text:
# Prompt Photon Production and Observation of Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering

## 1 Introduction

Two types of real photon production processes in $`e^+p`$ collisions which are currently studied using the ZEUS detector at HERA are prompt-$`\gamma `$ production in photoproduction ($`\gamma p`$) and Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS) in deep inelastic scattering (DIS).

Prompt-$`\gamma `$ production in $`\gamma p`$ interactions is the production of a real $`\gamma `$ directly from the hard interaction of a quasi-real $`\gamma `$ (invariant mass $`Q^20`$ 111$`Q^2=(ee^{})^2`$, where $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$ are the initial and final positron four-momenta, respectively.) with the proton. At leading order, two kinds of $`\gamma p`$ processes can be defined: direct, where the $`\gamma `$ participates entirely in the hard interaction, and resolved, where the $`\gamma `$ first fluctuates into a hadronic system and a parton from this system then enters into the hard interaction. Examples are depicted in Fig. 1. Prompt-$`\gamma `$ production

is less influenced by hadronisation effects than, e.g., dijet production, although its production rate is down by a factor $`\alpha /\alpha _S`$ in comparison. It is interesting because of its sensitivity to the parton density of the $`\gamma `$. The measurements can also be used to test next-to-leading order (NLO) perturbative QCD (pQCD).

DVCS , depicted in Fig. 2, is the hard diffractive scattering of a $`\gamma `$ off a proton, $`e^+pe^+\gamma p`$. This is a process which has never been seen before at high energies, but which is predicted by FFS  to have a fairly high counting rate.

DVCS is an exciting process because of its potential for accessing the skewed parton distributions (SPD’s) of the proton. SPD’s, which quantify two-particle correlations in the proton, are a generalisation of the usual proton parton distributions to the case where the squared momentum transfer to the proton is non-zero. The advantage of DVCS over processes where a hadron is diffractively produced is two-fold: the theoretical uncertainty in the hadronic wave function is avoided, and the DVCS rate is predicted to be less suppressed by a factor of $`Q^2`$ . Furthermore, its final state is identical to that of QED Compton scattering (QEDC), and interference of the two processes potentially allows the measurement of the real part of a QCD amplitude.

A common feature of these two studies at ZEUS is that each involves the detection of a $`\gamma `$ in the barrel part of the calorimeter (BCAL), which has its electromagnetic (EM) section segmented into $`5\times 20`$ cm2 cells. A potential background contribution to $`\gamma `$ candidates, i.e. those tagged EM clusters not associated with a track in the central tracking detector, arises from $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta `$ production. However, these particles tend to produce broader clusters in the BCAL than single $`\gamma `$’s. Two shower shape variables  are employed to exploit this difference: $`Z_{width}`$, which is the energy-weighted average of the width of the EM cluster in the $`Z`$-direction 222 The ZEUS coordinate system is defined as right-handed with the $`Z`$-axis pointing in the forward (proton beam) direction. The origin is at the nominal $`ep`$ interaction point, and the polar angle $`\theta `$ is defined with respect to the positive $`Z`$-direction. (the direction in which the BCAL is most finely segmented); and $`f_{max}`$, which is the fraction of the EM cluster energy carried by the most energetic cell in the cluster.

## 2 Prompt Photon Production

The $`f_{max}`$ distribution for the 1996/97 prompt-$`\gamma `$ photoproduction analysis  is shown in Fig. 3.

Overlaid are the expected contributions from $`\eta `$, $`\pi ^0`$, and $`\gamma `$. A $`\gamma `$ signal at high $`f_{max}`$ values is evident. The prompt-$`\gamma `$ production cross section for $`\gamma `$ transverse energies $`E_T^\gamma >5`$ GeV and $`\gamma `$ rapidity interval $`0.7\eta ^\gamma 0.9`$ is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of $`E_T^\gamma `$ and $`\eta ^\gamma `$.

Overlaid are the NLO predictions of two groups of theorists, LG  and KZ , each using two different $`\gamma `$ parton density parametrisations: GRV  and GS . The predictions are in reasonable agreement with the data, although those based on the GS parametrisation tend to be low. This demonstrates the sensitivity of this type of analysis to the $`\gamma `$ parton density. With more data and further theoretical progress the prompt-$`\gamma `$ process will provide a valuable tool for studying NLO pQCD and measuring the $`\gamma `$ parton density.

