text:
# On a general class of brane-world black holes

## I Introduction

The brane world concept, which describes our four-dimensional world as a surface (brane), supporting all or almost all matter fields and embedded in a higher-dimensional space-time (bulk), leads to a great variety of models both in the cosmological context and in the description of local self-gravitating objects (see, e.g., bra-rev  for reviews and further references). In particular, black hole (BH) physics on the brane turns out to be considerably richer than in general relativity, though only a few special examples of brane-world BHs have been considered in detail by now bra-bh1 casad-qu  (see also references therein). Thus, in the spherically symmetric vacuum case, in addition to Schwarzschild BHs (which lead to a black-string singularity in the bulk bra-bh1 ; kanti02 ), there are BHs non-singular on the brane casad01  and having a pancake-shaped event horizon in the bulk casad02 ; some of them have been shown to possess unusual quantum properties potentially observable on the brane casad-qu .

Most of the results have been obtained in the simplest framework: a single brane in a $`_2`$-symmetric 5-dimensional, asymptotically anti-de Sitter bulk, with all fields except gravity confined on the brane. It is the so-called RS2 framework, generalizing the second model suggested by Randall and Sundrum, with a single Minkowski brane in an anti-de Sitter bulk ransum2 . Let us also adhere to this class of models.

The gravitational field on the brane is then described by the modified Einstein equations derived by Shiromizu, Maeda and Sasaki maeda99  from 5-dimensional gravity with the aid of the Gauss and Codazzi equations 111The sign conventions are as follows: the metric signature $`(+)`$; the curvature tensor $`R^\sigma {}_{\mu \rho \nu }{}^{}=_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^\sigma \mathrm{}`$, so that, e.g., the Ricci scalar $`R>0`$ for de Sitter space-time, and the stress-energy tensor (SET) such that $`T_t^t`$ is the energy density.:

$`G_\mu ^\nu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_4\delta _\mu ^\nu \kappa _4^2T_\mu ^\nu \kappa _5^4\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\nu E_\mu ^\nu ,`$ (1)
where $`G_\mu ^\nu =R_\mu ^\nu \frac{1}{2}\delta _\mu ^\nu R`$ is the 4D Einstein tensor, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ is the 4D cosmological constant expressed in terms of the 5D cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$ and the brane tension $`\lambda `$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=\frac{1}{2}\kappa _5^2\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_5+\frac{1}{6}\kappa _5^2\lambda ^2\right);$$
(2)
$`\kappa _4^2=8\pi G_N=\kappa _5^4\lambda /(6\pi )`$ is the 4D gravitational constant ($`G_N`$ is Newton’s constant of gravity); $`T_\mu ^\nu `$ is the SET of matter confined on the brane; $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\nu `$ is a tensor quadratic in $`T_\mu ^\nu `$, obtained from matching the 5D metric across the brane:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\nu =\frac{1}{4}T_\mu ^\alpha T_\alpha ^\nu \frac{1}{2}TT_\mu ^\nu \frac{1}{8}\delta _\mu ^\nu \left(T_{\alpha \beta }T^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{3}T^2\right)$$
(3)
where $`T=T_\alpha ^\alpha `$; lastly, $`E_\mu ^\nu `$ is the “electric” part of the 5D Weyl tensor projected onto the brane: in proper 5D coordinates, $`E_{\mu \nu }=\delta _\mu ^A\delta _\nu ^C{}_{}{}^{(5)}C_{ABCD}^{}n^Bn^D`$ where $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ are 5D indices and $`n^A`$ is the unit normal to the brane. By construction, $`E_\mu ^\nu `$ is traceless, $`E_\mu ^\mu =0`$ maeda99 .

Other characteristics of $`E_\mu ^\nu `$ are unknown without specifying the properties of the 5D metric, hence the set of equations (1) is not closed. In isotropic cosmology this leads to an additional arbitrary constant in the field equations, connected with the density of “dark radiation” bra-rev . For static, spherically symmetric systems to be discussed in the present paper, this freedom is expressed in the existence of one arbitrary function of the radial coordinate. Despite this arbitrariness, the trace of Eqs. (1) may be integrated in a general form bwh1 ; vis-wilt .

Our interest here is in selecting a general class of static, spherically symmetric BH solutions to Eqs. (1) without specifying $`E_\mu ^\nu `$. In particular examples we mostly deal with asymptotically flat vacuum solutions, such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=T_\mu ^\nu =0`$, but the BH construction procedure is formulated in the general case when both matter and the cosmological constant are present and the space-time asymptotic properties are not specified.

We will not discuss the possible bulk properties of models in question and only note that the existence of the corresponding solutions to the higher-dimensional equations of gravity (in our case, the 5D vacuum Einstein equations with a cosmological term) is guaranteed by the Campbell-Magaard type embedding theorems campmaag . A recent discussion of these theorems, applied, in particular, to brane world scenarios, and more references can be found in Ref. wess03 .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present some common relations and the general solution to the trace of Eqs. (1), containing an arbitrary generating function $`A(r)`$.

In Sec. III we analyze the properties of the metric near a Killing horizon in a static, spherically symmetric space-time described by the general solution. A conclusion of general significance is that a space-time with $`R0`$ can only have horizons of orders one (simple, like Schwarzschild’s) and two (double, as in the extremal Reissner–Nordström metric) and no higher. This analysis is used for formulation of two BH construction algorithms. It is shown that a generic choice of $`A(r)`$ leads to a one-parameter family of solutions which, in a certain range of the parameter (integration constant) $`C`$, unifies globally regular non-extremal BHs with a Kerr-like causal structure, extremal BHs and symmetric wormholes. Singular non-extremal BHs can be found outside this range of $`C`$.

Sec. IV contains some simple examples, illustrating different features of the present formalism. Examples 1 and 3 reproduce already known BH solutions from the viewpoint of our algorithms. Example 2 is a BH solution with zero Schwarzschild mass, illustrating violation of Thorne’s hoop conjecture possible in a brane world. Example 4 shows that well-behaved special solutions can be found even for such choices of $`A(r)`$ that the trace equation (II) has a singular point. Example 5 illustrates the smoothness properties of some BH metrics at the horizon in different coordinate frames. Sec. V is a discussion.

We will assume that all relevant functions are analytic unless otherwise explicitly indicated. The symbol $``$, as usual, connects quantities of the same order of magnitude in a certain limit.

## II The general solution

The general static, spherically symmetric metric in 4 dimensions in the curvature coordinates has the form

$$ds^2=A(r)dt^2\frac{dr^2}{B(r)}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(4)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$ is the linear element on a unit sphere.

Let us write down the scalar curvature and the Kretschmann scalar for the metric (4):

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}(1B)`$ (5)
$`B\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{rr}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_r^2}{2A^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_rB_r}{2AB}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_r}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_r}{B}}\right)\right];`$
$`𝒦`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }R_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=4K_1^2+8K_2^2+8K_3^2+4K_4^2,`$
$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2AA_{rr}A_r^2}{A^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_rB_r}{AB}}\right),`$
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2r}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_r}{A}},K_3={\displaystyle \frac{B_r}{2r}},K_4={\displaystyle \frac{1B}{r^2}},`$ (6)
where the subscript $`r`$ means $`d/dr`$. The finiteness of $`𝒦`$ is a natural regularity criterion for the geometries to be discussed since $`𝒦`$ is a sum of squares of all components $`R_{\mu \nu }^{\epsilon \sigma }`$ of the Riemann tensor for the metric (4), therefore $`𝒦<\mathrm{}`$ is a necessary and sufficient condition for the finiteness of all algebraic curvature invariants. Meanwhile, $`𝒦`$ is finite if and only if all $`K_i`$ defined in (6) are finite.

If we treat Eqs. (1) as the conventional Einstein equations with an effective SET $`T_{\mu }^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, i.e., $`G_\mu ^\nu =\kappa _4^2T_{\mu }^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, then the effective density $`\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, radial pressure $`p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and tangential pressure $`p_{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are expressed in terms of $`A`$ and $`B`$ as follows:

$`G_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _4^2\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{B1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_r}{r}},`$
$`G_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _4^2p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{B1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{BA_r}{Ar}},`$
$`G_\theta ^\theta =G_\varphi ^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _4^2p_{}^{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{B}{4}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2A_{rr}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_r^2}{A^2}}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_rB_r}{AB}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}({\displaystyle \frac{A_r}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_r}{B}})].`$
The only combination of the Einstein equations (1) in a brane world written unambiguously without specifying $`E_\mu ^\nu `$, is their trace:

$$R=4\mathrm{\Lambda }_4+\kappa _4^2T_\alpha ^\alpha +\kappa _5^4\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha ^\alpha .$$
(8)
Assuming that the right-hand side is a known function of the radial coordinate, i.e., that $`R=R(r)`$ is known, Eq. (8) may be written as a linear first-order equation with respect to $`f(r):=rB(r)`$ bwh1 ; vis-wilt :

$`A(rA_r+4A)f_r+[r(2AA_{rr}A_r^2)+3AA_r]f`$
$`=2A^2[2r^2R(r)].`$ (9)
Its general solution is

$`f(r)={\displaystyle \frac{2A\mathrm{e}^{3\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{(4A+rA_r)^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }(4A+rA_r)[2r^2R(r)]\mathrm{e}^{3\mathrm{\Gamma }}dr`$ (10)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)=\frac{A_rdr}{4A+rA_r}.$$
(11)
Thus, choosing any smooth function $`A(r)`$, we obtain $`f(r)`$ from (II), and, after fixing the integration constant, the metric is known completely.

If the function $`R(r)`$ is not specified, Eq. (II) is simply another form of the trace of the Einstein equations. It is valid for any  static, spherically symmetric metric, at least in ranges of $`r`$ where the quantity $`A(4A+rA_r)`$ is finite and nonzero and where $`r=\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta }}`$ is an admissible coordinate. The latter means, in particular, that Eq. (II) is applicable to a wormhole metric only on one (but either) side of a wormhole throat (see bwh1  for details) and is evidenly invalid for flux-tube metrics, characterized by $`g_{\theta \theta }=\mathrm{const}`$.

For a given SET $`T_\mu ^\nu `$, the dependence $`R(r)`$ is not always known, but in the vacuum case $`T_\mu ^\nu =0`$, so that $`R(r)=4\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$, the solution to the Einstein equations can always be written in the form (II) under the above evident restrictions.

## III Black hole construction

### III.1 Conditions at horizons

Before singling out BH solutions on the basis of Eq. (II), let us first formulate the conditions under which the generating function $`A(r)`$ leads to a metric with a Killing horizon. The latter is a surface where a timelike or spacelike Killing vector becomes null. To describe Killing horizons (to be called horizons for short) in spherically symmetric space-times, it is helpful to use the so-called quasiglobal coordinate $`u`$ specified by the condition $`g_{tt}g_{uu}=1`$. The metric (4) is then rewritten in the form

$$ds^2=𝒜(u)dt^2\frac{du^2}{𝒜(u)}r^2(u)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(12)
where the variables are connected with those in Eq. (4) as follows:

$`𝒜(u)`$ $`=`$ $`A(r),r(u)=r,𝒜(u)\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{du}}\right)^2=B(r).`$ (13)
The reason for using this coordinate is that, in a close neighbourhood of a horizon (a sphere where $`g_{tt}=0`$), it varies like manifestly well-behaved Kruskal-like coordinates used for an analytic continuation of the metric cold ; vac1 . Using this coordinate, one can “cross the horizons” preserving the formally static expression for the metric. Both $`A`$ and $`r`$ must be smooth functions of $`u`$ near the horizon $`u=h`$, so that

$$𝒜(u)(uh)^k,r(u)r_h+\mathrm{const}(uh)^s,$$
(14)
where $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the order of the horizon (the horizon is simple if $`k=1`$, double if $`k=2`$, etc.) while the number $`s=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ characterizes the possible behaviour of $`r(u)`$; $`r_h>0`$ is the horizon radius. (We leave aside possible horizons of infinite radius which can in principle appear as well cold .) Generically but not necessarily one has $`s=1`$. When $`s=1`$ (i.e., $`dr/du`$ is finite at the horizon), the coordinate $`r`$ can be used for continuing the metric through the horizon on equal grounds with $`u`$. The continuation will be analytic if both $`𝒜(u)`$ and $`r(u)`$ are analytic at $`u=h`$.

Assuming (14) and directly employing the relations (13), we find that

$$f(r)B(r)(rr_h)^{(k+2s2)/s}\mathrm{as}uh.$$
(15)
On the other hand, substituting $`A=𝒜(u)(rr_h)^{k/s}`$ into the solution (II) and assuming that the quantity $`Q(r)=2r^2R(r)`$ is finite at $`r=r_h`$ (which is generically the case), it is easy to obtain that near $`r_h`$

$$f(r)B(r)(rr_h)^{2k/s}\left[(rr_h)^{k/s}+C\right].$$
(16)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant and $`C=0`$ corresponds to the case when integration in (II) is performed from $`r_h`$ to $`r`$. Comparing the exponents in (15) and (16), we see that

* in case $`C=0`$: $`k=2`$, $`s`$ is not restricted;
* in case $`C0`$: $`k=1`$, $`s`$ is not restricted.

Thus, to obtain a solution with a horizon at $`r=r_h`$, we should take $`A(r)`$ behaving as $`(rr_h)^{k/s}`$ with $`k=1`$ or 2 and $`s`$.

An important point is that, under the condition $`R(r_h)2/r_h^2`$, a horizon can be either simple ($`k=1`$) or double ($`k=2`$); horizons of higher orders $`k`$ do not appear. This is true, in particular, for all static, spherically symmetric metrics with $`R=0`$.

Let us now look what changes when the function $`2r^2R(r)`$ vanishes at $`r=r_h`$. One can write

$`Q(r):=2r^2R(r)(rr_h)^p,`$
$`p=0,1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{near}r=r_h,`$ (17)
preserving the assumptions (14). So $`p=0`$ corresponds to the above generic case $`Q(r_h)0`$ and $`p>0`$ means that $`Q(r)`$ has a zero of order $`p`$. Then the expression (15) for $`f(r)`$ remains the same but (16) must be replaced with

$$f(r)B(r)(rr_h)^{2k/s}\left[(rr_h)^{k/s+p}+C\right]$$
(18)
Consequently, in case $`C0`$ the metric behaves as before, whereas for $`C=0`$ we obtain near $`r=r_h`$

$`A(r)(rr_h)^{p+2/s},B(r)(rr_h)^{p+2},`$
$`𝒜(u)(uh)^{ps+2},`$ (19)
that is, a horizon of order $`ps+2`$.

Now, assuming $`A=0`$ at $`r=r_h>0`$, one can rewrite Eq. (II) in the form

$`f(r)rB(r)={\displaystyle \frac{2A\mathrm{e}^{3\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{(4A+rA_r)^2}}`$
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle _{r_h}^r}(4A+rA_r)[2r^2R(r)]\mathrm{e}^{3\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑r+C\right\}.`$ (20)
The above analysis shows that this relation leads to a metric with a horizon at $`r=r_h`$ in two cases:

$`A(rr_h)^{1/s}`$, as $`rr_h`$, $`s`$. Then Eq. (III.1) leads to a metric with a simple horizon in case $`C0`$ and a metric with a horizon of order $`2+ps`$ in case $`C=0`$.

$`A(rr_h)^{2/s}`$ as $`rr_h`$, $`s`$ odd. Then (III.1) leads to a metric with a horizon of order $`2+ps`$ in case $`C=0`$.

Here, as before, the parameter $`p`$ characterizes the behaviour of $`Q(r)`$ according to Eq. (17).

Item (ii) does not include solutions with $`C0`$. The point is that in case $`A(rr_h)^2`$, $`C0`$, the metric is singular at $`r=r_h`$, as is confirmed by calculating the Kretschmann scalar (6): its constituent $`K_2`$ blows up at $`rr_h`$. For odd numbers $`s>1`$, the corresponding metric with $`A(rr_h)^{2/s}`$, $`C0`$ has a finite Kretschmann scalar but loses analyticity at $`r=r_h`$ and therefore cannot be analytically continued through this sphere. Indeed, in this case $`rr_h(uh)^{s/(ps+2)}`$, where the exponent is a fraction for any odd $`s`$ and $`p=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. The metric is thus only continuous ($`C^0`$-smooth) at $`u=h`$ in case $`p>0`$ and $`C^{(s1)/2}`$-smooth in case $`p=0`$.

### III.2 Definition and algorithms

We have been so far discussing local conditions at possible Killing horizons. Let us now turn to space-time properties at large and try to select BH metrics. We shall not need a general rigorous definition of a BH wald  which in turn needs such notions as strong asymptotic predictability, trapped regions etc. The following working definition will be appropriate for our purposes.

Definition. The metric (12) is said to describe a black hole if (a) the functions $`𝒜(u)`$ and $`r(u)`$ are analytic in the range $`[u]:hu<u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ where $`u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ may be finite or infinite; (b) $`r(u)>0`$ in $`[u]`$, and $`r(u_{\mathrm{max}})>r(h)=r_h`$; (c) $`𝒜(u)>0`$ at $`u>h`$, and $`𝒜(h)(uh)^k,k`$ as $`rr_h`$.

Item (c) means that $`u>h`$ is a static region (R region) of a static, spherically symmetric space-time while the sphere $`u=h`$, a boundary of this region, is a Killing horizon of a certain order $`k`$. So, in usual terms, our working definition describes the domain of outer communication of a BH, and $`u=h`$ is its event horizon.

The definition uses the $`u`$ coordinate rather than $`r`$, due to its advantage in horizon description, discussed in the previous subsection. The difference is really essential: there are metrics which behave non-analytically in terms of $`r`$ at $`r=r(h)=r_h`$ but analytically in terms of $`u`$ at $`u=h`$ (see variants $`s>1`$ in Sec. III and Example 5 in the next section).

The analyticity requirement rejects possible cases of restricted smoothness (see the end of Sec. III.1). It is not only a matter of simplicity: in our view, if we are dealing with a field configuration, its non-analyticity at a certain surface must have a physical reason, e.g., a phase transition, and it seems too artificial, a kind of perfect fine tuning, to assume that the phase transition occurs precisely at a horizon.

We do not require $`r(u_{\mathrm{max}})=\mathrm{}`$ since we do not want to rule out metrics with cosmological horizons like the Schwarzschild-de Sitter space-time where an R region is situated between a BH horizon and a cosmological horizon. We, however, adopt the requirement $`r(u_{\mathrm{max}})>r_h`$ to exclude configurations with only cosmological horizons.

Let us return to the solution (II), or (III.1). Due to its generality, it certainly describes all BH metrics, at least piecewise. We can, however, formulate explicit requirements to the generating function $`A(r)`$ under which Eq. (II) leads algorithmically to a BH metric. Namely, let there be a range

$$[r]:r_{\mathrm{max}}>r>r_h,r_h>0,$$
(21)
in which the r.h.s. of Eq. (II) is positive:

$$Q(r)=2r^2R(r)>0.$$
(22)
Then the above items (i) and (ii) lead to the following BH construction algorithms.

(BH1). Specify a function $`A(r)`$, positive and analytical in $`[r]`$, in such a way that $`g(r)=4A+rA_r>0`$ in $`[r]`$ and $`A(rr_h)^{1/s}`$, $`s`$, as $`rr_h`$. Then the functions $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$ given by Eq. (III.1) with $`C0`$ determine a black hole metric (4) with a horizon at $`r=r_h`$. The horizon is simple if $`C>0`$; in case $`C=0`$ it is of the order $`2+ps`$ if $`Q(r)`$ behaves according to Eq. (17).

(BH2). Specify a function $`A(r)`$, positive and analytical in $`[r]`$, in such a way that $`g(r)=4A+rA_r>0`$ in $`[r]`$ and $`A(rr_h)^{2/s}`$ as $`rr_h`$, $`s`$ being an odd positive integer. Then the functions $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$ given by Eq. (III.1) with $`C=0`$ determine a black hole metric (4) with a horizon at $`r=r_h`$ of the order $`2+ps`$ if $`Q(r)`$ behaves according to Eq. (17).

Both algorithms (BH1) and (BH2) lead to double horizons in case $`C=0`$ if $`Q(r_h)>0`$.

To obtain asymptotically flat BHs, one should assume $`r_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$ and restrict the choice of $`A(r)`$ to functions compatible with asymptotic flatness. Properly choosing the time scale, we can require a Schwarzschild behaviour of $`A`$: $`A=12m/r+o(1/r)`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, where $`m`$ is the Schwarzschild mass. Eq. (III.1) then leads to the proper behaviour of $`B(r)`$, i.e., $`B1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, provided the curvature $`R`$ decays quickly enough: $`R(r)=o(r^3)`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

One can notice that both algorithms use the $`r`$ coordinate whereas the BH definition uses $`u`$. A transition to $`u`$ is accomplished with Eq. (13). The conditions of (BH1) and (BH2) guarantee that $`B>0`$ at $`r>r_h`$, therefore, choosing $`dr/du>0`$ in (13), we evidently satisfy the BH definition.

The condition (22) can be weakened: what actually must be required is that the integral in (III.1) should remain positive in $`[r]`$.

Another condition of both algorithms, $`g(r)=4A+rA_r>0`$ in $`[r]`$, allows one to avoid a singular point of Eq. (II), where the coefficient of the derivative $`f_r`$ vanishes. This coefficient also vanishes at horizons, which have been already discussed. The points where $`A0`$ but $`g=0`$, if any, also deserve special attention. Though, the equality $`g=0`$ itself has no evident geometric (and hence physical) meaning, it only represents some technical difficulty in our description with the aid of Eq. (II).

Points where $`g=0`$ are avoided by most of asymptotically flat BH metrics. Indeed, in this case $`g0`$ at the horizon and $`g=4`$ at infinity; the condition $`g(r)>0`$ means that $`r^4A`$ is a strictly increasing function of $`r`$, which is the case, e.g., for all functions $`A(r)`$ monotonically growing from 0 at the horizon to 1 at infinity.

However, one can easily verify that such points inevitably appear in other important situations, e.g., between a regular centre and a cosmological horizon or between two simple horizons.

It can be shown that if the choice of the generating function $`A(r)`$ leads to $`g(r)`$ with a simple zero at some $`r=r_s[r]`$, then there is a unique nonzero value of the constant $`C`$ (namely, when integration in Eq. (II) starts from $`r_s`$) making it possible to avoid a singularity of the metric at $`r=r_s`$. So Algorithm (BH1) survives, but it now gives a single solution with a horizon instead of a family parametrized by $`C`$ (see Example 4 in Sec. IV). Algorithm (BH2) requires $`C=0`$ and therefore does not work.

### III.3 Generic behaviour of the solutions: wormholes and regular BHs

Let us discuss the properties of the metric in the generic situation that leads to a BH according to Algorithm (BH1): let $`A(r)`$ be a well-behaved positive function at $`r>r_h`$ and have a simple zero at $`r=r_h`$, and let also $`Q(r_h)>0`$. Then, in a small neighbourhood of $`r=r_h`$, one can write

$`A(r)`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(rr_h)+o(rr_h),`$
$`B(r)`$ $`=`$ $`B_1C(rr_h)+B_2(rr_h)^2+o\left((rr_h)^2\right),`$ (23)
with fixed positive constants $`A_1`$, $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$. The integration constant $`C`$ is a family parameter, and $`C=0`$ is its critical value at which the solution drastically changes its properties.

If $`C<0`$, $`B`$ turns to zero at $`r=r_{\mathrm{min}}=r_h+|C|B_1/B_2>r_h`$. (Here, $`|C|`$ should be small enough for the solution to remain in a range where Eq. (23) is still approximately valid.) One obtains $`B(r)B_2(rr_h)(rr_{\mathrm{min}})`$, so that $`B(r)`$ has a simple zero at $`r=r_{\mathrm{min}}`$, whereas $`A(r_{\mathrm{min}})>0`$. Such a behaviour of the metric functions corresponds to a symmetric wormhole throat at $`r=r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ bwh1 . The substitution $`r=r_{\mathrm{min}}+x^2`$, $`x`$, makes the metric (4) regular at $`r=r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ ($`x=0`$), and all metric coefficients are even functions of $`x`$. Thus our solution does not reach the anticipated horizon $`r=r_h`$ and describes a symmetric wormhole.

In case $`C=0`$, as already described, we obtain a double horizon at $`r=r_h`$, and the geometry is smoothly continued to smaller $`r`$, where the further properties of the metric depend on the specific choice of $`A(r)`$.

If $`C>0`$, then $`B>0`$ at $`r>r_h`$, turns to zero at the horizon $`r=r_h`$ and again turns to zero in the T region at $`r=r_{\mathrm{min}}=r_hCB_1/B_2<r_h`$. This, as before, bounds the range of $`r`$ from below in a way similar to a wormhole throat. The coordinate singularity at $`r=r_0`$ is again removed by the transformation $`r=r_{\mathrm{min}}+x^2`$, but now $`x`$ is a temporal coordinate in a T region, where the metric (4) describes a Kantowski-Sachs cosmology with two scale factors $`r(x)`$ and $`A(r(x))`$ and the $`\times 𝕊^2`$ topology of spatial sections. Hence, $`x=0`$ is the time instant at which $`r(x)`$ experiences a bounce. It can be roughly said that the wormhole throat, having moved into a T region, becomes a bouncing time instant of the scale factor $`r`$ in a Kantowski-Sachs cosmology.

Assuming asymptotic flatness at large $`r`$, one can use the standard methodology to obtain the corresponding Carter-Penrose diagram describing the global causal structure: it coincides with that of the Kerr or Kerr-Newman non-extremal BH wald  (but without a ring singularity) and contains an infinite sequence of R and T regions.

By continuity, this behaviour is preserved in a finite range of $`C`$ values (see Examples 1 and 2 in the next section). We conclude that each generic choice of $`A(r)`$ with a simple zero at $`r=r_h`$ leads to a family of solutions unifying symmetric wormholes($`C<0`$), extremal BHs ($`C=0`$) and regular non-extremal BHs ($`C>0`$), see Fig. 1.

## IV Examples

### Example 1: $`A(r)=12m/r`$, $`m=\mathrm{const}>0`$.

For this Schwarzschild form of $`A(r)`$, the solution (II) in the vacuum case $`R0`$ can be written as

$$f(r)=\frac{(r2m)(rr_0)}{r3m/2},$$
(24)
where $`r_0`$ is an integration constant. The metric takes the form

$`ds^2=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}\right)dt^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{13m/(2r)}{(12m/r)(1r_0/r)}}dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.`$ (25)
The Schwarzschild metric is restored in the special case $`r_0=3m/2`$. The metric (IV) was obtained by Casadio, Fabbri and Mazzacurati casad01  in search for new brane-world black holes and by Germani and Maartens maart01  as a possible external metric of a homogeneous star on the brane. Without repeating their more detailed descriptions, we will outline the main points in our notations.

BH metrics appear according to Algorithm (BH1), where $`C=0`$ corresponds to $`r_0=2m`$ and $`C>0`$ to $`r_0<2m`$. In case $`r_0>2m`$, the metric (IV) describes a symmetric traversable wormhole bwh1 .

In case $`r_0=2m`$ we have a double horizon at $`r=2m`$: near $`r=2m`$, the coordinate $`r`$ is connected with the quasiglobal coordinate $`u`$ by $`r2m(uu_h)^2`$, $`u_h`$ being the value of $`u`$ at the horizon, and $`𝒜(u)(uu_h)^2`$. The Carter-Penrose diagram coincides with that of the extremal Reissner–Nordström metric \[Fig. 1(b)\] with the only difference that the timelike curvature singularity occurs at $`r=3m/2`$ instead of $`r=0`$.

In case $`r_0<2m`$, as in the Schwarzschild metric, $`r=2m`$ is a simple horizon, and, as described in Ref. casad01 , the space-time structure depends on the sign of $`\eta =r_03m/2`$. If $`\eta <0`$, the structure is that of a Schwarzschild black hole, but the spacelike curvature singularity is located at $`r=3m/2`$ instead of $`r=0`$. If $`\eta >0`$, the solution describes a nonsingular black hole with a wormhole throat at $`r=r_0`$ inside the horizon, or, more precisely, it is the minimum value of $`r`$ at which the model bounces. The corresponding global structure casad01  is the same as that of a non-extremal Kerr BH \[Fig. 1(c)\].

Thus the metric properties in the whole range $`r_0>3m/2`$ of the integration constant $`r_0`$ entirely conform to the description in Sec. III.3 for both positive and negative $`C`$.

The components of the effective SET (7) have the form

$`\kappa _4^2\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m(2r_03m)}{r^2(2r3m)^2}},`$
$`\kappa _4^2p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r_03m}{r^2(2r3m)}},`$
$`\kappa _4^2p_{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(rm)(2r_03m)}{r^2(2r3m)^2}}.`$ (26)
### Example 2: $`A(r)=1h^2/r^2`$, $`h=\mathrm{const}>0`$.

This form of $`A(r)`$ represents a metric with zero Schwarzschild mass.

BH solutions are easily obtained: Eq. (III.1) with $`R0`$ now gives

$`f(r)=rB(r)=r\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{r^2}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{Ch}{\sqrt{2r^2h^2}}}\right).`$ (27)
In accord with (BH1), the sphere $`r=h`$ is a simple horizon if $`C>0`$ and a double horizon if $`C=0`$.

In case $`C<0`$, $`B(r)`$ has a simple zero at $`r=r_{\mathrm{th}}>h`$ given by

$$2r_{\mathrm{th}}^2=h^2+(hC)^2,$$
(28)
which is a symmetric wormhole throat bwh1 .

In case $`C=0`$, $`r=h`$ is a double horizon, and the Carter–Penrose diagram coincides with that of the extremal Reissner–Nordström metric \[Fig. 1(b)\], but a timelike singularity due to $`B\mathrm{}`$ takes place at $`r=h/\sqrt{2}`$.

In case $`0<C<h`$, inside the simple horizon $`r=h`$, the function $`B(r)`$ turns to zero at $`r=r_{\mathrm{th}}`$ given by (28), which is now between $`h`$ and $`h/\sqrt{2}`$, and we obtain a Kerr-like regular BH structure with an infinite sequence of R and T regions \[Fig. 1(c)\]. We see that the description of Sec. III.3 is valid in the whole range $`C<h`$ of the integration constant $`C`$.

The value $`C=h`$ leads to the simplest metric with $`A=B=1h^2/r^2`$, which may be identified as the Reissner–Nordström metric with zero mass and pure imaginary charge. The space-time causal structure is Schwarzschild, with a horizon at $`r=h`$ and a singularity at $`r=0`$. Lastly, in case $`C>h`$ the causal structure is again Schwarzschild but the singularity due to $`B\mathrm{}`$ occurs at $`r=h/\sqrt{2}`$.

This example is of certain interest in connection with Thorne’s “hoop conjecture”, claiming that a BH horizon forms when and only when a mass $`M`$ gets concentrated in a region whose circumference in every direction is smaller than $`4\pi GM`$, $`G`$ being Newton’s constant of gravity hoop . Nakamura et al. hoop-b  recently found an example of a cylindrical (i.e., infinitely long) matter distribution on the brane able to form a horizon and thus violating the hoop conjecture. The present example of a zero mass BH shows that, in the brane-world context, a BH may exist (at least as a solution to the gravitational equations on the brane) without matter and without mass, solely as a tidal effect from the bulk gravity. The effective SET is in this case certainly quite exotic from the viewpoint of the conventional energy conditions:

$`\kappa _4^2\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2(Ch)(3r^2h^2)}{r^4(2r^2h^2)^{3/2}}},`$
$`\kappa _4^2p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{r^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(Ch)(r^2+h^2)}{r^4(2r^2h^2)^{1/2}}},`$
$`\kappa _4^2p^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(Ch)(r^4+2h^2r^2h^4)}{r^4(2r^2h^2)^{3/2}}}.`$ (29)
In the simplest case $`C=h`$ it has the “anti-Reissner–Nordström” form, $`r^4diag(1,1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$.

### Example 3: $`A(r)=(12m/r)^2`$, $`m=\mathrm{const}>0`$.

For this extremal Reissner–Nordström form of $`A(r)`$, the solution (II) with $`R0`$ and the metric can be written as

$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(rr_0)(rr_1)}{r}},r_1:={\displaystyle \frac{mr_0}{r_0m}},`$ (30)
$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}\right)^2dt^2`$ (31)
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}}\right)^1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_1}{r}}\right)^1dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.`$
The form of $`A(r)`$ fits to Algorithm (BH2), and accordingly we obtain a BH solution in the only case $`r_0=r_1=2m`$, i.e., when the integration in Eq. (III.1) is conducted from $`r_h=2m`$, so that $`C=0`$. It is the extremal Reissner–Nordström metric, and accordingly the effective SET is $`T_\mu ^\nu {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}r^4diag(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},1,1)`$.

Other values of $`r_0`$ lead either to wormholes (the throat is located at $`r=r_0`$ if $`r_0>2m`$ or at $`r=r_1>2m`$ in case $`2m>r_0>m`$), or to a naked singularity located at $`r=2m`$ (when $`r_0<m`$) as is confirmed by calculating the Kretschmann scalar — see more detail in Ref. bwh1 .

### Example 4: $`A(r)=1r^2/a^2`$, $`a=\mathrm{const}>0`$.

The above examples described vacuum asymptotically flat BHs. Now, choosing the de Sitter form of $`A(r)`$, we will write the solution (II) for a vacuum configuration with a cosmological term, so that $`R=4\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=12/a^2`$, in the region $`r<a`$. We obtain

$$f(r)=rB(r)=\left(1\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)\left[r+\frac{K}{(2a^23r^2)^{3/2}}\right],$$
(32)
where $`K`$ is an integration constant such that $`K=0`$ corresponds to integration in Eq. (II) from $`r=r_s=a\sqrt{2/3}`$ to $`r`$. The value $`r=r_s`$ is the one where $`g(r)=4A+rA_r`$ vanishes. In full agreement with the description in Sec. III.2, $`B(r)`$ tends to infinity as $`rr_s`$ unless $`K=0`$, and thus the only well-behaved solution is de Sitter, with $`A=B=1r^2/a^2`$. This example illustrates what happens when Eq. (II) has a singular point $`g=0`$ in the range of interest.

### Example 5: $`A(r)=(12m/r)^{1/s}`$, $`m=\mathrm{const}>0`$, $`s`$

We here try to give an example of a metric behaving non-analytically at $`r=r_h`$ in terms of $`r`$ but analytically in terms of the quasiglobal coordinate $`u`$ defined by $`g_{tt}g_{uu}=1`$, see Sec. III.1. A certain difficulty is that the solution (II) for this choice of $`A(u)`$, even in the simplest case $`R=0`$, is expressed with the aid of the hypergeometric function, which can hardly be a very clear illustration. We therefore simply take the following “artificial” example of an asymptotically flat metric (4):

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)^{1/s}dt^2\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)^{2+1/s}dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(33)
as suggested by Eq. (15) for any positive integer $`s`$ in the case of a simple horizon, and transform it to a coordinate which behaves like $`u`$ near $`r_h=2m`$, namely, put $`12m/r=x^s`$ (we do not directly use the transformation (13) since $`u(r)`$ then looks too cumbersome.) The metric takes the form

$$ds^2=xdt^2\frac{4m^2s^2}{x(1x^s)^4}dx^2\frac{4m^2}{(1x^s)^2}d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(34)
Its asymptotic flatness at $`x=1`$ is not so evident, but evident is the behaviour at $`x=0`$ as expected at a simple horizon. In case $`s=1`$ it is the Schwarzschild metric. For $`s>1`$ it is not a vacuum solution to Eq. (II); the effective SET is easily found according to Eqs. (7), it decays at large $`r`$ as $`r^4`$, in particular, its trace is $`\kappa _4^2`$ times the scalar curvature

$$R=\frac{2}{r^2}+\frac{2}{r^3s}\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)^{11/s}[2ms(r+2m)].$$

The same substitution $`12m/r=x^s`$ applied to the metric

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)^{2/s}dt^2\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)^2dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(35)
with $`m>0`$ and $`s`$ reveals a double horizon at $`r=2m`$.

## V Concluding remarks

Using the trace of the 4D Einstein equations, written as a linear first-order ordinary differential equation and integrated, we have formulated some general requirements to the (arbitrary) generating function $`A(r)g_{tt}`$ which are sufficient for obtaining static, spherically symmetric BH metrics — see Algorithms (BH1) and (BH2). The latter may be asymptotically flat or have any other large $`r`$ behaviour.

We have seen that, under some natural restrictions, BH metrics are easily constructed in vacuum or in the presence of matter for which the dependence $`R(r)`$ may be specified. Though, not every kind of matter distribution admits a horizon inside it. No horizon can appear, e.g., in a perfect fluid with the equation of state $`\rho =np,n`$: the conservation law then implies $`\rho =\rho _0A^{(n+1)/2}`$, $`\rho _0=\mathrm{const}`$, so that $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ as $`A0`$. More generally, at a horizon, the effective SET (7) should satisfy the condition $`\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}+p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$. Indeed, one can write in terms of the metric (12):

$$G_t^tG_u^u=2\frac{𝒜}{r}\frac{d^2r}{du^2}=\kappa _4^2(\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}+p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}})$$
(36)
\[recall that $`𝒜(u)=A(r)`$\], which leads to $`\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}+p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ at regular points where $`𝒜=0`$.

The same quantity is negative at wormhole throats (it is the well-known violation of the null energy condition hoh-vis ) but is positive at bounces in T regions. Eq. (36) shows that this property is quite general: at a minimum of $`r`$, where $`d^2r/du^2>0`$, one has $`\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}+p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}}<0`$ if $`𝒜>0`$ (a throat) and $`\rho ^{\mathrm{eff}}+p_{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{eff}}>0`$ if $`𝒜<0`$ (a bounce).

A feature of utmost interest is the generic appearance of families of solutions which unify symmetric wormholes and globally regular BHs with a bounce of $`r`$ in the T region and a Kerr-like global structure. The two qualitatively different branches of any such family are separated by an extremal BH solution.

Certain care should be taken about possible zeros ($`r=r_s`$) of the function $`g(r)=4A+rA_r`$ which is a coefficient of the derivative $`f_r`$ in Eq. (II). We have shown that even if the choice of $`A(r)`$ leads to $`g(r)=0`$ at some $`r`$, a well-behaved solution can generically be obtained.

The whole consideration is quite general and may find application in general relativity (where our effective SET $`T_{\mu }^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is simply the matter SET including a possible cosmological term) and alternative theories of gravity that use modified Einstein equations. As usual, for a particular kind of matter, the theory will give one more independent equation for the two metric functions to be found, $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$ in our notation, and the set of equations will be determined.

The most natural application of these results is, however, the brane world concept where the trace of the Einstein equations is the only equation of 4D gravity which can be written unambiguously using only 4D quantities. Being a single equation for the two unknown functions $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$, it leads to a variety of BH as well as wormhole solutions. This ambiguity reflects the ambiguity of brane embedding into the bulk, which manifests itself in Eqs. (1) in the arbitrariness of $`E_\mu ^\nu `$. Moreover, as remarked in Ref. bwh1 , the tensor $`E_\mu ^\nu `$, due to its geometric origin, need not respect the usual energy conditions, and the appearance of wormhole solutions in its presence looks quite natural.

The above arbitrariness exists even in the simplest brane world models of RS2 type ransum2 , possessing a single extra dimension, $`_2`$ symmetry with respect to the brane and no matter in the bulk, to say nothing of more complex models. The latter may include scalar fields in the bulk od-bh ; sc-bulk , multiple (at least two) branes ransum1 ; 2bra , more than one extra dimension guen , timelike extra dimensions, lacking $`_2`$ symmetry, a 4D curvature term shta  etc; see further references in the cited papers and the reviews bra-rev . To improve the predictive power of brane world scenarios, it seems necessary to remove the “redundant freedom”, applying reasonable physical requirements such as regularity and stability to complete multidimensional models.

Much work in this direction has already been done. Different methods of solving the bulk gravity equations for given brane configurations have been developed chamb01 ; wiseman ; casad02 ; vis-wilt , and the bulk properties of some particular brane-world BHs have been studied \[2–5, 8\] as well as their possible quantum properties casad-qu . It appears to be a necessary, though difficult, task to extend the study to more general BH configurations.

### Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge partial financial support from DFG project 436/RUS 113/678/3-1 and also (KB and VM) from RFBR Grant 01-0217312a. KB and VM are thankful to the colleagues from the University of Konstanz for kind hospitality.


format: text

text:
# A new basis for eigenmodes on the Sphere

## 1 Introduction

For a given value of $`\mathrm{}`$, the $`2\mathrm{}+1`$ spherical harmonics $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$ provide a basis for the vector space $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the $`2\mathrm{}+1`$ dimensional irreductible representation of the group SO(3). The same space is also the eigenspace of the Laplacian on $`S^2`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$. Finally, the reunion of all spherical harmonics provides a basis for the functions on the sphere. In some sense, they play for the sphere a role analogue to that of the Fourier modes for the plane, and thus appear very useful for many applications in various fields of mathematics, (classical or quantum) physics, cosmology…

This paper presents the construction of another natural basis $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`j=\mathrm{}..\mathrm{}`$, for $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$, which seems to have been ignored in the literature. Each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined as \[the reduction to the sphere of\] an homogeneous harmonic polynomial in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$, which takes the very simple form $`(XN_j)^{\mathrm{}}`$, where the dot product extends the Euclidean \[scalar\] dot product of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$ to its complexification $`^3`$, and $`N_j`$ is a null vector of $`^3`$, that we specify below. After defining these functions, we show that they form a basis of $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$, and we give the explicit transformation formulae between the two bases.

The $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}`$’s have different properties than the $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$’s, which make them more convenient for particular applications. In particular, they are transformed differently by the group SO(3), although in a very simple way. Their main interest comes from their simplicity, and that of the calculations involving them. In this respect, we will obtain new formulae concerning the usual spherical harmonics. In particular, we obtain a finite version of the usual *integral representation* of the spherical harmonics. And we write new developments of the Legendre polynomials and of the special Legendre functions.

## 2 Harmonic functions

We parametrize the \[unit\] sphere with coordinates $`\theta =0..\pi ,\varphi =\mathrm{0..2}\pi `$. An eigenmode \[of the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`S^2`$\] is a \[complex\] function $`f(\theta ,\varphi )`$ on the sphere which verifies $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=\lambda f`$. An eigenvalue is of the form $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}^+`$ and the corresponding eigenfunctions generate the eigen vectorspace $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$, of dimension $`2\mathrm{}+1`$, which realizes the irreductible unitary representation of the group SO(3). An usual basis of $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ is provided by the \[complex\] *spherical harmonics* $`Y_\mathrm{}m,m=\mathrm{}..\mathrm{}`$. This allows the development of any \[complex\] function $`f`$ on the sphere

$$f=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{m}{}}f_\mathrm{}mY_\mathrm{}m.$$
(1)
The unit sphere $`S^2`$ can be isometrically embedded in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$, as the surface $`XX=1`$, when a point of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$ is written

$$X=(x,y,z),x=r\mathrm{cos}(\theta ),y=r\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ),z=r\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ).$$
(2)
Each function $`f𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ may be seen as the restriction of an harmonic polynomial in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$, homogeneous of degree $`\mathrm{}`$, with symmetric and traceless coefficients, that we also note $`f`$ by an abuse of language:

$$f(X)=f(x,y,z)=\underset{m+n+p=\mathrm{}}{}f_{mpq}x^my^nz^p.$$

### 2.1 Complex null vectors

A complex vector $`Z(Z^1,Z^2,Z^3)`$ is an element of $`^3`$. We extend the Euclidean scalar product in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$ to the complex (non Hermitian) inner product $`ZZ^{}_i(Z^i)(Z^i)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. A *null* vector $`N`$ is defined as having zero norm $`NN_iN_iN_i=0`$ (in which case, it may be considered as a point on the isotropic cone in $`^3`$). It is straightforward, and well known, that polynomials of the form $`(XN)^{\mathrm{}}`$, homogeneous of degree $`\mathrm{}`$, are harmonic if and only if $`N`$ is a null vector. This results from

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0(XN)^{\mathrm{}}\underset{i}{}_i_i(XN)^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}\underset{i}{}(N_iN_i)(XN)^\mathrm{}1=0,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the Laplacian of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$. Thus, the restrictions of such polynomials are in $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$. Let us define the family of null vectors $`N(\alpha )`$ with coordinates $`(1,i\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,i\mathrm{cos}\alpha )`$, where the angle $`\alpha `$ spans the unit circle.

It has been shown by  (see also ) that, through this family, the $`(k+1)^2`$ spherical harmonics of degree $`k`$ of $`S^{n1}`$ generate the spherical harmonics of degree $`=k`$ of $`S^n`$. In our case ($`n=3`$) this development takes the form

$$[XN(\alpha )]^{\mathrm{}}=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_\mathrm{}m(X)e^{im\alpha }.$$
(3)
The theorem states that the $`F_\mathrm{}m(X)`$ are homogeneous harmonic polynomia of degree $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^n`$. Multiplying the previous relation by $`e^{iM\alpha }`$ and integrating over $`\alpha `$, we obtain:

$$F_\mathrm{}M(X)=$$
(4)
$$\frac{d\alpha }{2\pi }e^{iM\alpha }[XN(\alpha )]^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{d\alpha }{2\pi }e^{iM\alpha }[\mathrm{cos}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\alpha )]^{\mathrm{}}.$$

We recognize the well known integral formula for the spherical harmonics (see, e.g.,  p.92), which proves that

$$F_\mathrm{}M=\frac{1}{2\pi B^{\mathrm{}}}Y_\mathrm{}m,B_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{4\pi \mathrm{}!}\sqrt{\frac{(m+\mathrm{})!(\mathrm{}m)!(2\mathrm{}+1)}{\pi }}.$$
(5)
Thus, we have the development

$$[XN(\alpha )]^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{Y_\mathrm{}m(X)}{B_m^{\mathrm{}}}e^{im\alpha },$$
(6)
which involves the usual (here, complex) spherical harmonics $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$. Note that the integral formula allows to consider the functions $`[XN_\alpha ]^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\alpha S^1`$ as *coherent states* for the Hilbert space of the harmonic functions (I thank A. Aribe for this remark). In this sense, all these functions form an overcomplete basis for $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$. We will extract from it a finite basis distinct from that of the $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$. (Note that other analog bases could also be extracted, although less convenient for calculations.)

### 2.2 A new basis of eigenmodes on the spheres

To find a basis of $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ in the form of such polynomials, we consider the complex $`(2\mathrm{}+1)^{th}`$ roots of unity, $`\rho ^j`$, $`j=\mathrm{}..\mathrm{}`$, with $`\rho e^{ia_{\mathrm{}}}`$. Their arguments are the $`ja_{\mathrm{}}j\frac{2\pi }{2\mathrm{}+1}`$. We will use intensively the property of the roots of unity,

$$\underset{j}{}(\rho ^k)^j=(2\mathrm{}+1)\delta _k^{Dirac},$$
(7)
the Dirac symbol. To these roots, we associate (in a given frame) the $`2\mathrm{}+1`$ particular null vectors $`N_jN(ja_{\mathrm{}})`$, $`j=\mathrm{}..\mathrm{}`$. The scalar products are given by $`N_jN_k=1\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2\pi (jk)}{2\mathrm{}+1})`$. We want to prove that the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}(X)(XN_j)^{\mathrm{}}`$ form a basis of $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ (hereafter we use the same notation for a function in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$ and its reduction on the sphere).

Rewriting equ.(6) for the particular value $`\alpha =ja`$ gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{Y_\mathrm{}m}{B_m^{\mathrm{}}}\rho ^{jm}.$$
(8)
After multiplication by $`\rho ^{jM}`$, the summation over $`j`$ leads, using (7), to an inversion of the formula, namely

$$Y_\mathrm{}m=\frac{2\pi B_m^{\mathrm{}}}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\rho ^{jm}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(9)
This proves that the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`ȷ=\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ form a basis of $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$. The two last formulae express the change of bases. As an illustration, we give the first developments in Appendix A.

The basis $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}})`$ appears not orthogonal. However, it easy to calculate the scalar products

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}^{\mathrm{}^{}}>:=\frac{\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}}{(2\mathrm{}+1)^2}\underset{m}{}\rho ^{m(jj^{})}\frac{1}{(D_\mathrm{}m)^2}$$
(10)
$$=\frac{4\pi (\mathrm{}!)^2}{(2\mathrm{}+1)(2\mathrm{})!}[2\mathrm{cos}(\frac{(jj^{})\pi }{2\mathrm{}+1})]^2\mathrm{}$$

$$=\frac{4\pi (\mathrm{}!)^22^{\mathrm{}}}{(2\mathrm{}+1)(2\mathrm{})!2^2\mathrm{}}[2N_jN_j^{}]^{\mathrm{}}$$

### 2.3 New developments of Legendre polynomials and special Legendre functions

The expansion of (9) with the binomial coefficients reads:

$$Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{2\pi B_m^{\mathrm{}}}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{j}{}\rho ^{mj}\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}& \\ p& \end{array}\right)(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^\mathrm{}p[\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2}(z\rho ^j\frac{1}{z\rho ^j})]^p,$$

where $`ze^{i\varphi }`$. We develop again, permute the summation symbols, and rearrange the terms : the sum takes the form

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}& \\ p& \end{array}\right)(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^\mathrm{}p\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2}\right)^p\underset{q=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& \\ q& \end{array}\right)(1)^{pq}z^{2qp}\underset{j}{}\rho ^{j(2qpm)}.$$

Because of the property (7), the term in the sum is non zero only when $`2qpm=0`$. The term in the development is non zero only when $`p+m`$ is even, and $`0qp\mathrm{}`$. Taking these conditions into account, we rewrite the sum as

$$\underset{q=\mathrm{max}(0,m)}{\overset{[\frac{\mathrm{}+m}{2}]}{}}\frac{\mathrm{}!2^{m2q}(1)^{qm}}{(\mathrm{}+m2q)!q!(qm)!}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{\mathrm{}+m2q}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2qm},$$
(11)
where the bracket means entire value.

As expected, $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$ is proportional to $`z^m`$, and is thus an eigenfunction of the rotation operator $`P_x`$. It results the new development formula for the associated Legendre functions (defined as $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m(x)(1x^2)^{m/2}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{}}(x)}{dx^m}`$):

$`P_m^{\mathrm{}}(x)={\displaystyle \underset{q=\mathrm{max}(0,m)}{\overset{[\frac{\mathrm{}+m}{2}]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+\mathrm{})!(1)^{qm}2^{m2q}}{(\mathrm{}+m2q)!q!(qm)!}}(1x^2)^{qm/2}x^{\mathrm{}+m2q}.`$ (12)
We can specify to the Legendre polynomials, by putting $`m=0`$. We obtain

$`P^{\mathrm{}}(x)=\mathrm{}!{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2q}}{(\mathrm{}2q)!(q!)^2}}(x^21)^qx^{\mathrm{}2q}.`$ (13)
### 2.4 The integral representation becomes finite

The integral representation of the spherical harmonics is the well known ( p.92):

$$Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi )=B_m^{\mathrm{}}_\varphi ^{2\pi \varphi }𝑑\alpha e^{im\alpha }[\mathrm{cos}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\alpha )]^{\mathrm{}},$$
(14)
with $`B_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{4\pi \mathrm{}!}\sqrt{\frac{(m+\mathrm{})!(\mathrm{}m)!(2\mathrm{}+1)}{\pi }}`$. The explicit development of (9) provides a a finite version of the latter, as

$$Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{2\pi B_\mathrm{}m}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{imj\alpha }[\mathrm{cos}\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}(\varphi +j\alpha )]^{\mathrm{}},\alpha \frac{2\pi }{2\mathrm{}+1}.$$
(15)
### 2.5 Group action

The vector space $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ form an $`(2\mathrm{}+1)`$ dimensional IUR of SO(3), $`T`$, whose action is defined through

$$T:SO(3)gT_g:fT_gf:T_gf(x)f(gx).$$
(16)
This action is completely defined by the transformation laws for a basis of $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$. For instance, the usual spherical harmonics have the property that they transform very simply (a multiplication by a complex number) under a selected SO(2) subgroup of SO(3): they have been precisely chosen as eigenfunctions of the angular momentum operator, in addition to the Laplacian (which is the Casimir operator of the group).

The functions of the new basis transform in a different way under the group: developing the transformed function in the basis, we can write

$$T_g:\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}T_g\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}=\underset{k}{}G_j^{(\mathrm{})k}[g]\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{\mathrm{}},g\text{SO}(3).$$
(17)
On the other hand, by definition of the representation, $`T_g\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}(X)=\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{\mathrm{}}(gX)`$. This leads to the relation

$$(gXN_j)^{\mathrm{}}=\underset{k}{}G_j^{(\mathrm{})k}[g](XN_k)^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(18)
To go further, we define the two vectors $`\alpha (0,1,i)`$ and $`\beta (1,0,0)`$, such that $`\alpha N_j=\rho ^j`$ and $`\beta N_j=1`$, and we apply the formula above to the vector $`X=\alpha +t\beta `$. Developing and identifying the powers of $`t`$, we obtain

$$(g\alpha N_j)^p(g\beta N_j)^\mathrm{}p=\underset{k}{}G_j^{(\mathrm{})k}[g](\alpha N_k)^pp=0..k.$$
(19)
The solution provides the explicit form of the coefficients

$$G_j^{(\mathrm{})k}[g]=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{n}{}\rho ^{kn}(g\alpha N_j)^n(g\beta N_j)^\mathrm{}n,$$

for an arbitrary $`g`$ SO(3). This provides the transformation properties of any function developed in the basis.

If we select a subgroup SO(2) in SO(3), there is a basis (in which the pole $`[1,0,0]`$ remains fixed) where its elements are given by the matrices $`g_\psi =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi \\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi \end{array}\right),\psi [\mathrm{0..2}\pi ].`$ This implies
$`g_\psi \alpha N_j=w\rho ^j`$, $`g_\psi \beta N_j=1`$, with $`we^{i\psi }`$, and thus

$$G_j^{(\mathrm{})k}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}w^n\rho ^{n(jk)}.$$
(20)
Given the correspondence (8,9), this is equivalent to the well known formula describing the rotation properties of the spherical harmonics, $`Y_\mathrm{}mw^mY_\mathrm{}m`$.

Note that in the case $`w=\rho ^K`$, a ($`2\mathrm{}+1`$) root of unity, the matrix becomes diagonal: $`G_j^{(\mathrm{})k}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\rho ^{nK}\rho ^{n(jk)}=\delta _{K+jk}^{Dirac}`$ (a remark due to A. Aribe).

## 3 Conclusion

We have presented a new basis for the eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on the sphere, distinct from the usual basis of spherical harmonics $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$, and with different properties. Its very simple expression allows easy calculations. In particular, we gave a general formula which gives their transformation properties under the isometry group of the sphere, SO(3). This led, using the transformation formulae, to easy calculations of the transformation properties of the usual spherical harmonics, not only for a privilegied group SO(2) of SO(3). In addition, new formulae were derived for the $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$, as well for the Legendre polynomials and the Legendre special functions, of great potential use for calculations with harmonic functions.

Subsequent work will generalize this construction to $`S^3`$. Beside the intrinsic interest, this will provide an explicit formulation of the transformation properties of the harmonic functions on $`S^3`$ under the isometry group SO(4). In turn, this will allow to select those functions which remain invariant under specified elements of SO(4). This opens the way to calculate the eigenfunctions \[of the Laplacian\] on any spherical space $`S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which remain presently unknown in general.

## 4 Appendix A

We develop the first basis functions in Spherical Harmonics:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^1`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}}`$ $`[Y_1^1+\sqrt{2}Y_0^1+Y_1^1],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^1`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}}`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{2}}Y_1^1+\sqrt{2}Y_0^1{\displaystyle \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{2}}Y(1)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^1`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}}`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{2}}Y_1^1+\sqrt{2}Y_0^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{2}}Y(1)\right];`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\sqrt{5}}}`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}+Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+Y_0^1+Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\sqrt{5}}}`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4i\pi }{5}}Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}+e^{\frac{2i\pi }{5}}Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+Y_0^1+e^{\frac{2i\pi }{5}}Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4i\pi }{5}}Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\sqrt{5}}}`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4i\pi }{5}}Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}+e^{\frac{2i\pi }{5}}Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+Y_0^1+e^{\frac{2i\pi }{5}}Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4i\pi }{5}}Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\sqrt{5}}}`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{8i\pi }{5}}Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}+e^{\frac{4i\pi }{5}}Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+Y_0^1+e^{\frac{4i\pi }{5}}Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{8i\pi }{5}}Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\sqrt{5}}}`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{8i\pi }{5}}Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}+e^{\frac{4i\pi }{5}}Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+Y_0^1+e^{\frac{4i\pi }{5}}Y_1^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{8i\pi }{5}}Y_2^1}{\sqrt{6}}}\right],`$


text:
# Instanton and Higher-Loop Perturbative Contributions to the QCD Sum-Rule Analysis of Pseudoscalar Gluonium

## 1 Introduction

The gluon self-interaction in QCD suggests the existence of bound gluonic states known as gluonium or glueballs. The properties of gluonium states have been studied within a wide variety of theoretical methods including lattice simulations , QCD sum-rules , and other phenomenological models . From the experimental viewpoint, a number of scalar and pseudoscalar isoscalar states exist which are potential gluonium candidates , but a consensus on the nature of these states has not been achieved. Similarly, theoretical investigations of the gluonium mass spectrum continue to be refined.

The initial QCD sum-rule analyses of scalar gluonium  and pseudoscalar gluonium  have been extended to include higher-loop contributions of QCD condensates and higher-loop perturbative effects . The non-leading condensate corrections arising from the gluon condensate $`\alpha G^2`$  are particularly significant since they provide the leading contribution in many sum-rules.

It is also known that (direct) instantons contribute to the pseudoscalar and scalar channels . These contributions have a significant effect on the scalar gluonium Laplace  and Gaussian sum-rules . In particular, the instanton effects improve the self-consistency of the lowest-weighted Laplace sum-rule containing the low-energy theorem and the higher-weight sum-rules which are independent of the low-energy theorem . However, the role of instantons in the Laplace sum-rules for pseudoscalar gluonium have not been studied in similar detail. The self-dual properties of the instanton implies that the leading instanton effects in the scalar and pseudoscalar gluonic channels differ only by an overall sign. This presents the interesting possibility that instantons are responsible for the large mass splitting between scalar and pseudoscalar gluonium states observed in lattice simulations .

In this paper, instanton and higher-loop perturbative effects are incorporated into the Laplace and Gaussian QCD sum-rules for pseudoscalar gluonium. In Section 3 it is demonstrated that the Laplace sum-rules fail to yield an optimized mass prediction for the pseudoscalar gluonium state. This shortcoming is shown to be overcome by the Gaussian sum-rule approach presented in Section 4. The full phenomenological analysis of the Gaussian sum-rules for pseudoscalar gluonium is presented in Section 5.

## 2 QCD Laplace Sum-Rules for Pseudoscalar Gluonium

Pseudoscalar gluonium is studied through the two-point correlation function of the renormalization-group invariant currents $`j(x)=\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a=\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }^a\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }G_{\alpha \beta }^a`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Q^2\right)=i\mathrm{d}^4x\mathrm{e}^{iqx}0|T[J(x)J(0)]|0,Q^2=q^2>0.$$
(1)
The correlation function (1) satisfies the dispersion relation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Q^2\right)=\mathrm{\Pi }(0)+Q^2\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(0)+\frac{1}{2}Q^4\mathrm{\Pi }^{\prime \prime }(0)Q^6\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{t_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dt\frac{\rho (t)}{t^3\left(t+Q^2\right)}$$
(2)
relating the QCD prediction $`\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Q^2\right)`$ to the hadronic spectral function $`\rho (t)`$ appropriate to pseudoscalar gluonic states above the physical threshold $`t_0`$ . The Laplace sum-rules resulting from (2) are

$$_k(\tau )=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{t_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^k\mathrm{e}^{t\tau }\rho (t)t,k=0,1,2\mathrm{},$$
(3)
where the theoretically-determined quantity $`_k(\tau )`$ is obtained by applying the Borel-transform operator $`\widehat{B}`$

$$\widehat{B}\underset{\stackrel{N,Q^2\mathrm{}}{N/Q^2\tau }}{lim}\frac{\left(Q^2\right)^N}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}Q^2}\right)^N$$
(4)
to the appropriately-weighted correlation function

$$_k(\tau )\frac{1}{\tau }\widehat{B}\left[\left(1\right)^kQ^{2k}\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Q^2\right)\right].$$
(5)
In the resonance(s) plus continuum model , hadronic physics is locally dual to the QCD prediction for energies above the continuum threshold $`t=s_0`$

$$\rho (t)=\rho ^{had}(t)+\theta \left(ts_0\right)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{QCD}(t).$$
(6)
The QCD continuum contribution

$$c_k(\tau ,s_0)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{s_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^k\mathrm{e}^{t\tau }\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{QCD}(t)dt$$
(7)
is thus combined with the quantity $`_k(\tau )`$ because both are QCD predictions, resulting in the following Laplace sum-rules relating QCD to hadronic physics phenomenology:

$$R_k(\tau ,s_0)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{t_0}{\overset{s_0}{}}t^k\mathrm{e}^{t\tau }\rho ^{had}(t)dt$$
(8)
$$R_k(\tau ,s_0)=_k\left(\tau \right)c_k(\tau ,s_0).$$
(9)
The field-theoretical (QCD) calculation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Q^2\right)`$ contains perturbative (logarithmic) corrections known up to three-loop order in the chiral limit of $`n_f=3`$ massless quarks in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme , QCD condensate contributions , and direct instantons

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }\left(Q^2\right)=& Q^4\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\nu ^2}\right)\left[a_0+a_1\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\nu ^2}\right)+a_2\mathrm{log}^2\left(\frac{Q^2}{\nu ^2}\right)\right]\hfill \\ & +\left[b_0+b_1\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\nu ^2}\right)\right]\alpha G^2+c_0\frac{1}{Q^2}gG^3+d_0\frac{1}{Q^4}𝒪_8\hfill \\ & 32\pi ^2Q^4\rho ^4\left[K_2\left(\rho \sqrt{Q^2}\right)\right]^2dn(\rho )\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where

$$a_0=2\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2\left[1+20.75\frac{\alpha }{\pi }+305.95\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2\right]$$
(11)
$$a_1=2\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^3\left[\frac{9}{4}+72.531\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right],a_2=10.1250\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^4$$
(12)
$$b_0=4\pi \frac{\alpha }{\pi },b_1=9\pi \left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2,c_0=8\pi ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2,d_0=8\pi ^2\frac{\alpha }{\pi }$$
(13)
$$\alpha G^2=\alpha G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{a\mu \nu },gG^3=gf_{abc}G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\nu \rho }^bG_{\rho \mu }^c$$
(14)
$$𝒪_8=\left(\alpha f_{abc}G_{\mu \rho }^aG_{\nu \rho }^b\right)^2+10\left(\alpha f_{abc}G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\rho \lambda }^b\right)^2$$
(15)
and $`K_2(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind in the conventions of . Divergent polynomials corresponding to subtraction constants in the dispersion relation have been ignored because they are annihilated by the Borel transform, and hence do not contribute to the Laplace sum-rules. The Feynman diagrams used to calculate the leading order perturbative and condensate contributions are illustrated in Figure 1.111See Ref.  for an outline of several techniques for calculating the condensate contributions through the operator-product expansion and for a proof that such methods are equivalent.

Although the coefficient $`b_0`$ of the gluon condensate has only been calculated to leading order for the pseudoscalar correlation function, the one-loop coefficient $`b_1`$ is entirely determined by the leading order $`b_0`$ combined with the renormalization group . As will be seen below, $`b_0`$ does not enter the Laplace sum-rules $`_k`$ for $`k0`$, and hence it is crucial to include $`b_1`$ to obtain the leading effects from $`\alpha G^2`$. Finally, it should be noted that the three-loop perturbative calculation  uncovered an error in the two-loop expression  used in the sum-rule analysis , providing further motivation for revisiting this sum-rule analysis of pseudoscalar gluonium.

The instanton contribution in (10), representing non-interacting instantons of size $`\rho `$ with subsequent integration over the instanton density $`n(\rho )`$, is expected to be a reasonable approximation since multi-instanton effects have been found to be controllable . The self-dual nature of the instanton implies that the instanton contributions to the pseudoscalar and scalar gluonium correlators only differ by an overall sign.

The Laplace sum-rules can be constructed from (10) by using the results contained in

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _0(\tau )=& \frac{1}{\tau ^3}\left[2a_0+a_1\left(6+4\gamma _E\right)+a_2\left(\pi ^26+18\gamma _E6\gamma _E^2\right)\right]\hfill \\ & \frac{b_1}{\tau }\alpha G^2+c_0gG^3+d_0\tau 𝒪_8\hfill \\ & 128\pi ^2dn(\rho )\frac{a^4\mathrm{e}^a}{\rho ^2}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}aK_0(a)+(1+2a)K_1(a)\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _1(\tau )=& \frac{1}{\tau ^4}\left[6a_0+a_1\left(22+12\gamma _E\right)+a_2\left(3\pi ^236+66\gamma _E18\gamma _E^2\right)\right]\hfill \\ & \frac{b_1}{\tau ^2}\alpha G^2d_0𝒪_8\hfill \\ & 256\pi ^2dn(\rho )\frac{a^5\mathrm{e}^a}{\rho ^4}\left[(94a)aK_0(a)+(3+7a4a^2)K_1(a)\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c_k(\tau ,s_0)=& \underset{s_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^{k+2}\mathrm{e}^{t\tau }\left[a_02a_1\mathrm{log}\left(t\tau \right)+a_2\left(\pi ^23\mathrm{log}^2\left(t\tau \right)\right)\right]dt\hfill \\ & b_1\alpha G^2\underset{s_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^k\mathrm{}^{t\tau }t\hfill \\ & +16\pi ^3dn(\rho )\rho ^4\underset{s_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^{k+2}J_2\left(\rho \sqrt{t}\right)Y_2\left(\rho \sqrt{t}\right)\mathrm{e}^{t\tau }dt,\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
where $`a=\rho ^2/2\tau `$ and it should be noted that the one-loop term provides the leading $`\alpha G^2`$ contribution to the Laplace sum-rules. In obtaining these expressions, renormalization-group improvement has been implemented by setting $`\nu ^2=1/\tau `$ after calculating Borel transforms , so that in the perturbative corrections, $`\alpha `$ is implicitly the three-loop $`n_f=3`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ running coupling

$$\frac{\alpha _s(\nu )}{\pi }=\frac{1}{\beta _0L}\frac{\overline{\beta }_1\mathrm{log}L}{\left(\beta _0L\right)^2}+\frac{1}{\left(\beta _0L\right)^3}\left[\overline{\beta }_1^2\left(\mathrm{log}^2L\mathrm{log}L1\right)+\overline{\beta }_2\right]$$
(19)
$$L=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\nu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right),\overline{\beta }_i=\frac{\beta _i}{\beta _0},\beta _0=\frac{9}{4},\beta _1=4,\beta _2=\frac{3863}{384},$$
(20)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}300\mathrm{MeV}`$ for three active flavours, consistent with current estimates of $`\alpha _s(M_\tau )`$ .

## 3 Laplace Sum-Rule Analysis of Pseudoscalar Gluonium

The instanton liquid model

$$n(\rho )=n_c\delta (\rho \rho _c)\rho ;n_c=8\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^4,\rho _c=\frac{1}{600\mathrm{MeV}}$$
(21)
will be used in the Laplace sum-rule analysis, along with the value for the the dimension-eight condensates obtained from vacuum saturation and the heavy-quark expansion

$$𝒪_8=\frac{15}{16}\left(\alpha G^2\right)^2$$
(22)
and the instanton estimate of the dimension-six gluon condensate

$$gG^3=\left(0.27\mathrm{GeV}^2\right)\alpha G^2.$$
(23)
The dimension-six and dimension-eight condensates are thus related to the gluon condensate given by the determination

$$\alpha G^2=(0.07\pm 0.01)\mathrm{GeV}^4.$$
(24)
In the narrow resonance(s) model

$$\rho ^{had}(t)=\pi F^2M^4\delta \left(tM^2\right),$$
(25)
resonance masses are signaled by exponential decay of the sum-rules

$$R_k(\tau ,s_0)=F^2M^{4+2k}\mathrm{exp}\left(M^2\tau \right).$$
(26)
A bound on the mass $`M`$ of the lightest state can then be obtained from the ratio

$$\frac{_1(\tau )}{_0(\tau )}=\underset{s_0\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{R_1(\tau ,s_0)}{R_0(\tau ,s_0)}M^2.$$
(27)
This bound is quite robust since it does not depend on the QCD continuum approximation and does not require dominance from the lightest state (see e.g. ). Figure 2 displays the ratio (27), resulting in a bound on the lightest pseudoscalar gluonium state of $`M<3.1\mathrm{GeV}`$.

As illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, the rise past the minimum in Figure 2 is actually a manifestation of a zero which occurs in $`_0(\tau )`$ prior to the first zero of $`_1(\tau )`$, resulting in a singularity of the ratio (27). Negative values of $`_k(\tau )`$ are inconsistent with (5) and positivity of the spectral function $`\rho (t)`$. This unphysical behaviour of the sum-rules can be traced to the instanton contributions in the low-energy (large $`\tau `$) regime.

The unphysical low-energy behaviour of the sum-rules does not necessarily invalidate the bounds obtained from Figure 2 because the minimum occurs in the perturbative (high-energy, low $`\tau `$) regime, but it does present difficulties in the extraction of an optimized mass estimate. Within the single narrow resonance model, (26) results in

$$\frac{R_1(\tau ,s_0)}{R_0(\tau ,s_0)}=M^2.$$
(28)
In a typical sum-rule analysis , one decreases $`s_0`$ until a stable (i.e. nearly $`\tau `$-independent) ratio (28) is obtained. Figure 5 shows that the ratio does stabilize at approximately $`2.7\mathrm{GeV}`$, but the small $`\tau `$ values associated with this stability region are problematic because dominance of the lightest resonance cannot be assured and uncertainties from the continuum approximation become significant. However, because (27) has general validity beyond these approximations, the $`M<3.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ bound remains valid.

Thus instanton effects prevent the extraction of a reliable optimized Laplace sum-rule mass prediction for pseudoscalar gluonium, a difficulty that has also been observed in the configuration-space instanton analysis . It is interesting that the resonance signal in each case is exponential decay associated with the resonance mass combined with $`\tau `$ in the Laplace sum-rules (26) or with Euclideanized time in the configuration-space approach . The next Section will review the formulation of Gaussian sum-rules which will be seen to provide a fundamentally-different weighting of the hadronic spectral function and QCD contributions, obviating the problems associated with an optimization of the Laplace sum-rule analysis.

## 4 Gaussian Sum-Rules for Pseudoscalar Gluonium

The simplest Gaussian sum-rule (GSR)

$$G(\widehat{s},\tau )=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{t_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \tau }}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\left(t\widehat{s}\right)^2}{4\tau })\rho (t)\mathrm{d}t,\tau >0$$
(29)
relates the QCD prediction on the left-hand side of (29) to the hadronic spectral function $`\rho (t)`$ smeared over the energy range $`\widehat{s}2\sqrt{\tau }t\widehat{s}+2\sqrt{\tau }`$, representing an energy interval for quark-hadron duality.222The quantity $`\tau `$ in the GSR should not be confused with the similar quantity appearing in the Laplace sum-rules. In particular, the mass dimension is different in each usage. An interesting aspect of the GSR is that the duality interval is actually constrained by QCD. A lower bound on this duality scale $`\tau `$ necessarily exists because the QCD prediction has renormalization-group properties that reference running quantities the the energy scale $`\nu ^2=\sqrt{\tau }`$ . Thus it is not possible to achieve the formal $`\tau 0`$ limit where complete knowledge of the spectral function could be obtained via

$$\underset{\tau 0}{lim}G(\widehat{s},\tau )=\frac{1}{\pi }\rho \left(\widehat{s}\right),\widehat{s}>t_0.$$
(30)
However, there is no theoretical constraint on the quantity $`\widehat{s}`$ representing the peak of the Gaussian kernel appearing in (29). Thus the $`\widehat{s}`$ dependence of the QCD prediction $`G(\widehat{s},\tau )`$ probes the behaviour of the smeared spectral function, reproducing the essential features of the spectral function. In particular, as $`\widehat{s}`$ passes through $`t`$ values corresponding to resonance peaks, the Gaussian kernel in (29) reaches its maximum value, implying that Gaussian sum-rules weight excited and ground states equally.

The QCD prediction for the GSR is obtained from the correlation function through

$$G(\widehat{s},\tau )\sqrt{\frac{\tau }{\pi }}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\widehat{s}i\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\widehat{s}+i\mathrm{\Delta }\right)}{i\mathrm{\Delta }}\right\},$$
(31)
where the Borel transform $``$ has been redefined as

$$\underset{\stackrel{N,\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2/N4\tau }}{lim}\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^N}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right)^N.$$
(32)
The GSR (29) then results from combining (31) with the dispersion relation (2) .

A connection between Gaussian and finite-energy sum-rules can be established through the diffusion equation satisfied by the GSR

$$\frac{^2G(\widehat{s},\tau )}{\widehat{s}^2}=\frac{G(\widehat{s},\tau )}{\tau }.$$
(33)
In particular, the resonance(s) plus continuum model (6), when $`\rho ^{had}(t)`$ is evolved through the diffusion equation (33), only reproduces the QCD prediction at large energies ($`\tau `$ large) if the resonance and continuum contributions are balanced through the finite-energy sum-rule

$$F\left(s_0\right)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{t_0}{\overset{s_0}{}}\rho ^{had}(t)dt.$$
(34)
Within the resonance(s) plus continuum model (6), the continuum contribution to the GSR is determined by QCD

$$G^{cont}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \tau }}_{s_0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\widehat{s}t)^2}{4\tau }\right]\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{QCD}(t)t,$$
(35)
and is thus combined with $`G_k(\widehat{s},\tau )`$ to give the total QCD contribution

$$G^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)G(\widehat{s},\tau )G^{cont}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0),$$
(36)
resulting in the final relation between the QCD and hadronic sides of the GSR.

$$G^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)=_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\widehat{s}t)^2}{4\tau }\right]\frac{1}{\pi }\rho ^{had}(t)t.$$
(37)
Comparison of (37) and (8) reveals that the GSR provides a fundamentally different weighting of the hadronic spectral function than the Laplace sum-rule. In particular, the Laplace sum-rules always emphasize the low-energy region, while this aspect is controlled in the GSR by the parameter $`\widehat{s}`$.

The expression for the QCD prediction for the pseudoscalar gluonium GSR can then be constructed using the results of .

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \tau }}_0^{s_0}t^2t\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\widehat{s}t)^2}{4\tau }\right][(a_0\pi ^2a_2)+2a_1\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{t}{\nu ^2}\right).\hfill \\ & .+3a_2\mathrm{log}^2\left(\frac{t}{\nu ^2}\right)]\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \tau }}b_1\alpha G^2_0^{s_0}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\widehat{s}t)^2}{4\tau }\right]t\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \tau }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\widehat{s}^2}{4\tau }\right)\left[c_0𝒪_6\frac{d_0\widehat{s}}{2\tau }𝒪_8\right]\hfill \\ & +\frac{16\pi ^3}{\sqrt{4\pi \tau }}n(\rho )\rho ^4_0^{s_0}t^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\widehat{s}t)^2}{4\tau }\right]J_2\left(\rho \sqrt{t}\right)Y_2\left(\rho \sqrt{t}\right)t\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
As mentioned earlier, renormalization-group improvement necessitates the replacement $`\nu ^2=\sqrt{\tau }`$ in (38) . As with the Laplace sum-rules, the one-loop term provides the leading $`\alpha G^2`$ contribution to the GSR. For the dimension-six and -eight non-perturbative QCD condensate contributions in (38), it is easily seen that the non-perturbative corrections are exponentially suppressed for large $`\widehat{s}`$. Since $`\widehat{s}`$ represents the location of the Gaussian peak on the phenomenological side of the sum-rule, the non-perturbative corrections are most important in the low-energy region, as anticipated by the role of QCD condensates in relation to the vacuum properties of QCD. This explicit low-energy role of the QCD condensates clearly exhibited for the Gaussian sum-rules is obscured in the Laplace sum-rules.

Integrating both sides of (37) reveals that the overall normalization of the above equation is related to the finite-energy sum-rule

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)\widehat{s}=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{t_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\rho ^{had}(t)t.$$
(39)
Thus the diffusion equation analysis  relates the normalization of the GSR to the finite-energy sum-rules. Information independent of this relation is thus extracted from the normalized GSR

$$N^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)\frac{G^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)}{m_0(\tau ,s_0)}$$
(40)
$$m_n(\tau ,s_0)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{s}^nG^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)\widehat{s},n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(41)
which is related to the hadronic spectral function via

$$N^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)=\frac{\underset{t_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\widehat{s}t)^2}{4\tau }\right]\rho ^{had}(t)t}{\sqrt{4\pi \tau }\underset{t_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\rho ^{had}(t)t}.$$
(42)
## 5 Gaussian Sum-Rule Analysis of Pseudoscalar Gluonium

The techniques for analyzing the GSRs were initially developed in . In the single narrow resonance model, the normalized GSR (42) becomes

$$N^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \tau }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\widehat{s}M^2)^2}{4\tau }\right].$$
(43)
Deviations from the narrow-width limit are proportional to $`M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/\tau `$, so this narrow-width model may be a good numerical approximation. Phenomenological analysis of the single narrow resonance model proceeds from the observation that, as a function of $`\widehat{s}`$, the phenomenological side of (43) has a maximum value (peak) at $`\widehat{s}=M^2`$ independent of the value of $`\tau `$. The value of $`s_0`$ is then optimized by minimizing the $`\tau `$ dependence of the $`\widehat{s}`$ peak position of the QCD prediction, and the resulting $`\tau `$-averaged $`\widehat{s}`$ peak position leads to a prediction of the resonance mass .

For the central values of the QCD parameters, minimizing the $`\widehat{s}`$ peak motion in the region $`2\mathrm{GeV}^4<\tau <4\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ results in $`M=2.70\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`\sqrt{s_0}=3.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is remarkably similar to the mass scale resulting from the Laplace sum-rule stability analysis in Figure 5.333The range of $`\tau `$ is chosen to have acceptable convergence of the perturbative series while maintaining a resolution consistent with typical hadronic scales.  Although an optimized Laplace sum-rule analysis was not possible, a consistent scenario is emerging from the two approaches.

Figure 6 compares the theoretical and phenomenological sides of the normalized GSR (42). It is evident from this comparison that the single narrow resonance model is an inadequate description of the spectral function predicted by QCD. Figure 6 also reveals a region of small $`\widehat{s}`$ where the theoretical GSR is negative, inconsistent with a positive spectral function through (42). This effect can again be traced to the instanton contributions, and since $`\widehat{s}`$ corresponds to the peak of the Gaussian kernel, it is clear that this is a low-energy non-perturbative effect that is safely isolated from the peak of the theoretical contribution which enters the optimization analysis.

By construction, all the curves in Figure 6 are normalized to unit area, so the QCD contributions which underestimate the peak are necessarily broader than those of the single narrow resonance model.444This point is explicitly evident in the tails where QCD overestimates the single narrow resonance model. In particular, moment combinations (41) associated with (43) result in

$$\frac{m_2}{m_0}\left(\frac{m_1}{m_0}\right)^2=2\tau .$$
(44)
Thus the narrow-resonance width of $`2\tau `$ is insufficient to provide agreement with QCD, indicative of distributed resonance strength that can be resolved by the GSR.

A simple toy model that illustrates the effect of resonance widths in the broadening of the phenomenological side of the normalized GSR is a unit-area “square pulse” which could describe a broad structureless feature of the spectral function

$$\frac{1}{\pi }\rho ^{had}(t)=\frac{1}{2M\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left[\theta \left(tM^2+M\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\theta \left(tM^2M\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\right],$$
(45)
which leads to the following normalized Gaussian sum-rule

$$N^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)=\frac{1}{4M\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left[\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{\widehat{s}M^2+M\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\sqrt{\tau }}\right)\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{\widehat{s}M^2M\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\sqrt{\tau }}\right)\right].$$
(46)
The second-order moment combinations resulting from this sum-rule are

$$\frac{m_2}{m_0}\left(\frac{m_1}{m_0}\right)^2=2\tau +\frac{1}{3}M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,$$
(47)
and hence resonance widths broaden the phenomenological side of the normalized GSR as would be expected intuitively.

For detailed analysis, the following Gaussian resonance and a skewed-Gaussian resonance models will be employed since they are numerically simpler to analyze than a Breit-Wigner resonance shape.

$$\rho (t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(tM^2\right)^2}{2\gamma ^2}\right]$$
(48)
$$\rho (t)t^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(tM^2\right)^2}{2\gamma ^2}\right]$$
(49)
The quantity $`\gamma `$ can be related to a Breit-Wigner width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by equating the half-widths, resulting in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{2\mathrm{log}2}\gamma /M`$. For the Gaussian model, the resulting normalized GSR is

$$N^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)=\frac{1+\text{erf}\left(\frac{\widehat{s}\gamma ^2+2M^2\tau }{2\gamma \sqrt{\tau }\sqrt{\gamma ^2+2\tau }}\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sqrt{\gamma ^2+2\tau }\left[1+\text{erf}\left(\frac{M^2}{\sqrt{2}\gamma }\right)\right]}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(\widehat{s}M^2\right)^2}{2\left(\gamma ^2+2\tau \right)}\right].$$
(50)
For the skewed Gaussian model, the resulting normalized GSR is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{N^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)}{A}=& \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(\widehat{s}M^2\right)^2}{2\left(\gamma ^2+2\tau \right)}\right]\left[1+\text{erf}\left(\frac{\widehat{s}\gamma ^2+2M^2\tau }{2\gamma \sqrt{\tau }\sqrt{\gamma ^2+2\tau }}\right)\right]\hfill \\ & \times \sqrt{\pi }\left[\widehat{s}^2\gamma ^4+4\widehat{s}\gamma ^2\tau M^2+4\tau ^2M^4+2\tau \gamma ^4+4\tau ^2\gamma ^2\right]\hfill \\ & +2\gamma \left(\widehat{s}\gamma ^2+2\tau M^2\right)\sqrt{\tau \left(\gamma ^2+2\tau \right)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\widehat{s}^2\gamma ^2+2\tau M^4}{4\tau \gamma ^2}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
where

$$A=\frac{\frac{\gamma }{2\sqrt{\pi }\left(\gamma ^2+2\tau \right)^{5/2}}}{M^2\gamma ^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{M^4}{2\gamma ^2}\right)+\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\left(M^4\gamma +\gamma ^3\right)\left[1+\text{erf}\left(\frac{M^2}{\gamma \sqrt{2}}\right)\right]}.$$
(52)
The inclusion of resonance widths implies that the $`\widehat{s}`$ peak position of the phenomenological side of the sum-rules can develop $`\tau `$ dependence, complicating the optimization of $`s_0`$. The direct approach of determining all parameters from the best fit between the $`\widehat{s}`$ dependence of the two sides of (50) and (51) over the range $`2\mathrm{GeV}^4<\tau <4\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ is facilitated by an initial estimate of $`s_0`$. An effective estimate of the optimized $`s_0`$ is obtained from the (approximate) $`\tau `$ dependence of the $`\widehat{s}`$ peak which has the general behaviour

$$\widehat{s}_{peak}(\tau ,s_0)=a+\frac{b}{\tau }+\frac{c}{\tau ^2}.$$
(53)
Analysis of how the $`\widehat{s}`$ peak “drifts” with $`\tau `$ in comparison with the behaviour (53) provides an estimate of $`s_0`$ which is found to be surprisingly close to the true fitted value, facilitating numerical analysis of the multi-dimensional fit.

For the central values of the QCD parameters, the resulting optimized parameters are $`M=2.7\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.50\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the Gaussian resonance model, and $`M=2.6\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.53\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the skewed Gaussian resonance model, with $`\sqrt{s_0}=3.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ in each case. The agreement between the QCD and phenomenological sides of the normalized GSR for the skewed Gaussian model is shown in Figure 7. Comparison of Figures 6 and 7 (which have identical scales) reveals that inclusion of a resonance width provides a significant improvement in the agreement between the QCD and phenomenological sides of the sum-rule without a significant change in the predicted resonance mass.

The un-skewed Gaussian resonance model results in an agreement between the QCD and phenomenological sides of the normalized GSR which is qualitatively and quantitatively indistinguishable from Figure 7. Unlike the single narrow resonance model where theory consistently underestimated the phenomenological peak, there is no evident pattern in the disagreement between QCD and the skewed-Gaussian model. It is possible that the slight disagreement that remains between QCD and the phenomenological model can be explained by the low-energy region where $`G^{qcd}`$ is negative, since this reduces the quantity $`m_0`$ for $`\tau =2\mathrm{GeV}^4`$, and hence raises the value of $`N^{qcd}`$. Thus there is no clear motivation for considering more complex resonance models.

The effect of varying the QCD instanton parameters by 15% and the gluon condensate within the range (24) in both the Gaussian and skewed-Gaussian models provides a final determination of the mass and width of pseudoscalar gluonium

$$M=(2.65\pm 0.33)\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }<540\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(54)
An interesting aspect of this analysis is that smaller instanton sizes are essentially consistent with a narrow resonance model.

## 6 Conclusions

Instanton and higher-loop perturbative effects have been incorporated into the Laplace and Gaussian sum-rules for pseudoscalar gluonium. Although the Gaussian sum-rules are found to be superior to the Laplace sum-rules in obtaining an optimized prediction of the pseudoscalar gluonium properties, the resulting mass scales in each analysis are remarkably consistent, providing corroborating evidence in support of our final mass prediction of $`M2.7\mathrm{GeV}`$. Our mass estimate is consistent with the benchmark lattice scalar glueball mass of approximately $`1.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ and a pseudoscalar to scalar mass ratio of approximately 1.5 .

The analysis presented in this paper has not pursued the interesting possibility of mixing between gluonium and quark mesons , although in principle any hadronic state that overlaps with the pseudoscalar gluonium interpolating field would be probed by the correlator (1) which underlies our entire analysis.

This possibility of other resonances coupled to the pseudoscalar gluonic current was explored through an extension of the Section 5 analysis to two narrow resonances tends to lead to nearly-degenerate states near $`2.7\mathrm{GeV}`$, suggesting that the $`2.7\mathrm{GeV}`$ state is more strongly coupled to the pseudoscalar gluonic operator than other pseudoscalar states such as the $`\eta ^{}`$. This result is not unexpected, since the coupling of the $`2.7\mathrm{GeV}`$ state $`|P`$ to the pseudoscalar gluonic current extracted from the peak value of $`G^{qcd}(\widehat{s},\tau ,s_0)`$ with the optimized value of $`s_0`$ is

$$\left|O\left|\alpha G\stackrel{~}{G}\right|P\right|20\mathrm{GeV}^3.$$
(55)
By comparison, the couplings of $`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ to the pseudoscalar gluonic operators are

$$\left|O\left|\alpha G\stackrel{~}{G}\right|\eta ^{}\right|0.9\mathrm{GeV}^3,\left|O\left|\alpha G\stackrel{~}{G}\right|\eta \right|0.1\mathrm{GeV}^3,$$
(56)
and hence the relative strength of the $`|\eta ^{}`$ compared with $`|P`$ obtained from the ratios of the squares of (55) and (56) is approximately 0.2%, and the relative strength of the $`|\eta `$ is approximately 0.02%. This result is upheld by a fit of the relative strength of the $`\eta ^{}`$ and a Gaussian resonance to the normalized GSR results in a relative strength of less than 1%. Thus the $`2.7\mathrm{GeV}`$ state resulting from our analysis appears to be dominantly-coupled to the pseudoscalar gluonic operators.

## 7 Acknowledgments

Research funding from the Natural Science & Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is gratefully acknowledged. Ailin Zhang is partly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China.