text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The large $`N_c`$ limit of $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge theory, introduced long ago by ’t Hooft , remains unsolved even though the limit singles out the planar Feynman diagrams of perturbation theory. Although a dramatic simplification, the sum of all planar diagrams still represents a rich enough dynamics to frustrate many imaginative approaches to their solution . But even if an exact analytic solution is out of reach, this should not mean that the nonperturbative physics of the limit is hopelessly intractable. Indeed, in the face of the even richer dynamics of gauge theory at finite $`N_c`$, much insight has been gleaned by numerically studying lattice gauge theory  on a finite lattice as a useful nonperturbative model of the continuum gauge theory. Moreover, since the lattice could in principle be taken ever larger in size, lattice gauge theory can provide a concrete definition of continuum gauge theory.

Of course, one approach to the large $`N_c`$ limit would be simply to study lattice gauge theory for ever larger $`N_c`$ . This is certainly a well-posed and interesting formulation of the problem. However, it is somewhat removed from the appealing and intuitive idea  that the large planar diagrams known as fishnets could, in a confining theory, provide a model of a QCD string “world-sheet”. This idea is now even more compelling because of the conjectured equivalence of certain supersymmetric large $`N_c`$ gauge theories to supergravity or superstring theories . It would be nice to have an explicit discretized model representation of the sum of planar diagrams, which, if analytic methods fail, can at least be analyzed numerically. Accordingly, Bering, Rozowsky, and Thorn (BRT)  reconsidered and refined earlier attempts  to construct a lattice model of the sum of planar diagrams by working in an infinite momentum frame (i.e. on a light-front) and discretizing $`\tau =ix^+`$, imaginary light-cone time, and $`p^+`$, the kinematic light-cone momentum ($`p^{}`$ is the light-cone Hamiltonian). In this approach there is no need to discretize the transverse coordinate space or transverse momentum space, since the discretization of $`\tau `$ and $`p^+`$, with the exclusion of the zero values of these variables, cuts off all ultraviolet and infra-red divergences. This approach has been further developed in Ref. .

In addition to setting up the basic formulation of the $`x^+,p^+`$ lattice, the authors of  also calculated the one-loop gluon self-energy diagram as a check of the faithfulness of the lattice as a regulator of divergences. Although agreement with an earlier continuum calculation was obtained for this diagram, one still needs to calculate the one loop three gluon triangle diagram to check whether the regulation procedure gives the correct charge renormalization. We expand on the work of  here by doing additional one loop calculations in the pure $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge theory using the BRT discretization. In particular, we want to check that this scheme does not disturb the light-cone gauge asymptotic freedom calculations done with a simple momentum cutoff in Ref. . We obtain expressions for the triangle diagram to one loop order and show that color charge is indeed correctly renormalized as in . Further, we extract all of the divergences arising from the infra-red region of small $`p^+`$. Although in individual diagrams there are double logarithms, we show that in the complete sum only single logs remain.

The Feynman rules used in  are unusual in several respects. First, the basic propagators are given in the mixed $`ix^+,p^+,𝐩`$ representation, with $`ix^+=ka`$ and $`p^+=lm`$, with $`k,l=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. The transverse polarization of the gluon is given in the complex basis $`=(1+i2)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`=(1i2)/\sqrt{2}`$, represented graphically by an arrow attached to the transverse gluon line. Next, since we focus on the planar diagrams of the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limit, there is no need for the double line notation, and all $`N_c`$ dependence can be absorbed in the coupling constant $`gg_s\sqrt{N_c}`$. The resulting vertices for this restricted context accordingly depend on the cyclic ordering of the lines entering the vertex. Finally, all the quartic vertices, including those induced by integrating out $`A_+`$ in $`A_{}=0`$ gauge, are represented as the concatenation of two cubic vertices, with fictitious particles mediating the quartic interaction. The one mediating the induced quartic interaction (the instantaneous“Coulomb” exchange) can be thought of as a remnant of the $`A_+`$ field, whereas that mediating the $`\mathrm{Tr}[A_k,A_l]^2`$ vertex can be thought of as a remnant of $`F_{kl}`$ in the first order form of the action. These fictitious particles would not propagate in the continuous time $`a0`$ limit, but with $`a`$ finite are allowed to propagate a limited number of time steps. This is implemented by including a $`k`$-dependent factor $`f_k`$ or $`h_k`$ in the propagator for each fictitious particle. These must satisfy $`_kf_k=_kh_k=1`$ and must fall off rapidly with $`k`$, in order that the correct tree amplitudes be correctly produced. The Lorentz invariance of perturbation theory puts further constraints on their $`k`$-dependence. Indeed, the flexibility offered by tuning these coefficients may even obviate the need for further explicit counter-terms to guarantee Lorentz invariance. One constraint has already been put on this behavior in  by requiring the gauge boson to remain massless to one loop. We shall find that with no further constraints, color charge is correctly renormalized.

The final set of Feynman rules for the transverse gauge bosons and the fictitious scalars in the context of planar diagrams is summarized in Fig. 1

In this article we shall use this formalism exclusively. In Section 2 we illustrate how the cubic vertices with fictitious particles reproduce tree diagrams by calculating a four gauge boson amplitude, and by showing how the $`p^+=0`$ divergences are resolved in tree approximation. Next we turn to the triangle diagram to one loop order. In Section 3 and 4 we calculate the triangle diagram for three off-shell external transverse gluons. We extract all of the divergent parts, showing how the double logs arising from the entanglement of ultraviolet and infra-red divergences in light-cone gauge cancel in physical quantities§§§In the setup used here, the Mandelstam-Leibbrandt (ML) trick to avoid this entanglement is not employed. Indeed, one point we wish to stress is that, although the ML prescription is convenient for certain purposes, it is by no means necessary in a consistent formulation of perturbation theory. Concluding remarks are given in Section 5.

## 2 Four Gluon Tree Diagrams

Because of the unusual nature of the Feynman rules in our discretized light-cone gauge, we introduce the reader to this formalism by discussing the tree approximation to the two gluon scattering diagrams shown in Fig. 2.

We label the external momenta entering a diagram counterclockwise starting from the lower left and denote by $`k`$ the discretized time difference between the vertices. Note that $`p_i^+=mM_i`$. The $`t`$-channel exchange amplitudes for two up gluons to two up gluons associated with these diagrams are then given by

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2}{T_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_3}{2M_2M_4|M_1M_4|^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_3p_2^{}M_2p_3^{})(M_1p_4^{}M_4p_1^{})}{e^{(p_1p_4)^2/2|M_1M_4|T_0}1}}`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2}{T_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2M_4}{2M_1M_3|M_1M_4|^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_3p_2^{}M_2p_3^{})(M_1p_4^{}M_4p_1^{})}{e^{(p_1p_4)^2/2|M_1M_4|T_0}1}}`$
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{T_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_ke^{k(p_1p_4)^2/2|M_1M_4|T_0}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1+M_4)(M_2+M_3)}{(M_1M_4)^2}}`$
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{T_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}h_ke^{k(p_1p_4)^2/2|M_1M_4|T_0}`$ (2.1)
Note that we have supplied a wave function factor $`e^{akp_i^+}`$ ($`e^{akp_i^+}`$) for each outgoing (incoming particle), and we restrict the energies by the conservation law $`p_3^++p_4^+=p_1^++p_2^+`$. Also, the absolute values account for the different treatment of the case $`M_1<M_4`$ from the case $`M_1>M_4`$.

These expressions illustrate the essential features of the BRT discretization. $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ show the $`t`$ channel poles due to one gluon exchange:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{(p_1p_4)^2/2|M_1M_4|T_0}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{2|M_1M_4|T_0}{(p_1p_4)^2}}.`$ (2.2)
Notice that time discretization has cut off the large $`t=(p_1p_4)^2`$ behavior of the amplitude exponentially. Recalling that $`T_0=m/a`$, we see that sending $`a0`$ at fixed $`t`$ and fixed $`m|M_1M_4|`$ just leads to the usual $`1/t`$ factor of the Feynman tree amplitude. Notice also the role of $`p^+`$ discretization in cutting off $`p^+=0`$ singularities. In particular, with both $`a,m0`$ and $`t<0`$ the amplitudes are strictly zero for $`M_1=M_4`$, whereas after the continuum limit they are infinite at this point. With $`T_0`$ fixed, we can also reach the continuum limit by taking all $`M_i\mathrm{}`$ as well as $`|M_1M_4|\mathrm{}`$. Either way, it is important to keep in mind that the correct $`p_1^+p_4^+`$ behavior of the continuum limit is only obtained if the continuum limit is first taken with $`p_1^+p_4^+`$.

