text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Lattice QCD with Wilson quarks \[?\] is widely used to compute hadronic observables and matrix elements from first principles. It is a gauge invariant regularization with an ultra-local action and an exact global flavour symmetry, but all axial symmetries are explicitly broken by the Wilson term. The latter fact is usually not considered a fundamental problem, as chiral symmetry can be restored by introducing appropriate counterterms. Well-known examples are the additive quark mass renormalization, the renormalization of the non-singlet axial current and the mixing pattern of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ effective weak Hamiltonian. The corresponding scale independent renormalization constants can be determined both in perturbation theory and non-perturbatively, by imposing continuum chiral Ward identities as normalization conditions \[?,?\].

As a result chiral symmetry is restored up to cutoff effects, and the problem has thus been solved from a field theoretical point of view. However, the absence of an exact chiral symmetry has further consequences in practical applications, as it implies that the Wilson-Dirac operator is not protected against zero modes. This is not a problem in principle, as the functional integral over Grassmann variables cannot diverge. After integration over the quark fields, a small eigenvalue of the Wilson-Dirac operator appears both in the fermionic determinant and in the quark propagators entering the correlation functions. Fermi statistics then implies that the limit of a vanishing eigenvalue is always regular. Despite this fact, numerical simulations with some of the standard algorithms may still experience technical problems. In particular, one may suspect that accidental zero modes are at the origin of long autocorrelation times which have been observed in numerical simulations with the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm \[?\].

A conceptual problem arises in the so-called quenched approximation, which consists in neglecting the fermionic determinant. The contribution of a small eigenvalue to a fermionic correlator is then not balanced by the determinant, leading to large fluctuations in some of the observables which completely compromise the ensemble average \[?\]. Gauge field configurations where this happens are called “exceptional” and various recipes of how to deal with them have appeared in the literature \[??\]. Strictly speaking, the quenched approximation with Wilson fermions is ill-defined, as the absence of zero modes is only guaranteed for rather heavy quarks. We emphasise that this problem is common to all lattice regularizations with Wilson type fermions. However, its practical relevance in a given physical situation depends on all the details of the chosen lattice action, and on the statistics one would like to achieve in numerical simulations. For example, with non-perturbatively O($`a`$) improved Wilson quarks \[?,?\] and the standard Wilson plaquette action, the problem is felt when the quark masses become somewhat lighter than the strange quark’s mass \[?\]. If the quark mass is further decreased, the frequency of (near-) exceptional configurations strongly increases. As the problem becomes even more pronounced with increasing lattice volume \[?\], it is clear that the approach to the chiral limit with Wilson type quarks is limited by the zero mode problem rather than by finite volume effects.

To solve the aforementioned practical and conceptual problems we propose to add a non-standard mass term to the (improved) Wilson quark action. The lattice Dirac operator for two quark flavours then reads

$$D_{\mathrm{tmQCD}}=D_W+m_0+i\mu _\mathrm{q}\gamma _5\tau ^3,$$
(1.1)
where $`D_W`$ denotes the massless Wilson-Dirac operator, $`m_0`$ is the standard bare quark mass, and $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ is referred to as twisted mass parameter. It couples to a term with a non-trivial flavour structure ($`\tau ^3`$ is a Pauli matrix acting in flavour space), and protects the Dirac operator against zero modes, independently of the background gauge field. This lattice action has previously appeared in a different context \[?\], and it has already been proposed as a regulator for exceptional configurations, implying, however, a limiting procedure $`\mu _\mathrm{q}0`$ at the end \[?\]. In contrast, our proposal, first presented in \[?\], is to interpret this theory as an alternative regularization of QCD with two mass degenerate quarks. We will refer to it as QCD with a chirally twisted mass term, or twisted mass QCD (tmQCD) for short. Indeed, in the classical continuum limit an axial rotation of the quark and anti-quark fields relates the tmQCD action to the standard QCD action. Furthermore the axial rotation of the fundamental fields induces a mapping between composite fields. One may hence think of this transformation as a change of variables which leaves the physical content of the theory unchanged.

In this paper we want to demonstrate in which sense these classical considerations can be elevated to a relation between the renormalized correlation functions of tmQCD and standard QCD. To this end we first regularize both tmQCD and standard QCD using Ginsparg-Wilson quarks (sect. 2). In this framework the bare correlation functions can be related by a change of variables in the functional integral. Renormalization will be discussed in sect. 3, in particular we identify renormalization schemes which preserve the relations between the bare correlation functions. Based on universality, it will then be clear how to proceed if the regularization does not respect chiral symmetry, and we discuss in detail the case of Wilson quarks (sect. 4). We conclude with a few remarks concerning current and future work on tmQCD (sect. 5).

## 2 Twisted mass QCD and Ginsparg Wilson quarks

We start with classical continuum considerations, and then discuss the regularization with Ginsparg-Wilson fermions. In particular we use a formulation which hides the lattice peculiarities as much as possible, so that naive continuum relations carry over essentially unchanged to the lattice regularized theory.

### 2.1 Classical continuum theory

We consider the continuum limit of the twisted mass QCD action111We adhere to the convention that $`\gamma `$-matrices are hermitian, $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, with $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ ranging from $`0`$ to $`3`$, and we set $`\gamma _5=\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3`$.,

$$S_\mathrm{F}[\psi ,\overline{\psi }]=\mathrm{d}^4x\overline{\psi }(D/+m+i\mu _\mathrm{q}\gamma _5\tau ^3)\psi ,$$
(2.2)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu +G_\mu `$ denotes the covariant derivative in a given gauge field $`G_\mu `$, and $`\tau ^3`$ is the third Pauli matrix acting in flavour space. The axial transformation

$$\psi ^{}=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \gamma _5\tau ^3/2)\psi ,\overline{\psi }^{}=\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \gamma _5\tau ^3/2),$$
(2.3)
leaves the form of the action invariant, and merely transforms the mass parameters

$`m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )+\mu _\mathrm{q}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ),`$ (2.4)
$`\mu _\mathrm{q}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )+\mu _\mathrm{q}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha ).`$ (2.5)
In particular, the standard action with $`\mu _\mathrm{q}^{}=0`$ is obtained if the rotation angle $`\alpha `$ satisfies the relation

$$\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\mu _\mathrm{q}/m.$$
(2.6)
Chiral symmetry of the massless action leads to the definition of the Noether currents,

$$A_\mu ^a=\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\psi ,V_\mu ^a=\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \frac{\tau ^a}{2}\psi ,$$
(2.7)
which are only partially conserved at non-zero mass parameters. More precisely, the so-called PCAC and PCVC relations take the form

$`_\mu A_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`2mP^a+i\mu _\mathrm{q}\delta ^{3a}S^0,`$ (2.8)
$`_\mu V_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu _\mathrm{q}\epsilon ^{3ab}P^b,`$ (2.9)
where we have defined the pseudo-scalar and scalar densities,

$$P^a=\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\psi ,S^0=\overline{\psi }\psi .$$
(2.10)
The axial transformation of the quark and anti-quark fields induces a transformation of the composite fields. For example, the rotated axial and vector currents read,

$`A_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}`$ $`\overline{\psi }^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}\psi ^{}`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )A_\mu ^a+\epsilon ^{3ab}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )V_\mu ^b\hfill & (a=1,2),\hfill \\ A_\mu ^3\hfill & (a=3),\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.11)
$`V_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}`$ $`\overline{\psi }^{}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}\psi ^{}`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )V_\mu ^a+\epsilon ^{3ab}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )A_\mu ^b\hfill & (a=1,2),\hfill \\ V_\mu ^3\hfill & (a=3),\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.12)
and similarly, the rotated pseudo-scalar and scalar densities are given by

$`P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}P^a\hfill & (a=1,2),\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}(\alpha )P^3+i\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\frac{1}{2}S^0\hfill & (a=3),\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.13)
$`S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )S^0+2i\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )P^3.`$ (2.14)
It is easy to verify that the rotated currents and densities satisfy the PCAC and PCVC relations (2.8,2.9), with the transformed parameters $`m^{}`$ (2.4) and $`\mu _\mathrm{q}^{}`$ (2.5). In particular these relations assume their standard form,

$$_\mu A_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}=2m^{}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a},_\mu V_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}=0,$$
(2.15)
if $`\alpha `$ is related to the mass parameters as in eq. (2.6).

Finally, we note that the tmQCD and standard QCD actions are exactly related by the transformation (2.3) and therefore share all the symmetries. However, in the chirally twisted basis the symmetry transformations may take a somewhat unusual form. For example, a parity transformation is realized by

$`\psi (x)`$ $``$ $`\gamma _0\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \gamma _5\tau ^3)\psi (x_0,𝐱),`$ (2.16)
$`\overline{\psi }(x)`$ $``$ $`\overline{\psi }(x_0,𝐱)\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \gamma _5\tau ^3)\gamma _0,`$ (2.17)
and similar expressions can be obtained for the isospin and the remaining discrete symmetries. It is then straightforward to infer the behaviour of composite fields under these transformations.

### 2.2 Ginsparg-Wilson quarks

We now replace continuous Euclidean space time by a hyper-cubic lattice with spacing $`a`$, and we choose some standard lattice action for the gauge fields. The precise choice will not be important in the following, but for definiteness we may take Wilson’s original plaquette action. As for the quark fields we assume that the lattice Dirac operator satisfies the Ginsparg-Wilson relation \[?\],

$$D\gamma _5+\gamma _5D=aD\gamma _5D.$$
(2.18)
This relation arises naturally in the construction of fixed point actions \[?\], and an explicit solution for $`D`$ has been given by Neuberger \[?\]. In the following we assume that $`D`$ is a local operator \[?\] which satisfies eq. (2.18) and has the conjugation property $`D^{}=\gamma _5D\gamma _5`$. It then follows that the matrix \[?\],

$$\widehat{\gamma }_5\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\gamma _5(1aD),$$
(2.19)
is hermitian and unitary. The massless action of a quark doublet

$$S_\mathrm{F}=a^4\underset{x}{}\overline{\psi }D\psi ,$$
(2.20)
has a global $`\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ invariance \[?\] which can be parameterised by the transformation

$`\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\mathrm{V}^a\tau ^a/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\mathrm{A}^a\widehat{\gamma }_5\tau ^a/2)\psi ,`$
$`\overline{\psi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\mathrm{A}^a\gamma _5\tau ^a/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\mathrm{V}^a\tau ^a/2).`$ (2.21)
Here $`\omega _{\mathrm{V},\mathrm{A}}^a`$ ($`a=1,2,3`$) are real parameters and $`\tau ^a`$ are the Pauli matrices acting on the flavour indices. Note that these transformations have the same form as in the continuum, except for the appearance of $`\widehat{\gamma }_5`$. To mask this difference we follow refs. \[?,?\] and define left handed fields

$$\psi _\mathrm{L}=\frac{1}{2}(1\widehat{\gamma }_5)\psi ,\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{L}=\overline{\psi }\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5),$$
(2.22)
and analogously the right handed fields with the complementary projectors. The massless action splits into left and right handed parts due to the identity

$$\overline{\psi }D\psi =\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{L}D\psi _\mathrm{L}+\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{R}D\psi _\mathrm{R},$$
(2.23)
and the transformation rules for the chiral fields are exactly as in the continuum. In particular it is straightforward to construct composite fields which transform among each other under a chiral transformation. Examples are the isosinglet scalar and the isovector pseudo-scalar densities which may be defined through

$`S^0`$ $``$ $`\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{L}\psi _\mathrm{R}+\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{R}\psi _\mathrm{L}=\overline{\psi }(1\frac{1}{2}aD)\psi `$ (2.24)
$`P^a`$ $``$ $`\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{L}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}\psi _\mathrm{R}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{R}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}\psi _\mathrm{L}=\overline{\psi }\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}(1\frac{1}{2}aD)\psi .`$ (2.25)
One finds

$$S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}S^0[\psi ^{},\overline{\psi }^{}]=\mathrm{cos}(\omega _A)S^0+2i\mathrm{sin}(\omega _A)u_A^aP^a,$$
(2.26)
where $`\omega _A`$ denotes the modulus of the vector $`(\omega _A^1,\omega _A^2,\omega _A^3)`$, and $`u_A^a=\omega _A^a/\omega _A`$ is a unit vector. Similarly, $`P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}`$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $`S^0`$ and $`P^a`$, and we have thus found a multiplet of bare lattice operators transforming under the lattice symmetry in the same way as their continuum counterparts. To define the Ginsparg-Wilson regularization of tmQCD we now use the scalar and pseudo-scalar densities for the mass terms, i.e. we write

$$S_\mathrm{F}=a^4\underset{x}{}\left[\overline{\psi }D\psi +mS^0+2i\mu _\mathrm{q}P^3\right].$$
(2.27)
From the preceding discussion it is then clear that the transformation

$$\psi ^{}=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \widehat{\gamma }_5\tau ^3/2)\psi ,\overline{\psi }^{}=\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \gamma _5\tau ^3/2),$$
(2.28)
does not change the form of the action, as it corresponds to the special choices $`\omega _V^a=0`$ and $`\omega _A^a=\alpha \delta ^{3a}`$ in eq. (2.21). Its effect can thus be absorbed in a change of the parameters as in eqs. (2.4,2.5), and the standard QCD action is recovered if $`\alpha `$ satisfies the relation (2.6).

