text:
# A GAUGE INVARIANT FORMULATION OF INTRINSICALLY NONPERTURBATIVE QCD

## I Introduction

The full dynamical information of any quantum gauge field theory such as quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is contained in the corresponding quantum equations of motion, the so-called Schwinger-Dyson (SD) equations for lower (propagators) and higher (vertices and kernels) Green’s functions \[1-3\]. It is a highly nonlinear, strongly coupled system of four-dimensional integral equations for the above-mentioned quantities. The Bethe-Salpeter (BS) type integral equations for the bound-state amplitudes  should be also included into this system. The kernels of these integral equations are determined by the infinite series of the corresponding skeleton diagrams. It is a general feature of $`nonlinear`$ systems that the number of exact solutions (if any) can not be fixed $`apriori`$. Thus formally it may have several exact solutions. These equations should be complemented by the corresponding Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identities  which in general relate the above mentioned lower and higher Green’s functions to each other. These identities are consequences of the exact gauge invariance and therefore $`\mathrm{"}areexactconstraintsonanysolutiontoQCD\mathrm{"}`$ . Precisely this system of equations can serve as an adequate and effective tool for the nonperturbative (NP) approach to QCD . To say today that QCD is the NP theory is almost tautology. The problem is how to define it exactly since we surely know that QCD has a perturbative (PT) phase as well because of asymptotic freedom (AF) .

## II Yang-Mills sector

In order to exactly define NP QCD, let us start first with the Yang-Mills (YM) sector. The two-point Green’s function, describing the full gluon propagator, is

$$iD_{\mu \nu }(q)=\left\{T_{\mu \nu }(q)d(q^2,\xi )+\xi L_{\mu \nu }(q)\right\}\frac{1}{q^2}.$$
(1)
Here $`\xi `$ is a gauge fixing parameter ($`\xi =0`$, Landau gauge) and $`T_{\mu \nu }(q)=g_{\mu \nu }(q_\mu q_\nu /q^2)=g_{\mu \nu }L_{\mu \nu }(q)`$. Evidently, its free (tree level) counterpart is obtained by simply setting the full gluon form factor $`d(q^2,\xi )=1`$ in Eq. (2.1) (see Eq. (2.7) below). The solutions of the above-mentioned SD equation for the full gluon propagator (2.1) are supposed to reflect the complexity of the quantum structure of the QCD ground state. Precisely this determines the central role of the full gluon propagator in the SD system of equations . The SD equation for the full gluon propagator is a highly nonlinear system of four-dimensional integrals containing many different, unknown in general propagators, vertices and kernels, so there is no hope for exact solution(s). However, in any case the solutions of this equation can be distinguished from each other by their behavior in the deep infrared (DIR) limit, describing thus many (several) different types of quantum excitations and fluctuations of gluon field configurations in the QCD vacuum. The ultraviolet (UV) limit of these solutions is uniquely determined by AF. Evidently, not all of them can reflect the real structure of the QCD vacuum.

The DIR asymptotics of the full gluon propagator can be generally classified into the two different types: singular which means the IR enhanced (IRE) or smooth which means the IR finite (IRF) or even the IR vanishing (IRV) gluon propagators. However, any deviation in the behavior of the full gluon propagator in the DIR domain from the free one automatically assumes its dependence on a scale parameter (at least one) in general different from QCD asymptotic scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. It can be considered as responsible for the NP dynamics (in the IR region) in the QCD vacuum. If QCD itself is a confining theory, then such characteristic scale is very likely to exist. In what follows, let us denote it, say, $`\mu `$. This is very similar to AF which requires the above-mentioned asymptotic scale parameter associated with nontrivial PT dynamics in the UV region (scale violation). In this connection it is worth emphasizing that being numerically a few hundred $`MeV`$ only, it cannot survive in the UV limit. This means that none of the finite scale parameters, in particular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, can be determined by PT QCD. It should come from the IR region, so it is NP by origin. How to establish the relation between these two independent scale parameters was shown in our paper . Despite the PT vacuum cannot be the QCD true ground state , nevertheless, the existence of such kind of the relation is a manifestation that ”the problems encountered in perturbation theory are not mere mathematical artifacts but rather signify deep properties of the full theory” . The message that we have tried to convey is that precisely AF clearly indicates the existence of the NP phase in the full QCD.

### A Truly NP phase

The phenomenon of ”dimensional transmutation”  only supports our general conclusion that QCD exhibits a mass determining the scale of NP dynamics in its ground state. In terms of the full gluon propagator it can be exactly defined as follows:

$$d^{TNP}(q^2,\mu ^2)=d(q^2,\mu ^2)d(q^2,\mu ^2=0),$$
(2)
where we introduce explicit dependence on the NP mass scale $`\mu `$, and the dependence on the gauge fixing parameter as well as other possible parameteres is omitted for simplicity. Thus this subtraction can be also considered as the definition of the truly NP (TNP) part of the full gluon propagator since when the NP scale parameter goes formally to zero then the TNP part vanishes, i.e., it uniquely determines the TNP part of the full gluon propagator. On the other hand, the definition (2.2) explains the difference between the TNP part $`d^{TNP}(q^2)`$ and the full gluon propagator $`d(q^2)`$ which is NP itself. Let us note now that the limit $`\mu ^20`$ is usually equivalent to the limit $`q^2\mathrm{}`$. In some other cases, the gluon propagator does not depend explicitly on the NP scale parameter (the dependence is hidden) then its behavior at infinity should be subtracted in Eq. (2.2).

It is almost obvious that because of AF one can identify

$$d(q^2,\mu ^2=0)d^{PT}(q^2)$$
(3)
since any Green’s function in particular the gluon one should approach its PT counterpart (up to PT renormgroup log improvements) in the UV limit ($`\mu ^20`$ which is equivalent to $`q^2\mathrm{}`$, as was emphasized above). It is clear that by ”PT” we mean intermediate (IM) plus UV regions (since the IM region still remains a ”$`terraincognita`$” in QCD, though it seems to us that it can be sufficiently well approximated by the free gluon propagator, see Eq. (2.7) below). Obviously, the relation (2.3) is our definition of the PT phase in QCD. Thus the relation (2.2) becomes

$$d(q^2,\mu ^2)=d^{TNP}(q^2,\mu ^2)+d^{PT}(q^2).$$
(4)
Let us underline that this is an exact relation (the gluon momentum runs over the whole range $`[0,\mathrm{})`$), so at this stage there is no approximation made. Due to the inevitable identification (2.3), one can say that we define the NP scale parameter in the way that when it formally goes to zero (i.e., when the TNP part vanishes) then the PT phase only survives in the full gluon propagator. This also allows one to clearly distinguish the NP scale parameter between all other mass scale parameters which may be presented in the full gluon propagator. In some special cases, it can be identified with the mass of the particle. For example, in the dual Abelian Higgs model the mass of the dual gauge boson serves as the NP scale . It is worth emphasizing that in the realistic models of the full gluon propagator its TNP part usually coincides with its DIR asymptotics determining thus the strong intrinsic influence of the IR properties of the theory on its NP dynamics.

Substituting this exact decomposition into the full gluon propagator (2.1), one obtains

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q,\mu )=D_{\mu \nu }^{TNP}(q,\mu )+D_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q),$$
(5)
where

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{TNP}(q,\mu )=iT_{\mu \nu }(q)d^{TNP}(q^2,\mu ^2)\frac{1}{q^2},$$
(6)
$$D_{\mu \nu }^0(q)=i\{T_{\mu \nu }(q)+\xi L_{\mu \nu }(q)\}\frac{1}{q^2},$$
(7)
$$D_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q)=i\{T_{\mu \nu }(q)d^{PT}(q^2)+\xi L_{\mu \nu }(q)\}\frac{1}{q^2}.$$
(8)
For further purposes the explicit expression for the free gluon propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }^0(q)`$ is also given. Thus the exact decomposition (2.5), complemented by the definitions (2.6) and (2.8), has a few remarkable features. First of all, all the dependence of the full gluon propagator on the NP scale parameter $`\mu `$ is exactly placed in its TNP part which vanishes as it formally goes to zero, i.e., when the PT phase only survives in QCD. Secondly, the explicit gauge dependence of the full gluon propagator is exactly shifted from its TNP part to its PT part (for reasons to proceed in this way, see discussion below). Thus we clearly separate the NP phase from the PT one in QCD.

### B Intrinsically NP phase

Up to this moment we have delt only with exact decompositions and definitions, i.e., only algebraic manipulations have been performed. It is the time now to introduce nontrivial dynamics into this scheme. Evidently, the only place where it can be done is, of course, the DIR region, i.e., by saying something nontrivial about the DIR asymptotics of the full gluon propagator one can additionally distinguish between its TNP and PT parts. The UV behavior of both parts, i.e., of the full gluon propagator, is controlled by AF. Fortunately, we have an exact criterion for establishing the DIR structure of the full gluon propagator. The PT phase in QCD begins, of course, from the free gluon propagator (2.7) which has an exact $`(1/q^2)`$ singularity in the DIR limit since it is defined in the whole range. The PT part, presented by Eq. (2.8) also in the whole range, possesses the same property. This means that the free gluon singularity $`(1/q^2)`$ at $`q^20`$ is an exact separation line between the TNP and PT parts in the full gluon propagator (2.5). The PT phase in QCD is defined as one which at maximum is singular in the IR as free gluon propagator. Its existance in QCD is important from conceptual point of view and it is determined by AF in the UV limit. In what follows this type of singularities will be called as PT IR singularities.

Contrary to the PT part, the TNP part of the full gluon propagator (2.6), where the momentum also runs over the whole range, should have then singularities in the DIR domain stronger than $`(1/q^2)`$. Of course, such strong singularities can be only of dynamical origin. The only dynamical mechanism in QCD which can produce such severe singularities in the vacuum is self-interaction of massless gluons in the DIR domain. Precisely this self-interaction in the UV limit leads to AF. Thus one comes to the inevitable conclusion that the TNP part of the full gluon propagator should have strong IR singularities different from those of the PT part. In what follows this type of singularities will be called as NP IR singularities. Thus they should be summarized by the full gluon propagator and effectively correctly described by its TNP part in the DIR domain. In this way the TNP becomes intrinsically NP (INP) one. So the definition of the INP YM quantum theory consisits of the two conditions.

I). The first necessary condition defines the TNP part of the full gluon propagator (2.6), on account of the definition (2.2).

II). The second sufficient condition specifies the existence and structure of more stronger than $`(1/q^2)`$ IR singularities in the QCD NP vacuum.

