format: text

text:
# 1 Diffferent cases of 2-loop 𝑚-integrals: dashed lines are massless; solid lines have mass 𝑚.

A CLOSED ANALYTICAL FORMULA
FOR TWO-LOOP MASSIVE TADPOLES WITH
ARBITRARY TENSOR NUMERATORS(1)(1)(1)Published in in: New Computing Techniques in Physics Research III, eds. K.-H. Becks and D. Perret-Gallix (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994), p. 559.
K.G. CHETYRKIN

Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Moscow, 117312, Russia
ABSTRACT

Using the integration by parts method we derive a closed analytical expression for the result of the integration of an arbitrary dimensionally regulated tadpole diagram composed of a massless propagator and two massive ones, each raised into an arbitrary power, and including an arbitrary tensor numerator. We also briefly discuss the implementation of the formula in the algebraic manipulation language of FORM. 1. Introduction Feynman integrals (FI) with complicated tensor numerators are usually difficult to work with. Even in the cases when they are known to be analytically calculable in principle, in practical terms their evaluation often implies a tedious, time-consuming and error-prone labour of reducing the problem to the calculation of a host of properly constructed scalar integrals. Moreover, the number of the latter integrals grows very fast as the numerator’s structure gets more complicated.

There exist only a few examples when the task is completely solved. A good example is provided with the so-called $`p`$-integrals, that is completely massless Feynman integrals depending on only one external momentum. Here the explicit result is known for one-loop integrals$`^\text{1}`$, while, say, a given three-loop tensor $`p`$-integral can be done by employing a rather cumbersome and time-costly method of harmonic projections$`^\text{2}`$.

In this talk we discuss another useful class of Feynman integrals — integrals without external momenta at all but comprising massive lines(2)(2)(2)It is understood that all the massive propagators depend on one and the same mass $`m`$. as well as massless ones. They will be referred to as $`m`$-integrals. Such integrals naturally appear in many problems where the mass $`m`$ may be treated as a ”heavy” one, much larger than all other mass scales involved.

In the one-loop case $`m`$-integrals are rather trivial and we shall concentrate on two-loop $`m`$-integrals pictured in Fig. 1. 2-loop $`m`$-integrals with only one massive line (Fig. 1a ) may be reduced to 1-loop case after firstly integrating the 1-loop p-subintegral. 2-loop $`m`$-integrals with more than 1 massive lines (Fig. 1b,c) are not so easy to do. We show how the use of the integration by parts method leads to a simple and general result for arbitrary (not necessarily scalar) two-loop $`m`$-integral with two massive and one massless line (see Fig. 1b). In principle, our method allows also to reduce a tensor integral with 3 massive lines of Fig. 1c to a similar scalar integral. The latter can probably be done (at least in some particular cases) again through integration by parts$`^\text{3}`$. But to the best of our knowledge no explicit integration formula for this integral exists if the powers of all three propagators are arbitrary.

2. Setting the problem We begin with a bit more complicated FI of the same topology as shown in Fig. 1b but with a non-zero external momentum $`q`$. The corresponding analytical expression reads (in Euclidean space)

$$\frac{1}{\left(\pi ^2\right)^{2ϵ}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^D\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{d}^D\mathrm{}_2𝒫\left(p\right)}{\left(p_1^2+m^2\right)^\alpha \left(p_2^2+m^2\right)^\beta \left(p_3^2\right)^\gamma }$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$ are the loop momenta, $`p=\{p_1,p_2,p_3\}`$ are the propagator momenta and $`𝒫()`$ is a tensor nominator. We shall deal with three possibilities of expressing the momenta $`p`$ in terms of the loop momenta and the external momentum, viz.,

$`p_1=\mathrm{}_1+q,p_2=\mathrm{}_2,p_3=\left(\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2\right),`$ (2)
$`p_1=\mathrm{}_1,p_2=\mathrm{}_2+q,p_3=\left(\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2\right),`$ (3)
$`p_1=\mathrm{}_1,p_2=\mathrm{}_2,p_3=q\left(\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2\right).`$ (4)
In a particular case of $`𝒫()1,q=0`$ the result for Eq. (1) is known$`^\text{4}`$

$$\text{(Eq. (}\text{1}\text{) with }𝒫\left(p\right)1\text{, and }q=0)=(m^2\left)^{D\alpha \beta \gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D/2\gamma \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D/2\right)}M\right(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )$$

with

$$M(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +\gamma D/2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta +\gamma D/2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +\beta +\gamma D\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +\beta +2\gamma D\right)}.$$
(5)
Our aim is to generalize this result on the case of arbitrary tensor polynomial $`𝒫(p)`$, still keeping $`q=0`$. To simplify the formulas we shall set $`m=1`$ below. 2. Solution through the integration by parts method As is well known within dimensional regularization the value of the FI Eq. (1) does not depend on specifying the propagator momenta and all three choices (2-4) are completely equivalent. The fact can be conveniently expressed through some differential identities. The essence of the integration by part method for dimensionally regulated Feynman integrals consists of the use of such identities in order to simplify integrals to be computed$`^\text{1}`$.

