arXiv:1310.0243v1 [hep-ph] 1 Oct 2013

MOM renormalization group functions in the maximal abelian gauge J.M. Bell & J.A. Gracey, Theoretical Physics Division, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, United Kingdom.

Abstract. The one loop 3-point vertex functions of QCD in the maximal abelian gauge (MAG) are evaluated at the fully symmetric point at one loop. As a consequence the theory is renormalized in the various momentum (MOM) schemes which are defined by the trivalent vertices, as well as in the MS scheme. From these the two loop renormalization group functions in the MOM schemes are derived using the one loop conversion functions. In parallel we repeat the analysis for the Curci-Ferrari gauge which corresponds to the MAG in a specific limit. The relation between the Λ parameters in different schemes is also provided.

1

1

Introduction.

One of the outstanding problems in quantum field theory is to understand the mechanism behind quark and gluon confinement. The former are the building blocks of hadronic states while the latter are the quanta which mediate the strong nuclear force. Unlike other fundamental particles in the standard model neither quarks nor gluons are seen in nature as isolated states. Though at high energy quarks behave as asymptotically free entities and to all intents and purposes are seen through their interaction within deep inelastic scattering, for example. However, this high energy property of asymptotic fundamentality does not persist at low energies. Instead infrared slavery dominates and single free quarks cannot be isolated. In other words the full quark and gluon propagators do not have simple poles at a zero or non-zero mass. There have been many attempts to explain the absence of free quark and gluon states. For background see, for instance, the review article [1]. One framework which has received attention is that where the infrared dynamics is based on an abelian theory involving magnetic monopoles, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. In a parallel of what occurs in superconductivity, colour charge is confined when the monopoles condense to produce an Abrikosov-Nielsen-Oleson string, [1, 2, 3, 4]. A main key in the whole picture is the underlying abelian structure within a theory which has a non-abelian colour group. Thus the actual mathematical structure of the colour group of the underlying quantum field theory describing the strong force plays an important role, [5]. This is either Yang-Mills theory which describes purely gluons or Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) when quarks are included and involve the non-abelian Lie group SU (3). The abelian monopoles are associated with the quanta derived from the centre of the colour group. These are believed to dominate the infrared dynamics, [2, 3, 4, 5]. In other words the contribution from the remaining off-diagonal sector quanta are negligible. To understand this picture further from a quantum field theory viewpoint requires accessing each sector of the colour group. However, in the canonical formulation of Yang-Mills or QCD using a linear covariant gauge fixing, one has no direct access to examining separate centre or off-diagonal gluon dynamics. Moreover, one requires techniques to study the field theory nonperturbatively. One useful method is that of Schwinger-Dyson equations. In this approach the aim is to solve the tower of coupled n-point functions, usually in a particular approximation, that allows clean access to the problem at hand. Though for an abelian monopole analysis one has to have a way of making contact with the centre directly. One way of achieving this is to choose an appropriate gauge fixing. One such gauge is the maximal abelian gauge (MAG), [4, 6, 7]. It is a nonlinear covariant gauge fixing where the centre and off-diagonal gluons are gauge fixed differently, [4, 6, 7]. While this has been used in Schwinger-Dyson analyses, such as [8, 9, 10], and several lattice studies, such as [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16], there has not been as much activity in the MAG compared with the Landau gauge. Encouraging results have emerged such as differing infrared behaviours of the centre and off-diagonal gluon and ghost propagators. Although the focus has primarily been on 2-point functions, more recently Landau gauge studies have turned to vertex functions and specifically 3-point functions, [17]. These functions have been studied at several momentum configurations. The two main ones are the asymmetric and the symmetric points. The former is easier to simulate on the lattice whereas the latter has relatively noisier signals. However, at the symmetric point there are no infrared problems since the momentum configuration is non-exceptional in contrast to the asymmetric point. The issue of the subtraction point of the vertices is related to the area of renormalization schemes. In [18] the momentum (MOM) subtraction schemes were introduced for the 3-point vertices of QCD where the focus was on linear covariant gauges. This family of schemes are mass dependent renormalization schemes which are physical. The actual subtraction is such that after renormalization the Lorentz channel of the 2 and 3-point functions containing the divergences is 2

unity at the renormalization point. This original analysis of [18] was extended to the next loop order recently in [19]. Given that the lattice measures vertex functions non-perturbatively and requires matching to the high energy behaviour, the more loop order information available at high energy allows one to have reduced error estimates on infrared measurements. In addition Schwinger-Dyson analyses of Green’s functions requires matching. This was in part the motivation of [19]. Based on this and the interest in the infrared structure of QCD in the MAG, it is therefore the purpose of this article to provide an analysis of the 3-point vertex functions of QCD in the MAG at one loop. This will extend earlier work on the MAG for various colour groups, [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. Moreover, it will be a complete parallel of [18] for the linear covariant gauge fixings. We will also provide the symmetric point 3-point vertices both in the MS scheme as well as the various MOM schemes associated with the trivalent vertices. One major consequence is that the two loop renormalization group functions will be deduced in the MOM schemes. This is because the mappings of the various parameters between the schemes are derived from the one loop analysis. Hence these conversion functions between schemes are used in conjuction with the renormalization group equation and the known two loop MS renormalization group functions, [30]. As checks on the results we will compare with the nonlinear covariant gauge known as the Curci-Ferrari gauge, [31]. In a certain limit the MAG is equivalent to this gauge and we have performed the full analysis in the Curci-Ferrari gauge. By taking the limit from the MAG we will be able to verify agreement. Indeed the Curci-Ferrari gauge is of interest in its own right as it has a special feature. Originally it was noted in [31] that a BRST invariant gluon mass could be included in the Lagrangian. Clearly it is not gauge invariant but it was regarded as a useful tool for potentially modelling gluon mass. Indeed lattice and Schwinger-Dyson analyses in recent years have indicated that the Landau gauge gluon propagator freezes in the infrared to a finite non-zero value. The initial observations in this respect can be found in [32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. This freezing would correspond to some type of effective gluon mass. Moreover, studies in the MAG on the lattice suggest a similar phenomena but with differing masses for centre and off-diagonal gluons, [13, 14, 15, 16]. This splitting of masses in the infrared is believed to be symptomatic of the dominance of the abelian sector. The paper is organized as follows. We provide all the relevant background to the MAG in section 2 including group theory identities we use when the centre is identified, the renormalization group scheme conversion functions and the computational setup for the symmetric point analysis. The subsequent sections are devoted to the explicit results. The MS amplitudes are given in section 3. The two loop renormalization group functions, amplitudes and conversion functions for the three MOM schemes are given respectively in sections 4, 5 and 6. The results for the related Curci-Ferrari gauge are presented in section 7 with the derivation of the relation between the Λ parameters given in section 8. Concluding remarks are given in section 9. An appendix collects the tensor basis of the vertex functions and the explicit forms of the associated projection matrices.

2

Background.

We devote this section to reviewing the key properties of the MAG as well as the calculational techniques which we use. First, as noted the MAG is a particular gauge fixing where the gluons are allocated to two parts of the colour group, [4, 6, 7]. Those deriving from the centre are named diagonal or centre gluons while those which are not part of this abelian subgroup are termed off-diagonal. Given this we use the same notation as [29, 30] using letters a, b and c as off-diagonal indices but i, j, k and l as indices for gluons and other fields associated with the

3

centre. Capital letters are reserved for the adjoint indices of the full colour group. Thus we A into decompose the group valued gauge field, Aµ = AA µT Aµ = Aaµ T a + Aiµ T i

(2.1)

where T A are the group generators. As we will be summing over colour indices we define the dimensions of the diagional sector as NAd in the adjoint representation and NAo for the off-diagonal sector. Thus 1 ≤ i ≤ NAd , 1 ≤ a ≤ NAo and 1 ≤ A ≤ NA where NA is the dimension of the adjoint representation in the full group. The dimension of the fundamental is NF . So NAd + NAo = NA .

(2.2)

As an example for SU (Nc ) we have NAd = Nc − 1 and NAo = Nc (Nc − 1). Though we will work throughout with an arbitrary colour group and only specify SU (3) in certain cases. In this notation the gauge invariant QCD Lagrangian is, [29], L = −

1 A A µν ¯ /ψ + Lgf G G + iψD 4 µν

(2.3)

where GA µν is the usual field strength and there are Nf massless quarks ψ. Translating this to the MAG situation the field strength splits into two terms since L = −

1 a a µν 1 ¯ /ψ + LMAG . Gµν G − Giµν Gi µν + iψD gf 4 4

(2.4)

The main difference between this Lagrangian and the canonical covariant gauge fixing term is that in LMAG the prescription to fix the gauge for the off-diagonal gluons is different from that gf of the diagonal gluons, [4, 6, 7]. As this construction has been discussed elsewhere we record the full gauge fixed MAG as 1 µ i 2 1 µ a 2 ∂ Aµ − ∂ Aµ + c¯a ∂ µ ∂µ ca + c¯i ∂ µ ∂µ ci 2α 2¯ α 1 + g f abk Aaµ c¯k ∂ µ cb − f abc Aaµ c¯b ∂ µ cc − f abk ∂ µ Aaµ Abν Ak ν − f abk ∂ µ Aaµ cb c¯k α 1 abc µ a b c − f ∂ Aµ c¯ c − 2f abk Akµ c¯a ∂ µ c¯b − f abk ∂ µ Akµ c¯b cc 2 1 akbl a b µ k l ν f Aµ A Aν A + foadcj Aaµ Aj µ c¯c cd + g2 fdacbd Aaµ Ab µ c¯c cd − 2α o 1 − foajcd Aaµ Aj µ c¯c cd + foajcl Aaµ Aj µ c¯c cl + foalcj Aaµ Aj µ c¯c cl 2 α α α − focjdi Aiµ Aj µ c¯c cd − fdabcd c¯a c¯b cc cd − foabcd c¯a c¯b cc cd + foacbd c¯a c¯b cc cd 4 8 8 α abcl a b c l α acbl a b c l α albc a b c l α akbl a b k l − fo c¯ c¯ c c + fo c¯ c¯ c c − fo c¯ c¯ c c + fo c¯ c¯ c c .(2.5) 4 4 4 2

LMAG = − gf

It is worth noting at this stage we are basing this on the more general modified MAG discussed in [21]. Though the interpolating parameter, ζ, which is apparent in [21] and [22] is set to the specific value for the MAG itself. Its interpolating property is not relevant for this article. In addition to this, given the nature of this construction we need to make comments relevant to our analysis. First, there are two gauge parameters, α and α ¯ . The latter is the parameter associated with the centre gluons and as such only appears in the quadratic term. It is necessary in order to construct the centre gluon propagator and is set to zero thereafter. In other words that sector is gauge fixed in the Landau gauge, [22, 29]. For the off-diagonal gluons the gauge parameter appears in the interactions as well as the quadratic term. Moreover, it cannot be set 4

to zero after the propagator has been constructed since several interactions would have singular couplings. Thus a non-zero α is retained throughout. Though we note that aside from the gauge parameter renormalization all the other renormalization group functions are finite in the α → 0 limit. For the quartic terms we use a compact notation for the structure functions, [30], fdABCD = f iAB f iCD

foABCD = f eAB f eCD .

,

(2.6)

In other words the subscript denotes whether the summed index is from the centre or off-diagonal sector. In this respect it is worth noting one consequence of the Lie algebra. If h

then

T A, T B

i

f ijk = 0 and

h

i

T a, T j

= if ABC T C

(2.7)

f ijc = 0

(2.8)

,

= if ajc T c .

(2.9)

These are important when it comes to performing the group theory associated with Feynman diagrams. In addition to the α dependence in (2.5) the gauge fixing requires Faddeev-Popov ghosts, cA . These are associated with each colour sector. It is worth noting that while ordinarily an abelian gauge theory does not have coupled ghosts this statement only applies to the case where the gauge fixing is linear. For instance, in the ’t Hooft-Veltman gauge, [41], there are interacting Faddeev-Popov ghosts. The situation is the same here in that the MAG, being a nonlinear gauge fixing, produces centre ghosts which couple in a non-trivial fashion. Moreover, there are quartic ghost terms. These together with the other interactions do not spoil renormalizability which has been established in [20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29]. As part of the renormalization we note that the renormalization constants for the fields and the parameters are Aao µ =

ZA Aa µ , Aioµ =

p

ZAi Ai µ , cao =

p

Zc ca , c¯ao =

p

q c¯i Zci ci , c¯io = √ Zψ ψ , ψo = Zci ¯ go = µǫ Zg g , αo = Zα−1 ZA α , α ¯ o = Zα−1 i ZAi α

cio =

p

Zc c¯a

p

(2.10)

where the index i on objects in the subscript are to indicate the centre sector and there is no summation over this label when it is repeated. Bare quantities are denoted by the subscript o . We use the same conventions as [30]. In particular we dimensionally regularize in d = 4 − 2ǫ dimensions where ǫ is the regularizing parameter and the mass scale µ is introduced to ensure the coupling constant is dimensionless in d-dimensions. We have included the abelian gauge parameter renormalization for completeness but it will not be discussed here as the Landau gauge will be chosen for that sector. Also we have provided (2.10) to highlight that there is a nontrivial aspect to the renormalization of QCD in the MAG. When one fixes a gauge the remnant of the original gauge symmetry becomes manifest in the Slavnov-Taylor identities via the underlying BRST symmetry. These place certain constraints on the renormalization constants which must be respected in any computation and renormalization scheme. Those identities for the ordinary linear covariant gauge fixing are well known and can be established systematically by the algebraic renormalization technique [42]. However, when that method is applied to the MAG the diagonal ghost and anti-ghost renormalization constants are not defined in the canonical way, (2.10), [29]. This has been checked to three loops in MS in [30]. Therefore, we have to allow for this in our definitions. Moreover, to determine the centre ghost renormalization at one loop requires a two loop renormalization of a vertex function. A second consequence of the Slavnov-Taylor identities is that the centre gluon wave function 5

renormalization constant is not an independent renormalization. It is related to the coupling constant renormalization, [29], and as such provides an independent check on any computation. For completeness the relevant renormalization group functions we will consider here in the various MOM schemes are ∂ ∂ ln ZA + αγα (a, α) ln ZA ∂a ∂α −1 ∂ ∂ β(a, α) ln Zα − γA (a, α) 1 − α ln Zα ∂a ∂α ∂ ∂ ln ZAi + αγα (a, α) ln ZAi β(a, α) ∂a ∂α ∂ ∂ ln Zc + αγα (a, α) ln Zc β(a, α) ∂a ∂α ∂ ∂ β(a, α) ln Zψ + αγα (a, α) ln Zψ ∂a ∂α

γA (a, α) = β(a, α) γα (a, α) = γAi (a, α) = γc (a, α) = γψ (a, α) =

(2.11)

where the form of γα (a, α) is due to the fact that unlike a linear covariant gauge fixing Zα is not unity. The quantity a is defined to be a = g2 /(16π 2 ). Also we have included α dependence on the β-function since in mass dependent renormalization schemes such as the MOM cases we consider here the β-function is gauge dependent. Having defined the renormalization group functions in relation to the renormalization constants for a particular scheme we now recall the formalism which relates the expressions between two different schemes. First we note that the parameters such as the coupling constant and the gauge parameter are associated with a scheme and therefore their values differ between schemes. They are related via their respective renormalization constants. In particular∗ gMOMi (µ) =

ZgMS g (µ) ZgMOMi MS

,

αMOMi (µ) =

MS Z MOMi ZA α MOMi Z MS ZA α

αMS (µ)

(2.12)

where we use MOMi to label a typical MOM scheme and use these as well as the MS scheme to illustrate the formalism for converting between schemes. However, it is important to realise that the explicit relation between the parameters is found recursively. This is because on the right hand side of each of the equations of (2.12) the MOMi renormalization constant is a function of the parameters in that scheme. Therefore these have to be mapped order by order in the perturbative expansion to the reference scheme, which will be MS throughout, prior to extracting the parameter relation at a particular loop order. Otherwise one would not have a relation between parameters which is finite with respect to the regularization. Once the mapping of the parameters from one scheme to another has been established it is possible to define conversion functions for all the renormalization group functions. These are similar to (2.12) and are given by CgMOMi (a, α) =

ZgMOMi ZgMS

,

CφMOMi (a, α) =

ZφMOMi ZφMS

(2.13)

where φ denotes the field associated with the anomalous dimension and the arguments of the conversion functions are the MS parameters as this is the reference scheme. Though for the gauge parameter we define MS Z MOMi ZA (2.14) CαMOMi (a, α) = α MOMi ZαMS ZA ∗

The second equation corrects an obvious error in the corresponding relation in [19].

6

as the conversion function. Again the perturbative expansion of each conversion function is finite with respect to ǫ at each order once the parameter mapping has been applied. Equipped with these then the relations between the renormalization group functions in the various schemes are β

MOMi

"

(aMOMi , αMOMi ) =

β

MS

#

∂a ∂a (aMS ) MOMi + αMS γαMS (aMS , αMS ) MOMi ∂aMS ∂αMS MS→MOMi (2.15)

and γ MOMi (a φ

MOMi , αMOMi )

"

∂ = γφMS aMS + β MS aMS ln CφMOMi aMS , αMS ∂aMS

+ αMS

γ MS α

#

∂ aMS , αMS ln CφMOMi aMS , αMS ∂αMS MS→MOMi (2.16)

where φ also includes α here now and the subscript MS → MOMi indicates there is a mapping of the parameters after the evaluation of the quantity. The MS parameters in the square parentheses are mapped to those of the MOMi scheme. We have written (2.15) in this particular form in order to indicate its derivation originates from the renormalization group formalism but the two derivatives can be simply related to CgMOMi (a, α). From (2.15) and (2.16) it is clear from examining the a dependence that to deduce the two loop renormalization group functions in the MOMi scheme only the one loop conversion functions are needed as the two loop MS renormalization group functions are known. In essence the conversion functions derive from the finite parts of the vertex functions after renormalization which we will deduce as part of our computations for each of the 3-point vertices. Given the structure of the trivalent vertices in the Lagrangian and our aim of computing in the MOM setup it appears that there are six such possible schemes. This is in contrast to the linear covariant gauge fixing where there are three schemes deriving from the triple gluon, ghost-gluon and quark-gluon vertices. However, in the MAG there are only three rather than the potential six MOM schemes. This is because the Slavnov-Taylor identity renders the vertices involving the centre gluons effectively trivial. The coupling constant renormalization constant derived from these vertices is already determined by this identity. Thus the three schemes we will focus on are those which are completely parallel to those of [18] where the gluon is off-diagonal. Given this we recall the computational setup which will be completely parallel to [19]. First we decompose each vertex function at the symmetric subtraction point into the scalar amplitudes with their associated Lorentz tensor basis. Factoring off the overall colour tensors for each vertex function using D

E

Aaµ (p)Abν (q)Acσ (r) D

p2 =q 2 =−µ2

E ca (p)¯ cb (q)Acσ (r) 2 2 p =q =−µ2 D E ψ i (p)ψ¯j (q)Acσ (r) 2 2 2 p =q =−µ

then we write

Σµνσ (p, q) ggg

ccg Σσ (p, q)

= f abc Σggg µνσ (p, q)

= f abc Σccg σ (p, q)|p2 =q 2 =−µ2

= Tijc Σqqg σ (p, q)|p2 =q 2 =−µ2

14 X

= p2 =q 2 =−µ2

k=1 2 X

= p2 =q 2 =−µ2

k=1

7

p2 =q 2 =−µ2

ggg

ggg

P(k) µνσ (p, q) Σ(k) (p, q) ccg

ccg

P(k) σ (p, q) Σ(k) (p, q)

(2.17)

Σqqg σ (p, q)

6 X

= p2 =q 2 =−µ2

k=1

qqg

qqg

P(k) σ (p, q) Σ(k) (p, q) .

(2.18)

Throughout we use p and q as the two independent external momenta which will be the incoming momenta for the ghost and quark lines in their respective cases. The third external momentum is r where r = − p − q. (2.19) The symmetric point is then defined as p2 = q 2 = r 2 = − µ2

(2.20)

which implies

1 2 µ . (2.21) 2 To determine each scalar amplitude within a vertex function we use the same projection method and tensor basis as [19] where the explicit derivation is detailed. The explicit forms of the tensors and projection matrices Mikl , where i denotes the vertex, are given for completeness in appendix A. Though we recall that pq =

ggg

ggg

ccg

ccg

f abc Σ(k) (p, q) = Mkl f

abc

Σ(k) (p, q) qqg

Tijc Σ(k) (p, q)

ggg µνσ

P(l)

D

E

(p, q) Aaµ (p)Abν (q)Acσ (r)

ccg σ

D

p2 =q 2 =−µ2

E c = Mkl P(l) (p, q) c (p)¯ 2 2 p =q =−µ2 D E qqg qqg σ i j c = Mkl P(l) (p, q) ψ (p)ψ¯ (q)Aσ (r) 2 2 a

b

(q)Acσ (r)

p =q =−µ2

(2.22)

are the linear combinations for each Lorentz channel. For the quark-gluon vertex we use the generalized γ-matrices denoted by Γ(n) and defined by µ1 ...µn Γ(n) = γ [µ1 . . . γ µn ]

(2.23)

where a factor 1/n! is understood in the total antisymmetrization. Properties of these matrices have been detailed in [43, 44, 45, 46, 47]. In this basis which spans the space of γ-matrices there is a natural partition due to

1 ...µm ν1 ...νn tr Γµ(m) Γ(n)

∝ δmn I µ1 ...µm ν1 ...νn

(2.24)

which is evident in (A.6). Once all the vertices have been decomposed into their Lorentz scalars we have to reduce the large number of Feynman integrals to a form in which they can be evaluated. We have chosen to use the Laporta approach, [48]. This method allows one to construct all the integration by parts identities for a minimal set of basic topologies. Suitably chosen these cover all possible topologies which arise in the vertex functions. Once the relations between all the integrals are known then they can be algebraically solved to a small set of master graphs. Ordinarily these have to be determined by non-integration by parts methods. In practical terms the Laporta algorithm has been coded in several packages. We have used Reduze, [49], which uses GiNaC, [50], and built the necessary database. At one loop there is one basis topology. For each vertex function we have used Qgraf, [51], to generate all the Feynman graphs and then mapped them on to the basic topologies. We have appended colour and Lorentz indices in the initial steps too. Throughout we have used Form, [52, 53], as the computational tool to handle the algebra symbolically. For the triple off-diagonal vertex there are 23 one loop graphs. The ghost-gluon

8

vertex has 16 graphs and there are 5 for the quark-gluon vertex. Briefly for the 2-point functions we have used Mincer, [54, 55], in order to evaluate the small number of straightforward graphs. Given that we are working in the MAG it is worthwhile recalling some of the group theory identities which we have had to use, [30]. As the colour group has been split into two sectors we have to be careful in implementing this symbolically. Useful in this instance is the set facility in Form in order to treat centre and off-diagonal indices separately. The starting point for deriving any group identities for the split Lie algebra is the original identities. First, the usual Casimirs are defined by

f ACD f BCD = CA δAB , T A T A = CF I , Tr T A T B where I is the identity. The former gives the non-trivial results

= TF δAB

CA δab = f acd f bcd + 2f acj f bcj , CA δij = f icd f jcd

(2.25)

(2.26)

if one recalls the structure functions can only have at most one centre index. These imply f iab f iab = NAd CA , f abc f abc = f acj f bcj =

h

i

NAo − 2NAd CA

[NAo − 2NAd ] NAd ab acd bcd C δ , f f = CA δab . A NAo NAo

(2.27)

The remaining equations of (2.25) give the simple expressions

Tr T a T b as well as

= TF δab , Tr T a T i

i

i

T T

= 0 , Tr T i T j

TF d N I , T aT a = = NF A

CF

= TF δij

TF d − N I . NF A

(2.28)

(2.29)

The Jacobi identity 0 = f ABE f CDE + f BCE f ADE + f CAE f BDE

(2.30)

provides more results which we needed such as f apq f bpr f cqr =

[NAo − 3NAd ] NAd abc apq bpi cqi C f , f f f = CA f abc A 2NAo 2NAo

f ipq f bpr f cqr =

Nd [NAo − 2NAd ] CA f ibc , f ipq f bpj f cqj = Ao CA f ibc . o 2NA NA

(2.31)

A useful relation between dimensions is CF NF =

NAd + NAo TF

(2.32)

which is required usually for simplifying algebra from the quark sector. These basic results and others have been coded within a Form module and applied prior to the integrals being mapped to the basic topologies. This is because as was noted in [30] the group theory for some graphs is zero. Hence in such cases there is no need for a calculation to be performed.

