format: text

text:
# Shell-Model Description of Λ Hypernuclei

## 1 Introduction

Three hypernuclear $`\gamma `$-ray experiments were run in 1998. The detector for KEK E419 and BNL E930 was the Hyperball. The primary objective of KEK E419 was to measure the spacing of the the ground-state doublet in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}`$Li while that of BNL E930 was to measure the spacing of the excited-state doublet in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be built on the $`2^+`$ state of the 8Be core. The objective of BNL E929, which used 72 NaI detectors and a live 13C target, was to measure the spacing of $`p_{1/2}`$ and $`p_{3/2}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states at $`11`$ MeV excitation energy in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C.

While considerable progress has been made starting from a good NN model (OBEP or OBEP + TBEP), applying symmetries, and fitting the limited YN data set, the procedure does not lead to a reliable YN interaction. Specifically, predictions for how the overall binding energy is distributed between singlet and triplet, or even and odd state, interactions vary widely. For example, six NSC97 interactions have been constructed  which give equally good fits to the YN data but which exhibit a wide range of central spin-spin interaction strengths. On the other hand, one can argue that many-body effective interaction theory provides a sound connection between the free YN interaction and the effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N (and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN) interaction for shell-model calculations. Thus, precise hypernuclear data should strongly constrain models of the free YN interaction.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N coupling is an important feature of YN interaction models. Recently, Akaishi et al.  have calculated G-matrices for a number of YN potential models for use in the model space of $`s`$ orbits only. Then, the coupling between $`s^3s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`s^3s_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ configurations is simply $`v=3/2^3g1/2^1g`$ for $`0^+`$ and $`v=1/2^3g+1/2^1g`$ for $`1^+`$, where $`{}_{}{}^{3}g`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}g`$ are the relative s-state g-matrix elements for triplet and singlet states. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ admixture and energy shift for the lower state are $`(v/\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2`$ and $`v^2/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, respectively ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E80`$ MeV). The $`{}_{}{}^{3}g`$ interaction dominates with the result that the energy shift is substanial for the $`0^+`$ state and very small for the $`1^+`$ state. The results for NSC97e and NSC97f bracket the experimental splitting of $`1.1`$ MeV. For NSC97f, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN contributions are comparable ($`v7.6`$ MeV) for a total of 1.48 MeV. At this meeting, E. Hiyama showed similar results from calculations which include explicit $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ degrees of freedom in a large model space.

If one calculates the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$N coupling for the $`1/2^+`$ ground-state of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}`$Li by asking for the matrix element between $`p^2(1^+;0)s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p^2(0^+;1)s_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the LS limit, one gets $`v=\sqrt{3}(^3g_{ps}{}_{}{}^{1}g_{ps}^{})/2`$. Because $`g_{ps}g_{ss}/2`$, the energy shift should be $`1/12`$ of that for the $`0^+`$ states in the A=4 hypernuclei. For the $`3/2^+`$ state, only non-central coupling interactions contribute and the shift should be very small indeed.

The last result justifies the initial neglect of effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NN`$ interactions for p-shell hypernuclei. Fetisov  has come to different conclusions using a particular form of zero-range $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction. In the following sections, we consider how the new $`\gamma `$-ray data affects the parametrizations of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N effective interaction put forward by MGDD  and by FMZE . From this purely phenomenological point of view, the spin-dependence for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in a $`0s`$ orbit interacting with a p-shell core is specified by four radial integrals, conventionally denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`S_N`$, and $`T`$ associated with the operators $`s_N.s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`l_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }}.s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`l_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }}.s_N`$, and $`3(\sigma _N.\widehat{r})(\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }.\widehat{r})\sigma _N.\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 2 $`{}_{𝚲}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟕}}`$Li

The $`\gamma `$-ray energies  and the lifetime  from the 7Li$`(\pi ^+,\mathrm{K}^+\gamma )_\mathrm{\Lambda }^7`$Li reaction used in KEK E419 are shown in Fig. 1. The $`\gamma `$-ray branching ratios use the B(M1) and B(E2) values from the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}+N+N`$ model of Hiyama et al.  and the $`(\pi ^+,\mathrm{K}^+)`$ cross sections integrated from $`0^{}15^{}`$ ($`\mu `$b) are also from Ref. . The spectrum is from a shell-model calculation using a modified MGDD interaction with $`S_N`$ changed from $`0.08`$ to $`0.47`$ MeV to bring the energy of the $`5/2^+`$ state in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}`$Li down to the measured value of 2.05 MeV,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=0.50\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.04\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{N}=0.47T=0.04.$$
(1)
At the same time, p-shell wave functions from a fit to 32 energy levels for $`A=69`$ are used for the 6Li core in place of the Cohen and Kurath wave functions used in MGDD . The main effect of a stronger one-body spin-orbit component in the new p-shell interaction is to decrease the small 3S admixture and increase the small 1P admixture in the dominantly 3S ground state of 6Li . Similarly, the 3P component in the $`0^+;1`$ state is substantially increased.

The hypernuclear wave functions are very close to the weak-coupling limit. The contribution of each component of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N interaction to the observed energy separations in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}`$Li are given in Table 1. As expected, the energy splitting of the ground-state doublet is dominated by the spin-spin interaction. A substantial negative value for $`S_N`$ is required to fit the excitation energy of the $`5/2^+`$ state. The excitation energy of the $`1/2^+`$ T=1 state provides another measure of $`S_N`$, the coefficient of which is controlled mainly by the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P`$ component in the $`0^+;1`$ wave function. This coefficient is very different from the original MGDD value of 0.081.

In principle, the measurement of four energy separations, the energies of two states based on excited states of the core and two doublet separations, gives the four parameters controlling the spin dependence of the $`p_Ns_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction. In practice, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`S_N`$, and one combination of $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`T`$, namely $`TS_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, might be determined.

## 3 $`𝒔_𝚲`$ states in $`{}_{𝚲}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟗}}`$Be, $`{}_{𝚲}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$C, and $`{}_{𝚲}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}`$C

There is new data on each of these hypernuclei from experiments at KEK and BNL and it is of interest to see whether there is consistency with the preceding analysis of the KEK E419 data on $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}`$Li. In this analysis, the $`p_Ns_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ matrix elements were treated as parameters. However, the radial integrals depend on the size of the hypernucleus and to study this effect the YNG interactions of Yamamoto et al. , in which nuclear matter G-matrix elements for various free YN interaction models are simulated by a number of Gaussians with different ranges ($`r^2`$ times Gaussian for tensor interactions), are used. In particular, the parametrization  of the NSC97f interaction  for $`k_F=1`$ fm-1 is used with Woods-Saxon radial wave functions. In the first instance, the strengths of each component are scaled to reproduce the parameters of Eq. (1). To do this the singlet and triplet central interaction strengths have to be slightly reduced and increased, respectively, to reduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from the NSC97f value. The ALS component has to be increased by a factor of $`3`$ and the tensor component has to be reduced somewhat in strength. Results are shown in Table 2, where it can be seen that matrix elements are larger for more tightly bound neutron wave functions.

The value $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.48`$ MeV chosen for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}`$Li gives improved agreement with the measure ground-state doublet splitting of 692 keV. The smaller magnitudes for $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`T`$ give better agreement with the new data from BNL E930 on the doublet splitting in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be, to be discussed next. As can be seen from Table 1, these reductions require a small reduction in the magnitude of $`S_N`$ to maintain the excitation energy predicted for the $`5/2^+`$, which will then improve the predicted energy for the $`1/2^+;1`$ state. The spacing of the $`7/2^+5/2^+`$ doublet would also increase, perhaps too close to 511 keV to be directly measureable.

The result from BNL E930 reported at this meeting by Tamura and by Akikawa is that the splitting of the $`3/2^+`$, $`5/2^+`$ doublet in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be is only $`32`$ keV, updating the limit of $`<100`$ keV from the work of May et al.  with NaI detectors. As can be seen from Table 3, the small $`S=1`$ amplitudes ($`4`$% intensity) in the 8Be $`2^+`$ wave function (necessary to account for 8Li and 8B $`\beta `$ decay) lead to a substantial contribution from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N tensor interaction. For $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ and $`T>0`$, the measurement implies that the magnitudes of these parameters are restricted to be very small.

There is strong evidence from both $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C that supports the substantial negative value for $`S_N`$ deduced from $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}`$Li.