Let us try to apply the method in our case. It is convenient to write eq. Eq. (1) in a condensed form as follows

$$\text{eq. Eq. (}\text{1}\text{)}=𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )$$
(6)
and to introduce four differential operators acting on Eq. (6)

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_i^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{p_i^\mu },i=1,2,3\text{and}\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{q^\mu }.$$

Explicitly, one has

$$I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D/2\gamma \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D/2\right)}M(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^\mu \left(𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )\right)=\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{p_i^\mu }𝒫\left(p\right)\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )\alpha _i𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha +\delta _{1i},\beta +\delta _{2i},\gamma +\delta _{3i})p_i^\mu ,\\ \stackrel{~}{q}^\mu \left(𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )\right)=\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{p_3^\mu }𝒫\left(p\right)\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )\gamma 𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma +1)p_3^\mu ,\end{array}$$
(7)
with $`\alpha _1=\alpha ,\alpha _2=\beta ,\alpha _3=\gamma `$. The equivalence of the three momentum patterns (2-4) may now be expressed as a chain of identities

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_1^\mu 𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\stackrel{~}{p}_2^\mu 𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\stackrel{~}{p}_3^\mu 𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu 𝒫\left(p\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ).$$
(8)
These equalities allow us to evaluate immediately an integral of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{2n}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}\right)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )|_{_{q=0}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D/2\gamma \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D/2\right)}\left\{\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}}{4}\right)^n\stackrel{~}{𝒫}\left(\stackrel{~}{q}\right)_{2n}\right\}\frac{()^n\left(\gamma \right)_n}{n!\left(2ϵ\right)_n}M(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma +n),$$
(9)
with the Pochhammer symbol $`(a)_n=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a+n\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a\right)}`$, $`D=42ϵ`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{2n}(\stackrel{~}{p})`$ being an arbitrary tensor in $`\stackrel{~}{p}=\{\stackrel{~}{p}_1,\stackrel{~}{p}_2,\stackrel{~}{p}_3\}`$ of rank $`2n`$. Indeed, in view of Eq. (8) we may freely replace $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{2n}(\stackrel{~}{p})`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{2n}(\stackrel{~}{q})\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{2n}(\stackrel{~}{p_1}=\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{p_2}=\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{p_3}=\stackrel{~}{q}).`$ Now the result Eq. (9) comes from three simple observations:

(i) The integral $`I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is a scalar function of $`q`$ and thus only the scalar component of the polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{2n}(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ (that is proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{q}^{2n}`$) will survive after setting $`\stackrel{~}{q}=0`$ in the very end of the calculation.

(ii) $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}}{4}\right)^n(\stackrel{~}{q})^n=n!(2ϵ)_n`$.

(iii) $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}}{4}\right)^n\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^{2\gamma }}=(\gamma )_n(\gamma 1+ϵ)_n\frac{1}{\left(\stackrel{~}{q}^2\right)^{\gamma +n}}=()^n(\gamma )_n(2ϵ\gamma n)_n\frac{1}{\left(\stackrel{~}{q}^2\right)^{\gamma +n}}`$.

Thus we are left with the task of finding a representation of the initial integral Eq. (1) as a linear combinations of integrals of the form displayed in Eq. (9). The problem is solved by the use of the following identity

$$𝒫_n\left(q\right)f\left(q^2\right)=\underset{\sigma =0}{\overset{\left[n/2\right]}{}}\frac{()^\sigma }{4^\sigma \sigma !}\left\{\mathrm{}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^\sigma 𝒫_n\left(\stackrel{~}{q}\right)\right\}f^{\left(n+\sigma \right)}\left(q^2\right)$$
(10)
where $`f(x)`$ is an arbitrary smooth function of x and $`f^{(n)}(x)`$ is defined in such a way that

$$\frac{d}{dx}f^{\left(n\right)}\left(x\right)f^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(x\right).$$
(11)
It should be clear now that once the initial integral Eq. (1) has been expressed as a linear combinations of integrals of the form Eq. (9) it may be done without any problem. Indeed, without essential loss of generality we may assume that the polynomial $`𝒫(p)=𝒫_{n_1,n_2}(p)`$ does not depend on $`p_3`$ and meets the following homogeneity equation:

$$𝒫_{n_1,n_2}(\lambda _1p_1,\lambda _2p_2)\lambda _1^{n_1}\lambda _2^{n_2}𝒫_{n_1,n_2}(p_1,p_2).$$

Now a direct application of Eq. (8), Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) gives

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫_{n_1,n_2}(p_1,p_2)I(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D/2\gamma \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\beta \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D/2\right)}\underset{\sigma _3=0}{\overset{\left[\left(n_1+n_2\right)/2\right]}{}}\underset{\sigma _2=0}{\overset{\left[n_2/2\right]}{}}\underset{\sigma _1=0}{\overset{\left[n_1/2\right]}{}}\frac{\left(\gamma \right)_{\sigma _3}}{\sigma _3!\left(2ϵ\right)_{\sigma _3}}M(\alpha +\sigma _1n_1,\beta +\sigma _2n_2,\gamma +\sigma _3)\\ \frac{()^{\left(n_1+n_2+\sigma _3\right)}}{4^{\left(\sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3\right)}\sigma _1!\sigma _2!}\left\{\mathrm{}_{p_3}^{\sigma _3}\left\{\mathrm{}_{p_2}^{\sigma _2}\mathrm{}_{p_1}^{\sigma _1}𝒫_{n_1,n_2}(p_1,p_2)\right\}|_{_{p_1=p_2=p_3}}\right\}|_{_{p_3=0}}\end{array}$$
(12)
which is the formula we wanted.

