text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since a relativistic version of the Calogero-Moser(CM) model was first introduced by Ruijsenaars and Schneider, much interest have been focused on this model and its nonrelativistic counterpart. It is completely integrable many-body Hamiltonian system describing a one-dimensional $`n`$-particle system with pairwise interaction. The study has lead to fascinating mathematics and application from lattice models in statistics physics, to the field theory and gauge theory . e.g. to the Seiberg-Witten theory etc. For a review see , and references therein.

Recently, the Lax pairs for the CM models in various root system have been constructed by Olshanetsky and Perelomov using reduction on symmetric space, further given by Inozemtsev in . Afterwards, D’Hoker and Phong succeeded in constructing the Lax pairs with spectral parameter for each of the finite dimensional Lie algebra, as well as the introduction of untwisted and twisted Calogero-Moser systems. Bordner et al give two types universal realization for the Lax pairs associated to all of the Lie algebra: the root type and the minimal type, with and without spectral parameters. Even for all of the Coxeter group, the construction has been obtained in . All of them do not apply the reduction method for under which condition one will confront some obstruction but using pure Lie algebra construction. In , Hurtubise and Markman utilize so called “structure group”, which combines semi-simple group and Weyl group, to construct the CM systems associate with Hitchin system, which in some degree generalizes the results of Refs. . Furthermore, the quantum version of the generalization have been developed in  at least for degenerate potentials of trigonometric after the works of Olshanetsky and Perelomov.

So far as for the RS model, only the Lax pair of the $`A_{N1}`$ type RS model was obtained  and succeeded in recovering it by applying Hamiltonian reduction procedure on two-dimensional current group . Although the commutative operators for RS model based on various type Lie algebra have been given by Komori and co-workers , Diejen and Hasegawa et al, the Lax integrability (or the Lax representation) of the other type RS model is still an open problem.

In recent work of Refs.  and , we have succeeded in constructing the Lax pairs for the rational and trigonometric $`C_n`$ and $`BC_n`$ RS systems. Following that, the $`r`$-matrix structure for them have been derived by Avan et al in . Moreover we give the more general elliptic $`C_n`$ and $`BC_n`$ RS systems in  and calculate their spectral curves. In this paper, we concentrate on generalizing the construction to the $`D_n`$type trigonometric Ruijsenaars-Schneider model. It turns out that there surely exists a Lax pair for this system. By revealing the symmetry property of this model, we shall give a general form of the Lax pair for generic $`n`$ and verify its rationality at least for small $`n`$ such as $`n=2,3,4,5,6`$. Its integrability in Liouville sense is also depicted by giving $`n`$ involutive integrals of motion. We also perform its non-relativistic limit that coincides exactly with the previous known result for the $`D_n`$ Calogero-Moser system. The rational degeneration of this system is also remarked.

The paper is organized as follows. The basic materials of the $`D_n`$ RS model are introduced in Section 2, where we propose a self-consistent dynamical system associating with the root system of $`D_n`$ . This includes construction of Hamiltonian for the $`D_n`$ RS system together with its symmetry analysis etc. The main results are showed in Sections 3. In Section 3, we present a Lax pair and obtain an explicit general form for the Lax pair by imposing some additional symmetry constraints. Section 4 is devoted to deriving the non-relativistic counterpart, the Calogero-Moser model. Following is some remarks for the degenerate limit of rational case. We conclude with some remarks on our constructions in the last section.

## 2 Model and equations of motion

Let us first review the basic materials about the $`D_n`$ RS model. Though much progress have been made for generalization about the RS model, there is no any result for the system which associates with the root system of $`D_n`$. Even up to now we do not know how to define its Hamiltonian. But now we will give a reasonable definition for this system which will be seen later.

In terms of the canonical variables $`p_i`$, $`x_i(i,j=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ enjoying in the canonical Poisson bracket

$$\{p_i,p_j\}=\{x_i,x_j\}=0,\text{ }\{x_i,p_j\}=\delta _{ij},$$
(2.1)
we give firstly the Hamiltonian of $`D_n`$ RS system

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(e^{p_i}\underset{ki}{\overset{n}{}}(f(x_{ik})f(x_i+x_k))+e^{p_i}\underset{ki}{\overset{n}{}}(g(x_{ik})g(x_i+x_k))\right),$$
(2.2)
where

$`f(x)`$ $`:`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(x\gamma )}{\mathrm{sin}(x)}},`$
$`g(x)`$ $`:`$ $`=f(x)|_{\gamma \gamma },x_{ik}:=x_ix_k,`$ (2.3)
and $`\gamma `$ denotes the coupling constant. Then the canonical equations of motion could be

$`\dot{x_i}`$ $`=`$ $`\{x_i,H\}=e^{p_i}b_ie^{p_i}b_i^{^{}},`$ (2.4)
$`\dot{p_i}`$ $`=`$ $`\{p_i,H\}={\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}(e^{p_j}b_j(h(x_{ji})h(x_j+x_i))`$ (2.5)
$`+e^{p_j}b_j^{^{}}(\widehat{h}(x_{ji})\widehat{h}(x_j+x_i)))`$
$`e^{p_i}b_i\left({\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(h(x_{ij})+h(x_i+x_j)\right)\right)`$
$`e^{p_i}b_i^{^{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\widehat{h}(x_{ij})+\widehat{h}(x_i+x_j)\right)\right),`$
where

$`h(x):=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}f(x)}{dx}},\text{ }\widehat{h}(x):={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}g(x)}{dx}},`$
$`b_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(f(x_ix_k)f(x_i+x_k)\right),`$
$`b_i^{^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(g(x_ix_k)g(x_i+x_k)\right).`$ (2.6)
Here, of course $`x_i=x_i(t)`$, $`p_i=p_i(t)`$ and the superimposed dot denotes $`t`$-differentiation.

For the convenience of analysis of symmetry, let us first give vector representation of $`D_n`$ Lie algebra. Introducing an $`n`$dimensional orthonormal basis of $`^n`$,

$$e_je_k=\delta _{j,k},j,k=1,2,\mathrm{},n,$$
(2.7)
then the sets of roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and vector weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`D_n`$ are:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\pm (e_je_k),\pm (e_j+e_k):\text{ }j,k=1,2,\mathrm{},n\text{ and }j<k\},`$ (2.8)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\{e_j,e_j:\text{ }j=1,2,\mathrm{},n\text{ }\}.`$ (2.9)
The dynamical variables are canonical coordinates $`\{x_j\}`$ and their canonical conjugate momenta $`\{p_j\}`$ with the Poisson brackets of Eq.( 2.1). In a general sense, we denote them by $`n`$ dimensional vectors $`x`$ and $`p`$,

$$x=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)^n,p=(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)^n.$$

So that the scalar products of $`x`$ and $`p`$ with the roots $`\alpha x`$, $`p\beta `$, etc. can be defined. The Hamiltonian of Eq.(2.2) can be rewritten as

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu p\right)\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta =\mu \nu }{}f(\beta x)+\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu p\right)\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta =\mu +\nu }{}g(\beta x)\right),$$
(2.10)
Here, the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta =\mu \nu `$ means that the summation is over roots $`\beta `$ such that for $`\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$$\mu \nu =\beta \mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(2.11)
So does for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta =\mu +\nu `$.

From the above-mentioned data, we can see that the definition for the Hamiltonian is reasonable and well-defined whose form Eq.(2.2) or Eq.(2.10) is similar to the one given in .

## 3 Construction of the Lax pair

In this section, we concentrate our treatment to the explicit form of the Lax pair for the $`D_n`$ RS system. Therefore, some previous results, as well as new results, could now be obtained in a more straightforward manner by using the Lax pair.

### 3.1 Derivation of the Lax matrix for the $`D_n`$ RS model

Similar to the definitions of the Lax matrixes for the $`C_n`$ and $`BC_n`$ RS models given in , we suppose the Lax matrix for the $`D_n`$ RS model is one $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix as follows:

$$L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A\hfill & B\hfill \\ C\hfill & D\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(3.1)
where $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$ are $`n\times n`$ matrixes(hereafter, we use the indices $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$)

$`A_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{p_j}b_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}+\gamma )}},D_{ij}=e^{p_j}b_j^{^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ji}+\gamma )}},`$
$`B_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta _{ij})e^{p_j}b_j^{^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j+\gamma )}}+\delta _{ij}e^{p_i}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{^{}}}{w_i}}\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii},`$
$`C_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta _{ij})e^{p_j}b_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_ix_j+\gamma )}}+\delta _{ij}e^{p_i}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{w_i^{^{}}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}.`$ (3.2)
Here, the notations of $`w_i,w_i^{^{}},v_i`$ are

$`w_i`$ $`:`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j+\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}+\gamma ),`$
$`w_i^{^{}}`$ $`:`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}\gamma ),`$
$`v_i`$ $`:`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j)\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}),`$ (3.3)
and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}`$, the diagonal part of block matrixes $`B`$ and $`C`$, are unknown and have to be solved later.

In order to obtain the explicit form of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}`$, we also assume the inverse of $`L`$ the following $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix(similar to the form for the $`C_n`$ and $`BC_n`$ cases)

$$L^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{A}\hfill & \widehat{B}\hfill \\ \widehat{C}\hfill & \widehat{D}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(3.4)
where $`\widehat{A}`$, $`\widehat{B}`$, $`\widehat{C}`$, $`\widehat{D}`$ are $`n\times n`$ matrixes

$`\widehat{A}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{p_i}b_j^{^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}\gamma )}},\widehat{D}_{ij}=e^{p_i}b_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ji}\gamma )}},`$
$`\widehat{B}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta _{ij})e^{p_i}b_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j\gamma )}}+\delta _{ij}e^{p_i}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{w_i^{^{}}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii},`$
$`\widehat{C}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta _{ij})e^{p_i}b_j^{^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_ix_j\gamma )}}+\delta _{ij}e^{p_i}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{^{}}}{w_i}}\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}.`$ (3.5)
If we impose an additional condition for $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}`$ as following

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}=\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}|_{\gamma \gamma },$$
(3.6)
then the equation

$$LL^1=Id$$
(3.7)
can be solved and the solution reads

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_i}{b_i^{^{}}}}\left(1b_ib_i^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{^{}}b_k}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{ik}+\gamma )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{^{}}b_k^{^{}}}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_i+x_k+\gamma )}})\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}|_{\gamma \gamma }.`$ (3.8)
So that

$`B_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{p_i}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{^{}}}{w_i}}\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii},`$
$`C_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{p_i}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{w_i^{^{}}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}=B_{ii}|_{\gamma \gamma ,p_ip_i},`$ (3.9)
Remarks:

> The above solution of Eq.(3.8) and Eq.(3.9) is obtained only by diagonal part of Eq.(3.7). It is not easy to verify if the off-diagonal part is consistent to the diagonal part due to the complicated functional relations. But for small $`n`$ such as $`n=2,3,4,5,6`$ we can surely check it is the very unique solution. In addition, it is unfortunate that we are not able to give more simple forms for $`B_{ii}`$ and $`C_{ii}`$. Here only for $`n=2,3,4`$ we work out the following results to shed a light on its appearance:

* for $`n=2`$

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma ,`$ (3.10)
* for $`n=3`$

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma (w_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j+\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}+\gamma )}}`$
$`+v_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j)\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij})}}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma (w_i^{^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}\gamma )}}`$ (3.11)
$`+v_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j)\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij})}})`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}|_{\gamma \gamma },`$
* for $`n=4`$

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma (w_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j+\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}+\gamma )}}`$
$`+v_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j)\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij})}}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma \mathrm{sin}^2(2x_i+\gamma )),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma (w_i^{^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}\gamma )}}`$ (3.12)
$`+v_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j)\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij})}}\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma \mathrm{sin}^2(2x_i\gamma ))`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ii}|_{\gamma \gamma }.`$
With this Lax matrix $`L`$ of Eq.(3.1), we could rewrite the Hamiltonian as

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(e^{p_j}b_j+e^{p_j}b_j^{^{}})=trL.$$
(3.13)
The involutive $`n`$ Hamiltonians can be generated by the characteristic polynomial of the Lax matrix

$$det(LvId)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^j(v^j+v^{2nj})H_j+(v)^nH_n,$$
(3.14)
with

$$\{H_i,H_j\}=0,\text{ }i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.\text{ }$$
(3.15)
e.g. for $`n=2`$,

$$det(LvId)=v^4H_1v^3+H_2v^2H_1v+1,$$
(3.16)
the function-independent Hamiltonian flows $`H`$ and $`H_2`$ are

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`H=e^{p_1}f(x_{12})f(x_1+x_2)+e^{p_1}g(x_{12})g(x_1+x_2)`$ (3.17)
$`+e^{p_2}f(x_{21})f(x_2+x_1)+e^{p_2}g(x_{21})g(x_2+x_1),`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(f(x_{12})g(x_{12})+f(x_1+x_2)g(x_1+x_2)\right)`$ (3.18)
$`e^{p_1+p_2}f(x_1+x_2)^2+e^{p_1p_2}g(x_1+x_2)^2`$
$`+e^{p_1p_2}f(x_{12})^2+e^{p_2p_1}g(x_{12})^2+const,`$
where $`const=2`$. For $`n=3,`$ we have

$$det(LvId)=v^6H_1v^5+H_2v^4H_3v^3+H_2v^2H_1v^1+1,$$
(3.19)
and

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`H={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(e^{p_i}{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{3}{}}}f(x_{ik})f(x_i+x_k)+e^{p_i}{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{3}{}}}g(x_{ik})g(x_i+x_k)\right),`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_21,`$ (3.20)
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_32H_1,`$ (3.21)
here $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_3`$ are the involutive Hamiltonians defined for the $`D_3`$ RS model by Diejen in

$`H_+`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(p_1p_2+p_3)/2}f(x_1x_2)f(x_1+x_3)f(x_2+x_3)`$ (3.22)
$`+e^{(p_1+p_2p_3)/2}f(x_1+x_2)f(x_1x_3)f(x_2x_3)`$
$`+e^{(p_1+p_2+p_3)/2}f(x_1+x_2)f(x_1+x_3)f(x_2+x_3)`$
$`+e^{(p_1p_2p_3)/2}f(x_{12})f(x_{13})f(x_2x_3),`$
$`H_{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(p_1p_2p_3)/2}f(x_1x_2)f(x_1x_3)f(x_2x_3)`$ (3.23)
$`+e^{(p_1+p_2+p_3)/2}f(x_1+x_2)f(x_1+x_3)f(x_2+x_3)`$
$`+e^{(p_1p_2+p_3)/2}f(x_{12})f(x_1+x_3)f(x_2+x_3)`$
$`+e^{(p_1+p_2p_3)/2}f(x_1+x_2)f(x_{13})f(x_{23}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$ $`=`$ $`H_+H_{},`$ (3.24)
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_3`$ $`=`$ $`H_+^2+H_{}^2.`$ (3.25)
We verify that these $`H_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_j`$ strictly Poisson commute each other, which ensures the complete integrability of the $`D_2`$ and $`D_3`$ RS models (in Liouville sense).

