text:
# Flavour mixing, gauge invariance and wave-function renormalisation

## 1 Introduction

One of the pressing open problems in particle physics is to understand the origin of $`CP`$ violation phase and family mixing. In the minimal Standard Model (SM) the information about these quantities is encoded in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix. In this work we shall denote this matrix by $`K_{ij}`$

As it is well known, some of the entries of this matrix are remarkably well measured, while others (such as the $`K_{tb}`$, $`K_{ts}`$ and $`K_{td}`$ elements) are poorly known and the only real experimental constraint come from the unitarity requirements. A lot of effort in the last decade has been invested in this particular problem and this dedication will continue in the foreseeable future aiming to a precision in the charged current sector comparable to the one already reached in the neutral sector. As a guidance, let us mention that the expected accuracy in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ after LHCb is expected to be beyond the 1% level, and a comparable accuracy is expected by that time from the ongoing generation of experiments (BaBar, Belle) .

In the neutral sector it is totally mandatory to include electroweak radiative corrections to bring theory and experiment into agreement. Tree level results are incompatible with experiment by many standard deviations . Obviously we are not there yet in the charged current sector, but in a few years electroweak radiative corrections will be required in the studies analysing the “unitarity” of the CKM matrix111The CKM matrix is certainly unitary, but the physical observables that at tree level coincide with these matrix elements certainly do not necessarily fulfil a unitarity constraint once quantum corrections are switched on..

These corrections are of several types. With an on-shell scheme in mind, we need counter terms for the electric charge, Weinberg angle and wave-function renormalisation (wfr.) for the $`W`$ gauge boson. We shall also require wfr. for the external fermions and counter terms for the entries of the CKM matrix. The latter are in fact related in a way that will be described below . Finally one needs to compute the 1PI vertex parts of the different processes one is interested in.

In the on-shell scheme, all counter terms can be expressed as combinations of self-energies . These are standard and well known at one-loop in perturbation theory; in some cases, at least for the leading pieces, up to two-loop in the SM. However, a long standing controversy exists in the literature concerning what is the appropriate way to define both an external wfr. and CKM counter terms. The issue becomes involved because we are dealing with particles which are unstable (and therefore the self-energies develop branch cuts; even gauge dependent ones in the SM) and because of mixing.

Several proposals have been put forward in the literature to define appropriate counter terms both for the external legs and for the CKM matrix elements. The original prescription for wfr. diagonalizing the on-shell propagator was introduced in . In  the wfr. “satisfying” the conditions of  were derived. However since  does not take care about the branch cuts present in the self-energies those results must be considered only consistent up to absorptive terms. Later it was realized  that the on-shell conditions defined in  where inconsistent and in fact impossible to satisfy for a minimal set of renormalisation constants222By minimal set we mean a set where the wfr. of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are related by $`\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\gamma ^0Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0.`$ due to the imaginary branch cuts present in the self-energies. The author of  circumvented this problem by introducing a prescription that de facto eliminates such branch cuts, but at the price of not diagonalizing the propagators in flavour space.

Ward identities based on the SU(2)L gauge symmetry relate wfr. and counter terms for the CKM matrix elements . In  it was seen that if the prescription of  was used in the counter terms for the CKM matrix elements, the results were in violation of gauge invariance. As we have just mentioned, the results in  do not deal properly with the absorptive terms appearing in the self-energies; which in addition happen to be gauge dependent. In spite of the problems with the prescription for the wfr. given in , the conclusions reached in  are correct: a necessary condition for gauge invariance of the physical amplitudes is that counter terms for the CKM matrix elements $`K_{ij}`$ are by themselves gauge independent. This condition is fulfilled by the CKM counter term proposed in  as it is in minimal subtraction , .

Other proposals to handle CKM renormalisation exist in the literature ,  and . In all these works either the external wfr. proposed originally in  or  are used, or the issue is sidestepped altogether. In either case the absorptive part of the self-energies (and even the absorptive part of the 1PI vertex part in one particular instance ) are not taken into account. As we shall see doing so leads to physical amplitudes — $`S`$-matrix elements— which are gauge dependent, and this irrespective of the method one uses to renormalise $`K_{ij}`$ provided the redefinition of $`K_{ij}`$ is gauge independent and preserves unitarity.

Due to the structure of the imaginary branch cuts it turns out however, that the gauge dependence present in the amplitude using the prescription of  cancels in the modulus squared of the physical $`S`$-matrix element in the SM. This cancellation has been checked numerically by the authors in . In this work we shall provide analytical results showing that this cancellation is exact. However the gauge dependence remains at the level of the amplitude.

Is this acceptable? We do not think so. Diagrams contributing to the same physical process outside the SM electroweak sector may interfere with the SM amplitude and reveal the unwanted gauge dependence. Furthermore, gauge independent absorptive parts are also discarded by the prescription in . These parts, contrary to the gauge dependent ones, do not drop in the squared amplitude as we shall show. In addition, one should not forget that the scheme in  does not deliver on-shell renormalised propagators that are diagonal in flavour space.

This work is dedicated to substantiate the above claims. We shall compute the gauge dependence of the absorptive parts in the self-energies and the vertex functions. We shall see how the requirements of gauge invariance and proper on-shell conditions (including exact diagonalisation in flavour space) single out a unique prescription for the wfr. The problem is presented in detail in the next section. The explicit expressions for the renormalisation constants are given in sections 3 and 4. Implementation for $`W`$ and top decay are shown in section 5. A technical discussion where extended use of the Nielsen identities has been done to extract the gauge dependence of all absorptive terms is presented in section 6 and it can be omitted by readers not interested in these details. In section 7 and 8 we return to $`W`$ and top decay to implement the previous results and finally we conclude in section 9.

## 2 Statement of the problem and its solution

We want to define an on-shell renormalisation scheme that guarantees the correct properties of the fermionic propagator in the $`p^2m_i^2`$ limit and at the same time renders the observable quantities calculated in such a scheme gauge parameter independent. In the first place up and down-type propagators have to be family diagonal on-shell. The conditions necessary for that purpose were first given by Aoki et. al. in . Let us introduce some notation in order to write them down. We renormalise the bare fermion fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(2.1)
For reasons that will become clear along the discussion, we shall allow $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ to be independent renormalisation constants333This immediately raises some issues about hermiticity which we shall deal with below.. These renormalisation constants contain flavour, family and Dirac indices. We can decompose them into

$$Z^{\frac{1}{2}}=Z^{u\frac{1}{2}}\tau ^u+Z^{d\frac{1}{2}}\tau ^d,\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\overline{Z}^{u\frac{1}{2}}\tau ^u+\overline{Z}^{d\frac{1}{2}}\tau ^d,$$
(2.2)
with $`\tau ^u`$ and $`\tau ^d`$ the up and down flavour projectors and furthermore each piece in left and right chiral projectors, $`L`$ and $`R`$ respectively,

$$Z^{u\frac{1}{2}}=Z^{uL\frac{1}{2}}L+Z^{uR\frac{1}{2}}R,\overline{Z}^{u\frac{1}{2}}=\overline{Z}^{uL\frac{1}{2}}R+\overline{Z}^{uR\frac{1}{2}}L.$$
(2.3)
Analogous decompositions hold for $`Z^{d\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`\overline{Z}^{d\frac{1}{2}}`$. Due to radiative corrections the propagator mixes fermion of different family indices. Namely

$$iS^1\left(p\right)=\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{}{}\mathit{}m\delta m\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(p\right)\right)Z^{\frac{1}{2}},$$

where the bare self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is non-diagonal and is given by $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }=`$1PI. Within one-loop accuracy we can write $`Z^{\frac{1}{2}}=1+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z`$ etc. Introducing the family indices explicitly we have

$$iS_{ij}^1\left(p\right)=\left(\mathit{}m_i\right)\delta _{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right),$$

where the one-loop renormalised self-energy is given by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}\left(p\right)\frac{1}{2}\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}\left(\mathit{}m_j\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathit{}m_i\right)\delta Z_{ij}+\delta m_i\delta _{ij}.$$
(2.4)
Since we can project the above definition for up and down type-quarks, flavour indices will be dropped in the sequel and only will be restored when necessary. Recalling the following on-shell relations for Dirac spinors ($`p^2m_i^2`$)

$`\left(\mathit{}m_i\right)u_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\overline{u}_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)\left(\mathit{}m_i\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left(\mathit{}m_i\right)v_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\overline{v}_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)\left(\mathit{}m_i\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.5)
the conditions  necessary to avoid mixing will be444Notice that, as a matter of fact, in  the conditions over anti-fermions are not stated.

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)u_j^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_j^2),(\mathrm{incoming}\text{ }\mathrm{particle})`$ (2.6)
$`\overline{v}_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_i^2),(\mathrm{incoming}\text{ }\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{particle})`$ (2.7)
$`\overline{u}_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_i^2),(\mathrm{outgoing}\text{ }\mathrm{particle})`$ (2.8)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)v_j^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_j^2),(\mathrm{outgoing}\text{ }\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{particle})`$ (2.9)
where no summation over repeated indices is assumed and $`ij.`$ These relations determine the non-diagonal parts of $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ as will be proven in the next section. Here, as a side remark, let us point out that the need of different “incoming” and “outgoing” wfr. constants was already recognised in . Nevertheless, that paper was unsuccessful in reconciling the on-shell prescription with the presence of absorptive terms in the self-energies. However, since its results are concerned with the leading contribution of an effective Lagrangian, no absorptive terms are present and therefore conclusions still hold.

To obtain the diagonal parts $`Z_{ii},`$ $`\overline{Z}_{ii}`$, and $`\delta m_i`$ one imposes mass pole and unit residue conditions (to be discussed below). Here it is worth to make one important comment regarding the above conditions. First of all we note that in the literature the relation

$$\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\gamma ^0Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0,$$
(2.10)
is taken for granted. This relation is tacitly assumed in  and explicitly required in . Imposing Eq. (2.10) would guarantee hermiticity of the Lagrangian written in terms of the renormalised physical fields. However, we are at this point concerned with external leg renormalisation, for which it is perfectly possible to use a different set of renormalisation constants (even ones that do not respect the requirement (2.10)), while keeping the Lagrangian hermitian. In fact, using two sets of renormalisation constants is a standard practice in the on-shell scheme , so one should not be concerned by this fact per se. In case one is worried about the consistency of using a set of wfr. constants not satisfying (2.10) for the external legs while keeping a hermitian Lagrangian, it should be pointed out that there is a complete equivalence between the set of renormalisation constants we shall find out below and a treatment of the external legs where diagrams with self-energies (including mass counter terms) are inserted instead of the wfr. constants; provided, of course, that the mass counter term satisfy the on-shell condition. Proceeding in this way gives results identical to ours and different from those obtained using the wfr. proposed in , which do fulfil (2.10). Further consistency checks are presented in the following sections.