The algebraic structure of Eq. (12) is very similar to that of the corresponding formula for 1-loop $`p`$-integrals in$`^\text{1}`$. This observation has allowed us to perform a simple algebraic programming of Eq. (12) in FORM$`^\text{5}`$ by closely following the routine ONE.PRC from the package MINCER$`^\text{2}`$. 5. Acknowledgments  I appreciate the warm hospitality of Institute of Theoretical Particle Physics at the Karlsruhe University where this work has been finished. I thank Mrs. M. Frasure and A. Kwiatkowski for their help in preparing the manuscript. A stipendium from the HERAUES-stiftung is gratefully acknowledged. 6. References


text:
# On local equilibrium equations for clustering states

## 1 Introduction

Statistical mechanics of complex systems, in the limit where the number $`N`$ of degrees of freedom goes to infinity, has been widely investigated in these recent years . A crucial role is played by the local equilibrium states: often a system is declared complex only if the the number of local equilibrium states is exponentially large. Intuitively we would say that there are many local equilibrium states if the configuration space breaks down into many unconnected (or connected through channels of low probability) clusters of configurations. The breaking of the configuration space into an exponential number of clusters corresponds to the breaking of the replica symmetry and it is one of the crucial phenomena described by the replica approach .

It should be possible to make a precise mathematical statement that corresponds to the intuitive notion of having an exponentially large number of states in the limit $`N`$ going to infinity. Unfortunately a mathematical precise definition of a local equilibrium state for a given system with large $`N`$ is not easy, especially when the number of a local equilibrium states is very large. A tentative definition of a local equilibrium state has been done using dynamical ideas . One introduce a *natural* dependence of the configurations on the time and a local equilibrium state is a region where the system may remain for an exponentially large time.

This definition may be adequate for some purposes, but it is not so natural as far as it can be done only after the introduction of a dynamics. Often one try to associate local equilibrium states to solutions of the local equilibrium equations.

The local equilibrium equations are called in the literature under different names in different contexts: in statistical mechanics they are the TAP equations , in optimization problems the finite temperature TAP equations correspond to the ‘Sum-Product” algorithm and the zero temperature limit of the TAP equations are the belief propagation equations that correspond to “Min-Sum” algorithm .

One difficulty with the approach based on the local equilibrium equations is that at the present moment we do not have a clear idea if these equations do have a solution and, if solutions do exist, how are they related to local equilibrium states.

The aim of this note is to get a better understanding of these matters; this will be done by presenting explicit solutions (or quasi solutions) of the local equilibrium equations at zero temperature. This will be done for problems defined on a random graph with a finite number of edges starting from each node. The situation in infinite range models, like the Sherrington Kirkpatrick model, is likely different.

These ideas have been used to study problems defined on random graphs. The prototype of a random graph we will consider in this paper is a randomly chosen graph among all possible graphs with $`N`$ nodes and $`M=\alpha N`$ links.

The same considerations can be done also for other problems, like the k-satisfiability, where similar computations have been done.

## 2 Coloring a colorable graph

### 2.1 Whitening a colored graph

Let us consider a graph with $`N`$ nodes and $`M=\alpha N`$ links. Our task is to color it by assigning a color to each node in such a way that two adjacent nodes have different color. The number of colors is fixed and it is equal to $`q`$.

The interesting situation is where the graph is colorable in many different way (i.e. much large of $`q!`$). If the graph is colorable, we are interested in knowing its entropy density $`S`$ ($`NS`$ is the total entropy) defined by

$$\mathrm{\#}(coloring)=\mathrm{exp}(NS).$$
(1)
For a colorable graph our aim is to associate to each coloring a solution of the local equilibrium equations, that will be defined later. We proceed in the following way. A coloring is a function $`c(i)`$, where $`i`$ is a node and $`c(i)`$ can takes integer values in the interval $`[1q]`$. The coloring is legal if $`c(i)c(j)`$ for all nodes adjacent to $`i`$.

Starting from a legal coloring we can introduce a whitening procedure. We examine each node. We have two possibilities:

* The color of the node is blocked and it cannot be changed producing a legal coloring: this happens if the node has neighbours with exactly $`q1`$ different (non-white) colors.
* The color of the node is *not* blocked and it can take at least two different legal colors: this happens if the node has neighbours with *less* than $`q1`$ different (non-white) colors.

We assign to the node $`i`$ the white color (conventionally 0) if we can produce a legal coloring by changing the color of the node $`i`$ without changing the color of the adjacent nodes (i.e. in the second case). This procedure is repeated by considering the non-white adjacent nodes until no nodes can be whitened 111Similar ideas are common in the literature: sometimes white node are called *spin fou.*. In the approach of  their cavity fields are zero. They play an important role and they are called jokers in )..

In other words a coloring is legal if

$$\delta _{c(i),c(j)}=0jA(i),$$
(2)
where $`A(i)`$ is the set of nodes adjacent to $`i`$. A whitening $`w(i)`$ can takes integer values in the interval $`[0q]`$; it is legal if

$$w(i)w(j)\delta _{w(i),w(j)}=0jA(i).$$
(3)
A whitening is extremal if it cannot be whitened. In this way we associate to each coloring an extremal whitening. It is crucial that at each step the number of white nodes increases, so that the whitening procedure must stop somewhere.

It is possible to prove that the extremal whitening associated to a coloring is unique, i.e. it does not depend on the order in which we perform the whitening. Extremal whitenings satisfy simple local equations: a node is white if the adjacent nodes have less than $`q1`$ different non-white colors; a node is of the appropriate color if the adjacent nodes have exactly $`q1`$ different non-white colors.

It is clear that sometimes the whitening produces a configuration where all nodes are white while in other cases we end in configurations in which some nodes are colored. The whitening process is supposed to evidentiate those nodes that are essential in the coloring (i.e. the nodes that remain non-white); this extends the notion of core introduced in . We expect that in many cases a very large number of different legal coloring ends in the same extremal whitening.

