text:
# Non-diagrammatic calculation of QCD one-loop 𝛽-function based on the renormalization group equation

## Introduction

In an interesting paper Polchinski demonstrated that Wilson’s decimation method  applied to continuum field theory is sufficient to provide proof of perturbative renormalization . To obtain the exact renormalization group equation (ERGE) he used an obvious identity, which consists in setting the integral functional of a proper total derivative to zero, and the independence of the partition function on the scale. Such an idea corresponds to a reparameterization of the partition function since the total derivative emerges from a field redefinition .

This derivation of ERGE has to be modified when external gauge fields are present. In such a case, as they could be field dependent, we can not discard the singular terms that appear when developing the total derivative before having studied their possible physical relevance. In fact, as was shown in ref.  in the context of $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, they assume the meaning of a vacuum energy and are responsible for the exact one-loop running of the holomorphic gauge coupling .

Here the analysis in  is extended to non-supersymmetric gauge theories. In those papers the gauge invariant regularization proposed by Arkani-Hamed and Murayama  is used, which consists in giving a big mass to the extra fields111With extra field we mean a field of the finite theory which does not appear in the theory we are regulating. of a finite theory with extended supersymmetry. In conventional gauge theories we clearly have to resort to a different regularization. The attractive properties of gauge invariance, non-perturbative meaning and applicability to chiral and supersymmetric models make the regularization proposed by Slavnov  interesting. It is a hybrid of higher covariant derivatives and Pauli-Villars (PV) regularizations. Nevertheless it has some inconsistencies, the main one being known as overlapping divergences. Although minor modifications of the original scheme are possible, which make the regularization self-consistent , it is not yet known how to use it in the RG context.

In this paper a solution to this is offered at the one-loop level using the background field method when the regulator fields are the only to flow. The outcome is a version of RG equation close to the ones in , from which we obtain the one-loop $`\beta `$-function of non-supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory without using Feynman diagrams. The simplicity of the calculation is a result of the preservation of the background and quantum gauge invariance.

The background field method is technically useful for calculating the vacuum energy of regulator fields, but it also introduces conceptual simplifications. For instance, using the regularization mentioned above in its framework, a formal transition to a covariant background gauge is not required to prove the gauge invariance of one-loop divergences. The invariance of the partition function under gauge transformations of the background field makes it evident.

The paper is structured as follows. Noting that the gauge field can be considered external for the calculation of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function in QED, we begin with the Abelian theory to show how our method works without taking into account complications which are due to the quantum fluctuations. In section 2, recording the regularized gauge invariant effective action of the non-Abelian theory, we emphasize the important points of the Slavnov regularization and the background field method for our approach. In section 3 the calculation of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function is performed when the gauge group is $`SU(N)`$. The conclusions are followed by two appendices, the first one reporting the derivation of an equation that we shall term ’t Hooft’s and the second one the calculation of the Jacobians used in the text.

## 1 One-loop $`\beta `$-function of QED

As a result of Ward’s identity in QED, it is a well known fact that the charge renormalization originates solely from vacuum polarization. Then, at the one-loop level, the quantum fluctuations of the gauge field can be disregarded to achieve the $`\beta `$-function222Incidentally, with the gauge field treated as external, the vacuum polarization is the only divergent diagram. In fact, indicating with $`N`$ the number of vertices, the spinor cycles are divergent when $`N<5`$, $`N=2`$ being the maximum grade. The cycle with $`N=4`$ corresponds to photon-photon scattering and has a potentially logarithmic divergence, but, as a consequence of gauge invariance, it is actually convergent. Finally, using Furry’s theorem, we can discard the loop with $`N=3`$ (for these topics see for instance refs. ).. To regularize the vacuum polarization diagram in a way which does not break gauge invariance, we shall use the PV regularization , for which some details will be given in the next section. It is regularized introducing a massive PV spinor field of bosonic type into the Lagrangian.

Indicating with $`\psi `$ and $`\psi _1`$ the physics and PV field respectively, the Euclidean generating functional regularized to the $`M_0`$ scale is

$`Z[J,A;M_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4e_0^2}}{\displaystyle _x}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }(i\mathit{}m_0)\psi +{\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }_1(i\mathit{}M_0)\psi _1`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle _x}(\overline{\chi }\psi +\overline{\psi }\chi )+{\displaystyle _x}(\overline{\chi }_1\psi _1+\overline{\psi }_1\chi _1)\}.`$
As $`A_\mu `$ is a classical field, we have not considered gauge fixing terms. The dependence on $`x`$ has been understood and

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }\{\mathrm{\Phi };\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}\}\{\psi ,\overline{\psi };\psi _1,\overline{\psi }_1\},\\ J\{𝒥;𝒥^{\text{PV}}\}\{\overline{\chi },\chi ;\overline{\chi }_1,\chi _1\},\end{array}\begin{array}{c}𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi _1𝒟\overline{\psi }_1,\\ _xd^4x.\end{array}$$
(2)
Now Wilson’s idea of RG is applied. It consists in lowering the scale $`M_0`$ to $`M`$ while determining the effective action which compensates for the loss of modes. As we shall show, the functional

$`Z[J,A;M,M_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}\left\{M_x\overline{\psi }_1\psi _1S_{\mathrm{eff}}[A,\mathrm{\Psi },𝒥;M,M_0]+_xf_M(\overline{\chi }_1\psi _1+\overline{\psi }_1\chi _1)\right\}}`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(S_{\mathrm{tot}})}`$
is equal to $`Z[J,A;M_0]`$, except for a tree level two-point function, provided that the effective action and $`f_M`$ satisfy proper RG equations with the initial conditions

$`\underset{MM_0}{lim}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[A,\mathrm{\Psi },𝒥;M,M_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4e_0^2}}{\displaystyle _x}F_{\mu \nu }^2{\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }(i\mathit{}m_0)\psi `$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }_1i\mathit{}\psi _1{\displaystyle _x}(\overline{\chi }\psi +\overline{\psi }\chi ),`$
$$\underset{MM_0}{lim}f_M=1.$$
(5)
From the RG point of view we have only renormalized the sources associated with the fields which flow. Even if $`f_M`$ could be $`x`$-dependent in principle, it will be shown that in fact it only depends on the scale.

The flow equations are obtained from a Polchinski identity:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}M{\displaystyle \frac{}{M}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\right){\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi _1}}(\psi _1M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}})`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}}(\overline{\psi }_1M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi _1}})\}\mathrm{exp}(S_{\mathrm{tot}}).`$
This identity has been written directly in the $`x`$-space because the role of the cut-off function is played by $`1/M`$, which does not depend on the momenta. This is not true for conventional cut-off methods. Indicating with

$$<𝒪>=𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒪\mathrm{exp}(S_{\mathrm{tot}})$$
(7)
the quantum average of an operator $`𝒪`$ in an external field $`A_\mu `$ and in presence of sources $`J`$, eq. (6) becomes

$$0=_x<\frac{\delta \psi _1}{\delta \psi _1}+\frac{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \psi _1}\psi _1\overline{\psi }_1\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}+\frac{1}{M}\left(\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \psi _1}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}\frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \psi _1\delta \overline{\psi }_1}\right)>.$$
(8)
We have come across the quantity

$$<\frac{\delta \psi _1}{\delta \psi _1}+\frac{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}>.$$
(9)
Similar terms were discarded in ref.  and in the following literature on RG with the exception of refs. , . They have been interpreted as “Wilson lines biting their own tails” in the gauge invariant formulation of the exact RG proposed by Morris . Showing their anomalous origin when an external gauge field is present333In  the external gauge field is a component of a vector superfield. and the flow of regulator fields with respect to a mass parameter is considered, the physical meaning of terms analogous to (9) has been elucidated in refs. . From this point of view it is clear why Polchinski could discard these terms: this is a legitimate assumption for a theory like $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ that does not have a background gauge field444These terms contribute to the partition function with a non-influential overall factor.. Following , we have to evaluate the quantity (9) carefully, as it assumes the meaning of vacuum energy of $`\psi _1`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_1`$ when the external gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is present. We shall calculate this quantity after the RG equations have been obtained.

Substituting $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in eq. (8) for the expression defined in (3), we obtain

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \psi _1}{\delta \psi _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle _x}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \psi _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \psi _1\delta \overline{\psi }_1}}\right)`$ (10)
$`M{\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }_1\psi _1+{\displaystyle _x}f_M(\overline{\chi }_1\psi _1+\overline{\psi }_1\chi _1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle _x}f_M^2\overline{\chi }_1\chi _1>.`$
Note that we have used

$$\frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \psi _1\delta \overline{\psi }_1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \psi _1\delta \overline{\psi }_1}+\frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1\delta \psi _1}\right)=\frac{M}{2}\left(\frac{\delta \psi _1}{\delta \psi _1}+\frac{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}\right)+\frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \psi _1\delta \overline{\psi }_1},$$
(11)
which tells us that the quantity (9) is also due to the mass term of the PV field, and the equations $`<\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}/\delta \psi _1>=<\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}/\delta \overline{\psi }_1>=0`$. From a comparison between eq. (10) and the $`M`$ derivative of $`Z[J,A;M,M_0]`$, the physics is kept unchanged lowering the scale if the following RG equations are satisfied:

1. RG equation for the effective action

$`M{\displaystyle \frac{}{M}}\left\{S_{\mathrm{eff}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_0}}\right){\displaystyle _x}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \psi _1}{\delta \psi _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}}\right)\right\}`$ (12)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle _x}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \psi _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \psi _1\delta \overline{\psi }_1}}`$
with the initial condition (4).
2. RG equation for the support $`f_M`$

$$M\frac{f_M}{M}=f_M$$
(13)
with the initial condition (5), for which the solution is obviously $`f_M=M/M_0`$.