### 3.2 $`M`$ operator associating with $`L`$

By comparing the symmetry of the $`D_n`$ RS model and $`BC_n`$ one, we propose the following ansatz for $`M`$ operator associating with the Lax matrix $`L`$ so that they satisfy

$$\dot{L}=\{L,H\}=[M,L].$$
(3.26)
$`M`$ suppose to be another $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix with the form

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜\hfill & \hfill \\ 𝒞\hfill & 𝒟\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (3.29)
where entries of $`M`$ are

$`𝒜_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}(x_{ij})\left(e^{p_j}b_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}+\gamma )}}+e^{p_i}b_j^{^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij}\gamma )}}\right),ji,`$
$`𝒟_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}(x_{ji})\left(e^{p_j}b_j^{^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ji}+\gamma )}}+e^{p_i}b_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ji}\gamma )}}\right),ji,`$
$`_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}(x_i+x_j)\left(e^{p_j}b_j^{^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j+\gamma )}}+e^{p_i}b_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j\gamma )}}\right),ji,`$
$`𝒞_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}(x_ix_j)\left(e^{p_j}b_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_ix_j+\gamma )}}+e^{p_i}b_j^{^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_ix_j\gamma )}}\right),ji,`$
$`𝒜_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{ij}}{\mathrm{cos}(x_{ij})}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{ij}}{\mathrm{cos}(x_i+x_j)}}\right),`$
$`𝒟_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟_{ij}}{\mathrm{cos}(x_{ji})}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞_{ij}}{\mathrm{cos}(x_ix_j)}}\right).`$ (3.30)
If we impose $`_{ii},𝒞_{ii}`$ an additional symmetry condition with

$$_{ii}=e^{2p_i}𝒞_{ii},$$
(3.31)
verbose but straightforward calculations of equations

$`\dot{L}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`\{L_{ii},H\}=([M,L])_{ii}`$ (3.32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{2n}{}}}(M_{ik}L_{ki}L_{ik}M_{ki}),`$
would yield

$`_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }{C_{ii}e^{p_i}B_{ii}e^{p_i}}}e^{p_i}(2b_ib_i^{^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(x_i+x_j)}{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j+\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j\gamma )}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(x_ix_j)}{\mathrm{sin}(x_ix_j+\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(x_ix_j\gamma )}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_ib_j^{^{}}\mathrm{cot}(x_{ik})}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{ik}\gamma )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{^{}}b_j\mathrm{cot}(x_{ik})}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{ik}+\gamma )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_ib_j\mathrm{cot}(x_i+x_j)}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_i+x_j\gamma )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{^{}}b_j^{^{}}\mathrm{cot}(x_i+x_j)}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_i+x_j+\gamma )}})),`$
$`𝒞_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2p_i}_{ii}.`$ (3.33)
As for the explicit expression of $`_{ii},𝒞_{ii},`$ we have more simple form for small $`n:`$

* for $`n=2,`$

$`_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`𝒞_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.34)
* for $`n=3,`$

$`_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_i}}e^{p_i}\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}(2x_i)\mathrm{sin}^3\gamma ,`$
$`𝒞_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_i}}e^{p_i}\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}(2x_i)\mathrm{sin}^3\gamma `$ (3.35)
$`=`$ $`e^{2p_i}_{ii},`$
* for $`n=4,`$

$`_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_i}}e^{p_i}\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}(2x_i)\mathrm{sin}^3\gamma \left(2\mathrm{cos}x_i\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma +{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j)\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij})\right),`$
$`𝒞_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_i}}e^{p_i}\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}(2x_i)\mathrm{sin}^3\gamma \left(2\mathrm{cos}x_i\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma +{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j)\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij})\right)`$ (3.36)
$`=`$ $`e^{2p_i}_{ii}.`$

We have checked that $`L,M`$ satisfy the Lax equation of Eq.(3.26) which equivalent to the equations of motion Eq.(2.4) and Eq.(2.5) at least for $`n=2,3,4,5,6`$ with the help of computer.

## 4 Nonrelativistic limit to the Calogero-Moser system

It is natural that we must verify if the nonrelativistic limit is correct. The procedure can be achieved by rescaling $`p_i\beta p_i`$, $`\gamma \beta \gamma `$ while letting $`\beta 0^+`$(here, $`0^+`$ is to avoid undefinable limit of $`_{ii}`$ and $`𝒞_{ii}`$ when $`n=2`$), and making a canonical transformation

$$p_ip_i+\gamma \left(\underset{ki}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\mathrm{cot}(x_{ik})+\mathrm{cot}(x_i+x_k)\right)\right),$$
(4.1)
such that

$`L`$ $``$ $`Id+\beta L_{CM}+O(\beta ^2),`$ (4.2)
$`M`$ $``$ $`2\beta M_{CM}+O(\beta ^2),`$ (4.3)
and

$$H2n+2\beta ^2H_{CM}+O(\beta ^2).$$
(4.4)
$`L_{CM}`$ can be expressed as

$$L_{CM}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{CM}\hfill & B_{CM}\hfill \\ B_{CM}\hfill & A_{CM}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(4.5)
where

$`(A_{CM})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}p_i+(1\delta _{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_{ij})}},`$
$`(B_{CM})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta _{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(x_i+x_j)}}.`$ (4.6)
$`M_{CM}`$ is

$$M_{CM}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜_{CM}\hfill & _{CM}\hfill \\ _{CM}\hfill & 𝒜_{CM}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(4.7)
where

$`(𝒜_{CM})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ik}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_i+x_k)}}\right)+(1\delta _{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \mathrm{cos}(x_{ij})}{\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}}},`$
$`(_{CM})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta _{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \mathrm{cos}(x_i+x_j)}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_i+x_j)}},`$ (4.8)
which coincides with the form given in  with the difference of a constant diagonalized matrix.

The Hamiltonian of the $`D_n`$-type CM model can be given by

$`H_{CM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}p_k^2\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \underset{k<i}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ik}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x_i+x_k)}}\right)`$ (4.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}trL^2.`$
The $`L_{CM}`$, $`M_{CM}`$ satisfy the Lax equation

$`\dot{L}_{CM}=\{L_{CM},H_{CM}\}=[M_{CM},L_{CM}].`$ (4.10)
Remarks:

> As far as the forms of the Lax pair for the rational-type RS and CM systems are concerned, we can get them by making the following substitutions
>
> $`\mathrm{sin}x`$ $``$ $`x,`$
> $`\mathrm{cos}x`$ $``$ $`1,`$ (4.11)
> for all of the above statements.

## 5 Summary and discussions

In this paper, we have presented the Lax pair for the classical $`n`$particle trigonometric $`D_n`$ Ruijsenaars-Schneider model together with its rational limit. We give one explicit form of the Lax pair for small $`n`$ such as $`2,3,4`$ and show the involutive Hamiltonians could be generated by the corresponding Lax matrix. For generic $`n`$ we have constructed the Lax pair and given a general form for it though lacking of a complete proof. But its correctness could be checked at least for $`2n6`$. In the nonrelativistic limit, this system naturally leads to well known Calogero-Moser system associated with the root system of $`D_n`$.

Actually, our original aim is to expand our constructions to the dynamical systems associated with all of the root systems. As suggested in  and , $`A_{n1}`$ RS model appeared in the Hamiltonian reduction procedure applied to the cotangent bundle over centrally extended current group while the cotangent bundle over the centrally extended current algebra was used to obtain the elliptic Calogero-Moser model. It is natural to expect similar results to other root systems. Unfortunately, we fail in the corresponding constructions for the systems associated with the root systems other than $`A_{n1}`$. In fact, as was analyzed in , there are several obstructions to extend the constructions. Alternatively, they used the so-called “structure group”, which related to Weyl reflections, to process symplectic reduction to construct the CM systems associate with Hitchin system where the embedding was not even a group but a semi-direct product of groups. Moreover, one has the $`BC_n`$ CM and RS systems but they do not even correspond to groups. So the more general and elegant method to universal construction for the RS systems must combine all of characters appeared in previous results and get over the obstructions mentioned above.

On the other hand, a more concrete method is to use pure algebraic construction, which has made great success for CM systems. In the present paper, we try to following this idea and work out partial result for $`D_n`$ RS system where some formulas such as Eq.(3.6), (3.9) have revealed some characters of Weyl reflections. Though we haven’t obtained universal description of this system, we hope these results would reveal some essential ingredient for its integrability and shed some light on universal characters for generic RS systems. At the same time, we address it an interesting aspect that the reduction procedure of using “structure group” corresponding to RS systems and fixing certain momentum map suggested in  may be a potential method to accomplish the complete generalization for RS systems associated with all of simple Lie algebra and even to all of root systems. Moreover, the issue for getting the $`r`$-matrix structure for this model is deserved due to the success of calculation for the trigonometric $`BC_n`$ RS system by Avan et al in .

## Acknowledgement

One of the authors K. Chen is grateful to professors K.J. Shi, L. Zhao and W.L. Yang for their encouragement and valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# Percolative conductivity and critical exponents in mixed-valent manganites

\[

## Abstract

Recent experiments have shown that some colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) materials exhibit a percolation transition. The conductivity exponent varies substantially with or without an external magnetic field. This finding prompted us to carry out theoretical studies of percolation transition in CMR systems. We find that the percolation transition coincides with the magnetic transition and this causes a large effect of a magnetic field on the percolation transition. Using real-space-renormalization method and numerical calculations for two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) models, we obtain the conductivity exponent $`t`$ to be 5.3 (3D) and 3.3 (2D) without a magnetic field, and 1.7 (3D) and 1.4 (2D) with a magnetic field.

\]

Colossal magnetoresistance (CMR), an unusual large change of resistivity in the presence of a magnetic field, has been extensively studied in ferromagnetic perovskite manganites. It is well known that the electronic phase diagrams of CMR materials are very complex. There are various ordering states and phase transitions as the carrier concentration is varied. For example, La1-xCaxMnO3, a typical double exchange ferromagnetic metal when x=0.33, becomes a charge ordered insulator with a specific type of electronic orbital and magnetic orderings when x=1/2.  Recently, it was demonstrated that La1-x-yPryCaxMnO3 (x=3/8) system, where Pr is chosen to vary the chemical pressure, may be electronically phase separated into a sub-micrometer-scale mixture of insulating regions and ferromagnetic (FM) metallic regions. Experimental findings of FM clusters and phase separation in CMR materials have also been reported in early studies. Electron diffraction and dark-field imaging on the La1-x-yPryCaxMnO3 samples indicate that the insulating region is a x=1/2 charge ordered phase. This is not a charge congregation type of phase separation, which was observed in slightly doped antiferromagnetic manganites  and was extensively discussed.  CMR effect was observed in different samples with $`0.275<y<0.41`$, and was explained by percolative transport through the ferromagnetic domains. According to the percolation theory, the conductivity $`\sigma (pp_0)^t`$, where $`p`$ is the concentration of the metallic phase and $`p_0`$ is its critical value. In Ref., the exponent was studied in the presence and absence of an external magnetic field and two values are substantially different. Thus, the experiment shows that the percolative transport in the CMR systems depends sensitively on the relative spin orientation of adjacent ferromagnetic domains which is controlled by an applied magnetic field. The goal of this work is to develop a percolation theory which takes into account the magnetic transition in the CMR materials. In particular, we would like to understand what causes the exponent to be so different with or without an external magnetic field.

Based on phenomenological considerations, we study two- or three-dimensional (2D or 3D) lattice percolation models. The conductivity and its critical exponent are calculated by means of real space renormalization and numerical methods. The system consists of three types of lattice sites. Each site has spin $`S_i(=\pm 1,0)`$ where $`i`$ denotes the index of a site. This model is similar to the site-diluted spin system used in Ref. . $`S_i=0`$ implies that the site is empty, meaning occupied by the x=1/2 charge ordered phase. $`S_i=\pm 1`$ means the site is occupied by the ferromagnetic metallic phase with up and down magnetizations. The Hamiltonian of the spin interaction is Ising-like and is written as

$$H_s=J\underset{i,j}{}S_iS_j+\underset{i}{}HS_i.$$
(1)
Here $`i,j`$ denotes a pair of the nearest neighbor sites, $`J`$ is the interaction energy, and $`H`$ is the strength of the external magnetic field. We consider a ferromagnetic interaction, i.e., $`J>0`$. In order to investigate transport properties, we assume that the local conductivity between two nearest occupied sites is either $`0`$ for antiparallel spins ($``$ and $``$) or $`1`$ for parallel spins ($``$ and $``$) and is zero if one or both sites are empty. Thus, the conductivity between neighboring sites can be expressed as follows

$$\sigma _{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & S_iS_j=1;\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise. }\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
First, we use the standard Monte-Carlo method to study the magnetic properties of the model. Knowing the spin structure is necessary for the transport studies since the local conductivity depends on the spins through Eq.(2). The conductance calculation is performed on a set of spin configurations produced by the Markov chain. In the Markov chain every spin configuration is generated from the previous one by using the probability $`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }H_s}/(e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }H_s}+1)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_s`$ is the energy difference between these two configurations and $`\beta =1/k_BT`$. The calculations are carried out on finite square and cubic lattices for 2D and 3D systems and the periodic boundary condition is adopted to eliminate the boundary effects. The conductance $`G`$ for every spin configuration in the Markov chain is obtained by calculating the total conductance of the resistor network. In the resistor network, the local conductivity between neighboring sites is determined by Eq.(2). The total conductance is calculated for many samples to obtain the average conductance.

When the charge order (CO) phase is dominant in some of the CMR materials, most sites are empty according to our model. Thus, most of the conductivities between neighboring sites are zero, corresponding to the low concentration limit ($`p0`$) in the percolation model, where $`p`$ is the probability of non-zero local conductivity. The small FM islands is well separated by the CO phase. Because the spin correlations between FM blocks are cut off by the CO phase, the spin orientation for each FM block is random, either up or down. Therefore, the spontaneous magnetization $`m`$ will be zero at any temperature $`T`$. As $`p`$ increases, $`m`$ continues to be zero until $`p`$ reaches $`p_0`$ at which the first infinite FM cluster appears. If $`p>p_0`$, a finite spontaneous magnetization appears for $`T<T_c(p)`$ with $`T_c(p)`$ the critical temperature at concentration $`p`$. In Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) we plot the normalized magnetization $`m`$ as a function of temperature $`T`$ with different concentration probabilities $`p`$ for 2D and 3D systems, respectively, calculated using the Monte Carlo method. The interaction strength $`J`$ is set to unity. It can be seen that when the temperature increases $`m`$ is reduced and reaches zero at $`T_c(p)`$. From magnetization data with different size samples and through finite-size scaling, we can determine the critical temperature. In Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) we plot the relation between the critical temperature $`T_c(p)`$ and the concentration $`p`$. As shown in these plots, $`T_c(p)`$ will approach the Curie temperature $`T_c`$ for the regular Ising model as $`p`$ approaches to $`1`$. We find that $`T_c`$ determined from Fig.2 is $`2.3J`$ or $`4.4J`$ for 2D or 3D system. Both of them are in good agreement with the values of the regular Ising model.

From the spin configurations of the system, we can calculate the conductance by using the local conductivity defined in Eq. (2). In a paramagnetic phase, there is no infinite cluster with spins pointing in the same direction. Hence, according to Eq. (2) there is no conducting path throughout the sample. On the other hand, the first conducting path appears simultaneously when the magnetization starts becoming non-zero. Thus, the phase transition from the FM phase to the paramagnetic phase is accompanied by the metal-insulator (MI) transition in the conductance. This implies that at zero temperature the MI transition occurs at the critical concentration of the percolation threshold $`p_0`$. Near the critical point the averaged conductance $`G`$ can be expressed as $`G(pp_0)^t`$, where $`t`$ is the the conductance critical exponent for the transition.