There are many questions that can be posed.

* If an extremal whitening is obtained by whitening a legal coloring, how difficult is the reconstruction of a legal coloring starting from the whitening? Intuitively is should be easier that starting from scratch, but it is not easy to quantify it.
* Are there solutions to the local equilibrium equations for an extremal whitening that cannot be obtained by whitening a legal coloring?

The rational for introducing the whitenings is to extract some common properties from a some wide class of coloring (it extends the notion of core introduced in . It is easy to argue that in the general case there is an exponentially large number of different legal coloring that produce the same extremal whitening.

### 2.2 Directional coloring and directional whitening

A directional coloring is a function $`c(i|k)`$, where $`kA(i)`$, that takes values in the interval $`[1q]`$. It is a legal directional coloring if

$$\delta _{c(i|k),c(j|m)}=0jA(i)\text{and}jkmA(j)\text{and}mi.$$
(4)
In some sense $`c(i|k)`$ is a color that the node $`i`$ could have in absence of the adjacent node $`k`$.

If we set

$$c(i|k)=c(i)$$
(5)
and $`c(i)`$ is a legal coloring, $`c(i|k)`$ is a legal directional coloring. In the same way a directional whitening is a similar function $`w(i|k)`$ that takes values in the interval $`[0q]`$. It is a legal whitening if

$$w(i|k)w(j|i)\delta _{w(i|k),w(j|m)}=0,jA(i)\text{and}jkmA(j)\text{and}mi.$$
(6)
We can now start from a legal coloring, we produce a legal directional coloring and we begin a whitening procedure where a $`w(i|k)`$ is set to zero if we can produce an other legal directional whitening by changing the color $`w(i|k)`$ without changing the color of the adjacent nodes. The procedure goes on up to the point where we reach an extremal directional whitening.

Also in this case an extremal directional whitening can be characterized by local equations: it a legal whitening and it cannot be whitened; $`w(i|k)`$ is not white if and only if there are exactly $`q1`$ different non-white colors in the set formed by $`w(j|m)`$ with $`jA(i)`$, $`mA(j)`$, $`jk`$ and $`jm`$. The local equilibrium conditions for a directional whitening to be extremal are equivalent to the TAP equations and to the belief equations in this context.

It is possible to prove that this construction is unique and there is one and only one extremal directional whitening associated to a given legal coloring. For such an extremal directional whitening, for a given $`i`$ all non-white $`w(i|k)`$ must have the same color. Also if this condition is satisfied it is not evident if there are of extremal directional whitening that cannot be obtained by whitening a legal coloring.

Up to now we have only given definitions. The extremal whitening are useful because of the following three theorems.

(A) If the graph is a tree and if we fix the value of the whitening on the leaves of the tree there is only one extremal whitening on the rest of the tree.

(B) If we consider two different legal colorings and the nodes where the two colorings differ are contained in the interior of a tree (that is a subgraph of the original graph), the extremal directional whitening corresponding to these two coloring do coincide. The same results hold if the nodes where they differ are contained in the interior of some non-overlapping trees.

Theorem (A) is a particular case of the well known theorem on the convergence of the belief algorithm on a tree  (an elementary proof for K-satisfiability can be found in ).

The proof of the theorem (B) is trivial. We start the whitening procedure in the interior of the tree. According to theorem (A) the whitening procedure will converge to a result that does not depend on the initial conditions. The difference among the different coloring is thus wiped up. We can now whitening the rest of the graph and the results are obviously equal in both cases.

If we consider a random graph and a node $`i`$ of the graph. Let us call $`Q(N,\alpha ,L)`$ the probability that two colorings that differ on some nodes, all of them at a distance less than $`L`$ from the node $`i`$, produce two different extremal directional whitenings. We can prove the following theorem:

(C) The probability $`Q(N,\alpha ,L)`$ goes to zero when $`N`$ goes to infinity at fixed $`\alpha `$.

Theorem (C) is a trivial consequence of theorem (B) and of the fact that for a random graph, when $`N`$ goes to infinity at fixed $`\alpha `$, the set of nodes at distance less than $`L`$ from a given node belongs to a tree with probability 1. In this situation a random graph is locally a tree.

Theorem (C) implies that when $`N`$ goes to infinity in a random graph two colorings must be different in a large number of nodes in order to produce two different extremal directional whitenings. In other words, with probability one, colourings that differ only in a fixed amount of nodes do produce the same extremal directional whitening.

The local equilibrium equations for an extremal directional whitening are the zero temperature limit of the TAP equations for the coloring problem; it is believed that on a random graph we associate a different local equilibrium state to each different solution of such equations .

## 3 Coloring uncolorable graphs

### 3.1 Directional whitening does not work

In the case where the graph if not colorable we can ask how to colour it in such a way to minimize the number of edges of different color. In this case we would like to find the minimum of the quantity

$$H=\underset{i,j;jA(i)}{}\delta _{c(i),c(j))}.$$
(7)
We will say that a given configuration is a local minimum of order $`k`$ (or $`k`$-stable) if the energy cannot decrease if we change the color in a set of nodes that are located at distance equal or less than $`k`$ from a given node . If $`k`$ is large enough the local minimum coincides with the global minimum.

We are interested to study the case of a random graph when $`N`$ goes to infinite at fixed $`\alpha `$ in the regime where

$$1<<k<<N.$$
(8)
We could firstly try to use the same approach of the previous section.

