# Order 𝑎 improved renormalization constants

## 1 Introduction

In Reference , we studied the improvement of the Wilson-Dirac theory by removing all lattice artifacts linear in the lattice spacing $`a`$ in on-shell matrix elements. In general, such an improvement for the dimension 3 fermion bilinear operators requires one to tune the coefficient of the clover operator in the action, determine the coefficient of an extra term each in the vector, axial-vector, and tensor currents, and obtain the mass dependence of all the renormalization constants. We showed that all these improvement constants, as well as the renormalization constants for the axial and vector currents, can be determined by imposing the axial and vector Ward identities. The remaining renormalization constants, those for the scalar, pseudoscalar and tensor operators, are scheme dependent and cannot be determined by this method. The scheme dependence is, however, the same for both the scalar and the pseudoscalar operators, and the corresponding ratio of renormalization constants can again be obtained.

To test the efficacy of this method, we had evaluated the renormalization constants at $`\beta =6.0`$ for the perturbative (tadpole improved) value of the clover coefficient, and found that these differed from the values determined by the ALPHA collaboration  using a non-perturbatively tuned coefficient. It was not clear whether the differences arose from different $`O(a^2)`$ errors in the two calculation, or whether the difference in the clover coefficient was responsible for the variation observed. Here we report results of carrying out our procedure after changing the clover coefficient to that used by the ALPHA collaboration, and also at $`\beta =6.2`$, where the $`O(a^2)`$ errors are expected to be much smaller.

For the details of the notation used, the numerical technique, a study of the consistency when the same constant is determined in multiple ways, and the choice of the method which determines each quantity best, we refer the reader to Reference . To avoid confusion, we repeat here that the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X`$ we defined differ from the coefficients $`b_X`$ used by earlier authors. In particular, at the level of $`O(a)`$ improvement, one has $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X=(Z_A^0Z_S^0/Z_P^0)b_X`$.

## 2 Lattice parameters and Results

The results of our calculation done at $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`6.2`$ are presented in Table 1 and compared to the previous estimates by the ALPHA collaboration  and perturbation theory. In those cases where the coefficients $`b_X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X`$ differ by more than the estimated error in our determination, we quote both for easier comparison with previous results.

The $`\beta =6.0`$ calculations were done on $`16^3\times 48`$ lattices, with a sample of 83 configurations at $`c_{SW}=1.4755`$, and 125 configurations at $`c_{SW}=1.769`$. At $`\beta =6.2`$, we used 61 configurations with a lattice size of $`24^3\times 64`$. The region of axial rotation used for the Ward identities comprise the time-slices $`418`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`625`$ at $`\beta =6.2`$. Details of the quark masses and the lattice discretizations employed in the calculation will be presented elsewhere .

## 3 Dependence on $`\beta `$ and $`c_{SW}`$

The determination of $`c_A`$ is illustrative of the improvement we notice as we go to weaker couplings. This quantity is determined by requiring that the ratio

$$\frac{_\stackrel{}{x}_\mu [A_\mu +ac_A_\mu P]^{(ij)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)J^{(ji)}(0)}{_\stackrel{}{x}P^{(ij)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)J^{(ji)}(0)}$$
(1)   
be independent of the time $`t`$ at which it is evaluated, up to errors of $`O(a^2)`$. Because this flatness criterion is automatically satisfied if the correlators are saturated by a single state, the determination is very sensitive to the small $`t`$ region. On the other hand, at very small $`t`$, the $`O(a^2)`$ errors dominate. We find that the region well fit by a constant starts at smaller values of $`t`$ at $`\beta =6.2`$, and that this results in smaller statistical errors on the determination of $`c_A`$. As $`c_A`$ feeds into the 3-pt Ward identity calculation, the statistical errors are typically smaller at the weaker coupling. In addition, the sensitivity to how the continuum derivatives are discretized on the lattice is reduced, leading to smaller systematic errors.

In contrast, the proper choice of $`c_{SW}`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ has a much smaller effect on the quality of the signal. We find that changing $`c_{SW}`$ from 1.4755 to 1.769 has little effect on the statistical and systematic errors but brings $`Z_X^0`$ and $`c_X`$ closer to their perturbative values. In addition, the differences between the various $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X`$, which are almost zero in perturbation theory, also decrease.

## 4 Comparison with previous results

Different calculations of the non-perturbative renormalization constants are expected to differ because of residual $`O(a^2)`$ errors in the theory. The magnitude of these effects are expected to be $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2a^2)`$ in $`Z_X^0`$ and $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}a)`$ in $`c_X`$ and $`b_X`$. Numerically these are about 0.02 and 0.15 respectively at $`\beta =6.0`$, and 0.01 and 0.1 respectively at $`\beta =6.2`$.

The differences between our values and those determined by the ALPHA collaboration are consistent with this qualitative expectation. In fact, the differences between the two determinations of $`Z_V^0`$ are 0.017(1) and 0.008(1) at $`\beta =6.0`$ and 6.2 respectively, exactly as expected from an $`O(a^2)`$ scaling. For $`Z_A^0`$, the differences of 0.020(17) and 0.009(13) at the two $`\beta `$ values are similar in magnitude, but have much larger errors.

Of the coefficients $`b_X`$, only $`b_V`$ has been calculated by the ALPHA collaboration. The corresponding differences, 0.14(5) and 0.13(2), have large errors but are not inconsistent with the expected $`O(a)`$ scaling.

The situation is less clear for the coefficients $`c_X`$. The ALPHA collaboration has computed only $`c_A`$ and $`c_V`$ and our results are completely consistent with theirs at $`\beta =6.2`$. The differences at $`\beta =6.0`$ are much larger in comparison and marginally significant.

## 5 Comparison with perturbation theory

The perturbative results quoted in the table are based on one-loop tadpole improved perturbation theory and their errors are obtained by squaring the one-loop term in this tadpole improved series. We notice that the non-perturbatively determined $`Z_V^0`$ and $`Z_P^0/Z_S^0`$ are significantly lower than their perturbative values and all the $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X`$’s are higher. The coefficients $`c_X`$ are small, and except for $`c_A`$, agree with perturbation theory within errors.

It is worth mentioning that the difference between the perturbative and non-perturbative $`Z_V^0`$ is about 0.046(1) at $`\beta =6.0`$ and 0.037(0) at $`\beta =6.2`$, where the errors are purely statistical. As an $`O(a^2)`$ contamination in our non-perturbative determination is expected to change by a factor of two between these two calculations, it cannot be a dominant contribution to the observed difference. Furthermore, noting that the tadpole improved $`\alpha _s`$ is about 0.13 and 0.12 in the two calculations, these differences are only about 2.5 times $`\alpha _s^2`$, not unreasonable in a slowly converging perturbative series. The pattern is similar for $`Z_P^0/Z_S^0`$, where the difference between the perturbative and non-perturbative results is about 0.09(2) at $`\beta =6.0`$ and 0.07(2) at $`\beta =6.2`$. Because of the larger errors, it is, however, not possible to rule out $`O(a^2)`$ artifacts in this case.

Except for $`\stackrel{~}{b}_V`$, the non-perturbative values for $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X`$ are constant within errors as we move from $`\beta =6.0`$ to $`\beta =6.2`$. The leading non-perturbative errors in these quantities are $`O(a)`$, which should change by a factor of about 1.4 between these two couplings. On the other hand, the perturbative one-loop term accounts for only about a fourth of $`\stackrel{~}{b}_V1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_A1`$. Such a high estimate of $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X`$ with a correspondingly low value of $`Z_X^0`$ could indicate a problem with understanding the quark mass dependences in general: more study is needed to clarify this issue.

## 6 Conclusion

We have demonstrated the feasibility of our method for determining the scheme-independent renormalization constants of the quark bilinear operators. Differences from previous calculations are consistent with the expected $`O(a^2)`$ differences. Perturbation theory, even when tadpole improved, seems to have $`O(\mathrm{few}\times \alpha _s^2)`$ residual errors for the chirally extrapolated renormalization constants. The improvement constants $`c_X`$ are small, but possibly somewhat larger than predicted by perturbation theory; a detailed comparison is still not possible due to the large errors. The mass dependences of the renormalization constants, given by $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X`$, are much larger than perturbation theory predicts.