text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The description of hadron interactions at small characteristic momenta remains an actual problem of elementary particle theory. The asymptotic freedom in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) enables one to investigate processes at large momentum transfers by making use of standard perturbation theory. But there is a number of phenomena which description lies beyond such calculations, namely quark confinement, gluon and quark condensates and many others. For these purposes nonperturbative approaches are used.

In the late 50’s the so-called analytic approach to quantum electrodynamics was proposed.?,? Its basic idea is the explicit imposition of the causality condition which implies the requirement of the analyticity in the $`Q^2`$ variable for the relevant physical quantities. Recently this approach has been extended to QCD.? This leads to the following essential advantages: absence of unphysical singularities at any loop level, stability in the infrared (IR) region, stability with respect to loop corrections, and extremely weak scheme dependence. The analytic approach has been applied successfully to such QCD problems as the $`\tau `$ lepton decays, $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation into hadrons, sum rules.?

Recently the analytic approach has been employed to the renormalization group (RG) equation.?,? The analyticity requirement was imposed on the RG equation itself, before deriving its solution. Solving the RG equation, “analytized” in the above-mentioned way (i.e., the proper analytical properties of the RG equation as a whole have been recovered), one arrives at the new analytic running coupling? (NARC). An essential point, that plays a crucial role in description of a number of nonperturbative phenomena in our approach, is the IR enhancement of the new analytic running coupling at $`Q^2=0`$. It should be stressed here that such a behavior of the invariant charge is in agreement with the Schwinger–Dyson equations,? and, as it was demonstrated recently,?,? provides description of quark confinement without invoking any additional assumptions.

The objective of this paper is to study in details the mathematical properties of the new analytic running coupling in QCD.? This enables one to present the NARC in the explicitly renorminvariant form and to construct manifestly the corresponding $`\beta `$ function. We restrict ourself to the one-loop level calculations, taking into account the following consideration. Due to the higher loop stability? all the essential features of the new analytic running coupling become apparent at the one-loop level already. The account of higher–loop corrections does not lead to any qualitative changes. At the same time, at the one-loop level one able to carry out all the calculations in an explicit form, that is one of the self–evident merits of the current consideration.

The layout of the paper is as follows. In Sec. 2 the new analytic running coupling is briefly discussed. In Sec. 3 the function $`N(a)`$, that plays a key role in our analysis, is introduced and its properties are investigated. In turn, the function $`N(a)`$ is expressed in terms of the so-called Lambert $`W`$ function. Proceeding from this, in Sec. 4 the one-loop new analytic running coupling is presented manifestly in the renorminvariant form and its basic properties are revealed. Further, the corresponding $`\beta `$ function is derived in an explicit form and its properties are examined. The consistent estimation of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}`$ is given. In the Conclusion (Sec. 5) the obtained results are formulated in a compact way, and further studies in this approach are outlined.

## 2 New analytic running coupling in QCD

In the analytic approach, extended to QCD by Shirkov and Solovtsov,? the basic idea is the explicit imposing of the causality condition, which implies the requirement of the analyticity in the $`Q^2`$ variable for the relevant physical quantities. Later this idea was applied to the “analytization” of the perturbative series (i.e., the recovering of the proper analyticity properties of this series) when calculating the QCD observables.?

As known, the $`Q^2`$-evolution of QCD observables is usually described in the framework of the RG approach. However, the standard RG calculations involve, as a rule, the use of the perturbative expansions. As a result, the RG equation at any given loop level does not meet the analyticity requirement.?,? In order to avoid such situation, the procedure of analytization of the RG equation as a whole has been elaborated.?,? This procedure implies the recovering of the correct analytic properties of the RG equation itself, before deriving its solution. As a result, the solution of the analytized RG equation is expressed in terms of a new analytic running coupling. At the one-loop level this running coupling reads?

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{\text{(1)}}(Q^2)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}\frac{z1}{z\mathrm{ln}z},z=\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},$$
(1)
where $`\beta _0=112n_\text{f}/3`$ is the first coefficient of the $`\beta `$ function, $`n_\text{f}`$ is the number of active quarks. At the higher loop levels only the integral representation for $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{}(Q^2)`$ has been obtained.? So, at the $`k`$-loop level we have

$$^\text{N}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{(k)}(Q^2)={}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{(k)}(Q_0^2)\frac{z_0}{z}\mathrm{exp}\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}^{(k)}(\sigma )\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sigma +z}{\sigma +z_0}\right)\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }\right],$$
(2)
where $`^{(k)}(\sigma )=(2\pi i)^1_{j=0}^{k1}\frac{\beta _j}{\beta _0^{j+1}}\left\{\left[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\text{s}^{(k)}(\sigma i\epsilon )\right]^{j+1}\left[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\text{s}^{(k)}(\sigma +i\epsilon )\right]^{j+1}\right\}`$ is the spectral density, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\text{s}^{(k)}`$ is the $`k`$-loop perturbative running coupling, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\alpha \beta _0/(4\pi )`$, and $`z_0=Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is the normalization point.

It is worth making here a short historical comment. When considering the analytic approach to quantum electrodynamics, it was noted that the method proposed in Refs.?,? is not unique. For example, in paper? the ambiguity of that method was shown explicitly. Furthermore, it was stressed that for avoiding the ambiguity of the approach developed in Refs.?,? one should impose an additional condition,? in particular, by making use of the equations of motion. Specifically, following this way the boson propagator has been derived? in which the singularity was removed in a multiplicative way (i.e., similar to Eq. (1)). Moreover, another common feature of our consideration and that of paper? is the following. Unlike the method,?,? in our approach one is also able to catch the nonperturbative contributions to the spectral density for the running coupling (see also Eq. (23)).

Figure 2 presents the new analytic running coupling calculated at the one-, two- and three-loop levels. These curves show that the analytic running coupling (1) possesses the higher loop stability. Moreover, it can be demonstrated that the singularity of the NARC at the point $`Q^2=0`$ is of the universal type at any loop level.?

## 3 The Lambert $`W`$ function

For the representation of the new analytic running coupling (1) in the renorminvariant form and for the construction of the relevant $`\beta `$ function, it proves to be convenient to use the so-called Lambert $`W`$ function. As long ago as the middle of $`18`$th century this function is being employed in diverse physical problems.? In current researches in QCD the interest to this function arose just a few years ago. So, it was revealed?,? that the exact solution to the perturbative RG equation for the invariant charge at the two-loop approximation can be expressed in terms of the Lambert $`W`$ function. At the three-loop level, when the Padé approximation for the $`\beta `$ function is used, the solution to this equation can be expressed in terms of the Lambert $`W`$ function also.? But in this case one has to take into account that the application of the Padé approximation to the $`\beta `$ function drastically changes the behavior of perturbative running coupling at small $`Q^2`$.

The Lambert $`W`$ function is defined as a many–valued function $`W(x)`$, that satisfies the equation

$$W(x)\mathrm{exp}\left[W(x)\right]=x.$$
(3)
Only two real branches of this function, the principal branch $`W_0(x)`$ and the branch $`W_1(x)`$ (see Fig. 3), will be used in our consideration. The other branches of the Lambert $`W`$ function take an imaginary values. One can show that for the branches $`W_0`$ and $`W_1`$ the following expansions hold:

$`W_0(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \epsilon ^2+O(\epsilon ^3),\epsilon 0,`$ (4)
$`W_1(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\epsilon +O(\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{ln}\epsilon |),\epsilon 0_+,`$ (5)
$`W_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}+\epsilon \right)`$ $`=`$ $`1+\sqrt{2e\epsilon }+O(\epsilon ),\epsilon 0_+,`$ (6)
$`W_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}+\epsilon \right)`$ $`=`$ $`1\sqrt{2e\epsilon }+O(\epsilon ),\epsilon 0_+.`$ (7)
Details concerning the mathematical properties of the Lambert $`W`$ function can be found in the review.?