At this meeting, Sakaguchi reported an energy of 4.915(33) MeV from BNL E929 for the $`\gamma `$-ray from the first $`3/2^+`$ state of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C. This is in agreement the value 4.89(7) MeV deduced from a high-statistics 13C$`(\pi ^+,K^+)_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{13}`$C spectrum from KEK E336 , in which the ground-state and $`3/2^+`$ peaks are well resolved. The deviation from the 4.439 MeV energy of the $`2^+`$ core can be attributed mainly to $`S_N`$, as can be seen from Table 4 (parameters from Table 2). For comparison, the MGD excitation energy was 4.49 MeV.

The energies of the excited $`1^{}`$ states in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C are also raised from the unperturbed core energies. A preliminary analysis of $`(\pi ^+,K^+)`$ data from KEK E336  gives 2.71 MeV and 6.05 MeV for the $`1_2^{}`$ and $`1_3^{}`$ levels. The corresponding numbers from KEK E369 , which achieved an energy resolution of 1.45 MeV, are 2.54 MeV and 6.17 MeV. As can be seen from Table 5, the largest contributions are again from $`S_N`$ with substantial contributions from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

A number of $`\gamma `$ rays in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C could be measured in future runs of BNL E930 at either 0.9 GeV/c or 1.8 GeV/c depending in part on the primary beam intensity available to the D6 beamline. These include the spacing of the ground-state doublet, either directly if the spacing is large enough to preclude predominantly weak decay of the upper level or indirectly through transitions from the $`1_2^{}`$ level. The simplest weak-coupling estimate gives 280 ps for the partial electromagnetic lifetime of the $`2_1^{}`$ level for the separation in Table 5. The parameters of Eq. (1) give a spacing of only 71 keV so that weak decay would dominate.

## 4 $`𝒑_𝚲`$ states in $`{}_{𝚲}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}`$C

The $`p_np_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ central interaction can be parametrized for $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$ separately as

$$V_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(F^{(0)}+F^{(2)}Q_N.Q_\mathrm{\Lambda })(1\epsilon +\epsilon P_x)$$
(2)
where $`F^{(2)}/F^{(0)}`$ characterizes the range of the interaction and $`\epsilon `$ characterizes the space-exchange component. The NSC97 interactions exhibit strong short-range repulsion in relative p waves, corresponding to $`\epsilon 1`$ in the parametrization of Eq. (2). Interactions with different space-exchange properties can be made from the YNG interactions by varying the strengths of the even and odd state interactions separately while maintaining the same overall attraction.

The essential structure of the lowest $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C, built on the lowest $`0^+`$ and $`2^+`$ states of the 12C core, is illustrated in Fig. 12 of Ref. . The $`2^+p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states appear in the order $``$ = 2,3,1 where $`=J_{core}+l_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ under the action of the $`Q.Q`$ interaction and doublets form as a the result of coupling the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ intrinsic spin. A space-exchange interaction pushes the $`0^+p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`2^+p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states with $``$ = 1 apart.

The two $`1/2^{}`$ states with $``$ = 1 are seen strongly via $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$ transitions in the $`(K^{},\pi ^{})`$ reaction near $`0^{}`$, the upper one most strongly because it tends towards the  spatial symmetry of the 13C target. The separation is observed to be 6.0(4) MeV . The NSC97f interaction, which has a very strong space-exhange component, gives a spacing of 10 MeV when harmonic oscillator wave functions are used to reproduce the parameters of Eq. (1). From BNL E929, the lowest $`1/2^{}`$,$`3/2^{}`$ doublet is at $`E_x11`$ MeV so the the $`0p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ separation energy is only 0.67 MeV. The Woods-Saxon parameters used in Table 2 give an rms radius for the $`0p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ orbit of 4.53 fm and the mismatch with the deeply bound nucleon orbits leads to a very substantial reduction in the $`p_Np_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ matrix elements. The separation of the $`1/2^{}`$ states drops to 7.7 MeV, which is still too large. The interaction used for Table 2 has an attractive odd-state interaction of about half the strength of the even-state interaction ($`\epsilon 0.25`$) and reproduces the experimentally measured $`1/2^{}`$ separation of 6.0 MeV. The ratio of cross sections for the $`1/2^{}`$ states increases as the strength of the space-exchange interaction increases. Experiment ($`5.5`$) and theory are in good agreement for the interaction which reproduces the energy separation.

The $`3/2_1^{}`$ and $`5/2_2^{}`$ states are seen strongly in the $`(\pi ^+,K^+)`$ reaction or the $`(K^{},\pi ^{})`$ reaction at larger angles and the $`1/2_2^{}5/2_2^{}`$ separation has been measured to be 1.7(4) MeV . The NSC97f and $`\epsilon 0.25`$ interactions give 2.9 and 1.3 MeV, respectively, again favoring the interaction with some p-state attraction. Such a feature is present in the ESC99 interaction described by Rijken at this meeting.

BNL E929 has given a small separation for the lowest $`1/2^{}`$ and $`3/2^{}`$ states of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C at 11 MeV of 152(54) keV, with an estimated systematic error of 36 keV. To a first approximation, these states may be regarded as $`p_{1/2}`$ and $`p_{3/2}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single-particle states with the 12C ground state as a core and their separation was thought to give a measurement of the $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spin-orbit splitting. However, the spin-spin, spin-orbit, and tensor interactions all make substantial contributions to the splitting, as can be seen from Table 6 (the splitting has yet to be decomposed into the individual contributions for the Woods-Saxon case). Note that models which use $`\alpha `$-particle cores  allow only the spin-orbit interactions to contribute to the splittings in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be.

The spin-spin and tensor contributions arise from $`S=1`$ components in 12C wave functions. For the CKPOT wave function used for the core, there is a substantial (16%) L=1,S=1 component with  symmetry mixed into the dominant (79%)  L=0,S=0 component for the $`0^+`$ state. The spin-orbit contribution to the separation of the diagonal $`0^+p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ matrix elements gets 240 keV from $`s^4p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and 80 keV from $`p^8p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The $`2^+p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ admixtures are at the level of $`5`$% and act in a somewhat different manner for $`1/2^{}`$ and $`3/2^{}`$ . The tensor contribution comes $`2/3`$ from even state and $`1/3`$ odd state interactions, a result which is specific to the NSC97f interaction but typical of a number of the available YN interactions. The fact that there is substantial cancellation between the spin-orbit and tensor contributions is in contrast to $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be where spin-orbit and tensor contributions add rather than subtract in the $`3/2^+`$, $`5/2^+`$ separation (Table 3). The interaction used in Table 2, and which gives a good description of other features of the $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states, gives a splitting of 33 keV for Woods-Saxon wave functions with a much smaller contribution from the spin-orbit interaction than is shown in Table 6.

## 5 Remarks

The new results on $`s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}`$Li, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C are consistent with substantial magnidues for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`S_N`$ and small values for $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`T`$.

The $`p_Np_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ matrix elements are sensitive to more features of the underlying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N interaction than are the $`p_Ns_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ matrix elements. Quantities such as the space-exchange character, the Q.Q component, and the even-state tensor interaction all play a role for $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$C. In particular, the magnitude of the space-exchange component of the effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$N interaction is restricted to be quite small. This is in agreement with an analysis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single-particle energies by Usmani and Bodmer , who also find $`\epsilon 0.25`$.

The object of future $`(K^{},\pi ^{}\gamma )`$ runs of BNL E930 is to obtain a much more complete the set of information on the $`p_Ns_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction. An important target is 16O because the ground-state doublet splitting in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O is very sensitive to the tensor matrix element $`T`$ . It will probably have to be measured as the difference of energies of the $`6`$ MeV $`\gamma `$-rays deexciting the $`1_2^{}`$ level. It may also be possible to observe $`\gamma `$-ray transitions in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{15}`$N following proton emission from higher-energy states in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}`$O. As mentioned previously, studies with 12C and 7Li targets are also under consideration. Measurements for a range of nuclei throughout the $`p`$ shell should both overdetermine the set of spin-dependent parameters and make it possible to test for variations with nuclear size and the empirical need for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$NN interaction.