In fact, it follows the condition of RG invariance:

$$M\frac{}{M}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{M}{M_0^2}_x\overline{\chi }_1\chi _1\right)Z[J,A;M,M_0]\right\}=0.$$
(14)
Using the initial condition $`lim_{MM_0}Z[J,A;M,M_0]=Z[J,A;M_0]`$, which is a consequence of (4) and (5), the solution of the last equation is

$$Z[J,A;M_0]=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\frac{1}{M_0}\frac{M}{M_0^2}\right)_x\overline{\chi }_1\chi _1\right\}Z[J,A;M,M_0].$$
(15)
The quantity (9) is evaluated by using Fujikawa’s path integral approach to the anomalous Ward-Takahashi identities. By the rescaling

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\psi _1^{}=e^\alpha \psi _1,\hfill \\ \overline{\psi }_1\overline{\psi }_1^{}=e^\alpha \overline{\psi }_1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
with $`\alpha `$ function of $`x`$, the measure of the functional integral transforms as follows:

$$𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}2_x\alpha 𝒜_1=𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}_x\alpha F_{\mu \nu }^2.$$
(17)
We have used the result quoted in appendix B and the commutative nature of the PV field. The related anomalous Ward-Takahashi identity is obtained by a variational derivative:

$$0=\frac{\delta }{\delta \alpha }Z[J,A;M,M_0]|_{\alpha =0}=\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \psi _1}\psi _1+\overline{\psi }_1\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}2𝒜_1.$$
(18)
On the other hand, the identity

$$𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\left\{\frac{\delta }{\delta \psi _1}\left(\psi _1e^{S_{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)+\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}\left(\overline{\psi }_1e^{S_{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)\right\}=0$$
(19)
turns out to be

$$\frac{\delta \psi _1}{\delta \psi _1}+\frac{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}=\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \psi _1}\psi _1+\overline{\psi }_1\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}=2𝒜_1.$$

Finally, using the independence of $`𝒜_1`$ on the regulator fields $`\psi _1`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_1`$, eq. (12) becomes

$$M\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{M}=\frac{1}{M}_x\left(\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \psi _1}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_1}\frac{\delta ^2\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \psi _1\delta \overline{\psi }_1}\right),$$
(20)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}=S_{\mathrm{eff}}+\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M}{M_0}\right)_xF_{\mu \nu }^2.$$
(21)
Note that we have dealt with the anomaly equations in the operator form and only after having evaluated the quantity (9) have we left out the quantum expectation value. In other words, following ref. , we have passed from the weak to the strong form of Polchinski’s equation. This is an important point because only by working with the Wilsonian effective action ($`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$), can the relevance of the rescaling anomaly for the low energy theory be studied. In fact, while the 1PI effective action is a $`c`$-number function of classical fields, $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is an operator which retains quantum fields that have not been integrated out yet and therefore the correct Jacobian has to be taken into account after a rescaling of the fields555It could be shown that the anomalous term in eq. (21) is subtracted in the formal transition from $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to the generator of connected Green’s functions with an infrared mass cut-off $`M`$ – which is obtained with the integration of eq. (20) – if the latter is correctly normalized. It is a result of the classical nature of its fields..

As in ref.  we have identified the normal ($`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) and anomalous part of the Wilsonian effective action. It is the latter that is responsible for the rescaling of the electric charge. In fact, the solution $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}[A,\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}=0},𝒥;M,M_0]`$ of eq. (20) – in terms of which the low energy physics at the momentum scale $`pM^{}M<M_0`$ is given – varies rather slowly:

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}[A,\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}=0},𝒥;M,M_0]\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}[A,\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}=0},𝒥;M_0,M_0]+O(1/M,1/M_0).$$
(22)
Using (21) and the initial condition (4), we obtain

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[A,\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}=0},𝒥;M,M_0]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_0}}\right){\displaystyle _x}F_{\mu \nu }^2`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }(i\mathit{}m_0)\psi {\displaystyle _x}(\overline{\chi }\psi +\overline{\psi }\chi ).`$
If we set $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, the term on the left-hand side of (23) which has a $`F_{\mu \nu }^2`$ structure is selected, giving

$$\frac{1}{e^2(M)}=\frac{1}{e_0^2}\frac{1}{6\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{M_0},$$
(24)
from which the well known result of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function can be obtained.

## 2 Regularized gauge invariant effective action

In this section we use the Slavnov regularization of gauge theories , in the framework of the background field method, to regularize the theory at the one-loop level.

It is a well known fact that, as a consequence of the gauge fixing process, we have to deal with non-gauge invariant quantities in the intermediate stage of the calculation of the $`S`$-matrix. The gauge invariance of physical quantities is guaranteed if the renormalization procedure satisfies Slavnov-Taylor identities. However, there is a method that retains a residual gauge invariance so that background Slavnov-Taylor identities are fulfilled automatically. This is the background field method (see for instance ).

First of all, closely following Abbott’s paper , we shall give a brief presentation of the background field formalism that incorporates the matter. Each field of the theory is considered as a sum of a classical background part $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}=\{A_\mu ^a,c_\text{B}^a,\overline{c}_\text{B}^a,\psi _\text{B}^f,\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^f\}`$ and a quantum piece $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\{Q_\mu ^a,c^a,\overline{c}^a,\psi ^f,\overline{\psi }^f\}`$, which represents the quantum fluctuation around the background field. Then, using the covariant $`\alpha `$ background gauge, the Euclidean generating functional of the non-Abelian theory can be written as

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}[𝒥,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\{S_{\mathrm{YM}}(A+Q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha g_0^2}}{\displaystyle _x}(D_\mu Q_\mu )^a(D_\nu Q_\nu )^a`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle _x}(\overline{c}_\text{B}+\overline{c})^aD_\mu ^{ab}D_\mu ^{bd}(A+Q)(c_\text{B}+c)^d`$
$`+{\displaystyle _x}(\overline{\psi }_\text{B}+\overline{\psi })^f[i\mathit{}(A+Q)m_0^f](\psi _\text{B}+\psi )^f+{\displaystyle _x}𝒥_i\mathrm{\Phi }_i\},`$
where

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{YM}}(Q)=\frac{1}{4g_0^2}F_{\mu \nu }^a(Q)F_{\mu \nu }^a(Q)\mathrm{with}F_{\mu \nu }^a(Q)=_\mu Q_\nu ^a_\nu Q_\mu ^a+f^{abc}Q_\mu ^bQ_\nu ^c,\hfill \\ D_\mu =D_\mu (A)=_\mu iA_\mu =_\mu iA_\mu ^aT^a,\hfill \\ (D_\mu Q_\nu )^a=D_\mu ^{ab}Q_\nu ^b=_\mu Q_\nu ^a+f^{abc}A_\mu ^bQ_\nu ^c,\hfill \\ 𝒥_i=\{j_\mu ^a,\overline{\eta }^a,\eta ^a,\overline{\chi }^f,\chi ^f\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
Furthermore, the color indices have been suppressed and $`f=1,\mathrm{},N_f`$ is a flavor index, where $`N_f`$ is the number of quark flavors. The gauge group is of color $`SU(N)`$ with the Hermitian generators that satisfy the typical relations $`[T^a,T^b]=if^{abc}T^c`$ of the Lie algebra and are normalized as follows:

$$\mathrm{Tr}(T^aT^b)=t_2(R)\delta ^{ab}.$$
(27)
$`t_2(R)`$ is the Dynkin index of the $`R`$ representation, for which $`t_2(A)=N`$ and $`t_2(N)=1/2`$ when the adjoint ($`A`$) and fundamental ($`N`$) representation are considered.

The generating functional in (25) has the remarkable property of being invariant under simultaneous infinitesimal transformations of the background fields

$`\delta A_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`(D_\mu \omega )^a,`$
$`\delta \psi _\text{B}^f`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega ^aT^a\psi _\text{B}^f,\delta \overline{\psi }_\text{B}^f=i\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^f\omega ^aT^a,`$ (28)
$`\delta c_\text{B}^a`$ $`=`$ $`f^{abc}c_\text{B}^b\omega ^c,\delta \overline{c}_\text{B}^a=f^{abc}\overline{c}_\text{B}^b\omega ^c,`$
and the sources

$`\delta j_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`f^{abc}j_\mu ^b\omega ^c,`$
$`\delta \overline{\chi }^f`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\chi }^f\omega ^aT^a,\delta \chi ^f=i\omega ^aT^a\chi ^f,`$ (29)
$`\delta \overline{\eta }_\text{B}^a`$ $`=`$ $`f^{abc}\overline{\eta }_\text{B}^b\omega ^c,\delta \eta _\text{B}^a=f^{abc}\eta _\text{B}^b\omega ^c.`$
Moreover, its connected part $`\stackrel{~}{W}[𝒥,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]=\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{Z}[𝒥,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ is equal to the background gauge invariant effective action $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[0,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ – for which an equivalence proof of the background field quantization method with the conventional one can be inferred from refs. in  – if the sources $`𝒥`$ are $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}`$-dependent in such a way that a generalized ’t Hooft equation

$$\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{W}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}(x)}+_y\frac{\delta 𝒥_j(y)}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}(x)}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{W}}{\delta 𝒥_j(y)}=(1)^{\delta _i}𝒥_i(x)$$
(30)
is satisfied. This is demonstrated in appendix A generalizing the equivalence proof of ’t Hooft’s procedure  with that of Abbott’s , when fermions are incorporated into the theory. We have introduced the fermionic number $`\delta _i`$ such that $`(1)^{\delta _i}=1`$ and $`(1)^{\delta _i}=1`$ for bosonic and fermionic variables respectively666It accounts for the commutation property of the variables involved. For example $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j=(1)^{\delta _i\delta _j}\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$..

