1: \documentclass[preprint,prd,showpacs,preprintnumbers,nofootinbib,fleqn,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[prd,showpacs,superscriptaddress,preprintnumbers,nofootinbib,fleqn,floatfix]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{dcolumn}
8: \usepackage{enumerate}
9: %\usepackage{bibentry}
10:
11: %----------------------------------------------------------------
12:
13: %\newcommand{\del}{\partial}
14: %\newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm Tr}}
15:
16: %\newcommand{\pslash}{{p\hspace{-1.9mm}/}}
17: %\newcommand{\qslash}{{q\hspace{-2.0mm}/}}
18: %\newcommand{\kslash}{{k\hspace{-2.0mm}/}}
19:
20: %\newcommand{\Dslash}{{D\hspace{-2.8mm}/}}
21: %\newcommand{\Qslash}{{Q\hspace{-2.8mm}/}}
22:
23: %----------------------------------------------------------------
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: %================================================================
28:
29: \title{Revised value of the eighth-order QED contribution to the
30: anomalous magnetic moment of the electron}
31:
32: \author{T. Aoyama}
33: %\email{aoym@riken.jp}
34: \affiliation{Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies,
35: High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan}
36:
37: \author{M. Hayakawa}
38: %\email{hayakawa@eken.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp}
39: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Nagoya,
40: Aichi 464-8602, Japan}
41:
42: \author{T. Kinoshita}
43: %\email{tk@hepth.cornell.edu}
44: \affiliation{Newman Laboratory for Elementary-Particle Physics,
45: Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, U.S.A.}
46:
47:
48: \author{M. Nio}
49: %\email{nio@riken.jp}
50: \affiliation{Theoretical Physics Laboratory,
51: Nishina Center, RIKEN, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan }
52:
53: %================================================================
54:
55: %\date{\today}
56:
57: %================================================================
58:
59: \begin{abstract}
60: We have carried out a new
61: evaluation of the eighth-order contribution to the electron
62: $g\!-\!2$ using FORTRAN codes generated by an automatic code
63: generator {\sc gencode}{\it N}.
64: Comparison of the ``new" result with the ``old" one
65: has revealed an inconsistency in the treatment of the infrared
66: divergences in the latter.
67: With this error corrected we now have two independent determinations
68: of the eighth-order term.
69: This leads to the revised value
70: $1~159~652~182.79~(7.71) \times 10^{-12}$ of the electron $g\! - \! 2$,
71: where the uncertainty comes mostly from that of the
72: best non-QED value of the fine structure constant $\alpha$.
73: The new value of $\alpha$ derived from the revised theory and
74: %%% the experiment is
75: %%% $\alpha^{-1} = 137.035~999~070~(98)$,
76: %%%%%%%
77: the latest experiment is
78: $\alpha^{-1} = 137.035~999~084~(51)~[0.37~\text{ppb}]~$,
79: %%%%%%%%
80: which is about 4.7 ppb smaller than the previous $\alpha^{-1}$.
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: \pacs{13.40.Em,14.60.Cd,12.20.Ds,06.20.Jr}
84:
85: %================================================================
86: \newcommand{\FourthFigures}[1]{
87: \begin{figure}[tb]
88: \includegraphics*[width=14cm]{fig4th.ps}
89: \caption{Fourth-order $q$-type diagrams. (a)
90: Self-energy-like diagrams $M_{4a}$ and $M_{4b}$. ~~~(b) Vertex diagrams $4c, 4x, 4s,$
91: and $4l$.
92: Their contributions to the magnetic moment
93: are related to $M_{4a}=2 M_{4c}+M_{4x}$, and $M_{4b}=2 M_{4s}+M_{4l}$.
94: }
95: \label{4th-figures}
96: \end{figure}
97: }
98: %----------------------------------------------------------------
99: \newcommand{\SixthFigures}[1]{
100: %\begin{figure}[htbp!]
101: \begin{figure}[tb]
102: \includegraphics*[width=15cm]{fig6th.ps}
103: \caption{Sixth-order $q$-type self-energy-like diagrams $M_{6x},~x=a,\ldots,h$.
104: The time reversal diagrams of $M_{6d}$ and $M_{6g}$ are not shown here.
105: The fermion lines of a diagram is named 1 to 5 from left to right.
106: The vertex diagram obtained by inserting an external photon vertex into the
107: fermion line $i$ of the self-energy diagram $6x$ is named $6x i$.
108: }
109: \label{6th-figures}
110: \end{figure}
111: }
112: %----------------------------------------------------------------
113: \newcommand{\AllFiguresOfEighthOrderSetV}[1]{
114: %\begin{figure}[htbp!]
115: \begin{figure}[tb]
116: \includegraphics*[width=15cm]{fig8thsetV.ps}
117: \caption{Eighth-order Group V diagrams represented by 47 self-energy-like diagrams
118: $M_{01}$--$M_{47}$.}
119: \label{fig:EighthOrderSetV}
120: \end{figure}
121: }
122: %----------------------------------------------------------------
123: \newcommand{\MsixteenMeighteenFigure}[1]{
124: %\begin{figure}[htbp!]
125: \begin{figure}[tb]
126: \includegraphics*[width=4.25in]{M16M18.ps}
127: \caption{Self-energy-like diagrams of $M_{16}$ and $M_{18}$. Feynman parameters
128: assigned to the electron lines are $z_1 \sim z_7$ and those to the photon lines
129: are $z_a \sim z_d$.
130: }
131: \label{fig:M16andM18}
132: \end{figure}
133: }
134: %----------------------------------------------------------------
135: \newcommand{\MfourteenFigure}[1]{
136: %\begin{figure}[htbp!]
137: \begin{figure}[tb]
138: \includegraphics*[width=5.3in]{M14_L6g5.ps}
139: \caption{(a) Self-energy-like diagram of $M_{14}$. ~~(b)Vertex diagrams
140: $6g5$ and $4l$ from which the vertex renormalization constants $L_{6g5}$ and
141: $L_{4l}$, respectively, are derived.}
142: \label{fig:M14andL6g5}
143: \end{figure}
144: }
145: %----------------------------------------------------------------
146: \newcommand{\ComparFirstTable}{
147: \begin{table*}
148: \caption{
149: Comparison of the numerical calculation of $M_{01}$--$M_{15}$ of
150: the eighth-order Group V diagrams.
151: The second column shows the analytic expression
152: for $\Delta M_i^{\rm old} - \Delta M_i^{\rm new}$
153: for each diagram $M_i$ in terms of lower-order finite quantities multiplied by the
154: multiplicity.
155: The value $A$ in the third column is obtained
156: by substituting the values of lower-order renormalization constants,
157: such as $\Delta M_{4a}, \Delta L_{4s}$ and $\Delta M_{4a(1^\star)}$,
158: for the corresponding expression in the second column. See Appendices \ref{appendixM} and \ref{appendixRconst}
159: for the detail.
160: In contrast, the value
161: for $\Delta M_i^{\rm old} - \Delta M_i^{\rm new}$ in the fourth column,
162: denoted by value $B$, is obtained by
163: taking the direct difference between
164: the value of $\Delta M_i^{\rm old}$ quoted from Ref.~\cite{Kinoshita:2005zr},
165: and the one of $\Delta M_i^{\rm new}$
166: calculated via {\sc gencode}{\it N} in the ``new" IR subtraction procedure
167: \cite{Aoyama:2005kf,Aoyama:2007IR}.
168: The fifth column lists up the differences $A-B$.
169: If the whole calculation is done correctly,
170: $A-B$ must vanish within the numerical uncertainty.
171: In evaluating $\Delta M^{\rm new}$ the double precision is used for the
172: diagrams without a self-energy subdiagram, while
173: the quadruple precision is used for the remainder.
174: \label{Table:M01M15}
175: }
176: \newcolumntype{.}{D{.}{.}{8}}
177: \begin{ruledtabular}
178: %\[
179: %\begin{array}{ll...}
180: \begin{tabular}{cl...}
181: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm Diagram}} &
182: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm difference}}&
183: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm value}~$A$} &
184: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm value}~$B$} &
185: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{$A-B$}} \\
186: \hline
187: $M_{01}$ & 0
188: & 0 & -0.0129( 47) & 0.0129( 47) \\
189: $M_{02}$ & $2\Delta L_{6f1} M_2$
190: & -0.0063( 2) & 0.0060(110) & -0.0124(110) \\
191: $M_{03}$ & $\Delta L_{6f3} M_2$
192: & -0.1133( 1) & -0.1055(100) & -0.0078(100)\\
193: $M_{04}$ & $2(\Delta L_{6d1} + \Delta L_{6d3} )M_2 $
194: & 0.3350( 2) & 0.3408(175) & -0.0058(175) \\
195: $M_{05}$ & 0
196: & 0 & 0.0020( 28) & -0.0020( 28) \\
197: $M_{06}$ & 0
198: & 0 & -0.0223( 61) & 0.0223( 61) \\
199: $M_{07}$ & 0
200: & 0 & -0.0102( 40) & 0.0102( 40) \\
201: $M_{08}$ & $2 (\Delta \delta m_{4a}\Delta M_{4a(1^\star)}+\Delta L_{4c}
202: \Delta M_{4a}) $
203: & -2.1809( 7) & -2.1790(121) & -0.0019(121) \\
204: $M_{09}$ & $2\Delta L_{6f2} M_2 $
205: & 0.0806( 1) & 0.0894(109) & -0.0088(109) \\
206: $M_{10}$ & $2(\Delta \delta m_{4b}\Delta M_{4a(1^\star)}+\Delta L_{6d2} M_2+
207: \Delta L_{4c}\Delta M_{4b}) $
208: & 15.8898( 49) & 15.8795(147) & 0.0103(155) \\
209: $M_{11}$ & $2\Delta L_{6d5} M_2 $
210: & 0.6949( 2) & 0.6827(112) & 0.0122(112) \\
211: $M_{12}$ & $( 2\Delta L_{6a1} + \Delta L_{6a3}) M_2 $
212: & 1.2842( 0) & 1.2875( 74) & -0.0034( 74) \\
213: $M_{13}$ & $2\Delta L_{6h1} M_2 $
214: & -0.4211( 2) & -0.4238( 48) & 0.0027( 48) \\
215: $M_{14}$ & $2\Delta L_{6g5} M_2 $
216: & 0.0892( 2) & 0.0960( 95) & -0.0068( 95) \\
217: $M_{15}$ & $2\Delta L_{6g1} M_2 $
218: & 0.0883( 2) & 0.0893( 71) & -0.0009( 71)\\
219: \end{tabular}
220: %\]
221: \end{ruledtabular}
222: \end{table*}
223: }
224: %----------------------------------------------------------------
225: \newcommand{\ComparSecondTable}{
226: \begin{table*}
227: \caption{
228: Comparison of the numerical calculations of $M_{16}$--$M_{30}$ of the
229: eighth-order Group V diagrams.
230: \label{Table:M16M30}
231: }
232: \newcolumntype{.}{D{.}{.}{8}}
233: \begin{ruledtabular}
234: %\[
235: %\begin{array}{ll...}
236: \begin{tabular}{cl...}
237: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm Diagram}} &
238: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm difference}}&
239: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm value}~$A$} &
240: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm value}~$B$} &
241: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{$A-B$}} \\
242: \hline
243: $M_{16}$ & $2(\Delta \delta m_{4a}\Delta M_{4b(1^\star)}
244: +\Delta L_{6c1}M_2 + \Delta L_{4s}\Delta M_{4a})$
245: & -2.6042( 6) & -2.6316(235) & 0.0274(235) \\
246: $M_{17}$ & $2(\Delta L_{6e1} + \Delta L_{6d4}) M_2$
247: & -2.1201( 2) & -2.1010(189) & -0.0173(189) \\
248: $M_{18}$ & $2 \{ \Delta \delta m_{4b}\Delta M_{4b(1^\star)}
249: +\Delta L_{4s}\Delta M_{4b} $
250: & 16.9686( 39) & 17.1897(206) & -0.2207(210) \\
251: & $+(\Delta L_{6b1} +\Delta L_{6a2}) M_2 \}$
252: & & & \\
253: $M_{19}$ & 0
254: & 0 & 0.0002( 3) & -0.0002( 3) \\
255: $M_{20}$ & 0
256: & 0 & 0.0010( 17) & -0.0010( 17) \\
257: $M_{21}$ & 0
258: & 0 & 0.0003( 3) & -0.0003( 3) \\
259: $M_{22}$ & 0
260: & 0 & -0.0090( 25) & 0.0090( 25) \\
261: $M_{23}$ & $2\Delta L_{6h2} M_2$
262: & 0.0501( 2) & 0.0438( 59) & 0.0064( 59) \\
263: $M_{24}$ & $2\Delta L_{6g2} M_2$
264: & 0.0789( 2) & 0.0945( 61) & -0.0155( 61) \\
265: %\end{array}
266:
267: $M_{25}$ & 0
268: & 0 & -0.0031( 20) & 0.0031( 20) \\
269: $M_{26}$ & $\Delta \delta m_{6f}( M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I] ) $
270: & 2.5119( 3) & 2.5369( 95) & -0.0250( 95) \\
271: $M_{27}$ & $2\Delta L_{6g4} M_2 $
272: & -0.0630( 1) & -0.0459( 90) & -0.0171( 90) \\
273: $M_{28}$ & $2\{\Delta \delta m_{6d}( M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I] )
274: +\Delta L_{6c2} M_2 \} $
275: & -7.5332( 5) & -7.5307(153) & -0.0025(153) \\
276: $M_{29}$ & $2\Delta L_{6e2} M_2 $
277: & -0.2857( 2) & -0.2809(109) & -0.0048(109) \\
278: $M_{30}$ & $\Delta \delta m_{6a}( M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I] )
279: + 2\Delta L_{6b2} M_2 $
280: & 0.2763( 6) & 0.2675(153) & 0.0088(153) \\
281: \end{tabular}
282: %\]
283: \end{ruledtabular}
284: \end{table*}
285: }
286: %----------------------------------------------------------------
287: \newcommand{\ComparThirdTable}{
288: \begin{table*}
289: \caption{
290: Comparison of the numerical calculations of $M_{31}$--$M_{47}$ of the
291: eighth-order Group V diagrams.
292: \label{Table:M31M47}
293: }
294: \newcolumntype{.}{D{.}{.}{8}}
295: \begin{ruledtabular}
296: \begin{tabular}{cl...}
297: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm Diagram}} &
298: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm difference} }&
299: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm value}~$A$} &
300: \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\rm value}~$B$} &
301: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$A-B$} \\
302: \hline
303: $M_{31}$ & 0
304: & 0 & 0.0007( 5) & -0.0007( 5) \\
305: $M_{32}$ & 0
306: & 0 & -0.0024( 10) & 0.0024( 10) \\
307: $M_{33}$ & 0
308: & 0 & 0.0001( 3) & -0.0001( 3) \\
309: $M_{34}$ & 0
310: & 0 & -0.0010( 13) & 0.0010( 13) \\
311: $M_{35}$ & 0
312: & 0 & 0.0001( 13) & -0.0001( 13) \\
313: $M_{36}$ & 0
314: & 0 & -0.0027( 22) & 0.0027( 22) \\
315: $M_{37}$ & 0
316: & 0 & 0.0004( 5) & -0.0004( 5) \\
317: $M_{38}$ & $\Delta \delta m_{6h} ( M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I]$ )
318: & -0.9088( 3) & -0.9112( 40) & 0.0024( 40) \\
319: $M_{39}$ & 0
320: & 0 & -0.0031( 18) & 0.0031( 18) \\
321: $M_{40}$ & $2\Delta \delta m_{6g} ( M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I]$ )
322: & 3.8281( 3) & 3.8326( 71) & -0.0045( 71) \\
323: $M_{41}$ & $\Delta \delta m_{4a} ( \Delta M_{4a(2^\star)} )
324: + \Delta L_{4x}\Delta M_{4a} $
325: & 0.9809( 3) & 0.9713( 83) & 0.0096( 83) \\
326: $M_{42}$ & $ \Delta \delta m_{6c}( M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I] )
327: + \Delta L_{4l}\Delta M_{4a} $
328: & -7.0218( 4) & -7.0202(114) & -0.0016(114) \\
329: & $+ \Delta \delta m_{4a}
330: \{\Delta M_{4b(2^\star)}
331: -\Delta \delta m_{2^\star}(M_{2^\star}-M_{2^\star}[I])\} $
332: \\
333: $M_{43}$ & $\Delta L_{6h3} M_2 $
334: & 0.4724( 1) & 0.4703( 42) & 0.0022( 42) \\
335: $M_{44}$ & $2\Delta L_{6g3} M_2$
336: & -0.0748( 1) & -0.0499( 69) & -0.0250( 69) \\
337: $M_{45}$ & $\Delta \delta m_{6e} ( M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I] )
338: + \Delta L_{6c3} M_2 $
339: & -0.0523( 3) & -0.0498( 90) & -0.0025( 90) \\
340: $M_{46}$ &
341: $\Delta\delta m_{4b}\Delta M_{4a(2^\star)}+\Delta L_{6e3}M_2
342: + \Delta L_{4x}\Delta M_{4b} $
343: & -7.9339( 22) & -7.9232( 86) & -0.0107(89) \\
344: $M_{47}$ & $\Delta \delta m_{6b} ( M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I] )+ \Delta L_{6b3} M_2 +
345: \Delta L_{4l}\Delta M_{4b} $
346: & 10.5872( 15) & 10.5864(102) & 0.0008(103) \\
347: & $+ \Delta\delta m_{4b} \{ \Delta M_{4b(2^\star)}-\Delta\delta m_{2^\star}
348: (M_{2^\star} - M_{2^\star}[I] ) \} $ & & &
349: \end{tabular}
350: \end{ruledtabular}
351: \end{table*}
352: }
353: %----------------------------------------------------------------
354: \newcommand{\RconstSixthTable}{
355: \begin{table}
356: \caption{Finite renormalization constants used in Table \ref{Table:M01M15}, \ref{Table:M16M30}, and \ref{Table:M31M47}.
