text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Perturbation theory is by far the most successful tool to get quantitative predictions from a field theory. Unfortunately, the results depend on the renormalization scale and scheme and the number of free parameters describing this dependence grows with the order of truncation. In most cases one does not bother too much about this dependence and simply chooses a scheme ($`\overline{MS}`$, MOM,$`\mathrm{}`$) which is supposed to give good results. More sophisticated approaches select a different ideal scheme for each perturbative series. Most cited in this context are Stevenson’s principle of minimal sensitivity  and Grunberg’s method of effective charges .

In this paper we will reorganize the conventional perturbation series in a new alternative expansion, which has only one redundant free parameter, the expansion parameter itself. This parameter will be fixed by a fastest apparent convergence criterion (facc). We find similar results as for the ordinary QCD perturbation theory in the UV-region and for intermediate energies. In the IR-region on the contrary, our expansion still gives sensible results whereas the normal perturbation theory becomes useless if one approaches the Landau-pole.

In section 2 we will first review some of the major aspects of the ordinary perturbation theory and then use this as starting point for the alternative expansion. Some results will be presented in section 3. We perform calculations on the triple gluon vertex, the quark gluon vertex, the gluon propagator and the ghost propagator. Our results are compared with the conventional perturbation theory and with the corresponding lattice results. We also show that the reason for the IR finite results lies in a peculiar behavior of the running expansion parameter $`y`$, resulting from the facc. This behavior should be contrasted with the running coupling $`\alpha `$ that Shirkov and Solovtsov obtain by imposing analyticity . While we find a universal power behavior for $`y`$, they find an IR-finite value for $`\alpha `$ at zero momentum.

## 2 Rewriting perturbation theory

In the following we will consider the perturbative calculation of a renormalization scheme and scale invariant quantity $``$, that is function of only one external scale $`q^2`$, in a massless version of QCD . In ordinary perturbation theory one finds a row of approximations $`^n`$ for $``$, with

$$^n=h_{}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{N}(1+r_1(q^2)h^{(n)}+r_2(q^2)h_{}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{}+r_n(q^2)h_{}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{n}).$$
(2.1)
With $`N`$ depending on the calculated quantity. The coupling constant $`h^{(n)}`$ is the solution of

$`\beta _0\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{ln}(\beta _0h)+`$ (2.2)
$`{\displaystyle _0^h}𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{\beta _0x^2+\beta _1x^3+\mathrm{}+\beta _nx^{n+2}}}\right),`$
with $`\mu ^2\frac{}{\mu ^2}h(\beta _0h^2+\beta _1h^3+\beta _2h^4+\mathrm{}).`$ As mentioned in the introduction, every truncation $`^n`$ is highly scale and scheme dependent. One can for instance describe this dependence with the free parameters  $`\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},\beta _2,\beta _3,\mathrm{},\beta _n.`$ The dependence of the coefficients $`r_i`$ on each of these parameters, cancels the dependence of the coupling constant $`h^{(n)}`$ up to order $`h_{}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{n+1}`$.

In many cases one simply chooses a scheme ($`\overline{MS}`$, MOM, $`\mathrm{}`$) and sets the scale $`\mu ^2`$ equal to the external scale $`q^2`$. To get reliable results, one must hope that the first, second, or third order approximation lies close enough to the exact result. The working hypothesis of perturbation theory is that the perturbation series is asymptotic to the exact result $``$ . One then obtains an error estimation, by assuming that

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{}}\right|\left|{\displaystyle \frac{^{n+1}^n}{^{n+1}}}\right|\mathrm{\Delta }^n.`$ (2.3)
Other approaches fix the scale/scheme by imposing a condition on the truncated series. The minimal sensitivity condition  gives a different scale/scheme for every approximation. The method of the effective charges , sets $`q^2=\mu ^2`$, the free parameters are then obtained by demanding the coefficients $`r_i`$ to be zero. One now also finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ to give a good estimation of the error .

As a consequence of asymptotic freedom, conventional perturbation theory works well in the UV-region, which is reflected in low values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ (n=1,2,3) for high values of $`q^2`$. Unfortunately $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ gets larger if we lower the external scale $`q^2`$. This signals that one has to add non-perturbative power corrections to the conventional perturbation theory . For intermediate energies, the sum rules  successfully relate many of these power corrections to a few condensates. A further lowering of $`q^2`$ towards the IR-region is catastrophic in most cases 222Exceptions can be found in , where the minimal sensitivity criterion selects a scheme with an IR fixed point., $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ diverges together with $`^n`$ as one encounters the Landau-pole and perturbation theory becomes useless.

The alternative expansion we propose in this paper has no Landau-pole problem and gives sensible results up to $`q^2=0`$ with a reasonable error estimation. We simply have to exchange $`h`$ for a new expansion parameter $`y`$, defined by

$$\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{1}{y}+\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}\mathrm{ln}(\beta _0y).$$
(2.4)
From (2.1),(2.2) and (2.4) we find after some calculations

$``$ $`=`$ $`y^N(1+y[A_1+Nk]+y^2[A_2+N({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\beta _0}}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}})^2)`$
$`+k((N+1)A_1+N{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}})+k^2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}(N+1)]`$
$`+y^3[A_3+A_1(N+1)({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\beta _0}}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}})^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _3}{\beta _0}}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}})^3)`$
$`+k(A_1(N+1){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}}+(N+2)A_2+N(N+2){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\beta _0}}`$
$`N(N+1)({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}})^2)`$
$`+k^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{2}}(N+2)(N+1)+N(N+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}}\right)`$
$`+k^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{6}}(N+2)(N+1)\right)]+\mathrm{})`$
with

$`k`$ $``$ $`k(q^2,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{ln}(\beta _0y)\beta _0\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$ (2.6)
$`A_i`$ $``$ $`r_i(\mu ^2=q^2,\overline{MS})`$ (2.7)
The $`\beta `$-coefficients $`\beta _2,\beta _3,\mathrm{}`$ are also in the $`\overline{MS}`$-scheme.

We now find a row of approximations $`^n(y)`$ with all the redundant dependence residing in one single free parameter $`\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ or equivalently $`y`$. All the other scheme dependence has disappeared, because it was eliminated from the expansion parameter. This might seem strange, since we explicitly refer to the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme, but one can show that another choice for the reference scheme changes the coefficients $`A_i`$333 The scheme/scale dependence of $`r_1,r_2,r_3`$ was derived in . and $`\beta _i`$ in such a way that it exactly compensates the shift of $`k(kk^{}=k+2\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}})`$.

To fix the expansion parameter $`y`$ for each value of $`q^2`$, we will have to impose some condition. We choose a facc: for each approximation $`^n(y)`$ we will set $`y`$ equal to $`y_n`$, the expansion parameter that minimizes the relative correction to the first order truncation of the series:

$`\mathrm{min}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{^n(y)^1(y)}{^1(y)}}\right|=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{^n(y_n)^1(y_n)}{^1(y_n)}}\right|`$ (2.8)
We will use the same error estimation as for the conventional perturbation theory:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^n\left|{\displaystyle \frac{^{n+1}(y_{n+1})^n(y_n)}{^{n+1}(y_{n+1})}}\right|`$ (2.9)
(Notice the difference: the fixing of y is done on the series, while the error is estimated on the results obtained after fixing.) As for any other possible fixing condition (e.g. minimal sensitivity, another facc,…), there is no rigorous mathematical motivation for the condition we use. The true motivation lies in the fact that it generates sensible results with a good error estimation. This is the case for all the calculations we have performed so far. If we use, for example, the more obvious facc, where one minimizes the relative correction to the zero order truncation $`y^N`$, we do not find sensible results for the whole range of energies. There is a discontinuity at the point that separates the high energy region where this correction minimizes to zero, and the low energy region where it minimizes to a nonzero value. Let us now present some results obtained from (2) and (2.8).

## 3 Some results

We now demonstrate the $`y`$-expansion on some quantities that also have been calculated on the lattice. All the needed two and three loop results have been calculated by Chetyrkin and Retey . Everything is in Landau gauge for $`N_c=3`$ and $`N_f=0`$. We will take the method of effective charges to be exemplary for the ordinary perturbation theory, but similar results are found with any other approach to the conventional perturbation theory.

### 3.1 Triple gluon vertex

There are several ways in which one can associate a (renormalization) scale and scheme invariant coupling constant with the triple gluon 3-point function

$$G_{\mu \upsilon \rho }^{(3)abc}(p,q)i^2𝑑x𝑑ye^{i(px+qy)}<T[A_\mu ^a(x)A_\upsilon ^b(y)A_\rho ^c(0)]>,$$
(3.10)
or more precisely with its related vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \upsilon \rho }^{abc}(p,q,pq)`$, defined by

$$G_{\mu \upsilon \rho }^{(3)abc}(p,q)D_{\mu \mu ^{}}^{ad}(p)D_{\upsilon \upsilon ^{}}^{be}(q)D_{\rho \rho ^{}}^{cf}(pq)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ^{}\upsilon ^{}\rho ^{}}^{def}(p,q,pq),$$
(3.11)
where

$$D_{\mu \upsilon }^{ab}(q)i𝑑xe^{iqx}<T[A_\mu ^a(x)A_\upsilon ^b(0)]>.$$
(3.12)
If one sets one external momentum to zero, one finds  that the vertex-function can be written as:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \upsilon \rho }^{abc}(q,q,0)=igf^{abc}\left((2g_{\mu \upsilon }q_\rho g_{\mu \rho }q_\upsilon g_{\rho \upsilon }q_\mu )T_1(q^2)\right)`$
$`(g_{\mu \upsilon }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\upsilon }{q^2}})q_\rho T_2(q^2))`$ (3.13)
The coupling that was calculated on the lattice  is found to be (,section 6.4):

$$\alpha _s(q^2)4\pi h^{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}\text{gg}}(q^2)=h\left(T_1(q^2)\frac{1}{2}T_2(q^2)\right)^2Z(q^2)^3,$$
(3.14)
$`\text{where}h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}},`$ (3.15)
$`D_{\mu \upsilon }^{ab}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{ab}(g_{\mu \upsilon }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\upsilon }{q^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{Z(q^2)}{q^2}}.`$ (3.16)
One can easily check the scheme and scale independence of $`\alpha _s`$. The three-loop result for $`h^{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}\text{gg}}`$ in the $`\overline{MS}`$-scheme for $`\mu ^2=q^2`$ is,:

$`h^{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}\text{gg}}`$ $`=`$ $`h+h^2[{\displaystyle \frac{70}{3}}]+h^3[{\displaystyle \frac{516217}{576}}{\displaystyle \frac{153}{4}}\zeta _3]+`$ (3.17)
$`h^4[{\displaystyle \frac{304676635}{6912}}{\displaystyle \frac{299961}{64}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{81825}{64}}\zeta _5],`$
where $`\zeta _i`$ is the Riemann zeta function. From this we can read of the coefficients $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$ that are needed in (2). The $`\beta `$-coefficients in the $`\overline{MS}`$-scheme have been calculated up to four loops in :

$`\beta _0=11,\beta _1=102,\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{2857}{2}},\beta _3={\displaystyle \frac{149753}{6}}+3564\zeta _3.`$ (3.18)
We will compare our two and three loop results for $`\alpha _s(q^2)`$ obtained from (2) (with $`N=1`$) and (2.8) with the results obtained from the method of effective charges  or equivalently in the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$gg-scheme defined on the triple gluon vertex. The two and three loop $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$-scheme results are found as the solution of (2.2) with $`n=2,3`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$-scheme $`\beta `$-coefficients can be easily obtained from (3.17) and (3.18):

$`\beta _2^{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}\text{gg}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{186747}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{1683}{4}}\zeta _3,`$
$`\beta _3^{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}\text{gg}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{20783939}{128}}{\displaystyle \frac{1300563}{32}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{900075}{32}}\zeta _5.`$ (3.19)
While the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter is given by :

$$2\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}\text{gg}}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}}=\frac{70}{3}.$$
(3.20)
Our two and three loop results are plotted together with the two and three loop $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$-results in figs. 2 and 2.

