text:
# Another Faint UV Object Associated with a Globular Cluster X-Ray Source: The Case of M921footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555

## 1 Introduction

Despite their rarity, it is the exotic creatures that attract the crowds at the zoo; similarly the exotic objects in the stellar zoo attract our attention. Unusual environments often lead to relatively large populations of the exotic. So it is with the cores of the Galactic Globular Cluster (GGCs), which have long been thought to harbor a variety of exotic objects—blue stragglers, low mass X-ray binaries, cataclysmic variables, millisecond pulsars, etc. Most of these objects are thought to result from various kinds of binary systems whose nature and even existence can be strongly affected by dynamics in the dense cluster cores.

When a binary system contains a compact object (like a neutron star or white dwarf) and a close enough secondary, mass transfer can take place. The streaming gas, its impact on the compact object, or the presense of an accretion disk can give such systems observational signatures which make them stand out above ordinary cluster stars. These signatures might include X-ray emission, significant radiation in the ultraviolet (UV), emission lines, or rapid time variations. The first evidence for such objects in globular clusters was the discovery of X-ray sources. One population of X-ray sources with $`L_X>10^{34.5}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ (the so-called Low Mass X-ray Binaries, LMXB) are thought to be binary systems with an accreting neutron star because of their X-ray bursts. LMXBs are very overabundant (a factor 100) in GGCs with respect to the field, presumably because the high stellar density has led to many capture binaries.

Given the existence of neutron star systems in GGCs one might expect to find many more analogous systems involving white dwarfs (WDs). In the field, binary systems in which a WD is accreting material from a late type dwarf, i.e., a main sequence or subgiant star, are observed cataclysmic variables (CVs). CVs are well-studied objects in the field, where they are thought to form by the evolution of primordial binaries. They come in many varieties depending on stellar masses, mass transfer rates, magnetic field strength, etc. In GGCs one can expect even more variety because CVs located in dense clusters could have been created by dynamical processes (Hut & Verbunt, 1983, Bailyn 1995), while the CVs in low-density clusters result from primordial binary systems (Verbunt & Meylan 1988).

Numerical simulations (e.g., DiStefano & Rappaport 1994) suggest that $`>100`$ white dwarf binaries might be found in massive clusters like 47 Tuc and $`\omega `$ Cen, and several 10’s in more typical clusters. Despite the expectation of large numbers of CV like stars, searches have turned up only a relatively small number. Of course, part of the problem arises because of the difficulty of search for rather faint objects in crowded globular cluster fields. However, exploiting the high resolution of HST, it has become possible to search GGC centers for several of the anticipated CV signatures. Still the number of candidates is small:

* More than 30 low luminosity X-ray sources with $`L_x<10^{34.5}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ (hereafter LLGCXs) have been discovered in 19 GGCs (Johnston & Verbunt 1994). Despite their relatively large numbers there is no consensus model for LLGCXs (see Verbunt et al. 1994) and Hasinger, Johnston & Verbunt 1996). The fainter LLGCXs ($`L_x<10^{32}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$) might well be associated with CVs (van Paradijs (1983), Hertz & Grindlay, 1983).
* There are three objects connected with conventionally detected CVs: a dwarf nova in M5 (Margon, Downes & Gunn 1981); HST UV detections of optical counterparts to a dwarf nova in 47 Tuc (Paresce & DeMarchi 1994) and possibly the historical nova in M80 (Shara & Drissen 1995)
* Using HST, H$`\alpha `$ emission has been observed from three objects in NGC 6397 (Cool et al. 1995), and two objects in NGC 6752 (Bailyn et al. 1996).
* Also using HST, a number of candidate CVs have been selected on the basis of UV excess and variability: the Einstein dim source in 47 Tuc (Paresce, De Marchi & Ferraro 1992) and few CVs candidates in NGC 6624 (Sosin & Cool 1995).

We are involved in two long-term HST projects to study in detail the evolved populations in a sample of GGCs, at different wavelengths ranging from the UV to the near IR. Although we were not specifically hunting for CVs, we have used the UV exposures to search for exotic objects in the core of GGCs. This search has been very fruitful: in our data-base (9 clusters) we have found in all GGCs properly observed (with exposures deep enough and in the right UV bands) there is at least one faint object with a strong UV excess with respect to the main stellar population of the cluster). These stars are brighter in the UV than in the visible, so we will refer to them as UV-dominant (UVD). We wish to carefully distinguish between these objects and objects which are called ‘UV-excess’ objects on the basis of their colors in the visible or perhaps near UV. Previously we have reported on three UVD stars in the GGC M13 (Ferraro et al. 1997). Two of these objects have been found to lie within the error boxes of LLGCXs (Fox et al. 1996), and we argue that they are excellent CV candidates. Here we report on the discovery of another faint UVD star in the core of M92, and we suggest that this star is physically connected to the X-ray emission detected in the cluster.

## 2 Observations

HST-WFPC2 frames were obtained on December 1995 (Cycle 5 : GO 5969, PI: F. Fusi Pecci). We report here results obtained using the deep exposures (3600 sec and 2200 sec) through the U (F336W) and mid-UV (F255W) filters, respectively. The CMDs presented here are results of the four WFPC2 chips (namely PC1, WF2, WF3, WF4), obtained with the PC located on the cluster center (some further discussion of these results can be found in Ferraro et al. 1997, 1998).

All the reductions have been carried out using ROMAFOT (Buonanno et al 1983), a package specifically developed to perform accurate photometry in crowded fields. In order to identify the objects in each field we used the median frame, obtained by combining all single exposures in each color. The PSF-fitting procedure was then performed on each individual frame separately and the instrumental magnitudes were then averaged. The instrumental magnitudes have been converted to fixed aperture photometry and where appropriate calibrated to the Johnson system using equation 8 and Table 7 in Holtzmann et al. (1995). F255W magnitudes have been calibrated to the STMAG system using table 9 by Holtzmann et al. (1995).

In this paper we adopt for M92 a distance modulus $`(mM)_0=14.78`$ from Ferraro et al. (1999a) who have recently determined moduli for a sample of 61 GGCs within the framework of an homogeneous re-analysis of the evolved sequences of the CMD.

## 3 Results

Figure 1 shows the $`(m_{255},m_{255}U)`$-CMD for the global sample of stars detected in all the four WFPC2 chips. More than 20,000 stars have been measured in these filters in the global WFPC2 Field of View. Inspection of this diagram shows that a few (5) blue low luminosity objects lie significantly outside the main loci defined by the majority of the cluster stars. Four of them are clumped at $`(m_{255}U)1`$, and one object (namely star $`\mathrm{\#}8203`$) shows a very strong UV color $`(m_{255}U)<1.5`$. This object is at only $`15\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}7`$ from the cluster center (assumed at $`\alpha _{2000}=17^\mathrm{h}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}17}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}07}\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}3,\delta _{2000}=43\mathrm{°}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}08}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$, Djorgovski & Meylan 1993), just outside the core radius of the cluster ($`r_c=14^{\prime \prime }`$). It is located at the extreme Northern edge of the PC chip. This region is still very crowded, and the UV star is close (less than $`1^{\prime \prime }`$) to an HB star and a very bright giant ($`V12.8`$) which is heavily saturated in the $`V`$ and $`I`$ deep exposures. Hence, only measures in the $`F255W`$ and $`U`$ filters are possible.

The possible variability of the UV source was examined by analyzing each available frame separately. No clear indication of variability was revealed from this analysis, but we cannot strongly exclude this possibility since our observations do not have much time coverage.

Fox et al. (1996) recently presented ROSAT High Resolution Imager (HRI) observations of M92 and identified 7 low luminosity X-ray sources in the field of view of the cluster. In particular, they drew attention to the X-ray source found in the core, M92C (hereafter M92X-C). M92X-C is only $`17^{\prime \prime }`$ from the cluster center and has a high probability ($`99.8\%`$) of being associated with the cluster. The LLGCX is also located at the Northern edge of the PC in our HST field of view just in the region where the UV star has been detected. Figure 2 shows a region of $`30{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 30^{\prime \prime }`$ centered on the nominal position of the M92X-C. The contours of the X-ray emission (from Figure 2 by Fox et al. ) have been overplotted on a digital map of the $`F255W`$ image. The absolute positions, the observed magnitude and the X-ray flux for the UV star and the X-ray source are listed in Table 1. Note that the X-ray luminosity has been properly scaled in order to take into account the different distance modulus adopted here with respect to that used by Fox et al. (1996).

Because the UV object is $`4.5^{\prime \prime }`$ from the nominal position of the X-ray emission, we strongly suggest a physical connection between the two. Note that the 4 UV objects located in the CMD at $`(m_{255}U)1`$ are much more distant ($`d>37^{\prime \prime }`$) from the X-ray source.

## 4 Discussion

Faint UV stars (similar to UV8203) have been discovered in the core of other GGCs, and some of them have been found to be nearly coincident with X-ray sources. The discovery reported in this paper makes the possibility of a chance coincidence of UV objects with the X-ray sources appear even less likely. With the strengthening evidence for a (physical) connection between UV objects and LLGCXs, it is appropriate to compare the photometric properties of a sample of faint UV stars found in the vicinity of LLGCX in GGCs. In doing this we select some of the most recent findings:

M13— Ferraro et al. (1997) using deep UV-HST observations found three extremely blue, low luminosity objects in the very central region of M13. Two of them are nearly coincident with the two-peaked X-ray emission detected by Fox et al (1996).

M5— V101 in M5 was discovered by Oosterhoff (1941), who first suggested that it could be a CV (dwarf nova). Spectroscopic (Margon, Downes & Gunn 1981 and Naylor et al. 1989) and photometric observations (Shara, Potter & Moffat 1987) confirmed this suggestion. Hakala et al. (1997) detected X-ray emission associated with this object using using the ROSAT-HRI.

M80— Shara & Drissen (1995) have found two UV objects in the globular cluster M80, one of them might be associated with T Sco, a nova observed in 1860. This object might be connected with a LLGCX located at $`8^{\prime \prime }`$ from the UV object, although, as suggested by Hakala et al. (1997), the position from the ROSAT PSPC is not accurate enough for a definitive identification.

NGC 6397— Cool et al. (1998, C98) found a population of 7 UV stars in the core of NGC6397. They divided the UV star sample in two subgroups: 4 stars showing variability and UV excess (in the sense that they appear to be blue in the $`U`$ band but are indistinguishable from MS stars in the $`V,VI`$ plane), and three non-variable UV excess stars which are significantly hotter than the main-sequence in all observed CMD planes. They call this second class ‘nonflickerers’ (NF). The four variable stars are all within the ROSAT HRI X-ray error circle and have been confirmed to be CVs (Cool et al. 1995, Edmonds et al. 1999). However, they noted that “…two out three NFs are outside the error circles of the three central X-ray sources detected with ROSAT by Cool et al. (1993).” While C98 claimed that the NF stars were a new class of faint UV stars, it is worth noting that they are very similar to the three UV stars found one year before in M13 by Ferraro et al. (1997).

47 Tuc— At least two objects with a strong UV excess have been identified in the error box of X-ray source in the center of 47 Tuc: V1 (Paresce, DeMarchi & Ferraro 1992) and V2 (a blue variable discovered by Paresce & DeMarchi 1994 (see also Shara et al. 1996). V1 lies within the error circle of the X-ray source $`X0021.87221`$ detected by Einstein (Bailyn et al. 1988) and in the vicinity of a low luminosity X-ray source (X9 in Table 2 of Verbunt & Hasinger 1998). Verbunt & Hasinger (1998) also identified V2 as a candidate optical counterpart of their source X19.

NGC 6752— Bailyn et al. (1996) report the identification of two candidate CVs in NGC 6752. Both stars fall at the edge of the error circle of the X-ray source identified as B by Grindlay & Cool (1996) (flux given in Grindlay 1993). These stars are plotted as empty circles in Figure 3. Contrary to the behavior shown by all the other objects candidates they have a quite strong rise up toward red wavelengths suggesting that these objects have quite different spectral characteristics with respect to the other objects listed above. Their position in the CMD (see Figure 3 by Bailyn et al) resemble the CVs found by C98 in NGC 6397, however observations at wavelength shorter than $`B`$ are needed in order to better constrain the spectral behavior of these stars. For these reasons we exclude them from the following discussion.

The absolute magnitude in different photometric bands for the 10 UV stars possibly connected with X-ray emission in the 8 GGCs quoted above are listed in Table 2. Also reported are the adopted distance moduli and reddening from Ferraro et al. (1999b). Note that the distance moduli adopted typically differ from earlier papers, for example, for NGC 6397 is $`\mathrm{\Delta }(mM)_V0.2`$ mag larger than that adopted by Cool et al. (1998). All the absolute magnitudes and X-ray luminosities in Table 1 have been corrected accordingly. Note also that the X-ray fluxes were determined over different energy ranges which are given in the last column.

In Figure 3 we plot the absolute magnitude for each star listed in Table 2 as a function of the filter’s effective wavelength. In the figure different symbols refer to different clusters: open triangles for M13; filled circles for M92, asterisks for M80, empty pentagons for 47 Tuc, large $`X`$ for M5 and dashed lines for the three CVs in NGC 6397. For comparison the energy distribution for the field CV U Gem is plotted as an heavy solid line. Figure 3 provides an easy way to make quantitative comparison. In particular, all of the UV selected stars show the same overall spectral trend, and we conclude that some of the photometric properties of faint UVD stars associated with LLGCXs are in reasonable agreement with each other and U Gem. It is interesting to note that the slope of UV8203 in M92 and V101 in M5 appear to be steeper than the others, however far-UV observations are required in order to confirm this impression.

Though small, the sample listed in Table 2 can still be used to derive some average properties of these objects, for example the absolute $`V,B,U`$ magnitude, and $`UV`$, $`UB`$ colors which are used to characterize CVs in the field. From the data in Table 2 these figures turn to be: $`M_V=6.7\pm 0.8`$, $`M_B=7.0\pm 0.7`$, $`M_U=5.9\pm 1.0`$, $`UB=1.1\pm 0.3`$ and $`UV=1.0\pm 0.5`$, respectively. These figures are in good agreement with the typical absolute magnitude and colors for CVs in the field ($`M_V+7`$, for the dwarf novae CVs; see van Paradijs 1983).

We may push our working hypothesis that the UVD objects are physically associated with the X-ray sources further. The X-ray luminosity of each source is listed in the penultimate column of Table 2. As can be seen they have comparable X-ray luminosity, within the range 1–$`8\times 10^{32}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ (with a mean value of $`L_x=4\pm 3\times 10^{32}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$).

We can compare the observed photometric characteristics of the UV objects found in GGCs with those obtained for field CVs using the values listed in Table 2 along with data from Table 1 of the recent compilation by Verbunt et al. 1997 (hereafter V97) who presented a catalog with 91 CVs in the field detected during the ROSAT All Sky Survey. The upper panel of Figure 4 shows the absolute $`V`$ magnitude as a function of the X-ray luminosity for all field CVs with known distances listed by V97. These are plotted as small empty triangles. The 6 UVD stars found in GGCs for which the $`V`$ magnitude has been measured are plotted as large filled circles. The $`V`$ magnitude for the 4 stars for which no $`V`$ magnitude was directly measured has been computed from $`M_U`$ assuming a mean color $`UV=1`$ (see above). These are plotted as large asterisks. The lower panel shows the X-ray luminosity distribution for the GGC objects (shaded histogram) compared with the distribution for the field CVs. This figure clearly shows that while the absolute $`V`$ magnitude for the candidates in clusters are fully consistent with the field CVs, the X-ray emission for CVs in GGCs seems systematically higher (as already suggested by Ferraro et al. 1997, see also Figure 4 in Verbunt & Hasinger 1998) indicating that the X-ray luminosity of objects found in GGCs is high relative to the visible compared to similar objects in the field.

There is a strong observational selection effect at work in Figure 4. The depth reached by the X-ray observations is typically only a factor of two or three below the level of the detected sources. The deepest is for NGC 6397 (Cool et al. 1993) which reaches $`L_x=3\times 10^{31}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$. Dashed lines in Figure 4 show the maximum depth reached in surveys for UVD stars/LLGCXs in M13, M92, & NGC 6397. Figure 8 of V97 shows that the vast majority of field CVs of all types are less luminous than this. A comparison of the $`M_V`$ for the optically identified LLGCXs with typical values from Warner (1987) shows that current optical surveys would also have missed many field CVs if they were located in GGCs. The relatively high $`L_x`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ for LLGCXs could arise solely because that is all that surveys to date could detect.

This bias has important consequences. Hakala et al. (1997) used the high $`L_x/L_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ value of T Sco in M80 to argue that it was not associated with the candidate object suggested by Shara & Drissen. However, we now see that $`L_x/L_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is systematically higher for GGC CVs as compared to their field sisters, and thus, the Hakala et al. argument is not valid.

Only the three field CVs with highest $`L_x`$ are consistent with the GGC CV candidates in Figure 4. These are the DQ Her systems V1223 Sgr, AO Psc and TV Col. These are strongly magnetic CVs of a class referred to as intermediate polars (IP). Grindlay (1999) suggests that IPs might dominate the ROSAT survey since they are expected to have a ratio $`F_x/F_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ greater than non-magnetic CVs. The problem with connecting the UVD stars with magnetic CVs is that the magnetic field might truncate the inner portion of the accretion disk (Grindlay 1999). Thus, MCVs might not be expected to have strong UV-excess.

It is worth noting that the V97 $`L_x`$ distributions for field dwarf novae (SU UMa, Z Cam, U Gem stars) are based on small samples (11, 7, 7) and still span one to two orders of magnitudes. Larger samples could well reach into the range observed in GGCs. Indeed, since we could well be observing the bright end of a sample of several tens of assorted types of CVs in a GGC, the large observed values of $`L_x`$ probably do not provide a significant constraint on CV types.

Perhaps the most solid detection of CVs in a GGC are those in NGC 6397 (Edmonds et al. 1999; C98). There are several indications of mass exchange: H$`\alpha `$ emission, X-ray radiation, spectra with emission lines, and time variability or flickering of the optical radiation. The colors of these objects become redder as the wavelength of filters employed increases. This suggests in, for example, $`V`$ and $`I`$ the light from the cool secondary dominates a rather weak accretion disk. This is one of the factors which led Edmonds et al. (1999) and Grindlay (1999) to associate these objects with the intermediate polar class of magnetic CV. The CVs in NGC 6752 are probably similar objects.

The UVD objects are clearly not this sort of creature. Many have properties one might expect from a generic CV, i.e., white dwarf/main sequence binaries with some mass exchange. They share many properties with some field CVs—X-ray luminosity, UV colors, absolute visual magnitudes. The facts that they tend to lie at the extremes of the distributions and that some do not have detected X-radiation may simply be a consequence of the rather low sensitivity of current surveys. In this scenario the difference between the UV dominant CVs and those in NGC 6397 is simply a matter of the relative importance of light from the secondary and the accretion disk. For the GGC UVD stars, as with most CVs in the field, the accretion disk significantly outshines the secondary star (see for example Figure 2.16–2.17 in Warner 1995).

What other options are there? It might be tempting to extend either the horizontal branch (HB) or white dwarf (WD) sequences into the region of the UVD stars. However, the HB terminates at the helium burning main sequence. Particularly for M13 where the observed HB extends almost to its termination, we see that the UVD stars are significantly fainter (Figure 1 of Ferraro et al. 1997). The ordinary, i.e., carbon/oxygen, WD sequence is well observed, for instance, in M 4 and all the observed WDs are fainter than $`M_U8.5`$ (see Figure 6 by Richer et al. 1997), $`1`$ mag. fainter than the faintest UVD in Table 2. So the UVD stars are not HB stars or carbon/oxygen white dwarfs.

Edmonds et al. (1999) have shown that at least one UVD star is not a CV. Their HST-FOS spectrum of one of the NF-UV objects identified by C98 in NGC 6397 suggests a very hot high gravity object. They argue that this is a low mass ($`0.25M_{}`$) helium white dwarf. Such an object could arise from either mass exchange in a binary system shortly after the primary leaves the main sequence or via stellar collisions. The object has a velocity of $`250\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ relative to the cluster CVs which is most easily explained if it still is in a binary system with a dark companion. (It might be worth noting that NGC 6397 is a post-core-collapse cluster with a very dense core, whereas the UVD objects we have found are in the moderate density clusters M13 & M92.) Could He WDs account for all GGC UVD stars? This is certainly not the case for the objects in M5, M80, & 47 Tuc which have shown variability consistent with known CV types. He WDs would not produce X-rays in significant quantities. The chance association of three LLGCXs with such rare objects as the UVD objects we have found in M13 & M92 would seem unlikely.

## 5 Conclusions

We have now identified three UV dominant objects which appear to be associated with X-ray sources in the GGCs M13 and M92. We argue that these are generically CVs, i.e., white dwarf/main sequence binaries with some mass exchange. They share many properties with some field CVs—X-ray luminosity, UV colors, absolute visual magnitudes—although they tend to lie at the extremes of the distributions. The relatively high optical, UV, & X-ray luminosities are consistent with the notion that current surveys do not reach deep enough to detect most of the CVs in GGCs. On the other hand, cluster CVs are older and live in a dramatically different environment from their sisters in the field. Thus, it seems reasonable that cluster objects might be a new class of CVs with properties which slightly differ from those in the field.

The CVs found in NGC 6397 and NGC 6752 differ significantly from our objects. Some of these have little or no UV excess. This should not be surprising. The searches in NGC 6397 and NGC 6752 relied on H$`\alpha `$ and $`R`$ band, whereas we used the UV. There is considerable variety in the properties of field CVs and no reason to suspect less variety in GGC CVs. Different search techniques operating at the margin of detectability will certainly turn up different kinds of objects.

The UVD objects in GGCs probably come in several varieties. (Our GGC projects do not seem to come up with simple answers.) Edmonds et al. (1999) have shown that one is a hot high gravity object, arguablly a He-WD. Still we suspect that most of these will turn out to be CVs, and that many UVD objects with no X-radiation detected to date will show up as LLGCXs in more sensitive X-ray surveys. This suspicion is fueled by the belief that a significant population of generic CVs must be present in GGCs.

We have yet to make an observation directly showing the hot diffuse gas which would be the definitive evidence that our UVD objects are CVs. HST STIS spectra could give such evidence. It would be extremely valuable to develop a technique to identify GGC CVs using UV photometry. Cluster cores are very congested in the red and H$`\alpha `$/$`R`$ band searches will obviously be incomplete because of the interference by bright red giants (see Figure 2 of Bailyn et al. 1996). On the other hand the core of even the densest clusters are relatively open in the UV (see Figure 1 of Ferraro et al. 1999b)

This research was partially supported by the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) and by the MURST as part of the project Dynamics and Stellar Evolution in Globular Clusters. F. R. F. acknowledges the ESO Visiting Program for the hospitality. R. T. R. is supported in part by NASA Long Term Space Astrophysics Grant NAG 5-6403 and STScI/NASA Grant GO-6607.


format: text

text:
# 1 The “setting-sun” diagram. The external lines are not amputated. The fifth coordinate of each point, as indicated on the first row below the diagram, corresponds to the case where 1/"/"p (eq. ()) occurs on the rightmost line, and the leftmost point is far off the boundary. This yields eq. (). The second row corresponds to eq. ().

March 2000 TAUP–2626–00

New Domain-Wall Fermion Actions

Yigal Shamir

School of Physics and Astronomy
Beverly and Raymond Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences
Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978 ISRAEL
shamir@post.tau.ac.il

ABSTRACT

> In perturbation theory, the wave function of domain-wall quarks decreases exponentially with the fifth coordinate. We show that, regardless of the quark’s own momentum, the fall-off rate of the one-loop wave function is equal to the slowest rate encountered at tree-level for any lattice four-momentum. We propose new domain-wall actions involving beyond-nearest neighbor couplings in the four physical dimensions, for which the perturbative wave function decreases much faster. It is hoped that the new actions may preserve the good chiral properties of domain-wall fermions up to larger values of the lattice spacing.

1. Introduction

The coupling of the right-handed and the left-handed components of Wilson fermions through the QCD interaction leads in the continuum limit to the chiral anomaly , but for finite lattice spacing $`a`$ it also leads to lattice-artefact violations of chiral symmetries. This results in an additive renormalization of the quark mass, as well as in a severe tuning problem for four-fermion operators which are needed for the computation of weak matrix elements. The mass renormalization is $`O(g_0^2)`$ in lattice units. Since $`g_0^2(\mathrm{log}(a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}))^1`$, the mass renormalization diverges like $`(a\mathrm{log}(a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}))^1`$ in the continuum limit $`a0`$. In the challenging lattice calculation of non-leptonic kaon decays (e.g. $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$) the tuning problem is formidable because of the large number of chirality-disallowed mixings.

In the domain-wall formulation of lattice QCD \[2-6\], the two chiral components arise as surface states on opposite boundaries of a five-dimensional lattice, and one expects their coupling to vanish when the size of the fifth dimension tends to infinity. (The fifth coordinate will be denoted $`s`$, and it takes values $`0sN_s1`$.) A precise non-perturbative characterization of chiral symmetry violations can be given in terms of the transfer matrix for hopping in the $`s`$-direction . Being the result of slow decay of correlations in the $`s`$-direction, chiral symmetry violations are associated with near-unity eigenvalues of that transfer matrix. For a given gauge-field configuration the approach to the chiral limit is exponential iff the spectrum of the transfer matrix has a gap, and the fall-off rate is determined by the size of the gap.

In full QCD there are several analytic results concerning the $`N_s\mathrm{}`$ limit. The approach to the chiral limit is exponential in perturbation theory , and the same is true non-perturbatively if a constrained gauge action (believed to be in the same universality class as the standard plaquette action) is used .

For an unconstrained action one can also prove non-perturbatively that chiral symmetry is restored in the limit $`N_s\mathrm{}`$, provided the (finite!) number of sites in each of the four physical lattice dimensions is held fixed . When near-unity eigenvalues start playing a significant role, the chiral limit may be approached as slow as $`1/N_s`$. The proof that certain symmetries are restored in the limit $`N_s\mathrm{}`$ is actually valid for any value of the coupling constant. But the identification of the restored symmetries as chiral ones depends on the fermion spectrum. It was recently shown  that within the strong-coupling expansion the massless spectrum of the domain-wall lattice hamiltonian is either doubled or empty. Therefore the restored symmetries are not chiral at strong coupling (For further details see Appendix C.1).

Of major importance is the question of how close to the chiral limit one gets in Monte-Carlo simulations. In trying to answer this question we rely on two sources. The first is the spectrum of the transfer matrix, or of the closely-related  hermitian Wilson-Dirac operator. In the latter case, a key finding  is that the spectral density of near-zero modes (corresponding to near-unity eigenvalues of the transfer matrix) rises by two orders of magnitude as the (quenched) coupling changes from $`6/g^2\beta =6.3`$ ($`a^14\mathrm{GeV}`$) to $`\beta =5.7`$ ($`a^11\mathrm{GeV}`$). We hope that more results on the eigenvalue spectrum will be available in the future.

More information is available through lattice computations of various correlation functions \[13-20\]. A detailed numerical study of the chiral limit of domain-wall fermions was first carried out in the Schwinger model . In QCD the first domain-wall simulations were promising, and the results for weak matrix elements ($`B_K`$, $`O_{LL}`$)  and for the strange-quark mass  were in agreement with other methods. As of today more data is available. The pion-mass squared, which should extrapolate linearly to zero with the quark mass, is the most obvious measure of chiral symmetry. Using domain-wall fermions at quenched $`\beta =6.0`$ ($`a^12\mathrm{GeV}`$) the extrapolated pion mass (for $`N_s20`$) does not vanish exactly at zero quark mass but, rather, at a negative value of the order of few times $`10^3`$ in lattice units  (see also ref. ). This value, however small, is in the same range as the light quark masses.

In a sense, chiral symmetry violations are worst for the pion mass, because the lattice-artefact term in the PCAC relation is an ensemble average of a positive fermion correlator (see Appendix C.1; we comment that that lattice-artefact term is a better measure of chiral symmetry violation compared to the extrapolated pion mass, since it does not suffers from theoretical uncertainties due to chiral perturbation theory and due to finite-volume effects).

No such positivity is encountered in the calculation of weak matrix elements , so chiral symmetry violations are expected to be smaller in this case. For example, in a recent simulation of four-fermion operators using the non-perturbative renormalization scheme, again at quenched $`\beta =6.0`$, and using $`N_s=16`$, it was found  that mixing into wrong-chirality operators was practically zero (in comparison with 10% for Wilson fermions in a typical example).

Going to a smaller value of the inverse lattice spacing, the situation at $`a^11\mathrm{GeV}`$ is unsatisfactory, as deviations from chiral symmetry are significant even for $`N_s`$ as large as 50 or 100 (in both quenched and dynamical simulations) . In the opposite direction, at $`a^1>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\mathrm{GeV}`$, no difficulties with the restoration of chiral symmetry have been reported .

We believe that the existing results, especially those for weak matrix elements at $`a^12\mathrm{GeV}`$, do represent a breakthrough compared to the “pre domain-wall era”. On the other hand, the results for the pion mass at $`a^12\mathrm{GeV}`$ are not as good as one would hope for, and the present situation at $`a^11\mathrm{GeV}`$ makes scaling studies with domain-wall fermions very difficult.

Having summarized the situation in Monte-Carlo simulations let us return to the underlying physics. The key question is what mechanism(s) determine the abundance of near-unity eigenvalues of the transfer matrix. It is known that a few exact-unity eigenvalues must occur during the transition from one topological sector to another on a finite lattice with periodic boundary conditions . We believe, however, that the role of topology changing has been over-emphasized, for topological considerations alone do not explain the proliferation of near-unity eigenvalues nor the magnitude of the ensuing chiral symmetry violations.

A simple explanation may be that the observed chiral symmetry violations arise (mainly) from generic fluctuations of the gauge field . The effect of fluctuations need not be small, because the coupling constant used in simulations is not small either. At the same time, as long as the coupling constant has not grown too much, perturbation theory should provide a reliable approximation of the leading quantum effects.

In this paper we calculate the fifth coordinate’s wave function of domain-wall quarks in the one-loop approximation (Sec. 2). The results lead us to consider new classes of domain-wall actions (Sec. 3). A preliminary account of this work was given in ref. . (An alternative/complementary approach, whose relative merits are discussed in Sec. 4, is to employ an improved gauge action .)

We now give an overview of the one-loop calculation. For large $`N_s`$, zero bare quark mass and with the right-handed quark field near the $`s=0`$ boundary, the dressed fermion propagator near that boundary is

$$G_{s,s^{}}(p)=P_+\chi (s)\frac{1}{i/p(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_K)}\chi (s^{})+\mathrm{Reg}.,s,s^{}N_s,$$
(1.1)
where $`P_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)`$, “Reg” stands for a continuous function of the four-momentum $`p`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(g^2,g^2\mathrm{log}(p^2))`$. A unique feature of the domain-wall scheme is $`\chi (s)`$, the $`s`$-coordinate wave function for (right-handed) quark modes. At tree level one has

$$\chi _0(s)q_0^s(1M)^s.$$
(1.2)
(The five-dimensional mass term $`M`$ is often referred to as the domain-wall height, and should not be confused with the quark mass .) By choosing $`M=1`$ the free wave function can be completely localized on the boundary

$$\chi _0(s)=\underset{M1}{lim}(1M)^s=\delta _{s,0}.$$
(1.3)
The result of the one-loop calculation of the wave function is

$$\chi _1(s)s^2q_1^s,$$
(1.4)
which contains also a power correction. Like an ordinary Wilson mass, $`M`$ is renormalized additively. Making an optimal choice of $`M`$ we find

$$q_1=0.5.$$
(1.5)
It should be noted that the difference between $`q_0`$ and $`q_1`$ is $`O(1)`$. In the full one-loop result (eqs. (2.3) to (2.9) below) $`g^2`$ occurs as a pre-factor of relatively little importance.

Let us now explain the physical origin of $`q_1`$. Consider the free domain-wall propagator $`G_{s,s^{}}^0(p)`$ for a given four-momentum $`p`$ in the vicinity of the $`s=0`$ boundary at zero quark mass. The $`s`$-correlations described by this propagator are controlled by an exponent $`\alpha (p)`$. Each term in the propagator involves a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(d\alpha (p))`$ where $`d`$ stands for either the separation $`|ss^{}|`$ or the sum of distances from the boundary $`s+s^{}`$. For the standard domain-wall action one has $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )\}=0.5`$ for $`M=1`$ where the maximum over the Brillouin zone is obtained at the “corner” $`p_\pi =(\pi ,0,0,0)`$ and its three permutations. We will denote the set of global maxima by $`𝒫`$.

Now, at tree level, a fermion eigenmode with momentum $`p`$ propagates independently of all other eigenmodes. But for any non-zero gauge coupling the fermions propagate in non-trivial backgrounds, and these backgrounds allow any given momentum eigenmode to couple to all momentum eigenmodes. In particular, small-momentum quark modes couple to modes with $`p𝒫`$.

We arrive at the following physical picture. A four-dimensional fermion mode created on a given $`s`$-layer mixes on that layer with the modes of $`𝒫`$ through the gauge field. As a mode with $`p𝒫`$, the fermion propagates with minimal suppression to some other layer $`s^{}`$, where the action of the gauge field turns it back into the original mode. Propagation in the $`s`$-direction is therefore dominated by the modes of $`𝒫`$ leading to

$$q_1=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha (p))\}.$$
(1.6)
For $`M=1`$ this reduces to eq. (1.5). If we would momentarily regard the fifth direction as an imaginary-time direction, the above is recognized as the familiar result that propagation is always dominated by the lightest excitation in any given channel. The domain-wall case is particularly simple in that the gauge field is independent of the $`s`$-coordinate.

Under certain conditions (basically that the coupling constant is not too large, see Appendix C.2 for a more detailed discussion) it should be possible to describe the results of numerical simulations too in terms of an effective wave function $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)s^{1\delta }q_{\mathrm{eff}}^s`$. This means that every quark’s wave function is assumed to be the product of a four-dimensional wave function and the universal fifth-coordinate wave function $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$. The exponential fall-off rate is accounted for by $`q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. At relatively weak coupling ($`a^1>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\mathrm{GeV}`$) there seems to be no problem with the restoration of chiral symmetry, suggesting that $`q_{\mathrm{eff}}<1`$. For $`a^12\mathrm{GeV}`$, the rate at which chiral symmetry is restored depends sensitively on the observable. This, as well as other indications, suggest that $`q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is very close to one, and the restoration of chiral symmetry really follows a power-law behavior. (In ref.  an estimate of $`q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ was given which, however, is unjustified because the power-law correction was ignored.) Then, at $`a^11\mathrm{GeV}`$ the notion of a universal, localized, $`s`$-coordinate wave function breaks down.

Comparing the perturbative results with the numerical data shows that, not surprisingly, the optimal tree-level value $`q_0=0`$ completely fails to describe that data. In comparison, the one-loop result $`q_1=0.5`$ lies approximately “half-way” between the tree-level value and the close-to-one values of $`q_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which seem to account for the results of simulations. Thus $`q_1`$ gives at least some indication of the actual behavior of the system.

In this paper we adopt $`q_1`$ as an analytic criterion for the quality of domain-wall actions. In Sec. 3 we consider new families of domain-wall actions involving beyond-nearest neighbor coupling. We compute the resulting $`q_1`$, and find that values much smaller than 0.5 can be achieved. Finally, in Sec. 4 we discuss the relevance of our results to numerical simulations.

Some technicalities of the one-loop calculation are relegated to Appendix A. Higher order corrections are briefly discussed in Appendix B. An expanded discussion of some non-perturbative issues can be found in Appendix C.

2. The one-loop wave function

In this section we calculate the one-loop wave function of domain-wall quarks, relegating some of the technicalities to Appendix A. The finite-$`N_s`$ tree-level propagator and the one-loop self energy for domain-wall fermions were calculated in ref.  (see also ref. ). Here we will be interested in the range $`1sN_s`$, therefore we can use the simpler expressions for the tree-level propagator in the limit $`N_s\mathrm{}`$ . Assuming the right-handed quark is localized near the $`s=0`$ boundary, the singular part of the tree-level propagator $`G_{s,t}^0(p)`$ is

$$P_+\frac{M(2M)(1M)^{s+t}}{i/p}.$$
(2.1)
For $`M1`$ this becomes

$$P_+\frac{\delta _{s,0}\delta _{t,0}}{i/p},$$
(2.2)
which means that the massless right-handed fermion field is fully localized on the boundary layer.

The first quantum effect beyond the free theory is an additive correction, $`\delta M`$, to the five-dimensional mass $`M`$. It arises in a mean-field approximation, or in perturbation theory from tadpole diagrams. It is well known that this effect must be treated non-perturbatively . We thus discard the tadpole diagrams, absorbing them into the tree-level action via the replacement $`MM\delta M`$.

The full one-loop wave function is

$$\chi _1(s)=|1+\delta MM|^s+\delta \chi _1(s),$$
(2.3)
where $`\delta \chi _1(s)`$ comes from the “setting sun” diagram only. We will find $`\delta \chi _1(s)`$ by matching the non-analytic piece of the dressed propagators with the r.h.s. of eq. (1.1). We are interested in the behavior of $`\delta \chi _1(s)`$ when $`M`$ is close to its optimal mean-field value (see also Sec. 3). In the calculation below we thus set $`M=1+\delta M`$ in tadpole-improved perturbation theory. Since the tadpole-improved free propagator is a function of $`M\delta M`$ (and not of $`M`$ and $`\delta M`$ separately) the resulting propagator is identical to the ordinary propagator with $`M=1`$. The setting-sun diagram will therefore be computed using the expression for the ordinary tree-level propagator for $`M=1`$.

The setting-sun diagram is depicted in Fig. 1. Notice that we have not amputated the external legs . Except for $`s=t=0`$ (see (2.2)), the tree-level propagator is not singular at $`p=0`$. To obtain a contribution to the r.h.s. of eq. (1.1), at least one of the three fermion lines must coincide with expression (2.2). (The kinetic self-energy correction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$ in eq. (1.1) arises when all three lines coincide with eq. (2.2), see ref. , and will not be discussed here any further.) Assume first that the rightmost propagator in Fig. 1 coincides with eq. (2.2). Since the leftmost coordinate $`s`$ is by assumption far from the boundary, we may take the limit $`p0`$ in the expressions for the self-energy part and for the leftmost propagator. We thus arrive at

$$\delta \chi _1(s)=g^2C_2\underset{s^{}0}{}G_{s,s^{}}^{0+}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s^{},0}^+=g^2C_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s1,0}^+,$$
(2.4)
where $`C_2`$ is the quadratic Casimir and

$$G_{s,t}^{0\pm }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}P_\pm G_{s,t}^0(p=0),\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,t}^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}P_\pm \mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,t}(p=0),$$
(2.5)
and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,t}(p)`$ is the 1PI self-energy obtained by amputating the external legs in Fig. 1. In the second equality of eq. (2.4) we used the explicit expression for $`G_{s,t}^{0+}`$ far from the boundary (see Appendix A).

When substituting eq. (2.3) into eq. (1.1) we find another term, $`\delta \chi _1(s^{})`$. This term is obtained when the leftmost propagator in Fig. 1 coincides with eq. (2.2). Following similar steps we now find

$$\delta \chi _1(s^{})=g^2C_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,s^{}1}^{}.$$
(2.6)
Thanks to a “parity” symmetry (see Appendix A) one has $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,t}^+=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{t,s}^{}`$. Hence eqs. (2.4) and (2.6) agree.

It remains to compute the diagonal part of the self-energy. One can write

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,0}^+=_\pi ^{+\pi }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}h^+(k)\mathrm{exp}(s\alpha (k)).$$
(2.7)
(Note that the external momentum is zero.) The $`s`$-dependence enters through the exponential. All other factors were lumped into $`h^+(k)`$ (see Appendix A for more details). For large $`s`$, the above integral can be computed using a saddle-point approximation. As mentioned in the introduction, the global maximum of $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )`$ corresponds to the lattice momentum $`p_\pi `$ and its three permutations. In the computation we take $`h^+=h^+(p_\pi )`$ outside the integral, and expand the exponent to second order around $`p_\pi `$ where we define $`k=(\pi +k_{},\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$. Including a factor of four to account for the degeneracy of the global maximum we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,0}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}d^3k_{}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{s}{24}(7k_{}^2+k_{}^2)\right)}`$ (2.8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{54}{\pi ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}^{3/2}s^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^s}}.`$
For the fundamental representation of SU(3) one has $`C_2=4/3`$. Substituting in eq. (2.4) we finally find

$$\delta \chi _1(s)=g^2\frac{72}{\pi ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}^{3/2}(s1)^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{s1}}g^2\frac{0.788}{s^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^s,s1.$$
(2.9)
Extrapolating eq. (2.9) to smaller values of $`s`$ suggests that as soon as (or shortly after) we move off the boundary layer, $`\delta \chi _1(s)`$ dominates over the tree-level term in eq. (2.3). This is true even if $`g^2`$ is small (or had the prefactor in eq. (2.9) been numerically small). The reason is that the relative magnitude of the two terms is proportional to $`(0.5/(1+\delta MM))^s`$, and since $`1+\delta MM1`$ this grows exponentially fast.

3. New actions

We have found that the $`s`$-coordinate’s wave function of domain-wall quarks is dominated by quantum effects. The arguments of Sec. 2 show that the broadening of the wave-function is controlled, in the one-loop approximation, by the maximum of $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha (p))`$ over the Brillouin zone. This remains true for other domain-wall actions unless the $`s`$-couplings are drastically changed. So, if a different domain-wall action yields a smaller $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )\}`$, namely a faster fall-off of the wave function at the one-loop level, it is plausible that that new action also performs better non-perturbatively (we return to this issue in Sec. 4).

The standard domain-wall action contains two parameters, the domain-wall height $`M`$ and the Wilson parameter $`r`$ (which is usually set equal to one). The $`M`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )\}`$ was investigated in ref. . As mentioned in Sec. 2, however, the additive renormalization of $`M`$ must be treated non-perturbatively. The optimal value used in simulations ($`M1.8`$) is nicely consistent with mean-field estimates. We will thus assume that the numerical optimization of $`M`$ corresponds to setting $`M=1+\delta M`$ in tadpole-improved perturbation theory. Again, this means that we should determine $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )\}`$ using the tree-level action with $`M=1`$. As for the Wilson parameter, changing its value in the standard domain-wall action turns out to have little effect (see below).

We will depart from the standard domain-wall action by allowing for couplings not only between nearest neighbors. In view of the obvious increase in computer time needed for the inversion of the fermion matrix, we try to be as economic as possible in our beyond-nearest neighbor excursion. We allow only for coupling between sites $`x`$ and $`x+n\widehat{\mu }`$ (but not e.g. for coupling between $`x`$ and $`x+\widehat{\mu }+\widehat{\nu }`$ for $`\mu \nu `$). In this paper we consider explicitly $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$, namely next-nearest and next-next-nearest couplings in the same direction. Also the modifications will be restricted to the four-dimensional part of the action, leaving the coupling in the fifth direction intact. (Note that we are interested in achieving a fast fall-off in the $`s`$-direction; any attempt to generate a smoother, continuum-like, behavior in the $`s`$-direction is thus the exact opposite of what we are aiming for.)

The domain-wall operators considered here will have the following general form for zero quark mass

$$D_{s,t}^{\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{w}.}=\delta _{s,t}D+(\delta _{s+1,t}\delta _{s,t})P_++(\delta _{s1,t}\delta _{s,t})P_{},$$
(3.1)
with the understanding that on a finite lattice $`0s,tN_s1`$. The inclusion of a quark mass can be done in the usual way . The four-dimensional part of the action is

$$D(p)=i\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu f(p_\mu )rW(p)+M.$$
(3.2)
This equation gives the tree-level operator in momentum space. The generalized Wilson term $`W(p)`$ is a function of $`\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu )`$. In the kinetic term, $`f(p_\mu )`$ is an odd function of its argument, which we take to be $`\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )`$ times a polynomial in $`1\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu )`$. Later we will give explicit expressions for $`W(p)`$ and $`f(p_\mu )`$. As explained earlier we set $`M=1`$ in the tree-level action, but we will use the freedom in varying the Wilson parameter $`r`$. Our convention is that $`W(p)`$ and $`r`$ are both positive.

For any domain-wall action of the above form, the exponents $`\alpha (p)`$ are determined by

$$2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha (p))=\frac{1+B^2(p)+\underset{\mu }{}f^2(p_\mu )}{B(p)},$$
(3.3)
where $`B(p)=1M+rW(p)`$ and $`\alpha (p)0`$ by convention. ($`B(p)=rW(p)`$ for $`M=1`$; for the standard domain-wall action eq. (3.3) reduces to eq. (A.8).) Lowering the global maximum of $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha (p))`$ corresponds to raising the global minimum of eq. (3.3).

Some insight about the features that control $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ can be obtained from very general considerations. One has $`W=0`$ for $`p=0`$, and in all cases one aims for $`rW>1`$ at $`p_\pi =(\pi ,0,0,0)`$. As we gradually increase $`p_1`$ for 0 to $`\pi `$ (keeping $`p_2=p_3=p_4=0`$) at some value $`p_c=(p_{1c},0,0,0)`$ we will have $`rW=1`$. Were it not for the $`f(p_1)`$ term in eq. (3.3), at $`p_c`$ we would obtain $`\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )=1`$, namely no exponential suppression at all. To avoid this dangerous situation, we would like to have $`f^2(p_1)`$ as large as possible at $`p_1=p_{1c}`$.

Another danger lurks at the (fifteen non-zero) corners of the Brillouin zone. There, by construction, $`f(p_\mu )=0`$, and so $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )=(rW)^1`$. We will therefore also be interested in increasing $`rW`$ at the corners of the Brillouin zone.

As a warm-up exercise let us consider the effect of varying $`r`$ in the standard domain-wall action. In this case $`W=_\mu (1\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu ))`$ and $`f(p_\mu )=\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )`$. For $`r1`$, $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ occurs at $`p_\pi `$. We can increase $`rW`$ at $`p_\pi `$ by increasing $`r`$. But in that case the value $`rW=1`$ will occur at a smaller $`p_1`$, where $`\mathrm{sin}(p_1)`$ is smaller. As can be seen from Fig. 2a there is a transition region around $`r1.2`$. For larger values of $`r`$, $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ moves towards the point where $`rW=1`$. As an example, for $`r=2.0`$ one has $`rW=1`$ at $`x=\mathrm{cos}(p_1)=0.5`$, and $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ is at $`x0.42`$. The largest value of $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$, obtained for $`r1.3`$ – 1.5, is around 2.8. This makes little improvement over the value 2.5 obtained at $`r=1`$.

To avoid this dead-lock we take $`W`$ to be a non-linear function of $`\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu )`$. We define

$$W_n=\underset{\mu }{}(1\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu ))^n.$$
(3.4)
$`W_n`$ requires couplings of sites $`x`$ and $`x+n\widehat{\mu }`$. Once such coupling have been introduced into the generalized Wilson term, we allow them also in the kinetic term. Further raising of the global minimum of $`\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )`$ will be made possible by choosing $`f(p_\mu )`$ that increases faster than $`\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )`$, and by adjusting the Wilson parameter $`r`$.

We now turn to the investigation of concrete actions. The minimization problem was solved numerically. Note that the r.h.s. of eq. (3.3) can be expressed as a function of $`x_\mu \mathrm{cos}(p_\mu )`$ only. Using the invariance under permutations of the four components, it is enough to look for the global minimum over the range $`1x_1x_2x_3x_41`$. (One can also study the minimization problem analytically. For any $`\mu `$, $`\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )=0`$ always satisfies the extremality condition. For all momentum-components where $`\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )0`$ one finds a coupled algebraic equation in $`x_\mu `$. In all the cases we have studied, it turned out that the global minimum was either of the form $`(p_{\mathrm{min}},0,0,0)`$ or else of the form $`(p_{\mathrm{min}},p_{\mathrm{min}},p_{\mathrm{min}},p_{\mathrm{min}})`$.)

We first consider an action containing next-nearest neighbors

$$D_{23}=i\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu f_3(p_\mu )rW_2+M,$$
(3.5)
$$f_3(p_\mu )=\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )\left[1+c_3(1\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu ))\right].$$
(3.6)
$`W_2`$ is defined in eq. (3.4). In Table 1 we show the resulting values of $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ and $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )\}`$ for several values of $`c_3`$. For each $`c_3`$ we looked for the best value of $`r`$ which we denote $`r_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. One sees that values of $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )\}`$ much smaller than 0.5 are feasible. A plot of $`2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )`$ for $`c_3=4/3`$ is shown in Fig. 2b. Notice the flatness of $`\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )`$ for $`1\mathrm{cos}(p_1)0`$ at $`r=r_{\mathrm{opt}}=1.45`$.

We now digress to discuss how the present work relates to the standard “improvement program” (see e.g. the review ). In the study of the hadron spectrum, only a single parameter (the bare quark mass) in the fermion action needs to be tuned. Once the correct continuum limit has been established, attention is focused on eliminating those lattice artifacts that vanish most slowly, that is, linearly with the lattice spacing. However, in the calculation of weak matrix elements one has to first establish the correct continuum limit. This is very problematic with Wilson or staggered fermions because, due to the loss of full chiral and/or flavor symmetry, many subtraction coefficients must be tuned. Controlling those subtractions by having good chiral and flavor properties simultaneously is thus of higher priority than the removal of any other lattice error. Furthermore, in the massless-quark limit $`O(a)`$ lattice artifacts are automatically excluded if chiral symmetry is maintained . In that sense, approaching the chiral limit using domain-wall fermions encompasses the standard improvement program as well.

Coming back to the new domain-wall action, since the new Wilson term $`W_2`$ starts off at order $`p^4`$, the first lattice deviation from a relativistic (tree-level) dispersion relation comes only from the kinetic term. This is shown in the second column of Table 1. We observe that while increasing $`c_3`$ from zero to $`1/3`$ improves the dispersion relation, the opposite is true for $`c_3>1/3`$. Although the error is formally of order $`a^2`$, it might become significant if $`c_3`$ is too large. To gain some idea on the magnitude of the error consider, say, $`p^2(400\text{MeV})^2`$, which is relevant for kaon physics, on a lattice with $`a^12\text{GeV}`$. This means $`a^2p^21/25`$. For the last two rows of Table 1, the effect is 2% and 4% respectively.

If next-next-nearest neighbors in the same direction are also allowed one can decrease $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )\}`$ further while maintaining a vanishing $`p^3`$ term. Let

$$D_{35}=i\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu f_5(p_\mu )rW_3+M,$$
(3.7)
where again $`W_n`$ is defined in eq. (3.4) and where

$$f_5(p_\mu )=\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )\left[1+\frac{1}{3}(1\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu ))+c_5(1\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu ))^2\right].$$
(3.8)
Some values of $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ and $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )\}`$ are shown in Table 2. A plot of $`2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )`$ for $`c_5=2`$ is shown in Fig. 2c. Even for the last row in Table 2 ($`c_5=50`$), the deviation from Lorentz covariance is at the level of $`(50/4)(a^2p^2)^22\%`$ for $`p^2(400\text{MeV})^2`$. For $`c_5=5`$, the deviation is below 2% up to $`(700\text{MeV})^2`$, and so on.

We conclude with a number of technical comments. Replacing the four-dimensional part of the domain-wall action by $`D_{23}`$ ($`D_{35}`$) approximately doubles (triples) the number of entries in the fermion matrix. Therefore one should expect a corresponding increase in the cost of a single inversion of the fermion matrix at fixed $`N_s`$.

In the continuum limit, both the standard domain-wall action and the new actions discussed above support a single quark (one Weyl field on each boundary) for $`|1M|<1`$. In the case of the standard action there is a four-quark zone (corresponding to the corner $`p_\pi `$ and its permutations) for $`|3M|<1`$. When the Wilson term $`W_n`$ is employed instead, the four-quark zone is at $`|1+r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^nM|<1`$. An additional benefit of the new actions is that the four-quark and the single-quark zones are separated by a large gap (as a function of $`M`$) for $`rr_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. We expect that a clear gap should be found in simulations too, even though its precise location will likely be different from the weak-coupling limit.

For the standard domain-wall action, the optimal value of $`M`$ used in simulations agrees well with the mean-field estimate of $`1+\delta M`$. One obtains $`\delta M`$ by substituting a mean value $`u`$ for each link variable in the Wilson term. We will assume that the new actions are gauged in the simplest way, namely using only products of link variables along straight lines. (E.g. the sites $`x`$ and $`x+2\widehat{\mu }`$ are connected via $`U_{x,\mu }U_{x+\widehat{\mu },\mu }`$ etc.) Using a mean link $`u0.8`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ (see e.g. ref. ), the mean-field estimate is $`2r(34u+u^2)0.9r`$ for $`D_{23}`$ and $`r(1015u+6u^2u^3)1.3r`$ for $`D_{35}`$.

Last, for any domain-wall operator with the form of eqs. (3.1) and (3.2), the $`N_s\mathrm{}`$ limit defines an overlap-Dirac operator  obeying the Ginsparg-Wilson relation (for a review see ref. ) given by

$$D_{\mathrm{GW}}=1\gamma _5ϵ(\gamma _5D),$$
(3.9)
where $`ϵ(x)=\pm 1`$ is the sign function acting on each of the eigenvalues of $`\gamma _5D`$.

4. Discussion

In this paper we showed that the one-loop wave function of domain-wall fermions behaves like $`s^2q_1^s`$, where $`q_1`$ is determined by the free-fermion action. This is true for a wide class of domain-wall actions, including those defined in eq. (3.1). For the standard action $`q_1=0.5`$, whereas the addition of beyond-nearest neighbor couplings allows for much smaller values of $`q_1`$.

Only in the weak-coupling limit does $`q_1`$ fully control the wave function. For finite $`g^2`$ up to some critical value $`g_c^2`$ we expect the wave function to be proportional to some $`q_{\mathrm{pt}}^s`$ (up to power corrections) with $`q_{\mathrm{pt}}=q_{\mathrm{pt}}(g^2)`$. The $`g^2`$ dependence can be parametrized in various ways. In Appendix B we consider the role of higher-order diagrams, and the parametrization

$$q_{\mathrm{pt}}^s=q_1^s\mathrm{exp}(s(g^2\eta _1+g^4\eta _2+\mathrm{})),$$
(4.1)
is found to be natural. The Taylor expansion of $`\mathrm{exp}(sg^2\eta _1)`$ corresponds to a family of 1PI diagrams of all orders, where the first $`\eta _1`$-dependent terms are two-loop diagrams. (Analogous statements apply to $`\eta _2`$ etc.) In terms of $`q_{\mathrm{pt}}(g^2)`$, one can define $`g_c^2`$ by the condition $`q_{\mathrm{pt}}(g_c^2)=1`$. The existing numerical results suggest that the (quenched) value of $`6/g_c^2`$ is very close to 6.0 for the standard domain-wall action.

If both $`q_1`$ and $`\eta _1`$ were known for a given action, one could obtain a crude estimate of $`g_c^2`$ via a linear extrapolation. We have computed only the $`q_1`$ values, so we can only conjecture what trends are likely to affect $`g_c^2`$. First, in the lower rows in Table 2, $`q_1`$ is extremely small. Nevertheless, if $`\eta _1`$ is large (and positive), $`g_c^2`$ may end up being approximately the same as (or, for that matter, even smaller than) for the standard domain-wall action. Because of gauge invariance there are vertices that depend linearly on $`c_5`$. Since the lower rows in Table 2 come from actions with numerically large values of $`c_5`$ this should, indeed, lead generically to a large $`\eta _1`$ (and $`\eta _2`$ and so on).

It is therefore safer to focus on the first few rows in Tables 1 and 2, where one is less prone to the above risk. The following heuristic argument suggests that, in that range of parameters, the new domain-wall actions may indeed be superior to the standard one. When the Wilson parameter is equal to $`r_n2^{1n}`$, an action containing the Wilson term $`W_n`$ (eq. (3.4)) gives rise to $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}=2.5`$ (corresponding to $`q_1=0.5`$) at $`p_\pi =(\pi ,0,0,0)`$ for $`M=1`$. The behavior at $`r=r_n`$ is therefore a common starting point over which we may try to improve by increasing $`r`$. As discussed in Sec. 3, for the standard action $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ is relatively insensitive to $`r`$. Its largest value (which is 2.8) is obtained around $`r_{\mathrm{opt}}1.3`$ – 1.5, namely $`r_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is less than 50% above $`r_1`$. In comparison, for $`D_{23}`$ at $`c_3=4/3`$ (Fig. 2b) the largest value of $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ is achieved at $`r_{\mathrm{opt}}=1.45`$ which is approximately three times $`r_2`$. For $`D_{35}`$ at $`c_5=2`$ (Fig. 2c) the best value is $`r_{\mathrm{opt}}=1.3`$ which is more than five times $`r_3`$.

The ability to reach larger values of $`\mathrm{min}\{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha )\}`$ is thus correlated with an enhanced sensitivity to the Wilson parameter, and with a bigger ratio $`r_{\mathrm{opt}}/r_n`$. Now, while $`\eta _1,\eta _2,\mathrm{},`$ might in principle grow as $`r`$ increases from $`r_n`$ to $`r_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, it is clear that as functions of the parameters of the theory their behavior will be very different from $`q_1`$ (see Appendix B). Therefore it is plausible that there exist “windows” of parameters where $`q_{\mathrm{pt}}(g^2)`$ is controlled primarily by the decreasing $`q_1`$, implying that the exponential suppression holds up to a larger value of $`g^2`$.

In Appendix C.2 we discuss how different ways of approaching the chiral limit are related to different forms of the spectral-density function of the (normal-ordered) transfer matrix. At weak coupling one expects to have a gap, namely almost all eigenvalues are smaller than some $`\lambda _0<1`$. The gap region $`\lambda _0\lambda 1`$ is not completely devoid of eigenvalues, but their total number is drastically smaller than just below $`\lambda _0`$. One also expects a big difference between the corresponding eigenfunctions. Those that lie outside the gap should be continuum-like modes that spread all over the lattice, while inside the gap the modes should be highly localized .

As the coupling constant increases a qualitative change takes place. Near-unity eigenvalues of the transfer matrix proliferate. For the standard domain-wall action this is a direct consequence  of the proliferation of approximate zero modes of the hermitian, four-dimensional, Wilson-Dirac operator . The change (which seems to take place around quenched $`\beta =6.0`$) shows the key features of the phenomenon known in condensed matter as localization . Due to the randomness of generic gauge-field configurations, in any given part of the lattice there is a finite probability to find a localized (approximate) zero mode.

Viewing the (hermitian) Wilson-Dirac operator as a hamiltonian, under its action the fermions can hop only a single site. But with the new domain-wall actions the relevant hamiltonian is $`\gamma _5D`$ (see eq. (3.2)). Now the fermions may hop also two (or three) sites when the hamiltonian acts just once on a given state. It should be more difficult to trap the new fermions inside a small potential well, as now they have more ways of escaping out of it! This consideration too suggests that the critical coupling, where the exponential suppression is lost, may be larger for the new actions.

The new domain-wall actions considered in this paper carry with them an obvious extra cost for a single inversion of the fermion matrix. One may hope to reduce chiral symmetry violations also by using improved gauge actions, because the latter tend to generate smoother configurations. If this goal is achieved, it may be a numerically much cheaper way to reduce chiral symmetry violations. Using the Iwasaki action  it was found that the residual large-$`N_s`$ pion-mass squared (extrapolated to zero quark mass) drops by about a factor of two for $`a^11\mathrm{GeV}`$ . However, the new residual pion mass is still very big. Also, in thermodynamics, the Iwasaki action did not lead to any noticeable reduction in the residual pion mass (for a detailed discussion of various improvements see the first paper of ref. ).

Our analysis suggests a possible explanation why the use of improved gauge actions has had only a limited success. If the (tree-level) domain-wall action is unchanged, the one-loop wave function (1.4) is still controlled by the same value of $`q_1=0.5`$. Only the numerical prefactor may change (cf. eq. (2.9)). Hence, in this approximation, the exponential fall-off rate is not getting any better for improved gauge actions. (The same reasoning applies to the use of “fat links”. One has to be careful, however, because this argument ignores higher-order corrections, cf. eq. (4.1).)

In conclusion, in the one-loop approximation even a small reduction in $`q_1`$ leads to a dramatic suppression of chiral symmetry violations for commonly used values of $`N_s`$. If the actual quark’s wave function is (even partly) correlated with the one-loop one, the new actions could give rise to a significantly better chiral behavior, enough to justify their increased simulation cost.

Acknowledgements

The key results of this paper were worked out during a visit to Brookhaven National Laboratory last summer. Extensive discussions with many members of the lattice groups in Brookhaven Lab. and Columbia Univ. were essential for the development of this work. In forming my view on the current state of domain-wall fermion simulations, as presented in this paper, I benefitted from discussions with the participants of the Dubna workshop on “Lattice Fermions and Structure of the Vacuum.” I thank Tom Blum, Maarten Golterman and Karl Jansen for their useful comments on this paper, and Karl Jansen also for discussing with me some as-yet unpublished results. This research is supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation.

Appendix A. Some technicalities

In this appendix we collect a few useful formulae. The inverse tree-level propagator in momentum space is

$$(G^0)_{s,t}^1=i\delta _{s,t}\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )+W_{s,t}^+(p)P_++W_{s,t}^{}(p)P_{},$$
(A.1)
where

$$W_{s,t}^+(p)=\delta _{s+1,t}B(p)\delta _{s,t},$$
(A.2)
$$B(p)=1M+\underset{\mu }{}(1\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu )),$$
(A.3)
and $`W_{s,t}^{}(p)=W_{t,s}^+(p)`$. We consider only the case of a zero quark mass. Also, for the calculation of the self-energy we set $`M=1`$ in the tree-level action (see Sec. 2). The tree-level propagator was computed in ref. . At the corners of the Brillouin zone ($`\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )=0`$, all $`\mu `$) the two chiralities decouple in eq. (A.1). For $`p0`$ the limit is singular. But at the other fifteen corners the limit is regular, leading to

$$G_{s,t}^0=(W^+)_{s,t}^1(p)P_++(W^{})_{s,t}^1(p)P_{}.$$
(A.4)
Specifically at $`p=p_\pi `$ and with a semi-infinite coordinate $`s,t=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ one has

$$(W^+)_{s,t}^1=(W^{})_{t,s}^1=\frac{1}{2}\theta (ts)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{st},$$
(A.5)
where $`\theta (ts)=1`$ for $`ts`$ and $`\theta (ts)=0`$ for $`t<s`$.

The explicit expression for the diagonal self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,t}^+`$ of eq. (2.5) is given by eq. (36) of ref. . With a slight change of notation it reads (recall that the external momentum is zero)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,t}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\pi ^{+\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\left(4{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_\nu /2)\right)^1{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(\mathrm{cos}^2(k_\mu /2)(W^+G^{})_{s,t}`$ (A.6)
$`\mathrm{sin}^2(k_\mu /2)(W^{}G^+)_{s,t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_\mu )(G^++G^{})_{s,t}),`$
where

$$(G^\pm )^1(p)=\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{sin}^2(p_\mu )+W^\pm (p)W^{}(p).$$
(A.7)
Explicit expressions for $`G_{s,t}^\pm `$ can be found in refs. . As explained in Sec. 2 we are interested in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,0}^+`$ for $`s1`$. In the saddle-point approximation we set the internal momentum on the fermion line to $`p_\pi `$ (or its permutations) in all terms, except in the exponential $`\mathrm{exp}(s^{}\alpha )`$ that occurs inside $`G_{s^{},0}^\pm `$, which is expanded to second order around $`p_\pi `$ using the definition

$$2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha (p))=\frac{1+B^2(p)+\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{sin}^2(p_\mu )}{B(p)}.$$
(A.8)
This expansion gives rise to the integrand in eq. (2.8). Since $`\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )=0`$ for all $`\mu `$ at $`p_\pi `$, the last term in eq. (A.6) is zero. At $`p_\pi `$ one has $`W^\pm G^{}=(W^{})^1`$. Since the matrices $`W^\pm `$ and their inverses are triangular, the second term in eq. (A.6) gives zero too. Only the first term in eq. (A.6) contributes, and only for $`\mu =2,3,4`$, leading to eq. (2.8).

We also need the diagonal tree-level propagator $`G^{0+}`$ (eq. (2.5)) away from the boundaries at $`p=0`$. For $`M1`$ and $`p0`$, the second-order operators $`(W^+W^{})_{s,t}`$ and $`(W^{}W^+)_{s,t}`$ tend to $`\delta _{s,t}`$ (except $`(W^{}W^+)_{s,t}`$ at $`t=s=0`$). As a result $`G_{s,t}^{0+}=\delta _{s1,t}=W_{s,t}^{}`$. (For a semi-infinite $`s`$-coordinate $`W^{}`$ is a right-inverse of $`W^+`$.)

Finally we observe that the interacting domain-wall action has a generalized parity symmetry. Writing the action as

$$\underset{s,s^{};\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y};x_4,y_4}{}\overline{\psi }_{s,\stackrel{}{x},x_4}D_{s,s^{};\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y};x_4,y_4}(U)\psi _{s^{},\stackrel{}{y},y_4}$$
(A.9)
one has

$$D_{s,s^{};\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y};x_4,y_4}(U)=\gamma _4D_{s^{},s;\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y};x_4,y_4}(U^{})\gamma _4,$$
(A.10)
where

$`U_{\stackrel{}{x},x_4;4}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\stackrel{}{x},x_4;4}`$
$`U_{\stackrel{}{x},x_4;k}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{\kappa },x_4;k}^{},k=1,2,3.`$ (A.11)
This looks like an ordinary parity transformation, except that we have switched the fifth coordinates of $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ ($`s`$ and $`s^{}`$). The above discrete symmetry implies

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,t}(\stackrel{}{p},p_4)=\gamma _4\mathrm{\Sigma }_{t,s}(\stackrel{}{p},p_4)\gamma _4$$
(A.12)
and when $`\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )=0`$ for all $`\mu `$, one has $`\mathrm{tr}P_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s,t}=\mathrm{tr}P_{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{t,s}`$.

Appendix B. Beyond one loop

In this Appendix we consider the role of higher-order corrections. Specifically the aim is to show how an $`O(g^2)`$ correction to $`q_1`$ is built. The new wave-function is conveniently parametrized as

$`\delta \chi _{\mathrm{pt}}(s)`$ $``$ $`s^2q_{\mathrm{pt}}^s,`$
$`q_{\mathrm{pt}}^s=\left(q_1\mathrm{exp}(g^2\eta _1)\right)^s`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^s\left(1+g^2\eta _1s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g^2\eta _1)^2s^2+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (B.1)
The last expression suggests that, in the wave function $`\delta \chi _{\mathrm{pt}}(s)`$, the $`O(g^2)`$ correction to $`q_1`$ arises from a resummation of perturbation theory. If true, at any finite order we should find contributions to the wave function whose structure is $`\delta \chi _1(s)`$ times an increasing power of $`s`$. (We likewise expect additional $`O(g^4)`$ etc. corrections to $`q_1`$, cf. eq. (4.1); the arguments below are, however, too crude to tell how the power-law part of the wave function depends on $`g^2`$.)

We believe that a term $`g^2\eta s\delta \chi _1(s)`$ arises from the two-loop diagrams in Figs. 3a and 3b (and not from Figs. 3c or 3d, see below). Following Sec. 2, we will consider for definiteness the case where the rightmost fermion line in Fig. 3a corresponds to the singular part of the tree-level propagator, eq. (2.2), and therefore the fifth coordinate of the rightmost vertex is zero. In Fig. 3a the momenta on all three internal fermion lines can be simultaneously equal (or close) to $`p_\pi `$ (recall that the external momentum is (close to) zero). Then, the one-loop exponent $`q_1=\frac{1}{2}`$ comes with a power $`|st^{}|+|t^{}t|+t`$ which, for given $`s`$, is minimal when the points are ordered: $`st^{}t0`$. (Here we have ignored the difference between $`s`$ and $`s1`$ which is negligible for $`s1`$.) When the points are not ordered we obtain an exponentially convergent series in the excessive length of the fermion’s trajectory. For simplicity we will assume that the points are ordered, as we are only interested here in arguing that a contribution proportional to $`g^2s\delta \chi _1(s)`$ exists. (However, the full series has to be summed in order to obtain the numerical value of $`\eta `$.)

Next consider the integration over the loop momentum of the inner loop. As explained in Sec. 2, this integration should give rise to a factor of $`|t^{}t|^2`$. Since the sum $`_mm^2`$ is convergent, as a crude approximation one can say that the points $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ are forced to be close together. Once this extra constraint has been taken into account, the remaining expression is independent of $`t`$ (and $`t^{}`$). Therefore the $`t`$-summation (approximated by an integral) gives $`_0^s𝑑t=s`$. The gaussian integration over the momentum of the outer loop gives rise roughly to the factor $`s^2`$ (associated with $`\delta \chi _1(s)`$) as before. We conclude that a term proportional to $`g^2s\delta \chi _1(s)`$ may indeed arise from Fig. 3a. (A technical complication is that, if the two loop-momenta are both equal to $`p_\pi `$, the momentum flowing through the inner gauge-boson line is zero. The singularity $`(kp)^2`$ is integrable in four dimensions, but its existence makes the actual calculation quite complicated. We believe that the above considerations are robust enough to grasp the dominant behavior of Fig. 3a.)

The above argument easily generalizes to the higher-loop diagrams of Fig. 4a. At the $`n`$th-order one has $`n1`$ “inner” loops. The fifth coordinates are pair-wise close, but otherwise are constrained only by ordering. Hence one expects a contribution proportional to

$$_0^s𝑑t_1_0^{t_1}𝑑t_2\mathrm{}_0^{t_{n2}}𝑑t_{n1}=\frac{s^{n1}}{(n1)!},$$
(B.2)
in agreement with eq. (B.1). A similar reasoning implies that the two-loop and $`n`$-loop diagrams of Figs. 3b and 4b respectively also contribute to the Taylor series in eq. (B.1).

We now want to explain why the diagrams of Figs. 3c and 3d do not contribute to the r.h.s. of eq. (B.1). Consider first the reducible diagram Fig. 3d. The momentum on the middle fermion line is zero (being equal to the external momentum). Hence the points $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ are very close (see Sec. 2 and Appendix A). Ignoring the difference between $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ the two gaussian integrations give rise to the product $`|st|^2t^2`$. The $`t`$-summation is then dominated by $`t`$-values which are either close to zero or to $`s`$ (being the fifth coordinates of the rightmost and leftmost vertices). Therefore the result behaves like $`s^2`$ (and not like $`s^2s=s^1`$ as in the case of Fig. 3a).

While the diagram in Fig. 3c is irreducible, the momenta on the internal fermion lines cannot be all equal to $`p_\pi `$. For example, if the momenta on the first and third internal lines are equal to $`p_\pi `$, then the momentum on middle line is zero. Hence, again, the points $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ must be very close together, as well as close to either zero or $`s`$, and the final result is proportional to $`s^2`$ as in the case of Fig. 3d.

Appendix C. Some non-perturbative observations

C.1. Chiral-symmetry restoration

We outline here the proof of chiral-symmetry restoration given in ref.  in the light of later works (in particular ref. ). For definiteness we focus on the anomalous term in the lattice PCAC relation. (Its vanishing implies that the pion mass will be zero after taking the infinite-volume and massless-quark limits in that order.) The PCAC relation using domain-wall fermions reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu A_{5\mu }^a(x)J_5^b(y)=2m_0J_5^a(x)J_5^b(y)+2J_{5q}^a(x)J_5^b(y)+\text{contact term}.$$
(C.1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ is the backward lattice derivative and $`m_0`$ the bare quark mass. $`A_{5\mu }^a(x)`$ is the Noether current of a lattice transformation that assigns opposite charges to fermions on the half-spaces $`0s<N_s/2`$ and $`N_s/2s<N_s`$. This reduces to a chiral transformation on the quark states, as long as they are localized in their respective half-spaces. The pseudo-scalar density $`J_5^a(x)`$ is composed of fermion variables situated on the two boundaries, and serves as the standard interpolating field for pions. The anomalous (lattice-artefact) term in this relation involves another pseudo-scalar density, $`J_{5q}^a(x)`$, which is localized on two $`s`$-layers exactly half-way in the fifth direction. (We are assuming an undoubled quark spectrum (one quark field for each five-dimensional fermion field, in most applications) which is true at weak coupling. As mentioned in the introduction, the massless spectrum changes at strong coupling  in which case the above transformations are no longer chiral.)

Before we proceed with the discussion of the anomalous term we have to address a technical point. Let $`T=_i|it_ii|`$ be the spectral decomposition of the (positive) first-quantized transfer matrix. We define a “normal-ordered” transfer matrix $`Q`$ via its spectral decomposition $`Q=_i|i\lambda _ii|`$ where $`\lambda _i=\mathrm{min}\{t_i,t_i^1\}`$. Physically, the operation of replacing $`t_i>1`$ by its inverse amounts to filling the Dirac sea. The spectrum of $`Q`$ lies in the interval $`0\lambda _i1`$. One can show  that the exact domain-wall propagator in a given background field is a sum of terms, each of which involves the matrix $`Q`$ raised to a positive power which is a function of the fifth coordinates.

Let us now assume that, for a given background field, the spectrum of $`Q`$ lies in the interval $`0\lambda _i\lambda _0`$ where $`\lambda _0<1`$. Coming back to the anomalous term in eq. (C.1), for a non-singlet current it involves the propagation of two fermions over an $`s`$-separation equal to $`N_s/2`$ (or $`N_s/2\pm 1`$). The anomalous term is thus bounded by $`(\lambda _0^{N_s/2})^2=\lambda _0^{N_s}`$ times a constant. (Using the second-quantized transfer matrix formalism one can show that the proportionality constant is finite, being the norm of a product of bounded operators .) Moreover, if $`Q`$ has no eigenvalues larger than $`\lambda _0`$ for all gauge fields (a condition which is satisfied for a constrained gauge action ) one finds that the anomalous term falls exponentially after the functional averaging over the gauge field.

In ref.  we showed that a very weak bound on the anomalous correlator exists even if there is no gap at all. The point is that exact-unity eigenvalues of the transfer matrix (hence of its normal-ordered version, $`Q`$, too) exist only on a submanifold of the lattice gauge-field space defined by the condition $`\mathrm{det}D_W=0`$ where $`D_W`$ is the hermitian four-dimensional Wilson-Dirac operator. As explained above, when a fermion propagates across an $`s`$-separation $`N_s/2`$, the propagator is bounded by (and, generically, falls like) $`\lambda _0^{N_s/2}`$ where $`\lambda _01`$ is the largest eigenvalue of $`Q`$. But $`\lambda _0^{N_s/2}`$ is negligible unless $`\lambda _0=1O(1/N_s)`$. This condition, in turn, will be satisfied only for gauge-field configurations whose distance from the above submanifold does not exceed $`O(1/N_s)`$. The volume of the (compact) gauge-field subspace contributing to the anomalous correlator is therefore finite, and shrinks like $`1/N_s`$, implying a similar bound on the correlator itself. We comment that the restoration of chiral symmetry is consistent with the fact that the overlap operator defined by the $`N_s\mathrm{}`$ limit (see eq. (3.9)) admits Lüscher’s chiral symmetry  (whose generators are functions of the gauge field).

C.2. Spectral density and effective wave function

In the infinite-volume limit one can define a spectral function $`\rho _Q(\lambda )`$ associated with the normal-ordered transfer matrix $`Q`$ introduced in the previous subsection, whose support is (contained in) the interval $`[0,1]`$. Here we will not attempt to compute any spectral function. Instead, we adopt a “phenomenological” point of view. We will assume that a single, continuous, spectral density function $`\rho (\lambda )`$ has been defined as a suitable configuration average of $`\rho _Q(\lambda )`$. Using the considerations of the previous subsection, the aim is to see how different forms of the spectral function lead to different ways of approaching the chiral limit. One can envisage three prototype scenarios which are listed below. (A recent treatment of domain-wall fermions based on spectral integrals can be found in ref. . A numerical study of a spectral quantity which is closely related to $`\rho (1)`$ can be found in ref. . See also ref. .)

1) Exponential suppression. Assume that the support of $`\rho (\lambda )`$ is the interval $`0\lambda \lambda _0`$ where $`\lambda _0<1`$ and that, close to $`\lambda _0`$, $`\rho (\lambda )`$ vanishes like $`(\lambda _0\lambda )^\delta `$ with $`\delta >0`$. Consider the propagation of a single fermion from the boundary layer $`s^{}=0`$ to some other layer $`s`$ (We assume $`1s<N_s/2`$). This involves the integral

$$_0^{\lambda _0}𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )\lambda ^s\lambda _0^s_0^{\lambda _0}𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )\mathrm{exp}\left(s\frac{\lambda \lambda _0}{\lambda _0}\right)s^{1\delta }\lambda _0^s.$$
(C.2)
In order to obtain the power-law correction we have used the assumed behavior of $`\rho (\lambda )`$ close to $`\lambda _0`$, and wrote $`(\lambda /\lambda _0)^s=\mathrm{exp}(s\mathrm{log}(1+(\lambda \lambda _0)/\lambda _0))`$. (The one-loop result of Sec. 2 corresponds to $`\lambda _0=1/2`$ and $`\delta =1`$.) If $`n`$ fermions propagate across a similar $`s`$-interval, we will obtain the factor $`s^{1\delta }\lambda _0^s`$ for each of them. We may therefore consider $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)=s^{1\delta }\lambda _0^s`$ as the effective $`s`$-coordinate wave function for all quark states. Since the anomalous divergence $`J_{5q}^a(x)`$ is a fermion bilinear, chiral symmetry violations should fall like $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(N_s/2)N_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2(1+\delta )}\lambda _0^{N_s}`$. (The effective wave function describing the propagation of $`n`$ fermions could be somewhat different from $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}^n(s)`$ due to interactions between the different particles. Since chiral symmetry violations are related to $`J_{5q}^a(x)`$, the relevant effective wave function is always the one extracted from the sector with one fermion and one antifermion.)

2) Power-law suppression. Assume that $`\lambda _0=1`$ but with a vanishing $`\rho (1)`$, namely $`\rho (\lambda )(1\lambda )^\delta `$ for $`\lambda 1`$ with $`\delta >0`$. In that case the result of the spectral integral (C.2) will be $`s^{1\delta }`$. We might still speak of an effective wave function $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}(s)=s^{1\delta }`$ and expect chiral symmetry violations to fall like $`N_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2(1+\delta )}`$.

3) (Almost) no suppression. Last assume that $`\lambda _0=1`$ and that $`\rho (1)`$ is non-zero. Remember now the submanifold discussed in the previous subsection of gauge fields supporting an eigenvalue one of $`Q`$. If $`\rho (1)`$ is finite, configurations close to that submanifold must have a non-negligible Boltzmann weight. As we have explained, in this case the only suppression of long-range $`s`$-correlations comes from phase space considerations (the need to pick a configuration located $`O(1/N_s)`$ away from that submanifold). As a result, chiral symmetry violations fall roughly like $`\rho (1)/N_s`$, and the concept of a localized, effective wave function breaks down. ($`n`$-fermion correlations fall like $`1/N_s`$ too, and not like $`1/N_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}`$.)

For clarity, we have presented above the three mathematically distinct scenarios. In reality, however, one is likely to encounter a more complicated behavior, characterized by the existence of a crossover region. Let us reexamine the exponential suppression scenario. As discussed in the previous subsection, in the ensemble of all gauge-field configurations (as opposed to the case where the plaquette is constrained to be everywhere small ) there is a non-zero probability of finding an eigenvalue arbitrarily close to one, for any $`g>0`$. Consider the integrated spectral density $`=_{\lambda _0}^1𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )`$, and suppose that $``$ is comparable to $`\lambda _0^{N_0}`$ for some $`N_0`$ (up to power corrections). For $`N_s<N_0`$, chiral symmetry violations will fall like $`N_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2(1+\delta )}\lambda _0^{N_s}`$. The point is that for any $`\lambda _0`$ significantly smaller than one, and $`N_0`$ of the order of (few times) ten, $`\lambda _0^{N_0}`$ will be so small that one will never have to use $`N_s>N_0`$ in a simulation. For practical purposes this scenario is therefore the same as the purely-exponential suppression scenario. If, nevertheless, very large values of $`N_s`$ will be tried, then around $`N_sN_0`$ a crossover to some slower fall-off rate will be encountered. (For instance, a crossover to a slower exponential fall-off rate has been observed in the Schwinger model .)

Last consider the relation between the domain-wall actions discussed in Sec. 3 and the associated overlap operators (see eq. (3.9)). The spectral function that controls the approach to the chiral limit of domain-wall fermions also controls the localization range of the overlap operator. As is clear from the above discussion, problems start when there is no gap, namely when it is not possible to identify a range $`\lambda _0\lambda 1`$ (with $`\lambda _0<1`$) where the eigenvalue density is (practically) zero. In that case both the overlap operator and the generators of the associated Lüscher symmetries become non-local. This is the counter-part of the loss of exponential suppression in the domain-wall case.