format: text

text:
# Refining the anomaly consistency condition

## I Introduction

Upon quantization, symmetries of the classical action can be affected by anomalies. These anomalies have been shown to satisfy important consistency conditions following from the algebra of the symmetries . The consistency conditions have been elegantly reformulated as a cohomological problem, first in the case of the gauge anomaly in Yang-Mills theories and then also in the case of global symmetries with a closed algebra .

In the case of gauge theories, the formalism has been generalized some time ago  to cover generic gauge theories, and the expression of the anomaly consistency in that context has been discussed . Only recently, the corresponding generalization in the case of global symmetries with a generic algebra has been achieved .

In the same way, one can study the constraints on the anomalies to an invariant renormalization of symmetric integrated and non integrated operators . In the cohomological reformulation, symmetric integrated or non integrated operators correspond to BRST cohomological classes in ghost number $`0`$ in the space of local functionals, respectively in the space of local functions. The non trivial anomalies that can appear can be shown to belong to the corresponding BRST cohomological classes in ghost number $`1`$.

The computation in the space of local functionals of the cohomology of the standard BRST differential $`s`$ with antifields can be reduced to the computation of a relative cohomological group in the space of local $`n`$-forms by introducing the space-time exterior derivative $`d`$. It is then related to the cohomology of $`s`$ in the space of form valued local functions through descent equations . The same holds for the BRST differential $`\overline{s}`$ associated to the extended antifield formalism.

More generally, we will call the relative cohomological groups $`H^{g,p}(s|d)`$ and $`H^{g,p}(\overline{s}|d)`$ in ghost number $`g`$ and form degree $`p`$ local BRST cohomological groups. A more detailed analysis of the descent equations  shows that these groups are characterized by two integers, the length $`d`$ of their descents and the length $`l`$ of their lifts.

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it is shown that in the extended antifield formalism, a quantum BRST differential can be constructed even for anomalous theories, because the quantum version in terms of the effective action of the extended master equation can be written as a functional differential equation. Then it is shown that both in the extended antifield formalism and in the standard antifield formalism, the anomaly appearing in the renormalization of a local BRST cohomological class with a descent of length $`d`$ and a lift of length $`l`$ are characterized by a descent which is shorter or equal to $`d`$ and a lift which is longer or equal to $`l`$.

As an application, it is shown that the anomalous master equation for Yang-Mills theories discussed in  can be viewed as a particular case of the anomalous master equation of the extended antifield formalism. Then, we discuss how the Adler-Bardeen theorem for the non abelian gauge anomaly  can be understood as a direct consequence of the fact that the length of the descent of the gauge anomaly is $`4`$, while the length of the descent of all the other cohomological classes coupled to the action is $`0`$. These considerations are purely cohomological, so that they do not depend on the way the gauge is fixed or on power counting restrictions. Furthermore, this aproach to the Adler-Bardeen theorem does not require the use of the Callan-Symanzik equation or assumptions on the beta functions of the theory.

The article is organized as follows. In the next section, we review the relevant features of the extended antifield formalism, with special care devoted to the derivation of the quantum BRST differential in the anomalous case. The characterization of local BRST cohomological groups according to the lengths of their descents and their lifts is explained in section III. The fourth section contains the main result on the lengths of the descents and the lifts of the anomalies. An alternative derivation of the main results clarifying the underlying mechanism is presented in section V, where differentials controling the one loop anomalies arising in the renormalization of BRST cohomological groups are introduced. Anomalous Yang-Mills theory and the Adler-Bardeen theorem are discussed in section VI.

## II The extended antifield formalism

### A Classical theory

The Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism  allows to formulate the BRST differential controling the gauge symmetries under renormalization for generic gauge theories. The formalism can be extended so as to include (non linear) global symmetries with a generic algebra . This is achieved by coupling the BRST cohomological classes in negative ghost numbers with constant ghosts. There is a further extension to include the BRST cohomological classes in all the ghost numbers , which allows to take into account in a systematic way all higher order cohomological constraints due to the antibracket maps .

The completely extended formalism is obtained by first computing a basis for the local BRST cohomological classes $`H^{g,n}(s|d)`$***We consider the local BRST cohomology in the space of Lorentz-invariant polynomials or formal power seris in the $`dx^\mu `$, the coupling constants, the fields, antifields and their derivatives. associated to the standard differential $`s`$ and coupling those classes that are not already contained in the solution of the standard master equation with the help of new independent coupling constants. This action can then be extended by terms of higher orders in the new couplings in such a way that, if we denote by $`\xi ^A`$ all the couplings corresponding to the independent BRST cohomological classes, the resulting action $`S`$ satisfies the extended master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S,S)+\mathrm{\Delta }_cS=0.`$ (1)
The BRST differential associated to the solution of the extended master equation is

$`\overline{s}=(S,)+\mathrm{\Delta }_c^L,`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\frac{^R}{\xi ^A}f^A`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c^L=()^Af^A\frac{^L}{\xi ^A}`$, with $`f^A`$ depending at least quadratically on the couplings $`\xi `$ alone. Both derivations satisfy $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_c)^2=0=(\mathrm{\Delta }_c^L)^2`$. Since there is no dependence on the fields and the antifields, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c^L(A,B)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_c^LA,B)+()^{A+1}(A,\mathrm{\Delta }_c^LB)`$, with the appropriate version holding for the right differential $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$.

Besides the information on the invariance of the original action under the non trivial gauge symmetries and their commutator algebra contained in the standard solution of the master equation, the extended master equation contains the information on the antibracket algebra of all local BRST cohomological classes associated to the standard BRST differential $`s`$. These classes contain the generators of all the generalized non trivial symmetries Higher order symmetries have to be taken into account in the generic case . of the theory in negative ghost number. This is the reason why the extended master equation encodes in particular the invariance of the original action under all the non trivial global symmetries as well as their commutator algebra. In ghost number zero, the local BRST cohomological classes $`H^{g,n}(s|d)`$ contain all the non trivial generalized observables of the theoryThey correspond to local functionals built out of the original fields and their derivatives that are gauge invariant when the gauge covariant equations of motion hold, and that are linearily independent even when the gauge covariant equations of motion hold (see e.g. ).. In ghost number $`1`$, these classes contain all the anomaly candidates that could affect the standard Batalin-Vilkovisky master equation and in ghost number strictly greater than $`1`$, they contain the anomaly candidates in ghost number $`g+1`$ that could occur because the anomaly candidates in ghost number $`g`$ have been coupled to the action.

The cohomology of BRST differential $`\overline{s}`$ of the extended formalism in the space $`F`$ of $`\xi `$ dependent local functionals in the fields, the antifields and their derivatives, is isomorphic to the cohomology of

$`s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}=[\mathrm{\Delta }_c,]`$ (3)
in the space of graded right derivations $`\lambda =\frac{^R}{\xi ^A}\lambda ^A`$, with $`\lambda ^A`$ a function of $`\xi `$ alone, $`[,]`$ being the graded commutator for graded right derivations. If $`\mu `$ is a $`s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}`$ cocycle, the corresponding $`\overline{s}`$ cocycle is given by $`\mu S=\frac{^RS}{\xi ^B}\mu ^B`$. In particular, the general solution to the system of equations

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\mu S+\overline{s}C=0,\\ s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}\mu =0,\end{array}`$ (6)
is given by

$`\{\begin{array}{c}C=\overline{s}D+\nu S,\\ \mu =s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}\nu .\end{array}`$ (9)
### B Quantum theory

In the usual version of the BRST-Zinn-Justin-Batalin-Vilkovisky set-up, there are two main issues to be considered (see e.g. ): stability and anomalies.

#### 1 Stability

The problem of stability is the question if to every local BRST cohomological class $`H^{0,n}(s|d)`$ in ghost number $`0`$, there corresponds an independent coupling of the standard master equation. The extended formalism solves this problem by construction, because all standard cohomological classes have been coupled with independent couplings. Indeed, in the extended formalism, the differential controling the “instabilities”, i.e., the divergencies and/or counterterms, is the differential $`\overline{s}`$, and according to the previous section, $`\overline{s}A=0`$ implies $`A=\mu S+\overline{s}B`$, where $`\mu `$ belongs to $`H(s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c})`$, so that the non trivial part of $`A`$ can indeed be absorbed by a modification of the couplings of the extended master equation (see  for more details).

In different words, the extended antifield formalism guarantees “renormalizability in the modern sense”  for all gauge theories. Of course, it will be often convenient not to couple all the local BRST cohomological classes but only a subset needed to guarantee that the theory is stable.

#### 2 Anomalous Zinn-Justin equation

In the standard set-up, the question of anomalies is mostly reduced to the computation of the local BRST cohomological group $`H^{1,n}(s|d)`$ in ghost number $`1`$ and to a discussion of the coefficients of the corresponding classes. In the presence of anomalies, there is no differential on the quantum level associated to the anomalously broken Zinn-Justin equation for the effective action. In the extended antifield formalism however, because all the local BRST cohomological classes in positive ghost numbers have been coupled to the solution of the master equation, the broken Zinn-Justin equation can be written as a functional differential equation and an associated differential exists, even in the presence of anomalies. To show this, is the object of the remainder of this subsection §§§We rederive section 4 of  in a more appropriate notation, insisting on the existence of the quantum BRST differential in the anomalous case and its relation to its classical counterpart $`\overline{s}`$. Note that the relation after (4.9) of that paper should read $`s_Q\frac{^R}{\xi ^A}\sigma ^A=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^R}{\xi ^A}[\sigma ,\sigma ]^A`$ instead of $`s_Q\frac{^R}{\xi ^A}\sigma ^A=0`$.

The quantum action principle  applied to (1) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })+\mathrm{\Delta }_c\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{}𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the renormalized generating functional for 1PI vertices associated to the solution $`S`$ of the extended master equation and the local functional $`𝒜`$ is an element of $`F`$ in ghost number $`1`$. Applying $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },)+\mathrm{\Delta }_c^L`$ to (10), the l.h.s vanishes identically because of the graded Jacobi identity for the antibracket and the properties of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$, so that one gets the consistency condition $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma })+\mathrm{\Delta }_c^L𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$. To lowest order in $`\mathrm{}`$, this gives $`\overline{s}𝒜=0`$, the general solution of which can be writen as

$`𝒜={\displaystyle \frac{^RS}{\xi ^A}}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^A+\overline{s}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,`$ (11)
with $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_c,\mathrm{\Delta }_1]=0`$, because of the relation between the $`\overline{s}`$ and the $`s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}`$ cohomologies discussed in the previous subsection.

If one now defines $`S^1=S\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, the corresponding generating functional admits the expansion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$ and satisfies $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)+\mathrm{\Delta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=O(\mathrm{}^2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1=\mathrm{\Delta }_c+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. On the other hand, the quantum action principle applied to $`\frac{1}{2}(S^1,S^1)+\mathrm{\Delta }^1S^1=O(\mathrm{})`$ implies $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)+\mathrm{\Delta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\mathrm{}\overline{𝒜}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, for a local functional $`\overline{𝒜}`$. Comparing the two expressions, we deduce that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)+\mathrm{\Delta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\mathrm{}^2𝒜^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,`$ (12)
for a local functional $`𝒜^{}`$. Applying now $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,)+(\mathrm{\Delta }^1)^L`$, one gets as consistency condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Delta }^1,\mathrm{\Delta }^1]\mathrm{\Gamma }^1+\mathrm{}^2((\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,𝒜^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)+\mathrm{\Delta }^1𝒜^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)=0,`$ (13)
giving to lowest order

$`1/2[\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_1]S+\overline{s}𝒜^{}=0.`$ (14)
Since $`1/2[\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_1]`$ is a $`s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}`$ cocycle because of the graded Jacobi identity for the graded commutator, equations (6) and (9) of the previous section imply that the general solution to this equation is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_1]+[\mathrm{\Delta }_c,\mathrm{\Delta }_2]=0,`$ (15)
$`𝒜^{}=\overline{s}\mathrm{\Sigma }_2{\displaystyle \frac{^RS}{\xi ^B}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^B.`$ (16)
The redefinition $`S^2=S^1\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ then allows to achieve

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\mathrm{}^3𝒜^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,`$ (17)
for a local functional $`𝒜^{\prime \prime }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^1+\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. The reasoning can be pushed recursively to all orders with the result

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})+\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0,`$ (18)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ is associated to the action $`S^{\mathrm{}}=S\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k=1}\mathrm{}^k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_c+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\mathrm{}`$ satisfies $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}})^2=0`$. The associated quantum BRST differential is

$`s^q=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},)+(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}})^L.`$ (19)
In the limit $`\mathrm{}`$ going to zero, it coincides with the classical differential $`\overline{s}`$.

In the extended antifield formalism, the anomalous Zinn-Justin equation can thus be written as a functional differential equation for the renormalized effective action. The derivations $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\mathrm{}`$ are guaranteed to exist due to the quantum action principles. They satisfy a priori cohomological restrictions due to the fact that the differential $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a formal deformation with deformation parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ of the differential $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$. In the context of chiral Yang-Mills theories, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=0`$, an anomalous master equation of the form (18) for the renormalized effective action has appeared for the first time in .

#### 3 Renormalization of local BRST cohomological classes of the extended formalism

Associated quantum extension of the classical BRST cohomological classes $`\lambda _0S`$ of the extended formalism are given by $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$. By acting with $`\lambda _0`$ on (18), one gets

$`s^q\lambda _0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=[\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}},\lambda _0]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}.`$ (20)
The derivation $`[\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}},\lambda _0]=_{nL}\mathrm{}^n\mu _n`$ on the right hand side is of order at least $`\mathrm{}`$, $`L1`$, because $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_c,\lambda _0]=0`$ and corresponds to the anomaly in the invariant renormalization of $`\lambda _0S`$. The question then is whether there exists modified quantum extension $`\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, with $`\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}=\lambda _0+\mathrm{}\lambda _1+\mathrm{}`$, such that

$`s^q\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0.`$ (21)
This is for instance the case if $`\lambda _0`$ corresponds to the trivial cohomological class, $`\lambda _0=[\mathrm{\Delta }_c,\nu _0]`$. The searched for extension can then simply be taken to be $`\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}=[\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}},\nu _0]`$.

Because $`[\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}},[\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}},\lambda _0]]=0`$, the lowest order part of the anomaly, $`\mu _L`$ is an $`s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}`$ cocyle, $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_c,\mu _L]=0`$. Suppose that $`\mu _L`$ is a trivial solution to this equation, $`\mu _L=[\mathrm{\Delta }_c,\lambda _L]`$. The modified quantum extension $`(\lambda _0+\mathrm{}^L\lambda _L)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ allows to push the anomaly to order $`L+1`$.

Hence, to lowest order in $`\mathrm{}`$, the non trivial part of the anomaly in the renormalization of a classical cohomological class $`H^g(s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c})`$ is constrained to belong to $`H^{g+1}(s_{\mathrm{\Delta }_c})`$. All the quantum information on this anomaly is encoded in the derivations $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\mathrm{}`$ and the whole discussion has been shifted from local functionals to derivations of functions of the coupling constants.

## III Characterization of local BRST cohomological classes

In this and the following section, we decompose the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of Lorentz-invariant polynomials or formal powers series in the $`dx^\mu `$, the couplings $`\xi ^A`$, the fields, antifields and their derivatives into the direct sum of the constants and the remaining part, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=𝐑\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$. We have $`\overline{s}\alpha =0=d\alpha `$, for a constant $`\alpha `$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$. We furthermore assume that if $`\overline{s}\omega =\alpha `$ for a constant $`\alpha `$, then $`\alpha =0`$, which amounts to assuming that the equations of motions are consistent (see the discussion in chapter 9 of ). This means that $`\overline{s}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Hence, we can consider the cohomological groups $`H(\overline{s},\mathrm{\Omega }_+)`$, $`H(\overline{s}|d,\mathrm{\Omega }_+)`$ and $`H(d,\mathrm{\Omega }_+)`$.

By analyzing the cohomological groups $`H(\overline{s}|d)`$ (the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$ being always understood in the following) using descent equations, one can prove  that the elements of these groups can be classified into chains of length $`r`$ with an obstruction to further lifts and chains of length $`s`$ whose lifts are unobstructed, i.e., chains with a non trivial element in degree $`n`$ (see also ; we follow here the notations of the review , where explicit proofs of the statements below can be found). More precisely, we have $`H^p(d)=0`$, $`pn1`$, and there exists a basis

$`\{[h_{i_r}^0],[\widehat{h}_{i_r}],[e_{\alpha _s}^0]\}`$ (22)
of $`H(\overline{s})`$, for $`r=0,\mathrm{},n1`$, $`s=0,\mathrm{},n`$, such that a corresponding basis of $`H(\overline{s}|d)`$ is given by

$`\{[h_{i_r}^q],[e_{\alpha _s}^p]\}`$ (23)
for $`q=0,\mathrm{}r`$ and $`p=0,\mathrm{},s`$, with

$`\begin{array}{c}\overline{s}h_{i_r}^{r+1}+dh_{i_r}^r=\widehat{h}_{i_r},\\ \overline{s}h_{i_r}^r+dh_{i_r}^{r1}=0,\\ \mathrm{}\\ \overline{s}h_{i_r}^1+dh_{i_r}^0=0,\\ \overline{s}h_{i_r}^0=0,\end{array}`$ (29)
and

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{form}\mathrm{degree}e_{\alpha _s}^s=n,de_{\alpha _s}^s=0,\\ \overline{s}e_{\alpha _s}^s+de_{\alpha _s}^{s1}=0,\\ \mathrm{}\\ \overline{s}e_{\alpha _s}^1+de_{\alpha _s}^0=0,\\ \overline{s}e_{\alpha _s}^0=0.\end{array}`$ (35)
The cohomological group $`H(\overline{s})`$ can thus be decomposed into elements $`[e_{\alpha _s}^0]`$ that are bottoms of unobstructed chains of length $`s`$, elements $`[h_{i_r}^0]`$ that are bottoms of obstructed chains of length $`r`$ and obstructions $`[\widehat{h}_{i_r}]`$ to chains of length $`r`$.

For the cohomological group $`H(\overline{s}|d)`$, the element $`[h_{i_r}^l]`$ is said to be the element of level $`l`$ of a chain of length $`r`$ with obstruction; it has $`l`$ non trivial descents and $`rl`$ non trivial lifts ; while the element $`[e_{\alpha _s}^l]`$ is said to be the element of level $`l`$ of a chain of length $`s`$ without obstructions, it has $`l`$ non trivial descents and $`sl`$ non trivial lifts.

One can furthermore show that the general solution to a set of descent equations involving at most $`l`$ steps, $`\overline{s}\omega ^l+d\omega ^{l1}=0,`$ $`\overline{s}\omega ^{l1}+d\omega ^{l2}=0,\mathrm{},`$ $`\overline{s}\omega ^0=0`$, can be written in terms of the above elements as

$`\omega ^l={\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=lq}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda _q^{i_r}h_{i_r}^{lq}+{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=lp}{\overset{n}{}}}\mu _p^{\alpha _s}e_{\alpha _s}^{lp}+\overline{s}\eta ^l+d[\eta ^{l1}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\nu ^{(l)i_r}h_{i_r}^r],`$ (36)
with $`\eta ^1=0`$. This means that a $`\overline{s}`$ modulo $`d`$ cocycle which has $`l`$ non trivial descents, is a linear combination of all elements of the chains (29) and (35) which have $`l`$ or less non trivial descents. If such a linear combination is $`\overline{s}`$ modulo $`d`$ trivial, the coefficients of the linear combination must vanish, i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=lq}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda _q^{i_r}h_{i_r}^{lq}+{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=lp}{\overset{n}{}}}\mu _p^{\alpha _s}e_{\alpha _s}^{lp}=\overline{s}()+d().`$ (37)
implies that $`\lambda _q^{i_r}=0=\mu _p^{\alpha _s}`$.

