text:
# Partial Differentiability of Invariant Splittings

## 1. Introduction

One of the major technical barriers to the understanding of Anosov diffeomorphisms is the fact that unstable bundles are not in general differentiable along stable bundles. This situation persists for partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms, where there are also center bundles present. Under mild bunching conditions, however, the unstable bundles are differentiable along the center bundles, see Theorem A below. This fact has already been observed and exploited in several special situations. First, for Anosov diffeomorphisms themselves, the unstable bundles are differentiable with respect the diffeomorphism, as long as partial derivatives are taken in certain dynamically defined directions given by conjugating maps . Consequently entropy and SRB states also vary differentiably with parameters for Anosov diffeomorphisms and flows . Differentiability of the unstable bundle along the center was a crucial ingredient in proving stable ergodicity for many partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms . It was also an ingredient in the construction of nonuniformly hyperbolic diffeomorphisms with pathological foliations . While we have similar applications in mind for Theorem A, we will content ourselves here with some general theorems. We describe the main results of this paper in the following section; the proofs occupy the remaining sections.

## 2. Statements of Results

Suppose that $`f:MM`$ is a partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism. The tangent bundle splits as $`E^uE^cE^s`$. In general the splitting is continuous but not $`C^1`$. Here we show that under some mild pointwise bunching conditions, $`E^u`$ is continuously differentiable in the $`E^c`$ direction, i.e.,

$$\frac{E^u(p)}{E^c}$$

exists and is a continuous function of $`pM`$. More precisely, we prove:

###### Theorem A .

Suppose $`f:MM`$ is $`C^2`$ and partially hyperbolic with splitting $`TM=E^uE^cE^s`$. Then, under the pointwise bunching condition

(1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}\frac{T_p^cf}{𝒎(T_p^uf)𝒎(T_p^cf)}<1,\end{array}$$

$`E^u`$ is continuously differentiable with respect to $`E^c`$.

Theorem A is a corollary of a more general result about partial differentiability of dominated splittings – see Theorem 5.1 in Section 5.

Next we show, under the same bunching hypothesis, that in a family $`tf_t`$ of partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms, the unstable bundle $`E^u(f_t)`$ is always continuously differentiable along “dynamically defined” curves in $`M`$. Roughly speaking, a dynamically defined curve $`t\phi _p(t)`$ through $`pM`$ is a $`C^1`$ curve along which the hyperbolic component of the dynamics of $`f_t`$ varies as little as possible. For example, if $`f_t`$ is Anosov and $`h_t:MM`$ is the conjugacy from $`f_t`$ to $`f_0`$, so that $`h_tf_0=f_th_t`$, then $`th_t(p)`$ is a dynamically defined curve. In the language of Section 7, a dynamically defined curve is the $`M`$-component of an integral curve of the center distribution $`𝔼^c`$ of the evaluation map $`Eval:M\times IM\times I`$:

$$(p,t)(f_tp,t).$$

We prove that dynamically defined curves always exist, and unstable bundles, subject to a bunching condition, vary in a $`C^1`$ way along them.

###### Theorem B .

Let $`\{f_t:MM\}_{t(ϵ,ϵ)}`$ be a $`C^2`$ family of $`C^2`$, partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms having, for each $`t(ϵ,ϵ)`$, a $`Tf_t`$-invariant splitting:

$$TM=E^u(f_t)E^c(f_t)E^s(f_t).$$

Then there exists $`ϵ_0>0`$ so that, for every $`pM`$ there exists a $`C^1`$ path

$$\phi _p:(ϵ_0,ϵ_0)M$$

with $`\phi _p(0)=p`$, and with the following property.

If the pointwise bunching condition

(2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}\frac{T_p^cf_0}{𝒎(T_p^uf_0)𝒎(T_p^cf_0)}<1\end{array}$$

holds, then $`tE_{\phi _p(t)}^u(f_t)`$ is $`C^1`$.

Theorem B follows from a more general result, Theorem 7.4, which states that any invariant, dominated subbundle of a partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism is continuously differentiable along dynamically defined paths, subject to a bunching condition on the bundle. In addition, Theorem 7.4 produces, for any $`vE_p^c(f_0)`$, a dynamically defined path $`\phi _{p,v}`$ so that $`\dot{\phi }_{p,v}(0)v+E^uE^s(f_0)`$.

The machinery behind the proofs of Theorems A and B is Theorem 3.1, a refinement of the $`C^1`$ Section Theorem from  that handles partial derivatives of a section.

In Section 8, we address the question of when $`tE_p^u(f_t)`$ is differentiable at $`t=0`$. The issue here is of a slightly different nature than that in Theorems A and B. While $`tE^u(f_t)`$ is always continuously differentiable along dynamically defined paths, the requirement that the constant path $`tp`$ be dynamically defined for all $`p`$ is a stringent one, satisfied only for very special families.

If, instead of requiring that $`tE_p^u(f_t)`$ be $`C^1`$ in a given family, we just ask that it be differentiable at $`t=0`$ but for all families through $`f_0`$, then the actual dynamics of $`f_0`$ becomes irrelevant. It is easy to see that $`pE_p^u(f_0)`$ must be $`C^1`$ for this property to hold. What is interesting is that nonsmoothness of $`pE_p^u(f_0)`$ is the only obstruction to the differentiability of $`tE_p^u(f_t)`$ at $`t=0`$ in every family. Building on Theorem B, one can show:

###### Theorem C .

Let $`\{f_t:MM\}_{t(ϵ,ϵ)}`$ be a $`C^1`$ family of $`C^2`$, partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms having, for each $`t(ϵ,ϵ)`$, a $`Tf_t`$-invariant splitting:

$$TM=E^u(f_t)E^c(f_t)E^s(f_t).$$

Assume that the pointwise bunching condition

(3)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}\frac{T_p^cf_0}{𝒎(T_p^uf_0)𝒎(T_p^cf_0)}<1\end{array}$$

holds. Assume also that $`E^u(f_0)`$ is a $`C^{2ϵ}`$ subbundle of $`TM`$, for all $`ϵ>0`$.

Then for all $`pM`$,

$$tE_p^u(f_t)$$

is differentiable at $`t=0`$.

If $`\phi _p`$ is any dynamically defined path through $`pM`$ given by Theorem B, then:

$$E_p^u(f_t)E_p^u(f_0)=\left(\frac{d}{dt}E_{\phi _pt}^u(f_t)|_{t=0}D_pE^u(f_0)(\frac{d}{dt}\phi _pt|_{t=0})\right)t+O(t^{1+\eta }),$$

for some $`\eta >0`$.

Subsequent to proving Theorem C, we learned of a more general result, due to Dolgopyat:

###### Theorem D  (Dolgopyat, , Theorem 3).

Let $`\{f_t:MM\}_{t(ϵ,ϵ)}`$ be a $`C^1`$ family of $`C^2`$ diffeomorphisms having, for each $`t(ϵ,ϵ)`$, a $`Tf_t`$-invariant dominated splitting:

$$TM=R(f_t)S(f_t)T(f_t).$$

Suppose that $`pS_p(f_0)`$ is $`C^1`$. Then, for every $`pM`$, $`tS_p(f_t)`$ is differentiable at $`t=0`$.

Dominated splittings are defined in Section 5. In particular, Theorem D applies when $`S`$ is $`E^u`$, $`E^c`$, $`E^s`$, $`E^{cu}`$, or $`E^{cs}`$. We present an exposition of Dolgopyat’s proof of Theorem D in Section 8.

## 3. Partial Derivatives of an Invariant Section

Let

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V& \stackrel{F}{}& V\\ \pi & & \pi & & \\ M& \stackrel{f}{}& M\end{array}$$

be a $`C^1`$ fiber preserving map, where $`V`$ is a smooth, finite dimensional fiber bundle over the compact manifold $`M`$, and $`f`$ is a diffeomorphism. In addition assume that there is a section $`\sigma :MV`$, invariant under $`F`$ in the sense that

$$F(\sigma (p))=\sigma (f(p))$$

for all $`pM`$.

In general there is no reason that $`\sigma `$ is smooth, or even continuous. For example, if $`F`$ is the identity map, every section of $`V`$ is $`F`$-invariant. In , we showed that if $`V`$ is a Banach bundle and $`F`$ is a fiber contraction then $`\sigma `$ is unique and continuous, and furthermore, if the fiber contraction dominates the base contraction sufficiently then the $`\sigma `$ is of class $`C^r`$.

Since $`F`$ preserves fibers, $`TF`$ preserves the “vertical” subbundle, $`\mathrm{Vert}TV`$ whose fiber at $`vV`$ is $`\mathrm{kernel}T_v\pi `$. We write $`T_v^{\mathrm{Vert}}F`$ for the restriction of $`T_vF`$ to $`\mathrm{Vert}_v`$,

$$T_v^{\mathrm{Vert}}F:\mathrm{Vert}_v\mathrm{Vert}_{Fv}.$$

We assume that $`TV`$ carries a Finsler structure and that $`k_p=T_{\sigma p}^{\mathrm{Vert}}F`$ has

$$\underset{pM}{sup}k_p<1,$$

which means that $`F`$ is a fiber contraction in the neighborhood of $`\sigma M`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Suppose that $`ETM`$ is a continuous $`Tf`$-invariant subbundle such that

$$\underset{pM}{sup}k_p(T_p^Ef)^1<1$$

where $`T^Ef`$ is the restriction of $`Tf`$ to $`E`$. Then $`\sigma `$ is continuously differentiable in the $`E`$-direction in the sense that there is a continuous map $`H:ETV`$ such that

* For each $`pM`$, $`H:E_pT_{\sigma p}V`$ is linear.
* $`T\pi H=\mathrm{Id}:EE`$.
* If $`\gamma `$ is a $`C^1`$ arc in $`M`$ that is everywhere tangent to $`E`$ then

$$(\sigma \gamma )^{}(t)=H(\gamma ^{}(t)).$$

In particular, if $`E`$ is integrable then the restriction of $`\sigma `$ to each $`E`$-leaf is $`C^1`$.

We refer to $`H`$ as the partial derivative of $`\sigma `$ in the $`E`$-direction

$$H=\frac{\sigma }{E}.$$

###### Remark .

If, in addition, there exist $`C^r`$ submanifolds everywhere tangent to $`E`$, for some $`r(0,\mathrm{})`$, then $`C^r`$ smoothness of $`\sigma `$ along $`E`$ (i.e., along these manifolds) can be assured by assuming that

$$\underset{p}{sup}k_p(T_p^Ef)^1^r<1.$$

###### Remark .

When $`E`$ is integrable, the proof of Theorem 3.1 is a fairly simple application of the Invariant Section Theorem of . It is the non-integrable case that requires some new ideas.

###### Remark .

There is a uniformity about $`\sigma /E`$. (In the integrable case, this uniformity is automatic.) Fix $`pM`$ and extend each $`wE_p`$ with $`|w|1`$ to a continuous vector field $`X_w`$ everywhere subordinate to $`E`$, and do so in a way that depends continuously on $`w`$. Let $`\gamma _w`$ be an integral curve of $`X_w`$ through $`p`$. Since $`E`$ is only continuous, the integral curve $`\gamma _w`$ need not be uniquely determined by $`X_w`$. Nevertheless, for all $`p`$ in any fixed $`C^1`$ chart, as $`t0`$ we have

$$\frac{\sigma \gamma _w(t)\sigma p}{t}H(w)$$

uniformly.

###### Remark .

Since $`M`$ is finite dimensional, Peano’s Existence Theorem implies that there exist $`C^1`$ arcs everywhere tangent to a continuous plane field, and thus the hypothesis of assertion (c) in Theorem 3.1 is satisfied. In the infinite dimensional case, however, Peano’s Theorem fails and (c) could become vacuous.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.1.