The expressions for $`A_3`$ and $`A_4`$ contain the so far undetermined parameters $`f_k,h_k`$. Since they limit the range of the $`k`$ summation, the formal continuum limit just discussed only involves them in the combinations $`_kf_k`$, $`_kh_k`$, both of which are constrained to be unity. Thus, in the continuum limit, the sum of all four diagrams, $`A=A_1+A_2+A_3+A_4`$ is given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{T_0}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4p_1^+p_3^+}{p_2^+p_4^+(p_1^+p_4^+)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_3^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_3^{})(p_1^+p_4^{}p_4^+p_1^{})}{(p_1p_4)^2}}`$ (2.3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4p_2^+p_4^+}{p_1^+p_3^+(p_1^+p_4^+)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_3^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_3^{})(p_1^+p_4^{}p_4^+p_1^{})}{(p_1p_4)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^++p_4^+)(p_2^++p_3^+)}{(p_1^+p_4^+)^2}}+1].`$
It is significant that in the continuum limit no absolute value signs are needed.

The individual terms contributing to the continuum limit $`A`$ show quadratic singularities as $`p_1^+p_4^+`$, typical of the light-cone gauge. But in the sum, these singularities are softened off-shell and disappear on-shell. To show this, we note the following identities:

$`(p_3^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_3^{})(p_1^+p_4^{}p_4^+p_1^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_3^+p_2p_2^+p_3)(p_1^+p_4p_4^+p_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_1^+p_4^+)[(p_1^+p_4^+)(p_2^{}p_1^{}p_2^{}p_1^{})`$
$`(p_1p_4)^{}(p_1^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_1^{})+(p_1p_4)^{}(p_1^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_1^{})]`$ (2.4)
$`(p_3^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_3^{})(p_1^+p_4^{}p_4^+p_1^{})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_3^+p_2p_2^+p_3)(p_1^+p_4p_4^+p_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_1^+p_4^+)[(p_1^+p_4^+)(p_2^{}p_1^{}p_2^{}p_1^{})`$
$`(p_1p_4)^{}(p_1^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_1^{})+(p_1p_4)^{}(p_1^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_1^{})].`$ (2.5)
Furthermore, by using energy momentum conservation we can rewrite the common first term on the r.h.s. of these identities

$`(p_3^+p_2p_2^+p_3)(p_1^+p_4p_4^+p_1)={\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_3^++p_2^+p_4^+}{2}}(p_1p_4)^2+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^+p_4^+)^2}{2}}(p_1+p_2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_4^+}{2}}[p_2^+p_4^2+p_4^+p_2^2p_1^+p_3^2p_3^+p_1^2].`$ (2.6)
The contribution of (2.6) to the continuum limit of $`A_1+A_2`$ is

$`(A_1+A_2)_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{T_0}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^++p_4^+)(p_2^++p_3^+)}{(p_1^+p_4^+)^2}}+1+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^++p_2^+)^2(p_1^+p_3^++p_2^+p_4^+)}{p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+p_4^+}}`$ (2.7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{3}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+p_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{4}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2})(p_1+p_2)^2}{p_1^+p_3^+p_2^+p_4^+(p_1p_4)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{3}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+p_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{4}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2})[p_2^+p_4^2+p_4^+p_2^2p_1^+p_3^2p_3^+p_1^2]}{p_1^+p_3^+p_2^+p_4^+(p_1^+p_4^+)(p_1p_4)^2}}],`$
and we denote the rest of $`A_1+A_2`$ by $`(A_1+A_2)_{\mathrm{II}}`$. Thus, adding on $`A_3+A_4`$, we can write the total amplitude

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(A_1+A_2)_{\mathrm{II}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{T_0}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^++p_2^+)^2(p_1^+p_3^++p_2^+p_4^+)}{p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+p_4^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{3}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+p_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{4}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2})(p_1+p_2)^2}{p_1^+p_3^+p_2^+p_4^+(p_1p_4)^2}}`$ (2.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{3}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+p_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{4}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2})[p_2^+p_4^2+p_4^+p_2^2p_1^+p_3^2p_3^+p_1^2]}{p_1^+p_3^+p_2^+p_4^+(p_1^+p_4^+)(p_1p_4)^2}}].`$
We find that $`(A_1+A_2)_{\mathrm{II}}`$ has a continuum limit which has no $`p_1^+p_4^+`$ denominators:

$`(A_1+A_2)_{\mathrm{II}}={\displaystyle \frac{2g^2}{T_0}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^+p_3^++p_2^+p_4^+)(p_1^++p_2^+)p_4^+(p_1^{}p_2^{}p_1^{}p_2^{})}{p_1^+p_3^+p_2^+p_4^+(p_1p_4)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^+p_3^++p_2^+p_4^+)(p_1^++p_2^+)[(p_2^+p_1^{}p_1^+p_2^{})p_4^{}(p_2^+p_1^{}p_1^+p_2^{})p_4^{}]}{p_1^+p_3^+p_2^+p_4^+(p_1p_4)^2}}]`$ (2.9)
Note that the quadratically singular first term in square brackets on the r.h.s. of (2.7) has been exactly canceled by the continuum limit of $`A_3`$, leaving only a linear singularity as $`p_1^+p_4^+0`$, which disappears when all of the external gluons are on shell ($`p_i^2=0`$):

$`A_{\mathrm{div}}={\displaystyle \frac{(p_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{3}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+p_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{4}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2})[p_2^+p_4^2+p_4^+p_2^2p_1^+p_3^2p_3^+p_1^2]}{p_1^+p_3^+p_2^+p_4^+(p_1^+p_4^+)(p_1p_4)^2}}`$ (2.10)
This singular contribution has opposite signs for $`p_1^+>p_4^+`$ and $`p_1^+<p_4^+`$, so we can expect that, when this term occurs as a sub-diagram where $`M_1M_4`$ is summed, a principal value definition of the continuum integral approximation to the sum will be appropriate and no divergence will occur. It is also interesting to notice that when the particles in the initial and final state are equally off energy shell, i.e. $`p_1^2/M_1=p_2^2/M_2`$ and $`p_3^2/M_3=p_4^2/M_4`$, the quantity in square brackets becomes $`(p_1^++p_2^+)(p_4^+p_1^+)(p_3^2/p_3^++p_1^2/p_1^+)`$, with no singularity as $`p_1^+p_4^+`$. The softening of $`p^+=0`$ singularities in this particular off-shell situation has also been noted in  in the radiative corrections to another four point (branion) process.

Finally, we comment that the on-shell four point amplitude assumes a fairly compact form in the Galilei center of mass frame $`𝐩_2=𝐩_1`$. In this case we obtain

$`A_{\mathrm{On}\mathrm{shell}}^{\mathrm{CM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{T_0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{3}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+p_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{4}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2})s}{p_1^+p_3^+p_2^+p_4^+t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^++p_2^+)^2(p_1^+p_3^++p_2^+p_4^+)}{p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+p_4^+}}\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^{}p_4^{}p_1^{}p_4^{}}{t}}\right)\right]`$
where we have introduced the usual Mandelstam invariants $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$ and $`t=(p_4p_1)^2`$. In this form it is easy to check that the diagram has the correct value.

For comparison, we record here the value of the diagram with $`s`$ channel poles, also in the Galilei center of mass:

$`A_s^{\mathrm{CM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2}{T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^++p_2^+)^4p_1^{}p_4^{}}{p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+p_4^+s}}`$ (2.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^++p_2^+)^4}{p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+p_4^+}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{s}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^{}p_4^{}p_1^{}p_4^{}}{s}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^++p_2^+)^2(p_1^+p_3^++p_2^+p_4^+)}{p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+p_4^+}}`$ (2.12)
## 3 Simple Triangle with Three Transverse Gluons

We will now calculate the one loop three point function where all external gluons are transverse. We start with a particularly simple process in which the arrows on all external lines pointing inwards. Since this process has no contribution at tree order, it can not have ultraviolet divergences. In fact, we shall find that the diagram also has no infra-red divergences and so is completely finite.

Using the discretized Feynman rules we see that only the two diagrams shown in Fig. 3 contribute to this choice of external momenta. One of these is shown in more detail in Fig. 4. The loop momentum is $`q`$ and the momenta shown are routed along the arrows. This means that the momenta $`p_1`$,$`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ are directed into the vertex and momentum conservation reads $`p_i=0`$. We use the convention that the discretized $`+`$ component of momenta $`p_i`$ is $`mM_i`$ and that of $`q`$ is $`ml`$. Accordingly we have $`M_1,M_2>0`$ and $`M_3=M_1M_2<0`$. For convenience we shall also use $`MM_3>0`$ and $`pp_3>0`$ in the following analysis. The discretized times are given by $`\tau =ak`$ and by translational invariance we can choose one of the vertices to be at $`\tau =0`$. We then have a transverse loop integral to do, the integral over $`q^+`$ becomes a sum over $`l`$ and finally we must sum over the two discretized times $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$. When $`k_1>0`$ (so also $`l>0`$), $`k_1`$ and $`k_2^{}k_2k_1`$ are independently summed from 1 to $`+\mathrm{}`$ and $`l`$ is summed from 1 to $`M_11`$. When $`k_1<0`$ (so also $`l<0`$), $`k_1^{}k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are independently summed from 1 to $`+\mathrm{}`$ and $`l^{}l`$ is summed from 1 to $`M_21`$.

By writing out the expression for the two diagrams, shifting the transverse loop momentum and simplifying (note that a factor of $`e^{akp^{}}`$ comes from each of the ingoing external lines) we obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{T_0^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(M_1M_2M_3)^1}{(M_1l)(M_2+l)|l|}}e^H{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r}{(2\pi )^3}e^{\mathrm{\Sigma }T𝐫^\mathrm{𝟐}}\left(\frac{T_1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }T}K_{23}M_3r\right)^{}}`$ (3.1)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }T}}K_{31}M_1r\right)^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_3}{\mathrm{\Sigma }T}}K_{12}M_2r\right)^{}`$ (3.2)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{T_0}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^H}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1M_2M_3)^1}{(M_1l)(M_2+l)|l|}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_1T_2T_3}{\mathrm{\Sigma }T^4}}(K_{12}^{})^3`$ (3.3)
the sum on $`k,l`$ is constrained as described above and for brevity we have made the following definitions:

$`T_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{l}},T_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2k_1}{M_2+l}},T_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{M_1l}}.`$ (3.4)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }T`$ $`=`$ $`T_1+T_2+T_3`$ (3.5)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }T}}\left(T_1T_3p_1^2+T_1T_2p_2^2+T_2T_3p_3^2\right)`$ (3.6)
$`K_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`M_ip_jM_jp_i`$ (3.7)
Note the constraint $`lT_1+(M_2+l)T_2(M_1l)T_3=0`$, which implies that for fixed $`l`$, only two of the $`T`$’s are independent. Also, momentum conservation implies that $`K_{ij}`$ is cyclically symmetric and we therefore use $`KK_{12}=K_{23}=K_{31}`$.

In general one must take the continuum limit with care because of ultraviolet and infra-red divergences that might be present. Since we expect no ultraviolet divergences we can immediately take $`a0`$. However, it turns out there are no infra-red divergences either and we can see this by taking the continuum limit $`a0`$ and $`m0`$ simultaneously. In the $`a0`$ limit we can replace the sums over $`k_1,k_2^{}`$ for $`k_1>0`$ by integrals over $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ and in the $`m0`$ limit we can replace the sum over $`l`$ by an integral over $`T_3`$. The continuous transformation between $`T_1,T_2,T_3`$ and $`ak_1,ak_2,ml`$ is given by (3.4) and the jacobian is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }T/4m|l|(mM_1ml)(mM_2+ml)`$. Notice that integrating the $`T`$’s from $`0`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ accounts for summing over the whole range; $`l>0,k_1>0`$ and $`l<0,k_1<0`$. We obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{T_0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(K^{})^3}{M_1M_2M_3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑T_1𝑑T_2𝑑T_3\frac{e^{H(T_1,T_2,T_3)}T_1T_2T_3}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^5}}`$ (3.8)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{T_0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(K^{})^3}{M_1M_2M_3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{(xp_1^2+xyp_2^2+yp_3^2)(1+x+y)^4}}`$ (3.9)
where we have scaled $`x=T_1/T_3`$ and $`y=T_2/T_3`$ and note that $`H(T_1,T_2,T_3)=T_3H(x,y,1)`$. Notice that for all $`p_i`$’s offshell the double integral converges. For the special offshell point $`q^2p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2`$ we get:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\left(\frac{g}{T_0}\right)\frac{g^2}{\pi ^2}\frac{(K^{})^3}{M_1M_2M_3}\frac{\chi }{q^2}$$
(3.11)
where

$$\chi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{xy}{(x+xy+y)(1+x+y)^4}0.030080945\mathrm{}$$
(3.12)
## 4 Triangle contributing to charge renormalization

We turn now to the main task of this paper, the calculation of one-loop diagrams that contribute to charge renormalization. The self-energy diagrams have been evaluated in , so it remains to calculate the vertex corrections, i.e. the three transverse gluon triangle diagram. The kinematics of the three gluons are chosen as before. We start with the expressions for the diagrams that emerge after integrating over the transverse loop momentum. In this section we describe the analysis of the remaining sums over two discretized times, $`k_1a,k_2a`$ and one discretized loop momentum $`p^+=lm`$ in the continuum limit, $`a,m0`$.

### 4.1 All Internal Lines Transverse

We denote the complete three transverse gluon vertex with polarization labels $`,,`$ for gluons $`1,2,3`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$. The triangle diagrams displayed in Fig. 5, which have only transverse gluons on the internal lines, produce the following expression

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{16\pi ^2T_0^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,k_1,k_2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^H}{|l|(M_2+l)(M_1l)}}({\displaystyle \frac{T_1T_2T_3K^2A}{M^2(T_1+T_2+T_3)^4}}`$ (4.13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{T_1B_1+T_2B_2+T_3B_3}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^3}})`$
where $`K,H`$ and the $`T_i`$’s are as before and

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2M_1^2}{l^2(M_1l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2M_2^2}{l^2(M_2+l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+l)^2}{(M_1l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^2}{(M_2+l)^2}}`$ (4.14)
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2M_1^3}{l^2(M_1l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2^3}{l^2(M_2+l)^2}}`$ (4.15)
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{MM_2^3}{l^2(M_2+l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2(M_2+l)^2}{M(M_1l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2(M_1l)^2}{M(M_2+l)^2}}`$ (4.16)
$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{MM_1^3}{l^2(M_1l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_2+l)^2}{M(M_1l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_1l)^2}{M(M_2+l)^2}}`$ (4.17)
The triangles with only two transverse gluon internal lines, denoted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^{}`$ will be dealt with in the following subsection. We introduce the following notation that will help streamline some of the formulae: $`P_i^{}p_i^2/M_i,P^{}p^2/M=P_3^{}`$. For example,

$`K^2=M_1M_2M_3(P_1^{}+P_2^{}+P_3^{})=M_1M_2M(P_1^{}+P_2^{}P^{}).`$ (4.18)
The vertex function should be antisymmetric under the interchange $`p_1,M_1p_2,M_2`$. In view of the explicit overall factor of $`K^{}`$ which is odd under this transformation, the coefficient of $`K^{}`$ should be even. Inspection of the above expression for the triangle diagram shows that this symmetry is realized in the following way. The expression for the summation range $`k_1=k_1^{},l=l^{}<0`$ is precisely equal to that for the range $`k_1,l>0`$ with the interchange of variables $`p_1,M_1p_2,M_2`$. Thus, it is only necessary to explicitly calculate for one time ordering, say $`k_1,l>0`$. Then adding to this the result of the interchange gives the complete answer.

We are now dealing with potentially ultraviolet divergent diagrams. To reveal the ultraviolet structure we consider the continuum limit in the order $`a0`$ followed by $`m0`$. Recall that $`a0`$ serves as our ultraviolet cutoff. In the $`a0`$ limit we can attempt to replace the sums over $`k_1,k_2^{}`$ ($`k_1^{},k_2`$) for $`k_1>0`$ ($`k_1<0`$) by integrals over $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ ($`T_3`$) just as in the previous section. Since we wish to keep $`l`$ fixed in this first step, for the case $`k_1>0`$ we express $`T_3`$ in terms of $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$: $`T_3=(lT_1+(M_2+l)T_2)/(M_1l)`$. For the case $`k_1<0`$, it is more convenient to express $`T_2`$ in terms of $`T_1`$ and $`T_3`$: $`T_2=(l^{}T_1+(M_1+l^{})T_3)/(M_2l^{})`$. We find $`\mathrm{\Sigma }T=(MT_2+M_1T_1)/(M_1l)=(MT_3+M_2T_1)/(M_2l^{})`$. For the $`A`$ term, this procedure encounters no obstacle, and we obtain (displaying explicitly the contribution for $`k_1,l>0`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle }dT_1dT_2{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^2T_1T_2(lT_1+(M_2+l)T_2)K^2A}{M^2(M_1T_1+MT_2)^4}}e^{H(T_1,T_2)}`$ (4.19)
$`+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle }dT{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^2T(lT+(M_2+l))K^2A}{M^2H(T,1)(M_1T+M)^4}}+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}.`$
It will be useful to note that $`H`$ can be written in the alternative forms

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`(M_2+l)T_2P^{}+lT_1P_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{M_1M}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)T_1T_2}{MT_2+M_1T_1}}\right]`$ (4.20)
$`=`$ $`(M_1+l^{})T_3P^{}+l^{}T_1P_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{M_2M}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2l^{})T_1T_3}{MT_3+M_2T_1}}\right],`$ (4.21)
where the first is useful when $`k_1,l>0`$ and the second for $`k_1,l<0`$.