## Acknowledgement

This work has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.


text:
# FERMILAB-PUB-01/035-THUPD-0104RCNP-Th01005UT-CCP-P-102hep-lat/0103026 𝑂(𝑎)-improved quark action on anisotropic lattices and perturbative renormalization of heavy-light currents

## 1 Introduction

The anisotropic lattice has become an important tool in lattice QCD simulations. With a small temporal lattice spacing $`a_\tau `$ one can more easily follow the time evolution of correlators, while keeping the spatial lattice spacing $`a_\sigma `$ comparatively modest . This approach is especially effective when the signal-to-noise ratio deteriorates quickly, as, for example, in the case of glueballs . The better signal-to-noise ratio is beneficial also for heavy quark systems . In addition, it is hoped that the anisotropy can be exploited to reduce lattice artifacts , which are a special concern with heavy quarks.

In current work on heavy quarks, lattice artifacts are controlled with non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) and heavy-quark effective theory (HQET). This is done either *a priori*, by discretizing the NRQCD action , or *a posteriori*, by using the effective theories to describe lattice gauge theory with Wilson fermions . These strategies are possible because the typical *spatial* momenta in heavy quark systems are much smaller than the heavy quark mass. Heavy quarkonia have momenta $`𝒑m_Qv`$ and $`km_Qv^2`$, where $`v0.1`$–0.3 is the heavy-quark velocity; heavy-light hadrons have momenta only of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. In these approaches one is left with discretization effects of order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}a)^n`$ from the light quarks and gluons and of order $`\alpha _s^l(𝒑/m_Q)^n`$ from the heavy quark.

The method of Ref.  smoothly connects to the usual continuum limit, so one can, in principle, reduce discretization effects to scale as a power of the lattice spacing $`a`$, but only by making $`a`$ too small to be practical. Klassen proposed using anisotropic lattices with the anisotropy $`\xi =a_\sigma /a_\tau `$ chosen so that $`m_Qa_\tau `$ and $`𝒑a_\sigma `$ are both small . Clearly, this proposal works only if $`𝒑`$ is smaller than $`m_Q`$, as in the approaches based explicitly on heavy-quark theory. It also works only if renormalization constants have a smooth limit as $`m_0a_\tau 0`$, where $`m_0`$ is the bare quark mass. In particular, one would like to be able to expand the renormalization constants in powers of $`m_0a_\tau `$ even when $`m_0a_\sigma 1`$. Then it may be possible to adjust the improvement parameters of the lattice action (and currents) in a non-perturbative, mass-independent scheme . If, on the other hand, $`m_0a_\sigma `$ dependence appears in an essential way, then one would be forced back to a non-relativistic interpretation, as explained for isotropic lattices in Refs. .

To our knowledge there is no proof that cutoff effects always appear as powers of $`m_0a_\tau `$. In this paper we try to gain some experience by calculating the full mass dependence of several (re)normalization constants, first at tree level and then at one-loop in perturbation theory. We focus on the Fermilab action , which is the most general action without doubler states, having different nearest-neighbor and clover couplings in the temporal and spatial directions. This action has been applied on anisotropic lattices to the charmonium system , as have some actions with next-to-nearest neighbor interactions. The self-energy has been calculated at the one-loop level in perturbation theory .

In the numerical work on charmonium, two different choices for tuning the spatial Wilson term have been made. One choice is that of Refs. , where $`r_s=1/\xi `$. Another choice is that of Refs. , where $`r_s=1`$. In the first part of this paper, we study improvement conditions for these two choices, as a function of the heavy quark mass. (In a perturbative calculation more generally improved actions with $`r_t=\xi ^2\zeta r_s`$ also have been considered .) By studying the full functional dependence on $`\xi `$ and $`m_0a_\tau `$, we can test whether $`m_0a_\sigma `$ appears in an essential way. We find that the limit of small $`m_0a_\tau `$ is benign at the tree-level only for the first choice, $`r_s=1/\xi `$. For the other choice, $`r_s=1`$, the continuum limit is reached only for $`m_0a_\sigma 1`$.

It turns out that with the first choice ($`r_s=1/\xi `$) two of the improvement parameters vanish at the tree-level as $`m_0a_\tau 0`$. This simplifies the one-loop analysis, so in the second part of the paper we concentrate on this choice. This calculation has two purposes. The first is to study cutoff effects of the renormalization coefficients and to test at the one-loop level whether they still appear only as powers of $`m_0a_\tau `$. The second is for phenomenological applications to heavy-light matrix elements. Even if a non-relativistic interpretation is necessary, anisotropic lattices are a good method for reducing the signal-to-noise ratio .

This paper is organized as follows. Sec. 2 describes the quark field action and discusses its parametrization in detail. In Sec. 3, the expression for the one-loop perturbative calculation is given. The numerical result for these perturbative constants are presented in Sec. 4. The last section is devoted to our conclusions. We give the Feynman rules in Appendix A and explicit expressions for the one-loop diagrams in Appendix B.

## 2 Anisotropic quark action

This section describes the actions with Wilson fermions  on anisotropic lattices. We denote the renormalized anisotropy with $`\xi `$, and the spatial and temporal lattice spacings with $`a_\sigma `$ and $`a_\tau `$ respectively:

$$a_\sigma =\xi a_\tau .$$
(2.1)
These lattice spacings would be defined through the gauge field with quantities such as the Wilson loops or the static quark potential. We therefore consider $`\xi `$ to be independent of the quark mass.

### 2.1 Quark field action

Following Ref. , let us introduce an action with two hopping parameters  and two clover  coefficients,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\overline{\psi }_n[\psi _n\kappa _t[(r_t\gamma _4)U_{n,4}\psi _{n+\widehat{4}}+(r_t+\gamma _4)U_{n\widehat{4},4}^{}\psi _{n\widehat{4}}]`$
$`\kappa _s{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[(r_s\gamma _i)U_{n,i}\psi _{n+\widehat{ı}}+(r_s+\gamma _i)U_{n\widehat{ı},i}^{}\psi _{n\widehat{ı}}]`$
$`+\frac{i}{2}r_sc_B\kappa _s{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _{ij}B_{n,k}\psi _n+ic_E\kappa _s{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _{4i}E_{n,i}\psi _n].`$
This is the most general nearest-neighbor clover action. Note that the notation is slightly different than in Ref. ; $`c_B`$ of Ref.  corresponds to $`r_sc_B`$ in (2.1).

It is helpful to change to a notation with a quark mass. We rescale field by

$$\psi _n=\frac{a_\sigma ^{3/2}}{\sqrt{2\kappa _s}}\psi (x),$$
(2.3)
and introduce the bare mass

$$m_0a_\tau =\frac{1}{2\kappa _t}[r_t+3r_s\zeta ],$$
(2.4)
with $`\zeta =\kappa _s/\kappa _t`$. Then one can rewrite the action as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`a_\tau a_\sigma ^3{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\overline{\psi }(x)[m_0+\frac{1}{2}(r_t+\gamma _4)D_4^{}\frac{1}{2}(r_t\gamma _4)D_4^++\xi \zeta 𝜸𝑫\frac{1}{2}a_\tau \xi ^2r_s\zeta \mathrm{}^{(3)}`$ (2.5)
$`\frac{i}{2}a_\tau \xi ^2r_sc_B\zeta 𝚺𝑩\frac{1}{2}a_\tau \xi c_E\zeta 𝜶𝑬]\psi (x).`$
The covariant difference operators $`D_4^{}`$, $`𝑫`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{(3)}`$, and the fields $`𝑩`$ and $`𝑬`$ are defined as in Ref. , except that the lattice spacing $`a`$ is replaced by $`a_\tau `$ or $`a_\sigma `$ in the obvious way.

The action $`S`$ has six parameters $`m_0`$, $`r_t`$, $`r_s`$, $`\zeta `$, $`c_B`$, and $`c_E`$. Two are redundant and can be chosen to solve the doubling problem . In particular, we choose $`r_t=1`$ to eliminate doubler states. We then rename $`r_s=r`$, but discuss how to adjust it below. The other four parameters are dictated by physics. The bare mass is adjusted to give the desired physical quark mass, and $`\zeta `$, $`c_B`$, and $`c_E`$ are chosen to improve the action.

Following Ref.  we also consider a rotated field

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=e^{M_1a_\tau /2}\left[1+a_\sigma d_1𝜸𝑫\right]\psi (x),$$
(2.6)
where $`M_1`$ is the rest mass, defined and given below, and $`d_1`$ is an improvement parameter. This field is convenient for constructing heavy-light bilinears

$`V_\mu ^{ub}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }^u\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^b,`$ (2.7)
$`A_\mu ^{ub}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }^u\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }^b,`$ (2.8)
which, at the tree-level, are correctly normalized currents for all $`m_0a_\tau `$. Beyond the tree-level one may add dimension-four terms to these currents, and one must multiply with suitable renormalization factors.

The renormalization factors and the improvement parameters $`\zeta `$, $`c_B`$, $`c_E`$, and $`d_1`$ must, in general, be chosen to be functions of $`m_0a_\tau `$ and the anisotropy $`\xi `$. Below we shall give the full mass dependence to check whether, for small $`m_0a_\tau `$, power series such as

$$\zeta (\xi ,m_0a_\tau )=\zeta (\xi ,0)+m_0a_\tau \zeta ^{}(\xi ,0)$$
(2.9)
can be admitted. If $`m_0a_\sigma =\xi m_0a_\tau `$ enters into the full mass-dependent expression, this series would not be accurate when $`m_0a_\sigma 1`$. In the past  the behavior in (2.9) was implicitly assumed. If the expansions of the form (2.9) do work, then for full $`O(a)`$ improvement one must adjust $`\zeta (\xi ,0)`$, $`\zeta ^{}(\xi ,0)`$, $`c_B(\xi ,0)`$, and $`c_E(\xi ,0)`$ in the action, and $`Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\xi ,0)`$, $`Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}(\xi ,0)`$, and $`d_1(\xi ,0)`$ of the currents $`J_\mathrm{\Gamma }=V_\mu `$$`A_\mu `$.

From (2.5) one can see that conditions for the improvement coefficients can be obtained by simply replacing

$`\zeta `$ $``$ $`\xi \zeta ,`$ (2.10)
$`r_s`$ $``$ $`\xi r,`$ (2.11)
$`c_B`$ $``$ $`\xi rc_B,`$ (2.12)
$`c_E`$ $``$ $`c_E,`$ (2.13)
in formulae in Ref. . For example, the energy of a quark with momentum $`𝒑`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{cosh}Ea_\tau =1+\frac{(m_0a_\tau +\frac{1}{2}\xi ^2r\zeta \widehat{𝒑}^2a_\tau ^2)^2+\xi ^2\zeta ^2𝑺^2a_\tau ^2}{2(1+m_0a_\tau +\frac{1}{2}\xi ^2r\zeta \widehat{𝒑}^2a_\tau ^2)},$$
(2.14)
where $`\widehat{p}_i=2a_\sigma ^1\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}p_ia_\sigma )`$ and $`S_i=a_\sigma ^1\mathrm{sin}(p_ia_\sigma )`$. For small momentum $`E^2=M_1^2+𝒑^2M_1/M_2+O(𝒑^4a^2)`$, where the rest mass $`M_1`$ and kinetic mass $`M_2`$ are

$`M_1a_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(1+m_0a_\tau ),`$ (2.15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_2a_\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\zeta ^2}{m_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r\zeta }{1+m_0a_\tau }}\right).`$ (2.16)
To obtain a relativistic quark one sets the rest mass and kinetic mass equal to each other. This yields the condition

$$\xi \zeta =\sqrt{\left(\frac{\xi rm_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )}{4(1+m_0a_\tau )}\right)^2+\frac{m_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )}{2\mathrm{ln}(1+m_0a_\tau )}}\frac{\xi rm_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )}{4(1+m_0a_\tau )},$$
(2.17)
which can be read off from Ref. . Matching of on-shell three-point functions yields the conditions

$`c_B`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (2.18)
$`c_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi \zeta )^21}{m_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2r\zeta }{1+m_0a_\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2r^2m_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )}{4(1+m_0a_\tau )^2}}`$ (2.19)
on the clover coefficients, and

$`d_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \zeta (1+m_0a_\tau )}{m_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_2a_\tau }}`$ (2.20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \zeta [2(1+m_0a_\tau )^2\xi rm_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )2\xi \zeta (1+m_0a_\tau )]}{2m_0a_\tau (2+m_0a_\tau )(1+m_0a_\tau )}}`$ (2.21)
on the rotation parameter. These tree-level formulae (2.14)–(2.21) have been obtained independently by M. Okamoto . We see that essential dependence on $`m_0a_\sigma =\xi m_0a_\tau `$ indeed may arise, depending on how $`r`$ is tuned.

From the energy (2.14) one can also find the energy of states at the edge of the Brillouin zone. The energy of a state with $`n`$ components of $`𝒑`$ equal to $`\pi /a_\sigma `$ is

$$E_na_\tau =\mathrm{ln}(1+m_0a_\tau +2nr\zeta ).$$
(2.22)
Although there is some freedom to choose $`r`$, discussed below, one still wants to keep $`E_n`$ and $`M_1`$ well separated.

For small $`m_0a_\tau `$ the interesting Taylor expansions are

$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^1+\frac{1}{2}(\xi ^1r)m_0a_\tau +O((m_0a_\tau )^2),`$ (2.23)
$`c_E`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(1+\xi r)+O(m_0a_\tau ),`$ (2.24)
$`d_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(1\xi r)+O(m_0a_\tau ).`$ (2.25)
With the mass dependent factor in (2.6) there is no mass dependence at the tree-level in the currents’ normalization factors.

Let us now discuss the choice of the redundant coefficient of the spatial Wilson term $`r`$. Two choices have been used in numerical calculations:

1. $`r=1/\xi `$. This is a natural choice because then the mass form of the action takes a symmetric-looking form, without $`\xi `$. In the small $`m_0a_\tau `$ limit, the tree-level improvement parameters become

$`\zeta (\xi ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^1`$ (2.26)
$`\zeta ^{}(\xi ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.27)
$`c_B(\xi ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (2.28)
$`c_E(\xi ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (2.29)
$`d_1(\xi ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.30)
A key advantage is that $`m_0a_\sigma `$ does not appear; the continuum limit is reached for small $`m_0a_\tau `$. Furthermore, both $`\zeta ^{}(\xi ,0)`$ and $`d_1(\xi ,0)`$ vanish at the tree-level, which is especially helpful in one-loop calculations. A disadvantage is that with $`r=\zeta =1/\xi `$ the energy splitting between physical states and states at the edge of the Brillouin zone is not large. One can circumvent this problem to some extent by choosing appropriate cutoffs and anisotropy .
2. $`r=1`$. Now all hopping terms in (2.1) have projection matrices $`\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _\mu )`$, and the anisotropic nature appears only in $`\zeta `$ and $`c_Bc_E`$. But now, if one considers what happens to the conditions when $`m_0a_\sigma <1`$ while $`m_0a_\tau 1`$, then

$`\xi \zeta (\xi ,m_0a_\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`1\frac{1}{2}m_0a_\sigma +\frac{1}{8}(m_0a_\sigma )^2+\frac{1}{2}m_0a_\tau \left[1\frac{1}{2}m_0a_\sigma \right]`$ (2.31)
$`c_E(\xi ,m_0a_\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\xi \left(1+\frac{1}{2}m_0a_\sigma +\frac{1}{8}(m_0a_\sigma )^2\right)\right]`$ (2.32)
$`d_1(\xi ,m_0a_\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_0a_\sigma )^2}{16m_0a_\tau }}+\frac{1}{4}(1\xi )`$ (2.33)
keeping terms of order $`(m_0a_\sigma )^2`$ and $`m_0a_\tau m_0a_\sigma `$. Clearly, the continuum limit sets in only when $`m_0a_\sigma 1`$. Even then $`\zeta ^{}`$ and $`d_1`$ are non-zero already at the tree-level. An advantage is that the splitting between the physical states and the edge of the Brillouin zone is larger than in case (i).

In passing we mention that Refs.  take

$$\zeta =\frac{1}{\xi }\frac{2+m_0a_\tau }{2+\xi m_0a_\tau }$$
(2.34)
which agrees with the Taylor expansion (2.23), but does not agree with the full mass dependence (2.17). The denominator of this expression also is of the form that reaches the continuum limit only when $`m_0a_\sigma 1`$.

It is instructive to examine the difference between the two conditions on $`\zeta ^{}`$ by considering the full mass dependence of $`\zeta `$. Figure 1 plots the right-hand side of (2.17)

against $`m_{0\sigma }:=m_0a_\sigma `$, for several values of $`\xi `$ and the two choices $`r=1/\xi `$ and $`r=1`$. The mass in spatial lattice units, $`m_{0\sigma }`$ is chosen not because it is a natural variable, but because one usually would first fix the spatial lattice spacing $`a_\sigma `$ so that $`𝒑a_\sigma `$ is small enough, while $`m_0a_\sigma 1`$. One would then choose the anisotropy $`\xi `$ to make $`m_0a_\tau `$ small. For example, let us consider the charmed quark on a lattice with $`a_\sigma ^1=1`$ GeV. The quark mass in spatial lattice units is $`m_{0\sigma }1.2`$, so if $`\xi =4`$, then $`m_0a_\tau 0.3`$, which seems small. For $`r=1/\xi `$ one finds $`\zeta (\xi ,m_0a_\tau )=\zeta (4,0.3)0.26`$, which is only 4 percent larger than $`\zeta (4,0)=0.25`$. In this sense, $`m_0a_\tau 0.3`$ *is* small. On the other hand, for the choice $`r=1`$, $`\zeta (\xi ,m_0a_\tau )=\zeta (4,0.3)0.20`$, which is 20 percent smaller than $`\zeta (4,0)`$. Even worse, the Taylor expansion (2.23) estimates only 0.14.

Thus, only with the choice $`r=1/\xi `$ does it seem possible to approximate the improvement coefficients by the small $`m_0a_\tau `$ limit. With this choice it seems possible to treat charmed quarks, without appealing to the heavy-quark expansion, at accessible spatial lattice spacings and anisotropy around 3–4. Lattice artifacts appear under control and there is probably enough room between $`M_1`$ and the energies at the edge of the Brillouin zone, $`E_n`$, to accommodate the lowest excitations of the $`D`$ meson. On the other hand, it seems that reasonable choices of $`a_\sigma `$ and $`\xi `$ do not exist for treating the $`b`$ quark: $`m_ba_\tau `$ remains big, requiring a non-relativistic interpretation along the lines of Refs. .

The choice $`r=1/\xi `$ requires no tree-level rotation for the quark field. This is a great simplification for one-loop renormalization. Then the quark and anti-quark field operators are multiplied by the factor $`\mathrm{exp}(M_1a_\tau /2)=1+\frac{1}{2}M_1a_\tau +O((M_1a_\tau )^2)`$. With the choice $`r=1`$ one would have to include the rotation term for a consistent $`O(a_\tau )`$ calculation. In the rest of this paper, we therefore focus on $`r=1/\xi `$.

## 3 One-loop Renormalization

To carry out one-loop perturbative calculations, we must specify the gauge field action as well as the quark action. We begin this section with the gauge field action and remark on the gauge couplings, which, in general, differ for the spatial and temporal components of the gauge field. Feynman rules required at one-loop level are summarized in Appendix A.

The self-energy at the one-loop level is represented by the diagrams in Fig. 2(a)–(b).

We calculate, as a function of $`m_0a_\tau `$, the one-loop contribution to the quark rest mass and wave function renormalization factor. These quantities require the self-energy and its first derivative with respect to the external momentum $`p_4`$, evaluated on the mass shell $`(p_4,𝒑)=(iM_1,\text{0})`$ . By obtaining the full mass dependence, we can check how the one-loop corrections behave for $`m_0a_\sigma 1`$ and $`m_0a_\tau `$ small. We also discuss mean field improvement of the self-energy. In the past, the full mass dependence of the one-loop quark self-energy has been obtained for the Wilson action on isotropic lattices  for the Fermilab action on isotropic lattices , and for several improved actions with $`r_t=\xi ^2\zeta r_s`$ on anisotropic lattices .

We also discuss vertex corrections at the one-loop level, shown in Fig. 2(c), and present matching factors for the vector and axial vector currents. We again obtain the full mass dependence first, and use it to study the practical situation with $`m_0a_\sigma 1`$ and $`m_0a_\tau `$ small. In the past, the full mass dependence of the one-loop quark vertex functions has been obtained on isotropic lattices for the Wilson action , the clover action , and the Fermilab action .

### 3.1 Gauge field action

We use the standard Wilson gauge action on the anisotropic lattice :

$$S_{\mathrm{gauge}}=\beta a_\tau a_\sigma ^3\underset{x}{}\left[\underset{i<j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\gamma _G}\left(1\frac{1}{3}RetrU_{ij}(x)\right)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _G\left(1\frac{1}{3}RetrU_{i4}(x)\right)\right],$$
(3.1)
where $`U_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes parallel transport around a plaquette in the $`\mu \nu `$ plane. The bare anisotropy $`\gamma _G`$ coincides with the renormalized isotropy $`\xi `$ at the tree-level. In gauge field theory with $`N_c`$ colors, the coupling $`\beta `$ is related to the usual bare gauge coupling $`g_0`$ by $`\beta =2N_c/g_0^2`$.

There is a subtlety in the gauge coupling, because the temporal and spatial gluons have different couplings . One can rewrite $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma _G`$ as

$`\beta _\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c}{g_\sigma ^2(a_\sigma ,\xi )}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\gamma _G}},`$ (3.2)
$`\beta _\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c}{g_\tau ^2(a_\sigma ,\xi )}}=\beta \gamma _G,`$ (3.3)
where $`g_\sigma ^2`$ and $`g_\tau ^2`$ are couplings for spatial and temporal gluons, respectively. Although at the one-loop level $`g_\sigma ^2`$ and $`g_\tau ^2`$ need not be distinguished, it is convenient to separate the results for spatial and temporal parts. To improve perturbative series, it is crucial to use renormalized couplings, defined at the momentum scale typical for the process under consideration . These couplings, and therefore the scales, could be defined separately for spatial and temporal gluons. With this end in mind, we shall present the coefficients of $`g_\sigma ^2`$ and $`g_\tau ^2`$ separately.

### 3.2 Rest mass renormalization

The relation between the rest mass to the self-energy is

$$e^{M_1a_\tau }=1+m_0a_\tau tr[P_+\mathrm{\Sigma }(iM_1,\text{0})]a_\tau ,$$
(3.4)
where $`P_+=(1+\gamma _4)/2`$ and the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p_4,𝒑)`$ is the sum of all one-particle irreducible two-point diagrams. The formula (3.4) is valid for all masses and at every order in perturbation theory. Since it is obtained from the pole position, the rest mass is infrared finite and gauge independent at every order in perturbation theory . We write the perturbation series as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(ip_4,𝒑)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^{2l}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{[l]}(p_4,𝒑;m_0),$$
(3.5)
where we explicitly specify the bare quark mass $`m_0`$. The quark is massless ($`M_1=0`$) when the bare mass is tuned to

$$m_{0c}=tr[P_+\mathrm{\Sigma }(0,\text{0};m_{0c})].$$
(3.6)
It is more convenient to introduce a subtracted bare mass $`M_0=m_0m_{0c}`$, which vanishes for a massless quark. Then the formula for the rest mass becomes

$$e^{M_1a_\tau }=1+M_0a_\tau tr[P_+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(iM_1,\text{0};M_0)]a_\tau ,$$
(3.7)
where

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p_4,𝒑;M_0)]=\mathrm{\Sigma }(p_4,𝒑;m_0)m_{0c}.$$
(3.8)
In developing the perturbation series, now $`M_0`$ is treated independently from $`g^2`$.

The perturbative series for $`M_1`$ is

$$M_1=M_1^{[0]}+\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^{2l}M_1^{[l]}.$$
(3.9)
From (3.7)

$`M_1^{[0]}`$ $`=`$ $`a_\tau ^1\mathrm{ln}(1+M_0a_\tau ),`$ (3.10)
$`M_1^{[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{tr[P_+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0};M_0)]}{1+M_0a_\tau }}.`$ (3.11)
In evaluating $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{[1]}`$ one may disregard the distinction between $`M_0`$ and $`m_0`$, because $`m_{0c}`$ starts at one-loop order. To show the mass dependence it is convenient  to introduce the multiplicative renormalization factor $`Z_{M_1}`$ defined by,

$$M_1a_\tau =Z_{M_1}\mathrm{tanh}M_1^{[0]}a_\tau .$$
(3.12)
From $`Z_{M_1}^{[1]}=M_1^{[1]}a_\tau /\mathrm{tanh}M_1^{[0]}a_\tau `$ one can then remove the anomalous dimension by writing

$$Z_{M_1}^{[1]}=C_F\left[c^{[1]}\frac{3}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(M_1^2a_\tau ^2)\right].$$
(3.13)
Numerical results for $`M_1^{[1]}a_\tau `$ and $`c^{[1]}`$ are given in Sec. 4.

### 3.3 Wave function renormalization

The all orders formula for the wave function renormalization factor is

$$Z_2^1=e^{M_1a_\tau }tr[P_+\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(iM_1,\text{0};M_0)]a_\tau $$
(3.14)
where

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p_4,𝒑;M_0)=\frac{1}{i}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{p_4}(p_4,𝒑;M_0).$$
(3.15)
In view of the mass dependence, we write

$$(1+M_0a_\tau )Z_2=1+\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^{2l}Z_2^{[l]},$$
(3.16)
so that the $`Z_2^{[l]}`$ are only mildly mass dependent. This definition of $`Z_2^{[l]}`$ is slightly different from that of Ref.  for $`l>1`$.

The wave function renormalization factor is infrared divergent and gauge dependent. Therefore we express the one-loop term as

$`Z_2^{[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+M_0a_\tau )^1tr[P_+(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{[1]}+\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{[1]})],`$ (3.17)
$`=:`$ $`W^{[1]}+L^{[1]},`$ (3.18)
where $`W^{[1]}`$ and $`L^{[1]}`$ are the infrared finite and singular parts, respectively. The infrared divergence does not depend on the ultraviolet regulator, so it is the same as in the continuum theory. We define $`L^{[1]}`$ by the continuum expression. For a massive quark ($`\lambda ^2m^2a_\tau ^2`$) in Feynman gauge,

$$L_h^{[1]}=\frac{C_F}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{9}{2}+3\mathrm{ln}(m^2a_\tau ^2)2\mathrm{ln}(\lambda ^2a_\tau ^2)\right],$$
(3.19)
which we use for the heavy quark. In particular, $`W_h^{[1]}`$ is defined by combining (3.18) and (3.19) with $`m=M_2^{[0]}`$. For a massless quark ($`m^2=0`$, $`\lambda ^2a_\tau ^2`$), the mass singularity seen in (3.19) can still be regulated by the gluon mass. In Feynman gauge,

$$L_l^{[1]}=\frac{C_F}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(a_\tau ^2\lambda ^2),$$
(3.20)
which we use for the light quark. Here $`C_F=N_c^21/2N_c`$ \[$`=4/3`$ for SU(3)\]. Because the infrared and mass singularities have been subtracted consistently, we should (and do) find $`lim_{m_00}W_h^{[1]}=W_l^{[1]}`$. Numerical results for $`W_h^{[1]}`$ and $`W_l^{[1]}`$ are in Sec. 4.

### 3.4 Mean field improvement

Mean field improvement  has been employed extensively in Monte Carlo work to improve tree-level estimates of couplings. The approximation works, because most of the one-loop coefficients can be traced, via tadpole diagrams, to a mean field. On the anisotropic lattice, the mean field values of the link variables can be defined individually for the temporal and the spatial links. We denote them by $`u_\tau `$ and $`u_\sigma `$ respectively. Then mean field improvement is achieved by replacing the link variables with

$$U_4U_4/u_\tau ,U_jU_j/u_\sigma \text{(}j=\text{1–3}\text{)}.$$
(3.21)
With mean field improvement, the one-loop counter-terms of $`u_\tau `$ and $`u_\sigma `$ must be removed from perturbative coefficients.

Here we consider generically the $`O(g^2)`$ contributions from the mean field to the self-energy. From the Feynman rules in Appendix A, the self-energy and its first derivative with respect to $`p_4`$, on the mass shell $`(p_4,𝒑)=(iM_1,\text{0})`$, are

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{MF}}^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0})`$ $`=`$ $`g^2u_\sigma ^{[1]}3r\zeta g^2u_\tau ^{[1]}e^{M_1^{[1]}a_\tau }`$ (3.22)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{MF}}^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0})`$ $`=`$ $`g^2u_\tau ^{[1]}M_0a_\tau `$ (3.23)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{MF}}^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0})`$ $`=`$ $`+g^2u_\tau ^{[1]}e^{M_1^{[1]}a_\tau }`$ (3.24)
Then, the mean field contribution to the rest mass is

$$M_{1(\mathrm{MF})}^{[1]}a_\tau =\frac{M_0a_\tau }{1+M_0a_\tau }u_\tau ^{[1]},$$
(3.25)
and to the wave function renormalization factor

$$W_{\mathrm{MF}}^{[1]}=\frac{1}{1+M_0a_\tau }u_\tau ^{[1]},$$
(3.26)
which holds for massive and massless ($`M_0=0`$) quarks. The explicit values of $`u_\sigma ^{[1]}`$ and $`u_\tau ^{[1]}`$ depend on the definition of the mean field. Since one can easily incorporate the contributions from the mean field improvement to the one-loop coefficients, we do not employ a specific scheme and quote only the contributions from the loop integrations.

### 3.5 Quark bilinear operators

To obtain improved matrix elements, operators also must be improved . As discussed in Sec. 2, with the choice $`r=1/\xi `$ only the multiplicative factor $`\mathrm{exp}(M_1a_\tau /2)=1+\frac{1}{2}M_1a_\tau +O(a_\tau ^2)`$ is required at the tree-level. In particular, with $`r=1/\xi `$ no new dimension-four operator is needed to achieve tree-level improvement. At higher loop order the counterpart of the mass-dependent factor comes from the quark self-energy through the wave function factor, as seen in (3.14), and dimension-four terms are needed.

Because the tree-level rotation coefficient $`d_1`$ vanishes as $`m_0a_\tau 0`$, we consider here currents of the form

$$J_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=\overline{\psi }_l\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi _h(x),$$
(3.27)
where $`\psi _l`$ and $`\psi _h`$ are the light and heavy quark fields respectively. We consider the vector and axial vector currents, so the the $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is one of $`\gamma _4`$ ($`V_4`$), $`\gamma _j`$ ($`V_j`$), $`\gamma _5\gamma _4`$ ($`A_4`$), and $`\gamma _5\gamma _j`$ ($`A_j`$). We seek the matching factors $`Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ such that $`Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}J_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the same matrix elements (for $`𝒑a_\sigma 1`$) as the continuum bilinear. These matching factors are composed of two parts: the wave function of each quark field and the correction to the vertex. Since the former is already obtained in previous subsection, here we discuss the vertex corrections.

The vertex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is the sum of one-particle irreducible three-point diagrams, can be expanded

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=1+\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^{2l}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[l]}.$$
(3.28)
As with the wave function renormalization, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is gauge dependent and suffers from infrared and mass singularities. For the one-loop term we again subtract of the divergent part,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}=V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}+L_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]},$$
(3.29)
where, in Feynman gauge,

$$L_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}=\frac{C_F}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}(HG1)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda ^2a_\tau ^2)\right).$$
(3.30)
The constants are again taken from the continuum expression, so $`HG=2`$ for temporal components of the currents and $`HG=2`$ for spatial components.

The sought-after matching factor $`Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is simply the ratio of the lattice and continuum radiative corrections:

$$Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{\left[Z_{2h}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Gamma }Z_{2l}^{1/2}\right]^{\mathrm{cont}}}{\left[Z_{2h}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Gamma }Z_{2l}^{1/2}\right]^{\mathrm{lat}}}.$$
(3.31)
In view of the mass dependence, we write

$$(1+M_0a_\tau )^{1/2}Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}=1+\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^{2l}Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{[l]},$$
(3.32)
so that the $`Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{[l]}`$ are only mildly mass dependent. At the one-loop level we have consistently defined the finite lattice parts so that

$$Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{[1]}=\left(\frac{1}{2}W_h^{[1]}+V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}+\frac{1}{2}W_l^{[1]}\right)$$
(3.33)
is the desired one-loop coefficient of the matching factor. It is gauge invariant and independent of the scheme for regulating the infrared and (light-quark) mass singularities. Numerical results for $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}`$ and $`Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{[1]}`$ are in Sec. 4.

## 4 Numerical results of one-loop perturbation theory

In this section we present our results for the one-loop coefficients. They are obtained numerically using the Monte Carlo integration program BASES . We give one-loop terms for the rest mass, i.e., $`M_1^{[1]}`$ and $`c^{[1]}`$; for the infrared-finite parts of the wave function renormalization factors and the vertex functions, i.e., $`W_l^{[1]}`$, $`W_h^{[1]}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}`$; and for the currents’ matching factors $`Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{[1]}`$. In this section we are concerned with zero three-momentum, so for brevity we set the temporal lattice spacing $`a_\tau =1`$. When the spatial lattice spacing is needed, we use the anisotropy $`\xi `$.

The spatial and the temporal parts of $`M_1^{[1]}`$ are listed separately, namely

$$g^2M_1^{[1]}g_\tau ^2M_{1\tau }^{[1]}+g_\sigma ^2M_{1\sigma }^{[1]},$$
(4.1)
so that one could use different (improved) couplings in a practical evaluation of the perturbative rest mass. On the other hand, for the other quantities we show the combined values of the spatial and the temporal parts, because we are interested mostly in seeing how they behave when $`M_0\xi 1`$ while $`M_0:=M_0a_\tau `$ small.

The spatial and the temporal parts of $`M_1^{[1]}`$, $`M_{1\sigma }^{[1]}`$ and $`M_{1\tau }^{[1]}`$ respectively, are listed in Table 1 for a range of $`M_0<1`$ at four values of $`\xi `$: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

We plot $`c^{[1]}`$ vs. $`M_0`$ in Fig. 3, and the numerical values are given in Table 2.

One sees that the mass dependence is significant, but not drastic.

Table 3 lists the one-loop corrections $`W_l^{[1]}`$

and $`W_h^{[1]}`$ to the massless and massive quark wave function renormalization factors. The mass dependence is shown in Fig. 4.

Here the introduction of anisotropy is seen to reduce the mass dependence greatly. Since $`W_h^{[1]}`$ connects smoothly to $`W_l^{[1]}`$, one sees that we have subtracted the infrared singularities in a consistent way.

Tables 4 and 5 list the one-loop corrections to the axial vector and the vector current vertex functions, respectively.

The mass dependence is shown in Fig. 5 and 6.

For the axial vector current, the mass dependence with anisotropy is larger than with $`\xi =1`$, but still small.

These results are combined to obtain the one-loop part of the matching factors according to Eq. (3.33). The results are listed in Table 6 and plotted in Figs. 7 and 8.

The magnitude of the one-loop correction decreases as $`\xi `$ increases, in all cases. Figures 7 and 8 are the most important results of this section. They are relevant to phenomenological applications to charm physics. Moreover, these results test, at the one-loop level, whether the matching factors are well-behaved in the interesting region with small $`M_0`$ but $`M_0\xi 1`$. For this reason we have plotted them, as in Fig. 1, not against $`M_0`$ but $`M_0\xi `$. By inspection of Figs. 7 and 8, one can see that the small $`M_0`$ Taylor series continues to be a good approximation to the full mass dependence for all $`M_0\xi 1`$, for $`\xi 2`$. Had we found a stronger mass dependence (like that of $`\zeta ^{[0]}`$ for $`r=1`$), one would begin to doubt the feasibility of the ideas laid out in Ref.  also for our choice $`r=1/\xi `$.

For $`\xi =1`$, our results should reproduce previous calculations on isotropic lattices. In the case of the mass and the wave function renormalization, we (independently) reproduced the full mass dependence of Ref. . For the matching factors of the currents, only the result for the massless quark is (independently) available , and we find agreement.

In conclusion, in the whole region of $`M_0`$ and $`\xi `$ we surveyed, we found good behavior connecting the continuum limit with the region of practical interest. For charmed hadrons, the target region of the heavy quark mass $`M_0`$ is around 0.1–0.3 on lattices with anisotropy $`\xi `$=3–4. The required one-loop coefficients of the renormalization factors are easily obtained by interpolating the values in the tables using, for example, spline interpolation.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper, we have studied the $`O(a)`$ improvement of Wilson quarks on anisotropic lattices. At the tree-level we find that a certain choice of the parameters, $`r=1/\xi `$ , is well-behaved in the region of practical interest for charmed hadrons, namely $`M_0a_\sigma 1`$, while $`M_0a_\tau `$ is small. On the other hand, with a different choice, $`r=1`$ , continuum behavior is reached only for $`M_0a_\sigma 1`$. With this latter choice a non-relativistic interpretation  is still possible, but a mass-independent renormalization, which was proposed in Ref. , is obstructed.

The choice $`r=1/\xi `$ also simplifies tree-level $`O(a)`$ improvement. The action does not require separate temporal and spatial hopping parameters. The currents require mass-dependent matching factors, but no intrinsically dimension-four terms.

We therefore have started to examine the behavior of this choice at the one-loop level. We have computed the one-loop contributions to the rest mass and to the matching factors of the vector and axial vector currents. The matching factors depend significantly on $`\xi `$. A more critical observation is that they are well approximated by Taylor expansions

$$Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\xi ,M_0a_\tau )Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\xi ,0)+M_0a_\tau Z_{J_\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}(\xi ,0)$$
(5.1)
for $`M_0a_\sigma =\xi M_0a_\tau 1`$ and $`\xi =2`$$`4`$. This region encompasses the one suitable for the charmed quark with currently available computer resources.

There are several issues that remain to be studied. The first is to compute the one-loop corrections to the ratio of hopping parameters $`\zeta `$, the clover coefficients $`c_B`$ and $`c_E`$, and dimension-four terms in the currents. The calculation of $`\zeta `$ is especially difficult, because it requires the one-loop kinetic mass $`M_2^{[1]}`$. As at the tree-level, it is crucial to compute the full mass dependence, so one can check whether low-order Taylor expansions work well for $`M_0a_\sigma 1`$. Only with the full mass dependence can one check whether $`\xi `$, which comes with the couplings in the action, and $`M_0a_\tau `$, which also comes from the on-shell condition, come together to form $`M_0a_\sigma =\xi M_0a_\tau `$. If not, then one could proceed with a non-perturbative calculation of $`\zeta (\xi ,0)`$, $`\zeta ^{}(\xi ,0)`$, $`c_B(\xi ,0)`$, $`c_E(\xi ,0)`$, etc.

A more practical problem is to define renormalized couplings. The scale-setting scheme of Brodsky, Lepage, and Mackenzie (BLM) is usually a good way to absorb the dominant part of two- and higher-order contributions . On an anisotropic lattice, it may make sense to define separate scales for temporal and spatial gluons. These results are of interest in any case: even if anisotropic lattice calculations require a non-relativistic interpretation for heavy quarks, anisotropy remains a useful tool for improving the signal-to-noise ratio.

Finally, after these problems are resolved, it will be important to combine the results with numerical simulation data to obtain the matrix elements relevant to experimental measurements of charmed hadrons.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Shoji Hashimoto and Masataka Okamoto for useful discussions. A.S.K. would like to thank Akira Ukawa and the Center for Computational Physics for hospitality while this work was being completed. H.M. is supported by the center-of-excellence (COE) program at Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University. T.O. is supported by the Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education (No. 12640279). Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc., under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy.

## Appendix A Feynman rules

The Feynman rules for perturbative calculation are shown the same as in Ref.  except for two points. One is that the $`c_B`$ is replaced by $`r_sc_B`$ as was mentioned in Sec. 2.1 and the other is the gluon propagator. With a gauge fixing term that is symmetric under exchange of temporal and spatial axis, the free propagator of the gauge field, in Feynman gauge, is

$$G_{\mu \nu }(k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}G_\tau (k)\hfill & \mu =\nu =4\hfill \\ G_\sigma (k)\hfill & \mu =\nu <4\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mu \nu \hfill \end{array}$$
(A.1)
$`G_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ab}\xi }{\widehat{k}_i^2+\xi ^2\widehat{k}_4^2+\xi ^2\lambda ^2}},`$
$`G_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi ^2}}G_\sigma (k).`$ (A.2)
where we replaced the anisotropy parameter $`\gamma _G`$ with the tree-level value $`\xi `$. A fictitious gluon mass $`\lambda `$ is introduced to regulate infrared divergences.

The Feynman diagram for the counter-term from the mean field is obtained by expanding

$`u_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`1+g^2u_\tau ^{[1]}+O(g^4),`$ (A.3)
$`u_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`1+g^2u_\sigma ^{[1]}+O(g^4).`$ (A.4)
With the replacement of the link variables as Eq. (3.21) in the action (2.5), the Feynman rules required for the the one-loop calculation are

$`𝒱_4^{(\mathrm{MF})}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`g^2u_\tau ^{[1]}[\gamma _4i\mathrm{sin}p_4\mathrm{cos}p_4]`$ (A.5)
$`𝒱_\sigma ^{(\mathrm{MF})}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`g^2u_\sigma ^{[1]}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[\zeta \gamma _ji\mathrm{sin}p_jr\zeta \mathrm{cos}p_j]`$ (A.6)
with the diagrams (a) and (b) in Fig. 9, respectively.

## Appendix B Explicit expressions of one-loop corrections

In the following, we show the explicit representations of the self-energy and the vertex correction. In order to simplify the expressions, we introduce the following abbreviations:

$`c_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}k_\mu ,s_\mu =\mathrm{sin}k_\mu ,`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{1}{2}k_\mu \right),\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_\mu =\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{1}{2}k_\mu \right),`$
$`C_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(iM_1+k_4),S_4=\mathrm{sin}(iM_1+k_4),`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left(iM_1+\frac{1}{2}k_4\right),\stackrel{ˇ}{S}_4=\mathrm{sin}\left(iM_1+\frac{1}{2}k_4\right).`$ (B.1)
$$𝒔^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}s_is_i,\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_i\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_i,[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}s_i^2\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_i^2.$$
(B.2)
To reduce the volume of notation, we also define

$$c_B^{}=r\zeta c_B,c_E^{}=rc_E,$$
(B.3)
which always appear in these combinations. To reduce the Dirac matrix structure, it is convenient to introduce $`G^Q=\pm 1`$, with the upper (lower) sign for massive quarks (anti-quarks) on the external leg, and $`G`$ and $`H`$, defined by

$$G\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _4\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _4,H\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _\mu ,$$
(B.4)
with an implied sum on $`\mu `$. The following quantities are convenient for representing the one-loop expressions below and in our integration programs:

$`A^q`$ $`=`$ $`iG\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_4,A^Q=iG^Q\stackrel{ˇ}{C}_4\stackrel{ˇ}{S}_4,`$ (B.5)
$`B^q`$ $`=`$ $`iGs_4+2\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_4^2+2r\zeta \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2,B^Q=iG^QS_4+1+m_0C_4+2r\zeta \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2,`$ (B.6)
$`E^q`$ $`=`$ $`i\zeta +\frac{1}{2}c_E^{}Gs_4,E^Q=i\zeta +\frac{1}{2}c_E^{}G^QS_4,`$ (B.7)
$`J^q`$ $`=`$ $`iGc_4+s_4,J^Q=iG^QC_4+S_4,`$ (B.8)
and

$`\overline{B}^q`$ $`=`$ $`iGs_4+2\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_4^2+2r\zeta \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2,\overline{B}^Q=iG^QS_4+1+m_0C_4+2r\zeta \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2,`$ (B.9)
$`\overline{J}^q`$ $`=`$ $`iGc_4+s_4,\overline{J}^Q=iG^QC_4+S_4.`$ (B.10)
The symbols with superscript $`q`$ are essentially massless versions of those with superscript $`Q`$.

From the Feynman rules in Appendix A, the contributions to the self-energy from the rainbow diagram, Fig. 2(a), are

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ $`=`$ $`g_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a\sigma }^{[1]}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})+g_\tau ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a\tau }^{[1]}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})+O(g^4),`$ (B.11)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a\sigma }^{[1]}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ $`=`$ $`C_F{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}S_Q(iM_1+k_4,𝒌)G_\sigma (k)[\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2\overline{B}^Q(E^Q)^2+r^2\zeta ^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2B^Q`$ (B.12)
$`+ir\zeta ^2𝒔^2E^Q+(i\zeta c_B^{}E^Q+\frac{1}{4}c_B^2B^Q)(𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}])],`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a\tau }^{[1]}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ $`=`$ $`C_F{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}S_Q(iM_1+k_4,𝒌)G_\tau (k)}`$ (B.13)
$`\times \left[(A^Q)^2B^Q+𝒔^2\left(i\zeta c_E^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4A^QG^Q+\frac{1}{4}c_E^2\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4^2\overline{B}^Q\right)\right].`$
where

$$S_Q(p)=\left[\mathrm{sin}^2p_4+\zeta ^2\underset{j}{}\mathrm{sin}^2p_j+\left\{\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{p}_4^2+r\zeta \widehat{𝒑}^2)+m_0\right\}^2\right]^1.$$
(B.14)
Similarly, the contributions from the tadpole diagram, Fig. 2(b), are

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ $`=`$ $`g_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b\sigma }^{[1]}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})+g_\tau ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b\tau }^{[1]}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})+O(g^4),`$ (B.15)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b\sigma }^{[1]}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}C_F{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}G_\sigma (k)3r\zeta },`$ (B.16)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b\tau }^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0})`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}C_F{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}G_\tau (k)\left(G^Q\mathrm{sinh}M_1+\mathrm{cosh}M_1\right)}.`$ (B.17)
The derivative of the self-energy with respective to $`p_4`$ is separated into temporal and spatial contributions

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})=g_\sigma ^2\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\sigma ^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0})+g_\tau ^2\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\tau ^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0})+O(g^4)$$
(B.18)
The contributions from Fig. 2(a) are

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{a\sigma }^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0})`$ $`=`$ $`iC_F{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}G_\sigma (k)[2S_Q(iM_1+k_4,𝒌)^2S_4(1+2r\zeta \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2+m_0)`$
$`\times \left\{\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2(E^Q)^2\overline{B}^Q+r^2\zeta ^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2B^Q+ir\zeta ^2𝒔^2E^Q+\left(i\zeta c_B^{}E^Q+\frac{1}{4}c_B^2B^Q\right)\left(𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}]\right)\right\}`$
$`+S_Q(iM_1+k_4,𝒌)\{\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2(E^Q)^2\overline{J}^Q+r^2\zeta ^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2J^Q+\frac{1}{4}c_B^2(𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}])J^Q\}]`$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{a\tau }^{[1]}(iM_1,\text{0})`$ $`=`$ $`iC_F{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}G_\tau (k)[2S_Q(iM_1+k_4,𝒌)^2S_4(1+2r\zeta \stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2+m_0)`$
$`\times \left\{(A^Q)^2B^Q+𝒔^2\left(i\zeta c_E^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4A^QG^Q+\frac{1}{4}c_E^2\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4^2\overline{B}^Q\right)\right\}`$
$`+S_Q(iM_1+k_4,𝒌)\{2i(A^Q)^2B^QG^Q+\zeta c_E^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4𝒔^2A^Q+\frac{1}{4}c_E^2\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4^2𝒔^2\overline{J}^Q+(A^Q)^2J^Q\}].`$
There is only one contribution from Fig. 2(b)

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_b^{[1]}(iM_1,\mathrm{𝟎})=\frac{i}{2}C_F\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}G_\tau (k)[G^Q\mathrm{cosh}M_1+\mathrm{sinh}M_1],$$
(B.21)
with a temporal gluon.

The vertex function is split as follows:

$$g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}=g_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma }^{[1]}+g_\tau ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau }^{[1]},$$
(B.22)
and the contributions are

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma }^{[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`C_F{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}S_Q(iM_1+k_4,𝒌)S_q(k)G_\sigma (k)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2(HG)E^q\overline{B}^qE^Q\overline{B}^Q`$ (B.23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}\zeta (HG)\left\{c_B^{}(𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}])+r\zeta 𝒔^2\right\}(E^q\overline{B}^q+\overline{B}^QE^Q)`$
$`+\frac{i}{2}\zeta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}c_B^{}(𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}])\left((HG)^23\right)+r\zeta 𝒔^2\right\}(E^qB^Q+B^qE^Q)`$
$`+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}c_B^2(𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}])\left((HG)^23\right)+r^2\zeta ^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2\right\}B^qB^Q`$
$`\zeta ^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}])\left((HG)^23\right)+[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}]\right\}E^qE^Q`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}c_B^2\zeta ^2𝒔^2(𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}^2[𝒔\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒄}])(HG){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}r^2\zeta ^4𝒔^2\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒔}^2(HG)]\mathrm{\Gamma },`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau }^{[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`C_F{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}S_Q(iM_1+k_4,𝒌)S_q(k)G_\tau (k)\times `$ (B.24)
$`[(A^qB^q+\frac{i}{2}\zeta c_E^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4𝒔^2G)(A^QB^Q+\frac{i}{2}\zeta c_E^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4𝒔^2G^Q)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(HG)𝒔^2(i\zeta A^q+\frac{1}{2}c_E^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4\overline{B}^qG)(i\zeta A^Q+\frac{1}{2}c_E^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_4\overline{B}^QG^Q)]\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$