We can clearly distinct three regions. For $`q>30\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$ one finds the UV-region: the four results for $`\alpha _s`$ coincide and the perturbation theory is completely reliable. The intermediate energies region goes from $`q30\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$ down to $`q10\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$. A difference grows between the two and three loop results, but for both orders the $`y`$-expansion results still coincide with the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$ results. Power corrections are expected. For $`q<10\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$ we find ourselves in the IR-region. The $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$ results diverge while the $`y`$-expansion results continue to behave in a sensible way.

The same conclusions can be read from fig. 3, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ (see (2.3)) is plotted, both for the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$ scheme and for the $`y`$-expansion. In the IR-region the error estimation diverges for the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$ scheme, while it stays in an acceptable interval for the $`y`$-expansion.

It is the facc (2.8) that keeps the error estimation under control in the IR. This criterion, and in fact every other sensible criterion, will select for each momentum $`q`$ a value for y that makes the higher order ($`n>1`$) terms in the series (2) as small as possible. Both for small values of $`q`$ ($`q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$) and for large values ($`q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$) it is the value of

$$yk(q^2,y)=1+y\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}\mathrm{ln}(\beta _0y)y\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},$$
(3.21)
that determines the size of these higher order terms. For $`q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$ the large logarithm will be compensated by the $`y`$ that multiplies it. One finds the usual high energy running of the expansion parameter:

$$y\stackrel{q\mathrm{}}{=}\frac{1}{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^2}+c},$$
(3.22)
with $`c`$ a constant. This gives

$$k(q^2,y)y\stackrel{q\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^2}}\left(c\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^2})\right).$$
(3.23)
For $`q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$ the same cancellation can not occur since $`y`$ must be positive, the large logarithm will now be compensated by the logarithm in the second term, we find a power behavior for $`y`$:

$$y\stackrel{q0}{=}c^{}\left(\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^2}\right)^{\frac{\beta _0^2}{\beta _1}}$$
(3.24)
and

$$k(q^2,y)y\stackrel{q0}{}1.$$
(3.25)
This high and low energy behavior of the expansion parameter $`y`$ is completely universal, it is independent of the order of truncation, of the coefficients $`A_i`$ and to a certain extent of the criterion that was used. The running of $`y`$ is depicted in fig. 4 together with the fitted low (3.24) and high (3.22) energy behavior for the three loop truncation.

If one would use the series itself to estimate the truncation error, (3.25) would seem to invalidate the expansion for low energies, since the higher order terms become order 1. However, if you look at the the row of truncations (2.9) to estimate the error , the expansion remains valid (at least for low orders) since $`2.5\%<\mathrm{\Delta }^2<7.5\%`$ (see fig. 2.3). We have found a same behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ for every other possible vertex-coupling that could be calculated from .

We will finally compare our results with the lattice results of . This requires a fit of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$, which was done for the two and three loop $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$ results in  and  in the intermediate energy region (3 Gev-10 Gev). It was found that the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$-results could be best fitted to the lattice results if a power correction $`\frac{c}{p^2}`$ was added. The fitted two and three loop values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ are: 235 Mev and 238 Mev. The three loop power correction is 30$`\%`$ less then the two loop one.

Since in the intermediate energy region the results of the $`y`$-expansion are the same as the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$ results we can rely on the aforementioned fits. We will use the same value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$=237 Mev, for every order. The two and three loop results of the $`y`$-expansion are plotted together with the lattice results in fig. 5. As expected, the difference between our results and the lattice result can be fitted as a power correction for $`q>3`$ Gev. The amplitude of our maximum is significantly smaller then the amplitude for the lattice maximum in the IR region. But both maxima seem to approach each other, our amplitude grows larger with the order of truncation while the lattice amplitude becomes smaller for larger volumes (smaller $`\beta `$).

### 3.2 The quark gluon vertex

Again, there are several ways one can associate a scale and scheme invariant running coupling with the (zero flavor444no internal fermion loops) quark-gluon vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu ij}^a`$, which is defined by:

$`G_{\mu ij}^{(3)a}(p,q)=S_{ii^{}}(p)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu ^{}i^{}j^{}}^d(p,q,qp)S_{j^{}j}(q)D_{\mu ^{}\mu }^{ad}(p+q),`$ (3.26)
where $`G_{\mu ij}^{(3)a}`$ is the corresponding 3-point function and $`S_{ij}`$ is the quark propagator. After setting the external gluon momentum equal to zero, the vertex can be written as, :

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu ij}^a(q,q,0)=gT_{ij}^a\left[\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_g(q^2)+\gamma _\upsilon \left(g_{\mu \upsilon }\frac{q_\mu q_\upsilon }{q^2}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_g^T(q^2)\right]$$
(3.27)
We find the coupling constant that was defined and calculated on the lattice in  to be:

$$g(q^2)=4\pi h^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_g(q^2)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_g^T(q^2)\right)Z^{\frac{1}{2}}(q^2)Z_2(q^2),$$
(3.28)
where

$$S_{ij}(q)=\delta _{ij}\frac{q/}{q^2}Z_2(q^2).$$
(3.29)
From  one finds, with $`\mu ^2=q^2`$ in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme:

$`g(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi h^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+h[{\displaystyle \frac{151}{24}}]+h^2[{\displaystyle \frac{87557}{384}}47\zeta _3]+`$ (3.30)
$`h^3[{\displaystyle \frac{266866067}{27648}}{\displaystyle \frac{824999}{288}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{349225}{1152}}\zeta _5]+\mathrm{})`$
Putting these coefficients, together with the $`\beta `$-coefficients (3.18) in (2) (now for $`N`$=1/2) and fixing $`y`$ with the facc (2.8) will give us the two and three loop $`y`$-expansion results for $`g(q^2)`$.

The two and three loop $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$ scheme results can now be found as $`4\pi (h^{(n)})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (n=2,3), with $`h^{(n)}`$ solution of (2.2). From (3.18) and (3.30) we can easily determine the needed $`\beta `$-coefficients:

$`\beta _2^{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}\text{qg}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{185039}{48}}1034\zeta _3,`$
$`\beta _3^{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}\text{qg}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32456317}{192}}{\displaystyle \frac{4134361}{72}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{3841475}{288}}\zeta _5.`$ (3.31)
The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-parameter is now given by:

$$2\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}\text{qg}}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}}=\frac{151}{12}.$$
(3.32)
The results are completely similar to the results for the triple gluon vertex. Instead of performing a separate fit we simply take the value ($`237`$ Mev) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ obtained from the triple gluon vertex, to compare with the lattice result. From fig. 6 we can again observe a turnover for the $`y`$-expansion results and the lattice results around 1 Gev, where the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{MOM}}`$ scheme results diverge. We finally note that the lattice results were obtained for a (small) non-zero quark mass, while our results are for a massless quark, so we should not be too enthusiastic about the small amplitude difference in the IR-region.

### 3.3 The gluon propagator

The $`y`$-expansion will now be applied to the calculation of the scale and scheme invariant gluon propagator $`\widehat{D}_{\mu \upsilon }^{ab}(q^2)`$ defined by:

$$\widehat{D}_{\mu \upsilon }^{ab}(q^2)f(h)D_{\mu \upsilon }^{ab}(q^2),$$
(3.33)
with

$$\mu ^2\frac{}{\mu ^2}D_{\mu \upsilon }^{ab}(q^2)(\gamma _{3_0}h+\gamma _{3_1}h^2+\gamma _{3_2}h^3+\mathrm{})D_{\mu \upsilon }^{ab}(q^2)$$
(3.34)
and

$$\mu ^2\frac{}{\mu ^2}f(h)(\gamma _{3_0}h+\gamma _{3_1}h^2+\gamma _{3_2}h^3+\mathrm{})f(h).$$
(3.35)
The general solution of (3.35) is:

$`f(h)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda h^{\frac{\gamma _{3_0}}{\beta _0}}[1+({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_1}}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_0}\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}})h+({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_2}}{2\beta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_1}\beta _1}{2\beta _0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_0}}{2\beta _0}}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_0}\beta _2}{2\beta _0^2}}`$ (3.36)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_1}^2}{2\beta _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_1}\gamma _{3_0}\beta _1}{\beta _0^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3_0}^2\beta _1^2}{2\beta _0^4}})h^2+\mathrm{}],`$
with $`\lambda `$ a constant that determines the overall wave function renormalization. One can easily check the scale and scheme independence of $`\widehat{D}`$. From  and (3.36) we find for $`\widehat{Z}^1(q^2)`$ (cf. (3.16)), with $`\mu ^2=q^2`$ and in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme:

$$\widehat{Z}^1(q^2)=\lambda ^1h^{\frac{13}{22}}(1+h[\frac{25085}{2904}]+h^2[\frac{412485993}{1874048}+\frac{9747}{352}\zeta _3]+\mathrm{}).$$
(3.37)
(Unfortunately we can only determine $`\widehat{Z}^1`$ up to second order since for the third order result one needs, besides the known third order coefficient for $`Z^1`$ and the four loop $`\beta `$-coefficient also the four loop $`\gamma _3`$-coefficient, which is not available at the moment. As a consequence we are not able to perform an error estimation.) The 2 loop $`y`$-expansion result for $`\widehat{Z}^1`$ is now obtained from (2), (2.8) and (3.37). The 2 loop MOM scheme result is found as $`\lambda ^1h_{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{\frac{13}{22}}`$ where $`h^{(2)}`$ is the solution of (2.2) with

$$\beta _2^{\text{MOMz}}=\frac{105708585}{29744}\frac{107217}{208}\zeta _3\text{and}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{MOMz}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}\mathrm{exp}^{\frac{25085}{37752}}.$$
(3.38)
The 2-loop results for $`Z(q^2)`$ (Euclidean momentum) are shown together with a lattice result from  in fig. 7. We now had two fit two things: the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ and the relative wave function renormalization $`\lambda `$. Again, we choose the triple gluon vertex value (237 Mev) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$. $`\lambda `$ is simply determined by fitting the tail of the 2-loop results on the tail of the lattice result (at about 5.5 Gev). The overall agreement of our result with the lattice is similar as for the vertices. In the deep IR-region, however, there is a discrepancy: in  it is argued, by extrapolation to infinite lattice-volume, that the zero momentum gluon propagator is finite while we find a singular zero momentum propagator. Indeed, from the IR-behavior of $`y`$ (3.24) and the expansion for $`\widehat{Z}^1`$ (3.37) one easily obtains the IR-behavior of $`D(q)`$:

$$D(q)\stackrel{q0}{}\frac{y(q)^{\frac{\gamma _{3_0}}{\beta _0}}}{q^2}\stackrel{q0}{}q^{2\frac{\beta _0\gamma _{3_0}\beta _1}{\beta _1}}=q^{\frac{61}{102}}.$$
(3.39)
So our zero momentum result is still singular, although the singularity is much weaker then the tree level (1/$`q^2`$) one. We stress that this specific power behavior will not be altered by higher loop corrections.

