1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,prd,psfig,side]{revtex}

3: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,prd,psfig]{revtex}

4: %

5: % Start (1999.9.3)

6: % Version 1.0 (1999.9.19)

7: %

8: %

9: %

10: %

11: 

12: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}

13: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

14: \newcommand{\figwidth}{3.2in}

15: \newcommand{\figleftmarg}{-5mm}

16: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}

17: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2

18:   A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

19: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

20: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

21: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray}}

22: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray}}

23: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

24: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm Tr}}

25: \newcommand{\slas}[2]{{{#1}\hspace{-5pt}{/}}_{#2}}

26: \newcommand{\slal}[2]{{{#1}\hspace{-8pt}{/}}_{#2}}

27: \def\simgt{\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt\hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}}\raise 1pt \hbox {$>$}}

28: \def\simlt{\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt\hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}}\raise 1pt \hbox {$<$}}

29: 

30: \newcommand{\mm}{{\cal M}}

31: \newcommand{\ce}{{\it c}_{\it E}}

32: \newcommand{\cb}{{\it c}_{\it B}}

33: \newcommand{\lqcd}{{\Lambda}_{\rm QCD}}

34: 

35: \begin{document}

36: \draft

37:  

38: \title{

39: \vspace{-5.5cm}

40: %\begin{flushright}

41: \hspace{120mm}{\normalsize KEK-CP-110}\\

42: \vspace{+8mm}

43: %\end{flushright}

44: Relativistic Heavy Quarks on the Lattice}

45: 

46: \author{Sinya~Aoki$^{\rm a}$,

47:         Yoshinobu~Kuramashi$^{\rm b}$ and

48:         Shin-ichi~Tominaga$^{\rm c}$

49:        }

50: \address{$^a$Institute of Physics,

51:              University of Tsukuba,\\

52:              Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan\\

53:          $^b$Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies, 

54:              High Energy Accelerator Research Organization(KEK),\\ 

55:              Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan\\

56:          $^c$Center for Computational Physics,

57:              University of Tsukuba,\\

58:              Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan\\

59:         }

60: 

61: \date{\today}

62: 

63: \maketitle

64: 

65: \vspace{-7mm}

66: 

67: %\newpage

68: \begin{abstract}

69: \vspace{-10mm}

70: 

71: Lattice QCD should allow quantitative predictions for the

72: heavy quark physics from first principles. 

73: Up to now, however, most approaches have based on the

74: nonrelativistic effective theory, with which

75: the continuum limit can not be taken in principle. 

76: In this paper we investigate feasibility of relativistic approaches to

77: the heavy quark physics in lattice QCD.

78: We first examine validity of the idea that

79: the use of the anisotropic

80: lattice could be advantageous to control the $m_Q a$ corrections.

81: Our perturbative calculation, however, reveals that this is not true.

82: We instead propose a new relativistic approach to handle

83: heavy quarks on the isotropic lattice.

84: We explain how power corrections of $m_Q a$ can be avoided and 

85: remaining uncertainties are reduced to be of order 

86: $(a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$.

87: 

88: 

89: \end{abstract}

90: \pacs{11.15.Ha, 12.38.Gc, 13.30.-a }

91: 

92: 

93: 

94: \section{Introduction}

95: 

96: Weak matrix elements associated with $B$ mesons are essential ingredients

97: to determine Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix

98: elements. In principle lattice QCD provides the opportunity

99: of evaluating these matrix elements from first principles.   

100: However it is still difficult to simulate the $b$ quark with

101: high precision on the lattice. The main source of systematic errors

102: originates from the fact that the $b$ quark mass in the

103: lattice unit is large: $m_b a\sim 1-2 $ in the quenched

104: approximation and $m_b a\sim 2-3 $ in full QCD with current

105: accessible computational resources. In order to control 

106: large $m_Q a$ errors, several ways have been proposed so far:

107: A static approximation with $m_Q\rightarrow \infty$\cite{static}, 

108: a nonrelativistic QCD\cite{nrqcd}, a nonrelativistic interpretation

109: applied to results with the

110: Wilson/Sheikholeslami-Wholert (SW) action\cite{fermilab} and an anisotropic

111: lattice with finer temporal lattice spacing $a_t$ while keeping

112: the spatial one $a_s$ modest\cite{aniso}.

113: Although the $b$ quark can be directly  simulated with any of the last

114: three approaches, only the last one has the advantage that we can take the

115: continuum limit, which is a fascinating feature stimulating our interest. 

116: 

117: Practical effectiveness of the anisotropic lattice is transparent:

118: with finer temporal lattice spacing   

119: time evolutions of all kinds of correlation

120: functions become milder, which benefits us the better

121: signal-to-noise ratio.

122: On the theoretical side, our interest exists in the use of the

123: anisotropic lattice to control $m_Q a$ errors. If they

124: are restricted to only powers of $m_Q a_t$,

125: they can be made small by the anisotropic lattice with smaller $a_t$.

126: Indeed

127: $m_Q a_s$ corrections can be removed at the tree level\cite{symm_at}. 

128: Our main concern, however, is whether

129: $m_Q a_s$ corrections could revive perturbatively or nonperturbatively.

130: Up to now no one has successfully

131: eliminated the possibility that $m_Q a_s$

132: corrections can appear beyond the tree level.

133: Without the proof given the anisotropic lattice is no better

134: than the isotropic one, where one can also

135: eliminate $m_Q a$ corrections at the tree level, 

136: in terms of controlling $m_Q a$ corrections.

137: 

138: The first part of this paper is devoted to a one-loop

139: calculation of the quark self energy on the anisotropic

140: lattice. We analyze its $O(g^2 a)$ terms to examine

141: the possibility of appearance of  $O(g^2 m_Q a_s)$

142: contributions. 

143: Our results strongly suggest that      

144: one-loop radiative corrections allow the revival of 

145: $m_Q a_s$ corrections.

146: Since we find that the anisotropic lattice is not theoretically advantageous 

147: any more, 

148: in the second part of this paper

149: we propose a new relativistic way to deal with the heavy quarks on the 

150: isotropic lattice,

151: analyzing $m_Q a$ corrections carefully.

152: We discuss cutoff  effects of the heavy quark system

153: following the on-shell improvement programme\cite{sym1,sym2}.

154: An important finding is that leading cutoff effects of

155: order $(m_Q a)^n$ can be absorbed

156: in the definition of renormalization factors for the

157: quark wave function and mass, so that the leading $m_Q a$ correction

158: is reduced to be of order $ (m_Q a)^n a \Lambda_{\rm QCD} $.

159: After removing remaining leading cutoff effects of

160: $O((m_Q a)^n a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ with parameters in the

161: quark action properly adjusted, 

162: we are left with 

163: only $O((a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2)$ errors, which are

164: expected to be fairly small.

165: We also provide a nonperturbative method to control the $O((m_Q a)^n)$

166: corrections involved in renormalization factors.

167: 

168: This paper is organized as follows.

169: In Sec.~\ref{sec:aniso} 

170: we present a one-loop calculation of the quark self energy

171: on the anisotropic lattice

172: and discuss the possibility of the

173: revival of $m_Q a_s$ corrections.

174: In Sec.~\ref{sec:iso} we propose a new relativistic

175: approach to handle the heavy quarks on the isotropic lattice

176: avoiding large $m_Q a$ corrections.   

177: Our conclusions are summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

178: 

179: \section{Anisotropic lattice}

180: \label{sec:aniso}

181: 

182: \subsection{On-shell improvement on the anisotropic lattice}

183: \label{subsec:onshell}

184: 

185: In order to obtain a generic form of the quark action

186: allowed on the anisotropic lattice, let us make the

187: operator analysis according to the Symanzik's 

188: improvement programme\cite{sym1,sym2}. 

189: The lattice theory is described by a local

190: effective theory as

191: \be

192: S_{\rm eff}=S_0+\sum_{k\ge 1,i} a^k \int d^4 x c_{4+k,i}(g){\cal O}_{4+k,i} (x),

193: \ee

194: where $S_0$ denotes the continuum action. 

195: ${\cal O}_{k,i} (x)$ is a  

196: local composite operator with $k$ dimensions, which consist of

197: quark mass, quark fields and link variables.

198: These higher dimensional operators must respect 

199: symmetries on the lattice such as the invariance under

200: gauge, parity and charge-conjugation transformations and

201: discrete rotations.

202: The coefficient $c_{k,i}$ 

203: is a function of the gauge coupling $g$

204: to be determined perturbatively or nonperturbatively.   

205: 

206: Symanzik's improvement programme was originally

207: designed to reduce cutoff effects order by order for on-shell and

208: off-shell Green functions. 

209: However, we are interested in 

210: only on-shell quantities such as hadron masses and matrix elements

211: which require correlation functions at non-zero

212: physical distances.

213: Here it would be better to consider the on-shell improvement

214: procedure that is much simpler but restricted to

215: on-shell quantities\cite{onshell}.

216: 

217: Under the requirement of various symmetries on the lattice,

218: we find the following set of operators with dimension up to

219: five:

220: \ben

221: {\rm dim.3:}&& {\cal O}_3^\prime(x)={\bar q}(x)q(x), \\ 

222: {\rm dim.4:}&& {\cal O}_{4a}^\prime(x)={\bar q}(x)\gamma_0 D_0 q(x),\\

223:             && {\cal O}_{4b}^\prime(x)=

224:                  \sum_i {\bar q}(x)\gamma_i D_iq(x), \\ 

225: {\rm dim.5:}&& {\cal O}_{5a}^\prime(x)={\bar q}(x)D_0^2 q(x),\\

226:             && {\cal O}_{5b}^\prime(x)=\sum_i {\bar q}(x) D_i^2 q(x), \\

227:             && {\cal O}_{5c}^\prime(x)=

228:                  i\sum_i {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{0i}F_{0i} q(x),\\

229:             && {\cal O}_{5d}^\prime(x)=

230:                  i\sum_{i,j} {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{ij}F_{ij} q(x),\\

231:             && {\cal O}_{5e}^\prime(x)=

232:                  \sum_i {\bar q}(x) [\gamma_0 D_0,\gamma_i D_i] q(x), 

233: \een  

234: where $D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative on the lattice and 

235: $\sigma_{\mu\nu}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}$ are defined as

236: $\sigma_{\mu\nu}\equiv[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]/2$ 

237: and $ig F_{\mu\nu}\equiv[D_\mu,D_\nu]$.

238: The subscript $0$ denotes the time component, while $i,j=1,2,3$

239: space components.

240: In terms of these operators, a general form of the quark

241: action on the anisotropic lattice is given by

242: \ben

243: S_q^{\rm imp}&=&\sum_x\left[ 

244: c_3^\prime{\cal O}_3^\prime(x)

245: +\sum_{i=a,b}c_{4i}^\prime{\cal O}_{4i}^\prime(x) 

246: +\sum_{i=a,\dots ,e}c_{5i}^\prime{\cal O}_{5i}^\prime(x) 

247: \right],

248: \label{eq:qaction_g}

249: \een

250: where $c_3^\prime,\dots,c_{5e}^\prime$ are functions of the bare gauge

251: coupling $g$, the bare quark mass $m_0$ and the time and

252: space lattice spacings $a_t$, $a_s$.

253: Since degrees of freedom of $c_3^\prime$ and $c_{4a}^\prime$ can be 

254: absorbed in the renormalization of the quark mass and the

255: wave function respectively, we choose $c_3^\prime=m_0$ and 

256: $c_{4a}^\prime=1$ for

257: convenience. We also find ${\cal O}_{5a}^\prime$ and 

258: ${\cal O}_{5e}^\prime$ are related to

259: other operators by using the classical field

260: equation, and hence $c_{5a}^\prime$ and  $c_{5e}^\prime$ can be

261: set by hand. We eliminate ${\cal O}_{5e}^\prime$ by choosing 

262: $c_{5e}^\prime=0$ and employ ${\cal O}_{5a}^\prime$ to avoid

263: species doubling with  $c_{5a}^\prime$ finite. 

264: After all remaining parameters are $c_{4b}^\prime$,

265: $c_{5b}^\prime$, $c_{5c}^\prime$ and $c_{5d}^\prime$, which should be    

266: tuned (nonperturbatively) in order to remove 

267: $O(a_{t,s})$ discretization errors,

268: so that we are left with only discretization ambiguities of $O(a_{t,s}^2)$.

269: This point should be stressed, since previous

270: papers\cite{symm_at,pp} claim that only three parameters 

271: $c_{4b}^\prime$, $c_{5c}^\prime$ and $c_{5d}^\prime$ are enough to be tuned

272: for the $O(a_{t,s})$ improvement.

