This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

QCDSF/UKQCD/CSSM Collaboration

Constraining beyond the Standard Model nucleon isovector charges

R. E. Smail1    M. Batelaan1    R. Horsley2    Y. Nakamura3    H. Perlt4   
D. Pleiter5
   P. E. L. Rakow6    G. Schierholz7    H. Stu¨\ddot{\text{u}}ben8    R. D. Young1,9    J. M. Zanotti1 1CSSM, Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia 2School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, UK 3RIKEN Center for Computational Science, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0047, Japan 4Institut fu¨\ddot{\text{u}}r Theoretische Physik, Universita¨\ddot{\text{a}}t Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany 5PDC Center for High Performance Computing, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden 6Theoretical Physics Division, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK 7Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany 8Universita¨\ddot{\text{a}}t Hamburg, Regionales Rechenzentrum, 20146 Hamburg, Germany 9Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Abstract

At the TeV scale, low-energy precision observations of neutron characteristics provide unique probes of novel physics. Precision studies of neutron decay observables are susceptible to beyond the Standard Model (BSM) tensor and scalar interactions, while the neutron electric dipole moment, dnd_{n}, also has high sensitivity to new BSM CP-violating interactions. To fully utilise the potential of future experimental neutron physics programs, matrix elements of appropriate low-energy effective operators within neutron states must be precisely calculated. We present results from the QCDSF/UKQCD/CSSM collaboration for the isovector charges gT,gAg_{T},~{}g_{A} and gSg_{S} of the nucleon, Σ\Sigma and Ξ\Xi baryons using lattice QCD methods and the Feynman-Hellmann theorem. We use a flavour symmetry breaking method to systematically approach the physical quark mass using ensembles that span five lattice spacings and multiple volumes. We extend this existing flavour breaking expansion to also account for lattice spacing and finite volume effects in order to quantify all systematic uncertainties. Our final estimates of the nucleon isovector charges are gT=1.010(21)stat(12)sys,gA=1.253(63)stat(41)sysg_{T}~{}=~{}1.010(21)_{\text{stat}}(12)_{\text{sys}},~{}g_{A}=1.253(63)_{\text{stat}}(41)_{\text{sys}} and gS=1.08(21)stat(03)sysg_{S}~{}=~{}1.08(21)_{\text{stat}}(03)_{\text{sys}} renormalised, where appropriate, at μ=2GeV\mu=2~{}\text{GeV} in the MS¯\overline{\text{MS}} scheme.

preprint: ADP-23-10/T1219preprint: DESY-23-047preprint: LTH 1336preprint: MIT-CTP/5581

I Introduction

Historically nuclear and neutron beta decays have played an important role in determining the vector-axial (V-A) structure of weak interactions and in shaping the Standard Model (SM). However, more recently, neutron and nuclear β\beta-decays can also be used to probe the existence of beyond the Standard Model (BSM) tensor and scalar interactions. The interaction of the WW boson with the neutron and proton during neutron β\beta-decay is proportional to the matrix element of flavour changing vector and axial-vector currents between the initial neutron state and final proton state, with coupling constants gA/gV=1.2756(13)g_{A}/g_{V}=1.2756(13) [1]. It has been identified that the potential existence of BSM tensor and scalar couplings would provide additional contributions to neutron β\beta-decay [2]. These new BSM contributions are proportional to analogous matrix elements of flavour-changing tensor or scalar operators. To gain sensitivity to these effects the majority of previous and proposed neutron beta decay studies aim to determine one or more of the correlation coefficients included in the differential decay rate for a beam of polarised neutrons [2]:

d3ΓdEedΩeΩν\displaystyle\frac{d^{3}\Gamma}{dE_{e}d\Omega_{e}\Omega_{\nu}}~{}\propto{} peEe(E0Ee)2ξ(1+ape.pνEeEν+bmeEe\displaystyle p_{e}E_{e}(E_{0}-E_{e})^{2}\xi\cdot\Big{(}1+a\frac{\textbf{p}_{e}.\textbf{p}_{\nu}}{E_{e}E_{\nu}}+b\frac{m_{e}}{E_{e}} (1)
+\displaystyle+ 𝝈n[ApeEe+BpνEν]),\displaystyle\bm{\sigma}_{n}\cdot\Big{[}A\frac{\textbf{p}_{e}}{E_{e}}+B\frac{\textbf{p}_{\nu}}{E_{\nu}}\Big{]}\Big{)},

where 𝝈n\bm{\sigma}_{n} is the neutron spin, pep_{e} is the momentum of the electron and pνp_{\nu} is the momentum of the neutrino with energies EeE_{e} and EνE_{\nu}, respectively, and E0E_{0} is the end-point energy of the electron. In the SM, ξ=GF2Vud2(1+3λ2)\xi=G_{F}^{2}V_{ud}^{2}(1+3\lambda^{2}), where λ=gA/gV\lambda=g_{A}/g_{V} is the ratio of the axial-vector and vector coupling constants and GFG_{F} is the Fermi constant. The neutron decay observables include, aa, the neutrino-electron correlation coefficient, bb, the Fierz interference term, AA, the beta asymmetry, and BB, the neutrino asymmetry. Within the SM, the correlation coefficients a,Aa,A and BB depend solely on the ratio of the axial-vector and vector coupling constants, λ=gA/gV\lambda=g_{A}/g_{V}. However the parameter, bb, is included to account for the case of the hypothetical scalar or tensor couplings in addition to the (V-A) interaction of the SM. Many experiments are underway worldwide with the aim to improve the precision of measurements of these neutron decay observables, two importantly being the neutrino asymmetry BB [3], and the Fierz interference term bb [4, 5]. The parameter bb has linear sensitivity to BSM physics through [6]:

bBSM=\displaystyle b^{\text{BSM}}~{}={} 21+3λ2[gSϵS12λgTϵT]\displaystyle\frac{2}{1+3\lambda^{2}}\Big{[}g_{S}\epsilon_{S}-12\lambda g_{T}\epsilon_{T}\Big{]} (2)
\displaystyle\approx{} 0.34gSϵS5.22gTϵT,\displaystyle 0.34g_{S}\epsilon_{S}-5.22g_{T}\epsilon_{T},
bvBSM=\displaystyle b^{\text{BSM}}_{v}~{}={} 21+3λ2[gSϵSλ4λgTϵT(1+2λ)]\displaystyle\frac{2}{1+3\lambda^{2}}\Big{[}g_{S}\epsilon_{S}\lambda-4\lambda g_{T}\epsilon_{T}(1+2\lambda)\Big{]} (3)
\displaystyle\approx{} 0.44gSϵS4.85gTϵT,\displaystyle 0.44g_{S}\epsilon_{S}-4.85g_{T}\epsilon_{T},

where ϵT\epsilon_{T} and ϵS\epsilon_{S} are the new-physics effective couplings and gTg_{T} and gSg_{S} are the tensor and scalar nucleon isovector charges. Here bvBSMb^{\text{BSM}}_{v} is a correction term to the neutrino asymmetry correlation coefficient, BB, and bBSMb^{\text{BSM}} is an addition to the Fierz interference term bb in Eq. 1. Data taken at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is currently looking at probing scalar and tensor interactions at the 103\lesssim 10^{-3} level [7]. However to fully assess the discovery potential of experiments at the 10310^{-3} level it is crucial to identify existing constraints on new scalar and tensor operators.

Another quantity of interest is the neutron electric dipole moment (EDM), which is a measure for CP violation. In extensions of the Standard Model quarks acquire an EDM through the interaction of the photon with the tensor current [8]. The contribution of the quark EDMs, dqd_{q}, to the EDM of the neutron, dnd_{n}, is related to the quark tensor charges, gTqg_{T}^{q}, by [9, 10, 11]:

dn=dugTd+ddgTu+dsgTs.\displaystyle d_{n}=d_{u}g^{d}_{T}+d_{d}g^{u}_{T}+d_{s}g^{s}_{T}. (4)

Here du,dd,ds,d_{u},~{}d_{d},~{}d_{s}, are the new effective couplings which contain new CP violating interactions at the TeV scale. The current experimental data gives an upper limit on the neutron EDM of |dn|<1.8×1026e|d_{n}|<1.8\times 10^{-26}e.cm [12]. In calculating the tensor charges and knowing a bound on dnd_{n}, we are able to constrain the couplings, dqd_{q}, and hence BSM theories.

In recent years there has been an increase in interest from lattice QCD collaborations in calculating the axial, scalar and tensor isovector charges due to their importance in interpreting the results of many experiments and phenomena mediated by weak interactions [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. The QCDSF/UKQCD/CSSM collaborations have an ongoing program investigating various hadronic properties using the Feynman-Hellmann theorem [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. Here we extend this work to a dedicated study of the nucleon tensor, scalar and axial charges. We discuss a flavour symmetry breaking method to systematically approach the physical quark mass. We then extend this existing flavour breaking expansion to also account for lattice spacing and finite volume effects to quantify systemic uncertainties. Finally, we look at the potential impact of our results on measurements of the Fierz interference term and the neutron EDM.

II Simulation Details

For this work we use gauge field configurations that have been generated with Nf=2+1N_{f}=2+1 flavours of dynamical fermions, using the tree-level Symanzik improved gluon action and non-perturbatively 𝒪(a)\mathcal{O}(a) improved Wilson fermions [28]. In our simulations, we have kept the bare average quark mass, m¯=(mu+md+ms)/3\bar{m}=(m_{u}+m_{d}+m_{s})/3, held fixed approximately at its physical value, while systematically varying the quark masses around the SU(3)SU(3) flavour symmetric point, mu=md=msm_{u}=m_{d}=m_{s}, to extrapolate results to the physical point [29]. We also have degenerate uu and dd quark masses, mu=mdmlm_{u}=m_{d}\equiv m_{l}. The coverage of lattice spacings and pion masses is represented graphically in Fig. 1.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Lattice ensembles that are used in this work characterised by pion mass, mπm_{\pi}, and lattice spacing, aa. The horizontal lines represent the physical pion and kaon masses and the continuum limit occurs as a0a\rightarrow 0.
β\beta aa(fm) Volume (κlight,κstrange)(\kappa_{\text{light}},\kappa_{\text{strange}}) mπm_{\pi} mKm_{K}(MeV)
5.405.40 0.0820.082 323×6432^{3}\times 64 (0.119930,0.119930)(~{}0.119930~{},~{}0.119930~{}) 408408 408408
(0.119989,0.119812)(~{}0.119989~{},~{}0.119812~{}) 366366 424424
(0.120048,0.119695)(~{}0.120048~{},~{}0.119695~{}) 320320 440440
(0.120084,0.119623)(~{}0.120084~{},~{}0.119623~{}) 290290 450450
5.505.50 0.0740.074 323×6432^{3}\times 64 (0.120900,0.120900)(~{}0.120900~{},~{}0.120900~{}) 468468 468468  *
(0.121040,0.120620)(~{}0.121040~{},~{}0.120620~{}) 357357 505505  *
(0.121095,0.120512)(~{}0.121095~{},~{}0.120512~{}) 315315 526526  *
5.505.50 0.0740.074 323×6432^{3}\times 64 (0.120950,0.120950)(~{}0.120950~{},~{}0.120950~{}) 403403 403403
(0.121040,0.120770)(~{}0.121040~{},~{}0.120770~{}) 331331 435435
(0.121099,0.120653)(~{}0.121099~{},~{}0.120653~{}) 270270 454454
5.655.65 0.0680.068 483×9648^{3}\times 96 (0.122005,0.122005)(~{}0.122005~{},~{}0.122005~{}) 412412 412412
(0.122078,0.121859)(~{}0.122078~{},~{}0.121859~{}) 355355 441441
(0.122130,0.121756)(~{}0.122130~{},~{}0.121756~{}) 302302 457457
(0.122167,0.121682)(~{}0.122167~{},~{}0.121682~{}) 265265 474474
643×9664^{3}\times 96 (0.122197,0.121623)(~{}0.122197~{},~{}0.121623~{}) 220220 485485
5.805.80 0.0590.059 483×9648^{3}\times 96 (0.122810,0.122810)(~{}0.122810~{},~{}0.122810~{}) 427427 427427
(0.122880,0.122670)(~{}0.122880~{},~{}0.122670~{}) 357357 456456
(0.122940,0.122551)(~{}0.122940~{},~{}0.122551~{}) 280280 477477
5.955.95 0.0520.052 483×9648^{3}\times 96 (0.123411,0.123558)(~{}0.123411~{},~{}0.123558~{}) 468468 395395
(0.123460,0.123460)(~{}0.123460~{},~{}0.123460~{}) 418418 418418
(0.123523,0.123334)(~{}0.123523~{},~{}0.123334~{}) 347347 451451
Table 1: Details of lattice ensembles used in this work. * indicates ensembles with a different value of m¯\bar{m}, further from the physical m¯\bar{m}. The uncertainty on the pseudoscalar masses is between 11-33MeV.