### 3.4 The ghost propagator

The calculation of the ghost propagator is completely similar as for the gluon propagator. Again we define the scale and scheme invariant propagator

$$\widehat{G}^{ab}(q)\delta ^{ab}f_g(h)G(q^2)\delta ^{ab}\frac{\widehat{Z}_g(q^2)}{q^2}.$$
(3.40)
From  one now arrives at:

$$\widehat{Z}_g^1(q^2)=\lambda _g^1h^{\frac{9}{44}}(1+h[\frac{5271}{1936}]+h^2[\frac{615512003}{7496192}+\frac{5697}{704}\zeta _3]+\mathrm{}).$$
(3.41)
For the three loop MOM $`\beta `$-coefficient and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-parameter we get:

$$\beta _2^{\text{MOMgh}}=\frac{653203}{176}\frac{6963}{16}\zeta _3\text{and}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{MOMgh}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}\mathrm{exp}^{\frac{1757}{2904}}.$$
(3.42)
The two loop results for the Euclidean propagator are plotted together with the lattice results from  in fig. 8. Again we have set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$=237 Mev and $`\lambda _g`$ was determined by fitting the two loop results on the lattice results at the highest lattice momentum ($`5.5`$ Gev, not shown in the fig.). Notice the Landau-pole for the MOM result. The agreement of our result with the lattice results is satisfying, apart from the strange single data point at the lowest lattice momentum. For the IR-behavior of our result we now find:

$$G(q)\stackrel{q0}{}q^{\frac{103}{68}},$$
(3.43)
which is more singular then the gluon propagator but less singular then the tree level result. Although this IR-behavior is consistent with , we should remark that other lattice studies  predict a more singular behavior.

## 4 Conclusion

We have presented an alternative perturbative expansion for QCD with only one redundant parameter, fixed by a facc, and the unexpected feature of IR-finite results. The reason behind this was found to be a universal power behavior of the running expansion parameter $`y`$. For zero flavors there is a qualitative agreement with the lattice data, comparable with the Schwinger-Dyson results .

We do not expect our result to cover all the physics in the intermediate energy region and in the IR region. It is immediately clear for example, that the $`y`$-expansion for non-zero quark flavor will still respect the chiral symmetry, so additional non-perturbative corrections are definitely needed. However, the fact that our expansion gives finite results in the whole range of energies, seems to make it a better (then ordinary perturbation) framework to start from, if one wants to estimate the true non-perturbative corrections. In the future we will calculate such typical sum-rule quantities as current-current 2-point functions. Other possible applications are the calculation of experimental cross-sections, starting from the ordinary perturbation theory results.

### Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the lattice community for providing us with some of their data. In particular we would like to thank P.Bowman, O.Pene, C.Pittori, J.Micheli and J.Skullerud. We also thank K.Chetyrkin for giving his (perturbative) data in several output formats. Finally we thank O.Bernus for the helping hand on the graphics.


format: text

text:
# Entanglement for rank-2 mixed states

## Abstract

In a recent paper, Rungta *et. al.* \[Phys. Rev. A, $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}`$, 042315, $`2001`$\] introduced a measure of mixed-state entanglement called the *$`I`$-concurrence* for arbitrary pairs of qudits. We find an exact formula for an entanglement measure closely related to the $`I`$-concurrence, the *$`I`$-tangle*, for all mixed states of two qudits having no more than two nonzero eigenvalues. We use this formula to provide a tight upper bound for the entanglement of formation for rank-$`2`$ mixed states of a qubit and a qudit.

Quantum entanglement, as typified by the singlet state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01|10)`$, is a uniquely quantum property of any nonlocal superposition state. Unlike other properties of quantum states, entanglement is singled out by the apparently central role it plays in quantum information processing. Indeed, it is becoming clear that entanglement is a *resource* which can be used to perform quantum communication and computational tasks Bennett et al. (1996). To this end, it is of paramount importance that a general theory of entanglement be developed in order to understand how it can and cannot be manipulated. The first step in this program is to develop physically motivated *entanglement measures* to quantify how much entanglement is present in a given state. Many entanglement measures have been proposed, however, for mixed states, they typically involve difficult minimisations.

The development of an efficient formula for the entanglement present in arbitrary mixed states is a crucial goal of quantum information science. Such a formula would lead to great advances in the theory of quantum communication, as well as possibly revealing the correct role entanglement plays in quantum computational speed-up. To date, while there has been a great deal of work on this subject, there is only one easily-computable entanglement measure and it is specific to pairs of qubits Hill and Wootters (1997); Wootters (1998). The purpose of this Letter is to add to this situation by providing a formula for one particular bipartite entanglement measure, the $`I`$-tangle, for mixed states which have at most two nonzero eigenvalues.

The structure of this Letter is as follows. We begin by introducing the concurrence and the tangle for a pair of qubits. We then discuss a generalisation of the concurrence and the tangle for pairs of qudits. The main result of this Letter, a formula for the $`I`$-tangle of rank-$`2`$ mixed states, is then established. We conclude with a corollary of the main result, an upper bound for the entanglement of formation of a rank-$`2`$ mixed state of a qubit and a qudit.

Before we discuss the $`I`$-tangle, we introduce the *concurrence*, a mixed-state entanglement measure for states of a pair of qubits $`AB`$ Hill and Wootters (1997); Wootters (1998, 2001). The definition of the concurrence makes use of a specific transformation on density operators, the *spin-flip* operation, which is defined as follows. Consider an arbitrary mixed state $`\rho `$ of $`AB`$. We define the spin-flip of $`\rho `$ to be

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^{})II\rho _A^{}II\rho _B^{}+\rho ^{},$$
(1)
where $`\rho _A=\mathrm{tr}_B(\rho )`$ and $`\rho _B=\mathrm{tr}_A(\rho )`$ denote the reduced density operators for subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively. (We have included the trace and hermitian adjoint terms so that the spin-flip operation is defined for *arbitrary* operators acting on $`AB`$.) The formula for the spin-flip is applicable to arbitrary bipartite systems, in which case it is called the *universal state inverter* Rungta et al. (2001).

The spin-flip operation Eq. (1) on a pair of qubits is an example of an antilinear operation. To be more precise, consider a pure state $`\rho =|\psi \psi |`$. The spin-flip operation, when applied to this state, is equivalent to the expression $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=|\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\psi }|`$, where

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\sigma ^y\sigma ^y(|\psi )^{},$$
(2)
and where $`\sigma ^y`$ is expressed in the computational basis as $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)`$, and the complex conjugation is taken in the computational basis. The operation in Eq. (2) is clearly an antilinear operator endnote11 . The definition of the spin-flip as an antilinear operator extends, via linearity, to all mixed states, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\stackrel{}{\theta }\rho \stackrel{}{\theta }`$, where we have added the arrows above the antilinear operator $`\theta `$ representing the spin-flip to indicate the direction in which it acts. It is worth noting that the description of the spin-flip Eq. (1) in terms of an antilinear operator $`\theta `$ is specific to two qubits.

For pure states $`\rho =|\psi \psi |`$, the concurrence $`C`$ of $`|\psi `$ is defined to be $`C=|\psi |\stackrel{~}{\psi }|=\sqrt{\psi |\stackrel{~}{\rho }|\psi }`$. When the state $`\rho `$ of the two qubits is mixed, the concurrence $`C`$ is defined to be a minimum over all pure-state decompositions $`\{p_i,|\psi _i\}`$ of $`\rho `$:

$$C(\rho )=\underset{\{p_i,|\psi _i\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{i}{}p_i|\psi _i|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i|.$$
(3)
It is convenient to introduce another entanglement measure closely related to the concurrence, the *tangle* $`\tau `$ endnote12 , which is also defined as a minimisation over pure-state decompositions:

$$\tau (\rho )=\underset{\{p_i,|\psi _i\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{i}{}p_i|\psi _i|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i|^2.$$
(4)
The squared-concurrence satisfies the inequality $`C^2\tau `$, which follows from the convexity of $`|\psi _i|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i|^2=C^2(|\psi _i)`$. It turns out that the reverse inequality also holds, so that the tangle is equal to the square of the concurrence, $`\tau (\rho )=C^2(\rho )`$ endnote13 . (The reverse inequality may be established by noting that there exists a decomposition $`\{p_i,|\psi _i\}`$ achieving the minimum in Eq. (3) which has the property that $`C(|\psi _i)=C(|\psi _j)`$ Wootters (1998). The inequality follows from substituting this decomposition into the expressions for $`\tau `$ and $`C^2`$.) A simple formula for the concurrence of two qubits is known Wootters (1998),

$$C(\rho )=\mathrm{max}[0,\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4],$$
(5)
where the $`\lambda _i`$ are the square-roots of the singular values, in decreasing order, of the matrix $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$.

For a pair of qudits $`AB`$ we use a variant of the $`I`$-concurrence of Rungta *et. al.* Rungta et al. (2001) to measure the entanglement for mixed states of $`A`$ and $`B`$. The $`I`$-concurrence is defined via Eq. (1) Rungta et al. (2001),

$$C(\rho )=\underset{\{p_i,|\psi _i\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{i}{}p_i\sqrt{\psi _i|\stackrel{~}{\rho _i}|\psi _i},$$
(6)
where $`\rho _i=|\psi _i\psi _i|`$. The entanglement measure we use is a generalisation of the tangle, the *$`I`$-tangle*, defined by

$$\tau (\rho )=\underset{\{p_i,|\psi _i\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{i}{}p_i\psi _i|\stackrel{~}{\rho _i}|\psi _i.$$
(7)
The $`I`$-concurrence and the $`I`$-tangle are good mixed-state entanglement measures because they satisfy the standard properties usually regarded as essential for a good entanglement measure (see, for example, Vidal et al. (2000); Vedral and Plenio (1998)). The inequality $`C^2\tau `$ may be established, by convexity, as for two qubits. Because the equal-entanglement decomposition only exists for pairs of qubits, the $`I`$-tangle is not, in general, equal to the square of the $`I`$-concurrence. Based on the results of this paper, and the calculations of the $`I`$-concurrence for isotropic states endnote14  we feel that the $`I`$-tangle, as defined by a minimisation, is the proper generalisation of the tangle Eq. (4).

The universal state inverter Eq. (1) may be expressed in terms of another formula which will be most useful in the following. Before we write down this formula, however, we need to introduce some definitions. Let $`|i_A`$ and $`|j_B`$ denote the computational basis states for subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$, with dimensions $`d_A`$ and $`d_B`$, respectively. For an arbitrary pair $`\{|i_A,|i^{}_A\}`$, $`\{|j_B,|j^{}_B\}`$ of the computational basis states of $`AB`$ we set up the projectors $`P_A^{(ii^{})}=|i_Ai|+|i^{}_Ai^{}|`$, $`P_B^{(jj^{})}=|j_Bj|+|j^{}_Bj^{}|`$, and $`Q_\alpha =P_A^{(ii^{})}P_B^{(jj^{})}`$, where $`\alpha =(i,i^{},j,j^{})`$. Consider the object $`\rho _\alpha =Q_\alpha \rho Q_\alpha `$. The operator $`\rho _\alpha `$ is a positive operator supported on a $`2\times 2`$ subspace of the Hilbert space of $`AB`$ spanned by $`\{|ij,|i^{}j,|ij^{},|i^{}j^{}\}`$. In this way we can think of $`\rho _\alpha `$ as a subnormalised state of two qubits. The two-qubit spin flip, when applied to $`\rho _\alpha `$, gives

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\alpha =\stackrel{}{\theta }_\alpha \rho \stackrel{}{\theta }_\alpha =\sigma ^y\sigma ^y(Q_\alpha \rho Q_\alpha )^{}\sigma ^y\sigma ^y,$$
(8)
where $`\theta _\alpha =\theta Q_\alpha `$ is the antilinear operator representing the spin-flip operation on the $`2\times 2`$ subspace, and $`\sigma ^y`$ is naturally defined on the two-dimensional subspaces of $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively. Using these definitions we can write an alternative formula for the universal state inverter,

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\underset{\alpha }{}\stackrel{}{\theta }_\alpha \rho \stackrel{}{\theta }_\alpha ,$$
(9)
where the sum over $`\alpha `$ runs over all of the $`(d_A(d_A1)/2)(d_B(d_B1)/2)`$ possible choices of pairs of computational basis states. (The reader may verify that Eq. (9) follows from the expression of the universal state inverter as a tensor product of two superoperators of the form $`𝒫𝒯`$. See Rungta et al. (2001) for further details.)