273: 

274:  

275: \subsection{Quark and gauge actions}

276: 

277: According to the discussion in the above subsection

278: a general form of the

279: quark action on the anisotropic lattice is given by:

280: \ben

281: S_q&=& a_t a_s^3 \sum_x {\bar q}(x)\left[ \gamma_0 D_0

282: +\nu \sum_i \gamma_i D_i +m_0 

283: -\frac{a_t}{2}r ( D_0^2+\eta \sum_i D_i^2)\right.\nn\\

284: &&\;\;\;\;\left.-a_t \frac{ig}{4}r 

285: \left\{ \ce(1+\eta)\sum_i \sigma_{0i} F_{0i}

286: +\cb \eta \sum_{ij} \sigma_{ij} F_{ij}

287: \right\}\right]q(x),

288: \label{eq:qaction_d}

289: \een  

290: where parameters in eq.~(\ref{eq:qaction_g}) are rewritten as

291: \ben

292: c_{4b}^\prime&=& \nu,\\

293: c_{5a}^\prime&=& -\frac{r}{2},\\ 

294: c_{5b}^\prime&=& -\frac{r \eta}{2},\\

295: c_{5c}^\prime&=& -\frac{g}{4} r \ce (1+\eta),\\

296: c_{5d}^\prime&=& -\frac{g}{4} r \cb \eta.

297: \een

298: Here the Wilson parameter $r$ is taken arbitrary by 

299: hand as mentioned in the previous subsection.

300: Note that the quark fields $q$,  the covariant derivatives

301: $D_0$ and $D_i$, the bare quark mass $m_0$, the gauge field

302: strengths $F_{0i}$ and $F_{ij}$ are dimensionful.  

303: They are transformed into

304: dimensionless quantities by

305: \ben

306: {\tilde q}&=&a_s^{3/2} q,\\

307: {\tilde D}_0&=& a_t D_0,\\

308: {\tilde D}_i&=& a_s D_i,\\

309: {\tilde m}_0&=& a_t m_0,\\

310: {\tilde F}_{0i}&=& a_t a_s F_{0i},\\

311: {\tilde F}_{ij}&=& a_s^2 F_{ij}.

312: \een  

313: With this transformation, eq.~(\ref{eq:qaction_d}) is

314: rewritten as 

315: \ben

316: S_q(x)&=& \sum_x {\bar {\tilde q}}(x)\left[ \gamma_0 {\tilde D}_0

317: +\frac{\nu}{\xi}\sum_i \gamma_i {\tilde D}_i +{\tilde m}_0 

318: -\frac{r}{2}( {\tilde D}_0^2

319: +\frac{\eta}{\xi^2} \sum_i {\tilde D}_i^2)\right.\nn\\

320: &&\;\;\;\;\left.- \frac{ig}{4}r 

321: \left\{ \ce \frac{(1+\eta)}{\xi}\sum_i \sigma_{0i} {\tilde F}_{0i}

322: +\cb \frac{\eta}{\xi^2} 

323: \sum_{ij} \sigma_{ij} {\tilde F}_{ij} \right\}\right]

324: {\tilde q}(x)

325: \label{eq:qaction}

326: \een  

327: with $\xi=a_s/a_t$ the anisotropy parameter.

328: 

329:  From eq.~(\ref{eq:qaction_d})

330: we find

331: the inverse free quark propagator

332: \ben

333: a_t S_q^{-1}(p)&=&i \gamma_0 {\rm sin}(p_0 a_t)

334: +\frac{\nu}{\xi} 

335: i \sum_i \gamma_i {\rm sin}(p_i a_s) +m_0 a_t\nn\\

336: &&+r (1-{\rm cos}(p_0 a_t))+\frac{r\eta}{\xi^2}

337: \sum_i(1-{\rm cos}(p_i a_s)),

338: \label{eq:qp_tree}

339: \een

340: and relevant vertices for the present calculation 

341: \ben

342: V_{10}^{A}(q,p)&=&-g T^A\left\{i \gamma_0 

343: {\rm cos}\left(\frac{p_0 a_t + q_0 a_t}{2}\right)

344: +r {\rm sin}\left(\frac{p_0 a_t + q_0 a_t}{2}\right)\right\},\\

345: V_{1i}^{A}(q,p)&=&-g T^A\left\{\nu i \gamma_i 

346: {\rm cos}\left(\frac{p_i a_s + q_i a_s}{2}\right)

347: +\frac{r\eta}{\xi} 

348: {\rm sin}\left(\frac{p_i a_s + q_i a_s}{2}\right)\right\},\\

349: V_{200}^{AB}(q,p)&=&\frac{a_s}{2\xi} g^2 \frac{1}{2}

350: \left\{T^A,T^B\right\}\left\{i \gamma_0 

351: {\rm sin}\left(\frac{p_0 a_t + q_0 a_t}{2}\right)

352: -r {\rm cos}\left(\frac{p_0 a_t + q_0 a_t}{2}\right)\right\},\\

353: V_{2ii}^{AB}(q,p)&=&\frac{a_s}{2} g^2 \frac{1}{2}

354: \left\{T^A,T^B\right\} \left\{\nu i \gamma_i 

355: {\rm sin}\left(\frac{p_i a_s + q_i a_s}{2}\right)

356: -\frac{r\eta}{\xi} 

357: {\rm cos}\left(\frac{p_i a_s + q_i a_s}{2}\right)\right\},\\

358: V_{c0}^{A}(q,p)&=&-\ce g T^A \frac{r(1+\eta)}{4\xi}

359: \sum_i \sigma_{0i}{\rm sin}\left(p_i a_s - q_i a_s \right)

360: {\rm cos}\left(\frac{p_0 a_t - q_0 a_t}{2}\right),\\

361: V_{ci}^{A}(q,p)&=&-\ce g T^A \frac{r(1+\eta)}{4}

362: \sigma_{i0}{\rm sin}\left(p_0 a_t - q_0 a_t \right)

363: {\rm cos}\left(\frac{p_i a_s - q_i a_s}{2}\right)\nn\\

364: &&-\cb g T^A \frac{r \eta}{2\xi}

365: \sum_{j} \sigma_{ij}{\rm sin}\left(p_j a_s - q_j a_s \right)

366: {\rm cos}\left(\frac{p_i a_s - q_i a_s}{2}\right),

367: \een

368: where $p$ is for the incoming momentum into the vertex and

369: $q$ for the outgoing momentum. $T^A$ $(A=1,\dots,N_c^2-1)$

370: is a generator of color SU($N_c$).

371: 

372: For the gauge part we take the standard Wilson action on the

373: anisotropic lattice:

374: \ben

375: S_g&=&\frac{2 N_c}{g^2}\sum_n \left[

376: \xi \sum_{i}\left(1-\frac{1}{2N_c} {\rm Tr}(U_{0i}(n)

377: +U_{0i}^\dagger(n))\right)\right. \nn\\

378: &&\;\;\;\;\left. +\frac{1}{\xi} \sum_{i<j}\left(1-

379: \frac{1}{2N_c} {\rm Tr}(U_{ij}(n)+U_{ij}^\dagger(n))\right)\right]

380: \een 

381: with

382: \be

383: U_{\mu\nu}(n)=U_{\mu}(n)

384: U_{\nu}(n+{\hat \mu})U_{\mu}^\dagger(n+{\hat \nu})

385: U_{\nu}^\dagger(n).

386: \ee

387: The gluon propagator is given by

388: \be

389: G_{\mu\nu}^{AB}(k)=a_s^2\frac{\delta_{\mu\nu}\delta_{AB}}

390: {\xi^2 4 {\rm sin}^2\left(\frac{k_0 a_t}{2}\right)

391: +4\sum_i {\rm sin}^2\left(\frac{k_i a_s}{2}\right)

392: +\lambda^2a_s^2}

393: \ee

394: in the Feynman gauge with the fictitious mass $\lambda^2$,

395: which is introduced to work as the infrared cutoff. 

396: 

397: \subsection{Tree-level analysis on the quark propagator}

398: 

399: Expanding the inverse free quark propagator in

400: eq.~(\ref{eq:qp_tree}) up to $O(a_t)$ we obtain 

401: \be

402: S_q^{-1}(p)=i \gamma_0 p_0+\nu i \sum_i \gamma_i p_i + m_0

403: +\frac{r a_t}{2} p_0^2 + \frac{r\eta a_t}{2} \sum_i p_i^2

404: +O((p_0 a_t)^2,(p_i a_s)^2) ,

405: \ee

406: which yields the following expression for the quark propagator: 

407: \be

408: S_q(p)=\frac{1}{1+m_0 r a_t}

409: \frac{-i \gamma_0 p_0-\nu i \sum_i \gamma_i p_i + m_0

410: +\frac{r a_t}{2}\left( 

411: p_0^2 + \eta \sum_i p_i^2

412: \right)}

413: {p_0^2+\frac{\nu^2+m_0 r\eta a_t}{1+m_0 r a_t}\sum_i

414: p_i^2 + \frac{1}{1+m_0 r a_t}m_0^2 } + O(a_{t,s}^2) .

415: \label{eq:qprop}

416: \ee

417: We consider 

418: the tree-level on-shell improvement for this quark

419: propagator requiring that 

420: $S_q(p)$ should reproduce the form 

421: \be

422: S_q(p)=

423: \frac{1}{Z_q}

424: \frac{ -i \gamma_0 p_0- i \sum_i \gamma_i p_i + m_R}

425: {p_0^2+\sum_i p_i^2 +m_R^2}

426: +{\rm (no\; pole\; terms)}+O(a_{t,s}^2)

427: \label{eq:qprop_r}

428: \ee

429: with the appropriate choice for $Z_q$, $Z_m$, 

430: $\nu$ and $\eta$, where

431: $Z_q$ and $Z_m$ denote renormalization factors

432: for the quark wave function and mass defined by

433: \ben

434: q_R&=&Z_q^{1/2} q,\\

435: m_R&=&Z_m m_0,

436: \een

437: where $m_R$ is the pole mass.

438: It should be reminded that $r$ is a free parameter.

439: We remark that terms without the pole in the quark

440: propagator of eq.~(\ref{eq:qprop_r}) yield only contact

441: terms in the configuration space, which do not contribute to

442: on-shell quantities in Green functions.

443: In terms of the inverse quark propagator,

444: the condition eq.~(\ref{eq:qprop_r}) is equivalent to

445: \ben

446: S^{-1}_q(p) &=& \left[ Z_q - 2 C m_0 a_t \right]( i \slas{p}{} + m_R)

447: + C a_t (p^2+m_R^2) +O( a_t(i\slas{p}{} + m_R)^2) + O(a_t^2)

448: \een

449: with $C$ constant.

450: Therefore ``(no pole terms)'' in eq.~(\ref{eq:qprop_r}) 

451: are not necessary to be $O(a_t^2)$.

452: Comparing the expressions of  

453: eqs.~(\ref{eq:qprop}) and (\ref{eq:qprop_r}), we find at the tree level

454: \ben

455: Z_q^{-1/2}&=&1-\frac{r}{2}m_0 a_t,\\

456: Z_m&=&1-\frac{r}{2}m_0 a_t,\\

457: \nu&=&1,\\

458: \eta&=&1.

459: \label{eq:condition}

460: \een

461: 

462: Up to now three types of quark actions with different choices for

463: $r$ and $\eta$ have been proposed: 

464: (i) $r=1$ and $\eta=1$\cite{symm_at},

465: (ii) $r=\xi$ and $\eta=1$\cite{symm_as} and

466: (iii) $r=1$ and $\eta=\xi$\cite{pp}.

467: Although the action in the case of (iii) has been most extensively studied 

468: numerically, the choice of the parameter $\eta$ does not

469: meet the condition of eq.~(\ref{eq:condition}) that is

470: required from the on-shell improvement at the tree-level.

471: This primitive failure makes us consider that it is not worthwhile to

472: work on the case (iii) in this paper.

473: We focus on only cases (i) and (ii) hereafter. 

474: 

475: 

476: Let us first derive the relation between the bare quark mass $m_0$ and 

477: the pole mass $m_p$.

478: Putting $p_i=0$ and $p_0=i m_p$

479: into the inverse free quark propagator of eq.~(\ref{eq:qp_tree}),

480: the on-shell condition yields

481: \be

482: m_p a_t = {\rm log}\left| \frac{m_0 a_t +r 

483: +\sqrt{(m_0 a_t)^2+2 r m_0 a_t +1}}{1+r} \right|. 

484: \ee

485: While in the case (i) with $r=1$ we can expand 

486: $m_p a_t$ in powers of

487: $m_0$ under the condition $m_0 a_t \ll 1$,

488: in the case (ii) with $r=\xi$ the condition $\xi m_0 a_t=m_0 a_s\ll 1$

489: is necessary. To avoid any confusions we assume  

490: $m_0 a_s\ll 1$ from now on. We remark that this

491: assumption does not affect any conclusions in this section.

492: 

493: On the anisotropic lattice we have to be careful about 

494: contributions of space doublers.

495: Pole masses of space doublers are written as

496: \be

497: m_p^d a_t = {\rm log}\left| \frac{m_0^d a_t +r 

498: +\sqrt{(m_0^d a_t)^2+2 r m_0^d a_t +1}}{1+r} \right|

499: \ee

500: with

501: \be

502: m_0^d=m_0+\frac{2 r }{\xi^2} \frac{N_d}{a_t},

503: \ee

504: where $N_d$ components of spatial momentum 

505: $p_i$ are equal to $\pi/a_s$ at the edge of the Brillouin

506: zone. Although doubler pole masses are always heavier than

507: the physical one irrespective of the value of $m_0$, $r$ and

508: $\xi$, their differences in the large limit of $\xi$ are

509: given by

510: \ben

511: (m_p^d-m_p)a_s &\rightarrow& 

512: \frac{2}{\xi} N_d \frac{1}{1+m_0 a_t}+O\left(\frac{1}{\xi^2}\right)

513: \;\;\;\; {\rm case\; (i)},\\

514: (m_p^d-m_p)a_s &\rightarrow& 

515: \sqrt{1+2 m_0 a_s+4 N_d}-\sqrt{1+2 m_0 a_s}+O\left(\frac{1}{\xi}\right)

516: \;\;\;\; {\rm case\; (ii)}.

517: \een

518: For the case (i) we find the gap $(m_p^d-m_p)a_s$ diminishes as

519: $\xi$ becomes larger. This brings a

520: practical problem in numerical studies of heavy quarks:

521: contributions of doublers could contaminate 

522: signals of hadron states.

523: On the other hand, we are free from this problem 

524: in the case (ii).

525: 

526: 

527: \subsection{One-loop quark self energy}

528: 

529: The inverse full quark propagator is written as

530: \be

531: S_q^{-1}(p)=i \gamma_0 p_0+\nu i \sum_i \gamma_i p_i + m_0

532: +\frac{a}{2} p_0^2 + \eta \frac{a}{2} \sum_i p_i^2-\Sigma(p,m_0),

533: \label{eq:qp_inv}

534: \ee

535: where we take $a=r a_t$(;$a=a_t$ for (i) while $a=a_s$ for (ii)).

536: One-loop contributions to the quark self-energy

537: $\Sigma(p,m_0)$ consist of two types of diagrams depicted 

538: in Figs.~\ref{fig:qse} (a) and (b), which are expressed by

539: \ben

540: \Sigma_a(p,m)&=&\int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\sum_A\sum_{\mu}

541: \left\{

542: V_{1\mu}^A(p,p+k) S_q(p+k) V_{1\mu}^A(p+k,p)\right. \nn\\

543: &&\;\;\;\;\left.+V_{c\mu}^A(p,p+k) S_q(p+k) V_{1\mu}^A(p+k,p)\right. \nn\\ 

544: &&\;\;\;\;\left.+V_{1\mu}^A(p,p+k) S_q(p+k) V_{c\mu}^A(p+k,p)\right. \nn\\

545: &&\;\;\;\;\left.+V_{c\mu}^A(p,p+k) S_q(p+k) V_{c\mu}^A(p+k,p) 

546: \right\}G_{\mu\mu}^{AA}(k)

547: \een

548: and

549: \be

550: \Sigma_b(p)=\int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\sum_A\sum_{\mu}

551: V_{2\mu\mu}^{AA}(p,p) G_{\mu\mu}^{AA}(k)

552: \ee

553: with 

554: \ben

555: &&-\frac{\pi}{a_t}\le k_0 \le \frac{\pi}{a_t},\\

556: &&-\frac{\pi}{a_s}\le k_i \le \frac{\pi}{a_s}.

557: \een  

558: Expanding $\Sigma(p,m_0)=\Sigma_a(p,m_0)+\Sigma_b(p)$ in terms

559: of $p$ and $m_0$, we obtain  

560: \ben

561: \Sigma(p,m_0)&=&\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2} C_F\left[ \frac{\Sigma_0}{a}

562: +i \gamma_0 p_0(-L+\Sigma_1^t)+i \sum_i \gamma_i p_i(-L+\Sigma_1^s)

563: +m_0(-4L+\Sigma_2)\right. \nn\\

564: &&\;\;\;\;\left. +ap_0^2((1-3c_{\rm SW})L/2+\sigma_1^t)

565: +a\sum_i p_i^2((1-3c_{\rm SW})L/2+\sigma_1^s)\right.\nn\\

566: &&\;\;\;\;\left. +am_0 i \gamma_0 p_0((5+3c_{\rm SW})L/2+\sigma_2^t)

567: +am_0 i \sum_i \gamma_i p_i((5+3c_{\rm SW})L/2+\sigma_2^s)\right.\nn\\

568: &&\;\;\;\;\left. +am_0^2((5-3c_{\rm SW})L+\sigma_3)\right]+O(a_{t,s}^2)

569: \label{eq:qse}

570: \een

571: with $L=-{\rm log}(\lambda^2 a_s^2)$ 

572: the contribution of the infrared divergence.

573: Here we take $c_B = c_E \equiv c_{\rm SW}$ for the clover coefficient.

574: $\Sigma_0$, $\Sigma_1^{t,s}$, $\Sigma_2$ and 

575: $\sigma_1^{t,s}$, $\sigma_2^{t,s}$, $\sigma_3$ are independent of

576: $a$ but functions of $\xi$, $\eta$  and $r$ parameters.

577: We evaluate these quantities numerically using the Monte

578: Carlo integration routine BASES\cite{bases}.

579: 

580: 

581: 

582:  From eqs.~(\ref{eq:qp_inv}) and (\ref{eq:qse}) we obtain

583: \ben

584: Z_q^{-1/2}&=&\left\{1+\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}

585: \frac{C_F}{2}(-L+\Delta_q^{(0)})\right\}

586: \left\{1+a_t m\left(-\frac{r}{2}+\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}C_F\Delta_q^{(1)} 

587: \right)\right\},\\

588: Z_m&=&\left\{1+\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2} C_F(3L+\Delta_m^{(0)}\right\}

589: \left\{1+a_t m\left(-\frac{r}{2}+\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2} C_F\Delta_m^{(1)}

590: \right)\right\},\\

591: \nu&=&1-\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2} C_F\Delta_\nu^{(0)}

592: -\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2} C_F a_t m \Delta_\nu^{(1)},\\

593: \eta&=&1-2 \frac{g^2}{16\pi^2} C_F \Delta_\eta^{(0)},

594: \een 

595: where

596: \ben

597: m&=&m_0-\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}C_F\frac{\Sigma_0}{a},\\

598: \Delta_q^{(0)}&=&\Sigma_1^t,\\

599: \Delta_q^{(1)}&=&r\left(\sigma_1^t+

600: \frac{\sigma_2^t}{2}-\Sigma_1^t+\frac{\Sigma_2}{2}

601: +\frac{3(1-c_{\rm SW})}{4}L

602: \right),\\ 

603: \Delta_m^{(0)}&=&\Sigma_1^t-\Sigma_2,\\

604: \Delta_m^{(1)}&=&r\left(\sigma_1^t+

605: \sigma_2^t-\sigma_3-\Sigma_1^t+\frac{\Sigma_2}{2}

606: +3(c_{\rm SW}-1)L

607: \right),\\

608: \Delta_\nu^{(0)}&=&\Sigma_1^t-\Sigma_1^s,\\

609: \Delta_\nu^{(1)}&=&r \left(\sigma_2^t-\sigma_2^s\right),\\

610: \Delta_\eta^{(0)}&=&\sigma_1^t-\sigma_1^s.

611: \een

612: We find for the anisotropic case that 

613: the $g^2a {\log} a$ terms disappear in $Z_q$, $Z_m$ for $c_{\rm SW}$ =1 

614: as well as $\nu$ and $\eta$ for an arbitrary values of $c_{\rm SW}$,

615: as observed in $Z_q$ and $Z_m$ for the isotropic case\cite{sw_pt}.

616: Thus $c_{\rm SW}=1$ gives the tree level estimate for $c_B$ and $c_E$,

617: and we take this value for the latter numerical calculation in this section.

618: With this choice for $Z_q$, $Z_m$, $\nu$ and $\eta$ the

619: quark propagator is given by

620: \ben

621: S_q(p)&=&\frac{Z_q^{-1}}{p_0^2+\sum_i p_i^2 +m_R^2}

622: \left[-i \gamma_0 p_0 -i \sum_i \gamma_i p_i + m_R\right.\nn\\

623: &&\;\;\;\;\left. +a(p_0^2+\sum_i p_i^2 +m_R^2)\left\{\frac{1}{2}

624: -\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}C_F

625: \left(-\frac{L}{2}+\sigma_1^t-\frac{\Sigma_1^t}{2}\right)\right\}\right]\\

626: &=&Z_q^{-1} S_q^R(p)+Z_q^{-1}a\left\{\frac{1}{2}

627: -\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}C_F

628: \left(-\frac{L}{2}+\sigma_1^t-\frac{\Sigma_1^t}{2}\right)\right\},

629: \een

630: where $S_q^R(p)$ is the renormalized quark propagator.

631: We again remark that the term without the pole in the quark

632: propagator does not contribute to

633: on-shell quantities in Green functions.

634: 

635: We show $\xi$ dependences of one-loop coefficients

636: for $Z_q$, $Z_m$, $\nu$ and $\eta$ in Figs.~\ref{fig:zwf}, 

637: \ref{fig:zm}, \ref{fig:nu} and \ref{fig:eta}, respectively.

638: Here we consider both $r=1$ and $r=\xi$ cases with $\eta=1$, which satisfy

639: the tree-level on-shell condition in eq.~(\ref{eq:condition}).

640: Although our main concern is whether $m a_s$ corrections

641: could revive at the one-loop level 

642: for the $r=1$ case, we also present the results of the 

643: $r=\xi$ case for comparison.

644: Results for $\Delta_q^{(0)}$, $\Delta_q^{(1)}$, $\Delta_m^{(0)}$ and 

645: $\Delta_m^{(1)}$  in the isotropic case are already given in

646: Refs.~\cite{pt_g2,pt_g2a}.

647: They show an agreement with our results with the choice of $\xi=1$.

648: For the $r=1$ case, Figs.~\ref{fig:zm}(b),

649: \ref{fig:nu}(b) and \ref{fig:eta} show

650: approximate linear dependences on $\xi$ for

651: $\Delta_m^{(1)}$, $\Delta_\nu^{(1)}$ and

652: $\Delta_\eta^{(0)}$, which tells us that 

653: $O(g^2 a)$ contributions to $Z_m$, $\nu$ and $\eta$ 

654: are effectively of order $g^2 m

655: a_s=g^2 m a_t\xi$.   

656: We observe similar linear dependences for the $r=\xi$ case

657: in Figs.~\ref{fig:zwf}(b),

658: \ref{fig:zm}(b) and \ref{fig:eta}.

659:  From these observations we conclude that $m a_s$

660: corrections are allowed to revive at the one-loop level.

661: 

662: This is a reasonable conclusion in view of the on-shell

663: improvement. As far as we know there is no symmetry on the

664: anisotropic lattice to prohibit the higher dimensional operators

665: with the form of $(m a_s)^n {\cal O}_{4+k}$ ($n,k\ge 1$), 

666: where ${\cal O}_{4+k}$ denotes $4+k$ dimensional operators.

667: Unless such symmetry is uncovered, the theoretical advantage of

668: the anisotropic lattice over the isotropic one would 

669: be never confirmed.

670: 

671:   

672: 

673: \section{Isotropic lattice}

674: \label{sec:iso}

675: 

676: In this section we propose a new relativistic approach to

677: control $m_Q a$ corrections for the heavy quarks on the

678: lattice. The idea is based on the on-shell improvement

679: programme applied to the heavy quarks 

680: on the isotropic lattice. 

681: This method allows us to obtain the physical quantities 

682: in the continuum limit   

683: without requiring harsh condition $m_Q a \ll 1$ that is not 

684: achievable in near future.

685: 

686: Let us consider the general cutoff effects for the heavy quarks on

687: the lattice.

688: Here we assume that the heavy quark mass $m_Q$ is much

689: heavier than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, while the light quark mass $m_q$

690: is lighter than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.

691: Under this condition we assume that the leading cutoff

692: effects are

693: \be

694: f_0(m_Q a)>f_1(m_Q a)a\lqcd>f_2(m_Q a)(a\lqcd)^2>\cdots,

695: \ee

696: where $f_i(m_Q a)$ ($i\geq 0$) are smooth and continuous 

697: all over the range of 

698: $m_Q a$ and have Taylor expansions at $m_Q a=0$ with

699: sufficiently large convergence radii beyond $m_Q a=1$.

