text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

To circumvent the ultraviolet infinities which appear in perturbative calculations in renormalizable quantum field theories, a relatively new regularization framework called Differential Regularization (DFR) was proposed in . DFR is a very elegant formalism and yet somewhat tractable from the calculational standpoint. The essence of this method is to write an amplitude in the position (Euclidian) space as derivatives of a less divergent function which contains a logarithmic mass scale (playing the role of a subtraction scale) and an integration by parts prescription where a surface term is neglected. DFR has some rather nice features: a) it does not modify the dimensionality of the space-time or introduce a regulator; b) it naturally addresses the question of renormalization by delivering renormalized amplitudes which satisfy Callan-Symanzik equations. Therefore, in principle, it is applicable to a broad range of field theoretical models.

On the other hand perturbative calculations in chiral, topological and supersymmetric theories (which share the feature of being well defined only in their integer space-time dimension) are more involved since in most cases one cannot apply dimensional regularization (DR) (and some of its variants) in an ambiguity free way ,, or without having to face cumbersome calculational complications stemming from spurious anomalies. Although DFR can in principle be consistently applied to this class of theories as it has been verified in some models -, its use has not become so popular yet, especially beyond the one loop order, in the electroweak sector of the Standard Model and in SUSY models, for instance. Some authors argue that the convenience of (momentum space) DR’s beyond the one loop order justifies to mend the shortcomings caused by unwanted breakdown of symmetries ,. The reason is that no procedure of DFR beyond one loop order exists such that gauge invariance is automatic . Besides momentum space is more natural for calculations of amplitudes with fixed external momenta and that Feynman rules are simpler to handle, especially for massive theories (although this is of course a matter of taste), and finally that we have an all ready library of momentum space integrals, Feynman parameters, etc 111DFR may also be translated into momentum space by Fourier transforming the resulting renormalized amplitude  ..

In view of this, a consistent, symmetry preserving regularization/renormalization procedure that works directly in the momentum space without recoursing to the analytical continuation on the space-time dimension would be desirable and certainly worthwhile being studied. Recently a momentum space $`n`$-dimensional regularization framework which shares some advantageous features of DFR was proposed ,,,,, (for definiteness let us call it Implicit Regularization (IR)). Nonetheless, it is not a simple momentum space version of DFR: it can give us new insights in some calculations (as we shall see in this work), especially when the standard regularizations cannot be implemented, as well as understand the origin of certain regularization dependent results. In spirit, it is close to the BPHZ method: a regulating function $`G(k^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ is only implicitly assumed in order to justify the algebraic steps in the integrands of the divergent amplitudes. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are the parameters of the distribution $`G`$ for which we only assume that it is even in the integrating momentum $`k`$ and that a connection limit exists, i.e. $`lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{}}G(k^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)=1`$, so to guarantee that the finite amplitudes are not modified222Throughout the paper we write $`_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }F(k,p)`$ for $`_kF(k,p)G(k^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ .. The purpose is to display the divergences in terms of primitive divergent integrals which depend solely on the loop momenta which need not be evaluated. The remaining finite integrals can be grouped in two classes: the ones which depend on the physical momenta, and therefore are integrated as usual, and differences between integrals of the same degree of divergence $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. The latter, which we have called consistency relations (CR) in early works, will play a central role in our discussion in this contribution. For any (integer) space-time dimension such CR will appear systematically in perturbative calculations in any field theoretical model. Their value is regularization dependent and therefore, in a most general formulation, undetermined. However it may be fixed by the symmetries of the underlying theory (Ward identities) at the very final stage of the calculation.

A crucial feature of the regularization framework described above is that the singular terms are left untouched in the form of basic divergent integrals. No finite terms are lost whereas arbitrary local terms may be parametrized by the CR. According to renormalization theory such arbitrary local terms correspond to the addition of a finite counterterm in the Lagrangian, which may be added at will as long as it respects the relevant symmetries of the theory. Again, IR and DFR partake these feature and therefore give rise to the most general quantum effective action since the CR play the role of the arbitrary mass scale that appears in DFR. This is precisely what distinguishes DFR and IR from DR, Pauli-Villars etc., which together with a renormalization prescription, fix these arbitrary local terms ab initio .

A constrained version of IR (CIR) where the CR are set to zero would be more practical from the calculational point of view. It amounts to fixing some arbitrary scales from the start in such a way that the Ward Identities are preserved . Whereas this could be advantageous for, say, all order proofs, care must be exercised when one computes amplitudes with (an odd number of) parity violating objects, such as $`\gamma _5`$ matrices. That is because it can be shown that such CR are connected to momentum routing invariance in the loop of a Feynman diagram. Should the CR vanish then the amplitude is momentum routing invariant 333However if they assume a non-vanishing value, it does not necessarily mean that momentum routing invariance is broken. ,. In particular, they are important to study chiral theories and chiral anomalies since momentum routing dependence plays a key role in describing chiral anomalies within perturbation theory  which is the main subject of this contribution. The counterpart in DFR is called Constrained Differential Regularization (CDFR) program -, in which all the arbitrary scales are fixed (except for the renormalization scale) by means of a set of rules.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we recall the main features of IR and present the CR, using $`QED_4`$ as an illustration. The novelty here is that we introduce a general parametrization for the arbitrary terms which is consistent with the symmetric limit in the integration variable of divergent integrals. In section 3 we briefly revisit the problem of the radiatively induced $`CPT`$ and Lorentz violation within an extended version of $`QED_4`$, namely adding a term of the form $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _5b/\psi `$ in the Lagrangian ($`b_\mu `$ is a constant four-vector). This has been a matter of intensive debate as regards of the role played by the regularization within a perturbative or a nonperturbative in $`b`$ treatment of the problem. Here we show explicitly that the undeterminacy arises in both treatments in the same fashion in IR. In section 4, it is shown how IR can be used to consistently display the traingle chiral anomaly in a scheme-free fashion which allows the anomaly to appear in the vector and axial Ward identites on equal footing. In all the examples we emphasize the role played by the choice of local arbitrary terms in our framework, whose value is either determined by the symmetries of the underlying theory or, if not, should be left arbitrary.

## 2 Arbitrary local terms and momentum routing

Let $`k`$ be the momentum running in a loop of a Feynman diagram. In ,  it was shown that if certain well defined differences between divergent integrals 444From now on we simply refer to them as Consistency Relations (CR)(which do not depend on external momenta and have identical $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$) were to vanish then the corresponding amplitude is independent of the arbitrary momentum routing in a loop, consistently with energy-momentum conservation. It is easy to see that all the CR below vanish identically if we perform an explicit evaluation within dimensional or Pauli-Villars regularization 555The linear and quadratic CR’s are not finite in all regularization schemes (e.g. naive cut-off in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ limit). This is not a problem because a scheme in which they are finite can be found and in non-anomalous situations a local contraterm can be added to yield zero. .

They can be grouped according to the space-time dimension :

* 1+1 Dimensions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{k^2m^2}2^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^2},$$
(1)
* 2+1 Dimensions

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{\mu \nu }^1^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{k^2m^2}2^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^2},$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^1g_{\{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta \}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{k^2m^2}8^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2m^2)^3},$$
(3)
etc..
* 3+1 Dimensions

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^2^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{k^2m^2}2^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^2},$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{(k^2m^2)^2}4^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^3},$$
(5)
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^2g_{\{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta \}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2m^2}8^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2m^2)^3},$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^0g_{\{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta \}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}24^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2m^2)^4},$$
(7)

etc., where $`g_{\{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta \}}`$ stands for $`g_{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta }+g_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \beta }+g_{\mu \beta }g_{\nu \alpha }`$.

On the other hand it is well known that a shift in $`k`$ is immaterial only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s0`$, otherwise a (finite) surface term should be added. This is an indication that care must be exercised in what concerns the momentum routing when divergences higher than logarithmic arise in Feynman diagram calculations. Perturbation theory makes a peculiar use of this feature for in some cases gauge invariance relies on adopting a special momentum routing .

The most famous example is the triangle chiral anomaly (see for instance ). It is noteworthy that the amplitudes which manifest this feature generally contain one axial vertex (parity violating object). A closely related issue is that whilst a shift in the integration variable is allowed within dimensional regularization, the algebraic properties of $`\gamma _5`$ clash with analytical continuation on the space-time dimension. This suggests that working with CIR in the presence of dimension-specific objects may give rise to similar problems as those appearing in dimensional reduction beyond the one loop order , .

We shall work in a regularization framework where a regulator needs only implicitly be assumed as discussed in the introduction. For a more detailed account on IR please see . The basic procedure is to isolate the divergences of the amplitudes in the form of basic divergent integrals namely,

$$I_{quad}^{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)=^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2m^2}$$
(8)
$$I_{log}^{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)=^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}$$
(9)
$$I_{lin}^{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)=^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{k^2m^2}$$
(10)
and so on, which carry no dependence on the external momenta. The latter will appear only in finite integrals. This can be achieved by means of a convenient identity at the level of the integrand, namely

$$\frac{1}{[(k+k_i)^2m^2]}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\left(1\right)^j\left(k_i^2+2k_ik\right)^j}{\left(k^2m^2\right)^{j+1}}+\frac{\left(1\right)^{N+1}\left(k_i^2+2k_ik\right)^{N+1}}{\left(k^2m^2\right)^{N+1}[\left(k+k_i\right)^2m^2]},$$
(11)
where $`k_i`$ are the external momenta and $`N`$ is chosen so that the last term is finite under integration over $`k`$. The basic divergent integrals as defined in (8),(9) and (10) (and which can be used to characterize the divergent structure of the underlying model) need not be evaluated: they can be fully absorbed in the definition of the renormalization couplings. For the evaluation of the renormalization group $`\beta `$-function to two loop order in $`\phi _4^4`$-theory and $`QED_4`$ within this approach see . For an algebraic proof of renormalizability to $`n`$-loop order of $`\phi _6^3`$ theory (alternative to the BPHZ method) see . Applications to models involving parity-violating objects can be found in  and to non-renormalizable theories in .

