text:
# NONPERTURBATIVE INFRARED MULTIPLICATIVE RENORMALIZABILITY OF TWO-DIMENSIONAL COVARIANT GAUGE QCD

## I Introduction

It is well known that two-dimensional (2D) QCD is an ultraviolet (UV), i.e., perturbativaly (PT) super-renormalizable field theory . However, our investigation of 2D covariant gauge QCD  within the distribution theory (DT)  clearly shows that this theory is infrared (IR) divergent as well since its free gluon propagator IR singularity is nonperturbative (NP), i.e., is a severe one. For that very reason, it becomes inevitable firstly to regularize it and secondly to prove its IR renormalizability, i.e., to prove that all the NP IR singularities can be removed from the theory on a general ground and in a self-consistent way. This is just the primary goal of this paper which is a direct continuation of our previous work . In order to formulate the IR multiplicative renormalization (IRMR) program in 2D QCD, it is reasonable to start with the explanation within our approach why the IR structure of 2D QCD is so singular.

Let us consider the Schwinger-Dyson (SD) equation for the quark propagator (PT unrenormalized for simplicity in order not to complicate notations) in momentum space with Euclidean signature

$$S^1(p)=S_0^1(p)g^2C_Fi\frac{d^nq}{(2\pi )^n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)S(pq)\gamma _\nu D_{\mu \nu }^0(q),$$
(1)
where $`C_F`$ is the eigenvalue of the quadratic Casimir operator in the fundamental representation ( for $`SU(N_c)`$, in general, $`C_F=(N_c^21)/2N_c=4/3`$) and $`S_0^1(p)=i(\widehat{p}+m_0)`$ with $`m_0`$ being the current (”bare”) mass of a single quark. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)`$ is the corresponding quark-gluon proper vertex function. Instead of the simplifications due to the limit $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`g^2N_c`$ and light-cone gauge , we have used the free gluon propagator in the covariant gauge from the very beginning. This makes it possible to maintain the direct interaction of massless gluons which is the main dynamical effect in QCD of any dimensions. In the covariant gauge it is

$$D_{\mu \nu }^0(q)=i\left(g_{\mu \nu }+(\xi 1)\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)\frac{1}{q^2},$$
(2)
where $`\xi `$ is the gauge fixing parameter.

The important observation now is that for the free gluon propagator the exact singularity $`1/q^2`$ at $`q^20`$ in 2D QCD is severe and therefore it should be correctly treated within the DT  (in Ref.  some fundamental results of pure mathematical tractate on the DT  necessary for further purpose are presented in a suitable form). In order to actually define the system of SD equations in the IR region, it is convenient to apply the gauge-invariant dimensional regularization (DR) method of ’t Hooft and Veltman  in the limit $`D=2+2ϵ,ϵ0^+`$. Here and below $`ϵ`$ is the small IR regularization parameter which is to be set to zero at the end of computations. This severe singularity should be treated in the sense of the DT (i.e., under integrals, taking into account the smoothness properties of the corresponding test functions), where the relation

$$(q^2)^1=\frac{\pi }{ϵ}\delta ^2(q)+finiteterms,ϵ0^+,$$
(3)
holds. We point out that after introducing this expansion here and everywhere one can fix the number of dimensions, i.e., put $`D=n=2`$ without any further problems since there will be no other severe IR singularities with respect to $`ϵ`$ as $`ϵ0^+`$ in the corresponding SD equations but those explicitly shown in this expansion.

Let us make a few remarks. It is worth emphasizing that the IR singularity (1.3) is unique, the simplest IR singularity possible in 2D QCD, however, it is a NP (severe) singularity at the same time . In other words, the free gluon propagator may serve as a rather good approximation to the full gluon propagator, at least in the deep IR region, since it exactly reproduces a possible IR singularity of the full gluon propagator. In this connection, let us remind that in 4D QCD the free gluon’s IR singularity is not severe, i.e., the Laurent expansion (1.3) does not exist in this case, so it is a PT singularity there. Secondly, the DT theory clearly shows that each skeleton diagram (which itself is the sum of infinite series of diagrams) explicitly diverges as $`1/ϵ`$ (see Eqs. (1.2)-(1.3)). This is true even for skeleton diagrams containing the scattering kernels which in their turn are defined by their own skeleton expansions (see below).

## II IRMR program in the quark-ghost sector

In the presence of such a severe singularity (1.3) all Green’s functions and coupling constant (which in 2D QCD has the dimensions of mass) become generally dependent on the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$, i.e., they become IR regularized (for simplicity , this dependence is not shown explicitly in what follows). The relations between the IR regularized and the IR renormalized (denoted with bars and which exist as $`ϵ`$ goes to zero, by definition) quantities determine the corresponding IRMR constants. Let us remind some of these relations introduced in Ref. : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)=Z_1^1(ϵ)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,q)`$, $`g^2=X(ϵ)\overline{g}^2`$ and $`S(p)=Z_2(ϵ)\overline{S}(p)`$. Here and below $`Z_1(ϵ)`$, $`Z_2(ϵ)`$ and $`X(ϵ)`$ are the above-mentioned IRMR constants of the vertex, quark propagator and coupling constant squared, respectively. The $`ϵ`$-dependence is indicated explicitly in order to distinguish them from the usual ultraviolet (UV) renormalization constants. In all relations containing the IRMR constants, the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit ia always assumed at the final stage. The similar relations should be introduced for the ghost degrees of freedom .

In their turn, the relations between these constants (established by passing to the IR renormalized quantities in the corresponding SD equations and Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identities) determine the corresponding IR convergence conditions. The system of the corresponding IR convergence conditions in the quark-ghost sector consists of the quark SD, the ghost self-energy and the quark ST identity conditions. They are :

$`X(ϵ)Z_2^2(ϵ)Z_1^1(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ,`$ (4)
$`X(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}^2(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ,ϵ0^+,`$ (5)
$`Z_1^1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_2^1(ϵ).`$ (6)
Thus, in general, we have five independent IRMR constants. $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2(ϵ)`$ determine the renormalization of the ghost-gluon proper vertex and ghost propagator, respectively, i.e., $`G_\mu =\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ)\overline{G}_\mu `$ and $`G=\stackrel{~}{Z}_2(ϵ)\overline{G}`$. For simplicity, here and below we omit the dependence on the corresponding momenta. We know that the quark wave function IRMR constant $`Z_2(ϵ)`$ cannot be singular, while the ghost self-energy IRMR constant $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_2^1(ϵ)`$, by definition, is either singular or constant as $`ϵ0^+`$. It is evident that these very conditions and similar ones below govern the concrete $`ϵ`$-dependence of the IRMR constants which in general remain arbitrary.

So we have three conditions for the above-mentioned five independent IRMR constants. Obviously, this system always has a nontrivial solution determining three of them in terms of two any chosen independent IRMR constants. It is convenient to choose $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)`$ and $`Z_2(ϵ)`$ as the two independent IRMR constants since we know their possible behavior with respect to $`ϵ`$ as it goes to zero. Then a general solution to the system (2.1) can be written down as follows:

$$X(ϵ)=ϵZ_2^1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ),Z_1(ϵ)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ)=Z_2(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ).$$
(7)
Thus in the quark-ghost sector the self-consistent IRMR program really exists. Moreover, it has room for additional specifications. The most interesting case is the quark propagator which is IR finite from the very, i.e., when the quark wave function IRMR constant $`Z_2(ϵ)=Z_2=const`$. The second interesting case is when $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)=KZ_2^1(ϵ)`$, where $`K`$ is an arbitrary but finite constant (see section IV). However, in Ref.  it has been shown explicitly that by redefining all the IRMR constants, all finite but arbitrary constants like $`Z_2`$ and $`K`$ can be put to unity without losing generality.

## III IR finite ST identities for pure gluon vertices

In order to determine the IR finite bound-state problem within the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) formalism, it is necessary to know the IRMR constants of the three- and four-gluon proper vertex functions which satisfy the corresponding ST identities \[1,9-13\]. This information is also necessary to investigate the IR properties of all other SD equations in 2D QCD. It is convenient to start from the ST identity for the three-gluon vertex which is

$`[1+b(k^2)]k_\lambda T_{\lambda \mu \nu }(k,q,r)`$ $`=`$ $`d^1(q^2)G_{\lambda \nu }(q,k)(g_{\lambda \mu }q^2q_\lambda q_\mu )`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`d^1(r^2)G_{\lambda \mu }(r,k)(g_{\lambda \nu }r^2r_\lambda r_\nu ),`$ (9)
where $`k+q+r=0`$ is understood and $`d^1`$ is the inverse of the exact gluon form factor, while G’s are the corresponding ghost-gluon vertices, and $`b(k^2)`$ is the ghost self-energy. Let us now introduce the IR renormalized triple gauge field vertex as follows: $`T_{\lambda \mu \nu }(k,q,r)=Z_3(ϵ)\overline{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu }(k,q,r)`$, where $`\overline{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu }(k,q,r)`$ exists as $`ϵ`$ goes to zero. Passing to the IR renormalized quantities, one obtains

$`[\stackrel{~}{Z}^1(ϵ)+\overline{b}(k^2)]k_\lambda \overline{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu }(k,q,r)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{G}_{\lambda \nu }(q,k)d^1(q^2)(g_{\lambda \mu }q^2q_\lambda q_\mu )`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\overline{G}_{\lambda \mu }(r,k)d^1(r^2)(g_{\lambda \nu }r^2r_\lambda r_\nu ),`$ (11)
so that the following IR convergence relation holds

$$Z_3(ϵ)=\stackrel{~}{Z}^1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ).$$
(12)
In the derivation of the relation (3.3) (as well as those similar below) we use $`b=\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)\overline{b}`$ and $`G_{\lambda \nu }=\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ)\overline{G}_{\lambda \nu }`$ . Here and below we are considering the inverse of the free gluon propagator as IR finite from the very beginning, i.e., $`d^1\overline{d}^1=1`$. It is not a singularity at all and therefore it should not be treated as a distribution  (there is no integration over its momentum).

The corresponding ST identity for the quartic gauge field vertex is

$`[1+b(p^2)]p_\lambda T_{\lambda \mu \nu \delta }(p,q,r,s)`$ $`=`$ $`d^1(q^2)(g_{\lambda \mu }q^2q_\lambda q_\mu )B_{\lambda \nu \delta }^g(q,p;r,s)`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`d^1(r^2)(g_{\lambda \nu }r^2r_\lambda r_\nu )B_{\lambda \mu \delta }^g(r,p;q,s)`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`d^1(s^2)(g_{\lambda \delta }s^2s_\lambda s_\delta )B_{\lambda \mu \nu }^g(s,p;q,r)`$ (15)
$``$ $`T_{\mu \lambda \delta }(q,s,q,s)G_{\lambda \nu }(q+s,p,r)`$ (16)
$``$ $`T_{\mu \nu \lambda }(q,r,q,r)G_{\lambda \delta }(q+r,p,s)`$ (17)
$``$ $`T_{\nu \delta \lambda }(r,s,r,s)G_{\lambda \mu }(r+s,p,q),`$ (18)
where $`p+q+r+s=0`$ is understood. Here T’s and G’s are the corresponding three- and ghost-gluon vertices, respectively. The quantity $`B^g`$ with three Dirac indices is the corresponding ghost-gluon scattering kernel which is shown in Fig. 1 (see also Refs. ).

Let us introduce now its IR renormalized counterpart as follows: $`B_{\lambda \nu \delta }^g(q,p;r,s)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_g(ϵ)\overline{B}_{\lambda \nu \delta }^g(q,p;r,s)`$, where $`\overline{B}_{\lambda \nu \delta }^g(q,p;r,s)`$ exists as $`ϵ`$ goes to zero. From the decomposition of the ghost-gluon proper vertex shown in Fig. 2, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ)=(1/ϵ)X(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}_2(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}_g(ϵ)`$, so that

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_g(ϵ)=ϵX^1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ).$$
(19)
Let us remind that a factor $`\sqrt{X(ϵ)}`$ should be additionally assigned to each ghost-gluon vertex, while to the scattering kernel $`B^g`$ with two gluon legs a factor $`X(ϵ)`$ should be additionally assigned.

Let us now introduce the IR renormalized four-gluon gauge field vertex as follows: $`T_{\lambda \mu \nu \delta }(p,q,r,s)=Z_4(ϵ)\overline{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu \delta }(p,q,r,s)`$, where $`\overline{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu \delta }(p,q,r,s)`$ exists as $`ϵ`$ goes to zero. Passing again to the IR renormalized quantities, one obtains

$`[\stackrel{~}{Z}^1(ϵ)+\overline{b}(p^2)]p_\lambda \overline{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu \delta }(p,q,r,s)`$ $`=`$ $`d^1(q^2)(g_{\lambda \mu }q^2q_\lambda q_\mu )\overline{B}_{\lambda \nu \delta }^g(q,p;r,s)`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`d^1(r^2)(g_{\lambda \nu }r^2r_\lambda r_\nu )\overline{B}_{\lambda \mu \delta }^g(r,p;q,s)`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`d^1(s^2)(g_{\lambda \delta }s^2s_\lambda s_\delta )\overline{B}_{\lambda \mu \nu }^g(s,p;q,r)`$ (22)
$``$ $`\overline{T}_{\mu \lambda \delta }(q,s,q,s)\overline{G}_{\lambda \nu }(q+s,p,r)`$ (23)
$``$ $`\overline{T}_{\mu \nu \lambda }(q,r,q,r)\overline{G}_{\lambda \delta }(q+r,p,s)`$ (24)
$``$ $`\overline{T}_{\nu \delta \lambda }(r,s,r,s)\overline{G}_{\lambda \mu }(r+s,p,q),`$ (25)
iff

$$Z_4(ϵ)=Z_3^2(ϵ)=\stackrel{~}{Z}^2(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}_1^2(ϵ).$$
(26)
Evidently, in the derivation of this expression the general solution (2.2) has been used as well as Eqs. (3.3) and (3.5). Thus we have determined the IRMR constants of the triple and quartic gauge field vertices in Eqs. (3.3) and (3.7), respectively.

## IV IR finite bound-state problem

Apart from quark confinement and DBCS, the bound-state problem is one of the most important NP problems in QCD. The general formalism for considering it in quantum field theory is the BS equation (see Ref.  and references therein). For the color-singlet, flavor-nonsinglet bound-state amplitudes for mesons it is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Flavor-singlet mesons require a special treatment, since pairs, etc. of gluons in color-singlet states can contribute to the direct-channel processes. The exact BS equation for the bound-state meson amplitude $`B(p,p^{})`$ can be written analytically as follows:

$$S_q^1(p)B(p,p^{})S_{\overline{q}}^1(p^{})=d^nlK(p.p^{};l)B(p.p^{};l),$$
(27)
(for simplicity all numerical factors are suppressed), where $`S_q^1(p)`$ and $`S_{\overline{q}}^1(p^{})`$ are inverse quark and antiquark propagators, respectively, and $`K(p,p^{};l)`$ is the two-particle irreducible (2PI) BS scattering kernel (its skeleton expansion is shown in Fig. 4) which precisely defines the BS equation itself. The BS equation is a homogeneous linear integral equation for the $`B(p,p^{})`$ amplitude. For this reason the meson bound-state amplitude should always be considered as IR finite from the very beginning, i.e., $`B(p,p^{})\overline{B}(p,p^{})`$. Passing as usual  to the IR renormalized quantities in this equation, one obtains

$$\overline{S}_q^1(p)B(p,p^{})\overline{S}_{\overline{q}}^1(p^{})=d^nl\overline{K}(p.p^{};l)B(p.p^{};l),$$
(28)
iff

$$Z_2^2(ϵ)=Z_K(ϵ),ϵ0^+,$$
(29)
where we introduce the IRMR constant $`Z_K(ϵ)`$ of the BS scattering kernel as follows: $`K(p,p^{};l)=Z_K(ϵ)\overline{K}(p,p^{};l)`$ and $`\overline{K}(p,p^{};l)`$ exists as $`ϵ0^+`$. This is the exact BS equation IR convergence condition.

In general, the nth skeleton diagram of the BS equation skeleton expansion contains $`n`$ independent loop integrations over the gluon momentum which, as we already know, generate a factor $`1/ϵ`$ each, $`n_1`$ quark-gluon vertex functions and $`n_2`$ quark propagators. Also it contains $`n_3`$ and $`n_4`$ three and four-gluon vertices, respectively. It is worth reminding that to each quark-gluon vertex and three-gluon vertex a factor $`\sqrt{X(ϵ)}`$ should be additionally assigned, while to the four-gluon vertex a factor $`X(ϵ)`$ should be assigned. Thus the corresponding IRMR constant is equal to

$$Z_K^{(n)}(ϵ)=ϵ^n\left[Z_1^1(ϵ)\right]^{n_1}\left[Z_2(ϵ)\right]^{n_2}\left[Z_3(ϵ)\right]^{n_3}\left[Z_4(ϵ)\right]^{n_4}\left[X(ϵ)\right]^{n_4+(n_3+n_1)/2},ϵ0^+.$$
(30)
On the other hand, it is easy to see that for each skeleton diagram the following relations hold $`n_2=n_12,2n=n_1+n_3+2n_4`$. Substituting these relations into the previous expression as well as using the general solution (2.2) and taking into account results of the previous section, one finally obtains $`Z_K^{(n)}(ϵ)=Z_2^2(ϵ)\left[Z_2(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)\right]^{nn_1}`$, so that from Eq. (4.3) it follows that $`\left[Z_2(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)\right]^{nn_1}=A_{(n)}`$, where $`A_{(n)}`$ is an arbitrary but finite constant different, in principle, for each skeleton diagram. Evidently, its solution is $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)=\left[A_{(n)}\right]^{\frac{1}{n_1n}}Z_2^1(ϵ)`$. Let us emphasize now that the relation between these (and all other) IRMR constants cannot depend on which skeleton diagram is considered. This means that the above-mentioned arbitrary but finite constant can only be a common factor for all skeleton diagrams, i.e., $`\left[A_{(n)}\right]^{\frac{1}{n_1n}}=K`$, where $`K`$ can be put to unity not losing generality as we already know. Thus the solution becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}(ϵ)=Z_2^1(ϵ).$$
(31)
Summarizing, the general system of the IR convergence conditions for removing at this stage all the severe IR singularities on a general ground and in a self-consistent way from the theory is

$`X(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵZ_2^2(ϵ),\stackrel{~}{Z}^1(ϵ)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_2(ϵ)=Z_3(ϵ)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_g(ϵ)=Z_2(ϵ),`$ (32)
$`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_1^1(ϵ)=1,Z_4(ϵ)=Z_3^2(ϵ)=Z_2^2(ϵ),`$ (33)
and the limit $`ϵ0^+`$ is always assumed. This system provides the cancellation of all the severe IR singularities in 2D QCD at this stage, and what is most important this system provides the IR finite bound-state problem within our approach. All the IRMR constants are expressed in terms of the quark wave function IRMR constant $`Z_2(ϵ)`$ except the quark-gluon and ghost-gluon proper vertices IRMR constants. They have been fixed to be unity though we were unable to investigate the corresponding ST identity for the latter vertex , so we avoided this difficulty.

## V IR finite SD equation for the gluon propagator

Let us now investigate the IR properties of the SD equation for the gluon propagator which is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 5 (see also Refs.  and references therein). Analytically it can be written down as follows:

$$D^1(q)=D_0^1(q)\frac{1}{2}T_t(q)\frac{1}{2}T_1(q)\frac{1}{2}T_2(q)\frac{1}{6}T_2^{}(q)+T_{gh}(q)+T_q(q),$$
(34)
where numerical factors are due to combinatorics and, for simplicity, Dirac indices determining the tensor structure are omitted. $`T_t`$ (the so-called tadpole term) and $`T_1`$ describe one-loop contributions, while $`T_2`$ and $`T_2^{}`$ describe two-loop contributions containing three- and four-gluon proper vertices, respectively. Evidently, $`T_{gh},T_q`$ describe ghost- and quark-loop contributions.

Equating $`D=D^0`$ now and passing as usual to the IR renormalized quantities, one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}X(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{T}_t(q)`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}X(ϵ)Z_3(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{T}_1(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}X^2(ϵ)Z_3^2(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{T}_2(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}X^2(ϵ)Z_4(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\overline{T}_2^{}(q)`$ (35)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}X(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{Z}_2^2\stackrel{~}{Z}_1(ϵ)\overline{T}_{gh}(q)X(ϵ)Z_2^2(ϵ)Z_1^1(ϵ)\overline{T}_q(q)=0,`$ (36)
where the quantities with bar are, by definition, IR renormalized, i.e., they exist as $`ϵ0^+`$. Let us also remind that each independent loop integration over the gluon and ghost momenta generates a factor $`1/ϵ`$, while it is easy to show that there are no additional IR singularities with respect to $`ϵ`$ in the quark loop (since we have found regular at zero solutions for the quark propagator ).

Using now the general solution (4.6), one further obtains

$$\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_t(q)+Z_2(ϵ)\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_1(q)+\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_2(q)+\frac{1}{6}\overline{T}_2^{}(q)Z_2^2(ϵ)\overline{T}_{gh}(q)ϵZ_2^2(ϵ)\overline{T}_q(q)=0.$$
(37)
Since the quark wave function IRMR constant $`Z_2(ϵ)`$ can be only either unity or vanishing as $`ϵ`$ goes to zero, the contribution from the quark loop is always suppressed in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit, and we are left with the pure Yang-Mills (YM) SD equation for the gluon propagator. For the quark propagator which is IR renormalized the very beginning (i.e., $`Z_2(ϵ)=Z_2=1`$, so that it is IR finite), the SD equation (5.3) becomes

$$\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_t(q)+\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_1(q)+\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_2(q)+\frac{1}{6}\overline{T}_2^{}(q)=\overline{T}_{gh}(q),$$
(38)
while for the IR vanishing type of the quark propagator ($`Z_2(ϵ)0`$ as $`ϵ0^+`$) the SD equation (5.3) becomes

$$\overline{T}_t(q)+\overline{T}_2(q)+\frac{1}{3}\overline{T}_2^{}(q)=0.$$
(39)
The tensor structure of the YM SD equations for the gluon propagator is not important here. However, it may simplify substantially the corresponding IR renormalized YM SD equations (5.4) and (5.5). What matters here is that within our approach the self-consistent equations for the gluon propagator free from the severe IR singularities exist in the YM sector. In other words, the general solution (4.6) eliminates all the severe IR singularities from Eq. (5.1), indeed.

## VI IR finite SD equation for the three-gluon proper vertex

It is instructive to investigate the IR properties of the SD equation for the triple gauge field proper vertex since it provides a golden opportunity to fix $`Z_2(ϵ)`$. This equation is shown in Fig. 6. For simplicity, the skeleton expansions of the corresponding kernels $`M,\overline{M}^{}`$ and $`B^g`$ are not shown. Let us note that the ghost-gluon scattering kernel $`B^g`$ (for which we have already established its IRMR constant from the decomposition of the ghost-gluon proper vertex shown in Fig.2) is denoted as $`G^{}`$ in Ref. .

Obviously, there is no need to investigate separately the IR properties of the SD equations for the quark-gluon vertex and for pure gluon vertices since the information about their IRMR constants has been uniquely extracted from the corresponding ST identities (see the general solution (4.6)). Moreover, the IRMR constants of different types of the scattering kernels which enter the above-mentioned SD equations (see, for example, Fig. 6) are to be precisely determined by the general system (4.6). In principle, each skeleton diagram of the above-mentioned expansions can be investigated in the same way as the BS scattering kernel was investigated in section IV.

The above-mentioned golden opportunity is provided by the third and fourth terms of this SD equation. The interesting feature of these terms is that they do not contain unknown scattering kernels, so their IR properties can be investigated directly by using only the known IRMR constants. On the other hand, these terms are nothing but the corresponding independent decompositions of the triple gauge field proper vertex with the IRMR constant is equal to $`Z_3(ϵ)=Z_2(ϵ)`$, so one has

$$Z_2(ϵ)=\frac{1}{ϵ}X(ϵ)Z_2(ϵ)=Z_2^1(ϵ)=1,$$
(40)
which, obviously, has only a unique solution given by the last equality. Thus we have fixed finally the quark wave function IRMR constant to be unity. Adopting the same method, it is easy to show that all other IRMR constants for the corresponding scattering kernels are:

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_g(ϵ)=Z_M^{}(ϵ)=Z_{\overline{M}^{}}(ϵ)=1.$$
(41)
We are now ready to investigate the IR properties of the SD equation for the triple gauge field proper vertex shown in Fig. 6 without refereing to the skeleton expansions of the corresponding scattering kernels. Using the previous results, the IR renormalized version of this equation is

$$\overline{T}_3=T_3^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_1+\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_1^{}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{T}_1^{^{\prime \prime }}+\frac{1}{6}\overline{T}_2\overline{T}_g,$$
(42)
where, for simplicity, we omit the dependence on momenta and suppress the Dirac indices (i.e., tensor structure). As usual, the quantities with bar are, by definition, IR renormalized, i.e., they exist as $`ϵ0^+`$.

The SD equations for all other Green’s functions can be investigated in the same way, in particular for the quark-gluon proper vertex shown for example in Ref. . The general solution (4.6), taking into account the fundamental relation (6.1), provides their IR convergence, i.e., they exist in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit and, hence, similar to the SD equations, explicitly considered here, they are free of the severe IR divergences with respect to $`ϵ`$. In particular, let us note that Eq. (5.5) should be ruled out as a possible SD equation for the gluon propagator and the SD equation (5.4) which includes the ghost loop is the only possible one.

## VII Discussion and Conclusions

In summary, the main observation is that 2D QCD is an inevitably IR divergent theory, and therefore a few points are worth reemphasizing.

We have shown explicitly how the NP IRMR program should be done to remove all the severe IR singularities from the theory on a general ground and in a self-consistent way. The general system of the IR convergence conditions (4.6), on account of the fundamental relation (6.1), simply becomes

$$X(ϵ)=ϵ,ϵ0^+,$$
(43)
while all other independent quantities (Green’s functions) are IR finite from the very beginning, i.e., their IRMR constants are simply unity. Evidently, only the nontrivial IR renormalization of the coupling constant squared is needed to render the theory IR finite, i.e., to make it free from all the severe IR divergences. Only the condition (7.1) provides a cancellation of all the severe IR singularities in 2D QCD. This completes the proof of the NP IR multiplicative renormalizability of 2D QCD within our approach.

Our proof implies that quark propagator should be IR finite from the very beginning, i.e., $`Z_2(ϵ)=1`$ which means $`S(p)=\overline{S}(p)`$. In the ’t Hooft model , the quark propagator is IR vanishing, i.e., $`Z_2(ϵ)`$ goes to zero as $`ϵ0^+`$. However, there is no contradiction with the above-mentioned since in his model it is implicitly assumed that neither $`g^2`$ nor $`N_c`$ depend on $`ϵ`$ (i.e., they are IR finite from the very beginning) though both parameters $`g^2`$ and $`N_c`$ (since it is free one in the large $`N_c`$ limit approach) should, in principle, depend on it in the presence of such a severe IR singularity in the theory. From our general solution (4.6) then it follows that $`Z_2(ϵ)=\sqrt{ϵ}`$, indeed, since in this case one has to put $`X(ϵ)=1`$, i.e., the coupling constant squared is IR finite from the very beginning ($`g^2=\overline{g}^2`$).

A few remarks are in order. In principle, no regularization scheme (how to introduce the IR regularization parameter in order to parameterize the severe IR divergences) should be introduced ”by hand”. First of all it should be well defined. Secondly, it should be compatible with the DT . The DR scheme  is well defined; in Ref.  we have shown how it should be introduced into the DT (complemented by the number of subtractions, if necessary). In principle, other regularizations schemes are also available, such as, e.g., analytical regularization used in Ref.  or the so-called Speer’s regularization . However, they should be compatible with the DT as was emphasized above. Anyway, not the regularization is important but the DT itself.

Whether the theory is IR multiplicative renormalizable or not depends on neither the regularization nor the gauge. Due to the chosen regularization scheme or the gauge only the details of the corresponding IRMR program can be simplified. For example, in the light-cone gauge at any chosen regularization scheme (the ’t Hooft model with different prescriptions how to deal with the severe IR singularities  (and references therein)) to prove the IR multiplicative renormalizability of 2D QCD is almost trivial. This is mainly due to the fact that in this case only two sectors survive in QCD, namely quark and BS sectors. In other words, if theory is proven to be IR or UV renormalizable in one gauge, it is IR or UV renormalizable in any other gauge. This is true for the regularization schemes as well. As it follows from the present investigation, to prove the IR multiplicative renormalizability of 2D QCD in the covariant gauge was not so simple. However, it was necessary to get firstly the IR finite bound-state problem (which is important for physical applications), and secondly to generalize our approach on 4D QCD which is real theory of strong interactions. 2D QCD in the light-cone gauge is not appropriate theory for this purpose since its confinement mechanism looks more like that of the Schwinger model  of 2D electrodynamics, than it may happen in real QCD, where we believe it is much more complicated.

The structure of the severe IR singularities in Euclidean space is much simpler than in Minkowski space, where kinematical (unphysical) singularities due to light cone also exist. In this case it is rather difficult to correctly untangle them from the dynamical singularities, only ones which are important for the calculation of any physical observable. Also the consideration is much more complicated in configuration space . That is why we always prefer to work in momentum space (where propagators do not depend explicitly on the number of dimensions) with Euclidean signature. We also prefer to work in the covariant gauges in order to avoid peculiarities of the noncovariant gauges , for example how to untangle the gauge pole from the dynamical one. The IR structure of 2D QCD in the light-cone gauge by evaluating different physical quantities has been investigated in more detail in Refs. \[2,20-23\] (and references therein).

The only dynamical mechanism which can be thought of in 2D QCD is the direct interaction of massless gluons (without explicitly involving some extra degrees of freedom). It is well known that in the deep UV limit this interaction brings to birth asymptotic freedom (AF)  in QCD as well. It becomes strongly singular in the deep IR domain and can be effectively correctly absorbed (accumulated) into the gluon propagator. Let us remind that formally the $`D=D^0`$ solution always exists in the system of the SD equations due to its construction by expansion around the free field vacuum. Otherwise it would be impossible to introduce interaction step by step though the final equations make no reference to perturbation theory . It is either trivial (coupling is zero) or nontrivial, then some additional condition(s) (constraint(s)), involving other Green’s functions, is to be derived. Eq. (5.4) is just this exact constraint. The only question to be asked is whether this solution (precisely to its severe IR structure) is justified to use in order to explain some physical phenomena, such as quark confinement, DBCS, etc. or not. By proving the NP IR multiplicative renormalizability of 2D QCD, we conclude that this is so, indeed. At the same time, let us emphasize that this solution is not justified to use for the above-mentioned purposes in 4D QCD since its IR singularity is not severe (i.e., NP) there as was mentioned in the Introduction.

One can also conclude that in some sense it is easier to prove the IR multiplicative renormalizability of 2D QCD than to prove its UV renormalizability. The reason is, of course, that we know the mathematical theory which has to be used - the theory of distributions . This is due to its fundamental result  which requires that any NP (severe) singularity with respect to the momentum in the deep IR domain in terms of $`ϵ`$ should be always $`1/ϵ`$ and this does not depend on how the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$ has been introduced in the way compatible with the DT itself. On the other hand, the above-mentioned fundamental result relates the IR regularization to the number of space-time dimensions  (compactification). It is clear that otherwise none of the IRMR programs would be possible. In other words, the DT provides the basis for the adequate mathematical investigation of the global character of the severe IR divergences (each independent skeleton loop diagram diverges as $`1/ϵ`$), while the UV divergences have a local character, and thus should be investigated term by term in powers of the coupling constant.

In this connection let us make a few remarks. The full dynamical content of 2D (4D) QCD is contained in its system of the SD equations of motion. To solve 2D (4D) QCD means to solve this system and vice versa. In particular, to prove the IR renormalizability of 2D (4D) QCD means to formulate the IRMR program for removing all the NP IR singularities from this system on a general ground and in a self-consistent way. As was mentioned above, the fortunate feature which makes this possible is the global character of the IR singularities in 2D QCD. Each skeleton diagram is the sum of infinite series of terms, however, the DT shows how their severe IR singularities can be summed up. Moreover, it shows how the severe IR singularities of different scattering kernels (which by themselves are infinite series of the skeleton diagrams) can also be summed up.

The next important step is to impose a number of independent conditions to cancel all the NP IR singularities which inevitably appear in the theory after the above-mentioned summations have been done with the help of the entire chain of strongly coupled SD and BS equations. They should also be complemented by the corresponding ST identities which are consequences of the exact gauge invariance, and therefore are exact constraints on any solution to QCD . The only problem now is to find self-consistent solutions to the system of the IR convergence conditions. If such solutions exist, so everything is O.K. If not, the theory is not IR renormalizable. It is worth reemphasizing that we have found a self-consistent solution to this system (Eq. (7.1)).

Concluding, we would like to make a few things perfectly clear. In Ref.  we made sharp conclusions that 2D covariant gauge QCD implies quark confinement and dynamical breakdown of chiral symmetry. However, these conclusions would be groundless if in the present investigation we were not be able to prove that 2D QCD is an IR multiplicative renormalizable theory. This is our first conclusion here, and it is based on the compelling mathematical ground provided by the DT itself.

The second one is that we fixed finally the type of the quark propagator. The NP IRMR program implies it to be IR finite from the very beginning.

The third conclusion (the most important for physical applications) is that the bound-state problem becomes tractable within our approach. To any order in the skeleton expansion of the BS scattering kernel shown in Fig. 7, the corresponding BS equation (4.2) can be reduced finally to an algebraic problem. Its derivation is absolutely similar to the derivation of the IR renormalized quark SD equation which has been carried out in Ref.  (see also Ref. , where one can find a more detail discussion, conclusions and the comparison with the ’t Hooft model as well).

It was widely believed that the severe IR singularities could not be put under control. However, we show explicitly here and in Ref.  that the above-mentioned common belief is not justified. They can be controlled in all sectors of QCD of any dimensions by using correctly the DT . This can be considered also as one of our important results from a mathematical point of view.

This work has been carried out under BPCL-17 Contract and we thank L.P. Csernai for support. One of the authors (V.G.) is grateful to A.V. Kouziouchine for help and support.


format: text

text:
# 𝜌 Polarization and ‘Model Independent’ Extraction of |𝑉_{𝑢𝑏}|/|𝑉_{𝑐𝑑}| from 𝐷→𝜌ℓ𝜈 and 𝐵→𝜌ℓ𝜈

## I Introduction and Motivation

Extraction of the CKM matrix element $`V_{ub}`$ is one of the crucial ingredients needed to determine the source of CP violation. A number of methods have been suggested for extraction of this matrix element, both from inclusive and exclusive decays. In this note, we point out that, modulo $`1/m_c`$, $`1/m_b`$ and isospin corrections, the ratio $`|V_{ub}|/|V_{cd}|`$ can be determined using the predictions of the heavy quark effective theory (HQET), and the measurement of some polarization observables in the decays $`D\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`B\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$, in a model independent way.

Among the many measurements proposed for the proposed Cleo-c are precision studies of the semileptonic decays $`D\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`D\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$: it is expected that the ratio $`|V_{cd}|/|V_{cs}|`$ can be measured to 1.3%. In particular, there should be ample statistics to study the polarization of the vector mesons produced in the latter reaction. If this is the case, and if similar measurements can be done at the $`B`$ factories, we propose measurements that can provide the advertised ratio of CKM matrix elements with very small theoretical errors.

In the next section we briefly discuss the predictions of HQET for these heavy $``$ light transitions, at leading order. Section III discusses a number of experimental observables from these processes, and their dependence on the form factors describing these semileptonic decays. In that section, we also present the observables that allow extraction of the advertised ratio. In section IV we present our conclusions.

## II HQET And Form Factors

The hadronic matrix elements for the decays $`D\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`D\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$ are

$`\pi (p^{})\left|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`f_+^{D\pi }(p+p^{})_\mu +f_{}^{D\pi }(pp^{})_\mu ,`$ (1)
$`\pi (p^{})\left|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2)
$`\rho (p^{},ϵ)\left|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ig^{D\rho }ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu (p+p^{})^\alpha (pp^{})^\beta ,`$ (3)
$`\rho (p^{},ϵ)\left|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c\right|D(p)`$ $`=`$ $`f^{D\rho }ϵ_\mu ^{}+a_+^{D\rho }ϵ^{}p(p+p^{})_\mu +a_{}^{D\rho }ϵ^{}p(pp^{})_\mu ,`$ (4)
where the light quark $`q`$ can be either $`u`$ or $`d`$. These decays are thus described in terms of six independent, a priori unknown form factors. The terms in $`f_{}`$ and $`a_{}`$ are unimportant when the lepton mass is ignored, since

$$(pp^{})_\mu \overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu _{\mathrm{}}=(k_\nu +k_{\mathrm{}})_\mu \overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu _{\mathrm{}}=m_{\mathrm{}}\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(5)
For the transitions from $`B`$ mesons, an analogous set of matrix elements and form factors are necessary.

Using the Dirac matrix representation of heavy mesons, we may treat heavy-to-light transitions using the same trace formalism that has been applied to heavy-to-heavy transitions . In the effective theory, a heavy pseudoscalar meson ($`D`$ or $`B`$), denoted $`P`$, traveling with velocity $`v`$ is represented as

$$|𝒫(v)>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1+v/}{2}\gamma _5_P(v),$$
(6)
These states are normalized so that

$$𝒫(v^{})|𝒫(v)=2v_0\delta ^3\left(𝐩𝐩^{}\right).$$
(7)
The states of QCD and HQET are therefore related by

$$|P(v)=\sqrt{m_P}|𝒫(v),$$
(8)
where $`m_P`$ is the mass of the pseudoscalar meson.

For the semileptonic transitions between such a heavy meson ($`P`$ meson) and a light pseudoscalar ($`\pi `$), the matrix element of interest is

$$\pi (p)\left|\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(Q)}\right|𝒫(v)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _5\left(\xi _1+p/\xi _2\right)\gamma _\mu _P(v)\right],$$
(9)
where $`h_v^{(Q)}`$ is the heavy quark in the effective theory, and $`q`$ denotes a light quark ($`u`$ or $`d`$). For the transition to a light vector ($`\rho `$), the matrix elements are written

$$\rho (p,\epsilon )\left|\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(Q)}\right|𝒫(v)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left\{\left(\xi _3+p/\xi _4\right)\epsilon ^{}v+\epsilon /^{}\left(\xi _5+p/\xi _6\right)\right\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_P(v)\right],$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes either $`\gamma _\mu `$ or $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _5`$.

The form factors $`\xi _i`$ are independent of the mass of the heavy quark, and are therefore universal functions. Thus, they are valid for $`D\pi (\rho )`$ decays, as well as for $`B\pi (\rho )`$ decays. This independence of the quark mass allows us to deduce, in a relatively straightforward manner, the scaling behavior of the usual form factors that describe these transitions . More precisely, they allow us to relate the form factors for $`D`$ transitions to those for $`B`$ transitions. The relationships are

$`f_+^B(vp)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_D}}\right)^{1/2}\left[f_+^D(vp)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}\right)+f_{}^D(vp)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}1\right)\right],`$ (11)
$`f_{}^B(vp)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_D}}\right)^{1/2}\left[f_{}^D(vp)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}\right)+f_+^D(vp)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}1\right)\right],`$ (12)
$`f^B(vp)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_D}}\right)^{1/2}f^D(vp),`$ (13)
$`g^B(vp)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}\right)^{1/2}g^D(vp),`$ (14)
$`a_+^B(vp)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}\right)^{1/2}\left[a_+^D(vp)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}\right)+a_{}^D(vp)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}1\right)\right],`$ (15)
$`a_{}^B(vp)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}\right)^{1/2}\left[a_{}^D(vp)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}\right)+a_+^D(vp)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{m_B}}1\right)\right],`$ (16)
where $`f_+^D`$ is the form factor appropriate to the $`D\pi `$ transition, while $`f_+^B`$ is the form factor appropriate to the $`B\pi `$ transition, and quantities on the left-hand-sides of eqns. (11) are evaluated at the same values of $`vp`$ as those on the right-hand-sides. Omitted from each of eqn. (11) is a QCD scaling factor.

In the limit of a heavy $`b`$ quark, the full current of QCD is replaced by

$$\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }b\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(b)}\left[\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\alpha _s(\mu )}\right]^{\frac{6}{25}}.$$
(17)
This arises from integrating out the $`b`$ quark, and matching the resulting effective theory onto full QCD at the scale $`m_b`$, at one loop level. At the scale $`m_c`$, we must also integrate out the $`c`$ quark, but there is also the effect due to running between $`m_b`$ and $`m_c`$. The net effect of this is that the form factors $`\xi _i`$ appropriate to the $`bu`$ transitions are related to those for the $`cd`$ transitions by

$$\xi _i^{bu}=\xi _i^{cd}\left[\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\alpha _s(m_c)}\right]^{\frac{6}{25}}.$$
(18)
## III Observables

In the differential decay rate of $`D(B)\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$, terms that depend on the form factor $`f_{}`$ are proportional to the mass of the lepton, and are thus very difficult to extract from experiment. Detecting the polarization of the charged lepton offers the only possibility of extracting this form factor, but this is apparently a very remote prospect with muons or electrons. Because of the predicted mixing of $`f_+`$ and $`f_{}`$ in HQET, it becomes very difficult to say anything about $`B\pi `$ observables based on information extracted from the corresponding $`D\pi `$ observables. Assumptions about the form of $`f_{}`$ can be and have been made, but this introduces some model dependence into any information extracted.

For the decay to the $`\rho `$, helicity amplitudes $`H_\pm `$ and $`H_0`$ can be defined as

$`H_\pm (q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`f(q^2)\pm m_Pk_\rho g(q^2),`$ (19)
$`H_0(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_\rho \sqrt{q^2}}}\left[(m_P^2m_\rho ^2q^2)f(q^2)+4m_P^2k_\rho ^2a_+(q^2)\right],`$ (20)
where $`k_\rho `$ is the momentum of the daughter $`\rho `$ in the rest frame of the parent pseudoscalar. In terms of these, the differential decay rate is written

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho d\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3G_F^2|V_{qQ}|^2k_\rho q^2}{8(4\pi )^4m_P^2}}`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`\{\left[(1+\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})^2\right|H_+(q^2)|^2+(1\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})^2\left|H_{}(q^2)|^2\right]\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho `$ (22)
$`+`$ $`4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\rho \left|H_0(q^2)\right|^22\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}2\chi H_+(q^2)H_{}(q^2)`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`4\eta \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}\chi H_0(q^2)`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`[(1\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})H_{}(q^2)(1+\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})H_+(q^2)]\},`$ (25)
where $`\eta =+1`$ for $`B`$ decays, and $`1`$ for $`D`$ decays. The angles $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\theta _\rho `$ and $`\chi `$ are explained in the figure.

With sufficient statistics in both $`B`$ and $`D`$ decays, this differential decay rate can provide means of extracting the ratio $`|V_{ub}|/|V_{cd}|`$. The differential decay rates into specific helicity states of the $`\rho `$ can be written as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{dq^2}=\frac{G_F^2\left|V_qQ\right|^2}{96\pi ^3}k_\rho \frac{q^2}{m_P^2}\left|H_i(q^2)\right|^2.$$
(26)
Much of the difficulty of saying anything about the total rate in $`B\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$, based on measurements of $`D\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$, remains because of the mixing of $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$. As with the decays to pions, $`a_{}`$ is, for the most part, only accessible through measurement of the polarization of the charged lepton. However, decays to transversely polarized $`\rho `$ mesons are independent of this form factor, depending only on $`f`$ and $`g`$.

If $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^D/dq^2`$ can be measured or extracted at Cleo-c, and $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^B/dq^2`$ at $`B`$ factories, the ratio of these two differential decay rates, at the same kinematic point $`vp`$ ($`=E_\rho `$ in the rest frame of the parent hadron), depends only on known or measurable kinematic quantities, as the form factor dependence drops out at leading order in HQET. Actually, this is not quite true. This ratio will depend on the form factor ratio $`r`$ defined as

$$r(vp)=\frac{g^D(vp)}{f^D(vp)},$$
(27)
but this ratio should be extractable from other observables in the $`D\rho \mathrm{}\nu `$ decay. More explicitly,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^B/dq^2}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^D/dq^2}=\frac{\left|V_{ub}\right|^2}{\left|V_{cd}\right|^2}\frac{q_B^2m_D^2}{q_D^2m_B^2}\frac{\frac{m_B}{m_D}+m_Bm_D\left(k_\rho ^B\right)^2r^2(vp)\pm 2m_Bk_\rho ^Br(vp)}{1+m_D^2\left(k_\rho ^D\right)^2r^2(vp)\pm 2m_Dk_\rho ^Dr(vp)}.$$
(28)
Since the numerator and denominator of this ratio are evaluated at the same value of $`E_\rho `$, $`k_\rho ^D=k_\rho ^B`$. In the expression above,

$$q_B^2=m_B^2+m_\rho ^22m_Bvp,q_D^2=m_D^2+m_\rho ^22m_Dvp.$$
(29)
The combination $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+/dq^2+d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}/dq^2`$ is more easily accessible in these experiments (as the term proportional to $`(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho `$ in the expression for the decay rate). The ratio of this quantity for $`B`$ decays to that for $`D`$ decays is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^B/dq^2+d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^B/dq^2}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^D/dq^2+d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^D/dq^2}=\frac{\left|V_{ub}\right|^2}{\left|V_{cd}\right|^2}\frac{q_B^2m_D^2}{q_D^2m_B^2}\frac{\frac{m_B}{m_D}+m_Bm_D\left(k_\rho ^B\right)^2r^2(vp)}{1+m_D^2\left(k_\rho ^D\right)^2r^2(vp)}.$$
(30)
In addition, the differential rate $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+/dq^2`$, proportional to $`H_+(q^2)H_{}(q^2)`$ may also be accessible (as the term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}2\chi `$ in the expression for the decay rate). If this is measured in $`B`$ and $`D`$ decays, the ratio is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^B/dq^2}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^D/dq^2}=\frac{\left|V_{ub}\right|^2}{\left|V_{cd}\right|^2}\frac{q_B^2m_D^2}{q_D^2m_B^2}\frac{\frac{m_B}{m_D}m_Bm_D\left(k_\rho ^B\right)^2r^2(vp)}{1m_D^2\left(k_\rho ^D\right)^2r^2(vp)}.$$
(31)
This ratio again depends only on known or measurable kinematic quantities, and the form factor ratio $`r(vp)`$.

Far more intriguing is the ratio of the difference of these differential helicity decay rates, related to the differential lepton forward-backward asymmetry, and proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho `$. This ratio takes the form

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^B/dq^2d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^B/dq^2}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^D/dq^2d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^D/dq^2}=\frac{\left|V_{ub}\right|^2}{\left|V_{cd}\right|^2}\frac{q_B^2m_D}{q_D^2m_B},$$
(32)
where a factor of $`k_\rho ^B/k_\rho ^D`$ has been set to unity, as explained above. Inclusion of the lowest order radiative corrections means that the ratios above must be multiplied by the factor $`\left[\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\alpha _s(m_c)}\right]^{\frac{12}{25}}`$.

At leading order, the last ratio of observables is completely independent of any form factor, and so should provide a very good means of extracting the ratio $`|V_{ub}|/|V_{cd}|`$.

## IV Discussion and Conclusion

We have suggested three measurements that can allow the extraction of $`|V_{ub}|/|V_{cd}|`$ in an absolutely model independent manner. However, our results are subject to a number of corrections, which we discuss briefly here.

One correction that must be taken into account is isospin breaking. For the $`D`$ mesons, the possible decay modes are $`D^0\rho ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`D^+\rho ^0\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$, while the corresponding $`B`$ decay modes are $`\overline{B}^0\rho ^+\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`B^{}\rho ^0\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$. The predictions given in the previous section implicitly assume that the light component of the heavy meson is the same for both the $`D`$ and $`B`$ decays. This means that comparisons can be made between the decays of the $`D^0`$ and those of the $`B^{}`$, or between the decays of the $`D^+`$ and those of the $`\overline{B}^0`$. In each of these comparisons, the daughter $`\rho `$ is different, so some assumption of isospin invariance among the form factors has to be made. Departures from this invariance can be expected to be small. There is also an implicit assumption of isospin invariance in the discussion of the radiative factor of $`\left[\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\alpha _s(m_c)}\right]^{\frac{12}{25}}`$.

By far the larger corrections are expected to come from the $`1/m_c`$ and $`1/m_b`$ contributions to the matrix elements of interest. For decays to pions, the $`1/m`$ corrections require the introduction of eight new universal form factors. The number of new form factors required for the decays to $`\rho `$ mesons will be twice that number. For the decays to pions, Burdman and collaborators  have used chiral symmetry arguments to obtain estimates of the normalizations of some of the new form factors at the non-recoil point, $`vp=m_\pi `$. It is not clear that analogous estimates can be obtained for the $`D\rho `$ and $`B\rho `$ form factors.

The very nice result obtained in the previous section will undoubtedly be spoiled by $`1/m`$ corrections. Although there is no a priori reason to believe it, one can hope that such corrections are small. It is possible that, in the ratio of differential decay rates, this turns out to be the case. This, however, is speculation. Nevertheless, perhaps the measurements suggested are of sufficient interest for the $`1/m`$ corrections to be studied in detail in the near future.

The author thanks J. L. Goity for reading the manuscript, and for discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant # PHY-9457892. This work was also supported by the Department of Energy through contract DE-AC05-84ER40150, under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF), and through contract DE-FG05-94ER40832.


text:
# Existence of the density of states for some alloy type models with single site potentials of changing sign

## 1. Alloy type model and the integrated density of states

We consider Schrödinger operators with a potential which is a stochastic process ergodic with respect to translations from $`^d`$. Such operators model quantum mechanical Hamiltonians which govern the motion of single electrons in disordered solids. The spectral properties of the Schrödinger operator are related to the dynamical behaviour of the electron wave packets and thus to the charge transport properties of the described solid, cf. e.g. .

The random potential considered in this note is of alloy or continuous Anderson type:

$`V:\mathrm{\Omega }\times ^d,V_\omega (x)={\displaystyle \underset{k^d}{}}u(xk).`$
The function $`uL^p`$ ($`p=2`$ for $`d3`$ and $`p>\frac{d}{2}`$ for $`d4`$) whose translates generate $`V_\omega `$ is called single site potential. The ”strength” of the potentials $`u(k)`$ associated to different lattice sites $`k^d`$ is a random variable $`\omega _k:\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We assume that the sequence $`(\omega _k)_{k^d}`$ is independent and identically distributed (iid), and moreover that each $`\omega _k`$ is distributed according to the probability measure $`\mu `$ which has a density $`f`$ in the Sobolev space $`W_c^{1,1}()`$. We may identify the probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ with the space $`\times _{k^d}`$ equipped with the product measure $`_{k^d}\mu `$. Thus an element $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a random vector $`(\omega _k)_{k^d}`$.

The alloy type model is the random Schrödinger operator, or more precisely, the random family of Schrödinger operators, given by

(1)
$$H_\omega :=H_0+V_\omega ,\omega \mathrm{\Omega },H_0:=\mathrm{\Delta }+V_0$$

where $`V_0L_{loc}^p(^d)`$ is a $`^d`$-periodic potential and $`p`$ is chosen depending on the dimension, as above.

A large part of the mathematical literature and results on random Schrödinger operators are devoted to the model just described, certain derivatives thereof, cf. e.g.  and its discrete version on $`l^2(^d)`$ — actually the original model studied by Anderson . An extensive list of references can be found in the textbooks .

The name alloy type model stems from the fact that one can consider $`u(k)`$ as an atomic potential, say of screened Coulomb type, due to a nucleus sitting at the lattice site $`k^d`$. While the lattice structure of the solid is fixed and all atoms are assumed to generate a potential of the same shape, the distribution of the different types of atoms on the lattice sites is random. This is then modelled by random nuclear charges $`\omega _k`$ which appear as coupling constants in front of the atomic potential $`u(k)`$ and determine its ”strength”.

Under the above assumptions on $`H_\omega `$ it is well known that the spectrum and its measure theoretic components are almost surely non-random. More precisely, there exist $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of measure one and a subset of the reals $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`\sigma (H_\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{}.`$ The analog statement is true for the sets $`\sigma _{disc}(H_\omega ),\sigma _{ess}(H_\omega ),\sigma _{ac}(H_\omega ),\sigma _{sc}(H_\omega )`$ and $`\sigma _{pp}(H_\omega )`$. (Here we denote by $`\sigma _{pp}`$ the closure of the set of eigenvalues.) This property of the spectrum is called selfaveraging. It is due to the fact that on the infinite configuration space $`^d`$ the fluctuations of the potential $`V_\omega `$, which are present in finite size cubes, cancel out thanks to the iid property of the random coupling constants.

Part of the spectral properties of the family of Schrödinger operators $`H_\omega `$ is contained in the integrated density of states (IDS). It can be used to calculate the basic thermodynamic quantities of the corresponding non-interacting many particle system, cf. e.g. . In physical terms, the IDS counts the number of energy levels per unit volume, up to a given energy $`E`$. The possible existence of continuous spectrum makes a careful mathematical definition of the IDS necessary, which is as follows: Denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ the cube $`[0,l[^d`$ and with $`H_\omega ^l`$ the restriction of $`H_\omega `$ to the interior of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ with periodic boundary conditions. Then the normalized eigenvalue counting functions

(2)
$$N_\omega ^l(E)=l^d\mathrm{\#}\{i|\lambda _i(H_\omega ^l)<E\}=l^dTrP_\omega ^l(]\mathrm{},E[)$$

of $`H_\omega ^l`$ converge for almost all $`\omega `$ to a limit $`N(E):=lim_l\mathrm{}N_\omega ^l(E)`$ which is $`\omega `$-independent. This convergence holds true for all $`E`$ which are continuity points of $`N`$. Here we denote with $`P_\omega ^l(I)`$ the spectral projection of $`H_\omega `$ onto the interval $`I`$. Since the limit $`N`$ is independent of the randomness, we encountered another selfaveraging quantity. Its set of points of increase $`:=\{E|N(E+ϵ)N(Eϵ)>0\}`$ coincides with the a.s. spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

This note is organized as follows. In the next section we state our main theorem and related results of other authors as well as the implications for Anderson localization, Section 3 contains a sketch of the proof of the main theorem and the last section is devoted to the discussion of the proof of localization using the multiscale analysis and to Wegner estimates for alloy type potentials with dependent random coupling constants. Furthermore we discuss some technical differences of the use of the common and the conditional density of the coupling constants.

## 2. Main theorem: A Wegner estimate for indefinite potentials

A Wegner estimate  is a assertion about the regularity of the finite volume IDS $`N_\omega ^l`$ which may imply the Hölder continuity of the IDS on $`^d`$ or even the existence of its derivative $`dN/dE`$, the density of states (DOS). Note that in the following result the single site potential may be indefinite, i.e. take values of both signs.

###### Theorem 2.1 ().

Let $`L^p(^d)w\kappa \chi _{[0,1]^d}`$ with $`\kappa >0`$ and $`p=2`$ for $`d3`$ and $`p>d/2`$ for $`d4`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$ be finite, the convolution vector $`\alpha =(\alpha _k)_{k\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ satisfy $`\alpha ^{}:=_{k0}|\alpha _k|<|\alpha _0|`$, and the single site potential be of generalized step function form:

(3)
$$u(x)=\underset{k\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\alpha _kw(xk).$$

Then there exists for all $`E`$ a constant $`C=C(E)`$ such that

(4)
$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\left[TrP_\omega ^l([Eϵ,E])\right]𝑑(\omega )Cϵl^d,ϵ0.$$

The theorem implies that the DOS exists for a.e. $`E`$ and is locally uniformly bounded: $`dN(E)/dEC(E_1)`$ for all $`EE_1`$. The following result with V. Kostrykin applies to uniform densities.

###### Proposition 2.2 ().

The assertion of Theorem 2.1 holds true if $`f`$ is the uniform density on an interval and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\{k^d|k_i0i=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$.

First Wegner estimates for indefinite alloy type potentials were derived in . In  P. Hislop and F. Klopp combine the techniques from  and  to prove a Wegner estimate valid for general indefinite single site potentials and for energy intervals at edges of $`\sigma (H_\omega )`$. They assume the single site potential $`u`$ not to vanish identically and to be in $`C_cl^1(L^p)`$ with $`p\mathrm{min}(d,2)`$. The density $`fL_c^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the random variable $`\omega _0`$ (which may be in fact the conditional density w.r.t. $`\omega ^0:=(\omega _k)_{k0}`$) is assumed to be locally absolutely continuous. For any $`\beta <1`$ and any energy interval $`I`$ below the spectrum of the unperturbed operator $`H_0`$ they prove

$`\{\sigma (H_\omega ^l)I\mathrm{}\}C|I|^\beta l^d`$
where the constant $`C`$ depends only on $`\beta ,d`$ and $`dist(I,\sigma (H_0))`$. With a sufficiently small global coupling constant $`\lambda `$ the same result holds for the operator $`H_0+\lambda V_\omega `$ for $`I`$ in an internal spectral gap of $`H_0`$. The results of  extend to more general models including certain operators with random magnetic field.

The literature on Wegner estimates for multidimensional alloy type models includes .

Theorem 2.1 and Proposition 2.2 imply a localization result if the negative part $`u_{}`$ of the single site potential is sufficiently small.

###### Theorem 2.3 ().

Let $`H_\omega `$ satisfy the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 or Proposition 2.2, let $`w`$ have compact support and $`E`$ be a boundary point of $`\sigma (H_\omega )`$. Let furthermore either

1. $`V_0`$ be symmetric w.r.t. refelections along the coordinate axes and $`E=inf\sigma (H_\omega )`$, or
2. $`suppf=[\omega _{},\omega _+]`$ and for $`\tau >d/2`$ and $`h0`$ sufficiently small let the density $`f`$ satisfy $`_\omega _{}^hfh^\tau `$ and $`_{\omega _+h}^{\omega _+}fh^\tau `$.

Then there exist $`ϵ,r>0`$ such that for $`_{\alpha _l<0}\alpha _lϵ`$

(5)
$$[Er,E+r]\sigma _c(H_\omega )=\mathrm{}\text{ and }\sigma (H_\omega )[Er,E+r]\mathrm{}$$

The eigenfunctions of $`H_\omega `$ with eigenvalues in $`[Er,E+r]`$ decay exponentially.

In  this result has been generalized to a larger class of single site potentials using results from  and an abstract version of the smallness of $`u_{}`$. In one dimension the alloy type model has pure point at all energies regardless of the sign properties of $`u`$ . The proof does not use a Wegner estimate.

## 3. Sketch of the proof of Theorem 2.1

For simplicity we assume $`w=\chi _{[0,1]^d}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}:=\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$, $`𝔼`$ denote the expectation w.r.t. $``$ and $`I:=[E_1,E_2[`$ an energy interval. Thus we have $`𝔼\left[N_\omega ^l(E_2)N_\omega ^l(E_1)\right]=l^d𝔼\left[TrP_\omega ^l(I)\right].`$ We abbreviate $`\chi _j:=\chi _{[0,1]^d+j}`$ and infer from  the inequality

(6)
$$𝔼\left[TrP_\omega ^l(I)\right]e^{E_2}C_V\underset{j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}𝔼\left[\chi _jP_\omega ^l(I)\chi _j\right]$$

which corresponds to a partition of unity. Here the constant $`C_V`$ depends only on $`V_0,u`$ and $`f`$. To estimate $`𝔼[\varphi ,\chi _jP_\omega ^l(I)\chi _j\varphi ]`$ for any normalized $`\varphi L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)`$ we introduce a transformation of coordinates on the probability space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

For each cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ denote $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+:=\{\lambda \gamma |\lambda \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$. The operator $`H_\omega ^l`$ depends only on the truncated random vector $`(\omega _k)_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+}^{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }^+}`$. On such vectors acts a block Toeplitz transformation $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\{\alpha _{jk}\}_{j,k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+}`$ induced by the convolution vector $`\alpha `$. The transformation has an inverse $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{b_{k,j}\}_{k,j\mathrm{\Lambda }^+}=A_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ which is bounded in the row-sum norm $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{1\alpha ^{}}`$. We drop now the subscript $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and denote with $`\eta :=A\omega `$ the vector of the transformed random coordinates. They have the common density

(7)
$$k(\eta )=k_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta )=|detB|F(A^1\eta )$$

where $`F(\omega )=_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+}f\left(\omega _k\right)`$ is the original density of the $`\omega _k`$. We calculate the potential $`V_\omega `$ written as a function of $`\eta `$ (and $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$):

$$V_\omega (x)=V_{B\eta }(x)=\underset{j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}\eta _j\chi _j(x).$$

In the new representation of the potential the single site potentials are non-negative, so we can to use a spectral averaging formula

(8)
$$_{}𝑑\eta _jk(\eta )s(\eta )|I|\underset{\eta _j}{sup}|k(\eta )|,\text{ where }s(\eta ):=\varphi ,\chi _jP_{B\eta }^l(I)\chi _j\varphi .$$

Denote $`L=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$. Fubini, (8) and the fundamental theorem of calculus give

(9)
$$_^L𝑑\eta k(\eta )s(\eta )|I|_{^{L1}}𝑑\eta ^j\underset{\eta _j}{sup}|k(\eta )||I|_^L𝑑\eta |(_jk)(\eta )|.$$

The last integral equals $`|detA|_^L𝑑\omega |(_jk)(A\omega )|`$ which is bounded by
$`f^{}_{L^1}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+}|b_{k,j}|`$. The proof of the theorem is finished by the estimate

(10)
$$𝔼\left[\varphi ,\chi _jP_\omega ^l(I)\chi _j\varphi \right]|I|f^{}_{L^1}B.$$

## 4. Discussion and Applications

### 4.1. Localization

The main application of Wegner estimates — apart from establishing the regularity of the IDS — is the proof of localization, i.e. the existence of dense pure point spectrum of $`H_\omega `$ in certain energy regions. For multidimensional Schrödinger operators on $`L^d(^d)`$ the multiscale analysis of J. Fröhlich and T. Spencer  provides a method for proving localization by induction over cubes in $`^d`$ of larger and larger side lengths. To start the multiscale induction one has to know certain off-diagonal decay estimates of the kernel of the resolvent of $`H_\omega ^l`$ at an initial length scale. For non-negative $`u`$ there are rather well understood sufficient conditions for this estimates. The Wegner estimate is needed, too, as an a priori estimate for the multiscale analysis, namely to control the induction step when going from one scale to another, larger one.

We sketch the main estimates in the multiscale analysis under the assumptions of Theorem 2.3. For the following it is convenient to slightly change the notation and denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l(x)=[l/2,l/2]^d+x`$ the cube of side length $`l`$ centered at $`x`$. The characteristic function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{l2}(x)`$, resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{l/3}(x)`$, is abbreviated as $`\chi ^+`$, resp. $`\chi ^{}`$. The cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is called $`(\gamma ,E)`$-good if the associated resolvent satisfies the following off-diagonal decay estimate in operator norm

$`\chi ^+(H_\omega ^\mathrm{\Lambda }E)^1\chi ^{}e^{\gamma l}.`$
The initial scale estimate for the multiscale analysis is satisfied if

(11)
$$\{EI:\mathrm{\Lambda }_l(x)\text{ is }(\gamma _0,E)\text{-good }\}1l_0^{\xi _0}$$

holds for $`x^d,l_0`$ sufficiently large and $`\gamma _0l_0^{\beta 1},\beta ,\xi _0>0`$. See  how it is derived in the situation of Theorem 2.3. It serves as the induction anchor. The geometric resolvent equation for two cubes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},\varphi C_c^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`z\rho (H_\omega ^\mathrm{\Lambda })\rho (H_\omega ^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})`$

$`(H^\mathrm{\Lambda }z)^1\varphi =\varphi (H^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}z)^1+(H^\mathrm{\Lambda }z)^1[(\varphi )+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ](H^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}z)^1`$
and (some weak form of) a Wegner estimate

$$\{\sigma (H_\omega ^\mathrm{\Lambda })I\mathrm{}\}C|I|^avol(\mathrm{\Lambda })^b$$

with $`a]0,1],b[1,\mathrm{}[`$ imply for $`x,y^d,d(x,y)diamsuppu`$

$`\{EI:\mathrm{\Lambda }_l(x)\text{ or }\mathrm{\Lambda }_l(x)\text{ is }(\gamma ,E)\text{-good }\}1l^{2\xi }`$
for some $`\alpha ]1,2[,\gamma ,\xi >0`$ and all $`l_k,k`$, where $`l_{k1}^\alpha l_kl_{k1}^\alpha +6,k`$. This establishes the exponential decay of the resolvent on arbitrary large scales with high probability. Using a priori estimates on the (polynomial) growth of eigenfunctions  one concludes that they actually decay exponentially.

Details on the multiscale analysis can be found, e.g., in  and some recent developments in .

### 4.2. Dependent random coupling constants

The proof of Theorem 2.1 uses the transformation of $`V_\omega `$ into an alloy type potential with non-negative single site potential $`wL^p(^d)`$ and (negatively) correlated coupling constants $`(\eta _k)_{k^d}`$. Thus we can interpret it as an Wegner estimate for the Schrödinger operator $`H_\eta =\mathrm{\Delta }+V_0+_{k^d}\eta _kw(k)`$. This implies the following Wegner estimate for dependent coupling constants:

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`w\kappa \chi _{[0,1]},\kappa >0`$ and for each $`l`$ the common density $`k_l`$ of $`\eta ^l=(\eta _k)_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}`$ conditioned on $`(\eta _k)_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}`$ be of the form $`|detB_l|k_l(\eta )=F(B_l\eta ^l)`$, where $`fW^{1,1}`$ is a probability density, $`F_l(\omega )=_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}f(\omega _k)`$ and $`B_l:=B_l\left((\eta _k)_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}\right)`$ is a sequence of invertible linear transformations with $`sup\{B_l|(\eta _k)_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}\}constl^q`$. Then for each $`E`$ exists a constant $`C=C(E)`$ such that

(12)
$$𝔼\left[TrP_\eta ^l([Eϵ,E])\right]Cϵl^{q+d},ϵ0.$$

Wegner estimates for alloy type models with dependent coupling constants have been established in  (cf. also ). The criteria for their validity are formulated in terms of the conditional densities $`h_j(\eta )`$ of the random variable $`\eta _j`$ w.r.t. the remaining ones $`\eta ^j=(\eta _k)_{k^dj}`$. One necessary condition is that the supremum $`h_j_{\mathrm{}}`$ is finite. This motivates the comparison of some properties of the common and the conditional densities of the random coupling constants in the next subsection.

### 4.3. Common and conditional densities

In this subsection we discuss some properties of the common and conditional densities of the random coupling constants. The proofs of Theorem 2.1 and Proposition 2.2 rely on the use of a common density of the type (7). Since one has an explicit formula for the corresponding conditional densities, it is desirable to analyze their properties. Particularly, it is of interest whether the conditional densities are bounded by a constant. If this is the case, the Wegner estimates of  and  apply by considering the indefinite potential $`V_\omega `$ in its representation $`V_{B\eta }`$ as an alloy type potential with dependent coupling constants.

Lets look first at the common density $`k_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Its supremum is easily seen to be $`|detB_\mathrm{\Lambda }|f_{\mathrm{}}^L`$, so it diverges exponentially with the volume of the cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, this does not matter since in (9) one takes the integral instead of the supremum.

We restrict ourselves now to the one dimensional $`d=1`$ case and note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=[0,l[`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+=\{1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$.

Instead of considering the conditional density $`h_j(\eta )`$ of $`\eta _j`$ w.r.t all coupling constants we will study (for two simple examples) the conditional density $`\rho _j(\eta )=\rho _j^l(\eta )`$ of the variable $`\eta _j`$ with respect to the remaining coupling constants $`\eta ^j=(\eta _k)_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^+j}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$. It is given by $`\rho _j(\eta )=\frac{k(\eta )}{g_j(\eta )}`$. Here $`g_j(\eta ):=g_j^l(\eta )=k(\eta )𝑑\eta _j`$ denotes the marginal density. The question is whether $`sup_j\rho (\eta )`$ is finite. If it is finite, does the upper bound depend on $`l`$ and does the bound diverge as $`l`$ tends to infinity?

###### Example 4.2.

Let $`u=\chi _{[0,1]}\chi _{[1,2]}`$, i.e. the convolution vector be $`(\alpha _0,\alpha _1)=(1,1)`$. Then the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 are (just) not satisfied, since $`|\alpha _1|=|\alpha _0|`$. However, $`A_l=A_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has an inverse $`B_l`$ with entries $`b_{j,k}=\chi _{\{jk\}}`$ for all $`1j,kl1`$. Thus $`B_l=l+1`$ and (10) implies for $`fW^{1,1}`$

(13)
$$𝔼\left[\varphi ,\chi _jP_\omega ^l(I)\chi _j\varphi \right]|I|f^{}_{L^1}(l+1).$$

This gives a Wegner estimate like (4), but with $`l^d`$ replaced by $`l^{2d}=l^2`$.

Specialize now to the density $`f(x)=4|x|+2`$ on $`[1/2,1/2]`$ and zero elsewhere. We calculate a lower bound on the supremum by evaluating the conditional density at $`\eta =0`$, the unique maximum of $`k(\eta )`$. For $`j\{1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$ and $`lj`$ even we have

(14)
$$\underset{\eta }{sup}\rho _j^l(\eta )\rho _j^l(0)=lj+1.$$

This bound diverges as the length $`l`$ of the interval tends to infinity. Thus the mere invertibility of $`A`$ is not sufficient to ensure the uniform boundedness of $`sup_\eta \rho _j^l(\eta )`$. Remarkably the bound (14) has the same volume growth as the one in (13) involving the common density. If (14) is actually the exact behaviour of $`\rho _j^l_{\mathrm{}}`$ then the conditional density may be used to derive (13) and a Wegner estimate.

###### Example 4.3.

Consider now the density function $`f=\chi _{[0,1]}`$ and the single site potential $`u=\chi _{[0,1]}\alpha \chi _{[1,2]}`$ with $`\alpha =\alpha _1]1,0[`$. To the corresponding alloy type model the Wegner estimate in Proposition 2.2 applies. We calculate now the supremum of the conditional densities $`\rho _j`$. The common density is given by $`k(\eta )=_{k=1}^{l1}\chi _{[0,1]}(_{\nu =1}^k\alpha ^{k\nu }\eta _\nu )`$. For $`\eta _{j+1}[0,1],\eta _k=0,kj+1`$ we have $`k(\eta )=_{k=j+1}^{l1}\chi _{[0,1]}(\alpha ^{kj1}\eta _\nu )=1.`$ The marginal density

$`g_j(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}\chi _{[0,1]}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{k}{}}}\alpha ^{k\nu }\eta _\nu \right){\displaystyle \underset{k=j}{\overset{l1}{}}\chi _{[0,1]}\left(\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha ^{k\nu }\eta _\nu \right)d\eta _j}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\eta _j\underset{k=j}{\overset{j+1}{}}\chi _{[0,1]}\left(\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha ^{k\nu }\eta _\nu \right)}`$
has for $`\eta _{j+1}[0,1],\eta _k=0,k\{j,j+1\}`$ the upper bound $`_0^1\chi _{[0,1]}(\alpha \eta _j+\eta _{j+1})𝑑\eta _j\alpha ^1(1\eta _{j+1})`$. Particularly, $`g_j(\eta )0`$ for $`\eta _{j+1}1`$ and thus

$`\rho _j_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}.`$
So proofs of a Wegner estimate which require the conditional density to be bounded cannot be applied to this alloy type potential.

Note that we discussed only mathematical aspects of the use of the common, resp. conditional density. A different question is whether for physical models the dependence between the coupling constants is most naturally expressed in terms of the conditional or common densities, in terms of the correlation coefficients or more general mixed moments.

#### Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank T. Hupfer, W. Kirsch, V. Kostrykin, K. Veselić and S. Warzel for stimulating discussions and helpful comments. This work was partially supported by SFB 237: “Unordnung und große Fluktuationen”, the Ruth-und-Gert-Massenberg-Stiftung, both Germany, and the Croatian Ministry of Science.