700: To control the scaling

701: violation effects we want to remove the cutoff effects up to

702: $f_1(m_Q a)a\lqcd$ by adding the counter terms

703: to the lattice quark action with the on-shell improvement.

704: If $m_Q a$ is small enough,

705: the remaining $f_2(m_Q a)(a\lqcd)^2$ contributions can be removed by

706: extrapolating the numerical data at several lattice spacings 

707: to the continuum limit. Otherwise, in case of

708: sufficiently small lattice spacing, 

709: the $O((a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2)$ errors can be neglected.

710: Our aim in this section is to search for the relevant counter terms

711: required in the on-shell improvement and propose a

712: nonperturbative method to determine their coefficients. 

713: We also show that the behavior of $f_i(m_Q a)$ ($i\geq 1$) in

714: the large $m_Q a$ region can be discussed by investigating the 

715: static limit.

716: 

717: 

718: \subsection{On-shell improvement on the isotropic lattice}

719: \label{subsec:onshell_iso}

720: 

721: We first list the allowed operators under the

722: requirement of the gauge, axis permutation and other various

723: discrete symmetries on the lattice, where

724: the chiral symmetry is not imposed.

725: According to the work of Ref.~\cite{sw}, all the operators

726: with dimension up to six are given by

727: \ben

728: {\rm dim.3:}&& {\cal O}_3(x)={\bar q}(x)q(x), \\ 

729: {\rm dim.4:}&& {\cal O}_{4}(x)={\bar q}(x)\slal{D}{} q(x),\\

730: {\rm dim.5:}&& {\cal O}_{5a}(x)={\bar q}(x)D_\mu^2 q(x),\\

731:             && {\cal O}_{5b}(x)=i{\bar q}(x)

732:                                 \sigma_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} q(x),\\

733: {\rm dim.6:}&& {\cal O}_{6a}(x)={\bar q}(x)\gamma_\mu D_\mu^3 q(x),\\

734:             && {\cal O}_{6b}(x)={\bar q}(x)D_\mu^2 \slal{D}{} 

735:                                 q(x),\\

736:             && {\cal O}_{6c}(x)={\bar q}(x)\slal{D}{} 

737:                                 D_\mu^2 q(x),\\

738:             && {\cal O}_{6d}(x)=i{\bar q}(x)\gamma_\mu[D_\nu,

739:                                 F_{\mu\nu}] q(x),\\

740:             && {\cal O}_{6e}(x)={\bar q}(x){\slal{D}{}}^{\,3} q(x),\\

741:             && {\cal O}_{6f}(x)={\bar q}(x)\Gamma q(x)

742:                                 {\bar q}(x)\Gamma q(x),

743: \een  

744: where $\Gamma=1,\gamma_5,\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\mu\gamma_5,\sigma_{\mu\nu}$.

745: The higher dimensional operators are

746: related to the lower dimensional operators with additional

747: $(m_Q a)^n$ corrections with and without classical field

748: equations, or otherwise they have the contributions 

749: of order $(a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ or less as the cutoff effects. 

750: 

751: 

752: These operators lead to a following generic form of the quark

753: action on the isotropic lattice:

754: \be

755: S_q^{\rm imp}=\sum_x\left[ 

756: c_3{\cal O}_3(x)+c_{4}{\cal O}_{4}(x) 

757: +\sum_{i=a,b} c_{5i}{\cal O}_{5i}(x) 

758: +\sum_{i=a,\dots,f} c_{6i}{\cal O}_{6i}(x)  

759: \right],

760: \label{eq:qimp_iso}

761: \ee

762: where $c_3,\dots,c_{6f}$ are functions of the bare gauge

763: coupling $g$ and the power corrections of $ma$.

764: We first remark that the $m a$ corrections to the quark mass term

765: and the kinetic term can be absorbed 

766: in the renormalizations of the quark mass $Z_m$ and the

767: wave function $Z_q$.

768: For the sake of convenience we choose $c_3=m_0$ and $c_4=1$.

769: 

770: In the next step we reduce the number of basis

771: operators with the aid of the classical field equations.

772: It is easily found that ${\cal O}_{5a}$, ${\cal O}_{6b}$, 

773: ${\cal O}_{6c}$ and  ${\cal O}_{6e}$ can be 

774: related to the quark mass term

775: or the kinetic term. In the on-shell improvement these

776: operators are redundant and can be eliminated 

777: from the action of eq.~(\ref{eq:qimp_iso}).

778: The operator ${\cal O}_{5a}$, however, 

779: is used to avoid the species doubling and the value of its

780: coefficient $c_{5a}$ is given by hand.  

781: 

782: The remaining operators are

783: ${\cal O}_{5b}$, ${\cal O}_{6a}$, ${\cal O}_{6d}$ and 

784: ${\cal O}_{6f}$,

785: whose contributions as the cutoff effects  

786: are estimated in Table~\ref{tab:action}.

787: We use the classical field equation for 

788: ${\bar q}(x)\gamma_0 D_0^3 q(x)$ in ${\cal O}_{6a}$.

789: Here it should be noted that $\lqcd$ means 

790: the order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ or less throughout this paper.

791: In some cases the actual contribution may become smaller.

792: For example,

793: the contributions of the bilinear terms 

794: whose Dirac matrices consist of off-diagonal components

795: are suppressed by the extra $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$

796: for the heavy quarks compared to the light quarks.

797: The operator ${\cal O}_{5b}$ is the so-called clover term,

798: for which

799: the nonperturbative method to determine the coefficient 

800: $c_{5b}$ in the massless limit is already

801: established\cite{impr}. 

802: However, the contributions of $(ma)^n{\cal O}_{5b}$ 

803: ($n\geq 1$) cannot be neglected in the 

804: present condition that allows $m_Q a\sim O(1)$. 

805: For $O(a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ improvement

806: the coefficient $c_{5b}$ has to be adjusted in the mass dependent way.

807: The differences in magnitude between the time and space components in

808: ${\cal O}_{6a}$ 

809: originate from the violation of rotational

810: symmetry on the lattice with finite lattice spacing.

811: While the contributions of the space components 

812: are found to be negligible, 

813: those of the time components should be removed. 

814: We also find the contributions of the four-quark operators

815: in ${\cal O}_{6f}$ are negligible.

816: 

817: The generalization of 

818: the above argument to any operators with higher

819: dimensions makes the discussion more transparent.

820: Let us consider  an arbitrary operator with

821: $4+k$ dimension,

822: $a^k {\cal O}_{4+k}$, where we write the lattice spacing $a$ explicitly.

823: The operator ${\cal O}_{4+k}$ contains $l$ pairs of $\bar q$ and $q$ and

824: $n$ covariant derivatives $D_\mu$ with $4+ k = 3 \times l + n$.

825: Using the classical field equation, 

826: some (but not all) of covariant derivatives

827: can be replaced by the quark mass $m$. For $l\ge 2$ 

828: the largest possible power of the scaling violation is 

829: $ (m a )^n (a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^{3l-4}$. 

830: Therefore the operators which contain four or more quarks

831: are irrelevant for the $O(a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ improvement.

832: All the relevant contributions come from the quark bilinear operators. 

833: With the aid of the classical field equations, they can be

834: reduced to

835: \ben

836: && (m a)^n a^{-1} {\bar q}(x)q(x)  \\

837: && (m a)^{n-1} {\bar q}(x)\gamma_0 D_0 q(x),\;\; 

838: (m a)^{n-1} \sum_i {\bar q}(x)\gamma_i D_i q(x)\\

839: && (m a)^{n-2}a {\bar q}(x) D_0^2 q(x),\;\; 

840: (m a)^{n-2}a \sum_i {\bar q}(x) D_i^2 q(x)\\

841: && (m a)^{n-2} a i\sum_i {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{0i}F_{0i} q(x),\;\;

842: (m a)^{n-2} a i\sum_{ij} {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{ij}F_{ij} q(x),

843: \een

844: for $n \geq 0$. The time and space components of 

845: ${\cal O}_{4}$ and ${\cal O}_{5a,5b}$ should be treated separately

846: in case of finite $ma$, where

847: the space-time asymmetry reflects the contributions of the higher

848: dimensional operators that break the rotational symmetry.

849: Now we know that the seven operators are

850: needed for the $O(a\lqcd)$ improvement.

851: Since three coefficients among these seven operators

852: can be absorbed in $Z_m$, $Z_q$ and the Wilson parameter $r_t$ 

853: for the time derivative as already explained,

854: the remaining four coefficients have to be actually tuned.

855: 

856: In conclusion, at all order of $m a$,

857: the generic quark action is

858: written as

859: \ben

860: S_q^{\rm imp}&=&\sum_x\left[ m_0{\bar q}(x)q(x)

861: +{\bar q}(x)\gamma_0 D_0q(x)

862: +\nu \sum_i {\bar q}(x)\gamma_i D_i q(x)

863: -\frac{r_t a}{2} {\bar q}(x)D_0^2 q(x)\right.\nn\\

864: &&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\left.-\frac{r_s a}{2} \sum_i {\bar q}(x)D_i^2 q(x)

865: -\frac{ig a}{2}c_E \sum_i {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{0i}F_{0i} q(x)

866: -\frac{ig a}{4}c_B \sum_{i,j} {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{ij}F_{ij} q(x)

867: \right],

868: \label{eq:qaction_iso}

869: \een

870: where we are allowed to choose $r_t=1$ and the four parameters

871: $\nu$, $r_s$, $c_E$ and $c_B$ are to be adjusted.

872: In general these parameters have the form that

873: $X=\sum_n X_n(g^2) (m a)^n$ 

874: with $X=\nu$, $r_s$, $c_E$ and $c_B$, and

875: $X_0$ should agree with the one in the massless $O(a)$ improved

876: theory: $\nu_0=1$, $(r_s)_0=r_t=1$, $(c_E)_0=(c_B)_0 = c_{\rm SW}$\cite{impr}.

877: Note that $\nu = 1 + O( (ma)^2)$ and $r_s = r_t + O( ma)$ since

878: the space-time asymmetry arises from Lorentz non-covariant terms such as

879: ${\cal O}_{6a}$ via the on-shell reduction,

880: accompanied by extra $(ma)^2$ factors.

881: 

882: 

883: {}From the above consideration, 

884: the leading scaling violation in the massive theory,

885: except for 

886: $\sum_{n=1}^\infty C_n^{q,m}(g^2, \log a) (m_Q a)^n$ in $Z_q$ and $Z_m$,

887: is $\sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n^{\rm W}(g^2, \log a) (m_Q a)^n a\Lambda_{\rm QCD} $

888: for the Wilson quark action, or 

889: $\sum_{n=1}^\infty C_n^{\rm SW}(g^2, \log a) (m_Q a)^n 

890: a\Lambda_{\rm QCD} $ for the (massless) $O(a)$ improved SW quark action.

891: Here we should notice that the contribution of 

892: $(\nu-1) \sum_i {\bar q}(x)\gamma_i D_i q(x)$ 

893: is of order $m_Q^2 a^2\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q\sim m_Q a^2\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\sim

894: a\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ in the heavy quark region.

895: This implies that once we fix the pole mass from some spectral

896: quantity, the cutoff effects in other spectral quantities are

897: at most of order $a\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, not $(m_Q a)^n$, 

898: for the Wilson and the

899: (massless) $O(a)$ improved SW quark actions.

900: It should be noted that the quark wave function does not affect on the

901: spectral quantities.

902: If $\nu$, $r_s$, $c_E$ and $c_B$ are

903: properly adjusted in the mass dependent way,

904: the remaining scaling violations are reduced to 

905: $\sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n^{\rm ours}(g^2, \log a) (m_Q a)^n 

906: (a \Lambda_{\rm QCD} )^2$. 

907: 

908: This relativistic argument about the on-shell improvement

909: on the massive quarks helps us understand some numerical

910: results for heavy quark physics previously obtained by using

911: the Wilson and SW quark actions under the condition $m_Q

912: a\sim O(1)$.

913: We find a good example in Fig.~2 of Ref.~\cite{jlqcd96},

914: which compares

915: the difference between twice of the heavy-light meson mass and 

916: the heavy-heavy one, $2m_{HL}-m_{HH}$, obtained by using the pole mass

917: or the kinetic mass defined by $\partial^2

918: E_{HH}/\partial p_i^2$.

919: We observe that $2m_{HL}-m_{HH}$ with the pole mass is

920: consistent with the experimental values within the

921: ambiguities of order $a\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ as expected, while 

922: $2m_{HL}-m_{HH}$ with the kinetic mass gets deviated from the

923: experimental values further and further as $m_Q a$ becomes larger.

