format: text

text:
# Chiral Extrapolation of Lattice Moments of Proton Quark Distributions

## Abstract

We present the resolution of a long-standing discrepancy between the moments of parton distributions calculated from lattice QCD and their experimental values. We propose a simple extrapolation formula for the moments of the nonsinglet quark distribution $`ud`$, as a function of quark mass, which embodies the general constraints imposed by the chiral symmetry of QCD. The inclusion of the leading nonanalytic behavior leads to an excellent description of both the lattice data and the experimental values of the moments.

preprint:   ADP-01-07/T442 JLAB-THY-01-09 CTP-3092

Although historically, deep-inelastic scattering from the nucleon provided an important test of perturbative QCD, precision measurements of parton distribution functions (PDF’s) in these experiments now provide crucial, fundamental information about the nonperturbative structure of the nucleon. Recent discoveries which have had a profound impact on our understanding include the proton spin crisis , the Gottfried sum rule violation , and to a certain extent the nuclear EMC effect . Future experiments aimed at testing whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}`$ are equal or whether $`s(x)`$ differs from $`\overline{s}(x)`$ should also serve to deepen our understanding of the nonperturbative origin of parton distributions.

A decade or more of rigorous, nonperturbative calculations of the moments of PDFs in the nucleon within lattice QCD has so far led to a major impasse. The values of the first three nontrivial moments typically lie some 50% above the corresponding experimental data. Since PDF moments are benchmark calculations of hadron structure in lattice QCD, an unresolved discrepancy of this order of magnitude in such fundamental quantities would seriously undermine the credibility of any ab initio calculation of hadronic properties, and therefore represents a crucial challenge in hadronic physics. In this Letter we explain for the first time the physics required to resolve this problem. We show that inclusion of the nonanalytic chiral behavior of the moments of $`ud`$ as a function of quark mass removes the discrepancy.

At first sight, when one thinks of structure functions in terms of light-cone correlation functions of currents measured at high energy and momentum transfer, it may appear remarkable that spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking and the associated pion cloud could play an essential quantitative role. Indeed, the 50% effects may seem all the more puzzling when chiral corrections to lattice hadron mass calculations are known to be far smaller. However, as discussed below, moments of structure functions correspond to matrix elements of local operators in the hadron ground state. Furthermore, by the familiar variational principle in quantum mechanics, a first order error in the wave function yields a first-order error in matrix elements of general operators while producing only a second order error in the energy, so much larger errors in operators than masses should be expected.

Lattice calculations of parton distributions in Euclidean space-time are based on the operator product expansion — one calculates the matrix elements of certain local operators. The results are directly related to the moments of the measured PDFs:

$`x^n_q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^n\left(q(x,Q^2)+(1)^{n+1}\overline{q}(x,Q^2)\right),`$ (1)
where the distribution $`q(x,Q^2)`$ is a function of the Bjorken variable $`x`$ and the momentum scale $`Q^2`$. The operator product expansion relates the moments $`x^n_q`$ to forward nucleon matrix elements of local twist-2 operators, which for nonsinglet distributions are given by $`𝒪_{\{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{n+1}\}}=\overline{\psi }\gamma _{\{\mu _1}\underset{\mu _2}{\overset{}{D}}\mathrm{}\underset{\mu _{n+1}\}}{\overset{}{D}}\psi `$, where $`\psi `$ is the quark field, $`D_\mu `$ the covariant derivative and $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ represents symmetrization of the Lorentz indices. As a result of operator mixing on the lattice, all lattice calculations have so far been restricted to $`n3`$. Nevertheless, many features of the PDFs can be reconstructed from just the lowest few moments .

Early calculations of structure functions within lattice QCD were performed by Martinelli and Sachrajda . The data used in the present analysis, shown in Fig. 1 for the $`n=1`$, 2 and 3 moments of the $`ud`$ difference in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, are taken from the more recent and extensive calculations by the QCDSF  and MIT  groups. The data include results from quenched simulations at $`\beta =6.0`$ for several values of $`\kappa `$, which for a world average lattice spacing of $`a=0.1`$ fm correspond to quark masses ranging from 30 to 190 MeV. In addition, we include unquenched data from the MIT group, which has also performed the first full QCD calculations at $`\beta =5.6`$ (corresponding to the same $`a`$ as for the quenched data with $`\beta =6.0`$) using the SESAM configurations . The unquenched results are consistent with the quenched data, indicating that internal quark loops do not appear to play an important role at the quark masses considered. Rather than show the moments versus the scale and renormalization scheme dependent quark mass, we plot the data as a function of the pion mass squared, $`m_\pi ^2m_q`$. For the $`n=1`$ moment we retain only the data corresponding to the statistically most accurately determined operator $`𝒪_{44}1/3_{i=1}^3𝒪_{ii}`$ . To avoid finite volume effects , we exclude points at the lowest quark masses from the data sets of Refs.  and . The moments correspond to a momentum scale of $`Q^2=1/a^24`$ GeV2.

Note that matrix elements of the operators $`𝒪_{\{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{n+1}\}}`$ include both connected and disconnected diagrams, corresponding to operator insertions in quark lines which are connected or disconnected (except through gluon lines) with the nucleon source. Since the evaluation of disconnected diagrams is considerably more difficult numerically, only exploratory studies of these have been completed  and the present work will treat only connected diagrams. However, because the disconnected contributions are flavor independent (for equal $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark masses), they cancel exactly in the difference of $`u`$ and $`d`$ moments. Therefore it is appropriate to compare connected contributions to lattice $`ud`$ moments with moments of phenomenological PDFs .

To compare the lattice results with the experimentally measured moments, one must extrapolate the data from the lowest quark mass used ($`50`$ MeV) to the physical value ($``$ 5–6 MeV). Naively one extrapolates to the physical quark mass assuming that the moments depend linearly on the quark mass. However, as shown in Fig. 1 (long dashed lines), a linear extrapolation of the world lattice data for the $`ud`$ moments overestimates the experimental values by some 50% in all cases. This suggests that important physics is still being omitted from the lattice calculations and their extrapolations. It is crucial, if one is to have confidence in lattice calculations of hadronic observables, that the origin of this discrepancy is identified.

Indeed, one knows on very general grounds that a linear extrapolation in $`m_qm_\pi ^2`$ must fail because it omits the crucial nonanalytic structure associated with chiral symmetry breaking. Even at the lowest quark mass accessed on the lattice, the pion mass is over 300 MeV. Earlier studies of chiral extrapolations of lattice data for hadron masses , magnetic moments  and charge radii  have shown that for quark masses above 50–60 MeV, hadron properties behave very much as one would expect in a constituent quark model, with relatively slow, smooth behavior as a function of the quark mass. However, for $`m_q50`$ MeV one typically finds the rapid, nonlinear variation expected from the nonanalytic behavior of Goldstone boson loops . The transition occurs when the pion Compton wavelength becomes larger than the pion source — essentially, the size of the extended nucleon.

Following the earlier work on chiral extrapolations of physical observables, we expand the moments $`x^n_q`$ at small $`m_\pi `$ as a series in $`m_\pi ^2`$. Generally the expansion coefficients are (model-dependent) free parameters. On the other hand, the pion cloud of the nucleon gives rise to unique terms whose nonanalyticity in the quark mass arises from the infra-red behavior of the chiral loops. Hence they are generally model independent. In fact, the leading nonanalytic (LNA) term for the $`u`$ and $`d`$ distributions arising from a one-pion loop behaves as :

$$x^n_q^{\mathrm{LNA}}m_\pi ^2\mathrm{log}m_\pi .$$
(2)
Experience with the chiral behavior of masses and magnetic moments shows that the LNA terms alone are not sufficient to describe lattice data for $`m_\pi 200`$ MeV , so that extrapolation of lattice data to $`m_\pi 0`$, through the chiral transition region, requires a formula which is consistent with both the heavy quark and chiral limits of QCD.

In order to fit the lattice data at larger $`m_\pi `$, while preserving the correct chiral behavior of moments as $`m_\pi 0`$, the moments of $`ud`$ are fitted with the form:

$$x^n_{ud}=a_n+b_nm_\pi ^2+a_nc_{\mathrm{LNA}}m_\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2+\mu ^2}\right),$$
(3)
where the parameters $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ are a priori undetermined, and the mass $`\mu `$ essentially determines the scale above which Goldstone boson loops no longer yield rapid variation — typically at scales $`500`$ MeV. (In fact, the mass $`\mu `$ corresponds to the upper limit of the momentum integration if one applies a sharp cut-off in the pion loop integral .) The coefficient $`c_{\mathrm{LNA}}=(3g_A^2+1)/(4\pi f_\pi )^2`$ has been calculated in chiral perturbation theory . In the limit $`m_\pi 0`$ the form in Eq.(3) is therefore the most general expression for moments of the PDFs at $`𝒪(m_\pi ^2)`$ which is consistent with chiral symmetry. At larger $`m_\pi `$ values, where chiral loops are suppressed, the argument of the logarithm in Eq.(3) ensures that the effects of this term are switched off.

Having motivated the functional form of the extrapolation formula, we next apply Eq.(3) to the lattice data from Refs.. In principle, Eq.(3) is only strictly applicable to full (unquenched) QCD, and quenched chiral perturbation theory should be used to extrapolate quenched data at small quark masses where the effects of pion and spurious $`\eta `$ loops will dominate the $`m_\pi `$ dependence. However, at the large quark masses where lattice calculations are currently performed, chiral effects are strongly suppressed and, as shown in Fig. 1, quenched and unquenched results are statistically indistinguishable and have therefore been combined to improve overall statistics.

While the current lattice data are at values of $`m_\pi `$ too high to display any deviation from constituent quark behavior, it is not a priori obvious why a lowest order form should be able to fit data at $`m_\pi 1`$ GeV. Hence, it is useful to note that studies based on chiral quark models suggest that Eq.(3) can indeed provide a very good parameterization of the $`m_\pi `$ dependence of PDF moments. We illustrate this by taking a simple meson cloud model of the nucleon, based on the MIT bag with pion cloud corrections introduced perturbatively in an expansion in the infinite momentum frame  about ‘bare’ nucleon states — analogously to the cloudy bag model (CBM) . Earlier studies of the $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ masses  and the nucleon magnetic moments  established that the CBM gives a good description of the lattice data over a wide range of quark mass. The details of structure function calculations in the meson cloud model are well known and can be found in the literature  (see also ). Since the model is not our main focus here, we simply show the results for the $`n=1,2`$ and 3 moments (for a bag radius of 0.8 fm and a $`\pi NN`$ dipole vertex form factor mass of 1.3 GeV ). These are denoted in Fig. 1 by the small squares, and the $`\chi ^2`$ fits to these using the form (3) are represented by the dashed curves through them. Clearly, Eq.(3) provides an excellent fit to model data, which are also in qualitative agreement with the calculated lattice moments. These results give us confidence that a fit to the lattice data based on Eq.(3) should be reasonable.

The results of the best $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the lattice data for each moment are given by the central solid lines in Fig. 1. The inner envelopes around these curves represent fits to the extrema of the error bars. For the central curves, the value of the mass parameter $`\mu `$ that is most consistent with all experimental moments is $`\mu =550`$ MeV. This value of $`\mu `$ is comparable to the scale at which the behavior found in other observables, such as magnetic moments and masses, switches from smooth and constituent quark-like (slowly varying with respect to the current quark mass) to rapidly varying and dominated by Goldstone boson loops. The similarity of these scales for the various observables simply reflects the common scale at which the Compton wavelength of the pion becomes comparable to the size of the hadron (without its pion cloud). We also note that this is similar to the scale predicted by the $`\chi ^2`$ fits to the meson cloud model in Fig. 1.

At present, all of the lattice data are in a region where the moments show little variation with $`m_\pi ^2`$. This, together with the relatively large errors, means that one cannot distinguish between a linear extrapolation and one that includes the correct chiral behavior, as Fig. 1 illustrates. Consequently, it is not possible to determine $`\mu `$ from the current lattice data. In fact, with the current errors it is possible to consistently fit both the lattice data and the experimental values with $`\mu `$ ranging from $`400`$ MeV to 700 MeV. The dependence on $`\mu `$ is illustrated in Fig. 1 by the difference between the inner and outer envelopes on the fits. The former are the best fits to the lower (upper) limits of the error bars, while the latter use $`\mu =450`$ (650) MeV instead of the central value of $`\mu =550`$ MeV. Data at smaller quark masses are therefore crucial to constrain this parameter and guide an accurate extrapolation.

These results have significant implications for lattice calculations. Unlike heavy quark systems, where it may be acceptable to work in a reasonably small volume, calculations of the nucleon require an accurate representation of the pion cloud. Hence the volume must be sufficiently large that the pion Compton wavelength of a reasonably light pion fits well within the volume. Even though one need not calculate at the physical pion mass, the pion must be light enough that the parameters of a systematic chiral extrapolation are well determined statistically. Specifically, from Fig. 1 it is clear that 5% measurements down to $`m_\pi ^2=0.05`$ GeV2 (requiring a spatial volume of order (4.3 fm)3) would provide data for an accurate chiral extrapolation. This will require Terascale calculations , first in the quenched approximation with chiral fermions and eventually in full QCD, which is necessary to produce the full pion cloud and the correct chiral behavior embodied in the leading nonanalytic structure. While this is demanding, with the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm of Ref. requiring 8 Teraflops-years for full QCD, since the total computational cost of this algorithm varies as $`m_\pi ^{7.25}`$, we note that this is still a factor of 26 less than necessary for a brute force evaluation at the physical quark mass. Indeed, the discovery reported here brings reliable calculations of hadronic properties within the capability of the next generation of computers which will be available in the next 2–3 years.

In summary, we have investigated the quark mass dependence of moments of quark distribution functions, with emphasis on both the physics in the chiral limit and the scale at which the pion Compton wavelength corresponds to the intrinsic size of the nucleon. We proposed a low order formula for the $`m_\pi `$ dependence of moments, which embodies the leading nonanalytic behavior expected from the chiral properties of QCD, and used it to extrapolate the available lattice data to the physical region. The applicability of a low order expansion for the lattice data is also supported by phenomenological chiral quark model studies. Compared with linear extrapolations, which drastically overestimate the experimental values, we find that within the current errors there is no evidence of a discrepancy between the lattice data and experiment once the correct dependence on quark mass near the chiral limit is incorporated. This observation resolves an important long-standing problem with ab initio calculations of hadron structure in QCD which has persisted for more than a decade. It not only removes a serious threat to the credibility of current lattice calculations, but also provides the foundation for quantitative calculation of hadron observables with the next generation of Terascale computers.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank C. Boros, D. Dolgov, R. Edwards, R. Horsley, C. Michael and D. Richards for helpful discussions and communications, and X. Ji and M. Savage for helpful discussions about the results in Ref.. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council, the U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-84ER40150, under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab), and cooperative research agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818.


text:
# A Thermal Re-emission Model

\[

## Abstract

Starting from a continuum description, we study the non-equilibrium roughening of a thermal re-emission model for etching in one and two spatial dimensions. Using standard analytical techniques, we map our problem to a generalized version of an earlier non-local KPZ (Kardar-Parisi-Zhang) model. In 2+1 dimensions, the values of the roughness and the dynamic exponents calculated from our theory go like $`\alpha z1`$ and in 1+1 dimensions, the exponents resemble the KPZ values for low vapor pressure, supporting experimental results. Interestingly, Galilean invariance is maintained althrough.

68.35.Ct, 05.40. -a, 05.70.Ln, 64.60.Ht

\]

The subject of kinetic roughening and non-equilibrium growths, have been in the center of interest of far-from-equilibrium physics for more than two decades now. This is mainly due to two reasons: on the one hand, due to an ongoing revolution in the world of micro-physics in recent years, the demand of the age is to understand and implement the underlying mechanism associated . On the other hand, they seem to correlate fields even as diverse as ecological growths, propagation of a crack-front, stock-market predictions, etc. . Although the processes which have been probed so far, have mostly been concerned only with local effects, such as molecular-beam-epitaxy (MBE) growth, conventional diffusive growths, etc, the importance of the non-local effects, have been known as early as the 1950’s . Later on, with the advent of more sophisticated experimental techniques, non-linear effects involving physical vapor deposition (PVC) , sputtering techniques and associated growth and etching of plasma fonts have assumed a position of paramount importance. Whereas in standard MBE type of growths, the vapor atoms are targetted in a direction normal to the substrate, so that growth is decided by the local environment only, in case of shadowing growths by sputter deposition, vapor atoms are incident at random angles to the surface, so that non-local factors gain prominence in this case \[7-11\]. There have been several experimental follow-ups too of this sputtering mechanism \[12-14\].

The concept of shadowing effect in a sputtering growth (or etching) essentially arrived with the observation that thin films often exhibit ”an extended network of grooves and voids in their interiors”  giving rise to columnar structures. The basic idea is the following. Since, in a sputtering growth (etching), particles are allowed to be deposited (deroded) on the surface from all possible angles at random, the rate of growth is taken to be proportional to the exposure angle $`\theta (x)`$, which is a function of the position of incidence of the incoming particle. Now, as the hills have greater exposure area, they receive more atoms than the valleys. Thus the hills continue to grow steeper compared to the depleted valleys, which naturally gives rise to an instability in the system. The idea has been very ingeniously, but intelligently related to the growth of the relatively larger stalks, in a grassy lawn, which suppress the growth of the shorter ones  and in the process giving rise to a rough contour.

In the theoretical front, this phenomenon of shadowing growth (decay), or its partner, the thermal reemission instability has inspired a series of works in 1+1 dimensions \[7,8,11,15-17\] and in 2+1 dimensions . The theoretical forays in fact started with the paper by Karunasiri, et al  where from a direct numerical integration of the dynamical equation, they were able to show that the self-similarity of the contour, evident at small values of the diffusion constant, is modified by the growth of flat films, beyond a critical height, as the value of the diffusion constant is increased. Taking clues from their arguments, Roland and Guo  went on to calculate the value of the roughness constant, in 1+1 dimensions (albeit in the context of a shadowing model) and further predicted that in the low temperature phase, the system resembles a KPZ universality class (in agreement with Karunasiri, et al ). This concept of non-local, shadowing effect was later modified in , where a net non-local flux was observed to give rise to the inherent columnar structures found in experiments. Later on, the domain of 2+1 dimension was also probed with the advent of advanced numerical integration algorithms and Monte-Carlo simulations . However, all these attempts, both in 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions, being predominantly numerical, either through direct numerical integration of a fundamental Langevin-type equation, or through Monte-Carlo simulation, and all the more, giving contradictory values of the exponents obtained by different groups, we ventured an analytical derivation to have a final say regarding the universality class of these type of sputtered mechanisms. In the process, we will see that our findings correlate the available experimental and numerical observations (of one of these groups) in 2+1 dimensions and predicts scaling in 1+1 dimensions too.

With the assumption that the shadowing effect provides the dominant instability in the system, we apply the non-local model proposed by Zhao, et al . The model is given by

$$\frac{h(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}=\nu ^2h(\stackrel{}{r},t)\pm \sqrt{1+(\stackrel{}{}h)^2}R(\stackrel{}{r},t)+\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)$$
(1)
and

$$\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)\eta (\stackrel{}{r}^{},t^{})=2D\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{})\delta (tt^{})$$
(2)
where the first term on the right hand side of eqn.(1) provides the diffusive relaxing mechanism for the growing (or etching) surface and the last term signifies the collective effect of randomness in the system, taken to be a Gaussian noise. The middle term is the non-local, non-linear term detailing the effects of thermal reemission and is given by

$$R(\stackrel{}{r},t)=s_0F_0(\stackrel{}{r},t)+s_1F_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)$$
(3)
Here $`s_0`$ is the zeroth order sticking coefficient and $`s_1`$ is generated due to the reemission mechanism . Here we consider first-order thermal reemission, that is neglect the effects of $`s_i`$ $`(\mathrm{i}>1)`$. Plugging again from the same reference and applying the same logic, we consider the flux of the m-th order particle at position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ as $`F_m(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ which is given by

$`F_{m+1}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ $`=`$ $`(1s_m){\displaystyle }Z(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{},t)F_m(\stackrel{}{r}^{},t)\times `$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}}.\widehat{n})P(\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{r}},\widehat{n}^{})}{(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{})^2+(hh^{})^2}}dA^{}`$
For our case of first-order reemission, we are concerned with m=0 and 1. Here $`\widehat{n}`$ is the unit normal to the surface at $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, pointing outwards, $`\widehat{n}^{}`$ is the unit normal at $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}}`$ is the unit vector connecting $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ (see Fig.1). $`P(\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{r}},\widehat{n}^{})`$ is the probability, per unit solid angle that the reemitted particle flies off along $`\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{r}}`$ and is expressed as $`\frac{(\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{r}}.\widehat{n}^{})}{\pi }`$ . $`Z(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{},t)`$ is equal to unity except when there is no line of sight between the surface elements at $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ and zero otherwise. The nonlinear factor $`\sqrt{1+(\stackrel{}{}h)^2}`$ which is multiplied with $`R(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, signifies the lateral growth (or etching, as the case may be) associated and the ’+’ and ’-’ signs as its prefix, refer to growth or etching respectively. In the following analysis, we will consider parameter values as in  (that is we will be dealing with etching due to sputtering). Thus, for our case, $`F_0=4`$, $`s_00`$ and $`s_11`$. Also $`P(\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{r}},\widehat{n}^{})=\frac{\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{r}}.\widehat{n}^{}}{\pi }`$, assuming thermally re-emitted flux, although this is more of a simplification  than exact truth. With the above description of the complete equation, we proceed to determine the dynamics in the 2+1 dimensional case. Later on, we will also discuss our results with reference to 1+1 dimensions, as well.

Combining eqns.(1), (3) and (4) and taking $`\psi `$ as the angle between $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ (see Fig.1), the dynamical etching equation reduces to

$$\frac{h}{t}\nu ^2h[1+\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{}h)^2]F_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)+\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)$$
(6)
where

$`F_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}[\theta +\theta ^{}]}{(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{})^2+(hh^{})^2}}\times `$ (8)
$`\sqrt{1+(\stackrel{}{}h^{}(\stackrel{}{r}^{},\theta ^{}))^2}r^{}dr^{}d\theta ^{}`$
where $`\theta `$ = angle between $`\widehat{n}_{\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}}`$ and $`\widehat{n}^{}`$ = $`\varphi +\psi `$ as in Fig.1 and $`\theta ^{}`$ is again defined as in Fig.1. In arriving at eqns.(5) and (6), we have deliberately chosen $`\widehat{n}`$ as one of the axes in the two dimensional plane, to simplify calculations. This can be done, since on the average this holds true. Also the standard lateral growth assumption, $`|\stackrel{}{}h|<1`$ has been employed too. This $`F_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ can be further reduced to

$$F_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)\frac{8<\mathrm{cos}\theta >^2}{\pi }_L^L𝑑r^{}\frac{|r^{}r|[1+\frac{1}{2}(_r^{}h^{})^2]}{(r^{}r)^2+[hh^{}]^2}$$
(9)
where $`L`$ is the size of the system. It is important to mention here that in deriving eqn.(7) from eqn.(6), we have used the mean-value theorem, since $`\pi /2\delta <\theta ^{}<\pi /2+\delta `$ ($`\delta `$ is an angular strip around h), the range being evident from Fig.1. The ”$``$” sign justifies the fact that we have taken a mean-valued average, represented by ”$`<>`$”around the h-axis, thereby removing $`<\mathrm{cos}\theta >`$ outside the integral as a first-order approximation. Simplifying further, we arrive at the analytically tractable form of $`F_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, as given below:

$$F_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)\frac{8<\mathrm{cos}\theta >^2}{\pi }_L^L𝑑r^{}\frac{[1\frac{1}{2}(_r^{}h^{})^2]}{|r^{}r|}$$
(10)
In arriving at the above equations, we have put on a very standard assumption for any non-local model that the height difference $`(hh^{})`$, calculated between any two points $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ of the growing surface should be much smaller than their distance of separation, i.e. $`|hh^{}||\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}|`$, a basic property expected of any non-local process.

With this assumption and the mean-valued average done beforehand, the equation of motion now becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{t}}`$ $``$ $`\nu ^2h{\displaystyle \frac{8<\mathrm{cos}\theta >^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _L^L}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|r^{}r|}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{}{}h)^2]`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4<\mathrm{cos}\theta >^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _L^L}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|r^{}r|}}(_r^{}h(r^{}))^2+\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ (12)
Now, we try to look at the possible large time, long distance behavior of the system. We can easily see that the KPZ part , constituting the second term on the R.H.S. of the above equation will vanish as the system size is taken to be sufficiently large. In deriving the above form, terms higher than $`(\stackrel{}{}h)^2`$ order have been neglected. The final equation now looks like

$$\frac{h}{t}\nu ^2h+_0^L𝑑r^{}\varphi (r,r^{})|_r^{}h|^2+\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)$$
(13)
where

$$\varphi (r,r^{})=\frac{4\lambda \pi }{|r^{}r|}$$
(14)
$`\lambda =\lambda _0<\mathrm{cos}\theta >^2`$ is an adjustable coupling parameter, such that we will later put $`\lambda _0`$ equal to unity. The fact that the assumptions employed above are perfectly trustworthy, can be cross-checked from the fact that eqn.(11) maintains translational invariance which was an important feature of our starting eqn.(4).

Eqn.(10) can be easily mapped to the phenomenological equation considered in . The only trick lies in a suitable wave-vector representation of the effective long-range potential $`\varphi (r,r^{})`$ in our case. Obviously, this cannot be a simple plug-in from the earlier equation of motion , since, here, the interacting potential is apparently a multi-valued function. To progress further, we move on to the wave-vector representation of this interacting potential which is given by the scaled relation

$$\varphi (k,k^{})=4\frac{\lambda }{k}f(\frac{k}{k^{}})$$
(15)
Here the scaling function looks like

$$f(\frac{k}{k^{}})=𝑑XXe^{iX}\frac{Ye^{iY}}{(Y\frac{k}{k^{}}X)}$$
(16)
Considering the scaling ansatz

$$f(k,k^{})=f(\frac{k}{k^{}})=A(\frac{k}{k^{}})^\eta ,$$
(17)
we get

$$\varphi (k,k^{})\lambda \frac{k^{\eta 1}}{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\eta }}$$
(18)
and our job now is to evaluate the definite scaling behavior for $`f(k,k^{})`$ by the evaluation of a number for $`\eta `$ from eqn.(13) . Applying simple Laplace transform and going through the standard steps, it is easy to see that the dominating contribution of the double integral in eqn. (13) implies that $`\eta =1`$  and this gives the value

$$\varphi (k,k^{})\lambda \frac{1}{k^{}}$$
(19)
i. e. the major contributing part of the potential is effectively reduced to a single variable mode. Now, we can simply plug-in results from ref. and write down the dynamic exponent $`z`$ as

$$z=2+K$$
(20)
where

$$K=24/23=1.04$$
(21)
for our case . One obvious point to be noted here is the fact that owing to the Galilean invariance of eqn.(9), we can easily see that

$$\alpha +z=2$$
(22)
and interestingly enough, the general tendency of the system is to flow towards a short-ranged fixed point (the long-ranged fixed point comes out to be unphysical with the specific parameter values, for our particular case). This effect, as we will see, holds sway in 1+1 dimensions too, where the system flows towards the KPZ fixed point.

Combining the last two equations, we get

$$\alpha =K$$
(23)
Thus the critical exponents come out as

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{22}{23}}=0.96`$ (24)
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24}{23}}=1.04`$ (25)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{z}}1.08`$ (26)
i. e. $`\alpha \beta z1`$ in reasonable agreement with experimental and numerical findings  (experimental values are: $`\alpha =0.96\pm 0.06`$, $`\beta =0.91\pm 0.03`$ and $`z=1.05\pm 0.08`$), within experimental error bars. The fact that the theory (and also experiment ) predicts $`\alpha 1`$ indicates that the effects of overhangs might be marginal (pg. 110, ref.). Also to be noted is the invariance of the Galilean identity $`\alpha +z=2`$. Before concluding this portion, it must be mentioned that for the opposite scenario, i. e. growth under first-order thermal reemission, an identical analysis as above shows immediately that now the reduced dynamical equation has a form nearly the same as that in eqn.(10) but with a negative non-local potential. This automatically suggests that due to the attractive nature of this potential, the growth finally stops at sufficiently large times (”smoothens”) and $`\beta 0`$ . Interestingly, we find that even without thermal reemission, this marked change in the scaling properties, depending on whether it is a growth or an etching process has been discussed elsewhere  also.

For the 1+1 dimensional case, we follow exactly similar lines, the only modification being the consideration of $`\theta ^{}=0`$ and $`\theta =o`$ or $`\pi `$ (depending on growth or decay, respectively) in eqn.(6). Thereafter, proceeding likewise, the dominating long-ranged part comes out to be $`v(r)_0^L𝑑r^{}(_r^{}h)^2`$, with $`v(r)\frac{L}{r}`$. Thus in the large time limit, as $`rL`$, we see that the system approaches the conventional KPZ fixed point and naturally the exponents too resemble the KPZ universality class, which can be looked upon as sort of an analogy with the shadowing case . To avoid unnecessary repetition of identical calculations, as in the 2+1 dimensional case, we have neglected any further details in 1+1 dimensions.

All said and done, however, there is still one open question which needs to be resolved. This is the fact that inspite of both the available short-ranged and long-ranged fixed points in the 2+1 dimensional case, the system chooses the short-ranged fixed point (an alternative statement that there is Galilean invariance in the system, since the other fixed point basically gives an unphysical picture with $`\alpha <0`$) although the shadowing effect fundamentally remains a non-local contribution. This seems to suggest that whenever we are talking about non-local interactions, it does not necessarily mean that the long-ranged structure should control the associated dynamics. Instead the short-ranged part of the contribution might also take the upper hand, though, obviously depending on the type of interaction we are considering. The issue seems to demand further studies. As an adjoinder, we would like to mention that the 1+1 dimensional situation, being basically dominated by the KPZ fixed point, no such complexity arises over there.

The author (A.K.C.) would sincerely like to acknowledge illuminating interactions with Y. -P. Zhao and J. Drotar. All discussions with Dr. Sergei Egorov and Y-J. Lee are acknowledged. A.K.C. is indebted to M.J. Alava for his hospitality at the HUT.

* * * Present address of the author: Max-Planck-Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Nöthnitzer Str. 38, Dresden, D-01187, Germany.
email: akc@mpipks-dresden.mpg.de