text:
# Zero modes, beta functions and IR/UV interplay in higher-loop QED

## I Introduction

In quantum field theory there is a close connection between the short-distance behavior of renormalized Green’s functions and the strong-field limit of associated quantities calculated using the background field method. This phenomenon can be interpreted as an IR/UV connection in the sense that the ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) divergences are correlated. This correspondence leads, for example, to a direct relation between the perturbative $`\beta `$ function and the strong-field asymptotics of the effective Lagrangian. Ritus derived this relation in the context of QED using the renormalization group, with the assumption that the strong-field limit of the renormalized effective Lagrangian is mass-independent ritus1 ; ritus2 ; ritus3 . Another, equivalent, derivation which invokes the scale anomaly crewther ; anomaly ; nielsen  in a massless limit, has been given in various forms by many authors matinian ; pagels ; leutwyler ; minkowski ; elizalde ; fujikawa ; hansson ; giesbook . Also, other approaches have been developed for extracting the $`\beta `$ function from the effective Lagrangian, using either the operator product expansion shifman  or the worldline formalism ss . These issues have most often been investigated for magnetic or chromo-magnetic background fields, or for self-dual backgrounds (such as instantons) at one loop. Here, in this paper, we re-examine these issues at the two loop level for self-dual background fields. A self-dual background is special because it gives rise to zero modes in a spinor theory schwarz . Also, for a self-dual background it is not possible to distinguish between the bare Lagrangian, $`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$, and the other Lorentz invariant combination, $`F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$, which characterizes the zero-mode contributions, so it is necessary to identify and separate the zero mode contributions before taking the strong-field limit. Our analysis concentrates on QED, and is motivated in part by the recent results that the two-loop effective Lagrangian, in both spinor and scalar QED, for a constant self-dual background field has a remarkably simple closed form ds1 ; ds2 ; ds3 . However, since many of the simplifications we find are due to the self-duality of the background, rather than due to the precise form of the background, another motivation is to learn which features might be applied to higher-loop calculations in other self-dual systems, such as for example QCD with instanton backgrounds.

In Section II we review the IR/UV correspondence between the perturbative $`\beta `$ function and the strong-field limit of the effective Lagrangian. We show that a naive application of this correspondence fails for spinor QED with a self-dual background, at both one loop and two loop. In Section III we show how this apparent discrepancy is resolved at one loop by the separation of the zero mode contribution to the effective Lagrangian. In Section IV we show that at two loop the mechanism whereby the discrepancy is resolved is rather different, coming instead from a zero mode contribution to the mass renormalization. In this Section we also provide an independent derivation of the two loop effective Lagrangians for a constant self-dual background which were found previously ds1 ; ds2 ; ds3  using the worldline formalism. The final section contains our conclusions and an appendix describes the calculation of the finite part of the mass renormalization.

## II Strong-field limits and beta functions

### II.1 General Argument

We begin by recalling the general argument ritus1 ; ritus2 ; ritus3 ; matinian ; pagels ; leutwyler ; minkowski ; elizalde ; fujikawa ; hansson ; giesbook  relating the strong-field asymptotic behavior of the effective Lagrangian to the perturbative $`\beta `$ function. As we are interested here in QED, we present the argument for an abelian gauge theory, but it is more general. Consider an abelian gauge field coupled to spinor or scalar matter fields, which are either explicitly massless or which have a well-defined massless limit. Then the trace anomaly for the energy-momentum tensor states that crewther ; anomaly ; nielsen

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\overline{e})}{2\overline{e}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\overline{e}^2}}(F_{\mu \nu })^2,`$ (2.1)
where $`\overline{e}`$ is the running coupling, and $`\beta (\overline{e})`$ is the $`\beta `$ function, defined below in (2.5). The expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor can also be related to the effective Lagrangian for a constant background field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{eff}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\eta _{\mu \nu }}}.`$ (2.2)
These two relations, (2.1) and (2.2), determine the effective Lagrangian to be of the form

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\overline{e}^2(t)}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu },`$ (2.3)
where the ”renormalization group time”, $`t`$, is expressed in terms of the scale set by the field strength, serving as the renormalization scale parameter $`\mu ^2e|F|`$,

$`t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2|F^2|}{\mu _0^4}}\right),`$ (2.4)
and $`\mu _0`$ denotes a fixed reference scale at which, for example, the value of the coupling may be measured. Note that in this argument the field strength plays the role which is usually associated with a momentum transfer $`Q^2`$. This already suggests at a very basic level why the strong-field and short-distance limits are related.

The $`\beta `$ function is defined in terms of the running of the coupling as

$`\beta (\overline{e}(t))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{e}(t)}{dt}}.`$ (2.5)
To see how this solution (2.3) leads to an explicit connection between the strong-field asymptotics of $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and the perturbative $`\beta `$ function, note that (2.5) can also be expressed as

$`t={\displaystyle _e^{\overline{e}(t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{de^{}}{\beta (e^{})}},`$ (2.6)
where $`e\overline{e}(0)`$. Making a perturbative expansion of the $`\beta `$ function

$`\beta (e)=\beta _1e^3+\beta _2e^5+\mathrm{}`$ (2.7)
the relation (2.6) determines the running coupling, $`\overline{e}(t)`$, in terms of $`e`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{e}^2(t)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}2\beta _1t2\beta _2e^2t+O(e^4t^2).`$ (2.8)
Inserting this into (2.3), the strong-field asymptotics of the effective Lagrangian is, to two-loop order,

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(2\beta _1e^2+2\beta _2e^4+\mathrm{}\right)F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2|F^2|}{\mu _0^4}}\right),`$ (2.9)
where, as is conventional, we have subtracted the classical Lagrangian, $`\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$, from $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

In order to illustrate this correspondence explicitly, we recall that the QED $`\beta `$ functions, for spinor and scalar QED, to two-loop order, are

$`\beta _{\mathrm{spinor}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{12\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^5}{64\pi ^4}}+\mathrm{}`$ (2.10)
$`\beta _{\mathrm{scalar}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{48\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^5}{64\pi ^4}}+\mathrm{}`$ (2.11)
The $`\beta `$ function can also be expressed in terms of $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi )`$ instead of $`e`$ by a change of variables, $`\beta ^{(\alpha )}=\frac{d\alpha }{dt}=\frac{2e}{4\pi }\beta (e)|_{e=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }}`$, leading to the form

$`\beta _{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2}{3\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3}{2\pi ^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ (2.12)
$`\beta _{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{6\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3}{2\pi ^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ (2.13)
### II.2 Explicit example: constant magnetic field background

Equation (2.9) gives a direct correspondence between the perturbative $`\beta `$ function coefficients and the strong-field behavior of the effective Lagrangian. We now compare this with some explicit results where the effective Lagrangian is known. First, consider the Euler-Heisenberg effective Lagrangian for a constant background magnetic field, of strength $`B`$. At one loop, the on-shell renormalized effective Lagrangians, for spinor and scalar QED, are eh ; schwinger

$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(1)\mathrm{magnetic}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2B^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}e^{m^2s/(eB)}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\mathrm{tanh}(s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right],`$ (2.14)
$`_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(1)\mathrm{magnetic}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2B^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}e^{m^2s/(eB)}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\mathrm{sinh}(s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\right].`$ (2.15)
The leading strong-field asymptotics is determined by the IR behavior of the propertime integrand for $`s\mathrm{}`$; at the one-loop level this yields

$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(1)\mathrm{magnetic}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2B^2}{24\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2.16)
$`_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(1)\mathrm{magnetic}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2B^2}{96\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2.17)
Noting that $`\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}B^2`$, and comparing with the correspondence (2.9), we deduce that $`\beta _1^{\mathrm{spinor}}=\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}`$ and $`\beta _1^{\mathrm{scalar}}=\frac{1}{48\pi ^2}`$, in agreement with the one-loop $`\beta `$ function coefficients quoted in (2.10) and (2.11).

The two-loop renormalized effective Lagrangians for a constant background field were derived by Ritus for both spinor ritus1  and scalar ritus2  QED. While the actual expressions for the effective Lagrangians are complicated double parameter integrals, it is nevertheless possible to extract the two-loop leading strong-field asymptotics for the constant magnetic field case ritus3 :

$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(2)\mathrm{magnetic}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^4B^2}{128\pi ^4}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2.18)
$`_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(2)\mathrm{magnetic}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^4B^2}{128\pi ^4}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{eB}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2.19)
Once again, comparing with the correspondence (2.9), we deduce that $`\beta _2^{\mathrm{spinor}}=\beta _2^{\mathrm{scalar}}=\frac{1}{64\pi ^4}`$, in agreement with the two-loop $`\beta `$ function coefficients quoted in (2.10) and (2.11).

### II.3 Explicit example: constant self-dual background

Another interesting solvable case is when the constant background field is self-dual:

$`F_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }.`$ (2.20)
It is well-known that self-dual backgrounds have special properties which often lead to dramatic simplifications. This can be traced to the fact that a self-dual background has definite helicity and the Dirac operator in such a background has a quantum mechanical supersymmetry thooft ; dadda ; duff . Since a self-dual background has definite helicity, the effective Lagrangian for such a background can be used as a generating functional for amplitudes with all external lines having the same helicity. It is also well-known that many remarkable simplifications occur for such helicity amplitudes mahlon ; bardeen . Recently it has been found that analogous simplifications occur in the two-loop effective Lagrangian itself ds1 ; ds2 ; ds3 .

At one-loop, the on-shell renormalized effective Lagrangians for a constant self-dual background can be deduced from the results of Euler and Heisenberg eh  and Schwinger schwinger :

$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2f^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}e^{m^2s/(ef)}\left[\mathrm{coth}^2s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right],`$ (2.21)
$`_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2f^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}e^{m^2s/(ef)}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right].`$ (2.22)
Here, $`f`$ denotes the magnitude of the self-dual field strength,

$$\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }f^2.$$
(2.23)
Note that the one-loop renormalized effective Lagrangians in (2.21) and (2.22) satisfy $`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}=2_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}`$, which is a consequence of the supersymmetry of the self-dual background dadda ; duff .

At two-loop, the on-shell renormalized effective Lagrangians for a constant self-dual background can be expressed in closed-form ds1 ; ds2 ; ds3  in terms of the digamma function,

$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(2)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}=2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{(4\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}\left[3\xi ^2(\kappa )\xi ^{}(\kappa )\right],`$ (2.24)
$`_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(2)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}=\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{(4\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\xi ^2(\kappa )\xi ^{}(\kappa )\right].`$ (2.25)
Here the dimensionless parameter $`\kappa `$ is defined as

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2ef}},`$ (2.26)
and the function $`\xi (\kappa )`$ is

$`\xi (\kappa )=\kappa \left(\psi (\kappa )\mathrm{ln}\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\right).`$ (2.27)
Note that this function $`\xi (\kappa )`$ is essentially the digamma function, $`\psi (\kappa )=\frac{d}{d\kappa }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )`$, with the first two terms of its large $`\kappa `$ asymptotic expansion subtracted (see Eq (6.3.18) in abramowitz ). It is interesting to note also that the one-loop expressions (2.21) and (2.22) can be expressed ds1  simply in terms of the function $`^\kappa \xi `$.

From (2.26) it is clear that the strong-field limit corresponds to the small $`\kappa `$ limit. Thus, the strong-field behaviors can be deduced from the known series expansion of $`\psi (\kappa )`$ (see Eq (6.3.14) in abramowitz ). For scalar QED in a constant self-dual background, the one- and two-loop leading strong-field behaviors of the effective Lagrangians (2.22) and (2.25) are ds1

$`_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{48\pi ^2}}f^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ef}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2.28)
$`_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(2)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^4}{64\pi ^4}}f^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ef}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2.29)
Once again, comparing with (2.9), we see that the coefficients of this leading behavior agree with the scalar QED $`\beta `$ function coefficients at one- and two-loop in (2.11), as was noted already in ds1 .

On the other hand, for spinor QED in a constant self-dual background, the leading strong-field behaviors of the effective Lagrangians (2.21) and (2.24) are

$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{24\pi ^2}}f^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ef}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2.30)
$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(2)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^4}{32\pi ^4}}f^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ef}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2.31)
Comparing with (2.9), we see that the coefficients of these leading behaviors do not agree with the spinor QED $`\beta `$ function coefficients in (2.10), at either one-loop or two-loop. This apparent mis-match is the issue which will be resolved in the following sections of this paper. As already hinted in the Introduction, the key is that for the spinor case (but not the scalar case) there are zero modes in a self-dual background, and these zero modes must be separated first, before making the strong-field comparison.

## III One-loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian for a self-dual field

The results of (2.30) and (2.31) make it clear that the general argument given in Section II.1 needs to be modified in some way for the case of spinor QED with a self-dual background. This modification must take account of the presence of zero modes for spinor QED in a self-dual background. Furthermore, this must be done at any loop order. At one-loop it is well-known that the small mass limit is complicated by the existence of normalizable zero modes for the massless Dirac equation, and that the resolution is known to involve the separation of a logarithmic term proportional to the number of zero modes thooft ; schwarz ; ck ; carlitz . Here we are interested in the role of the zero modes at two loops. However, in order to proceed to the two-loop level in subsequent sections, we first briefly recap the evaluation and renormalization of the one-loop Euler-Heisenberg effective Lagrangian for a self-dual background. This will serve to explain the difference between scalar and spinor QED, in a self-dual background, with respect to the connection between the $`\beta `$ function coefficients and the strong-field behavior of the on-shell renormalized effective Lagrangian.

### III.1 One-loop scalar QED in a self-dual background

For scalar QED, the one-loop effective Lagrangian, $`^{(1)}`$, is defined as

$`{\displaystyle d^4x_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det\left(D^2+m^2\right),`$ (3.1)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative. This can also be expressed in terms of the scalar propagator, $`G=\frac{1}{D^2+m^2}`$, for scalar particles in the given background. For a self-dual background, the scalar propagator has a simple position space representation (up to an unimportant gauge dependent phase),

$`G(x,x^{})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{ef}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(eft)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[m^2t{\displaystyle \frac{ef}{4}}(xx^{})^2\mathrm{coth}(eft)\right].`$ (3.2)
The unrenormalized effective Lagrangian is therefore

$`_{\mathrm{scalar},\mathrm{unren}.}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{ef}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}e^{m^2t}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(eft)}}\right].`$ (3.3)
To obtain the renormalized one-loop effective Lagrangian, $`_R^{(1)}`$, we first subtract the (divergent) zero-field contribution, and then introduce an ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through a lower bound $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ on the proper-time $`t`$ integral. Furthermore, we introduce a (redundant) renormalization scale $`\mu `$ by writing

$`_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ef}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}e^{m^2t}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(eft)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(eft)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{48\pi ^2}}f^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\right]`$ (3.4)
$`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{scalar},\mathrm{R}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{12\pi }}f^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)+\gamma \right].`$
Here $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant, and we dropped terms of $`𝒪(m^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$. In the last line, we separated the renormalized one-loop Lagrangian, $`_R^{(1)}`$, from the counterterm. The latter can be combined with the unrenormalized classical action, corresponding to charge and field strength renormalization, so that $`\alpha =\alpha (\mu )=\frac{e^2(\mu )}{4\pi }`$ becomes the running coupling schwinger . For instance, implementing electron mass-shell renormalization conditions, $`\mu =m`$, so that $`\alpha (m)1/137`$, the $`\mathrm{ln}m^2/\mu ^2`$ term would drop out. However, since we are interested in the strong-field limit and its mass-(in-)dependence, let us keep the $`\mu `$ dependence.

For our purposes, it is important to observe that the strong-field limit of the effective Lagrangian \[see Eq. (2.28)\] comes from the $`\frac{1}{3}`$ term inside the square brackets in the first line of (3.4), while the one-loop $`\beta `$ function coefficient is determined by the $`\mu `$ dependence in the logarithmic term on the second line of (3.4), which is the charge renormalization counterterm. These terms have the same coefficient, which illustrates the connection (2.9) between the strong-field limit of the one-loop effective Lagrangian and the one-loop $`\beta `$ function. It also confirms the assumption ritus3  of mass-independence of the strong-field limit, since in the $`m0`$ limit we can write

$$_{\mathrm{scalar},\mathrm{R}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}\frac{\alpha }{12\pi }f^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ef}{m^2}\right)+\frac{\alpha }{12\pi }f^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)=\frac{\alpha }{12\pi }f^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ef}{\mu ^2}\right),$$
(3.5)
which guarantees that the limit $`m0`$ can be taken. This is important because the existence of a well-defined massless limit is a necessary prerequisite for the trace-anomaly argument described in Section IIA.

### III.2 One-loop spinor QED in a self-dual background

For spinor QED, the one-loop effective Lagrangian, $`^{(1)}`$, is defined as

$`{\displaystyle }d^4x_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(1)}=\mathrm{ln}det(D/+m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det(D/^2+m^2).`$ (3.6)
A self-dual background has definite helicity thooft ; schwarz ; dadda ; duff , which has the consequence that

$`D/^2P_L=D^2P_L,`$ (3.7)
where $`P_L=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5)`$ is the projector onto positive helicity states. It follows that the spinor propagator $`S`$ can be expressed in terms of the scalar propagator $`G`$ ck ; carlitz ; leeleepac ,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D/+m}}`$ (3.8)
$`=`$ $`(D/m)GP_LGD/P_R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}(1+D/GD/)P_R,`$
where $`P_R=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$. This can also be expressed in proper-time form as leeleepac

$`S={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dte^{m^2t}[(D/m)e^{D^2t}P_L+e^{D^2t}D/P_RmD/{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D^2}}e^{D^2t}D/P_RmP].`$ (3.9)
The last term in (3.9) involves the projector, $`P`$, onto the zero modes,

$`P=(1+D/G_0D/)P_R,`$ (3.10)
where $`G_0=lim_{m0}G`$ denotes the massless scalar propagator. After some straightforward Dirac traces, one finds that the one-loop spinor effective Lagrangian (3.6) can be expressed in terms of the scalar effective Lagrangian, up to a zero-mode projection contribution,

$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}e^{m^2t}\left\{\text{Tr}_x\left[4e^{D^2t}\right]+\text{Tr}_x\text{tr}_{\mathrm{Dirac}}P\right\},`$ (3.11)
where $`V`$ denotes the spacetime volume. The first term on the RHS of Eq. (3.11) is just $`2_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}`$, which is, as mentioned above, a direct reflection of the supersymmetry of the self-dual background at one-loop. The second term on the RHS of Eq. (3.11) counts the number (density) of zero modes

$`n_\text{F}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}\text{Tr}_x\text{tr}_{\mathrm{Dirac}}P`$ (3.12)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ef}{2\pi }}\right)^2.`$
Note that $`n_\text{F}`$ is just the square of the usual 2d Landau degeneracy factor, since the 4d self-dual system factorizes into two orthogonal 2d Landau systems leutwyler .

Thus, the one-loop spinor effective Lagrangian can be expressed in proper-time form as

$`_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(ef)^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}e^{m^2t}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(eft)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}+1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right]`$ (3.13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(ef)^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}e^{m^2t}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(eft)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{12\pi ^2}}f^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{spinor},\mathrm{R}}^{(1)\mathrm{self}\mathrm{dual}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi }}f^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)+\gamma \right].`$
On the first line of (3.13), the $`1`$ refers to the zero mode contribution, and $`\frac{2}{3}`$ is added and subtracted to achieve the charge renormalization. As in the scalar case (3.4), the strong-field limit is read off from the last term, $`\frac{1}{3}`$, inside the square brackets on the second line of (3.13), while the one-loop $`\beta `$ function coefficient is read off from the coefficient of the logarithmic terms, which are responsible for charge renormalization. In this spinor case, in contrast to the scalar case, the coefficients of these two terms are different. It is clear that the source of the difference is precisely the zero mode contribution. This explains the mis-match, at one-loop, between the strong-field asymptotics of the one-loop effective Lagrangian and the one-loop $`\beta `$ function coefficient in the spinor case with the self-dual background field. This mis-match, due to the zero mode contribution, also prevents the strong-field limit from becoming mass-independent \[as it was in the scalar case: see Eq. (3.5)\], and therefore violates the assumptions of the trace-anomaly argument given in Section IIA.

There is another useful perspective on this mis-match in the one-loop spinor self-dual case: note that the unrenormalized one-loop Lagrangian in the scalar case (3.3) is infrared (IR) finite even in the massless limit. However, the renormalized one-loop Lagrangian (3.4) has an IR divergence at the upper bound of the proper-time integral in the massless limit (which is actually cancelled by the $`\mathrm{ln}m^2/\mu ^2`$ term). It is precisely the charge renormalization subtraction removing the logarithmic UV divergence which introduces the IR divergence. And it is the IR divergence which dominates the strong-field limit. Hence, we observe an UV/IR connection in QED: the strong-field limit results from the IR behavior of the proper-time integral which receives contributions from the counter-terms controlling the UV behavior. This means that if the unrenormalized Lagrangian is IR finite (as it is in magnetic backgrounds for both scalar and spinor QED, and in the scalar self-dual case), the $`\beta `$ function and the strong-field limit coincide. The presence of zero modes, in the spinor self-dual case, obviously spoils this UV/IR connection, because it leads to an additional IR divergence of the unrenormalized Lagrangian.

## IV Two-loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian for a self-dual field

We now turn to a two-loop analysis of the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian for a self-dual field in both spinor and scalar QED. We concentrate again on the role of the zero modes. Interestingly, this role will turn out to be of a different nature than at one loop. The unrenormalized two-loop spinor Lagrangian can be written in coordinate space as

$$_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(2)}=\frac{e^2}{2}d^4x^{}𝒟(xx^{})\text{tr}_{\text{Dirac}}\left[\gamma _\mu x|S|x^{}\gamma _\mu x^{}|S|x\right],$$
(4.1)
where we have introduced the photon propagator $`𝒟(xx^{})=[4\pi ^2(xx^{})^2]^1`$ and work in the Feynman gauge for convenience. Furthermore, we have used bracket notation for the propagators, $`S(x,x^{})x|S|x^{}`$.

The influence of the zero-mode contribution can conveniently be studied with the aid of representation (3.8,3.9) of the spinor propagator $`S`$, which allows for a separation of the zero-mode contribution,

$$_{\mathrm{spinor},\mathrm{z}.\mathrm{m}.}^{(2)}=2e^2d^4x^{}𝒟(xx^{})_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\text{e}^{m^2t}x|\text{e}^{D^2t}|x^{}\text{tr}_{\text{Dirac}}x^{}|P|x.$$
(4.2)
Here the first matrix element corresponds to the proper-time integrand of the massless scalar propagator (3.2), and the second matrix element contains the projector $`P`$ onto the zero modes, defined in (3.10). For a constant self-dual background

$`x|e^{D^2t}|x^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(ef)^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(eft)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ef}{4}}(xx^{})^2\mathrm{coth}(eft)\right].`$ (4.3)
Thus, we can write

$$_{\mathrm{spinor},\mathrm{z}.\mathrm{m}.}^{(2)}=\frac{e^2}{32\pi ^4}(ef)_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{\mathrm{sinh}^2s}e^{m^2s/(ef)}d^4x^{}\frac{1}{(xx^{})^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ef}{4}(xx^{})^2\mathrm{coth}s\right]\text{tr}_{\text{Dirac}}x^{}|P|x.$$
(4.4)
In the strong-field limit, $`\frac{ef}{m^2}\mathrm{}`$, we observe that

$$\frac{1}{4\pi ^2(xx^{})^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ef}{4}(xx^{})^2\mathrm{coth}s\right]\frac{1}{ef\mathrm{coth}s}\delta (xx^{}).$$
(4.5)
Therefore, in the strong-field limit the zero mode contribution is

$$_{\mathrm{spinor},\mathrm{z}.\mathrm{m}.}^{(2)}\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}s}}{\mathrm{sinh}s\mathrm{cosh}s}n_\text{F}.$$
(4.6)
Our main observation here is that the zero-mode contribution (4.6) to the unrenormalized two-loop Lagrangian is IR finite even in the massless limit. This should be contrasted with the one-loop spinor case \[see Eqs. (3.11) and (3.12)\], where the zero-mode contribution is the source of the IR divergence. At two-loops, even though Eq. (4.6) has a UV divergence to be absorbed in charge renormalization, the corresponding subtraction contributes equally to the $`\beta `$ function and the strong-field limit by virtue of the UV/IR connection discussed at the end of Section III. Therefore, the zero-mode contribution identified in Eq. (4.6) is not the source of the difference between the $`\beta `$ function coefficients and the strong-field limit coefficients.

In order to pinpoint the actual source of the mis-match at the two-loop level, let us perform the calculation in a straightforward way, starting from Eq. (4.1) and using the relations (3.8) and (3.9) to trade the spinor propagators $`S`$ for a representation in terms of the scalar propagator $`G`$. (This derivation complements the two-loop derivations in ds1 ; ds2 , which were done using the world-line formalism.) After taking the Dirac trace, we arrive at a simple form in terms of matrix elements of $`G`$ ds2 :

$$_{\mathrm{spinor}}^{(2)}=\frac{e^2}{2}d^4x^{}𝒟(xx^{})\left[8x|D_\alpha G|x^{}x^{}|D_\alpha G|x+16x|G|x^{}x^{}|D_\alpha GD_\alpha |x+16x|x^{}x^{}|G|x\right].$$
(4.7)
The last term corresponds to a “tadpole” diagram in the scalar language, suggesting a quadratic divergence. However, this is only seemingly the case; in fact, there is a cancellation of the last term with a corresponding divergence in the second term. This can be seen from the identity

$$x|D_\alpha GD_\alpha |x^{}=x|x^{}+m^2x|G|x^{}+\frac{(ef)^2}{2}(xx^{})^2x|G|x^{},$$
(4.8)
which makes it clear that the “tadpole” terms cancel in spinor QED (as they should).

The scalar two-loop Lagrangian is also written in a form analogous to Eq. (4.7), but with different coefficients:

$$_{\mathrm{scalar}}^{(2)}=e^2d^4x^{}𝒟(xx^{})\left[x|D_\alpha G|x^{}x^{}|D_\alpha G|x+x|G|x^{}x^{}|D_\alpha GD_\alpha |x+4x|x^{}x^{}|G|x\right].$$
(4.9)
In this case, the “tadpole” terms no longer cancel, and a quadratic divergence remains. This is exactly as expected in the scalar case, since this quadratic divergence reflects the presence of a relevant operator, the scalar mass term, in scalar QED. In fact, as we shall confirm below, the complete tadpole term, including its divergence, can be absorbed into the mass renormalization.

Before we proceed with the evaluation of these expressions, let us comment that we derived Eqs.(4.7,4.9) without recourse to the explicit form of the background field. Only the self-duality of the background has been used, so that we expect the similarities between Eqs.(4.7) and (4.9) to hold also in a more general context.

### IV.1 Calculation of the two-loop Lagrangians

The representations (4.7) and (4.9) of the spinor and scalar two-loop Lagrangians can be constructed from two basic terms (we drop “tadpole” terms in the scalar case from now on, since they only modify the mass renormalization as discussed above):

$$^{(2)}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{(4\pi )^2}f^2\left(AI_1+BI_2\right),$$
(4.10)
where the numerical coefficients are $`A=4`$ and $`B=8`$ in the spinor case, and $`A=B=1`$ in the scalar case. The integrals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are

$`I_1`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^3}{\alpha f^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x^{}𝒟(xx^{})x|D_\alpha G|x^{}x^{}|D_\alpha G|x}`$ (4.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}y𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{coth}y}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left(\mathrm{coth}yu+\mathrm{coth}y(1u)\right)\right],`$
$`I_2`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^3}{\alpha f^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x^{}𝒟(xx^{})\left(x|G|x^{}x^{}|D_\alpha GD_\alpha |x+x|G|x^{}x|x^{}\right)}`$ (4.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}y𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{ef}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}y}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{(\mathrm{sinh}yu)(\mathrm{sinh}y(1u))}}\right],`$
where we have inserted the proper-time form of the scalar propagator (3.2), leading to a proper-time double integral. Furthermore, we have rescaled the proper-time parameter as $`s=eft`$, and then performed the substitutions $`y=s+s^{}`$, $`u=s^{}/(s+s^{})`$. Both integrals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are IR finite but UV divergent and require regularization. As at one loop, we introduce an UV proper-time cutoff for each proper-time integral which implies

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dy_{\frac{2ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}^{\mathrm{}}dy;_0^1du_{\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2y}}^{1\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2y}}du.$$
(4.13)
Now the $`u`$ integrations can be performed, and we arrive at representations for $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ which are similar:

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{2ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2y}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{ef}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(y\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{ef}{m^2}}\mathrm{coth}(y{\displaystyle \frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}})\right)\right\},`$ (4.14)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{2ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2y}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{ef}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(y\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}}\right]\right\}.`$ (4.15)
An important observation is that each term in these expressions for $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ can be naturally expressed in terms of the function $`\xi (\kappa )`$ which was defined in (2.26) and (2.27). This function $`\xi (\kappa )`$ has the following integral representation

$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\right)`$ (4.16)
Recalling that $`\kappa =m^2/(2ef)`$, it follows that

$`\xi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}y\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\right)`$ (4.17)
Thus, the first term in each of $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ can be expressed in terms of $`\xi ^{}`$:

$`{\displaystyle _{\frac{2ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{2ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}y\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle _{\frac{2ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}`$ (4.18)
$`=`$ $`\xi ^{}(\kappa )+\left(\gamma \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\right)`$
where we have dropped terms that vanish as the cutoff is removed (i.e., as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$).

Similarly, by considering the integral representation for $`\xi ^2(\kappa )`$ we find that the log terms in the expressions (4.14) and (4.15) for $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ can also be expressed in terms of $`\xi (\kappa )`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{ef}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{2ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(y\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2\xi ^2(\kappa )2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{ef}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right)+1\gamma \right]\xi (\kappa )`$ (4.19)
$`2\kappa ^2\left[\left(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right)+1\gamma \right)^2+1{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\mathrm{ln}2\right]`$
where once again we have dropped terms which vanish as the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is removed. Also notice that the last parenthesis term in (4.19) is proportional to $`\kappa ^2`$, and so when inserted into the two-loop effective Lagrangian in (4.10) this term gives a field-independent contribution to the effective Lagrangian. Thus, we neglect this term, since it cancels when we subtract the zero field effective Lagrangian.

The remaining term in $`I_1`$ can also be written in terms of $`\xi (\kappa )`$, as

$`{\displaystyle _{\frac{2ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\text{e}^{\frac{m^2}{ef}y}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{coth}\left(y\frac{ef}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(1+\mathrm{ln}2)+2\kappa \xi (\kappa )`$ (4.20)
$`+\kappa ^2\left[\left(32\gamma +2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right)\right)4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\mathrm{ln}2+\left(4\mathrm{ln}22\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{m^4}}\right]`$
up to terms vanishing as the cutoff is removed. Note that the final term in (4.20) is proportional to $`\kappa ^2`$, and so can be dropped as it leads to a field-independent contribution to the effective Lagrangian.

So, putting everything together, we see that the entire two-loop effective Lagrangian (4.10) can be written in terms of the function $`\xi (\kappa )`$:

$`^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{(4\pi )^2}}f^2\{2(A+B)\xi ^{}2(A+2B)\xi ^24\kappa \xi [(A+2B)(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right)\gamma )+({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A+2B)]`$ (4.21)
$`+[2(A+B)(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right)\gamma )+({\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}A+B)({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}A+2B)\mathrm{ln}2]\}`$
The last term on the RHS of (4.21) is proportional to the bare Maxwell Lagrangian $`f^2`$, and so corresponds to the charge renormalization counterterm. However, even after doing this charge renormalization there remains on the RHS of (4.21) a logarithmic UV divergence with a nontrivial field dependence $`\xi (\kappa )`$. This term can be seen to contribute to mass renormalization by noting that

$$4\kappa \xi =8\pi ^2\left[\left\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ 2\end{array}\right\}\frac{m^2}{(ef)^2}\frac{}{m^2}_{\left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{sp}\\ \text{sc}\end{array}\right\}}^{(1)\mathrm{ren}}\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right\}\right],$$
(4.22)
where we have used a combined notation for spinor (upper) and scalar (lower) QED. The important difference arises from the last term in Eq. (4.22): in the scalar case this term is zero, and the $`\xi `$ function is the only contribution required for a mass renormalization of the one-loop Lagrangian,

$$^{(1)}(ef,m_\text{R}^2)=^{(1)}(ef,m^2)+\frac{^{(1)}(ef,m^2)}{m^2}\delta m^2,$$
(4.23)
where $`m_\text{R}`$ denotes the renormalized mass, and $`\delta m^2`$ is the mass renormalization counterterm. However, in the spinor case, the $`\xi `$ function is not sufficient, but has to be supplemented by the last term of Eq. (4.22) which accounts for the zero-mode contribution in $`_{\text{spinor}}^{(1)}`$.

Inserting the mass renormalization representation (4.22) for $`\kappa \xi `$ into (4.21), we find that the unrenormalized two-loop Lagrangian can finally be written as

$`_{\{\begin{array}{c}\text{sp}\\ \text{sc}\end{array}\}}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{(4\pi )^2}}f^2\left[2(A+B)\xi ^{}2(A+2B)\xi ^2\right]`$ (4.31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8\pi }}\left\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ 2\end{array}\right\}\left[(A+2B)\left(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right)\gamma \right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3A}{2}}+2B\right)\right]m^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{m^2}}_{\left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{sp}\\ \text{sc}\end{array}\right\}}^{(1)\mathrm{ren}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{(4\pi )^2}}f^2\left[\left\{\begin{array}{c}A\\ 2(A+B)\end{array}\right\}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right)\gamma \right)+\left\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{2A}{3}B\\ \frac{5A}{6}+B\end{array}\right\}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5A}{3}}+2B\right)\mathrm{ln}2\right]`$ (4.36)
This is our final result for the bare regularized two-loop Lagrangian, written in a transparent way such that renormalization is almost self-evident. The renormalized two-loop Lagrangian corresponds to the first term in (4.36); inserting $`A=4`$ and $`B=8`$ in the spinor case, and $`A=B=1`$ in the scalar case, we rediscover the results of ds1 ; ds2 ; ds3  quoted in Eqs. (2.24,2.25). Note that the results of ds1 ; ds2 ; ds3  were derived using the world-line representation of the effective Lagrangian, so the result (4.36) provides an independent confirmation.

The second term in (4.36) represents the mass renormalization counter-term that has to be added to the one-loop Lagrangian in the spirit of Eq. (4.23). Here we can also read off the one-loop mass shift (apart from “tadpole” contribution for the scalar case, as discussed above),

$$\delta m_{\left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{sp}\\ \text{sc}\end{array}\right\}}^2=\left\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1/2\end{array}\right\}\frac{3\alpha }{2\pi }\left[\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}\right)\gamma \right)+\left\{\begin{array}{c}5/6\\ 7/6\end{array}\right\}\right]m^2,$$
(4.37)
which agrees with independent one-loop computations using a proper-time cutoff schwinger ; tsai .

The last term in (4.36) correponds to the charge renormalization counterterm which has to be added to the Maxwell Lagrangian in order to renormalize the coupling and field strength (as in the one-loop case, we can trade the UV cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for an arbitrary renormalization scale $`\mu `$). Inserting the appropriate values for the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ we find

$`\delta _{\left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{sp}\\ \text{sc}\end{array}\right\}}^{(2)\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{ren}.}={\displaystyle \frac{e^4}{64\pi ^4}}f^2\left[\left(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}\right)\gamma \right)+\left\{\begin{array}{c}4/3\\ 11/24\end{array}\right\}+\left\{\begin{array}{c}7/3\\ 11/12\end{array}\right\}\mathrm{ln}2\right].`$ (4.44)
As expected, from these charge renormalization terms we can read off the correct two-loop $`\beta `$ function coefficients quoted in Eqs.(2.10,2.11).

The two-loop origin of the mis-match (in the spinor case with a self-dual background) between the $`\beta `$ function coefficient and the strong-field behavior becomes clear now: although the zero-mode contribution exerts no direct influence on the IR behavior of the unrenormalized Lagrangian (cf. Eq. (4.6)), the zero-mode contribution to the mass renormalization term in Eq. (4.22) introduces another UV divergence which, together with the overall UV divergence of the unrenormalized Lagrangian, leads to the correct $`\beta `$ function. Whereas the overall UV divergence contributes equally to the strong-field limit by the UV/IR connection, the zero-mode UV divergence from the mass renormalization does not affect the strong field limit. This is the subtle source of the mis-match in the spinor case at two-loop. We stress again that this is very different from the more familiar role of the zero-modes at one-loop, as described in Section IIIB.

## V Conclusions

We have analyzed the relation between the short-distance behavior and the strong-field limit of QED with electromagnetic backgrounds. On the one hand, the strong-field asymptotics of a renormalized QED effective Lagrangian is generally determined by its infrared behavior. Since, on the other hand, the terms which are relevant for the ultraviolet behavior affect also the infrared simply for dimensional reasons, quantum fluctuations induce an IR/UV interplay. In many instances, this mechanism leads to an exact IR/UV correspondence between the strong-field limit and the $`\beta `$ function. For instance in the case of magnetic backgrounds or scalar QED, the strong-field limit can be computed from the $`\beta `$ function and vice versa, as is also suggested by an argument involving the trace anomaly. The necessary condition for this exact IR/UV correspondence as well as the trace-anomaly argument is the mass independence of the strong-field limit or, phrased differently, the validity of the theory in the massless limit.

In the case of spinor QED in a self-dual background, an apparent discrepancy arises from a comparison of the strong-field behavior of the effective Lagrangian with the behavior predicted by the perturbative $`\beta `$ function and a naive application of the trace-anomaly argument. The key to the resolution is the appearance of zero modes for spinor QED in a self-dual background which invalidate a direct massless limit. This is well understood at one-loop, but we found that the role of the zero modes is rather different at two loop. Indeed, one way to understand our two loop results is that there is, in fact, only really a one-loop effect: at the two-loop level, the zero modes do not introduce a new IR divergence, but enter instead through the inevitable reappearance of the one-loop effective Lagrangian via mass renormalization.

One motivation for our work is to prepare for future studies of higher-loop calculations in QCD for quarks in a self-dual instanton background. A great deal is known about this at one-loop thooft ; carlitz ; leeleepac ; kwon , but not at the two loop level. Many features of our QED analysis generalize to the instanton case because it was primarily the self-duality of the background, rather than its spacetime independence, which was most important. However, one major difference is that in QED the internal photon propagator does not feel the background field, while for the corresponding QCD diagram the internal gluon propagator does couple to the background (instanton) field. Here it would be interesting to make connection with the QED and QCD analysis of the one-loop polarization operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(Q^2)`$ in a self-dual background, where the role of the zero modes has also been studied smilga ; finjord .

Finally, we conclude with a discussion of a renormalization group (RG) interpretation of our results, which gives another perspective to the IR/UV connection in the renormalization of spinor and scalar QED in these self-dual backgrounds. The discrepancy between the strong-field limit and the $`\beta `$ function coefficients can be viewed from a different perspective with the aid of a renormalization group (RG) equation for the effective Lagrangian. The RG equation can be derived from the statement that the renormalized Lagrangian is independent of the renormalization scale $`\mu `$,

$$\mu \frac{d}{d\mu }(eF,\alpha ,m;\mu )=0,$$
(5.1)
where all quantities are assumed to be renormalized. Equation (5.1) states that any shift in $`\mu `$ is compensated for by corresponding shifts of the renormalized parameters. Since the product $`eF`$ is RG invariant, it acts only as a spectator in the following considerations and can be omitted from now on. Introducing the anomalous mass dimension

$$\gamma _m=\frac{\mu }{m}\frac{m}{\mu },$$
(5.2)
the RG equation can be written as

$$\left(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\beta ^{(\alpha )}\frac{}{\alpha }\gamma _mm\frac{}{m}\right)(\alpha ,m;\mu )=0.$$
(5.3)
If the strong-field limit was mass-independent, we could drop the term $`\gamma _m`$ in Eq. (5.3) and read off the $`\beta `$ function from this limit. In the self-dual spinor case, however, the mass-dependence induced by the zero modes forces us to keep this term even in the strong-field limit where $``$ at one-loop is given by

$$=\frac{(ef)^2}{4\pi \alpha }\frac{(ef)^2}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{ef}{m^2}+\frac{(ef)^2}{12\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2},\text{for}\frac{ef}{m^2}\mathrm{}.$$
(5.4)
The first term is simply the renormalized Maxwell term. Inserting Eq. (5.4) into Eq. (5.3) leads us to

$$\beta _m^{(\alpha )}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }+\gamma _m\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }+\mathrm{},$$
(5.5)
where the dots represent higher-loop contributions. Here we appended the subscript $`m`$ to the $`\beta `$ function in order to indicate the mass dependence. Since $`\gamma _m`$ is of order $`\alpha `$, namely

$$\gamma _m=\frac{\mu }{m}\frac{m}{\mu }=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mu }{m^2}\frac{\delta m^2}{\mu }=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\alpha }{\pi }+\mathrm{},$$
(5.6)
as can be read off from Eq. (4.37) by trading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`\mu `$, the mass dependence induces contributions to the $`\beta _m`$ function at the two-loop level and higher. Adding the standard two-loop coefficient as obtained within a mass-independent scheme, we find

$$\beta _m^{(\alpha )}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha ^3}{\pi ^2}\frac{3}{2}\frac{\alpha ^3}{\pi ^2}+𝒪(\alpha ^4)=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }\frac{\alpha ^3}{\pi ^2}+𝒪(\alpha ^4),$$
(5.7)
so that the two-loop coefficient in the nomenclature used in Sect. II reads $`\beta _{m,2}=1/(32\pi ^4)`$. This coefficient matches perfectly with the two-loop strong-field limit of the self-dual spinor case given in Eq. (2.31).

We can interpret the coincidence in the following way: there is, in fact, a correspondence between the strong-field limit and the $`\beta `$ function in the self-dual spinor case at two-loop; but this correspondence applies only to the $`\beta `$ function $`\beta _m`$ of an implicitly electron-mass-dependent regularization scheme. (Note that the standard argument Gross:vu  of scheme-independence of the two-loop coefficient holds for mass-independent schemes only.) This mass-dependent scheme is natural in the self-dual spinor case because of the presence of the zero modes which inhibit a direct massless limit.

This analysis can be performed at any loop order. In those cases where the strong-field limit is mass-independent such as a magnetic background, this analysis connects the $`\beta `$ function with the strong-field limit coefficients and is well understood ritus1 ; ritus2 ; ritus3 ; ditreu . In the present case, however, such an analysis connects the mass-dependent $`\beta `$ function, the anomalous mass dimension and the strong-field limit with each other. For instance, if the strong-field limit at $`n`$-loop order and the anomalous dimension at ($`n`$-1)-loop order are known, we can extract the $`n`$-loop mass-dependent $`\beta _m`$ function and also the mass-independent $`\beta `$ function by virtue of the $`n`$-loop analogue of Eq. (5.5). Aiming at an $`n`$-loop computation of the $`\beta `$ function, this is the same amount of information required as for a magnetic background, but the computation for a self-dual background will be much simpler.

As a further remark, let us point out that we have discussed possible massless limits of QED always as continuous limits of massive theories in this work. In this sense, a massless limit of the self-dual spinor case does not exist because of the zero modes. This does not imply that a massless formulation of the self-dual spinor case does not exist at all. On the contrary, it is well possible that a massless formulation exists but requires a different treatment similar to the case of massless gluonic fluctuations in a self-dual Yang-Mills background leutwyler ; thooft . For this, the integration over the fermions has to be decomposed into zero-mode and non-zero-mode fluctuations. The non-zero modes have to be integrated out first in a background consisting of the constant self-dual field plus zero-mode fluctuations. We expect that the non-zero-mode integration “dresses” the zero modes in such a way that they acquire a mass. Contrary to the gluonic case, this mechanism requires a two-loop calculation, so that an effective four-fermion coupling between the zero and nonzero modes can be generated by photon exchange. In a self-dual background, the non-zero modes will form a condensate which then gives a mass to the zero modes because of this four-fermion interaction. A strong evidence for this scenario is given by our observation that the zero modes do not induce an IR divergence at the two-loop level. Once the zero modes are lifted by this effective mass, they can finally be integrated out. Since there is no further scale in this formulation, the standard relation between the strong-field limit and the beta function can be expected to hold for this theory once the zero modes are integrated out. This explains also why the massless limit of the massive case cannot be continuous because the strong-field limit coefficient changes discontinuously in this limit.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank V. I. Ritus for discussions. GD acknowledges the US Department of Energy for support through grant DE-FG02-92ER40716. GD and CS thank NSF and CONACyT for a US-Mexico collaborative research grant NSF-INT-0122615. HG thanks the University of Connecticut Research Foundation for support during a visit to UConn and acknowledges the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for support through grant Gi 328/1-1.

## VI Appendix

In this appendix we comment on the finite part of the mass renormalization in (4.37). This finite part is not relevant for the main discussion of this paper, as it does not affect either the $`\beta `$ function or the strong-field limit. However, it is crucial for the derivation of the finite renormalized two-loop effective Lagrangians (2.24) and (2.25) for spinor and scalar QED, respectively, in a constant self-dual background. These two-loop results were first derived in ds1 ; ds2  using the worldline formalism, and here we have given an independent derivation in Section IV of this current paper using a conventional field theory diagrammatic approach.

In order to fix the finite part of the mass renormalization mass shift, one approach is to compare (4.37) with an independent calculation of the UV properties of the mass operator schwinger ; tsai , done in the same regularization scheme. For a constant magnetic background, this scheme dependence of the finite mass shift has been studied at two-loop in frss . Another approach, implicit in ritus1 ; ritus2 ; ritus3 ; lebedev , is to demand that the leading growth rate of the coefficients of the weak-field expansion of the two-loop renormalized effective Lagrangian coincides (up to a factor of $`\alpha \pi `$) with the leading growth rate of the coefficients of the weak-field expansion of the one-loop renormalized effective Lagrangian. This ensures that the leading imaginary part of the $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, when the field is analytically continued to an unstable regime, involves the same physical electron mass at two-loop as at one-loop. This is because the leading imaginary parts go like $`\mathrm{exp}[m^2\pi /(e|f|)]`$, and these nonperturbative factors are related to the leading divergence rate of the perturbative coefficients of the (divergent) weak-field expansion in the standard way . Therefore, any mis-match between the leading growth rates at one-loop and two-loop corresponds to a shifted value of $`m^2`$, and vice versa. This gives an interesting “nonperturbative” definition of the renormalized mass, which is completely compatible with the standard definition of the mass through a renormalized perturbative Green’s function ritus1 ; ritus2 ; ritus3 . The correspondence of the leading growth rates of the one-loop and two-loop weak-field expansions has been confirmed numerically in 2leh  for the case of a constant electric background, and has been confirmed analytically in ds3  for the case of a constant self-dual background (with $`f`$ analytically continued $`fif`$).

From the calculation presented in Section IV, it is easy to see from (4.23) and (4.36) that any finite shift in the finite parts ($`5/6`$ and $`7/6`$ for spinor and scalar, respectively) of the mass shift in (4.37) would introduce into the renormalized two-loop effective Lagrangians on the first line of (4.36) an additional term of the form

$`\delta ^{(2)}`$ $``$ $`\alpha m^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{m^2}}^{(1)}\alpha \kappa {\displaystyle \frac{}{\kappa }}^{(1)}.`$ (A.1)
Now the one-loop effective Lagrangians in (2.21) and (2.22) have divergent weak-field expansions of the form

$`^{(1)}=m^4{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_n^{(1)}}{\kappa ^{2n}}},`$ (A.2)
where the magnitude of the expansion coefficients grows factorially as ds3

$`|c_n^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n1)}{(2\pi )^{2n}}}.`$ (A.3)
Similarly, the two-loop effective Lagrangians in (2.24) and (2.25) have divergent weak-field expansions of the form

$`^{(2)}=\alpha \pi m^4{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_n^{(2)}}{\kappa ^{2n}}},`$ (A.4)
where the magnitude of the expansion coefficients grows factorially as ds3

$`|c_n^{(2)}|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n1)}{(2\pi )^{2n}}}.`$ (A.5)
This leading growth rate is precisely the same as the one-loop rate in (A.3), confirming Ritus’s criterion at this order.

The two-loop results (2.24) and (2.25) for the on-shell renormalized effective Lagrangians appear in the first line of (4.36), when the finite parts of the mass shifts are as specified in (4.37). If these finite parts were shifted, then the renormalized effective Lagrangians would acquire a further shift as in (A.1). However, this extra piece clearly has the wrong growth rate, with the magintude of the expansion coefficients now growing like $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)/(2\pi )^{2n}`$, which is faster than the one-loop growth rate in (A.3). Thus we see that we can indeed uniquely implement Ritus’s nonperturbative criterion as a means to fix the physical renormalized mass, including the finite part of the mass shift. And the result is completely consistent with the finite parts found by standard perturbative means schwinger ; tsai . We believe that the method described here is not only of theoretical interest, but at higher loop orders might actually be technically preferable to a direct calculation of the mass shift.


format: text

text:
# Virtual Betti numbers of real algebraic varieties

## 1. Generalized Euler characteristics

###### Definition 1.1.

The *Grothendieck group* of real algebraic varieties is the abelian group generated by symbols $`[X]`$, where $`X`$ is a real algebraic variety, with the two relations

1. $`[X]=[Y]`$ if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are isomorphic,
2. $`[X]=[XY]+[Y]`$ if $`Y`$ is a closed subvariety of $`X`$.

The product of varieties induces a ring structure

1. $`[X][Y]=[X\times Y]`$,

and the resulting ring, denoted by $`K_0(𝒱_{})`$, is called the *Grothendieck ring* of real algebraic varieties. The class of a point is the unit of $`K_0(𝒱_{})`$. The zero element of $`K_0(𝒱_{})`$ is the class of the empty set.

###### Definition 1.2.

A *generalized (proper) Euler characteristic* of real algebraic varieties, with values in a ring $`R`$, is a ring homomorphism $`e:K_0(𝒱_{})R`$. In other words, for all varieties $`X`$ and $`Y`$,

1. $`e(X)=e(Y)`$ if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are isomorphic,
2. $`e(X)=e(XY)+e(Y)`$ if $`Y`$ is a closed subvariety of $`X`$,
3. $`e(X\times Y)=e(X)e(Y).`$

The Euler characteristic with compact supports $`\chi _c`$ is an example of such a homomorphism. In fact the only generalized Euler characteristics which are homeomorphism invariants are constant multiples of $`\chi _c`$ (*cf.* ). The standard Euler characteristic $`\chi `$ does not satisfy the additivity property 1.2(2) for real algebraic varieties, and hence it is *not* a generalized Euler characteristic.

For example, let $`X`$ be the unit circle in the plane, and let $`Y`$ be a point of $`X`$. Then $`\chi (X)=0`$, but $`\chi (XY)=1`$ and $`\chi (Y)=1`$. On the other hand, $`\chi _c(X)=0`$, $`\chi _c(XY)=1`$ and $`\chi _c(Y)=1`$.

There are several ways to view the Euler characteristic with compact supports. By definition $`\chi _c(X)`$ is the Euler characteristic of the sheaf cohomology of $`X`$ with compact supports, with coefficients in the constant sheaf $``$. (Below we use coefficients $`_2`$, the integers mod 2.) We denote by $`H_c^i(X)`$ the $`i`$th cohomology of $`X`$ with compact supports. Classical cohomology has arbitrary closed supports. Property 1.2(2) for $`\chi _c`$ follows from the long exact cohomology sequence of the pair $`(X,Y)`$ (, 4.10). If $`X`$ is triangulated then the sheaf cohomology of $`X`$ with compact supports is isomorphic to the simplicial cohomology of $`X`$ with compact supports.

For coefficients in a field the $`i`$th cohomology of $`X`$ with compact supports is isomorphic to the $`i`$th Borel-Moore homology of $`X`$ (, 3.3). Thus $`\chi _c(X)`$ is also equal to the Euler characteristic of the Borel-Moore homology of $`X`$. Borel-Moore homology has arbitrary closed supports. Classical homology has compact supports. If $`X`$ is triangulated the Borel-Moore homology of $`X`$ is isomorphic to the simplicial homology of $`X`$ with closed supports (*i.e.* using possibly infinite simplicial chains). If $`\overline{X}`$ is a compact space containing $`X`$ such that $`\overline{X}`$ is triangulated with $`\overline{X}X`$ as a subcomplex, then the Borel-Moore homology of $`X`$ is isomorphic to the relative simplicial homology of the pair $`(\overline{X},\overline{X}X)`$. Every real algebraic variety $`X`$ admits a compactification with such a triangulation (*cf.* , , ).

Let $`X`$ be a compact nonsingular real algebraic variety and let $`C`$ be a closed nonsingular subvariety of $`X`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{Bl}_CXX`$ the blow-up of $`X`$ with center $`C`$ and by $`E`$ the exceptional divisor. Then since $`\mathrm{Bl}_CXE`$ is isomorphic to $`XC`$, we have

(1.1)
$$[\mathrm{Bl}_CX][E]=[X][C].$$

Bittner  has proved using the weak factorization theorem of Abramovich *et al.*  that one may replace 1.1(2) in the definition of the Grothendieck ring by (1.1). The following result is equivalent to Bittner’s, and our proof is a reorganization of hers.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`Xe(X)`$ be a function defined on compact nonsingular real algebraic varieties with values in a abelian group $`G`$, such that $`e(X)=e(Y)`$ if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are isomorphic. Suppose that $`e(\mathrm{})=0`$ and for any blow-up $`\mathrm{Bl}_CXX`$, where $`X`$ is a compact nonsingular real algebraic variety and $`CX`$ a closed nonsingular subvariety, with exceptional divisor $`E`$,

$$e(\mathrm{Bl}_CX)e(E)=e(X)e(C).$$

Then $`e`$ extends uniquely to a group homomorphism $`K_0(𝒱_{})G`$.

If $`e`$ takes values in a ring $`R`$ and $`e(X\times Y)=e(X)e(Y)`$ for all $`X`$, $`Y`$ compact nonsingular then this extension of $`e`$ is a ring homomorphism $`K_0(𝒱_{})R`$.

###### Proof.

First we note that if $`X`$ is the disjoint union of the compact nonsingular varieties $`Y`$ and $`Z`$,

$$X=YZ,$$

then

$$e(X)=e(Y)+e(Z).$$

For the blow-up of $`X`$ with center $`C=Y`$ is $`Z`$, and the exceptional divisor $`E`$ is empty (*cf.* , p. 78 *et seq.*).

We prove the following statement by induction on $`n`$:

($`F_n`$) *There is a unique map $`X\phi _n(X)G`$ defined on varieties of dimension $`n`$ such that*

1. $`\phi _n(X)=\phi _n(Y)`$ *if* $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are isomorphic,
2. $`\phi _n(X)=e(X)`$ *for* $`X`$ compact and nonsingular,
3. $`\phi _n(XY)=\phi _n(X)\phi _n(Y)`$ *if* $`Y`$ is a closed subvariety of $`X`$.

The case $`n=0`$ is trivial. Suppose ($`F_{n1}`$) holds. If $`dimXn1`$ then we put $`\phi _n(X):=\phi _{n1}(X)`$. If $`dimX=n`$ then $`\phi _n(X)`$ is defined follows:

1. Let $`X`$ be nonsingular and let $`\overline{X}`$ be a nonsingular compactification of $`X`$. Then

$$\phi _n(X):=e(\overline{X})\phi _n(\overline{X}X),$$
2. Let $`X`$ be singular and let $`X=S_i`$ be a stratification of $`X`$. Then

$$\phi _n(X):=\phi _n(S_i).$$

Here by a nonsingular compactification of the variety $`X`$ we mean a compact nonsingular variety $`\overline{X}`$ which contains a subvariety $`U`$ isomorphic to $`X`$ such that the Zariski closure of $`U`$ in $`\overline{X}`$ equals $`\overline{X}`$.

By a stratification $`𝒮=\{S_i\}`$ of $`X`$ we mean a finite disjoint union $`X=S_i`$ where each stratum $`S_i`$ is a locally closed nonsingular subvariety of $`X`$. Denote by $`\overline{S_i}^Z`$ the Zariski closure of $`S_i`$ in $`X`$. We also require that, for every stratum $`S_i`$, the set $`\overline{S_i}^ZS_i`$ is a closed algebraic subvariety of $`X`$ which is a union of strata of $`𝒮`$.

First we show that the definition (i) of $`\phi _n(X)`$ for $`X`$ nonsingular is independent of the choice of compactification. Let $`\overline{X}`$ and $`\overline{X}^{}`$ be two nonsingular compactifications of $`X`$. Then $`\overline{X}`$ and $`\overline{X}^{}`$ are birationally isomorphic. By the weak factorization theorem there is a finite sequence of blow-ups and blow-downs with nonsingular centers joining $`\overline{X}`$ and $`\overline{X}^{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}\overline{X}& \stackrel{\phi _0}{}& X_1& \stackrel{\phi _1}{}& X_2& & \mathrm{}& & X_{k1}& \stackrel{\phi _{k1}}{}& X_k& \stackrel{\phi _k}{}& \overline{X}^{}\end{array}$$

Thus to prove independence we may suppose that $`\overline{X}^{}=\mathrm{Bl}_C\overline{X}`$, where $`C`$ is nonsingular and $`CX=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`E`$ denote the exceptional divisor. Then

$`e(\overline{X}^{})\phi _n(\overline{X}^{}X)=e(\overline{X}^{})\phi _n(E)\phi _n(\overline{X}^{}XE)`$
$`=e(\overline{X}^{})\phi _n(E)\phi _n(\overline{X}XC)=e(\overline{X}^{})\phi _n(E)+\phi _n(C)\phi _n(\overline{X}X)`$
$`=(e(\overline{X}^{})e(E)+e(C))\phi _n(\overline{X}X)=e(\overline{X})\phi _n(\overline{X}X).`$
Next we show that $`\phi _n(XY)=\phi _n(X)\phi _n(Y)`$ for $`X`$ and $`Y`$ nonsingular. Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a nonsingular compactification of $`X`$. Let $`D=\overline{X}X`$. (It is not necessary to assume that $`D`$ is a divisor in $`\overline{X}`$.) First consider the case $`\overline{XY}^Z=X`$, *i.e.* $`Y`$ contains no irreducible component of $`X`$. Since $`dimY<n`$, we have

$`\phi _n(XY)=e(\overline{X})\phi _n(DY)=e(\overline{X})\phi _n(D)\phi _n(Y)=\phi _n(X)\phi _n(Y).`$
The next case is when $`Y`$ is the union of some irreducible components of $`X`$. Let $`\overline{Y}`$ denote the Zariski closure of $`Y`$ in $`\overline{X}`$. Clearly $`\overline{Y}`$ is a union of irreducible components of $`\overline{X}`$. Let $`W=\overline{X}\overline{Y}`$. Then

$`\phi _n(XY)`$ $`=e(W)\phi _n(DW)`$
$`=e(\overline{X})e(\overline{Y})\phi _n(D)+\phi _n(D\overline{Y})=\phi _n(X)\phi _n(Y).`$
In the general case we denote by $`X^{}`$ the union of the irreducible components of $`X`$ contained in $`Y`$ and by $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ the union of the remaining irreducible components. Let $`Y^{\prime \prime }=YX^{\prime \prime }`$. Then by the above cases

$`\phi _n(XY)`$ $`=\phi _n(X^{\prime \prime }Y^{\prime \prime })=\phi _n(X^{\prime \prime })\phi _n(Y^{\prime \prime })`$
$`=\phi _n(X)\phi _n(X^{})(\phi _n(Y)\phi _n(X^{}))=\phi _n(X)\phi _n(Y).`$
In particular, suppose $`X`$ is nonsingular, $`dimXn`$, and let $`X=S_i`$ be a stratification of $`X`$. Let $`S_0`$ be a stratum of smallest dimension. Then $`S_0`$ is a closed nonsingular variety of $`X`$ and hence

$$\phi _n(XS_0)=\phi _n(X)\phi _n(S_0).$$

Since $`XS_0=_{S_iS_0}S_i`$ is again a stratification, by induction on the number of strata we have

$$\phi _n(X)=\phi _n(S_i).$$

Let $`X`$ be an arbitrary singular variety with $`dimXn`$. Consider two stratifications $`X=S_i`$, $`X=S_j^{}`$ of $`X`$. Suppose the second stratification refines the first; that is, each stratum $`S_i`$ is a union of strata $`S_j^{}`$. Then by the additivity of $`\phi _n`$ for nonsingular varieties, we have $`\phi _n(S_i)=\phi _n(S_j^{})`$. In general, given two stratification of $`X`$ there exists a third stratification refining both of them. This shows that the definition (ii) of $`\phi _n(X)`$ is independent of the stratification.

We now show the additivity (c) of $`\phi _n`$. Suppose $`dimXn`$, and let $`Y`$ be a subvariety of $`X`$. There exists a stratification of $`X`$ such that $`Y`$ is a union of strata. So the additivity of $`\phi _n`$ follows from the additivity of $`\phi _n`$ for nonsingular varieties. This completes the inductive proof of ($`F_n`$).

Clearly the $`\phi _n`$ defined above, $`n0`$, give a unique extension of $`e`$ to a group homomorphism $`\phi :K_0(𝒱_{})G`$. If $`e`$ is a ring homomorphism then it is easy to see from (i) and (ii) above, by induction on dimension, that $`\phi `$ is also a ring homomorphism. ∎

## 2. The virtual Poincaré polynomial

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular compact real algebraic variety, and for $`i0`$ let $`b_i(X)`$ be the $`i`$th Betti number with $`_2`$ coefficients,

$`b_i(X)=dim__2H^i(X;_2)=dim__2H_i(X;_2).`$
###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`\pi :\mathrm{Bl}_CXX`$ be the blow-up of the nonsingular compact variety $`X`$ with nonsingular center $`CX`$. Let $`E`$ denote the exceptional divisor. Then, for all $`i`$,

$$b_i(\mathrm{Bl}_CX)b_i(E)=b_i(X)b_i(C).$$

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we may assume that $`X`$ has pure dimension $`n`$ and $`dimC<n`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{X}=\mathrm{Bl}_CX`$. Recall that $`H_c^i(X;_2)`$ denotes the $`i`$th mod 2 cohomology of $`X`$ with compact supports. Since $`\stackrel{~}{X}EXC`$, the diagram of long exact sequences of closed embeddings

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{}& & H^{i1}(E;_2)& & H_c^i(\stackrel{~}{X}E;_2)& & H^i(\stackrel{~}{X};_2)& & H^i(E;_2)& & \mathrm{}\\ & & \pi ^{}& & \pi ^{}& & \pi ^{}& & \pi _{}& & & & \\ \mathrm{}& & H^{i1}(C;_2)& & H_c^i(XC;_2)& & H^i(X;_2)& & H^i(C;_2)& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

induces (by a diagram chase) a long exact sequence

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{}H^{i1}(E;_2)H^i(X;_2)H^i(C;_2)H^i(\stackrel{~}{X};_2)H^i(E;_2)\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`\mu _XH_n(X;_2)`$ denote the fundamental class of $`X`$. We have $`\pi _{}(\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}})=\mu _X`$. Hence by Poincaré duality $`\pi ^{}:H^i(X;_2)H^i(\stackrel{~}{X};_2)`$ is injective for all $`i0`$. (Let $`aH^i(X;_2)`$. Now $`\pi _{}(\pi ^{}a\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}})=a\pi _{}\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}}=a\mu _X`$. Thus $`\pi ^{}a=0`$ implies $`a\mu _X=0`$, so $`a=0`$ by Poincaré duality.) This shows that (2.1) splits into short exact sequences

$$0H^i(X;_2)H^i(C;_2)H^i(\stackrel{~}{X};_2)H^i(E;_2)0,$$

so

$$b_i(C)+b_i(\stackrel{~}{X})=b_i(X)+b_i(E),$$

as desired. ∎

###### Corollary 2.2.

For each nonnegative integer $`i`$ there exists a unique group homomorphism $`\beta _i:K_0(𝒱_{})`$ such that $`\beta _i(X)=b_i(X)`$ for $`X`$ compact nonsingular.

There exists a unique ring homomorphism $`\beta (,t):K_0(𝒱_{})[t]`$ such that $`\beta (X,t)=_ib_i(X)t^i`$ for $`X`$ compact nonsingular.

###### Proof.

By the Künneth formula, the classical Poincaré polynomial $`P(X,t)=_ib_i(X)t^i`$ is multiplicative for compact nonsingular varieties. Thus the corollary follows from Proposition 2.1 and Theorem 1.3. ∎

###### Definition 2.3.

The integer $`\beta _i(X)`$ is the $`i`$th *virtual Betti number* of the real algebraic variety $`X`$, and the polynomial $`\beta (X,t)=_i\beta _i(X)t^i`$ is the *virtual Poincaré polynomial* of $`X`$.

###### Theorem 2.4.

The virtual Poincaré polynomial $`\beta (X,t)`$ is of degree $`n=dimX`$, and $`\beta _n(X)>0`$. In particular, $`[X]=[Y]`$ implies $`dimX=dimY`$, and $`[X]0`$ if $`X\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

The proof of Theorem 1.3 gives us formulas for $`\beta _i(X)`$ in terms of a nonsingular compactification of $`X`$ (1.3)(i), or in terms of a stratification of $`X`$ (1.3)(ii). Using these formulas we establish the theorem by induction on the dimension of $`X`$.

If $`dimX=0`$ then $`X`$ is a finite set of points, so $`\beta (X,t)=a`$, where $`a`$ is the number of points of $`X`$.

Suppose the theorem is true for varieties of dimension less than $`n`$, and $`X`$ has dimension $`n`$. First suppose $`X`$ is nonsingular. Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a nonsingular compactification of $`X`$, and let $`D=\overline{X}X`$. Then

$$\beta (X,t)=\beta (\overline{X},t)\beta (D,t).$$

Since $`dimD<n`$, the polynomial $`\beta (D,t)`$ has degree less than $`n`$ by inductive hypothesis. Since $`\overline{X}`$ is compact and nonsingular, $`\beta (\overline{X},t)`$ is the Poincaré polynomial of $`\overline{X}`$, which is of degree $`n`$, with $`\beta _n(\overline{X})=b_n(\overline{X})>0`$. Thus $`\beta (X,t)`$ has degree $`n`$ and $`\beta _n(X)>0`$.

Now if $`X`$ is an arbitrary variety of dimension $`n`$, let $`X=S_i`$ be a stratification of $`X`$ by nonsingular varieties $`S_i`$. Then

$$\beta (X,t)=\underset{i}{}\beta (S_i,t).$$

Since each stratum $`S_i`$ is nonsingular of dimension at most $`n`$, we have that $`\beta (S_i,t)`$ has degree at most $`n`$, and if $`\beta (S_i,t)`$ has degree $`n`$ then $`\beta _n(S_i)>0`$. So $`\beta (X,t)`$ has degree $`n`$ and $`\beta _n(X)>0`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.5.

In  Quarez studies the Grothendieck ring $`K_0(𝒮)`$ of semialgebraic sets, which is generated by homeomorphism classes of semialgebraic sets with sum relation 1.1(2) and product given by 1.1(3). He observes that $`[X]=[Y]`$ in $`K_0(𝒮)`$ if and only if $`\chi _c(X)=\chi _c(Y)`$. In particular, the class of a non-empty semialgebraic set can be zero in $`K_0(𝒮)`$, and two semialgebraic sets of different dimensions may represent the same class in $`K_0(𝒮)`$. This makes the construction of motivic measures—more precisely, completion with respect to virtual dimension—impossible for $`K_0(𝒮)`$.

The generalized Euler characteristics

$`\beta (X,1)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1)^i\beta _i(X)`$
$`\chi _c(X)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1)^idimH_c^i(X;_2)`$
are equal for $`X`$ compact and nonsingular—they both equal the Euler characteristic $`\chi (X)`$. It follows from Theorem 1.3 that $`\beta (X,1)=\chi _c(X)`$ for all real algebraic varieties $`X`$. But in general $`\beta _i(X)dimH_c^i(X;_2)`$. In fact $`\beta _i(X)`$ can be negative for $`i<dimX`$, and the virtual Betti numbers $`\beta _i(X)`$ are not topological invariants.

###### Example 2.6.

Consider the union of two intersecting ellipses,

$$X=\{(x,y)|(2x^2+y^21)(x^2+2y^21)=0\}.$$

Let $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ be the two irreducible components of $`X`$. Then

$$\beta _0(X)=\beta _0(X_1)+\beta _0(X_2)\beta _0(X_1X_2)=2.$$

###### Example 2.7.

For the “figure eight” curve

$$X=\{(x,y)|y^2=x^2x^4\},$$

the proper transform of $`X`$ under the blowup of the plane at the origin is homeomorphic to a circle, and the preimage of the singular point of $`X`$ is two points. It follows that $`\beta _1(X)=1`$. Now consider a second “figure eight” curve

$$Y=\{(x,y)|((x+1)^2+y^21)((x1)^2+y^21)=0\}.$$

Since $`Y`$ is the union of two circles tangent at the origin, it follows that $`\beta _1(Y)=2`$. But $`Y`$ is homeomorphic to $`X`$.

###### Example 2.8.

Let $`S^n`$ be the unit $`n`$-sphere in $`^{n+1}`$. From the inclusion $`^{n+1}^{n+2}`$ we have $`S^nS^{n+1}`$. From the decomposition $`S^{n+1}=(S^{n+1}S^n)S^n`$ we see that $`\beta _n(S^{n+1}S^n)=1`$. Now $`S^{n+1}S^n`$ is homeomorphic to $`^{n+1}^{n+1}`$, but $`\beta _n(^{n+1}^{n+1})=0`$. For $`S^{n+1}`$ is the Alexandroff compactification of $`^{n+1}`$ (*cf.* , p. 76), so $`\beta _n(^{n+1})=0`$.

## 3. Complex varieties

If we apply the complex versions of Theorem 1.3 and Proposition 2.1 to the Poincaré polynomial

$$P_{}(X,t)=\underset{i}{}dim_{}H^i(X;)t^i,$$

we obtain a generalized Euler characteristic of complex algebraic varieties. This invariant is related to Deligne’s mixed Hodge theory in the following way.

For a complex algebraic variety $`X`$, the *$`E`$-polynomial* (or *Hodge number characteristic*) is given by

$$E(X,u,v)=\underset{i,p,q}{}(1)^ih_{p,q}^iu^pv^q,$$

where $`h_{p,q}^i`$ is the dimension of the $`(p,q)`$-component of the mixed Hodge structure on $`H_c^i(X;)`$. The $`E`$-polynomial is a generalized Euler characteristic (see , , , ). Therefore so is the *weight characteristic*

(3.1)
$$E(X,t,t)=\underset{i,j}{}(1)^iw_j^it^j.$$

The coefficients of the weight characteristic are given by

$$w_j^i(X)=\underset{p+q=j}{}h_{p,q}^i(X)=dim_{}W_j^i(X)/W_{j1}^i(X),$$

where

(3.2)
$$0W_0^i(X)W_1^i(X)\mathrm{}W_i^i(X)=H_c^i(X;)$$

is the *weight filtration* of cohomology with compact supports .

If $`X`$ is compact and nonsingular then $`W_{i1}^i=0`$, so

$$w_j^i(X)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_i^{}(X)i=j\hfill & \\ 0ij,\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`b_i^{}(X)=dim_{}H^i(X;)`$, and thus the weight characteristic is the Poincaré polynomial $`P_{}(X,t)`$. In other words, for complex algebraic varieties the virtual Poincaré polynomial is the weight characteristic evaluated at $`t`$, and so the $`j`$th virtual Betti number is $`(1)^j`$ times the *weight $`j`$ Euler characteristic*,

$$\beta _j^{}(X)=(1)^j\underset{i}{}(1)^iw_j^i(X).$$

The weight $`j`$ Euler characteristic has been studied by Durfee . The virtual Poincaré polynomial has been used by Fulton (, p. 92) to compute Betti numbers of toric varieties.

###### Remark 3.1.

Applying the complex versions of Theorem 1.3 and Proposition 2.1 to the Poincaré polynomial with coefficients in $`_p`$, $`p`$ prime, we get further examples of generalized Euler characteristics of complex algebraic varieties. The existence of these invariants also follows from the work of Gillet and Soulé .

###### Remark 3.2.

One could study the Grothendieck ring of real algebraic varieties by means of complexification, that is by considering the isomorphism classes of pairs $`(X_{},\tau )`$, where $`X_{}`$ is a complex algebraic variety with complex conjugation $`\tau `$. The real algebraic variety $`X_{}`$ associated to $`(X_{},\tau )`$ is the fix point set of $`\tau `$. We do not know how the generalized Euler characteristics of $`X_{}`$ and of $`X_{}`$ are related, except for the observation that

$$\chi _c(X_{})\chi _c(X_{})mod2.$$

Note that a given real algebraic variety admits many different realizations as the fixed point set of conjugation on a complex variety.

## 4. Weight filtration for real varieties

It is natural to ask whether the virtual Betti numbers of real algebraic varieties are associated to a weight filtration on mod 2 cohomology with compact supports. Totaro  has announced that this is the case. The following examples show that a weight filtration for real varieties cannot have properties as strong as those of the weight filtration for complex varieties.

We analyze two examples. Example 4.2, a curve in $`^3`$, shows that a real weight filtration cannot have both the strict naturality property and the resolution of singularities property enjoyed by the complex weight filtration. Example 4.3, a surface in $`^3`$, shows that there is no natural real weight filtration such that the virtual Betti numbers are the weighted Euler characteristics.

###### Definition 4.1.

A *real weight filtration* $`W`$ assigns to every real algebraic variety $`X`$, and to every $`i0`$, a filtration of the $`i`$th cohomology of $`X`$ with compact supports and $`_2`$ coefficients, of the form

$$0W_0^i(X)W_1^i(X)\mathrm{}W_i^i(X)=H_c^i(X;_2).$$

If $`W`$ is a real weight filtration, for all $`i`$, $`j`$ we let

$$w_j^i(X)=dim__2W_j^i(X)/W_{j1}^i(X).$$

We will consider the following properties of a real weight filtration. The classical complex weight filtration considered in the previous section has all of these properties.

1. *Naturality*. If $`f:XY`$ is an algebraic morphism, then for all $`i`$ and $`j`$,

$$f^{}W_j^i(Y)W_j^i(X).$$
2. *Strict naturality*. If $`f:XY`$ is an algebraic morphism, then for all $`i`$ and $`j`$,

$$f^{}W_j^i(Y)=W_j^i(X)\mathrm{Im}f^{}.$$
3. *Manifold*. If $`X`$ is compact and nonsingular, then for all $`i`$

$$W_{i1}^i(X)=0.$$
4. *Resolution*. If $`X`$ is compact and $`p:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ is a resolution of singularities, then for all $`i`$

$$W_{i1}^i(X)=\mathrm{Ker}p^{}.$$
5. *Virtual Betti*. For all $`X`$ and all $`i`$, $`j0`$, the virtual Betti number $`\beta _i`$ is given by

$$\beta _j(X)=(1)^j\underset{i}{}(1)^iw_j^i(X).$$
6. *Mayer-Vietoris*. If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are closed subvarieties of $`X`$ with $`AB=X`$ and $`AB=C`$, then for all $`j`$ the Mayer-Vietoris cohomology sequence restricts to an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}W_j^i(X)W_j^i(A)W_j^i(B)W_j^i(C)W_j^{i+1}(X)\mathrm{}$$
7. *Pair*. If $`A`$ is a closed subvariety of $`X`$, then for all $`j`$ the exact cohomology sequence of the pair restricts to an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}W_j^i(XA)W_j^i(X)W_j^i(A)W_j^{i+1}(XA)\mathrm{}$$

Clearly condition (2) implies (1), (4) implies (3), (7) and (3) imply (5). Since the virtual Betti numbers of a compact nonsingular variety equal the classical Betti numbers, the virtual Betti condition (5) implies the manifold condition (3).

In the rest of this section we will write $`H^i(X)=H_c^i(X;_2)`$. All the varieties we will consider are compact.

###### Example 4.2.

In $`^3`$ with coordinates $`(x,y,z)`$, let $`X`$ be the intersection of the circular cylinder $`x^2+y^2=1`$ with the union of the two parabolic cylinders $`x=z^2`$ and $`x=z^2`$,

$$X=\{(x,y,z)|x^2+y^2=1,(xz^2)(x+z^2)=0\}.$$

Thus $`X`$ is topologically the union of two circles which are tangent at two points. Let $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ be the disjoint union of the two irreducible components of $`X`$, and let $`p:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the resolution of singularities given by the inclusions of the components. Let $`C`$ be the unit circle in the $`(x,y)`$ plane, and let $`q:XC`$ be the projection. Now $`dimH^1(X)=3`$, and the sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & H^1(C)& \stackrel{q^{}}{}& H^1(X)& \stackrel{p^{}}{}& H^1(\stackrel{~}{X})& & 0\end{array}$$

is exact. A real weight filtration on $`H^1(X)`$ has the form

$$0W_0^1(X)W_1^1(X)=H^1(X).$$

If this filtration has the resolution property, then $`W_0^1(X)=\mathrm{Ker}p^{}=\mathrm{Im}q^{}`$. Thus strict naturality of the weight filtration implies that $`q^{}W_0^1(C)=W_0^1(X)`$. But the manifold property implies that $`W_0^1(C)=0`$, which is a contradiction.

Therefore a real weight filtration cannot satisfy both strict naturality (2) and resolution (4). This example can also be used to show that a real weight filtration cannot satisfy all three of the following conditions: strict naturality, the manifold condition, and the Mayer-Vietoris condition.

To analyze the next example we first restate the virtual Betti condition (5) for surfaces. Let $`X`$ be a 2-dimensional (compact) real algebraic variety. Consider a real weight filtration of $`H^{}(X)`$,

$`0W_0^0(X)=H^0(X)`$
$`0W_0^1(X)W_1^1(X)=H^1(X)`$
$`0W_0^2(X)W_1^2(X)W_2^2(X)=H^2(X).`$
For $`i0`$ let $`b_i`$ be the $`i`$th mod 2 Betti number of $`X`$, and let $`\beta _i`$ be the $`i`$th virtual Betti number of $`X`$. The non-negative integers $`w_j^i=dimW_j^i(X)/W_{j1}^i(X)`$ satisfy the equations

$`w_0^0=b_0`$
$`w_0^1+w_1^1=b_1`$
(4.1) $`w_0^2+w_1^2+w_2^2=b_2`$
$`w_0^0w_0^1+w_0^2=\beta _0`$
$`w_1^1w_1^2=\beta _1`$
$`w_2^2=\beta _2`$
Given $`b_0`$, $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$, $`\beta _0`$, $`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$, we wish to determine the possible values of $`w_j^i`$ which satisfy the equations (4.1). If we arrange the $`w_j^i`$ in an array

| $`w_2^2`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`w_1^1`$ | $`w_1^2`$ |  |
| $`w_0^0`$ | $`w_0^1`$ | $`w_0^2`$ |

then (4.1) says that the sum of the $`i`$th diagonal is $`b_i`$ and the alternating sum of the $`j`$th row is $`\beta _j`$ (*cf.* the Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence computation below).

###### Example 4.3.

Let $`X=X_1X_2X_3`$ be the divisor with normal crossings in 3-space with smooth components $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$, $`X_3`$ defined as follows.

Let $`X_1`$ be the sphere of radius $`\sqrt{2}`$ with center $`(1,0,0)`$,

$$X_1=\{(x,y,z)|(x1)^2+y^2+z^2=2\}.$$

Let $`X_2`$ be the sphere of radius $`\sqrt{2}`$ with center $`(1,0,0)`$,

$$X_2=\{(x,y,z)|(x+1)^2+y^2+z^2=2\}.$$

Then $`X_1X_2`$ is the circle of radius 1 in the $`(y,z)`$ plane with center at the origin.

Let $`X_3`$ be the torus of revolution which is a tube of radius $`\sqrt{2}/2`$ with core the circle of radius 4 in the $`(y,z)`$ plane with center $`(0,4,0)`$,

$$X_3=\{(x,y,z)|x^2+(\sqrt{(y4)^2+z^2}4)^2=1/2\}.$$

($`X_3`$ is defined by a polynomial equation of degree 4.)

The torus $`X_3`$ intersects each of the spheres $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ transversely along a simple closed curve. The torus $`X_3`$ meets the circle $`X_1X_2`$ transversely at four points $`p`$, $`q`$, $`r`$, $`s`$. The locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of singularities of $`X`$ is the union of the three loops $`X_1X_2`$, $`X_1X_3`$, $`X_2X_3`$, any two of which meet at the four points $`p`$, $`q`$, $`r`$, $`s`$. The natural stratification of $`X`$ consists of the nonsingular points $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the double points $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\{p,q,r,s\}`$, and the triple points $`\{p,q,r,s\}`$. The stratum $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has 17 connected components, 6 on each sphere and 5 on the torus. All but one of these components is a topological 2-cell. The remaining component is a topological annulus. The stratum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\{p,q,r,s\}`$ has 12 components, each of which is a 1-cell. So $`X`$ has a cell structure with 4 0-cells, 13 1-cells, and 17 2-cells, with Euler characteristic 8.

A computation with Mayer-Vietoris sequences (equivalent to the Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence computation below) gives that $`b_0=1`$, $`b_1=1`$, and $`b_2=8`$. The first homology group of $`X`$ is generated by a circle on the torus $`X_3`$ which is parallel to the core. The second homology group of $`X`$ is generated by the boundaries of the 8 bounded connected components of $`^3X`$.

Now we compute the virtual Betti numbers of $`X`$. For $`j=0,1,2`$ we have

$`\beta _j(X)=\beta _j(X_1)+\beta _j(X_2)+\beta _j(X_3)`$
$`\beta _j(X_1X_2)\beta _j(X_1X_3)\beta _j(X_2X_3)`$
$`+\beta _j(X_1X_2X_3).`$
Since the $`X_iX_j`$ are homeomorphic to circles and $`X_1X_2X_3`$ is four points, we have $`\beta _0=4`$, $`\beta _1=1`$, and $`\beta _2=3`$.

Let $`W`$ be a real weight filtration on the cohomology of $`X`$, and suppose that $`W`$ is natural and satisfies the virtual Betti condition. Since $`b_0=1`$, we have $`w_0^0=1`$. Since $`\beta _2=3`$ we obtain that $`w_2^2=3`$.

Since $`b_1=1`$, we have $`w_0^1+w_1^1=1`$. Suppose that $`w_0^1=1`$. Then $`H^1(X)=W_0^1(X).`$ But the inclusion $`f:X_3X`$ induces an injection $`f^{}:H^1(X)H^1(X_3)`$. Since $`X_3`$ is compact and nonsingular, it follows from the virtual Betti condition that $`W_0^1(X_3)=0`$. This contradicts the naturality statement $`f^{}W_0^1(X)W_0^1(X_3)`$.

The remaining option is that $`w_1^1=1`$, which implies by (4.1) that $`w_1^2=2`$ and $`w_0^2=3`$.

The subvariety $`X_1X_2`$ of $`X`$ has $`b_0=1`$, $`b_1=0`$, $`b_2=3`$, $`\beta _0=1`$, $`\beta _1=1`$, $`\beta _2=2`$. By (4.1) we have $`w_0^2(X_1X_2)=0`$, $`w_1^2(X_1X_2)=1`$, and $`w_2^2(X_1X_2)=2`$.

The subvariety $`X_1X_3`$ has $`b_0=1`$, $`b_1=2`$, $`b_2=3`$, $`\beta _0=1`$, $`\beta _1=1`$, $`\beta _2=2`$. Now $`w_0^1(X_3)=0`$, $`w_1^1(X_3)=2`$, and the restriction $`H^1(X_1X_3)H^1(X_3)`$ is an isomorphism. Therefore, by naturality of $`W`$, $`w_0^1(X_1X_3)=0`$. By (4.1) we conclude that $`w_0^2(X_1X_3)=0`$, $`w_1^2(X_1X_3)=1`$, and $`w_2^2(X_1X_3)=2`$. The same computation applies to $`X_2X_3`$.

There exists a basis $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3,a_{12},a_{13},a_{23},b,c\}`$ of $`H^2(X)`$ such that each $`a_i`$ restricts to the generator of $`H^2(X_i)`$, and each $`a_{ij}`$ restricts to a generator of $`W_1^2(X_iX_j)`$. (The class dual to $`a_i`$ in homology is represented by the surface $`X_i`$, and the class dual to $`a_{ij}`$ in homology is represented by the boundary of the intersection of the region inside $`X_i`$ and the region inside $`X_j`$.) Let $`f_i:X_iX`$ and $`f_{ij}:X_iX_jX`$, $`1i<j3`$, be the inclusions. By naturality of $`W`$, for $`k=0,1,2,`$

$$f_i^{}W_k^2(X)W_k^2(X_i),f_{ij}^{}W_k^2(X)W_k^2(X_iX_j).$$

It follows that the images of $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3`$ form a basis for $`W_2^2(X)/W_1^2(X)`$, and the images of $`a_{12}`$, $`a_{13}`$, $`a_{23}`$ are independent in $`W_1^2(X)/W_0^2(X)`$. Therefore $`w_1^23`$, which is a contradiction.

Therefore a real weight filtration cannot satisfy both naturality (1) and the virtual Betti condition (5). This example can also be used to show that a real weight filtration cannot satisfy both the Mayer-Vietoris condition and the virtual Betti condition.

It is instructive to compute for Example 4.3 the Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence which expresses the cohomology of $`X`$ in terms of the cohomology of its irreducible components $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$, $`X_3`$. Let $`X^0`$ be the disjoint union of $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$, and $`X_3`$. Let $`X^1`$ be the disjoint union of $`X_1X_2`$, $`X_1X_3`$, and $`X_2X_3`$. Let $`X^2=X_1X_2X_3`$.

The Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence is the spectral sequence of the double complex $`C^q(X^p)`$, where $`C^q`$ is the group of singular cochains (mod 2). It converges to the cohomology of $`X`$ (*cf.* , ch. 2, §5). We have $`E_1^{pq}=H^q(X^p)`$. Since each $`X_iX_j`$ is homeomorphic to a circle and $`X_1X_2X_3`$ is four points, we obtain the $`E_1`$ term:

| $`(_2)^3`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`(_2)^2`$ | $`(_2)^3`$ |  |
| $`(_2)^3`$ | $`(_2)^3`$ | $`(_2)^4`$ |

Computing the differential $`d_1:E_1^{pq}E_1^{p+1,q}`$ we find $`E_2`$:

| $`(_2)^3`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`(_2)^2`$ | $`(_2)^3`$ |  |
| $`_2`$ | $`0`$ | $`(_2)^3`$ |

The only possible non-zero differential $`d_2^{0,1}:E_2^{0,1}E_2^{2,0}`$ has rank 1, and hence we obtain $`E_3`$:

| $`(_2)^3`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`_2`$ | $`(_2)^3`$ |  |
| $`_2`$ | $`0`$ | $`(_2)^2`$ |

Finally, $`d_r=0`$ for $`r3`$, so $`E_3=E_{\mathrm{}}`$. This computation gives that $`b_0=1`$, $`b_1=1`$, and $`b_2=8`$, as claimed above.

The filtration $`W`$ of the cohomology of $`X`$ corresponding to the Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence has $`w_j^i=dimE_{\mathrm{}}^{ij,j}`$. The alternating sum of the ranks of the entries of the $`j`$th row of $`E_1`$ is the virtual Betti number $`\beta _j`$. Because the $`j`$th row of $`E_2`$ is the homology of the $`j`$th row of $`E_1`$, the alternating sum of the ranks of the entries of the $`j`$th row of $`E_2`$ is also $`\beta _j`$. (This holds for the Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence of any divisor with normal crossings.) Since the differential $`d_2`$ is non-zero, the terms $`E_r`$ for $`r>2`$ no longer have this property. Thus the filtration associated to the Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence does not satisfy the virtual Betti condition.