text:
# New geometries for high spatial resolution Hall probes

## Introduction

Hall effect devices are versatile magnetometers operating in a broad range of conditions, such as at high temperature and at high magnetic field. They are routinely used in industry as linear and rotary motion detectors and for power sensing. In the area of fundamental physics Hall magnetometers have recently been used for high sensitivity and spatial resolution magnetic imaging Chong B. K. et al. (2001); Oral A. et al. (1996), for studies of nanoscale ferromagnetic particles Kent A.D. et al. (1994) and single molecule magnets Bokacheva L. et al. (2000); del Barco E. et al. (2002). New hybrid devices combining Hall sensors with ferromagnetic materials that behave globally as bipolar switches are also of growing interest Johnson M. et al. (1997); Monzon F.G. et al. (1997). The availability of 2D low electron density and high mobility materials, hence large Hall resistance and signal to noise ratio, make the use of Hall probes based techniques attractive especially when combined with microfabricated devices.

These applications require high spatial resolution, excellent field sensitivity and good magnetic coupling between sample and sensors. One natural way to achieve this is to reduce the dimensions of the sensor active area defined by the intersection of the current and voltage leads. However, as the width of these leads is reduced in size their resistance increases. Higher lead resistance increases device Johnson noise and power dissipation. Hence, up to now, the design of Hall sensors is a compromise between high spatial resolution and good signal to noise ratio. Although numerous studies have been done to optimize the geometry of Hall devices in an homogeneous magnetic field Popovic R.S. (1991), investigation of the Hall effect in inhomogeneous fields has been carried out only in the standard cross shaped geometry Bending S.J. and Oral A. (1997).

In this paper we propose a new device geometry, based on the careful analysis of the Hall effect, that enhances the sensor spatial resolution without *increasing* lead resistances. Indeed, we show that high spatial resolution Hall probes can be obtained by reducing the size of one *single* voltage sensing lead while keeping the other probe dimensions macroscopic. Specifically, we consider the Hall effect in the diffusive transport regime, in which the carrier mean free path is smaller then the smallest sensor dimension. In contrast to the ballistic transport regime, in which for low magnetic fields the Hall response is proportional to the average magnetic field in the sensitive area, in the diffusive regime the Hall response depends strongly on local field inhomogeneities. Numerical simulations have been carried out in our group that show that highly asymmetric Hall probes have sensitive areas localized around the smallest sensing voltage lead Liu S. et al. (1998). These results have recently been confirmed by other groups Cornelissens Y.G. and Peeters F.M. (2001). Here we present an experiment that measures directly the Hall response function (HRF) of Hall sensors with symmetric and asymmetric geometries and shows that they have similar spatial resolution.

## Experiment

The Hall sensors were fabricated in Bi by photolithography. The $`2500`$Å thick Bi polycristalline thin films were thermally evaporated on a 200 Å Ti adhesion layer on sapphire substrates. Photolithography was used to pattern the films into conventional cross like patterns. Although numerous geometries were used, in this article we present only results based on symmetric $`2\mu `$m$`\times 2\mu `$m and asymmetric $`10\mu `$m$`\times 5\mu `$m current by voltage probes. Bi thin films were characterized at 300 K by measuring the resistivity $`R_{\mathrm{}}10\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and Hall coefficient in a homogeneous magnetic field $`R_H0.5`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$/T. Because of fluctuating deposition conditions and impurity rates, these values vary a little from sample to sample. The mean free path, evaluated using the drude model is about $`\lambda _f0.1\mu `$m setting the lower bound for probe dimensions in order to be in the diffusive regime. The Hall effect was shown to be linear in homogeneous magnetic fields until $`2.5`$ T. The sign of the Hall coefficient $`R_H=V_H/I`$ changes between room temperature and liquid nitrogen temperature. The strong dependence of the Hall coefficient on temperature is due to the non-trivial transport mechanism in Bi that involve several pockets of electrons and holes on the Fermi surface with temperature dependant mobilities. For an isotropic material and two types of carriers, the Hall coefficient is : $`R_H=(p\mu _p^2n\mu _n^2)/(e\times (p\mu _p+n\mu _n)^2)`$ and can change sign Popovic R.S. (1991). Thus the change of sign in the Hall coefficient of Bi probes is not surprising and indeed has been noticed earlier by several authors Boffoué M.O. et al. (2000); Butenko A.V. et al. (1997); Buxo J. et al. (1980); Kochowski S. and Opilski A. (1978); Inoue M. et al. (1974).

All the local magnetic measurements presented in this work were made at room temperature, and no attention was given to the actual sign of the Hall coefficient. The key points for these studies are the value of $`R_H`$ at room temperature and the linearity of the Hall effect for small magnetic fields.

We focus now on probe geometries. Numerical computations Liu S. et al. (1998); Bending S.J. and Oral A. (1997); Hlasnik I. and Kokavec J. (1966); Ibrahim I.S. et al. (1998); Cornelissens Y.G. and Peeters F.M. (2001) show that the Hall response is highly dependent on the field distribution. The HRF ; i.e. the Hall voltage measured as a function of the position of a small $`\delta `$-function like magnetic field ; was found to be highly peaked above the voltage leads Liu S. et al. (1998); Cornelissens Y.G. and Peeters F.M. (2001). A design where one voltage lead is reduced to submicron sizes while other dimensions of the probe are kept macroscopic, should thus give a highly peaked HRF on the constricted lead and thus a high spatial resolution sensor. To verify this result experimentally we designed extremely asymmetric probe geometry where : i) current and voltage leads have different dimensions and ii) one voltage lead is reduced to a sub-micron size. To produce such probes we used a Focused Ion Beam to tailor the lead geometry. Indeed with such a technique it is possible to cut the Bi films and substrate at very precise locations with a line width smaller than 0.1 $`\mu `$m. The FIB was used both to design asymmetric probes by cutting only one voltage lead and symmetric probes by cutting all four leads in a “clover leaf” pattern as shown on fig. 1. The leads could have been further constricted but other problems such as robustness against electrical shocks occur. It must also be kept in mind that the transport has to be in a diffusive regime.

After constructing our Hall sensor we place a localized magnetic field with a sub-micron resolution at different positions above the surface of the probe and record the Hall voltage as a function of the field position. To measure the HRF we used the Hall probes as the sample and scan a MFM tip over it while recording both the topography and Hall voltage. The resulting image is directly the HRF convolved with the stray field of the tip which we suppose to be very localized Streblechenko D. G. et al. (1996); Thiaville A. et al. (1997). To remove offsets due to misalignment of voltage probes as well as inhomogeneities in the Bi films, a bridge circuit excited by a alternating current was used to record the Hall response. To avoid pick-up a carefully shielded cover was added to the MFM setup and the scanning frequency was much smaller than the excitation current to average several periods of the excitation current for each of the 256 points of one line scan. However some pick-up was always present and a low pass filtering of the image yields workable data as shown on fig. 2 and fig. 3.

## Results and discussion

Fig. 2 shows the Hall response functions of symmetric geometries with an outline of the geometrical shape of the sensor superimposed. The greyscales span the same magnetic field amplitude, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2.5`$ mT. The two geometries represented : the cross and “clover leaf” are equivalent in terms of Hall effect in an homogeneous field Popovic R.S. (1991). For both experiments the measured HRF extends slightly outside the area defined by the intersection of the current and voltage probes. This is in agreement with numerical simulations Liu S. et al. (1998) and analytical studies Thiaville A. et al. (1997) of the corresponding boundary value problem. The difference in field amplitude between images is due to changes in tip magnetization or tilt with respect to the sensor plane between each image. MFM is known to have a submicron magnetic resolution Thiaville A. et al. (1997); Streblechenko D. G. et al. (1996), nevertheless the force on the tip is an average of interactions between the tip and a magnetic sample taking place in a finite volume of space. The suposition that the stray field of the MFM tip is a $`\delta `$-funtion is also certainly not realistic. Attempts have been made to measure directly the stray field of MFM tips with Hall bars Thiaville A. et al. (1997), electron holography Streblechenko D. G. et al. (1996), as well as with other techniques. The deconvolution procedure is neither simple nor unique. However, in a first approximation, the magnetized tip is approximated by a magnetic dipole tilted from the $`z`$-axis. In fig. 2a, on the right side of the probe, the return field of the magnetic dipole is observed as darker areas extending about 2 $`\mu `$m away from probe’s edges. Such return field has never been observed and it shows that the stray field of MFM tips extends over rather large areas. HRF cross sections of symmetric geometries perpendicular and parallel to the excitation current are shown on fig. 4a and fig. 5a respectively. The full width at half maximum is about twice the probes characteristic size. It is slightly larger in the perpendicular cross section (fig. 4a). The actual measured sensitive area is thus twice as big as the surface defined by the intersection of voltage and current probes. It is simply understood by the presence of a nonzero current density in the voltage probes on a characteristic length of the probes width. The current provides sufficient charge carriers to create a local Hall potential. It is worthwhile to notice in fig. 5a the negative magnetic field corresponding to the above mentioned dark areas.

The HRF of asymmetric geometries are shown in fig. 3. The greyscales have also been adjusted to span the same magnetic field amplitude: $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1.6`$ mT. For the initial asymmetric $`10\times 5\mu `$m2 geometry (fig. 3a), although highly inhomogeneous the HRF is peaked above the voltage probes. Inhomogeneities within the Bi films lead to inhomogeneous current distributions and therefore inhomogeneous HRF. The tilted dipole character of the magnetized tip also leads to an asymmetry in Hall response between the top and bottom voltage probes. The Hall voltage is the convolution of the magnetic field distribution and the actual HRF, for the bottom lead the return field of the tip is crossing the Hall sensor in the middle of the sensitive area whereas for the top lead it is crossing the sensor in a less sensitive area yielding a different Hall voltage. For the constricted geometries (fig. 3b and fig. 3c) the HRF is definitely more peaked above the constriction. The position of the FIB cut is important since the amplitude of the HRF is different in the two images. This is attributed again to a difference in the current density distributions. The FIB cut made in the $`10\mu \text{m}\times 0.25\mu `$m (fig. 3c) is further away from the current lead than the cut made in the $`10\mu \text{m}\times 0.5\mu `$m (fig. 3b) yielding a smaller current density at the constriction and thus a smaller Hall response. This indicates that the Hall response is very sensitive to the local current density. It is illustrated in fig. 5b where it is peaked above the corners of the $`5\mu `$m voltage probe i.e. zones of high current densities.

Fig. 4b and fig. 5b illustrate that the reduction of one single voltage probe greatly enhances the HRF just above the constriction and therefore the spatial resolution of the sensor, defined as the full width half maximum of the response function. The measured resolutions for the asymmetric probes are respectively for the $`5\mu `$m, $`0.5\mu `$m, and the $`0.25\mu `$m constrictions about $`4\mu `$m$`\times 10\mu `$, $`2\mu `$m$`\times 4\mu `$m and $`2\mu `$m$`\times 2\mu `$m. In the case of the $`0.5\mu `$m FIB cut, the high sensitivity area is almost the same as the one measured for the symmetric $`0.5\mu \text{m}\times 0.5\mu \text{m}`$ cross. The exact shape of the peak in the measured response is intimately connected to the film inhomogeneities, the magnetic field profile, the rounded boundaries and to the non-linearities Cornelissens Y.G. and Peeters F.M. (2001). It is thus difficult to model quantitatively. We therefore focus on qualitative observations to explain our results.

The increasing use of small scale Hall devices follow the need for high spatial resolution imaging and good coupling between magnetometers and magnetic materials Oral A. et al. (1996); Bokacheva L. et al. (2000). The constitutive relation relating local current $`J`$, electric field $`E`$ and external magnetic field $`B`$ in the diffusive regime is:

$$J=\sigma E+\mu _H(J\times B),$$
(1)
where $`\sigma `$ is the conductivity, $`\mu _H`$ the Hall mobility. In 2D it was shown, that the electric potential in the probe must be a solution of the equation :

$$^2\varphi =\mu _HB_z(\varphi \times \stackrel{}{z})$$
(2)
with the following boundary conditions : i) at conducting boundaries, the tangential component of the electric field is zero, i.e., $`\varphi /t=0`$ ; and ii) at insulating boundaries, the normal component of the current is zero, i.e., $`\varphi /n\mu _HB_z\varphi /t=0`$. If $`B_z`$ is uniform, the equation for the electric potential becomes the Poisson equation and the solution is uniquely determined by the boundary conditions, i.e, the fields *at the boundaries*. In the opposite case there is a source term in the equation. That source term is the key point of our analysis. Indeed in the limit of small magnetic fields, it acts as a distribution of electric dipoles perpendicular to the local electric field. The dipole character of the source term was already noticed in the 1960s Hlasnik I. and Kokavec J. (1966). In the case of homogeneous magnetic fields the dipole density is constant throughout the sensor and leads to macroscopic opposite surface charge densities at the boundaries. On the contrary, for a field distribution smaller than the sensor characteristic dimensions, the source dipole distribution is localized within the probe where there is a current density and a varying magnetic field. The enhancement of the HRF in the neighborhood of the constricted lead has two main origins. First, the source term changes rapidly when crossing the constriction perpendicularly to the zero field current distribution. The constriction is a good weak link : there is almost no current flowing through it and the reference equipotential is in its vicinity. Second, the dipolar character of the source term in equation 2 is mostly effective nearby the sensing probe since it is short ranged in nature. These facts, verified numerically Bending S.J. and Oral A. (1997); Liu S. et al. (1998); Cornelissens Y.G. and Peeters F.M. (2001) and now experimentally show that the geometry of planar Hall device can be optimized to provide a high spatial resolution by scaling down a single probe.

In conclusion, we have measured the HRF function of planar Hall sensors of different geometries. Specifically, we studied an asymmetric design where one single sensing probe is reduced to a narrow constriction. We showed that this design yields identical spatial resolution as the standard reduced cross pattern in agreement with numerical simulation. It validates also the dipole interpretation of the Hall effect in inhomogeneous magnetic fields. Although FIB is not the only way to achieve highly asymmetric geometries, it provides a versatile technique to pattern a sensor. It should reveal its full power in fundamental studies of magnetic nanoparticles, for example, to cut sensing probes near the position of particles on a macroscopic sensor.

## Acknowledgements

The research at NYU was supported by the NSF Grant No. DMR-0103290 and a NSF US-France Cooperative Research Grant DMR-9729339.


format: text

text:
# ITEP-LAT/2002-14, KANAZAWA-02-22, RCNP-Th02015 A fresh look on the flux tube in Abelian-projected SU(2) gluodynamics

## Abstract

We reconsider the properties of the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ flux tube within Abelian-projected SU(2) lattice gauge theory in terms of electric field and monopole current. In the maximal Abelian gauge we assess the influence of the Gribov copies on the apparent flux-tube profile. For the optimal gauge fixing we study the independence of the profile on the lattice spacing for $`\beta =`$ 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5115 on a $`32^4`$ lattice. We decompose the Abelian Wilson loop into monopole and photon parts and compare the electric and monopole profile emerging from different sources with the field strength and monopole current within the dual Ginzburg-Landau theory.

The flux-tube profile in SU(2) lattice gauge theory in the maximal Abelian gauge (MAG) has been studied in order to get microscopic information on the quark confinement mechanism . The Abelian projected theory (AP-SU(2) gluodynamics) is closely related to the dual superconducting scenario of the QCD vacuum. Abelian dominance of the string tension has left no doubt that the vacuum has the property of dual superconductivity. The dual Meissner effect, i.e. squeezing of the color-electric flux into a string by the normal vacuum, can be studied both in an effective dual Ginzburg-Landau (DGL) theory and AP-SU(2) gluodynamics. Thus, one hopes to learn from real gluodynamics about the vacuum properties to be encoded in the DGL theory.

In papers  the structure of confining string was studied in details. In this talk we report new results on the SU(2) flux-tube profile. Our study extends previous work in various directions: (i) we reconsider the dependence on the quality of MAG fixing; (ii) we control the effect of smearing of the Wilson loops; (iii) we check the correct scaling behavior of the flux-tube profile; and (iv) we investigate the detailed form of the profile of the flux tube at finite distance between quark and antiquark. While (i) and (ii) mainly are an adaptation to present standards, (iii) was always badly missed. Finally, (iv) makes possible a detailed comparison of the finite-length flux tubes with the DGL theory.

The profile is described by correlation functions

$`𝒪(s)_{W_A}={\displaystyle \frac{W_A𝒪(s)_0}{W_A_0}},`$ (1)
where the source is the Abelian Wilson loop $`W_A`$ constructed out of Abelian link variables. The local field operators $`𝒪(s)`$ of immediate interest are the Abelian field strength $`\overline{\theta }_{\mu \nu }(s)`$ and the monopole current $`2\pi k_\mu (s)`$ ($`k_\mu ZZ`$). All are available after Abelian projection in MAG. Correlation functions in terms of the photon part $`W_{\mathrm{𝑃ℎ}}`$ and the monopole part $`W_{\mathrm{𝑀𝑜}}`$ instead of $`W_A`$ are proposed , which allow to discover the Coulomb and and the solenoidal part of the field strength.

By using the Wilson gauge action, SU(2) gauge field ensembles on a $`32^4`$ lattice have been generated at $`\beta =`$ 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5115, each consisting of 100 configurations, separated by 500 Monte Carlo sweeps (after 2500 thermalization sweeps). Corresponding gauge fixed ensembles have been considered and that corresponding to the maximal value of MAG functional has been stored. All calculations have been done at the Vector-Parallel Supercomputer NEC SX-5 of RCNP, Osaka University.

We have found that the smearing parameters $`\alpha =2.0`$, $`N_s=8`$ for the spatial Abelian links, correspond to the optimal ground state overlap with $`W_A`$. For calibration, the lattice spacing $`a(\beta )`$, has been found from the relation $`\sqrt{\sigma _{\mathrm{𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠}}}=\sqrt{\sigma _L}/a440`$ MeV. Here $`\sigma _L`$ ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠}}`$) is the lattice (physical) string tension 111The lattice string tensions $`\sigma _L`$ are found to be 0.1373(16) at $`\beta =2.3`$, 0.0712(5) at $`\beta =2.4`$, and 0.0323(4) at $`\beta =2.5115`$, which gives the lattice spacing $`a=0.1662(10)`$ fm, $`a=0.1197(4)`$ fm, and $`a=0.0806(5)`$ fm, respectively.. $`\sigma _L`$ has been extracted from non-Abelian Wilson $`W_{\mathrm{𝑁𝐴}}`$ loops using optimized non-Abelian smearing. The local energy is fitted in the form $`V(R)=CA/R+\sigma _LR`$.

In order to demonstrate the importance of the good gauge fixing, we show in Fig. 1 the profiles of electric field and monopole current for $`\beta =2.5115`$ observed in the midplane between $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ at the distance $`r=10a=0.81`$ fm after MAG fixing. We compare the overrelaxed steepest descent (OR) algorithm with the OR-simulated annealing (OR-SA) algorithm. In the latter case, we also study how the profile changes with the number of gauge copies. For the electric profile the effect of insufficient gauge fixing (OR) is limited to an overestimation by less than 10 %. The monopole current, however, is strongly reduced by applying OR-SA. It is difficult to find a systematic effect of $`N_g`$ ($`N_g=`$ 5, 10, 20) on the electric and monopole profiles. It is absolutely necessary to choose the OR-SA algorithm but a moderate number $`N_g=5`$ of Gribov copies seems to be sufficient.

In Fig. 2 we plot the flux-tube profile in physical units for three values of $`\beta `$. For each value of beta we choose the (integer) lattice flux-tube length $`R`$ corresponding to the (approximately) same $`Q\overline{Q}`$ distance $`r0.8`$ fm. Both profiles scale properly at $`\rho 0.3`$ fm.

In Fig. 3 we show the profiles for $`\beta =2.5115`$ and a lattice inter-quark distance $`r=10a`$, obtained from correlation functions between the local operators $`𝒪(s)`$ and the photon and the monopole parts of the Abelian Wilson loops, respectively. To accomplish this, the link field $`\theta _l`$ has been first split into regular-photon and singular-monopole parts. For the regular part of the links entering $`W_{\mathrm{𝑃ℎ}}`$, an Abelian smearing similar to the original Abelian Wilson loop smearing has been found to be optimal, giving an early plateau in $`T`$ for all $`R`$ of $`\mathrm{log}W_{\mathrm{𝑃ℎ}}(R,T)/W_{\mathrm{𝑃ℎ}}(R,T+1)`$. Note that the monopole part of the links has not been smeared.

We find that $`W_{\mathrm{𝑃ℎ}}`$ as source induces exclusively the Coulombic electric field while the monopole part $`W_{\mathrm{𝑀𝑜}}`$ creates the solenoidal electric field. Both contribute to the full electric field produced by the full Abelian Wilson loop $`W_A`$. The monopole current is not correlated with $`W_{\mathrm{𝑃ℎ}}`$. Only the monopole part $`W_{\mathrm{𝑀𝑜}}`$ is responsible for the (directed) circulating monopole current induced in the vacuum.