### 2.3 Functional integral

We are now prepared to define the functional integral of lattice regularized tmQCD with Ginsparg-Wilson quarks. Denoting the sum of the Wilson plaquette and the fermionic action by $`S`$, the partition function is defined by

$$𝒵=D[\overline{\psi },\psi ]D[U]\mathrm{e}^S.$$
(2.29)
The physical content of the theory can be extracted from its correlation functions, i.e. $`n`$-point functions of the form

$$O(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=𝒵^1D[\psi ,\overline{\psi }]D[U]\mathrm{e}^SO(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n),$$
(2.30)
where $`O(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is a product of local gauge invariant composite fields which are localised at the space time points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$. In the following we will sometimes indicate the functional dependence upon the quark and anti-quark fields in square brackets, i.e. we set $`OO[\psi ,\overline{\psi }]`$.

If one restricts the theory to a finite physical space time volume, e.g. by imposing periodic boundary conditions, the functional integral at fixed lattice spacing is a well defined finite dimensional integral, and it is then possible to perform a change of variables of the form (2.28). As the transformation matrices are special unitary, the Jacobian is unity. Due to the form invariance of the action the whole effect is a transformation of the parameters in the action and of the composite fields, viz.

$$O(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)_{(m,\mu _\mathrm{q})}=O^{}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)_{(m^{},\mu _\mathrm{q}^{})}.$$
(2.31)
Here the primed field is implicitly defined through

$$O^{}[\psi ^{},\overline{\psi }^{}]=O[\psi ,\overline{\psi }],$$
(2.32)
with the transformed quark and anti-quark fields in eq. (2.28). The subscript of the expectation values reminds us of the transformations of the parameters in the action according to eqs. (2.4,2.5). Eq. (2.31) is an exact identity and defines the starting point for the statement of the aforementioned equivalence between the renormalized theories.

In order to prepare the ground for the discussion of the renormalization procedure we proceed a little further. First we notice that the combination

$$(m^{})^2+(\mu _\mathrm{q}^{})^2=m^2+\mu _\mathrm{q}^2,$$
(2.33)
is left invariant by the chiral rotation, so that it is convenient to use polar mass coordinates,

$$m=M\mathrm{cos}(\alpha ),\mu _\mathrm{q}=M\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ),$$
(2.34)
with radial mass $`M`$ and the angle $`\alpha `$ chosen according to eq. (2.6). Second, as the bare theory has an exact chiral symmetry, it is useful to decompose operators in multiplets which transform irreducibly under the chiral flavour symmetry transformation. We will denote the irreducible components of the composite fields by $`\varphi _{kA}^{(r)}(x)`$, where $`r`$ labels the representation, $`k`$ identifies the multiplet and $`A`$ labels the members of the multiplet. The general $`\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ transformation (2.21) is then represented by a matrix $`R^{(r)}`$, viz.

$$\varphi _{kA}^{(r)}[\psi ^{},\overline{\psi }^{}]=R_{AB}^{(r)}(𝝎_𝐕;𝝎_𝐀)\varphi _{kB}^{(r)}[\psi ,\overline{\psi }].$$
(2.35)
Simple examples are the multiplets of the scalar and pseudo-scalar densities, $`(\frac{1}{2}S^0,iP^a)`$, and of the currents $`(\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mu \frac{\tau ^a}{2}\psi _\mathrm{L},\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{R}\gamma _\mu \frac{\tau ^a}{2}\psi _\mathrm{R})`$.

Without loss of generality we may restrict attention to $`n`$-point functions of such fields, and the identity (2.31) then takes the form

$`\varphi _{k_1A_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_nA_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n)_{(M,\alpha )}=`$ (2.36)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}R_{A_iB_i}^{(r_i)}(\alpha ^{})\right\}\varphi _{k_1B_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_nB_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n)_{(M,\alpha \alpha ^{})},`$
where we have used polar mass coordinates in the subscript, and the shorthand notation

$$R^{(r)}(\alpha )R^{(r)}(\mathrm{𝟎};0,0,\alpha ),$$
(2.37)
for the rotation induced by the axial U(1) transformation (2.28). Note that we may keep the angle $`\alpha ^{}`$ independent of $`\alpha `$, and with the choice $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha `$ the r.h.s. of eq. (2.36) consists of correlation functions with the standard QCD parameterisation of the mass term.

### 2.4 Ward identities

Symmetries in Quantum Field Theories are usually expressed in terms of the Ward identities which follow from infinitesimal symmetry transformations. This has the advantage that identities are obtained between correlation functions which are defined within the same theory, even in the presence of explicit breaking terms. To derive the Ward identities we start by introducing the space-time dependent variations of the quark and anti-quark fields,

$`\delta _\mathrm{A}^a(\omega )\psi (x)`$ $`=\omega (x)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}(\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi )(x),`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{A}^a(\omega )\overline{\psi }(x)`$ $`=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _5\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\omega (x),`$ (2.38)
$`\delta _\mathrm{V}^a(\omega )\psi (x)`$ $`=\omega (x)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\psi (x),`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{V}^a(\omega )\overline{\psi }(x)`$ $`=\overline{\psi }(x)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\omega (x),`$ (2.39)
with some real-valued function $`\omega (x)`$. The action on arbitrary composite fields is defined by treating the variations like ordinary derivatives. The variation of the action (2.27) then yields

$`\delta _\mathrm{A}^a(\omega )S`$ $`=`$ $`a^4{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\omega (x)\left\{_\mu ^{}A_\mu ^a(x)2mP^a(x)i\mu _\mathrm{q}\delta ^{3a}S^0(x)\right\},`$ (2.40)
$`\delta _\mathrm{V}^a(\omega )S`$ $`=`$ $`a^4{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\omega (x)\left\{_\mu ^{}V_\mu ^a(x)+2\mu _\mathrm{q}\epsilon ^{3ab}P^b(x)\right\},`$ (2.41)
with the pseudoscalar and scalar densities as defined above, and where the divergences of the symmetry currents are given by

$`_\mu ^{}A_\mu ^a(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\frac{am}{2}\right)\left\{\overline{\psi }(x)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}(D\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi )(x)(\overline{\psi }D)(x)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}(\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi )(x)\right\}`$
$`+\frac{i}{4}a\mu _\mathrm{q}\left\{\overline{\psi }(x)\tau ^3\tau ^a(D\psi )(x)(\overline{\psi }D\widehat{\gamma }_5)(x)\tau ^3\tau ^a(\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi )(x)\right\},`$
$`_\mu ^{}V_\mu ^a(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\frac{am}{2}\right)\left\{\overline{\psi }(x)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}(D\psi )(x)(\overline{\psi }D)(x)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\psi (x)\right\}`$
$`+\frac{i}{4}a\mu _\mathrm{q}\left\{\overline{\psi }(x)\tau ^3\tau ^a(D\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi )(x)(\overline{\psi }D\widehat{\gamma }_5)(x)\tau ^3\tau ^a\psi (x)\right\}.`$
Note that these expressions vanish exactly upon summation over $`x`$, so that the existence of the currents is guaranteed by the lattice Poincaré lemma \[?\]. The symmetry currents themselves will not be needed in the following. Explicit expressions for the massless case can be found in \[?\], for example, but one should keep in mind that the integration of eqs. (2.4,2.4) is ambiguous by terms with vanishing divergence.

The Ward identities now take the generic form

$$\left(\delta _\mathrm{X}^a(\omega )S\right)𝒪=\delta _\mathrm{X}^a(\omega )𝒪,\mathrm{X}=\mathrm{A},\mathrm{V},$$
(2.44)
where $`𝒪`$ denotes some product of local composite fields. This is an exact identity, as the space-time dependent change of variables can be made in the functional integral. However, the variation of the composite fields does not exactly transform members of a given multiplet among each other222We thank L. Giusti for drawing our attention to this problem. Although this was known in the literature (cf. e.g. \[?\]) it has been overlooked by us in an earlier version of this paper.. Rather there are extra terms, which arise due to the non-trivial space-time structure of $`\widehat{\gamma }_5`$. For instance, the axial variation of the pseudo-scalar density is given by

$$\delta _\mathrm{A}^a(\omega )P^b(y)=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}\omega (y)S^0(y)+\frac{1}{8}a\overline{\psi }(y)\tau ^b\tau ^a\gamma _5\left([\omega ,D]\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi \right)(y).$$
(2.45)
We now first assume that $`\omega `$ is non-zero only in a single lattice point $`xy`$. Eq. (2.45) then reduces to

$$\delta _\mathrm{A}^a(\omega )P^b(y)=\frac{1}{8}a\omega (x)\overline{\psi }(y)\tau ^b\tau ^a\gamma _5D(y,x)\left(\widehat{\gamma }_5\psi \right)(x),$$
(2.46)
where $`D(y,x)`$ denotes the kernel of the Ginsparg-Wilson Dirac operator. Locality of the Ginsparg-Wilson action then implies that the r.h.s. of eq. (2.46) is exponentially small as long as the distance between $`x`$ and $`y`$ is large in lattice units. We find that this structure is generic and therefore conclude that the bare PCAC and PCVC relations hold up to exponentially small corrections, provided all operators in the correlation function keep a large distance (in lattice units) from the space-time region where the action is varied.

We now assume that $`\omega `$ is constant in a space-time region $`R`$,

$$\omega (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1,& \text{if }xR\hfill \\ \hfill 0,& \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.47)
which leads to

$$\delta _\mathrm{A}^a(\omega )P^b(y)=\{\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}S^0(y)+\frac{1}{8}a^5\underset{xR}{}\overline{\psi }(y)\gamma _5\tau ^b\tau ^aD(y,x)(\widehat{\gamma _5}\psi )(x),\text{if }yR,\\ \hfill \frac{1}{8}a^5\underset{xR}{}\overline{\psi }(y)\gamma _5\tau ^b\tau ^aD(y,x)(\widehat{\gamma _5}\psi )(x),\text{if }yR,\end{array}$$
(2.48)
Again, locality of the action implies that the extra terms are exponentially small in both cases, provided one has

$`\underset{xR}{\mathrm{min}}xy`$ $``$ $`a,\text{if }yR`$ (2.49)
$`\underset{xR}{\mathrm{min}}xy`$ $``$ $`a,\text{if }yR.`$ (2.50)
Furthermore, we note that the above example of the pseudoscalar density is generic as the difference to naive continuum considerations always consists of terms involving the lattice Dirac operator. Up to exponentially small corrections, the bare Ward identities (2.44) can therefore be written in the continuum like form

$`a^4{\displaystyle \underset{xR}{}}\left(_\mu ^{}A_\mu ^a(x)2mP^a(x)i\mu _\mathrm{q}\delta ^{3a}S^0(x)\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi _{k_iA_i}^{(r_i)}(x_i)=`$
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{i|x_iR}{}}\left(T_A^{(r_i)}\right)_{A_iB}^a\varphi _{k_1A_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_iB}^{(r_i)}(x_i)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_nA_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n),`$
$`a^4{\displaystyle \underset{xR}{}}\left(_\mu ^{}V_\mu ^a(x)+2\mu _\mathrm{q}\epsilon ^{3ab}P^b(x)\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi _{k_iA_i}^{(r_i)}(x_i)=`$
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{i|x_iR}{}}\left(T_V^{(r_i)}\right)_{A_iB}^a\varphi _{k_1A_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_iB}^{(r_i)}(x_i)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_nA_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n),`$
where we have assumed the conditions (2.49,2.50) to hold with $`y`$ replaced by $`x_i`$, for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We have omitted the subscript $`(M,\alpha )`$ of the correlation functions, and the expansion,

$$R_{AB}^{(r)}(𝝎_𝐕;𝝎_𝐀)=\delta _{AB}\omega _V^a\left(T_V^{(r)}\right)_{AB}^a\omega _A^a\left(T_A^{(r)}\right)_{AB}^a+\mathrm{O}(\omega ^2),$$
(2.53)
defines the anti-hermitian generators of infinitesimal $`\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ rotations in the representation $`r`$.

## 3 Equivalence between the renormalized theories

We discuss under which conditions the identity (2.36) holds in terms of renormalized correlation functions. Without loss one may restrict attention to correlation functions of composite fields which keep a physical distance from each other.

### 3.1 Renormalized tmQCD

So far we have dealt with the theory at fixed lattice spacing $`a`$, and it is not obvious that the theory has a continuum limit. We assume that infrared divergences of the correlation functions are properly taken care of e.g. by working in a finite volume with a suitable choice of boundary conditions. Note that this also ensures analyticity of the correlation functions in the mass parameters. However, we expect that our conclusions will be valid more generally.

In perturbation theory, it has been shown that lattice QCD with Ginsparg-Wilson quarks is renormalizable \[?\], and we shall assume that this remains true beyond perturbation theory. While this result has been obtained for massless QCD, we do not expect any additional complication here, as both twisted and standard mass terms can be viewed as super-renormalizable interaction terms which do not modify the power counting.

The entire physical information of QCD is contained in the correlation functions of gauge invariant composite fields. Having introduced the lattice regularized theory, we may completely avoid gauge fixing, and we may also avoid the renormalization of the fundamental fields, which only play the rôle of integration variables. We are thus left with the renormalization of the bare parameters of the action, and the renormalization of the composite fields which enter the correlation functions. The symmetries of the lattice regularized theory are the same as in the continuum except for the continuous space-time symmetry being replaced by the symmetry group of the hyper-cubic lattice. It then follows that renormalized parameters take the form,

$$g_\text{R}^2=Z_gg_0^2,m_\text{R}=Z_mm,\mu _\text{R}=Z_\mu \mu _\mathrm{q},$$
(3.54)
where the renormalization constants are functions,

$$Z=Z(g_0^2,a\mu ,\mu _\mathrm{q}/\mu ,m/\mu ),$$
(3.55)
and $`\mu `$ denotes the renormalization scale.

Even though chiral symmetry is also broken by the mass terms it is customary to renormalize operators such that the chiral multiplet structure of the massless theory carries over to the renormalized theory. Renormalized operators then are of the form

$$(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{kA}^{(r)}=Z_k\left(\varphi _{kA}^{(r)}+c_{kk^{};AA^{}}^{(r,r^{})}a^{d_k^{}d_k}\varphi _{k^{}A^{}}^{(r^{})}\right),$$
(3.56)
where $`d_k`$ and $`d_k^{}`$ are the mass dimensions of the fields in the multiplets $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$. The structure of this equation follows from the well-known result of renormalization theory which states that composite fields mix under renormalization with all fields of equal or lower dimension, which transform identically under all the symmetries of the regularized theory. We assume here that $`d_k^{}<d_k`$, i.e. either there is no mixing with fields of equal mass dimensions, or this has already been taken into account by choosing a basis where the renormalization matrix is diagonal at the renormalization scale $`\mu `$. Hence the $`c`$-coefficients in eq. (3.56) only multiply operators with lower dimensions, and this implies that they cannot depend on the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ \[?\]. While the multiplicative renormalization constants $`Z_k`$ are of the form (3.55), the $`c`$-coefficients may thus be considered functions of the bare parameters, $`g_0^2,am`$ and $`a\mu _\mathrm{q}`$. Note that the multiplet structure of the bare theory is respected by the assignment of a common renormalization constant to all members of a multiplet.

In the following we shall assume that the renormalization of the theory and the composite fields works out along these lines. While this is guaranteed in perturbation theory, the non-perturbative renormalization of power divergent operators may require an additional effort. In particular, it may be necessary to first implement Symanzik’s improvement programme to sufficiently high order in the lattice spacing $`a`$ before the power divergences can be subtracted in an unambiguous way.

### 3.2 A special choice of renormalization scheme

We would like to identify renormalization schemes where the equation (2.36) carries over to the renormalized theory, with renormalized fields of the form (3.56). First of all, we notice that the exact PCAC and PCVC relations of the bare theory imply that $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ and $`m`$ can be renormalized by the same renormalization constant. We may thus choose $`Z_m=Z_\mu `$ implying a multiplicative renormalization of the bare radial mass $`M`$ by the same constant. Furthermore, $`\alpha `$ is not renormalized as it is determined by the ratio of the mass parameters. As the effect of the chiral rotation is a change of $`\alpha `$, we would like to choose all multiplicative renormalization constants independently of this angle, i.e.

$$Z=Z(g_0^2,a\mu ,M/\mu ).$$
(3.57)
A simple example is a mass-independent renormalization scheme which is obtained by renormalizing the theory in the chiral limit \[?\]. As we have assumed an infrared regularization to be in place, such renormalization schemes do exist and it is then obvious that eq. (2.36) holds for the renormalized correlation functions of multiplicatively renormalizable operators, viz.

$`(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_1A_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_nA_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n)_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )}=`$ (3.58)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}R_{A_iB_i}^{(r_i)}(\alpha ^{})\right\}(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_1B_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_nB_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n)_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha \alpha ^{})}.`$
The expectation values in the renormalized theory are defined as in the bare theory, except that the bare parameters are expressed in terms of the renormalized parameters $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`g_\text{R}`$. Note that eq. (3.58) is again an exact identity, if this is true for (2.36) and provided the renormalization constants are chosen exactly as specified above (i.e. not only up to cutoff effects).

The case of power divergent operators is slightly more complicated. In general, if eq. (3.58) is to be satisfied the c-coefficients cannot be independent of $`\alpha `$. For example, the renormalized scalar and pseudo-scalar densities are of the form

$`i(P_\mathrm{R})^a`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\mathrm{P}\left(iP^a+\delta ^{a3}a^3c_\mathrm{P}\right),`$ (3.59)
$`\frac{1}{2}(S_\mathrm{R})^0`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\mathrm{S}\left(\frac{1}{2}S^0+a^3c_\mathrm{S}\right),`$ (3.60)
with $`Z_\mathrm{S}=Z_\mathrm{P}`$, and it is well-known that $`c_\mathrm{P}`$ vanishes at $`\mu _\mathrm{q}=0`$.

Rather than being independent of $`\alpha `$, the additive counterterms satisfy a covariance condition. More precisely, assuming that all multiplicative renormalization constants are of the form (3.57), the requirement that eqs. (2.36) and (3.58) hold simultaneously implies,

$$R_{AB}^{(r)}(\alpha ^{})c_{kk^{};BC}^{(r,r^{})}(g_0^2,aM,\alpha \alpha ^{})=c_{kk^{};AB}^{(r,r^{})}(g_0^2,aM,\alpha )R_{BC}^{(r^{})}(\alpha ^{}),$$
(3.61)
where only the index $`B`$ is summed, all others being fixed. In the example of the pseudo-scalar and scalar densities one finds the equations

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}c_\mathrm{P}(\alpha )\\ c_\mathrm{S}(\alpha )\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha ^{}& \mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{}\\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{}& \mathrm{cos}\alpha ^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c_\mathrm{P}(\alpha \alpha ^{})\\ c_\mathrm{S}(\alpha \alpha ^{})\end{array}\right),$$
(3.62)
where we have only indicated the dependence upon the angle. It is obvious that $`c_\mathrm{P}^2+c_\mathrm{S}^2`$ is independent of $`\alpha `$ and due to the vanishing of $`c_\mathrm{P}(0)`$, the solution can be parameterised as follows,

$$c_\mathrm{P}(\alpha )=c_\mathrm{S}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ),c_\mathrm{S}(\alpha )=c_\mathrm{S}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha ).$$
(3.63)
In other words, if the renormalization problem for the scalar density can be solved in standard QCD, the solution at all other values of $`\alpha `$ is given by these equations.

### 3.3 Differential equation in $`\alpha `$

The requirements for the renormalization scheme are best characterised by a differential equation in $`\alpha `$. We start by considering the third flavour component of the axial Ward identity (2.4), chose the region $`R`$ to be the space-time manifold itself and obtain the exact identity of the bare theory,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}|_{M,g_0}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi _{k_iA_i}^{(r_i)}(x_i)_{(M,\alpha )}=`$ (3.64)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}T_{A_iB}^{(r_i)}\varphi _{k_1A_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_iB}^{(r_i)}(x_i)\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_nA_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n)_{(M,\alpha )},`$
where $`T^{(r)}\left(T_A^{(r)}\right)^3`$. Note in particular that the normalising factor of the path integral is independent of $`\alpha `$ and hence does not generate a disconnected contribution.

Next we recall that analyticity of the renormalized correlation functions in the mass parameters $`m_\text{R}`$ and $`\mu _\text{R}`$ is guaranteed by the infrared cutoff. Therefore, also their derivative with respect to $`\alpha `$ must exist, as the relation

$$\frac{}{\alpha }|_{M_\mathrm{R},g_\mathrm{R}}=m_\text{R}\frac{}{\mu _\text{R}}|_{m_\text{R},g_\mathrm{R}}\mu _\text{R}\frac{}{m_\text{R}}|_{\mu _\text{R},g_\mathrm{R}},$$
(3.65)
follows directly from the definition of the (renormalized) polar mass coordinates \[cf. eq. (2.34\]. Differentiating a renormalized $`n`$-point function at fixed renormalized parameters, applying the chain rule and using eq. (3.64), one obtains the differential equation,

$`\left(_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}l_{k_i}\right)(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_1A_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_nA_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n)_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )}=`$ (3.66)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}T_{A_iB}^{(r_i)}(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_1A_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_iB}^{(r_i)}(x_i)\mathrm{}(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_nA_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n)_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )}.`$
Here the differential operator $`_\alpha `$ is defined through

$$_\alpha \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{}{\alpha }|_{M_\mathrm{R},g_\mathrm{R}}+l_\mathrm{M}M_\mathrm{R}\frac{}{M_\mathrm{R}}|_{\alpha ,g_\mathrm{R}}+l_\mathrm{g}g_\mathrm{R}^2\frac{}{g_\mathrm{R}^2}|_{\alpha ,M_\mathrm{R}},$$
(3.67)
and the coefficients are given by

$$l_\mathrm{X}=\frac{\mathrm{log}Z_\mathrm{X}}{\alpha }|_{M,g_0},\mathrm{X}=M,g,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n.$$
(3.68)
With a suitable choice of the irrelevant parts of the renormalization counterterms eq. (3.66) holds exactly at finite lattice spacing. The very existence of the differentiated correlation function then leads to a constraint for the additive counterterms, viz.

$$\frac{}{\alpha }|_{M,g_0}c_{kk^{};AC}^{(r,r^{})}=\left\{T_{AB}^{(r)}c_{kk^{};BC}^{(r,r^{})}c_{kk^{};AB}^{(r,r^{})}T_{BC}^{(r^{})}\right\}.$$
(3.69)
As one might expect, integrating eq. (3.69) from $`\alpha `$ to $`\alpha \alpha ^{}`$ reproduces the covariance relation (3.61). Note however, that eq. (3.69) holds without assuming eq. (3.57).

To relate the renormalized correlation functions defined at two different values of the angle $`\alpha `$ one just has to integrate the differential equation (3.66). It is possible to formally write down the general solution. However, we do not find this particularly illuminating and therefore just mention that the general relation is much more complicated than eq. (3.58). The question then arises under which conditions the relation does take the simple form (3.58). For this to work out, the l.h.s. of eq. (3.66) should reduce to the partial derivative with respect to $`\alpha `$, i.e. one requires

$`\left[l_\mathrm{M}M_\mathrm{R}{\displaystyle \frac{}{M_\mathrm{R}}}|_{\alpha ,g_\mathrm{R}}+l_\mathrm{g}g_\mathrm{R}^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{g_\mathrm{R}^2}}|_{\alpha ,M_\mathrm{R}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}l_{k_i}\right]`$ (3.70)
$`\times (\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_1A_1}^{(r_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{k_nA_n}^{(r_n)}(x_n)_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )}=0.`$
Note that such an equation must hold for all renormalized correlation functions. Therefore, unless $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`g_\text{R}`$ are related in a special way, the $`l_\mathrm{X}`$ must all vanish, i.e. the multiplicative renormalization constants all take the form (3.57).

We finally remark that eq. (3.66) expresses the re-parameterisation invariance of the theory: an infinitesimal change of quark variables of the form (2.28) is compensated by a change of $`\alpha `$, $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`g_\mathrm{R}`$. Our derivation makes use of the axial Ward identity as the change of variables (2.28) corresponds to a special chiral symmetry transformation. However, more general changes of variables can be considered using rather general results of renormalization theory \[?\].

### 3.4 The rôle of the Ward identities

Eq. (3.58) is the relation between renormalized tmQCD and QCD in its simplest form. Its infinitesimal version is eq. (3.66) with vanishing coefficients $`l_\mathrm{X}`$ (3.68). We have argued that it is possible to renormalize the Ginsparg-Wilson regulated theory such that eq. (3.58) holds, and we have worked out the conditions on the renormalization constants in this regularization. Based on universality one thus expects that tmQCD in other, not necessarily chirally invariant regularizations can again be renormalized such that eq. (3.58) is satisfied up to cutoff effects. At least in perturbation theory this can be proved rigorously.

In view of the formulation of tmQCD with Wilson quarks, we would like to emphasise the rôle of the renormalized tmQCD Ward identities, which are of the same form as eqs. (2.4,2.4). As is well-known, the Ward identities ensure that the renormalized composite fields form chiral multiplets, and fix the absolute normalization of the symmetry currents. Furthermore, the mass parameters are renormalized inversely to the pseudo-scalar and scalar densities, and this implies that one may set

$$m_\text{R}=M_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mu _\text{R}=M_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,$$
(3.71)
with the angle $`\alpha `$ which remains unrenormalized.

We are now going to demonstrate that the renormalized tmQCD Ward identities also imply that certain linear combinations of the correlation functions satisfy the Ward identities of standard QCD. In the following we assume the continuum limit has been taken and use a shorthand notation for the renormalized correlation functions,

$$G(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{kA}^{(r)}(y)𝒪_{\mathrm{ext}}_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )},$$
(3.72)
where $`𝒪_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is some product of renormalized fields which are localized in the exterior of the finite physical space-time region $`R`$. Furthermore we assume $`yR`$ and denote by $`G_{\mathrm{A},\mathrm{V},\mathrm{P}}^a`$ and $`G_\mathrm{S}`$ the same correlation functions with an insertion of $`_\mu (A_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^a`$, $`_\mu (V_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^a`$, $`(P_\mathrm{R})^a`$ and $`(S_\mathrm{R})^0`$ at the space-time point $`x`$, integrated over the region $`R`$ with respect to $`x`$. The renormalized Ward identities may then be written in the form

$`G_\mathrm{A}^a2M_\mathrm{R}\left\{\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )G_\mathrm{P}^a+i\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\delta ^{3a}G_\mathrm{S}\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`iT_\mathrm{A}^aG,`$ (3.73)
$`G_\mathrm{V}^a+2M_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\epsilon ^{3ab}G_\mathrm{P}^b`$ $`=`$ $`iT_\mathrm{V}^aG,`$ (3.74)
where the abbreviation

$$T_\mathrm{X}^aG\left(T_X^{(r)}\right)_{AB}^a(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{kB}^{(r)}(y)𝒪_{\mathrm{ext}}_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )}$$
(3.75)
has been used for $`\mathrm{X}=\mathrm{A},\mathrm{V}`$.

We now consider the two linear combinations

$`\mathrm{c}G_\mathrm{A}^1+\mathrm{s}G_\mathrm{V}^22M_\mathrm{R}\left\{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\mathrm{s}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \right\}G_\mathrm{P}^1`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\mathrm{c}T_\mathrm{A}^1+\mathrm{s}T_\mathrm{V}^2\right)G,`$ (3.76)
$`\mathrm{c}G_\mathrm{V}^2\mathrm{s}G_\mathrm{A}^12M_\mathrm{R}\left\{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{s}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right\}G_\mathrm{P}^1`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\mathrm{c}T_\mathrm{V}^2\mathrm{s}T_\mathrm{A}^1\right)G.`$ (3.77)
Multiplying both sides of the equation by the matrices $`R^{(r)}(\alpha )`$, setting

$$R_\alpha GR_{AB}^{(r)}(\alpha )(\varphi _\mathrm{R})_{kB}^{(r)}(y)𝒪_{\mathrm{ext}}_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )}$$
(3.78)
and also defining

$$G_\mathrm{A}^{}^1\mathrm{c}G_\mathrm{A}^1+\mathrm{s}G_\mathrm{V}^2,G_\mathrm{V}^{}^2\mathrm{c}G_\mathrm{V}^2\mathrm{s}G_\mathrm{A}^1,$$
(3.79)
we then find

$`R_\alpha G_\mathrm{A}^{}^12M_\mathrm{R}\left\{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\mathrm{s}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \right\}R_\alpha G_\mathrm{P}^1`$ $`=`$ $`iR_\alpha \left(\mathrm{c}T_\mathrm{A}^1+\mathrm{s}T_\mathrm{V}^2\right)G,`$ (3.80)
$`R_\alpha G_\mathrm{V}^{}^22M_\mathrm{R}\left\{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{s}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right\}RG_\mathrm{P}^1`$ $`=`$ $`iR_\alpha \left(\mathrm{c}T_\mathrm{V}^2\mathrm{s}T_\mathrm{A}^1\right)G.`$ (3.81)
We notice that in order to preserve the canonical normalization of the primed currents, one needs $`\mathrm{c}^2+\mathrm{s}^2=1`$, i.e. we may set

$$\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{cos}(\alpha ^{}),\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ^{}).$$
(3.82)
It is then clear that the standard Ward identities can be obtained by choosing $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha `$, and provided the equations

$`R_{AB}^{(r)}(\alpha )\left(\mathrm{c}\left(T_\mathrm{A}^{(r)}\right)_{BC}^1+\mathrm{s}\left(T_\mathrm{V}^{(r)}\right)_{BC}^2\right)R_{CD}^{(r)}(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(T_\mathrm{A}^{(r)}\right)_{AD}^1,`$ (3.83)
$`R_{AB}^{(r)}(\alpha )\left(\mathrm{c}\left(T_\mathrm{V}^{(r)}\right)_{BC}^2\mathrm{s}\left(T_\mathrm{A}^{(r)}\right)_{BC}^1\right)R_{CD}^{(r)}(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(T_\mathrm{V}^{(r)}\right)_{AD}^2,`$ (3.84)
hold. By differentiating with respect to $`\alpha `$ and using the Lie algebra of the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ generators,

$$[T_\mathrm{A}^a,T_\mathrm{A}^b]=\epsilon ^{abc}T_\mathrm{V}^c,[T_\mathrm{A}^a,T_\mathrm{V}^b]=\epsilon ^{abc}T_\mathrm{A}^c,[T_\mathrm{V}^a,T_\mathrm{V}^b]=\epsilon ^{abc}T_\mathrm{V}^c,$$
(3.85)
one arrives at the conclusion that eqs. (3.83,3.84) are indeed satisfied. Note that the same procedure applies to the remaining flavour components of the Ward identities. Hence, the validity of the tmQCD Ward identities implies that

* there exist particular linear combinations of correlation functions which satisfy the standard QCD Ward identities for two degenerate quark flavours with mass $`M_\mathrm{R}`$,
* the linear combinations only depend on the angle $`\alpha `$, which is determined by the ratio of the quark mass parameters which appear in the Ward identities.

In particular it is clear that the angle $`\alpha `$ has no physical significance. We may start with any value of $`\alpha `$ and still obtain the standard chiral flavour Ward identities. As a given theory is identified by its symmetries this implies the equivalence of theories defined at different values of $`\alpha `$, provided the remaining symmetries are either $`\alpha `$-independent or transform covariantly. This is certainly true on the level of the renormalized composite fields: for any transformation of the composite fields at $`\alpha =0`$ one may identify the corresponding transformation in the renormalized twisted theory.

### 3.5 Concluding remarks

In practical applications one would like to work with tmQCD at a given fixed value of $`\alpha `$, and just invoke eq. (3.58) in order to interpret the results in terms of standard QCD. According to the above discussion one may start by imposing the tmQCD Ward identities in the renormalized theory. Besides defining the value of $`\alpha `$ this procedure restores the chiral multiplet structure of the bare theory. One then still needs to impose a renormalization condition per chiral multiplet. If this is done either in the chiral limit or independently of $`\alpha `$, eq. (3.58) provides the relation to the theory defined at any other angle $`\alpha `$, including $`\alpha =0`$. The simplification in the Ginsparg-Wilson regularization consists in the validity of bare continuum-like tmQCD Ward identities, and in the related fact that the bare Ward identity masses coincide with the bare mass parameters of the action. Finally we stress that the classical continuum theory allows to infer the relation (3.58) between renormalized theories and may hence be used as a guide.

## 4 Twisted mass QCD with Wilson quarks

In this section we discuss in some detail the regularization with Wilson fermions, including some practical aspects of applications.

### 4.1 Symmetries of the bare theory

With Wilson quarks the tmQCD Dirac operator is as given in eq. (1.1) with the usual massless Wilson-Dirac operator333For unexplained notation and conventions we refer to ref. \[?\]

$$D_W=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}\{\gamma _\mu (_\mu +_\mu )a_\mu _\mu \}.$$
(4.86)
For simplicity we defer the discussion of O($`a`$) improved tmQCD to a separate publication \[?\]. Here we note that the Wilson term is not left invariant by the axial rotation (2.3), and the lattice regulated theories at $`\mu _\mathrm{q}=0`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{q}0`$ are thus different. This is of course welcome as otherwise the zero mode problem would be present in both cases (cf. sect 1). One may think of more general lattice Dirac operators, also including a chirally twisted Wilson term. However, a moment of thought reveals that this is not really more general, as an axial rotation (2.3) may then be used in the lattice theory to eliminate the extra Wilson term. Modulo a more general coefficient of the standard Wilson term and with re-defined bare mass parameters, one then obtains again the action corresponding to eq. (1.1).

As compared to the theory with $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$ standard Wilson quarks ($`\mu _\mathrm{q}=0`$) we find that the exact U(2) symmetry is reduced to a U(1) symmetry leading to fermion number conservation, and a vectorial U(1) symmetry with generator $`\tau ^3/2`$. Concerning the space-time symmetries, the lattice action is invariant under axis permutations, whereas reflections such as parity are a symmetry only if combined with either a flavour exchange

$$F:\psi \tau ^1\psi ,\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }\tau ^1,$$
(4.87)
or a sign change of the twisted mass term $`\mu _\mathrm{q}\mu _\mathrm{q}`$. We will refer to the thus modified parity symmetries as $`P_F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ respectively. The list of exact symmetries is completed by charge conjugation, and we note that twisted mass lattice QCD with Wilson quarks has a positive self-adjoint transfer matrix \[?\].

### 4.2 Renormalized parameters

As in sect. 3 we assume that infrared divergences are regulated e.g. by working in a finite space-time volume with suitable boundary conditions. This implies analyticity of the theory in the mass parameters and it is then rather obvious that twisted mass lattice QCD is renormalizable by power counting \[?\]. The counterterm structure follows from the symmetries of the regularization. Based on these symmetries one concludes that tmQCD is finite after the usual renormalization of the coupling and the standard mass parameter,

$$g_\text{R}^2=Z_gg_0^2,m_\text{R}=Z_mm_\mathrm{q},m_\mathrm{q}=m_0m_\mathrm{c},$$
(4.88)
and, in addition a multiplicative renormalization of the twisted mass parameter,

$$\mu _\text{R}=Z_\mu \mu _\mathrm{q}.$$
(4.89)
In particular we note that the modified parity symmetry, $`P_F`$, is sufficient to exclude a counterterm $`\text{tr}\{F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\}`$.

### 4.3 Ward identities and renormalization of composite fields

Following sect. 3 we require that the renormalized theory satisfies the axial and vector Ward identities, i.e. the renormalized analogues of eqs. (2.4,2.4). Concerning the vector Ward identity the situation is the same as with Ginsparg-Wilson fermions, due to the exact flavour symmetry of massless Wilson quarks. Therefore eq. (2.4) holds exactly, with the point-split vector current

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mu ^a(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\{\overline{\psi }(x)(\gamma _\mu 1)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}U(x,\mu )\psi (x+a\widehat{\mu })`$ (4.90)
$`+\overline{\psi }(x+a\widehat{\mu })(\gamma _\mu +1)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}U(x,\mu )^1\psi (x)\},`$
and the local pseudo-scalar density. It then follows that the vector current is protected against renormalization, i.e. $`Z_\mathrm{V}=1`$. More generally, the multiplicative renormalization constants of composite fields which belong to the same isospin multiplet must be identical in order to respect the vector Ward identities. An example is the renormalized pseudo-scalar density which has the structure

$$i(P_\mathrm{R})^a=Z_\mathrm{P}\left\{iP^a+\delta ^{a3}a^3c_\mathrm{P}\right\}$$
(4.91)
and $`c_\mathrm{P}`$ vanishes exactly at $`\mu _\mathrm{q}=0`$. The vector Ward identity here implies that $`Z_\mathrm{P}`$ is the same for all flavour components, and, moreover,

$$Z_\mathrm{P}=Z_\mu ^1.$$
(4.92)
In contrast, the axial Ward identity does not hold in the bare theory. Axial Ward identities therefore provide normalization conditions which determine finite renormalization constants such as $`Z_\mathrm{A}`$, or finite ratios of scale dependent renormalization constants, such as $`Z_\mathrm{S}/Z_\mathrm{P}`$ \[?\]. Moreover, these finite renormalization constants only depend on the bare coupling $`g_0`$ and may therefore be determined in the chiral limit using standard procedures \[?\]. Note that the finite renormalization constants restore chiral symmetry of the bare theory up to cutoff effects. Once this is achieved the renormalization of multiplicatively renormalizable fields is similar to the Ginsparg-Wilson case, i.e. the renormalization constant for a given multiplet is determined by imposing a renormalization condition on one of its members. Of particular practical interest are mass-independent renormalization schemes, which are obtained by imposing a renormalization condition at $`\mu _\mathrm{q}=m_\mathrm{q}=0`$ \[?\]. Based on universality we then expect that the relations (3.58) between renormalized correlation functions hold up to cutoff effects. According to sect. 3 the same can be achieved by imposing $`\alpha `$-independent renormalization conditions, where, in the case of Wilson fermions the angle $`\alpha `$ must be defined through the Ward identity masses (cf. subsect. 4.4).

In principle the Ward identities also determine additive renormalization constants which arise due to the explicit breaking of chiral symmetry. An example is the renormalization of the iso-singlet scalar density, which has the same structure as in eq. (3.60), however, with a coefficient $`c_\mathrm{S}`$ which does not vanish in the chiral limit. Therefore, the renormalization of the third axial Ward identity (2.4) requires the explicit subtraction of power divergences. While power divergent renormalization problems do not present any particular difficulty in perturbation theory, it is less clear how to proceed in a non-perturbative approach. A general discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this work. Here we just note that the renormalization of the third axial Ward identity may in fact be avoided if one assumes that the physical isospin symmetry is restored in the renormalized theory. In the following we will make this (plausible) assumption and not discuss the third axial Ward identity any further.

### 4.4 Definition of the angle $`\alpha `$

According to section 3.4 the angle $`\alpha `$ is uniquely defined through the renormalized Ward identity masses. Assuming that $`Z_\mathrm{P}`$ has been fixed, the renormalized twisted mass parameter is determined due to eq. (4.92). The renormalized axial current and the first two components of the pseudo-scalar density may then be used to define $`m_\text{R}`$ through the renormalized PCAC relation

$$_\mu (A_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^a=2m_\text{R}(P_\mathrm{R})^a,a=1,2.$$
(4.93)
In practice one first defines a bare PCAC mass $`m`$ from the ratio of correlation functions involving the bare axial current and pseudo-scalar density. The renormalized PCAC mass is then given by

$$m_\text{R}=Z_\mathrm{A}Z_\mathrm{P}^1m=Z_\mathrm{m}m_\mathrm{q}.$$
(4.94)
Using eq. (4.92), the angle $`\alpha `$ is then determined as

$$\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\frac{\mu _\text{R}}{m_\text{R}}=\frac{\mu _\mathrm{q}}{Z_\mathrm{A}m}=\frac{\mu _\mathrm{q}}{Z_\mathrm{m}Z_\mathrm{P}m_\mathrm{q}}.$$
(4.95)
In general one thus needs the bare PCAC mass $`m`$ and the axial current normalization constant $`Z_\mathrm{A}`$ to obtain $`\alpha `$. Note that the latter is not needed in the special case $`m=0`$, i.e. if $`\alpha =\pi /2`$.

### 4.5 Avoiding lattice renormalization problems

Once tmQCD has been renormalized in the way described above, eq. (3.58) can be applied to establish a “dictionary” between the renormalized correlation functions in QCD and tmQCD. For example, the 2-point function of the axial current and the pseudo-scalar density in standard QCD translates as follows

$`(A_\mathrm{R})_0^1(x)(P_\mathrm{R})^1(y)_{(M_\mathrm{R},0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )(A_\mathrm{R})_0^1(x)(P_\mathrm{R})^1(y)_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )}`$ (4.96)
$`+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\stackrel{~}{V}_0^2(x)(P_\mathrm{R})^1(y)_{(M_\mathrm{R},\alpha )}.`$
More generally, relations between the renormalized composite fields can be inferred from the corresponding relations in the classical theory (cf. sect. 2). In particular, the above example follows from eqs. (2.112.13).

As tmQCD and standard QCD with Wilson quarks are not related by a lattice symmetry, the counterterm structure for composite fields with the same physical interpretation depends upon $`\alpha `$. Given a physical amplitude it may hence be possible that a particular choice of $`\alpha `$ leads to simplifications. An obvious case is the computation of $`F_\pi `$ from the 2-point function (4.96). While the standard approach (i.e. the direct computation of the l.h.s.) requires to first determine the renormalized axial current, the r.h.s. of this equation at $`\alpha =\pi /2`$ only contains the vector current which is protected against renormalization.

Even more interesting is the application of tmQCD to matrix elements of the iso-singlet scalar density. At $`\alpha =\pi /2`$, the physical scalar density is represented by the third component of the pseudo-scalar density, see eq. (2.14). While the scalar density is cubically divergent even in the chiral limit, the pseudo-scalar density has a quadratic divergence which vanishes exactly at $`\mu _\mathrm{q}=0`$. The situation is therefore comparable to the case of the renormalized scalar density in standard QCD with Ginsparg-Wilson fermions.

### 4.6 Inclusion of heavier quarks

It is straightforward to generalise tmQCD to include any number of heavier quark flavours. For the latter one may use the standard regularization with (improved) Wilson quarks, as the zero mode problem is practically absent at mass parameters which correspond to the physical strange quark mass. The renormalization procedure can again be carried out such that the chiral flavour Ward identities are respected, which now also involve mixed operators of light and heavy quarks. Hence we expect that the “dictionary” between tmQCD and standard QCD can again be established by naive continuum considerations. As an example we consider the tmQCD continuum action (2.2) and add the action of the strange quark,

$$S_\mathrm{F}[\psi ,\overline{\psi },s,\overline{s}]=\mathrm{d}^4x\{\overline{\psi }(D/+m+i\mu _\mathrm{q}\gamma _5\tau ^3)\psi +\overline{s}(D/+m_s)s\}.$$
(4.97)
Using a physical notation,

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right),\overline{\psi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{u}& \overline{d}\end{array}\right),$$
(4.98)
the standard PCAC relation,

$$_\mu (\overline{d}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5s)=(m^{}+m_s)\overline{d}^{}\gamma _5s,$$
(4.99)
is obtained with the rotated axial current and pseudo-scalar density,

$`\overline{d}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha )\overline{d}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5s+i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha )\overline{d}\gamma _\mu s,`$ (4.100)
$`\overline{d}^{}\gamma _5s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha )\overline{d}\gamma _5si\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha )\overline{d}s,`$ (4.101)
and with the angle $`\alpha `$ and the light quark mass $`m^{}`$ as given in sect. 2.1.

### 4.7 Application to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ effective weak Hamiltonian

Also in the case of operators involving light and strange quarks certain renormalization problems of standard Wilson quarks can be circumvented. An interesting example is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ part of the effective weak Hamiltonian,

$$O^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}=\left\{\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d\right\}^2.$$
(4.102)
In phenomenology one is mainly interested in the hadronic matrix element of this operator between $`K_0`$ and $`\overline{K}_0`$ states \[?\]. As parity does not change in this transition, only the parity conserving part of the operator contributes. Hence one decomposes the operator into parity even and odd parts,

$$O^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}=O_{\mathrm{VV}+\mathrm{AA}}2O_{\mathrm{VA}}.$$
(4.103)
In the regularization with Ginsparg-Wilson fermions the operator $`O^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}`$ and thus both $`O_{\mathrm{VV}+\mathrm{AA}}`$ and $`O_{\mathrm{VA}}`$ are renormalized multiplicatively. With Wilson quarks, the remaining symmetries imply that $`O_{\mathrm{VV}+\mathrm{AA}}`$ mixes with four other parity even operators of the same mass dimension, whereas $`O_{\mathrm{VA}}`$ is still renormalized multiplicatively \[?\]. In tmQCD we now observe that the parity even operator in the standard basis is represented by the combination

$$O_{\mathrm{VV}+\mathrm{AA}}^{}=\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )O_{\mathrm{VV}+\mathrm{AA}}2i\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )O_{\mathrm{VA}}.$$
(4.104)
In particular, at $`\alpha =\pi /2`$, only $`O_{\mathrm{VA}}`$ appears on the r.h.s., and one concludes that matrix elements of the physical operator $`O_{\mathrm{VV}+\mathrm{AA}}^{}`$ can be computed in tmQCD without solving the complicated renormalization problem for the parity even operator444For an alternative proposal see ref. \[?\].. In particular, the $`K_0\overline{K}_0`$ mixing amplitude could be extracted from the 3-point function involving $`O_{\mathrm{VA}}`$ and appropriately rotated interpolating fields for the kaons \[cf. eqs. (4.100,4.101)\].

One might be worried that additional counterterms to $`O_{\mathrm{VA}}`$ may be necessary in tmQCD. As there is no such term at $`\mu _\mathrm{q}=0`$, possible counterterms must be accompanied by at least one power of the twisted mass parameter, and the flavour structure requires them to be again four-quark operators. For dimensional reasons such counterterms can only contribute cutoff effects of the order $`a\mu _\mathrm{q}`$, and a closer look shows that the parity even operators multiplied by $`a\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ are indeed allowed by the tmQCD symmetries.

### 4.8 Technical complications

The equivalence between tmQCD and standard QCD is a statement about the renormalized theories in the continuum limit. When tmQCD is used to define the standard QCD correlation functions, some of the physical symmetries are only restored in the continuum limit. In particular, this is the case of the flavour symmetry and parity, which are exact lattice symmetries in standard QCD with Wilson fermions, but which are only recovered in the continuum limit if $`\alpha 0`$. In practice the problem shows up e.g. as an ambiguity in the definition of $`\alpha `$, which is induced by the usual ambiguity in the definition of the critical mass $`m_\mathrm{c}`$ by terms of O($`a`$) (or O($`a^2`$) if the theory is improved) \[?\]. To illustrate the consequences consider the computation of the pion mass at fixed cutoff $`a`$, using the 2-point function

$$G(x_0y_0)=a^3\underset{𝐱}{}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}(x)P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}(y).$$
(4.105)
In tmQCD this correlation function is computed by replacing $`P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ as in eq. (2.13), where the relative multiplicative renormalization of $`S^0`$ and $`P^3`$ is assumed to have been fixed by the axial Ward identity. Note also that the exponential decay of this correlation can be determined without knowledge of the additive renormalization constants.

It is now obvious that both the ambiguity in $`\alpha `$ and the O($`a`$) ambiguity in the relative renormalization of the densities imply that the correlation function (4.105) contains cutoff effects which are proportional to the propagator of the (physical) scalar density $`S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$. An analysis of the 2-point function (4.105) at fixed $`a`$ must therefore take into account the states with the quantum numbers of an iso-singlet scalar state. We note in passing that O($`a`$) improvement does not alter this situation, as it merely reduces the ambiguities to O($`a^2`$). In particular, at fixed cutoff, the relevant symmetries remain inexact and the qualitative behaviour of the 2-point function (4.105) remains unchanged.

In general the analysis of the hadron spectrum in tmQCD at fixed $`a`$ must include states which are allowed by the lattice symmetries but have the “wrong” continuum quantum numbers. Although this is not a fundamental problem, the analysis is somewhat more complicated than in lattice QCD with standard Wilson quarks. We also note a side effect for the determination of hadronic matrix elements. When these are extracted from tmQCD correlation functions it may not be necessary to increase the distances until the desired physical state is completely isolated. It is sufficient to establish that contributions from the excited states with the correct continuum quantum numbers are negligible, as all other contaminations merely modify the cutoff effects of the matrix element.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have advocated the use of twisted mass QCD with Wilson quarks as an alternative regularization of QCD with two degenerate light quarks. Using Ginsparg-Wilson fermions as a tool, we have demonstrated in what sense tmQCD is equivalent to standard QCD. In particular, we have clarified under which conditions the relations between renormalized correlation functions take the simple form (3.58), which is the quantum analogue of the naive relations derived in the classical continuum theory.

Twisted mass lattice QCD provides a clean field theoretical solution to the problem of unphysical zero modes. While our work on tmQCD is motivated by this problem, we also observe a few additional benefits. In particular we have given examples where renormalization problems of lattice operators can be circumvented by working in the fully twisted theory with $`\alpha =\pi /2`$. For the sake of simplicity we did not discuss O($`a`$) improvement of tmQCD. This topic is deferred to a separate publication \[?\].

First numerical simulations using (quenched) tmQCD have already been carried out, and a scaling test in a small volume has been presented in \[?\]. It is hoped that the chiral limit can be approached much more closely in tmQCD than previously possible with Wilson quarks. In particular the ALPHA collaboration plans to extend the work of \[?\] to much smaller quark masses where (quenched) chiral perturbation theory should be safely applicable \[?\]. Furthermore, a project to determine the $`K_0\overline{K}_0`$ mixing amplitude using tmQCD is underway \[?\]. In the future, it will also be interesting to see whether numerical simulations of full QCD can benefit from using a twisted mass term.

This work is part of the ALPHA collaboration research programme. We would like to thank M. Della Morte, M. Lüscher, G.C. Rossi, R. Sommer and A. Vladikas for useful discussions. S. Sint acknowledges partial support by the European Commission under grant no. FMBICT972442. P.A. Grassi is supported by the National Science Foundation (grants no. PHY-9722083 and PHY-0070787).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of the strong interactions at low energies has stimulated vast efforts in the domain of pion–nucleon physics. It is mainly the description of simple processes like pion–nucleon scattering which can help us to extend our knowledge about the fundamental principles of the strong interactions. For every field theory, the consideration of symmetry principles is very important, and it is thus of primordial interest to know to what extent these symmetries are realized in nature.

For a long time, isospin symmetry has been thought of as an exact symmetry of the strong interactions. But the nucleon isospin doublet, consisting of proton and neutron, is not degenerate in mass; whereas electromagnetic interactions alone would make the proton heavier than the neutron, the mass difference between the up– and down–quarks reverses the situation: the neutron turns out to be heavier than the proton by 1.3 MeV. This simple consideration triggers questions about the size of isospin violation in other strong processes.

Pion–nucleon scattering is the ideal playground for studying the question of isospin breaking. Indeed, thanks to the construction of meson factories and the formidable effort of many experimental groups, we now have a large amount of very precise low–energy data. Weinberg pointed out on purely theoretical grounds that isospin breaking effects in neutral–pion scattering must be dramatically enhanced due to the smallness of the isoscalar amplitudes . The advent of high–quality data opened the way to the study of isospin symmetry violation in processes which are experimentally accessible: these are the elastic $`\pi ^+p`$ and $`\pi ^{}p`$ as well as the single charge exchange (SCX) reactions. The difficulty now lies in the extraction of the strong interaction amplitude from the scattering data. Electromagnetic corrections have to be applied in order to gain information about the hadronic amplitudes. Such corrections have been computed e.g. by the Nordita group  and more recently by Gashi et al. . The problem is that these analyses cannot account for the electromagnetic and the strong interaction in a consistent way. In view of studying small quantities like isospin symmetry violation, it is absolutely necessary to avoid systematic errors resulting from a possible mismatch in the description of both forces. We will readdress this question, i.e. we will extract the strong amplitude from scattering data in the framework of chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$PT). $`\chi `$PT allows to calculate the electromagnetic and the strong interactions consistently in terms of unknown parameters, the so–called low–energy constants (LECs). Having fitted the full amplitude to the available cross section data, one is then able to switch off electromagnetism and to predict the strong piece in a unique fashion.

The knowledge of the hadronic amplitude is necessary for analyzing the violation of isospin symmetry of the strong interaction. Such analyses have been performed in the past , indicating breaking at low energies as large as $`6\%`$. Both works, however, are based on electromagnetic corrections which might not be compatible with the description of the strong interactions. In order to better understand the origin of this large isospin breaking effect, we readdress this question within our framework. The advantage of such a diagrammatic calculation lies in the fact that we can clearly localize which mechanisms are responsible for isospin violation, thus making a detailed study of the subject feasible.

## 2 The amplitude

This work follows a series of previous papers: in , pion–nucleon scattering was studied in the limit of isospin symmetry. The unknown counterterms were determined by a fit to phase shifts resulting from three different analyses . In , we included strong isospin breaking terms in the amplitude and took the full mass difference of the physical particles into account. The isospin symmetric amplitude had to be generalized in order to describe scattering of particles with different masses. Not only do the particles in the initial and final states have different masses, but pion mass differences also have to be considered in the loops, and the nucleon mass difference plays a role in the intermediate states.

The aim of this work is to describe QCD and QED with unequal up– and down–quark masses ($`m_um_d`$) and non–vanishing electric charge ($`e^20`$). We thus have to add loops with virtual photons as well as electromagnetic counterterms. This is the yet missing part in the complete analysis of pion–nucleon scattering. Photons enter the amplitude via four mechanisms, one example of each is shown in fig. 1.

* First, there is the Coulomb potential, which is the exchange of soft photons between the charged pions and the proton. To the accuracy we are working we only have to include the one– and two–photon exchange, since multi–photon exchange diagrams are suppressed by higher powers of $`e^2`$. It is important to note that our simultaneous counting of momenta $`q`$ and electromagnetic couplings $`e`$ as small quantities necessarily breaks down at very low energies. To illustrate this, let us compare the Weinberg–Tomozawa term (which in our counting is of first order) and the same process accompanied by the exchange of a photon between the initial or the final particles. At low energies, the loop diagram (which is of third order) is “suppressed” by a factor $`e^2M_\pi /(32|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |)`$. Thus, for pions of momentum less than $`0.5`$ MeV, the loop diagram is not suppressed compared to the tree diagram, which clearly contradicts our counting scheme. At very low energies, one would thus have to sum up diagrams with an arbitrary number of photons exchanged between the charged–particle legs. This is commonly done in nucleon–nucleon scattering, where the heavy nucleons can be considered to be non–relativistic at such energies. Fortunately we do not have to worry about these ladder exchange diagrams since they only become important at energies much lower than the experimentally accessible energy range. In our analysis, we will thus stick to the traditional chiral counting, which consists in considering $`e`$ a quantity of chiral order $`q`$.
* Second, there are the “usual” loop diagrams with virtual photons, i.e. those which include at least one strong–interaction vertex. Many of these only renormalize the coupling constants.
* Third, we also have to consider Bremsstrahlung processes where a soft photon is emitted from an external particle, but is not detected since its energy is lower than the detector resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. The inclusion of this process makes the amplitude infrared finite. We have not performed this calculation analytically, since it is sufficient for the actual computation to combine every $`\mathrm{log}(m_\gamma /M_\pi )`$ from virtual–photon diagrams with $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }E/m_\gamma )`$ due to the integrated emission of soft photons with energy smaller than the detector resolution. The divergence appearing because of the vanishing photon mass $`m_\gamma `$ thus cancels out. For the evaluation, we choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=10`$ MeV#3#3#3This choice is rather arbitrary; we have checked, however, that our results do not depend on the particular choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.
* Fourth, hard photons have been integrated out of the theory. Their effect is parameterized by a string of terms in the Lagrangian, each accompanied by an unknown coupling constant. These constants, similarly to the hadronic counterterms, have to be fitted to experimental data.

The inclusion of photons and electromagnetic counterterms in the amplitude gives us a description of pion–nucleon scattering based on full QCD and QED. Lepton loops, e.g. vacuum polarization, have not been taken into account explicitly, but their effect is hidden in the electromagnetic counterterms. One could equally well compute lepton loops by using a Lagrangian containing photons and leptons as active degrees of freedom , but for our purposes the parameterization of these effects by counterterms is sufficient. Let us add a last remark about the relativistic form of our amplitude. The pions and photons are treated fully relativistically; on the other hand, since we restrict ourselves to the energy region just above threshold, we can consider the nucleons to be very heavy and work in heavy–baryon chiral perturbation theory . This is a particular non–relativistic expansion of the amplitude, which amounts to organizing observables in a series of terms with increasing power of the inverse (heavy–) nucleon mass.

Our calculations are based on the Lagrangian constructed in  (see also ). The relevant terms can be found in appendix A.

## 3 Fitting procedure

After having constructed the full amplitude, we can proceed to fixing the unknown parameters. For this we use cross section data for elastic $`\pi ^+p`$ and $`\pi ^{}p`$ scattering as well as for the charge exchange $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0n`$ reaction. Guided by the results of , we decide to use experimental information up to pion laboratory momenta of $`100`$ MeV (i.e. $`T_\pi 32.2`$ MeV) as input. We perform a combined fit of our isospin breaking amplitude to all three channels which have been studied experimentally. In the elastic channels, we use the data by Frank et al. , Brack et al. , and by Joram et al. . Low–energetic charge exchange data have been taken by Isenhower et al. , Salomon et al. , and by Frlez et al. . Note that we do not include the old data by Bertin et al.  and by Duclos et al.  in our data base, since these are nowadays generally believed to be erroneous.

In the full amplitude, there appear 14 combinations of parameters which have to be fixed. Such a large number of unknowns makes a determination from pion–nucleon scattering data alone (almost) impossible. But, fortunately, some of these counterterms appear in other processes, which have been studied in great detail. The counterterms $`c_{6/7}`$, $`d_{6/7}`$, related to the coupling of a photon to the nucleon, can be fitted to the magnetic moments and the charge radii of proton and neutron (see e.g. ). The separation of the nucleon mass difference into a strong and an electromagnetic piece  fixes $`c_5`$ and $`f_2`$. We are now left with 11 parameters which have to be determined.

We define the function which has to be minimized in analogy to the one introduced in , i.e.

$$\chi ^2=\underset{j}{}w_j\chi _j^2,$$
(1)
with

$$\chi _j^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}\frac{(y_{ij}^{\mathrm{exp}}y_{ij}^{\mathrm{th}})^2}{(\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{stat}})^2},$$
(2)
the partial contribution of the $`j`$th data set comprising $`n_j`$ entries, and the weights $`w_j`$ being given by

$$w_j=N(\sigma _j^{\mathrm{sys}})^2/\underset{j}{}(\sigma _j^{\mathrm{sys}})^2.$$
(3)
Here $`N`$ is the number of data sets we fit to, and the uncertainties are split into a statistical piece $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{stat}}`$ and a systematic contribution $`\sigma _j^{\mathrm{sys}}`$ #4#4#4$`\sigma _j^{\mathrm{sys}}`$ is determined by the normalization uncertainty of the specific experiment. In analogy to , we attribute a systematic uncertainty of $`5\%`$ to data sets for which this quantity is not given explicitly.. The experimental data are denoted by $`y_{ij}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$, and we choose the LECs in such a way that our predicted cross sections $`y_{ij}^{\mathrm{th}}`$ minimize the $`\chi ^2`$–function.

We use the standard MINUIT minimization routines of the CERN library. Table 1 gives our best–fit values at the scale $`\lambda =M_{\pi ^0}`$. Note that the quoted errors correspond to the MINUIT errors only and are certainly underestimated. The hadronic low–energy constants are of natural size, i.e. of order 1; as for the electromagnetic counterterms, some come out unnaturally large, but in this case they are accompanied by big uncertainties. It is obvious that one has to be careful about correlated parameters in a fit involving such a large number of unknowns; we indeed have large correlations among the strong–interaction counterterms. This does not come as a surprise since we restrict our analysis to a small energy region above threshold. There the pion energy, for example, is hardly distinguishable from the pion mass which causes the parameters accompanying these two structures to be strongly correlated. For these reasons we refrain from making predictions for quantities like the sigma term or the pion–nucleon coupling constant $`g_{\pi NN}`$ which are determined by LEC combinations strongly correlated to other parameters. We have checked, however, that there are very small correlations between electromagnetic and strong counterterms#5#5#5$`\stackrel{~}{c}_1`$ needs special treatment in this respect. We will come back to this point in section 4.. This guarantees that we can reliably extract the strong phases from the full amplitude. The smallness of the $`\chi ^2`$/dof value shows that we fit to data in a region where the third order amplitude is still precise enough. More important, it also demonstrates the consistency of the low–energy data base.

## 4 Extraction of the strong amplitude

After having determined all low–energy constants appearing in the pion–nucleon amplitude, we can now proceed to extracting the strong interaction piece. As pointed out in the introduction, it is this piece which is of particular interest for the determination of isospin breaking. In the previous paragraph we have used the full amplitude in order to describe pion–nucleon cross sections. The strong amplitude is defined as the QCD scattering amplitude with $`m_um_d`$, but $`e^2=0`$. We will thus not work in the isospin symmetry limit, but we will leave room for strong isospin breaking.

In order to determine the strong amplitude, we have to know what the hadronic masses of the scattering particles are. We can write the charged and neutral pion masses as

$`M_{\pi ^+}^2=M_0^2`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{F_\pi ^2}}e^2C`$ $`+𝒜_+^{(4)}e^4+_+^{(4)}e^2(m_um_d)+𝒞_+^{(4)}(m_um_d)^2,`$ (4)
$`M_{\pi ^0}^2=M_0^2`$ $`+𝒜_0^{(4)}e^4+_0^{(4)}e^2(m_um_d)+𝒞_0^{(4)}(m_um_d)^2.`$ (5)
Here $`M_0`$ is the bare pion mass (more precisely, the leading term in the quark mass expansion of the pion mass in the two–flavor case with $`m_s`$ fixed), and the $`𝒜_{+/0}^{(4)}`$, $`_{+/0}^{(4)}`$ and $`𝒞_{+/0}^{(4)}`$ are combinations of low–energy constants from the fourth order mesonic Lagrangian with virtual photons. Note that the pion mass difference to leading order is of purely electromagnetic origin. We obtain the hadronic pion masses by switching off the electromagnetic interaction and using

$`|M_{\pi ^0}^hM_{\pi ^0}|`$ $``$ $`1\mathrm{MeV},`$ (6)
$`M_{\pi ^+}^h`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\pi ^0}^h+0.1\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (7)
These numbers are based on the work by Knecht and Urech  using naturalness of the low–energy constants.

As for the nucleon masses, we have

$$m_{p/n}=m4M_{\pi ^0}^2c_12B_0(m_um_d)c_5e^2F_\pi ^2\left(f_1+\frac{1\pm 1}{2}f_2+f_3\right),$$
(8)
in terms of the bare nucleon mass $`m`$ (i.e. the nucleon mass in the SU(2) chiral limit) and the counterterms given in appendix A. The hadronic masses will then be given by

$`m_p^h`$ $`=`$ $`m4M_{\pi ^0}^2c_12B_0(m_um_d)c_5`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`m_p+e^2F_\pi ^2(f_1+f_2+f_3),`$
$`m_n^h`$ $`=`$ $`m4M_{\pi ^0}^2c_1+2B_0(m_um_d)c_5`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`m_n+e^2F_\pi ^2(f_1+f_3).`$
In the following we will take these mass differences into account, as well for the external particles as for the nucleons and pions in the intermediate states#6#6#6This has not been done by the previous phase shift analyses which only work in the isospin symmetric limit. This is a severe drawback of these analyses, since the inclusion of such effects leads to important changes, as will be shown in the following..

It becomes clear from eqs. (9) and (10) that we will not be able to determine the hadronic nucleon masses precisely, since we do not know the value of the LEC combination $`(f_1+f_3)`$. An additional problem is due to the fact that, after including electromagnetic counterterms into the amplitude, we can no more determine $`c_1`$ and $`f_1`$ separately, as only the combination $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1=c_1+e^2F_\pi ^2f_1/(2M_{\pi ^0}^2)`$ appears. Since we do not know the precise value of these LECs, all we can do is to assume natural sizes for $`f_1`$ and $`f_3`$; we will thus vary these parameters over the interval $`f_{1/3}=(0\pm 1)`$ GeV-1 . Our results will, however, turn out to be insensitive to the precise values of these parameters. Also the lack of knowledge of the absolute value of the hadronic pion masses (see eq. (6)) does not affect our results; only the mass differences are relevant.

Fig. 2 shows our prediction for the strong phases as compared to the phase shift analyses performed by Matsinos et al.  which do not contain isospin violating contributions. The range of uncertainty in our prediction, resulting from the correlated error bars of the low–energy constants, is given by the dashed curves. In the P3–waves, the agreement between both analyses is perfect. In the P1–waves, our solution is closer to the recent analysis EM00. The most dramatic discrepancy lies in the S–waves of the elastic channels; this difference is not due to the inclusion of the isospin violating effects, but is already present in the isospin symmetric part of the amplitude. The kink in the S–wave phase shift for the charge exchange channel comes from the fact that the ingoing pion needs to have a lab momentum of $`25`$ MeV in order to produce the heavier final state. (Remember that only the hadronic mass difference of the involved particles is of relevance.) In fig. 3 we show our solution for the phase shifts compared to the KA85  and the SP98  analyses. The agreement in the P3–waves is still very good, whereas there are some discrepancies in the P1 phases. Our $`\pi ^+p`$ S–wave phases agree better with the KA85 and SP98 ones than with the EM98(00) solution. But there remains a large difference in the S–wave $`\pi ^{}p`$ phase shift.

In order to explain where the difference in the S–waves comes from, we further analyze the contributions to the electromagnetic corrections (see fig. 5). The strong phase shifts shown in figs. 2, 3 are obtained when fitting the full pion–nucleon amplitude with virtual photons to the experimental data, and then switching off the electromagnetic coupling. This is also shown by the solid line in fig. 5. The dashed line, on the other hand, is obtained if we do not include all virtual–photon diagrams, but only the one–photon exchange diagram with dressed vertices and the two–photon exchange process (see diagrams a)–c) in fig. 4). The way to treat the one–photon and two–photon exchange between the charged pion and the proton is standard. The inclusion of corrections to the $`N\gamma `$ and the $`\pi \gamma `$ vertex does not lead to big changes in the phases. The remaining virtual–loop diagrams (one example of which is drawn in d) in fig. 4) have not been included when drawing the dashed line. We think that such diagrams can only be accounted for correctly when the strong interaction and electromagnetism are treated in a consistent way. These effects are very large and cause this unusual bending of the $`\pi ^{}p`$ S–wave phase shift. Previous phase shift analyses have obviously underestimated these contributions.

## 5 Isospin violation of the strong interactions

The aim of this section is to determine the size of isospin violation in low–energy pion–nucleon scattering. Isospin is an approximate symmetry of the strong interactions, for electromagnetism it is largely broken. Consequently, it does not make sense to study isospin violation of the full pion–nucleon amplitude. The interesting part lies in the strong amplitude, which we have isolated in section 4. As in section 4, we will switch off every electromagnetic interaction; we will thus be left with the isospin violating two-pion–nucleon vertex $`c_5`$, and the hadronic mass differences of the nucleons and the pions.

In order to quantify isospin breaking, we will employ the usual triangle ratio

$$R=2\frac{f_{\pi ^+p\pi ^+p}f_{\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}p}\sqrt{2}f_{\pi ^{}p\pi ^0n}}{f_{\pi ^+p\pi ^+p}f_{\pi ^{}p\pi ^{}p}+\sqrt{2}f_{\pi ^{}p\pi ^0n}}.$$
(11)
Here $`f`$ stands for the strong part of the pion–nucleon amplitude. In the following, we will always form the ratio $`R`$ with the real part of the scattering amplitude#7#7#7In chiral perturbation theory, unitarity is only perturbatively fulfilled. Since imaginary parts are due to loop diagrams which only come in at third order, they are known with less precision than the real parts of the amplitudes.. In case that isospin is a good symmetry $`R`$ vanishes over the whole energy range.

It has been argued in  that it is advantageous not to consider the usual P3– and P1–wave projections, but to focus instead on the P–wave parts proportional to the spin–flip and the spin–non–flip amplitudes $`h`$ and $`g`$. These are linked to the usual $`T`$–matrix elements via

$`T_{\pi N}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_1+m_1}{2m_1}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_2+m_2}{2m_2}}}\left[g+i\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{q}_2\times \stackrel{}{q}_1)h\right].`$ (12)
$`E_{1/2}`$ is the energy of the in–/outgoing nucleon with mass $`m_{1/2}`$, the in–/outgoing pions have four–momenta $`q_{1/2}`$. The usual S– and P–waves are then given by

$`\mathrm{S}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{E_1+m_1}\sqrt{E_2+m_2}}{16\pi \sqrt{s}}}𝒮(s),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{P}_3(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{E_1+m_1}\sqrt{E_2+m_2}}{16\pi \sqrt{s}}}|\stackrel{}{q}_1||\stackrel{}{q}_2|\left(𝒢(s)+(s)\right),`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{P}_1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{E_1+m_1}\sqrt{E_2+m_2}}{16\pi \sqrt{s}}}|\stackrel{}{q}_1||\stackrel{}{q}_2|\left(𝒢(s)2(s)\right),`$ (15)
with

$`𝒮(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}𝑑zg(s,z),`$ (16)
$`𝒢(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{q}_1||\stackrel{}{q}_2|}}{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}𝑑zzg(s,z),`$ (17)
$`(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{z^21}{2}}h(s,z).`$ (18)
The integration in the last equations is performed over the cosine of the scattering angle $`z`$. In the following we will consider isospin violation in the $`𝒮`$– as well as in the $`𝒢`$– and $``$–projections of $`R`$.

There is one additional problem: as pointed out before, the threshold of the charge exchange reaction lies at $`q_\pi 25`$ MeV. Below this value, the SCX channel is closed and the triangle relation does not make sense. Nevertheless, the different threshold energies of the elastic and the inelastic channels are a consequence of strong isospin breaking (remember that only the hadronic mass difference of the particles has been included). Therefore, we want to take this effect into account; in fig. 6 we show the momentum dependence of $`R`$ (in $`\%`$) for momenta $`q_\pi `$ above 25 MeV. In this energy domain all three channels are open. Again, the dashed line indicates the one–sigma uncertainty range of our prediction. For the $`𝒮`$–projection, isospin breaking lies around $`0.7\%`$. Also the $`𝒢`$–projection varies very little with energy, breaking in this channel is somewhat larger, $`1.5\%`$. The biggest effect is found to be in $``$ where isospin violation lies between $`4`$ and $`2.5\%`$ for $`q_\pi `$ below 100 MeV.

Instead we could also argue that we do not want to take threshold effects into account, and that we want to separate “static” (i.e. related to kinematic effects) from “dynamical” (i.e. due to isospin violating pion–nucleon couplings) isospin breaking . In fig. 7, we consider the case where the hadronic mass of the proton and the neutron, as well as the hadronic mass of the pions, are taken to be equal ($`m_p^h=m_n^h=(m_p+m_n)/2,M_{\pi ^0}^h=M_{\pi ^+}^h=M_{\pi ^0}`$). There is thus no static isospin breaking, but we only show effects due to the two-pion–nucleon vertex proportional to $`c_5`$. This coupling only shows up in the S–wave of the charge exchange reaction; it causes isospin to be broken by $`0.75\%`$ in $`𝒮`$. There is no dynamical isospin breaking in the P–waves (to the order considered here).

## 6 Summary and Outlook

For a reliable determination of the size of isospin breaking in the strong interactions, it is primordial to describe electromagnetic and strong effects consistently. In the present work this is achieved by an analysis of pion–nucleon scattering in the framework of chiral perturbation theory. $`\chi `$PT does not leave any doubt about the correct definition of the hadronic masses of pions and nucleons, and allows to extract the strong part of the scattering amplitude in a unique way. After determining the unknown low–energy constants by a fit to experimental data, we switch off all electromagnetic interactions and describe QCD with unequal up– and down–quark masses and $`e^2=0`$. The so–determined strong phase shifts agree with those of Matsinos et al.  in the P–waves, but we find a sizeably different behavior in the S–waves. We trace this difference back to the inclusion or omission of non–linear photon–pion–nucleon couplings.

We address the question of isospin violation by studying the usual triangle relation involving elastic $`\pi ^\pm p`$ scattering and the charge exchange reaction. An important advantage of the $`\chi `$PT calculation lies in the fact that we can easily separate dynamical from static isospin breaking. Dynamical isospin breaking only occurs in the S–wave and is very small, $`0.75\%`$. Static effects do not increase the size of isospin violation in the S–wave significantly; by no means can we account for the reported 6 – 7 $`\%`$ isospin breaking .

We have found large error bars on our parameter values. In order to improve this situation, we would like to fit to more experimental data. However, a third order $`\chi `$PT calculation allows to describe scattering data for pion laboratory momenta not much higher than 100 MeV, a region where the data situation is not yet as good as one would hope. A fourth order calculation would certainly allow to fit to data higher in energy, but, on the other hand, would also introduce many more unknown coupling constants. Since isospin breaking effects are expected to be most prominent in the energy region we consider in this work, we do not judge it very promising to extend the analysis to full one–loop (fourth) order. Additional data for pion–nucleon scattering at very low energies would be very helpful in this respect. Also a combined fit to several reactions involving nucleons, pions, and photons, e.g. pion electro– and photoproduction, as well as $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$, would help in pinning down the fundamental low–energy constants more precisely.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bastian Kubis for many helpful discussions and a careful reading of the manuscript.

## Appendix A Lagrangian

In this appendix we give the relevant counterterms, appearing in the pion–pion and pion–nucleon Lagrangians. We only display the finite parts. The complete set of terms can be found in .

Let us start with the Lagrangian involving pions, nucleons and virtual photons. We only give the form of the counterterms, the expression for the terms with fixed coefficients is canonical. At second and third order, these read

$`_{\gamma ^{}\pi N}^{(2)}`$ $`=\overline{N}`$ $`[c_1\chi _++{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{2}}(vu)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{2}}u^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_4}{2}}[S^\mu ,S^\nu ][u_\mu ,u_\nu ]`$ (A.1)
$`+c_5\widehat{\chi }_+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_6}{4m}}[S^\mu ,S^\nu ]F_{\mu \nu }^+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_7}{4m}}[S^\mu ,S^\nu ]F_{\mu \nu }^+`$
$`+f_1F_0^2Q_+^2Q_{}^2+f_2F_0^2Q_+Q_++f_3F_0^2Q_+^2+\mathrm{}]N,`$
$`_{\gamma ^{}\pi N}^{(3)}`$ $`=\overline{N}`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{2m}}(ivuu_\mu D^\mu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)+{\displaystyle \frac{c_4}{4m}}(ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }v_\alpha S_\beta [u_\mu ,u_\nu ]vD+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (A.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_4}{4m}}(ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }S_\alpha [u_\mu ,u_\nu ]D_\beta +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)+{\displaystyle \frac{ic_4}{4m}}[vu,[D^\mu ,u_\mu ]]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_6}{8m^2}}(iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }v_\alpha S_\beta \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^+vD+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.){\displaystyle \frac{c_6}{8m^2}}(iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }S_\alpha \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^+D_\beta +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_6+2c_7}{16m^2}}(iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }v_\alpha S_\beta F_{\mu \nu }^+vD+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.){\displaystyle \frac{c_6+2c_7}{16m^2}}(iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }S_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }^+D_\beta +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$
$`+i\overline{d}_1[u_\mu ,[vD,u^\mu ]]+i\left(\overline{d}_2{\displaystyle \frac{c_4}{4m}}\right)[u_\mu ,[D^\mu ,vu]]+i\overline{d}_3[vu,[vD,vu]]`$
$`+\overline{d}_5[\chi _{},vu]+\left(\overline{d}_6{\displaystyle \frac{c_6}{8m^2}}\right)[D^\mu ,\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^+]v^\nu +\left(\overline{d}_7{\displaystyle \frac{c_6+2c_7}{16m^2}}\right)[D^\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }^+]v^\nu `$
$`+\overline{d}_{14}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }v_\alpha S_\beta [vD,u_\mu ]u_\nu +\overline{d}_{15}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }v_\alpha S_\beta u_\mu [D_\nu ,vu]`$
$`+\overline{g}_6F_0^2S^\mu Q_{}vuQ_++\overline{g}_7F_0^2Q_+vuQ_{}`$
$`+\overline{g}_8F_0^2Q_{}vuQ_++\mathrm{}]N.`$
This heavy–baryon form of the Lagrangian is given in terms of the nucleon velocity $`v_\mu `$ and the spin operator $`S_\mu =\frac{i}{2}\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }v^\nu `$. $`ϵ`$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor in four dimensions, and we choose the convention $`ϵ^{0123}=1`$. $`F_0`$ is the unrenormalized pion decay constant, $`N`$ is the nucleon spinor, and $`\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ stands for the hermitian conjugate of a particular term. Moreover, $`A`$ denotes the flavor trace of $`A`$, and $`\widehat{A}=AA/2`$ its traceless part.

Let us restrict ourselves to the case in which there are no external sources but where virtual photons are included. These are parameterized by the electromagnetic field $`A_\mu `$ and the field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. The elementary building blocks of the Lagrangian are given in terms of the field

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{U}=\left(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\pi }^2}{F^2}}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }}{F}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (A.3)
and the nucleon charge matrix $`Q`$ by

$`u_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i\{u^{}(_\mu +iQA_\mu )uu(_\mu +iQA_\mu )u^{}\},`$
$`\chi _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`u^{}\chi u^{}\pm u\chi ^{}u,`$
$`Q_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{u^{}Qu\pm uQu^{}\},`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`2Q_\pm F_{\mu \nu }.`$ (A.4)
$`\chi `$ is related to the quark mass matrix, $`\chi =2B_0\mathrm{diag}(m_u,m_d)`$, where $`B_0=0|\overline{q}q|0/F_0^2+\mathrm{}`$. We assume $`B_0F_0`$, i.e. we work in standard $`\chi `$PT. The covariant derivative reads

$`[D_\mu ,A]`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,A],`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{u^{}(_\mu +iQA_\mu )u+u(_\mu +iQA_\mu )u^{}\}.`$ (A.5)
In the pion–photon sector, we only need few terms which enter the amplitude via renormalization. In the Feynman gauge, we obtain

$`_{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^2}{4}}u_\mu u^\mu +\chi _++CF_0^2Q_+^2Q_{}^2,`$ (A.6)
$`_{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{}}_6}{384\pi ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }^+[u^\mu ,u^\nu ]+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{k}_8}{64\pi ^2}}u^\mu [Q_{},ic_\mu ^+]+u^\mu [Q_+,ic_\mu ^{}]+\mathrm{}`$ (A.7)
Here, $`c_\mu ^\pm =\frac{i}{2}\{u^{}[r_\mu ,Q]u\pm u[l_\mu ,Q]u^{}\}`$ is needed for the renormalization of $`F_\pi `$.