It is convenient, at this point, to introduce two quantities which will simplify the statement of our main result. Let $`\rho `$ be a density operator for a pair of qudits having no more than two non-zero eigenvalues. We may write $`\rho `$ in terms of its eigenvectors,

$$\rho =p|v_1v_1|+(1p)|v_2v_2|.$$
(10)
Using these eigenvectors we construct the tensor

$$T_{ijkl}=\text{tr}(\gamma _{ij}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{kl}),$$
(11)
where $`\gamma _{ij}=|v_iv_j|`$. We also construct the real symmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`M_{ij}`$ whose independent entries are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_{11}& =\frac{1}{4}T_{1221}+\frac{1}{2}T_{1122}+\frac{1}{4}T_{2112},\hfill \\ \hfill M_{12}& =\frac{i}{4}T_{1221}\frac{i}{4}T_{2112},\hfill \\ \hfill M_{13}& =\frac{1}{4}T_{1121}\frac{1}{4}T_{2122}+\frac{1}{4}T_{1112}\frac{1}{4}T_{1222},\hfill \\ \hfill M_{22}& =\frac{1}{4}T_{1221}+\frac{1}{2}T_{1122}\frac{1}{4}T_{2112},\hfill \\ \hfill M_{23}& =\frac{i}{4}T_{1121}\frac{i}{4}T_{1112}+\frac{i}{4}T_{2122}\frac{i}{4}T_{1222},\hfill \\ \hfill M_{33}& =\frac{1}{4}T_{1111}\frac{1}{2}T_{1122}+\frac{1}{4}T_{2222}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
(The entries of $`M`$ will be shown to be real in the following.)

We now have all the necessary ingredients required for the statement of our main result.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\rho `$ be any density operator for a pair $`AB`$ of qudits, of dimensions $`d_A`$ and $`d_B`$, respectively, having no more than two nonzero eigenvalues. The $`I`$-tangle $`\tau `$ between $`A`$ and $`B`$ is given by the expression

$$\tau (\rho )=\mathrm{tr}(\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho })+2\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}(1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)),$$
(13)
where $`\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix $`M`$ defined by Eq. (12).

The formula Eq. (13) for the $`I`$-tangle is easy to compute for all rank-$`2`$ mixed states of a pair of qudits. We have verified this formula by performing the minimisation in Eq. (7) numerically for a large number of random states, and compared the results with the formula Eq. (13). We found agreement to within $`10^{16}`$.

###### Proof.

The method we use to prove this theorem is similar to that employed by Hill and Wootters Hill and Wootters (1997).

Consider an arbitrary pure state $`|\psi `$ which can be written as a linear combination of the two eigenvectors of $`\rho `$, $`|\psi =c_1|v_1+c_2|v_2`$. The $`I`$-tangle of $`|\psi `$ is given by the expression

$$\tau (\psi )=\psi |\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|\psi =\underset{\alpha }{}\psi |\stackrel{}{\theta }_\alpha |\psi \psi |\stackrel{}{\theta }_\alpha |\psi ,$$
(14)
where $`\sigma =|\psi \psi |`$, and we have used Eq. (9) to rewrite the spin flip in terms of the antilinear operators $`\theta _\alpha `$. Each of the terms in the sum over $`\alpha `$ may be written as a trace,

$$\tau (\psi )=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{tr}\left(\omega ^{}\zeta ^\alpha \omega \zeta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{}\right),$$
(15)
where $`\omega _{ij}=c_ic_j^{}`$ is the density matrix of $`|\psi `$ expressed in the $`\{|v_1,|v_2\}`$ basis, and $`\zeta _{ij}^\alpha =v_i|\stackrel{}{\theta }_\alpha |v_j`$.

The function on the RHS of Eq. (15) can be extended via linearity to a function $`f`$ of all $`2\times 2`$ density matrices $`\omega `$ expressed in terms of the $`\{|v_1,|v_2\}`$ basis, i.e., $`f(\omega )=_\alpha \mathrm{tr}\left(\omega ^{}\zeta ^\alpha \omega \zeta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{}\right)`$. The function $`f`$ has the property that it is equal to the $`I`$-tangle for all pure states $`\psi `$, $`f(\psi )=\tau (\psi )`$.

Any $`2\times 2`$ density operator $`\omega `$ may be expressed in terms of the Pauli matrices via the operator expansion, $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}(I+𝐫𝝈)`$, where $`r_i=\mathrm{tr}(\omega \sigma ^i)`$. Substituting this expansion into the expression for $`f`$ gives the quadratic form

$$f(\omega )=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})+\underset{j}{}r_jL_j+\underset{j,k}{}r_jr_kM_{jk},$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=_\alpha \zeta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{}\zeta ^\alpha `$,

$$L_j=\mathrm{tr}(\sigma ^j\mathrm{{\rm Y}}),$$
(17)
and

$$M_{jk}=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{tr}(\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{}\zeta ^\alpha \sigma ^k\zeta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{}).$$
(18)
Each of the terms in the sum over $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (18) is a real symmetric matrix, so that $`M`$ is a real symmetric matrix. It may be straightforwardly verified that the entries of $`M`$ are given by Eq. (12).

For the rank-$`2`$ density operator $`\rho `$, the state-space of the system $`AB`$ can be considered to be the space of all convex combinations of superpositions of $`|v_1`$ and $`|v_2`$. If a particular state $`|\psi `$ of $`AB`$ is pure, its corresponding $`2\times 2`$ density operator in the $`\{|v_1`$, $`|v_2\}`$ basis, $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}(I+𝐫𝝈)`$, satisfies the condition $`|𝐫|^2=1`$. In this way, we can think of the entire state-space as the Bloch sphere where the poles are the eigenvectors $`|v_1`$ and $`|v_2`$. A particular decomposition of $`\rho `$ may be viewed as the weighted sum of points on the surface of the Bloch sphere, where $`\rho `$ lies at the centre of mass of the weighted sum. The function $`f`$ is defined on the entire state-space $`|𝐫|^21`$.

When the bipartite system $`AB`$ is a pair of qubits, there is only one term in the sum Eq. (9), and $`f`$ reduces to the quadratic form that Hill and Wootters Hill and Wootters (1997) study. In this case, the eigenvalues of $`M`$ are given by $`\pm \frac{1}{2}|det\zeta |`$ and $`\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tr}(\zeta ^{}\zeta )`$, which means that $`f`$ is convex along two directions and concave along a third. In general, the matrix $`M`$ will have three positive eigenvalues, so that $`f`$ is typically convex.

For the purposes of this proof it is essential that a quadratic form $`g`$ be constructed which agrees with $`f`$ on pure states $`\psi `$ which has the additional property that it is convex along two directions and linear along a third. A function $`g`$ which has these properties may be constructed from $`f`$ as follows,

$$g(\omega )f(\omega )\lambda _{\text{min}}(|𝐫|^21),$$
(19)
where $`\lambda _{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix $`M`$. This function is a quadratic form,

$$g(\omega )=K+\underset{j}{}r_jL_j+\underset{j,k}{}r_jr_kN_{jk},$$
(20)
where $`N=M\lambda _{\text{min}}I`$, and $`K=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})+\lambda _{\text{min}}`$. The matrix $`N`$ which defines the quadratic form $`g`$ has two positive eigenvalues and one zero eigenvalue so that $`g`$ is convex along two directions and linear along the third. The quadratic form $`g`$ has the additional property that it is equal to $`f`$ for pure states $`\psi `$, ($`|𝐫|^2=1`$).

At this point we recall a theorem due to Uhlmann Uhlmann (2000), which concerns functions of density matrices expressed as minimisations over all pure-state decompositions.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`G`$ be a positive real-valued function defined on pure states. The function $`𝒢`$, defined for all mixed states $`\rho `$, given by

$$𝒢(\rho )=\underset{\{p_i,|\psi _i\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{i}{}p_iG(\psi _i),$$
(21)
where the minimisation runs over all pure-state decompositions of $`\rho `$, $`\{p_i,|\psi \}`$, is the *largest* convex function which agrees with $`G`$ on pure states $`\rho =\psi `$.

The $`I`$-tangle is expressed as a minimisation over all pure-state decompositions of a density operator, so if we could find the largest convex function which agrees with $`f=\tau `$ on pure states $`\psi `$ it is guaranteed to be equal to the $`I`$-tangle for all mixed states. We claim that $`g`$ is precisely this function. To prove this statement we proceed via contradiction. Assume that there is a convex function $`g^{}`$ which agrees with $`f`$ on pure states but which is larger than $`g`$. We can write $`g^{}`$ in terms of $`g`$ and a ‘correction’ $`t`$

$$g^{}(\omega )=g(\omega )+t(\omega ).$$
(22)
In order that $`g^{}`$ satisfy the correct boundary conditions $`t(\omega )`$ must be zero on the set of all pure states (the surface of the Bloch sphere). Consider the coordinate system $`x_i`$ defined by the three eigenvectors of $`N`$ where, without loss of generality, we choose the $`x_3`$ coordinate to correspond with the direction along which $`g`$ grows linearly. The condition that $`g^{}`$ be convex is equivalent to requiring that the Hessian matrix

$$𝐇=\frac{^2g^{}}{x_ix_j}$$
(23)
is positive semidefinite Rockafellar (1970). In order that $`𝐇`$ be positive semidefinite, it is necessary (although not sufficient) that the entry $`𝐇_{33}`$ satisfies the inequality $`𝐇_{33}0`$ Horn and Johnson (1990). Because $`g`$ grows linearly along $`x_3`$, the condition that $`𝐇_{33}0`$ becomes $`\frac{^2t}{x_3^2}0`$, which means that $`t`$ is convex as a function of $`x_3`$. The boundary conditions, $`t(\psi )=0`$, therefore imply that $`t`$ is everywhere negative. Hence $`g^{}g`$, and we have a contradiction. This implies that $`g`$ is the largest convex function which takes the values $`\tau (\psi )`$ on the set of all pure states. Therefore, theorem 2 shows that $`g`$ is equal to the $`I`$-tangle.

