Evidence for nonanalytic light quark mass dependence in the baryon spectrum
Abstract
Using precise lattice QCD computations of the baryon spectrum, we present the first direct evidence for the presence of contributions to the baryon masses which are nonanalytic in the light quark masses; contributions which are often denoted chiral logarithms. We isolate the poor convergence of baryon chiral perturbation theory to the flavorsinglet mass combination. The flavoroctet baryon mass splittings, which are corrected by chiral logarithms at next to leading order in chiral perturbation theory, yield baryonpion axial coupling constants and consistent with QCD values; the first evidence of chiral logarithms in the baryon spectrum. The GellMann–Okubo relation, a flavor27 baryon mass splitting, which is dominated by chiral corrections from light quark masses, provides further evidence for the presence of nonanalytic light quark mass dependence in the baryon spectrum; we simultaneously find the GMO relation to be inconsistent with the first few terms in a taylor expansion in , which must be valid for small values of this breaking parameter. Additional, more definitive tests of chiral perturbation theory will become possible with future, more precise, lattice calculations.
I Introduction
Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is one of the fundamental gauge theories of the standard model of particle physics, encoding the interactions amongst quarks and gluons. At high energies, the theory exhibits the property of asymptotic freedom where the coupling between the quarks and gluons runs to zero as the interactions are probed with larger momentum transfer. Conversely, at low energies, at a scale of GeV, the coupling between the quarks and gluons becomes , and the theory is no longer amenable to a perturbative treatment; the quark and gluon degrees of freedom are bound into the observed hadronic degrees of freedom, the protons, neutrons, pions, etc., which leave only subtle clues about the underlying fundamental theory of QCD.
These properties of QCD, as well as many others, are now well established thanks to a variety of techniques that have been developed to understand the rich phenomena that emerge from the theory. One of the most important tools is lattice QCD, a numerical solution to the theory, performed on a discrete, Euclidean spacetime lattice. With algorithmic advances and ever growing computing power, state of the art lattice QCD calculations are performed at several lattice spacings, with moderate physical spacetime volumes and with dynamical light quark masses at or near their physical values Aoki et al. (2009); Bazavov et al. (2010); Aoki et al. (2010); Durr et al. (2011a, b). Recently, the ground state hadron spectrum, composed of up, down and strange quarks, has been reproduced from lattice calculations with a few percent uncertainty Durr et al. (2008). This serves as an important benchmark in demonstrating the ability for these numerical calculations to produce precise quantitative predictions for hadronic physics observables. Indeed, lattice calculations are playing an important role in many areas of both nuclear and high energy physics Lat ().
In addition to this numerical solution to QCD, a variety of analytic methods have been developed to understand the lowenergy regime of the theory. The most prominent method is chiral perturbation theory (PT) which exploits an approximate global symmetry of QCD Weinberg (1979). For the , and quarks with masses less than , the QCD Lagrangian is approximately invariant under global chiral transformations of the quark fields such that the theory has an approximate chiral symmetry, which becomes exact in the limit the quarks are massless. This approximate chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken to the subgroup by the QCD vacuum giving rise to the pion octet pseudoscalar pseudo–NambuGoldstone bosons, the pions, kaons and eta. The realization of this chiral symmetry, as well as its spontaneous and explicit symmetry breaking, can be described by constructing a chiral Lagrangian which contains this pion octet as well as other hadron multiplets as explicit degrees of freedom. In the chiral limit, the pion octet become exact NambuGoldstone bosons which have only derivative couplings to themselves and other hadrons. This theory, PT, is nonrenormalizable and contains an infinite number of operators whose forms are constrained by the global symmetries of QCD, while the coefficients of these operators, the low energy constants (LECs), are unconstrained and must be determined by comparing with experimental data and/or the results of numerical lattice QCD calculations. The quantitative relevance of these operators are dictated by an expansion in the soft momentum of the pion octet and the light quark masses suppressed by the chiral symmetry breaking scale, ; hadronic observables can be computed at low energies to any fixed precision by keeping operators to a given order in the chiral expansion, thus requiring determination of only a finite number of the LECs.
One of the principle applications of PT has been to determine the light quark mass dependence of various hadronic observables, the simplest of which is the light hadron spectrum. The motivation comes from the significant numerical cost of performing lattice QCD calculations at the physical values of the and quark masses. PT can be used to extrapolate the numerical lattice QCD results to the physical values of the light quark masses, in the process determining some of the LECs associated with the quark mass dependent operators. This program has been very successful when applied to the NambuGoldstone meson spectrum and decay constants, see Ref. Colangelo et al. (2011) for a review, beginning with the first significant comparison of lattice QCD results with PT Aubin et al. (2004a).
The comparison with the light baryon spectrum has been wrought with more significant difficulties and the overall convergence, and usefulness of the baryon PT is in question. These challenges are not unexpected; first, there is a dense spectrum of low lying excited states, introducing new scales in the theory; second, while the expansion parameters of PT in the NambuGoldstone meson sector are given by , the small expansion parameter when the baryon fields are included becomes Gasser et al. (1988). For the physical kaon, and from general expectations of asymptotic series, one does not expect this theory to have a controlled perturbative expansion. A few recent comparisons of baryon PT to numerical lattice QCD results have led to the conclusion the three flavor chiral expansion is failing to provide a controlled, convergent expansion WalkerLoud et al. (2009); Ishikawa et al. (2009); Torok et al. (2010). The issues of convergence are not limited to the three flavor expansion Beane (2004) and recent analysis indicates the range of expansion of the two flavor theory, considering only an expansion about the limit of vanishing up and down quark masses, extends only to MeV WalkerLoud et al. (2009); WalkerLoud (2008).
