--- abstract: 'We present a symmetry-based method for obtaining suitable tensor descriptions of lattice vertex functions without spinor components. The approach is based on finding the polynomial functions of vertex momenta, which satisfy the appropriate tensor transformation laws under hypercubic symmetry transformations. We use the method to find the most general possible (up to finite volume effects) basis decompositions for lattice vectors and second-rank tensors. The leading-order non-continuum versions of these representations are then applied to the Landau gauge gluon propagator and ghost-gluon vertex of Monte Carlo simulations, to reveal two interesting insights. First, it is demonstrated numerically and analytically that there exist special kinematic configurations where the basis descriptions of both functions reduce to their continuum analogues. Second, for the gluon two-point correlator it is shown that the rate at which the function approaches its continuum form in the infrared is independent of the lattice gauge coupling $\beta$ (when working in lattice units): the said rate depends on kinematics alone and is ultimately dictated by the numerical gauge-fixing procedure. We also comment on how this reflects on the lattice investigations of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Finally, we argue how our findings can be used to directly test some of the continuum extrapolation methods.' author: - Milan Vujinović title: | Tensor representations of lattice vertices\ from hypercubic symmetry --- Introduction {#sec: intro} ============ Many investigations of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and similar strongly-interacting models concentrate on a direct extraction of physical observables present in these theories, see e.g. @Aoki:2016frl [@Eichmann:2016yit] and references therein. However, during the last few decades a fair amount of attention was also dedicated to the analysis of the elementary degrees of freedom of these mathematical frameworks, which can generically be labelled as the quark and gluon fields. While not being directly detectable in experiments, the quark, gluon and ghost propagators (wherein ghosts arise from gauge-fixing), as well as their corresponding interaction vertices still attract considerable interest among researchers. This is because of the supposed connection of these objects to the phenomena of confinement @Gribov:1977wm [@Zwanziger:1993dh; @Zwanziger:2001kw; @Zwanziger:2003cf; @Kugo:1979gm] and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking @Alkofer:2008tt, as well as the pivotal role they play in functional studies of bound states @Eichmann:2016yit [@Alkofer:2008tt; @Vujinovic:2014ioa; @Sanchis-Alepuz:2015qra; @Williams:2015cvx; @Binosi:2016rxz; @Eichmann:2016hgl; @Sanchis-Alepuz:2017jjd; @Rodriguez-Quintero:2018wma; @Vujinovic:2018nko; @Eichmann:2019tjk]. The non-perturbative calculations of the elementary correlators of strongly-interacting theories roughly consist of two complimentary methods. These two groups are the various continuum approaches @Alkofer:2008tt [@Vujinovic:2014ioa; @Sanchis-Alepuz:2015qra; @Williams:2015cvx; @Binosi:2016rxz; @Eichmann:2016hgl; @Rodriguez-Quintero:2018wma; @Vujinovic:2018nko; @Schleifenbaum:2004id; @Pawlowski:2005xe; @Kellermann:2008iw; @Alkofer:2008dt; @Huber:2012zj; @Huber:2012kd; @Aguilar:2013xqa; @Aguilar:2013vaa; @Pelaez:2013cpa; @Blum:2014gna; @Eichmann:2014xya; @Cyrol:2014kca; @Binosi:2014kka; @Mitter:2014wpa; @Aguilar:2014lha; @Pelaez:2015tba; @Binosi:2016wcx; @Cyrol:2016tym; @Aguilar:2016lbe; @Cyrol:2017ewj; @Huber:2017txg; @Oliveira:2018fkj; @Corell:2018yil; @Aguilar:2018csq], as well as those based on lattice Monte Carlo simulations @Parrinello:1994wd [@Alles:1996ka; @Boucaud:1998bq; @Skullerud:2002ge; @Skullerud:2003qu; @Cucchieri:2004sq; @Cucchieri:2006tf; @Ilgenfritz:2006he; @Maas:2007uv; @Cucchieri:2008qm; @Maas:2011se; @Sternbeck:2012mf; @Boucaud:2013jwa; @Maas:2013aia; @Duarte:2016jhj; @Athenodorou:2016oyh; @Sternbeck:2016ltn; @Boucaud:2017obn; @Sternbeck:2017ntv; @Vujinovic:2018nqc; @Maas:2018ska; @Maas:2019tnm]. While both frameworks have their specific advantages and disadvantages, the lattice method features a particular issue which we think has not been adequately addressed so far. Namely, for continuum theories there exist unique and well-known "recipes" for obtaining complete tensor descriptions for virtually any correlator of interest, see e.g. @Hassani:1999sny. On the lattice, such recipes are sorely lacking, and in some situations this leads to systematic errors which are not easy to quantify. For instance, many lattice investigations of the quark-gluon and three-gluon vertex employ the corresponding tensor bases from the continuum theory @Parrinello:1994wd [@Alles:1996ka; @Boucaud:1998bq; @Skullerud:2002ge; @Skullerud:2003qu; @Boucaud:2013jwa; @Duarte:2016jhj; @Athenodorou:2016oyh; @Boucaud:2017obn; @Sternbeck:2017ntv], and it is hard to say what is the systematic uncertainty associated with such an approximation. Here we attempt to resolve some of these matters by invoking symmetry-based arguments. On symmetric (hyper)cubic lattices in $d$ dimensions, the rotational symmetry of an Euclidean continuum theory reduces to the hypercubic group $H(d\,)$, whose elements can all be generated from parity transformations and $\pi/2$ rotations around the coordinate axes @Morty:1962prc. This affects the basis decompositions of lattice correlators, since the hypercubic operators induce far weaker constraints on the allowed tensor structures, compared to the full continuum symmetry group. A detailed account on how exactly this modifies the tensor representations of certain lattice vertices will be provided later. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic investigation of this kind has been performed before, although the issue was approached from different sides in the past, in the context of lattice perturbation theory @Kawai:1980ja, improved gauge actions @Weisz:1983bn and lattice investigations of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon @Aubin:2015rzx. The biggest asset of our approach to vertex tensor bases is its generality. Since we only employ the constraints coming from hypercubic symmetry, the applicability of our method does not depend on a particular choice of lattice action or gauge-fixing method, as long as an equal treatment of all the coordinates is maintained in all aspects of the calculation. This means that any computations done with our bases can be taken from e.g. the case of the Wilson gauge action @Wilson:1974sk to the $\mathcal{O}(a^2)$ tree-level improved one @Weisz:1983bn [@Weisz:1982zw; @Symanzik:1983gh], without any alterations in parts of the code which deal only with correlator form factors. Apart from this, we will argue that our framework also allows one to (more-less) directly quantify the rotational symmetry breaking effects in vertex dressing functions, perform tests of continuum extrapolation procedures, and identify special kinematic configurations where the lattice-modified bases get reduced to their continuum form. However, in the course of this work it will become clear that all of this comes at a cost: when deriving the tensor structures of the lattice theory using symmetry arguments alone, one may easily end up with so many elements that actual calculations with the full basis become very challenging, if not downright impossible. Thus, for any particular problem at hand one has to judge if the potential gains provided by our framework outweight the considerable rise in algebraic difficulty. Our paper is organised as follows. In section \[sec: basics\] we discuss the basic ideas behind our method, and show how scalar and vector quantities get modified on the lattice, as compared to their continuum counterparts. In section \[sec: vertex\_n\_propag\] we use the same principles to derive the most general tensor decompositions (up to finite volume effects) for the lattice ghost-gluon vertex and gluon propagator. In section \[sec: numerics\] we apply the obtained tensor bases, in their lowest-order (non-continuum) versions to the gluon and ghost-gluon correlators, as evaluated in numerical Monte Carlo simulations in Landau gauge. We point to some interesting insights which come out of these applications, including the fact that the gluon propagator approaches its continuum form at low energies, at a rate which is independent of the parameters of the numerical lattice implementation. Based on this observation we also comment on how the lattice studies of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon may (not) get affected by discretisation artifacts. We conclude in section \[sec: conclude\]. Most of the purely technical discussions have been relegated to the four detailed appendices. Continuum and hypercubic tensors: basic ideas {#sec: basics} ============================================= Tensor bases in the continuum theory {#sec: tens_cont} ------------------------------------ We begin the discussion of our method by briefly reviewing some basic facts about tensor descriptions of certain vertex functions in the continuum. Most of the points we will cover here are well-known from elementary textbooks, and some of them could even be considered rather trivial. Nonetheless, we think it is important to go through these "trivialities" , in order to fully understand how the arguments change when going from continuum to discretised spacetimes. We emphasise that throughout this paper, we shall *not* be using the Einstein summation convention, since we will frequently encounter non-covariant objects and expressions. Thus, in relations which feature summations over indices, the sum symbol will always be explicitly written out. A continuous, $d$-dimensional Euclidean space is often said to possess an $O(d\,)$ symmetry, meaning that the distances, or scalar products of vectors in the space, are all preserved under an action of arbitrary orthogonal $d \times d$ matrices. For orthogonal operators, it holds that the operation of matrix transposition is equivalent to inversion, or explicitly $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: ortho_define} O_{\mu\nu} = O^{-1}_{\nu\mu} \, , \qquad \quad \mu,\, \nu = 1 \ldots d \, , $$ where indices $\mu$ and $\nu$ stand for operator components. The fact that the matrices $O$ represent symmetry transformations of a continuous space means that all of the quantities in the space (i.e. scalars, vectors, second-rank tensors, etc.) have to be defined with respect to the orthogonal group. As an example, take a set of numbers which constitute the components of a vector $v$. This means that, under arbitrary orthogonal transformations, these numbers/components satisfy a particular transformation law, namely ($v_\mu$ denotes the $\mu$-th component of $v$): $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: cont_trans_law} v'_\mu = \sum_{\nu = 1}^d O_{\mu\nu} \, v_\nu \, , \qquad \quad \mu = 1 \ldots d . $$ In the above relation, prime ($'$) signifies the vector components in the transformed system. Transformation laws like put stringent constraints on the possible momentum dependencies of tensor quantities of various rank. Take as an example a tensor of rank zero i.e. a scalar function $S$ which depends on a single momentum variable $p$. Being a scalar, or an invariant quantity, means that $S(p)$ does not change under arbitrary orthogonal transformations of $p$. In other words, for a general orthogonal matrix $O$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: scalar_p_trans} p'_\mu = \sum_{\nu = 1}^d O_{\mu\nu} \, p_\nu \, , \qquad \text{and} \qquad S'(p') = S(p) \, , $$ where index $\mu$ runs from 1 to $d$, the number of dimensions. It is well known (see e.g. @Hassani:1999sny) that the invariance of $S$ implies that it can only depend on $p$ through the scalar product $p^2$, which is defined in $d$ dimensions as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: p2_cont} p^2 = \sum_{\mu = 1}^d p^2_\mu = p_1^2 + p_2^2 + \ldots + p_d^2 \, . $$ Invariance of $p^2$ under arbitrary $d$-dimensional orthogonal transformations follows directly from the property . Going back to the function $S$, one sees that the "demand" that it remain unchanged under general $O$ matrices leads to the conclusion that it can depend solely on the product $p^2$. Similar restrictions follow for tensors of arbitrary rank. As an example, instead of a scalar quantity, one might be working with some vector $\Gamma$, which is a function of momentum $p$. Being a vector, $\Gamma$ has to obey a transformation law akin to , meaning that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: gamma_p_trans} p'_\mu = \sum_{\nu = 1}^d O_{\mu\nu} \, p_\nu \, , \qquad \text{and} \qquad \Gamma'_\mu(p') = \sum_{\nu = 1}^d O_{\mu\nu} \, \Gamma_\nu(p) \, . $$ Now, even if one had no prior knowledge on the way that $\Gamma$ depends on $p$, a careful consideration of would quickly lead one to the deduction that $\Gamma$ has to have the form $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_\mu(p) = A(p) \, p_\mu \, , $$ with dressing function (or form factor) $A(p)$ being an orthogonal invariant, i.e. depending on $p^2$ alone. In words, the vector $\Gamma$ has to be strictly linear in *components* of $p$, since any non-linear terms with an open vector index (e.g. $p^2_\mu$) would not obey . For instance, a structure quadratic in $p$ components, the aforementioned object $p^2_\mu$, would transform under general $O$ matrices as $$\begin{aligned} p_\mu^2 \rightarrow p'^{\, 2}_\mu = \sum_{\nu = 1}^d \sum_{\rho = 1}^d O_{\mu\nu} O_{\mu\rho} \, p_\nu \, p_\rho \, , $$ which is clearly incompatible with the vector-like transformation law for $\Gamma$ itself, see . We conclude this section with comments on how some of the above observations change when going from continuum spaces to discretised ones. As stated in the Introduction, on standard cubic lattices the orthogonal group $O(d\,)$ gets broken down to its hypercubic[^1] subgroup $H(d\,)$, which is comprised of $d$-dimensional $\pi/2$ rotations and parity transformations. We shall see soon that, when represented as matrices, the hypercubic symmetry operations have a somewhat special structure, which makes the equations like and far less restrictive than in the case of general orthogonal operators. For scalar functions depending on momentum $p$, it is by now well known that the hypercubic group has more invariants than just $p^2$ @Weyl:1939prc, a fact to which we shall return later. We will show in this paper that similar considerations apply for tensors of higher rank as well: taking again vectors as an example, it will turn out that there are open-index objects which are non-linear in momentum components (i.e. $p^{\,n}_\mu$, with integer $n > 1$), which despite their non-linearity, still satisfy the adequate vector transformation law under hypercubic symmetry transformations. Hypercubic group as permutations and inversions of coordinates {#sec: hyper_perms} -------------------------------------------------------------- As already mentioned, the group $H(d\,)$ consists of (powers of) $\pi/2$ rotations around the coordinate axes, and parity transformations (sometimes also called inversions). Here, we want to show that the hypercubic group can equally well be represented with permutations and inversions of coordinates, since a $\pi/2$ rotation in an arbitrary plane can always be written as a composition of permutation and inversion transformations. Demonstrating the aforementioned equivalence is important since we wish to adopt the "permutations + inversions" viewpoint in this paper, because it makes much of the forthcoming analysis easier. We start with the simplest possible example, that of "hypercubic" symmetry transformations in two dimensions. First, we will need a matrix representation of a clockwise $\pi/2$ rotation for $d=2$. If we take some vector $p = (p_1, p_2)$, and denote its clockwise $\pi/2$-rotated version with $p' = (p'_1, p'_2)$, the operation of rotation can be written down as $$\begin{aligned} p'_\mu = \sum_{\nu = 1}^2 L^{\pi/2}_{\mu\nu} \, p_\nu \, . $$ The explicit form of the matrix $L^{\pi/2}$ can be easily deduced with a bit of visual help, shown in Figure \[fig: rotation\]. From the Figure it should be relatively clear that the primed components $p'_\mu$ are related to the un-primed ones $p_\mu$ via $$\begin{aligned} p'_1 = p_2 \, , \quad \text{and} \quad p'_2 = - p_1 \, , $$ from which it immediately follows that $L^{\pi/2}$ has a matrix representation $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: pi_half_matrix} L^{\pi/2} = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & \;\; 1 \\ -1 & \;\; 0 \end{array} \right] \, . $$ \ Note that it makes no essential difference if one were to look at counter-clockwise rotations, instead of clockwise ones: the only difference between the two kinds of matrices is an overall minus sign, which is unimportant for the upcoming arguments. Also note that the fourth power of the matrix $L^{\pi/2}$ is an indentity element: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: roto_2pi} \left(L^{\pi/2}\right)^4 \, = \, L^{2\pi} \, = \, + \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & \;\; 0 \\ 0 & \;\; 1 \end{array} \right] \, . $$ The above is to be expected, since a rotation by $2\pi$ is equivalent to making no change to the system at all[^2]. Besides the operator $L^{\pi/2}$ and its powers (modulo 4), there are two remaining elementary operations which leave a two-dimensional hypercube (i.e. a square) intact, and these are the parity transformations. Their matrix representations are @Morty:1962prc $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: 2d_inver_def} \rho_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -1 & \;\; 0 \\ 0 & \;\; 1 \end{array} \right] \, , \qquad \rho_2 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & \; 0 \\ 0 & \; -1 \end{array} \right] \, . $$ Now, a key observation to be made here is that the matrix $L^{\pi/2}$ of can itself be written as a composition of a parity transformation and a permutation operator $\Pi^{12}$, or explicitly $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: 2d_rot_example} L^{\pi/2} = \Pi^{12} \cdot \rho_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & \;\; 1 \\ 1 & \;\; 0 \end{array} \right] \cdot \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -1 & \;\; 0 \\ 0 & \;\; 1 \end{array} \right] \, . $$ $L^{\pi/2}$ can also be obtained as $L^{\pi/2} = \rho_2 \cdot \Pi^{12}$. In these expressions, $\Pi^{12}$ stands for a permutation which exchanges the first and second momentum components, i.e. $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: 2d_perm_def} \Pi^{12} \cdot p = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & \;\; 1 \\ 1 & \;\; 0 \end{array} \right] \cdot \left( \begin{array}{c} p_1 \\ p_2 \end{array} \! \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c} p_2 \\ p_1 \end{array} \! \right) \, . $$ Since the matrix $L^{\pi/2}$ and its powers (modulo 4) can all be written as compositions of elementary transformations $\rho_1$, $\rho_2$ and $\Pi^{12}$, one concludes that these last three operators, and their combinations, exhaust all of the possible symmetry operations of a two-dimensional hypercube. The argument can be straightforwardly extended to an arbitrary number of dimensions, by analysing each of the available rotation planes separately. In three dimensions, for instance, there are three spatial planes, which one might denote as (12), (13) and (23). Taking the clockwise $\pi/2$ rotation in the plane (23) as an example, one has (we will leave out the '$\pi/2$' designation in the following, since it should be clear that we are not working with any other angles of rotation): $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: 3d_rot_example} L^{23} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \; 0 & \; 0 \\ 0 & \; 0 & \; 1 \\ 0 & -1 & \; 0 \end{array} \right] = \, \Pi^{\, 23} \cdot \rho_2 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \; 0 & \; 0 \\ 0 & \; 0 & \; 1 \\ 0 & 1 & \; 0 \end{array} \right] \cdot \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \; 0 & \; 0 \\ 0 & -1 & \; 0 \\ 0 & \; 0 & \; 1 \end{array} \right] \, . $$ Thus, the rotation $L^{23}$ can be represented as a product of two elementary operations, where $\Pi^{\,23}$ permutes the second and third momentum components, and $\rho_2$ turns momentum $p = (p_1, p_2, p_3)$ into $p' = (p_1, - p_2, p_3)$. In the same vein, $\pi/2$ rotations in the other two planes follow as adequate compositions of exchange operators $\Pi^{12}$ and $\Pi^{13}$, with one of the elementary inversions $\rho_k \, (k = 1\ldots 3)$. It should be relatively clear that by combining various powers (modulo 4) of rotation matrices $L^{12}$, $L^{13}$ and $L^{23}$, one can generate any symmetry rotation of a three-dimensional hypercube[^3]. And since these three rotation operators can themselves be decomposed into simpler permutation and inversion transformations, it follows that combinations of coordinate permutations and inversions exhaust all possible operations which leave a hypercube unchanged, in $d = 3$. A generalisation of these arguments to higher dimensions is straightforward. We wish to conclude this section by briefly going back to the "point of the whole exercise", i.e. to why it was important to show that combinations of parity transformations and permutations cover all of the elements of the symmetry group $H(d\,)$. Suppose that one wished to find general expressions for hypercubic vectors, meaning the most general possible functions of given momenta, which transform as vectors under the hypercubic group. From the above analysis, it should be clear that it is enough to identify those functions, which transform as vectors under $both$ permutations and inversions: the said quantity will surely constitute a vector under an arbitrary hypercubic symmetry transformation. In these matters, it will turn out to be very useful to analyse the two kinds of alterations (parity and permutation) independently from each other, as they obviously have different effects on momentum components. Hypercubic scalars ------------------ Assume that one is working in a theory with a single momentum $p$, in an arbitrary number of dimensions $d$. We already mentioned that in the continuum, the only available scalar quantity in this scenario would be the product $p^2$ defined in . The said product is invariant under general orthogonal operators. Now, on a $d$-dimensional hypercube, the very definition of a scalar gets generalised: instead of being a function which is left unchanged by arbitrary orthogonal matrices, it "only" needs to be unvarying under the effects of parity transformations and permutations, in accordance with the analysis of the previous section. For a $d$-dimensional vector $p$ with components $p = (p_1, p_2, \ldots p_d)$, all of the following functions would constitute hypercubic invariants: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: hyper_scalars} p^{\,[2n]} = \sum_{\mu = 1}^d p^{\,2n}_\mu = p_1^{\,2n} + p_2^{\,2n} + \ldots + p_d^{\,2n} \, , \qquad n \in N , $$ with $N$ the set of positive integers. The bracketed superscript notation (i.e. $[2n]$) was taken from @Becirevic:1999uc [@deSoto:2007ht]. Note that $p^{ [2]} = p^2$ is an invariant of the continuum theory. Throughout the rest of this paper, we will use the notation $p^2$ instead of $p^{[2]}$, but only for this particular scalar product: all the other hypercubic invariants of a single momentum $p$ will follow the convention . The fact that the quantities do not change under arbitrary permutations and inversions of momentum components should be relatively self-evident. What is perhaps not so obvious, is that not all functions of the form can be algebraically independent from each other. In @Weyl:1939prc it is shown that the number of independent hypercubic scalars, with a single momentum $p$ at ones disposal, does not exceed the number of dimensions of the theory under consideration. This is best illustrated with an example, for which we (again) turn to the simplest case of two dimensions. For $d = 2$, and momentum $p = (p_1,p_2)$, there are only two independent invariants of the form , which one might choose to be (say) $p^2$ and $p^{\,[4]}$. All the other hypercubic scalars follow as polynomial functions of these two, for an example $$\begin{aligned} &p^{\,[6]} = p_1^6 + p_2^6 = \frac{1}{2} \left( 3 \, p^2\cdot p^{\,[4]} - \big(p^2\big)^3\right) \, , \nonumber \\ &p^{\,[8]} = p_1^8 + p_2^8 = \frac{1}{6} \left( 3 \, \big(p^{\,[4]}\big)^2 - 3 \, \big(p^2\big)^4 + 6 \, \big(p^2\big)^2 \cdot p^{\,[4]} \right) \, , $$ and similarly for invariants with higher mass dimensions. In the same manner, a three-dimensional theory would contain three independent hypercubic scalars (say, $p^2, p^{\,[4]}$ and $p^{\,[6]}$) and so on. An elegant proof, for an arbitrary dimension number, can be found in @Weyl:1939prc, while @deSoto:2007ht treats a more specific case of four dimensions. Note that, for a $d$-dimensional theory, one can choose any $d$ functions of the form , and use them as a "basis" for calculations: the symmetry itself does not dictate which invariants should be chosen. We shall see soon that similar ambiguities arise for tensor bases of lattice vertex functions. To at least partially address the ambiguity, we will always choose the bases according to the ascending order of mass dimension, meaning that the preference will be given to elements which feature the smallest powers of momentum components. To conclude, we want to mention some practical implications of the observations made in this section. Suppose that one is studying some lattice vertex function, which depends on momentum $p$, and that one has obtained the corresponding data for vertex form factors. For reasons discussed above, the said form factors will not be functions of the product $p^2$ alone, but will also depend on other hypercubic scalars like $p^{\,[4]},p^{\,[6]}$ etc. In this context, the presence of additional invariants is an unwanted lattice artifact, which one would generally like to mitigate as much as possible. To this end, a powerful computational tool has been developed, the so-called hypercubic extrapolation, where one attemps to extrapolate the available lattice data towards the limit where some of the "extra" lattice invariants $(\text{e.\,g.~}p^{\,[4]})$ vanish. For some examples on the use of this method, see e.g. @Becirevic:1999uc [@deSoto:2007ht; @Becirevic:1999hj; @Blossier:2014kta; @Boucaud:2018xup] and references therein. Hypercubic vectors {#sec: hyper_vector} ------------------ As was argued at the end of section \[sec: hyper\_perms\], the task of finding general expressions for hypercubic vectors amounts to finding the functions which transform as vectors under both permutations and inversions of momentum components. We shall split this task into two parts, wherein we analyse the two kinds of tranformations separately, since they have different effects on vector components. We shall start with permutations. We consider a situation with a single momentum variable $p$, in an arbitrary number of dimensions $d$. Let $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}$ denote a permutation which exchanges the $\sigma$-th and $\tau$-th momentum components, where each index can run from 1 to $d$, and $\sigma = \tau$ corresponds to an indentity matrix. The operators which swap only two elements at a time are sometimes called transpositions, and the fact that we consider only such matrices does not diminish the generality of our upcoming results. This is because an arbitrary permutation can always be broken down into a product of transpositions, in infinitely many different ways @Hassani:1999sny: thus a quantity which transforms as a vector under arbitrary transpositions will also constitute a vector under any one permutation. Now, an operator $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}$ is obtained from a $d$-dimensional unity matrix $\mathbb{1}$, by swapping the identity elements $\sigma$-th and $\tau$-th rows @Hassani:1999sny. As an example, the matrix $\Pi^{14} = \Pi^{41}$ in (say) four dimensions follows as $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{1}_{d=4} = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & \; 0 & \; 0 & \; 0 \\ 0 & \; 1 & \; 0 & \; 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \; 1 & \; 0 \\ 0 & \; 0 & \; 0 & \; 1 \end{array} \right] \overset{\text{1st row $\leftrightarrow$ 4th row}}{\longrightarrow} \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & \; 0 & \; 0 & \; 1 \\ 0 & \; 1 & \; 0 & \; 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \; 1 & \; 0 \\ 1 & \; 0 & \; 0 & \; 0 \end{array} \right] = \Pi^{14} \, . $$ It is straightforward to check that the operator $\Pi^{14}$ permutes the first and fourth components of a four-dimensional vector $p$. The above construction principle implies that, in terms of matrix components, a transposition $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: transpos_one} \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\mu\nu} \, = \, \delta_{\mu\nu} \, , \qquad \text{if} \quad \mu \neq \sigma, \, \tau \, , $$ whereas for the $\sigma$-th and $\tau$-th rows of $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: transpos_two} \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau} \, = \, 1 \, = \, \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\tau\sigma} \, , $$ with all the other elements in the aforementioned rows being zero. With the help of the above component-wise representation for $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}$, it is easy to see how an arbitrary $d$-dimensional vector $p$ changes under transpositions. By plugging in the equations and into the vector-like transformation law $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: vector_trans} p_\mu \rightarrow p'_\mu = \sum_{\nu = 1}^d \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\mu\nu} \, p_\nu \, , $$ one notes that, regardless of the value of the index $\mu$, the above sum is always "killed" i.e. there is always only a single momentum component that survives the summation. As an example, for $\mu = \sigma$, one has $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: perm_example} p'_\sigma = \sum_{\nu = 1}^d \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\nu} \, p_\nu \, = \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau} \, p_\tau = p_\tau \, , $$ wherein we used the fact that, in the $\sigma$-th row of $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}$, only the element $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau} = 1$ is non-vanishing. The full change of vector $p$ under this transposition is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: perm_vect} &p'_\mu = \, p_\mu \, , \qquad \text{if} \quad \mu \neq \sigma, \, \tau \, , \nonumber \\ &p'_\sigma = p_\tau \, , \qquad \: p'_\tau = p_\sigma \, . $$ With the above small machinery set up, it is very little additional effort to show that the vector-like modifications akin to are obeyed by arbitrary polynomial functions of $p$, with an open vector index $\mu$. In other words, any expression of the form $p_\mu^{\,m}$, with $m \in N$, will transform as a vector with respect to permutations of momentum components. Under the action of $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}$, one gets $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: multi_trans} p_\mu^{\,m} \rightarrow \left(\,p'_\mu\,\right)^m \: = \: \overbracket{p'_\mu \cdot p'_\mu \cdot p'_\mu \cdot \ldots \cdot p'_\mu}^{m \: \text{terms}} \: = \: \underbracket{\sum_{\rho = 1}^d \, \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\mu\rho} \, p_\rho \, \sum_{\lambda = 1}^d \, \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\mu\lambda} \, p_\lambda \ldots \sum_{ \xi = 1}^d \,\Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\mu\xi} \, p_\xi}_{m \: \text{terms}} \, . $$ The above alteration rule obviously involves multiple sums and looks quite dissimilar to the way that the momentum $p$ itself changes. Nonetheless, there is no actual difference between and . To show this, we again concentrate on the case $\mu = \sigma$, for which it holds $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: fin_example} \left(\,p'_\sigma\,\right)^m \: = \: \underbracket{\sum_{\rho = 1}^d \, \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\rho} \, p_\rho \, \sum_{\lambda = 1}^d \, \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\lambda} \, p_\lambda \ldots \sum_{\xi = 1}^d \,\Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\xi} \, p_\xi}_{m \: \text{terms}} \: = \: \overbrace{\Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau} \, p_\tau \, \Pi^{\sigma \tau}_{\sigma\tau} \, p_\tau \ldots \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau} \, p_\tau}^{m \: \text{terms}} \: = \: \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau} \, p_\tau^{\,m} \: = \: \sum_{\nu = 1}^d \,\Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\nu} \, p_\nu^{\,m} \,\, . $$ In obtaining the final result in , we again made use of the fact that $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau} = 1$ is the only non-zero entry in the $\sigma$-th row of the operator $\Pi^{\sigma\tau}$, as well as the fact that $\left(\Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau}\right)^m = \Pi^{\sigma\tau}_{\sigma\tau}$. The final form in was written in a suggestive way, to make it clear that $p_\mu^{\,m}$ indeed behaves as a vector under arbitrary transpositions, for any integer value $m$ and for a fixed index $\mu = \sigma$. The full tranformation rule for the functions $p_\mu^{\,m}$ is $$\begin{aligned} &\left(\,p'_\mu\,\right)^m = \, p^{\,m}_\mu \, , \qquad \text{if} \quad \mu \neq \sigma, \, \tau \, , \nonumber \\ &\left(\,p'_\sigma\,\right)^m = p^{\,m}_\tau \, , \qquad \: \left(\,p'_\tau\,\right)^m = p^{\,m}_\sigma \, , $$ and it matches the vector-like change of momentum $p$ itself, see equation . Thus, when it comes to finding general expressions for hypercubic vectors, permutations alone offer very few restrictions, as any open-indexed polynomial in $p$ will change in a vector-like fashion under these kinds of operators. The argument is not done however, as we also have to take into account the parity transformations. We will start with the functions $p^{\,m}_\mu$, where $m \in N$, and see if we can impose some additional constraints on them, by invoking their vector-like nature under inversions. As an example, let us take the $d$-dimensional momentum $p = (p_1, p_2,\ldots,p_d)$ and perform a parity transformation on its $\eta$-th component, so that $p'_\eta = - p_\eta$. Here the index $\eta$ can take on any value between 1 and $d$. Our prospective lattice vector $p^{\,m}_\mu$ should transform in exactly the same way as momentum $p$ itself, meaning that $$\begin{aligned} p^{\,m}_\eta \rightarrow p'^{\,m}_\eta \: = \: - p^{\,m}_\eta \, , \qquad \quad \eta = 1, \ldots d \, , $$ with all the other components (with $\mu \neq \eta$) of $p^{\,m}_\mu$ being intact. The above considerations lead us to a conclusion that $m$ has to be an *odd* integer. If $m$ were even, the polynomial functions $p^{\,m}_\eta$ would be completely indifferent to inversions of momentum components, while any combination of even and odd factors (e.g. $p^{\,2}_\mu + p^{\,3}_\mu$) would have no definitive symmetry properties under parity changes. To conclude, any polynomial expression of the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: latt_vector} t_\mu(p) = p_\mu^{\,2k+1} \, , \quad k \in N_0 \, , $$ will constitute a lattice vector, i.e. it will transform as a vector under coordinate permutations and inversions. In the above relation, $N_0$ stands for a set of non-negative integers. An immediate corollary is that any function which can be expanded in an odd Taylor series in $p_\mu$, would also comprise the components of a lattice vector. As an example of this, in lattice perturbation theory one often encounters expressions where the standard continuum momentum $p_\mu$ is replaced with the following function @Rothe:1992nt [@Capitani:2002mp] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: def_hatp} \hat{p}_\mu = 2 \sin\left(\frac{p_\mu}{2}\right) \, . $$ It is obvious that the quantity $\hat{p}$ doesn't change in a vector-like fashion, under general orthogonal transformations of $p$, but it does transform as a vector with respect to inversions and permutations of momentum components. In other words, $\hat{p}$ is a lattice vector (as it arguably should be), and its Taylor series expansion would result in a summation over infinitely many terms of the form . This finally brings us to the question of some practical relevance. Given some lattice vector $\Gamma$, which is a function of momentum $p$, what is the suitable tensor representation of $\Gamma(p)$? Based on our preceding arguments, any object like could be used as a tensor element when describing $\Gamma(p)$, since they all behave as vectors with respect to lattice symmetry operations. At first, this kind of "infinite freedom" of choice might seem rather absurd, especially if one considers the fact that basis decompositions of continuum functions are unique. However, such ambiguities are nothing new in the world of lattice calculations, as it is well known that any field theory can be discretised in infinitely many different ways, all of which have the same continuum limit. Concerning the vertex tensor parametrisations, we shall partially resolve the ambiguity by adhering to the order of ascending mass dimension, meaning that tensors with smaller powers in $p$ will be preferred. Then, a tensor description of a vector-like quantity $\Gamma$ would be $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_\mu(p) = \sum_{k = 1}^d \mathcal{F}^k \, p_\mu^{\,2k + 1} \, , $$ with $\mathcal{F}^k$ a form factor of the $k$-th tensor element. Note that the sum in the above relation does not include infinitely many terms, but rather terminates at the $d$-th contribution, with $d$ the number of dimensions. This is because, in a $d$-dimensional space, there can be no more than $d$ linearly independent basis vectors. In fact, the notion of dimension is often *defined* as the number of linearly independent vectors needed to cover the space @Hassani:1999sny [@Morty:1962prc]. For concreteness, let us assume a three-dimensional setting, so that a complete tensor description of a lattice vector $\Gamma_\mu$ should be given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: basis_primer} \Gamma_\mu(p) = A(p) \, p_\mu + B(p) \, p_\mu^3 + C(p) \, p_\mu^5 \, . $$ Now, one might notice an apparent problem with the above arguments. In $d$ dimensions, *any* collection of $d$ linearly independent elements will constitute a complete tensor representation, for vector-like quantities. If basis completeness was the only relevant criterion, then a decomposition like should not be favoured, for $d=3$, over any other choices of three linearly independent objects with a vector index $\mu$. This might even include the previously mentioned structures of the kind $p_\mu^{\,m}$, with an even integer $m$. However, one ought to remember that the vertex form factors \[i.e. the functions like $A(p), \, B(p)$ and $C(p)$ of \] should be hypercubic invariants, and this will not happen for arbitrary choices of tensor parametrisation. To see why, take the particular example of the basis and suppose that one has obtained the corresponding projectors $P_\mu$. Then, the dressing (say) $A(p)$ would follow as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: a_project} A(p) = P_\mu^{\,A} \cdot \Gamma_\mu = \sum_{\mu = 1}^d \, P_\mu^{\,A} \, \Gamma_\mu \, . $$ In order for the contraction to be a hypercubic invariant, both the projector ($P_\mu^{\,A}$) and the vertex $(\Gamma_\mu)$ itself ought to transform as hypercubic vectors. Since the correlator $\Gamma_\mu$ is assumed to be a lattice vector from the outset, the symmetry (or lack thereof) of $A(p)$ is determined completely by the projector $P_\mu^{\,A}$. In turn, the transformation properties of $P_\mu^{\,A}$ follow directly from the choice of basis, since the projectors are always linear combinations of basis elements themselves, see e.g. Appendix \[sec: projectors\]. This also means that it takes only a single wrong (non-vector) basis structure to ruin the symmetry properties for *all* of the involved coefficient functions. In the case of the parametrisation like , one should feel somewhat "safe" since all the tensor elements behave as hypercubic vectors. These claims regarding the symmetry features of correlator form factors will be addressed directly in our Monte Carlo simulations, where we shall compare the values of the dressing functions before and after averaging over all possible permutations and inversions of momentum components: we shall see that (within statistical uncertainties) all of the relevant dressings pass the test of hypercubic invariance. Equipped with these basic facts on how scalar and vector functions get modified on the lattice, compared to their continuum counterparts, we may proceed towards some practical applications for the knowledge we've acquired. Namely, we wish to deduce the tensor representations of two concrete vertex functions of lattice Yang Mills theory, the ghost-gluon vertex and gluon propagator. We shall see if we can learn something interesting about these lattice correlators along the way. Tensor bases for lattice ghost-gluon vertex and gluon propagator {#sec: vertex_n_propag} ================================================================ Ghost-gluon vertex: continuum basis ----------------------------------- The ghost-gluon vertex is the lowest-order correlation function which encodes the interaction of ghost and gluon fields. It plays a pivotal role in many truncations of functional equations of motion (see e.g. @Schleifenbaum:2004id [@Kellermann:2008iw; @Alkofer:2008dt; @Huber:2012zj; @Huber:2012kd; @Aguilar:2013xqa; @Aguilar:2013vaa; @Binosi:2014kka; @Huber:2017txg; @Alkofer:2004it]), due to its non-renormalisation in Landau gauge @Taylor:1971ff. Here, we wish to see how the tensor description of the function changes when going from continuum to discretised spacetimes, and what this can tell us about the relation between the lattice and continuum versions of the correlator. Let us start with the tensor basis in a continuum setting. In this section, we will keep the discussion independent of the number of dimensions: a definitive value for $d$ will be chosen only when we start considering the lattice vertex. The momenta pertaining to the ghost, antighost and the gluon leg of the function will be denoted, respectively, with $p,\, q \, \text{and} \, k$. Due to momentum conservation at the vertex, with $p + q + k = 0$, only two out of these three momenta are linearly independent, and any two can be chosen for constructing the vertex tensor elements. We opt to work in terms of vectors $q$ and $p$: with this choice, the continuum correlator can be represented as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: vert_cont} \Gamma_\mu(q, k) = A(q,p) \, q_\mu + B(q,p) \, p_\mu \, . $$ The projectors for the above basis can be found straightforwardly, with standard methods of linear algebra. Their construction is explained in Appendix \[sec: projectors\], and here we simply cite the final answer: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: ab_project} P_\mu^{\,A} = \frac{-p^2 \, q_\mu + q\cdot p \, p_\mu}{(q\cdot p)^2 - q^2 \, p^2} \, , \qquad \qquad \: P_\mu^{\,B} = \frac{ q\cdot p \, q_\mu - \, q^2 \, p_\mu}{(q\cdot p)^2 - q^2 \, p^2} \, . $$ Note that both of the above functions are ill-defined for a kinematic configuration $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: paral_momenta} q_\mu = c\cdot p_\mu \, , \qquad c = \text{const.} $$ Namely, for the momentum setup of , the projectors in reduce to undefined expressions of the form "$0/0$". For the purposes of latter discussion, it is worthwhile to dwell on the origin of this problem. Let us thus look at (say) the function $P_\mu^{\, A}$, and its two defining equations: $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\mu = 1}^d P_\mu^{\,A} \, q_\mu = 1 \, , \qquad \text{and} \qquad \sum_{\mu = 1}^d P_\mu^{\,A} \, p_\mu = 0 \, . $$ For the kinematic choice , the above set of equations becomes contradictory, as one gets $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: contradict} c \, \sum_{\mu = 1}^d P_\mu^{\,A} \, p_\mu = 1 \, , \qquad \text{and} \qquad \sum_{\mu = 1}^d P_\mu^{\,A} \, p_\mu = 0 \, . $$ It should be clear that no well-defined object $P_\mu^{\, A}$ can obey the constraints of . The same holds for $P_\mu^{\, B}$. These issues are closely related to the concept of linear (in)dependence of basis elements. For the particular configuration , the vectors $q$ and $p$ are evidently not linearly independent, since one of the momenta is proportional to the other one. It is a rather general statement of linear algebra, that no well-defined projectors can be constructed for basis descriptions with feature linearly dependent elements, see e.g. @Hassani:1999sny or Appendix \[sec: projectors\]. The solution for the above problems is simple, and it amounts to using a reduced basis, where needed. For the kinematic choice of , any one of the following descriptions would work $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: cont_reduce} \Gamma_\mu(q, k) = A(q,p) \, q_\mu \, , \qquad \text{or} \qquad \Gamma_\mu(q, p) = B(q,p) \, p_\mu \, . $$ Basis completeness of these reduced decompositions follows from the kinematics itself. Namely, for parallel momenta $q$ and $p$, any one of the vectors will contain the full information about the vertex, since the other element has no "new information" to add. This constitutes a general rule, concerning the tensor representations of vertex functions (both continuum and lattice ones): if a given basis becomes redundant, for a particular kinematic choice, one is allowed to "throw away" the basis elements, until a non-redundant description is reached. Here, by a redundant decomposition we mean the one where some of the basis structures can be expressed as linear combinations of other tensor elements. In the next section, we will see that there exist special kinematic choices on the lattice, where for reasons of linear dependence, the continuum tensor description of determines the lattice correlator fully. Ghost-gluon vertex: lattice-modified basis {#sec: ghost_latt} ------------------------------------------ In section \[sec: hyper\_vector\] we already discussed possible tensor representations for lattice vector-valued functions, which depend on a single momentum variable. For the ghost-gluon correlator, these arguments need to be generalised to a situation with two independent momenta, in order to capture the full kinematic dependence of the vertex. Such a generalisation is rather straightforward, and we shall not provide the details here. We merely state without proof, that functions of two momenta (say, $q$ and $p$), which transform as vectors under permutations and parity transformations, will neccessarily have one of the following two forms: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: taus_lattice_vertex} &\tau^{1, \, rs}_\mu(q,p) = p_\mu^{\, 2r} q_\mu^{\, 2s + 1} \, , \nonumber \\ &\tau^{2, \, rs}_\mu(q,p) = q_\mu^{\, 2r} p_\mu^{\, 2s + 1} \, , \qquad \text{with} \qquad r, \, s \in N_0 \, . $$ Of course, any linear combinations of the above structures are also allowed. At the risk of overstating the obvious, we highlight that for functions of multiple momenta, the same symmetry transformation (permutation, inversion) always has to be applied to *all* of the vectors involved. Thus, if one wished to change the sign on a (say) second momentum component, it has to be done to both vectors $q$ and $p$, so that (in three dimensions) $$\begin{aligned} q' = (q_1, - q_2, q_3) \, , \qquad p' = (p_1, - p_2, p_3) \, . $$ The above comes from the fact that the symmetry operations relate to the whole lattice, not just to individual momentum vectors. For instance, if one wanted to rotate the space by $\pi/2$ degrees in a certain plane, there is no way to perform this transformation without affecting all of the lattice momenta equally. Also, in the absence of the aforementioned rule the scalar products like $q\cdot p$ would not be invariant under the supposed lattice symmetry operations. If we now go back to the tensor structures of , we see that the lowest-order terms give us the continuum basis elements $q_\mu$ and $p_\mu$, while the leading-order lattice-induced structures would be $q_\mu^{\,3}, \: p_\mu^{\,3}, \: q_\mu^{\,2} \, p_\mu$ and $p_\mu^{\,2} \,q_\mu$. For concreteness, let us say that we work in three spatial dimensions, since this is the case we will consider in our numerical simulations. For $d=3$, any three linearly independent vectors would suffice to describe the vertex fully, which means that we only need to add one more element to the continuum representation of . Any one of the leading-order lattice modifications would fit equally well, from the symmetry perspective, and we simply choose the additional vector to be $q^{\,3}_\mu$. This brings us to the following basis for the lattice correlator $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: vert_latt} \Gamma_\mu(q, p) = E(q,p) \, q_\mu + F(q,p) \, p_\mu \, + G(q,p) \, q^{\,3}_\mu \, . $$ Again, the construction of the corresponding projectors in explained in Appendix \[sec: projectors\], and here we will abstain from providing the full expressions for these objects, due to their considerable length and complexity. For the parallel configuration , one of the continuum basis vectors (either $q_\mu$ or $p_\mu$) can be neglected in the overall tensor representation, as it contains no information which is not already present in some of the other elements. However, what is arguably more interesting is to identify those kinematic choices where the entire lattice correlator collapses onto the continuum structures of . In other words, one may attempt to find such momentum points where *all* of the tensor elements become proportional to the continuum vectors. While this might seem like an impossible task at first, it is in fact very easy to think of at least one situation where this must happen: if both momenta $p$ and $q$ point along the lattice diagonal, with $p = (m,m,m)$ and $q = (n,n,n)$ (where in general $m \neq n$), all of the lattice-induced tensor elements will become parallel to either $q$ or $p$, with $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: taus_diagonal} &\tau^{1, \, rs}_\mu(q,p) = m^{\, 2r} n^{\, 2s} q_\mu \, , \nonumber \\ &\tau^{2, \, rs}_\mu(q,p) = n^{\, 2r} m^{\, 2s} p_\mu \, , \qquad \text{with} \qquad r, \, s \in N_0 \, . $$ The fully diagonal setup is also a special case of the parallel kinematics , meaning that the actual tensor parametrisation shrinks even further to . The fact that the lattice function $\Gamma_\mu(q,p)$ is described exactly by a continuum tensor basis (within statistical errors), for fully diagonal kinematics, will be demonstrated in our numerical Monte Carlo simulations. Another example where the lattice modifications of the basis become redundant, is the one where at least one momentum is diagonal \[say, $q = (n,n,n)$\], while the other vector is either on-axis \[with $p = (m,0,0)$, plus permutations thereof\] or is of the form $p = (m,0,m)$ (plus permutations of $p$ components). Some other interesting cases will be discussed in due course. What is important to note here is that the completeness of the continuum tensor description does not imply that the lattice vertex is "equal" to its continuum counterpart, and that the two functions could/should be directly compared to each other. In all special kinematic cases, the discretisation-induced tensor structures become effectively degenerate with the continuum basis elements, but this does not mean that the vertex cannot host a myriad of finite-spacing artifacts within its "continuum" dressing functions. Ideally, elaborate continuum extrapolations should be performed before any serious comparisons between the continuum and lattice functions are made. The only kinematic choices where the lattice correlators could be regarded as being truly continuum-like are those in the deep infrared (IR) energy region: since most lattice corrections have a comparatively high mass dimension \[see e.g. and \], one can naturally expect them to be suppressed at low momenta, thus bringing about the dominance of the continuum terms (barring the finite volume effects). Gluon propagator: lattice-modified basis {#sec: gluon_lattice} ---------------------------------------- In this section we want to deduce, using hypercubic symmetry considerations, the tensor description of the lattice gluon propagator. The arguments we will cover here also apply to any other (lattice) second-rank tensors which depend on single momentum $p$, such as the photon two-point function, or the hadronic electromagnetic current $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$, see e.g. @Aubin:2015rzx. To keep things simple, we will refer only to the "gluon propagator" in the following text, since this is the one function which we will study in some detail in numerical Monte Carlo simulations. We will also employ the corresponding standard notation $D_{\mu\nu}(p)$. The tensor parametrisation of the gluon two-point function is well known on the lattice, and is determined unambiguously by the gauge-fixing procedure @Alles:1996ka. Thus, one might wonder why we are investing effort to tackle a problem which already has a satisfying solution. We can provide two justifications in this regard. First, deriving a basis description which follows purely from symmetry can potentially provide some interesting insights which would otherwise remain hidden. Second, the calculations to be carried out here can be seen as a preparation for obtaining symmetry-based decompositions of other lattice correlators of higher rank, like the three-gluon vertex, whose tensor representations are not fully constrained by gauge-fixing @Vujinovic:2018nqc. We start the discussion with the continuum propagator: the corresponding basis decomposition is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: gluon_cont} D_{\mu\nu}(p) = A(p) \, \delta_{\mu\nu} + B(p) \, p_\mu p_\nu , $$ where indices $\mu$ and $\nu$ run from 1 to $d$. The above two basis elements are the most general structures which satisfy the appropriate tensor transformation law $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: second_tensor_law} \tau_{\mu\nu}(p) \rightarrow \tau''_{\mu\nu}(p) = \sum_{\sigma = 1}^d \sum_{\rho = 1}^d O_{\mu\sigma} O_{\nu\rho} \, \tau_{\sigma\rho} , $$ with $O$s being arbitrary $d$-dimensional orthogonal matrices. The projectors for the above basis will be provided later. We now wish to see how the representation may be generalised in a discretised theory. Similarly to hypercubic scalars and vectors, one needs to look for most general possible functions which satisfy the transformation rule , with matrices $O$ belonging to to the hypercubic symmetry group. The obvious course of action would be to look for second-rank extensions of the equation , i.e. to find operators with higher powers in $p_\mu$ and $p_\nu$, which can be added to the continuum tensor description. The addition of such new terms is indeed possible on a lattice, but right now we want to discuss a different type of modification of the continuum basis, which is reminiscent of how rotational symmetry breaking manifests itself in QCD and Yang-Mills studies at finite temperature, see e.g. @Fischer:2018sdj and references therein. In particular, we wish to argue that the tensor structure generalises to $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn: latt_glue_2d} &D_{\mu\mu} = E(p)\, \delta_{\mu\mu} \: + \: F(p) \, p_\mu^{\,2} \, , \qquad \quad \mu = 1, \ldots d \nonumber \\ &D_{\nu\mu} = G(p) \, p_\nu p_\mu \, , \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \: \: \mu, \, \, \nu = 1, \ldots d \, , \qquad \mu \neq \nu \, , $$ on discretised spacetimes. Put in words, the diagonal and off-diagonal components of
{'source': 'arXiv_out/1905'}