## IV Lengths of descent and lifts of lowest order anomalies

Let us now investigate the anomalies in the BRST invariant renormalization of a chain (35) of length $`s`$ without obstructions. We follow the approach of , which consists in considering simultaneously the anomalies for a whole chain of descent equations (for a review, see ). Using the quantum action principles, one can prove (as in lemma 1 in the appendix of ) that if $`a`$ is a local form, then

$`\overline{s}a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=s^qa\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},`$ (38)
for some local form $`b`$. When applied to the chain (35), we find that the quantum version of this chain is

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{form}\mathrm{degree}e_{\alpha _s}^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=n,de_{\alpha _s}^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0,\\ s^qe_{\alpha _s}^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+de_{\alpha _s}^{s1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}a_{\alpha _s}^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\\ \mathrm{}\\ s^qe_{\alpha _s}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+de_{\alpha _s}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}a_{\alpha _s}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\\ s^qe_{\alpha _s}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}a_{\alpha _s}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\end{array}`$ (44)
where $`a_{\alpha _s}^l\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=a_{\alpha _s}^s+O(\mathrm{})`$ for a local function $`a_{\alpha _s}^l`$. Applying $`s^q`$, we get the consistency condition,

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{form}\mathrm{degree}a_{\alpha _s}^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=n,da_{\alpha _s}^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0\\ s^qa_{\alpha _s}^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+da_{\alpha _s}^{s1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0,\\ \mathrm{}\\ s^qa_{\alpha _s}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+da_{\alpha _s}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0,\\ s^qa_{\alpha _s}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0.\end{array}`$ (50)
At lowest order in $`\mathrm{}`$, we get

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{form}\mathrm{degree}a_{\alpha _s}^s=n,da_{\alpha _s}^s=0\\ \overline{s}a_{\alpha _s}^s+da_{\alpha _s}^{s1}=0,\\ \mathrm{}\\ \overline{s}a_{\alpha _s}^1+da_{\alpha _s}^0=0,\\ \overline{s}a_{\alpha _s}^0=0.\end{array}`$ (56)
Using equation (36) and the fact that the form degree of $`a_{\alpha _s}^s`$ is $`n`$, it follows that

$`a_{\alpha _s}^l={\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}}\mu _{p}^{\beta _{sp}}{}_{\alpha _s}{}^{}e_{\beta _{sp}}^{lp}+\overline{s}\eta _{\alpha _s}^l+d[\eta _{\alpha _s}^{l1}+{\displaystyle \underset{r0}{}}\nu _{\alpha _s}^{(l)i_r}h_{i_r}^r],`$ (57)
for $`l=0,\mathrm{},s`$. This gives our first result:

The anomaly in the renormalization of an element of level $`l`$ of a chain of length $`s`$ without obstructions involves at most elements of chains of the same type with less non trivial descents and the same number of non trivial lifts.

For the anomalies for a chain with obstruction (29), we get,

$`\begin{array}{c}s^qh_{i_r}^{r+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+dh_{i_r}^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\widehat{h}_{i_r}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}a_{i_r}^{r+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\\ s^qh_{i_r}^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+dh_{i_r}^{r1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}a_{i_r}^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\\ \mathrm{}\\ s^qh_{i_r}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+dh_{i_r}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}a_{i_r}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\\ s^qh_{i_r}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}a_{i_r}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\end{array}`$ (63)
We also have

$`s^q\widehat{h}_{i_r}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_{i_r}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}.`$ (64)
Applying $`s^q`$ gives $`s^q\widehat{a}_{i_r}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0`$ and then to lowest order, $`\overline{s}\widehat{a}_{i_r}=0`$. Applying now $`s^q`$ to the chain (63) gives

$`\begin{array}{c}s^qa_{i_r}^{r+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+da_{i_r}^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\widehat{a}_{i_r}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}},\\ s^qa_{i_r}^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+da_{i_r}^{r1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0,\\ \mathrm{}\\ s^qa_{i_r}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+da_{i_r}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0,\\ s^qa_{i_r}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0,\end{array}`$ (70)
and to lowest order,

$`\begin{array}{c}\overline{s}a_{i_r}^{r+1}+da_{i_r}^r=\widehat{a}_{i_r},\\ \overline{s}a_{i_r}^r+da_{i_r}^{r1}=0,\\ \mathrm{}\\ \overline{s}a_{i_r}^1+da_{i_r}^1=0,\\ \overline{s}a_{i_r}^0=0,\end{array}`$ (76)
On the one hand, it follows from (36) that

$`a_{i_r}^l={\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=rq}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda _{q}^{j_r^{}}{}_{i_r}{}^{}h_{j_r^{}}^{lq}+{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=rp+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mu _{p}^{\beta _s}{}_{i_r}{}^{}e_{\beta _s}^{lp}+\overline{s}\eta _{i_r}^l+d[\eta _{i_r}^{l1}+{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\nu _{i_r}^{(l)j_r^{}}h_{j_r^{}}^r^{}],`$ (77)
for $`l=0,\mathrm{},r`$, while on the other hand, the cohomology of $`\overline{s}`$ implies

$`\widehat{a}_{i_r}={\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\alpha _{i_r}^{j_r^{}}\widehat{h}_{j_r^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\beta _{i_r}^{j_r^{}}h_{i_r}^0+{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\gamma _{i_r}^{\alpha _s}e_{\alpha _s}^0+\overline{s}\widehat{o}_{i_r}.`$ (78)
Applying $`d`$ to (77) at $`l=r`$ gives

$`da_{i_r}^r={\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=rq+1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda _{q}^{i_r^{}}{}_{i_r}{}^{}\overline{s}h_{i_r^{}}^{rq+1}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=rp+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mu _{p}^{\beta _s}{}_{i_r}{}^{}\overline{s}e_{\beta _s}^{rp+1}\overline{s}d\eta _{i_r}^r`$ (79)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{r}{}}}\lambda _{q}^{i_{rq}}{}_{i_r}{}^{}(\overline{s}h_{i_{rq}}^{rq+1}+\widehat{h}_{i_{rq}}).`$ (80)
Injecting now (78) and (80) into the first equation of (76) gives first of all $`\beta _{i_r}^{j_r^{}}=0=\gamma _{i_r}^{\alpha _s}`$ and also

$`\widehat{a}_{i_r}={\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{r}{}}}\lambda _{q}^{j_{rq}}{}_{i_r}{}^{}\widehat{h}_{j_{rq}}+\overline{s}\widehat{o}_{i_r},`$ (81)
and then,

$`\overline{s}(a_{i_r}^{r+1}{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=rq+1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda _{q}^{i_r^{}}{}_{i_r}{}^{}h_{i_r^{}}^{rq+1}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=rp+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mu _{p}^{\beta _s}{}_{i_r}{}^{}e_{\beta _s}^{rp+1}`$ (82)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{r}{}}}\lambda _{q}^{i_{rq}}{}_{i_r}{}^{}h_{i_{rq}}^{rq+1}d\eta _{i_r}^r\widehat{o}_{i_r})=0,`$ (83)
so that, using the cohomology of $`\overline{s}`$,

$`a_{i_r}^{r+1}={\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{r+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=rq}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda _{q}^{i_r^{}}{}_{i_r}{}^{}h_{i_r^{}}^{rq+1}+{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{r+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=rp+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mu _{p}^{\beta _s}{}_{i_r}{}^{}e_{\beta _s}^{rp+1}`$ (84)
$`+d[\eta _{i_r}^r+{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\nu _{i_r}^{(r+1)j_r^{}}h_{j_r^{}}^r^{}]+\widehat{o}_{i_r}+\overline{s}\eta _{i_r}^{r+1}.`$ (85)
Our second result is then:

The anomaly in the renormalization of an element of level $`l`$ of a chain of length $`r`$ with obstructions involves at most elements of chains with obstructions with less non trivial descents and more non trivial lifts and elements of chains without obstructions with less non trivial descents and strictly more non trivial lifts.

Let us now rewrite (57) and (77) at $`l`$=0 as

$`a_{\alpha _s}^0=\mu _{0}^{\beta _s}{}_{\alpha _s}{}^{}e_{\beta _s}^0+\overline{s}[\eta _{\alpha _s}^0{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\nu _{\alpha _s}^{(0)i_r}h_{i_r}^{r+1}]+{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\nu _{\alpha _s}^{(0)i_r}\widehat{h}_{i_r},`$ (86)
$`a_{i_r}^0={\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=r}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda _{0}^{j_r^{}}{}_{i_r}{}^{}h_{j_r^{}}^0+{\displaystyle \underset{s=r+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mu _{0}^{\beta _s}{}_{i_r}{}^{}e_{\beta _s}^0+\overline{s}[\eta _{i_r}^0{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\nu _{i_r}^{(0)j_r^{}}h_{j_r^{}}^{r^{}+1}]+{\displaystyle \underset{r^{}=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\nu _{i_r}^{(0)j_r^{}}\widehat{h}_{j_r^{}}.`$ (87)
Combined with (81), our third result on anomalies in the renormalization of elements of $`H(\overline{s})`$ is accordingly:

The anomaly in the renormalization of obstructions to chains of length $`r`$ involves at most obstructions to shorther chains; the anomaly in the renormalization of bottoms of unobstructed chains of length $`s`$ involves at most bottoms of unobstructed chains of the same length and obstructions to chains of all possible lengths; the anomaly in the renormalization of bottoms of obstructed chains of length $`r`$ involves at most bottoms of obstructed chains of greater length, bottoms of unobstructed chains of strictly greater length and obstructions to chains of all possible lengths.

## V Differentials associated to one loop anomalies

A different, more compact, way to formulate and prove the results of section III and IV is to use the exact couple describing the descent and the associated spectral sequence .

Indeed, the diagram

$`\begin{array}{ccc}H(\overline{s}|d)\stackrel{𝒟}{}H(\overline{s}|d)& & \\ i_0l_0& & \\ H(\overline{s})& & \end{array}`$ (91)
can be shown to be exact at all corners. The various maps are defined as follows: $`i_0`$ is the map which consists in regarding an element of $`H(\overline{s})`$ as an element of $`H(\overline{s}|d)`$, $`i_0:H(\overline{s})H(\overline{s}|d)`$, with $`i_0[a]=[a]`$. It is well defined because every $`\overline{s}`$ cocycle is a $`\overline{s}`$ cocycle modulo $`d`$ and every $`\overline{s}`$ coboundary is a $`\overline{s}`$ coboundary modulo $`d`$. The descent homomorphism $`𝒟:H^{k,l}(\overline{s}|d)H^{k+1,l1}(\overline{s}|d)`$ with $`𝒟[a]=[b]`$, if $`\overline{s}a+db=0`$ is well defined because of the triviality of the cohomology of $`d`$ in form degree $`pn1`$. Finally, the map $`l_0:H^{k+1,l1}(\overline{s}|d)H^{k+1,l}(\overline{s})`$ is defined by $`l_0[a]=[da]`$. It is well defined because the relation $`\{\overline{s},d\}=0`$ implies that it maps cocycles to cocycles and coboundaries to coboundaries.

Associated to such an exact couple $`(H(\overline{s}|d),K_0=H(\overline{s}))`$, one can associate in a standard way derived exact couples $`(𝒟^rH(\overline{s}|d),K_r)`$,

$`\begin{array}{ccc}𝒟^rH(\overline{s}|d)\stackrel{𝒟}{}𝒟^rH(\overline{s}|d)& & \\ i_rl_r& & \\ K_r,& & \end{array}`$ (95)
and a spectral sequence $`K_{r+1}=H(d_r,K_r)`$, with $`K_0H(\overline{s})`$. The maps of these exact couples are defined recursively as follows: the map $`d_{r1}=l_{r1}i_{r1}`$ can be shown to be a differential, the map $`i_r`$ is the map induced by $`i_{r1}`$ in $`K_r`$, while $`l_r𝒟[a]=l_{r1}[a]`$.

Explicitly, the differential $`d_0:K_0K_0`$ is defined by $`d_0[a]=[da]`$, where $`\overline{s}a=0`$. An element $`k_rK_r`$ is identified with the equivalence class $`[a]_r`$ of an element $`[a]H(\overline{s})`$, where $`[a]_r[a^{}]`$ if $`[a][a^{}]_{q=0}^{r1}\mathrm{im}d_q`$. The relations $`d_qk_r=0`$, $`q=0,\mathrm{},r1`$ mean that $`k_r`$ is a bottom that can be lifted at least $`r`$ times, i.e., there exist $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{r+1}`$ such that $`\overline{s}a=0,da+\overline{s}c_1=0,\mathrm{},dc_{r1}+\overline{s}c_r=0`$. Then, the differential $`d_r`$ is defined by $`d_rk_r=[dc_r]_r`$.

Because there are no forms of form degree higher than $`n`$, $`𝒟^{n+1}H(\overline{s}|d)=0`$ and $`d_n0`$ so that the construction stops at $`r=n`$.

The space of local forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is decomposed as $`\mathrm{\Omega }=E_0G\overline{s}G𝐑`$, with $`E_0K_0=H(\overline{s})`$. If we define $`E_r,F_{r1}E_{r1}`$ through $`E_{r1}=E_{r1}E_rd_{r1}F_{r1}`$ with $`E_rK_r`$, we get the decomposition

$`E_0=F_0\mathrm{}F_{n1}E_nd_{r1}F_{r1}\mathrm{}d_0F_0.`$ (96)
The $`e_{\alpha _s}^0`$ are elements of a basis of $`E_n`$ that can be lifted $`s`$ times before hitting form degree $`n`$, i.e., that are of form degree $`ns`$, while $`\widehat{h}_{i_r}`$ and $`h_{i_r}^0`$ are elements of a basis of $`d_rF_r`$ and $`F_r`$ respectively. This sums up the results of section III.

Let us now define the linear map

$`\delta _0:H^g(\overline{s})H^{g+1}(\overline{s}),`$ (97)
$`\delta _0[a]=[b],\text{where}s^qa\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}.`$ (98)
The map associates to a given BRST cohomological class the non trivial order $`\mathrm{}`$, i.e., 1 loop contribution of its anomaly.

The map is well defined, because the consistency condition implies that $`\overline{s}b=0`$, and if $`a=\overline{s}c`$, $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=s^qc\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, so that $`s^qa\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}s^qd\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, meaning that $`b=\overline{s}d`$, so that the map does not depend on the choice of the representative. Furthermore, this map is a differential

$`\delta _0^2=0.`$ (99)
Indeed, if $`[a]=\delta _0[c]`$, we have $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}s^qc\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$. It follows that $`s^qa\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=0`$. A BRST cohomological class which is a $`\delta _0`$-cocycle has no 1-loop anomaly, while a BRST cohomological class which is a $`\delta _0`$-coboundary is the 1-loop anomaly of some other BRST cohomological class.

We thus have two differentials in $`K_0=H(\overline{s})`$, $`d_0`$ introduced above and $`\delta _0`$. These differentials anticommute,

$`\{d_0,\delta _0\}=0.`$ (100)
Indeed, if $`s^qa\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`d_0\delta _0[a]=d_0[b]=[db]`$, while $`\delta _0d_0[a]=\delta _0[da]`$, and $`s^q(da\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})=s^qd(a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}c\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})=ds^q(a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}c\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{}d(b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+s^qc\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})`$, so that $`\delta _0[da]=[d(b+\overline{s}c)]=[db]`$.

The relation $`d_0\delta _0[a]=\delta _0d_0[a]`$ means:

* if $`[a]`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{im}d_0`$, $`[a]=d_0[b]`$, then $`\delta _0[a]=d_0\delta _0[b]`$, i.e., if $`[a]`$ represents an obstruction to the lift of an element $`[b]`$, its anomaly represents minus the obstruction to the lift of the anomaly of $`[b]`$,
* if $`d_0[a]=0`$, then $`d_0\delta _0[a]=0`$, i.e., if $`[a]`$ can be lifted, then so does its anomaly $`\delta _0[a]`$,
* the anomaly in a bottom $`[a]`$ of $`K_0`$ that cannot be lifted is minus the anomaly of the corresponding obstruction, up to elements that can be lifted.

If we organize the space $`E_0K_0=H(\overline{s})`$ as $`E_0=F_0E_1d_0F_0`$, with $`E_1K_1`$, we have shown that 1-loop contribution to the anomaly of an element in one of these subspaces belongs to the same subspace or to a subspace that stands to the right. Together with the last point of the previous list, this sums up the results for the elements of $`H(\overline{s})`$, i.e., for the obstructions and the bottoms contained in (81), (86) and (87) restricted to $`r=0`$.

In the same way, these results for all $`r`$ and $`s`$ follow from the fact that $`\delta _0`$ induces a well-defined differential (also called $`\delta _0`$ in the following) in the spaces $`K_r`$, anticommuting with $`d_r`$, $`\delta _0:K_rK_r`$ with $`\{\delta _0,d_r\}=0`$.

Indeed, suppose this result to be true for $`K_0,\mathrm{},K_{r1}`$, $`d_0,\mathrm{},d_{r1}`$. An element $`[a]_rK_r`$ satisfies $`\overline{s}a=0`$, $`da+\overline{s}c_1=0`$, $`\mathrm{},`$ $`dc_{r1}+\overline{s}c_r=0`$. This implies $`s^qa\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`da\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+s^qc_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}f_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{},`$ $`dc_{r1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+s^qc_r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}f_r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$. Applying $`s^q`$ gives to lowest order $`\overline{s}b=0`$, $`db+\overline{s}f_1=0`$, $`\mathrm{},`$ $`df_{r1}+\overline{s}f_r=0`$, so that $`[b]_r`$ is well defined. Suppose now that $`[a]_r=d_0[g_0]_0+\mathrm{}+d_{r1}[g_{r1}]_{r1}`$. Anticommutativity of $`\delta _0`$ with $`d_0,\mathrm{},d_{r1}`$ then implies that $`\delta _0[a]_r=0`$. Hence, $`\delta _0`$ does not depend on the representative and is well defined in $`K_r`$. Finally, $`d_r\delta _0[a]_r=d_r[b]_r=[df_r]_r`$, while $`\delta _0d_r[a]_r=\delta _0[dc_r]_r`$, and $`s^q(dc_r)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=s^qd(c_r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}c^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})=d(s^qc_r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}s^qc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})`$, so that $`\delta _0[dc_r]_r=[d(f_r+\overline{s}c^{})]_r=d_r\delta _0[a]_r`$.

The results (81), (86) and (87) can then be summarized by the statement that an anomaly in one of the subspaces of the decomposition (96) must belong to the same subspace or to one that stands to the right; furthermore, the part of the anomaly of an element of $`F_i`$ in $`F_i`$ is minus the part of the anomaly of the corresponding element of $`d_iF_i`$ in $`d_iF_i`$.

In order to recover the results for elements of $`H(\overline{s}|d)`$, we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ to be the equivalent of $`\delta _0`$ for modulo $`d`$ BRST cohomological classes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0[a]=[b]`$, for $`[a],[b]H(\overline{s}|d)`$, where $`\overline{s}a+dm=0`$, $`\overline{s}m+du=0`$, $`s^qa\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+d(m\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{}b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`s^qm\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+d(u\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{}n\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$. Indeed, the map is well defined because the consistency condition implies to lowest order $`\overline{s}b+dn=0`$, while if $`a=\overline{s}c+dg`$, we have $`m=\overline{s}g+du`$, so that $`s^qa\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+dm\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ gives $`s^q(s^qc\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+dg\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}f\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})+d(s^qg\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+du\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{}b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, which implies $`b=\overline{s}f+dv`$ as it should.

The following properties are straightforward to check: $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_0,𝒟]=0`$, $`l\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\delta _0l`$, $`i_0\delta _0=\mathrm{\Delta }_0i_0`$. One says (see e.g. , Chapter VIII.9) that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\delta _0)`$ is a mapping of the exact couple $`(H(\overline{s}|d),H(\overline{s}))`$.

The previous result, that $`\delta _0`$ induces well defined maps in the spaces of the spectral sequence anticommuting with the differentials $`d_r`$, follows directly from the way the spectral sequence is associated to an exact couple. The relation between (57), (77) at $`l=0`$ and (86), (87) is summarized by $`i_0\delta _0=\mathrm{\Delta }_0i_0`$ ; the relations between (57), (77) at different values of $`l`$ are summarized by $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_0,𝒟]=0`$ ; finally, the relation between (77) at $`l=r`$ and (81) is summarized by $`l\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\delta _0l`$.

Note that in this case, we have furthermore the property that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is a differential, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2=0`$.

Remark: It follows from the above analysis that the relevant property of the differentials $`d_r`$ is $`\{\delta _0,d_r\}=0`$. This means that analogous results that constrain the anomalies to belong to particular subspaces of $`H(\overline{s})`$ or $`H(\overline{s}|d)`$ can be derived if one can find maps $`\lambda _0:H(\overline{s})H(\overline{s})`$, respectively $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0:H(\overline{s}|d)H(\overline{s}|d)`$ such that $`[\delta _0,\lambda _0]=0`$, respectively $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]=0`$.

## VI Adler-Bardeen theorem revisited

We now apply the ideas of the extended antifield formalism to standard Yang-Mills theory. In this case, it is sufficient for our purpose to couple the local BRST cohomology classes in ghost number $`0`$ and ghost number $`1`$, because this will be enough, under some assumptions stated explicitly below, to guarantee stability and to control the anomalies. The starting point action contains from the beginning a coupling to the Adler-Bardeen anomaly as in , with additional couplings to possibly higher dimensional gauge invariant operators, if one does not want to restrict oneself to the power counting renormalizable case . More precicley, the starting point is the action

$`S_\rho ={\displaystyle d^4x[\frac{1}{4g^2}F_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I+L_{\mathrm{matter}}^{\mathrm{kin}}(\psi ^i,D_\mu \psi ^i)]}`$ (101)
$`+{\displaystyle d^4x[D_\mu C^IA_I^\mu +C^IT_{Ij}^i\psi ^j\psi _i^{}\frac{1}{2}C^IC^Jf_{JI}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}C_K^{}]}`$ (102)
$`+g^i{\displaystyle d^4x𝒪_i}+𝒜\rho ,`$ (103)
satisfying the master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S_\rho ,S_\rho )=0.`$ (104)
The Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{matter}}^{\mathrm{kin}}(\psi ^i,D_\mu \psi ^i)`$ is the gauge invariant extension of the kinetic terms for the matter fields $`\psi ^i`$. For simplicity, we assume the gauge group to be $`SU(3)`$. The $`𝒪_i`$ are gauge invariant local functions built out of the field strengths $`F_{\mu \nu }^I`$, the matter fields $`\psi ^i`$ and their covariant derivatives such that the $`d^4x𝒪_i`$ (which can, but need not, be assumed to be power counting renormalizable) and $`d^4x\frac{1}{4g^2}F_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ are linearily independent even when the gauge covariant equations of motions hold. Finally, $`𝒜=\mathrm{Tr}[Cd(AdA+\frac{1}{2}A^3)]`$ is the Adler-Bardeen gauge anomaly, $`g`$ is the gauge coupling constant, $`g^i`$ are coupling constants for the other gauge invariant operators, while $`\rho `$ is a Grassmann odd coupling constant with ghost number $`1`$ for the Adler-Bardeen anomaly. In this particular case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=0`$. This can be traced back to the fact that all representatives of the local BRST cohomological classes in ghost number $`0`$ and $`1`$ can be choosen to be independent of the antifields.

The gauge is fixed by introducing the cohomologically trivial non minimal sector consisting of the antighost $`\overline{C}^I`$ and the Lagrange multiplier $`B^I`$ and their antifields. One adds to the action (103) the term $`d^4x\overline{C}_I^{}B^I`$ and chooses an appropriate gauge fixing fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, which is used to generate an anticanonical transformation in the fields and antifields such that the propagators of the theory are well defined. The gauge fixing is irrelevant for the cohomological considerations below.

For the question of stability and anomalies, we have to analyze the cohomology $`H^{0,4}(s_\rho |d)`$ and $`H^{1,4}(s_\rho |d)`$ in the space of functions in the couplings $`g,g^i,\rho `$ with coefficients that are Lorentz invariant polynomials in the $`dx^\mu `$, the fields, the antifields and their derivatives.

In order to compute this cohomology, we decompose, as in , both the BRST differential $`s_\rho `$ and the local forms into parts independent of $`\rho `$ and parts linear in $`\rho `$. Explicitly, $`s_\rho =s_0+s_1`$, where $`s`$ is the standard BRST differential associated to the solution $`S_{\rho =0}`$ of the master equation, while $`s_1=(𝒜\rho ,)`$. The $`\rho `$ independent part of the cocycle condition $`s_\rho \omega (\rho )+d\eta (\rho )=0`$ in form degree $`4`$ gives (see e.g.  for a review) $`\omega (0)=\alpha (g,g^i)d^4xF_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I+\alpha ^j(g,g^i)d^4x𝒪_i+s()+d()`$. This implies $`\omega (\rho )=\alpha (g,g^i)d^4xF_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I+\alpha ^j(g,g^i)d^4x𝒪_i+\omega _1^{}\rho +s_\rho ()+d().`$ Because $`d^4xF_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ and $`d^4x𝒪_i`$ are also $`s_1`$ closed and $`\rho ^2=0`$, the cocycle condition reduces to $`s\omega _1^{}+d()=0`$, where the ghost number of $`\omega _1^{}`$ is $`1`$. It follows that $`\omega _1^{}=\lambda (g,g^i)\mathrm{Tr}[Cd(AdA+\frac{1}{2}A^3)]+s()+d()`$. Hence, the general solution of the consistency condition in the space of local functionals in ghost number $`0`$ is given by

$`\alpha (g,g^i){\displaystyle \frac{S_\rho }{g}}+\alpha ^j(g,g^i){\displaystyle \frac{S_\rho }{g^i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^RS_\rho }{\rho }}\rho \lambda (g,g^i)+(S_\rho ,\mathrm{\Xi }_\rho )`$ (105)
for some local functional $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\rho `$ in ghost number $`1`$. This implies that the theory is stable.

Similarily, in ghost number $`1`$, the $`\rho `$ independent part of the cohomology gives as only anomaly candidate the Adler-Bardeen anomaly. There could however be a $`\rho `$ linear non trivial contribution to the anomaly, because the cohomology of $`s`$ in form degree $`4`$ and ghost number $`2`$ is not necessarily empty (see , section 12.4), contrary to the claim in . More precisely, to each $`x^\mu `$-independent, gauge and Lorentz invariant non trivial conserved current $`j_\mathrm{\Delta }=j_\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu _1\nu _2\nu _3}dx^{\nu _1}dx^{\nu _2}dx^{\nu _3}`$, there corresponds the cohomological class $`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{2,4}=j_\mathrm{\Delta }[\mathrm{Tr}C^3]^1+\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑}\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡}\mathrm{𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠}`$ in $`H^{2,n}(s|d)`$, with $`s[\mathrm{Tr}C^3]^1+\mathrm{Tr}C^3=0`$.(There could in principle be another type of antifield dependent cohomology classes in exceptional situations , which we exclude from the present considerations).

If there are such non trivial currents $`j_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we have to change our starting point and also couple the “anomaly for anomaly candidates” $`V^{2,4}`$ from the beginning with couplings in ghost number $`2`$. But then the cohomology of $`s`$ in ghost number $`3`$ becomes relevant. There are plenty of such classes, for instance classes of the form $`d^4xI\mathrm{Tr}C^3`$, where $`I`$ are invariant functions built out of the field strengths, the matter fields and their covaraint derivatives. In this way, one is led to use the full extended antifield formalism as described in section II with all BRST cohomology classes in positive ghost number coupled from the beginning. In the case where the algebra of the non trivial symmetries associated to the currents $`j_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is non abelian, the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ will be non vanishing at the classical level and involve in particular the structure constants of this algebra.

Another possibility is to try to show that the anomaly candidates $`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{2,4}`$ do not effectively arise in the theory, by using higher order cohomological restrictions: as in the proof of the absence of similiar instabilities in the presence of abelian factors for standard Yang-Mills theories (see , Appendix A) one couples with external fields gauge invariant functions that break the symmetries associated to the currents $`j_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this way, one eliminates the currents $`j_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the associated anomaly for anomaly candidates $`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{2,4}`$ from the extended theory. At the end of the computations, the external fields can be put to zero.

Because this discussion is not central to the argument below, we will simply assume here that the observables $`𝒪_i`$ are such that there are no non trivial currents $`j_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and thus no anomaly for anomaly candidates $`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{2,4}`$ in the theory. The general solution of the consistency condition in ghost number $`1`$ is then given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_\rho }{\rho }}\sigma (g,g^i)+(S_\rho ,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho ),`$ (106)
for some local functional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho `$ in ghost number $`0`$.

By standard arguments, using in addition the same reasoning as in section II B 2, it follows from (105) and (106) that the model is renormalizable and that the renormalized generating functional for 1 particle irreducible vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$ satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho )+{\displaystyle \frac{^R\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }{\rho }}\mathrm{}\sigma (g,g^i)=0,`$ (107)
where $`\sigma (g,g^i)`$ is a formal power series in $`\mathrm{}`$. Hence, in this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{^R}{\rho }\mathrm{}\sigma (g,g^i)`$ and the quantum BRST differential is $`s^q=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ,)\mathrm{}\sigma (g,g^i)^L\rho `$. (It can be shown along standard lines that the coefficient $`\sigma (g,g^i)`$ does not depend on the parameters of the gauge fixing.)

Let us now investigate the renormalization of the operators $`d^4xF_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ and $`d^4x𝒪_i`$. According to the classification in section III, they are both of the type $`e_{\alpha _0}^0`$, because they are non trivial bottoms in maximal form degree $`4`$, while the Adler-Bardeen anomaly $`\mathrm{Tr}[Cd(AdA+\frac{1}{2}A^3)]`$ is of the type $`e_{\alpha _4}^4`$, as it descends to the non trivial bottom $`\mathrm{Tr}C^5`$. Because there is no $`e_{\alpha _0}^0`$ in ghost number $`1`$ (and form degree 4) and no $`h_{i_r}^r`$ in form degree $`3`$ and ghost number $`1`$, equation (57) implies that the lowest order contribution to the anomaly in the renormalization of $`d^4xF_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ and of $`d^4x𝒪_i`$ is $`s_\rho `$ exact and can thus be absorbed through a BRST breaking counterterm added to these operators. This reasoning can be pushed to all orders, with the result that one can achieve, through the addition of suitable counterterms,

$`s^q[d^4xF_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ]=0,`$ (108)
$`s^q[d^4x𝒪_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ]=0.`$ (109)
If we now apply $`\frac{g}{2}\frac{}{g}`$, respectively $`\frac{}{g^j}`$ to (107), we get on the one hand,

$`s^q[{\displaystyle d^4x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}F_I^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ]+{\displaystyle \frac{^R\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }{\rho }}\mathrm{}[{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (g,g^i)}{g}}]=0,`$ (110)
$`s^q[{\displaystyle d^4x𝒪_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }]+{\displaystyle \frac{^R\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }{\rho }}\mathrm{}[{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (g,g^i)}{g^j}}]=0.`$ (111)
Comparing on the other hand with the integrated versions of (108) and (109), we deduce that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (g,g^i)}{g}}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (g,g^i)}{g^j}}=0,`$ (112)
which is an expression of the Adler-Bardeen theorem (see e.g. section 6.3.2 of ).

## VII Conclusion and outlook

In the completely extended antifield formalism, where in particular potential anomaly candidates are coupled to the starting point action with independent couplings, the whole program of algebraic renormalization can be extended to the case of theories with gauge anomalies. For instance, it is possible to write the Callan-Symanzik equation to all orders as a functional differential equation as in , by using $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$. The $`\beta `$ functions can then be considered as anomaly coefficients in the renormalization of the cohomology class corresponding to the generator of dilatations. Vanishing results for $`\beta `$ functions associated to couplings of cohomological classes with a non trivial descent can then be obtained as a particular case of the discussion of section IV.

The discussion in section IV on the length of descents and lifts of BRST cohomological classes and their anomalies does not rely on the use of the extended antifield formalism. It can be done along the same lines in the standard set-up as long as one assumes the quantum theory to be anomaly free and stable, so that the standard Zinn-Justin equation $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$ holds. A virtue of the completely extended formalism is that it allows in principle to treat the general case.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been partly supported by the “Actions de Recherche Concertées” of the “Direction de la Recherche Scientifique - Communauté Française de Belgique”, by IISN - Belgium (convention 4.4505.86). The author wants to thank F. Brandt and M. Henneaux for useful discussions.


text:
# The Burnett expansion of the periodic Lorentz gas

## 1 Introduction

The Lorentz gas is a model used in statistical mechanics, consisting of a point particle moving at constant velocity except for specular collisions with smooth (specifically $`C^3`$) convex fixed scatterers in $`d2`$ dimensions. The original model  has randomly placed scatterers in infinite space, and is thought to have power law decay of correlations, so that the Burnett coefficients (defined below as sums of such correlations) are not generally expected to exist . Here we consider a periodic arrangement of scatterers which is equivalent to a dispersing billiard on a torus, for which it is known that two-time correlations of the discrete (collision) dynamics decay exponentially . This, together with the finite horizon condition, that is, that the time between collisions is bounded, implies the existence of the diffusion coefficient ($`D^{(2)}`$ below).

A recent paper gives a stretched exponential decay of multiple correlations , and uses this to show (again with finite horizon) that the fourth order Burnett coefficient ($`D^{(4)}`$ below) exists. Here we extend this result to all the Burnett coefficients. A common example for $`d=2`$ with a finite horizon is given by circular scatterers on a triangular lattice; for $`d>2`$ the finite horizon condition requires either nonspherical scatterers, or more than one scatterer per unit cell. The Lorentz gas and a number of extensions are discussed in Ref. .

The Burnett coefficients $`D^{(m)}`$ discussed in this paper are defined using series of correlation functions. Section 2 defines these series and gives three basic results about them. Section 3 gives the main result of this paper, the proof of convergence of these series. The series arise in a physical description of diffusion, however the derivation involves hydrodynamic approximations and interchange of limits which have not been justified rigorously for the Lorentz gas. The physical motivation together with the non-rigorous derivation of the series given below from previously stated formulas is given in the final section, together with a conjecture about the Burnett expansion.

The author is grateful for helpful discussion with N. I. Chernov, E. G. D. Cohen, J. R. Dorfman and P. Gaspard, and for the support of the Engineering Research Program of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences at the US Department of Energy, contract #DE-FG02-88-ER13847, and the Nuffield Foundation, grant NAL/00353/G.

## 2 Definitions

In the following, $`\mathit{\varphi }(x)`$ is the billiard map defined on the collision space $`M`$, consisting of points $`x=(𝐫,𝐯)M`$ for which the position $`𝐫\text{I}\text{R}^d`$ is on the boundary of one of the scatterers and the velocity following a collision $`𝐯\text{I}\text{R}^d`$ is of unit magnitude in an outward direction from the scatterer. Greek indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},d`$ denote components of vectors and tensors in $`\text{I}\text{R}^d`$, and a dot $`𝐚𝐛`$ denotes the usual inner product $`_\alpha a_\alpha b_\alpha `$ corresponding to the Euclidean metric. We have two functions $`T:M\text{I}\text{R}`$ and $`𝐚:M\text{I}\text{R}^d`$ which describe the embedding of the collision dynamics into physical space and time, as follows. $`T(x)`$ is the time (also distance since the speed of the particle is one) between the collision at $`x`$ and the next; it is a piecewise Hölder continuous function . $`𝐚(x)`$ is the lattice translation vector associated with this free flight when the configuration variable $`𝐫`$ is unfolded onto a periodic tiling of $`\text{I}\text{R}^d`$; it is a linear combination of the lattice basis vectors $`𝐞^{(\alpha )}`$ with integer coefficients, and is a piecewise constant function. The finite horizon condition ensures that both $`T`$ and $`𝐚`$ are bounded. The average $``$ denotes integration over $`M`$ with respect to the invariant equilibrium measure. In terms of this average we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }T:M\text{I}\text{R}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T(x)=T(x)T`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0`$.

The billiard dynamics is time reversal invariant, that is, there exists an involution $`𝒯:MM`$ (given simply by the specular reflection law) with the property

$$\mathit{\varphi }𝒯\mathit{\varphi }=𝒯$$
(1)
In addition, $`𝒯`$ preserves the equilibrium measure, that is,

$$𝒯g=g$$
(2)
for arbitrary measurable function $`g:MM`$. The map $`𝒯`$ also satisfies

$`T𝒯\mathit{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`T`$ (3)
$`𝐚𝒯\mathit{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`𝐚`$ (4)
Thus $`𝐚=0`$.

The wave vector $`𝐤`$ is to be understood as a formal real expansion parameter with $`d`$ components (although physically we would like to interpret it as a vector with a value in $`\text{I}\text{R}^d`$). The dispersion relation $`s[𝐤]`$ is to be understood as a formal power series

$$s[𝐤]=\underset{m=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{i}^m\underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}D_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(m)}k_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}k_{\alpha _m}$$
(5)
in terms of the Burnett coefficients $`D^{(m)}`$ which are assumed to be real, totally symmetric tensors of rank $`m`$. That is, an equation (specifically Eq. (15) below) involving $`s[𝐤]`$ is to be interpreted as a sequence of equations (specifically Eq. (16) below) obtained by equating coefficients of powers of $`𝐤`$. The symbol $`\mathrm{i}`$ denotes $`\sqrt{1}`$.

The existence of Burnett coefficients satisfying the equations (16) is not assumed a priori; we show in Lemma 1 below that equations (16) express the $`d(d+1)/2`$ independent components of $`D^{(2)}`$ as series not containing any of the $`D^{(m)}`$, then the $`d(d+1)(d+2)/6`$ independent components of $`D^{(3)}`$ as series containing only the $`D^{(2)}`$ and so on. Lemma 2 shows that they are indeed real, and Thm. 4 shows that the limit exists.

We define formal power series $`f`$ and $`F`$ by

$$f[𝐤]s[𝐤]\mathrm{\Delta }T+\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐚$$
(6)
$$F[𝐤]\underset{i=n}{\overset{n1}{}}f[𝐤]\mathit{\varphi }^i$$
(7)
where the dependence on $`x`$ and on the positive integer $`n`$ is suppressed in the notation; the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ will be taken later. We have $`f=0`$ and $`F=0`$ at each order in $`𝐤`$ and for each $`n`$ as a consequence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0`$ and $`𝐚=0`$ above.

We define cumulants $`Q_N[𝐤]`$ (also formal power series) for integers $`N2`$ as

$$Q_N[𝐤]=\underset{\{\nu _j\}:_jj\nu _j=N}{}(1)^{\nu 1}\frac{(\nu 1)!_jF[𝐤]^j^{\nu _j}}{_j(\nu _j!j!^{\nu _j})}$$
(8)
with $`j`$ and $`\nu _j`$ integers satisfying $`j2`$ and $`\nu _j0`$, and $`\nu =_j\nu _j`$ is the total number of correlations in the product. For example

$`Q_2`$ $`=`$ $`F^2/2`$ (9)
$`Q_3`$ $`=`$ $`F^3/6`$ (10)
$`Q_4`$ $`=`$ $`(F^43F^2^2)/24`$ (11)
$`Q_5`$ $`=`$ $`(F^510F^3F^2)/120`$ (12)
$`Q_6`$ $`=`$ $`(F^615F^4F^210F^3^2+30F^2^3)/720`$ (13)
Now $`Q_N`$ contains exactly $`N`$ powers of $`F`$, and so it contains terms $`𝐤^m`$ only for $`mN`$, and we can write it as

$$Q_N[𝐤]=\underset{m=N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}q_{N,m;\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}k_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}k_{\alpha _m}$$
(14)
thus defining totally symmetric tensors $`q_{N,m}`$ for $`mN`$.

The Burnett coefficients are found by equating the formal power series on both sides of

$$s[𝐤]=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2nT}\underset{N=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_N[𝐤]$$
(15)
that is,

$$\mathrm{i}^mD_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(m)}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2nT}\underset{N=2}{\overset{m}{}}q_{N,m;\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}$$
(16)
These equations determine the $`D^{(m)}`$ explicitly as real tensors, subject to convergence of the limit, as shown by the following two lemmas.

###### Lemma 1

The right hand side of Eq. (16) does not contain $`D^{(m^{})}`$ such that $`m^{}m`$.

Proof: We have $`N2`$, and each $`Q_N`$ contains $`N`$ powers of $`F`$, thus each term has at least 2 powers of $`F`$. Each $`F`$ has at least 1 power of $`𝐤`$, and there are $`m`$ powers of $`𝐤`$ in total, so each $`F`$ has at most $`m1`$ powers of $`𝐤`$. $`D^{(m^{})}`$ appear in $`F`$ associated with $`m^{}`$ powers of $`𝐤`$, so $`m^{}m1`$ for any $`D^{(m^{})}`$ appearing.

Remark: It is possible there are no factors of $`D^{(m^{})}`$ on the right hand side, in fact the lemma shows that this is true for $`m=2`$. The case $`m=2`$ can easily be written explicitly; Eq. (16) becomes

$$D_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{4nT}\underset{i=n}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j=n}{\overset{n1}{}}a_\alpha ^ia_\beta ^j$$
(17)
This is a discrete time version of the well-known Green-Kubo formula for the diffusion tensor (which reduces to a single diffusion coefficient in the isotropic case $`D_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)}=D\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$). An equivalent discrete time equation appears in , also for $`m=4`$.

###### Lemma 2

Despite the appearance of the imaginary number $`\mathrm{i}`$ in the above definitions, the Burnett coefficients are real if they exist.

Proof: We note from the definitions that $`s[𝐤]`$, $`f[𝐤]`$ and $`F[𝐤]`$ have pure imaginary coefficients for odd powers of $`𝐤`$ and real coefficients for even powers of $`𝐤`$. This property is preserved by addition and multiplication of power series, so it also holds for the $`Q_N[𝐤]`$. This implies that the $`q_{N,m}`$ are imaginary for odd $`m`$ and real for even $`m`$. The result follows from Eq. (16).

Before proceeding with the more technical convergence proof, we note another important result:

###### Lemma 3

$`D^{(m)}=0`$ for $`m`$ odd.

Proof: From the properties of the time reversal operator $`𝒯`$ given above, $`F^j`$ has zero contribution from any term with an odd number of $`𝐚`$ factors. The result follows by induction on $`m`$: assume that $`D^{(m^{})}=0`$ for all odd $`m^{}<m`$, then by Lemma 1 all terms in $`s[𝐤]`$ contributing to $`D^{(m)}`$ have even powers of $`𝐤`$, and from the oddness of $`𝐚`$ under time reversal, so also do the $`\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐚`$ terms. Thus $`D^{(m)}`$, which is constructed from terms with $`m`$ powers of $`𝐤`$, must be zero for $`m`$ odd.

## 3 Convergence of the series

The averages $`F^j`$ appearing in the cumulants contain summations over $`j`$ variables with range $`n`$ to $`n1`$, and could grow as fast as $`O(n^j)`$ in general. Thus each term, which is a product of such averages could grow as $`O(n^N)`$ in general. For the limit in Eq. (16) to exist, we require that the series grows only as $`O(n)`$. Although the growth of each product of correlations cannot be controlled this well, cancellations occur in constructing the cumulants. This is expressed in the following theorem which, together with Lemmas 1 and 2, implies the existence of the Burnett coefficients:

###### Theorem 4

$`q_{N,m}`$ is defined in Eqs. (7, 8, 14) for integers $`N`$ and $`m`$ satisfying $`2Nm`$. The limit

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}q_{N,m;\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}$$
(18)
exists for all such $`N`$ and $`m`$ in the periodic Lorentz gas.

The structure of the proof of Thm. 4 is as follows. We state the theorem expressing stretched exponential decay of multiple correlation functions. Next, the terms appearing in (16) are written as a time ordered sum, so that this theorem can be applied. Then we show that all the terms connected by the application of the theorem have coefficients which sum to zero, so that only the stretched exponential corrections remain. Finally, a bound of $`n`$ multiplied by a polynomial is put on the number of terms at each order of the stretched exponential, so that the series divided by $`n`$ converges absolutely.

Thm. 4 is based on the following result:

###### Theorem 5

(Theorem 2 of Ref. ) Let $`i_1\mathrm{}i_k`$ and $`1tk1`$. Then

$$|f_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}f_k^{i_k}f_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}f_t^{i_t}f_{t+1}^{i_{t+1}}\mathrm{}f_k^{i_k}|C_k|i_ki_1|^2\lambda ^{|i_{t+1}i_t|^{1/2}}$$
(19)
where $`C_k>0`$ depends on the functions $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_k`$, and $`\lambda <1`$ is independent of $`k`$ and $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_k`$.

The theorem applies to piecewise Hölder continuous functions $`f_j`$ such that $`f_j=0`$ for all $`j`$ and uses notation $`f_j^if_j\mathit{\varphi }^i`$. As noted in Ref. , we expect based on Refs.  that it should be possible to prove a stronger bound $`\lambda ^{|i_{t+1}i_t|}`$, but the above bound is sufficient for our purposes here.

The $`q_{N,m}`$ as defined in the previous section are finite sums of terms of the form (see Eqs. (7, 8, 14))

$$\underset{\{\nu _j\}:_jj\nu _j=N}{}(1)^{\nu 1}\frac{(\nu 1)!}{_j(\nu _j!j!^{\nu _j})}\underset{i_1\mathrm{}i_N=n}{\overset{n1}{}}f_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}f_j^{i_j}f_{j+1}^{i_{j+1}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}f_N^{i_N}$$
(20)
multiplied by constants such as the lower order Burnett coefficients. The $`f`$ here and for the remainder of this section are $`T`$ or $`𝐚`$, both of which satisfy the conditions of Thm. 5. The exact number of terms of this kind is not important; it depends on $`N`$ and $`m`$ but not $`n`$ and therefore does not affect convergence of the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$.

In order to use Thm. 5 we need to put the times $`i_p`$ in numerical order. The unrestricted sum over all the $`i_p`$ is replaced by an ordered sum $`i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N`$ over all $`N!/S[i]`$ permutations of the $`i_p`$. $`S[i]`$ is a symmetry factor to account for the fact that some of the $`i_p`$ may be equal; the exact form is unimportant since it is a common prefactor, independent of the $`\nu _j`$. Not all $`N!`$ permutations of the correlations are distinct: it does not matter in which order the $`f_j`$ are multiplied within a correlation, or which order correlations of equal numbers of $`f_j`$ are multiplied; thus both factorials in the denominator disappear, leading to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\nu _j\}:_jj\nu _j=N}{}}`$ $`(1)^{\nu 1}(\nu 1)![{\displaystyle \underset{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S[i]}}\{f_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}f_j^{i_j}f_{j+1}^{i_{j+1}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}f_N^{i_N}`$ (21)
$`+\text{ permutations}\}]`$
The “permutations” remaining in (21) consist of the remaining $`N!/(_j\nu _j!j!^{\nu _j})1`$ rearrangements of the $`i_p`$ that are not equivalent by reordering the product of correlations or the product of $`f`$ within a correlation.

As an example, we give the expression for $`N=6`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5i_6}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S[i]}}\{f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}`$
$`[f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_4^{i_4}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}`$
$`+f_1^{i_1}f_5^{i_5}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_6^{i_6}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}+f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_1^{i_1}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}`$
$`+f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}+f_2^{i_2}f_6^{i_6}f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}`$
$`+f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}+f_3^{i_3}f_6^{i_6}f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}`$
$`+f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_6^{i_6}+f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}+f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}]`$
$`[f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}`$
$`+f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_6^{i_6}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}+f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}`$
$`+f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_6^{i_6}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}+f_1^{i_1}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}`$
$`+f_1^{i_1}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}]`$ (22)
$`+2[f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_6^{i_6}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}`$
$`+f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_3^{i_3}f_2^{i_2}f_6^{i_6}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}`$
$`+f_1^{i_1}f_4^{i_4}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_4^{i_4}f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_3^{i_3}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_4^{i_4}f_2^{i_2}f_6^{i_6}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}`$
$`+f_1^{i_1}f_5^{i_5}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_5^{i_5}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_3^{i_3}f_6^{i_6}+f_1^{i_1}f_5^{i_5}f_2^{i_2}f_6^{i_6}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}`$
$`+f_1^{i_1}f_6^{i_6}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}+f_1^{i_1}f_6^{i_6}f_2^{i_2}f_4^{i_4}f_3^{i_3}f_5^{i_5}+f_1^{i_1}f_6^{i_6}f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}]\}`$
Here, the four terms correspond to the partitions of $`6`$ which do not contain $`1`$; in the above notation the nonzero $`\nu _j`$ are $`\{\nu _6=1\}`$ with $`6!/6!=1`$ term; $`\{\nu _2=1,\nu _4=1\}`$ with $`6!/2!4!=15`$ terms; $`\{\nu _3=2\}`$ with $`6!/2!3!^2=10`$ terms; and $`\{\nu _2=3\}`$ with $`6!/3!2!^3=15`$ terms; compare with Eq. (13).

Now we apply Thm. 5 to the largest gap, $`i_{t+1}i_t`$. Any of the largest gaps will suffice if more than one is largest. Before tackling the general case, we see how it works in the $`N=6`$ example. Notice that, whatever the value of $`t`$, the theorem combines all the above correlations to leave terms (the number of which is a function of $`N`$) bounded by $`\lambda ^{|i_{t+1}i_t|^{1/2}}`$ multiplied by powers of the time differences. Explicitly, for $`t=1`$, all terms cancel individually because $`f_j=0`$. For $`t=2`$ the $`f^6`$ term cancels with one of the $`f^2f^4`$ terms, six other $`f^2f^4`$ terms cancel with three of the $`f^2^3`$ terms and the remaining terms all split leaving an $`f`$ term. For $`t=3`$ the $`f^6`$ term cancels with one of the $`f^3^2`$ terms, and all of the others split leaving an $`f`$ term. $`t=4`$ is analogous to $`t=2`$ and $`t=5`$ is analogous to $`t=1`$.

In general we must show that the coefficient $`(1)^{\nu 1}(\nu 1)!`$ in Eq. (21) combined with the numbers of terms of various types leads to complete cancellation for all values of $`N`$. Consider a general term (ignoring the $`S[i]`$ which is the same for each term) which is unaffected by a split at time $`t`$. Each correlation contains times $`i_pt`$ or times $`i_p>t`$ but not both. Thus it can be written schematically as

$$\mathrm{}|\mathrm{}$$
(23)
where all times $`i_p`$ to the left of the bar “$`|`$” are less than or equal to $`t`$ and all times to the right of the bar are greater than $`t`$. Let there be $`A`$ correlations to the left and $`B`$ correlations to the right, so $`A+B=\nu `$.

This term will cancel (up to stretched exponential corrections) with any term which is split to the same form, if the sum of the coefficients (the $`(1)^{\nu 1}(\nu 1)!`$) is zero. The terms that are split to a given form consist of correlations that are either the same as the above, or are joined in a pairwise fashion with a correlation on the other side of the bar.

Again, an example is helpful: When $`N=8`$, a split at $`t=4`$ combines the following terms: $`6f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}|f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}f_7^{i_7}f_8^{i_8}`$ with $`2f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_7^{i_7}f_8^{i_8}`$,
$`2f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_7^{i_7}f_8^{i_8}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}`$, $`2f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}f_7^{i_7}f_8^{i_8}`$, $`2f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_7^{i_7}f_8^{i_8}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}`$, $`f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_7^{i_7}f_8^{i_8}`$ and $`f_1^{i_1}f_2^{i_2}f_7^{i_7}f_8^{i_8}f_3^{i_3}f_4^{i_4}f_5^{i_5}f_6^{i_6}`$. These all cancel because $`6+2+2+2+211=0`$.

The term given in Eq. (23) has coefficient $`(1)^{\nu 1}(\nu 1)!`$. There are $`AB`$ terms with coefficient $`(1)^{\nu 2}(\nu 2)!`$ obtained by combining a single correlation on the left and the right. There are $`A(A1)B(B1)/2!`$ terms with coefficient $`(1)^{\nu 3}(\nu 3)!`$ obtained by combining two correlations on the left and the right, and so on until all $`\mathrm{min}(A,B)`$ correlations on the side with the fewest correlations have been combined. The total coefficient is thus given by

$$H(A,B)\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(A,B)}{}}(1)^{A+Bp1}(A+Bp1)!\frac{A!B!}{(Ap)!(Bp)!p!}$$
(24)
To show that the coefficients cancel, we therefore need the following lemma:

###### Lemma 6

$`H(A,B)=0`$ for all positive integers $`A`$ and $`B`$.

Proof: The sum is symmetric in $`A`$ and $`B`$ so suppose that $`AB`$ without loss of generality. Then the summand is the product of a constant $`(1)^{A+B1}A!`$, an alternating binomial of degree $`B`$, that is, $`(1)^pB!/((Bp)!p!)`$ and a polynomial in $`p`$ of degree $`B1`$, that is, $`(A+Bp1)!/(Ap)!`$. We will use summation by parts to lower the degree of both until the result is zero.

We note the summation by parts formula

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{B}{}}x_py_p=y_0\underset{p=0}{\overset{B}{}}x_p+\underset{q=1}{\overset{B}{}}(y_qy_{q1})\underset{p=q}{\overset{B}{}}x_p$$
(25)
which can be demonstrated by collecting terms on the right hand side. Now substituting $`x_p=(1)^pB!/((Bp)!p!`$ and $`y_p=(A+Bp1)!/(Ap)!`$ we can show by induction on $`q`$ from $`B`$ downwards that

$$\underset{p=q}{\overset{B}{}}x_p=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^q\frac{(B1)!}{(Bq)!(q1)!}& q>0\\ 0& q=0\end{array}$$
(26)
hence the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (25) vanishes. We can also simplify

$$y_qy_{q1}=(1B)\frac{(A+Bq1)!}{(Aq+1)!}$$
(27)
so Eq. (24) now reads

$$H(A,B)=(1)^{A+B1}A!(1B)\underset{q=1}{\overset{B}{}}\frac{(1)^q(B1)!}{(Bp)!(p+1)!}\frac{(A+Bq1)!}{(Aq+1)!}$$
(28)
Shifting the summation index by one we find

$$H(A,B)=(1B)H(A,B1)$$
(29)
The proof of Lemma 6 follows by noting that $`H(A,1)=0`$.

We now conclude the proof of Thm. 4. Recall that the series (20) have been rewritten in the form (21). Thm. 5 is applied to (one of) the largest gap(s) $`\mathrm{\Delta }i_{\mathrm{max}}i_{t+1}i_t`$, partitioning the terms into subsets which split into a particular form (23). Lemma 6 shows that the coefficients of all terms in a subset conspire to cancel, so that each subset is bounded by the error term in theorem 5, that is $`\lambda ^{|\mathrm{\Delta }i_{\mathrm{max}}|^{1/2}}`$ multiplied by a polynomial in the time differences.

Finally we estimate the number of terms with each value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }i_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The first time $`i_1`$ varies freely from $`n`$ to $`n1`$, having a total of $`2n`$ values. One of the time differences is equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }i_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and the other $`k2`$ time differences can range from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }i_{\mathrm{max}}`$, so the total number of terms with a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }i_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is less than $`2n(k1)\mathrm{\Delta }i_{\mathrm{max}}^{(k2)}`$, in particular a polynomial in $`\mathrm{\Delta }i_{\mathrm{max}}`$ multiplied by $`n`$. Thus the series divided by $`n`$ appearing in Thm. 4 is bounded by a product of polynomial factors and the decaying stretched exponential, and hence converges absolutely. This concludes the proof of Thm. 4 and the proof of existence of Burnett coefficients.

## 4 Physical motivation and remarks

This section makes the connection between the Burnett coefficients defined in the previous sections and equations found in the physics literature. The latter equations are phenomenological and have not been shown rigorously in a limiting fashion from the Lorentz gas, and a few nonrigorous limit interchanges are made to connect them with the expressions defined in the previous sections. First we consider the dispersion relation, the equation for the Burnett coefficients, and finally the whether the dispersion relation can be used to define an analytic function.

The dispersion relation (5) with $`𝐤`$ interpreted as a real vector represents the solution of a generalised diffusion equation proposed by Burnett  containing higher derivative terms that become important on small scales,

$$_t\rho =\underset{m=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}D_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(m)}_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _m}\rho $$
(30)
assuming a solution of the form

$$\rho (𝐫,t)\mathrm{exp}(s(𝐤)t+\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐫)$$
(31)
Here, $`_\alpha /r_\alpha `$. Nonlinear terms such as powers of $`_\alpha \rho `$ are excluded on physical grounds since $`\rho `$ is a projection onto real space ($`𝐫\text{I}\text{R}^d`$) of a phase space density satisfying a linear evolution equation. The phase space is a subset of $`\text{I}\text{R}^{2dM}`$ corresponding to the possible positions and velocities of $`M1`$ particles. The dispersion relation is a more robust formulation than the generalized diffusion equation (30) since the former may be supplemented by nonanalytic functions of $`𝐤`$ to account for situations (other than the periodic Lorentz gas) in which some of the Burnett coefficients do not exist.

Chapter 7 of Ref.  obtains the dispersion relation from the microscopic dynamics using the equation (7.91 in this reference):

$$1=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{i=n}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{exp}[s(𝐤)T(\mathit{\varphi }^ix)\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐚(\mathit{\varphi }^ix)]$$
(32)
We write $`T=T+\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ as in previous sections, take out the constant factor of $`T`$, and take the logarithm to find

$$s(𝐤)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2nT}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{exp}[F(𝐤)]$$
(33)
where $`F`$ is defined (as a power series) in Eq. (7). Now the exponential and the logarithm are expanded in power series and the resulting terms containing $`N`$ powers of $`F`$ are collected to become the cumulants $`Q_N`$ defined in Eq. (8). The cumulant form of the expansion is possibly more robust than the above equations due to the cancellations among the terms that combine to construct each cumulant.

Since it is desirable from a physical point of view to interpret $`𝐤`$ as a real variable, we conclude with the following conjecture:

###### Conjecture 7

The series (5) converges when $`𝐤𝒟\text{I}\text{R}^d`$ for some nontrivial domain $`𝒟`$, and so defines a function $`s(k)`$ in this domain.

Note that $`s(k)`$ (if it exists) is a real function as a consequence of Lemma 3, and physically is expected to be negative except at the origin (otherwise the density $`\rho `$ would grow exponentially with time); this puts further constraints on the Burnett coefficients.

Unfortunately the proof given in the previous section contains many undetermined functions of $`𝐤`$, and the Burnett coefficients are defined by a complicated recursive relation (16), so a proof is unlikely using the techniques of this paper.

There are two results that make such a result plausible. The first is that in the Boltzmann limit of a hard sphere gas, that is, a gas with many moving particles at low density and with recollisions ignored, the expansion in $`𝐤`$ (in this context called the linearized Chapman-Enskog expansion) converges . Of course, the hard sphere collisions are similar to that of the Lorentz gas, but recollisions cannot be ignored in general.

The second result is exact, but for a highly simplified (piecewise linear) system. We consider the map $`\mathit{\varphi }:\text{I}\text{R}\text{I}\text{R}`$ given by

$$\mathit{\varphi }(x)=\frac{3}{2}2x+3[x]$$
(34)
where $`[x]`$ is the greatest integer less than or equal to $`x`$. The dynamics defined by $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ is equivalent to a random walk where the particle moves with equal probability from one interval $`I_n(n1/2,n+1/2)`$ to the left, $`I_{n1}`$ or to the right, $`I_{n+1}`$. The dispersion relation $`s(k)`$ follows directly from the above phenomenological solution (31),

$$\rho (n,t)=\mathrm{exp}(st+ikn)$$
(35)
After one iteration,

$`\rho (n,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}k(n1))+\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}k(n+1))]`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}k\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}kn)`$ (37)
leading to

$$s(k)=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cos}k$$
(38)
which has a power series around $`k=0`$ with a radius of convergence equal to $`\pi /2`$.