Now it becomes transparently clear why the gauge fixing parameter $`\xi `$ should be shifted to the PT part of the full gluon propagator. Its longitudinal part is exactly singular in the IR as $`(1/q^2)`$. So, by definition, it belongs to the PT world and therefore it does not make any sense to decompose $`\xi `$ similar to Eq. (2.2) though formally it is possible to do, of course. Thus the INP part of the full gluon propagator is manifestly gauge invariant and only transfer (physical) degrees of freedom of the gauge bosons are important for the NP dynamics in QCD.

The INP YM theory will become INP QCD when we will include into this scheme quark, ghost and quark-ghost sectors as well (see below). However, beforehand, we have to characterize $`quantitatively`$ the QCD NP vacuum which arises in our approach.

## III ZMME quantum model of the QCD ground state

The quantum structure of the QCD NP vacuum is dominated by such types of excitations and fluctuations of gluon field configurations there which are due to self-interaction of massless gluons since precisely this interaction is the main quantum, dynamical effect in QCD.***Classical field configurations may also exist in the QCD NP vacuum since its dynamical and topological structure can be organized at different levels: quantum and classical. However, they are by no means dominant. In the UV region it implies AF. In the DIR region it becomes strongly singular and thus becomes responsible for the enhancement of zero momentum modes in the QCD NP vacuum. All the NP IR singularities should be absorbed into full gluon propagator while all other Green’s functions can be regarded as regular functions with respect to the momentum transfer, i.e., gluon momentum $`q`$ (see next section). Thus that is the zero momentum modes are enhanced in the QCD NP vacuum is in complete agreement with our conclusion driven in the preceding section. They are behind the existence of the INP phase in QCD.

Our quantum, dynamical model of the QCD true ground state is based on the existence and importance of such kind of the NP excitations and fluctuations of gluon field configurations which are due to self-interaction of massless gluons only without explicit involving some extra degrees of freedom. They are to be summarized by the INP part of the full gluon propagator and are to be effectively correctly described by its behavior in the DIR domain. As was explained above, these types of gluon field configurations necessary correspond to the strongly singular in the IR gluon propagator. In what follows we will call our model of the QCD ground state as zero momentum modes enhancement (ZMME) or simply zero modes enhancement (ZME, since we work always in the momentum space) quantum model .

Before going into the brief descriptoin of the distribution nature of the NP IR singularities, introduced in Eq. (3.1) below, a few short remarks are in order. From QCD sum rules  it is well known that AF is stopped by power-type terms reflecting the growth of the coupling in the IR. Approaching the DIR region from the above, the IR sensitive contributions were parametrized in terms of a few quantities (gluon and quark condensates, etc.) while direct access to NP effects (i.e., to the DIR region) was blocked by the IR divergences . Our approach to NP QCD, in particular its true ground state, is a further step into the DIR region (in fact, we are deeply inside it) since the distribution theory (DT) allows one to correctly deal with the NP IR singularities (see below).

In general, all the Green’s functions in QCD are generalized functions, i.e., they are distributions . Especially this is true for the severe NP IR singularities due to self-interaction of massless gluons in the QCD vacuum. Roughly speeking, this means that all relations involving distributions should be considered under corresponding integrals taking into account smoothness properties of the corresponding test functions. Not loosing generality, the severe NP IR singularities can be analytically taken into account in terms of the TNP gluon form factor in Eq. (2.6) with a Euclidean signature ($`q^2q^2`$) as follows:

$$d^{INP}(q^2,\mu ^2)=(\mu ^2)^{\lambda 1}(q^2)^\lambda \times f(q^2),$$
(9)
where obviously we include $`1/q^2`$ from Eq. (2.6) into the exponent $`\lambda `$ which in general is arbitrary (any complex number with $`Re\lambda <0`$). The function $`f(q^2)`$ is a dimensionless function which is regular at zero and otherwise remaining arbitrary, but preserving AF in the UV limit. This is nothing else but the analytical formulation of the second sufficient condition of the existence of the INP phase in the YM theory. That is why we replaced superscipt “TNP” by “INP” in Eq. (3.1). Since we are particulary interested in the DIR region, the arbitrary function $`f(q^2)`$ should be also expanded around zero in the form of the Taylor series in powers of $`q^2`$, i.e,

$$f(q^2)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{[\lambda ]1}{}}(q^2)^mf^{(m)}(0)+\underset{m=[\lambda ]}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(q^2)^mf^{(m)}(0),$$
(10)
where $`[\lambda ]`$ denotes its integer number and

$$f^{(m)}(0)=\frac{1}{m!}\left(\frac{d^mf(q^2)}{d(q^2)^m}\right)_{q^2=0}.$$
(11)
As a result, we will be left with finite sum of power terms with exponent decreasing by one starting from $`\lambda `$. All other remaining terms from the Taylor expansion (3.2) starting from the term having already the PT IR singularity (the second sum in Eq. (3.2)) should be shifted to the PT part of the full gluon propagator.

Let us consider now for simplicity only, the most strong NP IR singularity presented by the first term in the above-mentioned Taylor expansion. DT, elaborated and developed by Gel’fand and Shilov in Ref. , tells us that though the exponent $`\lambda `$ in general is arbitrary the distribution $`(q^2)^\lambda `$ will have a simple pole at points $`\lambda =(n/2)k,(k=0,1,2,3\mathrm{})`$, where $`n`$ denotes the number of dimensions in Euclidean space ($`q^2=q_0^2+q_1^2+q_2^2+\mathrm{}+q_{n1}^2`$). In order to actually define the system of SD equations in the DIR domain, it is necessary to introduce the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$, defined as $`D=n+2ϵ,ϵ0^+`$ within a gauge invariant dimensional regularization (DR) method of ’t Hooft and Veltman . As a result, all the Green’s functions should be regularized with respect to $`ϵ`$ (see next section), which is to be set to zero at the end of computations. The structure of the NP IR singularities is then determined (when $`D`$ and consequently $`n`$ are even numbers) as follows :

$$(q^2)^\lambda =\frac{C_1^{(k)}}{\lambda +(D/2)+k}+finiteterms,$$
(12)
where the residue is

$$C_1^{(k)}=\frac{\pi ^{n/2}}{2^{2k}k!\mathrm{\Gamma }((n/2)+k)}\times L^k\delta ^n(q)$$
(13)
with

$$L=\frac{^2}{q_0^2}+\frac{^2}{q_1^2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{^2}{q_{n1}^2}.$$
(14)
Let us underline the most remarkable features of these expressions. The order of singularity does not depend on $`\lambda `$, $`n`$ and $`k`$, i.e., it is always a simple pole, $`(1/ϵ)`$, in terms of the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$. This means that all power terms in Eq. (3.1) will have the same singularity, i.e.,

$$(q^2)^{\frac{D}{2}k+ϵ}=\frac{1}{ϵ}C_1^{(k)}+finiteterms,$$
(15)
where we can put $`D=n`$ now. However, the residue at pole will be drastically changed from one power singularity to another. This means different solutions to the whole system of SD equations for different set of numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`k`$. Different solutions means in turn different vacua. Thus in our picture different vacua are to be labelled by two numbers: the exponent $`\lambda `$ and $`k`$, or equivalently, $`D(=n)`$ and $`k`$. At given number of $`D(=n)`$ the exponent $`\lambda `$ is always negative being integer if $`D(=n)`$ is even number or fractional if $`D(=n)`$ is odd number. The number $`k`$ is always integer and positive and precisely it determines the corresponding residue at pole, see Eq. (3.5). At given number of $`k`$, apart from unimportant finite constants, the residue at any $`D(=n)`$ is the same. This means in turn the infinite number of the same vacua, i.e., “degenerate” vacua with differences due to concrete numerical value of $`D(=n)`$ only. On the other hand, at given $`D(=n)`$ and different $`k`$, the infinite number of vacua will be drastically different. Let us remind the reader that we also have the finite number of terms which number is determined by the exponent $`\lambda `$ itself, i.e., how many terms should be kept in the Taylor expansion of $`f(q^2)`$ function in Eq. (3.2). It would be not surprised if these numbers were somehow related to the nontrivial topology of the QCD NP vacuum.

Thus the wide-spread opinion that severe IR singularities in QCD, stronger than $`(1/q^2)`$, cannot be controlled is not justified. Precisely DT , complemented by the DR method , enables one to correctly treat them at any arbitrary exponent $`\lambda `$. The structure of the NP IR singularities with a Minkowski signature is much more complicated since due to light cone kinematical singularities also appear. For odd number of $`D(=n)`$ the poles of second order, i.e., $`(1/ϵ)^2`$, will appear even in Euclidean space . For correctly regularized Green’s functions, their Fourier transform exists, of course, and some of them can be found in Ref. . However, the structure of the NP IR singularities in configuration space is also rather complicated. That is why we prefer to work always in momentum space with a Euclidean signature. At least, it guarantees that all the NP IR singularities are of dynamical origin.

There exists a principle difference between the NP IR divergences and PT UV ones which can be regularized within the DR method as $`D=n2\delta ,\delta 0^+`$. The former are always simple pole, $`1/ϵ`$, not depending on the exponent $`\lambda `$ which roughly speaking can be related to a number of closed loops. The PT UV divergences heavily depend on it so that they become $`(1/\delta )^\lambda `$, i.e., higher order poles necessarily appear in multi-loop diagrams.

Concluding general discussion of the structure of the NP IR singularities in QCD, let us explicitly demonstrate the instructive correspondence between them in four dimensional (4D) and two dimensional (2D) QCD.

A). In 4D QCD the simplest NP IR singularity is determined by set of numbers which label the vacuum in this case as follows: $`\lambda =2`$ and $`k=0`$. So the corresponding distribution (3.7) becomes

$$(q^2)^{2+ϵ}=\frac{\pi ^2}{ϵ}\delta ^4(q)+finiteterms.$$
(16)
B). In 2D QCD , the set of numbers which label the simplest vacuum is: $`\lambda =1`$ and $`k=0`$. So again from Eq. (3.7), one obtains

$$(q^2)^{1+ϵ}=\frac{\pi }{ϵ}\delta ^2(q)+finiteterms.$$
(17)
Thus 2D QCD with $`(q^2)^1`$ gluon propagator (samultaneously it is the simplest NP IR singularity which underlines the special status of 2D QCD) has the same NP IR structure of singularities as 4D QCD has with $`(q^2)^2`$ behavior of the gluon propagator in DIR and vice versa. But we know that 2D QCD confines quarks via the linear rising potential, at least in the large $`N_c`$ limit . This exact similarity provides that 4D QCD also should confine quarks (see below). The structure of 4D QCD NP vacuum, however, much more complicated than in 2D QCD and 3D compact QED, where color confinement does indeed take place . In the former case confinement can be analysed in terms of the linear rising potential only for heavy quarks when planar approximation like in 2D QCD becomes relevant for the one gluon exchange diagram with point-like vertices within the Wilson loop approach .

Let us underline, however, the principal difference between 2D QCD and 4D QCD. As was mentioned above, in 2D QCD the free gluon singularity $`(q^2)^1`$ is the simplest NP IR singularity at the same time. This means, in turn, that in 2D QCD there is no possibility to additionaly separate the INP phase from TNP one. Moreover, even how to define the TNP phase also becomes problematic since in 2D QCD the coupling constant has dimension of a mass, i.e, in fact the subtraction in Eq. (2.2) becomes trivial in this theory. However, it is possible to explicitly show that the nonperturbative 2D QCD can be also formulated in manifestly gauge invariant way (see our recent hep-ph/0104296 preprint as well as Appendix below).

## IV Quark sector

Along with the full gluon propagator, the quark propagator also plays one of the dominant roles in QCD. The quark Green’s function satisfies its own SD equation, namely

$$S^1(p)=S_0^1(p)g_F^2\frac{d^nq}{(2\pi )^n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)S(pq)\gamma _\nu D_{\mu \nu }(q),$$
(18)
where $`g_F^2=g^2C_F`$ and $`C_F`$ is the eigenvalue of the quadratic Casimir operator in the fundamental representation. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)`$ is the corresponding quark-gluon proper vertex. The free quark propagator is $`S_0^1(p)=i(\widehat{p}m_0)`$ with $`m_0`$ being the current (“bare”) quark mass. Substituting the general, exact decomposition (2.5) into the quark SD equation (4.1), one obtains (still yet Minkowski metric)

$$S^1(p)=S_0^1(p)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{TNP}(p)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{PT}(p),$$
(19)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{TNP}(p)=g_F^2\frac{d^nq}{(2\pi )^n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)S(pq)\gamma _\nu D_{\mu \nu }^{TNP}(q,\mu ),$$
(20)
and $`D_{\mu \nu }^{TNP}(q,\mu )`$ is given in Eq. (2.6).

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{PT}(p)=g_F^2\frac{d^nq}{(2\pi )^n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)S(pq)\gamma _\nu D_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q),$$
(21)
and $`D_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q)`$ is given in Eq. (2.8). Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{TNP}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{PT}(p)`$ are the TNP and PT contributions into the quark self-energy, respectively. Thus this equation determines the TNP quark SD equation in NP QCD.

### A INP quark SD equation

In order to go further to determine the INP quark SD equation it is necessary the TNP part of the full gluon propagator, $`D_{\mu \nu }^{TNP}(q,\mu )`$, to replace by its INP counterpart, i.e., to substitute $`d^{INP}(q^2,\mu ^2)`$ given in Eq. (3.1) instead of $`d^{TNP}(q^2,\mu ^2)`$ in Eq. (2.6). The previous quark SD equation (4.2)-(4.4) thus becomes (Euclidean metric is already assumed)

$$S^1(p)=S_0^1(p)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{INP}(p)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{PT}(p),$$
(22)
where the PT part remains unchanged, of course, and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{INP}(p)=g_F^2i\frac{d^nq}{(2\pi )^n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)S(pq)\gamma _\nu D_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\mu ).$$
(23)
However, the important problem immediately arises. Confining to YM sector only, it was inevitable to conclude that all the NP IR singularities could be absorbed by the full gluon propagator. In the full QCD additional sourses of the NP IR singularities may appear. For example, the proper vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)`$ in this quark SD equation can, in principle, suffer from the NP IR singularities as well. Not loosing generality then it can be presented, similar to Eq. (3.1), as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)=(q^2)^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,q),Re\alpha >0,$$
(24)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,q)`$ is already regular with respect to $`q`$ and is of the corresponding dimension. However, the PT part of the quark SD equation (4.5) becomes too singular now. All the terms violating the definition of the PT part to be in the DIR limit as singular as $`(1/q^2)`$, by expanding $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,q)`$ around zero in form of the Taylor series in powers of $`q^2`$, should be shifted to the INP part of the quark SD equation (4.6), i.e.,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,q)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{[\alpha ]1}{}}(q^2)^m\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu ^{(m)}(p,0)+\underset{m=[\alpha ]}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(q^2)^m\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu ^{(m)}(p,0),$$
(25)
where $`[\alpha ]`$ denotes its integer number and

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu ^{(m)}(p,0)=\frac{1}{m!}\left(\frac{^m}{(q^2)^m}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu ^{(m)}(p,q)\right)_{q^2=0}$$
(26)
Evidently, in the INP part of the SD equation (4.6) the NP IR singularities due to vertex can be easily incorporated into the gluon propagator by simply redefining exponent in Eq. (3.1) from $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda \alpha `$, so this will not cause any broblems. However, serious problem will be caused by the above-mentioned finite number of terms shifted from the PT part, namely the first sum in Eq. (4.8) multiplied by $`(q^2)^\alpha `$ as well as by tensor factor which explicit expression is not shown for simplicity. In the PT limit ($`\mu ^20`$), when only the PT phase survives and the INP contribution should vanish, these terms will remain, however. This obviously contradicts our first necessary condition of the definition of the INP phase in QCD. The only way to satisfy it is to put

$$\alpha =0\text{, so that }\underset{m=0}{\overset{1}{}}=0,$$
(27)
by definition. Absolutely in the same way, by using the corresponding SD equation for the ghost self-energy, can be shown that the ghost-gluon vertex

$$G_\mu (k,q)=k^\lambda G_{\mu \lambda }(k,q)$$
(28)
should be also regular with respect to momentum transfer $`q`$. Thus within our approach to NP QCD, the higher Green’s functions (quark-gluon vertex as well as ghost-gluon vertex) should be considered as regular ones with respect to momentum transfer. However, let us note in advance that in the quark-ghost sector, in particular in quark ST identity momentum transfer goes through the ghost self-energy (momentum $`k`$ in previous expression), i.e., momentum transfer coincides with its momentum. Due to the above-mentioned this means in turn that the quark-gluon vertex is regular with respect to the ghost sel-energy momentum $`k`$ as well. Moreover, it is possible to explicitly show that the ghost self-energy is also can be regular function of its momentum within our approach, i.e., it can exist and be finite at zero in our scheme.In principle, a singular dependence of the ghost self-energy on its momentum should be not excluded $`apriori`$. In this case, however, the general treatment of the NP IR singularities is completely different especially in the quark-ghost sector and therefore requires a separate consideration. Also the smoothness properties of the corresponding test functions are compromised in this case, i.e., the use of the relation (3.4) becomes problematic, at least in the standard DT sense. So the ghost degrees of freedom are regular functions of their momenta in the present investigation. Especially this is true for the simplest NP IR singularities (at $`k=0`$) possible in nD QCD. At the same time, all the NP IR singularities in the full QCD vacuum due to self-interaction of massless gluons there can be summarized by the gluon propagator only, indeed.

### B IRMR program

As was mentioned above, all the Green’s functions became dependent generally on the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$, i.e., they became IR regularized. This dependence is not explicitly shown for simplicity. Let us introduce the IR renormalized (finite) quark-gluon vertex function, quark propagator and coupling constant as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_1^1(ϵ)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,q),`$ (29)
$`S(p)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_2(ϵ)\overline{S}(p),ϵ0^+`$ (30)
$`g^2`$ $`=`$ $`X(ϵ)\overline{g}^2.`$ (31)
Here $`Z_1(ϵ),Z_2(ϵ)`$ and $`X(ϵ)`$ are the corresponding IR multiplicative renormalization (IRMR) constants. The $`ϵ`$-parameter dependence is indicated explicitly to distinguish them from the usual UVMR constants. In all relations here and below containing the IRMR constants, the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit is always assumed at final stage. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,q)`$ and $`\overline{S}(p)`$ are the IR renormalized (finite) Green’s functions and therefore do not depend on $`ϵ`$ in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit, i.e. they exist as $`ϵ0^+`$ as well as the IR finite coupling constant $`\overline{g}^2`$ (charge IR renormalization). There are no restrictions on the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit behavior of the IRMR constants apart from the regular $`ϵ`$ dependence of the quark wave function IRMR constant $`Z_2(ϵ)`$ (see Eq. (4.17) below).

As we have established in preceding sector, the NP IR singularities in the QCD vacuum, summarized by the DIR asymptotics of the full gluon propagator, are to be presented in its INP part (3.1). In terms of the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$, it has always a simple pole does not depending on the exponent $`\lambda `$. This means that the INP part of the full gluon propagator (and consequently the full gluon propagator itself) should be renormalized as follows (Euclidean metric):

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\mu )=\frac{1}{ϵ}\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\mu ),ϵ0^+,$$
(32)
and

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q,\mu )=Z_D\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }(q,\mu )=\frac{1}{ϵ}\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }(q,\mu ),ϵ0^+,$$
(33)
i.e., the IRMR constant of the full gluom propagator $`Z_D(ϵ)`$ is always $`(1/ϵ)`$ and $`\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\mu )`$ as well as $`\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }(q,\mu )`$ exists as $`ϵ0^+`$. At the same time, its PT part should be considered as IR renormalized from the very beginning, i.e.,

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q)=\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q)$$
(34)
since it is certainly free from the NP IR singularities, by definition.

Substituting all these relations into the quark SD equation (4.5), one obtains that a cancellation of the NP IR divergences takes place if and only if (iff)

$$X(ϵ)Z_2^2(ϵ)Z_1^1(ϵ)=ϵY_q,ϵ0^+$$
(35)
holds. Here $`Y_q`$ is the arbitrary but finite constant. The relation (4.16) is a quark SD equation convergence condition in the most general form.

The IR finite quark SD equation becomes (Euclidean version)

$$\overline{S}^1(p)=Z_2(ϵ)S_0^1(p)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{INP}(p),$$
(36)
where

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{INP}(p)=\overline{g}_F^2Y_qi\frac{d^nq}{(2\pi )^n}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu (p,q)\overline{S}(pq)\gamma _\nu \overline{D}_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\mu ).$$
(37)
The remarkable feature of our IRMR program is that the contribution from the PT part vanishes since it becomes of order $`ϵ`$ as $`ϵ0^+`$ because of the convergence condition (4.16). Here and everywhere (ghost, quark-ghost sectors, etc.) the terms containing the logarithm of the coupling constant (scale dependend coupling constant) and arising because of the DR method , after the completion of the IRMR program, also become terms of order $`ϵ`$ and therefore they vanish in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit. Obviously, the same is valid for all other finite terms in the expansion (3.7).

Absolutely in the same way should be done IRMR program in the ghost and quark-ghost sectors which through the corresponding ST identity provide information about the quark-gluon vertex function at zero momentum transfer relevant for the investigation of the DIR region in QCD. The corresponding convergent conditions of the ghost self-energy and ST identity could be also derived. Together with the quark SD convergence condition (4.16), they govern the concrete $`ϵ`$-dependence of the IRMR constants which in general remain arbitrary. These three independent convergent conditions are the basis for removing from the theory all the NP IR divergences on a general ground and in self-consistent way. There exist two more independent convergence conditions including IRMR constants for three and four-gluon proper vertices, of course.

## V Quark confinement and DCSB

Today there are no doubts left that the dynamical mechanisms of the important NP quantum phenomena such as quark confinement and dynamical chiral symmetry breakdown (DCSB) are closely related to the complicated topologically and dynamically nontrivial structure of the QCD NP vacuum \[24-26\]. On the other hand, it also becomes clear that the NP IR dynamical singularities, closely related to the nontrivial vacuum structure, play an important role in the large distance behaviour of QCD . For this reason, any correct NP model of quark confinement and DCSB (closely related to each other) necessarily turns out to be a model of the true QCD vacuum and the other way around.

Let us now write down the final system of equations consisting of the quark SD equation and corresponding ST identity for the most interesting case of 4D INP QCD, namely

$`S^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`S_0^1(p)+\overline{\mu }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,0)S(p)\gamma _\mu ,`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,0)`$ $`=`$ $`id_\mu S^1(p)S(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p,0)S^1(p).`$ (39)
For simplicity here we removed ”bars” from definitions of the IR finite Green’s functions and retaining it only for the NP mass scale parameter in order to distingush it from the initial mass scale parameter. The IR renormalized NP mass $`\overline{\mu }^2`$ includes all finite constants. This system of equations corresponds to the simplest NP IR singularity possible in 4D QCD, the so-called “$`q^4`$” singularity which leads to linearly rising potential between heavy quarks within the Wilson loop approach . In order to get the first equation in this system, it is necessary to substitute the distribution (3.8) into the quark SD equation (4.6). The next step is to perform IRMR program how it was described in preceding section coming thus to the quark SD eqution (4.17)-(4.18) which in this case is nothing else but the first equation of the system (5.1). It is a general feature of all simplest NP IR singularities ($`k=0`$) that corresponding arbitrary function $`f(q^2)`$ in Eq. (3.1) is to be replased by the first constant term of its Taylor expansion (3.2). So the vacuum in this case is labelled as $`\lambda =2,k=0`$. Not loosing generality, we also put the quark wave function IRMR constant $`Z_2(ϵ)=1`$, i.e., this system of equations corresponds to the IR finite from the very beginning quark propagator. For the IR vanishing (as $`ϵ0^+`$) quark propagator the inhomogeneous term (free quark propagator) in the quark SD equation (4.17) should be replaced by $`\overline{m}_0=Z_2(ϵ)m_0(ϵ)`$.

In the same way should be evaluated ST identity in order to get the information about quark-gluon vertex at zero momentum transfer . It contains ghost contributions which should be taken into account with the help of the corresponding SD equation for the ghost self-energy. In covariant gauge QCD, by contributing only into the closed loops, nothing should explicitly depend on ghost degrees of freedom. However, the ghost-quark sector contains very important piece of information about quark degrees of freedom themselves. Precisely this information has been taken into account in the second term of the ST identity which is nothing else but the second equation in the system (5.1). The first term presents standard contribution, where $`d_\mu =d/dp_\mu `$, by definition. In noncovariant gauge QCD ghosts do not exist but instead gauge dependent singularities appear there . How to separate them from the dynamical NP IR singulatities is not a simple task. Anyway, though the corresponding ST identity will be standard, nevertheless, the corresponding quark SD equation will be much more complicated than in Eq. (5.1).

### A Solution

Thus our final system of equations to be solved is the system (5.1). Euclidean versions of the chosen parametrization for the free and full quark propagators are as follows:

$$S_0^1(p)=i(\widehat{p}+m_0)$$
(40)
and

$$iS(p)=\widehat{p}A(p^2)B(p^2),$$
(41)
respectively. Its inverse is

$$iS^1(p)=\widehat{p}\overline{A}(p^2)+\overline{B}(p^2),$$
(42)
where

$`\overline{A}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`A(p^2)E^1(p^2),`$ (43)
$`\overline{B}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`B(p^2)E^1(p^2),`$ (44)
$`E(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`p^2A^2(p^2)+B^2(p^2).`$ (45)
In order to solve the ST identity (the second in the system (5.1)), the simplest way is to decompose the vertex at zero momentum transfer as a sum of its four independent form factors. Introducing now the dimensionless variables and functions

$$A(p^2)=\overline{\mu }^2A(x),B(p^2)=\overline{\mu }^1B(x),x=p^2/\overline{\mu }^2,$$
(46)
and after doing some tedious algebra of $`\gamma `$ matricies with a Euclidean signature in four dimentions, one finally obtains

$`xA^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(2+x)A1m_0B,`$ (47)
$`2BB^{}`$ $`=`$ $`3A^2+2(m_0AB)B,`$ (48)
where $`AA(x)`$, $`BB(x)`$, and the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the Euclidean dimensionless momentum variable $`x`$. Obviuosly we retain the same notation for the dimensionless current quark mass, i. e. $`m_0/\overline{\mu }m_0`$. The system (5.1) and consequently (5.2) for the first time has been obtained in Ref. .

### B Quark confinement

The exact solution of the system (5.7) for the dynamically generated quark mass function is

$$B^2(c,x;m_0)=\mathrm{exp}(2x)_x^c\mathrm{exp}(2x^{})\stackrel{~}{\nu }(x^{})𝑑x^{},$$
(49)
where $`c`$ is the constant of integration and

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }(x)=3A^2(x)+2A(x)\nu (x)$$
(50)
with

$$\nu (x)=m_0B(x)=xA^{}(x)+(2+x)A(x)+1.$$
(51)
Then the equation for determining the $`A(x)`$ function becomes

$$\frac{d\nu ^2(x)}{dx}+2\nu ^2(x)=3A^2(x)m_0^22A(x)\nu (x)m_0^2.$$
(52)
Evidently, it is possible to develop the calculation schemes in different modifications which give the solution of this system step by step in powers of the light current quark masses as well as in the inverse powers of the heavy quark masses.

The important observation, however, is that the formal exact solution (5.8) exhibits the algebraic branch point at $`x=c`$ which completely $`excludesthepoletypesingularity`$ at any finite point on the real axis in the $`x`$-complex plane whatever solution for the $`A(x)`$ function might be. Thus the solution cannot be presented as the expression having finally the pole-type singularity at any finite point $`p^2=m^2`$ (Euclidean signature), i.e.,

$$S(p)\frac{const}{\widehat{p}+m},$$
(53)
certainly satisfying thereby the first necessary condition of quark confinement formulated at the fundamental quark level as the absense of the pole-type singularities in the quark propagator . These unphysical singularities (branch points at $`x=c`$ and at infinity) are caused by the inevitable ghost contributions in the covariant gauges.

In order to prove (5.12), let us assume the opposite, i.e., that the quark propagator within our approach, nevetheless, may have pole-type singularities. In terms of the quark dimensionless form factors, defined in Eq. (5.6), this means that in the neighborhood of a possible pole at $`x=m^2`$ (Euclidean signature), they can be presented as follows:

$`A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x+m^2)^\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{A}(x),`$ (54)
$`B(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x+m^2)^\beta }}\stackrel{~}{B}(x),`$ (55)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}(x)`$ with their first derivatives (at least) are regular at pole. The exponents $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in general are arbitrary with $`Re\alpha ,\beta 0`$. However, substituting these expansions into the initial system of equations (5.7) and analysing it in the neigborhood of the pole, one can immediately conclude in that the self- consistent system of equations for quantities with tilde corresponds only to

$$\alpha =\beta =0,$$
(56)
i.e., our sytem of equations (5.7) does not admit the pole type singularities in the quark propagator.

The second sufficient condition of confinement formulated at hadronic level as the existence of the $`discrete`$ spectrum only (no continuum spectrum) in the bound-state problems  is obviously beyond the scope of this paper.

### C Chiral limit

In the chiral limit ($`m_0=0`$) the system (5.7) can be solved exactly. The exact solution for the $`A(x)`$ function is

$$A(x)=\frac{1}{x^2}\left\{1x\mathrm{exp}(x)\right\}.$$
(57)
For the dynamically generated quark mass function $`B(x)`$ the exact solution is

$$B^2(x_0,x)=3\mathrm{exp}(2x)_x^{x_0}\mathrm{exp}(2x^{})A^2(x^{})𝑑x^{},$$
(58)
where $`x_0=p_0^2/\overline{\mu }^2`$ is an arbitrary constant of integration. The solutions (5.15) and (5.16) for the $`A(x)`$ function and for the dynamically generated quark mass function $`B(x_0,x)`$, respectively, are not entire functions. Functions $`A(x)`$ and $`B(x_0,x)`$ have removable singularities at zero, i.e., they are finite at zero points. In addition, dynamically generated quark mass function $`B(x_0,x)`$ also has algebraic branch points at $`x=x_0`$ and at infinity (at fixed $`x_0`$) due to ghosts as was mentioned above.

The solution for the $`A(x)`$ is regular at zero and automatically has a correct behavior at infinity (it asymptotically approches the free propagator at infinity). In order to reproduce a correct behavior at infinity ($`x\mathrm{}`$) of the dynamically generated quark mass function $`B^2(x)`$, it is necessary to simultaneously pass to the limit ($`x_0\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (5.16), so it identically vanishes in this limit in accordance with the vanishing current light quark mass in the chiral limit. Obviously, we have to keep the constant of integration $`x_0`$ arbitrary but finite in order to obtain a regular at zero point solution. The problem is that if $`x_0=\mathrm{}`$ then the solution (5.16) does not exist at all at any finite $`x`$, in particular at $`x=0`$. Thus even at the fundamental quark level the finite constant of integration $`x_0`$ provides an exact criterion how to separate soft momenta region $`xx_0`$, where the INP dynamics takes place from hard momenta region $`x>x_0`$, where PT dynamics celebrates.

Concluding, let us note that the singular at zero point exact solutions to the system (5.7) in the chiral limit also exist. It is easy to check that the exact solution

$$A(x)=\frac{1}{x^2}\left\{1x\right\}$$
(59)
automatically satisfies the system (5.7). Substituting it into the Eq. (5.16), one obtains the exact solution for the dynamically generated quark mass function which is singular at zero point.

### D DCSB

From the initial system of coupled differential equations (5.7) it is easy to see that the system

$`allowsachiralsymmetrybreakingsolutiononly`$

$$m_0=0,A(x)0,B(x)0$$
(60)
and

$`forbidsachiralsymmetrypreservingsolution`$

$$m_0=B(x)=0,A(x)0.$$
(61)
Thus any nontrivial solutions automatically break the $`\gamma _5`$ invariance of the quark propagator

$$\{\gamma _5,S^1(p)\}=i\gamma _52\overline{B}(p^2)0,$$
(62)
and they therefore $`certainly`$ lead to the spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry ($`m_0=0,\overline{B}(x)0`$, dynamical quark mass generation). In all previous investigations a chiral symmetry preserving solution (5.18) always exists. We do not distinguish between $`B(x)`$ and $`\overline{B}(x)`$ calling both the dynamically generated quark mass functions for simplicity. Thus the measure of DCSB at the fundamental quark level is always twice of it.

## VI Discussion and Conclusions

In summary, a few points are worth reemphasizing. The first is that the only place where the most important problem of theoretical physics – confinement (together with other NP effects) can be solved is the SD system of dynamical equations of motion since it contains the full dynamical information on QCD. To solve this system means to solve QCD itself and vice versa. The second is that AF clearly indicates the existence of the NP phase in QCD. We propose how it can be exactly defined in the YM theory by explicitly introducing the NP mass scale parameter responsible for all NP effects in QCD within our approach, Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3). In this way the NP phase becomes the TNP one, Eqs. (2.5)-(2.8). In the full QCD it is described by the quark SD equation (4.2)-(4.4), where explicit gauge dependence is already shifted to the PT part. The standard UVRM program is needed to render it finite. The third point is that the only place where nontrivial dynamics can be introduced is the DIR region since the PT structure of QCD is controlled by AF. The DIR region is dominated by self-interaction of massless gluons in the QCD vacuum which becomes strongly singular in the DIR limit leading thus to the enhancement of zero momentum modes in the QCD NP vacuum. We define severe NP IR singularities as those being more singular in the DIR limit than the exact singularity of the free gluon propagator which thus additionaly separates the PT phase from the TNP one. In this way the INP phase in the YM theory has emerged.

Our quantum, dynamical ZMME model of the QCD true ground state is based on the existence and importance of such kind of the NP excitations and fluctuations of gluon field configurations there which are due to self-interaction of massless gluons only without explicit involving some extra degrees of freedom. They are to be summarized by the INP part of the full gluon propagator and are to be effectively correctly described by its behavior in the DIR domain. As was explained above, these types of gluon field configurations necessary correspond to the strongly singular in the DIR limit gluon propagator. However, we argue that severe NP IR singularities can be put under control within DT, complemented by the DR method. We have explicitly shown that in terms of the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$, any NP IR singularity is always a simple pole, $`1/ϵ`$ (see Eq. (3.7)). What will be drastically different for different NP IR singularities is the residue at pole which means different solutions for the whole system of SD equations. Different solutions in turn means different vacua. They are labelled by two numbers: $`k`$ which is always positive integer and the exponent $`\lambda `$. The former determines the residue at pole. The latter determines the power of the NP IR singularity with respect to gluon momentum itself. Also the dimension $`D`$ of the Euclidean space should be taken into account. At given number of $`k`$ one has the finite number of almost ”degenerate” vacua depending on the chosen numerical value for $`D`$. At given number of $`D`$ one has completely different vacua which number depends on the exponent $`\lambda `$ and $`k`$. Thus a highly nontrivial dynamical and topological structure of the QCD NP vacuum appears within our approach (Table I).

Because of the severe NP IR divergences, all the Green’s functions should be regularized with the help of the above-mentioned IR regularization parameter, introduced by the DR method. Since the singularity is always a simple pole, this makes it possible to perform IRMR program in order to remove all the NP IR divergences from the theory on a general ground and in self-consistent way. The most remarkable feature of this program is that the PT contributions to the corresponding SD equations vanish since they become of oder $`ϵ`$ as $`ϵ0^+`$ because of the corresponding convergence conditions. They are key objects of our IRMR program. In this way one obtains the IR renormalized system of the corresponding SD equations which do not explicitly depend on a gauge fixing parameter (see for example Eqs. (4.17)-(4.18)). Here we would like to bring attention of the reader to the important observation. Because of the correct treatment of the NP IR singularities within DT, complemented by the DR method, all the system of SD equations in the INP phase is UV finite, i.e., it is free from UV divergences.

For the most interesting case of 4D INP QCD the closed set of SD equations in the quark sector is shown in Eq. (5.1) which is obviously manifestly gauge invariant. This system of equations corresponds to the simplest NP IR singularity possible in 4D QCD. The corresponding formal exact solution (5.8) for the dynamically generated quark mass function is regular at zero. It is essentially NP since it cannot be obtained by PT expansion. Moreover, it is of confinement type, i.e., it cannot have pole-type singularities and it certainly requires DCSB since a chiral symmetry preserving solution is forbidden (see Eqs. (5.17)-(5.18)). They also have a correct PT limit at $`\overline{\mu }^20`$ which is equivalent to $`x,x_0\mathrm{}`$. For example, the exact solution (5.14) for the dynamically generated qaurk mass function identically vanishes as it should be in the chiral limit while quark wave function form factor behaves like free quark propagator, i.e., $`A(x)x^1,x\mathrm{}`$ (see Eq. (5.13)).

Here it is worthwhile to make a few remarks. The correct treatment of a such strong singularity (3.8) within DT, complemented by the DR method, enables us to extract the required class of test functions in the IR renormalized quark SD equation (4.17)-(4.18). The test functions do consist of the quark propagator and the corresponding quark-gluon vertex function. By the renormalization program we have found the regular solutions for the quark propagator. For that very reason the relation (3.8) is justified, it is multiplied by the appropriate smooth test functions . Moreover, we have established the space in which our generilized functions are continuous linear functionals. It is a linear topological space, denoted as $`K(c)`$ (in the chiral limit $`K(x_0)`$), consisting of infinitely differentiable functions having compact supports, i.e., test functions vanish outside the interval $`xc`$ (in the chiral limt $`xx_0`$). It is well known that this space can be identified with a complete countably normed space which is at the same time a linear metric space, and the topolgy defined by the metric is equivavalent to the original topology . Thus the above and below-mentioned subtractions of all kind of the PT contributions become not only physically well justified but mathematically (by DT) as well.

In the chiral limit the system of equations (5.1) is exactly solvable (see Eqs. (5.15) and (5.16)). Chiral 4D INP QCD depends only on the constant of integration $`x_0=p_0^2/\overline{\mu }^2`$ of the quark SD equation and the NP scale $`\overline{\mu }`$ itself (in the general, nonchiral case the dependence on the current quark masses will appear, of course). In order to determine them a physically well-motivated scale-setting scheme is needed since $`\overline{\mu }`$ determines the physical scale of INP dynamics within our approach, so it is always finite, i.e., it cannot be arbitrary large. This has been already done in Refs. . Our numerical results turned out to be in fair agreement with phenomenological values of the chiral condensate, dynamically generated quark masses and the pion decay constant in the chiral limit. Moreover, the topology of a chiral QCD NP vacuum is also in very good agreement with our values for INP vacuum energy density, gluon condensate, topological susceptibility, etc. .

At the very beginning of QCD it was expressed a general idea  that the quantum excitations in QCD vacuum of the IR degrees of freedom because of self-interaction of massless gluons only made it possible to understand confinement, DCSB and other NP effects. In other words, the importance of the DIR structure of the true QCD vacuum has been emphasized as well as its relevance to quark confinement, DCSB, etc., and other way around. This development was stopped by the wide-spread wrong opinion that severe NP IR singularities cannot be put under control. We have explicitly shown that correct mathematical theory of quantum YM physical theory is the theory of distributions (theory of generilized functions) , complemented by the DR method . They provide a correct treatment of these severe singularities without any problems. Thus we come back to the old idea but on a new basis that is why it becomes new (”new is well-forgotten old”).

The correct treatment of the severe NP IR singularities allows one to discover a new phase in QCD, the INP one. In fact, QCD was consequently decomposed as follows:

QCD $``$ (TNP and PT) $``$ (TNP + DIR and PT) $``$ (INP and PT) QCD.

Thus it consists of the two independent theories. INP QCD is completely decoupled from PT QCD though behind both theories is the same main dynamical effect in QCD, namely self-interaction of massless gluons in the QCD vacuum. It leads to the explanation of all NP effects (confinement, DCSB, etc.) in the framework of INP QCD and to AF in the framework of PT QCD. In order to explain all the nontrivial dynamics of QCD we need no more extra degrees of freedom, though, of course, they can exist in the QCD vacuum. INP and PT QCD are two different theories with different physical observables to calculate and with different characteristic fundamental scales. The SD system of equations in PT QCD explicitly depends on gauge fixing parameter. It is UV divergent theory and therefore needs nontrivial UVMR program to render it finite. After performing this program one may forget about it if somebody wants to concentrate his efforts in investigating low energy QCD.

Contrary to this, INP QCD is a manifestly gauge invariant theory, i.e., only transfer (physical) degrees of freedom of gauge bosons are relevant for INP QCD. It is free from UV divergences as well as it is regular at the origin at the fundamental (microscopic) quark-gluon level. However, at the hadronic (macroscopic) level this theory is also finite because of the above-mentioned structure of unphysical singularities of the solutions to the quark SD equation. Within INP QCD this implies that any physical observables (for example, the pion decay constant, hadron masses, etc.) should be determined by such $`S`$-matrix elements (correlation functions) from which all types of the PT contributions should be subtracted, by definition. Let us remind the reader that many important quantities in QCD such as gluon and quark condensates, topological susceptibility, etc. are already defined in this way. This does not mean that Lorentz covariance is violated in this cases as well as in the case of INP QCD needed subtractions. In INP QCD the subtraction point is precisely given by the corresponding constant of integration uniquely separating DIR region from the PT one, i.e., it has a clear physical meaning and it cannot be arbitrary large, of course. On the other hand, this subtraction obviously makes it possible to cancel the dependence of physical observables on the above-mentioned inevitable unphysical singularities. Thus within INP QCD developed here in order to calculate any physical observable the only subtraction which is needed to be done is the subtraction of the integration over the PT region in the corresponding correlation function since all other ones have been already automatically done within our INP solutions.

Let us also underline that such kind of subtractions are inevitable for the sake of self-consistency as well. The problem is that in low energy QCD there exist relations between different correlation functions. For example, the famous Witten-Veneziano (WV) formula  (see also Ref. ) relates the pion decay constant and mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson to the topological susceptibility, and many similar others. Defining topological susceptibility by subtracting all kind of the PT contributions it would be not self-consistent to retain them in the correlation functions defining the pion decay constant and mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson. Anyway, let us emphasize once more that INP QCD requires the above-discussed subtractions of all kind of the PT contributions, by definition. This guaruntees that none of the inevitable unphysical singularities mentioned above will affect physical observables calculated within this theory.

Thus in INP QCD everything is confined to finite volumes at the hadronic (macroscopic) level, though at the fundamental (microscopic) quark-gluon level our solutions formally are valid in the whole energy-momentum range. This theory allows one to calculate properties of observable hadrons starting from unobservable quark-gluon degrees of freedom, i.e., from underlying fundamental theory. This means that it makes it possible to calculate hadron properties from first principles. Unlike lattice QCD which suffers from conceptual and many technical problems, in INP QCD all integrals are finite and they can be calculated to any requested accuracy. In INP QCD all numerical values of any physical observables will finally depend only on the characteristic mass scale parameter (mass gap) and not on coupling constant like in phenomenological or PT QCD. This in agreement with the phenomenon of ”dimensional transmutation”  which occurs whenever a massless theory acquires masses dynamically. It is a general feature of spontaneous symmetry breaking in field theories.

It is almost obvious that the correct theory of low energy QCD is precisely INP QCD and therefore it is a true theory of nuclear force as well. Having a finite mass gap in the sence of Jaffe and Witten (JW) , it naturally explains why nuclear force is short-ranged despite gluons remain massless. In other words, INP QCD is essentially short-ranged fundamental theory. At the same time, the severe NP IR singularities, summarized by the DIR structure of the full gluon propagator within INP QCD, lead to the so-called ”IR slavery” which can be equivalently referred to as strong coupling regime . Thus nuclear force is strong due to precisely IR singular interaction of massless gluons. These properties of INP QCD do not depend on power of NP IR singularities, i.e., at any NP IR singularity these properties hold. It was not accindental that the explanation precisely of these properties of QCD was put on the first place by JW in Ref. . In our opinion this is so indeed, since without explanation of these properties (though qualitatively) it is impossible to go further. In addition, exploring only simplest NP IR singularity possible in 4D QCD vacuum, we have explicitly shown that ”IR slavery” implies quark confinement as well as DCSB, indeed.

Concluding, it is worth reemphasizing once more that in INP QCD all physical observables are to be expressed in terms of a mass gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, i.e., in INP QCD there are no physical states in the interval $`(0,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in complete agreement with JW definition . In addition, it has quark confinement as well as chiral symmetry breaking in the sense explained by JW in the above-mentioned Ref. , and which in turn are in complete agreement with our definitions. Thus by defining TNP QCD we introduce the mass gap in the JW sense since the subtraction (2.2) evidently can be equivalently presented as follows:

$$d^{TNP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2f(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2),$$
(63)
where the function of the correspondinf dimension $`f(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ has a finite limit as $`\mathrm{\Delta }^20`$. By going further in order to specify the DIR structure of the theory we define INP QCD which becomes therefore manifestly gauge invariant.

In conclusion, let us note that there is nothing wrong with such strong singular behavior of the full gluon propagator in the DIR domain. The claster property of the Wightman functions fails in QCD  allowing thus for such behavior.

The author would like to thank H. Georgi, V.I. Zakharov, H. Fried, P. Forgács, M. Faber, A. Ivanov and Gy. Kluge for useful correspondence, discussions and remarks.

## A The simplest NP IR singularities in QCD

From the general discussion of the NP IR singularities possible in nD QCD (see section 3 above and Table I below), it follows that the simplest ones always correspond to $`k=0`$, i.e., $`\lambda =n/2`$. As it follows from Eqs. (3.4) and (3.5), the residue at pole in this case is always delta function of the corresponding dimension. It is rather easy to explicitly show that matrix form of the corresponding system of equations in nD momentum space with Euclidean signature for the IR regularized (finite) quark propagator is always given by the system (5.1), i.e., it does not explicitly depend on $`n`$. However, the explicit dependence will appear after performing the algebra of the $`\gamma `$ matrices in nD Euclidean space. The corresponding system of equations for the quark propagator form factors becomes

$`xA^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+x\right)A1m_0B,`$ (A1)
$`2BB^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(n1)A^2+2(m_0AB)B,`$ (A2)
where, let us remind, $`AA(x)`$, $`BB(x)`$, and the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the Euclidean dimensionless momentum variable $`x`$. Obviuosly we retain the same notation for the dimensionless current quark mass, i. e. $`m_0/\overline{\mu }m_0`$. This system coincides with system (5.7) for $`n=4`$, as it should be.

Similar to the solution (5.8), the exact solution for the dynamically generated quark mass function in nD INP QCD is

$$B^2(c_n,x;m_0)=\mathrm{exp}(2x)_x^{c_n}\mathrm{exp}(2x^{})\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n(x^{})𝑑x^{},$$
(A3)
where $`c_n`$ are the corresponding constants of integration and

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n(x)=(n1)A^2(x)+2A(x)\nu _n(x)$$
(A4)
with

$$\nu _n(x)=m_0B(x)=xA^{}(x)+\left(\frac{n}{2}+x\right)A(x)+1.$$
(A5)
Then the equation for determining the $`A(x)`$ function becomes

$$\frac{d\nu _n^2(x)}{dx}+2\nu _n^2(x)=(n1)A^2(x)m_0^22A(x)\nu _n(x)m_0^2.$$
(A6)
Evidently, in this general case it is also possible to develop the calculation schemes in different modifications which give the solution of this system step by step in powers of the light current quark masses as well as in the inverse powers of the heavy quark masses.

Again, the important observation, however, is that the formal exact solution (A2) exhibits the algebraic branch point at $`x=c_n`$ which completely $`excludesthepoletypesingularity`$ at any finite point on the real axis in the $`x`$-complex plane whatever solution for the $`A(x)`$ function might be. Thus the solution cannot be presented as the expression having finally the pole-type singularity at any finite point $`p^2=m^2`$ (Euclidean signature), i.e.,

$$S(p)\frac{const}{\widehat{p}+m},$$
(A7)
certainly satisfying thereby the first necessary condition of quark confinement formulated at the fundamental quark level as the absense of the pole-type singularities in the quark propagator . These unphysical singularities (branch points at $`x=c_n`$ and at infinity) are caused by the inevitable ghost contributions in the covariant gauges.

In the chiral limit ($`m_0=0`$) the system (A1) can be solved exactly. The exact solution for the $`A(x)`$ function is

$$A(x)=(x)^{n/2}e^x\gamma (\frac{n}{2},x).$$
(A8)
where $`\gamma `$ function is incomplete gamma function. For even number of dimension $`n/2=m^{}`$, where $`m^{}`$ is integer, it is

$$\gamma (m^{},x)=\gamma (1+(m^{}1),x)=(m^{}1)!\left(1e^x\underset{m=0}{\overset{m^{}1}{}}\frac{x^m}{m!}\right),$$
(A9)
otherwise it is determined by the infinite series.Apparently, even for the odd number of dimensions the system (A1) remains valid though, as was mentioned above, the poles of the second order appear in this case.

For the dynamically generated quark mass function $`B(x)`$ the exact solution is

$$B^2(x_0,x)=(n1)\mathrm{exp}(2x)_x^{x_0}\mathrm{exp}(2x^{})A^2(x^{})𝑑x^{},$$
(A10)
where $`x_0=p_0^2/\overline{\mu }^2`$ is an arbitrary constant of integration, different for different $`n`$, of course.

It is instructive to write down solutions for particular cases. The most interesting ones are 4D and 2D INP QCD. For 4D INP QCD the exact solutions are explicitly shown in Eqs. (5.13) and (5.14). For 2D INP QCD the exact solutions are

$$A(x)=\frac{1}{x}\left\{1\mathrm{exp}(x)\right\}$$
(A11)
and

$$B^2(x_0,x)=\mathrm{exp}(2x)_x^{x_0}\mathrm{exp}(2x^{})A^2(x^{})𝑑x^{},$$
(A12)
where $`x_0=p_0^2/\overline{\mu }^2`$ is again an arbitrary constant of integration.

Thus nD INP QCD confines quarks in the sense that the quark propagator has no poles and this does not depend on $`n`$ at all. Obviously, what is needed is only self-interaction of massless gluons which is the main chracteristic of QCD in any dimensions. That is the spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry also does not depend on $`n`$ (from the general sysytem (A1) it follows that again a chiral symmetry preserving solution (5.16) is forbidden) is a result of the above-mentioned main interection of QCD as well.

Concluding, a few technical remarks are in order. As was emphasized, the relevant system of equations in the matrix form (5.1) does not explicitly depend on number of dimensions $`n`$. This is true for the mass scale parameter which appears in this system. Indeed, in nD QCD the coupling constant has dimension as follows: $`g^2=[\mu ]^{4n}`$. On the other hand, from expression (3.1) we also have a mass scale parameter $`(\mu ^2)^{\lambda 1}`$. Thus for $`\lambda =(n/2)`$ at $`k=0`$ (simplest singularities possible in nD QCD) the final combination of the characteristic mass scale parameters is

$$(\mu ^2)^{\lambda 1}g^2=[\mu ]^{n2}[\mu ]^{4n}=[\mu ]^2$$
(A13)
This unique mass scale parameter should be multiplied by the dimensionless constant, which depends, of course, on $`n`$, i.e.,

$$C_n\times \mu ^2\overline{\mu }_n^2\overline{\mu }^2,$$
(A14)
where we have finally omitted the explicit dependence on $`n`$ for simplicity but it is always assumed, of course. For example, in 2D QCD the coupling constant itself has dimension of mass (which underlines its special status), so $`\overline{\mu }`$ should be understood as a coupling constant in this case with all finite numbers included .

In this Table the main horisontal line is for dimensions of Euclidean space $`D=n=1,2,3,4,\mathrm{}`$, while the vertical line is for $`k=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, which determines the residue at pole.

The exponent is given as follows:

$`\lambda =\frac{D}{2}k`$


format: text

text:
# The BeppoSAX High Energy Large Area Survey.

## 1 Introduction

While a relevant fraction (about 70–80 %) of the soft X–ray background (hereafter XRB) has been resolved into discrete sources by the ROSAT satellite (Hasinger et al. 1993, 1998), most of which being broad-line active galactic nuclei (AGNs) (Shanks et al. 1991; Boyle et al. 1994; Schmidt et al. 1998; Lehmann et al. 2000), in the hard band, where the bulk of the energy density resides, the nature of the sources of the XRB is far less obvious. Before the advent of the imaging instruments onboard ASCA and BeppoSAX, surveys in the hard energy range have been performed with limited-spatial resolution instruments, thus allowing the identification of the X–ray brightest sources, which account for a small fraction (about 3–5 %, Piccinotti et al. 1982) of the hard XRB. The AGNs observed at high energies by HEAO1, EXOSAT and Ginga have spectra much steeper (with a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$$``$1.7–1.9) than the slope of the XRB in the same energy range ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$$``$1.4–1.5, Gendreau et al. 1995; Vecchi et al. 1999). This fact, called “spectral paradox”, has been theoretically solved by assuming that the XRB is due to a mixture of absorbed and unabsorbed objects (Setti & Woltjer 1989). Following this indication, the contribution of different classes of sources to the XRB has been evaluated through population-synthesis models (e.g. Madau et al. 1994; Comastri et al. 1995).

Recently, the ASCA 2–10 keV surveys (Della Ceca et al. 1999; Ueda et al. 1999) and the BeppoSAX High Energy LLarge Area Survey (HELLAS) (Fiore et al. 1999, 2000a), carried out in the 5–10 keV energy range down to a flux limit of about 5$`\times `$10-14 $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ , have proven to be very efficient in revealing the nature of the sources which resolve about 20–30 % of the hard XRB, obscured AGNs being the main contributors. Chandra observations have confirmed and extended down to lower fluxes these results (Mushotzky et al. 2000; Fiore et al. 2000b; Brandt et al. 2000; Giacconi et al. 2001; Barger et al. 2001).

In order to better understand the nature and the properties of the sources responsible for the hard XRB and to verify whether additional soft X–ray components may be present, we have systematically searched in the ROSAT archive for complementary X–ray data to the present hard X–ray selected sample. Generally, soft X–ray components in addition to the standard AGNs spectral models are either excluded from the XRB synthesis models (e.g. Comastri et al. 1995) or, if included, they do account for a small, energetically not relevant fraction of the XRB (Gilli et al. 1999). Indeed, there is increasing evidence that the broad-band spectral properties of the sources responsible for the hard XRB are characterized by more complex spectra than is expected from a simple absorbed power-law model (Della Ceca et al. 1999; Giommi et al. 2000), as confirmed by the presence of multi-components spectra in obscured nearby AGNs (Awaki et al. 2000). The possibility of the existence of such additional components must be taken into account when comparing surveys performed in different energy ranges and, most important, at limiting fluxes differing by one (or more) order of magnitude.

## 2 The sample

### 2.1 The HELLAS hard X–ray-selected sample

142 high Galactic latitude ($`|`$b$`|`$$`>`$20) MECS fields covering about 80 square degrees of sky have been analyzed. A detailed description of BeppoSAX instrumental capabilities, source detection algorithms and photon statistics is described by Fiore et al. (2001, paper II). For the purposes of the present paper, we have considered the full list of 147 BeppoSAX sources detected down to a flux limit of about 5 $`\times `$ 10-14 $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ .

### 2.2 The HELLAS sources in ROSAT archival data

The BeppoSAX catalogue was cross-correlated with archival ROSAT data (PSPC, HRI and RASS). 108 out of the 147 sources are in ROSAT fields; for only 1 source RASS data have been used, due to the lack of pointed ROSAT observations. 4 sources lying beneath the PSPC detector window support structure will not be considered in the following discussions, therefore the useful number of HELLAS sources in ROSAT fields is 104. In those cases where multiple observations of the same HELLAS source are present, we chose the one with the longest exposure time and/or the lowest off-axis angle (and checked the results by analyzing at least another image of the same field).

## 3 ROSAT fields

### 3.1 ROSAT source detection

The ROSAT data have been analyzed with the MIDAS/EXSAS package (Zimmermann et al. 1998). The sources have been detected by running the local detection algorithm LDETECT, the bicubic spline fit to the background map and the map detection algorithm MDETECT. The detection threshold of these algorithms was set at a likelihood of L=$``$ln(Pe)=10, corresponding to a probability of the order of 4.5$`\times `$10-5 that the observed number of photons in the source cell is produced by a pure background fluctuation (about 4 $`\sigma `$ detection, Cruddace et al. 1988). The measured counts were then corrected for PSPC vignetting and the source parameters were determined by the maximum likelihood method (MAXLIK). The sources which partially fell under the PSPC window support structure and which were missed by the detection routine have also been analyzed, and the vignetting-corrected count rates have been obtained in the different energy bands. Even though the above described routines have been extensively applied in the past, we have further checked the reliability of all the detections by running the slide-cell detection algorithm in XIMAGE (Giommi et al. 1991) in a similar way to that described in Fiore et al. (2000a) for all the sources of the present sample, obtaining similar results within the errors. Most of the sources are also present in the WGA catalogue (a point source catalogue generated from all ROSAT PSPC observations, see White et al. 1994). The agreement between the present results and those from the WGA makes us further confident about the findings which will be described in the following sections.

Images were constructed in 4 energy bands: PI channels 11–41 (corresponding to 0.1–0.4 keV, band a), 52–201 (0.5–2 keV, b), 52–90 (0.5–0.9 keV, c) and 91-201 (0.9–2 keV, d), which correspond to S, H, H1 and H2 in Hasinger et al. (1998). The hardness ratios have been defined as follows: HR1=(b$``$a)/(b$`+`$a) and HR2=(d$``$c)/(d$`+`$c).

The soft X–ray fluxes have been computed in the 0.5–2 keV energy range directly from the best-fit spectrum (when the statistics were high enough to allow a spectral modeling of the ROSAT counts) or by converting the count rates into fluxes under the assumption of a power-law slope with photon index 2.3 and Galactic absorption only.

### 3.2 ROSAT data analysis

Each ROSAT field has been analyzed searching for the soft X–ray counterpart of the BeppoSAX HELLAS sources, assuming a cross-correlation radius of 100 arcsec. Six ROSAT sources have been found at larger radii: five have been spectroscopically identified and the soft X–ray position coincides with the optical one within $``$ 30 arcsec. This evidence, coupled with the errors which can be associated to BeppoSAX MECS pointing position reconstruction (mainly due to the unavailability of one star-tracker for a part of the observation, see paper II for a full description of these problems), makes us confident that these associations are real. The sixth source belongs to a high-Galactic field where BeppoSAX position reconstruction was not possible due to the absence of a bright known source in the same field of view as the HELLAS source.

For the majority of fields only one ROSAT source is present in each BeppoSAX error box. For the three cases in which more than one ROSAT source is present, the one closest to the center of BeppoSAX error box has been chosen. For these sources the soft X–ray emission is also associated to radio emission.

Given the large range of both ROSAT exposure times and off-axis angles distributions, the sensitivity limit is different from field to field. As a consequence, the number of spurious ROSAT \- BeppoSAX associations has been derived by computing for each source the number of objects expected at its flux according to the 0.5–2 keV integral source counts (Hasinger et al. 1998) and adopting a searching radius of 100 arcsec. The final number of spurious associations is therefore the summed contribution of the chance coincidences expected for each field. With this approach, we expect 2 associations by chance.

68 out of the 104 HELLAS sources have a ROSAT soft X–ray counterpart, while 36 sources went undetected. The 5–10 keV flux distribution for the sources detected by ROSAT is not significantly different from that of the entire HELLAS sample (20 % confidence level according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test).

### 3.3 HELLAS sources detected by ROSAT

Among the 68 sources detected by ROSAT 51 have been identified with extragalactic objects (see Table 1 for a comprehensive view on their soft X–ray properties), i.e. 35 Type 1 objects (including 4 radio-loud AGNs and 1 red quasar), 4 Type 1.8–2, 2 emission-line galaxies, 2 BL Lac objects, 1 radio-galaxy and 6 clusters. Moreover, one source is associated with a bright K star. All the radio-loud AGNs and the clusters, and about one third of the Type 1 objects have been identified through existing catalogues, while the remaining have been spectroscopically identified by our group (see La Franca et al. 2001). In several cases the ROSATBeppoSAX association has been used in the spectroscopic identification process. For what concerns the ROSAT -optical association, we have considered the X–ray source physically associated with the optically identified object if the distance between the X–ray and the optical position is below 40 arcsec (which should take into account the dependence of the PSPC point-spread function with the off-axis angle and the possible error in aspect reconstruction). The ROSAT sources of the present sample have typical distances of about 15–20 arcsec from the optical position (which is consistent with the values found by Voges et al. 1999 for point-like sources). Only for two sources the optical and the ROSAT positions seem to be different: in one case the most likely explanation is that the X–ray emission comes from a group of galaxies (the likely counterpart of the HELLAS source) and not from a single object (which is confirmed by the presence of some optical emission-line objects in the BeppoSAX error box). In the other case, the X–ray source is clearly extended and identified with a Type 1.9 AGN.

### 3.4 HELLAS sources undetected by ROSAT

The off-axis angles and the exposure times distributions of the 68 detected sources are not statistically different – according to the KS test – from those of the 36 undetected sources.

X–ray absorption is likely to play a major role in “hiding” a fraction of objects, thus making them extremely faint or even absent in the soft X–rays. This is confirmed by computing the average BeppoSAX softness ratio (SR=(S$``$H)/(S$`+`$H), where S=1.3–4.5 keV and H=4.5–10 keV band) for the subsamples which are detected and undetected by ROSAT , the former having SR = 0.037 (dispersion=0.363), the latter SR = $``$0.314 (dispersion = 0.424), this value corresponding to $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`>`$ 1023 cm-2 at any redshift, see Fig. 7 in Comastri et al. 2001 (paper III). This is a further clear indication that absorption plays a major role in the soft X–ray detection/undetection of the HELLAS sources.

Among the 12 sources which are spectroscopically identified without being detected by ROSAT , we find 2 high-z Type 1 objects (z=0.953 and z=2.386), 3 emission-line galaxies, 1 red quasar and 6 Type 1.8-2. These objects, on the basis of the X–ray analysis performed with BeppoSAX , are likely to be affected by absorption, their mean softness ratio being $`<`$SR$`>`$ $``$ $``$0.228 ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`>`$ 1023 cm-2 at z $`>`$ 0.015).

## 4 ROSAT results

### 4.1 Absorption

The BeppoSAX 5–10 keV and ROSAT 0.5–2 keV fluxes are reported in Fig. 1. The dashed lines indicate the fluxes expected for a spectral slope of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=2.3 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1.6 (with the average Galactic absorption of the present distribution: $``$ 3$`\times `$1020 cm-2), and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1.8 plus $`N_\mathrm{H}`$=1022 cm-2, from top to bottom. It appears clear that for a significant fraction of the objects intrinsic absorption and/or flatter spectral slopes are required in order to reproduce the observed flux ratio. It must be kept in mind that the values derived from Fig. 1 are only indicative and may be considered as lower limits on the presence of X–ray absorption, since any additional component in the ROSAT energy range would increase the soft X–ray flux, and that source variability between the observations with the two satellites may affect the results. However, since the amplitude of nuclear variability scales as (about) the inverse of the luminosity (Nandra et al. 1997), for the majority of the objects of the present subsample (with an average 0.5–2 keV luminosity of $``$ 1044 erg s-1) variability is unlikely to significantly affect the present results.

In order to provide a further evidence of the presence of strong absorption in the HELLAS sources, the upper limits for the sources which went undetected in the ROSAT band are also plotted in Fig. 1. 12 of these upper limits are relative to spectroscopically identified sources (cfr. $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3.4). It can be seen that the upper limits are extremely concentrated in the region characterized by high absorbing column densities: this is a further indication of the role of absorption in hiding the HELLAS sources, despite of their optical classification.

Similar results can be obtained by plotting the 5–10 keV to 0.5–2 keV flux ratios as a function of redshift (Fig. 2, left panel) for Type 1 and Type 2 sources. In order to provide an estimate of the absorption at the source redshift, three curves corresponding to Log$`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = 22, 22.5 and 23 cm-2 are also plotted. The underlying assumed spectrum is a power law with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 1.8. It is evident that about half of the sources require absorption in excess to 1022 cm-2 and, among them, many are associated to broad-line objects. Viceversa, 3 out of 4 Type 2 AGNs are consistent with $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`<`$ 1022 cm-2. We also note a trend of increasing hardness with redshift, which is more pronounced for Type 1 objects.

A similar trend can be found by adding ASCA Large Sky Survey (LSS) broad-line objects (small crossed circles in Fig. 2, right panel) to the HELLAS ones. The increasing hardness with redshift, parameterized by the relation $`F_{\mathrm{hard}}`$/$`F_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ $``$ $`z^{0.7}`$, is particular evident at z $`>`$ 0.3 and could be ascribed to a flattening of the primary X–ray spectral slope at moderate/high redshift, as tentatively suggested by Vignali et al. (1999) for a small sample of high-z radio-quiet quasars. Even though the large majority of the objects of Fig. 2 (right panel) can be parameterized by a variety of spectral slopes ranging from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 1.0 to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 2.0 (the short-long dashed lines), the flux ratios of some sources are not well reproduced, clearly suggesting that absorption is a better explanation, in line with BeppoSAX softness ratio predictions. A combination of these effects, absorption and flattening with redshift, is also plausible.

### 4.2 Soft X–ray components

The broad-band X–ray spectrum has been investigated by selecting a subsample of 12 HELLAS sources spectroscopically identified as broad-line objects, whose softness ratio (as a function of redshift) indicates the presence of substantial intrinsic absorption ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`>`$ 5 $`\times `$ 1022 cm-2 at the source rest frame). For these sources we have calculated the 0.5–2 keV flux which is expected by extrapolating the BeppoSAX flux in the ROSAT band under the assumption of a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 1.8 power-law continuum absorbed by the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ obtained by the softness ratio analysis with BeppoSAX . These values have been subsequently compared to the observed 0.5–2 keV fluxes obtained directly from our analysis.

Among the 12 Type 1 objects, 5 sources have ROSAT fluxes which agree with the predicted ones within 10 %, while for 6 of the remaining objects, in order to reproduce the observed ROSAT flux, an additional component is strongly required, with a moderate/high fraction (from 25 to 65 %) of the nuclear (5–10 keV) radiation being reprocessed in soft X–ray radiation and re-emitted. The remaining source is characterized by a soft X–ray flux higher than 5–10 keV flux, clearly pointing towards a prominent soft excess in this object.

Similar values (from 5 to 35 %) have been obtained for the 2 Type 2 objects which appear absorbed in BeppoSAX and which are detected by ROSAT .

The true nature of the soft component is far from being clear: it could be due to nuclear photons spilling from a partial covering screen, or reflected by a warm/hot medium or, alternatively, it could be thermal emission from starburst regions and winds. At the present it is difficult to shed light on the nature of this component on the basis of these X–ray data only, unless Chandra or XMM-Newton follow-up observations will be performed.

## 5 Comparison with the ROSAT Deep Survey sample

In order to further investigate the soft X–ray properties and the nature of the hard X–ray-selected HELLAS sources, we compared the present sample with that of similar size extracted from the ROSAT Deep Survey in the Lockman Hole (hereafter RDS, Hasinger et al. 1998; Schmidt et al. 1998; Lehmann et al. 2000), which is soft X–ray-selected and fully identified at a limiting X–ray flux of 5.5 $`\times `$ 10-15 erg cm-2 s-1 (0.5–2 keV). The redshift distributions of the two samples are shown in Fig. 3.

The properties of the two samples have been compared by means of hardness ratios HR1 and HR2 (cfr. Sect. 3.1). Figure 4 shows the plot of HR1 vs. HR2 for the HELLAS and the RDS sources (left and right panel, respectively).

It appears clear that most of the HELLAS sources populate the hardest region (HR1 $`>`$ 0, HR2 $`>`$ 0) of the diagram, while with a few exceptions the Lockman Hole sources are softer. It must be noted, however, that HR1 is very sensitive even to relatively small values of the Galactic absorption, that towards the Lockman Hole being of the order of 5.7 $`\times `$ 1019 cm-2, while the HELLAS sample spans a wide range of Galactic $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, from 5.7 $`\times `$ 1019 cm-2 (two sources detected in the Lockman Hole) to 1.1 $`\times `$ 1021 cm-2 (only one source having this $`N_\mathrm{H}`$), with an average column density of 2.6 $`\times `$ 1020 cm-2. This result in a shift of the HR1 distribution up to 0.5–0.6.

Therefore, since a meaningful comparison between HR1 for the two samples is not possible, a more reliable result can be obtained by comparing HR2, which is much less sensible to the Galactic absorption. Indeed, given the HELLAS $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ distribution, the effect of absorption is only marginal and could give rise to an increase in HR2 of only 0.05–0.1 (which is within the statistical errors). The result is that the HR2 distribution of the HELLAS sample (Fig. 5, left panel) is intrinsecally different from that obtained for the Lockman Hole sources (Fig. 5, right panel), as confirmed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (probability of 10-6 that the two samples are drawn from the same parent population). The differences observed in the color-color diagram between the two samples are also evident in the color-redshift distribution. In particular, the HR2 of the HELLAS sources (Fig. 6, left panel) populates, on average, a harder region (upper right corner) of the diagram than the RDS sources (Fig. 6, right panel).

It is interesting to note that the variety of optical classification of hard sources is also found in the Lockman Hole sample (even though based on a smaller number of objects), where in the hardest part of the color-color diagram (Fig. 4, right panel) there are two Type 2 objects, two R$``$K$`>`$5–6 sources (candidate EROs, Extremely Red Galaxies; see Lehmann et al. 2000 for a detailed discussion) and two Type 1 objects, whose redshifts (1.561 and 2.832) and hard X–ray colors seem to confirm BeppoSAX findings on X–ray absorbed Type 1s.

All the previous results indicate that hard X–ray selection provides a significant fraction of absorbed objects, characterized by varied optical properties and classifications (broad-line AGNs, narrow-line AGNs, emission-line galaxies). X–ray absorbed objects are however present also in soft X–ray selected samples, even though at a lower level. Most interesting, a large fraction of hard X–ray-selected objects is present in ROSAT : the obscured constituents of the XRB progressively show up going to fainter fluxes and harder energy ranges.

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

The recent hard X–ray surveys performed by ASCA , BeppoSAX and Chandra have revealed that the population responsible for the hard X–ray background has quite varied multiwavelength properties. According to AGN synthesis models (i.e. Comastri et al. 1995), these sources must be characterized by a spectral energy density spanning a wide range of luminosities and absorption column densities, in order to reproduce both the XRB spectrum and the source counts in different energy ranges. In particular, the energetically dominant contribution comes from sources around the knee of the X–ray luminosity function ($`L_\mathrm{X}`$ $``$ a few 1044 erg s-1 at z=1) and with absorbing column densities of the order of 1023 cm-2 (Comastri 2000). These objects, the so-called “QSO 2”, i.e. quasars with optical narrow-emission lines, have been extensively searched, but, at present, only a handful of candidates have been found (Ohta et al. 1996; Akiyama et al. 2000; Della Ceca et al. 2000). Results from recent hard X–ray surveys and the ones presented in this paper indicate that X–ray absorption is not correlated with the optical reddening, hence the classical statement of unobscured Type 1 – obscured Type 2 objects is far from being always valid. Indeed, Type 1 AGNs characterized by hard X–ray colors, likely to be absorbed by column density of the order of 5 $`\times `$ 1022 cm-2 or greater, have been found by both BeppoSAX and ASCA surveys (Akiyama et al. 2000), and their role in contributing to the XRB may be exactly the same as the postulated Type 2 QSOs.

The emerging picture is that the zoo of the hard X–ray-selected sources is characterized by more complex properties than previously thought (Comastri et al. 2000; Vignali et al. 2000).

Another interesting result comes from the relatively high number of HELLAS hard X–ray selected sources revealed by ROSAT . This is due to a combination of effects, the most important being the high sensitivity of ROSAT also at faint flux levels and the presence of soft X–ray emission also in strongly obscured AGNs. The most important implication is that the same highly absorbed sources responsible for a sizeable fraction of the hard XRB emit in the soft X–rays (Giommi et al. 2000; Giacconi et al. 2001), where they confirm their hardness. In some cases it was found that this emission is enhanced, with respect to the extrapolation at low energies of the absorbed higher energy component, by Compton downscattering or through a thermal component. For a subsample of HELLAS sources it has been possible to provide an estimate of the relative fraction of this scattered component with respect to the nuclear flux, spanning from a few to 65 per cent.

Although this component is not energetically dominant (indeed it is not present in the XRB synthesis model by Comastri et al. 1995), it could be important when comparing surveys performed in different energy ranges and, most important, at limiting fluxes differing by one (or more) order of magnitude. This has interesting consequences also in the computation of the X–ray luminosity function for the sources responsible for the XRB, since the contribution from this additional component is taken into account as it was of nuclear origin, not due either to reprocessing of the primary radiation or to thermal emission.

Remarkably, the ROSAT analysis indicates that a significant number of HELLAS sources are characterized by hard X–ray colors also in soft X–rays. The broad-band analysis of the sources which are not detected by ROSAT (upper limits in Fig. 1) suggests that truly hard sources (where the soft X–ray emission is extremely faint or totally absent) do exist. There are evidences that such sources have also been detected by XMM-Newton in the Lockman Hole (Hasinger et al. 2001).

The comparison of the color-color properties of the present sample with those of the ROSAT Deep Survey (Hasinger et al. 1998) in the Lockman Hole confirms that we are sampling the hard tail of the distribution of the sources responsible for the XRB, where the hardness of the spectrum may be ascribed to a flat continuum or, more convincingly, to large amounts of X–ray absorption, or to a combination of both the factors. Even though the HELLAS sources are harder in soft X–rays than the RDS objects, it is straightforward to note a continuity of properties between the two samples, with a optically varied population of hard sources in both.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The authors wish to thank G. Zamorani, G. Matt and P. Giommi for useful suggestions and discussion, and the anonymous referee for prompt and constructive comments. This work is partly supported by the Italian Space Agency, contract ARS–99–79 and by the Ministry for University and Research (MURST) under grant COFIN–98–02–32.