In order to represent the NARC (1) in a renorminvariant form and to derive the $`\beta `$ function corresponding to $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{\text{(1)}}`$ one has to solve the equation (see Sec. 4)

$$\frac{z1}{z\mathrm{ln}z}=a,z>0,a>0$$
(8)
with respect to the variable $`z`$. Let us multiply this equation through by the factor $`a^1\mathrm{ln}z`$,

$$\mathrm{ln}z=\frac{b}{z}b,z>0,b=\frac{1}{a}<0.$$
(9)
The equation obtained has a trivial solution $`z=1`$ that does not satisfy initial Eq. (8) when $`a1`$. Obviously, this is a consequence of the multiplication of Eq. (8) by $`\mathrm{ln}z`$. Therefore, when solving Eq. (9) for the variable $`z`$ one has to discard its trivial solution $`z=1`$. Next, we can represent Eq. (9) in the form

$$\frac{b}{z}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b}{z}\right)=be^b.$$
(10)
Taking into account the definition (3), solution to Eq. (10) can be expressed in terms of the Lambert $`W`$ function

$$\frac{b}{z}=W_k\left(be^b\right).$$
(11)
The branch index $`k`$ of the $`W`$ function will be specified below.

In the physically relevant range $`a>0`$ the argument of the Lambert $`W`$ function in Eq. (11) takes the values $`1/ebe^b<0`$. The only two real branches, the principle branch $`W_0`$ and the branch $`W_1`$ (see Fig. 3) correspond to this interval. Here one has to handle carefully with the interchange between branches $`W_0(x)`$ and $`W_1(x)`$ at the point $`x=1/e`$ (this corresponds to the value $`a=1`$).

So, the nontrivial solution to Eq. (9) for the variable $`z`$ is

$$\frac{1}{z}=\{\begin{array}{cc}b^1W_0\left(be^b\right),\hfill & b<1\text{,}\hfill \\ b^1W_1\left(be^b\right),\hfill & 1b<0\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
(another choice of branches will be considered below). Thus, the solution to Eq. (8) we are interested in can be written in the form:

$$z=\frac{1}{N(a)},$$
(13)
where we have introduced the function $`N(a)`$ (see Fig. 3)

$$N(a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}N_0(a),\hfill & 0<a1\text{,}\hfill \\ N_1(a),\hfill & a>1\text{,}\hfill \end{array}N_k(a)=aW_k\left[\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)\right].$$
(14)
As follows from the definition (3) the function $`xe^x`$ and the Lambert $`W`$ function are mutually inverse. Here one has to distinguish precisely the branches $`W_0`$ and $`W_1`$ (see Fig. 3). From this figure it follows directly that for $`x>1`$ the function $`xe^x`$ “corresponds” to the branch $`W_0`$, and for $`x1`$ the function $`xe^x`$ “corresponds” to the branch $`W_1`$. Let us introduce for convenience the notations of the inverse functions for these branches

$$xe^x=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(W_0\right)^1(x),\hfill & x>1\text{,}\hfill \\ \left(W_1\right)^1(x),\hfill & x1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Now the function $`N(a)`$ in Eq. (14) can be written in a more compact form

$$N(a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}aW_0\left[\left(W_1\right)^1\left(a^1\right)\right],\hfill & 0<a1\text{,}\hfill \\ aW_1\left[\left(W_0\right)^1\left(a^1\right)\right],\hfill & a>1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
It is worth noting that another choice of the branches of the function $`N(a)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}N_1(a),\hfill & 0<a1\text{,}\hfill \\ N_0(a),\hfill & a>1\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
leads to the trivial solution of Eq. (9) (in this case $`\stackrel{~}{N}(a)1`$). Therefore, the solution $`z=1/\stackrel{~}{N}(a)`$ does not satisfy Eq. (8) when $`a1`$, and consequently we have to reject it.

Let us briefly consider the basic properties of the function $`N(a)`$ introduced in Eq. (14). In the physical range $`a>0`$ it is a nonnegative, monotone increasing function (see Fig. 3). With the help of the series (4)–(7) one can show that for the function $`N(a)`$ the following expansions hold

$`N(a0_+)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\right)\left\{1+O\left[\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\right)\right]\right\};`$ (18)
$`N(1+\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`1+2\epsilon +O(\epsilon ^2),\epsilon 0;`$ (19)
$`N(a\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`a\mathrm{ln}a+O\left[a\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}a)\right].`$ (20)
## 4 Properties of the new analytic running coupling

In this section we turn to the investigation of the properties of the one-loop new analytic running coupling in QCD?

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{\text{(1)}}(Q^2)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}\frac{z1}{z\mathrm{ln}z},z=\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(21)
For the convenience we omit the group factor and proceed with the expression

$$a(Q^2){}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{}^{\text{(1)}}{}_{\text{an}}{}^{}(Q^2)=\frac{z1}{z\mathrm{ln}z}.$$
(22)
Let us consider first of all the asymptotics of this function. In the ultraviolet (UV) limit the standard behavior of the invariant charge is reproduced: $`a(Q^2\mathrm{})1/\mathrm{ln}z`$, $`z=Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, i.e., the asymptotic freedom of the theory is taken into account. In the IR region there is an enhancement of the running coupling (22): $`a(Q^20_+)[\epsilon \mathrm{ln}\epsilon ]^1`$, $`\epsilon =Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. One should note here that such a behavior of the invariant charge is in agreement with the Schwinger–Dyson equations,? and as it was demonstrated recently,?,? provides quark confinement without invoking any additional assumptions. Thus the running coupling (21) incorporates both the asymptotic freedom behavior and the IR enhancement in a single expression. Obviously it is an essential advantage of our approach. It is easy to show that the function (22) has smooth behavior in the vicinity of the point $`Q^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$: $`a(Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)=1\delta /2+O(\delta ^2)`$, $`\delta =Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^21`$. It is worth noting also that for the running coupling (22) the causal representation of the Källén-Lehmann type holds?

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{}^{\text{(1)}}{}_{\text{an}}{}^{}(Q^2)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\rho (\sigma )}{\sigma +z}d\sigma ,^\text{N}\rho (\sigma )=(1+\frac{1}{\sigma })\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}^2\sigma +\pi ^2}.$$
(23)
In general, any expression for the running coupling makes sense only if the relevant definition of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is provided. Otherwise, a running coupling may be not a renorminvariant quantity at all. Thus, it is of a primary importance to present both the running coupling and the corresponding definition for its parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ explicitly.

So, let us represent the running coupling $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{\text{(1)}}`$ in the renorminvariant form. In the general case for the invariant charge $`\overline{g}^2(Q^2/\mu ^2,g)/(4\pi )\alpha (Q^2)`$ the normalization condition $`\overline{g}^2(1,g)=g^2`$ must be fulfilled.? In our case this normalization condition acquires the form

$$\frac{(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)1}{\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=\frac{\beta _0}{4\pi }\alpha (\mu ^2)a(\mu ^2).$$
(24)
Therefore, we have to resolve this equation with respect to the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The solution to such equations was considered in details in Sec. 3. With the help of the function $`N(a)`$ (see Eq. (14)) the solution to Eq. (24) can be presented in the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mu ^2N\left[\frac{\beta _0}{4\pi }\alpha (\mu ^2)\right].$$
(25)
Thus, the renorminvariant expression for the one-loop new analytic running coupling (1) is the following

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{\text{(1)}}(Q^2)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}\frac{z1}{z\mathrm{ln}z},z=\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mu ^2N\left[\frac{\beta _0}{4\pi }\alpha (\mu ^2)\right].$$
(26)
It is worth noting that when $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ (see Eq. (18)) the right hand side of Eq. (25) tends to its standard form? corresponding to the perturbative running coupling $`\alpha _\text{s}^{\text{(1)}}(Q^2)=4\pi /(\beta _0\mathrm{ln}z)`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{s}^2=\mu ^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}\frac{1}{\alpha (\mu ^2)}\right].$$
(27)
Let us proceed to the construction of the $`\beta `$ function corresponding to the running coupling (1). By definition,?

$$\beta (\alpha )=\frac{\alpha (\mu ^2)}{\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2}.$$
(28)
In the case under consideration, for the invariant charge $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{}^{\text{(1)}}{}_{\text{an}}{}^{}(Q^2)`$ the $`\beta `$ function takes the form

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\text{an}}^{}(a)=\left[\frac{1}{z(a)}a\right]\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}[z(a)]},$$
(29)
where $`z(a)`$ is the solution of Eq. (8) with respect to the variable $`z`$ (see Sec. 3). For the convenience we omit here the group factor, and use the expression $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\text{an}}^{}(a)={}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\beta _{\text{an}}^{}(a)\beta _0/(4\pi )`$. With the help of the function $`N(a)`$ defined in Eq. (14) the $`\beta `$ function for the NARC (22) can be written in the form

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\text{an}}^{}(a)=\frac{aN(a)}{\mathrm{ln}\left[N(a)\right]}.$$
(30)
Figure 4 presents this $`\beta `$ function and the standard perturbative result $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_\text{s}(a)=a^2`$ corresponding to the one-loop perturbative running coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{}^{\text{(1)}}{}_{\text{s}}{}^{}(Q^2)=1/\mathrm{ln}z`$. Thus, the $`\beta `$ function corresponding to the one-loop new analytic running coupling $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{\text{(1)}}`$ reads as

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{\text{(1)}}(Q^2)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}\frac{z1}{z\mathrm{ln}z}\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}a(Q^2),{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\beta _{\text{an}}^{}(a)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0}\frac{aN(a)}{\mathrm{ln}\left[N(a)\right]}.$$
(31)
The numerator and denominator on the right hand side of Eq. (30) have the opposite signs for all positive $`a`$. This follows directly from the expansion (33) (see below) and from Figs. 3 and 4. Thus, the $`\beta `$ function (30) possesses an important property, namely $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\text{an}}^{}(a)0`$ for all positive $`a`$. It is this property that provides the asymptotic freedom of the theory. By making use of the series (18)–(20) one can derive the following expansions of the $`\beta `$ function (30). First of all,

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\text{an}}^{}(a0_+)=a^2+O\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)\right],$$
(32)
i.e., the standard perturbative limit is reproduced in the UV region. Secondly,

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\text{an}}^{}(1+\epsilon )=\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}\epsilon +O(\epsilon ^2),\epsilon 0,$$
(33)
i.e., the function (30) has a smooth behavior in the vicinity of the point $`a=1`$. Next, in the IR region

$${}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\text{an}}^{}(a\mathrm{})=a\left[1+O\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}a)}{\mathrm{ln}^2a}\right)\right].$$
(34)
Such a behavior of the $`\beta `$ function provides the IR enhancement of the new analytic running coupling. This enhancement leads ultimately to the quark–antiquark potential rising at large distances.?,?

Thus, as one could anticipate, the asymptotics of the obtained $`\beta `$ function incorporate both the asymptotic freedom and the IR enhancement of the running coupling (1).

Sometimes it is more convenient to present the $`\beta `$ function in terms of the invariant charge $`g`$, $`\alpha g^2/(4\pi )`$. In this case the asymptotic expansions (32) and (34) can be rewritten in the following way: $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\beta _{\text{an}}^{}(g)\beta _0g^3/(16\pi ^2)`$ when $`g0`$ (this is nothing but the well–known standard perturbative result?); and $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\beta _{\text{an}}^{}(g)g`$ when $`g\mathrm{}`$. It is worth noting here that a similar (i.e., linear in $`g`$) asymptotic behavior $`\beta (g)2g`$ when $`g\mathrm{}`$ holds, when the so-called Mandelstam approximation is used (see paper? and references therein). However the latter leads to the running coupling with more singular behavior in the IR region, namely $`\alpha (Q^2)Q^4`$, when $`Q^20_+`$.

As it was mentioned in the previous section, the new analytic running coupling (1) incorporates both the asymptotic freedom and the IR enhancement in a single expression. Obviously this is an essential advantage of our approach. It was shown explicitly?,? that invariant charge of the form (1) leads to the rising quark–antiquark ($`q\overline{q}`$) potential without invoking any additional assumptions. The comparison of this $`q\overline{q}`$ potential with the so-called Cornell phenomenological potential gives the following estimation for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}`$ parameter: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0.60\pm 0.1)`$ GeV. The fit has been performed in the physically meaning region? $`0.1\text{fm}r1.0\text{fm}`$ (in this interval three active quarks should be taken into account, $`n_\text{f}=3`$). The analogous comparison of the $`q\overline{q}`$ potential derived in Ref.? with the lattice data? has been carried out recently. This gives a close value, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0.57\pm 0.1)`$ GeV. Furthermore, the estimation of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}`$ has also been performed recently when deducing the value of the gluon condensate by making use of the NARC (1). This gives the value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0.65\pm 0.05)`$ GeV. Therefore, we have the acceptable estimation of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}`$ in the framework of our approach: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0.60\pm 0.09)`$ GeV.

All this testifies that the new analytic running coupling (1) substantially involves the nonperturbative behavior of quantum chromodynamics.

## 5 Conclusion

The mathematical properties of the new analytic running coupling in QCD (1) are investigated. This running coupling naturally arises under analytization of the renormalization group equation.? One of the crucial points in our consideration is the explicit relation established between the NARC (Eq. (1)) and its inverse function $`N(a)`$ (Eq. (14)). The latter can be expressed in terms of the so-called Lambert $`W`$ function. The properties of the function $`N(a)`$ are examined in details. As known, when using the RG approach it is important to present the relevant quantities in a renorminvariant form. The function $`N(a)`$ enables one to perform this explicitly for the NARC (1). Furthermore, the $`\beta `$ function corresponding to the running coupling $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\alpha _{\text{an}}^{\text{(1)}}`$ is expressed in terms of the function $`N(a)`$. The explicit form of the function $`{}_{}{}^{\text{N}}\beta _{\text{an}}^{}`$ in Eq. (31) provides an essential advantage when considering the gluon condensate. The asymptotics of the $`\beta `$ function in Eq. (31) are examined also. As one could anticipate, it incorporates both the asymptotic freedom and the IR enhancement of the invariant charge (1) in a single expression. It was shown that there is a consistent estimation of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}`$ in the framework of our approach: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0.60\pm 0.09)`$ GeV. Thus, the new analytic running coupling (1) substantially incorporates the nonperturbative behavior of the quantum chromodynamics.

In further studies it would be interesting to investigate numerically higher–loop corrections to the NARC (1) and to compare the results with the explicit expressions obtained in the present paper.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Professor D. V. Shirkov and Dr. I. L. Solovtsov for interest in this work. The detailed discussions with Dr. L. von Smekal are greatly appreciated. The author is grateful to Professor G. S. Bali for supplying the relevant data on the lattice calculations. The useful references provided by Professor R. M. Corless and stimulating comments by Professor B. A. Arbuzov are thankfully acknowledged.

The partial support of RFBR (Grant No. 99-01-00091) is appreciated.

References


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

math-ph/0102015

A Transfer Matrix approach to the Enumeration of Knots

J. L. Jacobsen and P. Zinn-Justin

Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Modèles Statistiques

Université Paris-Sud, Bâtiment 100

91405 Orsay Cedex, France

We propose a new method to enumerate alternating knots using a transfer matrix approach. We apply it to count numerically various objects, including prime alternating tangles with two connected components, up to order $`18`$$`22`$, and comment on the large-order behavior in connection with one of the authors’ conjecture.

02/2001

1. Introduction

The classification of knots is a subject with a long history. More than a hundred years ago, Tait, Kirkman and Little tried to draw “by hand” the first knots (up to 10 crossings, but with some mistakes); nowadays, it is possible with the modern tools of knot theory and the use of computers to create programs that generate all possible (prime) knots up to 16 crossings . Here we shall consider the simplest problem, namely the enumeration of knots (or similar objects). Furthermore we shall concentrate on so-called alternating objects which have much simpler properties than their generic counterparts. Even though they are probably asymptotically subdominant (this has been proved in the case of links ), they are quite interesting to study if only because one can prove much more about them than about general knots. In fact, the number of prime alternating tangles is known exactly ; however, a general tangle has an arbitrary number of connected components, and in the present paper we want to be able to control this number, that is to count knots or similar objects (e.g. tangles with exactly $`2`$ connected components).

The key concept that will be used is that of a transfer matrix. A standard object of statistical mechanics, where it describes the discrete time evolution of a system, the transfer matrix is also a very efficient numerical tool for the combinatorial enumeration of discrete objets. This approach has recently been used to investigate the properties of 2D Lorentzian gravity , the enumeration of plane meanders \[2,,3\], and the coupling of matter fields to 2D quantum gravity equipped with a Hamiltonian circuit . In contradistinction to the standard situation, where the transfer matrix is used to construct the partition function for a statistical mechanics system on a semi-infinite strip of finite width, these combinatorial applications possess a state space which is different in each time slice. Accordingly the underlying physical models are not defined on a regular lattice, but belong to the realm of two-dimensional quantum gravity. In all these examples, the common feature that ensures the existence of a transfer matrix is that the objects under consideration permit a time ordering. For the meanders (resp. the Hamiltonian circuits) this was attained by “reading” each object as one moves along the river (resp. the circuit), adding one intersection (vertex) at each time step. Clearly, this stategy in also appropriate for enumerating knots with one connected component.

This type of enumeration problems have many interesting connections with mathematical physics \[19\]. In particular, in \[5,,6,,7\] the counting of links, knots or tangles was reduced to the evaluation of integrals over $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices, in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. Though these integrals cannot be computed explicitly in general, the subject of matrix models and its well-known connection to 2D quantum gravity  provide some information on the universal quantities of the model. This led to conjectures of the asymptotic behavior of the number of such objects when the number of crossings goes to infinity; and one motivation of the present work is to check the conjecture concerning the asymptotic number of prime alternating knots.

The paper is organized as follows: after some brief definitions in section 2, which enable us to give a more precise meaning to the problem that we are addressing, the basic principles underlying our transfer matrix approach are described in section 3. A number of practical details concerning our implementation of this algorithm are then given in section 4. Finally, section 5 gives the results of the numerical enumeration of prime alternating knots. As a byproduct we also count several other objects of combinatorial interest.

2. Basic definitions

A knot is a smooth circle embedded in $`\mathrm{IR}^3`$, considered up to homeomorphisms of $`\mathrm{IR}^3`$. In this paper we shall study slightly different objects, namely knots with “external legs”; a knot with $`2n`$ external legs is a a collection of $`n`$ intervals embedded in a ball $`B`$ and whose endpoints are given distinct points on the boundary $`B`$, considered up to orientation preserving homeomorphisms of $`B`$ that reduce to the identity on $`B`$. These knots with external legs are nothing but tangles in which no closed loops are allowed. Knots with $`2`$ and $`4`$ external legs will be of special interest to us. When we refer to standard knots we shall from now on call them closed knots. Clearly, each knot with $`2`$ external legs can be transformed into a closed knot by joining its endpoints through a smooth curve outside $`B`$. And conversely, by cutting a closed knot once it may be turned into a knot with $`2`$ external legs, but in general this transformation is not unique, in the sense that the topological properties of the resulting knot with $`2`$ external legs depend on the point where the closed knot was cut. This means that counting knots with external legs does not help count closed knots. However we shall always count the former and never the latter; those are the objects whose generating series will have “nice” properties.1 At the level of diagrams (see below for a definition of diagrams associated to knots), one can go slightly further by saying that, as the Feynman rules of perturbative quantum field theory tell us, counting planar diagrams with external legs is equivalent to counting closed planar diagrams weighted by a symmetry factor. This also explains why counting closed objects with a weight of $`1`$ is unnatural.

It is common to represent such objects by their projections on a plane; we consider regular projections with only double points where lines cross. To avoid redundancies, we shall concentrate on prime knots, whose diagrams cannot be decomposed as a sum of pieces connected to each other by only two lines, and on reduced diagrams that contain no irrelevant crossings (Fig. 1). We shall need another related concept: a diagram is said to be $`r`$-particle reducible (resp. irreducible) ($`r`$PR, resp. $`r`$PI), $`r`$ positive integer, if it can (resp. cannot) be divided into disconnected components by cutting $`r`$ edges. For closed knots and knots with $`2`$ external legs, the notion of a prime knot coincides with the $`2`$-particle irreducibility of its diagram(s).2 Note however that this is not the case for knots with $`2n`$ external legs, $`n2`$; see for example  for a discussion of 2PI tangles.

Fig. 1: a) a non prime link; b) an irrelevant (or “nugatory”) crossing.

A diagram is called alternating if one meets under- and over-crossings alternatingly as one travels along each loop. A remarkable property (see e.g. , page 21) is that in the case of alternating diagrams there is no need to “remember” which crossings are under/over. In other words, two alternating knot diagrams have the same underlying planar diagram if and only if they are identical, or related by an overall flip under $``$ over in the case of closed knots. This greatly simplifies their enumeration.

To a given knot can correspond several diagrams. In fact, in the case of alternating diagrams, two alternating reduced knot diagrams represent the same object if and only if they are related by a sequence of moves acting on tangles called “flypes” (see Fig. 2) . This is of course an essential distinction when one is interested in counting such objects, and we shall briefly discuss it now. The general idea is the same as in ; however, the actual equations shown used here are simpler than those in , and their proof will be given elsewhere  in the more general framework of colored links.

Fig. 2: The flype of a tangle.

Since the diagrams we shall work with most of the time are diagrams of knots with $`2`$ external legs, we shall simply call them knot diagrams. Let us start by defining the generating series $`G(g)`$

$$G(g)=\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_pg^p$$

where $`a_p`$ is the number of knot diagrams with $`p`$ crossings, or equivalently, the number of topologically inequivalent open curves in the plane going from $`(\mathrm{},0)`$ to $`(+\mathrm{},0)`$ with $`p`$ regular self-intersections. We similarly define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(g)`$ to count 1PI knot diagrams, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(g)`$ to count 2PI knot diagrams (with the trivial diagram excluded and the two diagrams with one crossing included). The following relations hold: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(g)`$ is simply given by

$$G(g)=\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(g)}$$

whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(g)`$ is given by the implicit equation

$$1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(g)=G\left(\frac{g}{(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(g))^2}\right)$$

(see  for details).

Next, we want to take into account the flyping equivalence in order to count the actual objects and not diagrams. The data of $`G(g)`$ is insufficient for this purpose; we need a more general object, a double generating series $`G(g_1,g_2)`$

$$G(g_1,g_2)=\underset{p_1,p_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{p_1,p_2}g_1^{p_1}g_2^{p_2}$$

where $`a_{p_1,p_2}`$ is the number of topologically inequivalent open curves in the plane (going from $`(\mathrm{},0)`$ to $`(+\mathrm{},0)`$) with $`p_1`$ regular self-intersections and $`p_2`$ tangencies, see Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Open curve with self-intersections (green dots) and tangencies (red dots).

Also, note that we have $`a_{p,0}=a_p`$ or $`G(g)=G(g_1=g,g_2=0)`$, so that there is more information in $`G(g_1,g_2)`$ than in $`G(g)`$.

Since flypes act on tangles, we are led to the introduction of a few more generating functions which are related to the counting of tangles, $`G_1`$, $`G_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$; they are all expressible in terms of $`G`$ alone via:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill G& =1+2g_1G_2+2g_2(G_1+G_2)\hfill & (2.1a)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{}{g_2}G_2& =\frac{}{g_1}(G_1+G_2)\hfill & (2.1b)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_1& =G_1\hfill & (2.1c)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_2& =G_2G^2\hfill & (2.1d)\hfill \end{array}$$

We also introduce for our convenience an extra parameter $`t`$ which counts the number of edges of the diagram; it is easy to show that the following formulae take care of it: $`G(g_1,g_2,t)\frac{1}{t}G(g_1/t^2,g_2/t^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(g_1,g_2,t)\frac{1}{t^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(g_1/t^2,g_2/t^2)`$.

The parameters $`t`$, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ must then be chosen as a function of $`g`$ according to the following renormalization procedure (see ):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 1& =G(g_1(g),g_2(g),t(g))\hfill & (2.2a)\hfill \\ \hfill g_1(g)& =g(12H_2^{}(g))\hfill & (2.2b)\hfill \\ \hfill g_2(g)& =g(H_1^{}(g)+V_2^{}(g))\hfill & (2.2c)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`H_1^{}(g)`$, $`H_2^{}(g)`$ and $`V_2^{}(g)`$ are auxiliary quantities defined by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill H_2^{}\pm H_1^{}& =\frac{(1g)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_1)g}{1+(1g)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_1)g}\hfill & (2.3a)\hfill \\ \hfill V_2^{}& =(1g)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(1H_2^{}H_1^{})^2\hfill & (2.3b)\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have omitted all arguments for the sake of brevity; in particular $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(g_1(g),g_2(g),t(g))`$.

This ensures that the flypes are appropriately taken into account and for example that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(g_1(g),g_2(g),t(g))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(g_1(g),g_2(g),t(g))`$ are the desired generating functions for the number of tangles with $`2`$ connected components of type 1 and 2 respectively (see  for a definition of type; the total number of tangles is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$). Similarly one could define other generating functions of the 2 variables $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ (higher correlation functions in the matrix model language) which would count objects with more external legs.

3. Space of states and transfer matrix

We now come to the description of the transfer matrix approach. The latter requires first that the knot diagrams be represented in an appropriate way (3.1); next we have to define the space of states on which the matrix acts (3.2); and finally define the transfer matrix itself (3.3). At first we shall concentrate on the usual knot diagrams with self-intersections only; a direct application of the first 3 subsections leads to the enumeration of alternating knot diagrams, but to count actual alternating knots, one has to introduce a refined procedure (addition of tangencies) to which subsection 3.4 is devoted.

3.1. Representation of a knot diagram using time slices

A basic ingredient of the transfer matrix approach is the ability to cut the object one is studying into slices, which represent the state of the system at fixed (discrete) time. If we apply this to knots a complication arises. The naive idea would be to draw the knot diagrams on the plane in such a way that time would correspond to one particular coordinate of the plane, that is to read the knot diagrams “from left to right”. Here, this idea does not work directly, and one is led to a slightly more sophisticated notion of slices, which we shall explain using the example of Fig. 4.

Fig. 4: A knot diagram and its corresponding “sliced” diagram. The steps are ordered by their number below the diagram. At each step, the active line is distinguished by an arrow.

The general idea is to follow the knot as it winds around itself from one “incoming” external leg to the other “outgoing” leg, and write down step by step the crossings and the lines that are crossed. We shall call the edge of the diagram that we are currently following the active line. Of course this is a step-dependent concept since every edge of the diagram will at some point become the active line. The edges of the diagram have been labelled from A to K in the order in which we encounter them. The precise recipe is as follows. At each step there are two possibilities: 1) The label of the active line does not appear anywhere else in the picture drawn this far. We then proceed to the next crossing and draw it. 2) The active line already appears somewhere. We connect the active line to its other appearance. We then follow this new line until it reemerges as an open line: this will be the new active line. In the case of Fig. 4, steps 1–5 are of type 1) whereas steps 6–10 are of type 2). In general, steps of type 1) and 2) can appear in any order, except that at any stage the number of type 2) steps performed cannot be greater than the number of type 1) steps. In a more algebraic language, the sequence of 1s and 2s forms a Dyck word .

After step 5, for the first time the active line, which is now the edge F, is already present (AB–FG crossing). When we reconnect the two occurrences of the edge F, we notice that some open lines are “imprisoned” inside the new arch we have created, and therefore we cannot draw step 6 right after step 5. Instead we must allow lines inside the new arch to continue to evolve (steps 8 and 10), keeping in mind that they cannot have any contact with the lines outside the arch.3 Note that the order in which we draw the steps from left to right can contain some arbitrariness for more complex knots; however the sequence of steps is unique.

Using this procedure, to each knot diagram we can associate a “sliced” diagram; and it is easy to show that two “sliced” diagrams are topologically equivalent (in the sense of graphs) if and only if they consist of the same sequence of steps. We shall now show how to generate all knots with such diagrams using a transfer matrix.

3.2. Space of states

The vector space on which the transfer matrix acts will be spanned by the intermediate states created in the process described in the previous section. The important point to remember is that at each step, we had to take into account the following information: a) the current (open) lines, including the active line; b) the existing connections of the lines from the left: pairs of lines are connected by what we call left arches; c) the different groups of lines which can still be connected to each other from the right; the lines are divided in multiple connected components by what we call right arches. All this information has to be included in the state of the system.

A basis state will therefore be described by a series of left and right arches and the position of the active line. As an illustration, we show all the intermediate states of the example of Fig. 4 on Fig. 5.

Fig. 5: A sequence of intermediate states. The active line is denoted by an arrow.

For practical applications, it is important to notice that some configurations should be forbidden. Firstly, we have states that cannot evolve into knots (Fig. 6 a) and b)). Secondly, there are redundant states that are equivalent to simpler states (Fig. 6 c) and d)); we shall describe a systematic simplification procedure in section 4 below.

Fig. 6: Examples of forbidden configurations. a) A region enclosed within a right arch which has no connections with the outside. b) A region enclosed within a right arch with an odd number of lines. c) An empty right arch. d) Two consecutive opening right arches.

3.3. Transfer matrix

We now describe the transfer matrix $`T`$. Its entries $`T_{ab}`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are two basis states of the kind defined in the previous section, are $`0`$ unless $`a`$ is a descendant of $`b`$, in which case $`T_{ab}`$ is the number of ways $`a`$ can be obtained from $`b`$. An allowed state $`a`$ is a descendant of $`b`$ if it can be obtained via a transformation of one of the two types shown on Fig. 7, followed by an arbitrary number of simplifications (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7: The two types of transformations.

Fig. 8: Possible simplifications.

The two transformations of Fig. 7 reproduce the procedure described in section 3.1, but we have now reformulated it in terms of states.

Note that in transformation 2), the relative positions of the active line and the line onto which it connects are not arbitrary. The screening role of the right arches should be respected, so that the active line can only connect onto lines belonging to the same block; and the relative distance between the active line and the line that it connects onto must be odd. For each of the allowed connection, the position of the new active line is found by following the line just connected along the left arch to which it belongs.

Transformation 1) (resp. 2)) increases (resp. decreases) the number of lines by 2. This means that at step $`p`$, for any intermediate state, the number of crossings $`n`$ and the number of lines $`l`$ (excluding the active line) are related by $`l=2(p2n)`$. In particular, we claim that the number of knot diagrams with $`n`$ crossings is given by $`<0\left|T^{2n}\right|0>`$, where $`|0>`$ is the state with the active line only. In this notation, $`|0>`$ is understood to be assigned the weight one, and $`<0|`$ acts as a projection operator: $`<0|0>=1`$. Formally we have

$$G(g)=<0\left|\frac{1}{1gT^2}\right|0>$$

In Appendix A we show explicitly the action of $`T`$ in the case of 1PI diagrams with at most four crossings.

3.4. Inclusion of tangencies in the transfer matrix

In order to count knots and not knot diagrams, it was explained in section 2 that one must start with more general objects than standard diagrams: one must count curves with both self-intersections and tangencies which produce a double generating series $`G(g_1,g_2)`$. This can be easily included in the transfer matrix as follows.

Firstly, the space of states must be slightly extended to take into account the fact that we have a double generating series. Typically a state must contain the information concerning the number of previous tangencies in the diagram. Therefore the new space of states will be the tensor product of the old space of states and of the space of polynomials in a variable $`x`$ which can be defined as $`x=g_2/g_1`$.

Secondly, the transfer matrix itself must be modified to allow for the creation of such tangencies: the new transfer matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(x)=T+xT^{}$$

where $`T`$ is the old transfer matrix defined by the transformations of Fig. 7, and $`T^{}`$ is the additional transformation described on Fig. 9 (plus, in each case, an arbitrary number of simplifications of the type of Fig. 8).

Fig. 9: The transformations that generate tangencies.

We can finally write the following formal expression for $`G(g_1,g_2)`$:

$$G(g_1,g_2)=<0\left|\frac{1}{1g_1\stackrel{~}{T}^2(x)}\right|0>$$

where it is recalled that $`x=g_2/g_1`$.

4. Practical details

Having described the principles underlying the transfer matrix algorithm we now turn to a number of important practical details concerning its implementation. Section 5.1 describes the data structures needed to encode the states and their corresponding weights. Several remarks on the algorithm will be made in section 5.2, and in section 5.3 we explain a number of different implementations that we have made, in the aim of obtaining a reasonable balance between the time and memory needs of the algorithm.

4.1. Data structures

The state space, formulated in terms of left and right arches and the active line, has been described in section 3.2. Ideally, in order to obtain a highly efficient transfer matrix algorithm, one would like to introduce a ranking among the states. By this we mean a bijective mapping from the $`N`$ different states to the set of integers $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$. With a ranking at hand, the integer representation can be used to label the entries of the transfer matrix, and the arch representation is then used to produce the descendants of a given state, as described in section 3.3. In a previous publication, one of the authors has shown how to obtain this goal in the case of meanders ; however, due to the very complicated interplay between left and right arches we have not been able to make similar progress in the case of knots.

Fortunately a simpler, and almost as efficient, alternative is available. Suppose that to each state $`i`$ we can assign a unique integer $`k_i\text{ZZ}_+`$, and devise a function $`f:\text{ZZ}_+\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},P1\}`$ that distributes the set of $`k_i`$’s more-or-less uniformly on the set $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},P1\}`$. By inserting the states $`i`$ into an array of noded lists indexed by $`f(k_i)`$, we can retrieve a given state $`k`$ in a time proportional to the mean length of one of the pointer lists, $`tN/P`$. This is a standard technique known as hashing ; the integer $`k_i`$ and the function $`f`$ are known respectively as the hash key and the hash function.

In the case at hand, a key $`k_i`$ can be defined by representing each arch state as a base-four number. Specifically, we read a configuration of left and right arches from top to bottom, associating the digit 1 (resp. 0) with the opening (resp. closing) of a left arch, and 3 (resp. 2) with the opening (resp. closing) of a right arch. The 1s and the 0s (resp. the 3s and the 2s) thus form two interlaced Dyck words . For the computation at order $`p`$ crossings there are at most $`p`$ arches, and the resulting key is at most $`4^p`$; we also need a few extra bits to specify the position of the active line. The hash function is simply $`f(k)=k\mathrm{mod}P`$, where $`P`$ is a large prime which we choose such that $`N/P10`$.

For each state in the hash table, we store its key and its weight. The weight is an integer, but since the number of knots with $`p`$ intersections grows exponentially with $`p`$ the weights of the largest knots considered in this work cause overflow in a standard 32-bit integer arithmetic. Instead of wasting memory storing double-precision integers, we took advantage of modular arithmetic . This means that the largest computations were done modulo various coprime numbers (typically $`2^{32}`$ and $`2^{32}1`$), and the full result was retrieved from the Chinese remainder theorem.

4.2. Algorithmic details

It is possible to perform a number of reductions on the state space. Although these do not affect the correctness of the algorithm, they are nevertheless important to implement since they reduce the number of intermediate states needed in the transfer process, and thus enables us to go to larger system sizes.

After each of the two transformations shown on Fig. 6, the resulting arch state can be simplified using the reductions given in Fig. 7. The idea is to associate each inequivalent “screened” state with a unique configuration of right arches. Reductions 1) and 2) consists in sliding an exterior right arch over an adjacent interior arch, and 3) consists in removing right arches that do not screen any ingoing left line. In the algorithm, these simplifications are performed recursively until no further reduction is possible. The resulting state is then unique.

It may happen that after reduction a state is forbidden in the sense of Fig. 5 a) or b). A first example of this occurs at order $`p=4`$, and is shown in Appendix A. Before inserting a descendant state in the hash table we therefore examine whether each right arch contains an even number of lines (including the active line), of which at least one is connected to the exterior.

A final algorithmic detail concerns the possibility of removing tadpole insertions in the knot diagrams. A tadpole is generated if and only if a type 1) transformation is immediately followed by a type 2) transformation in which the active line connects onto an adjacent line (see Fig. 6). We can therefore forbid tadpoles if each state encompasses an extra sign signalling whether the previous transformation was of type 1). Superficially this would appear to double the number of states needed, but in fact this is not so, since an important number of states are only produced when tadpoles are allowed. In practice we found that the number of signed states without tadpoles, and the number of states with tadpoles only differ by a few percent. Of course, eliminating tadpoles directly in the algorithm carries no intrinsic interest, since it is a trivial matter to do so afterwards by manipulating the generating functions. However, since the number of tadpole diagrams is, very roughly, found to be the square of the number of diagrams without tadpoles, including tadpoles would mean that we would have to carry out twice as many runs in order to retrieve the full result from the Chinese remainder theorem. For this reason we opted for the algorithm without tadpoles.

4.3. Implementations

Even though our transfer matrix method is much more efficient than a direct enumeration of the knot diagrams, it suffers from the drawback that the dimension of the state space, and thus the memory needs, grow exponentially with $`p`$. For a fixed size $`p`$, the evolution of the memory dynamically allocated by the hash table as a function of the discrete “time” steps is shown in Fig. 10. Near the beginning the number of states grows exponentially, reaches a maximum after roughly $`3p/2`$ steps, and then decreases exponentially towards the end. For practical reasons we only had about one gigabyte of memory available for our computations, and this turns out to be a more severe limitation for the obtainable system size than the computation time available. We have therefore experimented with several different implementations that limit the memory needs at the expense of using more time.

Fig. 10: The evolution of the number of intermediate states, as a function of ‘time’. The different curves pertain to the enumeration of diagrams with $`p=8,10,12,14`$ and $`16`$ crossings, no tangencies, and tadpoles included.

The most successful of these consist in, roughly speaking, using the transfer matrix approach until the available memory is exhausted. We then switch to a direct enumeration, which is carried out for a fixed number of steps, until the number of states needed by the transfer matrix approach has decreased to a level that again fits into the available memory. On Fig. 10 this could be represented by cutting the maximum of the memory profile by a horizontal line segment, representing the process of direct enumeration. The latter is based on the same recursive principle as the one defining the transfer process, but since states generated in intermediate time steps are not inserted into the hash table the process allocates no further memory.

5. Results

In Table 1 we display the coefficients of the generating functions ($`G`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$) up to order $`p=22`$. We recall that these functions represent, respectively, the total number of knot diagrams with $`p`$ crossings and two outgoing strings, and the subsets of $`1`$PI and $`2`$PI diagrams.

$`p`$  $`G`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$          $`0`$  $`1`$ $`0`$ $`0`$  $`1`$  $`2`$ $`2`$ $`2`$  $`2`$  $`8`$ $`4`$ $`0`$  $`3`$  $`42`$ $`18`$ $`2`$  $`4`$  $`260`$ $`108`$ $`4`$  $`5`$  $`1796`$ $`748`$ $`12`$  $`6`$  $`13396`$ $`5648`$ $`60`$  $`7`$  $`105706`$ $`45234`$ $`226`$  $`8`$  $`870772`$ $`378300`$ $`1076`$  $`9`$  $`7420836`$ $`3271204`$ $`5156`$  $`10`$  $`65004584`$ $`29049824`$ $`24984`$  $`11`$  $`582521748`$ $`263656356`$ $`128548`$  $`12`$  $`5320936416`$ $`2436827328`$ $`663040`$  $`13`$  $`49402687392`$ $`22871937208`$ $`3514968`$  $`14`$  $`465189744448`$ $`217536523260`$ $`18918792`$  $`15`$  $`4434492302426`$ $`2092958991474`$ $`103123906`$  $`16`$  $`42731740126228`$ $`20341256951692`$ $`569877652`$  $`17`$  $`415736458808868`$ $`199471121367508`$ $`3180066004`$  $`18`$  $`4079436831493480`$ $`1971730006936240`$ $`17921451960`$  $`19`$  $`40338413922226212`$ $`19630246152650228`$ $`101842206548`$  $`20`$  $`401652846850965808`$ $`196703992506546352`$ $`583109887600`$  $`21`$  $`4024556509468827432`$ $`1982670344984596872`$ $`3361640932872`$  $`22`$  $`40558226664529024000`$ $`20091545428174220376`$ $`19499226668816`$

Tab. 1: Table of the total number of two-legged diagrams, as well as the subsets of $`1`$PI and $`2`$PI diagrams.

The first $`10`$ terms of $`G`$ have already been reported by Gusein-Zade and Duzhin , who called the corresponding diagrams ‘long curves’. The algorithm used by these authors was however based on direct enumeration, and thus did not enjoy the advantages of the transfer matrix approach. Namely, in the latter, a multitude of diagrams can correspond to the same intermediate state at a given time step, and is therefore counted “simultaneously”. The difference between the two approaches can readily be appreciated by comparing the number of diagrams (Table 1) with the number of intermediate states (Figure 10).

In particular, having available more terms of the generating functions enables us to examine the asymptotic behavior of the number of diagrams. Calling $`a_p`$ the coefficients of $`G(g)`$, as in Eq. (2.1), a first rough estimate yields $`a_p\mu ^p`$ with $`\mu 11.4\pm 0.1`$. This corresponds to a singularity of the function $`G(g)`$ at $`g_c=1/\mu `$. However, from the point of view of the underlying field theory it is the subleading corrections to the dominant exponential behavior that are of paramount interest, the connective constant $`\mu `$ being non-universal. Based on a random-matrix model description of alternating knots as the $`n0`$ limit of a generalized $`O(n)`$ symmetric action \[5,,6,,7\], one of us has conjectured that the detailed asymptotic behavior reads

$$a_p\mu ^pp^\alpha ,$$

with $`\alpha =3`$. This value of $`\alpha `$ corresponds to a string susceptibility exponent $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2\alpha =1`$ characteristic of the coupling of a conformal field theory with central charge $`c=2`$ to two-dimensional quantum gravity, via the celebrated KPZ formula .

With the current data, it is difficult to estimate $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (5.1) without any knowledge of the subleading corrections. Indeed, a direct fit gives $`\alpha 2.76`$ but usual convergence acceleration methods do not confirm this result. However, if we fit our data with $`a_p=\mu ^pp^\alpha (a\mathrm{log}p+b+o(1))`$ (the presence of logarithmic corrections being justified by possible marginally irrelevant operators in a $`c=2`$ theory), the result is in good agreement with the conjecture:

$$\mu =11.416\pm 0.005\alpha =2.97\pm 0.06a=0.04\pm 0.02b=0.1\pm 0.03$$

In the case of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, the approach to the asymptotic regime appears to be less regular. This is probably due to another singularity of the function $`G(g)`$ around $`g_{c2}0.3`$ which causes oscillations that are very subdominant in $`G(g)`$ but less so in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(g)`$. However, the leading exponential behavior $`\mu _2^p`$ can be readily extracted without analyzing numerically the coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, by using the following simple identity: $`\mu _2=\mu /G(g_c)^2`$. Assuming the expansion above and using the fit (5.1), We find:

$$\mu _2=6.613\pm 0.008$$

$`{}_{p_1}{}^{}^{p_2}`$  0 1 2 3 4 5 6          0  1 2 10 70 588 5544 56628  1  2 20 210 2352 27720 339768 4294290  2  8 174 2992 47820 742296 11376554 173401952  3  42 1504 37100 784672 15294006 283730240 5095814988  4  260 13300 433620 11515714 271846056 5947557516 123429078160  5  1796 120744 4928798 158295072 4403552940 111289501120 2626033507768  6  13396 1122198 55237824 2086803540 66981001600 1923315870960 50921564862176  7  105706 10638464 614451348 26737722400 973914284112 31351179461568 921163652161792  8  870772 102541428 6807871480 335676172480 13691869089168 488718870505840 $`\mathrm{}`$  9  7420836 1002305040 75275707584 4150940757440 187548130544528 $`\mathrm{}`$  10  65004584 9914663308 831595048320 50739269522864 $`\mathrm{}`$  11  582521748 99085515840 9185000522880 614607881444256 $`\mathrm{}`$  12  5320936416 999104604784 101470031154352 7390867767651290 $`\mathrm{}`$  13  49402687392 10153152363648 1121497913694390 $`\mathrm{}`$  14  465189744448 103892246982390 12403035430713344 $`\mathrm{}`$  15  4434492302426 1069610792999424 137266650274351716 $`\mathrm{}`$  16  42731740126228 11072575568623300 $`\mathrm{}`$  17  415736458808868 115189593628215600 $`\mathrm{}`$  18  4079436831493480 1203690675390892316 $`\mathrm{}`$  19  40338413922226212 $`\mathrm{}`$  20  401652846850965808 $`\mathrm{}`$  21  4024556509468827432 $`\mathrm{}`$  22  40558226664529024000 $`\mathrm{}`$

Tab. 2: Table of the number of two-legged diagrams with $`p_1`$ self-intersections and $`p_2`$ tangencies.

We now turn to the inclusion of the flype equivalence. As described in Section 3.4 this can be done by enumerating also diagrams with tangencies. A power-counting argument reveals that in order to accomodate the flype equivalence at order $`p`$, we need to know the number of diagrams at order $`p_1`$ with (roughly) at most $`(p_2)_{\mathrm{max}}(pp_1)/3`$ tangencies, for all $`p_1=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$. These data are shown up to order $`p=20`$ in Table 2.

The contents of the first column ($`p_2=0`$) is of course just the coefficients of $`G`$, cf. Table 1. The first line ($`p_1=0`$) gives the number of two-legged diagrams with $`p_2`$ tangencies and no self-intersections,

$$a_{0,p}=\frac{(2p)!(2p+2)!}{p!(p+1)!^2(p+2)!}$$

This formula is a corollary of the exact solution of the standard O$`(m0)`$ model on random tetravalent graphs. It can also be shown in a straightforward way. First, represent each tangency by a dotted line, as in Figure 11.a. In this way, the problem becomes that of rooted Hamiltonian circuits on a random trivalent graphs . Next, straighten out the full line, as in Figure 11.b. The dotted lines now form two independent Catalan arch configurations, one above and one below the full line. Clearly, the number of such configurations is

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2p}{2j}\right)c_{pj}c_j$$

where $`c_k=\frac{(2k)!}{k!(k+1)!}`$ are the Catalan numbers. The result (5.1) follows immediately.

Fig. 11: Counting of pure tangency diagrams. a) Transform each tangency into a pair of trivalent vertices. b) Stretch the full line.

In a similar fashion, we can give an explicit formula for the second line:

$$a_{1,p1}=pa_{0,p}=\frac{(2p)!(2p+2)!}{(p1)!(p+1)!^2(p+2)!}$$

Indeed, the diagrams with one self-intersection and $`p1`$ tangencies are obtained from diagrams with $`p`$ tangencies by replacing one tangency with a crossing.

$`p`$  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$          $`1`$  $`1`$ $`0`$  $`2`$  $`0`$ $`1`$  $`3`$  $`2`$ $`1`$  $`4`$  $`2`$ $`3`$  $`5`$  $`6`$ $`9`$  $`6`$  $`30`$ $`21`$  $`7`$  $`62`$ $`101`$  $`8`$  $`382`$ $`346`$  $`9`$  $`1338`$ $`1576`$  $`10`$  $`6216`$ $`7040`$  $`11`$  $`29656`$ $`31556`$  $`12`$  $`131316`$ $`153916`$  $`13`$  $`669138`$ $`724758`$  $`14`$  $`3156172`$ $`3610768`$  $`15`$  $`16032652`$ $`17853814`$  $`16`$  $`80104192`$ $`90220450`$  $`17`$  $`408448012`$ $`460221672`$  $`18`$  $`2105616701`$ $`2365627740`$  $`19`$  $`\mathrm{}`$ $`12300901598`$

Tab. 3: Table of the number of prime alternating tangles with two connected components.

The results for the the number of prime alternating tangles with two connected components can now be found from the procedure outlined in Section 2; see Table 3. The reader is reminded that the total number of tangles is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

The first 8 orders were previously given in . The number of tangles seem to approach their asymptotic behavior in a less regular fashion than the objects discussed above. In particular there seems to be a strong dependance on the parity of $`p`$. Even the leading term in the large $`p`$ limit, of the form $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2^p`$, is hard to isolate, with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2`$ roughly given by $`6.0\pm 0.1`$; some serious numerical analysis is required to determine it more accurately. Note that this leading behavior should be the same for prime alternating knots, with the same constant $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2`$. Similary, the critical exponent of knots should be one plus the exponent of tangles. Although we have not been able to extract reliable values of the exponent, physical insight suggest that these exponents are most likely to the same as those of diagrams (conjecturally, $`\alpha =3`$). It is therefore very likely that the conjecture made in  is valid, though we have no definite evidence at the moment.

In a future publication  we shall show how to generalize our transfer matrix approach to allow for the enumeration of connected knot diagrams with an arbitrary fixed number of components. As a first application, this will allow us to enumerate alternating links, and to extend the generating functions given in  by several orders. Another interesting goal that we are currently pursuing is the enumeration of multi-component meander diagrams . There are many other applications related to the possibility of counting planar Feynman diagrams.

Appendix A. Knot diagrams up to 4 crossings.

As an illustration we show the first $`8`$ iterations of the transfer matrix. We restrict ourselves to states which generate 1PI diagrams and with at most $`4`$ crossings. Reading off the weight of the vacuum state (containing only the active line) after step $`2p`$, we deduce the number of diagrams with $`p`$ crossings. However, this state is not allowed to evolve in subsequent steps, since otherwise one-particle reducible diagrams would be generated. We have not excluded tadpoles in this example.

Note also that when connecting the active line of the third diagram at step 6 to the uppermost line by means of a right arch, we generate (after reduction of the two right arches) a forbidden state of the type shown in Fig. 5 a), which is therefore not shown.

Fig. 12: The list of all intermediate steps for 1PI knot diagrams up to $`4`$ crossings. The number in subscript is the weight of the state.

References

relax P. Di Francesco, E. Guitter and C. Kristjansen, Integrable 2D Lorentzian Gravity and Random Walks, Nucl. Phys. B 567 (2000) 515–553 (preprint hep-th/9907084). relax I. Jensen, Enumerations of Plane Meanders (preprint cond-mat/9910313); A Transfer Matrix Approach to the Enumeration of Plane Meanders, J. Phys. A, to appear (preprint cond-mat/0008178). relax P. Di Francesco, E. Guitter and J.L. Jacobsen, Exact Meander Asymptotics: a Numerical Check, Nucl. Phys. B 580 (2000) 757–795 (preprint cond-mat/0003008). relax P. Di Francesco, E. Guitter and J.L. Jacobsen, work in progress. relax P. Zinn-Justin and J.-B. Zuber, Matrix Integrals and the Counting of Tangles and Links, to appear in the proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics, Barcelona June 1999 (preprint math-ph/9904019). relax P. Zinn-Justin, Some Matrix Integrals related to Knots and Links, proceedings of the 1999 semester of the MSRI “Random Matrices and their Applications”, MSRI Publications Vol. 40 (2001) (preprint math-ph/9910010). relax P. Zinn-Justin and J.-B. Zuber, On the Counting of Colored Tangles, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications 9 (2000) 1127–1141 (preprint math-ph/0002020). relax S. Nechaev, Statistics of knots and entangled random walks, lectures at Les Houches 1998 summer school (preprint cond-mat/9812205). relax L.H. Kauffman, Knots and physics, World Scientific Pub Co (1994). relax J. Hoste, M. Thistlethwaite and J. Weeks, The First 1,701,936 Knots, The Mathematical Intelligencer 20 (1998) 33–48. relax C. Sundberg and M. Thistlethwaite, The rate of Growth of the Number of Prime Alternating Links and Tangles, Pac. J. Math. 182 (1998) 329–358. relax P. Di Francesco, P. Ginsparg and J. Zinn-Justin, 2D Gravity and Random Matrices, Phys. Rep. 254 (1995) 1–133. relax W.W. Menasco and M.B. Thistlethwaite, The Tait Flyping Conjecture, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1991) 403–412; The Classification of Alternating Links, Ann. Math. 138 (1993) 113–171. relax P. Zinn-Justin, The General O(n) Quartic Matrix Model and its application to Counting Tangles and Links (preprint math-ph/0106005). relax M.-P. Delest and G. Viennot, Theor. Comp. Sci. 34 (1984) 169. relax R. Sedgewick, Algorithms in C (Addison-Wesley, 1990). relax D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, vol 2: Seminumerical Algorithms (Addison-Wesley, 1969). relax S. M. Gusein-Zade, Adv. Soviet Math. 21, 189–198 (1994); S. M. Gusein-Zade and F. S. Duzhin, On the number of topological types of plane curves, Uspekhi Math. Nauk. 53, 197–198 (1998) \[English translation in Russian Math. Surveys 53, 626–627 (1998)\]. relax V. G. Knizhnik, A. M. Polyakov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Fractal structure of 2D quantum gravity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 3, 819–826 (1988); F. David, Conformal field theories coupled to 2D gravity in the conformal gauge, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 3, 1651–1656 (1988); J. Distler and H. Kawai, Conformal field theory and 2D quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 321, 509 (1989). relax W. T. Tutte, A census of Hamiltonian polygons, Canad. J. Math. 14 402-417 (1962). relax J. L. Jacobsen and P. Zinn-Justin, A Transfer Matrix approach to the Enumeration of Colored Links (preprint math-ph/0104009).