The expression for the $`I`$-tangle $`\tau `$ may be simplified by noting that, for rank-$`2`$ $`\rho `$, $`1|𝐫|^2=2(1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2))`$. Note, also, that $`f(\rho )=\mathrm{tr}(\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho })`$. Hence we can write $`\tau (\rho )=\mathrm{tr}(\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho })+2\lambda _{\text{min}}(1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2))`$. ∎

The decomposition which achieves the minimum for the $`I`$-tangle Eq. (13) consists of two terms. In contradistinction to the case of two qubits, the minimising decomposition will, in general, consist of terms with differing values of $`\tau `$. This is because the surfaces of constant $`g`$ will typically be curved, so that the trick of Hill and Wootters cannot be applied (see Hill and Wootters (1997) for the construction of the minimising decomposition when the surfaces of constant $`g`$ are elliptic cylinders). The construction of the minimising decomposition follows from observing that the function $`g`$ has the property that it grows linearly in one direction. Consider the line parallel to the eigenvector of $`N`$, whose associated eigenvalue is zero, which passes through the density operator $`\rho `$. The density operator $`\rho `$ may be written as a convex sum of the two pure states $`|\varphi _1`$ and $`|\varphi _2`$ which lie at either end of the line, $`\rho =q_1|\varphi _1\varphi _1|+q_2|\varphi _2\varphi _2|`$. Because the $`I`$-tangle is convex, we obtain the inequality

$$\tau (\rho )q_1\tau (\varphi _1)+q_2\tau (\varphi _2).$$
(24)
However, $`\tau =g`$ varies linearly in this direction, so that the inequality in Eq. (24) is actually an equality.

When one of the subsystems of the bipartite system $`AB`$ is a qubit it is possible to obtain a relation between the $`I`$-tangle $`\tau `$ and the entanglement of formation $``$. For pure states $`\psi `$ of $`AB`$ the entanglement of formation is given in terms of the $`I`$-tangle via

$$(\psi )=(\tau (\psi )),$$
(25)
where $`(x)=H\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1x}\right)`$, and $`H`$ is the binary entropy function $`H(x)=x\mathrm{log}x(1x)\mathrm{log}(1x)`$, where the logarithm is taken to base $`2`$. The function $``$ is concave and monotone increasing. If we consider the minimising decomposition $`\{q_i,|\varphi _i\}`$ we constructed in the previous paragraph, we obtain the chain of inequalities

$$(\rho )q_1(\tau (\varphi _1))+q_2(\tau (\varphi _2))(\tau (\rho )),$$
(26)
where the first inequality follows from the definition of the entanglement of formation, and the second from the fact $`(g)`$ is concave along the line passing through the pure states $`|\varphi _i`$. This statement is the content of the following corollary:

###### Corollary 1.

For rank-$`2`$ mixed states $`\rho `$ of a qubit $`A`$ and a qudit $`B`$, the entanglement of formation $``$ of $`\rho `$ satisfies the inequality

$$(\rho )H\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\tau (\rho )}\right).$$
(27)
Numerical experiments indicate that the expressions on the LHS and RHS of Eq. (27) usually differ only by about $`10^4`$, so that the inequality is typically very close to an equality; it is not, however, an equality.

We have found a formula for the $`I`$-tangle for all states of a pair of qudits having no more than two nonzero eigenvalues. We have also found an upper bound for the entanglement of formation between rank-$`2`$ mixed states of a qubit and a qudit. The method we employed to construct these formulae relied crucially on theorem 2. It is tempting to conjecture that the construction of entanglement measures might be simplified by searching for large convex functions which satisfy certain boundary conditions — perhaps as solutions to certain partial differential equations. There are some difficulties with this suggestion, however. We must include in this search space functions which are not analytic at one or more points (the concurrence is not analytic at all points). Nonetheless, perhaps there exists a systematic way to construct good analytic approximations to entanglement measures expressed as minimisations over pure state decompositions.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would especially like to thank Carl Caves, Michael Nielsen, and Bill Wootters for their help and for inspirational discussions which led to this work. I would also like to thank Carl Caves for pointing out the substantially simpler proof of Eq. (9). Thanks also to Michael Bremner, Chris Dawson, Jennifer Dodd, Alexei Gilchrist, Duncan Mortimer, and Armin Uhlmann for helpful and stimulating discussions. This work has been funded, in part, by an Australian Postgraduate Award.


text:
# Beyond the tree level in the AdS/CFT Correspondence

## 1 Introduction

It was at the end of 1997 that Maldacena  conjectured a correspondence between the large $`N`$ limit111$`N`$ is the dimension of the gauge group. of certain Yang-Mills superconformal field theories and supergravity on $`AdS_{n+1}`$ . However in his article he didn’t explain how to do calculations with it and several authors tried to make the correspondence more precise. In  a possible formulation within string theory can be found, but it was mainly Witten  that explained how to construct explicitly the two point Green’s function in a general frame. He considered a simple model like the scalar field theory and using heuristic arguments, wrote an expression for the Green’s function in the massless and massive case.

Basically the idea is to identify the partition function of the bulk ($`AdS_{n+1}`$ ) theory with the generating functional for the boundary conformal theory. Obviously the partition function involves a functional integration so we must impose suitable boundary conditions to restrict this integration. The boundary value of the bulk field is to be identified as a source term for the boundary theory. In this formulation the correspondence seems to be true more generally and not restricted to string theory. In this paper we consider a massive scalar field theory.

Suppose to have the $`\varphi `$ field defined on $`AdS_{n+1}`$ (which we shall denote $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and consider the $`\varphi _0`$ field defined as the value of the $`\varphi `$ field on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. At the same time consider a set of operators $`𝒪`$ which belong to the boundary theory and assume a coupling of the form

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }d^nx𝒪(x)\varphi _0(x)$$

We can define the generating functional for the boundary theory as

$$Z[\varphi _0]=e^{_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi _0𝒪}_{CFT}$$

but we have no idea on how to evaluate the $`_{CFT}`$ expectation value. Consider now the bulk scalar theory and its partition function $`Z_{AdS}[S;\varphi _0]`$ whose expression is

$$Z_{AdS}[S;\varphi _0]=_{\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi _0}𝒟\varphi e^{S[\varphi ]}$$

The AdS/CFT correspondence states that we can identify the two last expressions

$$e^{_\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi _0𝒪}_{CFT}_{\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi _0}𝒟\varphi e^{S[\varphi ]}$$
(1)
provided that we restrict the functional integration on the right hand side to the $`\varphi `$ fields that satisfy the $`\varphi _0`$ boundary condition. In this way we have a prescription on how to evaluate the $`_{CFT}`$ expectation value.

A large number of papers on this subject has been produced starting from  and . See for example  \-  for specific arguments. A detailed introduction to the AdS/CFT correspondence can be found in the first part of  and for a general reference on conformal field theories see .

To my knowledge the correspondence has always been considered at tree level, evaluating the partition function of the bulk theory only over the classical solution. The basic requirement is that the derivatives with respect to $`\varphi _0`$ evaluated at $`\varphi _0=0`$ of the right hand side of (1) are covariant under the conformal group. It is then interesting to push further our calculation by considering the one loop approximation in order to see whether the correspondence remains true. This is what we do in this paper. We emphasize that our calculations are formal in the sense that we do not worry about possible infinities in our expressions. Nevertheless infinities are a real problem which several authors discussed (for example , ) but we think that a formal verification of the transformation properties under the conformal group is a necessary prerequisite for any further development. In section 2 we propose a brief review of the tree level case and the basic results. In section 3 we calculate the one loop corrections for the correlation functions and we study their transformation rules.

## 2 Scalar field theory on $`AdS_{n+1}`$ : a review

In the following we will use some notations introduced in several recent papers (, ). Consider a (n+2)-dimensional pseudoeuclidean space $`E^{n+2}`$ with coordinates

$$\text{Y}(y_0,\mathrm{},y_{n+1})ds^2=dy_0^2dy_{n+1}^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}dy_i^2$$

In this frame the euclidean222Here the “time” coordinate is represented by $`y_{n+1}`$, so the euclidean $`AdS_{n+1}`$ corresponds to considering $`y_{n+1}iy_{n+1}`$; the minkowskian version of $`AdS_{n+1}`$ would have been
$$y_0^2+y_{n+1}^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_i^2=1$$
$`AdS_{n+1}`$ equation turns out to be

$$y_0^2y_{n+1}^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_i^2=1$$

Define $`uy_0+y_{n+1}`$, $`vy_0y_{n+1}`$, $`x_i\frac{y_i}{u}`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`x_0u^1`$. In this way we obtain the well known $`AdS_{n+1}`$ metric

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{x_0^2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}dx_i^2$$

The $`y`$ set of coordinates should not be confused with the $`x`$ set since the former is defined in the $`E^{n+2}`$ space while the latter is defined on the $`AdS_{n+1}`$ manifold. The $`AdS_{n+1}`$ manifold $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is represented by the upper half plane with equation $`x_0>0`$ while its boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is represented by the hyperplane $`x_0=0`$ plus the single point $`x_0=\mathrm{}`$.

The action $`S[\varphi ]`$ for the scalar $`\varphi ^4`$ model is

$$S[\varphi ]=_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[(_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi )+m^2\varphi ^2\right]+\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi ^4\right\}$$
(2)
which yields the field equation

$$(^2m^2)\varphi =\frac{\lambda }{3!}\varphi ^3$$
(3)
where333 In these coordinates the operator $`(^2m^2)`$ is explicitly given by
$$\left(x_0^2\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}x_0(n1)\frac{}{x_0}m^2\right)$$
$`^2\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu (\sqrt{g}^\mu )`$. Here the $`\sqrt{g}`$ factor is the square root of the metric determinant and makes the global measure $`\{d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\}`$ invariant under general coordinates transformations. By means of the Green’s formula we transform (3) into an integral equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi (x)& =_\mathrm{\Omega }d^ny\sqrt{h}n_\mu \frac{G(x,y)}{y_\mu }\varphi (y)+\frac{\lambda }{3!}_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{n+1}y\sqrt{g}G(x,y)(\varphi (y))^3\hfill \\ & =\varphi ^{(0)}(x)+\varphi ^{(1)}(x)\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Here $`h`$ is the determinant of the induced metric on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the covariant Green’s function satisfies the equation

$$(^2m^2)G(x,y)=\frac{\delta ^{n+1}(xy)}{\sqrt{g}}$$

with the boundary condition $`G(x,y)|_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$. The tree level approximation is then $`\varphi (x)\varphi ^{(0)}(x)`$ and the action takes the form

$$S[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}_\mathrm{\Omega }d^nx\sqrt{h}n_\mu \varphi ^{(0)}^\mu \varphi ^{(0)}+\frac{\lambda }{4!}_\mathrm{\Omega }d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}(\varphi ^{(0)})^4$$
(5)
Let’s consider now the free field case. Solving equation (3) by Fourier-transform methods, we find two linearly independent solutions

$$x_0^{\frac{n}{2}}e^{i\text{k}\text{x}}I_\alpha (kx_0)x_0^{\frac{n}{2}}e^{i\text{k}\text{x}}K_\alpha (kx_0)$$

where $`I_\alpha `$ e $`K_\alpha `$ are modified Bessel functions444$`I_\alpha (z)`$ and $`K_\alpha (z)`$ satisfy the differential equation
$$z^2\frac{d^2w}{dz^2}+z\frac{dw}{dz}(z^2+\alpha ^2)w=0$$
 and $`\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{n^2}{4}+m^2}`$; k is an n dimensional vector while $`k=|\text{k}|\sqrt{_{i=1}^nk_i^2}`$. The covariant Green’s function is

$$\begin{array}{c}G(x,y)=(x_0y_0)^{\frac{n}{2}}\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}e^{i\text{k}(\text{x}\text{y})}[K_\alpha (kx_0)I_\alpha (ky_0)\theta (x_0y_0)+\hfill \\ \hfill +I_\alpha (kx_0)K_\alpha (ky_0)\theta (y_0x_0)]\end{array}$$
(6)
where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside step function. This expression can be integrated explicitly and the result is

$$G(x,y)=\frac{c}{2\alpha }\xi ^\mathrm{\Delta }F(\frac{n}{2},\mathrm{\Delta };\alpha +1;\xi ^2)$$
(7)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{n}{2}+\alpha c=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })}{\pi ^{\frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}$$

and $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ is the hypergeometric function; the expression for $`\xi `$ is

$$\xi =\frac{1}{2x_0y_0}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[|xy|^2+|xy^{}|^2\right]+\sqrt{|xy|^2|xy^{}|^2}\right\}$$

where $`x(x_0,\text{x})`$, $`x^{}(x_0,\text{x})`$ and $`|u|^2_{i=0}^nu_i^2`$.

After a rather lengthy calculation it is possible to arrive at the following expression for the action $`S[\varphi ]`$ at tree level

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S[\varphi ]=& c\alpha _\mathrm{\Omega }d^nxd^ny\frac{\varphi _0(x)\varphi _0(y)}{|\text{x}\text{y}|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}+\hfill \\ & +\frac{\lambda c^4}{4!}_\mathrm{\Omega }d^nx_1\mathrm{}d^nx_4\varphi _0(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _0(x_4)I_4(x_1,\mathrm{},x_4)\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`I_4(x_1,\mathrm{},x_4)`$ is expressed by

$$I_4(x_1,\mathrm{},x_4)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{d^{n+1}y}{y_0^{n+1}}\left(\frac{y_0}{y_0^2+|\text{y}\text{x}_1|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\left(\frac{y_0}{y_0^2+|\text{y}\text{x}_4|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(9)
and $`\varphi _0`$ represents the boundary value of the $`\varphi `$ field. The AdS/CFT correspondence states then that two and four point functions for the boundary theory must have the form

$$𝒪(\text{x})𝒪(\text{y})\frac{1}{|\text{x}\text{y}|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}$$
(10)
$$𝒪(\text{x}_1)𝒪(\text{x}_2)𝒪(\text{x}_3)𝒪(\text{x}_4)f(\frac{\text{x}_{12}\text{x}_{34}}{\text{x}_{13}\text{x}_{24}},\frac{\text{x}_{12}\text{x}_{34}}{\text{x}_{14}\text{x}_{23}})\underset{i,j=1;i<j}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{1}{\text{x}_{ij}^{\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }}}$$
(11)
as dictated by conformal invariance. In  it is shown that this is the case and the argument is generalized to the n point functions at tree level. Here $`f`$ is an arbitrary function and $`\text{x}_{ij}|\text{x}_i\text{x}_j|`$.

## 3 Beyond the tree level: one loop corrections

In the following we discuss in detail the two and four point one loop corrections and we show that the argument can be extended to the n point case straightforwardly.

### 3.1 Effective action

Let’s define $`\varphi _J(x)`$ to be the classical solution, which obeys the classical field equation $`\frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi (x)}|_{\varphi =\varphi _J}J(x)`$ and satisfies $`\varphi _J(x)|_{J=0}=0`$. Define the fluctuation field $`\xi \varphi \varphi _J`$ and perform a Taylor expansion of $`S[\varphi ]`$ around the stationary point $`\varphi =\varphi _J`$. Denoting the generating functional by $`Z[J]`$ we have

$$Z[J]e^{S[\varphi _J]+{\scriptscriptstyle J\varphi _J}}\left(\frac{𝒟\xi e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^{n+1}xd^{n+1}y\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \xi (x)\delta \xi (y)}}}|_{\xi =0}\xi (x)\xi (y)}}{𝒟\xi e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^{n+1}xd^{n+1}y\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \xi (x)\delta \xi (y)}}}|_{\xi =0}\xi (x)\xi (y)}|_{J=0}}\right)$$
(12)
Note that $`\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \xi (x)\delta \xi (y)}|_{\xi =0}=\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \varphi (x)\delta \varphi (y)}|_{\varphi =\varphi _J}`$ and the integrals involved in (12) are Gaussian, so we have

$$Z[J]e^{S[\varphi _J]+{\scriptscriptstyle J\varphi _J}}\frac{\sqrt{det\left(\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \varphi (x)\delta \varphi (y)}|_{\varphi =0}\right)}}{\sqrt{det\left(\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \varphi (x)\delta \varphi (y)}|_{\varphi =\varphi _J}\right)}}$$
(13)
The effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi _J]=S[\varphi _J]+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}det\left(\frac{\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \varphi (x)\delta \varphi (y)}|_{\varphi =\varphi _J}}{\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \varphi (x)\delta \varphi (y)}|_{\varphi =0}}\right)=S[\varphi _J]+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}det\left(A[\varphi ^{(0)}]\right)$$
(14)
where $`\varphi (J;x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{g(x)}}\frac{\delta lnZ[J]}{\delta J(x)}`$ and we have defined

$$A[\varphi ^{(0)}]\frac{x_0^2_{i=0}^n\frac{^2}{x_i^2}x_0(n1)\frac{}{x_0}m^2\frac{\lambda }{2}(\varphi ^{(0)}(x))^2}{x_0^2_{i=0}^n\frac{^2}{x_i^2}x_0(n1)\frac{}{x_0}m^2}$$
(15)
### 3.2 One loop corrections

The one loop corrections for the two and four point functions are

$$𝒪(\text{y})𝒪(\text{z})=\frac{a\lambda c^2}{2}\frac{d^{n+1}x}{x_0^{n+1}}\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\text{y}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\text{z}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(16)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝒪(\text{y})𝒪(\text{z})𝒪(\text{v})𝒪(\text{w})=\frac{3}{2}\lambda ^2c^4\frac{d^{n+1}x}{x_0^{n+1}}\frac{d^{n+1}x^{}}{x_0^{n+1}}G^2(x,x^{})\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times \left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\text{y}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\text{z}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0^{}}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\text{}\text{v}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0^{}}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\text{}\text{w}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}$$
(17)
We have here defined $`aG(x,x)`$ because it is easy to check that $`G(x,x)`$ is a constant.

We now show that these expressions satisfy the constraints imposed by conformal invariance. It is clear from the very structure that they are invariant under the Poincaré subgroup, so all we have to do is to verify their covariance under dilations and SCT (Special Conformal Transformations).

Under a dilation $`\text{u}\alpha \text{u}`$ we have

$$𝒪(\alpha \text{y})𝒪(\alpha \text{z})=\frac{a\lambda c^2}{2}\frac{d^{n+1}x}{x_0^{n+1}}\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\alpha \text{y}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\alpha \text{z}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(18)
Changing the integration variable $`x\alpha x`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒪(\alpha \text{y})𝒪(\alpha \text{z})& =\frac{a\lambda c^2}{2}\frac{\alpha ^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\alpha ^{4\mathrm{\Delta }}}\frac{d^{n+1}x}{x_0^{n+1}}\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\text{y}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+|\text{x}\text{z}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\hfill \\ & =\alpha ^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}𝒪(\text{y})𝒪(\text{z})\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
The dilation is performed on an n-vector while the change in the integration variable is on an (n+1)-vector, but we can always interpret $`\text{u}(0,\text{u})`$.

Let’s consider now the SCT transformation $`\text{u}\text{u}^{}=\frac{\text{u}\text{b}\text{u}^2}{12(\text{b}\text{u})+\text{b}^2\text{u}^2}`$ and define

$$\gamma (\text{u})[12(\text{b}\text{u})+\text{b}^2\text{u}^2]$$

$$\gamma (u)[12(bu)+b^2u^2]$$

where the dot stands for the canonical scalar product.

We have

$$𝒪(\text{y}^{})𝒪(\text{z}^{})=\frac{a\lambda c^2}{2}\frac{d^{n+1}x}{x_0^{n+1}}\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+\left|\text{x}\frac{\text{y}\text{b}\text{y}^2}{\gamma (\text{y})}\right|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0}{x_0^2+\left|\text{x}\frac{\text{z}\text{b}\text{z}^2}{\gamma (\text{z})}\right|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }$$

Note that $`\gamma (u)\gamma (\text{u})`$ so that the $`\gamma `$ factors cannot be reabsorbed by changing the integration variable. In this case the verification requires three preliminary remarks:

* an n dimensional SCT transformation with parameter b performed on n dimensional vectors u is equivalent to an n+1 dimensional SCT transformation with parameter $`b=(0,\text{b})`$ performed on n+1 dimensional vectors $`u=(0,\text{u})`$;
* an n+1 dimensional SCT transformation with parameter b performed on n+1 dimensional vectors $`u=(u_0,\text{u})`$ is explicitly given by

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}u_0\frac{u_0}{\gamma (u)}\hfill & \\ \text{u}\frac{\text{u}\text{b}\text{u}^2}{\gamma (u)}\hfill & \end{array}$$

so that the “time” component is only rescaled;
* equation (16) can be written as

$$𝒪(\text{y})𝒪(\text{z})=\frac{a\lambda c^2}{2}\frac{d^{n+1}x}{x_0^{n+1}}\left(\frac{x_0}{|xy|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0}{|xz|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(20)
where $`y=(0,\text{y})`$, $`z=(0,\text{z})`$.

Consider then the n-dimensional transformation with parameter b as a particular n+1 dimensional transformation with parameter $`b=(0,\text{b})`$. We shall note that under SCT we have

$$|x_ix_j|\frac{|x_ix_j|}{\sqrt{\gamma (x_i)\gamma (x_j)}}$$

so that equation (20) transforms into

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒪(\text{y}^{})𝒪(\text{z}^{})& =\frac{a\lambda c^2}{2}\frac{d^{n+1}x}{x_0^{n+1}}\left(\frac{x_0\gamma (x)\gamma (y)}{\gamma (x)|xy|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{x_0\gamma (x)\gamma (z)}{\gamma (x)|xz|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\hfill \\ & =\gamma (y)^\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma (z)^\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪(\text{y})𝒪(\text{z})\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
but since we have assumed $`b=(0,\text{b})`$ and $`u=(0,\text{u})`$, we have $`\gamma (u)=\gamma (\text{u})`$ whence

$$𝒪(\text{y}^{})𝒪(\text{z}^{})=\gamma (\text{y})^\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma (\text{z})^\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪(\text{y})𝒪(\text{z})$$
(22)
accordingly to what was expected.

The four point case parallels the two point one. It is straightforward to show covariance under dilations and special conformal transformations: the argument is exactly the same. The only difference is the Green’s function $`G^2(x,x^{})`$ which is now not constant but we show that in fact it is an invariant function. We remind its expression

$$G(x,x^{})=\frac{c}{2\alpha }\xi ^\mathrm{\Delta }F(\frac{n}{2},\mathrm{\Delta };\alpha +1;\xi ^2)$$

where

$$\xi =\frac{1}{2x_0x_0^{}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[|xx^{}|^2+|xx^{}|^2\right]+\sqrt{|xx^{}|^2|xx^{}|^2}\right\}$$

and $`x(x_0,\text{x})`$, $`x^{}(x_0,\text{x})`$.