In any case, self-energies develop absorptive terms and this makes Eq. (2.10) incompatible with the diagonalizing conditions (2.6)-(2.9). Therefore in order to circumvent this problem one can give up diagonalisation conditions (2.6)-(2.9) or alternatively the hermiticity condition (2.10). The approach taken originally in  and works thereafter was the former alternative, while in this work we shall advocate the second one. The approach of  consists in dropping out absorptive terms from conditions (2.6)-(2.9). That is for $`ij`$

$`\stackrel{~}{Re}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)\right)u_j^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_j^2),(\mathrm{incoming}\text{ }\mathrm{particle})`$
$`\overline{v}_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)\stackrel{~}{Re}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_i^2),(\mathrm{incoming}\text{ }\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{particle})`$
$`\overline{u}_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)\stackrel{~}{Re}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_i^2),(\mathrm{outgoing}\text{ }\mathrm{particle})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Re}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)\right)v_j^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_j^2),(\mathrm{outgoing}\text{ }\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{particle})`$ (2.11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ includes the real part of the logarithms arising in loop integrals appearing in the self-energies but not of the rest of coupling factors of the Feynmann diagram. This approach is compatible with the hermiticity condition (2.10) but on the other hand have several drawbacks. These drawbacks include

1. Since only the $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ part of the self-energies enters into the diagonalizing conditions the on-shell propagator remains non-diagonal.
2. The very definition of $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ relies heavily on the one-loop perturbative calculation where it is applied upon. In other words $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ is not a proper function of its argument (in contrast to $`Re`$) and it is presumably cumbersome to implement in multi-loop calculations.
3. As it will become clear in next sections, the on-shell scheme based in the $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ prescription leads to gauge parameter dependent physical amplitudes. The reason for this unwanted dependence is the dropping of absorptive gauge parameter dependent terms in the self-energies that are necessary to cancel absorptive terms appearing in the vertices. As mentioned in the introduction, in the SM, the gauge dependence drops in the modulus squared of the amplitude, but not in the amplitude itself and it could be eventually observable.

Once stated the unwanted features of the $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ approach let us briefly state the consequences of dropping condition (2.10)

1. Conditions (2.6)-(2.9) readily determine the off-diagonal $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ wfr. which coincide with the ones obtained using the $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ prescription up to finite absorptive gauge parameter dependent terms.
2. The renormalised fermion propagator becomes exactly diagonal on-shell, unlike in the $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ scheme.
3. Incoming and outgoing particles and anti-particles require different renormalisation constants when computing a physical amplitude. Annihilation of particles and creation of anti-particles are accompanied by the renormalisation constant $`Z`$, while creation of particles and annihilation of anti-particles are accompanied by the renormalisation constant $`\overline{Z}`$.
4. These constants $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ are in what respects to their dispersive parts identical to the ones in . They differ in their absorptive parts. This might suggest to the alert reader there could be problems with fundamental symmetries such as $`CP`$ or $`CPT`$. We shall discuss this issue at the end of the paper. Our conclusion is that everything works out consistently in this respect.

For explicit expressions for $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ the reader should consult formulae (3.3), (3.4) and (4.10) in the next two sections. As an example how to implement them see section 5. The explicit dependence on the gauge parameter (for simplicity only the $`W`$ gauge parameter is considered) of the absorptive parts is given in section 7.

## 3 Off-diagonal wave-function renormalisation constants

This section is devoted to a detailed derivation of the off-diagonal renormalisation constants deriving entirely from the on-shell conditions (2.6)-(2.9) and allowing for $`\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0`$. First of all we decompose the renormalised self-energy into all possible Dirac structures

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)=\mathit{}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(p^2\right)R+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(p^2\right)L\right)+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^R\left(p^2\right)R+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^L\left(p^2\right)L,$$
(3.1)
and use Eqs. (2.3), (2.4) and (3.1) to obtain

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathit{}R\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(p^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_{ij}^R\right)+\mathit{}L\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(p^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_{ij}^L\right)`$
$`+R\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(p^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^Lm_j+m_i\delta Z_{ij}^R\right)+\delta _{ij}\delta m_i\right)+L\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(p^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^Rm_j+m_i\delta Z_{ij}^L\right)+\delta _{ij}\delta m_i\right).`$
Repeated indices are not summed over. Hence from Eqs. (3), (2.5) and (2.6) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_j^2\right)m_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_{ij}^Rm_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_j^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_i\delta Z_{ij}^L`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_j^2\right)m_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_{ij}^Lm_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_j^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_i\delta Z_{ij}^R`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Exactly the same relations are obtained from Eqs. (3), (2.5) and Eq. (2.9). Analogously, Eqs. (3), (2.5) and Eq. (2.7) (or Eq. (2.8)) lead to

$`m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_i\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^R+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_i^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^Lm_j`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_i\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^L+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_i^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^Rm_j`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Using the above expressions we immediately obtain

$`\delta Z_{ij}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_j^2m_i^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_j^2\right)m_im_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_j^2\right)m_j^2+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_j^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_j^2\right)m_j\right],`$
$`\delta Z_{ij}^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_j^2m_i^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_j^2\right)m_im_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_j^2\right)m_j^2+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_j^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_j^2\right)m_j\right],`$ (3.3)
and

$`\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)m_im_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)m_i^2+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_i^2\right)m_j\right],`$
$`\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)m_im_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)m_i^2+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_i^2\right)m_j\right].`$ (3.4)
At the one-loop level in the SM we can define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(p^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^S\left(p^2\right)m_j,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(p^2\right)m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^S\left(p^2\right),$$

and therefore

$`\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^L\delta Z_{ij}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_i^2m_j^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right))m_im_j+(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right))m_i^2`$
$`+(m_i^2+m_j^2)({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^S\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^S\left(m_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\}0,`$
and a similar relation holds for $`\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^R\delta Z_{ij}^R.`$ The above non-vanishing difference is due to the presence of branch cuts in the self-energies that invalidate the pseudo-hermiticity relation

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}\left(p\right)\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{}\left(p\right)\gamma ^0.$$
(3.5)
Eq. (3.5) is assumed in  and if we, temporally, ignore those branch cut contributions our results reduces to the ones depicted in  or . In the SM these branch cuts are generically gauge dependent as a cursory look to the appropriate integrals shows at once.

## 4 Diagonal wave-function renormalisation constants

Once the off-diagonal wfr. are obtained we focus our attention in the diagonal sector. Near the on-shell limit we can neglect the off-diagonal parts of the inverse propagator and write

$$iS_{ij}^1\left(p\right)=\left(\mathit{}m_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}\left(p\right)\right)\delta _{ij}=\left(\frac{}{}\mathit{}\left(aL+bR\right)+cL+dR\frac{}{}\right)\delta _{ij},$$
(4.1)
and therefore after some algebra

$$iS_{ij}\left(p\right)=\frac{\mathit{}\left(aL+bR\right)dLcR}{p^2abcd}\delta _{ij},$$

in our case we have

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(p^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_{ii}^L,`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(p^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_{ii}^R,`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(p^2\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_{ii}^L\right)m_i\delta m_i,`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(p^2\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_{ii}^R\right)m_i\delta m_i.`$ (4.2)
In the limit $`p^2m_i^2`$ the chiral structures in the numerator has to cancel ($`ab`$ and $`cd`$), this requirement leads to

$`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)}{m_i}},`$
$`\delta Z_{ii}^R\delta Z_{ii}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)}{m_i}}.`$ (4.3)
After this, we impose the inverse propagator to have a zero in its real part as $`p^2m_i^2`$

$$\underset{p^2m_i^2}{lim}Re\left(p^2bcda^1\right)=0,$$
(4.4)
from where $`\delta m_i`$ is obtained

$$\delta m_i=\frac{1}{2}Re\left\{m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)\right\}.$$
(4.5)
This condition defines a mass and a width that agrees at the one-loop level with the ones given in , ,  and . Mass and width are defined as the real an imaginary parts of the propagator pole in the complex plane respectively. Note also that from Eqs. (4.2) (4.3) and (4.5) we have

$$\underset{p^2m_i^2}{lim}\left(ca^1\right)=m_i+\frac{i}{2}Im\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)m_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)m_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)\right),$$
(4.6)
and therefore

$$\underset{p^2m_i^2}{lim}\frac{\mathit{}\left(aL+bR\right)dLcR}{p^2abcd}=\frac{\mathit{}+m_ii\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}{im_i\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$

where the width is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }Im\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)m_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)m_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)\right).$$

This quantity is ultraviolet finite. In order to find the residue in the complex plane we expand the propagator around the physical mass obtaining for $`p^2m_i^2`$

$$S_{ij}\left(p\right)=\frac{i\left[\mathit{}+m_ii\mathrm{\Gamma }/2+𝒪\left(p^2m_i^2\right)\right]}{im_i\mathrm{\Gamma }+\left(p^2m_i^2\right)a^1\left[ab+m_i^2\left(a^{}b+ab^{}\right)\left(c^{}d+cd^{}\right)\right]}+𝒪\left(\left(p^2m_i^2\right)^2\right),$$
(4.7)
where $`a=b`$ and $`c=d`$ are evaluated at $`p^2=m_i^2`$. Hereafter primed quantities denote derivatives with respect to $`p^2`$. $`𝒪\left(\left(p^2m_i^2\right)^n\right)`$ stands for non-essential corrections of order $`(p^2m_i^2)^n`$. Note that the $`𝒪\left(p^2m_i^2\right)`$ corrections in the numerator do not mix with the ones of the same order in the denominator since the first ones are of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ and the second ones are of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2.`$ Taking into account these comments the unit residue condition amounts to requiring

$$1=\frac{a+b}{2}+m_i^2\left(a^{}+b^{}\right)+\left(m_ii\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)\left(c^{}+d^{}\right),$$
(4.8)
from where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L+\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\delta Z_{ii}^L+\delta Z_{ii}^R{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right)+2m_i^2\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)\right)`$ (4.9)
$`+2m_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right).`$
We have already required all the necessary conditions to fix the correct properties of the on-shell propagator but still there is some freedom left in the definition of the diagonal $`Z`$’s. This freedom can be expressed in terms of a set of finite coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta Z_{ii}^L+\delta Z_{ii}^R\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L+\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R\right)+\alpha _i.$$

Bearing in mind that ambiguity and using Eqs. (4.3) and (4.9) we obtain

$`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)X{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}+D,`$
$`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)+X{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}+D,`$
$`\delta Z_{ii}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+X+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}+D,`$
$`\delta Z_{ii}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)X+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}+D,`$ (4.10)
where

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)}{m_i}},`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`m_i^2\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)\right)+m_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right).`$
Note that since $`X=0`$ at the one-loop level and choosing $`\alpha _i=0`$ we obtain $`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L=\delta Z_{ii}^L`$ and $`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R=\delta Z_{ii}^R.`$ However we have the freedom to choose $`\alpha _i0`$. This does not affect the mass terms or neutral current couplings, but changes the charged coupling currents by multiplying the CKM matrix $`K`$ by diagonal matrices. These redefinitions do not change the physical observables provided the $`\alpha _i`$ are pure imaginary numbers. This ambiguity corresponds in perturbation theory to the well know freedom in phase redefinitions of the CKM matrix. Except for this last freedom, the on-shell conditions determine one unique solution, the one presented here, with $`\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0`$.

