Primitive Vassiliev Invariants and Factorization in Chern-Simons Perturbation Theory
Extracted source text ยท arXiv q-alg/9604010
\documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}
%\renewcommand\baselinestretch2 %%-double spacing-%%
\topmargin 0pt
\advance \topmargin by -\headheight
\advance \topmargin by -\headsep
\textheight 8.9in
\oddsidemargin 0pt
\evensidemargin \oddsidemargin
\marginparwidth 0.5in
\textwidth 6.5in
% For users of A4 paper: The above values are suited for american 8.5x11in
% paper. If your output driver performs a conversion for A4 paper, keep
% those values. If your output driver conforms to the TeX standard (1in/1in),
% then you should add the following commands to center the text on A4 paper:
% \advance\hoffset by -3mm % A4 is narrower.
% \advance\voffset by 8mm % A4 is taller.
% DEFINITIONS
\def\del{{\delta^{\hbox{\sevenrm B}}}} \def\ex{{\hbox{\rm e}}}
\def\azb{A_{\bar z}} \def\az{A_z} \def\bzb{B_{\bar z}} \def\bz{B_z}
\def\czb{C_{\bar z}} \def\cz{C_z} \def\dzb{D_{\bar z}} \def\dz{D_z}
\def\im{{\hbox{\rm Im}}} \def\mod{{\hbox{\rm mod}}} \def\tr{{\hbox{\rm Tr}}}
\def\ch{{\hbox{\rm ch}}} \def\imp{{\hbox{\sevenrm Im}}}
\def\trp{{\hbox{\sevenrm Tr}}} \def\vol{{\hbox{\rm Vol}}}
\def\rl{\Lambda_{\hbox{\sevenrm R}}} \def\wl{\Lambda_{\hbox{\sevenrm W}}}
\def\fc{{\cal F}_{k+\cox}} \def\vev{vacuum expectation value}
\def\nodiv{\mid{\hbox{\hskip-7.8pt/}}}
\def\ie{{\em i.e.}}
\def\np{Nucl. Phys.}
\def\pl{Phys. Lett.}
\def\prl{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
\def\pr{Phys. Rev.}
\def\ap{Ann. Phys.}
\def\cmp{Comm. Math. Phys.}
\def\ijmp{Int. J. Mod. Phys.}
\def\jmp{J. Math. Phys.}
\def\mpl{Mod. Phys. Lett.}
\def\inma{Invent. Math.}
\def\tam{Trans. Am. Math. Soc.}
\def\lmp{Lett. Math. Phys.}
\def\bams{Bull. AMS}
\def\am{Ann. of Math.}
\def\rmp{Rev. Mod. Phys.}
\def\jpsc{J. Phys. Soc. Jap.}
\def\topo{Topology}
\def\kjm{Kobe J. Math.}
\def\knot{Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications}
\newcommand{\ZZ}{{\mbox{{\bf Z}}}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\mbox{{\bf Q}}}}
\newcommand{\RR}{{\mbox{{\bf R}}}}
\newcommand{\RRs}{{\mbox{{\small \bf R}}}}
\newcommand{\CS}{{\scriptstyle {\rm CS}}}
\newcommand{\CSs}{{\scriptscriptstyle {\rm CS}}}
\newcommand{\W}{{\cal W}}
%
% FONTS
%\newfont{\headfont}{cmbx10 scaled 1440}
\newfont{\namefont}{cmr10}
%\newfont{\initialfont}{cmr10 scaled 1200}
\newfont{\addfont}{cmti7 scaled 1440}
%\newfont{\boldmathfont}{cmbx10}
%\newfont{\figfont}{cmr7 scaled 1200}
\newfont{\headfontb}{cmbx10 scaled 1728}
%
\begin{document}
%
\begin{titlepage}
%
\begin{center}
{\headfontb Primitive Vassiliev Invariants and Factorization}
\vskip0.2cm
{\headfontb in Chern-Simons Perturbation Theory}
\footnote{This work is supported in part by funds provided by the
U.S.A. DOE under cooperative research agreement
\#DE-FC02-94ER40818 and by the DGICYT of Spain under grant PB93-0344.}
\end{center}
\vskip 0.3truein
\begin{center}
{\namefont M. Alvarez\footnote{Email: marcos@mitlns.mit.edu}}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
{\addfont{Center for Theoretical Physics,}}\\
{\addfont{Massachusetts Institute of Technology}}\\
{\addfont{Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 U.S.A.}}
\end{center}
\vskip 0.3truein
\begin{center}
{\namefont J.M.F. Labastida\footnote{Email: labastida@gaes.usc.es}}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
{\addfont{Departamento de F\'\i sica de Part\'\i culas,}}\\
{\addfont{Universidade de Santiago}}\\
{\addfont{E-15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain}}
\end{center}
\vskip 1truein
\begin{center}
\bf ABSTRACT
\end{center}
The general structure of the perturbative expansion of the vacuum expectation
value of a Wilson line operator in Chern-Simons gauge field theory is
analyzed. The expansion is organized according to the independent group
structures that appear at each order. It is shown that the analysis is greatly
simplified if the group factors are chosen in a certain way that we call
canonical. This enables us to show that the logarithm of a polinomial knot
invariant can be written in terms of primitive Vassiliev invariants only.
\vskip3.5truecm
\leftline{MIT-CTP-2524}
\leftline{USC-FT/16-96}
\leftline{q-alg/9604010 \hfill April 1996}
\smallskip
\end{titlepage}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% M A I N T E X T
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction} %--- CS Action, Wilson loop def, etc---
Vassiliev invariants, or numerical invariants of
finite type, are a set of knot invariants first proposed in \cite{vassi}
to classify knot types. To each knot corresponds an infinite sequence of
rational numbers which have to satisfy some consistency conditions in order
to be knot class invariants. This infinite sequence is divided into finite
subsequences, each one characterized by its order, which form vector spaces.
The number of independent elements in each finite
subsequence is called the dimension of the space of Vassiliev invariants at
that order.
Apart from the original definition \cite{vassi} of these invariants, there are
other approaches to the subject. Since their formulation in terms of inductive
relations for singular knots \cite{birlin,birman} and of
their relation to knot invariants based on quantum groups or in
Chern-Simons gauge theory \cite{drorcon,drortesis,birlin,lin,birman}, several
works have been
performed to analyze Vassiliev invariants in both frameworks
\cite{konse,drortopo,piuni,numbers,haya}. In \cite{konse,drortopo} it was shown
that Vassiliev invariants can be understood in terms of representations of
chord diagrams whithout isolated chords modulo the so called 4T relations
(weight systems), and that using semi-simple Lie algebras weight systems can
be constructed. It was also shown in \cite{drortopo}, using Kontsevitch's
representation for Vassiliev invariants \cite{konsedos} that the space of
weight systems is the same as the space of Vassiliev invariants. In
\cite{piuni} it was argued that these representations are precisely the ones
underlying quantum-group or Chern-Simons invariants.
We observed in \cite{numbers} that the generalization of
the integral or geometrical knot invariant first proposed in \cite{gmm} and
further analyzed in \cite{drortesis}, as well as the invariant itself, are
Vassiliev invariants. In \cite{numbers} we proposed an organization of those
geometrical invariants and we described a procedure for their calculation
from known polynomial knot invariants. This procedure was applied to
obtaining Vassiliev knot invariants up to order six for all prime knots up
to six crossings. These geometrical invariants have also been studied by
Bott and Taubes \cite{bot} using a different approach. The relation of this
approach to the one in \cite{numbers} has been studied recently
in \cite{altfr}.
An interesting outcome of the analysis presented in \cite{numbers} is
the well known fact that
the Vassiliev invariants of a given knot
form an algebra in the sense that the product of two invariants of orders $i$
and $j$ is an invariant of order $i+j$. Therefore the set of independent
Vassiliev invariants at a given order can be divided in two subsets: those that
are products of invariants of lower orders (composite invariants), an
those that are not (primitive invariants). We shall call the decomposition
of a Vassiliev invariant as a product of lower order Vassiliev invariants
``factorization''. This phenomenon is most clearly exposed after
choosing a particular kind of basis of group factors that we will call
``canonical''. The detailed description of these bases and its significance
to the theory of numerical knot invariants of finite type is the main goal of
the present work.
More precisely, in this paper we shall show
that the factorizations observed in \cite{numbers} can be resummed in a single
exponential, which includes only the primitive Vassiliev invariants of the
knot $C$, thus disentangling the contribution of these primitive invariants
to all orders in perturbation theory.
This, which is the main result of this paper, can be regarded as an extension
of the theorems by Birman and Lin in \cite{birlin,lin,birman}
where it is proven that the coefficients of the power expansion of any
Chern-Simons or quantum group polynomial invariant is a Vassiliev
invariant. Our main result is contained in the ``Factorization Theorem"
presented in sect.~5 and it can be very simply stated as follows:
\vskip 0.2truein
\noindent Let $C$ be a knot and let ${\cal H}_t^R(C,G)$ be a Chern-Simons or
quantum group polynomial invariant associated to a compact semi-simple Lie
group $G$ and a representation $R$ of $G$ (normalized so that for the unknot
it takes the value 1). ${\cal H}_t^R(C,G)$ is a polynomial in $t$.
Let ${\cal W}_x^R(C,G)$ be obtained from ${\cal H}_t^R(C,G)$ by replacing the
variable $t$ by $\ex^x$ and let us consider the power series expansion of
$\log{\cal W}_x^R(C,G)$ around $x=0$:
\begin{equation}
\log {\cal W}_x^R(C,G) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty w_i^c x^i.
\label{maineq}
\end{equation}
Then, $w_0^c=0$ and each $w_i^c$, $i\geq 1$, is a
{\it primitive} Vassiliev invariant relative to a canonical basis.
\vskip 0.2truein
\noindent The proof of this theorem is accomplished through the choice
of a canonical basis for the independent group factors at each order in the
perturbative expansion of the vacuum expectation value
of the Wilson line, $\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle$, which is precisely, up to a
normalization factor, ${\cal H}_t^R(C,G)$, or ${\cal W}_x^R(C,G)$, above.
The use of these bases reveals a simplicity in the perturbative expansion that
can hardly be grasped otherwise.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 1 contains an elementary
exposition of Chern-Simons quantum field theory, along with the definition of
the object of interest in this article: the Wilson loop operator. In section 3
we introduce the general
structure of the perturbative expansion of $\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle$
and the definition of canonical bases. Section 4 presents some
consequences of our having chosen a canonical basis to express the perturbative
expansion, encoded in a ``Master Equation". In Section 5 these results are
shown to lead to the factorization of the expansion in a single exponential.
It is noteworthy that this implies that the logarithm of the polinomial
invariant contains primitive Vassiliev Invariants only; the concept of
primitive invariant has a simple definition in a canonical basis. Changes of
basis are analyzed in section 6. Section 7 contains our conclusions.
\section{Chern-Simons theory}
In this section we will recall a few facts on Chern-Simons gauge theory.
Let us consider a compact semi-simple Lie group $G$ and a connection $A$ on
${\RR^3}$. The Chern-Simons action is defined as:
\begin{equation}
S_k(A)={k\over 4\pi}\int_{\RRs^3} \tr (A\wedge dA +
{2\over 3} A\wedge A\wedge A),
\label{action}
\end{equation}
where Tr denotes the trace in the fundamental representation of
$G$. Given a knot $C$, {\it i.e}, an embedding of $S^1$ into ${\RR^3}$, we
define the Wilson line associated to $C$ carrying a representation $R$
of $G$ as:
\begin{equation}
\W_R(C,G)=\tr_R\left[{\hbox{\rm P}} \exp \oint A \right],
\label{wilson}
\end{equation}
where ``P" stands for path ordered and the trace is to be taken
in the representation $R$. The vacuum expectation value
is defined as the following ratio of functional integrals:
\begin{equation}
\langle \W_R(C,G) \rangle = {1\over Z_k} \int [DA] \W_R(C,G)\, {\rm e}^{iS_k(A)},
\label{vev}
\end{equation}
where $Z_k$ is the partition function:
\begin{equation}
Z_k=\int [DA]\, {\rm e}^{iS_k(A)}.
\label{parfun}
\end{equation}
The theory based on the action (\ref{action}) possesses a gauge symmetry which
has to be fixed. In addition, one has to take into account that the
theory must be regularized due to the presence of divergent integrals
when performing the perturbative expansion of (\ref{vev}). Regarding these two
problems we will follow the approach taken in \cite{numbers}. It is
known \cite{alr} that in the Landau gauge the contribution of the one-loop
gauge field self-energy and one-loop gauge field vertex to the perturbative
expansion of any \vev\ can be traded by a shift in the parameter $k$ that
multiplies the Chern-Simons action: $k\rightarrow k-C_A$, being $C_A$ the
quadratic casimir in the adjoint representation of $G$. In so doing we do not
need to include one loop two- or three-point gauge field subdiagrams in the
perturbative expansion. Also, it has been shown \cite{carmelo} that
higher-order corrections to the gauge field two- and three-point functions
vanish.
There is one more problem emanating from perturbative quantum field
theory which must be considered. Often, products of operators
$A_\mu(x) A_\nu(y)$ must be considered at the same point $x=y$, where
they are ambiguous. This situation can be solved \cite{witten,gmm} without
spoiling the topological nature of the theory. In the process one needs to
introduce a framing attached to the knot which is characterized by an
integer $n$. It was shown in \cite{pert}
that working in the standard framing, $n=0$, is equivalent to ignoring
diagrams containing collapsible propagators in the sense explained
in \cite{pert,numbers}.
\section{General structure of the perturbative expansion}
The facts mentioned in the previous section (exclusion of loop contributions
to gauge field two- and three-point functions, and of collapsible propagators)
simplify considerably the perturbative analysis of the \vev\ (\ref{vev}). As
shown in \cite{numbers} the perturbative expansion of the vacuum
expectation value of the Wilson line (\ref{wilson}) has the form:
\begin{equation}
\langle \W_R(C,G) \rangle = d(R) \sum_{i=0}^\infty \sum_{j=1}^{d_i}
\alpha_i^j r_{ij} x^i,
\label{expansion}
\end{equation}
where $x={2\pi i \over k-C_A}$, and $d(R)$ is the dimension of the
representation $R$. The factors $\alpha_i^j$ and $r_{ij}$ in
(\ref{expansion}) incorporate all the dependence dictated from the Feynman
rules apart from the dependence on $k$ which is contained in $x$. The power of
$x$, $i$, represents the order in perturbation theory. Of the two
factors, $r_{ij}$ and $\alpha_i^j$, the first one contains all the
group-theoretical dependence, while the second all the geometrical
dependence. The quantity $d_i$ denotes the number of
independent group structures $r_{ij}$ which appear at order $i$. The
first values of $d_i$, $\alpha_i^j$ and $r_{ij}$ are: $\alpha_0^1=
r_{0,1}=1$, $d_0=1$ and $d_1=0$. Notice that we are shifting $k$ in the
definition of $x$ and therefore no diagrams with
loop contributions to two and three-point functions should be
considered. In addition, there is no linear term in the expansion ($d_1=0$)
so that diagrams with collapsible propagators (isolated chords)
should be ignored in the
sense explained in \cite{numbers}. It was proven in \cite{numbers}
that the quantities $\alpha_i^j$ are Vassiliev invariants of order $i$.
We introduce now some vocabulary in order to classify Feynman diagrams. We
will assume that the reader is familiar with the types of trivalent Feynman
diagrams appearing in Chern-Simons perturbation theory. These diagramas are
trivalent graphs with a distinguished line called Wilson line which carry the
representation chosen. A detailed account of Chern-Simons perturbation
theory specially suited for our pourposes can be found in \cite{numbers}. We
begin introducing the notion of ``connected" loop diagram. We will say that a
diagram is a connected loop diagram if it is possible to go from one
propagator (or internal line) to another without ever having to go through
the Wilson line. If the diagram is ``disconnected'' that is not possible. In
this second case we say that the diagram has subdiagrams, which are the
connected components of the whole loop diagram. We say that two subdiagrams
are ``non-overlapping'' if we can move along the Wilson line meeting all the
legs of one subdiagram first, and all the legs of the other
second. Here, ``legs'' means the propagators directly
attached to the Wilson line. If it is impossible to do that, the subdiagrams
are ``overlapping''. In fig. 1 the diagram {\it a} is connected while the
diagrams {\it b} and {\it c} are disconnected. Of these last two,
diagram {\it b} contains subdiagrams which are overlapping while
{\it c} does not.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hskip.4in\epsffile{examples.eps}}
\caption{Examples of diagrams.}
\end{figure}
In the general expansion (\ref{expansion}) there are many possible choices of
the independent groups factors $r_{ij}$. Given all Feynman diagrams
contributing to a given order in perturbation theory some of the resulting
group factors might be related due to the relations among the generators
$T^a$ and the structure constants $f_{ijk}$ of semi-simple groups. From a
diagramatic point of view these relations are the so called STU
and IHX relations \cite{drortopo}. Since for a semi-simple group the
structure constants can be chosen antisymmetric there is no need to
distinguish orientation of internal three-vertices. The group factors entering
(\ref{expansion}) are chosen to be associated to diagramas that are
independent. Of course, many choices are possible. Each possible set of group
factors $r_{ij}$ represents a basis. There are two simple but far-reaching
facts about the bases $r_{ij}$ which we summarize in two Propositions:
\vskip .5cm
{\bf Proposition 1:}
{\it It is always possible to choose a basis such that the $r_{ij}$ come from
connected diagrams, or products of connected diagrams.} That is, if there are
subdiagrams, they can be chosen so that they do not overlap. The value of such
an $r_{ij}$ is the product of the values of its subdiagrams.
\vskip0.2cm
{\bf Proposition 2:}
{\it The $r_{ij}$ which are products can be chosen as products of connected
$r_{ij}$'s of lower orders.}
\vskip .5cm
These propositions follow from two simple facts. First, using STU relations
it is always possible to trade in a disconnected diagram overlapping
subdiagrams by connected diagrams and disconnected diagrams containing
non-overlapping subdiagramas. Second, if a loop diagram is not
connected, and its subdiagrams are non-overlapping, its group factor is the
product of the group factors of its subdiagrams. This last statement follows
from the fact that if one cuts a Wilson line at a given point where no leg
is inserted the resulting matrix is a diagonal matrix.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hskip.4in\epsffile{erressave.ps}}
\caption{Example of a canonical basis up to order 6.}
\end{figure}
Propositions 1 and 2 are very important because a basis of group factors such
constructed shows the following unique feature: a given connected $r_{ij}$
begets a whole family of other group factors at higher orders in which it
enters as a subdiagram. A basis constructed following Propositions 1 and 2
shall be called ``a canonical basis''. The basis used in \cite{numbers}
up to order six is canonical. The diagramas chosen are reproduced in fig. 2.
\section{The Master Equation}
Let the gauge group be a product $G\otimes G'$, where $G$ and $G'$ are compact
semi-simple groups. From a path-integral representation of the \vev s, the
following identity is obvious: \begin{equation}
\langle\W_{R\otimes R'}(C,G\otimes G')\rangle=\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle
\langle\W_{R'}(C,G')\rangle\,\, .
\label{factorization}
\end{equation}
When combined with the choice of the same canonical basis for all the vev's,
this equation proves to be most fruitful. In order to show this, consider an
$r_{ij}$ composed of several connected subdiagrams which we denote by
$r_{ij}^{(p)}$ with $p=1,\ldots,\#(ij)$. Some of them may be identical. In a
canonical basis these
$r_{ij}^{(p)}$ are elements of the basis at lower orders, and therefore are
associated with geometrical factors which we denote by $(\alpha_i^j)^{(p)}$.
If the Lie group is simple, we know that
\begin{equation}
r_{ij}(G)=\prod_{p=1}^{\#(ij)} r_{ij}^{(p)}(G) ,
\label{erres1}
\end{equation}
but if the Lie group is a product, we find that
\begin{equation}
r_{ij}(G\otimes G')=\prod_{p=1}^{\#(ij)}\left( r_{ij}^{(p)}(G)+ r_{ij}^{(p)}(G')
\right).
\label{erres2}
\end{equation}
Inserting eq.~(\ref{expansion}) in eq.~(\ref{factorization}) and putting
things together, we arrive at the ``Master Equation'':
\begin{eqnarray}
& &\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{j=1}^{d_i}\alpha_i^j(C)
\prod_{p=1}^{\#(ij)}\left( r_{ij}^{(p)}(G)x^i +
r_{ij}^{(p)}(G'){x'}^i \right)=\nonumber \\
& &\left( \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{l=1}^{d_k}
\alpha_k^l(C) r_{kl}(G)x^k\right)\left(\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{d_m}
\alpha_m^n(C) r_{mn}(G'){x'}^m\right) \,\, ,
\label{master}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x=2\pi i/(k-C_A)$ and $x'=2\pi i/(k-C_A')$.
In eq. (\ref{erres1}), (\ref{erres2}) and (\ref{master}) we have shown
explicitly the fact
that the group factors $r_{ij}$ depend only on the group-theoretical data while
the geometrical factors $\alpha_i^j$ depend only on the knot $C$. Actually, we
would ought to have indicated the representations $R$ and $R'$ in the group
factors. We did not do it to avoid a cumbersome notation but it
certainly should be understood.
The matching of the two
polynomials in $x$ and $x'$ in (\ref{master}) produces an infinite
string of identities relating $\alpha_i^j$'s at a given order with products
of the $(\alpha_k^l)^{(p)}$ of its components. The general result is as
follows. Let us consider a composite $r_{ij}$ that consists of $p_{ij}^{(k)}$
connected non-overlapping subdiagrams of some type $k$, with $k=1, \ldots,N$.
This means in particular that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=1}^N p_{ij}^{(k)} = \#(ij)\,\, .
\label{check}
\end{equation}
(The only purpose of this formula is to clarify the notation). We call
$r_{ij;k}$ the connected subdiagram of type $k$, which
in a canonical basis is also an element of the basis at a lower order, and
therefore is associated to a geometrical factor denoted by
$\alpha_{i\,\,;k}^j$. In other words, the element $r_{ij}$ contains the
following connected subdiagrams:
\begin{eqnarray}
r_{ij}^{(1)}&=&r_{ij}^{(2)}=\ldots=r_{ij}^{(p_{ij}^{(1)})}\equiv r_{ij;1}\, ,
\nonumber \\
r_{ij}^{(p_{ij}^{(1)}+1)}&=&r_{ij}^{(p_{ij}^{(1)}+2)}=\ldots=
r_{ij}^{(p_{ij}^{(1)}
+p_{ij}^{(2)})}\equiv r_{ij;2}\, , \\ &{\rm etc.}& \nonumber
\label{explain}
\end{eqnarray}
The Master Equation (\ref{master})
leads to a formula for the $\alpha_i^j$ associated with
our composite $r_{ij}$:
\vskip .5cm
{\bf THEOREM 1}
\vskip0.2cm
\begin{equation}
\alpha_i^j= \prod_{k=1}^N {1\over p_{ij}^{(k)}!}\,\left(\alpha_{i\,\,;k}^j
\right)^{p_{ij}^{(k)}}\,\, .
\label{theor1}
\end{equation}
Note that this is true only for a canonical choice of basis. This general
result is the key to the next sections.
\section{Factorizations}
When the approach described in the preceding sections was first proposed in
\cite{numbers}, the canonical basis did not include any elements at order $1$.
The reason is that the only contribution to the \vev\ at that order would be
the framing factor, which is not intrinsic to the knot. In that paper the
interest was centered in extracting numerical knot invariants from the
perturbative expansion, so it was natural to exclude the framing factor
and its corresponding element of the basis.
We can include the framing factor if we enlarge our basis with $r_{11}=C_2$,
the quadratic casimir. The geometrical factor associated with this new group
structure will be denoted by $n$ for it is the framing. We are including these
new elements here in order to show the simplest application of
eq.~(\ref{theor1}).
According to Propositions 1 and 2 there is a new basis in which each $r_{kl}$
originates a family of elements of the form $r_{kl}C_2$, $r_{kl}C_2^2$ and
so on. This set of elements of the new basis originated by $r_{kl}$ can be
called ``the $kl$-$C_2$-family''. Let us focus on a given $kl$-$C_2$-family
and consider its contribution to $\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle$. Theorem 1 shows that
this contribution is
\begin{equation}
d(R)\left( \alpha_k^l\,r_{kl}\,x^k + \alpha_k^l\,r_{kl}\,C_2\,n\,x^{k+1} +
\alpha_k^l\,r_{kl}\,C_2^2\,{1\over 2}n^2\,x^{k+2} + \ldots \right),
\label{contri}
\end{equation}
and the following terms are the expansion of an exponential. It follows that
eq.~(\ref{contri}) is equal to:
\begin{equation}
d(R) \alpha_k^l\,r_{kl}\,x^k\, \ex^{C_2 n x}.
\label{exp1}
\end{equation}
Therefore, repeating the same argument for each $kl$-$C_2$-family (which are
all independent because the $r_{kl}$ are) we get:
\vskip .5cm
{\bf THEOREM 2}
\vskip0.2cm
\begin{equation}
\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle=\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle\big|_{n=0}\, \ex^{C_2 n x}.
\label{exp2}
\end{equation}
This agrees exactly with the non-perturbative result \cite{witten} and can be
regarded as a simplified proof of the factorization of the framing factor shown
in \cite{pert}. Now, we can use a similar approach to factorize more structures.
The idea is the same: the selection of a given connected element of our
canonical basis, the ``dressing'' of another element of the basis with copies
of our selected subdiagram (thus creating a family of diagrams in the sense
explained above) and the repeated use of Theorem 1. The rest of this section
dwells on this subject.
The reasoning that led to the factorization of the $C_2$ structure can be
applied without changes to any other connected $r_{ij}$. The only peculiarity
of $C_2$ is that its addition to an element of the basis at order $k$, say
$r_{kl}$, leads to another element at order $k+1$, its ``first descendant'' in
the $kl$-$C_2$-family. If we want to factorize $r_{21}$, the members of the
$kl$-$r_{21}$-family would have orders $k+2$, $k+4$ and so on in double
steps. Proposition 2 says that our basis can be constructed so that it contains
this new family.
Let $r_{k+2q, l}$ be a member of the $kl$-$r_{21}$-family generated by
$r_{kl}$ and a $q$-fold insertion of $r_{21}$, {\it i.e.}
\begin{equation}
r_{k+2q, l} = r_{kl}\,\left(r_{21}\right)^q\, .
\label{erre3}
\end{equation}
Theorem 1, and the fact that we have chosen a canonical basis, enables us to
prove that the contribution of this family to $\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
& &d(R)\,\left(\alpha_k^l\,r_{kl}\,x^k+\alpha_k^l\,\alpha_2^1\,r_{kl}\,
r_{21}\,x^{k+2}+{1\over 2}\alpha_k^l\,(\alpha_2^1)^2\,r_{kl}\,\,
(r_{21})^2\,x^{k+4}+\ldots \right)\nonumber\\
& &=d(R)\,\alpha_{kl}\,r_{kl}\,x^k\,\ex^{\alpha_2^1\,r_{21}\,x^2}.
\label{facalpha21}
\end{eqnarray}
We can repeat the same steps for all $kl$-$r_{21}$-families because they are
all independent; in so doing we arrive at:
\vskip .5cm
{\bf THEOREM 3}
\vskip0.2cm
\begin{equation}
\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle=\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle\big|_{\alpha_2^1=0}\,
\ex^{\alpha_2^1\,r_{21}\, x^2},
\label{theo3}
\end{equation}
and nothing hinders the generalization of this theorem to what can be seen as
the full expression of the concept of perturbative factorization of the \vev :
\vskip .5cm
{\bf FACTORIZATION THEOREM}
\vskip0.2cm
\begin{equation}
\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle=d(R)\,\exp\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=1}^
{\hat{d}_i}\alpha_i^{j\,\,c}(C)\,r_{ij}^c(G)\,x^i\right\},
\label{theofacto}
\end{equation}
where $r_{ij}^c$ denotes the connected elements of the basis, and
$\alpha_i^{j\,\,c}$ their corresponding geometrical factors. These
$\alpha_i^{j\,\,c}$ do {\it not} correspond uniquely to connected diagrams
because the $r_{ij}^c$ include geometric factors from both connected and
disconnected Feynman diagrams. The symbol $\hat{d}_i$ stands for the number of
connected elements in the canonical basis at order $i$.
Equation~(\ref{theofacto}) can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
\log\left( {1\over d(R)}\langle\W_R(C,G)\rangle\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}
\sum_{j=1}^{\hat{d}_i}\alpha_i^{j\,\,c}(C)\,r_{ij}^c(G)\,x^i,
\label{logarithm}
\end{equation}
which is the result announced in (\ref{maineq}). Equation (\ref{logarithm})
is reminiscent of the
well known fact in quantum field theory that the logarithm of the generating
functional can be expanded in terms of connected diagrams only. The relevance
of this formula to the theory of knot invariants comes from the identification
of the \vev\ of the Wilson line as a polynomial invariant. Actually we are in
a much more general situation because we are considering an arbitrary
semi-simple gauge group, so our vev is in some sense the most general
polynomial invariant possible. Therefore, eqs.~(\ref{theofacto}) or
(\ref{logarithm}) prove that if a canonical basis is chosen, the logarithm of
a polynomial knot invariant can be expanded in terms of the primitive
Vassiliev invariants of the knot only.
The primitive Vassiliev invariants $\alpha_i^{j\,\,c}(C)$ have been computed
up to order six for all prime knots up to six crossings \cite{numbers}
and for arbitrary torus knots \cite{torus}. It was conjectured in
\cite{numbers} that there exist a normalization for the $\alpha_i^{j\,\,c}(C)$
in which they are integer-valued. The integral expressions for
$\alpha_2^1(C)$ and $\alpha_3^1(C)$ were first presented in \cite{gmm}
and in \cite{numbers} respectively. Properties of these two primitive Vassiliev
invariants have been studied in \cite{drortesis} and in \cite{alemanes}.
\section{Change of basis}
In this section we want to investigate to what extent the previous results are
independent of the basis chosen. We are thus led to consider changes of
basis. First we treat changes of canonical basis. Let $B$ and $B'$ be two
different canonical bases, being $r_{ij}$ and $r_{ij}'$ its elements. The most
general change of canonical basis is
\begin{equation}
r_{ij}'= N_j^k\,r_{ik},
\label{changer}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is a $d_i \times d_i$ matrix \footnote {There is an $N$ at each order
$i$, but we are not indicating this fact.} yet to be determined. We are
assuming that the vectors in this space are written as columns. To see that
(\ref{changer}) is the most general change between $B$ and $B'$, consider a
possible extra term in the right hand side. It has to be a product of several
$r_{kl}\in B$ such that the sum of the orders of its factors is $i$. But by
definition of canonical basis such a product is also an element of $B$ at
order $i$ and therefore the extra term can be absorbed into the first
term. This shows that eq.~(\ref{changer}) is indeed the most general change of
canonical basis.
It is elementary to prove that, in order to preserve the independence of the
elements of $B$ at each order, the matrix $N$ has to be non-singular:
\begin{equation}
\det N\neq 0\,\,.
\label{nonsing}
\end{equation}
We now analyze the effect
of the change of basis (\ref{changer}) on the geometric factors $\alpha_i^j$.
The vectors in this space of numerical factors are written as rows. The
starting point is the invariance of the \vev\ under changes of
basis. Therefore, at each order $i$ it is true that,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{d_i}\,\alpha_i^j\,r_{ij}=
\sum_{j=1}^{d_i}\,{\alpha'}_i^j\,{r'}_{ij}\, ,
\label{sea}
\end{equation}
and it follows that the $\alpha_i^j$ transform ``contravariantly'':
\begin{equation}
{\alpha'}_i^j=\,\alpha_i^k\,\left(N^{-1}\right)_k^j\,\,.
\label{changealpha}
\end{equation}
In general, at order $i$ the change of canonical basis involves a matrix
$N\in GL(d_i,\QQ)$. We do not know how to characterize these matrices
completely. Only a small subset of the whole linear group is relevant. For
example we can discard $N$'s which are mere permutations, or diagonal, since
they do not lead to essentially new bases. More important, the elements of the
basis $B'$ will be linear combinations of the elements of $B$, but these linear
combinations must be interpretable as {\it new diagrams\/} because we want
$B'$ to be canonical. In other words,
we would have to investigate which linear combinations of independent diagrams
can be written as a single diagram. The resulting subgroup of $GL(d_i,\QQ)$
would be equivalent to the space of independent canonical bases at order $i$.
The $N$'s have some properties that do not depend on these details. Let us
order the elements of a canonical basis $B$ at order $i$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
B_i=\left\{r^c_{i1}, \ldots ,r^c_{i, \hat{d}_i}, r_{i, \hat{d}_i+1},\ldots,
r_{i, d_i}\right\}\, ,
\label{order}
\end{equation}
{\it i.e.\/} the connected elements before, and the disconnected elements
after. A given disconnected element of $B$ can be written as a product of
elements of $B$ of lower orders,
\begin{equation}
r_{ij}=r_{kl}\,r_{i-k, s}\, ,
\label{decomp}
\end{equation}
where $l$ and $s$ depend implicitly on $j$, but this will not be relevant in
what follows. If we write the identity (\ref{decomp}) in a new canonical basis
$B'$, it reads
\begin{equation}
N_j^p\,{r'}_{ip}=N_l^q\,{r'}_{kq}\,N_s^t\,{r'}_{i-k, t}\, .
\label{decompprima}
\end{equation}
Note that the $N$'s operate on different spaces. What we
have on the right hand side is a linear combination of elements of $B'$
at order $i$, because all these products of $r_{kq}$'s times $r_{i-k, t}$'s
must be elements of $B'$ (it is canonical). On the left hand side we have other
elements of the same basis at the same order. Therefore eq.~(\ref{decompprima})
is a contradiction unless the $r_{ip}'$ are themselves products and, therefore,
correspond to disconnected diagrams. The conclusion is that in a change of
canonical basis, the disconnected $r$'s in $B$ come from the disconnected
$r$'s in $B'$.
This result can be summarized in the following symbolic representation of a
matrix $N$ valid for a change of canonical basis:
\begin{equation}
N=\left( \begin{tabular}{c|c}
C $\rightarrow$ C & NC $\rightarrow$ C \\ \hline
0 & NC $\rightarrow$ NC
\end{tabular} \right)
\label{matriz}
\end{equation}
where $C$ and $NC$ mean ``connected'' and ``non-connected'' respectively. In
this notation a change of basis would be written as
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c} r^c \\ r^{nc} \end{array}\right) =\,
\left(\begin{tabular}{c|c}
A & B \\ \hline
C & D
\end{tabular} \right)\,
\left(\begin{array}{c} {r'}^c \\ {r'}^{nc} \end{array} \right)
\label{nota}
\end{equation}
where $C=0$. The blocks in the diagonal are square matrices because all
canonical bases must have the same number $\hat{d}_i$ of connected elements
at a given order $i$. These matrices have an interesting property: they form a
subgroup of $GL(d_i,\QQ)$. The inverse of a given element is
\begin{equation}
\left( \begin{tabular}{c|c}
A & B \\ \hline
0 & D
\end{tabular} \right)^{-1}=
\left( \begin{tabular}{c|c}
${\rm A}^{-1}$ & $-{\rm A}^{-1}{\rm B}{\rm D}^{-1}$ \\ \hline
$0$ & ${\rm D}^{-1}$
\end{tabular} \right)
\label{inverse}
\end{equation}
and the determinant is
\begin{equation}
\det \left( \begin{tabular}{c|c}
A & B \\ \hline
0 & D
\end{tabular} \right)= \det{\rm A}\,\det{\rm D}\,\,.
\label{det}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the matrix is non-singular if and only if its diagonal blocks are
non-singular. We are assuming that the matrix represents a valid change of
basis, thus nothing is singular and the inverses in eq.~(\ref{inverse}) do
exist.
\subsection{Diagrammatic interpretation}
We can sharpen the previous result by analyzing the constraints that the
diagrammatic origin of the $r$'s imposes on their algebra. For example, the
product of two $r$'s is interpretable as a diagram in an obvious way
(actually, as an equivalence class of diagrams). The big constraint is on the
sum of two $r$'s. We are now investigating the algebra of diagrams which are
either connected or disconnected and non-overlapping, independently of their
being independent or not, {\it i.e.\/} of being elements of a canonical
basis or not. We shall call these diagrams generally $r$, and will not consider
diagrams with overlapping subdiagrams at all.
The question is: when is the sum of two $r$'s interpretable as a diagram? The
answer comes in two parts:
\vskip .5cm
{\bf Lemma}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $r_1$ and $r_2$ be two different connected diagrams of the same
order $i$. Their sum or difference $r_1 \pm r_2$ exists as a diagram of order
$i$ if and only if $r_1$ and $r_2$ are two of the terms in an STU or IHX
relation. The sign in $\pm$ depends on which two terms of those relations
are $r_1$ and $r_2$ related to.
\item If $r_1$ and $r_2$ are not connected, they can differ only in a single
subdiagram. Again, the subdiagrams that are different must be two of the terms
in an STU or IHX relation.
\end{enumerate}
More complicated linear combinations of $r$'s that are interpretable as
diagrams can always be decomposed in elementary steps, each of them satisfying
the Lemma. We introduce now a new concept. A linear combination of $r$'s that
can be interpreted as a diagram shall be called a ``valid'' linear
combination. To be completely rigurous, a valid linear combination should be
written in an unambiguous way by using parentheses to indicate which $r$'s
are added to which other $r$'s and in what order. For example,
\begin{equation}
r_1+r_2-r_3 = (r_1+r_2)-r_3\quad {\rm or}\quad r_1+(r_2-r_3)\quad {\rm or}
\quad(r_1-r_3)+r_2 \,\,.
\label{minor}
\end{equation}
Which one of the three possibilities is the good one depends on the diagrams.
In this sense, the addition of $r$'s is commutative but not associative. This
may be a minor point, because the {\it numerical values} of the $r$'s can be
added freely, but we are now focusing on the formal properties of the $r$'s
as elements of an ``algebra'' \footnote{Strictly speaking they do not form an
algebra, whence the quotation marks.}. In general, when we write
a valid linear combination of $r$'s
we shall assume that there is an ordering of the additions such that each
step complies with the Lemma. This ordering depends on the particular diagrams
in the linear combination and thus will not be indicated in general.
\subsection{Arithmetic of diagrams}
The previous subsection establishes the rules for an arithmetic of diagrams.
The $r$'s are elements of an algebraic structure in which we
can always multiply, but not always add or substract (see the Lemma above). As
for the division, an expression like $r_1/r_2$ is an $r$ only if $r_2$ is a
subdiagram of $r_1$, in which case we say that $r_2$ divides $r_1$. There is a
neutral element for the product: the empty diagram. Therefore no diagrammatic
interpretation exists for $1/r_2$.
The set of $r$'s with the addition is not even a group, for not all diagrams
can be added. This lack of structure precludes an abstract formulation
of the algebra of group factors $r$. We need to know which is the
diagram that a given $r$ represents in order to ascertain if it can be added
to another $r$ or not. Nevertheless we can prove some theorems which have a
bearing in our investigation.
\vskip .5cm
{\bf THEOREM 4}
\vskip0.2cm
Let $r_1$ and $r_2$ be two diagrams of the same order $i$ that can be
added or substracted, and $r_3$, $r_4$ be two diagrams whose orders add to $i$.
Then,
\begin{equation}
r_1 \pm r_2 = r_3\,r_4 \,\,\Longleftrightarrow\,\, \left(r_3 \big| r_1 \quad
{\rm and}\quad r_3 \big| r_2 \right)
\quad {\rm or}\quad \left(r_4 \big| r_1 \quad{\rm and}\quad r_4 \big| r_2
\right)
\label{chorras}
\end{equation}
where $a|b$ means that $a$ divides $b$. The proof follows from the
Lemma. An immediate generalization of this theorem is that a valid linear
combination of $r$'s is disconnected non-overlapping if and only if so is
each $r$ in the linear combination. A similar conclusion holds for valid
linear combinations of connected diagrams. We want to gather these important
conclusions in three remarks:
\begin{enumerate}
\item No valid linear combination of $r$'s includes connected
and disconnected non-overlapping diagrams at the same time.
\item A valid linear combination of connected diagrams is a
connected diagram.
\item A valid linear combination of disconnected
non-overlapping diagrams is a disconnected non-overlapping diagram. All of them
have the same number of subdiagrams.
\end{enumerate}
We can say that ``a valid linear combination of diagrams conserves the number
of components''. A closely related result is that a valid change of canonical
basis must be represented by a block-diagonal matrix:
\vskip .5cm
{\bf THEOREM 5}
\vskip0.2cm
Let $N$ be a matrix corresponding to a change of canonical basis at order $i$,
written in the form
\begin{equation}
N=\,\left( \begin{tabular}{c|c}
A & B \\ \hline
C & D
\end{tabular} \right)
\label{otraN}
\end{equation}
where A is a non-singular $\hat{d}_i\times \hat{d}_i$ matrix, and D a
non-singular $(d_i-\hat{d}_i)\times (d_i-\hat{d}_i)$ matrix. Then,
\begin{equation}
{\rm B}={\rm C}=0 \,\,.
\label{ceros}
\end{equation}
To prove this theorem notice that under a change of basis the connected $r$'s
transform as (see eq.~(\ref{nota}) for notation)
\begin{equation}
r^c={\rm A}{r'}^c+{\rm B}{r'}^{nc}\,\,.
\label{fedup}
\end{equation}
Given that the l.h.s. is a diagram we observe that the r.h.s. is a valid linear
combination of diagrams. But the Lemma implies that all diagrams in the r.h.s.
must be connected, or all of them disconnected non-overlapping, {\it i.e.\/}
either A=0 or B=0. It is clear from the Lemma that the only option is
B=0. A similar argument establishes that C=0, which we already knew from
previous considerations, see eq.~(\ref{matriz}).
The final picture for a valid $N$ is
\begin{equation}
N=\, \left( \begin{tabular}{c|c}
A & 0 \\ \hline
0 & D
\end{tabular} \right)
\label{finalN}
\end{equation}
with A and D non-singular square matrices. In words, the connected $r$'s
transform independently from the disconnected $r$'s; they never mix in a
change of canonical basis.
In particular this shows that eq.~(\ref{theofacto}) is consistent under a
change of canonical basis. No matter what canonical basis we choose, the only
relevant diagrams are those that contribute to the $r^c_{ij}$. As for the
change from a canonical $B$ to a non-canonical $B'$, we have little to
say. The concept of factorization as described here only makes sense for
canonical bases, and only in this case we have eq.~(\ref{theofacto}).
We regard canonical bases as privileged systems of reference in which the
perturbative expansion is at its simplest.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that the perturbative expansion of the vev of a Wilson line in
Chern-Simons quantum field theory shows a striking simplicity if presented in
terms of a canonical basis for the group factors. These bases provide a simple
characterization of primitive Vassiliev invariants: they are the geometric
factors associated to the connected elements of a canonical basis.
Within this framework it is possible to factorize the whole perturbative
expansion in separate contributions from each primitive invariant. Each of
these factors can be resummed in an exponential. The relevance of this result
for the theory of numerical knot invariants is that the logarithm of a
polynomial invariant contains only the primitive invariants.
This work opens a variety of investigations. One should study turther the
algebraic structure of the set of canonical bases. As follows from the
discussion in sect. 6, at each order $i$ this set is characterized by a
subgroup of $GL(\hat d_i,\QQ)$. Methods to find the groups corresponding to
each order should be investigated.
Another important extension of our work consists of the study of
factorization in the context of $n$-component links. Vassiliev invariants for
$n$-component links have not been much studied and it is very likely that some
of the ideas behind factorization can be used in the
organization of their structure. The extension of the concept of canonical basis
and primitiveness should be explored in that case following a similar analysis to
the one presented in this paper. Work on this and other aspects of Vassiliev
invariants associated to $n$-component links will be reported elsewhere.
\vskip 0.5truein
\begin{center}
{\bf Acknowledgements}
\end{center}
M.A. is indebted to Prof. John Negele and the CTP for hospitality, and to the
Spanish CICYT for financial support. J.M.F.L. thanks E. P\'erez for many
intersting discussions on Vassiliev invariants.
\vskip .5truein
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{vassi} V.A. Vassiliev, ``Cohomology of knot spaces"
in {\it Theory of Singularities
and its applications}, (V.I. Arnold, ed.), Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, RI, 1990, 23
\bibitem{vassidos} V.A. Vassiliev, ``Topology of complements to
discriminants and loop spaces" in {\it Theory of Singularities and its
applications},(V.I. Arnold, ed.), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1990, 23
\bibitem{vassitres} V.A. Vassiliev, ``Complements of discriminants of
smooth maps: topology and applications", Translations of Mathematical
Monographs, vol. 98, AMS, 1992
\bibitem{birlin} J.S. Birman and X.S. Lin, {sl Inv. Math.} {\bf 111}
(1993) 225
\bibitem{birman} J.S. Birman, {\sl Bull. AMS} {\bf 28} (1993) 253
\bibitem{drorcon} D. Bar-Natan, ``Weights of Feynman diagrams and the
Vassiliev knot invariants", preprint, 1991
\bibitem{drortesis} D. Bar-Natan, ``Perturbative aspects of
Chern-Simons topological quantum field theory", Ph. D. Thesis, Princeton
University, 1991
\bibitem{lin} X.S. Lin, ``Vertex models, quantum groups and Vassiliev
knot invariants", Columbia University preprint, 1991
\bibitem{konse} M. Kontsevich, {\sl Advances in Soviet
Math.} {\bf 16}, Part 2 (1993) 137
\bibitem{drortopo} D. Bar-Natan, {\sl Topology} {\bf 34} (1995) 423
\bibitem{piuni} S. Piunikhin, {\sl Journal of Knot Theory and its
Ramifications} {\bf 4} (1995) 163
\bibitem{numbers} M. Alvarez and J.M.F. Labastida, {\sl Nucl.Phys.}
{\bf B433} (1995) 555; Erratum {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B441} (1995) 403
\bibitem{haya} N. Hayashin, ``Graph Invariants of Vassiliev Type and
Application to 4D Quantum Gravity", UT-Komaba 94-8, March 1995,
{\tt q-alg}/9503010
\bibitem{konsedos} M. Kontsevich, ``Graphs, homotopical algebra and
low-dimensional topology, preprint, 1992
\bibitem{gmm} E. Guadagnini, M. Martellini and M. Mintchev, {\sl Phys.
Lett.} {\bf B227} (1989) 111; {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B228} (1989) 489; {\sl Nucl.
Phys.} {\bf B330} (1990) 575
\bibitem{bot} R. Bott and C. Taubes, {\sl J. Math. Phys.} {\bf 35}
(1994) 5247
\bibitem{altfr} D. Altschuler and L. Freidel, ``Vassiliev knot invariants
and Chern-Simons perturbation theory to all orders", ETH-TH/96-35.
\bibitem{pert} M. Alvarez and J.M.F. Labastida, {\sl Nucl. Phys.}
{\bf B395} (1993) 198
\bibitem{alr} L. Alvarez-Gaume, J.M.F. Labastida, A.V. Ramallo,
{\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B334} (1990) 103
\bibitem{carmelo} G. Giavarini, C.P. Mart\'\i n, F. Ruiz Ruiz,
{\sl Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B381} (1992) 222
\bibitem{witten} E. Witten,
{\sl Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 121} (1989) 351
\bibitem{torus} M. Alvarez and J.M.F. Labastida,
``Vassiliev invariants for torus knots", q-alg/9506009, June 1995, to appear
in {\sl \knot}
\bibitem{alemanes} A.C. Hirshfeld and U. Sassemberg,
``Derivation of the total twist from Chern-Simons gauge theory", DO-TH 95/02,
1995; ``Explicit formulation of a third order finite knot invariant derived from
Chern-Simons gauge theory", DO-TH 95/16, 1995
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
E X T E N S I O N T O L I N K S
\section{Extension to Two-Component Links}
Now we want to consider two linked Wilson lines. We shall denote the link by
$C_1$ and $C_2$ the two components of our link. The representations $\lambda$
and $\mu$ of the gauge group $G$ live in $C_1$ and $C_2$ respectively.
The main point here is that
we have to keep track of three different sources of group and geometric
factors: the two loops and the interaction between them. This means that there
are diagrams purely internal to the loops and diagrams that connect the loops.
It is thus necessary to enlarge Axiom 1 so as to encompass these new elements.
\vskip .5cm
{\bf Axiom 1'}
\begin{equation}
\langle\W_R(C_1,\lambda;C_2,\mu)\rangle= \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}
\sum_{j=1}^{\bar{d}_i}A_i^j(C_1,C_2)\,R_{ij}^{\lambda,\mu}\,x^i
\label{expansionloop}
\end{equation}
\vskip .5cm
\noindent where $A_i^j$ denote collectively the geometric factors. These can
be the $\alpha_i^j$'s of each loop or the new integrals that include
propagators connecting both loops; we denote these new integrals by
$\gamma_i^j$. Similarly $R_{ij}$ contains both the $r_{ij}$'s
and the new group factors connecting both loops, which we shall call $s_{ij}$.
As usual the first subindex denotes the order in perturbation theory, and the
second one labels different elements at that order.
For definiteness we shall call ``loop diagrams'' those diagrams which live in
only one of the loops, and ``interaction diagrams'' those which connect one
loop to the other. The concept of connectedness still makes sense. It can
be applied to interaction diagrams as well as to loop diagrams. In general a
connected diagram will be either a connected loop diagram or a connected
interaction diagram. A disconnected diagram will consist of several
subdiagrams, either of the loop or of the interaction type. The definition
of non-overlapping between loop and interaction subdiagrams is intuitively
obvious. It is also clear how to define non-overlapping interaction
subdiagrams.
There is an important difference between loop and interaction diagrams. If a
loop diagram consists of several connected non-overlaping subdiagrams, its
group factor is the product of the group factors of its subdiagrams. This is
false for interaction diagrams except if the gauge group is abelian. Therefore
there is little motivation for focusing on non-overlapping interaction
subdiagrams. Nevertheless we shall prefer a basis whose subdiagrams are
always non-overlapping.
The group factor of a general non-overlapping link diagram is the product of
the group factors ot its loop subdiagrams times the group factor of its
interaction subdiagram. Notice that we said ``interaction subdiagram'' in
singular, without mentioning its being connected or not, or the overlappingness
or not of its subdiagrams. We insist that these characteristics do not
have, in general, a simple effect on the group factor of the interaction
subdiagram.
It will be useful to introduce a new concept. A ``standard'' diagram is
either connected, or its subdiagrams are non-overlapping. This can be
applied both to loop and interaction diagrams. Now we summarize our
choice of $R_{ij}$'s in two axioms:
\vskip .5cm
{\bf Axiom 4:}
{\it It is always possible to choose a basis such that the $R_{ij}$ come from
standard loop diagrams, standard interaction diagrams, or products thereof.}
If there are subdiagrams, they can be chosen non-overlapping, in which case
$R_{ij}$ is the product of the group factors of the loop subdiagrams times
the group factor of the interaction subdiagram.
\vskip .5cm
{\bf Axiom 5:}
{\it The $R_{ij}$ which are products can be chosen as products of connected
loop subdiagrams and/or an interaction subdiagram which are elements of the
basis at lower orders.}
\vskip .5cm
In the case of loops, the choice of a canonical basis was natural from the
point of view of the factorization. Higher orders in perturbation theory
inherited many terms from lower orders. The problem now is that the group
factor of a standard interaction subdiagram is not related to the group
factors of its subdiagrams in a simple way.
There is another obstruction to defining a canonical basis for interaction
diagrams. This is best explained with an example; consider the diagram
$S_{32}$ in Fig.~1. If our basis is to be canonical we are forced to introduce
a further diagram at order $2$ which corresponds to the upper subdiagram in
$S_{32}$ (the triple vertex). We can do this ord
AQUI
Nevertheless we will choose the
interaction diagrams in our base following the next prescription:
\vskip .5cm
{\bf Axiom 6:}
The non-overlapping subdiagrams of a given interaction diagram in the basis
$R_{ij}$ can always be chosen as elements of the same basis at lower orders.
\vskip .5cm
A basis $R_{ij}$ constructed according to Axioms 4 to 6 will be called
``a canonical basis'', as in the case of a single loop.
\section{Master Equation for Links}
In this Section we shall investigate to what extent the concept of
factorization makes sense for interaction diagrams. We already said that it
is not as simple as in the case of a single loop; now it is time to grapple
with this problem.
We first present a group theoretical result \cite{eu} which stems from Okubo's
formula. Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be the representations of the gauge group $G$
which live in the loops $C_1$ and $C_2$. We are assuming now that the gauge
group is common to both loops. Let $R_{ij}^{\lambda\mu}(R_{ij}^{(1)},\ldots,
R_{ij}^{\#(ij)})$ be the group factor of a non overlapping interaction
diagram that consists of $\#(ij)$ interaction subdiagrams. Let $\rho$
be a representation contained in the Clebsch-Gordan series
$\lambda\otimes\mu$. Our formula is
\begin{equation}
R_{ij}^{\lambda\mu}(R_{ij}^{(1)},\ldots,R_{ij}^{\#(ij)})=
\sum_{\rho\subset \lambda\otimes\mu}
d(\rho)\prod_{k=1}^{\#(ij)}\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
R_{ij}^{(k)} & \mu & \mu \\
\rho & \lambda & \lambda \end{array}\right] \,\, ,
\label{oku}
\end{equation}
where the object inside the square brackets is the group factor of a loop
diagram that depends only on the representations $\lambda$, $\mu$ and $\rho$
and on the subdiagram $R_{ij}^k$. The precise meaning of this object need not
concern us at this point; suffice to say that it is a generalization of the
$6-j$ symbols of the theory of angular momentum.
If the gauge group is a product $G\times G'$, with representations
$\lambda$, $\lambda'$ in one loop and $\mu$, $\mu'$ in the other, the formula
(\ref{oku}) generalizes to
\begin{equation}
R_{ij}^{\lambda\lambda',\mu\mu'}(R_{ij}^{(1)},\ldots,R_{ij}^{\#(ij)})=
\sum_{\begin{array}{c} \rho\subset \lambda\otimes\mu \\
\rho'\subset\lambda'\otimes\mu' \end{array}}
d(\rho)d(\rho')\prod_{k=1}^{\#(ij)}\left( \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
R_{ij}^{(k)} & \mu & \mu \\
\rho & \lambda & \lambda \end{array}\right] + \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
R_{ij}^{(k)} & \mu' & \mu' \\
\rho' & \lambda' & \lambda' \end{array}\right]\right) \,\, .
\label{okudos}
\end{equation}
Let us denote by $\langle{\cal L}(C_1,\lambda,\lambda';C_2,\mu,\mu')\rangle$
the contribution of the interaction diagrams to the vev of a two-component
link. $C_1$ and $C_2$ are the components of the loop; t