The background gauge invariance sets constraints on the infinities that appear in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[0,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ (see refs. ). They must take the following gauge invariant form777For the time being, if we do not indicate the dependence on gauge fields, it will mean that we are considering the background gauge field dependence. For example $`F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a(A)`$.

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0^{\mathrm{}}=_x\left\{C_1(F_{\mu \nu }^a)^2+C_2\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^f\mathit{}\psi _\text{B}^f+C_3\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^f\psi _\text{B}^f+C_4(D_\mu \overline{c}_\text{B})^a(D_\mu c_\text{B})^a\right\},$$
(31)
where $`C_n`$, with $`n=1,\mathrm{},4`$, are infinite constants and the lower index on the left-hand side means that we are taking the bare quantities on the other side. In terms of renormalized fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}=Z_i^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^\text{B})_i`$ the last identity becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mathrm{}}=_x\left\{C_1Z_A^{1/2}(F_{\mu \nu }^a)^2+C_2Z_{\psi _\text{B}}\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^f\mathit{}\psi _\text{B}^f+C_3Z_{\psi _\text{B}}\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^f\psi _\text{B}^f+C_4Z_{c_\text{B}}(D_\mu \overline{c}_\text{B})^a(D_\mu c_\text{B})^a\right\},$$
(32)
with $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`D_\mu `$ that will have the expressions dictated by the gauge invariance if the constant structure and the elements of the Lie algebra are renormalized as follows: $`f^{abc}=Z_A^{1/2}f_0^{abc}`$ and $`T^a=Z_A^{1/2}T_0^a`$. These quantities are determined by the Lie algebra relations except for a multiplicative common factor, which is the gauge coupling constant, if the Lie algebra is simple. Thus, the gauge coupling must renormalize as $`g=Z_A^{1/2}g_0`$, which means that the gauge coupling and background gauge field renormalization are related. In fact, defining $`Z_g=g_0/g`$, the relation $`Z_g=Z_A^{1/2}`$ is obtained, that is to say the $`\beta `$-function originates solely from the background gauge field two-point function . This is the reason why from now on we shall be interested in the gauge invariant effective action $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[0,A]=\stackrel{~}{W}[𝒥[A],A]`$, whose path integral representation is deduced from eq. (25) setting $`\psi _\text{B}^f=\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^f=c_\text{B}^a=\overline{c}_\text{B}^a=0`$, with the sources $`𝒥_i[A]`$ which are solutions of suitable ’t Hooft’s equations888They are obtained from eqs. (30) and (83) noting that the condition $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=0`$ is now equivalent to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=\delta _{i1}A_\mu ^a`$ (see the procedure in appendix A)..

With the intention to calculate the one-loop $`\beta `$-function in the next section taking full advantage of the gauge invariance, we regularize the functional $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[0,A]`$ using the regularization proposed by Slavnov  at the one-loop level. It consists of the following two steps. The first one is a gauge invariant generalization of the higher derivatives regularization. In fact, to improve the ultraviolet behavior of propagators, the gauge invariance requires the introduction of covariant instead of ordinary derivatives into the kinetic term of the action . Thus, the Yang-Mills action and the gauge fixing surface $`(G^a)`$ are replaced by the substitutions

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}(A+Q)S_{\mathrm{YM}}^{n,\mathrm{\Lambda }}(A+Q)=\frac{1}{4g_0^2}_x\left\{F_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n}}(D^nF_{\mu \nu })^2\right\}(A+Q),$$
(33)
$$G^a=(D_\mu Q_\mu )^aF_n(D^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)(D_\mu Q_\mu )^a,$$
(34)
where $`F_n`$ is a polynomial of an order greater than equal to $`n/2`$ and from now on $`V^2V^aV^a`$.

For the reason mentioned above, $`S_{\mathrm{YM}}^{n,\mathrm{\Lambda }}(A+Q)`$ is invariant under the quantum gauge transformation $`\delta (A+Q)_\mu ^a=\delta Q_\mu ^a=D_\mu ^{ab}(A+Q)\omega ^b`$. Moreover, the substitutions (33) and (34) yield a functional $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^n[0,A]`$ still invariant under the background gauge transformation $`\delta A_\mu ^a=(D_\mu \omega )^a`$. Therefore, the advantages of background field method are retained in the regularized theory. For instance, the identity $`Z_g=Z_A^{1/2}`$ remains true in the regularized theory. This is a significant property, which is a result of using the background field approach to the Slavnov regularization.

An inspection of the superficial degree of divergence of Feynman’s diagrams, with the classical field $`A`$ on external lines and quantum fields $`Q`$, $`c`$, $`\overline{c}`$, $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ inside loops, tells us that the infinities only appear at the one-loop level if $`n2`$  and matter loops are regularized by the conventional PV regularization . The second step concerns the regularization of remaining divergences using the gauge invariant PV procedure extended to Yang-Mills and ghost loops .

The one-loop contribution to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^n[0,A]`$ is given by the partition function

$`𝒵_\mathrm{\Lambda }^n[A]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{n,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{1\text{-}\mathrm{loop}}[0,A]={\displaystyle }𝒟Q\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{xy}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{YM}}^{n,\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\delta A_\mu ^a(x)\delta A_\nu ^b(y)}}Q_\mu ^a(x)Q_\nu ^b(y)`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha g_0^2}}{\displaystyle _x}\left[F_n(D^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)D_\mu Q_\mu \right]^2\}det(i\mathit{}m_0^f)det[F_n(D^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)D^2],`$
whose divergences can be cured compatibly with background gauge invariance adding mass terms to each quantum field. In fact, the functional

$`𝒵_{\mathrm{\Lambda },M_i,\mu _j,m_k}^n[A]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒵_\mathrm{\Lambda }^n[A]{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{n_1,n_2,n_3}{}}}\mathrm{det}^{\alpha _i/2}𝒬(A,M_i,F_n)`$ (36)
$`\times \mathrm{det}^{\beta _j}\left[F_n(D^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)D^2\mu _j^2\right]\mathrm{det}^{\gamma _k}(i\mathit{}m_k^f),`$
where

$`\mathrm{det}^{1/2}𝒬(A,M,F_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟Q\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{xy}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{YM}}^{n,\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\delta A_\mu ^a(x)\delta A_\nu ^b(y)}}Q_\mu ^a(x)Q_\nu ^b(y)`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha g_0^2}}{\displaystyle _x}\left[F_n(D^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)D_\mu Q_\mu \right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}Q_\mu ^2\},`$
is gauge invariant and even free of divergences if the PV conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n_1}{}}\alpha _i=0,\\ \underset{i=0}{\overset{n_1}{}}\alpha _iM_i^2=0,\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n_2}{}}\beta _j=0,\\ \underset{j=0}{\overset{n_2}{}}\beta _j\mu _j^2=0,\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n_3}{}}\gamma _k=0,\\ \underset{k=0}{\overset{n_3}{}}\gamma _k\left(m_k^f\right)^2=0\end{array}$$
(38)
are satisfied. In these equations $`\alpha _0=\beta _0=\gamma _0=1`$ and $`M_0=\mu _0=0`$. Note that, at the one-loop level, there is no need to introduce a pre-regulator and change the PV conditions in order to solve the overlapping divergences problem , which is due to subdiagrams that are not regularized by the PV procedure.

The coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ ($`\beta _j`$ and $`\gamma _k`$) must be integers in order that they can be interpreted as the number of PV vector (scalar and spinor) fields of the regularized local Lagrangian, whose masses are $`M_i`$ ($`\mu _j`$ and $`m_k^f`$). In this case the PV procedure amounts to subtract from each kind of loop a sequence of analogous loops, along which massive fields propagate, which transform under the same representation as the homogeneous Lorentz group of the physical field in the former loop. The PV fields corresponding to $`\alpha _i<0`$ and $`\beta _j>0`$ are of fermionic type and those corresponding to $`\gamma _k<0`$ are bosonics. Therefore, they do not satisfy the spin-statistic relation. However, the spin-statistic theorem is not violated because, decoupling from the physical fields when the mass regulators go to infinity, no PV regulator field appears in the asymptotic states. It should be mentioned that, in the regularization scheme we are using, this is true in any $`\alpha 0`$ gauge. When $`\alpha =0`$ the regulator fields do not decouple completely. In fact, the Landau gauge does not give the correct value of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function of the pure Yang-Mills theory as has been shown in ref. , which lead the authors to state a no-go theorem concerning the Slavnov regularization. Even if a minor modification of the scheme exists , in which the correctness of the one-loop result on the $`\beta `$-function is guaranteed, for the rest of this paper we shall assume an $`\alpha 0`$ gauge.

The Slavnov regularization does not specify the PV regulator system. The only reasonable requirements that have to be satisfied in addition to the conditions (38) are the following. The coefficients $`\alpha _i`$, $`\beta _j`$ and $`\gamma _k`$ must be chosen as integers. The variability field of the mass regulators $`M_i`$, $`\mu _j`$ and $`m_k^f`$ has to include infinity, which corresponds to the removal of the PV part of the regularization. One of the different systems of PV regulator fields is sufficient to calculate the one-loop $`\beta `$-function with the RG method. However, it is worth checking the independence of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function on the PV regulator system.

