text:
# Singular Integrals Meet Modulation Invariance

## 1. Multilinear singular integrals

A basic example for the notion of singular integral is a convolution operator

$$Tf(x)=Kf(x)=K(xy)f(y)𝑑y$$
(1.1)
whose convolution kernel $`K`$ is not absolutely integrable. If $`K`$ was absolutely integrable then we had trivially an a priori estimate

$$Kf_pK_1f_p$$
(1.2)
for $`1p\mathrm{}`$. This follows by standard interpolation techniques from the two endpoints $`p=1,\mathrm{}`$, which are true by trivial manipulations.

A basic point of singular integral theory is that an estimate of the form (1.2) may prevail for $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$ with a constant $`C_{p,K}`$ instead of $`K_1`$ on the right hand side, if $`K`$ is not absolutely integrable and the integral (1.1) is only defined in a distributional (principal value) sense. The most prominent example on the real line (indeed, all operators in this article will act on functions on the real line) is the Hilbert transform with $`K(x)=1/x`$.

Taking formally Fourier transforms, one can write (1.1) as multiplier operator:

$$\widehat{Tf}(\xi )=\widehat{K}(\xi )\widehat{f}(\xi )=:m(\xi )\widehat{f}(\xi ).$$
(1.3)
For the purpose of this survey a sufficiently interesting class of singular integrals is described in terms of the multiplier $`m`$ by imposing the symbol estimates

$$(d/d\xi )^\alpha m(\xi )C|\xi |^\alpha $$
(1.4)
for $`\alpha =0,1,2`$. We define the dual bilinear form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,f_2)=(Tf_1(x))f_2(x)𝑑x=_{\xi _1+\xi _2=0}\widehat{f_1}(\xi _1)\widehat{f_2}(\xi _2)m(\xi _1)𝑑\sigma $$
(1.5)
where $`d\sigma `$ is the properly normalized Lebesgue measure on the hyperplane $`\xi _1+\xi _2=0`$. The natural generalization of estimate (1.2) using duality of $`L^p`$ spaces then takes the form

$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,f_2)|C_{p_1}f_1_{p_1}f_2_{p_2}$$
(1.6)
with $`1/p_1+1/p_2=1`$.

Estimate (1.6) can be related to square function estimates which are fundamental in singular integral theory. Let $`(\psi _j)_{j\text{ }\text{ }\text{Z}}`$ be a family of functions such that $`m_j:=\widehat{\psi }_j`$ is supported in the ball $`B(0,2^j)`$ of radius $`2^j`$ around $`0`$, vanishes on $`B(0,2^{j2})`$, and satisfies the symbol estimates (1.4) uniformly in $`j`$. By square function estimate we mean the inequality

$$(\underset{j}{}|f\psi _j|^2)^{1/2}_pC_pf_p$$
(1.7)
which holds for $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$. Now let $`m`$ be any multiplier satisfying (1.4). It is easy to split it as $`m(\xi _1)=_j\widehat{\psi }_{1,j}(\xi _1)\widehat{\psi }_{2,j}(\xi _1)`$ for two families $`\psi _{1,j}`$ and $`\psi _{2,j}`$ as in the square function estimate. Then we have

$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,f_2)|=|\underset{j}{}(f_1\psi _{1,j})(x)(f_2\psi _{2,j})(x)𝑑x|.$$

Moving the sum inside the integral and applying Cauchy-Schwarz, Hölder, and (1.7) we obtain (1.6).

A natural generalization (see ) of (1.5) to multilinear forms is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)=_{\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _n=0}m(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{n1})\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\widehat{f}_j(\xi _j)d\sigma $$
(1.8)
with multipliers $`m`$ satisfying

$$^\alpha m(\xi ^{})C|\xi ^{}|^{|\alpha |}.$$
(1.9)
Here $`\xi ^{}=(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{n1})`$ and $`\alpha `$ runs through all multi- indices up to some order $`N`$. Note that the special role of the index $`n`$ in the above is purely notational. The natural estimates to ask for are

$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)|C_{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_j_{p_j}$$
(1.10)
for $`1<p_j<\mathrm{}`$ with $`_j1/p_j=1`$. In the special case that $`m`$ is constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)`$ is a multiple of the integral of the pointwise product of the functions $`f_j`$ and estimate (1.10) is simply Hölder’s inequality.

We sketch a proof of (1.10). Without destroying the symbol estimates, we can split $`m`$ into a finite sum of multipliers, each supported on a narrow cone with tip at the origin. Thus assume $`m`$ is supported on such a cone consisting of rays having small angle with a vector $`\eta ^{}`$.

We may assume by symmetry that $`\eta _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}=1`$ is the maximal component of $`\eta ^{}`$. Then we can split $`m`$ into pieces $`m_j`$ satisfying (1.9) uniformly and supported in

$$(B(0,2^j)B(0,2^{j2}))\times B(0,2^{j+n})^{n2}.$$

Introduce $`\eta _n`$ such that $`_j\eta _j=0`$. By symmetry among the indices larger than $`1`$ we may assume $`\eta _21/n`$. Then it is easy to arrange (see Figure “Cone”) the support of $`m_j`$ to be in

$$(B(0,2^j)B(0,2^{j2}))\times (B(0,2^{j+n})B(0,2^{jn}))\times B(0,2^{j+n})^{n3}.$$

Using smoothness of the multiplier $`m_j`$ we may use Fourier expansion to write it as rapidly converging sum of multipliers of elementary tensor form

$$\widehat{\psi }_{1,j}(\xi _1)\widehat{\psi }_{2,j}(\xi _2)\underset{l=3}{\overset{n}{}}\widehat{\varphi }_{l,j}(\xi _l)$$

with $`\xi _n=_{j=1}^{n1}\xi _{n1}`$. The symbol estimates prevail for these elementary tensors, and thus we observe

$$(d/d\xi )^\alpha (\varphi _{l,j})(\xi )C2^{\alpha j}$$
(1.11)
for all derivatives up to order $`N`$. Observe that $`\widehat{\psi }_{l,j}`$ are essentially as in (1.7), and $`\widehat{\varphi }_{l,j}`$ are similar but fail to be supported away form the origin. Applying the elementary tensor multiplier form to $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_2`$ is the same as applying a constant multiplier to $`\psi _{1,j}f_1,\mathrm{},\varphi _{n,j}f_n`$. Estimate (1.10) then follows from

$$\underset{j}{}\underset{l=1}{\overset{2}{}}(\psi _{l,j}f_l)(x)\underset{l=3}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _{l,j}f_l(x)d\sigma $$

$$C\underset{l=1}{\overset{2}{}}(\underset{j}{}|f_l\psi _{l,j}|^2)^{1/2}_{p_l}\underset{l=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j}{sup}|f_l\varphi _{l,j}|_{p_l}C\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_l_{L_l^p}.$$

Here we have used for $`l=1,2`$ the square function estimate (1.7) and for $`l>2`$ the equally fundamental Hardy Littlewood maximal inequality

$$\underset{j}{sup}|f\varphi _{l,j}|_{L^p}C_pf_p$$

which is valid due to (1.11).

## 2. Modulation invariance

Modulation $`M_\eta `$ with parameter $`\eta \text{IR}`$ is defined to be multiplication by a character:

$$M_\eta f(x):=f(x)e^{2\pi i\eta x}.$$

This amounts to a translation of the Fourier transform of $`f`$.

We shall be interested in multilinear forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which have modulation symmetries in the sense

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_{\eta _1}f_1,\mathrm{}M_{\eta _n}f_n)$$
(2.1)
for all vectors $`\eta =(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)`$ in a subspace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the hyperplane given by $`\eta _j=0`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given in multiplier form (1.8), then (2.1) is equivalent to a translation symmetry of the multiplier $`m`$:

$$m(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)=m(\xi _1+\eta _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n+\eta _n).$$
(2.2)
Such a symmetry with nontrivial $`\eta `$ is inconsistent with the symbol estimates (1.9) unless $`m`$ is constant. Namely, by iterating (2.2), any point with nonvanishing derivative of $`m`$ can by translated to a point far away from the origin, until the value of the derivative, which remains constant at the translated points, contradicts (1.9).

A natural replacement for (1.9) in the presence of modulation symmetry along vectors in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has been introduced by Gilbert/Nahmod :

$$^\alpha m(\xi ^{})C\mathrm{dist}(\xi ^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})^{|\alpha |}.$$
(2.3)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is the projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ onto the first $`n1`$ coordinates. Figure “Circles” indicates the regions in which multipliers of the form (2.3) can be thought of as being essentially constant.

The following theorem is due to  in the case $`n=3`$ and to  in general:

###### Theorem 2.1

Assume $`k:=dim(\mathrm{\Gamma })<n/2`$, and assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is non-degenerate in the sense that for any $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_kn`$ the space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the graph of a function in the variables $`\xi _{i_1},\mathrm{},\xi _{i_k}`$. Assume $`m`$ satisfies (2.3). Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as in (1.8) satisfies (1.10) whenever $`1/p_j=1`$ and $`1<p_j\mathrm{}`$ for all $`p_j`$.

We remark that it is unknown whether the condition $`dim(\mathrm{\Gamma })<n/2`$ can be relaxed in this theorem.

The forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have dual multilinear operators. Theorem 2.1 implies a priori estimates for these multilinear operators. Moreover, these multilinear operators satisfy estimates which cannot be formulated in terms of $`L^p`$ estimates for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ be a tuple of real numbers or $`\mathrm{}`$ such that at most one of these numbers is negative. If all of them are nonnegative, we say $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of type $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ if (1.10) holds. If one of them, say $`p_j`$, is negative, then we define the dual operator $`T`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)=T(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{j1},f_{j+1},\mathrm{},f_n)(x)f_j(x)𝑑x.$$

We then say that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of type $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ if

$$T(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{j1},f_{j+1},\mathrm{},f_n)_{p_j^{}}C\underset{ij}{}f_i_{p_i}$$

where $`p_j^{}=p_j/(p_j1)`$. Observe $`0<p_j^{}<1`$. The following theorem is again due to  ($`n=3`$) and :

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be as in Theorem 2.1. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of type $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ if $`_j1/p_j=1`$, at most one of the $`p_j`$ is negative, none of the $`p_j`$ is in $`[0,1]`$, and

$$1/p_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+1/p_{i_r}<\frac{n2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{\Gamma })+r}{2}$$

for all $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_rn`$ and $`1rn`$.

A basic example of a modulation invariant form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is when $`n=3`$ and $`m(\xi _1,\xi _2)`$ is constant on both sides of a line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ but not globally constant. With proper choice of constants this form can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha (f_1,f_2,f_3)=B_\alpha (f_1,f_2)(x)f_3(x)𝑑x$$

with the bilinear Hilbert transform

$$B_\alpha =p.v.f_1(xt)f_2(x\alpha t)\frac{1}{t}𝑑t$$

and a (projective) parameter $`\alpha `$ determining the direction of the line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 in this special case are due to  and .

For the bilinear Hilbert transform nondegeneracy specializes to the condition $`\alpha \{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, and the conclusion of both theorems can be summarized to

$$B_\alpha (f_1,f_2)_pC_{p_1,p_2}f_1_{p_1}f_2_{p_2}$$
(2.4)
provided $`1<p_1,p_2\mathrm{}`$ and $`2/3<p<\mathrm{}`$. The set of types of such $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ is the convex hull of the open triangles $`a,b,d`$ in Figure “Hexagon” which depicts the plane of $`(1/p_1,1/p_2,1/p_3)`$ with $`_j1/p_j=1`$. It is unknown whether the type-region of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ extends to the open triangle $`e`$ and its symmetric counterparts.

We point out a related result by M. Lacey :

###### Theorem 2.3

The maximal truncations of the bilinear Hilbert transform,

$$B_\alpha ^{\mathrm{max}}(f,g)(x):=\underset{ϵ>0}{sup}\left|_{\text{IR}[ϵ,ϵ]}f(xt)g(x\alpha t)\frac{1}{t}𝑑t\right|$$

also satisfy (2.4) provided $`\alpha `$ is not degenerate.

This is stronger than the bounds for the bilinear Hilbert transform itself.

The main difference in proving the theorems in this section compared to the discussion in Section 1. Multilinear singular integrals is that it is not sufficient to split the functions $`f_k`$ into frequency parts supported in $`B(0,2^j)B(0,2^{j2})`$. The special role that is attributed to the zero frequency by this splitting is obsolete in the modulation invariant setting. Instead one has to consider frequency bands of $`f_k`$ away from the origin and very narrow, such as intervals $`[Nϵ,N+ϵ]`$ for large $`N`$ and small $`ϵ`$. Geometrically these bands can be viewed as the projections of the circles in Figure “Circles” onto the projected coordinate axes. Handling thin frequency bands requires a new set of techniques. Prior to the work  and  these techniques have been pioneered in  and  where the Carleson operator

$$Cf(x)=\underset{\xi }{sup}|p.v.e^{iy\xi }f(xy)\frac{1}{y}dy|$$

has been estimated. Note that this operator is modulation invariant, $`C(f)=C(M_\eta f)`$. See also . Most theorems discussed in this survey have a simpler but significant model theorem in the dyadic setting, see for example , ,

## 3. Uniform estimates

Theorem 2.1 excludes certain degenerate subspaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For some degenerate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the multilinear forms split into simpler objects and one can provide $`L^p`$ estimates also in these degenerate cases; we will give examples below. This raises the question whether one can prove bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ uniformly in the choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ approaches one of these degenerate cases.

Substantial progress on this question has only been made in the case $`dim(\mathrm{\Gamma })=1`$.

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`n3`$ and $`(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)`$ be a unit vector spanning the space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and assume $`\eta _j0`$ for all $`j`$. Define the metric

$$d(x,y):=\underset{1jn}{sup}\frac{|x_iy_i|}{|\eta _i|}$$

and write $`d(x,\mathrm{\Gamma }):=inf_{y\mathrm{\Gamma }}d(x,y)`$. Suppose $`m`$ satisfies the estimate

$$_\eta ^{}^\alpha m(\eta ^{})\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\eta _jd(\eta ,\mathrm{\Gamma }))^{\alpha _j}$$
(3.1)
for all partial derivatives $`_\eta ^{}^\alpha `$ up to order $`N`$. Then (1.10) holds for all $`2<p_j<\mathrm{}`$ with $`_j1/p_j=1`$ with the bounds uniform in the choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

We discuss uniform estimates for the special case of the bilinear Hilbert transform. The degenerate directions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ occur when the vector $`\eta `$ is perpendicular to one of the three projected coordinate axes (see Figure “Circles”). One of the degenerate cases ($`\alpha =1`$) gives rise to the operator

$$B_1(f_1,f_2)=H(f_1f_2)$$

(Hilbert transform of the pointwise product) or its dual operators

$$f_2H(f_3),f_1H(f_3).$$

Besides the usual homogeneity $`_j1/p_j=1`$, the only constraint for these operators to be of type $`(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ is $`1<p_3<\mathrm{}`$. In Figure “Hexagon” this region is the strip bounded by the horizontal lines through $`(0,0,1)`$ and $`(1,0,0)`$.

Thus one expects the constants in the $`L^p`$ estimates to be uniform as $`\alpha `$ approaches $`1`$ in the intersection of this strip and the convex hull of triangles $`a,b,d`$. The above theorem provides uniform estimates in the inner triangle $`c`$. This special case of Theorem 3.1 was previously shown by Grafakos/Li , and Li  has shown uniform estimates in triangles $`a`$ and $`b`$. These results together give uniform bounds in the convex hull of $`a,b,c`$. Uniform estimates near the points $`(1,0,0)`$ and $`(0,1,0)`$ remain an open question. Prior to the work of Grafakos/Li , weak type uniform bounds were shown ,  in the common boundary point of triangles $`a`$ and $`c`$ (and by symmetry also $`b`$ and $`c`$).

The multiplier condition (3.1) gives essentially constant multipliers on regions adapted to the slope of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, see Figure “Ellipses”. Observe that all ellipses at a given scale project essentially onto disjoint regions when projected to any one one of the coordinate axes. Handling these adapted regions uniformly requires considerable refinements of the arguments in  and .

We mention that closely related to the topic of uniform estimates for the bilinear Hilbert transform is that of bilinear multiplier estimates for multipliers which are singular along a curve rather than a line, provided the curve is tangent to a degenerate direction. Results for such multipliers have been found by Muscalu  and Grafakos/Li .

We conclude this section with a remark on the history of the bilinear Hilbert transform. Calderon is said to have considered the bilinear Hilbert transform in the 1960’s while studying what has been named Calderon’s first commutator. This is the bilinear operator

$$𝒞(A,f)(x)=p.v.\frac{A(x)A(y)}{(xy)^2}f(y)𝑑y.$$

It can be viewed as a bilinear operator in the derivative $`A^{}`$ of $`A`$ and the function $`f`$, and as such has a multplier form as in (1.8). To see this, we can write $`C(A,f)`$ in terms of $`A^{}`$ as a superposition of bilinear Hilbert transforms:

$$𝒞(A,f)(x)=p.v._0^1A^{}(x+\alpha (yx))\frac{1}{xy}f(y)𝑑\alpha 𝑑y$$

$$=_0^1B_\alpha (f,A^{})(x)𝑑\alpha .$$

The estimate Calderon was looking for was

$$C(A,f)_2A^{}_{\mathrm{}}f_2.$$
(3.2)
Thus he needed good control over the constant $`C_\alpha `$ as $`\alpha `$ approaches $`0`$ or $`1`$. However, even finiteness of $`C_\alpha `$ was not known to Calderon. Sufficiently good control over $`C_\alpha `$ was first established in .

The multiplier of $`𝒞(A^{},f)`$ is more regular than that of the bilinear Hilbert transform, and Calderon, quitting his attempts to estimate the bilinear Hilbert transform, proved estimate (3.2) by refinements of the methods in Section 1. Multilinear singular integrals (see ).

## 4. More multilinear operators

Theorem 2.1 discusses multipliers singular at a single subspace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Cut and paste arguments easily allow to generalize the theorem to the case of multipliers singular at finitely many subspaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, provided each subspace satisfies the dimension and non-degeneracy conditions of Theorem 2.1.

Interesting phenomena occur for multipliers singular at several subspaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},`$ $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ which do not satisfy the conditions of Theorem 2.1. Some operators corresponding to multipliers singular at degenerate subspaces can be written in terms of pointwise products and lower degree operators and thus can be trivially shown to satisfy $`L^p`$ estimates. If $`m`$ is singular at several such subspaces, the trivial splitting may no longer be possible, and one has to do a much more subtle analysis.

We consider the special case when the spaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ are hyperplanes and the multiplier is the characteristic function of one of the infinite simplices been cut out of $`\text{IR}^n`$ by these hyperplanes, see Figure “Wedge”. A basic example is the trilinear operator

$$T(f_1,f_2,f_3)(x)=_{\alpha _1\xi _1<\alpha _2\xi _2<\alpha _3\xi _3}\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{f}_j(\xi _j)e^{2\pi ix\xi _j}d\xi _j$$

and its associated fourlinear form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4)=_{_{j=1}^4\xi _j=0,\alpha _1\xi _1<\alpha _2\xi _2<\alpha _3\xi _3}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\widehat{f}_j(\xi _j)d\sigma .$$
(4.1)
Here $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$ are real parameters. If we had only one of the two constraints $`\alpha _1\xi _1<\alpha _2\xi _2`$ or $`\alpha _2\xi _2<\alpha _3\xi _3`$, then these operators would decompose trivially.

There is a Zariski open set of values of $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`T`$ are well behaved. The following theorem proved in  states such estimates for the generic point $`(1,1,1)`$.

###### Theorem 4.1

For $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3=1`$ the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as in (4.1) satisfies estimates

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4)C_{p_1,\mathrm{},p_4}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}f_j_{p_j}$$

if $`1<p_j<\mathrm{}`$ and $`_j1/p_j=1`$. The trilinear form $`T`$ satisfies in addition estimates mapping into $`L^p`$ with $`p<1`$, in particular

$$T(f_1,f_2,f_3)_{2/3}C\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}f_j_2.$$

An example for a degenerate choice of $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)`$ is $`(1,1,1)`$. In this case there is a negative result :

###### Theorem 4.2

For $`\alpha _1=1,\alpha _2=1,\alpha _3=1`$ the a priori estimate

$$T(f_1,f_2,f_3)_{2/3}C\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}f_j_2$$

does not hold.

Theorem 4.2 is proved by applying $`T`$ to functions $`f_1,f_2,f_3`$ which are suitable truncations of imaginary Gaussians (chirps) $`e^{i\beta x^2}`$. The operator of Theorem 4.2 appears naturally in eigenfunction expansions of one dimensional Schrödinger operators, see the work of Christ/Kiselev ,. A positive result on discrete models of these expansions using the modulation invariant theory can be found in .


format: text

text:
# Nuclear Astrophysics in Rare Isotope Facilities

## 1 Introduction

Present studies in nuclear astrophysics are focused on the opposite ends of the energy scale for nuclear reactions: (a) the very high and (b) the very low relative energies between the reacting nuclei. Projectiles with high bombarding energies produce nuclear matter at high densities and temperatures. This is the main goal at the RHIC accelerator at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and also the main subject discussed in this Workshop. One expects that matter produced in central nuclear collisions at RHIC for $`10^4`$ GeV/nucleon of relative energy, and at the planned Large Hadron Collider at CERN, will undergo a phase transition and produce a quark-gluon plasma. One can thus reproduce conditions existent in the first seconds of the universe and also in the core of neutron stars. At the other end of the energy scale are the low energy reactions of importance for stellar evolution. A chain of nuclear reactions starting at $`10100`$ keV leads to complicated phenomena like supernovae explosions or the energy production in the stars.

Nuclear astrophysics requires the knowledge of the reaction rate $`R_{ij}`$ between the nuclei $`i`$ and $`j`$. It is given by $`R_{ij}=n_in_j<\sigma v>/(1+\delta _{ij})`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the cross section, $`v`$ is the relative velocity between the reaction partners, $`n_i`$ is the number density of the nuclide $`i`$, and $`<>`$ stands for energy average.

In our Sun the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be(p,\gamma )^8B`$ plays a major role for the production of high energy neutrinos originated from the $`\beta `$-decay of $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$. These neutrinos come directly from center of the Sun and are an ideal probe of the Sun’s structure. Long ago, Barker  has emphasized that an analysis of the existing experimental data yields an S-factor for this reaction at low energies which is uncertain by as much as 30%. This situation has changed recently, mainly due to the use of radioactive beam facilities. The reaction $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ is extremely relevant for the fate of massive stars. It determines if the remnant of a supernova explosion becomes a black-hole or a neutron star. It is argued that the cross section for this reaction should be known to better than 20%, for a good modelling of the stars . This goal has not yet been achieved.

Both the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be(p,\gamma )^8B`$ and the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}O`$ reactions cannot be measured at the energies occurring inside the stars (approximately 20 keV and 300 keV, respectively). Direct experimental measurements at low energies are often plagued with low-statistics and large error bars. Extrapolation procedures are often needed to obtain cross sections in the energy region of astrophysical relevance. While non-resonant cross sections can be rather well extrapolated to the low-energy region, the presence of continuum, or subthreshold resonances, complicates these extrapolations. Numerous radiative capture reactions pose the same experimental problem.

Approximately half of all stable nuclei observed in nature in the heavy element region about $`A>60`$ is produced in the r–process. This r–process occurs in environments with large neutron densities which lead to$`\tau _\mathrm{n}\tau _\beta `$. The most neutron–rich isotopes along the r–process path have lifetimes of less than one second; typically 10-2 to 10-1 s. Cross sections for most of the nuclei involved are hard to measure experimentally. Sometimes, theoretical calculations of the capture cross sections as well as the beta–decay half–lives are the only source of the nuclear physics input for r–process calculations . For nuclei with about $`Z>80`$ beta–delayed fission and neutron–induced fission might also become important.

## 2 The Electron Screening Problem

Besides the Coulomb barrier, nucleosynthesis in stars is complicated by the presence of electrons. They screen the nuclear charges, therefore increasing the fusion probability by reducing the Coulomb repulsion. Evidently, the fusion cross sections measured in the laboratory have to be corrected by the electron screening when used as inputs of a stellar model. This is a purely theoretical problem as one can not reproduce the interior of stars in the laboratory. Applying the Debye-Hückel, or Salpeter’s, approach , one finds that the plasma enhances reaction rates, e.g., $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(^3He,2p)^4He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be(p,\gamma )^8B`$, by as much as 20%. This does not account for the dynamic effect due to the motion of the electrons (see, e.g., ).

A simpler screening mechanism occurs in laboratory experiments due to the bound atomic electrons in the nuclear targets. This case has been studied in great details experimentally, as one can control different charge states of the projectile+target system in the laboratory . The experimental findings disagree systematically by a factor of two with theory. This is surprising as the theory for atomic screening in the laboratory relies on our basic knowledge of atomic physics. At very low energies one can use the simple adiabatic model in which the atomic electrons rapidly adjust their orbits to the relative motion between the nuclei prior to the fusion process. Energy conservation requires that the larger electronic binding (due to a larger charge of the combined system) leads to an increase of the relative motion between the nuclei, thus increasing the fusion cross section. As a matter of fact, this enhancement has been observed experimentally. The measured values are however not compatible with the adiabatic estimate . Dynamical calculations have been performed, but they obviously cannot explain the discrepancy as they include atomic excitations and ionizations which reduce the energy available for fusion. Other small effects, like vacuum polarization, atomic and nuclear polarizabilities, relativistic effects, etc., have also been considered . But the discrepancy between experiment and theory remains .

,

Fig. 1: The stopping cross section of protons on H-targets. The dotted line gives the energy transfer by means of nuclear stopping, while the solid line is the result for the charge-exchange stopping mechanism . The data points are from the tabulation of Andersen and Ziegler .

Fig. 2: Energy dependence of the Coulomb breakup cross section for $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}+\mathrm{Pb}\mathrm{p}+^7\mathrm{Be}+\mathrm{Pb}`$ at 84 MeV/nucleon. First-order perturbation calculations (PT) are shown by the solid curve. The dashed curve is the result of a CDCC calculation including the coupling between the ground state and the low-lying states with the giant dipole and quadrupole resonances . The data points are from ref. .

A possible solution of the laboratory screening problem was proposed in refs. . Experimentalists often use the extrapolation of the Andersen-Ziegler tables  to obtain the average value of the projectile energy due to stopping in the target material. The stopping is due to ionization, electron-exchange, and other atomic mechanisms. However, the extrapolation is challenged by theoretical calculations which predict a lower stopping. Smaller stopping was indeed verified experimentally . At very low energies, it is thought that the stopping mechanism is mainly due to electron exchange between projectile and target. This has been studied in ref.  in the simplest situation; proton+hydrogen collisions. Two-center electronic orbitals were used as input of a coupled-channels calculation. The final occupation amplitudes were projected onto bound-states in the target and in the projectile. The calculated stopping power was added to the nuclear stopping power mechanism, i.e. to the energy loss by the Coulomb repulsion between the nuclei. The obtained stopping power is proportional to $`v^\alpha `$, where $`v`$ is the projectile velocity and $`\alpha =1.35`$. The extrapolations from the Andersen-Ziegler table predict a larger value of $`\alpha `$. Although this result seems to indicate the stopping mechanism as a possible reason for the laboratory screening problem, the theoretical calculations tend to disagree on the power of v at low energy collisions. For example, ref.  found $`Sv_p^{3.34}`$ for protons in the energy range of 4 keV incident on helium targets. This is an even larger deviation from the extrapolations of the Andersen-Ziegler tables.

We are faced here with a notorious case of obscurity in nuclear astrophysics. The disturbing conclusion is that as long as we cannot understand the magnitude of electron screening in stars or in the atomic electrons in the laboratory, it will be even more difficult to understand color screening in a quark-gluon plasma, an important tool in relativistic heavy ion physics (e.g., the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ suppression mechanism).

## 3 Radioactive Beam Facilities and Indirect Methods

Transfer reactions are a well established tool to obtain spin, parities, energy, and spectroscopic factors of states in a nuclear system. Experimentally, $`(d,p)`$ reactions are mostly used due to the simplicity of the deuteron. Variations of this method have been proposed by several authors. For example, the Trojan Horse Method was proposed in ref.  as a way to overcome the Coulomb barrier. If the Fermi momentum of the particle $`x`$ inside $`a=(b+x)`$ compensates for the initial projectile velocity $`v_a`$, the low energy reaction $`A+x=B+c`$ is induced at very low (even vanishing) relative energy between $`A`$ and $`x`$. Successful applications of this method has been reported recently . Also recently the knockout reactions have been demonstrated to be a useful tool to deduce spectroscopic factors in many reactions of relevance for nuclear astrophysics .

At low energies the amplitude for the radiative capture cross section is dominated by contributions from large relative distances of the participating nuclei. Thus, what matters for the calculation of the direct capture matrix elements are the asymptotic normalization coefficients (ANC). This coefficient is the product of the spectroscopic factor and a normalization constant which depends on the details of the wave function in the interior part of the potential. The normalization coefficients can be found from peripheral transfer reactions whose amplitudes contain the same overlap function as the amplitude of the corresponding astrophysical radiative capture cross section. This idea was proposed in ref.  and many successful applications of the method have been obtained .

Charge exchange induced in $`(p,n)`$ reactions are often used to obtain values of Gamow-Teller matrix elements which cannot be extracted from beta-decay experiments. This approach relies on the similarity in spin-isospin space of charge-exchange reactions and $`\beta `$-decay operators. As a result of this similarity, the cross section $`\sigma (p,n)`$ at small momentum transfer $`q`$ is closely proportional to $`B(GT)`$ for strong transitions . As shown in ref. , for important GT transitions whose strength are a small fraction of the sum rule the direct relationship between $`\sigma (p,n)`$ and $`B(GT)`$ values fails to exist. Similar discrepancies have been observed  for reactions on some odd-A nuclei including $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$, $`{}_{}{}^{15}N`$, $`{}_{}{}^{35}Cl`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{39}K`$ and for charge-exchange induced by heavy ions .

The (differential, or angle integrated) Coulomb breakup cross section for $`a+Ab+x+A`$ can be written as $`\sigma _C^{\pi \lambda }(\omega )=F^{\pi \lambda }(\omega ).\sigma _\gamma ^{\pi \lambda }(\omega )`$, where $`\omega `$ is the energy transferred from the relative motion to the breakup, and $`\sigma _\gamma ^{\pi \lambda }(\omega )`$ is the photo nuclear cross section for the multipolarity $`\pi \lambda `$ and photon energy $`\omega `$. The function $`F^{\pi \lambda }`$ depends on $`\omega `$, the relative motion energy, and nuclear charges and radii. They can be easily calculated  for each multipolarity $`\pi \lambda `$. Time reversal allows one to deduce the radiative capture cross section $`b+xa+\gamma `$ from $`\sigma _\gamma ^{\pi \lambda }(\omega )`$. This method was proposed in ref. . It has been tested successfully in a number of reactions of interest for astrophysics ( and references therein). The most celebrated case is the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be(p,\gamma )^8B`$. It has been studied in numerous experiments in the last decade. For a recent compilation of the results obtained with the method, see the contribution of Moshe Gai to this workshop, and also ref. . They have obtained an $`S_{17}(0)`$ value of 19.0 eV.b which is compatible with the value commonly used in solar model calculations . To achieve the goal of applying this method to many other radiative capture reactions (for a list, see, e.g. ), detailed studies of dynamic contributions to the breakup have to be performed, as shown in refs. . The role of higher multipolarities (e.g., E2 contributions  in the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be(p,\gamma )^8B`$) and the coupling to high-lying states  has also to be investigated carefully. In the later case, a recent work has shown that the influence of giant resonance states is small (see figure 2). Studies of the role of the nuclear interaction in the breakup process is also essential to determine if the Coulomb dissociation method is useful for a given system .

In summary, radioactive beam facilities have opened a new paved way to disclosure many unknown features of reactions in stars and elsewhere in the universe.

I acknowledge discussions with B. Davids, M. Gai, H. Schatz, K. Suemmerer and S. Typel. Work Supported by U.S. National Science Foundation under Grants No. PHY-007091 and PHY-00-70818.


text:
# On Non-Abelian Holonomies

## 1 Introduction

Constraints in Lorentz covariance violations have been experimentally studied since a long time ago  by obtaining observational bounds upon the violating parameters. Recent experiments have shown an impressive increase in their sensitivities thus producing even more stringent bounds .

In order to correlate such experimental results, Kostelecky and collaborators have proposed a phenomenological extension of the standard model, which incorporates the most general Lorentz-violating interactions compatible with power counting renormalizability together with the particle structure of the standard model . An impressive number of applications to very different processes have been already considered, as can be seen in Ref. , for example.

Different models accounting for minute Lorentz violations have recently arisen in the context of quantum gravity induced corrections to the propagation and interactions of particles . This amounts to realize the generic violating parameters appearing in the standard model extension in terms of specific quantities involving the Planck length $`\mathrm{}_P`$ together with additional physically relevant objects. Moreover, the high precision obtained in the determination of the experimental bounds has brought quantum gravity induced effects to the level of observable phenomena .

On the other hand, in the early 80’s, the growing importance of computer simulations of gauge theories required a short distance cutoff of geometrical origin such as a lattice. However, regular lattices break essential symmetries of continuum theories such as translational and rotational invariance. Motivated by the need of maintaining these symmetries, the field theory on a random lattice was suggested . Further on, the connection of random lattices with quantum gravity and strings was studied and low dimensional systems on random lattices were solved using matrix model techniques .

In this work we concentrate on some aspects arising in the process of generalizing the loop quantum gravity inspired model described in  to Yang-Mills fields, in order to obtain the non-Abelian generalization of the corrections previously found for the dynamics of photons. Namely, corrections to standard matter dynamics are obtained by means of calculating non-Abelian holonomies, either of gravitational or Yang-Mills type, around triangular paths. To this end we have to revise and extend the procedure of Ref. that was applied to the case of rectangular cells. It turns out that the method we present in this paper contains as a particular case the result of Ref., though it is applicable to arbitrary cells made up of triangles. The basic building block in our analysis is the holonomy along a straight line segment, which characteristic property of been path-ordered is consistently maintained to all orders in our expansion.

The problem we deal with here is closely related to the non Abelian Stokes theorem which has been repeatedly discussed in the literature .

This paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we state the problem to be dealt with and introduce some notation. Section 3 summarizes the results for the Abelian case which we intend to generalize here. The non-Abelian case is subsequently discussed in Section 4 which contains our main results. Using the procedure of Ref.  the corresponding calculation is performed in Section 5, which allows us to show some discrepancies that arise between the two methods. Finally we close with a summary and discussion in Section 6.

The computations involved in deriving $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}^{(5)}`$ were done using FORM.

## 2 Statement of the problem

The proposed method to obtain the quantum gravity induced corrections to the Yang-Mills Lagrangian requires the calculation of the object

$$T_\rho =tr\left(𝐆_\rho 𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}\right),$$
(1)
where $`𝐆_\rho `$ are the generators of the corresponding Lie algebra and $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}`$ is the holonomy of the Yang-Mills connection $`𝐀_a=A_a^\rho 𝐆_\rho `$ in the triangle $`\alpha _{IJ}`$, with vertex $`v`$, defined by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{s}_I`$ and $`\stackrel{}{s}_J`$, arising from the vertex $`v`$ in the way described below.

Our main task will be to construct an expansion of $`T_\rho `$ in powers of the segments $`s_I^a,s_J^b`$.

To be more precise, we have

$$𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}=Pexp\left(_{\alpha _{IJ}}𝐀_a(\stackrel{}{x}(s))\frac{dx^a}{ds}𝑑s\right),$$
(2)
where $`P`$ is a path-ordered product to be specified later. As shown in Fig.1, the closed path $`\alpha _{IJ}`$, parameterized by $`\stackrel{}{x}(s)`$, is defined in the following way: we start from the vertex $`v`$ following a straight line with the direction and length of $`\stackrel{}{s}_I`$, then follow another straight line in the direction and length of $`\stackrel{}{s}_J\stackrel{}{s}_I`$, and finally return to $`v`$ following $`\stackrel{}{s}_J`$. From the definition of the holonomy, we have the transformation property

$$𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}𝐔(v)𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}𝐔(v)^1,$$
(3)
under a gauge transformation of the connection, where $`𝐔(v)`$ is a group element evaluated at the vertex $`v`$. In other words, $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}`$ transforms covariantly under the group.

## 3 The Abelian case

The corresponding calculation was performed in Ref. and here we summarize the results in order to have the correct expressions to which the non-Abelian result must reduce when taking the commuting limit. In this case Eq.(1) reduces to

$$T=exp(\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ})1,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}`$ is the magnetic flux through the area of the triangle, given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^B(F_{IJ})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\alpha _{IJ}}}𝑑t\dot{s}^a(t)A_a(t)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\stackrel{}{v}^{\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{s}_I}}A_a𝑑x^a+{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{s}_I}^{\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{s}_J}}A_a𝑑x^a+{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{s}_J}^\stackrel{}{v}}A_a𝑑x^a,`$
where the connection $`A_a(\stackrel{}{x}(s))`$ is now a commuting object.

The basic building block in (5) is

$`{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{}{v}_1}^{\stackrel{}{v}_2}}A_a(\stackrel{}{x})𝑑x^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}A_a(\stackrel{}{v}_1+t(\stackrel{}{v}_2\stackrel{}{v}_1))(\stackrel{}{v}_2\stackrel{}{v}_1)^a𝑑t`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}A_a(\stackrel{}{v}_1+t\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})\mathrm{\Delta }^a𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\mathrm{\Delta }^b_b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^b_b)^2+\mathrm{}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^aA_a(v),`$
with$`\mathrm{\Delta }^a=(\stackrel{}{v}_2\stackrel{}{v}_1)^a`$. The infinite series in parenthesis is

$$F(x)=1+\frac{1}{2!}x+\frac{1}{3!}x^2+\frac{1}{4!}x^3+\mathrm{}=\frac{e^x1}{x},$$
(7)
yielding

$$_{\stackrel{}{v}_1}^{\stackrel{}{v}_2}A_a(\stackrel{}{x})𝑑x^a=F(\mathrm{\Delta }^a_a)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^aA_a(\stackrel{}{v}_1)\right).$$
(8)
In the following we employ the notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }^aV_a=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{}{V}`$. Using the above result in the three integrals appearing in (5) and after some algebra, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^B(F_{IJ})`$ $`=`$ $`F_1(\stackrel{}{s}_I,\stackrel{}{s}_J)s_J^as_I^b\left(_aA_b(\stackrel{}{v})_bA_a(\stackrel{}{v})\right)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`F_1(\stackrel{}{s}_I,\stackrel{}{s}_J)s_J^as_I^bϵ_{abc}B^c(v),`$
where the gradient acts upon the coordinates of $`\stackrel{}{v}`$. The function $`F_1`$ is

$$F_1(x,y)=\frac{y(\mathrm{e}^x1)x(\mathrm{e}^y1)}{xy(yx)}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n+1)!}\frac{x^ny^n}{xy}.$$
(10)
Let us emphazise that $`F_1(x,y)`$ is just a power series in the variables $`x`$ and $`y`$. Expanding in powers of the segments $`s_I^a`$ we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^B(F_{IJ})`$ $`=`$ $`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(s_I^c+s_J^c)_c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(s_I^cs_I^d+s_I^cs_J^d+s_J^cs_J^d)_c_d+\mathrm{})\times `$ (11)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_I^as_J^bϵ_{abc}B^c(v).`$
Notice that the combination

$$\frac{1}{2}s_I^as_J^bϵ_{abc}=𝒜n_c,$$
(12)
is just the oriented area of the triangle with vertex $`v`$ and sides $`s_I^c,s_J^c`$, joining at this vertex, having value $`𝒜`$ and unit normal vector$`n_c`$.

To conclude we have to calculate

$`\left(e^{\mathrm{\Phi }^B(F_{IJ})}1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^B(F_{IJ}))^n={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}M_{nIJ},`$ (13)
where the subindex $`n`$ labels the corresponding power in the vectors $`s^a`$. The results are

$`M_{2IJ}:`$ $`=`$ $`s_I^as_J^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}F_{ab},`$ (14)
$`M_{3IJ}:`$ $`=`$ $`s_I^as_J^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}(x_I+x_J)F_{ab},`$ (15)
$`M_{4IJ}:`$ $`=`$ $`s_I^as_J^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}(x_I^2+x_Ix_J+x_J^2)F_{ab}+s_I^as_J^bs_I^cs_J^d{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}F_{ab}F_{cd},`$ (16)
$`M_{5IJ}:`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5!}}(x_I^3+x_J^3+x_I^2x_J+x_Ix_J^2)s_I^as_J^bF_{ab}`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s_I^as_J^bs_I^cs_J^d}{4!}}\left[(x_I+x_J)F_{ab}F_{cd}+F_{ab}(x_I+x_J)F_{cd}\right].`$
up to fifth order. We are using the notation $`x_I=\stackrel{}{s}_I=s_I^a_a`$.

We expect that the non-Abelian generalization of the quantities (14), (15), (16), (17) is produced by the replacement

$`A_a𝐀_a=A_a^\rho G_\rho ,_a𝐃_a=_a[𝐀_a,],`$ (18)
$`F_{ab}𝐅_{ab}=_a𝐀_b_b𝐀_a[𝐀_a,𝐀_b].`$ (19)
Nevertheless, at this level there are potential ordering ambiguities which will be resolved in the next sections.

## 4 The non-Abelian case

In a similar way to the Abelian case we separate the calculation of the holonomy $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}`$ in three basic pieces through the straight lines along the sides of the triangle $`\alpha _{IJ}`$. We have

$$𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}=P(e^{L_3})P(e^{L_2})P(e^{L_1})U_3U_2U_1,$$
(20)
where

$`L_1={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t𝐀_a(\stackrel{}{v}+t\stackrel{}{s}_I)s_I^a,`$ (21)
$`L_2={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t𝐀_a(\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{s}_I+t(\stackrel{}{s}_J\stackrel{}{s}_I))(s_J^as_I^a),`$ (22)
$`L_3={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t𝐀_a(\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{s}_Jt\stackrel{}{s}_J)(s_J^a).`$ (23)
Here we have parameterized each segment with $`0t1`$.

### 4.1 The basic building block

Let us consider in detail the contribution

$$U_1=P(e^{L_1}),L_1=_0^1𝑑t𝐀_a(\stackrel{}{v}+t\stackrel{}{s}_I)s_I^a,$$
(24)
with $`\stackrel{}{s}_I=\{s_I^a\}`$.

Using the definition

$`U_1`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t𝐀_a(\stackrel{}{v}+t\stackrel{}{s}_I)s_I^a+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}𝐀_a(\stackrel{}{v}+t\stackrel{}{s}_I)𝐀_b(\stackrel{}{v}+t^{}\stackrel{}{s}_I)s_I^as_I^b`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }𝐀_a𝐀_b𝐀_cs_I^as_I^bs_I^c+\mathrm{},`$
for the path ordering, we arrive at the following expression

$`U_1`$ $`=`$ $`1+I_1(x)𝐀_a(v)s_I^a+I_2(x,\overline{x})𝐀_a(v)\overline{𝐀}_b(v)s_I^as_I^b`$ (26)
$`+I_3(x,\overline{x},\overline{\overline{x}})𝐀_a(v)\overline{𝐀}_b(v)\overline{\overline{𝐀}}_c(v)s_I^as_I^bs_I^c+\mathrm{}`$
Here we are adopting the conventions

$`x=s_I^c_c,\overline{x}=s_I^c\overline{}_c,\overline{\overline{x}}=s_I^c\overline{\overline{}}_c,`$ (27)
$`I_1=F(x),I_2={\displaystyle \frac{F(x+\overline{x})F(x)}{\overline{x}}},`$ (28)
$`I_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\overline{x}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}+\overline{\overline{x}}}}(F(x+\overline{x}+\overline{\overline{x}})F(x)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}}}(F(x+\overline{x})F(x))\right].`$ (29)
with $`F(x)`$ given by Eq.(7). The notation in Eq. (26) is that each operator $`x,\overline{x},\overline{\overline{x}}`$ acts only in the corresponding field $`A,\overline{A},\overline{\overline{A}}`$ respectively. We write

$$U_1=\underset{N}{}U_1^{(N)},$$
(30)
where the superindex $`N`$ indicates the powers of $`s_I^a`$ contained in each term. A detailed calculation produces

$$U_1^{(1)}=s_I^a𝐀_a,U_1^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}(xs_I^a𝐀_a+s_I^as_I^b𝐀_a𝐀_b),$$
(31)
$$U_1^{(3)}=\frac{1}{3!}(x^2s_I^a𝐀_a+(\overline{x}+2x)s_I^as_I^b𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}+s_I^as_I^bs_I^c𝐀_a𝐀_b𝐀_c),$$
(32)
$`U_1^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}[x^3s_I^a𝐀_a+(3x^2+3x\overline{x}+\overline{x}^2)s_I^as_I^b𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}+(3x+2\overline{x}+\overline{\overline{x}})s_I^as_I^bs_I^c𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}\overline{\overline{𝐀_c}}`$ (33)
$`+s_I^as_I^bs_I^cs_I^d𝐀_a𝐀_b𝐀_c𝐀_d],`$
Specializing to the case $`\stackrel{}{s}_I=(a,0,0)`$ and to third order in $`a`$ we obtain

$$U_1=1+a𝐀_1+\frac{1}{2}a^2(_1𝐀_1+𝐀_1^2)+\frac{1}{3!}a^3(_1^2𝐀_1+𝐀_1_1𝐀_1+2(_1𝐀_1)𝐀_1+𝐀_1^3).$$
(34)
Next we compare our result (34) with the calculation according to the method of Ref.. Using the equation (3.15a) of such reference for $`L_1`$ we obtain

$$e^{L_1}=1+a𝐀_1+\frac{1}{2}a^2(_1𝐀_1+𝐀_1^2)+\frac{1}{3!}a^3\left(_1^2𝐀_1+\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{}{}𝐀_1_1𝐀_1+(_1𝐀_1)𝐀_1\right)+𝐀_1^3\right).$$
(35)
which does not agree with the expression (34). This basic discrepancy propagates when combining more segments and ultimately it is the source of the differences between our results and those obtained via the application of the methods in Ref..

It is interesting to remark that in the Abelian limit both (34) and (35) reduce to

$$U_1=1+aA_1+\frac{1}{2}a^2(_1A_1+A_1^2)+\frac{1}{3!}a^3(_1^2A_1+3A_1_1A_1+A_1^3),$$
(36)
which is obtained from a direct calculation using the expression (8).

### 4.2 The holonomy $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}`$

Now we put the remaining pieces together in order to calculate $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}=U_3U_2U_1`$. Using the notation

$$y=s_J^a_a$$
(37)
and starting from the basic structure (26) we obtain, mutatis mutandis,

$`U_2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(s_J^as_I^a)𝐀_a,`$ (38)
$`U_2^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(x+y)(s_J^as_I^a)𝐀_a+(s_J^as_I^a)(s_J^bs_I^b)𝐀_a𝐀_b],`$ (39)
$`U_2^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}[(x^2+y^2+xy)(s_J^as_I^a)𝐀_a+(x+2y+\overline{y}+2\overline{x})(s_J^as_I^a)(s_J^bs_I^b)𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}`$ (40)
$`+(s_J^as_I^a)(s_J^bs_I^b)(s_J^cs_I^c)𝐀_a𝐀_b𝐀_c)],`$
$`U_2^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}[(x^3+y^3+x^2y+xy^2)(s_J^as_I^a)𝐀_a+(x\overline{y}+3x\overline{x}+x^2+2xy+2\overline{x}\overline{y}+3\overline{x}^2`$ (41)
$`+3y^2+\overline{y}^2+3y\overline{y}+5\overline{x}y)(s_J^as_I^a)(s_J^bs_I^b)𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}+(x+2\overline{x}+3\overline{\overline{x}}+2\overline{y}+\overline{\overline{y}}+3y)`$
$`\times (s_J^as_I^a)(s_J^bs_I^b)(s_J^cs_I^c)𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}\overline{\overline{𝐀_c}}+(s_J^as_I^a)(s_J^bs_I^b)`$
$`(s_J^cs_I^c)(s_J^ds_I^d)𝐀_a𝐀_b𝐀_c𝐀_d],`$
for $`U_2`$, together with

$`U_3^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`s_J^a𝐀_a,`$ (42)
$`U_3^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ys_J^a𝐀_a+s_J^as_J^b𝐀_a𝐀_b),`$ (43)
$`U_3^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}(y^2s_J^a𝐀_a+(2\overline{y}+y)s_J^as_J^b𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}s_J^as_J^bs_J^c𝐀_a𝐀_b𝐀_c),`$ (44)
$`U_3^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}[y^3s_J^a𝐀_a+(3\overline{y}^2+3y\overline{y}+y^2)s_J^as_J^b𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}(3\overline{\overline{y}}+2\overline{y}+y)s_J^as_J^bs_J^c𝐀_a\overline{𝐀_b}\overline{\overline{𝐀_c}}`$ (45)
$`+s_J^as_J^bs_J^cs_J^d𝐀_a𝐀_b𝐀_c𝐀_d],`$
for $`U_3`$. Let us emphasize that in all the expressions above for $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ and $`U_3`$, the connection is evaluated at the vertex $`v`$. The bars only serve to indicate the position in which the corresponding derivative acts.

Next we write the contributions to the holonomy in powers of the segments. According to Eqs.(20) and (30) we obtain

$$𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}s_I^as_J^b𝐅_{ab},$$
(46)
$$𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}^{(3)}=\frac{1}{3!}(s_I^c+s_J^c)s_I^as_J^b𝐃_c𝐅_{ab},$$
(47)
$$𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}^{(4)}=\frac{1}{4!}(s_I^cs_I^d+s_I^cs_J^d+s_J^cs_J^d)s_I^as_J^b𝐃_c𝐃_d𝐅_{ab}+\frac{1}{8}s_I^as_J^bs_I^cs_J^d𝐅_{ab}𝐅_{cd},$$
(48)
$`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5!}}(s_I^cs_I^ds_I^e+s_J^cs_J^ds_J^e+2(s_J^cs_I^ds_I^e+s_I^cs_J^ds_J^e)s_I^cs_J^ds_I^es_J^cs_I^ds_J^e)s_I^as_J^b𝐃_c𝐃_d𝐃_e𝐅_{ab}`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}s_I^as_J^bs_I^ds_J^e(𝐅_{ab}(s_I^c+s_J^c)𝐃_c𝐅_{de}+(s_I^c+s_J^c)(𝐃_c𝐅_{de})𝐅_{ab}).`$
Eq. (48) resolves the ordering ambiguity which apparently arised in covariantizing the first term in the RHS of Eq.(16). Nevertheless, as we subsequently show there is really no such ambiguity at this order. Let us consider the combination

$`s_I^as_J^bs_I^cs_J^d\left(𝐃_c𝐃_d𝐃_d𝐃_c\right)𝐅_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`s_I^as_J^bs_I^cs_J^d[𝐃_c,𝐃_d]𝐅_{ab}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`s_I^as_J^bs_I^cs_J^d[𝐅_{cd},𝐅_{ab}]=[𝐅,𝐅]=0`$
where we have used the notation $`𝐅=s_I^as_J^b𝐅_{ab}`$ together with the property

$`[𝐃_c,𝐃_d]𝐆=[𝐅_{cd},𝐆]`$ (51)
valid for any object $`𝐆`$ in the adjoint representation(Jacobi identity).

The results (46), (47) and (48), which we have obtained by direct calculation, constitute in fact the unique gauge covariant generalization of the corresponding Abelian expressions (14), (15) and (16). This provides a strong support to our method of calculation.

## 5  The holonomy according to the method of Ref.

In this section we calculate the holonomy $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}`$ using the method of Ref.  adapted for our case of three segments: $`L_1,L_2,L_3`$. From Eqs. (3.1), (3.3), (3.4), (3.12) and (3.14), with $`\lambda =1`$, of that reference it follows that

$$𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}=e^{L_3}e^{L_2}e^{L_1}=e^{\mathrm{\Sigma }+_{n=2}F_n}=e^H.$$
(52)
The basic building blocks are

$$L_1=s_I^aF(x)𝐀_a(v),L_2=(s_J^as_I^a)F(yx)e^x𝐀_a(v),L_3=s_J^aF(y)𝐀_a(v).$$
(53)
where the vertex $`v`$ generalizes de point $`(x_1,x_2)`$ in the notation of . The calculational method indicated in Eqs.(52) and (53) is clearly not equivalent to the correct prescription (20): $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}=U_3U_2U_1`$, with the $`U`$’s given by Eq.(26) together with the corresponding extensions that take into account the change of the starting point in the corresponding path.

Let us write here those expressions arising from the method in Ref.  that we will use in our calculation

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`L_1+L_2+L_3,`$ (54)
$`2!F_2`$ $`=`$ $`[(L_3+L_2),L_1]+[L_3,L_2],`$ (55)
$`3!F_3`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Sigma },F_2]+[(L_3+L_2)^2L_1]+[L_3^2L_2],`$ (56)
$`4!F_4`$ $`=`$ $`3![\mathrm{\Sigma },F_3][\mathrm{\Sigma }^2F_2]+[(L_3+L_2)^3L_1]+[L_3^3L_2].`$ (57)
with the notation $`[A^2B]=[A,[A,B]]`$ and so on.

Expanding each segment in powers of the vectors $`s^a`$, which number is denoted by the superindex, leads to (up to third order)

$$L_1^{(1)}=s_I^c𝐀_c,L_1^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2!}s_I^as_I^b_b𝐀_a,$$
(58)
$`L_1^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}s_I^cs_I^bs_I^a_b_c𝐀_a,`$ (59)
$$L_2^{(1)}=(s_J^as_I^a)𝐀_a,L_2^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2!}(s_I^b+s_J^b)(s_J^as_I^a)_b𝐀_a,$$
(60)
$`L_2^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}[(s_J^bs_J^c+s_J^bs_I^c+s_I^bs_I^c)(s_J^as_I^a)]_b_c𝐀_a,`$ (61)
$$L_3^{(1)}=s_J^c𝐀_c,L_3^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2!}s_J^as_J^b_b𝐀_a,$$
(62)
$`L_3^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}s_J^cs_J^bs_J^a_b_c𝐀_a.`$ (63)
Next we write the contributions to $`H`$ in powers of the segments. Using Eq.(52), the first order contribution $`H^{(1)}`$ vanishes and the remaining contributions are

$$H^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}s_I^as_J^b𝐅_{ab},$$
(64)
$$H^{(3)}=\frac{1}{3!}(s_I^c+s_J^c)s_I^as_J^b𝐃_c𝐅_{ab}+𝚺^{(3)},$$
(65)
with

$$𝚺^{(3)}=\frac{1}{12}(s_I^bs_I^as_J^c+s_I^bs_J^as_J^c+s_J^bs_I^as_J^c+s_J^bs_J^as_I^cs_J^bs_I^as_I^cs_I^bs_J^as_I^c)[_b𝐀_a,𝐀_c].$$
(66)
The reader can verify that the term $`𝚺^{(3)}`$ is not covariant under the gauge group. This would not be the case if one had used the path-ordering prescription (that is to say Eq.(20) instead of Eq.(52)) in the construction of the holonomies. Indeed, gauge covariance should hold to each order in the expansion in powers of the segments.

## 6 Summary and discussion

We have calculated the holonomy $`𝐡_{\alpha _{IJ}}`$ of the Yang-Mills connection $`𝐀_a`$ in the triangle $`\alpha _{IJ}`$ with vertex $`v`$ and sides $`s_I^a`$, $`s_J^b`$ joining at that vertex, as shown in Fig. (1). Our results, to fifth order in the segments, are given in Eqs. (46) (47) (48) and (49) of section 4. The direct calculation shows that, to fourth order, the results are directly given by the replacement $`_a𝐃_a,F_{ab}𝐅_{ab}`$ in the corresponding formulas for the Abelian case. This is so because, as explained at the end of section 4, the potential order ambiguity in the fourth order term is absent. From the fifth order on such ordering ambiguities arise, so that is not possible to guess the correct answer from the Abelian case. Clearly then, one has to perform the full calculation in order to obtain the correct result.

In section 5 the same calculation was performed using the method of Ref.. The results for the triangle coincide to second order and start to differ from the third order on. This difference can be traced back to that arising in the calculation of the holonomy for a straight-line segment according to Eqs. (34) and (35), which the reader can easily verify. Contrary to what is expected, the calculation according to the method of Ref. produces non-covariant contributions starting at third order.

The specific results presented in Ref. correspond to the calculation of the holonomy for a rectangle of sides $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively. Using the method described in section 4 we have verified that, up to fourth order, the result given in Eq. (3.19) of that reference is correct.

Nevertheless, since the calculational method of Ref.  does not properly take into account the path ordering, it is not possible to guarantee the multiplicative composition law of holonomies. In fact, one might think of obtaining the holonomy for the rectangle by composing the results of properly chosen triangles. Even though, as commented above, one should not expect to obtain the correct result, we have explored this possibility. To this end let us consider a quadrilateral $`ABCD`$ with vertex $`v`$ at the point $`A`$, as shown in Fig. (2). The sides $`AB`$ and $`CD`$ are parallel, but $`DA`$ and $`BC`$ are not. We are interested in calculating the holonomy for the path $`ABCDA`$ as indicated in Fig. (2). This can be done by composing, via matrix multiplication, the holonomies corresponding to the triangles $`ABC`$ (spanned by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{s}_I`$, $`\stackrel{}{s}_J`$) and $`ACD`$ (spanned by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{\overline{s}}_I`$, $`\stackrel{}{\overline{s}}_J`$), each of which is calculated according to expressions (64) and (65), together with their corresponding $`𝚺`$’s. In other words,

$$𝐡_{ABCDA}=𝐡_{ACDA}𝐡_{ABCA}.$$
(67)
We introduce the further notation in the plane of the quadrilateral

$`\stackrel{}{AB}=\stackrel{}{s}_I=(a,0),\stackrel{}{AC}=\stackrel{}{s}_J=(a^{},b),`$ (68)
$`\stackrel{}{AC}=\stackrel{}{\overline{s}}_I=(a^{},b),\stackrel{}{AD}=\stackrel{}{\overline{s}}_J=(a^{\prime \prime },b).`$ (69)
We only pay attention to the non-covariant contributions. To third order they just add up and we obtain

$`𝚺_{ABCA}^{(3)}+𝚺_{ACDA}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a^{\prime \prime }a^{}+a)}{12}}\{3a^{}(a^{\prime \prime }a)[_1𝐀_1,𝐀_1]`$ (70)
$`+`$ $`b(a^{\prime \prime }+a^{}a)\left([_1𝐀_1,𝐀_2]+[_1𝐀_2,𝐀_1]+[_2𝐀_1,𝐀_1]\right)`$
$`+b^2[[_2𝐀_1,𝐀_2]+[_2𝐀_2,𝐀_1]+[_1𝐀_2,𝐀_2]]\}.`$
We see that the above expression is not zero in general. Nevertheless, in the symmetrical case of a parallelepiped, characterized by the condition

$$a^{\prime \prime }a^{}+a=0,$$
(71)
the non-covariant piece (70) vanishes. Of course, the above condition includes that of a rectangle which is $`a=a^{}`$ y $`a^{\prime \prime }=0`$.

Moreover, to fourth orden in the expansion, it is possible to show that following the calculational method of Ref. , the composition law (67) yields gauge covariance violations even for the case of the parallelepiped.

## Acknowledgements

LFU acknowledges partial support from Fondecyt 7010967 as well as from the projects CONACYT 40745-F and DGAPA-IN11700. MR acknowledges support from project (Apoyo de Tesis Doctoral) CONICYT (Chile) and CONICYT-CONACYT 2001502170, and wants to thanks professors Luis Fernando Urrutia and Hugo Morales-Técotl for their hospitality at ICN-UNAM and UAM. HMT acknowledges partial support from CONICYT-CONACYT 2001502170 as well as from the project CONACYT 40745-F. The work of JA has been partially supported by Fondecyt 1010967 and CONICYT-CONACYT 2001502170.

## References