357: Sixth-order vertex renormalization constants are shown in this table. Their validity is checked
358: by comparing the sum $X_{LBD}\equiv \sum_{i=1}^5 \Delta L_{6xi} + \frac{1}{2} \Delta B_{6x} + 2 \Delta \delta m_{6x},\quad
359: x=a,\cdots h$
360: to the previous $X_{LBD}$ values listed in Ref.~\cite{Kinoshita:2005zr}.
361: \label{Table:L6}
362: }
363: \newcolumntype{.}{D{.}{.}{10}}
364: \begin{ruledtabular}
365: \begin{tabular}{l.@{\hskip 2em}l.@{\hskip 2em}l.}
366: $\Delta L_{6a1}$& 0.539604
367: (~45)&
368: $\Delta L_{6a2}$& -0.167211
369: (~81)&
370: $\Delta L_{6a3}$& 1.489159
371: (~98) \\
372: $\Delta L_{6b1}$& -1.479745
373: (109)&
374: $\Delta L_{6b2}$& 0.582944
375: (106)&
376: $\Delta L_{6b3}$& -0.016344
377: (~73) \\
378: $\Delta L_{6c1}$& -0.219365
379: (~98)&
380: $\Delta L_{6c2}$& 0.071504
381: (~87)&
382: $\Delta L_{6c3}$& -0.552261
383: (107) \\
384: $\Delta L_{6d1}$& 0.834949
385: (~96)&
386: $\Delta L_{6d2}$& -0.090796
387: (~92)&
388: $\Delta L_{6d3}$& -0.499995
389: (~97) \\
390: $\Delta L_{6d4}$& -1.378190
391: (109)&
392: $\Delta L_{6d5}$& 0.694916
393: (101) & & \\
394: $\Delta L_{6e1}$& -0.741904
395: (144)&
396: $\Delta L_{6e2}$& -0.285670
397: (108)&
398: $\Delta L_{6e3}$& -0.141787
399: (122) \\
400: $\Delta L_{6f1}$& -0.006322
401: (114)&
402: $\Delta L_{6f2}$& 0.080648
403: (~97)&
404: $\Delta L_{6f3}$& -0.226693
405: (106) \\
406: $\Delta L_{6g1}$& 0.088204
407: (~70)&
408: $\Delta L_{6g2}$& 0.078922
409: (103)&
410: $\Delta L_{6g3}$& -0.074834
411: (~92) \\
412: $\Delta L_{6g4}$& -0.062995
413: (~85)&
414: $\Delta L_{6g5}$& 0.089213
415: (~69) & & \\
416: $\Delta L_{6h1}$& -0.421132
417: (108)&
418: $\Delta L_{6h2}$& 0.050140
419: (108)&
420: $\Delta L_{6h3}$& 0.944887
421: (116) \\
422: $\Delta \delta m_{6a}$ & -0.15331(26) &
423: $\Delta \delta m_{6b}$ & 1.83795(19) &
424: $\Delta \delta m_{6c}$ & -3.05047(17) \\
425: $\Delta \delta m_{6d}$ & -1.90117(11) &
426: $\Delta \delta m_{6e}$ & 0.11193(13) &
427: $\Delta \delta m_{6f}$ & 1.25594(10) \\
428: $\Delta \delta m_{6g}$ & 0.95702(6) &
429: $\Delta \delta m_{6h}$ & -0.45441(5) & &
430: \end{tabular}
431: \end{ruledtabular}
432: \end{table}
433: }
434: %----------------------------------------------------------------
435: \newcommand{\RconstFourthTable}
436: {
437: \begin{table}
438: \caption{Finite renormalization constants used in Table \ref{Table:M01M15}, \ref{Table:M16M30} and \ref{Table:M31M47}.
439: Fourth-order and second-order quantities are given here.
440: \label{Table:L4}
441: }
442: \newcolumntype{.}{D{.}{.}{8}}
443: \begin{ruledtabular}
444: \begin{tabular}{l.@{\hskip 4em}l.}
445: $\Delta L_{4c}$ & 0.003387(16) &
446: $\Delta L_{4x}$ & -0.481834(54) \\
447: $\Delta L_{4s}$ & 0.407633(20) &
448: $\Delta L_{4l}$ & 0.124796(67) \\
449: $\Delta B_{4a}$ & -0.039811(15) &
450: $\Delta B_{4b}$ & -0.397283(15) \\
451: $\Delta \delta m_{4a}$ & -0.301485(61)&
452: $\Delta \delta m_{4b}$ & 2.20777 (44) \\
453: $\Delta M_{4a}$ & 0.218359(39) &
454: $\Delta M_{4b}$ & -0.187526(39) \\
455: $\Delta M_{4a(1^\star)}$ & 3.6192(31) &
456: $\Delta M_{4a(2^\star)}$ & -3.6003(19) \\
457: $\Delta M_{4b(1^\star)}$ & 4.2486(15) &
458: $\Delta M_{4b(2^\star)}$ & 1.6432(15) \\
459: $\Delta M_2$ & 0.5 &
460: $\Delta M_{2^\star}$ & 1 \\
461: $\Delta M_{2^\star}[I]$ & -1 &
462: $\Delta \delta m_{2^\star}$ & -0.75 \\
463: $\Delta B_2$ & 0.75 &
464: $\Delta B_{2^\star}[I]$ & -0.5 \\
465: $\Delta L_{2^\star}$ & -0.75 &
466: $\Delta B_{2^\star}$ & 1.5
467: \end{tabular}
468: \end{ruledtabular}
469: \end{table}
470: }
471: %================================================================
472:
473: \maketitle
474:
475: %================================================================
476: \section{Introduction and Summary}
477:
478:
479: The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron
480: has played a central role in testing the validity of QED
481: \cite{Kusch:1947,Schwinger:1948iu}.
482: The test became very stringent when the precision of measurement of
483: the electron and positron was improved
484: by three orders of magnitude over the best earlier result \cite{Rich:1972}
485: by the University of Washington group in
486: the Penning trap experiment \cite{VanDyck:1987ay}
487: %%
488: \begin{align}
489: a_{e^-} &= 1~159~652~188.4~(4.3) \times 10^{-12}
490: \quad
491: [3.7 \text{ppb}]
492: \,,
493: \nonumber \\
494: a_{e^+} &= 1~159~652~187.9~(4.3) \times 10^{-12}
495: \quad
496: [3.7 \text{ppb}]
497: \,,
498: \label{aeUW87value}
499: \end{align}
500: %%
501: where $a_e \equiv (g\! - \! 2)/2$
502: and $g$ is the $g$-factor of electron.
503: %for the ${\mathcal G}$-factor $g_e$ of the electron.
504: The main source of the remaining uncertainty in Eq.~(\ref{aeUW87value})
505: is the uncontrolled shift of the frequency
506: due to the resonance between the electron and
507: the metal cavity of hyperbolic shape.
508: Brown {\it et al.} \cite{Brown:1985sa}
509: showed that this source of uncertainty
510: can be reduced significantly
511: using a metal trap
512: with the cylindrical cavity whose resonance structure
513: can be calculated analytically.
514:
515: The recent Harvard measurement is based on the cylindrical cavity.
516: Their value %$a_e = (g\! - \! 2)/2$
517: announced in 2006 is \cite{Odom:2006gg}
518: %%
519: \begin{equation}
520: a_e({\rm HV}06) = 1~159~652~180.85~(0.76) \times 10^{-12}
521: \quad
522: [0.66\text{ppb}]
523: \,,
524: \label{aeHV06value}
525: \end{equation}
526: %%
527: which has a 5.5 times smaller uncertainty than
528: the previous measurements listed in Eq.~(\ref{aeUW87value}).
529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
530: Very recently, the same Harvard group has succeeded in reducing
531: the uncertainty further by a factor 2.7 \cite{Hanneke:2008}:
532: %%
533: \begin{equation}
534: a_e({\rm HV}08)= 1~159~652~180.73~(0.28) \times 10^{-12}
535: \quad [0.24\text{ppb}]
536: \,.
537: \label{aeHV08value}
538: \end{equation}
539: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
540:
541: To match the precision of the measurement
542: the theory of $a_e$ must include radiative corrections
543: of up to the eighth-order of QED perturbation theory
544: as well as the hadronic and weak contributions
545: %%
546: \begin{equation}
547: a_e = a_e({\rm QED}) + a_e({\rm hadron}) + a_e({\rm weak}).
548: \label{ae_theory}
549: \end{equation}
550: %%
551: The hadronic
552: \cite{Davier:1998si,Krause:1996rf,Melnikov:2003xd,Bijnens:2007pz}
553: and weak contributions \cite{Czarnecki:1996ww}
554: %%%to $a_e$ are very small,
555: %%%%%%%
556: to $a_e$ are very small, but not entirely negligible relative to the measurement
557: uncertainties (\ref{aeHV06value}) or (\ref{aeHV08value}):
558: %%%%%%%%
559: %%
560: \begin{gather}
561: a_e({\rm hadron}) = 1.682~(20) \times 10^{-12}, \\
562: a_e({\rm weak } ) = 0.0297~(5) \times 10^{-12}.
563: \label{hadweak}
564: \end{gather}
565: %%
566:
567: The QED contribution $a_e({\rm QED})$ can be divided further into four
568: parts taking account of the presence of other leptons:
569: %%
570: \begin{equation}
571: a_e({\rm QED})
572: =
573: A_1
574: + A_2(m_e/m_\mu)
575: + A_2(m_e/m_\tau)
576: + A_3(m_e/m_\mu, m_e/m_\tau) \,,
577: \label{ae_qed}
578: \end{equation}
579: %%
580: where $m_e, m_\mu,$ and $m_\tau$ are masses of the electron
581: ($e$), muon ($\mu$) and tau-lepton ($\tau$), respectively.
582: $A_1$, being dimensionless, depends only on the fine structure constant $\alpha$.
583: $A_2$ denotes contributions from the Feynman diagrams which
584: have closed loops of either muon or tau-lepton.
585: $A_3$ stands for the contributions
586: of the Feynman diagrams which contain
587: both $\mu$ loop and $\tau$ loop.
588: Each $A_i$ can be calculated by the QED perturbation theory
589: %%
590: \begin{equation}
591: A_i
592: =
593: A_i^{(2)}\left( \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)
594: + A_i^{(4)}\left( \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)^2
595: + A_i^{(6)}\left( \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)^3
596: + \cdots\,.
597: \end{equation}
598: %%
599:
600: %%% The purpose of this paper is to report the new value of
601: %%% the eighth-order coefficient of $A_1$
602: The purpose of this paper is to give a detailed account of derivation
603: of the revised value of the eighth-order coefficient of $A_1$ reported recently
604: \cite{Aoyama:2007PRL}
605: %%
606: \begin{equation}
607: A_1^{(8)} = -1.914~4~(35)~.
608: \label{newa8}
609: \end{equation}
610: %%
611: %which was obtained by combining the information derived
612: %from the previous result \cite{Kinoshita:2005zr} %{\it [reference needed]}
613: %and a new and independent evaluation of $A_1$
614: %using FORTRAN codes generated by an automatic code
615: %generator {\sc gencode}{\it N} \cite{Aoyama:2005kf,Aoyama:2007IR}.
616:
617: Making use of our automating algorithms
618: % Thanks to the technical progress
619: in handling ultraviolet (UV)
620: and infrared (IR) divergences \cite{Aoyama:2005kf, Aoyama:2007IR},
621: we are now able to generate
622: the eighth-order FORTRAN codes very easily and swiftly.
623: However, numerical evaluation of these codes is
624: still nontrivial and requires a huge computational resource.
625: Thus far the ``new" calculation has achieved
626: a relative uncertainty of about 3 \% .
627: Although this is still more than an order of magnitude
628: less accurate than that of Ref.~\cite{Kinoshita:2005zr},
629: it is good enough for the purpose of checking the old calculation.
630:
631: Comparison of the ``new" %(still preliminary)
632: numerical result
633: with the old one
634: has revealed an inconsistency in the treatment of
635: the IR divergence in the latter.
636: With this error of the old calculation corrected,
637: we now have two independent determinations of $A_1^{(8)}$.
638: Of course, precise evaluation of all terms of ``new" $A_1^{(8)}$
639: by the integration routine VEGAS \cite{vegas}
640: requires an enormous amount of computation.
641: Fortunately, as is described in Sec. \ref{reconst},
642: the correction term itself can be evaluated
643: easily and very precisely.
644: This is why we are able to give the uncertainty in Eq.~(\ref{newa8})
645: which is essentially identical with that of the previous calculation
646: \cite{Kinoshita:2005zr}.
647:
648: Besides $A_1^{(8)}$
649: %%% the known coefficients of Eq. (\ref{ae_qed}) are as follows
650: the known terms of Eq. (\ref{ae_qed}) are as follows
651: \cite{%
652: Schwinger:1948iu,%
653: Petermann:1957,Sommerfield:1957,%
654: Kinoshita:1995,%
655: Laporta:1996mq,%%
656: Samuel:1990qf,Li:1992xf,Czarnecki:1998rc,%
657: Laporta:1993ju,Laporta:1992pa,%
658: Lautrup:1977hs,%
659: Passera:2006gc,%
660: CODATA:2002}:
661: %%
662: \begin{gather}
663: A_1^{(2)} = 0.5, \nonumber \\
664: A_1^{(4)} =-0.328~478~965~579 \cdots, \nonumber \\
665: A_1^{(6)} = 1.181~241~456~587 \cdots, \nonumber \\
666: A_1^{(10)} = 0.0~(4.6), \nonumber \\
667: %% A_2^{(2)}(m_e/m_\mu) = 0, \nonumber \\
668: %% A_2^{(2)}(m_e/m_\mu) = 0, \nonumber \\
669: A_2^{(4)}(m_e/m_\mu ) = 5.197~386~70~(27)\times 10^{-7}, \nonumber \\
670: A_2^{(4)}(m_e/m_\tau ) = 1.837~63~(60)\times 10^{-9}, \nonumber \\
671: A_2^{(6)}(m_e/m_\mu ) =-7.373~941~58~(28)\times 10^{-6}, \nonumber \\
672: A_2^{(6)}(m_e/m_\tau ) =-6.581~9~(19)\times 10^{-8}, \nonumber \\
673: %% A_3^{(2)}(m_e/m_\mu, m_e/m_\tau) = 0, \nonumber \\
674: %% A_3^{(4)}(m_e/m_\mu, m_e/m_\tau) = 0, \nonumber \\
675: A_3^{(6)}(m_e/m_\mu, m_e/m_\tau) = 0.190~945~(62)\times 10^{-12}
676: \,.
677: \label{knownterms}
678: \end{gather}
679: %%
680: Here, $A_1^{(2)}$, $A_1^{(4)}$, and $A_1^{(6)}$ are known analytically.
681: $A_2^{(4)}$, $A_2^{(6)}$ and $A_3^{(6)}$ are known analytically as functions of mass ratios
682: so that their uncertainties are due to those of measured lepton masses only.
683: Note that $A_1^{(10)}$ is actually unknown
684: and the value listed above is
685: an educated guess
686: calculated by the recipe
687: proposed in Ref.~\cite{CODATA:2002}
688: to indicate a likely range of the value taken by $A_1^{(10)}$.
689: This will soon be replaced by a real number,
690: which is being evaluated by FORTRAN codes generated
691: with the help of the automatic code generator {\sc gencode}{\it N}
692: \cite{Aoyama:2005kf,Aoyama:2007IR}. Until then $A_1^{(10)}$
693: in Eq.~(\ref{knownterms})
694: is the largest source of theoretical uncertainty.
695:
696:
697: In order to obtain the numerical value of the theoretical $g\! - \! 2$,
698: an explicit value of the fine structure constant $\alpha$,
699: which is determined by the physical phenomena other than $g\! - \! 2$,
700: is required.
701: At present the best values of $\alpha$ available in the
702: literature are from the Cesium atom experiments
703: \cite{Wicht:2002,Gerginov:2006} and
704: the Rubidium atom experiment \cite{Clade:2006PRA}
705: %%
706: \begin{align}
707: \alpha^{-1}({\rm Cs06}) &= 137.036~000~00~(110)
708: \quad
709: [8.0 {\rm ppb}]\,,
710: \label{alphaCs}
711: \\
712: \alpha^{-1}({\rm Rb06}) &= 137.035~998~84~(91)\phantom{0}
713: \quad
714: [6.7 {\rm ppb}]\,.
715: \label{alphaRb}
716: \end{align}
717: %
718: They lead to the theoretical predictions of $a_e$:
719: %
720: \begin{align}
721: a_e({\rm Cs}) &= 1~159~652~172.99~(0.10)(0.31)(9.32) \times 10^{-12},
722: \nonumber \\
723: a_e({\rm Rb}) &= 1~159~652~182.79~(0.10)(0.31)(7.71) \times 10^{-12},
724: \label{newae}
725: \end{align}
726: %
727: respectively,
728: where the uncertainty $0.10$ comes from the eighth-order result (\ref{newa8}),
729: $0.31$ is an estimated uncertainty of the tenth-order term,
730: and $9.32$ and $7.71$ come from the uncertainties of the input values
731: of the fine structure constants
732: given in Eqs.~(\ref{alphaCs}) and (\ref{alphaRb}).
733: The uncertainty due to the hadronic
734: and weak contributions (\ref{hadweak}) is $0.02\times 10^{-12}$.
735: %%%%%It is very small,
736: %%%%%%but non-negligible compared to the measurement uncertainty (\ref{aeHV06value}).
737: The revised theoretical anomaly $a_e$ is in closer agreement
738: with the experimental
739: %value
740: %%%%%%
741: values
742: %%%%%
743: (\ref{aeHV06value})
744: %%%%%%%
745: and (\ref{aeHV08value})
746: %%%%%%%
747: than the old value \cite{Kinoshita:2005zr}.
748:
749: Unfortunately, the precision of $a_e$ given in Eq.~(\ref{newae}) is
750: not high enough
751: for direct confrontation between the experimental and theoretical
752: $a_e$'s.
753: This is because the uncertainties in $a_e$ due to these $\alpha$'s amount
754: to $9.3 \times 10^{-12}$ for $\alpha({\rm Cs06})$
755: and $7.7 \times 10^{-12}$ for $\alpha({\rm Rb06})$, respectively,
756: which are an order of magnitude
757: larger than the experimental uncertainty $0.76 \times 10^{-12}$ and
758: the theoretical uncertainty $ 0.28 \times 10^{-12}$ of $a_e$.
759:
760: This implies that,
761: assuming the validity of QED,
762: the electron $g\! - \! 2$ is in fact the best source
763: of the fine structure constant $\alpha$,
764: an order of magnitude better than any alternative.
765: Because of high precision of the experiments (\ref{aeHV06value}) and (\ref{aeHV08value})
766: the fine structure constant $\alpha$ determined from $a_e$
767: is rather sensitive to the revision of the theoretical prediction.
768: Equating the Harvard measurements (\ref{aeHV06value}) or (\ref{aeHV08value}), and
769: the theory (\ref{ae_theory}), we obtain \cite{Gabrielse:2006gg,Gabrielse:2007prl, Hanneke:2008}
770: %%
771: \begin{align}
772: &
773: \alpha^{-1}(a_e ({\rm HV06=Th07}) )
774: =
775: 137.035~999~070~(12)(37)(90)
776: \quad
777: [0.71 {\rm ppb}]
778: \,,
779: \label{newalpha} \\
780: &
781: \alpha^{-1}(a_e ({\rm HV08=Th07}) )
782: =
783: 137.035~999~084~(12)(37)(33)
784: \quad
785: [0.37 {\rm ppb}]
786: \,,
787: \label{newalpha08}
788: \end{align}
789: %%
790: where the first and second uncertainties
791: come from the numerical uncertainties
792: of $A_1^{(8)}$ and $A_1^{(10)}$, respectively,
793: and the third in Eq. (\ref{newalpha}) or Eq. (\ref{newalpha08}) comes from the experiment
794: (\ref{aeHV06value}) or (\ref{aeHV08value}), respectively.
795:
796:
797:
798: %% This value of $alpha$ is
799: These values of $\alpha^{-1}$ are
800: smaller than the old $\alpha^{-1} (a_e ({\rm HV06=Th06}))$
801: by $-6.411~80(73) \times 10^{-7}$
802: which is about 4.7 ppb (or about 7 s.~d.),
803: but are still in good agreement
804: with $\alpha^{-1}({\rm Rb06})$ of Eq.~(\ref{alphaCs})
805: and $\alpha^{-1}({\rm Cs06})$ of Eq.~(\ref{alphaRb}),
806: whose uncertainties are about 7 ppb.
807:
808: %%% The summary of our new work on the eighth-order contribution
809: %%% to the electron $g - 2$ was reported in Ref.~\cite{Aoyama:2007PRL}.
810: %%% This paper provides the detail
811: %%% account of
812: %%% how the revised value (\ref{newa8})
813: %%% of the eighth-order term of $A_1$ was reached.
814:
815: The organization of the paper is as follows.
816: In Sec. II, we briefly overview the ``old'' and ``new'' approaches
817: to the numerical calculation of the electron $g\! - \! 2$ in QED.
818: In Sec. III, the diagrams of Group V of the eighth-order term are
819: discussed. We compared the results of the ``old'' and ``new''
820: calculations and found
821: an unaccountable difference in the results of the diagram $M_{18}$.
822: In Sec. IV, the diagram $M_{16}$ is closely examined instead of $M_{18}$.
823: This is because
824: $M_{16}$ has a similar structure to $M_{18}$, but somewhat simpler.
825: We found a source of the discrepancy between the ``old'' and ``new''
826: results and the errors in the ``old'' calculation of $M_{16}$
827: and $M_{18}$ are corrected.
828: Sec. V gives the summary of the updated value of the eighth-order
829: contribution to the electron $g\! - \! 2$.
830:
831: Appendix A presents the tests of the automation system {\sc gencode}{\it N}
832: for the fourth-order and sixth-order $g\! - \! 2$'s.
833: Appendix B gives our renormalization scheme of the magnetic moment amplitude
834: in the ``new'' approach.
835: Similarly, Appendix C gives the renormalization scheme of
836: the renormalization constants in the ``new'' approach.
837:
838: %================================================================
839:
840: \section{Old {\it vs} new approach}
841: \label{sec:automation}
842:
843: The purpose of this paper is the presentation of
844: the results of evaluation of $A_1^{(8)}$ by two independent
845: methods.
846: Although these methods started from the same Feynman-parametric
847: representation of $A_1^{(8)}$, they took different approaches,
848: in particular, in the handling of the self-energy subdiagrams
849: and associated infrared (IR) divergences.
850: Furthermore, the ``new" approach was instrumental in discovering
851: an error in the handling of infrared divergence in the old method \cite{Kinoshita:2005zr}.
852: After correcting this error, we now have two independent evaluations
853: of $A_1^{(8)}$, enhancing substantially the credibility of the calculation.
854:
855:
856:
857:
858:
859: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
860:
861: \subsection{Common starting point}
862: \label{commonstartpoint}
863:
864: The anomalous magnetic moment $a_e$ is given by the static limit
865: of the magnetic form factor that is related to the proper vertex part
866: $\Gamma^\nu$.
867: Throughout this paper our attention is focused on the $q$-type diagrams,
868: namely, proper vertex diagrams that have no
869: closed lepton loops.
870: In both old and ``new" formulations, we use a relation derived from the
871: Ward-Takahashi identity \cite{Cvitanovic:1974uf, Kinoshita:1990}
872: \begin{equation}
873: \Lambda^\nu(p,q)
874: \simeq
875: - q^\mu \left[
876: \frac{\partial\Lambda_\mu(p,q)}{\partial q_\nu}
877: \right]_{q\to 0}
878: - \frac{\partial\Sigma(p)}{\partial p_\nu}
879: \label{wtidentity}
880: \end{equation}
881: between the self-energy part $\Sigma(p)$ and
882: the sum of vertex parts $\Lambda^\nu(p,q)$ obtained by
883: inserting an external vertex in the lepton lines of $\Sigma$ in
884: all possible ways.
885: Here, the momentum of the incoming lepton is $p-\frac{1}{2}q$
886: and that of the outgoing lepton is $p+\frac{1}{2}q$.
887: By means of Eq.~(\ref{wtidentity}) a set of vertex diagrams are amalgamated
888: into a single self-energy-like diagram, which reduces the
889: number of independent integrals substantially. For the
890: eighth-order $q$-type diagrams, the number of Feynman diagrams is reduced from
891: 518 to 74. Taking into account the time-reversal symmetry, the number is
892: further reduced from 74 to 47.
893:
894: The amplitude of the magnetic moment contribution of
895: a diagram is obtained by applying Feynman-Dyson rules
896: of QED in the momentum space.
897: Carrying out the momentum integration analytically,
898: we can express the amplitude of $2n$th-order diagram $\mathcal{G}$
899: as an integral over the Feynman parameters ${z_i}$:
900: \begin{multline}
901: M_\mathcal{G}^{(2n)}
902: =
903: \left(-\frac{1}{4}\right)^{n} (n-1)!
904: \int (dz)_\mathcal{G}
905: \left[
906: \frac{1}{n-1}\left(
907: \frac{E_0 + C_0}{U^2 V^{n-1}} + \frac{E_1 + C_1}{U^3 V^{n-2}} + \cdots
908: \right)
909: \right. \\
910: +
911: \left .
912: \left(
913: \frac{N_0 + Z_0}{U^2 V^{n}} + \frac{N_1 + Z_1}{U^3 V^{n-1}} + \cdots
914: \right)
915: \right],
916: \label{parametricint}
917: \end{multline}
918: where $(dz)_\mathcal{G} = \prod_i d z_i \delta(1-\sum_i z_i)$.
919: The factor $(\alpha/\pi)^n$ is omitted for simplicity.
920:
921: The quantities $E_k$, $C_k$, $N_k$, and $Z_k$ are polynomials
922: of symbols called building blocks $B_{ij}$, $A_i$, and $C_{ij}$
923: \cite{Cvitanovic:1974uf}.
924: The symbols $B_{ij}$ and $U$ are homogeneous polynomials of Feynman
925: parameters, related to the flow of loop momenta in the diagram.
926: The symbol $A_i$ is called scalar current that is associated
927: with the flow of external momenta.
928: They are functions of $B_{ij}$, $U$, and $z_i$.
929: The symbol $C_{ij}$ is given by $z_i, B_{ij}$ and $U$.
930: The denominator function $V$ is defined by
931: \begin{equation}
932: V = \sum_i z_i - G, \qquad G = \sum_i z_i A_i,
933: \label{denominatorV}
934: \end{equation}
935: where the summation is over the electron lines only, and
936: the electron mass is chosen to unity for simplicity.
937:
938:
939: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
940:
941: \subsection{Different structure of integrand}
942:
943: Although the ``old" and ``new" methods have the common starting point,
944: they have an important difference in practice. In the ``old" version
945: of the programs, the size of the integrand was reduced
946: by taking symmetries of a diagram into account.
947: One type of modifications was applied to the integrand by using
948: 8 ``junction laws" and 4 ``loop laws" satisfied by the scalar currents $A_i$
949: (where Feynman parameters $z_i$ play the role of resistance)
950: \cite{Cvitanovic:1974uf,Kinoshita:1990}.
951: Another type of modification was to reduce the number of integration variables by
952: exploiting the fact that in some diagrams the integrand depends only on a particular
953: combination of Feynman parameters.
954: These resulted in substantial reduction in the size of integrands and the amount of
955: computing time required to achieve desired precision.
956: In the ``new'' version, those modifications were not employed at all because
957: they are diagram-specific and not suitable for automation.
958: As a result, the size of FORTRAN source code for $M_{01}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:EighthOrderSetV}), which
959: requires only vertex renormalization, is about 515KB in the ``new" version
960: in contrast to 316KB of the old version.
961: A more notable difference is seen for the diagram $M_{12}$ which requires IR
962: subtraction.
963: % and the integrands have a well-defined analytic difference
964: %in the old and new methods.
965: The ``new" $M_{12}$ occupies 630KB while the old $M_{12}$ occupies only 21KB.
966: As a consequence, the old and ``new" integrals have much different forms so that they can be
967: regarded to be independent of each other as far as numerical integration is concerned.
968: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
969:
970: \subsection{Ultraviolet (UV) divergence}
971: \label{UVsubtraction}
972:
973: The amplitude $M_{\mathcal G}$ has (logarithmic) UV-divergences in general.
974: Suppose we want to find out whether $M_{\mathcal G}$ diverges when all loop momenta
975: of a subdiagram ${\mathcal S}$ consisting of $N_{\mathcal S}$ lines and $n_{\mathcal S}$
976: closed loops go to infinity.
977: In the parametric formulation this limit corresponds to
978: the vanishing of $U$ when all $z_i$ for $i \in {\mathcal S}$ vanish simultaneously.
979: To find the criterion for the UV divergence from ${\mathcal S}$,
980: consider the part of the integration domain where $z_i$ for $i \in S$
981: satisfy $\sum_{i \in {\mathcal S} } z_i \leq \epsilon$.
982: In the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ one finds \cite{Cvitanovic:1974sv,Kinoshita:1990}
983: \begin{align}
984: V &= \mathcal{O}(1),
985: \qquad
986: U = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{n_\mathcal{S}}) \nonumber \\
987: B_{ij} &=
988: \begin{cases}
989: \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{n_\mathcal{S}-1})
990: & \text{for $i,j \in \mathcal{S}$,} \\
991: \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{n_\mathcal{S}})
992: & \text{otherwise}.
993: \end{cases}
994: \label{Eq17}
995: \end{align}
996:
997:
998: %For the vertex subdiagram ${\mathcal S}$
999: %the UV-divergent part can be identified as follows:
1000: The UV-divergent part can be identified by the following procedure
1001: called {\it K}-operation:
1002: \begin{enumerate}[(a)]
1003: \item \label{kop:step1}
1004: In the limit (\ref{Eq17}) keep only terms with the lowest
1005: power of $\epsilon$ in $U$, $B_{ij}$, and $A_i$.
1006: In this limit $U$ factorizes as
1007: $U_\mathcal{S} U_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}$
1008: where $\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}$ is obtained from $\mathcal{G}$
1009: by shrinking $\mathcal{S}$ to a point in $\mathcal{G}$.
1010: $B_{ij}$ factorizes similarly.
1011: $V$ is reduced to $V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}$,
1012: where $V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}$ is
1013: the $V$ function defined on $\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}$.
1014: \item \label{kop:step2}
1015: Replace $V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}$ by
1016: $V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}+V_\mathcal{S}$.
1017: \item \label{kop:step3}
1018: Rewrite the integrand of $M_\mathcal{G}$ in terms of parametric
1019: functions redefined in (\ref{kop:step1}) and (\ref{kop:step2}),
1020: and drop all terms except those with the largest number of
1021: {\it contractions} \cite{Cvitanovic:1974uf} within $\mathcal{S}$.
1022: The result is denoted by $\mathbb{K}_\mathcal{S} M_\mathcal{G}$,
1023: in which $\mathbb{K}_\mathcal{S}$ stands for an operator
1024: acting on $M_\mathcal{G}$.
1025: \end{enumerate}
1026: By construction, $\mathbb{K}_\mathcal{S} M_\mathcal{G}$ has the same UV divergence as $M_\mathcal{G}$ in the same integration domain.
1027: Therefore it can be used as a pointwise subtraction term in the subtractive renormalization.
1028:
1029:
1030: %\vspace*{2mm}
1031: %(a) In the limit (\ref{uvlimit}) keep only terms with the
1032: %lowest power of $\epsilon$
1033: %in $U, B_{ij}, A_i$.
1034: %(Then $U$ factorizes as $U_{\mathcal S} U_{\mathcal R}$, where ${\mathcal R}$ is obtained
1035: %from ${\mathcal G}$ by shrinking
1036: %${\mathcal S}$ to a point in ${\mathcal G}$. $B_{ij}$ factorizes similarly. $V$ is reduced
1037: %to $V_{\mathcal R}$,
1038: %where $V_{\mathcal R}$ is the $V$ function defined on ${\mathcal R}$.)
1039: %
1040: %(b) Replace $V_{\mathcal R}$ by $V_{\mathcal R} + V_{\mathcal S}$.
1041: %
1042: %(c) Rewrite the integrand of $M_{\mathcal G}$ in terms of parametric functions
1043: %redefined in (a) and (b), drop all terms except those with the largest
1044: %number of {\it contractions} \cite{Cvitanovic:1974uf} within ${\mathcal S}$, and call the
1045: %result ${\mathbb K}_{\mathcal S} M_{\mathcal G}$
1046: %(which means that ${\mathbb K}_{\mathcal S}$ is an operator acting on $M_{\mathcal G}$).
1047: %
1048: %
1049: %\vspace*{2mm}
1050: %By construction ${\mathbb K}_{\mathcal S} M_{\mathcal G}$ has the same UV divergence as
1051: %$M_{\mathcal G}$
1052: %so that it can be used as a pointwise subtraction term in the
1053: %subtractive renormalization.
1054:
1055: An important feature of {\it K}-operation
1056: is that the resulting integral can be factorized
1057: exactly into a product or a sum of products
1058: of lower-order quantities that consists of
1059: a leading UV-divergent part of the renormalization constant and
1060: the magnetic moment part.
1061: The {\it K}-operation associated with a UV-divergent subdiagram
1062: $\mathcal{S}$ produces, when $\mathcal{S}$ is of vertex type,
1063: the subtraction term of the form \cite{Cvitanovic:1974sv,Kinoshita:1990}
1064: \begin{equation}
1065: \mathbb{K}_{\mathcal{S}} M_\mathcal{G}
1066: =
1067: L_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV} M_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}
1068: \,,
1069: \end{equation}
1070: where $L_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV}$ is the leading UV-divergent part
1071: of the vertex renormalization constant $L_\mathcal{S}$ and
1072: $M_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}$ is the magnetic moment part of
1073: the reduced diagram $\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}$. %which is obtained
1074: %from $\mathcal{G}$ by shrinking $\mathcal{S}$ to a point.
1075: When $\mathcal{S}$ is a self-energy subdiagram, the {\it K}-operation
1076: yields \cite{Cvitanovic:1974sv,Kinoshita:1990}
1077: \begin{equation}
1078: \mathbb{K}_{\mathcal{S}} M_\mathcal{G}
1079: =
1080: {\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV} M_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}\,(i^\star)}
1081: +
1082: B_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV} M_{\mathcal{G}/[\mathcal{S},i]}
1083: \,,
1084: \end{equation}
1085: where ${\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV}$ is the leading UV-divergent
1086: part of the mass-renormalization constant ${\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}$,
1087: $B_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV}$ is the leading UV-divergent part of
1088: the wave-function renormalization constant $B_{\mathcal{S}}$,
1089: and the reduced diagram $\mathcal{G}/[\mathcal{S},i]$ is obtained
1090: from $\mathcal{G}$ by removing $\mathcal{S}$ and a lepton line $i$
1091: adjacent to $\mathcal{S}$. %simultaneously.
1092:
1093: The whole UV-divergent structure of the amplitude $M_\mathcal{G}$
1094: can be recognized by Zimmermann's forest formula \cite{Aoyama:2005kf}.
1095: A forest is a set of UV-divergent subdiagrams in which any pair
1096: of subdiagrams is either disjoint
1097: (they do not share lines or vertices) or inclusive
1098: (one subdiagram is a subgraph of the other subdiagram).
1099: Each subtraction term corresponds to a forest.
1100: In our formulation, the subtraction term
1101: is obtained by successive application of {\it K}-operations
1102: for every element of the forest.
1103: The UV-finite amplitude $\underline{M}_\mathcal{G}$ created
1104: by {\it K}-operation is thus expressed in the form
1105: \begin{equation}
1106: \underline{M}_\mathcal{G}
1107: =
1108: M_\mathcal{G}
1109: +
1110: \sum_{f} \prod_{\mathcal{S}\in f} \left(-\mathbb{K}_{\mathcal{S}}\right)
1111: M_\mathcal{G}
1112: \,,
1113: \label{uvrenormalized}
1114: \end{equation}
1115: where the summation is taken over the {\it normal forests} of the diagram
1116: $\mathcal{G}$ that do not include $\mathcal{G}$ itself as an element.
1117:
1118: {\it N. B. In both old and ``new" approaches UV divergence is treated
1119: by the same {\it K}-operation.}
1120:
1121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1122:
1123: \subsection{Infrared (IR) divergence}
1124: \label{IRsubtraction}
1125:
1126: A diagram may have an IR singularity when some of the internal
1127: photon momenta vanish.
1128: In order that this singularity becomes actually divergent, however,
1129: it must be enhanced by vanishing of denominators of two or more electron
1130: propagators (called {\it enhancers}) due to kinematical constraints.
1131: Such a situation occurs in diagrams that have self-energy-like subdiagrams.
1132: In Eq. (\ref{parametricint}) this corresponds to the vanishing of $V$-function
1133: of the denominators in the integration domain characterized
1134: by \cite{Cvitanovic:1974sv, Kinoshita:1990}
1135: %\begin{eqnarray}
1136: %z_i &=& {\cal O} (\delta)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm if}~i~{\rm is~ an~electron~line~in}~
1137: % {\mathcal R},
1138: %\nonumber \\
1139: %z_i &=& {\cal O} (1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm if}~i~{\rm is~ a~photon~line~in}~{\mathcal R},
1140: %\nonumber \\
1141: %z_i &=& {\cal O} (\epsilon), \epsilon \sim \delta^2,~~~~{\rm if}~i~\in ~{\mathcal S},
1142: %\label{irlimit}
1143: %\end{eqnarray}
1144: \begin{equation}
1145: z_i = \begin{cases}
1146: \mathcal{O}(\delta)
1147: & \text{if $i$ is an electron line in $\mathcal{R}$,} \\
1148: \mathcal{O}(1)
1149: & \text{if $i$ is a photon line in $\mathcal{R}$,} \\
1150: \mathcal{O}(\epsilon), \quad \epsilon\sim\delta^2, \quad
1151: & \text{if $i \in \mathcal{S}$,}
1152: \end{cases}
1153: \label{irlimit}
1154: \end{equation}
1155: where ${\mathcal R}={\mathcal G}/{\mathcal S}$.
1156:
1157: This enables us to obtain a simple IR power-counting rule for identifying
1158: IR divergent terms.
1159: When there are two enhancers, the amplitude shows a logarithmic
1160: IR divergence. We can identify and construct the corresponding
1161: subtraction term by the following procedure called
1162: $\mathfrak{I}$-operation \cite{Cvitanovic:1974sv,Kinoshita:1990}:
1163: \begin{enumerate}[(a)]
1164: \item In the limit (\ref{irlimit}) keep only terms with lowest power of $\epsilon$
1165: and $\delta$ in $U, B_{ij}, A_i$. The numerator then factorizes to the product
1166: \begin{equation}
1167: F \rightarrow F_{\mathcal R} F_{\mathcal{S}}~,
1168: \end{equation}
1169: where $F_{\mathcal R}$ is a numerical factor obtained by replacing
1170: all scalar currents $A_i$ in the
1171: diagram $\mathcal{R}$ by one.
1172:
1173: \item Make the following replacements:
1174: \begin{equation}
1175: U \rightarrow U_{\mathcal S} U_{\mathcal R},~~~V \rightarrow V_{\mathcal S} + V_{\mathcal R}, ~~~ F \rightarrow F_0 [L_{\mathcal R}] F_{\mathcal S},
1176: \end{equation}
1177: where $F_0 [L_{\mathcal R}]$ is the no-contraction part of the vertex renormalization
1178: constant defined in ${\mathcal R}$. The difference between $F_0[L_{\mathcal R}]$
1179: and $F_{\mathcal R}$ causes a finite difference of the integration.
1180: %$F_{\mathcal S}$ is the product of $\gamma$ matrices
1181: %and $D_i^\mu$ operators for the diagram ${\mathcal S}$.
1182:
1183: \item Rewrite the integrand of $M_{\mathcal G}$ in terms of redefined parametric
1184: functions, keeping only the IR-divergent terms.
1185: \end{enumerate}
1186: In the ``old" method all logarithmic IR divergences
1187: have been subtracted by means of the $\mathfrak{I}$-operation.
1188: However, the case involving linear IR divergence, which has three enhancers,
1189: was handled by an {\it ad hoc} manner
1190: instead of a systematic approach.
1191: Actually, the cause of linear IR-divergence is easy to identify.
1192: It is caused by our treatment of self-energy subdiagram
1193: by means of {\it K}-operation which subtracts only the UV-divergent part
1194: of the self-mass.
1195: The unsubtracted part of self-mass keeps the number of enhancers unchanged,
1196: except in second-order case where the {\it K}-operation subtracts
1197: the self-mass term completely.
1198:
1199: In the ``new" approach, a systematic method is developed to handle
1200: the linear IR divergence. To remove the finite remnant of
1201: self-mass term completely, an {\it R}-subtraction operation \cite{Aoyama:2007IR}
1202: is newly introduced.
1203: After the {\it R}-subtraction operation is carried out, which decreases the number of
1204: enhancers to two, only logarithmic
1205: IR divergences remain, which can be handled by the {\it I}-subtraction operation
1206: similar to, but different in detail
1207: from, the $\mathfrak{I}$-operation of the ``old'' method.
1208:
1209: For a formal treatment, we introduce two operators for these subtractions.
1210: The {\it R}-subtraction operator $\mathbb{R}_\mathcal{S}$ acts as
1211: \begin{equation}
1212: \mathbb{R}_\mathcal{S} \underline{M}_\mathcal{G}
1213: =
1214: {\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm R}
1215: \underline{M}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}\,(i^\star)}
1216: \,,
1217: \end{equation}
1218: where ${\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm R}$ is the residual part
1219: of the mass renormalization constant defined by
1220: \begin{equation}
1221: {\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm R}
1222: =
1223: {\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}
1224: -
1225: {\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV}
1226: +
1227: \sum_{f} \prod_{\mathcal{S}^\prime\in f}
1228: \left(-\mathbb{K}_{\mathcal{S}^\prime}\right)
1229: \widetilde{\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}
1230: \label{dmR}
1231: \end{equation}
1232: in which
1233: the leading UV-divergent part ${\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV}$
1234: and the subdivergent parts associated with the forests
1235: $\prod_{\mathcal{S}^\prime\in f} \left(-\mathbb{K}_{\mathcal{S}^\prime}\right) \widetilde{\delta m}_{\mathcal{S}}$
1236: are subtracted away, where
1237: $\widetilde{\delta m} \equiv {\delta m} - {\delta m}^{\rm UV}$.
1238:
1239: The {\it I}-subtraction operator $\mathbb{I}_\mathcal{S}$ acts
1240: on the UV-renormalized amplitude $\underline{M}_\mathcal{G}$ as
1241: \begin{equation}
1242: \mathbb{I}_\mathcal{S} \underline{M}_\mathcal{G}
1243: =
1244: {L}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}^{\rm R} \underline{M}_\mathcal{S}
1245: \,,
1246: \end{equation}
1247: where ${L}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}^{\rm R}$ is the residual part
1248: of the vertex renormalization constant defined by
1249: \begin{equation}
1250: {L}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}^{\rm R}
1251: =
1252: {L}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}
1253: -
1254: {L}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV}
1255: +
1256: \sum_{f} \prod_{\mathcal{S}^\prime\in f}
1257: \left(-\mathbb{K}_{\mathcal{S}^\prime}\right)
1258: \widetilde{L}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}
1259: \label{LR}
1260: \end{equation}
1261: in which
1262: the leading UV-divergent part ${L}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}^{\rm UV}$
1263: and the subdivergent parts associated with the forests
1264: $\prod_{\mathcal{S}^\prime\in f} \left(-\mathbb{K}_{\mathcal{S}^\prime}\right) \widetilde{L}_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}$
1265: are subtracted away, where
1266: $\widetilde{L} \equiv L - L^{\rm UV}$.
1267:
1268: {\it N. B. The IR power counting rule identifies only IR-divergent terms.
1269: It does not specify how to handle IR-finite term.
1270: The ``new" {\it I}-subtraction operation handles the IR-finite terms differently
1271: from the ``old" $\mathfrak{I}$-operation.
1272: The {\it I}-subtraction operation needs not deal with the IR divergence
1273: associated with a vertex subdiagram of the self-energy-like diagram,
1274: while the $\mathfrak{I}$-operation directly acts on the vertex subdiagram. }
1275:
1276: %Furthermore, this {\it I}-subtraction operation does not
1277: %include an operation where $\mathcal{S}$ is \bf{\emph{not}} a self-energy-like subdiagram.}
1278:
1279:
1280: The whole set of IR subtraction terms can be obtained by
1281: the combinations of these two operations, both of which belong to {\it annotated forests}
1282: \cite{Aoyama:2007IR}.
1283: An annotated forest is a set of self-energy-like subdiagrams, to
1284: each element of which the distinct operation of {\it I}-subtraction
1285: or {\it R}-subtraction is assigned.
1286: The IR-subtraction term associated with an annotated forest is
1287: constructed by successively applying operators $\mathbb{I}$ or
1288: $\mathbb{R}$, and takes the form
1289: \begin{equation}
1290: (-\mathbb{I}_{\mathcal{S}_i})\dots
1291: (-\mathbb{R}_{\mathcal{S}_j})\dots
1292: \underline{M}_\mathcal{G}
1293: \end{equation}
1294: where the annotated forest $\widetilde{f}$ consists of the subdiagrams
1295: $\mathcal{S}_i$, \dots and $\mathcal{S}_j$, \dots.
1296:
1297: {\it N. B. The IR divergence is treated differently in the old and ``new" approaches.
1298: This difference plays an important part in ensuring the independence of two calculations.}
1299:
1300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1301:
1302: \subsection{Residual renormalization}
1303:
1304: Because of difference in the handling of IR divergences in the ``old'' and ``new''
1305: methods,
1306: we obtain different forms of residual renormalization.
1307: Since the ``old'' residual renormalization is described in Refs.~\cite{Cvitanovic:1974sv,Kinoshita:1990},
1308: let us consider here only the ``new'' residual renormalization.
1309:
1310: In the ``new'' approach the
1311: UV- and IR-finite amplitude has the form
1312: \begin{equation}
1313: {\Delta M}_\mathcal{G}
1314: =
1315: M_\mathcal{G}
1316: +
1317: \sum_{f} \prod_{\mathcal{S}\in f} (-\mathbb{K}_{\mathcal{S}} )
1318: M_\mathcal{G}
1319: +
1320: \sum_{ \widetilde{f}}
1321: ( -\mathbb{I}_{\mathcal{S}_i} )\cdots
1322: ( -\mathbb{R}_{\mathcal{S}_j} )\cdots
1323: \underline{M}_\mathcal{G}
1324: \,,
1325: \label{deltamg}
1326: \end{equation}
1327: where $\underline{M}_\mathcal{G}$ is
1328: the UV-finite quantity defined by Eq. (\ref{uvrenormalized}).
1329: $\Delta M_\mathcal{G}$ can be readily turned into a numerical
1330: integration code by {\sc gencode}{\it N}
1331: \cite{Aoyama:2005kf,Aoyama:2007IR} and is to be evaluated by numerical means.
1332:
1333: This procedure is different from the standard on-shell renormalization which is
1334: defined by the on-shell quantities.
1335: The difference between the on-shell quantities and the quantity
1336: evaluated by Eq. (\ref{deltamg}) must be compensated by
1337: products of known lower-order quantities.
1338: We call this step the residual renormalization.
1339: See Appendix B for details.
1340:
1341: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1342: \AllFiguresOfEighthOrderSetV
1343: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1344:
1345:
1346: \section{Eighth-order terms}
1347: \label{Sec:EighthOrderTerms}
1348:
1349: The eighth-order term $A_1^{(8)}$
1350: receives contributions from 891 Feynman diagrams.
1351: The 373 of them have closed lepton loops and
1352: had been evaluated by two or more
1353: independent methods \cite{Kinoshita:2005zr}.
1354: The remaining 518 diagrams of $q$-type
1355: form one gauge-invariant set (Group V).
1356: %In our approach, one self-energy-like
1357: %Feynman diagram represents the sum of seven vertex diagrams
1358: %related by the Ward-Takahashi identity.
1359: %Thus these vertex diagrams are represented by 74 self-energy-like diagrams.
1360: %Taking the time-reversal invariance into account
1361: %the 74 diagrams are reduced to 47 independent
1362: %diagrams shown in Fig.\ref{fig:EighthOrderSetV}.
1363: In our approach they are represented by 47 independent diagrams
1364: shown in Fig.\ref{fig:EighthOrderSetV} by using the relation
1365: derived from Ward-Takahashi identity and the time-reversal symmetry.
1366: Thus far, there is only one complete evaluation
1367: of the eighth-order term, which was performed by numerical means
1368: \cite{Kinoshita:2005zr}.
1369: Some of these diagrams have linear IR divergence,
1370: which was treated by an {\it ad hoc} subtraction method.
1371: In contrast {\sc gencode}{\it N} is capable of dealing with
1372: such hard IR divergence
1373: in a systematic fashion \cite{Aoyama:2007IR}.
1374: The application of {\sc gencode}{\it N} to
1375: the calculation of the eighth-order $q$-type diagrams
1376: provides us the opportunity
1377: not only to test if it works properly,
1378: but also to check the previous result.
1379:
1380: Even in the eighth-order case {\sc gencode}{\it N} creates FORTRAN
1381: programs very rapidly.
1382: The entire 47 program sets are generated in less than ten minutes
1383: on {\sl hp}'s Alpha.
1384: The numerical evaluation is, however, quite non-trivial and requires
1385: a huge computational resource.
1386: For the preliminary evaluation we have used 64 to 256 Xeon CPU's
1387: {\it per} diagram and run the programs
1388: over a few months.
1389: To our surprise it uncovered an inconsistency in the treatment
1390: of IR subtraction terms in the old calculation. In Secs.~\ref{Sec:EighthOrderTerms}
1391: and \ref{m16m18} we describe
1392: how this inconsistency was uncovered
1393: by a detailed comparison of the old code and the code
1394: generated by {\sc gencode}{\it N}.
1395: %As was mentioned already,
1396: %%% and will be described in detail ,
1397: %%% in Section \ref{sec:IR},
1398:
1399: \subsection{IR treatments of the eighth-order diagrams}
1400:
1401: The treatments of IR subtraction terms are
1402: different in {\sc gencode}{\it N} and the ``old" approach.
1403: The difference of IR subtraction terms leads
1404: to the difference of the finite part of the amplitude
1405: $\Delta M_i$ ($i = 01,\,\cdots,\,47$).
1406: The difference
1407: $\Delta M_{i}^{\rm old} - \Delta M_{i}^{\rm new}$
1408: between the old amplitude $\Delta M_{i}^{\rm old}$
1409: and the ``new" one $\Delta M_{i}^{\rm new}$
1410: is finite and can be expressed analytically
1411: in terms of finite lower-order quantities.
1412: % If the numerical discrepancy is found
1413: %between $\Delta M_{i}^{\rm old}$ and $\Delta M_{i}^{\rm new}$
1414: %even after this difference is taken into account,
1415: %there must be something wrong in either the old or new calculation.
1416: We will see if this difference is numerically reproduced
1417: by substituting the numerical values calculated separately for
1418: these lower-order quantities. If the numerical discrepancy is found,
1419: there must be something wrong in either the ``old" or ``new" calculation.
1420: This is what we tried to find out.
1421:
1422: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1423: \MsixteenMeighteenFigure
1424: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1425:
1426: %================================================================
1427:
1428: We noted in Sec. \ref{UVsubtraction} that
1429: the subtraction of UV divergences
1430: is achieved by the same {\it K}-operation
1431: in both {\sc gencode}{\it N} and ``old" calculation.
1432: Therefore,
1433: the difference between $\Delta M_i^{\rm old}$
1434: and $\Delta M_i^{\rm new}$,
1435: if it exists,
1436: comes exclusively from the difference
1437: of IR subtraction procedures between the ``new" and ``old" calculations.
1438: To examine this difference more closely
1439: let us begin by considering relatively simple diagrams which contain only
1440: one second-order self-energy subdiagram.
1441: Diagrams belonging to this class are
1442: $M_{02}$, $M_{03}$, $M_{09}$, $M_{13}$, $M_{14}$,
1443: $M_{15}$, $M_{23}$, $M_{24}$,
1444: $M_{27}$, $M_{43}$, $M_{44}$.
1445: As an example let us consider the diagram $M_{14}$.
1446:
1447:
1448: The IR divergence occurs in $M_{14}$
1449: from the second-order self-energy subdiagram
1450: which consists of an electron line ``2'' and a photon line ``b''
1451: in Fig.~\ref{fig:M14andL6g5}(a).
1452: In the W-T summed diagram this subdiagram plays dual roles.
1453: One part of this subdiagram behaves as a genuine self-mass term
1454: and the associated UV singularity is removed completely
1455: by the ${\mathbb K}_2$-operation.
1456: %by mass renormalization.
1457: Another part works as the second-order magnetic moment $M_2$,
1458: and the residual diagram surrounding $M_2$ behaves
1459: like a sixth-order vertex diagram $L_{6g5}$
1460: of Fig. \ref{fig:M14andL6g5}(b),
1461: which is IR-divergent.
1462: %%%%The finite contribution $\Delta M_{14}$ in the previous program is
1463:
1464: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1465: \MfourteenFigure
1466: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1467:
1468: In the ``old'' approach,
1469: the finite contribution $\Delta M_{14}$ was defined by
1470: %
1471: \begin{equation}
1472: \Delta M_{14}^{\rm old}
1473: \equiv
1474: M_{14}
1475: + \sum_f \prod_{{\mathcal S} \in f}
1476: (- {\mathbb K}_\mathcal{S} ) M_{14}
1477: - (I_{6g5} + I_2 \Delta L_{4l} ) M_2.
1478: \end{equation}
1479: %
1480: Here the second term on the right-hand side
1481: is the sum of UV subtraction terms given
1482: by the {\it K}-operation.
1483: The last two terms beginning with the letter ``$I$''
1484: are the IR subtraction terms generated
1485: by the $\mathfrak{I}$-operations
1486: $\mathfrak{I}_{134567}$ and $\mathfrak{I}_{13}(1-\mathfrak{I}_{134567})$
1487: in the ``old" approach.
1488: They arise from the ``magnetic-moment part''
1489: of the self-energy-like subdiagram mentioned above.
1490: Note that they are exactly identical
1491: with the IR-divergent parts
1492: of $L_{6g5}$:
1493: %
1494: \begin{equation}
1495: L_{6g5}
1496: \equiv
1497: I_{6g5} + I_2 \Delta L_{4l} + \Delta L_{6g5}
1498: - \sum_f \prod_{\mathcal{S} \in f }
1499: (-{\mathbb K}_\mathcal{S}) \widetilde{L}_{6g5}
1500: + L_{6g5}^{\rm UV}
1501: \,.
1502: \label{L6g5}
1503: \end{equation}
1504: %
1505: Here the sum appearing on the right-hand side
1506: %$\sum_f \prod_{s \in f} {\mathbb K}_{\mathcal S} L_{6g5}$
1507: denotes all the UV subdivergences contained in $L_{6g5}$
1508: (whose explicit form is
1509: $-L^{UV}_2 \widetilde{L}_{4c} - L^{UV}_{4l} \widetilde{L}_2 + (L^{UV}_2)^2
1510: \widetilde{L}_2$),
1511: %%% {\bf (To Nio-san: What are you meaning by tilted quantities ???)}
1512: and the last term is the overall UV divergence
1513: of $L_{6g5}$.
1514:
1515: In the ``new'' (or {\sc gencode}{\it N}) approach, we introduce a
1516: %%%``R''esidual term $L_{6g5}^{\rm R}$ of $L_{6g5}$ by
1517: term $L_{6g5}^{\rm R}$ defined by
1518: %
1519: \begin{align}
1520: L_{6g5}^{\rm R}
1521: & \equiv
1522: L_{6g5} - L_{6g5}^{\rm UV}
1523: + \sum_f \prod_{\mathcal{S} \in f}
1524: (-{\mathbb K}_\mathcal{S}) %(L_{6g5}- L_{6g5}^{\rm UV})
1525: \widetilde{L}_{6g5}
1526: \label{L6g5R}
1527: \end{align}
1528: %
1529: and $\Delta M_{14}^{\rm new}$ by
1530: %
1531: \begin{equation}
1532: \Delta M_{14}^{\rm new} = \underline{M}_{14} -{\mathbb I}_{2} ~\underline{M}_{14},
1533: \label{II2M14}
1534: \end{equation}
1535: where ${\mathbb I}_2$ is an $I$-subtraction operation associated with the
1536: self-energy-like subdiagram $\mathcal{S}=\{ 2,b \}$, and yields
1537: \begin{equation}
1538: {\mathbb I}_{2} ~\underline{M}_{14}=L_{6g5}^{\rm R} ~M_2.
1539: \label{L6g5M2}
1540: \end{equation}
1541: From Eqs.(\ref{L6g5}) and (\ref{L6g5R}) we obtain
1542: \begin{equation}
1543: L_{6g5}^{\rm R}
1544: =
1545: I_{6g5}+I_2 \Delta L_{4l} + \Delta L_{6g5}.
1546: \end{equation}
1547: %
1548: This is UV-finite and consists of not only IR divergent terms but also a completely finite term $\Delta L_{6g5}$.
1549: It follows that $\Delta M_{14}^{\rm old}$ and $\Delta M_{14}^{\rm new}$
1550: differ by
1551: %
1552: \begin{equation}
1553: \Delta M_{14}^{\rm old}-\Delta M_{14}^{\rm new}
1554: =
1555: \Delta L_{6g5} M_2
1556: \,.
1557: \label{diff_M14}
1558: \end{equation}
1559: %
1560: Since $\Delta L_{6g5}$ is UV- and IR-finite,
1561: it can be computed without encountering with UV or IR divergence.
1562: This is true
1563: for every $\Delta M_i^{\rm old} - \Delta M_i^{\rm new}$
1564: as it originates from the choice of
1565: finite pieces that accompany the singular terms.
1566: The choice adopted in $\Delta M_{14}^{\rm new}$ turned
1567: out to be preferred since
1568: it leads to a simpler formula and can be readily extended
1569: to other cases.
1570:
1571: All eleven diagrams listed above can be analyzed in the same manner.
1572: The diagrams $M_{04}$, $M_{11}$, $M_{12}$, $M_{17}$, $M_{29}$, $M_{30}$,
1573: which contain two or three {\it second-order}
1574: self-energy-like subdiagrams, are slightly more complicated, but can be
1575: treated in a similar manner.
1576: Evaluation of the diagrams
1577: with one self-energy subdiagram of fourth- or sixth-order
1578: such as $M_{08}$, $M_{10}$, $M_{26}$, $M_{38}$, $M_{40}$, $M_{41}$
1579: is more complicated
1580: and needs the residual self-mass renormalization, the $R$-subtraction,
1581: as well as the $I$-subtraction.
1582: But they do not present particular difficulty
1583: as far as IR subtraction is concerned.
1584: (See Appendix B for more information on these diagrams.)
1585:
1586: The diagrams $M_{28}$, $M_{42}$, $M_{45}$, $M_{46}$, $M_{47}$
1587: are even more complicated due to nested structure, but they
1588: can also be handled by slight extensions. (See Appendix B.)
1589:
1590: The most difficult of the eighth-order $q$-type diagrams
1591: are those containing one second-order self-energy-like subdiagram and one fourth-order
1592: self-energy-like subdiagram, namely, $M_{16}$ and $M_{18}$
1593: of Fig.~\ref{fig:M16andM18}.
1594: The difficulty originates from the fact
1595: that these diagrams have linear IR divergence.
1596: Detailed analysis of these diagrams is deferred to Sec.~\ref{m16m18}.
1597:
1598: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1599: \ComparFirstTable
1600:
1601: \ComparSecondTable
1602:
1603: \ComparThirdTable
1604: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1605:
1606: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1607: \subsection{Numerical result of eighth-order calculation}
1608:
1609: We present the results of our numerical study
1610: for $\Delta M_i^{\rm old} - \Delta M_i^{\rm new}$
1611: in Tables \ref{Table:M01M15}, \ref{Table:M16M30}
1612: and \ref{Table:M31M47}.
1613: In these tables,
1614: the second columns list
1615: the analytic expression of
1616: $\Delta M_i^{\rm old} - \Delta M_i^{\rm new}$
1617: in terms of finite pieces
1618: of lower-order renormalization constants
1619: and magnetic moment amplitudes
1620: multiplied by the multiplicity,
1621: which is 1 for the time-reversal-symmetric diagram and 2 otherwise.
1622: Each value in the third columns,
1623: called ``value A'',
1624: is obtained by substituting
1625: the values of these renormalization constants, etc., listed in Table IV,
1626: for the corresponding expression in the second columns.
1627:
1628: In contrast to value A, each value in the fourth columns,
1629: called ``value B'', is obtained
1630: by taking the difference between the numerical value
1631: $\Delta M_i^{\rm old}$ quoted from the literature \cite{Kinoshita:2005zr} and
1632: the one $\Delta M_i^{\rm new}$ newly calculated
1633: via {\sc gencode}{\it N} according to the ``new" IR subtraction procedure
1634: \cite{Aoyama:2007IR}.
1635: The fifth columns list up
1636: the difference of value A and value B
1637: for each $i$, denoted by $A - B$.
1638: It must be zero within numerical precision
1639: if the whole calculation has been done correctly.
1640: If value A and value B are different, there are two possible sources.
1641: One possibility is that the program used for a numerical calculation has a bug.
1642: %%% It means that in the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{diff_M14}) either
1643: %%% $\Delta M_{14}^{\rm old}$ or $\Delta M_{14}^{\rm new}$, or both
1644: %%% are wrong.
1645: It means that either $\Delta M_i^{\rm old}$ or $\Delta M_i^{\rm new}$ is wrong, or both
1646: are wrong.
1647: The other possibility is that we incorrectly identified
1648: the analytic difference between the ``old'' and ``new'' methods.
1649: %%% as shown in
1650: %%% the left hand side of Eq.(\ref{diff_M14}).
1651: % Otherwise,
1652: %we may miss the proper understanding
1653: %of the difference between the old and new IR subtraction procedures,
1654: %or {\sc gencode}{\it N} is not properly implemented,
1655: %or there is something wrong in the previous calculation.
1656:
1657: For a diagram $M_i$ without any self-energy-like subdiagrams,
1658: the analytic expression of
1659: $\Delta M_i^{\rm old} - \Delta M_i^{\rm new}$
1660: is trivially zero, as it does not have IR divergence.
1661: We can see from the corresponding values B
1662: in Tables~\ref{Table:M01M15},
1663: \ref{Table:M16M30} and \ref{Table:M31M47}
1664: that this is confirmed within the numerical precision employed.
1665:
1666: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1667: \RconstSixthTable
1668: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1669:
1670: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1671: \RconstFourthTable
1672: % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1673:
1674: The diagrams containing self-energy-like subdiagrams
1675: suffer from IR divergence.
1676: Tables~\ref{Table:M01M15},
1677: \ref{Table:M16M30} and \ref{Table:M31M47}
1678: show that ``old'' and ``new'' calculations are
1679: in good agreement for most of these diagrams.
1680: However, a large discrepancy $-0.221~(21)$
1681: is found for the diagram $M_{18}$.
1682: Though no detectable discrepancy is found for $M_{16}$,
1683: it has a structure similar to $M_{18}$
1684: and is somewhat simpler to analyze.
1685: In Section \ref{m16m18}
1686: we thus look for the origin of such a discrepancy
1687: through a detailed investigation of $M_{16}$.
1688:
1689:
1690:
1691:
1692:
1693: %================================================================
1694: \section{Detailed examination of $M_{16}$}
1695: %\section{IR subtraction terms in $M_{16}$}
1696: \label{m16m18}
1697:
1698:
1699:
1700: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1701:
1702: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1703: %\subsection{focus on $I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a}$}
1704:
1705: In the ``old'' approach
1706: the finite contribution $\Delta M_{16}$ was given by \cite{Kinoshita:1981wm, Kinoshita:1990}
1707: %
1708: \begin{align}
1709: \Delta M_{16}^{\rm old}
1710: &\equiv
1711: M_{16}
1712: + {\sum_{f}} \prod_{\mathcal{S}\in f}
1713: (-{\mathbb K}_\mathcal{S}) M_{16}
1714: \nonumber \\
1715: &- I_{6c1} M_2
1716: - \frac{1}{2} J_{6c} M_2
1717: - I_{4s} \Delta M_{4a}
1718: - \Delta \delta m_{4a} I_{4b(1^\star)}
1719: + I_{2^\star} \Delta \delta m_{4a} M_2
1720: \,,
1721: \end{align}
1722: %
1723: while the ``new'' version is given by
1724: \begin{align}
1725: \Delta M_{16}^{\rm new}
1726: &\equiv
1727: M_{16}
1728: + {\sum_{f}} \prod_{\mathcal{S} \in f}
1729: (-{\mathbb K}_\mathcal{S}) M_{16}
1730: \nonumber \\
1731: &- L_{6c1}^{\rm R} M_2
1732: - L_{4s}^{\rm R} \Delta M_{4a}
1733: - \Delta \delta m_{4a} \underline{M}_{4b(1^\star)}
1734: + L_{2^\star}^{\rm R} \Delta \delta m_{4a} M_2
1735: \,,
1736: \end{align}
1737: where $L_{2^\star}^{\rm R} = I_{2^\star}$.
1738: Note that ``$2^\star$'' denotes
1739: the second-order diagram with
1740: a two-point vertex inserted into the internal lepton line.
1741: ``$4b(1^\star)$'' denotes
1742: the diagram obtained from the fourth-order diagram $4b$ by inserting
1743: a two-point vertex into the lepton line $1$ .
1744:
1745: \subsection{Unrenormalized amplitude and UV subtraction terms of $M_{16}$}
1746:
1747:
1748: We began our examination by comparing the unrenormalized amplitude $M_{16}$
1749: and its UV subtraction terms %of $M_{16}$
1750: in the ``old'' and ``new'' programs.
1751: For this purpose we used the ``spot-check'' method,
1752: by which the values of ``old'' and ``new''
1753: integrands are compared at the same set of numerical values
1754: of integration variables.
1755: The integrand of $M_{16}$ is defined in the Feynman
1756: parameter space that spans a hyperplane in 11-dimensional space
1757: satisfying
1758: \begin{equation}
1759: z_1+z_2+ \cdots +z_7 + z_a + z_b + z_c+z_d=1~.
1760: \end{equation}
1761: In the ``new" version,
1762: this hyperplane is mapped onto a unit 10-dimensional hypercube.
1763: On the other hand, in
1764: the ``old'' version the integration space is mapped onto an 8-dimensional
1765: hypercube, since the integrand depends only on the combination of Feynman
1766: parameters $z_{137}=z_1+z_3+z_7$.
1767: To carry out the spot check, we must use the same mappings, so
1768: we changed the mapping of the ``new'' integrand to the ``old" one
1769: defining $z_1=z_3=z_7=(1/3) z_{137}$.
1770: In practice the set of input parameters is chosen from the neighborhood of the
1771: singular point of interest where numerical disagreement is likely to be magnified.
1772: But points too close to the singular point are avoided, where the noise due
1773: to round-off error obscures the meaningful information.
1774: The ``old'' integrals and ``new'' integrals
1775: of the unrenormalized term and UV subtraction terms
1776: should be algebraically equivalent but
1777: have different forms because of extensive simplification of the ``old'' integrands
1778: by means of various relations among scalar currents.
1779: The ``spot-check'' comparison of ``old'' and ``new'' unrenormalized and
1780: UV integrands proves unambiguously
1781: that they have nevertheless the same values within the precision of numerical evaluation. (Typically
1782: more than 10 digits in 14 digits precision.)
1783:
1784: \subsection{IR subtraction terms of $M_{16}$}
1785:
1786: The ``spot-check'' method, however, is not directly applicable for comparison of
1787: ``old'' and ``new'' IR subtraction terms,
1788: because they are algebraically different by construction.
1789: For this purpose we need to understand precisely
1790: the analytic structure of the IR subtraction terms in both ``old'' and
1791: ``new'' methods. Thus we follow an alternative approach by which we can
1792: identify how they differ from each other in the analytic form.
1793:
1794: In the ``old'' method, the IR singularities of $M_{16}$ are isolated by the
1795: $\mathfrak{I}_\mathcal{R}$-operations, where $\mathcal{R}$ = $\{1,3,7,a\}, \{1,2,3,7,a,b\}, $ or $\{1,3,4,5,6,7,a,c,d\}$.
1796: Thus, the formal expression
1797: of the IR-free contribution of $M_{16}$ is given by
1798: \cite{Cvitanovic:1974sv}
1799: \begin{equation}
1800: \overline{\Delta M_{16}} \equiv (1-\mathfrak{I}_{137})(1-\mathfrak{I}_{134567})(1-\mathfrak{I}_{1237}) \underline{M}_{16},
1801: \label{irfree}
1802: \end{equation}
1803: where $\underline{M}_{16}$ is the UV-finite amplitude obtained
1804: by the {\it K}-operations.
1805: The product $\mathfrak{I}_{134567} \mathfrak{I}_{1237}$ gives no contribution,
1806: since they overlap each other
1807: and cannot take these IR limits simultaneously.
1808:
1809: Following the ``old'' prescription in Ref. \cite{Cvitanovic:1974sv},
1810: individual IR subtraction terms of Eq. (\ref{irfree}) can be written as follows:
1811: \begin{align}
1812: & -\mathfrak{I}_{134567}\underline{M}_{16} = -I_{6c1} M_2 ,
1813: \label{I134567M16} \\
1814: & -\mathfrak{I}_{1237}\underline{M}_{16} = -I_{4c}\Delta M_{4a}
1815: - M_{4b(1^\star)}[I] \Delta \delta m_{4a},
1816: \label{I1237M16} \\
1817: & -\mathfrak{I}_{137}(1-\mathfrak{I}_{134567})(1-\mathfrak{I}_{1237})\underline{M}_{16}
1818: = + I_{2^\star} \Delta \delta m_{4a} M_2
1819: \label{I137XXM16} ~.
1820: %\label{I-operation_for_M16}
1821: \end{align}
1822: $I_{6c1}$ and $I_{4c}$ are the no-contraction terms of the vertex renormalization
1823: constant $L_{6c1}$ and $L_{4c}$, respectively. $M_{4b(1^\star)}$ is the magnetic
1824: moment amplitude, which is obtained from the fourth-order diagram $M_{4b}$ with
1825: the two-point vertex inserted into the fermion line $1$. Its argument $[I]$ implies
1826: that the numerator of the no-contraction term of $M_{4b(1^\star)}$ is replaced by that
1827: of the vertex renormalization constant $L_{4s}$,
1828: while discarding the contraction terms.
1829:
1830: If there were only
1831: logarithmic IR divergence, $\overline{\Delta M}_{16}$ defined in (\ref{irfree}) would be
1832: IR-finite, but it is not.
1833: The problem here is that $I_{6c1}$ and $M_{4b(1^\star)}[I]$ in Eqs. (\ref{I134567M16})
1834: and (\ref{I1237M16}) have linear IR divergence.
1835: The $\mathfrak{I}$-operation prescription is constructed so that it only deals with
1836: the leading IR singularity.
1837: Of all eighth-order $q$-type diagrams,
1838: $M_{16}$ and $M_{18}$ have the linear IR divergence. Since these are the only cases,
1839: we chose to deal with their next-to-leading-order IR divergences
1840: by an $ad~ hoc$ method rather than
1841: constructing a general rule.
1842:
1843: In the $\mathfrak{I}_{134567}$ limit of Eq. (\ref{I134567M16}),
1844: the diagram $M_{16}$ decouples into
1845: the vertex diagram $L_{6c1}$ which consists of lepton lines $1,3,4,5,6,7$ and
1846: photon lines $a,c,d$ and the magnetic moment part $M_2$ which consists of lepton line
1847: $2$ and photon line $b$. All IR singularities originate from
1848: the vertex diagram $L_{6c1}$. The no-contraction term $L_{6c1}[F_0]$,
1849: namely $I_{6c1}$, includes the leading linear
1850: IR singularity as well as the next-to-leading logarithmic singularity.
1851:
1852:
1853: The logarithmic IR singularity also arises from
1854: the $\mathfrak{I}_{137}$-limit of the one-contraction term $L_{6c1}[F_1]$.
1855: To deal with this, we constructed the quantity $J_{6c}^{\rm unrenorm.} $
1856: in which the numerator is
1857: the $\mathfrak{I}_{137}$ limit
1858: of $L_{6c1}[F_1]$, but the denominator $V$ and $U$ is the same as $L_{6c1}$.
1859: The UV divergences of $J_{6c}^{\rm unrenorm.}$ are removed by the ${\mathbb K}_{456}, {\mathbb K}_{56}, {\mathbb K}_{45}$-operations:
1860: \begin{align}
1861: \frac{1}{2} J_{6c}& = (1-{\mathbb K}_{456})(1-{\mathbb K}_{45})(1-{\mathbb K}_{56})
1862: \left ( -\frac{1}{32} \int (dz)_{G/S} \frac{f_1}{U^3 V^2} \right ), \nonumber \\
1863: & f_1 = -16 [ B_{45}(2-A_6) + 2 B_{46}(1-2A_5) + B_{56} ( 2-A_4) ]~~,
1864: \end{align}
1865: where $S=\{2,b\}$.
1866:
1867:
1868:
1869: Next we consider the $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-limit of Eq. (\ref{I1237M16}).
1870: In this limit, the
1871: self-energy-like subdiagram consisting of lepton lines $4,5,6$ and
1872: photon lines $c,d$ plays dual roles. When this fourth-order
1873: self-energy-like subdiagram behaves as a magnetic moment $M_{4a}$, the residual
1874: diagram resembles a vertex diagram $L_{4s}$. Its singularity is
1875: logarithmic, so $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-operation properly works for this part.
1876:
1877: The problem arises when the self-energy-like subdiagram acts as the self-mass
1878: $\delta m_{4a}$, which is the second one of its dual roles.
1879: The residual
1880: diagram is the magnetic moment amplitude with one two-point vertex
1881: inserted, namely, $M_{4b(1^\star)}$. The power counting shows that it has a linear
1882: IR singularity. Thus, the $\mathfrak{I}$-operation is not enough to remove
1883: the IR singularity of this term. $M_{4b(1^\star)}[I]$ is not sufficient
1884: to remove all IR singularities arising in the $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$ limit.
1885: The IR structure of $M_{4b(1^\star)}$ is more closely
1886: scrutinized in the next subsection, where
1887: $I_{4b(1^\star)}$ is constructed to
1888: include both linear and logarithmic IR singularities of the magnetic moment
1889: amplitude $M_{4b(1^\star)}$.
1890: (A similar subtraction method works also for $M_{18}$.)
1891:
1892: Taking these considerations into account, we replace
1893: the IR subtraction terms of $M_{16}$ in the ``old'' method listed in Eqs. (\ref{I134567M16}) and (\ref{I1237M16}) with \cite{Kinoshita:1981wm, Kinoshita:1990}
1894: \begin{align}
1895: &-\mathfrak{I}_{134567}^{\prime} \underline{M}_{16} = -(I_{6c1} +\frac{1}{2} J_{6c})M_2
1896: \label{oldI134567M16} \\
1897: &-\mathfrak{I}_{1237}^{\prime} \underline{M}_{16} = -I_{4c}\Delta M_{4a} - I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a}~
1898: \label{oldI1237M16}
1899: \end{align}
1900: which are more convenient for comparison with the ``new" approach.
1901: Note that Eq.(\ref{I137XXM16}) is unchanged.
1902:
1903: Now, let us look at the ``new'' approach.
1904: All IR singularities, both linear and logarithmic,
1905: are subtracted by using the general rule applicable to any order of the
1906: perturbation theory.
1907: The $R$- and $I$-subtractions, and their combinations determine the
1908: IR subtraction terms of $M_{16}$ as follows:
1909: \begin{eqnarray}
1910: &&-{\mathbb I}_{2}{\underline M}_{16} = - L_{6c1}^{\rm R}~ M_2~, \nonumber \\
1911: &&-{\mathbb I}_{456}{ \underline M}_{16} = -L_{4s}^{\rm R}~ {\underline M}_{4a},
1912: \nonumber \\
1913: &&-{\mathbb R}_{456}{ \underline M}_{16} =
1914: -\delta m_{4a}^{\rm R}~ { \underline M}_{4b(1^\star)}~, \nonumber \\
1915: &&+{\mathbb I}_{2}{\mathbb R}_{456}~{\underline M}_{16} =
1916: +L_{2^\star}^{\rm R}~ \delta m_{4a}^{\rm R} ~M_2~~.
1917: \label{newIRtermsofM16}
1918: \end{eqnarray}
1919: By definition given in Eqs. (\ref{dmR}) and (\ref{LR}),
1920: the residual quantities are explicitly given by
1921: \begin{align}
1922: L_{6c1}^{\rm R} &= (1-{\mathbb K}_{456})(1-{\mathbb K}_{45})(1-{\mathbb K}_{56})
1923: (L_{6c1} -L_{6c1}^{UV}) \nonumber \\
1924: &=
1925: L_{6c1} -L_{6c1}^{UV}
1926: -(B_{4a}^{UV} \widetilde{L}_2^{'} + \delta m_{4a}^{UV} L_{2^\star})
1927: -2 L_2^{UV}\widetilde{L}_{4s}
1928: + 2 L_2^{UV} (\delta m_2 L_{2^\star} + B_2^{UV} \widetilde{L}_2^{'} )
1929: , \nonumber \\
1930: L_{4s}^{\rm R} & = (1-{\mathbb K}_{2}) (L_{4s}-L_{4s}^{UV})
1931: = L_{4s}-L_{4s}^{UV}-(B_2^{UV}\widetilde{L}_2^{'} + \delta m_2 L_{2^\star} ), \nonumber \\
1932: \underline{M}_{4a}& =(1-{\mathbb K}_{45})(1-{\mathbb K}_{56})M_{4a}
1933: = M_{4a}- 2 L_2^{UV} M_2 ~,\nonumber \\
1934: \delta m_{4a}^{\rm R} &= \delta m_{4a}-\delta m_{4a}^{UV} \nonumber \\
1935: \underline{M}_{4b(1^\star)} & = (1-{\mathbb K}_2) M_{4b(1^\star)}
1936: = M_{4b(1^\star)} - (B_2^{UV} M_{2^\star}+\delta m_2 M_{2^{\star \star}})~,
1937: \end{align}
1938: %
1939: where $\widetilde{L} = L - L^{UV}$. (See below Eq. (\ref{dmR}).)
1940: In terms of the ``old'' expression of the unrenormalized amplitude
1941: and renormalization constants, the residual quantities
1942: are related to the
1943: IR divergent and finite pieces of the ``old'' method by the following relations:
1944: \begin{align}
1945: &L_{6c1}^{\rm R} = I_{6c1} + \frac{1}{2} J_{6c} + \Delta L_{6c1}~, \nonumber \\
1946: &L_{4s}^{\rm R} = I_{4s} + \Delta L_{4s}, \nonumber \\
1947: &\underline{M}_{4a}=\Delta M_{4a},\nonumber \\
1948: & \delta m_{4a}^{\rm R} = \Delta \delta m_{4a}, \nonumber \\
1949: & \underline{M}_{4b(1^\star )} = I_{4b(1^\star )} +\Delta M_{4b(1^\star )}~~.
1950: \end{align}
1951:
1952: We are now ready to compare the IR subtraction terms of ``old'' and ``new'' method side by side:
1953: \begin{equation}
1954: \begin{array}{lllll}
1955: &~~~~~~&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rm old}&~~~~~~~&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\rm new} \\
1956: (a)&& - (I_{6c1}+\frac{1}{2}J_{6c} ) M_2 && - (I_{6c1}+\frac{1}{2}J_{6c}+\Delta L_{6c1}) M_2 \\
1957: (b)&& - I_{4s} \Delta M_{4a} && - (I_{4s}+\Delta L_{4s}) \Delta M_{4a} \\
1958: (c)&& - I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a} &&- (I_{4b(1^\star)}+\Delta M_{4b(1^\star)})\Delta \delta m_{4a} \\
1959: (d)&& + I_{2^\star} \Delta \delta m_{4a} M_2 && + I_{2^\star} \Delta \delta m_{4a} M_2 ~.
1960: \end{array}
1961: \label{comparIRofM16}
1962: \end{equation}
1963: Actually, instead of examining the IR subtraction terms
1964: of the ``old'' method themselves %for the spot-check purpose
1965: we reconstructed them from the ``new'' programs
1966: by dropping %``redundant''
1967: finite terms (eg. $\Delta L_{4s}$ ) from the ``Residual'' term (eg. $L_{4s}^{\rm R}$),
1968: and compared them with the terms in the ``old'' programs by the spot-check method.
1969: To obtain $I_{6c1}$ and $I_{4s}$, we only need to comment out
1970: the contraction terms (equivalently drop the terms proportional to $B_{ij}$)
1971: of $L_{6c1}^{\rm R}$
1972: and $L_{4s}^{\rm R}$ of the ``new'' programs.
1973: In this way,
1974: we found that the {\it reconstructed} IR subtraction terms from the ``new" programs
1975: are identical with ``old'' ones for (a), (b), and (d). %, but different for (c).
1976:
1977: However,
1978: the ``old'' IR subtraction term (c) $I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a}$
1979: cannot be constructed by such a simple recipe
1980: from the ``new'' programs generated by {\sc gencode}{\it N}.
1981: Dropping the finite terms in $\underline{M}_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a}$ is not
1982: enough to reproduce $I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a}$.
1983: Therefore, we reconstructed the subtraction term $I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta
1984: m_{4a}$ from the scratch
1985: using the definitions of the fourth-order quantities $I_{4b(1^\star)}$ and
1986: $\Delta \delta m_{4a}$.
1987: Then, the result is compared with the integrand in the ``old" program of
1988: $\Delta M_{16}^{\rm old}$.
1989:
1990:
1991: %----------------------------------------------------------------
1992: \subsection{$I_{4b(1^\star)}\Delta \delta m_{4a}$ by the ``old" $\mathfrak{I}$-operation}
1993:
1994: Let us first explain how $I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a}$ is obtained
1995: in the ``old" program.
1996: In the %QED book
1997: old approach, the IR subtraction term $I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a}$
1998: originates from the $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-operation.
1999: In addition to this term, $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$
2000: operation yields the term $ I_{4s} \Delta M_{4a}$.
2001:
2002: The IR-limit associated with
2003: the operator $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$ is given by
2004: %
2005: \begin{equation}
2006: {z_a+z_b = 1-\mathcal{O}(\delta)},
2007: \quad
2008: {z_1, z_2, z_3, z_7 = \mathcal{O}(\delta)},
2009: \quad
2010: {z_4, z_5, z_6, z_c, z_d = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon)},
2011: \quad
2012: \epsilon \sim \delta^2,
2013: \quad
2014: \delta \rightarrow 0.
2015: \end{equation}
2016: %
2017: In the neighborhood of this limit we have
2018: $A_1 = 1 - \mathcal{O} (\delta)$, %$A_2 \sim z_b/z_{2b}$,
2019: $A_2 = 1 - \mathcal{O}(\delta)$,
2020: and $V={\mathcal{O}} (\delta^2)$.
2021: %-------------->8-------------------------
2022: As is discussed in the previous section, the result of $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-operation
2023: includes both linear and logarithmic IR divergences.
2024: In particular, the linear divergence is associated
2025: with $\mathfrak{I}_{137} \mathfrak{I}_{1237}$ limit.
2026: If we apply the
2027: $\mathfrak{I}_{137} \mathfrak{I}_{1237}$ operation, however,
2028: it subtracts the linear divergence correctly, but not the logarithmic
2029: divergence.
2030: Thus, we chose an {\it ad hoc} method
2031: in which the piece including linear divergence is separated out
2032: from the result of $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-operation and put aside for a while.
2033: The remainder that contains only logarithmic divergence is named $f_k$.
2034: The linear divergent piece is redefined so that
2035: it is defined on the subdiagram $\{ 1, 2, 3, 7, a, b \}$ without decomposing
2036: it into two subdiagrams $\{ 2, b \}$ and $\{ 1, 3, 7, a \}$, which occurs
2037: in the na\"ive $\mathfrak{I}_{137} \mathfrak{I}_{1237}$ limit.
2038: This term is named $f_l$.
2039: The explicit forms of $f_k$ and $f_l$ in the old FORTRAN program of $\Delta M_{16}$ read:
2040: %As is discussed in the previous section,
2041: %the result of $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-operation
2042: %includes both the linear and the logarithmic IR divergences.
2043: %In particular, the linear divergence is associated with
2044: %$\mathfrak{I}_{137}\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$ limit.
2045: %%% To remove the next-to-leading order divergence of this limit, we do not use
2046: %%% the $I_{137}I_{1237}$-operation, since it removes only the leading linear singularity.
2047: %However, we cannot simply use $\mathfrak{I}_{137}\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-operation
2048: %because it removes only the leading linear divergence and it
2049: %does not deal with the next-to-leading-order divergence.
2050: %%% Alternatively, we drop the linear IR divergent piece from the result of the $I_{1237}$
2051: %Therefore, we instead chose an alternative method in which
2052: %we simply drop the terms including a linear IR divergent piece from the result
2053: %of the $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-operation. The remainder of $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}M_{16}$
2054: %is called $f_k$ in the ``old" FORTRAN program of $\Delta M_{16}$.
2055: %The separated term containing lienar IR-divergence
2056: %is redefined without decomposing the subdiagram $\{ 1,2,3,7,a,b \}$
2057: %into two subdiagrams $\{ 2,b\}$ and $\{ 1,3,7,a \}$. The resultant is named $f_l$.
2058: %%% Thus, the integrands $f_k$ and $f_l$ appear in the ``old'' FORTRAN program
2059: %%% for $\Delta M_{16}$.
2060: %Therefore we chose instead an alternative method in which we split the integrand
2061: %$\mathfrak{I}_{1237}M_{16}$ into two parts $f_k$ and the remainder which contains
2062: %the linear IR divergence. The
2063: %latter term is redefined without decomposing the subdiagram $\{ 1,2,3,7,a,b \}$
2064: %into two subdiagrams $\{ 2,b\}$ and $\{ 1,3,7,a \}$.
2065: %Using $f_k$ and $f_l$ as the name of integrals themselves,
2066: %their explicit forms in the ``old" FORTRAN program of $\Delta M_{16}$ are
2067: %
2068: \begin{equation}
2069: f_k
2070: =
2071: \int(dz)_\mathcal{G}\,
2072: \frac{1}{4 U^2 } L_{4s}[F_0]
2073: \left(
2074: \frac{ E_0 + C_0 + \delta m_{4a}[f_0] + g_\mathcal{S} F_1 + Y_1}{ V^3 }
2075: + \frac{ 3(g_\mathcal{S}-V_t) \delta m_{4a}[f_0] + Y_0 }{ V^4 }
2076: \right)
2077: \,,
2078: \end{equation}
2079: %
2080: \begin{equation}
2081: f_l
2082: =
2083: -\frac{3}{2}
2084: \int (dz)_\mathcal{G}\,
2085: \frac{ \delta m_{4a}[f_0] }{ U^2V^4 }
2086: z_2(1-A_2)^2 (-1+6A_1-3A_1^2+2A_1^3)
2087: \,,
2088: \end{equation}
2089: %
2090: %where $(dz)_G \equiv dz_1 dz_2 \cdots dz_7 dz_a \cdots dz_d \delta
2091: %(1-z_1-\cdots -z_7-z_a-\cdots -z_d)$.
2092: %
2093: where
2094: %
2095: \begin{gather}
2096: L_{4s}[F_0]=(4A_1-2A_2)(1-A_1+A_1^2)+(-2+A_1A_2)(1-4A_1+A_1^2) \nonumber \\
2097: F_1=B_{45}(2-A_6)/U+2B_{46}(1-2A_5)/U+B_{56}(2-A_4)/U \nonumber \\
2098: \begin{aligned}
2099: Y_1 =
2100: & -z_4(B_{45}(1-A_6)+B_{46}+B_{56}A_4)/U \nonumber \\
2101: & +z_5(B_{45}(1-A_6)-4B_{46}A_5+B_{56}(1-A_4))/U \nonumber \\
2102: & -z_6(B_{45}A_6+B_{46}+B_{56}(1-A_4))/U
2103: \end{aligned}
2104: \nonumber\\
2105: V_t=z_{137}(1-A_1)-z_2(1-A_2) \nonumber \\
2106: E_0=2A_4A_5A_6-A_4A_5-A_4A_6-A_5A_6 \nonumber \\
2107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&&EC_0=E_0-3z_8z_9/u_2\nonumber \\
2108: %%%%%%&&C_0=E_0+1-2 A_5 -3z_cz_d/U_2\nonumber \\
2109: C_0= -3z_cz_d/U_\mathcal{S} \nonumber
2110: \end{gather}
2111: \vspace{-0.5cm}
2112: \begin{gather}
2113: \delta m_{4a}[f_0]=E_0+1-2A_5 \nonumber \\
2114: \begin{aligned}
2115: Y_0 =
2116: & z_4(-A_4+A_5+A_6+A_4A_5+A_4A_6-A_5A_6) \nonumber \\
2117: & +z_5(1-A_4A_5+A_4A_6-A_5A_6+2A_4A_5A_6) \nonumber \\
2118: & +z_6(A_4+A_5-A_6-A_4A_5+A_4A_6+A_5A_6)
2119: \end{aligned}
2120: \nonumber \\
2121: g_\mathcal{S} = z_4 A_4+z_5 A_5+z_6 A_6
2122: \,.
2123: \label{miscdef}
2124: \end{gather}
2125: %
2126: %
2127: The building blocks $U, V, A_i, B_{ij}$ of the above integrands are
2128: obtained from those for $M_{16}$
2129: by taking the IR-limit associated with the $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$-operation.
2130: Recall that in the IR-limit
2131: the subdiagram $\mathcal{S}$ consisting of the fermion lines $4,5,6$ and
2132: photon lines $c,d$, and the reduced diagram $\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}$
2133: consisting of the fermion lines $1,\,2,\,3,\,7$
2134: and the photon lines $a,b$
2135: decouple from each other.
2136: Thus, the building blocks are actually the same as those
2137: obtained by taking the UV-limit associated
2138: with the ${\mathbb K}_{456}$ limit.
2139: Their explicit forms are
2140: \begin{gather}
2141: U = U_\mathcal{S}~U_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}},
2142: \nonumber \\
2143: U_\mathcal{S} = z_{46cd} z_{5} + z_{4c}z_{6d},
2144: \qquad
2145: U_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}} = z_{137a} z_{2b}+z_2z_b
2146: \nonumber \\
2147: V = V_\mathcal{S} + V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}},
2148: \nonumber \\
2149: V_\mathcal{S} = z_{456}-z_4 A_4-z_5 A_5 - z_6 A_6 + \lambda^2 z_{cd},
2150: \qquad
2151: V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}
2152: = z_{1237} - z_{137}A_1 - z_2 A_2 + \lambda^2 z_{ab},
2153: \nonumber \\
2154: %\end{gather}
2155: %\vspace{-0.9cm}
2156: %\begin{gather}
2157: A_i = 1 - \sum_{j=1}^7 z_i B_{ij}/U,
2158: \quad
2159: i=1,\cdots 7,
2160: \nonumber \\
2161: B_{11}=B_{13}=B_{17}=B_{33}=B_{37}=B_{37}= z_{2b} U_\mathcal{S},
2162: \nonumber \\
2163: B_{45} = z_{6d}~U_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}},
2164: \qquad
2165: B_{46}= -z_5~U_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}},
2166: \qquad
2167: B_{56}=z_{4c}~U_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}},
2168: \nonumber \\
2169: B_{ij} =0
2170: \quad
2171: \text{for $i \in \mathcal{S}$ and $j \in \mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}$.}
2172: \end{gather}
2173: %%
2174: In the above $z_{i_1 i_2 \cdots}$ stands for $z_{i_1}+z_{i_2}+\cdots$
2175: and the electron mass is taken as a unit of mass scale
2176: (i.e., 1) and the photon mass is $\lambda$.
2177: %See the precise definitions of them in Ref. \cite{Cvitanovic:1974uf,
2178: %Aoyama:2005kf, Aoyama:2007IR}.
2179: In the leading order of the $\mathfrak{I}_{1237}$ limit
2180: $L_{4s} [F_0]$ tends to $4$.
2181: The actual form of $L_{4s} [F_0]$ in Eq.~(\ref{miscdef}) was chosen
2182: so that the integral $f_k$ decouples into {\it known} lower-order
2183: quantities.
2184: This difference for $L_{4s}[F_0]$ is IR-finite.
2185: Note that $\delta m_{4a}[f_0]$ is related to the integrand of
2186: $\Delta \delta m_{4a}$, namely, the UV- and IR-finite
2187: part of the mass renormalization constant $\delta m_{4a}$
2188: given later in Eq.~(\ref{dm4a}).
2189: %Note also that the sign in front of $z_2$ in $V_t$ is wrong.
2190: %It originated from a typo which propagated elsewhere.
2191:
2192: In order to clarify the structure of $f_k$ and $f_l$, let us split
2193: $f_k$ into the three parts $f_{k1}, f_{k2}, f_{k3}$,
2194: %
2195: \begin{align}
2196: f_{k1}
2197: &=
2198: \int(dz)_\mathcal{G} \frac{ 1 }{ 4 U^2 } L_{4s}[F_0]
2199: \left(
2200: \frac{ E_0 + C_0 + g_{\mathcal{S}} F_1 + Y_1 }{ V^3 }
2201: + \frac{ 3g_\mathcal{S} \delta m_{4a}[f_0] + Y_0 }{ V^4}
2202: \right),
2203: \nonumber \\
2204: f_{k2}
2205: &=
2206: \int(dz)_\mathcal{G} \frac{ 1 }{ 4 U^2 } L_{4s}[F_0] \delta m_{4a}[f_0]
2207: \left(
2208: \frac{ 1 }{ V^3 } - \frac{ 3z_{137}(1-A_1) }{ V^4 }
2209: \right) ,
2210: \nonumber \\
2211: f_{k3}
2212: &=
2213: \int(dz)_\mathcal{G} \frac{ 1 }{ 4 U^2 } L_{4s}[F_0] \delta m_{4a}[f_0]
2214: \frac{ 3 z_2 (1-A_2) }{ V^4 },
2215: \end{align}
2216: %math
2217: and $f_l$ into the two parts $f_{l1}, f_{l2}$
2218: %
2219: \begin{align}
2220: f_{l1}
2221: &=
2222: \frac{ 3 }{ 4 } \int (dz)_\mathcal{G}
2223: \frac{ \delta m_{4a}[f_0] }{ U^2V^4 }
2224: z_2 A_2 (1-A_2) (-1+6A_1-3A_1^2+2A_1^3) \,,
2225: \nonumber \\
2226: f_{l2}
2227: &=
2228: - \frac{ 3 }{ 4 } \int (dz)_\mathcal{G}
2229: \frac{ \delta m_{4a}[f_0] }{ U^2V^4 }
2230: z_2 (1-A_2) (2-A_2) (-1+6A_1-3A_1^2+2A_1^3) \,.
2231: \end{align}
2232:
2233: The integrand $f_{k1}$ was compared with the integrand
2234: $\mathbb{I}_{456} M_{16}$ generated by {\sc gencode}{\it N}
2235: by the spot-check method.
2236: We confirmed that the integral $f_{k1}$ minus
2237: its ${\mathbb K}_2$ limit, $f_{kv}$,
2238: is equal to $I_{4s} \Delta M_{4a}$, which is listed as (b) of
2239: (\ref{comparIRofM16}).
2240: It turns out that
2241: $f_{k2}+f_{l1}$ is equal to $I_{4b(1^\star)} \Delta \delta m_{4a}$,
2242: which is reconstructed from the lower order quantities in the next subsection.
2243: %All these can be proved analytically, too, as we see in the next subsection.
2244: %They are identical with the ``new'' calculation based on the automation algorithm.
2245: Thus, the difference between the ``old" calculation and the reconstructed
2246: one is confined in $f_{k3}+f_{l2}$.
2247: %Namely,
2248: It is IR-finite but contributes a nonzero value to $\Delta M_{16}^{\rm old}$.
2249:
2250: %----------------------------------------------------------------
2251: \subsection{$I_{4b(1^\star)}\Delta \delta m_{4a}$ reconstruction from the
2252: lower-order quantities}
2253: \label{reconst}
2254:
2255: In order to understand where this difference $f_{k3}+f_{l2}$ %between ``old'' and ``new''
2256: came from,
2257: let us examine IR divergence structure of mass-inserted magnetic moment
2258: amplitude $M_{4b(1^\star)}$ in the ``old" approach.
2259: $I_{4b(1^\star)}$ is defined from $M_{4b(1^\star)}$
2260: as follows\cite{Kinoshita:1981wm, Kinoshita:1990}:
2261: %
2262: \begin{align}
2263: M_{4b(1^\star)}
2264: & =
2265: (1 - {\mathbb K}_2) (1-{\mathbb I}_{all}) (M_{4b(1^\star)} - M_{4b(1^\star)}[f] )
2266: + {\mathbb K}_2 M_{4b(1^\star)}
2267: \nonumber \\
2268: & \quad
2269: + {\mathbb I}_{all}(1-{\mathbb K}_2)M_{4b(1^\star)}[N_0 + Z_0 - f, E_0 + C_0]
2270: + M_{4b(1^\star)}[f]
2271: \nonumber \\
2272: &\equiv
2273: \Delta M_{4b(1^\star)}
2274: + (\delta m_2 M_{2^{\star \star}}+ B_2^{UV} M_{2^\star})
2275: + I_{4b(1^\star)}
2276: \,.
2277: \end{align}
2278: %
2279: The two terms in the second line of the r.h.s. define $I_{4b(1^\star)}$:
2280: %
2281: \begin{equation}
2282: I_{4b(1^\star)}
2283: \equiv
2284: {\mathbb I}_{all}(1-{\mathbb K}_2) M_{4b(1^\star)}[N_0 + Z_0 - f, E_0 + C_0]
2285: + M_{4b(1^\star)}[f],
2286: \label{I4b1s}
2287: \end{equation}
2288: %
2289: where the function $f$ is introduced
2290: in the first term
2291: in an {\it ad hoc} manner to subtract out the
2292: linear IR divergence
2293: coming from $N_0 + Z_0$.
2294: The linear IR divergence is confined to the second term $M_{4b(1^\star)}[f]$,
2295: which has the form
2296: %
2297: \begin{gather}
2298: M_{4b(1^\star)}[f] =
2299: - \frac{ 1 }{ 8 } \int(dy)_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}
2300: \frac{ f }{ U^2_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}} V^3_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}} }
2301: \,,
2302: \nonumber \\
2303: f =
2304: -8 y_2 A_2 (1-A_2) (-1 +6 A_1 - 3 A_1^2 + 2 A_1^3 )~.
2305: \label{def_f}
2306: \end{gather}
2307: The explicit form of the first term of Eq.(\ref{I4b1s}) is
2308: %
2309: \begin{equation}
2310: {\mathbb I}_{all} M_{4b(1^\star)}[N_0 + Z_0-f, E_0+C_0]
2311: =
2312: \lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0} \int (dy)_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}
2313: \frac{ L_{4s}[F_0] }{ U^2_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}} }
2314: \left(
2315: \frac{ 1 }{ 2 V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}^2 }
2316: - \frac{ y_{137} (1-A_1) }{ V^3_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}} }
2317: \right),
2318: \end{equation}
2319: but i
2320: where
2321: %
2322: \begin{gather}
2323: V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}
2324: =
2325: y_{137}(1-A_1)+y_2(1-A_2) + \lambda^2 (y_a + y_b),
2326: \nonumber \\
2327: (dy)_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}
2328: =
2329: dy_1dy_2dy_3 dy_7 dy_a dy_b\,\delta(1-y_{1237}-y_{ab}).
2330: \end{gather}
2331: %
2332: %
2333: The finite part of the mass renormalization constant $\Delta \delta m_{4a}$ is
2334: %
2335: \begin{equation}
2336: \Delta \delta m_{4a} =
2337: \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } \int (dy)_\mathcal{S}
2338: \frac{ \delta m_{4a}[f_0] }{ U_\mathcal{S}^2 V_\mathcal{S} },
2339: \label{dm4a}
2340: \end{equation}
2341: %
2342: where $ \delta m_{4a}[f_0]$ is expressed in the same form in Eq. (\ref
2343: {miscdef}) and
2344: %
2345: \begin{equation}
2346: (dy)_\mathcal{S} =
2347: dy_4 dy_5 dy_6 dy_c dy_d\,\delta(1-y_{456}-y_{cd}).
2348: \end{equation}
2349: %
2350: Using the identity
2351: %
2352: \begin{equation}
2353: \frac{ 1 }{ V_\mathcal{S}^m V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}}^n }
2354: =
2355: \frac{ \Gamma (m+ n) }{ \Gamma (m) \Gamma (n) }
2356: \int_0^1 dt \int_0^1 ds\,
2357: \delta(1-t-s)\,
2358: \frac{ t^{m-1} s^{n-1} }
2359: { ( t ~V_\mathcal{S} ~ +~ s~V_{\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{S}} )^{m+n} },
2360: \end{equation}
2361: %
2362: we can express the product of $\Delta \delta m_{4a}$ and
2363: the first term of $I_{4b(1^\star)}$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{I4b1s}) in the
2364: same Feynman parameter space %of the {\it eighth-order diagram} $M_{16}$
2365: as that for the original amplitude $M_{16}$
2366: %
2367: \begin{align}
2368: f_{k2}^{\rm rc}
2369: & \equiv
2370: \Delta \delta m_{4a}
2371: \times
2372: {\mathbb I}_{all} M_{4b(1^\star)}[N_0 + Z_0 - f, E_0 + C_0]
2373: \nonumber \\
2374: & =
2375: \int (dz)_\mathcal{G}\,\frac{ L_{4s}[F_0] \delta m_{4a}[f_0] }{ 4U^2 }
2376: \left(
2377: \frac{ 1 }{ V^3 }
2378: - \frac{ 3z_{137} (1-A_1) }{ V^4 }
2379: \right),
2380: \end{align}
2381: %
2382: which is identical with $f_{k2}$.
2383: Similarly, the contribution of the product of $\Delta \delta m_{4a}$
2384: $M_{4b(1^\star)}[f]$ to $M_{16}$ is
2385: \begin{align}
2386: f_{l1}^{\rm rc }
2387: & \equiv
2388: \Delta \delta m_{4a} M_{4b(1^\star)}[f]
2389: \nonumber \\
2390: & =
2391: \frac{ 3 }{ 4 } \int (dz)_\mathcal{G}\,
2392: \frac{ \delta m_{4a}[f_0] }{ U^2 V^4}
2393: z_2 A_2 (1-A_2) (-1+6A_1-3A_1^2+2A_1^3)
2394: \,,
2395: \end{align}
2396: %
2397: which is identical with $f_{l1}$.
2398: %
2399: %
2400: %In a similar manner we can show that
2401: % $f_{k1}^{\rm rc} = f_{k1}$.
2402:
2403:
2404: Therefore we find that
2405: the combination, $-f_{k3}-f_{l2}$, is extra
2406: in the ``old'' $\Delta M_{16}^{\rm old}$
2407: so that the correction term
2408: %
2409: \begin{align}
2410: \Delta M_{16}^{\rm add}
2411: & \equiv
2412: 2(f_{k3}+f_{l2})
2413: \nonumber \\
2414: & =
2415: -2 \times \frac{ 9 }{ 4 } \int (dz)_\mathcal{G}
2416: \frac{ \delta m_{4a} [f_0] }{ U^2 V^4 }
2417: z_2 A_2 (1-A_1)^3 (1-A_2)
2418: \,,
2419: \end{align}
2420: %
2421: where the overall factor 2 comes from time-reversal diagram,
2422: must be added to $\Delta M_{16}^{\rm old}$.
2423: Evaluating it numerically, we obtain
2424: $\Delta M_{16}^{\rm add}= 0.029~437~8~(98)$, which is smaller than the current
2425: uncertainty
2426: of value B for $M_{16}$ in Table \ref{Table:M16M30}
2427: and cannot be detected by the direct comparison of value A and value B
2428: until the latter is evaluated more precisely.
2429:
2430: The difference between $\Delta M_{18}^{\rm new}$ and $\Delta M_{18}^{\rm old}$
2431: can be analyzed in the same manner. It is found that the difference is
2432: numerically not small for $M_{18}$:
2433: %
2434: \begin{align}
2435: \Delta M_{18}^{\rm add}
2436: & \equiv
2437: 2 (1-{\mathbb K}_5) (f_{k3}+f_{l2})
2438: \nonumber \\
2439: & =
2440: -2 \times \frac{ 9 }{ 4 } \int (dz)_\mathcal{G}
2441: (1- {\mathbb K}_5)
2442: \left\{
2443: \frac{ \delta m_{4b}[f_0] }{ U^2 V^4 }
2444: z_2 A_2 (1-A_1)^3 (1-A_2)
2445: \right\}
2446: \nonumber \\
2447: & = -0.215~542~(19)
2448: \,,
2449: \end{align}
2450: %
2451: where $A_i,U,$ and $V$ are defined in the ${\mathfrak I}_{1237}$ limit of $M_{18}$.
2452: Of course their explicit forms are different from those of $M_{16}$.
2453: If we add $\Delta M_{18}^{\rm add}$
2454: to $\Delta M_{18}^{\rm old}$, the value B for $M_{18}$
2455: in Table \ref{Table:M16M30}
2456: becomes $16.974~(21)$ and the difference between value A and value B
2457: is reduced to $-0.006~(21)$, which is consistent with zero within the precision
2458: of numerical calculation.
2459:
2460: %================================================================
2461: \section{conclusion}
2462:
2463: The results described in this paper are summarized as follows:
2464: \begin{enumerate}[1)]
2465: \item There was an inconsistency between the ``old'' integrals $\Delta M_{16}^{\rm old}$
2466: and $\Delta M_{18}^{\rm old}$ and their residual renormalization terms.
2467: This inconsistency is resolved in this paper.
2468:
2469: \item Other 45 integrals of Group V of the ``old'' calculation
2470: are in good agreement with
2471: the ``new'' ones.
2472:
2473: \item Programs generated by {\sc gencode}{\it N} have no error for $N=8$.
2474: Namely, the automation scheme has cleared the eighth-order test without difficulty.
2475: \end{enumerate}
2476:
2477:
2478: The separation of the IR divergent
2479: and finite pieces in a given amplitude can be made arbitrarily.
2480: There is no overriding rule that dictates how to carry out such a separation.
2481: We only have to keep a record of what is subtracted as
2482: an IR subtraction term.
2483: All IR subtraction terms are summed up in the end and
2484: the arbitrariness in the choice of IR divergent part
2485: cancel out, leaving a finite
2486: contribution as a part of the residual renormalization.
2487:
2488: The important point is that the IR subtraction term prepared for the
2489: numerical calculation and the one used to calculate the residual renormalization
2490: must be the same. What we found is that $I_{4b(1^\star)}$ used in the
2491: numerical calculation of $M_{16}$ and $M_{18}$
2492: and $I_{4b(1^\star)}$ for the residual renormalization
2493: constant $\Delta M_{4b(1^\star)}$ had different forms in the
2494: FORTRAN programs of the ``old" calculation.
2495: This is the reason why $M_{16}$ and $M_{18}$ had IR-finite but redundant
2496: contributions.
2497:
2498:
2499:
2500:
2501: The development of automatic code generator \cite{Aoyama:2005kf,Aoyama:2007IR}
2502: was crucial in enabling us to discover
2503: the existence of extra IR subtraction terms
2504: in $M_{16}$ and $M_{18}$ on short notice.
2505: Adding the correction terms $\Delta M_{16}^{\rm add}$
2506: and $\Delta M_{18}^{\rm add}$ to
2507: the ``old'' value, we find the entire contribution of Group V to be
2508: %
2509: \begin{equation}
2510: A_{1}^{(8)}({\rm Group V}) = -2.179~16~(343),
2511: \label{revisedA8V}
2512: \end{equation}
2513: %
2514: which is in good agreement with the {\it still preliminary} value
2515: %
2516: \begin{equation}
2517: A_{1}^{(8)}({\rm Group V}) = -2.219~(53),
2518: \label{gencodeNA8V}
2519: \end{equation}
2520: %
2521: obtained by the ``new" code generated by {\sc gencode}{\it N}.
2522:
2523:
2524: Due to the different forms of IR subtraction terms, the forms of the residual
2525: renormalization are also different in the ``old" and ``new" calculations.
2526: The residual renormalization terms
2527: in the ``old" IR procedure are given by
2528: \cite{Kinoshita:1981wm,Kinoshita:1990,Kinoshita:2005zr}
2529: \begin{align}
2530: A_{1}^{(8)}({\rm Group V})^{\rm old}
2531: & =
2532: \Delta M^{(8) {\rm old}}
2533: - 5 \Delta M^{(6) {\rm old}} \Delta B_2
2534: \nonumber \\
2535: &
2536: - \Delta M^{(4)} \{ 4 \Delta L^{(4)} + 3 \Delta B^{(4)} - 9 (\Delta B_2)^2 \}
2537: \nonumber \\
2538: &
2539: - M_2 \{ 2 \Delta L^{(6)} + \Delta B^{(6)}
2540: - (10 \Delta L^{(4)} + 6 \Delta B^{(4)})\Delta B_2 + 5 (\Delta B_2)^3 \}
2541: \nonumber \\
2542: &
2543: - \Delta M^{(4^\star)} \Delta \delta m^{(4)}
2544: \nonumber \\
2545: &
2546: - (M_{2^\star}-M_{2^\star}[I]) \{
2547: \Delta \delta m^{(6)}
2548: - \Delta \delta m^{(4)} ( 5 \Delta B_2+\Delta \delta m_{2^\star} ) \}
2549: \nonumber \\
2550: &
2551: + M_2 \Delta \delta m^{(4)} ( 4 \Delta L_{2^\star} + \Delta B_{2^\star}-B_{2^\star}[I])
2552: \,,
2553: \end{align}
2554: where
2555: \begin{gather}
2556: \Delta M^{(8) {\rm old}} = \sum_{i=01}^{47} \Delta M_i^{\rm old},
2557: \nonumber \\
2558: \Delta M^{(6) {\rm old}}
2559: = \sum_{x=a}^{h} \Delta M_{6x}^{\rm old}
2560: \nonumber \\
2561: \Delta M^{(4)} = \Delta M_{4a} + \Delta M_{4b},
2562: \nonumber \\
2563: \Delta M^{(4^\star)} =
2564: 2\Delta M_{4a(1^\star)} + \Delta M_{4a(2^\star)}
2565: + 2 \Delta M_{4b(1^\star)} + \Delta M_{4b(2^\star)}
2566: \nonumber \\
2567: %\end{gather}
2568: %\vspace{-0.2cm}
2569: %\begin{gather}
2570: \Delta L^{(6)} = \sum_{x=a}^{h} \sum_{i=1}^{5}
2571: \eta_x \Delta L_{6x i}
2572: \nonumber \\
2573: \Delta L^{(4)} =
2574: 2 \Delta L_{4c} + \Delta L_{4x} + 2\Delta L_{4s} + \Delta L_{4l},
2575: \nonumber \\
2576: \Delta B^{(6)} = \sum_{x=a}^{h} \eta_x \Delta B_{6x},
2577: \nonumber \\
2578: \Delta B^{(4)} = \Delta B_{4a} + \Delta B_{4b},
2579: \nonumber \\
2580: %\end{gather}
2581: %\vspace{-0.2cm}
2582: %\begin{gather}
2583: \Delta \delta m^{(6)}
2584: = \sum_{x=a}^{h} \eta_x \Delta \delta m_{6x},
2585: \nonumber \\
2586: \Delta \delta m^{(4)} = \Delta \delta m_{4a} + \Delta \delta m_{4b}
2587: \nonumber \\
2588: \eta_x =
2589: \begin{cases}
2590: 1 & \text{for $x =a,b,c,e,f,h$} \\
2591: 2 & \text{for $x =d,g$.}
2592: \end{cases}
2593: \end{gather}
2594: The numerical values of the finite renormalization constants are listed in Tables \ref{Table:L6} and \ref{Table:L4}, and also in Appendix \ref{testM4M6}.
2595: $B_{2^\star}[I]$ is obtained from the $\mathfrak{I}_{all}$-operation of the
2596: wave function renormalization constant $B_{2^\star}$.
2597:
2598: The formula of the residual renormalization for the ``new" calculation is
2599: much simpler
2600: than that for the ``old" one. Since the mass renormalization is completed
2601: within the numerical calculation, the mass renormalization constant should not
2602: appear in the residual renormalization. The exceptions are
2603: the vertex and wave-function
2604: renormalization constants that have self-energy subdiagrams.
2605: The mass inserted vertex (wave-function) renormalization constant
2606: $L_{2^\star} (B_{2^\star})$ has no overall UV divergence. As a result,
2607: the {\it K}-operation cannot pick up
2608: the renormalization terms proportional to $L_{2^\star}(B_{2^\star})$. It must be
2609: restored in the residual renormalization
2610: in order to carry out the complete on-shell renormalization.
2611: The residual renormalization formula
2612: in the ``new" approach is given by
2613: \begin{align}
2614: A_{1}^{(8)}({\rm Group V})^{\rm new}
2615: & =
2616: \Delta M^{(8) {\rm new}} - 5 \Delta M^{(6){\rm new}} \Delta B_2
2617: \nonumber \\
2618: &
2619: - \Delta M^{(4)} \{ 3 \Delta L^{(4)} + 3 \Delta B^{(4)} - 9 (\Delta B_2)^3 \}
2620: \nonumber \\
2621: &
2622: - M_2 \{ \Delta LB^{(6)} - 6(\Delta L^{(4)}
2623: + \Delta B^{(4)}) \Delta B_2 + 5 (\Delta B_2)^2 \}
2624: \nonumber \\
2625: &
2626: + M_2 \Delta \delta m^{(4)} ( 4 \Delta L_{2^\star} + \Delta B_{2^\star} )
2627: \,,
2628: \label{a8_Residual_formula}
2629: \end{align}
2630: where
2631: \begin{gather}
2632: \Delta LB^{(6)} =
2633: \Delta L^{(6)} + \Delta B^{(6)} + \Delta L^{(4)} \Delta B_2
2634: + \Delta \delta m^{(4)} B_{2^\star}[I],
2635: \label{LB_6} \\
2636: \Delta M^{(6){\rm new}} = \Delta M^{(6){\rm old}}
2637: - (M_{2^\star}-M_{2^\star}[I]) \Delta \delta m^{(4)} - M_2 \Delta L^{(4)}.
2638: \label{M6new}
2639: \end{gather}
2640: In Eq.~(\ref{a8_Residual_formula})
2641: %%%% {\bf (This equation number was not shown.
2642: %%%% Is this the right one you like to point to ?)},
2643: the vertex renormalization
2644: constant $\Delta L^{(n)}$ and the wave function renormalization constant
2645: $\Delta B^{(n)}$ appear in the same weight for each order of the perturbation.
2646: It is because we have already subtracted
2647: one $\Delta L^{(n)}$ as an IR subtraction term. Calculating the
2648: combination $\Delta L^{(n)}
2649: +\Delta B^{(n)}$ is much easier than calculating each of them separately.
2650: Because of
2651: the Ward-Takahashi-identity for
2652: the renormalization constants $L^{(n)} + B^{(n)} = 0$, many cancellations
2653: occur between two terms. Thus, we introduced a combined renormalization
2654: constant $\Delta LB^{(6)}$. Its relation to the ``old" renormalization
2655: constants $\Delta L^{(6)}$ and $\Delta B^{(6)}$ are given in
2656: Eq.~(\ref{LB_6}).
2657: More detailed definitions of $\Delta LB_{6x}$ for each diagram are
2658: given in Appendix \ref{appendixRconstsSixthorder}.
2659: The left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{LB_6}),
2660: $\Delta LB^{(6)}$, was
2661: directly calculated with the programs made by the automatic
2662: code generator for the residual renormalization constants
2663: \cite{Aoyama:2007RR} and obtained as
2664: %%
2665: \begin{equation}
2666: \Delta LB^{(6)}
2667: = \sum_{x =a}^{h} \eta_x \Delta LB_{6x}
2668: = 0.100~86~(77)
2669: \,.
2670: \end{equation}
2671: %%
2672: This result was checked by comparing
2673: with the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{LB_6})
2674: calculated using the residual renormalization constant
2675: for the ``old" calculation.
2676: The sixth-order magnetic moment $\Delta M^{(6) {\rm new}}$ was calculated
2677: with the programs generated by {\sc gencode}{\it N} and given as%in Eq.~(\ref{M6new}).
2678: \begin{equation}
2679: \Delta M^{(6){\rm new}} = 0.42610~(53).
2680: \label{M6_new_update}
2681: \end{equation}
2682: See Appendix \ref{SixthOrderTest} for the detail
2683: of $\Delta M^{(6){\rm new}}$.
2684:
2685: As we have shown in the paper,
2686: the two results (\ref{revisedA8V}) and (\ref{gencodeNA8V})
2687: of the eighth-order contribution from Group V diagrams are
2688: obtained by means of the totally independent calculations.
2689: Further theory corrections to the eighth-order term of the electron $g\!-\!2$
2690: is very unlikely. The new theoretical prediction should be announced
2691: when we complete all the tenth-order calculation.
2692:
2693: %================================================================
2694:
2695: \begin{acknowledgments}
2696: This work is partly supported by JSPS
2697: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)19540322.
2698: M.~H.'s work is also supported in part
2699: by JSPS and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2700: under the Japan-France Integrated Action Program
2701: (SAKURA).
2702: T.~K.~'s work is supported by the U.~S.~National Science Foundation
2703: under Grant PHY-0355005. T.~K.~ also thanks for JSPS Invitation Fellowship
2704: for Research in Japan S-07165, 2007.
2705: Numerical calculations were
2706: conducted on the RIKEN Super Combined Cluster System (RSCC).
2707: \end{acknowledgments}
2708:
2709: %================================================================
2710:
2711: \appendix
2712:
2713: \input M4M6.tex
2714: %\input M8form.tex
2715: \input M8app.tex
2716:
2717: %================================================================
2718:
2719: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
2720: \bibliography{b}
2721:
2722: %================================================================
2723: \end{document}
2724: