text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum field theories formulated on a noncommutative space have become recently the object of renewed interest. This is primarily due to the realization that noncommutative $`U(N)`$ gauge theories arise in the field theory limit of strings in a constant $`B`$-field background . The perturbative analysis of such theories is simplified by the fact that the noncommutativity of spacetime can be traded off by a modified multiplication rule for the fields, i.e. functions on noncommutative $`^d`$ can be treated as ordinary functions on standard $`^d`$ with a deformed multiplication given by the Moyal $``$-product.

By now there exists an abundant literature on the perturbative and non perturbative studies of field theories in noncommutative flat $`^d`$. For a review and an extensive list of references cf. e. g. . On the contrary, very little is known about corresponding theories in a curved noncommutative space or else about a noncommutative formulation of gravity itself. One of the main obstacles to overcome in the formulation of gravity on noncommutative spaces is related to the fact that the Moyal product does not maintain reality. One possible way to preserve nevertheless reality of the gravitational fields is to use explicitely the Seiberg-Witten map . Otherwise it seems that one is forced to complexify the fields . However, complex gravity may be plagued by inconsistencies already at the commutative level .

Here we attack the problem starting from the theory of noncommutative gravity formulated in two space-time dimensions. In this case we can take advantage of our knowledge about non commutative gauge theories. There we know how to deform the gauge transformations for the fields and everything is under control at least at the kinematical level. In fact the Jackiw-Teitelboim (JT) model  of $`2`$-$`d`$ commutative gravity can be written as a topological $`SU(1,1)`$ gauge theory . Within this formulation embedding in a noncommutative space is straightforward: since in the volume form the metric does not appear it is sufficient to introduce the $``$-product appropriately and extend the gauge group to $`U(1,1)`$111For other attempts to formulate gravity on noncommutative spaces based on Chern-Simons actions and its variants cf. .. We will show how to write the action in terms of real fields and how to achieve the decoupling of the extra $`U(1)`$ in the commutative limit. Then we address the issue of diffeomorphisms. We find that the deformed action is invariant under a class of transformations that reproduce the standard diffeomorphisms in the commutative limit. Moreover, once the equations of motion are imposed, they are equivalent to gauge transformations, as it happens in the commutative case.

Our paper is organized as follows: in the next section we define the noncommutative gravity action in terms of a topological two-dimensional gauge theory and write the equations of motion. In section 3 it is shown that the Seiberg-Witten (SW) formula maps the deformed model into the standard commutative topological gauge theory. In section 4 we show that the action enjoys an invariance that reduces to ordinary diffeomorphism invariance in the commutative case. In section 5 we obtain solutions of the equations of motion and discuss their dependence on the noncommutativity parameter. Finally we present our conclusions.

## 2 Deformation of two-dimensional topological gauge theory

It is well-known that the JT model  of dilaton gravity in two dimensions can be formulated as an $`SU(1,1)`$ topological gauge theory . This is similar to the three-dimensional case, where pure Einstein gravity can be written as a Chern-Simons theory . In what follows, we will use this gauge theory formulation to define $`2`$-$`d`$ noncommutative gravity. To this end, we first note that the group $`SU(1,1)`$ is not closed with respect to the Moyal product, and thus we are forced to consider a gauge theory based on $`U(1,1)`$. The action of the $`U(1,1)`$ gauge theory on noncommutative $`\text{}^2`$, with coordinates $`x^\mu `$ satisfying $`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, reads222Of course in two dimensions $`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ implies timelike noncommutativity, so one might think that problems like causality violation or loss of unitarity  occur. However, as we will see below (cf. Eq. (2.7)), the deformed theory is still topological, so that there are no propagating degrees of freedom, and we thus expect the theory to be well-defined in spite of timelike noncommutativity.

$$S=\beta \mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }F),$$
(2.1)
where $`\beta `$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^A\tau _A`$, $`A=A_\mu ^A\tau _Adx^\mu `$ and $`F=\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^A\tau _Adx^\mu dx^\nu `$ take values in the Lie algebra $`u(1,1)`$ (the generators $`\tau _A`$ are given in the appendix). The star denotes the usual Moyal product, and

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`DA=dA+A^{}A,`$ (2.2)
$``$ (2.3)
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +A_\mu A_\nu A_\nu A_\mu .`$ (2.4)
Note that the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$, $`A_\mu ^A`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }^A`$ are real, and that this reality is preserved under the infinitesimal gauge transformations333In what follows, all commutators and anticommutators are taken with respect to the Moyal product.

$$\delta _\lambda A=d\lambda +[A,\lambda ]=D\lambda ,\delta _\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }=[\mathrm{\Phi },\lambda ],$$
(2.5)
where $`\lambda =\lambda ^A\tau _A`$. The integrated form of (2.5) is given by

$$Ag_{}^1Ag+g_{}^1dg,\mathrm{\Phi }g_{}^1\mathrm{\Phi }g,$$
(2.6)
with $`g=\mathrm{exp}_{}\lambda U(1,1)_{}`$, i. e. , $`g_{}^1=\eta g^{}\eta `$, where $`\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$ and $`gg_{}^1=1=g_{}^1g`$.
The equations of motion following from (2.1) read

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.7)
$`D\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`d\mathrm{\Phi }+[A,\mathrm{\Phi }]=0,`$ (2.8)
so that the solutions are those of flat $`U(1,1)`$ connections in two dimensions. The equation (2.7) implies that locally one can write

$$A_\mu =g_{}^1_\mu g,$$
(2.9)
with $`gU(1,1)_{}`$. Using

$$_\mu g=i\theta _{\mu \nu }[g,x^\nu ],$$
(2.10)
where $`\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\nu \lambda }=\delta _\mu ^\lambda `$, and defining the covariant coordinates

$$X^\mu =x^\mu +i\theta ^{\mu \nu }A_\nu ,$$
(2.11)
one immediately obtains

$$X^\mu =g_{}^1x^\mu g.$$
(2.12)
Note that the $`X^\mu `$ satisfy $`[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. We still have to solve Eq. (2.8), which is equivalent to $`[\mathrm{\Phi },X^\mu ]=0`$. Inserting (2.12) and the ansatz $`\mathrm{\Phi }=g^1Bg`$, where $`Bu(1,1)`$, one gets $`_\mu B=0`$, so $`B`$ is constant. The solution of (2.8) is thus

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=g_{}^1Bg.$$
(2.13)
In order to make contact with gravity, we decompose the $`u(1,1)`$ valued scalar and gauge fields according to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^A=(\varphi ^a,\varphi ,\rho ),A_\mu ^A=(e_\mu ^a/l,\omega _\mu ,b_\mu ),$$
(2.14)
where $`a=0,1`$ and $`l`$ is related to the negative cosmological constant by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/l^2`$. We note that in the noncommutative case one is forced to include the fields $`\rho `$ and $`b_\mu `$, which correspond to the trace part of u(1,1), in addition to the usual spin connection $`\omega _\mu =\omega _{01\mu }`$, the zweibein $`e_\mu ^a`$, and the scalars $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^a`$.
In what follows it will be convenient to define

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu b}^a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_b^a\omega _\mu +i\delta _b^ab_\mu ,`$ (2.15)
$`T_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu e_\nu ^a_\nu e_\mu ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu b}^a,e_\nu ^b]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu b}^a,e_\mu ^b],`$ (2.16)
$`\varphi _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ϵ_{ab}i\rho \eta _{ab},`$ (2.17)
where

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu b}^a,e_\nu ^b]\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu b}^ae_\nu ^be_\nu ^b\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu b}^a.$$
(2.18)
We will see below that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^a`$ can be interpreted as a noncommutative $`so(1,1)u(1)`$ spin connection, with a trace part given by the abelian gauge field $`b_\mu `$, whereas $`T^a`$ is the noncommutative torsion.
Using the decomposition (2.14) and (2.15) \- (2.17), the action (2.1) can be written as

$$S=\frac{\beta }{4}d^2xϵ^{\mu \nu }\left[\varphi _{ab}\left(_{\mu \nu }^{ab}2\mathrm{\Lambda }e_{[\mu }^ae_{\nu ]}^b\right)2\varphi _aT_{\mu \nu }^a\right],$$
(2.19)
where we defined the noncommutative curvature two-form

$$_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^{ab}_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu c}^a,\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^{cb}]\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu c}^a,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{cb}],$$
(2.20)
from which we can see that indeed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^a`$ plays the role of an $`so(1,1)u(1)`$ spin connection. The action (2.19) defines our model of noncommutative gravity in two dimensions.
As in the commutative case, the fields $`\varphi ^a`$ are Lagrange multipliers imposing the constraint $`T_{\mu \nu }^a=0`$, i. e. , the vanishing of the noncommutative torsion.
The other equations of motion following from (2.19) read

$`_{b\mu \nu }^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l^2}}ϵ_b^aϵ_{cd}\{e_\mu ^c,e_\nu ^d\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l^2}}\delta _b^a\eta _{cd}[e_\mu ^c,e_\nu ^d]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`_\nu \varphi _{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu a}^c\varphi _{cb}\varphi _{ac}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu b}^c\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ab}ϵ_{cd}\{e_\nu ^c,\varphi ^d\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{ab}\eta _{cd}[e_\nu ^c,\varphi ^d]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.21)
$`_\nu \varphi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu b}^a\varphi ^b\varphi ^b\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu b}^a\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l}}\left(\varphi _b^ae_\nu ^be_\nu ^b\varphi _b^a\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Now one can construct a metric according to

$$G_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^b\eta _{ab}=g_{\mu \nu }+iB_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.22)
where

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{ab}\{e_\mu ^a,e_\nu ^b\}$$
(2.23)
is real and symmetric, and reduces to the usual expression for the metric in the commutative case, whereas

$$B_{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}\eta _{ab}[e_\mu ^a,e_\nu ^b]$$
(2.24)
is real and antisymmetric, and vanishes for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

We finally note that the action (2.1) can be rewritten as a matrix model for the covariant coordinates $`X^\mu `$ defined in (2.11). Setting $`\theta =\theta ^{01}`$, the action reads

$$S=\frac{\beta }{2\theta ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}_{}(\mathrm{\Phi }([X^\mu ,X^\nu ]i\theta ^{\mu \nu })).$$
(2.25)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`X^\mu `$ are operators acting on a Hilbert space $`=^{}V`$, where $`^{}`$ is the infinite-dimensional subspace of the Hilbert space carrying the irreducible representation of $`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, whereas $`V`$ carries the fundamental representation of $`u(1,1)`$ .

From (2.25) we see that the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Lagrange multiplier enforcing noncommutativity of the covariant coordinates,

$$[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(2.26)
and $`\theta `$ enters the coupling constant. It is interesting to note that, by generalizing the map from $`u(2)`$ to $`u(1)`$ gauge models constructed in 444Cf. also . to a correspondence between $`u(1,1)`$ and $`u(1)`$, one can represent the $`u(1,1)`$ valued functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`X^\mu `$ as scalar functions in a $`u(1)`$ theory555Note however that due to the modified group metric in our case ($`U(1,1)`$ rather than $`U(2)`$) this mapping is less trivial than the one in , and would produce a nonstandard $`U(1)`$ action. We would like to thank A. Polychronakos for comments on this..

