text:
# Confinement and the photon propagator in 3𝐷 compact QED: a lattice study in Landau gauge at zero and finite temperature

## I Introduction

Three–dimensional compact electrodynamics (cQED3) has two essential features in common with QCD, confinement Polyakov  and chiral symmetry breaking ChSB . Although the physics behind it might be very different, monopole dynamics in three and in four dimensions, it is amusing to study certain nonperturbative aspects within a lower–dimensional model such as cQED3. Apart from its role as a toy model for QCD, the nonperturbative properties of cQED3 deserve attention in themselves because this model was shown to describe some features of Josephson junctions Josephson  and high–$`T_c`$ superconductors HighTc . cQED3 was the first example, in space–time dimensions greater than two where it becomes a nontrivial problem, in which confinement of electrically charged particles was understood analytically Polyakov . It is the result of the dynamics of monopoles which emerge due to the compactness of the gauge field. Other common features of cQED3 and QCD are the existence of a mass gap and of a confinement–deconfinement phase transition at some nonzero temperature.

In two recent papers we have demonstrated how the deconfinement phase transition, occurring under the influence of compactification of one dimension, in $`2+1`$ dimensions, finds its explanation from the monopole point of view CISPaper1  and why the deconfinement phase transition is independent on the strength of the external fields CISPaper2 .

In a recent letter CISLetter  we answered the question what effect the confinement property has on the gauge boson propagator in this theory and what of the propagator is changing at the deconfinement temperature. The effects are twofold: first, an anomalous dimension appears which modifies the momentum dependence, and second, a mass is generated which can be well understood in terms of Polyakov’s theory Polyakov . In Ref. CISLetter  we also have used the unique possibility in lattice simulations to remove the monopole degrees of freedom from the quantum gauge field in order to show that all nontrivial effects reside exclusively in the singular fields of the monopoles.

Note that a non–trivial anomalous dimension of the gauge boson propagator may also appear due to dynamical matter fields AnomalousMatter . The sign (in our notation) of the anomalous dimension induced in this way is different and this leads to the binding of the monopoles into dipole pairs and, consequently, to the disappearance of the confinement at certain distances between the test particles. This picture was confirmed for the compact model in the presence of the dynamical matter fields MatterFields .

In the present paper we want to extend the analysis of Ref. CISLetter  in various respects. Since the propagator is studied in the Landau gauge, first of all we have investigated more carefully the quality of the gauge fixing and the importance of the Gribov copy problem, first on the propagator itself and then on the parameters that finally describe the functional form of the propagator.

In a second direction, we investigate the potential influence that different definitions of the gauge potential $`A_\mu `$ in terms of the lattice link fields might have on the resulting propagator. One of the choices is strongly recommended by the explicit gauge invariance (transversality) of the emerging propagator. However, in the case when the longitudinal part does not vanish by construction, proper selection of the transverse component also leads to almost the same fit parameters. The coincidence becomes obviously better at larger $`\beta `$.

Going over from zero to finite temperature, it is important to realize that more structure functions are necessary to the describe the finite-temperature case. One of them, the deconfinement-sensitive $`D_L`$, was studied already in Ref. CISLetter , while the other, $`D_T`$, was found to be extremely sensitive to the Gribov problem. Only exerting extreme care can one expose the change going on at the deconfinement transition.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II we define the lattice model and the tensorial structure of the propagators, at $`T=0`$ and for $`T0`$. Sect. III contains a discussion of the minimal Landau gauge which points out the topological aspects related to the gauge fixing, in particular the condition of having a minimal total length of Dirac strings. In Sect. IV we report on the numerical algorithms for updating and gauge fixing which we have used in our investigation. The following Sect. V is devoted to an outline the results for $`T=0`$. Sect. VI describes the particular requirements of gauge fixing in the $`T0`$ case and contains our results for the propagators $`D_L`$ and $`D_T`$. Some conclusions are formulated in Sect. VII.

## II The $`3D`$ compact U(1) model and the photon propagator

For the compact U(1) model we chose the Wilson single-plaquette action:

$`S[\theta _l]=\beta {\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _p\right),`$ (1)
where $`\theta _p`$ is the $`U(1)`$ field strength tensor represented by the plaquette curl of the compact link field $`\theta _l`$. The lattice is three-dimensional, and the basic degrees of freedom are the links $`U_l=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\theta _l\right)`$. The measure of the link angles is flat over the interval $`\pi <\theta \pi `$. The lattice coupling constant $`\beta `$ is related to the lattice spacing $`a`$ and the continuum coupling constant $`g_3`$ of the $`3D`$ theory,

$`\beta =1/(ag_3^2).`$ (2)
Note that in three dimensional gauge theory the coupling constant $`g_3`$ has dimension $`\mathrm{mass}^{1/2}`$. Zero physical temperature is represented by symmetric lattices, $`L_t=L_s`$111$`L_t`$ is the extension in the third ($`z`$) direction. The lattice corresponding to finite temperature is asymmetric, $`L_s^2\times L_t`$, $`L_t<<L_s`$. In the limit $`L_s\mathrm{}`$, the temporal extension of the lattice is related to the physical temperature, $`L_t=1/(Ta)`$. Using (2) the temperature is given in units of $`g_3^2`$ in terms of the lattice parameters as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{g_3^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{L_t}}.`$ (3)
Our simulations for zero temperature were performed mainly on a $`32^3`$ lattice, those at finite temperature on a $`32^2\times 8`$ lattice.

The final discussion of the photon propagator will be given in lattice momentum space. Being always defined in a specified gauge, the propagator is written in terms of the Fourier transformed gauge potential,

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{L_1L_2L_3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\nu (n_\nu +\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\nu \mu })}{L_\nu }}\right)A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu },`$ (4)
which is a sum over a certain discrete set of points $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }`$ forming the support of $`A_{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }`$ on the lattice. These are the midpoints of the links in $`\mu `$ direction while $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ denotes the lattice sites (nodes) with integer Cartesian coordinates. The propagator is the gauge-fixed ensemble average of the following bilinear in $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$,

$`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\nu }.`$ (5)
Two identifications of $`A_{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }`$ were adopted in the literature and will be compared in our paper: the angle–definition

$`A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }=\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }/(g_3a)=\mathrm{log}\left(U_{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }\right)/(ig_3a)`$ (6)
and the sine–definition

$`A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }=\mathrm{sin}\left(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }\right)/(g_3a)=\left(U_{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }U_{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }^{}\right)/(2ig_3a).`$ (7)
The corresponding propagators will be denoted as $`D_{\mu \nu }^{ang}`$ or $`D_{\mu \nu }^{sin}`$, respectively.

The lattice momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ on the left hand side of (5) are related to the integer valued Fourier momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ as follows:

$`p_\mu (k_\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_\mu }{L_\mu }},k_\mu =0,\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm {\displaystyle \frac{L_\mu }{2}}.`$ (8)
The lattice equivalent of $`p^2=\stackrel{}{p}^2`$ is in $`3D`$

$`p^2(\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{4}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_\mu }{L_\mu }}\right)^2.`$ (9)
At zero temperature, based on Euclidean rotational invariance, the continuum propagator would be expressible by functions of $`p^2`$. The most general tensor structure is then the following one including two scalar functions of $`p^2`$,

$`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})D(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F(p^2)}{p^2}}`$ (10)
with the $`d`$-dimensional (in our case $`d=3`$) transverse projection operator

$`P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}.`$ (11)
The projector has the properties

$`P_{\mu \alpha }(\stackrel{}{p})P_{\alpha \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p}),P_{\mu \mu }(\stackrel{}{p})=d1.`$ (12)
The two structure functions $`D(p^2)`$ and $`F(p^2)`$ can be extracted by projection, on the lattice from $`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ according to (5), as

$`F(p^2)={\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{3}{}}}p_\mu D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})p_\nu `$ (13)
and

$`p^2D(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (14)
They are found, in the best case, only approximately rotationally invariant, i.e. individual momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ might slightly differ in the function values $`D`$ or $`F`$ they provide, even if they have the same $`p^2`$. Dense data points close together in $`p^2`$ might scatter rather than forming a smooth function of $`p^2`$.

In practice, using these definitions, we extract at first the function $`F(p^2)`$, in the $`d=3`$ case through

$`F(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`p_1^2D_{11}(\stackrel{}{p})+p_2^2D_{22}(\stackrel{}{p})+p_3^2D_{33}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`2p_1p_2\mathrm{Re}D_{12}(\stackrel{}{p})+2p_1p_3\mathrm{Re}D_{13}(\stackrel{}{p})+2p_2p_3\mathrm{Re}D_{23}(\stackrel{}{p}).`$
The imaginary parts of non-diagonal $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ cancel in the sum and were omitted. Then, the function $`D(p^2)`$ is obtained through

$`D(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\left[\left(D_{11}(\stackrel{}{p})+D_{22}(\stackrel{}{p})+D_{33}(\stackrel{}{p})\right)F(p^2)/p^2\right].`$ (16)
If the Landau gauge would be exactly fulfilled, one would expect that $`F(p^2)0`$. On the lattice, in the case of the sine–definition for $`A_{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }`$, this is actually the case as soon as one of the Gribov copies is reached, with an accuracy which directly reflects the stopping precision of the gauge fixing procedure (as will be discussed below). In this case, a simplified definition in terms of the diagonal components $`D_{\mu \mu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ would be appropriate. In case of the angle–definition the structure function $`F(p^2)`$ does not vanish, therefore all components of $`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ contribute to $`D(p^2)`$.

For the finite temperature case, the propagator lacks $`O(3)`$ rotational symmetry. Now we have to consider two scalar functions, $`D_T`$ and $`D_L`$ instead of $`D`$, each multiplying the $`(d1)`$-dimensional transverse projection operator $`P^T`$ and the $`(d1)`$-dimensional longitudinal projection operator $`P^L`$, respectively. The scalar functions $`D_T`$, $`D_L`$ and $`F`$ depend now separately on the length of the space–like part of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},d1`$,

$`𝐩^2=p_1^2+\mathrm{}+p_{d1}^2,|𝐩|=\sqrt{𝐩^2},`$ (17)
and the “temporal” momentum $`p_d`$:

$`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{\mu \nu }^T(\stackrel{}{p})D_T(|𝐩|,p_d)+P_{\mu \nu }^L(\stackrel{}{p})D_L(|𝐩|,p_d)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F(|𝐩|,p_d)}{p^2}}.`$ (18)
The two projection operators are defined as follows ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},d1`$): a transverse one,

$`P_{ij}^T(\stackrel{}{p})=\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{p_ip_j}{𝐩^2}},P_{dd}^T(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{di}^T(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{id}^T(\stackrel{}{p})=0,`$ (19)
and a longitudinal one

$`P_{\mu \nu }^L(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})P_{\mu \nu }^T(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (20)
Obviously, these projectors have the properties

$`P_{\mu \alpha }^T(\stackrel{}{p})P_{\alpha \nu }^T(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\mu \nu }^T(\stackrel{}{p}),P_{\mu \mu }^T(\stackrel{}{p})=d2`$ (21)
$`P_{\mu \alpha }^L(\stackrel{}{p})P_{\alpha \nu }^L(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\mu \nu }^L(\stackrel{}{p}),P_{\mu \mu }^L(\stackrel{}{p})=1`$ (22)
$`P_{\mu \alpha }^L(\stackrel{}{p})P_{\alpha \nu }^T(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (23)
The scalar functions $`D_T`$ and $`D_L`$ can be extracted from $`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ via

$`P_{\mu \nu }^T(\stackrel{}{p})D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`(d2)D_T(|𝐩|,p_d)`$ (24)
$`P_{\mu \nu }^L(\stackrel{}{p})D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`D_L(|𝐩|,p_d)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`(d1)D(|𝐩|,p_d)(d2)D_T(|𝐩|,p_d).`$
For $`d=3`$ we can write down explicitly the definitions

$`𝐩^2D_T(|𝐩|,p_d)=p_2^2D_{11}(\stackrel{}{p})+p_1^2D_{22}(\stackrel{}{p})2p_1p_2\mathrm{Re}D_{12}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ (26)
and

$`𝐩^2(𝐩^2+p_3^2)D_L(|𝐩|,p_d)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐩^2\left(𝐩^2D_{33}(\stackrel{}{p})2p_1p_3\mathrm{Re}D_{13}(\stackrel{}{p})2p_2p_3\mathrm{Re}D_{23}(\stackrel{}{p})\right)`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`p_3^2\left(p_1^2D_{11}(\stackrel{}{p})+p_2^2D_{22}(\stackrel{}{p})+2p_1p_2\mathrm{Re}D_{12}(\stackrel{}{p})\right).`$
In the static limit, $`p_3=0`$,

$`D_L(|𝐩|,p_3=0)D_{33}(|𝐩|,p_3=0).`$ (28)
This propagator for the case of the angle–definition and its fit in terms of mass and anomalous dimension as well as the changes at the deconfinement transition were discussed in Ref. CISLetter .

In the case of $`T=0`$, the data to be presented below will be averaged over measurements of these quantities obtained for different $`\stackrel{}{k}=(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$ giving rise to the same $`p^2`$ according to (9). In the case $`T0`$ we will show data averaged over different $`(k_1,k_2)`$ giving rise to the same $`𝐩^2`$ according to (17). One should keep in mind that by this “trick” one enforces the rotational invariance “by hand”, and the statistical errors are reduced as compared to measurements for individual $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-components of the propagator.

In order to discuss the functional form of the propagator from the viewpoint of confinement effects, with confinement being induced by the monopole plasma, we will decompose the gauge fields into singular (monopole) and regular (photon) contributions on the level of the link angles,

$`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }=\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }^{phot}+\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }^{mono},`$ (29)
by a procedure to be described below. After the decomposition (29) of the link angles is done, one may define the corresponding $`A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }^{phot}`$ and $`A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }^{mono}`$ through the angle–definition (6) or the sine–definition (7), respectively. Then, by fast Fourier transform, the corresponding $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }^{phot}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }^{mono}`$ are evaluated. For each configuration and a certain set of momenta the bilinears for the photon part $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }^{phot}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\nu }^{phot}`$, the monopole part $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }^{mono}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\nu }^{mono}`$ and the mixed bilinear $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }^{phot}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\nu }^{mono}`$ are formed. These are the observables which are associated – by averaging over the Monte Carlo ensemble – to the propagators $`D_{\mu \nu }^{phot}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ (the photon or regular propagator), $`D_{\mu \nu }^{mono}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ (the singular propagator) and $`D_{\mu \nu }^{mixed}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ (the mixed propagator). These propagators are considered together with the full propagator which uses the original link angles $`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }`$ before the splitting (29) was performed.

In the $`T=0`$ case, all these functions of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ are then mapped by the projections (15,16) to the scalar structure functions $`D^{phot}(p^2)`$, $`D^{mono}(p^2)`$, $`D^{mixed}(p^2)`$ and $`F^{phot}(p^2)`$, $`F^{mono}(p^2)`$, $`F^{mixed}(p^2)`$. In the finite temperature case we proceed analogously.

For the angle–definition of the vector potential we stress that the structure functions obviously satisfy exact additivity

$`D(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`D^{phot}(\stackrel{}{p})+D^{mono}(\stackrel{}{p})+2D^{mixed}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ (30)
$`F(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`F^{phot}(\stackrel{}{p})+F^{mono}(\stackrel{}{p})+2F^{mixed}(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (31)
## III Monopoles, Dirac strings, and the minimal Landau gauge

In this section we partially follow Ref. PoZuYe . Gauge fixing to the Landau gauge means, for a given configuration $`\theta _l=\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }`$, to find a gauge transformations $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}`$ such that, for a gauge functional

$`(\theta )={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _l)`$ (32)
the transformed gauge functional becomes maximal,

$`\underset{\omega }{\mathrm{max}}𝒢(\theta ,\omega ),𝒢(\theta ,\omega )=(\theta ^{(\omega )}).`$ (33)
Here $`\theta _l^{(\omega )}`$ denotes the gauge transformed gauge field 222Here and in the following we use the differential form notation on the lattice: $`(a,b)=_la_lb_l`$, $`\theta ^2=(\theta ,\theta )`$. The operations $`\mathrm{d}\theta `$ and $`\delta \theta `$ are the lattice curl and divergence, respectively. The Laplacian is denoted as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta \mathrm{d}+\mathrm{d}\delta `$.

$`\theta \theta ^{(\omega )}=\theta +\mathrm{d}\omega _{2\pi }\theta +\mathrm{d}\omega +2\pi k,kZZ,`$ (34)
where the integer number $`k=k(\theta ,\omega )`$ for each link is chosen such that $`\theta ^{(\omega )}(\pi ,\pi ]`$.

Instead of (33), following Ref. PoZuYe  we use for the purpose of this section in the following the Villain form of the gauge condition

$`\underset{\omega }{\mathrm{min}}\theta ^{(\omega )}^2.`$ (35)
The Faddeev–Popov (FP) determinant is introduced by the following decomposition of unity

$`1=\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}[\theta ;\lambda ]{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝒟\omega e^{\lambda \theta ^{(\omega )}^2},`$ (36)
where $`\lambda `$ is the gauge fixing parameter. In order to achieve the gauge (35) we have to send $`\lambda `$ to infinity. In this case the limits of integration in (36) can be extended to $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ since the saddle point approximation is exact in the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. Moreover, the integer valued variable $`k`$ in (34) becomes effectively independent on $`\theta `$ and $`\omega `$ since the values of $`k`$ for which $`\theta ^{(\omega )}(\pi ,\pi ]`$ are exponentially suppressed. Therefore, in the limit of infinite $`\lambda `$, the FP determinant (36) can be written as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}^1[\theta ;\lambda ]={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝒟\omega {\displaystyle \underset{kZZ(c_1)}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\lambda \theta +\mathrm{d}\omega +2\pi k^2\right\}.`$ (37)
Using the Hodge–de-Rahm transformation, $`k=\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1\mathrm{d}k+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta k`$, and making the shift $`\omega \omega \mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta k`$ we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}^1[\theta ;\lambda ]=\mathrm{const}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝒟\omega {\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{sZZ\left(c_2\right)}{\mathrm{d}s=0}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\lambda \theta +\mathrm{d}\omega +2\pi \delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1s^2\right\},`$ (38)
where we have changed the variables, $`s=\mathrm{d}k`$. The integration over $`\omega `$ gives

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}^1[\theta ;\lambda ]=\mathrm{const}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{sZZ\left(c_2\right)}{\mathrm{d}s=0}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\{\lambda (\mathrm{d}\theta +2\pi \delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1s,\mathrm{\Delta }^1(\mathrm{d}\theta +2\pi \delta \mathrm{\Delta }^1s\left)\right\}.`$ (39)
To proceed further we separate the gauge field $`\theta `$ into regular (photon) and singular (monopole) parts following Ref. PhMon ,

$`\theta =\theta ^{phot}+\theta ^{mono},\theta ^{mono}=2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta p[j],`$ (40)
where the dual one-form $`^{}j`$ represents the monopoles on the dual lattice sites. The one–form on the dual lattice, $`p[j]`$, defines the Dirac lines that connect the monopoles and anti–monopoles, $`\delta ^{}p[j]=^{}j`$.

The photon part $`\theta ^{phot}`$ is free of singularities while the monopole part $`\theta ^{mono}`$ contains the information about all monopole singularities:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{d}[\mathrm{d}\theta ^{phot}]_{2\pi }=0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{d}[\mathrm{d}\theta ^{mono}]_{2\pi }=j.`$ (41)
Here the DeGrand–Toussaint definition of the monopole DGT  was used. Substituting (40) into (39) we get, after a little algebra,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}^1[\theta ;\lambda ]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}\mathrm{exp}\left\{4\lambda (j,\mathrm{\Delta }^2j)\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{sZZ\left(c_2\right)}{\mathrm{d}s=0}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\lambda S_{gf}(\theta ^{phot},p[j]+s)\right\},`$ (42)
with

$`S_{gf}(\theta ^{phot},p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{d}\theta ^{phot}+2\pi p,\mathrm{\Delta }^1(\mathrm{d}\theta ^{phot}+2\pi (p[j]+s))).`$ (43)
The meaning of the last equations is the following. The gauge transformation (34) contains both regular ($`\mathrm{d}\omega `$) and singular ($`k`$) parts. The former transforms the photon part of the gauge field while the latter changes the monopole part shifting the Dirac string (but leaving the monopoles $`j`$ intact). We have already integrated out the regular gauge transformations, therefore (42) depends explicitly on $`\mathrm{d}\theta ^{phot}`$ which is invariant under regular gauge transformations, $`\theta ^{phot}\theta ^{phot}+\mathrm{d}\omega `$. The sum in (42) over all possible shifts of the Dirac lines,

$`^{}p[j]^{}p[j]+^{}s,`$ (44)
corresponds to the integration over all singular gauge transformations (remember that $`^{}s`$ is the closed line on the dual lattice, $`\delta ^{}s=0`$). Thus (42) is implicitly invariant under the singular gauge transformations as well.

In the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ the only contribution to the FP determinant is given by the global minimum of the gauge fixing functional (43) with respect to the variations (44) of the Dirac line,

$`S_{gf}^{min}(\theta ^{phot},j)=\underset{\mathrm{d}s=0}{\mathrm{min}}S_{gf}(\theta ^{phot},p[j]+s).`$ (45)
If the photon field is absent, the minimum (45) is given by the Dirac line with minimal “Coulomb interaction” (c.f. (43) ). For a lattice monopole and anti–monopole separated along one axis this line is the shortest path connecting the pair.

We substitute the FP unity (36,42) into the partition function of compact electrodynamics,

$`Z={\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝒟\theta e^{S(\theta )};`$ (46)
then we transform the gauge field, $`\theta \theta ^{(\omega )}`$ and get the product of the gauge orbit volume, $`𝒟\omega `$, and the partition function within the fixed gauge,

$`Z_{gf}={\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝒟\theta e^{S(\theta )\lambda \theta ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}[\theta ;\lambda ].`$ (47)
Separating the gauge field on the monopole and photon parts as indicated by (40) and using the Hodge–de-Rahm transformation, one can show that

$`\theta ^2=(\delta \theta ^{phot},\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta \theta ^{phot})+(\mathrm{d}\theta ^{phot}+2\pi p[j],\mathrm{\Delta }^1(\mathrm{d}\theta ^{phot}+2\pi p[j]))4\pi ^2(j,\mathrm{\Delta }^2j).`$ (48)
According to eqs. (42,45,47) the only non–vanishing contribution to the partition function in the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ comes from the global minimum (48) in the gauge orbit. Comparison of (45) and (48) shows that this minimum is defined by the following conditions:

$`\delta \theta ^{phot}=0`$ (49)
together with

$`S_{gf}(\theta ^{phot},p[j])=S_{gf}^{min}(\theta ^{phot},p[j]),`$ (50)
where $`S_{gf}`$ and $`S_{gf}^{min}`$ are given in (43) and (45), respectively.

In the continuum limit the condition (49) leads to the usual Landau gauge condition,

$`_\mu A_\mu ^{phot}=0,`$ (51)
while the condition (50) can be formulated as a requirement for the Dirac lines to form a configuration with as small as possible length:

$`\underset{\delta ^{}p[j]=\delta j}{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{length}\left(p[j]\right).`$ (52)
Indeed, the Dirac lines, $`^{}p[j]=^{}p_1[j]+^{}p_2[j]+\mathrm{}`$ , correspond to the singular $`\delta `$–functions in the continuum limit. Here $`^{}p_i`$ correspond to mutually unconnected pieces of these lines. The self–interaction of the Dirac lines in (50), $`_i(^{}p_i[j],\mathrm{\Delta }^1^{}p_i[j])`$, contains the term $`\alpha _i\mathrm{length}\left(p_i[j]\right)`$ (with a logarithmically divergent coefficient $`\alpha `$) plus finite terms. The “Coulomb interaction” of different pieces of the Dirac lines, $`(^{}p_i[j],\mathrm{\Delta }^1^{}p_k[j])`$, $`ik`$, as well as the contribution of the regular fields into the condition (50) are finite in the continuum limit. Thus the only essential contribution to the condition (50) in the continuum limit is given by the term $`\alpha _i\mathrm{length}\left(p_i[j]\right)\alpha \mathrm{length}\left(p[j]\right)`$, which gives the condition (52).

Thus we conclude that in the continuum limit the minimal Landau gauge for the compact gauge fields is reduced to the local gauge condition (51) for the regular fields and a non–local condition (52) – the requirement for the total length of the Dirac lines to be as small as possible – for the singular fields. This result can easily be generalized to the $`4D`$ case.

## IV Numerical algorithms used in the analysis

### IV.1 Monte Carlo Updating

The Monte Carlo algorithm in use for this investigation is a mixture of local and global updates. The local Monte Carlo algorithm is based on a 5–hit Metropolis update sweep in an even-odd fashion, alternating with a microcanonical sweep, also in checkerboard mode. Both together are considered as one local update. After three local updates the Metropolis step width is eventually tuned to keep an acceptance in the range between 40 % and 60 %.

For better ergodicity, in particular in the presence of an external field (considered in Ref. CISPaper2 ), global updates have also been included, following the ideas of Ref. DamgaardHeller . In the equilibrium regime, after every three complete local updates, a global refreshment step is attempted. We try to add one unit of flux to the dynamical gauge field, with random sign in one of the three directions randomly selected. The proposed flux addition is subject to a global Metropolis acceptance check.

For example, one unit of flux in the $`\mu \nu `$ plane is introduced with the help of the following gauge field shift DamgaardHeller  $`\theta _{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }[\theta _{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }+\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }]_{\mathrm{mod}2\pi }`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{}{x},\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L_\mu }}(2x_\mu L_\mu 1),\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{}{x},\nu }=0\mathrm{for}x_\nu L_\nu ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L_\mu }}L_\nu (1x_\nu ),\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{}{x},\rho }=0,\rho \mu ,\nu .`$ (53)
The acceptance rate of the global step changes with $`\beta `$ in a different way, depending on the lattice geometry. In our $`T=0`$ studies (on $`32^3`$ lattices) we found that the acceptance of global update steps drops (more rapidly than exponentially) from 0.48 at $`\beta =1.0`$ to 0.0056 at $`\beta =2.0`$. For higher $`\beta `$ essentially no global offers are successful.

In our $`T0`$ studies on $`32^2\times 8`$ lattices, however, we found the acceptance changing smoothly (nearly exponentially, even across the deconfining transition) from 0.58 at $`\beta =1.0`$ to 0.18 at $`\beta =3.0`$. A closer look reveals that the higher acceptance rate is due to more frequent global changes of the flux penetrating the 12 plane (i.e. magnetic flux direction).

In summary, one total Monte Carlo update cycle consists of three cycles of local update, each consisting of a Metropolis sweep followed by a microcanonical sweep, interchanging with a global update as described above.

In the finite temperature case, the measurement of $`D_T`$ turns out to be highly sensitive with respect to the insufficient removal (by the gauge fixing procedure and its repetitions, see the next subsection) of Dirac strings wrapping around the third direction. This is a case where the results with and without global updates, mainly adding and subtracting fluxes through the $`12`$ plane, differ. We comment on this problem and how to deal with it in Section VI.

### IV.2 Landau Gauge Fixing

The Landau gauge was chosen first of all because it is the most popular gauge to define a gauge field propagator. In this gauge the gauge propagator (5) is expected to satisfy the transversality condition

$`F(q^2)=q_\mu D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{q})q_\nu 0.`$ (54)
In the case of zero temperature, for example, this allows to describe the propagator by a single function $`D(q^2)`$ alone, defined by

$`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{q})=\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}\right)D(q^2).`$ (55)
We will see that for any practical implementation of the Landau gauge (54) is slightly violated. This degree of violation can, however, be easily controlled by sharpening the convergence criteria of the gauge–fixing algorithm. More important is the remark that in the case of the angle–definition of the vector potential (6) it is really necessary to select the transverse part by projection using (15) and (16). Then it is interesting to see where (e.g. in momentum space) the violation of transversality, quantified by the longitudinal propagator $`F`$, is coming from.

There is a second reason to choose the Landau gauge. We intend to split the gauge field into a regular (photon) and a singular (monopole) part by reconstructing the field due to the Dirac plaquettes which, on the other hand, are forming the monopoles. This reconstruction becomes unique in the Landau gauge.

In order to implement the gauge fixing condition (33) we have chosen a mixture of overrelaxation and non-periodic gauge transformations Bogolubsky:1999 , both applied in alternating order.

Iterative overrelaxation has to be practiced in a checkerboard fashion. Starting, say, with the odd sublattice we have first to find for each odd site $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ a suitable $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}`$ which maximizes the following function of $`\omega `$

$`𝒢_\stackrel{}{n}^{loc}(\theta ,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }\omega _\stackrel{}{n})+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }+\omega _\stackrel{}{n})\right),`$ (56)
which represents the part of $`𝒢`$ actually depending on $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}`$, and second to perform immediately the updatings of the neighboring link angles

$`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }`$ $``$ $`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }\omega _\stackrel{}{n}`$
$`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }`$ $``$ $`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }+\omega _\stackrel{}{n}.`$ (57)
This can be done simultaneously for half of the sites, namely $`\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{odd}`$. Afterward the same procedure is applied to the even sublattice. One odd/even pair of gauge updates constitutes one single iterative overrelaxation step. Each overrelaxation iteration is followed by a zero mode subtraction (to be explained in the next subsection).

The angle $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}`$ can be easily found as

$`\mathrm{tan}(\omega _\stackrel{}{n})={\displaystyle \frac{_\mu \left(\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu })\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu })\right)}{_\mu \left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu })+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu })\right)}}.`$ (58)
These gauge angles are multiplied by the overrelaxation factor, $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}\eta \omega _\stackrel{}{n}`$ and bounded by $`|\omega _\stackrel{}{n}|<\pi `$ before the iteration (57) is performed on all links. A good overrelaxation parameter was found to be $`\eta =1.8`$. According to our experience from studies on $`16^3`$ lattices this $`\eta `$ leads to fastest convergence, almost independently of $`\beta `$. This value has then been applied for all iterative gauge fixings.

The overrelaxation will usually be stopped if in the last overrelaxation step the average increase of the gauge functional $``$ \[Eq.(32)\] per link is found to be less than $`10^6`$. After this was discovered, the gauge fixing procedure ends with a final zero mode subtraction (see below).

At any local extremum of $``$ \[Eq.(32)\] the following condition would be satisfied everywhere on the even and odd sublattice:

$`\left(_\mu A_\mu \right)_\stackrel{}{n}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }A_{\stackrel{}{n}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ga}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu })\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n}\widehat{\mu },\mu })\right)=0.`$ (59)
Having the vector potential localized on the midpoints of links, its divergence is naturally defined on sites $`\stackrel{}{n}`$. Exact vanishing of the divergence of $`A_\mu `$ can be expected in the result of Landau gauge fixing only for the sine–definition of the vector potential $`A_\mu `$.

The algorithm outlined above will not in general lead to the absolute (global) maximum of the gauge functional $``$ (32). Typically it will get stuck in one of the local maxima, which are called Gribov copies of the true maximum. This is the so-called Gribov problem. It is partially cured by repeating the same gauge fixing procedure, applying it to random gauge copies of the original Monte Carlo configuration $`\theta ^{MC}`$, assuming that one of these copies might be situated in the basin of attraction of the true maximum. The number of gauge equivalent configurations produced to restart the gauge fixing is denoted as $`N_G`$, and the iterative gauge fixing generically leads to really different maxima. We have then to content with the best out of all $`N_G+1`$ local maxima of the gauge functional. The convergence, with increasing $`N_G`$, of a gauge dependent quantity evaluated on a given gauge field ensemble with the help of the best Gribov copy gives an indication of the sensitivity of this quantity with respect to the misidentification of the true maximum. We have applied this philosophy to two sets of data, the propagator data themselves at large or small momenta, and to the fit parameter emerging from a fit of the gauge boson propagator. One should not be surprised that the number $`N_G`$, which is necessary to achieve uniform convergence of the propagator in momentum space and/or of the fit parameters, differs strongly between zero and finite temperature. At finite temperature there are strong differences between $`D_L`$ and $`D_T`$.

In section III we have stressed the importance to find a local maximum of (32) accompanied by a minimal length of Dirac strings. Within our implementation, the start from a new random gauge copy is done in the hope in producing a new Gribov copy reachable from the previous ones only by a discrete gauge transformation. We have monitored the number of Dirac strings in each of the local maxima of the gauge functional $``$ (32). Each time the recent best value of the gauge functional was replaced by a better (higher) one, the number $`N_D`$ of Dirac strings detected in the correspondingly best Gribov copy decreased compared to the previous one.

In Fig. 1

we show scatter plots relating the gauge functional $``$ to the number of Dirac strings per direction $`N_i^D`$ ($`i=1,..,3)`$) for two thinned ensembles of 100 out of 1000 equilibrium configurations on $`32^2\times 8`$ lattices, each of them entering with 101 Gribov copies (local maxima of $``$). Fig. 1(a) refers to $`\beta =2.0`$ (confined phase) and shows all local maxima (Gribov copies). The isotropy of Dirac strings is clearly visible. Fig. 1(b) shows how in the deconfined phase the number $`N_3^D`$ of temporal Dirac strings is correlated with the locally maximal value of $``$. Fig. 1(c) shows it for the $`N_1^D`$ and $`N_2^D`$ (number of spatial Dirac strings). In both cases a slight tendency to clustering near multiples of 8 or 32 (the respective periodicity of the lattice) is visible, in particular for the highest values of $``$. The selection of the best copies restricts the ensemble to bigger $``$ and smaller $`N_i^D`$ as shown in Fig. 1(d). In the confinement phase the Dirac strings are still approximately isotropic. In the deconfined phase, however, the highest values of $``$ are correlated with low multiplicity of $`N_1^D`$ and $`N_2^D`$, and $`N_3^D`$ corresponding to zero, with one or a few periodically winding Dirac strings more frequently in the temporal direction.

We stress, that the configurations of which the gauge fixing was investigated here in some detail, had been produced with the update algorithm including global updates. Winding Dirac strings of some life time are also produced in ensembles that are generated without global updates, but less frequently. Therefore, the inefficiency of the random gauge transformation in exploring more of the gauge orbit is a handicap also if global updates are suppressed. We will see later that certain problems which show up in the finite temperature propagator $`D_T`$ can be ameliorated, but not completely cured, by abandoning global updates and increasing the number of Gribov copies.

We had not the opportunity to reconstruct exactly the spatial conformation of the Dirac strings in each gauge copy. But for each gauge copy we can determine whether multiple Dirac strings (running along a certain direction with same or different orientation) can be definitely excluded or not. At low $`\beta `$ this can never be excluded, but at high $`\beta `$ this could be used as an additional criterion to reject Gribov copies which contain double Dirac strings (in case of two oppositely oriented strings).

Although the stopping criterion was formulated for the global increase of $``$ we did not find a systematic local variation, depending on the distance from a monopole, of the violation of (59), expressed by the quantity

$`\left(_\mu A_\mu \right)_\stackrel{}{n}^2\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }A_{\stackrel{}{n}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }\right)\right\}^2.`$ (60)
This suggests that the differential gauge condition (59) is uniformly approaching zero.

In contrast to this, we found a systematic local variation of the local gauge functional itself,

$`_\stackrel{}{n}^{loc}(\theta )={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu })+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu })\right),`$ (61)
with the distance from a monopole. Near to a monopole, its value is suppressed compared to the bulk average. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 for $`\beta =1.0`$ and $`\beta =2.0`$.

### IV.3 Zero Mode Subtraction

There are certain modes of the gauge field which are not suppressed by the action. If they are not taken care of properly, the gauge field propagator is known to be spoiled Bogolubsky:1999 . For instance, adding some constant to all link angles $`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }`$ in one particular direction does not change the action (1), as neither does adding a multiple of $`2\pi `$ to one particular link angle. Non-periodic gauge transformations can be considered to implement these changes. We have used it in our simulations to immediately eliminate zero modes related to the appearance of the volume average of the link angles in a given direction

$`\overline{\theta _\mu }={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}}\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }/|\mathrm{\Lambda }|,`$ (62)
where $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ is the lattice volume. We subtract this volume average from each link angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }`$ in $`\mu `$ direction,

$`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }\overline{\theta _\mu }+2\pi k,`$ (63)
with integer $`k`$ chosen such that $`\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }^g(\pi ,\pi ]`$. This operation can be imagined as resulting from a gauge function $`g_\stackrel{}{n}=\overline{\theta _\mu }n_\mu `$ (no summation!) which is in general non-periodic. This special sort of gauge fixing is completed when zero modes in all $`d`$ directions were subtracted.

The zero-mode subtraction step is applied after each overrelaxation step. Thus it is always performed before the measurements are done on the gauge-fixed configuration.

In our runs we measured the photon propagator after each 10th total Monte Carlo update cycle to avoid autocorrelations as much as possible. Typically we used $`500`$ gauge-fixed configurations per data point for the $`32^3`$ lattice and about $`2000`$ configurations for the $`32^2\times 8`$ lattice.

## V The zero-temperature propagator in Landau gauge

In coordinate space, the gauge boson propagator that is studied, is read

$`D_{\mu \nu }\left(\stackrel{}{m}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{\mu }\stackrel{}{n}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{\nu }\right)=A_{\stackrel{}{m}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\nu },\nu }`$ (64)
with the angle– or sine–definition of $`A`$. For brevity, we will refer to this propagator later in momentum space as $`D_{\mu \nu }^{ang}`$ or $`D_{\mu \nu }^{sin}`$. The two scalar functions occurring in momentum space (10) we will denote as $`D^{ang}`$ and $`F^{ang}`$ or $`D^{sin}`$ and $`F^{sin}`$, respectively. The last one, $`F^{sin}`$ should vanish in the Landau gauge. We have observed that this is indeed the case with an accuracy determined by the stopping criterion of the iterative overrelaxation. For the sine–propagator the transverse part could be calculated directly just by evaluating and summing the diagonal components appearing in (16). When the longitudinal propagator vanishes only approximately, one can extract the transverse propagator following (15, 16).

In Fig. 3

we show the different forms of the transverse propagator $`D^{sin}`$ and its components as well as the vanishing longitudinal propagator $`F^{sin}`$. These data were obtained on a $`32^3`$ lattice for (a) $`\beta =1.0`$ and (b) $`\beta =1.8`$, with $`N_G=20`$ Gribov copies evaluated in addition to each original Monte Carlo configuration. The data at other $`\beta `$ were produced under the same conditions. In Fig. 4 the same is presented for $`D^{ang}`$, its components and non–vanishing $`F^{ang}`$.

For the angle–definition of $`A_\mu `$, the decomposition into components is strictly additive (31). We have observed that the longitudinal propagator $`F^{ang}`$ and its components are well described by a form $`F(p^2)=Pp^2`$, where $`P`$ is a constant. We find that $`F^{ang,phot}`$ essentially coincides with the full $`F^{ang}`$. The size of $`F^{ang}`$ and its photon component is of the same order of magnitude as the transverse part at $`\beta =1.0`$, while the monopole and mixed part are one order of magnitude smaller. At $`\beta =1.8`$, the size of $`F^{ang}`$ and its photon component is an order of magnitude smaller than at $`\beta =1.0`$, while the monopole and mixed part are negligible.

For the sine–definition of $`A_\mu `$, the monopole part of the transverse propagator $`D^{sin,mono}`$ has a maximum in the low momentum region (which moves more and more towards $`p^2=0`$ with higher $`\beta `$) before it drops towards $`p^2=0`$. For the angle–definition, a maximum of $`D^{ang,mono}`$ develops only for $`\beta >1.0`$.

Summarizing, we have observed that the longitudinal part $`F`$ is either zero (for the $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ definition of the gauge field in the correlator) or it is non-zero, and then it coincides with its photon part (for the $`\theta `$ definition). Therefore, at zero temperature the Landau gauge propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }^{ang}`$ is not completely transverse. This is entirely due to the difference between the definitions of the vector potential. This discrepancy, expressed by the nonvanishing $`F^{ang}`$, becomes ameliorated at higher $`\beta `$.

For both definitions of $`A_\mu `$ we find that the regular (photon) part of the transverse propagator is singular at $`p^20`$ like $`D^{phot}1/p^2`$, while the full transverse propagator is not. Following Ref. CISLetter  we try to describe the two by functions of the form

$`D(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{m^{2\alpha }}{p^{2(1+\alpha )}+m^{2(1+\alpha )}}}+C`$ (65)
and

$`D^{phot}(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{Z^{phot}}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}+C^{phot}.`$ (66)
The model function (65) is similar to some of the functions discussed in Refs. CurrentQCD ; Ma  where the propagator in gluodynamics was studied. In the case of $`T=0`$ we expect these two curves to differ at all $`\beta `$ in order to accommodate the (permanent) confinement property of the model.

Fig. 5(a) shows the anomalous dimensions $`\alpha `$ first increasing in the low–$`\beta `$ region. The anomalous dimension for the angle– and for the sine–propagator behave quite similar to each other (the dimension for the angle–propagator is a bit smaller). As $`\beta `$ gets larger than $`\beta 1.5`$ the anomalous dimensions start to descent towards zero. This indicates that the anomalous dimension is not only a function of the monopole density which decreases monotonically with growing $`\beta `$ for all values of the coupling. The (cluster) structure of the monopole configurations may play a significant role for $`\alpha `$.

In Fig. 5(b) the mass parameters $`m`$ are presented for the angle– and the sine–propagator according to (65) as function of $`\beta `$. Both masses are almost equivalent. For the mass there exists a theoretical prediction due to Polyakov Polyakov ,

$`m_{th}(\beta )=2\pi \sqrt{2\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\pi ^2\beta _V(\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }^1(0)\right\},`$ (67)
where $`\beta _V`$ is the Villain coupling constant

$`\beta _V(\beta )=\left[2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{I_0(\beta )}{I_1(\beta )}}\right)\right]^1.`$ (68)
$`I_0(\beta )`$ and $`I_1(\beta )`$ are the modified Bessel functions and $`\beta `$ is the Wilson action coupling constant appearing in (1). The prediction (67) is valid for a dilute monopole gas. The agreement between the two data sets and the theoretical curve is very good. The small deviation at lowest $`\beta `$ can be attributed to the violation of the dilute gas approximation.

Fig. 5(c) shows $`Z(\beta )`$ and $`Z^{phot}(\beta )`$ for the two definitions. We observe that $`Z`$ tends to unity at large $`\beta `$, whereas $`Z^{phot}(\beta )1`$ for all $`\beta `$. The strong deviation of $`Z`$ from unity at small $`\beta `$ can be interpreted as a field renormalization by monopoles.

The simplest quantity characterizing the monopoles is the monopole density, $`\rho =_cj_c/|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$, where the monopole charge $`j`$ is defined in Eq. (41). Note, however, that a general monopole ensemble may contain lattice artifacts which at zero temperature are realized in the form of ultraviolet monopole-antimonopole pairs. Following Ref. CISPaper1  we remove these lattice artifacts using a cluster analysis. For our purposes, clusters are defined as connected groups of monopoles and anti–monopoles, where each object is separated from at least one neighbor belonging to the same cluster by a distance less or equal to $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$. We use $`R_{\mathrm{max}}^2=3a^2`$ which means that neighboring monopole cubes should share at least one single corner. The cluster is called charged if the total charge of its constituent monopoles is non-zero. This includes isolated monopoles and anti-monopoles.

In Fig. 5(d) we plot the measured total monopole density and the density of monopoles residing in charged (physical) clusters. The charged fraction is well described by the theoretical formula for the monopole density,

$`\rho (\beta )=2\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi ^2\beta _V(\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }^1(0)\right\}.`$ (69)
which is a lattice version CISPaper1  of the Polyakov formula Polyakov . According to Fig. 5 both the monopole density, Debye mass and the deviation of the coupling $`Z`$ from unity are descending functions vanishing in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$.

The contact terms contained in $`D^{sin}`$ and $`D^{ang}`$ are not shown here. The photon part of both $`D^{sin}`$ and $`D^{ang}`$ vanishes perfectly. The full propagator in both cases contains contact terms, $`C^{sin}`$ and $`C^{ang}`$, which deviate from zero for smaller $`\beta `$, whereas always $`C^{sin}(\beta )C^{ang}(\beta )`$.

The discussion of Figs. 3 and 4 and of the $`\beta `$ dependence of the fit parameters in Fig. 5 was based on the zero-temperature propagators (and its components) obtained throughout with $`N_G=20`$ Gribov gauge copies. The dependence on the number of gauge copies was investigated carefully for the case of the angle–propagator. In the result of this study, the default choice of $`N_G=20`$ for the gauge–fixing procedure at $`T=0`$ was established.

In Fig. 6

we show different aspects of the approach to the $`N_G\mathrm{}`$ limit, for $`\beta =2.0`$ as an example. Fig. 6(a) demonstrates that the transverse propagator evaluated with 10 or 20 gauge copies is essentially the same, but that the naive evaluation (with $`N_G=0`$) would clearly overestimate the propagator over the whole momentum range. Fig. 6(b) shows this in more detail for five selected momenta. It becomes clear that the dependence is strongest in the region of small momenta, in particular the region below the peak. The dependence is strong for the singular part presented in Fig. 6(c). Again, there is almost no change between $`N_G=10`$ and 20. As can be seen from Fig. 6(d), there is almost no $`N_G`$ dependence in the photon part of the transverse propagator.

We present the resulting dependence of the fit parameters on $`N_G`$ in Fig. 7,

again for $`\beta =2.0`$. The anomalous dimension $`\alpha `$ shown in Fig. 7(a) drops within 10 % which indicates that the anomalous dimension is sensitive with respect to the minimization of the Dirac strings that is achieved by better and better Gribov copies. The mass presented in Fig. 7(b) does not change with $`N_G`$ which confirms that it is mainly determined by the monopole mass (i.e. density). 333Let us recall that the monopole positions in a given configuration are gauge independent. Fig. 7(c) shows $`Z`$ for the full transverse propagator and $`Z^{phot}`$ for the photon part. It is not surprising that the parameter associated with the photon part do not change. The parameter describing the full transverse propagator decreases, again by $`10\%`$ within $`N_G<20`$. One can also observe a slight dependence of $`Z`$ on $`N_G`$ for $`N_G>20`$. However, the dependence is indeed very small (about 1%) and not essential for our qualitative discussion.

From the comparison of the sine–propagator and the angle–propagator at zero temperature we conclude that the fits of the transverse part give more or less the same parameters, with a $`\beta `$ dependence (if appropriate) which is in accordance with the monopole density. Strict transversality itself is guaranteed only in the case of the sine–propagator. In the case of the angle–definition an appropriate transverse part has to be extracted by projection (15,16).

## VI The finite-temperature propagator in Landau gauge

In this Section we report our investigation of the properties of the gauge boson propagator at finite temperatures. With respect to the distinguished direction $`\mu =3`$, the propagator $`D`$ can be separated into transverse and longitudinal components (see Section II for the definitions) denoted as $`D_T`$ and $`D_L`$, respectively. We are working on the lattice $`32^2\times 8`$, in line with Ref. CISLetter , where only the $`D_L`$ component of the angle–type propagator (with $`p_3=0`$, $`N_G=20`$ and a limited statistics of $`500`$ measurements) was studied.

The transverse component of the propagator, $`D_T`$, describes the spatial degrees of freedom while the longitudinal component, $`D_L`$, contains gauge fields in Landau gauge in both temporal and spatial directions. The finite temperature propagator data are analyzed again for $`p_3=0`$, as a function of $`𝐩^2`$. In that case $`D_L`$ is constructed only from temporal degrees of freedom which, in particular, are responsible for the confinement phenomena. We have fitted the data for both components of the propagator using the fit function (65) invented first in Ref. CISLetter  to describe $`D_{33}`$.

First we repeated the investigation of the Gribov copy dependence of the propagator components $`D_L`$ and $`D_T`$, this time for the sine-definition of the propagator, similar to that conducted for the zero–temperature case with the angle-definition. The results are summarized in Fig. 8

at $`\beta `$ values near (below and above) the phase transition. After a few Gribov copy attempts the longitudinal component is almost insensitive to the number $`N_G`$. This can be seen from the left panel of Fig. 8. The fitting parameters $`\alpha _L`$, $`m_L`$, $`Z_L`$ and $`C_L`$ (the latter is not shown here) are rapidly converging and become almost independent of $`N_G`$ for $`N_G7`$. The results at large number of Gribov copies are not sensitive to the fact whether we have suppressed global updates (we made only local updates, see the label ”local ”) or not.

The transverse component, however, is strongly dependent on the number of Gribov copies as it can be seen from Fig. 8. All fit parameters $`\alpha _T`$, $`m_T`$ and $`Z_T`$ are descending functions of the number of Gribov copies $`N_G`$ with global updates included. At $`N_G=100`$ the plateau is not yet reached. Moreover, the results are sensitive to whether or not global updates are included, in particular at high values of $`\beta `$. The measurements with only local updates lead to significantly lower fit results. In deconfinement we would expect vanishing $`m_T`$ and $`\alpha _T`$), and $`Z_T1`$.

The reason for that behavior might be explained as follows: On one side, the ”best” gauge functional is realized in gauge–fixed configurations without Dirac lines wrapping around the lattice (predominantly in the short temporal direction). Such Dirac lines are continuously created and destroyed by the Monte Carlo process, even if global updates are not attempted. The level of “noise” due to wrapping Dirac lines is higher if global updates are included in the Monte Carlo process, which in general would improve the ergodicity of the system, but it represents a problem also if only local updates are used. The presence of wrapping Dirac strings mimics a finite $`\beta `$-independent lattice mass $`m_T`$ at larger $`\beta `$, the value of which decreases only with increasing temporal extent $`L_T`$. So in the limit of vanishing lattice spacing the dimensionful mass would diverge.

This ”Dirac noise” represents a serious challenge for the gauge fixing algorithm. The deterministic part (overrelaxing steepest descent method) described in Section IV.2 cannot remove it. Unbiased random gauge transformations applied to get new start configurations for the deterministic search for further Gribov copies are obviously not effective enough to reduce the ”Dirac noise”. A simulated annealing Monte Carlo series of random gauge transformations with the total length of Dirac strings as ”gauge action” Kerler  seems to be more appropriate for selecting new start configurations for the final steepest descent search.

Having these difficulties in mind, we decided to use in the final measurements at finite temperature, for $`\beta =2.0`$ and larger, only local updates before gauge fixing and to perform $`N_G=100`$ Gribov copy attempts. For both sine– and angle–propagator measurements deep in the confinement phase (below $`\beta =2.0`$) we used $`N_G=20`$ and global updates where the results of the zero temperature analysis for the Gribov copy dependence is applicable and the fit parameters of both $`D_L`$ and $`D_T`$ have to agree within accuracy and should be similar to those for the $`T=0`$ transverse propagator $`D`$. Nevertheless, we have to admit that the results for the transverse propagator $`D_T`$ should be understood only qualitatively.

The results for best fit parameters for $`D_L`$ and $`D_T`$ are presented in Fig. 9.

Let us begin with $`D_L`$. At the critical point both the anomalous dimension $`\alpha _L`$ and the mass $`m_L`$ vanish while the renormalization parameter $`Z_L`$ meets the corresponding parameter for the perturbative photon, $`Z_L^{phot}`$. This behaviour is characteristic for both angle and sine types of the propagator and extends our results in Ref. CISLetter . Note that also here the mass parameters for sine– and angle–propagators coincide with each other. However, the anomalous dimensions for these cases differ slightly from each other while the renormalization parameters are significantly different, and the renormalization factor for the angle–propagator is bigger than that for the sine–propagator. The latter is expected because $`|\mathrm{sin}\theta ||\theta |`$.

The corresponding quantities for $`D_T`$ behave differently for the angle– and sine–definitions of $`A_\mu `$, with the remarkable exception of the mass parameter. For example, the anomalous dimension $`\alpha _T`$ for the angle–propagator vanishes in the vicinity of the critical point and beyond, while the same quantity for the sine–propagator does not vanish. We explain this behaviour as due to insufficient gauge fixing as it can also be guessed from our previous analysis. The same reason explains the fact that the masses $`m_T`$ for both definitions of the photon propagators – being remarkably similar – are not vanishing at the critical point. Finally, for both definitions of the propagators the renormalization constants $`Z_T`$ do not approach the corresponding $`Z_T^{phot}`$ at the critical point. In order to get a reliable behaviour of $`D_T`$ part of the propagator one should drastically increase the number of Gribov copies used in the gauge fixing. For the time being this is beyond our computing capabilities. The situation could be improved using a variant of the mentioned simulated annealing Monte Carlo series of random gauge transformations in order to choose more appropriate initial gauge transformed configurations before fixing the gauge.

## VII Conclusions

We have studied the gauge boson propagator in cQED3 both at zero and non–zero temperatures. We have found that the propagators in all cases under investigation can be fitted by (65) which is the sum of the massive propagator with an anomalous dimension plus a contact term. Similarly to the case of $`D_L`$ at finite–temperature CISLetter , a nonvanishing anomalous dimension $`\alpha `$ is also found at $`T=0`$. Moreover, the fact of existence of the anomalous dimension is not associated with a particular type of gauge boson propagator. We have studied angle– and sine–types of propagators and the corresponding anomalous dimensions are nonvanishing and have a similar behaviour as the functions of $`\beta `$.

The existence of the anomalous dimension depends on the presence of the monopole plasma, but it is not directly proportional to the monopole density below $`\beta =1.5`$. In the confinement phase the monopole plasma is present at any coupling of the system and the density of monopoles is a monotonously decreasing function of the lattice coupling $`\beta `$. A similar behaviour is observed for the anomalous dimension in the case of the $`D_L`$ and $`D_T`$ propagators. The dimension $`\alpha _L`$ extracted from the $`D_L`$ component of the propagator is vanishing in the vicinity of the phase transition for both definitions (angle and sine) of the propagator. However, this does not happen for the sine–definition of the $`D_T`$ propagator. We associate this result with insufficient number of the Gribov copies used in the gauge fixing. The $`D_T`$ propagator requires many more Gribov copies for the gauge fixing than does the $`D_L`$ propagator.

Concerning the other parameters of the fits, the mass extracted from the propagator at zero temperature and from the $`D_L`$ propagator at non–zero temperature does not depend on the definition of the propagator. The mass for the $`T=0`$ case is perfectly described by the Polyakov formula. The $`m_L`$ mass vanishes at the phase transition point as was expected from the disappearance of the monopole plasma at the critical temperature. Beyond the phase transition point, the $`m_T`$ mass measured in this paper does not behave in a physical way due to the severe Gribov copy problem.

Finally let us comment on the continuum limit of the measured quantities. The continuum limit of the cQED3 corresponds to $`\beta =1/(g_3^2a)\mathrm{}`$ holding the dimensionful gauge coupling $`g_3`$ fixed. According to Polyakov, non-perturbative quantities such as the Debye mass and string tension can be expressed in terms of $`g_3`$ and the monopole density $`\rho `$, which generally might be independent quantities. However, this is not true for compact $`U(1)`$ where both $`g_3`$ and $`\rho `$ depend on a single parameter, the lattice coupling $`\beta `$. Therefore, in the limit of vanishing lattice spacing the monopole density and other non-perturbative quantities such as the Debye mass, string tension and anomalous dimension also vanish exponentially as $`\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{const}\beta \}`$ ($`cf.`$ Eqs. (67,69)). However, in more realistic models (like the Georgi-Glashow model) the monopole density and the lattice spacings are indeed independent and the monopole density should survive in the continuum limit. According to our results, this implies that in the continuum limit of such theories a non–zero anomalous dimension in the photon propagator can be expected.

## Acknowledgements

M. N. Ch. is supported by the JSPS Fellowship P01023. E.-M. I. gratefully appreciates the support by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science of Japan (Monbu-Kagaku-sho) and the hospitality extended to him by H. Toki at the RCNP of Osaka University.


format: text

text:
# 1 Variation of “order parameter” 𝜎 versus population density 𝑝, for 10⁴ iterations in 𝐿×𝐿 lattices, 𝐿=100, 300, 1000 and 5000.

Phase transition in hierarchy model of Bonabeau et al

Dietrich Stauffer1

Laboratoire PMMH, Ecole Supérieure de Physique et Chimie Industrielle, 10 rue Vauquelin, F-75231 Paris, Euroland

1 Visiting from Institute for Theoretical Physics, Cologne University, D-50923 Köln, Euroland; stauffer@thp.uni-koeln.de

The model of Bonabeau explains the emergence of social hierarchies from the memory of fights in an initially egalitarian society. Introducing a feedback from the social inequality into the probability to win a fight, we find a sharp transition between egalitarian society at low population density and hierarchical society at high population density.

Keywords: Social hierarchies, randomness, feedback, critical point

How do social hierarchies emerge in (human) society ? Bonabeau et al  explained it in the tradition of statistical physics, i.e. as random. They claimed a phase transition between egalitarian society at low population densities and hierarchical society at high population densities. Sousa and Stauffer  found this transition to be an artifact of the non-stationarity caused by their assumptions; and when the rule was changed to give stationarity, the sharp transition vanished. Now another simple rule change is shown to recover a phase transition, though at a different population density.

In the model on Bonabeau et al  people initially are all equal and are distributed randomly on a square lattice such that no two people occupy the same place, filling a fraction $`p`$ of the lattice sites. They then diffuse randomly, and whenever one person $`i`$ wants to move onto the site of person $`k`$ a fight between these two people occurs. If $`i`$ wins, then $`i`$ and $`k`$ exchange their sites on the lattice; if instead $`k`$ wins, none of the two moves. (The population density is thus kept constant during the whole evolution, and is used as an extrinsic parameter determining the final behaviour of the society: egalitarian or hierarchical.) The probability $`q`$ for $`i`$ to win is given by

$$q=1/(1+\mathrm{exp}(\eta [h(k)h(i)])$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\eta `$ is a free parameter and $`h(j)`$ counts the weighted number of victories, minus the weighted number of losses, of person $`j`$. This weight is initially unity and then decreases by ten percent at each iteration (= one attempt to move on average all people through random sequential updating). Thus the memory of past fights fades away according to an exponential rate, i.e. a finite-time memory. For low population density the memory is lost between the rare collisions; for high density the memories of the now frequent fights add up. Simulations  gave a smooth increase of the amount $`\sigma `$ of inequality with increasing density $`p`$. This amount of inequality is measured by

$$\sigma =(<q^2><q>^2)^{1/2}$$
$`(2)`$
and initially is zero if all $`q`$ are 1/2 (since all $`h=0`$).

To get a sharp transition, instead of a smooth variation, in $`\sigma (p)`$, we now replace $`\eta `$ in Eq.(1) by $`\sigma `$, i.e. we introduce a feedback of the order parameter $`\sigma `$ to the rules of the fights :

$$q=1/(1+\mathrm{exp}(\sigma [h(k)h(i)]).$$
$`(3)`$
In reality this means that losing or winning has more influence on the future in an hierarchical than in an egalitarian society. (For the first ten iterations, the factor $`\sigma `$ is omitted since then no inequalities had yet the chance to build up.) Fig.1 shows our results for lattices of sizes $`100\times 100\mathrm{}5000\times 5000`$, with a rather clear transition at a critical point $`p_c0.32`$. Fig.2 shows better data (averages over typically 64 lattices) close to the transition; it seems the order parameter jumps from zero to about 1/4 when $`p`$ increases above $`p_c`$.

We thank Suzana and Paulo Murilo de Oliveira for discussion, G. Weisbuch for help during a computer breakdown, and the Jülich supercomputer center for time on their Cray-T3E.

 E. Bonabeau, G. Theraulaz, J.L. Deneubourg, Physica A 217, 373 (1995)

 A.O. Sousa, D. Stauffer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 11, 1063 (2000)

 S. Bornholdt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 12, 667 (2001)


text:
# Bell Inequalities with Auxiliary Communication

## Abstract

What is the communication cost of simulating the correlations produced by quantum theory? We generalize Bell inequalities to the setting of local realistic theories augmented by a fixed amount of classical communication. Suppose two parties choose one of $`M`$ two-outcome measurements and exchange one bit of information. We present the complete set of inequalities for $`M=2`$, and the complete set of inequalities for the joint correlation observable for $`M=3`$. We find that correlations produced by quantum theory satisfy both of these sets of inequalities, irrespective of the particular quantum state or the specific measurements. One bit of communication is therefore sufficient to simulate quantum correlations in both of these scenarios.

What are the differences between a quantum information processing device and its classical counterpart? The discovery that quantum computers can outperform classical computers Shor (1994) has made answering this question a central goal for the field of quantum information. Nearly forty years ago, Bell Bell (1964) pointed out that the correlations resulting from quantum theory cannot be reproduced by any classical local realistic theory. It follows that quantum correlations on spacelike separated systems cannot be reproduced classically. If, however, the systems are timelike separated, then classical simulation is possible, albeit at the expense of some communication, but how much is required? In particular, suppose a number of spatially separate parties share an entangled quantum state, and each makes a local measurement on their component. Then quantum correlations are manifest in the joint probability distribution of the parties’ outcomes, dependent on each party’s choice of measurement. If this probability distribution cannot be reproduced by a classical local realistic theory, then it violates some generalized Bell inequality nosignal . This means some communication between the parties is required to reproduce the probability distribution, but Bell inequality violation does nothing to quantify how much. More generally, entanglement is a resource for performing information processing tasks, and an important goal of quantum information theory is to demarcate the difference between it and classical resources, such as shared randomness and classical communication channels. What classical resources are required to reproduce the joint probability distributions arising from local measurement on shared quantum states?

We address the above question in this Letter. Within the setting of local realistic theories augmented by a fixed amount of two-way classical communication Brassard et al. (1999), we introduce the notion of Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication. These inequalities provide conditions on the joint probability distribution, which must be satisfied if such correlations can be simulated with shared randomness and a fixed amount of communication. Of particular significance are complete sets of such inequalities, which provide necessary and sufficient conditions. In the scenario where two parties choose one of $`M`$ two-outcome measurements and exchange one bit of information, we present the complete set of inequalities for $`M=2`$, and the complete set of inequalities for the joint correlation observable for $`M=3`$. We find that quantum correlations satisfy all of these inequalities, irrespective of the particular quantum state or the specific measurements, and can therefore be explained in these settings by augmenting a local realistic theory with a single bit of communication. This is particularly remarkable for the $`M=3`$ case, where one would naively expect a trit of auxiliary communication is required to simulate quantum correlations.

The model.— We restrict attention to scenarios with two parties, $`A`$ and $`B`$. In a measurement scenario for this bipartite case, each party selects one of $`M`$ different measurements and then—possibly after some delay, during which we might allow the parties to communicate—outputs one of $`K`$ different outcomes. (Note that $`A`$ and $`B`$ may choose measurements from different $`M`$-element sets.) Such a measurement scenario results in a set of probabilities $`0p_{a,b|i,j}1`$, where $`p_{a,b|i,j}`$ is the probability that $`A`$ outputs $`a`$ and $`B`$ outputs $`b`$, given that $`A`$ selects measurement $`i`$ and $`B`$ selects measurement $`j`$. Discounting null outcomes (which can be incorporated as a separate outcome if desired), it follows that $`_{a=0}^{K1}_{b=0}^{K1}p_{a,b|i,j}=1`$, where $`0i,jM1`$. A valid measurement scenario is any set of probabilities which satisfy these normalization constraints.

Given a particular measurement scenario, we investigate all protocols which the two parties might perform to produce the correct probabilities. A protocol consists of three stages: (i) preparation via the distribution of shared randomness, (ii) communication via the exchange of messages between the parties, and (iii) output of outcomes by each party as determined by information accessible to each party. $`A`$ and $`B`$ select their measurements after step (i) but before step (ii). If a protocol produces identical probabilities to the measurement scenario, then we say that the protocol has simulated the scenario.

Two informational resources are of interest: the quantity of shared randomness and the amount of communication between the parties. We focus on the amount of communication and define the cost of a protocol to be the maximum amount of communication required (as opposed to the average amount of communication, see Cerf et al. (2000)). In the preparation phase of a protocol, we allow $`A`$ and $`B`$ to share an infinite amount of classical information and, in particular, continuous variables. In the parlance of foundational studies of quantum theory, these are known as local hidden variables (LHVs) Bell (1993). A protocol with no communication (step (ii) missing) is usually called a LHV theory. In such a theory, each party’s output depends on the shared randomness and on which measurement the particular party has locally selected, but not on the measurement choice of the other party.

The protocols we investigate are therefore an extension of LHV theories, where we allow the parties to communicate after selecting measurements Brassard et al. (1999). This allows some “which-measurement” information to propagate between the parties. We emphasize that a protocol of this form simulates the joint probability distribution resulting from a set of quantum measurements, *but not* the quantum measurements themselves: it is not possible to replace local measurements made by two spacelike separated parties on an entangled quantum state by classical communication. Even in this case, however, the amount of two-way communication required to reproduce the joint probability distribution provides a measure of the nonlocality of the correlations. From an information processing perspective, this model provides a fair setting for the comparison of quantum correlations and classical resources required to reproduce them.

Of particular significance in this respect is the result of Brassard, Cleve, and Tapp Brassard et al. (1999), who demonstrated that the correlations produced by two-outcome projective measurements on an EPR pair can be simulated by a local realistic theory augmented by eight bits of communication. Surprisingly, we have recently shown that a single bit of communication is sufficient Toner and Bacon (2002).

Little, however, is known for more general states and more general measurements. The goal of this paper is to illuminate how such bounds can be achieved by generalizing Bell inequalities to what we term, Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication.

Bell polytopes.—Bell inequalities Bell (1964); Clauser et al. (1969) describe necessary conditions on the probabilities $`p_{a,b|i,j}`$, which must be satisfied if these probabilities are to be produced by a local realistic theory. When a set of these conditions is also sufficient, we say that we have a complete set of Bell inequalities. The construction of complete sets of Bell inequalities is an exercise in convex geometry Friossart (1981). In this section, we briefly sketch the construction for Bell inequalities without auxiliary communication.

Consider a deterministic protocol, i.e., one in which no randomness, shared or otherwise, is used. (This corresponds to a protocol consisting only of step (iii) above, with the additional requirement that this step is deterministic.) Each party’s output can only depend on their local which-measurement information, so that all such protocols can be completely characterized by two functions $`\alpha ,\beta :_M_K`$, which describe the outcomes of the two parties’ measurements: if $`A`$ selects measurement $`i`$, she outputs $`\alpha (i)`$ and if $`B`$ selects measurement $`j`$, he outputs $`\beta (j)`$. The probabilities for the scenario are then $`p_{a,b|i,j}=\delta _{\alpha (i)}^a\delta _{\beta (j)}^b`$.

By listing the components, we may view the probabilities $`p_{a,b|i,j}`$ as vectors $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ in $`^D`$ with $`D=M^2(K^21)`$ (recall the constraint $`_{a,b}p_{a,b|i,j}=1`$). To each pair of functions $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$, there corresponds a deterministic protocol, so the set of all deterministic protocols is a finite collection of such vectors $`\{\stackrel{}{d}_\zeta |\zeta =1,\mathrm{},K^{2M}\}`$.

Now consider the effect of allowing randomness. Any unshared randomness can always be replaced by shared randomness on which the other party does not act Kushilevitz and Nisan (1997), so we may continue to assume step (iii) is deterministic. But then every set of random variables in step (i) corresponds to a particular deterministic protocol. Therefore the set of all possible protocols which use randomness and no communication is described by a convex sum of the deterministic protocols without communication

$$\stackrel{}{p}=\underset{\zeta }{}\lambda _\zeta \stackrel{}{d}_\zeta ,\underset{\zeta }{}\lambda _\zeta =1,\lambda _\zeta 0.$$
(1)
The set of all protocols therefore corresponds to a region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}`$ in $`^D`$, which is a polytope because there are a finite number of extreme vectors $`\stackrel{}{d}_\zeta `$ Rockafellar (1970). This permits an alternative description: instead of describing the polytope $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}`$ as the convex combination of a finite set of extreme points, we can instead describe it by specifying a complete (finite) set of facet inequalities. A facet inequality is a pair $`\{\stackrel{}{f},c\}`$ which defines a half-space of $`^D`$ via the inequality $`\stackrel{}{f}\stackrel{}{p}c`$. Complete sets of facet inequalities $`\stackrel{}{f}_\eta ,c_\eta `$ are satisfied if and only if $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}`$:

$`\stackrel{}{p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}\mathrm{iff}\stackrel{}{f}_\eta \stackrel{}{p}c_\eta ,\eta .`$ (2)
Each facet is therefore a Bell inequality and complete sets of facet inequalities are complete sets of Bell inequalities. Complete sets are known in the two party case when $`M=2,K=2`$ Fine (1982), $`M=3,K=2`$ Pitowsky and Svozil (2001), and also when extra symmetry constraints are imposed Garg and Mermin (1984).

Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication.—We now turn to the main focus of our Letter: extending the formalism of Bell inequalities to protocols which permit communication after the parties have chosen their measurements. Again consider a deterministic protocol, but now allow for the communication (possibly two way) of at most $`r`$ bits of information between the parties after selection of measurements. Such a protocol is completely characterized by two functions $`\alpha ,\beta :_M_M_K`$, which describe the outcomes of the two parties’ measurements, but now each party’s output can also depend on which measurement the other party selects: if $`A`$ selects measurement $`i`$ and $`B`$ measurement $`j`$, $`A`$ outputs $`\alpha (i,j)`$ and $`B`$ outputs $`\beta (i,j)`$. The probabilities for such a deterministic protocol are then $`p_{a,b|i,j}=\delta _{\alpha (i,j)}^a\delta _{\beta (i,j)}^b`$. While $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can now depend on which measurement the other party selects, not all functions $`\alpha (i,j)`$, $`\beta (i,j)`$ are necessarily accessible, if the parties exchange at most $`r`$ bits of communication. The set of possible functions $`\alpha (i,j)`$, $`\beta (i,j)`$ for protocols which use at most $`r`$ bits of communication is the subject of the field of communication complexity Yao (1979); Kushilevitz and Nisan (1997). For example, with a single bit of communication from $`A`$ to $`B`$, $`\alpha (i,j)`$ is independent of $`B`$’s measurement $`j`$ and $`\beta (i,j)`$ can depend only on a partition of the set of possible $`i`$’s into two sets. Despite this complication, deterministic protocols still correspond to a finite set of vectors of probabilities $`\stackrel{}{d}_\zeta ^{(r)}`$ in $`^D`$.

If we now allow randomness, the set of accessible probabilities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}^{(r)}`$ is given by the convex combination of the deterministic probabilities, $`\stackrel{}{p}=_\zeta \lambda _\zeta \stackrel{}{d}_\zeta ^{(r)},_\zeta \lambda _\zeta =1,\lambda _\zeta 0`$. Again, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}^{(r)}`$ is a convex combination of a finite number of extreme points—a polytope—and can be described by a finite set of facet inequalities: $`\stackrel{}{p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}^{(r)}\mathrm{iff}\stackrel{}{f}_\eta ^{(r)}\stackrel{}{p}c_\eta ,\eta `$. The complete set of facet inequalities for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}^{(r)}`$ is a complete set of Bell inequalities with $`r`$ bits of communication. An important limit arises when $`r2\mathrm{log}_2M`$ because then each party can tell the other exactly which measurement they have selected. In this setting, all deterministic protocols can be executed by the two parties: the probability distribution $`p_{a,b|i,j}`$ is unrestricted. This implies that Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication are trivial when $`M=1`$.

Additionally, for $`r\mathrm{log}_2M`$, Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication, although not necessarily trivial, are never violated by probability distributions arising from local measurements on a shared quantum state. In fact this is true for any probability distribution satisfying the no–one-way–signaling conditions nosignal , $`p_{a|i,j}_{b=0}^{K1}p_{a,b|i,j}=p_{a|i},`$ is independent of $`j`$ for all $`a`$ and $`i`$: A’s marginal probability distribution is independent of B’s choice of measurement. In such cases, it is sufficient that only A communicate her measurement choice. The simulation procedure is as follows: for each of A’s measurements $`i`$, the parties share a random variable $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i`$ drawn from the probability distribution $`\{a,p_{a|i}\}`$ (i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i=a`$ with probability $`p_{a|i}`$). Suppose A chooses measurement $`i`$ and B chooses measurement $`j`$. A outputs $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i`$ and sends her measurement choice $`i`$ to $`B`$. B then outputs $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\stackrel{~}{a}_i,i,j}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{a,i,j}`$ is drawn from the probability distribution $`\{b,p_{\stackrel{~}{a}_i,b|i,j}\}`$. (The roles of A and B in the no–one-way–signaling conditions and protocol may be reversed.)

A complete set of Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication.—Consider the simplest case $`M=K=2`$ and $`r=1`$ bit. The polytope $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2,2}^{(1)}`$ is $`12`$ dimensional and has $`112`$ extreme vectors. Using both the primal-dual algorithm and the double description method facets  for facet enumeration, we find that this polytope has $`48`$ facets. $`16`$ facets describe trivial inequalities, $`p_{a,b|i,j}0`$ ($`0i,j,a,b1`$). Another $`16`$ facets are of the form

$$p_{a_1,b_1|0,0}+p_{a_2,b_2|0,1}+p_{a_3,b_3|1,0}+p_{a_4,b_4|1,1}2$$
(3)
with $`(a_1a_2a_3a_4)\{(0101),(1010),(0110),(1001)\}`$ and $`(b_1b_2b_3b_4)\{(0011),(1100),(0110),(1001)\}`$. The remaining $`16`$ facets are given by

$$p_{a,0|i,j}+p_{a,1|i,j}+p_{0,b|\overline{i},\overline{j}}+p_{1,b|\overline{i},\overline{j}}p_{a,b|i,\overline{j}}0$$
(4)
($`0i,j,a,b1`$) where $`\overline{0}=1`$ and $`\overline{1}=0`$. The above inequalities completely describe the region of probability distributions that can be created with one bit of communication. There are probability distributions which violate these inequalities: for example, if $`p_{a,b|i,j}=\delta _j^a\delta _i^b`$, Eq. (3) with $`(a_1a_2a_3a_4)=(0101)`$ and $`(b_1b_2b_3b_4)=(0011)`$ is maximally violated: substitution gives $`42`$.

It is straightforward to check that any probability distribution satisfying the no-signaling conditions satisfies inequalities Eq. (3) and Eq. (4). Finally, consider the probability distribution $`p_{a,b|i,j}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta _0^a\delta _i^b+\delta _j^a\delta _0^b\right)`$. This probability distribution violates the no-signaling conditions (in both directions), but satisfies Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), thus indicating that these inequalities are strictly stronger than no-signaling.

A complete set of Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication for the joint observable.—The above complete Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication were used to bound the allowed probabilities $`p_{a,b|i,j}`$ for protocols using a specified amount of communication. In quantum theory we are often interested not in all of the probabilities for a measurement scenario, but only on the value of a particular joint observable. This simplifies our computational task, because we may project the polytope $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MK}^{(r)}`$ onto a lower-dimensional subspace and only enumerate the facets of the projected polytope, as we shall explain in the following. We term a complete set of facet inequalities for this convex set a complete set of Bell joint observable inequalities with auxiliary communication. These generalize the CHSH inequality Clauser et al. (1969) to protocols with communication.

Consider a measurement scenario with probabilities $`p_{a,b|i,j}`$ and identify measurement outcomes with values of local observables. The joint observable for the $`i`$th and $`j`$th measurements of $`A`$ and $`B`$ is then defined as

$$c_{i,j}=\underset{a=0}{\overset{K1}{}}\underset{b=0}{\overset{K1}{}}A_aB_bp_{a,b|i,j},$$
(5)
where $`A_a`$ and $`B_b`$ are the values of the local observable corresponding to measurement outcomes $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively. As for the full measurement scenario, we may list the components of the joint observable to form a vector $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ in $`^D`$ with $`D=M^2`$ (compare $`D=M^2(K^21)`$ for the full probability distribution). For deterministic protocols with at most $`r`$ bits of communication, the allowed functions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the same as in the previous section, but now correspond to vectors with components $`c_{i,j}=A_{\alpha (i,j)}B_{\beta (i,j)}`$. Since the map given by Eq. (5) is linear, the vectors corresponding to joint observables accessible using randomness remain convex combinations of the vectors accessible via deterministic protocols.

We now specialize to the scenario where each party has local $`\pm 1`$-valued observables ($`K=2`$) and they exchange $`r=1`$ bit of communication. The joint correlation observable then has components $`c_{i,j}=p_{0,0|i,j}+p_{1,1|i,j}p_{0,1|i,j}p_{1,0|i,j}`$. If $`M=2`$, we obtain only trivial inequalities $`1c_{i,j}1`$. That the inequalities are trivial also follow from Eqs. (3) and (4), for in this scenario all possible joint observables can be obtained from probability distributions that satisfy the no-signaling conditions poptsi .

If $`M=3`$, the polytope has $`320`$ extreme vectors. Using both the primal-dual algorithm and double description method for facet enumeration facets  we find that this polytope has $`498`$ facets. $`18`$ of these describe the trivial inequalities $`1c_{i,j}1`$. The remaining $`480`$ facets can be described by the inequalities

$$\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{2}{}}M_{i,j}c_{i,j}1$$
(6)
where $`M_{i,j}`$ is either

$$M_1=\frac{1}{6}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),M_2=\frac{1}{11}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 2& 2\\ 2& 1& 2\\ 2& 2& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
or any matrix obtained from these two matrices by (i) permuting the rows and/or columns of the matrix and/or (ii) multiplying any subset of the rows and columns of the matrix by $`1`$. The full set of inequalities is a complete set of Bell joint observable inequalities for $`M=3`$.

Let us show that quantum theory satisfies all of the above Bell joint observable inequalities with auxiliary communication. We do this for a single one of the inequalities and the other inequalities all follow by a similar argument. For $`\pm 1`$ valued observables $`𝐀_i`$ and $`𝐁_j`$ and the joint quantum state $`𝝆`$, a particular inequality looks like $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝝆𝐓_i\right]1`$, where $`𝐓_i`$ is the operator corresponding to matrix $`M_i`$, e.g., $`𝐓_1=[𝐀_1(𝐁_2+𝐁_3)+𝐀_2(𝐁_1+𝐁_2+𝐁_3)+𝐀_3(𝐁_1+𝐁_2+𝐁_3)]/6`$. $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝝆𝐓\right]`$ is bounded by the sup norm of $`𝐓`$, $`|𝐓|=sup_{|\psi }𝐓|\psi /|\psi `$ and further $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝝆𝐓\right]|𝐓^k|^{1/k}`$. Calculation of $`𝐓^k`$ yields a polynomial in $`𝐀_i`$, $`𝐁_i`$ and $`𝐈`$. Since $`|𝐗+𝐘||𝐗|+|𝐘|`$ and $`|𝐏|1`$ for any product $`𝐏`$ of $`𝐀_i`$, $`𝐁_i`$, and $`𝐈`$, it follows that $`|𝐓^k|`$ is less than or equal to the sum of the absolute value of the coefficients in the polynomial expansion of $`𝐓^k`$. By computer calculation we find that the sum of the absolute value of the coefficients of $`𝐓_1^4`$ is $`\frac{155}{162}`$ so that $`|𝐓_1|\sqrt[4]{\frac{155}{162}}`$. Thus this Bell inequality with auxiliary communication is satisfied. Similar arguments using $`𝐓_1^4`$ or $`𝐓_2^5`$ show that all of the inequalities Eq. (6) are satisfied. Therefore in the scenario where each party chooses one of three two-outcome measurements, a single bit of communication is sufficient to simulate the joint correlation observable in quantum theory for all quantum states and all quantum observables.

Conclusion.—Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication are a powerful new tool for understanding the cost of producing quantum correlations. Surprisingly, in all the cases we considered, it was sufficient to augment local realistic theories with a single bit of communication to simulate the quantum correlations. It remains a challenge to find a Bell inequality with auxiliary communication that is violated by a quantum state and set of quantum measurements note .

Acknowledgements.—We would like to acknowledge conversations with Allison Coates and the comments of an anonymous referee. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant EIA-0086038.