The most naive approach would be to start from the actual coloring and to construct a directional whitening by choosing the color of the node $`i`$ in absence of the edge from $`i`$ to $`j`$ by knowing the colors of the others nodes near to $`i`$. If more that one color is possible, we can set the color to white (in certain cases we should also remember the list of the allowed colors for a non-white node).

However here in this process a node can go from a non-white color to an other non-white color (in one or two steps) and the iterative process may not converge .

There is a very simple case that displays this behaviour. We consider a ring with $`N`$ nodes, $`N`$ being an *odd* number: the simplest case is $`N=3`$ and $`q=2`$. The iterative equations are

$$c(i,i+1)=f(c(ii,i))$$
(9)
where the sums are done modulo $`N`$. The function $`f`$ is defined by $`f(1)=2`$ and $`f(2)=1`$.

It is evident that the previous equations have no solution and, if we iterate then, we find an oscillatory sequence that does not converge. A similar effect is present in the case of $`q=3`$ and we have an clique of 4 points (a tetrahedron).

Although we can formally write equations that correspond to extremal directional whitening (i.e. the local equilibrium equations), there are graphs such that these equations do not have solution and it is not clear what happens in the random case for large $`N`$. Something different must be done.

### 3.2 Quasi-solutions

In spite of the fact that the local equilibrium equations may have no solution, we would like to prove that we can associate to a local minimum of order $`k`$ a quasi-solution of the local equilibrium equations. As we shall see a quasi-solution is a function that satisfies the local equilibrium equations nearly everywhere (i.e. in most of the nodes, the fraction of nodes where the local equilibrium equations are not satisfied goes to zero when $`N`$ goes to infinity). In the example of previous section is easy to find functions that satisfies equation 9 in all points by one (e.g. $`c(i,i+1)=1`$ for $`i`$ even and $`c(i,i+1)=2`$ for $`i`$ odd).

The proof runs as follows. Let us consider a local minimum of order $`k`$ ($`c^{})`$ and a node $`i`$. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i)`$ is the minimum of $`HH^{}`$ when the color at $`i`$ is given by $`c(i)`$ and the minimum is done over those configurations that differs from $`\sigma ^{}`$ only in nodes at a distance from $`i`$ less than $`b`$ with $`b<k`$. In the previous notation a node is white if there are al least two different colors such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i)=0`$.

The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i)`$ is a bounded decreasing function of $`b`$ so that the dependance on $`b`$ is small when $`b`$ is large. In the case of bicoloring

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i)=h_b(i)(c(i)c^{}(i)),$$
(10)
where the quantity $`h_b(i)`$ defined by the previous equation is the *effective cavity field*.

In a similar way we can define the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c_1,c_2,c_3;i_1,i_2,i_3)`$: it is the minimum of configurations that differs from $`\sigma ^{}`$ only in nodes at a distance from $`i_1`$ or $`i_2`$ or $`i_3`$ less than $`b`$ with $`b<k`$.

In the case of a random graph we have that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c_1,c_2,c_3,i_1,i_2,i_3)=\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c_1;i_1)+\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c_2;i_2)+\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c_3;i_3),$$
(11)
with a probability $`R(N,\alpha ,b)`$ such that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}R(N,\alpha ,b)=1.$$
(12)
The proof is trivial. When $`N`$ goes to infinity at fixed $`b`$ and $`\alpha `$ the set of nodes $`N_k`$ at distance less than $`b`$ from $`i_k`$ has no intersection with probability 1, and the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c_1,c_2,c_3;i_1,i_2,i_3)`$ decomposes into the sum of three independent contributions.

We now construct the local equilibrium equations for this problem. For each site we define the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i,j)`$, that is defined in the same way as the the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i)`$, with the only difference that it is computed for the problem where the edge $`(i,j)`$ is removed.

It is evident that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i,j)`$ is a function of all $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{b1}(c;k,m)`$ (for $`kA(i)`$ with $`kj`$ and $`mA(j)`$ with $`mi`$) with probability 1 (i.e. in all the cases the appropriate factorization equation holds). The explicit expression is rather lengthy and it will be not written here . We can write it

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i,j)=F(\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{b1}(k,m)\})$$
(13)
In this way we compute the the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with a value of $`b`$ using those with $`b1`$. However in most of the cases for large $`b`$ the functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{b1}(c;i,j)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i,j)`$ are the same, so that in the region $`1<<b<<N`$ the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c(k,i))`$ satisfies with probability 1 the equations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_b(c;i,j)=F(\{\mathrm{\Delta }_b(k,m)\})$$
(14)
These equations are the local equilibrium equations of this problem. The probability that the factorization equation (11) is not true at a given node, goes to zero with $`N`$ goes to infinity, however the number of nodes where it is not satisfied may remains constant or go to infinity. In this case we are not able to prove that the local equilibrium equations do have a solution, but they have a quasi solution, i.e. there are functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }(c;i,k)`$ that satisfy the local equilibrium equations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(i,j)=F(\{\mathrm{\Delta }(k,i)\})$$
(15)
in most of the sites. More precisely

$$\frac{\underset{i,jA(i)}{}|\mathrm{\Delta }(i,j)F(\{\mathrm{\Delta }(k,i)\})|}{N}$$
(16)
should be smaller that an appropriate function of $`N`$ that goes to zero when $`N`$ goes to infinity.

In this way we can explicitly associate a quasi-solution of the local equilibrium equations to a $`k`$-stable configuration. Also in this case we expect that many $`k`$ stable configurations (an whole equilibrium state) do correspond to the same solution of the TAP equations.

## 4 Counting the whitening

The existence of more than one extremal directional whitening corresponds to breaking the phase space into different clusters. This is a very interesting phenomenon. We can conjecture that the there is an one to one correspondence among extremal directional whitenings and clusters of solutions (pure states or lumps). A natural question is to compute the number of extremal directional whitenings that are produced starting by a legal coloring.

On a random graph this can be done analytically using the so called survey propagation equations . For reader convenience let us report the main results of . For $`\alpha <\alpha _d`$ there is only one whitening. i. e. the trivial one: all white. For $`\alpha _d<\alpha <\alpha _c`$ there is an exponentially large number of solutions, that disappear at $`\alpha _c`$, where the graphs are no more colorable. In the region $`\alpha _d<\alpha <\alpha _c`$ the total number of extremal directional whitenings is given by the relation:

$$\mathrm{\#}(extremaldirectionalwhitening)=\mathrm{exp}(N\mathrm{\Sigma }(\alpha )).$$
(17)
The complexity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\alpha )`$ has been computed. It start from a non-zero value $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ at $`\alpha _d`$, it decreases by increasing $`\alpha `$ and becomes zero at $`\alpha _c`$. For $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$ directional extremal whitenings disappear and a generic graph is no more colorable .

The same techniques we have applied to the local equilibrium equations can be used to study survey propagation equations. The aim of these equations is to characterize the set of all the extremal directional whitenings. Let us define the survey $`\stackrel{}{\eta }(i)`$: the $`q+1`$ components of this vector are the fraction $`\eta _c(i)`$ of extremal whitenings (obtained by whitening a legal coloring) that have the color $`c`$ at the point $`i`$. For symmetry reasons we must have that

$`\eta _c(i)=\eta (i)\text{for}c=1,q`$
$`\eta _0(i)=1q\eta (i).`$ (18)
Let us denote by $`\eta _{c_1,c_2}(i_1,i_2)`$ the fraction of extremal directional whitenings that are obtained by whitening a legal coloring that have the color $`c_1`$ at the point $`i_1`$ and the color $`c_2`$ at the point $`i_2`$. We can hope that (in analogy with equation 11) the following factorization property holds:

$$\eta _{c_1,c_2}(i_1,i_2)=\eta _{c_1}(i_1)\eta _{c_2}(i_1).$$
(19)
Such an equation cannot be always exact: it is false if $`i_1`$ and $`i_2`$ are nearby and it is valid only with probability 1 when $`N`$ goes to infinity.

Let us define the survey $`\stackrel{}{\eta }(i,j)`$; the $`q+1`$ components of this vector are the fraction $`\eta _c(i,j)`$ of extremal directional whitenings (obtained by whitening a legal coloring) that have the color $`c`$ at the point $`i`$ when the edge from $`i`$ to $`j`$ is removed..

Using the same argument used in the derivation of the local equilibrium equations, one can show that

$$\stackrel{}{\eta }(i,j)=G(\{\stackrel{}{\eta }(k,i)\}),$$
(20)
where the function $`G`$ has an explicit form, computed in . The previous equations are the survey propagation equations.

The function $`G`$ is defined as following: let us call $`A_j(i)`$ the set of adjacent nodes of $`i`$ that are different from $`j`$ and let as call $`d`$ its cardinality. We extract $`d1`$ colors, each according to the probability $`\stackrel{}{\eta }(k,m)`$ ($`kA_j(i)`$) that are interpreted as colors of a directional whitening.

We call $`Z_j(i)`$ the probability that the number of different non-white colors is less or equal to $`q1`$. The quantity $`Z_j(i)`$ is the probability that we can construct a legal directional whitening starting from a whitening that does not contains the node $`i`$ and adding the edges from the node $`i`$ to the nodes in $`A_j(i)`$. The quantity $`\eta _c`$ are the probabilities (divided by $`Z_j(i)`$) that there are exactly $`q1`$ different non-white colors and that the missing color is $`c`$.

Using the solution of the previous equations, that is supposed to be unique  on a random graph for large $`N`$, we can estimate the complexity density , using

$$N\mathrm{\Sigma }=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{ln}(Z(i))\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,jA(i)}{}\mathrm{ln}(Z(i,j))$$
(21)
where $`Z(i,j)`$ is the probability that, when we extract a color in $`i`$ with probability $`\stackrel{}{\eta }(i,j)`$ and we extract a color in $`j`$ with probability $`\stackrel{}{\eta }(j,i)`$, the two colors are different. In other words $`Z(i,j)`$ is the probability to be able to produce a legal directional whitening if we add the edge from $`i`$ to $`j`$ to a graph that does not contains it. In the same way $`Z(i)`$ is the probability to be able to produce a legal whitening if we add the node $`i`$ to a graph that does not contains it and is is given by

$$Z(i)=Z_j(i)Z(i,j)$$
(22)
and it does not depend on the choice of of $`jA(i)`$.

The arguments leading to the previous equations will be not reported here and they can be found in the original papers.

## 5 Conclusions

In the colorable phase for coloring (or in the satisfiable phase for K-satisfiability) we have shown that one can associate solutions of local equilibrium equations to extreme directional whitenings that are generated starting from legal configurations. We also conjecture that a cluster of solutions correspond to one extreme directional whitening. If the legal configurations cluster in many different states, the existence of many extremal directional whitenings is a signal of the existence of many states. If we identify, as supported by these considerations, extremal directional whitenings with local equilibrium states, the existing predictions on the number (and on the other properties) of local equilibrium states,  can be tested by studying the extremal directional whitening. The construction and the counting of the extremal directional whitening is numerically an easy job, so that the prediction of this note and of the whole replica based approach  can be tested numerically without difficulties.

An other important point is the proof that the local equilibrium equations (e.g. TAP equations or belief equations) in the uncolorable phase must be satisfied nearly everywhere, but no argument can be done that implies that the equations should be satisfied everywhere: quasi solution must exist but *bona fide* solutions may be missing.


text:
# Preliminary Results on 𝛾𝛾→𝐾_𝑠𝐾^±𝜋^∓ from 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ Scattering at CLEO

## 1 Introduction

A key to understanding the phenomenon of quark and gluon confinement in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) would be an experimental observation and the analysis of the properties of unusual hadronic bound states predicted by Lattice QCD (LQCD), Flux Tube and other models. For example, the Flux Tube model and LQCD (even when the quenching approximation is lifted) predict a large number of light glueballs – bound states of the carriers of strong interaction and hybrids – hadrons composed of three constituents, two quarks and a gluon. A large number of proposed candidates for these new states of matter have been observed over the past 35 years in many experiments. In our opinion, most of these candidates need to be confirmed and remain to be understood. One such candidate is the infamous $`\eta (1440)`$ first observed in 1967 in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation at rest into $`K\overline{K}\pi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. This resonance has also been sighted in radiative decays of $`J/\psi `$ into $`K\overline{K}\pi `$ and in charge-exchange hadronic reactions $`\pi ^{}p\eta \pi \pi n`$. Until recently $`\eta (1440)`$ has been observed only in gluon-rich environments and this established it as a prominent glueball candidate. Another hypothesis for $`\eta (1440)`$’s internal structure is that it is simply a radially excited $`\eta `$ meson.

One way to discriminate the ground state meson, radial excitation, and glueball hypotheses is to measure the two-photon partial width of $`\eta (1440)`$. Assuming that quantum numbers allow a two-photon decay, its partial width would be of a keV order for a ground state meson, approximately an order of magnitude smaller for a radial excitation, and of a vanishingly small value for a true glueball because photons couple to gluons only through an intermediate quark loop. Finally, it is also possible that light glueballs and mesons are mixed and their parameters should be obtained from global fits to light hadrons spectrum, which recently became an interesting research topic in its own right. In 2001 a new piece was added to the $`\eta (1440)`$ puzzle when the L3 experiment reported the first observation of the $`\eta (1440)`$ in two-photon collisions and measured its two-photon partial width to be $`212\pm 50(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 23(\mathrm{sys}.)`$ eV, assuming 100% branching fraction to $`K\overline{K}\pi `$. In our analysis we tried to verify the claim made by L3 and to measure the two-photon partial width of $`\eta (1440)`$ with better precision.

## 2 Experimental Apparatus, Data Sample and the Analysis Procedure

The results presented here were obtained from the data accumulated at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) with the CLEO series of detectors. These results are based on statistics that correspond to the integrated $`e^+e^{}`$ luminosity of $`13.8\mathrm{fb}^1`$ collected at and 60 MeV below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})`$ energy. The first third of the data was recorded with the CLEO II detector which consisted of three cylindrical drift chambers placed in an axial solenoidal magnetic field of 1.5T, a CsI(Tl)-crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, a time-of-flight (TOF) plastic scintillator system and a muon system (proportional counters embedded at various depths in the steel absorber). Two thirds of the data were taken with the CLEO II.V configuration of the detector where the innermost drift chamber was replaced by a silicon vertex detector (SVX) and the argon-ethane gas of the main drift chamber was changed to a helium-propane mixture. This upgrade led to improved resolutions in momentum and specific ionization energy loss ($`dE/dx`$) measurements.

The information from the two outer drift chambers, the TOF system and electromagnetic calorimeter was used to make the decisions in the three-tier CLEO trigger system complemented by the software filter for beam-gas rejection. The response of the detector was modeled with a GEANT-based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation program. The data and simulated samples were processed by the same event reconstruction program. Whenever possible the efficiencies were either calibrated or corrected for the difference between simulated and actual detector responses using direct measurements from independent data. Our two-photon statistics in the $`\eta (1440)`$ mass range exceeds the statistics collected by the L3 experiment by the factor of $`5`$.

There are two groups of selection criteria we developed for this analysis. First of all we need to suppress backgrounds arising mainly from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation to hadrons and $`\tau `$ pairs. Further, we want to select events that are reconstructed in the region of the detector where trigger and detection efficiencies are well understood and associated systematic errors are under control. To achieve these goals we select events with four reconstructed charged tracks. We require at least one charged track with transverse momentum exceeding 250 MeV/c. This track should point in the barrel part of the calorimeter. Also, we only use events recorded with trigger configurations developed for events with at least two hadrons in the final state. The latter three requirements select events recorded with well-understood trigger. $`K_s`$ candidates are identified by reconstructing secondary vertex radially displaced by at least two standard deviations ($`\sigma `$) from the primary interaction point. This secondary vertex should satisfy quality criteria developed and calibrated using independent data samples. The reconstructed mass of the $`K_s`$ candidate should be within $`5\sigma `$’s from its nominal value. Signal event candidates are required to have one such $`K_s`$. The remaining two charged tracks are identified using $`dE/dx`$ and TOF information. These measurements are used to form normalized (i.e. per a degree of freedom) $`\chi ^2`$ which is required to be within $`3\sigma `$. There is no ambiguity associated with this selection for $`\eta (1440)`$’s two-photon kinematics on CLEO. Total amount of energy collected in photon-like calorimeter clusters that do not match with the projections of charged tracks should be below 100 MeV. Such clusters could often be present in signal events because of split-off effects caused by nuclear interactions of charged hadrons with the materials of the detector. Finally, we require our $`K_sK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ candidates to have total transverse momentum below 100 MeV/c. The latter two selection criteria are powerful in suppressing $`\gamma \gamma K^{}\overline{K}^{}(\pi )`$ backgrounds that feed down to our $`K_sK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ signal in events where some hadrons miss to be detected. The presence of these backgrounds in our data was proven by an independent analysis where we did full reconstruction of $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}(\pi )`$ final states arising from two-photon fusion.