## 3 The Seiberg-Witten map

In  it was shown that the Seiberg-Witten formula maps the Chern-Simons (CS) action on noncommutative spaces into the standard commutative Chern-Simons action. As the commutative version of the topological gauge theory (2.1) can be obtained from the CS theory by dimensional reduction, one might ask whether a similar property holds for (2.1), i. e. , whether it is related to the standard commutative topological gauge theory by the Seiberg-Witten map. We will now show that this is indeed the case.

A correspondence between commutative and noncommutative gauge field theories can be defined by the SW map 666For an alternative derivation of the SW equation cf. .

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }\{A_\alpha ,_\beta \mathrm{\Phi }+D_\beta \mathrm{\Phi }\},`$
$`\delta F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }\left[2\{F_{\mu \alpha },F_{\nu \beta }\}\{A_\alpha ,_\beta F_{\mu \nu }+D_\beta F_{\mu \nu }\}\right],`$ (3.1)
where the transformation formula for the adjoint scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be found by dimensional reduction from three to two dimensions, setting $`\theta ^{2\mu }=0,\mu =0,1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=A_3`$.

In order to study the variation of the action (2.1) under the SW map, we differentiate it with respect to $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$,

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }}=\frac{\beta }{2}d^2xϵ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{\delta F_{\mu \nu }}{\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }}\mathrm{\Phi }+F_{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}{\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }}\right).$$
(3.2)
Using (3.1), this simplifies after some algebra to

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }}=\frac{\beta }{2}d^2x\mathrm{Tr}\left[\frac{i}{4}\{F_{\alpha \beta },\mathrm{\Phi }\}F_{01}\frac{i}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }\{F_{0\alpha },F_{\beta 1}\}+\frac{i}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }\{F_{0\beta },F_{\alpha 1}\}\right].$$
(3.3)
As we are in two dimensions, the only nonvanishing component of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is $`\theta ^{01}=\theta `$. It is then easy to see that

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta \theta }=0,$$
(3.4)
and therefore the deformed action is mapped to the standard commutative one. We have to keep in mind, however, that the SW map is of perturbative nature in $`\theta `$, so the equivalence between the deformed and undeformed models holds perturbatively. Of course, the noncommutative theory (2.1) can also have solitonic solutions that become singular for $`\theta 0`$, and thus have no analogue in the commutative case. Furthermore, in deriving (3.4), we discarded boundary terms, so that in presence of a boundary the equivalence of the noncommutative and the commutative topological gauge theory fails. This is analogous to the case of Chern-Simons theory in three dimensions .

## 4 Gauge symmetries and deformed diffeomorphisms

In this section we want to find a candidate for diffeomorphisms in the noncommutative case777For related work cf. .. Since in the commutative limit we want to obtain standard results, we start from what is known in that case. The commutative version of our action (2.1) is invariant not only under the commutative version of the gauge transformations (2.5), but also under infinitesimal diffeomorphisms (Lie derivatives) along an arbitrary vector field $`v=v^\mu _\mu `$,

$`_vA`$ $`=`$ $`(di_v+i_vd)A,`$ (4.1)
$`_v\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`i_vd\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (4.3)
where $`i_v`$ is the inner product on differential forms.

Using the Leibnitz rule for the inner product ($`\omega ^p`$ and $`\xi ^q`$ are respectively a p- and a q-form),

$$i_v(\omega ^p\xi ^q)=(i_v\omega ^p)\xi ^q+()^p\omega ^p(i_v\xi ^q),$$
(4.4)
it is easy to prove that

$`_vA`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{i_vA}A+i_vF,`$ (4.5)
$`_v\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{i_vA}\mathrm{\Phi }+i_vD\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (4.7)
From Eq. (4.5) and from the equations of motion (2.7-2.8) we see that, on-shell, the infinitesimal diffeomorphisms can be written as gauge transformations with parameters $`\lambda =i_vA`$. This fact can be used to relate translations and gauge transformations with $`\lambda =\alpha ^a\tau _a`$. To this end we divide the connection into a part containing the zweibein and a part containing the spin connection and the center $`U(1)`$,

$$A=l^1e+\mathrm{\Theta },e=e_\mu ^a\tau _adx^\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }=\omega _\mu \tau _2dx^\mu +b_\mu \tau _3dx^\mu .$$
(4.8)
In this way, with an invertible $`e_\mu ^a`$, we can write

$$v^\mu :=le_a^\mu \alpha ^a\alpha ^a=l^1i_ve^a,$$
(4.9)
thus obtaining888We use the symbol $``$ for equations which are valid on-shell.

$`\delta _{\alpha ^a\tau _a}A`$ $``$ $`_vA+\delta _{i_v\mathrm{\Theta }}A,`$ (4.10)
$`\delta _{\alpha ^a\tau _a}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`_v\mathrm{\Phi }+\delta _{i_v\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (4.11)
In the noncommutative case the situation is quite different. Whereas the action (2.1) is invariant under gauge transformations (2.5), the invariance under diffeomorphisms seems to be completely destroyed. However we will show that the results obtained in the commutative case naturally suggest how to deform the diffeomorphism invariances in the noncommutative case.

Let us introduce the most natural generalization of the inner product and the Lie derivative in the noncommutative theory. If $`\omega ^p`$ is a p-form we define

$`\omega ^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!}}\omega _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}dx^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _p},`$ (4.12)
$`i_v^{}\omega ^p`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(p1)!}}[v^\rho \omega _{\rho \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}}^p+\omega _{\rho \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}}^pv^\rho ]dx^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _{p1}},`$ (4.14)
$`_v^{}\omega ^p`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p!}}\{[v^\rho _\rho \omega _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}^p+(_{\mu _1}v^\rho )\omega _{\rho \mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _p}^p+\mathrm{}+(_{\mu _p}v^\rho )\omega _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}\rho }^p]`$ (4.18)
$`+[(_\rho \omega _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}^p)v^\rho +\omega _{\rho \mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _p}^p_{\mu _1}v^\rho +\mathrm{}`$
$`+\omega _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p1}\rho }^p_{\mu _p}v^\rho ]\}dx^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _p}`$
$`=`$ $`(di_v^{}+i_v^{}d)\omega ^p,`$ (4.20)
where the exterior derivative $`d`$ is defined as in the commutative case and satisfies the same properties. It is important to note that the Leibnitz rule in Eq. (4.4) is not valid anymore. Using the above definitions we get

$`i_v^{}[A^{}A]`$ $`=`$ $`(i_v^{}A)AA(i_v^{}A)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{A_\mu ,[A,v^\mu ]\},`$ (4.21)
$`i_v^{}[\mathrm{\Phi }A]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(i_v^{}A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Phi },v^\mu ]A_\mu ,`$ (4.23)
$`i_v^{}[A\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ $`=`$ $`(i_v^{}A)\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\mu [\mathrm{\Phi },v^\mu ].`$ (4.25)
Inspired by the commutative counterpart in (4.5) we define the deformed diffeomorphisms as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}`$ $`:=`$ $`i_v^{}D+\delta _{i_v^{}A},`$ (4.26)
$``$ (4.27)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}A`$ $`=`$ $`i_v^{}F+\delta _{i_v^{}A}A,`$ (4.28)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`i_v^{}D\mathrm{\Phi }+\delta _{i_v^{}A}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (4.29)
Now we want to prove that these transformations are symmetries of the action modulo boundary terms. First we note that, if $`\xi `$ is a 1-form and $`\omega `$ is a two form, a noncommutative integrated version of the Leibnitz rule (4.4) is valid:

$`{\displaystyle \xi }^{}i_v^{}\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xϵ^{\mu \nu }\xi _\mu (i_v^{}\omega )_\nu }`$ (4.30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2xϵ^{\mu \nu }\xi _\nu (v^\rho \omega _{\rho \nu }+\omega _{\rho \nu }v^\rho )}`$ (4.31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2xϵ^{\mu \nu }(v^\rho \xi _\mu +\omega _\mu v^\rho )\omega _{\rho \nu }}`$ (4.32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^2xϵ^{\mu \nu }(v^\rho \xi _\rho +\omega _\rho v^\rho )\omega _{\mu \nu }}`$ (4.33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (i_v^{}\xi )\omega }.`$ (4.34)
Note that in order to obtain (4.30) the symmetric form of the definition of $`i^{}`$ and the fact that we are in two dimensions are crucial.

Since we know that the action is gauge invariant under (2.5), in order to prove its invariance under the deformed diffeomorphisms (4.26) it is sufficient to show that it remains unaltered by the transformations

$`\delta _v^{}A`$ $`=`$ $`i_v^{}F,`$ (4.35)
$`\delta _v^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`i_v^{}D\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (4.37)
Using Eq.(4.30), we obtain

$`\delta _v^{}S`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle Tr\left[i^{}(D\mathrm{\Phi })F+\mathrm{\Phi }(di_v^{}F+i_v^{}F^{}A+A^{}i_v^{}F)\right]}`$ (4.38)
$`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle Tr\left(D\mathrm{\Phi }^{}i_v^{}Fd\mathrm{\Phi }^{}i_v^{}F+\mathrm{\Phi }i_v^{}F^{}A+\mathrm{\Phi }A^{}i_v^{}F\right)}`$ (4.39)
$`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle Tr\left[D\mathrm{\Phi }^{}i_v^{}F(d\mathrm{\Phi }+A\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }A)^{}i_v^{}F\right]}`$ (4.40)
$`=`$ $`0.`$ (4.41)
Thus we have shown that the deformed diffeomorphisms (4.44) are indeed symmetries of the action.

We can also write the noncommutative version of Eq. (4.10) as

$`\delta _{\alpha ^a\tau _a}A`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}A+\delta _{i_v^{}\mathrm{\Theta }}A,`$ (4.42)
$`\delta _{\alpha ^a\tau _a}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}\mathrm{\Phi }+\delta _{i_v^{}\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (4.43)
where now $`v=v^\mu _\mu `$ is such that $`\alpha ^a=l^1i_v^{}e^a`$. Note that the vector $`v`$ can always be chosen to be real. This is shown in appendix C.
Using Eq.(4.21), it is straightforward to prove that the deformed diffeomorphisms (4.26) can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}=_v^{}+\frac{1}{2}\{A_\mu ,[.,v^\mu ]\}.$$
(4.44)
The transformation properties of the fields (2.14) under the action of (4.44) are given in appendix D. In particular, the symmetric part $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the antisymmetric part $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ of the metric (2.22) transform as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_v^{}g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta _{ab}([[e_\mu ^a,v^\rho ],_\rho e_\nu ^b]+[[e_\nu ^a,v^\rho ],_\rho e_\mu ^b]`$
$`+[[e_\mu ^a,_\nu v^\rho ],e_\rho ^b]+[[e_\nu ^a,_\mu v^\rho ],e_\rho ^b])`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ϵ_{ab}(\{e_\mu ^a,[\omega _\rho ,[e_\nu ^b,v^\rho ]]\}+\{e_\nu ^a,[\omega _\rho ,[e_\mu ^b,v^\rho ]]\}`$
$`\{e_\mu ^a,[e_\rho ^b,[b_\nu ,v^\rho ]]\}\{e_\nu ^a,[e_\rho ^b,[b_\mu ,v^\rho ]]\}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}B_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_v^{}B_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\eta _{ab}(\{[e_\mu ^a,v^\rho ],_\rho e_\nu ^b\}\{[e_\nu ^a,v^\rho ],_\rho e_\mu ^b\}`$
$`+\{[e_\mu ^a,_\nu v^\rho ],e_\rho ^b\}\{[e_\nu ^a,_\mu v^\rho ],e_\rho ^b\})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}ϵ_{ab}([e_\mu ^a,[\omega _\rho ,[e_\nu ^b,v^\rho ]]][e_\nu ^a,[\omega _\rho ,[e_\mu ^b,v^\rho ]]]`$
$`[e_\mu ^a,[e_\rho ^b,[b_\nu ,v^\rho ]]]+[e_\nu ^a,[e_\rho ^b,[b_\mu ,v^\rho ]]]).`$
One may note that these transformations reduce to ordinary diffeomorphisms if $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

## 5 Some solutions

### 5.1 Fuzzy AdS

The undeformed gravitational action admits the AdS2 solution

$$ds^2=\frac{r^2}{l^2}dt^2+\frac{l^2}{r^2}dr^2.$$
(5.1)
This leads to the connection

$$A_t=\frac{ir}{2l^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),A_r=\frac{1}{2r}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(5.2)
which can be written as $`A=g^1dg`$ with

$$g=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{r}{l}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{it}{2l}& \frac{it}{2l}\\ \frac{it}{2l}& 1\frac{it}{2l}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{l}{r}& 1\frac{l}{r}\\ 1\frac{l}{r}& 1+\frac{l}{r}\end{array}\right).$$
(5.3)
At this point, we observe that $`g`$ is the product of two matrices $`f,hSU(1,1)`$, each one depending on a single variable only. This implies that $`f,h`$ are elements of $`U(1,1)_{}`$. Consequently we have $`\stackrel{~}{g}:=fhU(1,1)_{}`$ and we can use $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ to obtain a noncommutative solution $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =\stackrel{~}{g}_{}^1_\mu \stackrel{~}{g}`$.
With these matrices, we easily obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =A_\mu ,$$
(5.4)
so that (5.1) is a solution of the noncommutative gravity. This is the fuzzy AdS2.
Fuzzy AdS2 was obtained in 999Cf. also . by an analytic continuation of the fuzzy sphere . Let us briefly recall the construction. We denote the Cartesian coordinates of AdS2 by $`X^1,X^0,X^1`$. The algebra of fuzzy AdS2 is

$`[X^1,X^0]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta l^1X^1,`$
$`[X^0,X^1]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta l^1X^1,`$ (5.5)
$`[X^1,X^1]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta l^1X^0,`$
where $`\theta `$ is the noncommutativity parameter, and $`l`$ the curvature radius of AdS2, so

$$\eta _{ij}X^iX^j=(X^1)^2(X^0)^2+(X^1)^2=l^2,$$
(5.6)
with $`(\eta _{ij})=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$. The isometry group $`SU(1,1)`$ of AdS2 preserves the algebra (5.5), and thus $`SU(1,1)`$ is also a symmetry of fuzzy AdS2.
In the commutative case $`\theta 0`$, the $`X^i`$ are commuting coordinates and one can parametrize AdS2 by

$$r=X^1+X^1,t=\frac{l}{r}X^0.$$
(5.7)
This leads to the induced metric (5.1).

In the noncommutative case, (5.7) suggests the definition

$$r=X^1+X^1,t=\frac{l}{2}(r^1X^0+X^0r^1),$$
(5.8)
where we have introduced symmetrized products for $`r^1`$ and $`X^0`$ so that $`t`$ is a Hermitian operator . From (5.5) it follows that the commutation relation for $`t`$ and $`r`$ is given by

$$[t,r]=i\theta .$$
(5.9)
Further evidence for (5.9) was given in  by considering closed strings in AdS2. Besides, we note that (5.9) is preserved by diffeomorphisms generated by the three Killing vectors of the metric (5.1).
Finally we observe that, writing the AdS2 metric in a conformally flat form by introducing $`x=l^2/r`$,

$$ds^2=\frac{l^2}{x^2}(dt^2+dx^2),$$
(5.10)
the new coordinates obey the commutation relation

$$[x,t]=i\theta l^2x^2,$$
(5.11)
which is that of a quantum plane structure.

### 5.2 Deformed solutions

Besides the hermitian metric defined in equation (2.22), there is another fundamental bitensor which can be constructed in a natural way and corresponds to a nonantisymmetric volume 2-form:

$$E_{\mu \nu }=ϵ_{ab}e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^b=H_{\mu \nu }+iM_{\mu \nu },$$
(5.12)
where

$$H_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ab}\{e_\mu ^a,e_\nu ^b\}$$
(5.13)
is real and antisymmetric and reduce to the usual volume form in the commutative case, whereas

$$M_{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{ab}[e_\mu ^a,e_\nu ^b]$$
(5.14)
is real and symmetric and vanishes for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

We observe that, while in the commutative case the tensors $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ are invariant under the gauge transformations corresponding to the boost and the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry, in the noncommutative case this invariance property is no longer valid. Using Eq.(B), it is easy to show that under an infinitesimal boost these fields transform as

$$\delta _{\xi \tau _2}G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}[E_{\mu \nu },\xi ],\delta _{\xi \tau _2}E_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}[G_{\mu \nu },\xi ].$$
(5.15)
The fields $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ transform according to

$`\delta _{\xi \tau _2}g_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[M_{\mu \nu },\xi ],`$ $`\delta _{\xi \tau _2}B_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[H_{\mu \nu },\xi ],`$
$`\delta _{\xi \tau _2}H_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[B_{\mu \nu },\xi ],`$ $`\delta _{\xi \tau _2}M_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[g_{\mu \nu },\xi ].`$ (5.16)
For an infinitesimal $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation, we obtain from Eq.(B) the transformation rules

$$\delta _{\chi \tau _3}G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}[G_{\mu \nu },\chi ],\delta _{\chi \tau _3}E_{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}[E_{\mu \nu },\chi ],$$
(5.17)
or equivalently

$`\delta _{\chi \tau _3}g_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[g_{\mu \nu },\chi ],`$ $`\delta _{\chi \tau _3}B_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[B_{\mu \nu },\chi ],`$
$`\delta _{\chi \tau _3}H_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[H_{\mu \nu },\chi ],`$ $`\delta _{\chi \tau _3}M_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[M_{\mu \nu },\chi ].`$ (5.18)
We see that in the noncommutative case all the fields become charged under the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry.

These results can be summarized and generalized to finite gauge transformations assembling $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ together in a doublet,

$$S_{\mu \nu }:=\left(\begin{array}{c}G_{\mu \nu }\\ E_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}g_{\mu \nu }\\ H_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right)+i\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{\mu \nu }\\ M_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right),$$
(5.19)
which transforms under a finite boost or $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation as

$$S_{\mu \nu }^T\left[U^1S_{\mu \nu }\right]^TU.$$
(5.20)
In order to deform the classical AdS2 solution (5.1), we can iterate Eq. (5.2) twice, obtaining, up to second order in $`\theta =\theta ^{01}`$

$`g_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}+\theta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2l^2}}[_r_t\xi _t\xi _t^2\xi _r\xi +r^1_t\xi _t\xi ]+𝒪(\theta ^3),`$
$`g_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^2}}+\theta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{2r^3}}[_r_t\xi _t\xi _t^2\xi _r\xi 3r^1_t\xi _t\xi ]+𝒪(\theta ^3),`$ (5.21)
$`M_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta {\displaystyle \frac{r}{l^2}}_t\xi +𝒪(\theta ^3),`$
$`M_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta {\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^3}}_t\xi +𝒪(\theta ^3),`$
where $`\xi (t,r)`$ is an arbitrary function, which should of course be restricted appropriately if one wants the metric to approach AdS2 asymtotically, i. e. , for $`r\mathrm{}`$. Note that the antisymmetric volume form $`H_{\mu \nu }`$, as well as $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, continue to be zero.

We further observe that corrections to the metric become very large when $`r0`$, so that perturbative calculations in the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ are not reliable near the horizon.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper, we presented a model of noncommutative gravity in two dimensions based on a deformation of an $`SU(1,1)`$ topological gauge theory. The substitution of ordinary products by the Moyal product makes it necessary to enlarge the gauge group to $`U(1,1)`$. This amounts to introducing an additional abelian gauge field as well as an additional scalar. Those fields corresponding to the trace part are coupled to the gravitational fields in the noncommutative case, and decouple for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$. We also showed that the deformed action admits an equivalent formulation in terms of a matrix model, whose coupling constant contains the noncommutativity parameter.

The metric that we defined contains a symmetric part, which reduces to the ordinary metric once the noncommutativity parameter is set to zero, and an antisymmetric part that vanishes for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

Furthermore, some solutions of the noncommutative model, like fuzzy AdS2, were obtained, and symmetries of the deformed action were studied. In particular, it was found that the action is invariant under a class of transformations that reduce to ordinary diffeomorphisms in the commutative case.

We saw that the Seiberg-Witten formula maps the topological gauge theory on noncommutative spaces to the standard commutative one. This behaviour is known from three-dimensional Chern-Simons theory , and might be related to the topological nature of the model. One has to keep in mind, however, that the Seiberg-Witten map is of perturbative nature in $`\theta `$, and that the deformed action can admit solitonic solutions that become singular when the noncommutativity parameter tends to zero. Therefore, we do not expect the deformed model to be entirely equivalent to the undeformed one.

Further development of our work would be to address issues like the quantization of the theory, or the classification of solutions of the matrix model (2.25). We hope to report on this in the near future.

## Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by INFN, MURST and by the European Commission RTN program HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which the S. C. , D. K. , L. M. and D. Z. are associated to the University of Torino.

## Appendix A Conventions

An element $`M`$ of the Lie algebra $`u(1,1)`$ satisfies

$$M_b^a=\eta _{bc}\overline{M}_d^c\eta ^{da},$$
(A.1)
where a bar denotes complex conjugation, and $`(\eta _{ab})=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$. We choose as $`u(1,1)`$ generators

$`\tau _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right),\tau _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (A.6)
$`\tau _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right).`$ (A.11)
They are normalized according to

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\tau _A\tau _B)=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{AB},$$
(A.12)
where $`(\eta _{AB})=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ is the inner product on the Lie algebra. The generators (A.11) satisfy the relation (A.1). Further, if $`i,j,k`$ assume the values $`0,1`$ and $`2`$, then the following relations hold:

$`[\tau _i,\tau _j]`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}\tau ^k`$ (A.13)
$`[\tau _i,\tau _3]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (A.14)
$`\tau _i\tau _j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\tau ^k{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\eta _{ij}\tau _3`$ (A.15)
$`\mathrm{Tr}(\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{ijk}`$ (A.16)
$`\mathrm{Tr}(\tau _i\tau _j\tau _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\eta _{ij}`$ (A.17)
where $`(\eta _{ij})=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$ and $`ϵ_{012}=1`$.
We furthermore defined $`ϵ_{01}=1`$, and antisymmetrize with unit weight, e. g.

$$e_{[\mu }^ae_{\nu ]}^b\frac{1}{2}\left(e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^be_\nu ^ae_\mu ^b\right).$$
(A.18)
## Appendix B Gauge transformations of the gravitational fields

In this appendix we write the explicit form of the different gauge transformation for the gravitational fields defined in Eq.(2.14). If we divide gauge transformations defined in Eq. (2.5) in translations ($`\lambda =\alpha ^a\tau _a`$), boost ($`\lambda =\xi \tau _2`$) and $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry ($`\lambda =\chi \tau _3`$), their action on the fields turns out to be the following:

* Translations

$`\delta _\alpha e^a`$ $`=`$ $`ld\alpha ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}}ϵ^a{}_{b}{}^{}\{\omega ,\alpha ^b\}+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{2}}[b,\alpha ^a],`$
$`\delta _\alpha \varphi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^a{}_{b}{}^{}\{\varphi ,\alpha ^b\}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\rho ,\alpha ^a],`$ (B.1)
$`\delta _\alpha \omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l}}ϵ_{ab}\{e^a,\alpha ^b\},\delta _\alpha \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ab}\{\varphi ^a,\alpha ^b\},`$
$`\delta _\alpha b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\eta _{ab}[e^a,\alpha ^b],\delta _\alpha \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\eta _{ab}[\varphi ^a,\alpha ^b].`$
* Boost

$`\delta _\xi e^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^a{}_{b}{}^{}\{e^b,\xi \},`$ $`\delta _\xi \varphi ^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^a{}_{b}{}^{}\{\varphi ^b,\xi \},`$
$`\delta _\xi \omega =d\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[b,\xi ],`$ $`\delta _\xi \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\rho ,\xi ],`$ (B.2)
$`\delta _\xi b={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\omega ,\xi ],`$ $`\delta _\xi \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\varphi ,\xi ].`$
* U(1) gauge symmetry

$`\delta _\chi e^a={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[e^a,\chi ],`$ $`\delta _\chi \varphi ^a={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\varphi ^a,\chi ],`$
$`\delta _\chi \omega ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\omega ,\chi ],`$ $`\delta _\chi \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\varphi ,\chi ],`$ (B.3)
$`\delta _\chi b=d\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[b,\chi ],`$ $`\delta _\chi \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\rho ,\chi ].`$

## Appendix C Reality of the vector field $`v`$

We still have to prove that the vector field $`v`$ generating the transformations (4.26) can always be chosen to be real. Indeed assuming the zweibein $`e_\mu ^a`$ to be invertible as an ordinary matrix, we look for a solution $`v`$ of $`l\alpha ^a=i_v^{}e^a=v^\mu _Se_\mu ^a`$, with $`_S:=\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{})`$, written as a series in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$,

$`v={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{(n)}{v},`$ (C.1)
where $`\stackrel{(n)}{v}`$ is of order $`n`$ in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$.

Now we write

$`l\alpha ^a`$ $`=`$ $`v^\mu _Se_\mu ^a`$ (C.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^m}{(2m)!}}\stackrel{(n)}{v}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}\right)_{}^{2m}e_\mu ^a`$ (C.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^m}{(2m)!}}[\stackrel{(2n)}{v}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}\right)_{}^{2m}e_\mu ^a+\stackrel{(2n+1)}{v}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}\right)_{}^{2m}e_\mu ^a]`$ (C.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^m}{(2m)!}}[\stackrel{(2k2m)}{v}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}\right)_{}^{2m}e_\mu ^a+\stackrel{(2k2m+1)}{a}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}\right)_{}^{2m}e_\mu ^a].`$ (C.5)
We find that the zero order condition admits a unique solution

$`\stackrel{(0)}{v}{}_{a}{}^{\mu }e_{\mu }^{a}=\alpha ^a,`$ (C.6)
whereas the first order condition

$`\stackrel{(1)}{v}{}_{}{}^{\mu }e_{\mu }^{a}=0`$ (C.7)
implies that $`\stackrel{(1)}{v}{}_{}{}^{\mu }0`$. By induction, knowing $`\stackrel{(n)}{v}^\mu `$ for every $`n2k`$, the $`\stackrel{(2k+2)}{v}^\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{(2k+3)}{v}^\mu `$ are uniquely determined in terms respectively of the $`\stackrel{(2n)}{v}^\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{(2n+1)}{v}^\mu `$ of lower order. So, if $`\stackrel{(1)}{v}{}_{}{}^{\mu }0`$, then $`\stackrel{(2n+1)}{v}{}_{}{}^{\mu }0`$ for every $`n`$ and knowing $`\stackrel{(0)}{v}^\mu `$ one can construct iteratively the complete solution of the condition (C.2).

## Appendix D Transformation properties of the fields

Under the action of the transformations (4.44), the fields (2.14) transform as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}e_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`_v^{}e_\mu ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^a{}_{b}{}^{}([\omega _\nu ,[e_\mu ^b,v^\nu ]][e_\nu ^b,[b_\mu ,v^\nu ]])`$ (D.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\{e_\nu ^a,[b_\mu ,v^\nu ]\}+\{b_\nu ,[e_\mu ^a,v^\nu ]\}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}\omega _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_v^{}\omega _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4l^2}}ϵ_{ab}[e_\nu ^a,[e_\mu ^b,v^\nu ]]`$ (D.5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\{\omega _\nu ,[b_\mu ,v^\nu ]\}+\{b_\nu ,[\omega _\mu ,v^\nu ]\}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}b_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_v^{}b_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{4l^2}}\left(\eta _{ab}\{e_\nu ^a,[e_\mu ^b,v^\nu ]\}+\{\omega _\nu ,[\omega _\mu ,v^\nu ]\}\right)`$ (D.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\{b_\nu ,[b_\mu ,v^\nu ]\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}\varphi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`_v^{}\varphi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^a{}_{b}{}^{}([\omega _\nu ,[\varphi ^b,v^\nu ]]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}[e_\nu ^b,[\varphi ,v^\nu ]])`$ (D.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\{e_\nu ^a,[\rho ,v^\nu ]\}+\{b_\nu ,[\varphi ^a,v^\nu ]\}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`_v^{}\omega _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4l}}ϵ_{ab}[e_\nu ^a,[\varphi ^b,v^\nu ]]`$ (D.14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\{\omega _\nu ,[\rho ,v^\nu ]\}+\{b_\nu ,[\varphi ,v^\nu ]\}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`_v^{}\rho {\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\eta _{ab}\{e_\nu ^a,[\varphi ^b,v^\nu ]\}+\{\omega _\nu ,[\varphi ,v^\nu ]\}\right)`$ (D.17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\{b_\nu ,[\rho ,v^\nu ]\}.`$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The determination of the mechanism of confinement in the asymptotically free $`4`$-dimensional $`SU(N)`$ theory, defined by the action

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\frac{N}{4\lambda }d^4xtr\left(F_{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x)\right),\end{array}$$
(1.1)
is one of the fundamental problems of the contemporary physics. Despite that the latter theory was proposed long ago, we still possess very limited and mostly qualitative understanding of the latter phenomenon, and the Loop equation  remains to be one of the major tools which can be utilized to attack this problem. Recently, these equations has been utilized in  to show that confinement holds true, at least for $`N`$ large enough, in the $`3DD_{cr}`$ option (with $`D_{cr}>4`$) of the regularized $`U(N)`$ or $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory (1.1) considered in the unconventional strong-coupling phase, without asymptotic freedom, when in eq. (1.1) the bare coupling constant $`\lambda `$ is sufficiently large. In this phase, the adequate expansion for the averages of the Wilson loops

$$\begin{array}{c}W_C=\frac{1}{N}Tr\left[𝒫exp\left(i_C𝑑x_\mu (s)A_\mu (x)\right)\right],\end{array}$$
(1.2)
is provided by the $`1/N`$ strong-coupling111Owing to the formal resummation  between the $`1/N`$ $`WC`$ and $`1/N`$ $`SC`$ expansions in a generic pure gauge model, the considered $`SC`$ series can be reinterpreted as the higher-dimensional generalization of the Gross-Taylor representation  for the $`1/N`$ $`SC`$ series in the $`D=2`$ Yang-Mills theory. ($`SC`$), rather than weak-coupling ($`WC`$), series. Consequently, in parallel with the dynamics of the lattice gauge theories in the $`SC`$ phase, confinement arises as the straighforward consequence of the fact that the excitations, pertinent for the considered $`1/N`$ $`SC`$ expansion, are strings rather than point-like particles.

In the present paper, we propose how the results of  can be adapted to the $`D=4`$ $`U(\mathrm{})SU(\mathrm{})`$ gauge system (1.1) in the conventional large $`N`$ regime when $`\lambda `$ vanishes,

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda \frac{24\pi ^2}{11}\frac{1}{log(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})}0,\end{array}$$
(1.3)
according to the asymptotical prediction of the large $`N`$ $`WC`$ expansion, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denotes the $`UV`$ cut off sent to infinity in the units of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Adapting the multiscale decomposition  routed in the Wilsonean approach to the renormgroup, in the limit (1.3) we propose the low-energy asymptote of the solution of the $`U(\mathrm{})`$ Loop equation in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}<W_C>_{\mathrm{}}=<W_C>_1<W_C>_2|_N\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(1.4)
composed of the two factors $`<W_C>_k`$ associated to a given macroscopic contour $`C`$ possessing the radius of curvature $`(s)>>1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The part $`<W_C>_1`$, accumulating the contribution (5.2) from short distances $`<b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^1`$ (where $`b`$ is some constant specified further below), is to be reproduced via the large $`N`$ $`WC`$ series. Compared to the standard perturbative approach, this series are modified in the infrared domain due to certain gauge-invariant infrared cut off at the scale $`b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^1`$. As for the factor $`<W_C>_2`$, being associated to the low-energy excitations, it accumulates the complementary contribution into $`<W_C>_{\mathrm{}}`$ that refers to the infrared domain of distances $`>b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^1`$ where the gauge theory (1.1) is supposed to be strongly coupled. Therefore, the analysis  of the $`SC`$ phase suggests to describe $`<W_C>_2`$ through the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of the low-energy asymptote of the $`1/N`$ $`SC`$ expansion. The latter asymptote, being presumably universal for a generic pure gauge model, is represented by the judicious implementation of the large $`N`$ stringy Ansatz  predetermined by the concise worldsheet’s weight222The weight (1.5) belongs to the more general variety of confining strings  suggested by A.Polyakov as possible candidates for the solution of the Loop equation.

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{w}_2[\stackrel{~}{M}]=exp\left(\frac{\lambda ^2}{4}\underset{\stackrel{~}{M}}{}\underset{\stackrel{~}{M}}{}𝑑\sigma _{\mu \nu }(𝐱)𝑑\sigma _{\mu \nu }(𝐲)^2_2(^2(𝐱𝐲)^2)\right),\end{array}$$
(1.5)
where $`d\sigma _{\mu \nu }(𝐱)`$ is the standard infinitesimal area-element associated to the genus-zero connected surface $`\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{M}(C)`$, and the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ is chosen (building on the lattice computations) to be close to the lowest glueball mass. As for the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4_2(^2𝐳^2)`$, being introduced to smear the $`4`$-dimensional $`\delta _4(𝐳)`$-function at the scales $`^1`$, it is further constrained by the conditions (1.7) and (3.7) discussed below. Complementary, for the contours without zigzag backtrackings, the averaging over the worldsheets $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is performed through the standard Nambu-Goto measure endowed with the $`UV`$ cut off (for the worldsheet’s fluctuations) of order of the inverse width $`\sqrt{<𝐫^2>}^1`$ of the vortex described by the bilocal weight (1.5). As in , the construction is completed by the prescription (sketched in Section 4) to implement the mandatory backtracking invariance of the loop-averages $`<W_C>`$ which is lacking in the conventional Nambu-Goto paradigm.

Actually, for thus defined decomposition (1.4) to be consistent with the Loop equation, the applicability of the stringy system (1.5) is restricted by the conditions similar to the ones  formulated in the context of the $`SC`$ phase of the gauge theory (1.1). Selecting the appropriate variety of the functions $`_2`$, one is to focus on certain class $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ of macroscopic contours $`C`$ (of the radius of curvature $`(s)>>^1`$) so that the considered stringy system approaches, from the viewpoint of the Wilsonean renormgroup, its low-energy asymptote. For the contours $`C`$ devoid of zigzag backtrackings, this asymptote fits in the pattern provided by the low-energy limit of the simpler system: the unconventional implementation (owing to the condition (1.7) below) of the good old Nambu-Goto theory with the properly identified parameters. The latter theory, being presumed to possess the same UV cut off $``$ as the system (1.5) does, is endowed with the weight

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{w}_1[\stackrel{~}{M}]=exp\left(\frac{\overline{\lambda }^2}{2}A[\stackrel{~}{M}]\overline{\lambda }_1L[\stackrel{~}{M}]\right),\end{array}$$
(1.6)
where $`\overline{\lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_1`$ are the auxiliary dimensionless parameters, while $`A[\stackrel{~}{M}]`$ and $`L[\stackrel{~}{M}]`$ denote respectively the total area and the length of the boundary $`\stackrel{~}{M}=C`$ both associated to a given genus-zero worldsheet $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Secondly, the stringy system endowed with the weight (1.6) should confine with the string tension fulfilling the specific $`^2`$-scaling

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _{ph}^2,\end{array}$$
(1.7)
which implies that $`\sqrt{\sigma _{ph}}`$ is of order of, rather than much smaller or much larger than, the $`UV`$ cut off for the worldsheet’s fluctuations. Being unable at present to determine the precise value of $`\sigma _{ph}`$, the scaling (1.7) is as far as we can reach with the help of such implementation (based on eq. (1.5)) of $`<W_C>_2`$ that is inapplicable in the case of the contours of the size $`<<1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$.

In Section 2, we sketch the regularization of the Loop equation which, building on the gauge-invariant prescription of , provides with the appropriate starting point of our analysis. The counterpart of the field-theoretic variant of the multiscale decomposition , suitable in the context of the Loop equation, is introduced in Section 3. In Sections 4 and 5, the asserted pattern of the Ansatz (1.4) is derived utilizing the bootstrap approach to sew the large $`N`$ $`WC`$ and $`SC`$ series. In Conclusions, we suggest how the unconventional implementation (1.7) of the Nambu-Goto theory (1.6) can be reproduced in the paradigm of certain superrenormalizable deformation of the noncritical Liouville string. The Appendix outlines the mechanism that ensures the infrared equivalence between the stringy systems endowed respectively with the weights (1.5) and (1.6).

## 2 The appropriate regularization of the Loop equation

The general pattern  of the gauge-invariant regularization, see eq. (2.4) below, is known to render the Loop equation rather heavy for the brute force attack. The better alternative  is to take advantage of the specific simplification that arises for the macroscopic contours $`C`$ (parameterized by the trajectory $`𝐱(s)`$) which, possessing the radius of curvature $`(s)>>1/`$, belong to the subspace $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ further specified shortly below. In this case, one can introduce the two somewhat distinct regularization prescriptions that, being consistent with each other, are associated prior to the regularization respectively to the contribution of the trivial (i.e., when $`𝐱(s)=𝐲(s^{})`$ with $`s=s^{}`$) and nontrivial (i.e., when $`𝐱(s)=𝐲(s^{})`$ with $`ss^{}`$) point-like self-intersections of $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ into the r.h. side of the Loop equation. After the regularization, we are to differentiate between those ’irregularities’ of the contour’s geometry which, from the macroscopic viewpoint333From this viewpoint, one does not distinguish between the points of $`C`$ separated by a distance $`^1`$., as well can be viewed as point-like self-intersections. On the other hand, the relevant for our further analysis subspace $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ of the loop space is postulated to exclude those geometries of $`C`$ which, from the macroscopic viewpoint, can be viewed as one-dimensional self-intersections. For convenience, in what follows the admissible irregularities of $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ (definition of which is formalized in Appendix A) are called quasi-self-intersections.

Concerning the case when the contour $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ is devoid of nontrivial quasi-self-intersections, one is to utilize the linearization of the nonregularized Loop equation  on the subspace of non-self-intersecting contours. (With our conventions, each point $`𝐱(s)`$ of a contour $`C`$ should be interpreted as the point of trivial self-intersection.) For such contours, it suggests the simple regularization prescription that results in the reduced equation

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}<W_C>_{\mathrm{}}=\lambda _C𝑑x^\nu (s)_C𝑑y_\nu (s^{})<𝐱(s)|\widehat{𝒢}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝐲(s^{})><W_C>_{\mathrm{}},\end{array}$$
(2.1)
where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝒢(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝐳^2)`$, being alternatively represented via the corresponding operator $`\widehat{𝒢}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, denotes a sufficiently smooth function that maintains the smearing

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _4(𝐱𝐲)\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝒢(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝐱𝐲)^2)<𝐱|\widehat{𝒢}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝐲>,d^4z𝒢(𝐳^2)=1,\end{array}$$
(2.2)
of the $`4`$-dimensional delta-function at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the $`UV`$ regularization of the gauge theory (1.1). As for the first order Loop operator

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}=_Cdx^\nu (s)\widehat{}_\nu (𝐱(s)),\widehat{}_\nu (𝐱(s))=_\mu ^{𝐱(s)}\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma _{\mu \nu }(𝐱(s))},\end{array}$$
(2.3)
it is composed, see  for the details, of the Mandelstam area-derivative $`\delta /\delta \sigma _{\mu \nu }(𝐱(s))`$ and the path-derivative $`_\mu ^{𝐱(s)}`$.

Eq. (2.1) can not be applied to properly handle the contribution of the nontrivial (quasi-)self-intersections of $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$. To deal with the latter contribution, we employ the gauge-invariant regularization  that allows to write down the Loop equation in the form

$$\widehat{}<W_C>_{\mathrm{}}=\lambda \underset{C}{}dx^\nu \underset{C}{}dy_\nu <𝐱|\widehat{𝒳}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝐲>\times $$

$$\begin{array}{c}\times \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}𝐗^{\stackrel{~}{D}}}{}𝒟z_\mu (t)<W_{C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}}>_{\mathrm{}}<W_{C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}}>_{\mathrm{}}e^{S(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})}\end{array}$$
(2.4)
where $`<𝐱|\widehat{𝒳}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝐲>=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝒳(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐳)|_{𝐳=𝐱𝐲}`$ is some regularization-dependent function introduced for the later convenience, and in the r.h. side of eq. (2.4) the functional integral runs over the auxiliary (generically non-self-intersecting) paths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ endowed with an effective action $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ to be fixed in due course. Being parameterized by the trajectory $`z_\mu (t)`$ (with $`𝐳(0)=𝐱`$ and $`𝐳(1)=𝐲`$) embedded into some $`\stackrel{~}{D}4`$ dimensional domain $`𝐗^{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ of the $`4`$-dimensional Euclidean space $`𝐑^4`$, the paths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}^1`$ refer to the decomposition of the loop $`CC_{xx}=C_{xy}C_{yx}`$ into the two (open, when $`𝐱(s)𝐲(s^{})`$) paths $`C_{xy}`$ and $`C_{yx}`$ which, in turn, are associated to the auxiliary closed loops $`C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}`$ and $`C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ respectively. Complementary, one is to require that the combination

$$\begin{array}{c}<𝐱|\widehat{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝐲>=<𝐱|\widehat{𝒳}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝐲>\underset{𝐗^{\stackrel{~}{D}}}{}𝒟z_\mu (t)e^{S(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})},d^4z<𝐳|\widehat{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|0>=1,\end{array}$$
(2.5)
provides, akin to eq. (2.2), with the smearing of $`\delta _4(𝐳)`$ at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In particular, in eq. (2.5) the effective action $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ is constrained by the natural condition that, once $`|𝐱(s)𝐲(s^{})|\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$, the characteristic length $`<L[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}]>`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ is of order of the inverse $`UV`$ cut off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. On the other hand, in the formal limit $`<𝐳|\widehat{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|0>\delta _4(𝐳)`$, eq. (2.4) evidently approaches the nonregularized form  of the Loop equation the r.h. side of which is formulated in terms of the product $`<W_{C_{xy}}>_{\mathrm{}}<W_{C_{yx}}>_{\mathrm{}}`$.

## 3 The multiscale decomposition of the Loop equation

To make the Ansatz (1.4) consistent with thus regularized $`D=4`$ Loop equation, we propose to adapt the general technique of the multiscale decomposition . Akin to the previous section, to develop the appropriate formalism, it is convenient to introduce the two distinct implementations of the decomposition associated respectively to eqs. (2.1) and (2.4) corresponding to trivial and nontrivial quasi-self-intersections.

### 3.1 The trivial quasi-self-intersections

For macroscopic contours $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ without nontrivial quasi-self-intersections, the approach  motivates to begin with the following decomposition

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝒢}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\widehat{𝒢}_1+\widehat{𝒢}_2,<𝐳|\widehat{𝒢}_k|0>\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝒢_k(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝐳^2),\end{array}$$
(3.1)
of the operator $`\widehat{𝒢}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ entering eq. (2.1). Then, combining eqs. (1.4) and (3.1) and employing the fact that the first order Loop operator (2.3) complies with the Leibnitz rule $`\widehat{}\left(<W_C>_1<W_C>_2\right)=\left(\widehat{}<W_C>_1\right)<W_C>_2+<W_C>_1\left(\widehat{}<W_C>_2\right)`$, we can transform eq. (2.1) into the pair of the decoupled equations,

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}<W_C>_k=\lambda \underset{C}{}𝑑x^\nu (s)\underset{C}{}𝑑y_\nu (s^{})<𝐱(s)|\widehat{𝒢}_k|𝐲(s^{})><W_C>_k,\end{array}$$
(3.2)
to be labeled by index $`k=1,2`$, and we omit the subscript $`\mathrm{}`$ of the loop-averages from now on.

As for the hierarchy of scales required for the consistency of the decomposition, it is to be maintained imposing the condition that the $`4`$-dimensional Fourier image $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_k(𝐩)`$ of $`𝒢_k(𝐳)=<𝐳|\widehat{𝒦}_k|0>`$ vanishes sufficiently fast (compared to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐩)`$) for those $`𝐩^2`$ which are either $`<<^2`$ for $`k=1`$ or $`>>^2`$ for $`k=2`$. The simplest way to formalize the considered hierarchy is to constrain the decomposition (3.1) by the two conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}d^4z𝒢_2(𝐳^2)=(/\mathrm{\Lambda })^4,<𝐫^2>_{𝒢_2}^2,\end{array}$$
(3.3)
where $`\sqrt{<𝐫^2>}`$ is the characteristic width of the vortex that is described by the stringy representation of $`<W_C>_2`$ associated to the weight (1.5). In turn, advancing ahead, let us note that the dependence of the latter weight on the function $`𝒢_2(𝐳^2)`$ is fixed by the relation

$$\begin{array}{c}^4_2(^2𝐳^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝒢_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝐳^2)\end{array}$$
(3.4)
which introduces the properly rescaled counterpart $`_2(..)`$ of $`𝒢_2(..)`$. As a result, the width in eq. (3.3) is to be naturally estimated as

$$\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{<𝐫^2>}^1supr\left(\sqrt[n]{<K_n/K_0>}\right),K_n[_2]=_𝒫d^2z(𝐳^2)^{\frac{n}{2}}_2(𝐳^2),\end{array}$$
(3.5)
where $`supr(..)`$ denotes the supremum with respect to $`n1`$, and the integration (defining the $`n`$th moment $`K_n[_2]`$ of $`_2`$) runs over the $`2d`$ plane $`𝒫`$.

### 3.2 The nontrivial quasi-self-intersections

Next, let us introduce the system of the coupled equations which represent the appropriately regularized Loop equation (2.4) in the bootstrap form suitable for the analysis of the Ansatz (1.4). For this purpose, in the spirit of eq. (3.1), one is to begin with the decomposition of the matrix element (2.5) associated to eq. (2.4),

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{k=1}^2\widehat{}_k,<𝐱|\widehat{}_k|𝐲>=<𝐱|\widehat{𝒳}_k|𝐲>\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}𝐗_k^{D_k}}{}𝒟z_\mu (t)e^{S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})},\end{array}$$
(3.6)
where $`<𝐱|\widehat{𝒳}_k|𝐲>=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝒳_k(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐳)|_{𝐳=𝐱𝐲}`$ are some functions to be specified later on. Remark that the path-integral representation, associated to a given $`_k(𝐳)=<𝐳|\widehat{}_k|0>`$, is determined by certain effective action $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ together with the $`D_k4`$ dimensional domain $`𝐗_k^{D_k}`$ (which the paths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ are allowed to fill in). It is also restricted that $`_k𝐗_k^{D_k}=𝐗^{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ and $`_{k=1}^2\widehat{𝒳}_ke^{S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma })}=\widehat{𝒳}e^{S(\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k𝐗_k^{D_k}`$. Furthermore, for the functions $`_k(𝐳)`$ to implement the proper hierarchy of scales, one is to impose additionally that $`_2(𝐳)`$ satisfies the $`𝒢_2_2`$ option of the conditions (3.3),

$$\begin{array}{c}d^4z_2(𝐳)=(/\mathrm{\Lambda })^4,<𝐫^2>__2^2.\end{array}$$
(3.7)
The simplest way to complete thus defined decomposition (3.6) is to additionally require that $`𝐗_1^{D_1}=𝐗_2^{D_2}`$ so that, utilizing the Ansatz (1.4) and making use of the Leibnitz rule, one transforms the Loop equation (2.4) into the pair of the regularized loop equations444For the sake of generality, in eq. (3.8) we have retained the place for $`𝐗_1^{D_1}𝐗_2^{D_2}`$. This extended version, remaining consistent with eq. (3.7), can be deduced from eq. (2.4) via a minor generalization of the above arguments which implies, in particular, that $`(1)^k_{p=1}^2\epsilon _{kp}\widehat{𝒳}_pe^{S_p(\mathrm{\Gamma })}=\widehat{𝒳}e^{S(\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(𝐗^{\stackrel{~}{D}}/𝐗_k^{D_k}\right)`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\lambda }\widehat{}<W_C>_k=_Cdx^\nu _Cdy_\nu <𝐱|\widehat{𝒳}_k|𝐲>\times \end{array}$$
(3.8)
$$\times _{𝐗_k^{D_k}}𝒟z_\mu (t)\tau _k^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})<W_{C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}}>_k<W_{C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}}>_ke^{S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})},$$

where we have introduced the functionals (with $`\epsilon _{kl}=ϵ_{lk}`$, $`ϵ_{12}=1`$)

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _k^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})=(1)^klim_N\mathrm{}_{p=1}^2\epsilon _{kp}\frac{<W_{C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}}>_p<W_{C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}}>_p}{<W_{C_{xx}}>_p}\end{array}$$
(3.9)
which, contrary to the former case (3.2), encode the nontrivial bootstrap between the low- and high-momentum modes. (As well as in eq. (3.2), no summation over $`k`$ is implied in the r.h. side of eq. (3.8).)

In conclusion, let us note that the coupling between the $`k=1`$ and $`k=2`$ eqs. (3.8) can be handled in a relatively simple way owing to the following simplification valid in the considered low-energy regime. Indeed, observe first that the functionals $`\tau _k^{}(..)`$ can be formally absorbed by the redefinition $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}|C_{xx})=S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})ln\left(\tau _k^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})\right)`$ of the effective action which brings the pattern of eq. (3.8) to the form of eq. (2.4). As a result, provided the dependence of the functionals $`\tau _k^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ on $`C_{xx}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ is reduced to the dependence on the contours’ geometry in the $`1/`$-vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ (that is justifiable in the end), the short- and large-distance equations can be solved separately for rather general choice of the latter functionals. Therefore, at the first step, one can treat these functionals as external sources, while the proper matching between the two solutions $`<W_C>_1`$ and $`<W_C>_2`$ can be maintained through the pair of the concise conditions deduced from the requirement that eqs. (3.2) and (3.8) are consistent for a given $`k`$.

## 4 The large-distance part

Concerning the low-energy solution $`<W_C>_2`$ of the large-distance $`k=2`$ equations, the derivation essentially repeats, with a minor modification, the steps formulated in  for the analysis of the $`SC`$ phase where the multiscale decomposition is redundant. In compliance with the approach of , one is motivated to fix the low-energy asymptote $`<W_C>_2`$ in the form of the particular large $`N`$ solution  of the $`k=2`$ eq. (3.2). Implementing the infrared limit of the large $`N`$ $`SC`$ expansion , the admissible solution is given by the (regularized at the scale $``$) functional sum

$$\begin{array}{c}<W_C>_2=_{\stackrel{~}{M}}w[\stackrel{~}{M}(C)]=\frac{𝒟x_\mu (\gamma )}{𝒟f(\gamma )}w[\stackrel{~}{M}(C)]\end{array}$$
(4.1)
over the genus zero worldsheets $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C)`$ (resulting, for the contours $`C`$ without zigzag backtrackings, from the standard immersions into the Euclidean space $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ which are conventionally parameterized by the equivalence classes of the functions $`x_\mu (\gamma )`$) assigned with the weight $`w[\stackrel{~}{M}(C)]`$ determined by eq. (1.5) together with the identification (3.4) constrained by the conditions (3.3). Furthermore, the construction (4.1)/(1.5) is to be complemented by the following prescription  to ensure that $`_\mu ^{𝐱(s)}<W_C>_2=0`$, i.e., to implement the invariance of $`<W_C>_2`$ under zigzag backtrackings of the loop $`C`$ (which, as a consequence , allows to make the translationally invariant Ansatz (1.4) consistent with the Bianchi identities). For this purpose, starting with any worldsheet $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C)`$ associated to a nonbacktracking reference-contour $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{nbt}^{}`$, the particular data of the contour’s backtrackings is introduced according to the concise rule. Being kept intact in the interior, the worldsheet $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C)`$ should be deformed on the boundary $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C)=C`$ so that $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{nbt}`$ is mapped onto its backtracking descendant corresponding to the data in question.

Given thus determined solution (4.1)/(1.5) deduced from the $`k=2`$ eq. (3.2), in subsection 4.1 we then propose the judicious implementation of the $`k=2`$ eq. (3.8) that, for a generic quasi-self-intersection of the macroscopic contour $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$, makes it consistent with the latter solution. As for the conditions sufficient for the existence of such implementation, akin to the $`SC`$ phase , one is to require that the considered solution $`<W_C>_2`$, complying with the constraints (3.7) together with the correct scaling (1.7) of $`\sigma _{ph}`$, is infrared equivalent (for macroscopic nonbacktracking contours $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ of the size $`>>^1`$) to the associated large $`N`$ Nambu-Goto theory (4.1)/(1.6).

Next, to meet the above conditions, in the limit $`\lambda 0`$ the apparent preliminary step is to choose the moments (3.5) of $`_2(𝐳^2)`$ according to the pattern

$$\begin{array}{c}K_0[_2]=\frac{\eta _0}{\lambda },K_2[_2]=\left(\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^4\frac{\pi }{2V_4},K_n[_2]=O\left(\frac{\eta _n}{\lambda }\right),n0,2,\end{array}$$
(4.2)
where $`K_n[_2]`$ denotes the $`n`$th moment (3.5) of $`_2`$, $`V_4`$ stands for the volume of the $`4`$-dimensional ball possessing the unit radius, and we have introduced certain set of numerical parameters $`\eta _q`$. To specify the admissible domain of these parameters further, observe first that this domain is constrained, via the estimate (3.5) of vortex width $`\sqrt{<𝐫^2>}`$, by the second of the conditions (3.3). Complementary, to maintain the $`^2`$-scaling of (1.7) of $`\sigma _{ph}`$, one is to restrict (see Appendix A) that $`\eta _0/\lambda `$ is sufficiently larger compared both to unity and to $`\eta _n/\lambda `$ for $`n1`$. In particular, according to the general semiclassical estimate  of the characteristic amplitude $`\sqrt{<𝐡^\mathrm{𝟐}>}`$ of the worldsheet’s fluctuations, in thus implemented stringy system (4.1)/(1.5) the amplitude $`\sqrt{<𝐡^\mathrm{𝟐}>}`$ is much larger than the flux-tube’s width,

$$\begin{array}{c}(s)\mathrm{}\frac{<𝐡^\mathrm{𝟐}>}{<𝐫^\mathrm{𝟐}>}ln[A_{min}(C)^2]\mathrm{},\end{array}$$
(4.3)
where $`A_{min}(C)`$ denotes the minimal area of the saddle-point worldsheet $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{min}(C)`$. Furthermore, (building on the discussion of the Appendix A) it is presumed that, for macroscopic contours $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ without zigzag backtrackings, the required infrared equivalence of the considered solution $`<W_C>_2`$ to the properly associated Nambu-Goto theory (4.1)/(1.6) is valid when the scaling (1.7) is maintained.

