the search for the exotic states ( tetraquarks , hybrids , hadronic molecules , etc ) in the observed hadron spectrum has been a subject of both theoretical and experimental investigations for decades .
the exact pattern , how these states emerge , should be strictly determined by the underlying theory and should therefore contain important information about the behavior of qcd at low energies . in practice , however , extracting such information from the data encounters certain challenges , which are in part of a conceptual nature . in the present paper we wish to focus exactly on this issue .
in general , a state is called `` exotic '' if its quark content does not correspond to the `` standard '' constellation given by the non - relativistic quark model ( @xmath2 for mesons and @xmath3 for baryons ) .
consequently , one needs to use a particular model as a reference point to define how the exotic states are meant ( note that the very notion of constituent quarks is , strictly speaking , model - dependent ) .
putting it differently , one has to _ agree _ on certain _ criteria _ formulated in terms of certain hadronic _ observables _ :
if these observables are measured , or calculated on the lattice , and the results do not follow the pattern predicted by the quark model , this then should be interpreted as a signature for exotica .
a standard example for the exotic state candidates is given by the scalar nonet with the masses around 1  gev .
as it is well known , the observed mass hierarchy in this nonet is reversed as compared to , e.g. , the pseudoscalar or vector multiplets .
such a mass ordering is counter - intuitive from the point of view of the naive quark model , but can be easily understood , if the scalar mesons were interpreted as tetraquark states ( see , e.g. ,  @xcite ) .
this is , however , not the only possible interpretation . in refs .
@xcite , the @xmath4 and @xmath5 were considered as hadronic molecules , whereas in refs .
@xcite these states were described as a combination of a bare pole and the rescattering contribution . in the jlich meson - exchange model
, the @xmath5 appears to be a bound @xmath6 state , whereas the @xmath4 is a dynamically generated threshold effect @xcite .
similar conclusions were inferred in ref .
@xcite from the calculations in the unitarized chpt with explicit resonance states .
finally , the investigations carried out within the framework of qcd sum rules are also indicative of the non-@xmath2 nature of @xmath4  @xcite . given these multiple interpretations , it is natural to look for the clear - cut criteria based on the _ observables _ in order to minimize the _ model - dependence _ of the statements about the nature of the hadronic states in question .
in fact , such criteria are known for quite some time already .
the `` pole counting '' method , considered in refs .
@xcite , relates the number of the @xmath7-matrix poles near threshold to the molecular nature of the states corresponding to these poles .
namely , it has been argued that the loosely bound states of hadrons ( hadronic molecules ) correspond to a single pole , whereas the poles corresponding to the tightly bound quark states ( of standard or exotic nature ) always come in pairs .
a closely related criterion goes under the name of weinberg s compositeness condition  @xcite , which uses the quantity called the wave function renormalization constant @xmath0 , where @xmath8 , to differentiate between the loosely bound states and tight qcd composites , the values @xmath9 corresponding to the molecular states and _ vice versa . _
the application of these methods for the analysis of the data on scalar mesons are considered in refs .
@xcite , and the recent review on the subject may be found in ref .
moreover , _ theoretically , _ one may study the dependence of the pole positions on the number of the colors @xmath10 ( see refs .
@xcite ) or the quark masses ( refs .
@xcite ) . from the above studies
, one can judge about the precise structure of these states beyond the simple alternative between a molecule and a tight quark composite .
recent years have seen a renewed interest in the field , which is partly related to the progress in the lattice calculations of the qcd spectrum at the quark masses close to the physical values .
it should be realized that the lattice studies have powerful tools at their disposal to analyze the nature of the states that emerge in qcd .
apart from the information about the dependence of the spectrum on quark masses , a valuable information comes from the volume dependence of the calculated spectrum as well as its dependence on the twisting angle in case of twisted boundary conditions , see refs .
note that all this information is obtained from the first - principle calculations on the lattice and is thus in principle devoid of any model - dependent input .    in this paper
we investigate the nature of the scalar states in the sector with one charm quark that is a natural generalization of our treatment of the light scalar mesons .
we mainly focus on the case of the @xmath11 meson  @xcite , albeit the formalism , which we develop here , can be straightforwardly applied to the other cases where a bound state close to the elastic threshold emerges ( note that , in this paper , we do not consider the generalization of the approach to the inelastic case .
this forms a subject of a separate investigation . ) .
the @xmath11 does not fit very nicely to the quark - model picture , and its structure is still debated , see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite for a recent review . the molecular picture , due to the closeness of the @xmath1 threshold and a large coupling to the @xmath1 channel looks most promising among other alternatives
. it would be highly desirable to verify this conjecture in a model - independent manner , on the basis of the lattice calculations .
to this end , one may use the fact that the dependence of the bound - state energy on the kaon mass is very different for a molecule and a standard quark - model state , see ref .
another possible method to address this issue has been described , e.g. , in refs .
@xcite , where the authors propose to study the volume - dependence of the spectrum in order to apply the weinberg s compositeness criterion on the lattice .
the exploratory study of light pseudoscalar mesons @xmath12 of @xmath13 in full lattice qcd has been carried out in refs .
@xcite . in some isospin channels
the study is plagued by the presence of disconnected contributions .
the implementation of the method from refs .
@xcite , which implies carrying out calculations at different volumes , could be therefore quite expensive . in this paper
we propose an alternative , which requires calculations at one volume , albeit with twisted boundary conditions .
moreover , we show that , in the study of @xmath11 , one may use _ partially twisted _ boundary conditions , despite the fact that the quark annihilation diagrams are present .
the method used in the proof is the same as in ref .
generally , one may expect that the simulations with partially twisted boundary conditions could be less expensive than working at different volumes , while they provide us the same information about the nature of the bound states in question .
this article is organized as follows . in sect .