## 5 W+ and top decay

Let us now apply the above mechanism to $`W^+`$ and top decay. We write

$`W^+\left(q\right)`$ $``$ $`f_i\left(p_1\right)\overline{f}_j\left(p_2\right),`$ (5.1)
$`f_i\left(p_1\right)`$ $``$ $`W^+\left(q\right)f_j\left(p_2\right),`$ (5.2)
where $`f`$ indicates particle and $`\overline{f}`$ anti-particle. The Latin indices are reserved for family indices. Leptonic and quark channels can be considered with the same notation, and confusion should not arise. For the process (5.1) there are at next-to-leading order two different type of Lorentz structures

$`M_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_i\left(p_1\right)\mathit{\epsilon ̸}\left(q\right)Lv_j\left(p_2\right),(LR),`$
$`M_L^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_i\left(p_1\right)Lv_j\left(p_2\right)p_1\epsilon \left(q\right),(LR),`$ (5.3)
where $`\epsilon `$ stands for the vector polarisation of the $`W^+`$. Equivalently for the process (5.2) we shall use

$`M_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_j\left(p_2\right)\mathit{\epsilon ̸}^{}\left(q\right)Lu_i\left(p_1\right),(LR),`$
$`M_L^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_j\left(p_2\right)Lu_i\left(p_1\right)p_1\epsilon ^{}\left(q\right),(LR).`$ (5.4)
The transition amplitude at tree level for the processes (5.1) and (5.2) is given by

$$_0=\frac{eK_{ij}}{2s_W}M_L^{\left(1\right)},$$

where Eq. (5.3) is used for $`M_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ in $`W^+`$ decay and Eq. (5.4) instead for $`M_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ in $`t`$ decay. The one-loop corrected transition amplitude can be written as

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_W}}M_L^{\left(1\right)}\left[K_{ij}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta s_W}{s_W}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_W\right)+\delta K_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{Lu}K_{rj}+K_{ir}\delta Z_{rj}^{Ld}\right)\right]`$ (5.5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_W}}\left(\delta F_L^{\left(1\right)}M_L^{\left(1\right)}+M_L^{\left(2\right)}\delta F_L^{\left(2\right)}+M_R^{\left(1\right)}\delta F_R^{\left(1\right)}+M_R^{\left(2\right)}\delta F_R^{\left(2\right)}\right).`$
In this expression $`\delta F_{L,R}^{(1,2)}`$ are the electroweak form factors coming from one-loop vertex diagrams. The renormalisation constants are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(\delta Z_2^A\delta Z_1^A\right)+\delta Z_2^A\right]={\displaystyle \frac{s_W}{c_WM_Z^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ZA}\left(0\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{AA}}{k^2}}\left(0\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta s_W}{s_W}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_W^2}{2s_W^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta M_W^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta M_Z^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{c_W^2}{2s_W^2}}Re\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{WW}\left(M_W^2\right)}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{ZZ}\left(M_Z^2\right)}{M_Z^2}}\right),`$
$`\delta Z_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{WW}}{k^2}}\left(M_W^2\right),`$
and the fermionic wfr. constants are depicted in Eqs. (3.3), (3.4) and (4.10) where the indices $`u`$ or $`d`$ must be restored in the masses. The index $`A`$ refers to the photon field.

As for the $`\delta K_{ij}`$ renormalisation constants, a SU(2) Ward identity  fixes these counter terms to be

$$\delta K_{jk}=\frac{1}{4}\left[\left(\delta \widehat{Z}^{uL}\delta \widehat{Z}^{uL}\right)KK\left(\delta \widehat{Z}^{dL}\delta \widehat{Z}^{dL}\right)\right]_{jk},$$
(5.6)
where $`\widehat{Z}`$ means that the wfr. constants appearing in the above expression are not necessarily the same ones used to renormalise and guarantee the proper on-shell residue for the external legs as already has been emphasised. One may, for instance, use minimal subtraction $`Z`$’s for the former.

We know  that the combination $`\frac{\delta e}{e}\frac{\delta s_W}{s_W}`$ is gauge parameter independent. All the other vertex functions and renormalisation constants are gauge dependent. For the reasons stated in the introduction we want the amplitude (5.5) to be exactly gauge independent —not just its modulus— so the gauge dependence must cancel between all the remaining terms.

In the next section we shall make use of the Nielsen identities  to determine that three of the form factors appearing in the vertex (5.5) are by themselves gauge independent, namely

$$_\xi \delta F_L^{\left(2\right)}=_\xi \delta F_R^{\left(1\right)}=_\xi \delta F_R^{\left(2\right)}=0.$$

$`\xi `$ is the gauge-fixing parameter. We shall also see that the gauge dependence in the remaining form factor $`\delta F_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ cancels exactly with the one contained in $`\delta Z_W`$ and in $`\delta Z`$ and $`\delta \overline{Z}`$. Therefore to guarantee a gauge-fixing parameter independent amplitude $`\delta K`$ must be gauge independent as well.

The difficulties related to a proper definition of $`\delta K`$ were first pointed out in , where it was realized that using the on-shell $`Z`$’s of  in Eq. (5.6) led to a gauge dependent $`K`$ and amplitude. They suggested a modification of the on-shell scheme based on a subtraction at $`p^2=0`$ for all flavours that ensured gauge independence. We want to stress that the choice for $`\delta K`$ is not unique and different choices may differ by gauge independent finite parts . Note that the gauge independence of $`\delta K`$ is in contradistinction with the conclusions of  and in addition these authors have a non-unitary bare CKM matrix which does not respect the Ward identity.

As we shall see, if instead of using our prescription for $`\delta Z`$ and $`\delta \overline{Z}`$ one makes use of the wfr. constants of  to renormalise the external fermion legs, it turns out that the gauge cancellation dictated by the Nielsen identities does not actually take place in the amplitude. The culprits are of course the absorptive parts. These absorptive parts of the self-energies are absent in  due to the use of the $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ prescription, which throws them away. Notice, though, that the vertex contribution has gauge dependent absorptive parts (calculated in the next section) and they remain in the final result.

One might think of absorbing these additional terms in the counter term for $`\delta K`$. This does not work. Indeed one can see from explicit calculations that wfr. constants decompose as

$$\delta Z^{Lu}=A^{uL}+iB^{uL},\delta \overline{Z}^{Lu}=A^{uL}+iB^{uL},(LR\text{}ud),$$
(5.7)
where the matrices $`A`$’s or $`B`$’s contain the dispersive and absorptive parts of the self-energies, respectively. Moreover if one substitutes back Eq. (5.7) into Eq. (5.5) one immediately sees that a necessary requirement allowing the $`A^u`$ and $`A^d`$ (respectively $`B^u`$ and $`B^d`$) contribution to be absorbed into a CKM matrix counter term of the form given in Eq. (5.6) is that $`A^u`$ and $`A^d`$ (respectively $`B^u`$ and $`B^d`$) were anti-hermitian (respectively hermitian) matrices. By direct inspection one can conclude that all $`A`$’s or $`B`$’s are neither hermitian nor anti-hermitian matrices and therefore any of such redefinitions are impossible unless one is willing to give up the unitarity of the bare $`K`$. A problem somewhat similar to that was encountered in  (but different, they did not consider absorptive parts at all, the inconsistency showed up already with the dispersive parts of the on-shell scheme of ).

It turns out that in the SM these gauge dependent absorptive parts, leading to a gauge dependent amplitude if they are dropped, do actually cancel, at least at the one-loop level, in the modulus of the $`S`$-matrix element. Thus at this level the use of $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ is irrelevant. It is also shown in section 7 that gauge independent absorptive parts do survive even in the modulus of the amplitude for top or anti-top decay (and only in these cases). Therefore we have to conclude that the difference between using $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$, as advocated in , or not, as we do, is not just a semantic one. As we have seen such difference cannot be attributed to a finite renormalisation of $`K`$, provided the bare $`K`$ remains unitary as required by the Ward identity (5.6).

## 6 Nielsen Identities

In this section we derive in detail the gauge dependence of the vertex three-point function. It is therefore rather technical and it can be omitted by readers just interested in the physical conclusions. In order to have control on gauge dependence, a useful tool is provided by the so called Nielsen identities . For such purpose besides the “classical” Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ we have to take into account the gauge fixing term $`_{\mathrm{GF}}`$, the Fadeev-Popov term $`_{\mathrm{FP}}`$ and source terms. Such source terms are the ones given by BRST variations of matter ($`\overline{\eta }^u,\eta ^u,\mathrm{}`$) and gauge fields together with Goldstone and ghost fields (not including anti-ghosts). We refer the reader to ,  for notation and further explanations. We also include source terms ($`\chi `$) for the composite operators whose BRST variation generate $`_{\mathrm{GF}}+_{\mathrm{FP}}.`$ Schematically

$``$ $`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{SM}}+_{\mathrm{GF}}+_{\mathrm{FP}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\chi \left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\left(^\mu W_\mu ^{}i\xi M_WG^{}\right)\overline{c}^++\left(^\mu W_\mu ^+i\xi M_WG^+\right)\overline{c}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\eta }_i^uK_{ir}Ld_r{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{c}^+\overline{d}_rK_{rj}^{}R\eta _j^u+\overline{s}_i^uu_i+\overline{u}_js_j^u+\overline{s}_i^dd_i+\overline{d}_js_j^d+\mathrm{},`$
where the ellipsis stands for the remaining source terms. The effective action, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is introduced in the standard manner

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\chi ,\overline{\eta }^u,\eta ^u,\overline{u}^{cl},u^{cl},\mathrm{}]=W[\chi ,\overline{\eta }^u,\eta ^u,\overline{s}^u,s^u,\mathrm{}]\left(\overline{s}_i^uu_i^{cl}+\overline{u}_j^{cl}s_j^u+\overline{s}_i^dd_i^{cl}+\overline{d}_j^{cl}s_j^d+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(6.1)
with

$$e^{iW}=Z[\chi ,\overline{\eta }^u,\eta ^u,\overline{s}^u,s^u,\mathrm{}]D\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left(i\right).$$
(6.2)
From the above expressions and using BRST transformations we can extract the Nielsen identities for the three-point functions (see  for details)

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+\overline{u}_id_j}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W_\mu ^+\gamma _{W_\alpha }^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\alpha ^+\overline{u}_id_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _r^u}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+\overline{u}_rd_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+\overline{u}_id_r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_r^dd_j\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W_\mu ^+\gamma _{G_\alpha }^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G_\alpha ^+\overline{u}_id_j}`$ (6.3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \gamma _{G_\alpha }^+\overline{u}_id_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G_\alpha ^{}W_\mu ^+}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \gamma _{W_\alpha }^+\overline{u}_id_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\alpha ^{}W_\mu ^+}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W_\mu ^+\overline{u}_i\eta _r^d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}_rd_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{u}_iu_r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W_\mu ^+\overline{\eta }_r^ud_j},`$
where we have omitted the momentum dependence and defined

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}\frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }}{\delta \chi }\frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }}{\delta \overline{u}_i^{cl}\left(p\right)}\frac{\delta }{\delta \eta _j^u\left(p\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\eta }_i^u\left(p\right)}\frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }}{\delta u_j^{cl}\left(p\right)}\frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }}{\delta \chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

In the rest of this section we shall evaluate the on-shell contributions to Eq. (6.3). Analogously we can also derive Nielsen identities for two-point functions

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\beta ^{}}^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W_\mu ^+\gamma _{W_\alpha }^{}}^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\alpha ^+W_\beta ^{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W_\mu ^+\gamma _{G_\alpha }^{}}^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G_\alpha ^+W_\beta ^{}}\right),`$ (6.4)
$`_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+G_\beta ^{}}^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W_\mu ^+\gamma _{W_\alpha }^{}}^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\alpha ^+G_\beta ^{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W_\mu ^+\gamma _{G_\alpha }^{}}^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G_\alpha ^+G_\beta ^{}}\right).`$ (6.5)
On-shell these reduce to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W^+\gamma _W^{}}^{T\left(1\right)}\left(M_W^2\right)=\frac{1}{2}_\xi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W^+W^{}}^{T\left(1\right)}}{q^2}\left(q^2\right)|_{q^2=M_W^2}=\frac{1}{2}_\xi \delta Z_W,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi W^+\gamma _G^{}}^{T\left(1\right)}\left(q\right)=0,$$
(6.6)
where the superscript $`T`$ refers to the transverse part and the superscript $`(1)`$ makes reference to the one-loop order correction.