In order to get some insight into our discussion let us display the $`QED_4`$ vacuum polarization tensor according to the rules of IR. To one loop order and with arbitrary momentum routing it reads 666Throughout this paper $`_k`$ stands for $`\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}`$. :

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=_k\text{tr}\left\{\gamma _\mu S(k+k_1)\gamma _\nu S(k+k_2)\right\},$$
(12)
where $`S(k)`$ is the usual free fermion propagator. For the particular momentum routing $`k_1=p`$ and $`k_2=0`$, (12) can be written, after taking the trace over the Dirac matrices, as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=4(2J_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }+p_\mu J_\nu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }+p_\nu J_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }I^\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

where

$$J^\mathrm{\Lambda },J_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda },J_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1,k_\mu ,k_\mu k_\nu }{[(k+p)^2m^2](k^2m^2)},$$
(13)
$$I^\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{k^2m^2+pk}{[(k+p)^2m^2](k^2m^2)}.$$
(14)
Notice that the integrals above are divergent. According to our strategy we display the divergencies solely as a function of the loop momentum by means of a recursive use of (11) to yield:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }}{4}}=2{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^2}}g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{(k^2m^2)^2}}+m^2g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}}`$
$`p^2{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{2k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^3}}+8p^\alpha p^\beta {\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2m^2)^4}}2p^\alpha p_\nu {\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha k_\mu }{(k^2m^2)^3}}`$
$`2p^\alpha p_\mu {\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^3}}p^2g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{(k^2m^2)^3}}4g_{\mu \nu }p_\alpha p_\beta {\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2m^2)^4}}+`$
$`2g_{\mu \nu }p_\alpha p_\beta {\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2m^2)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{3}}\left(p^2g_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2m^2+p^2)}{p^2}}Z_0(p^2;m^2)\right)`$ (15)
where $`Z_0(p^2;m^2)`$ is defined as in (67) and

$$b\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}.$$

The last term in (15) is the result of the integration of finite integrals. To define the renormalized vacuum polarization tensor one should join the usual counterterm to define $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu R}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }+(p_\mu p_\nu p^2g_{\mu \nu })(Z_31)`$, $`A^\mu =Z_3^{1/2}A_R^\mu `$. As it is well known the Ward identities strongly constrain the divergent structure, namely the infinity ought to be absorbed by $`Z_3`$.

In the spirit of our method, namely to write the infinite parts in terms of the loop momenta $`k`$ only, we could proceed in two equivalent ways: 1) To write a parametrization based on very general properties of the divergent integrals and 2) To group differences of integrals of same $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ to define the objects expressed in eqns. (1)-(7). The purpose which is common to both approaches is to make close contact with Jackiw’s idea that the arbitrariness expressed by finite differences between divergent integrals should be left for the symmetries of the underlying model to fix . Although we are evidently more interested in the second approach as we have discussed in the introduction, it will be also interesting to analyse the problem of the CPT violation in extended $`QED_4`$, (section 3), in the light of the first approach.

For this purpose, we write a general parametrization for divergent integrals which depend only on $`k`$. For instance, consider (9). It can be shown that

$$\frac{I_{log}^{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)}{m^2}=\frac{b}{m^2}.$$
(16)
from which we see that

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{log}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m^2)=b\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}\right)+\beta ,$$
(17)
where $`\beta `$ is a finite constant and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off, is a general parametrization of (9). In fact, also for a generic logarithmic divergence $`I_{log}^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)`$

$$\frac{I_{log}^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)}{m^2}=\frac{}{m^2}_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{k^{2i}}{(k^2m^2)^{i+2}}=\frac{b}{m^2},$$
(18)
and thus (17) is its general parametrization. For the quadratic divergences, we write

$$I_{quad}^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)=_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{k^{2i}}{(k^2m^2)^{i+1}}$$
(19)
in which $`i=0`$ corresponds to our basic quadratic divergent (8). However, in this case different values of $`i`$ will render different parametrizations for the $`I_{quad}^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)`$ as

$$\frac{I_{quad}^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)}{m^2}=(i+1)I_{log}^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2).$$
(20)
Using (17) and integrating the equation above, we conclude that

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{quad}^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)=b(i+1)\left(c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}\right)+\alpha m^2\right),$$
(21)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`c`$ are undetermined constants, parametrizes $`I_{quad}^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)`$. 777After a redefinition of variables which includes $`c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$, we can rewrite (21) as
$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{quad}^{i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(m^2)=b(i+1)\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2+m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{m^2}\right)+\alpha ^{}m^2\right),$$
keeping in mind that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s coming from different divergent pieces should be labelled. Notice that such parametrizations are based on most general properties of the primitive divergent integrals. One can find general parametrizations for other divergencies in any space-time dimension in a similar fashion. For the sake of illustration let us test our parametrizations against two CR. For example (5) reads

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0=g_{\mu \nu }\left(I_{log}^{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)4cI_{log}^{1\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)\right),$$
(22)
where we used $`_kf(k^2)k_\mu k_\nu =c_kf(k)k^2g_{\mu \nu }`$. According to (17), we can parametrize (22) as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mu \nu }^0=g_{\mu \nu }b\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2}{m^2}\right)4c\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}{m^2}\right)+\beta _1\beta _2\right),$$
(23)
from which we see that the symmetric limit $`c=1/4`$ may be taken to yield a finite undetermined constant expressed by the difference $`\beta _1\beta _2`$. Likewise (4) reads

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^2=g_{\mu \nu }\left(I_{quad}^{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)2cI_{quad}^{1\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)\right),$$
(24)
for which (21) allows us to write

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mu \nu }^2=bg_{\mu \nu }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2}{m^2}\right)+\alpha _0m^24c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2+m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}{m^2}\right)+\alpha _1m^2\right)\right)$$
(25)
which explicitly shows that the symmetric limit $`c=1/4`$ is necessary to ensure the finiteness of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mu \nu }^2`$ provided $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2`$.

In other words, at least within our parametrization, the symmetric limit can be consistently taken and the Ward identities are ultimately used to fix the ambiguities. In the light of what we have just exposed let us turn our attention back to the $`QED_4`$ vacuum polarization tensor. Except for the first three integrals in (15), the other logarithmically divergent integrals can be added up to yield a gauge invariant structure of divergence:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^R`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(2{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^2}}g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{(k^2m^2)^2}}+m^2g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _k^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}}\right)`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(p^2g_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )\left(\stackrel{~}{I}_{log}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m^2)b\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2m^2+p^2)}{p^2}}Z_0(p^2;m^2)\right)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`(p^2g_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )(Z_31).`$
The Ward identities impose that the first three integrals in (26) should cancel out. We can explicitly verify within our parametrization that this amounts to saying that a finite arbitrary term should vanish. Substituting $`k_\mu k_\nu `$ with $`ck^2g_{\mu \nu }`$ in the integrand of the first integral we have, according to our notation,

$$2cg_{\mu \nu }I_{quad}^{1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}(m^2)g_{\mu \nu }I_{quad}^{1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}(m^2)+m^2I_{log}^{0\mathrm{\Lambda }_3}(m^2)$$
(27)
which can be parametrized as

$$4cbg_{\mu \nu }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2}{m^2}\right)+\alpha _1m^2\right)2bg_{\mu \nu }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2+m^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}{m^2}\right)+\alpha _2m^2\right)+m^2g_{\mu \nu }b\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^2}{m^2}\right)+\alpha _3\right)$$
(28)
and hence the quadratic divergences cancel out for $`2c\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2`$ as well as the logarithmic ones provided $`c=1/4`$. Then a remaining finite term is set to zero on gauge invariance grounds.

Alternatively, and more elegantly, we can display the divergent structure of (12) in terms of the CR as expressed by (4)-(7) and thus learn how gauge symmetry interplays with momentum routing. We quote the result from

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mu \nu }+4(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_1^2+k_2^2)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(k_1^\alpha k_1^\beta +k_2^\alpha k_2^\beta +k_1^\alpha k_2^\beta )\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^0`$ (29)
$``$ $`(k_1+k_2)^\alpha (k_1+k_2)_\mu \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\nu \alpha }^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_1^\alpha k_1^\beta +k_2^\alpha k_2^\beta )g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\alpha \beta }^0)\text{where}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}((k_1k_2)^2g_{\mu \nu }(k_1k_2)_\mu (k_1k_2)_\nu )\times `$ (30)
$`\times `$ $`\left(I_{log}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(m^2)b\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2m^2+\left(k_1k_2\right)^2)}{\left(k_1k_2\right)^2}}Z_0(\left(k_1k_2\right)^2;m^2)\right)\right).`$
We can certainly set all $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$’s to zero consistently with the Ward identity $`(k_1k_2)^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=0`$. In addition one may choose a particular routing, say $`k_1=p`$, $`k_2=0`$, and let the value assumed by the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$’s be arbitrary, viz. $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^0=\lambda _1g_{\{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta \}}`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0=\lambda _2g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^2=\lambda _3\mu ^2g_{\mu \nu }`$. Hence we obtain that

$$p^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=4p_\nu ((\lambda _12\lambda _2)p^2+\lambda _3\mu ^2)$$

from which we see that gauge invariance is accomplished through the choice $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)=(2\lambda ,\lambda ,0)`$, with $`\lambda `$ being an arbitrary local term. The momentum routing is immaterial in this example.

Besides being elegant, to write the differences between divergent integrals with no external momentum dependence and with the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ in terms of the CR’s will be particularly attractive in the discussion of chiral theories and anomalies within perturbation theory.

## 3 Undeterminacy of the induced Lorentz and CPT symmetry breaking term in extended $`QED_4`$

The subject of a possible radiative generation of the Lorentz and CPT symmetry breaking term

$$_{CS}=\frac{1}{2}c_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }F_{\nu \lambda }A_\rho ,$$
(31)
arising from the Lorentz and CPT violating term $`b_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi `$ added in the fermionic sector of standard $`QED_4`$ ($`c_\mu `$, $`b_\mu `$ are constant $`4`$-vectors) has been a matter of fiery debate. The controversy results from two main points: 1) the fact the that value of $`c_\mu `$ appears to be regularization dependent ,  ,  and 2) whether or not gauge invariance (and analiticity) can constrain $`c_\mu `$ to vanish , ,,. As firstly pointed out by Jackiw and Kostelecký  and well-argued by Pérez-Victoria , the answer to this problem lies upon two related facts. Firstly, it is the action correspondent to the induced density (31), $`d^4x_{CS}`$, which is gauge invariant. Secondly, $`b_\mu `$ is a constant field and therefore the term which is sought after needs to be gauge invariant at zero external momentum only. Usually the regularizations which have been employed enforce gauge invariance at all axial momenta (Pauli-Villars, DR with the ’t Hooft Veltman prescription for $`\gamma _5`$). Other generalizations of $`\gamma _5`$ in DR often give different results. DFR can be employed in the perturbative in $`b_\mu `$ calculation . However for the $`b_\mu `$-exact propagator case DFR cannot be implemented since it is not possible to write such propagator in coordinate space. This issue is particularly attractive to be dealt with within IR.

Although in principle (31) is a local renormalizable term allowed by the symmetries of the theory (save Lorentz and CPT), its appearance at classical level undergoes stringent theoretical and experimental bounds . The quantity of interest for deciding whether (31) is radiatively generated is the $`O(A^2)`$ part of

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(A^2)=i\text{ln det}(i/A/b/\gamma ^5m)|_{A^2}_kA^\mu (k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(k)A_\nu (k).$$
(32)
with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }b_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p,p)`$. On general grounds we can say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p,p)`$ 888 Diagrammatically it corresponds to a triangle graph composed of two vector currents and one axial vector current with zero momentum transfer between the two vector gauge field vertices. is undetermined by an arbitrary parameter $`a`$, namely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p,p)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p,p)+2iaϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_\beta `$ which, contrarily to the triangle anomaly, cannot be fixed by the Ward identities.

In this section we would like to recall briefly some of our results on this matter  and shed some light on the interpretation, particularly in what concerns the undeterminacy of the radiatively generated term. In our framework it will become apparent that both the perturbative and non-perturbative in $`b_\mu `$ formulation (as conceived in ) deliver an equally intrinsically undetermined result (in the sense that different regularizations would assign different values). Thus it should be fixed by (re)normalization conditions and/or direct comparison with experiment.

A non-perturbative evaluation makes use of the $`b_\mu `$-exact propagator

$$S^{}(k)=\frac{i}{ik/mb/\gamma _5}$$
(33)
and was thought to lead to a well determined result ,. The calculation is based upon the fact that (33) can be decomposed as

$$S^{}(k)=S_F(k)+S_b(k),$$
(34)
where $`S_F(k)`$ is the usual free fermion propagator and

$$S_b(k)=\frac{1}{ik/mb/\gamma _5}b/\gamma _5S_F(k).$$
(35)
whereas the vacuum polarization tensor can be generically written as in

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_{bb}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(36)
The $`b_\mu `$-linear contribution to (31) comes from $`\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }(p)=_k\text{tr}\left\{\gamma ^\mu S_F(k)\gamma ^\nu S_b(k+p)+\gamma ^\mu S_b(k)\gamma ^\nu S_F(k+p)\right\}.$$
(37)
It is remarkable that only the lowest order in $`b_\mu `$ approximation of $`S_b(k)`$, viz. $`S_b(k)iS_F(k)b/\gamma _5S_F(k)`$ (and thus $`\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \alpha }b_\alpha `$), coincides with the result to all orders 999This fact combined with the regularization ambiguity of $`c_\mu `$ has motivated an analogy with the triangle anomaly in a model calculation in which $`b_\mu `$ can be initially considered as a non-constant field $`b_\mu (x)`$ and $`CPT`$ is spontaneously broken .,,,. Therefore we need to evaluate

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _k}\text{tr}\left\{\gamma ^\mu S(k)\gamma ^\nu S(k+p)\gamma ^\alpha \gamma _5S(k+p)+\gamma ^\mu S(k)\gamma ^\alpha \gamma _5S(k)\gamma ^\nu S(k+p)\right\}`$ (38)
$``$ $`\left\{I_1^{\mu \nu \alpha }+I_2^{\mu \nu \alpha }\right\}`$
which, within IR, yields (see  for calculational details)

$$I_2^{\mu \nu \alpha }=I_1^{\mu \nu \alpha }+\frac{\lambda }{2\pi ^2}p_\beta ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta },$$
(39)
where $`\lambda `$ is an undetermined dimensionless parameter defined as in (5) with

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\alpha \beta }^0=\frac{i\lambda }{8\pi ^2}g_{\alpha \beta }$$
(40)
and $`I_1^{\mu \nu \alpha }`$ is finite, and can be readily evaluated to give

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{nonpert}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\frac{p_\beta }{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\lambda \right),$$
(41)
where $`\theta =2\text{arcsin}(\sqrt{p^2}/(2m))`$ and $`p^2<4m^2`$. As for the perturbative in $`b_\mu `$ calculation, the relevant diagrams are the $`b_\mu `$-linear one loop correction to the photon propagator in which a factor $`ib_\lambda \gamma ^\lambda \gamma ^5`$ can be inserted in either of the two internal fermionic lines to render equal contributions. Thus the amplitude reads

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^b=2(i)b^\lambda _k\text{tr}\gamma _\mu S_F(kp)\gamma _\nu S_F(k)\gamma _\lambda \gamma ^5S_F(k)2b^\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \mu \nu },$$
(42)
where $`p`$ is the external momentum. The integral above is just our $`I_2^{\mu \nu \alpha }`$ in the non-perturbative with $`pp`$ and the $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ indices interchanged. Taking into account the change of signs, it gives

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{pert}^{\mu \nu \alpha }=ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\frac{p_\beta }{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\lambda ^{}\right),$$
(43)
Therefore it becomes clear that the undeterminacy manifests itself in the same fashion in both perturbative and non-perturbative treatments since they only differ by the effect of a shift in the integration momentum. Indeed as pointed out in  there is no apparent reason for these two approaches to produce different results. Our result is in consonance with those appearing in   (see also ,) in the sense that the ambiguity stems from the undefined (regularization dependent) integral, $`_kk_\mu k_\nu f(k^2)=cg_{\mu \nu }_kk^2f(k^2)`$. Indeed if we evaluated (40) using naively the symmetric limit ($`c=1/4`$) we would get

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}}g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{(k^2m^2)^3}}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }m^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^3}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{32\pi ^2}}g_{\mu \nu }.`$
which leads to the result $`3/(8\pi ^2)ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_\beta `$ in the limit where $`p^2=0`$ . In a position space regularization, this undeterminacy is expressed by its position space counterpart $`lim_{x0}(x_\mu x_\nu )/x^2=cg_{\mu \nu }`$ . Alternatively we could analyse such undeterminacy from the standpoint of the parametrizations as discussed in section 2. Since the arbitrariness is expressed by (40) with $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0`$ defined in (5) we have

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }(I_{log}^{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2)4cI_{log}^{1\mathrm{\Lambda }}(m^2))`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mu \nu }^0`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }b\left(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2}{m^2}}\right)+\beta _14c\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}{m^2}}\right)\beta _2\right)`$ (45)
which is finite only if the symmetric limit ($`c=1/4`$) is taken. Therefore, if we choose such (general) parametrization to study the problem, the undeterminacies expressed by $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ can be thought to come from the difference $`\beta _1\beta _2`$ which cannot be fixed by gauge invariance due the presence of the antisymmetric tensor.

## 4 Adler-Bardeen-Bell-Jackiw Anomaly

The physical relevance of anomalies in quantum field theory was cleared up over $`30`$ years ago , and has been calculated in many regularization schemes 101010for an overview see . Nevertheless it is very important to test IR in the triangle anomaly calculation. The reason is that such calculation constitutes a sort of “acid test” for the consistency of a regularization framework (see  for a nice account on this matter). Roughly speaking, from the perturbative standpoint, the anomaly manifests itself as an ambiguity represented by a local term due to underlying infinities of the diagrammatic calculation. Moreover such undeterminacy floats between the axial and vector channels, that is to say, the full (classical) tranversality for massless fermions is quantum mechanically broken. It is up to nature to decide how to make use of such freedom. On the other hand the most popular regularization prescriptions usually pick out tranversality on the vector currents to be fulfilled (e.g. Pauli-Villars, Zeta-function regularization) since vector gauge symmetry is fixed ab initio. A regularization framework which enables to display the anomaly evenly between the axial and vector Ward identities seems more appealing.

In this section we study the Adler-Bardeen-Bell-Jackiw triangle anomaly and make explicit the role played by the CR and the momentum routing in the evaluation of the anomaly.

To start we write the AVV triangle with arbitrary momentum routing, namely

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _k}\text{tr}\left\{\gamma _\mu (k/+k_1/m)^1\gamma _\nu (k/+k_2/m)^1\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5(k/+k_3/m)^1\right\}`$ (46)
$`+`$ $`\text{crossed\hspace{0.17em} diagram}.`$
where the $`k_i`$’s are such that

$`k_2k_3`$ $`=`$ $`p+q`$
$`k_1k_3`$ $`=`$ $`p`$
$`k_2k_1`$ $`=`$ $`q.`$ (47)
We may parametrize the $`k_i`$’s to be consistent with (47) as

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha p+(\beta 1)q,`$
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha p+\beta q,`$
$`k_3`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha 1)p+(\beta 1)q,`$ (48)
for general $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. In the spirit of IR, we choose to write the (finite) differences between divergent integrals in terms of the CR (4)-(7) to yield

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}+(iϵ_{\mu \nu \beta \sigma }[(k_2k_1)^\beta +(k_3k_1)^\beta ]g_{\alpha \rho }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^{\rho \sigma }+`$ (49)
$``$ $`iϵ_{\nu \alpha \beta \sigma }(k_2k_3)^\beta g_{\mu \rho }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^{\rho \sigma }iϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \sigma }(k_2k_3)^\beta g_{\nu \rho }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^{\rho \sigma }+`$
$`+`$ $`iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \sigma }[(k_2+k_1)^\beta +(k_3+k_1)^\beta ]g_{\beta \rho }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^{\rho \sigma }+\text{crossed \hspace{0.17em} diagram})`$
In the equation above $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ is a finite, momentum routing independent quantity (it depends only on the differences expressed in (47)), whose evaluation is sketched in the appendix. Notice however that we have terms which depend explicitly on the momentum routing. Using (48) and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0\lambda g_{\mu \nu }`$ in (49) we get

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}+4i\lambda \left\{ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\left[\alpha p^\beta +(\beta 1)q^\beta \right]ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\left[\alpha q^\beta +(\beta 1)p^\beta \right]\right\}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}+4i\lambda (\alpha \beta +1)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(pq)^\beta .`$
Given that (see appendix)

$`p^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\mu q^\beta `$ (51)
$`q^\nu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\beta q^\nu `$ (52)
$`(p+q)^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`2mT_{\mu \nu },`$ (53)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the usual vector-vector-pseudoscalar triangle amplitude we can write the Ward identities as

$`p^\mu T_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}4i\lambda (\alpha \beta +1)\right\}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\mu q^\beta `$
$`q^\nu T_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}+4i\lambda (\alpha \beta +1)\right\}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\nu p^\beta `$
$`(p+q)^\alpha T_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`2mT_{\mu \nu }8i\lambda (\alpha \beta +1)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\alpha q^\beta .`$ (54)
Now $`\lambda `$ is a local arbitrary parameter and the routing labeled by $`\alpha `$,$`\beta `$ can assume any value. In particular we could redefine $`\lambda (\alpha \beta +1)\lambda ^{}`$. We finally write the Ward identities as

$`p^\mu T_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}(a+1)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \rho }p^\mu q^\rho `$ (55)
$`(p+q)^\alpha T_{\mu \nu \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`2mT_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}(a1)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \rho }p^\alpha q^\rho .`$ (56)
where we defined $`4i\lambda ^{}(a1)/(8\pi ^2)`$. Hence we clearly see that our approach correctly displays the anomaly: the choice of $`a`$, which is ultimately related to the arbitrary value of the CR and the momentum routing, enables us to fix tranversality either in the vector or the axial Ward identity. The reason is that the choice of the arbitrary parameters were left till the very end of the calculation to be fixed. This corresponds to fixing the ratio of renormalization scales in DFR.

## 5 Conclusions and Outlook

We have successfully tested an implicit regularization framework (IR) that works directly in momentum space to study CPT violation in an extended version of $`QED_4`$ and the triangle chiral anomaly, where regularization plays a delicate role. The main purpose of our program is to construct a consistent regularization approach to dimension specific models, such as chiral, topological and supersymmetric models since we work in the (integer) space-time dimension where the theory is defined and no explicit change in the Lagrangian of the theory is effected. Feynman diagram calculation in dimension-specific models are often plagued by spurious anomalies especially beyond the one-loop order.

Yet a constrained version of IR is more practical from the calculational standpoint and more convenient as it appears to fix gauge invariance from the start, we have seen that one should be careful in studying problems in which (an odd number of) parity violating objects appear. As we have seen in the CPT violation problem discussed in section 3 gauge invariance does not fix the undeterminacy. Another instance where the CR should be left arbitrary is the Chiral Schwinger Model discussed in : should we choose to work with the constrained version we would have obtained a wrong mass spectrum, which is known from non-perturbative calculations to be essentially undetermined in a range of values dictated by unitarity. Had we chosen to set the CR equal to zero for the triangle anomaly calculation discussed in section 4 we would inforce momentum routing invariance. Despite loosing the democracy between the AWI and VWI in what concerns the symmetry breaking by setting $`\lambda =0`$ in (54) and consequently violating the VWI we can still recourse to finite renormalization in a similar fashion as discussed in . By redefining a physical amplitude as $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{phys}=T_{\mu \nu \alpha }T_{\mu \nu \alpha }(0)`$, where $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha }(0)=1/(4\pi ^2)ϵ_{\alpha \mu \nu \lambda }(pq)_\lambda `$ it is easy to see that we restore the VWI whereas the anomaly goes to the AWI. For the counterpart in DFR please see .

IR may be also applied to Chern-Simons-Matter (CSM) model calculations. The latter involves a $`3`$-dimensional Levi-Civitta tensor which is just the analogue of the $`\gamma _5`$ matrix in $`3`$-dimensions. Usually CSM are evaluated using a combination of High-Covariant Derivatives which are introduced in the Lagrangian and a modified version of DR (t’Hooft Veltman rules). This turns the propagators very complicated and unpractical for computation beyond the one loop order . Finally it has been recently shown  that IR can be used to construct an algebraic proof of renormalizability for $`\phi _6^3`$-theory in an alternative fashion to BPHZ method. The next step would be to implement this approach for a gauge field theory as well as work with IR in more symmetric models and at higher loop orders .

## Appendix: $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ calculation

As $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ is momentum routing independent, define $`T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ for the routing $`k_1=0,k_2=q,k_3=p`$:

$`T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _k}\text{tr}\{\gamma ^\lambda \gamma _5(\mathit{}\mathit{}m)^1\gamma ^\mu (\mathit{}m)^1\gamma ^\nu (\mathit{}+\mathit{}m)^1\}`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}+\text{ terms\hspace{0.17em} multiplying}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}s.`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ $``$ $`\{ϵ_{\lambda \mu \nu \omega }(p_\omega q_\omega )F_1(p,q)`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`p_\omega q_\varphi \{[ϵ_{\lambda \nu \omega \varphi }q^\mu +ϵ_{\lambda \mu \omega \varphi }q^\nu ]F_2(p,q)`$
$`+`$ $`[ϵ_{\lambda \nu \omega \varphi }p^\mu +ϵ_{\lambda \mu \omega \varphi }p^\nu ]F_3(p,q)`$
$`+`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \omega \varphi }[p^\lambda F_4(p,q)+q^\lambda F_5(p,q)]\}`$
$`+`$ $`ϵ_{\lambda \mu \nu \omega }[p_\omega F_6(p,q)q_\omega F_7(p,q)]\}.`$
with

$$F_1(p,q)=\frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)}\left[\frac{Z_0}{4}((p+q)^2;m^2)\frac{1}{4}\frac{m^2\xi _{00}(p,q)}{2}+\frac{q^2\xi _{01}(p,q)+p^2\xi _{10}(p,q)}{4}\right]$$
(58)
$$F_2(p,q)=\frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)}[\xi _{01}(p,q)\xi _{02}(p,q)\xi _{11}(p,q)]$$
(59)
$$F_3(p,q)=\frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)}[\xi _{11}(p,q)+\xi _{20}(p,q)\xi _{10}(p,q)]$$
(60)
$$F_4(p,q)=\frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)}[\xi _{11}(p,q)+\xi _{10}(p,q)\xi _{20}(p,q)]$$
(61)
$$F_5(p,q)=\frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)}[\xi _{11}(p,q)+\xi _{01}(p,q)\xi _{02}(p,q)]$$
(62)
$$F_6(p,q)=\frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)}\left[\frac{Z_0(p^2;m^2)}{4}\frac{(p+q)^2}{2}\xi _{10}(p,q)+4m^2\xi _{00}(p,q)\right]$$
(63)
$$F_7(p,q)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left[\frac{Z_0(q^2;m^2)}{4}\frac{(p+q)^2}{2}\xi _{01}(p,q)+4m^2\xi _{00}(p,q)\right]$$
(64)
where the functions $`\xi _{nm}(p,q)`$ are defined as

$$\xi _{nm}(p,q)=_0^1𝑑z_0^{1z}𝑑y\frac{z^ny^m}{Q(y,z)}$$
(65)
with

$$Q=(y,z)=p^2y(1y)+q^2z(1z)m^2+2p.qyz.$$
(66)
At the origin $`\xi _{nm}(0,0)=\frac{1}{2m^2}`$. The functions $`Z_k`$ are defined as

$$Z_k(p^2;m^2)=_0^1𝑑zz^k\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p^2z(1z)m^2}{m^2}\right)$$
(67)
The following relations between the functions $`Z_k`$ and $`\xi _{mn}`$ can be easily checked and greatly simplifies the calculation of the $`T_{\lambda \mu \nu }^{AVV}`$ and the Ward identities.

$$q^2\xi _{01}(p,q)p.q\xi _{10}(p,q)=\frac{1}{2}\{Z_0(q^2;m^2)Z_0(p.q;m^2)+p^2\xi _{00}(p,q)\}$$
(68)
$$q^2\xi _{11}(p,q)p.q\xi _{20}(p,q)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\frac{Z_0(p+q)^2;m^2)}{2}+\frac{Z_0(p^2;m^2)}{2}+q^2\xi _{10}(p,q)\right\}$$
(69)
$$q^2\xi _{02}(p,q)p.q\xi _{11}(p,q)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left[\frac{1}{2}+m^2\xi _{00}(p,q)\right]+\frac{p^2}{2}\xi _{10}(p,q)+\frac{3q^2}{2}\xi _{01}(p,q)\right\}$$
(70)
$$p^2\xi _{20}(p,q)p.q\xi _{11}(p,q)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left[\frac{1}{2}+m^2\xi _{00}(p,q)\right]+\frac{q^2}{2}\xi _{01}(p,q)+\frac{3p^2}{2}\xi _{10}(p,q)\right\}$$
(71)
$$p^2\xi _{11}(p,q)p.q\xi _{02}(p,q)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\frac{1}{2}Z_0((p+q)^2;m^2)+\frac{1}{2}Z_0(q^2;m^2)+p^2\xi _{01}(p,q)\right\}.$$
(72)
Adding up the crossed diagram we can readily see that

$`p^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\mu q^\beta `$ (73)
$`q^\nu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\beta q^\nu `$ (74)
$`(p+q)^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu \alpha }^{AVV}`$ $`=`$ $`2mT_{\mu \nu }.\text{qed}`$ (75)
## Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. W. F. Chen and Dr. Manolo Pérez-Victoria for enlightening discussions. This work is supported by FCT/MCT/Portugal under the grant numbers PRAXIS XXI-BPD/22016/99, PRAXIS XXI/BCC/4301/94, PRAXIS/C/FIS/12247/98, POCTI/1999/FIS/35309, CNPq/Brazil and Fapemig/Brazil.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

In the Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model, once Supersymmetry is spontaneously broken the gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ can acquire a mass absorbing the degrees of freedom of the goldstino. The mechanism is analogous to the spontaneous breaking of the electro-weak symmetry in the Standard Model, when Z and W bosons acquire mass absorbing the goldstone bosons.

A very light gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ as predicted by supersymmetric models  has been searched for at LEP and Tevatron experiments  and the sensitivity to its signatures of an experiment at a future linear collider has been studied . Limits on the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ mass are related to the supersymmetry-breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$.

It has been pointed out  that in such supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model with a light gravitino, the effective theory at the weak scale must contain also the supersymmetric partner of the goldstino, called sgoldstino. The production of this particle, which could be massive, may be relevant at the LEP and Tevatron energies  if the supersymmetry-breaking scale and the sgoldstino mass are not too large. Two states are considered in , S CP-even and P CP-odd. Assuming R-parity conservation, it has to be noticed that, while the goldstino is R-odd, the sgoldstino is R-even and therefore it can be produced together with Standard Model particles.

At LEP 2 sgoldstino signatures have been searched for by the DELPHI experiment  and preliminary results from CDF  show the higher sensitivity of hadron colliders. None of the two searches found an evidence for such states.

At an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider one of the most interesting channels for the production of such scalars (from now on the symbol $`\varphi `$ will be used to indicate a generic state) is the process $`e^+e^{}\varphi \gamma `$ which depends on the $`\varphi `$ mass $`m_\varphi `$ and on $`\sqrt{F}`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dcos\theta }(e^+e^{}\varphi \gamma )=\frac{\left|\mathrm{\Sigma }\right|^2s}{64\pi F^2}\left(1\frac{m_\varphi ^2}{s}\right)^3(1+cos^2\theta )$$
(1)
where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle in the centre-of-mass and

$$\left|\mathrm{\Sigma }\right|^2=\frac{e^2M_{\gamma \gamma }^2}{2s}+\frac{g_Z^2(v_e^2+a_e^2)M_{\gamma Z}^2s}{2(sm_Z^2)^2}+\frac{eg_Zv_eM_{\gamma \gamma }M_{\gamma Z}}{sm_Z^2}$$
(2)
with $`v_e=sin^2\theta _W1/4`$, $`a_e=1/4`$ and $`g_Z=e/(sin\theta _Wcos\theta _W)`$. The parameters $`M_{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`M_{\gamma Z}`$ are related to the diagonal mass term for the $`U(1)_Y`$ and $`SU(2)_L`$ gauginos $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$:

$$M_{\gamma \gamma }=M_1cos^2\theta _W+M_2sin^2\theta _W,M_{\gamma Z}=(M_2M_1)sin\theta _Wcos\theta _W.$$
(3)
Other interesting processes are due to $`\gamma \gamma `$\- or gg-fusion occurring, respectively, at $`e^+e^{}`$ and hadron colliders. In both cases the production cross sections are proportional to the corresponding widths:

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\varphi )\sigma _0^{\gamma \gamma }=\frac{4\pi ^2}{m_\varphi ^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi \gamma \gamma ),\sigma (p\overline{p}\varphi )\sigma _0^{gg}=\frac{\pi ^2}{8m_\varphi ^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi gg)$$
(4)
and they can be obtained, respectively, from the photon and gluon distribution functions.

The decay modes $`\varphi \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\varphi gg`$ widths are

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi \gamma \gamma )=\frac{m_\varphi ^3M_{\gamma \gamma }^2}{32\pi F^2}$$
(5)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi gg)=\frac{m_\varphi ^3M_3^2}{4\pi F^2}$$
(6)
where $`M_3`$ is the gluino mass.

As noticed in  the production formulae are similar in form to those for a light SM Higgs production in Born approximation where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ substitute the $`\varphi `$ widths. It is straightforward to apply the same correspondence between these two different physical cases to the $`\varphi `$ production on photon colliders. With a reverse substitution, an effective production cross section in the narrow-width approximation can be deduced from the studies of Higgs Physics at a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider :

$$\sigma ^{eff}=\frac{dL_{\gamma \gamma }}{dW_{\gamma \gamma }}\frac{m_\varphi }{L_{\gamma \gamma }}\times \frac{4\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi \gamma \gamma )}{m_\varphi ^3}$$
(7)
where $`dL_{\gamma \gamma }/dW_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is the luminosity spectrum in the two photon center-of-mass $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`L_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is defined as the luminosity at the high $`\gamma \gamma `$ energy peak.

All the above formulae depend on model dependent mass parameters. In  two sets for these parameters are considered to give numerical examples. They are reported in Table. 1.

The total width for a large interval of the parameter space is dominated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi gg)`$ and it is narrow (below the few GeV order) except for the region with small $`\sqrt{F}`$ where the production cross section is expected to be very large.

In this note the sensitivity to these states of an experiment at a $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider with a center-of mass energy of 500 GeV and the sensitivity of an experiment at a photon collider obtained from the same energy primary $`e^+e^{}`$ beams are evaluated. An integrated luminosity of 500 fb-1 for the $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions is considered with a reduction factor for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ interactions.

## 2 $`e^+e^{}`$ collider

The search for these scalars at a future linear collider can be an upgrade of the analysis done at LEP where the two decay channels $`\varphi \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\varphi gg`$ were considered . For the present sensitivity evaluation only the dominant channel is considered. The $`\varphi gg`$ decay gives rise to events with one photon and two jets. An irreducible background from $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}\gamma `$ events is associated to this topology and therefore the signal must be searched for as an excess of events over the background expectations for every mass hypothesis.

To select $`gg\gamma `$ candidate events the following selection criteria can be defined:

* an electromagnetic energy cluster identified as photon with a polar angle $`\theta >20^{}`$; the angle between the photon and the nearest jet must be greater than $`10^{}`$;
* no electromagnetic cluster with $`\theta <5^{}`$;
* to remove $`\gamma \gamma `$ fusion events: the total multiplicity $`>10`$; the charged multiplicity $`>5`$; the energy in transverse plane $`>0.12\sqrt{s}`$; the sum of absolute values of track momentum along thrust axis $`>0.20\sqrt{s}`$;
* to remove Bhabha background: reject the events with electromagnetic cluster with $`E>0.45\sqrt{s}`$ and low track multiplicity;
* to reduce $`q\overline{q}\gamma `$ events: $`|cos(\theta _p)|<.995`$ where $`\theta _p`$ is the polar angle of missing momentum; the visible energy greater than $`0.60\sqrt{s}`$; reject events with c or b tag;
* to remove WW background the events are reconstructed forcing into 2 jets topology but removing from jetization the tracks associated to the photon cluster. Events are removed if $`y_{cut}>0.02`$.

The polar angle acceptance for a $`\varphi \gamma `$ signal produced as in (1) is about $`80\%`$. It has been evaluated by generating 4-vectors corresponding to the prompt photon and to the $`\varphi `$ decay products. Considering the DELPHI results , the selection efficiency inside the acceptance region is assumed to be of the order of 50 $`\%`$.

The associated photon is monochromatic (except for the region with small $`\sqrt{F}`$ where the production cross-section is expected to be very large) for a given center-of-mass energy. Therefore the signal can be detected as a peak in the photon energy distribution of the selected events. In addition, the photon energy could be determined very precisely by means of kinematic constraints if a final state three body topology is assumed. However, the presence of the beamstrahlung ($`2.8\%`$ of mean beam-energy loss ) induces a smearing on the photon energy which is comparable with or larger than the experimental resolution. On the other hand, the signal can be searched for directly in the jet-jet invariant mass distribution. Clearly the detector performance plays a crucial role in the optimal search strategy. Here a jet energy resolution following the $`\sigma _E^{jet}/E=40\%/\sqrt{E}2\%`$ dependence and an error of about one degree in the jet angle reconstruction is assumed. With these assumptions the direct mass search is convenient or comparable w.r.t. the recoil photon search. The mass resolution is given in Fig. 1.

The background rate depends on the considered $`\varphi `$ mass hypothesis as it can be seen in Fig. 2 where the reconstructed jet-jet invariant mass of $`q\overline{q}\gamma `$ events generated with PYTHIA  in the acceptance region is shown. The events are scaled in order to reproduce the number of expected events with an integrated $`L_{e^+e^{}}`$ luminosity of 500 fb-1. However the statistical fluctuations are not reproduced.

Given the background event distribution as function of $`m_\varphi `$ and the detection efficiency for any $`\varphi `$ mass hypothesis it is possible to estimate a $`95\%`$ Confidence Level cross section limit for the $`\varphi `$ production cross section. Only statistical fluctuations are considered here. The bin to bin fluctuations on the number of background events due to the reduced Monte Carlo statistics are removed by a spline function.

By comparing the experimental limits with the production cross section computed from (1) it is possible to determine a $`95\%`$ Confidence Level excluded region on the parameter space and a $`5\sigma `$ discovery region. The beamstrahlung effects which are more relevant than the Initial State Radiation one’s are taken into account. The limit and the $`5\sigma `$ regions are shown in Fig. 3. The $`\varphi `$ width for all the considered $`m_\varphi `$ values is smaller than the experimental resolution in all the points corresponding to the limit curves. Therefore the limit has been computed integrating the signal only over the experimental resolution. The region where the expected width is larger than the experimental resolution is indicated in Fig. 3. For $`m_\varphi <420`$ it is possible to cover this region of parameter space given the high cross section. This is no more true for $`m_\varphi >420`$ GeV where the decreasing cross section and the increasing width result in a drop of experimental sensitivity.

In the near future the Fermilab Tevatron Collider is expected to increase the luminosity by a factor $`20`$  and consequently an increase of about 1.5 in their $`\sqrt{F}`$ limits can be envisaged. The limits shown in Fig. 3 are then competitive with the future improved Tevatron results.

At $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, additional information can be obtained by searching for the associated $`\varphi \mathrm{Z}^0`$ production as described in . As far as the production cross section is considered, competitive results are expected in the $`m_\varphi <\sqrt{s}m_Z`$ region. However, since this channel has a different final state topology requiring a more sophisticated analysis, it is not considered here.

## 3 $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider

The effective cross section given in eq. (7) depends on the luminosity factor $`f_L=\frac{dL_{\gamma \gamma }}{dW_{\gamma \gamma }}\frac{m_\varphi }{L_{\gamma \gamma }}`$. In the photon collider projects  there are several possible scenarios concerning the photon energy spectra. It may be desirable a photon energy distribution peaked as much as possible toward the primary electron/positron energy. In  $`f_L=7`$ is assumed and $`L_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is taken as the integral luminosity for $`z>z_{min}=0.65`$ where $`z=W_{\gamma \gamma }/2E_e`$ and $`E_e`$ is the primary electron beam energy. The luminosity high energy peak is expected to have a FWHM of $`1015\%`$ with a sharp edge at $`z0.8`$. Therefore the unexcluded $`m_\varphi \sqrt{F}`$ parameter space achievable at these machines with $`2E_e=500`$ GeV ensures that the $`\varphi `$ width is negligible.

The effective cross section obtained with $`f_L=7`$ is much higher (several orders of magnitude, depending on $`m_\varphi `$) than the $`e^+e^{}\varphi \gamma `$ cross section with the same parameters. Considering the photon and gluon decay channels, the signal would appear as a peak of two high energy photons or jets with no transversal missing energy. The two jets final state has to compete with large Standard Model background which can be suppressed using polarized photon beams with polarizations $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$: $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma q\overline{q})1\lambda _1\lambda _2`$ while $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \varphi )1+\lambda _1\lambda _2`$. However, taking into account QCD corrections , the $`q\overline{q}g`$ final state with unresolved gluon jet gives rise to a sizeable background which may be hard to reject. Therefore, despite of the smaller decay branching ratio, only the two photons final state which has a very little Standard Model background is considered here.

The selection of events with two collinear high energetic photons is rather simple and the LEP experience can be used . An efficient way to select photons and to reject electrons is to require two energy clusters in the electromagnetic calorimeter not associated to hits in the vertex detector. Events with tracks detected in the other tracking devices only in one hemisphere can be accepted to recover photon conversions. Other requirements are:

* acollinearity between the e.m. clusters smaller than $`30^{}`$;
* acoplanarity smaller than $`5^{}`$;
* polar angle $`\theta >30^{}`$;
* $`E_\gamma >0.9z_{min}E_e`$.

The detection efficiency is very high ($`>90\%`$) in the region $`W_{\gamma \gamma }/2E_e>z_{min}`$ and the acceptance for the decay of a scalar particle is $`86\%`$.

The irreducible Standard Model background of $`\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$ events has been discussed in . In the $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ region above 200-250 GeV the cross section is in the range 8-14 fb for $`\theta >30^{}`$ and then, assuming $`L_{\gamma \gamma }0.15L_{e^+e^{}}`$, the number of expected events is of the order of 600-1000. As a consequence any New Physics signal has to exceed the corresponding statistical error ( which is of the order of 3 to 4 $`\%`$) and the systematic uncertitude including the precision on the background calculation. For the present sensitivity study an overall background uncertitude of 5 $`\%`$ is assumed, leaving more detailed analysis of the signal and background including the comparison of their angular distributions to a later stage. With these assumptions, the sensitivity to a scalar state decaying in two photons is given by the expected 95 $`\%`$ Confidence Level limit on the cross section times branching ratio and it is

$$\sigma (\gamma \gamma \varphi )\times B.R.(\varphi \gamma \gamma )<1\mathrm{fb}$$

at the 95 $`\%`$ Confidence Level for $`m_\varphi 400`$ GeV.

This value is obtained following the hypothesis that the whole luminosity is collected at the maximal energy spectrum available with 250 GeV electron beams. The actual sensitivity for several $`\varphi `$ mass hypothesis depends on the machine run strategy, on the available energy spectrum and on the photon beam polarization. Nevertheless, taking the given limit just as an evaluation of the order of magnitude for the sensitivity, it is worth investigating the effect on the supersymmetry breaking scale from (5) and (7). In particular, defining as a reference cross-section-branching-ratio-product the value $`\sigma B`$ obtained with $`M_{\gamma \gamma }=350`$ GeV and a 10$`\%`$ branching ratio to two photons, the limit on $`\sqrt{F}`$ and the $`5\sigma `$ signal can be expressed in terms of the ratio $`R=\sigma ^{eff}\times B.R.(\varphi \gamma \gamma )/\sigma B`$. They are then proportional to $`R^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ as shown in Fig. 4. The sensitivity is clearly much larger than the one expected at the $`e^+e^{}`$ machines.

## 4 Conclusions

The sensitivity to the supersymmetric scalar $`\varphi `$ at the future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ and photon colliders is such that unexplored parameter space regions can be investigated. The $`e^+e^{}`$ machines with center of mass energy of 500 GeV can set limits for the production of sgoldstino scalars up to about 420 GeV. These limits are competitive w.r.t. the expected future results from the Tevatron RUN II. The sensitivity at the photon colliders obtained from the same electron-positron beam energy is expected to be much higher for $`m_\varphi 400`$ GeV.

### Acknowledgements

We want to thank F. Zwirner for useful explanations on the theoretical framework and for suggestions on the experimental possibilities, A. Castro for discussions concerning the future CDF results and M. Mazzucato for comments and for reading the manuscript.


text:
# A Computer Proof of a Polynomial Identity Implying a Partition Theorem of Göllnitz

## 1. Göllnitz’s Partition Theorem and Related
$`q`$-Hypergeometric Identities

In 1967, Göllnitz  proved the following deep partition theorem:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`A(N)`$ denote the number of partitions of $`N`$ in the form $`N=n_1+n_2+n_3+\mathrm{}`$, such that no part is equal to $`1`$ or $`3`$, and $`n_in_{i+1}6`$ with strict inequality if $`n_i0,1,3(mod6)`$.
Let $`B(N)`$ denote the number of partitions of $`N`$ into distinct parts $`2,4,5(mod6)`$. Then

$$A(N)=B(N).$$

In , Alladi, Andrews, and Gordon reformulated and refined Theorem 1 using the language of colored partitions. To state their theorem, we will need a few definitions.

Let $`P(N,i,j,k)`$ denote the number of partitions of $`N`$ into parts occurring in three (primary) colors ordered as

$$𝐀<𝐁<𝐂,$$
(1.1)
such that parts in the same color are distinct and the number of parts in colors $`𝐀,𝐁,𝐂`$ is equal to $`i,j,k`$, respectively.

Next, consider partitions $`\pi `$, such that parts equal to $`1`$ may occur in three primary colors (1.1), but parts $`2`$ may occur in six colors ordered as

$$\mathrm{𝐀𝐁}<\mathrm{𝐀𝐂}<𝐀<\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}<𝐁<𝐂.$$
(1.2)
In addition, the gap between adjacent parts is required to be $`1`$, where the gap may equal $`1`$ only if both parts are either of the same primary color or the larger part is in a color of higher order according to (1.2). These partitions $`\pi `$ were called Type–$`1`$ partitions in .

We can now state the following result .

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`G(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)`$ denote the number of Type–$`1`$ partitions of $`N`$ with $`a`$ parts in color $`𝐀`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`bc`$ parts in color $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}`$. (Note that $`bc`$ is not $`bc`$!) Then

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}G(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)=P(N,i,j,k),$$

where the sum on the left is over the variables $`a,b,c,ab,ac,bc`$ subject to the $`i,j,k`$-constraints, which here (and throughout) are

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}i=a+ab+ac,\hfill & \\ j=b+ab+bc,\hfill & \\ k=c+ac+bc.\hfill & \end{array}$$

To see the connection between Theorem 1 and Theorem 2, we denote part $`n`$ in color $`𝐀`$ as $`𝐀_n`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, part $`n`$ in color $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}`$ as $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}_n`$. Next, we replace the colored integers $`𝐀_n,\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}_n`$ by regular integers according to the following rules:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐀_n6n4,& \\ \hfill 𝐁_n6n2,& \\ \hfill 𝐂_n6n1,& \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐀𝐁}_n6n6,& n>1,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐀𝐂}_n6n5,& n>1,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐁𝐂}_n6n3,& n>1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.3)
Note that this replacement converts the ordering

$$\mathrm{𝐀𝐁}_n<\mathrm{𝐀𝐂}_n<𝐀_n<\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}_n<𝐁_n<𝐂_n,n>1$$

into the conventional ordering

$$6n6<6n5<6n4<6n3<6n2<6n1,n>1.$$

Recalling that part $`1`$ can occur only as $`𝐀_1,𝐁_1,𝐂_1`$, we infer that no conventional part equals $`1`$ or $`3`$. Also, one can easily check that under the transformations (1.3) the color-gap conditions become identical with the gap conditions in Theorem 1. So, summing over $`i,j,k`$ one immediately obtains the Göllnitz partition theorem.

To prove Theorem 2, the authors of  stated it in an analytic form, which they called Key Identity, as follows:

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}\frac{q^{T_t+T_{ab}+T_{ac}+T_{bc1}}(1q^a+q^{a+bc})}{(q)_a(q)_b(q)_c(q)_{ab}(q)_{ac}(q)_{bc}}=\frac{q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}}{(q)_i(q)_j(q)_k},$$
(1.4)
where

$$t=a+b+c+ab+ac+bc,$$

$$T_m=\frac{m(m+1)}{2},$$

and for $`n`$, the $`q`$-shifted factorial of $`a`$ is defined as

$$(a)_n=(a;q)_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{j=0}^{n1}(1aq^j),\hfill & \text{if }n>0,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }n=0,\hfill \\ _{j=1}^n(1aq^j)^1,\hfill & \text{if }n<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Several proofs of the Key Identity (1.4) have appeared in the literature . In , Alladi and Andrews provided a straightforward $`q`$-hypergeometric proof of (1.4). Their proof made essential use of Jackson’s $`q`$-analog of Dougall’s summation formula. (See, for instance, Gasper and Rahman \[5, (II.21), p. 238\].) In , Riese used his computer algebra package qMultiSum to find a very simple recursive proof of (1.4). In , Alladi and Berkovich proposed and proved a double bounded polynomial generalization of (1.4):

###### Theorem 3.

If $`i,j,k,L,M`$ are integers, then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}}q^{T_t+T_{ab}+T_{ac}+T_{bc1}}`$
$`\times \{q^{bc}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+a}{a}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+b}{b}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt+c}{c}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ab}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt}{ac}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt}{bc}}\right]_q`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+a1}{a1}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+b}{b}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt+c}{c}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ab}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt}{ac}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt}{bc1}}\right]_q\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{s0}{}}q^{s(M+2)T_s+T_{is}+T_{js}+T_{ks}}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Ls}{s,is,js}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mij}{ks}}\right]_q.`$ (1.5)
In (3) and in what follows, the $`q`$-binomial and $`q`$-multinomial coefficients are defined by

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+m}{n}\right]_q=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(q^{m+1})_n}{(q)_n},\hfill & \text{if }n0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n}\right]_q=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{a_1}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{La_1}{a_2}\right]_q\mathrm{}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{La_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{n1}}{a_n}\right]_q.$$

The proof of Theorem 3 given by Alladi and Berkovich  used recurrences along with Jackson’s $`q`$-Dougall formula. It is easy to check that in the limit $`L,M\mathrm{}`$, (3) reduces to (1.4). Furthermore, if $`L=M`$, then the sum on the right in (3) can be evaluated with the aid of the $`q`$-Pfaff-Saalschütz formula. (See, for instance, Gasper and Rahman \[5, (II.12), p. 237\].) As a result, (3) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}}q^{T_t+T_{ab}+T_{ac}+T_{bc1}}`$
$`\times \{q^{bc}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+a}{a}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+b}{b}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+c}{c}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ab}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ac}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{bc}}\right]_q`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+a1}{a1}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+b}{b}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+c}{c}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ab}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ac}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{bc1}}\right]_q\}`$
$`=q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}}\right]_q.`$ (1.6)
A partition theoretical interpretation of (1), given in , can be stated as follows:

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`G_L(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)`$ denote $`G(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)`$ with the additional constraint that no part exceeds $`𝐂_L`$. Let $`P_L(N,i,j,k)`$ denote $`P(N,i,j,k)`$ with the additional constraints

$$\lambda (𝐀)𝐀_{Lk},\lambda (𝐁)𝐁_{Li},\lambda (𝐂)𝐂_{Lj},$$

where $`\lambda (𝐀)`$ is the largest part in color $`𝐀`$, and $`\lambda (𝐁),\lambda (𝐂)`$ have the analogous interpretation. Then, for $`L\mathrm{max}(i+j,j+k,k+i)`$,

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}G_L(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)=P_L(N,i,j,k).$$

It was pointed out in  that (1) and Theorem 4 can be employed to derive new finite versions of many classical $`q`$-hypergeometric identities, including those of Gauss, Jacobi and Lebesgue.

Since Theorem 2 deals with partitions into parts occurring in three primary colors, one may suspect that a polynomial analog of (1.4) should depend on three finitization parameters $`L_1,L_2,M`$ and that (3) is just the special case $`L_1=L_2=L`$ of this more general result. And, indeed, further investigations led us to the following triple bounded polynomial generalization of (1.4):

###### Theorem 5.

Let

$`g_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M):={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}}q^{T_t+T_{ab}+T_{ac}+T_{bc1}}`$
$`\times \{q^{bc}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_1t+a}{a}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_2t+b}{b}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_2t}{ab}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt+c}{c}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt}{ac}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt}{bc}}\right]_q`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_1t+a1}{a1}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_2t+b}{b}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_2t}{ab}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt+c}{c}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt}{ac}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mt}{bc1}}\right]_q\}`$ (1.7)
and

$`p_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M):={\displaystyle \underset{s0}{}}q^{s(M+2)T_s+T_{is}+T_{js}+T_{ks}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_1s}{is}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_2i}{js}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_2ij+s}{s}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mij}{ks}}\right]_q.`$ (1.8)
Then

$$g_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M)=p_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M).$$
(1.9)
We wish to comment that if any one of the parameters $`i,j,k`$ is set to zero, then identity (1.9) reduces to the double bounded key identity for Schur’s partition theorem .

While it is straightforward to extend the analysis of  to prove (1.9), our goal here is different. We would like to use (1.9) as the testing ground for the package qMultiSum, which has been recently developed by Riese . This package is described in some detail in Section 2. In Section 3, we will use qMultiSum to obtain a nested recursive proof of Theorem 5. In Section 4, we will give a computer proof of the new finite version of Jacobi’s formula  and then, propose and prove (automatically) a new finite analog of Euler’s formula. In Section 5 we will conclude with a brief discussion of the “human insight”, which went into the computer proof of (1.9), and with a short description of the prospects for future work.

## 2. The Package qMultiSum

The object of this section is to give a short account on the Mathematica package qMultiSum111available at http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/research/combinat/risc/software/qMultiSum which computes recurrences for $`q`$-hypergeometric multi-sums. The package has been written by the second author and will be described only briefly here. For more details the reader is referred to the forthcoming article .

The implementation is based on the method of $`𝐤`$-free recurrences, also known as Sister Celine’s technique (developed by Wilf and Zeilberger ). For reasons of efficiency we also incorporated ideas from Wegschaider’s  package MultiSum222available at http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/research/combinat/risc/software/MultiSum for ordinary hypergeometric summation.

Let $`𝐧=(n_1,\mathrm{},n_s)`$ and $`𝐤=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_r)`$ be vectors of variables ranging over the integers. The central concept of (the $`q`$-version of) Sister Celine’s technique is the computation of recurrences for multiple sums $`_𝐤F(𝐧,𝐤)`$, where $`F(𝐧,𝐤)`$ is $`q`$-hypergeometric in all of its arguments. For this we proceed by computing a so-called $`𝐤`$-free recurrence for the summand first.

###### Definition 1.

A $`q`$-hypergeometric function $`F(𝐧,𝐤)`$ satisfies a $`𝐤`$-free recurrence, if there exist a finite set $`S`$ of integer tuples of length $`s+r`$ and polynomials $`\sigma _{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐧)`$ not all zero, such that

$$\underset{(𝐢,𝐣)S}{}\sigma _{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐧)F(𝐧𝐢,𝐤𝐣)=0$$
(2.1)
holds at every point $`(𝐧,𝐤)`$ where all values of $`F`$ occurring in (2.1) are well-defined. The set $`S`$ is called a structure set.

The computation of a $`𝐤`$-free recurrence is done by making an Ansatz of the form (2.1) for some structure set $`S`$ and undetermined $`\sigma _{𝐢,𝐣}`$. Dividing equation (2.1) by $`F(𝐧,𝐤)`$ we get the rational equation

$$\underset{(𝐢,𝐣)S}{}\sigma _{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐧)R_{F,𝐢,𝐣}(𝐧,𝐤)=0,$$
(2.2)
which after clearing denominators turns into the polynomial equation

$$\underset{(𝐢,𝐣)S}{}\sigma _{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐧)P_{F,𝐢,𝐣}(𝐧,𝐤)=0.$$
(2.3)
Next we compare the coefficients of all power products $`q^{k_1l_1}\mathrm{}q^{k_rl_r}`$ in (2.3) with zero to get a homogeneous system of linear equations for the $`\sigma _{𝐢,𝐣}(𝐧)`$. Note that in this system the coefficients are rational functions in several variables and not simply numbers. Every non-trivial solution of the system gives rise to a $`𝐤`$-free recurrence.

It has been shown by Wilf and Zeilberger  that every so-called $`q`$-proper hypergeometric function $`F(𝐧,𝐤)`$ satisfies a $`𝐤`$-free recurrence over some “rectangular” structure set $`S_{𝐈,𝐉}:=\{(𝐢,𝐣)0i_lI_l,0j_mJ_m\}`$, since for large enough $`𝐈`$ and $`𝐉`$ the number of unknowns exceeds the number of equations.

However, this result is important only from theoretical point of view, because in practice the run-time and memory demand grow very fast with the size of the structure set $`S`$. In particular, it turns out that rectangular structure sets are in general not usable, since most recurrences live over a different domain, i.e. many $`(𝐢,𝐣)S_{𝐈,𝐉}`$ are superfluous points with $`\sigma _{𝐢,𝐣}=0`$.

Hence we also generalized the concept of $`P`$-maximal structure sets to the $`q`$-case, leading to more satisfactory results. The underlying existence theory was originally introduced by Verbaeten  for single-sums in the $`q=1`$ case. Since it is based on arguments from plane geometry, there is no direct generalization to multi-sums. Nevertheless, as Wegschaider  pointed out, $`P`$-maximal structure sets can be computed also in this situation: the idea is to start with a small rectangular structure set and then to add all those points that do not increase the degree of the polynomial on the left-hand side of (2.3). This way the number of equations in the corresponding linear system remains the same, whereas we maximize the number of unknowns.

However, there are still some cases where also this method, called Verbaeten completion, misses the minimal structure set. In particular, this happens with most of the identities from Section 3. Hence we omit the details (see Riese ) and only remark that in these specific instances we could overcome the problem by first computing the structure set for $`q=1`$ and using the same for the $`q`$-case. Right now we do not have an explanation why this actually works.

We want to emphasize that the correctness of a $`𝐤`$-free recurrence computed by our program can be checked independently. For that one simply divides equation (2.1) by $`F(𝐧,𝐤)`$ and verifies the resulting rational function identity (2.2) formally. As Wegschaider showed this implies the correctness of the $`𝐤`$-free recurrence even at those points $`(𝐧,𝐤`$) where $`F(𝐧,𝐤)=0`$.

Once we have computed a $`𝐤`$-free recurrence for the summand, the recurrence for the whole sum can be obtained by summing over it. Doing so the left-hand side of the recurrence could collapse to $`0`$. Since we do not know of any example where this actually occurs, we do not go further into the details here (see Wegschaider  or Riese ).

Moreover, one should keep in mind that for some specific $`𝐧`$ certain coefficients in the recurrence for the sum might vanish. In this case one possibly has to consider extra boundaries.

## 3. A Computer Proof of the Triple Bounded Identity

In this section we prove algorithmically identity (1.9) which we restate for convenience as

$$g_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M)=p_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M).$$
(3.1)
For this we proceed in two steps. First we compute a recurrence for $`g_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M)`$ and show that $`p_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M)`$ satisfies the same recurrence. Then we prove that (3.1) holds at a certain boundary. The latter is achieved by repeating both steps for the boundary identity.

### 3.1. The Recurrence

First of all we load the package:

```
In[1]:= <<qMultiSum.m

```

```
Out[1]= Axel Riese’s qMultiSum implementation version 2.1 loaded
```

Then we enter the constraints and the summands.

```
In[2]:= a = i-ab-ac; b = j-ab-bc; c = k-ac-bc;
       t = a+b+c+ab+ac+bc;
       T[m_] := m(m+1)/2;

```

```
In[3]:= gsum = q^(T[t]+T[ab]+T[ac]+T[bc-1]) qBinomial[L<sub>1</sub>-t+a,a,q] *
              qBinomial[L<sub>2</sub>-t+b,b,q] qBinomial[M-t+c,c,q] *
              qBinomial[L<sub>2</sub>-t,ab,q] qBinomial[M-t,ac,q] qBinomial[M-t,bc,q] *
              (q^bc + (1-q^a)/(1-q^(L<sub>1</sub>-t+a)) (1-q^bc)/(1-q^(M-t-bc+1)));

```

```
In[4]:= psum = q^(s(M+2)-T[s]+T[i-s]+T[j-s]+T[k-s]) *
              qBinomial[L<sub>1</sub>-s,i-s,q] qBinomial[L<sub>2</sub>-i,j-s,q] *
              qBinomial[L<sub>2</sub>-i-j+s,s,q] qBinomial[M-i-j,k-s,q];

```

The function for computing $`𝐤`$-free recurrences is called qFindRecurrence (or qFR for short). It takes as arguments the summand, the recurrence variables, the summation variables, the dimensions of the initial rectangular structure set over which Verbaeten completion is performed, and some optional parameters. In our case we specify a structure set explicitly, which — as mentioned above — we obtained by investigating the $`q=1`$ case.

```
In[5]:= qFindRecurrence[gsum, {L<sub>1</sub>,L<sub>2</sub>,M,i,j}, {ab,ac,bc},
                       {0,0,0,0,0}, {0,0,0},
                       StructSet -> {{0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0}, {0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0},
                                     {1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0}, {1,2,1,1,1,1,0,0}}]

```

Out=

$`q^{k+L_2}F(1+L_1,2+L_2,1+M,1+i,1+j,1+ab,ac,bc)+`$
$`q^{k+L_2}F(1+L_1,1+L_2,1+M,i,1+j,ab,ac,bc)+`$
$`q^kF(L_1,1+L_2,M,i,j,ab,ac,bc)q^kF(L_1,L_2,M,i,j,ab,ac,bc)=0`$
Then we sum up this recurrence by applying the function qSumRecurrence (or qSR for short) to the previous result. Of course we have to provide the information that the first $`5`$ variables are recurrence variables. Since we prefer backward shifts, we also call the function BackwardShifts.

```
In[6]:= qSumRecurrence[%, 5] // BackwardShifts

```

Out=

$$\begin{array}{cc}& q^{L_2}\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,2+L_2,1+M,1+i,1+j)+\hfill \\ & q^{L_2}\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,1+L_2,1+M,i,1+j)+\hfill \\ & \mathrm{SUM}(L_1,1+L_2,M,i,j)\mathrm{SUM}(L_1,L_2,M,i,j)=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
Next we want to show that also $`p_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M)`$ satisfies the same recurrence. Surprisingly, with our package we are not able to find (LABEL:grec) directly. On the other hand verification is a trivial task: we simply show that already the summand of $`p`$ fulfills (LABEL:grec) and therefore also $`p`$ itself. For this we call the function qCheckRecurrence (or qCR for short).

```
In[7]:= qCheckRecurrence[%, psum]

```

```
Out[7]= True

```

### 3.2. The Boundary

First we note that identity (3.1) is true if any of the parameters $`i,j,k`$ is negative, since both sides vanish in this case. Thus, to complete the proof it suffices to show that

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j,k}(L_1,M)=\stackrel{~}{p}_{i,j,k}(L_1,M),$$
(3.3)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j,k}(L_1,M):=g_{i,j,k}(L_1,i+j1,M)$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{i,j,k}(L_1,M):=p_{i,j,k}(L_1,i+j1,M).$$

To see this we have to distinguish two cases. If $`L_2>i+j1`$ we rewrite recurrence (LABEL:grec) as

$`\mathrm{SUM}(L_1,L_2,M,i,j)`$
$`=q^{L_2}\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,2+L_2,1+M,1+i,1+j)+\mathrm{}`$
and find that on the new right-hand side either $`j`$ or $`L_2`$ is shifted backwards by $`1`$. Analogously, if $`L_2i+j1`$ we rewrite (LABEL:grec) as

$`\mathrm{SUM}(L_1,1+L_2,M,i,j)`$
$`=q^{L_2}\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,2+L_2,1+M,1+i,1+j)\mathrm{}`$
and find that on the new right-hand side either $`j`$ is shifted backwards or $`L_2`$ is shifted forwards by $`1`$. Hence, if we show (3.3) for all integer valued $`L_1`$, then identity (3.1) holds for all integer valued $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$.

To prove (3.3) we proceed as before. This means that we compute a recurrence for $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j,k}(L_1,M)`$, check that $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{i,j,k}(L_1,M)`$ satisfies the same recurrence and prove (3.3) at a certain boundary.

#### 3.2.1. The Recurrence for the Boundary

This time we succeed without spying out the structure set from the $`q=1`$ case:

```
In[8]:= qFR[gsum /. L<sub>2</sub> -> i+j-1, {L<sub>1</sub>,M,i}, {ab,ac,bc}, {0,0,0}, {0,0,1}] //
         qSR[#, 3]& // BackwardShifts

```

Out=

$$q^{L_1}\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,1+M,1+i)+\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,M,i)\mathrm{SUM}(L_1,M,i)=0$$
(3.4)
```
In[9]:= qCR[%, psum /. L<sub>2</sub> -> i+j-1]

```

```
Out[9]= True

```

#### 3.2.2. The Boundary of the Boundary

Finally, to complete the proof of (3.3) and thus of (3.1), we prove the identity

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j,k}(i+j1,M)=\stackrel{~}{p}_{i,j,k}(i+j1,M).$$
(3.5)
Again we see that this is sufficient by viewing recurrence (3.4) as

$$\mathrm{SUM}(L_1,M,i)=q^{L_1}\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,1+M,1+i)+\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,M,i)$$

in case of $`L_1>i+j1`$, and as

$$\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,M,i)=q^{L_1}\mathrm{SUM}(1+L_1,1+M,1+i)+\mathrm{SUM}(L_1,M,i)$$

if $`L_1i+j1`$. Hence, if we prove (3.5), then identity (3.3) holds for all integer valued $`L_1`$.

From the single-sum we immediately read off the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{i,j,k}(i+j1,M)=\delta _{i,0}\delta _{j,0}q^{T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}{k}\right]_q,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=Mij`$. Hence our boundary identity to verify becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j,k}(i+j1,M)=\delta _{i,0}\delta _{j,0}q^{T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}{k}\right]_q.$$
(3.6)
The reason for switching from $`M`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ here is that proving identity (3.6) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ is easy, whereas for $`M=0`$ it is not at all.

```
In[10]:= qFR[gsum /. {L<sub>1</sub> -> i+j-1, L<sub>2</sub> -> i+j-1, M -> $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$+i+j},
            {$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,i,j,k}, {ab,ac,bc}, {0,0,0,0}, {0,0,0},
            StructSet -> {{0,0,0,0,0,0,0}, {0,1,1,1,1,0,0}, {1,0,0,0,0,0,0},
                          {1,0,0,1,0,0,0}, {1,0,1,1,0,0,0}, {1,0,1,1,0,0,1},
                          {1,1,0,1,0,0,0}, {1,1,0,1,0,1,0}, {1,1,1,1,0,0,0},
                          {1,1,1,2,0,1,1}}] //
           qSR[#, 4]& // BackwardShifts

```

Out=

$$\begin{array}{cc}& q^{1+2\mathrm{\Delta }+2i+2j}\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },1+i,1+j,2+k)+\hfill \\ & q^{3+\mathrm{\Delta }+3i+3j}\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },1+i,1+j,1+k)\hfill \\ & q^{\mathrm{\Delta }+i+j}\left(1+q^{1+i+j}\right)\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },1+i,j,1+k)\hfill \\ & q^{\mathrm{\Delta }+i+j}\left(1+q^{1+i+j}\right)\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },i,1+j,1+k)+\hfill \\ & q^{\mathrm{\Delta }+i+j}\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },i,j,1+k)+\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },i,j,k)\hfill \\ & q^{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+2i+2j}\mathrm{SUM}(\mathrm{\Delta },1+i,1+j,1+k)\mathrm{SUM}(\mathrm{\Delta },i,j,k)=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.7)
Obviously $`\delta _{i,0}\delta _{j,0}q^{T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}{k}\right]_q`$ is a solution of this recurrence, we only have to consider the two non-degenerate cases when $`i=j=0`$ or $`i=j=1`$. Note that once we have proved the validity of (3.6) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, which follows immediately from \[3, (3.7)\], our recurrence implies the validity both for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. Indeed, for the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ we rewrite (LABEL:grec\_bound2) as

$$\mathrm{SUM}(\mathrm{\Delta },i,j,k)=q^{1+2\mathrm{\Delta }+2i+2j}\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },1+i,1+j,2+k)+\mathrm{}$$

and observe that on the new right-hand side at least one of the parameters among $`i,j,k`$ is shifted backwards or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is shifted backwards by $`1`$. Analogously, for the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ we rewrite (LABEL:grec\_bound2) as

$$\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },i,j,k)=q^{1+2\mathrm{\Delta }+2i+2j}\mathrm{SUM}(1+\mathrm{\Delta },1+i,1+j,2+k)\mathrm{}$$

and observe that on the new right-hand side at least one of the parameters among $`i,j,k`$ is shifted backwards or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is shifted forwards by $`1`$.

Finally, let us briefly summarize the run-times. The computation of (LABEL:grec\_bound2) took approximately $`35`$ seconds on an SGI Octane using Mathematica 4.0.1. All other computations could be carried out within less than $`5`$ seconds.

## 4. Computer Proofs of New Finite Analogs
of Jacobi and Euler Formulas

In \[3, (5.6)\] Alladi and Berkovich pointed out that (1) can be used to derive

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}a^l\frac{1+a^{2l+1}}{1+a}q^{T_l}=\underset{i,j,k}{}a^{ij}(1)^kq^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q,$$
(4.1)
from which Jacobi’s formula

$$\underset{l0}{}(1)^l(2l+1)q^{T_l}=(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}^3,$$

follows in the limit $`L\mathrm{},a1`$. It is instructive to prove (4.1) in an automated fashion. For the right-hand side of (4.1) we obtain within $`20`$ seconds the following recurrence of order $`4`$:

```
In[11]:= Clear[a]

```

```
In[12]:= qFR[a^(i-j) (-1)^k q^(T[i]+T[j]+T[k]) qBinomial[L-k,i,q] *
            qBinomial[L-i,j,q] qBinomial[L-j,k,q],
            L, {i,j,k}, 2, {0,0,0}] // qSR

```
Out= $`\left(aq^{9+3L}\mathrm{SUM}\left(L\right)\right)+q^{7+2L}\left(1a+a^2+aq^{2+L}\right)\mathrm{SUM}\left(1+L\right)`$
$`\left(1a+a^2\right)q^{4+L}\left(1+q^{3+L}\right)\mathrm{SUM}\left(2+L\right)+`$
$`\left(aq^{4+L}+aq^{4+L}a^2q^{4+L}\right)\mathrm{SUM}\left(3+L\right)+a\mathrm{SUM}\left(4+L\right)=0`$
Now we plug in the left-hand side of (4.1):

```
In[13]:= Simplify[% /. SUM[L + m_] :> SUM[L] +
                 Sum[a^(-l) (1+a^(2l+1))/(1+a) q^T[l], {l,L+1,L+m}]]

```

```
Out[13]= True

```
Once we have verified (4.1) for $`L\{0,1,2,3\}`$, we are done.

Recently, we came up with the identity

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^{2(T_LT_l)}=\underset{i,j,k}{}(1)^jq^{2T_i+2T_j+2T_kij}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_{q^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_{q^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_{q^2},$$
(4.2)
which for $`L\mathrm{}`$ turns into Euler’s formula

$$1=(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}(q;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}.$$

With our package the proof can be done again in $`20`$ seconds:

```
In[14]:= qFR[(-1)^j q^(2T[i]+2T[j]+2T[k]-i-j) qBinomial[L-k,i,q^2] *
            qBinomial[L-i,j,q^2] qBinomial[L-j,k,q^2],
            L, {i,j,k}, 2, {0,0,0}] // qSR

```
Out= $`\left(q^{14+6L}\mathrm{SUM}\left(L\right)\right)+q^{12+4L}\left(1+q^{4+2L}\right)\mathrm{SUM}\left(1+L\right)`$
$`q^{6+2L}\left(1+q^{3+L}\right)\left(1+q^{3+L}\right)\mathrm{SUM}\left(2+L\right)+`$
$`\left(1q^{8+2L}\right)\mathrm{SUM}\left(3+L\right)+\mathrm{SUM}\left(4+L\right)=0`$
Plugging in the left-hand side of (4.2) gives:

```
In[15]:= Simplify[% /. SUM[L + m_] :> q^(2(L m + T[m])) *
                 (SUM[L] + Sum[q^(2(T[L]-T[l])), {l,L+1,L+m}])]

```

```
Out[15]= True

```
Again the remaining task is to verify (4.2) for $`L\{0,1,2,3\}`$.

## 5. Concluding Remarks

While it is apparent that the package qMultiSum is a valuable tool for proving $`q`$-hypergeometric identities, we would like to point out that our proof of (1.9) is not fully automated. First of all, in general, the computer generates not just one, but many recurrences. Some of these recurrences are “dead ends” in practical terms.

For instance, if one starts with the simple recursion relation

$$g_{i,j,k}(L_1,L_2,M)=g_{i,j,k}(L_11,L_2,M)+q^{L_1}g_{i1,j,k}(L_11,L_21,M1)$$
(5.1)
and then sets $`L_1=i1`$, one gets

$$g_{i,j,k}(i1,L_2,M)=q^{i(M+2)T_i+T_{j1}+T_{ki}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_2i}{ji}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L_2j}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Mij}{ki}\right]_q.$$
(5.2)
Unfortunately, we did not succeed in proving the boundary identity (5.2) with qMultiSum and, as a result, we were not able to complete the proof of (1.9), taking (5.1) as the starting point.

Second, crucial “human insight” was used in selecting the not so obvious boundaries

$$L_1=i+j1,L_2=i+j1,M=i+j$$

in Section 3.2. These boundaries were determined by two requirements:

1. The validity of the identity on the boundary, along with the recursion relations, should imply the validity of the identity everywhere.
2. The identity should take a particularly simple form on the chosen boundary.

We have already mentioned at the end of Section 2 that the recursion relations generated by the computer should be examined carefully, because on some specific hyperplanes these recurrences may become a triviality $`0=0`$. At present, this examination has to be carried out manually.

We would like to finish this article by pointing out that currently only (1) finds a partition theoretical interpretation. Clearly, it is highly desirable to find a partition theorem which corresponds to identity (1.9). It is encouraging that for the case when one of the parameters $`i,j,k`$ in (1.9) is set to zero, such a theorem was recently found in .

### Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Krishnaswami Alladi, George E. Andrews and Doron Zeilberger for their interest and comments on the manuscript.