[ compositeness ] , we briefly review weinberg s argument for the compositeness of particles . in sect .  [
sec : mass - shift ] we describe the procedure of extraction of the parameter @xmath0 from the data with twisted boundary condition .
further , in sect .  [ models ] we use some models and produce synthetic lattice data in order to check the procedure of the extraction in practice .
the error analysis has also been carried out . separately , in sect .  [ partially ] ,
we discuss the use of the partially twisted boundary conditions and show that they are equivalent to the full twisting in our case .
[ conclusions ] contains our conclusions .
as mentioned before , in view of the plethora of candidates of exotic hadrons , it is very important to make model - independent statements on the nature of these states .
model - independence requires that we can only study the physical observables which can be defined in terms of the matrix elements between asymptotic states .
in particular , we would like to ask a question , whether a given particle , corresponding to the @xmath7-matrix pole , can be regarded as `` elementary '' or rather as a bound state ( molecule ) of other hadrons .
the central place in this identification belongs to the so - called wave function renormalization constant @xmath0 , which has been used to distinguish composite particles from elementary ones since the early 1960 s  @xcite . to see its role ,
we will first discuss a non - relativistic quantum mechanical system , following the discussion of ref .
@xcite .    in this section
, we will restrict our discussion to the infinite volume .
let us consider a two - body system with a hamiltonian @xmath14 , where @xmath15 is the free hamiltonian , and @xmath16 specifies the interaction . both @xmath17 and @xmath15 have a continuum spectrum .
let us assume that there is a bound state solution of the schrdinger equation with a binding energy @xmath18 , @xmath19 and @xmath15 also has a discrete spectrum which are the bare elementary particles . for simplicity
, we will assume that there is only one such state , denoted by @xmath20 .
in the hilbert space spanned by the eigenstates of the free hamiltonian , the completeness relation is thus given by @xmath21 where @xmath22 is the reduced mass .
thus , the probability for the physical state @xmath23 overlapping with the elementary state @xmath20 which , by definition , equals to @xmath0 , is given by @xmath24 ^ 2 } , \label{eq : bb0}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where eq .
is used . the quantity
@xmath25 then describes the probability of the physical state not being the elementary state or finding the physical state in the two - particle state . in other words
, @xmath26 corresponds to a mostly elementary state whereas a state with @xmath9 can be interpreted as a predominately molecular one .    in general , the above integral depends on the matrix element @xmath27 , which is not directly measurable .
however , for loosely bound states , the quantity @xmath0 can be related to the observables .
consider , for instance , an s - wave bound state with a small binding energy .
the binding energy should be much smaller than the inverse of the range of forces so that the matrix element @xmath27 can be approximated by a constant @xmath28 .
we get from eq .
@xmath29 note that , in the past , this equation has been often applied to distinguish composite particles from elementary ones , see e.g.  @xcite .
the non - relativistic coupling constant @xmath30 coincides with the residue of the non - relativistic scattering matrix at the bound state pole .
this can be immediately seen , considering the low equation @xmath31 in the vicinity of the pole  @xcite . here , @xmath32 .
finally , we would like to relate the quantity @xmath0 to the physical observables , namely , to the scattering length @xmath33 and effective range @xmath34 . here , we are closely following the path of ref .
it is important to note that these relations can be derived when the binding energy is much smaller than the inverse of the range of forces .
we start with the twice - subtracted dispersion relation for the inverse of @xmath35 @xmath36 where the two subtraction constants have been determined from eq .  .
the s - wave transition matrix element is related to the non - relativistic s - wave scattering amplitude @xmath37 $ ] as @xmath38 with @xmath39 and @xmath40 being the s - wave phase shift .
thus , one gets @xmath41 . inserting this into eq .
, we obtain @xmath42 where @xmath43 denotes the characteristic distance between the constituents in the two - body bound system . comparing the above expression with the effective range expansion @xmath44 , and using eq .  , one can express the scattering length and effective range in terms of the binding energy and compositeness  @xcite @xmath45 therefore , for an s - wave shallow two - body bound state , the compositeness can be measured by measuring the low - energy scattering parameters .
next , we turn to the compositeness condition within the framework of the quantum field theory . for simplicity ,
let us first consider the situation when a scalar particle described by a field @xmath46 with the bare mass @xmath47 couples with two scalars @xmath48 with the masses @xmath49 .
the interaction lagrangian takes the form @xmath50 .
consider now the two - point function of the field @xmath46 @xmath51 summing up one - loop bubble diagrams to the two - point function , one arrives at the expression ( see fig .  [
fig : bubble ] ) @xmath52 where the one - loop self - energy is given by @xmath53 the relativistic scattering amplitude for the process @xmath54 in the same approximation is given by ( see fig .  [
fig : bubble ] ) is used in the definition of the @xmath55-matrix . ]
@xmath56 the relativistic and the non - relativistic scattering matrices are the same up to an overall normalization . in the rest frame of the bound system
, the relation takes the form @xmath57 where @xmath58 .
now , let us consider the behavior of the scattering amplitude in the vicinity of the bound - state pole .
the two - point function has the following behavior @xmath59 where @xmath60 is the physical mass .
( a ) and the two - point function of the field @xmath61 ( b ) .
only one - loop bubbles are summed up .
solid ( dashed ) lines denote @xmath62 ( @xmath61 ) fields , respectively.,width=377 ]    the residue of the propagator determines the wave function renormalization constant for the particle @xmath61 : @xmath63 where @xmath64 is the renormalized coupling constant , and @xmath65 . in order to establish the relation of the quantity @xmath0 , defined by eq .