A suitable system for the calculation of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function can be deduced from the relation $`Z_g=Z_A^{1/2}`$. From the knowledge of $`Z_A`$, for which only the background field two-point function is required, we can determine the $`\beta `$-function. Therefore, no vertex function or tadpole diagram need to be considered, and, at the one-loop level, we only need to regularize the Feynman diagrams in figure 1. The vacuum polarization diagram (a) can be regularized as in section 1. Then, there is only one class of bosonic fields $`\psi _1^f`$ with mass $`M`$ in the spinor sector of the PV regulator system. The diagrams (b) and (c) in figure 1 are regularized if the usual PV conditions are satisfied. These conditions can be realized through the introduction of at least two auxiliary masses. In such a case we find

$$\alpha _1=\frac{M_2^2}{M_1^2M_2^2},\alpha _2=\frac{M_1^2}{M_2^2M_1^2}$$
(39)
for PV vector fields and the same for PV scalar fields replacing $`\alpha _i|_{i=1,2}`$ and $`M_i|_{i=1,2}`$ with $`\beta _j|_{j=1,2}`$ and $`\mu _j|_{j=1,2}`$ respectively. Choosing the integer values $`\alpha _1=\beta _1=1`$, it follows $`\alpha _2=\beta _2=2`$. Thus, the PV vectorial sector is composed of one class of bosonic fields $`Q_{1,\mu }^a`$ of mass $`M_1`$ and two mass degenerate classes of fermionic fields $`Q_{2,\mu }^a`$ and $`Q_{3,\mu }^a`$ with mass $`M_2=M_1/\sqrt{2}`$; the scalar sector of a set of fields $`c_{1,\mu }^a`$, $`c_{2,\mu }^a`$ and $`c_{3,\mu }^a`$ with opposite statistics and masses $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2=\mu _3=\mu _1/\sqrt{2}`$. Noting that the vector, scalar and spinor loops are regularized separately, we can set $`M_2=\mu _2=M`$.

Another system of PV regulator fields is inferred from the chiral gauge invariant PV regularization proposed by Frolov and Slavnov . Each “sector” is composed of an infinite number of fields with alternating statistics, which corresponds to the choice of $`\alpha _i=\beta _i=\gamma _i=(1)^i`$ for $`i=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},\pm \mathrm{}`$. However, a fundamental issue is to define how to sum over the infinite number in order to satisfy the first PV condition. In other words, we have to define the symbol $`_{n=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}(1)^n`$, which is a divergent series999We follow Hardy’s criterion  to term a divergent series the one that does not converge according to the classical definition of Cauchy.. There are various methods of summing divergent series as part of the theory of divergent series, for which we shall refer to Hardy’s book . Then, the series $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^n`$ being Cesàro, Abel and Euler summable to $`1/2`$, the following manipulations

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{n+1}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n+{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{1}{}}}(1)^n={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n`$
are correct. Therefore, the first PV condition is satisfied with respect to the criteria of summability mentioned above.

The physical meaning underlying this mathematical topic is as follows. We attempt to subtract the divergence of the physical sector, which is selected by $`i=j=k=0`$, introducing a pair of PV fields with the same statistic. This is equivalent to subtracting the divergence twice, since we are considering $`1+11=1`$. To remove this divergence we need to introduce another pair with the opposite statistic of the former, which yields $`+11+11+1=+1`$. This argument makes clear that it is hopeless trying to regularize the theory by a finite number of PV fields with alternating statistics. Then, an infinite number is introduced giving the possibility to reiterate to infinity the above steps until the divergence is removed . However, in our opinion, it is necessary to assign a specific meaning to the symbol $`_{n=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}(1)^n`$ by making use of the divergent series theory.

The second PV condition can be formally satisfied with a proper system of mass regulators. In fact, using the Leibniz series

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\hfill & \hfill & \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{1}{n^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{3},\hfill \\ \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{n1}}{n^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{12}\hfill & \hfill & \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{(1)^n}{n^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6},\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
where $`{}_{n}{}^{}_{n0}`$, we obtain

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n^2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2}}\right].`$
Then, remembering that each kind of loop is regularized separately, we can set $`M_n^2=\mu _n^2=M^2u_n`$ and $`(m_n^f)^2=M^2v_n^f`$ with

$$u_n=\frac{1}{n^2}\left[1+\frac{(1)^n}{2}\right],v_n^f=\frac{1}{n^2}\left[1+\frac{(1)^n}{2}+\frac{6(m_0^f)^2}{\pi ^2}\right],$$
(43)
to satisfy the second PV conditions. Note that $`u_n,v_n^f>0`$ $`n0`$. Therefore, choosing $`M_n=\mu _n=M\sqrt{u_n}`$ and $`m_n^f=M(v_n^f)^{1/2}`$, the removal of the PV regularization is given by $`M\mathrm{}`$.

The proof that this generalized PV regularization works is given in ref.  for the pure Yang-Mills theory taking as mass regulator $`M_i=M|i|`$ and $`\mu _j=\mu |j|`$ $`i,j`$. We think that it can be extended to include the matter taking $`m_k^f=m|k|`$ for $`k0`$ and even to the background field formalism using the tools developed in . The higher covariant derivatives complicate the Feynman rules and hence make the above proofs a difficult task. However, as will become clearer in the next section, these complications could be avoided in the calculation of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function. In fact, if we had used the relation $`Z_g=Z_A^{1/2}`$ from the beginning, we would have had to regularize solely the graphs of figure 1 introducing only PV regulator fields, which does not spoil the gauge invariance of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[0,A]`$. Then, using the Feynman rules derived by Abbott in ref. , the leading divergence of diagrams (b) and (c) would have been given by101010As usual, the diagram (a) could be regularized using one bosonic PV field.

$`{\displaystyle _p}p^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{(p^2+M^2n^2)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _p}p^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{p^2+M^2n^2}}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _p}p^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{Mp}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi p/M)}},`$
which prove their finiteness for finite $`M`$. The calculation performed in the next section is a first step towards using the Slavnov regularization in the RG context.

## 3 One-loop $`\beta `$-function of QCD

Due to the large number of fields involved, we need a more concise notation than the one adopted in section 1. All fields and sources are collected in the column vectors

$$𝚿=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝚽\\ 𝚽^{\text{PV}}\end{array}\right),𝐉=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒥\\ 𝒥^{\text{PV}}\end{array}\right),$$
(45)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}Q_{i,\mu }^a/\sqrt{2}\\ Q_{i,\mu }^a/\sqrt{2}\\ c_j^a\\ \overline{c}_j^a\\ \psi _k^f\\ \left(\overline{\psi }_k^f\right)^T\end{array}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝚽\hfill & \mathrm{for}i=j=k=0\hfill \\ 𝚽^{\text{PV}}\hfill & \mathrm{for}i,j,k0\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
and, using the fermionic number introduced in the previous section,

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}j_{i,\mu }^a/\sqrt{2}\\ j_{i,\mu }^a/\sqrt{2}\\ \overline{\eta }_j^a\\ (1)^{\delta _j}\eta _j^a\\ \left(\overline{\chi }^f\right)_k^T\\ (1)^{\delta _k}\chi _k^f\end{array}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒥\hfill & \mathrm{for}i=j=k=0\hfill \\ 𝒥^{\text{PV}}\hfill & \mathrm{for}i,j,k0\hfill \end{array}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
We have considered $`\overline{\psi }`$ a row vector following the Dirac formalism and the vectorial sector has been doubled to treat it as the scalar and spinor sector. This does not mean that the respective measure in the integral functional that will be considered below doubles, i.e.

$$𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\underset{i,j,k,f}{}𝒟Q_i𝒟c_j𝒟\overline{c}_j𝒟\psi _k^f𝒟\overline{\psi }_k^f.$$
(48)
The generator functional of QCD, regularized according to the Slavnov regularization in the framework of the background field method, is the following:

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}[𝒥(A),A,𝒥^{\text{PV}};M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[0,A,𝒥^{\text{PV}};M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}},_0\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})`$
$`S_{\mathrm{int}}[𝒥(A),A,\mathrm{\Psi };M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]+(𝒥^{\text{PV}},\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})\}.`$
The notation has been misused in calling

$`S_{\mathrm{YM}}^{n,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(A+Q)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{xy}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{YM}}^{n,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}{\delta A_\mu ^a(x)\delta A_\nu ^b(y)}}Q_{i,\mu }^a(x)Q_{i,\nu }^b(y)|_{i0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha g_0^2}}{\displaystyle _x}\left[F_n(D^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)D_\mu Q_{i,\mu }\right]^2`$
$`{\displaystyle _x}\overline{c}_jF_n(D^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)D^2c_j+i{\displaystyle _x}\overline{c}F_n(D^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)D_\mu Q_\mu c`$
$`{\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }_k^fi\mathit{}\psi _k^f{\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }^f\left(\mathit{}m_0^f\right)\psi ^f(𝒥(A),\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (50)
the interaction action $`S_{\mathrm{int}}[𝒥(A),A,\mathrm{\Psi };M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$, and

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },𝒜\mathrm{\Psi })=_x𝚿^T𝒜𝚿=_x\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^T𝒜_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta $$
(51)
denotes the inner product in the space spanned by the vector $`𝚿`$, where $`𝒜`$ is a generic matrix. Obviously, $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}},_0\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})`$ is an inner product in the PV subspace. The mass matrix is

$$=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& (1)^{\delta _i}M_i^2& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ M_i^2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& (1)^{\delta _j}\mu _j^2& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& \mu _j^2& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& (1)^{\delta _k}m_k^f& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& m_k^f& 0& \end{array}\right),$$
(52)
with $`i,j,k0`$. The matrix depends on the system of PV regulator fields. The system described in the previous section with a finite number of fields results in the $`(14\times 14)`$ matrix whose elements are given by setting $`M_2=M_3=\mu _2=\mu _3=m_1^f=M`$, $`M_1=\mu _1=\sqrt{2}M`$, $`\delta _i|_{i=1}=\delta _j|_{j=2,3}=0`$, $`\delta _i|_{i=2,3}=\delta _j|_{j=1}=1`$ and $`\delta _k|_{k=1}=0`$. The one with an infinite number results in the $`(\mathrm{}\times \mathrm{})`$ matrix whose elements are given by setting $`\delta _i|_{i=\mathrm{even}}=0`$, $`\delta _i|_{i=\mathrm{odd}}=1`$, $`\delta _j,\delta _k|_{j,k=\mathrm{even}}=1`$, $`\delta _j,\delta _k|_{j,k=\mathrm{odd}}=0`$ and $`M_n=\mu _n=M\sqrt{u_n}`$, $`m_n^f=M(v_n^f)^{1/2}`$ or $`M_i=\mu _i=m_i^f=M|i|`$. The matrix $`_0`$ is $``$ to the scale $`M_0`$, namely $`_0(MM_0)`$.

