text:
# Nonperturbative Fermion-Boson Vartex Function in Gauge Theories

## I Introduction

It is well known that the interactions determine the structure and properties of any theory, and the basic interactions are described by the interaction vertices. The fermion-boson vertex in gauge theories is such basic interaction. In perturbation theory emploied for the processes in which the interactions are weak the interaction vertices are well defined and can be computed order by order. On the other hand, the strong interaction phenomena such as the hadronic structure at low-energy scale and the nature of confinement in QCD can only be studied by nonperturbative approach. The Dyson-Schwinger equation(DSE) formalism is such an appropriate nonperturbative approach, which provides a natural way to study the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, confinement and other problems of hadronic physics. In undertaking nonperturbative studies of gauge theories using DSEs, we immediately have to confront the issue of what is the nonperturbative form of the fermion-boson vertex function. This is because the DSEs are an infinite set of coupled integral equations which relate the n-point Green function to the (n+1)-point function; at its simplest, propagators are related to three-point vertices. Therefore, we must find an adequite scheme in a gauge-invariant manner to truncate consistently this set of equations so that we are able to actually solve the DSEs. Finding the nonperturbative form of the fermion-boson vertex is needed to accomplish such truncation of the infinite set of equations, as well as is responsible for determining the nonperturbative behavior of the propagators. Indeed, recent studies utilising the DSE approach show that the chiral symmetry restoration transition is strongly dependent on the nonperturbative structure of the interaction kernel in the infrared region.

Naturally, the basic approach to find the nonperturbative fermion-boson vertex is to use the Ward-Takahashi(WT) relations since the normal WT relation for the vertex relates the fermion-boson vertex (i.e. the vector vertex) to the full fermion propagetor, which is satisfied perturbatively as well as nonperturbatively. But the normal WT relation specifies only the longitudinal part of the vertex, leaving the transverse part unconstrained. How to solve exactly the transverse part of the vertex and thereby the full vertex function then becomes a crucial problem . Although there have been considerable efforts to construct the transverse part of the vertex in terms of an ansatz which satisfies some constraints, however, all such attempts remain ad hoc . These constraints may serve as a guide to possible structure of nonperturbative vertex but can not derive the true nonperturbative vertex. Obviously the key point to obtain the complete constraints on the vertex must be to study the WT type constraint relations for the transverse part of the vertex, i.e., the transverse WT relations, since the longitudinal part of the vertex is specified by the normal WT relation. In Ref., we studied the transverse WT relation for the fermion-boson vertex. It showed that in order to obtain the complete solution for the fermion-boson vertex function one needs to build simultaneously the WT relations for the axial-vector and the tensor vertex functions as well. Up to the effects of possible quantum anomalies and perturbative corrections, this problem was solved by He in Ref.. However, the symmetry in the classical theory may be destroied in the quantum theory by the quantum anomaly arising from the fermion-loop diagram. The well-known example is the anomalous nonconservation of the four-dimensional axial current, expressed by the anomalous axial-vector divergence equation, which is known as the axial anomaly or the Adler-Bell-Jackiw(ABJ) anomaly . Hence the normal WT relation for the axial-vector vertex is modified by ABJ anomaly. Recently we found the anomalous axial-vector curl equation besides the ABJ anomaly, which is called the transverse axial anomaly. As a consequence, the transverse WT relation for the axial-vector vertex is modified by the transverse axial anomaly.

In this Latter we further derive the nonperturbative fermion-boson vertex function in four-dimensional Abelian gauge theories by self-consistently solving a set of normal and transverse WT relations for the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions in momentum space in the case of massless fermion without any ansatz, in which the possible quantum anomalies and perturbative corrections are taken into account simultaneously. The error arose due to the inconsistent treatment in the previous study of the transverse part of the fermion-boson vertex is also corrected by fully self-consistent procedure.

The result shows that the full fermion-boson vertex function is expressed nonperturbatively in terms of the full fermion propagator and contains the contributions of perturbative corrections and the transverse axial anomaly. Such a full fermion-boson vertex function is true nonperturbatively as well as perturbatively because it is determined completely by the longitudinal and transverse WT relations which are satisfied nonperturbatively as well as perturbatively. It is particular interesting to find that the nonperturbative fermion-boson vertex function contains the contribution of the transverse axial anomaly that appears originally in the transverse WT relation for the axial-vector vertex, which has never been obtained so far by the normal perturbative calculation for the vector vertex. This result arises from the coupling between the vector and the axial-vector vertices through the transverse WT relations for them. We notice that the WT relations and the appearance of quantum anomalies are the consequences of local gauge invariance. Thus, the nonperturbative fermion-gauge-boson vertex function which are deduced exactly from the WT relations maintains the gauge invariance.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.II, we present a set of normal and transverse WT relations for the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions, where the possible quantum anomalies and perturbative corrections are taken into account simultaneously. Based on this set of WT relations, in sec.II we derive the nonperturbative fermion-boson vertex function in the case of massless fermion by fully self-consistent procedure. Conclusions and discussions are given in Sec.IV.

## II Normal and Transverse Ward-Takahashi Relations For the Vector and the Axial-Vector Vertex Functions

The normal (longitudinal) WT identities for the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions in momentum space are well-known :

$$q_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu (p_1,p_2)=S_F^1(p_1)S_F^1(p_2),$$
(1)
$$q_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\mu (p_1,p_2)=S_F^1(p_1)\gamma _5+\gamma _5S_F^1(p_2)+2m\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(p_1,p_2)+i\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}F(p_1,p_2),$$
(2)
where $`q=p_1p_2`$, $`m`$ is the fermion mass, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ are the vector, the axial-vector, and the pseudo-scalar vertex functions in momentum space, respectively, and $`S_F(p_1)`$ is the full fermion propagator. $`F(p_1,p_2)`$ denotes the contribution of the axial anomaly or the ABJ anomaly in momentum space, and is defined by

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4x_1d^4x_2e^{i(p_1x_1p_2x_2qx)}0|T\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\rho \sigma }(x)|0}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1p_2q)iS_F(p_1)F(p_1,p_2)iS_F(p_2).`$ (4)
The normal WT identities (1) and (2) specify only the longitudinal parts of the vector and the axial-vector vertices, respectively, leaving the transverse parts unconstrained. In coordinate space they are related to the divergence of the time-ordered products of the three-point Green functions involving the corresponding current operators.

In the canonical field theory the transverse WT relations for the vector and the axial-vector vertices in coordinate space are related to the curl of the time-ordered products of the three-point functions involving the vector and the axial-vector current operators, respectively. The results are

$`_x^\mu 0\left|Tj^\nu (x)\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0_x^\nu 0\left|Tj^\mu (x)\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }0\left|T\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0\delta ^4(x_1x)+i0\left|T\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\delta ^4(x_2x)`$ (8)
$`+2m0\left|T\overline{\psi }(x)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\psi (x)\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0`$
$`+\underset{x^{}x}{lim}i(_\lambda ^x_\lambda ^x^{})\epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }0\left|T\overline{\psi }(x^{})\gamma _\rho \gamma _5U_P(x^{},x)\psi (x)\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0,`$
and

$`_x^\mu 0\left|Tj_5^\nu (x)\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0_x^\nu 0\left|Tj_5^\mu (x)\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _50\left|T\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0\delta ^4(x_1x)i0\left|T\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\delta ^4(x_2x)`$ (12)
$`+\underset{x^{}x}{lim}i(_\lambda ^x_\lambda ^x^{})\epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }0\left|T\overline{\psi }(x^{})\gamma _\rho U_P(x^{},x)\psi (x)\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)\right|0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}0\left|T\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)[\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu \rho }F_{\alpha \beta }(x)F_\rho ^\nu (x)\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \nu \rho }F_{\alpha \beta }(x)F_\rho ^\mu (x)]\right|0,`$
where $`j^\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu \psi (x)`$, $`j_5^\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\psi (x)`$, $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]`$. The Wilson line $`U_P(x^{},x)=P\mathrm{exp}(ig_x^x^{}𝑑y^\rho A_\rho (y))`$ is introduced in order that the operators be locally gauge invariant, where $`A_\mu `$ is the gauge fields. In the QED case, $`g=e`$ and $`A_\rho `$ is the photon field. In the QCD case, $`A_\rho =A_\rho ^aT^a`$, $`A_\rho ^a`$ are the non-Abelian gluon fields and $`T^a`$ are the generators of $`SU(3)_c`$ group. The last term of Eq.(5) is the the contribution of the transverse axial anomaly expressed by the anomalous axial-vector curl equation

$`^\mu j_5^\nu (x)^\nu j_5^\mu (x)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}i(_\lambda ^x_\lambda ^x^{})\epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\overline{\psi }(x^{})\gamma _\rho U_P(x^{},x)\psi (x)`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}[\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu \rho }F_{\alpha \beta }(x)F_\rho ^\nu (x)\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \nu \rho }F_{\alpha \beta }(x)F_\rho ^\mu (x)],`$
where the last term is the transverse axial anomaly for the curl of the axial-vector current, which is different from the ABJ anomaly expressed by the anomalous axial-vector divergence equation.

The transverse W-T relations for the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions can be written in more clear and elegant form in momentum space by computing the Fourier transformation of Eqs.(4) and (5). In terms of the standard definition for the Fourier transformation of the three-point functions, we obtain

$`iq^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\nu (p_1,p_2)iq^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu (p_1,p_2)`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+\sigma ^{\mu \nu }S_F^1(p_2)+2m\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2)`$ (18)
$`+(p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })\epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A\rho }(p_1,p_2){\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2k_\lambda \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A\rho }(p_1,p_2;k)},`$
and

$`iq^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\nu (p_1,p_2)iq^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\mu (p_1,p_2)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5S_F^1(p_2)+(p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })\epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V\rho }(p_1,p_2)`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2k_\lambda \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V\rho }(p_1,p_2;k)}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}F_{(T)}^{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2),`$
where $`q=p_1p_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{\mu \nu }`$ is the tensor vertex function in momentum space. $`F_{(T)}^{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2)`$ denotes the contribution of the transverse axial anomaly in momentum space, and is defined by

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4x_1d^4x_2e^{i(p_1x_1p_2x_2qx)}0|T\psi (x_1)\overline{\psi }(x_2)[\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu \rho }F_\rho ^\nu (x)\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \nu \rho }F_\rho ^\mu (x)]F_{\alpha \beta }(x)|0}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1p_2q)iS_F(p_1)F_{(T)}^{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2)iS_F(p_2).`$ (23)
Note that here $`F_{(T)}^{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2)`$ is equal to $`K^{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2)`$ defined in Ref.. In Eqs.(7) and (8), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V\rho }(p_1,p_2;k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A\rho }(p_1,p_2;k)`$ involve the internal momentum $`k`$ of the gauge boson appearing in the Wilson line and hence are the higher-order contributions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V\rho }(p_1,p_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A\rho }(p_1,p_2)`$, respectively. Their contributions were negelected in Refs.. The integrals in Eqs.(7) and (8) can be written order by order. For example, to the one-loop order the integral in Eq.(7) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2k_\lambda \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A\rho }(p_1,p_2;k)}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`g^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2k_\lambda \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\gamma ^\alpha \frac{1}{\widehat{p_1}\widehat{k}m}\gamma ^\rho \gamma _5\frac{1}{\widehat{p_2}\widehat{k}m}\gamma ^\beta \frac{i}{k^2}[g_{\alpha \beta }+(\xi 1)\frac{k_\alpha k_\beta }{k^4}]}`$ (26)
$`+g^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2\epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \nu \rho }[\gamma ^\beta \frac{1}{\widehat{p_1}\widehat{k}m}\gamma ^\rho \gamma _5+\gamma ^\rho \gamma _5\frac{1}{\widehat{p_2}\widehat{k}m}\gamma ^\beta ]\frac{i}{k^2}[g_{\alpha \beta }+(\xi 1)\frac{k_\alpha k_\beta }{k^4}]},`$
where $`\widehat{k}=\gamma k`$, and $`\xi `$ is the covariant gauge parameter. The last two terms in the right-hand side of Eq.(10) are the one-loop self-energy contributions accompanying the vertex correction. The integral in Eq.(8) can be written similarly. Therefore, the terms involving the integrals over the internal momentum $`k`$ correspond to the perturbative corrections to the vertices. It can be verified that the transverse WT relations (7) and (8) are satisfied at one-loop order in perturbation theory, and then can be further verified that they should be satisfied at each order in perturbation theory since the perturbative correction terms in the WT relations (7) and (8) can be written order by order.

It is easy to show that Eqs.(7) and (8) specify the transverse parts of the vertices . Eqs.(7) and (8) show that the transverse parts of the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions are coupled each other through the transverse WT relations for them. It implies that the transverse parts of the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions are not independent of each other in four-dimensional spacetime. Thus, some properties of the axial-vector vertex function, for instance, the transverse axial anomaly that appears originally in the transverse WT relation for the axial-vector vertex, will also contribute to the vector vertex function.

Now we have the normal WT identities (1) and (2), which impose the constraints on longitudinal parts of the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions, respectively, and the transverse WT relations (7) and (8), which impose the constraints on transverse parts of these vertex functions. In general, this set of WT relations are not enough to determine the complete solutions of the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions because this set of WT relations involve the terms $`m\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ and $`m\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{\mu \nu }`$ where $`m`$ is fermion mass. However, in the limit with zero fermion mass, the contributions from the pseudo-scalar and the tensor vertex functions disappear and hence Eqs.(1), (2), (7) and (8) form a complete set of WT relations for the vector and the axial-vector vertices. Then we can solve this set of WT relations to obtain the full vector and the axial-vector vertex functions in terms of the fermion propagator and perturbative corrections.

## III Nonperturbative Fermion-Boson Vertex Functions

We now derive the full fermion-boson vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu `$ by consistently and exactly solving the set of WT relations for the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions, given by Eqs.(1), (2), (7) and (8), in the case of massless fermion. To do this, we multiply both sides of Eqs.(7) and (8) by $`iq_\nu `$, and then move the terms proportional to $`q_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\nu `$ and $`q_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\nu `$ into the right-hand side of the equations. We thus have

$`q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu (p_1,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu [q_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\nu (p_1,p_2)]+iS_F^1(p_1)q_\nu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }+iq_\nu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }S_F^1(p_2)`$ (28)
$`+i(p_{1\lambda }p_{2\lambda })q_\nu \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A\rho }(p_1,p_2)iq_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2k_\lambda \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A\rho }(p_1,p_2;k)},`$
$`q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\mu (p_1,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu [q_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\nu (p_1,p_2)]+iS_F^1(p_1)q_\nu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5iq_\nu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5S_F^1(p_2)`$ (31)
$`+i(p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })q_\nu \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V\rho }(p_1,p_2)iq_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2k_\lambda \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V\rho }(p_1,p_2;k)}`$
$`+i{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}q_\nu F_{(T)}^{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2).`$
By substituting Eq.(12) into Eq.(11) and using Eqs.(1) and (2), after some lengthy computation we obtain the following full fermion-boson vertex function in the case of massless fermion

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu (p_1,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`[q^2+(p_1+p_2)^2((p_1+p_2)q)^2q^2]^1`$ (40)
$`\times \{[S_F^1(p_1)S_F^1(p_2)][q^\mu +q^\mu (p_1+p_2)^2q^2q^\mu ((p_1+p_2)q)^2q^4]`$
$`+iS_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu +i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu S_F^1(p_2)`$
$`+i[S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\mu \lambda }\sigma ^{\mu \lambda }S_F^1(p_2)](p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })`$
$`+i[S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\lambda \nu }\sigma ^{\lambda \nu }S_F^1(p_2)]q_\nu (p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })q^\mu q^2`$
$`i[S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }S_F^1(p_2)]q_\nu (p_1+p_2)qq^2`$
$`+i[S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\lambda \nu }+\sigma ^{\lambda \nu }S_F^1(p_2)]q_\nu (p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })[p_1^\mu +p_2^\mu q^\mu (p_1+p_2)qq^2]q^2`$
$`+C_{V+A}^\mu +(p_{1\nu }+p_{2\nu })C_{V+A}^\nu [p_1^\mu +p_2^\mu q^\mu (p_1+p_2)qq^2]q^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}(p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })q^2q_\nu q^\sigma \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }F_{\rho \sigma }^{(T)}(p_1,p_2)\}`$
with

$`C_{V+A}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })q_\nu q_\alpha q^2\epsilon ^{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }\epsilon ^{\rho \beta \alpha \delta }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2k_\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{V\delta }(p_1,p_2;k)}`$ (42)
$`iq_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}2k_\lambda \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A\rho }(p_1,p_2;k)},`$
where the terms involving $`C_{V+A}^\mu `$ arise from the perturbative corrections. The explicit form of $`C_{V+A}^\mu `$ can be written after performing the loop-integrals and the expression is rather lengthy, which will be discussed elsewhere. The last term of Eq.(13) is the contribution of the transverse axial anomaly. The coupling between the vector and the axial-vector vertices through the transverse WT relations for them, Eqs.(7) and (8), leads to that the transverse axial anomaly which appears originally in the transverse WT relations for the axial-vector vertex contributes to the fermion-boson (vector) vertex function.

We can also write the full fermion-boson vertex function as a sum of its longitudinal and transverse parts:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu (p_1,p_2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V(L)}^\mu (p_1,p_2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V(T)}^\mu (p_1,p_2)$$
(43)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V(L)}^\mu (p_1,p_2)=q^2q^\mu [S_F^1(p_1)S_F^1(p_2)],$$
(44)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V(T)}^\mu (p_1,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`[q^2+(p_1+p_2)^2((p_1+p_2)q)^2q^2]^1`$ (52)
$`\times \{iS_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu +i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu S_F^1(p_2)`$
$`+i[S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\mu \lambda }\sigma ^{\mu \lambda }S_F^1(p_2)](p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })`$
$`+i[S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\lambda \nu }\sigma ^{\lambda \nu }S_F^1(p_2)]q_\nu (p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })q^\mu q^2`$
$`i[S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }S_F^1(p_2)]q_\nu (p_1+p_2)qq^2`$
$`+i[S_F^1(p_1)\sigma ^{\lambda \nu }+\sigma ^{\lambda \nu }S_F^1(p_2)]q_\nu (p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })[p_1^\mu +p_2^\mu q^\mu (p_1+p_2)qq^2]q^2`$
$`+C_{V+A}^\mu +(p_{1\nu }+p_{2\nu })C_{V+A}^\nu [p_1^\mu +p_2^\mu q^\mu (p_1+p_2)qq^2]q^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}(p_{1\lambda }+p_{2\lambda })q^2q_\nu q^\sigma \epsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }F_{\rho \sigma }^{(T)}(p_1,p_2)\}.`$
We note that this result improves the previous expression given by Eq.(26) of Ref. in following aspects: The contributions of the transverse axial anomaly and the perturbative corrections denoted by $`C_{V+A}^\mu `$ are included. Besides, in the process of deriving Eq.(26) of Ref. we used inconsistently the formula

$$(p_{1\mu }+p_{2\mu })\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu (p_1,p_2)=2m\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(p_1,p_2)+S_F^1(p_1)+S_F^1(p_2),$$
(53)
which led to the error in the expression of the transverse part of the fermion-boson vertex in the previous study. This defect is overcomed in present work by the self-consistent iteration procedure and now the result is corrected. In this paper, Eqs.(13) and (17) are derived exactly and self-consistently by means of WT relations (1), (2), (7) and (8) without any approximation.

The full fermion-boson vertex function now is expressed nonperturbatively in terms of the full fermion propagator and contains the contributions of the transverse axial anomaly and the perturbative corrections given by terms involving $`C_{V+A}^\mu `$. This is the nonperturbative form of the fermion-boson vertex function because this vertex function is completely determined in terms of a set of WT relations which are true nonperturbatively.

Above results are given in the Abelian case. In QCD case we usually consider the three-point functious involving the current operators, $`j^\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu \frac{\lambda ^a}{2}\psi (x)`$ and $`j_5^\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\frac{\lambda ^a}{2}\psi (x)`$, respectively, where $`\lambda ^a`$ are the generators of flavour SU(n) group. In such case, for the axial currents of non-Abelian QCD, the anomaly equation should be the Abelian result, supplemented by the appropriate group theory factors. Besides, the relative results of present work will be modified by putting the generator factors into suitable position in each term of corresponding relations. For the case of effective QCD with Faddeev-Popov ghost fields, the transverse WT type relations need to be studied further.

## IV Conclusions and Discussions

In this paper we have derived the nonperturbative form of the full fermion-boson vertex function in four-dimentional Abelian gauge theories in terms of a complete set of normal (longitudinal) and transverse WT relations for the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions in the case of massless fermion, in which the possible quantum anomalies and perturbative corrections have been taken into account simultaneously. The longitudinal part of the vertex is specified nonperturbatively by the normal WT relation for the vertex in terms of the fermion propagator, while the transverse part of the vertex is completely determined by a set of transverse WT relations for the vector and the axial-vector vertex functions (the longitudinal WT relations do not contribute to the transverse part of the vertex). The error arose from the inconsistent treatment in the previous study of the fermion-boson vertex has also been corrected by fully self-consistent procedure.

The result shows that the full fermion-boson vertex function is expressed nonperturbatively in terms of the full fermion propagator and contains the contributions of the transverse axial anomaly and perturbative corrections. Such a full fermion-boson vertex function is true nonperturbatively as well as perturbatively because it is determined completely by the WT relations which are satisfied both nonperturbatively and perturbatively. It is easy to check that this vertex function has correct perturbative limit. Indeed, if the fermion propagator is taken as bare one and the effect of quantum anomaly is neglected, then the vertex given by Eq.(13) is reduced to bare one, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V^\mu (p_1,p_2)\gamma ^\mu `$. The one-loop vertex function can be obtained by substituting the one-loop propagator and including the contributions of integrals over $`k`$ shown in Eqs.(7) and (8), which will be discussed elsewhere.

The nonperturbative fermion-boson vertex function given by Eq.(13) or Eqs.(15)-(17) is written in the general form. In the practical application to the DSE for the fermion propagator, the full fermion propagator $`S_F(p)`$ is usully expressed nonperturbatively in terms of two Lorentz scalar functions, $`F(p^2)`$ the wavefunction renomalization and $`M(p^2)`$ the mass function, so that $`S_F(p)=F(p^2)/[\gamma pM(p^2)]`$ ( $`S_F(p)`$ can also be written in the way that $`S_F^1(p)=A(p^2)\gamma pB(p^2)`$ ). Substituting the expression of $`S_F(p)`$ into Eq.(13) or Eqs.(16)-(17), then the full fermion-boson vertex function can be expressed nonperturbatively in terms of $`F(p^2)`$ and $`M(p^2)`$ (or $`A(p^2)`$ and $`B(p^2)`$). Ball and Chiu have shown how to construct the longitudinal part of the vertex in a way free of kinematic singularities. According to the way discribed by Ball and Chiu, in priciple, there is no difficulty to rewrite the transverse part of the vertex in a manner free of kinematic singularities.

We note that, as is well-known, the WT relations are essential in the renormalization programme of any theory. In fact, one of the goals of the renormalization of the theory is precisely to transform the formal WT relations into relations among renormalized finite quantities. It has been verified that the consequence of a symmetry in terms of WT relations is consistent with renormalization, and the renormalized Green functions satisfy the WT relations as a trivial consequence of multiplicative renormalizability. Therefore, the fermion-boson vertex determined completely in terms of the WT relations should be consistent with the multiplicative renormalizability.

It is particular interesting to notice that the nonperturpative fermion-boson vertex function involves the contribution of the transverse axial anomaly that appears originally in the transverse WT relation for the axial-vector vertex. As we known, the normal perturbative calculation of the fermion-boson vertex has never led to such result. This result arises here due to the coupling between the transverse components of the vector and the axial-vector vertices through the transverse WT relations for them. Note that the appearance of the transverse axial anomaly and the ABJ anomaly is a consequence of local gauge invariance. On the other hand, it is well known that the WT relations are the fundamental consequence of local gauge invariance. Hence the appearance of the transverse axial anomaly in the nonperturbative fermion-boson vertex function is a natural consequence of gauge invariance. Thus, applying this nonperturbative fermion-boson vertex function, which are determined completely in terms of the WT relations, to the Dyson-Schwinger equations in Abelian theories will provide an adequate scheme for truncating the infinite set of coupled DSEs in a gauge-invariant manner. Up to the effects of quantum anomaly and the perturbative corrections given by the loop-integrals in Eqs.(7) and (8), the DSEs will form a self-consistent and closed system for the fermion and gauge-boson propagators but the local gauge invariance may be lost. The price of ensuring gauge invariance for truncating the infinite set of DSEs is the anomalous breaking of the closed DSE system for the full propagators. This situation seems to be very similar to that for the axial current, in which the price of requiring gauge invariance is the anomalous nonconservation of the axial current. This result may have an interesting implication for the DSE approach. It implies that the quantum anomaly may play a significant role in the nonperturbative studies of gauge theories using Dyson-Schwinger equation formalism, which involves a deeper aspect of the gauge theories and needs to be studied further.

## Acknowledgments

The author is very grateful to F.C.Khanna and Y.Takahashi for useful discussions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos.19835010 and 10075081.


format: text

text:
# 1 The Basis

## 1 The Basis

The fundamental parameters of the gaugino/higgsino sector in supersymmetric theories, the U(1) and SU(2) gaugino masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, and the higgsino mass $`\mu `$, can be determined very accurately in experiments at prospective $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders. This has been demonstrated in the elaborate analysis of Ref.. In the initial phase of the colliders, a total energy of $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, raised later to $`1`$ TeV, is planned to be reached with a high integrated luminosity of $`1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ within a few years ; the electron and positron beams are planned to be polarized with a degree of 80 and 60%, respectively .

In many scenarios it is expected  that the light charginos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ and the two lightest neutralinos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ can be accessed kinematically111In most supergravity inspired scenarios, for example, mass relations of the type $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ are realized in the chargino/neutralino sector. in the initial phase of the colliders. In this Addendum to Ref. it will be shown that in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) the gaugino and higgsino mass parameters can be reconstructed completely in this case222For different strategies of determining the fundamental parameters see  and references therein., even in CP non–invariant versions of the model, by measuring the properties of the light particle set $`\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm ;\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\}`$.

In $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, charginos and neutralinos can be produced in diagonal and mixed pairs among which the reactions, giving rise to visible final states,

$`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ (1)
$`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ (2)
are of particular experimental interest in the present context.

In standard definition , the diagonalization of the chargino matrix in the MSSM

$`_C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& \sqrt{2}m_Wc_\beta \\ \sqrt{2}m_Ws_\beta & \mu \end{array}\right)`$ (5)
generates the light and heavy states $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^\pm `$ ($`i=1,2`$), while diagonalizing the neutralino mass matrix

$`\text{ }_N=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& m_Zc_\beta s_W& m_Zs_\beta s_W\\ 0& M_2& m_Zc_\beta c_W& m_Zs_\beta c_W\\ m_Zc_\beta s_W& m_Zc_\beta c_W& 0& \mu \\ m_Zs_\beta s_W& m_Zs_\beta c_W& \mu & 0\end{array}\right)`$ (10)
leads to four neutralino states $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ ($`i=1,2,3,4`$), ordered sequentially with rising mass. The coefficients $`s_\beta =\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, $`c_\beta =\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ are given by the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the Higgs fields, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, and $`s_W,c_W`$ are the sine and cosine of the electroweak mixing angle. In CP–noninvariant theories, the mass parameters are complex. By reparametrization of the field basis, the SU(2) mass parameter $`M_2`$ can be set real and positive, while the U(1) mass parameter $`M_1`$ is assigned the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, and the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$.

The examples presented later, will be based on a single reference point for a CP non–invariant extension of the MSSM, compatible with all experimental constraints ,

$`\mathrm{𝖱𝖯}:(|M_1|,M_2,|\mu |;\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ;\mathrm{tan}\beta )=(100.5\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}190.8}\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}365.1}\mathrm{GeV};{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}};\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10})`$ (11)
These fundamental parameters generate the following light chargino and neutralino masses,

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=176.0\mathrm{GeV};m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=98.7\mathrm{GeV}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}=176.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ (12)
while the heavy masses are given by

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }=389.3\mathrm{GeV};m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}=371.8\mathrm{GeV}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}=388.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ (13)
The cross sections depend on the sneutrino and selectron masses which we assume, for the sake of simplicity, to be measured in threshold scans :

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }__L}=192.8\mathrm{GeV};m_{\stackrel{~}{e}__L}=208.7\mathrm{GeV}m_{\stackrel{~}{e}__R}=144.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ (14)
\[Angular correlations in the production of chargino/neutralino states can be exploited otherwise to determine the slepton masses .\] The cross sections for chargino and neutralino pair–production with polarized beams are big at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV,

$`\sigma _L\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\}=679.5\mathrm{fb}\sigma _R\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\}=1.04\mathrm{fb}`$ (15)
$`\sigma _L\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\}=327.9\mathrm{fb}\sigma _R\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\}=16.4\mathrm{fb}`$ (16)
so that sufficiently large ensembles of events, between $`7\times 10^5`$ and $`1\times 10^3`$ events for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, will be generated333Information derived from other open channels like $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, etc, can be used to refine the analysis., allowing the analysis of the properties of the chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ and the neutralinos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^0`$ at great detail.

## 2 The Chargino System

Defining the mixing angles in the unitary matrices diagonalizing the chargino mass matrix $`_C`$ by $`\varphi _L`$ and $`\varphi _R`$ for the left– and right–chiral fields, the fundamental SUSY parameters $`M_2`$, $`|\mu |`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be derived from the chargino masses and the cosines $`c_{2L,R}=\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _{L,R}`$ of the mixing angles,

$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`m_W\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }(c_{2L}+c_{2R})}`$ (17)
$`|\mu |`$ $`=`$ $`m_W\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Delta }(c_{2L}+c_{2R})}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2(2c_{2L}^2c_{2R}^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\sqrt{\left[1\mathrm{\Delta }^2(c_{2L}c_{2R})^2\right]\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(c_{2L}+c_{2R})^2\right]}}}`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Delta }(c_{2L}c_{2R})}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }(c_{2L}c_{2R})}}}`$ (20)
where the dimensionless quantities

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^22m__W^2\right]/2m__W^2\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }=\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2\right]/4m__W^2`$ (21)
have been introduced for notational convenience.

If only the light charginos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ can be produced, besides the mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, both the mixing parameters $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _{L,R}`$ can be measured nevertheless . The $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _{L,R}`$ can be determined uniquely if the polarized cross sections are measured at one energy including transverse beam polarization, or else if the longitudinally polarized cross sections are measured at two different energies.

It is apparent from Eq.(20) that the heavy chargino mass is bounded from above after $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _{L,R}`$ are measured experimentally. At the same time, it is bounded from below by not observing the heavy chargino in mixed light$``$heavy pair production. The ensuing constraint on the heavy chargino mass

$`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}m_W^2/|\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _R|}`$ (22)
is quite restrictive; the upper bound can still be improved by exploiting the slightly more restrictive, but algebraically more complicated bound derived from $`|\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu |1`$ in Eq.(19). For the example introduced above, a narrow window of $`324.0\mathrm{GeV}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }389.7\mathrm{GeV}`$ is predicted after initial experimentation at the energy $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV.

If both the light chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and the heavy chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ can be measured, the fundamental parameters $`\{M_2,\mu ;\mathrm{tan}\beta \}`$ can be extracted unambiguously. However, if $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ is not accessible, it depends on the CP properties of the higgsino sector whether they can be determined or not in the chargino system alone.

(A) If the higgsino sector is CP invariant444Analyses of electric dipole moments strongly suggest that CP violation in the higgsino sector will be very small in the MSSM if this sector is non–invariant at all ., Eq.(19) can be exploited to determine $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }^2`$ from $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu =\pm 1`$, up to at most a two–fold ambiguity, Refs.. This ambiguity can be resolved if other observables can be evaluated, notabene the mixed–pair $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production cross sections.

(B) If $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ is not accessible, the parameters in Eqs.(1720) cannot be determined in a CP non–invariant theory in the chargino sector alone. They remain dependent on the unknown heavy chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$. Two trajectories are generated in $`\{M_2,\mu ;\mathrm{tan}\beta \}`$ space, parametrized by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ and classified by the two values $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ and $`(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )`$ for the phase of the higgsino mass parameter, i.e. the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$. It will be shown in the next section that the analysis of the two light neutralino states $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ can be used to predict the heavy chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ in the MSSM. The phase ambiguity can be resolved555If not resolved, the two–fold ambiguity will propagate to the final set $`\{M_1,M_2;\mu \}`$ with the sign of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1`$, coupled to the sign of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mu `$, remaining undetermined, i.e. the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ coupled to the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$. by measuring the sign of CP–odd observables associated with normal $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ polarization in $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ pair production . Subsequently the entire set of fundamental gaugino and higgsino parameters can be determined uniquely.

## 3 The Neutralino System

The symmetric neutralino mass matrix $`_N`$ is diagonalized by a unitary matrix, defined such that the mass eigenvalues $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$ of the four Majorana fields $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ are positive.

The squared mass eigenvalues of $`_N_N^{}`$ are solutions of the characteristic equations

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^8am_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^6+bm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^4cm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2+d=0\mathrm{for}i=1,2,3,4$$
(23)
with the invariants $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ given by the fundamental SU(2) and U(1) gaugino mass parameters $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$, and the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$, i.e. the moduli $`M_2`$, $`|M_1|`$, $`|\mu |`$ and the phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$. Each of the four invariants $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ is a binomial of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}M_1=|M_1|\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1=|M_1|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. Therefore, each of the characteristic equations in the set (23) for the neutralino mass squared $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2`$ can be rewritten in the form

$`(\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}M_1)^2+(\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1)^2+u_i\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}M_1+v_i\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1=w_i\mathrm{for}i=1,2,3,4`$ (24)
The coefficients $`u_i`$, $`v_i`$ and $`w_i`$ are functions of the parameters $`M_2`$, $`|\mu |`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the mass eigenvalue $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2`$ for fixed $`i`$. The coefficient $`v_i`$ is necessarily proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ because physical neutralino masses are CP–even; the sign ambiguity for $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, a result of the two–fold cos solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )`$, transfers to the associated sign ambiguity in the CP–odd quantity $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1`$, i.e. in $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$.

## 4 Reconstruction of the Fundamental Parameters

The characteristic equation (24) defines a circle in the $`\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}M_1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1\}`$ plane for each neutralino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$. With only two light neutralino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ measured, we are left with a two–fold ambiguity marked by the two, black and open, dots in Fig. 1.

(A) In the CP invariant version of the MSSM, the measurements of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _{L,R}`$ lead to at most a two–fold ambiguity in $`\{M_2,\mu ;\mathrm{tan}\beta \}`$. Inserting the two neutralino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^0}`$ in the set Eq.(24) for $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1=0`$, this induces at most a two–fold ambiguity in $`M_1`$. This ambiguity can finally be resolved by measuring the cross sections for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ pair production.

(B) However, in scenarios with CP violation, the loci of the two crossing points depend on the unknown heavy chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$. The two values of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}M_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1`$ are depicted for the window of the allowed values $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ in the two upper panels Fig. 2a/b assuming that the sign of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ will have been determined \[cf. Footnote # 4\].

By measuring the pair–production cross sections $`\sigma _L\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\}`$ and $`\sigma _R\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\}`$, a unique solution, for both the parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}M_1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}M_1`$ can be found at the same time as demonstrated in the lower panels Fig. 2c/d. The second solution $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }335`$ GeV for $`\sigma _L\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\}`$ can be excluded by the measurement of $`\sigma _R\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\}`$ because the predicted value of $`13.2`$ fb is far away from its experimental value of $`16.4`$ fb. The cross sections depend on the neutralino mixing parameters which are given by the fundamental U(1) and SU(2) gaugino and higgsino parameters. They are parametrized therefore solely by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ after the chargino system and the two neutralino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^0}`$ are evaluated as elaborated before. As a result, the additional measurement of the cross sections leads to a unique solution for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ and subsequently to a unique solution for $`\{M_1,M_2;\mu ;\mathrm{tan}\beta \}`$ \[assuming that the discrete CP ambiguity in the associated signs of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ has been resolved by measuring the normal $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ polarization\].

This procedure can nicely be summarized in a single figure: Fig. 3. The two crossing points of the masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ in Fig.1 define the two trajectories in the complex $`M_1`$ plane, parametrized by the heavy chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$. The $`L`$ and $`R`$ cross sections vary along the two trajectories; comparing the predicted values with the measured values leads to a unique solution on the trajectories marked by a black dot, i.e. to unique values for $`M_1`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$, along with finally unique solutions for $`M_2,\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

To summarize. If only the light chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ and the two light neutralinos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ can be accessed kinematically in the initial phase of $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders, measurements of the masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$, and the neutralino production cross section and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ polarization in the process $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, combined with the light chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and the chargino production cross section of the process $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ for polarized beams, allow us to perform a complete and precise analysis of the basic MSSM parameters in the gaugino/higgsino sector: $`\{M_1,M_2;\mu ;\mathrm{tan}\beta \}`$.

### Acknowledgments

SYC is supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through the KOSEF–DFG collaboration project, Project No. 20015–111–02–2, JK by the KBN Grant No. 2P03B 060 18. The work is supported in part by the European Commission 5-th Framework Contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.