### 4.1 The matching with the $`k=2`$ eq. (3.8)

Now, we are ready to specify the quantities $`𝐗_2^{D_2}`$ and $`S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ in such a way that ensures the consistency of thus defined average $`<W_C>_2`$ with the $`k=2`$ loop equation (3.8) for a generic $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$. For this purpose, the intermediate step is to recast the large $`N`$ stringy pattern (4.1)/(1.5) into the form written in terms of the combination of the averages entering the r.h. side of the $`k=2`$ eq. (3.8). It can be done with the help of the following identity.

#### 4.1.1 The auxiliary identity to be utilized

Let the conditions, formulated after eq. (4.3), maintain that the stringy system (4.1)/(1.5) (with $`_2`$ chosen as above) is infrared equivalent to the associated Nambu-Goto theory (4.1)/(1.6). Also, for simplicity, we restrict our attention to the contours $`C_{xx}=C_{xy}C_{yx}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ with a single simple nontrivial quasi-self-intersection when only two line-segments of $`C_{xx}`$ quasi-intersect (i.e. intersect from the low-energy viewpoint) at $`𝐱(s)=𝐲(s^{}),s^{}s`$, while the extension to the generic case is straightforward. The required identity asserts that, in this case, there is such effective action $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}|\{𝒢_p\})`$ that

$$\begin{array}{c}<W_{C_{xx}}>_2=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}\stackrel{~}{𝐗}^3}{}𝒟z_\mu (t)\tau _2^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})<W_{C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}}>_2<W_{C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}}>_2e^{S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}|\{𝒢_p\})}\end{array}$$
(4.4)
where the large $`N`$ averages $`<..>_2`$ are evaluated through the considered implementation of the Ansatz (4.1)/(1.5), and $`\tau _k^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ is defined by eq. (3.9). As for the functional integral in eq. (4.4), akin to the $`k=2`$ eq. (3.8), it runs over the paths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}^1\stackrel{~}{𝐗}^3`$ which are generically non-self-intersecting in the interior. A given path can be traced back to the connected component of the cross-section $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C)\stackrel{~}{𝐗}^3`$ of a particular genus-zero worldsheet $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C)`$ (entering eq. (4.1)) with respect to some $`3`$-dimensional subspace $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}^3`$ that contains the selected points $`𝐱(s)`$ and $`𝐲(s^{})`$. Consequently, the effective action $`S_2(..)`$ is to be deduced from the stringy sum (4.1)/(1.5) via the partial integration over all the worldsheets $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C)=\stackrel{~}{M}(C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx})\stackrel{~}{M}(C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ which are composed of the two auxiliary surfaces $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}(C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ spaned by the loops $`C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}`$ and $`C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ corresponding to a fixed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$.

Owing to the imposed constraints, the construction (4.4) meets the following two conditions, which are necessary to fulfill for the consistent utilization of eq. (4.4) as the building block to properly reconstruct the $`k=2`$ loop equation (3.8). On one hand, the implicit functional dependence of $`S_2(..)`$ on $`C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}`$ and $`C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$, being reduced to the dependence on the contours’ geometry in the $`1/`$ vicinity of the path $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$, is insensitive to the global geometry of a given macroscopic contour $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$. On the other hand, after the subtraction of a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$-independent constant (associated to the contribution accumulated in the $`1/`$ vicinity of the points $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$), the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$-dependent part of $`S_2(..)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent that is crucial for the validity of the second of the constraints (3.7) imposed on $`<W_C>_2`$. To justify the former condition, let us first introduce the modification $`\overline{S}_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}|𝒢_2)=S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}|\{𝒢_p\})ln\left(\tau _2^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})\right)`$ of the effective action $`S_2(..)`$. The advantage of dealing with $`\overline{S}_2(..)`$ is that the latter action can be interpreted as the relevant measure for the degree of the deviation between the weight (1.5) and the ’closest’ $`m_0=0`$ option of the large $`N`$ Nambu-Goto pattern (1.6). (Indeed, the action $`S_2`$ vanishes when the averages in eq. (4.4) are evaluated through the stringy system (4.1) endowed with the latter option of the Nambu-Goto weight.) In consequence, due to the infrared equivalence to the Nambu-Goto theory discussed after eq. (4.3), the implicit functional dependence of $`\overline{S}_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}|𝒢_2)`$ on $`C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}`$ and $`C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ does exhibit the reduction required for the original action $`S_2(..)`$. Finally, to justify that this reduction is indeed extended to $`S_2(..)`$ itself, one is to observe that the functional dependence of $`\tau _2^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ is reduced in the same way as well. (The latter property of $`\tau _2^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ is predetermined by the fact, supported by the analysis of the next section, that thus implemented decomposition in effect introduces a finite correlation length $`^1`$ for the gluonic excitations associated to the short-distance solution $`<W_C>_1`$.) Furthermore, after the subtraction of certain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$-independent part, the infrared asymptote of $`ln(\tau _2^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}))`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent owing to the $``$-scaling (5.2) of $`m_1`$. In turn, it allows to fulfill the requirement that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$-dependent part of $`S_2(..)`$ does not depend on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{}`$.

#### 4.1.2 The final prescription for nontrivial self-intersections

To complete the construction of such $`k=2`$ loop equation (3.8) that is consistent (for $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$) with the considered solution (4.1)/(1.5) of the reduced $`k=2`$ eq. (3.2), the final step is to synthesize the latter reduced equation with the identity (4.4). For simplicity, as previously, we restrict the analysis to the case when $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ has a single simple quasi-self-intersection. Then, in the domain of the latter intersection, for any particular pair of the microscopically separated points $`𝐱(s),𝐲(s^{})`$ entering the r.h. side of the $`k=2`$ eq. (3.2), one is to transform $`<W_C>_{\mathrm{}}`$ in compliance with the identity (4.4). Furthermore, one can formally extend555To this aim, building on eq. (4.4), one is to introduce an analytical continuation of the effective action $`S_2(..)`$ for an arbitrary pair $`𝐱(s)`$ and $`𝐲(s^{})`$ including the case when $`ss^{}`$. the latter transformation to any pair of the points $`𝐱(s),𝐲(s^{})`$ under the integral in the latter $`k=2`$ equation. In sum, under the constraints (3.7) combined with the conditions formulated after eq. (4.2), the Ansatz (4.1)/(1.5) satisfies the option of the $`k=2`$ Loop equation (3.8) resulting after the identification $`<𝐳|\widehat{𝒳}_2|0>=<𝐳|\widehat{𝒢}_2|0>`$, $`𝐗_2^{D_2}=\stackrel{~}{𝐗}^3`$, and $`S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})=S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}|\{𝒢_p\})`$ (where $`\widehat{𝒢}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}^3`$, and $`S_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}|\{𝒢_p\})`$ are introduced in eqs. (3.1) and (4.4) correspondingly).

At this step, it is also appropriate to clarify the reason why the consistency of the multiscale decomposition requires that the physical string tension $`\sigma _{ph}`$ can be neither much larger nor much smaller than the squared $`UV`$ cut off $``$ for the stringy fluctuations. Indeed, as a result of the second of the constraints (3.7) (with the function $`_2(..)`$ defined above), the subspace $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}^3`$ in the $`k=2`$ eq. (3.8) can be chosen in the following way. Namely, once $`|𝐱(s)𝐲(s^{})|^1`$, the condition $`<L[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}]>__2^1`$ is valid, where $`L[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}]`$ denotes the length of the path $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$ (entering eq. (4.4)), and the averaging $`<..>__2`$ is performed through the considered implementation of the Ansatz (4.1)/(1.5). On the other hand, eq. (4.4) implies that $`<L[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}]>_{𝒢_2}1/\sqrt{\sigma _{ph}}`$ once $`|𝐱(s)𝐲(s^{})|^1`$. To reconcile the two estimates, one should impose the $`^2`$-scaling (1.7).

## 5 The short-distance part

To reconstruct the remaining short-distance factor $`<W_C>_1`$, the idea is to determine it as the solution, represented through the large $`N`$ $`WC`$ series (with the effective $`IR`$ cut off), to the $`k=1`$ eq. (3.8) extended666Strictly speaking, this extension requires to continue the factor $`\tau _1^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ to the domain where either $`C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}`$ or $`C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}`$ is microscopic so that the Ansatz can not be directly applied. Nevertheless, in this case, the latter factor evidently approaches unity while the detailed pattern of the residual deviation $`(\tau _1^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})1)`$, responsible for the power-like corrections at short distances, is immaterial for our present analysis. to describe both nontrivial and trivial (quasi-)self-intersections of $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$. For this purpose, one is to utilize first that, in terms of the redefined effective action $`\overline{S}_1(..)=S_1(..)ln\left(\tau _1^{}(..)\right)`$, the pattern of the $`k=1`$ eq. (3.8) matches the pattern (2.4) of the ordinary Loop equation. Therefore, by the same token as in , it is convenient to rewrite thus implemented $`k=1`$ equation in the so-called integral form

$$\begin{array}{c}<W_{C_{xx}}>_1=1+\lambda \widehat{}^1\times \left(<W_{C_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yx}}>_1|<W_{C_{yx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}}>_1\right)_{\overline{S}_1},\end{array}$$
(5.1)
where the combination $`(..|..)_{\overline{S}_1}`$ symbolically denotes the r.h. side of the $`k=1`$ eq. (3.8), and $`\tau _1^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$ can be shown to depend on the contours’ geometry only in the $`1/`$-vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}`$. As a result, at least in principle, one is able to iteratively determine $`<W_C>_1`$, order by order in $`\lambda `$, as the presumably convergent large $`N`$ weak-coupling expansion which, in addition to the $`UV`$ cut off, is endowed with the effective infrared cut off at the scale $``$. In other words, the constraints (3.7) (together with effect of the $`\tau _1^{}(C_{xx}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy})`$-function) are supposed to ensure that both the gluonic propagator and the vertices, associated to the latter $`WC`$ expansion, are nonsingular at zero momentum. Therefore, one concludes that the loop integrals, characteristic of the large $`N`$ $`WC`$ series in question, can be made free from the spurious infrared divergences. Altogether, for macroscopic loops $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$, we expect that the appropriate decomposition supports the perimeter-law pattern of the low-energy asymptote of

$$\begin{array}{c}<W_C>_1|_N\mathrm{}exp(m_1L[C]),m_1=O(),\end{array}$$
(5.2)
where, according to the previous section, it is convenient to maintain the $`O()`$-scaling of $`m_1`$. For this purpose, one is to employ the judicious implementation (in the spirit of the analytic regularization ) of the regularized $`k=1`$ eq. (3.8) in order to suppress those of the $`UV`$ divergences of $`<W_C>_1`$ which otherwise would result in the unwanted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-scaling of $`m_1`$.

### 5.1 The matching with the $`k=1`$ eq. (3.2)

Finally, the $`k=1`$ eq. (3.2) is to be treated as providing with the simple constraint imposed on the previously determined average $`<W_C>_1`$. To appropriately formulate this constraint, in the limit $`\lambda 0`$ let us first rewrite the latter equation in the form of the asymptotic relation

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}ln\left(<W_C>_1\right)=\frac{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{\pi }K_1[𝒢_\mathrm{\Lambda }]L[C]\end{array}$$
(5.3)
where $`L[C]`$ denotes the length of the perimeter of $`C`$, while $`K_1[𝒢_\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ is the moment (3.5) of $`𝒢_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ continued to $`n=1`$, and we have used that, in the $`WC`$ limit (1.3), one can neglect the difference between the smearing functions $`𝒢_1`$ and $`𝒢_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ entering eq. (3.1). Next, by-construction, the condition (5.3) is to be imposed on the considered above solution $`<W_C>_1`$ only when the macroscopic contour $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ does not possess nontrivial quasi-self-intersections. In turn, for such loops, the possibility to reconcile thus defined average $`<W_C>_1`$ with eq. (5.3) is predetermined by the presence of the effective infrared cut off built, at the scale $``$, into the $`k=1`$ eq. (3.8). Indeed, the latter cut off ensures that, for $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$, in the limit (1.3) the iterative solution $`<W_C>_1`$ does fulfill the asymptotic condition similar to eq. (5.3). Therefore, eq. (5.3) can be viewed as the identification of the coefficient $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^3K_1[𝒢_\mathrm{\Lambda }]/\pi `$ which, being multiplied by $`L[C]`$, is equal to the result of the action of $`\widehat{}`$ on $`ln\left(<W_C>_1\right)`$. (Furthermore, eq. (5.2) implies that $`\widehat{}ln\left(<W_C>_1\right)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent in the weak-coupling limit (1.3).)

## 6 Conclusions

We have proposed the low-energy Ansatz (1.4) which, being consistent with the Loop equation, yields the infrared asymptote of the loop average $`<W_C>_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the $`D=4`$ $`U(\mathrm{})SU(\mathrm{})`$ gauge theory777The same strategy can be utilized to construct the low-energy confining asymptote of the solution associated to the $`D=3`$ $`U(\mathrm{})`$ gauge theory (1.1) in the weak-coupling regime of $`(g^2N/\mathrm{\Lambda })0`$. (1.1). In this particular way, one reconciles the asymptotic freedom (1.3) with confinement maintained owing to the stability of the macroscopic flux-tubes. The latter vortices, possessing the (transverse) width of order of the hadronic scale $`^1`$, are attached to the Wilson loop source coherently with the point-like gluonic excitations localized at short distances. For macroscopic loops $`C\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ without zigzag backtrackings, the flux-tubes are described by the stringy system that, in the regime (4.3) of large fluctuations, is infrared equivalent to the unconventional implementation (1.7) of the Nambu-Goto theory (4.1)/(1.6). The simple prescription, to maintain the mandatory backtracking invariance of $`<W_C>`$, is outlined as well.

To obtain the precise analytic relation between $`\sigma _{ph}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, one will need to specify (through the minimization of the properly subtracted free energy) the details of how the considered large $`N`$ $`WC`$ series is sewed with the large $`N`$ $`SC`$ expansion at the scale which is supposed to be of order of $`^1`$. For this purpose, it is necessary to handle the harder case of intermediate and small, in the units of $`^1`$, contours that requires to resolve the full-fledged bootstrap between the eqs. (3.8). Nevertheless, even without this extension, the present analysis predicts the qualitatively admissible $`^2`$-scaling (1.7) of $`\sigma _{ph}`$ which entails the important implications.

In consequence of eq. (1.7), to facilitate the quantum analysis in the regime (4.3), the infrared asymptote of the stringy sum (4.1)/(1.6) is to be reformulated (in the spirit of the Pauli-Villars regularization) as the somewhat unconventional stringy theory. Possessing the $`UV`$ cut off $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ with $`\sqrt{\sigma _{ph}}/\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$, this theory should not exhibit propagating degrees of freedom at the short-distance scales $`<<1/\sqrt{\sigma _{ph}}`$, while approaching the proposed Nambu-Goto pattern (4.1)/(1.6) in the infrared domain at the scales sufficiently larger than $`1/\sqrt{\sigma _{ph}}`$. To formalize this feature, one has to reformulate the infrared asymptote of the nonrenormalizable (from the power-counting viewpoint) stringy system (4.1)/(1.6) in terms of certain renormalizable noncritical string which, in the spirit of the conventional Polyakov’s approach, should include the Liouville field possibly together with some other auxiliary fields on the worldsheet. In particular, the constraint (1.7) translates into the condition that the required renormalizable noncritical theory must be devoid of any $`UV`$ divergences. A plausible candidate for the ’$`UV`$ finite’ model, complying with the above requirements, may be the specific dilatonic extension  (considered on the flat background $`\widehat{R}=0`$) of the Liouville noncritial string with the properly identified parameters. The promising sign is that the tentative stringy system , possessing the critical dimension $`D_{cr}=24`$, does not exhibit imaginary critical coefficients in $`D=4`$. In turn, it presumably foreshadows that the string, dual to the gauge theory, does avoid the notorious branched polymer instability.

Acknowledgements.

This project is partially supported by grants CRDF RP1-2108 and INTASS-390.

## Appendix A The $`IR`$ equivalence to the Nambu-Goto theory

Let us deduce the conditions when the stringy system (4.1)/(1.5) approaches its low-energy asymptote in the form of the unconventional implementation (1.7) of the Nambu-Goto theory (4.1)/(1.6). For a preliminary orientation, observe first that, under certain conditions, the quasi-local weight (1.5) can be interpreted as a sort of smearing (or regularization) of the Nambu-Goto pattern (1.6) local on the worldsheet $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. To support this interpretation, consider first such deformation of the pattern (1.5) that implements the formal limit when the flux-tube’s width (3.5) vanishes. The required deformation is obtained (neglecting the conditions (3.3)) when the smearing function is analytically continued, $`^2_2(^2(𝐱𝐲)^2)K_0[_2]\delta _2^w(𝐱𝐲)`$ (where $`K_0[_2]`$ stands for the zeroth moment (3.5) of $`_2`$), to become proportional to the 2-dimensional delta-function $`\delta _2^w(𝐱(\gamma )𝐲(\gamma ^{}))`$ on the worldsheet $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, with $`𝐱,𝐲\stackrel{~}{M}`$. In this limit, the stringy sum (4.1) is known to be invariant (see ) under the substitution of thus deformed weight (1.5) by the $`m_0=0`$ option of the Nambu-Goto weight (1.6) with the bare string tension $`\sigma _0=\lambda K_0[_2]^2/2`$.

As a result, the asserted infrared equivalence can be heuristically supported by the following argument. Reinterpreting the regime (4.3) as the low-energy limit of the stringy system (4.1)/(1.5) applied to macroscopic loops, one may expect that thus introduced regularization of the Nambu-Goto system becomes infrared unobservable. To make these arguments precise, one is to adapt the general approach of the Wilsonean renormgroup that is the subject of a forthcoming paper. Here, we restrict the analysis to the discussion of the following large $`\eta _0`$ asymptote (where $`\eta _n`$ is introduced in eq. (4.2)) of $`<W_C>_2`$ which strengthens the above heuristic argumentation. Complementary, it supports that both the scaling (1.7) and the infrared equivalence are supposed to be maintained once $`\eta _0/\lambda `$ is sufficiently larger compared both to unity and to $`\eta _n/\lambda `$ for $`n1`$.

To deduce the auxiliary asymptote in question, note first that, in view of the estimate (3.5), the smearing function $`_2`$ approaches its zero-width deformation (sketched above) in the specific formal limit. The limit is defined by the requirement that, keeping $`\lambda `$ small but finite, $`\eta _0`$ is sent to infinity, while the remaining parameters $`\eta _n`$ are chosen in such a way that the corresponding vortex width (3.5) scales as $`^1/\eta _0`$ which, in particular, ensures the condition (1.7). In this limit, for any given macroscopic contour $`C`$, the characteristic amplitude of the flux-tube’s fluctuations $`^1\times \left(ln[A_{min}(C)^2]/\eta _0\right)^{1/2}`$ is much larger than the vortex width $`^1/\eta _0`$. Consequently, the leading $`\eta _0\mathrm{}`$ semiclassical asymptote of thus deformed quasi-local Ansatz results in

$$\begin{array}{c}<W_C>_2exp\left(\frac{\eta _0^2}{2}A[\stackrel{~}{M}_{min}(C)]\right),\end{array}$$
(A.1)
where $`A[\stackrel{~}{M}_{min}(C)]`$ is the minimal area of the saddle-point surface $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{min}(C)`$ spanned by a macroscopic contour $`C`$ belonging to the subspace $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ (of the full loop space $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$) appropriately chosen in the end of this Appendix. In turn, in the considered limit, the infrared equivalence in question is justified by the straightforward semiclassical computation which ensures that the same asymptote (A.1) takes place in the large $`N`$ Nambu-Goto theory (4.1)/(1.6) after the identification $`\overline{\lambda }=\eta _0`$.

To complete the discussion of the considered infrared equivalence, let us make precise the twofold requirement that selects the appropriate subspace $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ utilized throughout the paper. To begin with, evidently one is to impose that the radius $`(s)`$ of the contour’s curvature is $`>>^1`$. Taking into account eq. (4.3), it can be shown to entail the weaker variant of the required equivalence leaving space for possible deviation in the pattern of the boundary term which, e.g., in the presence of the macroscopic one-dimensional self-intersections of $`C`$, exhibits more complicated pattern compared to the second term in the exponent of (1.6). To avoid this deviation (which otherwise would hamper the consistency of the system (4.1)/(1.5) with the Loop equation), we have to introduce the additional restriction on the geometry of $`C`$. Apart from the $`1/`$-vicinity of a finite number of points (of quasi-self-intersection), the distance $`|𝐱(s)𝐲(s^{})|`$ should be much larger than the flux-tube’s width $`\sqrt{<𝐫^\mathrm{𝟐}>}^1`$, provided the length $`L_{xy}`$ of the corresponding segment of the boundary contour $`C=\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is much larger than $`^1`$. In short, the latter definition excludes those geometries of $`C`$ which, from the macroscopic viewpoint, can be interpreted as one-dimensional self-intersections.