Further information about these ensembles is presented in Table 1 and Appendix A, Table 7. We have five lattice spacings, a=0.082,0.074,0.068,0.059,0.052a=0.082,~{}0.074,~{}0.068,~{}0.059,~{}0.052 fm [30], enabling an extrapolation to the continuum limit as well as three lattice volumes, 323×6432^{3}\times 64, 483×9648^{3}\times 96 and 643×9664^{3}\times 96, allowing an extension to the flavour-breaking expansion, which describes the quark mass-dependence of the matrix elements, to also account for lattice spacing and finite volume effects. We also use a bootstrapping resampling technique to compute all statistical uncertainties in our study.

β\beta ZTMS¯Z_{T}^{\overline{MS}} ZSMS¯Z_{S}^{\overline{MS}} ZAZ_{A}
5.405.40 0.9637(23)0.9637(23) 0.7034(48)0.7034(48) 0.8671(77)0.8671(77)
5.505.50 0.9644(49)0.9644(49) 0.7046(89)0.7046(89) 0.8693(38)0.8693(38)
5.655.65 0.9684(54)0.9684(54) 0.7153(86)0.7153(86) 0.8754(19)0.8754(19)
5.805.80 0.9945(11)0.9945(11) 0.6709(23)0.6709(23) 0.8913(49)0.8913(49)
5.955.95 0.9980(42)0.9980(42) 0.6683(94)0.6683(94) 0.8983(43)0.8983(43)
Table 2: Renormalisation constants at each value of β\beta after chiral and continuum extrapolation across multiple masses with conversion from RI\text{I}^{\prime}-MOM to MS¯\overline{\text{MS}} at μ=2\mu~{}=~{}2 GeV [31, 32].

In order to compare with existing results in the literature we use the renormalisation constants given in Table 2. Table 2 summarises the renormalisation constants at each value of β\beta after chiral and continuum extrapolation across multiple masses with conversion from RI\text{I}^{\prime}-MOM to MS¯\overline{\text{MS}} at μ=2\mu~{}=~{}2 GeV. The renormalisation constants are calculated following the method in Ref. [32] and the results first appeared in Ref. [31].

III The Feynman-Hellmann Theorem

The Feynman-Hellmann (FH) theorem is used to calculate hadronic matrix elements in lattice QCD through modifications to the QCD Lagrangian. The expression for the FH theorem in the context of field theory is [20]:

EH,λ(p)λ=12EH,λ(p)H,p|Sλ|H,pλ,\displaystyle\frac{\partial E_{H,\lambda}(\vec{p})}{\partial\lambda}=\frac{1}{2E_{H,\lambda}(\vec{p})}\bra{H,\vec{p}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial\lambda}\ket{H,\vec{p}}_{\lambda}, (5)

where SS is a modified action of our theory so that it depends on some parameter λ\lambda, SS(λ)S\rightarrow S(\lambda) and EH,λ(p)E_{H,\lambda}(\vec{p}) is the energy of a hadron state, HH. This result relates the derivative of the total energy to the expectation value of the derivative of the action with respect to the same parameter.

III.1 Application and implementation

Consider the following modification to the action of our theory:

SS+λ𝒪.\displaystyle S\rightarrow S+\lambda\mathcal{O}. (6)

Then the FH theorem as shown in Eq. 5, provides a relationship between an energy shift and a matrix element of interest:

EH,λ(p)λ|λ=0=12EH(p)H,p|𝒪|H,p.\displaystyle\frac{\partial E_{H,\lambda}(\vec{p})}{\partial\lambda}\Big{|}_{\lambda=0}=\frac{1}{2E_{H}(\vec{p})}\bra{H,\vec{p}}\mathcal{O}\ket{H,\vec{p}}. (7)

Importantly, the right-hand side is the standard matrix element of the operator 𝒪\mathcal{O} inserted on the hadron, HH, in the absence of any background field. In lattice calculations, we modify the action in Eq. 6, then examine the behaviour of hadron energies as the parameter λ\lambda changes, and finally extract the above matrix element from the slope at λ=0\lambda=0.

In order to calculate the tensor, axial and scalar charges of a baryon, the extra terms we add to the QCD action are:

ST\displaystyle S_{T} S+ζμνTλxq¯(x)σμνγ5q(x),\displaystyle\rightarrow S+\zeta^{T}_{\mu\nu}\lambda\sum_{x}\bar{q}(x)\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q(x), (8)
SA\displaystyle S_{A} S+ζμAλxq¯(x)γμγ5q(x),\displaystyle\rightarrow S+\zeta^{A}_{\mu}\lambda\sum_{x}\bar{q}(x)\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q(x), (9)
SS\displaystyle S_{S} S+λxq¯(x)q(x),\displaystyle\rightarrow S+\lambda\sum_{x}\bar{q}(x)q(x), (10)

where we will take the case of each quark flavour, qq, separately, ζμνT\zeta^{T}_{\mu\nu}, ζμA\zeta^{A}_{\mu} are the phase factors and there are four choices of μ\mu and ν\nu. The phase factors chosen here are ζk4T=ζ4jT=1\zeta^{T}_{k4}=\zeta^{T}_{4j}=1, ζkjT=i\zeta^{T}_{kj}=i and ζ4A=1\zeta^{A}_{4}=1, ζkA=i\zeta^{A}_{k}=i. The tensor, axial and scalar charges are related to the baryon matrix elements of the same operators:

p,s|𝒯μν|p,s=\displaystyle\bra{\vec{p},\vec{s}}\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}\ket{\vec{p},\vec{s}}~{}={} i2m(sμpνsνpμ)gTq,\displaystyle-i\frac{2}{m}(s_{\mu}p_{\nu}-s_{\nu}p_{\mu})g^{q}_{T}, (11)
p,s|𝒜μ|p,s=\displaystyle\bra{\vec{p},\vec{s}}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}\ket{\vec{p},\vec{s}}~{}={} 2isμgAq,\displaystyle 2is_{\mu}g^{q}_{A},
p,s|𝒮|p,s=\displaystyle\bra{\vec{p},\vec{s}}\mathcal{S}\ket{\vec{p},\vec{s}}~{}={} 2mgSq,\displaystyle 2mg^{q}_{S},

where 𝒯μν=q¯σμνγ5q\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}=\bar{q}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q, 𝒜μ=q¯γμγ5q\mathcal{A}_{\mu}=\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q and 𝒮=q¯q\mathcal{S}=\bar{q}q [33]. In our simulations, we have chosen μ=3\mu=3, ν=4\nu=4 and p=0\vec{p}=0:

0,s|𝒯34|0,s=\displaystyle\bra{\vec{0},\vec{s}}\mathcal{T}_{34}\ket{\vec{0},\vec{s}}~{}={} 2mgTqσ,\displaystyle 2mg^{q}_{T}\sigma, (12)
0,s|𝒜3|0,s=\displaystyle\bra{\vec{0},\vec{s}}\mathcal{A}_{3}\ket{\vec{0},\vec{s}}~{}={} 2imgAqσ,\displaystyle 2img^{q}_{A}\sigma,
0,s|𝒮|0,s=\displaystyle\bra{\vec{0},\vec{s}}\mathcal{S}\ket{\vec{0},\vec{s}}~{}={} 2mgSq,\displaystyle 2mg^{q}_{S},

where, σ=±1\sigma=\pm 1, is the spin of the baryon polarised in the zz direction.111Our spin vector is given by s(p)=(ispE,s(p))s(\vec{p})=\Big{(}i\frac{\vec{s}\cdot\vec{p}}{E},\vec{s}(p)\Big{)}, where s(p)=e+pem(E+m)p\vec{s}(\vec{p})=\vec{e}+\frac{\vec{p}\cdot\vec{e}}{m(E+m)}\vec{p}, with quantisation axis n\vec{n} where e=σmn\vec{e}=\sigma m\vec{n}, σ=±1\sigma=\pm 1 and s2=m2s^{2}=-m^{2}. For our case we have μ=3\mu=3ν=4\nu=4, p=0\vec{p}=0 and n=e3\vec{n}=\vec{e}_{3}. Therefore s3=σme3s_{3}=\sigma m\vec{e}_{3}, s4=0s_{4}~{}=~{}0 and p4=imp_{4}=im. Hence the FH theorem in Eq. 7 for the tensor and axial charges gives:

Eλ+λ|λ=0=gT,Aq,\displaystyle\frac{\partial E^{+}_{\lambda}}{\partial\lambda}\Big{|}_{\lambda=0}=g^{q}_{T,A}, Eλλ|λ=0=gT,Aq,\displaystyle\frac{\partial E^{-}_{\lambda}}{\partial\lambda}\Big{|}_{\lambda=0}=-g^{q}_{T,A}, (13)

where we have dropped the, HH, subscript as from now on we are only dealing with baryon states and E+/E^{+/-} denotes the baryon energy with spin up/down in the zz direction in the presence of a tensor or axial background field (Eq. 8 and Eq. 9) with strength λ\lambda. For small values of λ\lambda, the energy is therefore given by:

Eλ±=E0±λgT,Aq+𝒪(λ3).\displaystyle E^{\pm}_{\lambda}=E_{0}\pm\lambda g_{T,A}^{q}+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{3}). (14)

We have related the change in energy of the hadron state to the spin contribution from the quark flavour qq. Alternatively, due to the combination of ±λ\pm\lambda, the spin-down state with positive λ\lambda is equivalent to the energy shift of the spin-up state with negative λ\lambda. For the scalar we simply have:

Eλλ|λ=0=\displaystyle\frac{\partial E_{\lambda}}{\partial\lambda}\Big{|}_{\lambda=0}~{}={} gSq,\displaystyle g_{S}^{q}, (15)
Eλ=\displaystyle E_{\lambda}~{}={} E0+λgSq+𝒪(λ2).\displaystyle E_{0}+\lambda g_{S}^{q}+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{2}).

Here the insertion is on the quark flavour qq. For example, we use the perturbed propagator for the dd-quark in the proton to get the dd-quark contribution to the nucleon isovector charge. The nucleon isovector charges are then given by the difference between the up and down quark contributions:

gT,A,Sud=gT,A,SugT,A,Sd.\displaystyle g^{u-d}_{T,A,S}=g^{u}_{T,A,S}-g^{d}_{T,A,S}. (16)

Here we only insert the operator into the propagators used in the quark-line connected contributions; there are no quark-line disconnected terms considered here as they cancel in the case udu-d. To improve the precision of our results we can take advantage of the fact that we are only interested in energy changes due to changes in λ\lambda, specifically the change in energy around the point λ=0\lambda=0, with respect to the unperturbed energy. We consider two correlation functions, one calculated at λ=0\lambda=0 and the other at some finite value of λ\lambda. If we take the ratio of these two quantities, we find:

Cλ(t)C(t)\displaystyle\frac{C_{\lambda}(t)}{C(t)}{}{} =large te(EλE)tEEλ|Aλ|2|A|2.\displaystyle\mathrel{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\makebox[0.0pt]{\mbox{\tiny large t}}}}{{=}}}~{}~{}e^{-(E_{\lambda}-E)t}\frac{E}{E_{\lambda}}\frac{|A_{\lambda}|^{2}}{|A|^{2}}. (17)

The exponential dependence on tt now contains the difference in energies between the unperturbed energy and the energy at some λ\lambda. CC and CλC_{\lambda} are both measured on the same configurations, so both will have correlated noise. Using this ratio to determine energy differences has the advantage that the noise will largely cancel, leaving to a more reliable energy shift. We can also constrain our fit function to pass through zero by construction as there is no difference in energies at λ=0\lambda=0.

The extraction of hadron matrix elements in lattice QCD demands careful attention to contamination from excited states. Excited-state contamination has an impact on the study of standard baryon three-point functions due to the presence of weak signal-to-noise behavior at large Euclidean times. Various techniques are used to address excited-state contamination, one of which is the variational method. The variational method has been widely successful in spectroscopy investigations [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40], and has also found application in the analysis of hadronic matrix elements [41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46]. Another popular method is the “two-exponential fit” and “summation” methods seen in Refs. [45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]. A summary of these methods as well as a comparison between them can be seen in Ref. [52].

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Proton effective mass for the ratio (Eq. 17) divided by λ\lambda, for the down quark at two different values of λ\lambda, calculated at a=0.068a=0.068fm, (κl,κs)=(0.122167,0.121682)(\kappa_{l},~{}\kappa_{s})=(0.122167,~{}0.121682) for the tensor. The points have been offset slightly for clarity.

Since in this investigation hadron energies are extracted from two-point functions, control of excited state contamination in the Feynman-Hellmann is simplified compared to standard three-point analyses. For example Fig. 2 shows the effective energy shift for the ratio (Eq. 17) divided by λ\lambda for the down quark at two different values of λ\lambda. In Fig. 2 we see a plateau in the effective mass indicating a clear region where the ground state can be isolated.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Proton effective mass for the ratio (Eq. 17) for the up quark at λ=0.00005\lambda=0.00005, for spin-down in the tensor (a) and the axial (b) with the scalar results show in (c), calculated at a=0.068a=0.068fm, (κl,κs)=(0.122167,0.121682)(\kappa_{l},~{}\kappa_{s})=(0.122167,~{}0.121682). The blue bar graph shows the weight of each fit result for the value of tmint_{\text{min}}. The horizontal (red) band is the weighted average value, where the band includes the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty.
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Proton energy shift, ΔE=EλE\Delta E=E_{\lambda}-E, for different parameter values, with a linear fit, where the red and blue bands show the statistical errors associated with the fitted parameters. Calculated at a=0.068a=0.068fm, (κl,κs)=(0.122167,0.121682)(\kappa_{l},~{}\kappa_{s})=(0.122167,~{}0.121682). Results for the tensor (a), axial (b) and scalar (c) operators

IV Weighted Averaging Method

The dependency of the fits on the time ranges used is a source of systematic uncertainty. To address these issues, we use a weighted averaging method on the fit results to limit the impact of the fit window selection. The weighted averaging method we use is a simplified variation of that outlined in detail in Ref. [53] and has similarities to that proposed in Ref. [54]. We proceed by determining the energy shifts, ΔE=EλE\Delta E=E_{\lambda}-E, by fitting the ratio of perturbed to unperturbed correlation functions using Eq. 17 for a variety of different Euclidean time fit windows. The largest time slice employed in each fit for each ensemble and operator is fixed to be the last time slice before the signal is lost due to statistical noise. For example, in Fig. 2 this would be chosen to be tmax17t_{\text{max}}\approx 17. The start of the fit range, tmint_{\text{min}}, is varied between tmin/a=6,7,8,9,10t_{\text{min}/a}=6,~{}7,~{}8,~{}9,~{}10 for ensembles with β=5.40,5.50,5.65,5.80,5.95,\beta=5.40,~{}5.50,~{}5.65,~{}5.80,~{}5.95, respectively and up to the largest value of tmint_{\text{min}} such that no less than four time slices are used in a fit. By adjusting the minimum time of the fit range, tmint_{\text{min}}, based on the lattice spacing of each ensemble, we are ensuring that each fit starts at an earlier scale. In the following we refer to the value of ΔE\Delta E for a single fit, ff, as EfE^{f}. Each fit result is then assigned a weight:

wf=pf(δEf)2f=1Npf(δEf)2,\displaystyle w^{f}=\frac{p_{f}(\delta E^{f})^{-2}}{\sum^{N}_{f^{\prime}=1}p_{f^{\prime}}(\delta E^{f^{\prime}})^{-2}}, (18)

where ff labels the choice of fit range specified by tmint_{\text{min}} for a fixed tmaxt_{\text{max}}, pf=Γ(Ndof/2,χ2/2)/Γ(Ndof/2)p_{f}=\Gamma(N_{\text{dof}}/2,~{}\chi^{2}/2)/\Gamma(N_{\text{dof}}/2) is the p-value of the fit and δEf\delta E^{f} is the uncertainty in the energy shift, EfE^{f}, for fit ff. Taking a weighted average of the NN fit findings, EfE^{f}, provides the final estimate of the energy shift, E¯\overline{E}, and associated uncertainty δE¯\delta\overline{E},

E¯=\displaystyle\overline{E}~{}= f=1NwfEf,\displaystyle~{}\sum^{N}_{f=1}w^{f}E^{f}, (19)
δstatE¯2=\displaystyle\delta_{\text{stat}}\overline{E}^{2}~{}= f=1Nwf(δEf)2,\displaystyle~{}\sum^{N}_{f=1}w^{f}(\delta E^{f})^{2},
δsysE¯2=\displaystyle\delta_{\text{sys}}\overline{E}^{2}~{}= f=1Nwf(EfE¯)2,\displaystyle~{}\sum^{N}_{f=1}w^{f}(E^{f}-\overline{E})^{2},
δE¯=\displaystyle\delta\overline{E}~{}= δstatE¯2+δsysE¯2.\displaystyle~{}\sqrt{\delta_{\text{stat}}\overline{E}^{2}+\delta_{\text{sys}}\overline{E}^{2}}.

The total error δE¯\delta\overline{E} describes the combined statistical uncertainty on E¯\overline{E} plus the systematic uncertainty arising from the choice of fit range. The separating of this error into δstatE¯\delta_{\text{stat}}\overline{E} and δsysE¯\delta_{\text{sys}}\overline{E} only partially separates statistical and systematic uncertainties because δstatE¯\delta_{\text{stat}}\overline{E} includes statistical errors plus systematic uncertainties related to fluctuations among the δEf\delta E^{f}. The final estimate, E¯\overline{E}, provides an estimate of the energy of the hadron with reduced systematic bias arising from choice of fit window. Fig. 3 shows the proton effective energy shift for the ratio (Eq. 17), using the standard definition of an effective mass. The final estimate of the energy shift, E¯\overline{E}, when using the weighted averaging method is indicated by the red band. Fig. 3 also includes a bar graph for the weights assigned to each fit value.

V Determination of Matrix Elements

V.1 Feynman-Hellman Method

Now that we have a procedure for reliably determining the energy shifts, we are now in a position to determine ΔE\Delta E at multiple values of λ\lambda for a fixed ensemble and operator. In Fig. 4 we plot the calculated proton energy shifts ΔE\Delta E for each value of λ\lambda for the a=0.068a=0.068fm ensemble with (κl,κs)=(0.122167,0.121682)(\kappa_{l},~{}\kappa_{s})=(0.122167,~{}0.121682). Fig. 4(a) shows results for the tensor operator, while Fig. 4(b) shows those for the axial operator. Now performing a linear fit to Eq. 14 and extracting the slope we obtain the following results, gTu=0.822(27)g^{u}_{T}=0.822(27), gTd=0.263(25)g^{d}_{T}=-0.263(25), gAu=0.814(56)g^{u}_{A}=0.814(56) and gAd=0.316(26)g^{d}_{A}=-0.316(26), with the tensor results, renormalised at μ=2GeV\mu=2~{}\text{GeV} in the MS¯\overline{\text{MS}} scheme using the renormalisation factors given in Table 2. Similarly for the scalar charge, in Fig. 4(c) we perform a linear fit to Eq. 15 and by extracting the slope we find, gSu=4.03(29)g^{u}_{S}=4.03(29) and gSd=3.04(17)g^{d}_{S}=3.04(17), again renormalised at μ=2GeV\mu=2~{}\text{GeV} in the MS¯\overline{\text{MS}} scheme. The above process has been repeated for all quark masses on each of the lattice spacings as well as for the Σ\Sigma and Ξ\Xi baryons. The results can been found in Appendix B, in Tables 8, 9, 10.

V.2 Two-exponential fit method

Here we compare the FH method results to the popular “two-exponential fit” method using three point functions. This is undertaken by expanding the two-point and three-point functions to the second energy state and fitting to obtain the parameters of interest. The process for the two-exponential fit is to fit the two-point correlator over a sink time range in which the two-state initial fit assumption is justified. Then using these extracted parameters in the fit to the three-point correlator using a τ\tau range that also satisfies a two-state initial fit assumption. A detailed treatment of the two-exponential fit is given in, for example, Ref. [52].

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Graph of gSug_{S}^{u} extracted using the FH method shown by the red points and shaded band compared with the result using the two-exponential fit method, calculated at a=0.068a=0.068fm, (κl,κs)=(0.122167,0.121682)(\kappa_{l},~{}\kappa_{s})=(0.122167,~{}0.121682). The black, orange and blue fits correspond to the two-exponential fit function constructed and the purple shaded area corresponds to the gSug_{S}^{u} parameter extracted from the two-exponential fit.

Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the result for gSug_{S}^{u} extracted using the FH method (red band) and the result using the two-exponential fit method (purple band). The red points come from a fixed λ\lambda value, similar to that shown in Fig. 2, whereas the red band comes from performing a linear fit to Eq. 14 and extracting the slope. We can see that the results using the FH method is in excellent agreement with the standard three-point analysis.

Now that we have the quark contributions for multiple lattice ensembles, in the next section we shall use a SU(3)SU(3) flavour symmetry breaking method to extrapolate results for the nucleon isovector charges to the physical quark mass.

VI Flavour Symmetry Breaking

The QCD interaction is flavour-blind, which means that the only distinction between quark flavours comes from the quark masses when we disregard the electromagnetic and weak interactions. The theory behind these interactions is easiest to understand when all three quark flavours share the same mass, as this allows us to use the full power of SU(3)SU(3) flavour symmetry. Here we have kept the bare quark mass, m¯=(mu+md+ms)/3\bar{m}=(m_{u}+m_{d}+m_{s})/3, held fixed at its physical value, while systematically varying the individual quark masses around the SU(3)SU(3) flavour symmetric point, mu=md=msm_{u}=m_{d}=m_{s}, in order to constrain the extrapolation to the physical point. In this work we simulate with degenerate uu and dd quark masses mu=mdmlm_{u}=m_{d}\equiv m_{l}, restricting ourselves to nf=2+1n_{f}=2+1.

When SU(3)SU(3) is unbroken all octet baryon matrix elements of a given octet operator can be expressed in terms of just two couplings ff and dd. However, once SU(3)SU(3) is broken and we move away from the symmetric point we can construct quantities (DiD_{i}, FiF_{i}) which are equal at the symmetric point but differ in the case where the quark masses are different. The theory behind constructing these quantities is described in detail in Ref. [55] and is summarised below. The result of constructing these quantities leads to ‘fan’ plots, with slope parameters (rir_{i}, sis_{i}) relating them. Following the method in Ref. [55] we use the SU(3)SU(3) expansion to extrapolate the nucleon charges to the physical point.

In this work, we describe the quark mass dependence of the hadronic matrix elements by a perturbation in the quark masses about an SU(3)SU(3) symmetric point. This perturbation generates a polynomial expansion in the quark mass differences (i.e. the SU(3)SU(3) breaking parameter) and therefore appears distinct from a chiral formulation that generates nonanalytic behaviour (e.g. logarithms) in the vicinity of the 2- or 3-flavour chiral limits. However, it has been demonstrated in Ref. [56], that by expanding the logarithmic features about a fixed quark mass point (such as the chosen SU(3)SU(3) symmetric point), the infrared singularities reveal themselves in the high-order terms of the polynomial expansion — hence demonstrating that the group-theoretic expansion does encode the same physics that appears in the logarithms. A detailed numerical investigation exploring the numerical convergence from both limits goes beyond the present work. Here we assess the convergence of our expansion empirically, subject to the precision of our numerical results.

VI.1 Mass dependence of amplitudes

In order to find the allowed mass dependence of the octet operators in hadrons we need the SU(3)SU(3) decomposition of the 8888\otimes 8\otimes 8. SU(3)SU(3) singlet and octet coefficients are constructed through group theory and using a mass Taylor expansion, which can be seen in Ref. [55]. Here we summarise the coefficients in Table 3.

   11,1st1^{st} class    88, 1st1^{st} class
   𝒪(1)\mathcal{O}(1)    𝒪(δml)\mathcal{O}(\delta m_{l})
f d d d d f f
I AB¯FBA_{\bar{B}^{\prime}FB} f d r1r_{1} r2r_{2} r3r_{3} s1s_{1} s2s_{2}
0 N¯ηN\bar{N}\eta N 3\sqrt{3} -1 1 0 0 0 -1
0 Σ¯ηΣ\bar{\Sigma}\eta\Sigma 0 2 1 0 23\sqrt{3} 0 0
0 Λ¯ηΛ\bar{\Lambda}\eta\Lambda 0 -2 1 2 0 0 0
0 Ξ¯ηΞ\bar{\Xi}\eta\Xi -3\sqrt{3} -1 1 0 0 0 1
1 N¯π0N\bar{N}\pi^{0}N 1 3\sqrt{3} 0 0 -2 2 0
1 Σ¯π0Σ\bar{\Sigma}\pi^{0}\Sigma 2 0 0 0 0 -2 3\sqrt{3}
1 Ξ¯π0Ξ\bar{\Xi}\pi^{0}\Xi 1 -3\sqrt{3} 0 0 2 2 0
Table 3: Coefficients in the mass Taylor expansion of AB¯FBA_{\bar{B^{\prime}}FB} operator amplitudes: SU(3)SU(3) singlet and octet, for first class currents [55].

These coefficients are used to construct equations which are linear in δml\delta m_{l}, where:

δml=mlm¯,\displaystyle\delta m_{l}=m_{l}-\bar{m}, (20)

is the difference of the light quark mass to the SU(3)SU(3) symmetric point. Using the definitions in Table 4, we introduce the notation for the matrix element transition of BBB\rightarrow B^{\prime} as follows:

AB¯FB=B|JF|B,\displaystyle A_{\bar{B^{\prime}}FB}=\bra{B^{\prime}}J^{F}\ket{B}, (21)
Index Baryon (BB) Meson (FF) Current (JFJ^{F})
1 nn K0K^{0} d¯γs\bar{d}\gamma s
2 pp K+K^{+} u¯γs\bar{u}\gamma s
3 Σ\Sigma^{-} π\pi^{-} d¯γu\bar{d}\gamma u
4 Σ0\Sigma^{0} π0\pi^{0} 12(u¯γud¯γd)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\bar{u}\gamma u-\bar{d}\gamma d\right)
5 Λ0\Lambda^{0} η\eta 16(u¯γu+d¯γd2s¯γs)\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\bar{u}\gamma u+\bar{d}\gamma d-2\bar{s}\gamma s\right)
6 Σ+\Sigma^{+} π+\pi^{+} u¯γd\bar{u}\gamma d
7 Ξ\Xi^{-} KK^{-} s¯γu\bar{s}\gamma u
8 Ξ0\Xi^{0} K¯0\bar{K}^{0} s¯γd\bar{s}\gamma d
0 η\eta^{\prime} 16(u¯γu+d¯γd+s¯γs)\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\bar{u}\gamma u+\bar{d}\gamma d+\bar{s}\gamma s\right)
Table 4: The conventions for the generalised currents. We use the convention that current (i.e. operator) numbered by ii has the same effect as absorbing a meson with the index ii. Here γ\gamma represents an arbitrary Dirac matrix [55].

where JFJ^{F} is the appropriate operator, or current, from Table 4 and FF represents the flavour structure of the operator. From Table 3 we can now read off the expansions of the various matrix elements, where the ff and dd terms are independent of δml\delta m_{l} and the coefficients r1r_{1}, r2r_{2}, r3r_{3} and s1s_{1}, s2s_{2} are the leading order δml\delta m_{l} terms. For example if we look at the Σ¯πΣ\bar{\Sigma}\pi\Sigma term, we have to first order in δml\delta m_{l}:

Σ+|Jπ0|Σ+=AΣ¯πΣ=2f+(2s1+3s2)δml.\displaystyle\bra{\Sigma^{+}}J^{\pi^{0}}\ket{\Sigma^{+}}=A_{\bar{\Sigma}\pi\Sigma}=2f+(-2s_{1}+\sqrt{3}s_{2})\delta m_{l}. (22)

VI.2 Mass Dependence: ‘Fan Plots’

Since we hold the average quark mass, m¯\bar{m}, fixed, while moving away from the symmetric point, we only need to consider the non-singlet polynomials in the quark mass. In this sub-section quantities (Di,Fi)(D_{i},F_{i}) are constructed which are equal at the symmetric point and differ in the case where the quark masses are different. We can then evaluate the the violation of SU(3)SU(3) symmetry that emerges from the difference in msmlm_{s}-m_{l}.

VI.2.1 The d-fan

Following Ref. [55], we construct the following combinations of matrix elements which have the same value, 2d2d, at the SU(3)dSU(3)_{d} symmetric point:

D1(AN¯ηN+AΞ¯ηΞ)=\displaystyle D_{1}\equiv-(A_{\bar{N}\eta N}+A_{\bar{\Xi}\eta\Xi})~{}={} 2dr1δml,\displaystyle 2d-r_{1}\delta m_{l}, (23)
D2AΣ¯ηΣ=\displaystyle D_{2}\equiv A_{\bar{\Sigma}\eta\Sigma}~{}={} 2d+(r1+23r3)δml,\displaystyle 2d+(r_{1}+2\sqrt{3}r_{3})\delta m_{l},
D3AΛ¯ηΛ=\displaystyle D_{3}\equiv-A_{\bar{\Lambda}\eta\Lambda}~{}={} 2d(r1+2r2)δml,\displaystyle 2d-(r_{1}+2r_{2})\delta m_{l},
D413(AN¯πNAΞ¯πΞ)=\displaystyle D_{4}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(A_{\bar{N}\pi N}-A_{\bar{\Xi}\pi\Xi})~{}={} 2d43r3δml,\displaystyle 2d-\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}r_{3}\delta m_{l},
D5AΣ¯πΛ=\displaystyle D_{5}\equiv A_{\bar{\Sigma}\pi\Lambda}~{}={} 2d+(r23r3)δml,\displaystyle 2d+(r_{2}-\sqrt{3}r_{3})\delta m_{l},
D616(AN¯KΣ+AΣ¯KΞ)=\displaystyle D_{6}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(A_{\bar{N}K\Sigma}+A_{\bar{\Sigma}K\Xi})~{}={} 2d+23r3δml,\displaystyle 2d+\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}r_{3}\delta m_{l},
D7(AN¯KΛ+AΛ¯KΞ)=\displaystyle D_{7}\equiv-(A_{\bar{N}K\Lambda}+A_{\bar{\Lambda}K\Xi})~{}={} 2d2r2δml.\displaystyle 2d-2r_{2}\delta m_{l}.

By constructing these quantities the result is a ‘fan’ plot with seven lines and three slope parameters (r1,r2(r_{1},r_{2} and r3)r_{3}) constraining them. The slope parameters can be constrained by calculating octet baryon matrix elements on a set of ensembles with varying quark masses at fixed lattice spacing, such as those given in Table 1, and constructing the DiD_{i}s. For the forward matrix elements considered here, these DiD_{i}s can also be written as linear combinations of the different quark contributions to the baryon charges. For example, using Table 4 we see:

D1=\displaystyle D_{1}~{}={} (AN¯ηN+AΞ¯ηΞ)\displaystyle-(A_{\bar{N}\eta N}+A_{\bar{\Xi}\eta\Xi}) (24)
=\displaystyle={} (16(gpu+gpd)+16(gΞu2gΞs)),\displaystyle-\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(g^{u}_{p}+g^{d}_{p})+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(g^{u}_{\Xi}-2g^{s}_{\Xi})\right),

where we introduce the notation gBqg^{q}_{B} to denote the quark, qq, contribution to the overall charge in the baryon, BB. In this work we only consider the flavour diagonal matrix terms, i.e. there are no transition terms. Therefore, only the diagonal DD terms, D1D_{1}, D2D_{2} and D4D_{4}, are used. An ‘average D’ can also be constructed from the diagonal amplitudes:

XD=16(D1+2D2+3D4)=2d+𝒪(δml2),\displaystyle X_{D}=\frac{1}{6}(D_{1}+2D_{2}+3D_{4})=2d+\mathcal{O}(\delta m_{l}^{2}), (25)

which is constant in δml\delta m_{l} up to terms 𝒪(δml2)\mathcal{O}(\delta m_{l}^{2}). When constructing these fan plots it is useful to plot D~i=Di/XD\tilde{D}_{i}=D_{i}/X_{D} to find the average fit to reduce statistical fluctuations.

VI.2.2 The f-fan

Similarly another five quantities, FiF_{i}, can be constructed which all have the same value, 2f2f, at the SU(3)fSU(3)_{f} symmetric point:

F113(AN¯ηNAΞ¯ηΞ)=\displaystyle F_{1}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(A_{\bar{N}\eta N}-A_{\bar{\Xi}\eta\Xi})~{}={} 2f23s2δml,\displaystyle 2f-\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}s_{2}\delta m_{l}, (26)
F2(AN¯πN+AΞ¯πΞ)=\displaystyle F_{2}\equiv(A_{\bar{N}\pi N}+A_{\bar{\Xi}\pi\Xi})~{}={} 2f+4s1δml,\displaystyle 2f+4s_{1}\delta m_{l},
F3AΣ¯πΣ=\displaystyle F_{3}\equiv A_{\bar{\Sigma}\pi\Sigma}~{}={} 2f+(2s1+3s2)δml,\displaystyle 2f+(-2s_{1}+\sqrt{3}s_{2})\delta m_{l},
F412(AΣ¯KΞAN¯KΣ)=\displaystyle F_{4}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A_{\bar{\Sigma}K\Xi}-A_{\bar{N}K\Sigma})~{}={} 2f2s1δml,\displaystyle 2f-2s_{1}\delta m_{l},
F513(AΛ¯KΞAN¯KΛ)=\displaystyle F_{5}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(A_{\bar{\Lambda}K\Xi}-A_{\bar{N}K\Lambda})~{}={} 2f+23(3s1s2)δml.\displaystyle 2f+\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}(\sqrt{3}s_{1}-s_{2})\delta m_{l}.

Again, an ‘average F’ can be calculated through:

XF=16(3F1+F2+2F3)=2f+𝒪(δml2).\displaystyle X_{F}=\frac{1}{6}(3F_{1}+F_{2}+2F_{3})=2f+\mathcal{O}(\delta m_{l}^{2}). (27)

In this work, only the connected quark-line terms are computed. Quark-line disconnected terms only show up in the r1r_{1} coefficient and r1disconr_{1}^{\text{discon}} cancels in the case gT,A,Sud=gT,A,SugT,A,Sdg^{u-d}_{T,A,S}=g_{T,A,S}^{u}-g_{T,A,S}^{d}. Unlike the dd-fan, the ff-fan to linear order, has no error from dropping the quark-line disconnected contributions, as none of the rir_{i} parameters appear in the ff-fan.

VI.3 Fan Plot Results

Here we present results using the a=0.068a=0.068fm ensemble. Results from other lattice spacings are similar. In Section VII, we will extend this method to include all ensembles and present the final results for gT,A,Sg_{T,A,S}.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: XDX_{D} and XFX_{F} for each δml\delta m_{l} for the a=0.068a=0.068fm ensemble for the tensor matrix element. The dashed lines are constant fits and the black stars represent the physical point.
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 7: (a) The three fits D1D_{1}, D2D_{2} and D4D_{4} (b) The three fits F1F_{1}, F2F_{2} and F3F_{3} for the tensor. The vertical black dotted line represents the physical point. Results for the five ensembles at a=0.068a=0.068fm ensemble. The flavour off-diagonal terms D6D_{6}, F4F_{4} and F5F_{5} are also predicted and plotted. Where some points have been offset slightly for clarity.

The singlet quantities XDX_{D} and XFX_{F} are calculated using Eq. 25 and Eq. 27. In Fig. 6 XDX_{D} and XFX_{F} are plotted against δml\delta m_{l} and fitted to a constant. Since in Section VII we will work to 𝒪(δml2)\mathcal{O}(\delta m_{l}^{2}) in our flavour-breaking expansions, we fit XDX_{D} and XFX_{F} to constants in order to determine their values at the physical quark masses. The constant fits to the a=0.068a=0.068fm data are shown by the dashed lines in Fig. 6. In Fig. 7(a) we present the D-‘fan’ plot which shows the δml\delta m_{l} dependence of the D~i=Di/XD\tilde{D}_{i}=D_{i}/X_{D} for i=1,2i=1,~{}2 and 44. Here the lines correspond to the linear in δml\delta m_{l} fits using Eq. LABEL:eqn:Dfan. From these linear fits the slope parameters r~1=r1/XD\tilde{r}_{1}=r_{1}/X_{D} and r~3=r3/XD\tilde{r}_{3}=r_{3}/X_{D} are determined. It is interesting to note that these parameters also lead to a prediction for the flavour off-diagonal term for i=6i=6, which is also shown. Similarly in Fig. 7(b) we present the F-‘fan’ plot for F~i=Fi/XF\tilde{F}_{i}=F_{i}/X_{F}, i=1,2i=1,~{}2 and 33, where the lines correspond to the linear fits using Eq. LABEL:eqn:Ffan. Similarly, the parameters s~1=s1/XF\tilde{s}_{1}=s_{1}/X_{F} and s~2=s2/XF\tilde{s}_{2}=s_{2}/X_{F} are determined from the linear fits. Again, the corresponding off-diagonal terms for i=4,5i=4,5 are also predicted and plotted. By forming appropriate linear combinations, we reconstruct the matrix elements for an individual quark flavour in a particular hadron:

p|u¯Γu|p=\displaystyle\bra{p}\bar{u}\Gamma u\ket{p}~{}= 22f+(32r12r3+2s1\displaystyle~{}2\sqrt{2}f+\Big{(}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}r_{1}-\sqrt{2}r_{3}+\sqrt{2}s_{1} (28)
32s2)δml,\displaystyle-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}s_{2}\Big{)}\delta m_{l},
p|d¯Γd|p=\displaystyle\bra{p}\bar{d}\Gamma d\ket{p}~{}= 2(f3d)+(32r1+2r32s1\displaystyle~{}\sqrt{2}(f-\sqrt{3}d)+\Big{(}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}r_{1}+\sqrt{2}r_{3}-\sqrt{2}s_{1}
32s2)δml,\displaystyle-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}s_{2}\Big{)}\delta m_{l},

and hence the nucleon isovector charges can be determined:

gT,A,Sud=p|u¯Γu|pp|d¯Γd|p,\displaystyle g^{u-d}_{T,A,S}=\bra{p}\bar{u}\Gamma u\ket{p}-\bra{p}\bar{d}\Gamma d\ket{p}, (29)

for Γ=σ34γ5,γ3γ5\Gamma=\sigma_{34}\gamma_{5},~{}\gamma_{3}\gamma_{5} and II. To obtain an extrapolation of gT,A,Sg_{T,A,S} to the physical point, we evaluate the expressions in Eq. 28 at δmlδml\delta m_{l}\rightarrow\delta m_{l}^{*} and substitute in the estimated values for ri=r~iXDr_{i}=\tilde{r}_{i}X_{D} and si=s~iXFs_{i}=\tilde{s}_{i}X_{F}. In order to quantify systemic uncertainties we will now extend this flavour breaking expansion method further.

VII Global Fits

The flavour breaking expansion described in Section VI only accounts for the quark mass-dependence of the matrix elements. However, in order to quantify systematic uncertainties, here we extend this method to also account for lattice spacing, finite volume effects and second order mass terms. As we are performing a global fit over all ensembles, we are now able to place constraints on the second-order mass terms, which means that all fits will now incorporate a term of order 𝒪(δml2)\mathcal{O}(\delta m_{l}^{2}). These fits also include corrections with respect to aa, a2a^{2} and mπLm_{\pi}L. In order to perform a global fit across all masses we substitute the quantity δml\delta m_{l} from here on with:

δmlδml=mπ2Xπ2Xπ2,\displaystyle\delta m_{l}\rightarrow\delta m_{l}=\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}-X_{\pi}^{2}}{X_{\pi}^{2}}, (30)

where the pseudoscalar mass flavour singlet, Xπ2X_{\pi}^{2}, is given by:

Xπ2=2mK2+mπ23.\displaystyle X^{2}_{\pi}=\frac{2m_{K}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}}{3}. (31)

By determining δml\delta m_{l} to now be dimensionless and given in terms of physical quantities we are now able to combine results from different lattice spacings. The fit used for the singlet quantities XDX_{D} and XFX_{F} are extended to [56]:

XD,F=\displaystyle X_{D,F}= XD,F(1+c113[fL(mπ)+2fL(mK)])+c2a\displaystyle X_{D,F}^{*}(1+c_{1}\frac{1}{3}[f_{L}(m_{\pi})+2f_{L}(m_{K})])+c_{2}a (32)
+c3δml2,\displaystyle+c_{3}\delta m_{l}^{2},

where we also consider an alternative 𝒪(a2)\mathcal{O}(a^{2}) lattice spacing dependence by replacing c2ac_{2}a with c2a2c_{2}a^{2}. The c1c_{1} term estimates the finite size effects, where the leading meson-loop contribution has the functional form [57]:

fL(m)=\displaystyle f_{L}(m)= (mXπ)2emLmL.\displaystyle\left(\frac{m}{X_{\pi}}\right)^{2}\frac{e^{-mL}}{\sqrt{mL}}. (33)

It is important to note that here finite size effects are only included in the singlet quantities XDX_{D} and XFX_{F} and not in the DD and FF fan plot fits as the finite size corrections to the flavour-breaking coefficients determined by fits to, e.g. D~i=Di/XD\tilde{D}_{i}=D_{i}/X_{D} are expected to be sub-dominant compared to those in the corresponding singlet quantities. The fits used for the DD fan, D~i=Di/XD\tilde{D}_{i}=D_{i}/X_{D}, are of the form:

D~1=\displaystyle\tilde{D}_{1}~{}={} 12(r~1+b~1a)δml+d~1δml2,\displaystyle 1-2(\tilde{r}_{1}+\tilde{b}_{1}a)\delta m_{l}+\tilde{d}_{1}\delta m_{l}^{2}, (34)
D~2=\displaystyle\tilde{D}_{2}~{}={} 1+((r~1+b~1a)\displaystyle 1+((\tilde{r}_{1}+\tilde{b}_{1}a)
+23(r~3+b~3a))δml+d~2δml2,\displaystyle+2\sqrt{3}(\tilde{r}_{3}+\tilde{b}_{3}a))\delta m_{l}+\tilde{d}_{2}\delta m_{l}^{2},
D~4=\displaystyle\tilde{D}_{4}~{}={} 143(r~3+b~3a)δml+d~4δml2,\displaystyle 1-\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}(\tilde{r}_{3}+\tilde{b}_{3}a)\delta m_{l}+\tilde{d}_{4}\delta m_{l}^{2},

and similarly for the FF fan, F~i=Fi/XF\tilde{F}_{i}=F_{i}/X_{F}:

F~1=\displaystyle\tilde{F}_{1}~{}={} 123(s~2+e~2a)δml+f~1δml2,\displaystyle 1-\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}(\tilde{s}_{2}+\tilde{e}_{2}a)\delta m_{l}+\tilde{f}_{1}\delta m_{l}^{2}, (35)
F~2=\displaystyle\tilde{F}_{2}~{}={} 1+4(s~1+e~1a)δml+f~2δml2\displaystyle 1+4(\tilde{s}_{1}+\tilde{e}_{1}a)\delta m_{l}+\tilde{f}_{2}\delta m_{l}^{2}
F~3=\displaystyle\tilde{F}_{3}~{}={} 1+(2(s~1+e~1a)\displaystyle 1+(-2(\tilde{s}_{1}+\tilde{e}_{1}a)
+3(s~2+e~2a))δml+f~3δml2.\displaystyle+\sqrt{3}(\tilde{s}_{2}+\tilde{e}_{2}a))\delta m_{l}+\tilde{f}_{3}\delta m_{l}^{2}.
Fit XDX_{D} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof XFX_{F} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof gTg_{T} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof D-Fan χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof F-Fan
1. δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.515(43)0.515(43) 1.881.88 0.6002(57)0.6002(57) 1.741.74 1.035(13)1.035(13) 1.271.27 1.841.84
2. a,δml2a,~{}\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.5251(81)0.5251(81) 1.871.87 0.610(10)0.610(10) 1.741.74 1.000(27)1.000(27) 0.760.76 1.241.24
3. a2,δml2a^{2},~{}\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.5211(59)0.5211(59) 1.861.86 0.608(69)0.608(69) 1.741.74 1.016(18)1.016(18) 0.720.72 1.221.22
4. a,δml2,mπLa,~{}\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.5252(80)0.5252(80) 1.981.98 0.611(10)0.611(10) 1.841.84 1.001(27)1.001(27) 1.351.35 1.971.97
5. a2,δml2,mπLa^{2},~{}\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.5212(59)0.5212(59) 1.971.97 0.606(75)0.606(75) 1.841.84 1.017(18)1.017(18) 0.740.74 1.181.18
6. δml2,mπL\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.516(43)0.516(43) 1.981.98 0.6005(50)0.6005(50) 1.831.83 1.034(13)1.034(13) 0.780.78 1.211.21
Fit XDX_{D} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof XFX_{F} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof gAg_{A} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof D-Fan χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof F-Fan
1. δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.583(21)0.583(21) 0.990.99 0.648(22)0.648(22) 0.810.81 1.262(60)1.262(60) 1.001.00 1.741.74
2. a,δml2a,~{}\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.565(36)0.565(36) 1.021.02 0.656(39)0.656(39) 0.850.85 1.21(15)1.21(15) 1.031.03 1.801.80
3. a2,δml2a^{2},~{}\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.572(26)0.572(26) 1.021.02 0.651(28)0.651(28) 0.850.85 1.231(95)1.231(95) 1.021.02 1.801.80
4. a,δml2,mπLa,~{}\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.563(36)0.563(36) 1.081.08 0.654(39)0.654(39) 0.900.90 1.21(15)1.21(15) 0.930.93 1.641.64
5. a2,δml2,mπLa^{2},~{}\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.574(27)0.574(27) 1.081.08 0.653(30)0.653(30) 0.900.90 1.231(95)1.231(95) 0.950.95 1.731.73
6. δml2,mπL\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.584(22)0.584(22) 1.041.04 0.648(22)0.648(22) 0.850.85 1.262(60)1.262(60) 0.950.95 1.731.73
Fit XDX_{D} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof XFX_{F} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof gSg_{S} χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof D-Fan χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof F-Fan
1. δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.610(53)-0.610(53) 1.031.03 2.52(12)2.52(12) 1.521.52 1.07(20)1.07(20) 1.291.29 2.762.76
2. a,δml2a,~{}\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.72(10)-0.72(10) 0.980.98 2.58(15)2.58(15) 1.571.57 1.12(50)1.12(50) 1.301.30 2.872.87
3. a2,δml2a^{2},~{}\delta m_{l}^{2} 0.654(67)-0.654(67) 0.990.99 2.55(13)2.55(13) 1.571.57 1.09(31)1.09(31) 1.301.30 2.892.89
4. a,δml2,mπLa,~{}\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.71(10)-0.71(10) 1.041.04 2.59(17)2.59(17) 1.671.67 1.11(50)1.11(50) 1.071.07 2.852.85
5. a2,δml2,mπLa^{2},~{}\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.655(66)-0.655(66) 1.051.05 2.52(14)2.52(14) 1.661.66 1.10(31)1.10(31) 1.071.07 2.992.99
6. δml2,mπL\delta m_{l}^{2},~{}m_{\pi}L 0.608(54)-0.608(54) 1.091.09 2.51(12)2.51(12) 1.601.60 1.06(19)1.06(19) 1.071.07 2.982.98
Table 5: Table of results for each fit and the corresponding χ2/dof\chi^{2}/dof, renormalised, where appropriate, at μ=2GeV\mu=2~{}\text{GeV} in the MS¯\overline{\text{MS}} scheme. The notation in the first column shows which corrections are included in Eq. 32LABEL:eqn:Dfan_gf and LABEL:eqn:Ffan_gf. For example Fit 4 includes all corrections aa, δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} and mπLm_{\pi}L, while Fit 1 only includes an added δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} term, i.e. c1=c2=bi=ei=0c_{1}=c_{2}=b_{i}=e_{i}=0.
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 8: As an example of some fits we have for the tensor: (a) XFX_{F} results for each ensemble using Eq. 32 where c1=c2=0c_{1}=c_{2}=0 (Fit 1), plotted against mπ2Xπ2Xπ2\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}-X_{\pi}^{2}}{X_{\pi}^{2}}. (b) The three fits F1F_{1}, F2F_{2} and F3F_{3} using Eq. LABEL:eqn:Ffan_gf with ei=0e_{i}=0 (Fit 1). (c) XFX_{F} results using all corrections in Eq. 32 (Fit 4), plotted against mπ2Xπ2Xπ2\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}-X_{\pi}^{2}}{X_{\pi}^{2}}. The black line is a fit to Eq. 32 in the limit a0a\rightarrow 0 and mπLm_{\pi}L\rightarrow\infty. (d) The three fits F1F_{1}, F2F_{2} and F3F_{3} using Eq. LABEL:eqn:Ffan_gf, where once again the data points are shifted in the limit a0a\rightarrow 0. The black stars represent the physical point. Where some points have been offset slightly for clarity.
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 9: Weighted average results for gTg_{T}, gAg_{A} and gSg_{S}. The xx-axis displays the fit number as shown in Table 5 and the yy-axis displays the corresponding nucleon isovector charge results. The bar graph shows the weight of each fit result. The red band shows the final weighted average result using Eq. 40, with statistical and systematic errors combined in quadrature and the grey band is the FLAG Review result [58].

The δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} coefficients were computed for the EM form factors in Ref. [55]. At 𝒪(δml2)\mathcal{O}(\delta m_{l}^{2}) there are 12 amplitudes and 11 coefficients so there is just one constraint. However, here we only consider the diagonal amplitudes and therefore we do not have 12 amplitudes and hence they are unable to be constrained here [59]. Therefore they are replaced with one δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} coefficient (d~i,f~i\tilde{d}_{i},~{}\tilde{f}_{i}) for each DiD_{i} and FiF_{i}.

Now we perform a combination of different fits summarised in Table 5. Firstly, the fit is performed individually on XDX_{D} and XFX_{F}. An example of this is shown in Fig. 8(a) and (c). In Fig 8(a) we show XFX_{F} as a function mπ2Xπ2Xπ2\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}-X_{\pi}^{2}}{X_{\pi}^{2}} for ‘Fit 1’, which only includes the constant term, XFX^{*}_{F} and a δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} term in Eq. 32, while Fig 8(c) shows XFX_{F} as a function of mπ2Xπ2Xπ2\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}-X_{\pi}^{2}}{X_{\pi}^{2}} with the result from using Eq. 32 with all corrections included (‘Fit 4’). The extrapolated result for XDX_{D} and XFX_{F} are summarised in Table 5 taken in the limits a0a\rightarrow 0, mπLm_{\pi}L\rightarrow\infty and mπ,mKm_{\pi},~{}m_{K}\rightarrow physical masses. Similarly, fits are performed on the fan plots using Eq. LABEL:eqn:Dfan_gf and Eq. LABEL:eqn:Ffan_gf. Fig. 8(b) and (d) shows the results when using ‘Fit 1’ and ‘Fit 4’, where it is important to mention that all data points are shifted in the limit a0a\rightarrow 0 in Figs. 8(c)(d). The slope results are then multiplied by the extrapolated results for XDX_{D} and XFX_{F}:

ri=\displaystyle r_{i}= (r~i+b~ia)XD,\displaystyle(\tilde{r}_{i}+\tilde{b}_{i}a)X_{D}, (36)
si=\displaystyle s_{i}= (s~i+e~ia)XF,\displaystyle(\tilde{s}_{i}+\tilde{e}_{i}a)X_{F},
di=\displaystyle d_{i}= d~iXD,\displaystyle\tilde{d}_{i}X_{D},
fi=\displaystyle f_{i}= f~iXF.\displaystyle\tilde{f}_{i}X_{F}.

The resulting slope parameters rir_{i}, sis_{i} and the δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} coefficients are then included in the reconstruction of the matrix elements in a particular hadron:

p|u¯Γu|p=\displaystyle\bra{p}\bar{u}\Gamma u\ket{p}~{}= 22f+(32r12r3+2s1\displaystyle~{}2\sqrt{2}f+\Big{(}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}r_{1}-\sqrt{2}r_{3}+\sqrt{2}s_{1}
32s2)δml+(322d1+322d4\displaystyle-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}s_{2}\Big{)}\delta m_{l}^{*}+(-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{2}}d_{1}+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{2}}d_{4}
+322f1+122f2)δml2,\displaystyle+\frac{3}{2\sqrt{2}}f_{1}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}f_{2})\delta m_{l}^{*2},
p|d¯Γd|p=\displaystyle\bra{p}\bar{d}\Gamma d\ket{p}~{}= 2(f3d)+(32r1+2r32s1\displaystyle~{}\sqrt{2}(f-\sqrt{3}d)+\Big{(}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}r_{1}+\sqrt{2}r_{3}-\sqrt{2}s_{1} (37)
32s2)δml+(322d1322d4\displaystyle-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}s_{2}\Big{)}\delta m_{l}^{*}+(-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{2}}d_{1}-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{2}}d_{4}
+322f1122f2)δml2,\displaystyle+\frac{3}{2\sqrt{2}}f_{1}-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}f_{2})\delta m_{l}^{*2},

where d=XD/2d=X_{D}^{*}/2 and f=XF/2f=X^{*}_{F}/2. The final result for gT,A,Sg_{T,A,S} are then given in the limit, a0a\rightarrow 0, mπLm_{\pi}L\rightarrow\infty and δml\delta m_{l}^{*} is the physical mass. The final results for XDX_{D}, XFX_{F} and gT,A,Sg_{T,A,S} for each fit are summarised are in Table 5, together with the χreduced2\chi^{2}_{\text{reduced}} for each fit.

VII.1 Results

In order to combine these results we extend our weighted averaging method described in section IV. To do this we combine the χ2\chi^{2} and degrees of freedom of XDX_{D}, XFX_{F}, DD-fan and FF-fan; enumerated by i=1,2,3,4i=1,~{}2,~{}3,~{}4, respectively, in the following:

χf2=i=14χi2,Ndof,f=i=14Ndof,i,\displaystyle\chi^{2}_{f}=\sum_{i=1}^{4}\chi^{2}_{i},~{}~{}N_{\text{dof},f}=\sum_{i=1}^{4}N_{\text{dof},i}, (38)

where ff labels one of the six fit types. Each fit is then assigned a weight using the combined χf2\chi^{2}_{f}:

w~f=pf(δgT,A,Sf)2f=16pf(δgT,A,Sf)2,\displaystyle\tilde{w}^{f}=\frac{p_{f}(\delta g_{T,A,S}^{f})^{-2}}{\sum^{6}_{f^{\prime}=1}p_{f^{\prime}}(\delta g_{T,A,S}^{f^{\prime}})^{-2}}, (39)

where pf=Γ(Ndof,f/2,χf2/2)/Γ(Ndof,f/2)p_{f}=\Gamma(N_{\text{dof},f}/2,~{}\chi_{f}^{2}/2)/\Gamma(N_{\text{dof},f}/2) is the pp-value of the fit ff and δgT,A,Sf\delta g_{T,A,S}^{f} is the uncertainty in the nucleon isovector charges calculated using Eq. 37. Taking a weighted average of the six fit results, gT,A,Sfg^{f}_{T,A,S}, provides a final estimate of the nucleon isovector charges, gT,A,Sg_{T,A,S}, and associated uncertainty:

g¯T,A,S=\displaystyle\overline{g}_{T,A,S}~{}= f=16wfgT,A,Sf,\displaystyle~{}\sum^{6}_{f=1}w^{f}g_{T,A,S}^{f}, (40)
δstatg¯T,A,S2=\displaystyle\delta_{\text{stat}}\overline{g}_{T,A,S}^{2}~{}= f=16wf(δgT,A,Sf)2,\displaystyle~{}\sum^{6}_{f=1}w^{f}(\delta g_{T,A,S}^{f})^{2},
δsysg¯T,A,S2=\displaystyle\delta_{\text{sys}}\overline{g}_{T,A,S}^{2}~{}= f=16wf(gT,A,Sfg¯T,A,S)2,\displaystyle~{}\sum^{6}_{f=1}w^{f}(g_{T,A,S}^{f}-\overline{g}_{T,A,S})^{2},
δg¯T,A,S=\displaystyle\delta\overline{g}_{T,A,S}~{}= δstatg¯T,A,S2+δsysg¯T,A,S2.\displaystyle~{}\sqrt{\delta_{\text{stat}}\overline{g}_{T,A,S}^{2}+\delta_{\text{sys}}\overline{g}_{T,A,S}^{2}}.

Fig. 9 shows the results for each fit and their assigned weight. The final estimate of the nucleon isovector charges, g¯T,A,S\overline{g}_{T,A,S}, renormalised using the results given in Table 2, at μ=2GeV\mu=2~{}\text{GeV} in the MS¯\overline{\text{MS}}, are:

gT=\displaystyle g_{T}~{}= 1.010(21)stat(12)a(01)FV,\displaystyle~{}1.010(21)_{\text{stat}}(12)_{\text{a}}(01)_{\text{FV}}, (41)
gA=\displaystyle g_{A}~{}= 1.253(63)stat(41)a(03)FV,\displaystyle~{}1.253(63)_{\text{stat}}(41)_{\text{a}}(03)_{\text{FV}}, (42)
gS=\displaystyle g_{S}~{}= 1.08(21)stat(03)a(00)FV,\displaystyle~{}1.08(21)_{\text{stat}}(03)_{\text{a}}(00)_{\text{FV}}, (43)

where the systematic errors labelled as ‘a’ and ‘FV’ represent the difference in the central value obtained by incorporating a lattice spacing correction compared to without, and likewise for the finite volume correction. These final results, with statistical and systematic errors combined in quadrature, are shown by the red bands in Fig. 9. We note our results for gTg_{T}, gAg_{A} and gSg_{S} are all comparable with the FLAG Review results [58], represented by the grey bands in Fig. 9. Of particular note is that we have determined gTg_{T} to the 2%\approx 2\% level. However, work is still needed in order reduce the uncertainties on, gSg_{S} and gAg_{A}, to understand it at the same level.

As a check on our method for combining the results from the six different fits given in Table 5, we employ the widely used Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Here results obtained from the various fits are weighted using the Akaike weights [60]:

wf=exp(12AICf(Γ))fexp(12AICf(Γ)).\displaystyle w_{f}=\frac{\text{exp}(-\frac{1}{2}\text{AIC}_{f}(\Gamma))}{\sum_{f^{\prime}}\text{exp}(-\frac{1}{2}\text{AIC}_{f^{\prime}}(\Gamma))}. (44)

Akaike’s information criterion takes on the simple form for models with normally distributed errors:

AICf(Γ)=χf2+2pf,\displaystyle\text{AIC}_{f}(\Gamma)=\chi^{2}_{f}+2p_{f}, (45)

where χf2\chi^{2}_{f} is the same as that calculated in Eq. 38 and pfp_{f} is the number of parameters in each fit. As a result the AIC weight prefers the models with lower χ2\chi^{2} values, but penalises those with too many fit parameters. The above method was repeated using the AIC weights. This gives the following results for the nucleon isovector charges, gT=1.003(26)g_{T}=1.003(26), gA=1.261(68)g_{A}=1.261(68) and gS=1.07(23)g_{S}=1.07(23), where the errors have been added in quadrature. These results are in agreement with those in Eq. 41, 42 and 43.

VII.2 Hyperons

Here we calculate flavour-diagonal matrix elements of hyperons using the same method. Ref. [61] demonstrates that isovector combinations of hyperon charges are relevant in searches for new physics through semileptonic hyperon decays. The calculated slope parameters rir_{i}, sis_{i} and the δml2\delta m_{l}^{2} coefficients can also be used in the reconstruction of the matrix elements in a particular hyperon. The theory behind constructing these quantities is described in detail in Ref. [55] and is summarised in Appendix. C. The results for the charges of the Σ+\Sigma^{+} and Ξ0\Xi^{0} baryons are summarised in Table 6.

Tensor Axial Scalar
gΣ+ug^{u}_{\Sigma^{+}} 0.802(16)(12)0.802(16)(12) 0.884(25)(36)0.884(25)(36) 2.75(25)(08)2.75(25)(08)
gΣ+sg^{s}_{\Sigma^{+}} 0.2379(10)(08)-0.2379(10)(08) 0.250(22)(30)-0.250(22)(30) 1.86(16)(12)1.86(16)(12)
gΞ0ug^{u}_{\Xi^{0}} 0.1929(77)(13)-0.1929(77)(13) 0.198(22)(15)-0.198(22)(15) 1.52(11)(08)1.52(11)(08)
gΞ0sg^{s}_{\Xi^{0}} 0.968(25)(10)0.968(25)(10) 0.924(23)(12)0.924(23)(12) 2.58(24)(11)2.58(24)(11)
Table 6: Summary of results for the tensor, axial and scalar charges of the Σ+\Sigma^{+} and Ξ0\Xi^{0} baryons. The first set of brackets contains the statistical uncertainty, whereas the second set of brackets contains the systematic uncertainty.

To properly exploit the increased experimental sensitivity to hypothetical tensor and scalar interactions, we require lattice-QCD estimates of the nucleon isovector charge, gTg_{T} at the level of 1020%10–20\% [6]. The results presented here are at the δgT/gT2%\delta g_{T}/g_{T}\approx 2\% level. As the overall goal of this research is to support precision tests of the Standard Model, we have successfully demonstrated the validity of our approach. We can now look at the effect this has on phenomenology.

VIII Impact of Lattice Results on Phenomenology

As discussed in Section I, it is expected that future neutron beta decay experiments will increase their sensitivity to BSM scalar and tensor interactions through improved measurements of the Fierz interference term, bb, as well as the neutrino asymmetry parameter, BB. In order to assess the full impact of these future experiments we have performed an analysis of the tensor charge gTg_{T} and gSg_{S}. Here we discuss existing constraints on new scalar ϵS\epsilon_{S} and tensor ϵT\epsilon_{T} couplings which arise from low-energy experiments. Finally, using the existing constraints on ϵS\epsilon_{S} and ϵT\epsilon_{T} as well as our calculated value for gTg_{T} and gSg_{S}, we determine the allowed regions in the ϵSϵT\epsilon_{S}-\epsilon_{T} plane.

VIII.1 Low-energy phenomenology of scalar and tensor interactions

VIII.1.1 0+0+0^{+}\rightarrow 0^{+} transitions and scalar interactions

The most precise bound on the scalar coupling ϵS\epsilon_{S} comes from 0+0+0^{+}\rightarrow 0^{+} nuclear beta decay. The differential decay rate for 0+0+0^{+}\rightarrow 0^{+} nuclear beta decay has coefficient a0+a_{0+} and Fierz interference term b0+b_{0+} [6]:

a0+=\displaystyle a_{0+}~{}= 1,\displaystyle~{}1, (46)
b0+=\displaystyle b_{0+}~{}= 2γgSϵS,γ=1α2Z2,\displaystyle~{}-2\gamma g_{S}\epsilon_{S},~{}~{}~{}~{}\gamma=\sqrt{1-\alpha^{2}Z^{2}}, (47)

where ZZ is the atomic number of the daughter nucleus. We can see from Eq. 47 that b0+b_{0+} couples to the BSM scalar interaction. From a comparison of well known half-lives corrected by a phase-space factor, Hardy and Towner [62] found b0+=0.0022(26)b_{0+}=-0.0022(26). This result was found using a number of daughter nuclei and averaging over the set. This can be converted to the following bound on the product of scalar charge and the new-physics effective scalar coupling:

1.0×103<gSϵS<3.2×103(90%C.L.).\displaystyle-1.0\times 10^{-3}<g_{S}\epsilon_{S}<3.2\times 10^{-3}~{}~{}~{}~{}(90\%~{}C.L.). (48)

This is the most precise bound on the scalar interactions from low-energy probes.

VIII.1.2 Radioactive Pion Decay and the Tensor Interaction

An analysis of radioactive pion decay π+e+νeγ\pi^{+}\rightarrow e^{+}\nu_{e}\gamma is sensitive to the same tensor operator that can be investigated in beta decays. The experimental results from the PIBETA collaboration [63] put constraints on ϵT\epsilon_{T}:

1.1×103<ϵT<1.36×103(90%C.L.).\displaystyle-1.1\times 10^{-3}<\epsilon_{T}<1.36\times 10^{-3}~{}~{}~{}~{}(90\%~{}C.L.). (49)

Currently this is the most stringent constraint on the tensor coupling from low energy experiments. Using these constraints, as well Eq. 2 and Eq. 3, bounds can be put on the new scalar and tensor interactions at the 10310^{-3} level. Following the work of Ref. [6], in Fig. 10 we show the constraint on the ϵSϵT\epsilon_{S}-\epsilon_{T} plane.

Refer to caption
Figure 10: Allowed regions in the ϵSϵT\epsilon_{S}-\epsilon_{T} plane, using the tensor and scalar charges as obtained in this work in Eq. 41 and Eq. 43, gS=1.08(21)stat(03)sysg_{S}=1.08(21)_{\text{stat}}(03)_{\text{sys}} and gT=1.010(21)stat(12)sysg_{T}=1.010(21)_{\text{stat}}(12)_{\text{sys}}. The green band is the existing band on b0+b_{0+} [6, 62].

The current best constraints on scalar and tensor interactions arise from 0+0+0^{+}\rightarrow 0^{+} nuclear beta decays and radioactive pion decay, which is shown by the green band [6, 62]. The neutron constraints are future projections at the 10310^{-3} level, derived from Eq. 2 and Eq. 3, using the tensor and scalar charges as obtained in this work, shown by the red and blue bands in Fig. 10. When accounting for uncertainties in these lattice QCD calculations, the boundaries on the bands in Fig. 10 become wider and the bands take on a ‘bow-tie’ shape. However most of the constraining power is lost due to the large uncertainty in our value for gSg_{S}. In order to fully utilise the constraining power of 10310^{-3} experiments, understanding the lattice-QCD estimates of the nucleon tensor and scalar charge at the level of 10%10\% is required [6]. We have successfully calculated the tensor charge at the 2%\approx 2\% level and are able to fully utilise the constraining power future experiments.

VIII.2 Quark electric dipole moment

In this section we briefly discuss the impact our results have on constraining the quark EDM couplings using the current bound on the neutron EDM. Using the same method followed in Section VII we are able to constrain gTqg_{T}^{q}. We note that in this work we have only considered quark-line connected contributions, although other works have shown the disconnected contributions to be small at near-physical quark masses [64]. This is in line with expectations based on the fact that the tensor operator is a helicity-flip operator and hence disconnected contributions mush vanish in the chiral limit. Using Eq. 37 we can calculate the up and down contributions to the nucleon tensor charge for each fit listed in Table  5. Applying the weighted averaging method, the final estimates for, gqTg^{T}_{q}, are:

gTu=0.812(21),\displaystyle g_{T}^{u}~{}=~{}0.812(21), (50)
gTd=0.199(14).\displaystyle g_{T}^{d}~{}=~{}-0.199(14). (51)
Refer to caption
Figure 11: 90%90\% confidence level bounds on dud_{u} and ddd_{d} using lattice QCD estimates for gTug_{T}^{u} and gTdg_{T}^{d} and the current limit on the neutron EDM of |dn|<1.8×1026e|d_{n}|<1.8\times 10^{-26}e.cm [12].

Using these results, Eq. 4 and the existing bound on the neutron EDM we are able to put bounds on the new effective couplings which contain new CP violating interactions. Fig. 11 shows the 90%90\% confidence level bounds in the duddd_{u}-d_{d} plane, assuming gTs=0g_{T}^{s}=0.

IX Conclusion

In this work we have presented results for the axial, tensor and scalar nucleon and hyperon charges using the Feynman-Hellmann theorem, as well as using a flavour symmetry breaking method to systematically approach the physical quark masses. We applied a weighted averaging method on the fit results, removing possible systematic uncertainties which arise from a bias in choosing the fit windows. In the flavour symmetry breaking method, symmetry constraints are automatically built in order-by-order in SU(3)SU(3) breaking. We extended the flavour symmetry breaking method in this analysis in order to have full coverage of aa, mπm_{\pi} and volume, meaning we have control over these systematics. Our final result of gT=1.010(21)stat(12)sysg_{T}=1.010(21)_{\text{stat}}(12)_{\text{sys}} is comparable to results present in the FLAG review. We have precisely calculated gTg_{T} to the 2%\approx 2\% level, successfully reaching the goal of understanding gTg_{T} at the 10%10\% level. However, work is still needed in order reduce the error on, gS=1.08(21)stat(03)sysg_{S}=1.08(21)_{\text{stat}}(03)_{\text{sys}} and gA=1.253(63)stat(41)sysg_{A}=1.253(63)_{\text{stat}}(41)_{\text{sys}}, to understand it at the same level. Future work is still needed with access to physical quark masses in order to better constrain the extrapolation to the physical point.

Acknowledgements.
The numerical configuration generation (using the BQCD lattice QCD program [65]) and data analysis (using the Chroma software library [66]) was carried out on the DiRAC Blue Gene Q and Extreme Scaling Service (EPCC, Edinburgh, UK), the Data Intensive Service (Cambridge Service for Data-Driven Discovery, CSD3, Cambridge, UK), the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing (GCS) supercomputers JUQUEEN and JUWELS (John von Neumann Institute for Computing, NIC, Jülich, Germany) and resources provided by the North-German Supercomputer Alliance (HLRN), the National Computer Infrastructure (NCI National Facility in Canberra, Australia supported by the Australian Commonwealth Government) and the Phoenix HPC service (University of Adelaide). R.H. is supported in part by the STFC grant ST/P000630/1. P.E.L.R. is supported in part by the STFC grant ST/G00062X/1. G.S. is supported by DFG grant SCHI 179/8-1. R.D.Y. and J.M.Z. are supported by the ARC grants DP190100298 and DP220103098.

Appendix A Lattice Ensemble Details

β\beta aa(fm) Volume (κlight,κstrange)(\kappa_{\text{light}},\kappa_{\text{strange}}) #\#Trajectories
5.405.40 0.0820.082 323×6432^{3}\times 64 (0.119930,0.119930)(~{}0.119930~{},~{}0.119930~{}) 16391639
(0.119989,0.119812)(~{}0.119989~{},~{}0.119812~{}) 1005(2)1005~{}~{}(2)
(0.120048,0.119695)(~{}0.120048~{},~{}0.119695~{}) 1000(3)1000~{}~{}(3)
(0.120084,0.119623)(~{}0.120084~{},~{}0.119623~{}) 1345(3)1345~{}~{}(3)
5.505.50 0.0740.074 323×6432^{3}\times 64 (0.120900,0.120900)(~{}0.120900~{},~{}0.120900~{}) 17541754
(0.121040,0.120620)(~{}0.121040~{},~{}0.120620~{}) 12161216
(0.121095,0.120512)(~{}0.121095~{},~{}0.120512~{}) 1849(2)1849~{}~{}(2)
5.505.50 0.0740.074 323×6432^{3}\times 64 (0.120950,0.120950)(~{}0.120950~{},~{}0.120950~{}) 16141614
(0.121040,0.120770)(~{}0.121040~{},~{}0.120770~{}) 17621762
(0.121099,0.120653)(~{}0.121099~{},~{}0.120653~{}) 1003(2)1003~{}~{}(2)
5.655.65 0.0680.068 483×9648^{3}\times 96 (0.122005,0.122005)(~{}0.122005~{},~{}0.122005~{}) 531531
(0.122078,0.121859)(~{}0.122078~{},~{}0.121859~{}) 633633
(0.122130,0.121756)(~{}0.122130~{},~{}0.121756~{}) 561(2)561~{}~{}~{}(2)
(0.122167,0.121682)(~{}0.122167~{},~{}0.121682~{}) 534(2)534~{}~{}~{}(2)
643×9664^{3}\times 96 (0.122197,0.121623)(~{}0.122197~{},~{}0.121623~{}) 428(3)428~{}~{}~{}(3)
5.805.80 0.0590.059 483×9648^{3}\times 96 (0.122810,0.122810)(~{}0.122810~{},~{}0.122810~{}) 298298
(0.122880,0.122670)(~{}0.122880~{},~{}0.122670~{}) 458(2)458~{}~{}~{}(2)
(0.122940,0.122551)(~{}0.122940~{},~{}0.122551~{}) 522522
5.955.95 0.0520.052 483×9648^{3}\times 96 (0.123411,0.123558)(~{}0.123411~{},~{}0.123558~{}) 283(2)283~{}~{}~{}(2)
(0.123460,0.123460)(~{}0.123460~{},~{}0.123460~{}) 457457
(0.123523,0.123334)(~{}0.123523~{},~{}0.123334~{}) 415415
Table 7: Details of the lattice ensembles used in this work: the same number of configurations was used for each λ\lambda value and operator. Measurements are separated by a single HMC trajectory with a randomised source location. The number in parentheses indicates the quantity of randomised sources used per configuration to generate additional samples.

Appendix B Individual quark contributions to the overall charge in the baryon.

Here we present the the bare results for the individual quark contributions to the overall tensor, axial and scarlar charges in the nucleon, Σ\Sigma and Ξ\Xi baryons.

β\beta κl\kappa_{l} gTPug_{T_{P}}^{u} gTPdg_{T_{P}}^{d} gTΣug_{T_{\Sigma}}^{u} gTΣsg_{T_{\Sigma}}^{s} gTΞug_{T_{\Xi}}^{u} gTΞsg_{T_{\Xi}}^{s}
5.405.40 0.1199300.119930 0.8851(55)0.8851(55) 0.2020(43)-0.2020(43) 0.8851(55)0.8851(55) 0.2020(43)-0.2020(43) 0.2020(43)-0.2020(43) 0.8851(55)0.8851(55)
0.1199890.119989 0.832(23)0.832(23) 0.222(10)-0.222(10) 0.838(25)0.838(25) 0.216(18)-0.216(18) 0.222(18)-0.222(18) 0.851(24)0.851(24)
0.1200480.120048 0.849(24)0.849(24) 0.225(17)-0.225(17) 0.845(25)0.845(25) 0.2145(83)-0.2145(83) 0.209(11)-0.209(11) 0.870(11)0.870(11)
0.1200840.120084 0.842(32)0.842(32) 0.209(25)-0.209(25) 0.830(17)0.830(17) 0.2098(61)-0.2098(61) 0.2112(97)-0.2112(97) 0.8760(83)0.8760(83)
5.505.50 0.1209000.120900 0.869(10)0.869(10) 0.2145(34)-0.2145(34) 0.869(10)0.869(10) 0.2145(34)-0.2145(34) 0.2145(34)-0.2145(34) 0.869(10)0.869(10)
0.1210400.121040 0.810(38)0.810(38) 0.202(22)-0.202(22) 0.809(25)0.809(25) 0.2163(98)-0.2163(98) 0.2042(83)-0.2042(83) 0.8796(85)0.8796(85)
0.1210950.121095 0.800(27)0.800(27) 0.198(22)-0.198(22) 0.822(17)0.822(17) 0.2159(66)-0.2159(66) 0.1947(59)-0.1947(59) 0.8747(61)0.8747(61)
5.505.50 0.1209500.120950 0.8830(59)0.8830(59) 0.2115(39)-0.2115(39) 0.8830(59)0.8830(59) 0.2115(39)-0.2115(39) 0.2115(39)-0.2115(39) 0.8830(59)0.8830(59)
0.1210400.121040 0.863(11)0.863(11) 0.2066(46)-0.2066(46) 0.8597(81)0.8597(81) 0.2109(29)-0.2109(29) 0.2043(25)-0.2043(25) 0.8815(63)0.8815(63)
0.1210990.121099 0.875(12)0.875(12) 0.2142(66)-0.2142(66) 0.8692(70)0.8692(70) 0.2222(14)-0.2222(14) 0.2103(24)-0.2103(24) 0.8988(33)0.8988(33)
5.655.65 0.1220050.122005 0.8738(65)0.8738(65) 0.2145(25)-0.2145(25) 0.8738(65)0.8738(65) 0.2145(25)-0.2145(25) 0.2145(25)-0.2145(25) 0.8738(65)0.8738(65)
0.1220780.122078 0.8861(62)0.8861(62) 0.2050(34)-0.2050(34) 0.8812(54)0.8812(54) 0.2124(26)-0.2124(26) 0.2030(26)-0.2030(26) 0.9043(51)0.9043(51)
0.1221300.122130 0.815(34)0.815(34) 0.192(14)-0.192(14) 0.811(17)0.811(17) 0.2104(76)-0.2104(76) 0.1989(95)-0.1989(95) 0.8677(96)0.8677(96)
0.1221670.122167 0.8609(84)0.8609(84) 0.2078(78)-0.2078(78) 0.8513(62)0.8513(62) 0.2206(19)-0.2206(19) 0.2008(41)-0.2008(41) 0.9034(44)0.9034(44)
0.1221970.122197 0.868(71)0.868(71) 0.197(19)-0.197(19) 0.821(72)0.821(72) 0.206(22)-0.206(22) 0.198(13)-0.198(13) 0.913(58)0.913(58)
5.805.80 0.1228100.122810 0.866(13)0.866(13) 0.2062(55)-0.2062(55) 0.866(13)0.866(13) 0.2062(55)-0.2062(55) 0.2062(55)-0.2062(55) 0.866(13)0.866(13)
0.1228800.122880 0.8543(55)0.8543(55) 0.2059(31)-0.2059(31) 0.8503(53)0.8503(53) 0.2062(54)-0.2062(54) 0.1994(34)-0.1994(34) 0.8835(51)0.8835(51)
0.1229400.122940 0.848(11)0.848(11) 0.1963(57)-0.1963(57) 0.8399(74)0.8399(74) 0.2155(55)-0.2155(55) 0.1943(27)-0.1943(27) 0.9043(50)0.9043(50)
5.955.95 0.1234110.123411 0.8649(47)0.8649(47) 0.2058(28)-0.2058(28) 0.8696(54)0.8696(54) 0.2019(51)-0.2019(51) 0.2082(41)-0.2082(41) 0.8517(92)0.8517(92)
0.1234600.123460 0.828(21)0.828(21) 0.197(15)-0.197(15) 0.828(21)0.828(21) 0.197(15)-0.197(15) 0.197(15)-0.197(15) 0.828(21)0.828(21)
0.1235230.123523 0.8522(70)0.8522(70) 0.2041(38)-0.2041(38) 0.8502(61)0.8502(61) 0.2112(23)-0.2112(23) 0.2005(27)-0.2005(27) 0.8897(47)0.8897(47)
Table 8: Table of the bare results for the individual quark contributions to the overall tensor charge in the nucleon, Σ\Sigma and Ξ\Xi baryons.
β\beta κl\kappa_{l} gAPug_{A_{P}}^{u} gAPdg_{A_{P}}^{d} gAΣug_{A_{\Sigma}}^{u} gAΣsg_{A_{\Sigma}}^{s} gAΞug_{A_{\Xi}}^{u} gAΞsg_{A_{\Xi}}^{s}
5.405.40 0.1199300.119930 1.025(24)1.025(24) 0.360(22)-0.360(22) 1.025(24)1.025(24) 0.360(22)-0.360(22) 0.360(22)-0.360(22) 1.025(24)1.025(24)
0.1199890.119989 1.024(26)1.024(26) 0.344(20)-0.344(20) 1.018(21)1.018(21) 0.333(16)-0.333(16) 0.324(18)-0.324(18) 1.0421(15)1.0421(15)
0.1200480.120048 1.019(48)1.019(48) 0.322(32)-0.322(32) 0.982(39)0.982(39) 0.338(21)-0.338(21) 0.312(15)-0.312(15) 1.031(18)1.031(18)
0.1200840.120084 1.028(35)1.028(35) 0.334(35)-0.334(35) 0.983(53)0.983(53) 0.340(10)-0.340(10) 0.316(12)-0.316(12) 1.065(10)1.065(10)
5.505.50 0.1209000.120900 1.002(36)1.002(36) 0.306(58)-0.306(58) 1.002(36)1.002(36) 0.306(58)-0.306(58) 0.306(58)-0.306(58) 1.002(36)1.002(36)
0.1210400.121040 0.959(74)0.959(74) 0.306(58)-0.306(58) 0.943(49)0.943(49) 0.302(29)-0.302(29) 0.315(30)-0.315(30) 1.035(24)1.035(24)
0.1210950.121095 1.014(52)1.014(52) 0.399(43)-0.399(43) 0.978(21)0.978(21) 0.3155(94)-0.3155(94) 0.2930(90)-0.2930(90) 1.0445(72)1.0445(72)
5.505.50 0.1209500.120950 1.009(49)1.009(49) 0.298(24)-0.298(24) 1.009(49)1.009(49) 0.298(24)-0.298(24) 0.298(24)-0.298(24) 1.009(49)1.009(49)
0.1210400.121040 0.835(91)0.835(91) 0.343(47)-0.343(47) 0.913(45)0.913(45) 0.309(20)-0.309(20) 0.299(23)-0.299(23) 1.017(28)1.017(28)
0.1210990.121099 0.964(88)0.964(88) 0.341(41)-0.341(41) 0.907(62)0.907(62) 0.292(30)-0.292(30) 0.306(21)-0.306(21) 1.021(24)1.021(24)
5.655.65 0.1220050.122005 0.950(48)0.950(48) 0.294(34)-0.294(34) 0.950(48)0.950(48) 0.294(34)-0.294(34) 0.294(34)-0.294(34) 0.950(48)0.950(48)
0.1220780.122078 1.045(70)1.045(70) 0.322(26)-0.322(26) 1.046(57)1.046(57) 0.317(19)-0.317(19) 0.295(18)-0.295(18) 1.044(41)1.044(41)
0.1221300.122130 0.973(91)0.973(91) 0.319(31)-0.319(31) 0.979(91)0.979(91) 0.330(17)-0.330(17) 0.287(18)-0.287(18) 1.070(24)1.070(24)
0.1221670.122167 1.113(93)1.113(93) 0.287(59)-0.287(59) 1.024(42)1.024(42) 0.310(17)-0.310(17) 0.282(13)-0.282(13) 1.064(14)1.064(14)
0.1221970.122197 1.049(59)1.049(59) 0.335(76)-0.335(76) 1.020(42)1.020(42) 0.316(18)-0.316(18) 0.257(22)-0.257(22) 1.107(16)1.107(16)
5.805.80 0.1228100.122810 0.966(63)0.966(63) 0.223(35)-0.223(35) 0.966(63)0.966(63) 0.223(35)-0.223(35) 0.223(35)-0.223(35) 0.966(63)0.966(63)
0.1228800.122880 1.042(56)1.042(56) 0.336(25)-0.336(25) 1.032(46)1.032(46) 0.333(15)-0.333(15) 0.309(61)-0.309(61) 1.041(21)1.041(21)
0.1229400.122940 1.028(71)1.028(71) 0.326(35)-0.326(35) 0.987(86)0.987(86) 0.295(38)-0.295(38) 0.296(25)-0.296(25) 1.028(35)1.028(35)
5.955.95 0.1234110.123411 0.975(33)0.975(33) 0.294(18)-0.294(18) 0.967(40)0.967(40) 0.270(38)-0.270(38) 0.308(32)-0.308(32) 0.941(56)0.941(56)
0.1234600.123460 0.992(41)0.992(41) 0.308(22)-0.308(22) 0.992(41)0.992(41) 0.308(22)-0.308(22) 0.308(22)-0.308(22) 0.992(41)0.992(41)
0.1235230.123523 1.035(94)1.035(94) 0.364(62)-0.364(62) 1.004(63)1.004(63) 0.340(34)-0.340(34) 0.302(36)-0.302(36) 0.960(56)0.960(56)
Table 9: Table of the bare results for the individual quark contributions to the overall axial charge in the nucleon, Σ\Sigma and Ξ\Xi baryons.
β\beta κl\kappa_{l} gSPug_{S_{P}}^{u} gSPdg_{S_{P}}^{d} gSΣug_{S_{\Sigma}}^{u} gSΣsg_{S_{\Sigma}}^{s} gSΞug_{S_{\Xi}}^{u} gSΞsg_{S_{\Xi}}^{s}
5.405.40 0.1199300.119930 4.34(11)4.34(11) 2.854(77)2.854(77) 4.34(11)4.34(11) 2.854(77)2.854(77) 2.854(77)2.854(77) 4.34(11)4.34(11)
0.1199890.119989 4.32(14)4.32(14) 2.987(92)2.987(92) 4.03(12)4.03(12) 2.695(46)2.695(46) 2.683(71)2.683(71) 4.181(66)4.181(66)
0.1200480.120048 4.44(41)4.44(41) 3.28(18)3.28(18) 3.98(15)3.98(15) 2.467(91)2.467(91) 3.01(22)3.01(22) 4.43(13)4.43(13)
0.1200840.120084 4.29(64)4.29(64) 2.62(47)2.62(47) 4.04(20)4.04(20) 2.702(42)2.702(42) 2.633(90)2.633(90) 4.282(50)4.282(50)
5.505.50 0.1209000.120900 4.26(10)4.26(10) 2.766(74)2.766(74) 4.26(10)4.26(10) 2.766(74)2.766(74) 2.766(74)2.766(74) 4.26(10)4.26(10)
0.1210400.121040 4.93(43)4.93(43) 3.41(24)3.41(24) 4.35(25)4.35(25) 2.642(60)2.642(60) 2.73(10)2.73(10) 4.201(70)4.201(70)
0.1210950.121095 5.60(29)5.60(29) 4.13(23)4.13(23) 4.10(19)4.10(19) 2.514(34)2.514(34) 2.474(93)2.474(93) 4.028(39)4.028(39)
5.505.50 0.1209500.120950 4.209(16)4.209(16) 2.81(11)2.81(11) 4.209(16)4.209(16) 2.81(11)2.81(11) 2.81(11)2.81(11) 4.209(16)4.209(16)
0.1210400.121040 5.39(36)5.39(36) 3.83(29)3.83(29) 4.31(21)4.31(21) 2.867(59)2.867(59) 2.77(14)2.77(14) 4.388(87)4.388(87)
0.1210990.121099 5.50(52)5.50(52) 4.46(41)4.46(41) 5.44(59)5.44(59) 2.937(68)2.937(68) 3.09(26)3.09(26) 4.611(94)4.611(94)
5.655.65 0.1220050.122005 4.83(23)4.83(23) 3.15(13)3.15(13) 4.83(23)4.83(23) 3.15(13)3.15(13) 3.15(13)3.15(13) 4.83(23)4.83(23)
0.1220780.122078 4.78(20)4.78(20) 3.163(19)3.163(19) 4.16(13)4.16(13) 2.705(51)2.705(51) 2.82(13)2.82(13) 4.53(10)4.53(10)
0.1221300.122130 5.21(55)5.21(55) 4.02(53)4.02(53) 4.31(25)4.31(25) 2.663(56)2.663(56) 2.55(14)2.55(14) 4.242(63)4.242(63)
0.1221670.122167 5.73(39)5.73(39) 4.15(22)4.15(22) 4.01(23)4.01(23) 2.759(46)2.759(46) 2.61(13)2.61(13) 4.344(70)4.344(70)
0.1221970.122197 6.34(59)6.34(59) 4.36(40)4.36(40) 4.04(38)4.04(38) 2.755(75)2.755(75) 2.50(21)2.50(21) 4.279(92)4.279(92)
5.805.80 0.1228100.122810 4.47(27)4.47(27) 2.89(16)2.89(16) 4.47(27)4.47(27) 2.89(16)2.89(16) 2.89(16)2.89(16) 4.47(27)4.47(27)
0.1228800.122880 4.55(20)4.55(20) 3.34(13)3.34(13) 3.96(15)3.96(15) 2.937(73)2.937(73) 2.76(10)2.76(10) 4.43(10)4.43(10)
0.1229400.122940 5.26(68)5.26(68) 4.15(73)4.15(73) 4.20(33)4.20(33) 2.872(70)2.872(70) 2.61(23)2.61(23) 4.384(90)4.384(90)
5.955.95 0.1234110.123411 4.18(34)4.18(34) 2.82(22)2.82(22) 5.00(28)5.00(28) 3.84(63)3.84(63) 3.39(17)3.39(17) 5.56(64)5.56(64)
0.1234600.123460 5.21(27)5.21(27) 3.38(17)3.38(17) 5.21(27)5.21(27) 3.38(17)3.38(17) 3.38(17)3.38(17) 5.21(27)5.21(27)
0.1235230.123523 4.84(28)4.84(28) 3.57(23)3.57(23) 4.24(24)4.24(24) 2.901(90)2.901(90) 2.93(18)2.93(18) 4.29(10)4.29(10)
Table 10: Table of the bare results for the individual quark contributions to the overall scalar charge in the nucleon, Σ\Sigma and Ξ\Xi baryons.

Appendix C Hyperon Matrix elements

Reconstruction of the hyperon matrix elements as shown to first order in Ref. [55] and given to second order here:

Σ+|u¯Γu|Σ+\displaystyle\bra{\Sigma^{+}}\bar{u}\Gamma u\ket{\Sigma^{+}} =\displaystyle= 22f+(22s1+6s2)δml+2f3δml2,\displaystyle 2\sqrt{2}f+(-2\sqrt{2}s_{1}+\sqrt{6}s_{2})\delta m_{l}+\sqrt{2}f_{3}\delta m_{l}^{2},
Σ+|s¯Γs|Σ+\displaystyle\bra{\Sigma^{+}}\bar{s}\Gamma s\ket{\Sigma^{+}} =\displaystyle= 2(f3d)+(32r132r32s1\displaystyle\sqrt{2}(f-\sqrt{3}d)+\Big{(}-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}r_{1}-3\sqrt{2}r_{3}-\sqrt{2}s_{1}
+\displaystyle+ 32s2)δml+(32d2+12f3)δml2,\displaystyle\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}s_{2}\Big{)}\delta m_{l}+\Big{(}-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}d_{2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{3}\Big{)}\delta m_{l}^{2},
Ξ0|u¯Γu|Ξ0\displaystyle\bra{\Xi^{0}}\bar{u}\Gamma u\ket{\Xi^{0}} =\displaystyle= 2(f3d)+(22r3+22s1)δml\displaystyle\sqrt{2}(f-\sqrt{3}d)+(2\sqrt{2}r_{3}+2\sqrt{2}s_{1})\delta m_{l}
+\displaystyle+ (32d4+12f2)δml2,\displaystyle\Big{(}-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}d_{4}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{2}\Big{)}\delta m_{l}^{2},
Ξ0|s¯Γs|Ξ0\displaystyle\bra{\Xi^{0}}\bar{s}\Gamma s\ket{\Xi^{0}} =\displaystyle= 22f+(32r1+2r3+2s1\displaystyle 2\sqrt{2}f+\Big{(}-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}r_{1}+\sqrt{2}r_{3}+\sqrt{2}s_{1}
\displaystyle- 32s2)δml+(322d1322d4\displaystyle\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}s_{2}\Big{)}\delta m_{l}+\Big{(}\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{2}}d_{1}-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{2}}d_{4}
+\displaystyle+ 322f1+122f2)δml2.\displaystyle\frac{3}{2\sqrt{2}}f_{1}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}f_{2}\Big{)}\delta m_{l}^{2}.

References