## 3 Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering

For the DVCS analysis , events with only two EM clusters and at most one track (which must be matched to one of the clusters) are selected. The first (second) candidate, corresponding to the scattered $`e^+`$ ($`\gamma `$) in the DVCS case, must have polar angle $`\theta _1>2.8`$ ($`\theta _2<2.4`$) radians and $`E_1>10`$ GeV ($`E_2>2`$ GeV). To suppress the QEDC process the polar angle difference must satisfy $`|\theta _1\theta _2|>0.8`$ radians. Among the remaining requirements are a cut of $`Q^2>6`$ GeV2, calculated using the first EM candidate, and a cut on the invariant mass of the two EM candidates, $`M_{12}<30`$ GeV. From $`37\mathrm{p}\mathrm{b}^1`$ of $`e^+p`$ data, 1954 events remain for further study after application of all cuts.

As an aid to studying DVCS, a MC generator GenDVCS  based on the DVCS, QEDC, and interference term (int) cross sections provided by FFS  was developed at ZEUS. Samples of DVCS+QEDC+int events (elastic only) were generated according to the predicted cross sections, run through a full detector and trigger simulation, and processed using the same reconstruction program as the real data. Additional samples were similarly generated using the QEDC generator Compton2.0  (elastic only) for comparison, as well as RAPGAP  (diffractive events) and DJANGOH  (inclusive DIS events) samples for studying background from $`\pi ^0/\eta `$ contamination.

Shown in Fig. 5 is the polar angle distribution of the

second EM candidate, $`\theta _2`$, for (a) all candidates, and (b) only those candidates without a matched track ($`\gamma `$ candidates). The third plot (c) shows the ratio of (a) and (b). Overlaid are the predictions from Compton2.0 and GenDVCS, normalised to the same luminosity as the data, based on their calculated cross sections. (The QEDC ratio is unchanged when the inelastic component is included.) There is a clear deficit in the number of small angle $`\gamma `$ candidates predicted by the QEDC simulation. The inclusion of DVCS brings the prediction into reasonable agreement with the data.

A potential source of background arises from processes like $`e^+pe^+\pi ^0p`$, etc., where a $`\pi ^0`$/$`\eta `$ fakes a $`\gamma `$ signal in the calorimeter. Redisplayed in Figs. 6(a) and (b) is the $`\theta _2`$ distribution for $`\gamma `$ candidates. Overlaid are the RAPGAP and DJANGOH predictions. It may thus appear possible to explain the data as being due to such events. However, these two generators are not expected to predict accurate rates for low-multiplicity $`\pi ^0/\eta `$ production. In fact, as shown in Figs. 6(c)-(f), the $`Z_{width}`$ and $`f_{max}`$ distributions for BCAL $`\gamma `$ candidates having $`\theta _2<1.6`$ radians, where the QEDC contribution is predicted to be small, indicate that the $`\pi ^0/\eta `$ hypotheses cannot account for the EM shower shapes, and so the data cannot be explained as hadronic background from low-multiplicity DIS events. A repetition of the analysis  with a harder energy cut ($`E_2>5`$ GeV) on the second candidate further supports this conclusion. This, then, is first evidence for DVCS at high energy.

## 4 Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the many useful discussions about DVCS I have had with A. Freund and M. Strikman. I thank the conveners of my session for their kind and considerate handling of the scheduling of my talk.


format: text

text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Dimensional regularization  and minimal subtraction  are the most convenient tools for multi-loop computations. However the accuracy of the computations of chiral quantities is much lower than for non-chiral quantities, due to the difficulties encountered in restoring the chiral symmetries in the BMHV scheme , the only one known until recently to deal consistently with $`\gamma ^5`$ in dimensional regularization.

Few chiral quantities have been computed in the BMHV scheme; among the most accurate computations made up to now there are the renormalization at two loops of the non-singlet axial current , of the singlet axial current and of $`F\stackrel{~}{F}`$  in QCD, and the corresponding calculation of the three-loop anomalous dimension of the singlet axial current .

The techniques used in these papers to guarantee the validity of the chiral Ward identities in the BMHV scheme are indirect, and not suitable to be generalized to chiral gauge theories. The most impressive trick used is the determination of two-loop finite counterterms in the fermionic sector of the singlet axial current operator by making a three-loop computation in its gluonic sector .

Recently it has been shown  that there is a consistent extension of the BMHV scheme, called semi-naive dimensional regularization (SNDR), in which after minimal subtraction only few graphs can produce terms breaking the chiral Ward identities. The SNDR scheme has been applied in that paper to the case of the renormalization at two loops of the Yukawa model in presence of external gauge fields, previously studied in the BMHV scheme .

As a preliminary investigation in the use of the techniques developed in  and  for renormalizing gauge theories with chiral interactions, in this letter we apply the SNDR scheme to renormalize at two loops the axial current and $`F\stackrel{~}{F}`$ in QED; to check the chiral Ward identities and to compute the anomalous dimensions we will use the Wilsonian methods introduced in .

We find that using the minimal subtraction prescription in SNDR (MS-SNDR)  for the axial current the anomalous axial Ward identity is preserved by choosing a non-minimal subtraction for $`F\stackrel{~}{F}`$. Vice-versa, one can satisfy the anomalous axial Ward identity by choosing the minimal subtraction for the operator $`F\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and a non-minimal subtraction for the axial current. With the latter renormalization prescription we find the same three-loop anomalous dimension of the axial current as in the BMHV scheme , where minimal subtraction is made on $`F\stackrel{~}{F}`$. Notice that in the BMHV it is not possible to choose minimal subtraction on the axial current, due to the presence of the same kind of spurious anomalies appearing in the non-singlet axial current.

In the first section we review the Adler-Bardeen theorem , following to a large extent the regularization-independent derivation in .

In the second section we review the SNDR scheme and we perform the two-loop renormalization of the axial current and of $`F\stackrel{~}{F}`$ in QED.

In the third section we discuss our methods of computation, we compare our results with those in  and we discuss in this context the relation between SNDR and BMHV.

## 1 Review of the Adler-Bardeen theorem

The classical action of QED with $`N_f`$ massless fermions in presence of sources for $`J_\mu ^5`$ and $`K_\mu `$ is

$`S^{(0)}={\displaystyle \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(_\mu V_\mu )^2+ieV_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi +A_\mu J_\mu ^5+\chi _\mu K_\mu `$ (1)
where we define

$`J_\mu ^5i\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi ;K_\mu 4iϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }V_\nu _\rho V_\sigma `$ (2)
We use Euclidean space conventions.

On the functional generator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }[V,\psi ,\overline{\psi },A,\chi ]`$ of $`1PI`$ vertex functions the renormalization group equation reads

$`𝒟\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ (3)
$`𝒟\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{e}}+\delta \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\gamma _iN_i{\displaystyle (\gamma _{\chi A}\chi _\mu \frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu }+\gamma _{A\chi }A_\mu \frac{\delta }{\delta \chi _\mu })}`$
where the index $`i`$ runs over $`V_\mu ,\psi ,\overline{\psi },A_\mu ,\chi `$; $`\gamma _i`$ and $`N_i`$ are the corresponding anomalous dimensions and number operators; $`\gamma _{A\chi }`$ and $`\gamma _{\chi A}`$ are the mixing anomalous dimensions for the operators (2).

The vectorial Ward identity reads

$`G_v\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}^2_\mu V_\mu +4iϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_\mu \chi _\nu _\rho V_\sigma `$
$`G_v_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta V_\mu }}+ie\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi }}ie\overline{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }}}`$ (4)
Due to the linearity of the breaking terms, they do not need to be renormalized. The proof of this fact in the case of the gauge-fixing term  can be straightforwardly extended to the $`\chi `$ term.

The axial Ward identity is

$`G_a\mathrm{\Gamma }=\rho _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \chi _\mu }}`$ (5)
$`G_a_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu }}+i\gamma ^5\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi }}+i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }}}`$
The system of constraints (3,1,5) satisfies the following consistency conditions:

$`[𝒟,G_v]=i\beta (\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi }}\overline{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }}})+\gamma _V_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta V_\mu }}`$ (6)
$`[𝒟,G_a\rho _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \chi _\mu }}]=(\gamma _A\rho \gamma _{\chi A})_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu }}+(\gamma _{A\chi }\rho \gamma _\chi \beta {\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{e}})_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \chi _\mu }}`$
which, together with eq.(1) imply respectively

$`\beta =e\gamma _V;\delta =\gamma _\chi =2\gamma _V;\gamma _{A\chi }=0`$ (7)
$`\gamma _A=\rho \gamma _{\chi A};\gamma _\chi =\beta {\displaystyle \frac{ln\rho }{e}}`$ (8)
from which it follows that, since $`\beta 0`$,

$`\rho =ca`$ (9)
where $`a\frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}`$ and $`c`$ is a constant in $`e`$ which is fixed by the one-loop anomaly computation to be

$`c=N_f`$ (10)
This proof of the Adler-Bardeen theorem , which is close to the one in , relies on the validity of (1); this relation can be imposed independently of the regularization scheme. In a regularization which respects the vectorial Ward identities, like Pauli-Villars or the BMHV and the SNDR dimensional regularization schemes, this relation implies that the term $`\chi _\mu K_\mu `$ of the bare action does not need to be renormalized.

The first relation in (8) gives $`\gamma _A`$ at $`l`$ loops in terms of $`\gamma _{\chi A}`$ at $`(l1)`$-loops.

Allowing for finite renormalization $`f_\alpha `$ and $`f_\chi `$ respectively for the gauge-fixing and $`\chi _\mu K_\mu `$ terms, the relations (7) are modified in a trivial way

$`\delta =2\gamma _V+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{lnf_\alpha }{e}};\gamma _\chi =2\gamma _V+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{lnf_\chi }{e}}`$ (11)
Using (8) one gets

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{ca}{f_\chi }}`$ (12)
## 2 Axial current in SNDR

Let us review the BMHV and the SNDR dimensional regularization schemes.

In the BMHV scheme  one considers the Lorentz covariants $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\gamma _\mu `$, $`p_\mu `$, etc. as formal objects, satisfying the usual tensorial rules. $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Kronecker delta in $`d=4ϵ`$ dimensions; a formal rule for summed indices is given:

$$\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{\nu \rho }=\delta _{\mu \rho };\delta _{\mu \nu }p_\nu =p_\mu ;\delta _{\mu \mu }=d$$
(13)
The gamma ‘matrices’ $`\gamma _\mu `$ satisfy the relation

$$\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }I$$
(14)
where $`I`$ is the identity. The trace is cyclic and satisfies

$$trI=4$$
(15)
In the BMHV scheme additional ‘$`(d4)`$-dimensional’ or ‘evanescent’ tensors $`\widehat{\delta }_{\mu \nu },\widehat{p}_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }_\mu `$ are introduced; the Kronecker delta in the $`(d4)`$-dimensional space is $`\widehat{\delta }_{\mu \nu }`$ , satisfying

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\mu \nu }\delta _{\nu \rho }=\widehat{\delta }_{\mu \nu }\widehat{\delta }_{\nu \rho }=\widehat{\delta }_{\mu \rho };\widehat{\delta }_{\mu \mu }=ϵ`$
$`\widehat{p}_\mu \widehat{\delta }_{\mu \nu }p_\nu ;\widehat{\gamma }_\mu \widehat{\delta }_{\mu \nu }\gamma _\nu `$ (16)
The Kronecker delta in four dimensions in $`\overline{\delta }_{\mu \nu }`$, satisfying

$`\overline{\delta }_{\mu \nu }\delta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{\delta }_{\mu \nu };\overline{p}_\mu \overline{\delta }_{\mu \nu }p_\nu ;\overline{\gamma }_\mu \overline{\delta }_{\mu \nu }\gamma _\nu `$ (17)
The Levi-Civita antisymmetric tensor has no evanescent component:

$$\widehat{\delta }_{\mu \nu }ϵ_{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }=0$$
(18)
$`\gamma ^5`$ is defined by

$$\gamma ^5=\frac{1}{4!}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho \gamma _\sigma $$
(19)
which implies

$`\{\gamma ^5,\gamma _\mu \}=2\widehat{\gamma }_\mu \gamma ^5;(\gamma ^5)^2=I`$ (20)
The fact that $`\gamma ^5`$ is not-anticommuting with $`\gamma _\mu `$ leads to violations of the (non-anomalous) axial Ward identities. On the other hand the possibility of having anomalous axial currents must be contemplated, so that it is necessary to define $`\gamma ^5`$ so that it is not anticommuting. However (20) introduces many breaking terms which are not related to anomalies; these terms are sometimes called spurious anomalies .

The SNDR scheme  is an extension of this scheme. Add to the BMHV Dirac algebra the objects $`\eta `$ and $`\eta _1`$ satisfying the following defining relations:

$`\{\eta ,\gamma _\mu \}=\{\eta _1,\gamma _\mu \}=2\widehat{\gamma }_\mu \eta _1`$
$`\eta ^2=I;\eta \eta _1=\eta _1\eta =\eta _1^2;\eta _1^3=\eta _1`$
$`tr\eta \gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho \gamma _\sigma =tr\eta _1\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho \gamma _\sigma =4ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ (21)
$`tr\eta _1=tr\eta _1^2=0;tr\eta _1^2\gamma _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _r}=0`$
$`tr\eta _1\gamma ^5\gamma _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _r}=tr\eta \gamma ^5\gamma _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _r}=tr\gamma _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _r}`$
The trace is cyclic on this enlarged algebra; $`\eta _1^2`$ is a projector.

The idea of this regularization is that using $`\eta `$ instead of $`\gamma ^5`$ in the tree-level chiral vertices, the number of spurious anomalies is greatly reduced. Let us discuss separately the cases of open and closed fermionic lines belonging to a $`1PI`$ Feynman graph.

i) Open fermionic lines

In an open fermionic line $`\eta `$ can be anticommuted naively modulo terms belonging to the $`\eta _1^2`$ subspace, i.e. monomials containing $`\eta _1`$; algebraic manipulations on a monomial containing $`\eta _1`$ give again terms in the $`\eta _1^2`$ subspace, which cannot be confused with those belonging to the orthogonal subspace. The minimal subtraction on a $`1PI`$ Feynman graph consists in subtracting all the poles in $`ϵ`$ and all the finite terms containing $`\eta _1`$. In  it is explained why the subtraction of these finite terms is necessary and why it can be considered to be minimal. The idea is that in the process of removing the regulator $`\eta `$ is homomorphically mapped in $`\gamma ^5`$; since $`tr(\gamma ^5\eta )\eta _1=4`$ , there is no way to extend this trace-preserving homomorphism to $`\eta _1`$. Therefore the $`\eta _1`$ terms must be subtracted before applying this homomorphism. Notice that the necessity of subtracting the terms in the $`\eta _1^2`$ subspace has nothing to do a priori with the requirement of satisfying the chiral Ward identities, but it has to do simply with the inner consistency of SNDR.

In the BMHV scheme $`\gamma ^5`$ can be anticommuted naively modulo terms containing again $`\gamma ^5`$; the latter terms can generate spurious anomalies, which cannot be distinguished from the non-anomalous contributions, so that their subtraction is non-trivial, unlike in SNDR.

ii) Closed fermionic lines

If in a trace there is no $`\eta _1`$ and an even number of $`\eta `$, these $`\eta `$ can be anticommuted naively. If in a fermionic trace there is at least one $`\eta _1`$, all the $`\eta `$’s in that trace can be replaced with $`\eta _1`$; if at this point there is an even number of $`\eta _1`$’s, the trace vanishes; these properties reduce greatly the possibility of occurrence of spurious anomalies.

If in a fermionic trace there is an odd number of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta _1`$, they can be replaced with $`\gamma ^5`$. The true anomalies originate from these traces.

The bare action in SNDR corresponding to the classical action (1) is

$`S={\displaystyle Z_\psi \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu [_\mu +ieV_\mu +iA_\mu \eta ]\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Z_VF_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(_\mu V_\mu )^2+`$
$`iA_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu (Z_{A2}\eta _1+Z_{A3}\gamma ^5)\psi +\chi _\mu (K_\mu +Z_{\chi A}i\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi )`$ (22)
where the sources satisfy $`\widehat{A}_\mu =0=\widehat{\chi }_\mu `$. The bare action in MS-SNDR is vector gauge invariant apart from tree-level terms; in this scheme the vectorial Ward identities are automatically satisfied.

We have computed the two-loop renormalization constants such that the axial Ward identity (5) is satisfied. The only axial Ward identity which is not trivially satisfied is the one involving Figure 1, leading to the non-minimal renormalization

$`Z_{A3}^{nonMS}\rho Z_{\chi A}^{nonMS}=3N_fa^2`$ (23)
All the other renormalization constants can be chosen minimal in SNDR. At the first two loops the renormalization constants are, for $`\alpha =1`$,

$`Z_V=Z_V^{MS}=1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3ϵ}}N_fa{\displaystyle \frac{4}{ϵ}}N_fa^2`$
$`Z_\psi =Z_\psi ^{MS}=1{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{ϵ}}+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2N_f}{ϵ}})a^2`$
$`Z_{A2}=Z_{A2}^{MS}=4a+({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}})N_fa^2+({\displaystyle \frac{8}{ϵ}}+22)a^2`$ (24)
$`Z_{A3}={\displaystyle \frac{12}{ϵ}}N_fa^2+Z_{A3}^{nonMS}`$
$`Z_{\chi A}={\displaystyle \frac{24a}{ϵ}}+({\displaystyle \frac{64}{ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3ϵ}})N_fa^2+({\displaystyle \frac{48}{ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{84}{ϵ}})a^2+Z_{\chi A}^{nonMS}`$
where $`Z_{A3}^{nonMS}`$ is of order $`a^2`$, whereas $`Z_{\chi A}^{nonMS}`$ is considered at order $`a`$ only, since its $`a^2`$ term is related by the axial Ward identity to the three-loop $`a^3`$ term of $`Z_{A3}^{nonMS}`$.

The corresponding anomalous dimensions are given by

$`\gamma _V={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}N_fa+4N_fa^2`$
$`\gamma _\psi =a(2N_f+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})a^2`$ (25)
$`\gamma _{\chi A}=24a72a^2{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}N_fa^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}N_faZ_{\chi A}^{nonMS}`$
the remaining anomalous dimensions being fixed by eqs.(7, 8). In particular one determines in this way indirectly the three-loop anomalous dimension of the axial current

$`\gamma _A=24N_fa^2+72N_fa^3+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}N_f^2a^3{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}N_f^2a^2Z_{\chi A}^{nonMS}`$ (26)
## 3 Discussion of the results

To obtain the results in the previous section we have used the Wilsonian method devised in  for computing in a systematic way the finite counterterms needed to restore chiral Ward identities in dimensional regularization schemes.

In this approach the renormalization of the theory is obtained imposing renormalization conditions on a Wilsonian functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is perturbatively defined with the same Feynman rules for the vertices as in the usual $`1PI`$ functional generator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but with the usual propagators $`D`$ replaced by ‘hard’ propagators

$`D^H=(1K^\mathrm{\Lambda })D;K^\mathrm{\Lambda }(p)=({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{p^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}})^2`$ (27)
Let us denote by $`S_W`$ the local functional whose tree-level part is equal to the classical action (1), and which for $`l1`$ is equal to the marginal part of the Wilsonian functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; one has

$`S_W={\displaystyle a_\psi \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{V1}(_\mu V_\nu )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{V2}(_\mu V_\mu )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a_{V4}V_\mu ^2V_\nu ^2+`$
$`ia_{\psi V}V_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi +A_\mu (a_{A\chi }K_\mu +a_AJ_\mu ^5)+\chi _\mu (a_\chi K_\mu +a_{\chi A}J_\mu ^5)`$ (28)
The renormalization group equation and the Ward identities assume now the ‘effective’ form

$`𝒟S_W=𝒯_\gamma `$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle ϵ_vG_vS_W}={\displaystyle ϵ_v(\frac{1}{\alpha }^2_\mu V_\mu +4iϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_\mu \chi _\nu _\rho V_\sigma )}+𝒯_v`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle ϵ_aG_aS_W}={\displaystyle ϵ_a\rho _\mu \frac{\delta S_W}{\delta \chi _\mu }}+𝒯_a`$ (31)
where the $`𝒯`$ terms are contributions to the number operators and to the contact term operators at the Wilsonian scale. The Green functions of the $`𝒯`$ terms can be computed using Feynman rules as described in .

We use the hard propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }^H=D^H\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ for the photon in the Feynman gauge.

To compute the renormalization group functions we use (29). The derivative with respect to the gauge-fixing parameter in (29) in $`\alpha =1`$ is treated as the insertion of the operator $`\frac{1}{2}(_\mu V_\mu )^2`$.

As discussed before, the vectorial Ward identities are trivially satisfied in MS-SNDR, so that we have to discuss only the axial Ward identities (31).

One has

$`𝒯_a={\displaystyle _\mu ϵ_a(b_\psi J_\mu ^5+b_\chi K_\mu )}`$ (32)
The axial Ward identity gives the following relations

$`a_Aa_\psi +b_\psi \rho a_{\chi A}=0`$ (33)
$`a_{A\chi }+b_\chi \rho a_\chi =0`$ (34)
The marginal part of $`S_W`$ exists for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$; we will compute its coefficients at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mu `$, the dimensional regularization scale.

At zero and one loops one has, in the MS-SNDR scheme,

$`a_\psi ^{MS}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{6}};a_A^{MS}=1{\displaystyle \frac{43a}{60}}`$
$`a_{\chi A}^{MS}={\displaystyle \frac{77a}{5}};a_{A\chi }^{MS}={\displaystyle \frac{2N_fa}{3}};a_\chi =1`$ (35)
$`b_\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{53a}{60}};b_\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{N_fa}{3}}`$
The axial Ward identities (33,34) are manifestly satisfied in the SNDR scheme as long as $`\gamma ^5`$ or the Levi-Civita tensor does not appear in the Feynman rules. This is the case at one loop, with the exception of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\psi }\psi \chi \mu }`$ vertex, which is related by the axial Ward identity to the two-loop insertions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\psi }\psi A\mu }`$, so that we will discuss it later.

To illustrate this renormalization procedure, consider for instance the relevant part of the unrenormalized Wilsonian axial vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\psi }\psi A\mu }^{unren\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ at one loop:

$`ia[({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{43}{60}})\overline{\gamma }_\mu \eta +4\overline{\gamma }_\mu \eta _1]`$ (36)
The pole term and the $`\eta _1`$ terms are minimally subtracted, giving the renormalization constants $`Z_\psi `$ and $`Z_{A2}`$ at one loop (2); the remaining finite part, evaluated in four dimensions (i.e. $`\eta \gamma ^5`$), gives the contribution to $`S_W`$ in (3,3).

At two loops the MS-SNDR scheme satisfies manifestly the axial Ward identities, apart from the contribution of Fig.1. The two-loop Wilsonian Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\psi }\psi A\mu }^{unren\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, unrenormalized at two loops but renormalized at one loop, gives the following relevant contributions

$`ia^2\overline{\gamma }_\mu \{({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{806251}{204120}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12937v}{4374}})\eta ({\displaystyle \frac{8}{ϵ}}+22)\eta _1`$
$`N_f({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1363}{5670}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1136v}{243}})\eta +N_f({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}})\eta _1N_f({\displaystyle \frac{12}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2449}{270}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1072v}{81}})\gamma ^5\}`$
where the $`\overline{\gamma }_\mu \gamma ^5`$ contribution, which comes from the graph in Figure 1, is the only one for which minimal subtraction is not automatically sufficient to preserve the axial Ward identity. The pole terms and the $`\eta _1`$ terms are minimally subtracted, giving the renormalization constants $`Z_\psi `$ ,$`Z_{A2}`$ and $`Z_{A3}^{MS}`$ at two loop (2).

Let us consider for instance the contributions to the axial Ward identity due to the graphs in Figure 2

and the corresponding counterterms:

$`a_A^{MS}(fig.2)=({\displaystyle \frac{1363}{5670}}{\displaystyle \frac{1136v}{243}})N_fa^2`$
$`b_\psi ^{MS}(fig.2)=({\displaystyle \frac{28393}{17010}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2272v}{729}})N_fa^2`$
$`a_\psi ^{MS}(fig.2)=({\displaystyle \frac{1736}{1215}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5680v}{729}})N_fa^2`$
There is no $`K_\mu `$ insertion corresponding to the graphs in Figure 2, so that $`a_{\chi A}^{MS}(fig.2)=0`$ and the axial Ward identity (33) is satisfied as expected.

Let us consider finally the only axial Ward identity which is not automatically satisfied in this scheme. For the graph in Fig. 1 one has

$`a_A^{MS}(fig.1)=({\displaystyle \frac{2449}{270}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1072v}{81}})N_fa^2`$
$`b_\psi ^{MS}(fig.1)=({\displaystyle \frac{2519}{270}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1072v}{81}})N_fa^2`$
$`a_\psi ^{MS}(fig.1)=0`$
The corresponding $`K_\mu `$ insertion gives $`a_{\chi A}^{MS}(fig.1)=\frac{77a}{5}`$ (see eq.(3)) so that in the minimal scheme the axial Ward identity (33) is not satisfied

$`(a_Aa_\psi +b_\psi \rho a_{\chi A})^{MS}(fig.1)=3N_fa^2`$ (37)
and the non-minimal counterterms in (23) must be added to restore (33).

To obtain the bare action in the BMHV scheme, one can use the values found for $`S_W`$ as renormalization conditions at the Wilsonian scale. The result is simply phrased: it is sufficient to replace $`\eta `$ and $`\eta _1`$ in (2) with $`\gamma ^5`$. In fact, if $`\eta `$ or $`\eta _1`$ belongs to an open fermionic line of a $`1PI`$ graph, anticommuting it through the gamma matrices of the fermionic lines one uses only the relations in the first line of (2), which agree with (20) after replacing $`\eta `$ and $`\eta _1`$ with $`\gamma ^5`$. If $`\eta `$ or $`\eta _1`$ belongs to an open fermionic line of a $`1PI`$ graph, it gives the same as in the case in which it is replaced by $`\gamma ^5`$, due to the last line in (2).

The correspondence between the bare actions in these two schemes is not always so simple; in presence of more than one chiral vertex the BMHV scheme produces many finite counterterms which are absent in the SNDR scheme; the difference is due to the fact that $`tr\eta _1^2=0`$ in SNDR (see (2)) whereas $`tr(\gamma ^5)^2=4`$ in BMHV; see for instance the Yukawa model in the BMHV scheme  and in the SNDR scheme .

Our results agree with those in , after the changes due to conventions, provided one makes the minimal choice for $`Z_{\chi A}`$. Similarly for the anomalous dimensions. In the BMHV scheme it is possible to make this minimal choice, whereas one cannot make minimal subtraction of the axial current, since the one-loop finite counterterm $`4aA_\mu J_\mu ^5`$ in the bare action necessary to satisfy the axial Ward identity cannot be replaced by the term $`\frac{4}{N_f}\chi _\mu J_\mu ^5`$ without violating the classical limit of the operator $`K_\mu `$.

On the other hand in the SNDR scheme it is possible to make the minimal subtraction either on $`K_\mu `$ or on $`J_\mu ^5`$, to all orders in perturbation theory.

Let us review the tricks used in  to perform this computation. To compute the one-loop finite counterterm for the axial current, comparison between the axial and the vector vertices is made, as suggested in . To compute the two-loop finite counterterm the same trick cannot be used in the case of the singlet axial current, due to fact that the graph in Figure 1 has no counterpart in the vector vertex. To fix this finite counterterm, instead of checking directly the axial Ward identity on the axial vertex at two loops, the three-loop computation of $`<_\mu J_\mu ^5V_\nu V_\rho >`$ has been made in , obtaining these two-loop finite terms by consistency with the Adler-Bardeen theorem.

## 4 Conclusion

The SNDR scheme is a consistent extension of the BMHV dimensional regularization and renormalization scheme, which has been introduced to reduce the number of spurious anomalies present in the latter scheme.

As a preliminary investigation in gauge theories with chiral couplings, in this letter we have applied the SNDR scheme to the renormalization of the axial current in QED. In this case there is only one chiral vertex, so that there are few spurious anomalies, which have been determined in the BMHV scheme in , together with the three-loop anomalous dimension of the singlet axial current in QCD. We find agreement with these results in the QED case. The correspondence between the SNDR and the BMHV scheme is in this case so easy that it can be made even at the bare action level. As expected, we found that it is easier to satisfy the axial Ward identity in the SNDR scheme than in the BMHV scheme. These computational advantages are expected to be much greater in the case of chiral gauge theories, which have been renormalized systematically in the BMHV scheme only at one loop .