text:
# Lorentz Boosted NN Potential for Few-Body Systems: Application to the three-nucleon bound state

## I Introduction

Modern realistic nucleon-nucleon (NN) potentials using a sufficiently large number of parameters describe current NN phase shifts very well. The most prominent ones are CD-Bonn, Nijmegen 93, I,II , and Argonne AV18 . They predict NN observables up to about 350 MeV nucleon laboratory energy perfectly well with a $`\chi ^2/N_{data}1`$. This potential description is linked to a nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation. Converged, nonrelativistic three-nucleon bound state calculations based upon these potentials give values for the triton binding energy between 8.0 and 7.6 MeV , whereas the experimental result is 8.48 MeV. There is some sensitivity to nonlocalities in the NN interactions, which influences the value of the triton binding energy. While the Nijmegen 93 and I and the AV18 potential are local, Nijmegen II and CD-Bonn incorporate nonlocalities either via a $`p^2`$ dependence or the nonlocality structure given by Dirac spinors and so-called ‘minimal relativity’ factors. It is well established by now that the purely local interactions in the above list lead to a triton binding energy of about 7.7 MeV, leaving about 0.8 MeV unexplained.

In general, the missing binding energy is attributed to some combination of nonlocality in the NN interactions, three-nucleon force effects and relativistic effects. Of course, these effects are often intermingled, i.e. relativity can motivate specific nonlocalities, and negative energy components of a nucleon wave function could be viewed as a specific subset of three-nucleon forces .

The estimation of relativistic effects on the binding of three nucleons has been the focus of a lot of work. However, up to now there has not been reached closure even on the sign of

a relativistic contribution to the three-nucleon binding energy. There are essentially two different approaches to a relativistic three-nucleon bound state calculation, one is a manifestly covariant scheme linked to a field theoretical approach, the other one is based on relativistic quantum mechanics on space-like hypersurfaces (including the light front) in Minkowski space. Within the first scheme Rupp and Tjon  find attractive corrections to the triton binding energy, using separable interactions to facilitate the solution of the Bethe-Salpeter-Faddeev equations. A three-dimensional reduction of this equation also finds attractive contributions . The calculations of Stadler et al.  are based on a relativistic three-nucleon equation, incorporate the effects of Dirac spinors and include negative energy components. They also incorporate off-shell effects of the negative energy components of the Dirac spinors, and by varying this part, which is not constraint by on-shell NN data, they can achieve an attractive contribution to fit the experimental value. Within the second scheme the relativistic Hamiltonian consists of relativistic kinetic energies, two- and many-body interactions including their boost corrections. The boost corrections are dictated by the Poincaré algebra . There exist already applications for the three-nucleon bound state , which suggest a repulsive contribution to the three-nucleon binding. Thus, the relativistic effects found in the two schemes appear controversial, in the approach based on field theory, relativistic effects increase the triton binding energy, in the approach based on relativistic Hamiltonians, relativistic effects decrease the triton binding energy.

To the best of our knowledge we are not aware of any three-nucleon (3N) scattering calculation including relativity in one or the other scheme due to the increased difficulty of a scattering calculation. In order to extend the Hamiltonian scheme in equal time formulation to 3N scattering it would be a very convenient starting point to have the Lorentz boosted NN potential which generates the NN $`t`$-matrix in a moving frame via a standard Lippmann-Schwinger equation. In this paper we work out the NN potential in an arbitrary frame, and thus place our work in the scheme based on relativistic quantum mechanics. As application of our Lorentz-boosted potential we restrict ourselves to the calculation of the triton binding energy.

The starting point for an NN potential in an arbitrary moving frame is the interaction in the two-nucleon c.m. system, which enters a relativistic NN Schrödinger or Lippmann-Schwinger equation. While realistic NN potentials are defined and fitted in the context of the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation, NN potentials refitted with the same accuracy in the framework of the relativistic NN Schrödinger equation do not yet exist. A first step in that direction has been done in Ref. , where the AV18 potential has been refitted to describe NN phase shifts in the relativistic context. Here we prefer to use a different route and employ an analytical scale transformation of momenta which relates NN potentials in the nonrelativistic and relativistic Schrödinger equations such that exactly the same NN phase shifts are obtained by both equations . Though this transformation is not a substitute for a NN potential with proper relativistic features and though it suffers from some conceptual defects , it can serve the purpose of this work, namely to illustrate the effects of a Lorentz boosts on NN potentials.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we derive and explicitly formulate the Lorentz-boosted potential related to a given nonrelativistic potential. In Section III we apply our formulation to the Reid Soft Core potential and discuss features of the Lorentz boost. Then we solve the relativistic 3N Faddeev equation based on that Lorentz-boosted potential. We end with a brief summary and outlook in section IV.

## II Derivation of the Boosted Potential

A formalism for treating the relativistic three-body Faddeev equations has been introduced in . There a Lorentz boosted t-matrix is constructed from the relativistic two-nucleon $`t`$-matrix given in the nucleon-nucleon (NN) center-of-mass (c.m.) system. The NN t-matrix obeys the relativistic Lippmann-Schwinger equation:

$`t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}_0)=v(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}_0)+{\displaystyle d^3k^{}\frac{v(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})t(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}_0)}{\omega (\stackrel{}{k}_0)\omega (\stackrel{}{k}^{})+iϵ}},`$ (1)
where $`v(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$ is the relativistic potential given in the c.m. system with $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ the individual momenta in that system and $`\omega (\stackrel{}{k})=2\sqrt{k^2+m^2}`$. In Ref.  a boosted potential two-nucleon potential $`V`$ (Eq. (3.4) of ) is naturally introduced as

$`V\sqrt{[\omega (\stackrel{}{k})+v]^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2}\sqrt{\omega (\stackrel{}{k})^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2},`$ (2)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the total momentum of the two-nucleon system. Obviously, for $`\stackrel{}{p}=0`$ one obtains $`V=v`$. For any application to the three-nucleon system, one needs to be able to calculate the matrix elements of $`V`$ explicitly. Thus we need an explicit representation and use a momentum space form based on eigenstates of the c.m. momentum operator $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ to obtain the matrix elements

$$\stackrel{}{k}|V(\stackrel{}{p})|\stackrel{}{k}^{}=\stackrel{}{k}|\sqrt{[\omega (k)+v]^2+p^2}|\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k}|\sqrt{\omega (k)^2+p^2}|\stackrel{}{k}^{}.$$
(3)
With the help of the eigenstates $`\psi _b`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}`$ (bound and scattering eigenstates) of the c.m. Hamiltonian ($`\omega (k)+v`$) the completeness relation is given as

$`\mathrm{𝟏}=|\psi _b\psi _b|+{\displaystyle }|\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}d^3k^{(+)}\stackrel{}{k}|.`$ (4)
Inserting the completeness relation into Eq. (3) leads to

$`\stackrel{}{k}|V(\stackrel{}{p})|\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ $`=`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{}{k}|\psi _b\psi _b|\stackrel{}{k}^{}\sqrt{M_b^2+p^2}+{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{}{k}|\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }^{(+)}\sqrt{\omega (k^{\prime \prime })^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2}^{(+)}\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime }|\stackrel{}{k}^{}}`$
$`\delta (\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})\sqrt{\omega (k)^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2},`$
where $`M_b`$ is the bound state mass. Using the standard relation between scattering states and plane wave states

$`|\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}=|\stackrel{}{k}+G_0^{(+)}t|\stackrel{}{k},`$ (8)
the potential matrix element from Eq. (7) can be rewritten as

$`\stackrel{}{k}|V(\stackrel{}{p})|\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\psi _b(\stackrel{}{k})\sqrt{M_b^2+p^2}\psi _b(\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{t^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k};\omega )}{\omega \omega ^{}iϵ}}\sqrt{\omega ^2+p^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{};\omega ^{})}{\omega ^{}\omega +iϵ}}\sqrt{\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })}{\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega +iϵ}\sqrt{\omega _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2}\frac{t^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })}{\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^{}iϵ}}`$
$`=`$ $`v(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})+\psi _b(\stackrel{}{k})(\sqrt{M_b^2+p^2}M_b)\psi _b(\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \omega ^{}}}[(\sqrt{\omega ^2+p^2}\omega )\mathrm{}[t(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k};\omega )](\sqrt{\omega ^2+p^2}\omega ^{})\mathrm{}[t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{};\omega ^{})]]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \omega ^{}}}[𝒫{\displaystyle }d^3k^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{\omega _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2}\omega ^{\prime \prime })}{\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega }}t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })t^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })`$
$`𝒫{\displaystyle }d^3k^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{\omega _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2}\omega ^{\prime \prime })}{\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^{}}}t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })t^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })].`$
Here $`𝒫`$ denotes the principal value prescription, and $`\omega ^{}=2\sqrt{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}`$, and $`\omega ^{\prime \prime }=2\sqrt{k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}`$. Note that the matrix elements is well defined for $`\omega =\omega ^{}`$, since both brackets vanish in this case.

Thus, the boosted potential, which depends on the total two-nucleon momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, requires the knowledge of the NN bound state wave function and the half-shell NN $`t`$-matrices given in the 2N c.m. system. For any given potential $`v`$ those quantities can be calculated by standard methods. Once the matrix elements $`\stackrel{}{k}|V(\stackrel{}{p})|\stackrel{}{k}^{}V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{};p)`$ are known, the boosted $`t`$-matrix elements $`TT(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{};p)`$ can be calculated from the relativistic Lippmann-Schwinger equation,

$$T(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p})=V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p})+d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }};\stackrel{}{p})T(\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime },\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p})}{\sqrt{\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2}\sqrt{\omega _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2}+iϵ}.$$
(18)
For any given momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ the bound state wave function $`\psi _b`$ defined in the c.m. system obeys

$`\psi _b(\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_b^2+p^2}\sqrt{\omega ^2+p^2}}}{\displaystyle d^3k^{}V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p})\psi _b(\stackrel{}{k^{}})}.`$ (19)
This eigenvalue equation is an excellent numerical test for the numerical calculation of the boosted potential, since it has to reproduce exactly the boosted energy $`\sqrt{M_b^2+p^2}`$ of a deuteron in motion.

In Ref.  the Lorentz boosted $`T`$-matrix was already introduced but calculated in a different fashion (see Eq.(3.27) therein). In the procedure we suggest here, we want to focus on the calculation of the boosted potential. We want to remark that despite the occurrence of complex valued half-shell t-matrices in Eq. (9) the potential matrix element $`V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }};\stackrel{}{p})`$ is real. The proof is given in Appendix A. As a consequence of that and the manifest symmetry of $`\stackrel{}{k}|V(\stackrel{}{p})|\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ it folows from Eq. (18) that one can define an unitary S-matrix. We define the S-matrix as

$`S(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \frac{4}{k\sqrt{\omega ^2+p^2}}}\delta (\sqrt{\omega ^2+p^2}\sqrt{\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2})\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p}),`$ (20)
with

$`\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p})\delta (\widehat{k}\widehat{k^{}})2i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{k\sqrt{\omega ^2+p^2}}{4}}T(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (21)
Then one can show in the standard way that

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{k^{\prime \prime }}\widehat{S}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }};\stackrel{}{p})\widehat{S}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }};\stackrel{}{p})}=\delta (\widehat{k}\widehat{k^{}}).`$ (22)
Note that $`\stackrel{}{k}=k\widehat{k}`$, $`\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }}=k\widehat{k^{\prime \prime }}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{k^{}}=k\widehat{k^{}}`$, where the quantities $`\widehat{k}`$, $`\widehat{k^{}}`$, and $`\widehat{k^{\prime \prime }}`$ are unit vectors.

## III Applications

In this section we would like to consider the Lorentz boosted potential and use it to calculate the binding energy of the triton.

### A Calculation of the boosted potential

First we need to construct a suitable potential which enters the relativistic Lippmann Schwinger equation, Eq. (1). A standard nonrelativistic potential fulfills the nonrelativistic Lippmann Schwinger equation for the nonrelativistic t-matrix $`t^{(nr)}`$,

$`t^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q^{}})=v^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q^{}})+{\displaystyle d^3q^{\prime \prime }\frac{v^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q^{\prime \prime }})t^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q^{\prime \prime }},\stackrel{}{q^{}})}{\frac{\stackrel{}{q^{}}^2}{m}\frac{\stackrel{}{q^{\prime \prime }}^2}{m}+iϵ}}.`$ (23)
Using a relativistic propagator in Eq. (23) will not result in the same phase shifts or observables. However, there is a scale transformation, which generates a phase equivalent relativistic potential $`v`$ from a nonrelativistic potential $`v^{(nr)}`$ . This scale transformation is derived from requiring that the relativistic and nonrelativistic form of the kinetic energy give the same result. This requirement leads to analytic relations connecting the nonrelativistic momentum $`q`$ with the corresponding relativistic momentum $`k`$,

$$q\stackrel{!}{}\sqrt{m}\sqrt{\omega (\stackrel{}{k})2m}.$$
(24)
The details of the derivation are given in Ref. . Here we only list the results necessary for the understanding of our present considerations. For a given nonrelativistic potential $`v^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q^{}})`$ the corresponding phase equivalent relativistic potential is obtained as

$$v(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}})=\frac{1}{h(q)}v^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q^{}})\frac{1}{h(q^{})}.$$
(25)
The corresponding relativistic NN t-matrix can be obtained from the nonrelativistic one in a similar fashion,

$$t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\omega ^{})=\frac{1}{h(q)}t^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q^{}})\frac{1}{h(q^{})}.$$
(26)
The Jacobian function $`h(q)`$ is defined as

$`h(q)\sqrt{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m^2}})\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4m^2}}}}.`$ (27)
The results of Eqs.(25) and (26) can be derived from the scale transformation of Eq. (24). Of course, they are not equivalent to the introduction of a relativistic potential $`v`$ and a corresponding NN t-matrix based on a field theory theory. However, for our purposes, the scale transformation is a very useful and simple parameterization of a relativistic NN potential, which conserve the NN phase shifts exactly, and which can enter Eq. (2) for the boosted potential. We want to remark here, that Eq. (2) is general and independent of the way, the relativistic potential was obtained.

In order to study the effect of the boost on the potential in more detail, we choose as the nonrelativistic potential the Reid soft core potential (RSC) . The RSC potential in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state is given by

$`v^{(nr)}(r)=(10.463{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu r}}{\mu r}}1650.6{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4\mu r}}{\mu r}}+6484.2{\displaystyle \frac{e^{7\mu r}}{\mu r}})\mathrm{MeV}`$ (28)
where $`\mu `$ is 0.7 fm-1.

In Fig. 1 a contour plot of $`v^{(nr)}(q,q^{})`$ is given for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state. It should be noted that this particular potential is positive for all values of $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$. Next, we successively apply first the scale transformation and then the boost to $`v^{(nr)}(q,q^{})`$. In Fig. 2 we compare the projections on the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state of the three potential functions, namely $`v^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q}^{})`$, $`v(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$, and $`V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}};\stackrel{}{p})`$ as a function of $`k`$. Since the scale transformation of Eq. (24) changes the momentum scale, we express $`v^{(nr)}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{q}^{})`$ in terms of $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$, in order to compare it with the other two potential functions. We choose two fixed values for $`k^{}`$, namely $`k^{}`$=1 fm-1 and $`k^{}`$=15 fm-1. The total two-nucleon momentum is chosen as $`p`$=20 fm-1. First, we would like to make some more general remarks. For small momenta $`q`$, i.e. in a very nonrelativistic regime, on has $`q`$ $`k`$. Furthermore, since the function $`h(q)`$ is always larger than 1, $`v`$ will be always smaller than $`v^{(nr)}`$. At larger momenta $`q`$ differs from $`k`$ and the relation between $`v`$ and $`v^{(nr)}`$ depends in general on the shape of $`v`$. In our case $`v`$ is always smaller than $`v^{(nr)}`$. The boost effect leads to another overall decrease of the values of $`V`$ except for small momenta, where $`V`$ is larger than $`v`$ and $`v^{(nr)}`$. We also want to point out that we chose quite a large two-nucleon momentum $`p`$ in order to show the effects of the boost. For two-nucleon momenta in the order of about 5 fm-1, the boost effects are much smaller. In fact, almost all of the difference between $`v`$ and $`v^{(nr)}`$ would be given by the scale transformation, i.e. by an underlying different scattering equation.

### B Calculation of the triton binding energy

Now let us move on to entering the boosted NN potential into the relativistic three-body Faddeev equation to calculate the bound state of 3H. The relativistic Faddeev equation as already introduced in Ref.  reads

$`\varphi (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_b(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{p})}}{\displaystyle d^3p^{}\frac{T_a(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{\kappa }(\stackrel{}{p^{}},\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p^{}});\stackrel{}{p})}{𝒩(\stackrel{}{p^{}},\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p^{}})𝒩(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p^{}},\stackrel{}{p})}\varphi (\stackrel{}{\kappa }(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p^{}},\stackrel{}{p}),\stackrel{}{p^{}})}`$ (29)
where $`\varphi `$ is the Faddeev component and $`E_b`$ the three-body binding energy. The index $`a`$ at the boosted T-matrix indicates a properly antisymmetrized two-body T-matrix. The vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ represents the relative momentum in the two-body c.m. subsystem as in the nonrelativistic case, and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ stands for the momentum of the corresponding third particle. At the same time $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the (negative) total momentum of the two-body subsystem and thus is responsible for the boosts of that subsystem. Clearly, the three individual nucleon momenta sum up to zero. If $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p^{}}`$ are the momenta of two individual nucleons, then their relative momentum (half the momentum difference) in their c.m. system is obtained through a Lorentz transformation, which is explicitly given as

$`\stackrel{}{\kappa }(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p^{}}(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{p^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{})+\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{})^2(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{p^{}})^2}}}\right],`$ (30)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p)=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$. The last term in Eq. (3.8) reflects the relativistic effect in the definition of a relative momentum. When going from individual momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p^{}}`$ of the subsystem to the relative momentum and the total two-body momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{p^{}}`$ one has to consider the Jacobian of that transformation. The square root of the Jacobian is given by

$`𝒩(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p^{}})}{(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{p^{}})}}\right|\right]^{1/2}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{})^2(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{p^{}})^2}(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (32)
The kinetic energy $``$ is given by

$`(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\omega ^2(k)+m^2}+\mathrm{\Omega }3m`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }3m.`$ (34)
A detailed derivation of the above relations is given in Ref. .

In our calculation of the triton binding energy the relativistic Faddeev equation, Eq. (29) is solved in a partial wave basis. The explicit representation of Eq. (29) in a partial wave decomposition is given in Appendix B. Since we are here only interested to test the feasibility of our approach, we only perform a 5-channel calculation at present. This means we allow the NN forces to act only in the states $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ (see e.g. table 3.4 in ). We want to point out that in contrast to a nonrelativistic calculation not only the Faddeev component and the T-matrix depend on the angle between $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p^{}}`$ but also the Jacobian $`𝒩`$. In this first approach we ignore the Lorentz transformation of the spins states. As NN potentials we employ the high-precision potentials CD-Bonn , NijmI,II, 93 , and AV18, as well as the Reid Soft Core potential  and two different Yamaguchi  potentials. For all potentials (with the exception of RSC) we use np forces only. With those potentials given, our calculation proceeds as follows. First, we perform the scale transformation of Eq. (24) to obtain a phase equivalent potential obeying the relativistic two-body Lippmann-Schwinger equation. Then we boost this potential and solve for the relativistic, boosted T-matrix, which enters the relativistic Faddeev equation, Eq. (29). This is in contrast to the approach given in Ref.  where a relativistic NN t-matrix in the NN c.m. frame was calculated first, and this t-matrix was boosted to the obtain the T-matrix entering Eq. (29). We also want to point out that the relativistic potential used in Ref.  is only approximately phase shift equivalent to the nonrelativistic one.

Our results for the relativistic Faddeev calculations based on five channels are displayed in Table I. For comparison, we also list the binding energies $`E_b^{(nr)}`$ obtained from a nonrelativistic five channel calculation. We want to emphasize that the underlying relativistic and nonrelativistic NN forces are strictly phase equivalent and give the same deuteron binding energy. Only under these conditions it is reasonable to pin down relativistic effects in the triton binding energy. From Table I we see that the difference between the relativistic and nonrelativistic binding energies span a range of about 0.29-0.43 MeV. The Yamaguchi potentials do not fall into this range. From Table I we can conclude that the relativistically calculated triton binding energy is reduced in magnitude compared to the one calculated nonrelativistically. A related investigation was carried out in Ref.  based on the AV18 potential. There the nonrelativistic NN potential was augmented by relativistic corrections of low orders following the work of  and was refitted to the NN phase shifts. The final relativistic correction to the binding energy of 3H given in Ref.  is 0.33MeV, which is comparable to our present findings. It is interesting to notice, that in the case of the Yamaguchi potentials, which are purely attractive, the relativistic, repulsive effect is weaker, namely only about 0.2 MeV. This is presumably connected to the absence of short range repulsive force components, i.e. high momentum components, which are presumably mostly affected by the relativistic effects. However, it will be difficult to provide general arguments on the relative size of the relativistic effects under consideration, since they most likely depend on the specific functional form of the potential. We also want to mention, that for nonrelativistic calculations the contributions of the higher partial waves in the two-body subsystem are attractive and range from about 0.04 to 0.24 MeV.

In order to shed some more light on the different contributions to our relativistic calculation, we want to expose the effect of the normalization factor separately. To do so, we solve Eq. (29) under the assumption that $`𝒩=1`$, which is the nonrelativistic limit of that quantity. The resulting binding energies are listed in the last column of Table I. replaced by 1, which is the nonrelativistic limit of that quantity. We see that $`𝒩`$ gives a repulsive contribution in all cases.

Finally we display the relativistic and nonrelativistic Faddeev components in Figs. 3 and 4. We choose the channel related to the two-body state $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$, which is one of the five channels. The figures show that the relativistic Faddeev component is more extended into the high $`k`$-region than the nonrelativistic one. As a reminder, the corresponding two-body relative momentum is denoted by $`q`$, see Eq. (24). However, when the momentum $`k`$ of the relativistic Faddeev component is expressed in terms of $`q`$ according to Eq. (24) and the component is replotted as a function of $`q`$, then the shape of this Faddeev component is very close to the nonrelativistic one, as shown in Fig. 5.

## IV Summary and Outlook

We derived and presented an explicit expression for a Lorentz boosted NN potential, which can be used to determine the two-body T- matrix in a frame, in which the total momentum of the two particles is different from zero. The description of two-body systems with non-zero total momentum is relevant for calculating properties in an interacting three-body system in a relativistic framework. The general T-matrix was inserted into a relativistic three-body Faddeev equation for the bound state, which was proposed in . The dynamical input consisted of NN potentials used in a relativistic two-body Schrödinger equation which are exactly phase equivalent to nonrelativistic NN potentials used in the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation. The phase equivalence of the two different NN potentials is achieved by a momentum scale transformation . We applied this scheme to various modern high precision NN potentials and compared resulting three-nucleon binding energies from the nonrelativistic and relativistic 3N Faddeev equations. In all case the relativistic effects turned out to be repulsive and of the order of 400 keV.

The effect of the boost turns out to be relatively small for moderate total momenta of the two nucleons, however at high momenta they are quite visible. If one compares the relativistic and nonrelativistic Faddeev components one notices some enhancement for high momentum components in the two-body subsystem.

The access to boosted NN potentials opens the door to considering the relativistic Faddeev equations for three-nucleon scattering. The need for a relativistic description of three-nucleon scattering became already apparent when measurements of the total cross section for neutron-deuteron scattering  were analyzed within the framework of nonrelativistic Faddeev calculations . Here, NN forces alone were not sufficient to describe the data above about 100 MeV. The discrepancy is most likely due to missing corrections from three-nucleon forces and relativistic effects. The relativistic corrections considered in Ref.  were only of kinematic nature, but they lead to an increase of the total cross section by about 3% at 100 MeV and about 7% at 250 MeV. This estimate, though very crude, emphasizes the importance of a consistent treatment of relativistic effects especially in scattering. The availability of a boosted NN potential is one step in that direction. Additional technical steps in relation to the relativistic free 3-body propagator and its singularity structure have already been worked out . We expect that the Wigner rotations of the spin states can be performed along the line given in .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is partialy supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FG02-93ER40756 with Ohio University. The numerical calculation have been performed on the Cray T3E and T90 of the Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC) at the Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany.

## A Proof of the Reality of the boosted Potential

The boosted potential is given in Eq. (18). Obviously, the first three terms are real. Here we show that the remaining forth term,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \omega ^{}}}`$ $`\{`$ $`𝒫{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime }\frac{(\sqrt{\omega _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2}\omega ^{\prime \prime })}{\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega }t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })t^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })}`$ (A1)
$``$ $`𝒫{\displaystyle }d^3k^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{\omega _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+p^2}\omega ^{\prime \prime })}{\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^{}}}t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })t^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })\}`$ (A2)
is also real. This term contains the complex expression $`t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })t^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })`$, which we will have to rewrite in order to show that the integration over it results in a real number. First, we note that only the half-shell t-matrix enters the integration in Eq. (A2). Via the Heitler equation it can be related to the K-matrix,

$`t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`K(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })i\pi \sqrt{k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}k^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{k}^{\prime \prime \prime }K(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })t(\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime \prime },\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })},`$ (A3)
where $`|\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime \prime }|=k^{\prime \prime }`$ is on-energy-shell. The K-matrix is real and defined in the standard fashion as

$`K(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })=v(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime })+𝒫{\displaystyle d^3k^{\prime \prime \prime }\frac{v(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime \prime })K(\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime \prime },\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })}{\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^{\prime \prime \prime }}}`$ (A4)
In order to carry out the angular integration in Eq. (A4), we use the partial wave representations of the t- and K-matrix,

$`t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}t_l(k,k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })Y_{lm}(\widehat{k})Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{k}^{\prime \prime }),`$ (A5)
and

$`K(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}K_l(k,k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })Y_{lm}(\widehat{k})Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{k}^{\prime \prime }).`$ (A6)
Inserting these partial wave expressions into Eq. (A4) leads to a partial wave representation of $`t`$ as

$$t_l(k,k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })=K_l(k,k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })(1i\pi \sqrt{k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}k^{\prime \prime }t_l(k^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })).$$
(A7)
Thus, the half-shell t-matrix $`t_l(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }};\omega ^{\prime \prime })`$ receives its complex parts only from the factor $`(1i\pi \sqrt{k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}k^{\prime \prime }t_l(k^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime }))`$ which does not depend on $`k`$. Using the partial wave expansions of Eqs. (A5) and (A6) leads to

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{k}^{\prime \prime }t(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })t^{}(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })}`$ (A8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}t_l(k,k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })t_l^{}(k^{},k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })Y_{lm}(\widehat{k})Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{k}^{})`$ (A9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(2l+1)K_l(k,k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })K_l(k^{},k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })\left(1+\pi ^2(k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2)k_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}|t_l(k^{\prime \prime },k^{\prime \prime };\omega ^{\prime \prime })|^2\right)P_l(\widehat{k}\widehat{k^{}}).`$ (A10)
Here $`P_l`$ is the Legendre polynomial. The expression given in Eq. (A8) is manifestly real and consequently the expression given in Eq. (A2) is real.

## B Partial Wave Representation

In a partial wave representation the relativistic Faddeev Eq. (29) is explicitly given as

$`\varphi _\alpha (k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_b(k,p)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p^{}p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(k,\kappa _1;p^{})}{\kappa _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{l^{}}}}`$ (B2)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{G_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(p,p^{},x)}{𝒩_1(p,p^{},x)𝒩_2(p,p^{},x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(\kappa _2,p^{})}{\kappa _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{l^{\prime \prime }}}}`$
where

$`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(p,p^{},x)={\displaystyle \underset{}{}}P_{}(x){\displaystyle \underset{l_1+l_2=l}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_1^{}+l_2^{}=l^{}}{}}\left\{(1+y_1)p\right\}^{l_2+l_2^{}}\left\{(1+y_2)p^{}\right\}^{l_1+l_1^{}}g_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{l_1l_2l_1^{}l_2^{}},`$ (B3)
and

$`\kappa _1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+y_1)^2}{4}}p^2+(1+y_1)pp^{}x},`$ (B4)
$`\kappa _2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+y_2)^2}{4}}p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+y_2)pp^{}x},`$ (B5)
and

$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`y_1(p,p^{},x)`$ (B6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\sqrt{m^2+p^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2pp^{}x}}{\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\sqrt{m^2+p^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2pp^{}x}+\sqrt{(\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\sqrt{m^2+p^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2pp^{}x})^2p^2}}},`$ (B7)
$`y_2`$ $`=`$ $`y_1(p^{},p,x).`$ (B9)
When explicitly calculating the normalization factor $`𝒩(\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{})`$, it turns out that $`𝒩(\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{})𝒩_1(p,p^{},x)`$ with

$`𝒩_1(p,p^{},x)=`$ (B11)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\sqrt{m^2+p^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2pp^{}x}}{\sqrt{(\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\sqrt{m^2+p^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2pp^{}x})^2p^2}(\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\sqrt{m^2+p^2+p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2pp^{}x})}}\right)^{1/2}.`$
In a similar vain, $`𝒩(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{p})𝒩_2(p,p^{},x)`$, with

$$𝒩_2(p,p^{},x)=𝒩_1(p^{},p,x).$$
(B12)
The index $`\alpha `$ summarizes a set of quantum numbers (channels)

$`|\alpha =|(ls)j(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})I(jI)J(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})T,`$ (B13)
where $`l,s,j`$ and $`t`$ are orbital angular momentum, total spin, total angular momentum j and total isospin in the two-body subsystem. The indices $`\lambda ,I`$, $`J`$, and $`T`$ stand for the orbital angular momentum, the total angular momentum of the third particle, the total three-body angular momentum, and the total isospin ). The quantity $`g_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{l_1l_2l_1^{}l_2^{}}`$ represents the standard permutation operator coefficient.

Finally, when taking the limits

$`y_1,y_2`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (B14)
$`𝒩_1,𝒩_2`$ $``$ $`1,`$ (B15)
one obtains the nonrelativistic result

$`(k,p)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3p^2}{4m}},`$ (B16)
$`T`$ $``$ $`t^{(nr)},`$ (B17)
and the relativistic Faddeev equation, Eq. (29), reduces to the nonrelativistic one.


format: text

text:
# One loop calculation of the renormalized anisotropy for improved anisotropic gluon actions on a lattice

## I Introduction

Lattice Monte Carlo simulations operate by dividing a finite volume of space and time into a grid, such that in a given direction, $`\mu `$, we have $`L_\mu `$ points distance $`a_\mu `$ apart. The desire to obtain results free from uncontrolled finite volume contamination dictates that the product $`a_\mu L_\mu `$ be chosen to be suitably large in spatial directions (3 fm is often quoted for QCD). Controlling discretization effects similarly requires that $`a_\mu `$ be suitably small, but this must be balanced with the computational overhead that increases with $`L_\mu `$. Reducing the dependence of simulation results on the lattice spacing is clearly advantageous, and so–called (Symanzik) improved actions may achieve this, permitting the use of coarser lattices without increasing discretization effects lepage96 .

In many cases, lattice results (such as hadron masses or decay constants) are obtained from the decay of correlation functions, $`C(\tau )`$, over a range of temporal separations, $`\tau `$. It is a feature of such correlation functions that the signal to noise ratio decreases with increasing $`\tau `$, and beyond some $`\tau _c`$ measurements are dominated by statistical fluctuations. The precise value of $`\tau _c`$ depends upon many factors, including the operators correlated and the number of Monte Carlo measurements made, but appears to be relatively insensitive to the temporal lattice spacing, $`a_t`$. As measurements can only be made for $`\tau `$ an integer multiple of $`a_t`$, if the temporal lattice spacing is large compared to $`\tau _c`$ it will be hard to obtain an accurate picture of $`C(\tau <\tau _c)`$. Improving the action does not help in this respect, and in addition, the inclusion of improvement in the temporal direction leads to the introduction of spurious (sometimes called ‘ghost’) poles in the gluonic propagator lepage96 . By not temporally improving the action we avoid this, but at the cost of increased discretization errors for given $`a_t`$. Controlling these, and the desire for increased temporal resolution of correlation functions, argues for the use of a small $`a_t`$.

We are thus motivated to choose a temporal lattice spacing that is smaller than the spatial, $`a_s`$, and such ‘anisotropic’ lattices can be created by tuning action couplings in the temporal direction differently to those in the spatial karsch82 . Anisotropic actions have already been successfully applied in many situations, including the glueball spectrum MP , the spectrum of excitations of the inter-quark potential JKM , heavy hybrids maea1 ; drea0 , and the fine structure of the quarkonium spectrum maea0 . More recently, anisotropic lattices have been shown to be very successful in nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) studies of two– and three–point correlators and finite momentum hadrons and semileptonic $`B`$ decays shigemitsu01 ; shigemitsu02 .

A more widespread use has been hampered by the fact that the bare anisotropy (or aspect ratio) in the simulated action, $`\chi =a_s/a_t`$, is not, due to quantum mechanical effects, the same as the measured value, $`\chi _R`$. Typically, we wish to estimate the continuum limit ratio of a mass, $`M`$, to a given scale, $`K`$, using the lattice measurements, $`\widehat{M}`$ (in units of $`a_t`$) and $`\widehat{K}`$ (often derived from the static quark potential, and in units of $`a_s`$) respectively. Up to finite lattice spacing corrections,

$$\frac{M}{K}=\frac{\widehat{M}}{\chi _R\widehat{K}}.$$
(1)
We thus require $`\chi _R`$, and with a sufficiently small error that this does not represent the dominant uncertainty in the final estimate. $`\chi _R`$ may be measured in Monte Carlo simulations, e.g. alea , but it is an expensive calculation which must be repeated for every choice of the bare couplings.

More generally, (lattice) perturbation theory may be used to calculate the renormalisation of quantities, and it is well known that with ‘tadpole improvement’ such calculations converge quickly to the measured data at simulated values of the gauge coupling, $`g^2`$, lepage96 . In this paper we obtain $`Z(g^2,\chi )\chi _R/\chi `$ to one loop for a wide range of anisotropies for SU(3) gauge theories in four dimensions. We focus on the Wilson action and a commonly used Symanzik improved action. Our results apply both to actions with and without tadpole improvement; in the Wilson case we cover both plaquette and (Landau) mean link improvement, whilst in the Symanzik improved case we discuss here only the mean link improved case.

These is no reason, a priori, why the lattice spacing should be identical in all spatial directions, and indeed there are situations where we might choose this not to be the case. A typical example is where increased momentum resolution is desired for correlation functions of operators at finite momentum. Rather than increase the computational overhead by a global rescaling, $`a`$ can be made smaller in one spatial direction burgio02 . Whilst we do not consider calculations for this case explicitly in this paper, when we describe the Feynman rules in Section II, we allow for arbitrary anisotropic lattice structure as well as general actions. We use twisted boundary conditions as a gauge invariant infrared regulator. In Section III we describe our calculation of the anisotropy from the dispersion relation of the on shell gluon propagator. We compare these one loop results to measurements of $`\chi _R`$ from simulations, and show that the one loop result is accurate to within 3–4% over the range of couplings covered by Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, in Section IV we provide a summary of our findings and some conclusions.

## II  The Perturbation Theory

It is useful to consider the derivation of an anisotropic lattice action from the isotropic continuum theory in two stages. We first obtain an action for an anisotropic continuum, which is then discretized.

### II.1  continuum anisotropy

The starting point, and the fixed point of the lattice action, is a $`D`$–dimensional continuum field theory in an Euclidean space-time that is invariant under Lorentz transformations and hence isotropic. We may choose to change our measurement units in the continuum theory, and by different factors in different directions, which leads to the introduction of an anisotropy factor (or factors), $`\chi `$, into the action, being the ratio of the length units in different directions. Nonetheless, Ward identities (derived by considering anisotropies differing infinitesimally from unity) can be enforced to ensure that the underlying theory maintains the correct Lorentz invariance under renormalisation.

We distinguish quantities in the isotropic theory from those in the anisotropic by the use of ‘hats’ in the former case. Although the original metric is

$$\widehat{𝔤}_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{diag}(+1,+1,\mathrm{},+1),$$
(2)
we find it convenient to introduce the notation of covariant and contravariant indices. The contraction of a momentum and position 111The Einstein summation convention is understood to apply unless otherwise stated., $`\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐱}\widehat{p}_\alpha \widehat{x}^\alpha `$, must be invariant under rescaling, i.e.

$$\widehat{p}_\alpha \widehat{x}^\alpha =p_\mu x^\mu .$$
(3)
We can relate the rescaled fields to the original by the use of a set of vierbeins

$$x^\mu =e_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\widehat{x}^\alpha ,p_\mu =e_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{p}_\alpha .$$
(4)
The metric in these variables is

$$𝔤_{\mu \nu }=e_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }e_{\nu }^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{},𝔤det𝔤_{\mu \nu }.$$
(5)
In the most general case there will be $`D1`$ anisotropy factors, but for the rescaling in the temporal direction only, as we consider in this paper,

$$e_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=(\chi ,1,\mathrm{},1),e_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=(\frac{1}{\chi },1,\mathrm{},1),$$
(6)
and

$$𝔤_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(\frac{1}{\chi ^2},1,\mathrm{},1),𝔤=\frac{1}{\chi ^2}.$$
(7)
Using these conventions, the natural position vector is covariant under rescaling, $`\widehat{𝐱}=(\widehat{x}^\alpha )=(t,\underset{¯}{x})`$, so the momentum must be contravariant $`\widehat{𝐩}=(\widehat{p}_\alpha )=(E,\underset{¯}{p})`$ such that Eqn. (3) is satisfied. The volume element is given by

$$d\widehat{𝐱}=d𝐱\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{D}{}}e_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=d𝐱\sqrt{𝔤}=\frac{d𝐱}{\chi }.$$
(8)
The dimensionfull (colour) vector potential and derivatives behave as $`\widehat{𝐩}`$, and so the Yang–Mills action becomes

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{1}{4}𝑑\widehat{𝐱}\widehat{F}_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{F}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{4}𝑑𝐱\sqrt{𝔤}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{4}𝑑𝐱\sqrt{𝔤}𝔤^{\mu \sigma }𝔤^{\nu \tau }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\sigma \tau }.$$
(9)
For the specific example above,

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{d𝐱}{\chi }\left(\chi ^2F_{0i}F_{0i}+F_{ij}F_{ij}\right).$$
(10)
### II.2  the propagator

To construct the Feynman diagrams for any action the gluon propagator must be computed. This is done for a given momentum by inverting the two-point gluon vertex, which for the isotropic (continuum) case is given by $`\widehat{V}^{(2)\alpha \beta }(\widehat{𝐤})=\widehat{k}_ϵ\widehat{k}^ϵ\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{k}^\alpha \widehat{k}^\beta `$. Before this can be done the gauge must be fixed and we add to the action a gauge fixing term and source, which in momentum space appear as

$$S_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}=\frac{d\widehat{𝐤}}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{2\alpha }\widehat{A}_\mu (\widehat{𝐤})\widehat{k}^\mu \widehat{k}^\nu \widehat{A}_\nu (\widehat{𝐤})\widehat{J}^\mu (\widehat{𝐤})\widehat{A}_\mu (\widehat{𝐤}).$$
(11)
The parameter $`\alpha `$ is the usual gauge-fixing parameter and, for example, $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to Feynman gauge. In moving to the anisotropic theory, $`d\widehat{𝐤}=d𝐤/\sqrt{𝔤}`$, which affects functional derivatives with respect to the anisotropic source, $`J^\mu `$. We can rescale $`A_\mu `$ to absorb this metric factor, which multiplies terms quadratic in $`A_\mu `$ by $`\sqrt{𝔤}`$. The two point function, $`V^{(2)\mu \nu }(𝐤)`$, that we shall shortly derive from the action, will already contain this factor and the inverse propagator becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )\mu \nu }(𝐤)=V^{(2)\mu \nu }(𝐤)+\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{\alpha }\sqrt{𝔤}.$$
(12)
By illustration, the inverse propagator in the continuum for $`\alpha =1`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha =1)\mu \nu }(𝐤)=\delta ^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{𝔤}k_\rho k^\rho =\frac{\delta ^{\mu \nu }}{\chi }\left(\chi ^2\widehat{k}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\underset{i}{}\widehat{k}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)$$
(13)
where the latter expression uses the isotropic momenta, which for a lattice theory we shall equate to the ‘physical’ ones.

The propagator is

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )\mu \nu }\right)^1.$$
(14)
To fix to Landau gauge we must be more careful. Consider the case where we wish to change the gauge from $`\alpha `$ to $`\gamma `$ after inversion. Then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\gamma )\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )\mu \nu }+\left(\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)k^\mu k^\nu \sqrt{𝔤}.$$
(15)
We write

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{(\gamma )}=G_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}+D_{\mu \nu },$$
(16)
and then $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )\mu \nu }+\left(\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)k^\mu k^\nu \sqrt{𝔤}\right)\left(G_{\nu \rho }^{(\alpha )}+D_{\nu \rho }\right)=\delta _{}^{\mu }{}_{\rho }{}^{}.$$
(17)
The solution for $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ is

$$D_{\mu \nu }=\frac{(\alpha \gamma )}{\sqrt{𝔤}}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k_\alpha k^\alpha )^2}.$$
(18)
### II.3 discretization

The anisotropically formulated theory may be discretized in the normal way, and in these anisotropic units we set the lattice spacing, $`a`$, to be the same in each direction.

On a cubical lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$ in dimension $`D`$ (with $`𝐱\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$, $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},D`$) the gauge field is denoted $`U`$,

$$U=\{U_\mu (𝐱):U_\mu (𝐱)SU(N)\},$$
(19)
where $`U_\mu (𝐱)`$ is associated with the link $`(𝐱,\mu )`$.

We define the perturbative gauge field $`A`$ by

$$A=\{A_\mu (𝐱+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu ):A_\mu (𝐱+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu )alg(SU(N))\},$$
(20)
with $`𝐞_\mu `$ the lattice basis vectors, all of unit length and changing covariantly with rescaling. Expanding in the colour index, $`a`$,

$$A_\mu =A_\mu ^aT_a,[T_a,T_b]=f_{abc}T_c,\text{Tr}(T_aT_b)=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ab},$$
(21)
where $`T_a`$ are the (anti-hermitian) generators of $`SU(N)`$ with structure constants $`f_{abc}`$. It is expedient to associate the gauge potential with the centre of the link, and then

$$U_\mu (𝐱)=\mathrm{exp}(gA_\mu (𝐱+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu )),$$
(22)
where $`g`$ is the bare coupling constant, and we have absorbed a factor of $`a`$ into each component of $`A_\mu `$.

For a lattice with $`L_\mu `$ sites in the $`\mu `$ direction the momentum vector $`𝐤`$ is

$$𝐤=\frac{2\pi }{a}(\frac{\overline{k}_1}{L_1},\mathrm{},\frac{\overline{k}_D}{L_D}),0\overline{k}_\mu <L_\mu ,\overline{k}_\mu ,$$
(23)
and the sum over $`𝐤`$ stands for the sum over the components $`\overline{k}_\mu `$. In the limit that $`L_\mu \mathrm{}`$ we have

$$\frac{1}{aL_\mu }\underset{\overline{k}_\mu }{}\frac{dk_\mu }{2\pi }.$$
(24)
The Fourier transform to momentum space is

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐱}{}}e^{i𝐤(𝐱+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu )}A_\mu (𝐱+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu ),`$
$`A_\mu (𝐱+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}e^{i𝐤(𝐱+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu )}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (𝐤),`$ (25)
where $`V=_\mu L_\mu `$ is the number of lattice points. It is useful to re-express the position of a gauge potential as $`𝒗_\mu =2(𝐱+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu )`$, which is a $`D`$–dimensional vector with integer (covariant) components.

### II.4 vertex functions

To permit us to compute perturbation theory for a range of actions, we have developed an algorithmic method for expanding a general gauge theory action on a lattice in an appropriate form for perturbative calculations to be carried out. The approach follows closely the method and notation of Lüscher and Weisz luwe  but is extended to accommodate, inter alia, anisotropy, fermionic actions, actions for non-relativistic heavy quarks (NRQCD) and more complicated definitions of the action in the purely gluonic sector. The algorithm is implemented in the Python programming language. For the work presented in this paper we briefly review the notation relevant to the present calculation and refer to luwe  for further information.

The lattice action for the pure glue sector can be written as a sum over contours

$$S[U]=\underset{𝐱,\alpha }{}c_\alpha \mathrm{Re}\text{Tr}(P_\alpha (U;𝐱)),$$
(26)
which is defined in terms of the coupling constants, $`c_\alpha `$, and the $`P_\alpha `$, which are closed Wilson loops.

The perturbative action is the expansion of $`S[U]`$ as a polynomial in $`A`$ and the coefficients of the monomials will determine the vertices of the theory. We denote this action as $`S[A]`$ and following luwe  we write

$$S[A]=\underset{r}{}\frac{g^r}{r!}\underset{𝐤_1,\mu _1,a_1}{}\mathrm{}\underset{𝐤_r,\mu _r,a_r}{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu _1}^{a_1}(𝐤_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu _r}^{a_r}(𝐤_r)V_r(𝐤_1,\mu _1,a_1;\mathrm{};𝐤_r,\mu _r,a_r).$$
(27)
By a choice of units we set the lattice spacing to $`a=1`$. The value of the lattice spacing in physical units is determined by a calculation of a physical dimensionfull quality and depends on $`g`$ and hence on the renormalized coupling constant through the standard $`\beta `$ function. Other quantities, such as the bare anisotropy, are determined by the coupling coefficients $`c_\alpha `$.

The Euclidean Feynman rule for the $`r`$-point gluon vertex function is $`(g^rV_r)`$, where the vertex $`V_r`$ can be expressed as luwe

$$V_r(𝐤_1,\mu _1,a_1;\mathrm{};𝐤_r,\mu _r,a_r)=\underset{\sigma 𝒮_r}{}\sigma C_r(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)\sigma Y_r(𝐤_1,\mu _1;\mathrm{};𝐤_r,\mu _r),$$
(28)
where we symmetrize over $`𝒮_r`$, the permutation group of $`r`$ objects.

The $`C_r`$ are the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients which, owing to the reality of the action, are defined by

$$C_r(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)=\text{Tr}(T_{a_1}\mathrm{}T_{a_r})+(1)^r\text{Tr}(T_{a_r}\mathrm{}T_{a_1}).$$
(29)
Under $`𝒵_r`$, the subgroup of cyclic permutations and inversion, the $`C_r`$ have simple properties,

$`\sigma C_r`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _r(\sigma )C_r\sigma 𝒵_r,`$
$`\chi _r(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}1\text{for }\sigma \text{ a cyclic permutation},\hfill \\ (1)^r\text{for }\sigma \text{ the inversion,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (32)
so it is useful to split the symmetrization operation into two steps

$`V_r(𝐤_1,\mu _1,a_1;\mathrm{};𝐤_r,\mu _r,a_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma 𝒮_r/𝒵_r}{}}\sigma C_r(a_1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r)\sigma Y_r(𝐤_1,\mu _1;\mathrm{};𝐤_r,\mu _r),`$
$`Y_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Y_r^\alpha ,Y_r^\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma 𝒵_r}{}}\chi _r(\sigma )\sigma \overline{Y}_r^\alpha .`$ (33)
The symmetrization over $`𝒵_r`$ is carried out within the Python vertex generation code, whereas any remaining permutations (for $`r4`$) must be carried out during the loop integration. $`\overline{Y}_r^\alpha `$ is the contribution from the Wilson loop $`P_\alpha `$ given by a sum of $`n_r`$ terms with the same momentum and Lorentz structure

$$\overline{Y}_r^\alpha (𝐤_1,\mu _1;\mathrm{};𝐤_r,\mu _r)=c_\alpha \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_r}{}}\frac{f_n^\alpha }{2r!}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\left(𝐤_1𝒗_1^n+\mathrm{}+𝐤_r𝒗_r^n\right)\right).$$
(34)
The factor of $`(r!)`$ normalises the symmetrization, and the dependence on the Lorentz indices $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r`$ has been suppressed. The prefactor of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ normalises Eqn. (29). The expansion of $`S[U]`$ can thus be represented as a set of ‘entities’ $`[f_n;𝒗_1^n,\mathrm{},𝒗_r^n]`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},n_r`$, where $`f_n`$ is an amplitude which is an integer for simple actions. The Python code produces data files where these are appropriately labelled so that, given the Lorentz indices $`(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r)`$ and the incoming momenta $`𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_r`$, the corresponding value of the $`r`$-point vertex function $`V_r`$ can be computed. The relevant Feynman diagrams can be constructed and the integrals over loop momenta performed either by direct summation over modes or using numerical integration routines. The gluon $`r`$-point functions are generated with the anisotropy fixed at the chosen (bare) value, and thus encoded in the amplitudes, $`f`$. We find this allows greater simplification of the data files produced by the Python and more efficient loop integral evaluation code. The time taken to rerun the vertex generation code for different $`\chi `$ is negligible, especially when offset against this. A more complete description of the implementation may be found in lat02 ; meanlink02 .

The gluonic propagator is derived as per the continuum theory, using the two point vertex for the particular action, $`V_2(𝐤,\mu ;𝐤,\nu )`$, and pairs of forward and backward nearest neighbour difference operators,

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_i)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu =({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\chi }},\mathrm{\Delta }_i),\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu =(\chi \mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_i),`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha ^\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^\alpha =\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0^\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i^\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i^{}.`$ (35)
to replace the position space derivatives in the gauge fixing term. The difference operators are

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ $`=`$ $`f(𝐱+\widehat{𝝁})f(𝐱)`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`f(𝐱)f(𝐱\widehat{𝝁})`$ (36)
for some $`f(𝐱)`$. The net effect is merely to replace momentum components, $`p_\mu `$, prior to any raising of the index, by $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu 2\text{sin}(p_\mu /2)`$ in Eqns. (1218).

### II.5 Faddeev–Popov ghosts

The Faddeev–Popov ghost term is of the form $`S_{\mathrm{ghost}}=𝑑𝐱\overline{\eta }^aM^{ab}\eta ^b`$, where $`\overline{\eta }`$ and $`\eta `$ are the usual adjoint anti-commuting ghost fields. The ghost fields are not observable, and form only internal lines in Feynman diagrams. We are thus free to choose the normalisation of the fields such that explicit factors of $`\sqrt{𝔤}`$ do not appear in the momentum space Feynman rules 222To match the continuum normalisation, these factors may be reintroduced, being $`1/\sqrt{𝔤}`$ in the ghost propagator and $`\sqrt{𝔤}`$ in the vertices, as was actually used in the calculations for this paper. for the ghosts. The anisotropy then only appears implicitly in the raising of indices.

The Faddeev–Popov matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{ab}`$ is determined by the gauge fixing condition corresponding to the choice of gauge in the propagator. The gauge-fixing is done by introducing the identity in the form

$$1=𝑑\alpha dA_\mu \delta (F[A_\mu ]\lambda )\mathrm{exp}(\lambda ^2/2\alpha ).$$
(37)
We use the linear gauge function $`(F[A_\mu ]=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^\mu A_\mu `$ and, as is well known, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{ab}`$ is independent of $`\alpha `$ in this case. We denote the gauge transformation field by

$$g(𝐱)=\mathrm{exp}(\omega (𝐱)),$$
(38)
where $`\omega (𝐱)=\omega _a(𝐱)T^a`$. For infinitesimal $`\omega `$ the gauge field transforms as

$`A_\mu ^{\omega a}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu ^a+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^a{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\overline{A}_\mu ^{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{+b}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g^n\alpha _n(\overline{A}_\mu ^n)^{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^b.`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+\omega ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^+=(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+)\omega ,`$ (39)
where $`\overline{A}_\mu `$ is the adjoint representation for the gauge field and $`\alpha _n`$ is the coefficient of $`x^n`$ in the expansion of

$$b(x)=\frac{x}{e^x1}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _nx^n.$$
(40)
The Faddeev–Popov matrix is then

$`M^{ab}[A_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F[A_\mu ^{\omega a}]}{\delta \omega ^b}}|_{\omega =0}`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^\mu \left[\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+\delta ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\overline{A}_\mu ^{ab}(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+){\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g^n\alpha _n(\overline{A}_\mu ^n)^{ab}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+\right].`$
The inverse ghost propagator is given by the $`O(g^0)`$ term and is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{ab}(𝐱,𝐲)=\delta ^{ab}\mathrm{\Delta }^2(𝐱,𝐲),$$
(42)
giving rise to the standard $`1/p^2`$ ghost propagator.

The one-gluon vertex is given by the $`O(g)`$ term which gives the contribution to the action

$$g\overline{\eta }^af^{abc}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^\mu \left(A_\mu ^b(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+/2)\eta ^c\right),$$
(43)
and, integrating by parts, we get

$$g((\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^\mu \overline{\eta }^a)f^{abc}A_\mu ^b\eta ^c\frac{1}{2}g((\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^\mu \overline{\eta }^a)f^{abc}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+\eta ^c).$$
(44)
The first term generates the standard three-point vertex that one expects from the continuum but the second term is a lattice artifact which is suppressed by a power of the lattice spacing $`a`$ as we should expect.

At order $`g^2`$ there is a two-gluon vertex which, using $`\alpha _2=1/12`$, can be read from Eqn. (41) to be

$$\frac{g^2}{12}((\mathrm{\Delta }^+)^\mu \overline{\eta }^a)A_\mu ^dA_\mu ^ef^{dac}f^{ecb}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^+\eta ^b).$$
(45)
Higher order vertices follow a similar pattern but do not contribute to the one loop calculation we are considering.

### II.6 the Haar measure

The field measure in the function integral is the Haar measure for integration over the lattice fields $`U_\mu (𝐱)`$ which take values in the Lie group. For the perturbative calculation this measure is re-expressed as the measure for the fields $`A_\mu (𝐱)`$, which take values in the Lie algebra, times a Jacobian which can be expanded perturbatively and included as counter terms in the perturbative action. We relate the infinitesimal vectors $`d\xi =d\xi _aT^a`$ and $`dA=dA_aT^a`$ in the fundamental representation of the Lie algebra by

$$e^{gd\xi }=e^{gA}e^{g(A+dA)}$$
(46)
from which we derive the relation

$$dA^a=b(g\overline{A})^{ab}d\xi ^b$$
(47)
where again $`\overline{A}`$ is in the adjoint representation and the function $`b(x)`$ is defined in Eqn. (40) above. The Haar measure is

$$\underset{\mu ,𝐱}{}d\xi _\mu (𝐱)=\underset{\mu ,𝐱}{}\frac{\xi _\mu (𝐱)}{A_\mu (𝐱)}\underset{\mu ,𝐱}{}dA_\mu (𝐱).$$
(48)
The Jacobian then leads to the term in the action

$$S_{\mathrm{meas}}=𝑑𝐱\underset{\mu }{}\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{log}b(g\overline{A}_\mu (𝐱))\right]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^n\beta _n𝑑𝐱\underset{\mu }{}\text{Tr}\left(\overline{A}_\mu ^n(𝐱)\right).$$
(49)
Noting that

$$x\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{log}b(x)=b(x),$$
(50)
we find that $`\beta _n=\alpha _n/n`$ with $`\alpha _n`$ the coefficients in the expansion of $`b(x)`$ defined in Eqn. (40).

The $`O(g^2)`$ vertex from the measure relevant to the one loop calculation is then

$$\frac{1}{8}𝑑𝐱\underset{a,\mu }{}[A_\mu ^a(𝐱)]^2.$$
(51)
### II.7 twisted boundary conditions

We follow Lüscher and Weisz and use twisted periodic boundary conditions for the gauge field. There is then no zero mode and hence no concomitant infrared divergences in the gluon self energy whilst gauge invariance is maintained. We briefly review these boundary conditions and refer to luwe  for further details.

For an orthogonal twist the twisted boundary condition for gauge fields is

$$U_\mu (𝐱+L_\nu 𝐞_\nu )=\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu U_\mu (𝐱)\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^1,$$
(52)
where the twist matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ are constant $`SU(N)`$ matrices which satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =z_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu $$
(53)
and $`z_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in_{\mu \nu }/N)`$ is an element of the centre of SU(N) with $`n_{\mu \nu }=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$. The particular boundary conditions imposed are uniquely specified by the antisymmetric integer tensor $`n_{\mu \nu }`$ and a complete discussion may be found in gonzalez97 . The condition that the twist be orthogonal is that $`n_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{n}_{\mu \nu }=0\text{mod}N`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{n}_{\mu \nu }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }n_{\sigma \rho }`$. The gauge potential $`A_\mu (𝐱)`$ also satisfies the periodicity condition in Eqn. (52).

Following luwe  we choose $`n_{\mu \nu }=0`$ everywhere, save $`n_{12}=n_{21}=1`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ are then determined up to a unitary $`SU(N)`$ transformation and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\mathrm{\Omega }_4=1`$. In the case of orthogonal twist $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$ can be expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ once the values of $`n_{\mu \nu }`$ are given. This will affect the momentum spectrum in the $`3,4`$-directions, but the Feynman rules given below are unchanged.

The lattice is here taken to be continuous in the $`3,4`$-directions and of extent $`L`$ sites in the $`1,2`$-directions. The momentum spectrum, $`𝐤`$, is then continuous in $`k_3,k_4`$ and discrete in $`k_1,k_2`$ with

$$k_i=\frac{2\pi \overline{k}_i}{L_i}+\frac{2\pi n_i}{NL_i},i=1,2,0\overline{k}_i<L_i,0n_i<N,\overline{k}_i,n_i,$$
(54)
with $`n_1=n_2=0`$ excluded to eliminate the zero mode and impose a gauge-invariant infrared cutoff momentum of $`2\pi /NL`$. Negative momentum in these directions is $`k_i=(\overline{k}_i,n_i)`$, adding appropriate multiples of $`L`$ and $`N`$ to remain in the ranges defined above.

The Fourier expansion of a colour field $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ is

$$\varphi (𝐱)=\frac{1}{NL_1L_2}\underset{k_1,k_2}{}\frac{dk_3}{2\pi }\frac{dk_4}{2\pi }e^{ik(x+\frac{1}{2}𝐞_\mu )}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_𝒏(𝐤),$$
(55)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_𝒏(𝐤)`$ is a scalar field and the sum over $`k_1,k_2`$ signifies the sum is over $`\overline{k}_1,\overline{k}_2`$ and the twist vector $`𝒏(n_1,n_2)`$. The $`N^21`$ $`SU(N)`$ matrices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)`$, are given in terms of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)=z^{(n_1+n_2)(n_1+n_21)/2}\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{n_2}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{n_1},$$
(56)
where $`z=\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi /N)`$ is an element of the centre of $`SU(N)`$. We do not need to construct the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)`$ explicitly but only evaluate the trace algebra associated with the perturbative vertices. We introduce the coefficients

$$\gamma _{𝒏a}=\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(𝒏)T_a),$$
(57)
for which we have the relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{2}{N}\gamma _{a𝒏}^{}\gamma _{𝒏b}& =& \delta _{ab},\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{2}{N}\gamma _{𝒏a}\gamma _{a𝒎}^{}& =& \delta _{𝒏𝒎},\hfill \\ \hfill T_a& =& \frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)\gamma _{𝒏a},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)& =& 2T_a\gamma _{a𝒏}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
In addition, for an adjoint field we can define the set of scalar fields labelled by $`𝒏`$

$$\varphi _𝒏(𝐱)=\gamma _{𝒏a}\varphi _a\varphi (𝐱)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)\varphi _𝒏(𝐱).$$
(59)
Using Eqn. (55) $`\varphi _𝒏(𝐱)`$ has Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_𝒏(𝐤)`$. Note that the related scalar field

$$\overline{\varphi }_𝒏(𝐱)=e^{2\pi i(n_1x_1+n_2x_2)/NL}\varphi _𝒏(𝐱),$$
(60)
is periodic on the lattice and has a momentum spectrum defined by the $`\overline{k}_i`$ in Eqn. (54) which allows the numerical Fourier transform to be easily computed.

Defining the symmetric and antisymmetric products of twist vectors

$`(𝒏,𝒎)`$ $`=`$ $`n_1m_1+n_2m_2+(n_1+m_1)(n_2+m_2),`$
$`𝒏,𝒎`$ $`=`$ $`n_1m_2n_2m_1,`$ (61)
the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients given in Eqn. (29) are modified to become

$$C_r^{TW}(𝒏_1,\mathrm{},𝒏_r)=\frac{1}{N}\left(\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏_r))+(1)^r\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏_r)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏_1))\right).$$
(62)
The $`C_r^{TW}`$ can be evaluated using the relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)& =& 1𝒏=\mathrm{𝟎}\text{mod}N,\hfill \\ \hfill \text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏))& =& 0𝒏\mathrm{𝟎}\text{mod}N,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)^{}& =& z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝒏,𝒏)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏)& =& z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝒏^{},𝒏(𝒏^{},𝒏))}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒏^{}+𝒏),\hfill \end{array}$$
(63)
where $`(𝒏\text{mod}N)`$ is understood to apply to each component, $`n_{1,2}`$, and the argument of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is evaluated $`\text{mod}N`$. We then derive the useful result

$$C_r^{TW}(𝒏_1,\mathrm{},𝒏_r)=(1)^rz^{\frac{1}{2}_{i=1}^r(𝒏_i,𝒏_i)}C_{r}^{TW}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒏_1,\mathrm{},𝒏_r).$$
(64)
For the inverse propagator we have

$$C_2^{TW}(𝒏,𝒏)=2z^{(𝒏,𝒏)/2}.$$
(65)
The $`r`$-point vertex function is then given in a similar form to that in Eqn. (33) by

$$V_r(𝐤_1,\mu _1;\mathrm{};𝐤_r,\mu _r)=\underset{\sigma 𝒮_r/𝒵_r}{}\sigma C_r^{TW}(𝒏_1,\mathrm{},𝒏_r)\sigma Y_r(𝐤_1,\mu _1;\mathrm{};𝐤_r,\mu _r).$$
(66)
Note that the momentum arguments $`𝐤`$ implicitly define the associated twist integers $`𝒏`$. To simplify the notation, we replace in most subsequent expressions the twist vector with its ‘parent’ momentum, understanding that only the twist vector will contribute in functions such as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤)`$.

The structure of the vertex functions $`Y_r`$ is unaffected by the choice of boundary condition which is manifested only in the momentum spectrum used.

A simplifying feature is to note that all diagrams contributing to an $`r`$-point function carry the same overall phase factor from the centre of the gauge group. These phases can be taken out as overall factors and the remaining parts of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and propagator are real. The overall phase can be restored at the end of the calculation.

For the 3-point vertex on the left hand side of Fig. 1(a) we have (using momentum conservation $`𝐩+𝐤+𝐪=0`$) 333We use $`(123)`$, $`(1234)`$ etc. as a shorthand for the ordering of the legs in the various permutations $`\sigma 𝒮_r/𝒵_r`$ of the vertex.

$`C_3^{TW}(123)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪𝐩)[\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪),\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐩)]`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪+𝐩)\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪𝐩))\left(z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐪,𝐩(𝐪,𝐩))}z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐩,𝐪(𝐩,𝐪))}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2i\text{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}𝐪,𝐩\right)z^{\frac{1}{4}((𝐪,𝐪)+(𝐩,𝐩)+(𝐪+𝐩,𝐪+𝐩))}.`$
In the diagram contributing to the gluon self energy of Fig. 1(a) the phase factors for both vertices are identical and, with the phases of internal lines, yields an overall phase of $`z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐩,𝐩)}`$ as expected for a term in the self energy.

For the 4-point vertex loop of Fig. 1(b) there are three contributions from the permutations $`S_4/𝒵_4`$ corresponding to $`(1234)`$, $`(1243)`$, $`(1324)`$ and in each case the $`Y_4`$ are real. We then find the Clebsch-Gordan factors to be

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill C_4^{TW}(1234)& =& \begin{array}{ccc}\hfill C_4^{TW}(1243)& =& 2z^{(𝐤,𝐤)/2}z^{(𝐩,𝐩)/2}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill C_4^{TW}(1324)& =& 2\text{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi }{3}𝐤,𝐩\right)z^{(𝐤,𝐤)/2}z^{(𝐩,𝐩)/2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
The $`z^{(𝐤,𝐤)/2}`$ cancels the $`z^{(𝐤,𝐤)/2}`$ from the internal propagator giving an overall factor of $`z^{(𝐩,𝐩)/2}`$ which is the expected phase.

### II.8 ghost and measure Feynman rules

We choose the Fourier representation for the anti-ghost field $`\overline{\eta }`$ given in Eqn. (55) but use the conjugate twist matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(𝒏)`$. In this case the ghost propagator is real and given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩,𝐩)=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{p}^\alpha }.$$
(69)
Now consider the relevant part of the $`\overline{\eta }A\eta `$ vertex,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱f^{abc}\overline{\eta }^aA^b\eta ^c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\text{Tr}(\overline{\eta }[A,\eta ])}`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N^3}}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(𝐤)[\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐩),\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪)]){\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\overline{\eta }_𝐤A_𝐩\eta _𝐪}.`$
where terms such as $`\overline{\eta }_𝐤`$ refer to the decomposition in Eqn. (59), with the momentum subscript restricted to the twist vector. The Clebsch-Gordan structure is

$$F_3(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)=\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(𝐤)[\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐩),\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪)])=z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐤,𝐤)}C_3^{TW}(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)$$
(71)
From the full structure of the $`\overline{\eta }A\eta `$ vertex in Eqn. (44) the momentum space Feynman vertex with momentum assignment shown in Fig. 1(c) is

$$ig\stackrel{~}{k}^\mu \text{cos}(\frac{q_\mu }{2})F_3(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪),$$
(72)
where there is no implied sum over $`\mu `$. Note that $`C_3^{TW}(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)`$ plays the rôle of a structure constant. With a real ghost propagator this vertex contributes the same phase factor as does the 3-point gluon vertex and so it can be absorbed into the overall phase factor of the diagram.

The two-gluon vertex, Eqn. (45), can similarly be analysed. Assigning the ghost momentum ($`𝐤`$ in Fig. 1(d)) as $`𝐪`$, and that of the second gluon ($`𝐩`$ in Fig. 1(d)) as $`𝐫`$, the Clebsch-Gordan factor is

$`F_4(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪,𝐫)=z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐤,𝐤)}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒍}{}}z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝒍,𝒍)}(`$ $`C_3^{TW}(𝐤,𝐩,𝒍)C_3^{TW}(𝐪,𝐫,𝒍)`$ (73)
$`+C_3^{TW}(𝐤,𝐫,𝒍)C_3^{TW}(𝐪,𝐩,𝒍)).`$
In the above we sum over a twist vector, $`𝒍`$. The corresponding Feynman vertex is, with no sum implied over $`\mu `$,

$$\frac{g^2}{12}\stackrel{~}{k}^\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_\mu \delta _{\mu \nu }F_4(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪,𝐫).$$
(74)
The Lorentz index of the second gluon is $`\nu `$. It is not so easy to extract an overall centre phase for twisted boundary conditions, but for the contribution to the propagator self energy in Fig. 1(d) we use Eqn. (64) to find the vertex contribution is proportional to $`z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐩,𝐩)}|C_3^{TW}(𝐤,𝐩,𝒍)|^2`$ (where we sum over twist vector $`𝒍`$), which carries the phase appropriate to the self energy.

The measure creates an insertion in the gluon propagator, and at leading order in $`g^2`$, is

$$g^2\frac{z^{\frac{1}{2}(𝐩,𝐩)}}{2}\delta _{\mu \nu },$$
(75)
which carries the correct phase. As expected, these expressions are independent of the anisotropy.

Although we do not utilise them in this paper, for completeness we also give the Feynman rules for untwisted boundary conditions in our notation. The ghost propagator, Eqn. (69), gains an extra factor of $`\delta _{ab}`$ for the ghost colour indices, and the measure insertion becomes

$$g^2\frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{ab}}{4}$$
(76)
at leading order. In the vertices of Eqns. (7274), the Clebsch-Gordan factors are replaced by

$`F_3(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`2\text{Tr}(T_𝐤[T_𝐩,T_𝐪])=2C_3(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪)=f_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐩𝐪}},`$
$`F_4(𝐤,𝐩,𝐪,𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{e}{}}\left(C_3(𝐤,𝐩,e)C_3(𝐪,𝐫,e)+C_3(𝐤,𝐫,e)C_3(𝐪,𝐩,e)\right),`$ (77)
where, in $`F_4`$, we sum over a colour index, $`e=1\mathrm{}N^21`$. In both expressions, each momentum factor is understood to be replaced by the colour index associated with that leg of the vertex.

## III  Anisotropy Renormalisation

In a lattice simulation, the renormalized anisotropy is typically determined by comparing the correlation lengths of an operator measured along different lattice axes. In a perturbative calculation there is a much smaller choice of quantities sensitive to the anisotropy.

The use of twisted boundary conditions provides one such, by providing a gauge invariant gluon mass. The renormalized anisotropy can be derived from the calculation of the on-shell dispersion relation for the gluon propagator defined in the theory with twisted boundary conditions. The details of the theory are fully discussed by Lüscher and Weisz in luwe  and we shall follow their notation. We use a lattice of size $`L`$ in the $`1,2`$–directions to which the twisted boundary conditions apply, and of extent $`I\mathrm{}`$ in the $`0,3`$–directions. We consider the gluon mode (called the $`A`$-meson in luwe ) which has (Euclidean) momentum

$$𝐩=(iE_0,m_0,0,p_3),m_0=2\pi /NL,$$
(78)
where $`E_0`$ and $`p_3`$ are continuous. In this section we understand all momentum components to be measured in the same units, i.e. to refer to the isotropic coordinate system. For clarity of presentation, however, we omit the carets used to distinguish such quantities in Section II.1. Infrared divergences are regulated by finite $`L`$, and $`m_0`$ is the pole mass of the bare gluon propagator. In luwe  the one loop renormalisation of $`m_0`$ is calculated and is used to determine the radiative corrections to parameters in the improved action. We follow a similar procedure and for anisotropic actions calculate the pole energy of the propagator as a function of $`p_3`$. For sufficiently small $`p_3`$ the infrared dispersion relation so derived can be fitted to the standard quadratic form using the renormalized mass and renormalized anisotropy as parameters.

To carry out the calculation we use Feynman gauge as described in Section II.2 with $`\alpha =1`$, but we verified that the results were unchanged when other gauges are chosen, as demanded by gauge invariance. The diagrams that contribute to the one loop gluon self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }(𝐩)`$ are shown in Fig. 1 and the Feynman integrals were constructed using the vertices and rules of the previous section.

At tree level the on-shell dispersion relation is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha =1)}(𝐩)=0`$ for $`𝐩`$ of the form above, and where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}(𝐩)`$ is defined in Eqn. (12). In the continuum, Eqn. (13), this gives

$$\sqrt{𝔤}p_\mu p^\mu =\frac{1}{\chi }\left(\chi ^2E_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+p_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)=0$$
(79)
and the bare mass is defined by $`E_0=m_0/\chi `$ at $`p_3=0`$. On the lattice for very small $`p_3`$ this becomes

$$\frac{1}{\chi }\left(\chi ^2F_t(E_0)+p_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_s(m_0)\right)=0$$
(80)
where $`F_{s,t}`$ are determined by the details of the inverse propagator. For the Wilson action $`F_s(m)=4\text{sin}^2(m/2)`$, and a more complicated function with the same continuum limit for the Symanzik improved case. For the actions we consider below, the need to avoid extra ghost poles in the gluonic propagator (not to be confused with ghost fields) means that the temporal function is always unimproved: $`F_t(E)=4\mathrm{sinh}^2(E/2)`$.

Adding one loop corrections, the on-shell condition becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{(\alpha =1)}(𝐩)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha =1)}(iE_R,m_0,0,p_3)g^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }(iE_0,m_0,0,p_3)=0.$$
(81)
Since we are working to $`O(g^2)`$, it is sufficient to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }(𝐩)`$ at the tree level on-shell energy, $`E_0`$, as per Eqn. (80). In general this requires taking into account the full matrix structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}`$ but for the form of the momentum chosen, Eqn. (78), it can be shown that of the elements $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R}^{}{}_{2\nu }{}^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R}^{}{}_{\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{}^{(\alpha )}`$, only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R}^{}{}_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}2}}{}^{(\alpha )}`$ is non-zero and thus that $`𝐩`$ is a zero of this on-diagonal element and no diagonalization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}`$ is required. For given $`L,p_3`$, we determine the bare pole value $`E_0`$ by numerical solution.

As described in luwe  the field theory for the $`A`$-meson is a 2D theory, and we can write by analogy with Eqn. (80) an effective dispersion relation for the infrared modes (i.e. small $`p_3`$) in terms of a renormalized mass, $`m_R`$, and anisotropy, $`\chi _R`$:

$$\chi _{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_t(E_R)=p_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_s(m_R).$$
(82)
Using Eqn. (81), we have

$$\frac{1}{\chi }\left(\chi ^2F_t(E_R)+p_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_s(m_0)\right)g^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(iE_0,m_0,0,p_3)=0.$$
(83)
Substituting in Eqn. (82) gives

$$\frac{\chi ^2}{\chi _{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\left(p_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_s(m_R)\right)+p_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_s(m_0)=g^2\chi \mathrm{\Sigma }(iE_0,m_0,0,p_3).$$
(84)
We define

$$Z(g^2,\chi )\chi _R/\chi =1+\eta (\chi )g^2+O(g^4),$$
(85)
and $`m_R=m_0+g^2m_1+O(g^4)`$, and at one loop obtain the relation

$$2\eta \left(p_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_s(m_0)\right)m_1F_s^{}(m_0)=\chi \mathrm{\Sigma }(iE_0,m_0,0,p_3).$$
(86)
For $`L\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$\eta \left(\frac{p_3^2+m_0^2}{\chi ^2}\right)\frac{m_1m_0}{\chi ^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2\chi }.$$
(87)
The values of $`\eta (L)`$ and $`m_1(L)`$ are determined by a (very good) straight line fit to Eqn. (86).

### III.1  The calculation

We work with the $`D=3+1`$ SU(3) gauge theory and consider the Wilson action (W) and the Symanzik improved action (SI) defined in alea .

#### III.1.1 the Wilson action

The Wilson action has a two dimensional coupling space, and is

$$S_W(\beta ,\chi )=\beta \left(\chi \underset{x,s}{}P_{s,t}+\frac{1}{\chi }\underset{x,s>s^{}}{}P_{s,s^{}}\right)$$
(88)
where $`s,s^{}`$ run over spatial links in different, positive directions, $`P_{s,s^{}}`$ and $`P_{s,t}`$ are plaquettes and $`\chi `$ is the (unrenormalized) anisotropy as per Eqn. (10). Spatial and temporal tadpole improvement factors, $`u_{s,t}`$, arising from favourite self-consistency conditions may be written in, but this amounts merely to a reparametrization of the same action

$$\left(\beta \frac{2N}{g^2}\right)=\left(\frac{\beta _0}{u_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}u_t}\frac{2N}{g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right),\chi =\frac{\chi _0u_s}{u_t},$$
(89)
and the measured anisotropy, $`\chi _R`$, is invariant. We shall evaluate Eqn. (85) perturbatively. In doing so, we span the full space of couplings and our calculation of $`Z(g^2,\chi )`$ applies equally well to any form of the Wilson action.

To one loop the diagrams for self energy function for the gluon are shown in Fig. 1(a-e). The calculations were done on lattices with $`8L^2I^2`$ twisted momentum grid points. The loop momentum $`𝐤`$ to be summed over is

$`(k_0,k_1,k_2,k_3)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{I}}n_0,{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3L}}n_1,{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3L}}n_2,{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{I}}n_3)`$ (90)
$`0n_0,n_3<I,0n_1,n_2<3L.`$
There is a pole in the integrands in $`𝐤`$ of the graphs in Fig. 1(a,c) for on-shell external momentum so the $`k_0`$ integration contour is shifted by $`k_0k_0iE_0/2`$. In addition, we use the change of variables $`𝐤𝐤^{}`$ suggested by Lüscher and Weisz luwe

$$k_\mu ^{}=k_\mu \alpha _\mu \text{sin}(k_\mu ),$$
(91)
which gives an integrand with much broader peaks, which is easier to evaluate numerically. It is easy to see that a reasonable choice of parameter is $`\alpha _\mu 1(\chi L_\mu )^1`$ and this was found to work well, significantly reducing the dependence on $`L`$.

The integrals were done as direct summations over the discrete momentum modes but in principle they can be calculated using an adaptive Monte-Carlo integrator even for finite $`L,I`$ . A common example of such an importance sampling integration package is Vegas lepage78  (and described in numrec ), but this expects the integrand to be a continuous function of its arguments. This can be achieved by a change of variable using a stepped function $`Z(x,L)`$ defined by

$$Z(x,L)=int(xL),0x<1,$$
(92)
so that $`Z(x,L)`$ takes integer values in the range $`0,\mathrm{},L1`$ and a given discrete momentum component is $`k(x)=2\pi Z(x,L)/L`$. It turns out that for one loop integrations the summation over modes is much more efficient. For two loops, however, it will be necessary to use Vegas to get a result of acceptable accuracy.

We considered lattice sizes in the range $`4L32`$ and $`I`$ large enough for the error due to finite $`I`$ to be essentially undetectable. In practice, $`I>50`$ sufficed. We calculated the self energy at each $`L`$ for a number of very small values of $`p_3`$ and using Eqn. (86) calculated the parameters $`\eta (L)`$ and $`m_1(L)`$. All computations were done on a single processor PC and took between 2 and 16 hours per integral, depending on $`L`$.

A fit as a function of $`L`$ allows the $`L\mathrm{}`$ values to be deduced. In Fig. 2 we show the $`L`$-dependence of $`\eta (L)`$ for $`\chi =2`$, and the (excellent) fit shown is given by

$$\eta (L)=0.0853030.0188471\frac{1}{L^2}0.0073487\frac{\mathrm{log}(L^2)}{L^2}.$$
(93)
For $`\chi =1`$ we found that, as expected, $`\eta (L)=0`$ for all $`L`$ and that the mass renormalisation parameter $`m_1`$ was

$$\frac{m_1}{m_0}=0.037923(9),$$
(94)
a value which agrees with that given by Snippe using the background field method snip . Extrapolated values of $`\eta `$ shown in Table 1 agree closely with results obtained by Pérez and van Baal peba , also using background field gauge. For instance, we find

$$\eta (\chi =2)=0.085303(1),\eta (\chi =4)=0.127901(2),$$
(95)
compared with Pérez’s and van Baal’s values of 0.0853037 and 0.1278990 respectively. Combining our data with that in peba , we find a close phenomenological fit is

$$\eta (\chi )=0.1687(2)0.16397(4)\frac{1}{\chi }0.005245(2)\frac{1}{\chi ^2}.$$
(96)
#### III.1.2 the Symanzik improved action

The general form of the action has, in addition to the couplings $`\beta `$ and $`\chi `$, an additional parameter, $`v`$:

$`S_{SI}(\beta ,\chi ,v)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \chi {\displaystyle \underset{x,s}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}P_{s,t}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{ss,t}}{v^2}}\right\}`$ (97)
$`\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi }}{\displaystyle \underset{x,s>s^{}}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}P_{s,s^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{ss,s^{}}}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{s^{}s^{},s}}{v^2}}\right\}`$
where $`R_{ss,s^{}}`$ and $`R_{ss,t}`$ are $`2\times 1`$ loops. The anisotropy renormalisation factor, $`Z(\chi ,\beta ,v)`$, is a function of all three parameters.

It is usual to restrict the simulated parameters to a two dimensional surface in the coupling space. The particular surface is determined by the chosen method of tadpole improvement, demanding $`v=u_s(g^2,\chi )`$ for the reparametrization in Eqn. (89). If, for given anisotropy, $`u_s`$ has a perturbative expansion $`u_s(g^2)=1+d_sg^2+O(g^4)`$, then we can rewrite the action as

$`S_{SI}(\beta ,\chi ,v)`$ $`=`$ $`S_{SI}(\beta ,\chi ,v=1)+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }S_{SI}+O(g^4),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{SI}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta d_s{\displaystyle \underset{x,s>s^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left\{\chi R_{ss,t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi }}\left(R_{ss,s^{}}+R_{s^{}s^{},s}\right)\right\}.`$ (98)
This form is numerically more convenient than the reparametrized form, in that the dependence of the action on the gauge coupling is lessened.

In this paper we calculate $`Z(g^2,\chi )`$ over two such surfaces: $`v=1`$, corresponding to an action without tadpole improvement (in which case $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{SI}`$ makes no contribution), and the surface $`v=u_s`$ corresponding to Landau mean link improvement where $`u_{s,t}`$ are defined as the expectation values of the traced link matrices in the Landau gauge lepa0

$$u_s=U_s_L,u_t=U_t_L.$$
(99)
$`U_{s,t}`$ are gauge fields in the spatial and temporal directions. The actual values of $`u_{s,t}`$ are established self-consistently by an appropriate iteration procedure, usually for fixed $`\beta _0`$ and $`\chi _0`$ (which we comment upon in Section IV). As $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{SI}`$ is $`O(g^2)`$ relative to other terms in the actions, we treat it as a counterterm, giving rise to a gluon propagator insertion shown in Fig. 1(f). The coupling, $`d_s`$, is determined numerically in each case for an identical lattice lat02 ; meanlink02 .

In both cases, the actual calculation proceeds as for the Wilson action (the only changes in the loop integration code being the Python–generated input files). In Fig. 3 we plot $`\eta (\chi )`$ as a function of $`\chi `$. The results are also presented in Table 1. The slightly larger errors in the full calculation reflects a greater uncertainty in the extrapolation in $`L`$ due to reduced data.

These values can be fitted extremely well, as is demonstrated in Fig. 3, by

$$\eta (\chi )=0.0602(1)0.0656(2)\frac{1}{\chi }0.0237(1)\frac{1}{\chi ^2}$$
(100)
without the mean link counterterm contribution, and

$$\eta (\chi )=0.0955(4)0.0702(16)\frac{1}{\chi }0.0399(14)\frac{1}{\chi ^2}$$
(101)
when this is included.

### III.2 comparison with measured data

The goal of this paper is to provide determinations of the renormalied anisotropy using perturbation theory. It is clear that for sufficiently small couplings the one loop result will be sufficient, but at couplings more typical of current lattice simulations we must check what systematic truncation errors are introduced by neglecting contributions of higher orders. We can do this by comparing the perturbative predictions with what measurements have been made in Monte Carlo simulations.

We start with the Symanzik improved action, for which measurements of $`\chi _R`$ have been published in alea ; shigemitsu02 , derived from torelon dispersion relations and the so-called sideways potential.

We have obtained as a perturbative series, $`Z(g^2,\chi ,v)=1+\eta (\chi ,v)g^2+O(g^4)`$. Such a series, however, shows poor convergence and thus large truncation errors. We can re-express it as a power series in the ‘self-consistent’, or ‘boosted’ coupling, $`g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$:

$$Z(g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},\chi )=1+\eta (\chi ,v=u_s)g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+O(g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}),$$
(102)
using the definitions in Eqn. (89). For appropriate choices of tadpole improvement schemes, the convergence is much improved. In resumming the series, we formally require only that $`u_{s,t}`$ are self-consistent for fixed $`\beta _0,\chi _0`$ up to a suitable order of perturbation theory, and that $`v=u_s`$ to the same order. There are arguments, however, for satisfying these conditions at a numerical level for greater convergence. The one loop result is, of course, unchanged under resummation.

The action in alea ; shigemitsu02  contains explicit factors of $`u_{s,t}`$ and before applying $`Z`$ it is necessary to rescale $`\chi _0`$ to $`\chi `$ using the simulated values of the mean link factors. In Table 2 we compare the one loop perturbative determination with the published measurements. The couplings are larger than those used in many simulations (giving a relatively coarse spatial lattice), and the anisotropy factors are at the higher end of those usually employed, making this a rather stringent test of the perturbative series. Despite this, we find this error to be uniformly small. For $`\chi _04`$ the error is 2%, and for $`\chi _0=6`$ it is only 3%. If we attribute the difference between the measured and one loop estimate to be that due to truncation of the perturbative series, it is clear that the two loop contribution to $`Z`$ is very small. The range of couplings, however, is insufficient to allow us to reliably estimate the two loop coefficient from the data.

A comparison of the one loop perturbative and measured anisotropy has been carried out for the Wilson action by Klassen klassen98 . Corroboration of this analysis is hampered by a lack of published tadpole improvement factors. Whilst $`\chi `$ is quoted directly, $`u_{s,t}`$ are required to obtain the self-consistent coupling, $`g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, appropriate to simulated values of $`\beta `$. We may estimate the tadpole factors, but in doing so we introduce a second systematic error into the estimate of $`\chi _R`$. This arises from the difference between our estimate and the numerically self-consistent tadpole values. It is in addition to the systematic error arising from the one loop truncation of the perturbative expansion of $`Z`$. We anticipate the latter being of order 3%, and we thus require values of $`u_{s,t}`$ at least this accurate. Such an estimate can come from a two loop perturbative estimate lat02 ; meanlink02 . Using this we have confirmed using Landau mean link improvement Klassen’s analysis (which used plaquette tadpole factors). We find the combined two loop tadpole, one loop anisotropy prediction for $`\chi _R`$ to be correct to within 5% for $`\beta 5.6`$, and to 2% for $`\beta 6.3`$ for $`1.5\chi 6`$. With the correct $`u_{s,t}`$ values, a more precise estimate of the truncation errors in $`Z(\chi ,g^2)`$ would be possible, and we expect them to show that the one loop anisotropy renormalisation calculation is as accurate for the Wilson action as we have demonstrated it to be for the Symanzik improved case.

## IV Summary

We have presented perturbative calculations of the renormalisation of the anisotropy in simple gluonic lattice actions for SU(3) in $`D=3+1`$. These have been carried out by studying the infrared dispersion relation of the on-shell gluonic propagator, regulated through the use of twisted boundary conditions as in luwe . We have reviewed the derivation of the Feynman rules for general actions and anisotropy structure, using both twisted and untwisted boundary conditions. We have (briefly) outlined our method for generating the gluon $`r`$-point vertex functions using a Python code and evaluating the loop integrals using a compiled programming language. The strength of this dual–pronged approach is the generality; at the price of not carrying out optimisation specific to a particular action, a flexibility to rapidly change actions is acquired. Further details of the implementation will be given in meanlink02 .

We have focussed our attention on two actions, the Wilson plaquette action and an action (Symanzik) improved at tree level through the addition of $`1\times 2`$ loops extending two lattice spacings in spatial directions only. This lack of symmetry is necessary to avoid spurious ghost poles in the gluonic propagator, and in consequence even an isotropic lattice will not remain so under quantum corrections. Temporal improvement is not crucial, of course, when $`a_t`$ is small.

Both actions are considered with and without tadpole improvement of the links. In the case of the Wilson action no explicit reference to $`u_{s,t}`$ need be made in the perturbation theory. Specific tadpole improvement schemes manifest only in rescaling the gauge coupling.

For the Symanzik improved action, the lack of temporal improvement means all reference to $`u_t`$ can be reparametrized away, but dependence on $`u_s`$ remains in the form of a counterterm to the (tadpole) unimproved action. The presence of the counterterm necessarily specialized the perturbative calculation to one form of tadpole improvement, and we selected self-consistent Landau gauge mean links for this work.

There are also advantages in using this reparametrization when tuning actions such as $`S_{SI}`$ for Monte Carlo simulation, when explicit tadpole factors $`u_{s,t}`$ are often present. reparametrizing to remove dependence on $`u_t`$ makes the finding of a self-consistent $`u_s`$ for fixed $`(\beta ,\chi )`$ a one parameter problem. Similarly tuning $`u_t`$ is done by varying $`(\beta _0,\chi _0,u_t)`$ together along the single parameter curve of constant $`(\beta ,\chi ,u_s)`$. This two stage approach is much faster than a simultaneous exploration of the two parameter space.

For the Symanzik improved action, we presented results over a spread of bare anisotropies $`1\chi _08`$, and give interpolating fits, Eqns. (100101), respectively with and without (Landau) mean link tadpole improvement. Comparing these numbers with measurements in simulations shows that the one loop perturbative determinations of the renormalized anisotropy are accurate to within 2% for $`\chi 4`$ across a range in couplings and lattice spacings much larger than would typically be used in lattice simulations. For $`\chi =6`$, which is larger than that currently employed in large scale simulations, the deviation is 3%.

In the case of the Wilson action we have verified existing results (calculated using the background field method) by Snippe snip  and Pérez and van Baal peba . Using an interpolating fit, Eqn. (96), we have carried out a comparison with lattice simulation results by Klassen klassen98 . We find the agreement to be approximately 3–4% for gauge couplings in the typically simulated range and $`\chi 6`$, but this uncertainty includes a systematic error from having to estimate tadpole improvement factors, and the error in the anisotropy alone is almost certainly less.

We conclude that the renormalisation of the anisotropy, which is difficult to calculate accurately in simulations, is well described by lattice perturbation theory. If the anisotropy is to be used, for instance, to set the scale in lattice calculations as per Eqn. (1), then a 3% systematic error in $`\chi _R`$ is sufficiently small that is unlikely to represent the dominant uncertainty in the final estimate, and the one loop determinations presented in this paper are all that is required.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are pleased to acknowledge the use of the Hitachi SR2201 at the University of Tokyo Computing Centre and the Cambridge–Cranfield High Performance Computing Facility for this work.