1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% EXAMPLE FILE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FOR NESTEX 1.3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3:
4: \documentclass[%draft,published,
5: notoc,nohyper]{JHEP3} % 10pt is ignored!
6:
7: \usepackage{epsfig}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: %%%%%%%%%%%% Options: preprint* published, (no)hyper*, paper, draft, %%%%%%%
11: %%%%%%%%%%%% a4paper*, letterpaper, legalpaper, executivepaper,%%%%
12: %%%%%%%%%%%% 11pt, 12pt*, oneside*, twoside %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% *=default %%%%%%%%
14: %%%%%%%%%%%% \title{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\\...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \email{...} %%%%%%%%
16: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\thanks{...}\\...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: %%%%%%%%%%%% \abstract{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: %%%%%%%%%%%% \keywords{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %%%%%%%%%%%% \preprint{...} %% or \received{...} \accepted{...} \JHEP{...} %
20: %%%%%%%%%%%% \dedicated{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %%%%%%%%%%%% \aknowledgments %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No pagestyle formatting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No size formatting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: %%%%%%%%%%%% Your definitions: %%%%%%%%%%% MINE :) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27: % ... %
28: \newcommand{\Gammait}{{\mit\Gamma}}
29: \newcommand{\Lambdait}{{\mit\Lambda}}
30: \newcommand{\tr}{\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits}
31: \newcommand{\str}{\mathop{\rm str}\nolimits}
32: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits}
33: \newcommand{\Pf}{\mathop{\rm Pf}\nolimits}
34: \newcommand{\SU}{\mathop{\rm SU}}
35: \newcommand{\SO}{\mathop{\rm SO}}
36: \newcommand{\U}{\mathop{\rm {}U}}
37: \newcommand{\re}{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}
38: \newcommand{\im}{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}
39: \newcommand{\rmd}{{\rm d}}
40: \newcommand{\rmD}{{\rm D}}
41: \newcommand{\ring}{\mathaccent"7017 }
42: \def\endproof{\hskip0.6em plus0.1em minus0.1em
43: \setbox0=\null\ht0=5.4pt\dp0=1pt\wd0=5.3pt
44: \vbox{\hrule height0.8pt
45: \hbox{\vrule width0.8pt\box0\vrule width0.8pt}
46: \hrule height0.8pt}}
47: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
48: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}[section]
49: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134} % \backslash for \tt (Nucl.Phys. :)%
50: \newcommand\fverb{\setbox\pippobox=\hbox\bgroup\verb}
51: \newcommand\fverbdo{\egroup\medskip\noindent%
52: \fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}\ }
53: \newcommand\fverbit{\egroup\item[\fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}]}
54: \newbox\pippobox
55: % ... %
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57:
58: \title{
59: A local formulation of lattice Wess-Zumino model with exact $\U(1)_R$ symmetry}
60:
61: \author{Yoshio KIkukawa\\
62: Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602,
63: Japan\\
64: E-mail: \email{kikukawa@eken.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp}}
65: \author{Hiroshi Suzuki\\
66: Institute of Applied Beam Science, Ibaraki University, Mito 310-8512, Japan\\
67: E-mail: \email{hsuzuki@mx.ibaraki.ac.jp}}
68:
69:
70: \received{\today} %%
71: \accepted{\today} %% These are for published papers.
72: %\JHEP{12(2001)999} %%
73:
74: \preprint{DPNU-04-24\\IU-MSTP/64\\\heplat{0412042}}
75: % OR: \preprint{Aaaa/Mm/Yy\\Aaa-aa/Nnnnnn}
76: % Use \hepth etc. also in bibliography.
77:
78: \abstract{A lattice Wess-Zumino model is formulated on the basis of
79: Ginsparg-Wilson fermions. In perturbation theory, our formulation is equivalent
80: to the formulation by Fujikawa and~Ishibashi and by Fujikawa. Our formulation
81: is, however, free from a singular nature of the latter formulation due to an
82: additional auxiliary chiral supermultiplet on a lattice. The model posssesses
83: an exact $\U(1)_R$ symmetry as a supersymmetric counterpart of the L\"uscher
84: lattice chiral $\U(1)$ symmetry. A restration of the supersymmetric
85: Ward-Takahashi identity in the continuum limit is analyzed in renormalized
86: perturbation theory. In the one-loop level, a supersymmetric continuum limit is
87: ensured by suitably adjusting a coefficient of a single local
88: term~$\tilde F^*\tilde F$. The non-renormalization theorem holds to this order
89: of perturbation theory. In higher orders, on the other hand, coefficents of
90: local terms with dimension~$\leq4$ that are consistent with the $\U(1)_R$
91: symmetry have to be adjusted for a supersymmetric continuum limit. The origin
92: of this complexicity in higher-order loops is clarified on the basis of the
93: Reisz power counting theorem. Therefore, from a view point of supersymmetry,
94: the present formulation is not quite better than a lattice Wess-Zumino model
95: formulated by using Wilson fermions, although a number of coefficients which
96: require adjustment is much less due to the exact $\U(1)_R$ symmetry. We also
97: comment on an exact non-linear fermionic symmetry which corresponds to the one
98: studied by Bonini and Feo; an existence of this exact symmetry itself does not
99: imply a restoration of supersymmetry in the continuum limit without any
100: adjustment of parameters.}
101: \keywords{
102: Lattice Quantum Field Theory, Renormalization Regularization and Renormalons,
103: Global Symmetries, Supersymmetric Effective Theories}
104:
105: \begin{document}
106:
107: \maketitle %%%%%%%%%% THIS IS IGNORED %%%%%%%%%%%
108:
109: \section{Introduction}
110: There has been a renewed interest on non-perturbative formulation of
111: supersymmetric theories via a spacetime lattice~\cite{Dondi:1976tx}--%
112: \cite{Aoyama:1998in} in these several years~\cite{Catterall:2001fr}--%
113: \cite{Bonini:2004pm} (for a recent review with a complete list of references,
114: see ref.~\cite{Feo:2002yi}). One major idea in these recent studies is to keep
115: a part of the supersymmetry algebra manifest and infer that this exact symmetry
116: is strong enough to ensure a fully supersymmetric continuum limit without any
117: (or with a small number of) adjustment of
118: parameters~\cite{Catterall:2001fr,Kaplan:2002wv,Kikukawa:2002as,Sugino:2003yb}.
119: This general strategy, which is also common to some of past
120: attempts~\cite{Elitzur:1982vh}, has achieved fair success, typically for lower
121: dimensional supersymmetric theories with an extended supersymmetry (besides a
122: potential problem of positivity of the measure). An extended supersymmetry
123: allows a sub-algebra which is consistent with a lattice construction and, due
124: to the lower-ness of dimensionality, the number of relevant operators, which
125: potentially violate supersymmetry in the continuum limit, is small. So often a
126: supersymmetric continuum limit is achieved without any adjustment of
127: parameters.
128:
129: Another kind of approaches is to abandon a manifest supersymmetry of a lattice
130: model from the onset and achieve a supersymmetric continuum limit by adjusting
131: parameters in the model. This is an approach advocated in
132: refs.~\cite{Bartels:1982ue,DiVecchia:1983ax,Curci:1986sm,Golterman:1988ta} and
133: this has been, in our opinion, only a realistic approach to date for $N=1$
134: supersymmetric theories in 4~dimensions. Here, again, some exact global
135: symmetries on a lattice can be useful~\cite{Nishimura:1997vg,Aoyama:1998in} to
136: reduce the number of parameters which require adjustment. For numerical
137: simulations along this kind of approaches, see
138: ref.~\cite{Montvay:2001aj}.\footnote{There exist more ambitious approaches
139: which aim an exact full supersymmetry on a
140: lattice~\cite{Bartels:1983wm,Itoh:2001rx,D'Adda:2004jb}. Another interesting
141: observation is that a supersymmetric continuum theory is automatically restored
142: if a convergence behavior of Feynman integrals in a lattice model is moderate
143: enough~\cite{Fujikawa:2002ic,Fujikawa:2002pa}.}
144:
145: In this paper, we adopt the latter attitude and study a lattice formulation of
146: the 4~dimensional $N=1$ supersymmetric Wess-Zumino model~\cite{Wess:1974tw}.
147: The Wess-Zumino model is asymptotic non-free and thus the continuum limit, as
148: a fundamental theory, is expected to be trivial. Nevertheless, it is meaningful
149: to consider the model as an effective theory with an ultraviolet cutoff. In a
150: sense, this model is more difficult to formulate on a lattice than
151: supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories because a quadratic divergence in mass terms
152: of scalar fields is expected to be prohibited only with presence of an exact
153: supersymmetry. It is thus deserve to study in its own right. We formulate the
154: model on the basis of Ginsparg-Wilson
155: fermions~\cite{Ginsparg:1982bj}--\cite{Luscher:1998pq}. This kind of
156: formulation has been pursued by Fujikawa and Ishibashi and by
157: Fujikawa~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka,Fujikawa:2001ns,Fujikawa:2002ic}. In our
158: notation, their formulation is expressed as
159: \begin{eqnarray}
160: S&=&a^4\sum_x\Bigl\{{1\over2}\chi^TC(1-{1\over2}aD_2)^{-1}D_1\chi
161: -{2\over a}\phi^*D_2\phi+F^*(1-{1\over2}aD_2)^{-1}F
162: \nonumber\\
163: &&\qquad\qquad
164: +{1\over2}m\chi^TCP_+\chi+{1\over2}m^*\chi^TCP_-\chi
165: +mF\phi+m^*F^*\phi^*
166: \nonumber\\
167: &&\qquad\qquad
168: +g\chi^TC\phi P_+\chi+g F\phi^2+g^*\chi^TC\phi^*P_-\chi
169: +g^* F^*\phi^{*2}\Bigr\},
170: \label{onexone}
171: \end{eqnarray}
172: where $(\chi,\phi,F)$ denote the chiral multiplet of the Wess-Zumino model
173: and $D_1$ and $D_2$ are lattice difference operators which will be defined
174: below. In ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka}, explicit perturbative calculations in
175: one-loop order were carried out and it was found that, in the one-loop level,
176: effects of supersymmetry breaking in the model appear only in wave
177: function renormalization factors of the chiral multiplet, thus the violation of
178: supersymmetry is rather moderate in the one-loop level.
179:
180: One can carry out perturbative calculations on the basis of the
181: action~(\ref{onexone}) without any problem. However, as pointed out in
182: ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ns} (see also ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2002is}), the action
183: itself is singular because the operator~$1-(1/2)aD_2$ always has zero modes.
184: This also implies that the kinetic operator in eq.~(\ref{onexone}) is
185: non-local. Thus the meaning of the model in a non-perturbative level is not
186: clear.
187:
188: In this paper, we first formulate a {\it non-singular\/} local lattice action
189: for the Wess-Zumino model which is, in perturbation theory, equivalent to the
190: formulation based on the action~(\ref{onexone}). This is achieved by
191: introducing a non-dynamical auxiliary chiral multiplet on a lattice which
192: decouples in the continuum limit. Due to the Ginsparg-Wilson relation, when
193: $m=0$, our model possesses a lattice analogue of the $\U(1)_R$ symmetry which
194: is supersymmetric counterpart of the L\"uscher lattice chiral $\U(1)$
195: symmetry~\cite{Luscher:1998pq}.\footnote{In the action~(\ref{onexone}), this
196: $\U(1)_R$ symmetry is trivially realized as
197: $\delta_\alpha\chi=+i\alpha\gamma_5\chi$,
198: $\delta_\alpha\phi=-2i\alpha\phi$ and~$\delta_\alpha F=+4i\alpha F$. See
199: section~2.} This is the symmetry that was pointed out for a free theory in
200: ref.~\cite{Aoyama:1998in}. These are contents of section~2.
201:
202: Next, we study a restoration of supersymmetry in the continuum limit by using a
203: lattice version of the Ward-Takahashi identity. We carry out an explicit
204: one-loop evaluation of the supersymmetry breaking term in the Ward-Takahashi
205: identity and observe that effects of supersymmetry breaking in the present
206: model appear only in the wave function renormalization of the auxiliary
207: field~$\tilde F$ in the continuum limit (in the one-loop level). We then
208: present a general argument for higher loop contributions of supersymmetry
209: breaking in renormalized perturbation theory. Unfortunately, the general
210: power counting argument which is based on the Reisz
211: theorem~\cite{Reisz:1987da,Luscher:1988sd} indicates that all supersymmetric
212: non-invariant local terms with the mass dimension~$\leq4$ are radiatively
213: induced, unless a term is forbidden by the $\U(1)_R$ global symmetry that is
214: manifest in our formulation. We clarify the reason why the one-loop result is
215: so simple and higher loop corrections are expected to be destructive. In terms
216: of the power counting theorem, the supersymmetry breaking term, which is a
217: consequence of a violation of the Leibniz rule on the lattice, behaves as a
218: non-derivative coupling in one-loop diagrams while it behaves as a derivative
219: coupling in higher loop diagrams. This peculiar behavior of the supersymmetry
220: breaking term makes the situation in higher loop diagrams involved. As a
221: conclusion, from a view of supersymmetry restoration, our formulation is not
222: quite better than the formulation based on the Wilson
223: fermion~\cite{Bartels:1982ue}, although some of super non-invariant local terms
224: are prohibited by the exact $\U(1)_R$ symmetry. (Sec.~3)
225:
226: In the final part of this paper, we will comment on an exact non-linear
227: fermionic symmetry in our formulation which corresponds to the symmetry
228: recently studied in~ref.~\cite{Bonini:2004pm} in the context of the
229: Fujikawa-Ishibashi formulation. This symmetry is nothing but the ``lattice
230: supersymmetry'' utilized in ref.~\cite{Golterman:1988ta} for 2~dimensional
231: Wess-Zumino model. As noted in ref.~\cite{Golterman:1988ta} and as indicated
232: from the results of ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka} and of ours, a presence of this
233: symmetry itself does not imply an automatic restoration of supersymmetry in the
234: continuum limit without any adjustment of parameters (although the non-linear
235: symmetry reduces to the standard supersymmetry in the classical continuum
236: limit). We clarify this point.
237:
238: Throughout this paper, the lattice spacing will be denoted by~$a$.
239:
240: \section{The model}
241: \subsection{Action and its symmetries}
242: Our staring point is the chiral invariant lattice Yukawa model of
243: ref.~\cite{Luscher:1998pq}:
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: S&=&a^4\sum_x\Bigl\{\overline\psi D\psi
246: -{2\over a}\overline\Psi\Psi
247: +2g(\overline\psi+\overline\Psi)
248: \Bigl(\phi+{m\over2g}\Bigr)P_+(\psi+\Psi)
249: \nonumber\\
250: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
251: +2g^*(\overline\psi+\overline\Psi)
252: \Bigl(\phi^*+{m^*\over2g^*}\Bigr)P_-(\psi+\Psi)\Bigr\},
253: \label{twoxone}
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: where the field~$\Psi$ is a non-dynamical auxiliary fermionic field and
256: $P_\pm=(1\pm\gamma_5)/2$. In this expression, we have shifted the scalar field
257: as $\phi\to\phi+m/(2g)$ to generate mass terms for fermions. As the lattice
258: Dirac operator~$D$, we adopt the overlap-Dirac
259: operator~\cite{Kikukawa:1997qh,Neuberger:1998fp} defined
260: by\footnote{$\partial_\mu f(x)=\{f(x+a\hat\mu)-f(x)\}/a$
261: and~$\partial_\mu^*f(x)=\{f(x)-f(x-a\hat\mu)\}/a$ are the forward and backward
262: difference operators, respectively.}
263: \begin{equation}
264: D={1\over2}\{1-A(A^\dagger A)^{-1/2}\},\qquad
265: A=1-aD_{\rm w},\qquad
266: D_{\rm w}={1\over2}\{\gamma_\mu(\partial_\mu^*+\partial_\mu)
267: -a\partial_\mu^*\partial_\mu\},
268: \end{equation}
269: which obeys the Ginsparg-Wilson
270: relation~$\gamma_5D+D\gamma_5=aD\gamma_5D$~\cite{Ginsparg:1982bj}. Thanks to
271: this relation, the action with~$m=0$ is invariant under a lattice chiral
272: transformation of the following form~\cite{Luscher:1998pq}
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: &&\delta_\alpha\psi
275: =i\alpha\gamma_5(1-{1\over2}aD)\psi+i\alpha\gamma_5\Psi,\qquad
276: \delta_\alpha\Psi=i\alpha\gamma_5{1\over2}aD\psi,
277: \nonumber\\
278: &&\delta_\alpha\overline\psi
279: =i\alpha\overline\psi(1-{1\over2}aD)\gamma_5
280: +i\alpha\overline\Psi\gamma_5,
281: \qquad
282: \delta_\alpha\overline\Psi=i\alpha\overline\psi{1\over2}aD\gamma_5,
283: \nonumber\\
284: &&\delta_\alpha\phi=-2i\alpha\phi,\qquad
285: \delta_\alpha\phi^*=2i\alpha\phi^*,
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: where $\alpha$ is an infinitesimal real parameter. This transformation is
288: designed so that a sum of fields, say $\psi+\Psi$, transforms in a standard
289: way, $\delta_\alpha(\psi+\Psi)=i\alpha\gamma_5(\psi+\Psi)$. Thus a breaking of
290: this chiral symmetry due to the presence of mass terms has a simple structure
291: as in the continuum theory. The auxiliary fermion~$\Psi$ is introduced to make
292: a chiral transformation of this standard form and the Ginsparg-Wilson relation
293: (which implies a non-standard chiral property of the lattice Dirac
294: operator~$D$) compatible.