As in section 1 we vary the mass parameter $`M_0`$ to a lower value $`M`$ while keeping the physics unchanged. In other words, we look for the RG equations, with the initial conditions

$$\underset{MM_0}{lim}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝒥(A),A,\mathrm{\Psi };M,M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]=S_{\mathrm{int}}[𝒥(A),A,\mathrm{\Psi };M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0],$$
(53)
$$\underset{MM_0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}}=𝒥^{\text{PV}},$$
(54)
that have to satisfy $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}}`$ in order that

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}[𝒥(A),A,\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}};M,M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}},\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})`$ (55)
$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝒥(A),A,\mathrm{\Psi };M,M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]+(\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}},\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(S_{\mathrm{tot}})}`$
is equal to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}[𝒥(A),A,𝒥^{\text{PV}};M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$ except for a tree level two-point function. Closely following the Abelian case, by means of the Polchinski identity

$$0=_x(1)^{\delta _\alpha }M\frac{_{\alpha \beta }^1}{M}𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}\left\{_{\beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^{\text{PV}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta }{\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}\right\}\mathrm{exp}(S_{\mathrm{tot}})$$
(56)
we obtain

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}<(1)^{\delta _\alpha }M{\displaystyle \frac{_{\alpha \beta }^1}{M}}_{\beta \gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^{\text{PV}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}}(1)^{\delta _\alpha }M{\displaystyle \frac{_{\alpha \beta }^1}{M}}_{\beta \gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^{\text{PV}}`$ (57)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\delta _\alpha }}{2}}M{\displaystyle \frac{_{\alpha \beta }^1}{M}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}}\right)>.`$
To go further we need the following properties of the mass matrix

$$_{\alpha \beta }=(1)^{\delta _\alpha \delta _\beta }_{\beta \alpha }=(1)^{\delta _\alpha }_{\beta \alpha }=(1)^{\delta _\beta }_{\beta \alpha }.$$
(58)
In this paper the fermionic number is never summed over the repeated indices. For example, $`(1)^{\delta _\rho }_{\rho \alpha }_{\rho \beta }^1(1)^{\delta _1}_{1\alpha }_{1\beta }^1+(1)^{\delta _2}_{2\alpha }_{2\beta }^1+\mathrm{}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$.

Then, substituting $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in eq. (57) for the expression defined in (55) and using the equation $`<\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}/\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}>=0`$, we get

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}},M{\displaystyle \frac{}{M}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(1)^{\delta _\alpha }_{\alpha \beta }^1M{\displaystyle \frac{_{\beta \gamma }}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^{\text{PV}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}}`$ (59)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\delta _\alpha }}{2}}M{\displaystyle \frac{_{\alpha \beta }^1}{M}}{\displaystyle _x}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}}\right)`$
$`(M{\displaystyle \frac{}{M}}^1\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}},\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}},(1)^\delta M{\displaystyle \frac{^1}{M}}\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}})>.`$
It is an easy task to check the $`M`$ independence of the matrix $`^1M/M`$ for all PV systems considered before. In fact, it turns out to be

$$^1M\frac{}{M}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 2& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 2& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& \end{array}\right)𝚫.$$
(60)
If the following RG equations are satisfied:

1. RG equation for the effective action

$`M{\displaystyle \frac{}{M}}\left\{S_{\mathrm{eff}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_0}}\right){\displaystyle _x}(1)^{\delta _\alpha }\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta ^{\text{PV}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}}\right\}`$ (61)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\delta _\alpha }}{2}}M{\displaystyle \frac{_{\alpha \beta }^1}{M}}{\displaystyle _x}<{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}}>`$
with the initial condition (53).
2. RG equations for the sources

$$M\frac{}{M}^1\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}}=M\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}}}{M}$$
(62)
with the initial condition (54),

the condition of RG invariance

$$M\frac{}{M}\left\{\stackrel{~}{Z}_M\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{2}_{M_0}^M𝑑M^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}},(1)^\delta M\frac{^1}{M}\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}})(MM^{})\right\}=0$$
(63)
is established. In eq. (63) and from now on $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_M\stackrel{~}{Z}[𝒥(A),A,\stackrel{~}{𝒥}^{\text{PV}};M,M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$.

The vacuum energy of the PV regulator fields is deduced from the anomalous Ward-Takahashi identity related to the infinitesimal rescaling

$$\delta 𝚽^{\text{PV}}=\delta \alpha 𝚫𝚽^{\text{PV}}.$$
(64)
In fact, the measure of the functional integral transforms into $`𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=J𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and hence

$$0=\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_M}{\delta (\delta \alpha )}|_{\delta \alpha =0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta ^{\text{PV}}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}\frac{\delta \mathrm{ln}J}{\delta (\delta \alpha )},$$
(65)
from which, using the identity

$$𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}\left\{(1)^{\delta _\alpha }\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta ^{\text{PV}}e^{S_{\mathrm{tot}}}\right\},$$
(66)
we obtain

$$(1)^{\delta _\alpha }\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta ^{\text{PV}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta ^{\text{PV}}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}=\frac{\delta \mathrm{ln}J}{\delta (\delta \alpha )}.$$
(67)
As shown in appendix B the Jacobian $`J`$ does not depend on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}`$. Therefore, taking the strong form of Polchinski’s equation, one gets

$$M\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{M}=\frac{(1)^{\delta _\alpha }}{2}M\frac{_{\alpha \beta }^1}{M}_x\left(\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}\frac{\delta ^2\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{\text{PV}}\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}})_\beta ^T}\right),$$
(68)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}=S_{\mathrm{eff}}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M}{M_0}\right)_x\frac{\delta \mathrm{ln}J}{\delta (\delta \alpha )}.$$
(69)
Now, we want to show the equality of $`\mathrm{ln}J`$ for all PV regulator systems considered above and that it has the correct value to achieve the one-loop $`\beta `$-function. We start with the system having a finite number of fields. The vector and scalar fields are in the adjoint representation of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group; the spinor fields in the fundamental one. Then, using the results quoted in appendix B and the proper statistic of the fields involved, we obtain

$`\mathrm{ln}J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}\delta \alpha \left(2𝒜_32𝒜_32𝒜_34𝒜_2+4𝒜_2+4𝒜_2+2N_f𝒜_1\right)`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}\delta \alpha \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{11}{48\pi ^2}}t_2(A)+{\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{12\pi ^2}}t_2(N)\right\}F_{\mu \nu }^2.`$
The analysis of the system with an infinite number of fields requires a clarification. We have satisfied the first PV conditions by making use of some summability criteria of the divergent series theory. It corresponds to assign a fixed order to the infinite products in the functional measure, as can be made clear looking at eq. (36) and thinking how the PV conditions (38) come out. Taking as example the spinor sector, if

$`\mathrm{det}(i\mathit{}m_0^f){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}`$ $`\mathrm{det}^{\gamma _k}(i\mathit{}m_k^f){\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{det}^{(1)^k}(i\mathit{}m_k^f)`$ (71)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}𝒟\psi _k^f𝒟\overline{\psi }_k^f\mathrm{exp}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}_x\overline{\psi }_k^f(i\mathit{}m_k^f)\psi _k^f},`$
the first PV condition becomes $`_{k=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}(1)^k=0`$. Thus, the measure functional is

$$𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}𝒟Q_i\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}𝒟c_j𝒟\overline{c}_j\underset{f=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}𝒟\psi _k^f𝒟\overline{\psi }_k^f,$$
(72)
and hence

$$\mathrm{ln}J=_x\delta \alpha \{2𝒜_3\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{n}4𝒜_2\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{n}2N_f𝒜_1\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{n}\}.$$
(73)
If the series $`a_0+a_1+\mathrm{}`$ is Cesàro, Abel and Euler summable to $`s`$ then $`a_1+a_2+\mathrm{}`$ is even Cesàro, Abel and Euler summable to $`sa_0`$ . Therefore, from the eq. (40) follows $`_{n=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{}(1)_{}^{n}=1`$ providing the same value (70).

As in section 1, the anomalous part of the effective action gives the variation of the gauge coupling constant with the scale. In fact, at low energy,

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝒥(A),A,\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}=0};M,M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝒥(A),A,\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}=0};M_0,M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$ (74)
$`+O(1/M,1/M_0),`$
which yields

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝒥(A),A,\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{PV}}=0};M,M_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_0^2}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{11}{24\pi ^2}}t_2(A){\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{6\pi ^2}}t_2(N)\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_0}}\right\}F_{\mu \nu }^2`$ (75)
$`+\mathrm{}.`$
$`+\mathrm{}`$ are terms that do not change under the considered RG flow. Then, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{g^2(M)}=\frac{1}{g_0^2}+\left[\frac{11}{24\pi ^2}t_2(A)\frac{N_f}{6\pi ^2}t_2(N)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{M_0},$$
(76)
and hence the well known result of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function of QCD

$$\beta (g)=g^3\left[\frac{N_f}{12\pi ^2}t_2(N)\frac{11}{48\pi ^2}t_2(A)\right].$$
(77)
## 4 Conclusions

Working with the path integral representation of the gauge invariant effective action $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[0,A]`$ regularized according to the Slavnov regularization, we have given a simple non-diagrammatic RG evaluation of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function in QCD. A significant aspect of the calculation is its compatibility with the gauge invariance. In two respects this classical symmetry is lost in the process of quantization: the regulator may violate the symmetry and the gauge fixing hides the underlying gauge invariance of the theory. In this paper we have shown the advantages of maintaining a manifest background gauge invariance by using a regulator that even regularizes the divergences in a gauge invariant manner.

Another non-diagrammatic one-loop calculation has been worked out by Fujikawa in ref. , which is based on a relation between the Weyl anomaly and the $`\beta `$-function. However, our calculation being based on the RG method, it appears to be easier to understand the anomalous origin of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function in terms of scaling of effective Lagrangians.

The method is related to one-loop but could be extended to more then one-loop if we managed to apply the regularization to every loop and knew a way to regulate the Jacobian like the theory. It could also be applied in its simpler form to get the exact $`\beta `$-functions of supersymmetric gauge theories if we were able to give the supersymmetric extension of the regularization. In fact, according to the non-renormalization theorem, the irrelevant operators in the Jacobian, which are $`D`$-terms, can be set to zero with no change in the relevant coupling appearing in the $`F`$-term of the Jacobian. Furthermore, there are suggestions that a supersymmetric as well as gauge invariant regularization exists . In particular, from West’s paper there appears to be a close relation to the regularization scheme adopted in this paper because of the preservation of the background and quantum gauge symmetry in addition to the supersymmetry. Therefore, following our method, the Jacobian could be regularized by hand as in Fujikawa’s approach to achieve the exact one-loop running of the holomorphic coupling. This is an important point for the following reasons. The regularization scheme mentioned above could be used as an alternative to the Arkani-Hamed and Murayama regularization  when the proof of finiteness appears to be scarce. Unlike the latter regularization, the former is not limited to specific supersymmetric models.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank K. Yoshida, who suggested using the PV regularization in QED and encouraged extending the analysis to the non-Abelian case. The author also wishes to thank S. Arnone for useful discussions.

## Appendix A ’t Hooft’s equation

The Legendre transformation of $`\stackrel{~}{W}[𝒥,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$, assuming that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=\delta \stackrel{~}{W}/\delta 𝒥_i`$ yields an implicit functional equation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i[𝒥,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ uniquely solvable with respect to $`𝒥`$, is defined as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]=\stackrel{~}{W}[𝒥[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}],\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]_x𝒥_i[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i.$$
(78)
In this appendix we shall show that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[0,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]=\stackrel{~}{W}[𝒥[\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}],\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ being $`𝒥[\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ a functional that satisfies the ’t Hooft equation (30).

The change of variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}`$ in the functional integral of eq. (25) results in

$$\stackrel{~}{W}[𝒥,\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]=W[𝒥]_x𝒥_i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B},$$
(79)
with $`W[𝒥]`$ the conventional generating functional of connected Green’s functions evaluated using the gauge fixing surface $`G^a=_\mu (QA)_\mu ^a+f^{abc}A_\mu ^aQ_\nu ^a`$. From the eq. (79) the identities $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}`$ are obtained, which show that the conditions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=0`$ are equivalent to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=\delta W/\delta 𝒥_i`$. Thus, differentiating $`W[𝒥]`$ with respect to $`𝒥`$, we must take into account the dependence on $`𝒥`$ that is due to the dependence of the gauge fixing term on the background gauge field:

$$\frac{dW}{d𝒥_i(x)}=\frac{\delta W}{\delta 𝒥_i(x)}+_y\frac{\delta A_\nu ^b(y)}{\delta 𝒥_i(x)}\frac{\delta W}{\delta A_\nu ^b(y)}=\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}(x).$$
(80)
Note that we have distinguished a total from a partial functional derivative with the notations $`d/d𝒥`$ and $`\delta /\delta 𝒥`$ respectively. The conditions $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}`$ also give to $`𝒥_i`$ a dependence on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}`$. Then, considering that the only explicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}`$-dependence of $`W`$ is on background gauge fields, we obtain, by making use of eqs. (80),

$$\frac{dW}{d\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}(x)}=\delta _{i1}\frac{\delta W}{\delta A_\mu ^a(x)}+_y\frac{\delta 𝒥_j(y)}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}(x)}\frac{\delta W}{\delta 𝒥_j(y)}=_y\frac{\delta 𝒥_j(y)}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}(x)}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^\text{B}(y).$$
(81)
Finally, we get the ’t Hooft equation using eqs. (79), (81) and the fermionic number.

As ’t Hooft suggests , there is no need to compute $`𝒥_i[\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$. Nevertheless, the class of solutions may be restricted by the condition that the sources $`𝒥_i[\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ transform like (2) when the background fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}`$ undergo the transformations (2). Then $`\stackrel{~}{W}[𝒥[\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}],\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}]`$ becomes a gauge invariant functional of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{B}`$ and hence

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{W}}{d\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}}}=(1)^{\delta _i}{\displaystyle _x}\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_i^\text{B}𝒥_i`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}\left\{(D_\mu \omega )^aj_\mu ^a+i\omega ^a\overline{\chi }^fT^a\psi _\text{B}^fi\omega ^a\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^fT^a\chi ^f+f^{abc}(\overline{\eta }^ac_\text{B}^b\omega ^c+\overline{c}_\text{B}^b\omega ^c\eta ^a)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x}\omega ^a\left\{(D_\mu j_\mu )^a+i\overline{\chi }^fT^a\psi _\text{B}^fi\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^fT^a\chi ^f+f^{abc}(\overline{\eta }^bc_\text{B}^c+\overline{c}_\text{B}^c\eta ^b)\right\},`$
from which we obtain

$$(D_\mu j_\mu )^a=i(\overline{\chi }^fT^a\psi _\text{B}^f\overline{\psi }_\text{B}^fT^a\chi ^f)+f^{abc}(\overline{\eta }^bc_\text{B}^c+\overline{c}_\text{B}^c\eta ^b).$$
(83)
## Appendix B Anomalous Jacobians under rescaling transformations

Following the Fujikawa approach to the anomaly , we look for the operators appearing in the equations of motion. They can be inferred from the quadratic part in quantum variables of the non-regularized action in the Feynman gauge $`\alpha =1`$:

$`S_{\mathrm{YM}}(A+Q){\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }^f\left[i\mathit{}(A+Q)m_0^f\right]\psi ^f{\displaystyle _x}\overline{c}D^2(A+Q)c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_0^2}}{\displaystyle _x}(D_\mu Q_\mu )^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_0^2}}{\displaystyle _x}Q_\mu (D^2\delta _{\mu \nu }2iF_{\mu \nu })Q_\nu {\displaystyle _x}\overline{\psi }^f(i\mathit{}m_0^f)\psi ^f{\displaystyle _x}\overline{c}D^2c+\mathrm{},`$ (84)
where $`+\mathrm{}`$ are terms which we are not interested in. Then, under a rescaling transformation like the one in (16)

$`𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi ^{}𝒟\overline{\psi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}\pm 2{\displaystyle _x}\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\phi _n^{}\phi _n`$ (85)
$``$ $`𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}\pm 2{\displaystyle _x}\alpha 𝒜_1,`$
with the plus or minus sign when $`\psi `$ is a bosonic or fermionic spinor field. In the last equation $`\phi _n`$ is a complete and orthonormal set of eigenfunctions of the Hermitian operator $`\mathit{}`$. Therefore, the function $`𝒜_1`$ is divergent. It can be regularized in a gauge invariant manner by smoothly cutting off the contribution of the large eigenvalues and changing the basis vectors $`\phi _n`$ for the plane wave basis as in refs. :

$`𝒜_1`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}M^4{\displaystyle _q}\mathrm{Tr}f\left(q^22i{\displaystyle \frac{(qD)}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}^2}{M^2}}\right)`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}t^4{\displaystyle _q}\mathrm{Tr}f\left(q^22it(qD)+t^2\mathit{}^2\right)`$
$``$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}t^4{\displaystyle _q}\mathrm{Tr}F(t),`$
where $`_qd^4q/(2\pi )^4`$. The function $`f(s)`$ must drop smoothly from $`1`$ to $`0`$ as $`s`$ goes from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`sf^{}(s)=0`$ at $`s=0`$ and $`s=\mathrm{}`$. Developing the matrix function $`F(t)`$ in power of $`t=1/M`$ around $`t=0`$, we obtain

$$𝒜_1=\underset{t0}{lim}\underset{n=0}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{1}{n!}t^{n4}_q\mathrm{Tr}F^{(n)}(0)+\underset{t0}{lim}\underset{n=5}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}t^{n4}_q\mathrm{Tr}F^{(n)}(0).$$
(87)
The second term on the right-hand side is the contribution of the irrelevant operators, which is suppressed by negative powers of $`t`$. It is zero at the one-loop level since the regulator independent part in the first term contributes with the correct coefficient to the one-loop $`\beta `$-function, as shown in sections 1 and 3. However, as pointed out in ref. , the irrelevant operators in the Jacobian should yield higher loop effects. In fact, according to the RG point of view, there is an infinite number of bare Lagrangians with the same relevant couplings and the same low energy physics, one of which does not have irrelevant couplings. If the Jacobian were regularized like the theory, the operation of setting the irrelevant operators to zero would modify the relevant coupling in the first term of eq. (87) probably providing the higher order corrections to the $`\beta `$-function . Therefore, our method is related to one-loop.