9

3

MS scheme.

As a preliminary to the MOM scheme computations we first record the results for the amplitudes in the MS scheme. This is the basic reference scheme. Indeed to deduce the two loop MOM scheme renormalization group functions using the conversion functions, the two loop MS results are necessary. Therefore, for completeness we note that these are† , [29, 30], i 1 h o d a N ((3α − 13)C + 8T N ) + N (−3α + 9)C γA (a) = A F A f A 6NAo A 1 h o2 2 + (6α2 + 66α − 354)CA + 240CA TF Nf + 192CF TF Nf 2 NA o 48NA

2 + NAo NAd (3α2 + 210α + 331)CA − 80CA TF Nf

+ NAd γα (a) =

2

2 (15α2 − 6α − 33)CA

i

a2 + O(a3 )

h i 1 o 2 d 2 N a (− 3α + 26α)C − 16αT N + N (− 6α − 36α − 36)C A F A f A A 12αNAo h 1 o2 3 2 2 N (− 3α − 51α + 354α)C − 240αC T N − 192αC T N + A F f F F f A 48αNAo 2 A

2 + NAo NAd (− 27α3 − 339α2 − 647α − 928)CA

+ (160α + 512)CA TF Nf )

2

i

2 + NAd (− 30α3 − 366α2 + 294α + 2016)CA a2 + O(a3 )

1 [4TF Nf − 11CA ] a 3 i 1h 2 + − 34CA + 20CA TF Nf + 12CF TF Nf a2 + O(a3 ) 3 i 1 h o NA (α − 3)CA + NAd (−2α − 6)CA a γc (a) = o 4NA 1 h o2 2 2 N (6α − 6α − 190)C + 80C T N + A F f A A 96NAo 2

γAi (a) =

2 + NAo NAd (− 42α2 − 126α − 347)CA + 160CA TF Nf 2

i

2 + NAd (12α2 − 588α + 510)CA a2 + O(a3 )

γci (a) =

i 1 h o d N (−α − 3)C + N (−2α − 6)C A A a A 4NAo A 1 h o2 2 2 N (− 6α − 66α − 190)C + 80C T N + A F f A A 2 96NAo

2 + NAo NAd (− 54α2 − 354α − 323)CA + 160CA TF Nf 2

i

2 + NAd (− 60α2 − 372α + 510)CA a2 + O(a3 )

γψ (a) =

αNAo TF a NF 1 h + (− α2 + 22α + 23)CA CF NF + (α2 − 14α + 2)NAo CA TF 4NF i

− 6CF2 NF − 8CF Nf TF NF a2 + O(a3 ) .

(3.1)

† Electronic versions of all the MAG renormalization group functions, conversion functions and the MS amplitudes for each of the three vertices and the vertex associated with its MOMi scheme are available in the attached data file.

10

Though the three loop results are also available, [30]. Next the full one loop amplitudes for each of the three vertex functions which we have calculated here in MS are ggg

Σ(1) (p, q)

MS

=

ggg

Σ(2) (p, q)

= −

MS

1 ggg ggg = − Σ(4) (p, q) Σ(3) (p, q) MS MS 2

1 ggg ggg = = − Σ(6) (p, q) Σ(5) (p, q) MS MS 2 h ′ 1 2 d ′ 1 = 1 + − 72ψ ( 3 )α CA NA + 36ψ ( 3 )α2 CA NAo + 90ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAd

− 162ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAo − 702ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd + 138ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAo

− 384ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf NAo TF − 81α3 CA NAd + 27α3 CA NAo + 48π 2 α2 CA NAd

+ 810α2 CA NAd − 24π 2 α2 CA NAo − 405α2 CA NAo − 60π 2 αCA NAd

+ 243αCA NAd + 108π 2 αCA NAo − 243αCA NAo + 468π 2 CA NAd

+ 2916CA NAd − 92π 2 CA NAo − 243CA NAo + 256π 2 Nf NAo TF a + O(a2 ) + 1296Nf NAo TF ] 648NAo ggg

Σ(7) (p, q)

ggg

MS

= 2 Σ(9) (p, q)

=

h

ggg

MS

= − 2 Σ(11) (p, q)

ggg

MS

= − Σ(14) (p, q)

108ψ ′ ( 31 )α5 CA NAd − 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α5 CA NAo − 324ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA NAd

MS

+ 162ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA NAo + 324ψ ′ ( 31 )α3 CA NAd − 108ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAo

+ 1296ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd − 456ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo + 768ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 Nf NAo TF

+ 216ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd + 270ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd − 72π 2 α5 CA NAd − 324α5 CA NAd + 24π 2 α5 CA NAo + 108α5 CA NAo + 216π 2 α4 CA NAd + 810α4 CA NAd

− 108π 2 α4 CA NAo − 405α4 CA NAo − 216π 2 α3 CA NAd − 1377α3 CA NAd

+ 72π 2 α3 CA NAo + 1458α3 CA NAo − 864π 2 α2 CA NAd + 891α2 CA NAd

+ 304π 2 α2 CA NAo − 873α2 CA NAo − 512π 2 α2 Nf NAo TF − 576α2 Nf NAo TF i a − 144π 2 αCA NAd − 243αCA NAd − 180π 2 CA NAd + 243CA NAd 972α2 NAo

+ O(a2 ) ggg Σ(8) (p, q)

ggg

MS

= − Σ(13) (p, q)

=

h

MS

− 108ψ ′ ( 13 )α5 CA NAd + 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α5 CA NAo + 540ψ ′ ( 31 )α4 CA NAd

− 270ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA NAo − 270ψ ′ ( 31 )α3 CA NAd + 378ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAo

+ 1242ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd − 390ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo + 384ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 Nf NAo TF

+ 216ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd + 270ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd + 72π 2 α5 CA NAd

+ 567α5 CA NAd − 24π 2 α5 CA NAo − 189α5 CA NAo − 360π 2 α4 CA NAd

− 2268α4 CA NAd + 180π 2 α4 CA NAo + 1134α4 CA NAo + 180π 2 α3 CA NAd

+ 648α3 CA NAd − 252π 2 α3 CA NAo − 243α3 CA NAo − 828π 2 α2 CA NAd

+ 1053α2 CA NAd + 260π 2 α2 CA NAo − 1206α2 CA NAo − 256π 2 α2 Nf NAo TF

ggg

Σ(10) (p, q)

+ 1008α2 Nf NAo TF − 144π 2 αCA NAd − 243αCA NAd − 180π 2 CA NAd i a + 243CA NAd + O(a2 ) 972α2 NAo ggg

MS

= − Σ(12) (p, q)

=

h

216ψ ′ ( 1 )α3 C 3

MS

d A NA

− 72ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAo − 864ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd 11

+ 432ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo + 594ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAd − 486ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAo + 54ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd − 66ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAo + 384ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf NAo TF

− 144π 2 α3 CA NAd − 891α3 CA NAd + 48π 2 α3 CA NAo + 297α3 CA NAo

+ 576π 2 α2 CA NAd + 3078α2 CA NAd − 288π 2 α2 CA NAo − 1539α2 CA NAo

− 396π 2 αCA NAd − 2025αCA NAd + 324π 2 αCA NAo + 1701αCA NAo − 36π 2 CA NAd − 162CA NAd + 44π 2 CA NAo + 333CA NAo i a − 256π 2 Nf NAo TF − 1584Nf NAo TF + O(a2 ) 972NAo

(3.2)

for the triple gluon vertex. Those for the other two vertices are ccg

Σ(1) (p, q)

ccg

MS

= − Σ(2) (p, q)

=

MS

1 h + 18ψ ′ ( 13 )αNAd − 6ψ ′ ( 31 )αNAo − 33ψ ′ ( 13 )NAd + 15ψ ′ ( 13 )NAo − 12αNAd π 2 2 − 27αNAd + 4αNAo π 2 + 27αNAo + 22NAd π 2 + 27NAd − 10NAo π 2 CA a + O(a2 ) (3.3) + 81NAo ] 216NAo

and qqg

Σ(1) (p, q)

MS

h

= − 1 + 6ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NF NAd − 3ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NF NAo − 12ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NF NAd + 12ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NF NAo + 48ψ ′ ( 13 )αNAo 2 TF + 30ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NF NAd

+ 39ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NF NAo − 24ψ ′ ( 31 )CF NF NAo − 4π 2 α2 CA NF NAd − 54α2 CA NF NAd + 2π 2 α2 CA NF NAo + 27α2 CA NF NAo

+ 8π 2 αCA NF NAd − 8π 2 αCA NF NAo − 32π 2 αNAo 2 TF

− 216αNAo 2 TF − 20π 2 CA NF NAd − 162CA NF NAd − 26π 2 CA NF NAo i a − 351CA NF NAo + 16π 2 CF NF NAo + 216CF NF NAo 108NF NAo

+ O(a2 ) qqg Σ(2) (p, q)

MS

= =

qqg

Σ(5) (p, q)

h

MS

6ψ ′ ( 1 )α2 C 3

d A NF NA

− 3ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NF NAo + 24ψ ′ ( 13 )αNAo 2 TF

+ 6ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NF NAd + 15ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NF NAo − 24ψ ′ ( 13 )CF NF NAo

− 4π 2 α2 CA NF NAd − 36α2 CA NF NAd + 2π 2 α2 CA NF NAo + 18α2 CA NF NAo − 36αCA NF NAd + 36αCA NF NAo − 16π 2 αNAo 2 TF − 72αNAo 2 TF

qqg

Σ(3) (p, q)

− 4π 2 CA NF NAd + 36CA NF NAd − 10π 2 CA NF NAo − 126CA NF NAo i a + O(a2 ) + 16π 2 CF NF NAo + 144CF NF NAo 54NF NAo MS

= =

qqg

Σ(4) (p, q)

h

6ψ ′ ( 1 )αC 3

MS

d A NF NA

− 6ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NF NAo + 24ψ ′ ( 13 )αNAo 2 TF

+ 6ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NF NAd + 6ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NF NAo − 18α2 CA NF NAd + 9α2 CA NF NAo

− 4π 2 αCA NF NAd − 45αCA NF NAd + 4π 2 αCA NF NAo + 45αCA NF NAo

− 16π 2 αNAo 2 TF − 36αNAo 2 TF − 4π 2 CA NF NAd + 45CA NF NAd i a − 4π 2 CA NF NAo − 90CA NF NAo + 72CF NF NAo + O(a2 ) 54NF NAo 12

Σqqg (6) (p, q)

MS

h

−6ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NAd + 3ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NAo − 12ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd + 12ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAo

=

− 6ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd + 33ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAo − 24ψ ′ ( 13 )CF NAo + 4π 2 α2 CA NAd

− 2π 2 α2 CA NAo + 8π 2 αCA NAd − 8π 2 αCA NAo + 4π 2 CA NAd − 22π 2 CA NAo i a + O(a2 ) (3.4) + 16π 2 CF NAo 54NAo

where ψ(z) is the derivative of the logarithm of the Euler Γ-function and ζ(z) is the Riemann zeta function. In the course of deriving these we have verified that the one loop MS anomalous dimensions are in agreement with those found in [29, 30]. There the vertex functions were renormalized at the asymmetric point where the momentum of one of the gluon lines for the triple gluon vertex, and the gluon line in the remaining vertices was nullified. While this is an exceptional momentum configuration it is still possible to extract the MS renormalization constants. In changing the subtraction point to the symmetric one the same MS renormalization correctly emerged. It is worth noting that essentially the contributions to the Lorentz channels containing the poles in ǫ will form the basis for the MOM renormalization. One minor check on the expressions is that the correct symmetry structure for each vertex emerged. In other words the relations between the various amplitudes for the triple off-diagonal gluon vertex, for instance, are consistent with expectations based on [19]. In defining the basis of Lorentz tensors we made no assumptions about the structure which should be present.

4

MOMggg scheme.

Having discussed the structure of the 3-point vertices in the MS scheme at one loop in detail we can now renormalize in each of the MOM schemes defined by the same vertices. Given that the method and results for each of the MOMggg, MOMh and MOMq schemes are all effectively the same we focus on the former and present the full analytic results of the amplitudes for the vertex defining each scheme. For the other two cases we give condensed versions in the subsequent sections as the full results are in the data file. With the finite parts of the Green’s functions being available we define the MOMggg scheme in the MAG in the same way as in QCD, [18], by ensuring that after renormalization there are no O(a) corrections to the Lorentz channels containing the divergences in ǫ. In other words for the first six amplitudes there are no O(a) parts at the symmetric point but the remaining eight amplitudes can have O(a) contributions. Given this and the MS results we find that the mappings of the parameters between the schemes are h

aMOMggg = a + − 72ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd + 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo + 90ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd

− 162ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAo − 702ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd + 138ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAo − 384ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf NAo TF − 81α3 CA NAd + 27α3 CA NAo + 48π 2 α2 CA NAd + 324α2 CA NAd

− 24π 2 α2 CA NAo − 162α2 CA NAo − 60π 2 αCA NAd − 243αCA NAd

+ 108π 2 αCA NAo + 243αCA NAo + 468π 2 CA NAd − 92π 2 CA NAo i a2 + 2376CA NAo + 256π 2 Nf NAo TF − 864Nf NAo TF + O(a3 ) 324NAo

h

αMOMggg = α + 18α3 CA NAd − 9α3 CA NAo + 54α2 CA NAd − 36α2 CA NAo + 234αCA NAd i a + O(a2 ) . − 97αCA NAo + 80αNf NAo TF + 90CA NAd 36NAo

(4.1)

Given the nature of the one loop 2-point functions it transpires that the gauge parameter mapping is the same for all schemes. This is because the effect the scheme choice makes on the 13

renormalization of the gauge parameter does not occur until two loops. The same comment applies to the conversion functions for the field renormalizations. Therefore, in order to construct the two loop renormalization group functions we need only record the conversion function for the coupling constants. For MOMggg we have h

CgMOMggg (a, α) = 1 + 72ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NAd − 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo − 90ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd

+ 162ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAo + 702ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAd − 138ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAo

+ 384ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf NAo TF + 81α3 CA NAd − 27α3 CA NAo − 48α2 CA NAd π 2

− 324α2 CA NAd + 24α2 CA NAo π 2 + 162α2 CA NAo + 60αCA NAd π 2

+ 243αCA NAd − 108αCA NAo π 2 − 243αCA NAo − 468CA NAd π 2

+ 92CA NAo π 2 − 2376CA NAo − 256Nf NAo π 2 TF + 864Nf NAo TF + O(a2 ) .

i

a 648NAo (4.2)

For the other conversion functions we do not label them with the scheme but note that like MOMggg Cg (a, α) the variables on the left hand side are the MS ones as is our convention. Thus we have h

CA (a, α) = 1 + − 18α2 CA NAd + 9α2 CA NAo − 18αCA NAd + 18αCA NAo − 108CA NAd + 97CA NAo a + O(a2 ) − 80Nf NAo TF ] 36NAo h i a + O(a2 ) Cc (a, α) = 1 + CA 2NAd + NAo NAo αNAo TF a Cψ (a, α) = 1 − + O(a2 ) . (4.3) NF Having determined the conversion functions it is straightforward to apply the renormalization group formalism to construct the two loop MOMggg renormalization group functions. For the β-function we find a2 3 h 3 2 d2 2 o2 2 d2 ′ 1 NA + 1548ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NA + 288ψ ( 3 )α CA NA − 72ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA

β MOMggg (a, α) = [−11CA + 4Nf TF ]

2 d o 2 o2 NA NA + 786ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NA − 1878ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA

+ 768ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 384ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2 d 2 d o NA + 1860ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NA NA + 648ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA

2 o2 − 1404ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NA − 480ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAd Nf NAo TF

2 d + 864ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf NAo 2 TF − 1080ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NA

2

2

2 d o 2 d 2 d o NA NA + 486α4 CA NA + 81α4 CA NA NA + 1944ψ ′ ( 31 )CA 2

2 o2 2 d 2 d − 81α4 CA NA − 192π 2 α3 CA NA + 1620α3 CA NA

2

2 d o 2 o2 2 o2 − 3078α3 CA NA NA + 48π 2 α3 CA NA + 1026α3 CA NA

2 d + 1296α3 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 432α3 CA Nf NAo 2 TF − 1032π 2 α2 CA NA

2

2

2 d 2 d o 2 d o − 4374α2 CA NA + 1252π 2 α2 CA NA NA + 8289α2 CA NA NA

2 o2 2 o2 − 524π 2 α2 CA NA − 3051α2 CA NA − 512π 2 α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF

− 3456α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF + 256π 2 α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 1728α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2

2 d 2 2 d o − 432π 2 αCA NA − 4860αCA NAd − 1240π 2 αCA NA NA

14

2 2 o2 2 − 1134αCA NAd NAo + 936π 2 αCA NA + 2106αCA NAo 2

+ 320π 2 αCA NAd Nf NAo TF + 1296αCA NAd Nf NAo TF − 576π 2 αCA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2 d 2 − 1296αCA Nf NAo 2 TF + 720π 2 CA NA + 2916CA NAd

2

2 d o 2 d o 2 − 1296π 2 CA NA NA − 2916CA NA NA − 14688CA NAo 2 i a3 + O(a4 ) . + 8640CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 5184CF Nf NAo 2 TF 1296NAo 2

(4.4)

The anomalous dimensions are MOMggg

γA

(a, α) = [− 3αCA NAd + 3αCA NAo + 9CA NAd − 13CA NAo + 8Nf NAo TF ]

a 6NAo

2

h

2 d 2 d o NA + 648ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NA NA + − 432ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA 2 o2 2 d NA + 1836ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NA − 216ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA

2

2 d o 2 o2 NA NA + 1908ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NA − 4032ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA

+ 1152ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 576ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2 d 2 d o NA + 10296ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NA NA − 5832ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA

2 o2 − 5040ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NA − 3744ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd Nf NAo TF 2 d + 4896ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf NAo 2 TF + 12636ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NA

2

2 d o 2 o2 NA NA + 3588ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NA − 20736ψ ′ ( 31 )CA

+ 18144ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 12192ψ ′ ( 13 )CA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2 d 2 d o + 6144ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf2 NAo 2 TF2 − 486α4 CA NA + 648α4 CA NA NA 2

2 o2 2 d 2 d − 162α4 CA NA + 288π 2 α3 CA NA + 6318α3 CA NA

2

2 d o 2 d o 2 o2 − 432π 2 α3 CA NA NA − 6966α3 CA NA NA + 144π 2 α3 CA NA

2 o2 + 1674α3 CA NA + 1296α3 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 432α3 CA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2

2 d o 2 d 2 d NA NA NA + 2688π 2 α2 CA − 1224π 2 α2 CA NA + 9477α2 CA

2 d o 2 o2 2 o2 + 2025α2 CA NA NA − 1272π 2 α2 CA NA − 3078α2 CA NA

− 768π 2 α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 2592α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF

2 d + 384π 2 α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 1296α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 3888π 2 αCA NA

2

2

2 2 d o 2 + 34020αCA NAd − 6864π 2 αCA NA NA − 6048αCA NAd NAo

2 o2 2 + 3360π 2 αCA NA − 270αCA NAo 2 + 2496π 2 αCA NAd Nf NAo TF

+ 3024αCA NAd Nf NAo TF − 3264π 2 αCA Nf NAo 2 TF − 3024αCA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2

2 d 2 2 d o − 8424π 2 CA NA + 8019CA NAd + 13824π 2 CA NA NA 2 o2 2 2 + 16119CA NAd NAo − 2392π 2 CA NA − 5310CA NAo 2

− 12096π 2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 6480CA NAd Nf NAo TF + 8128π 2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF

+ 4608CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 15552CF Nf NAo 2 TF − 4096π 2 Nf2 NAo 2 TF2 + 2304Nf2 NAo 2 TF2

γαMOMggg (a, α) =

i

a2 + O(a3 ) 3888NAo 2

h

− 6α2 CA NAd − 3α2 CA NAo − 36αCA NAd + 26αCA NAo − 16αNf NAo TF i a − 36CA NAd 12αNAo 15

(4.5)

2

h

2 d 2 o2 2 d NA + 108ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA NA − 2052ψ ′ ( 31 )α3 CA NA + − 432ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA

2

2 d o 2 o2 NA NA − 1422ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NA + 2466ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA

− 1152ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAd Nf NAo TF + 576ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2 d 2 d o NA − 8154ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NA NA − 3564ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA

2 o2 + 4626ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NA − 864ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF 2 d NA − 3744ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF − 22032ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA

2

2 d o 2 o2 + 17388ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NA NA − 3588ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NA

− 25056ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAd Nf NAo TF + 12192ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf NAo 2 TF 2 d − 6144ψ ′ ( 13 )αNf2 NAo 2 TF2 − 25272ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NA

2

2 d o 2 d NA NA − 13824ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 486α5 CA NA + 4968ψ ′ ( 13 )CA

2

2

2 d o 2 o2 2 d 2 d − 81α5 CA NA NA + 81α5 CA NA + 288π 2 α4 CA NA − 1944α4 CA NA

2 d o 2 o2 2 o2 + 3078α4 CA NA NA − 72π 2 α4 CA NA − 945α4 CA NA

2 d − 1296α4 CA NAd Nf NAo TF + 432α4 CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 1368π 2 α3 CA NA

2

2

2

2 d 2 d o 2 d o − 6804α3 CA NA − 1644π 2 α3 CA NA NA − 7614α3 CA NA NA

2 o2 2 o2 + 948π 2 α3 CA NA + 4050α3 CA NA + 768π 2 α3 CA NAd Nf NAo TF

+ 2592α3 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 384π 2 α3 CA Nf NAo 2 TF 2

2 d 2 d − 1296α3 CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 2376π 2 α2 CA NA − 49086α2 CA NA

2

2 o2 2 d o 2 d o NA NA NA − 3084π 2 α2 CA NA NA + 8775α2 CA + 5436π 2 α2 CA

2 o2 NA + 576π 2 α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 4752α2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF − 108α2 CA

2 d NA + 2496π 2 α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 3456α2 CA Nf NAo 2 TF + 14688π 2 αCA

2

2

2 2 2 d o NAd NAo NA NA − 22599αCA − 10206αCA NAd − 11592π 2 αCA

2 2 o2 NA + 5310αCA NAo 2 + 16704π 2 αCA NAd Nf NAo TF + 2392π 2 αCA

+ 15552αCA NAd Nf NAo TF − 8128π 2 αCA Nf NAo 2 TF

− 4608αCA Nf NAo 2 TF − 15552αCF Nf NAo 2 TF + 4096π 2 αNf2 NAo 2 TF2 2

2 2 d NAd − 2304αNf2 NAo 2 TF2 + 16848π 2 CA NA + 116640CA

2

2 d o 2 − 3312π 2 CA NA NA − 14904CA NAd NAo + 9216π 2 CA NAd Nf NAo TF

+ 10368CA NAd Nf NAo TF

γcMOMggg (a, α) =

h

i

a2 + O(a3 ) 3888αNAo 2

− 2αNAd + αNAo − 6NAd − 3NAo h

2

(4.6)

iC a A

4NAo

+ − 288ψ ′ ( 31 )α3 CA NAd + 288ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAd NAo − 72ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAo 2 2

− 504ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NAd − 828ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd NAo + 540ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo 2 2

− 1728ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAd + 552ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAd NAo − 1248ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAo 2

− 1536ψ ′ ( 31 )αNAd Nf NAo TF + 768ψ ′ ( 31 )αNf NAo 2 TF − 8424ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAd

− 2556ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd NAo + 828ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAo 2 − 4608ψ ′ ( 13 )NAd Nf NAo TF 2

− 2304ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf NAo 2 TF − 324α4 CA NAd + 270α4 CA NAd NAo 2

− 54α4 CA NAo 2 + 192π 2 α3 CA NAd + 972α3 CA NAd 16

2

2

− 192π 2 α3 CA NAd NAo − 2106α3 CA NAd NAo + 48π 2 α3 CA NAo 2 2

+ 648α3 CA NAo 2 + 336π 2 α2 CA NAd + 5184α2 CA NAd

2

+ 552π 2 α2 CA NAd NAo − 1944α2 CA NAd NAo − 360π 2 α2 CA NAo 2 2

− 648α2 CA NAo 2 + 1152π 2 αCA NAd − 10368αCA NAd

2

− 368π 2 αCA NAd NAo − 144αCA NAd NAo + 832π 2 αCA NAo 2

− 1710αCA NAo 2 + 1024π 2 αNAd Nf NAo TF − 576αNAd Nf NAo TF 2

− 512π 2 αNf NAo 2 TF + 288αNf NAo 2 TF + 5616π 2 CA NAd + 17010CA NAd

2

+ 1704π 2 CA NAd NAo − 1485CA NAd NAo − 552π 2 CA NAo 2 − 378CA NAo 2 + 3072π 2 NAd Nf NAo TF + 864NAd Nf NAo TF + 1536π 2 Nf NAo 2 TF + 432Nf NAo 2 TF

i

C A a2 + O(a3 ) 2592NAo 2

(4.7)

and αNAo TF a NF

γψMOMggg (a, α) =

h

+ 72ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA CF NF − 108ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAo TF − 90ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA CF NF

+ 252ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo TF + 702ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA CF NF − 840ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAo TF + 384ψ ′ ( 13 )αNf NAo TF2 + 81α4 CA CF NF − 108α4 CA NAo TF

− 48π 2 α3 CA CF NF − 486α3 CA CF NF + 72π 2 α3 CA NAo TF

+ 729α3 CA NAo TF + 60π 2 α2 CA CF NF − 162α2 CA CF NF

− 168π 2 α2 CA NAo TF + 324α2 CA NAo TF − 468π 2 αCA CF NF

+ 648αCA CF NF + 560π 2 αCA NAo TF − 1017αCA NAo TF − 256π 2 αNf NAo TF2 + 144αNf NAo TF2 + 2025CA CF NF − 486CF2 NF − 648CF NF Nf TF

i

a2 + O(a3 ) . 324NF

(4.8)

The explicit forms of the associated amplitudes are ggg

ggg

(p, q)

Σ(1) (p, q)

1 ggg Σ(3) (p, q) MOMggg MOMggg MOMggg 2 1 ggg ggg Σ (p, q) = − Σ(4) (p, q) = MOMggg MOMggg 2 (5) ggg = − Σ(6) (p, q) = 1 + O(a2 )

=

ggg

Σ(2) (p, q)

= −

MOMggg

Σ(7)

ggg

MOMggg

= 2 Σ(9)

= =

(p, q)

ggg

ggg

MOMggg

− Σ(14) (p, q) MOMggg h

= − 2 Σ(11) (p, q)

MOMggg

108ψ ′ ( 13 )α5 CA NAd − 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α5 CA NAo − 324ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA NAd

+ 162ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA NAo + 324ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAd − 108ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAo

+ 1296ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NAd − 456ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo + 768ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 Nf NAo TF

+ 216ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd + 270ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd − 72π 2 α5 CA NAd − 324α5 CA NAd

+ 24π 2 α5 CA NAo + 108α5 CA NAo + 216π 2 α4 CA NAd + 810α4 CA NAd

− 108π 2 α4 CA NAo − 405α4 CA NAo − 216π 2 α3 CA NAd − 1377α3 CA NAd

+ 72π 2 α3 CA NAo + 1458α3 CA NAo − 864π 2 α2 CA NAd + 891α2 CA NAd 17

+ 304π 2 α2 CA NAo − 873α2 CA NAo − 512π 2 α2 Nf NAo TF − 576α2 Nf NAo TF i a − 144π 2 αCA NAd − 243αCA NAd − 180π 2 CA NAd + 243CA NAd 972α2 NAo

+ O(a2 ) ggg Σ(8) (p, q)

ggg

MOMggg

= − Σ(13) (p, q)

=

h

MOMggg

108ψ ′ ( 1 )α5 C

−

3

d A NA

+ 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α5 CA NAo + 540ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA NAd

− 270ψ ′ ( 13 )α4 CA NAo − 270ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAd + 378ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAo

+ 1242ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA NAd − 390ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo + 384ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 Nf NAo TF + 216ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd + 270ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd + 72π 2 α5 CA NAd

+ 567α5 CA NAd − 24π 2 α5 CA NAo − 189α5 CA NAo − 360π 2 α4 CA NAd

− 2268α4 CA NAd + 180π 2 α4 CA NAo + 1134α4 CA NAo + 180π 2 α3 CA NAd

+ 648α3 CA NAd − 252π 2 α3 CA NAo − 243α3 CA NAo

− 828π 2 α2 CA NAd + 1053α2 CA NAd + 260π 2 α2 CA NAo − 1206α2 CA NAo

Σggg (10) (p, q)

− 256π 2 α2 Nf NAo TF + 1008α2 Nf NAo TF − 144π 2 αCA NAd − 243αCA NAd i a + O(a2 ) − 180π 2 CA NAd + 243CA NAd 972α2 NAo

MOMggg

= − Σggg (12) (p, q)

=

h

216ψ ′ ( 1 )α3 C 3

MOMggg

d A NA

− 72ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA NAo − 864ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd

+ 432ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo + 594ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd − 486ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAo

+ 54ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAd − 66ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAo + 384ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf NAo TF

− 144π 2 α3 CA NAd − 891α3 CA NAd + 48π 2 α3 CA NAo + 297α3 CA NAo

+ 576π 2 α2 CA NAd + 3078α2 CA NAd − 288π 2 α2 CA NAo − 1539α2 CA NAo − 396π 2 αCA NAd − 2025αCA NAd + 324π 2 αCA NAo + 1701αCA NAo

− 36π 2 CA NAd − 162CA NAd + 44π 2 CA NAo + 333CA NAo i a − 256π 2 Nf NAo TF − 1584Nf NAo TF + O(a2 ) . 972NAo

(4.9)

Again we observe that the same symmetries emerge as in the MS case which is a minor check on the computation.

5

MOMh scheme.

Having recorded the results for the triple gluon vertex at length we briefly present the results for the ghost-gluon vertex in numerical form in order to save space. The full analytic expressions are given in the attached data file. Given the nature of the MOMh scheme the amplitudes are effectively trivial since ccg

Σ(1) (p, q)

ccg

MOMh

= − Σ(2) (p, q)

MOMh

=

1 + O(a2 ) . 2

(5.1)

This is because of the symmetry of the original ghost-gluon vertex and the definition of the MOMh scheme. With the coupling constant conversion function for SU (3) h

i

CgMOMh (a, α) = 1 + −0.125000α2 − α + 0.555556Nf − 10.432318 a + O(a2 ) 18

(5.2)

we can deduce the two loop MOMh anomalous dimensions. They are β MOMh (a, α) = [0.666667Nf − 11.000000] a2 h

+ − 0.625000α3 − 0.333333α2 Nf − 0.750000α2 − 1.333333αNf + 5.500000α + 12.666667Nf − 108.000000] a3 + O(a4 )

MOMh γA (a, α) = [α + 0.666667Nf − 5.000000] a

h

+ − 0.625000α3 − 0.333333α2 Nf + 0.125000α2 − 1.333333αNf

γαMOMh (a, α) =

h

+ 7.093698α + 5.479132Nf − 3.468488] a2 + O(a3 )

i a

−1.250000α2 − 0.666667αNf + 3.500000α − 3.000000

α + 0.625000α + 0.333333α Nf − 0.250000α + 1.333333α2 Nf − 7.023372α2 h

4

3

3

− 3.979132αNf − 2.297058α + 2.000000Nf + 15.093907] γcMOMh (a, α) = [0.250000α − 3.750000] a h

i

a2 + O(a3 ) α

+ 0.187500α2 − 7.945326α + 1.250000Nf − 0.726366 a2 + O(a3 ) h

i

γψMOMh (a, α) = αa + 0.500000α2 − 0.281302α − 1.333333Nf + 22.333333 a2 + O(a3 )

(5.3)

which agree with the explicit direct two loop computation.

6

MOMq scheme.

For the MOMq scheme we also give the results in numerical form for SU (3). Though the non-channel 1 amplitudes are non-trivial here since qqg

Σ(1) (p, q) qqg

Σ(2) (p, q) qqg

MOMq MOMq

Σ(3) (p, q) MOMq qqg Σ(6) (p, q) MOMq

= − 1.000000 + O(a2 ) qqg

=

Σ(5) (p, q) qqg

=

Σ(4) h

=

(p, q)

MOMq MOMq

= =

h h

i

0.138008α2 + 1.562605α − 1.540716 a + O(a2 ) i

0.166667α2 + 1.781302α − 0.826284 a + O(a2 ) i

0.195326α2 + 1.562605α + 3.971621 a + O(a2 ) .

(6.1)

The associated coupling constant conversion function is h

i

CgMOMq (a, α) = 1 + 0.027337α2 + 0.843907α + 0.555556Nf − 7.381259 a + O(a2 ) from which we deduce that the two loop SU (3) renormalization group functions are β MOMq (a, α) = [0.666667Nf − 11.000000] a2 h

+ 0.136686α3 + 0.072899α2 Nf + 1.727047α2 + 1.125210αNf

MOMq

γA

− 5.579304α + 12.666667Nf − 96.936557] a3 + O(a4 )

(a, α) = [α + 0.666667Nf − 5.000000] a h

+ − 0.320326α3 − 0.130217α2 Nf + 2.289442α2 + 1.125210αNf − 5.243258α + 9.547210Nf − 33.979074] a2 + O(a3 ) 19

(6.2)

γαMOMq (a, α) =

h

i a

−1.250000α2 − 0.666667αNf + 3.500000α − 3.000000

α h + 0.244157α4 + 0.130217α3 Nf − 3.793408α3 − 1.125210α2 Nf − 2.657691α2 − 8.047210αNf + 7.996908α + 2.000000Nf − 3.212444]

a2 + O(a3 ) α

γcMOMq (a, α) = [0.250000α − 3.750000] a h

+ 0.076169α3 − 0.033075α2 − 20.249101α + 1.250000Nf

MOMq

γψ

− 23.609305] a2 + O(a3 ) h

i

(a, α) = αa + 0.304674α3 + 4.187814α2 + 5.820815α − 1.333333Nf + 22.333333 a2 + O(a3 ) .

(6.3)

Unlike MOMh the quark anomalous dimension is cubic in the gauge parameter.

7

Curci-Ferrari gauge.

One interesting property of the maximal abelian gauge is that in the formal limit NAd /NAo → 0 the Lagrangian becomes equivalent to gauge fixing QCD in the nonlinear Curci-Ferrari gauge, [31]. More specifically the Lagrangian for the choice of the Curci-Ferrari gauge is, [31], 1 µ a 2 1 a a µν G G − (∂ Aµ ) − c¯a ∂ µ Dµ ca + iψ¯iI D /ψ iI 4 µν 2α g αg 2 eab ecd a b c d + f abc ∂ µ Aaµ c¯b cc + f f c¯ c c¯ c . 2 8

LCF = −

(7.1)

Here the colour indices have the formal range 1 ≤ a ≤ NA where NA is the dimension of the adjoint representation of the colour group and α is the associated gauge parameter. This gauge choice differs from the usual linear covariant gauge fixed Lagrangian in that there is a quartic ghost vertex and the ghost-gluon vertex is different. The former vertex does not exclude renormalizability which can be seen using simple power counting with the proof given in [20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29] which provides the relations between the various renormalization constants. The gauge parameter differs also from that of the linear gauge fixing but when α = 0 then (7.1) reduces to the Landau gauge Lagrangian, [31]. It is straightforward to deduce that the Curci-Ferrari gauge is a particular limit of (2.5) by examining that Lagrangian and omitting any interaction with a centre field. In some respects given the non-renormalization of certain aspects of those fields the centre could be regarded as analogous to a background field in the context of the background field gauge, [56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63]. Given the close relation between this gauge and the MAG, we have renormalized (7.1) in the three MOM schemes defined by the 3-point vertices. We did this directly and independently of the MAG and its limit to the Curci-Ferrari gauge in order to have an independent check on our computations. In other words we verify that the limit of the MAG renormalization group functions and amplitudes agree when NAd /NAo → 0. Therefore, for completeness we record the direct results for the Curci-Ferrari gauge in the three MOM schemes. First, we recall that the relevant two loop MS renormalization group functions are, [64, 65], γA (a) = [(3α − 13)CA + 8TF Nf ] +

h

a 6

2 α2 + 11α − 59 CA + 40CA TF Nf + 32CF TF Nf

20

i a2

8

+ O(a3 )

γα (a) = − [(3α − 26)CA + 16TF Nf ] h

a 12

2 α2 + 17α − 118 CA + 80CA TF Nf + 64CF TF Nf

i a2

+ O(a3 ) 16 h i a2 a 2 3α2 − 3α − 95 CA + 40CA TF Nf + O(a3 ) γc (a) = (α − 3)CA + 4 48 i 1h αCF a+ (8α + 25)CA CF − 6CF2 − 8CF TF Nf a2 + O(a3 ) . (7.2) γψ (a) = 4 4 For the MOM results we first record the mappings for the parameters at one loop for each scheme. The three coupling constant mappings are −

h

aMOMggg = a + 36ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA − 162ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA + 138ψ ′ ( 13 )CA − 384ψ ′ ( 31 )Nf TF

+ 27α3 CA − 24π 2 α2 CA − 162α2 CA + 108π 2 αCA + 243αCA i a2 + O(a3 ) − 92π 2 CA + 2376CA + 256π 2 Nf TF − 864Nf TF 324 h aMOMh = a + − 12ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA + 30ψ ′ ( 13 )CA + 27α2 CA + 8π 2 αCA i a2

+ O(a3 ) 108 h aMOMq = a + 6ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA − 24ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA − 96ψ ′ ( 13 )αCF − 78ψ ′ ( 31 )CA + 108αCA − 20π 2 CA + 669CA − 240Nf TF

+ 48ψ ′ ( 13 )CF − 4π 2 α2 CA − 27α2 CA + 16π 2 αCA + 54αCA

+ 64π 2 αCF + 216αCF + 52π 2 CA + 993CA − 32π 2 CF − 432CF a2 − 240Nf TF ] + O(a3 ) . (7.3) 108 Subsequently we can deduce that the coupling constant conversion functions in each scheme are h

CgMOMggg (a, α) = 1 + − 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA + 162ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA − 138ψ ′ ( 13 )CA + 384ψ ′ ( 31 )Nf TF − 27α3 CA + 24π 2 α2 CA + 162α2 CA − 108π 2 αCA − 243αCA i a + 92π 2 CA − 2376CA − 256π 2 Nf TF + 864Nf TF + O(a2 ) 648 h CgMOMh (a, α) = 1 + 12ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA − 30ψ ′ ( 31 )CA − 27α2 CA − 8π 2 αCA i a + O(a2 ) − 108αCA + 20π 2 CA − 669CA + 240Nf TF 216 h CgMOMq (a, α) = 1 + − 6ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA + 24ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA + 96ψ ′ ( 13 )αCF + 78ψ ′ ( 31 )CA − 48ψ ′ ( 13 )CF + 4π 2 α2 CA + 27α2 CA − 16π 2 αCA − 54αCA

− 64π 2 αCF − 216αCF − 52π 2 CA − 993CA + 32π 2 CF + 432CF a + O(a2 ) . (7.4) + 240Nf TF ] 216 At one loop the gauge parameter mapping is the same in each scheme, similar to the MAG, and thus we have i αa h + O(a2 ) . (7.5) αMOMi = α + − 9α2 CA − 36αCA − 97CA + 80Nf TF 36 Equally the conversion functions for the wave function renormalization constants are the same in each scheme and are i a h CA (a, α) = 1 + 9α2 CA + 18αCA + 97CA − 80Nf TF + O(a2 ) 36 Cc (a, α) = 1 + CA a + O(a2 ) Cψ (a, α) = 1 − αCF a + O(a2 ) . 21

(7.6)

As before we have checked that the scheme independent one loop parts of the renormalization group functions correctly emerge in our direct evaluation. Equipped with these and the one loop conversion functions which derive from the finite parts of the Green’s functions we find the following results for the renormalization group functions. First, for the MOMggg scheme we have a2 3 h ′ 1 3 2 2 + − 72ψ ( 3 )α CA + 786ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA − 384ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf TF

β MOMggg (a, α) = [− 11CA + 4Nf TF ]

2 2 2 − 1404ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA + 864ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF − 81α4 CA + 48π 2 α3 CA 2 2 2 + 1026α3 CA − 432α3 CA Nf TF − 524π 2 α2 CA − 3051α2 CA

2 2 + 2106αCA + 256π 2 α2 CA Nf TF + 1728α2 CA Nf TF + 936π 2 αCA 2 − 576π 2 αCA Nf TF − 1296αCA Nf TF − 14688CA + 8640CA Nf TF

a3 + O(a4 ) 1296 a MOMggg γA (a, α) = [3αCA − 13CA + 8Nf TF ] 6 h 3 2 2 ′ 1 − 288ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf TF + − 108ψ ( 3 )α CA + 954ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA + 5184CF Nf TF ]

2 2 − 2520ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA + 2448ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF + 1794ψ ′ ( 31 )CA

2 2 − 6096ψ ′ ( 13 )CA Nf TF + 3072ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf2 TF2 − 81α4 CA + 72π 2 α3 CA 2 2 2 + 837α3 CA − 216α3 CA Nf TF − 636π 2 α2 CA − 1539α2 CA

2 2 + 192π 2 α2 CA Nf TF + 648α2 CA Nf TF + 1680π 2 αCA − 135αCA 2 2 − 1632π 2 αCA Nf TF − 1512αCA Nf TF − 1196π 2 CA − 2655CA

+ 4064π 2 CA Nf TF + 2304CA Nf TF + 7776CF Nf TF − 2048π 2 Nf2 TF2 i a2

+ O(a3 ) 1944 a γαMOMggg (a, α) = [− 3αCA + 26CA − 16Nf TF ] 12 h 3 2 ′ 1 2 ′ 1 + 576ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf TF + 108ψ ( 3 )α CA − 1422ψ ( 3 )α2 CA + 1152Nf2 TF2

2 2 + 4626ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA − 3744ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF − 3588ψ ′ ( 31 )CA

2 2 + 12192ψ ′ ( 13 )CA Nf TF − 6144ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf2 TF2 + 81α4 CA − 72π 2 α3 CA 2 2 2 − 945α3 CA + 432α3 CA Nf TF + 948π 2 α2 CA + 4050α2 CA

2 2 − 384π 2 α2 CA Nf TF − 1296α2 CA Nf TF − 3084π 2 αCA − 108αCA

2 2 + 2496π 2 αCA Nf TF + 3456αCA Nf TF + 2392π 2 CA + 5310CA

− 8128π 2 CA Nf TF − 4608CA Nf TF − 15552CF Nf TF + 4096π 2 Nf2 TF2 − 2304Nf2 TF2

i a2

3888

+ O(a3 )

CA a 4 h + − 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA + 270ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA − 624ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA + 384ψ ′ ( 31 )αNf TF

γcMOMggg (a, α) = [α − 3]

+ 414ψ ′ ( 13 )CA − 1152ψ ′ ( 31 )Nf TF − 27α4 CA + 24π 2 α3 CA + 324α3 CA

− 180π 2 α2 CA − 324α2 CA + 416π 2 αCA − 855αCA − 256π 2 αNf TF + 144αNf TF − 276π 2 CA − 189CA + 768π 2 Nf TF + 216Nf TF 22

i C a2 A

1296

+ O(a3 ) MOMggg

γψ

(a, α) = αCF a h

+ − 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA + 162ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA − 138ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA + 384ψ ′ ( 31 )αNf TF − 27α4 CA + 24π 2 α3 CA + 243α3 CA − 108π 2 α2 CA + 162α2 CA

+ 92π 2 αCA − 369αCA − 256π 2 αNf TF + 144αNf TF + 2025CA

C F a2 + O(a3 ) . 324 The results for the scheme based on the ghost vertex are similar since − 486CF − 648Nf TF ]

(7.7)

a2 3 h ′ 1 2 2 2 2 + 18ψ ( 3 )α CA − 156ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA + 96ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF − 81α3 CA

β MOMh (a, α) = [− 11CA + 4Nf TF ]

2 2 2 2 − 12π 2 α2 CA + 540α2 CA − 432α2 CA Nf TF + 104π 2 αCA + 1404αCA 2 − 64π 2 αCA Nf TF − 864αCA Nf TF − 7344CA + 4320CA Nf TF

a3 + O(a4 ) 648 a MOMh γA (a, α) = [3αCA − 13CA + 8Nf TF ] 6 h ′ 1 2 2 ′ 1 2 2 + 36ψ ( 3 )α CA − 246ψ ( 3 )αCA + 96ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF + 390ψ ′ ( 31 )CA + 2592CF Nf TF ]

2 2 2 − 24π 2 α2 CA + 459α2 CA − 432α2 CA Nf TF − 240ψ ′ ( 13 )CA Nf TF − 81α3 CA 2 2 2 + 164π 2 αCA + 675αCA − 64π 2 αCA Nf TF − 864αCA Nf TF − 260π 2 CA 2 − 2484CA + 160π 2 CA Nf TF + 2376CA Nf TF

a2 + O(a3 ) 648 a γαMOMh (a, α) = [− 3αCA + 26CA − 16Nf TF ] 12 h 2 2 2 + − 36ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA + 402ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA − 192ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF − 780ψ ′ ( 31 )CA + 2592CF Nf TF ]

2 2 2 + 480ψ ′ ( 13 )CA Nf TF + 162α3 CA + 24π 2 α2 CA − 675α2 CA

2 2 + 864α2 CA Nf TF − 268π 2 αCA − 1107αCA + 128π 2 αCA Nf TF

2 2 + 1728αCA Nf TF + 520π 2 CA + 4968CA − 320π 2 CA Nf TF a2 + O(a3 ) − 4752CA Nf TF − 5184CF Nf TF ] 1296 CA a γcMOMh (a, α) = [α − 3] 4 h ′ 1 + 12ψ ( 3 )α2 CA − 66ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA + 90ψ ′ ( 13 )CA − 8π 2 α2 CA + 108α2 CA

+ 44π 2 αCA − 81αCA − 60π 2 CA − 432CA + 216Nf TF

γψMOMh (a, α) = αCF a

i C a2 A

432

+ O(a3 )

h

+ 12ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA − 30ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA − 8π 2 α2 CA + 27α2 CA + 20π 2 αCA

CF a2 + O(a3 ) . 108 Finally for the MOMq scheme the results are more involved since + 675CA − 162CF − 216Nf TF ]

β MOMq (a, α) = [− 11CA + 4Nf TF ]

a2 3 23

(7.8)

h

2 2 + − 18ψ ′ ( 31 )α3 CA + 192ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA + 144ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA CF

2 − 1248ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA CF − 96ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf TF − 312ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA

2 2 + 192ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF + 768ψ ′ ( 31 )αCF Nf TF + 12π 2 α3 CA + 81α3 CA 2 2 − 128π 2 α2 CA − 783α2 CA − 96π 2 α2 CA CF − 324α2 CA CF

2 2 + 64π 2 α2 CA Nf TF + 432α2 CA Nf TF + 208π 2 αCA + 702αCA

+ 832π 2 αCA CF + 2808αCA CF − 128π 2 αCA Nf TF − 432αCA Nf TF 2 + 4320CA Nf TF − 512π 2 αCF Nf TF − 1728αCF Nf TF − 7344CA

a3 + O(a4 ) 648 a MOMq γA (a, α) = [3αCA − 13CA + 8Nf TF ] 6 h 3 2 2 ′ 1 + 288ψ ′ ( 31 )α2 CA CF + − 18ψ ( 3 )α CA + 150ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA + 2592CF Nf TF ]

2 − 48ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf TF − 78ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA − 1392ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA CF

2 + 192ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF + 768ψ ′ ( 31 )αCF Nf TF − 1014ψ ′ ( 31 )CA

+ 624ψ ′ ( 13 )CA CF + 624ψ ′ ( 31 )CA Nf TF − 384ψ ′ ( 13 )CF Nf TF

2 2 2 2 + 12π 2 α3 CA + 81α3 CA − 100π 2 α2 CA − 81α2 CA − 192π 2 α2 CA CF

2 2 − 648α2 CA CF + 32π 2 α2 CA Nf TF + 52π 2 αCA − 999αCA + 928π 2 αCA CF

+ 4104αCA CF − 128π 2 αCA Nf TF − 432αCA Nf TF − 512π 2 αCF Nf TF 2 2 − 1728αCF Nf TF + 676π 2 CA + 1728CA − 416π 2 CA CF − 5616CA CF

− 416π 2 CA Nf TF − 216CA Nf TF + 256π 2 CF Nf TF + 6048CF Nf TF 3

+ O(a ) MOMq

γα

i a2

648

a 12 h 2 2 − 228ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA − 288ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA CF + 96ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA Nf TF + 18ψ ′ ( 31 )α3 CA

(a, α) = [− 3αCA + 26CA − 16Nf TF ]

2 + 390ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA + 2640ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA CF − 384ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA Nf TF 2 − 1248ψ ′ ( 31 )CA CF − 1536ψ ′ ( 31 )αCF Nf TF + 2028ψ ′ ( 31 )CA

2 2 − 1248ψ ′ ( 13 )CA Nf TF + 768ψ ′ ( 31 )CF Nf TF − 12π 2 α3 CA + 152π 2 α2 CA

2 + 567α2 CA + 192π 2 α2 CA CF + 648α2 CA CF − 64π 2 α2 CA Nf TF

2 2 − 260π 2 αCA + 1269αCA − 1760π 2 αCA CF − 6912αCA CF

+ 256π 2 αCA Nf TF + 864αCA Nf TF + 1024π 2 αCF Nf TF + 3456αCF Nf TF 2 2 − 1352π 2 CA − 3456CA + 832π 2 CA CF + 11232CA CF

+ 832π 2 CA Nf TF + 432CA Nf TF − 512π 2 CF Nf TF − 12096CF Nf TF + O(a3 ) CA a γcMOMq (a, α) = [α − 3] 4 h ′ 1 + − 6ψ ( 3 )α3 CA + 42ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA + 96ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CF + 6ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA

i a2

− 336ψ ′ ( 13 )αCF − 234ψ ′ ( 13 )CA + 144ψ ′ ( 13 )CF + 4π 2 α3 CA + 54α3 CA

1296

− 28π 2 α2 CA − 64π 2 α2 CF − 216α2 CF − 4π 2 αCA − 567αCA + 224π 2 αCF i a2 + 1080αCF + 156π 2 CA + 540CA − 96π 2 CF − 1296CF + 216Nf TF 432 + O(a3 ) 24

MOMq

γψ

(a, α) = αCF a h

+ − 6ψ ′ ( 13 )α3 CA + 24ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA + 96ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CF + 78ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA − 48ψ ′ ( 31 )αCF + 4π 2 α3 CA + 54α3 CA − 16π 2 α2 CA + 81α2 CA − 64π 2 α2 CF − 216α2 CF − 52π 2 αCA − 324αCA + 32π 2 αCF C F a2 + 432αCF + 675CA − 162CF − 216Nf TF ] + O(a3 ) . 108

(7.9)

We have concentrated on the renormalization group functions for the Curci-Ferrari gauge. The explicit form of the various amplitudes can be deduced from the MAG expressions given in the data file in the NAd /NAo → 0 limit. We have checked that these agree with the direct evaluation performed in the Curci-Ferrari gauge itself.

8

Λ parameters.

Having provided all the one loop structure for the MAG and the Curci-Ferrari gauge for the MOM schemes we now briefly discuss the relation between the Λ parameters in the MOM schemes to those in the MS scheme. This parameter sets the fundamental scale in QCD and corresponds to the boundary between infrared and ultraviolet physics. However, its actual value depends on the renormalization scheme one is considering. Though one remarkable feature of this non-perturbative quantity is that the ratio between Λ parameters in different schemes can be determined exactly from a one loop computation. In [18] those relations for the various MOM schemes were determined and we repeat that analysis here for the MAG and CurciFerrari gauges. In essence the ratio of parameters reflects the first term of the coupling constant conversion function. First, we define ΛMOMi ΛMS

λMOMi (α, Nf ) = exp b0 "

#

(8.1)

where

22 8 CA − TF Nf (8.2) 3 3 originates from the one loop β-function. Then for each of the three MOM schemes in the MAG we have b0 =

λMOMggg (α, Nf ) =

1 h − 72ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAd + 36ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NAo + 90ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAd 324NAo − 162ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAo − 702ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAd + 138ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAo

− 384ψ ′ ( 13 )Nf NAo TF − 81α3 CA NAd + 27α3 CA NAo + 48π 2 α2 CA NAd + 324α2 CA NAd − 24π 2 α2 CA NAo − 162α2 CA NAo − 60π 2 αCA NAd

− 243αCA NAd + 108π 2 αCA NAo + 243αCA NAo + 468π 2 CA NAd

− 92π 2 CA NAo + 2376CA NAo + 256π 2 Nf NAo TF − 864Nf NAo TF

λMOMh (α, Nf ) =

1 h 36ψ ′ ( 13 )αCA NAd − 12ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NAo − 66ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NAd 108NAo

+ 30ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NAo − 54α2 CA NAd + 27α2 CA NAo − 24π 2 αCA NAd

− 108αCA NAd + 8π 2 αCA NAo + 108αCA NAo + 44π 2 CA NAd + 162CA NAd − 20π 2 CA NAo + 669CA NAo − 240Nf NAo TF 25

i

i

λMOMq (α, Nf ) =

h 1 − 12ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NF NAd + 6ψ ′ ( 13 )α2 CA NF NAo 108NF NAo

+ 24ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NF NAd − 24ψ ′ ( 31 )αCA NF NAo − 96ψ ′ ( 31 )αNAo 2 TF

− 60ψ ′ ( 31 )CA NF NAd − 78ψ ′ ( 13 )CA NF NAo + 48ψ ′ ( 31 )CF NF NAo + 8π 2 α2 CA NF NAd + 54α2 CA NF NAd − 4π 2 α2 CA NF NAo − 27α2 CA NF NAo − 16π 2 αCA NF NAd − 54αCA NF NAd + 16π 2 αCA NF NAo + 54αCA NF NAo + 64π 2 αNAo 2 TF + 216αNAo 2 TF + 40π 2 CA NF NAd + 52π 2 CA NF NAo + 993CA NF NAo − 32π 2 CF NF NAo − 432CF NF NAo − 240NF Nf NAo TF ] .

(8.3)

While these are the explicit results it is perhaps more instructive to compare with the Landau gauge results of [18]. Therefore we have provided the values for the same choice of Nf and α given in [18] for each scheme for SU (3) in Table 1. Though it is important to note that our α is not the same parameter as in [18] and also the distinction between the MS and MS results of [18]. Interestingly for certain choices of α and Nf the ratio is less than unity. α 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 -2

Nf 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 3 4 5 3 4 4

MOMggg 2.3583 2.1127 1.8642 1.6167 1.3668 1.1239 2.0664 1.3739 1.1480 0.9298 0.9591 0.7787 1.8624

MOMh 2.5816 2.6008 2.6228 2.6484 2.6784 2.7140 2.8596 3.0010 3.0655 3.1429 4.1883 4.3939 2.2372

MOMq 1.9562 1.9359 1.9129 1.8869 1.8572 1.8229 1.8073 1.7128 1.6729 1.6271 1.3858 1.3308 2.2445

Table 1. Values of λMOMi (α, Nf ) for the MAG in SU (3). We have repeated the analysis for the Curci-Ferrari gauge and the parallel results are presented in Table 2. Those for the MOMggg and MOMq schemes are equivalent to those of the linear covariant gauge fixing of [18]. This is because the coupling constant mapping is the same for both cases despite the fact that the ghost-gluon vertex is different. This does not affect the one loop vertices since the differences cancel out. However, this is not the case for the MOMh scheme since the quartic ghost vertex contributes to the mapping for all α and in the Landau gauge case the differences in the ghost-gluon vertex are significant. However, the same increase and decrease of the ratio with α and Nf is parallel to that for the standard linear covariant gauge fixing results of [18].

26

α 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 -2

Nf 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 3 4 5 3 4 4

MOMggg 3.3341 3.0543 2.7644 2.4654 2.1587 1.8471 2.8957 2.0751 1.7921 1.5088 1.8392 1.5732 2.5437

MOMh 2.6588 2.6837 2.7123 2.7456 2.7846 2.8312 2.9893 3.1684 3.2505 3.3496 5.4177 5.8018 2.6772

MOMq 2.1379 2.1277 2.1163 2.1032 2.0881 2.0706 1.9075 1.8296 1.7964 1.7581 1.3110 1.2533 2.6597

Table 2. Values of λMOMi (α, Nf ) for the Curci-Ferrari gauge in SU (3).

9

Discussion.

We make some comments on our analysis. First, we have provided all the information on the 3-point vertex functions relevant for the definition of the MOM schemes for the maximal abelian gauge. This is an analysis parallel to that of [18] for QCD fixed in the canonical linear covariant gauge. One motivation was to provide this data in relation to future lattice analyses of the vertex functions in the infrared in order to have precision matching at high energy. Moreover, the explicit values of the amplitudes will be useful for assisting overlap with Schwinger-Dyson studies. Several features which were observed in [30] are again present. One is the relation to the Curci-Ferrari gauge in that results from the latter can be derived from the MAG in the replicalike limit where the centre of the group is formally excluded. However, we have verified that the results in this limit are consistent with the direct calculation in the Curci-Ferrari gauge itself. Given properties of the renormalization group equation the one loop conversion functions for relating parameters in the MOM schemes to those of the MS scheme have allowed us to compute the two loop renormalization group functions in each of the three MOM schemes. These have direct parallels with those of [30] since they are based on the triple gluon, ghost-gluon and quark-gluon vertices. Though an essential difference here is that with the split nature of the colour group in the MAG, it is the vertices with the off-diagonal gluons which are relevant. This is due in part to the fact that there are Slavnov-Taylor identities which ensure that the structure with vertices with centre gluons are predetermined. Indeed this is not unrelated to the fact these gluons are similar to the background fields of the background field gauge of [56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61] with the off-diagonal gluons corresponding to the quantum fluctuations. Whether this scenario is significant in the picture of abelian monopoles underlying a picture of colour confinement would be interesting to investigate.

Acknowledgements. This work was carried out with the support of a John Lennon Memorial Scholarship and an STFC studentship (JMB).

27

A

Tensor basis.

In this appendix we record for completeness the tensor basis for each of the three 3-point vertices, using the same notation as [19]. For the triple gluon vertex we use the original tensor basis with the basis tensors ggg

ggg

ggg

ggg

ggg

ggg

P(1)µνσ (p, q) = ηµν pσ , P(2)µνσ (p, q) = ηνσ pµ , P(3)µνσ (p, q) = ησµ pν P(4)µνσ (p, q) = ηµν qσ , P(5)µνσ (p, q) = ηνσ qµ , P(6)µνσ (p, q) = ησµ qν ggg

P(7)µνσ (p, q) = ggg

P(10)µνσ (p, q) = ggg P(13)µνσ (p, q) =

1 ggg pµ pν pσ , P(8)µνσ (p, q) = µ2 1 ggg qµ pν pσ , P(11)µνσ (p, q) = µ2 1 ggg qµ qν pσ , P(14)µνσ (p, q) = µ2

1 1 ggg pµ pν qσ , P(9)µνσ (p, q) = 2 pµ qν pσ µ2 µ 1 1 ggg pµ qν qσ , P(12)µνσ (p, q) = 2 qµ pν qσ µ2 µ 1 qµ qν qσ . (A.1) µ2

For the associated projection matrix we partition it into submatrices for ease of presentation. With the general form Mggg Mggg Mggg 11 12 13 1 ggg ggg M22 Mggg Mggg = − M21 23 27(d − 2) ggg ggg ggg M31 M32 M33

then each of the submatrices are

ggg

M11

ggg

M13

=

=

36 0 0 18 0 0 0 36 0 0 18 0 0 0 36 0 0 18 18 0 0 36 0 0 0 18 0 0 36 0 0 0 18 0 0 36

12 48 12 24 24 24

64(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 32(2d − 1) 16(d + 1) 16(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 16(d + 1) 32(2d − 1) 16(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 16(d + 1) 16(d + 1) 32(2d − 1)

Mggg = 22 ggg

M23

ggg

M31

12 12 48 24 24 24

48 12 12 24 24 24

24 24 24 48 48 48

ggg , M12 =

48 24 ggg , M21 = 24 24

16(d + 4) 16(d + 4) 16(d + 4) 8(4d + 1) 8(4d + 1) 8(d + 4) 8(4d + 1) 8(d + 4) 8(4d + 1) 8(d + 4) 8(4d + 1) 8(4d + 1)

12 12 48 24

=

=

48 12 12 24

12 48 12 24

24 24 24 48

24 24 24 48

24 24 24 48

28

48 24 24 24

8(d + 10) 16(d + 4) 16(d + 4) 16(d + 4)

48 48 48 24 24 24

24 24 24 48 12 12

24 24 24 12 12 48

24 24 24 12 48 12

48 24 24 24

24 48 12 12

24 12 12 48

24 12 48 12

ggg

M32

16(d + 4) 8(4d + 1) 8(4d + 1) 8(d + 4) 16(d + 4) 8(4d + 1) 8(d + 4) 8(4d + 1) 16(d + 4) 8(d + 4) 8(4d + 1) 8(4d + 1) 8(d + 10) 16(d + 4) 16(d + 4) 16(d + 4)

32(2d − 1) 16(d + 1) 16(d + 1) 16(d + 1) 32(2d − 1) 16(d + 1) 16(d + 1) 16(d + 1) 32(2d − 1) 32(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 32(d + 1)

=

Mggg = 33

32(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 32(d + 1) 64(d + 1)

.

(A.2)

The situation for the remaining vertices is simple as the basis of each involve fewer tensors. For the ghost-gluon vertex we have ccg

P(1)σ (p, q) = pσ

,

ccg

P(2)σ (p, q) = qσ

(A.3)

!

(A.4)

where 1 Mccg = − 3

4 2 2 4

is the projection matrix. Finally, the quark-gluon vertex basis is qqg P(1)σ (p, q) = γσ qqg P(4)σ (p, q) =

qσ p/ µ2

pσ p/ pσ /q qqg , P(3)σ (p, q) = , 2 µ µ2 qσ /q 1 qqg qqg P(5)σ (p, q) = , P(6)σ (p, q) = 2 Γ(3) σpq . 2 µ µ

qqg P(2)σ (p, q) =

, ,

(A.5)

which leads to the projection matrix

1 qqg M = 36(d − 2)

9 12 6 6 12 0 12 16(d − 1) 8(d − 1) 8(d − 1) 4(d + 2) 0 6 8(d − 1) 4(4d − 7) 4(d − 1) 8(d − 1) 0 6 8(d − 1) 4(d − 1) 4(4d − 7) 8(d − 1) 0 12 4(d + 2) 8(d − 1) 8(d − 1) 16(d − 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 −12

.

(A.6)

We have used the convention that when a momentum is contracted with a Lorentz index then that momentum appears instead of the index in the tensor.

References. [1] S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rept. 23 (1976), 245. [2] Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974), 4262. [3] G. ’t Hooft, High Energy Physics EPS Int. Conference, Palermo 1975, ed. A. Zichichi. [4] G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B190 (1981), 455. [5] Z.F. Ezawa & A. Iwazaki, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982), 2681. [6] A.S. Kronfeld, G. Schierholz & U.J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B293 (1987), 461. [7] A.S. Kronfeld, M.L. Laursen, G. Schierholz & U.J. Wiese, Phys. Lett. B198 (1987), 516. [8] M.Q. Huber, K. Schwenzer & R. Alkofer, Eur. Phys. J. C68 (2010), 581. 29

[9] R. Alkofer, M.Q. Huber, V. Mader & A. Windisch, PoS QCD-TNT-II (2011), 003. [10] V. Mader & R. Alkofer, PoS ConfinementX (2012), 063. [11] T. Suzuki & I. Yotsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. D42 (1990), 4257. [12] S. Hioki, S. Kitahara, S. Kiura, Y. Matsubara, O. Miyamura, S. Ohno & T. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. B272 (1991), 326; Phys. Lett. B281 (1992), 416. [13] A. Mihara, A. Cucchieri & T. Mendes, PoS LATTICE2008 (2008), 243. [14] T. Mendes, A. Cucchieri, A. Maas & A. Mihara, arXiv:0809.3741. [15] S. Gongyo, T. Iritani & H. Suganuma, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012), 094018. [16] S. Gongyo & H. Suganuma, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013), 074506. [17] A. Kızılers¨ u, D.B. Leinweber, J.-I. Skullerud & A.G. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. C50 (2007), 87. [18] W. Celmaster & R.J. Gonsalves, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979), 1420. [19] J.A. Gracey, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011), 085011. [20] H. Min, T. Lee & P.Y. Pac, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985), 440. [21] K.-I. Kondo & T. Shinohara, Phys. Lett. B491 (2000), 263. [22] A.R. Fazio, V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy & S.P. Sorella, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001), 085003. [23] K.-I. Kondo & T. Shinohara, Prog. Theor. Phys. 105 (2001), 649. [24] T. Shinohara, Mod. Phys. Lett. A18 (2003), 1398. [25] K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Lett. B514 (2001), 335. [26] T. Shinohara, T. Imai & K.-I. Kondo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 (2003), 5733. [27] H. Sawayanagi, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003), 045002. [28] D. Dudal & H. Verschelde, J. Phys. A36 (2003), 8507. [29] D. Dudal, J.A. Gracey, V.E.R. Lemes, M.S. Sarandy, R.F. Sobreiro, S.P. Sorella & H.Verschelde, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004), 114038. [30] J.A. Gracey, JHEP 0504 (2005), 012. [31] G. Curci & R. Ferrari, Nuovo Cim. A32 (1976), 151. [32] A. Cucchieri & T. Mendes, PoS LAT2007 (2007), 297. [33] I.L. Bogolubsky, E.M. Ilgenfritz, M. M¨ uller-Preussker & A. Sternbeck, PoS LAT2007 (2007), 290. [34] A. Maas, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007), 116004. [35] A. Sternbeck, L. von Smekal, D.B. Leinweber & A.G. Williams, PoS LAT2007 (2007), 304. [36] I.L. Bogolubsky, E.M. Ilgenfritz, M. M¨ uller-Preussker & A. Sternbeck, Phys. Lett. B676 (2009), 69. 30

[37] A. Cucchieri & T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008), 241601. [38] A. Cucchieri & T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008), 094503. [39] O. Oliveira & P.J. Silva, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009), 031501. [40] Ph. Boucaud, J.P. Leroy, A.L. Yaounac, J. Micheli, O. P`ene & J. Rodr´ıguez-Quintero, JHEP 0806 (2008), 099. [41] G. ’t Hooft & M. Veltman, “Diagrammar”, CERN-73-09. [42] O. Piguet & S.P. Sorella, Algebraic Renormalization, Lect. Notes Phys. M28 (1995), 1. [43] A.D. Kennedy, J. Math. Phys. 22 (1981), 1330. [44] A. Bondi, G. Curci, G. Paffuti & P. Rossi, Ann. Phys. 199 (1990), 268. ´ Derkachov & N.A. Kivel, Theor. Math. Phys. 103 (1995), 487. [45] A.N. Vasil’ev, S.E. ´ Derkachov & N.A. Kivel, Theor. Math. Phys. 107 [46] A.N. Vasil’ev, M.I. Vyazovskii, S.E. (1996), 441. ´ Derkachov & N.A. Kivel, Theor. Math. Phys. 107 [47] A.N. Vasil’ev, M.I. Vyazovskii, S.E. (1996), 710. [48] S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15 (2000), 5087. [49] C. Studerus, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010), 1293. [50] C.W. Bauer, A. Frink & R. Kreckel, cs/0004015. [51] P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. 105 (1993), 279. [52] J.A.M. Vermaseren, math-ph/0010025. [53] M. Tentyukov & J.A.M. Vermaseren, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010), 1419. [54] S.G. Gorishny, S.A. Larin, L.R. Surguladze & F.K. Tkachov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 55 (1989), 381. [55] S.A. Larin, F.V. Tkachov & J.A.M. Vermaseren, “The Form version of Mincer”, NIKHEFH-91-18. [56] B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967), 1195. [57] G. ’t Hooft, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 368 (1976), 345, Proceedings of the 1975 Winter School of Theoretical Physics held in Karpacz. [58] B.S. DeWitt, in Proceedings of Quantum Gravity II, eds C. Isham, R. Penrose & S. Sciama, (Oxford, 1980), 449. [59] D.G. Boulware, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981), 389. [60] L.F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185 (1981), 189. [61] D.M. Capper & A. MacLean, Nucl. Phys. B203 (1982), 413. [62] A.G.M. Pickering, J.A. Gracey & D.R.T. Jones, Phys. Lett. B510 (2001), 347.

31

[63] O. Piguet & S.P. Sorella, Algebraic Renormalization, Lect. Notes Phys. M28 (1995), 1. [64] J.A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. B525 (2002), 89. [65] R.E. Browne & J.A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. B540 (2002), 68.

32