These challenges have led to a number of efforts to reorganize the expansion for baryon PT. The initial approach is known as heavy baryon PT (HBPT) which treats the baryons as nearly static fields allowing for an expansion in inverse powers of the baryon mass Jenkins and Manohar (1991a, b), modeled after the heavy quark effective theory Georgi (1990). This led to significant phenomenological successes which are partly reviewed in Refs. Bernard et al. (1995); Bernard (2008). Early on, it was recognized the convergence of the theory would be problematic because of the large contributions from kaon and eta loops in various observables. A new regularization scheme was proposed, the introduction of a (chiral symmetry violating) long range regulator, eg. a dipole regulator, to soften the contribution from the kaon and eta loops Donoghue et al. (1999). When applied to chiral extrapolations of lattice QCD results, this led to some successes in simultaneously describing both the numerical results and physical observables Leinweber et al. (2000, 2004). An additional reorganization of the chiral expansion, equivalent to a resummation of the leading kinetic corrections to the baryon propagators was constructed and has become known as infrared regularized baryon PT Becher and Leutwyler (1999); with several offshoots to deal with renormalization of higher loop corrections Fuchs et al. (2003); Martin Camalich et al. (2010). Lattice QCD calculations in the last few years have also made feasible the use of the expansion for hyperons Tiburzi and WalkerLoud (2008); Jiang et al. (2011). In this work, we further examine a new application of an old idea: combining the large expansion ’t Hooft (1974); Witten (1979) with the chiral expansion Dashen and Manohar (1993a, b); Jenkins (1993); Dashen et al. (1994); FloresMendieta et al. (2000). This approach has a few formal advantages over the other methods. In the large limit, there is an extra symmetry, the contracted spinflavor symmetry Dashen and Manohar (1993a, b), allowing for an unambiguous fieldtheoretic method to include the low lying decuplet baryon resonances in the theory; in the large limit, the spin and  baryons become degenerate and infinitely heavy. Further, while the large and chiral expansions on their own may not provide well converged effective theories, the combined expansions may prove sufficient for a controlled perturbative expansion. This approach was first explored in Ref. Jenkins et al. (2010) where it was demonstrated the predictions from the combined large and expansions on the baryon spectrum are well met for a range of light quark masses.
Having a controlled expansion is necessary but not sufficient to claim success. The principle prediction from PT are the contributions to hadronic observables which are nonanalytic in the light quark masses. The masses of NambuGoldstone boson is given to leading order by the GellMannOakes–Renner Relation GellMann et al. (1968), , with a meson composed of a quark–antiquark pair of (anti) flavors and and is the mass of a quark with flavor . Therefore, in PT, the nonanalytic light quark mass dependence arises from pionoctet loops, which often contribute terms to hadronic observables, and are commonly referred to as chiral logs. These contributions can not arise from a finite number of local counterterms but only from the long range contributions from the light pion octet degrees of freedom, the pion cloud. Isolating this predicted light quark mass dependence in lattice QCD results has been a major challenge for many years. The definitive identification of these contributions is hailed as a signal that the and (and ) quarks are sufficiently light that the lattice results can be described accurately by PT. This task has proved to be very challenging, as often, these nonanalytic light quark mass contributions are subleading, or masked by other systematics.
In this work, we present for the first time, direct evidence of nonanalytic light quark mass dependence in the baryon spectrum. As will be discussed in this article, this work is not the definitive work on the subject, as there are many systematics which must be resolved, but this is an important first step in the quest for chiral logs.
Ii The heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian and the large expansion
ii.1 Heavy Baryon Chiral Lagrangian in the Expansion
The three flavor heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian at leading order (LO) in the momentum expansion and to first order in the chiralsymmetry breaking quark mass matrix is given by Jenkins and Manohar (1991a, b),
(1) 
where the spin octet baryon fields and spin decuplet baryon fields are twocomponent velocitydependent baryon fields which are related to the usual fourcomponent relativistic Dirac spin baryon fields and by
(2) 
The mass is the flavorsinglet mass of the baryon octet and decuplet baryons in the chiral limit . Specifically,
(3) 
where and are the average flavorsinglet masses of the spin flavoroctet baryons and the spin flavordecuplet baryons, respectively, in the chiral limit. In the large expansion, is for baryons with quarks. The leading heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian also contains the flavorsinglet hyperfine mass splitting
(4) 
which is proportional to the total spinsquared of each baryon multiplet. The mass parameter is in the expansion. The flavor representations of the QCD baryons are the flavoroctet
(5) 
and the completely symmetric rank3 flavordecuplet , normalized such that . The heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian also contains four independent baryonpion couplings, the axial couplings , , and . The couplings and describe the usual baryonoctet pion couplings; describes pion couplings between octet and decuplet baryons; and describes the pion coupling of the decuplet baryons. The pion octet fields
(6) 
appear in the heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian in the nonlinear representation , where MeV is the pion decay constant in the chiral limit. The vector and axial vector pion combinations
(7) 
appear in the baryonpion couplings and through the baryon covariant derivative . In the heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian, is the spin operator which acts on the spinor portion of the baryon field.
Additional dependence on the pion field enters through the quark mass matrix spurion
(8) 
In this work, we compare with lattice computations performed with degenerate and quark masses , so the quark mass matrix reduces to
(9) 
There are two flavorsinglet contributions to the baryon masses with one insertion of the quark mass matrix coming from the terms proportional to and . There are also three flavoroctet contributions to the baryon masses with a single insertion of the quark mass matrix, proportional to , and (called previously Jenkins (1992)).
The expansion ’t Hooft (1974) for baryons Witten (1979) leads to the emergence of a spinflavor symmetry Dashen and Manohar (1993a, b); Dashen et al. (1994) for large baryons. In Ref. Jenkins (1996), the heavy baryon Lagrangian was formulated in the expansion. Relations amongst the coefficients in the heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian occur at leading and subleading orders in the expansion, which reduces the number of independent chiral coefficients in the heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian at leading and subleading orders in . In addition, there exists a planar flavor symmetry Jenkins (1996) at leading order in , which relates flavorsinglet to flavoroctet parameters at this order, further reducing the number of independent chiral coefficients in the heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian at leading order in the expansion. In particular, planar QCD flavor symmetry relates the flavorsinglet quark mass parameters and to the flavoroctet quark mass parameters , and at leading orders in . The flavoroctet and flavorsinglet quark mass parameters are given in terms of the coefficients of the spin0 flavoroctet expansion,^{1}^{1}1Here, we adopt a simplified notation for the operator coefficients compared to Ref. Jenkins (1996). where the subscript refers to the fact that the corresponding operator is an body quark operator which is accompanied by an explicit factor of . To first subleading order in the expansion, the mass matrix parameters of the heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian for QCD with are given by
(10) 
The axial couplings , , and also have an expansion in terms of spin1 flavoroctet coefficients of the expansion. To first subleading order in , the pionbaryon couplings of the heavy baryon chiral Lagrangian for QCD with are related to the coefficients by Dashen et al. (1995); Jenkins (1996)^{2}^{2}2The operator analysis has recently been extended to the twobody axial current operators Lutz and Semke (2011), such as .
(11) 
ii.2 Mass Relations , and
In Ref. Jenkins et al. (2010), it was argued a better approach to exploring the baryon spectrum was to utilize our knowledge of both large as well as symmetry which is known to work well for the experimental spectrum Jenkins and Lebed (1995); instead of considering the individual baryon masses directly, one should explore the light quark mass dependence of various linear combinations of the baryon masses, chosen to have definite scaling in terms of and symmetry breaking.^{3}^{3}3Ref. Semke and Lutz (2011) utilized the large relations between operators in baryon PT to study the baryon spectrum, but not the linear combinations constructed to have definite scaling in and . The various linear combinations were determined in Ref. Jenkins and Lebed (1995). In Ref. Jenkins et al. (2010), it was demonstrated that the predicted scaling with both and was clearly visible in the lattice data. The first few mass combinations had statistically meaningful values over the range of quark masses, but there were not enough statistics to resolve all of them. In this work, we focus our attention on three of these mass relations, and .^{4}^{4}4The relation gives at leading order the hyperfine splitting . For the current lattice data set, this quantity provides no further information over the use of . These mass relations are given by
(12) 
where
(13) 
and for example .
These relations are designed to isolate various operators in the combined and breaking expansions. At , only relations – are nonvanishing. For this reason, the relations – are particularly interesting to use with light quark mass extrapolations, as the leading contribution begins with the chiral loops at . However, even more precise results of the baryon spectrum than exist are needed for these relations. Using the large expansions through second nontrivial order, and working through nexttoleading order (NLO) in the chiral expansion, the relation is given by
(14) 
The nonanalytic function is defined as
(15) 
which has the limits and properties
(16) 
For the baryon spectrum, the leading nonanalytic light quark mass dependence is encoded in this function. As such, it is of particular interest to find evidence of this behavior in the spectrum.
The mass relations and vanish in both the chiral and vector limits, making them more sensitive to the NLO nonanalytic light quark mass dependence. At NLO in the chiral expansion, and to the first two nontrivial orders in the large expansion, these relations are given by
(17) 
(18) 
In addition to these three mass relations, we also explore the GellMann–Okubo relation
(19) 
Since the quark mass operator contains pieces which transform as both an as well as a under transformations, Eq. (9), there are nonvanishing contributions to the GMO relation. However, mass operators which transform as an make vanishing contributions to Eq. (19). The leading mass operator which makes a nonzero contribution to the GMO relation transforms as a flavor. These corrections can arise either from chiral loops or from a mass operator containing two or more quark mass insertions. This makes the GMO relation particularly interesting to explore with lattice QCD calculations; the leading contribution to this mass relation comes from chiral loop effects which are nonanalytic in the light quark masses. Experimentally, the GMO relation is found to be
(20) 
Each baryon mass in the relation receives nonanalytic mass corrections which scale as . These large corrections may lead to the expectation that the GMO relation receives large contributions from the loop corrections. However, one can show these terms are proportional to under transformations. Additionally, the contributions transform as an while the corrections transform as a flavor. This provides an extra on top of the chiral suppression, explaining the relatively small value of the GMO relation Jenkins (1996).
At nexttoleading order in the chiral and large expansions, the GellMann–Okubo relation is
(21) 
In this article, we will also be interested in the nexttonexttoleading order (NNLO) formula. This can be determined from Ref. WalkerLoud (2005, 2006). Retaining the subleading relations for the quark mass operators, Eq. (II.1), but only the leading relations for the axial couplings (), the NNLO contributions to the GMO formula are
(22) 
where the function encodes additional nonanalytic dependence on the light quark masses
(23) 
and has the limits and properties
(24) 
Iii Evidence for Nonanalytic Light Quark Mass Dependence in Baryon Spectrum
iii.1 Details of the lattice results
For this work, the numerical results of Ref. WalkerLoud et al. (2009) are utilized, which are not the most recent but are still the most statistically precise data set available. The lattice calculation was performed with a mixedaction composed of domainwall fermion Kaplan (1992); Shamir (1993a, b, 1999); Furman and Shamir (1995) propagators generated on the asqtadimproved Orginos and Toussaint (1999); Orginos et al. (1999), rooted, staggered sea quark configurations generated by the MILC Collaboration Bernard et al. (2001). This particular mixedaction set up has been used quite extensively by the LHP Renner et al. (2005); Edwards et al. (2006a, b); Hägler et al. (2008); WalkerLoud et al. (2009); Bratt et al. (2010) and NPLQCD Beane et al. (2006a, b, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, c, 2007d, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c); Detmold et al. (2008a); Beane et al. (2008d); Detmold et al. (2008b); Detmold and Savage (2009); Torok et al. (2010); Beane et al. (2011a) Collaboraitons as well as some independent works Lin and Orginos (2009a, b); Lin et al. (2009); Liu et al. (2010); Aubin et al. (2010). The mixedaction effective field theory, which encodes the discretization effects specific to this particular mixedaction, has also been thoroughly developed Bär et al. (2003, 2004, 2005); Golterman et al. (2005); Tiburzi (2005); Chen et al. (2006); Prelovsek (2006); Aubin et al. (2007); Chen et al. (2007); Jiang (2007); Orginos and WalkerLoud (2008); Chen et al. (2009a); Aubin et al. (2008); Chen et al. (2009b). However, the baryon spectrum results we use in this work exist at only a single lattice spacing. There is also reason to believe the discretization systematics are small WalkerLoud et al. (2009); Chen et al. (2007, 2009a) and to the order we are working in the mixedaction EFT, they are subleading. For these reasons, we only use the continuum PT extrapolation formula, presented in the previous section.
To set the scale, we use the latest scale setting by the MILC Collaboration Bazavov et al. (2010), as detailed in Ref. Beane et al. (2011a); we first convert the numerical results of Ref. WalkerLoud et al. (2009) into units^{5}^{5}5The length scale is determined with the heavy quark potential, defined such that . and then use the MILC determination of to convert to physical units. Finally, we perform the extrapolations as functions of the quark masses. The quark masses are not renormalization scheme or scale independent. However, at a fixed lattice spacing, we can absorb the quark mass renormalization into the quantity , where at leading order, the NambuGoldstone boson masses are given by . We then define lattice quark masses, in physical units by
(25) 
where is the residual chiral symmetry breaking present with the DomainWall lattice action at finite fifth dimensional extent Blum et al. (2004). We collect all these numerical values in Table 1.
6.83  6.85  
0.007  0.010  0.020  0.030  0.040  0.050  
0.0081  0.0138  0.0313  0.0478  0.0644  0.081  
0.00160(3)  0.00157(1)  0.00123(1)  0.00101(1)  0.00083(2)  0.00073(3)  
[MeV]  16.8  26.6  58.0  88.8  121  155 
[MeV]  320(2)  389(2)  557(1)  685(2)  805(4)  905(2) 
[MeV]  640(2)  659(2)  726(1)  787(2)  852(4)  905(2) 
[MeV]  1285(6)  1315(6)  1454(6)  1556(12)  1698(13)  1769(9) 
[MeV]  113(3)  100(2)  64(1)  41(1)  19(1)  0 
[MeV]  39(2)  33(1)  19(1)  11(1)  4.4(0.6)  0 
[MeV]  5.6(2.3)  1.8(1.2)  0.18(48)  0.13(35)  0.13(0.09)  0 
To extrapolate the lattice results to the physical point, NLO PT Gasser and Leutwyler (1985) is used to determine the values of which reproduce
(26) 
It is interesting to note that despite ignoring the issues of quark mass renormalization, this yields the values
(27) 
which are remarkably similar to the proper lattice determination of the light and strange quark masses Colangelo et al. (2011). The NLO PT formula provide a controlled and convergent description of both and over the full range of quark masses used, see Fig. 1.
iii.2 Large and Consistency of Hyperon Axial Charges
One of the major failings in the application of heavy baryon PT is a lack of consistency between the determination of the axial coupling constants, , , and when determined from the baryon spectrum WalkerLoud et al. (2009); Ishikawa et al. (2009) versus a direct calculation of the hyperon axial charges Lin and Orginos (2009a). The direct lattice determination^{6}^{6}6In Ref. Lin and Orginos (2009a), , and were computed which were used to infer the values of and . yields values consistent with the phenomenological values FloresMendieta et al. (1998), while the indirect determination from the baryon spectrum yields values consistent with zero. The small values of the axial couplings returned indicate the numerical results do not support evidence for the leading nonanalytic light quark mass dependence predicted in the spectrum. This problem is not unique to the heavy baryon PT extrapolations, with large contributions from kaon and eta loops, but also observed in the extrapolation of just the nucleon mass. As demonstrated in Refs. WalkerLoud et al. (2009); WalkerLoud (2008), for MeV, there are large cancellations between the LO, NLO and NNLO contributions to the nucleon mass; in order to accommodate the large negative mass contribution occurring at NLO, the leading nonanalytic light quark mass dependence, there must be a compensating large but positive contribution from the LO and NNLO terms, signaling a breakdown of the perturbative expansion for these heavier pion masses. A similar and more severe situation occurs for the chiral expansion. As we shall demonstrate in the next sections, it may be we are simply asking the wrong questions of heavy baryon PT.
iii.2.1 Mass relation
The mass relation is a flavor singlet mass combination designed to isolate the contribution plus higher order chiral corrections. Starting with the lightest quark mass and including successively heavier values of , there are four possible ranges of light quark masses which can be used to perform the chiral extrapolation analysis. Both LO and NLO analyses are performed over all these ranges of light quark masses. In the NLO analysis, the subleading in axial coefficient is set to zero, . Several choices of the parameter are taken to explore systematics from higher orders in the chiral expansion:
(28) 
From the LO analysis, the following LECs are obtained
(29) 
Extrapolating to the physical values of the light and strange quark masses gives
(30) 
which is to be compared with MeV. Performing the NLO analysis, the LECs are determined to be
(31) 
with a determination
(32) 
In Fig. 2, representative fits of from LO and NLO are displayed. One may take comfort in the consistent values of the LECs and between the LO and NLO analyses. However, this is not surprising given the small value of determined in the NLO analysis. This small value is consistent with no contributions from the NLO terms and inconsistent with the known phenomenological determination of the axial coupling. This is not surprising given the convergence issues observed in the extrapolation of the nucleon mass WalkerLoud et al. (2009); WalkerLoud (2008). One is left to conclude that the heavy baryon PT does not provide a controlled, convergent expansion for the mass combination for the range of quark masses used in this work.
iii.2.2 Mass relations and
The relations and both receive leading contributions from flavoroctet mass operators, vanishing in both the vector as well as chiral limits. From these symmetries, the relations and are more sensitive to the nonanalytic light quark mass dependence occurring at NLO in the chiral expansion. As with the analysis of , three choices of the parameter are taken to estimate higher order effects, Eq. (III.2.1). The LO expressions for and , Eqs. (II.2) and (II.2) with , do not describe the numerical results well; it is clear higher order contributions are necessary for extrapolations of this data. At NLO, the analysis of and becomes correlated. The full covariance matrix is constructed as described in Ref. Jenkins et al. (2010). The numerical results of Ref. WalkerLoud et al. (2009) are insufficient to constrain both the leading and subleading axial coefficients, and so the analysis is restricted to the set of LECs
(33) 
with . From the NLO analysis, the LECs are determined to be
(34) 
Using the leading large relations with in Eq. (II.1), this corresponds to
(35) 
The significance of this is prominent; the large value of the axial coupling is strong evidence for the presence of the nonanalytic light quark mass dependence in these mass relations. Further, this is the first time an analysis of the baryon spectrum has returned values of the axial couplings consistent with phenomenology.^{7}^{7}7Finding values of the axial couplings consistent with phenomenology has not just been a challenge for lattice QCD, but also observed in large PT analysis of the experimentally measured baryon magnetic moments FloresMendieta (2009); Ahuatzin et al. (2010).
However, caution is in order. Examining the resulting contributions to and from LO and NLO separately, one observes a delicate cancellation between the different contributions, see Fig. 3. Further studies are needed with more numerical data sufficient to also constrain the parameter as well as the NNLO contributions.
iii.3 GellMann–Okubo Relation
The leading contribution to the GellMann–Okubo relation is from a flavor, which in HBPT come from the leading nonanalytic light quark mass dependence, Eq. (II.2). For this reason, it is a particularly interesting mass relation to study, as has been done if Refs. Beane et al. (2007a); WalkerLoud et al. (2009). In this article, the analysis is taken a step further. Close to the vector limit, the GMO relation can be described by a taylor expansion in ,
(36) 
The leading term proportional to must vanish as it transforms as a flavor. The contribution is equivalent to an NNLO contribution from HBPT and the contribution is equivalent to an NNNNLO HBPT contribution. We demonstrate the first few nonvanishing terms in this taylor expansion are inconsistent with the numerical lattice data. We further demonstrate the NNLO HBPT formula can naturally accommodate the strong light quark mass dependence, which is dominated by the nonanalytic contributions.
In Fig. 4, four plots are displayed. The first plot (upper left) is the result of an NLO analysis of the GMO formula, allowing the axial coupling to be determined from the data, resulting in a small, but nonzero value for . The second plot (upper right) displays the predicted value of the GMO relation from NLO taking the determination of from the analysis of and . The third plot (bottom left) shows the result of a taylor expansion about the vector limit fitting the first two nonvanishing terms. Finally, the NNLO analysis is displayed, using Eqs. (II.2) and (II.2) with , and taking from the determination from and (bottom right). Only the NNLO analysis is consistent with the values of the numerical data over the full range of light quark masses, in particular, the steep rise observed as , as well as the value of the axial coupling determined from phenomenology. This is further evidence for the presence of nonanalytic light quark mass dependence in the baryon spectrum.
Iv Conclusions
In this article, we have presented the first substantial evidence for nonanalytic light quark mass contributions to the baryon spectrum. This was achieved by comparing the predictions from heavy baryon PT, combined with the large expansion to relatively high statistics lattice computations of the octet and decuplet spectrum. The numerical results available WalkerLoud et al. (2009) allowed for a detailed comparison of the mass relations , and Jenkins and Lebed (1995) as well as the GellMann–Okubo relation. It was demonstrated the poor convergence of heavy baryon PT is isolated in the mass relation . An analysis of mass relations and provided for the first time, values of the axial couplings which are consistent with the phenomenological determination, signaling significant contributions from nonanalytic light quark mass dependence in and . At leading order in the large expansion, it was found
It was further demonstrated that the GellMann–Okubo relation is inconsistent with the first two nonvanishing terms in a taylor expansion about the vector limit, and that the steep rise in the numerical data, observed as , can only be described by the NNLO heavy baryon PT formula which is dominated by chiral loop contributions. Taken together, these observations indicate the first significant evidence for the presence of nonanalytic light quark mass dependence in the baryon spectrum.
This is not the definitive work however. There are several known systematics which were not addressed in the present article, and require future, more precise lattice results:

the numerical data used WalkerLoud et al. (2009) exist at only a single lattice spacing,

a continuum PT analysis was performed,

there may be contamination from finite volume effects Beane et al. (2011b),

the convergence issues need further examination,

more precise numerical results are needed to explore mass relations – which should be more sensitive to nonanalytic light quark mass dependence,

results with smaller values of the light quark mass are desireable,

the strange quark mass used in this work is known to be 25% to large Aubin et al. (2004b).
Addressing these systematics is beyond the scope of this work. However, current lattice calculations underway should be able to explore these mass relations in more detail. In particular, the new strategy presented in Ref. Bietenholz et al. (2010, 2011), where the sum of the quark masses is held fixed, , for a range of light and strange quark masses, proves very promising for comparing with predictions from PT. Further, the strategy is not limited to the spectrum, with similar relations having been recently determined for the baryon magnetic moments Jenkins (2011).
Acknowledgements.
We thank the LHP Collaboration for use of their numerical data WalkerLoud et al. (2009). We thank E. E. Jenkins for involvement at early stages of this work and we warmly acknowledge the hospitality of the UCSD High Energy Theory Group where part of this work was completed. We thank C. Bernard for useful discussions and the values of used for scale setting. The work of AWL was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Divisions of Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. DOE under Contract No. DEAC0205CH11231.References
 Aoki et al. (2009) S. Aoki et al. (PACSCS), Phys. Rev. D79, 034503 (2009), eprint 0807.1661.
 Bazavov et al. (2010) A. Bazavov et al. (MILC), Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1349 (2010), eprint 0903.3598.
 Aoki et al. (2010) S. Aoki et al. (PACSCS), Phys. Rev. D81, 074503 (2010), eprint 0911.2561.
 Durr et al. (2011a) S. Durr et al., Phys. Lett. B701, 265 (2011a), eprint 1011.2403.
 Durr et al. (2011b) S. Durr et al., JHEP 08, 148 (2011b), eprint 1011.2711.
 Durr et al. (2008) S. Durr et al., Science 322, 1224 (2008), eprint 0906.3599.
 (7) See for example conference proceedings from the International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, URL http://pos.sissa.it/cgibin/reader/family.cgi?code=lattice.
 Weinberg (1979) S. Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979).
 Colangelo et al. (2011) G. Colangelo et al., Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1695 (2011), eprint 1011.4408.
 Aubin et al. (2004a) C. Aubin et al. (MILC), Phys. Rev. D70, 114501 (2004a), eprint heplat/0407028.
 Gasser et al. (1988) J. Gasser, M. E. Sainio, and A. Svarc, Nucl. Phys. B307, 779 (1988).
 WalkerLoud et al. (2009) A. WalkerLoud et al. (LHPC), Phys. Rev. D79, 054502 (2009), eprint 0806.4549.
 Ishikawa et al. (2009) K. I. Ishikawa et al. (PACSCS), Phys. Rev. D80, 054502 (2009), eprint 0905.0962.
 Torok et al. (2010) A. Torok et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D81, 074506 (2010), eprint 0907.1913.
 Beane (2004) S. R. Beane, Nucl.Phys. B695, 192 (2004), eprint heplat/0403030.
 WalkerLoud (2008) A. WalkerLoud, PoS LATTICE2008, 005 (2008), eprint 0810.0663.
 Jenkins and Manohar (1991a) E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B255, 558 (1991a).
 Jenkins and Manohar (1991b) E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B259, 353 (1991b).
 Georgi (1990) H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B240, 447 (1990).
 Bernard et al. (1995) V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U.G. Meissner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E4, 193 (1995), eprint hepph/9501384.
 Bernard (2008) V. Bernard, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 60, 82 (2008), eprint 0706.0312.
 Donoghue et al. (1999) J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, and B. Borasoy, Phys. Rev. D59, 036002 (1999), eprint hepph/9804281.
 Leinweber et al. (2000) D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas, K. Tsushima, and S. V. Wright, Phys. Rev. D61, 074502 (2000), eprint heplat/9906027.
 Leinweber et al. (2004) D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas, and R. D. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 242002 (2004), eprint heplat/0302020.
 Becher and Leutwyler (1999) T. Becher and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C9, 643 (1999), eprint hepph/9901384.
 Fuchs et al. (2003) T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, G. Japaridze, and S. Scherer, Phys.Rev. D68, 056005 (2003), eprint hepph/0302117.
 Martin Camalich et al. (2010) J. Martin Camalich, L. S. Geng, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D82, 074504 (2010), eprint 1003.1929.
 Tiburzi and WalkerLoud (2008) B. C. Tiburzi and A. WalkerLoud, Phys. Lett. B669, 246 (2008), eprint 0808.0482.
 Jiang et al. (2011) F.J. Jiang, B. C. Tiburzi, and A. WalkerLoud, Phys. Lett. B695, 329 (2011), eprint 0911.4721.
 ’t Hooft (1974) G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B72, 461 (1974).
 Witten (1979) E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B160, 57 (1979).
 Dashen and Manohar (1993a) R. F. Dashen and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B315, 425 (1993a), eprint hepph/9307241.
 Dashen and Manohar (1993b) R. F. Dashen and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B315, 438 (1993b), eprint hepph/9307242.
 Jenkins (1993) E. E. Jenkins, Phys. Lett. B315, 441 (1993), eprint hepph/9307244.
 Dashen et al. (1994) R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D49, 4713 (1994), eprint hepph/9310379.
 FloresMendieta et al. (2000) R. FloresMendieta, C. P. Hofmann, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D62, 034001 (2000), eprint hepph/0001218.
 Jenkins et al. (2010) E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, J. W. Negele, and A. WalkerLoud, Phys. Rev. D81, 014502 (2010), eprint 0907.0529.
 GellMann et al. (1968) M. GellMann, R. J. Oakes, and B. Renner, Phys. Rev. 175, 2195 (1968).
 Jenkins (1992) E. E. Jenkins, Nucl. Phys. B368, 190 (1992).
 Jenkins (1996) E. E. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. D53, 2625 (1996), eprint hepph/9509433.
 Dashen et al. (1995) R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D51, 3697 (1995), eprint hepph/9411234.
 Lutz and Semke (2011) M. F. M. Lutz and A. Semke, Phys. Rev. D83, 034008 (2011), eprint 1012.4365.
 Jenkins and Lebed (1995) E. E. Jenkins and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D52, 282 (1995), eprint hepph/9502227.
 Semke and Lutz (2011) A. Semke and M. F. M. Lutz (2011), eprint 1111.0238.
 WalkerLoud (2005) A. WalkerLoud, Nucl. Phys. A747, 476 (2005), eprint heplat/0405007.
 WalkerLoud (2006) A. WalkerLoud (2006), eprint heplat/0608010.
 Kaplan (1992) D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B288, 342 (1992), eprint heplat/9206013.
 Shamir (1993a) Y. Shamir, Phys. Lett. B305, 357 (1993a), eprint heplat/9212010.
 Shamir (1993b) Y. Shamir, Nucl. Phys. B406, 90 (1993b), eprint heplat/9303005.
 Shamir (1999) Y. Shamir, Phys. Rev. D59, 054506 (1999), eprint heplat/9807012.
 Furman and Shamir (1995) V. Furman and Y. Shamir, Nucl. Phys. B439, 54 (1995), eprint heplat/9405004.
 Orginos and Toussaint (1999) K. Orginos and D. Toussaint (MILC), Phys. Rev. D59, 014501 (1999), eprint heplat/9805009.
 Orginos et al. (1999) K. Orginos, D. Toussaint, and R. L. Sugar (MILC), Phys. Rev. D60, 054503 (1999), eprint heplat/9903032.
 Bernard et al. (2001) C. W. Bernard et al. (MILC), Phys. Rev. D64, 054506 (2001), eprint heplat/0104002.
 Renner et al. (2005) D. B. Renner et al. (LHPC), Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 140, 255 (2005), eprint heplat/0409130.
 Edwards et al. (2006a) R. G. Edwards et al. (LHPC), PoS LAT2005, 056 (2006a), eprint heplat/0509185.
 Edwards et al. (2006b) R. G. Edwards et al. (LHPC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 052001 (2006b), eprint heplat/0510062.
 Hägler et al. (2008) P. Hägler et al. (LHPC), Phys. Rev. D77, 094502 (2008), eprint 0705.4295.
 Bratt et al. (2010) J. D. Bratt et al. (LHPC), Phys. Rev. D82, 094502 (2010), eprint 1001.3620.
 Beane et al. (2006a) S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, K. Orginos, and M. J. Savage (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D73, 054503 (2006a), eprint heplat/0506013.
 Beane et al. (2006b) S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, K. Orginos, and M. J. Savage (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 012001 (2006b), eprint heplat/0602010.
 Beane et al. (2007a) S. R. Beane, K. Orginos, and M. J. Savage (NPLQCD), Phys. Lett. B654, 20 (2007a), eprint heplat/0604013.
 Beane et al. (2007b) S. R. Beane, K. Orginos, and M. J. Savage (NPLQCD), Nucl. Phys. B768, 38 (2007b), eprint heplat/0605014.
 Beane et al. (2007c) S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, K. Orginos, and M. J. Savage (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D75, 094501 (2007c), eprint heplat/0606023.
 Beane et al. (2006c) S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D74, 114503 (2006c), eprint heplat/0607036.
 Beane et al. (2007d) S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Nucl. Phys. A794, 62 (2007d), eprint heplat/0612026.
 Beane et al. (2008a) S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D77, 014505 (2008a), eprint 0706.3026.
 Beane et al. (2008b) S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D77, 094507 (2008b), eprint 0709.1169.
 Beane et al. (2008c) S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 082004 (2008c), eprint 0710.1827.
 Detmold et al. (2008a) W. Detmold et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D78, 014507 (2008a), eprint 0803.2728.
 Beane et al. (2008d) S. R. Beane, K. Orginos, and M. J. Savage (NPLQCD), Int. J. Mod. Phys. E17, 1157 (2008d), eprint 0805.4629.
 Detmold et al. (2008b) W. Detmold, K. Orginos, M. J. Savage, and A. WalkerLoud (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D78, 054514 (2008b), eprint 0807.1856.
 Detmold and Savage (2009) W. Detmold and M. J. Savage (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 032004 (2009), eprint 0809.0892.
 Beane et al. (2011a) S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD) (2011a), eprint 1108.1380.
 Lin and Orginos (2009a) H.W. Lin and K. Orginos, Phys. Rev. D79, 034507 (2009a), eprint 0712.1214.
 Lin and Orginos (2009b) H.W. Lin and K. Orginos, Phys. Rev. D79, 074507 (2009b), eprint 0812.4456.
 Lin et al. (2009) H.W. Lin, S. D. Cohen, N. Mathur, and K. Orginos, Phys. Rev. D80, 054027 (2009), eprint 0905.4120.
 Liu et al. (2010) L. Liu, H.W. Lin, K. Orginos, and A. WalkerLoud, Phys. Rev. D81, 094505 (2010), eprint 0909.3294.
 Aubin et al. (2010) C. Aubin, J. Laiho, and R. S. Van de Water, Phys. Rev. D81, 014507 (2010), eprint 0905.3947.
 Bär et al. (2003) O. Bär, G. Rupak, and N. Shoresh, Phys. Rev. D67, 114505 (2003), eprint heplat/0210050.
 Bär et al. (2004) O. Bär, G. Rupak, and N. Shoresh, Phys. Rev. D70, 034508 (2004), eprint heplat/0306021.
 Bär et al. (2005) O. Bär, C. Bernard, G. Rupak, and N. Shoresh, Phys. Rev. D72, 054502 (2005), eprint heplat/0503009.
 Golterman et al. (2005) M. Golterman, T. Izubuchi, and Y. Shamir, Phys. Rev. D71, 114508 (2005), eprint heplat/0504013.
 Tiburzi (2005) B. C. Tiburzi, Phys. Rev. D72, 094501 (2005), eprint heplat/0508019.
 Chen et al. (2006) J.W. Chen, D. O’Connell, R. S. Van de Water, and A. WalkerLoud, Phys. Rev. D73, 074510 (2006), eprint heplat/0510024.
 Prelovsek (2006) S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D73, 014506 (2006), eprint heplat/0510080.
 Aubin et al. (2007) C. Aubin, J. Laiho, and R. S. Van de Water, Phys. Rev. D75, 034502 (2007), eprint heplat/0609009.
 Chen et al. (2007) J.W. Chen, D. O’Connell, and A. WalkerLoud, Phys. Rev. D75, 054501 (2007), eprint heplat/0611003.
 Jiang (2007) F.J. Jiang (2007), eprint heplat/0703012.
 Orginos and WalkerLoud (2008) K. Orginos and A. WalkerLoud, Phys. Rev. D77, 094505 (2008), eprint 0705.0572.
 Chen et al. (2009a) J.W. Chen, D. O’Connell, and A. WalkerLoud, JHEP 04, 090 (2009a), eprint 0706.0035.
 Aubin et al. (2008) C. Aubin, J. Laiho, and R. S. Van de Water, Phys. Rev. D77, 114501 (2008), eprint 0803.0129.
 Chen et al. (2009b) J.W. Chen, M. Golterman, D. O’Connell, and A. WalkerLoud, Phys. Rev. D79, 117502 (2009b), eprint 0905.2566.
 Blum et al. (2004) T. Blum et al., Phys. Rev. D69, 074502 (2004), eprint heplat/0007038.
 Gasser and Leutwyler (1985) J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985).
 FloresMendieta et al. (1998) R. FloresMendieta, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D58, 094028 (1998), eprint hepph/9805416.
 FloresMendieta (2009) R. FloresMendieta, Phys. Rev. D80, 094014 (2009), eprint 0910.1103.
 Ahuatzin et al. (2010) G. Ahuatzin, R. FloresMendieta, and M. A. HernandezRuiz (2010), eprint 1011.5268.
 Beane et al. (2011b) S. R. Beane et al., Phys. Rev. D84, 014507 (2011b), eprint 1104.4101.
 Aubin et al. (2004b) C. Aubin et al. (HPQCD, MILC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D70, 031504 (2004b), eprint heplat/0405022.
 Bietenholz et al. (2010) W. Bietenholz et al., Phys. Lett. B690, 436 (2010), eprint 1003.1114.
 Bietenholz et al. (2011) W. Bietenholz et al., Phys. Rev. D84, 054509 (2011), eprint 1102.5300.
 Jenkins (2011) E. E. Jenkins (2011), eprint 1111.2055.