( [ eq : zrel ] ) , with its non - relativistic counterpart , we perform the contour integration over @xmath66 of the loop integral in eq .  :
@xmath67 where @xmath68 and @xmath69 . in the rest frame of the bound state
, one has @xmath70 .
taking derivative with respect to @xmath71 , and then taking the non - relativistic approximation which amounts to @xmath72 and @xmath73 , we get @xmath74 ^ 2 } , \ ] ] where we have used @xmath75 . taking into account the difference between relativistic and non - relativistic normalizations , we finally arrive at the relation @xmath76 , cf . with eq .
( [ eq : low ] ) . comparing now this relation with eq .  , one immediately sees that the wave function renormalization constant @xmath0 is the same as its non - relativistic counterpart and thus the compositeness condition for an s - wave bound state can be written as @xmath77 one might treat the above argumentation with a grain of salt , since it is based on certain approximations .
namely , the amplitude is given as a sum of one - loop diagrams only .
it is , however , clear that the result is valid beyond this approximation , if bound states close to an elastic threshold are considered .
the justification is provided by the statement that such bound states can be consistently described within a non - relativistic effective field theory , which is perturbatively matched to the underlying relativistic theory ( see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite for a review on the subject ) .
such an effective theory is equivalent to the non - relativistic quantum mechanics ( the number of particles is conserved ) and hence the compositeness can be rigorously defined along the lines discussed above .
finally , we would like to mention that the quantity @xmath0 , which is defined in eq .
( [ eq : zrel ] ) , is ultraviolet finite , since the quantity @xmath78 is defined through the residue of the _ renormalized _ scattering amplitude .
as stated above , the wave function renormalization constant , @xmath0 , gives an overlap of the physical state with the elementary state and hence could be used as a parameter that describes the compositeness of a given state .
lattice calculations provide a model - independent way to determine @xmath0 from the volume dependence of the spectrum  @xcite , or  as we propose in this paper  from the dependence on the twisting angle . in this section
we set up a finite - volume formalism , which describes the dependence of the bound - state mass on the volume or twisting angle .
we consider elastic scattering of particles with the masses @xmath79 and @xmath80 in the s - wave .
then , generally , a unitary partial - wave amplitude in infinite volume is given by @xmath81 where @xmath82[s-(m_1-m_2)^2]$ ] is the relative momentum squared in the center of mass ( c.m . ) frame .
further , the function @xmath83 ( `` the inverse potential '' ) is a regular function in the vicinity of the threshold .
the notation used here is reminiscent of that of unitarized chiral perturbation theory , but eq .
may in fact describe any elastic unitary amplitude , with the particular dynamics encoded in the function @xmath84 . the loop function @xmath85 is given by eqs .   and .
this function contains a unitarity cut . across this cut
, we have @xmath86 .
other ( distant ) cuts that may be also present are included in @xmath84 .
the loop function @xmath85 is divergent and has to be renormalized .
here we do the renormalization with a subtraction constant . as it will be seen below
, the extension to the finite volume is independent of any regulator .    when the particles are put in a finite box of size @xmath87 , their momenta become discretized due to boundary conditions .
so , the continuum spectrum , which gives rise to the cut in the infinite volume , becomes a discrete set of two - particle levels . in order to obtain the spectrum in a finite volume
, one should replace the momentum integrals by the sums over the discretized momenta in the expression of the scattering amplitude .
then , the `` finite volume scattering amplitude '' @xmath88 contains poles on the real axis that correspond to the discrete two - particle levels .
it should be noted that the finite - volume effects in @xmath84 are exponentially suppressed ( see , e.g. ,  @xcite ) , so the the finite volume scattering amplitude can be obtained just by changing the loop function by its finite volume counterpart @xmath89  @xcite , where @xmath90\ , .\ ] ] here @xmath91 denotes the integrand in eq .  , and @xmath92 the allowed momenta in a finite volume , whose value depends on the box size @xmath87 and the boundary conditions used . for the periodic boundary conditions we have @xmath93 , @xmath94 .
in case of twisted boundary conditions , the momenta also depend on the twisting angle @xmath95 according to @xmath96 . using the methods of ref .
@xcite , it can be shown that @xmath97 can be related to the modified lscher function @xmath98 , see appendix  [ appendix - deltag ] , @xmath99 where @xmath100 and the dots stand for terms that are exponentially suppressed with the volume size @xmath87  @xcite .    in this paper
, we are going to apply lscher formalism to study shallow bound states , where the finite - volume effects are exponentially suppressed .
since , for such states , the binding momentum @xmath101 is presumed to be much smaller than the lightest mass in the system , the exponentially suppressed corrections emerging , e.g. , from the potential @xmath84 could be consistently neglected as compared to the corrections @xmath102 that arise from @xmath103 .
note however that , if masses of the constituents increase for a fixed binding energy , then the magnitude of the binding momentum also increases and , for the bound states of heavy mesons , may become comparable to the pion mass . in this case , further study of the problem is necessary .
a recent example of such a study ( albeit in the light quark sector ) is given in ref .
@xcite . in the present paper
this issue is not addressed .
finally , note that the divergences arising at @xmath104 in eq .
cancel between the sum and the integral , so we can safely send the cutoff to infinity .
thus , @xmath97 does not depend on any regulator . in appendix  [ appendix - deltag ]
we show in detail , how @xmath105 could be calculated below threshold for different types of boundary conditions .
bound states show up in the scattering amplitude as poles on the real axis below threshold .
namely , if we have a bound state with the mass @xmath60 in the infinite volume , the scattering amplitude should have a pole at @xmath106 , with the corresponding binding momentum @xmath107 , @xmath108 . from eq .
