This paper demonstrates that quantum Yang--Mills theory on two-dimensional Euclidean space can be smoothly approximated using rough path theory, extending methods from quantum field theory to gauge fields.
Contribution
It applies rough path theory to Euclidean Yang--Mills on , showing smooth approximation for Wilson loops, a novel approach in gauge field quantum theories.
Findings
01
Yang--Mills on can be approximated smoothly
02
RPT framework effectively applied to gauge fields
03
Wilson loops are well-approximated in this setting
Abstract
In the context of rough path theory (RPT), the theories of Hairer (2014) and Gubinelli--Imkeller--Perkowski (2015) (GIP theory) gave new methods for construction of Φ34 model. Roughly, their results state that a quantum field in a Φ34 model can be smoothly approximated. Consider the following question: Can RPT be applied to quantum Yang--Mills (YM) gauge field theories to show that any YM theory can be smoothly approximated? In this paper we consider this problem in the simplest case of Euclidean YM theory, i.e. YM on R2 with the usual Euclidean metric, as a test case. We prove that a (quantum) SU(n) YM theory on R2 in axial gauge can be smoothly approximated for some class of Wilson loops. While our study is inspired by the theories of Hairer and GIP, instead we use the RPT framework of Friz--Victoir (2010) in proving the theorem.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics · Theoretical and Computational Physics
Full text
11institutetext: Division of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Aichi-Gakuin University
In the context of rough path theory (RPT), the theories of Hairer
(2014) and Gubinelli–Imkeller–Perkowski (2015) (GIP theory) gave
new methods for construction of Φ34 model. Roughly, their results state
that a quantum field in a Φ34 model can be smoothly approximated.
Consider the following question: Can RPT be applied to quantum Yang–Mills
(YM) gauge field theories to show that any YM theory can be smoothly
approximated? In this paper we consider this problem in the simplest
case of Euclidean YM theory, i.e. YM on R2 with the
usual Euclidean metric, as a test case. We prove that a (quantum)
SU(n) YM theory on R2 in axial gauge can be smoothly
approximated for some class of Wilson loops.
While our study is inspired by the theories of Hairer and GIP, instead
we use the RPT framework of Friz–Victoir (2010) in proving the theorem.
In the context of rough path theory (e.g. [FV10, FH14]), the
theory of regularity structure of Hairer [Hai14], and that of
paracontrolled distributions of Gubinelli, Imkeller and Perkowski
(GIP theory) [GIP15] gave new methods of construction of models
of quantum scalar fields, including the Φ34 model [CC13, Hai14, Hai15, MW16, MWX16].
Their results are summarized very roughly in one sentence: A quantum
field in a Φ34 model, which is represented by a distribution-valued
random variable, can be approximated by smooth fields, which are C∞-vauled
random variables. Thus the following natural (and naive) questions
arise: Can these methods be applied to quantum Yang–Mills (YM) gauge
field theories to show that any YM theory can be smoothly approximated?
More generally, can the notion of ‘rough gauge field’ be rigorously
established?
In this paper we consider this problem in the simplest case of Euclidean
YM theory, i.e. YM on R2 with the usual Euclidean metric, as
a test case. Our main result (Theorem 11.5) states
that a (quantum) SU(n)-YM theory on R2 in axial gauge can
be smoothly approximated; More precisely, it is stated as follows:
Let g=su(n) be the Lie algebra of G=SU(n), and
Ω1(R2,g) the space of smooth g-valued 1-forms
on R2. For a curve c:R→R2 and a 1-form A∈Ω1(R2,g),
let Uc,A(t)∈G(t∈R) denote the parallel
transport along c. Suppose that a set of the curves {ci:i∈N}
satisfy some regularity conditions. Then there exists a probability
space (Ω,P) and a sequence of Ω1(R2,g)-valued
random variables A(n) such that
[TABLE]
and furthermore the set of the G-valued random variables {Uci}i∈N
obeys the law the Wilson loops in the YM theory on R2. Note
that this statement itself does not contain any term or notion specific
to rough path theory (including the theories of Hairer and GIP). However,
to prove the theorem, we shall make heavy use of rough path theory,
as well as the Littlewood–Paley theory of Besov spaces, in this paper.
While our study is inspired by the theories of GIP and regularity
structure, we work in the framework of [FV10], without those
theories.
While YM on R2 is called ‘trivial’ in the physical literature
since this is a sort of free field theory in the sense that it does
not describe any interaction, we find that this theory has highly
‘nontrivial’ aspects in the mathematical point of view; Although the
above theorem can be viewed as a partial positive answer for the above
questions, our result is yet too weak to establish the theory of ‘rough
gauge fields.’ See Conjecture 12.1.
For the rigorous formulations of (Euclidean) quantum YM theories on
a 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold, we refer to Driver [Dri89],
Sengupta [Sen92, Sen93, Sen97] and Lévy [Lév03].
2 Littlewood–Paley theory and Besov space
For a general introduction to Besov spaces with the Littlewood–Paley
theory, we refer to [BCD11, Gra09] (see also Appendix of [GIP15]),
and for Besov (and Sobolev) spaces without the Littlewood–Paley
theory, we refer to [Tar07].
Let Fu=u^ denotes the Fourier transform of u:
[TABLE]
so that uˇ(z):=F−1u(z)=(2π)−dFu(−z). We consider
only the case where d=2.
Following Grafakos [Gra09], we fix a radial C∞ function
ρ=ρ0 on R2 such that
[TABLE]
so that ∑j∈Zρ0(2−jξ)=1 for ξ∈R2∖{0}.
We also define χ=χ0 so that
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
so that ∑j≥−1ρj=1, and set
[TABLE]
Define the Littlewood–Paley operatorsΔj and
Sj by
[TABLE]
For p,q∈[1,∞] and s∈R, the Besov spaceBp,qs=Bp,qs(Rd,Rn)⊂S′(Rd,Rn)
is defined by
[TABLE]
The Lipschitz spaceLips=Lips(Rd,Rn)
is defined by
[TABLE]
The space Bp,ps(Rd,Rn) is written as Ws,p(Rd,Rn),
often called the Sobolev space.
For h∈Rd, let τh denote the translation operator
[TABLE]
The following proposition will be used later.
Proposition 2.1**.**
(e.g. [Tar07, Lemma 35.1])* Let
0<s<1 and 1≤p≤∞. Define the seminorm ∣⋅∣Bp,∞s′
and the norm ∥⋅∥Bp,∞s′
by*
[TABLE]
Then u∈Bp,∞s(Rd,Rn) if and only
if ∥u∥Bp,∞s′<∞.
Moreover the norms ∥⋅∥Bp,∞s′
and ∥⋅∥Bp,∞s are
equivalent.
3 Lie algebra valued white noise
Fix nmat∈N and let Mat:=Mat(nmat,C)≅R2nmat2,
equipped with the Hilbert–Schmidt inner product
[TABLE]
and the norm ∥X∥HS:=⟨X,X⟩HS1/2.
Let G:=SU(nmat)⊂Mat, and g:=su(nmat)⊂Mat,
the Lie algebra of G. We define the inner product ⟨⋅,⋅⟩g
on g by ⟨X,Y⟩g:=⟨X,Y⟩HS.
Note that ⟨⋅,⋅⟩g is proportional
to the Killing form on g=su(nmat).
Let S(Rd,g) denote the space of functions of rapid
decrease from Rd to g, and (S(Rd,g))′
denote its dual space, consisting of the continuous linear functionals
from S(Rd,g) to R. This is discriminated from S′(Rd,g),
the space of g-valued tempered distributions, which are continuous
linear functionals from S(Rd)=S(Rd,R) to g.
However, for F∈(S(Rd,g))′, we can naturally
define the corresponding g-valued distribution F∗∈S′(R2,g)
by
[TABLE]
or more explicitly,
[TABLE]
where {ek:k=1,...,dimg} is an orthonormal
basis of g. So we can identify (S(Rd,g))′
with S′(Rd,g) under some abuse of notation: If F∈(S(Rd,g))′
and f∈S(Rd,R), let F(f):=F∗(f)∈g. Conversely,
if F∗∈S′(Rd,g) and f∈S(Rd,g), let F∗(f):=F(f)∈R.
Let (Ω,P) be a probability space. Let W
be a g-valued white noise on R2, that is, an isometry
from L2(R2) to L2((Ω,P),g). For the same
reason as above, W can also be viewed as an isometry from L2(R2,g)
to L2((Ω,P),R). If we consider W:L2(R2,g)→L2((Ω,P),R),
its covariance is expressed as
[TABLE]
and if we consider W:L2(R2)→L2((Ω,P),g),
its covariance is expressed as
[TABLE]
or more explicitly,
[TABLE]
where W(f)k:=⟨W(f),ek⟩g.
While these views are compatible, we mainly regard W as W:L2(R2)→L2((Ω,P),g)
in this paper.
In the following we write Lp(P):=Lp((Ω,P),R)
and Lp(P,g):=Lp((Ω,P),g).
W is continuous on S(R2) a.s., that is,
[TABLE]
In the following we assume (Wω↾S(R2))∈S′(R2,g)
for *all ω∈Ω, *and we simply write this as W∈S′(R2,g).
Define the jth smooth approximationW(j)∈C∞(R2,g)
of W by
[TABLE]
W(j) converges to W in S′(R2,g).
4 Classical gauge theory on R2
Let C=C[0,1] the set of smooth maps R∋t↦c(t)=(c1(t),c2(t))∈R2
such that suppc˙⊂[0,1] where c˙(t):=dtdc(t),
in other words, c is constant on (−∞,0] and [1,∞),
respectively.
For c∈C, define c∈C by c(t):=c(1−t).
If two curvesc(1),c(2)∈C satisfy c(1)(1)=c(2)(0),
we define the concatenationc(2)c(1)∈C
by
Fix c∈C[0,1]. Additionally we assume that any c∈C
satisfies c1(t)>0 for all t; this assumption is not essential,
but this simplifies the calculations.
Let Ω1=Ω1(R2,g) denote the space of g-valued
smooth 1-forms on R2. An element A∈Ω1 is called
a gauge field in the physical context. Let A=A1dx1+A1dx2∈Ω1(A1,A2∈C∞(R2,g)). In the notation A(c˙(t)),
c˙(t) should be seen as a tangent vector in the tangent
bundle Tc(t)R2; that is,
[TABLE]
The parallel transportUc,A(t)∈G(t∈R) along c∈C[0,1] is defined by the ODE
[TABLE]
For t≥0, define Xt=X(t) to be the line integral of A
along c↾[0,t]:
[TABLE]
Let V:Mat→L(Mat,Mat) be a bounded smooth
map such that
[TABLE]
(Recall G:=SU(nmat)⊂Mat.) Then the ODE (4.1)
is rewritten as a normal form
[TABLE]
If c is a loop (i.e. c(0)=c(1)) , we call Uc,A(1)∈G
the holonomy along c. It is also called the Wilson loop,
mainly when Uc,A(1) is a G-valued random variable.
The most basic class of loops is that of the simple (Jordan)
loops, i.e. loops c such that if s,t∈[0,1) and c(s)=c(t)
then s=t. However, it is useful to consider a slightly broader
class of loops, called lassos ([Dri89, Sen93]).
Let D⊂R2. Suppose c∈C, c(0)=c(1),
c is simple Let D⊂R2 be the closed domain enclosed
by the arc c([0,1]). c is called a lasso based
on x∈R2 if there exists c1,c2∈C such
that c2 is a simple closed curve enclosing D⊂R2
anticlockwise, and that
[TABLE]
In this case, we write
[TABLE]
A simple loop is also a lasso where c1 is trivial (i.e. a
constant map). The set of lassos based on x∈R2 is denoted
by Lasso(x), and let Lasso:=∪x∈R2Lasso(x).
Let D be the set of subsets D⊂R2 such that
there exists a simple loop c∈C enclosing D.
Lemma 4.1**.**
Fix A∈Ω1. Let c∈C∩Lasso(x).
Suppose D1,...,Dn∈D satisfy (i) D(c)=⋃k=1nDk,
(ii) Dk∘∩Dl∘=∅ if k=l, and
(iii) (⋃1≤l≤kDl)∘ is connected
for all k=1,...,n. Then there exists c1,...,cn∈C∩Lasso(x)
such that D(ck)=Dk,k=1,...,n, and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Easily shown by induction for n, using the relation Uck=Uck−1.
∎
From the definition of U, one can easily show the following:
Lemma 4.2**.**
Fix x=(x1,x2)∈R2, and suppose
that for each ϵ1,ϵ2>0, cϵ1,ϵ2 is a
lasso in C∩Lasso such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
where F12(x):=∂1A2(x)−∂2A1(x)+A2(x)A1(x)−A1(x)A2(x).
The above F12=F12;A∈C∞(R2,g) is called the
field strength in physical terminology. The curvature 2-formF=FA∈Ω2(R2,g) is defined by
[TABLE]
We see FA=dA+[A,A], more exactly,
[TABLE]
However, in this paper we shall impose the axial gauge condition later,
which implies [A,A]=0. In this case the linear relation F=dA
holds.
5 Axial gauge
For u∈C∞(R2,G), define the action Gu,
called the gauge transformation, on A by
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
Note that if c(0)=c(1), the holonomies Uc,A(1)
and Uc,GuA(1) are conjugate. Since
[TABLE]
naturally we define the gauge transform of F by GuF=Fu:=u−1Fu.
Let eθ=(eθ1,eθ2):=(cosθ,sinθ)∈R2∖{0}
and eθ′=(eθ1′,eθ2′):=eθ+π/2.
If A=A1dx1+A2dx2∈Ω1 satisfies ∑k=12Akeθk≡0
for some θ∈[0,2π), then A is said to be in (θ-)axial gauge.
In this case we have [A,A]=0, and hence F=dA. This axial gauge
fixing condition is not complete in that for a given F=F12dx1∧dx2∈Ω2(R2,g),
the 1-form A∈Ω1 in θ-axial gauge satisfying F=dA
is not unique. Instead if we assume two conditions
[TABLE]
we have a unique A for any F. In this paper we say that A
is in θ-gauge if these conditions are satisfied. We
see that any A∈Ω1 can be gauge-transformed to satisfy
this condition. If θ=0, A in θ-gauge is determined
by F as follows:
Let R1 be the set of E∈D such that
E is convex w.r.t. x1, i.e.
[TABLE]
Fix D∈R1. Let
[TABLE]
Then there exists c1,c2∈C∩Lasso such that
D(c2c1)=D, and that
[TABLE]
Then corresponding parallel transportUci
is defined by (4.4):
[TABLE]
For τ∈[a,b], let
[TABLE]
Let cτ∈C∩Lasso satisfy D(c)=Dτ and
c2τ(0)=c2τ(1)=a. Let U(τ):=Ucτ(1),
the holonomy of cτ.
The following lemmas are easily shown from these definitions:
Lemma 5.1**.**
For t∈[a,b], U(t)=Uc1(t)−1Uc2(t)
holds.
Lemma 5.2**.**
For t∈[a,b],
[TABLE]
holds. Equivalently,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
6 operator E
Set F12:=W(j), jth approximation of the g-valued
white noise W on R2 defined by (3.1), then
a unique Ω1-valued random variable A(j) is
determined by (5.2). Let X(j)=Xc(j)=Xc,A(j),
i.e.
[TABLE]
For H:R2→R and h∈L∞(R), let
[TABLE]
if the integral in the r.h.s. exists. Let
[TABLE]
We shall see in Lemma 6.1 that \bigl{\|}\hat{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathfrak{c}}\bigr{\|}_{2,h}<\infty
for all h∈L∞(R), and hence we can define the bounded
linear operator Ec:L∞(R)→L2(R2) as follows:
[TABLE]
Clearly supp(Ech)⊂R2 is compact.
W(j)(Ech)∈g is naturally defined by
[TABLE]
This integral is well-defined because W(j) is smooth, Ech∈L2(R2),
and suppEch is compact. We see the following relations:
[TABLE]
We also see
[TABLE]
Here define the g-valued random variable X(t) by
[TABLE]
while the last expression is useful but rather formal because it is
neither a L2 inner product, nor a pairing of S′ and S.
Hereafter we use the notations such as
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
then these are unions of countable disjoint open intervals:
[TABLE]
Define Ec,i±h∈L2(R2) as follows:
for each x=(x1,x2)∈R2, let
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where c2−1(x2;I±,i) is defined to be t∈I±,i
such that c2(t)=x2.
If Ech∈L2(R2), we can check that Ech
is explicitly expressed by
[TABLE]
Lemma 6.1**.**
If we define Ech by (6.4),
then Ech∈L2(R2) for all h∈L∞(R)
and c∈C.
Proof.
If N+<∞ or N−<∞, this is clear. Suppose N+=N−=∞,
Since c˙2(ti,0±)=c˙2(ti,1±)=0
for all i, and ∑i,±(ti,1±−ti,0±)<∞,
we have
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Therefore we have
[TABLE]
∎
Define subsets CRot,C∞ of C by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Clearly we see C∞⊂CRot. Roughly speaking,
a curve c∈C[0,1] is in C[0,1],Rot if c
does not rotate (clockwise or anti-clockwise) infinitely many times
around any point in R2, and Rot(c) is the maximum rotation
number of c.
Note that in our definition of ‘smooth curve c,’ possibly c˙(t)=0
holds for some t∈(0,1). Hence possibly the range c(R)=c([0,1])⊂R2
is not a smooth curve in the usual sense. For example, we see that
any (finitely) piecewise linear curves are in C∞ (and
CRot).
By these definitions we easily find the following:
Lemma 6.2**.**
If c∈C[0,1],Rot,
then Ec1[s,t]* is a finite (≤2Rot(c)) linear
combination of characteristic functions; There exists disjoint subsets
Dk⊂R2(−Rot(c)≤k≤Rot(c)) such that*
Let V be a finite-dimensional linear space, where V=g=su(nmat)
case is our main concern. Let
[TABLE]
equipped with the truncated tensor product ⊗, that is, if
A=(a,b,c)∈T(2)(V) and A′=(a′,b′,c′)∈T(2)(V), define
A⊗A′ by
[TABLE]
Let T1(2)(V):={(1,b,c)∈T(2)(V)}.
Then naturally T1(2)(V) becomes a Lie group under ⊗.
We denote an element of T1(2)(V) as x=(1,x[1],x[2]),
or more readably, x=(1,x,\mathbbmx), etc.
If x:[0,T]→T1(2)(g), we write
[TABLE]
If x∈C1-var([0,T],V), i.e. x is a continuous path of
bounded variation, define the truncated signaturesig(x):[0,T]<2→T1(2)(g)
by
For x\in C^{1\textrm{{\rm-var}}}\big{(}[0,T],V\big{)} and 0≤s<t<u≤T, we
have
[TABLE]
Define the subgroup G(2)(V) of T1(2)(V) by
[TABLE]
It is shown that G(2)(V) is expressed more explicitly as follows:
[TABLE]
G(2)(V) is given the Carnot-Caratheodory metricdCC
[FV10, FH14]. In this paper, the only information needed for
dCC is the following:
[TABLE]
where ∣⋅∣ is the usual norm on the linear space
T(2)(V). In particular, dCC(x,o)≃∣x∣+∣\mathbbmx∣1/2,
where o:=1G(2)(V)=(1,0,0)∈G(2)(V).
Given x,y∈C([0,T],G2(V)), we define the homogeneous
Hölder distanceC([0,T],G(2)(V)) by
[TABLE]
and let
[TABLE]
Proposition 7.2**.**
[FV10, Proposition 8.12, p.174]* Suppose 1/3<h≤1/2,
{\bf x}\in C^{\mathfrak{h}\text{{\rm-Höl}}}\big{(}[0,T],G^{(2)}\big{(}V\big{)}\big{)} and
x0=o. Then there exists a sequence (x^{(n)})\subset C^{1\textrm{{\rm-var}}}\big{(}[0,T],V\big{)},
n∈N, such that lift(x(n))→x uniformly as n→∞,
i.e.*
[TABLE]
If 1/3<h≤1/2, Ch-Ho¨l([0,1],G(2)(V)) is called
the space of weak geometric h-Hölder rough paths
[FV10, FH14].
Theorem 7.3**.**
(Existence and uniqueness of RDE solution; step-2 case of [FV10, Theorem 10.14, p.222]
with [FV10, Theorem 10.26, p.233])*
Let d,e∈N, h∈(1/3,1/2] , and assume the following:*
(i) V:Re→L(Rd,Re) is in Lipγ(Re),
where γ>1/h,
(ii) (x(n))n∈N is a sequence in C1-var([0,T],Rd),
such that
[TABLE]
(iii) x∈Ch-Ho¨l([0,T],G(2)(Rd)) satisfies
[TABLE]
(iv) y0(n)∈Re is a sequence converging to some y0.
(v) y(n) is the solution of the ODE
[TABLE]
Then, y(n) converges in uniform topology to a unique limit y
in C([0,T],Rd), i.e. limn→∞y(n)−yL∞([0,T],Rd)=0.
In [FV10], y in the above theorem is called the solution of the RDE
(rough differential equation)
[TABLE]
and written y=\pi_{(\mathcal{V})}\big{(}0,y_{0};{\bf x}\big{)}. Then
we have the following stronger result.
Theorem 7.4**.**
(Existence and uniqueness of full RDE solution; step-2 case
of [FV10, Theorem 10.36, p.242] with [FV10, Theorem 10.38, p.246])*
Let d,e∈N, h∈(1/3,1/2], and assume (i)-(iii) in Theorem
7.3, and that y0(n)=(1,y0(n),\mathbbmy0(n))∈G(2)(Re)
is a sequence converging to some y0. Then, {\bf y}_{0}^{(n)}\otimes{\rm lift}\big{(}\pi_{(\mathcal{V})}(0,y_{0}^{(n)};x_{n})\big{)}
converges in uniform topology to a unique limit y in C([0,T],Rd),
i.e.*
[TABLE]
In [FV10], y in the above theorem is called the solution of the full RDE
[TABLE]
and written {\bf y}=\boldsymbol{\pi}_{(\mathcal{V})}\big{(}0,y_{0};{\bf x}\big{)}.
π(V) is called the Itô–Lyons map.
Theorem 7.5**.**
Suppose h′≤h and R>0,
and let V:Re→L(Rd,Re) is in Lipγ(Re),
for γ>1/h≥1, and let
[TABLE]
Then, the map
[TABLE]
is uniformly continuous.
Proof.
Set p=1/h, p′=1/h′ and ω(s,t)=∣s−t∣ in [FV10, Corollary 10.40, p.247].∎
Let 0≤b<a, and (Xt:t∈[0,T]) be a continuous
G^{(2)}\big{(}V\big{)}-valued process. Then there exists q0=q0(a,b)
and C=C(a,b,T) such that the following holds: if*
[TABLE]
holds for some for some q≥q0, then we also have
[TABLE]
Theorem 7.7**.**
(Kolmogorov Lq convergence condition for rough paths [FV10, Proposition A.15, p.587])*
Let x(n)=(1,x(n),\mathbbmx(n))(n∈N) and x(∞)=(1,x(∞),\mathbbmx(∞)) be continuous G(2)(Rd)-valued
processes defined on [0,T]. Let q∈[1,∞) and assume that*
Recall the definitions of X(j) and X (Eqs. (6.1),
(6.2), (6.3)), and set
[TABLE]
In this section we prove an estimate for Xs,t(j) (Prop. 8.5).
Lemma 8.1**.**
For
D⊂R2, let 1D:R2→R be the characteristic
function of D. Let x1,x2,y1,y2∈R, a:=x2−x1>0,
b:=y2−y1>0, and f:=1[x1,x2]×[y1,y2].
Suppose p∈[1,∞),s>0 and 1−sp>0
i.e. s∈(0,1/p). Then
[TABLE]
Especially if a≤b∧1,
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Lemma 2.1 and some elementary (but
rather lengthy) calculations.∎
Lemma 8.2**.**
Let D⊂R2 be a bounded domain s.t. the boundary ∂D
is a curve with a finite length leng(∂D)∈(0,∞). Then
{\bf 1}_{D}\in B_{2,\infty}^{\mathfrak{s}}(\mathbb{R}^{2})\ for all s∈(0,1/2].
More precisely,
[TABLE]
where diam(D) is the diameter of D. Hence there exists C=C(s)>0
such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let L=leng(∂D) and δ:=diam(D). Let Leb(A)
denote the Lebesgue measure of A⊂R2. Then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
If ∣x∣>δ, we see Leb(D△(D+x))=2Leb(D),Leb(D∩(D+x))=0,
and if ∣x∣≤δ, we have
Thus by Lemma 8.1, with a:=c2(t)−c2(s)≲t−s,
b:=infτ∈[s,t]c1(τ), we have
[TABLE]
when s≈t. Hence, since D1=R1∪(D1∩R2),
[TABLE]
Thus we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
∎
Recall the definitions of X(j), X (Eqs. (6.1),
(6.2), (6.3)), and of Xs,t,
Xs,t(j) (Eq. (8.1)).
Proposition 8.4**.**
Let c∈CRot and s∈(0,1/2). Then when
s and t are sufficiently near,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since Ec1[s,t]∈B2,∞s(R2)
and ∥Δju∥Lp(R2)≤2−js∥u∥Bp,∞s
we obtain from Lemma 8.3,
[TABLE]
∎
Proposition 8.5**.**
Let
c∈CRot and q∈[1,∞). Then there exists C=C(c,q)>0
such that for all j≥−1, 0≤s<t≤1 and s∈(0,1/2],
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since Xs,t(j) is Gaussian, it suffices to show (8.5)
only when q=2. By Lemma 8.3,
for any s∈(0,1/2],
[TABLE]
∎
9 Estimate for Xs,tj
For 0≤s<t≤1 and j≥−1, the g⊗g-valued random
variable Xs,t(j) by
[TABLE]
so that X(j)≡Xc(j):=(1,X(j),X(j))=sig(X(j)):[0,1]<2→G(2)(g).
Let Xt(j):=X0,t(j), then (1,Xt(j),Xt(j))=lift(X(j))t.
Fix an orthonormal basis ek(k=1,...,dimg) of g,
and set
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
then we see κj(x−y)=⟨χˇj(⋅−x),χˇj(⋅−y)⟩L2(R2)
and the following:
Lemma 9.1**.**
For all j≥−1,
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
We see
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Lemma 9.2**.**
For any c∈CRot, there exists C=C(c)>0 such that
for all j≥−1 and r1,r2≥s,
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let
[TABLE]
then we see
[TABLE]
for ϵ≃0. Since ft=0 if c˙2(t)=0, we
suppose c˙2(t)>0 without loss of generality (c˙2(t)<0
case is similar). Then we see for sufficiently small ϵ>0,
[TABLE]
Hence, using Sju=χˇj∗u and the inequality∥ϕ∗ψ∥Lq≤∥ϕ∥L1∥ψ∥Lq(q∈[1,∞]),
we have
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
∎
Proposition 9.3**.**
For any c∈C∞, there
exists C=C(c)>0 such that for all j≥−1, and r1∈[0,1],
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let
[TABLE]
We easily check ∥Hc,j,r1∥L1(R2)=c1(r1)∥κj∥L1(R2),
hence By Prop. 9.1, we have
[TABLE]
Let sc(t)=sgn(c˙2(t)), i.e.
[TABLE]
where sc(t):=0 if c˙2(t)=0. Then by (9.4)
and (9.5) we have,
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 9.4**.**
For any c∈CRot, there
exists C=C(c)>0 such that for all j≥−1 and r1,r2∈[s,t],
[TABLE]
Proof.
We see
[TABLE]
Hence, using ∥f∗g∥Lq≤∥f∥L1∥g∥Lq(q∈[0,∞])
and Sju=χˇj∗u we have
[TABLE]
∎
Proposition 9.5**.**
For any c∈C∞ and p∈[1,∞),
there exists C=C(c,p)>0 such that for all j≥−1 and 0≤s<t≤1,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since X(j) is Gaussian, all Lp-norms (p∈[1,∞))
for X(j) are equivalent by [Jan97, Theorem 3.50 p.39].
Hence it is enough to show the bound for p=2. Using the equation
[TABLE]
for any Gaussian random variables A,B,C,D, we have
The proof of limj,j′J1=0 is similar to that of limj,j′I1=0.
The proof of limj,j′J3=0 is similar to limj,j′I3=0.
We will show limj,j′→∞J2=0. By Lemmas 8.2
and 8.3, for any s∈(0,1/2]
we have
[TABLE]
Thus we have
[TABLE]
and hence we find that if j≤j′,
[TABLE]
and so
[TABLE]
Thus we have
[TABLE]
where the last inequality is by Lemma 9.15.
Thus we have shown limj,j′→∞J2=0. This completes
the proof.
∎
10 Rough path convergence
Lemma 10.1** (Uniform rough path bounds in Lp).**
Let
c∈C∞, q∈[1,∞) and α∈(1/3,1/2).
Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Notice that d_{{\rm CC}}(\mathbf{X}_{s}^{(j)},\mathbf{X}_{t}^{(j)})\simeq\bigl{|}X_{t}^{(j)}-X_{s}^{(j)}\bigr{|}+\bigl{|}\mathbb{X}_{t}^{(j)}-\mathbb{X}_{s}^{(j)}-X_{s}^{(j)}\otimes(X_{t}^{(j)}-X_{s}^{(j)})\bigr{|}^{1/2}.
Because (1,X(j),X(j))=sig(X(j)) and X0(j)=0,
it follows from Chen’s relation (Theorem 7.1)
that Xs,t(j)=Xt(j)−Xs(j)−Xs(j)⊗(Xt(j)−Xs(j)).
Thus we see dCC(Xs(j),Xt(j))≃Xs,t(j)+Xs,t(j)1/2,
and hence
[TABLE]
By Prop. 8.5 and Prop. 9.5,
we have for all j≥−1,β∈(0,1/2) and q∈[1,∞),
[TABLE]
Hence there exists C3 such that
[TABLE]
For 0≤b<a, let C(a,b,T) be of Theorem
7.6 with M=C3. Then we see
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
∎
Lemma 10.2** (pointwise Lp convergence).**
For
each p∈[1,∞) and 0≤s<t≤1, \mathbf{X}_{s,t}^{(j)}=\bigl{(}1,X_{s,t}^{(j)},\mathbb{X}_{s,t}^{(j)}\bigr{)}
converges to an element \mathbf{X}_{s,t}=\bigl{(}1,X_{s,t},\mathbb{X}_{s,t}\bigr{)}
in Lp, that is,
[TABLE]
hold. Equivalently,
[TABLE]
Proof.
The convergence of limjXs,t(j) in Lp(P,g)
follows from Prop. 8.4. The convergence
of limjXs,t(j) in Lp(P,g⊗g) follows
from Prop. 9.7.∎
Theorem 10.3** (rough path convergence in Lp).**
Suppose c∈C∞, h∈(1/3,1/2), and p≥1.
Let Xs,t=limjXs,t(j) be given by Lemma 10.2,
and \mathbf{X}_{t}:=\mathbf{X}_{0,t}=\bigl{(}1,X_{t},\mathbb{X}_{t}\bigr{)}. Then
X is a weak geometric h-Hölder rough path, i.e. \mathbf{X}\in C^{\mathfrak{h}\text{{\rm-Höl}}}\bigl{(}[0,1],G^{(2)}(\mathfrak{g})\bigr{)},
and X(j)→X in C^{\mathfrak{h}\text{{\rm-Höl}}}\bigl{(}[0,1],G^{(2)}(\mathfrak{g})\bigr{)}
and Lp(P), i.e.
[TABLE]
Proof.
This immediately follows from Prop. 10.1,
Prop. 10.2, and Theorem 7.7.∎
Corollary 10.4**.**
Suppose c∈C∞, h∈(1/3,1/2). Then if n:N→N
increases rapidly enough,
[TABLE]
Now the ODE (4.4) for the jth approximate holonomyUc,A(j) associated with W(j) is written
as
For any countable subset Γ⊂C∞,
and n:N→N increasing rapidly enough,
[TABLE]
Moreover, for, h∈(1/3,1/2), lift(Uc(n(k)))
converges to U^c(∞)=(1,U^c(∞)[1],U^c(∞)[2])∈Ch-Ho¨l([0,1],G(2)(Mat))
a.s., where U^c(∞)[1]=Uc(∞).
That is,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Note that if we let ni:N→N be increasing for each i∈N,
then n(k):=max1≤i≤nni(k)(k∈N) increases more
rapidly than each ni. Thus the theorem follows from Theorems
7.3, 7.4,
7.5 and Corollary 10.4.
∎
We call Uc(∞)(1) the holonomy-valued random variable
(or simply the holonomy variable) along c∈Lasso∩C∞.
11 Wilson loop
The law of Wilson loops in the YM theory on R2 (with
the usual Euclidean metric) is described as follows (e.g. [Lév03]):
Let L be a set of lassos with some regularity condition. Then
(i) The Wilson loop Uc(1) is independent of Uc′(1)
if c,c′∈L and D(c)∘∩D(c′)∘=∅
(ii) The density ρ of the Wilson loop Uck(1)
on G with respect to Haar measure dg is given by ρ(g)=QLeb(D(c))(g),
where Qt(x) (t≥0) denotes the fundamental solution
to the heat equation on the group G.
In this section we show that holonomy variables Uck(∞)
given by Theorem 10.5 obey the law the Wilson
loops in the YM theory on R2.
Recall that D is the set of subsets D⊂R2
such that there exists a simple loop c∈C enclosing D,
and that R1 is the set of E∈D such that
E is convex w.r.t. x1 (see (5.5)).
We use the following lemma in the proof of Theorem 11.2.
Lemma 11.1**.**
[Sen92, Lemma 3.2.3]* Let M:Ω→g
be a random variable, Σ a σ-algebra of measurable
subsets of Ω, and g:Ω→G a random variable which
is measurable with respect to Σ. Assume that M is independent
of Σ and that the distribution of M is the same as that
of xMx−1 for every x∈G. Then the g-valued random
variable gMg−1 is independent of Σ and has the same
distribution as M.*
If E is a measurable subset of R2 then τ(E)
will denote the σ-algebra generated by all the random variables
W(E′) as E′ runs over the measurable subsets of E.
Theorem 11.2**.**
Let c∈C∞∩Lasso(x)
satisfy D(c)∈R1. Then
(i) The G-valued random variable Uc(∞)(1)
is independent of the σ-algebra τ(R2∖D(c)).
(ii) The density ρ of the Wilson loop Uc(∞)(1)
on G with respect to Haar measure dg is given by ρ(g)=QLeb(D(c))(g).
In other words,
[TABLE]
for every bounded Borel function f on G.
Proof.
The proof of (i) is similar to that of [Sen92, Lemma 3.2.6],
and the proof of (ii) is to that of [Sen92, Theorem 3.2.10]
(see also [Dri89]), and so we will give only a sketch.
(i) In the settings of Sec. 5, let F12=W(j),
and denote the corresponding FtD, BtD and U by
FtD,(j), BtD,(j) and U(j),
respectively. Let
[TABLE]
Let us write BtD,(∞) as a formal integral
[TABLE]
We see that FtD,(∞)is a t-reparametrization of a
standard g-valued Brownian motion such that
[TABLE]
Hence the formal integral (11.2) can be justified
as a rough integral for Brownian rough paths [FH14], and also
as a stochastic integral in the Stratonovich sense. Thus we see that
BtD,(∞) is also t-reparametrization of a standard
g-valued Brownian motion with \mathbb{E}\Bigl{[}\bigl{\|}B_{t}^{D,(\infty)}\bigr{\|}_{{\rm HS}}^{2}\Bigr{]}=\text{{\rm Leb}}(D_{t}).
By Theorem 10.5, we see BtD,(n(k))→BtD,(∞)
as k→∞ uniformly a.s., if n:N→N increases rapidly
enough; Moreover we find that lift(BtD,(n(k))) converges
to BD,(∞)=(1,BD,(∞),BD,(∞))
in Ch-Ho¨l([0,1],G(2)(Mat)).
By Theorem 10.5 and 7.3,
we find that U(∞):=π(0,I;−BD,(∞))
is well-defined, that is, the solution of the RDE
[TABLE]
uniquely exists. Since FtD,(∞) is independent of τ(R2∖D(c)),
we see from (11.1) and Lemma 11.1
that BtD,(∞) is independent of τ(R2∖D(c)),
and so is BD,(∞). Hence U(∞)(t), especially
Uc(1)=U(∞)(1), is also independent of τ(R2∖D(c)).
(ii) Since BtD,(∞) is a reparametrization of a standard
g-valued Brownian motion with \mathbb{E}\bigl{[}\bigl{\|}B_{t}^{D,(\infty)}\bigr{\|}_{{\rm HS}}^{2}\bigr{]}=\text{{\rm Leb}}(D_{t}),
Eq. (11.4) leads to the Stratonovich
SDE
[TABLE]
which implies that U(∞)(t) is a t-reparametrization
of a G-valued Brownian motion with density QLeb(Dt).
Thus the Wilson loop Uc(∞)(1)=U(∞)(1)
has the density QLeb(D1)=QLeb(D(c)).
∎
Let R1,finbe the family of the finite
unions of sets in R1 which is : R1,fin:={⋃k=1nDk;Dk∈R1,1≤k≤n∈N}.
Corollary 11.3**.**
Let c∈C∞∩Lasso(x) satisfy D(c)∈R1,fin.
Then (i) and (ii) in Theorem 11.2 hold.
Let c1,c2,...∈C∞∩Lasso, and suppose
that D(ck)∈R1,fin for all k∈N,
and D(ck)∘∩D(cl)∘=∅ for k=l.
Then the Wilson loop Uck(∞)(1) is independent
of Ucl(∞)(1) if k=l, and has the
density QLeb(D(ck)).
Our results are summarized as follows:
Theorem 11.5**.**
Let c1,c2,...∈C∞∩Lasso,
and suppose that D(ck)∈R1,fin for
all k∈N. Then there exists a probability space (Ω,P)
and a sequence of Ω1(R2,g)-valued random variables
A(n) such that
[TABLE]
and the set of the G-valued random variables {Uci}i∈N
obeys the law the Wilson loops in the YM theory on R2.
12 Open problems
Conjecture 12.1**.**
Let C∗ denote one of C∞,
CRot, C and C1-var (continuous curves of bounded
variation). There exists a probability space (Ω,P) and
a sequence of Ω1(R2,g)-valued random variables A(n)
such that
[TABLE]
and the set of the holonomy variables {Uc(1):c∈C∗∩Lasso}
obeys the law the Wilson loops in the YM theory on R2.
This conjecture seems plausible for C∗=C∞,CRot,
but the plausibility is obscurer for C∗=C,C1-var.
If the conjecture is the case, the following question will arise:
Problem 12.2**.**
Does the mapping C∗∋c↦Uc given in
Conj. 12.1 have any continuity in the sense of rough paths?
This continuity is desirable to establish the notion of ‘rough gauge
fields.’ However, thus far, we have no positive evidence of this continuity.
The method of [Dri89, Sen92, Sen93, Sen97] strongly depend on special
gauge fixing (axial gauge in [Dri89], radial gauge in [Sen92, Sen93, Sen97]),
and seem difficult to be generalized to other gauges; Generally, the
notions of gauge transformation and gauge symmetry are usually defined
on the classical level (in terms of differential geometry),
and the rigorous treatment of those notions is more difficult in the
quantum level. Although in this paper we confined ourselves
to the case of axial gauge, we conjecture that our method can be generalized
to other gauges, simply because a quantum gauge field can be approximated
by a classical (smooth) gauge fields in our method.
Acknowledgement
The author thanks Professor Yuzuru Inahama of Kyushu University for
valuable advices.
Bibliography17
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[BCD 11] H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin, and R. Danchin. Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations . Springer, Berlin, 2011.
2[CC 13] R. Catellier and K. Chouk. Paracontrolled distributions and the 3-dimensional stochastic quantization equation. ar Xiv:1310.6869, 2013.
3[Dri 89] B. K. Driver. YM 2 : Continuum expectations, lattice convergence, and lassos. Commun. Math. Phys. , 123:575–616, 1989.
4[FH 14] P. Friz and M. Hairer. A Course on Rough Paths . Springer, Berlin, 2014.
5[FV 10] P. Friz and N. Victoir. Multidimensional Stochastic Processes as Rough Paths . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
6[GIP 15] M. Gubinelli, P. Imkeller, and N. Perkowski. Paracontrolled distributions and singular PD Es. Forum of Mathematics, Pi , 3(6):1–75, 2015. ar Xiv:1210.2684.
7[Gra 09] L. Grafakos. Modern Fourier Analysis . Springer, Berlin, second edition, 2009.
8[Hai 14] M. Hairer. A theory of regularity structures. Invent. Math. , 198(2):269–504, 2014. ar Xiv:1303.5113.