However the $`B`$ terms produce logarithmically divergent integrals with this procedure, so they must be handled differently. To deal with these logarithmically divergent terms, we first note the identities:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_1}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{T_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^3}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_1}{(MT_2+M_1T_1)^2}}`$ (4.22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{T_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2l^{})^3}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_1}{(MT_3+M_2T_1)^2}}`$ (4.23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{T_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^3}{2M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1T_1+2MT_2}{(MT_2+M_1T_1)^2}}`$ (4.24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_3}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{T_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2l^{})^3}{2M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2T_1+2MT_3}{(MT_3+M_2T_1)^2}},`$ (4.25)
where the partial derivatives are taken with $`T_1`$ fixed.

Because of the divergences we can’t immediately write the continuum limit of the $`B`$ terms as an integral. However we can make the substitution $`e^H(e^He^{H_0})+e^{H_0}`$, where $`H_0`$ is chosen to be an appropriate simplified version of $`H`$, which coincides with $`H`$ at $`T_2=0`$. For $`k_1,l>0`$, it is convenient to choose $`H_0=(lT_1+(M_2+l)T_2)P_1^{}`$, whereas for $`k_1,l<0`$ $`H_0^{}=(l^{}T_1+(M_1+l^{})T_3)P_2^{}`$ is more convenient. Then the factor $`(e^He^{H_0})`$ regulates the integrand at small $`T_i`$ so that the sums may then safely be replaced by integrals. We shall denote the contributions from these terms by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B1}^{}`$. Then using the above identities, an integration by parts (for which the surface term vanishes) makes the integrand similar to that in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}`$ and simplifications can be achieved. For details see Appendix A.1.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B1}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dT[{\displaystyle \frac{TK^2(M_1l)^2A^{}}{M^2H(M+M_1T)^3}}`$ (4.26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{lT(H_0H)(M_1l)M_1A^{}}{M^2H(lT+M_2+l)(M+M_1T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{lT(H_0H)(M_1l)M_1A}{M^2H(M+M_1T)^2}}]`$
$`+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\},`$
where:

$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2M_2^2}{lM_1(M_2+l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2(M_2+l)^2}{M_1M(M_1l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2(M_1l)^3}{M_1M(M_2+l)^2}}.`$ (4.27)
Since the integrand of (4.26) is a rational function of $`T`$ the last integral can also be done. We sketch the evaluation in Appendix B.

There remains the contribution of the term $`e^{H_0}`$ which would give a divergent integral. However, because the $`T_1,T_2`$ ($`T_1,T_3`$) dependence in the exponential is disentangled by our choice of $`H_0`$, the sums can be directly analyzed in the $`a0`$ limit, giving an explicit expression for the divergent part in terms of the lattice cutoff. We denote this contribution, containing the ultraviolet divergence of the triangles, by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B2}^{}`$. Referring to Appendix A.2 for details we obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{8\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{[{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1l}{MM_1}}({\displaystyle \frac{N_1l}{M_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N_2(M_2+l)}{M}})(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right))`$ (4.28)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1l}{MM_1}}({\displaystyle \frac{N_1l}{M_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_2(M_2+l)}{M}}){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{M}}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right))+{\displaystyle \frac{AM_2(M_1l)^2}{M^3M_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)]`$
$`+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\},`$
where we have defined

$`B^{}={\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^3}{M^2(M_2+l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{MM_1}{l(M_1l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+l)^3}{M^2(M_1l)}}.`$ (4.29)
and

$`N_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_1(M_1l)}{l}}+B_3,N_2{\displaystyle \frac{B_2(M_1l)}{M_2+l}}+B_3`$ (4.30)
$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}x}{1x}}x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{xt}{\displaystyle \frac{1xte^{xt}}{(1e^{xt})^2}}\mathrm{ln}(1e^t)`$ (4.31)
$`\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{l}},\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_2+l}}`$ (4.32)
In $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B2}^{}`$ we can further simplify the term proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(2p_1^+/ap_1^2)`$, which contains the ultraviolet divergence of the triangle diagrams. We obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{div}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^3}{M^2(M_2+l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{MM_1}{l(M_1l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+l)^3}{M^2(M_1l)}}]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}`$ (4.33)
$`+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}[\psi (M_1+M_2)\psi (M_2+1)+3\psi (M_1)+3\gamma `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M_11}{M^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}M_1^27M_1M_24M_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{3}})]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}.`$
where $`\psi `$ is the digamma function.

Writing out the terms from interchanging $`12`$ in this expression, and simplifying we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{uv}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{16\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_2^+}{ap_2^2}}][4(\psi (M)+\psi (M_1)+\psi (M_2)+3\gamma )`$ (4.34)
$`+2({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2M_1M_2}{M^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3M^2}})]`$
$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^2}{p_+p_1^2}}[8(\psi (M_1)\psi (M_2))+{\displaystyle \frac{2(M_1M_2)}{3M^3}}(11M^2+2M_1M_21){\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{M_1M_2}}]\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{16\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2|p_i^+|}{ap_i^2}}[4(\mathrm{ln}|M_i|+\gamma )+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}]`$
$`+\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2p_1^+}{p^+p_1^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2p_2^+}{p^+p_2^2}}\right]\left[4\left(\mathrm{ln}M+\gamma \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}\right]4\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2p_2^+}{p_1^+p_2^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^2}{p_2^+p_1^2}}[8\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+}{p_2^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2(p_1^+p_2^+)}{3p^+}}(11+{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+p_2^+}{p^{+2}}})]\}.`$
where the final expression, valid at large $`M,M_1,M_2`$, has been arranged so that the $`uv`$ divergence appears symmetrically among the three legs of the vertex.

Comparing to the zeroth order vertex, $`2gK^{}M/M_1M_2T_0`$, we see that the ultraviolet divergence of the triangle is contained in the multiplicative factor

$`1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}\left[4\left(\mathrm{ln}M+\mathrm{ln}M_1+\mathrm{ln}M_2+3\gamma \right){\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}\right].`$ (4.35)
To see that this is actually the correct renormalization factor, recall that the self energy calculation of  implies the gluon wave function renormalization factor

$`Z(Q)=1{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{16\pi ^2}}\left\{\left[8(\mathrm{ln}M+\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2Q^+}{aQ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\right\}.`$ (4.36)
Thus the appropriate wave function renormalization factor for the triangle, $`\sqrt{Z(p_1)Z(p_2)Z(p)}`$, contains the ultraviolet divergent factor

$`1{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{16\pi ^2}}\left[4(\mathrm{ln}MM_1M_2+3\gamma )11\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}},`$ (4.37)
so the divergence for the renormalized triangle is contained in the multiplicative factor

$`1+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_c}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}`$ (4.38)
implying the correct relation of renormalized to bare charge

$`g_R=g\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{24\pi }}\alpha _sN_c\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}\right),`$ (4.39)
where $`\alpha _s=g^2/2\pi `$.

Putting everything together, the amplitude for the triangle with only transverse internal lines is given in the continuum limit by:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{}={\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dTI_1+S_1]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{16\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2|p_i^+|}{ap_i^2}}[4(\mathrm{ln}|M_i|+\gamma )+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}]`$
$`+\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2p_1^+}{p^+p_1^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2p_2^+}{p^+p_2^2}}\right]\left[4\left(\mathrm{ln}M+\gamma \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^2}{p_2^+p_1^2}}[4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+}{p_2^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2(p_1^+p_2^+)}{3p^+}}(11+{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+p_2^+}{p^{+2}}})]\}`$ (4.40)
where

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`I(T,p_1,p_2,{\displaystyle \frac{l}{M_1}}){\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_1l)^2TK^2A^{}}{M^2H(T,1)(M_1T+M)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{lT(H_0H)(M_1l)M_1^2A^{}}{M^2H(lT+M_2+l)(M+M_1T)}}`$ (4.41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{lT(H_0H)(M_1l)M_1^2A}{M^2H(M+M_1T)^2}}`$
$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`S(M_1,M_2,{\displaystyle \frac{l}{M_1}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_1B^{}}{M}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{AM_2(M_1l)^2}{M^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)\right]`$ (4.43)
$`I_2=I(T,p_2,p_1,{\displaystyle \frac{l}{M_2}}),S_2=S(M_2,M_1,{\displaystyle \frac{l}{M_2}})`$
and where we recall, for convenience, our definitions (appropriate to the case $`k_1,l>0`$)

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2M_1^2}{l^2(M_1l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2M_2^2}{l^2(M_2+l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+l)^2}{(M_1l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^2}{(M_2+l)^2}}`$
$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2M_2^2}{lM_1(M_2+l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2(M_2+l)^2}{M_1M(M_1l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2(M_1l)^3}{M_1M(M_2+l)^2}}`$
$`B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+l)^3}{M^2(M_1l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^3}{M^2(M_2+l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{MM_1}{l(M_1l)}}`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H(T,1)=(M_2+l)P_3^{}+lTP_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)T}{M+M_1T}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{M_1M}}`$
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`H_0(T,1)=(M_2+l)P_1^{}+lTP_1^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_2+l)}{lM}}.`$ (4.44)
To complete the continuum limit we assume $`M,M_1,M_2`$ large and attempt to replace the sums over $`l`$ by integrals over a continuous variable $`\xi =l/M_1`$, with $`0<\xi <1`$. This procedure is obstructed by singular behavior of the integrand for $`\xi `$ near 0 or 1. When this occurs, we introduce a cutoff $`ϵ<<1`$, and only do the replacement for $`ϵ<\xi <1ϵ`$, dealing with the sums directly in the singular regions. The detailed analysis is presented in Appendix A. Referring to Eq. B.56, we see that we can write

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{I,\mathrm{finite}}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{16\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2|p_i^+|}{ap_i^2}}[4(\mathrm{ln}|M_i|+\gamma )+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}]`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2p_1^+}{p^+p_1^2}}[4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}]+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2p_2^+}{p^+p_2^2}}[4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}[(\mathrm{ln}M_1+\gamma )\{({\displaystyle \frac{M_1p^2+Mp_1^2}{M_1p^2Mp_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p^2}{Mp_1^2}}3+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\}`$
$`+(\mathrm{ln}M_2+\gamma )\{({\displaystyle \frac{M_2p^2+Mp_2^2}{M_2p^2Mp_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2p^2}{Mp_2^2}}3+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\}]]`$ (4.45)
### 4.2 Longitudinal Internal Gluons

In addition to the diagrams with three transverse gluon internal lines discussed in the previous subsection, there are diagrams where one of the internal lines is a longitudinal gluon (solid line with no arrow) or a fictitious gluon, whose exchange represents the four gluon vertex as the concatenation of two cubic vertices (dashed line). The various possibilities are shown in Fig. 6.

Again we start with the expression for the sum of these diagrams obtained after doing the transverse momentum integrals:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2T_0^2}}K^{}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l(M_2+l)(M_1l)}}e^H`$ (4.46)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_1}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^2}}C_1+{\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^2}}C_2+{\displaystyle \frac{T_3}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^2}}C_3\right),`$
where:

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`f_{k_1}{\displaystyle \frac{M_3(2M_1l)(2M_2+l)}{l(M_1l)(M_2+l)}}+h_{k_1}{\displaystyle \frac{M_3l}{(M_2+l)(M_1l)}}`$ (4.47)
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`f_{k_2k_1}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2l)(M_3+M_1l)(M_1l)}{|l|(M_2+l)M_1}}+h_{k_2k_1}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)(M_2+l)}{M_1|l|}}`$ (4.48)
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`f_{k_2}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1+l)(M_3+M_2+l)(M_2+l)}{|l|(M_1l)M_2}}h_{k_2}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+l)(M_1l)}{|l|M_2}}`$ (4.49)
Since the $`f_k,h_k`$ are assumed to fall off rapidly with $`k`$, the corresponding sum can never be replaced by an integral. Consider first the term with $`C_1`$. Then for $`k_1>0(<0)`$ only the $`k_2^{}`$ ($`k_2`$) sum ranges freely from 1 to $`\mathrm{}`$. writing out $`H(T_1,T_2)`$ explicitly in terms of $`k_1,k_2^{}`$,

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{p^2k_2^{}}{2MT_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2k_1}{2M_1T_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K^2k_1}{2T_0MM_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)k_2^{}}{Mlk_2^{}+M_1k_1(M_2+l)}},`$ (4.50)
we see that, due to the limited range of $`k_1`$, the only term that can get large is the first one. Furthermore all the other terms stay of order $`O(a)`$ in the limit $`a0`$ at fixed $`m`$, which we are studying. Thus, writing $`u=e^{p^2/2MT_0}`$, we see that we require the sum

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_2^{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{k_2^{}}}{(k_2^{}+z)^2}}=\psi ^{}(z+1)+O((1u)\mathrm{ln}(1u))`$ (4.51)
in the $`a0`$ limit. Thus the $`C_1`$ contribution has the $`a0`$ limit

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{8\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{M}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{l}}\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_2+l)}{lM}})`$ (4.52)
$`[f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(2M_1l)(2M_2+l)}{l^2}}+h_k]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}.`$
For the $`C_2`$ contribution, $`k_2^{}`$ is limited by $`f,h`$. Then $`k_1`$ ranges freely from $`1`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ for $`l>0`$, but for $`l<0`$, $`1k_1^{}k_2^{}1`$. In the first case, only the second term of $`H`$ can get large, and in the second case no term can get large. So with $`u_1=e^{p_1^2/2M_1T_0}`$, we need Eq. 4.51 (with $`uu_1`$ and $`k_2^{}k_1^{}`$) for $`l>0`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1^{}=1}{\overset{k_2^{}1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^{}+z)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{}(z+1)\psi ^{}(z+k_2^{}+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_2^{}+z)^2}}\mathrm{for}l<0.`$ (4.53)
The $`C_3`$ contribution is similar but with the roles of $`l>0`$ and $`l<0`$ switched. In fact, inspection shows that interchanging $`12`$ takes the $`C_2`$ contribution for $`l>0`$ ($`l<0`$) into the $`C_3`$ contribution for $`l<0`$ ($`l>0`$). So we need only display the $`l>0`$ cases explicitly. Combining all three contributions we have for $`a0`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C1}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C2}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C3}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{8\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{M}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{l}}\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_2+l)}{lM}})`$
$`\times \left[f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(2M_1l)(2M_2+l)}{l^2}}+h_k\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k(M_1l)^2M}{(M_2+l)M_1^3}}\psi ^{}\left(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{lM}{M_1(M_2+l)}}\right)\left[f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2l)(M+M_1l)}{(M_2+l)^2}}+h_k\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k(M_2+l)^2M}{(M_1l)M_2^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2(M_1l)^2}{k^2M_1^2(M_2+l)^2}}+\psi ^{}\left(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_2+l)}{M_2(M_1l)}}\right)\psi ^{}\left(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{lM}{M_2(M_1l)}}\right)\right]`$
$`\times [f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1+l)(M+M_2+l)}{(M_1l)^2}}+h_k]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}.`$ (4.54)
The $`l`$ sum can be rewritten and evaluated approximately and the details can be found in Appendix A.3. This yields the result of the continuum limit of the triangle with internal longitudinal gluons:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{8\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{M}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _ϵ^1}d\xi {\displaystyle \frac{k}{\xi }}\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{M_2+\xi M_1)}{\xi M}})[f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(2\xi )(2M_2+\xi M_1)}{\xi ^2M_1}}+h_k]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle \frac{k(1\xi )^2M}{M_2+\xi M_1}}\psi ^{}\left(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{\xi M}{M_2+\xi M_1}}\right)\left[f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2\xi M_1)(M+M_1(1\xi ))}{(M_2+\xi M_1)^2}}+h_k\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{1ϵ}}d\xi {\displaystyle \frac{k(M_2+\xi M_1)^2M}{(1\xi )M_2^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2(1\xi )^2}{k^2(M_2+\xi M_1)^2}}+\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{M_2+\xi M_1}{M_2(1\xi )}})`$
$`\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{\xi M}{M_2(1\xi )}})][f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\xi )(M+M_2+\xi M_1)}{M_1(1\xi )^2}}+h_k]{\displaystyle \frac{2M^2}{ϵM_1M_2}}+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{M}}\left[+{\displaystyle \frac{2M\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_1M_2}}(\mathrm{ln}ϵ^2M_1M_2+2\gamma )\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right)\right].`$ (4.55)
As $`ϵ0`$ the r.h.s. approaches a finite result. Then the divergence as $`M\mathrm{}`$ is contained entirely in the last line. Thus we can write in the continuum limit

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II,\mathrm{finite}}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}(\mathrm{ln}M_1M_2+2\gamma )\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right)\right].`$ (4.56)
Notice that these divergent terms cancel some of the divergent terms in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{}`$ leading to the complete vertex

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{finite}}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_1^{})p^+}{p_1^+p_2^+}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{p_1^{}}}\left[4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^+}{p_1^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}\right]+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{p_2^{}}}\left[4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^+}{p_2^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}\right]\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^+p_2^{}p_2^+p_1^{})p^+}{p_1^+p_2^+}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a|p_i^{}|}}[4(\mathrm{ln}|M_i|+\gamma )+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}]`$
$`+(\mathrm{ln}M_1+\gamma )\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^{}+p_1^{}}{p^{}p_1^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^{}p_2^{}}{p_1^{}+p_2^{}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{p_1^{}}}\right]`$
$`+(\mathrm{ln}M_2+\gamma )\left[({\displaystyle \frac{p^{}+p_2^{}}{p^{}p_2^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^{}p_2^{}}{p_1^{}+p_2^{}}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{p_2^{}}}\right]\}.`$ (4.57)
where for further brevity we have defined the continuum limit finite variables $`p_i^{}P_i^{}/m=p_1^2/p_1^+`$.

As already discussed, the uv divergences in the second line are canceled up to the standard asymptotic freedom result by the wave function renormalization factors. The remaining divergences in the last two lines are only linear in $`\mathrm{ln}M_i`$, and are unavoidable in the off-shell amplitude. Notice that there is a special off-shell point, $`p_1^{}=p_2^{}=p^{}`$, for which they disappear. The finite part depends in detail on the choice of $`f_k`$, $`h_k`$. The requirement of Lorentz invariance is expected to limit these parameters sharply, if not over-determine them. If the latter holds, additional counter-terms will be required to achieve Lorentz invariance.

## 5 Conclusions

In this article we have extended previous work  by further exploring the discretized $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge theory proposed there. Although the discretized theory is completely regulated, there is no guarantee that gauge invariance has been respected. Since we have chosen a non-covariant gauge, violations of gauge invariance would show up as violations of Lorentz invariance in the continuum limit. It is therefore important to check whether it reproduces known weak coupling results. We have shown here that to one loop order we obtain the correct renormalization of the coupling, Eq. (4.39). The remaining infra-red divergences shown in the last two lines of Eq. (4.57) must be considered in the context of a physical quantity. There is no reason a priori to expect these divergences to disappear until one considers fully onshell, color singlet external states. It is however reassuring that only single logarithmic divergences appear. As pointed out earlier these divergences do disappear at the special offshell point $`p_1^2/p_1^+=p_2^2/p_2^+=p_3^2/p_3^+0`$.

The simplest on shell scattering process is gluon-gluon scattering. Thus the complete resolution of the remaining infra-red divergence issues at one loop must await the analysis of one-loop four gluon amplitudes, the obvious next step in this investigation. As confidence is gained that the discretized theory is faithful to the gauge invariant continuum theory, the application of the formalism to calculate QCD fishnet diagrams or to formulate a worldsheet description of QCD in the spirit of  becomes more compelling.

## Appendix A Details of Calculations

### A.1 Evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B1}^{}`$

In the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B1}^{}`$ we start by integrating by parts. This transfers the derivative to the factor $`(e^He^{H_0})`$. For definiteness take the case $`l>0`$. Then we compute

$$\frac{}{T_2}(e^He^{H_0})=e^H\frac{HT_1lP_1^{}}{T_2}+e^{H_0}\frac{H_0T_1lP_1^{}}{T_2}+e^H\frac{K^2}{M_1}\left[\frac{(M_1l)T_1T_2}{(MT_2+M_1T_1)^2}\right].$$
(A.1)
The first two terms on the r.h.s. partly cancel after integration over $`T_1,T_2`$. This is because the integrals are separately finite, so one can change variables $`T_1=T_2T`$ in each term separately. For the first term we find

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑T_1𝑑T_2(T_1,T_2){\displaystyle \frac{H(T_1,T_2)T_1lP_1^{}}{T_2}}e^{H(T_1,T_2)}=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑T𝑑T_2(T,1)\left[H(T,1)TlP_1^{}\right]e^{T_2H(T,1)}}={\displaystyle 𝑑T(T,1)\left[1\frac{TlP_1^{}}{H(T,1)}\right]},`$ (A.2)
and the second term yields the same expression with $`H(T,1)H_0(T,1)`$, so the two terms combine to

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑T(T,1)Tl{\displaystyle \frac{H_0(T,1)H(T,1)}{H(T,1)(lT+M_2+l)}}.`$ (A.3)
Simplifying the contribution to the $`T`$ integrand from these terms leads to the continuum limit

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B1}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dT[{\displaystyle \frac{lT(H_0H)}{H(lT+M_2+l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)TK^2}{HM_1(M+M_1T)^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^2}{(M+M_1T)^2}}`$ (A.4)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2M}}B_1+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1T+2M}{2M^2}}B_2+{\displaystyle \frac{M_2T(M_1l)+2MlT}{2M^2(M_1l)}}B_3+{\displaystyle \frac{M_2+l}{M(M_1l)}}B_3]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dT[{\displaystyle \frac{lT(H_0H)}{H(lT+M_2+l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)TK^2}{HM_1(M+M_1T)^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^2}{(M+M_1T)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{M+M_1T}{M_1l}}A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{lT+M_2+l}{M_1l}}A]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\},`$
where we have defined

$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2M_2^2}{lM_1(M_2+l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2(M_2+l)^2}{M_1M(M_1l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2(M_1l)^3}{M_1M(M_2+l)^2}}.`$ (A.5)
Notice that this result combines neatly with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}`$ to give:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B1}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dT[{\displaystyle \frac{TK^2(M_1l)^2A^{}}{M^2H(M+M_1T)^3}}`$ (A.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{lT(H_0H)(M_1l)M_1A^{}}{M^2H(lT+M_2+l)(M+M_1T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{lT(H_0H)(M_1l)M_1A}{M^2H(M+M_1T)^2}}]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}.`$
### A.2 Evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B2}^{}`$

We analyze the continuum limit of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B2}^{}`$ contribution to the $`B`$ terms, which will be retained as discrete sums over the $`k`$’s. Again for definiteness we display the case $`l>0`$ in detail:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B2}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{16\pi ^2T_0^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|l|(M_2+l)(M_1l)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2^{}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_1B_1+T_2B_2+T_3B_3}{(T_1+T_2+T_3)^3}}\right]e^{H_0}+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1l}{|l|(M_2+l)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2^{}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_1N_1+k_2^{}N_2}{(k_1\alpha +k_2^{}\beta )^3}}\right]u_1^{k_1+k_2^{}}+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}.`$ (A.7)
where

$`\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{l}},\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_2+l}},N_1{\displaystyle \frac{B_1(M_1l)}{l}}+B_3,N_2{\displaystyle \frac{B_2(M_1l)}{M_2+l}}+B_3`$
$`u_1`$ $``$ $`e^{p_1^2/2M_1T_0}=e^{ap_1^2/2p_1^+},u_2e^{p_2^2/2M_2T_0}=e^{ap_2^2/2p_2^+},`$ (A.8)
where $`u_2`$ is to be used in the case $`k_1,l<0`$ instead of $`u_1`$. Clearly the continuum limit entails $`u_1,u_21`$, causing the $`k`$ sums to diverge logarithmically. To make this explicit, we first note the integral representation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1^{k_1+k_2^{}}}{(k_1\alpha +k_2^{}\beta )^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}t𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{u_1^2}{(e^{\alpha t}u_1)(e^{\beta t}u_1)}}`$ (A.9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}}t𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(e^{\alpha t}1)(e^{\beta t}1)}}+{\displaystyle _0^ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{tdt}{(1u_1+\alpha t)(1u_1+\beta t)}}.`$ (A.10)
where the approximate form is valid for $`1u_1ϵ\alpha ,\beta `$. Doing the integral in the second term leads to:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1^{k_1+k_2^{}}}{(k_1\alpha +k_2^{}\beta )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha \beta }}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{ln}\alpha \alpha \mathrm{ln}\beta }{\beta \alpha }}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha \beta }}\mathrm{ln}ϵ+{\displaystyle _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}}t𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(e^{\alpha t}1)(e^{\beta t}1)}}.`$ (A.11)
The sums we require can be obtained from this identity by differentiation with respect to $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$. To present the results it is convenient to define a function $`f(x)`$ by

$`f(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{1x}}\mathrm{ln}x+\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left[\mathrm{ln}ϵ+{\displaystyle _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{tdt}{(e^{t\sqrt{x}}1)(e^{t/\sqrt{x}}1)}}\right]`$ (A.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}x}{1x}}x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{xt}{\displaystyle \frac{1xte^{xt}}{(1e^{xt})^2}}\mathrm{ln}(1e^t)`$ (A.13)
where the second form is obtained by integration by parts. It is evident from the first form that $`f(x)=f(1/x)`$. Also one can easily calculate $`f(1)=\pi ^2/6`$. From the second form one easily sees that $`f(x)\mathrm{ln}x`$ for $`x0`$, whence from the symmetry, $`f(x)\mathrm{ln}x`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$. Exploiting the function $`f`$ and its symmetries, we deduce

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1^{k_1+k_2^{}}}{(k_1\alpha +k_2^{}\beta )^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha \beta }}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)\right]`$ (A.14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1u_1^{k_1+k_2^{}}}{(k_1\alpha +k_2^{}\beta )^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^2\beta }}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha \beta ^2}}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)`$ (A.15)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^{}u_1^{k_1+k_2^{}}}{(k_1\alpha +k_2^{}\beta )^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha \beta ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^3}}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)`$ (A.16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha \beta ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2\beta }}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\right).`$
Inserting these results into Eq. A.7 produces

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{8\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{[{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1l}{MM_1}}({\displaystyle \frac{N_1l}{M_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N_2(M_2+l)}{M}})(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right))`$ (A.17)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1l}{MM_1}}({\displaystyle \frac{N_1l}{M_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_2(M_2+l)}{M}}){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3K^{}}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{M}}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+}{ap_1^2}}+f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right))+{\displaystyle \frac{AM_2(M_1l)^2}{M^3M_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)]`$
$`+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\},`$
where we have defined

$`B^{}={\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)^3}{M^2(M_2+l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{MM_1}{l(M_1l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+l)^3}{M^2(M_1l)}}.`$ (A.18)
### A.3 Evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^{}`$

For large $`M_i`$, the sum over $`l`$ can be approximated by an integral over $`\xi =l/M_1`$ from $`ϵ1`$ to $`1ϵ`$, plus sums for $`1lϵM_1`$ and $`M_1(1ϵ)lM_11`$ which contain the divergences. These divergences are only present in the first sum on the r.h.s. of Eq. 4.54 for $`lM_1`$ and in the last sum for $`M_1lM_1`$. The middle sum contains no divergence and can be replaced by an integral from $`0`$ to $`1`$ with no $`ϵ`$ cutoff. To extract these divergent contributions, we can use the large argument expansion of $`\psi ^{}`$

$`\psi ^{}(z+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2z^2}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^3}}),`$ (A.19)
to isolate them. It is thus evident that their coefficients will be proportional to the moments $`f_k/k^n,h_k/k^n`$ for $`k=0,1`$, which are precisely the moments constrained by the requirement that the gluon remain massless at one loop.

For the endpoint near $`l=0`$, we put $`z=kM_1(M_2+l)/lM`$ and write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{l}}\psi ^{}(z+1){\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1(M_2+l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{l}{2k}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_1^2(M_2+l)^2}}+\mathrm{},`$ (A.20)
so the summand for small $`l`$ becomes

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left\{f_k{\displaystyle \frac{M(2M_1l)(2M_2+l)}{l^2M_1(M_2+l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_kM}{M_1(M_2+l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_k}{2k}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2(2M_1l)(2M_2+l)}{lM_1^2(M_2+l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_k}{2k}}{\displaystyle \frac{lM^2}{M_1^2(M_2+l)^2}}\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M(2M_1l)(2M_2+l)}{l^2M_1(M_2+l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1(M_2+l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2(2M_1l)(2M_2+l)}{lM_1^2(M_2+l)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2(l1)}{36l}}{\displaystyle \frac{lM^2}{M_1^2(M_2+l)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M^2}{lM_1M_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{lM_1M_2}}.`$ (A.21)
Summing $`l`$ up to $`ϵM_1`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{ϵM_1}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M^2}{lM_1M_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{lM_1M_2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{4M\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{ϵM_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_1M_2}}(\mathrm{ln}ϵM_1+\gamma )\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\right),`$ (A.22)
Inserting these results into Eq. 4.52 and writing out explicitly the $`12`$ terms for the divergent part gives

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C1}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{8\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{M}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _ϵ^1}d\xi {\displaystyle \frac{k}{\xi }}\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+\xi M_1)}{\xi M}})[f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(2\xi )(2M_2+\xi M_1)}{\xi ^2M_1}}+h_k]`$ (A.23)
$`+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}){\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{ϵM_1M_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8M\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_1M_2}}(\mathrm{ln}ϵ^2M_1M_2+2\gamma )(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}})\}.`$
Only the third sum contributes near $`l=M_1`$. We again use the large argument expansion of $`\psi ^{}`$. But this time one only gets a logarithmic divergence, because the difference of $`\psi ^{}`$’s is of order $`(Ml)^2`$ as is the explicit rational term. Putting $`z_1=kM_1(M_2+l)/M_2(M_1l)`$ and $`z_2=klM/M_2(M_1l)`$, we have

$`\psi ^{}(z_1+1)\psi ^{}(z_2+1)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_2}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2z_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2z_2}}\right)`$ (A.24)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2(M_1l)^2}{klMM_1(M_2+l)}}\left(1+O(M_1l)\right){\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2(M_1l)^2}{kM_1^2M^2}}.`$
Thus the $`lM_1`$ endpoint divergence is just

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{M_1M_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_k}{k}}f_k\right){\displaystyle \underset{l=M_1(1ϵ)}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_1l}}={\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4MK^{}}{M_1M_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}1\right)(\mathrm{ln}ϵM_1+\gamma ).`$ (A.25)
Putting everything together we obtain for the continuum limit of the triangle with internal longitudinal gluons

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{8\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{M}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _ϵ^1}d\xi {\displaystyle \frac{k}{\xi }}\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{M_2+\xi M_1)}{\xi M}})[f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(2\xi )(2M_2+\xi M_1)}{\xi ^2M_1}}+h_k]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle \frac{k(1\xi )^2M}{M_2+\xi M_1}}\psi ^{}\left(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{\xi M}{M_2+\xi M_1}}\right)\left[f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2\xi M_1)(M+M_1(1\xi ))}{(M_2+\xi M_1)^2}}+h_k\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{1ϵ}}d\xi {\displaystyle \frac{k(M_2+\xi M_1)^2M}{(1\xi )M_2^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2(1\xi )^2}{k^2(M_2+\xi M_1)^2}}+\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{M_2+\xi M_1}{M_2(1\xi )}})`$
$`\psi ^{}(1+k{\displaystyle \frac{\xi M}{M_2(1\xi )}})][f_k{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\xi )(M+M_2+\xi M_1)}{M_1(1\xi )^2}}+h_k]{\displaystyle \frac{2M^2}{ϵM_1M_2}}+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{4\pi ^2T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{M}}\left[+{\displaystyle \frac{2M\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_1M_2}}(\mathrm{ln}ϵ^2M_1M_2+2\gamma )\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right)\right].`$ (A.26)
## Appendix B Divergent Parts of Integrals and Sums

The $`T`$ integral in Eq. 4.26 can be evaluated by expanding the integrand

$$I\frac{M_1TK^2(M_1l)^2A^{}}{M^2H(M+M_1T)^3}+\frac{lT(H_0H)(M_1l)M_1^2A^{}}{M^2H(lT+M_2+l)(M+M_1T)}\frac{lT(H_0H)(M_1l)M_1^2A}{M^2H(M+M_1T)^2}.$$
(B.27)
in partial fractions. First note that since $`(M_1T+M)H`$ is a quadratic polynomial, it may be factored as

$`(M_1T+M)H=lp_1^2(TT_+)(TT_{})`$ (B.28)
where $`T_{}(K^2+M_1M_2p^2)/lMp_1^2`$ and $`T_+MM_2p^2/(K^2+M_1M_2p^2)`$ when $`lM_1`$. Then the partial fraction expansion reads

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{R_1}{TT_+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_2}{TT_{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_3}{lT+M_2+l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_4}{(M_1T+M)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_5}{M_1T+M}},`$ (B.29)
with the $`R_i`$ independent of $`T`$. Of course the $`R_i`$ are such that $`I`$ falls off at least as $`1/T^2`$ for large $`T`$, i.e. $`R_1+R_2+R_3/l+R_5/M_1=0`$. This identity is helpful for determining $`R_5`$. Thus we have

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑TI=R_1\mathrm{ln}(T_+)R_2\mathrm{ln}(T_{})+{\displaystyle \frac{R_3}{l}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{l}{M_2+l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_4}{MM_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_5}{M_1}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M}}.`$ (B.30)
The $`R_i`$ are given explicitly by

$`R_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_1l)T_+}{lM^2p_1^2(T_+T_{})}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)K^2A^{}}{(M_1T_++M)^2}}+lp_1^2A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{lp_1^2(M_2+l+lT_+)A}{M_1T_++M}}\right]`$ (B.31)
$`R_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(M_1l)T_{}}{lM^2p_1^2(T_+T_{})}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(M_1l)K^2A^{}}{(M_1T_{}+M)^2}}+lp_1^2A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{lp_1^2(M_2+l+lT_{})A}{M_1T_{}+M}}\right]`$ (B.32)
$`R_3`$ $`=`$ $`l{\displaystyle \frac{(M_2+l)M_1^2A^{}}{M^2M_2}}`$ (B.33)
$`R_4`$ $`=`$ $`M_1^2(M_1l){\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{M}}lM_1(M_1l){\displaystyle \frac{A}{M}}`$ (B.34)
$`R_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{lM_1(M_1l)A}{M^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2MM_2}{K^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{lM_1^2A^{}}{MM_2}}`$ (B.35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2(M_1l)A^{}}{M^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1T_++M}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1T_{}+M}}\right].`$
When the $`M`$’s are large, the sum over $`l`$ can be replaced by an integral over $`\xi =l/M_1`$ as long as $`\xi `$ is kept away from the endpoints $`\xi =0,1`$. We can isolate the terms that give rise to singular end point contributions and simplify them considerably. We shall then separate the divergent contributions and display them in detail.

First note that the worst endpoint divergence is $`\xi ^1\mathrm{ln}\xi `$ near $`\xi =0`$ or $`1/(1\xi )`$ near $`\xi =1`$. Thus we can drop all terms down by a factor of $`l/M_i`$ for small $`l`$ or by $`(M_1l)/M_i`$ for $`l`$ near $`M_1`$. Thus for $`lM_i`$, we note that $`lT_{}(M+M_1T_+)K^2/p_1^2`$ and $`T_+/(M+M_1T_+)M_2p^2/K^2`$ and obtain

$`R_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2M_1^2M_2}{lK^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K^2+M_1M_2p^22M_2Mp_1^2}{(K^2+M_1M_2p^2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{p^2M_1^2M_2}{lK^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}}`$ (B.36)
$`R_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2M_1M_2p_1^2}{l(M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}}`$ (B.37)
$`R_3`$ $``$ $`M_1`$ (B.38)
$`R_4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{MM_1^2}{l}}`$ (B.39)
$`R_5`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2}{l}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{MM_1p_2^2MM_2p_1^2}{K^2}}\right].`$ (B.40)
Combining the $`l0`$ endpoint contributions gives

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑TI`$ $``$ $`R_1\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{MM_2p^2}{K^2+M_1M_2p^2}}R_2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{K^2+M_1M_2p^2}{lMp_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_3}{l}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{l}{M_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_4}{MM_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_5}{M_1}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M}}`$ (B.41)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{l}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2p^2}{K^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{MM_2p^2}{K^2+M_1M_2p^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{K^2+M_1M_2p^2}{lMp_1^2}}]`$
$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{l}{M_2}}+[1+{\displaystyle \frac{MM_1p_2^2MM_2p_1^2}{K^2}}]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M}}1\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{l}}\{M{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{K^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2p^2}{K^2+M_1M_2p^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(K^2+M_1M_2p^2)^2}{lM^2M_2p^2p_1^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{lM}{M_1M_2}}1\},\mathrm{for}lM_i.`$
For the other endpoint, $`M_1lM_i`$, the roots of the polynomial $`(M+M_1T)H`$ approach $`T_1=M/M_1`$ and $`T_2=p^2/p_1^2`$. Which of these roots is approached by $`T_\pm `$ depends on the parameter values, but since the formulae are symmetric under their interchange, we can choose to use the first in place of $`T_+`$ and the second in place of $`T_{}`$. Since the denominator $`M+M_1T_1=0`$ in this limit, we need to carefully evaluate

$$\frac{M_1l}{M+M_1T_1}\frac{M_1(Mp_1^2M_1p^2)}{K^2}.$$

Then we obtain for small $`M_1l`$,

$`R_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2(Mp_1^2+M_1p^2)}{(M_1l)K^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2MM_1p_1^2}{(M_1l)(Mp_1^2M_1p^2)}}`$ (B.42)
$`R_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p^2M_1^2}{(Ml)(M_1p^2Mp_1^2)}}`$ (B.43)
$`R_3`$ $``$ $`l{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_1l}}`$ (B.44)
$`R_4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2MM_1^2}{M_1l}}`$ (B.45)
$`R_5`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2}{(M_1l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2M_2(Mp_1^2+M_1p^2)}{(M_1l)K^2}}.`$ (B.46)
Combining the $`lM_1`$ endpoint contributions gives

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑TI`$ $``$ $`\left[R_1+{\displaystyle \frac{R_3+R_5}{M_1}}\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M}}R_2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_4}{MM_1}},\mathrm{for}M_1lM_i`$ (B.47)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M_1}{(M_1l)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p^2}{M_1p^2Mp_1^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p^2}{Mp_1^2}}1\right].`$
In writing the $`l`$ sum as an integral these endpoint divergences can be separated by picking $`ϵ1`$ and summing $`l`$ in the ranges $`1lϵM_1`$ and $`M_1(1ϵ)lM_11`$. For these parts of the sum the above approximations can be made and the sum evaluated:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{ϵM_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=M_1(1ϵ)}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_1l}}=\psi (1+ϵM_1)+\gamma \mathrm{ln}ϵM_1+\gamma `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{ϵM_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}l}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\psi (1+ϵM)+\gamma ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\mathrm{ln}t{\displaystyle \frac{e^te^{M_1ϵt}}{1e^t}}`$ (B.48)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2(M_1ϵ)+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (2)\gamma ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{t\mathrm{ln}^2t}{e^t1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2(M_1ϵ)+C`$
The rest of the sum is replaced by an integral over $`ϵ\xi 1ϵ`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}I𝑑T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}I𝑑T`$ (B.49)
$`+(\mathrm{ln}ϵM_1+\gamma )[({\displaystyle \frac{2M_1p^2}{M_1p^2Mp_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p^2}{Mp_1^2}}3`$
$`+(M{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{K^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2p^2}{K^2+M_1M_2p^2}}]`$
$`\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}(\mathrm{ln}ϵM_1+\gamma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2(ϵM_1)+C\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2M_1p_2^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}}`$
Finally, we must extract the divergent contributions that arise from replacing the sums

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}S_l={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_1B^{}}{M}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{AM_2(M_1l)^2}{M^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right)\right]`$ (B.50)
in Eq. 4.40 by an integral. First, for $`lM_1`$, $`\alpha /\beta 1`$ and only the first term gives a singular endpoint contribution,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=M_1(1ϵ)}{\overset{M_11}{}}}S_l2M_1f(1)[\psi (1+ϵM_1)+\gamma ]{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}M_1[\mathrm{ln}ϵM_1+\gamma ].`$ (B.51)
On the other hand, for $`l0`$, we have

$`f\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{lM}}\right)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{lM}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^t\mathrm{ln}t{\displaystyle \frac{1te^t}{(1e^t)^2}}=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{lM}{M_1M_2}}`$ (B.52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{lM}}f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{lM}}\right)`$ $``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{lM}{M_1M_2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{lM}}1\right].`$ (B.53)
The integral in the first line is zero because the integrand is a derivative of a function vanishing at the endpoints. Inserting these approximations, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{ϵM_1}{}}}S_l`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2M_2}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{ϵM_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l^2}}+M_1\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{ϵM_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{lM}{M_1M_2}}[\psi (1+ϵM_1)+\gamma ]{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right\}`$ (B.54)
Putting Eqs.B.49,B.51,B.54 together, some simplification occurs and we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}\left[S(l/M_1)+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}I𝑑T\right]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}I𝑑T+{\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}𝑑\xi S(\xi )`$ (B.55)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2\pi ^2}{3M}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M_2}{ϵM}}+(\mathrm{ln}ϵM_1+\gamma )[({\displaystyle \frac{2M_1p^2}{M_1p^2Mp_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p^2}{Mp_1^2}}`$
$`+(M{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{K^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2p^2}{K^2+M_1M_2p^2}}3+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}]`$
$`\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_1M_2}}(\mathrm{ln}ϵM_1+\gamma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2(ϵM_1)+C\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}}.`$
When we add the contribution with $`12`$, the antisymmetry of some of the coefficients leads to further simplification as well as a reduction in the degree of divergence of some of the terms:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M_11}{}}}[S(l/M_1)+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}IdT]+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})`$
$`{\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}d\xi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}IdT+{\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}d\xi S(\xi )+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^2p_2^+p_1^2}{p_1^+p_2^2+p_2^+p_1^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+}{p_2^+}}`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}ϵ\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1^+p^2}{p_1^+p^2p^+p_1^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p^2}{p^+p_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^2p_2^+p_1^2}{p_1^+p_2^2+p_2^+p_1^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^2}{p_2^+p_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2p_2^+p^2}{p_2^+p^2p^+p_2^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^+p^2}{p^+p_2^2}}6+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\right]`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+}{p_2^+}}\left[\left(M{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{K^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^2p_2^+p_1^2}{p_1^+p_2^2+p_2^+p_1^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2p^2}{K^2+M_1M_2p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^+}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^+p_2^2p_2^+p_1^2}{p_1^+p_2^2+p_2^+p_1^2}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2M_1M_2}{3M}}+[(\mathrm{ln}M_1+\gamma )\{({\displaystyle \frac{2M_1p^2}{M_1p^2Mp_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p^2}{Mp_1^2}}3+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\}`$
$`+(\mathrm{ln}M_2+\gamma )\{({\displaystyle \frac{2M_2p^2}{M_2p^2Mp_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1p_2^2M_2p_1^2}{M_1p_2^2+M_2p_1^2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2p^2}{Mp_2^2}}3+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\}].`$ (B.56)
As $`ϵ0`$ the first two lines on the r.h.s. approach a finite $`ϵ`$ independent answer. The third line is explicitly finite. All divergences are shown in the last two lines. As $`M_i\mathrm{}`$ there is a leading linear divergence as well as a single logarithmic sub-leading divergence.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-97ER-41029.