, it is clear that @xmath60 and @xmath109 satisfy the equation @xmath110 = 0,\ ] ] where @xmath111 is the analytic continuation of @xmath112 for arbitrary complex values of @xmath113 , which is needed since the bound state is located below threshold , @xmath114 . on the other hand ,
the discrete levels in a finite volume are obtained as the poles of the finite - volume scattering amplitude @xmath88 and , in particular , the bound state pole gets shifted to @xmath115 , with binding momentum @xmath116 , given by @xmath117 note that , below threshold , both @xmath118 and @xmath97 are real , so the pole position is real .
the discrete scattering levels above threshold are real as well ( as they should be ) , since the imaginary part of @xmath97 cancels exactly with that of @xmath118 .
next , we relate the finite - volume pole position with the infinite - volume quantities as the bound state mass , @xmath60 , and the coupling , @xmath119 ( defined as the residue of the scattering amplitude at the pole @xmath106 ) . to this end
, we expand @xmath120 around the infinite - volume pole position , @xmath121 , @xmath122 where the prime denotes a derivative respect to @xmath113 .
then , evaluating the residue at @xmath123 in eq .
we obtain @xmath124 where the derivative @xmath125 is to be evaluated at @xmath106 . finally , using eqs .   and
, we obtain for the pole position shift @xmath126\ ] ] this equation gives the bound state pole position , @xmath127 ( or , equivalently , @xmath128 ) as a function of the infinite - volume parameters @xmath119 and @xmath101 .
it is worth noting that , within the approximation  , the position of the bound state pole in a finite volume depends only on these two parameters .
this approximation works remarkably well in all cases considered in this paper .    if the difference @xmath129 is small enough , eq .
can be solved iteratively . for periodic boundary conditions , with the use of eq .
, it can be shown that the lowest - order iterative solution reads @xmath130 which coincides with the result given in refs .
however , it will be shown below that , for shallow bound states , where @xmath101 is very small , one should take more than just the first term in the sum  .
moreover , in some cases , the iterations converge very slowly , if at all .
therefore , in our opinion , it is safer to consider solving eq .   numerically , without further approximations , in order to obtain the finite volume pole position @xmath127
this is the way we proceed .    using eq .
, it is possible to fit the infinite - volume parameters @xmath60 and @xmath119 from the bound state levels @xmath127 , obtained through lattice simulations at different @xmath87 or @xmath95 .
this , in turn , allows one to determine the compositeness parameter from eq .  .
however , in actual lattice simulations , the measured energy levels have some uncertainty , and the number of different volumes or different twisting angles might be not very large .
therefore , it is important to know in advance , at which accuracy should be the lattice measurements carried out , in order to render the extraction of the parameter @xmath0 reliable .
we address this question in some exactly solvable models with a given @xmath84 , producing `` synthetic lattice data , '' adding random errors and trying to extract back the infinite volume parameters @xmath131 and @xmath0 from data .
the potential in this model is given by a `` bare state pole '' , @xmath132 which depends on two parameters : a bare pole position @xmath133 and a bare coupling constant @xmath134 . by appropriately choosing the value of the bare parameters
, we can reproduce a bound state with any given mass @xmath60 and coupling @xmath78 .
if our model describes the interaction of two particles , where a bound state with the mass @xmath60 is present , the scattering partial wave amplitude   should have a pole at @xmath106 , @xmath135 the physical coupling of the bound state , @xmath78 , is given by the residue of the scattering partial - wave amplitude at the bound state pole @xmath136g_0 ^ 2=zg_0 ^ 2\ , .\ ] ] one can use above equations to trade the bare parameters for the physical ones in the expression of the scattering amplitude and write the latter in terms of @xmath60 and @xmath0 : @xmath137}.\ ] ] note that the above amplitude does not depend on the subtraction constant that renders @xmath85 finite .
this model can describe a bound state with any given value of the wave function renormalization constant .
next , we study the finite volume effects in the bound - state mass . in the actual calculations ,
we take @xmath138 , @xmath139 and choose the mass of the bound state to be @xmath140 mev .
this is a shallow bound state at 20  mev below threshold , which corresponds to a binding momentum @xmath141 mev . for the mainly molecular state
we take @xmath142 , and @xmath143 is chosen for the mainly elementary one . for each of these two states
, we calculate their finite - volume mass @xmath115 as the subthreshold pole position in the finite - volume scattering amplitude .    in the left panel of fig .
[ toy - dependence ] , we show the mass of the two states with @xmath142 and @xmath143 as a function of @xmath87 for periodic boundary conditions and do not discuss the pion mass dependence . ] .
these are obtained from the solution of the exact equation  .
it is easy to see that the finite volume effects are much bigger in the case of the molecular state with @xmath142 than in the case of an elementary state with @xmath143 .
this was of course expected in advance , since small finite - volume effects point on a compact nature of the state in question .
here we also plot the solutions of eq .
, using the known values of @xmath60 and @xmath78 , taken from the infinite volume model . in this way we can test the validity of the approximation in eq .  , used to derive eq .   from eq .  , which basically states that all relevant dynamics is encoded only in the two parameters @xmath60 and @xmath78 .
as can be seen in fig .
[ toy - dependence ] , eq .
is able to reproduce the synthetic lattice results very accurately . on the other hand , note
that for shallow bound states the binding momentum @xmath101 is small , so no wonder that the expansion in @xmath97 converges rather slowly .
consequently , retaining only the leading - order term and constructing iterative solution , see eq .  , might not be sufficient in all cases .    in the right panel of the same figure
we show the dependence of the bound - state mass on the twisting angle @xmath144 for the fixed value of @xmath145 .
we see that , for such a choice of twisting , the size of the effect of twisting for a fixed @xmath87 is almost the double of the maximal effect caused by the variation of @xmath87 from the same value to infinity ( periodic boundary conditions ) .
thus , using ( partially ) twisted boundary conditions to determine @xmath0 , besides being cheaper , could give more accurate results than a method based on the study of the volume - dependence of the energy level .
note also that , for the above choice of the twisting angle , the twisting effect is maximal .
other choices , e.g. , @xmath146 lead to a smaller effect .
now we turn our attention to the realistic case of the hadronic bound state @xmath11 in the @xmath1 scattering channel with isospin @xmath147 and strangeness @xmath148 . when isospin symmetry is exact , this state is stable under strong interactions , since it does not couple to the lighter hadronic channels ( the observed decay @xmath149 breaks isospin symmetry ) .
thus , the formalism above , tailored for stable bound states , does apply in this case .
the case of quasi - bound states , which are coupled to inelastic channels , requires special treatment and is not addressed here .
a popular view on the @xmath11 meson is that this state is dynamically generated as a pole through the s - wave interactions between the @xmath150-meson and the kaon in the isoscalar channel  @xcite .
we shall study this system , using the model used from ref .
@xcite , which is based on the leading - order heavy flavor chiral lagrangian  @xcite and unitarizes the amplitude  @xcite .
namely , the infinite - volume amplitude is obtained from eq .   with the s - wave - projected potential @xmath151,\ ] ] where @xmath152 is the cosine of the scattering angle ,
@xmath153 mev is the pion decay constant , and @xmath71 and @xmath154 are usual mandelstam variables .
we regularize the loop function with a subtraction constant @xmath155 , as done in refs .
its value at the scale @xmath156 is taken to be @xmath157 . with this value of the subtraction
constant , we find a bound state pole , associated with the @xmath11 , at @xmath158 , and the coupling to @xmath1 , which is given by the residue of the pole , @xmath159 takes the value @xmath160 .
one can easily calculate the compositeness parameter of the bound state as well , using eq .  .
the calculation yields @xmath161 . hence , in this model
, the @xmath162 is predominately a molecular state .
next , we study this model in a finite volume and consider twisting of different quarks , from which the @xmath150 and @xmath163 mesons consist .
the net effect is that these mesons get different momenta as a result of such twisting , so the expression for @xmath164 changes .
note that this issue is important in view of the fact that partial twisting is allowed only for certain quarks ( see section  [ partially ] for more details ) .    in fig .
[ dk - l - dependence ] , we display the volume dependence of the bound state mass for different twisting angles which are again chosen as @xmath144 . in the left panel
, we plot the @xmath87-dependence for three different values of the twisting angle , when twisted boundary conditions are applied to the @xmath154-quark . in the right panel ,
twisted boundary conditions are applied to the @xmath71-quark .
as we shall see later , in the latter case the use of partial twisting gives the same results as using fully twisted boundary conditions .
the size of the finite volume effects , using twisted boundary conditions for the @xmath165-quark , is very small , so we do not discuss this case . in this model
, we test again that the predictions obtained from eq .  , using the values of @xmath60 and @xmath78 from the infinite - volume model , reproduce very well the exact solution .
consequently , all relevant dynamics of the model near threshold is encoded in just two parameters @xmath78 and @xmath60 . on the other hand
, we see that retaining only the leading exponential in the expansion of @xmath164 will have a large impact on the accuracy .
consequently , the first few terms should be retained .
we see that the convergence is satisfactory : e.g. , taking @xmath166 , where @xmath167 denotes the number of terms retained in the expansion , we see that the largest difference between the synthetic data and the prediction from eq .   is less than 0.1  mev .    analyzing fig .
[ dk - l - dependence ] , we again come to the conclusion that the use of ( partially ) twisted boundary conditions can provide a better way to extract the compositeness parameter @xmath0 from lattice results
. this can already be seen by comparing the curves for @xmath168 and @xmath169 .
one namely observes that the size of the effect due to twisting at a fixed volume is almost twice as big as due to changing the volume for periodic boundary conditions .    in fig .
[ dk - theta - dependence ] , for three different volumes , we show the dependence of the bound - state mass on the twisting angle both for @xmath154- and @xmath71-quark twisting . on the other hand , taking the results of the @xmath170-dependence ( like in fig .  [ dk - theta - dependence ] ) at a fixed volume for granted , one could fit the value of the infinite - volume mass and coupling constant to these data , using eq .  .
after this , it is straightforward to obtain the value of @xmath0 .
in fact , producing four synthetic lattice data points at a fixed @xmath171 and @xmath172 ( either for @xmath154- or @xmath71- quark twisting ) , we were able to obtain values for @xmath60 and @xmath78 that differ less than 1% from those calculated from the infinite volume model by fitting the solution to eq .
( with @xmath173 ) to the synthetic data .
real lattice simulations , however , produce results which carry uncertainties .
hence , the question arises , how big these errors could be in order to be still able to determine @xmath0 with a desired accuracy .
since , as seen from the figures , the finite volume effects ( for reasonable volume sizes , say , above @xmath171 ) are at most around 10 mev , one expects that a relatively high accuracy will be needed in the measurement of the bound - state energy . in order to determine , how high this accuracy should actually be
, we assign an uncertainty to the synthetic data that we generate from our model .
in particular , using the von neumann rejection method , from the `` exact '' data points we generate a new , `` randomized '' data set , where the central values of each data point are shifted randomly , following the gaussian distribution centered at exact data values and with a standard deviation , given by the lattice data error . repeating this process several times , we obtain several sets of synthetic lattice data with errors and central values shifted accordingly .
we then fit each of the randomized data sets and obtain a corresponding value for @xmath60 and @xmath78 ( and therefore , for @xmath0 ) , one for each set , ending up with as many values for the parameters , as many randomized data sets we have generated .
we can obtain then the mean and standard deviation of the distributions for @xmath60 , @xmath78 and @xmath0 .
thus , for a given data error , we can estimate the accuracy of the parameter extraction .
.the accuracy of the extraction of the parameter @xmath0 from the fits to the synthetic lattice data for different input error @xmath174 .
four or eight data points and two different volumes @xmath171 and @xmath175 were used , see main text for details . [ cols="^,^,^,^,^ " , ]     here , we address the same problem in the context of the @xmath1 scattering . the method is described in ref .
@xcite , to which the reader is referred for further details .
consider first the scattering in the infinite volume .
we start from building the channel space by tracking the quarks of different species following through the quark diagrams describing the @xmath1 scattering .
it is clear that , since only light quarks may annihilate , the possible final states contain _ valence _ , _ sea _ or _ ghost _
light quarks with equal masses , as given in table  [ tab : channels ] . omitting channel indices , the resulting _ algebraic _ lippmann - schwinger equation couples 3 different channels [ eq : ls - full ] t = v+vg_dkt , where @xmath55 , @xmath16 and @xmath176 are given by @xmath177 matrices .
the free green function is given by [ eq : g ] g_dk(s ) = g(s )  ( 1,1,-1 ) where @xmath85 is defined in eqs .   and , supplemented by the prescription that the integral is performed in dimensional regularization _
after _ expanding the integrand in powers of 3-momenta ( see refs .
@xcite for details )
. the minus sign on the diagonal of the matrix @xmath176 arises due to fermionic nature of @xmath150 and @xmath163 mesons composed of valence and ( commuting ) ghost quarks .
the crucial point now is that there exist linear symmetry relations between various elements of @xmath55 due to equal valence , sea and ghost quark masses .
note that scattering matrix elements are given by residues of the 4-point green functions @xmath178 of the bilinear quark operators at the poles , corresponding to the external mesonic legs .
decomposing @xmath178 into _ connected _
@xmath179 and _ disconnected _   @xmath180 pieces through wick contractions ( see fig .
[ fig : cd ] ) and noting that quark propagators are the same for all light quark species , we get [ eq : cd ] _
11=_22=t_c - t_d , _ 33=-t_c - t_d , _ 12=_13=_23=_21=_31=_32=-t_d ,    ) and disconnected ( @xmath180 ) diagrams , emerging in @xmath181 scattering amplitudes with various quark species ; @xmath182=@xmath183 . ]
since in our case there are no neutral states and thus no mixing occurs , following the argumentation given in ref .
@xcite , it is easy to show that @xmath55-matrix obeys the same symmetry relations as @xmath184 [ eq : ex1 ] t_11=t_22=t , t_33=-t+2y , t_12=t_13=t_23=t_21=t_31=t_32=y . here
@xmath185 corresponds to the _ physical _ elastic @xmath1 scattering amplitude , i.e scattering in the sector with valence quarks only .
other diagonal entries are _ unphysical _ in the sense that they correspond to scattering of particles , composed of sea and ghost light quarks .
non - diagonal elements of @xmath55-matrix describe coupling between valence and sea / ghost sectors through _ disconnected _ diagrams .
furthermore , it is straightforward to check from eq .
( [ eq : ls - full ] ) that the elements of potential matrix @xmath16 satisfy the same symmetry relations as @xmath55 and can be expressed in the following form [ eq : v - matrix ] v= (    c c c & & + & & + & & -+2 +    ) ,    let us now turn to the case of a finite volume and derive the lscher equation for a couple of particular choices of partially twisted boundary conditions .
note that the potential @xmath16 remains the same ( up to exponentially suppressed in terms @xmath87 ) , while in the loop functions the integration is substituted by summation over lattice momenta .    1 .
twist the @xmath71/@xmath165-quark , leaving @xmath154 and @xmath186-quarks to obey periodic boundary condition . in this case , the matrix of the green functions is @xmath187 .
the solution of the lippmann - schwinger equation in a finite volume for the _ physical _ amplitude @xmath188 is given by t= , where @xmath189 is the loop function @xmath85 in a finite volume .
we see that the finite - volume spectrum in case of the partial twisting is determined from the lscher equation 1-g_l^(s)=0 , in the same way as in the full - twisting case .
thus , the results obtained by using of the partially twisted boundary conditions on the @xmath165- or @xmath71-quark are equivalent to those using full twisting .
2 .   twist the valence @xmath154- and @xmath186-quarks simultaneously , leaving @xmath71- and @xmath165-quarks obey periodic boundary condition . in this case , the ghost light quarks also need to be twisted , and the matrix of the green functions is @xmath190 .
+ the lscher equation determining the finite volume spectrum now takes the form ^2=0 .
vanishing of the first bracket on the r.h.s gives the lscher equation with _ no twisting_. note also that the quantity @xmath191 is in fact the connected part of the scattering potential for the isoscalar @xmath1 system , which is identical to the @xmath1 scattering potential in the isovector channel .
hence , vanishing of the second bracket is equivalent to the fully twisted lscher equation for the isovector @xmath1 scattering   scattering , partial twisting is always equivalent to the full twisting in this case . ] .
* lattice qcd does not only determine the hadron spectrum . under certain circumstances
, it may provide information about the nature of hadrons , which renders lattice simulations extremely useful for the search and the identification of exotic states .
note that the lattice qcd possesses unique tools at its disposal ( e.g. , the study of the volume and quark mass dependence of the measured quantities ) , which are not available to experiment .
* in the present paper , we concentrate on the identification of hadronic molecules on the lattice .
experimentally , one may apply weinberg s compositeness condition to the near - threshold bound states , in order to distinguish the molecular states from the elementary ones . to this end
, one may use the value of the wave function renormalization constant @xmath0 which obeys the inequalities @xmath8 .
the vanishing value of the parameter @xmath0 corresponds to the purely molecular state . in this paper
we consider the lattice version of the weinberg s condition .
* it is known that the quantity @xmath0 can be extracted from lattice data by studying the volume dependence of the measured energy spectrum .
we have shown that the same result can be achieved by measuring the dependence of the spectrum on the twisting angle in case of twisted boundary conditions . moreover , within the method proposed , the expected effect is approximately twice as large in magnitude and comes at a lower computational cost .
further , we have analyzed synthetic data to estimate the accuracy of the energy level measurement which is required for a reliable extraction of the value of @xmath0 on the lattice .
* as an illustration of the method , we consider the @xmath11 meson , which is a candidate of a @xmath1 molecular state .
it is proven that , despite the presence of the so - called annihilation diagrams , one may still use the partially twisted boundary conditions for the extraction of @xmath0 from data if the charm or strange quark is twisted .
the effects which emerge due to partial twisting , are suppressed at large volumes .
the authors thank m. dring , l. liu , u .- g .
meiner and s. sasaki for interesting discussions .
this work is partly supported by the eu integrated infrastructure initiative hadronphysics3 project under grant agreement no .
we also acknowledge the support by the dfg ( crc 16 , `` subnuclear structure of matter '' ) , by the dfg and nsfc ( crc 110 , `` symmetries and the emergence of structure in qcd '' ) , by the shota rustaveli national science foundation ( project di/13/02 ) , by the bonn - cologne graduate school of physics and astronomy , by the nsfc ( grant no .
11165005 ) , and by volkswagenstiftung under contract no . 86260 .
we compute the scattering amplitude in a finite volume by replacing the loop function @xmath176 by its finite volume counterpart @xmath192 and obtain synthetic data from the poles of the finite volume scattering amplitude .
in particular , the pole below threshold gives the mass of the bound state in a finite volume .
for the case of a level below threshold , there exists a fairly simple way to calculate @xmath97 defined by eq .
, so that the equation   for @xmath127 can be easily solved . here , we consider three different cases , one with periodic boundary conditions , and two with twisted boundary conditions . depending on which
quarks are twisted , the momenta of the mesons are modified accordingly .      in the case of periodic boundary conditions , the meson momenta in a box
are given by @xmath193 we can evaluate the sum in eq .  , using the poisson summation formula @xmath194 .
transforming the sum into the integral gives @xmath195 next , we note that the integrand @xmath91 can be approximated by @xmath196 , since the difference is exponentially suppressed  @xcite . here , @xmath113 is the three - momentum squared of the particles in the center of mass ( c.m . )
then , for @xmath197 , @xmath97 reads @xmath198 the function @xmath199 can be expressed in terms of the lscher zeta - function @xmath200 , as follows  @xcite : @xmath201    z_{00}(1;\hat k^2)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\,\sum_{{\vec n}\in \mathbb{z}^3 }
\frac{1}{\vec n^2-\hat k^2}\ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath100 .      in the case of twisted boundary conditions , when the momenta of both particles are shifted but the particles still are in the c.m .
frame , the allowed momenta in a box are : @xmath202 where @xmath95 is the twisting angle .
now , acting in the same way , we can evaluate the sum in eq .
@xmath203 and @xmath97 becomes @xmath204 again , we can express @xmath97 in terms of the lscher zeta - function with twisted boundary conditions , @xmath103 , as follows , @xmath205      z_{00}^{\vec\theta}(1;\hat k^2)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\,\sum_{{\vec n}\in \mathbb{z}^3 }    \frac{1}{\bigl(\vec
n + \vec\theta/2\pi\bigr)^2-\hat k^2}\ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] for the particular case of @xmath144 , the first few terms of the above expansion are given by @xmath206\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath207 .
finally , in the case of twisted boundary conditions , when only the momentum of one of the particles ( say , particle 1 ) is shifted , the allowed momenta in a box are @xmath208 the particles are not in the c.m .
frame any more : the c.m .
momentum is equal to @xmath209 .
hence , we have to evaluate @xmath97 in a moving frame with momentum @xmath210 , @xmath211    \omega_1 ^ 2=&(\vec p-\vec q)^2+m_1 ^ 2,\qquad    \omega_2 ^ 2=\vec q^2+m_2 ^ 2,\quad\quad    \vec q_{n}=\frac{2\pi\vec n}{l},\qquad p^2=p_0 ^ 2-\vec p^2=s.\end{aligned}\ ] ] again , we can approximate the integrand by  @xcite @xmath212 where @xmath213 , @xmath214 is the momentum of the particles in the c.m .
frame , and the dots denote exponentially suppressed terms . using the poisson summation formula ,
we arrive at @xmath215 where @xmath216 and @xmath217 are the components parallel and perpendicular to @xmath210 of @xmath218 , and @xmath219 is the relativistic gamma - factor .
once again , we can relate @xmath97 in this case with the lscher zeta function in the moving frame @xmath220  @xcite , see also refs .
@xcite : @xmath221 p_d&=&\{{\vec r}=\mathbb{r}^3~|~r_\parallel=\gamma^{-1}(n_\parallel-\mu|{\vec d}| ) , ~{\vec r}_\perp={\vec n}_\perp,~{\vec n}\in\mathbb{z}^3\}\ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath222 . for the case of @xmath144 , the first few terms in the above expansion are @xmath223.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in the case of shallow bound states , the exponential factor @xmath101 will be usually quite small , so in order to reproduce accurately the full function , one should take several terms in the expansion for @xmath97 above .
r.  l.  jaffe , phys .
d * 15 * ( 1977 ) 267 .
d.  black _ et al _ , phys .
d * 59 * ( 1999 ) 074026 [ arxiv : hep - ph/9808415 ] .
n.  n.  achasov and a.  v.  kiselev , phys .
d * 68 * ( 2003 ) 014006 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0212153 ] .
j.  d.  weinstein and n.  isgur , phys .
* 48 * ( 1982 ) 659 .
j.  a.  oller , e.  oset and j.  r.  pelaez , phys .
* 80 * ( 1998 ) 3452 [ hep - ph/9803242 ] .
j.  a.  oller , e.  oset and j.  r.  pelaez , phys .
d * 59 * ( 1999 ) 074001 [ erratum - ibid .
d * 60 * ( 1999 ) 099906 ] [ erratum - ibid .
d * 75 * ( 2007 ) 099903 ] [ hep - ph/9804209 ] .
j.  a.  oller and e.  oset , phys .
d * 60 * ( 1999 ) 074023 [ arxiv : hep - ph/9809337 ] ;                          t.  hyodo , int .
j.  mod .
a * 28 * ( 2013 ) 1330045 [ arxiv:1310.1176 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  nebreda , j.  r.  pelaez and g.  rios , phys .
d * 84 * ( 2011 ) 074003 [ arxiv:1107.4200 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  r.  pelaez and g.  rios , phys .
* 97 * ( 2006 ) 242002 [ hep - ph/0610397 ] .    c.  hanhart , j.  r.  pelaez and g.  rios , phys .
* 100 * ( 2008 ) 152001 [ arxiv:0801.2871 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  r.  pelaez and g.  rios , phys .
d * 82 * ( 2010 ) 114002 [ arxiv:1010.6008 [ hep - ph ] ] .
v.  bernard , m.  lage , u .- g .
meiner and a.  rusetsky , jhep * 1101 * ( 2011 ) 019 [ arxiv:1010.6018 [ hep - lat ] ] .
m.  albaladejo and j.  a.  oller , phys .
d * 86 * ( 2012 ) 034003 [ arxiv:1205.6606 [ hep - ph ] ] .
a.  martinez torres , l.  r.  dai , c.  koren , d.  jido and e.  oset , phys .
d * 85 * ( 2012 ) 014027 [ arxiv:1109.0396 [ hep - lat ] ] .
t.  sekihara and t.  hyodo , phys .
c * 87 * ( 2013 ) 045202 [ arxiv:1209.0577 [ nucl - th ] ] .
s.  ozaki and s.  sasaki , phys .
d * 87 * ( 2013 ) 014506 [ arxiv:1211.5512 [ hep - lat ] ] .
m.  albaladejo , c.  hidalgo - duque , j.  nieves and e.  oset , phys .  rev .
d * 88 * ( 2013 ) 014510 [ arxiv:1304.1439 [ hep - lat ] ] .
b.  aubert _ et al . _
[ babar collaboration ] , phys .
* 90 * ( 2003 ) 242001 [ hep - ex/0304021 ] ; d.  besson _ et al . _
[ cleo collaboration ] , phys .
d * 68 * ( 2003 ) 032002 [ erratum - ibid .
d * 75 * ( 2007 ) 119908 ] [ hep - ex/0305100 ] .
l.  liu , k.  orginos , f .- k .
guo , c.  hanhart and u .- g .
meiner , phys .
d * 87 * ( 2013 ) 014508 [ arxiv:1208.4535 [ hep - lat ] ] .
g.  moir , m.  peardon , s.  m.  ryan , c.  e.  thomas and l.  liu , arxiv:1312.1361 [ hep - lat ] .
d.  mohler , c.  b.  lang , l.  leskovec , s.  prelovsek and r.  m.  woloshyn , phys .
* 111 * ( 2013 ) 22 , 222001 [ arxiv:1308.3175 [ hep - lat ] ] ; c.  b.  lang , l.  leskovec , d.  mohler , s.  prelovsek and r.  m.  woloshyn , phys .  rev .
d * 90 * ( 2014 ) 034510 [ arxiv:1403.8103 [ hep - lat ] ] .
m.  lscher , commun .  math .
* 104 * ( 1986 ) 177 .
s.  r.  beane , p.  f.  bedaque , a.  parreno and m.  j.  savage , phys .
b * 585 * ( 2004 ) 106 [ hep - lat/0312004 ] .
y.  koma and m.  koma , nucl .
b * 713 * ( 2005 ) 575 [ hep - lat/0406034 ] .
s.  sasaki and t.  yamazaki , phys .
d * 74 * ( 2006 ) 114507 [ hep - lat/0610081 ] .
z.  davoudi and m.  j.  savage , phys .
d * 84 * ( 2011 ) 114502 [ arxiv:1108.5371 [ hep - lat ] ] .
m.  lscher , nucl .
b * 354 * ( 1991 ) 531 .
m.  dring , u .- g .
meiner , e.  oset and a.  rusetsky , eur .
j.  a * 47 * ( 2011 ) 139 [ arxiv:1107.3988 [ hep - lat ] ] .
m.  albaladejo , g.  rios , j.  a.  oller and l.  roca , arxiv:1307.5169 [ hep - lat ] .
e.  e.  kolomeitsev and m.  f.  m.  lutz , phys .
b * 582 * ( 2004 ) 39 [ hep - ph/0307133 ] .
g.  burdman and j.  f.  donoghue , phys .
b * 280 * ( 1992 ) 287 .
m.  b.  wise , phys .
d * 45 * ( 1992 ) 2188 . t.  -m .
yan , h.  -y .
cheng , c.  -y .
cheung , g.  -l .
lin , y.  c.  lin and h.  -l .
yu , phys .
d * 46 * ( 1992 ) 1148 [ erratum - ibid .
d * 55 * ( 1997 ) 5851 ] .
j.  a.  oller and e.  oset , nucl .
a * 620 * ( 1997 ) 438 [ erratum - ibid .
a * 652 * ( 1999 ) 407 ] [ hep - ph/9702314 ] .
k.  rummukainen and s.  a.  gottlieb , nucl .
b * 450 * ( 1995 ) 397 [ hep - lat/9503028 ] .
m.  gckeler , r.  horsley , m.  lage , u .- g .
meiner , p.  e.  l.  rakow , a.  rusetsky , g.  schierholz and j.  m.  zanotti , phys .
d * 86 * ( 2012 ) 094513 [ arxiv:1206.4141 [ hep - lat ] ] .