We now discuss the real space renormalization method. We start with a 2D system and later extend to a more complicated 3D system. The essential physics does not depend on dimensionality, although numerical numbers do. Consider a triangular lattice in a 2D plane. The choice of a triangular lattice is for the convenience of rescaling of the system in the real space renormalization procedure. By enlarging the system by factor $`\sqrt{3}`$ and grouping every three sites into a ”supersite”, the number of the supersites is the same as the number of sites in the original system (see Fig.3). In Fig.3, the thin lines are for the original system and the thick lines are for the rescaled system. A supersite is regarded as empty if the majority of the three sites are empty. Thus the concentration of the new system can be expressed as $`p^{}=p^3+3p^2(1p)`$(Ref. ). Near the critical point $`p_0=0.5`$, on the metallic side, $`G`$ can be written as $`G=G_0(pp_0)^t`$, where the constant $`G_0`$ is proportional to the conductance of the unit cell. For the enlarged system this relation becomes $`G^{}=G_0^{}(p^{}p_0)^t`$. In a 2D system the conductance is independent of the system size and we have $`G=G^{}`$. Thus, $`t=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{G_0}{G_0^{}})/\mathrm{ln}(\frac{p^{}p_0}{pp_0})`$. If the spin degree of freedom is frozen, the conductance of elementary cell is inversely proportional to the size of the cell, hence, $`t=\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{3})/\mathrm{ln}(\frac{3}{2})=1.35`$. This value is very close to the exact value of $`t=4/3`$ in the standard 2D percolation model.  When taking into account the spin degrees of freedom, as we discussed above, the $`p_0`$ point is also the critical point for the spontaneous magnetization. The conductance $`G_0`$ (or $`G_0^{}`$) is now associated with spin configurations. The spin dependence comes from the fact that $`G_0`$ is proportional to the average of conductivity between two nearest neighbor sites which is spin dependent,

$`G_0`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{ij}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _i\theta _j}{2}})`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\theta _i{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\varphi _i{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\theta _j{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\varphi _j`$ (5)
$`\times e^{\beta mS\mathrm{cos}\theta _i}e^{\beta mS\mathrm{cos}\theta _j}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{ij}}{2}})`$
The conductivity expression between nearest neighbor spin $`\sigma _{ij}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\theta _{ij}}{2})`$ comes from the double-exchange model where $`\theta _{ij}`$ is the angular difference between spins $`S_i`$ and $`S_j`$ ,which satisfies

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\mathrm{cos}\theta _j+\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\mathrm{sin}\theta _j\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _i\varphi _j\right)$$
(6)
$`(\theta _i,\varphi _i)`$ denotes the orientation of spin $`S_i`$. A is a normalization constant. From the above equation, it is easy to show that $`G_0m^2`$. Because $`m`$ can be written as $`m(pp_0)`$, we finally get the conductance critical exponent in 2D triangular lattice as $`t^{}1.35+2=3.35`$.

In the 3D case, we consider the normal cubic lattice. The elementary vectors of the enlarged lattice is just two times of those of the original one $`\{\widehat{e_x}^{},\widehat{e_y}^{},\widehat{e_z}^{}\}=\{2\widehat{e_x},2\widehat{e_y},2\widehat{e_z}\}`$. In this case $`p^{}=_{n=4}^8C_8^np^n(1p)^{8n}`$, from which we conclude that $`p_0=0.395`$ and $`t=1.7`$ without spin effects. After the spin degrees of freedom are considered, the formula $`G_0m^2`$ is still satisfied. But in 3D case $`m`$ has $`m(pp_0)^{1.79}`$. So the critical exponent $`t^{}1.7+2\times 1.795.3`$.

In Fig. 4 we show the numerical results of 2D conductance $`G`$. 3D calculation has not been done because of computational limit. The points with steepest drop are defined as the critical points for the metal-insulator transition. These points are consistent with the magnetic critical points (see Fig.1), as we discussed before. In the inset of Fig.4 we show the $`\mathrm{ln}(G)`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}(pp_0)`$. They exhibit a linear dependence and the slope of the curve, corresponding to the exponent $`t`$, is roughly $`3.5`$. This value is in a good agreement with the estimation from the renormalization group consideration although it is obtained from a different type of lattice structure. In Table I we list the results of this work and compare them with the previous studies of the standard percolation theory and experimental exponents in CMR materials. The experimental exponent $`t_3`$ (or $`t_3^{}`$) was obtained in the absence (or presence) of an external magnetic field.

Before summary, we would like to make couple comments. (i) In order to calculate the conductivity exponent, we have to determine the dependence of $`G_0`$ (see Eq.(3)) on the magnetization $`m`$, and the double-exchange model is used to achieve that goal. However, the double-exchange may not be the origin of the ferromagnetism in doped manganites, as shown in a recent work. This might explain some of the discrepancy between the experimental and our theoretical values in the conductivity exponent. We should also mention that the values from the two experimental groups are not in good agreement with each other as seen in Table I. (ii) We have neglected the quantum effects in this work. This might be justified because $`T_c`$ is relatively high in these samples. Develop a semi-classical transport theory in this problem is a difficult task because of the finite phase coherence length. There are attempts of using the semi-classical theory to understand the two-dimensional metal-insulator transition.

In summary, we argue that the percolation threshold corresponds not only to the appearance of an infinite metal cluster, but also to the phase transition from PM to FM. This coincidence of two phase transitions renormalizes the critical exponents. The conductivity exponent has been obtained using real space renormalization and numerical calculations. The exponent is found to be quite different whether the magnetic transition is considered. This finding explains the large exponent discrepancy in some of the CMR materials in the presence or absence of an external magnetic field.

This work was supported by DOE and a RGC grant of Hong Kong. We thank Junren Shi for many helpful discussions.


text:
# Nonperturbative Improvement and Tree-level Correction of the Quark Propagator

## I Introduction

Lattice studies of the quark propagator provide a direct, model-independent window into the mechanism of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and its momentum dependence. In addition it provides insight into the the nature and location of the transition region of QCD where inherently nonperturbative behavior evolves into the more analytically accessible perturbative form. Furthermore, direct lattice calculations of the quark propagator inform hadron model building from the relativized constituent quark picture to quark models based on Schwinger-Dyson equations Roberts:1994dr ; Alkofer:2000wg .

In a recent paper Skullerud:2000un  we presented a method for removing the dominant ultraviolet tree-level lattice artifacts in the momentum-space quark propagator. This was a generalization of the concept of tree-level correction, which was first introduced in the study of the gluon propagator Leinweber:1998im ; Leinweber:1998uu ; Bonnet:2000kw ; Bonnet:2001uh . It was shown that, for two different $`𝒪(a)`$-improved propagators $`S_I`$ and $`S_R`$, see Eqs. (2) and (3), and using a mean-field improved action, this leads to a dramatic improvement in the ultraviolet behavior of the propagator. However, the remaining ultraviolet artifacts are sufficiently large to make the results unreliable beyond $`pa1.2`$. Moreover, the two improved propagators remain discernibly different even in the infrared, yielding different estimates for the infrared quark mass.

Here we will present results using nonperturbatively determined values for the $`𝒪(a)`$ improvement coefficients, rather than the tree-level and mean-field improved coefficients used in Ref. Skullerud:2000un . We will also present two alternative techniques for removing tree-level artifacts and will discuss the relative merits of the three methods.

## II Improvement

The general scheme for $`𝒪(a)`$ improvement of the quark propagator was discussed in Ref. Skullerud:2000un . Here we restrict ourselves to presenting the formulae and definitions which we will be using in this paper. For further details, see Ref. Skullerud:2000un  and references therein.

The SW fermion action,

$$(x)=^W(x)\frac{i}{4}c_{\text{sw}}a\overline{\psi }(x)\sigma _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }(x)\psi (x),$$
(1)
combined with appropriate improvements of operators can be shown Luscher:1996sc  to remove all $`𝒪(a)`$ errors in on-shell matrix elements. For off-shell quantities such as the quark propagator it is not that simple, and no general proof of $`𝒪(a)`$ improvement is known. Indeed, to calculate gauge dependent quantities one might expect to have to introduce gauge non-invariant (but BRST invariant) terms in the action. However, at tree level it is possible to proceed by adding all possible dimension-5 operators to the action and eliminating all but the clover (SW) term by a field redefinition Heatlie:1991kg . Beyond tree level, one may proceed by adding all possible terms with the correct dimensionality and quantum numbers to the operator in question, and tuning the parameters to eliminate $`𝒪(a)`$ terms. Ignoring the gauge non-invariant terms (which are discussed in Refs. Dawson:1997gp ; Becirevic:1999kb ) we may write down the following expressions for the $`𝒪(a)`$ improved quark propagator,

$`S_I(x,y)`$ $`S_I(x,y;U)(1+b_qam)S_0(x,y;U)a\lambda \delta (xy),`$ (2)
$`S_R(x,y)`$ $`S_R(x,y;U)(1+b_q^{}am)\left[1c_q^{}/D(x)\right]S_0(x,y;U)\left[1+c_q^{}\stackrel{}{/D}(y)\right].`$ (3)
where $`S_0(x,y;U)`$ for a given configuration $`U`$ is the inverse of the fermion matrix. Note that if we are only interested in on-shell quantities such as hadronic matrix elements, the $`\delta `$-function can be ignored, so we only need $`S_0`$ together with the improvement coefficients for the various operators. From this, $`S_I`$ is easily obtained, whereas $`S_R`$ is computationally somewhat more expensive.

The coefficients $`b_q`$, $`b_q^{}`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`c_q^{}`$ must be tuned in order to eliminate $`𝒪(a)`$ errors in the propagator (as far as this is possible). At tree level, their values are $`b_q=1,\lambda =b_q^{}=\frac{1}{2},c_q^{}=\frac{1}{4}`$. The values for $`b_q`$ and $`\lambda `$ have recently been calculated at one-loop level Capitani:2000xi . The mean-field improved values for all these coefficients may be obtained by dividing the tree-level values by the mean link $`u_0`$. The one-loop mean-field improved values have also been calculated in Ref. Capitani:2000xi  but as we will argue, the small changes in values obtained by including the one-loop contribution have very little practical effect, so we will not use these here. It should also be noted that the mean-field improved value for $`\lambda `$ is very close to the nonperturbative value reported in Ref. Capitani:1997nr . This indicates that mean-field improvement of the coefficients $`b_q`$ and $`\lambda `$ (or, alternatively, $`b_q^{}`$ and $`c_q^{}`$) may be sufficient to remove $`𝒪(a)`$ errors to the desired precision.

The bare mass also receives an $`𝒪(a)`$ correction, which can be expressed as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=(1+b_mam)m,am=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\frac{1}{2\kappa _c}.$$
(4)
The coefficient $`b_m`$ has been calculated at one-loop order Sint:1997jx ,

$$b_m=\frac{1}{2}0.0962g_0^2+𝒪(g_0^4).$$
(5)
When evaluating Eq. (5), we will be using the boosted coupling constant $`g^2=g_0^2/u_0^4`$.

## III Tree-level correction

In the continuum, the spin and Lorentz structure of the quark propagator, together with parity symmetry, determines that the propagator must have the following form,

$$S(\mu ;p)=\frac{Z(\mu ;p^2)}{i\overline{)}p+M(p^2)}\frac{1}{i\overline{)}pA(\mu ;p^2)+B(\mu ;p^2)}.$$
(6)
On the lattice, what we measure is the bare (regularized but unrenormalized) propagator. This differs from the renormalized propagator in Eq. (6) by an overall renormalization constant $`Z_2(\mu ,a)`$, which we will absorb into $`Z(p)`$, as we did in Ref. Skullerud:2000un  to simplify the presentation of our results.

In Ref. Skullerud:2000un  we defined a tree-level correction procedure involving an overall multiplicative correction and an additive correction of the mass function, as follows,

$$S^1(pa)=\frac{1}{Z(pa)Z^{(0)}(pa)}\left[ia\overline{)}k+aM^a(pa)+a\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(0)}(pa)\right],$$
(7)
where $`k_\mu =\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu a)/a`$ and $`Z^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(0)}`$ are defined by the tree-level quark propagator,

$$\left(S^{(0)}(pa)\right)^1=\frac{1}{Z^{(0)}(pa)}\left[i\overline{)}ka+am+a\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(0)}(pa)\right].$$
(8)
The functions $`Z(pa)`$ and $`M^a(pa)`$ should then express the nonperturbative behavior of the quark propagator, with the dominant lattice artifacts removed. We saw that this procedure led to a dramatic improvement in the behavior of these functions, but at large momenta the data could still not be trusted because of large cancellations.

Here we will consider an alternative, purely multiplicative tree-level correction procedure, defined by

$$S^1(pa)=\frac{1}{Z(pa)Z^{(0)}(pa)}\left[ia\overline{)}k+aM^m(pa)Z_m^{(0)}(pa)\right],$$
(9)
where $`Z_m^{(0)}(pa)`$ is defined by the tree-level expression,

$$\left(S^{(0)}(pa)\right)^1=\frac{1}{Z^{(0)}(pa)}\left[i\overline{)}ka+amZ_m^{(0)}(pa)\right].$$
(10)
The tree-level corrected mass function $`M`$ is thus obtained from the uncorrected function $`M^L\mathrm{tr}S^1/4N_c`$ via

$$aM^m(pa)=M^L(pa)/Z_m^{(0)}(pa).$$
(11)
This procedure should not suffer from the problem of large cancellations. However, it will encounter problems when either the numerator or denominator of Eq. (11) crosses or is close to zero. In order to remedy this problem, we consider a third, ‘hybrid’ scheme, where the negative part of the tree-level expression is subtracted, while the remaining positive part is multiplicatively corrected. Specifically, we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)},\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}(pa)+\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}(pa)=\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(0)}(pa)$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}(pa)0;\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}(pa)0pa$$
(13)
Then we can write

$$M^{(0)}(pa)=am+\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}(pa)+\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}(pa)amZ_m^{(+)}(pa)+\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}(pa).$$
(14)
The tree-level corrected mass function $`M^h(pa)`$ is then

$$aM^h(pa)=\left(M^L(pa)a\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}(pa)\right)/Z_m^{(+)}(pa).$$
(15)
The definition of this scheme contains an ambiguity, since it is obvious that we may still satisfy (12), (13) by adding any strictly positive term to $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}`$ and subtracting the same term from $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}`$; e.g. by taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}+k^2;\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}k^2`$. In order to remove this ambiguity, we add the following criteria:

1. Factoring out a common (positive) denominator, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}`$ should be polynomials in the 4 variables $`k^2,\widehat{k}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }k^2`$ and $`m`$, where we have defined

$$\widehat{k}_\mu \frac{2}{a}\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu a/2);a^2\mathrm{\Delta }k^2\widehat{k}^2k^2;$$
(16)
2. The coefficient of each term must be positive for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}`$ and negative for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}`$;
3. Any one monomial in $`k^2,\widehat{k}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }k^2`$ and $`m`$ can only occur in one of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}`$; eg., if there is a term proportional to $`mk^2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}`$ there cannot be a term proportional to $`mk^2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}`$

These criteria ensure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}`$ are as small as possible, leading to the minimum possible distortion of the data.

Specifically, the expressions we use are

$`Z_{m,I}^{(+)}(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{am+(b_q\lambda )a^2m^2+\lambda a^4\mathrm{\Delta }k^2+(\frac{1}{2}b_q\lambda )a^3m\widehat{k}^2}{am(1+am)}},`$ (17)
$`a\mathrm{\Delta }M_I^{()}(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda a^4\widehat{k}^4/2+(2\lambda 1)a^2\widehat{k}^2}{2(1+am)}},`$ (18)
$`aZ_{m,R}^{(+)}(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{amA_R^{}(p)}}\left(am+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^4\mathrm{\Delta }k^2\right),`$ (19)
$`a\mathrm{\Delta }M_R^{()}(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16A_R^{}(p)}}\left(a^3mk^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^4k^2\widehat{k}^2\right),`$ (20)
where we have written
$`A_R^{}(p)`$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}am+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}a^2k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a^4\mathrm{\Delta }k^2.`$ (21)
It should be remembered that the mass function $`M(p)`$ must be renormalization-point independent in a renormalizable theory and that the current quark mass at the renormalization point $`m(\mu )`$ is given by $`m(\mu )=M(p=\mu )`$. The ultraviolet mass function is of course only constant up to logarithmic corrections. The multiplicative and hybrid tree-level correction ensures that the zeroth-order perturbative behavior of the mass function in the ultraviolet matches that of the continuum. The logarithmic corrections should principle show up in the lattice data, as they did for the gluon propagator in Ref. Leinweber:1998uu . However, this is a small effect compared to the tree-level lattice artifacts. It will be a measure of the success of our improvement and correction scheme whether the logarithmic corrections may be extracted from the lattice data.

## IV Results

In addition to the data used in Ref. Skullerud:2000un , we have analyzed data at $`\beta =6.0`$ using the nonperturbatively determined value for $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ (=1.769), and at $`\beta =6.2`$ using the mean-field improved $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ (=1.442). This is a subset of the UKQCD data analyzed in Ref. Bowler:1999ae , with the values for $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ taken from Ref. Luscher:1997ug . The simulation parameters are given in Table 1. Note that the values of $`am`$ are different from those given in Ref. Skullerud:2000un ; this is because we have here used the determination of $`\kappa _c`$ reported in Ref. Bowler:1999ae  instead of an earlier, preliminary value. All the data shown have been obtained from the raw data using the cylinder cut described in Ref. Skullerud:2000un . The scale is taken from the hadronic radius $`r_0`$ Sommer:1994ce  using the interpolating formula of Ref. Guagnelli:1998ud  and the phenomenological value $`r_0=0.5`$ fm. Note that this differs from the scale used in Ref. Skullerud:2000un , which was taken from an earlier determination of the string tension. The gauge fixing is identical to that of Ref. Leinweber:1998uu , which was also used in Ref. Skullerud:2000un . This is a version of lattice Landau gauge that contains Gribov copies; the effects of these have not been studied here.

### IV.1 Results with mean-field improved $`c_{\text{sw}}`$

We first consider the effect of employing the multiplicative and hybrid correction schemes on the data analyzed in Ref. Skullerud:2000un . Figure 1 shows the tree-level corrected mass function $`M`$ evaluated using the three schemes, for both $`S_I`$ and $`S_R`$ at $`\beta =6.0,c_{\text{sw}}=\text{MF}`$. It is clear that the ultraviolet behavior is much improved, but the multiplicatively corrected $`M`$ from $`S_I`$ exhibits pathological behavior at intermediate momenta. This is a consequence of a zero crossing in the tree-level mass function, leading to division by near-zero numbers in Eq. (11). In the hybrid scheme, this problem is absent.

It is worth noting that although the mass function approaches the subtracted bare mass $`m`$ in the ultraviolet, the actual values obtained using the multiplicative and hybrid schemes differ from each other and from the bare mass by up to 20%. It is clear that at this stage this procedure is not good enough to yield a good estimate of current quark masses. We also see that there is no sign in these data of the logarithmic running of the current quark mass.

For $`S_R`$, we also see a clear improvement in the ultraviolet behavior, as well as a small but significant difference in the ultraviolet mass between the multiplicative and hybrid schemes. Since the tree-level mass function for $`S_R`$ does not have any zero crossings, the multiplicatively corrected mass does not exhibit the same pathological behavior as for $`S_I`$. The tree-level mass function for $`S_R`$ does not cross zero, but does approach it, and the effects of this may be detected at intermediate momenta. Hence we consider the hybrid correction to be more reliable for $`S_R`$.

### IV.2 Results with nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$

We now turn to the effect of using nonperturbatively determined, rather than tree-level or mean-field, improvement coefficients. Figure 2 shows, on the left, the mass function obtained from our two improved propagators using the nonperturbative value for $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ and the mean-field values for $`b_q,b_q^{}`$ and $`\lambda `$ (we have not been in a position to obtain data using mean-field or nonperturbative values for $`c_q^{}`$, only the tree-level value $`c_q^{}=\frac{1}{4}`$). As indicated in Sec. II, the nonperturbative values for the latter coefficients are currently not known, but at least the nonperturbative value for $`\lambda `$ reported in Ref. Capitani:1997nr  is close to the mean-field value, and it seems reasonable to guess that this is the case for the other coefficients as well. We therefore assume that although it is not entirely consistent, it is not unreasonable to use the mean-field values. On the right of Fig. 2 are shown equivalent data from Ref. Skullerud:2000un , along with data using mean-field values for all the improvement coefficients in $`S_I`$.

It is immediately clear that using the NP value for $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ removes the large discrepancy between the two improved propagators for $`pa2`$, even when using additive tree-level correction. For larger $`pa`$, the discrepancy remains, which is not unexpected since at these momenta $`𝒪(a^2)`$ and higher errors become dominant.

It is instructive to compare this with the effect of reducing the lattice spacing, as shown in Fig. 3. We do not have data for $`S_R`$ at $`\beta =6.2`$, but we see that $`S_I`$ changes very little with $`\beta `$ in the intermediate momentum range where the discrepancy becomes large. Assuming that $`S_R`$ changes by a similar amount, we may conclude that reducing the lattice spacing does very little to reduce the discrepancy, although the behavior of $`S_I`$ at large momenta is somewhat improved, as one would expect. We can also see that going from tree-level to mean-field values for the coefficients $`b_q`$ and $`\lambda `$ has only a very small effect. We may also conclude that using one-loop values for these coefficients will have negligible effect, since the difference between tree-level and one-loop coefficients is even smaller than that between the tree-level and mean-field improved values. This also gives us added confidence in the use of mean-field rather than nonperturbative values for these coefficients.

In Fig. 4 we show the tree-level corrected $`Z(p)`$ function, for both nonperturbative and mean-field $`c_{\text{sw}}`$. The upper figures show the ‘unrenormalized’ $`Z(p)`$ — the upper right figure is taken directly from Fig. 5 in Ref. Skullerud:2000un . We see that there is still a very significant discrepancy between $`S_I`$ and $`S_R`$, even with the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$. Much of this discrepancy, however, amounts to an overall renormalization, which may be included in the quark field renormalization constant $`Z_2`$. To eliminate this possible, unphysical source of disagreement we rescale the data by imposing the ‘renormalization condition’ $`Z(pa=1)=1`$. The result of this is shown in the lower panel of Fig. 4. We then see that the infrared behavior of the tree-level corrected $`Z(p)`$ functions agree much better than they did in the previous work in Ref. Skullerud:2000un . For the few most infrared points we see that there is an apparently better agreement for $`Z(p)`$ between the two forms of the propagator when the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ is used. The ultraviolet agreement is less than satisfactory even when the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ is used and we conclude that the ultraviolet behavior of the tree-level form of $`S_I`$ is too severe to be remedied by our tree-level correction scheme even with nonperturbative and mean-field improved coefficients in the action and propagators respectively. Because of the more reasonable tree-level behavior of $`S_R`$ and because in this case $`Z(p)`$ is almost unchanged when using either the nonperturbative or mean-field $`c_{\text{sw}}`$, we take as our best estimate for $`Z(p)`$ the tree-level corrected result from $`S_R`$ with nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$.

Figure 5 shows the mass function for $`c_{\text{sw}}=\text{NP}`$, with the multiplicative and hybrid correction schemes. The multiplicative scheme exhibits the same problems as those we encountered with $`c_{\text{sw}}=\text{MF}`$. In particular, $`Z_m^{(0)}(p)`$ from $`S_I`$ crosses zero for $`pa0.5`$ and renders the multiplicative scheme meaningless for that case. Even for $`S_R`$ we find that the uncorrected $`M^L`$ has small zero-crossings for momentum values in the range $`1.5<pa<2.3`$, which render the multiplicative scheme unsatisfactory. Using the hybrid scheme, however, we avoid these pathologies of the naive multiplicative scheme as can be seen from the two lower figures in Fig. 5. In Fig. 6 we have plotted the mass functions for the two propagators in physical units. We see good agreement between the mass functions using hybrid tree-level correction and the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ coefficient across the entire range of available momenta. The mass function for $`S_R`$ dips slightly below that for $`S_I`$ at intermediate momentum points even though they approach very similar asymptotic values. This residual disagreement implies that we have not succeeded in removing all of the lattice artifacts at intermediate momenta, although hopefully we have gone some significant way toward achieving that end.

### IV.3 Chiral extrapolations

We have available data for three quark masses for $`S_I`$ with the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$. Having seen the very plausible behavior of the mass function for $`S_I`$ after hybrid tree-level correction and the good agreement with that for $`S_R`$, we are given the confidence to attempt a simple extrapolation of the quark mass function to the chiral limit. The first chiral extrapolation we performed was a linear extrapolation of the ultraviolet mass (obtained by fitting $`M^h(p)`$ to a constant in the range $`2<pa<3`$) as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$. This is shown in Fig. 7, where we see that the ultraviolet mass vanishes in the chiral limit to a very good approximation as it should. Indeed, the extrapolated value of $`1`$ MeV is much smaller than the systematic uncertainties arising from the different tree-level correction schemes discussed above. We also see that for the ultraviolet mass a linear extrapolation does very well. As we noted in Sec. III, the ultraviolet mass function is only constant up to logarithmic corrections, but our ultraviolet behavior is not sufficiently under control that it would be meaningful to attempt to extract those from Fig. 5.

Also in Fig. 7, we show the result of a linear extrapolation of the infrared quark mass $`M(p0)`$, together with our previous results from Ref. Skullerud:2000un . Due to the small statistics, the error bars for the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ data are quite large. We still observe that the extrapolated mass value for the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ is systematically lower than for the mean-field $`c_{\text{sw}}`$, but the results for $`S_I`$ and $`S_R`$ are now fully consistent, and also agree with the value obtained from $`S_R`$ with the mean-field $`c_{\text{sw}}`$. Note that the value in MeV for $`M(p0)`$ from the mean-field $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ differs from that reported in Ref. Skullerud:2000un . This is due to the different values for the lattice spacing in the two papers. The uncertainty in the lattice spacing adds an additional uncertainty of about 10% to all numbers in physical units. This uncertainty is an intrinsic feature of the quenched approximation.

We also show in Fig. 8 the result of a simple quadratic chiral extrapolation in $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ for the entire mass function (for $`S_I`$ with hybrid tree-level correction and nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$). The result has a plausible form and is presumably a good estimate of $`M(p)`$ in the chiral limit. The very small dip at $`p1.4`$ GeV is within two standard deviations and, while not statistically significant, it is a again a hint that we have not completely removed lattice artifacts at intermediate momenta. A linear chiral extrapolation, while adequate in the ultraviolet and infrared, does not fit the data in the intermediate momentum regime. We see that the quadratic extrapolation to the chiral limit is consistent with a vanishing current quark mass and a rapid falling off of $`M(p)`$ such that it appears to essentially vanish by approximately 1.5 GeV. This suggests that the effects of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking become negligible at a scale $`p_\chi `$ which we estimate to be $`p_\chi =1.45\stackrel{+10}{13}`$ GeV, where the errors are purely statistical.

We have also studied the systematic uncertainties arising from the specific choice of tree-level correction scheme. In order to quantify this, we have modified the hybrid scheme defined in Sec. III by taking

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}(pa)\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(+)}(pa)+ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}(pa)\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}(pa)(1ϵ)\mathrm{\Delta }M^{()}(pa)$$
(23)
where $`ϵ`$ is a free parameter. Considering small variations in $`ϵ`$, $`0.1ϵ0.1`$, we find that the correction scheme dependence gives rise to uncertainties in $`p_\chi `$ of about 100 MeV. Using the mean-field $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ and 6.2, we get values for $`p_\chi `$ that are slightly higher, but still consistent withint two standard deviations.

We take as our best estimate for the chiral symmetry scale the value from $`S_I`$ with the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$: $`p_\chi =1.45\stackrel{+10}{13}\stackrel{+6}{8}(14)`$ GeV, where the first set of errors are statistical, the second are the systematic uncertainties due to the tree-level correction scheme, and the third is the uncertainty in the lattice spacing. This value is roughly consistent with the chiral symmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$ arising in low-energy effective theories and in instanton models (see e.g. Ref. Schafer:1998wv ). An understanding of the relationship between this result and the recent analysis of the pseudoscalar vertex Cudell:2001ny  is an interesting topic for future investigation.

## V Discussion

We have made use of asymptotic freedom to factor out the dominant (tree-level) lattice artifacts in the quark propagator at high momenta. We have discussed several different schemes for applying this idea, referred to as tree-level correction, to the mass function, which is the scalar part of the inverse quark propagator. A purely multiplicative scheme is seen to encounter problems because the value of the tree-level mass function approaches or crosses zero, leading to ill-defined behavior at intermediate momenta. The purely additive scheme defined in Ref. Skullerud:2000un , although leading to a dramatic improvement on the uncorrected data, did not give reliable results for the mass function above $`pa1`$. We have defined a hybrid tree-level correction scheme which combines the additive and multiplicative schemes in such a way that the mass function becomes well-behaved at all momentum values. Ambiguities in the correction scheme should show up most clearly at intermediate momenta. We find that the uncertainties due to such ambiguities are of comparable magnitude to the statistical uncertainties.

We have also studied the effect of using the nonperturbative value for $`c_{\text{sw}}`$. This was seen to improve the data considerably, as demonstrated most dramatically by the very good agreement between the two definitions $`S_I`$ and $`S_R`$ of the improved quark propagator. In contrast, reducing the lattice spacing by going from $`\beta =6.0`$ to $`\beta =6.2`$ with a mean-field $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ only gave a slight improvement.

Finite volume effects may be estimated by studying the spread of points with momenta in different directions in the infrared, as was done in Refs. Skullerud:2000un ; Leinweber:1998uu . We do not find any significant anisotropy at low momenta either in $`Z(p)`$ or in $`M(p)`$, so we conclude that finite volume effects here are small.

We have not here considered the possible effect of Gribov copies. This remains an interesting subject for future study, which is currently being pursued.

In summary, the key results of this study are that one should use the most appropriate (nonperturbative) determinations of improvement coefficients wherever possible. Where tree-level behavior is severe with zero-crossings or near zero-crossings the hybrid tree-level correction scheme can be used in place of the multiplicative one. In the infrared and intermediate momentum regimes we appear to have reasonable control over lattice artifacts. The chiral behavior resulting from a simple chiral extrapolation appears reasonable. We believe that the best estimate of the continuum $`Z(p)`$ function corresponds to the nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ result for the $`S_R`$ propagator as shown in Fig. 4. All of the hybrid corrected mass functions with nonperturbative $`c_{\text{sw}}`$ appear reasonable and agree with each other. The chiral extrapolation of these is shown in Fig. 8. We find that the effects of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking become negligible above a momentum scale $`p_\chi `$. Our best estimate for this scale is $`p_\chi =1.45\stackrel{+10}{13}\stackrel{+6}{8}(14)`$ GeV.

We emphasize that the real test of these conclusions will be to implement these methods on finer lattice spacings, with further improved actions, and ideally with actions which respect chiral symmetry on the lattice. These subjects are being pursued.

###### Acknowledgements.

Financial support from the Australian Research Council is gratefully acknowledged. The study was performed using UKQCD data obtained using UKQCD Collaboration CPU time under PPARC Grant GR/K41663. JIS acknowledges support from the EU TMR network “Finite temperature phase transitions in particle physics”, EU contract ERBFMRX–CT97–0122.