924: Recall that the authors of Ref.~\cite{fermilab} suggest from a

925: nonrelativistic point of view that

926: the kinetic mass should be used for analyses on the

927: heavy quark quantities.

928: Our relativistic argument, however, tells us

929: that the use of the pole mass makes the remaining cutoff 

930: effects $O(a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$.

931: Since the difference between the kinetic mass and the pole

932: mass is of order $(m_Q a)^2$ at the tree-level, 

933: the use of the kinetic mass eventually yields unwanted

934: additional $(m_Q a)^2$ errors. This is the reason why the results 

935: of $2m_{HL}-m_{HH}$ with the kinetic mass show considerable

936: deviation from the

937: experimental values.

938: 

939: At the end of this subsection we have to remark one point. 

940: The $m a$ corrections in $Z_m$ and $Z_q$, though they are irrelevant

941: for spectral quantities, become important,

942: together with other renormalization factors

943: in case of calculating the quark

944: masses and the matrix elements of various composite operators.

945: In Sec.~\ref{subsec:npr} we will show how to

946: calculate these renormalization factors nonperturbatively 

947: including the $(m_Q a)^n$ corrections.

948: 

949: \subsection{Improvement of the axial current}

950: \label{subsec:axial}

951: 

952: The cutoff effects in the correlation functions of local

953: composite fields are originated from not only the action but

954: also the composite fields themselves. 

955: In this subsection we demonstrate the on-shell improvement

956: on the axial current, which is relevant for calculation

957: of the heavy-light pseudoscalar meson 

958: decay constants like $f_B$ and $f_D$.

959: 

960: The axial current in the $N_f$ flavor space is given by

961: \be

962: {\cal A}_\mu^a (x)={\bar q}(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\frac{\lambda^a}{2} q(x),

963: \ee 

964: where $\lambda^a/2$ ($a=1,\dots,N_f^2-1$) 

965: are generators of SU($N_f$). 

966: The improvement of this operator is performed in the same

967: way as the improvement of the quark action.

968: After some consideration we find that it is sufficient to

969: consider only the dimension four operators 

970: for the $O(a\lqcd)$ improvement:

971: the higher dimensional operators can be reduced to ${\cal

972: A}_\mu^a$ or the

973: dimension four operators multiplied by $(ma)^n$

974: using the classical field equations, or otherwise

975: their contributions are of order $(a\lqcd)^2$. 

976: The requirement of various

977: symmetries on the lattice allows the following 

978: dimension four operators:

979: \ben

980: {\rm dim.4:}&& ({\cal A}_{4a})_\mu^a(x)={\bar q}(x)\gamma_5 D_\mu 

981:                               \frac{\lambda^a}{2} q(x)+

982:                               {\bar q}(x){\overleftarrow D}_\mu \gamma_5  

983:                               \frac{\lambda^a}{2} q(x),\\

984:             && ({\cal A}_{4b})_\mu^a(x)={\bar q}(x)

985:                                 \gamma_5 \sigma_{\mu\nu}D_\nu 

986:                               \frac{\lambda^a}{2} q(x)

987:                                -{\bar q}(x){\overleftarrow D}_\nu 

988:                                \sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5 

989:                               \frac{\lambda^a}{2} q(x),

990: \een

991: where we do not take the sum on the index $\mu$.

992: We find that $({\cal A}_{4b})_\mu^a$ is related to

993: $({\cal A}_{4a})_\mu^a$ and ${\cal A}_\mu^a$

994: with the aid of the classical field equations,

995: which means the operator $({\cal A}_{4b})_\mu^a$

996: is redundant for the $O(a\lqcd)$ improvement. 

997: 

998: After all the improved axial current is written as

999: \be

1000: ({\cal A}_\mu^a)^{\rm imp}(x)=

1001: {\cal A}_\mu^a(x)+d_\mu(g^2,ma)({\cal A}_{4a})_\mu^a(x).

1002: \ee

1003: The parameter $d_\mu$ has been already calculated in the massless case. 

1004: Perturbative estimate gives

1005: $d_\mu(g^2,ma=0)=-0.00756g^2$\cite{dmu}, which is fairly

1006: small in magnitude.

1007:  From this fact we think that

1008: it would be sufficient to evaluate $d_\mu$ perturbatively

1009: in the massive case. 

1010: The lattice operator $({\cal A}_\mu^a)^{\rm imp}$ is related to

1011: the continuum operator with

1012: the renormalization factor $Z_A$:

1013: \be

1014: ({\cal A}_\mu^a)^{\rm con}(x)

1015: =Z_A(g^2,{\rm log}a,ma)({\cal A}_\mu^a)^{\rm imp}(x).

1016: \ee

1017: The power corrections of $ma$ in $Z_A$ need to be under

1018: control to obtain

1019: the heavy-light pseudoscalar meson decay constants defined

1020: in the continuum regularization scheme.

1021: In Sec.~\ref{subsec:npr} we will show how to remove 

1022: the $ma$ corrections in $Z_A$ with a nonperturbative

1023: method.

1024: 

1025: \subsection{Benefit of chiral symmetry}

1026: \label{subsec:chiral}

1027: 

1028: Although the above discussions are free from the chiral symmetry,

1029: it is also interesting to look into what can be changed by

1030: the presence of the chiral symmetry.

1031: For the convenience we treat the quark mass matrix in the

1032: $N_f$ flavor space

1033: \be

1034: M=\left( \begin{array}{cccc}

1035: m_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0     \\

1036: 0 & m_2 & \cdots & 0     \\

1037: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots  \\

1038: 0 & 0 & \cdots & m_{N_f} 

1039: \end{array}

1040: \right)

1041: \ee

1042: as a spurious field $\mm$  

1043: which transforms like

1044: \ben

1045: \mm \rightarrow V_R \mm V_L^\dagger,\\

1046: \mm^\dagger \rightarrow V_L \mm^\dagger V_R^\dagger,

1047: \een

1048: under SU$(N_f)_L\times$SU$(N_f)_R$, where $V_L$ and $V_R$ are

1049: elements of the fundamental representation of

1050: SU$(N_f)_L$ and SU$(N_f)_R$ respectively.

1051: In terms of quark fields $q$ and ${\bar q}$, 

1052: SU$(N_f)_L$ and SU$(N_f)_R$ act on the left and right handed

1053: components,

1054: \ben

1055: q_L=\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}q,\\

1056: {\bar q}_L={\bar q}\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2},\\

1057: q_R=\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}q,\\

1058: {\bar q}_R={\bar q}\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2},

1059: \een

1060: whose transformation properties are given by

1061: \ben

1062: &&q_L \rightarrow V_L q_L,\\

1063: &&{\bar q}_L \rightarrow {\bar q}_L V_L^\dagger,\\

1064: &&q_R \rightarrow V_R q_R,\\

1065: &&{\bar q}_R \rightarrow {\bar q}_R V_R^\dagger.

1066: \een

1067: We work all the calculations assuming this symmetry and 

1068: at the end of calculations we can choose $\mm=\mm^\dagger=M$. 

1069: 

1070: 

1071: With this artifice let us consider which operators among

1072: ${\cal O}_3,\dots,{\cal O}_{6f}$ in the quark action are allowed 

1073: under SU$(N_f)_L\times$SU$(N_f)_R$ symmetry.

1074: We easily find that the dimension three and five 

1075: operators are not allowed.

1076: As for the dimension six operators, some four-fermi

1077: operators are excluded.

1078: We also observe that the power corrections of $m_Q a$ emerge

1079: as the form 

1080: \be

1081: M^{2n}\cdot ({\rm SU}(N_f)_L\times{\rm SU}(N_f)_R 

1082: \;\;{\rm invariant}\;\;{\rm operators}) 

1083: \label{eq:ma_power}

1084: \ee

1085: with $n\geq 0$, which means

1086: \ben

1087: &&{\bar q}(x)M^{2n+1}q(x),\\

1088: &&{\bar q}(x)M^{2n}\gamma_\mu D_\mu q(x),\\

1089: &&i{\bar q}(x)M^{2n+1}\sigma_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} q(x)

1090: \een

1091: are allowed, while

1092: \ben

1093: &&{\bar q}(x)M^{2n}q(x),\\

1094: &&{\bar q}(x)M^{2n+1}\gamma_\mu D_\mu q(x),\\

1095: &&i{\bar q}(x)M^{2n}\sigma_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} q(x)

1096: \een

1097: are forbidden.

1098: This may be advantageous in controlling the cutoff

1099: effects as $m_Q a$ becomes smaller away from one.

1100: Even for the chiral non-invariant quark action such as

1101: the SW quark action, however,

1102: the leading cutoff effects except for $Z_q$ and $Z_m$

1103: are $ (m_Q a)^n a\lqcd $ with

1104: $n\not=0$, which are of the same order as those in 

1105: the chirally symmetric actions,

1106: once the coefficient of ${\cal O}_{5b}$ in

1107: the quark action is nonperturbatively tuned in the

1108: massless limit.

1109: 

1110: As for the improvement of the axial current,

1111: the similar argument can be applied. The dimension four operators 

1112: $({\cal A}_{4a})_\mu$ and $({\cal A}_{4b})_\mu$ 

1113: are not allowed by the chiral

1114: symmetry and the power corrections of $m_Q a$ are restricted

1115: to the form of eq.~(\ref{eq:ma_power}).

1116: As an example,

1117: \be

1118: {\bar q}(x)M^{2n+1}\gamma_5 D_\mu \frac{\lambda^a}{2} q(x)+

1119: {\bar q}(x)M^{2n+1}{\overleftarrow D}_\mu \gamma_5  

1120: \frac{\lambda^a}{2} q(x),\\

1121: \ee

1122: with $n\geq 0$ are allowed.

1123: 

1124: \subsection{$m_Q a$ corrections at tree-level}

1125: \label{subsec:tree}

1126: 

1127: In order to control the $m_Q a$ corrections 

1128: it should be essential to nonperturbatively 

1129: determine the renormalization factors $Z_m$

1130: and $Z_q$ and

1131: the four parameters $\nu$,

1132: $r_s$, $c_E$ and $c_B$. 

1133: However, we think it is instructive to first 

1134: investigate the $m_Q a$ corrections at the tree-level.

1135: 

1136: $Z_q$, $Z_m$, $\nu$ and $r_s$ can be determined by

1137: demanding  that the tree-level quark propagator 

1138: $S_q(p)$ derived from eq.~(\ref{eq:qaction_iso}) should reproduce

1139: the relativistic form 

1140: \be

1141: S_q(p_0,p_i)=

1142: \frac{1}{Z_q}

1143: \frac{ -i \gamma_0 p_0- i \sum_i \gamma_i p_i + m_p}

1144: {p_0^2+\sum_i p_i^2 +m_p^2}

1145: +{\rm (no\;\; pole\;\; terms)}+O((p_i a)^2)

1146: \label{eq:qprop_r_iso}

1147: \ee

1148: around the pole.

1149: Imposing $p_i=0$ we first obtain 

1150: \ben

1151: m_p&=&{\rm log}\left|\frac{m_0+r_t+\sqrt{m_0^2+2r_t m_0+1}}

1152: {1+r_t}\right|,\\

1153: Z_m&=&\frac{m_p}{m_0},\\

1154: Z_q&=&{\rm cosh}(m_p)+r_t {\rm sinh}(m_p).

1155: \een

1156: We then find with finite spatial momenta

1157: \ben

1158: \nu&=&\frac{{\rm sinh}(m_p)}{m_p},

1159: \label{eq:nu}\\

1160: r_s&=&\frac{{\rm cosh}(m_p)+r_t {\rm sinh}(m_p)}{m_p}

1161: -\frac{{\rm sinh}(m_p)}{m_p^2}.

1162: \label{eq:rs}

1163: \een

1164: We should notice that the $m_Q a$ corrections start at 

1165: $O((m_Q a)^2)$, not $O(m_Q a)$, in the $\nu$ parameter as expected.

1166: Figure~\ref{fig:tree_ma} illustrates the $m_p a$ dependences of

1167: $Z_q$, $Z_m$, $\nu$ and $r_s$ in case of $r_t=1$. We observe that

1168: the $m_p a$ dependences of $\nu$ is relatively

1169: mild compared to those of $Z_q$, $Z_m$ and $r_s$. 

1170: 

1171: To fix the $c_E$ and $c_B$ parameters we

1172: consider the quark-quark scattering amplitude 

1173: depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:scatt}.

1174: The improvement condition is that

1175: $c_E$ and $c_B$ should

1176: be chosen to reproduce the following form of

1177: scattering amplitude at the on-shell point 

1178: removing the $m_Q a$ corrections,

1179: \ben

1180: T &=&-g^2{\bar u}(p^\prime)\gamma_\mu u(p)D_{\mu\nu}(p-p^\prime)

1181: {\bar u}(q^\prime)\gamma_\nu u(q)\nn\\

1182: &&-g^2{\bar u}(q^\prime)\gamma_\mu u(p)D_{\mu\nu}(p-q^\prime)

1183: {\bar u}(p^\prime)\gamma_\nu u(q)

1184: +O((p_i a)^2,(q_i a)^2,(p^\prime_i a)^2,(q_i^\prime a)^2),

1185: \een

1186: where $D_{\mu\nu}$ is the gluon propagator on the lattice.

1187: Notice that with the use of the Gordon identity

1188: (; on-shell condition for external spinors $u$, ${\bar u}$)

1189: the quark-gluon interaction induced by the

1190: clover term can be transformed into the ordinary quark-gluon

1191: vertex:

1192: \ben

1193: &&{\bar u}(p^\prime)\sum_l i \sigma_{0l}

1194: ({\rm sin}(p_l^\prime)-{\rm sin}(p_l)) u(p) \nn\\

1195: &=&{\bar u}(p^\prime)\frac{1}{\nu}[

1196: i{\rm sin}(p_0^\prime)+i{\rm sin}(p_0)

1197: +\gamma_0\{ 2(m_0+r_t)-r_t({\rm cos}(p^\prime_0)+{\rm

1198: cos}(p_0))\nn\\&&

1199: +r_s\sum_l (2-{\rm cos}(p^\prime_l)-{\rm cos}(p_l))\}] u(p),

1200: \label{eq:gordon_t}\\

1201: &&{\bar u}(p^\prime) i \sigma_{i0}

1202: ({\rm sin}(p_0^\prime)-{\rm sin}(p_0)) u(p) 

1203: +{\bar u}(p^\prime)\sum_{l}\nu i \sigma_{il}

1204: ({\rm sin}(p_l^\prime)-{\rm sin}(p_l)) u(p) \nn\\

1205: &=&{\bar u}(p^\prime)[{\nu}

1206: (i{\rm sin}(p_i^\prime)+i{\rm sin}(p_i))

1207: +\gamma_i\{ 2(m_0+r_t)-r_t({\rm cos}(p^\prime_0)+{\rm cos}(p_0))\nn\\&&

1208: +r_s\sum_l (2-{\rm cos}(p^\prime_l)-{\rm cos}(p_l))\}] u(p).

1209: \label{eq:gordon_s}

1210: \een

1211: This improvement procedure with the finite quark mass is 

1212: an extension of the previous work\cite{c_sw} that

1213: determined the $c_{\rm SW}=c_E=c_B$ parameter up to

1214: one-loop level in the massless case.

1215: After some algebra with the aid of eqs.~(\ref{eq:gordon_t}) 

1216: and (\ref{eq:gordon_s}), we obtain

1217: \ben

1218: c_E&=&r_t \nu,

1219: \label{eq:ce}\\

1220: c_B&=&r_s,

1221: \label{eq:cb}

1222: \een

1223: where $\nu$ and $r_s$ are already determined from the

1224: on-shell improvement on the quark propagator.

1225: 

1226: You may have already noticed that our values for $\nu$, $r_s$ and

1227: $c_E$ are different from those derived in Ref.~\cite{fermilab}.

1228: This difference originates from whether the on-shell

1229: improvement is implemented in the relativistic way or in the

1230: nonrelativistic way. (more precisely, in case that the

1231: Lagrangian does not retain the 

1232: rotational invariance on the Euclidean space-time,

1233: we need both the momentum operator and the Hamiltonian

1234: to discuss the rotational symmetry.)

1235: For example, both methods give the same

1236: relation for the $\nu$ and $r_s$ parameters from the

1237: dispersion relation:

1238: \be

1239: \nu^2+r_s{\rm sinh}(m_p)=\frac{{\rm sinh}(m_p)}{m_p}

1240: \left\{{\rm cosh}(m_p)+r_t {\rm sinh}(m_p)\right\}.

1241: \ee

1242: In the nonrelativistic approach, however, $\nu$ and $r_s$

1243: are not distinguishable due to the lack of relativistic

1244: informations.

1245: Generally speaking, we do not have sufficient number of

1246: nonrelativistic conditions

1247: to fix the coefficients of the 

1248: relativistic operators with higher dimensions because the

1249: degrees of freedom of quarks are

1250: smaller  

1251: in the nonrelativistic approximation compared to the

1252: relativistic case.

1253: Although the nonrelativistic approach with the Wilson type

1254: quark action\cite{fermilab} has been considered to work better

1255: than the NRQCD in the charm quark region where

1256: the sizable relativistic effects are expected,

1257: this is not necessarily assured because this approach  

1258: does not meet the relativistic on-shell improvement. 

1259: 

1260: \subsection{Large $m_Q a$ and static limit}

1261: \label{subsec:static}

1262: 

1263: Although we have restricted ourselves to the case of finite

1264: $m_Q a$ so far,

1265: it is worthwhile to show that we can 

1266: derive the static quark action from 

1267: eq.~(\ref{eq:qaction_iso}) by taking $m_Q a\rightarrow \infty$.

1268: In terms of the heavy quark field $h(x)$ defined by

1269: \ben

1270: q(x) &=& \frac{{\rm e}^{iE t}}{\sqrt{m_0}} h(x),

1271: \een

1272: where $E = \pm i m_p$,

1273: the lattice action in eq.~(\ref{eq:qaction_iso}) becomes

1274: \ben

1275:  S_q^{\rm imp} &=& \sum_x \left[

1276: \left({1+ \frac{r_t}{m_0}+\frac{3r_s}{m_0}}\right) \bar h(x) h(x) -

1277: \frac{{\rm e}^{iE}}{2m_0}\bar h(x) (r_t -\gamma_0) 

1278: U_0(x) h(x+\hat 0)\right. \nn \\

1279: &&\left.-\frac{{\rm e}^{-iE}}{2m_0}\bar 

1280: h(x+\hat 0) (r_t +\gamma_0) U_0(x)^\dagger  h(x)\right] 

1281: + O\left(\frac{(\nu, c_E, r_s, c_B)}{m_0}\right) .

1282: \een

1283: Taking $m_0\rightarrow \infty$ and setting $r_t=1$ for simplicity, 

1284: we obtain

1285: \ben

1286: S_q^{\rm imp} &\simeq& \sum_x \left[\bar h(x) h(x) -

1287: \bar h(x+\hat 0) \frac{1 +\gamma_0}{2} U_0(x)^\dagger  h(x) \right]

1288: \een

1289: for the heavy quark($E = i m_p$), or

1290: \ben

1291: S_q^{\rm imp} &\simeq& \sum_x \left[\bar h(x) h(x) -

1292: \bar h(x) \frac{1 -\gamma_0}{2} U_0(x) h(x+\hat 0) \right]

1293: \een

1294: for the heavy anti-quark($E = - i m_p$),

1295: since

1296: \ben

1297: \frac{\nu}{m_0}=\frac{\ce}{m_0}&\sim& O\left(\frac{1}{m_p}\right),

1298: \label{eq:nu/m0}\\

1299: \frac{r_s}{m_0}=\frac{\cb}{m_0}&\sim& O\left(\frac{1}{m_p}\right),

1300: \label{eq:rs/m0} \\

1301: \frac{{\rm e}^{m_p}}{m_0} &\simeq& 1,

1302: \een

1303: where $m_p={\rm log}|1+m_0|$ is used.

1304: We replace $\frac{1\pm\gamma_0}{2} h(x) = h(x)$

1305: from the property that $ \gamma_0 h(x) = h(x)$ for the quark and

1306: $\gamma_0 h(x) = -h(x)$ for the anti-quark.

1307: Thus we exactly obtain the static quark action, where the quark moves forward,

1308: or the static anti-quark action, where the anti-quark moves backward

1309: in time.

1310: 

1311: 

1312: The existence of the static limit may give some constraints on the

1313: mass dependent scaling violation for $m_Q a \gg 1$.

1314: As an explicit example, we take the heavy-light pseudoscalar

1315: meson decay constant $f_{HL}$.

1316: One can extract $f_{HL}$ from the correlation function of the

1317: heavy-light current 

1318: ${\cal A}^{HL}_0(x) = \bar q_H(x)\gamma_0\gamma_5 q_L(x)$

1319: with zero spatial momentum following

1320: \ben

1321: Z_q^{(0)}\langle {\cal A}^{HL}_0 (t) {\cal A}^{HL}_0(0)\rangle

1322: &\simeq& f_{HL}^2 m_{HL} e^{-m_{HL} t},

1323: \een

1324: where $Z_q^{(0)}$ denotes the renormalization factor of the 

1325: quark wave function at the tree-level. 

1326: On the other hand, in the static limit, the current is given by

1327: $ \bar h(x) \gamma_0 \gamma_5 q_L(x) =

1328: \sqrt{m_0}{{\rm e}^{m_Qt}}{\cal A}^{HL}_0(x)$, and

1329: the correlation function

1330: \ben

1331: m_0 \langle {\cal A}^{HL}_0 (t) {\cal A}^{HL}_0(0)\rangle &\simeq &

1332: C^2 e^{-\Delta E t}

1333: \een

1334: has a well-defined limit. 

1335:  From the relation $ Z_q^{(0)}={\rm e}^{m_p}\simeq m_0$ with

1336: $r_t=1$ and

1337: $ m_{HL} \simeq m_Q + \Delta E$, we obtain

1338: \ben

1339: f_{HL} &=& \frac{ C}{ \sqrt{m_{HL}}} .

1340: \een

1341: Since the continuum limit can be taken in the static theory,

1342: $ C$ should behave as 

1343: \ben

1344: \frac{C}{\lqcd^{3/2}} &=& w_0 + w_k (a\lqcd)^k +O( (a\lqcd)^{k+1})

1345: \een

1346: where $k=1$ for the Wilson light quark action or 

1347: $k=2$ for the (nonperturbatively tuned) SW light quark action. 

1348: Therefore the following relation holds 

1349: for $m_Q a\rightarrow \infty$:

1350: \ben

1351: \frac{f_{HL}}{\lqcd} &=& \sqrt{\frac{\lqcd}{m_{HL}}} 

1352: \left[ w_0 + w_k (a\lqcd)^k +O( (a\lqcd)^{k+1})\right].

1353: \label{eq:fhl_sta}

1354: \een

1355: On the other hand, the decay constant should behave

1356: \ben

1357: \frac{f_{HL}}{\lqcd} &=& v_0(\lqcd/m_Q)\nn\\

1358: &&\times\left[1 + v_k^L ( a\lqcd )^k  

1359: + v_n^H (m_Q a) ( a\lqcd )^n + 

1360: O( (a\lqcd )^{k+1},(a\lqcd )^{n+1})\right]

1361: \label{eq:fhl_rel}

1362: \een

1363: from our consideration in the previous sections, where 

1364: $v_k^L$ is the scaling violation caused by the light quark action,

1365: and $v_n^H(m_Q a)$ comes mainly from the Wilson/SW heavy quark action

1366: for $ n=1$ or from the action of eq.~(\ref{eq:qaction_iso}) with 

1367: the nonperturbatively tuned $\nu$, $r_s$, $c_E$ and $c_B$ for

1368: $n=2$.

1369: Comparing eqs.~(\ref{eq:fhl_sta}) and (\ref{eq:fhl_rel}), we find

1370: \ben

1371: v_0(\lqcd/m_Q) &\rightarrow& \sqrt{\frac{\lqcd}{m_{HL}}}  w_0 

1372: \een

1373: and

1374: \ben

1375: v_k^L &\rightarrow&  w_k, \qquad v_n^H (m_Q a)  \rightarrow 0 

1376: \qquad \mbox{for $ n < k$} \\

1377: v_k^L+v_n^H (m_Q a) &\rightarrow&  w_k, \qquad \mbox{for $ n = k$} \\

1378: v_k^L &\rightarrow&  w_k, \qquad v_n^H (m_Q a)  \rightarrow w_n 

1379: \qquad \mbox{for $ n > k$} 

1380: \een

1381: in the limit $m_Q a \rightarrow\infty$,

1382: where $w_k$ and $w_n$ are universal constants independent of the choice of

1383: the heavy quark action.

1384: Note that we expect $v_0$ can be expanded 

1385: in terms of of $m_q/\lqcd$ near the chiral limit. 

1386: 

1387: The important point is that the function $v_n^H ( m_Q a)$ 

1388: becomes constant (or even vanishes)

1389: in the limit $m_Q a \rightarrow\infty$. On the other hand,

1390: we also know that the behavior of $v_n^H ( m_Q a)$ is

1391: benign under the condition $m_Q a\simlt 1$. 

1392:  From these facts it would be reasonable to assume that

1393: the function $v_n^H ( m_Q a)$ behaves modestly all over the

1394: range of $m_Q a$ from the

1395: massless limit to the static limit.

1396: This assumption is supported by previous numerical

1397: results for the heavy-light decay constants $f_{D_s}$ and $f_{B_s}$

1398: which are obtained by using the pole mass under the

1399: condition $m_Q a\simgt 1$

1400: with the Wilson quark action. 

1401: Figures 4 and 5 in

1402: Ref.\cite{jlqcd96} show that the naive continuum extrapolation with

1403: a linear form for

1404: $f_{D_s}$ and $f_{B_s}$

1405: gives ``reasonable'' values in the 

1406: continuum limit.

1407: This outcome is understood as follows:

1408: Since $v_n^H ( m_Q a)$ is a modest function in terms of

1409: $m_Q a$, the leading scaling violation effects

1410: $v_1^H ( m_Q a)a\lqcd$ for $f_{D_s}$ and $f_{B_s}$ 

1411: are effectively removed by the naive linear extrapolation.

1412: However, the $O(a\lqcd)$ cutoff

1413: effects cannot be completely removed. The remnant is

1414: estimated to be 

1415: $|v_1^H (m_Q a_{\rm max})-v_1^H (m_Q a_{\rm min})|a_{\rm av}\lqcd$, where 

1416: $a_{\rm max}$ and $a_{\rm min}$ are the maximum

1417: and minimum of the lattice spacing used for the continuum  

1418: extrapolation, 

1419: and $a_{\rm av} = a_{\rm max} a_{\rm min}/

1420: (a_{\rm max}-a_{\rm min})$.

1421: 

1422: 

1423: 

1424: Although we have focused on the case of heavy-light

1425: pseudoscalar meson decay constants,

1426: the above arguments on scaling violation effects 

1427: can be easily generalized to any observables which

1428: can be defined in the static limit.

1429: 

1430: \subsection{Nonperturbative renormalization}

1431: \label{subsec:npr}

1432: 

1433: Let us turn to a nonperturbative determination of 

1434: $Z_q$, $Z_m$, $\nu$, $r_s$, $\cb$ and $\ce$.

1435: We first consider the $\nu$ and $r_s$ parameters.

1436: Since the rotational symmetry breaking due to the

1437: $m_Q a$ corrections  deviates the $\nu$ and $r_s$ parameters

1438: from one, it would be a reasonable way to adjust them such that

1439: the correct dispersion relations are reproduced for some

1440: hadronic states. We think  

1441: a set of dispersion relations for the

1442: heavy-heavy and heavy-light mesons is a good choice. 

1443: A previous study demonstrated a clear distinction

1444: between the the kinetic

1445: masses defined by $\partial^2 E_{\rm HH}/\partial p_i^2$

1446: for the heavy-heavy meson and

1447: $\partial^2 E_{\rm HL}/\partial p_i^2$ for the heavy-light meson

1448: (see Fig.~1 in Ref.~\cite{jlqcd96}), 

1449: which tells us that the dispersion relations for the

1450: heavy-heavy and heavy-light mesons give two independent

1451: conditions to fix both $\nu$ and $r_s$ parameters.

1452: We point out that to avoid the ambiguities 

1453: coming from the clover term

1454: it would be better to consider the dispersion relations of

1455: the spin averaged meson states over the pseudoscalar and 

1456: vector channels. This is motivated by an 

1457: observation that the clover term causes the hyperfine splitting.

1458: 

1459: Nonperturbative determination of $\cb$ and $\ce$ is a little bit troublesome.

1460: Although in the massless case the clover coefficient 

1461: can be determined with the

1462: aid of the PCAC relation,

1463: this method does not work with the massive case. 

1464: The reason is that

1465: the chiral symmetry allows 

1466: the clover terms with the odd power of $ma$ corrections

1467: $(ma)^{2n+1}i{\bar q}(x)\sigma_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} q(x)$

1468: $(n\ge 0)$

1469: as discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:chiral}.  

1470: This implies that even the chirally symmetric quark actions,

1471: {\it e.g.,} the domain wall and the overlap quark actions,

1472: suffer from this difficulty. 

1473: However, we can at least evaluate

1474: $\cb$ and $\ce$ perturbatively up to one-loop level 

1475: by extending the calculation in Sec.~\ref{subsec:tree}.

1476: In this case the remaining

1477: cutoff effects are of order $\alpha^2 a\lqcd$, which might be

1478: small enough for numerical studies.

1479: 

1480: As for a nonperturbative determination of 

1481: renormalization factors, 

1482: we consider the use of the Schr\"{o}dinger 

1483: functional(SF) method\cite{sf}.

1484: The renormalization of the quark mass is made through the

1485: renormalizations of the axial current and the pseudoscalar

1486: density using the PCAC relation:

1487: \be

1488: {\bar m}(\mu=1/L)=

1489: \frac{Z_A({\bar g},{\bar m}L,g,ma)

1490: \partial_\mu {\bar q}(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 q(x)}

1491: {Z_P({\bar g},L,{\bar m}L,g,ma){\bar q}(x)\gamma_5 q(x)}.

1492: \label{eq:pcac}

1493: \ee

1494: where $L$ is the physical box size and 

1495: ${\bar g}$ and ${\bar m}$ are the renormalized coupling and

1496: quark mass in the SF scheme.

1497: $Z_A$ and $Z_P$ with the finite quark mass are defined by

1498: \ben

1499: Z_A({\bar g},{\bar m}L,g,ma)&=&

1500: \frac{\sqrt{c_m f_{1}}}{f_A(x_0=L/2)},\\

1501: Z_P({\bar g},L,{\bar m}L,g,ma)&=&

1502: \frac{\sqrt{c_m f_{1}}}{f_P(x_0=L/2)},

1503: \een

1504: where $c_m$ is a mass-dependent constant, and

1505: $f_A$,  

1506: $f_P$ and $f_{1}$ are

1507: the correlation functions given by

1508: \ben

1509: f_A(x_0)&=&-\frac{1}{3}\int d^3{\vec y}d^3{\vec z}

1510: \la {\bar q}(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 q(x)

1511: {\bar \zeta}({\vec y})\gamma_5 \zeta({\vec z}) \ra ,\\

1512: f_P(x_0)&=&-\frac{1}{3}\int d^3{\vec y}d^3{\vec z}

1513: \la {\bar q}(x)\gamma_5 q(x)

1514: {\bar \zeta}({\vec y})\gamma_5 \zeta({\vec z}) \ra ,\\

1515: f_{1}&=&-\frac{1}{3L^6}\int d^3{\vec u}d^3{\vec v} d^3{\vec y}d^3{\vec z}

1516: \la {\bar \zeta}^\prime({\vec u})\gamma_5 \zeta^\prime({\vec v})

1517: {\bar \zeta}({\vec y})\gamma_5 \zeta({\vec z}) \ra

1518: \een

1519: with $\zeta$, $\zeta^\prime$, ${\bar \zeta}$ and 

1520: ${\bar \zeta}^\prime$ the boundary quark fields. 

1521: We

1522: illustrate the function $f_{A,P}$ and $f_{1}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:sf}.

1523: As for the boundary conditions we refer to the description

1524: in Ref.~\cite{qmass}.

1525: 

1526: Although each of $Z_A$, $Z_P$, 

1527: $\la {\bar q}(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 q(x)\ra$ and 

1528: $\la {\bar q}(x)\gamma_5 q(x)\ra$ has the power corrections

1529: of $ma$, they are canceled out in the combinations 

1530: $Z_A\la {\bar q}(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 q(x)\ra$ and

1531: $Z_P\la {\bar q}(x)\gamma_5 q(x)\ra$ and

1532: the $O((a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2)$ uncertainties are 

1533: left. 

1534: This assures us to take the continuum limit for

1535: the renormalized matrix elements and also for the

1536: renormalized quark mass of eq.~(\ref{eq:pcac}).

1537: These quantities, however, are

1538: defined in the SF scheme with the finite quark mass

1539: and hence different from those

1540: renormalized in the SF scheme at

1541: the massless point, which are exactly what we want.

1542: Therefore, we still need the finite renormalization factor

1543: to make the conversion between the two renormalization descriptions.

1544: This can be obtained by taking the continuum limit of the ratio

1545: \ben

1546: \frac{Z_A({\bar g},{\bar m}L=0,g^\prime,ma^\prime=0)}

1547: {Z_A({\bar g},{\bar m}L,g^\prime,ma^\prime)},\\

1548: \frac{Z_P({\bar g},L,{\bar m}L=0,g^\prime,ma^\prime=0)}

1549: {Z_P({\bar g},L,{\bar m}L,g^\prime,ma^\prime)},

1550: \een 

1551: for several $g^\prime$ chosen to satisfy $ma^\prime\ll 1$.

1552: We remark that the physical size $L$ for the SF scheme can

1553: be taken to be much smaller than that for the measurement of

1554: the spectral quantities and the various matrix elements,

1555: allowing us to access the finer lattice spacing with $g^\prime$.

1556: 

1557: 

1558: 

1559: 

1560: 

1561: \section{Conclusions}

1562: \label{sec:conclusion}

1563: 

1564: In this paper we have first examined the validity 

1565: of the idea of anisotropic lattice by making a perturbative

1566: calculation of the quark self energy up to $O(g^2 a)$. 

1567: Our results show that the $m_Q a_s$ corrections revive 

1568: through one-loop diagram. 

1569: We also find that on the anisotropic lattice

1570: the four parameters must be adjusted to

1571: remove all the terms of order $a$ even in the massless case.  

1572:  From a theoretical point of view

1573: the anisotropic lattice is not necessarily advantageous 

1574: over the isotropic one.

1575: 

1576: In the second part of this paper we have presented a new

1577: relativistic approach to the heavy quarks on the lattice.

1578: The idea is based on the relativistic on-shell improvement with

1579: the finite $m_Q a$ corrections.

1580: We have shown that the cutoff effects can be reduced to

1581: $O((a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2)$ putting

1582: the $(m_Q a)^n$ corrections

1583: on the renormalization factors of the quark mass $Z_m$ and

1584: wave function $Z_q$. 

1585: As far as the spectral quantities such as hadron masses are concerned,

1586: the $(m_Q a)^n$ corrections in $Z_m$ and $Z_q$

1587: do not matter:

1588: $Z_q$ does not affects on the spectral

1589: quantities and the $(m_Q a)^n$ corrections 

1590: in $Z_m$ can be handled by employing the pole

1591: mass fixed from some spectral quantity. 

1592: On the other hand, in case of calculating

1593: the quark mass or the various hadron matrix elements

1594: we can control them by determining

1595: the renormalization factors nonperturbatively.

1596: 

1597: 

1598: The leading scaling violation for 

1599: various types of actions are summarized as follows.

1600: $f_1(m_Q a) a\lqcd $ for the Wilson quark

1601: ($f_1(0)\not=0$) and the $O(a)$ improved SW quark ($f_1(0)=0$), while

1602: $f_2(m_Q a) (a\lqcd)^2$ for our proposed action with mass-dependently

1603: tuned $\nu$, $r_s$, $c_E$ and $c_B$. Therefore, 

1604: if the magnitude of $f_1( m_Q a)$ is $O(1)$,

1605: the scaling violation for heavy hadron masses

1606: with the $O(a)$ improved SW quark might 

1607: be as bad as that for light hadron masses

1608: with the ordinary Wilson quark.

1609: For sufficiently small $m_Q a$,

1610: we can remove the leading scaling violations by

1611: extrapolating the data at several lattice spacings 

1612: to the continuum limit.

1613: Even if $m_Q a\sim O(1)$, 

1614: $f_2(m_Q a) (a\lqcd)^2$ in our proposed action is expected  

1615: to be negligibly small in case of $(a\lqcd)^2\sim 0.01$

1616: 

1617: Our relativistic approach has the strong point over the

1618: nonrelativistic ones:  

1619: the finer the lattice spacing becomes, the better the 

1620: approach works. This is a desirable feature because

1621: we can take the full advantage of configurations with

1622: finer lattice spacing generated to control the cutoff

1623: effects on the light hadron physics.

1624: We are going to perform a numerical simulation to test the

1625: ideas presented in this paper.

1626: 

1627: \acknowledgements

1628: 

1629: One of us (Y.K.) thanks M.~Okawa for useful discussions.

1630: This work is supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of 

1631: Education (Nos. 13740169,12014202,12640253). 

1632: 

1633: %\section*{appendix}

1634: 

1635: 

1636: %\input{ref.tex}

1637: 

1638: %\end{document}

1639: 

1640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ref.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1641: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1642: 

1643: \bibitem{static} E.~Eichten,

1644: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 4} (1988) 170.

1645: 

1646: \bibitem{nrqcd} G.~P.~Lepage and B.~A.~Thacker,

1647: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 4} (1988) 199;

1648: B.~A.~Thacker and G.~P.~Lepage,

1649: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 43} (1991) 196;

1650: G.~P.~Lepage, L.~Magnea, C.~Nakhleh, U.~Magnea and K.~Hornbostel,

1651: {\it ibid.} {\bf 46} (1992) 4052.

1652: 

1653: \bibitem{fermilab} A.~X.~El-Khadra, A.~S.~Kronfeld and P.~B.~Mackenzie,

1654: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 55} (1997) 3933.

1655: 

1656: \bibitem{aniso} F.~Karsch,

1657: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B205} (1982) 285;

1658: G.~Burgers, F.~Karsch, A.~Nakamura and I.~O.~Stamatescu,

1659: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B304} (1988) 587.

1660: 

1661: \bibitem{symm_at} M.~Alford, T.~R.~Klassen and G.~P.~Lepage, 

1662: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B496} (1997) 377;

1663: J.~Harada, A.~S.~Kronfeld, H.~Matsufuru, 

1664: N.~Nakajima and T.~Onogi,

1665: hep-lat/0103026.

1666: 

1667: \bibitem{sym1} K.~Symanzik, in 

1668: {\it Mathematical Problems In Theoretical Physics}, 

1669: eds. R.~Schrader {\it et al.}, 

1670: Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 153 (Springer, New York, 1982).

1671: 

1672: \bibitem{sym2} K.~Symanzik, 

1673: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B226} (1983) 187, 205. 

1674: 

1675: \bibitem{onshell} M.~L\"{u}scher and P.~Weisz, 

1676: Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 97} (1985) 59. 

1677: 

1678: \bibitem{pp} T.~R.~Klassen, 

1679: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 73} (1999) 918.

1680: 

1681: \bibitem{symm_as} S.~Groote and J.~Shigemitsu,

1682: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 62} (2000) 014508.

1683:     

1684: \bibitem{bases} S.~Kawabata, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 41} 

1685: (1986) 127; {\it ibid.} {\bf 88} (1995) 309.

1686: 

1687: \bibitem{sw_pt} G.~Heatlie, C.~T.~Sachrajda, G.~Martinelli,

1688: C.~Pittori and G.~C.~Rossi,

1689: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B352} (1991) 266. 

1690: 

1691: \bibitem{pt_g2} E.~Gabrielli, G.~Martinelli, 

1692: C.~Pittori, G.~Heatlie and C.~T.~Sachrajda,

1693: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B362} (1991) 475; 

1694: S.~Aoki, K.~Nagai, Y.~Taniguchi and A.~Ukawa,

1695: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 58} (1998) 074505. 

1696: 

1697: \bibitem{pt_g2a} Y.~Taniguchi and A.~Ukawa,

1698: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 58} (1998) 114503.

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{sw} B.~Sheikholeslami and R.~Wohlert, 

1701: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B259} (1985) 572. 

1702: 

1703: \bibitem{impr} M.~L\"{u}scher, S.~Sint, R.~Sommer and P.~Weisz, 

1704: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B478} (1996) 365. 

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{jlqcd96} JLQCD Collaboration, S.~Aoki {\it et al.},

1707: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 53} (1997) 355.

1708: 

1709: \bibitem{dmu} M.~L\"{u}scher and P.~Weisz, 

1710: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B479} (1996) 429. 

1711: 

1712: \bibitem{c_sw} R.~Wohlert, 

1713: Improved continuum limit lattice action for quarks,

1714: DESY preprint 87-069 (1987), unpublished.

1715: 

1716: 

1717: \bibitem{sf} K.~Jansen {\it et al.},

1718: Phys. Lett. {\bf B372} (1996) 275.                                                    

1719: \bibitem{qmass} ALPHA Collaboration, 

1720: S.~Capitani, M.~L\"{u}scher, R.~Sommer and H.~Wittig, 

1721: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B544} (1999) 669. 

1722: 

1723: 

1724: \end{thebibliography}

1725: 

1726: \begin{figure}[h]

1727: \centering{

1728: \hskip -0.0cm

1729: \psfig{file=fig1.eps,width=140mm,angle=-90}

1730: \vskip +3mm 

1731: }

1732: \caption{One-loop diagrams for the quark self energy.} 

1733: \label{fig:qse}

1734: %\vspace{-8mm}

1735: \end{figure}

1736: 

1737: \newpage

1738: 

1739: \begin{figure}[h]

1740: \centering{

1741: \hskip -0.0cm

1742: \psfig{file=fig2.eps,width=120mm,angle=0}

1743: \vskip +3mm 

1744: }

1745: \caption{$\xi$ dependences of (a) $\Delta_q^{(0)}$ 

1746: and (b) $\Delta_q^{(1)}$ in

1747: the renormalization constant of the quark wave function.

1748: $\ce$ and $\cb$ are chosen to be 1. Errors are within symbols.} 

1749: \label{fig:zwf}

1750: %\vspace{-8mm}

1751: \end{figure}

1752: 

1753: \newpage

1754: 

1755: \begin{figure}[h]

1756: \centering{

1757: \hskip -0.0cm

1758: \psfig{file=fig3.eps,width=120mm,angle=0}

1759: \vskip +3mm  

1760: }

1761: \caption{$\xi$ dependences of (a) $\Delta_m^{(0)}$ 

1762: and (b) $\Delta_m^{(1)}$ in

1763: the renormalization constant of the quark mass.

1764: $\ce$ and $\cb$ are chosen to be 1. Errors are within symbols.}

1765: \label{fig:zm}

1766: %\vspace{-8mm}

1767: \end{figure}

1768: 

1769: \newpage

1770: 

1771: \begin{figure}[h]

1772: \centering{

1773: \hskip -0.0cm

1774: \psfig{file=fig4.eps,width=120mm,angle=0}

1775: \vskip +3mm 

1776: }

1777: \caption{$\xi$ dependences of (a) $\Delta_\nu^{(0)}$ 

1778: and (b) $\Delta_\nu^{(1)}$ in

1779: the $\nu$ parameter.

1780: $\ce$ and $\cb$ are chosen to be 1. Errors are within symbols.}

1781: \label{fig:nu}

1782: %\vspace{-8mm}

1783: \end{figure}

1784: 

1785: \newpage

1786: 

1787: \begin{figure}[h]

1788: \centering{

1789: \hskip -0.0cm

1790: \psfig{file=fig5.eps,width=120mm,angle=0}

1791: \vskip +3mm 

1792: }

1793: \caption{$\xi$ dependences of $\Delta_\eta^{(0)}$ 

1794: in the $\eta$ parameter.

1795: $\ce$ and $\cb$ are chosen to be 1. Errors are within symbols.}

1796: \label{fig:eta}

1797: %\vspace{-8mm}

1798: \end{figure}

1799: 

1800: \newpage

1801: 

1802: \begin{figure}[h]

1803: \centering{

1804: \hskip -0.0cm

1805: \psfig{file=fig6.eps,width=140mm,angle=-90}

1806: \vskip +3mm 

1807: }

1808: \caption{Tree-level values for $Z_q$, $Z_m$, $\nu$ and

1809: $r_s$ as functions of $m_p a$. We choose $r_t=1$.} 

1810: \label{fig:tree_ma}

1811: %\vspace{-8mm}

1812: \end{figure}

1813: 

1814: \newpage

1815: 

1816: \begin{figure}[h]

1817: \centering{

1818: \hskip -0.0cm

1819: \psfig{file=fig7.eps,width=140mm,angle=-90}

1820: \vskip +3mm 

1821: }

1822: \caption{Tree-level diagrams for the quark-quark scattering.} 

1823: \label{fig:scatt}

1824: %\vspace{-8mm}

1825: \end{figure}

1826: 

1827: %\newpage

1828: \vspace{10mm}

1829: 

1830: \begin{figure}[h]

1831: \centering{

1832: \hskip -0.0cm

1833: \psfig{file=fig8.eps,width=140mm,angle=-90}

1834: \vskip +3mm 

1835: }

1836: \caption{Quark diagrams contributing to (a) $f_{A,P}(x)$ and

1837: (b) $f_{1}$. ${\cal O}_{A,P}$ are inserted at the point

1838: $x$. $C$ and $C^\prime$ denote the boundary conditions for

1839: the gauge fields at $t=0$ and $T$.} 

1840: \label{fig:sf}

1841: %\vspace{-8mm}

1842: \end{figure}

1843: 

1844: \newpage

1845: 

1846: \begin{table}[h]

1847: \begin{center}

1848: \caption{\label{tab:action}Expected magnitude of the cutoff

1849: effects due to the higher

1850: dimensional operators in the quark action. 

1851: %$m_q$ and 

1852: $m_Q$ denote the %light and

1853: heavy quark masses. }

1854: \begin{tabular}{llll}

1855: \multicolumn{2}{c}{operator} & light & heavy  \\

1856: \hline

1857: ${\cal O}_{5b}:$ & $i\sum_i {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{0i}F_{0i} q(x)$

1858:                  & $a \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ 

1859:                  & $a \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/m_Q$ \\

1860:                  & $i\sum_{ij} {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{ij}F_{ij} q(x)$

1861:                  & $a \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ 

1862:                  & $a \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ \\

1863: %${\cal O}_{6d}:$ & $mi\sum_i {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{0i}F_{0i} q(x)$

1864: %                 & $m_q a^2 \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$

1865: %                 & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ \\

1866: %                 & $mi\sum_{ij} {\bar q}(x)\sigma_{ij}F_{ij} q(x)$

1867: %                 & $m_q a^2 \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$

1868: %                 & $m_Q a^2 \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ \\

1869: ${\cal O}_{6a}:$ & ${\bar q}(x)\gamma_0 D_0^3 q(x)$ 

1870:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$

1871:                  & 

1872:                    $(m_Q a)^3 {\bar q}(x) q(x)$,

1873:                    $(m_Q a)^2 {\bar q}(x)\gamma_i D_i q(x)$,

1874:                    $(m_Q a) {\bar q}(x)D_i^2 q(x)$ \\ 

1875:                  & ${\bar q}(x)\gamma_i D_i^3 q(x)$

1876:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ 

1877:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$\\

1878: ${\cal O}_{6d}:$ & $i\sum_i {\bar q}(x)\gamma_i[D_0,F_{i0}] q(x)$

1879:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$  

1880:                  & $a^2 \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/m_Q$ \\

1881:                  & $i\sum_i {\bar q}(x)\gamma_0[D_i,F_{0i}]q(x)$

1882:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ 

1883:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ \\

1884:                  & $i\sum_i {\bar q}(x)\gamma_i[D_j,F_{ij}]q(x)$

1885:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$

1886:                  & $a^2 \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/m_Q$ \\

1887: ${\cal O}_{6f}:$ &

1888:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ 

1889:                  & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ \\

1890: %${\cal O}_{7 }:$ & ${\bar q}(x)D_0^4 q(x)$ 

1891: %                 & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^3$

1892: %                 & 

1893: %                   $(m_Q a)^4 {\bar q}(x) q(x)$,

1894: %                   $(m_Q a)^2 {\bar q}(x)D_i^2 q(x)$ \\ 

1895: %                 & ${\bar q}(x)D_i^4 q(x)$

1896: %                 & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^3$

1897: %                 & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^3$

1898: \end{tabular}

1899: \end{center}

1900: \end{table}

1901: 

1902: %\begin{table}[h]

1903: %\begin{center}

1904: %\caption{\label{tab:axial}Expected magnitude of the cutoff

1905: %effects due to the higher

1906: %dimensional operators in the axial current. 

1907: %$m_q$ and $m_Q$ denote the light and

1908: %heavy quark masses. }

1909: %\begin{tabular}{lll}

1910: %operator & light-light & heavy-light  \\

1911: %\hline

1912: %$({\cal A}_{4a})_0$ & $a \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ 

1913: %                    & $a \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ \\

1914: %$({\cal A}_{4a})_i$ & $a \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ 

1915: %                    & $a \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ \\

1916: %$({\cal A}_{5a})_0$ & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$

1917: %                    & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ \\

1918: %$({\cal A}_{5a})_i$ & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$

1919: %                    & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ \\

1920: %$({\cal A}_{5e})_0$ & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$

1921: %                    & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ \\

1922: %$({\cal A}_{5e})_i$ & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$

1923: %                    & $(a \Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2$ \\

1924: %\end{tabular}

1925: %\end{center}

1926: %\end{table}

1927: 

1928: 

1929: \end{document}

1930: 

1931: 

1932: 

1933: 

1934: 

1935: 

1936: 

1937: 

1938: 

1939: 

1940: