Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: it is a basic tenet of x - ray spectral analysis that the source flux incident at the telescope is related to the observed count rate through an integral equation involving the effective area of the telescope . the most commonly accepted technique for dealing with this equation involves the use of spectral analysis programs such as ` xspec ` @xcite . the effective area is input into these programs via a file called the ancillary response file , or arf . in addition , the energy resolution of the detector is specified by the redistribution matrix file , or rmf . this work presents formal descriptions of the quantities embodied by the arf and rmf in terms of the underlying instrumental responses , making a clear connection between the incident source flux and the observed count rate .    roughly speaking , the effective area of an x - ray telescope composed of a mirror and a detector is more or less the product of the effective area of the mirror with the quantum efficiency ( qe ) of the detector . however , the arf , which relates observed counts to a source flux , also depends upon observation - dependent quantities such as the detailed aspect history of the telescope , its point spread function ( psf ) , and upon details of the analysis itself , e.g. , the filtering and binning of the observed data .    with the advent of the chandra x - ray observatory @xcite , all of the subtleties introduced by the shape of the psf and the telescope aspect motion were deemed important for the computation of an arf . chandra is well calibrated @xcite and , with its unprecedented combined spectral and spatial response , a precise definition of the arf that incorporates the effects of spacecraft motion and the psf is necessary in order to perform spectral analysis at the highest resolution of the instrument .    the main goal of this work is to present an explicit first - principles derivation of the arf by including the proper treatment of telescope motion ( e.g. , dither ) and the psf , as well as any filtering of the data . the bottom - up approach taken here necessarily implies that a meaningful and consistent derivation can be achieved by considering the role of the arf in spectral analysis . as a result , the arf is presented in the context of integral equations that connect the incident x - ray flux to an expected count rate . traditionally , the arf and rmf have been used primarily for the analysis of spectral image data . an important aspect of this work is to extend this approach to the analysis of dispersive spectral data , such as data obtained by chandra or newton . to this end , definitions of an arf and an rmf are presented that are suitable for dispersive data analysis , and which may be utilized by existing spectral analysis software . one of the original motivations for this work was the need to create a related object , an exposure map , for use in the analysis of data obtained by the chandra x - ray observatory . this paper also gives a rigorous definition of the exposure map and discusses some of its uses and its limitations in spectral image analysis . the resulting definition is consistent with current use , intuition , and physics . the next section contains a discussion of the general response of an x - ray telescope and also serves to introduce the notation and conventions used throughout this paper . although originally inspired by the need to create arfs and exposure maps for chandra , the presentation has been kept as general as possible without focusing on any particular telescope or instrument . a derivation of the imaging arf follows in section [ sec : arfdef ] where its application to several problems is considered . these include the problem of multiple overlapping point sources . section [ sec : exposuremap ] contains a definition of the exposure map and explores its use as well as its limitations in dealing with extended sources . the definition of a dispersive arf and rmf that are suitable for use in the analysis of dispersive spectral data are given in section [ sec : garf ] . following the summary of the paper is an appendix that considers the practical computation of these objects . let @xmath0 represent the number of photons per unit area per unit time incident upon the telescope with directions that lie in the cone of directions between @xmath1 and @xmath2 , and whose wavelengths lie between @xmath3 and @xmath4 . this source flux is assumed to be time - independent . similarly , let @xmath5 represent the _ expected _ number of counts per unit time , in pulse - height bin @xmath6 , within a region of area @xmath7 at the position @xmath8 on the detector . ( although in this paper , @xmath6 is a discrete quantity that represents a pulse - height channel , one could easily generalize @xmath6 to a continuous quantity such as a voltage by introducing the infinitesimal @xmath9 and replacing @xmath10 by @xmath11 . )    in general , the count rate will be time - dependent even if the source flux does not vary with time . this time - dependence arises from several effects , including but not limited to telescope pointing motion ( e.g. , pointing wobble or dither ) , detector electronics , telemetry saturation , and thermal expansion effects that cause the movement of individual telescope subsystems with respect to one another .    as used here , pointing is the measured , generally periodic movement of a coordinate system attached to the optical axis with respect to a coordinate system fixed with respect to the sky . these two coordinate systems are related by a time - dependent rotation matrix @xmath12 which completely characterizes the pointing . it is assumed that complete knowledge of @xmath12 is available from , e.g. , an on - board aspect system , at some level of accuracy ( see section [ sec : telescoperesponse ] ) .    in the coordinate system fixed with respect to optical axis , the source flux will appear to be time - dependent according to @xmath13 this equation simply expresses the fact that an observer fixed to the telescope will see a time dependent source and that this induced time dependence is a direct consequence of telescope motion . in the telescope coordinate system , the source flux and the count rate are related to one another via the equation @xmath14 which defines the total _ response _ @xmath15 of the telescope . it is an extremely complicated function that incorporates all elements of the telescope such as the detector and its electronics , the mirror , and diffraction gratings , if present . since the units of @xmath16 are counts per unit detector area per unit time , and the units of @xmath17 are photons per unit aperture area per unit time , it follows that the response @xmath15 is a unitless quantity ( counts / photon @xmath18 aperture area / detector area ) .    the mathematical form of equation ( [ rtdef ] ) represents a linear mapping from @xmath19 to @xmath20 . hence , strictly speaking , equation ( [ rtdef ] ) is valid only when one can neglect non - linear effects such as local gain depression or pile - up , i.e. , a non - linear effect caused by the finite time resolution of the detector . pile - up can be treated , at least in principle , by making the response @xmath15 a function of the incident flux @xmath21 . however , this topic is beyond the scope of the present work and will be addressed elsewhere @xcite . the explicit time - dependence of @xmath15 is due to effects associated with telemetry saturation , thermal expansion , and so on . it is assumed that all but the time - dependence associated with internal movement of the telescope subsystems may be encapsulated in a function @xmath22 that factors out of @xmath15 , i.e. , @xmath23 in this equation the residual time - dependence of the response function @xmath24 depends only upon the relative movements of the individual telescope subsystems . the function @xmath25 can be thought of as representing the the so - called `` good - time intervals '' , or gtis . however , @xmath22 could play a more general role than this because it could include the effects of bad - pixels . ] , which themselves may be time - dependent , as well as any dead - time factors associated with telemetry saturation . it should also be noted that although the incident source flux has been assumed to be independent of time , @xmath22 could encompass time - dependent variations in the source flux as long as the spectral shape itself does not depend upon time . in this case , only the amplitude of the flux is time - dependent and this time - dependence may be factored out of the incident source flux and into the function @xmath22 . further exploration of this possibility is left to the reader . suffice it to say that the actual values that @xmath22 take on are not important in what follows . hence , equation ( [ rtdef ] ) can be written @xmath26 where the last form follows from the change of variables @xmath27 and noting that because the matrix @xmath12 is orthogonal , the jacobian of the transformation is unity .    assuming that the response depends upon several _ independent _ telescope subsystems , it may be factored it into subsystem - dependent pieces . the specific form of the factorization will depend upon the actual physical relationships between the various subsystems . for a prototypical x - ray telescope with a focusing mirror at the aperture of the telescope that focuses x - rays onto a position - sensitive detector , an appropriate factorization is given by @xmath28 a different factorization may have to be use to describe the response of some other type of telescope ( see section [ sec : garf ] for the factorization needed to to describe the presence of a diffraction grating ) . in this equation , @xmath29 is the off - axis effective area of the mirror , and @xmath30 represents the probability that a photon with wavelength @xmath3 at position @xmath8 on the detector will give rise to a pulse - height @xmath6 . the term involving the delta function symbolizes the passage of a photon with direction @xmath31 from the mirror to the position @xmath8 on the detector via the coordinate transformation @xmath32 . in general , this function is time - dependent and represents any relative motion that exists between the mirror and the detector . the psf ( point spread function ) of the telescope is represented by the function @xmath33 , which is assumed to satisy the normalization condition @xmath34 its definition is based upon the idea ( see figure [ fig : psf ] ) that the mirror itself ( e.g. , one of a typical type - i wolter design ) may be modeled by the appropriate probability distribution for photons to enter and leave the mirror at a single point ( the so - called `` mirror node '' ) , with an effective area given by @xmath29 . as indicated in figure [ fig : psf ] , the psf defined in this way will also depend ( implicitly ) upon the position of the detector and its relationship to the focal surface . for simplicity , in the following it will be assumed that the variations in the movement of the detector with respect to the mirror during the course of an observation are small enough that the psf may be regarded as independent of time to sufficient accuracy . the reader should note that a _ perfect _ psf defined in this sense is represented by @xmath35    generally speaking , the detector response @xmath30 can be factored into a qe ( quantum efficiency ) @xmath36 and a redistribution function @xmath37 : @xmath38 the function @xmath39 is known as the redistribution matrix function , or rmf @xcite , and represents a mapping , or redistribution , from wavelength to pulse - height by the detector . without any loss of generality , it is assumed to be normalized to unity via @xmath40 alternatively , the quantum efficiency may be defined by @xmath41 in general , as indicated here the rmf varies with position on the detector , although many applications assume a spatially constant rmf . in contrast , the quantum efficiency function @xmath36 is assumed to contain the effects of ( static ) bad pixels , detector dead regions , detector boundaries , and so on , all of which cause it to vary spatially . using the response function given by equation ( [ imagingrsp ] ) , the expected count rate from the source @xmath21 is seen to be @xmath42 where , for notational simplicity , @xmath43 symbolizes @xmath44 . telescope pointing motion will cause events to appear spatially mixed together when expressed as an image in detector coordinates . for this reason , it is preferable to work in the sky coordinate system where one can remove the effects of the motion by projecting the events to the sky in the appropriate manner . thus , we define an _ aspect - corrected _ count rate via @xmath45 where @xmath46 is the instantaneous jacobian of the transformation from the detector coordinate @xmath8 to the sky coordinate @xmath1 via the inversion of @xmath47 . physically , the jacobian represents the stretching or magnification of an element of area on the detector as it appears in the sky .    by making use of the well known change of variable formula for delta functions expressed in the form @xmath48 one can show that the aspect - corrected count rate is @xmath49 the above equation assumes that complete knowledge of the aspect history is available in order to perform the aspect correction . in general , there will be uncertainties in the aspect solution which in turn leads to spatial uncertainties in the aspect corrected count rate . mathematically , this will manifest itself as a broadening or smearing of the delta function in equation ( [ deltacov ] ) by an amount that depends upon the aspect uncertainties . the most straightforward way to handle this effect is to absorb the uncertainties into the psf itself . for this reason , in the following @xmath50 will denote the psf that includes the effect of the aspect uncertainties . the total number of expected counts with pulse - height @xmath6 over an observation interval @xmath51 in some region @xmath52 can be computed by integrating @xmath53 over the observation interval and @xmath31 over the sky region @xmath52 , i.e. , @xmath54 by using equation ( [ rmfdef ] ) and assuming for the moment that the rmf does not vary with position , the previous equation can be rewritten as @xmath55 where @xmath56 and the effective exposure time is given by @xmath57 for simplicity it has been assumed that the good - time interval function @xmath58 does not depend upon detector position .    equation [ arf ] defines the arf . it has the units of area @xmath18 counts per photon and depends upon the region @xmath52 , wavelength @xmath3 , _ and _ sky position @xmath1 . however , for the purposes of point - source analysis , knowledge of the arf is required only at the position of the point source , where it may be regarded as depending only upon wavelength with the understanding that it is valid only for that source position and region . but for arbitrary sources , it should be regarded as an explicit function of @xmath1 . armed with the arf , equation ( [ imageeq ] ) is an integral equation that may be `` solved '' to yield the source distribution @xmath21 from the observed aspect - corrected counts @xmath59 . actually , because of the integration over the sky region @xmath52 , much of the spatial dependence in @xmath21 will be lost and in practice one will have to assume a known spatial dependence ; the examples below illustrate this point more fully . one should also realize that the kernel of equation ( [ imageeq ] ) is really a probability distribution and that the observed number of counts will most likely differ from the expected number of counts predicted by the equation . this implies that equation ( [ imageeq ] ) does not really have a unique solution ( for a finite observation time ) , and any method of `` solving '' should allow for fluctuations in the number of counts . one must also take into account any external background sources as well as any internal background produced by , say , noise in the detector . techniques for treating this equation are beyond the scope of this paper and may be found elsewhere @xcite .    in the next few sections , equation ( [ imageeq ] ) is considered in the context of various source distributions . the problem of the practical computation of the arf is taken up in the appendix .      a point source located at position @xmath60 in the sky with a spectrum @xmath61 may be represented using the source distribution @xmath62 substituting this equation into equation ( [ imageeq ] ) yields @xmath63 this equation is essentually the integral equation that the popular spectral analysis program ` xspec ` @xcite is designed to solve . as noted above , the arf is required to be computed only at the position @xmath60 of the point source ; due to the time - dependence of the telescope motion , the integration over @xmath53 in equation ( [ arf ] ) does however sample various detector regions and variations in the off - axis effective area . multiple point sources may be represented by a source distribution of the form @xmath64 where the position of the @xmath65th source is given by @xmath66 and its spectrum is @xmath67 . insertion of this distribution into equation ( [ imageeq ] ) produces @xmath68 .\ ] ]    if all of the sources have an identical source spectrum such that @xmath69 , then the resulting integral equation reduces to the case of a single point source , i.e. , @xmath70 s({\lambda } ) .\ ] ] however , the more interesting case of spectrally distinct sources is more complicated to solve . in fact , its solution would require @xmath71 integral equations since there are @xmath71 unknown spectral distributions @xmath67 . the most straightforward way to obtain the required number of independent equations would be to use @xmath71 different regions @xmath72 , not necessarily disjoint , and solve the resulting linear system of equations @xmath73 .\ ] ] these equations are `` coupled '' to the extent that the @xmath74 for @xmath75 are non - zero , i.e. , whether or not source @xmath76 has a psf contribution to region @xmath72 ( see figure [ fig : point ] ) . such a system of equations may be handled using ` sherpa ` @xcite , the chandra data system spectral analysis program . one of the simplest examples of an extended source is one in which the spatial and spectral distributions are uncorrelated . that is , the source distribution @xmath21 factors according to @xmath77 where @xmath78 defines the spatial distribution , assumed to be properly normalized such that @xmath79 combining this distribution with equation ( [ imageeq ] ) yields @xmath80      s({\lambda})\ ] ] suppose that the form of @xmath78 is known . then , the arf could be combined with the known spatial distribution by defining @xmath81 which leads to the xspec style equation @xmath82 for the unknown spectral function @xmath61 . of course , this methodology can not be used if the spatial distribution @xmath78 is not known . the more general problem is addressed below in section [ sec : exposuremap ] of this paper . it is important to note that the arf , given in equation ( [ arf ] ) , is useful only when one can disregard spatial variations in the rmf . unfortunately , this may not always be possible . for example , chandra acis ccds have a spatially varying response that must be properly taken into account . provided that one wants to stay within the confines of the existing arf+rmf paradigm , the only way to properly handle such cases is to filter the observed events over a region in detector coordinates where spatial variations in the rmf may be neglected . mathematically , this procedure may be stated as follows . let @xmath83 denote the region on the detector where the rmf does not vary . then define a filter @xmath84 on this region by @xmath85 multiplication of equation ( [ expectrate ] ) by this filter , followed by aspect correction and summing over the sky region @xmath52 yields @xmath86 where @xmath87 in these equations , @xmath88 is the expected number of counts in the sky region @xmath52 that also falls within the detector region @xmath83 , @xmath89 is the arf appropriate for this region of the detector , and @xmath90 is the region - dependent rmf . the arf presented in the previous section is primarily of use for spectral analysis over small spatial regions , e.g. , the analysis of point sources . much of the spatial information useful for the treatment of extended sources was lost in the construction of the arf by integrating the response over a region @xmath52 of the sky . a related product , the exposure map , does not depend upon the integration over a sky region permitting it to be used for certain types of extended source analysis . the goal of this section is to define an exposure map and show how it may be used with extended sources . start by integrating equation ( [ aspdatrelat ] ) over an observation time @xmath51 to produce @xmath91 here , @xmath92 represents the expected total number of aspect - corrected counts with pulse - height @xmath6 attributed to the sky position @xmath31 .    in general the psf is small for rays not too far off the optical axis , although it can become quite large for far off - axis rays . suppose that the pointing motion amplitude is small enough that the psf may be regarded as a scalar under the motion , i.e. , @xmath93 and then consider the integration over @xmath1 in equation ( [ totaspcounts ] ) . for off - axis positions where the size of the psf is small , for a _ fixed _ @xmath31 , only a narrow range of @xmath1 contributes to the integral . for the moment , assume that the mirror effective area does not vary much over this range . then the approximation @xmath94 can be used in equation ( [ totaspcounts ] ) to yield @xmath95 where a psf - smeared source @xmath96 has been defined by @xmath97 with the introduction of the _ exposure map _ @xmath98 defined by @xmath99 equation ( [ totaspcounts1 ] ) may be recast as @xmath100 it is important to understand that this is an integral equation describing the psf - smeared source and not the true source . after `` solving '' this equation , one still has the task of removing the effects of the psf to determine the true source . nevertheless , equation ( [ emapinteq ] ) does have one very important feature not shared by the equations involving the arf ; namely , the spatial distribution of the expected aspect corrected counts , @xmath101 , is the same as the psf - smeared source s spatial distribution . a common use of the exposure map is to remove instrumental artifacts in images to obtain a better looking image . this is also known as `` flux - correcting '' the image . the method essentially assumes that the pulse - height resolution of the detector permits the separation of counts originating from photons from different energy bands , supplemented by the assumption that the source flux may be regarded as constant within a band @xcite . to express this idea in quantitative terms , consider a range of @xmath102 of pulse - heights centered on some pulse - height @xmath6 and assume that the rmf @xmath103 is such that only those photons from the wavelength band @xmath104 about @xmath3 can produce pulse - heights in the specified range . now sum equation ( [ emapinteq ] ) over this range and consider only the photons from the wavelength band @xmath104 to yield @xmath105 which may be written in the more compact form @xmath106 with the understanding that the pulse - height range @xmath102 is summed over .    if the bandwidth @xmath107 is such that @xmath108 does not vary much over the band , then it may be removed from the integrand to obtain @xmath109 this equation says that the integrated profile of the psf - smeared source flux over the wavelength band may be obtained by dividing the exposure map into the counts image constructed from the appropriate pulse - height range . the resolution of the source spectrum obtained by this technique is generally poorer than that of the detector s energy resolution because the wavelength band @xmath104 must be large enough to cover all the wavelengths that could contribute to the range of pulse - heights @xmath102 . at the same time it must be small enough to ensure that @xmath108 may be treated as a constant in the wavelength band . it is possible that there may be bands in which these constraints are mutually exclusive . for this reason , the use of the exposure map is limited to situations where spectral resolution is of secondary importance . for example , spatial resolution is much more important than spectral resolution when doing source detection . for such a situation , one would run the source detection algorithm on an image obtained by dividing the total counts image over an exposure map integrated over the bandpass of the telescope . another application of the exposure map would be to use it to get a crude estimate of the true spectrum , and use that as the first approximation in some more refined technique .    before leaving this section , it is important to point out that equation ( [ emapinteq ] ) is valid only as long as the size of the psf is small enough that any variation in the effective area over the psf can be neglected . if this is not the case , then it is impossible to give a definition of an exposure map that has the simple relationship between the observed counts image and the psf - smeared source as described by this equation . by implication it follows that such an exposure map can not be used for flux correction via the simple division of equation ( [ emapuse ] ) . however , if the detector response @xmath110 is uniform , then it is possible to commute the response with @xmath33 in equation ( [ totaspcounts ] ) to produce @xmath111 this means that one must first deconvolve the effects of the psf _ before _ correcting with the exposure map . the feasability of this will depend upon the energy dependence of the psf where one may have to perform the deconvolution in specific energy bands . this prescription resembles the one advocated by @xcite for the analysis of asca data . alternatively , @xcite has argued that one start essentually from equation ( [ totaspcounts ] ) and employ a `` forward - folding '' method to estimate the source distribution @xmath21 . when diffraction gratings are added , the subsystem factorization , equation ( [ imagingrsp ] ) , must be modified to @xmath112 m({\lambda},{{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \hat{p}$}}}}),\ ] ] where @xmath113 represents the diffraction order and @xmath114 symbolizes the coordinate transformation of a diffracted ray at the grating node with direction @xmath31 to the detector coordinate @xmath8 . the actual diffraction into the @xmath113th order is represented by the term @xmath115 , which gives the probability for a ray with direction @xmath1 and wavelength @xmath3 to diffract into the @xmath113th order with direction @xmath31 . the function @xmath116 is the @xmath113th order grating efficiency , and by definition the redistribution function satisfies the normalization condition @xmath117    despite the similarity in form of @xmath118 to the imaging psf @xmath33 , it is important to appreciate one very important difference between these two functions . the imaging psf is sharply peaked about the set of directions @xmath31 near @xmath1 . however , @xmath118 is sharply peaked about a set of directions @xmath31 that vary linearly with wavelength @xmath3 according to the diffraction equation @xmath119 where @xmath120 is the grating period , the vector @xmath121 is normal to the plane of the grating , and @xmath122 is in the direction of the grating bars ( see figure [ fig : grating ] ) . it follows trivially from equation ( [ gratingresponse ] ) that the expected count - rate into @xmath113th order is given by @xmath123                   \nonumber .\end{aligned}\ ] ] as in the imaging case , an aspect - corrected count - rate may be defined by @xmath124 with the result @xmath125    this equation may be simplified for the special case of a point source located at @xmath60 with a spectrum @xmath61 , i.e. , @xmath126 in addition , assume that the telescope pointing motion amplitudes are small enough that the grating redistribution function behaves like a scalar under the motion as in equation ( [ psfscalar ] ) . then , the integral over @xmath31 may be readily performed to yield @xmath127 integration of this equation over a set of regions @xmath72 and time @xmath51 yields for the total expected number of counts with pulse - height @xmath6 in the regions @xmath128 { { \cal f}}_m({\lambda},{{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \hat{p}$}}}},{{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \hat{q}$ } } } } ) s({\lambda}).\ ] ] for fixed @xmath3 and @xmath60 , the sharp peaked nature of the grating redistribution function @xmath129 implies that only a very narrow set of directions @xmath1 will contribute to the term in square brackets . moreover , any telescope pointing motion is expected to smooth out any non - uniformities in the detector qe appearing in this term such that one can evaluate it using the value of @xmath1 determined by the grating equation . in other words , the term in square brackets can be replaced by a function @xmath130 defined by @xmath131 where @xmath1 satisfies @xmath132 hence , the number of counts in the @xmath113th order with pulse - height @xmath6 is expected to be @xmath133 where @xmath134 and @xmath135 is given by equation ( [ teffdef ] ) .    for reasons that will soon become clear , @xmath130 is called the grating arf , and @xmath136 is called the grating rmf . to see this , consider the meaning of equation ( [ gratingrmf ] ) . for fixed @xmath3 , equation ( [ gratingrmf ] ) represents a redistribution from wavelength @xmath3 to the region @xmath72 , which may be regarded as the @xmath65th bin in @xmath1-space ( see figure [ fig : grating ] ) . this is the analog of the imaging rmf which describes a redistribution from @xmath3 to a bin in pulse - height space . with this interpretation , equation ( [ gxspec ] ) is formally identical the to equation equation ( [ xspeceq ] ) , provided that one identifies @xmath130 with the arf . hence , any techniques that are applicable to equation ( [ xspeceq ] ) may be readily applied to the solution of equation ( [ gxspec ] ) . although @xmath130 depends upon the pulse - height , in practice events will be filtered upon the pulse - height in order to perform order separation , provided that the intrinsic energy resolution of the detector is adequate . for detectors with poor energy resolution , some other means of identifying @xmath113th order events will have to be used . in any case , @xmath130 will most likely be summed over the range of pulse - heights appropriate to @xmath113th order events . in fact , the pulse - height range will generally vary with the wavelength such that the quantity @xmath137 will actually be what is used in practice . for this reason , it is preferable to define the summed quantity @xmath138 as the grating arf . in this paper , explicit expressions for the imaging arf , grating arf , and the exposure map were given in terms of the underlying instrumental responses that are consistent with the current use of the objects . these quantities were obtained from first principles by relating the expected detector count - rate to an incident photon source flux via the overall telescope response function suitably factored into individual instrumental responses . one of the complications in the derivation of these quantities concerned the proper treatment of time - varying effects due to telescope pointing motion , e.g. , dither . at the same time , the assumed presence of motion about some nominal pointing allowed some important factorizations to take place that otherwise would have been suspect in regions containing detector boundaries or bad pixels . for this reason , purposely dithering an observation is recommended , provided , of course , that one can reconstruct the aspect history with sufficient accuracy . an added benefit of the first principles approach taken here is that it allows one to consider problems that can not readily be handled by conventional means through the use of an arf and an rmf . for example , as shown in section [ sec : extended ] , it arf may be applied to the analysis of an extended source provided one knows _ a priori _ that the source flux distribution factors into a known spatial component and an unknown spectral component . it is easy to find sources where such a factorization is not permissible ; the supernova remanent , cassiopeia a , is one . another problem that does not appear to be treatable through standard the techniques is the analysis of an extended source in the presence of a diffraction grating . the grating arf defined in section [ sec : garf ] was derived assuming a point source distribution . the basic problem with the analysis of an extended source is that , unlike a point source , there is no unique zeroth order position that one could use in the grating equation . by judicious filtering in pulse - height space , one may find regions where there is enough of a point - like behavior to permit the grating arf to be used . however , how to handle a generic extended source in the presence of a diffraction grating is still an open question . it is hoped that the mathematical formulation of the extended source problem as given in sections [ sec : arfdef ] and [ sec : garf ] will lead to better insights into these problems and ultimately to their solution . this work also highlights some important practical considerations that should be taken into account in the design of astronomical data analysis software systems . for instance , to allow for the possibility of spatial variation in the underlying detector redistribution function , the software component responsible for the filtering of events should allow the user to easily filter _ simultaneously _ on both sky coordinates and detector coordinates . in addition , both filters would need to be passed to the program that generates the arf . finally , spectral fitting programs should be enhanced to facilitate the analysis of blended sources by handling the coupled integral equations in equation ( [ intsys ] ) . i am especially grateful to david huenemoerder for clarifying a number of issues during the course of this work . in addition , i also thank david davis , john houck , norbert schulz , and michael wise for useful discussions . finally , i am indebted to dan dewey for his critical reading of the text and valuable suggestions regarding the presentation of some of the material . this work was supported under chandra x - ray center contract sv1 - 61010 from the smithsonian institution . in this appendix , some `` approximations '' used for the practical computation of the arf and grating arf are discussed . in fact , these approximations are actually employed by the chandra exposure map code suite for the generations of exposure maps and arfs . since the code is freely available , the actual implementation details will not be discussed here . the reader should also note that some of these approximations may only be valid for the chandra telescope , which dithers , and for other missions one may have to resort to the full definitions given in the main body of the text . the integrals over the observation time appearing in the equations for the arf and the grating arf can be quite computationally expensive , especially for long observation times . the general form of these integrals is given by @xmath139 where @xmath140 is an @xmath71 dimensional time - dependent vector that characterizes the dither of the telescope and the relative motion of its subsystems . for example , @xmath71 is @xmath141 if there is no internal movement , and the dither is characterized by the roll , pitch , and yaw of the telescope .    by multiplying the preceeding equation by the identity @xmath142 it trivially follows that @xmath143 where @xmath144 the quantity @xmath145 has a very simple interpretation . it represents the total amount of time , weighted by @xmath58 , that the point spent in the volume element @xmath146 at @xmath147 . now , if the telescope dithers around some nominal pointing , and if the time - dependent internal motions due to , e.g. , thermal expansion are small , then the point @xmath140 will be confined to some small volume in the @xmath71 dimensional space . this means that @xmath148 will be non - zero only in that small volume and zero everywhere else . so , to compute the time integration over long observation times for the case of small dither amplitudes , it is often more efficient to compute the value of @xmath148 and use it to evaluate equation ( [ asphistuse ] ) . in practice , the portion of the @xmath71 dimensional space where @xmath149 is non - zero is sub - divided into small volume elements @xmath146 . then the discretized quantity @xmath150 is computed and used in a discretized version of equation ( [ asphistuse ] ) , i.e. , @xmath151 for reasons that should be apparent , @xmath152 is called the _ aspect histogram_.    the major advantage of this approach for the case of small dither amplitudes is that there are likely to be many fewer terms to sum in equation ( [ asphistapprox ] ) than if a straightforward discretization were used to perform the time integration in equation ( [ timeinteg ] ) . moreover , there are efficient algorithms based upon @xmath153-ary trees for computing the aspect histogram . for example , the code for both the chandra and rosat missions use an octtree for @xmath154 . ( for chandra , the value of @xmath71 used is 3 rather than 6 through the use of `` effective '' offsets . ) the arf is a complicated function requiring complete knowledge of the detector qe , mirror effective area , aspect solution , and the point spread function . to compute it directly from equation ( [ arf ] ) or from equation ( [ arfgamma ] ) in the case of a spatially varying rmf , one would need to carry out an integration over time as well as a 2-d integration over the sky region , and do this for every point in the sky . clearly , this is not practical and in view of the fact that there will be uncertainties in the instrumental responses at this level of detail , such a calculation is unwarranted . instead , one can make several simplifying approximations that permit the arf to be computed in an economic manner .    as written , equation ( [ arf ] ) is valid for any motion of the spacecraft , including slew . however , here it shall be assumed that one is dithering about some mean pointing and that the scale of the dither is small enough that any variations in the psf and the mirror effective area on this scale can be neglected . therefore , equation ( [ arf ] ) will be approximated by @xmath155 where @xmath156 represents the time - average of @xmath43 , i.e. , @xmath157 similarly , define @xmath158 to be the time - averaged value of the qe . then one can write @xmath159 the time - averaging over the dither motion has the effect of smoothing out any large variations in the qe over the region . in fact , this is the primary purpose of the dither . now since @xmath160 can be assumed to vary slowly over the region , and since @xmath161 is expected to rapidly go to zero as @xmath31 moves away from @xmath1 , @xmath160 can be replaced by its average over the region and removed from the integrand . this leads to the result @xmath162 where @xmath163 is the average of @xmath164 over the region and the psf _ fraction _ in the region is given by @xmath165      the grating arf is defined by equation equation ( [ summedgratingarf ] ) , rewritten here as @xmath166          \times g_m({\lambda } )            \frac{1}{{\tau_{\mbox{\tiny eff } } } } \int_0^{\tau } { \mbox{d}}{t } \ ; t(t ) q(\sigma_g({{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \hat{p}$}}}}_t , t),t ) m({\lambda},{{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \hat{q}$}}}}_t),\ ] ] where equation ( [ rmfdef ] ) has been used with the assumption that the rmf does not vary spatially . for a spatially varying rmf an additional spatial filter would need to be applied as was done for the imaging arf to derive equation ( [ arfgamma ] ) . in the above equation , @xmath1 depends upon the source position and the wavelength according to @xmath167 if the amplitude of the dither is small on the scale of the variations in the mirror effective area , then @xmath168 may be replaced by @xmath169 and removed from the integrand . hence , the grating arf may be approximated by @xmath170 where @xmath171    arnaud , k.a . , 1996 , astronomical data analysis software and systems v , eds . jacoby g. and barnes j. , p17 , asp conf . series vol . 101 chandra x - ray center , chandra project science ( msfc ) , and chandra ipi teams , 2000 , the chandra proposers observatory guide version 2.0 m.c . weisskopf , h.d . tananbaum , l.p . van speybroeck , and s.l . odell , 2000 , chandra x - ray observatory : overview , x - ray optics , instruments , and missions , proc . spie , vol . 4012 davis , j.e . , 2000 , in preparation george , i. m. , arnaud , k. a. , pence , b. , and ruamsuwan , l , ogip , 2000 , calibration memo cal / gen/92 - 002 kahn , s. m. and blissett , r. j. , 1980 , apj , 238 , 417 doe , s. , ljungberg , m. , siemiginowska , a. , joye , w. , 1998 , astronomical data analysis software and systems vii , eds . r. albrecht , r.n . hook and h.a . bushouse , p157 , asp conf . series vol . 145 snowden , s. l. , mccammon , d. , burrows , d. n. , mendenhall , j. a. , 1994 , apj , 424 , 714 white , d. a. and buote , d. a. , 2000 , mon . not . r. astron . soc , 312 , 649 ikebe , y. , 1995 , phd thesis , university of tokyo
Abstract:

Answer: this work provides an in - depth mathematical description of the response functions that are used for spatial and spectral analysis of x - ray data . the use of such functions is well - known to anyone familiar with the analysis of x - ray data where they may be identified with the quantities contained in the ancillary response file ( arf ) , the redistribution matrix file ( rmf ) , and the exposure map . starting from first - principles , explicit mathematical expressions for these functions , for both imaging and dispersive modes , are arrived at in terms of the underlying instrumental characteristics of the telescope including the effects of pointing motion . the response functions are presented in the context of integral equations relating the expected detector count rate to the source spectrum incident upon the telescope . their application to the analysis of several source distributions is considered . these include multiple , possibly overlapping , and spectrally distinct point sources , as well as extended sources . assumptions and limitations behind the usage of these functions , as well as their practical computation are addressed .


Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: because of its nonperturbative nature , studying low energy hadron physics in qcd is a long standing difficult problem . for low lying pseudoscalar mesons , a widely used approach is the theory of the effective chiral lagrangian based on the consideration of the global symmetry of the system and the momentum expansion without dealing with the nonperturbative dynamics of qcd @xcite@xcite . in the chiral lagrangian approach , the coefficients in the lagrangian are all unknown phenomenological parameters which should be determined by experimental inputs . the number of unknown parameters increases rapidly with the increase of the precision in the momentum expansion . therefore studying the relation between the chiral langrangian and the fundamental principles of qcd will not only be theoretically interesting for a deeper understanding of the chiral lagrangian , but will also be helpful for reducing the number of unknown parameters and increasing the predictive power of the chiral lagrangian .    in a previous paper , ref.@xcite , certain techniques were developed , with which the chiral lagrangian was formally derived from the first principles of qcd without taking approximations . the chiral lagrangian coefficients are contributed both by the anomaly part ( from the quark functional measure ) and the normal part ( from the qcd lagrangian ) . in ref.@xcite , all the chiral lagrangian coefficients contributed from the normal part of the theory are expressed in terms of certain green s functions in qcd , which can be regarded as exact qcd definitions of the chiral lagrangian coefficients . after expanding the effective action in powers of the rotated sources ( momentum expansion ) , the effective action , up to @xmath2 , contributed from the normal part is of the form @xcite @xmath3 ^ 2   -{\cal k}_2(d^{\mu}a_{\omega}^{\nu}-d^{\nu}a_{\omega}^{\mu } ) ( d_{\mu}a_{\omega,\nu}-d_{\nu}a_{\omega,\mu } ) \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.5 cm } + { \cal k}_3[a_{\omega}^2]^2 + { \cal k}_4a_{\omega}^{\mu}a_{\omega}^{\nu}a_{\omega,\mu}a_{\omega,\nu } + { \cal k}_5a_\omega^2{\rm tr}_f[a_{\omega}^2 ] + { \cal k}_6a_{\omega}^{\mu}a_{\omega}^{\nu } { \rm tr}_f[a_{\omega,\mu}a_{\omega,\nu}]+{\cal k}_7s_{\omega}^2 \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.5 cm } + { \cal k}_8s_{\omega}{\rm tr}_f[s_{\omega } ] + { \cal k}_9p_{\omega}^2 + { \cal k}_{10}p_{\omega}{\rm tr}_f[p_{\omega } ] + { \cal k}_{11}s_{\omega}a_{\omega}^2+{\cal k}_{12}s_{\omega}{\rm tr}_f [ a_{\omega}^2 ] -{\cal k}_{13}v_{\omega}^{\mu\nu}v_{\omega,\mu\nu } \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.5 cm } + i{\cal k}_{14}v_{\omega}^{\mu\nu}a_{\omega,\mu}a_{\omega,\nu } + { \cal k}_{15}p_{\omega}d_{\mu}a^{\mu}_{\omega}\bigg ] + o(p^6 ) , \label{p4}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath4 is related to the nonlinearly realized meson field @xmath5 by @xmath6 ; @xmath7 , and @xmath8 are , respectively , the external scalar , pseudoscalar , vector , and axial - vector sources rotated by @xmath4 ; and the @xmath9s are terms with different lorentz structures in the relevant qcd green s functions . the obtained expressions for the chiral lagrangian coefficients are    @xmath10 : @xmath11[\bar{\psi}^b(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\psi^a(x)]\rangle -\frac{1}{n_f}\langle [ \bar{\psi}^a(0)\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \psi^a(0 ) ] [ \bar{\psi}^b(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\psi^b(x)]\rangle\nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.8cm}-\langle \bar{\psi}^a(0)\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\psi^b(0)\rangle \langle\bar{\psi}^b(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\psi^a(x)\rangle + \frac{1}{n_f}\langle \bar{\psi}^a(0)\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\psi^a(0)\rangle \langle\bar{\psi}^b(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\psi^b(x)\rangle\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & f_0 ^ 2b_0=-\frac{1}{n_f}\langle \bar{\psi}\psi\rangle , \label{f_0b_0}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      in the literature , the anomaly part contributions are usually calculated by means of the heat kernel regularization technique @xcite . however , this technique is difficult to implement in the calculation of the normal part contributions which contain complicated functions of the momentum , say the quark self - energy @xmath1 , reflecting nonperturbative qcd dynamics ( which are even unspecified in the analytical part of the calculation ) . in order to treat the anomaly part and the normal part contributions on equal footing , a certain new regularization technique feasible for the calculations of both parts should be developed . in this paper , we use the generalized schwinger proper time regularization technique developed in ref.@xcite to regularize the system , which keeps the local chiral symmetry at every step in the calculation , and can be applied to the calculations of both the contributions from the anomaly part and from the normal part . thus , in this paper , the contributions from the anomaly part and the normal part are calculated by means of the same technique . as the first conclusion of this unified treatment , we show that _ the anomaly contributions to the chiral lagrangian coefficients given in ref.@xcite , which are independent of qcd interactions , will actually be cancelled by certain terms in the normal part contributions , and the final expressions for the coefficients concern only the remaining terms from the normal part contributions related to qcd interactions_. it should be so since the coefficients indicate meson interactions which should be residual interactions between quarks and gluons , and thus should depend on qcd interactions . these contributions have not been carefully calculated in the literature . it has been shown in ref.@xcite that in the approximations of large-@xmath0 limit , leading order in dynamical perturbation , and improved ladder approximation , the formula for @xmath14 in eqs.([f_0b_0 ] ) reduces to the well - known pagels - stokar formula @xcite in which all dynamical effects from qcd are represented by the quark self - energy @xmath1 in the formula . in this paper , we take the same approximations to calculate the chiral lagrangian coefficients ( the relevant qcd green s functions ) as an illustration of the main feature of how qcd predicts the chiral lagrangian coefficients . similar to the case of the pagels - stokar formula , the relevant qcd green s functions can all be expressed as functions of the quark self - energy @xmath1 . by solving the schwinger - dyson equation , we obtain @xmath1 , and thus the approximate qcd predicted values of the coefficients . we shall see that the obtained coefficients @xmath15 and quark condensate are consistent with the experimental values . the calculation is checked by the absence of divergences in the large-@xmath0 limit as it should be since the divergent meson - loop contributions are of next - to - the - leading order in the @xmath16 expansion . although the present approximation is rather crude , _ it reveals the main feature of qcd predictions for the chiral lagrangian coefficients_.    this paper is organized as follows : in sec . ii , we calculate the anomaly part contributions to the @xmath2 coefficients using the schwinger proper time regularization technique , and the results coincide with those in ref.@xcite in the chiral limit . then , in sec . iii , we apply the same technique to the normal part , and show generally that , in the large-@xmath0 limit , the anomaly part contributions to the chiral lagrangian coefficients are exactly cancelled by the contributions from a piece in the normal part independent of the quark self - energy , and the contributions from the remaining piece in the normal part depending on the quark self - energy play the real role in the chiral lagrangian coefficients . specific approximations in the calculation of the normal part contributions and the formulae for the complete chiral lagrangian coefficients in terms of the quark self - energy are given in sec . iv . in sec . v , we present the numerical calculations of the quark self - energy and the obtained values of the chiral lagrangian coefficients . section vi is a concluding remark . in order to see the relation between the anomaly part and the normal part contributions to the chiral lagrangian coefficients , we present here the calculation of the anomaly part contributions by means of the schwinger proper time regularization . we shall see that the obtained results exactly coincide with those obtained from the heat kernel technique @xcite . our present approach is different from that in ref.@xcite in the sense that the constant constituent quark mass @xmath17 is not put in by hand as is done in ref.@xcite but is naturally included in the normal part solution through the dynamical quark mass reflecting chiral symmetry breaking . therefore our result of the anomaly part contribution is to compare with that in ref.@xcite in the chiral limit .    in the schwinger proper time regularization , the anomaly part does not contribute to the coefficients of the @xmath10 terms in the case corresponding to the result with @xmath18 in ref.@xcite to regularize the divergent integrals as was done in ref.@xcite before putting in the constituent quark mass @xmath17 , the @xmath10 coefficient @xmath14 will be proportional to @xmath19 ( cf . ref.@xcite ) . as has been pointed out in ref.@xcite this term is exactly cancelled by a corresponding term in the normal part contribution [ cf . eq.(74 ) in ref.@xcite ] . ] . therefore we are only going to calculate the anomaly contribution to the coefficients of the @xmath2 terms . the anomaly term in the path - integral formalism is @xmath20\nonumber\\ & = & in_c[{\rm tr}\ln(i\partial\!\!\!\ ! /\;+j_{\omega } ) + \omega-{\rm independent~term } ] . \label{sanom}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the @xmath4-independent term is independent of the @xmath5 field , so that it is irrelevant to the chiral lagrangian coefficients . we shall only evaluate the @xmath4-dependent term in eq.([sanom ] ) . to have a unified parametrization , we can parametrize the anomaly contributed effective action similar to that in eq.([p4 ] ) , i.e. , @xmath21 ^ 2   -{\cal k}_2^{\rm ( anom)}(d^{\mu}a_{\omega}^{\nu}-d^{\nu}a_{\omega}^{\mu } ) ( d_{\mu}a_{\omega,\nu}-d_{\nu}a_{\omega,\mu } ) + { \cal k}_3^{\rm ( anom)}[a_{\omega}^2]^2 \nonumber\\ & & + { \cal k}_4^{\rm ( anom)}a_{\omega}^{\mu}a_{\omega}^{\nu } a_{\omega,\mu}a_{\omega,\nu } + { \cal k}_5^{\rm ( anom)}a_\omega^2{\rm tr}_f[a_{\omega}^2 ] + { \cal k}_6^{\rm ( anom)}a_{\omega}^{\mu}a_{\omega}^{\nu } { \rm tr}_f[a_{\omega,\mu}a_{\omega,\nu}]+{\cal k}_7^{\rm ( anom)}s_{\omega}^2 \nonumber\\ & & + { \cal k}_8^{\rm ( anom)}s_{\omega}{\rm tr}_f[s_{\omega } ] + { \cal k}_9^{\rm ( anom)}p_{\omega}^2 + { \cal k}_{10}^{\rm ( anom)}p_{\omega}{\rm tr}_f[p_{\omega } ] + { \cal k}_{11}^{\rm ( anom)}s_{\omega}a_{\omega}^2 \nonumber\\ & & + { \cal k}_{12}^{\rm ( anom)}s_{\omega}{\rm tr}_f[a_{\omega}^2 ] -{\cal k}_{13}^{\rm ( anom)}v_{\omega}^{\mu\nu}v_{\omega,\mu\nu } + i{\cal k}_{14}^{\rm ( anom)}v_{\omega}^{\mu\nu}a_{\omega,\mu}a_{\omega,\nu } + { \cal k}_{15}^{\rm ( anom)}p_{\omega}d_{\mu}a^{\mu}_{\omega}\bigg ]   \nonumber\\ & & + o(p^6)+u-\mbox{independent~source~terms}. \label{p4anom}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the @xmath4-dependent term in eq.([sanom ] ) suffers from ultraviolet divergence , and we take the schwinger proper time regularization with an ultraviolet cutoff parameter @xmath22 to regularize it . to apply this regularization , we first work in the euclidean space - time , and analytically continue the results to the minkowskian space - time after the evaluation . the main procedure of evaluating the general functional determinant including the quark self - energy @xmath23 is described in appendix a. in the case of @xmath24 , there is no @xmath23-dependence in eq.([sanom ] ) . however , for regularizing the infrared divergence , we should replace the @xmath23 in eqs.([lnsigma ] ) and ( [ momexp ] ) by an infrared cutoff parameter @xmath25 . the momentum integration in eq.([momexp ] ) can be explicitly carried out with a lengthy but elementary calculation . after expanding in powers of the external sources , we can identify the expressions for @xmath26 by comparing with the form of eq.([p4anom ] ) , and we obtain @xmath27    comparing with the standard form of momentum expansion to identify the @xmath2 chiral lagrangian coefficients , we obtain the anomaly contribution to these coefficients @xmath28 these exactly coincide with the results with @xmath18 in ref.@xcite . note that the final expressions of the coefficients @xmath29 are independent of the infrared cutoff parameter @xmath25 and the ultraviolet cutoff @xmath22 although these cutoff parameters appear in @xmath30 , while @xmath31 and @xmath32 depend on the cutoff parameters . this implies that @xmath31 and @xmath32 are not measurable quantities . with @xmath33 , the values of the coefficients are ( in units of @xmath34 ) @xmath35 these are to be compared with the experimental values ( in units of @xmath34 ) @xcite @xmath36 the numbers in eqs.([anomalyl ] ) are close to the experimental results of eqs.([exptl ] ) except @xmath37 and @xmath38 are of wrong signs . this gives people an impression that the coefficients @xmath39 might mainly be contributed by the anomaly part , and the normal part might only contribute small corrections @xcite . however , we note that the results in eqs.([anomalyresults ] ) are independent of qcd interactions , i.e. , these terms remain unchanged when we switch off the qcd gauge coupling constant @xmath40 . this is somewhat confusing since these coefficients indicate meson interactions which should be residual interactions between quarks and gluons . we shall see in the next section that _ these terms will actually be completely cancelled by the terms independent of the quark self - energy in the normal part contribution , so that they do not really appear in the final form of the coefficients . what appear in the coefficients are the remaining terms in the normal part contribution which depend on the quark self - energy and hence on the qcd interactions as it should be . _ another feature of the terms in eqs.([anomalyresults ] ) indicating that they should be exactly cancelled and should not appear in the final formulae for the coefficients is the divergence of @xmath31 and @xmath32 when taking @xmath41 . we know from ref.@xcite that the ultraviolet divergences in the @xmath2 chiral lagrangian coefficients come merely from the meson - loop corrections with the @xmath10 interactions . in the @xmath16 expansion , the meson - loop corrections belonging to @xmath42 will not take place in the large-@xmath0 limit . therefore , in the large-@xmath0 limit , the final expressions for the @xmath2 coefficients should be finite when @xmath41 . now the ultraviolet divergences in @xmath31 and @xmath32 in eqs.([anomalyresults ] ) have nothing to do with the meson - loop corrections , so that they should be exactly cancelled by other terms and should not appear in the final expressions for the @xmath2 coefficients . in this section we use the same regularization technique as in sec . ii to calculate the normal part contributions to the chiral lagrangian coefficients . we start from the effective action @xmath43 given in ref.@xcite , @xmath44 } \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.4cm}=\int{\cal d}\xi{\cal d}\phi_{\omega}\exp\bigg\ { i\gamma_0[j_{\omega},\phi_{\omega},\pi_{\omega c}]+i\gamma_i[\phi_{\omega } ] + in_c\int d^4x{\rm tr}_{lf}\{\xi(x ) [ -i\sin\frac{\vartheta(x)}{n_f } + \gamma_5\cos\frac{\vartheta(x)}{n_f } ] \phi_{\omega}^t(x , x)\}\bigg\ } \label{seff}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which satisfies a useful relation @xcite @xmath45 the symbols are defined in ref.@xcite .    in the large-@xmath0 limit , the integrations in eq.([seff ] ) can be carried out by the saddle point approximation with the saddle point equations @xmath46^{(b\zeta)(a\eta)}(y , x ) , \label{pieq}\\ & & \pi_{\omega c}^{\sigma\rho}(x , y)=-\tilde{\xi}^{\sigma\rho}(x)\delta^4(x - y ) -\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}{\int}d^{4}x_1\cdots{d^4}x_{n } d^{4}x_{1}'\cdots{d^4}x_{n}'\frac{(-i)^{n+1}(n_c g_s^2)^n}{n!}\nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.2cm}\times\overline{g}^{\sigma\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_n}_{\rho\rho_1 \cdots\rho_n}(x , y , x_1,x'_1,\cdots , x_n , x'_n ) \phi_{\omega c}^{\sigma_1\rho_1}(x_1 , x'_1)\cdots   \phi_{\omega c}^{\sigma_n\rho_n}(x_n , x'_n ) , \label{fineqnc}\\ & & { \rm tr}_l\bigg[\bigg(-i\sin\frac{\vartheta(x)}{n_f } + \gamma_5\cos\frac{\vartheta(x)}{n_f}\bigg)\phi^t_{\omega c}(x , x)\bigg]=0 , \label{constraint}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath47 is a short notation for the following quantity @xmath48\phi_{\omega c}^t(y , y)\ } \bigg|_{\xi_c\mbox { fixed}}.\label{xitilde}\end{aligned}\ ] ] then the obtained @xmath43 in this approximation is @xmath49 \nonumber\\ & = & -in_c{\rm tr}\ln[i\partial\!\!\!/+j_{\omega}-\pi_{\omega c } ] + n_c\int d^{4}xd^{4}x ' \phi^{\sigma\rho}_{\omega c}(x , x')\pi^{\sigma\rho}_{\omega c}(x , x ' ) + n_c\sum^{\infty}_{n=2}{\int}d^{4}x_1\cdots d^4x_{n}'\nonumber\\ & & \times \frac{(-i)^{n}(n_c g_s^2)^{n-1}}{n!}\bar{g}^{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_n}_{\rho_1 \cdots\rho_n}(x_1,x'_1,\cdots , x_n , x'_n ) \phi^{\sigma_1\rho_1}_{\omega c}(x_1 , x'_1)\cdots   \phi^{\sigma_n\rho_n}_{\omega c}(x_n , x'_n)\nonumber\\ & & + in_c \int d^4x~{\rm tr}_{lf}\{\xi_c(x)[-i\sin\frac{\vartheta_c(x)}{n_f } + \gamma_5\cos\frac{\vartheta_c(x)}{n_f}]\phi_{\omega , c}^t(x , x)\ } , \label{snorm}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in which the @xmath42 term @xmath50 is neglected . note that the last term in eq.([snorm ] ) actually vanishes due to eq.([constraint ] ) . we keep it here for showing the relation between the effective action @xmath43 and its stationary conditions eqs.([pieq])@xmath51 ( [ constraint ] ) .    in the large-@xmath0 limit , @xmath52 on the right hand side of eq.([seffdiff ] ) . the left hand side of eq.([seffdiff ] ) can be carried out from eq.([snorm ] ) using eqs.([pieq])@xmath51([constraint ] ) . then the explicit form of eq.([seffdiff ] ) in this approximation is @xmath53^{\rho\sigma}(x , x ) = \phi^{\sigma\rho}_{\omega c}(x , x ) . \label{eq}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we see that @xmath54 and @xmath55 play the roles of the quark self - energy and the quark propagator , respectively , in the case with @xmath56 .    now we decompose @xmath43 into a part _ independent of @xmath54 _ and a part _ depending on @xmath54_. the part independent of @xmath54 can be extracted from @xmath43 by setting @xmath57 , i.e. , @xmath58 + n_c\bigg[\sum^{\infty}_{n=2}{\int}d^{4}x_1\cdots d^4x_{n } ' \frac{(-i)^{n}(n_c g_s^2)^{n-1}}{n!}\bar{g}^{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_n}_{\rho_1 \cdots\rho_n}(x_1,x'_1,\cdots , x_n , x'_n)\nonumber\\ & & \times\phi^{\sigma_1\rho_1}_{\omega c}(x_1 , x'_1)\cdots   \phi^{\sigma_n\rho_n}_{\omega c}(x_n , x'_n)\bigg]_{\pi_{\omega c}=0}. \label{spi=0}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here we have ignored the last term in eq.([snorm ] ) which actually vanishes due to eq.([constraint ] ) . we show in appendix b that the last term in eq.([spi=0 ] ) is actually @xmath4-independent . therefore , eq.([spi=0 ] ) can be written as @xmath59 . \label{spi=0'}\end{aligned}\ ] ] comparing the @xmath60-dependent terms in eqs.([sanom ] ) and ( [ spi=0 ] ) , we see that they are of the same form but with an opposite sign . thus _ their contributions to the chiral lagrangian coefficients exactly cancel each other to all orders in the momentum expansion_. the cancellation in the case of the @xmath10 coefficient @xmath61 has been described in footnote 1 in sec . ii . for the @xmath2 coefficients , we have @xmath62 thus , in the large-@xmath0 limit , the anomaly part contributed chiral lagrangian coefficients in eqs.([anomalyresults ] ) do not really appear in the final results of the chiral lagrangian coefficients although their values eqs.([anomalyl ] ) are close to the experimental values . _ the chiral lagrangian coefficients are actually contributed from the @xmath63 part of @xmath43 _ , @xmath64 _ which leads to the @xmath65 part of @xmath66 _ , @xmath67 _ this is our first new conclusion in this study_.    the final chiral lagrangian coefficients are then @xmath68 and @xmath69\nonumber,\\ & & l_9 = \frac{1}{8}(4{\cal k}_{13}^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0 ) } -{\cal k}_{14}^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0)})\nonumber,\\ & & l_{10 } = \frac{1}{2}({\cal k}_2^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0 ) } -{\cal k}_{13}^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0)})\nonumber,\\ & & h_1 = -\frac{1}{4}({\cal k}_2^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0 ) } + { \cal k}_{13}^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0)})\nonumber,\\ & & h_2 = \frac{1}{8}[-{\cal k}_1^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0 ) } + \frac{1}{b_0 ^ 2}{\cal k}_7^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0 ) } + \frac{1}{b_0 ^ 2}{\cal k}_9^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0 ) } -\frac{1}{b_0}{\cal k}_{15}^{({\rm norm},\pi_{\omega c}\ne 0 ) } ] . \label{p4full}\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath70 , these @xmath2 chiral lagrangian coefficients will vanish if we switch off the qcd coupling constant @xmath71 as it should be . we see that to calculate the chiral lagrangian coefficients from @xmath72 , we should mainly deal with @xmath43 given in eq.([snorm ] ) which has never been carefully calculated in the literature . ignoring the vanishing last term in eq.([snorm ] ) , there are still rather complicated terms in it . for example , the third term includes various ranks of gluon green s functions which concern very complicated calculations of qcd dynamics . as the first time of doing this kind of calculation , we shall take futher approximations to simplify the evaluation of @xmath43 . we know that the pion decay constant @xmath73 has been studied from qcd in ref.@xcite by taking the approximation of keeping only the leading order in dynamical perturbation , i.e. , taking into account only the qcd interaction in the schwinger - dyson equation leading to the nonperturbative solution of chiral symmetry breaking , and neglecting other qcd corrections in positive powers of @xmath71 ( perturbative ) . this approximation leads to the widely used pagels - stokar formula which is reasonable though not perfect . in the large-@xmath0 limit , @xmath73 is just the @xmath10 chiral lagrangian coefficient @xmath74 given in eqs.([f_0b_0 ] ) . so , as in ref.@xcite , we take the approximation of keeping only the leading order in dynamical perturbation to calculate the chiral lagrangian coefficients from @xmath43 . in this spirit , we neglect the complicated third term in eq.([snorm ] ) which contains only positive powers of @xmath71 . furthermore , we see from eq.([fineqnc ] ) that the second term in eq.([snorm ] ) is of the same order as the third term , so that we neglect the second term in eq.([snorm ] ) as well . with this approximation , @xmath43 is simplified as @xmath75 . \label{snormsimple}\end{aligned}\ ] ] now the concerned qcd dynamics resides in the @xmath54 term which is related to the quark self - energy [ cf . eq.([eq ] ) ] . we expect such a simple approximation may also lead to reasonable results of the @xmath2 chiral lagrangian coefficients since reasonable values of the @xmath2 chiral lagrangian coefficients have been obtained in a model by holdom @xcite considering only the quark self - energy contribution with certain phenomenological ansatz . we shall see in sec . v that our obtained @xmath2 chiral lagrangian coefficients are indeed reasonable . although this approximation is crude , it provides a simple illustration of the main feature of how qcd predicts the chiral lagrangian coefficients . further improved study beyond this simple approximation taking into account the second and third terms in eq.([snorm ] ) is of course needed . that will be presented in a later paper . now we need to calculate @xmath76 and carry out the explicit expression for @xmath43 in eq.([snormsimple ] ) . we have noticed that @xmath77 is related to the quark self - energy . if we find out the relation between @xmath76 and the conventional quark self - energy @xmath78 , then we can obtain @xmath78 by solving the well - known schwinger - dyson equation . as in the literature , we shall write down the schwinger - dyson equation in the landau gauge which is stable against the gauge parameter . in the same approximation of taking the leading order in dynamical perturbation theory and with the improved ladder approximation , the schwinger - dyson equation in the euclidean space - time reads @xcite @xmath79}{(p - q)^2 } \frac{\sigma(q^2)}{q^2+\sigma^2(q^2 ) } = 0 . \label{eq0}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this equation can be solved numerically , and the details will be presented in sec . v. naively , we may expect that @xmath80 . but this is not correct . under a local chiral transformation @xmath81 ( hidden symmetry transformation @xcite ) , @xmath77 transforms as @xmath82 while @xmath83 does not transform like this . the correct relation can be found by replacing the ordinary derivative @xmath84 by the covariant derivative @xmath85 since the external source @xmath86 transforms as @xmath87,\end{aligned}\ ] ] the covariant derivative @xmath88 transforms as @xmath89 thus the correct identification is @xmath90^{\sigma\rho}\delta^4(x - y ) . \end{aligned}\ ] ] then the effective action ( [ snormsimple ] ) can be written as @xmath91 . \label{sgl}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    next we evaluate the effective action ( [ sgl ] ) using the schwinger proper time regularization as before [ cf . appendix a ] to obtain the expressions for the chiral lagrangian coefficients . this is not trivial since usually this regularization scheme is used in the case that @xmath23 is a constant , and thus the momentum integration can be explicitly carried out to check the local gauge invariance of the result . now we leave @xmath92 as an unspecified function in eq.([sgl ] ) , so that the momentum integration can not be carried out explicitly . organizing terms to guarantee local chiral invariance is rather tedious and the details are given in ref.@xcite . our obtained expressions in the minkowskian space - time are @xmath93 , \label{f0}\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{1}=2\int d\tilde{p}\bigg[-2a_px_p^3 + 2a_p\frac{x_p^2}{\lambda^2}-a_p\frac{x_p}{\lambda^4 } + \frac{p^2}{2}\sigma'^2_p\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2}-\frac{p^2}{2}\sigma'^2_px_p^2 , \bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{2}=\int d\tilde{p}\bigg[-2b_px_p^3   + 2b_p\frac{x_p^2}{\lambda^2}-b_p\frac{x_p}{\lambda^4 } + \frac{p^2}{2}\sigma^{\prime 2}_p\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2 } , -\frac{p^2}{2}\sigma^{\prime 2}_px_p^2\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{3}=2\int d\tilde{p}\bigg [ ( \frac{4\sigma^4_p}{3}-\frac{2p^2\sigma^2_p}{3}+\frac{p^4}{18 } ) (   6x_p^4-\frac{6x_p^3}{\lambda^2}+\frac{3x_p^2}{\lambda^4 } -\frac{x_p}{\lambda^6 } ) , \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.4cm}+(-4\sigma^2_p+\frac{p^2}{2})(-2x_p^3 + \frac{2x_p^2}{\lambda^2}-\frac{x_p}{\lambda^4 } ) -\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2}+x_p^2\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{4}=\int d\tilde{p}\bigg [ ( \frac{-4\sigma^4_p}{3}+\frac{2p^2\sigma^2_p}{3}+\frac{p^4}{18 } ) ( 6x_p^4-\frac{6x_p^3}{\lambda^2}+\frac{3x_p^2}{\lambda^4 } -\frac{x_p}{\lambda^6 } ) + 4\sigma^2_p(-2x_p^3+\frac{2x_p^2}{\lambda^2 } \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.4cm}-\frac{x_p}{\lambda^4})+\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2}-x_p^2\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_5={\cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_6=0 , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_7=2\int d\tilde{p}\bigg[(3\sigma^2_p+2p^2\sigma_p\sigma'_p)x_p^2 + [ -2\sigma^2_p - p^2(1 + 2\sigma_p\sigma'_p)]\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2}\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_8=0 , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_9=2\int d\tilde{p}\bigg[(\sigma^2_p+2p^2\sigma_p\sigma'_p)x_p^2 -p^2(1 + 2\sigma_p\sigma'_p)\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2}\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{10}=0 , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{11}=4\int d\tilde{p } \bigg[(-4\sigma^3_p+p^2\sigma_p)x_p^3 + ( 4\sigma^3_p - p^2\sigma_p)\frac{x_p^2}{\lambda^2 } -(2\sigma^3_p-\frac{1}{2}p^2\sigma_p)\frac{x_p}{\lambda^4 } + 3\sigma_p\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2 } \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.4cm}-3\sigma_p x_p^2\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{12}=0 , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{13}=\int d\tilde{p}\bigg [ ( \frac{1}{3}p^2\sigma'_p\sigma''_p+\frac{1}{3}\sigma_p\sigma''_p)x_p + ( c_p - d_p)\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2 } -(c_p - d_p)x_p^2 - 2e_px_p^3 \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.4cm}+2e_p\frac{x_p^2}{\lambda^2 } -e_p\frac{x_p}{\lambda^4}\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{14}=-4\int d\tilde{p}\bigg [ -2f_px_p^3 + 2f_p\frac{x_p^2}{\lambda^2 } -f_p\frac{x_p}{\lambda^4 } + \frac{p^2}{2}\sigma_p^{\prime 2}\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2 } -\frac{p^2}{2}\sigma^{\prime 2}_px_p^2\bigg ] , \nonumber\\ & & { \cal k}^{({\rm norm})}_{15}=-4\int d\tilde{p}\bigg [ -(\sigma_p+\frac{1}{2}p^2\sigma'_p)\frac{x_p}{\lambda^2 } + ( \sigma_p+\frac{1}{2}p^2\sigma'_p)x_p^2\bigg ] , \label{kresult}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in which the short notations ( in the minkowskian space - time ) are @xmath94    for the coefficient @xmath14 , eq.([f0 ] ) is just the well - known pagels - stokar formula @xcite when taking the regularization cutoff parameter @xmath95 . it is easy to check that these @xmath96 ( @xmath97 ) do contain the @xmath54-independent ( @xmath98-independent ) piece which exactly cancel the anomaly contributions in eqs.([anomk ] ) mentioned in sec . this can be done by taking a constant @xmath98 to carry out the momentum integrations , and picking up the @xmath98-independent terms which are just the @xmath54-independent terms mentioned in sec . subtracting these @xmath54-independent terms from the obtained @xmath96 in eqs.([kresult ] ) , we get the desired @xmath99 in eq.([kpi ] ) , which is needed in the final expressions for the chiral lagrangian coefficients in eqs.([p4full ] ) .    we can also check that the regularization cutoff @xmath22 does not appear in @xmath99 , so that the obtained chiral lagrangian coefficients @xmath100 are all finite as it should be since there is no divergence in the large-@xmath0 limit [ the divergent meson - loop corrections are of @xmath42 ] . @xmath125    with boundary conditions : @xmath126 where @xmath127 is a momentum cutoff regularizing the integral . we shall eventually take @xmath128 . we know that the asymptotic behavior of @xmath1 reflecting chiral symmetry breaking is @xmath129 where @xmath130 . we have found the numerical solution of eqs.([fineq1 ] ) , ( [ f01 ] ) and ( [ fp01 ] ) satisfying this asymptotic behavior . the obtained solution with @xmath128 ( a large enough number which can be regarded as infinity ) in the three cases are plotted in fig . 2 . again they are different mainly in the low momentum region .    with the obtained @xmath1 , we can calculate the @xmath2 chiral lagrangian coefficients from eqs.([p4full ] ) , ( [ kpi ] ) , and ( [ kresult ] ) . the obtained values of @xmath15 are listed in table i together with the experimental values @xcite for comparison . note that there is no running of @xmath15 in this simple approach since the meson - loop effects causing the running of @xmath15 @xcite are of the order of @xmath16 , and are neglected in this approach . thus the predicted numbers of @xmath15 can be directly compared with the experimental values . we see from table i that :    \(i ) these coefficients are not so sensitive to the forms of @xmath104 ;    \(ii ) all the obtained @xmath15 are of the right orders of magnitude and the right signs ;    \(iii ) @xmath131 and @xmath132 are consistent with the experiments at the @xmath133 level ;    \(iv ) @xmath134 and @xmath38 are consistent with the experiments at the @xmath135 level ; and    \(v ) only @xmath136 deviates from the experimental value by @xmath137 .    considering the large theoretical uncertainty in this simple approach , _ the obtained @xmath15 are consistent with the experiments_. we see that the nonperturbative quark self - energy plays an important role in qcd contributions to the chiral lagrangian coefficients . this supports the phenomenological model of holdom @xcite . in addition to @xmath15 , we can also calculate the quark condensate @xmath138 from the @xmath10 coefficient @xmath139 in eq.([f0b0 ] ) . in the simple approach in this paper , the relation between @xmath138 and @xmath139 is @xcite @xmath140 we know that , in this simple approach , @xmath109 mev is finite . but @xmath139 in eq.([f0b0 ] ) is divergent , @xmath141 so that it needs to be renormalized . we take a simple renormalization scheme by taking the counter term as @xmath142 , in which @xmath115 is the renormalization scale  ) scheme @xcite . ] . thus the renormalized quantity @xmath143 then the renormalized ( [ condensate ] ) is @xmath144 we take the renormalization scale to be @xmath145 gev to define the quark condensate . the obtained values of @xmath146 for the three forms of @xmath104 are @xmath147 these are to be compared with the experimentally determined value @xmath148 from the qcd sum rule at the scale of the typical hadronic mass @xcite . considering the large theoretical uncertainty in this calculation , the predicted quark condensate is also consistent with the experiment . the above results show that _ the present simple approach does reveal the main feature of the qcd predictions for the chiral lagrangian coefficients _ although the approximations in this approach are rather crude . of course , further improvements of the approximations beyond this simple approach are needed . this kind of study is in progress .    finally , we would like to mention that , in our calculation , we have taken the ultraviolet cutoff parameters @xmath149 , i.e. , we have taken account of the qcd contributions in the whole momentum range . note that this has nothing to do with the validity range of the chiral lagrangian determined by the range in which the expansion in the meson momentum makes sense , i.e. , up to @xmath150 . to see the role of the qcd contributions from the high momentum region , say above 1 gev , we have made a check by doing the calculations with the same @xmath1 but taking @xmath151 gev instead of @xmath41 . the results are listed in table ii . comparing the nonvanishing results in table ii with the corresponding @xmath149 results in table i , we see that this change of @xmath22 does not cause much difference in @xmath152 and @xmath74 , while it causes @xmath153 and @xmath132 to reduce by at least a factor of 2 . therefore , we see that @xmath152 and @xmath74 are mainly contributed by the qcd dynamics in the low momentum region , while high momentum region contributions to @xmath154 , and @xmath132 are not negligible . in this paper , we have calculated the coefficients in the gasser - leutwyler lagrangian from the underlying theory of qcd in a simple approach with the approximations of taking the large-@xmath0 limit , the leading order in dynamical perturbation theory , and the improved ladder approximation based on the qcd formulae given in ref.@xcite to illustrate the main feature of how qcd predicts the chiral lagrangian coefficients . in the calculation , we use the same regularization technique , the generalized schwinger proper time regularization , in the calculations of the contributions from both the anomaly part and the normal part , so that the relation between the contributions from the two parts can be clearly seen . we first take the large-@xmath0 limit to evaluate the effective action in qcd . our first conclusion in this study is that , _ in the large-@xmath0 limit , to all orders in momentum expansion , the anomaly part contributions to the chiral lagrangian coefficients [ cf . eqs.([anomalyresults ] ) ] given in the literature @xcite from the effective action @xmath155 [ cf . eq.([sanom ] ) ] are exactly cancelled by the contributions from the piece of the effective action @xmath156 [ cf . eq.([spi=0 ] ) ] in the normal part contributions _ , so that _ the chiral lagrangian coefficients are eventually contributed by the remaining piece of the normal part effective action @xmath157 [ cf . eq.([spi])]_. the final qcd expressions for the @xmath2 coefficients are given in eqs.([p4full ] ) . to simplify @xmath157 , we further make the approximation of taking the leading order in dynamical perturbation theory . then @xmath157 is reduced to the simple form in eq.([sgl ] ) , and all the chiral lagrangian coefficients are approximately expressed in terms of the quark self - energy @xmath1 shown in eqs.([f0b0])@xmath51([kresult ] ) . to solve the schwinger - dyson equation for @xmath1 , we further take the improved ladder approximation . lacking of the knowledge about the running coupling constant @xmath104 in the nonperturbative region , we take certain models for it from the literature @xcite [ cf . eqs.([omega1 ] ) , ( [ omega2 ] ) and ( [ omega3 ] ) ] , and we further take the usual approximation @xmath158 to simplify the calculation . the quark self - energy reflecting chiral symmetry breaking is obtained by solving the simplified schwinger - dyson equation numerically . the obtained results of the @xmath2 coefficients are listed in table i. compared with the experimental values of @xmath159 @xcite , _ the agreement of @xmath160 , and @xmath132 is of the level of @xmath133 , and that of @xmath134 and @xmath38 is of the level of @xmath135_. only @xmath136 deviates from the experimental value by @xmath137 . considering the large theoretical uncertainty in this simple approach , _ all the obtained coefficients @xmath159 are consistent with the experiments_. we have also calculated the renormalized quark condensate @xmath146 from the obtained @xmath10 coefficient [ cf . eq.([condensaterenorm ] ) ] _ which is also consistent with the experiment_.    although the approximations in this simple approach are rather crude , the above results show that _ this simple approach does reveal the main feature of qcd predictions for the chiral lagrangian coefficients_. for studying physics not requiring high precision , this simple approach may already be useful . of course further improvements of the approximations beyond this simple approach ( reflecting more about qcd dynamics ) are needed . this kind of study is in progress and will be presented in another paper . the approach can also be applied to electroweak theories to study how the coefficients in the electroweak chiral lagrangian are predicted by various kinds of underlying gauge theories of the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism . this kind of study is also in progress , and will be presented in separate papers . this work is supported by the national natural science foundation of china , the foundation of fundamental research grant of tsinghua university , and a special grant from the ministry of education of china . in this appendix , we take the schwinger proper time regulation to regularize the one - loop functional determinant in which the quark self - energy @xmath161 reflecting chiral symmetry breaking takes place . the matrix element in eq.([lnsigma ] ) can be evaluated in the momentum representation @xmath164}|x\rangle\nonumber\\ & & = \int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\exp\bigg\{-\tau\bigg[\overline{e}(x ) -\nabla_x^2 - 2ip\cdot\nabla_x+p^2 + \sigma^2(-\overline{\nabla}^2 - 2ip\cdot\overline{\nabla}_x+p^2 ) \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.5 cm } + \hat{i}_\omega\sigma(-\overline{\nabla}_x^2 - 2ip\cdot\overline{\nabla}_x+p^2 ) + \sigma(-\overline{\nabla}_x^2 - 2ip\cdot\overline{\nabla}_x+p^2)\tilde{i}_\omega -d\!\!\ ! /\;\sigma(-\overline{\nabla}_x^2 - 2ip\cdot\overline{\nabla}_x+p^2 ) \bigg]\bigg\}. % \nonumber\\ % & & \hspace{0.5 cm } % -i[p\!\!\ ! /\;,\sigma(-\overline{\nabla}_x^2 - 2ip\cdot\overline{\nabla}_x+p^2 ) ] % \bigg]\bigg\}. \label{momexp}\end{aligned}\ ] ] then after lengthy but elementary calculations and expanding in powers of the external sources , we can identify the expressions for @xmath165 by comparing with the form of eqs.([p4 ] ) , and the obtained results in the minkowskian space - time are just those given in eqs.([f0 ] ) , ( [ f0b0 ] ) and ( [ kresult ] ) in the text . the details are given in ref.@xcite .    for the evaluation of the effective action @xmath24 in eq.([sanom ] ) in the minkowskian space - time , we note that there is no @xmath166 term in eq.([lnsigma ] ) , but we still have to replace @xmath166 by an infrared cutoff parameter @xmath25 in eq.([lnsigma ] ) to regularize the infrared divergence . then the momentum integration can be explicitly carried out , and we obtain the results in eqs.([anomk ] ) in the text . here we show that the last term in eq.([spi=0 ] ) , @xmath167 with the saddle point equation [ cf . eq.([pieq ] ) ] @xmath168^{\rho\sigma}(y , x ) \label{sta1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] is @xmath4-independent . the @xmath4-rotated quantities in eqs.([3rdterm ] ) and ( [ sta1 ] ) are defined by @xcite @xmath169 ~[j(x)+i\partial\!\!\!\ ! /\;][\omega(x)p_r+\omega^{\dagger}(x)p_l],\nonumber\\ & & \phi_{\omega}^t(x , y)=[\omega^{\dagger}(x)p_r+\omega(x)p_l]~\phi^t(x , y ) [ \omega^{\dagger}(y)p_r+\omega(y)p_l ] , \label{rotation}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the @xmath170-point green s function @xmath171 is define by @xcite @xmath172\cdots [ \overline{\psi}^{a_n}_{{\alpha}_n}(x_n ) ( \frac{\lambda_{i_n}}{2})_{\alpha_n\beta_n } \gamma^{\mu_n}{\psi}^{a_n}_{\beta_n}(x_n)]\nonumber   \\ & & = { \int}d^{4}x'_1\cdots{d^{4}x'_n } g_s^{n-2}\overline{g}^{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_n}_{\rho_1 \cdots\rho_n}(x_1,x'_1,\cdots , x_n , x'_n ) \overline{\psi}^{\sigma_1}_{\alpha_1}(x_1){\psi}^{\rho_1 } _ { \alpha_1}(x'_1)\cdots\overline{\psi}^{\sigma_n }   _ { \alpha_n}(x_n){\psi}^{\rho_n}_{\alpha_n}(x'_n ) . \label{bargdef}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    first we see from eqs.([rotation ] ) that eq.([sta1 ] ) can be written as @xmath173~\phi^t_c(y , x ) [ \omega^{\dagger}(x)p_r+\omega(x)p_l]\bigg ] ^{\rho\sigma}\bigg|_{\pi_c=0}\nonumber\\ & & = -i\bigg[[\omega^{\dagger}(y)p_r+\omega(y)p_l]~ [ ( i\partial\!\!\ ! /\;+j)^{-1}](y , x ) [ \omega^{\dagger}(x)p_r+\omega(x)p_l]\bigg]^{\rho\sigma}\nonumber\\ & & = -i[\omega^{\dagger}(y)p_r+\omega(y)p_l]^{\rho\rho ' } [ ( i\partial\!\!\ ! /\;+j)^{-1}]^{\rho'\sigma'}(y , x ) [ \omega^{\dagger}(x)p_r+\omega(x)p_l]^{\sigma'\sigma}\nonumber\\ & & = -i[\gamma_0v_{\omega}\gamma_0]^{\dagger\rho\rho'}(y ) [ ( i\partial\!\!\ ! /\;+j)^{-1}]^{\rho'\sigma'}(y , x ) v_{\omega}^{\sigma'\sigma}(x ) , \label{phio}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in which @xmath174 satisfies @xmath175 and @xmath176(y , x ) \label{phic}\end{aligned}\ ] ] is @xmath4-independent . next , we look at this transformed green s function @xmath181 . from the definition ( [ bargdef ] ) and the property ( [ vcondition ] ) we have @xmath182\cdots\nonumber\\ & & \cdots[(\overline{\psi}\gamma_0v^{\dagger}_\omega\gamma_0)^{a_n}_{{\alpha}_n}(x_n ) ( \frac{\lambda_{i_n}}{2})_{\alpha_n\beta_n } \gamma^{\mu_n}(v_\omega{\psi})^{a_n}_{\beta_n}(x_n)]\nonumber   \\   & = & g_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_n}^{i_1\cdots{i_n } }   ( x_1,\cdots , x_n)[\overline{\psi}^{a_1}_{{\alpha}_1}(x_1 )   ( \frac{\lambda_{i_1}}{2})_{\alpha_1\beta_1}\gamma^{\mu_1 }   { \psi}^{a_1}_{{\beta}_1}(x_1)]\cdots [ \overline{\psi}^{a_n}_{{\alpha}_n}(x_n ) ( \frac{\lambda_{i_n}}{2})_{\alpha_n\beta_n } \gamma^{\mu_n}{\psi}^{a_n}_{\beta_n}(x_n)]\nonumber   \\ & = & { \int}d^{4}x'_1\cdots{d^{4}x'_n } g_s^{n-2}\bar{g}^{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_n}_{\rho_1 \cdots\rho_n}(x_1,x'_1,\cdots , x_n , x'_n ) \overline{\psi}^{\sigma_1}_{\alpha_1}(x_1){\psi}^{\rho_1 } _ { \alpha_1}(x'_1)\cdots\overline{\psi}^{\sigma_n }   _ { \alpha_n}(x_n){\psi}^{\rho_n}_{\alpha_n}(x'_n),\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] i.e. , @xmath183 thus the transformed green s function @xmath184 in eq.([sgv ] ) can be replaced by @xmath185 , and eq.([sgv ] ) becomes @xmath186 which is independent of @xmath4 . 1[biblio ] s. weinberg , physica , * 96a * , 327 ( 1979 ) . j. gasser and h. leutwyler , ann ( n.y . ) * 158 * , 142 ( 1984 ) ; nucl . phys . * b 250 * , 465 ( 1985 ) . q. wang , y .- p . kuang , x .- wang , and m. xiao , phys . d * 61 * , 054011 ( 2000 ) , hep - ph9903201 . d. espriu , e. de rafael , and j. taron , nucl . phys . * b 345 * , 22 ( 1990 ) ; * b 355 * , 278(e ) ( 1991 ) . q. lu , h. yang , and q. wang , tsinghua university preprint tuhep - th-02133 , hep - ph/0202078 , to appear in commun . h. pagels and s. stokar , phys . d * 20 * , 2947 ( 1979 ) . simic , phys . d * 34 * , 1903 ( 1986 ) . b. holdom , phys . rev . d * 45 * , 2534 ( 1992 ) ; phys . b * 294 * , 293 ( 1992 ) ; b. holdom , j. terning , and k. verbeek , _ ibid_. , * 245 * , 612 ( 1990 ) ; _ ibid_. , * 273 * , 549 ( e ) ( 1991 ) ; b. holdom and q. wang , phys . d * 55 * , 3101 ( 1997 ) . aoki , m. bando , t. kugo , m.g . mitchard , and h. nakatani , prog . . phys . * 84 * , 683(1990 ) . p. jain and h.j . munczek , phys . d * 44 * , 1873(1991 ) . b . dai , c .- s . huang , and d .- s . liu , phys . d * 43 * , 1717 ( 1991 ) ; y .- b . dai , y .- b . ding , c .- s . huang , c .- wang , and y .- l zhu , phys . rev . d * 47 * , 1256 ( 1993 ) . s .- h. tye , e. tomboulis , and e. c. poggio , phys . d * 11 * , 2839 ( 1975 ) ; v. a. miransky , sov . . phys . * 38 * , 280 ( 1983 ) ; k. higashijima , phys . d * 29 * , 1228 ( 1984 ) . for instance , h .- j . he and y .- p . kuang , z. phys . c * 47 * , 565 ( 1990 ) . shifman , a.i . vainshtein , and v.i . zakharov , nucl . * b 147 * , 385 ( 1979 ) . roberts , r.t . cahill and j. praschifka , ann . phys . * 188 * , 20 ( 1988 ) . e. witten , nucl . phys . * b 223 * , 422 ( 1983 ) .      . the obtained values of the @xmath2 coefficients @xmath159 for model a [ eq.([omega1 ] ) ] , model b [ eq.([omega2 ] ) ] and model c [ eq.([omega3 ] ) ] with @xmath149 together with the experimental values [ eq.([exptl ] ) ] for comparison . @xmath106 is in mev , and the coefficients are in units of @xmath34 . the obtained @xmath1 from the schwinger - dyson equation ( [ eq0 ] ) with model a [ eq.([omega1 ] ) ] , model b [ eq.([omega2 ] ) ] and model c [ eq . ( [ omega3 ] ) ] for the running coupling constant @xmath40 . the solid , dashed , and dotted lines are for models a , b , and c , respectively .
Abstract:

Answer: we calculate the coefficients in the chiral lagrangian approximately from qcd based on a previous study of deriving the chiral lagrangian from the first principles of qcd in which the chiral lagrangian coefficients are defined in terms of certain green s functions in qcd . we first show that , in the large-@xmath0 limit , the anomaly part contributions to the coefficients are exactly cancelled by certain terms in the normal part contributions , and the final results of the coefficients only concern the remaining normal part contributions depending on qcd interactions . we then do the calculation in a simple approach with the approximations of taking the large-@xmath0 limit , the leading order in dynamical perturbation theory , and the improved ladder approximation , thereby the relevant green s functions are expressed in terms of the quark self energy @xmath1 . by solving the schwinger - dyson equation for @xmath1 , we obtain the approximate qcd predicted coefficients and quark condensate which are consistent with the experimental values . pacs number(s ) : 12.39.fe , 11.30.rd , 12.38.aw , 12.38.lg