295:
296: To define the Wess-Zumino model, we need to reduce degrees of freedom of the
297: Dirac field~$\psi$ to the Majorana one. Since the chiral
298: projectors~$P_\pm=(1\pm\gamma_5)/2$ in the Yukawa interaction term are ordinary
299: ones, the Majorana reduction (see ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka}) can be applied
300: straightforwardly. Namely, we make substitutions\footnote{$C$ is the
301: charge conjugation matrix which satisfies $C\gamma_\mu C^{-1}=-\gamma_\mu^T$,
302: $C\gamma_5 C^{-1}=\gamma_5^T$, $C^\dagger C=1$ and~$C^T=-C$.}
303: \begin{eqnarray}
304: &&\psi=(\chi+i\eta)/\sqrt{2},\qquad
305: \overline\psi=(\chi^TC-i\eta^TC)/\sqrt{2},
306: \nonumber\\
307: &&\Psi=(X+iY)/\sqrt{2},\qquad\overline\Psi=(X^TC-iY^TC)/\sqrt{2},
308: \end{eqnarray}
309: in the action. Noting relations
310: \begin{equation}
311: (CD)^T=-CD,\qquad(CP_\pm)=-CP_\pm,
312: \end{equation}
313: we find that the action decomposes into two independent systems. By taking only
314: terms including $\chi$ and $X$, we have\footnote{This Majorana reduction, in a
315: level of the functional integral, corresponds to the prescription of
316: ref.~\cite{Nicolai:1978vc}.}
317: \begin{eqnarray}
318: S&=&a^4\sum_x\Bigl\{{1\over2}\chi^TCD\chi-{1\over a}X^TCX
319: +g(\chi^T+X^T)C\Bigl(\phi+{m\over2g}\Bigr)P_+(\chi+X)
320: \nonumber\\
321: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
322: +g^*(\chi^T+X^T)C\Bigl(\phi^*+{m^*\over2g^*}\Bigr)P_-(\chi+X)\Bigr\}.
323: \label{twoxsix}
324: \end{eqnarray}
325: When $m=0$, the action is still invariant under the chiral transformation
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: &&\delta_\alpha\chi=i\alpha\gamma_5(1-{1\over2}aD)\chi
328: +i\alpha\gamma_5X,\qquad
329: \delta_\alpha X=i\alpha\gamma_5{1\over2}aD\chi,
330: \nonumber\\
331: &&\delta_\alpha\phi=-2i\alpha\phi,\qquad
332: \delta_\alpha\phi^*=2i\alpha\phi^*.
333: \label{twoxseven}
334: \end{eqnarray}
335: Eq.~(\ref{twoxsix}) provides a part of our lattice Wess-Zumino model, kinetic
336: terms of fermions and Yukawa interaction terms.
337:
338: We next introduce bosonic superpartners of fermion fields, $(\phi,F)$
339: and~$(\Phi,\mathcal{F})$, and seek an appropriate free action which is
340: invariant under a certain ``lattice supersymmetry". As the form of this
341: fermionic transformation, we postulate
342: \begin{eqnarray}
343: &&\delta_\epsilon\chi=-\sqrt{2}P_+(D_1\phi+F)\epsilon
344: -\sqrt{2}P_-(D_1\phi^*+F^*)\epsilon,
345: \nonumber\\
346: &&\delta_\epsilon\phi
347: =\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCP_+\chi,\qquad
348: \delta_\epsilon\phi^*=\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCP_-\chi,
349: \nonumber\\
350: &&\delta_\epsilon F=\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCD_1P_+\chi,\qquad
351: \delta_\epsilon F^*=\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCD_1P_-\chi,
352: \label{twoxeight}
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: and
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: &&\delta_\epsilon X=-\sqrt{2}P_+(D_1\Phi+\mathcal{F})\epsilon
357: -\sqrt{2}P_-(D_1\Phi^*+\mathcal{F}^*)\epsilon,
358: \nonumber\\
359: &&\delta_\epsilon\Phi
360: =\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCP_+X,\qquad
361: \delta_\epsilon\Phi^*=\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCP_-X,
362: \nonumber\\
363: &&\delta_\epsilon\mathcal{F}=\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCD_1P_+X,\qquad
364: \delta_\epsilon\mathcal{F}^*=\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCD_1P_-X.
365: \label{twoxnine}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: In this expression, $\epsilon$ is a 4~component Grassmann parameter and we have
368: used a decomposition of the Dirac operator, $D=D_1+D_2$, where
369: \begin{equation}
370: D_1={1\over2}\gamma_\mu(\partial_\mu^*+\partial_\mu)(A^\dagger A)^{-1/2},
371: \qquad
372: D_2={1\over a}\Bigl\{1-
373: (1+{1\over2}a^2\partial_\mu^*\partial_\mu)(A^\dagger A)^{-1/2}\Bigr\}.
374: \label{twoxten}
375: \end{equation}
376: Note that with respect to spinor space, $D_1$ and~$D_2$ have different
377: structures. In particular, we have $\{\gamma_5,D_1\}=0$ and~$[\gamma_5,D_2]=0$.
378: In terms of this decomposition, the Ginsparg-Wilson relation is expressed as
379: \begin{equation}
380: 2D_2=a(-D_1^2+D_2^2),
381: \label{twoxeleven}
382: \end{equation}
383: and as a consequence, we have relations
384: \begin{equation}
385: \gamma_5(1-{1\over2}aD)\gamma_5(1-{1\over2}aD)=1-{1\over2}aD_2,\qquad
386: \gamma_5(1-{1\over2}aD)\gamma_5D=D_1,
387: \label{twoxtwelve}
388: \end{equation}
389: which will frequently be used below. It is also understood that the $4\times 4$
390: identity matrix in operators $D_1^2$ and~$D_2$ is omitted when these operators
391: are acting on bosonic fields. It is then straightforward to see that the
392: following free action is invariant under~eqs.~(\ref{twoxeight})
393: and~(\ref{twoxnine}):
394: \begin{eqnarray}
395: S_0&=&a^4\sum_x\Bigl\{{1\over2}\chi^TCD\chi
396: +\phi^*D_1^2\phi+F^*F+FD_2\phi+F^*D_2\phi^*
397: \nonumber\\
398: &&\qquad\qquad
399: -{1\over a}X^TCX
400: -{2\over a}(\mathcal{F}\Phi+\mathcal{F}^*\Phi^*)
401: \nonumber\\
402: &&\qquad\qquad
403: +{1\over2}m\tilde\chi^TCP_+\tilde\chi
404: +{1\over2}m^*\tilde\chi^TCP_-\tilde\chi
405: +m\tilde F\tilde\phi+m^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^*
406: \Bigr\},
407: \end{eqnarray}
408: where we have introduced abbreviations
409: \begin{equation}
410: \tilde\chi=\chi+X,\qquad\tilde\phi=\phi+\Phi,\qquad
411: \tilde F=F+\mathcal{F}.
412: \label{twoxfourteen}
413: \end{equation}
414: The combinations~$(\chi,\phi,F)$ and $(X,\Phi,\mathcal{F})$ are regarded as
415: chiral multiplet in the lattice model. In particular, we refer
416: $(X,\Phi,\mathcal{F})$ to as the auxiliary chiral multiplet which is
417: characteristic in the present lattice formulation.
418:
419: We note that the free action~$S_0$ with $m=0$ possesses three types of $\U(1)$
420: symmetry~\cite{Aoyama:1998in}. The first is a rather trivial one acting only
421: on bosonic fields and is defined by the transformation:
422: \begin{eqnarray}
423: &&\delta_\alpha\chi=0,\qquad\delta_\alpha X=0,
424: \nonumber\\
425: &&\delta_\alpha\phi=i\alpha\phi,\qquad
426: \delta_\alpha\Phi=i\alpha\Phi,
427: \nonumber\\
428: &&\delta_\alpha F=-i\alpha F,\qquad
429: \delta_\alpha\mathcal{F}=-i\alpha\mathcal{F},
430: \label{twoxfifteen}
431: \end{eqnarray}
432: where $\alpha$ is an infinitesimal real parameter. This remains the symmetry
433: of~$S_0$ even for~$m\neq0$. The second one is nothing but the L\"uscher chiral
434: symmetry, (\ref{twoxseven}) with $\delta_\alpha\phi=0$,
435: $\delta_\alpha\Phi=0$, $\delta_\alpha F=0$ and~$\delta_\alpha\mathcal{F}=0$.
436: Thirdly, somewhat surprisingly, the {\it bosonic\/} sector of $S_0$ with $m=0$
437: possesses an analogous $\U(1)$ symmetry to eq.~(\ref{twoxseven}):
438: \begin{eqnarray}
439: &&\delta_\alpha\chi=0,\qquad
440: \delta_\alpha X=0,
441: \nonumber\\
442: &&\delta_\alpha\phi
443: =+i\alpha\{(1-{1\over2}aD_2)\phi-{1\over2}aF^*\}+i\alpha\Phi,\qquad
444: \delta_\alpha\Phi=+i\alpha\{{1\over2}aD_2\phi+{1\over2}aF^*\},
445: \nonumber\\
446: &&\delta_\alpha F=+i\alpha\{(1-{1\over2}aD_2)F-{1\over2}aD_1^2\phi^*\}
447: +i\alpha\mathcal{F},\qquad
448: \delta_\alpha\mathcal{F}=+i\alpha\{{1\over2}aD_2F+{1\over2}aD_1^2\phi^*\},
449: \nonumber\\
450: \label{twoxsixteen}
451: \end{eqnarray}
452: due to the Ginsparg-Wilson relation. The lattice action~$S_0$ is not invariant
453: under a uniform rotation of the complex phase of bosonic fields, $\phi$, $F$,
454: $\Phi$ and~$\mathcal{F}$, due to the presence of terms~$FD_2\phi$
455: and~$F^*D_2\phi^*$. The above provides a lattice counterpart of this uniform
456: phase rotation of bosonic fields under which the free action~$S_0$ with~$m=0$
457: is invariant. Using a linear combination of the above three $\U(1)$ symmetries,
458: it is possible to define the $\U(1)_R$ symmetry~\cite{Aoyama:1998in} in the
459: interacting system, as we will see below. It is worthwhile to note that a sum
460: of transformations (\ref{twoxfifteen}) and (\ref{twoxsixteen}) takes the
461: following simple form when acting on tilded variables:
462: \begin{equation}
463: \delta_\alpha\tilde\chi=+i\alpha\gamma_5\tilde\chi,\qquad
464: \delta_\alpha\tilde\phi=+i\alpha\tilde\phi,\qquad
465: \delta_\alpha\tilde F=+i\alpha\tilde F.
466: \label{twoxseventeen}
467: \end{equation}
468:
469: Next we postulate a form of the interaction term as
470: \begin{equation}
471: S_{\rm int.}=a^4\sum_x\Bigl\{
472: g\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi P_+\tilde\chi+g\tilde F\tilde\phi^2
473: +g^*\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi^*P_-\tilde\chi
474: +g^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^{*2}\Bigr\},
475: \end{equation}
476: where we have defined interaction terms by taking tilded
477: variables~(\ref{twoxfourteen}) as unit, because in this way we can relate our
478: formulation to the Fujikawa-Ishibashi formulation. This way of construction of
479: interaction terms is also a natural generalization of the Yukawa interaction
480: in eq.~(\ref{twoxone}). We then find that the full action $S=S_0+S_{\rm int.}$
481: is ``almost'' invariant under the fermionic transformations~(\ref{twoxeight})
482: and~(\ref{twoxnine}). In fact, after some algebra using the Fierz
483: identity,\footnote{We use the identity
484: $(\chi^TC\chi)\chi=-(\chi^TC\gamma_5\chi)\gamma_5\chi$.} we obtain
485: \begin{eqnarray}
486: \delta_\epsilon S
487: &=&-a^4\sum_x\tilde\chi^TC\sqrt{2}\Bigl\{
488: gP_+(2\tilde\phi D_1\tilde\phi-D_1\tilde\phi^2)\epsilon
489: +g^*P_-(2\tilde\phi^*D_1\tilde\phi^*-D_1\tilde\phi^{*2})\epsilon
490: \Bigr\}
491: \nonumber\\
492: &\equiv&-a^4\sum_x\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\epsilon.
493: \label{twoxnineteen}
494: \end{eqnarray}
495: We emphasize that this breaking could vanish if the Leibniz rule was valid for
496: the lattice difference operator~$D_1$. In summary, the lattice action for the
497: Wess-Zumino model
498: \begin{eqnarray}
499: S&=&a^4\sum_x\Bigl\{{1\over2}\chi^TCD\chi
500: +\phi^*D_1^2\phi+F^*F+FD_2\phi+F^*D_2\phi^*
501: \nonumber\\
502: &&\qquad\qquad
503: -{1\over a}X^TCX
504: -{2\over a}(\mathcal{F}\Phi+\mathcal{F}^*\Phi^*)
505: \nonumber\\
506: &&\qquad\qquad
507: +{1\over2}m\tilde\chi^TCP_+\tilde\chi
508: +{1\over2}m^*\tilde\chi^TCP_-\tilde\chi
509: +m\tilde F\tilde\phi+m^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^*
510: \nonumber\\
511: &&\qquad\qquad
512: +g\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi P_+\tilde\chi+g\tilde F\tilde\phi^2
513: +g^*\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi^*P_-\tilde\chi
514: +g^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^{*2}
515: \Bigr\},
516: \label{twoxtwenty}
517: \end{eqnarray}
518: is invariant under the lattice super transformation~(\ref{twoxeight})
519: and~(\ref{twoxnine}) up to the breaking term~(\ref{twoxnineteen}).
520:
521: For the action~(\ref{twoxtwenty}), we can define two types of exact global
522: ``symmetries''. The first is eq.~(\ref{twoxfifteen}) which yields on tilded
523: variables
524: \begin{equation}
525: \delta_\alpha\tilde\chi=0,\qquad
526: \delta_\alpha\tilde\phi=+i\alpha\tilde\phi,\qquad
527: \delta_\alpha\tilde F=-i\alpha\tilde F.
528: \label{twoxtwentyone}
529: \end{equation}
530: This is not a symmetry when $g\neq0$, but may be regarded as a ``symmetry'' if
531: we simultaneously rotate the coupling constant according to
532: \begin{equation}
533: \delta_\alpha g=-i\alpha g.
534: \label{twoxtwentytwo}
535: \end{equation}
536:
537: Another is a lattice counterpart of the $\U(1)_R$ symmetry which is given by a
538: linear combination of the above three $\U(1)$ transformations:
539: \begin{eqnarray}
540: &&\delta_\alpha\chi=+i\alpha\gamma_5(1-{1\over2}aD)\chi
541: +i\alpha\gamma_5X,\qquad
542: \delta_\alpha X=+i\alpha\gamma_5{1\over2}aD\chi,
543: \nonumber\\
544: &&\delta_\alpha\phi
545: =-3i\alpha\phi+i\alpha\{(1-{1\over2}aD_2)\phi-{1\over2}aF^*\}
546: +i\alpha\Phi,
547: \nonumber\\
548: &&\delta_\alpha\Phi=-3i\alpha\Phi
549: +i\alpha\{{1\over2}aD_2\phi+{1\over2}aF^*\},
550: \nonumber\\
551: &&\delta_\alpha F=+3i\alpha F
552: +i\alpha\{(1-{1\over2}aD_2)F-{1\over2}aD_1^2\phi^*\}
553: +i\alpha\mathcal{F},
554: \nonumber\\
555: &&\delta_\alpha\mathcal{F}=+3i\alpha\mathcal{F}
556: +i\alpha\{{1\over2}aD_2F+{1\over2}aD_1^2\phi^*\}.
557: \label{twoxtwentythree}
558: \end{eqnarray}
559: On tilded variables, this $\U(1)_R$ transformation takes a simple form
560: \begin{equation}
561: \delta_\alpha\tilde\chi=+i\alpha\gamma_5\tilde\chi,\qquad
562: \delta_\alpha\tilde\phi=-2i\alpha\tilde\phi,\qquad
563: \delta_\alpha\tilde F=+4i\alpha\tilde F.
