Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin Transformations in Quantum Electrodynamics: For Perturbation Theory and Dynamical Mass Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the complete gauge-dependent two-loop fermion propagator in massless and massive QED3 and QED4 from the Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformation, and shows the gauge-dependent part is multiplicatively renormalizable.

desk verdict A careful but narrowly scoped LKF catalog: the 'two-loop' results are really gauge-transformed free propagators, and the unexplained xi-independent term in Eq. (18) needs a fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04254 v1 pith:ZPBXFZM4 submitted 2025-02-06 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Anam Ashraf , M. Jamil Aslam , Faisal Akram , Adnan Bashir This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th PACS 12.20.-m11.15.-q11.10.Gh11.30.Rd
keywords Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkintransformationsfermionpropagatortwo-loopperturbationtheoryQED3QED4multiplicativerenormalizabilitydynamicalchiralsymmetrybreakinggaugecovariance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper systematically derives the two-loop Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin (LKF) transformed fermion propagator in three- and four-dimensional quantum electrodynamics, starting from the tree-level Landau-gauge propagator and applying the all-order gauge-transformation exponential in coordinate space. It gives explicit analytic expressions for the wavefunction renormalization $F(p;\xi)$ and mass function $M(p;\xi)$ in both massless and massive QED3 and QED4, and it extracts the two-loop renormalization constant $Z_2^{-1}$ in the massless QED4 case. A sympathetic reader should care because gauge covariance is a nonperturbative constraint: if the LKF transformation indeed generates the correct gauge-dependent two-loop structure, then any future fermion-photon vertex construction or Schwinger-Dyson truncation can be tested against these exact expressions. The paper also applies the transformation to representative dynamically generated mass functions and finds that the Euclidean pole mass and the chiral condensate remain practically gauge independent.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformation in coordinate space, $S_F(x;\xi) = S_F(x;0)\exp[i(\Delta_d(x)-\Delta_d(0))]$, with $\Delta_d(x) = -\frac{i\xi e^2}{16\pi^{d/2}}(\mu x)^{4-d}\Gamma(d/2-2)$. This single exponential factor carries all gauge dependence: the paper starts from the tree-level Landau-gauge propagator, Fourier transforms to coordinate space, multiplies by this exponential, and Fourier transforms back, expanding the result to order $\alpha^2$. The exponential is what turns the simple $\xi=0$ input into the two-loop logarithms and hypergeometric functions that appear in $F(p;\xi)$ and $M(p;\xi)$, and the same factor is used in Section V to transform the representative dynamically generated mass functions to other gauges.

What would settle it

A direct two-loop Feynman-diagram computation of the QED4 fermion propagator in a non-zero covariant gauge that yields any gauge-dependent term of $O(\alpha^2)$ differing from the paper's $F(p;\xi)$ and $M(p;\xi)$ — for instance a $\xi^2\log(p^2/\Lambda^2)$ term with a different coefficient — would show that the LKF exponential does not generate the complete gauge-dependent two-loop structure. In QED3, the analogous check is to compare the expanded massive propagator against the two-loop perturbative expansion in an arbitrary gauge; finding an uncancelled gauge-dependent $O(\alpha^2)$ term in the difference would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that applying the LKF transformation to the tree-level Landau-gauge fermion propagator, with $F(p;0)=1$ and $M(p;0)=m$, produces an all-order result whose expansion to $O(\alpha^2)$ captures the full gauge-parameter-dependent two-loop structure of the QED fermion propagator. In massless QED4 this yields $F(p;\xi) = 1 + \frac{\xi\alpha}{4\pi}\left(2\gamma_E-1+\log(p^2/\Lambda^2)\right) + \left(\frac{\xi\alpha}{4\pi}\right)^2\left(1-2\gamma_E+2\gamma_E^2+(2\gamma_E-1)\log(p^2/\Lambda^2)+\tfrac12\log^2(p^2/\Lambda^2)\right)$, and the corresponding renormalization constant is $Z_2^{-1} = 1 - \frac{\alpha\xi}{4\pi}\log(\mu^2/\Lambda^2) + \tfrac12\left(\frac{\alpha\xi}{4\pi}\right)^2\log^2(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)$, matching the QED limit of the known two-loop quark-propagator result. In massive QED4, the propagator is expressed in closed form through hypergeometric functions, and the two-loop expansions reduce correctly to the one-loop results of Ref. [19] and to the tree-level propagator when $\alpha=0$. The paper is explicit that the LKF exponential generates only gauge-dependent pieces, so the results are checked against known perturbative expressions where those are available; the two-loop violation of the transversality condition in the Landau gauge is noted as a limitation on interpreting these as complete two-loop propagators.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the tree-level Landau-gauge propagator, with $F(p;0)=1$ and $M(p;0)=m$, is a sufficient starting point, so that the two-loop gauge-dependent pieces of the true propagator are exactly those generated by the LKF exponential factor; if the true Landau-gauge propagator already contains two-loop corrections, the expanded results miss them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In massless QED4, the renormalization constant $Z_2^{-1}$ is determined to two loops as $1 - \frac{\alpha\xi}{4\pi}\log(\mu^2/\Lambda^2) + \tfrac12\left(\frac{\alpha\xi}{4\pi}\right)^2\log^2(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)$, and a direct comparison with the QCD result in the $C_F=1$, $C_A=0$ limit shows exact agreement.
  • In massless QED3, the two-loop LKF result reproduces the earlier expression of Ref. [18], which is consistent with direct perturbative computation up to the gauge-independent terms.
  • The massive QED4 results give closed hypergeometric-function forms for $F(p;\xi)$ and $M(p;\xi)$; expanded to $O(\alpha^2)$ they yield new analytic two-loop expressions that reduce to the known one-loop results when the $\alpha^2$ terms are dropped.
  • For the representative dynamically generated mass functions, the transformed Euclidean pole mass and chiral fermion condensate remain practically unchanged as $\xi$ varies, consistent with the Nielsen-identity arguments.
  • The two-loop expanded results for the renormalized functions in QED4 provide explicit finite expressions that can be compared with future diagrammatic computations or used to constrain vertex Ansätze.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: because the LKF exponential is treated as the sole source of gauge dependence, the results are most naturally read as a catalog of gauge-dependent pieces rather than as complete two-loop propagators; inserting a one-loop-corrected Landau-gauge propagator and re-expanding would test whether the same structure persists.
  • Editorial extension: if the massless $Z_2^{-1}$ formula is the full gauge-dependent renormalization constant to two loops, it could be used to build gauge-covariant vertex Ansätze in Schwinger-Dyson studies, since multiplicative renormalizability of the gauge-dependent part is a nontrivial consistency condition.
  • Editorial extension: the same coordinate-space exponential method could in principle be applied to the quark propagator in QCD beyond the $C_A=0$ limit, though the non-Abelian structure would introduce additional color-dependent terms not present here.
  • Editorial extension: the practical gauge independence of the Euclidean pole mass and condensate for the representative mass function suggests a cheap consistency test for future dynamical mass solutions: transform them under LKF and check that these observables stay fixed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin (LKF) transformations of the fermion propagator in QED in d=3 and d=4. Starting from the tree-level Landau-gauge propagator, it applies the LKF phase factor in coordinate space and Fourier-transforms back to momentum space to obtain expressions for F(p;ξ) and M(p;ξ) expanded through O(α²) for massless and massive fermions. It also extracts multiplicative renormalization constants in QED4, compares with earlier literature and Ref. [50], and numerically transforms a representative dynamically generated mass function to other gauges to study the gauge dependence of the condensate and Euclidean pole mass.

Significance. The paper collects and extends a useful set of explicit formulae for the gauge-dependent parts of the QED fermion propagator. Its algebraic cross-checks are genuine strengths: the re-derivation of Eq. (29) through the alternative A,B route, the reproduction of the one-loop results of Ref. [19], and the agreement of the massless QED4 renormalization constant with Ref. [50] all provide nontrivial consistency checks. The nonperturbative section also gives a transparent numerical illustration of the known gauge (in)variance of the condensate and pole mass. The main significance, however, is conditional: the advertised two-loop propagators and renormalization constants are not complete, because the LKF-transformed free propagator cannot generate gauge-independent two-loop contributions. If the claims are reframed as applying to the gauge-dependent sector only, the paper is a solid and useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.A.1, Eq. (18)] The xi-independent O(alpha^2) term -(28-3π^2)alpha^2/(16p^2) in Eq. (18) cannot be produced by the exponential factor in Eq. (17), whose expansion contains only powers of (alpha xi). As written, the derivation from the tree-level Landau propagator yields only terms proportional to xi and xi^2; the xi-independent term must be supplied by an external two-loop Landau-gauge input. This is an internal inconsistency in the central derivation and should be resolved either by deriving Eq. (18) from a non-trivial Landau-gauge input or by explicitly presenting Eq. (18) as a combination of the LKF-transformed free propagator and a separately cited perturbative result.
  2. [III.A.2 and III.B, Eqs. (29), (45), (63)] The results labeled "two-loop fermion propagator" are expansions of the exact LKF transform of the free Landau propagator. Since Eq. (5) is exact only when the input propagator is exact, inserting F(p;0)=1 and M(p;0)=m generates exclusively xi-dependent corrections; genuine gauge-independent two-loop self-energy contributions are absent. The paper's own caveat in Section I ("the gauge parameter dependent pieces ... should be reproduced accurately") concedes this limitation, but the abstract, Section III headings, and conclusions present Eqs. (45) and (63) as two-loop results without this qualification. The authors should either restrict all claims to the gauge-dependent part or insert the missing Landau-gauge two-loop input before calling these complete two-loop propagators.
  3. [IV, Eq. (72)] The renormalization constant Z_2^{-1} in Eq. (72) contains only xi-dependent logarithms. A complete two-loop Z_2 in QED also has xi-independent O(alpha^2) terms, which cannot be extracted from the LKF-transformed free propagator. The comparison with Ref. [50] is therefore a comparison of gauge-dependent parts only; the unqualified statements that this is the two-loop renormalization constant and that the results "coincide exactly" overstate the content. Please add the necessary qualification and, if possible, verify which xi-independent terms are omitted in this comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says the analysis starts with an arbitrary covariant gauge xi, but the procedure in Section II.B actually starts from the tree-level Landau gauge; this should be rephrased to avoid confusion.
  2. [III.A.2, Eq. (28)] There is a stray mu in the argument of the arctangent in Eq. (28), written as tan^{-1}(2p/(2m+alpha xi mu)); this appears to be a typo.
  3. [III.B.2, Eq. (61)] The hypergeometric function parameter is written as gamma_E in Eq. (61), which is notationally confusing because gamma_E is also used for the Euler-Mascheroni constant; please use a different symbol.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "parturbative", "casess", "renormailzation", and "scentific"; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [Appendix A] The phrase "four transformed" in the sentence introducing Eqs. (A.11) should read "Fourier transformed".

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The central LKF-based derivation is self-contained, but the paper's internal 'authentication' of the two-loop massive QED3 result is a self-referential consistency check rather than an independent validation.

  1. other [Section III.A.2, Eqs. (30)-(31) and surrounding text]
    "Finally, by substituting these functions in Eq. (25) and retaining the terms to two loops, i.e., till O(α^2), we can readily confirm that that the result presented in Eq. (29) is faithfully reproduced. This test authenticate that our generic expression given in Eq. (28) is indeed correct."

    The 'alternative route' is not independent: A(p;ξ) and B(p;ξ) in Eqs. (30)-(31) are obtained by expanding the same exponentials e^{-(m+αξ/2)x} in Eqs. (21)-(22) that define the exact A and B from which Eq. (28) was constructed. Substituting these same expanded A and B into the defining relation Eq. (25) and truncating to O(α^2) is algebraically equivalent to power-expanding Eq. (28). Therefore the test confirms internal algebraic consistency but cannot independently authenticate the physical content or completeness of the two-loop truncation.

full rationale

The central derivation is anchored by the LKF transformation, an external exact theorem (Landau-Khalatnikov, Fradkin, Johnson-Zumino), not derived or assumed in this paper. Starting from the explicit tree-level Landau-gauge propagator, the paper applies Eq. (5) and Fourier-transforms back, which is a self-contained calculation. The two-loop expressions are Taylor expansions of exact LKF-transformed results; the use of tree-level Landau input is a stated approximation, and the paper explicitly limits its perturbative claims to the gauge-parameter-dependent pieces, conceding that gauge-independent two-loop self-energy corrections are not generated. The self-citations to Refs. [18,19,22,50,52] are used mainly for comparison or for previously established exact forms, and the key renormalization constant is also checked against the external direct computation of Ref. [57], so no load-bearing circularity arises from those citations. The one genuine self-referential element is the 'authentication' in Sec. III.A.2: re-deriving Eq. (29) from A and B integrals obtained by the same expansion is a tautological algebraic check, not an independent test. This is a minor validation loop, not a defect in the main derivation. The more serious concern about Eq. (18) containing a gauge-independent α^2 term not produced by the exponential in Eq. (17) is a correctness/completeness issue rather than a circularity: the result is borrowed from prior work and presented as a two-loop propagator without full derivation of that term. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular in its central claim; the score reflects the self-referential internal check and the reliance on same-author prior results for some quoted expressions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing input is the exact LKF formula, which is a theorem from the 1950s; the paper's contribution is its expansion. The main free choices are the tree-level input and the representative ansatz for the nonperturbative demonstration. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Representative input mass m in the dynamical mass ansatz = 0.3 GeV
    Chosen by hand in Sec V as a qualitatively QCD-like value; the paper states that conclusions can be rescaled, so it is an illustrative input, not a fitted parameter.
  • Coupling strengths in the nonperturbative demonstration = alpha = 1/(4 pi) for QED3, alpha = 1.1 and 1.5 for QED4
    Chosen by hand as representative values in the numerical demonstration, not fitted to data or derived from a gap equation.
  • Ansatz exponent s in M(p;0) = m (m^2 / (m^2 + p^2))^s = s = 1 and s = 1/2
    Two representative choices in Sec V; s = 1/2 is motivated by an anomalous dimension argument from the literature, but it remains an input to the model rather than a derived quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The LKF transformation formula, Eq (5), is exact and can be applied term-by-term in perturbation theory.
    Taken as the foundational theorem of the paper; it is cited to Refs [2, 7, 8, 9] and not re-derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The starting Landau-gauge propagator can be replaced by its tree-level form F(p;0)=1, M(p;0)=m when expanding the LKF-transformed propagator.
    Stated in Sec II.B; this is the main modeling assumption and neglects higher-loop gauge-independent corrections in the Landau-gauge input.
  • domain assumption In QED4, the position-space cutoff x_min with the associated log( mu^2 x_min^2 ) regularizes the divergence, and the MS scheme is applied afterwards.
    Regularization choice in Sec III.B.1; standard in the LKF literature but not derived from QED alone.
  • ad hoc to paper For the nonperturbative section, the representative solution F(p;0)=1, M(p;0)=m^3/(p^2 + m^2), and its generalization Eq (79), represents a dynamically mass-generated propagator.
    This ansatz is chosen in Sec V, not derived from the Schwinger-Dyson equations.
  • domain assumption The nonperturbative analysis is performed in the quenched approximation with fermion loops neglected.
    Appears in the conclusions and in the numerical setup of Sec V; the LKF transformation is applied without unquenching effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin Transformations in Quantum Electrodynamics: For Perturbation Theory and Dynamical Mass Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPBXFZM4

@misc{pith2026250204254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin Transformations in Quantum Electrodynamics: For Perturbation Theory and Dynamical Mass Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPBXFZM4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04254}
}
abstract

We carry out a comprehensive analysis of the Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformations for a charged fermion propagator at the two-loop level in quantum electrodynamics (QED). Starting with an arbitrary covariant gauge $\xi$ and space-time dimension $d$, we provide its explicit expressions in three and four-dimensional QED. We begin with the tree-level fermion propagator in the Landau gauge and gauge-transform it to obtain an analytical expression for an all order result in an arbitrary covariant gauge. We expand it out to two-loops both for the massless and massive propagators in three and four space-time dimensions. In addition to comparing with all earlier results in the literature wherever possible, we also study constraints of multiplicative renormalizabilty of our results in four-dimensional QED which are logarithmically divergent. Finally, we analyze representative solutions of the fermion propagator which correspond to dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and mass generation in QED. We study the gauge dependence of these emergent solutions, that of the Euclidean pole mass and the chiral fermion condensate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04254 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Wavefunction renormalization functions (above) an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Wavefunction renormalization functions (above) an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Wavefunction renormalization functions (above) an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Bashir and A

    A. Bashir and A. Raya, Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformations and the fermion propagator in quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 66, 105005 (2002), hep- ph/0206277

    work page arXiv 2002

  2. [50]

    A. V. Kotikov and S. Teber, Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformation and the mystery of even ζ-values in Eu- clidean massless correlators , Phys. Rev. D 100, 105017 (2019), 1906.10930

    arXiv 2019

  3. [18]

    E. S. Fradkin, Concerning some general relations of quan- tum electrodynamics, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 29, 258–261 (1955)

    work page 1955

  4. [1]

    ( 11), and using Eqs

    Massless Fermion Propagator in QED3 For the massles fermions, writing p ·x = px cosθ in Eq. ( 11), and using Eqs. ( A.1, A.2), the integration over p, θ and φ yields : X (x; 0) = − 1 4πx 3 . (15) To apply the LKF transformation, we need to rewrite Eq. (

    work page

  5. [2]

    Massive Fermion Propagator in QED3 The massive fermion propagator in position space is defined in Eqs. (

    work page

  6. [3]

    H. S. Green, A Pre-renormalized quantum electrodynam- ics, Proc. Phys. Soc. A 66, 873–880 (1953)

    work page 1953

  7. [4]

    Takahashi, On the generalized Ward identity , Nuovo Cim

    Y. Takahashi, On the generalized Ward identity , Nuovo Cim. 6, 371 (1957)

    work page 1957

  8. [5]

    A. A. Slavnov, Ward Identities in Gauge Theories , Theor. Math. Phys. 10, 99–107 (1972)

    work page 1972

Show all 76 references
  1. [6]

    J. C. Taylor, Ward Identities and Charge Renormaliza- tion of the Yang-Mills Field , Nucl. Phys. B 33, 436–444 (1971)

    1971

  2. [7]

    (16) Therefore, Eq

    explicitly in three dimensions, i.e., ∆ 3 (x) = iαξ 2 x. (16) Therefore, Eq. ( 6) permits us to write the fermion prop- agator in an arbitrary gauge as follows : SF (x;ξ) = SF (x, 0) e− (αξ/ 2)x . (17) Executing the remaining steps of the outlined procedure, the two-loop resul...

  3. [8]

    Massless Fermion Propagator in QED4 Employing Eqs. (

  4. [9]

    (32) Multiplying it with /x, the corresponding fermion propa- gator in the coordinate space is straightforwardly : SF (x; 0) = /xX (x; 0) = −/x ( 1 2π 2x4 )

    and (14), the lowest order fermion propagator in position space becomes X (x; 0) = − 1 2π 2x4 , Y (x; 0) = 0. (32) Multiplying it with /x, the corresponding fermion propa- gator in the coordinate space is straightforwardly : SF (x; 0) = /xX (x; 0) = −/x ( 1 2π 2x4 ) . (33) To ...

  5. [10]

    Using the identity ( µx)ε = 1+ε (µx)+ O ( ε2) , and working in the MS scheme, the above result reduces to i∆ 4− ε (x) = −αξ 4π log ( µ 2x2)

    around d = 4 −ε, which yields ∆ 4− ε (x) = −iαξ 4 (π )1− ε 2 (µx)ε [ − 2 ε −γE + O (ε) ] , (34) where µ is a mass scale parameter to keep the coupling constant dimensionless whileγE is Euler-Mascheroni con- stant. Using the identity ( µx)ε = 1+ε (µx)+ O ( ε2) , and working in ...

  6. [11]

    Massive Fermion Propagator in QED4 We start by recalling that the LKF transformed mas- sive fermion propagator at one-loop is derived in [ 19]. In order to extend it to the two-loop level, we again start with lowest order mass function and the wavefunc- tion renormalization in...

  7. [12]

    The angular integration yields the known results : X (x; 0) = − 1 4π 2x2 ∫ ∞ 0 dp p3 p2 +m2J2 (px) , (46) Y (x; 0) = − m 4π 2x ∫ ∞ 0 dp p2 p2 +m2J1 (px)

    and ( 14), we obtain the corresponding fermion propagator at the lowest order in this particular gauge in the coordinate space. The angular integration yields the known results : X (x; 0) = − 1 4π 2x2 ∫ ∞ 0 dp p3 p2 +m2J2 (px) , (46) Y (x; 0) = − m 4π 2x ∫ ∞ 0 dp p2 p2 +m2J1 (...

  8. [13]

    On performing the three dimensional integration, then using the result ( A.4) and the outline we suggested earlier and employed in several works including Ref

    and ( 14). On performing the three dimensional integration, then using the result ( A.4) and the outline we suggested earlier and employed in several works including Ref. [ 19], we can write: X (x; 0) = − 1 +mx 4πx 3 e− mx , (19) Y (x; 0) = − m 4πx e− mx . (20) Employing Eqs. ...

  9. [14]

    and ( 24), and performing the 4- dimensional angular integration, we obtain : A (p;ξ) = −m2 p ∫ dxxJ 1 (px)K1 (mx) ( x2 x2 min ) − ν , B (p;ξ) = −m2 ∫ dxxJ 2 (px)K2 (mx) ( x2 x2 min ) − ν . (53) To solve these radial integrals, one can use the result of the standard integral ∫...

  10. [15]

    The integration formulae used in this cal- culation involvep dependent mass function and are given by Eqs

    Correspond- ing values of the Euclidean pole mass and fermion con- densate given in Table I, again show their practical gauge independence. The integration formulae used in this cal- culation involvep dependent mass function and are given by Eqs. A.11 in the Appendix. Strict g...

    2024

  11. [16]

    ( A.8) : Γ (2 −ν) = Γ (1 −ν) [1 −ν] , Γ (3 −ν) = Γ (1 −ν) 2 [ 1 − 3 2ν + 1 2ν2 ]

    (A.9) It allows us to write Eq. ( A.8) : Γ (2 −ν) = Γ (1 −ν) [1 −ν] , Γ (3 −ν) = Γ (1 −ν) 2 [ 1 − 3 2ν + 1 2ν2 ] . (A.10) The integral formula of four transformed and the inverse four transformed for variable mass function in case of QED4 are as follow : X(x, 0) = − 1 4π 2x2 ∞...

  12. [17]

    J. C. Ward, An Identity in Quantum Electrodynamics , Phys. Rev. 78, 182 (1950)

    1950

  13. [20]

    Bashir and A

    A. Bashir and A. Raya, Dynamical fermion masses and constraints of gauge invariance in quenched QED(3) , Nucl. Phys. B 709, 307–328 (2005), hep-ph/0405142

    2005 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Bashir and A

    A. Bashir and A. Raya, Fermion propagator in quenched QED3 in the light of the Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformation, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 141, 259– 264 (2005), hep-th/0408136

    2005 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Bashir and A

    A. Bashir and A. Raya, Truncated Schwinger-Dyson equations and gauge covariance in QED3 , Few Body Syst. 41, 185–199 (2007), hep-ph/0511291

    2007 arXiv

  16. [23]

    We can then fol- low the same procedure to arrive at the two-loop results directly instead of going through the non-perturbative results first

    and ( 24), respectively. We can then fol- low the same procedure to arrive at the two-loop results directly instead of going through the non-perturbative results first. Therefore, explicitly, we have the following two loops result A (p;ξ) = m 4π ∫ d3x eip·x e− mx x [ 1 − αξx 2 ...

  17. [24]

    L. D. Landau and I. M. Khalatnikov, The gauge trans- formation of the Green function for charged particles , Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 29, 89 (1955)

    1955

  18. [25]

    Johnson and B

    K. Johnson and B. Zumino, Gauge Dependence of the Wave-Function Renormalization Constant in Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 351–352 (1959)

    1959

  19. [26]

    Zumino, Gauge properties of propagators in quantum electrodynamics, J

    B. Zumino, Gauge properties of propagators in quantum electrodynamics, J. Math. Phys. 1, 1–7 (1960)

    1960

  20. [27]

    M. J. Aslam, A. Bashir, and L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero, Local Gauge Transformation for the Quark Propagator in an SU(N) Gauge Theory , Phys. Rev. D 93, 076001 (2016), 1505.02645

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    We now discuss and analyze the 4-dimensional case

    is indeed correct. We now discuss and analyze the 4-dimensional case. B. Four Dimensional Case The method for computing the fermion propagator in QED4 is the same as that in the QED3, i.e., starting with Landau gauge, we have to find X (x;ξ) and Y (x;ξ), and then fourier transf...

  22. [29]

    De Meerleer, D

    T. De Meerleer, D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, P. Dall’Olio, and A. Bashir, Fresh look at the Abelian and non- Abelian Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformations , Phys. Rev. D 97, 074017 (2018), 1801.01703

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    De Meerleer, D

    T. De Meerleer, D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, P. Dall’Olio, and A. Bashir, Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin Transfor- mations, Nielsen Identities, Their Equivalence and Im- plications for QCD , Phys. Rev. D 101, 085005 (2020), 1911.01907

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Nicasio, A

    J. Nicasio, A. Bashir, U. D. Jentschura, and J. P. Ed- wards, Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin Gauge Transforma- tions for the Propagator and Vertex in QED and QED 2, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2667, 012023 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    C. J. Burden and C. D. Roberts, Gauge covariance and the fermion - photon vertex in three-dimensional and four-dimensional, massless quantum electrodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5581–5588 (1993), hep-th/9303098

    1993 arXiv

  26. [33]

    I. J. R. Aitchison, N. E. Mavromatos, and D. McNeill, Inverse Landau-Khalatnikov transformation and infrared critical exponents of (2+1)-dimensional quantum elec- trodynamics, Phys. Lett. B 402, 154–158 (1997), hep- th/9701087

    1997

  27. [34]

    Bashir, A

    A. Bashir, A. Kizilersu, and M. R. Pennington, Analytic form of the one loop vertex and of the two loop fermion propagator in three-dimensional massless QED (1999), hep-ph/9907418. 14

    1999 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Bashir, A

    A. Bashir, A. Kizilersu, and M. R. Pennington, Does the weak coupling limit of the Burden-Tjiang deconstruction of the massless quenched three-dimensional QED vertex agree with perturbation theory?, Phys. Rev. D 62, 085002 (2000), hep-th/0010210

    2000 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Bashir, Nonperturbative fermion propagator for the massless quenched QED3 , Phys

    A. Bashir, Nonperturbative fermion propagator for the massless quenched QED3 , Phys. Lett. B 491, 280–284 (2000), hep-th/0011022

    2000 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Albino, A

    L. Albino, A. Bashir, A. J. Mizher, and A. Raya, Electron-photon vertex and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in reduced QED: An advanced study of gauge in- variance, Phys. Rev. D 106, 096007 (2022), 2210.01280

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Z.-h. Dong, H. J. Munczek, and C. D. Roberts, Gauge covariant fermion propagator in quenched, chirally sym- metric quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Lett. B 333, 536– 544 (1994), hep-ph/9403252

    1994 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Bashir, A

    A. Bashir, A. Raya, S. Sanchez-Madrigal, and C. D. Roberts, Gauge invariance of a critical number of flavours in QED3 , Few Body Syst. 46, 229–237 (2009), 0905.1337

    2009 arXiv

  33. [40]

    A. V. Kotikov, On the Landau–Khalatnikov–Fradkin transformation in quenched QED3, Theor. Math. Phys. 216, 1373–1381 (2023), 2305.17775

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    V. P. Gusynin, A. V. Kotikov, and S. Teber, Landau- Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformation in three-dimensional quenched QED , Phys. Rev. D 102, 025013 (2020), 2006.09315

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    D. C. Curtis and M. R. Pennington, Truncating the Schwinger-Dyson equations: How multiplicative renor- malizability and the Ward identity restrict the three point vertex in QED , Phys. Rev. D 42, 4165–4169 (1990)

    1990

  36. [43]

    Bashir and M

    A. Bashir and M. R. Pennington, Gauge independent chi- ral symmetry breaking in quenched QED , Phys. Rev. D 50, 7679–7689 (1994), hep-ph/9407350

    1994 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Kizilersu and M

    A. Kizilersu and M. R. Pennington, Building the Full Fermion-Photon Vertex of QED by Imposing Multiplica- tive Renormalizability of the Schwinger-Dyson Equations for the Fermion and Photon Propagators , Phys. Rev. D 79, 125020 (2009), 0904.3483

    2009 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Bashir and R

    A. Bashir and R. Delbourgo, The Nonperturbative propa- gator and vertex in massless quenched QED(d) , J. Phys. A 37, 6587–6598 (2004), hep-ph/0405018

    2004 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Jia and M

    S. Jia and M. R. Pennington, Landau-Khalatnikov- Fradkin transformation for the fermion propagator in QED in arbitrary dimensions , Phys. Rev. D 95, 076007 (2017), 1610.06436

    2017 arXiv

  40. [47]

    V. M. Villanueva-Sandoval, Y. Concha-S´ anchez, L. X. G. Guerrero, and A. Raya, On How the Scalar Propaga- tor Transforms Covariantly in Spinless Quantum Elec- trodynamics, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1208, 012001 (2019), 1312.7848

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Ahmadiniaz, A

    N. Ahmadiniaz, A. Bashir, and C. Schubert, Multiphoton amplitudes and generalized Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformation in scalar QED , Phys. Rev. D 93, 045023 (2016), 1511.05087

    2016 arXiv

  42. [49]

    L. A. Fernandez-Rangel, A. Bashir, L. X. Gutierrez- Guerrero, and Y. Concha-Sanchez, Constructing Scalar- Photon Three Point Vertex in Massless Quenched Scalar QED, Phys. Rev. D 93, 065022 (2016), 1603.01201

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ahmad, J

    A. Ahmad, J. J. Cobos-Mart ´ ınez, Y. Concha-S´ anchez, and A. Raya, Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transforma- tions in Reduced Quantum Electrodynamics , Phys. Rev. D 93, 094035 (2016), 1604.03886

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    James, A

    A. James, A. V. Kotikov, and S. Teber, Landau- Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformation of the fermion prop- agator in massless reduced QED , Phys. Rev. D 101, 045011 (2020), 1912.05982

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    N. K. Nielsen, On the Gauge Dependence of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories , Nucl. Phys. B 101, 173–188 (1975)

    1975

  46. [54]

    J. C. Breckenridge, M. J. Lavelle, and T. G. Steele, The Nielsen identities for the two point functions of QED and QCD, Z. Phys. C 65, 155–164 (1995), hep-th/9407028

    1995 arXiv

  47. [55]

    C. J. Burden and P. C. Tjiang, Deconstructing the ver- tex Ansatz in three-dimensional quantum electrodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. D 58, 085019 (1998), hep-th/9804002

    1998 arXiv

  48. [56]

    P. I. Fomin, V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and Y. A. Sitenko, Dynamical Symmetry Breaking and Particle Mass Generation in Gauge Field Theories , Riv. Nuovo Cim. 6N5, 1–90 (1983)

    1983

  49. [57]

    V. A. Miransky, Dynamics of Spontaneous Chiral Sym- metry Breaking and Continuum Limit in Quantum Elec- trodynamics, Nuovo Cim. A 90, 149–170 (1985)

    1985

  50. [58]

    V. A. Miransky, Phase Diagram With Respect to the Cou- pling Constant and the Local Limit in Quantum Electro- dynamics, Sov. Phys. JETP 61, 905–911 (1985)

    1985

  51. [59]

    D. C. Curtis and M. R. Pennington, Nonperturbative study of the fermion propagator in quenched QED in co- variant gauges using a renormalizable truncation of the Schwinger- Dyson equation , Phys. Rev. D 48, 4933–4939 (1993)

    1993

  52. [60]

    Bashir, R

    A. Bashir, R. Bermudez, L. Chang, and C. D. Roberts, Dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and the fermion– gauge-boson vertex , Phys. Rev. C 85, 045205 (2012), 1112.4847

    2012 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Kızılers¨ u, T

    A. Kızılers¨ u, T. Sizer, M. R. Pennington, A. G. Williams, and R. Williams, Dynamical mass generation in un- quenched QED using the Dyson-Schwinger equations , Phys. Rev. D 91, 065015 (2015), 1409.5979

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Albino, A

    L. Albino, A. Bashir, L. X. G. Guerrero, B. E. Bennich, and E. Rojas, Transverse Takahashi Identities and Their Implications for Gauge Independent Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking , Phys. Rev. D 100, 054028 (2019), 1812.02280

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    and the massive version of Eq. ( 66), we arrive at the the following result for the renormalized fermion propagator for the massive fermions till the two-loops order : FR ( p,m 2/µ 2;ξ ) = 1 + ξα 4π ( 2γE − 1 2 + log ( m2 µ 2 ) + 2 3 p2 m2 ) + ( ξα 4π ) 2[ 2γ 2 E −γE − 1 4 + π...

  56. [64]

    A. I. Davydychev, P. Osland, and L. Saks, Quark gluon vertex in arbitrary gauge and dimension , Phys. Rev. D 63, 014022 (2001), hep-ph/0008171

    2001 arXiv

  57. [65]

    (72) In Eq

    for the massless fermions till two loops, takes the form : Z − 1 2 ( µ 2; Λ 2) = 1−αξ 4π log ( µ 2 Λ 2 ) + 1 2 ( αξ 4π ) 2 log2 ( µ 2 Λ 2 ) . (72) In Eq. (30) of the Ref. [ 50], the renormalization constant for the fermion propagator at two loops was calculated through the gen...

  58. [66]

    Bashir, Perturbation theory constraints on the 3-point vertex in massless QED3 , in Workshop on Light-Cone QCD and Nonperturbative Hadron Physics , pages 227– 232 (1999)

    A. Bashir, Perturbation theory constraints on the 3-point vertex in massless QED3 , in Workshop on Light-Cone QCD and Nonperturbative Hadron Physics , pages 227– 232 (1999)

    1999

  59. [67]

    Bashir, A

    A. Bashir, A. Kizilersu, and M. R. Pennington, The Non- perturbative three point vertex in massless quenched QED and perturbation theory constraints , Phys. Rev. D 57, 1242–1249 (1998), hep-ph/9707421. 15

    1998 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Dall’Olio, T

    P. Dall’Olio, T. De Meerleer, D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, an d A. Bashir, Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin transformations for the two loop massless quark propagator , Nucl. Phys. B 973, 115606 (2021), 2107.03910

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Teber and A

    S. Teber and A. V. Kotikov, Field theoretic renormaliza- tion study of reduced quantum electrodynamics and appli- cations to the ultrarelativistic limit of Dirac liquids , Phys. Rev. D 97, 074004 (2018), 1801.10385

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Dall’Olio and A

    P. Dall’Olio and A. Bashir, Fermion Propagator in QED - Landau-Khalatnikov-Fradkin Transformations, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1208, 012002 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Bashir, C

    A. Bashir, C. Calcaneo-Roldan, L. X. Gutierrez- Guerrero, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Critical Number of Flavours in QED , Phys. Rev. D 83, 033003 (2011), 1101.5458

    2011 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Holdom, Raising Condensates Beyond the Ladder , Phys

    B. Holdom, Raising Condensates Beyond the Ladder , Phys. Lett. B 213, 365–369 (1988)

    1988

  65. [73]

    Fleischer, F

    J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner, O. V. Tarasov, and O. L. Veretin, Two loop QCD corrections of the massive fermion propagator, Nucl. Phys. B 539, 671–690 (1999), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 571, 511–512 (2000)], hep- ph/9803493

    1999

  66. [74]

    Bermudez, L

    R. Bermudez, L. Albino, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, M. E . Tejeda-Yeomans, and A. Bashir, Quark-gluon Vertex: A Perturbation Theory Primer and Beyond , Phys. Rev. D 95, 034041 (2017), 1702.04437

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    M. A. Sultan, K. Raya, F. Akram, A. Bashir, and B. Ma- sud, Effect of the quark-gluon vertex on dynamical chiral symmetry breaking , Phys. Rev. D 103, 054036 (2021), 1810.01396

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. R. Lessa, F. E. Serna, B. El-Bennich, A. Bashir, and O. Oliveira, Gauge dependence of the quark gap equation: An exploratory study , Phys. Rev. D 107, 074017 (2023), 2202.12313

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.