We have compared both the electric field and the monopole current observed in AP-SU(2) gluodynamics for a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ system at finite separation with the classical flux-tube solution obtained within the DGL theory. Here, the aim is to determine the mass of the dual gauge boson $`m_B`$ and the dual Higgs monopole field $`m_\chi `$, and also the dual gauge coupling $`\beta _g=1/g^2`$. We have formulated the DGL theory on the dual lattice and have solved the finite length flux-tube system numerically . Preliminary fits of profiles at $`\beta =2.5115`$ for $`R`$ = 4, 6 and 8 give the dual gauge boson mass around 1.0 GeV, which seems to be consistent with the value of $`\rho `$ corresponding to the maximum of the monopole current ($`\rho `$ 0.2 fm), see Fig. 2. The monopole mass was not fixed. The dual gauge coupling showed running behavior, depending on the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ distance. As increasing distance, $`\beta _g=1/g^2`$ grows gradually, which seems to follow the anti-screening behavior of the gauge coupling $`e`$ in accordance with the Dirac quantization condition $`eg=4\pi `$.

The authors are grateful to V. Bornyakov, H. Ichie, and G. Bali for useful discussions. Y. K. is partially supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan (Monbu-Kagaku-sho), Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (B), 14740161, 2002. E.-M. I. gratefully acknowledges the support by the Monbu-Kagaku-sho and the hospitality at RCNP extended to him by H. Toki. M. I. P. is partially supported by grants RFBR 02-02-17308, RFBR 01-02-117456, RFBR 00-15-96-786, INTAS-00-00111, and CRDF award RPI-2364-MO-02.


text:
# GRB 021004: Reverse Shock Emission

## 1 introduction

GRB 021004 triggered HETE II on 2002 October 4 at 12:06:13 UT. The burst lasted $`T100`$ seconds (Shirasaki et al. 2002) and the $`7400`$ keV fluence was $`3.2\times 10^6`$ ergs cm-2 (Lamb et al. 2002). The prompt localization of GRB 021004 by HETE II allowed the follow-up of the afterglow at very early time. Fox (2002) detected an optical transient $`9`$ mins after the trigger at the level of $`R15.56`$ mag. Torii, Kato and Yamaoka (2002) observed the error box of the burst $`3.5`$ mins after the trigger, yielding upper limit around $`R13.6`$ mag at the position of the transient discovered by Fox (2002). The spectroscopic observations of the optical afterglow revealed an emission line interpreted as Ly-$`\alpha `$ at $`z=2.328`$ (Mirabal et al. 2002). Assuming $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3,\lambda _0=0.7`$ and $`h=0.6`$, the isotropic gamma-ray energy is $`5.6\times 10^{52}`$ ergs.

The dense sampling of the afterglow light curve at early time revealed the peculiarity, a major re-brightening around $`0.1`$ day after the trigger and a short time scale variability around $`1`$ day. The slope of the afterglow is $`t^{0.7}`$ for the earliest three observations (9-17 min after trigger) by Fox (2002), and after the luminosity increases around $`0.1`$ days, it decayed with $`t^{1.05}`$ as usual afterglows do. These temporal features might be modeled by refreshed shocks (Zhang and Mészáros 2002). Recently, Lazzati et al. (2002) interpreted the features as due to enhancements in the ambient medium density. In this Letter, we show that the major re-brightening around $`0.1`$ day can be explained within the standard fireball model. We propose that the reverse shock emission dominated the optical band at early times, leading to the observed peculiarity.

## 2 The model

Consider a relativistic shell (fireball ejecta) with energy $`E`$, a Lorentz factor $`\eta `$ and a width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ expanding into the homogeneous ISM with a particle number density $`n`$. When the shell sweeps a large volume of the ISM, it is decelerated and the kinetic energy is transfered to the ISM by shocks (e.g. Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1999). The shocked ISM forms a relativistic blast wave (forward shock) and emits the internal energy via synchrotron process.

The emission from a reverse shock was also predicted (Mészaros & Rees 1997; Sari & Piran 1999a). When the reverse shock crosses the shell, the forward shocked ISM and the reverse shocked shell carry comparable amounts of energy. However, the typical temperature of the shocked shell is lower since the mass density of the shell is higher. Consequently, the typical frequency in the shocked shell is lower. A prompt optical emission from GRB 990123 (Akerlof et al. 1999) can be regarded as this emission (Sari & Piran 1999b; Kobayashi & Sari 2000; Soderberg & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002).

### 2.1 Forward Shock

Observations of optical afterglows usually start around several hours after the burst trigger. Since, at such a late time, the typical synchrotron frequency of the forward shock emission $`\nu _{m,f}`$ is lower than optical band $`\nu _R5\times 10^{14}`$Hz, the evolution of afterglows is well described by a single power law, except for the jet break (Rhoads 1999; Sari, Piran & Halpern 1999). However, an optical light curve is expected to peak at early time when the typical synchrotron frequency crosses the optical band. Before the peak time $`t_{m,f}`$, the luminosity increases as $`t^{1/2}`$, and reaches to the maximum flux $`F_{\nu ,max,f}`$, and then decays as $`t^{3(1p)/4}`$ where $`p`$ is the index of the power law distribution of random electrons accelerated at shock. Using the results in Sari, Piran and Narayan (1998), we get

$`\nu _{m,f}(t)`$ $``$ $`5.1\times 10^{15}(1+z)^{1/2}ϵ_B^{1/2}ϵ_e^2g^2E_{52}^{1/2}t_d^{3/2}\text{Hz},`$ (1)
$`\nu _{c,f}(t)`$ $``$ $`2.7\times 10^{12}(1+z)^{1/2}ϵ_B^{3/2}E_{52}^{1/2}n_0^1t_d^{1/2}\text{Hz},`$ (2)
$`t_{m,f}`$ $``$ $`2.9(1+z)^{1/3}ϵ_B^{1/3}ϵ_e^{4/3}g^{4/3}E_{52}^{1/3}\nu _{R,15}^{2/3}\text{days},`$ (3)
$`F_{\nu ,max,f}`$ $``$ $`1.1\times 10^2a_\nu (1+z)ϵ_B^{1/2}E_{52}n_0^{1/2}D_{28}^2\text{mJy}.`$ (4)
where $`\nu _{c,f}`$ is the cooling frequency, $`ϵ_B`$ and $`ϵ_e`$ are the fractions of the shock energy given to magnetic field and electrons at the shock, $`g=(p2)/(p1)`$, $`E_{52}=E/10^{52}`$ ergs, $`n_0=n/1`$ proton cm-3, $`\nu _{R,15}=\nu _R/10^{15}`$Hz, and here $`t_d`$ is the observer’s time in unit of day, $`D_{28}`$ is the luminosity distance in unit of $`10^{28}`$ cm, $`a_\nu `$ is a correction factor to the extinction along the line of sight to the burst.

Assuming that the re-brightening with the peak luminosity of $`1`$ mJy around $`0.1`$ day is caused by this peak, we get the following formulae for $`ϵ_e`$ and $`n_0`$ as functions of $`ϵ_B`$ and other known parameters.

$`ϵ_e`$ $``$ $`9.4\times 10^2ϵ_B^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+z}{3.3}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{0.29}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{m,f}}{0.1\text{day}}}\right)^{3/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{52}}{5.6}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{R,15}}{0.5}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (5)
$`n_0`$ $``$ $`8.0\times 10^4ϵ_B^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_\nu }{0.8}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+z}{3.3}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_{\nu ,max,f}}{1\text{mJy}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{52}}{5.6}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{28}}{6.8}}\right)^4.`$ (6)
Holland et al. (2002a) claim the extinction $`A_V=0.26`$ mag, which implies a $`20\%`$ correction in the R-band. The slope $`1.05`$ of the optical afterglow at late time implies $`p2.4`$. However, there is still some debate about the value of $`p`$ (Sako & Harrison 2002; Holland et al. 2002a; Pandey et al. 2002). We will discuss two cases $`p=2.2`$ and $`2.4`$.

### 2.2 Reverse Shock

The evolution of reverse shocks is classified into two cases (Kobayashi 2000). If the initial Lorentz factor of the shell $`\eta `$ is larger than a critical value $`\eta _c=(3E/32\pi nm_pc^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^3)^{1/8}`$ where $`m_p`$ is the mass of proton, the reverse shock becomes relativistic in the frame of unshocked shell material during crossing the shell, and drastically decelerates the shell (thick shell case). If $`\eta <\eta _c`$, the reverse shock can not decelerate the shell effectively (thin shell case). According to the internal shock model, the initial width of the shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is given by the intrinsic duration of the GRB $`cT/(1+z)`$ (Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1997).

$$\eta _c190n_0^{1/8}\left(\frac{1+z}{3.3}\right)^{3/8}\left(\frac{T}{100\text{sec}}\right)^{3/8}\left(\frac{E_{52}}{5.6}\right)^{1/8}.$$
(7)
The Lorentz factor at the shock crossing time is given given by $`\gamma _\times \mathrm{min}[\eta ,\eta _c]`$. The shock crossing time is $`t_\times (\gamma _\times /\eta _c)^{8/3}T`$ (Sari & Piran 1999a; Kobayashi 2000).

Since at the shock crossing time, the forward and reverse shocked regions have the same Lorentz factor and internal energy density $`e`$, the cooling frequency of the reverse shock $`\nu _{c,r}`$ is equal to that of the forward shock $`\nu _{c,f}`$.

$$\nu _{c,r}(t_\times )\nu _{c,f}(t_\times ).$$
(8)
The typical frequency of synchrotron emission is proportional to the electron’s random Lorentz factor squared and to the magnetic field and Lorentz boost. The Lorentz boost and the magnetic field $`\sqrt{e}`$ are the same for the two shocked regions, while the random Lorentz factor is proportional to $`\overline{\gamma }_\times `$ in the reverse shocked region and to $`\gamma _\times `$ in the forward shocked region where $`\overline{\gamma }_\times `$ is the Lorentz factor of the shocked shell material in the frame of the unshocked shell material. Using a relation $`\gamma _\times \overline{\gamma }_\times \eta `$, the reverse shock frequency at the crossing time (the peak time) is given by (Sari & Piran 1999a)

$$\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )\frac{\eta ^2}{\gamma _\times ^4}\nu _{m,f}(t_\times ).$$
(9)
The peak flux at the typical frequency is proportional to the number of electrons and to the magnetic field and the Lorentz boost. From the energy conservation, the mass of the shell is larger by a factor of $`\gamma _\times ^2/\eta `$ at the crossing time than that of the ISM swept by the forward shock. Since the number of electrons is proportional to the mass, we get

$$F_{\nu ,max,r}(t_\times )\frac{\gamma _\times ^2}{\eta }F_{\nu ,max,f}$$
(10)
Even though the hydrodynamic evolution of “thin” and “thick” shells are very different, the time dependences of the emission are similar (Kobayashi & Sari 2000). If the optical band $`\nu _R`$ is below the typical synchrotron frequency $`\nu _{m,r}`$, the luminosity decays as $`t^{0.5}`$. If $`\nu _R>\nu _{m,r}`$, it decreases as $`t^2`$ (Kobayashi 2000).

First we assume that the optical band is below the typical frequency of the reverse shock emission at the shock crossing time $`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )>\nu _R\nu _{m,f}(t_{m,f})`$. Using $`\nu _{m,f}t^{3/2}`$ (Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998) and eq. (9), we get $`\eta >(T/t_{m,f})^{3/4}\eta _c^20.03\eta _c^2>1000`$ for the standard values of parameters assumed in eq. (7). Then, GRB021004 should be a thick shell case. However, in a thick shell case, we can show $`F(t_{eo})/F_{\nu ,max,f}<Tt_{m,f}^{3/4}/t_{eo}^{7/4}0.6`$ where $`F(t_{eo})`$ is the the optical flux from the reverse shock at the earliest observations by Fox (2002) at $`t_{eo}0.01`$ days. This limit is inconsistent with the observations, and hence $`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )<\nu _R`$.

If $`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )<\nu _R`$, the reverse shock emission simply decreases as $`t^2`$. Since the extrapolation of the light curve from the data points by Fox (2002) to the earlier time $`T10^3`$ day with a power law of $`t^2`$ violates the upper-limits by Torii et al (2002) (see fig1), GRB 021004 should be a thin shell case, in which the peak of the reverse shock emission is delayed, i.e. $`t_\times >T`$.

Using eqs. (5) and (6) with $`p=2.4`$, $`t_{m,f}0.06`$ days, $`F_{\nu ,max,f}1.3`$ mJy (R-band), $`E=5.6\times 10^{52}`$ergs, and $`z=2.3`$, we search for a set of parameters $`(ϵ_B,\eta )`$ with which the theoretical estimates give a reasonable fit to all observations. With a normalized Lorentz factor $`\kappa \eta /\eta _c`$, we can show that the crossing time $`t_\times \kappa ^{8/3}`$ and the optical flux from the reverse shock at the crossing time $`F(t_\times )=(\nu _R/\nu _{m,r})^{(p1)/2}F_{\nu ,max,r}\kappa ^pϵ_B^{(2p)/8}`$. Since the optical flux $`F(t_\times )`$ depends on $`ϵ_B`$ very weakly $`ϵ_B^{1/20}(p=2.4)`$ and $`ϵ_B^{1/40}(p=2.2)`$, $`ϵ_B`$ is not well determined from the light curve, or equivalently, we can explain the peculiar behavior of the light curve with a wide range of $`ϵ_B`$. When changing the value of $`\kappa `$, the position of the peak moves along a line of $`Ft^{3p/8}`$ on the flux - time plane, and $`\kappa 0.55`$ gives the best fit to the observations. When we fit the observations at $`>0.1`$ day with a flatter power law of $`t^{3(1p)/4}=t^{0.9}(p=2.2)`$, we need to chose a earlier peak time $`t_{m,f}`$. Assuming the same parameters with the $`p=2.4`$ case, except $`t_{m,f}0.035`$ days, the best fit is given by $`\kappa 0.65`$.

Since $`ϵ_e`$ and $`n`$ are determined by eqs. (5) and (6), $`\nu _{m,f}`$ and $`F_{\nu ,max,f}`$ do not depend on $`ϵ_B`$. The value of $`ϵ_B`$ is constrained only by the the cooling break. The cooling frequency $`\nu _{c,f}t^{1/2}`$ crosses the optical band at $`t0.79ϵ_B^1\left(\frac{1+z}{3.3}\right)^3\left(\frac{E_{52}}{5.6}\right)^3\left(\frac{a_\nu }{0.8}\right)^4\left(\frac{F_{\nu ,max,f}}{1.3mJy}\right)^4\left(\frac{\nu _{R,15}}{0.5}\right)^2\left(\frac{D_{28}}{6.8}\right)^8`$ days. Holland et al. (2002a) reported that there is no evidence for color evolution between 8.5 hours and 5.5 days after the burst (see, however, Matheson et al. 2002; Bersier et al. 2002), and hence $`ϵ_B<0.14`$. A lower limit $`ϵ_B>8\times 10^5`$ is required from $`ϵ_e<1`$.

Fig 1 shows an example case in which $`p=2.4`$ and $`ϵ_B=3.0\times 10^3`$ are assumed. This choice leads to $`ϵ_e0.28`$, $`n0.45`$ proton cm-3 and $`\eta 120`$. These are surprisingly typical values obtained in other afterglow observations (Panaitescu and Kumar 2002). The dashed and dashed dotted lines show the optical light curve of the reverse and forward shock emission, respectively. The thick solid lines depicts the total flux. Around the peak time of the forward shock $`0.1`$ day, our estimate slightly deviates from the observations. However, in our estimate, we assumed a simplified synchrotron spectrum which is described by a broken power law. Since a more realistic synchrotron spectrum is rounded at the break frequencies (Granot, Piran & Sari 1999), a light curve should be also rounded at the break time (dotted line). The short time scale variability, which is prominent around $`1`$ day, might be produced by ISM turbulence (Wang & Loeb 2000; Holland et al. 2002b; Lazzati et al 2002). The latest data point in Fig 1 is lower than the extrapolation with a scaling of $`t^{1.05}`$. This might be a signature of the jet break.

Assuming $`p=2.2`$ and $`ϵ_B=3.0\times 10^3`$, we get $`ϵ_e0.32`$, $`n0.45`$ proton cm-3 and $`\eta 140`$. The total flux is shown by the thin solid line. In this case, we need to assume larger ISM turbulence.

## 3 X-ray and Radio Afterglow

In this section, we assume the values of parameters with which we have shown the example cases in the previous section, and estimate the X-ray and radio afterglows. The extinction correction $`a_\nu `$ is unity for X-ray and radio afterglows, and hence $`F_{\nu ,max,f}1.6`$ mJy (radio and X-ray).

X-ray Afterglow: Since the X-ray band $`5`$keV is well above the typical frequency of the reverse shock emission, the contribution from the reverse shock to the X-ray band is negligible. The X-ray afterglow should be described only by the forward shock emission. The luminosity in X-ray band should decrease as $`t^{(23p)/4}t^{1.3}(p=2.4)`$ or $`t^{1.15}(p=2.2)`$. The Chandra X-ray observatory observed the afterglow for a total exposure of 87ksec, beginning at Oct 5 8:55 UT (Sako and Harrison 2002). The count rate decrease with a power law slope of $`1.0\pm 0.2`$. The mean 2-10 keV X-ray flux is $`4.3\times 10^{13}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1. We estimate the 5 keV flux at the observational mean time 1.36 days $`3.1\times 10^{13}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 for $`p=2.4`$ and $`6.4\times 10^{13}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 for $`p=2.2`$. Our estimates are in a good agreement with the observations.

Radio Afterglow: The forward shock emission in radio band $`10`$ GHz increases as $`t^{1/2}`$ until the flux reaches to the maximum $`1.6`$ mJy at $`80`$ days for $`p=2.4`$ (dashed dotted line in fig2) or at $`50`$ days for $`p=2.2`$. After the typical frequency $`\nu _{m,r}`$ crosses the radio band, the reverse shock emission decays as $`t^2`$ (dashed line for $`p=2.4`$). At low frequencies and early times, self absorption takes an important role and significantly reduces the flux. A simple estimate of the maximal flux (dotted line for $`p=2.4`$) is the emission from the black body with the reverse shock temperature (Kobayashi & Sari 2000). The thick and thin solid line depicts the total flux for $`p=2.4`$ and for $`p=2.2`$, respectively. Since the observations (circles) are done in various frequencies, we scaled the observed value to the expected value at $`10`$GHz by using a spectral slope of $`1`$ 111 Berger et al. (2002) reported an unusual spectral spectral slope $`F_\nu \nu `$ between 8.5 GHz and 86GHz from the observations with the VLA on October 10.17 UT, and claimed that the spectrum is not due to a transition from optically-thick ($`\nu ^2`$) to optically thin ($`\nu ^{1/3}`$) emission. The superposition of the forward and reverse shock emission could give even flatter spectrum. Non-standard emission mechanism may be needed to explain this unusual spectrum.. This burst might also cause a bright radio flare $`1`$ mJy around $`0.5`$ day as observed in GRB 990123. When we fit the optical observations with $`p=2.2`$, an earlier optical peak time $`t_{m,f}`$ is required. Since the peak time at the radio band is proportional to $`t_{m,f}`$, the modeling with $`p=2.2`$ gives a better fit to the radio observations.

## 4 Conclusions

The low-frequency (e.g. optical, IR & radio) lightcurve from the forward shock is expected to rise initially and to decay after the typical synchrotron frequency crosses the observational band. Although such a behavior has been observed in the radio band, previous optical afterglow observations were only made at too late times to catch the rising phase. However, the swift localization of GRB 021004 by HETE II allowed the follow-up of the afterglow at very early time. This burst has so far the earliest detected optical afterglow. We have shown that the rising phase of the optical emission might be caught for the first time in GRB 021004, together with a reverse shock emission. The superposition of both the forward shock and the reverse shock emissions can well fit for the 0.1 day re-brightening feature. With the standard values of parameters inferred from other afterglow observations, we have constructed example cases in which theoretical estimates fit the broadband observations. We therefore suggest that the early re-brightening might be a common feature in optical afterglows.

The reverse shock emission in GRB 990123 peaked at about $`1`$ Jy in R-band, while the peak in GRB 021004 was only a few mJy. Since GRB 990123 is a very bright burst with a fluence about 100 times that of GRB 021004, we expect GRB 990123 could produce the much brighter reverse shock emission. Another difference is the typical frequency $`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )`$. In GRB 990123 it is close to the R-band (Sari & Piran 199b), while in GRB 021004 it is estimated as $`1.4\times 10^{12}`$ Hz $`(p=2.4)`$ or $`8.8\times 10^{11}`$ Hz $`(p=2.2)`$. The lower $`\nu _{m,r}(t_\times )`$ also makes the reverse shock emission dimmer in the R-band (Kobayashi 2000).

We thank Peter Mészáros for valuable comments and the anonymous referee for valuable suggestions. We acknowledge support through the Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, which is funded by NSF under cooperative agreement PHY 01-14375, and through NASA NAG5-9192.

References
Akerlof,C.W. et al. 1999, Nature, 398, 400.
Berger,E. et al. 2002, GCN 1613.
Bersier,D. 2002a, submitted to ApJL, astro-ph/0211130.
Bersier,D., Winn,J., Stanek,K.Z. & Garnavich,P. 2002b, GCN 1586.
Fox,D.W. 2002, GCN 1564.
Frail,D. & Berger,E. 2002, GCN 1574.
Granot,J., Piran,T. & Sari,R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 679.
Halpern,J.P., Armstrong,E.K., Espaillat,C.C. & Kemp,J. 2002a, GCN 1578.
Halpern,J.P., Mirabal,N., Armstrong,E.K., Espaillat,C.C. & Kemp,J. 2002b, GCN 1593.
Henden,A. 2002, GCN 1583.
Holland,S.T. et al. 2002a, submitted to AJ, astro-ph/0211094.
Holland,S.T. et al. 2002b, AJ, 124, 639.
Holland,S.T.,Fynbo,J.P.U.,Weidinger,M.,Egholm,M.P.& Levan,A. 2002c, GCN 1585.
Holland,S.T.,Fynbo,J.P.U.,Weidinger,M.,Egholm,M.P.,Levan,A.&Pedersen,H. 2002d, GCN 1597.
Kobayashi,S 2000, ApJ, 545, 807.
Kobayashi,S, Piran,T & Sari,R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 92.
Kobayashi,S, Piran,T & Sari,R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 669.
Kobayashi,S & Sari,R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 819.
Lamb,D. et al. 2002, GCN 1600.
Lazzati,D., Rossi,E.,Covino,S.,Ghisellini,G & Malesani,D. 2002, A&A in press, astro-ph/0210333.
Malesani,D. et al. 2002a, GCN 1607.
Malesani,D. et al. 2002b, GCN 1645.
Matheson,T et al. 2002, submitted to ApJL, astro-ph/0210403.
Masetti,N. et al. 2002, GCN 1603.
Matsumoto, K.,Kawabata,T.,Ayani,K.,Urata,Y.& Yamaoka,H. 2002a, GCN 1567.
Matsumoto,K. K.,Kawabata,T.,Ayani,K.,Urata,Y.,Yamaoka,H.&Kawai,N. 2002b, GCN 1594.
Mészáros,P. & Rees,M.J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 231.
Mirabal,J.,Armstrong,E.K.,Halpern,J.P.& Kemp,J. 2002a, GCN 1602.
Mirabal,J.,Halpern,J.P.,Chornock,R.&Filippenko,A.V. 2002b, GCN 1618.
Oksanen,A. & Aho,M. 2002, GCN 1570.
Oksanen,A.,Aho,M,Rivich,K.,Rivich,K.,West,D.&During,D. 2002, GCN 1591.
Panaitescu,A. & Kumar,P. 2002, ApJ, 571, 779.
Pandey et al. 2002, submitted to BASI, astro-ph/0211108.
Pooley,G. 2002a, GCN 1575.
Pooley,G. 2002b, GCN 1588.
Pooley,G. 2002c, GCN 1604.
Rhoads,J.E. 1999, ApJ, 525, 737.
Sahu,D.K.,Bhatt,B.C.,Anupama,G.C.&Prabhu,T.P. 2002, GCN 1587.
Sako,M & Harrison, F.A. 2002, GCN 1624.
Sari,R. & Piran,T 1999a, ApJ, 520, 641.
Sari,R. & Piran,T 1999b, ApJ, 517, L109.
Sari,R., Piran,T & Halpern,J.P. 1999, ApJ, 519, L17.
Sari,R., Piran,T & Narayan,R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17.
Shirasaki,Y. et al. 2002, GCN 1565.
Soderberg,A.M. & Ramirez-Ruiz,E. 2002, MNRAS, 330, L24.
Stanek,K.Z.,Bersier,D.,Winn,J.& Garnavich,P. 2002, GCN 1598.
Stefanon,M. et al. 2002, GCN 1623.
Torii,K., Kato,T. & Yamaoka,H. 2002, GCN 1589.
Uemura,M.,Ishioka,R.,Kato,T.&Yamaoka,H. 2002, GCN 1566.
Wang,X. & Loeb,A 2000, ApJ, 535, 788.
Weidinger,M. et al. 2002, GCN 1573.
Winn,J.,Bersier,D.,Stanek,K.Z.,Garvanich,P.&Walker,A. 2002, GCN 1576.
Zhang,B.& Mészáros,P. 2002, ApJ, 566, 712.
Zharikov,S.,Vazquez,R.,Benitez,G.&del Rio,S. 2002, GCN 1577.


text:
# Quantal Density Functional Theory of Degenerate States

## .1

### .1.1


text:
# Wilson fermions with chirally twisted massBased on a talk given at Lattice 2002, the XX International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, held on June, 24–29, 2002 at M.I.T. Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

## 1 Introduction

In recent years a lot of progress has been achieved about lattice regularizations of gauge theories with fermions . On one hand, local (but non–ultralocal) fermionic actions that enjoy a lattice form of chiral symmetry and (almost) ideal renormalization properties have been discovered and put at work : for all of them the critical Dirac operator satisfies the celebrated Ginsparg-Wilson relation . On the other hand, more traditional formulations of lattice QCD (LQCD) based on Wilson and staggered quarks have been refined and widely used in realistic computations of hadronic observables and matrix elements. The simplest of these computations are currently performed with dynamical quarks.

In this contribution, I report on recent developments about Wilson fermions, which remove practical obstructions in dealing with light quarks and simplify the renormalization and O($`a`$) improvement of a number of observables. Improvements in the formulations of LQCD with staggered quarks are discussed elsewhere .

After shortly recalling the status of LQCD with Wilson quarks and its problem with exceptional configurations (sect.$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$), I introduce –for the case of $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$ flavours– the formulation with chirally twisted mass (sect.$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$). Then I discuss its basic properties (sect.$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$), the first non-perturbative studies (sect.$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$) and analogous lattice formulations of QCD with $`N_\mathrm{f}>2`$ quark flavours, which can simplify the renormalization of some operators of the effective weak Hamiltonian (sect. $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$).

## 2 Wilson fermions

The well known lattice formulation introduced by Wilson  provides a gauge invariant regularization for QCD with any number of quark flavours: the action is ultralocal and respects the global flavour symmetries of QCD, but all axial symmetries are broken by the Wilson term. This is no principle problem, as the flavour chiral invariance $`SU(N_\mathrm{f})SU(N_\mathrm{f})`$ can be restored in the (quantum) continuum limit , while the axial $`U(1)`$ invariance of the classical continuum theory is broken by quantum fluctuations.

The lack of chiral symmetry entails however some practically important consequences. First, complicated patterns of operator mixings arise, so that in many cases several operator subtractions111The corresponding coefficients can be computed in perturbation theory and beyond, e.g. by requiring the chiral Ward identities to hold up to cutoff effects . are needed in order to restore the chiral multiplet structure. Then, the leading deviations of renormalized quantities from their continuum limit values are linear in the lattice spacing $`a`$ and typically non-negligible. Last but not least, the absence of a lower bound on the norm of the eigenvalues of the massive Dirac matrix may lead to unphysical divergences in fermionic observables on non-trivial gauge backgrounds.

### 2.1 O($`a`$) improved Wilson fermions

The problem with the leading cutoff effects has found a clean solution via Symanzik’s improvement programme , which allows to define and compute on-shell renormalized quantities with leading cutoff effects of order $`a^2`$, though at the price of tuning the coefficients of further counterterms222 Implementing this programme may be non-trivial and CPU-time demanding, e.g. in the theory with non-degenerate and/or dynamical quarks, as well as for operators with complicated mixings .. The LQCD action for the O($`a`$) improved theory with $`N_\mathrm{f}`$ quark flavours reads:

$$S_\mathrm{g}[U;g_0^2]+a^4\underset{x}{}\overline{\psi }(x)\left[(D_\mathrm{W}^c[U]+M_\mathrm{q})\psi \right](x)$$
(1)
where $`S_\mathrm{g}[U;g_0^2]`$ is the pure gauge action with coupling $`g_0^2`$, $`M_\mathrm{q}=\mathrm{diag}(m_\mathrm{q}^u,m_\mathrm{q}^d,m_\mathrm{q}^s,\mathrm{})`$ is the subtracted ($`M_\mathrm{q}=M_0m_\mathrm{c}`$) quark mass matrix and

$$D_\mathrm{W}^c[U]=\left\{\gamma \stackrel{~}{}\frac{a}{2}^{}+c_{\mathrm{sw}}\frac{a}{4}i\sigma \widehat{F}\right\}[U]+m_\mathrm{c}$$
(2)
represents the critical Wilson–Dirac operator. Omitting Lorentz indices, we denote by $``$ ($`^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$) the forward (backward, symmetrized) covariant lattice derivative and by $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ the clover lattice discretization of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. The coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ and $`am_\mathrm{c}`$ are dimensionless functions333At the non–perturbative level, $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ and $`am_\mathrm{c}`$ are uniquely defined only up to O($`a`$) and O($`a^3`$) corrections , respectively. of $`g_0^2`$ and $`N_\mathrm{f}`$.

### 2.2 Exceptional configurations

In quenched simulations of LQCD on relatively coarse lattices and for moderately light quark flavours, gauge configurations can be sampled where the Wilson–Dirac matrix has one or few eigenvalues with norm exceptionally close to zero, i.e. much smaller than on the other configurations. The corresponding eigenvectors of the Wilson–Dirac matrix are referred to as “spurious” quark zero modes, because in a chiral invariant formulation of QCD the Dirac matrix can have zero modes only if some quark flavour is massless.

On gauge configurations with spurious quark zero modes fermionic observables may undergo fluctuations that exceed in modulus the typical ones by orders of magnitudes: in this sense, these configurations appear to be “exceptional”. Moreover, increasing the statistics does not reduce in general the standard deviation of the observables, as further, even larger fluctuations may occur. A reliable statistical analysis of the fermionic observable becomes hence impossible . When employing the non-perturbatively O($`a`$) improved  Wilson action, eq. (1), and the plaquette gauge action, this problem is felt at values of $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ of about one half the value of the strange quark’s mass if $`a0.1`$ fm . With the unimproved Wilson action ($`c_{\mathrm{sw}}=0`$) quenched computations can be pushed to somewhat lower values of the quark mass, but cutoff effects are harder to control .

In unquenched simulations, the importance sampling must give spurious quark zero modes a vanishingly small probability. State-of-the-art algorithms, however, account for the effects of sea quarks in a stochastic way: it is hence possible that configurations with nearly zero-modes of the Dirac matrix are produced in the updating process (e.g. a HMC trajectory). This would then result in an exceptionally low acceptance rate444Exceptionally large values of the product ‘driving force times MD integration step” have been observed  in simulations with the HMC algorithm. The eigenvalues of the Dirac matrix were not simultaneously evaluated., which can possibly be avoided at the price of slowing down the algorithm. In the case of partially (un)quenched simulations, the problem with spurious valence quark zero modes is only alleviated: exceptional fluctuations of hadron correlators have indeed been observed .

A typical example of exceptional configurations is given in Fig. 1. There we plot versus the number $`N`$ of independent measurements the relative standard deviation, multiplied by $`N^{1/2}`$, of a pion channel correlator at fixed time separation: for the statistical analysis to be reliable, this quantity should approach a constant value as $`N1`$. Our example refers to a quenched simulation at $`\beta =6`$ ($`a0.1`$ fm) on a $`24^348`$ lattice, with degenerate quark masses such that $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}/m_\mathrm{V}0.47`$: employing the non-perturbatively O($`a`$) improved action (1) leads to untolerably large and rare fluctuations of the observable (empty symbols). On the other hand, one can work at equivalent parameters in a formulation based on Wilson quarks with chirally twisted mass, see sect.$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$: of course, the bare quark mass parameters have to be adjusted so as to match the value of the renormalized current quark mass ($`m_\mathrm{R}^{}`$ in the notation of sect. 4). In this case the occurrence of spurious quark zero modes is avoided: as shown in Fig. 1 (filled symbols), there are no exceptional fluctuations in the MC history of the pion channel correlator, so that a reliable statistical result555The full statistics was of $`N=260`$ measurements . can be obtained.

## 3 Chirally twisted “mass”

The presence of chirally twisted “mass” terms is a general feature of lattice gauge theories with Wilson fermions, as soon as the “physical” fermion mass term is not aligned in chiral space to the Wilson term. Of course, the latter generates itself a “mass” term, whose divergent part requires appropriate subtraction.

### 3.1 Twisted mass and parity

To the best of my knowledge, Osterwalder and Seiler first proposed  a lattice formulation where the fermionic action is of the form

$`S_\mathrm{f}^{(\varphi )}={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\overline{\psi }^{}(x)\left[(D_\varphi ^c+\stackrel{~}{m})\psi ^{}\right](x),`$
$`D_\varphi ^c=\gamma \stackrel{~}{}+e^{i\varphi \gamma _5}[\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{c}\frac{a}{2}^{}+\stackrel{~}{c}_{\mathrm{SW}}\frac{a}{4}i\sigma \widehat{F}],`$ (3)
namely with $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{\mathrm{SW}}=0`$. The angle $`\varphi `$ can be taken as a measurement of the misalignment between the fermion mass term ($`\stackrel{~}{m}`$) and the Wilson term, subtracted by a critical mass and a clover-like term666In general, $`a\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{\mathrm{SW}}`$ may differ from $`am_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$.. It was also observed that lattice formulations with fermionic action (3.1) in general do not respect parity . Indeed, as long as $`\varphi 0(\mathrm{mod}\pi )`$, quantum fluctuations generate in the effective action a term $`\mathrm{tr}(F\stackrel{~}{F})`$, which survives to the continuum limit (if not canceled by a suitable counterterm).

Parity breaking is an unwanted feature if one is interested in QCD. One can show that, up to cutoff effects, parity breaking is avoided by considering $`N_\mathrm{f}>1`$ quark flavours and giving the array $`\varphi =[\varphi ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\varphi ^{(N_\mathrm{f})}]`$ a non-trivial flavour dependence such that $`_{f=1}^{N_\mathrm{f}}\varphi ^{(f)}=0`$. In the case of $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$, which is relevant e.g. for $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, one is then led to the fermionic action:

$$S_\mathrm{f}=a^4\underset{x}{}\overline{q}^{}(x)\left(D_{\mathrm{tmW}}^c+m_\mathrm{q}^{}\right)q^{}(x)$$
(4)
where $`q^{}`$ is a quark doublet field, the quark mass term ($`m_\mathrm{q}^{}`$) takes the usual form, but the critical Wilson-Dirac matrix is chirally twisted777The matrix $`\tau ^3`$ in $`D_{\mathrm{tmW}}^c`$ acts in flavour space.:

$$D_{\mathrm{tmW}}^c=\gamma \stackrel{~}{}+e^{i\omega \gamma _5\tau ^3}[m_\mathrm{c}\frac{a}{2}^{}+c_{\mathrm{sw}}\frac{a}{4}i\sigma \widehat{F}]$$
(5)
A (non-anomalous) change of quark field basis,

$$q=e^{i\omega \gamma _5\tau ^3/2}q^{},\overline{q}=\overline{q}^{}e^{i\omega \gamma _5\tau ^3/2},$$
(6)
brings the action (4) into the form

$$S_\mathrm{f}=a^4\underset{x}{}\overline{q}(x)\left(D_\mathrm{W}^c+m_\mathrm{q}+i\mu _\mathrm{q}\gamma _5\tau ^3\right)q(x)$$
(7)
where $`\mu _\mathrm{q}=m_\mathrm{q}^{}\mathrm{sin}\omega `$ is the twisted mass parameter and $`m_\mathrm{q}=m_0m_\mathrm{c}=m_\mathrm{q}^{}\mathrm{cos}\omega `$. The bare mass parameters are $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ and $`m_0`$, as the $`m_\mathrm{c}`$–dependence cancels between $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{W}^c`$.

The formulation with fermionic action (4) or (7) is referred to as lattice twisted mass QCD (LtmQCD). At the classical level, it obviously represents a regularization of QCD with $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$ (mass–degenerate) flavours. This property holds true at the quantum level , see sect.$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$.

### 3.2 Protection against exceptionals

The lattice theory with fermionic action (7) has been studied (for $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}=0`$) to establish whether, at finite $`g_0^2`$ and for values of $`am_0`$ in a certain range, parity and isospin can be spontaneously broken888In this context $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ played the role of an external zero–momentum source, which can orient the vacuum in a certain direction (in flavour chiral space), and the main interest was on the properties of the vacuum after taking the thermodynamic and zero–source limits., as conjectured by Aoki . It was noted  that the lattice Dirac matrix corresponding to eq. (7) can not be singular on any gauge background as long as $`\mu _\mathrm{q}0`$, since

$`0<\mathrm{Det}[D_\mathrm{W}^c+m_\mathrm{q}+i\mu _\mathrm{q}\gamma _5\tau ^3]=`$
$`=\mathrm{det}[(D_\mathrm{W}^c+m_\mathrm{q})^{}(D_\mathrm{W}^c+m_\mathrm{q})+\mu _\mathrm{q}^2].`$ (8)
Here $`\mathrm{Det}[\mathrm{}]`$ ($`\mathrm{det}[\mathrm{}]`$) denotes the fermionic determinant in the two-flavour (one-flavour) space.

The one-flavour Dirac matrix corresponding to the action (3.1) is also not singular on any gauge configurations, as long as $`\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{sin}\varphi 0`$. This is because $`|\mathrm{det}[D_\varphi ^c+\stackrel{~}{m}]|^2`$ can be written in the same form as the r.h.s. of eq. (3.2) with $`m_\mathrm{q}\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{q}\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. Based on this property, the authors of Ref.  proposed to employ the fermionic lattice action (3.1) with $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{c}=m_\mathrm{c}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{\mathrm{SW}}=c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$, $`\pi /2|\varphi |>0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}>0`$ to avoid the occurrence of spurious quark zero modes in massive LQCD with Wilson quarks. They presented numerical evidence, see Fig. 3 of Ref , that exceptional configurations are avoided in the quenched approximation and discussed on a semiclassical level the relation between their lattice formulation and QCD in the continuum limit. It should be noted that in the quenched model the parity breaking inherent to the formulation with action (3.1) reduces to a mere O($`a`$) effect on renormalized quantities, but this is no longer true with (partially) unquenched quarks.

## 4 Basic properties of lattice tmQCD

I discuss here the properties of LtmQCD as an ultraviolet regularization of QCD with $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$ mass-degenerate quark flavours999A satisfactory regularization of $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$ QCD with bare quark masses $`m_\mathrm{q}^{}\pm \delta m_\mathrm{q}^{}`$ can be obtained e.g. by adding to the action density in eq. (4) a term $`\overline{q}^{}(x)\tau ^1\delta m_\mathrm{q}^{}q^{}(x)`$..

### 4.1 Symmetries and renormalizability

The LtmQCD action, see eq. (4) or (7), is invariant under lattice gauge transformations and translations, axis permutations, charge conjugation and the global symmetry U(1) corresponding to conservation of the fermionic number. At $`\mu _\mathrm{q}0\omega =\mathrm{arctan}(\mu _\mathrm{q}/m_\mathrm{q})0`$, isospin symmetry is reduced to a U(1)–invariance with generator $`\tau ^3/2`$ and axis reflections, such as parity, are no longer a symmetry. It is important to note the residual invariance $`P_\mathrm{F}`$,

$`U_0(x)U_0(x_P),U_k(x)U_k^1(x_Pa\widehat{k}),`$
$`q(x)\tau ^1\gamma _0q(x_P),\overline{q}(x)\overline{q}(x_P)\gamma _0\tau ^1,`$ (9)
where $`x_P=(x_0,𝐱)`$, as this symmetry rules out a term $`\mathrm{tr}(F\stackrel{~}{F})`$ in the quantum effective action.

A standard analysis  based on lattice symmetries and power counting shows that the model is renormalizable. The relations between bare and renormalized action parameters take in general the form (I recall $`m_\mathrm{q}=m_0m_\mathrm{c}`$):

$`g_\mathrm{R}^2`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\mathrm{g}(g_0^2,am_\mathrm{q},a\mu _\mathrm{q};a\mu )g_0^2,`$
$`\mu _\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\mu (g_0^2,am_\mathrm{q},a\mu _\mathrm{q};a\mu )\mu _\mathrm{q},`$
$`m_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\mathrm{m}(g_0^2,am_\mathrm{q},a\mu _\mathrm{q};a\mu )m_\mathrm{q},`$ (10)
but the renormalization factors $`Z`$ can be chosen to be independent of $`am_\mathrm{q}`$ and $`a\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ (mass independent schemes). The additive renormalization of $`m_0`$ is independent of the quark mass parameters : $`m_\mathrm{c}=m_\mathrm{c}(g_0^2)`$, up to intrinsic O($`a`$) corrections in the case of non-perturbative determinations of $`m_\mathrm{c}`$. The ratio $`Z_\mathrm{m}/Z_\mu `$ does not depend on the subtraction scale $`\mu `$, consistently with recovery of flavour chiral symmetry in the continuum limit. Noting the bare lattice identity

$$_\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_\mu ^b=2\mu _\mathrm{q}ϵ^{3bc}P^c,$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mu ^b`$ denotes the one–point split vector current, it is easy to argue  that $`Z_\mu Z_\mathrm{P}=1`$

### 4.2 Continuum limit and cutoff effects

Although the physical interpretation of the fermionic correlation functions is most transparent in the quark basis corresponding to eq. (4), the renormalization of gauge–invariant correlation functions, including those with insertions of local operators, looks simpler in the quark basis corresponding to eq. (7). In this basis, indeed, the critical Wilson-Dirac matrix is given by $`D_\mathrm{W}^c`$ and the mixing properties of the operators in the massless theory ($`\mu _\mathrm{q}=0`$, $`m_0=m_\mathrm{c}`$) are usually well known: the construction of lattice fields that are multiplicatively renormalizable and respect, up to cutoff effects, the chiral multiplet structure is hence straightforward. Concerning the overall, possibly scale–dependent renormalization factors of the various operator multiplets, we assume for simplicity  that they, as well as $`Z_\mathrm{g}`$, $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`Z_\mu `$, are chosen to be independent of $`\omega `$.

In the quark basis of choice, the Ward identities of flavour chiral symmetry read (for $`b=1,2,3`$):

$`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu (A_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^b`$ $``$ $`2m_\mathrm{R}(P_\mathrm{R})^b+i\mu _\mathrm{R}\delta ^{3b}(S_\mathrm{R})^0`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu (V_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^b`$ $``$ $`2\mu _\mathrm{R}ϵ^{3bc}(P_\mathrm{R})^c,`$ (12)
where the symbol $``$ means equality up to O($`a`$) corrections and renormalized operators are defined as usual with Wilson fermions101010For $`b=3`$ severe power-like divergences must be subtracted to define $`(S_\mathrm{R})^0`$, which is no problem in perturbation theory but is delicate at the non-perturbative level., e.g.

$$(\{V_\mathrm{R},A_\mathrm{R}\})_\mu ^b=\overline{q}\{Z_\mathrm{V}\gamma _\mu ,Z_\mathrm{A}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\}\frac{1}{2}\tau ^bq.$$
(13)
The form of eq. (4.2) reminds us that appropriate linear combinations of renormalized operators, reflecting the formal change of variables (6), should be taken, in order to obtain in the continuum limit operators with well defined parity and isospin properties. Exploiting eq. (4.2) one can indeed extract $`m_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{R}`$ and introduce the renormalized counterparts of $`m_\mathrm{q}^{}`$ and $`\omega `$:

$$m_\mathrm{R}^{}=\sqrt{m_\mathrm{R}^2+\mu _\mathrm{R}^2},\alpha =\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mu _\mathrm{R}}{m_\mathrm{R}}\right).$$
(14)
I remark that $`\mathrm{tan}(\alpha )=(Z_\mu /Z_\mathrm{m})\mathrm{tan}(\omega )`$ and $`m_\mathrm{R}^{}=Z_\mathrm{m}^{}(g_0^2,\omega )m_\mathrm{q}^{}`$. Then, if one considers (with $`\overline{b}=1,2`$) the renormalized operators

$`(V_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^3`$ $``$ $`(V_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^3,(A_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^3(A_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^3,`$
$`(V_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^{\overline{b}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )(V_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^{\overline{b}}+ϵ^{3\overline{b}c}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )(A_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^c`$
$`(A_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^{\overline{b}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )(A_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^{\overline{b}}+ϵ^{3\overline{b}c}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )(V_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^c`$
$`(P_\mathrm{R}^{})^3`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )(P_\mathrm{R})^3+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )(S_\mathrm{R})^0`$
$`(P_\mathrm{R}^{})^{\overline{b}}`$ $``$ $`(P_\mathrm{R})^{\overline{b}},`$ (15)
the Ward identities of flavour chiral symmetry take the usual form :

$$\stackrel{~}{}_\mu (A_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^b2m_\mathrm{R}^{}(P_\mathrm{R}^{})^b,\stackrel{~}{}_\mu (V_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^b0.$$
(16)
This result reflects the existence of a linear mapping among renormalized correlation functions computed with action parameters that correspond to different values of $`\alpha `$ and identical values of $`g_\mathrm{R}^2`$ and $`m_\mathrm{R}^{}`$ . The mapping between correlators of gauge invariant fields with unequal space–time arguments at $`\alpha =\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`\alpha =0`$ reads111111The definitions (4.2) are special cases of those in eq. (17).:

$`\varphi _{k\mathrm{R}}^{(r)}(x)\mathrm{}_{g_\mathrm{R}^2,m_\mathrm{R}^{},\overline{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{k\mathrm{R}}^{(r)}(x)\mathrm{}_{g_\mathrm{R}^2,m_\mathrm{R}^{},0},`$
$`\varphi _{k\mathrm{R}}^{(r)}(x)`$ $``$ $`R_{kl}^{(r)}(\overline{\alpha })\varphi _{l\mathrm{R}}^{(r)}(x).`$ (17)
Here $`\varphi _{kR}^{(r)}`$ denotes the $`k`$-th field component of the renormalized chiral multiplet $`r`$ and $`R^{(r)}(\omega )`$ is the (formal) multiplet transformation matrix under quark transformations of the type (6). The dots in (17) stand for further local fields, with those on the l.h.s. being related to those on the r.h.s. by the appropriate product of chiral transformation matrices $`R`$. The relations (17) are regularization–independent properties and imply the recovery of parity, isospin and chirality in the continuum limit of LtmQCD . Moreover, it is useful to note that they look just as one would guess from simple formal arguments.

The full information on QCD with two mass–degenerate quark flavours can hence be obtained by computing correlation functions with the action (4) or (7). It is understood that the continuum limit must be approached at fixed values of the renormalized parameters, including $`\alpha `$. In this way, the cutoff effects inherent to any determination of $`\alpha `$ at finite lattice spacing have no impact on the (extrapolated) continuum limit results121212Phenomena like a possible Aoki phase , are immaterial for any $`m_\mathrm{R}^{}0`$, if the continuum limit of renormalized quantities is taken at fixed renormalized parameters.

#### 4.2.1 Simplified operator mixings

The regularization of QCD with fermionic action (4) differs from Wilson’s (improved) one as long as the quarks are massive. In the massless theory, $`\mu _\mathrm{q}=0`$ and $`m_0=m_\mathrm{c}`$, any difference disappears, implying that the pattern of leading operator mixings is globally the same as in the original formulation by Wilson.

However, given a certain fermionic field, its physical interpretation depends on how it transforms under the parity and isospin operations, whose form is in turn dictated by the parameterization of the quark mass term. On the other hand, the mixing properties of the fermionic field depend crucially on its chiral orientation with respect to the Wilson term. Hence, for a specific fermionic field with a given physical interpretation (e.g. the physical axial current), the mixing properties may change, even at the leading level, with $`\omega `$ (or $`\alpha `$). For instance, eq. (4.2) shows that the component $`(A_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^1`$ of the physical non-singlet axial current is given by $`(A_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^1`$ if $`\alpha =\omega =0`$ and by $`(V_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^2`$ if $`\alpha =\omega =\pi /2`$. The currents $`(A_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^1`$ and $`(V_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^2`$, which are defined in eq. (13), involve different renormalization factors $`Z_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`Z_\mathrm{V}`$, with $`Z_\mathrm{V}=1`$ if the one–point split definition of the bare current $`V_\mu ^2`$ is adopted.

One can then adjust the ultraviolet regularization so as to simplify as far as possible the renormalization properties of certain –but not all– physical observables of interest. E.g. working with $`\omega =\pi /2`$ entails remarkable simplifications  in the renormalization of the decay constant of the charged pseudoscalar mesons and the chiral condensate, as $`(A_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^1=(V_\mathrm{R})_\mu ^2`$ and $`(S_\mathrm{R}^{})^0=2i(P_\mathrm{R})^3`$.

#### 4.2.2 Hamiltonian formalism at fixed $`a`$

Unimproved ($`c_{\mathrm{sw}}=0`$) lattice tmQCD admits a positive and selfadjoint transfer matrix , with the constraint $`|8+2am_0|>6`$ and no constraint on $`a\mu _\mathrm{q}`$. Lattice correlation functions can hence be represented as usual in terms of operator matrix elements with time–dependent coefficients.

From the symmetry properties of LtmQCD, see sect. 4.1, it follows that the set of lattice quantum numbers for $`\omega 0`$ is reduced as compared to that of Wilson’s formulation ($`\omega =0`$): parity and isospin are replaced by the quantum numbers $`p_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`q_\mathrm{I}`$ corresponding to the unphysical parity transformation $`P_\mathrm{F}`$, eq. (4.1), and the unbroken isospin generator. This implies, for instance, that in LtmQCD the physical vacuum and neutral pion states are labelled by the same set of lattice quantum numbers and can be interpolated by the same lattice field. Moreover, lattice operator mixings are constrained by $`p_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`q_\mathrm{I}`$ rather than parity and isospin quantum numbers. For instance, the operator $`(A_\mathrm{R}^{})_\mu ^1`$, which yields, as $`a0`$, the first component of the physical isotriplet axial current, mixes at order $`a\mu _\mathrm{R}`$ with the second component of the physical isotriplet vector current.

In the quantum mechanical analysis of tmQCD correlators ($`\omega 0`$) at fixed $`a`$, one must hence include  the contributions of matrix elements that would vanish if parity and isospin were exact symmetries131313The renormalized counterparts of these matrix elements actually vanish like $`a\mu _\mathrm{R}`$, or faster, in the continuum limit, because of the relations (17).. The O($`a`$)–improvement is expected to reduce the size of these contributions.

### 4.3 O($`a`$) improvement: the case $`\alpha =\pi /2`$

The O($`a`$) improvement of LtmQCD  is most conveniently discussed in the unphysical quark basis corresponding to eq. (7). Without loss of generality, one can assume that an infrared cutoff is in place (thanks to some specific choice of external momenta or boundary conditions), so that all correlation functions admit a Taylor expansion in powers of $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ around the massless theory. Once the latter has been fully renormalized and O($`a`$) improved in a mass independent scheme, the renormalized action parameters of the massive theory are consistently  defined by eq. (4.1), with $`g_0^2`$, $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ replaced by:

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_0^2(1+b_\mathrm{g}am_\mathrm{q}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{q}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mathrm{q}+b_\mathrm{m}am_\mathrm{q}^2+\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{m}a\mu _\mathrm{q}^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{q}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _\mathrm{q}(1+b_\mu am_\mathrm{q})`$ (18)
and $`Z_\mathrm{g}`$, $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`Z_\mu `$ depending only on $`\stackrel{~}{g}_0^2`$. The absence of a term $`a\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ in the expression for $`\stackrel{~}{g}_0^2`$ reflects the fact that the partition function of LtmQCD is even in $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$, see eq. (3.2) for the fermionic determinant: hence an action counterterm of the form $`a\mu _\mathrm{q}\mathrm{tr}(FF)`$ can not be generated.

Improved operators can be obtained by appropriate subtraction of the operator mixings that come with powers of $`am_\mathrm{q}`$ or $`a\mu _\mathrm{q}`$. In absence of power divergent mixings, the construction of multiplicatively renormalizable improved operators is rather simple, e.g.

$`(A_\mathrm{I})_\mu ^{\overline{b}}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu ^{\overline{b}}+c_\mathrm{A}a\stackrel{~}{}_\mu P^{\overline{b}}+a\mu _\mathrm{q}\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{A}ϵ^{3\overline{b}}V_\mu ^c,`$
$`(P_\mathrm{I})^{\overline{b}}`$ $`=`$ $`P^{\overline{b}},\overline{b}=1,2.`$ (19)
The corresponding renormalized and improved operators are obtained after rescaling by suitable factors $`Z_\mathrm{A}(1+b_\mathrm{A}am_\mathrm{q})`$ and $`Z_\mathrm{P}(1+b_\mathrm{P}am_\mathrm{q})`$. It is useful to remark that the set of O($`a`$) counterterms that have been introduced is slightly redundant : one of them can be chosen arbitrarily, e.g. by setting $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{m}1/2`$.

Adopting a formulation with $`|\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{q}||m_\mathrm{q}|\mathrm{O}(a)`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{q}0`$, i.e.

$$|\alpha |=\pi /2+\mathrm{O}(a),$$
(20)
we find that $`g_\mathrm{R}^2=Z_\mathrm{g}g_0^2`$ and $`m_\mathrm{R}^{}=Z_\mu \mu _\mathrm{q}`$ up to O($`a^2`$) corrections, see eq. (4.3), and all $`b`$–type improvement coefficients are not needed. One needs instead to know the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-type improvement coefficients, like $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\mathrm{A}`$ in eq. (4.3), which are associated to operator mixings that violate parity or isospin. This observation implies that one can determine the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-type coefficients by requiring the improved correlation functions to satisfy parity and isospin invariances141414In principle, it is also possible to get rid of the mixings of order $`a\mu _\mathrm{R}`$ without improving the operators: this is the case if in the quantum mechanical analysis of the correlators one can disentangle, e.g. by looking at the values of the effective masses, the contributions arising from intermediate states with different parity and isospin.. Implementing the condition (20) requires to know only $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{c}`$ (unimproved). Moreover, for $`\alpha `$ as in eq. (20), eq. (11) is interpreted as the physical PCAC relation, see eq.(4.2): O($`a`$) improved estimates of the mass, $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}`$, and the decay constant, $`F_{\mathrm{PS}}`$, of the charged pseudoscalar meson can hence be obtained  from the correlator

$$\mu _\mathrm{q}\stackrel{~}{G}_\mathrm{P}(x_0)=a^3\underset{𝐱}{}\mu _\mathrm{q}P^1(x)P^1(0),$$
(21)
if $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{c}`$ are known. If one wishes to work with $`|\alpha |=\pi /2+\mathrm{O}(a^2)`$, an improved estimate of $`m_\mathrm{c}`$ (which may require to know $`c_\mathrm{A}`$) is also needed.

## 5 The first non-perturbative studies

The above theoretical understanding of LtmQCD has been checked at the one–loop level , as far as the action and the operators of eq. (4.2) are concerned. At the non-perturbative level, test studies have been carried out in the quenched approximation151515For all quenched studies I conventionally set the “physical” scale by employing Sommer’s scale: $`r_0=0.5`$ fm. using the non-perturbatively improved  Wilson action. The authors of Ref.  studied LtmQCD in a box of volume $`L^3\times T`$ with Schrödinger functional boundary conditions , $`L=0.75`$ fm, $`T=2L`$, $`Lm_\mathrm{R}^{}=0.154`$, $`\alpha =1.44`$ and four lattice resolutions: $`a[0.093,0.046]`$ fm. The scaling behaviour of some renormalized and improved quantities (which in large volume yield the mass and the decay constant of pseudoscalar and vector mesons) was found to be consistent with O($`a`$) improvement, with the residual cutoff effects at $`a=0.093`$ fm ranging from $`0.5\%`$ to $`9\%`$.

The same setup and observables have then been employed for a study in realistically large volumes : $`L=1.5`$ to $`2.2`$ fm and $`T=(2÷3)L`$, so to ensure $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}L4.5`$. This study was restricted to two lattice resolutions, $`a=0.093`$ and $`0.068`$ fm, and, for each of them, three sets of quark mass parameters, which correspond to $`|\alpha |=\pi /2+\mathrm{O}(a)`$ and pseudoscalar meson masses in the range $`1.85(m_{\mathrm{PS}}/m_{\mathrm{K}^\pm })^20.85`$.

Another test study of quenched LtmQCD with non-perturbatively improved action has been performed at fixed spatial volume, $`L=1.5`$ fm, with $`T=2L`$, lattice spacing $`a=0.093`$ fm, periodic boundary conditions and several values of the quark mass : the lowest value of $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ is about $`320`$ MeV, though with $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}L2.4`$. In none of these studies exceptional configurations were found, while values of $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ well below $`m_{\mathrm{K}^\pm }`$ were reached with a moderate computational effort: results for $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}^2/m_\mathrm{R}^{}`$ at $`a=0.093`$ fm from Refs.  are shown in Fig. 2.

The scaling behaviour of $`F_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ in large volume is presented in Fig. 3 for the O($`a`$) improved Wilson formulations with $`|\alpha |\pi /2`$  and $`\alpha =0`$ . In the latter case, where four lattice resolutions were considered to allow for continuum extrapolation, the simulation data have been reanalysed to precisely match the renormalization conditions adopted for LtmQCD. Following closely Ref. , an analogous comparison has been carried out, see Fig. 4, for the combination of renormalization group invariant quark masses $`\widehat{M}+M_\mathrm{s}`$, where $`\widehat{M}`$ is the average mass of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. The results for $`F_{\mathrm{PS}}r_0`$ and $`(\widehat{M}+M_\mathrm{s})r_0`$ that are obtained from the two lattice formulations should agree in the continuum limit: this seems to be the case within the statistical errors shown in the figures161616For LtmQCD $`m_\mathrm{R}^{}/m_{\mathrm{PS}}^2`$ at the point $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}=m_{\mathrm{K}^\pm }`$ could be obtained by simple interpolation of simulation data.. Moreover, in agreement with the indications of the scaling test at $`L0.75`$ fm, the tmQCD estimates of these quantities show pretty small cutoff effects.

Standard linear solvers (CGNE, BiCGStab) were employed to invert the (preconditioned) LtmQCD Dirac matrix. CGNE worked fine, while BiCGStab often got stuck for $`|\alpha ||\omega |\pi /2`$. The implementation of the twisted mass term $`\mu _\mathrm{q}`$ in unquenched algorithms (HMC, PHMC, GHMC, multiboson) is straightforward171717Unquenched simulations with the action (7) have been performed to study issues related to the Aoki phase ..

## 6 $`B_\mathrm{K}`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule

The two-flavour formulation –LtmQCD– that I discussed above can be extended in a variety of ways to describe QCD with several non-degenerate flavours of Wilson quarks. The details of the (Wilson–like) fermionic regularization should be fixed, case by case, so to render as simple as possible the mixing pattern of the operators that are relevant for the physical problem of interest, while avoiding the occurrence of spurious quark zero modes. The general reasons underlying this possibility are discussed in sect.$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4.2.1}`$.

For the computation of $`B_\mathrm{K}`$ ($`K^0`$$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing) it is convenient to adopt the lattice formulation with fermionic action density:

$$_\mathrm{F}=\overline{q}(D_\mathrm{W}^c+im_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}}^{}\gamma _5\tau ^3)q+\overline{s}(D_\mathrm{W}^c+m_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{s}}^{})s$$
(22)
which corresponds to take $`\alpha =\pi /2`$ for the two degenerate light flavours and $`\alpha =0`$ for the strange quark. In this quark basis the operator for (physical) parity–even $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ transitions reads

$$O_{VV+AA}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }S=2)}=2i(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu d)(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d)2iV_{sd}A_{sd}$$
(23)
and is multiplicatively renormalizable. A computation of $`B_\mathrm{K}`$ based on this approach is currently in progress .

For the computation of CP conserving $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ matrix elements of the weak effective Hamiltonian with active charm flavour, it is convenient to adopt the following lattice formulation :

$$_\mathrm{F}=\overline{\psi }\left(D_\mathrm{W}^c+\widehat{m}_\mathrm{q}+i\widehat{\mu }_\mathrm{q}\gamma _5\tau ^3\right)\psi $$
(24)
with $`\psi ^\mathrm{T}=(u,d;s,c)`$ and quark mass matrices

$`\widehat{m}_\mathrm{q}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}},m_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}};m_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{s}},m_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{c}})`$
$`\widehat{\mu }_\mathrm{q}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}},\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}};\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{s}},\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{c}}).`$ (25)
Thinking of $`\psi `$ as a pair of doublets and setting

$$\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}}}{m_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}}}\mathrm{tan}\omega _l,\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{s}}}{m_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{s}}}=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{c}}}{m_{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{c}}}\mathrm{tan}\omega _h,$$
(26)
one can show  –by arguments analogous to those of sect.$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4.2}`$– that the operator

$$O_{VA+AV}^\pm =[(V_{sd}A_{uu}+A_{sd}V_{uu}\pm \mathrm{})(uc)]$$

must be interpreted as the parity–even operator $`iO_{VV+AA}^\pm `$ (relevant for $`K\pi `$ transitions), if $`\omega _l=\omega _h=\pi /2`$, and as the parity–odd operator $`O_{VA+AV}^\pm `$ (relevant for $`K\pi \pi `$ transitions), if $`\omega _l=\omega _h=\pi /2`$. Symmetries and power counting imply that $`O_{VA+AV}^\pm `$ does not mix with dimension six operators, while the leading mixing with dimension three operators has a coefficient $`a^1(\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{c}}\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}})(\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{s}}\mu _{\mathrm{q}\mathrm{l}})`$. Quadratic divergences in $`K\pi `$ matrix elements and spurious quark zero modes in general are hence avoided.

## 7 Conclusions

Wilson fermions with chirally twisted mass can provide a variety of alternative regularizations for lattice QCD. Thanks to an up to now unexploited freedom in formulating lattice QCD with Wilson quarks, they allow to avoid some of the most serious problems due to lack of lattice chiral symmetry, while preserving ultralocality of the action and hence a moderate computational cost.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank M. Della Morte, P.A. Grassi, J. Heitger, C. Pena, S. Sint, A. Vladikas and P. Weisz for the pleasant and stimulating collaboration work. I am also indebted with M. Della Morte and S. Sint for critical remarks on this write-up and with M. Lüscher, G.C. Rossi and R. Sommer for several, very useful discussions.