameter too, $`\kappa ^2=0.`$ This transformation again is equivalent to an infinitesimal transformation of the gauge field in covariant derivatives,

$`A_mA_mi_m\left[c\epsilon +c\kappa +(c\epsilon )(c\kappa )\right].`$
It means that we can consider the inner BRST transformation (with $`\epsilon `$) as the substitution (7) in the outer BRST transformation (with $`\kappa `$). The second term after the covariant derivative is a transformation of $`A_m`$ under the outer BRST transformation while the third term after the covariant derivative is the transformation of $`i_mc\kappa `$ and can it be cancelled by the transformation of the second term $`c\kappa `$

$`cc+c^2\epsilon .`$ (9)
Thus, the transformations (7) and (9) together leave the covariant derivative of the ghost field unchanged. Such a symmetry is very general and always exists if the gauge fixing procedure has been performed in the path integral for any theory with nonlinear local symmetry. The noninvariance of the gauge fixing term is cancelled by the corresponding transformation of the antighost field $`b.`$

To collect all things together, the action (6) is invariant with respect to the BRST symmetry transformation with Grassmannian parameter $`\epsilon ,`$

$`A_mA_mi_mc\epsilon ,`$
$`cc+c^2\epsilon ,`$ (10)
$`bb{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}_mA_m\epsilon .`$
The external sources $`K`$ and $`L`$ of the BRST transformations of the fields are BRST invariant by definition, so the last two lines in the Eq. (5) are BRST invariant with respect to the transformations (10).

The effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is related to $`W=ilnZ`$ by the Legendre transformation111We have traditionally used in this paper the same notation for variable of the effective action and for variable of integration in the path integral coupled to the corresponding source .

$`A_m{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta J_m}},ic{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta \eta }},ib{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta \rho }}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=W2\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑xJ_m(x)A_m(x)}+{\displaystyle 𝑑xi\eta (x)c(x)}+{\displaystyle 𝑑xi\rho (x)b(x)}\right)`$
$`W2\mathrm{Tr}\left(X\phi \right),`$ (12)
$`\left(X\phi \right)i^{G(k)}\left(X^k\phi ^k\right),`$
$`X(J_m,\eta ,\rho ),\phi (A_m,c,b).`$
where $`G(k)=0`$ if $`\phi ^k`$ is Bose field and $`G(k)=1`$ if $`\phi ^k`$ is Fermi field. We use throughout the paper notation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X}}=T^a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^a}}`$
for any field $`X`$ in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Iteratively all equations (11) can be reversed,

$`X=X[\phi ,K_m,L]`$
and the effective action is defined in terms of new variables, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,K_m,L].`$ Hence, the following equalities take place

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A_m}}=J_m,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K_m}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta K_m}},{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta c}}=i\eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta b}}=i\rho ,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta L}}.`$ (13)
If the change of fields (10) in the path integral (5) is made one obtains the Slavnov–Taylor identity as the result of invariance of the integral (5) under a change of variables,

$`\mathrm{Tr}[{\displaystyle }dxJ_m(x){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta K_m(x)}}{\displaystyle }dxi\eta (x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta L(x)}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle }dxi\rho (x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}_m{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J_m(x)}}\right)]W=0,`$ (14)
or, taking into account the relations (13), we have

$`\mathrm{Tr}[{\displaystyle }dx{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A_m(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K_m(x)}}+{\displaystyle }dx{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta c(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L(x)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle }dx{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta b(x)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}_mA_m(x)\right)]=0.`$ (15)
The problem is to find the most general functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the variables $`\phi ,K_m,L`$ that satisfies the ST identity (15). Before doing it, we need in addition to ST identities also the ghost equation that can be derived by shifting the antighost field $`b`$ by an arbitrary field $`\epsilon (x)`$ in the path integral (5). The consequence of invariance of the path integral with respect to such a change of variable is (in terms of the variables (11))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta b(x)}}+_m{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K_m(x)}}=0.`$ (16)
The ghost equation (16) restricts the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the antighost field $`b`$ and on the external source $`K_m`$ to an arbitrary dependence on their combination

$`_mb(x)+K_m(x).`$ (17)
This equation together with the third term in the ST identities (15) is responsible for the absence of quantum corrections to the gauge fixing term. Stated otherwise, when expressing $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta b(x)`$ in the third term in the ST identity (15) as $`_m(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta K_m(x))`$ by Eq. (16), the sum of the first and the third term in (15) can be rewritten as

$`\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{\delta A_m(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{\delta K_m(x)}},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }S^{(\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.)}`$, and $`S^{(\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.)}=(1/\alpha )\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑x[_mA_m(x)]^2}`$ is the gauge–fixing part of the classical action (6). In fact, all the other terms in the ST identity (15) can be rewritten with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, yielding

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{\delta A_m(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{\delta K_m(x)}}+{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{\delta c(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{\delta L(x)}}\right]=0.`$ (18)
This shows explicitly that the gauge–fixing part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ remains unaffected by quantum corrections ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.)}`$; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.)}=S^{(\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.)}`$).

## 3 Functional structure of $`Lcc`$ vertex

One can consider the part of the effective action that depends only on the fields $`L`$ and $`c.`$ We write generally

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{L,c}={\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑y_1𝑑y_2\mathrm{\Gamma }}|_{L,c}^{(a_1;b_1,b_2)}(x_1;y_1,y_2)L^{a_1}(x_1)c^{b_1}(y_1)c^{b_2}(y_2)+\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle }dx_1\mathrm{}dx_ndy_1\mathrm{}dy_{2n}\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{L,c}^{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n;b_1,\mathrm{},b_{2n})}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;y_1,\mathrm{},y_{2n})L^{a_1}(x_1)\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{}L^{a_n}(x_n)c^{b_1}(y_1)\mathrm{}c^{b_{2n}}(y_{2n})+\mathrm{}`$ (19)
We assume that the first term is invariant with respect to the second operator in the identities (15) which is

$`\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta c(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L(x)}}=0.`$ (20)
This assumption is based on the following. In perturbation theory the first term of (19) can be understood as the classical term plus a quantum correction to the vertex $`Lcc`$ (nothing forbids us to consider the auxiliary field $`L`$ as a non-propagating background field). The operator (20) can be considered as an infinitesimal substitution in the effective action

$`c(x)c(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L(x)}}.`$ (21)
In other words, one can consider the result of such a substitution as the difference

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[L,c(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L(x)}}]\mathrm{\Gamma }[L,c(x)],`$
to linear order in $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L(x)}}.`$ As one can see, the application of the substitution (21) to the vertex $`Lcc`$ of the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gives a variation of order $`Lccc`$. Another contribution of the same order $`Lccc`$ comes into the variation from the monomial $`LccA`$ of the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ due to the first term in the ST identity (15). Indeed, one can consider the first term in (15) as the substitution

$`A_m(x)A_m(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K_m(x)}},`$
or, in other words, such a substitution can be considered as the difference

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[K_m,A_m(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K_m(x)}}]\mathrm{\Gamma }[K_m,A_m(x)]`$
to linear order in $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K_m(x)}}.`$ Application of such a substitution to the monomial $`LccA`$ of the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gives a contribution of order $`Lccc`$ in effective fields and this contribution comes from full ghost propagator of order in fields $`K_m_mc,`$

$`LccALcc{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta K_m}}Lcc{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left(K_m_mc\right)}{\delta K_m}}Lccc.`$
Thus, there are only these two possible contributions in variation $`Lccc.`$ Schematically, total $`Lccc`$ variation can be presented as

$`Lcc\times Lcc+LccA\times K_m_mc=0`$ (22)
where brackets mean v.e.v.s of the vertices. This is a schematic form of the ST identity relating the $`Lcc`$ and $`LccA`$ field monomials. The precise form of this relation can be obtain by differentiating the identity (15) with respect to $`L`$ and three times with respect to $`c`$ and then by setting all the variables of the effective action to zero. The brackets in (22) mean that we have taken functional derivatives with respect to fields in the corresponding brackets and then have put all the effective fields to zero. Of course, this sum (22) should be zero since on the r.h.s. of the ST identity (15) we have zero. One can consider the identity (22) order by order in $`g^2`$. At tree level, the second contribution is absent since the $`LccA`$ term is absent in the classical action. For the first one we obtain the Jacobi identity. At one loop level, we have one loop $`Lcc`$ times tree level $`Lcc`$ plus one loop $`LccA`$ times tree level $`Kc.`$ However, one loop $`LccA`$ is superficially convergent and does not depend on the normalization point $`\mu .`$ In the asymptotic region one loop $`Lcc`$ depends on first degree of $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2/\mu ^2)`$ where we have taken the symmetric point in momentum space, that is all the external momentums of the vertex $`Lcc`$ are $`p^2.`$ This means that the first degree of $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2/\mu ^2)`$ in one loop $`Lcc`$ is invariant with respect to the operator (20). In other words, the dependence on $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2/\mu ^2)`$ is cancelled within the first term of the identity (22). We can consider two loop approximation for the identity (22) in the same manner. Indeed, at two loop level of the identity (22) one has two loop $`Lcc`$ times tree level $`Lcc`$ plus one loop $`Lcc`$ times one loop $`Lcc`$ plus two loop $`LccA`$ times tree level $`Kc`$ plus one loop $`LccA`$ times one loop $`Kc`$ and all this should be zero. However, one can see that the second degree of $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2/\mu ^2)`$ is determined again by only the first term in the schematic identity (22) since two loop $`LccA`$ does not have superficial divergences and is divergent only in subgraphs. Thus, the second degree of $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2/\mu ^2)`$ is also determined by the invariance with respect to the first term in the identity (22). We can go further in this logical chain and we will always conclude that the highest degree of $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2/\mu ^2)`$ in $`Lcc`$ is invariant itself with respect to ST identity. This is the main source of the intuitive motivation to consider the $`Lcc`$ correlator separately from the other field monomial $`LccA.`$

In such a case, it will be shown below that the only solution for this $`Lcc`$ term of the effective action is

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x_1𝑑y_1𝑑y_2G_c(xx_1)G_c^1(xy_1)G_c^1(xy_2)2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left(L(x_1)c(y_1)c(y_2)\right)}.`$ (23)
To prove (23), we consider the proper correlator

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{abc}L^a(x)c^b(y)c^c(z)}.`$ (24)
As we have already noted, in perturbation theory it can be understood as a correction to the vertex $`Lc^2`$ and we consider the auxiliary field $`L`$ as a non-propagating background field. $`T^{abc}`$ is some group structure. The equation (24) is just a general parametrization of the proper correlator $`Lc^2`$ and nothing more. Equation (24) says that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(a;b,c)}(x,y,z)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{abc},`$ where $`T^{abc}`$ is a 3-tensor in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. This reflects the fact that the global symmetry of the gauge group must be conserved in the effective action. With respect to that symmetry the auxiliary fields $`K^a`$ and $`L^a`$ are vectors in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Also,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{abc}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,y)T^{acb}.`$ (25)
This is a direct consequence of the Grassmannian nature of the ghost fields. It follows from the parametrization (24). Further, from Eq. (24) follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L^a(x)}}={\displaystyle 𝑑y𝑑z\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{abc}c^b(y)c^c(z)}.`$
By substituting this expression in the Slavnov–Taylor identity (15) we have

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta c^a(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L^a(x)}}={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y^{}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})T^{dab}L^d(y^{})\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L^a(x)}c^b(z^{})}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y^{}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},z^{},x)T^{dba}L^d(y^{})c^b(z^{})\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L^a(x)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z𝑑y^{}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})T^{dab}L^d(y^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{amn}c^m(y)c^n(z)c^b(z^{})}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z𝑑y^{}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},z^{},x)T^{dba}L^d(y^{})c^b(z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{amn}c^m(y)c^n(z)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z𝑑y^{}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{dab}T^{amn}L^d(y^{})c^m(y)c^n(z)c^b(z^{})}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z𝑑y^{}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},y,x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})T^{dma}T^{anb}L^d(y^{})c^m(y)c^n(z)c^b(z^{})}`$
$`={\displaystyle }dxdydzdy^{}dz^{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{dab}T^{amn}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},y,x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})T^{dma}T^{anb}]L^d(y^{})c^m(y)c^n(z)c^b(z^{})=0.`$
Taking into account (25) the last two lines can be re-written as

$`{\displaystyle }dxdydzdy^{}dz^{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{dab}T^{amn}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},y,x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})T^{dma}T^{anb}]L^d(y^{})c^m(y)c^n(z)c^b(z^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle }dxdydzdy^{}dz^{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{dab}T^{amn}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z^{},z)T^{dam}T^{abn}]L^d(y^{})c^m(y)c^n(z)c^b(z^{})`$
$`=2{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z𝑑y^{}𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{dab}T^{amn}L^d(y^{})c^m(y)c^n(z)c^b(z^{})}=0.`$
Now one can make total symmetrisation with respect to pairs $`(m,y)`$, $`(n,z)`$, and $`(b,z^{}).`$ It results in

$`{\displaystyle }dxdydzdy^{}dz^{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{dab}T^{amn}+\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})T^{dam}T^{anb}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z^{},y)T^{dan}T^{abm}]L^d(y^{})c^m(y)c^n(z)c^b(z^{})=0.`$
Thus, one comes to the equation

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{dab}T^{amn}}+{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})T^{dam}T^{anb}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z^{},y)T^{dan}T^{abm}}=0.`$ (26)
As one can see, at tree level $`T^{dab}f^{abd}`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tree}(x,y,z)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}\delta (x^{}x)\delta (x^{}y)\delta (x^{}z)}`$ (27)
and, hence, the identity (26) is Jacobi identity. We consider in this paper gauge theories with $`SU(N)`$ gauge group and we have noted this in Introduction. The structure constants $`f^{abc}`$ are completely antisymmetric in such a case. With help of identities

$`f^{ABC}f^{CDE}f^{EBF}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Nf^{ABF}`$
which are consequences of Jacobi identity, one can reduce the group structure of one loop diagram $`Lcc`$ to $`f^{ABC}`$ and that is true for all loops. Thus, it is natural to assume that $`T^{abc}f^{bca}`$ and the identity (26) is

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)f^{abd}f^{mna}}+{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})f^{amd}f^{nba}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z^{},y)f^{and}f^{bma}}=0.`$
Because of Jacobi identity only two group structures are independent here:

$`\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})}\right]f^{abd}f^{mna}`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z^{},y)}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})}\right]f^{and}f^{bma}=0.`$
Since these two group structures are independent, we come to the equations

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},y,x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z^{},y)}.`$ (28)
We can solve at the beginning the first one:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},y,x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})}`$ (29)
and then to check that the second equality is also satisfied. In writing this equation we have used the symmetry properties (25). We introduce Fourier transformations222We do not write factors $`2\pi `$ in these Fourier transformations since at the end of the calculations we will go back to coordinate space in which all the factors $`2\pi `$ will disappear.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)={\displaystyle 𝑑p_1𝑑q_1𝑑k_1\delta (p_1+q_1+k_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_1,q_1,k_1)\mathrm{exp}(ip_1x+iq_1y+ik_1z)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})={\displaystyle 𝑑p_2𝑑q_2𝑑k_2\delta (p_2+q_2+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,q_2,k_2)\mathrm{exp}(ip_2y^{}+iq_2x+ik_2z^{})}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},y,x)={\displaystyle 𝑑p_3𝑑q_3𝑑k_3\delta (p_3+q_3+k_3)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_3,q_3,k_3)\mathrm{exp}(ip_3y^{}+iq_3y+ik_3x)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})={\displaystyle 𝑑p_4𝑑q_4𝑑k_4\delta (p_4+q_4+k_4)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_4,q_4,k_4)\mathrm{exp}(ip_4x+iq_4z+ik_4z^{})}`$
The condition (29) in momentum space is

$`{\displaystyle }dxdp_1dq_1dk_1dp_2dq_2dk_2\delta (p_1+q_1+k_1)\delta (p_2+q_2+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_1,q_1,k_1)\times `$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,q_2,k_2)\mathrm{exp}(ip_1x+iq_1y+ik_1z+ip_2y^{}+iq_2x+ik_2z^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle }dxdp_3dq_3dk_3dp_4dq_4dk_4\delta (p_3+q_3+k_3)\delta (p_4+q_4+k_4)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_3,q_3,k_3)\times `$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_4,q_4,k_4)\mathrm{exp}(ip_3y^{}+iq_3y+ik_3x+ip_4x+iq_4z+ik_4z^{}).`$
It can be transformed to

$`{\displaystyle }dp_1dq_1dk_1dp_2dk_2\delta (p_1+q_1+k_1)\delta (p_2p_1+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_1,q_1,k_1)\times `$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,p_1,k_2)\mathrm{exp}(iq_1y+ik_1z+ip_2y^{}+ik_2z^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle }dp_3dq_3dk_3dq_4dk_4\delta (p_3+q_3+k_3)\delta (k_3+q_4+k_4)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_3,q_3,k_3)\times `$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k_3,q_4,k_4)\mathrm{exp}(ip_3y^{}+iq_3y+iq_4z+ik_4z^{}),`$
and then by momentum redefinitions in the second integral one obtains

$`{\displaystyle }dp_1dq_1dk_1dp_2dk_2\delta (p_1+q_1+k_1)\delta (p_2p_1+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_1,q_1,k_1)\times `$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,p_1,k_2)\mathrm{exp}(iq_1y+ik_1z+ip_2y^{}+ik_2z^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle }dp_2dq_1dk_3dk_1dk_2\delta (p_2+q_1+k_3)\delta (k_3+k_1+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,q_1,k_3)\times `$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k_3,k_1,k_2)\mathrm{exp}(iq_1y+ik_1z+ip_2y^{}+ik_2z^{}).`$
By removing one of delta functions in each part one obtains

$`{\displaystyle }dq_1dk_1dp_2dk_2\delta (p_2+k_2+q_1+k_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2+k_2,q_1,k_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,p_2k_2,k_2)\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(iq_1y+ik_1z+ip_2y^{}+ik_2z^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle }dp_2dq_1dk_1dk_2\delta (p_2+q_1+k_1+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,q_1,k_1+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k_1k_2,k_1,k_2)\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(iq_1y+ik_1z+ip_2y^{}+ik_2z^{}).`$
By making the last simplification one obtains

$`{\displaystyle }dk_1dp_2dk_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2+k_2,p_2k_2k_1,k_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,p_2k_2,k_2)\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(i(p_2k_2k_1)y+ik_1z+ip_2y^{}+ik_2z^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle }dp_2dk_1dk_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,p_2k_2k_1,k_1+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k_1k_2,k_1,k_2)\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(i(p_2k_2k_1)y+ik_1z+ip_2y^{}+ik_2z^{}).`$
Thus, finally the condition (29) takes the form

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2+k_2,p_2k_2k_1,k_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,p_2k_2,k_2)`$ (30)
$`=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_2,p_2k_2k_1,k_1+k_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k_1k_2,k_1,k_2).`$
This is an equation for a function of three variables, which will be solved below. First we show that there is simple ansatz which satisfies Eq. (30). Indeed, by choosing ansatz

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p,q,k)={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}(q^2)\stackrel{~}{G}(k^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}(p^2)}},`$ (31)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the Fourier image of some function $`G_c^1,`$ we can substitute this expression in Eq. (30):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}((p_2+k_2)^2)\stackrel{~}{G}(k_2^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}(p_2^2)}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}((p_2+k_2+k_1)^2)\stackrel{~}{G}(k_1^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}((p_2+k_2)^2)}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}((p_2+k_2+k_1)^2)\stackrel{~}{G}((k_2+k_1)^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}(p_2^2)}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}(k_1^2)\stackrel{~}{G}(k_2^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}((k_1+k_2)^2)}}.`$ (32)
This is an identity. That is, for the ansatz (31), Eq. (30) is valid. Now we will demonstrate that this anzatz is unique solution.

In general, the function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p,q,k)`$ is a function of three independent Lorentz invariants, since the moments $`p`$, $`q`$ and $`k`$ are not independent but related by conservation of the moments, $`p+q+k=0.`$ We can choose $`p^2`$, $`q^2`$ and $`k^2`$ as those independent invariants,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p,q,k)f(p^2,q^2,k^2).`$
Therefore, we can rewrite the basic equation (30) as

$`f((p_2+k_2)^2,(p_2+k_2+k_1)^2,k_1^2)\times f(p_2^2,(p_2+k_2)^2,k_2^2)`$ (33)
$`=f(p_2^2,(p_2+k_2+k_1)^2,(k_1+k_2)^2)\times f((k_1+k_2)^2,k_1^2,k_2^2).`$
Let us introduce into the equation (33) new independent variables,

$`(p_2+k_2)^2=x,(p_2+k_2+k_1)^2=y,`$
$`k_1^2=z,p_2^2=u,`$ (34)
$`k_2^2=v,(k_1+k_2)^2=w.`$
The number of the independent variables is six, since in (33) we have only three independent Lorentz vectors $`p_2,k_2,k_1.`$ Using these vectors we can construct six Lorentz-invariant values above. In terms of these new independent variables the basic equation (33) looks like

$`f(x,y,z)\times f(u,x,v)=f(u,y,w)\times f(w,z,v).`$ (35)
We consider equation (35) as an equation for an analytical function of three variables in $`R^3`$ space. We observe that the r.h.s. of (35) does not depend on $`x`$ for any values of $`y,z,u,v.`$ There is the unique solution to this \- the dependence on $`x`$ must be factorized in the following way:

$`f(x,y,z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\phi (x)}}F_1(y,z),f(u,x,v)=\phi (x)F_2(u,v),`$ (36)
where $`\phi (x)`$ is some function, and $`F_1(y,z)`$ and $`F_2(u,v)`$ are other functions. The rigorous prove of this statement is given below . The two equations in (36) imply

$`f(x,y,z)={\displaystyle \frac{\phi (y)}{\phi (x)}}\times F(z),`$
where $`F(z)`$ is some function. By substituting this in Eq. (35) we immediately infer that $`F(z)=\mathrm{constant}\times \phi (z).`$ Rescaling $`\phi (z)`$ by an appropriate constant, we obtain:

$`f(x,y,z)={\displaystyle \frac{\phi (y)\phi (z)}{\phi (x)}}.`$ (37)
Let us give a rigorous proof that the factorization (36) of the $`x`$ dependence is the unique solution to equation (35). Denote $`h\mathrm{ln}f.`$ Applying logarithm to (35), we have

$`h(x,y,z)=h(u,x,v)+\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{independent}\mathrm{on}x.`$ (38)
Applying $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^m}{dx^m}},`$ $`m=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ to (38), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^mh(x_1,y,z)}{x_1^m}}|_{x_1=x}={\displaystyle \frac{^mh(u,x_2,v)}{x_2^m}}|_{x_2=x}`$
This means that the Taylor expansions in $`x`$ around the point $`x=0`$ for functions $`h(x,y,z)`$ and $`h(u,x,v)`$ are

$`h(x,y,z)=h(0,y,z)\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x,y,z),`$ (39)
$`h(u,x,v)=h(u,0,v)+\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x,y,z),`$ (40)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x,y,z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}x^n{\displaystyle \frac{^nh(x_1,y,z)}{x_1^n}}|_{x_1=0}.`$
Applying exponent to both the sides of (39) and (40), we obtain

$`f(x,y,z)={\displaystyle \frac{f(0,y,z)}{\phi (x,y,z)}},`$ (41)
$`f(u,x,v)=f(u,0,v)\times \phi (x,y,z),`$ (42)
where $`\phi (x,y,z)=\mathrm{exp}\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x,y,z).`$ In (42) the l.h.s. is $`y`$\- and $`z`$-independent. Hence, $`\phi (x,y,z)`$ is also $`y`$\- and $`z`$-independent: $`\phi (x,y,z)\phi (x).`$ Thus, we can rewrite Eqs. (41) and (42) as Eq. (36), where

$`F_1(y,z)f(0,y,z),F_2(u,v)f(u,0,v).`$
This proves (36) and thus (37). Thus, we can conclude from (37) that (31) is the unique solution for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p,q,k).`$ To go back to the coordinate representation, we have to perform a Fourier transformation of (31),

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)={\displaystyle 𝑑p𝑑q𝑑k\delta (p+q+k)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p,q,k)\mathrm{exp}(ipx+iqy+ikz)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑p𝑑q𝑑k\delta (p+q+k)\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}(q^2)\stackrel{~}{G}(k^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}(p^2)}\mathrm{exp}(ipx+iqy+ikz)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}𝑑p𝑑q𝑑k\mathrm{exp}(i(p+q+k)x^{})\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}(q^2)\stackrel{~}{G}(k^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}(p^2)}\mathrm{exp}(ipx+iqy+ikz)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_c(x^{}x)G_c^1(x^{}y)G_c^1(x^{}z)}.`$ (43)
By substituting this result in the second of equalities (28), we can see that it is also satisfied by this solution. One can take the correct tree level normalization of $`T^{abc}`$

$`T^{abc}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}f^{bca}`$ (44)
and present the final result for the functional structure of $`Lc^2`$ proper correlator in the following form:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{abc}L^a(x)c^b(y)c^c(z)}=`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}𝑑x𝑑y𝑑zG_c(x^{}x)G_c^1(x^{}y)G_c^1(x^{}z)\frac{i}{2}f^{bca}L^a(x)c^b(y)c^c(z)}.`$
As we have mentioned above, the natural assumption (44) about the group structure of the proper correlator $`Lc^2`$ has been done. However, we could avoid this assumption. Indeed, if all the group structures in (26) are independent, we obtain from there, instead of (28), three equations

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},y,x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z,z^{})}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(y^{},x,z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,z^{},y)}=0`$
which are not true even at tree level as can be seen from Eq. (27). This means that at most two of the group structures must be independent to have a consistent solution. In such a case we come again to the necessity to solve Eq. (29) that has unique solution (43) as we have demonstrated above. Substituting this solution in Eq.(26) we obtain Jacobi identities for $`T^{abc}`$ which means that they are structure constants. In detail, this procedure can be done as follows. We can substitute the result (43) in (24)

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{abc}L^a(x)c^b(y)c^c(z)}`$ (45)
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}𝑑x𝑑y𝑑zG_c(x^{}x)G_c^1(x^{}y)G_c^1(x^{}z)T^{abc}L^a(x)c^b(y)c^c(z)}`$
and then redefine fields $`L`$ and $`c`$

$`c^a(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_c(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{c}^a(x^{})}`$
$`L^a(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_c^1(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{L}^a(x^{})}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_c^1(xx^{})G_c(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })}=\delta (xx^{\prime \prime }).`$
The second term in Slavnov–Taylor identity (15) is covariant with respect to this change of variables,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[L,c]}{\delta c^a(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[L,c]}{\delta L^a(x)}}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[L(\stackrel{~}{L}),c(\stackrel{~}{c})]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{c}^a(x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[L(\stackrel{~}{L}),c(\stackrel{~}{c})]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{L}^a(x)}},`$ (46)
as can be explicitly checked, but the expression (45) takes the local form,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle 𝑑xT^{abc}\stackrel{~}{L}^a(x)\stackrel{~}{c}^b(x)\stackrel{~}{c}^c(x)}.`$
By substituting this in the ST operator (46) one concludes that

$`T^{abc}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}f^{bca}`$ (47)
solves it. The reason for this is that this $`f^{abc}`$ structure appears also at the level of the classical action

$`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}{\displaystyle 𝑑xL(x)c^2(x)}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}f^{bca}L^a(x)c^b(x)c^c(x),`$
and we already know that this structure satisfies the ST operator (46). Furthermore, there can be no other solution for $`T^{abc},`$ because (47) is the only one 3-tensor in the adjoint representation of the gauge group that is antisymmetric in the last two indices and satisfies Jacobi identities. Thus, the final result for the functional structure of $`Lc^2`$ proper correlator is

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y,z)T^{abc}L^a(x)c^b(y)c^c(z)}=`$ (48)
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}𝑑x𝑑y𝑑zG_c(x^{}x)G_c^1(x^{}y)G_c^1(x^{}z)\frac{i}{2}f^{bca}L^a(x)c^b(y)c^c(z)}.`$
In conclusion of this section we present arguments that the form (48) of the $`Lcc`$ correlator remains unchanged even if corrections from $`LccA`$ correlator are allowed to contribute to the $`Lc^3`$ term in the ST equation, i. e. the first term in the ST identity (15) contributes as well. This results in corrections to Eq. (26). In such a case we can demonstrate that the basic equation (35) will be modified to the following form:

$`f(x,y,z)\times f(u,x,v)f(u,y,w)\times f(w,z,v)`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`f_2(u,z,v,y,x,w)f_2(u,v,z,y,u+z+y+vxw,w).`$
The new function $`f_2`$ of the variables (34) parameterizes the contribution from the $`LccA`$ correlator. As one can see, there is a four-dimensional subspace of the six-dimensional space (34) with coordinates $`x,y,z,u,v,w`$ which is intersection of two hyperplanes $`x=u+z+y+vxw`$ and $`v=z`$ where the contribution of $`LccA`$ in Eq. (49) disappears. In this four-dimensional subspace Eq. (49) takes the same form as the basic equation (35) takes in the six-dimensional space

$`f({\displaystyle \frac{u+2z+yw}{2}},y,z)\times f(u,{\displaystyle \frac{u+2z+yw}{2}},z)`$
$`f(u,y,w)\times f(w,z,z)=0.`$ (50)
Unfortunately, at present we do not have a clear proof that the factorization (37) is the only solution to this equation. However, there are several strong indications in favor of uniqueness of the factorization. Indeed, one of them is that if we reduce the subspace in consideration further to $`u=y=z`$ and $`w=4\alpha z,`$ where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary real parameter, we obtain

$`f(2(1\alpha )z,z,z)\times f(z,2(1\alpha )z,z)f(z,z,4\alpha z)\times f(4\alpha z,z,z)=0.`$
This suggests

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\alpha }}f(z,z,\alpha z)\times f(\alpha z,z,z)=0.`$
As we have shown above, the factorization (37) is the only solution for such type of equations.

Another indication in favor of the factorization (37) is that for the region of the four-dimensional subspace in consideration where $`z`$ is much larger than each of $`u,`$ $`y,`$ and $`w`$ we have in the leading order of $`u/z`$ and $`y/z`$ the equation

$`f(z,y,z)\times f(u,z,z)f(u,y,w)\times f(w,z,z)=0,`$
that also requires the factorization (37) as the only solution since the information about $`w`$ disappears on the l.h.s.

As the third indication, we can decompose logarithm of Eq. (50) in Taylor expansion in vicinity of any point in the four-dimensional subspace with coordinates $`u,y,z,w.`$ We then obtain, for the function $`h=\mathrm{ln}f`$ at the quadratic order of Taylor expansion, separability of the variables as the only solution. But the separability for $`h`$ means the factorization for $`f.`$ Further, we have indications that the separability must occur at any order of Taylor expansion.

Thus, we have shown that there are at least three arguments in favor of the factorization (37) being the only solution also for the Eq. (50), where this latter equation takes into account possible corrections from the $`LccA`$ correlator to the basic equation (35).

## 4 Solution to the correlator of $`K_mA_mc`$ type

Starting from this point we can repeat the method that has been used in Ref.  for deriving the solution to ST identities for supersymmetric theories. As it has been noted at the end of Introduction, the antighost equation (16) restricts the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the antighost field $`b`$ and on the external source $`K_m`$ to an arbitrary dependence on their combination

$`_mb(x)+K_m(x).`$
We can present this dependence of the effective action on the external source $`K_m`$ in terms of a series

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_0+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{}}{\displaystyle }dx_1dx_2\mathrm{}dx_n_n^{m_1m_2\mathrm{}m_n}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)(_{m_1}b(x_1)+K_{m_1}(x_1))\times `$
$`\times \left(_{m_2}b(x_2)+K_{m_2}(x_2)\right)\mathrm{}\left(_{m_n}b(x_n)+K_{m_n}(x_n)\right),`$ (51)
where we assume contractions in spacetime indices $`m_j.`$ The coefficient functions of this expansion are in their turn functionals of other effective fields (11),

$`_n^{m_1m_2\mathrm{}m_n}=_n^{m_1m_2\mathrm{}m_n}[A_m,c,L],`$
whose coefficient functions for example in case $`L=0`$ are ghost-antighost-vector correlators. $`_0`$ is a $`K_m`$-independent part of the effective action. The spacetime indices $`m_j`$ of $`_n`$ will be omitted everywhere below since they are not important in the present analysis.

Our purpose is to restrict the expansion (51) by using the ST identities (15). Let us consider for the moment the terms of (51) without the field $`L.`$ The noninvariance of these terms with respect to the ST identities (15) must be compensated by the first term (23) of the series (19) or possible interactions of this term with physical effective fields because $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta L(x)}}`$ of such terms only has no $`L.`$ The total degree of the ghost fields $`c`$ in $`_n`$ must be equal to $`n`$ since each proper graph contains equal number of ghost and antighost fields among its external legs.

Let us consider terms in the effective action whose variations are cancelled by variations of the ghost field caused by the first term (23) of the series (19). To start we consider the $`_1(x_1)`$ coefficient function in the expansion (51). The corresponding term of the lowest order in fields in (51) is

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x^{}2i\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(_mb(x)+K_m(x)\right)_mG(xx^{})c(x^{})\right]},`$ (52)
where $`i\mathrm{}G(xx^{})`$ is a 2-point ghost-antighost proper correlator. It is an Hermitian kernel of the above integral,

$`G^{}=G.`$
We can make any change of variables in the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ Let us make the following change of variables:

$`\begin{array}{cc}A_m(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_A(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x^{})},& K_m(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_A^1(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x^{})},\\ c(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_c(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{c}(x^{})},& L(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_c^1(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{L}(x^{})},\\ b(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_A^1(xx^{})\stackrel{~}{b}(x^{})}.& \end{array}`$ (56)
Here $`G_X(xx^{})`$ are some dressing functions,333The formula (57) does not mean that both the functions $`G_X^1(xx^{})`$ and $`G_X(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })`$ are $`\delta `$-functions. It means only that the product of their Fourier transforms is equal to 1.

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_X^1(xx^{})G_X(x^{}x^{\prime \prime })}=\delta (xx^{\prime \prime }),`$ (57)
In terms of new variables the effective action

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[\stackrel{~}{\phi },\stackrel{~}{K}_m,\stackrel{~}{L}]=\mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi (\stackrel{~}{\phi }),K_m(\stackrel{~}{K}_m),L(\stackrel{~}{L})]$$

must satisfy the identity

$`\mathrm{Tr}[{\displaystyle }dx{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)}}+{\displaystyle }dx{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{c}(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{L}(x)}}`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle }dxdx^{}dx^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{b}(x^{})}}G_A(xx^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}_m\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x^{\prime \prime })G_A(xx^{\prime \prime })\right)]=0`$
which is the identity (15) re-expressed in terms of the new variables according to (56). As one can see the ST operator is covariant with respect to this change of variables except for the gauge fixing term, which remains unaffected by quantum corrections anyway as mentioned earlier.

One can make the change of variables (56) in the integral (52).

$`{\displaystyle }dxdx^{}dx^{\prime \prime }dx^{\prime \prime \prime }2i\mathrm{Tr}[(_m\stackrel{~}{b}(x^{\prime \prime })+\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x^{\prime \prime }))G_A^1(x^{\prime \prime }x)G(xx^{})\times `$
$`\times G_c(x^{}x^{\prime \prime \prime })_m\stackrel{~}{c}(x^{\prime \prime \prime })].`$ (59)
While the dressing function $`G_c(xx^{})`$ has been defined through the solution (23) to the operator (20), the dressing function $`G_A(xx^{})`$ has not been defined yet. We define it from the requirement

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x^{}G_A^1(x^{\prime \prime }x)G(xx^{})G_c(x^{}x^{\prime \prime \prime })}=\delta (x^{\prime \prime }x^{\prime \prime \prime }).`$
In such case the term (59) after the change of variables (56) simplifies to

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x2i\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}(x)+\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)\right)_m\stackrel{~}{c}(x)\right]}.`$ (60)
The first term in ST identities (58) can also be expanded in terms of $`_m\stackrel{~}{b}(x)+\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x),`$

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)}}=_0+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\mathrm{}𝑑x_n_n^{m_1m_2\mathrm{}m_n}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)}`$
$`\times (_{m_1}\stackrel{~}{b}(x_1)+\stackrel{~}{K}_{m_1}(x_1))(_{m_2}\stackrel{~}{b}(x_2)+\stackrel{~}{K}_{m_2}(x_2))\mathrm{}\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{}\left(_{m_n}\stackrel{~}{b}(x_n)+\stackrel{~}{K}_{m_n}(x_n)\right),`$ (61)
where we assume contractions in spacetime indices $`m_j.`$ Again, the spacetime indices $`m_j`$ of $`_n`$ will be omitted everywhere below since they are not important in the present analysis. $`_0`$ is the $`\stackrel{~}{K}_m`$-independent part of (61). We can consider that the l.h.s. of (61) is the result of an infinitesimal transformation in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},`$ in which instead of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)`$ we have substituted

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)}}.`$ (62)
In other words, one can consider the result of such a substitution as the difference

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\stackrel{~}{K}_m,\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)}}]\mathrm{\Gamma }[\stackrel{~}{K}_m,\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)]`$
to linear order in $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)}}.`$ Eq. (60) implies that the “gauge” transformation (62) can be rewritten as

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)i_m\stackrel{~}{c}(x)+\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{terms}.`$
The sum of the part quadratic in $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of $`_0`$ and the $`_1`$-type term (60) contributes to $`_0`$ by yielding a term $`\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{c}.`$ However, $`_0`$ must be equal to zero444In principle, another term $`\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{c}`$ can appear in the third term there, coming from the $`\stackrel{~}{b}_m\stackrel{~}{}_m\stackrel{~}{c}`$ part of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.`$ However, the third term in (58) \[and in(15)\] is only responsible for the absence of corrections to the gauge fixing term in $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ as we have already noted at the end of Section 2.. Hence, the part quadratic in $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of $`_0`$ must be invariant, at quadratic order, under the aforementioned “gauge” transformation, implying the form

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xZ_{g^2}\frac{1}{2g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(_m\stackrel{~}{A}_n(x)_n\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)\right)𝒪\left(_m\stackrel{~}{A}_n(x)_n\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)\right)},`$ (63)
where $`Z_{g^2}`$ is a number that depends on couplings and a regularization parameter of the theory, and $`𝒪`$ is some differential operator. Later we will see how the ST identities put restrictions on such an operator.

Having fixed the form of the quadratic term (60) in $`_1,`$ we consider the vertex of next order in fields in $`_1,`$ which looks like $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)\stackrel{~}{A}_m\stackrel{~}{c}.`$ We will show now that the structure of the vertex $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)\stackrel{~}{A}_m\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is fixed completely by the quadratic term (60) and by the term (23). According to the Slavnov–Taylor identity (58), the contribution of $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)\stackrel{~}{A}_m\stackrel{~}{c}`$ of the $`_1`$ part of the effective action into $`_1`$ caused by the quadratic term (60) due to the substitution (62) must be cancelled by the variation of the ghost field caused in (60) by the first term (23) of the series (19) due to substitution (21). According to our conjecture, the term (23) has the form

$`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\stackrel{~}{L}(x)\stackrel{~}{c}^2(x)}.`$
Indeed, the only contribution to $`_1`$ of the order of $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)_m\stackrel{~}{c}^2`$ in $`_1`$ comes from this $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)\stackrel{~}{A}_m\stackrel{~}{c}`$ term in $`_1`$:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__1}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__1}{\delta \stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)}}\left[\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)\stackrel{~}{c}\right]_m\stackrel{~}{c}\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)_m\stackrel{~}{c}^2,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__1`$ is the $`_1`$ part of the effective action. One could think at first that the $`_0`$ and $`_2`$ type terms $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__2`$ of (19) might also contribute to the term of order $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)_m\stackrel{~}{c}^2`$ in $`_1`$ via

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__0}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__2}{\delta \stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)}}`$
because

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__2}{\delta \stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)}}\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)_2[A_m,c].`$
However, $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|__0}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)}}`$ starts with terms linear in $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x).`$ Thus, the $`_2`$ part of the effective action does not contribute to the term of the order of $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)_m\stackrel{~}{c}^2`$ in $`_1,`$ only the $`_1`$ part of the effective action does. Hence, the term of order $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)\stackrel{~}{A}_m\stackrel{~}{c}`$ in $`_1`$ is the term of the same order that is contained in $`\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)\stackrel{~}{}_m\stackrel{~}{c}(x)`$ because only in this case the terms $`\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{K}_m\right)_m\stackrel{~}{c}^2`$ in $`_1`$ will be cancelled by the second term in ST identities (58), which will result in

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x2i\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}(x)+\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)\right)_m\stackrel{~}{c}^2(x)\right]}`$
due to substitution (21). Thus, the term of lowest order in fields in $`_1`$ is

$`2i\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}(x)+\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)\right)\stackrel{~}{}_m\stackrel{~}{c}(x)\right],\stackrel{~}{}_m=_m+i\stackrel{~}{A}_m.`$ (64)
All the terms in $`_0`$ of higher orders in $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)`$ are fixed by themselves in an iterative way due to the requirement that $`_0`$ must be invariant with respect to the substitution (62). Taking into account (64), we see that the first invariant term is

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xZ_{g^2}\frac{1}{2g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)`$ is Yang–Mills tensor of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x).`$ That is, the physical part of the effective action can be restored from the requirement of its invariance with respect to the gauge invariance in terms of the gauge field dressed by the dressing function. Here we see that the differential operators $`𝒪`$ in Eq. (63) between two Yang–Mills tensors must be covariant derivatives. For example, the following term is allowed,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xf_2\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\stackrel{~}{}^2\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)},`$ (65)
where $`f_2`$ is another number that depends on couplings, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a regularization parameter of the theory. Starting from the fourth degree of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)`$ higher order gauge invariant contributions like

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xf_3\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{kl}(x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{kl}(x)}`$ (66)
into $`_0`$ are allowed. Here $`f_3`$ is another number that depends on couplings.

## 5 Further steps for higher correlators in $`K_m`$ and $`L`$

We consider now the coefficient functions $`_n`$ with $`n>1`$ in (51) for $`L=0.`$ There are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that these terms of higher degrees in $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ do not respect the gauge invariance of the physical part of (51) created by the $`_1`$ term. In such a case $`_2`$ contributes to $`_1`$ but we do not have anything that can compensate this contribution by ghost transformations induced by the second term in the ST identities (58). Hence, $`_2=0.`$ If we consider $`_3,`$ it contributes to $`_2`$ and, in general, could be compensated by ghost transformations in $`_2`$. But $`_2`$ is zero, hence, $`_3`$ is also zero. We can repeat the former argument for all higher numbers $`n`$ of $`_n.`$ All coefficient functions $`_n`$ with $`n>1`$ are equal to zero in the first possibility. The second possibility is that the terms of higher degrees in $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ respect the gauge invariance of the physical part of (51). In such a case $`_n`$ with $`n>1`$ does not contribute to $`_n`$ for any $`n.`$ In supersymmetric theories this possibility does not exist  due to chiral nature of the ghost superfields. However, in the nonsupersymmetric case one can invent, for example, $`_2`$ constructions such as the following one

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(\stackrel{~}{c}(x)\stackrel{~}{}_m\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}(x)+\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)\right)\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{c}(x)\stackrel{~}{}_m\left(_m\stackrel{~}{b}(x)+\stackrel{~}{K}_m(x)\right)\right)\right]}.`$ (67)
Such a term gives zero contribution to $`_1,`$ since its variation with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{}_m(\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{function})`$ and its contribution to $`_2`$ can be cancelled by the transformation of the ghost field in $`_2`$ if the coefficient before (67) has been fixed in an appropriate way. This can be proved in the same way (8) which has been used to derive the BRST transformation in Section 2.

We have considered the terms in the effective action whose variations are cancelled by variations of the ghost field caused by the first term (23) of the series (19). In general, some sophisticated interactions of the term (23) with physical fields can be introduced. However, again we can state that the higher order terms must respect the already established invariance with respect to the Slavnov–Taylor operator for the terms of lowest degrees in fields. In our case for example we can write for interactions of the term (23) with physical fields by using the following substitution

$`\stackrel{~}{L}\stackrel{~}{c}^2\stackrel{~}{L}\stackrel{~}{c}^2\left(1+f_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\right),`$
and then making a substitution in (64):

$`\stackrel{~}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}\left(1+f_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\right).`$ (68)
However, these terms cannot change the structure of the physical part of the effective action since it is already determined by the terms of the first order in the auxiliary field $`\stackrel{~}{K}_m.`$

One can consider possible terms with higher degrees of $`L.`$ For example, the sum of (23) and

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\underset{a;b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_{4k}}{}\left(\stackrel{~}{L}^a(x)\stackrel{~}{L}^a(x)\right)^k\stackrel{~}{c}^{b_1}(x)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{c}^{b_{4k}}(x)ϵ_{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_{4k}}}`$ (69)
satisfies the identity (20) if $`4k`$ is the rank of the gauge group. If these terms exist it is also necessary to consider the dependence of $`_n`$ on the auxiliary field $`L,`$ since the substitution due to the second term in the ST identities would produce these terms. However, at the end we put all the auxiliary fields equal to zero, and therefore all the terms with higher degrees of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ do not have any importance. In comparison, the situation with the $`\stackrel{~}{K}_m`$ field is different. Indeed, terms with zero $`\stackrel{~}{K}_m`$ are still important since they are responsible for higher degrees of ghost-antighost correlators which may have applications in some models.

## 6 Conjecture for the physical part of the action

Taking into account the structure (64) of the term linear in $`\stackrel{~}{K}_m,`$ one can come to a natural conjecture about the form of the part of the effective action that depends only on the gauge effective field $`A_m.`$ Namely, due to the ST identity (58) in terms of the dressed fields, the structure of the effective action is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[A_m,b,c]={\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}Z_{g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)𝒢\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\right)`$ (70)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\left[_mA_m(x)\right]^2\right)2i\mathrm{Tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{b}(x)_m\stackrel{~}{}_m\stackrel{~}{c}(x)\right)]+\mathrm{irrelevant}\mathrm{part},`$
where all auxiliary fields $`K`$ and $`L`$ are set equal to zero. It is necessary to make three comments here:

* The function $`𝒢`$ is a series in terms of covariant derivative with dressed gauge connection. The part of this series without gauge connection $`𝒢\left(\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)`$ has logarithmic asymptotic in the momentum space at high momentum, $`𝒢\left(\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right),`$ while at low momentum it may be represented,e.g., by powers of $`p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}0.1`$ GeV .
* The physical part of the action is gauge invariant in terms of the dressed field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x).`$
* We do not write in the physical part terms like (66) since finally we are going to take the regularization mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to infinity. Terms like (66), (67), (68) are called irrelevant in (70).

## 7 Regularization and renormalization

In a general nonsupersymmetric four-dimensional gauge theory which is regularized in a way that preserves gauge (and BRST) symmetry, the dressing functions are of the following form:

$`G_X^1(xx^{})=z_X\delta (xx^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{C_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,\mu ^2)}{\mu ^2}}\left(\mathrm{}\mu ^2\right)\delta (xx^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,\mu ^2)}{\left(\mu ^2\right)^2}}\left(\mathrm{}\mu ^2\right)^2\delta (xx^{})+\mathrm{}`$ (71)
This representation means that we have expanded the Fourier transformed dressing function $`\stackrel{~}{G}_X^1(p^2)=1/\stackrel{~}{G}_X(p^2),`$ $`X=A,c,`$ in the vicinity of the point $`p^2=\mu ^2.`$ Here $`z_X`$ is a constant that goes to infinity if the regularization is removed, and $`C_1,`$ $`C_2`$ are finite constants.555$`G_X^1(xx^{})=(2\pi )^4𝑑p\mathrm{exp}[ip(xx^{})](1/\stackrel{~}{G}_X(p^2))`$, i.e. $`G_X^1(xx^{})0`$ for $`xx^{}0`$ in general, although the expansion (71) might suggest otherwise. For instance, $`z_A`$ is a renormalization constant of the gauge field. To renormalize the theory we have to introduce counterterms into the classical action (6) . This is equivalent to the change of the field in the classical action (6). For example, in the case of the pure gauge theory, to remove divergences from $`G_A^1(xx^{})`$ we have to make the following redefinition of the gauge field in the classical action

$`A_m^{\mathrm{bare}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_m^{\mathrm{phys}}}{z_A}}.`$ (72)
The motivation for terminology “bare” and “physical” for fields in the path integral is that introducing counterterms into the classical action (6) by the rescaling (72) of fields and couplings will result in the effective action without divergences (renormalized effective action). We can show that by such a redefinition we can make the dressing function $`G_A^1`$ finite. Indeed, if we represent the term with the source of the gauge field in the path integral (5) as

$`J_mA_m=\left(J_mz_A\right){\displaystyle \frac{A_m}{z_A}},`$
then the path integral for the theory with counterterms (72) can be transformed to the form (5) by the substitution of variables of the integral $`A_m=A_m^{}z_A.`$ It means that all the previous construction can be reproduced without any change but taking into account the redefinition $`J_mJ_mz_A.`$ In turn such a redefinition, according to definitions (11), means nothing else but that the effective fields are also redefined as in (72), which is equivalent to the redefinition of the dressing function

$`G_A^1(xx^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_A}}G_A^1(xx^{}).`$ (73)
One can consider Eq. (73) in momentum space,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{G}_A(p^2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_A(\mu ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}_A(p^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}}=(1+\alpha g^2+\beta \left(g^2\right)^2+\gamma \left(g^2\right)^3+\mathrm{})\times `$
$`\times \left(1+\stackrel{~}{G}_1(p^2)g^2+\stackrel{~}{G}_2(p^2)\left(g^2\right)^2+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (74)
$`=1+\left(\alpha +\stackrel{~}{G}_1(p^2)\right)g^2+\left(\beta +\alpha \stackrel{~}{G}_1(p^2)+\stackrel{~}{G}_2(p^2)\right)\left(g^2\right)^2+\mathrm{}`$
where we have presented both factors on the l.h.s. as a series in terms of the coupling constant. In this expansion $`g^2`$ is the physical coupling that stays in the classical action according to the counterterm approach . All these dressing functions parametrize our result (70) for the effective action, that is, they parametrize the irreducible vertices that contain divergences. Divergences from the dressing functions must be removed. We can remove the divergences in each order in coupling constant by choosing the divergent coefficients $`\alpha ,`$ $`\beta ,`$ $`\gamma `$ in $`1/z_A`$ in an appropriate way, because each coefficient $`\stackrel{~}{G}_n(p^2)`$ of the decomposition $`\stackrel{~}{G}_A^1(p^2)`$ in terms of the coupling constant is in its turn a series in terms of $`p^2`$ with only the zero order in $`p^2`$ terms being divergent. This is due to the fact that

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_A(p^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\stackrel{~}{G}_A(\mu ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}}`$
is finite. As to divergent coefficients before the relevant operators, they will be compensated by counterterms from the bare couplings 666Even if the renormalization (74) has been done and the dressing functions are finite, the theory still has divergences in the coefficients of the relevant operators. These divergences are absorbed by the bare couplings..

Till this moment we did not specify which regularization is used. The regularization by higher derivatives (HDR) is the most convenient from the point of view of the theoretical analysis . It provides strong suppression of ultraviolet divergences by introducing additional terms with higher degrees of covariant derivatives acting on Yang–Mills tensor into the classical action (6), which are suppressed by appropriate degrees of the regularization scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ In addition to this it is necessary to introduce a modification of the Pauli–Villars regularization to guarantee the convergence of the one loop diagrams . To regularize the fermion cycles, the usual Pauli–Villars regularization can be used.777A somewhat different regularization approach is applied in Ref.  where explicit QCD one loop dressing functions are obtained.

Thus in case of four-dimensional QCD without quarks the classical action (6) is

$`S_{QCD}[A,b,c]={\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[F_{mn}(A(x))F_{mn}(A(x))\right]`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\left[_mA_m(x)\right]^2\right)2\mathrm{Tr}\left(ib(x)_m_m(A)c(x)\right)].`$
In the counterterm technique  the coupling constant here is the physical coupling constant. The classical action with the counterterms is

$`S_{QCD}[A,b,c]={\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_{g^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[F_{mn}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{z_A}}(x)\right)F_{mn}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{z_A}}(x)\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(z_A)^2}{\alpha }}\left[_m{\displaystyle \frac{A_m}{z_A}}(x)\right]^2\right)2\mathrm{Tr}\left(iz_Ab(x)_m_m\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{z_A}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{c}{z_c}}(x)\right)],`$
where fields are “physical” in the sense that this classical action together with counterterms results in the effective action in which divergences are removed. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the renormalized effective action takes the form:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{QCD}[A_m,b,c]={\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)𝒢_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{}^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{F}_{mn}(x)\right)`$ (75)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\left[_mA_m(x)\right]^2\right)2i\mathrm{Tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{b}(x)_m\stackrel{~}{}_m\stackrel{~}{c}(x)\right)],`$
where all auxiliary fields $`K`$ and $`L`$ are set equal to zero. Here the function $`𝒢_2`$ is defined as

$`𝒢_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{}^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒢\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)/𝒢\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right).`$ (76)
## 8 Summary

In this work we proposed a solution to the Slavnov–Taylor identities for the effective action of nonsupersymmetric non-Abelian gauge theory without matter. The solution is expressed in terms of gauge $`A_m`$ and (anti)ghost effective fields $`(c,b)`$ convoluted with unspecified dressing functions:

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_m(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_A^1(xx^{})A_m(x^{})}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{c}(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_c^1(xx^{})c(x^{})},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{b}(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}G_A(xx^{})b(x^{})}.`$
Further, the solution is invariant under the gauge (BRST) transformation of the convoluted fields. We gave arguments which show that, under a specific plausible assumption, the terms of the effective action containing (anti)ghost fields must have the same form as those in the classical action, but under the substitution $`X\stackrel{~}{X}`$ $`\left(X=c,b,A_m\right).`$ Further, we conjectured a rather general form of the terms of the effective action which contain only the effective gauge fields and involve an additional function $`𝒢.`$ We briefly described how regularization and renormalization are reflected in the dressing functions. The obtained effective action is assumed to contain the quantum contributions of the gauge theory, perturbative and non-perturbative, but not including the soliton-like vacuum effects. Stated otherwise, all these effects are assumed to be contained in a limited number of dressing functions ($`G_A,G_c,𝒢`$). Application and consistency checks of this effective action for the case of high-momentum QCD are presented elsewhere .

Acknowledgements

The work of I.K. was supported by the Programa Mecesup FSM9901 of the Ministry of Education (Chile) and also by Conicyt (Chile) under grant 8000017. The work of G.C. and I.S. was supported by Fondecyt (Chile) grant No. 1010094. and 8000017, respectively. I.K. is grateful to Tim Jones for suggesting the terminology “dressing” for the dressing functions.


text:
# References

A Characterization of Extremal Sets in Hilbert Spaces

by Viet NguyenKhac 111Institute of Mathematics, P.O.Box 631 Bo Ho, 10000 Hanoi, Vietnam; e-mail: nkviet@thevinh.ncst.ac.vn & Khiem NguyenVan 222Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Hanoi University of Education, Cau Giay dist., Hanoi, Vietnam.

Hanoi Institute of Mathematics & Hanoi University of Education

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 46B20, 46E30.

## Abstract

We give a characterization of extremal sets in Hilbert spaces that generalizes a classical theorem of H. W. E. Jung. We investigate also the behaviour of points near to the circumsphere of such a set with respect to the Kuratowski and Hausdorff measures of non-compactness.

1. Introduction

Let $`(X,)`$ be a Banach space. For a non-empty bounded subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ and a non-empty subset $`B`$ of $`X`$ we shall use the following notations: $`d(A):=`$ sup $`\{xy:x,yA\}`$ – the diameter of $`A`$$`r_B(A):=\underset{yB}{\text{inf}}\underset{xA}{\text{sup}}xy`$ – the relative Chebyshev radius of $`A`$ with respect to $`B`$, in particular $`r(A):=r_{\overline{co}A}(A)`$ with $`\overline{co}A`$ denoting the closed convex hull of $`A`$$`C_B(A):=\{yB:\underset{xA}{\text{sup}}xy=r_B(A)\}`$ – the set of Chebyshev centers of $`A`$ in $`B`$. The Jung constant of $`X`$ is defined by $`J(X):=`$ sup $`\{r_X(A):AX,\text{with}d(A)=1\}`$. In conection with uniform normal structure one considers also the following important geometric constant - the self-Jung constant of $`X`$ (cf. ): $`J_s(X):=`$ sup $`\{r(A):AX,\text{with}d(A)=1\}`$. In the case $`X`$ is an inner product space, it is known that $`C_X(A)`$ consists of a unique point which belongs to the closed convex hull $`\overline{co}A`$ of $`A`$ (cf. ). Hence $`J(X)=J_s(X)`$ in this case. Classical Jung’s theorem states that for $`X=E^n`$ – an $`n`$-dimensional Euclidean space we have $`J(E^n)=J_s(E^n)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2(n+1)}}}`$ (, cf. ). Furthermore if $`X=H`$ – a Hilbert space (the infinite-dimensional case), then $`J(H)=J_s(H)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (, cf. , , ). Definition. We say that a bounded subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ consisting of at least two points is an extremal set (resp. self-extremal set), if $`r_X(A)=J(X)d(A)`$ (resp. $`r(A)=J_s(X)d(A)`$). Note that in the case $`X=E^n`$, or $`H`$, two these notions coincide, so in this case we shall speak simply of extremal sets. From the second part of the mentioned theorem of Jung one knowns that a bounded subset $`A`$ of $`E^n`$ is extremal if and only if $`A`$ contains a regular $`n`$-simplex with edges of length $`d(A)`$. In the case $`X=H`$ a partial result in this direction was obtained by Gulevich () who showed that if $`A`$ is a relatively compact set in a Hilbert space with $`d(A)>0`$, then $`r(A)<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}d(A)`$. Therefore if $`A`$ is an extremal set in a Hilbert space, then $`A`$ is not relatively compact. Our aim in this paper is to give a characterization of extremal sets in Hilbert spaces which is a genaralization of the second part of Jung’s theorem.

Main Theorem.Let $`A`$ be an extremal set in a Hilbert space $`H`$ with $`d(A)=\sqrt{2}`$. Then $`\chi (A)=1`$ and for every $`\epsilon (0,\sqrt{2})`$, for every positive integer $`p`$ there exists a $`p`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with its vertices in $`A`$ and each edge of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has length not less than $`\sqrt{2}\epsilon `$.

Conversly if $`d(A)=\sqrt{2}`$ and for every $`\epsilon (0,\sqrt{2})`$, for every positive integer $`p`$ there exists a $`p`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with its vertices in $`A`$ such that the length of each edge of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not less than $`\sqrt{2}\epsilon `$, then $`A`$ is an extremal set. In the above formulation $`\chi (A)`$ denotes the Hausdorff measure of non-compactness of $`A`$, i.e. the infimum of positive $`r`$ such that $`A`$ can be covered by a finite number of balls with radius $`r`$ and with centers in $`X`$. Besides, based on an observation of  (“Mushroom Lemma”) we prove also a result on the behaviour of points near to the circumsphere of such a set with respect to the measure of non-compactness which says roughly that the main contribution to the measure of non-compactness comes from that part of the extremal set.

2. Measures of non-compactness of extremal sets

Theorem 1.Let $`A`$ be an extremal set in a Hilbert space $`H`$ with $`r(A)=1`$. Then we have $`\alpha (A)=\sqrt{2}`$. Here $`\alpha (A)`$ denotes the Kuratowski measure of non-compactness, that is the infimum of positive $`d`$ such that $`A`$ can be covered by a finite number of sets of diameter $`d`$. The first proof. From the assumption $`r(A)=1`$ it follows that for each integer number $`n2`$ we have $`\underset{xA}{}B(x,1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}})=\mathrm{}`$, where $`B(x,r)`$ denotes the closed ball centered at $`x`$ with radius $`r`$ which is weakly compact since $`H`$ is reflexive. Hence there exist $`x_{p_{n1}+1},x_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},x_{p_n}`$ in $`A`$ such that $`\underset{i=p_{n1}+1}{\overset{p_n}{}}B(x_i,1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}})=\mathrm{}`$ (with convention $`p_1=0`$). Setting $`A_n:=\{x_{p_{n1}+1},x_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},x_{p_n}\}`$ we denote the Chebyshev center of $`A_n`$ in $`H`$ by $`c_n`$ and let $`r_n:=r(A_n)`$, then $`r_n>1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}`$. Let $`S(c,r)`$ denote the sphere with center $`c`$ and radius $`r`$. From the proof of classical Jung’s theorem one knowns that $`AS(c_n,r_n)\mathrm{}`$ and $`c_nco(A_nS(c_n,r_n))`$. So there exist $`y_{q_{n1}+1},y_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},y_{q_n}`$ in $`A_nS(c_n,r_n)`$ (with convention $`q_1=0`$) and positive numbers $`t_{q_{n1}+1},t_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},t_{q_n}`$ such that

$$c_n=\underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}t_iy_i,\underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}t_i=1.$$

We claim that $`\alpha (\{y_{q_{n1}+1},y_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},y_{q_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}})=\sqrt{2}`$. Suppose on the contrary $`\alpha (\{y_{q_{n1}+1},y_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},y_{q_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}})<\sqrt{2}`$. Then one can choose $`\epsilon _0(0,\sqrt{2})`$ satisfying $`\alpha (\{y_{q_{n1}+1},y_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},y_{q_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}})\sqrt{2}\epsilon _0`$, and so subsets $`D_1,D_2,\mathrm{},D_m`$ of $`H`$ with $`d(D_i)\sqrt{2}\epsilon _0`$ for every $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},m`$ such that $`\{y_{q_{n1}+1},y_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},y_{q_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑚}{}}D_i`$. There exists at least one set among $`D_1,D_2,\mathrm{},D_m`$, say $`D_1`$ with the property that there are infinitely many $`n`$ satisfying

$$\underset{iJ_n}{}t_i\frac{1}{m}$$
$`(1)`$
where

$$J_n:=\{i[q_{n1}+1,q_n]:y_iD_1\}.$$

For each $`n`$ satisfying (1) and fixed $`jJ_n`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}}t_iy_iy_j^2={\displaystyle \underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}}t_iy_ic_n+c_ny_j^2=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}}t_i\left(y_ic_n^2+y_jc_n^22(y_ic_n,y_jc_n)\right)=`$
$`=2r_n^22({\displaystyle \underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}}t_iy_ic_n,y_jc_n)=`$
$`=2r_n^2>2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\right)^2>2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n}},`$
where $`(,)`$ denotes the inner product in $`H`$. On the other hand

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}}t_iy_iy_j^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{iJ_n}{}}t_iy_iy_j^2+{\displaystyle \underset{q_{n1}<iq_n,iJ_n}{}}t_iy_iy_j^2`$
$`(\sqrt{2}\epsilon _0)^2{\displaystyle \underset{iJ_n}{}}t_i+2\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{iJ_n}{}}t_i\right)=`$
$`=2\left[2(2\epsilon _0)^2\right]\left({\displaystyle \underset{iJ_n}{}}t_i\right)`$
$`2\left[2(2\epsilon _0)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}.`$
Hence

$$2\left[2(2\epsilon _0)^2\right]\frac{1}{m}>2\frac{4}{n}$$

with fixed $`\epsilon _0,m`$ and for all $`n`$ satisfying (1), a contradiction. Thus $`\alpha (\{y_{q_{n1}+1},y_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},y_{q_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}})=\sqrt{2}`$. Since $`d(A)=\sqrt{2}`$ one concludes therefore $`\alpha (A)=\sqrt{2}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$ For the second proof we need the following lemma which is a variation of \[3, Lemma 4\].

Lemma 2.Let $`A`$ be a non-empty bounded subset of Hilbert space $`H`$; $`r`$ and $`c`$ the Chebyshev radius of $`A`$ with respect to $`H`$ and Chebyshev center of $`A`$ in $`H`$, respectively. Then $`c\overline{co}A_\epsilon `$ and $`r=r(A_\epsilon )`$ for every $`\epsilon (0,r)`$, where $`A_\epsilon :=AB(c,r\epsilon )`$. Proof of Lemma 2. Assume contrariwise that $`c`$ is not the Chebyshev center of $`A_\epsilon `$ in $`H`$, then $`r_1:=r(A_\epsilon )<r`$. Denoting by $`c_1`$ the Chebyshev center of $`A_\epsilon `$ in $`H`$ we choose $`c^{}=\alpha c_1+(1\alpha )c`$ for some $`\alpha (0,1)`$ such that $`0<cc^{}<\epsilon `$. Take a point $`xA`$. If $`xA_\epsilon `$ then $`xc^{}\alpha xc_1+(1\alpha )xc\alpha r_1+(1\alpha )r<r`$. In the other case $`xAA_\epsilon `$ we have $`xc^{}xc+cc^{}<r\epsilon +cc^{}<r`$. So $`AB(c^{},r^{})`$ with $`r^{}<r`$, a contradiction. The proof of the lemma is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$ The second proof of Theorem 1. In view of Lemma 2 by taking $`\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}`$ for every integer $`n2`$ one has: $`c\overline{co}\left(AB(c,1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}})\right)`$. Hence there exist $`x_{p_{n1}+1},x_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},x_{p_n}`$ in $`AB(c,1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}})`$ and positive numbers $`t_{p_{n1}+1},t_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},t_{p_n}`$ (with convention $`p_1=0`$) such that

$$\underset{p_{n1}<ip_n}{}t_i=1,\underset{p_{n1}<ip_n}{}t_iy_ic<\frac{1}{n}.$$

We show that $`\alpha (\{x_{p_{n1}+1},x_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},x_{p_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}})=\sqrt{2}`$. Assume on the contrary that $`\alpha (\{x_{p_{n1}+1},x_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},x_{p_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}})<\sqrt{2}`$. By choosing $`\epsilon _0(0,\sqrt{2})`$ satisfying inequality $`\alpha (\{x_{p_{n1}+1},x_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},x_{p_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}})\sqrt{2}\epsilon _0`$, there exist subsets $`D_1,D_2,\mathrm{},D_m`$ of $`H`$ with $`d(D_i)\sqrt{2}\epsilon _0`$ for every $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},m`$, such that $`\{x_{p_{n1}+1},x_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},x_{p_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑚}{}}D_i`$. As in the first proof one can find among $`D_1,D_2,\mathrm{},D_m`$, a set, say $`D_1`$ with the property that there are infinitely many $`n`$ satisfying

$$\underset{iI_n}{}t_i\frac{1}{m}$$
$`(2)`$
where

$$I_n:=\{i[p_{n1}+1,p_n]:x_iD_1\}.$$

Analogously for each $`n`$ satisfying (2) and fixed $`jI_n`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p_{n1}<ip_n}{}}t_ix_ix_j^2={\displaystyle \underset{p_{n1}<ip_n}{}}t_iy_ic+cy_j^2=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{p_{n1}<ip_n}{}}t_i\left(y_ic^2+y_jc^22(y_ic,y_jc)\right)>`$
$`>2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\right)^22({\displaystyle \underset{p_{n1}<ip_n}{}}t_ix_ic,y_jc)`$
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\right)^22{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}>2{\displaystyle \frac{6}{n}}.`$
Similarly one has also

$$\underset{p_{n1}<ip_n}{}t_ix_ix_j^22\left[2(\sqrt{2}\epsilon _0)^2\right]\frac{1}{m}$$

Hence

$$2\left[2(2\epsilon _0)^2\right]\frac{1}{m}>2\frac{6}{n}$$

for all $`n`$ satisfying (2), a contradiction. Thus $`\alpha (\{x_{p_{n1}+1},x_{p_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},x_{p_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}})=\sqrt{2}`$. This implies $`\alpha (A)=\sqrt{2}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$ As an immediate consequence one obtains Gulevich’s result mentioned in the Introduction.

Corollary (). Let $`A`$ be a relatively compact set in a Hilbert space with $`d(A)>0`$. Then $`r(A)<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}d(A)`$.

Remarks. 1. In  another proof of equality $`J(H)=J_s(H)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ was given by H. Steinlein. Essentially the heart of the proof is a relation between the Lifshitz characteristic and self-Jung constant of a Banach space $`X`$: $`\varkappa _0(X)\left(J_s(X)\right)^1`$ which can be extended to the case of metric spaces with convex structure. We shall come back to this problem in a forthcoming paper. 2. By using Lemma 2 we see that $`A_\epsilon `$ is also an extremal set and $`\alpha (A_\epsilon )=\sqrt{2}`$ for every $`\epsilon (0,1)`$. 3. Although $`\alpha (A_\epsilon )=\sqrt{2}`$ for all $`\epsilon (0,1)`$, we may have $`\overline{co}AS(c,1)=\mathrm{}`$ (cf. ). The following question arises: what can be said about $`\alpha \left(AS(c,1)\right)`$ when $`AS(c,1)\mathrm{}`$? The answer is: $`\alpha \left(AS(c,1)\right)`$ can take arbitrary values in $`[0,\sqrt{2}]`$. Below we produce some examples. Example 1. Let $`\{e_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be an infinite orthonormal sequence in Hilbert space $`H`$. Set $`A_1:=\left\{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\right)e_n\right\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`A_2:=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{}\}`$ with

$`x_1:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e_2;x_2:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_3;`$
$`x_n:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^2}}}e_2+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}}e_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}}e_{n+1};\mathrm{}`$
It is easy to see that $`r(A_1)=1,d(A_1)=\sqrt{2}`$ and 0 is the Chebyshev center of $`A_1`$ in $`H`$. Furthermore $`x_n=1`$ for every $`n`$$`x_m\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\right)e_n\sqrt{2},m,n`$; $`x_{n+p}x_n^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Thus $`\{x_n\}`$ is a Cauchy sequence and one gets $`\alpha (A_2)=0`$. Now setting $`A:=A_1A_2`$ we have $`r(A)=1,d(A)=\sqrt{2}`$ and 0 is also the Chebyshev center of $`A`$ in $`H`$. Obviously $`AS(0,1)=\overline{co}AS(0,1)=A_2`$.

Example 2. Let $`\{e_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`A_1`$ be as in Example 1. For each $`\gamma (0,\sqrt{2}]`$ putting $`\beta :={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\sqrt{2}}}(0,1]`$ we choose $`\lambda [0,1)`$ satisfying $`\lambda ^2+\beta ^2=1`$. Denote by $`A_2:=\{y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n,\mathrm{}\}`$ with

$$y_1:=\lambda e_1+\beta e_2;y_2:=\lambda e_1+\beta e_3;\mathrm{}y_n:=\lambda e_1+\beta e_{n+1};\mathrm{}$$

Obviously $`y_n=1`$ for every $`n`$; $`y_ny_m=\sqrt{2}\beta =\gamma ,mn`$. Setting $`A:=A_1A_2`$ we obtain $`r(A)=1,d(A)=\sqrt{2}`$; 0 is the Chebyshev center of $`A`$ in $`H`$ and $`AS(0,1)=\overline{co}AS(0,1)=A_2`$ with $`\alpha (A_2)=\gamma `$.

3. Proof of the Main Theorem

From the first proof of Theorem 1 we derived a sequence $`y_{q_{n1}+1},y_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},y_{q_n}`$ in $`A_nS(c_n,r_n)`$ (with $`q_1=0`$) and positive $`t_{q_{n1}+1},t_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},t_{q_n}`$ for each integer $`n2`$ satisfying

$$c_n=\underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}t_iy_i,\underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}t_i=1.$$

We claim that $`\chi \left(\{y_{q_{n1}+1},y_{q_{n1}+2},\mathrm{},y_{q_n}\}_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}\right)=1`$. Assume that $`A`$ can be covered by a finite number of balls of radius $`r`$: $`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_m`$. Then there exist a ball among $`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_m`$, say $`B_1`$, such that there are infinitely many $`n`$ satisfying

$$\underset{iJ_n}{}t_i\frac{1}{m}$$
$`(3)`$
where

$$J_n:=\{i[q_{n1}+1,q_n]:y_iB_1\}.$$

As in the proof of Theorem 1 one has

$$\underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}t_iy_iy_j^2=2r_n^2>2\frac{4}{n}$$
$`(4)`$
for every $`j[q_{n1}+1,q_n]`$ fixed. From (4) it follows that

$$\underset{iI_{nj}}{}t_i<\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}},$$

where

$$I_{nj}:=\{i[q_{n1}+1,q_n]:y_iy_j^2<2\frac{4}{\sqrt{n}}\},j[q_{n1}+1,q_n],$$

and

$$2(1t_j)\underset{q_{n1}<iq_n}{}t_iy_iy_j^2=2r_n^2>2\frac{4}{n}.$$

This implies $`t_j<{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}`$ for every $`j[q_{n1}+1,q_n]`$. Therefore if $`n`$ satisfies (3), then $`|J_n|{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}`$, or equivalently $`|J_n|>{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2m}}`$ (here $`|J_n|`$ denotes the cardinal of $`J_n`$). For each $`n`$ satisfying (3) and $`jJ_n`$ let us denote by

$$J_n(y_j):=\{iJ_n:y_iy_j^22\frac{4}{\sqrt{n}}\},$$

and

$$\widehat{J}_n(y_j):=\{y_i:iJ_n(y_j)\}.$$

Obviously from (5) one gets

$$\underset{iJ_nJ_n(y_j)}{}t_i<\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}$$
$`(6)`$
and

$$\underset{iJ_n(y_j)}{}t_i>\frac{1}{m}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}$$
$`(7)`$
For each positive integer $`p`$ choose $`n`$ sufficiently large satisfying (3) and such that $`{\displaystyle \frac{p+1}{\sqrt{n}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}}`$. We claim that for every choice of $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_pJ_n`$ we have

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑝}{}}J_n(y_{i_k})\mathrm{}$$
$`(8)`$
Indeed otherwise $`\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑝}{}}J_n(y_{i_k})=\mathrm{}`$ would imply that

$$J_n(y_{i_1})J_n\left(\underset{k=2}{\overset{p}{}}J_n(y_{i_k})\right)=\underset{k=2}{\overset{p}{}}\left(J_nJ_n(y_{i_k})\right).$$

Consequently by (6) and (7)

$$\frac{1}{m}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}<\underset{\alpha J_n(y_{i_1})}{}t_\alpha \underset{k=2}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\alpha J_nJ_n(y_{i_k})}{}t_\alpha <(p1)\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}.$$

Thus $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}<{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}}`$. This would contradict to the choice of $`n`$ and $`p`$. Next from (8) it follows that if $`1kp`$ and $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_kJ_n`$, then $`\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}\widehat{J}_n(y_{i_\alpha })\mathrm{}`$. With $`n`$ and $`p`$ chosen as above let us fix $`jJ_n`$. Setting $`z_1:=y_j`$ we take consecutively $`z_2\widehat{J}_n(z_1);z_3\widehat{J}_n(z_1)\widehat{J}_n(z_2);\mathrm{};z_{p+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑝}{}}\widehat{J}_n(z_i).`$ Obviously $`z_iz_j^22{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{n}}}`$ for all $`ij`$ in $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},p+1\}`$. Now for given $`\epsilon (0,\sqrt{2})`$ choose $`n`$ as above and moreover sufficiently large so that $`2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{n}}}(\sqrt{2}\epsilon )^2`$. One sees that $`z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_{p+1}`$ form a $`p`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ whose edges have length not less than $`\sqrt{2}\epsilon `$. We now prove that the radius $`r`$ of balls $`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_m`$ is $`1`$. Let $`c^{}`$ and $`r^{}`$ denote respectively the Chebyshev center of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`H`$ and the Chebyshev radius of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with respect to $`H`$. From the proof of classical Jung’s theorem it follows that there exist non-negative $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _{p+1}`$ with $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}\alpha _i=1`$ and $`c^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}\alpha _iz_i`$. Next for each $`j\{1,2,\mathrm{},p+1\}`$ we have

$`\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{n}}}\right)(1\alpha _j)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}}\alpha _iz_iz_j^2={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}}\alpha _iz_ic^{}+c^{}z_j^2=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}}\alpha _i\left(z_ic^{}^2+z_jc^{}^2\right)({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}}\alpha _i(z_ic^{}),z_jc^{})`$
$`2(r^{})^2.`$
Thus

$$\left(2\frac{4}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{p+1}{}}(1\alpha _j)2(p+1)(r^{})^2,$$

or equivalently

$$r^{}\sqrt{\frac{\left(24/\sqrt{n}\right)p}{2(p+1)}}$$
$`(9)`$
The RHS of (9) tends to 1 as $`p\mathrm{}`$. Obviously $`rr^{}`$ since $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_1`$. This implies $`r1`$ as claimed. One concludes therefore $`\chi (A)=1`$. Conversly if $`d(A)=\sqrt{2}`$, and for every $`\epsilon (0,\sqrt{2})`$ and every positive integer $`p`$ $`A`$ contains a $`p`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with its edges having length $`\sqrt{2}\epsilon `$, then we see immediately that $`A`$ is an extremal set. $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgement. The second author would like to thank Professors Do Hong Tan and Nguyen Thanh Ha for encouragement and helpful discussions.