564: \label{twoxtwentyfour}
565: \end{equation}
566: The action~$S$ with $m=0$ is invariant under this transformation and this may
567: also be regarded as a ``symmetry'' even for~$m\neq0$ if we transform the mass
568: parameter according to
569: \begin{equation}
570: \delta_\alpha m=-2i\alpha m.
571: \label{twoxtwentyfive}
572: \end{equation}
573: Eqs.~(\ref{twoxtwentythree}), (\ref{twoxtwentyfour}) and~(\ref{twoxtwentyfive})
574: correspond to the $\U(1)_R$ transformation of the continuum Wess-Zumino model.
575: In fact, if we define the $\U(1)_R$ transformation of the parameter of the
576: super transformation as
577: \begin{equation}
578: \delta_\alpha\epsilon=-3i\alpha\gamma_5\epsilon,
579: \end{equation}
580: then from eqs.~(\ref{twoxeight}) and~(\ref{twoxnine}) it can be confirmed that
581: $[\delta_\epsilon,\delta_\alpha]=0$ holds on all field variables. The above two
582: ``symmetries'' play an important role when we consider a structure of radiative
583: corrections in the present model.
584:
585: In our non-singular local action~(\ref{twoxtwenty}) with interactions, the
586: chiral $\U(1)_R$ symmetry is realized as an exact symmetry. The no-go theorem
587: of ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2002is} on a chiral invariant Yukawa interaction of the
588: Majorana fermion is evaded in our formulation due to an introduction of the
589: auxiliary field(s). We further clarify this point in the next subsection.
590:
591: \subsection{Perturbative equivalence to the Fujikawa-Ishibashi formulation}
592: In perturbation theory, the above system~$S$ is completely equivalent to a
593: lattice Wess-Zumino model formulated in
594: refs.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka,Fujikawa:2001ns,Fujikawa:2002ic}, i.e.,
595: eq.~(\ref{onexone}). A {\it formal\/} way to see this equivalence is to rewrite
596: the action~$S$ in favor of tilded variables and of the auxiliary multiplet
597: $(X,\Phi,\mathcal{F})$:
598: \begin{eqnarray}
599: S&=&a^4\sum_x\Bigl\{{1\over2}(\tilde\chi^T-X^T)CD(\tilde\chi-X)
600: +(\tilde\phi^*-\Phi^*)D_1^2(\tilde\phi-\Phi)
601: \nonumber\\
602: &&\qquad\qquad
603: +(\tilde F^*-\mathcal{F}^*)(\tilde F-\mathcal{F})
604: +(\tilde F-\mathcal{F})D_2(\tilde\phi-\Phi)
605: +(\tilde F^*-\mathcal{F}^*)D_2(\tilde\phi^*-\Phi^*)
606: \nonumber\\
607: &&\qquad\qquad
608: -{1\over a}X^TCX
609: -{2\over a}(\mathcal{F}\Phi+\mathcal{F}^*\Phi^*)
610: \nonumber\\
611: &&\qquad\qquad
612: +{1\over2}m\tilde\chi^TCP_+\tilde\chi
613: +{1\over2}m^*\tilde\chi^TCP_-\tilde\chi
614: +m\tilde F\tilde\phi+m^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^*
615: \nonumber\\
616: &&\qquad\qquad
617: +g\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi P_+\tilde\chi+g\tilde F\tilde\phi^2
618: +g^*\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi^*P_-\tilde\chi
619: +g^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^{*2}
620: \Bigr\}.
621: \end{eqnarray}
622: If we perform integrations over the auxiliary chiral multiplet, $X$, $\Phi$
623: and~$\mathcal{F}$, we have the effective action for tilded variables:
624: \begin{eqnarray}
625: \tilde S&=&
626: a^4\sum_x\Bigl\{{1\over2}\tilde\chi^TC
627: (1-{1\over2}aD_2)^{-1}D_1\tilde\chi
628: -{2\over a}\tilde\phi^*D_2\tilde\phi
629: +\tilde F^*(1-{1\over2}aD_2)^{-1}\tilde F
630: \nonumber\\
631: &&\qquad\qquad
632: +{1\over2}m\tilde\chi^TCP_+\tilde\chi
633: +{1\over2}m^*\tilde\chi^TCP_-\tilde\chi
634: +m\tilde F\tilde\phi+m^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^*
635: \nonumber\\
636: &&\qquad\qquad
637: +g\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi P_+\tilde\chi+g\tilde F\tilde\phi^2
638: +g^*\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi^*P_-\tilde\chi
639: +g^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^{*2}
640: \Bigr\}.
641: \label{twoxtwentyeight}
642: \end{eqnarray}
643: This is, if we identify tilded variables as basic field variables, nothing but
644: the action~(\ref{onexone}). Associated to the integration over the auxiliary
645: chiral multiplet, we have
646: \begin{equation}
647: \Pf\Bigl\{C(D-{2\over a})\Bigr\}
648: \det\nolimits^{-1}\Bigl\{{2\over a}(D_2-{2\over a})\Bigr\},
649: \label{twoxtwentynine}
650: \end{equation}
651: where the first factor comes from an integration over the 4~component fermionic
652: spinor~$X$ and the second comes from an integration over complex bosonic
653: scalars $\Phi$ and~$\mathcal{F}$; the operator in the latter factor therefore
654: does not contain $4\times4$ identity matrix in spinor space. In a formal sense,
655: these two factors are cancelled out, because the relation
656: \begin{equation}
657: \gamma_5(D-{2\over a})\gamma_5(D-{2\over a})
658: =-{2\over a}(D_2-{2\over a})
659: \label{twoxthirty}
660: \end{equation}
661: holds (recall eq.~(\ref{twoxtwelve})) and thus we have
662: \begin{equation}
663: \det\nolimits^2\Bigl\{D-{2\over a}\Bigr\}
664: =\det\nolimits^4\Bigl\{{-2\over a}(D_2-{2\over a})\Bigr\},
665: \end{equation}
666: by noting the fact that the right hand side of eq.~(\ref{twoxthirty}) contains
667: the $4\times 4$ identity matrix. Therefore, we see
668: \begin{equation}
669: \Pf\Bigl\{C(D-{2\over a})\Bigr\}
670: =\det\nolimits^{1/2}C\det\nolimits^{1/2}\Bigl\{D-{2\over a}\Bigr\}
671: =\det\nolimits^{1/2}C
672: \det\nolimits\Bigl\{{-2\over a}(D_2-{2\over a})\Bigr\}.
673: \end{equation}
674: This cancels the contribution from the bosonic fields. The system~$S$ is thus
675: equivalent to~$\tilde S$ after integrating out the auxiliary chiral multiplet,
676: $X$, $\Phi$ and~$\mathcal{F}$.
677:
678: This argument for the equivalence between $S$ and~$\tilde S$, however, is valid
679: in a formal sense, because the operators $D-{2\over a}$ and thus
680: $D_2-{2\over a}$ which appear in various places in the above expressions always
681: have zero modes when the lattice volume is
682: infinite~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ns,Fujikawa:2002is}. The kinetic operators of~$X$
683: and of~$(\Phi,\mathcal{F})$ have zero eigenmodes {\it when tilded variables are
684: kept fixed}. Thus the integration over the former gives zero and the latter
685: gives infinity. On the other hand, kinetic operators in the effective
686: action~$\tilde S$ contain the factor~$(1-{1\over2}aD_2)^{-1}$ which is a
687: singular operator.
688:
689: To see what is really happening here, it is instructive to consider the case
690: of~$m=g=0$. In this case, integrations over Grassmann variables yield
691: \begin{equation}
692: \int\prod_x\rmd\chi(x)\rmd X(x)\,
693: e^{-a^4\sum_x\{{1\over2}\chi^TCD\chi-{1\over a}X^TCX\}}
694: =\Pf\{CD\}\Pf\Bigl\{-{2\over a}C\Bigr\},
695: \label{twoxthirtythree}
696: \end{equation}
697: which is {\it not\/} singular in any sense. On the other hand, if we perform
698: the integration over~$X$ first {\it while keeping $\tilde\chi=\chi+X$}, we have
699: instead
700: \begin{equation}
701: \Pf\Bigl\{C(D-{2\over a})\Bigr\}
702: \int\prod_x\rmd\tilde\chi(x)\,
703: e^{-a^4\sum_x\{{1\over2}\tilde\chi^TC(1-{1\over2}aD_2)^{-1}D_1\tilde\chi\}},
704: \end{equation}
705: which is of a structure of~$0\times\infty$, although nothing is wrong with the
706: whole integral~(\ref{twoxthirtythree}). The above argument simply shows that we
707: are observing a non-singular object in an unnecessarily singular way. A similar
708: argument is applied to the full action~(\ref{twoxtwenty}). Integrations over
709: field variables do not produce any singularities. Only if we observe the
710: integrations in a wrong way, seemingly singular natures as in
711: eqs.~(\ref{twoxtwentyeight}) and~(\ref{twoxtwentynine}) emerge. The full action
712: $S$~(\ref{twoxtwenty}) and the action $\tilde S$~(\ref{twoxtwentyeight}) are
713: thus {\it inequivalent\/} by a singular quantity.\footnote{In this way, the
714: no-go theorem of ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2002is} for a chiral invariant Yukawa
715: interaction of the Majorana fermion is evaded by introducing auxiliary fields.}
716:
717: Nevertheless, we can infer that our formulation based on~$S$ and that based
718: on~$\tilde S$ are equivalent in {\it perturbation theory}. The point is that
719: the free propagators among {\it tilded\/} variables
720: \begin{eqnarray}
721: &&\langle\tilde\chi(x)\tilde\chi^T(y)\rangle C
722: ={-D_1+(1-{1\over2}aD_2)(m^*P_++mP_-)
723: \over{2\over a}D_2+(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m^*m}
724: a^{-4}\delta_{x,y},
725: \nonumber\\
726: &&\langle\tilde\phi(x)\tilde\phi^*(y)\rangle
727: =\langle\tilde\phi^*(x)\tilde\phi(y)\rangle
728: ={-1
729: \over{2\over a}D_2+(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m^*m}a^{-4}\delta_{x,y},
730: \nonumber\\
731: &&\langle\tilde\phi(x)\tilde F(y)\rangle
732: =\langle\tilde F(x)\tilde\phi(y)\rangle
733: ={(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m^*
734: \over{2\over a}D_2+(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m^*m}a^{-4}\delta_{x,y},
735: \nonumber\\
736: &&\langle\tilde\phi^*(x)\tilde F^*(y)\rangle
737: =\langle\tilde F^*(x)\tilde\phi^*(y)\rangle
738: ={(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m
739: \over{2\over a}D_2+(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m^*m}a^{-4}\delta_{x,y},
740: \nonumber\\
741: &&\langle\tilde F(x)\tilde F^*(y)\rangle
742: =\langle\tilde F^*(x)\tilde F(y)\rangle
743: ={(1-{1\over2}aD_2){2\over a}D_2
744: \over{2\over a}D_2+(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m^*m}a^{-4}\delta_{x,y},
745: \label{twoxthirtyfive}
746: \end{eqnarray}
747: which are directly obtained by using~$S$, are identical to those obtained by
748: using~$\tilde S$ formally, i.e., by neglecting a singular nature of kinetic
749: terms. Moreover, interaction vertices of~$S$ are identical to those
750: of~$\tilde S$ (in fact we have constructed $S$ so that this is the case).
751: Therefore, perturbative calculations based on~$S$ and that based on~$\tilde S$
752: give rise to completely identical answers for correlation functions which have
753: tilded variables in external lines. In a sense, our non-singular local lattice
754: action~$S$ provides a natural justification for a prescription of
755: refs.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka,Fujikawa:2002ic} which utilizes the above form of
756: propagators and interaction vertices of~$\tilde S$. Of course, we think our
757: formulation which includes the auxiliary chiral supermultiplet is superior at
758: least formally, because it is manifestly free from singularities and it may
759: have a meaning even as a non-perturbative formulation.
760:
761: \section{Supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi identity and its breaking}
762: \subsection{Derivation of a lattice Ward-Takahashi identity}
763: We consider a structure of radiative corrections with the present lattice
764: formulation of the Wess-Zumino model. As noted in the preceding section, in
765: perturbation theory, our formulation is equivalent to the formulation of
766: refs.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka,Fujikawa:2001ns,Fujikawa:2002ic}. One-loop
767: radiative corrections in the latter formulation, in view of a realization of
768: supersymmetry, had been extensively studied in ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka}.
769: Here we study this issue in the continuum limit by using a Ward-Takahashi
770: identity.
771:
772: For a systematic study, it is quite helpful to introduce the one-particle
773: irreducible (1PI) effective action~$\Gammait$. Following the standard
774: procedure, we introduce external sources for each elementary fields
775: \begin{equation}
776: S_{\rm source}=a^4\sum_x\{J_\chi\chi+J_\phi\phi+J_{\phi^*}\phi^*
777: +J_FF+J_{F^*}F^*
778: +J_XX+J_\Phi\Phi+J_{\Phi^*}\Phi^*
779: +J_{\mathcal{F}}\mathcal{F}+J_{\mathcal{F}^*}\mathcal{F}^*\}.
780: \end{equation}
781: We also introduce an external source~$K$ for a symmetry breaking of the action,
782: $\delta_\epsilon S$, and a source~$L$ for a symmetry variation of
783: $\delta_\epsilon S$, $\delta_{\epsilon'}\delta_\epsilon S$, and so on.
784: Including these latter kind of external sources $K$, $L$\dots\ only, we define
785: the {\it total action}
786: \begin{equation}
787: S_{\rm tot.}
788: =S-a^4\sum\{K_\alpha(\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L)_\alpha
789: +L_{\alpha,\beta}\delta_\alpha(\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L)_\beta
790: +M_{\alpha\beta,\gamma}\delta_\alpha\delta_\beta
791: (\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L)_\gamma
792: +\cdots\},
793: \label{threextwo}
794: \end{equation}
795: where $\delta_\alpha$ stands for the symmetry variation with the transformation
796: spinor parameter is removed:
797: \begin{equation}
798: \delta_\epsilon=\epsilon_\alpha\delta_\alpha.
799: \end{equation}
800: The generating functional~$W$ of connected Green's functions is then defined by
801: the functional integral
802: \begin{eqnarray}
803: e^{-W}&=&\int\prod_x\rmd\chi(x)\rmd\phi(x)\rmd\phi^*(x)
804: \rmd F(x)\rmd F^*(x)
805: \rmd X(x)\rmd\Phi(x)\rmd\Phi^*(x)
806: \rmd\mathcal{F}(x)\rmd\mathcal{F}^*(x)
807: \nonumber\\
808: &&\qquad\qquad
809: \times e^{-S_{\rm tot.}-S_{\rm source}}.
810: \end{eqnarray}
811: We then apply the Legendre transformation to~$W$ and change independent
812: variables from external sources for elementary fields $(J_\chi,\cdots)$ to the
813: corresponding expectation values of elementary fields
814: $(\langle\chi\rangle,\cdots)$. In what follows, we denote expectation values by
815: their original name as $\langle\chi\rangle\to\chi$ and so on for notational
816: simplicity. We do {\it not\/} apply the Legendre transformation with respect to
817: the sources $(K,L,M,\ldots)$. In this way, we have the 1PI effective action
818: \begin{equation}
819: \Gammait=\Gammait[\chi,\phi,\phi^*,F,F^*,X,\Phi,\Phi^*,
820: \mathcal{F},\mathcal{F}^*;K,L,M,\ldots],
821: \end{equation}
822: which is a generating functional of 1PI Green's functions which include
823: additional vertices coming from the second term of eq.~(\ref{threextwo}).
824:
825: Now, the action~$S$ is not invariant under the lattice super
826: transformation~(\ref{twoxeight}) and~(\ref{twoxnine}), but it leaves the
827: breaking~(\ref{twoxnineteen}). From this fact, we have the identity
828: \begin{eqnarray}
829: &&\Bigl\langle
830: -a^4\sum_x\{J_\chi\delta_\epsilon\chi
831: +J_\phi\delta_\epsilon\phi
832: +J_{\phi^*}\delta_\epsilon\phi^*
833: +J_F\delta_\epsilon F+J_{F^*}\delta_\epsilon F^*
834: \nonumber\\
835: &&\qquad\qquad
836: +J_X\delta_\epsilon X
837: +J_\Phi\delta_\epsilon\Phi
838: +J_{\Phi^*}\delta_\epsilon\Phi^*
839: +J_{\mathcal{F}}\delta_\epsilon\mathcal{F}
840: +J_{\mathcal{F}^*}\delta_\epsilon\mathcal{F}^*\}
841: \nonumber\\
842: &&\quad+a^4\sum_x\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\epsilon
843: \nonumber\\
844: &&\quad+a^4\sum\{
845: K_\alpha\epsilon_\beta\delta_\beta(\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L)_\alpha
846: +L_{\alpha,\beta}\epsilon_\gamma\delta_\gamma
847: \delta_\alpha(\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L)_\beta
848: +\cdots\}\Bigr\rangle=0.