Using these two sets of results and restricting Eq. (6.3) to the 1PI function appropriate for (on-shell) top-decay

$`\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)ϵ^\mu \left(q\right)_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+\overline{u}_id_j}^{\left(1\right)}v_d\left(p_j\right)`$ (6.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _r^u}K_{rj}\mathit{ϵ̸}L+K_{ir}\mathit{ϵ̸}L\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_r^dd_j\chi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\xi \delta Z_WK_{ij}\mathit{ϵ̸}L\right\}v_d\left(p_j\right).`$
At the one-loop level we also have the Nielsen identity

$$_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^u\left(p\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\left(1\right)}\left(p\right)\left(\mathit{}m_j^u\right)+\left(\mathit{}m_i^u\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\left(1\right)}\left(p\right),$$
(6.8)
which is the fermionic counterpart of Eqs. (6.4) and (6.5). Similar relation holds interchanging $`ud`$. With the use of Eq. (6.8) and an analogous decomposition to Eq. (3.1) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\left(1\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathit{}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\gamma L\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)L\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{L\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)L,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\left(1\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathit{}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\gamma L\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)L\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{L\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)L,`$ (6.9)
we obtain after equating Dirac structures

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{u\gamma R}\left(p^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{L\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)m_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)m_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right),`$
$`_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{uR}\left(p^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`p^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\gamma L\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)m_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)+p^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right)m_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{R\left(1\right)}\left(p^2\right),`$ (6.10)
and analogous expressions exchanging $`LR`$ and $`ud`$. Moreover from Eqs. (6.7) and (6.9) we obtain

$`\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)ϵ^\mu \left(q\right)_\xi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+\overline{u}_id_j}^{\left(1\right)}v_d(p_j)={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)(m_i^u\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _r^u}^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(m_i^{u2}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _r^u}^{R\left(1\right)}\left(m_i^{u2}\right))K_{rj}\mathit{ϵ̸}Lv_d(p_j)+`$
$`\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)K_{ir}\mathit{ϵ̸}L(m_j^d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_r^dd_j\chi }^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(m_j^{d2}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_r^dd_j\chi }^{L\left(1\right)}\left(m_j^{d2}\right))v_d(p_j)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\xi \delta Z_W\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)K_{ij}\mathit{ϵ̸}Lv_d(p_j){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\}.`$ (6.11)
Using Eqs. (3.3), (3.4) and (6.10) one arrives at

$`m_j^u\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(m_j^{u2}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{L\left(1\right)}\left(m_j^{u2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\xi \delta Z_{ij}^{uL},\left(ij\right),`$ (6.12)
$`m_i^u\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\gamma R\left(1\right)}\left(m_i^{u2}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{R\left(1\right)}\left(m_i^{u2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\xi \delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^{uL},\left(ij\right),`$ (6.13)
and once more similar relations hold exchanging $`LR`$ and $`ud`$. Notice that absorptive parts are present in the 1PI Green functions and hence in $`\delta Z`$ and $`\delta \overline{Z}`$ too. If we forget about such absorptive parts we would have pseudo-hermiticity. Namely

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\left(1\right)}=\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\left(1\right)}\gamma ^0,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{}`$ means complex conjugating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }`$ and interchanging *both* Dirac and family indices. However the imaginary branch cuts terms prevent the above relation to hold and then Eq. (2.10) does not hold.

At this point one might be tempted to plug expressions (6.12), (6.13) in Eq. (6.11). However such relations are obtained only in the restricted case $`ij`$. For $`i=j`$ Eqs. (6.10) are insufficient to determine the combinations appearing in the lhs. of Eqs. (6.12), (6.13) and further information is required. That is also necessary even in the actual case where the rhs. of Eqs. (6.12), (6.13) are not singular at $`m_im_j`$ . In the rest of this section we shall proceed to calculate such diagonal combinations and as by product we shall also cross-check the results already obtained for the off-diagonal contributions and in addition produce some new ones.

By direct computation one generically finds

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathit{}m_i^uB_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right)+C_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right)+A_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right)R,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^uu_j\chi }^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`L\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathit{}B_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right)m_j^u+C_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right)+A_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$ (6.14)
and analogous relations interchanging $`ud.`$ The $`A`$ function comes from the diagram containing a charged gauge boson propagator and $`B`$ and $`C`$ from the diagram containing a charged Goldstone boson propagator. From Eqs. (6.8) and (6.14) we obtain

$`_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(p^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2m_iB_{ij}\left(p^2\right)m_j,`$
$`_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(p^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}A_{ij}\left(p^2\right)+C_{ij}\left(p^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
$`_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(p^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}p^2B_{ij}\left(p^2\right)C_{ij}\left(p^2\right)A_{ij}\left(p^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right)m_j,`$
$`_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(p^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`m_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}p^2B_{ij}\left(p^2\right)C_{ij}\left(p^2\right)A_{ij}\left(p^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right).`$ (6.15)
The above system of equations is overdetermined and therefore some consistency identities between bare self-energies arise, namely

$$_\xi \left(\frac{}{}m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(p^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(p^2\right)m_j\frac{}{}\right)=0,$$
(6.16)
and

$$_\xi \left(p^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(p^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(p^2\right)m_im_j+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(p^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(p^2\right)m_j\right)=0.$$
(6.17)
These constrains must hold independently of any renormalisation scheme and we have checked them by direct computation. Actually the former trivially holds since, at least at the one-loop level in the SM,

$$m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(p^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(p^2\right)m_j=0.$$
(6.18)
Finally, projecting Eq. (6.14) over spinors we also have

$`\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}m_i^{u2}B_{ij}^u\left(m_i^{u2}\right)+C_{ij}^u\left(m_i^{u2}\right)+A_{ij}^u\left(m_i^{u2}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right)R,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^dd_j\chi }^{\left(1\right)}v_d\left(p_j\right)`$ $`=`$ $`L\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}B_{ij}^d\left(m_j^{d2}\right)m_j^{d2}+C_{ij}^d\left(m_j^{d2}\right)+A_{ij}^d\left(m_j^{d2}\right)\right)v_d\left(p_j\right).`$ (6.19)
The rhs. of the previous expressions can be evaluated in terms of the wfr. via the use of Eqs. (6.15)

$`_\xi `$ $`\left(m_j^um_i^u\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{u\gamma R}\left(p^2\right)+p^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{u\gamma L}\left(p^2\right)+m_j^u\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{uR}\left(p^2\right)+m_i^u\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{uL}\left(p^2\right)\right)=`$ (6.21)
$`B_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}p^2\left(m_j^{u2}+m_i^{u2}\right)2m_j^{u2}m_i^{u2}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right)+\left(2p^2m_j^{u2}m_i^{u2}\right)\left(A_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right)+C_{ij}^u\left(p^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right),`$
$`_\xi `$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{d\gamma R}\left(p^2\right)m_i^dm_j^d+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{d\gamma L}\left(p^2\right)p^2+m_i^d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{dL}\left(p^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{dR}\left(p^2\right)m_j^d\right)=`$
$`B_{ij}^d\left(p^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}p^2\left(m_i^{d2}+m_j^{d2}\right)2m_i^{d2}m_j^{d2}\right)+\left(2p^2m_i^{d2}m_j^{d2}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}A_{ij}^d\left(p^2\right)+C_{ij}^d\left(p^2\right)\right).`$
Hence using the off-diagonal wfr. expressions (3.3), (3.4) we re-obtain

$$\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)\frac{1}{2}_\xi \delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^{uL}R=\overline{u}\left(p_i\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\chi \overline{u}_i\eta _j^u}^{\left(1\right)},L\frac{1}{2}_\xi \delta Z_{ij}^{dL}v_d\left(p_j\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\eta }_i^dd_j\chi }^{\left(1\right)}v_d\left(p_j\right).$$
(6.22)
For the diagonal wfr. we use Eqs. (4.10) together with (6.15) and (6.19) obtaining *exactly* the same result as in Eq. (6.22) with $`i=j`$ therein. Note however that since in Eq. (6.19) we have no derivatives with respect to $`p^2`$ obtaining Eq. (6.22) involves a subtle cancellation between the $`p^2`$ derivatives of the bare self-energies appearing in the definition of the diagonal wfr.

Before proceeding let us make a side remark concerning the regularity properties of the gauge derivative in Eqs. (6.21) and (6.21) in the limit $`m_im_j`$. Note that evaluating Eq. (6.21) at $`p^2=m_i^{u2}`$ and Eq. (6.21) at $`p^2=m_j^{d2},`$ a global factor $`\left(m_i^{u2}m_j^{u2}\right)`$ appears in the first equation and $`\left(m_j^{d2}m_i^{d2}\right)`$ in the second one. Therefore it can be immediately seen that Nielsen identities together with the information provided by Eq. (6.14) assures the regularity of the gauge derivative for the off-diagonal wfr. constants when $`m_im_j`$. Moreover we have seen that such limit is not only regular but also equal to the expression obtained from the diagonal wfr. which is not *a priori* obvious , .

Replacing Eq. (6.22) in Eq. (6.7) we obtain

$`_\xi \left(\overline{u}_u\left(p_i\right)ϵ^\mu \left(q\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+\overline{u}_id_j}^{\left(1\right)}v_d\left(p_j\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_W}}M_L^{\left(1\right)}_\xi \left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}K_{rj}+K_{ir}\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}+\delta Z_WK_{ij}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_W}}_\xi \left(M_L^{\left(1\right)}\delta F_L^{\left(1\right)}+M_L^{\left(2\right)}\delta F_L^{\left(2\right)}+M_R^{\left(1\right)}\delta F_R^{\left(1\right)}+M_R^{\left(2\right)}\delta F_R^{\left(2\right)}\right),`$
where Eq. (5.5) and the gauge independence of the electric charge and Weinberg angle has been used in the last equality. In the previous expression $`M_{L,R}^{\left(i\right)}`$ are understood with the physical momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ of Eq. (5.3) replaced by the diagrammatic momenta $`p_i`$ and $`p_j`$ respectively. Note that Eq. (LABEL:vertexgauge) states that the gauge dependence of the on-shell bare one-loop vertex function cancels out the renormalisation counter terms appearing in Eq. (5.5) (see Fig. 1). This is one of the crucial results and special care should be taken not to ignore any of the absorptive parts —including those in the wfr. constants. As a consequence

$$_\xi _1=\frac{e}{2s_W}M_L^{\left(1\right)}_\xi \delta K_{ij},$$

and asking for a gauge independent amplitude the counter term for $`K_{ij}`$ must be separately gauge independent, as originally derived in .

Finally, since each structure $`M_{L,R}^{\left(i\right)}`$ must cancel separately we have that the Nielsen identities enforce

$$_\xi \delta F_L^{\left(2\right)}=_\xi \delta F_R^{\left(1\right)}=_\xi \delta F_R^{\left(2\right)}=0.$$

## 7 Absorptive parts

Having determined in the previous section, thanks to an extensive use of the Nielsen identities, the gauge dependence of the different quantities appearing in top or $`W`$ decay in terms of the self-energies, we shall now proceed to list the absorptive parts of the wfr. constants, with special attention to their gauge dependence. The aim of this section is to state the differences between the wfr. constants given in our scheme and the ones in . Recall that at one-loop such difference reduces to the absorptive ($`\stackrel{~}{Im}`$) contribution to the $`\delta Z`$’s. In what concerns the gauge dependent part (with $`\xi 0`$) the absorptive contribution ($`\stackrel{~}{Im}_\xi `$) in the fermionic $`\delta Z`$’s amounts to

$`i\stackrel{~}{Im}_\xi \left(\delta Z_{ij}^{uL}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{iK_{ih}K_{hj}^{}}{8\pi v^2m_j^{u2}}}\theta \left(m_j^um_h^d\sqrt{\xi }M_W\right)\left(m_j^{u2}m_h^{d2}\xi M_W^2\right)`$
$`\times \sqrt{\left(\left(m_j^um_h^d\right)^2\xi M_W^2\right)\left(\left(m_j^u+m_h^d\right)^2\xi M_W^2\right)},`$
$`i\stackrel{~}{Im}_\xi \left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^{uL}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{iK_{ih}K_{hj}^{}}{8\pi v^2m_i^{u2}}}\theta \left(m_i^um_h^d\sqrt{\xi }M_W\right)\left(m_i^{u2}m_h^{d2}\xi M_W^2\right)`$
$`\times \sqrt{\left(\left(m_i^um_h^d\right)^2\xi M_W^2\right)\left(\left(m_i^u+m_h^d\right)^2\xi M_W^2\right)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Im}_\xi \left(\delta Z_{ij}^{uR}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Im}_\xi \left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^{uR}\right)=0,`$
where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside function and $`v`$ is the Higgs vacuum expectation value. For the down $`\delta Z`$ we have the same formulae replacing $`ud`$ and $`KK^{}.`$ Note that using these results we can write

$`i_\xi \stackrel{~}{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}K_{rj}+K_{ir}\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}\right)+\delta Z_WK_{ij}\right]`$ (7.24)
$`=`$ $`K_{ij}_\xi \{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi v^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_i^{u2}}}\theta (m_i^um_j^d\sqrt{\xi }M_W)(m_i^{u2}m_j^{d2}\xi M_W^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_j^{d2}}}\theta (m_j^dm_i^u\sqrt{\xi }M_W)(m_j^{d2}m_i^{u2}\xi M_W^2){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]`$
$`\times \sqrt{\left(\left(m_j^dm_i^u\right)^2\xi M_W^2\right)\left(\left(m_j^d+m_i^u\right)^2\xi M_W^2\right)}+i\stackrel{~}{Im}_\xi \left(\delta Z_W\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\}.`$
In the case $`\left|m_i^um_j^d\right|\sqrt{\xi }M_W`$ the above expression reduces to

$$_\xi \underset{r}{}\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}K_{rj}+K_{ir}\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}\right)=0,$$
(7.25)
while for $`\left|m_i^um_j^d\right|\sqrt{\xi }M_W`$ we have

$`i_\xi {\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}K_{rj}+K_{ir}\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}\right)=`$
$`K_{ij}_\xi \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|m_i^{u2}m_j^{d2}\right|\xi M_W^2}{m_i^{u2}+m_j^{d2}+\left|m_i^{u2}m_j^{d2}\right|}}\sqrt{\left(\left(m_j^dm_i^u\right)^2\xi M_W^2\right)\left(\left(m_j^d+m_i^u\right)^2\xi M_W^2\right)}\right\}.`$ (7.26)
Moreover the $`\xi `$-dependent absorptive contribution to $`\delta Z_W`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{Im}_\xi \left(\delta Z_W\right)`$) has no dependence in quark masses since the diagram with a fermion loop is gauge independent. Because of that we can conclude that the derivative in Eq. (7.24) does not vanish. Defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ as the difference between the vertex observable calculated in our scheme and the same in the scheme using $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\left|K_{ij}\right|^2\mathrm{Re}\left(i\stackrel{~}{Im}\delta Z_W\right)+\mathrm{Re}\left\{iK_{ij}^{}\underset{r}{}\left[\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}\right)K_{rj}+K_{ir}\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}\right)\right]\right\}.$$

In the case of $`\delta Z_W`$ one can easily check that $`\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta Z_W\right)=\mathrm{Im}\left(\delta Z_W\right)`$ obtaining

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\mathrm{Re}\left\{iK_{ij}^{}\underset{r}{}\left[\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}\right)K_{rj}+K_{ir}\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}\right)\right]\right\}.$$
(7.27)
Thus from Eqs. (7.25), (7.26) and (7.27) we immediately obtain

$$_\xi \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\mathrm{Re}\left\{iK_{ij}^{}\underset{r}{}\left[_\xi \stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}\right)K_{rj}+K_{ir}_\xi \stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}\right)\right]\right\}=0.$$
(7.28)
However gauge independent absorptive parts, included if our prescription is used but not if one uses the one of  which makes use of the $`\stackrel{~}{Re}`$, do contribute to Eq. (7.27). In order to see that we can take $`\xi =1`$ obtaining for the physical values of the masses

$`\stackrel{~}{Im}_{\xi =1}\left(\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Im}_{\xi =1}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_{ih}K_{hr}^{}}{8\pi v^2m_i^{u2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta \left(m_i^um_h^dM_W\right)}{m_i^{u2}m_r^{u2}}}\sqrt{\left(m_i^{u2}\left(M_Wm_h^d\right)^2\right)\left(m_i^{u2}\left(M_W+m_h^d\right)^2\right)}`$ (7.29)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_r^{u2}+m_h^{d2}+2M_W^2\right)\left(m_i^{u2}+m_h^{2d}M_W^2\right)\left(m_i^{u2}+m_r^{u2}\right)m_h^{d2}\right),`$
where only the results for $`ij`$ have been presented. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{Im}_{\xi =1}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}\right)0`$ only when $`i=3`$, that is when the renormalised up-particle is a top. In addition, since the $`m_r^{u2}`$ dependence in Eq. (7.29) does not vanish, CKM phases do not disappear from Eq. (7.27) and therefore

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{3j}\mathrm{Re}\left\{iK_{3j}^{}\underset{r}{}\left[\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta \overline{Z}_{3r}^{uL}\right)K_{rj}+K_{3r}\stackrel{~}{Im}\left(\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}\right)\right]\right\}0.$$
(7.30)
Eqs. (7.28) and (7.30) show that even though the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3j}`$ is gauge independent, does not actually vanish. There are genuine gauge independent pieces that contribute not only to the amplitude, but also to the observable. As discussed these additional pieces cannot be absorbed by a redefinition of $`K_{ij}`$. Numerically such gauge independent corrections amounts roughly to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3j}5\times 10^3O_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ where $`O_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ is the observable quantity calculated at leading order.

## 8 CP violation and CPT invariance

In this section we want to show that using wfr. constants that do not verify a pseudo-hermiticity condition does not lead to any unwanted pathologies. In particular: (a) No new sources of $`CP`$ violation appear besides the ones already present in the SM. (b) The total width of particles and anti-particles coincide, thus verifying the $`CPT`$ theorem. Let us start with the latter, which is not completely obvious since not all external particles and anti-particles are renormalised with the same constant due to the different absorptive parts.

The optical theorem asserts that

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Pi }_f\left|M\left(t^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)f\right)\right|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\left[M\left(t^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)t^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)\right)\right],`$ (8.31)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{t}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Pi }_f\left|M\left(\overline{t}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)f\right)\right|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\left[M\left(\overline{t}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)\overline{t}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)\right)\right],`$ (8.32)
where we have consider, just as an example, top ($`t^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)`$) and anti-top ($`\overline{t}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)`$) decay, with $`p`$ and $`\widehat{n}`$ being their momentum and polarisation. Recalling that the incoming fermion and outgoing anti-fermion spinors are renormalised with a common constant (see Eq. (2.1)) as are the outgoing fermion and incoming anti-fermion ones, it is immediate to see that

$`M\left(t^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)t^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)A_{33}\left(p\right)u^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right),`$
$`M\left(\overline{t}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)\overline{t}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{v}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)A_{33}\left(p\right)v^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right),`$
where the minus sign comes from an interchange of two fermion operators and where the subscripts in $`A`$ indicate family indices. Using the fact that

$$u^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)\overline{u}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)=\frac{\mathit{}+m}{2m}\frac{1+\gamma ^5\mathit{}}{2},v^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)\overline{v}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)=\frac{\mathit{}+m}{2m}\frac{1+\gamma ^5\mathit{}}{2},$$

with $`n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\left(p^0\right)^2\left(\stackrel{}{p}\widehat{n}\right)^2}}(\stackrel{}{p}\widehat{n},p^0\widehat{n})`$ being the polarisation four-vector and performing some elementary manipulations we obtain

$`\overline{u}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)A_{33}\left(p\right)u^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}+m}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5\mathit{}}{2}}\right)\left(a\left(p^2\right)\mathit{}L+b\left(p^2\right)\mathit{}R+c\left(p^2\right)L+d\left(p^2\right)R\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}+m}{2m}}\left[\left(a\left(p^2\right)+b\left(p^2\right)\right)\mathit{}+c\left(p^2\right)+d\left(p^2\right)\right]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}+m}{2m}}\left[\left(a\left(p^2\right)+b\left(p^2\right)\right)\mathit{}+c\left(p^2\right)+d\left(p^2\right)\right]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`Tr\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}+m}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5\mathit{}}{2}}\left(a\left(p^2\right)\mathit{}Lb\left(p^2\right)\mathit{}R+c\left(p^2\right)L+d\left(p^2\right)R\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{v}^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right)A_{33}\left(p\right)v^{\left(\widehat{n}\right)}\left(p\right),`$
where we have decomposed $`A_{33}\left(p\right)`$ into its most general Dirac structure. We thus conclude the equality between Eqs. (8.31) and (8.32) verifying that the lifetimes of top and anti-top are identical. The detailed form of the wfr. constants, or whether they have absorptive parts or not, does not play any role.

Even thought total decay widths for top and anti-top are identical the partial ones need not to if $`CP`$ violation is present and some compensation between different processes must take place. This issue is discussed in detail in . Here we shall show that when $`K=K^{}`$ the $`CP`$ invariance of the Lagrangian manifests itself in a zero asymmetry between the partial differential decay rate of top and its $`CP`$ conjugate process. The fact that the external renormalisation constants have dispersive parts does not alter this conclusion. This is of course expected on rather general grounds, so the following discussion has to be taken really as a verification that no unexpected difficulties arise.

To illustrate this point let us consider the top decay channel $`t\left(p_1\right)W^+\left(p_1p_2\right)+b\left(p_2\right)`$ and its $`CP`$ conjugate process $`\overline{t}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_1\right)W^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_1\stackrel{~}{p}_2\right)+b\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_2\right).`$ Let us note the respective amplitudes by $`𝒜`$ and $``$ which are given as

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^\mu \overline{u}^{\left(s_2\right)}\left(p_2\right)A_\mu u^{\left(s_1\right)}\left(p_1\right),`$
$``$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^\mu \overline{v}^{\left(s_1\right)}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_1\right)B_\mu v^{\left(s_2\right)}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_2\right),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu =a_\mu =(a^0,a^i)`$ for any four-vector. Considering contributions up to including next-to-leading corrections we have

$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{2}s_W}}\left[\left(\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}bL}K^{}Z^{\frac{1}{2}tL}+K^{}\delta _V+\delta K^{}\right)\gamma _\mu L+\delta F_\mu \right],`$
$`B_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{2}s_W}}\left[\left(\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}tL}KZ^{\frac{1}{2}bL}+K\delta _V+\delta K\right)\gamma _\mu L+\delta G_\mu \right],`$
with $`\delta _V`$ $`=\frac{\delta e}{e}\frac{\delta s_W}{s_W}+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z_W`$ and $`\delta F_\mu `$ and $`\delta G_\mu `$ are given by the one-loop diagrams. From a direct computation it can be seen that if $`K=K^{}`$ this implies

$$\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}L}=\left(Z^{\frac{1}{2}L}\right)^T,\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}R}=\left(Z^{\frac{1}{2}R}\right)^T,\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^\mu \delta G_\mu =\epsilon ^\mu \gamma ^2\delta F_\mu ^T\gamma ^2,$$
(8.33)
where the superscript $`T`$ means transposition with respect to all indices (family indices in the case of $`Z^{\frac{1}{2}L}`$ and $`Z^{\frac{1}{2}R}`$ and Dirac indices in the case of $`\delta F_\mu `$ ). Using

$$i\gamma ^2\overline{u}^{\left(s\right)T}\left(p\right)=sv^{\left(s\right)}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}\right),u^{\left(s\right)T}\left(p\right)i\gamma ^2=s\overline{v}^{\left(s\right)}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}\right),$$

where $`s=\pm 1`$, depending on the spin direction in the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis, we obtain

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{\sqrt{2}s_W}}\epsilon ^\mu \overline{u}^{\left(s_2\right)}\left(p_2\right)\left[\left(\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}bL}K^{}Z^{\frac{1}{2}tL}+K^{}\delta _V+\delta K^{}\right)\gamma _\mu L+\delta F_\mu \right]u^{\left(s_1\right)}\left(p_1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{\sqrt{2}s_W}}\epsilon ^\mu u^{\left(s_1\right)T}\left(p_1\right)\left[L\left(\left(Z^{\frac{1}{2}tL}\right)^TK^{}\left(\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}bL}\right)^T+K^{}\delta _V+\delta K^{}\right)\gamma _\mu ^T+\delta F_\mu ^T\right]\overline{u}^{\left(s_2\right)T}\left(p_2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_1s_2ie}{\sqrt{2}s_W}}\epsilon ^\mu \overline{v}^{\left(s_1\right)}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_1\right)\gamma ^2\left[L\left(\left(Z^{\frac{1}{2}tL}\right)^TK^{}\left(\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}bL}\right)^T+K^{}\delta _V+\delta K^{}\right)\gamma _\mu ^T+\delta F_\mu ^T\right]\gamma ^2v^{\left(s_2\right)}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_1s_2ie}{\sqrt{2}s_W}}\epsilon ^\mu \overline{v}^{\left(s_1\right)}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_1\right)\left[\left(\left(Z^{\frac{1}{2}tL}\right)^TK^{}\left(\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}bL}\right)^T+K^{}\delta _V+\delta K^{}\right)\gamma _\mu ^{}L+\gamma ^2\delta F_\mu ^T\gamma ^2\right]v^{\left(s_2\right)}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_2\right),`$
now using Eq. (8.33) we see that if no $`CP`$ violating phases are present in the CKM matrix $`K`$ (and therefore neither in $`\delta K,`$ Eq. (5.6)) we obtain that $`𝒜=s_1s_2`$ and thus

$$\left|𝒜\right|^2=\left|\right|^2.$$

Note again that when $`CP`$ violating phases are present we can expect in general non-vanishing phase-space dependent asymmetries for the different channels. Once we sum over all channels and integrate over the final state phase space a compensation must take place as we have seen guaranteed by unitarity and $`CPT`$ invariance. Using a set of wfr. constants with absorptive parts as advocated here (and required by gauge invariance) leads to different results than using the prescription originally advocated in , in particular using Eq. (7.30) for $`KK^{}`$ we expect $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3j}^{\left(tdecay\right)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{3j}^{\left(\overline{t}decay\right)}0`$.

## 9 Conclusions

Let us recapitulate our main results. We hope, first of all, to have convinced the reader that *there is* a problem with what appears to be the commonly accepted prescription for dealing with wave function renormalisation when mixing is present. The situation is even further complicated by the appearance of $`CP`$ violating phases. The problem has a twofold aspect. On the one hand the prescription of  does not diagonalise the propagator matrix in flavour space in what respects to the absorptive parts. On the other hand it yields gauge *dependent* amplitudes, albeit gauge *independent* modulus squared of the amplitudes. This is not satisfactory: interference with e.g. strong phases may reveal an unacceptable gauge dependence.

The only solution is to accept wfr. constants that do not satisfy a pseudo-hermiticity condition due to the presence of the absorptive parts, which are neglected in . This immediately brings about some gauge *independent* absorptive parts which appear even in the modulus squared amplitude and which are neglected in the treatment of . Furthermore, these parts (and the gauge dependent ones) cannot be absorbed in unitary redefinitions of the CKM matrix which are the only ones allowed by Ward identities. We have checked that —although unconventional— the presence of the absorptive parts in the wfr. constants is perfectly compatible with basic tenets of field theory and the Standard Model. Numerically we have found the differences to be important, at the order of the half per cent. Small, but relevant in the future. This information will be relevant to extract the experimental values of the CKM mixing matrix.

Traditionally, wave function renormalisation seems to have been the “poor relative” in the Standard Model renormalisation program. We have seen here that it is important on two counts. First because it is related to the counter terms for the CKM mixing matrix, although the on-shell values for wave function constants cannot be directly used there. Second because they are crucial to obtain gauge independent $`S`$ matrix elements and observables. While using our wfr. constants (but not the ones in ) for the external legs is strictly equivalent to considering reducible diagrams (with on-shell mass counter terms) the former procedure is considerably more practical.

## Acknowledgements

This work was triggered by many fruitful discussions with B. A. Kniehl concerning previous work of two of the present authors. We thank him for suggestions, criticism and for a careful reading of a preliminary draft. The work of D.E. and P.T. is supported in part by TMR, EC–Contract No. ERBFMRX–CT980169 (EURODAPHNE) and contracts MCyT FPA2001-3598 and CIRIT 2001SGR-00065 as well as by a Distinció from the Generalitat de Catalunya. J.M. acknowledges a fellowship from Generalitat de Catalunya, grant 1998FI-00614.


format: text

text:
# Group cohomology and 𝐿^𝑝-cohomology of finitely generated groups

## 1. Introduction

In this paper $`G`$ will always be a finitely generated, infinite group and $`S`$ will always be a symmetric generating set for $`G`$. Let $`M`$ be a right $`G`$-module. A $`1`$-cocycle with values in $`M`$ is a map $`\delta :GM`$ such that $`\delta (gh)=\left(\delta (h)\right)g+\delta (g)`$ for any $`g,hG`$; a $`1`$-coboundary is a $`1`$-cocycle of the form $`\delta (g)=xgx`$ for some $`xM`$ and for all $`gG`$. We denote by $`Z^1(G,M)`$ the vector space of all $`1`$-cocycles and the vector space of all $`1`$-coboundaries will be denoted by $`B^1(G,M).`$ The factor group $`H^1(G,M)=Z^1(G,M)/B^1(G,M)`$ is called the first cohomology group of $`G`$ with coefficients in $`M`$. Suppose now that $`M`$ is a topological vector space and that the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$ is continuous. Then we give $`Z^1(G,M)`$ the compact open topology. Assuming that $`M`$ is Hausdorff, this means that $`\delta _n\delta `$ in $`Z^1(G,M)`$ if and only if $`\delta _n(g)\delta (g)`$ in $`M`$ for all $`gG`$. In general $`B^1(G,M)`$ is not closed in $`Z^1(G,M)`$. The quotient space $`\overline{H}^1\left(G\right)=Z^1(G,M)/\overline{B^1(G,M)}`$, where $`\overline{B^1(G,M)}`$ is the closure of $`B^1(G,M)`$ in $`Z^1(G,M)`$, is called the first reduced cohomology space.

Let $`\left(G\right)`$ be the set of complex-valued functions on $`G`$. We may represent each $`f`$ in $`\left(G\right)`$ as a formal sum $`_{xG}a_xx`$ where $`a_x`$ and $`f(x)=a_x`$. For a real number $`p1,L^p(G)`$ will consist of those formal sums for which $`_{xG}|a_x|^p<\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\alpha \left(G\right)`$ and $`gG`$, the right translation of $`\alpha `$ by $`g`$ is the function defined by $`\alpha _g(x)=\alpha (xg^1)`$. Observe that if $`\alpha `$ is represented formally by $`_{xG}a_xx`$, then $`\alpha _g`$ is represented by $`_{xG}a_{xg^1}x`$.

In this paper we will study the cohomology theories defined above for the case $`M=L^p(G)`$, and with $`G`$ acting on $`L^p(G)`$ by right translations.

I would like to thank Peter Linnell for making many useful comments on an earlier version of this paper. I would also like to thank the Mathematics department at Rutgers University for the use of their library.

## 2. Preliminaries

Let $`G`$ be the group ring of $`G`$ over $``$. For $`\alpha =_{xG}a_xxG`$ and $`\beta =_{xG}b_xx\left(G\right)`$ we define a multiplication $`\left(G\right)\times G\left(G\right)`$ by

$$\beta \alpha =\underset{x,y}{}b_xa_yxy=\underset{xG}{}\left(\underset{yG}{}b_{xy^1}a_y\right)x.$$

For $`1p`$, let $`D^p(G)=\{\beta \left(G\right)\beta (g1)L^p\left(G\right)\text{ for all }gS\}`$. Recall that $`S`$ is a symmetric set of generators for $`G`$. We define a norm on $`L^p\left(G\right)`$ by $`\alpha _p=\left(_{xG}|a_x|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}`$, where $`\alpha =_{xG}a_xxL^p\left(G\right)`$. Let $`\beta =_{xG}b_xxD^p\left(G\right)`$ and let $`e`$ be the identity element of $`G`$. We define a norm on $`D^p\left(G\right)`$ by $`\beta _{D^p(G)}=\left(_{gS}\beta (g1)_p^p+|\beta (e)|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}`$. Under this norm $`D^p\left(G\right)`$ is a Banach space. Let $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ be elements of $`D^p\left(G\right).`$ We will write $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ if $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ is a constant function. Clearly $``$ is an equivalence relation on $`D^p\left(G\right)`$. Identify the constant functions on $`G`$ with $``$. Now $`D^p\left(G\right)/`$ is a Banach space under the norm induced from $`D^p\left(G\right)`$. That is, if $`[\alpha ]`$ is an equivalence class from $`D^p\left(G\right)/`$ then $`[\alpha ]_{D^p\left(G\right)/}=\left(_{gS}\alpha (g1)_p^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}`$. We shall write $`\alpha _{D(p)}`$ for $`[\alpha ]_{D^p(G)/}`$.

Define a linear map $`T`$ from $`D^p\left(G\right)`$ to $`Z^1(G,L^p\left(G\right))`$ by $`\left(T\alpha \right)(g)=\alpha (g1).`$ It was shown in \[1, lemma 4.2\] that $`H^1(G,\left(G\right))=0`$, so for each $`1`$-cocycle $`\delta Z^1(G,\left(G\right))`$ there exists an $`\alpha \left(G\right)`$ such that $`\delta (g)=\alpha (g1)`$. This implies that $`T`$ is onto. The kernel of $`T`$ is $``$, the constant functions on $`G`$. Thus $`D^p\left(G\right)/`$ is isometric with $`Z^1(G,L^p\left(G\right))`$. Now $`B^1(G,L^p(G))=T\left(L^p(G)\right)`$, so we obtain the following:

1. The first cohomology group of $`G`$ with coefficients in $`L^p\left(G\right),H^1(G,L^p\left(G\right))`$, is isomorphic with $`D^p\left(G\right)/\left(L^p\left(G\right)\right).`$
2. The first reduced $`L^p`$-cohomology space of $`G`$, denoted by $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1\left(G\right)`$, is isometric with $`D^p\left(G\right)/\overline{L^p\left(G\right)}`$, where the closure is taken in $`D^p\left(G\right).`$

## 3. A sufficient condition for the vanishing of $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1\left(G\right)`$

In this section we give sufficient conditions on $`L^p(G)`$ so that $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1\left(G\right)=0`$. We begin with

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`1p<\mathrm{}`$ and let $`\alpha D^p\left(G\right)/`$ be a non-negative, real-valued function. If $`\{\beta _n\}`$ is a sequence in $`D^p\left(G\right)/`$ such that $`\beta _n0`$ on $`G,\{\beta _n\}`$ converges pointwise to $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\beta _n_{D(p)}0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, then $`\alpha \mathrm{min}(\alpha ,\beta _n)_{D(p)}0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\alpha _n=\mathrm{min}(\alpha ,\beta _n),U_n=\{xG\alpha (x)>\beta _n(x)\}`$ and $`V_n=\{xxU_n\text{ or }xg^1U_n\text{ for some }gS\}`$. Represent $`\alpha `$ by $`_{xG}a_xx,\alpha _n`$ by $`_{xG}(\stackrel{~}{a}_x)_nx`$ and $`\beta _n`$ by $`_{xG}(b_x)_nx.`$ Now

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha \alpha _n_{D(p)}^p& =\underset{gS}{}(\alpha \alpha _n)(g1)_p^p\hfill \\ & =\underset{gS}{}\underset{xG}{}\left|(a_{xg^1}a_x)((\stackrel{~}{a}_{xg^1})_n(\stackrel{~}{a}_x)_n)\right|^p\hfill \\ & \underset{gS}{}\underset{xV_n}{}\left(|a_{xg^1}a_x|+|(b_{xg^1})_n(b_x)_n|\right)^p\hfill \\ & 2^p\underset{gS}{}\underset{xV_n}{}\left(|a_{xg^1}a_x|^p+|(b_{xg^1})_n(b_x)_n|^p\right)\hfill \\ & =2^p\underset{gG}{}\left(\underset{xV_n}{}|a_{xg^1}a_x|^p+\underset{xV_n}{}|(b_{xg^1})_n(b_x)_n|^p\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`ϵ>0`$ be given. Since $`\alpha D^p(G)/`$ there exists a finite subset $`F`$ of $`G`$ such that $`_{gS}_{xGF}|a_{xg^1}a_x|^p<ϵ`$. Since $`\beta _n(x)\mathrm{}`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, there exists $`N`$ such that $`V_nGF`$ for all $`nN`$. Thus $`_{gS}_{xV_n}|a_{xg^1}a_x|^p0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}.`$ By hypothesis $`_{gS}_{xV_n}|(b_{xg^1})_n(b_x)_n|^p0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Therefore $`\alpha \mathrm{min}(\alpha ,\beta _n)_{D(p)}0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. ∎

Let $`\alpha D^p(G)`$ and $`xG`$. Then $`\left|\alpha (x)\right|`$ will denote the modulus of $`\alpha (x)`$ and $`|\alpha |`$ will denote the function $`\left|\alpha \right|(x)=\left|\alpha (x)\right|`$. We are now ready to give a sufficient condition for the vanishing of $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1(G)=0`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`1p<\mathrm{}`$. Suppose there exists a sequence $`\{\alpha _n\}`$ in $`L^p(G)`$ such that $`\alpha _n_{D(p)}0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and $`\{\alpha _n(x)\}`$ does not converge pointwise to zero for each $`x`$ in $`G`$. Then $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1(G)=0`$.

###### Proof.

By taking a subsequence if necessary we may assume that $`\alpha _n_{D(p)}<\frac{1}{n^2}`$ for all $`n`$. Since $`|\alpha |_{D(p)}\alpha _{D(p)}`$ we may assume that $`\alpha _n(x)0`$ for all $`xG.`$ Set $`\beta _n=n\alpha _n.`$ Now $`\beta _n(x)0`$ for all $`xG,\beta _n(x)\mathrm{}`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ for every $`xG`$ and $`\beta _n_{D(p)}^p=n\alpha _n_{D(p)}^p=n^p\alpha _n_{D(p)}^pn^p\left(\frac{1}{n^{2p}}\right)=\frac{1}{n^p}.`$ We now have that $`\beta _n_{D(p)}0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a real-valued, non-negative function in $`D^p(G)/`$. By Lemma 3.1, $`\alpha \mathrm{min}(\alpha ,\beta _n)_{D(p)}0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Thus $`\alpha \overline{L^p(G)}`$ since $`\mathrm{min}(\alpha ,\beta _n)L^p(G)`$. It now follows by approximation that $`\overline{L^p(G)}=D^p(G)/`$. Hence $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1(G)=D^p(G)/\overline{(L^p(G))}=0.`$

## 4. Harmonic Functions

In this section we will give some results about harmonic functions on $`G`$. Let $`\alpha (G)`$ and represent $`\alpha `$ by $`_{xG}a_xx`$. Now define

$$(\mathrm{}\alpha )(x):=\underset{gS}{}\left((\alpha (g1))(x)\right)=\underset{gS}{}(a_{xg^1}a_x).$$

We shall say that $`\alpha `$ is harmonic on $`G`$ if $`(\mathrm{}\alpha )(x)=0`$ for each $`xG`$, alternatively $`\alpha `$ is harmonic if $`|S|\left(\alpha (x)\right)=_{gS}\alpha (xg^1)`$ for each $`x`$ in $`G`$. Let $`LHD^p(G)=\{\alpha \alpha \text{ is harmonic and }\alpha D^p(G)\}.`$ Observe that the constant functions are contained in $`LHD^p(G)`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`xG`$. There exists a positive constant $`M_x`$ such that $`|\alpha (x)|M_x\alpha _{D^p(G)}`$ for all $`\alpha D^p(G).`$

###### Proof.

Write $`x=g_1g_2\mathrm{}g_n`$ where $`g_kS`$ and no subword of $`g_1g_2\mathrm{}g_n`$ is the identity. Set $`w_k=g_1g_2\mathrm{}g_k`$. Let $`\alpha D^p(G)`$. Now

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\alpha (x)|& =(|\alpha (w_n)\alpha (w_{n1})+\alpha (w_{n1})\alpha (w_{n2})+\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}+\alpha (w_2)\alpha (w_1)+\alpha (w_1)\alpha (e)+\alpha (e)|^p)^{\frac{1}{p}}\hfill \\ & ((|\alpha (w_n)\alpha (w_{n1})|+|\alpha (w_{n1})\alpha (w_{n2})|+\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}+|\alpha (w_2)\alpha (w_1)|+|\alpha (w_1)\alpha (e)|+|\alpha (e)|)^p)^{\frac{1}{p}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`0a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$, then by Jensen’s inequality \[3, p. 189\] applied to the function $`x^p`$ for $`x>0`$,

$$(a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n)^pn^{p1}(a_1^p+\mathrm{}+a_n^p),$$

consequently

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\alpha (x)|& (n^{p1}(|\alpha (w_n)\alpha (w_{n1})|^p+|\alpha (w_{n1})\alpha (w_{n2})|^p+\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}+|\alpha (w_1)\alpha (e)|^p+|\alpha (e)|^p))^{\frac{1}{p}}\hfill \\ & =n^{\frac{p1}{p}}(|(\alpha (g_n^11))(w_{n1})|^p+|(\alpha (g_{n1}^11))(w_{n2})|^p+\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}+|(\alpha (g_1^11))(e)|^p+|\alpha (e)|^p)^{\frac{1}{p}}\hfill \\ & n^{\frac{p1}{p}}\alpha _{D^p(G)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We are now ready to prove:

###### Lemma 4.2.

The set $`LHD^p(G)`$ is closed in $`D^p(G)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\{\alpha _n\}`$ be a sequence in $`LHD^p(G)`$ and suppose that $`\{\alpha _n\}\alpha `$ in $`D^p(G)`$. Let $`xG`$. By Lemma 4.1 there exists a positive constant $`M_x`$ such that $`|(\alpha \alpha _n)(x)|M_x\alpha \alpha _n_{D^p(G)}`$. Thus $`\{\alpha _n(x)\}`$ converges pointwise to $`\alpha (x)`$ for all $`xG`$. Represent $`\alpha `$ by $`_{xG}a_xx`$ and $`\alpha _n`$ by $`_{xG}(\stackrel{~}{a}_x)_nx`$. Now $`_{gS}\left((\stackrel{~}{a}_{xg^1})_n(\stackrel{~}{a}_x)_n\right)=0`$ for all natural numbers $`n`$ and for all $`xG`$. Thus $`_{gS}(a_{xg^1}a_x)=0`$ for all $`xG`$. ∎

The following proposition will be used in sections 5 and 6. The idea behind the proposition and the proof were inspired by \[4, Theorem 3.1\].

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`G`$ be a finitely generated group that has a central element of infinite order. If $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, then $`LHD^p(G)=`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`y`$ be an element of infinite order that is an element of the center of $`G`$. Let $`\alpha LHD^p(G)`$ and $`xG`$. Now $`|S|\left(\alpha _y(x)\right)=|S|\left(\alpha (xy^1)\right)=_{gS}\alpha (xy^1g^1)=_{gS}\alpha (xg^1y^1)=_{gS}\alpha _y(xg^1)`$. Hence $`\alpha _y`$ is harmonic if $`\alpha `$ is harmonic. Define a new function $`\beta (x)=\alpha _y(x)\alpha (x)`$ on $`G`$. Now $`\beta `$ is harmonic since it is the sum of harmonic functions. The formal series representation of $`\beta `$ is $`_{xG}(a_{xy^1}a_x)x.`$ Since $`\alpha D^p(G)`$ we have that $`\beta L^p(G)`$. Thus for each $`ϵ>0`$, the set $`\{x|a_{xy^1}a_x|>ϵ\}`$ is finite. By the maximum (minimum) principle for harmonic functions it must be the case $`|a_{xy^1}a_x|<ϵ`$ for all $`xG`$. Hence $`\alpha _y(x)=a_{xy^1}=a_x=\alpha (x)`$ for all $`xG`$.

Let $`xG`$ and $`gS`$. We now have that $`\alpha (x)\alpha (xg)=\alpha _y(x)\alpha _y(xg)=\alpha _{y^2}(x)\alpha _{y^2}(xg)=\mathrm{}=\alpha _{y^n}(x)\alpha _{y^n}(xg)`$ for all natural numbers $`n`$. In other words , $`a_xa_{xg}=a_{xy^1}a_{xy^1g}=\mathrm{}=a_{xy^n}a_{xy^ng}`$. Since $`\alpha D^p(G)`$ and $`y^ny`$ for all natural numbers $`n`$, we have that $`|a_{xy^n}a_{xy^ng}|<ϵ`$ for all $`ϵ>0.`$ Thus $`\alpha (x)=\alpha (xg)`$. The proposition now follows since $`S`$ generates $`G`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.4.

The center of a finitely generated, infinite nilpotent group contains an element of infinite order.

## 5. Groups with a central element of infinite order.

Let $`1<p`$ and let $`d`$ be a natural number. It was proven in  that $`^d`$ satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 3.2 if and only if $`dp`$. Thus, for example, Theorem 3.2 cannot be used to determine if $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1(^d)=0`$ whenever $`d>p`$. In this section we will prove that $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1(G)=0`$ whenever $`G`$ is a group that has a central element of infinite order.

Given $`1<p`$, we shall always let $`q`$ denote the conjugate index of $`p`$. Thus if $`p>1`$, then $`\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1`$. Fix $`\beta =_{xG}b_xxD^q(G)/`$. We can define a linear functional on $`D^p(G)/`$ by $`\alpha ,\beta =_{xG}_{gS}\left((\alpha (g1))(x)\right)\left(\overline{(\beta (g1))(x)}\right)=_{xG}_{gS}(a_{xg^1}a_x)(\overline{b_{xg^1}b_x})`$, where $`\alpha =_{xG}a_xxD^p(G)/`$. The sum is finite since $`\alpha (g1)L^p(G)`$ and $`\beta (g1)L^q(G)`$ for each $`gS`$. For $`yG`$, define $`\delta _y`$ by $`\delta _y(x)=0`$ if $`xy`$ and $`\delta _y(y)=1`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`\alpha (G)`$. Then $`\alpha `$ is a harmonic function if and only if $`\delta _y,\alpha =0`$ for all $`yG`$.

###### Proof.

Represent $`\alpha `$ by $`_{xG}a_xx`$ and let $`yG`$. Now

$$\delta _y,\alpha =2\underset{gS}{}(\overline{a_{yg^1}a_y}).$$

If $`\alpha `$ is harmonic, then $`\delta _y,\alpha =0`$. Conversely, if $`\delta _y,\alpha =0`$ for all $`yG`$, then $`\alpha `$ is harmonic since $`_{gS}(a_{yg^1}a_y)=0`$ for all $`yG.`$

For $`XD^p(G)/`$, let $`\left(\overline{X}\right)_{D(p)}`$ denote the closure of $`X`$ in $`D^p(G)/`$.

###### Proposition 5.2.

If $`\alpha \left(\overline{G}\right)_{D(p)}`$ and $`\beta LHD^q(G)`$, then $`\alpha ,\beta =0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\{\alpha _n\}`$ be a sequence in $`G`$ which converges to $`\alpha `$ in $`D^p(G)/`$. It follows from Lemma 5.1 that $`\alpha _n,\beta =0`$ for each $`n`$. We now obtain,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \left|\underset{xG}{}\underset{gS}{}\left((\alpha (g1))(x)\right)\left(\overline{(\beta (g1))(x)}\right)\right|\hfill \\ & =\left|\underset{xG}{}\underset{gS}{}\left(((\alpha \alpha _n)(g1))(x)\right)\left(\overline{(\beta (g1))(x)}\right)\right|\hfill \\ & \underset{xG}{}\underset{gS}{}\left|\left(((\alpha \alpha _n)(g1))(x)\right)\left(\overline{(\beta (g1))(x)}\right)\right|\hfill \\ & \alpha \alpha _n_{D(p)}\beta _{D(q)}0\text{ as }n\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The last inequality follows from Hölder’s inequality. ∎

We are now ready to prove

###### Theorem 5.3.

If $`1<p`$ and $`G`$ is a finitely generated group with a central element of infinite order, then $`\overline{H}_{(p)}^1(G)=0`$.

###### Proof.

The space of continuous linear functionals on $`D^p(G)/`$ is $`D^q(G)/`$. Let $`\left(\overline{L^p(G)}\right)_{D(p)}^{}=\{\beta D^q(G)/\alpha ,\beta =0\text{ for all }\alpha \left(\overline{L^p(G)}\right)_{D(p)}\}`$. Since $`\left(\overline{G}\right)_{D(p)}=\left(\overline{L^p(G)}\right)_{D(p)}`$ it follows from Proposition 5.2 that $`LHD^q(G)/`$ is contained in $`\left(\overline{L^p(G)}\right)_{D(p)}^{}`$.

Let $`\beta D^q(G)/`$ and represent $`\beta `$ by $`_{xG}b_xx`$. Suppose that $`\beta `$ is not harmonic on $`G`$. Then there exists an $`xG`$ such that $`_{gS}(b_{xg^1}b_x)0`$. If $`\alpha `$ is supported only on $`x`$, then by Lemma 5.1 we have that $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$. Thus the space of continuous linear functionals on $`D^p(G)/(\overline{L^p(G)})`$ is $`LHD^q(G)/`$. The theorem now follows from Proposition 4.3. ∎

###### Remark 5.4.

If $`G`$ is a group for which $`L^2(G)`$ does not satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem 3.2, then using the proof of the above theorem we can obtain the well known result $`D^2(G)=(\overline{G})_{D^2(G)}LHD^2(G).`$

## 6. A description of $`H^1(G,L^2(G))`$

Let $`d>1`$. We shall say that $`G`$ satisfies condition $`S_d`$ if there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that $`\alpha _{\frac{d}{d1}}C\alpha _{D(1)}`$ for all $`\alpha G`$. In this section we will describe the nonzero elements of $`H^1(G,L^2(G))`$ for groups that satisfy property $`S_d`$ and have a central element of infinite order. If $`\alpha (G)`$ and $`t1`$, then $`\alpha ^t`$ will denote the function $`\alpha ^t(x)=\left(\alpha (x)\right)^t.`$ Let us start with

###### Lemma 6.1.

Let $`G`$ be a finitely generated group and let $`t`$ be a real number greater than or equal to 2. If $`\alpha `$ is a non-negative, real function in $`(G)`$, then

$$\alpha ^t_{D(1)}2t\underset{xG}{}\alpha ^{t1}(x)\left(\underset{gS}{}\left|\left(\alpha (g1)\right)(x)\right|\right).$$

###### Proof.

Represent $`\alpha `$ by $`_{xG}a_xx`$. Let $`xG`$ and let $`gS`$. It follows from the Mean Value Theorem applied to $`x^t`$ that $`(r^ts^t)t(r^{t1}+s^{t1})(rs)`$ where $`r`$ and $`s`$ are real numbers with $`0sr`$. Thus $`|a_{xg^1}^ta_x^t|t(a_x^{t1}+a_{xg^1}^{t1})|a_{xg^1}a_x|`$. Now $`\alpha ^t_{D(1)}=_{xG}_{gS}|\left(\alpha ^t(g1)\right)(x)|=_{xG}_{gS}|a_{xg^1}^ta_x^t|t_{xG}_{gS}(a_x^{t1}+a_{xg^1}^{t1})|a_{xg^1}a_x|=2t_{xG}_{gS}a_x^{t1}|a_{xg^1}a_x|`$. ∎

We will now use this lemma to prove the following:

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`d>2`$. If $`G`$ satisfies condition $`S_d`$, then there is a constant $`C^{}>0`$ such that $`\alpha _{\frac{2d}{d2}}C^{}\alpha _{D(2)}`$ for all $`\alpha G`$.

###### Proof.

Put $`t=\frac{2d2}{d2}`$ and represent $`\alpha `$ by $`_{xG}a_xx`$. By property $`S_d`$, Lemma 6.1 and Schwartz’s inequality we have (assuming without loss of generality that $`\alpha `$ is non-negative).

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha ^{\frac{2d2}{d2}}_{\frac{d}{d1}}& C\alpha ^{\frac{2d2}{d2}}_{D(1)}\hfill \\ & 2C(\frac{2d2}{d2})\underset{xG}{}\alpha ^{\frac{d}{d2}}(x)(\underset{gS}{}|\left(\alpha (g1)\right)(x)|)\hfill \\ & =2C(\frac{2d2}{d2})\underset{xG}{}\underset{gS}{}a_x^{\frac{d}{d2}}|a_{xg^1}a_x|\hfill \\ & 2C(\frac{2d2}{d2})\alpha ^{\frac{d}{d2}}_2\alpha _{D(2)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Observe $`\alpha ^{\frac{2d2}{d2}}_{\frac{d}{d1}}=\alpha ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}_1^{\frac{d1}{d}}`$ and $`\alpha ^{\frac{d}{d2}}_2=\alpha ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}_1^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Substituting we obtain $`\alpha ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}_1^{\frac{d1}{d}}C^{}\alpha ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}_1^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha _{D(2)}`$. The proposition follows by dividing both sides by $`\alpha ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}_1^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and observing that $`\alpha ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}_1^{\frac{d2}{2d}}=(\alpha _{\frac{2d}{d2}}^{\frac{2d}{d2}})^{\frac{d2}{2d}}`$. ∎

If $`G`$ is finitely generated, then $`L^p(G)L^p^{}(G)`$ for $`1pp^{}`$. If $`\alpha L^p(G)`$, then $`\alpha `$ is in the zero class of $`H^1(G,L^p(G))`$. Our next result will show, for the case $`G`$ a group that has a central element of infinite order and satisfies property $`S_d`$, that each nonzero class in $`H^1(G,L^2(G))`$ can be represented by a function in $`L^p^{}(G)`$ for some fixed real number $`p^{}>2`$.

###### Theorem 6.3.

If $`G`$ is a finitely generated group that has a central element of infinite order and satisfies condition $`S_d`$ for $`d>2`$, then each nonzero class in $`H^1(G,L^2(G))`$ can be represented by a function from $`L^{\frac{2d}{d2}}(G).`$

###### Proof.

Let $`1_G`$ denote the constant function one on $`G`$. If $`1_G(\overline{G})_{D^2(G)}`$, then there exists a sequence $`\{\alpha _n\}`$ in $`G`$ such that $`1_G\alpha _n_{D^2(G)}0`$ but $`\alpha _n_{\frac{2d}{d2}}\to ̸0`$ contradicting Proposition 6.2. Hence $`(\overline{G})_{D^2(G)}D^2(G)`$. By Remark 5.4 we have the decomposition $`D^2(G)=\overline{L^2(G)}LHD^2(G)`$. By Proposition 4.3, $`LHD^2(G)=.`$ Thus nonzero classes in $`H^1(G,L^2(G))`$ can be represented by functions in $`(\overline{G})_{D^2(G)}L^2(G)`$. Let $`\alpha (\overline{G})_{D^2(G)}`$, so there exists a sequence $`\{\alpha _n\}`$ in $`G`$ such that $`\alpha _n\alpha `$ in the Banach space $`D^2(G)`$. Thus $`\{\alpha _n\}`$ is a Cauchy sequence in $`D^2(G)`$. By Proposition 6.2 $`\{\alpha _n\}`$ forms a Cauchy sequence in $`L^{\frac{2d}{d2}}(G)`$. Now $`\overline{\alpha }\alpha _n_{\frac{2d}{d2}}0`$ for some $`\overline{\alpha }L^{\frac{2d}{d2}}(G)`$. Since $`L^p`$-convergence implies pointwise convergence $`(\overline{\alpha }\alpha _n)(g1)_20`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ for each $`gS`$. Hence $`(\overline{\alpha }\alpha _n)_{D^2(G)}0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Therefore $`\overline{\alpha }=\alpha `$

Let $`A`$ be a finite subset of $`G`$ and define

$$A:=\{xA\text{ there exists }gS\text{ with }xgA\}.$$

We shall say $`G`$ satisfies condition $`(IS)_d`$ if $`|A|^{d1}<|A|^{d1}`$ for all finite subsets $`A`$ of $`G`$. Varopoulous proves the following proposition on page 224 of .

###### Proposition 6.4.

A finitely generated group $`G`$ satisfies the condition $`(IS)_d`$ for some $`d1`$ if and only if it satisfies condition $`S_d`$.

Now $`^d`$ satisfies condition $`(IS)_d`$ but does not satisfy $`(IS)_{d+ϵ}`$ for any $`ϵ>0`$. We now have the following:

###### Corollary 6.5.

Let $`d3`$. Each nonzero class in $`H^1(^d,L^2(^d))`$ can be represented by a function from $`L^{\frac{2d}{d2}}(^d).`$