text:
# P AND CP VIOLATION IN 𝐵 DECAYS

## 1 Introduction

The Kobayashi–Maskawa model for CP violation was suggested thirty years ago $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to explain the tiny CP non-conservation observed in $`K`$ decays. In the past two years the model passed in a remarkable way its first crucial test in $`B`$ decays $`^\mathrm{?}`$ when a large CP asymmetry was measured $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in $`B^0J/\psi K_S`$, in excellent agreement with expectations. The great virtue of this decay mode is the absence of hadronic uncertainties $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in predicting the mixing induced asymmetry in terms of a fundamental phase parameter $`\beta \varphi _1`$ of the Standard Model. This opens a new era, in which other CP asymmetries in $`B`$ and $`B_s`$ decays will have to be measured in order to test the weak phase structure of $`b`$ quark couplings in an unambiguous way. Hopefully, this will lead to a point where deviations from the simple CKM framework will be observed. An important step in this direction would be a measurement of the phase $`\gamma \varphi _3`$, usually associated with CP violation in direct decays. Several methods along this line, in which experimental progress has been made recently, were discussed at this meeting. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$

The most accessible experimental tests for $`\gamma `$, in processes such as $`B(B_s)\pi \pi `$ $`(KK)`$ and $`B(B_s)K\pi `$, involve theoretical hadronic uncertainties due to penguin amplitudes, which may be resolved by applying approximate symmetries such as isospin or flavor SU(3) including SU(3) breaking effects. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ Other tests, including $`B^\pm DK^\pm `$, $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ which are free of such uncertainties, usually require a larger number of $`B`$ mesons than produced so far. Our present discussion will focus on two theoretically clean studies of $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$ and $`B^0D^{}a_1^+`$, where time-dependent CP asymmetries are sensitive to the weak phase $`2\beta +\gamma `$, combining the mixing phase $`2\beta `$ and the decay phase $`\gamma `$. While these studies are very challenging from an experimental point of view, and require much more data than accumulated so far, we will explain first what can be learned from existing data of these processes, without performing time-dependent measurements. In particular, we will show how to test the left-handed chirality of the weak $`b`$ quark coupling, for which very little evidence exists. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

Our motivation for calling for chirality tests of $`b`$ quark coupling is both phenomenological (1) as well as theoretical (2):

1. The very small charged current $`b`$ quark couplings, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`|V_{cb}|=0.04,|V_{ub}|=0.0030.004`$, are more sensitive to new types of interactions, such as right-handed currents, than the lighter quarks’ couplings.
2. An artificial left-right asymmetry is introduced by hand in the Standard Model in order to account for the low energy weak interaction phenomenology. Ultimately, left-right symmetry may be restored at high energies. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ If parity violation and the observed quark mass hierarchy (also introduced by hand in the Standard Model in terms of arbitrary Yukawa couplings) have a common origin, then it may be expected that right-handed couplings grow with quark masses and are larger for the $`b`$ quark than for $`s`$ and $`d`$ quarks.

Our discussion will start with chirality tests for the $`b`$ coupling and will end with studies of CP violation. In Section 2 we study helicity amplitudes in $`BD^{}\rho `$, pointing out the success of predicting these amplitudes using factorization and heavy quark symmetry. Application of the same assumptions to $`BD^{}a_1`$ is shown in Section 3 to permit a test of V–A for the $`b`$ quark coupling. In Section 4 time-dependent CP asymmetries in $`BD^{}\rho `$ and $`BD^{}a_1`$ are studied in order to learn $`2\beta +\gamma `$, while Section 5 concludes.

## 2 The decay $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$

### 2.1 Helicity amplitudes

The decays $`\overline{B}^0D^+(D^0\pi ^+)\rho ^{}(\pi ^{}\pi ^0)`$, in which each of the two vector mesons decays to two spinless particles whose momenta are measured, can be used to study the vector meson polarization. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ Using an angular momentum decomposition, the decay amplitude can be written in terms of three helicity amplitudes, $`H_0,H_+,H_{}`$, corresponding to the three polarization states of the vector mesons,

$$A=\frac{3}{2\sqrt{2\pi }}\left[H_0\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2+\frac{1}{2}(H_+e^{i\varphi }+H_{}e^{i\varphi })\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\right].$$
(1)
Here $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are the angles between each of the two vector mesons’ momenta in the $`B`$ rest frame and the momenta of the corresponding daughter particles in the decaying vector mesons’ rest frame; $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the $`D^{}`$ and $`\rho `$ decay planes. We use a convention in which the normalized decay angular distribution is given by $`|A|^2`$,

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{d^3\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi }=|A|^2|H_0|^2+|H_+|^2+|H_{}|^2=1.$$
(2)
The decay distribution is symmetric under $`(H_0,H_+,H_{})(H_0^{},H_{}^{},H_+^{})`$, implying that rates into left and right polarizations, $`|H_{}|^2`$ and $`|H_+|^2`$ respectively, are indistinguishable. Namely, one cannot distinguish in this process between left- and right-polarized vector mesons. As will be explained in the next section, this follows from the lack of a parity-odd observable when each of the vector mesons decays into two spinless particles. Thus, while the rate into the longitudinally polarized state $`|H_0|^2`$ can be measured, only the magnitude of $`|H_+|^2|H_{}|^2`$ is measurable, but not its sign.

### 2.2 Factorization and heavy quark symmetry

The three helicity amplitudes $`H_{0,\pm }`$ can be calculated using factorization and heavy quark symmetry. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ Factorization implies

$$D^{}\rho |H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\overline{B}D^{}|V_\mu A_\mu |\overline{B}\rho |V^\mu |0,$$
(3)
where $`\rho (ϵ)|V^\mu |0ϵ^\mu `$. In the heavy quark symmetry limit the $`VA`$ current matrix element can be written in terms of a single form factor multiplying a purely kinematic factor,

$$D^{}(v^{},ϵ^{})|V_\mu A_\mu |\overline{B}(v)iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^\nu v^\alpha v^\beta +ϵ_\mu ^{}(1+vv^{})v_\mu ^{}ϵ^{}v,$$
(4)
where $`vp/m`$. In this approximation, the three normalized helicity amplitudes can be written in terms of meson masses. For a $`\overline{c}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b`$ current one finds $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$H_0=\left(1+\frac{4y}{y+1}ϵ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},H_\pm =\left(1\sqrt{\frac{y1}{y+1}}\right)ϵ\left(1+\frac{4y}{y+1}ϵ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(5)
where $`y(m_B^2+m_D^{}^2m_\rho ^2)/2m_Bm_D^{}=1.476,ϵm_\rho /(m_Bm_D^{})=0.236`$. Thus, one obtains the values

$$H_0=0.940,H_+=0.125,H_{}=0.318.$$
(6)
These predictions of the Standard Model apply to $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays, while in $`B^0`$ decays the values of $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ are interchanged. In the case of a $`\overline{c}\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)b`$ current, the roles of $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ are interchanged.

The following values were reported very recently by the CLEO collaboration for $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$: $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`|H_0|`$ $`=`$ $`0.941\pm 0.009\pm 0.006,`$
$`|H_+|\mathrm{or}|H_{}|`$ $`=`$ $`0.107\pm 0.031\pm 0.011,`$
$`|H_{}|\mathrm{or}|H_+|`$ $`=`$ $`0.322\pm 0.025\pm 0.016.`$ (7)
The collaboration quotes a value for $`|H_+|`$ which is smaller than $`|H_{}|`$, assuming that the $`D^{}`$ predominantly carries the chirality of the $`c`$ quark, as would follow from a $`\overline{c}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b`$ coupling. While it is impossible to check this assumption in this experiment, it is important to verify it elsewhere.

The experimental results (2.2) are in very good agreement with the amplitudes calculated in Eq. (6). In particular, the measured value of $`|H_0|`$ agrees with the Standard Model prediction at a very high precision. The agreement between theory and experiment for $`|H_\pm |`$ is somewhat surprising, since one expects sizable deviations from factorization in these amplitudes which are by themselves subleading in $`1/m_b`$. In principle, order $`1/m_b`$ corrections to factorization in these amplitudes could be as large as the amplitudes themselves. There are some hints in the data $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for possibly nonzero relative final state interaction phases between $`H_\pm `$ and $`H_0`$, which would indicate deviations from factorization. We note that, in spite of this outstanding agreement between factorization predictions and experiment, measurements of $`|H_\pm |`$ cannot distinguish between $`VA`$ and $`V+A`$ currents. The present experimental precision in the measured values of $`|H_\pm |`$ allows also for an admixture of the two opposite chiralities in the $`bc`$ coupling.

## 3 The decay $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{}`$

### 3.1 What’s unique about $`BD^{}a_1`$?

In the previous Section we noted that in $`B`$ meson decays to two vector mesons, each of which decays to two spinless particles whose momenta are measured, one cannot distinguish between left- and right-polarized vector mesons. Therefore, these processes are unsuitable for chirality tests for the $`b`$ quark coupling. A chirality measurement for one of the two decay particles requires that the particle decays subsequently to a three body final state. The sequence of arguments proving this statement is straightforward: (a) Chirality is a parity-odd quantity, (b) Hadronic quantities multiplying the chirality in the decay distribution must be parity-odd, (c) A pseudoscalar quantity containing the smallest number of hadron momenta is a triple product, $`\stackrel{}{p}_1(\stackrel{}{p}_2\times \stackrel{}{p}_3)`$. Thus, chirality measurements can be performed in $`B`$ meson decays into a vector meson and an axial-vector meson, which decays subsequently to three pseudoscalars. We note in passing that decays into two vector mesons, one of which decays to three pseudoscalars, do not contain sufficient invariants to permit such a measurement. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

This leads us to the decay $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{}`$, in which the $`a_1`$ is observed through $`a_1^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$. This decay mode is unique in the following sense. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ A triple product $`\stackrel{}{p}_1(\stackrel{}{p}_2\times \stackrel{}{p}_3)`$ is not only parity-odd but also time-reversal-odd, which requires a nonzero phase due to final state interactions. Usually, such a phase is incalculable and would render measurements which cannot be interpreted theoretically in a simple manner. In the case of $`a_1\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, the decay occurs through an interference of two intermediate $`\rho ^0`$ states, the amplitudes of which are equal by isospin. Thus, the final state phase is calculable in terms of the $`\rho `$ width.

### 3.2 Distinguishing between left-handed and right-handed helicities

The decay amplitude for $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{},a_1^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ is written in terms of weak helicity amplitudes $`H_i^{}`$, in analogy with (1),

$$A(\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)\pi ^+(p_3))=\underset{i=0,+,}{}H_i^{}A_i.$$
(8)
The strong amplitude $`A_i`$ involves two terms, corresponding to two possible ways of forming a $`\rho `$ meson from $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pairs, each of which can be written in terms of two invariant amplitudes:

$$A(a_1(p,\epsilon )\rho (p^{},\epsilon ^{})\pi )=A(\epsilon \epsilon ^{})+B(\epsilon p^{})(\epsilon ^{}p),$$
(9)
convoluted with the amplitude for $`\rho ^0(\epsilon ^{})\pi ^+(p_i)\pi ^{}(p_j)`$, which is proportional to $`\epsilon ^{}(p_ip_j)`$. One finds $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`A(a_1^{}(p,\epsilon )\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)\pi ^+(p_3))C(s_{13},s_{23})(\epsilon p_1)+(p_1p_2),`$ (10)
$`C(s_{13},s_{23})=[A+Bm_{a_1}(E_3E_2)]B_\rho (s_{23})+2AB_\rho (s_{13}),`$ (11)
where $`s_{ij}=(p_i+p_j)^2,B_\rho (s_{ij})=(s_{ij}m_\rho ^2im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho )^1`$, and pion energies are given in the $`a_1`$ rest frame. The amplitudes $`A`$ and $`B`$ are related to $`S`$\- and $`D`$-wave $`\rho \pi `$ amplitudes. When neglecting the small $`D`$-wave amplitude, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ they obey $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$B=A\left(1\frac{m_\rho }{E_\rho }\right)\frac{E_\rho }{m_\rho \stackrel{}{p}_\rho ^2}.$$
(12)
Defining an angle $`\theta `$ between the normal to the $`a_1`$ decay plane, $`\widehat{n}`$, and the direction opposite to the $`D^{}`$ in the $`a_1`$ rest frame, one calculates the $`BD^{}3\pi `$ decay distribution,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{ds_{13}ds_{23}d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $``$ $`|H_0^{}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta |\stackrel{}{J}|^2+(|H_+^{}|^2+|H_{}^{}|^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )|\stackrel{}{J}|^2`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`(|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta \text{Im}[(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{J}^{})\widehat{n}],`$
where

$$\stackrel{}{J}=C(s_{13},s_{23})\stackrel{}{p}_1+C(s_{23},s_{13})\stackrel{}{p}_2.$$
(14)
A fit to the angular decay distribution enables separate measurements of the three terms $`|H_0^{}|^2,|H_+^{}|^2+|H_{}^{}|^2`$ and $`|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2`$. We note that when calculating the quantity $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ free of any parameter, using Eq. (12), we have only assumed for the $`a_1`$ an $`S`$-wave $`\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ structure, without using the $`a_1`$ resonance shape and width, which would have involved a large uncertainty. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ A small $`D`$-wave correction can also be incorporated in the calculation.

### 3.3 Factorization and a chirality test

In the heavy quark symmetry and factorization approximation, $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ using (5) where $`y(m_B^2+m_D^{}^2m_{a_1}^2)/2m_Bm_D^{}=1.432,ϵm_{a_1}/(m_Bm_D^{})=0.376`$ , the results for a $`\overline{c}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b`$ current are

$$H_0^{}=0.866,H_+^{}=0.188,H_{}^{}=0.463.$$
(15)
These values, which depend somewhat on $`m_{a_1}`$, can be verified by measuring the decay distribution (13).

In order to define a measure for the sensitivity of determining the chirality of the $`b`$ quark coupling, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ let us consider the following P-odd up–down asymmetry of the $`D^{}`$ momentum direction with respect to the $`a_1`$ decay plane:

$$𝒜=\frac{_0^{\pi /2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\theta }𝑑\theta _{\pi /2}^\pi \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\theta }𝑑\theta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(16)
One has

$$𝒜=\frac{3}{4}\frac{\text{Im }[\widehat{n}(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{J}^{})]\text{sgn }(s_{13}s_{23})}{|\stackrel{}{J}|^2}\frac{|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2}{|H_0^{}|^2+|H_+^{}|^2+|H_{}^{}|^2},$$
(17)
and integration over the entire Dalitz plot gives

$$𝒜=0.237\frac{|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2}{|H_0^{}|^2+|H_+^{}|^2+|H_{}^{}|^2}.$$
(18)
Measuring this asymmetry determines $`|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2`$. Using Eq. (15), one obtains $`𝒜=0.042`$.

The sign of the asymmetry provides an unambiguous signature for a $`VA`$ coupling, in contrast to $`V+A`$ which would yield an opposite sign. In the center-of-mass frame of $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ the $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`D^+`$ prefer to move in the hemisphere defined by the direction $`\stackrel{}{p}(\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{fast}}\times \stackrel{}{p}(\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{slow}}`$. In order to measure an asymmetry at this level one needs about 5000 identified $`BD^{}a_1`$ events. A very large sample of $`18400\pm 1200`$ partially reconstructed events was reported recently by the BaBar collaboration, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in which the $`a_1`$ was reconstructed via the decay chain $`a_1^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{},\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ while the $`D^{}`$ was identified by a slow pion. A correspondingly smaller sample of fully reconstructed events seems sufficient for an up-down asymmetry measurement. A more precise measurement of $`|H_+^{}|^2|H_{}^{}|^2`$ than from the asymmetry alone may be obtained by fitting data to the energy- and angle-dependent decay distribution given in Eq. (13).

## 4 Determining $`2\beta +\gamma `$ in time-dependent decays

Both $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{}`$ belong to a class of processes, which also contains $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{},D^+\pi ^{},D^+\rho ^{}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ from which the weak phase $`2\beta +\gamma `$ can be determined with no hadronic uncertainty. Using the well-measured value $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of $`\beta `$ this would fix $`\gamma `$. The difficulty in these methods lies in having to measure a very small time-dependent interference between $`bc\overline{u}d`$ and doubly-CKM-suppressed $`\overline{b}\overline{u}c\overline{d}`$ transitions, where $`|V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}/V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}|0.02`$.

In decays to $`D^+\pi ^{},D^+\pi ^{},D^+\rho ^{}`$ the resulting analyses are sensitive to the square of a doubly-CKM-suppressed amplitude, a precise knowledge of which is very challenging. In decays to two vector mesons, $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$, one avoids the need to determine this small quantity by using an interference between helicity amplitudes of CKM-allowed and doubly-CKM-suppressed decays. This was claimed $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to improve the sensitivity, but requires a detailed angular analysis in addition to time-dependent measurements. The feasibility of using an angular analysis for measuring the helicity amplitudes in the dominant CKM-allowed channel was demonstrated by the CLEO collaboration $`^\mathrm{?}`$ as discussed above. It will require considerably more statistics to measure the time and angular dependent interference of helicity amplitudes with such disparate magnitudes. Here we will assume that sufficient statistics is gained, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and will describe this method for determining $`2\beta +\gamma `$, first in $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and then in $`\overline{B}^0D^+a_1^{}`$, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ where a discrete ambiguity in the weak phase will be shown to be resolved.

### 4.1 $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^+\rho ^{}`$

It is convenient to write the amplitude $`AA(\overline{B}^0D^+(D^0\pi ^+)\rho ^{}(\pi ^{}\pi ^0))`$ in a linear polarization basis (a so-called transversity basis $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$), in which the $`D^{}`$ and $`\rho `$ transverse polarizations are either parallel or perpendicular to one another, $`H_,=(H_+\pm H_{})/\sqrt{2}`$, and to similarly expand $`aA(B^0D^+\rho ^{})`$ in terms of $`h_{0,,}`$:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\sqrt{2\pi }}}(H_0g_0+H_{}g_{}+iH_{}g_{}),a={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\sqrt{2\pi }}}(h_0g_0+h_{}g_{}+ih_{}g_{}),`$ (19)
$`g_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2,g_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,g_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi .`$ (20)
The transversity amplitudes can be written as

$$H_t=|H_t|\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }_t),h_t=|h_t|\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _t)\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma ).$$
(21)
The time-dependent rate for $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^+\rho ^{}`$ has the general form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ $``$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left[(|A|^2+|a|^2)+(|A|^2|a|^2)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt+2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\left(e^{2i\beta }Aa^{}\right)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt\right]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{\displaystyle \underset{tt^{}}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{tt^{}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{tt^{}}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt+\rho _{tt^{}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt\right)g_tg_t^{}.`$
Each of the coefficients in the sum can be measured by performing a time-dependent angular analysis. Denoting $`\mathrm{\Phi }2\beta +\gamma `$, this determines the following quantities:

$`|H_t|^2,|H_0||H_{}|\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{}),|H_{}||H_{}|\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}),`$
$`|H_t||h_t|\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_t\delta _t),(t=0,,),`$
$`|H_{}|h_0|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _0)|H_0|h_{}|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\delta _{}),`$
$`|H_{}|h_{}|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _{})|H_{}|h_{}|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\delta _{}).`$ (23)
One does not rely on knowledge of the small $`|h_t|^2`$ terms, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in which uncertainties would be large. Decays into the charge-conjugate state $`D^{}\rho ^+`$ determine similar quantities, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is then straightforward to show that this overall information is sufficient for determining $`|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }|`$. However, the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta +\gamma )`$ remains ambiguous.

### 4.2 What is new in the time-dependence of $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^+a_1^{}`$ ?

The amplitudes $`A^{}A(\overline{B}^0D^+(3\pi )_{a_1}^{})`$ and $`a^{}A(B^0D^+(3\pi )_{a_1}^{})`$ are written in analogy with (19):

$`A^{}={\displaystyle \underset{t=0,,}{}}H_t^{}A_t,a^{}={\displaystyle \underset{t=0,,}{}}h_t^{}A_t.`$ (24)
Instead of the real functions $`g_t`$ in Eq. (20) of the angular variables $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi `$, one has calculable complex amplitudes $`A_t`$ defined in Eq. (10). These are functions of $`\theta `$ defined above, an angle $`\chi `$ describing a common angle of rotation for the three pions in the $`a_1`$ decay plane, and an angle $`\psi `$ determined by the $`D^{}`$ decay plane. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The latter defines the angle between the two intersection lines of the $`D^{}`$ decay plane and of the $`a_1`$ decay plane with a plane perpendicular to the $`D^{}`$ direction.

One measures $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)D^+(3\pi )_{a_1}^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(t)D^{}(3\pi )_{a_1}^+)`$, with time-dependence as in Eq. (22), as a function of $`\theta `$ and $`\psi `$ while integrating over $`\chi `$. Instead of the product of geometrical functions $`g_tg_t^{}`$ in $`BD^{}\rho `$, the sum in Eq. (22) now involves calculable functions of the angles $`\theta `$ and $`\psi `$, defined as $`R_{ij}(1/2\pi )\text{d}\chi \mathrm{Re}(A_iA_j^{})`$ and $`I_{ij}(1/2\pi )\text{d}\chi \mathrm{Im}(A_iA_j^{})`$, ($`i,j=0,,`$). The nine independent functions are given by

$`R_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta |\stackrel{}{J}|^2,R_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )|\stackrel{}{J}|^2,`$
$`R_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )|\stackrel{}{J}|^2,R_0=\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta J_n^2,`$
$`R_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}2\theta |\stackrel{}{J}|^2,R_{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta J_n^2,`$
$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}2\theta |\stackrel{}{J}|^2,I_0=\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta J_n^2,`$
$`I_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}2\psi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta |\stackrel{}{J}|^2,`$ (25)
where $`J_n^2(1/2)\text{Im}[(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{J}^{})\widehat{n}]`$.

The complex amplitudes $`A_t`$, in contrast to the real functions $`g_t`$, imply that one can measure both real and imaginary interference terms between transversity amplitudes $`H_t^{}`$ and $`h_t^{}^{}`$. This includes terms similar to those in Eq. (4.1) in which the cosines and sines are interchanged. These additional terms provide information which enables resolving the ambiguity in the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta +\gamma )`$. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

The advantage of $`BD^{}a_1`$ in determining unambiguously the CP-violating phase $`2\beta +\gamma `$ can be traced back to the parity-odd measurables that occur in this process but not in $`BD^{}\rho `$. As noted, $`|H_+^{}|^2H_{}^{}|^2=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(H_{}^{}H_{}^{})`$ is P-odd, and so is $`\mathrm{Im}[e^{2i\beta }(H_{}^{}h_{}^{}+H_{}h_{}^{})]`$. These terms, which do not occur in the time-dependent rate of $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$, do occur in $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^+a_1^{}`$ multiplying a P-odd function of $`\theta `$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \text{Im}[(\stackrel{}{J}\times \stackrel{}{J}^{})\widehat{n}]`$. A practical advantage of $`\overline{B}^{}D^+a_1^{}`$ over $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$ is the occurrence of only charged pions in the first process. A slight disadvantage of the first process may be an intrinsic uncertainty in the amplitudes $`A_t`$ calculated in Eq. (10), due to a possible small D-wave $`\rho \pi `$ amplitude.

## 5 Conclusion

Predictions of factorization and heavy quark symmetry for helicity amplitudes in $`\overline{B}^0D^{}\rho ^+`$ agree very well with experiment, but do not distinguish between positive and negative helicities. Parity-odd measurables in hadronic $`B`$ decays are quite rare. We identify such a measurable in $`\overline{B}^0D^{}a_1^+`$ in terms of the up-down asymmetry of the $`D^{}`$ momentum direction with respect to the $`a_1`$ decay plane. Measurement of this asymmetry using current data can test the chirality of the weak $`b`$ quark coupling. Time-dependent CP asymmetry measurements in $`BD^{}\rho `$ and $`BD^{}a_1`$, which entail the potential for a clean determination of $`2\beta +\gamma `$, require considerably more data than acquired so far. Study of $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^{}a_1^+`$ complements that of $`\overline{B}^0(t)D^{}\rho ^+`$, and resolves a discrete ambiguity in the CP-violating phase.

## Acknowledgments

I thank Dan Pirjol and Daniel Wyler for an enjoyable collaboration on a study of $`BD^{}a_1`$, and David London, Nita and Rahul Sinha for pointing out the virtue of $`BD^{}\rho `$. I am grateful to the CERN Theory Division and the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago for their kind hospitality. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560.

## References


format: text

text:
# Harmonic Measure and “Locally Flat”DomainsPartially supported by the NSF.

## Abstract

We will review work with Tatiana Toro yielding a characterization of those domains for which the harmonic measure has a density whose logarithm has vanishing mean oscillation.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 31B25, 35R35, 42B35, 51M25.

Keywords and Phrases: Harmonic measure, Locally flat domains, Vanishing mean oscillation.

In this lecture, I will describe a series of joint works with Tatiana Toro on the relationship between regularity properties of harmonic measure and Poisson kernels, and regularity properties of the underlying domains. Thus, consider a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}`$ and the solution to the classical Dirichlet problem:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u=0\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ u|_\mathrm{\Omega }=fC_b(\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & \end{array}$$
(DP)
$`uC_b(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$, where $`C_b`$ is the class of bounded continuous functions. The maximum principle and the Riesz representation theorem yield the formula

$$u(X_{})=_\mathrm{\Omega }f(Q)𝑑\omega ^X_{}(Q),X_{}\mathrm{\Omega },$$

and the family of positive Borel probability measures $`\{d\omega ^X_{}\}`$ is called harmonic measure. We sometimes fix $`X_{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and write $`d\omega =d\omega ^X_{}`$. Note that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a smooth domain, then $`d\omega ^X_{}(Q)=\frac{G}{\stackrel{}{n}_Q}(Q,X_{})d\sigma (Q)`$, where $`G`$ is the Green’s function for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`d\sigma `$ is surface measure, and $`\frac{}{\stackrel{}{n}_Q}`$ denotes differentiation along the outward unit normal. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is unbounded and $`v`$ is a minimal harmonic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`v|_\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, we define $`d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$, harmonic measure with pole at infinity, to be the measure satisfying

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi 𝑑\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=_\mathrm{\Omega }v\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ,\text{for }\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

The existence and uniqueness of $`v`$ and $`\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$ (modulo multiplicative constants) can be established, for instance, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an unbounded NTA (non-tangentially accessible) domain abbreviation is clarified later, it might as well be here. (see  for details). For example, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_+^{n+1}=\{(x,t):t>0\}`$, then $`v(x,t)=t`$ and $`d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=dx`$ on $`^n`$. The work I will describe originated from trying to understand, as $`\alpha 0`$, the classical theorem of Kellogg, which shows that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of class $`C^{1,\alpha }`$, $`0<\alpha <1`$, then $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}kC^\alpha `$; and its “converse”, the free boundary regularity of Alt-Caffarelli , which states that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies certain necessary weak conditions (to be more fully explained later) and $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}kC^\alpha `$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ must be of class $`C^{1,\alpha }`$.

To motivate our results, we recall real variable characterizations of $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ and $`C^\alpha `$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi C^{1,\alpha }(^n)\text{ (}0<\alpha <1\text{)}r>0,x_0^n\text{, there exists an affine function}\hfill \\ \hfill L_{r,x_0}\text{ on }^n\text{ such that }\frac{|\phi (x)L_{r,x_0}(x)|}{r}Cr^\alpha \text{ for }|xx_0|<r.\end{array}$$
(0.1)
When $`\alpha =0`$, this condition is equivalent to the Zygmund class condition $`\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$, i.e.,

$$\frac{|\phi (x+h)+\phi (xh)2\phi (x)|}{|h|}C.$$

For us, when $`\alpha =0`$, the $`\lambda _{}`$ class will also be relevant, where $`\phi \lambda _{}`$ if $`\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$ and, in addition, the ratio described above tends to $`0`$ as $`\alpha 0`$.

$$hC^\alpha \underset{r>0}{sup}\frac{1}{r^\alpha }\text{av}_{B_R}|hh_{B_r}|C,$$
(II)α
where $`\text{av}_A`$ denotes the average over the set $`A`$ and $`B_r`$ any ball of radius $`r`$. When $`\alpha =0`$, this becomes the BMO space of John-Nirenberg , but we will be more interested in $`\mathrm{VMO}`$, where $`h\mathrm{VMO}`$ if $`h\mathrm{BMO}`$ and in addition $`\text{av}_{B_r}|hh_{B_r}|\stackrel{r0}{}0`$. Note that $`\mathrm{VMO}`$ plays the role vis-à-vis $`\mathrm{BMO}`$ that continuous functions play vis-à-vis $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$.

We start out by giving our geometric analogue of (I)0: We say that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}`$ is $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat if it has the separation property (a quantitative connectivity property) (see  for details), and, for all compact $`K^{n+1}`$, there exists $`R_K>0,`$ such that, for $`0<r<R_k`$ and $`Q\mathrm{\Omega }K`$, there exists an $`n`$-dimensional plane $`L(r,Q)`$ passing through $`Q`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{r}D[B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega },B(r,Q)L(r,Q)]\delta ,$$

where $`D`$ denotes Hausdorff distance. Note that this is a significant condition only for $`\delta <1`$. We will always assume $`\delta <\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}`$. We say that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Reifenberg vanishing if, as $`r0`$, we can take $`\delta 0`$. For instance, the domain above the graph of a $`\lambda _{}`$ function is Reifenberg vanishing. In general, Reifenberg vanishing domains are not local graphs; they do not have tangent planes or a “surface measure”. This class of domains was introduced by Reifenberg  in his study of the Plateau problem for minimal surfaces in higher dimensions.

In order to state our analogue of Kellogg’s theorem in this setting, we need to introduce “multiplicative” analogues of (I)0. A measure $`\mu `$, supported on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, is doubling if, $`K^{n+1}`$, there exists $`R_K>0`$ such that, if $`0<r<R_K`$, then

$$\mu \left(B(2r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega }\right)C\mu \left(B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega }\right).$$

Such a $`\mu `$ is called asymptotically optimal doubling (see , ) for details) if it is doubling and

$$\underset{r0}{lim}\underset{Q\mathrm{\Omega }K}{inf}\frac{\mu (B(\tau r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mu (B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega })}=\underset{r0}{lim}\underset{Q\mathrm{\Omega }K}{sup}\frac{\mu (B(\tau r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mu (B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega })}=\tau ^n,$$

for $`0<\tau <1`$, $`K^n`$. For example, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of class $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ and $`d\sigma `$ denotes surface measure, then $`\sigma (B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega })=\alpha _nr^n+O(r^{n+\alpha })`$, $`Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and hence $`\sigma `$ is asymptotically optimal doubling. If $`\mathrm{log}kC^\alpha `$, then the same is true for $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$. Our analog of Kellog’s theorem is:

###### Theorem 1.

() If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a Reifenberg vanishing domain, then $`\omega `$ ($`\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$) is asymptotically optimal doubling.

The proof uses the fact that $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat domains are NTA domains (, ). One then uses the theory of the boundary behavior of harmonic functions on NTA domains () and comparisons to half-planes, using the Reifenberg vanishing condition and the maximum principle.

To understand a possible converse to Theorem 1, we recall a geometric measure theory (GMT) problem, first posed by Besicovitch: let $`\mu `$ be a positive Radon measure on $`^{n+1}`$ such that, for each $`Q\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the support of $`\mu `$) and each $`r>0`$, we have

$$\mu \left(B(r,Q)\right)=\alpha r^n,\alpha >0\text{ fixed.}$$
(B)
Then, what can be said about $`\mu `$? Clearly, if $`d\mu =dx`$ on $`^n^{n+1}`$, then (B) holds. Nevertheless, in 1987, D. Preiss found the following interesting example: let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_C`$ be the light cone $`x_4^2=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2`$, and $`d\mu =d\sigma _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_C}`$ its surface measure. Then $`\mu `$ satisfies (B). Moreover, the general case of (B) is settled by the following remarkable theorem of Kowalski-Preiss .

Theorem. () Let $`\mu `$ be a non-zero measure with property (B), and put $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{supp}\mu ^{n+1}`$. If $`n=1,2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=^n`$. If $`n3`$, then either $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=^n`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_C^{n3}`$, modulo rigid motions.

The connection of the Preiss example to our problem comes from the fact () that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{x_4^2<x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2\}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^4`$, then $`d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=d\sigma _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_C}`$ (separation of variables) and, by Preiss’s result, $`\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$ is asymptotically optimal doubling, but, of course, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not Reifenberg vanishing, since it is $`\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}`$-Reifenberg flat, and no better. Our converse to Theorem 1 is now:

###### Theorem 2.

() Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}`$ is an NTA, and that $`\omega `$ ($`\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$) is asymptotically optimal doubling. If $`n=1,2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Reifenberg vanishing. If $`n3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat, $`\delta <\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Reifenberg vanishing.

This is in fact a GMT result. It remains valid if $`\omega `$ ($`\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$) is replaced by any asymptotically optimal doubling measure $`\mu `$ with support $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The idea of the proof is to use a “blow-up” argument to reduce matters to the Kowalski-Preiss theorem. Further GMT results along these lines, also in the higher codimension case, were obtained by David-Kenig-Toro .

We now turn to the results motivated by (II)0. Note that the unit normal $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ satisfies $`|\stackrel{}{n}|=1`$, and so the BMO condition on it is automatic, but the VMO condition is not. To put our work in perspective, we recall some of the history of the subject.

A domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1+1}=^2`$ is called a chord-arc domain is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is locally rectifiable, and, whenever $`Q_1,Q_2\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we have $`\mathrm{}\left(s(Q_1,Q_2)\right)C|Q_1Q_2|`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes length and $`s(Q_1,Q_2)`$ is the shortest arc between $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called vanishing chord-arc if, in addition, as $`Q_1Q_2`$, the ratio $`\frac{\mathrm{}(s(Q_1,Q_2))}{|Q_1Q_2|}`$ tends to $`1`$, uniformly on compact sets. The first person to study harmonic measure on chord-arc domains in the plane was Lavrentiev (), who proved:

Theorem. () If $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1+1}`$ is chord-arc, then $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{BMO}(d\sigma )`$. (In fact, $`\omega A_{\mathrm{}}(d\sigma )`$, the Muckenhoupt class .)

For vanishing chord-arc domains in the plane, Pommerenke  proved:

Theorem. () Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a chord-arc domain in $`^{1+1}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is vanishing chord-arc if and only if $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{VMO}(d\sigma )`$.

These results were obtained using function theory, so their proofs don’t generalize to higher dimensions. In higher dimensions, the first breakthrough came in the celebrated theorem of B. Dahlberg , who showed that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}`$ is a Lipschitz domain, then $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{BMO}`$ (in fact, $`\omega A_{\mathrm{}}(d\sigma )`$). One direction of Pommerenke’s result was extended to higher dimensions by Jerison-Kenig , who showed that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`C^1`$ domain, then $`\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{VMO}`$. (In general, note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of class $`C^1`$ need not imply that $`\mathrm{log}k`$ is continuous.) In order to explain our results and to clarify the connection with condition (II)0, we need to introduce some terminology. A domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}`$ will be calld a chord-arc domain if it is an NTA domain (see ) of locally finite perimeter (see ) and its boundary is Ahlfors regular, i.e., the surface measure $`\sigma `$ (which is Radon measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, by the assumption of locally finite perimeter) satisfies the inequalities

$$C^1r^n\sigma \left(B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega }\right)Cr^n$$

(for $`QK\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`K^{n+1}`$ and small $`r`$; or, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an unbounded NTA, for all $`Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`r>0`$). A fundamental result of David-Jerison  and Semmes  is that Dahlberg’s theorem extends to this case, i.e., that $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{BMO}`$, and, in fact, $`\omega A_{\mathrm{}}(d\sigma )`$.

We say that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}`$ is a “$`\delta `$-chord-arc domain” if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of locally finite perimeter, the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Ahlfors regular and the BMO norm of the unit normal $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is bounded by $`\delta `$. We say that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is “vanishing chord-arc” if, in addition, it is Reifenberg vanishing and $`\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{VMO}(d\sigma )`$.

Remark.  S. Semmes  has proved that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`\delta `$-chord-arc domain (under the definition used above), then

$$(1+\sqrt{\delta })^1\alpha _nr^n\sigma \left(B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega }\right)(1+\sqrt{\delta })\alpha _nr^n,$$

where $`\alpha _n`$ is the volume of the unit ball in $`^n`$ and $`\delta \delta _n`$. Moreover, a combination of the results in  and  shows that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat domain which is of locally finite perimeter, and for which $`\sigma (B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega })(1+\delta )\alpha _nr^n`$, then the BMO norm of $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is bounded by $`C\sqrt{\delta }`$ for $`\delta <\delta _n`$. Thus, the two notions introduced of “vanishing chord-arc” domains in the plane are the same, and a domain is vanishing chord-arc exactly when it is of locally finite perimeter, has an Ahlfors regular boundary, it is Reifenberg vanishing and satisfies $`\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{VMO}`$.

Our potential-theoretic result, which extends the work of Jerison-Kenig , is

###### Theorem 3.

() If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a vanishing chord-arc domain, then $`\omega `$ ($`\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$) has the property that $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ ($`d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=hd\sigma `$) with $`\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{VMO}`$ ($`\mathrm{log}h\mathrm{VMO}`$).

This was proved by a combination of real variable arguments, potential-theoretic arguments, and the estimates in .

In order to understand possible converses of this, extending the work of Pommerenke to higher dimensions, we will recall precisely the Alt-Caffarelli  result which we alluded to earlier. In the language that we have introduced, their local regularity theorem can be stated as follows:

Theorem. () Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a set of locally finite perimeter whose boundary is Ahlfors regular. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat, $`\delta <\delta _n`$. Suppose that $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}kC^\alpha (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ ($`0<\alpha <1`$). Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ domain.

The reason for this being a free boundary regularity result is that, in the case when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is unbounded and $`d\omega =d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=hd\sigma `$, then $`v>0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`v|_\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`h=\frac{v}{\stackrel{}{n}}`$. Thus, knowledge of the regularity of the Cauchy data of $`v`$ ($`v|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\frac{v}{\stackrel{}{n}}|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$) yields regularity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (or of $`\stackrel{}{n}`$, the normal).

The first connection between the above Theorem and the work of Pommerenke was made by Jerison , who was also the first to formulate the higher-dimensional analogues of Pommerenke’s theorem as end-point estimates as $`\alpha 0`$ in the Alt-Caffarelli theorem. Jerison’s theorem in  states that, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a Lipschitz domain and $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}k`$ continuous, then $`\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{VMO}`$. There is an error in Lemma 4 of Jerison’s paper. Nonetheless, in  we made strong use of the ideas in . In the more recent version of our results , we bypass this approach.

Before stating our result, it is useful to classify the assumptions in the Alt-Caffarelli theorem. For this, we recall some examples:

Examples. When $`n=1`$, Keldysh-Lavrentiev  (see also ) constructed domains in $`^{1+1}`$ with locally rectifiable boundaries which () can be taken to be Reifenberg vanishing and for which $`d\omega =d\sigma `$, i.e., $`k1`$, but which are not very smooth. For instance, they fail to be chord-arc. These domains do not, of course, have Ahlfors regular boundaries. When $`n=2`$, Alt-Caffarelli constructed a double cone $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`^3`$ such that, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the domain outside the cone, $`d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=d\sigma `$, i.e., $`k1`$. This is of course not smooth near the origin, the problem being that, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is NTA and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Ahlfors regular, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat for small $`\delta `$. When $`n=3`$, the Preiss cone we saw before exhibits the same behavior.

Our first result was:

###### Theorem 4.

() Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}`$ is $`\delta `$-chord-arc, $`\delta \delta _n`$, that $`\omega `$ ($`\omega ^{\mathrm{}}`$) is asymptotically optimal doubling and that $`\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{VMO}`$ ($`\mathrm{log}h\mathrm{VMO}`$). Then $`\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{VMO}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is vanishing chord-arc.

Notice, however, that, when comparing the hypothesis of Theorem 4 to the Alt-Caffarelli theorem two things are apparent : first, we are making the additional assumption that $`\omega `$ is asymptotically optimal doubling, and hence, in light of Theorem 2, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Reifenberg vanishing. Next, the “flatness” assumption in the Alt-Caffarelli theorem is $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flatness, while in Theorem 4 we make the a priori assumption that, in addition, the BMO norm of $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is smaller than $`\delta `$. R…”. This does not make much sense. ecently we have developed a new approach which has removed these objections. We have:

###### Theorem 5.

() Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a set of locally finite perimeter whose boundary is Ahlfors regular. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat, $`\delta <\delta _n`$. Suppose that $`d\omega =kd\sigma `$ ($`d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=hd\sigma `$) with $`\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{VMO}(d\sigma )`$ ($`\mathrm{log}h\mathrm{VMO}(d\sigma )`$). Then $`\stackrel{}{n}\mathrm{VMO}(d\sigma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a vanishing chord-arc domain.

Note that Theorems 3 and 5 together give a complete characterization of the vanishing chord-arc domains in terms of their harmonic measure, in analogy with Pommerenke’s $`2`$-dimensional result, thus answering a question posed by Semmes .

Our technique for the proof of Theorem 5 is to use a suitable “blow-up” to reduce matters to the following version of the “Liouville theorem” of Alt-Caffarelli (, ):

###### Theorem 6.

(, ) Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a set of locally finite perimeter whose boundary is (unboundedly) Ahlfors regular. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an unbounded $`\delta `$-Reifenberg flat domain, $`\delta <\delta _n`$. Suppose that $`u`$ and $`h`$ satisfy:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u=0\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ u>0\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }u|_\mathrm{\Omega }0\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }u\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi h𝑑\sigma ,\text{for }\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{n+1}).$$

Suppose that $`sup_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}|u(x)|1`$ and $`h(Q)1`$ for ($`d\sigma `$-)a.e. $`Q`$ on $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a half-space and $`u(x,x_{n+1})=x_{n+1}`$.

This allows us to prove the crucial blow-up result, which we now describe. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be as in Theorem 5, and assume in addition that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is unbounded. Suppose $`d\omega ^{\mathrm{}}=hd\sigma `$ with $`\mathrm{log}h\mathrm{VMO}(d\sigma )`$, and let $`u`$ be the associated harmonic function. Let $`Q_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and assume that $`Q_iQ_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as $`i\mathrm{}`$ (without loss of generality, $`Q_{\mathrm{}}=0`$). Let $`\{r_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of positive numbers tending to $`0`$, and put

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\frac{1}{r_i}(\mathrm{\Omega }Q_i),\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\frac{1}{r_i}(\mathrm{\Omega }Q_i),$$

$$u_i(X)=\frac{1}{r_i\text{av}_{B(r_i,Q_i)}hd\sigma }u(r_iX+Q_i)\text{ and }d\omega _i^{\mathrm{}}=h_i(Q)d\sigma _i(Q),$$

where $`h_i(Q)=\frac{1}{\text{av}_{B(r_i,Q_i)}hd\sigma }h(r_iQ+Q_i)`$. Then:

###### Theorem 7.

There exists a subsequence of $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_i\}`$ (which we will call again $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_i\}`$) satisfying:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\text{ in the Hausdorff distance sense, uniformly on compact sets;}$$
(7.1)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\text{ in the Hausdorff distance sense, uniformly on compact sets;}$$
(7.2)
$$u_iu_{\mathrm{}}\text{ uniformly on compact sets}$$
(7.3)
and
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{}}=0\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ u_{\mathrm{}}=0\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ u_{\mathrm{}}>0\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7.4)
Furthermore

$$\omega _i\omega _{\mathrm{}}$$
(7.5)
and
$$\sigma _i\sigma _{\mathrm{}},$$
(7.6)
weakly as Radon measures. Here, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=^n\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the harmonic measure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ with pole at $`\mathrm{}`$ (corresponding to $`u_{\mathrm{}}`$). Moreover,

$$\underset{Z\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}{sup}|u_{\mathrm{}}(Z)|1$$
(7.7)
and
$$h_{\mathrm{}}(Q)=\frac{d\omega _{\mathrm{}}}{d\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}(Q)1\text{ for }^n\text{-a.e. }Q\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(7.8)
Since $`\mathrm{log}h\mathrm{VMO}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the average $`\text{av}_{B(r,Q)}hd\sigma `$ is close to the value of $`\mathrm{log}h`$ in a proportionally large subset of $`B(r,Q)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This remark allows us to conclude that (7.6) holds, which is crucial to the application and which fails in general under just (7.1) and (7.2).

As an immediate application of Theorems 6 and 7, we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a half-plane. This already establishes that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Reifenberg vanishing in Theorem 5. To establish that $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is in $`\mathrm{VMO}`$, we assume otherwise, and obtain $`Q_iQ_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`r_i0`$, such that $`\text{av}_{B(r_i,Q_i)}|\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}_{B(r_i,Q_i)}|^2d\sigma \mathrm{}^2`$, $`\mathrm{}>0`$. We consider the corresponding blow-up sequence, and let $`\stackrel{}{e}_{n+1}`$ be the direction perpendicular to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$. By the divergence theorem and (7.1) and (7.2), we have for $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{n+1})`$ that

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}\phi \stackrel{}{n}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_{n+1}𝑑\sigma _i=_{^n\times \{0\}}\phi 𝑑x$$

and hence

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{_{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}\phi 𝑑\sigma _i\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}\phi |\stackrel{}{n}_i\stackrel{}{e}_{n+1}|^2𝑑\sigma _i\right\}=_{^n\times \{0\}}\phi 𝑑x,$$

so that (7.6) yields

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}\phi |\stackrel{}{n}_i\stackrel{}{e}_{n+1}|^2𝑑\sigma _i=0.$$

Taking $`\phi \chi _{B(1,0)}`$ yields the corresponding bound for the integral on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_iB(1,0)`$. But

$$\text{av}_{B(1,0)\mathrm{\Omega }_i}|\stackrel{}{n}_i\stackrel{}{e}_{n+1}|^2d\sigma _i=\text{av}_{B(r_i,Q_i)}|\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{e}_{n+1}|^2d\sigma ,$$

and hence

$$\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{lim}}_i\mathrm{}\left(\text{av}_{B(r_i,Q_i)}|\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}_{B(r_i,Q_i)}|^2d\sigma \right)^{1/2}2\overline{\mathrm{lim}}_i\mathrm{}\left(\text{av}_{B(r_i,Q_i)}|\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{e}_{n+1}|^2d\sigma \right)^{1/2},$$

a contradiction. This concludes the proof.


text:
# Low-Energy-Theorem Approach to one-particle singularity in QED2+1

## I  Introduction

In three dimensional gauge theory infrared divergences is severer than that in four dimension.In 1981,Jackiw first demonstrated it in the massless fermionic $`QED_{2+1}`$ and after that other authors introduced the infrared counter terms to renormalize the infrared divergences.There had been an attempts to solve Dyson-Schwinger equations to examine the dynamical mass generation or chiral symmetry breakings in this model to improve low-energy behaviour.Another important feature of this model is that it allows parity violating Chern-Simons term in the Lagrangean without violating gauge invariance.But it has not yet been clear the quantum effects of Chern-Simons term. During the same period infrared behaviour of the propagator in the presence of dynamical mass has been analysed to search the physical cut associated with massless photon.To maintain gauge covariance Delbourgo and Jackiw addded the vertex correction with Ward-Identities for soft particles in the determination of the infrared behaviour of the propagator with bare mass.In their works relation between bare and renormalized masses are given by the spectral function.Their works are fundamental and important to understand the effects of soft-photons in comparison with perturbation theory.Of course their works includes non-perurbative effects.In 1992 Delbourgo applied his method(gauge technique) to $`QED_{2+1}`$ and shown that massless loop correction to photon soften infrared divergences as T.Appelquist et.al.In reference infrared behaviour of the scalar propagator in the presence of massless fields (photon, graviton) in four dimension was determined by solving the spectral function.In this work we apply the same method in three dimension to determine the infrared behaviour of the propagator.In section I we analyse scalar QED3 and evaluate the scalar propagator in position space based on spectral representation.In this case an approximaiton is made to choose the one-photon,one-meson intermediate state to derive the matrix element $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\varphi (x)|n`$.Most singular infrared part is assumed to be the contribution of soft photon emitted from external lines.Therefore we introduce photon mass to avoid infrared divergences.Lowest order spectral function contains mass and wave function renormalization up to logarithm in position space. Exponentiation of the lowest-order spectral function yields the full propagator in position space.It shows us a new type of mass singurality. Especially mass renormalization make a drastic change of the propagator.Its has a simple form as free propagator (with renormalized mass) multiplied by quantum correction.However this function is not integrable and it is difficult to make a fourier transform of it.In the perturbative analysises the propagator have linear and logarithmic infrared divergences near on-shell.We mention the gauge transformation property and see our solution satisfies Landau-Kharatonikov transformation.As far as the renormalization constant is concerned we evaluate it by position space propagator.The result is $`Z=0`$ for weak coupling,which is a signpost of confining phase in our approximation.In section II we study QED3 with spinor and see the spectral function for fermion is the same in section I.In this case there is a interesting possibility of pair condensation.Evaluating the vacuum expectation value $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ and we find that there exists a critical coupling constant ($`e^2/(8\pi m)=1)`$ above which $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ remains finite.

## II  Scalar QED

First we assume the Kallen-Lehmann spectral representation of the propagator for massive boson:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\mathrm{\Omega }|T\varphi (x)\varphi ^+(0)|\mathrm{\Omega }},`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (s)ds}{p^2s+iϵ}},`$
$`\mathrm{Im}\Delta (p)`$ $`=\sigma (p^2)=(2\pi )^2{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}\delta (pp_N)\mathrm{\Omega }|\varphi |NN|\varphi ^+|\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (2)
$`|N`$ $`>=|r;k_1,\mathrm{}..k_n>,r^2=m^2.`$ (3)
The spectral function is formally written as a sum of multi-photon intermediate states:

$`\sigma (p^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^2r}{2r_0}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}(\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^2}\theta (k_0)\delta ^{(3)}(k^2)\underset{ϵ}{})_n\delta (pr\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Omega }|\varphi |r_i;k_1,\mathrm{}k_nr;k_1,..k_n|\varphi ^+|\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (4)
Here we use the notation

$`(f(k))_0`$ $`=1,`$
$`(f(k))_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}f(k_i).`$ (5)
To evaluate the contribution of the soft-photons,we consider from the beginnings when only the $`n`$th photon is soft.Define the following matrix element

$$T_n(r;k_1,..,k_n)=\mathrm{\Omega }|\varphi |r;k_1,..,k_n.$$
(6)
We consider $`T_n`$ for $`k_n^20,`$we continue off the photon mass-shell by Lehmann-Symanzik-Zimmermann (LSZ) formula:

$`T_n`$ $`=ϵ_n^\mu T_{n\mu },`$ (7)
$`T_n^\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle }d^3x\mathrm{exp}(ik_nx)\mathrm{}_x\mathrm{\Omega }|T\varphi A_\mu (x)|r;k_1,..,k_n`$
$`={\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{exp}(ik_nx)\mathrm{\Omega }|T\varphi j^\mu (x)|r;k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}},`$ (8)
where the electromagnetic current is

$$j^\mu (x)=ie\varphi ^+(x)\stackrel{}{_\mu }\varphi (x)2e^2A_\mu \varphi ^+\varphi ,$$
(9)
here we assume the second term does not contribute in the infared behaviour of the propagator and the usual commutation relation for the first term

$$\delta (x_0y_0)[j_0(x),\varphi (y)]=e\varphi (x).$$
(10)
Thus we omitt the second term in the present calculus.From the definition (8),$`T_n^\mu `$ is seen to satisfy the Ward-Identity

$$k_{n\mu }T_n^\mu =eT_{n1}(r;k_1,..,k_{n1}).$$
(11)
Here we mention the simple proof:

$`k_{n\mu }T_n^\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle d^3xk_{n\mu }ϵ_n^\mu \mathrm{exp}(ik_nx)\mathrm{\Omega }|T\varphi j^\mu (x)|r;k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}}`$
$`=i{\displaystyle d^3xϵ_n^\mu \mathrm{exp}(ik_nx)_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }|T\varphi j^\mu (x)|r;k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}}`$
$`=eϵ_n^\mu \mathrm{\Omega }|\varphi |r;k_1,..,k_{n1},`$ (12)
provided

$$_\mu T(\varphi (y)j^\mu (x))=\delta (xy)e\varphi (y),$$
(13)
where $`e`$ is the charge carried by meson.To get the solution of the Ward-Identity we seek the non-singular contribution of photon for $`T_n(r;k_1,..,k_n).`$There is a possible solution which satisfy Ward-Identity

$$T_n^\mu (r;k_1..k_n)=\frac{e(2r+k_n)^\mu }{2rk_n+k_n^2}T_{n1}(r,k_1\mathrm{}k_{n1}),r^2=m^2.$$
(14)
Here we assume most singular contributions of photons emitted from external lines as in four dimension.These arise from Feynman diagram in which the soft-photon line with momentum $`k_n^\mu `$ and the incoming meson line can be separated from the remainder of the diagram by cutting a single meson line.Detailed dicussion and evaluation of the explicit form of $`T_n`$ are given in ref .Of course for $`n=1`$

$$T_1=\frac{e(2r+k)ϵ}{(2rk+k^2)},$$
(15)
and we can determine $`T_n`$ recursively with (14).In this case $`T_n`$ becomes

$$T_n=\left(\frac{e(2r+k)ϵ}{2rk+k^2}\right)_n.$$
(16)
The one photon matrix element by LSZ is

$`T_1`$ $`=in|T(\varphi _{in}(x),ie{\displaystyle d^3y\varphi _{in}^+\stackrel{}{_\mu ^y}\varphi _{in}(y)A_{in}^\mu (y)})|r;k\text{ }in`$
$`=ie{\displaystyle d^3yd^3z\mathrm{}_F(xy)\stackrel{}{_\mu ^y}ϵ_\mu ^\lambda (k)\mathrm{exp}(iky)\delta ^{(3)}(yz)\mathrm{exp}(irz)}`$
$`=e{\displaystyle \frac{(2r+k)_\mu ϵ_\mu ^\lambda (k)}{(r+k)^2m^2}}\mathrm{exp}(i(r+k)x).`$ (17)
From this lowest order matrix element the function in (4) is given

$`F`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{one\text{ }photon}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }|\varphi (x)|r;kr;k|\varphi ^+(0)|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}(ikx)\delta (k^2)\theta (k^0)[\frac{e^2(2r+k)^\mu (2r+k)^\nu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }}{(2rk+k^2)^2}]},`$ (18)
and $`\sigma `$ is expressed by

$$\sigma (p)=\frac{d^3x}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\frac{d^2r}{2r^0}\mathrm{exp}(irx)\mathrm{exp}(F).$$
(19)
Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is a polarization sum we have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=(g_{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2})d\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2},$$
(20)
and the free photon propagator

$$D_0^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{k^2+iϵ}[g^{\mu \nu }\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}+d\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}].$$
(21)
we get

$`F`$ $`=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}(ikx)\theta (k^0)}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{(2r+k)^2\delta (k^2)}{(2rk+k^2)^2}}+(d1){\displaystyle \frac{\delta (k^2)}{k^2}}].`$ (22)
It is natural to set $`\delta (k^2)/k^2`$ equals to $`\delta ^{^{}}(k^2).`$We see the reason in calculating the one loop self energy of meson diagram,and take imaginary part.This expression is the same as the one given above with the interpretation $`\delta (k^2)/k^2=\delta ^{^{}}(k^2).`$We must introduce a small photon mass $`\mu `$ as an infrared cut off.Therefore ( 22 ) becomes

$$F=e^2\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^2}\theta (k^0)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)[\delta (k^2\mu ^2)(\frac{m^2}{(rk)^2}+\frac{1}{(rk)})(d1)\frac{}{k^2}\delta (k^2\mu ^2)].$$
(23)
The evaluation of the integral to $`F`$ is described in Appendix.The result is

$$F=\frac{e^2}{8\pi \mu }(d2)+\frac{\gamma e^2}{8\pi r}+\frac{e^2}{8\pi r}\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)\frac{e^2}{8\pi }x\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)\frac{e^2}{8\pi }x(d+\gamma 2).$$
(24)
It is helpful to use position space that it shows us easily the short and long-distance behavior.The relation between perturbative spectral function and $`F(x)`$ is

$$\sigma ^{(2)}(p)=\frac{d^3x}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\frac{d^2r}{2r^0}\mathrm{exp}(irx)F(x).$$
(25)
Here we think about the physical meanings of each term.

$`\sigma (x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(mx)}{4\pi x}}\mathrm{exp}(F(x,e,\mu ,m)),`$ (26)
$`\sigma (p)`$ $`=F.T.(\sigma (x))={\displaystyle \frac{d^3x}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\sigma (x)}.`$ (27)
The terms proportional to $`x`$ correspond to mass renormalization and others to wave function renormalization.

$`\sigma (x)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(A){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}((m+B)x)}{4\pi x}}(\mu x)^{Cx+D},`$ (28)
$`A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi \mu }}(d2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma e^2}{8\pi m}},B={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi }}(d+\gamma 2),C={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi }},D={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi m}}.`$ (29)
From the form of $`\sigma (x)`$,wave function renormalization effects denoted by constant and $`D\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)`$ modifies the dimension of the propagator as anomalous dimension in four dimension.Mass renormalization is proportional to $`x`$ and $`x\mathrm{ln}(\mu x).`$Logarithmic corrections descrive the logarithmic infrared divergences and adds a drastic effect as a factor $`(\mu x)^{Cx}`$.This factor $`(\mu x)^{Cx}`$ is a new type of mass singularity in three dimension.In perturbative analysis these will be shown clear. By the definition (1),(2),(3) $`\sigma (x)`$ is a full puropagator.Free propagator in three dimension is

$$\sigma _0(x,m+B)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}((m+B)x)}{4\pi x},\sigma _0(p,m+B)=\frac{1}{(m+B)^2+p^2},$$
(30)
and its quantum correction is expressed by $`\mathrm{exp}(A)(\mu x)^{Cx+D}.`$We find in this expression that $`\sigma (x)`$ is finite provided

$`|\sigma (x)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(A){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}((m+B)x)}{4\pi x}}(\mu x)^{Cx+D}|=finite,`$ (31)
$`0`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma (x)𝑑xM,\text{ }0<D,`$ (32)
and there exists $`\sigma (p)`$

$$\sigma (p)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x\mathrm{sin}(px)}{p}\sigma (x)𝑑x.$$
(33)
In this case we have not a simple pole even in the Yennie gauge $`d=2`$ in which we see the singularity at $`p^2=(m+e^2\gamma /8\pi )^2.`$Next we treat the momentum dependece of the propagator $`\sigma (p)`$ (32).The integral is not analytic and we cannot get the precise expression for $`\sigma (p).`$

If we expand $`(\mu x)^{Cx+D}`$

$$(\mu x)^{Cx+D}=1+(Cx+D)\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)+\frac{1}{2}(Cx+D)^2(\mathrm{ln}(\mu x))^2+\frac{1}{6}(Cx+D)^3(\mathrm{ln}(\mu x))^3+..,$$
(34)
term by term integral of $`\sigma (p)`$ converges.Using the following integrals

$`I_1`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(px)}{p}}\mathrm{exp}(mx)\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)𝑑x`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{p^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}((m^2+p^2)/\mu ^2)}{2(p^2+m^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}((m\sqrt{p^2})/(m+\sqrt{p^2}))}{p^2+m^2}},`$ (35)
$`I_2`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(px)}{p}}\mathrm{exp}(mx)x\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)𝑑x`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{(p^2+m^2)^2}}[\mathrm{ln}((m\sqrt{p^2})/(m+\sqrt{p^2}))+\mathrm{ln}((p^2+m^2)/\mu ^2)2(1\gamma )],`$ (36)
$`\sigma (p)`$ up to $`O(e^2)`$ is given

$`\sigma ^{(2)}(p)`$ $`=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2+p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{p^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{mB}{2(p^2+m^2)^2}}`$
$`+DI_1CI_2],p=\sqrt{p^2}.`$ (37)
In this case the renormalization constant $`Z`$ (residue of the pole term) becomes

$$Z=1+A+D(\gamma +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{p^2+m^2}{\mu ^2}))_{p^2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}.$$
(38)
In the Yennie gauge there remains a renormalization

$$Z=1+\frac{e^2}{16\pi m}\mathrm{ln}((p^2+m^2)/\mu ^2)_{p^2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}.$$
(39)
In Minkowski space, $`p^2p^2,`$with dicontinuity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xiϵ}}`$ $`=P.V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+i\pi \delta (x)`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xiϵ)^2}}`$ $`=P.V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}+i\pi \delta ^{^{}}(x),`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xiϵ}}\mathrm{ln}(xiϵ)`$ $`=i\pi \delta (x)\mathrm{ln}(x)+P.V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}i\pi .`$ (42)
we can determine the the strucure near $`p^2=m^2`$ by the imaginary part of $`\sigma (p).`$Here we notice the second-order spectral function $`\sigma ^{(2)}(p)`$

$`\sigma ^{(2)}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(mx)}{4\pi x}}(1+ABx+(DCx)\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)),`$ (43)
$`\sigma ^{(2)}(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2+p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A\gamma D}{m^2+p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2mB}{(m^2+p^2)^2}}`$
$`D{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{(m^2+p^2)/\mu ^2})}{(p^2+m^2)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Cm}{(p^2+m^2)^2}}[\mathrm{ln}((p^2+m^2)/\mu ^2)2(1\gamma )].`$ (44)
Here we look at mass renormalization part

$`Z_m`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m(2B+2C(1\gamma )C\mathrm{ln}((p^2+m^2)/\mu ^2))}{p^2+m^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2(d1)\mathrm{ln}((p^2+m^2)/\mu ^2)}{p^2+m^2}}.`$ (45)
Spectral function $`\mathrm{Im}\sigma ^{(2)}(p^2)`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\sigma ^{(2)}(p^2)}{\pi }}`$ $`=(1+A\gamma D)\delta (p^2m^2){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}m(d1)\delta ^{^{}}(p^2m^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D\theta (p^2m^2)}{m^2p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Cm\theta (p^2m^2)}{(m^2p^2)^2}}.`$ (46)
Usually we estimate the second-order spectral function in the Feynman gauge $`d=1;`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\sigma ^{(2)}(p^2)}{\pi }}_{d=1}`$ $`=[(1{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi \mu }})\delta (p^2m^2)`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{D}{p^2m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Cm}{(m^2p^2)^2}}]\theta (p^2m^2)].`$ (47)
This shows the renormalization constant $`Z`$ has an linear infrared divergence as $`\mu 0`$.If we add higher order corrections linear infrared divergences cancell each other in the same mechanism in four dimension. In the Yennie gauge it has cuts

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\sigma ^{(2)}(p^2)}{\pi }}_{d=2}`$ $`=\delta (p^2m^2){\displaystyle \frac{e^2m}{4\pi }}\delta ^{^{}}(p^2m^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi m}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{(p^2m^2)^2}})\theta (p^2m^2).`$ (48)
To see the singularity structure near $`p^2=m^2`$ it is better to expand around $`p^2=m^2.`$We get

$$\sigma ^{(2)}(p)=[\frac{1}{m^2+p^2}+(\mathrm{exp}(A)1)\times (CI_2(mm^{})+DI_1(mm^{})].$$
(49)
In this case the renormalization constant $`Z:`$

$$Z=1+(\mathrm{exp}(A)1)+D(\gamma +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{m^2+p^2}{\mu ^2}))$$
(50)
is divergent at $`p^2=m^2.`$There is an interesting contribution from $`\mathrm{exp}(F_2)`$

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(px)}{p}}\mathrm{exp}(mx)(\mu x)^a𝑑x`$
$`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\pi a)}{2}}(p^2+m^2)^{1a/2}\mu ^a`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p^2}}}[(\sqrt{p^2}+m)({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p^2}m}{\sqrt{p^2}+m}})^{a/2}+(\sqrt{p^2}m)({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p^2}+m}{\sqrt{p^2}m}})^{a/2}]`$
$`(\sqrt{p^2}m)^{1a}\text{ near }p^2=m^2,a={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi m}}.`$ (51)
Here we notice that this type of singularity also appears in four dimension where $`a=\alpha (d3)/(2\pi )`$ but in this case $`a`$ is gauge invariant.Formally fourier transform of $`\sigma (p)`$ can be written by double fourier transform

$$\sigma (p)=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}F.T.(\frac{\mathrm{exp}(mx)}{x}(\mu x)^D)(q)\times F.T.(\mu x)^{Cx}(pq),$$
(52)
but we do not discuss details of it in this paper.As we see in the annalysis in terms of $`e^2`$ ,the contribution of the function $`(\mu x)^{Cx}`$ leads to a new type of mass singularity ;divergent series at $`p^2=m^2`$ in $`\sigma ^{(2)}(p)`$.We have seen that the fourier transformation of the propagator is very difficult.It is interesting to study the phase structure of the model.First we estimate renormalization constant by the following sum rule,

$$Z^1=\sigma (\omega )𝑑\omega ,$$
(53)
$$Z^1=\underset{p^2\mathrm{}}{lim}p^2\sigma (\omega )𝑑\omega \frac{\mathrm{sin}(px)}{p}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\omega x)}{4\pi x}𝑑x,$$
(54)
$$\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}F(p)=\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\pi x\mathrm{sin}(px)}{p}F(x)𝑑x=\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\pi }{p^2}(xF(x))(0),$$
(55)
we can evaluate this quantity by direct substitution of $`\sigma (x)`$ into the above equations and take the limit

$`Z^1`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(A)\underset{x0_+}{lim}\mathrm{exp}(mx)(\mu x)^{Cx+D}`$
$`=0.`$ (56)
Next we consider the gauge dependence of the propagator.When we write the photon propagator as

$$D_{\mu \nu }(k)=D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(k)+k_\mu k_\nu M(k),$$
(57)
we seek the change of the propagator.Under the gauge transformation defined:

$`\varphi (x)`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(ie\chi (x)),\varphi ^+(x)\varphi ^+(x)\mathrm{exp}(ie\chi (x)),`$
$`A_\mu (x)`$ $`A_\mu (x)_\mu \chi ,\delta (\varphi ^+\stackrel{}{_\mu }\varphi )=_\mu \chi (\varphi ^+\stackrel{}{_\mu }\varphi 2ie\varphi ^+\varphi A_\mu ),`$ (58)
propagator changes

$`D_{\mu \nu }`$ $`iT[A_\mu (x)_\mu ^x\chi (x)][A_\nu (y)_\nu ^y(y)]`$
$`=D_{\mu \nu }+iT_\mu ^x\chi (x)_\nu ^y(y),`$ (59)
$`\delta D_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=_\mu ^x_\nu ^yM(xy),M(xy)=iT\chi (x)\chi (y)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`iT\varphi (x)\mathrm{exp}(ie\chi (x)\mathrm{exp}(ie\chi (y)\varphi ^+(y)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }T\mathrm{exp}(ie\chi (x))\mathrm{exp}(ie\chi (y)).`$ (60)
Here we expand in $`\delta \chi `$

$`T\mathrm{exp}(ie\delta \chi (x))\mathrm{exp}(ie\delta \chi (y))`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2\delta \chi ^2(x)+\delta \chi ^2(y)2T\delta \chi (x)\delta \chi (y),`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=ie^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}(xy)[M(0)M(xy)],`$
$`i[M(0)M(xy)]`$ $`=T\delta \chi (x)\delta \chi (y).`$ (61)
Usually $`M`$ is identified as the gauge fixing term

$`M(k)`$ $`=d/k^4,`$
$`ie^2M(x)`$ $`=ie^2d{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(ikx)1}{k^4}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2d}{8\pi }}x,`$ (62)
with subtraction of infrared divergence at $`k=0.`$ We get the propagator(59) in covariant $`d`$ gauge for three dimension

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(d,x)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{e^2d}{8\pi }}x)\mathrm{\Delta }(0,x)`$ (63)
$`=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{e^2d}{8\pi }}x)\sigma (0,x),`$ (64)
Since $`\sigma (x)`$ is a full propagator it obeys the Landau-Kharatonikov transformation in our approximation except for linear infrared divergent factor $`A`$

$$\sigma (d,x)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}((m^{}+de^2/8\pi )x)}{x}\mathrm{exp}(A)(\mu x)^{Cx+D}.$$
(65)
Therefore we notice that the Landau-Karatonikov transformation is regularization dependent.We keep the Landau gauge and not take the covariant $`d`$ gauge to avoid longitudinal photon.Here we mention the radiative correction of mass to understand the mass shift.In the Landau gauge our approximation changes the mass $`m`$ to $`m^{}=m+e^2(\gamma 2)/(8\pi ).`$The constant $`\gamma `$ appeared after the expansion of $`\mathrm{Ei}(1,\mu x)`$ in $`\mu .`$In ref,gauge dependent self-energy is estimated at $`O(e^2)`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(m)=d\frac{e^2}{4\pi },$$
(66)
and the physical mass for fermion defined in the Landau gauge

$$m_{phy}=m+\mathrm{\Sigma }(m).$$
(67)
If we estimate one-loop self-energy in the Landau gauge

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(m)=\frac{e^2}{2\pi },$$
(68)
which is two-times larger than $`e^2/(4\pi )`$ in $`m^{}`$ since we used $`D_+(x)`$ instead of $`D(x).`$We see the same effects occured for scalar with vertex correction.We call $`m^{}=m+e^2(\gamma 2)/8\pi `$ the renormalized mass in our approximation.At first sight, mass shift seems to be peculiar but infrared behaviour is governed by one-particle intermediate state.

## III Spinor QED

In this section we study the spectral function for massive fermion.Similar to scalar case propagator and the spectral function are defined

$`S(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\mathrm{\Omega }|T(\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(0))|\mathrm{\Omega }}`$
$`=({\displaystyle _m^{\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^m}){\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\omega )d\omega }{p\gamma \omega +iϵ}},`$ (69)
$`\rho (p^2)`$ $`=(2\pi )^2{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}\delta ^{(3)}(pp_N)\mathrm{\Omega }|\psi |NN|\overline{\psi }|\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (70)
Matrix element is

$`T_n`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }|\psi |r;k_1,..,k_n,`$ (71)
$`T_n^\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{exp}(ik_nx)\mathrm{\Omega }|T\psi j^\mu |r;k_1,\mathrm{}k_{n1}},`$ (72)
provided

$$\mathrm{}_xT\psi A_\mu (x)=T\psi \mathrm{}_xA_\mu (x)=T\psi (j_\mu (x)+_\mu ^x(A(x))).$$
(73)
In the similar way to the scalar case $`T_n`$ satisfies Ward-Identity:

$`_\mu ^xT(\psi j_\mu (x))`$ $`=e\psi (x),`$ (74)
$`_\mu ^xT(\overline{\psi }j_\mu (x))`$ $`=e\overline{\psi }(x),`$ (75)
$`k_{n\mu }T_n^\mu (r,k_1,k_2,..k_n)`$ $`=eT_{n1}(r,k_1,k_2,..k_{n1}),r^2=m^2.`$ (76)
One photon matrix element by LSZ is

$`T_1`$ $`=in|T(\psi _{in}(x),ie{\displaystyle d^3y\overline{\psi }_{in}(y)\gamma _\mu \psi _{in}(y)A_{in}^\mu (y)})|r;k\text{ }in`$
$`=ie{\displaystyle d^3yd^3zS_F(xy)\gamma _\mu \delta ^{(3)}(yz)\mathrm{exp}(i(ky+rz))ϵ^\mu (k,\lambda )U(r,s)}`$
$`=ie{\displaystyle \frac{(r+k)\gamma +m}{((r+k)^2m^2)}}\gamma _\mu ϵ^\mu (k,\lambda )\mathrm{exp}(i((k+r)x))U(r,s),`$ (77)
where $`U(r,s)`$ is a two-component free particle spinor with positive energy:

$$\underset{S}{}U(r,s)\overline{U}(r,s)=\frac{\gamma r+m}{2m}.$$
(78)
In this case the function $`F`$ becomes

$`F`$ $`=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(ikx)\theta (k^0)\delta (k^2)tr[\frac{(r+k)\gamma +m}{((r+k)^2m^2)}\gamma _\mu \frac{\gamma r+m}{2m}\gamma _\nu \frac{(r+k)\gamma +m}{((r+k)^2m^2)}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }]}`$
$`=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(ikx)\theta (k^0)[\delta (k^2\mu ^2)(\frac{m^2}{(rk)^2}+\frac{1}{(rk)})+(d1)\frac{\delta (k^2\mu ^2)}{k^2}]}.`$ (79)
$$F=\frac{e^2m^2}{8\pi r^2}(\frac{1}{\mu }+x(1\gamma )x\mathrm{ln}(\mu x))+\frac{e^2}{8\pi r}(\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)+\gamma )+\frac{e^2}{8\pi }(d1)(\frac{1}{\mu }x).$$
(80)
Thus the lowest order spectral function is exactly the same with that in the scalar case except for the normalization factor in the phase space integral:

$`\rho (p^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^3x}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\rho (x)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d^3x}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(ipx)d^2r\frac{m}{r_0}\mathrm{exp}(irx)\mathrm{exp}(F)}.`$ (81)
After angular integral we get

$$\rho (p)=\frac{m}{4\pi p}\mathrm{exp}(A)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{sin}(px)\frac{\mathrm{exp}((B+m)x)}{x}(\mu x)^{Cx+D}.$$
(82)
Therefore the structure is the same with scalar case as we mentioned in the last section. Consequently there is no infrared divergences at $`p^2=m^2.`$

For the renormalization constants we apply the same argument as for the scalar,full propagator is expressed in the dispersion integral

$$S_F(x)=\rho (\omega )𝑑\omega (i\gamma +\omega )\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\omega x)}{4\pi x}=(i\gamma \sigma (x)+\sigma (x)),$$

Here we use the fourier transform of $`S_F`$ to determine $`Z_2^1.`$For free case the propagator in position space is

$$S_F^{(0)}(x)=(i\gamma )\frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{x^2}}=\frac{i\gamma x}{4\pi (x^2)^{3/2}}=\frac{i\gamma x}{\sqrt{x^2}}\frac{1}{4\pi x^2}.$$
(83)
We see the dimension of the $`S_F^{(0)}(x)`$ is equal to $`1/x^2.`$I momentum space we obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x\mathrm{sin}(px)}{p}\frac{1}{x^2}𝑑x=\frac{\pi }{2p},$$
(84)
and this shows the ordinary expression in momentum space

$$S_F^{(0)}(p)=\frac{\gamma p}{p^2}=\frac{\gamma p}{p}\frac{1}{p}.$$
(85)
$`Z_2^1`$ $`=\underset{x0_+}{lim}[(i\gamma \sigma (\sqrt{x^2})){\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma x}{\sqrt{x^2}}}]=\underset{x0_+}{lim}({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (\sqrt{x^2})}{d\sqrt{x^2}}})`$ (86)
$`=\pi \mathrm{exp}(A)\underset{x0_+}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(mr)}{r}}(\mu r)^{Cr+D})=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& (1<D)\\ \mathrm{}& (1D)\end{array}\right],`$ (89)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(mr)}{r}}(\mu r)^{Cr+D})`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(mr)(\mu r)^{Cr+D}[{\displaystyle \frac{m+C}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C\mathrm{ln}(\mu r)}{r}}]`$
$`,r`$ $`=\sqrt{x^2}.`$ (90)
$`m_0Z_2^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \omega \rho (\omega )𝑑\omega }=\mathrm{exp}(A)\underset{x0_+}{lim}(\mu x)^{Cx+D}=0.`$ (91)
Therefore there is a confining phase;$`Z_2=0(Z_2^1=\mathrm{})`$ of charged particle for weak coupling constant.In this case bare mass vanishes for all coupling. Order parameter for the vacuum expectation value of pair condensate is given

$`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ $`=itrS_F(x)=2m^2\mathrm{exp}(A)\underset{x0_+}{lim}(\mathrm{exp}(mx)(x)^{Cx+D1}))`$
$`=2m^2\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& (1<D)\\ finite& (1=D)\\ \mathrm{}& (1>D)\end{array}\right].`$ (95)
Here we notice that there is a critical coupling constant $`D_{cr}=1(e^2/(8\pi m)=1).`$

## IV Summary

We have seen how the Ward-Identity for soft photon may be applied to three-dimensional electro-dynamics to extract full propagator in position space and the infrared behaviour of the propagator in momentum space.Neglecting unconventional terms in the elecrtomagnetic current for scalar,spectral functions for scalar and spinor coincide each other.Exponentiation of the lowest order spectral function corresponds to the infinite ladder approximation. Since the theory is super renormalizable the mass are corrected to add some finite radiative correction.We found a new type of mass singularity in three dimensional QED in position space as $`(\mu x)^{Cx}.`$ In momentum space it shows us logarithmic mass renormalization and yields a singular infrared structure of the propagator. Wave functuin renormalization $`D`$ plays the role as anoumalous dimension .These are the consequences of logarithmic infrared divergences. Renormalization constant vanishes for spinor case and there is a confining phase for weak coupling.This picture is consistent with perturbative logarithmic infrared divergences at $`p^2=m^2.`$If the coupling constant is smaller than $`D_{cr}`$ ($`D=e^2/8\pi m1),`$vacuum expectation value $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ becomes finite.In our lowest order spectral function there remains linear infrared divergences that was regularized by photon mass.$`O(e^2)`$ correction to the external line and the cancellation of infrared divergences are now in progress.

## V Aknowledgement

The author would like thank Prof.Roman Jackiw to his introduction on technique based on Ward-Identity at MIT September 2002.

## VI Appendix

To evaluate $`F`$ we use the function $`D_+(x)`$ in three dimension:

$`D_+(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2i}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}(ikx)\theta (k^0)\delta (k^2\mu ^2)d^3k}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2i}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}J_0(kx){\displaystyle \frac{\pi kdk}{2\sqrt{k^2+\mu ^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\mu x)}{8\pi ix}},`$ (96)
with the following parameter trick as in ref

$`\underset{ϵ0_+}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{exp}(i(k+iϵ)(x+\alpha r))`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(ikx)}{kr}},`$ (97)
$`\underset{ϵ0_+}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\alpha 𝑑\alpha \mathrm{exp}(i(k+iϵ)(x+\alpha r))`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(ikx)}{(kr)^2}}.`$ (98)
The function $`F`$ is written in terms of the parameter integrals

$`F`$ $`=ie^2m^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\alpha 𝑑\alpha D_+(x+\alpha r,\mu )e^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha D_+(x+\alpha r,\mu )`$
$`ie^2(d1){\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu ^2}}D_+(x,\mu )`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2m^2}{8\pi r^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\mu x)}{\mu }}+x\mathrm{Ei}(1,\mu x)){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi r}}\mathrm{Ei}(1,\mu x)+(d1){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi \mu }}\mathrm{exp}(\mu x),`$ (99)
where the function $`\mathrm{Ei}(n,x)`$ is defined

$$\mathrm{Ei}(n,x)=_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(xt)}{t^n}𝑑t.$$
(100)
It is understood that all terms which vanish with $`\mu 0`$ are ignored.

$$\mathrm{Ei}(1,\mu x)=\gamma \mathrm{ln}(\mu x)+O(\mu x),$$
(101)
$`F_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2m^2}{8\pi r^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}+x(1\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)\gamma ))+O(\mu ),`$ (102)
$`F_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi r}}(\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)+\gamma )+O(\mu ),`$ (103)
$`F_g`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}x)(d1)+O(\mu ).`$ (104)
Here $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant.Using the integrals

$$d^3x\mathrm{exp}(ipx)d^3r\delta (r^2m^2)\mathrm{exp}(irx)f(r)=f(m),$$
(105)
$$d^3x\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\frac{d^3r}{(2\pi )^3}\delta (r^2m^2)=\frac{1}{m^2+p^2}.$$
(106)
we get $`F`$ in position space

$$F=\frac{e^2}{8\pi \mu }(d2)+\frac{\gamma e^2}{8\pi r}+\frac{e^2}{8\pi r}\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)\frac{e^2}{8\pi }x\mathrm{ln}(\mu x)\frac{e^2}{8\pi }x(d+\gamma 2).$$
(107)
After integration over $`r`$

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }\mathrm{exp}(irx\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))𝑑\theta `$ $`=\pi J_0(rx),`$ (108)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{\pi rJ_0(rx)}{\sqrt{r^2+m^2}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(mx)}{x}},`$ (109)
we obtain the full propagator

$`\sigma (x)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(A){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}((m+B)x)}{4\pi x}}(\mu x)^{Cx+D},`$ (110)
$`A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi \mu }}(d2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma e^2}{8\pi m}},B={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi }}(d+\gamma 2),C={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi }},D={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi m}}.`$ (111)
## VII References

 R.Jackiw,S.Templeton,Phys.Rev.23D.2291(1981)

 E.I.Guendelman,Z.M.Raulvic,Phys.Rev.30D.1338(1984)

 T.Appelquist,D,Nash,L.C.R.Wijewardhana,Phys.Rev.Lett.60.2575(1988)

 Y.Hoshino,T.Matsuyama,Phys.Lett.222B.493(1989)

 S.Deser,R.Jackiw,S.Templeton,Ann.Phys.140.372(1982)

 A.B.Waites,R.Delbourgo,Int.J.Mod.Phys.27A.6857(1992)

 D.Atkinson,D.W.E.Blatt,Nucl.Phys.151B.342(1979)

 P.Maris,Phys.Rev.52D.6087(1995);Y.Hoshino,IL Nuovo Cim.112A.335(1999)

 R.Jackiw,L.Soloviev,Phys.Rev173.1458(1968)

 R.Delbourgo,IL Nuovo Cim.49A.485(1978)

K.Nishijima,Prog.Theor.Phys;81.878(1989),ibid.83.1200(1990)

L.D.Landau,J,M.Kharatonikov,Zk.Eksp.Theor.Fiz.29.89(1958)

B.Zumino,J.Math,Phys.1.1(1960)

 in Landau,Lifzhits,Quantum Electrodynamics (Butterworth Heinemann)

T.Kinoshita,Prog.Theor.Phys.5,1045(1950)

N.Nakanishi,Prog.Theor.Phys.19,159(1958)

 Y.Hoshino,in preparation