Thus, being $`s(t)=q^22it(qD)+t^2\mathit{}^2`$ a diagonalizable matrix, the conventional rules of derivation can be used under the trace. Then, at the one-loop level

$`\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}M^4\mathrm{Tr}f(q^22i{\displaystyle \frac{(qD)}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}^2}{M^2}})=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\{M^4\mathrm{Tr}f(q^2)2iM^3f^{}(q^2)\mathrm{Tr}(qD)`$
$`M^2\left[2f^{\prime \prime }(q^2)\mathrm{Tr}(qD)^2f^{}(q^2)\mathrm{Tr}\mathit{}^2\right]`$
$`+M\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{3}}f^{(3)}(q^2)\mathrm{Tr}(qD)^32if^{\prime \prime }(q^2)\mathrm{Tr}\mathit{}^2(qD)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}f^{(4)}(q^2)\mathrm{Tr}(qD)^42f^{(3)}(q^2)\mathrm{Tr}\mathit{}^2(qD)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{\prime \prime }(q^2)\mathrm{Tr}\mathit{}^4\}.`$ (88)
Finally, by making use of the integrals

$$\begin{array}{c}_qf(q^2)q_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}q_{\mu _n}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{odd}n,\hfill \\ _qf(q^2)q_\mu q_\nu =\frac{1}{4}\delta _{\mu \nu }_qf(q^2)q^2,\hfill \\ _qf(q^2)q_\mu q_\nu q_\rho q_\sigma =\frac{1}{24}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{\rho \sigma }+\delta _{\mu \rho }\delta _{\nu \sigma }+\delta _{\mu \sigma }\delta _{\nu \rho }\right)_qf(q^2)q^4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(89)
and the property of $`f(s)`$, we obtain

$$𝒜_1=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}M^4\mathrm{Tr}_qf(q^2)+\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}_\text{G}F_{\mu \nu }^2,$$
(90)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}_\text{G}`$ means a trace only on the gauge group indices. For our purpose, the first term on the right-hand side can be left out as field independent. The same will be done in the following calculation of $`𝒜_2`$ and $`𝒜_3`$.

The anomalous Jacobians under rescaling transformation of scalar and vector fields are evaluated by the same procedure:

$`𝒟c𝒟\overline{c}𝒟c^{}𝒟\overline{c}^{}=𝒟c𝒟\overline{c}\mathrm{exp}\pm 2{\displaystyle _x}\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\vartheta _n^{}\vartheta _n𝒟c𝒟\overline{c}\mathrm{exp}\pm 2{\displaystyle _x}\alpha 𝒜_2,`$ (91)
$`𝒟Q𝒟Q^{}=𝒟Q\mathrm{exp}\pm {\displaystyle _x}\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\varrho _n^{}\varrho _n𝒟Q\mathrm{exp}\pm {\displaystyle _x}\alpha 𝒜_3,`$ (92)
where, according to the eq. (B), $`\vartheta _n`$ and $`\varrho _n`$ are complete and orthonormal sets of eigenfunctions of the Hermitian operators $`D^2`$ and $`D^2\delta _{\mu \nu }2iF_{\mu \nu }`$ respectively. The sign follows the same previous rules. $`D_\mu `$ is an anti-Hermitian operator with respect to the inner product $`(c,c)=_xc_a^{}c^a`$ and therefore $`D^2`$ is positive semi-definite. Then, suppressing the contribution of large eigenvalues as above, at the one-loop level we get

$$𝒜_2=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}M^4_q\mathrm{Tr}f\left(q^22i\frac{(qD)}{M}\frac{D^2}{M^2}\right)=\frac{1}{192\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}_\text{G}F_{\mu \nu }^2.$$
(93)
Repeating the same procedure for the calculation of $`𝒜_3`$, we obtain

$$𝒜_3=\frac{5}{48\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}_\text{G}F_{\mu \nu }^2.$$
(94)
These results have also been worked out in refs.  as flat space-time limit of the Weyl anomaly.


format: text

text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

The detection and characterization of Earthlike planets is one of a NASA’s highest priorities for the coming years. Currently, NASA’s plans focus on building large mid-infrared nulling interferometers that aim to detect thermal emission from planets and characterize the absorbtion lines in their atmosphere. There is an alternative approach: a large optical telescope with a suitable coronagraph may be capable of detecting reflected light from the planets. Since this large telescope would have a high quality optical surface, it would also be capable of 10 milliarcsecond imaging and would be a powerful instrument for near UV spectroscopy. There are a wide range of astronomical problems that could be addressed with a large optical/near UV space telescope. This large space telescope would be a boon to astrophysics!

Brown and Burrows discuss searching for extrasolar planets with the Hubble Space Telescope. They emphasize the challenge for extrasolar planet searches: detecting the planet’s weak signal against the star’s bright light. They show that there were two dominant sources of noise in the observation: diffracted light due to the finite size of the aperature and scattered light due to imperfections in the mirror surface.

This paper is an attempt to design a system that is optimized for extrasolar planet detection. In section 2, I introduce a new pupil design and show that it can significantly reduce diffracted light along one axis of the system and discuss optimizing the pupil shape for terrestial planet finding. The optical system can be enhanced by combining this pupil with a coronagraph. In section 3, I discuss the scattered light problem and show how we can use a spectrograph placed along the symmetry axis of the system to characterize the mirror imperfections. A deformable mirror can correct these imperfections and reduce the stellar scattered light at the position of the planet. Section 4 discusses using this system to detect Earthlike planets around nearby stars and concludes the paper.

## 2. A New Pupil Design

### A. Analytical Pupil Shape

In this section, I introduce a pupil designed to minimize the diffracted light from the host star along its symmetry axis.

In the scalar optics limit, the diffraction pattern produced point source observed through a pupil at focus is the Fourier transform of its shape:

$$I(\xi ,\eta )=_{A(x,y)}𝑑x𝑑y\mathrm{exp}\left[ik\left(x\xi +y\eta \right)\right]$$
(1)
Throughout this paper, $`k`$ is the photon wavenumber, $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are positions in the focal plane, and $`x`$ and $`y`$ are positions along the mirror surface. Along the $`\xi `$ axis, the optical response depends on the width of the pupil:

$$I(\xi ,\eta )=𝑑x\mathrm{exp}\left(ikx\xi \right)\left[y_{width}(x)\frac{k^2\eta ^2}{2}_{A(x,y)}y^2𝑑y+\frac{k^4\eta ^4}{24}_{A(x,y)}y^4𝑑y+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(2)
where the odd terms in the expansion vanish as long as the pupil is symmetric about the x axis. For a circular aperature of radius, $`R,`$ $`y_{width}(x)=\sqrt{R^2x^2}`$ and the diffraction pattern is the familiar Airy pattern. For a circular pupil, the energy recieved falls off as $`\theta ^3`$.

If the width of the pupil is close to a Gaussian,

$$y_{width}(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[(\alpha x/R)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ^2)$$
(3)
with $`R<x<R,`$ then its diffraction pattern along the $`\xi `$ axis falls off much faster than that of a circular pupil:

$`I(\xi ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _R^R}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}\left(ikx\xi \right)\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[(\alpha x/R)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ^2)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{k^2R^2}{4\alpha ^2}\right)}{\alpha }}[\mathrm{erf}(\alpha +IKR/2\alpha ))\mathrm{erf}(\alpha IkR/2\alpha )]`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(k\xi R)}{k\xi }}`$
Figure 1 shows the energy recieved as a function of position in the focal plane for a circular aperature and a shaped pupil with several different values of $`\alpha .`$ Note the basic trade-off in the pupil design: if $`\alpha `$ is larger, then the null is deeper; however, the dark region starts at a larger radius.

If the pupil consists of a single opening, then equation (3) fully describes its shape. However, a two piece pupil is specified by an additional function, the position of the inner edge of the pupil (see figure 2). If the inner edge of the pupil is chosen so that

$$_{y_{inner}(x)}^{y_{inner}(x)+y_{width}(x)}y^2𝑑y=\beta y_{width}(x),$$
(5)
then the null that is both deep and wide:

$$I(\xi ,\eta )=I(\xi ,0)(1\beta k^2\eta ^2+\mathrm{}.)$$
(6)
Figure 2 shows the optical response of the two piece pupil and figure 3 shows an image of the two piece pupil.

The two piece pupil is well suited for a space telescope. The secondary mirror of the telescope and its support structure can sit in the dark region between the two pieces of the pupil. The primary mirror can consist of two pieces so that it can fold up and fit into fairing of the launch vehicle. In this folding mirror design, the fold also sits in the dark region between the pupil. With proper baffling, there should be not be significant scattered light from either the fold, the secondary or its support structure.

For a multi-mirror telescope, there are many possible higher order versions of this pupil that consist of multiple pieces. As long as the integrated width of the pupil satisfies equation (3) (or the appropriately optimized forms discussed in 2.3), the response of the pupil will be similar. In a multiple mirror system, not only can the first two terms in the expansion be supressed, but also the higher order terms in equation (2).

### B. Combining the Pupil with a Coronagraph

The performance of the optical system can be enhanced by combining the pupil with the appropriate coronagraph. For example, the pupil could be combined with the achromatic interferocoronagraph. In this coronagraph, the light from the star is split by a beam splitter into two equal intensity beams. One of the beampath experiences an additional reflection so that when the two beams are recombined, they are out of phase by $`\pi `$ and reflect around the symmetry axis. Since the diffraction pattern is symmetric, these two beams cancel and null out the star. In practice, there is a small optical path difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ between the two beampaths, so that the measured signal from the star is

$$I_{meas}(\xi ,\eta )=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\left(2\pi k\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2\right]I(\xi ,\eta )\frac{1}{2}I(\xi ,\eta )$$
(7)
Since the planet appears on only one side of the star, it is not nulled, instead, two images of the planet are detected.

By combining this nuller with the pupil design of section (2.1), we can combine the advantages of both and achieve a very deep null close to the star. If an X-shaped stop is placed in the focal plane in front of the nuller, then it will block most of the starlight from reaching the nuller. Thus, mirror imperfections in the nuller will not make a noticeable contribution to the scattered light reaching the CCD or spectrograph at the back end of the nuller.

Next, we consider a strawman optical system and assume that we can control the optical path difference in the nuller to better than $`\lambda /6.`$ This reduces the diffracted light from the star by 10-3. When combined with a pupil designed to produce a null of depth 10-7, the diffracted light from the star is now suppressed so that it is less than the light from the planet. With this combined system, we can detect with a 10 meter telescope, an Earth twin around star 10 parsecs away at all wavelengths shorter than 1.1 microns. In the next section, we will optimize the pupil shape and improve the wavelength coverage by 20%.

### C. Optimizing the Pupil Shape

While the analytical pupil shape is a useful first step in designing the pupil, its shape is not optimal. the system performance can be improved by shaping the pupil so that it achieves a null of specified depth at all wavelengths shorter than a critical wavelength. I have done a two step optimization. In the first step, the width of the pupil was varied to obtain a deep null over as wide a wavelength range as possible along the axis of the pupil plane. In the second step, the inner edge of the pupil was varied to minimize the energy falling into a slit placed along the axis.

Using a simulated annealling routine, I have searched function space to find a function for the width of the mirror that creates a null of depth $`10^7`$ at wavelengths shorter than 1.1 microns at angular seperation of 0.08 arcseconds. When this is combined with a nuller, the star’s light is suppressed by at least 10$`^{10}.`$ With this criterion, a 10 meter diameter telescope could detect the 1 micron water vapor line in an Earth-like planet around a Solar-type star at a distance of 10 parsecs and a seperation of 0.8 AU.

In the first optimization routine, I represent the mirror by its width at 64 points along a grid. At each step, the mirror shape is varied at each position by multiplying it by a random variable. The expectation value of this random variable is 1 and its variance is varied as a function of the iteration. For each pupil design, the program computes a quality parameter,

$$Q=_{k_{\mathrm{min}}}𝑑k(I(k)I_{\mathrm{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(I(k)I_{\mathrm{min}})$$
(8)
where $`I_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is a fixed threshold (10$`{}_{}{}^{7})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heavyside function. If the quality factor for the new design is better than the current best design, the program always accepts it. If the quality factor is poorer than the current design, the program accepts it with a probability $`\mathrm{exp}[\left(Q_{new}Q_{old}\right)/T]`$, where the system temperature is slowly lowered through the calculation. The program ran for $`10^7`$ steps and showed only minor improvements during the final half of the run.

In the second step in the optimization routine, I minimized the energy falling into a 0.03 arcsecond wide slit along the axis for wavelengths shorter than 1.1 microns. I begin with the inner edge fixed so as to minimize the $`\eta ^2`$ terms, where $`\eta `$ is th distance in the focal plane perpendicular to the slit (This leads to a large $`\eta ^4`$ terms.) Using the same minimization routine, I now vary the inner edge of the profile.

Figure 4 shows the optimized pupil. Figure 5 shows the on-axis intensity as a function of wavenumber for the 10 meter system observing a planet at the seperation of 0.8. The dotted line in figure 5 shows the integrated energy recieved into a slit of width 0.02 arcseconds in a system using the split pupil design described in the previous section.Figure 6 shows the full two-dimensional response of the pupil.

## 3. Scattered Light Problem

The TPF optical system will not be perfect.Variations in the mirror surface will lead to phase and amplitude errors. Following , we can estimate these effects using scalar wave theory. Because of these errors, equation (1) is now modified

$`I(\xi ,\eta ,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _A}𝑑x𝑑y\mathrm{exp}\left[ik(x\xi +y\eta )+ikG(x,y)\right]T(x,y)`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\xi ,\eta )+k\stackrel{~}{G}(\xi ,\eta )+\delta \stackrel{~}{A}(\xi ,\eta )`$
where $`T(x,y)`$ is the transmission of the system and $`G(x,y)`$ describes variations in the mirror surface As long as he amplitude and phase errors are signficantly less than unity, we can approximate the effect of phase errors and amplitude errors as

$`\stackrel{~}{G}(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\mathrm{exp}\left[ik(x\xi +y\eta )\right]G(x,y)}`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{A}(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\mathrm{exp}\left[ik(x\xi +y\eta )\right]\left[T(x,y)\overline{T}\right]}`$ (10)
where .$`\overline{T}`$ is the average transmission. $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{A}`$ are complex functions. It is convienent for the next subsection to split them into even and odd components.

While the engineering goal will be to minimize the errors in the mirror surface, the tolerances are so severe that on-orbit corrections will be essential. There are two complementary approaches to correcting the amplitude and phase errors:

* by slightly varying the shape of the aperture, we can cancel the amplitude errors along $`\eta =0`$ and can also cancel $`[\delta \stackrel{~}{A}(\xi ,0)]/\eta `$
* a deformable mirror can correct phase errors. Since the planned observations are primarily along a single axis, the deformable mirror does not need to correct errors over the full surface, but only along one dimension.

A detailed understanding of the mirror surface is essential for characterizing mirror imperfections. In the next section, we show how we can use observations with and without the nuller to characterize mirror errors

### A. Using the nuller and spectrograph to measure errors

Here, we envision an optical system consisting of the optimized pupil, an X-shaped stop that blocks most of the scattered light, and a mirror that can send the residual star pattern either through a nuller or directly into a spectrograph. Note that because of the stop, very little light from the star enters the nuller, so that any optical errors in the mirrors in the nuller will not contribute significantly to the scattered light problem.

When the beam goes through the nuller, the spectrograph will measure

$`U_{nuller}(k,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1+\left(2\pi k\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2\right]I(\xi ,0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I(\xi ,0)\right|^2`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\left(k\stackrel{~}{G}_{odd}(\xi ,0)+\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{odd}(\xi ,0)\right)^2`$
$`+2\left(2\pi k\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2\left(k\stackrel{~}{G}_{odd}(\xi ,0)+\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{odd}(\xi ,0)\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{even}(\xi ,0)+k\stackrel{~}{G}_{even}(\xi ,0)+\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{even}(\xi ,0)\right)`$
$`+O(\mathrm{\Delta })^4`$
On the other hand, when the signal does not pass through the nuller, the detected signal will pick up both the odd and even terms.

Planets will also produce a response in the system. Unlike amplitude and phase errors, the effect of a planet is to produce a signal that is centered at a constant value of $`v`$ rather than a constant value of $`k\xi .`$When we combine all the effects, the number of photons detected by the optical system without the rooftop nuller is:

$`U_{nonuller}(k,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|I(\xi ,0)\right|^2`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{even}(\xi ,0)+k\stackrel{~}{G}_{even}(\xi ,0)+\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{even}(\xi ,0)\right)^2`$
If we ignore terms of order $`\left(2\pi k\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2,`$ then we can immediately compute the amplitude and phase errors from equations (11) and (12).

## 4. Detectability of Earthlike Planets

In this concluding section, I estimate the detectability of Earthlike planets around G and K stars based on a system built from two 3 x 10 meter mirrors and the system described in this note. In the estimate, I have assumed that the deformable mirrors have been able to correct mirrors at the level of $`\lambda /10^4,`$ so that the amplitude of scattered light is comparable to the amplitude of the diffracted light (10-10 peak value). With this level of supppresion, a planet 1 AU from the host star is as bright as the background light (Q=1 in the language of ). Since the brightness of the planet drops as the distance from the host star increases, the Q value drops for planets further out in the system.

In estimating the signal-to-noise, I have assumed that the Earth-mass planet was at optimal phase and an albedo of 0.5 regardless of frequency for the planet’s surface. I assumed that the planet was monitored in U, B,V, R and I and combined the 5 bands to maximize the signal/noise. I assumed a 10% efficency for the full system at all wavelengths. For planets inside of 0.07 arcseconds, the shorter wavelengths are more important as diffracted light renders the longer wavelengths unusable. While the star is dimmer at short wavelengths, planets near the host star are brighter so that the two factors nearly cancel. Figure 7 shows estimates of time needed to detect the planet around a G2 and K2 star as a function of stellar distance and seperation. This figure shows that the proposed system appears to be a very effective planet finder, all of the G and K stars within 20 parsecs could easily be surveyed for Earthlike planets during the mission lifetime.

The proposed system should also be able to characterize the atmospheres of any detected planet. For an Earth twin around a star at a distance of 10 parsecs, the system should be capable of studying the atmosphere from 0.3 - 1.3 microns. This window contains a number of very important biotracers (O$`_2,`$O3 and H2O).

A large optical telescope is a viable alternative to the traditional mid-infrared approach to planet detection. Building a large space telescope will be a challenging task; however, the potential scientific rewards are enormous in fields ranging from cosmology to planetary science.

## 5. Acknowledgements

This adventure into optical design would not have been possible without the advice of my colleagues. I have benefited from discussions with Jim Gunn, Norm Jarosik, Jeremy Kasdin, Michael Littman, Richard Miles, Sarah Seager and Ed Turner at Princeton. My fellows members of the Ball TPF team, in particular,John Bally, Torsten Boecker, Bob Brown, Chris Burrows, Christ Ftaclas, Steve Kilston, Charley Noecker, and Wes Traub, have provided insightful criticism and commments and have deepened my understanding of optics.