The particular criteria values used in our event selection were optimized to provide the best discriminating power for the signal and backgrounds and/or to reduce systematic uncertainty in the final result. The optimizations have been carried using calibration data sample briefly discussed below and extensive MC samples generated for this analysis. To measure the efficiencies of our selection criteria and to evaluate systematic errors we used data events where we identified two high-quality $`K_s`$ candidates. We used the distribution of these events’ transverse momentum to establish their consistency with two-photon production mechanism. We measured the efficiencies of various selection criteria by imposing them on $`K_sK_s`$ data and MC samples. Systematic errors were estimated by comparing the efficiencies in data and MC simulation. Overall detection efficiency of our selection is 0.84% for a hypothetical resonance with the mass $`M=1475\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and full width $`W=50\mathrm{MeV}`$. We chose to present the efficiency measured for these values of the parameters because these are the central values reported by the L3 experiment. Relative systematic error on the efficiency is 30%. The dominant sources of this error are the uncertainties in the trigger efficiency (14%), four-track event selection (21%), tight unmatched calorimeter energy (10%) and event transverse momentum (10%) requirements.

We tested our analysis technique by estimating the two-photon partial width of the $`\eta _c`$ that we reported recently from an independent analysis of the same data sample. We previously measured $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\eta _c)=(7.6\pm 0.8(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.4(\mathrm{sys}.))\mathrm{keV}`$, while our current estimate yields $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\eta _c)=(6.7\pm 0.9(\mathrm{stat}.))\mathrm{keV}`$. This proves that our selection criteria are unbiased. Our large systematic error only applies to low-mass $`K_sK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ final states.

## 3 Preliminary Results

We show the invariant mass of $`K_sK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ candidates in data in Fig. 1. The points with the error bars show our data, the lines and a curve show the results of the binned maximum likelihood (ML) fit described below. Two dashed curves enclosing the solid curve show the signal expectation ($`\pm 1\sigma `$ (stat.)) according to the results of the L3 experiment superimposed on top of background obtained from our fit. We observe no indication of $`\eta (1440)`$ or any other resonance in shown mass region. We conclude that our sensitivity is not sufficient to detect two-photon production of $`\eta (1440)`$ followed by its decay into $`K_sK^\pm \pi ^{}`$. To estimate the upper limit on the number of signal event candidates we assume that there is only one resonance potentially decaying into $`K_sK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ in the mass region between 1.3 $`\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and 1.7 $`\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and fit the distribution shown in Fig. 1 (on the left) with signal line shape for the $`\eta (1440)`$ and a straight line approximating background contribution. There are several steps involved in estimating signal line shape from MC: first we convolute simple relativistic Breit-Wigner for a pseudoscalar with two-photon luminosity function. Then we convolute the resulting function with the detector resolution and efficiency functions. All these functions depend on the $`K_sK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ invariant mass and, as the result the original Breit-Wigner shape is distorted making the higher-mass tail of signal line shape to be more significant than the lower-mass tail for the results of the fit. The number of signal events we expect to measure assuming the values of $`M`$ and $`W`$ reported by L3 is $`112\pm 28`$. However, from the results of our ML fit we estimate 90% CL upper limit on the number of signal $`\eta (1440)`$ events to be less than 33. To estimate the upper limit on the two-photon partial width of the $`\eta (1440)`$ we divide this number by the overall detection efficiency reduced by 30% of itself, by the integrated $`e^+e^{}`$ luminosity and by numerical prediction for pseudoscalar two-photon cross section evaluated assuming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\eta (1440))=1\mathrm{keV}`$ This procedure gives us 90% CL upper limit on the product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\eta (1440))(\eta (1440)K_s(\pi ^+\pi ^{})K^\pm \pi ^{})`$ in units of keV. First we perform this estimate for the mass and total width reported by L3, then we also make estimates for other values of $`M`$ and $`W`$ for a hypothetical hadron $``$ in question. Some of our preliminary results for the upper limits on the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }()(K_s(\pi ^+\pi ^{})K^\pm \pi ^{})`$ are 14.4 eV (1475, 50), 1.2 eV (1440, 50) and 1.3 eV (1420, 20), where the numbers in parentheses are the values of $`M`$ (in $`\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$) and $`W`$ (in MeV) used for a particular estimate. These numbers are 2.9, 4.0 and 4.0 $`\sigma `$’s below L3 measurement $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }(\eta (1440))(\eta (1440)K_s(\pi ^+\pi ^{})K^\pm \pi ^{})=(49\pm 12(\mathrm{stat}.))\mathrm{eV}`$.

With the data sample that exceeds the L3 statistics by the factor of $`5`$ we do not confirm their first observation of the $`\eta (1440)`$ in two-photon collisions. Our upper limit on the two-photon partial width of this resonance is consistent with the glueball and the radial excitation hypotheses that we can not rule out with the sensitivity of our experiment. We expect to receive definitive answers to the $`\eta (1440)`$ questions with our future CLEO-c experiment where we plan to analyze radiative hadronic decays of $`1`$ billion $`J/\psi `$’s. We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions.