text:
# Twistfield Perturbations of Vertex Operators in the ℤ₂-Orbifold Model

## 1 Introduction

Orbifolds of torus models are a very promising starting point for the study of more complicated conformal field theories. The reason for that is that their structure is still very close to the one of their “mother theory”, the torus model, which is known very well. The whole untwisted sector of the theory is inherited from the torus model, only the behaviour of the twistfields provides quite some difficulties to understand. However, especially in the case of the abelian $`_N`$ orbifolds, a lot of progress has already been made in understanding the conformal properties of and with twistfields, e.g. in , , , , , , , , , .

Now, our immediate interest lies in the K3 part of the moduli space of N=(4,4) superconformal theories with central charge c=(6,6), although the following considerations and calculations might as well be generalised to other moduli spaces with N=(2,2) supersymmetry. This part of the moduli space contains quite a few Gepner models and submoduli spaces corresponding to cyclic orbifolds of the N=(4,4) supertoroidal theories with central charge c=(6,6), but neither does it contain toroidal theories themselves nor is there anything known about the theories in the vast empty spaces between these known subvarieties (see e.g. , ).

The idea is to use the theory of deformations of conformal field theories developed by Kadanoff already in 1978 (, ) in order to gain information about theories lying close to known subvarieties in moduli space. Kadanoff’s theory gives a prescription how to calculate a correlator in a theory which is deformed away from a known theory by an exactly marginal operator in terms of integrals over correlation functions in the known theory. As a conformal field theory in this moduli space is completely determined by the conformal weights and the three point correlation functions of its fields, it is sufficient to study their behaviour under deformations.

The aim of this article is to study the deformation of the conformal weights of vertex operators with small conformal weights $`h,\stackrel{~}{h}<1/2`$ in directions corresponding to marginal twistfields in second order perturbation theory. We will carry out this calculation starting off from any point of the 16-dimensional $`_2`$ orbifold hyperplane in the above mentioned K3 part of moduli space.

The outline of the article is as follows. First we derive the four point correlator, which we need for our calculation. This part contains quite a long and tedious calculation the result of which is given in $`(\text{12})`$. It follows a discussion of the singularities of this correlator and the necessary renormalisation procedure. Then, we present the numerical results of the integration, analyse these and show the implications for the moduli space of K3.

## 2 The correlator

In the following, we want to investigate certain deformations of $`_2`$ orbifold theories at central charge $`c=6`$. These are unitary, superconformal orbifolds of toroidal theories with orbifold group $`_2`$. The following correlators are all calculated in a certain $`_2`$ orbifold model, if not denoted otherwise. According to Kadanoff , a deformation of such a theory is given by the addition of exactly marginal operators $`O_j(w,\overline{w})`$ to the action of the original theory. A general deformation of the action is given by $`d^2w_{jI}g_jO_j(w,\overline{w})`$, where $`I`$ is the index set of all exact marginal operators and $`g_j`$ are some (suitably small) coupling coefficients.

Now, the two point function of two conformal fields is completely determined by the conformal weights of these fields (up to normalisation). Hence, the deformation of conformal weights is given by the deformation of the two point function of a field with itself. This leads Kadanoff to the first order calculation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{g_i}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x,\overline{x})\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (0,0)_𝐠|_{𝐠=0}`$ (1)
$`=\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{h(g_i)}{g_i}}\mathrm{log}(x)2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{h}(g_i)}{g_i}}\mathrm{log}(\overline{x})\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x,\overline{x})\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (0,0)_0`$
$`={\displaystyle \text{d}^2wO_i(w,\overline{w})\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x,\overline{x})\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (0,0)_0},`$
where the $`O_i(w,\overline{w})`$ denote the exactly marginal operators (as above), $`._𝐠`$ the correlator in the deformed theory (deformed by $`_{jI}g_jO_j(w,\overline{w})`$, $`𝐠`$ denotes the vector of the $`g_j`$) and $`h,\stackrel{~}{h}`$ the conformal weights of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ w.r.t. the left resp. right Virasoro field. But, taking $`O_i(w,\overline{w})`$ to be an exactly marginal twistfield and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x,\overline{x})`$ to be a bosonic vertex operator, this order of perturbation theory naturally vanishes due to the point group selection rule. The point group selection rule requires that all twists of the correlator sum up to an integer number. In the case of the orbifold group $`_2`$ that means that we always need an even number of twistfields in a correlator. (See e.g.  for an introduction to conformal field theory on cyclic orbifolds.) However, as long as all orders in perturbation theory have vanished up to the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ order, the result in $`(\text{1})`$ can easily be generalised to the $`(n+1)^{\text{st}}`$ order

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^{n+1}}{g_i^{n+1}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x,\overline{x})\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (0,0)_𝐠|_{𝐠=0}=`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{^{n+1}h}{g_i^{n+1}}}\mathrm{log}(x)2{\displaystyle \frac{^{n+1}\stackrel{~}{h}}{g_i^{n+1}}}\mathrm{log}(\overline{x})\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x,\overline{x})\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (0,0)_0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^2w_1\mathrm{}\text{d}^2w_{n+1}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (x,\overline{x})\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (0,0)O_i(w_1)\mathrm{}O_i(w_{n+1})_{0,c}},`$
where the last correlator only contains the connected part, i.e. all contributions to this correlator originating in a factorisation of the correlator into two or more correlators have to be subtracted, and where the integral has to be suitably regulated by a cut-off. Hence, we can proceed to calculate the second order perturbation of the conformal weights by calculating the corresponding four point correlation function first.

The four point correlation function of two vertex operators with two ground state twistfields in $`_2`$ orbifolds of toroidal theories has been known for quite a while (see e.g. , , ; a short derivation can be found in the appendix). However, doing perturbation theory with twistfields, the proper marginal operators to perturb a correlation function are not the (anti-)chiral ground state twistfields in the NSNS sector with conformal dimension $`h,\stackrel{~}{h}=1/2`$ but their superpartners. Only these have the right conformal dimensions $`h,\stackrel{~}{h}=1`$ and are exactly marginal to all orders in perturbation theory .

We take the $`_2`$ orbifold group to act on the holomorphic U(1) currents $`j_s(z)=iX_s`$ of the underlying toroidal theory by multiplication with a minus sign, i.e. $`j_s(z)j_s(z)`$. Hence, the vector of U(1) charges $`p`$ of the torus vertex operators $`V_p^t`$ w.r.t. to these toroidal U(1) currents is also multiplied with a minus sign under this group action. The vertex operators are mapped $`V_p^tV_p^t`$. The superscript $`t`$ signifies a field of the original torus theory. Thus, the $`_2`$ orbifold model only contains the symmetrical linear combinations of torus vertex operators

$`V_p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^t+V_p^t\right),`$
as these are invariant under the group action. As we always work in even real dimensions, we will often use the linear combinations $`j_\pm ^{(k)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(j_k\pm ij_{k+d/2})`$ for the bosonic currents of the torus theory, and for the charges $`p(p_+^{(k)},p_{}^{(k)})_{k=1\mathrm{}d/2}`$ respectively. The upper index in brackets $`k=1\mathrm{}d/2`$ signifies the complex dimension, the lower index $`s=1\mathrm{}d`$ the real dimension. The normalisation of the $`V_p^t`$ is fixed in the appendix.

In order to build correct marginal operators for a unitary deformation of the toroidal theory, we first take the hermitian linear combinations of ground state twistfields $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(T_{+1/2}^f+T_{1/2}^f)`$ where $`f`$ signifies the fixed point at which the respective field is localised, where the $`\pm `$ sign indicates whether this field belongs to an (anti)twist and where $`k/N=1/2`$ gives the corresponding twist itself. (For an introduction to cyclic orbifolds and the fields in the twisted sectors we refer to e.g. .) We find the proper exactly marginal twistfields as their (left+right) superpartners with conformal dimensions $`h,\stackrel{~}{h}=1`$, represented by

$`S^f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(S_{+1/2}^f+S_{1/2}^f).`$
For ease of notation, we will omit the superscript $`f`$ in the following; it is understood that all twistfields live at the same fixed point.

Now, we can start to calculate the correlator

$`Z`$ $``$ $`V_p(z,\overline{z})V_p(w,\overline{w})S(x,\overline{x})S(y,\overline{y})`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`V_p(z,\overline{z})V_p(w,\overline{w})S_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})S_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})`$
$`=`$ $`V_p(z,\overline{z})V_p(w,\overline{w})\left({\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi ){\displaystyle _{\overline{x}}}\text{d}\overline{\xi }\stackrel{~}{G}^{}(\overline{\xi })T_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle _y}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta ){\displaystyle _{\overline{y}}}\text{d}\overline{\eta }\stackrel{~}{G}^+(\overline{\eta })T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})\right)`$
as part of the desired correlator. The first equality follows because the correlator with $`S_{+1/2}`$ and $`S_{1/2}`$ interchanged will turn out to give exactly the same result as the one in the second line above and because these are the only two non-vanishing terms by the point group selection rule. In the third line, we use the fact that the $`S_{\pm 1/2}`$ are the superpartners of the ground state twistfields $`T_{\pm 1/2}`$, and hence can be constructed by applying the suitable supercurrents $`G^\pm (\eta )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{G}^\pm (\eta )`$ of the N=(2,2) Super–Virasoro–Algebra to the ground state twistfields. Notice that $`T_{+1/2}`$ is a chiral/chiral primary, $`T_{1/2}`$ an antichiral/antichiral primary field.

There are two important things to notice. First, as we are dealing with a correlator containing only two twistfields, there are no classical solutions to be taken into account. Hence, the holomorphic and the antiholomorphic part of the correlator factorise. We will therefore concentrate on the holomorphic part in the following. Second, performing the supersymmetry transformations on the ground state twistfields themselves we run into deep problems as excited twistfields turn up whose correlation functions are rather nasty to handle and which have not been studied much so far. Hence, the idea is to take the contours of the integrals in $`(\text{3})`$ not around a single twistfield but around all other fields in the correlator instead. This ’turning around of the contour’ gives a negative sign. As the supercurrents $`G^\pm `$ drop off as $`1/z^3`$ at infinity, there is no contribution at infinity. Now, taking into account the negative sign when interchanging two fermionic fields and noticing that there are only finite contributions in the OPE of $`G^+(\eta )`$ and the chiral primary field $`T_{+1/2}(x)`$, we get for the holomorphic factor

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ $``$ $`V_p(z)V_p(w)\left({\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )T_{+1/2}(x)\right)\left({\displaystyle _y}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )T_{1/2}(y)\right)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\left(({\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi ){\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta ){\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta ){\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi ))V_p(z)\right)`$
$`V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`+\left(V_p(z)({\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi ){\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta ){\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta ){\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi ))V_p(w)\right)`$
$`T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`+V_p(z)V_p(w)\left({\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta ){\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )T_{+1/2}(x)\right)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`V_p(z)V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)\left({\displaystyle _y}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi ){\displaystyle _y}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )T_{1/2}(y)\right)`$
$`+2\left({\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )V_p(z)\right)\left({\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )V_p(w)\right)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`2\left({\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )V_p(z)\right)\left({\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )V_p(w)\right)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)].`$
First, we look at the first two terms of $`(\text{4})`$. We define $`\psi _\pm ^{(i)}`$ to be the fermionic superpartners of the bosonic currents $`j_\pm ^{(i)}`$, introduced earlier, where $`i=1\mathrm{}d/2`$ with $`d`$ the real dimension, hence $`d/2`$ the complex dimension. The normalisation is given by the OPEs

$`\psi _+^{(i)}(z)\psi _{}^{(j)}(w){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{ij}}{zw}},j_+^{(i)}(z)j_{}^{(j)}(w){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{ij}}{(zw)^2}}.`$
Then, using the explicit expression for the supercurrents (see e.g. )

$`G^\pm (z)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d/2}{}}}:\psi _\pm ^{(i)}j_{}^{(i)}:(z),`$ (5)
we can calculate ($`p^2=_{k=1}^dp_kp_k=_{i=1}^{d/2}(p_+^{(i)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}+p_{}^{(i)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}})`$)

$`\left({\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi ){\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )V_p(z)\right)V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)=`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}p_{}^{(i)}:\psi _+^{(i)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(V_p^tV_p^t):(z))`$
$`V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`(2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}p_{}^{(j)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}:(j_j+ij_{j+d/2}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(V_p^tV_p^t):(z)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}p_+^{(j)}p_{}^{(i)}:\psi _{}^{(j)}\psi _+^{(i)}V_p:(z))V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`(_zV_p(z)+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}:i(p_kj_{k+d/2}p_{k+d/2}j_k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(V_p^tV_p^t):(z)`$
$`+p^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zy}})V_p(z))V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y).`$
The derivative of the vertex operator cancels with the corresponding term in the expression with interchanged supercurrents in $`(\text{4})`$. The second term in $`(\text{6})`$ vanishes when applying the U(1) currents $`j_i`$ to the vertex operators, using the OPE

$`j_i(z)V_{\pm p}^t(w)\pm p_i(zw)^1V_{\pm p}^t(w)`$
within the correlator. Only the third term in $`(\text{6})`$ does not cancel with corresponding expressions, but U(1) charge conservation ensures that only the terms with $`i=j`$ contribute. Let $`s_{\pm 1/2}^{(i)}`$ signify the fermionic part of the twistfields $`T_{\pm 1/2}`$ with conformal dimension $`h,\stackrel{~}{h}=1/8`$ in complex dimension $`i`$. Then the correlator leading to this third term in $`(\text{6})`$ is calculated in the relevant dimension according to

$`:\psi _{}^{(i)}(w)\psi _+^{(i)}(z):s_{+1/2}^{(i)}(x)s_{1/2}^{(i)}(y)=`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{wz}{lim}[:\psi _{}^{(i)}(w)\psi _+^{(i)}(z):s_{+1/2}^{(i)}(x)s_{1/2}^{(i)}(y){\displaystyle \frac{s_{+1/2}^{(i)}(x)s_{1/2}^{(i)}(y)}{wz}}]`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{wz}{lim}\left[(wz)^1{\displaystyle \frac{(wy)^{1/2}(zx)^{1/2}}{(wx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}}}(xy)^{1/4}{\displaystyle \frac{(xy)^{1/4}}{wz}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zy}}\right)s_{+1/2}^{(i)}(x)s_{1/2}^{(i)}(y).`$
Analogous calculations lead to the total result for the first and the second term in $`(\text{4})`$

$`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zy}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wy}}\right)`$ (7)
$`\times V_p(z)V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y).`$
Now, we turn to the third and fourth term in $`(\text{4})`$. We can use the (anti)chiral properties of $`T_{\pm 1/2}`$ (i.e. $`G^\pm (\eta )T_{\pm 1/2}(z)\text{finite}`$) to add in terms with interchanged order of the contours, but equal sign. Then, the usual contour argument (see e.g. , ) together with the OPE of the two supercurrents (see e.g. ) gives e.g.

$`V_p(z)V_p(w)(({\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta ){\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi ){\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta ))T_{+1/2}(x))T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`V_p(z)V_p(w)\left({\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\xi {\displaystyle _\xi }\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )G^{}(\xi )T_{+1/2}(x)\right)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`V_p(z)V_p(w)\left({\displaystyle _x}\text{d}\xi (2𝒯(\xi )+_\xi J(\xi ))T_{+1/2}(x)\right)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`2_xV_p(z)V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y),`$
where $`𝒯(\xi )`$ and $`J(\xi )`$ signify the Virasoro field and the U(1) current, respectively, of the N=2 superconformal algebra. The last step uses the conformal algebra of primary fields (e.g. ). Calculating the derivative of the correlator $`(\text{23})`$ given in the appendix

$`_xV_p^t(z)V_p^t(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`_x[4^{p^2}(xy)^{1+(pp)^2/2}((zx)(zy)(wx)(wy))^{p^2/2}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{((zx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}+(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2})^2}{(wz)}}\right)^{\pm p^2}]`$
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{(pp)^2}{2}1}{xy}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wx}}`$
$`p^2{\displaystyle \frac{(zx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}+(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}}{(zx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}+(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}}})`$
$`\times V_p^t(z)V_p^t(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y).`$
we get the total contribution of the third and fourth terms in $`(\text{4})`$

$`2(_x_y)V_p(z)V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)=`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`2\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{p^21}{xy}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{zx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wx}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zy}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wy}}\right)\right)`$
$`\times V_p(z)V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`+`$ $`2(p^2(xy)^1(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}((zx)(wy)`$
$`+(zy)(wx))+p^2(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}(xy))`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y).`$
Now, only the last two terms in $`(\text{4})`$ are still left. Again, using $`(\text{5})`$ we get for the fifth term in $`(\text{4})`$

$`\left({\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )V_p(z)\right)\left({\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )V_p(w)\right)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)=`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\sqrt{2}\left(\psi _{}^{(i)}(z)p_+^{(i)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(V_p^tV_p^t)(z)\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\sqrt{2}\left(\psi _+^{(j)}(w)p_{}^{(j)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(V_p^tV_p^t)(w)\right)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}p_+^{(i)}p_{}^{(j)}\psi _{}^{(i)}(z)\psi _+^{(j)}(w){\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{2}{}}}s_{+1/2}^{(b)}(x)s_{1/2}^{(b)}(y)\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{2}{}}}s_{+1/2}^{(b)}(x)s_{1/2}^{(b)}(y)\right)^1`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`p^2(zw)^1(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y).`$
Adding in the similar contribution of the sixth term of $`(\text{4})`$, the last two terms together give

$`\left({\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )V_p(z)\right)\left({\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )V_p(w)\right)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$ (10)
$`\left({\displaystyle _z}\text{d}\eta G^+(\eta )V_p(z)\right)\left({\displaystyle _w}\text{d}\xi G^{}(\xi )V_p(w)\right)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`2p^2(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}(xy)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y).`$
Adding the results of $`(\text{7})`$, $`(\text{9})`$ and $`(\text{10})`$, the total result reads

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{p^21}{xy}}V_p(z)V_p(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y)`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`p^2(xy)^1(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}`$
$`\times \left((zx)(wy)+(zy)(wx)\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(V_p^tV_p^t\right)(w)T_{+1/2}(x)T_{1/2}(y).`$
As already remarked earlier, the calculation for the antiholomorphic part runs independently and in exactly the same fashion. Call $`p_l`$ the U(1) charge w.r.t. the left moving, i.e. holomorphic U(1) current, $`p_r`$ the U(1) charge for the right moving, i.e. antiholomorphic U(1) current. Hence, the total result for $`(\text{3})`$ is given by

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`[2{\displaystyle \frac{p_l^21}{xy}}p_l^2(xy)^1(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}`$ (12)
$`((zx)(wy)+(zy)(wx))]`$
$`\times [2{\displaystyle \frac{p_r^21}{\overline{x}\overline{y}}}p_r^2(\overline{x}\overline{y})^1(\overline{z}\overline{x})^{1/2}(\overline{z}\overline{y})^{1/2}(\overline{w}\overline{x})^{1/2}(\overline{w}\overline{y})^{1/2}`$
$`((\overline{z}\overline{x})(\overline{w}\overline{y})+(\overline{z}\overline{y})(\overline{w}\overline{x}))]`$
$`\times V_p^t(z,\overline{z})V_p^t(w,\overline{w})T_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})`$
$`+`$ $`[2{\displaystyle \frac{p_l^21}{xy}}+p_l^2(xy)^1(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}`$
$`((zx)(wy)+(zy)(wx))]`$
$`\times [2{\displaystyle \frac{p_r^21}{\overline{x}\overline{y}}}+p_r^2(\overline{x}\overline{y})^1(\overline{z}\overline{x})^{1/2}(\overline{z}\overline{y})^{1/2}(\overline{w}\overline{x})^{1/2}(\overline{w}\overline{y})^{1/2}`$
$`((\overline{z}\overline{x})(\overline{w}\overline{y})+(\overline{z}\overline{y})(\overline{w}\overline{x}))]`$
$`\times V_p^t(z,\overline{z})V_p^t(w,\overline{w})T_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y}).`$
For the calculation of the perturbation of the two-vertex-correlator, we now want to specialise to the case of small $`p_l^2,p_r^2<1`$. The vector of the left moving and right moving U(1) charges can be shown to lie on an even integer charge lattice in the underlying toroidal theory, especially $`p_l^2p_r^22`$ (see e.g. ). As a direct consequence of the above assumption, we therefore deduce $`p_l^2=p_r^2p^2`$. The perturbation in second order, according to $`(\text{2})`$, $`(\text{3})`$ and $`(\text{12})`$, simplifies to

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^2x\text{d}^2yZ}=(zw)^{p_l^2}(\overline{z}\overline{w})^{p_r^2}{\displaystyle \text{d}^2x\frac{zw^2}{xz^2xw^2}(V_1+V_2)},`$ (13)
where $`V_1`$ corresponds to the first term in the sum in $`(\text{12})`$, $`V_2`$ to the second, and where the integrals $`V_i`$ are given by

$`V_1`$ $``$ $`4^{p_l^2p_r^2}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta \frac{1}{1\zeta ^4}\left(2(p_l^21)p_l^2\zeta ^{1/2}(1+\zeta )\right)}`$
$`\left(2(p_r^21)p_r^2\overline{\zeta }^{1/2}(1+\overline{\zeta })\right)\zeta ^{p_l^2/2}\overline{\zeta }^{p_r^2/2}(1\zeta )^{p_l^2}(1\overline{\zeta })^{p_r^2}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\zeta ^{1/2}}{1\zeta ^{1/2}}}\right)^{p_l^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\overline{\zeta }^{1/2}}{1\overline{\zeta }^{1/2}}}\right)^{p_r^2}`$
$`V_2`$ $``$ $`4^{p_l^2p_r^2}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta \frac{1}{1\zeta ^4}\left(2(p_l^21)+p_l^2\zeta ^{1/2}(1+\zeta )\right)}`$
$`\left(2(p_r^21)+p_r^2\overline{\zeta }^{1/2}(1+\overline{\zeta })\right)\zeta ^{p_l^2/2}\overline{\zeta }^{p_r^2/2}(1\zeta )^{p_l^2}(1\overline{\zeta })^{p_r^2}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\zeta ^{1/2}}{1+\zeta ^{1/2}}}\right)^{p_l^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{\zeta }^{1/2}}{1+\overline{\zeta }^{1/2}}}\right)^{p_r^2};`$
the four point correlator calculated in the appendix has been plugged in explicitely. The simplification in $`(\text{13})`$ uses the SL(2,$``$) transformation

$`\zeta (\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{\eta z}{\eta w}}{\displaystyle \frac{xw}{xz}},`$
which maps $`z0`$, $`ww^{}\mathrm{}`$, $`x1`$ and $`y\zeta `$.

Both integrals $`V_i`$ can be merged to a single integral over the two sheeted Riemann surface of $`t\pm \sqrt{\zeta }`$. However, this presentation would make the following discussion of singularities considerably harder.

## 3 Singularities

As explained below equation $`(\text{2})`$, we have to identify and subtract the disconnected part of the integrand of $`(\text{13})`$ and suitably regulate the remaining integral. There are two sources of singularities in $`(\text{13})`$ for the case of small $`p^2p_l^2=p_r^2`$. First, for $`zw`$ we have a mixing of the two vertex operators $`V_p^t(z,\overline{z})`$ and $`V_p^t(w,\overline{w})`$ with the identity; furthermore, for $`xy`$ the two twistfields $`S_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})`$ and $`S_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})`$ also mix with the identity. This channel is responsible for the disconnected part of $`(\text{13})`$ which produces the singularity $`1\zeta ^4`$ in $`V_1`$. Second, for $`zw`$ the two vertex operators $`V_p^t(z,\overline{z})`$ and $`V_p^t(w,\overline{w})`$ mix with the vertex operator $`V_{2p}^t(z,\overline{z})`$; the same mixing occurs for the two twistfields $`S_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})`$ and $`S_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})`$ for $`xy`$. This channel is responsible for the $`\zeta 1`$ singularity in $`V_2`$. To understand this seemingly unusual mixing of $`S_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})`$ and $`S_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})`$ with the vertex operator $`V_{2p}^t(z,\overline{z})`$, we have a closer look at the orbifold construction itself. In the twisted sector, the momenta $`p`$ and $`p`$ are identified by the action of the orbifold group and exactly this fact guarantees that the conservation of momentum is not violated in the above OPE.

These singularities call for a proper regularisation procedure. In position space, this regularisation is best achieved by introducing a cut-off $`ϵ0`$ around the singularities and by subtracting the singular parts in $`ϵ`$. But this can be shown to be equivalent to the following much more practicable procedure. First, one subtracts the terms that cause these singularities from the integrand. Then, one can integrate this integrand over the whole complex plane and acquires the correct result. (By definition, a term which causes a singularity has to behave exactly as the original integrand close to the singularity, and the integration of this singular term over the whole plane, cut off with the same $`ϵ`$ at the singularity, should only exhibit an $`ϵ`$ dependence. This is hence the same $`ϵ`$ dependence as the one of the integral of the original integrand cut off close to the same singularity.)

Now, we want to write down the precise form of these two singular terms which are to be subtracted. Using the correlator of two ground state twistfields

$`T_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})=xy^2,`$
an analogous turning around of the contours as in the case of the full four point function $`(\text{2})`$ leads to the correlator of the superpartners

$`S_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})S_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})=4xy^4.`$
Hence, the whole disconnected contribution to $`V_1`$ reads

$`V_p^t(z,\overline{z})V_p^t(w,\overline{w})S_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})S_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})=4(zw)^{p_l^2}(\overline{z}\overline{w})^{p_r^2}xy^4.`$
Doing an SL(2,$``$) transformation as above, we get our final result for this singular part of the integral

$`(zw)^{p_l^2}(\overline{z}\overline{w})^{p_r^2}{\displaystyle \text{d}^2x\frac{zw^2}{xz^2xw^2}V_1^S}`$
with

$`V_1^S4{\displaystyle \text{d}^2\zeta \frac{1}{1\zeta ^4}}.`$
$`V_1^S`$ is exactly the $`\zeta 1`$ singularity of $`V_1`$. But as we only want to integrate over the connected part of the total integrand in $`(\text{13})`$, we have to replace $`V_1`$ by $`V_1V_1^S`$; this does not contain any singularity any more.

The second singularity, the singular part of $`V_2`$, is given for $`p^2\frac{1}{2}`$ by

$`V_2^S16^{p_l^2p_r^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}(2p_l^21)(2p_r^21){\displaystyle \text{d}^2\zeta (1\zeta )^{2p_l^22}(1\overline{\zeta })^{2p_r^22}}.`$ (14)
For $`\frac{1}{2}<p^2<1`$, $`V_2`$ is even finite. We now want to show that this singularity really originates in the mixing with vertex operators of charge $`\pm 2p`$. First, we notice that the correlator of three vertex operators is given by conformal invariance

$`V_p^t(z,\overline{z})V_p^t(w,\overline{w})V_{2p}^t(\xi ,\overline{\xi })=`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`(zw)^{p_l^2}(\overline{z}\overline{w})^{p_r^2}(z\xi )^{2p_l^2}(\overline{z}\overline{\xi })^{2p_r^2}(w\xi )^{2p_l^2}(\overline{w}\overline{\xi })^{2p_r^2}.`$
Analogously, conformal invariance fixes the correlator of two groundstate twistfields with a vertex operator

$`V_{2p}^t(\xi ,\overline{\xi })T_{+1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})=`$
$`=`$ $`C(xy)^{2p_l^21}(\overline{x}\overline{y})^{2p_r^21}(x\xi )^{2p_l^2}(\overline{x}\overline{\xi })^{2p_r^2}(y\xi )^{2p_l^2}(\overline{y}\overline{\xi })^{2p_r^2}`$
and a similar calculation as for the full four point function leads to the corresponding result with supertwistfields

$`V_{2p}^t(\xi )S_{+1/2}(x)S_{1/2}(y)=`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`4C(2p_l^21)(2p_r^21)(xy)^{2p_l^22}(\overline{x}\overline{y})^{2p_r^22}(x\xi )^{2p_l^2}`$
$`(\overline{x}\overline{\xi })^{2p_r^2}(y\xi )^{2p_l^2}(\overline{y}\overline{\xi })^{2p_r^2}.`$
Even without doing the integration over $`\xi `$, one can identify the leading singularity in the product of $`(\text{15})`$ and $`(\text{16})`$ with the singular part of $`V_2`$ $`(\text{14})`$. This identification fixes the normalisation factor to $`C=16^{p_l^2p_r^2}`$. Further terms in this product of $`(\text{15})`$ and $`(\text{16})`$ give higher orders of $`(xy)`$ for $`xy`$ and hence do not contribute to the singular part of the integral. The total regularisation for $`V_2`$ reads $`V_2V_2^S`$ in the case $`p^2\frac{1}{2}`$; for $`\frac{1}{2}<p^2<1`$ no regularisation is necessary.

As these two singularities are the only ones for small $`p_l^2`$, $`p_r^2`$, the total regularisation of $`V_1+V_2`$ in $`(\text{13})`$ is given by

$`V`$ $``$ $`(V_1V_1^S)+(V_2V_2^S)\text{for}p^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`V`$ $``$ $`(V_1V_1^S)+V_2\text{for}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<p^2<1.`$ (17)
For larger $`p_l^21`$ or $`p_r^21`$, we encounter further singularities also for $`\zeta 0`$ and $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$. These are the result of a mixing of $`V_p(w,\overline{w})`$ and $`S_\pm (x,\overline{x})`$ with ground state twistfields (see e.g.  for a discussion of such processes on string theoretic grounds).

## 4 Results

We now want to calculate the perturbation $`(\text{13})`$ subtracting the singularities as discussed in section 3. In order to perform the $`x`$-integral in $`(\text{13})`$, we use the translational invariance of correlation functions to set $`w=0`$ and apply the SL(2,$``$) transformation

$`\gamma :\zeta ^{}(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{z\zeta }{z\zeta }}\gamma ^1:\zeta (\zeta ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{z\zeta ^{}}{\zeta ^{}+z}}`$
which maps $`0`$ to $`0`$ and $`z`$ to $`z^{}\mathrm{}`$. Introducing a proper cut-off $`ϵ`$, the logarithmically divergent $`x`$-integral in $`(\text{13})`$ can be calculated to

$`{\displaystyle _{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{xz>ϵ}{x>ϵ}}}\text{d}^2x{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{xz^2x^2}}=2\pi \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{ϵ^2}}.`$
As shown in $`(\text{2})`$, these logarithmic divergencies correspond to the variation of the conformal dimension of the vertex operators $`V_p(z,\overline{z})`$.

Hence, the whole information about the deformation is given in the integral $`V`$ as in $`(\text{3})`$. We solved the integral numerically for various $`p^2<1`$ using the program Mathematica. However, although the integral converges there are still divergencies in the integrand which have to be taken care of. The regularised integral $`V_1`$ still contains divergencies of the form $`(1\zeta )^2`$ or $`(1\overline{\zeta })^2`$ which we handle by cutting out an $`ϵ`$-ball around $`\zeta =1`$ of size $`ϵ=0.01`$. Integration over the first terms of a Taylor expansion around $`\zeta =1`$ gives the approximation that the contribution of this ball to the total integral amounts to about $`10^6`$. In order to handle the $`1\zeta ^r`$, $`r<2`$, singularities in the regularised $`V_2`$, we subtract the expression

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_2^S`$ $``$ $`16^{2p_l^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}(2p^21)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^2\zeta 1\zeta ^{4p_l^24}\zeta ^{2p^2}}`$
instead of $`V_2^S`$. $`V_2\stackrel{~}{V}_2^S`$ behaves much better numerically and the difference $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2^SV_2^S`$ is known as Virasoro Shapiro amplitude in the literature (see e.g. )

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_2^SV_2^S`$ $`=`$ $`16^{2p^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}(2p^21)^2{\displaystyle \text{d}^2\zeta 1\zeta ^{4p^24}\left(\zeta ^{2p^2}1\right)}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1p^2)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2p^21)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^2)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(22p^2)}}.`$
$`V_2^S`$ has to be regarded as regularisation of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2^S`$ using the regularisation procedure of a cut-off $`ϵ`$ again. For $`0<p^2<\frac{1}{2}`$ we get the Virasoro Shapiro amplitude by analytical continuation, for the case $`\frac{1}{2}<p^2<1`$ the regularisation term $`V_2^S`$ vanishes, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2^S`$ does not diverge and directly equals the finite Virasoro Shapiro amplitude (see e.g. for these regularisation procedures). The case $`p^2=0`$ is analytically obvious, for $`p^2=1/2`$ the regularisation term for $`V_2`$ vanishes anyhow.

The results of this numerical procedure are depicted in table 1 for various $`p^2`$. A plot of these results is given in figure 1. There are several things to notice in this plot. The reflection symmetry around the axis $`p^2=1/4`$ seems to be most obvious. This strongly suggests an even function in $`(p^21/4)`$. Furthermore, the function seems to acquire its minimum at $`p^2=1/4`$ and the perturbation seems to vanish at $`p^2=1/2`$. This second observation is another strong indication for the reflection symmetry around the axis $`p^2=1/4`$ as the perturbation vanishes for $`p^2=0`$ analytically.

These observations lead us to attempt the following fit (depicted in figure 1)

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`0.71775+a_2\left(p^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)^2+a_4\left(p^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)^4.`$
This fit produces values of $`a_2=10.045\pm 0.054`$ and $`a_4=22.940\pm 0.363`$. These errors are given by the asymptotic covariance matrix. Especially in the range $`0<p^2<\frac{1}{2}`$ this fit seems to be quite accurate; for $`p^2>1/2`$ contributions of higher orders in $`\left(p^2\frac{1}{4}\right)^2`$ seem to become more important.

## 5 Geometrical interpretation

The calculations in this article have been performed on the $`_2`$ orbifold subvariety of K3 moduli space. In contrast to deformations with U(1) currents which describe the relations between theories on the $`_2`$ orbifold subvariety we have calculated deformations with twistfields that deform away from this subvariety. In the geometrical picture a deformation with twistfields leads to a transition from singular orbifolds to smooth manifolds. This transition is achieved by the so-called blowing-up of the orbifold fixed point singularities , , . The blowing-up of a specific fixed point in the geometrical picture corresponds to the deformation with the twistfield located at exactly this fixed point.

Blown-up orbifolds have already been studied in the context of the Landau-Ginzburg description by giving the blowing-up modes (i.e. the twistfields) a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value . A strictly conformal field theoretic approach, however, is not known to the author.

## 6 Conclusion and outlook

In this article, we have calculated the deformation of the conformal dimension of vertex operators deforming the $`_2`$ orbifold model with twistfields in second order perturbation theory. This was a first attempt to this kind of problem and, hence, there are still a lot of open questions to be answered. First, we hope to validate analytically some of the conjectures based on the numerical results in this article in due course. The cases of $`p^2>1`$ and of general $`_N`$ orbifolds should be analysable by the same methods, at least to second order in perturbation theory. Higher orders, however, seem to become more difficult very quickly. And, of course, an attempt should be made to integrate these deformations to get hold on further subvarieties in moduli space. At least, this should be possible for directions in moduli space showing a high degree of symmetry.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my supervisor W. Nahm for suggesting this exciting topic and for many very helpful discussions. I am also grateful to K. Wendland and A. Wißkirchen for discussions and to M. Rösgen for remarks on the manuscript.

## Appendix A The four point correlator of two ground state twistfields with two vertex operators

The four point correlator of two ground state twistfields with two vertex operators in the $`_2`$ orbifold has already been calculated in  based on results about off-shell string amplitudes in ,  and , but neglecting the correct zero mode contribution. However, this has then been discussed in  and . As this correlator is the basis for our calculations, we want to present a short derivation just using basic properties of conformal field theory.

To calculate the correlation function

$`V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})`$ (19)
we want to use the OPE of the vertex operators $`V_p^t(z,\overline{z})`$ with any U(1) current $`j(z)=iX`$ of the underlying toroidal theory. In order to derive this OPE, we use the mode expansion of $`j(z)`$

$`j(z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}j_nz^{n1}j_n\varphi =0n<0`$
and the corresponding mode expansion of the bosonic part of the holomorphic Virasoro field

$`𝒯_{bosonic}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}:j_ij_i:(z).`$
Therefore, applying the Virasoro modes to the state $`V_p^t`$, which corresponds to the vertex operator $`V_p^t(0,0)`$, the mode expansions give

$`V_p^t`$ $`=`$ $`L_1V_p^t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(j_{0a}j_1^a+j_{1a}j_0^a)V_p^t`$
$`=`$ $`p_aj_1^aV_p^t.`$
The summations run over all d holomorphic currents in a real–d dimensional theory. This leads to the OPE

$`p_aj^a(z)V_p^t(w)={\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{zw}}V_p^t(w)+_wV_p^t(w)+O(zw).`$ (20)
Also define the scalar product $`p_{1a}p_2^a=p_1.p_2`$, $`p_1^2=p_1.p_1`$ for the charge vectors w.r.t. to the holomorphic U(1) currents. Our goal is to find a first order differential equation for $`(\text{19})`$. To achieve this we turn to the following five point correlator

$`\sqrt{(zx)(zy)}p_{1a}j^a(z)V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})=`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\left(\sqrt{(wx)(wy)}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{zw}}+\sqrt{(vx)(vy)}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1.p_2}{zv}}\right)`$
$`\times V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y}).`$
This identity is justified by noticing that the square root on the left hand side of $`(\text{21})`$ just cancels the branching behaviour of the current $`j(z)`$ around the twistfields $`T_{\pm 1/2}`$. Hence, we have a meromorphic function in $`z`$ on the right hand side. The meromorphic behaviour of this right hand side is completely determined by the singular behaviour of the OPE between the current and the two vertex operators and the fact that every U(1) current drops off as $`1/z^2`$ at infinity. The behaviour with respect to the other coordinates is already contained in the four point correlator $`(\text{19})`$.

Now we are ready to calculate the derivatives of $`(\text{19})`$ with respect to $`w`$ and $`v`$ using the above OPE $`(\text{20})`$ and the identity $`(\text{21})`$

$`_wV_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})=`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{zw}{lim}[p_{1a}j^a(z)V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{zw}}V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})]`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{zw}{lim}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}}{(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{zw}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(vx)^{1/2}(vy)^{1/2}}{(zx)^{1/2}(zy)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{zv}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{zw}}\right]`$
$`\times V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})`$
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{wx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wy}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{wv}}{\displaystyle \frac{(vx)^{1/2}(vy)^{1/2}}{(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}}}\right]`$
$`\times V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y}).`$
This leads to the logarithmic derivative

$`_w\mathrm{log}V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{wx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{wy}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{wv}}{\displaystyle \frac{(vx)^{1/2}(vy)^{1/2}}{(wx)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}}}.`$
Now, we define $`p_{il}`$ to be the U(1) charge vector w.r.t. the left moving, i.e. holomorphic U(1) currents, $`p_{ir}`$ the U(1) charge vector for the right moving, i.e. antiholomorphic U(1) currents. Together with the analogous results for the derivatives with respect to $`v`$, $`\overline{w}`$ and $`\overline{v}`$, one gets by integration

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{p_1}^t(w,\overline{w})V_{p_2}^t(v,\overline{v})T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})}{T_{1/2}(x,\overline{x})T_{1/2}(y,\overline{y})}}=`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`c((xy),(\overline{x}\overline{y}))((wx)(wy))^{p_{1l}^2/2}((vx)(vy))^{p_{2l}^2/2}`$
$`\times ((\overline{w}\overline{x})(\overline{w}\overline{y}))^{p_{1r}^2/2}((\overline{v}\overline{x})(\overline{v}\overline{y}))^{p_{2r}^2/2}`$
$`\times \left((xy){\displaystyle \frac{(wx)^{1/2}(vy)^{1/2}+(wy)^{1/2}(vx)^{1/2}}{(wx)^{1/2}(vy)^{1/2}(wy)^{1/2}(vx)^{1/2}}}\right)^{p_{1l}.p_{2l}}`$
$`\times \left((\overline{x}\overline{y}){\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{w}\overline{x})^{1/2}(\overline{v}\overline{y})^{1/2}+(\overline{w}\overline{y})^{1/2}(\overline{v}\overline{x})^{1/2}}{(\overline{w}\overline{x})^{1/2}(\overline{v}\overline{y})^{1/2}(\overline{w}\overline{y})^{1/2}(\overline{v}\overline{x})^{1/2}}}\right)^{p_{1r}.p_{2r}}`$
$`=`$ $`c((xy),(\overline{x}\overline{y}))((wx)(wy))^{p_{1l}^2/2}((vx)(vy))^{p_{2l}^2/2}`$
$`\times ((\overline{w}\overline{x})(\overline{w}\overline{y}))^{p_{1r}^2/2}((\overline{v}\overline{x})(\overline{v}\overline{y}))^{p_{2r}^2/2}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{((wx)^{1/2}(vy)^{1/2}+(wy)^{1/2}(vx)^{1/2})^2}{(wv)}}\right)^{p_{1l}.p_{2l}}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{((\overline{w}\overline{x})^{1/2}(\overline{v}\overline{y})^{1/2}+(\overline{w}\overline{y})^{1/2}(\overline{v}\overline{x})^{1/2})^2}{(\overline{w}\overline{v})}}\right)^{p_{1r}.p_{2r}}.`$
In this article, we are only interested in the two cases $`pp_1=\pm p_2`$. For the case $`pp_1=p_2`$ the correlator has to behave as the OPE of two vertex operators in the limit $`wv`$, i.e. as $`(wv)^{p^2}`$. This fixes the coefficient to

$`c_{}((xy),(\overline{x}\overline{y}))=4^{p_r^2p_l^2}.`$
For the second relevant case $`pp_1=p_2`$, one fixes the coefficient by continuation of the correlation function on the two sheeted Riemannian surface to

$`c_+((xy),(\overline{x}\overline{y}))=4^{p_r^2p_l^2}(xy)^{2p_l^2}(\overline{x}\overline{y})^{2p_r^2}.`$
One can check this result by noticing that the correlator $`(\text{23})`$ shows the required monodromy behaviour if one takes a vertex operator around a twistfield. This just interchanges the sign of one charge $`p_i`$.


format: text

text:
# Hadronic degrees of freedom

## 1 Introduction

The point of view I take to summarize some of the research activities in Italy in the field of hadronic physics, is determined by the (today accepted) fundamental degrees of freedom of the strong interactions, namely quarks and gluons. The Sec. 2 is devoted to the link of the fundamental theory of strong interactions, Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), with effective degrees of freedom often used to study specific problems, in particular those degrees of freedom that played a peculiar and historical role in the investigation of hadronic systems: the constituent quarks and the related quark models. In Secs. 3 and 4 I discuss recent results on the electromagnetic interactions with hadrons at low energy studied within non-relativistic and relativistic quark models, respectively. Sec. 5 is devoted to the discussion of the electroweak structure of the nucleon and Sec. 6 to deep inelastic scattering. Conclusive remarks are drawn in Sec. 7.

## 2 QCD and effective degrees of freedom

Why does the non-relativistic quark model (NRQM) reproduces at the quantitative level several hadron properties? And why - by an appropriate choice of the parameters - also several other models, totally different from NRQM (e.g., the chiral bag model) often fit the data? In a series of papers Morpurgo and Dillon tried to answer to the previous question by using an original approach called General parametrization method. Following the Morpurgo’s review paper of ref., I summarize the approach in the case example of the baryon masses.

### 2.1 General parametrization: basic ideas

The QCD mass $`M_\mathrm{B}`$ of the baryon B is the expectation value of the exact QCD Hamiltonian, $`H_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ on the exact lowest state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}`$ of B:

$$M_\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}|H_{\mathrm{QCD}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}.$$
(1)
One can write

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}=𝒱|\varphi _\mathrm{B},$$
(2)
where the auxiliary state $`|\varphi _\mathrm{B}`$ is a three-quark-no-antiquark-no-gluon state in Fock space and it reduces to the simplest NRQM.

Whereas $`|\varphi _\mathrm{B}`$ is quite simple, $`𝒱`$ is exceedingly complicated. Indeed $`𝒱`$ must take into account:

i) the dress of the auxiliary state $`|\varphi _\mathrm{B}`$ with $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs and gluons in order to transform it into the exact state which assumes the form:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}=|qqq+|qqq,\overline{q}q+|qqq,Gluons+\mathrm{};$$
(3)
ii) the mixing of $`SU_3`$-flavor configurations;

iii) the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation of the quark spin states from static 4-spinors (with upper components $`(0,1)`$ or $`(1,0)`$)) to Dirac 4-spinors.

### 2.2 Baryon masses

By using the $`𝒱`$ transformation, Eq.(1) becomes

$$M_\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}|H_{\mathrm{QCD}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{B}=\varphi _\mathrm{B}|𝒱^{}H_{\mathrm{QCD}}𝒱|\varphi _\mathrm{B}.$$
(4)
As final result one gets an expression for the ”parametrized mass” operator which depends on the flavor and spin operators of the three quarks, namely:

$`\widehat{}=`$ $`M_0`$ $`+B{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_i^S+C{\displaystyle \underset{i>k}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k\right)+D{\displaystyle \underset{i>k}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k\right)\left(P_i^S+P_k^S\right)+`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`E{\displaystyle \underset{ikj}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k\right)P_j^S+a{\displaystyle \underset{i>k}{}}P_i^SP_k^S+b{\displaystyle \underset{i>k}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k\right)\left(P_i^SP_k^S\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`c{\displaystyle \underset{ikj}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_k\right)\left(P_i^S+P_k^S\right)P_j^S+dP_1^SP_2^SP_3^S,`$
where $`P_i^S`$ are projection operators selecting the strange $`S`$-quark, and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ the quark spin Pauli matrices; $`M_0`$, $`B`$, $`C`$,…$`d`$ are parameters and only the combination $`a+b`$ is relevant for the masses. Few comments on the general parametrization (5) are in order:

i) it has been obtained for the baryon masses but can be extended to many physical quantities of the lowest multiplets of hadrons (both baryons and mesons), like magnetic moments, semileptonic matrix elements etc..

ii) it shows a large similarity with the NRQM result, but it is exact within QCD and fully relativistic (even if non-covariant because derived in the rest frame of the nucleon). In particular it takes into accont the flavor breaking term $`\mathrm{\Delta }m\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P^S\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the QCD Lagrangian to all orders.

In order to better understand the approach, let me introduce a provocative question: the masses of the lowest octect and decuplet baryons are eight ($`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ , $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1385)`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1530)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and Eq.(5) contains eight parameters ($`M_0`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$, $`E`$, $`a+b`$, c, d): why is it convenient to deal with the eight parameters rather than with the eight masses directly?

The key point is that the dynamical consequence of QCD produces a hierarchy of the paramenters which depends on the number of the indices in Eq.(5). Some of them result to be larger than others, a peculiarity absent in the conventional $`SU_3`$ group-theoretical parametrization of the flavor-breaking terms. Specifically one gets (the values are in MeV):

$`M_0=1076`$, $`B=192`$, $`C=45.6`$, $`D=13.8\pm 0.3`$, $`(a+b)=16.0\pm 1.4`$, $`E=5.1\pm 0.3`$, $`c=1.1\pm 0.7`$, $`d=4\pm 3`$.

Omitting all terms beyond $`E`$ in Eq.(5) (that is keeping first order flavor-breaking terms only) one obtains the Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula.

The coefficients decrease for terms with increasing number of indices and, at equal number of indices, they decrease increasing the order in flavor breaking (that is the number of $`P^S`$ factors). Each additional $`P^S`$ factor implies a reduction of $`0.3`$ (e.g. the ratio $`D/C`$). For each additional index (at equal number of $`P^S`$ factors) the reduction is $`0.37`$ (e.g. the ratio $`E/D`$).

An example is given by the Coleman-Galshow (CG) mass formula

$$pn=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,$$
(6)
derived assuming unbroken $`SU_3`$ flavor. Since flavor is violated (in the baryon octect) by $`33`$%, a similar violation of CG is expected. However by using the new recent measured vale of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$, $`1314\pm 0.06\pm 0.2`$ MeV, one gets, for the left and right side of Eq. (6), the impressive values $`\mathrm{l}.\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{s}.=1.29\mathrm{MeV};`$ $`\mathrm{r}.\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{s}.=1.58\pm 0.25\mathrm{MeV}.`$

The general parametrization approach is able to solve the mistery of the spectacular precision of the CG mass formula. As matter of fact the expression (6) is valid to all orders in flavor breaking terms with the omission of the terms with 3-quarks indices. The hierarchy in the general parametrization expansion allows an estimate of the relative contribution of the three-quark terms: $`(1/3)^3410^2`$ to be compared with the level of precision of the CG mass formula $`((1.581.29)\pm 0.25)/8(4\pm 3)\%`$, since the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+8`$ MeV. The present case is a peculiar case where, thanks to the hierarchy in the parametrization, an estimate of an effect due to strong interaction can be given and found tiny as expected.

## 3 NRQM: electromagnetic transitions

A consequence of the large success of the Constituent Quark Models (CQM) is the proliferation of a large class of different approaches.

In particular various models have been proposed for the internal baryon structure. A quite common feature of many models is that, despite of the use of different ingredients, they are able to give a satisfactory description of the baryon spectrum and, in general, of the nucleon static properties (cfr. the discussion of the previous section).

The obvious reason is that the study of hadron spectroscopy is not sufficient to distinguish among the various forms of quark dynamics and other observables, such as the electromagnetic transition form factors and the strong decay amplitudes, are important in testing models for the internal structure of the hadrons. As an example I discuss a recent calculation of the electromagnetic transition form factors using different potential models within a specific approach which includes three-body forces within an hypercentral approximation.

### 3.1 Transition form factors and the hypercentral potential model

The electromagnetic transition form factors, $`A_{1/2}(Q^2)`$ and $`A_{3/2}(Q^2)`$, are defined as the transition matrix elements of the transverse electromagnetic interaction, $`H_{e.m.}^t`$, between the nucleon, $`N`$, and the resonance, $`B`$, states:

$$A_{J_z^{}}(Q^2)=B,J^{},J_z^{}|H_{em}^t|N,J=1/2,J_z=1/2$$
(7)
Following Aiello et al., I compare various models:

1) a potential which retains only the hypercoulomb and the linear confinement terms fitted to the spectrum, plus a standard hyperfine interaction;

2) an analytical model which corresponds to the previous approximation plus a hyperfine interaction with a sooth $`x`$-dependence;

3) a potential which has the property of reproducing exactly the dipole fit of the proton form factor;

4) the harmonic oscillator with the parameter $`\alpha =0.229`$ GeV which reproduces the proton charge radius;

5) the harmonic oscillator with the parameter $`\alpha =0.410`$ GeV corresponding to a confinement radius of the order of $`0.5`$ fm, required in order to reproduce the $`A_{3/2}^p`$ at $`Q^2=0`$ for the $`D_{13}(1520)`$-resonance.

In Fig. 1 the proton helicity amplitudes for $`D_{13}(1520)`$-resonance. The potentials 1) and 2) give rise to similar results. They both fit the energy levels and lead to a confinement radius of the order of $`0.5`$ fm. The medium $`Q^2`$-behaviour is good but they fail to reproduce well the data at low $`Q^2`$ especially in the $`A_{3/2}^p`$ case.

The results are however very different from potential 1) and 2) and in the $`A_{1/2}^p`$ case also far from the data. The potential which reproduces exactly the dipole form factor, 3), gives too damped results; the same happens for the h.o. with the correct proton radius, which causes a too strong damping in the wave functions.

Similar conclusions can be drawn from Fig. 2, where the results for the $`S_{11}(1535)`$-resonance are shown. One can see that reproducing the elastic form factor is not a guaranty for describing also the transition form factors. None of the CQM considered can explain adequately the transition form factors at low momentum transfer. The discrepancy indicates that some important effect at low momentum transfer is missing, like polarization effect of the Dirac sea, not included in CQMs. The calculations, at variance with what expected, are in agreement with the few existing data at $`Q^2=12`$ (GeV/c)2, that is outside the range of applicability of a non relativistic description.

The problem of a relativistic description is still open and I discuss relativistic extensions in Sec.4.

### 3.2 Inelastic photon scattering and the magnetic moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232)

As further example of CQM application let me briefly discuss inelastic photon scattering and its relation with the magnetic moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(33) resonance as investigated by Drechsel et al. in ref..

The static properties of baryons are an important testing ground for QCD based calculations in the confinement region. However, little experimental information is available for hadrons outside of the ground state SU(3) octet. In view of the short life-time of the resonances, such information has to come from a detailed analysis of intermediate states. As a result of many experimental and theoretical efforts, the Particle Data Group (1998) quotes a value of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=(5.6\pm 1.9)\mu _N`$ for the magnetic dipole moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ resonance. The large error bar is due to large nonresonant processes, external bremsstrahlung by initial and final state particles, and a strong background due to interactions in both the initial and final states. A much cleaner experiment would be an electromagnetic excitation of the nucleon leading to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance with subsequent emission of a real photon followed by the decay into a nucleon and a pion. The process $`\gamma +p\gamma ^{}+p^{}+\pi ^0`$ would be particularly favorable, because the signal is less disturbed by the external bremsstrahlung background.

Unfortunately, the A2 collaboration at MAMI working with the TAPS detector has only been able to see 3-photon events at a rate corresponding to a cross section of tens of nanobarns. Drechsel et al. point out that one only expect total cross sections for this process in the range of 5-10 nb, which is probably at the limit of the present experimental accuracy. For this purpose they have calculated both elastic (Compton) and inelastic photon scattering through the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance in the constituent quark model. The expectations based on such a simple model show that the integrated cross section for this process should indeed be very small, namely of the order of 5 nb.

The electromagnetic moments of baryon resonances are among the most evasive properties of hadrons. The extremely weak signals for these moments are at the very limits of even the most advanced experimental techniques. However, such data would be invaluable for our understanding of QCD in the confinement region, and dedicated experiments are certainly desirable.

## 4 Covariant Quark Models: electromagnetic form factors

In the present section I discuss the relativistic extension of CQM. In particular a relativistic light-front (LF) constituent-quark (CQ) model and the investigation of transition electromagnetic hadron form factors  in the momentum transfer region relevant for the experimental research programme at TJNAF. The main features of the model are: i) eigenstates of a mass operator which reproduces a large part of the hadron spectrum; ii) a one-body current operator with phenomenological Dirac and Pauli form factors for the CQ’s. The CQ’s are assumed to interact via the $`qq`$ potential of Capstick and Isgur (CI), which includes a linear confining term and an effective one-gluon-exchange (OGE) term. The latter produces a huge amount of high-momentum components in the baryon wave functions and contains a central Coulomb-like potential, a spin-dependent part, responsible for the hyperfine splitting of baryon masses, and a tensor part. A comparable amount of high momentum components was obtained with the $`qq`$ interaction based on the exchange of the pseudoscalar Goldstone-bosons. This fact suggests that the hadron spectrum itself dictates the high momentum behaviour in hadron wave functions as furtherly suggested by the recent calculations of electromagnetic static form factors within the Goldstone-bosons potential model. In the following I review results for the transition form factors for $`J3/2`$ hadrons.

### 4.1 Nucleon-Resonance transistion form factors

Once the $`CQ`$ form factors have been determined by means of the evaluation of elastic form factors within the LF model, one can obtain parameter-free predictions for the nucleon-resonance transition form factors.

In Fig. 3 the evaluations of the helicity amplitude $`A_{1/2}`$ are shown for $`NS_{11}(1535)`$, $`S_{11}(1650)`$ and $`S_{31}(1620)`$, and compared with the results of the non-relativistic model of ref.. In the case of $`S_{31}(1620)`$ the results for $`p`$ and $`n`$ coincide (as for $`P_{33}(1232)`$), since only the isovector part of the CQ current is effective. The predictions yield an overall agreement with available experimental data for the $`P`$-wave resonances and show a sizeable sensitivity to relativistic effects, but more accurate data are needed to reliably discriminate between different models.

## 5 Electroweak structure of the nucleon

In this section I review the research activity aimed to reveal the electroweak structure of the nucleon, in particular its strange content. I discuss both neutrino and parity-violating polarized electron scattering.

### 5.1 The strange axial current

After the measurements of the polarized structure function of the proton, $`g_1`$, in deep inelastic scattering, it turned out, rather surprisingly, that the constant $`g_A^s`$, that characterizes the one–nucleon matrix element of the axial strange current, namely

$$p,s\left|\overline{q}\gamma ^\alpha \gamma _5q\right|p,s=2Ms^\alpha g_A^q;(\mathrm{q}=\mathrm{s}),$$
(8)
is of magnitude comparable with the corresponding $`g_A^u`$ and $`g_A^d`$ axial constants. (Here $`p`$ is the nucleon momentum, $`M`$ is the nucleon mass, $`s^\alpha `$ is the spin vector and $`g_A^q`$ is a constant). A theoretical analysis of deep inelastic data led to the following values for the axial constants: $`g_A^s=0.10\pm 0.03`$, $`g_A^d=0.43\pm 0.03`$, $`g_A^u=0.83\pm 0.03`$ (in a more recent analysis of the data, the value $`g_A^s=0.13\pm 0.03`$ was reported).

However the values of the constants $`g_A^q`$ given of Eq.(8) were obtained under several assumptions. It is then clear that it is very important to use other methods for the determination of the matrix elements of the strange current. The investigation of neutral-current (NC) as well as charged-current (CC) neutrino reactions is one of these ways .

### 5.2 The BNL-734 experiment

Let one consider the elastic scattering of muon neutrinos and antineutrinos on nucleons: $`\nu _\mu +N\nu _\mu +N;`$ $`\overline{\nu }_\mu +N\overline{\nu }_\mu +N.`$

The cross sections of these processes depend on the electromagnetic form factors, on the axial form factor and on the strange axial and vector form factors of the nucleon, and the value of the constant $`g_A^s`$ that can be extracted strongly depends on the behaviour of the (poorly known) axial form factor. In order to minimize this dependence Alberico et al. consider the asymmetry

$$𝒜_p(Q^2)=\frac{\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2}}\right)_{\nu p\nu p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2}}\right)_{\overline{\nu }p\overline{\nu }p}}{\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2}}\right)_{\nu n\mu ^{}p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2}}\right)_{\overline{\nu }p\mu ^+n}}$$
(9)
in order to obtain direct model independent information on the axial ($`F_A^s`$) and magnetic ($`G_M^s`$) strange form factors of the nucleon.

In ref. the contribution of the strange form factors of the nucleon to the NC over CC neutrino–antineutrino asymmetry have been calculated and compared with the information on it, which one can extract from the data of the BNL–734 experiment. In this experiment the following ratios of cross sections were obtained:

$`R_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{(\nu p\nu p)}}{\sigma _{(\nu n\mu ^{}p)}}}=0.153\pm 0.007\pm 0.017`$ (10)
$`R_{\overline{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{(\overline{\nu }p\overline{\nu }p)}}{\sigma _{(\overline{\nu }p\mu ^+n)}}}=0.218\pm 0.012\pm 0.023`$ (11)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{(\overline{\nu }p\overline{\nu }p)}}{\sigma _{(\nu p\nu p)}}}=0.302\pm 0.019\pm 0.037,`$ (12)
where $`\sigma `$ are cross sections folded with the experimental neutrino energy spectrum and integrated over the available range of momentum transfer $`Q^2`$.

The neutrino–antineutrino folded integral asymmetry, $`𝒜_p`$, is also obtained from the neutral current to charge current ratio of the differences between the total folded neutrino and antineutrino cross sections :

$$𝒜_p=\frac{\sigma _{(\nu p\nu p)}\sigma _{(\overline{\nu }p\overline{\nu }p)}}{\sigma _{(\nu n\mu ^{}p)}\sigma _{(\overline{\nu }p\mu ^+n)}}=\frac{R_\nu (1R)}{1RR_\nu /R_{\overline{\nu }}},$$
(13)
where the asymmetry has been written in terms of the ratios (10)–(12). From the experimental data one found:

$$𝒜_p=0.136\pm 0.008(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.019(\mathrm{syst}).$$
(14)
In Fig. 4 the effects of strangeness for the ratios (10)–(12) and the integral asymmetry (13) are shown. The experimental values for the various quantities are indicated by the shadowed regions: the error band corresponds to one standard deviation. The usual dipole parameterization both for non–strange and strange form factors is assumed

$$F_A^s(Q^2)=g_A^sG_D^A(Q^2);G_M^s(Q^2)=\mu _sG_D^V(Q^2);$$

$$G_E^s(Q^2)=\rho _sQ^2/4M^2G_D^V(Q^2);\mathrm{with}G_D^{V(A)}(Q^2)=1/(1+Q^2/M_{V(A)}^2)^2,$$

while the strengths $`g_A^s`$, $`\mu _s`$ and $`\rho _s`$ are taken as free parameters. The same values for the strange cutoff masses as for the non–strange vector (axial) form factors are assumed.

In Fig. 4(a) the ratios $`R_\nu `$ and $`R_{\overline{\nu }}`$ versus $`\mu _s`$ are shown for two values of the axial–strange constant: $`g_A^s=0,0.15`$ and three values of the electric strange constant: $`\rho _s=0,\pm 2`$. The axial cutoff mass is $`M_A=1.032`$ GeV. As it is seen from the same Fig. 4(a), a value of the strange axial constant $`g_A^s`$ as large as $`0.15`$ is not favoured by the BNL–734 data.

Results of the calculation of the ratio $`R`$ and the integral asymmetry $`𝒜_p`$ are shown in Fig. 4(b): both for $`R`$ and $`𝒜_p`$ the effects induced by the axial and magnetic strange form factors are similar. These effects are clearly larger (in $`R`$) than the ones due to the electric strange form factor. Moreover it is worth noticing that the integral asymmetry does not depend at all upon the electric strange form factor. All the considered values of the strange parameters are compatible with the asymmetry $`𝒜_p`$ within the experimental errors. However for values of $`g_A^s`$ as large as $`0.15`$ the experimental value of $`R`$ favours $`\mu _s0`$.

The experimental uncertainties are of the same order as the effects of the strange form factors of the nucleon. Keeping this in mind and without any claim for a definitive evidence, the results seem to favour negative values of the magnetic strange parameter, $`\mu _s`$, if $`g_A^s`$ is relatively large.

The value of the strange magnetic form factor of the nucleon has been recently measured at BATES, with the result $`G_M^s(0.1\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.23\pm 0.37\pm 0.15\pm 0.19`$. This value is affected by large experimental and theoretical uncertainties (the last error refers to the estimate of radiative corrections), but it is centered around a positive $`\mu _s`$, although it is still compatible with zero or negative values of $`\mu _s`$. Let me also notice that, if the P–odd asymmetry measured in the scattering of polarized electrons on nucleons will provide a more stringent information on the strange magnetic form factor, then future, precise experiments combining the measurement of $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$–proton scattering could allow a determination of the axial strange form factor and of the electric one.

One can conclude that the uncertainty of the available data does not allow to set stringent limits on the strange vector and axial–vector parameters, but future, more precise measurements could make their determination possible in a model independent way.

### 5.3 Parity violating electron scattering and target asymmetry

As already mentioned in the previous section, a first measurement of the PV beam asymmetry ($`𝒜_{LR}`$) in $`\stackrel{}{e}p`$ elastic scattering was performed at Bates/MIT Laboratory by the SAMPLE Collaboration giving the first experimental determination of the proton strangeness magnetic form factor at $`Q^2=0.1(GeV/c)^2`$ ($`\mu _s=0.23\pm 0.37\pm 0.15\pm 0.19\mu _N`$).

Because of the difficulties inherent in the PV electron scattering experiment an independent determination of $`\mu _s`$, of the strangeness radius $`r_s^2`$ and of other strangeness properties of the proton could be extremely useful.

Recently Moscani et al. reported on the results of a study on the asymmetry $`𝒜`$$`𝒜`$$`𝒜`$ of the elastic $`e\stackrel{}{p}`$ scattering cross section (in the low $`Q^2`$ range) arising from the polarization of the proton target. In principle, this asymmetry is even more versatile than $`𝒜_{LR}`$ for disentangling the different weak form factors because the polarization of the proton target can be freely chosen whereas the electron beam can be polarized only along the beam momentum.

The only nonzero components of the target asymmetry are those in the scattering plane, i.e. the transverse ($`𝒜_x`$) and the longitudinal ($`𝒜_z`$) ones (we assume the z-axis along the momentum transfer).

In Fig. 5 the angular distribution of $`𝒜_x,𝒜_z`$ and of the modulus of $`𝒜_{LR}`$ are shown for $`Q^2`$=0.1 (GeV/c)2, calculated with Jaffe’s value $`r_s^2`$=0.16 fm2 and the central experimental value $`\mu _s=0.23\mu _N`$. $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$ show a remarkably different angular dependence as $`\vartheta _e^{}`$ increases: $`𝒜_x0`$ at backward angles while $`𝒜_z`$ reaches its maximum.

$`𝒜_z`$ does not depend on $`\stackrel{~}{G}_E`$ (and then on $`G_E^{(s)}`$) and its dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{G}_A`$ is lowered with respect to that on $`\stackrel{~}{G}_M`$ because $`g_V^eg_A^e`$, in particular at backward angles. In principle, a measurement of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_M`$ in the target asymmetry is more convenient than in the helicity asymmetry making $`𝒜_z`$ an useful quantity for a determination of $`\mu _s`$ complementary to that coming from $`𝒜_{LR}`$. Then, a determination of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_A`$ (and of $`g_A^{(s)}`$), alternative to that deriving from $`\nu /\overline{\nu }`$ scattering experiments could be carried out in this kind of PV electron scattering experiments.

In conclusion:

i) The asymmetry $`𝒜`$$`𝒜`$$`𝒜`$ of the elastic $`e\stackrel{}{p}`$ scattering cross section arising from the polarization of the proton target may be a possible PV observable for an experimental determination of the proton weak form factors.

ii) The most convenient decomposition of $`𝒜`$$`𝒜`$$`𝒜`$ is obtained considering the proton polarization along and perpendicular to the momentum transfer.

iii) The longitudinal asymmetry $`𝒜_z`$ is independent of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_E`$ allowing an experimental determination of the proton strangeness magnetic moment $`\mu _s`$.

iv) The transverse asymmetry $`𝒜_x`$ is rather sensitive to the proton strangeness radius $`r_s^2`$ in the case of backward detected electrons.

v) A peculiarity of $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$ with respect to $`𝒜_{LR}`$, is that their dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{G}_A`$ can be enhanced over that on $`\stackrel{~}{G}_E,\stackrel{~}{G}_M`$. In fact, in the strict forward scattering ($`\vartheta _e^{}`$ = 0) $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$ are determined by $`\stackrel{~}{G}_A`$ only.

## 6 Deep inelastic scattering

Constituent quark models, on one side, and the parton picture, on the other side, represent two complementary descriptions of the hadron structure and the birth of QCD set the general framework to understand deep inelastic scattering (DIS) beyond the parton model. In the recent past a lot of work has been devoted to the attempt of reproducing the experimental deep inelastic structure functions at high momentum transfer starting from a parton parametrization at a low resolution scale $`Q_0^2`$ where the valence contribution becomes dominant. In this way quark models, summarizing a great deal of hadronic properties, may substitute low-energy parametrizations. Following such a path, a partonic description can be generated from gluon radiation even off a purely valence quark system, which can be used to generate the non perturbative input occurring in the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) analysis of lepton-hadron scattering in QCD.

In the next sections I summarize some of the work done in this field by different authors.

### 6.1 Exact models

In the parton model of DIS, it is assumed that the final state interaction (FSI) of the struck parton with the remnants of the target is a higher twist effect, i.e., an effect which is suppressed at least as $`m^2/Q^2`$. The qualitative motivation of this assumption is that the time needed for the absorption of the virtual photon by the struck quark is much smaller than the time of its hadronization and therefore in the process of absorption the struck quark can be considered as approximately free.

Of course the relevance of the FSI has to be studied in the framework of nonperturbative QCD, but in absence of a full solution it is desirable to consider models in which the structure functions can be calculated exactly and therefore it is possible to check whether the FSI is indeed a higher twist effect.

Pace et al. investigated the role played by FSI in DIS for an exactly solvable relativistic quark model, within the light-cone (= front-form) hamiltonian dynamics. The confinement can be ensured by choosing a quark-quark potential such that the mass operator of a system with a fixed number of relativistic constituent quarks has only the discrete spectrum (while in QCD confinement is understood as the property of the quark and gluon Green functions to have no poles for real values of the mass). The purpose is to verify whether the naive treatment of confinement in relativistic CQMs is compatible with the parton model.

The authors consider a simple system composed by two relativistic particles interacting via the relativistic harmonic oscillator potential. The electromagnetic current matrix elements exhibit the correct properties under Poincaré transformations and fulfill the current conservation. In the proper Breit frame, the relevant components of the current are the same as in the parton model. Then, in the framework of the light-cone hamiltonian dynamics, one can derive exact expressions for the DIS structure functions, including, for the first time, the FSI effects calculated exactly in a relativistic model.

Their results can be summarized in the following way:

i) the relativistic calculation differs from the nonrelativistic ones considered in in several aspects. In particular, the Bjorken limit implies that one gets a finite contribution to the structure functions only from excited states with $`n\mathrm{}`$, while the nonrelativistic approach is valid only if $`n(m_0/a)^2`$. Furthermore in the infinite momentum frame only the transverse components of the hadronic tensor survive in the Bjorken limit, while in the nonrelativistic case the component $`W^{00}`$ is the dominant one.

ii) The results could be considered as an argument in favor of the ”common wisdom”, according to which the FSI in the Bjorken limit is a higher twist effect.

iii) The choice of the current is compatible with Poincaré invariance and current conservation. However, these requirements do not determine the current operator uniquely and many body components could be present in $`J^\mu (0)`$. Therefore one should study whether the results of the parton model can still be recovered in the Bjorken limit if the operator $`J^\mu (0)`$ contains many-body interaction terms.

### 6.2 Covariance and DIS

It is quite evident that relativistic effects to the nucleon wave function, as well as, covariance requirements, are needed even for a phenomenological description of the structure of hadrons. To this aim I discuss a constituent quark model approach based on a light-front realization of the Hamiltonian dynamics and recent applied for the calculation of both polarized and unpolarized parton distributions.

The parton distributions at the hadronic scale are assumed to be valence quarks and gluons, and their twist two component is determined by the quark momentum density.

The relevant effects of the relativistic covariance are particularly evident looking at the polarized distributions. In that channel the introduction of Melosh transformations results in a substantial suppression of the responses at large values of $`x`$ and in an enhancement of the response for $`x0.15`$. The consequences can be appreciated looking at the results at the experimental scale after a Next-to-Leading order evolution (see Fig. 6) and to the orbital angular momentum parton distributions. The Melosh rotation dynamics introduce the basic new ingredient in the calculations and its effect is quite sizeable in suppressing the proton response in the region $`x0.4`$.

### 6.3 Relativistic spin effects in Drell-Yan processes

A complete description of the spin degrees of freedom of quarks and antiquarks in the nucleon requires, at leading twist, the definition of two sets of parton distributions. One of them, the helicity distribution $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$, have been intensively investigated in the last few years while the so called transversity distribution, $`h_1(x,Q^2)`$, has come to the attention of theorists and experimentalists more recently in the analysis of Drell–Yan spin asymmetries. In fact transversity is strongly suppressed (by powers of $`m_q/Q`$) in deep inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering and in general in any hard process that involves only one parton distribution. In hadron-hadron collisions the chirality of the partons that annihilate is uncorrelated and the previous restrictions do not apply.

It is rather well known that at the hadronic scale the equality $`h_1(x,Q_0^2)=g_1(x,Q_0^2)`$ is a typical outcome of non-relativistic models of the nucleon, in which motion and spin observables are uncorrelated. In other words, any departure from the previous identity is a signature of relativity in the employed hadronic model. A complete theoretical study of $`h_1`$ and $`g_1`$ has to account for both: the relativistic effects which distinguish $`h_1`$ from $`g_1`$ at the non-perturbative scale, and the pQCD evolution which differs for the two structure functions.

Fig. 6bis. Helicity and transversity distributions for the $`u`$ quark at the hadronic scale $`Q_0^2=0.094`$ GeV2 (left panel) and after evolution up to $`Q^2=100`$ GeV2 (right panel). On the left the solid line corresponds to $`xh_1`$, the dashed line to $`xg_1`$ and the dotted line is the result when Melosh rotation is not considered ($`h_1=g_1`$). On the right the solid and dashed lines represent $`h_1`$ and $`g_1`$ respectively. The dotted and dash-dotted lines correspond to $`h_1`$ and $`g_1`$ when Melosh Rotation is neglected.

A quantitative study of the relativistic effects in $`h_1`$ and $`g_1`$ due to the correlations of spin and parton motion in the hadronic systems has been recently completed. It makes use of the light-front approach previously discussed and the interplay between motion and spin is made explicit through the Melosh rotations. The light-front covariant quark model is used to compute the leading twist contribution to the matrix elements at the hadronic scale $`Q_0^2`$. The non-perturbative input is then evolved, at NLO, up to a higher $`Q^2`$ scale.

In Fig. 6bis the results for $`h_1^u`$ and $`g_1^u`$ at the hadronic scale $`Q_0^2`$ (left panel) and at the partonic scale $`Q^2=100`$ GeV2 (right panel) are shown. A remarkable difference between $`xh_1(x,Q_0^2)`$ and $`xg_1(x,Q_0^2)`$ appears at large $`x`$, reaching a peak at $`x0.5`$. Quantitatively they are bigger that those obtained within bag models. It is clear that the probability of transverse polarization is larger than the longitudinal one when relativistic effects are considered. The results obtained neglecting relativistic spin-motion correlation (induced in the light-cone approach by the Melosh rotations) are shown also in the same figure. One gets $`h_1(x,Q_0^2)=g_1(x,Q_0^2)`$ as expected. After evolution $`g_1`$ and $`h_1`$ differ mainly at low $`x`$ ($`x0.1`$) because of pQCD evolution, while the inclusion of the correlations between spin and motion produce large effects also in the medium and large $`x`$ region.

In order to look for relativistic spin effects, a specific observable has been defined in ref., namely the ratio

$$R_{TL}(Q^2)=\frac{(_ae_a^2h_1^a(x_1,Q^2)h_1^{\overline{a}}(x_2,Q^2)+(x_1x_2))dy}{(_ae_a^2g_1^a(x_1,Q^2)g_1^{\overline{a}}(x_2,Q^2)+(x_1x_2))dy},$$
(15)
where $`g_1^a(x,Q^2)`$ ($`h_1^a(x,Q^2)`$) are the lngitudinally (transverse) polarized parton distributions with flavor $`a`$ and charge $`e_a`$; the arguments $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are related, for Drell-Yan processes, to the center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, the invariant mass of the produced lepton pair $`Q^2`$, and the rapidity $`y=\mathrm{arctan}(Q^3/Q^0)`$: $`x_1=\sqrt{Q^2/s}e^y`$ and $`x_2=\sqrt{Q^2/s}e^y`$.

The results for this ratio and for the kinematics of HERA–$`\stackrel{}{N}`$ are shown in Fig. 7 The relative insensitivity to the details of the chosen potential is also evident in this representation. In the error bars shown take into account the limited acceptance of the detectors. While a measurement in the region $`Q>5`$ GeV cannot distinguish the importance of Melosh Rotations, in the low mass region ($`Q3`$ GeV) it would be possible to single out which is the right spin-flavor basis, though some overlap between the error bars still persists. For RHIC the acceptance corrections are too large to appreciate the differences.

### 6.4 Semi-inclusive structure functions

Detecting one or two of the hadrons produced in the high-energy scattering process, one is sensitive not only to the distribution of partons inside the target hadron, but also to the mechanism of hadronization, through which a quark gives rise to a jet of new hadrons. One is then able to measure not only distribution functions, but also the so-called fragmentation functions. These functions are presently considered to be very interesting and their experimental measurement is in progress (HERMES, COMPASS, RHIC). Neither the distribution nor the fragmentation functions can be calculated from first principles within perturbative QCD, because they belong to the non-perturbative realm of bound states and models are required.

In this context, model evaluations of the structure functions can be again useful. The spectator model proved to be in qualitative agreement with the known (transverse momentum integrated) distribution and fragmentation functions evolved at low energies. Therefore, one expects it to give reasonable estimates for the convolution integrals in semi-inclusive DIS. A good example is given in Fig. 8 for the reaction $`epe^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ for unpolarized proton target and unpolarized produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The basic assumption of the spectator model is that the target hadron can be divided into a quark and an effective spectator state with the required quantum numbers, which is treated to a first approximation as being on-shell with a definite mass. In the case of a baryon target, this second particle is a diquark. The quark fragments into a jet, from which one hadron is eventually detected; the remnants of the jet are treated effectively as an on-shell spectator state. If the detected hadron is a baryon, the second particle is an anti-diquark. The vertex coupling the baryon to quark and diquark includes a form factor preventing the quark from being far off-shell. The large $`p^2`$-behavior of the form factor is controlled by a parameter.

An important feature of the analysis is the dependence of the cross-sections on the transverse momentum of the outgoing hadron, $`P_h`$. The measurement of this variable gives access to two new contributions to the structure functions which have never been observed so far, because they vanish if the cross-section is integrated over $`P_h`$. Furthermore, the dependence of the cross-section on $`P_h`$ indirectly tests the distribution of partonic transverse momentum inside the hadron: a distribution largely unknown at the present.

## 7 Concluding remarks

In the present overwiev I shortly summarized some of the italian research activities on the field of hadronic degrees of freedom since the last two years. It seems to me that the contribution of the nuclear physics community to the topic contains few specific aspects that are peculiar of a long tradition in studying complex systems. One of them is the systematic use of many-body techniques in implementing constituent quark models both non-relativistic and relativistic. The results are relevant for the interpretation of the experimental data at the TJNAF and other accelerator facilities in the GeV region (e.g. MAMI) as illustrated by Taiuti and Pacati in their talks.

A second example is well illustrated by the study of the electroweak structure of the nucleon: basic quantities like the strange content of the nucleon, can get new insights by using the nucleus system as a filter to select interesting observables. Addional examples can be found in the study of deep inelatic scattering. Basic questions related to the complex dynamics of confinement and/or final state interaction can be investigated by means of sophysticate approaches which belong to the nuclear physics knowhow. In particular the study of the (largely) unknown non-perturbative part of the Operator product expansion approach to deep inelastic hadronic physics, is receiving important contributions from our community and they are relevant for the experiments at CERN, RHIC and HERA.

## Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this contribution my wife, after a long illness, died. I dedicate this paper to her memory asking the reader for a prayer.