We proceed by the graph transform techniques in . Choose a continuous subbundle $`\mathrm{Hor}TV`$, complementary to $`\mathrm{Vert}`$,

$$\mathrm{Hor}\mathrm{Vert}=TV.$$

For example, we could introduce a Riemann structure on $`TV`$ and take $`\mathrm{Hor}_v`$ as the orthogonal complement to $`\mathrm{Vert}_v`$. Note that $`T\pi `$ sends each subspace $`\mathrm{Hor}_v`$ isomorphically onto $`T_pM`$, $`p=\pi v`$. With respect to the horizontal / vertical splitting we write

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill T_vF=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A_v& 0\\ C_v& K_v\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A_v:\mathrm{Hor}_v\mathrm{Hor}_{Fv}& 0\\ C_v:\mathrm{Hor}_v\mathrm{Vert}_{Fv}& K_v:\mathrm{Vert}_v\mathrm{Vert}_{Fv}\end{array}\right].\end{array}$$

Let $`\overline{E}\mathrm{Hor}`$ be the lift of $`E`$. That is, $`T\pi `$ sends the plane $`\overline{E}_v`$ isomorphically to $`E_p`$, $`p=\pi v`$. Since $`E`$ is $`Tf`$-invariant and $`F`$ covers $`f`$, $`\overline{E}`$ is $`A`$-invariant in the sense that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{E}_v& \stackrel{A_v}{}& \overline{E}_{Fv}\\ T\pi & & T\pi & & \\ E_p& \stackrel{Tf}{}& E_{fp}\end{array}$$

commutes.

Let $`L`$ be the bundle over $`M`$ whose fiber at $`p`$ is

$$L_p=L(\overline{E}_{\sigma p},\mathrm{Vert}_{\sigma p}).$$

An element in $`L_p`$ is a linear transformation $`P:\overline{E}_{\sigma p}\mathrm{Vert}_{\sigma p}`$. Let $`LF`$ be the graph transform on $`L`$ that sends $`PL_p`$ to

$$P^{}=(C_{\sigma p}+K_{\sigma p}P)(A_{\sigma p}|_{\overline{E}_{\sigma p}})^1L_{\sigma p}.$$

Then $`TF`$ sends the graph of $`P`$ to the graph of $`P^{}`$ and $`LF`$ is an affine fiber contraction

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L& \stackrel{LF}{}& L\\ \pi & & \pi & & \\ M& \stackrel{f}{}& M.\end{array}.$$

By , $`L`$ has a unique $`LF`$-invariant section $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:ML`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is continuous. Define $`H_p:E_pT_{\sigma p}V`$ by commutativity of

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{E}_{\sigma p}& \stackrel{\mathrm{Id}_p\mathrm{\Lambda }_p}{}& \overline{E}_{\sigma p}\mathrm{Vert}_{\sigma p}\\ T\pi & & \mathrm{Inclusion}& & \\ E_p& \stackrel{H_p}{}& T_{\sigma p}V\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{Id}_p`$ is the identity map $`\overline{E}_{\sigma p}\overline{E}_{\sigma p}`$. Then $`H:ETV`$ is the unique bundle map such that $`HE`$ is a $`TF`$-invariant subbundle of $`T_{\sigma M}V`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}HE& \stackrel{TF}{}& HE\\ T\pi & & T\pi & & \\ E& \stackrel{Tf}{}& E\end{array}$$

commutes, and $`T\pi H=\mathrm{Id}_E`$. We claim that $`H`$ is the partial derivative of $`\sigma `$ in the $`E`$-direction.

Let $`\gamma :(a,b)M`$ be a $`C^1`$ arc such that $`\gamma `$ is everywhere tangent to $`E`$. To complete the proof of the theorem, we must show that

$$(\sigma \gamma )^{}(t)=H(\gamma ^{}(t)).$$

For $`n`$, set $`\gamma _n=f^n\gamma `$ and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{n}{}\gamma _n.$$

This means that we consider the disjoint union of the arcs $`\gamma _n`$, so if two of them cross in $`M`$, we ignore the crossing in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The one dimensional manifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is noncompact; it has countably many components $`\gamma _n`$. In the same way, we discretize $`V`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill V_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{n}{}V|_{\gamma _n}.\end{array}$$

We equip $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the Finslers they inherit from $`V`$ and $`M`$. Then $`F_\mathrm{\Gamma }=F|_{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is a fiber contraction

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V_\mathrm{\Gamma }& \stackrel{F_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}& V_\mathrm{\Gamma }\\ \pi & & \pi & & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }& \stackrel{f}{}& \mathrm{\Gamma },\end{array}$$

and the fiber contraction dominates the base contraction since

$$\underset{p}{sup}k_pT_p^Ef<1$$

and $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }E`$. Furthermore, $`F_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is uniformly $`C^1`$ bounded since $`M`$ is compact. The Invariant Section Theorem of  then implies that $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a unique $`F_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant section $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of class $`C^1`$. Furthermore the tangent bundle of $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the unique nowhere vertical $`TF_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant line field in $`TV_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The restriction of $`\sigma `$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_n\gamma _n`$ is $`F_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, so by uniqueness

$$\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{n}{}\sigma |_{\gamma _n}.$$

We claim that

$$H(T\mathrm{\Gamma })=T(\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

Again the reason is uniqueness. We know that $`T(\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the unique $`TF_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, nowhere vertical line field defined over $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But commutativity of

$$\begin{array}{ccc}HE& \stackrel{TF_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}& HE\\ H& & H& & \\ E& \stackrel{Tf}{}& E\\ \mathrm{Inclusion}& & \mathrm{Inclusion}& & \\ T\mathrm{\Gamma }& \stackrel{Tf}{}& T\mathrm{\Gamma }\end{array}$$

implies that $`H(T\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a second such line field. By uniqueness they are equal.

To complete the proof, we show that the line field equality implies the vector equality

$$\frac{d}{dt}\sigma \gamma (t)=H(\gamma ^{}(t)),$$

as the theorem asserts. Differentiating $`\gamma (t)=\pi \sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma (t)`$ gives

$$\gamma ^{}(t)=T\pi T\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{}(t)).$$

The vector $`T\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{}(t))`$ lies in the span of $`H(\gamma ^{}(t))`$, so there is a real number $`c(t)`$ such that $`T\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{}(t))=H(c(t)\gamma ^{}(t))`$. This gives

$$\gamma ^{}(t)=T\pi H(c(t)\gamma ^{}(t)).$$

Since $`T\pi H=\mathrm{Id}_E`$ we have

$$\gamma ^{}(t)=c(t)\gamma ^{}(t)$$

and $`c(t)=1`$. Thus

$$\frac{d}{dt}\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma (t)=T\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{}(t))=H(c(t)\gamma ^{}(t))=H(\gamma ^{}(t)).$$

###### Remark .

Above, it is assumed that $`\gamma `$ is everywhere tangent to $`E`$. One might expect that tangency of $`\gamma `$ to $`E`$ at $`p=\gamma (0)`$ suffices to prove that $`(\sigma \gamma )^{}(0)=H(\gamma ^{}(0))`$. This is not so. For example $`E`$ can be the flow direction of an Anosov flow. The bundle $`E^u`$ can be Hölder, but not $`C^1`$. Say its Hölder exponent is $`\theta <1`$. One can construct a $`C^1`$ curve $`\gamma (t)`$ which is tangent to $`E`$ at $`p=\gamma (0)`$, but which diverges from $`E`$ at a rate $`t^{1+ϵ}`$. The difference between $`E_{\gamma (t)}^u`$ and $`E_p^u`$ is then on the order of $`t^{\theta +ϵ\theta }`$. If $`ϵ`$ is small this exponent is $`<1`$, and the map $`tE_{\gamma (t)}^u`$ fails to be differentiable at $`t=0`$.

## 4. A Series Expression for $`\sigma /E`$

As above $`\sigma `$ is the unique $`F`$-invariant section and $`H=\mathrm{Id}_E\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is its partial derivative in the $`E`$-direction. Naturally, $`\sigma /E`$ depends on the choice of horizontal subbundle $`\mathrm{Hor}TV`$. We use the isomorphism $`T\pi :\mathrm{Hor}_{\sigma p}T_pM`$ to identify the linear map $`A_{\sigma p}:\mathrm{Hor}_{\sigma p}\mathrm{Hor}_{\sigma (fp)}`$ with its $`T\pi `$-conjugate $`T_pf`$. Then, using the canonical isomorphism $`\mathrm{Vert}_{\sigma p}V_p`$, we can express $`TF=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ C& K\end{array}\right]`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill T_{\sigma p}F=\left[\begin{array}{cc}T_pf:T_pMT_{fp}M& 0\\ C_p:T_pMV_{fp}& K_p:V_pV_{fp}\end{array}\right].\end{array}$$

Thus, the bundle map $`LF:LL`$ becomes

$$P(C_p+K_pP)(T_{fp}^Ef^1).$$

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ the zero section of $`L`$, and call its $`N^{\text{th}}`$ iterate in $`L`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=(LF)^N(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0).$$

We know that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ uniformly as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Also, we claim that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_N(p)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}K_p^nC_{f^{n1}(p)}(T_p^Ef^{n1})$$

where $`K^0=\mathrm{Id}`$ and for $`n1`$,

$$K_p^n=K_{f^1(p)}\mathrm{}K_{f^n(p)}:V_{f^n(p)}V_p.$$

If $`N=1`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(p)=(C_{f^1(p)}+K_{f^1(p)}P_0)(T_p^Ef^1)=C_{f^1(p)}T_p^Ef^1$$

because $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=0`$ implies that $`P_0=0`$. Thus, the assertion holds with $`N=1`$; the proof is completed by induction.

Since the partial sums of the infinite series $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}K_p^nC_{f^{n1}(p)}T_p^Ef^{n1}`$ converge uniformly to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we are justified in writing

$$\frac{\sigma }{E}=H(p)=\mathrm{Id}_E\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_p^nC_{f^{n1}(p)}T_p^Ef^{n1}.$$

## 5. The Dominated and Partially Hyperbolic Cases: Proof of Theorem A

Let $`f:MM`$ be a diffeomorphism of a compact Riemannian (or Finslered) manifold. In this section, we consider $`Tf`$-invariant dominated and partially hyperbolic splittings of the tangent bundle $`TM`$. We recall the definitions. The conorm of a linear transformation $`T:XY`$ is

$$𝒎(T)=\underset{x}{inf}\frac{|Tx|}{|x|}.$$

Suppose that $`TM`$ splits as a $`Tf`$-invariant sum of two bundles:

$$TM=RS.$$

This splitting is dominated if the following condition holds:

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{inf}\frac{𝒎(T_p^Rf)}{T_p^Sf}>1\end{array}$$

where the notation $`T^Xf`$ is used for the restriction of $`Tf`$ to the bundle $`X`$. We say that $`f`$ has a dominated decomposition if there is a $`Tf`$-invariant dominated splitting of $`TM`$.

Then $`f`$ is partially hyperbolic if it has a $`Tf`$-invariant splitting $`TM=E^uE^cE^s`$ such that:

1. $`E^u(E^cE^s)`$ and $`(E^uE^c)E^s`$ are both dominated splittings of $`TM`$,
2. $$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{p}{inf}𝒎(T_p^uf)>1& \underset{p}{sup}(T_p^sf)<1\hfill \end{array}$$

In other words, $`Tf`$ expands vectors in $`E^u`$, contracts vectors in $`E^s`$, and is relatively neutral on vectors in $`E^c`$.

Theorem 3.1 can be applied in the dominated decomposition and partially hyperbolic contexts, as follows.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Suppose that the $`C^2`$ diffeomorphism $`f:MM`$ has a dominated decomposition:

$$TM=RS,$$

And let $`ETM`$ be a $`Tf`$-invariant subbundle. Then, under the pointwise bunching condition

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}\frac{T_p^Sf}{𝒎(T_p^Rf)𝒎(T_p^Ef)}<1,\end{array}$$

$`R`$ is continuously differentiable with respect to $`E`$.

Theorem A is an immediate corollary of Theorem 5.1 , where we set $`R=E^u`$, $`S=E^cE^s`$, and $`E=E^c`$.

In  we defined the “bolicity” of a linear transformation to be the ratio of its norm to its conorm, so the poinwise bunching condition in Theorem A can be re-stated as

$$\underset{p}{sup}\frac{\mathrm{bol}(T_p^cf)}{𝒎(T_p^uf)}<1.$$

Similarly, to show that $`E^s`$ is differentiable along $`E^c`$, we assume

(5)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}T_p^sf\mathrm{bol}(T_p^cf)<1.\end{array}$$

###### Proof of Theorem 5.1.

Let $`d`$ be the fiber dimension of $`R`$ in the dominated decomposition

$$TM=RS.$$

$`Tf`$ acts naturally on the Grassmann $`G=G(d,TM)`$ of all $`d`$-planes in $`TM`$,

$$Gf:GG.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a $`d`$-plane in $`T_pM`$ then $`Gf(\mathrm{\Pi })=T_pf(\mathrm{\Pi })`$. Since $`f`$ is $`C^2`$, $`Gf`$ is a $`C^1`$ fiber preserving map,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G& \stackrel{Gf}{}& G\\ \pi & & \pi & & \\ M& \stackrel{f}{}& M\end{array},$$

where $`\pi `$ sends $`\mathrm{\Pi }T_pM`$ to $`p`$. Besides, $`pR_p`$ is a $`Gf`$-invariant section of $`G`$. We show that, at the invariant section $`R`$, the fiber contraction rate dominates the contraction rate along $`E`$ as follows.

A compact neighborhood $`N_p`$ of $`R_p`$ in $`G_p`$ consists of $`d`$-planes $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{graph}P`$ where $`P:R_pS_p`$ is a linear transformation with $`P1`$. Give $`G`$ a Finsler which is the operator norm on each $`N_p`$ and any other Finsler on the rest of $`G`$. Then $`Gf`$ is a fiber preserving map whose fiber contraction rate at $`R_p`$ is

$$k_p=\frac{T_p^Sf}{𝒎(T_p^Rf)}<1.$$

Since this dominates the contraction rate $`𝒎(T_p^Ef)`$ along $`E`$, Theorem 3.1 applies and $`pR_p`$ is seen to be a continuously differentiable function of $`p`$ in the $`E`$ direction. ∎

## 6. A series formula for $`E^u/E^c`$

From Section 4 we know that there is a series that expresses $`E^u/E^c`$. We write this formula out after making a convenient choice of the horizontal bundle.

To do so, we coordinatize $`G`$ near $`E_p^u`$ as follows. Fix a smooth Riemann structure on $`M`$ that exhibits the partial hyperbolicity of $`f`$, and let $`\mathrm{exp}`$ be its exponential map. Abusing notation, we denote by $`^u`$ and $`^{cs}`$ the planes $`^u\times 0`$ and $`0\times ^{cs}`$ in $`^m`$. For each $`pM`$, define a linear map $`I_p:^mT_pM`$ that carries $`^u`$ and $`^{cs}`$ isometrically to $`E_p^u`$ and $`E_p^{cs}`$. The restriction of $`\mathrm{exp}_pI_p`$ to a small neighborhood $`U=U_p`$ of $`0`$ in $`^m`$ is a diffeomorphism of $`U`$ to a neighborhood $`Q=Q_p`$ of $`p`$ in $`M`$,

$$\phi _p:UQ$$

and

* $`\phi _p(0)=p`$
* $`T_0\phi _p`$ carries $`^u`$ and $`^{cs}`$ isometrically to $`E_p^u`$ and $`E_p^{cs}`$.
* If we denote by $`E_{pq}^u`$ and $`E_{pq}^{cs}`$ the planes $`T_x\phi _p(^u)`$ and $`T_x\phi _p(^{cs})`$, where $`q=\phi _p(x)`$, then $`qE_{pq}^uE_{pq}^{cs}`$ is a smooth splitting of $`TQ`$ that reduces to $`E_p^uE_p^{cs}`$ when $`p=q`$.

We now coordinatize $`G`$ near $`E_p^u`$. Let $``$ be the space of $`(u\times cs)`$-matrices, thought of as linear transformations $`X:^u^{cs}`$. Given $`(x,X)U\times `$, let $`q=\phi _p(x)`$ and consider the linear transformation $`S:E_{pq}^uE_{pq}^{cs}`$, defined by commutativity of

$$\begin{array}{ccc}^u& \stackrel{X}{}& ^{cs}\\ T_x\phi _p& & T_x\phi _p& & \\ E_{pq}^u& \stackrel{S}{}& E_{pq}^{cs}.\end{array}$$

The graph of $`S`$ is a plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }G`$ near $`E_p^u`$, and thus

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p:(x,X)\mathrm{\Pi }$$

is a local trivialization of $`G`$ at $`E_p^u`$.

Because $`U\times `$ is a product, $`T(U\times )`$ carries a natural horizontal structure, the horizontal space at $`(x,X)`$ being

$$^m\times 0^m\times =T_{(x,X)}(U\times ).$$

We define the horizontal space at $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_p(0,X)G_p`$ to be

$$\mathrm{Hor}_\mathrm{\Pi }=T_{(0,X)}\mathrm{\Phi }_p(^m\times 0).$$

Writing $`T(Gf):TGTG`$ with respect to the horizontal / vertical splitting of $`TG`$ gives

$$T_\mathrm{\Pi }(Gf)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A_\mathrm{\Pi }:\mathrm{Hor}_\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{Hor}_{Gf(\mathrm{\Pi })}& 0\\ C_\mathrm{\Pi }:\mathrm{Hor}_\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{Vert}_{Gf(\mathrm{\Pi })}& K_\mathrm{\Pi }:\mathrm{Vert}_\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{Vert}_{Gf(\mathrm{\Pi })}\end{array}\right]$$

Take $`\mathrm{\Pi }=E_p^u`$ and identify

$$T_{E_p^u}G_p=\mathrm{Vert}_{E_p^u}L(E_p^u,E_p^{cs}).$$

Fix $`vE_p^c`$. Then $`C_{f^{n1}p}T^cf^{n1}(v)`$ is a linear transformation $`Y_n(v):E_{f^np}^uE_{f^np}^{cs}`$, and $`Y_n(v)`$ is susceptibe to the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ power of the linear graph transform, which converts it to a linear transformation $`E_p^uE_p^{cs}`$ defined by

$$T_{f^np}^{cs}f^n(Y_n(v))T_p^uf^n.$$

This is the same as the repeated action of $`K`$. (That is, the graph transform of $`Tf^n`$ is the same as the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ power of the graph transform of $`Tf`$.) Thus, by the formula in Section 4,

$$\frac{E^u}{E^c}(v)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_{f^np}^{cs}f^n(C_{f^{n1}p}T^cf^{n1}(v))T_p^uf^n.$$

We also can express this in charts as follows. Writing $`f`$ in the $`\phi `$-charts gives

$$f_p=\phi _{fp}^1f\phi _p$$

and

$$(Df_p)_x=\left[\begin{array}{cc}D_x^{u,u}f_p& D_x^{cs,u}f_p\\ D_x^{u,cs}f_p& D_x^{cs,cs}f_p\end{array}\right]$$

where the $`D_x^{u,u}f_p`$ block consists of the partial derivatives of the $`u`$-components of $`f_p`$ with respect to the $`u`$-variables, evaluated at the point $`x`$, etc. At $`x=0`$, the off-diagonal blocks are zero, while the diagonal blocks are $`T\phi `$-conjugate to $`T_p^uf`$ and $`T_p^{cs}f`$. Thus, the coordinate expression of $`Gf`$ becomes

$$(Gf)_p:(x,X)(f_px,(D_x^{u,cs}f_p+(D_x^{cs,cs}f_p)X)(D_x^{u,u}f_p+(D_x^{cs,u}f_p)X)^1.$$

Differentiating this with respect to $`x`$ and $`X`$ at the origin $`(0,0)^m\times `$ yields

$$(D((Gf)_p))_{(0,0)}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A_p:^m^m& 0\\ C_p:^m& K_p:\end{array}\right],$$

where $`A_p`$ is $`T\phi `$-conjugate to $`T_pf`$,

$$A_p=(T_0\phi _{fp})^1T_pfT_0\phi _p,$$

$`C_p`$ represents the second derivatives of $`f`$ in the $`\phi `$-charts,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C_p& =\frac{}{x}|_{x=0}(D_x^{u,cs}f_p)(D_x^{u,u}f_p)^1\hfill \\ & =(D_x(D_x^{u,cs}f_p))(D_x^{u,u}f_p)^1\hfill \\ & (D_x^{u,cs}f_p)(D_x^{u,u}f_p)^1(D_x(D_x^{u,u}f_p))(D_x^{u,u}f_p)^1,\hfill \end{array}$$

and, because the off-diagonal blocks vanish at the origin, $`K_p`$ is $`T\mathrm{\Phi }`$-conjugate to the graph transform of $`Tf`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill PT_p^{cs}fP(T_p^uf)^1.\end{array}$$

It is worth noting that the norm of $`C`$ is uniformly bounded on a neighborhood of $`E^u`$ in $`G`$ because $`f`$ is $`C^2`$ and $`M`$ is compact. Also, this is clear from the formula expressing $`C`$ in the $`\phi `$-charts.

## 7. Dependence of $`E^u`$, $`E^s`$ on $`f`$: Proof of Theorem B

As has been highlighted in the Katok-Milnor examples , the conjugacy between an Anosov diffeomorphism and its perturbations is a smooth function of the perturbation, even though the conjugacies themselves are only continuous. For example, consider a $`1`$-parameter family of Anosov diffeomorphisms $`g_t:MM`$. The map $`g_0`$ is conjugate to $`g_t`$ by a homeomorphism $`h_t:MM`$, and $`h_t`$ is uniquely determined by the requirements that $`h_0=\mathrm{Id}`$ and $`th_t`$ is continuous. The map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (ϵ,ϵ)\times M& (ϵ,ϵ)\times M\hfill \\ \hfill (t,p)& (t,g_tp)\hfill \end{array}$$

is smooth, partially hyperbolic, and supports a center foliation $`𝒲^c`$ whose leaf through $`(0,p)`$ is $`\{(t,h_t(p)):t(ϵ,ϵ)\}`$. As a foliation $`𝒲^c`$ is only continuous, but its leaves are smooth. Theorem 3.1 applies perfectly well to this situation, and we conclude that $`E_{h_tp}^u`$, $`E_{h_tp}^s`$ are $`C^1`$ functions of $`t`$. In this section we replace the Anosov condition by partial hyperbolicity, and derive an analogous result.

We assume that $`f_0:MM`$ is a $`C^2`$, partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism with splitting

$$TM=E^uE^cE^s$$

and that $``$ is a small neighborhood of $`f_0`$ in $`\mathrm{Diffeo}^2M`$. By the usual linear graph transform techniques, all $`f`$ are partially hyperbolic and their splittings

$$TM=E^u(f)E^c(f)E^s(f)$$

depend continuously on $`f`$.

The space $`\text{Diff}^2(M)`$ is a Banach manifold, see  for details. For $`f\text{Diff}^2(M)`$, the tangent space to $`\text{Diff}^2(M)`$ at $`f`$ has a natural description. Let $`X_f`$ be the Banach space of $`C^2`$ sections of the pullback bundle $`f^{}TM`$, that is, the bundle whose fiber over $`pM`$ is $`T_{fp}M`$. We write $`f+g`$ to indicate the diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{exp}_fg`$. That is, if $`g`$ is a small vector field in $`X_f`$, then

$$(f+g)(p)=\mathrm{exp}_f(g(p))$$

is in $`\text{Diff}^2(M)`$ and is close to $`f`$. So a small disk in $`X_f`$ is a chart for a small neighborhood of $`f`$, and $`X_f`$ is thereby identified with the tangent space $`T_f\text{Diff}^2(M)`$.

Define the map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Eval}:\times M& \times M\hfill \\ \hfill (f,p)& (f,fp).\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{Eval}`$ is $`C^2`$ because left-composition is a smooth operation on functions.

###### Lemma 7.1.

If the diameter of $``$ is sufficiently small, then $`Eval`$ has a partially hyperbolic splitting:

$$T(\times M)=𝔼^u𝔼^c𝔼^s,$$

where

$$𝔼_{f,p}^u=0\times E_p^u(f)0\times TM$$

$$𝔼_{f,p}^s=0\times E_p^s(f)0\times TM,$$

and $`𝔼_{f,p}^c`$ is the graph of a linear map:

$$P_{f,p}:X_fE_p^c(f)E_p^u(f)E_p^s(f).$$

###### Proof.

The tangent to $`\mathrm{Eval}`$ at $`(f,p)`$ acts on a vector $`\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ v\end{array}\right]T_{f,p}(\times M)`$ as

$$T_{f,p}\mathrm{Eval}\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ v\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ g(p)+T_pf(v)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Id}_{}& 0\\ \mathrm{ev}_p& T_pf\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ v\end{array}\right],$$

where $`\mathrm{ev}_p`$ evaluates the section of $`f^{}TM`$ at $`p`$. In particular, this implies that the subbundles $`𝔼^u=0\times E^u`$, $`𝔼^s=0\times E^s`$ cited above are $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$-invariant. (The bundle $`0\times E^c`$ is also $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$-invariant, but it is too small to be the $`𝔼^c`$ we want.)

Note that the subbundle $`T0`$ is not $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$-invariant, nor is the subbundle $`TE^c`$ whose fiber at $`(f,p)`$ is $`X_fE_p^c(f)`$. For if $`vE_p^c(f)`$ then the $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$-image of $`\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ v\end{array}\right]`$ is $`\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ g(p)+T^cf_p(v)\end{array}\right]`$, and this vector need not lie in $`TE^c`$. Nevertheless, by the domination hypotheses, the $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$ graph transform defines a fiber contraction of the bundle whose fiber at $`(f,p)`$ is

$$L(X_f(E^uE^c)_p(f),E^s(f)).$$

The resulting invariant section is the unique $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$-invariant subbundle $`𝔼^c𝔼^sT(\times M)`$ whose fiber at $`(f,p)`$ projects isomorphically onto $`X_f(E^cE^s)_p(f)`$.

Similarly, we find the unique $`T\mathrm{Eval}^1`$-invariant subbundle $`𝔼^c𝔼^uT(\times M)`$ whose fiber at $`(f,p)`$ projects isomorphically onto $`X_f(E^cE^u)_p(f)`$. Intersecting these bundles, we obtain the $`T\mathrm{Eval}^1`$-invariant subbundle $`𝔼^c`$. ∎

###### Remark .

At the end of this section, we give a series expression for $`𝔼^{cu}`$.

###### Corollary 7.2.

Suppose that $`f:MM`$ is $`C^2`$ and partially hyperbolic, with splitting:

$$TM=E^uE^cE^s.$$

If $`f_0`$ satisfies the pointwise bunching condition:

(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}\frac{T_p^cf_0}{𝒎(T_p^uf_0)𝒎(T_p^cf_0)}<1,\end{array}$$

then, for all $`pM`$, $`E^u`$ is continuously differentiable at $`(f_0,p)`$ with respect to $`𝔼^c`$, where $`𝔼^c`$ is given by Lemma 7.1.

In fact this corollary can be stated in a more general form that can be useful in applications. Not only is it possible to differentiate $`E^u`$ along $`𝔼^c`$, but in fact bundles in dominated decompositions can be differentiated along $`𝔼^c`$ as well. If $`f_0`$ has a dominated decomposition

$$TM=RS,$$

then standard graph-transform arguments apply to show that for $`f`$ sufficiently $`C^1`$-close to $`f_0`$, this decomposition has a unique continuation

$$TM=R(f)S(f)$$

that is dominated for $`Tf`$. Under appropriate bunching hypotheses, we can differentiate $`R(f)`$ in the $`𝔼^c`$ direction:

###### Corollary 7.3.

Suppose that $`f:MM`$ is $`C^2`$ and partially hyperbolic, with splitting:

$$TM=E^uE^cE^s.$$

Suppose also that

$$TM=RS$$

is a dominated decomposition for $`f_0`$. If $`f_0`$ satisfies the pointwise bunching condition:

(7)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}\frac{T_p^Sf_0}{𝒎(T_p^Rf_0)𝒎(T_p^cf_0)}<1,\end{array}$$

then, for all $`pM`$, $`R`$ is continuously differentiable at $`(f_0,p)`$ with respect to $`𝔼^c`$, where $`𝔼^c`$ is given by Lemma 7.1.

###### Proof of Corollary 7.3.

We first construct the bundle over $`\times M`$ whose fiber over $`(f,p)`$ is the space of linear maps $`L(R_p(f),S_p(f))`$. Since $`\mathrm{Eval}`$ preserves the factors $`\{f\}\times M`$, its tangent map $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$ induces a graph transform map on this bundle, covering $`\mathrm{Eval}`$, which is a fiber contraction, with:

$$k_{f,p}=\frac{T_p^Sf}{𝒎(T_p^Rf)}.$$

The unique invariant section of this graph transform is $`=0RT\times TM`$. (note that the bundle $``$ is not to be confused with the real numbers $`𝐑`$).

Now suppose $`\gamma `$ is any curve tangent to $`𝔼^c`$. As in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we obtain differentiability of $``$ (and hence, of $`R`$) along $`\gamma `$ when $`k_{f,p}`$ dominates the contraction along $`\gamma `$ at $`(f,p)`$ The contraction along $`\gamma `$ at $`(f,p)`$ is bounded below by the conorm of $`T_{f,p}^{𝔼^c}\mathrm{Eval}`$, which in turn is approximately given by

$$𝒎(T_{f_0,p}^{𝔼^c}\mathrm{Eval})=\mathrm{min}\{1,𝒎(T^cf_0)\}.$$

Hence, $`=0R`$ is differentiable along $`\gamma `$ if

(8)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{f,p}{sup}\frac{k_{f,p}}{\mathrm{min}\{𝒎(T_p^cf_0),1\}}<1.\end{array}$$

Since $`k_{f,p}<1`$ for all p, and by the bunching hypothesis (7), $`k_{f,p}<𝒎(T_p^cf_0)`$, the condition in (8) is satisfied.

Now we apply Theorem 3.1 and conclude that $``$ is continuously differentiable along $`𝔼^c`$.

Note that Theorem 3.1 needs to be re-proved in this more general context, but because its original proof relied on uniform estimates (this was the only necessity for the compactness assumption on $`M`$), it is not hard to do.

We are now ready to prove Theorem B. As mentioned in the introduction, Theorem B is a corollary of the following more general result.

###### Theorem 7.4.

Let $`\{f_t:MM\}_{t(ϵ,ϵ)}`$ be a $`C^2`$ family of $`C^2`$, partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms having, for each $`t(ϵ,ϵ)`$, a $`Tf_t`$-invariant splitting:

$$TM=E^u(f_t)E^c(f_t)E^s(f_t).$$

Then there exists $`ϵ_0>0`$ so that, for every $`pM`$ and every $`vE^c(p)`$, there exists a $`C^1`$ path

$$\phi _p:(ϵ_0,ϵ_0)M$$

with the following properties:

1. $`\phi _{p,v}(0)=p`$
2. $`\dot{\phi }_{p,v}(0)v+E^uE^s`$,
3. If

$$TM=R(f_0)S(f_0)$$

is any dominated decomposition for $`f_0`$ satisfying the pointwise bunching condition

(9)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}\frac{T_p^Sf_0}{𝒎(T_p^Rf_0)𝒎(T_p^cf_0)}<1,\end{array}$$

then $`tR_{\phi _{p,v}(t)}(f_t)`$ is $`C^1`$.

###### Remark .

$`E^c`$ is allowed to be the trivial bundle in Theorem 7.4, in which case $`f_0`$ is Anosov. If $`f_0`$ is Anosov, then $`𝔼^c`$ is uniquely integrable, $`\phi _{p,0}`$ is unique, and $`p\phi _{p,0}(t)`$ is the homeomorphism conjugating $`f_0`$ to $`f_t`$.

###### Remark .

Similarly, if $`E^c`$ is integrable and tangent to a plaque-expansive foliation $`𝒲^c`$, then $`𝔼^c`$ is also tangent to a foliation $`𝕎^c`$. The maps $`p\phi _{p,0}(t)`$ can be shown to be leaf conjugacies between $`f_0`$ and $`f_t`$.

If $`f_0`$ is $`r`$-normally-hyperbolic:

(10)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T^cf^r<𝒎(T^uf)& T^sf<𝒎(T^cf)^r,\hfill \end{array}$$

then the leaves of $`𝕎^c`$ are $`C^r`$. In this case, $`t\phi _{p,v}(t)`$ can also be chosen to be $`C^r`$.

If, in addition, the stronger center bunching condition:

(11)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{p}{sup}\frac{T_p^cf_0}{𝒎(T_p^uf_0)𝒎(T_p^cf_0)^r}<1\end{array}$$

holds, then the $`C^r`$ Section Theorem implies that $`𝔼^u`$ is $`C^r`$ along the leaves of $`𝕎^c`$ (and so $`tE_{\phi _{p,v}(t)}^u(f_t)`$ is also $`C^r`$).

###### Remark .

A simple refinement of the proof shows that both $`tR_{\phi _{p,v}(t)}(f_t)`$ and $`t\phi _{p,v}(t)`$ are $`C^{1+\alpha }`$, where there is a bound on the $`\alpha `$-Hölder norm of the $`t`$-derivative that is uniform in $`p,v`$. The exponent $`\alpha `$ is determined by several bunching conditions.

###### Proof of Theorem 7.4.

Let $``$ and, for $`(f,q)\times M`$, the linear map $`P_{f,q}:X_fE_q^c(f)E_q^u(f)E_q^s(f)`$ be given by Lemma 7.1, so that

$$𝔼_{f,q}^c=\text{graph}(P_{f,q}).$$

Choose $`ϵ_0>0`$ so that $`f_t`$, for all $`t(ϵ_0,ϵ_0)`$.

We identify the submanifold

$$\{f_t\times Mt(ϵ_0,ϵ_0)\times M$$

with $`(ϵ_0,ϵ_0)\times M`$ in the obvious way. In the tangent bundle $`𝐑\times TM`$ to this manifold, $`P_{f_t,q}`$ and $`𝔼_{f_t,q}^c`$ have their counterparts $`P_{t,q}:𝐑E_{f_t}^c(q)(E^uE^s)_{f_t}(q)`$ and $`𝔼_{t,q}^c`$, where

$$𝔼_{t,q}^c=\text{graph}(P_{t,q}).$$

Let $`p`$ and $`v`$ be given, and let $`V`$ be any continuous vector field on $`M`$ with the properties: $`V(p)=v`$ and $`V(q)E^c(q)`$, for all $`qM`$. Define a vector field $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`(ϵ_0,ϵ_0)\times M`$ by:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t,q)=\frac{}{t}+V(q)+P_{t,q}(\frac{}{t}+V(q)).$$

Notice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t,q)𝔼_{t,q}^c`$, for all $`(t,q)(ϵ_0,ϵ_0)\times M`$. It follows from the bunching hypothesis and Corollary 7.3 that $`R`$ is differentiable along the integral curves of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Let $`\widehat{\phi }_{p,v}`$ be any integral curve of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ through $`(p,0)`$. Now $`\phi _{p,v}`$ is defined to be the $`M`$ coordinate of $`\widehat{\phi }_{p,v}`$:

$$\widehat{\phi }_{p,v}=(t,\phi _{p,v}).$$

It is straightforward to check that $`\phi _{p,v}`$ satisfies (1)-(3). ∎

### 7.1. A series expansion for $`𝔼^{cu}`$

We give a series expression for $`𝔼^{cu}`$ as follows. Define the linear map $`P_{f,p}^{cu}:XE_p^{cu}(f)E_p^s(f)`$ as the series

$$P_{f,p}^{cu}(g,v)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_{f^kp}^sf^k(g^s(f^kp)).$$

Note that the series does not depend on $`v`$. The domination conditions imply that the series converges. Under $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$, the graph of $`P_{f,p}^{cu}`$ is sent to the graph of $`P_{f,fp}^{cu}`$. Hence, by uniqueness,

$$𝔼_{f,p}^{cu}=\mathrm{graph}(P_{f,p}^{cu}).$$

In the same way we get a unique $`T\mathrm{Eval}`$-invariant subbundle $`𝔼^{cs}T(\times M)`$ whose fiber at $`(f,p)`$ projects isomorphically onto $`XE_p^{cs}(f)`$, and $`𝔼_{f,p}^{cs}=\mathrm{graph}(P_{f,p}^{cs})`$ where

$$P_{f,p}^{cs}(g,v)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_{f^kp}^uf^k(g^u(f^kp)).$$

The intersection of these two subbundles is the center bundle $`𝔼^c`$. Namely, at $`(f,p)`$, the fiber of $`𝔼^c`$ is the graph of the map $`P_{f,p}^c:XE_p^c(f)(E_p^u(f)E_p^s(f))`$, where

$$P_{f,p}^c(g,v)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_{f^kp}^uf^k(g^u(f^kp))+\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_{f^kp}^sf^k(g^s(f^kp)).$$

## 8. When $`fE_p^u(f)`$ actually is differentiable

We described in the previous section how $`fE_p^u(f)`$ is generally not differentiable, even if $`f`$ is Anosov. In fact, if $`pE_p^u(f_0)`$ fails to be differentiable in even one direction at $`p_0`$, then $`fE_{p_0}^u(f)`$ is not differentiable at $`f_0`$. For in that case, it is easy to construct a smooth $`1`$-parameter family of diffeomorphisms $`\phi _t:MM`$ such that $`tE_{\phi _tp_0}^u(f_0)`$ is not differentiable at $`t=0`$; but then $`E_{p_0}^u(\phi _tf_0\phi _t^1)=T\phi _t(E_{\phi _tp_0}^u(f_0))`$ is not differentiable at $`t=0`$.

It turns out that, under the usual center bunching hypothesis, nonsmoothness of $`pE_p^u(f_0)`$ is the only obstruction to differentiability of $`fE_p^u(f)`$ at $`f_0`$ in all directions.

The results that follow apply to $`1`$-parameter families of $`C^2`$ diffeomorphisms $`\{f_t\}_{tI}`$ such that $`tf_t`$ is a $`C^1`$ map from $`I`$ into $`\text{Diff}^2(M)`$ – a $`C^1`$ family of $`C^2`$ diffeomorphisms. Since the original proof of Theorem C is somewhat lengthy and the result is subsumed by Theorem D, we omit the proof of Theorem C and present instead a proof of Theorem D, following closely the approach of Dolgopyat in .

Assume that for each $`tI`$, $`f_t`$ is partially hyperbolic with splitting

$$TM=E_t^uE_t^cE_t^s.$$

Write

$$E_t=E_t^cH_t=E_t^uE_t^s.$$

###### Theorem 8.1 (Theorem D).

If $`E_0`$ is a $`C^1`$ bundle then the curve of subbundles $`tE_t`$ is differentiable with respect to $`t`$ at $`t=0`$, and the derivative $`(dE_t(x)/dt)_{t=0}`$ depends continuously on $`xM`$.

###### Remark .

Theorem D remains valid, and the proof is the same, if the partially hyperbolic splitting is replaced by a dominated triple splitting $`R_tS_tT_t`$. Namely, the middle bundle $`S_t`$ is differentiable with respect to $`t`$ at $`t=0`$, provided that $`S_{x,0}`$ is $`C^1`$. Similarly, there is nothing special about the one-dimensionality of the parameter $`t`$.

The following facts about weak continuity will be used. We assume that $`W`$ is a Banach space, but that $`W`$ also carries a weak topology. Of course, if $`W`$ has finite dimension, the weak and strong topologies coincide. We have in mind the case that $`W`$ is a space of operators on the the infinite dimensional Banach space of continuous sections of a vector bundle and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$.

###### Definition 8.2.

A function $`h:\mathrm{\Lambda }W`$ is weakly continuous at $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if $`h(\lambda )`$ tends weakly to $`h(\mu )`$ and $`h(\lambda )`$ stays bounded as $`\lambda \mu `$.

###### Proposition 8.3 (Weak Inversion Rule).

If a curve of invertible operators $`tA_t`$ is weakly continuous at $`t=0`$ and if the operators’ conorms are uniformly positive then the curve of inverse operators is also weakly continuous at $`t=0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`tA_t`$ be the curve of operators, and let $`V`$ be the Banach space on which they operate. Then, as $`t0`$, $`A_t`$ converges weakly to $`A_0`$ and $`A_tA_0`$ stays bounded. The conorm assumption means that for all small $`t`$, $`A_t^1M`$.

For each $`vV`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |A_t^1(v)A_0^1(v)|& =|A_t^1(A_0A_t)A_0^1(v)|\hfill \\ & M|vA_t(A_0^1(v))|.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`A_0^1(v)`$ is fixed, and $`A_t`$ converges weakly to $`A_0`$, $`A_t(A_0^1(v))v`$ as $`t0`$, which completes the proof that $`A_t^1`$ converges weakly to $`A_0^1`$ as $`t0`$. But also,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |A_t^1(v)A_0^1(v)|& =|A_t^1(A_0A_t)A_0^1(v)|\hfill \\ & MA_0A_tM|v|\hfill \end{array}$$

implies that $`A_t^1A_0^1`$ stays bounded as $`t0`$, and completes the proof that the inverse curve is weakly continuous. ∎

Now we return to the splitting $`TM=E_tH_t`$, where $`H_t`$ is the hyperbolic part of the partially hyperbolic splitting for $`f_t`$, and $`E_t`$ is the center part. We are assuming that $`E=E_0`$ is a $`C^1`$ bundle.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ be a smooth approximation to $`H_0`$, and express $`Tf_t`$ with respect to the splitting $`TM=E\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as

$$T_xf_t=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A_{x,t}& B_{x,t}\\ C_{x,t}& K_{x,t}\end{array}\right].$$

Since $`f_t`$ is a $`C^1`$ curve of $`C^2`$ diffeomorphisms, $`A,B,C,K`$ are $`C^1`$ functions of $`x,t`$. At $`t=0`$ we have

$$C_{x,0}=0\text{and}A_{x,0}=T_xf_0|_E$$

for all $`x`$. Furthermore, when $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ closely approximates $`H`$, $`B`$ is small. Consequently, if $`P:E\stackrel{~}{H}`$ has norm $`1`$ then $`A+BP`$ is invertible and the norm of its inverse is uniformly bounded. Uniformity refers to $`P,x,t`$.

Let $``$ be the vector bundle over $`M`$ whose fiber at $`x`$ is $`_x=L(E_x,\stackrel{~}{H}_x)`$. Equipping $`_x`$ with the operator norm gives $``$ a Finsler; let $`(1)`$ be its unit ball bundle. Denote by $`\mathrm{Sec}()`$ the Banach space of continuous sections $`X:M`$, equipped with the sup norm $``$. Its unit ball is $`\mathrm{Sec}((1))`$.

$`Tf_t`$ defines a graph transform

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(1)& \stackrel{\left(Tf_t\right)_\mathrm{\#}}{}& \\ \pi & & \pi & & \\ M& \stackrel{f_t}{}& M\end{array}$$

according to the condition $`T_xf_t(\mathrm{graph}P)=\mathrm{graph}((T_xf_t)_\mathrm{\#}(P))`$. That is,

$$(T_xf_t)_\mathrm{\#}(P)=(C_{x,t}+K_{x,t}P)(A_{x,t}+B_{x,t}P)^1,$$

which is a linear map $`E_{f_tx}\stackrel{~}{H}_{f_tx}`$. The graph transform naturally induces a nonlinear map on the space of sections,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_t:\mathrm{Sec}((1))& \mathrm{Sec}()\hfill \end{array}$$

such that

$$G_t(X)=(Tf_t)_\mathrm{\#}Xf_t^1.$$

###### Proposition 8.4.

$`G_t`$ is uniformly analytic.

###### Remark .

$`(Tf_t)_\mathrm{\#}`$ is not analytic, it is only $`C^1`$. Nevertheless, for each fixed $`t`$, its action on the space of continuous sections is analytic. The uniformity refers to $`t`$.

We prove Proposition 8.4 by factoring $`G_t`$ into a product of several analytic maps. Let $``$, $`_t`$ and $`_t^1`$ denote the bundles whose fibers at $`xM`$ are $`_x=L(E_x,E_x)`$, $`_{x,t}=L(E_x,E_{f_tx})`$, and $`_{x,t}^1=L(E_{f_tx},E_x)`$. Let $`𝒜`$, $`𝒜_t`$, and $`𝒜_t^1`$ denote the invertible elements in $``$, $`_t`$ and $`_t^1`$, and denote sectional inversion as $`\mathrm{Inv}:\mathrm{Sec}(𝒜)\mathrm{Sec}(𝒜)`$, $`\mathrm{Inv}_t:\mathrm{Sec}(𝒜_t)\mathrm{Sec}(𝒜_t^1)`$.

###### Lemma 8.5.

Sectional inversion is uniformly analytic.

###### Proof.

Consider the identity section $`\mathrm{Id}`$ of $`𝒜`$. Any section near $`\mathrm{Id}`$ is inverted by the power series

$$A^1=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\mathrm{Id}A)^k,$$

and hence sectional inversion is analytic in a neighborhood of the identity section. For $`A`$ in a neighborhood of the general section $`A_0:M𝒜`$, sectional inversion factors according to the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A& \stackrel{\mathrm{Inv}\text{ near }A_0\text{ }}{}& A^1\\ L_{A_0^1}& & R_{A_0}& & \\ A_0^1A& \stackrel{\mathrm{Inv}\text{ near }Id}{}& A^1A_0\end{array}$$

where $`L_{A_0^1}`$ and $`R_{A_0}`$ are left and right multiplication by the sections $`A_0^1`$ and $`A_0`$. Since $`L_{A_0^1}`$ and $`R_{A_0}`$ are continuous linear transformations of the section spaces, they are analytic, which completes the proof of the lemma for sections in a neighborhood of the identity section. The corresponding diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Sec}(𝒜_t)& \stackrel{\mathrm{Inv}_t\text{ near }A_0\text{ }}{}& \mathrm{Sec}(𝒜_t^1)\\ L_{A_0^1}& & R_{A_0}& & \\ \mathrm{Sec}(𝒜)& \stackrel{\mathrm{Inv}\text{ near }Id}{}& \mathrm{Sec}(𝒜)\end{array}$$

applies to sectional inversion in the neighborhood of a section $`A_0:M𝒜_t`$, and shows that $`\mathrm{Inv}_t`$ is analytic.

Uniform analyticity means that for any $`r`$, the $`r^{\text{th}}`$ derivative of $`\mathrm{Inv}_t`$ is uniformly bounded on sets of sections such that $`A`$ and $`A^1`$ are uniformly bounded; this is clear from the higher order chain rule and the factorization of sectional inversion given above. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 8.4.

We have $`G_t(X)=(Tf_t)_\mathrm{\#}Xf_t^1`$, and must show that $`G_t`$ is a uniformly analytic function of $`X\mathrm{Sec}()`$. We factor $`G_t`$ as the Cartesian product of two affine maps on section spaces, followed by inversion in one of the two spaces, followed by sectional linear composition, all of which is expressed by commutativity of

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Sec}()& \stackrel{G_t}{}& \mathrm{Sec}()\\ \mathrm{Aff}_1\times \mathrm{Aff}_2& & \text{composition}& & \\ \mathrm{Sec}(_t)\times \mathrm{Sec}(𝒜_t)& \stackrel{\mathrm{Id}\times \mathrm{Inv}_t}{}& \mathrm{Sec}(_t)\times \mathrm{Sec}(𝒜_t^1)\end{array}$$

where $`_t`$ is the bundle over $`M`$ whose fiber at $`x`$ is $`L(E_x,\stackrel{~}{H}_{f_tx})`$, and

$$\mathrm{Aff}_1(X)=C_t+K_tX\mathrm{Aff}_2(X)=A_t+B_tX.$$

Uniform analyticity of $`G_t`$ then follows from Lemma 8.5. ∎

The $`r^{\text{th}}`$-order Taylor expansion of $`G_t`$ at the zero section is

$$G_t(X)=Z_t+Q_t(X)+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{r!}(D^rG_t)_0(X^r)+R_t(X),$$

where $`Z_t=G_t(0)`$, $`Q_t=(DG_t)_0`$.

###### Proposition 8.6.

For small $`t`$,

* $`tZ_t`$ is $`C^1`$.
* $`t(IQ_t)^1`$ is weakly continuous.
* $`R_t(X)/X^2`$ is uniformly bounded for all small $`X\mathrm{Sec}()`$.

###### Proof.

At the zero section, the $`0^{\text{th}}`$ and first derivatives of

$$G_t(X)=(C_t+K_tX)(A_t+B_tX)^1f_t^1,$$

with respect to $`X`$ are computed at once as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z_t& =(C_tA_t^1)f_t^1\hfill \\ \hfill Q_t(X)& =(K_tXA_t^1+C_tA_t^1B_tXA_t^1)f_t^1\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`f_t`$ is a $`C^1`$ curve of $`C^2`$ diffeomorphisms, and since the splitting $`E\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is $`C^1`$, the curves $`tA_t`$, $`tB_t`$, $`tC_t`$, $`tK_t`$ in the appropriate bundles are $`C^1`$. This makes (a) immediate, and also shows that the curve $`tQ_t`$ in $`\mathrm{Sec}()`$ is weakly continuous.

By inspection, at $`t=0`$, $`Q_t`$ becomes the hyperbolic operator

$$Q_0(X)=(K_0XA_0^1)f_0^1,$$

because $`C_{t=0}=0`$. Thus, for all small $`t`$, $`IQ_t`$ is uniformly invertible, and Proposition 8.3 implies that $`t(IQ_t)^1`$ is weakly continuous.

Assertion (c) follows from the Mean Value Theorem and the fact that the second derivative of $`G_t`$ is uniformly bounded near the zero section. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem D.

Proposition 8.6 implies that

$$G_t(X)=Z_t+Q_t(X)+R_t(X)$$

and $`R_t(X)=O(1)X^2`$ as $`X0`$. Let $`P_t:xP_{x,t}`$ be the unique $`G_t`$-invariant section of $``$ with norm $`1`$. Thus $`P_{x,t}:E_x\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ and

$$E_{x,t}=\mathrm{graph}P_{x,t}=\{v+P_{x,t}(v)T_xM:vE_x\}.$$

Theorem D asserts that $`E_t`$ is differentiable at $`t=0`$. That is,

$$\frac{dP_{x,t}}{dt}|_{t=0}$$

exists and is continuous with respect to $`x`$.

Plugging $`X=P_t`$ into the Taylor expansion of $`G_t`$ gives

$$P_t=Z_t+Q_t(P_t)+R_t(P_t),$$

and since $`IQ_t`$ is invertible, we get

$$P_t=(IQ_t)^1(Z_t+R_t(P_t)).$$

Thus

(12)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill P_t(IQ_t)^1(Z_t+MP_t^2).\end{array}$$

(These norms refer to section sup-norms or to operator norms, as appropriate.)

Now we estimate $`Z_t=(C_tA_t^1)f_t^1`$ as follows. It is differentiable with respect to $`t`$, and since $`C_{t=0}=0`$, we have $`Z_{t=0}=0`$. Thus $`Z_t=O(1)t`$ as $`t0`$. Since $`P_t`$ is continuous in $`t`$, and $`P_0=0`$, we get $`P_t_0^2P_t_0`$ when $`t`$ is small, which lets us absorb the squared term into the l.h.s. of the inequality (12), so

$$P_t=O(1)t$$

as $`t0`$. Consequently, we get a bootstrap effect on the remainder:

$$R_t(P_t)=O(1)t^2$$

as $`t0`$. Combined with the more exact estimate on $`Z_t`$,

$$Z_t=tZ_0^{}+o(1)t$$

where $`Z_0^{}=(d/dt)_{t=0}(Z_t)`$, this gives

$$\frac{P_t}{t}=(IQ_t)^1Z_0^{}+(IQ_t)^1(o(1)+O(1)t).$$

Proposition 8.6 implies that $`(IQ_t)^1`$ converges weakly to $`(IQ_0)^1`$ as $`t0`$, so

$$\underset{t0}{lim}(IQ_t)^1Z_0^{}=(IQ_0)^1Z_0^{},$$

while uniform boundedness of $`(IQ_t)^1`$ implies that

$$\underset{t0}{lim}(IQ_t)^1(o(1))+O(1)t)=0.$$

Thus, as $`t0`$,

$$\frac{P_{x,t}P_{x,0}}{t}(IQ_0)^1Z_0^{},$$

uniformly in $`xM`$, which completes the proof that $`tE_t`$ is differentiable at $`t=0`$, and that its derivative there, $`(IQ_0)^1Z_0^{}`$, depends continuously on $`xM`$. ∎

###### Remark .

Suppose that $`E_0`$ and $`Df_t`$ are $`C^r`$, $`r2`$. We tried to show that $`E_t`$ is $`r^{\text{th}}`$-order differentiable at $`t=0`$ in the sense that there is an $`r^{\text{th}}`$ order Taylor expansion for $`E_t`$ at $`t=0`$. Many ingredients of the preceding proof of the $`r=1`$ case above generalize very nicely to $`r2`$. There is a natural notion of weak $`r^{\text{th}}`$-order differentiability, and it behaves well with respect to operator inversion and operator products. However, we would also need affirmative answers to the following two questions:

* Is the curve $`t(IQ_t)^1`$ in $`\mathrm{Sec}()`$ weakly differentiable at $`t=0`$?
* Does the operator $`(IQ_0)^1`$ send $`C^1`$ sections of $``$ to $`C^1`$ sections?

At first, it would be acceptable to assume analyticity of $`E_0`$ and $`f_t`$.


format: text

text:
# Surviving the renormalon in heavy quark potential

## I Introduction

The asymptotic freedom of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) allows one to calculate the short distance physics accurately using perturbation. Unexpectedly, however, the perturbative expansion of the static potential between a quark-antiquark pair does not show a convergence even at very short distances (see Fig. 1). Moreover, no agreement is seen with the accurate lattice calculations of the static potential. This led to a suggestion of nonperturbative linear potential at short distance Bali (1999), which, if proven true, would violate the expectation of the operator product expansion (OPE) that the nonperturbative effect at short distance is at most a quadratic potential.

On the other hand, the bad convergence behavior of the perturbative expansion of the potential is well understood to be caused by the infrared (IR) renormalon which induces a constant nonperturbative effect proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ Aglietti and Ligeti (1995). This prompted several approaches to the problem. One is based on the observation that the force between a pair of static quarks is free from the leading renormalon. The potential obtained by integrating the force calculated in perturbation indeed agrees quite well at short distance with the lattice potential Necco and Sommer (2001), up to an $`r`$ independent constant. Another approach is the renormalon subtracted (RS) scheme Pineda (2002), in which one subtracts order by order the renormalon contribution from the perturbative potential. The potential calculated in this way also shows an improved convergence and agreement with the lattice potential. Another idea is to employ the cancellation of the renormalons in the static potential and the pole mass of the heavy quark Hoang et al. (1999); Beneke (1998). By expanding the pole mass and the static potential of a color singlet quarkonium in the running coupling $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ and a short distance mass $`m(\mu )`$ one can avoid the renormalon problem, and indeed such an expansion shows an improved convergence Brambilla et al. (2001); Sumino (2002); Recksiegel and Sumino (2002a).

In this paper we show a more direct approach to the problem is possible via the Borel resummation of the perturbative potential. Since one might believe that the presence of an IR renormalon makes Borel resummation impossible, we state in advance that it is perfectly possible in this case. An IR renormalon in Borel resummation merely demands a corresponding nonperturbative effect, and since in this case it is a constant, the $`r`$ dependence of the potential can be resummed with no difficulty. Moreover, this renormalon caused nonperturbative effect could be computed in the framework introduced in Lee (2002) where the nonperturbative effect is determined based on its conjectured analyticity in the complex coupling plane. An obvious advantage of the direct resummation is that the normalization of the potential can be fixed. In the approaches based on the renormalon cancellation/absence the potential can be fixed only up to an $`r`$ independent constant.

As we shall see the Borel resummed potential at short distance converges quickly, and agrees remarkably well with the lattice calculation, in fact better than any other approach introduced so far. The implication of this is significant. In the perturbative calculation of a heavy quark system one does not have to give up the pole mass in favor of a short distance mass to avoid the renormalon problem, and still can have a tight control on the perturbative expansion.

Throughout the paper, unless stated otherwise, we consider pure QCD with no active quark flavors ($`N_f=0`$), and the perturbative expansions considered are assumed to be in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. As for the renormalon, we restrict our attention to the leading infrared renormalon that is closest to the origin in the Borel plane.

## II Bilocal expansion of the Borel transform

In general the perturbative expansion in weak coupling constant is an asymptotic expansion. When the large order behavior of the expansion is sign alternating like in $`\varphi ^4`$ theory it may be Borel resummed. However, when the expansion is of same sign at large orders Borel resummation demands a more careful treatment justin0 . In the case of the latter, one can first do Borel resummation at an unphysical negative coupling, at which the series is sign alternating, and then do analytic continuation in the complex coupling plane to the physical positive coupling. The Borel resummed amplitude obtained in such a way, however, turns out to have a cut along the positive real axis in the coupling plane, and consequently has an ambiguous imaginary part at a physical coupling. In Borel integration this imaginary part arises precisely from the infrared (IR) renormalon singularity of the Borel transform on the integration contour. This unphysical, ambiguous imaginary part then must be canceled by the nonperturbative effect corresponding to the renormalon. For further details we refer to Lee (2002).

Thus the static inter-quark potential V(r)111Because of its infrared sensitivity the static potential is dependent on the ultrasoft factorization scale beginning at NNNLO Brambilla et al. (1999); Pineda and Soto (2000), however, to the order we are concerned (NNLO) this can be ignored., which has an IR renormalon, can be written as the sum of the Borel integration with a contour on the upper (or lower) half plane and the nonperturbative effect Lee (2002),

$$V[r,\alpha _s(1/r)\pm iϵ]=\frac{1}{r\beta _0}_{0\pm iϵ}^{\mathrm{}\pm iϵ}e^{b/\beta _0\alpha _s(1/r)}\stackrel{~}{V}(b)𝑑b+V_{\mathrm{NP}}[r,\alpha _s(1/r)\pm iϵ]$$
(1)
where $`\beta _0`$ is the one loop coefficient of the QCD $`\beta `$ function,

$`\beta (\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _s}{d\mu ^2}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\alpha _s^2(\beta _0+\beta _1\alpha _s+\beta _2\alpha _s^2+\mathrm{}),`$
and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(b)`$ is the Borel transform that is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(b)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{V_n}{n!}\left(\frac{b}{\beta _0}\right)^n,$$
(3)
with $`V_n`$ defined in the perturbative expansion of the potential,

$$V(r,\alpha _s)=\frac{1}{r}\underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_n\alpha _s^{n+1}.$$
(4)
$`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ denotes the renormalon caused nonperturbative effect. Since the imaginary parts in the first term in Eq. (1) and in $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$, respectively, cancel, the potential can be written as

$$V[r,\alpha _s(1/r)]=\frac{1}{r\beta _0}\mathrm{Re}\left[_{0\pm iϵ}^{\mathrm{}\pm iϵ}e^{b/\beta _0\alpha _s(1/r)}\stackrel{~}{V}(b)𝑑b\right]+\mathrm{Re}\left\{V_{\mathrm{NP}}[r,\alpha _s(1/r)\pm iϵ]\right\}.$$
(5)
Since $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ is an $`r`$ independent constant proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ we can ignore it as far as the $`r`$ dependence of the potential is concerned. However, a discussion on its determination will be given later on.

The cancellation of the imaginary parts in the integral term and $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ in Eq. (1) determines the renormalon singularity in the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{V}(b)`$. By comparing the functional form of

$`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\alpha _s(1/r)^\nu e^{1/2\beta _0\alpha _s(1/r)}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta _2\beta _0\beta _1^2)/\beta _0^3\alpha _s(1/r)+\mathrm{}\right]`$
with the imaginary part of the Borel integration term in (1), one can see $`\stackrel{~}{V}(b)`$ must have the singularity

$`\stackrel{~}{V}(b)={\displaystyle \frac{c_V}{(12b)^{1+\nu }}}\left[1+c_1(12b)+c_2(12b)^2+\mathrm{}\right]+\text{ Analytic part},`$ (7)
where the “Analytic part” denotes terms analytic around $`b=1/2`$. The constants $`\nu `$ and $`c_i`$, which depend only on the coefficients of the $`\beta `$ function, were first determined in Beneke (1995), and can be computed up to $`c_2`$ from the known four loop $`\beta `$ function van Ritbergen et al. (1997):

$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2\beta _0^2}},c_1={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2\beta _0\beta _2}{4\nu \beta _0^4}},`$
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^4+4\beta _0^3\beta _1\beta _22\beta _0\beta _1^2\beta _2+\beta _0^2(\beta _2^22\beta _1^3)2\beta _3\beta _0^4}{32\nu (\nu 1)\beta _0^8}}.`$ (8)
The residue $`c_V`$ becomes the normalization constant of the large order behavior of the expansion (4), and its exact value is not known, but it can be determined perturbatively using the method developed in Lee (1997, 1999). Once $`c_V`$ is known, we can combine the two expansions of the Borel transform (3) and (7) at $`b=0`$ and at $`b=1/2`$, respectively, to obtain an improved description of the Borel transform in the region between the origin and the renormalon location at $`b=1/2`$. There are in principle an infinite number of ways to interpolate the two expansions, but here we shall take a simple one which turns out to suffice our purpose very well. We write the Borel transform as a two point expansion, which we call a bilocal expansion 222 This was first introduced in Cvetic and Lee (2001) in a slightly different context.:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}(b)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N,M\mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{N},\mathrm{M}}(b)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\underset{N,M\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_n}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{\beta _0}}\right)^n+{\displaystyle \frac{c_V}{(12b)^{1+\nu }}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}c_i(12b)^i\right]\right\}.`$
By demanding that this bilocal expansion reproduce the expansion (3) around the origin the coefficients $`h_n`$ can be determined in terms of $`V_n`$ and $`c_i`$. This gives, for example, the first three coefficients as

$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`V_0c_V(1+c_1+c_2),`$
$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`V_12c_V\beta _0[1c_2+\nu (1+c_1+c_2)],`$
$`h_2`$ $`=`$ $`V_24c_V\beta _0^2[2+\nu (3+c_1c_2)+\nu ^2(1+c_1+c_2)].`$ (10)
For the bilocal expansion to work it is essential to have the residue $`c_V`$ calculated in a good accuracy, which is the subject of the next section.

## III Renormalon residue

The residue can be determined in perturbation using the method developed in Lee (1997, 1999). It was shown in Pineda (2001a, b, 2002) that the residue in the case of the static potential can be calculated quite accurately. For completeness, we repeat the calculation here, and in the meantime obtain an improved estimate.

To compute $`c_V`$ we first consider the function

$$R(b)(12b)^{1+\nu }\stackrel{~}{V}(b).$$
(11)
Then,

$$c_V=R(\frac{1}{2}).$$
(12)
$`R(b)`$ has a cut, but is bounded, at $`b=1/2`$, and thus we can write $`c_V`$ as a convergent series,

$$c_V=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r_n\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^n,$$
(13)
where $`r_n`$ are the coefficients of the power expansion of $`R(b)`$ at the origin. The first three $`r_n`$ can be calculated from the known $`V_n`$ up to next-next-leading order (NNLO) Fischler (1977); Peter (1997); Schroder (1999), and this gives

$$c_V1.33333+0.499430.33844=1.17234.$$
(14)
The convergence is not that rapid but the series is oscillating. An important observation made in Pineda (2001a) is that the reliability of this estimate can be checked by the mutual cancellation of the renormalons in the static potential and the pole mass.

In perturbation theory the heavy quark pole mass $`m_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ can be expanded as

$$m_{\mathrm{pole}}[\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})]=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\left[1+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})^{n+1}\right],$$
(15)
where $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ \[$`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})`$\] denotes the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass. As in the case of the static potential the Borel resummed pole mass can be written as

$`m_{\mathrm{pole}}[\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})\pm iϵ]=`$ $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _{0\pm iϵ}^{\mathrm{}\pm iϵ}}e^{b/\beta _0\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{pole}}(b)𝑑b\right]`$ (16)
$`+m_{\mathrm{NP}}[\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})\pm iϵ],`$
where the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{pole}}(b)`$ has the perturbative expansion

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{pole}}(b)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{p_n}{n!}\left(\frac{b}{\beta _0}\right)^n,$$
(17)
and $`m_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ denotes the renormalon induced nonperturbative effect. The renormalon ambiguity in the pole mass proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ gives rise to a renormalon singularity that has exactly the same form as Eq. (7) of the static potential,

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{pole}}(b)={\displaystyle \frac{c_m}{(12b)^{1+\nu }}}\left[1+c_1(12b)+c_2(12b)^2+\mathrm{}\right]+\text{ Analytic part}.`$ (18)
Now the cancellation of the renormalons in $`2m_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ and $`V(r)`$ Hoang et al. (1999); Beneke (1998) leads to

$$c_V+2c_m=0.$$
(19)
We shall now compute the residue $`c_m`$ following the computation of $`c_V`$. Using the known coefficients up to NNLO Gray et al. (1990); Melnikov and Ritbergen (2000); Chetyrkin and Steinhauser (2000) of the expansion (15) we have

$$c_m0.42441+0.17473+0.02289=0.62203$$
(20)
This time the convergence is quite good. With the two computed values we now have

$$\frac{c_V+2c_m}{c_V2c_m}=0.02968,$$
(21)
which shows a remarkable cancellation of the two residues. This gives an assurance on the accuracy of the calculated residues.

We shall now compute $`c_m`$ in a slightly different way. As has been shown in solvable models Lee (2002), the knowledge on the renormalon locations in the Borel plane can be used in improving the residue calculation. Since we are interested in the power expansion of $`R(b)`$ around the origin, we can obtain in principle a better convergence by expanding it in a new complex plane in which it is smoother around the origin Cvetic and Lee (2001). This can be done by pushing the renormalon singularities save the first one away from the origin with a conformal mapping. Let us consider the mapping Cvetic and Lee (2001); Jeong and Lee (2002)

$$w=\frac{\sqrt{1+b}\sqrt{12b/3}}{\sqrt{1+b}+\sqrt{12b/3}},$$
(22)
which maps the first renormalon at $`b=1/2`$ to $`w=w_0`$, where

$$w_0=\frac{1}{5},$$
(23)
and all other renormalons (at $`b=n`$ and $`b=1/2+n`$ where $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$) onto the unit circle.

Expanding $`R[b(w)]`$ at the origin to $`O(w^2)`$ and evaluating it at $`w=w_0`$ we have a new estimate of $`c_m`$

$$c_m0.42441+0.16774+0.03451=0.62667,$$
(24)
which is quite close to the previous one (20). This stability is reassuring that our computation is accurate.

Now we shall quantitatively estimate the error in the computed residue (24). We do this by computing $`c_m`$ using an estimated NNNLO coefficient of the expansion (15). We first estimate the unknown NNNLO coefficient $`p_3`$ following the method developed in Jeong and Lee (2002). First, expand $`R[b(w)]`$ to $`O(w^3)`$ with $`p_3`$ included. This gives

$$R[b(w)]=0.42441+0.83872w+0.86284w^2+(129.2687+3.43505p_3)w^3.$$
(25)
Note that the $`p_3`$-independent constant term in the coefficient of $`w^3`$ is much larger than the coefficients of the lower orders. It turns out this is a generic feature of an asymptotic expansion with rapidly growing coefficients, and it can be used in estimating higher order unknown coefficients. From the pattern of the known lower order terms it appears quite reasonable to assume that the fourth coefficient is bounded by

$$|129.26873.43505p_3|<2.$$
(26)
This gives an estimate on $`p_3`$

$$p_3=37.6322\pm 0.58223.$$
(27)
With this result we can repeat the computation of $`c_m`$ in $`w`$ plane, now at NNNLO, to obtain

$$c_m=0.62667\pm 0.02553.$$
(28)
We thus conclude the error in the computed residue (24) is about 4%.

For the numerical analysis in Sec. V we use the exact relation (19) and the pole mass residue (24) to compute $`c_V`$. Since the convergence in the calculation of the pole mass residue is better than that of the potential, we would have a more accurate value this way. We thus have

$$c_V=1.25334\pm 0.05106.$$
(29)
## IV Determination of the nonperturbative effect

In this section we give an evaluation of the renormalon caused nonperturbative effect $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ using the method developed in Lee (2002). As mentioned in Sec. II the role of $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ in Borel resummation is to cancel the imaginary part arising from the renormalon singularity in the Borel integration of the static potential. This means that in principle the imaginary part of $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ is calculable from perturbation theory. However, the real part, which is the physical quantity, cannot be directly calculated perturbatively without a further input.

The method for computing the real part relies on the analyticity of $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ in the complex $`\alpha _s`$ plane. As mentioned, the potential obtained by Borel resumming the asymptotic expansion has a cut along the positive real axis in the $`\alpha _s`$ plane, and from this cut the imaginary part of the perturbative term, the integral term in Eq. (1), arises. To cancel this imaginary part it is thus plausible to demand that $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}(r,\alpha _s)`$ also have a cut only along the positive real axis in the coupling plane. This then relates the real part to the perturbatively calculable imaginary part (we refer to Lee (2002) for details). For convenience, we shall call this method of determining the nonperturbative effect (along with the Borel integration of the perturbation series) ‘analytic Borel resummation (ABR)’. Some nonperturbative effects in solvable models were shown to be calculable in ABR Lee (2002).

For ABR to work it is essential to have the functional form of the nonperturbative effect beforehand. In the case of the static potential it is provided by the renormalization group equation. Since $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme should be a constant proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$, where

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}[\beta _0\alpha _s(1/r)]^\nu e^{1/2\beta _0\alpha _s(1/r)}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\alpha _s(1/r)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta (x)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _0x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2x}}\right]𝑑x\right\},`$ (30)
we can write, by demanding $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ have a cut only along the positive real axis,

$`V_{\mathrm{NP}}[r,\alpha _s(1/r)]=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{r}}[\alpha _s(1/r)]^\nu e^{1/2\beta _0\alpha _s(1/r)}`$ (31)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\alpha _s(1/r)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta (x)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _0\alpha _s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2x}}\right]𝑑x\right\},`$
with $`C`$ an undetermined real constant. Note that a cut can arise only from the prefactor in Eq. (30) with a noninteger $`\nu `$. Now the cancellation of the imaginary part in $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}[r,\alpha _s(1/r)\pm iϵ]`$ with the corresponding imaginary part in the Borel integration term in Eq. (1) fixes the constant $`C`$:

$$C=\frac{c_V\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{(2\beta _0)^{1+\nu }}.$$
(32)
The real part of $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ is then given by

$`\mathrm{Re}\left[V_{\mathrm{NP}}(\alpha _s\pm iϵ)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{c_V\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{2^{1+\nu }\beta _0}}\mathrm{cos}(\nu \pi )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}.`$ (33)
With the calculated residue $`c_V`$ in Eq. (29), we find at $`N_f=0`$

$$\mathrm{Re}\left[V_{\mathrm{NP}}(\alpha _s\pm iϵ)\right]=0.477\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}.$$
(34)
In the numerical analysis in the next section we will combine this result with the Borel integration of the perturbative expansions.

## V Comparison with lattice calculation

The static potential in lattice calculation is extracted from the Wilson line of a static quark-antiquark pair, computed in Monte Carlo simulation. The recent calculations Necco and Sommer (2002); Bali et al. (1997); Schilling and Bali (1993); Bali and Schilling (1993) employing large lattices up to $`64^4`$ achieved a remarkable accuracy, and can probe a short distance where perturbative QCD should be applicable. It is thus an ideal place where perturbative QCD can be compared with lattice calculations.

As we mentioned in Introduction, the truncated power series of the perturbative expansion fails even at very short distance. We shall now see this problem can be cured by Borel resummation.

The numerical integration of the Borel integral in Eq. (5) can be done easily in $`w`$ plane defined by the mapping (22). Using the Cauchy’s theorem, the integration contour, for example, on the upper half plane in $`w`$ plane can be deformed to a ray off the origin to the unit circle in the first quadrant. This trick allows to avoid the renormalon singularity on the integration contour, and makes the computation easy. For details we refer to Cvetic and Lee (2001).

For comparison with lattice calculation we take the accurate data of the recent computation employing large lattices Necco and Sommer (2002). All the dimensional quantities are in units of the Sommer scale $`r_0`$ $`(0.5\mathrm{fm})`$ Sommer (1994), where $`r_0`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ ($`238`$ MeV) is determined in lattice computation Capitani et al. (1999) to be

$$r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=0.602(48).$$
(35)
On the side of the perturbative potential, the Borel integration in Eq. (5) was done using the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{0,2},\stackrel{~}{V}_{1,2},`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{2,2}`$ in the bilocal expansion (9). The coupling constant $`\alpha _s(1/r)`$ was computed by numerically solving Eq. (30) employing the four loop $`\beta `$ function van Ritbergen et al. (1997). Because of the divergent quark self energy the lattice potential is determined only up to an $`r`$ independent constant, so we subtracted such a constant from the lattice data so that the lattice potential and the NNLO perturbative potential agree exactly at $`r/r_0=0.30798`$.

The result is in Fig. 2. Notice the rapid convergence of the resummed potential at distances $`r0.6r_0`$ $`[(660`$MeV)$`{}_{}{}^{1}]`$, and the excellent agreement of the NNLO potential with the lattice data. The potential at leading order already fits the lattice values quite well. It is remarkable that perturbative QCD is applicable at distances as large as $`r=(660\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^1`$.

## VI Discussion and Summary

The first thing we can learn form our result is that in the static potential the leading renormalon is overwhelmingly dominant at short distances and there cannot be any significant nonperturbative effect other than that caused by the renormalon. As already observed in Necco and Sommer (2001); Pineda (2002), large linear potentials at short distances like those proposed in Bali (1999); Gubarev et al. (1999); Simonov (1999) are excluded.

The rapid convergence of the perturbative potential in ABR allows one to use the pole mass in perturbative calculation of heavy quarkonium physics. Because of the bad convergence of the truncated power series of the static potential, there was a limit in the precision achievable with perturbative QCD in quarkonium physics Jezabek et al. (1998a, b). But, it was soon realized that the cancellation of renormalons in the pole mass and the static potential can be used to alleviate the problem Hoang et al. (1999); Beneke (1998). Instead of using the pole mass directly, one can achieve an improved convergence by simultaneously expanding the pole mass and static potential in the heavy quark Hamiltonian in terms of the running coupling $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ and a short distance mass like the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass Sumino (2002); Recksiegel and Sumino (2002a). Although this approach avoids the renormalon problem, there could be large logs in the perturbative expansion which could in principle spoil the convergence. Since the expansion involves two far-separated scales, the heavy quark mass and $`1/r`$ ($`mv`$, where $`v`$ is the heavy quark velocity) large logs like $`\mathrm{ln}(r\mu )`$ and/or $`\mathrm{ln}(m/\mu )`$ could survive for any choice of $`\mu `$, which in practice is typically taken values in-between the two scales. With our resummation of the static potential, the convergence problem at short distance is solved, so the pole mass needs not be abandoned in favor of a short distance mass. Once the pole mass is extracted by comparing, say, a calculated quarkonium spectrum to an experimental value, the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass can be obtained from the pole mass by resumming the quark mass expansion (15) in ABR. Since the renormalon in the pole mass is essentially same as that in the static potential, we can expect a rapid convergence of the Borel resummation of the mass expansion, and we have checked that this is indeed the case. As an example, for the bottom quark ($`N_f=4`$) with $`\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})=0.22`$ the ‘Borel resummed (BR)’ mass $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}`$, which is defined as the real part of the integral term in Eq. (16), converges as

$$m_{\mathrm{BR}}=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(1+0.15769+0.004090.00028).$$
(36)
Notice the rapid convergence. The renormalon caused nonperturbative effect $`m_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ in Eq. (16) can be determined in ABR, and its real part equals to $`\mathrm{Re}[V_{\mathrm{NP}}]/2`$ that is given in Eq. (33). An obvious advantage of the direct resummation of the renormalons is the separation of scales; The perturbative expansions for the pole mass and the static potential are resummed at their optimal scales $`\mu =m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ and $`\mu =1/r`$, respectively, and there is no mixing of these scales as in the above implementation of renormalon cancellation using a short distance mass. The absence of large logs and the excellent convergence of the resummed mass and potential are expected to provide a new level of precision calculation for heavy quarkonium.

It is worthwhile to mention that the nonperturbative effects $`V_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ may actually decouple completely from the quarkonium system. The renormalon cancellation between the pole mass and the static potential means that the ambiguous imaginary parts in these quantities cancel without the introduction of the nonperturbative effects. This implies that the nonperturbative effects are actually spurious, appearing only at an intermediate step in Borel resummation, and physical observables are completely independent of them. Specifically, we may write the Hamiltonian of a heavy quarkonium system as

$$H=2m_{\mathrm{pole}}+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{m_{\mathrm{pole}}}+V[r,\alpha _s(1/r)].$$
(37)
Putting

$`m_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}[m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}},\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})]+\mathrm{Re}[m_{\mathrm{NP}}],`$
$`V[r,\alpha _s(1/r)]`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{BR}}[r,\alpha _s(1/r)]+\mathrm{Re}[V_{\mathrm{NP}}],`$ (38)
where the BR potential $`V_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ denotes the real part of the integral term in Eq. (1), and using the cancellation of $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}[m_{\mathrm{NP}}]`$ with $`\mathrm{Re}[V_{\mathrm{NP}}]`$ in ABR,333This cancellation is not automatic but a feature of ABR. we can write $`H`$ in terms of the BR quantities only:

$`H=2m_{\mathrm{BR}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{m_{\mathrm{BR}}}}+V_{\mathrm{BR}}[r,\alpha _s(1/r)]+O(\stackrel{}{p}^2\mathrm{Re}[m_{\mathrm{NP}}]/m_{\mathrm{BR}}^2).`$ (39)
The remaining dependence on the nonperturbative effect suppressed by an inverse power of the quark mass is expected to cancel when higher order terms in quark mass expansion of the Hamiltonian are taken into account. This shows that the Hamiltonian in BR scheme is formally same as that in the on-shell scheme with the on-shell quantities $`m_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ and $`V(r)`$ replaced by the corresponding BR quantities. Thus for physical observables the specific form of the nonperturbative effects are not necessary.

The perturbative potential and the lattice values in Fig. 2 begin to deviate at $`r0.6r_0`$, which we regard as the failure of the perturbative potential at these distances. It is interesting to observe that this deviation occurs approximately at the same position where the four loop $`\beta `$ function fails. The couplings $`\alpha _s(1/r)`$ obtained by running with the four loop $`\beta `$ function and its $`[2/3]`$ Padé approximant, which differs from the former only at orders higher than four loop, are plotted in Fig. 3. Notice that they begin to deviate approximately at the same distance where the perturbative potential begins to fail. At $`r=0.6r_0`$ \[$`\alpha _s(1/0.6r_0)=0.417`$\] the $`\beta `$ function has the expansion

$$\beta =0.152(1+0.308+0.143+0.097+\mathrm{})$$
(40)
which shows the convergence is quite slow at this distance. It seems the coupling grows too fast at these distances, since a more slowly growing coupling would fit the lattice data. This simultaneous deviations could be a coincidence, but a more plausible explanation would be that the failure of the $`\beta `$ function at these distances results in an unreliable coupling, which then causes the deviation. The $`\beta `$ function would not be all that fails the perturbative potential. Since there is a renormalon singularity at $`b=3/2`$ the bilocal expansion (9) at a finite order would certainly fail around $`b3/2`$. This does not cause any serious problem at small couplings, but as the coupling increases this becomes problematic because the Borel integral in Eq. (5) receives a sizable contribution from the region far from the origin. By varying the upper bound of the integration in Eq. (5) one can easily check that the resummed potential at $`r0.6r_0`$ is indeed sensitive on the Borel transform at $`b3/2`$. This argument suggests that the applicability of the Borel resummed perturbative potential could be extended to larger distances once we have a better control over the $`\beta `$ function and the Borel transform at such distances.

Lastly, we note that the convergence problem of the truncated power series in the perturbative potential is only one example, although a very conspicuous one, of the problem of the QCD expansions in general, especially, at low energies of a few GeVs. The problem was not so visible in these expansions, since many were considered at a fixed scale, not like the perturbative potential considered here where a continuum of scale is involved. Conventionally, in the OPE approach, in these low energy expansions the physical quantity is organized as the sum of a truncated power series and power corrections. Any difference between the truncated power series and the (unknown) true value is swept over to the power corrections. Clearly, this approach fails in the static potential because the potential of the OPE approach is just the truncated power series plus an $`r`$ independent constant, which we know has a bad convergence and disagrees with the lattice calculation. As already discussed more extensively in the Gross-Llewellyn Smith sum rule Contreras et al. (2002) the solution to the problem is the Borel resummation that properly accounts for the renormalon. Without Borel resummation the bad convergence in the truncated power series results in wide fluctuations in the power corrections as the order of perturbation varies, which is observed in many cases. See Yang and Bodek (1999); Geshkenbein et al. (2001) for some examples.

To summarize, we have shown that the Borel resummation with a proper account of the renormalon singularity in the Borel plane can resolve the convergence problem of the perturbative static potential and the pole mass, and the potential obtained in such a way is in an excellent agreement with the lattice calculation. Consequently, any significant nonperturbative effect at short distance other than the renormalon effect is excluded, and the pole mass can be used in perturbative calculation of heavy quarkonium physics. The advantages of the direct resummation of the renormalons include rapid convergence of the summations and absence of large logs, and these can open a new level of precision calculation for heavy quarkonium. We also calculated in the framework of ABR the renormalon caused nonperturbative effects in the static potential and the pole mass. The resummation method developed here may be applied to the computation of heavy quarkonium spectra in an approach similar to that employed in Recksiegel and Sumino (2002b), where the perturbative potential at short distance is combined with the phenomenological potential at large distance. Also it may be employed in the top threshold production.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is thankful to A. Pineda for many helpful communications and also to G. Bali for a correspondence. This work was supported in part by BK21 Core Project.