Dilation invariance of the $`\xi `$ variable is self evident. Under SCT, $`\xi `$ transforms into

$$\xi =\frac{\gamma (x)\gamma (x^{})}{2x_0x_0^{}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{|xx^{}|^2}{\gamma (x)\gamma (x^{})}+\frac{|xx^{}|^2}{\gamma (x)\gamma (x^{})}\right]+\frac{\sqrt{|xx^{}|^2|xx^{}|^2}}{\gamma (x)\sqrt{\gamma (x^{})\gamma (x^{})}}\right\}$$

but since $`b=(0,\text{b})`$, we have $`\gamma (u)=\gamma (u^{})`$. We can conclude that the variable $`\xi `$ is invariant under SCT too and write

$$𝒪(\alpha \text{y})𝒪(\alpha \text{z})𝒪(\alpha \text{v})𝒪(\alpha \text{w})=\alpha ^{4\mathrm{\Delta }}𝒪(\text{y})𝒪(\text{z})𝒪(\text{v})𝒪(\text{w})$$
(23)
$$𝒪(\text{y}^{})𝒪(\text{z}^{})𝒪(\text{v}^{})𝒪(\text{w}^{})=\gamma (\text{y})^\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma (\text{z})^\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma (\text{v})^\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma (\text{w})^\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪(\text{y})𝒪(\text{z})𝒪(\text{v})𝒪(\text{w})$$
(24)
To generalize the argument it is not difficult to write down the 2N point function555The number of points must be even because of the $`\varphi \varphi `$ symmetry in the action. All functions with an odd number of points vanish., following the hint given by the two and four point case. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒪(\text{x}_{1a})𝒪(\text{x}_{1b})\mathrm{}𝒪(\text{x}_{Na})𝒪(\text{x}_{Nb})\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda ^Nc^{2N}\frac{d^{n+1}z_1}{z_{1}^{}{}_{0}{}^{n+1}}\mathrm{}\frac{d^{n+1}z_N}{z_{N}^{}{}_{0}{}^{n+1}}G(z_1,z_2)G(z_2,z_3)\mathrm{}G(z_{N1},z_N)G(z_N,z_1)\times \\ \hfill \times \left(\frac{z_{1}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{z_{1}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}+|\text{z}_1\text{x}_{1a}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{z_{1}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{z_{1}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}+|\text{z}_1\text{x}_{1b}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{}\mathrm{}\times \left(\frac{z_{N}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{z_{N}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}+|\text{z}_N\text{x}_{Na}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{z_{N}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}}{z_{N}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}+|\text{z}_N\text{x}_{Nb}|^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}$$
(25)
Every step of our argument can be replicated, so we can say that also at one loop level the AdS/CFT correspondence holds in the sense that one loop corrections have the same transformation laws under the conformal group as the correlation functions at tree level.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Prof. Kensuke Yoshida for introducing me to the AdS/CFT correspondence.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The basic, universal quantities of the QCD improved parton model are the scale dependent parton distributions, like the gluon distribution $`g(x,Q^2)`$, where $`x`$ denotes the momentum fraction. The (integrated) parton distributions can be related to the less inclusive distributions $`f(x,Q_t,Q)`$ unintegrated over transverse momentum $`Q_t`$ of the parton. Those uninegrated distributions are often needed in less inclusive measurements which are sensitive to the transverse momentum of the parton  \- .

The unintegrated, scale dependent distributions are described in QCD by the Catani-Ciafaloni-Fiorani-Marchesini (CCFM) equation  \-  based upon quantum coherence which implies angular ordering . Its very nice feature is the fact that it embodies both the DGLAP and BFKL evolutions at low $`x`$. In the region of large and moderately small values of $`x`$, where the small $`x`$ effects can be neglected the CCFM equation becomes equivalent to the (LO) DGLAP evolution. This approximation corresponds to the so called ’single loop’ approximation .

The CCFM equation interlocks in a rather complicated way the two relevant scales i.e. the transverse momentum $`Q_t`$ of the parton and the hard scale $`Q`$. The main purpose of this paper is to explore the fact that in the ’single loop’ approximation the CCFM equation can be solved exactly in the transverse coordinate representation conjugate to the transverse momentum of the parton. The unintegrated distributions can then be obtained from the Fourier-Bessel transform of this solution. Although the ’single loop’ approximation neglects small $`x`$ effects and so it is not valid at very small $`x`$ it can be a reasonable approximation at large and moderately small values of $`x`$ ( $`x0.01`$ or so), which is certainly the region of phenomenological interest . Analytic insight into the exact solution of the CCFM equation in the single loop approximation will also make it possible to critically examine and justify approximate formulas linking the unintegrated distributions to the integrated ones in the region where the LO DGLAP dynamics should be adequate .

The content of our paper is as follows: In the next Section we recall the CCFM equation for the unintegrated gluon distribution. In Section 3 we discuss the ’single loop’ approximation of this equation in the transverse coordinate representation. We show that it can be solved exactly for the moment function $`f_\omega (b,Q)`$, where $`b`$ denotes the transverse coordinate conjugate to the transverse momentu $`Q_t`$ of the gluon. We do also show how the approximate forms of this solution expressing the unintegrated distributions in terms of the integrated ones  originate from the exact solution. In Section 4 we present numerical results for the unintegrated gluon distributions based on the solution of the CCFM equation in the transverse coordinate representation. We also confront exact solution with its approximate forms. Finally in Section 5 we summarise our main results and give our conclusions.

## 2 The CCFM equation

Parton cascade with angular ordering generates the Catani, Ciafaloni, Fiorani, Marchesini (CCFM) equation  for the unintegrated, scale dependent gluon distribution $`f(x,Q_t,Q)`$ in the proton, where $`x,Q_t`$ and $`Q`$ denote the longitudinal momentum fraction carried by the gluon, transverse momentum of the gluon and the hard scale respectively. The latter is specified by the maximal value of the emission angle. The CCFM equation has the following form:

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)=\overline{f}^0(x,Q_t,Q)+\frac{d^2𝒒}{\pi q^2}_x^1\frac{dz}{z}\mathrm{\Theta }(Qqz)\mathrm{\Theta }(qq_0)\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }_s(Q,q,z)$$

$$[2N_c\mathrm{\Delta }_{NS}(Q_t,q,z)+\frac{2N_cz}{(1z)}+z\overline{P}_{gg}(z)]f(\frac{x}{z},|𝑸_t+(1z)𝒒|,q))$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(Q,q,z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{NS}(Q_t,q,z)`$ are the Sudakov and non-Sudakov form factors. They are given by the following expressions:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_S(Q,q,z)=exp\left[_{(qz)^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dp^2}{p^2}\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }_0^{1q_0/p}𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)\right]$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{NS}(Q_t,q,z)=exp\left[_z^1\frac{dz^{}}{z^{}}_{(qz^{})^2}^{Q_t^2}\frac{dp^2}{p^2}\frac{2N_c\alpha _s}{2\pi }\right]$$
(3)
For simplicity we neglect possible quark contributions. The function $`\overline{P}_{gg}(z)`$ is:

$$\overline{P}_{gg}(z)=2N_c[2+z(1z)]$$
(4)
and corresponds to the non-singular part of the $`ggg`$ splitting function $`P_{gg}(z)`$

$$P_{gg}(z)=2N_c\left[\frac{1}{z}+\frac{1}{1z}\right]+\overline{P}_{gg}(z)$$
(5)
The argument of $`\alpha _s`$ will be specified later.

In principle the CCFM equation has been obtained using only the singular parts of the splitting function proportional to $`1/z`$ and $`1/(1z)`$. We add the non singular part $`\overline{P}_{gg}(z)`$ to the kernel of this equation in order to obtain the complete DGLAP evolution in the ’single loop’ approximation. The two-dimensional vector $`𝒒`$ in equation (1) is related to the transverse momentum $`𝒒_t`$ of the emitted gluon

$$𝒒_t=(1z)𝒒$$
(6)
The constraint $`Q>qz`$ reflects the angular ordering and the inhomogeneous term $`\overline{f}^0(x,Q_t,Q)`$ is related to the input non-perturbative gluon distribution. It also contains effects of both the Sudakov and non-Sudakov form-factors.

It should be observed that if the cut-off $`qz^{}`$ in the definition of the non-Sudakov form-factor is replaced by the fixed cut-off $`q_0`$ then the non-Sudakov form-factor reduces to the form-factor reflecting the reggeisation of the gluon, i.e.:

$$qz^{}q_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{NS}=exp[(2\alpha _G(Q_t^2)2)ln(1/z)]$$

$$\alpha _G(Q_t^2)=1_{q_0^2}^{Q_t^2}\frac{dp^2}{p^2}\frac{N_c\alpha _s}{2\pi }$$

The unintegrated scale dependent gluon distribution $`f(x,Q_t,Q)`$ is related in the following ’standard’ way to the conventional (scale dependent) integrated gluon distribution $`xg(x,Q^2)`$:

$$xg(x,Q^2)=^{Q^2}𝑑Q_t^2f(x,Q_t,Q)$$
(7)
In the ’single loop’ approximation of the CCFM equation (1) the angular ordering constraint $`\mathrm{\Theta }(Qqz)`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{\Theta }(Qq)`$ and the non-Sudakov form-factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{NS}`$ is set equal to unity . Equation (1) then reads:

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)=\overline{f}^0(x,Q_t,Q)+\frac{d^2𝒒}{\pi q^2}_x^1\frac{dz}{z}\mathrm{\Theta }(Qq)\mathrm{\Theta }(qq_0)\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }_s(Q,q,z=1)$$

$$[2N_c+\frac{2N_cz}{(1z)}+z\overline{P}_{gg}(z)]f(\frac{x}{z},|𝑸_t+(1z)𝒒|,q))$$
(8)
It is useful to ’unfold’ the Sudakov form factor in equation (8) in order to treat the real emission and virtual corrections terms on equal footing. Unfolded CCFM equation in the single loop approximation takes the following form:

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)=f^0(x,Q_t)+\frac{d^2𝒒}{\pi q^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(qq_0)\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^1\frac{dz}{z}zP_{gg}(z)$$

$$\left[\mathrm{\Theta }(Qq)\mathrm{\Theta }(zx)f(\frac{x}{z},|𝑸_t+(1z)𝒒|,q)\right)z\mathrm{\Theta }(Qq)f(x,Q_t,q)]$$
(9)
The inhomogeneous term $`f^0(x,Q_t)`$ is equal to the input non-perturbative gluon distribution in $`x`$ and $`Q_t`$.

## 3 Transverse coordinate representation of the CCFM equation in the single loop approximation

It can easily be observed that the CCFM equation in the single loop approximation (9) can be diagonalised by the Fourier-Bessel transform:

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑bbJ_0(Q_tb)\overline{f}(x,b,Q)$$
(10)
with the function $`\overline{f}(x,b,Q)`$ given by:

$$\overline{f}(x,b,Q)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Q_tQ_tJ_0(Q_tb)f(x,Q_t,Q)$$
(11)
where $`J_0(u)`$ is the Bessel function. From equations (7) and (11) we get:

$$\overline{f}(x,b=0,Q)=\frac{1}{2}xg(x,Q^2)$$
(12)
The corresponding equation for $`\overline{f}(x,b,Q)`$, which follows from equation (9) after taking the Fourier-Bessel transform of both sides of this equation reads:

$$\overline{f}(x,b,Q)=\overline{f}^0(x,b)+_{q_0^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^1\frac{dz}{z}zP_{gg}(z)$$

$$\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }(zx)J_0[bq(1z)q]\overline{f}(\frac{x}{z},b,q)\right)z\overline{f}(x,b,q)\}$$
(13)
where we put $`q^2`$ as the argument of $`\alpha _s`$. This choice of scale gives standard LO DGLAP equation for the integrated gluon distribution for $`xg(x,Q^2)=2\overline{f}(x,b=0,Q)`$.

In order to solve equation (13) it is useful to introduce the moment function $`\overline{f}_\omega (b,Q)`$

$$\overline{f}_\omega (b,Q)=_0^1𝑑xx^{\omega 1}\overline{f}(x,b,Q)$$
(14)
Equation (13) implies the following equation for the moment function $`\overline{f}_\omega (b,Q)`$:

$$\overline{f}_\omega (b,Q)=\overline{f}_\omega ^0(b)+_{q_0^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^1dzzP_{gg}(z)$$

$$\left\{z^{\omega 1}J_0[bq(1z)q]\overline{f}_\omega (b,q)\overline{f}_\omega (b,q)\right\}$$
(15)
The solution of this equation reads:

$$\overline{f}_\omega (b,Q)=f_\omega ^0(b)exp[S_\omega (b,Q)]$$
(16)
where

$$S_\omega (b,Q)=_{q_0^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^1𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)\{z^{\omega 1}J_0[(1z)bq]1\}$$
(17)
At small values of $`b`$ (i.e. $`b<<1/q_0`$) we can neglect $`b`$ dependence in $`\overline{f}_\omega ^0(b)`$ and set

$$\overline{f}_\omega ^0(b)\overline{f}_\omega ^0(b=0)$$

We can identify $`\overline{f}_\omega ^0(b=0)`$ with the moment of the input (non-perturbative) integrated distribution, i.e.

$$\overline{f}_\omega ^0(b=0)=\frac{1}{2}g_\omega ^0$$
(18)
where

$$g_\omega ^0=𝑑Q_t^2_0^1𝑑xx^{\omega 1}f^0(x,Q_t)$$
(19)
We note that at $`b=0`$ solution (16) reduces to the solution of the DGLAP equation for the moment function $`g_\omega (Q^2)`$ of the integrated gluon distribution $`g(x,Q^2)`$, i.e.

$$g_\omega (Q^2)=_0^1𝑑xx^\omega g(x,Q^2)$$
(20)
To be precise we get

$$f(b=0,Q)=\frac{1}{2}g_\omega (Q^2)$$

$$g_\omega (Q^2)=g_\omega ^0exp\left\{_{q_0^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^1𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)[z^{\omega 1}1]\right\}$$
(21)
It is useful to rearrange solution (16) as below:

$$\overline{f}_\omega (b,Q)=\stackrel{~}{f}_\omega (b,Q)T_g(b,Q)$$
(22)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_\omega (b,Q)=\overline{f}_\omega ^0(b)exp\left\{^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^1𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)J_0[(1z)bq][z^{\omega 1}1]\right\}$$
(23)
and the Sudakov-like form-factor $`T_g(b,q)`$ is given by:

$$T_g(b,Q)=exp\left\{_{q_0^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^1𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)[J_0[(1z)bq]1]\right\}$$
(24)
In order to obtain more insight into the structure of the unintegrated distribution which follows from the CCFM equation in the single loop approximation it is useful to adopt the following approximation of the Bessel function:

$$J_0(u)\mathrm{\Theta }(1u)$$
(25)
Using this approximation in equation (11) we get:

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)2\frac{d\overline{f}(x,b=1/Q_t,Q)}{dQ_t^2}$$
(26)
It may be useful to analyse solution (16) using approximation (25) which gives

$$\overline{f}_\omega (b,Q)\frac{g_\omega ^0}{2}T_g(1/b,Q)exp[S_\omega ^r(b,Q)+\mathrm{\Delta }S_\omega ^r(b,Q)]$$
(27)
where

$$S_\omega ^r(b,Q)_{q_0^2}^{min(1/b^2,Q^2)}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^1𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)[z^{\omega 1}1]$$
(28)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_\omega ^r(b,Q)=_{1/b^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_{11/(bq)}^1𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)[z^{\omega 1}1]$$
(29)
$$T_g(b,Q)exp(S^0(b,Q))$$
(30)
where $`S^0(b,Q))`$ is given by:

$$S^0(b,Q)=_{1/b^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }_0^{11/(bq)}𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)$$
(31)
It may be seen that the form-factor $`T_g(1/b,Q)`$ given by equations (30,31) has the structure of the Sudakov form-factor. It can also be seen that the factor $`g_\omega ^0exp[S_\omega ^r(b,Q)]`$ in equation (27) with $`S_\omega ^r(b,Q)`$ defined by equation (28) can be identified with the moment function $`g_\omega (\mu ^2)`$ of the integrated gluon distribution at the scale $`\mu ^2=min(1/b^2,Q^2)`$. Neglecting the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_\omega ^r(b,Q)`$ we get:

$$\overline{f}_\omega (b,Q)T_g(b,Q)g_\omega (min(1/b^2,Q^2))$$
(32)
that gives:

$$f_\omega (Q_t,Q)2\frac{\overline{f}_\omega (b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}$$

$$\frac{[T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)g_\omega (Q_t^2)]}{Q_t^2}$$
(33)
for $`Q_t<Q`$, and

$$f_\omega (Q_t,Q)=0$$

for $`Q_t>Q`$. Equation (33) gives:

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)\frac{[T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)xg(x,Q_t^2)]}{Q_t^2}$$
(34)
It should be noted that equation (33) correctly reproduces the double logarithmic effects in the region $`Q_t<<Q`$ . The formalism presented above is similar to that used for the description of the $`p_T`$ distributions in (for instance) Drell-Yan process (see e.g. ).

Taking approximately into account the remaining contribution in equation (27) gives:

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)\frac{T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}_0^{1Q_t/Q}𝑑zP_{gg}(z)\frac{\alpha _s\left(\frac{Q_t^2}{(1z)^2}\right)}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }(zx)\frac{x}{z}g(\frac{x}{z},\left(\frac{Q_t}{1z}\right)^2)$$
(35)
Derivation of equation (35) is sketched in the Appendix.

After replacement $`Q_t^2/(1z)^2Q_t^2`$ in the argument of $`\alpha _s`$ and in the gluon distribution $`g(x/z,\mu ^2)`$ which introduces subleading effects, expression (35) coincides with the representation used in ref.  (modulo subleading terms in the definition of the Sudakov form-factor):

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)\frac{T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}_0^{1Q_t/Q}𝑑zP_{gg}(z)\frac{\alpha _s(Q_t^2)}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }(zx)\frac{x}{z}g(\frac{x}{z},Q_t^2)$$
(36)
## 4 Numerical results

In the previous Section we have shown that the CCFM equation in the single loop approximation can be solved analytically in the $`b`$ space, where $`b`$ is the transverse coordinate conjugate to the transverse momentum $`Q_t`$ of the gluon. We have also indicated approximations which make it possible to relate the unintegrated distributions to the unintegrated ones. In this Section we present results of the numerical analysis of the exact solution of the CCFM equation utilising its diagonalisation in the transverse coordinate representation. We shall also confront this exact solution with the approximate expressions defined by equations (34) and (36).

To this aim we solved equation (13) for the distribution $`\overline{f}(x,b,Q)`$ and computed the unintegrated distribution $`f(x,Q_t,Q)`$ from the Fourier-Bessel transform:

$$f(x,Q_t,Q)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑bbJ_0(bQ_t)\overline{f}(x,b,Q)$$
(37)
We started from the input distribution $`\overline{f}^0(x,b)`$

$$\overline{f}^0(x,b)=\frac{g_0(x)}{2}exp(b^2q_0^2/4)$$

$$g_0(x)=3(1x)^5$$
(38)
where we have set $`q_0=1GeV`$. In Fig. 1 we plot the function $`Q_t^2f(x,Q_t,Q)`$ as the function of $`Q_t`$ for $`Q^2=100GeV^2`$ and for two valus of $`x`$, $`x=0.01`$ (upper curve) and $`x=0.1`$ (lower curve). In Figure 2 and 3 we compare those exact solution with approximate expressions (34) and (36). We find that equation (36) gives somehow better approximation of the exact solution except for the ’end points’ $`Q_t^2Q_0^2`$ and $`Q_t^2Q^2`$. The simple formula (34) is a reasonable approximation of the exact solution for small values of $`Q_t`$. It may however give negative contribution at large $`x`$($`x0.1`$) and large $`Q_t^2`$.

## Summary and conclusions

In this paper we have utilised the transverse coordinate representation of the CCFM equation in order to get an analytical insight into its solution. The transverse coordinate representation has been widely used for the discussion of the soft gluon resummation effects in the transverse momentum distribution of Drell - Yan pair etc., . In our paper we have utilised the fact that this representation diagonalises the CCFM equation in the single loop approximation and can be very helpful for obtaining unintegrated parton distribution satisfying the CCFM equation in this approximation. We have shown that the CCFM equatiion in the single loop approximation can be solved analytically for the moment function $`f_\omega (b,Q)`$, where $`b`$ is the transverse coordinate conjugate to the transverse momentum of the gluon. We have also confronted the unintegrated gluon distributions with approximate expressions which were discussed in the literature. The single loop approximation neglects small $`x`$ effects in the CCFM equation and, in particular, it neglects virtual corrections responsible for the non-Sudakov form-factor. This form-factor generates contributions which are no longer diagonal in the $`b`$ space and so the merit of using this representation beyond the single-loop approximation is less apparent. However, in the leading $`ln(1/x)`$ approximation at small $`x`$ the CCFM equation reduces to the BFKL equation with no scale dependence and the kernel of the BFKL equation in the $`b`$ space is the same as the BFKL kernel in the (transverse) momentum space. One can expect that the transverse coordinate representation of the CCFM equation may eventually appear to be helpful beyond the single loop and BFKL approximations.

## Acknowledgments

I thank Krzysztof Golec-Biernat for useful discussions. This research was partially supported by the EU Fourth Framework Programme ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’, Network ‘Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles’, contract FMRX–CT98–0194 and by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) grants no. 2P03B 05119 and 5P03B 14420.

## Appendix

In this Appendix we derive equation (35). To this aim we start from the following improved approximation of the derivative $`\overline{f}_\omega (b=1/Q_t,Q)/Q_t^2`$:

$$2\frac{\overline{f}_\omega (b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}\frac{[T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)g_\omega (Q_t^2)]}{Q_t^2}+T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)g_\omega (Q_t^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S^r(b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}$$
(39)
where the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^r(b=1/Q_t,Q)`$ is given by equation (29). Using equations (30) and (29) we get for $`Q_t<Q`$:

$$2\frac{\overline{f}_\omega (b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}$$

$$\frac{T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}\left[_0^{1Q_t/Q}𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)\frac{\alpha _s\left(\frac{Q_t^2}{(1z)^2}\right)}{2\pi }g_\omega (Q_t^2)+\frac{dg_\omega (Q_t^2)}{dln(Q_t^2)}\right]+$$

$$\frac{T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}g_\omega (Q_t^2)\left\{_0^{1Q_t/Q}𝑑z\frac{\alpha _s\left(\frac{Q_t^2}{(1z)^2}\right)}{2\pi }zP_{gg}(z)[z^{\omega 1}1]_0^1𝑑z\frac{\alpha _s(Q_t^2)}{2\pi }zP_{gg}(z)[z^{\omega 1}1]\right\}$$
(40)
Taking into account the DGLAP evolution equation:

$$\mu ^2\frac{dg_\omega (\mu ^2)}{d\mu ^2}=\frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{2\pi }_0^1𝑑zzP_{gg}(z)[z^{\omega 1}1]g_\omega (\mu ^2)$$
(41)
we get:

$$2\frac{\overline{f}_\omega (1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}$$

$$\frac{T_g(b=1/Q_t,Q)}{Q_t^2}g_\omega (Q_t^2)\left\{_0^{1Q_t/Q}𝑑z\frac{\alpha _s\left(\frac{Q_t^2}{(1z)^2}\right)}{2\pi }zP_{gg}(z)z^{\omega 1}\right\}$$
(42)
Taking the inverse Mellin transform of both sides of equation (42) we get equation (35).