849: \label{threexsix}
850: \end{eqnarray}
851: This identity, in terms of the 1PI effective action~$\Gammait$, is expressed as
852: \begin{eqnarray}
853: &&-\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\chi}
854: \{\sqrt{2}P_+(D_1\phi+F)\epsilon+\sqrt{2}P_-(D_1\phi^*+F^*)\epsilon\}
855: \nonumber\\
856: &&+\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\phi}\sqrt{2}
857: \epsilon^TCP_+\chi
858: +\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\phi^*}\sqrt{2}
859: \epsilon^TCP_-\chi
860: \nonumber\\
861: &&+\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial F}\sqrt{2}
862: \epsilon^TCD_1P_+\chi
863: +\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial F^*}\sqrt{2}
864: \epsilon^TCD_1P_-\chi
865: \nonumber\\
866: &&-\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial X}
867: \{\sqrt{2}P_+(D_1\Phi+\mathcal{F})\epsilon
868: +\sqrt{2}P_-(D_1\Phi^*+\mathcal{F}^*)\epsilon\}
869: \nonumber\\
870: &&+\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\Phi}\sqrt{2}
871: \epsilon^TCP_+X
872: +\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\Phi^*}\sqrt{2}
873: \epsilon^TCP_-X
874: \nonumber\\
875: &&+\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\mathcal{F}}\sqrt{2}
876: \epsilon^TCD_1P_+X
877: +\sum_x\Gammait{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\mathcal{F}^*}\sqrt{2}
878: \epsilon^TCD_1P_-X
879: \nonumber\\
880: &&+\sum_x{\partial\over\partial K_\alpha}\Gammait
881: \epsilon_\alpha
882: \nonumber\\
883: &&+\sum_x\Bigl\{K_\alpha\epsilon_\beta
884: {\partial\over\partial L_{\beta,\alpha}}\Gammait
885: +L_{\alpha,\beta}\epsilon_\gamma
886: {\partial\over\partial M_{\gamma\alpha,\beta}}\Gammait
887: +\cdots\Bigr\}=0,
888: \label{threexseven}
889: \end{eqnarray}
890: that is a linear equation of~$\Gammait$. This is referred to as the
891: {\it lattice\/} Ward-Takahashi identity. If the last two lines were not present
892: in this expression, the above equation simply states that the effective action
893: is invariant under the lattice analogue of super transformation,
894: eqs.~(\ref{twoxeight}) and~(\ref{twoxnine}). Thus, contributions of these
895: lines, especially contributions from the term,
896: \begin{equation}
897: \sum_x{\partial\over\partial K_\alpha}\Gammait\epsilon_\alpha,
898: \label{threexeight}
899: \end{equation}
900: that is the breaking of the supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi identity, will play a
901: central role in our analysis below. Explicitly, this term is given by 1PI
902: diagrams with insertions of the operator\footnote{Generally, $\Gammait$
903: contains 1PI diagrams with multiple insertions of this operator. We will be
904: interested in, however, terms of~$\Gammait$ that are linear in the external
905: source~$K$ and consider 1PI diagrams with a single insertion of this operator
906: below.}
907: \begin{eqnarray}
908: &&-a^4\sum_x\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\epsilon
909: \nonumber\\
910: &&=-a^4\sum_x\tilde\chi^TC\sqrt{2}\Bigl\{
911: gP_+(2\tilde\phi D_1\tilde\phi-D_1\tilde\phi^2)\epsilon
912: +g^*P_-(2\tilde\phi^*D_1\tilde\phi^*-D_1\tilde\phi^{*2})\epsilon
913: \Bigr\}.
914: \label{threexnine}
915: \end{eqnarray}
916: The $a\to0$ limit of these 1PI diagrams will be expressed by a {\it local\/}
917: polynomial of field variables, because in this limit, the effect of our
918: particular choice of regularization (the lattice artifact) should affect only
919: local terms in the effective action~$\Gammait$. Moreover, the
920: operator~(\ref{threexnine}) vanishes in the classical continuum limit (because
921: the Leibniz rule holds in this limit) and it has no continuum analogue. Only
922: when combined with ultraviolet divergences,
923: $\langle\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\epsilon\rangle_{\rm 1PI}$ can acquire non-zero
924: value. In these aspects, computation
925: of~$\langle\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\epsilon\rangle_{\rm 1PI}$ is similar to that
926: of quantum anomalies, although this breaking of supersymmetry is not a genuine
927: anomaly in a conventional sense.\footnote{It will be removed by local counter
928: terms (supersymmetry is thought to be anomaly-free at least in perturbation
929: theory) and also the structure
930: of~$\langle\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\epsilon\rangle_{\rm 1PI}$ is not universal,
931: i.e., it will quite depend on a lattice formulation one adopts.}
932:
933: We expand $\Gammait$ according to a number of internal loops of 1PI diagrams:
934: \begin{equation}
935: \Gammait=\Gammait_0+\Gammait_1+\Gammait_2+\cdots.
936: \end{equation}
937: The loop counting parameter in the present model is~$g^*g$. The tree-level
938: effective action~$\Gammait_0$ is nothing but the total
939: action~(\ref{threextwo}),
940: \begin{equation}
941: \Gammait_0=S_{\rm tot.}
942: \end{equation}
943: In fact, it is easy to see that $S_{\rm tot.}$ satisfies the lattice
944: Ward-Takahashi identity. In this tree level approximation, the breaking term
945: vanishes in the $a\to0$ limit,
946: \begin{equation}
947: \lim_{a\to0}\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\epsilon=0,
948: \end{equation}
949: because the Leibniz rule holds in this limit. Thus the last two lines of the
950: identity~(\ref{threexseven}) vanish in the $a\to0$ limit and the supersymmetry
951: is restored in this classical continuum limit.
952:
953: In loop diagrams, all external lines are tilded variables. The Ward-Takahashi
954: identity for the effective action~$\Gammait_n$ $(n\geq1)$ can thus be written
955: as
956: \begin{eqnarray}
957: &&-\sum_x\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\chi}
958: \{\sqrt{2}P_+(D_1\tilde\phi+\tilde F)\epsilon
959: +\sqrt{2}P_-(D_1\tilde\phi^*+\tilde F^*)\epsilon\}
960: \nonumber\\
961: &&+\sum_x\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi}\sqrt{2}
962: \epsilon^TCP_+\tilde\chi
963: +\sum_x\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi^*}\sqrt{2}
964: \epsilon^TCP_-\tilde\chi
965: \nonumber\\
966: &&+\sum_x\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F}\sqrt{2}
967: \epsilon^TCD_1P_+\tilde\chi
968: +\sum_x\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F^*}\sqrt{2}
969: \epsilon^TCD_1P_-\tilde\chi
970: \nonumber\\
971: &&+\sum_x{\partial\over\partial K_\alpha}\Gammait_n
972: \epsilon_\alpha
973: \nonumber\\
974: &&+\sum_x\Bigl\{K_\alpha\epsilon_\beta
975: {\partial\over\partial L_{\beta,\alpha}}\Gammait_n
976: +L_{\alpha,\beta}\epsilon_\gamma
977: {\partial\over\partial M_{\gamma\alpha,\beta}}\Gammait_n
978: +\cdots\Bigr\}=0.
979: \label{threexthirteen}
980: \end{eqnarray}
981:
982: We also recall that our system~$S$ possesses two global $\U(1)$ ``symmetries'':
983: $\U(1)$ symmetry, eqs.~(\ref{twoxtwentyone}) and~(\ref{twoxtwentytwo}),
984: and $\U(1)_R$ symmetry, eqs.~(\ref{twoxtwentyfour}) and~(\ref{twoxtwentyfive}).
985: In terms of the 1PI effective action $\Gammait_n$ $(n\geq1)$, these invariance
986: can be expressed as
987: \begin{equation}
988: \sum_x\Bigl\{
989: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi}\tilde\phi
990: -\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi^*}\tilde\phi^*
991: -\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F}\tilde F
992: +\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F^*}\tilde F^*\Bigr\}
993: -\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial g}g
994: +\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial g^*}g^*=0,
995: \end{equation}
996: and
997: \begin{eqnarray}
998: &&\sum_x\Bigl\{
999: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\chi}\gamma_5\tilde\chi
1000: -2\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi}\tilde\phi
1001: +2\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi^*}\tilde\phi^*
1002: +4\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F}\tilde F
1003: -4\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F^*}\tilde F^*\Bigr\}
1004: \nonumber\\
1005: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1006: -2\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial m}m
1007: +2\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial m^*}m^*=0,
1008: \end{eqnarray}
1009: where we have set $K=L=\cdots=0$. These identities are referred to as
1010: Ward-Takahashi identities associated to $\U(1)$ symmetries.
1011:
1012: \subsection{Supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi identity: Improvement and
1013: renormalization}
1014: Supersymmetry is not exact in the present lattice formulation of the
1015: Wess-Zumino model. To achieve a supersymmetric continuum limit, we have to
1016: apply appropriate improvement and renormalization to the lattice action. In
1017: particular, in the continuum limit, a renormalized effective action must obey
1018: the {\it supersymmetric\/} Ward-Takahashi identity that is defined by
1019: \begin{eqnarray}
1020: &&-\int\rmd^4x\,
1021: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\delta\over\delta\tilde\chi}
1022: \{\sqrt{2}P_+(\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu\tilde\phi+\tilde F)\epsilon
1023: +\sqrt{2}P_-(\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu\tilde\phi^*+\tilde F^*)\epsilon\}
1024: \nonumber\\
1025: &&+\int\rmd^4x\,
1026: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi}\sqrt{2}
1027: \epsilon^TCP_+\tilde\chi
1028: +\int\rmd^4x\,
1029: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi^*}\sqrt{2}
1030: \epsilon^TCP_-\tilde\chi
1031: \nonumber\\
1032: &&+\int\rmd^4x\,
1033: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F}\sqrt{2}
1034: \epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi
1035: +\int\rmd^4x\,
1036: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F^*}\sqrt{2}
1037: \epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_-\tilde\chi=0,
1038: \label{threexsixteen}
1039: \end{eqnarray}
1040: and\footnote{This requirement may seem somewhat ad hoc. However, without this
1041: kind of additional condition, divergences arise from sub-diagrams in a 1PI
1042: diagram which contains source terms $K$, $L$, $M$, \dots\ cannot be cancelled
1043: by an addition of local terms to $\Gammait_{n+1}$. Note that this requirement
1044: is satisfied in the tree level.}
1045: \begin{equation}
1046: \int\rmd^4x\,{\delta\over\delta K_\alpha}\Gammait_n
1047: =\int\rmd^4x\,{\delta\over\delta L_{\beta,\alpha}}\Gammait_n
1048: =\int\rmd^4x\,{\delta\over\delta M_{\gamma\alpha,\beta}}\Gammait_n
1049: =\cdots=0.
1050: \label{threexseventeen}
1051: \end{equation}
1052: Also the $\U(1)$ symmetries must be preserved
1053: \begin{equation}
1054: \int\rmd^4x\,\Bigl\{
1055: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi}\tilde\phi
1056: -\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi^*}\tilde\phi^*
1057: -\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F}\tilde F
1058: +\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F^*}\tilde F^*\Bigr\}
1059: -\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial g}g
1060: +\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial g^*}g^*=0,
1061: \label{threexeighteen}
1062: \end{equation}
1063: and
1064: \begin{eqnarray}
1065: &&\int\rmd^4x\,\Bigl\{
1066: \Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\chi}\gamma_5\tilde\chi
1067: -2\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi}\tilde\phi
1068: +2\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde\phi^*}\tilde\phi^*
1069: +4\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F}\tilde F
1070: -4\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\tilde F^*}\tilde F^*\Bigr\}
1071: \nonumber\\
1072: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1073: -2\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial m}m
1074: +2\Gammait_n{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial m^*}m^*=0.
1075: \label{threexnineteen}
1076: \end{eqnarray}
1077: In these expressions, all fields, external sources, mass parameters and
1078: coupling constants are regarded as {\it renormalized\/} quantities. To achieve
1079: this supersymmetric finite continuum theory, we take following steps. (1)~We
1080: compute 1PI $n$th loop diagrams $\Gammait_n$ by using the total action
1081: $S_{\rm tot.}$. (2)~We add appropriate local counter terms to the total
1082: action~$S_{\rm tot.}$ so that the supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi
1083: identities~(\ref{threexsixteen}) and~(\ref{threexseventeen}) hold in the
1084: $a\to0$ limit. At this stage, all fields and parameters in
1085: eqs.~(\ref{threexsixteen}) and~(\ref{threexseventeen}) are understood as bare
1086: quantities. This improvement step removes supersymmetry breaking due to lattice
1087: artifacts in our formulation. (3)~Then we further add appropriate local counter
1088: terms to the total action~$S_{\rm tot.}$ so that $\Gammait_n$ is finite in the
1089: $a\to0$ limit. This step corresponds to the standard supersymmetric
1090: renormalization and we assume its validity, i.e., we assume a renormalizability
1091: of this lattice model. Explicitly, we modify the total action as
1092: \begin{eqnarray}
1093: S_{\rm tot.}&\to&S_{\rm tot.}
1094: +a^4\sum_xZ_n\Bigl\{
1095: {1\over2}\chi^TCD\chi
1096: +\phi^*D_1^2\phi+F^*F
1097: \nonumber\\
1098: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad
1099: +FD_2\phi+F^*D_2\phi^*
1100: -{1\over a}X^TCX
1101: -{2\over a}(\mathcal{F}\Phi+\mathcal{F}^*\Phi^*)\Bigr\},
1102: \label{threextwenty}
1103: \end{eqnarray}
1104: where $Z_n$ is a common wave function renormalization factor. (4)~All these
1105: steps must be consistent with global $\U(1)$ symmetries. We then repeat the
1106: above steps for 1PI diagrams of one loop higher, $\Gammait_{n+1}$, by using
1107: $S_{\rm tot.}$ so determined.
1108:
1109: The tree-level effective action~$\Gammait_0$ is given by the total action in
1110: eq.~(\ref{threextwo}) and of course it does not need any renormalization and
1111: improvement. To see the situation in the one-loop level, we evaluate in the
1112: next subsection the supersymmetry breaking term in the lattice Ward-Takahashi
1113: identity~(\ref{threexthirteen}) to this order.
1114:
1115: \subsection{One-loop evaluation of the breaking term}
1116: We evaluate the supersymmetry breaking term in eq.~(\ref{threexthirteen}) in
1117: the one-loop order. We set $K=L=\cdots=0$. It is given by one-loop 1PI diagrams
1118: with a single insertion of the operator~(\ref{threexnine}). A computation of
1119: the continuum limit of these one-loop 1PI diagrams is not difficult, if one
1120: invokes a powerful Reisz's theorem~\cite{Reisz:1987da,Luscher:1988sd} on
1121: lattice Feynman integrals.
1122:
1123: Most singular one-loop diagrams which possibly contribute to
1124: \begin{equation}
1125: \lim_{a\to0}
1126: \sum_x{\partial\over\partial K_\alpha}\Gammait_1\epsilon_\alpha
1127: \Bigr|_{K=L=\cdots=0}
1128: =\lim_{a\to0}\Bigl\{
1129: -a^4\sum_x\langle\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\rangle_{\rm 1PI}^{\rm 1loop}
1130: \epsilon\Bigr|_{K=L=\cdots=0}\Bigr\},
1131: \label{threextwentyone}
1132: \end{equation}
1133: are given by figures~1--4 and their complex conjugate.
1134: \EPSFIGURE[t]{fig1.eps,width=.6\textwidth}{A diagram which contributes to
1135: eq.~(\ref{threextwentyone}). The blob indicates the supersymmetry breaking
1136: operator~(\ref{threexnine}). The broken line is the propagator of~$\tilde\phi$
1137: and the arrow indicates a flow of the chirality.}
1138: \EPSFIGURE[t]{fig2.eps,width=.6\textwidth}{A diagram which possibly contributes
1139: to eq.~(\ref{threextwentyone}). The bold line is the propagator
1140: of~$\tilde\chi$. The $a\to0$ limit of this diagram turns out to be vanishing.}
1141: \EPSFIGURE[t]{fig3.eps,width=.6\textwidth}{A diagram which possibly contributes
1142: to eq.~(\ref{threextwentyone}). The $a\to0$ limit of this diagram turns out to
1143: be vanishing due to the $\U(1)_R$ symmetry of the $m=0$ case.}
1144: \EPSFIGURE[t]{fig4.eps,width=.6\textwidth}{A diagram which possibly contributes
1145: to eq.~(\ref{threextwentyone}). The $a\to0$ limit of this diagram turns out to
1146: be vanishing due to the $\U(1)_R$ symmetry of the $m=0$ case.}
1147:
1148: By using propagators in eq.~(\ref{twoxthirtyfive}), the contribution from
1149: figure~1 to eq.~(\ref{threextwentyone}) is given by
1150: \begin{equation}
1151: +2\sqrt{2}g^*ga^4\sum_xa^4\sum_y\tilde\chi^T(x)CP_+\tilde F^*(y)
1152: \int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4q\over(2\pi)^4}\,e^{iq(x-y)}
1153: \int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,
1154: \mathcal{I}_1(k,q;m,a)\epsilon,
1155: \end{equation}
1156: where $\mathcal{B}$ denotes the Brillouin zone
1157: \begin{equation}
1158: \mathcal{B}=\left\{p\in R^4\mid|p_\mu|\leq\pi/a\right\},
1159: \end{equation}
1160: and the integrand is given by
1161: \begin{eqnarray}
1162: &&\mathcal{I}_1(k,q;m,a)
1163: \nonumber\\
1164: &&=
1165: {1\over{2\over a}\widetilde D_2(k)
1166: +\left(1-{1\over2}a\widetilde D_2(k)\right)m^*m}
1167: {\widetilde D_1(k+q)
1168: -\widetilde D_1(k)-\widetilde D_1(q)\over{2\over a}\widetilde D_2(k+q)
1169: +\left(1-{1\over2}a\widetilde D_2(k+q)\right)m^*m}.
1170: \end{eqnarray}
1171: In this expression, $\widetilde D_1$ and $\widetilde D_2$ denote the momentum
1172: representation of difference operators in eq.~(\ref{twoxten})
1173: \begin{equation}
1174: D_1e^{ipx}=\widetilde D_1(p)e^{ipx},\qquad
1175: D_2e^{ipx}=\widetilde D_2(p)e^{ipx},
1176: \end{equation}
1177: and the explicit forms are given by
1178: \begin{eqnarray}
1179: &&\widetilde D_1(p)
1180: =i\sum_\mu\gamma_\mu\ring p_\mu
1181: \Bigl\{1
1182: +{1\over2}a^4\sum_{\nu<\rho}\hat p_\nu^2\hat p_\rho^2\Bigr\}^{-1/2},
1183: \nonumber\\
1184: &&\widetilde D_2(p)
1185: ={1\over a}\Bigl\{1-
1186: \Bigl(1-{1\over2}a^2\sum_\mu\hat p_\mu^2\Bigr)
1187: \Bigl\{1
1188: +{1\over2}a^4\sum_{\nu<\rho}\hat p_\nu^2\hat p_\rho^2\Bigr\}^{-1/2}
1189: \Bigr\},
1190: \end{eqnarray}
1191: with abbreviations
1192: \begin{equation}
1193: \ring p_\mu={1\over a}\sin(ap_\mu),\qquad
1194: \hat p_\mu={2\over a}\sin\left({ap_\mu\over2}\right).
1195: \end{equation}
1196: We note that both $\ring p_\mu$ and~$\hat p_\mu$ reduce to the momentum in the
1197: continuum theory in the $a\to0$ limit, $\lim_{a\to0}\ring p_\mu=%
1198: \lim_{a\to0}\hat p_\mu=p_\mu$.
1199:
1200: Now, a crucial idea of the Reisz power counting theorem is to consider the
1201: $\lambda\to\infty$ limit of the integrand, after replacing the internal loop
1202: momenta $k_i$ by $\lambda k_i$ and the lattice spacing~$a$ by $a/\lambda$. From
1203: the above explicit form of the integrand, we find
1204: \begin{equation}
1205: \mathcal{I}_1(\lambda k,q;m,a/\lambda)=O(1/\lambda^4),
1206: \end{equation}
1207: in the $\lambda\to\infty$ limit. This implies that the degree of divergence of
1208: the above loop integral (in a sense of the Reisz power counting theorem) is~$0$
1209: and the $a\to0$ limit of the loop integral may exhibit a logarithmic divergence
1210: of the form~$\log a$.
1211:
1212: To reduce the degree of divergence, we thus take the first term in the Taylor
1213: expansion of the integrand with respect to the external momentum~$q$ and
1214: consider a subtraction of the form
1215: \begin{equation}
1216: \mathcal{I}_1(k,q;m,a)-\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a).
1217: \end{equation}
1218: However, since $\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)=0$, this subtraction does not improve
1219: the convergence behavior at all.
1220:
1221: We are thus lead to consider a subtraction to the next order term in the Taylor
1222: expansion
1223: \begin{equation}
1224: \mathcal{I}_1(k,q;m,a)-\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)
1225: -q_\mu\partial_\mu^q\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a).
1226: \end{equation}
1227: Then we find that this combination behaves as $O(1/\lambda^6)$ in the
1228: $\lambda\to\infty$ limit defined above. The Reisz power counting theorem then
1229: states that the $a\to0$ of the loop integral of this combination is convergent
1230: and moreover the limit is given by\footnote{In ref.~\cite{Bartels:1982ue}, this
1231: fact is referred to as an empirical ``rule''.}
1232: \begin{eqnarray}
1233: &&\lim_{a\to0}\int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,\left\{
1234: \mathcal{I}_1(k,q;m,a)-\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)
1235: -q_\mu\partial_\mu^q\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)\right\}
1236: \nonumber\\
1237: &&=\int_{R^4}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,\lim_{a\to0}\left\{
1238: \mathcal{I}_1(k,q;m,a)-\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)
1239: -q_\mu\partial_\mu^q\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)\right\}
1240: \nonumber\\
1241: &&=0.
1242: \label{threexthirtyone}
1243: \end{eqnarray}
1244: The last equality follows from a property of the
1245: operator~$\Delta L$~(\ref{threexnine}) that it vanishes in the classical
1246: continuum limit.
1247:
1248: In this way, we obtain
1249: \begin{eqnarray}
1250: &&\lim_{a\to0}\int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,
1251: \mathcal{I}_1(k,q;m,a)
1252: \nonumber\\
1253: &&=\lim_{a\to0}\int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,\left\{
1254: \mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)
1255: +q_\mu\partial_\mu^q\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)\right\}
1256: \nonumber\\
1257: &&\qquad+\lim_{a\to0}\int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,\left\{
1258: \mathcal{I}_1(k,q;m,a)-\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)
1259: -q_\mu\partial_\mu^q\mathcal{I}_1(k,0;m,a)\right\}
1260: \nonumber\\
1261: &&=\int_{-\pi}^\pi{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,\lim_{a\to0}
1262: {1\over a^4}q_\mu\partial_\mu^q\mathcal{I}_1(k/a,0;m,a)
1263: \nonumber\\
1264: &&=-{r_1\over2}i\gamma_\mu q_\mu,
1265: \label{threexthirtytwo}
1266: \end{eqnarray}
1267: where the coefficient~$r_1$ is given by an integral
1268: \begin{eqnarray}
1269: r_1&=&{-1\over32\pi^4}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\rmd^4k\,
1270: \Bigl\{\Bigl(1-{1\over2}\hat k_0^2\Bigr)B^{-1/2}
1271: -{1\over2}\ring k_0^2\sum_{\mu\neq0}\hat k_\mu^2\,B^{-3/2}-1\Bigr\}
1272: \nonumber\\
1273: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1274: \times\Bigl\{1-\Bigl(1-{1\over2}\sum_\mu\hat k_\mu^2\Bigr)
1275: B^{-1/2}\Bigr\}^{-2},
1276: \end{eqnarray}
1277: with abbreviations
1278: \begin{equation}
1279: \ring k_\mu=\sin k_\mu,\qquad\hat k_\mu=2\sin({k_\mu\over2}),\qquad
1280: B=1+{1\over2}\sum_{\mu<\nu}\hat k_\mu^2\hat k_\nu^2.
1281: \end{equation}
1282: From a numerical integration, we have
1283: \begin{equation}
1284: r_1=+0.1518.
1285: \end{equation}
1286: Eq.~(\ref{threexthirtytwo}) then implies that figure~1 gives rise to
1287: \begin{eqnarray}
1288: &&\lim_{a\to0}\Bigl\{
1289: -a^4\sum_x\langle\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\rangle_{\rm 1PI}^{\rm 1loop}
1290: \epsilon\Bigr|_{K=L=\cdots=0}\Bigr\}
1291: \nonumber\\
1292: &&=-r_1g^*g\int\rmd^4x\,\Bigl\{
1293: \tilde F^*\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi
1294: +\tilde F\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_-\tilde\chi\Bigr\}.
1295: \label{threexthirtyfive}
1296: \end{eqnarray}
1297:
1298: Next, we consider the contribution of figure~2 which is given by
1299: \begin{equation}
1300: +4\sqrt{2}g^*ga^4\sum_xa^4\sum_y\tilde\chi^T(x)CP_-\tilde\phi(y)
1301: \int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4q\over(2\pi)^4}\,e^{iq(x-y)}
1302: \int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,
1303: \mathcal{I}_2(k,q;m,a)\epsilon,
1304: \end{equation}
1305: where
1306: \begin{eqnarray}
1307: &&\mathcal{I}_2(k,q;m,a)
1308: \nonumber\\
1309: &&=
1310: {\widetilde D_1(k)\over{2\over a}\widetilde D_2(k)
1311: +\left(1-{1\over2}a\widetilde D_2(k)\right)m^*m}
1312: {\widetilde D_1(k+q)
1313: -\widetilde D_1(k)-\widetilde D_1(q)\over{2\over a}\widetilde D_2(k+q)
1314: +\left(1-{1\over2}a\widetilde D_2(k+q)\right)m^*m}.
1315: \end{eqnarray}
1316: We find that $\mathcal{I}_2(\lambda k,q;m,a/\lambda)=O(1/\lambda^3)$ in the
1317: $\lambda\to\infty$ limit and the degree of divergence of the above integral
1318: is~$1$. A twice subtraction
1319: \begin{equation}
1320: \mathcal{I}_2(k,q;m,a)-\mathcal{I}_2(k,0;m,a)
1321: -q_\mu\partial_\mu^q\mathcal{I}_2(k,0;m,a),
1322: \label{threexthirtynine}
1323: \end{equation}
1324: then makes the degree of divergence~$-1$ and the $a\to0$ limit of the loop
1325: integral convergent. Again, as before, the $a\to0$ limit of the
1326: combination~(\ref{threexthirtynine}) vanishes. However, this time,
1327: $\mathcal{I}_2(k,0;m,a)=0$ and the remaining lattice integral vanishes too:
1328: \begin{eqnarray}
1329: \int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,
1330: q_\mu\partial_\mu^q\mathcal{I}_2(k,0;m,a)=0.
1331: \end{eqnarray}
1332: Thus figure~2 has no contribution in the $a\to0$ limit.
1333:
1334: The contribution of figure~3 is given by
1335: \begin{eqnarray}
1336: &&-8\sqrt{2}m^*g^*g^2a^4\sum_xa^4\sum_ya^4\sum_z
1337: \tilde\chi^T(x)CP_-\tilde\phi(y)\tilde\phi(z)
1338: \int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4q_1\over(2\pi)^4}\,e^{iq_1(x-z)}
1339: \int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4q_2\over(2\pi)^4}\,e^{iq_2(x-y)}
1340: \nonumber\\
1341: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1342: \times\int_{\mathcal{B}}{\rmd^4k\over(2\pi)^4}\,
1343: \mathcal{I}_3(k,q_1,q_2;m,a)\epsilon,
1344: \end{eqnarray}
1345: where
1346: \begin{eqnarray}
1347: &&\mathcal{I}_3(k,q_1,q_2;m,a)
1348: \nonumber\\
1349: &&={\widetilde D_1(k-q_2)
1350: \over{2\over a}\widetilde D_2(k-q_2)
1351: +\left(1-{1\over2}a\widetilde D_2(k-q_2)\right)m^*m}
1352: {1-{a\over2}\widetilde D_2(k)
1353: \over{2\over a}\widetilde D_2(k)
1354: +\left(1-{1\over2}a\widetilde D_2(k)\right)m^*m}
1355: \nonumber\\
1356: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1357: \times{\widetilde D_1(k+q_1)-\widetilde D_1(k)-\widetilde D_1(q_1)
1358: \over{2\over a}\widetilde D_2(k+q_1)
1359: +\left(1-{1\over2}a\widetilde D_2(k+q_1)\right)m^*m}.
1360: \end{eqnarray}
1361: This behaves as $O(1/\lambda^5)$ in the $\lambda\to\infty$ limit defined above
1362: (the degree of divergence is~$-1$) and the $a\to0$ limit of the loop integral
1363: converges without any subtraction. Since
1364: $\lim_{a\to0}\mathcal{I}_3(k,q;m,a)=0$, however, the contribution of figure~3
1365: vanishes in the $a\to0$ limit. An underlying reason for this good convergence
1366: behavior of figure~3 is the chiral $\U(1)_R$ symmetry of~$S$ with~$m=0$ under
1367: eq.~(\ref{twoxtwentythree}). Due to this symmetry, this diagram vanishes for
1368: $m=0$ even with $a\neq0$. In fact, if this diagram had a contribution to the
1369: breaking term when~$m=0$, through the Ward-Takahashi
1370: identity~(\ref{threexthirteen}), there must be terms of the form
1371: $\tilde\phi^*\tilde\phi^2$ or $\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^2$ in the one-loop
1372: effective action~$\Gammait_1$: Both are however forbidden by the chiral
1373: $\U(1)_R$ symmetry~(\ref{twoxtwentyfour}). Similarly we find that figure~4 has
1374: no contribution in the $a\to0$ limit.
1375:
1376: \EPSFIGURE[t]{fig5.eps,width=.4\textwidth}{The supersymmetry breaking
1377: vertex~(\ref{threexnine}) in the momentum space.}
1378: As is also clear from above expressions, the vertex for the breaking term
1379: $\tilde\chi^TC\Delta L\epsilon$ in eq.~(\ref{threexnine}) in the momentum
1380: space~(see figure~5) is proportional to a
1381: combination~$\widetilde D_1(p_1)+\widetilde D_1(p_2)+\widetilde D_1(p_3)$. From
1382: the fact that in one-loop diagrams one of three legs of the vertex is always
1383: an external line and from the momentum conservation at the vertex, we find that
1384: this vertex, when inserted in a one-loop diagram, gives rise to $O(\lambda^0)$
1385: factor in the $\lambda\to\infty$ limit defined above. This implies that this
1386: vertex effectively behaves as a non-derivative coupling in the power counting
1387: argument for one-loop diagrams. Then it is easy to confirm that the degree of
1388: divergence of a loop integral in all possible one-loop diagrams other than
1389: those in figures~1--4 is negative. By repeating a similar argument as above, we
1390: then infer that the $a\to0$ limit of those contributions is zero.
1391:
1392: In summary, only the contribution of figure~1 survives in the $a\to0$ limit
1393: and we have
1394: \begin{eqnarray}
1395: &&\lim_{a\to0}
1396: \sum_x{\partial\over\partial K_\alpha}\Gammait_1\epsilon_\alpha
1397: \Bigr|_{K=L=\cdots=0}
1398: \nonumber\\
1399: &&=-r_1g^*g\int\rmd^4x\,\Bigl\{
1400: \tilde F^*\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi
1401: +\tilde F\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_-\tilde\chi\Bigr\}.
1402: \label{threexfortythree}
1403: \end{eqnarray}
1404: As a general argument shows, the supersymmetry breaking in the $a\to0$ limit is
1405: a local polynomial of fields.
1406:
1407: \subsection{One-loop level improvement and the renormalization}
1408: From the above one-loop calculation~(\ref{threexfortythree}), we can extract
1409: following information. First, combining it with the $a\to0$ limit of the
1410: lattice Ward-Takahashi identity~(\ref{threexthirteen}), we find that the
1411: coefficient of the term~$\int\rmd^4x\,\tilde F^*\tilde F$ in~$\Gammait_1$ is
1412: different from the supersymmetric value. Namely, the coefficient of this term
1413: is not consistent with the supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi
1414: identity~(\ref{threexsixteen}). Next, eq.~(\ref{threexfortythree}) shows that
1415: $\Gammait_1$ contains a finite term of the form~$\int\rmd^4x\,\{
1416: \tilde F^*\sqrt{2}K^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi+{\rm c.c.}\}$ which
1417: is not consistent with eq.~(\ref{threexseventeen}). These two are {\it only\/}
1418: places in $\Gammait_1$ in which the breaking of supersymmetry appears in the
1419: continuum limit (to the order~$O(K,L^0,\ldots)$). According to the general
1420: strategy of section~3.2, we thus modify the total action~$S_{\rm tot.}$ to
1421: \begin{eqnarray}
1422: &&S_{\rm tot.}-a^4\sum_x r_1g^*g\Bigl\{
1423: \tilde F^*\tilde F
1424: +\tilde F^*\sqrt{2}K^TCD_1 P_+\tilde\chi
1425: +\tilde F\sqrt{2}K^TCD_1 P_-\tilde\chi\Bigr\}
1426: \nonumber\\
1427: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1428: +O(K^2,L,\ldots).
1429: \label{threexfortyfour}
1430: \end{eqnarray}
1431: to restore the supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi identity~(\ref{threexsixteen}).
1432: The added terms contribute to~$\Gammait_1$.
1433:
1434: In ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka}, one-loop 1PI two point functions are computed
1435: and it was found that radiative corrections to kinetic terms of $\tilde\chi$,
1436: $\tilde\phi$ and~$\tilde F$ are in general different by finite amount, although
1437: logarithmically diverging parts are of an identical magnitude. Our observation
1438: above is consistent with this result and is slightly stronger: We observed that
1439: only the wave function renormalization of the auxiliary field~$\tilde F$
1440: differs from other two in the continuum limit. The improvement above adjusts
1441: this discrepancy in wave function renormalization factors.
1442:
1443: After the above improvement, the effective action~$\Gammait_1$ becomes
1444: supersymmetric. The standard statements concerning the supersymmetric
1445: Wess-Zumino model are then applied to the one-loop effective
1446: action~$\Gammait_1$. For example, wave function renormalization factors for
1447: $\tilde\chi$, $\tilde\phi$ and~$\tilde F$ are common as indicated in
1448: eq.~(\ref{threextwenty}). Also, a local term of the form
1449: \begin{equation}
1450: \int\rmd^4x\,V(\tilde\phi^*,\tilde\phi),
1451: \end{equation}
1452: where $V$ is an arbitrary local polynomial of $\tilde\phi$ and~$\tilde\phi^*$
1453: without any derivatives, does not appear in the one-loop effective
1454: action~$\Gammait_1$, simply because such a combination is not supersymmetric,
1455: i.e, it is not a solution to the supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi
1456: identity~(\ref{threexsixteen}).\footnote{An exception in this argument is
1457: $V={\rm const.}$ that is nothing but the cosmological term. One cannot exclude
1458: the cosmological term from the supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi identity alone.
1459: In the present model, the cosmological term vanishes in the one-loop level
1460: (see appendix~A), as expected from an {\it exact\/} supersymmetry of the free
1461: action~$S_0$.} This conclusion is again consistent with a one-loop analysis of
1462: ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka} that no terms consisting only of $\phi$
1463: and~$\phi^*$ are generated by one-loop radiative corrections.\footnote{The
1464: result of ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka} is somewhat stronger: Up to the quartic
1465: order in $\tilde\phi$ or $\tilde\phi^*$, it was observed that such terms are
1466: not generated even for $a\neq0$.}
1467:
1468: By a similar reasoning, we can also show the non-renormalization
1469: theorem~\cite{Iliopoulos:1974zv}--\cite{Grisaru:1979wc} of the form in
1470: ref.~\cite{Grisaru:1979wc}. The non-renormalization theorem states that the
1471: $F$~term of the structure
1472: \begin{equation}
1473: \int\rmd^4x\,\Bigl\{
1474: {1\over2}\tilde\chi^TC W''(\tilde\phi)P_+\tilde\chi
1475: +\tilde FW'(\tilde\phi)\Bigr\},
1476: \label{threexfortysix}
1477: \end{equation}
1478: where $W(\tilde\phi)$ is the superpotential, is not generated by radiative
1479: corrections, although this {\it is\/} a supersymmetric combination. We first
1480: note that, from a structure of one-loop diagrams, dependences of such a term
1481: on the coupling constant must be of the form
1482: \begin{equation}
1483: \int\rmd^4x\,\{g\tilde FW'(g\tilde\phi)+\cdots\}.
1484: \label{threexfortyseven}
1485: \end{equation}
1486: The complex conjugate~$g^*$ cannot appear here from a structure of interaction
1487: vertices. Next we recall that our lattice action~$S$ possesses an exact $\U(1)$
1488: symmetry under eqs.~(\ref{twoxtwentyone}) and~(\ref{twoxtwentytwo}). The above
1489: allowed structure~(\ref{threexfortyseven}) is, however, inconsistent with this
1490: $\U(1)$ symmetry.\footnote{Our argument here is somewhat similar to that of
1491: ref.~\cite{Seiberg:1993vc}. The conclusion here, however, is just a reflection
1492: of a simple fact that there is {\it no\/} 1PI one-loop diagram made out from
1493: only $\tilde F$ and~$\tilde\phi$ external lines.} Thus we conclude that the
1494: $F$~term~(\ref{threexfortysix}) as the whole cannot be generated by one-loop
1495: radiative corrections. This conclusion is again consistent with the analysis of
1496: ref.~\cite{Fujikawa:2001ka}; there it was observed that terms such
1497: as~$\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\chi$ and~$\tilde\chi^TC\tilde\phi P_+\tilde\chi$ are
1498: not generated in the one-loop order.
1499:
1500: Finally, by further adding local counter terms~(\ref{threextwenty}), the
1501: one-loop effective action~$\Gammait_1$ is made finite, i.e., a supersymmetric
1502: renormalized theory is defined. Obviously the theory so defined preserves
1503: the $\U(1)$ symmetries, i.e., eqs.~(\ref{threexeighteen})
1504: and~(\ref{threexnineteen}) hold, because all stages of the above procedure
1505: (and the lattice regularization itself) do not affect these symmetries.
1506:
1507: \subsection{Higher loops}
1508: In the one-loop order, we have observed that if we add local terms of the
1509: form~(\ref{threexfortyfour}) to the total action, especially by an adjustment
1510: of the term~$\tilde F^*\tilde F$, supersymmetry is restored in the continuum
1511: limit. In this subsection, we consider if this simple situation persists to
1512: higher orders of perturbation theory. We will find that, instead of a single
1513: combination of local terms~(\ref{threexfortyfour}), there are at most
1514: 9~combinations that we have to take into account for an improvement of higher
1515: loop effective action~$\Gammait_n$. The improvement in higher loops is thus
1516: much more involved. We note, however, this number of combinations which require
1517: adjustments is much less than that in the formulation based on the Wilson
1518: fermion~\cite{Bartels:1982ue} due to the exact $\U(1)_R$
1519: symmetry~(\ref{twoxtwentyfour}) and~(\ref{twoxtwentyfive}) in the present
1520: formulation.
1521:
1522: Suppose that the procedure in section~3.2 of the renormalization and the
1523: improvement (which may require an addition of 9~combinations of local terms
1524: to~$S_{\rm tot.}$) work for~$\Gammait_1$, \dots, $\Gammait_{n-1}$. Now take a
1525: 1PI $n$~loop diagram~$\gamma_n$ which contains a single insertion of the
1526: operator~(\ref{threexnine}). From the above assumption, all 1PI
1527: {\it sub-diagrams\/} are already made finite by the renormalization of
1528: $\Gammait_1$, \dots, $\Gammait_{n-1}$. By applying a standard power counting
1529: argument to the present case, the superficial degree of divergence of such a
1530: diagram~$\gamma_n$ is given by
1531: \begin{equation}
1532: \omega(\gamma_n)={9\over 2}-{3\over2}E_\chi-E_\phi-2E_F-I_{\phi F},
1533: \label{threexfortyeight}
1534: \end{equation}
1535: where $E_\chi$, $E_\phi$, $E_F$ denote a number of external lines of
1536: $\tilde\chi$, $\tilde\phi$ or $\tilde\phi^*$, $\tilde F$ or $\tilde F^*$,
1537: respectively and $I_{\phi F}$ denotes a number of $\tilde\phi\tilde F$
1538: and~$\tilde\phi^*\tilde F^*$~type internal lines. To derive this formula, one
1539: has to note that the propagator $\langle\tilde F\tilde F^*\rangle$ behaves as
1540: $O(\lambda^0)$ (no suppression factor) in the Reisz power counting rule.
1541:
1542: Also, in deriving the above formula, we have noted a fact that an insertion of
1543: the vertex~(\ref{threexnine}) in higher loop diagrams effectively behaves
1544: as~$O(\lambda)$ in the Reisz power counting rule, because in higher loop
1545: diagrams all momenta in figure~5 can simultaneously become large. In one-loop
1546: diagrams, on the other hand, the vertex~figure~5 behaves as~$O(\lambda^0)$
1547: because one of three legs must always be an external line and momentum from
1548: the external line is kept fixed in the $\lambda\to\infty$ limit. (For one-loop
1549: diagrams, $9/2$ in the formula~(\ref{threexfortyeight}) is changed to~$7/2$;
1550: see below.) This difference in a behavior of the supersymmetry breaking term in
1551: the $\lambda\to\infty$ limit in one-loop and higher-loop diagrams is crucial
1552: and due to this difference much more combinations have to be included in local
1553: counter terms to obtain a supersymmetric continuum limit.
1554:
1555: Now, since we have assumed that all 1PI sub-diagrams of~$\gamma_n$ are made
1556: finite by a renormalization, the above superficial degree of divergence will be
1557: an overall degree of divergence. Then if $\omega(\gamma_n)<0$, the Reisz
1558: theorem states that the $a\to0$ limit of the diagram~$\gamma_n$ is given by
1559: $R^4$ integrations of the $a\to0$ limit of the integrand, as we have seen in
1560: eq.~(\ref{threexthirtyone}). However, due to the vertex~(\ref{threexnine}), the
1561: $a\to0$ limit of the integrand always vanishes. Hence diagrams which can
1562: contribute to the supersymmetry breaking in the continuum limit must possess
1563: $\omega(\gamma_n)\geq0$. Noting for $\gamma_n$, $E_\chi=1$, 3, \dots, we can
1564: see that there are seven combinations for~$\omega(\gamma_n)\geq0$, i.e.,
1565: $(E_\chi,E_\phi,E_F)=(1,0,0)$, $(1,1,0)$, $(1,2,0)$, $(1,3,0)$, $(1,0,1)$,
1566: $(1,1,1)$ and~$(3,0,0)$. The total mass dimension of $\gamma_n$ is $9/2$.
1567:
1568: A structure of~$\gamma_n$ moreover must be consistent with exact global
1569: symmetries in the present formulation; the $\U(1)_R$ symmetry,
1570: eqs.~(\ref{twoxtwentyfour}) and~(\ref{twoxtwentyfive}), and the $\U(1)$
1571: symmetry, eqs.~(\ref{twoxtwentyone}) and~(\ref{twoxtwentytwo}). The $\U(1)_R$
1572: and the $\U(1)$ charges of $\gamma_n$ are $(-3,+1)$ or $(+3,-1)$.
1573:
1574: Finally, we have to check a consistency of~$\gamma_n$ with the lattice
1575: Ward-Takahashi identity~(\ref{threexthirteen}). By examining various possible
1576: local terms in~$\Gammait_n$ which also must be consistent with the global
1577: symmetries, we finally find that a most general form of
1578: \begin{equation}
1579: \lim_{a\to0}
1580: \sum_x{\partial\over\partial K_\alpha}\Gammait_n\epsilon_\alpha
1581: \Bigr|_{K=L=\cdots=0},
1582: \end{equation}
1583: is given by\footnote{To list up possible combinations, it is easier to work out
1584: the massless case~$m=0$ first and then restore possible dependences on~$m$ by
1585: substituting $\tilde\phi\to m/g$ and~$\tilde\phi^*\to m^*/g^*$ in arbitrary
1586: ways.}
1587: \begin{eqnarray}
1588: &&-(g^*g)^n\int d^4x\,\Bigl\{r_n
1589: \tilde F^*\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi
1590: \nonumber\\
1591: &&\qquad
1592: +\Bigl(s_n\partial_\mu^2\tilde\phi^*
1593: +{1\over a^2}t_n\tilde\phi^*
1594: +2u_n\tilde\phi^{*2}\tilde\phi
1595: \nonumber\\
1596: &&\qquad\qquad
1597: +{1\over a^2}v_n{m^*\over g^*}
1598: +w_n\Bigl[2{m^*\over g^*}\tilde\phi^*\tilde\phi
1599: +{m\over g}\tilde\phi^{*2}\Bigr]
1600: +2x_n{m^{*2}\over g^{*2}}\tilde\phi
1601: \Bigr)\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCP_+\tilde\chi
1602: \nonumber\\
1603: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad
1604: +y_n(2g\tilde F\tilde\phi\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCP_+\tilde\chi
1605: +g\tilde\phi^2\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi)
1606: \nonumber\\
1607: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1608: +z_n(m\tilde F\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCP_+\tilde\chi
1609: +m\tilde\phi\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi)
1610: \Bigr\}
1611: \label{threexfifty}
1612: \end{eqnarray}
1613: plus its complex conjugate (the projection operator is replaced
1614: by~$P_+\to P_-$). The real coefficients $r_n$, \dots, $z_n$ are given by
1615: dimensionless polynomials of $\log(a^2m^*m)$ and~$a^2m^*m$.
1616:
1617: Through the $a\to0$ limit of the lattice Ward-Takahashi identity, the above
1618: form of the breaking term implies that the supersymmetry breaking terms in the
1619: effective action take the form:
1620: \begin{eqnarray}
1621: &&+(g^*g)^n\int d^4x\,\Bigl\{r_n
1622: \tilde F^*\tilde F
1623: \nonumber\\
1624: &&\qquad
1625: +s_n\tilde\phi^*\partial_\mu^2\tilde\phi
1626: +{1\over a^2}t_n\tilde\phi^*\tilde\phi
1627: +u_n\tilde\phi^{*2}\tilde\phi^2
1628: \nonumber\\
1629: &&\qquad\qquad
1630: +{1\over a^2}v_n\Bigl({m^*\over g^*}\tilde\phi+{m\over g}\tilde\phi^*\Bigr)
1631: +w_n\Bigl({m^*\over g^*}\tilde\phi^*\tilde\phi^2
1632: +{m\over g}\tilde\phi^{*2}\tilde\phi\Bigr)
1633: +x_n\Bigl({m^{*2}\over g^{*2}}\tilde\phi^2
1634: +{m^2\over g^2}\tilde\phi^{*2}\Bigr)
1635: \nonumber\\
1636: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad
1637: +y_n(g\tilde F\tilde\phi^2+g^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^{*2})
1638: +z_n(m\tilde F\tilde\phi+m^*\tilde F^*\tilde\phi^*)
1639: \Bigr\}
1640: \nonumber\\
1641: &&+(g^*g)^n\int d^4x\,\Bigl\{r_n
1642: \tilde F^*\sqrt{2}K^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi
1643: \nonumber\\
1644: &&\qquad
1645: +\Bigl(s_n\partial_\mu^2\tilde\phi^*
1646: +{1\over a^2}t_n\tilde\phi^*
1647: +2u_n\tilde\phi^{*2}\tilde\phi
1648: \nonumber\\
1649: &&\qquad\qquad
1650: +{1\over a^2}v_n{m^*\over g^*}
1651: +w_n\Bigl[2{m^*\over g^*}\tilde\phi^*\tilde\phi
1652: +{m\over g}\tilde\phi^{*2}\Bigr]
1653: +2x_n{m^{*2}\over g^{*2}}\tilde\phi
1654: \Bigr)\sqrt{2}K^TCP_+\tilde\chi
1655: \nonumber\\
1656: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad
1657: +y_n(2g\tilde F\tilde\phi\sqrt{2}K^TCP_+\tilde\chi
1658: +g\tilde\phi^2\sqrt{2}K^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi)
1659: \nonumber\\
1660: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1661: +z_n(m\tilde F\sqrt{2}K^TCP_+\tilde\chi
1662: +m\tilde\phi\sqrt{2}K^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi)+{\rm c.c.}
1663: \Bigr\}
1664: \nonumber\\
1665: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
1666: +O(K^2,L,\ldots).
1667: \label{threexfiftyone}
1668: \end{eqnarray}
1669: It is easy to verify that these are, modulo supersymmetric combinations, most
1670: general local terms whose mass dimension $\leq4$ that are consistent with the
1671: $\U(1)_R$ and~$\U(1)$ global symmetries (the $\U(1)$ charges of the external
1672: source~$P_\pm K$ is~$(\mp3,\pm1)$). This is an expected result from an
1673: experience in continuum theory but is not entirely trivial, because the term
1674: which breaks supersymmetry due to a violation of the Leibniz
1675: rule~(\ref{threexnine}) is peculiar to lattice theory and cannot be treated in
1676: a framework of continuum theory.
1677:
1678: To remedy the above breaking of supersymmetry, we subtract
1679: eq.~(\ref{threexfiftyone}) from $S_{\rm tot.}$ after transcribing it as local
1680: terms in lattice theory by substitutions
1681: \begin{equation}
1682: \int\rmd^4 x\to a^4\sum_x,\qquad
1683: \partial_\mu^2\to D_1^2,\qquad
1684: \gamma_\mu\partial_\mu\to D_1.
1685: \end{equation}
1686: This is the improvement step; we have to add 9~combinations of local terms
1687: to~$S_{\rm tot.}$ for $\Gammait_n$ to have a supersymmetric continuum limit.
1688: Then a further supersymmetric renormalization~(\ref{threextwenty}) will make
1689: $\Gammait_n$ finite. Although this procedure may be applied in principle, the
1690: number of required local terms for the improvement is too many for
1691: any practical application of the present model.
1692:
1693: We can understand why the situation in the one-loop level was so simple by
1694: considering the case in which the first term in eq.~(\ref{threexfortyeight})
1695: is~$7/2$ instated of~$9/2$. Repeating a similar analysis as above, as a
1696: possible form of
1697: $\lim_{a\to0}\sum_x{\partial\over\partial K_\alpha}\Gammait_1\epsilon_\alpha
1698: |_{K=L=\cdots=0}$, we obtain
1699: \begin{equation}
1700: -g^*g\int d^4x\,\Bigl\{
1701: r_1\tilde F^*\sqrt{2}\epsilon^TC\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu P_+\tilde\chi
1702: +s_1\partial_\mu^2\tilde\phi^*
1703: \sqrt{2}\epsilon^TCP_+\tilde\chi\Bigr\}
1704: \end{equation}
1705: plus the complex conjugate. This has a much simpler structure than
1706: eq.~(\ref{threexfifty}). We in fact found the term with~$r_1$ in the explicit
1707: one-loop calculation~(\ref{threexfortythree}). We also observe that a general
1708: argument does not prohibit a non-zero~$s_1$; thus $s_1=0$ in the explicit
1709: one-loop calculation~(\ref{threexfortythree}) is accidental.
1710:
1711: \subsection{Exact non-linear fermionic symmetry}
1712: Finally, we comment on an exact non-linear fermionic symmetry in this system
1713: which corresponds to the symmetry studied in ref.~\cite{Bonini:2004pm}. We
1714: note that the lattice Ward-Takahashi identity~(\ref{threexsix}) (after setting
1715: $K=L=M=\cdots=0$) may be written as
1716: \begin{eqnarray}
1717: &&\Bigl\langle
1718: -a^4\sum_x\{J_\chi\delta_\epsilon\chi
1719: +J_\phi\delta_\epsilon\phi
1720: +J_{\phi^*}\delta_\epsilon\phi^*
1721: +J_F\delta_\epsilon F
1722: +J_{F^*}\delta_\epsilon F^*
1723: \nonumber\\
1724: &&\qquad\qquad
1725: +J_X\delta_\epsilon X
1726: +J_\Phi\delta_\epsilon\Phi
1727: +J_{\Phi^*}\delta_\epsilon\Phi^*
1728: +J_{\mathcal{F}}\delta_\epsilon\mathcal{F}
1729: +J_{\mathcal{F}^*}\delta_\epsilon\mathcal{F}^*\}
1730: \nonumber\\
1731: &&\quad+\sum_x\Bigl\{S{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\chi}
1732: R\epsilon
1733: +S{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial X}
1734: \mathcal{R}\epsilon\Bigr\}
1735: \Bigr\rangle=0,
1736: \label{threexfiftyfour}
1737: \end{eqnarray}
1738: where
1739: \begin{eqnarray}
1740: &&R=\Bigl[D+mP_++m^*P_-
1741: +2(g\tilde\phi P_++g^*\tilde\phi^*P_-)
1742: \Bigl\{1-{1\over2}a(D+mP_++m^*P_-)\Bigr\}
1743: \Bigr]^{-1}\Delta L
1744: \nonumber\\
1745: &&\mathcal{R}=-{1\over2}a(D+mP_++m^*P_-)R.
1746: \end{eqnarray}
1747: However, noting the Schwinger-Dyson equation
1748: \begin{equation}
1749: \Bigl\langle
1750: \sum_xS{\overleftarrow\partial\over\partial\varphi}\delta\varphi
1751: +a^4\sum_xJ_\varphi\delta\varphi\Bigr\rangle=0,
1752: \end{equation}
1753: where $\varphi$ and $\delta\varphi$ represent a generic field and its
1754: {\it arbitrary\/} variation, the identity~(\ref{threexfiftyfour}) can be cast
1755: into the form
1756: \begin{eqnarray}
1757: &&\Bigl\langle
1758: -a^4\sum_x\{J_\chi\delta'_\epsilon\chi
1759: +J_\phi\delta'_\epsilon\phi
1760: +J_{\phi^*}\delta'_\epsilon\phi^*
1761: +J_F\delta'_\epsilon F+J_{F^*}\delta'_\epsilon F^*
1762: \nonumber\\
1763: &&\qquad\qquad
1764: +J_X\delta'_\epsilon X
1765: +J_\Phi\delta'_\epsilon\Phi
1766: +J_{\Phi^*}\delta'_\epsilon\Phi^*
1767: +J_{\mathcal{F}}\delta'_\epsilon\mathcal{F}
1768: +J_{\mathcal{F}^*}\delta'_\epsilon\mathcal{F}^*\}
1769: \Bigr\rangle=0,
1770: \label{threexfiftyseven}
1771: \end{eqnarray}
1772: where $\delta'_\epsilon$ is a transformation modified by amount of $R$
1773: and~$\mathcal{R}$:
1774: \begin{eqnarray}
1775: &&\delta'_\epsilon\chi=-\sqrt{2}P_+(D_1\phi+F)\epsilon
1776: -\sqrt{2}P_-(D_1\phi^*+F^*)\epsilon+R\epsilon,
1777: \nonumber\\
1778: &&\delta'_\epsilon X=-\sqrt{2}P_+(D_1\Phi+\mathcal{F})\epsilon
1779: -\sqrt{2}P_-(D_1\Phi^*+\mathcal{F}^*)\epsilon+\mathcal{R}\epsilon,
1780: \nonumber\\
1781: &&\delta'_\epsilon=\delta_\epsilon\qquad\hbox{on other fields}.
1782: \end{eqnarray}
1783: Obviously, the above form of the identity~(\ref{threexfiftyseven}) can be
1784: regarded as a Ward-Takahashi identity associated to an {\it exact\/}
1785: symmetry~$\delta'_\epsilon$ of the action~$S$. The
1786: transformation~$\delta'_\epsilon$ when acting on tilded variables (i.e., in the
1787: context of the Fujikawa-Ishibashi formulation) is nothing but the exact
1788: non-linear transformation studied in ref.~\cite{Bonini:2004pm}. However, as we
1789: have demonstrated, Ward-Takahashi identities in both pictures, one is based
1790: on~$\delta_\epsilon$ (eq.~(\ref{threexfiftyfour})) and another is based on
1791: $\delta'_\epsilon$ (eq.~(\ref{threexfiftyseven})), have identical
1792: contents.\footnote{Actually, this is the starting point of the argument of
1793: ref.~\cite{Golterman:1988ta}.} The presence of this exact symmetry itself does
1794: not imply the lattice formulation is ``better'' in any sense. Despite this
1795: exact symmetry, an adjustment of parameters is needed to obtain a
1796: supersymmetric continuum limit, as we have discussed in this paper.
1797:
1798: \section{Conclusion}
1799: In this paper, we formulated a lattice model for the $N=1$ supersymmetric
1800: Wess-Zumino model in 4~dimensions. The $\U(1)_R$ symmetry is manifest even on
1801: a lattice with a use of Ginsparg-Wilson fermions. Although our formulation is
1802: perturbatively equivalent to the Fujikawa-Ishibashi formulation, we could
1803: avoid a singular nature of the latter formulation by introducing an auxiliary
1804: chiral supermultiplet on a lattice. We also analyzed radiative breaking of the
1805: supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi identity. The situation in the one-loop order is
1806: rather simple while the improvement through higher orders will be much more
1807: involved due to a peculiarity of the supersymmetry breaking term. In
1808: particular, in higher orders, we cannot avoid an adjustment of mass parameters
1809: of scalar fields which are quadratically diverging. In this aspect, the
1810: situation is not quite better than for the formulation based on the Wilson
1811: fermion. Clearly, a much clever idea is needed to achieve a lattice formulation
1812: of the $N=1$ Wess-Zumino model which avoids this too much adjustment.
1813:
1814: \acknowledgments
1815: H.S. would like to thank Ke Wu for kind hospitality at Institute of Theoretical
1816: Physics, Academia Sinica, where an integral part of this work was carried out.
1817: This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research,
1818: \#13135203 and \#15540250 (H.S.).
1819:
1820: \paragraph{Note added in proofs.}
1821: In an illustrative work~\cite{Giedt:2004vb}, Giedt, Koniuk, Poppitz and Yavin
1822: studied a fine-tuning problem in a naively discretized supersymmetric quantum
1823: mechanics by utilizing the Reisz theorem. We thank Joel Giedt for calling their
1824: work to our attention.
1825:
1826: \appendix
1827:
1828: \section{Cosmological term at the one-loop level}
1829: The cosmological term (the vacuum energy) at the one-loop level is given by a
1830: logarithm of the partition function with $g=0$. For a correct counting of
1831: degrees of freedom, it is helpful to introduce real bosonic variables by
1832: \begin{eqnarray}
1833: &&\phi\to(A+iB)/\sqrt{2},\qquad F\to(F-iG)/\sqrt{2},
1834: \nonumber\\
1835: &&\Phi\to(\alpha+i\beta)/\sqrt{2},\qquad
1836: \mathcal{F}\to(\mathcal{F}-i\mathcal{G})/\sqrt{2}.
1837: \end{eqnarray}
1838: Then the free part of action~$S_0$ is represented as
1839: \begin{eqnarray}
1840: S_0&=&a^4\sum_x
1841: (A\,\,B\,\,F\,\,G\,\,\alpha\,\,\beta\,\,\mathcal{F}\,\,\mathcal{G})
1842: M_{\rm B}
1843: \pmatrix{A\cr B\cr F\cr G\cr\alpha\cr\beta\cr\mathcal{F}\cr\mathcal{G}\cr}
1844: \nonumber\\
1845: &&\qquad+a^4\sum_x
1846: ((\chi P_+)^T\,\,(\chi P_-)^T\,\,(XP_+)^T\,\,(XP_-)^T)
1847: M_{\rm F}
1848: \pmatrix{P_+\chi\cr P_-\chi\cr P_+X\cr P_-X\cr},
1849: \end{eqnarray}
1850: where matrices $M_{\rm B}$ and~$M_{\rm F}$ are given by
1851: \begin{eqnarray}
1852: &&M_{\rm B}
1853: \nonumber\\
1854: &&=
1855: {1\over2}\pmatrix{
1856: D_1^2&0&D_2+R&I&0&0&R&I\cr
1857: 0&D_1^2&-I&D_2+R&0&0&-I&R\cr
1858: D_2+R&-I&1&0&R&-I&0&0\cr
1859: I&D_2+R&0&1&I&R&0&0\cr
1860: 0&0&R&I&0&0&-{2\over a}+R&I\cr
1861: 0&0&-I&R&0&0&-I&-{2\over a}+R\cr
1862: R&-I&0&0&-{2\over a}+R&-I&0&0\cr
1863: I&R&0&0&I&-{2\over a}+R&0&0\cr},
1864: \nonumber\\
1865: \end{eqnarray}
1866: where $R=\re m$ and $I=\im m$ and
1867: \begin{equation}
1868: M_{\rm F}=
1869: {1\over2}C\pmatrix{
1870: D_2+m&D_1&m&0\cr
1871: D_1&D_2+m^*&0&m^*\cr
1872: m&0&-{2\over a}+m&0\cr
1873: 0&m^*&0&-{2\over a}+m^*\cr}.
1874: \end{equation}
1875: By noting the relation~(\ref{twoxeleven}), we then find that gaussian
1876: integrations over bosonic variables give rise to the following contribution to
1877: the partition function
1878: \begin{equation}
1879: \det\nolimits^{-1}\Bigl\{{-1\over4a^2}
1880: \Bigl[{2\over a}D_2+(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m^*m\Bigr]\Bigr\}.
1881: \end{equation}
1882: On the other hand, integrations over fermionic variables give rise to
1883: \begin{equation}
1884: \det C\det\Bigl\{{1\over4a}
1885: \Bigl[{2\over a}D_2+(1-{1\over2}aD_2)m^*m\Bigr]\Bigr\},
1886: \end{equation}
1887: where we have taken into account the fact that $\chi$ and~$X$ are 4~component
1888: spinors. These contributions from bosonic and fermionic variables are cancelled
1889: to each other, leaving a constant which may be normalized to unity. Therefore,
1890: the cosmological term is not generated by one-loop radiative corrections
1891: {\it even for}~$a\neq0$, as expected from the exact supersymmetry of the free
1892: action~$S_0$.
1893:
1894:
1895: \listoftables % ONLY DRAFT
1896: \listoffigures % ONLY DRAFT
1897: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1898:
1899: \bibitem{Dondi:1976tx}
1900: P.~H.~Dondi and H.~Nicolai,
1901: \emph{Lattice supersymmetry},
1902: {\it Nuovo Cim.} {\bf A 41} (1977) 1.
1903: %%CITATION = NUCIA,A41,1;%%
1904:
1905: \bibitem{Elitzur:1982vh}
1906: S.~Elitzur, E.~Rabinovici and A.~Schwimmer,
1907: \emph{Supersymmetric models on the lattice},
1908: \plb{119}{1982}{165}.
1909: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B119,165;%%
1910: \\
1911: %\bibitem{Cecotti:1982ad}
1912: S.~Cecotti and L.~Girardello,
1913: \emph{Stochastic processes in lattice (extended) supersymmetry},
1914: \npb{226}{1983}{417}.
1915: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B226,417;%%
1916: \\
1917: %\bibitem{Sakai:1983dg}
1918: N.~Sakai and M.~Sakamoto,
1919: \emph{Lattice supersymmetry and the Nicolai mapping},
1920: \npb{229}{1983}{173}.
1921: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B229,173;%%
1922:
1923: \bibitem{Bartels:1982ue}
1924: J.~Bartels and G.~Kramer,
1925: \emph{A lattice version of the Wess-Zumino model},
1926: \zpc{20}{1983}{159}.
1927: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C20,159;%%
1928:
1929: \bibitem{DiVecchia:1983ax}
1930: P.~Di Vecchia, R.~Musto, F.~Nicodemi, R.~Pettorino, P.~Rossi and P.~Salomonson,
1931: \emph{Explicit evaluation of physical quantities and supersymmetry properties
1932: of lattice ${\rm O}(N)$ sigma models at large $N$},
1933: \plb{127}{1983}{109}.
1934: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B127,109;%%
1935: \\
1936: %\bibitem{Nakayama:1983qt}
1937: R.~Nakayama and Y.~Okada,
1938: \emph{Supercurrent anomaly in lattice gauge theory},
1939: \plb{134}{1984}{241}.
1940: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B134,241;%%
1941:
1942: \bibitem{Curci:1986sm}
1943: G.~Curci and G.~Veneziano,
1944: \emph{Supersymmetry and the lattice: A reconciliation?},
1945: \npb{292}{1987}{555}.
1946: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B292,555;%%
1947: \\
1948: %\bibitem{Taniguchi:1999fc}
1949: Y.~Taniguchi,
1950: \emph{One loop calculation of SUSY Ward-Takahashi identity on lattice with
1951: Wilson fermion},
1952: \prd{63}{2001}{014502} [\heplat{9906026}].
1953: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9906026;%%
1954: \\
1955: %\bibitem{Feo:2003km}
1956: A.~Feo,
1957: \emph{The supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi identity in 1-loop lattice
1958: perturbation theory. I: General procedure},
1959: \prd{70}{2004}{054504} [\heplat{0305020}];
1960: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0305020;%%
1961: %\bibitem{Feo:2003ni}
1962: %A.~Feo,
1963: \emph{The study of the continuum limit of the supersymmetric Ward-Takahashi
1964: identity for $N=1$ super Yang-Mills theory}, \heplat{0310034}.
1965: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0310034;%%
1966:
1967: \bibitem{Bartels:1983wm}
1968: J.~Bartels and J.~B.~Bronzan,
1969: \emph{Supersymmetry on a lattice},
1970: \prd{28}{1983}{818}.
1971: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D28,818;%%
1972: \\
1973: %\bibitem{Nojiri:1984ys}
1974: S.~Nojiri,
1975: \emph{Continuous ``translation'' and supersymmetry on the lattice},
1976: \ptp{74}{1985}{819};
1977: %%CITATION = PTPKA,74,819;%%
1978: %\bibitem{Nojiri:1985vb}
1979: %S.~Nojiri,
1980: \emph{The spontaneous breakdown of supersymmetry on the finite lattice},
1981: \ptp{74}{1985}{1124}.
1982: %%CITATION = PTPKA,74,1124;%%
1983:
1984: \bibitem{Golterman:1988ta}
1985: M.~F.~L.~Golterman and D.~N.~Petcher,
1986: \emph{A local interactive lattice model with supersymmetry},
1987: \npb{319}{1989}{307}.
1988: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B319,307;%%
1989:
1990: \bibitem{Nishimura:1997vg}
1991: J.~Nishimura,
1992: \emph{Four-dimensional $N=1$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory on the lattice
1993: without fine-tuning},
1994: \plb{406}{1997}{215} [\heplat{9701013}].
1995: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9701013;%%
1996: \\
1997: %\bibitem{Aoki:1997bn}
1998: S.~Aoki, K.~Nagai and S.~V.~Zenkin,
1999: \emph{Domain wall fermions with Majorana couplings},
2000: \npb{508}{1997}{715} [\heplat{9705001}].
2001: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9705001;%%
2002: \\
2003: %\bibitem{Maru:1997kh}
2004: N.~Maru and J.~Nishimura,
2005: \emph{Lattice formulation of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories without
2006: fine-tuning},
2007: \ijmpa{13}{1998}{2841} [\hepth{9705152}].
2008: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9705152;%%
2009: \\
2010: %\bibitem{Bietenholz:1998qq}
2011: W.~Bietenholz,
2012: \emph{Exact supersymmetry on the lattice},
2013: \mpla{14}{1999}{51} [\heplat{9807010}].
2014: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9807010;%%
2015: \\
2016: %\bibitem{So:1998ya}
2017: H.~So and N.~Ukita,
2018: \emph{Ginsparg-Wilson relation and lattice supersymmetry},
2019: \plb{457}{1999}{314} [\heplat{9812002}].
2020: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9812002;%%
2021: \\
2022: %\bibitem{Kaplan:1999jn}
2023: D.~B.~Kaplan and M.~Schmaltz,
2024: \emph{Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories from domain wall fermions},
2025: {\it Chin.\ J.\ Phys.} {\bf 38} (2000) 543 [\heplat{0002030}].
2026: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0002030;%%
2027: \\
2028: %\bibitem{Fleming:2000fa}
2029: G.~T.~Fleming, J.~B.~Kogut and P.~M.~Vranas,
2030: \emph{Super Yang-Mills on the lattice with domain wall fermions},
2031: \prd{64}{2001}{034510} [\heplat{0008009}].
2032: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0008009;%%
2033:
2034: \bibitem{Aoyama:1998in}
2035: T.~Aoyama and Y.~Kikukawa,
2036: \emph{Overlap formula for the chiral multiplet},
2037: \prd{59}{1999}{054507} [\heplat{9803016}].
2038: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9803016;%%
2039:
2040: \bibitem{Catterall:2001fr}
2041: S.~Catterall and S.~Karamov,
2042: \emph{Exact lattice supersymmetry: the two-dimensional $N=2$ Wess-Zumino
2043: model},
2044: \prd{65}{2002}{094501} [\heplat{0108024}];
2045: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0108024;%%
2046: %\bibitem{Catterall:2003ae}
2047: %S.~Catterall and S.~Karamov,
2048: \emph{A lattice study of the two-dimensional Wess Zumino model},
2049: \prd{68}{2003}{014503} [\heplat{0305002}].
2050: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0305002;%%
2051: \\
2052: %\bibitem{Catterall:2003wd}
2053: S.~Catterall,
2054: \emph{Lattice supersymmetry and topological field theory},
2055: \jhep{05}{2003}{038} [\heplat{0301028}].
2056: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0301028;%%
2057: \\
2058: %\bibitem{Catterall:2003uf}
2059: S.~Catterall and S.~Ghadab,
2060: \emph{Lattice sigma models with exact supersymmetry},
2061: \jhep{05}{2004}{044} [\heplat{0311042}].
2062: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0311042;%%
2063:
2064: \bibitem{Fujikawa:2001ka}
2065: K.~Fujikawa and M.~Ishibashi,
2066: \emph{Lattice chiral symmetry and the Wess-Zumino model},
2067: \npb{622}{2002}{115} [\hepth{0109156}].
2068: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109156;%%
2069:
2070: \bibitem{Fujikawa:2001ns}
2071: K.~Fujikawa and M.~Ishibashi, \emph{Lattice chiral symmetry, Yukawa couplings
2072: and the Majorana condition},
2073: \plb{528}{2002}{295}
2074: [\heplat{0112050}].
2075: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0112050;%%
2076:
2077: \bibitem{Itoh:2001rx}
2078: K.~Itoh, M.~Kato, H.~Sawanaka, H.~So and N.~Ukita,
2079: \emph{Towards the super Yang-Mills theory on the lattice},
2080: \ptp{108}{2002}{363} [\heplat{0112052}];
2081: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0112052;%%
2082: %\bibitem{Itoh:2002nq}
2083: %K.~Itoh, M.~Kato, H.~Sawanaka, H.~So and N.~Ukita,
2084: \emph{Novel approach to super Yang-Mills theory on lattice: Exact fermionic
2085: symmetry and ``Ichimatsu'' pattern},
2086: \jhep{02}{2003}{033} [\heplat{0210049}].
2087: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0210049;%%
2088:
2089: \bibitem{Fujikawa:2002ic}
2090: K.~Fujikawa,
2091: \emph{Supersymmetry on the lattice and the Leibniz rule},
2092: \npb{636}{2002}{80} [\hepth{0205095}].
2093: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205095;%%
2094:
2095: \bibitem{Kaplan:2002wv}
2096: D.~B.~Kaplan, E.~Katz and M.~\"Unsal,
2097: \emph{Supersymmetry on a spatial lattice},
2098: \jhep{05}{2003}{037} [\heplat{0206019}].
2099: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0206019;%%
2100: \\
2101: %\bibitem{Cohen:2003xe}
2102: A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan, E.~Katz and M.~\"Unsal,
2103: \emph{Supersymmetry on a Euclidean spacetime lattice. I: A target theory with
2104: four supercharges},
2105: \jhep{08}{2003}{024} [\heplat{0302017}];
2106: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0302017;%%
2107: %\bibitem{Cohen:2003qw}
2108: %A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan, E.~Katz and M.~\"Unsal,
2109: \emph{Supersymmetry on a Euclidean spacetime lattice. II: Target theories with
2110: eight supercharges},
2111: \jhep{12}{2003}{031} [\heplat{0307012}].
2112: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0307012;%%
2113:
2114: \bibitem{Kikukawa:2002as}
2115: Y.~Kikukawa and Y.~Nakayama,
2116: \emph{Nicolai mapping vs.\ exact chiral symmetry on the lattice},
2117: \prd{66}{2002}{094508} [\heplat{0207013}].
2118: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0207013;%%
2119:
2120: \bibitem{Fujikawa:2002pa}
2121: K.~Fujikawa,
2122: \emph{$N=2$ Wess-Zumino model on the $d=2$ Euclidean lattice},
2123: \prd{66}{2002}{074510} [\heplat{0208015}].
2124: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0208015;%%
2125:
2126: \bibitem{Giedt:2003ve}
2127: J.~Giedt,
2128: \emph{Non-positive fermion determinants in lattice supersymmetry},
2129: \npb{668}{2003}{138} [\heplat{0304006}];
2130: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0304006;%%
2131: %\bibitem{Giedt:2003vy}
2132: %J.~Giedt,
2133: \emph{The fermion determinant in $(4,4)$ 2d lattice super-Yang-Mills},
2134: \npb{674}{2003}{259} [\heplat{0307024}];
2135: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0307024;%%
2136: %\bibitem{Giedt:2004tn}
2137: %J.~Giedt,
2138: \emph{Deconstruction, $2d$ lattice super-Yang-Mills, and the dynamical lattice
2139: spacing}, \heplat{0405021}.
2140: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0405021;%%
2141: \\
2142: %\bibitem{Giedt:2004qs}
2143: J.~Giedt and E.~Poppitz,
2144: \emph{Lattice supersymmetry, superfields and renormalization},
2145: \jhep{09}{2004}{029} [\hepth{0407135}].
2146: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0407135;%%
2147:
2148: \bibitem{Sugino:2003yb}
2149: F.~Sugino,
2150: \emph{A lattice formulation of super Yang-Mills theories with exact
2151: supersymmetry},
2152: \jhep{01}{2004}{015} [\heplat{0311021}];
2153: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0311021;%%
2154: %\bibitem{Sugino:2004qd}
2155: %F.~Sugino,
2156: \emph{Super Yang-Mills theories on the two-dimensional lattice with exact
2157: supersymmetry},
2158: \jhep{03}{2004}{067} [\heplat{0401017}];
2159: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0401017;%%
2160: %\bibitem{Sugino:2004gz}
2161: %F.~Sugino,
2162: \emph{A lattice formulation of super Yang-Mills theories with exact
2163: supersymmetry}, \heplat{0409036};
2164: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0409036;%%
2165: %\bibitem{Sugino:2004uv}
2166: %F.~Sugino,
2167: \emph{Various super Yang-Mills theories with exact supersymmetry on the
2168: lattice},
2169: \jhep{01}{2005}{016} [\heplat{0410035}].
2170: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0410035;%%
2171:
2172: \bibitem{D'Adda:2004jb}
2173: A.~D'Adda, I.~Kanamori, N.~Kawamoto and K.~Nagata,
2174: \emph{Twisted superspace on a lattice},
2175: \npb{707}{2005}{100} [\heplat{0406029}].
2176: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0406029;%%
2177:
2178: \bibitem{Bonini:2004pm}
2179: M.~Bonini and A.~Feo,
2180: \emph{Wess-Zumino model with exact supersymmetry on the lattice},
2181: \jhep{09}{2004}{011} [\heplat{0402034}];
2182: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0402034;%%
2183: %\bibitem{Bonini:2004wv}
2184: %M.~Bonini and A.~Feo,
2185: \emph{Exact supersymmetry on the lattice: The Wess-Zumino model},
2186: \heplat{0409068}.
2187: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0409068;%%
2188:
2189: \bibitem{Feo:2002yi}
2190: A.~Feo,
2191: \emph{Supersymmetry on the lattice},
2192: \npps{119}{2003}{198} [\heplat{0210015}];
2193: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0210015;%%
2194: %\bibitem{Feo:2004kx}
2195: %A.~Feo,
2196: \emph{Predictions and recent results in SUSY on the lattice},
2197: \mpla{19}{2004}{2387} [\heplat{0410012}].
2198: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0410012;%%
2199: \\
2200: %\bibitem{Kaplan:2003uh}
2201: D.~B.~Kaplan,
2202: \emph{Recent developments in lattice supersymmetry},
2203: \npps{129}{2004}{109} [\heplat{0309099}].
2204: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0309099;%%
2205:
2206: \bibitem{Montvay:2001aj}
2207: I.~Montvay,
2208: \emph{Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory on the lattice},
2209: \ijmpa{17}{2002}{2377} [\heplat{0112007}],
2210: and references therein.
2211: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0112007;%%
2212:
2213: \bibitem{Wess:1974tw}
2214: J.~Wess and B.~Zumino,
2215: \emph{Supergauge transformations in four-dimensions},
2216: \npb{70}{1974}{39}.
2217: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B70,39;%%
2218:
2219: \bibitem{Ginsparg:1982bj}
2220: P.~H.~Ginsparg and K.~G.~Wilson,
2221: \emph{A remnant of chiral symmetry on the lattice},
2222: \prd{25}{1982}{2649}.
2223: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D25,2649;%%
2224:
2225: \bibitem{Kikukawa:1997qh}
2226: Y.~Kikukawa and H.~Neuberger,
2227: \emph{Overlap in odd dimensions},
2228: \npb{513}{1998}{735} [\heplat{9707016}].
2229: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9707016;%%
2230:
2231: \bibitem{Neuberger:1998fp}
2232: H.~Neuberger,
2233: \emph{Exactly massless quarks on the lattice},
2234: \plb{417}{1998}{141} [\heplat{9707022}];
2235: %CITATION = HEP-LAT 9707022;%%
2236: %\bibitem{Neuberger:1998wv}
2237: %H.~Neuberger,
2238: \emph{More about exactly massless quarks on the lattice},
2239: \plb{427}{1998}{353} [\heplat{9801031}].
2240: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9801031;%%
2241:
2242: \bibitem{Hasenfratz:1998ri}
2243: P.~Hasenfratz, V.~Laliena and F.~Niedermayer,
2244: \emph{The index theorem in QCD with a finite cut-off},
2245: \plb{427}{1998}{125} [\heplat{9801021}].
2246: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9801021;%%
2247: \\
2248: %\bibitem{Hasenfratz:1998jp}
2249: P.~Hasenfratz,
2250: \emph{Lattice QCD without tuning, mixing and current renormalization},
2251: \npb{525}{1998}{401} [\heplat{9802007}].
2252: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9802007;%%
2253:
2254: \bibitem{Luscher:1998pq}
2255: M.~L\"uscher,
2256: \emph{Exact chiral symmetry on the lattice and the Ginsparg-Wilson relation},
2257: \plb{428}{1998}{342} [\heplat{9802011}].
2258: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9802011;%%
2259: \\
2260: %\bibitem{Hernandez:1998et}
2261: P.~Hern\'andez, K.~Jansen and M.~L\"uscher,
2262: \emph{Locality properties of Neuberger's lattice Dirac operator},
2263: \npb{552}{1999}{363} [\heplat{9808010}].
2264: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9808010;%%
2265:
2266: \bibitem{Fujikawa:2002is}
2267: K.~Fujikawa, M.~Ishibashi and H.~Suzuki,
2268: \emph{Ginsparg-Wilson operators and a no-go theorem},
2269: \plb{538}{2002}{197} [\heplat{0202017}].
2270: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0202017;%%
2271:
2272: \bibitem{Reisz:1987da}
2273: T.~Reisz,
2274: \emph{A power counting theorem for Feynman integrals on the lattice},
2275: \cmp{116}{1988}{81};
2276: %%CITATION = CMPHA,116,81;%%
2277: %\bibitem{Reisz:1987pw}
2278: %T.~Reisz,
2279: \emph{A convergence theorem for lattice Feynman integrals with massless
2280: propagators},
2281: \cmp{116}{1988}{573}.
2282: %%CITATION = CMPHA,116,573;%%
2283:
2284: \bibitem{Luscher:1988sd}
2285: M.~L\"uscher,
2286: \emph{Selected topics in lattice field theory},
2287: {\it Lectures given at Summer School ``Fields, Strings and Critical
2288: Phenomena'', Les Houches, France, Jun 28--Aug 5, 1988}.
2289:
2290: \bibitem{Nicolai:1978vc}
2291: H.~Nicolai, \emph{A possible constructive approach to
2292: (super-$\phi^3$)$_4$. (I).~Euclidean formulation of the model},
2293: \npb{140}{1978}{294};
2294: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B140,294;%%
2295: %\bibitem{Nicolai:ic}
2296: %H.~Nicolai,
2297: \emph{A possible constructive approach to (super-$\phi^3$)$_4$.
2298: (II).~Regularization of the model}, \npb{156}{1979}{157};
2299: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B156,157;%%
2300: %\bibitem{Nicolai:se}
2301: %H.~Nicolai,
2302: \emph{A possible constructive approach to (super-$\phi^3$)$_4$.
2303: (III).~On the normalization of Schwinger functions},
2304: \npb{156}{1979}{177}.
2305: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B156,177;%%
2306:
2307: \bibitem{Iliopoulos:1974zv}
2308: J.~Iliopoulos and B.~Zumino,
2309: \emph{Broken supergauge symmetry and renormalization},
2310: \npb{76}{1974}{310}.
2311: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B76,310;%%
2312:
2313: \bibitem{Fujikawa:1974ay}
2314: K.~Fujikawa and W.~Lang,
2315: \emph{Perturbation calculations for the scalar multiplet in a superfield
2316: formulation},
2317: \npb{88}{1975}{61}.
2318: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B88,61;%%
2319:
2320: \bibitem{West:1976wz}
2321: P.~C.~West,
2322: \emph{The supersymmetric effective potential},
2323: \npb{106}{1976}{219}.
2324: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B106,219;%%
2325:
2326: \bibitem{Grisaru:1979wc}
2327: M.~T.~Grisaru, W.~Siegel and M.~Ro\v cek,
2328: \emph{Improved methods for supergraphs},
2329: \npb{159}{1979}{429}.
2330: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B159,429;%%
2331:
2332: \bibitem{Seiberg:1993vc}
2333: N.~Seiberg,
2334: \emph{Naturalness versus supersymmetric non-renormalization theorems},
2335: \plb{318}{1993}{469} [\hepph{9309335}].
2336: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9309335;%%
2337:
2338: \bibitem{Giedt:2004vb}
2339: J.~Giedt, R.~Koniuk, E.~Poppitz and T.~Yavin,
2340: \emph{Less naive about supersymmetric lattice quantum mechanics},
2341: \jhep{12}{2004}{033} [\heplat{0410041}].
2342: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0410041;%%
2343:
2344: \end{thebibliography}
2345: \end{document}
2346: