text:
# Competing types of quantum oscillations in the 2D organic conductor (BEDT-TTF)8Hg4Cl12(C6H5Cl)2

## I Introduction

In some organic conductors, the Fermi surface (FS) presents quasi 2D pieces connected with small enough gaps, which offers the very attractive opportunity to investigate still interesting questions of fermiology such that the ”competing coexistence” between different types of quantum oscillations. This is the case of e. g. the quasi-2D charge transfer salt $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu(NCS)2, where ET stands for the donor molecule BEDT-TTF (bisethylenedithia-tetrathiofulvalene). Indeed, the FS of this compound appears to be adequately described by the textbook model of a chain of coupled orbits introduced by Pippard 1 . In this compound, conventional Shubnikov de Haas (SdH) effect resulting from magnetic flux quantization inside semiclassical closed orbits and quantum interference (QI) 2 ; 3  between open electron paths, which can be both induced by magnetic breakthrough (MB) 1 ; 4 ; 5  can occur. These phenomena yield frequencies resulting from linear combinations of the two basic frequencies a and b as observed in the oscillatory spectrum of the magnetization 6  and of the longitudinal magnetoresistance 7 ; 8  although some of these combinations are forbidden in the semiclassical picture. Similar frequency mixing induced by oscillation of the chemical potential of a 2D-electron gas may also contribute to 7  or account for 9  oscillatory data. More recently, numerical computation of the de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) oscillation spectrum has been achieved. Based on a realistic tight-binding model of quasi-2D organic conductors, these computations also evidenced, although at quite high B/T ratios, significant frequency mixing including the forbidden frequencies. They occur as well for a fixed number of particles as for a fixed chemical potential and are due to the field-dependent interplay of electronic states from the different bands crossing the Fermi level 10 . The main still open question lies in the relative weight of these different contributions to the data.

The room temperature FS of (ET)8Hg4Cl12(C6H5Cl)2 results from the hybridization of two pairs of hidden quasi-1D sheets 11 , parallel to the (a\*, b\* + c\*) and (a\*, c\*) planes 12 ; 13 . The resultant FS, obtained after raising of degeneracy is built up with one hole and one elongated electron tube (see Figure 1). Although the cross section area of both electron and hole tubes amounts to 13 percent of the FBZ area 13 , the resulting orbits do not share the same topology and are separated from each other by two unequal gaps labeled E1 and E2 in Figure 1. Provided these gaps are not too large, MB between electron and hole orbits can occur in magnetic field, leading to a two-dimensional network of coupled orbits. This may give rise, besides quantum oscillations linked to the electron and hole closed orbits, to additional oscillation frequencies that can be accounted for either by the semiclassical model of Falicov and Stachowiak 4  or by QI. Regarding the FS topology at low temperature, it is worth to notice that a metallic groundstate is stabilized in (ET)8Hg4Cl12(C6H5Cl)2. Indeed, the conductivity exhibits a metallic behavior down to the lowest temperatures with a residual resistivity ratio equal to 1̃00 and without any sign of (even imperfect) nesting of neither electron nor hole tubes 12 .

Previous magnetoresistance experiments performed up to 15 teslas on (ET)8Hg4Cl12(C6H5Cl)2 crystals with the current injected within the conducting bc-plane (in-plane configuration) 14  exhibit one Shubnikov-de Haas (SdH) oscillation series, referred to as the a series hereafter, with a frequency Fa = 250 T corresponding to a cross section of $``$ 11 % of the FBZ area 14 . Nevertheless, when the current is injected in the direction a\*, normal to the conducting plane (interlayer configuration), a complex oscillatory behavior is observed, in particular at high magnetic field 15 . Namely, in addition to a frequency Fb = 2200 T, corresponding to $``$ 100 % of the FBZ area, other frequencies which are linear combinations of the frequencies Fa = 240 T and Fδ = 150 T (7 % of the FBZ area), respectively have been observed.

The aim of this paper is to show that the oscillatory behavior of the interlayer magnetoresistance of the (ET)8Hg4Cl12(C6H5Cl)2 organic conductor results from several contributions, including MB-induced QI effects. This will be achieved through the analysis of the temperature and field magnitude and orientation dependencies of the oscillation spectrum.

## II Experimental

The studied crystal was a platelet with approximate dimensions (1$`\times `$1$`\times `$0.1) mm3, the largest faces being parallel to the conducting bc-plane. Electrical contacts were made to the crystal using annealed gold wires of $`20`$ mm in diameter glued with graphite paste. Alternating current ($`400`$ mA, $`50`$ kHz) was injected parallel to the a\* direction (interlayer configuration). A lock-in amplifier with a time constant of 100 ms was used to detect the signal across the potential leads. If the measurements, performed during the decay of the pulsed fields of the LNCMP ($`36`$ T, $`1.2`$ sec) were noiseless, this should allow to derive reliable oscillatory data down to e. g. $`11`$ T and $`1`$ T for a frequency of $`2200`$ T and $`150`$ T, respectively (see Ref. 16 ).

Data analysis is based on Fourier transforms (FT) calculated with an elevated cosine window in a given field range from Bmin to Bmax. In the following, the amplitude of a given oscillation series at the mean field value B = 2 / (1/Bmin \+ 1/Bmax) is determined by the ratio of the amplitude of the FT to (1/Bmin \- 1/Bmax). The orientation of the magnetic field is defined by the angle $`\theta `$ between the field direction and the normal to the conducting bc-plane. The sign of $`\theta `$ is arbitrary.

## III Results and discussion

### III.1 Oscillatory spectrum

Fig. 2 displays the oscillatory magnetoconductance for different orientations of the magnetic field at a temperature of $``$ $`1.7`$ K. FT deduced from data in Fig. 2 are displayed in Fig. 3. A complex oscillatory behavior is observed since up to 6 fundamental frequencies - without counting some harmonics - are displayed in Fig. 3. Moreover, these 6 frequencies follow the orbital behavior expected for a two-dimensional FS in the explored angle range from -21 to +72, as demonstrated in Fig. 3 for some angles. In the field range between 10 and 30 teslas (see Figure 3a), the observed frequencies can be regarded as linear combinations of Fa and Fδ with Fa = (241.5 $`\pm `$ 2.0) T and Fδ = (149 $`\pm `$ 2) T. In addition, an oscillation series with a frequency Fb = (2185 $`\pm `$ 15) T and up to 3 harmonics are observed in the higher field range between 20 and 35.2 T (see Figure 3b). These three frequencies correspond to cross section area of 11.0 $`\pm `$ 0.1, 6.8 $`\pm `$ 0.1 and 100 $`\pm `$ 1 percent of the FBZ area, respectively. According to band structure calculations, the cross section area of the electron and the hole orbits corresponds to approximately 13 % of the FBZ area 13 . Keeping in mind that a discrepancy of few percents between experimental data and band structure calculations is an usual feature, it can be assumed that the calculated FS is in qualitative agreement with the experimental data. Hence Fa is associated to the closed electron and hole orbits (referred to as the a orbits in the following) and Fδ to the $`\delta `$ orbit. Fb, which corresponds to the whole FBZ area, accounts for an orbit that involves 2a + $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ \+ $`\delta `$. Owing to the experimental values of the frequencies Fa and Fδ, the cross section of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ orbit amounts to 71 % of the FBZ area. Finally, it is important to notice that more than ten frequency combinations involving Fb are also observed in FT performed in the high field range (see Fig. 4). In particular, the frequency linked to b-2a-$`\delta `$, which corresponds to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ orbit is clearly evidenced in the figure. In order to assign the above reported frequencies to k-space SdH orbits or QI paths, it is important to keep in mind that, following Falicov and Stachowiak 4  and Shoenberg 5 , areas enclosed by electron and hole parts of a MB orbit bears opposite sign. One of the possible consequence is that very large SdH orbits and QI paths including both electron and hole parts may account for a given (even rather low) frequency, although with a reduced damping factor and a large effective mass, as discussed in the next section. For example, Fδ can be attributed, among others, to both the semiclassical MB closed orbit (a b c d e b f g h m i h l a) and the QI path (a k l)-(a b c d e b f g h l) (see Fig. 1). It is worth to note that magnetic interaction MI can also induce frequency combinations in dHvA oscillations spectrum when the FS is composed of several orbits. However, recent measurements 17  have revealed that, as it is usually the case for most organic conductors, the value of the magnetization of the isostructural compound (ET)8Hg4Cl12(C6H5Cl)2 remains rather weak even at high magnetic field. This latter result makes unlikely a significant contribution of MI to the oscillation spectrum. In the following, we will examine the possible contribution of QI and conventional SdH effect to the observed oscillatory behavior through the temperature and magnetic field dependencies of the oscillation amplitude. Unfortunately, the oscillation series resulting from frequency combinations involving the Fb frequency (see Fig. 4) will not be considered due to too small amplitude and (or) too steep field and temperature dependencies.

### III.2 Calculation of effective masses and damping factors

According to the conventional Lifshitz-Kosevich (LK) model, the field and temperature dependence of the oscillatory part of the conductivity can be accounted for by:

$$1\frac{\sigma (B)}{\sigma _{bg}(B)}=\underset{i}{}A_i\mathrm{cos}\left[2\pi \left(\frac{F_i}{B}\gamma _i\right)\right]$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _{bg}`$(B) is the field-dependent monotonous part of the conductivity. i stands for the indices of the oscillation series and $`\gamma _i`$ is the Onsager’s phase factor. Harmonics contribution can be included in the equation. Neglecting the spin splitting damping term, the oscillation amplitude Ai is given by:

$$A_iR_T(i)R_D(i)R_{MB}(i)$$
(2)
where RT and RD are the temperature and Dingle damping terms, respectively. RMB, which will be considered latter on, is the damping term which accounts for the contribution of MB. As usual, the Dingle damping term is expressed as:

$$R_D(i)=exp\left[\frac{u_0T_D(i)m_c(i)}{B}\right]$$
(3)
where (u0 = 14.694 T/K); TD(i) and mc(i) are the Dingle temperature and the effective cyclotron mass, respectively. RT(i) is given by:

$$R_T(i)\frac{Tm_c(i)/B^n}{\mathrm{sinh}\left[u_0Tm_c(i)/B\right]}$$
(4)
In the two- and three-dimensional case, n is equal to 1 and 1/2, respectively 5 .

Following Falicov and Stachowiak 4 , the effective mass linked to electron and hole orbits can be expressed as m\*e = 2(me1 \+ me2) and m\*h = 2(mh1 \+ mh2), respectively. The weight factors me1, me2, mh1 and mh2, which can be regarded as absolute values of partial cyclotron mass parameters, are defined in Fig. 1. Since the oscillation series with frequency Fa results from the contribution of the electron and hole orbits, the resultant effective cyclotron mass has been assumed equal to m\*a = (m\*e \+ m\*h) / 2, i.e. m\*a = me1 \+ me2 \+ mh1 \+ mh2. Same type of calculation has been performed for the other SdH orbits as reported in Table 1.

In the framework of the QI model 2 ; 3 , the effective mass is given by the energy derivative of the phase difference ($`\phi _i`$ \- $`\phi _j`$) between the two different routes i and j of a two-arm interferometer. Within this model, $`(\phi _i\phi _j)/ϵ=heBS_k/ϵ`$, where Sk is the reciprocal space area bounded between the two arms. Since $`(\phi _i\phi _j)/ϵ`$ is proportional to the difference between the effective mass of the two arms of the interferometer, the associated effective mass is given by m\* = $``$ m\*i \- m\*j $``$ where m\*i and m\*j are the partial effective masses of the routes i and j. The calculated values for the QI orbits are given in Table 1. It should be kept in mind that a given oscillation series can be accounted for by several types of QI paths or SdH orbits with different damping factors. Data in Table 1 is restricted to orbits yielding the highest damping factors i. e. with the lowest number of MB junctions and the lowest effective mass.

For a given oscillation series, noticeable differences between effective masses linked to either SdH or QI can be observed. E. g. m\*2a+δ is equal to 2 m\*a in the case of SdH while m\*2a+δ is equal to 2$`m_{e2}m_{h2}`$ in the case of QI which is certainly much lower than m\*a.

We discuss now the damping factor RMB entering Eq. (2). According to Falicov and Stachowiak 4 , the damping factor for a SdH orbit can be written as:

$$R_{MB}^{SdH}(i)=\underset{g=1,2}{}p_g^{n_{pg}}q_g^{n_{qg}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(n_{pg}\phi _p+n_{qg}\phi _q\right)\right]$$
(5)
The indices g stand for the two different gaps between electron and hole orbits (see Fig. 1). $`\phi _p`$ and $`\phi _q`$ are phase factors $`(\phi _p+\phi _q=\pm \pi /2)`$. The integers npg and nqg are respectively equal to the number of MB and Bragg reflections encountered along the path of the quasiparticle. The MB and Bragg reflection probabilities are given by $`p_g^2=exp(B_g/B)`$ and $`q_g^2=1p_g^2`$ , respectively where Bg is the gap-dependent MB field. In the following, the field-dependent part of $`R_{MB}^{SdH}(i)`$ is expressed as K$`{}_{SdH}{}^{}(i)=_{g=1,2}p_g^{n_{pg}}q_g^{n_{qg}}`$.

In the case of a two-arm interferometer, the damping term for QI is given, according to Harrison et al. 7 ; 18  by:

$$R_{MB}^{QI}(i)\underset{k,g=1,2}{}p_{kg}^{n_{pg}}q_{kg}^{n_{qg}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi }{\omega _i\tau _t}\right)$$
(6)
In this expression, i and g indices have the same meaning as in Eq. (5) while k indices stands for each of the two arms of the interferometer. npg and nqg are the number of MB and Bragg reflections, respectively encountered by each of the arms of the interferometer. As stated in 18 , the relevant effective mass mi entering $`\omega _i=\mathrm{}eB/m_i`$ is the sum of the partial effective masses of the two branches of the interferometer. In addition, as pointed out by Stark and Friedberg 3  and contrary to the scattering time involved in the Dingle damping factor, which is usually assumed temperature-independent, the quantum state lifetime $`\tau _t`$ includes the temperature-dependent electron-phonon interaction. Assuming, that 1/$`\tau _t`$ is proportional to the zero field resistivity $`\rho _0`$(T) yields:

$$R_{MB}^{QI}(i)K_{QI}(i)\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha (i)\rho _0\right)$$
(7)
where $`\alpha `$(i) and $`\rho _0`$ are field- and temperature-dependent, respectively.

As pointed out above and contrary to the case of e. g. $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu(NCS)2, several QI paths or SdH orbits with different topologies may contribute to a given oscillation series, even restricting ourselves to the orbits or paths with the highest damping factor. As an example, the a+$`\delta `$ series can be accounted for by the QI paths with the arms (a k l) - (a b f g h l) and (e b c) - (e k m i j c) (see Fig. 1). Nevertheless, both of them include the same four MB and four Bragg reflections involving the small and the large gap between electron and hole orbit. This leads to the field-dependent part of the damping factor K$`{}_{QI}{}^{}(a+\delta )=q_1^2q_2^2p_1^2p_2^2`$ (see Eq. (6) and (7)). In addition to SdH orbits which may present either hole (c d e k m i j c orbit) or electron (a b f g h l a orbit) character, the 2a+$`\delta `$ series can be accounted for by the two interferometers with the arms (a k m i j) - (a b f g j) and (b f g h m) - (b c d e k m). However, contrary to the case of the a+$`\delta `$ series, these two QI orbits yield different damping factors, namely $`q_1^4q_2^2p_1^2p_2^2`$ and $`q_1^2q_2^4p_1^2p_2^2`$, respectively. Regarding the b oscillation series, it can be accounted for by semiclassical MB orbits, such as the one marked with shaded area in Fig. 1, with large effective mass and reduced MB damping factors (see Table 1). A lot of QI paths can also account for Fb, even without taking into account the interferometers which involve QI paths with strongly different arms length and bear reduced MB damping factors (12 MB junctions) and large effective mass (m\* = 2m\*(a)). Among those with a zero effective mass, some interferometers also involve a large number of MB junctions. Since they are the most probable, only those which involve 10 MB junctions (see the hatched area in Fig. 1) are considered in Table 1.

### III.3 Data analysis

The oscillatory part of the magnetoconductance is displayed in the field range 22 to 36 T for $`\theta `$ = -13 in Fig. 5. The temperature dependence of the amplitude of the oscillations for the a, a+$`\delta `$, 2a+$`\delta `$ and 3a+$`\delta `$ series observed in the oscillatory spectrum is displayed in Fig. 6 in the temperature range up to 10 K. A good agreement with the conventional LK model is observed as it is the case for the $`\delta `$ and b oscillations below $``$ 8K (see Fig. 7). However, Fig. 7 displays strong downward deviations from above $``$ 8 K for these latter series. These deviations from LK model are discussed later on. The cyclotron effective masses have been determined for different directions and mean values of the magnetic field. In the main, slight variations of the measured effective cyclotron mass parameter can be observed at high magnetic field, likely due to the strongly two-dimensional character of the FS 19 . Stronger downward deviations are nevertheless observed in some cases e. g. for mc(a) at $`\theta `$ = 33 and mc(a+$`\delta `$) at $`\theta `$ = 22. The values deduced from experimental data are given in Table 1, assuming that reliable values of the effective cyclotron mass are obtained at low magnetic field.

In the framework of the Fermi liquid theory, effective cyclotron masses are renormalised by electron-phonon interactions and electron correlation, accounted for by multiplicative factors (1 + $`\lambda _{eph}`$) and (1 + $`\lambda _{ee}`$), respectively where $`\lambda _{eph}`$ and $`\lambda _{ee}`$ are the strength of the interactions. Assuming this model holds in the present case, allows us to compare experimental values of mc(i) / mc(a) to calculated values of m\*i / m\*a.

Effective cyclotron mass mc(a+$`\delta `$) is close to mc(a) (see Table 1) which is in agreement with QI phenomenon. Similarly, mc(2a+$`\delta `$) value is in between mc(a) and 2mc(a) which suggests a significant contribution of conventional SdH. Oppositely, mc($`\delta `$) and mc(3a+$`\delta `$) are lower than mc(a) which invalidates both the conventional SdH and the QI models. It must be pointed out that, the a+$`\delta `$ series is not observed in dHvA experiments performed at low magnetic field 15 , although these dHvA data present a better signal-to-noise ratio than the present conductivity data. This result suggests that QI do contribute to the oscillatory behavior. Otherwise, the 2a+$`\delta `$ frequency combination, which mainly results from SdH, is still visible in the dHvA experiment. Nevertheless, the frequencies linked to the $`\delta `$ and to the 3a+$`\delta `$ orbits which are not accounted for by neither conventional SdH nor QI are also not detected in the dHvA data. Owing to the large cross section of the b orbits, mc(b) deduced from the low temperature part of the data is low when compared to mc(a) since mc(b) / mc(a) $``$ 0.4 (see dashed lines in Fig. 7). This rules out the conventional SdH model and suggests that the b oscillation series may result from QI. Nevertheless, only the interferometers with a zero effective mass should significantly contribute to the oscillatory behavior. Such a discrepancy has already been observed in the case of the 3D LaB6 compound which also exhibits a QI orbit with an extremal cross section equal to the FBZ area and for which a zero effective mass is predicted 18 . This discrepancy can be accounted for by Eq. (7) which assumes that the relevant lifetime arising in Eq. (6) is proportional to the interlayer conductivity in zero-field. This is demonstrated in Fig. 7 where solid lines are best fits to Eq. (2) assuming a zero effective cyclotron mass (i. e. RT(b) defined in Eq. (4) is temperature-independent) and a temperature dependence of R$`{}_{}{}^{QI}{}_{MB}{}^{}`$ given by Eq. (7). Even better agreement between data and Eq. (7) is obtained assuming 1/$`\tau _t`$ is proportional to T2, which constitutes a signature of the Fermi liquid behavior. It can be noticed in Fig. 7 that Eq. (7) also holds for the $`\delta `$ oscillation series although there is no theoretical justification for this behavior in the framework of the SdH and QI models since much higher values of mc($`\delta `$) are predicted in both cases (see Table 1).

Additional information can be derived from the field dependence of the oscillation amplitude. Fig. 8 displays conventional Dingle plots of the various oscillation series at 1.6 K (see Fig. 5). Data at $`\theta `$ = -13 have been chosen since no significant field dependence of the various effective cyclotron masses has been observed for this field direction. The b series has not been considered since reliable data can be derived for the b oscillations in a very narrow field range only, likely due to their weak amplitude. The two-dimensional case (n = 1 in Eq. (4)) is considered. Dashed lines in Fig. 8 are best fits of Eq. (2) to the data without taking into account any contribution of MB damping factor. Downward deviations from linearity are observed at high magnetic field 20 . Solid lines in the figure are best fits to the data including MB damping factor (see Table 1) relevant to either SdH (a and 2a+$`\delta `$ series) or QI (a+$`\delta `$ series). It is worth to note that the same damping factor holds for SdH and QI in the case of the 3a+$`\delta `$ oscillation series. Generally speaking, a very large uncertainty in the derived values of MB fields is obtained. Assuming same MB fields for the two gaps reduces the uncertainty and yields B1 = B2 = (55 $`\pm `$ 20) T for the a series. This value might also account for the data relevant to the 2a+$`\delta `$ series for which MB fields between 30 T and 160 T are obtained. Nevertheless, a negative Dingle temperature is obtained assuming MB field in this range even though the Dingle temperature for the a oscillation series is TD(a) = 0.4 K. In addition, Dingle plot for the a+$`\delta `$ series can only be accounted for by lower MB fields i. e. between 0.2 T and 19 T (above 19 T, negative TD values are obtained). Hence, the data in Fig. 8 cannot be accounted for by a unique set of MB field values. This may suggest that, in addition to SdH and QI, other contribution should play a role in the oscillatory data.

## IV Summary and conclusion

The oscillatory behavior of the interlayer magnetoconductance of the quasi-two dimensional organic metal (BEDT-TTF)8Hg4Cl12(C6H5Cl)2 can be described on the basis of linear combinations of three basic frequencies arising from the compensated closed hole and electron orbits and from the two orbits located in between. It can be remarked first that the various MB-induced SdH orbits and QI paths responsible for the observed oscillation spectrum are not independent but do constitute an interlinked network which has been considered in the framework of the coupled orbits model of Falicov and Stachowiak 4 . On the basis of the derived values of the effective cyclotron masses linked to the various oscillation series, it can be inferred that a strong contribution of conventional SdH accounts for the 2a+$`\delta `$ series while data for a+$`\delta `$ and b, are consistent with QI. Oppositely, the low values of m$`{}_{c}{}^{}(\delta )`$ and m$`{}_{c}{}^{}(3a+\delta `$) disagree with both SdH and QI. In addition, the field dependence of the oscillation amplitude of the various series cannot be consistently accounted for by a unique set of MB gaps E1 and E2. These features suggest that additional contribution, such as frequency mixing due to oscillation of the chemical potential 7 ; 9  or interplay of electronic states from the different bands crossing the Fermi level 10  strongly influence the oscillatory behavior. From the experimental point of view, further enlightenment could be given by dHvA experiments in high magnetic field. Indeed, contrary to conductivity, magnetization, as a thermodynamic parameter, is not sensitive to QI. In addition, the configuration of measurement (in-plane vs. interlayer) should also be considered since, up to now, no frequency combinations has been observed in conductivity data recorded in the in-plane configuration 14 .

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank T. Ziman, J. Y. Fortin, R. Fleckinger and V. Laukhin for discussions on chemical potential oscillations and QI, E. Canadell for discussions about FS calculations and J. Singleton for a very pertinent remark related to the b oscillation series.

$``$ author for correspondence: audouard@insa-tlse.fr


format: text

text:
# Parton Distributions in the Valon Model

## I Introduction

The parton distributions in proton have been studied extensively in recent years over wide ranges of $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ ct ; mrs ; grv . For example, in the CTEQ global analysis framework ct  the distribution functions have been determined by fitting some 1300 data points obtained for various reactions in 16 experiments; over 30 parameters are used in the input parton distribution functions (PDF’s) in the next-to-leading -order calculations in perturbative QCD gs . The results on the PDF’s at various $`Q^2`$ are presented in the form of graphs available on the web ct4 . The distribution functions are accurately calculated numerically, but they are inconvenient to describe analytically. The purpose of this paper is twofold. One is to provide a simple parameterization of the parton distribution functions that is accurate to within 5% for $`1<Q^2<100`$ (GeV/c)2 and $`10^2<x<1`$. The other is to provide firm evidence for the validity of a model that can be very useful in the study of soft processes in hadronic and nuclear collisions.

The model under discussion is the valon model hvm ; hz . Valons play a role in scattering problems as the constituent quarks do in bound-state problems. In the model it is assumed that the valons stand at a level in between hadrons and partons and that the structure of a hadron in terms of the valons is independent of $`Q^2`$. That is, the property that a nucleon has three valons which carry all the momentum of the nucleon does not change with $`Q^2`$. Each valon may be viewed as a parton cluster associated with one and only one valence quark, so the flavor quantum numbers of a valon are those of a valence quark. The $`Q^2`$ evolution of the parton distributions in a nucleon is effected through the evolution of the valon structure, as the higher resolution of a probe reveals the parton content of the valons.

When the valon model was first proposed, the deep inelastic scattering data was not precise enough either to rule out the model or to determine accurately the parameters in the model. One may regard the situation then as one in which the model satisfies the sufficiency condition for an approximate description of the nucleon structure, but not necessary. Now, the experimental data have vastly improved and the PDF’s have been so precisely determined that the validity of the valon model can be put to a stringent test. That is what we intend to do in this paper. Although no model is ever necessary in the mathematical sense, we shall show that the concept of valons as constituents of the nucleon is eminently acceptable by virtue of the $`Q^2`$ independence of the valon distribution functions, the universality of the parton distributions in valons, and the momentum sum rule of the partons in a valon being satisfied.

In terms of the parameterization in the valon model the parton distributions are much simpler to describe and therefore more convenient to transport to different problems. Our focus will be on soft processes at low $`Q^2`$, for which perturbative QCD is inapplicable. The valon picture then provides a systematic way of organizing various contributions to inclusive processes. One such problem is the study of proton-nucleus collisions in which the degradation of the momenta of the produced nucleons can be well described in the valon model hy . The new parameterizations determined in this paper will affect the details of the model, for which we have previously made simplifying assumptions. The application of the results obtained now will not be considered here. We mention such applications here only to motivate our concentration in the range $`1<Q^2<100`$ (GeV/c)2 in this paper.

## II The Valon Model

In the valon model we assume that a proton consists of three valons $`(UUD)`$, which separately contain the three valence quarks $`(uud)`$. Let the exclusive valon distribution function be

$`G_{UUD}(y_1,y_2,y_3)=g(y_1y_2)^\alpha y_3^\beta \delta (y_1+y_2+y_31),`$ (1)
where $`y_i`$ are the momentum fractions of the $`U`$ valons $`(i=1,2)`$ and $`D`$ valon $`(i=3)`$. The variable $`y`$ will never refer to rapidity in this paper. The normalization factor $`g`$ is determined by the requirement that the probability for the proton to consist of three and only three valons is one, i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _0^{1y_1}}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _0^{1y_1y_2}}𝑑y_3G_{UUD}(y_1,y_2,y_3)=1.`$ (2)
Note that the valon distribution function is not defined in the invariant phase space. From Eq. (2) we have

$`g=\left[B(\alpha +1,\beta +1)B(\alpha +1,\alpha +\beta +2)\right]^1,`$ (3)
where $`B(m,n)`$ is the beta function. The single-valon distributions are

$`G_U(y)={\displaystyle _0^{1y}}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _0^{1yy_2}}𝑑y_3G_{UUD}(y,y_2,y_3)=gB(\alpha +1,\beta +1)y^\alpha (1y)^{\alpha +\beta +1},`$ (4)
$`G_D(y)={\displaystyle _0^{1y}}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _0^{1yy_1}}𝑑y_2G_{UUD}(y_1,y_2,y)=gB(\alpha +1,\alpha +1)y^\beta (1y)^{2\alpha +1}.`$ (5)
An essential property of the valon model is that the structure of the proton in terms of the valons is independent of the probe. It means that when probed at high $`Q^2`$, whatever the experiment may be, the parton distributions in a proton can be expressed as a convolution of the valon distribution and the parton distribution in a valon, i.e.,

$`xu(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑y\left[2G_U(y)K(x/y,Q^2)+G_D(y)L_u(x/y,Q^2)\right],`$ (6)
$`xd(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑y\left[G_D(y)K(x/y,Q^2)+2G_U(y)L_u(x/y,Q^2)\right],`$ (7)
where $`u(x,Q^2)`$ and $`d(x,Q^2)`$ are the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark distributions, respectively, and $`x`$ the momentum fraction of the quark. We emphasize that on the right-hand side (RHS) of the above equations the $`Q^2`$ dependences appear only in parton distributions in the valons, $`K(z,Q^2)`$ and $`L_u(z,Q^2)`$, but not in the valon distributions, $`G_U(y)`$ and $`G_D(y)`$. We regard this as the defining property of the valon model. In that sense the model is analogous to the one in which a deuteron is treated as a bound state of two nucleons; in that treatment a high-$`Q^2`$ probe resolves the structure of one or the other nucleon without affecting the nucleon wave function of the deuteron.

There are two types of parton distributions in the valons that appear in Eqs. (6) and (7). $`K(z,Q^2)`$ refers to the favored partons, i.e., $`u`$ in $`U`$ and $`d`$ in $`D`$, whereas $`L_u(z,Q^2)`$ refers to the unfavored partons, i.e., $`u`$ in $`D`$ and $`d`$ in $`U`$. The distribution $`K(z,Q^2)`$ can be further divided into two types

$`K(z,Q^2)=K_{NS}(z,Q^2)+L_f(z,Q^2),`$ (8)
where the first term on the RHS is the valence quark distribution (hence, non-singlet), while the second is the sea quark distribution for the same flavor type. Since the sea quarks should respect charge conjugation invariance, the $`u`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ in the sea (and similarly $`d`$ and $`\overline{d}`$) have the same distributions, i.e.,

$`x\overline{u}(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑y\left[2G_U(y)L_f(x/y,Q^2)+G_D(y)L_u(x/y,Q^2)\right],`$ (9)
$`x\overline{d}(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑y\left[G_D(y)L_f(x/y,Q^2)+2G_U(y)L_u(x/y,Q^2)\right].`$ (10)
The valence quark distributions are then

$`xu_v(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑y2G_U(y)K_{NS}(x/y,Q^2),`$ (11)
$`xd_v(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑yG_D(y)K_{NS}(x/y,Q^2).`$ (12)
In earlier treatment hvm -hy  $`L_f`$ and $`L_u`$ have been regarded as identical due to the assumption of the symmetric sea. Indeed, putting $`L_f=L_u`$ in Eqs. (9) and (10) results in $`\overline{u}(x,Q^2)=\overline{d}(x,Q^2)`$, which is a necessary consequence of the sea quarks satisfying $`SU(2)`$ symmetry. However, there is experimental evidence ma  that Gottfried integral $`(F_2^pF_2^n)𝑑x/x`$ is less than $`1/3`$, which is the value expected in the simple quark model. Thus we should allow $`L_f`$ to be different from $`L_u`$. Indeed, in the valon model we may expect that in a $`U`$ valon the necessary presence of a $`u`$ valence quark would on the grounds of Fermi statistics make a gluon have more difficulty converting virtually into a $`u\overline{u}`$ pair than into a $`d\overline{d}`$ pair. Hence, $`L_f`$ should be suppressed relative to $`L_u`$. Since there are two $`U`$ and one $`D`$ is a proton, we should expect the overall $`\overline{u}`$ to be less than $`\overline{d}`$. The data do indicate $`\overline{u}<\overline{d}`$ after integration over $`x`$ ma . We thus see that the breaking of $`SU(2)`$ in the sea is related to Pauli blocking in the valons.

## III The Valon Distributions

The valence quark distributions, $`u_v`$ and $`d_v`$, are given by CTEQ4LQ ct4 . From Eqs. (11), and (12) we see that they are directly related to the valon distributions, $`G_U(y)`$ and $`G_D(y)`$, by convolutions with the common factor $`K_{NS}`$. It is therefore possible to isolate the valon distributions by deconvolution using the moments. Let us define

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{U,D}(n)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑yy^{n1}G_{U,D}(y),`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q^2)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zz^{n2}K_{NS}(z,Q^2),`$ (14)
$`\stackrel{~}{u}_v(n,Q^2)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{n1}u_v(x,Q^2),`$ (15)
and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{d}_v`$ in terms of $`d_v`$. Then by the convolution theorem we have from Eqs. (11) and (12),

$`\stackrel{~}{u}_v(n,Q^2)=2\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q^2),`$ (16)
$`\stackrel{~}{d}_v(n,Q^2)=\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q^2).`$ (17)
It thus follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)}{\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{u}_v(n,Q^2)}{2\stackrel{~}{d}_v(n,Q^2)}}.`$ (18)
If the valon model is valid, then the LHS is $`Q^2`$ independent, a property that we can check directly by examining the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the RHS. Since $`u_v(x,Q^2)`$ and $`d_v(x,Q^2)`$ can separately be determined from ct4 , we only have to take their moments and calculate their ratio.

To do the above analysis, we have to set the range of $`Q^2`$ to be examined, since the valon model is not expected to be accurate for all $`Q^2`$. As we have discussed near the end of Sec. I, the valon model has been applied to soft production problems because they involve non-perturbative processes. For hard processes at very high $`Q^2[Q^2>100`$ (GeV/c)$`{}_{}{}^{2}]`$ perturbative QCD is very successful and there is no need to introduce any inaccuracies through the use of a model. We shall therefore limit ourselves to the range $`1<Q^2<100`$(GeV/c)2. This is actually a very wide range for hadronic processes that can involve the production of soft particles and semi-hard mini-jets.

For the range of $`Q^2`$ chosen we must use low-$`Q^2`$ parameterization of the PDF’s. CTEQ4LQ ct4  gives the graphs of $`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$, $`\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{d}`$, and $`g`$ distributions at any $`Q`$ evolved from the starting scale at $`Q_0^2=0.49`$ (GeV/c)2. Since $`u_v`$ and $`d_v`$ distributions are not included in the list of PDF’s posted, we have to calculate

$`u_v(x,Q^2)=u(x,Q^2)\overline{u}(x,Q^2)`$ (19)
$`d_v(x,Q^2)=d(x,Q^2)\overline{d}(x,Q^2)`$ (20)
from the $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ graphs for the RHS available from the web. We extract the numerical values at up to 60 points of $`x`$ values per PDF for three values of $`Q:1,3,10`$ GeV/c. From the values of $`u_v`$ and $`d_v`$ thus determined, we then compute the moments in accordance to Eq. (15) for $`n=2,\mathrm{}9`$. Denoting the RHS of Eq. (18) by $`r(n,Q)`$ we then calculate the ratio of ratios

$`R(n,Q)=r(n,Q)/r(n,Q=1)`$ (21)
relative to $`Q=1`$ GeV/c. Figure 1 shows how $`R(n,Q)`$ depends on $`n`$ for $`Q=3`$ and 10 GeV/c. It is evident that the dependence is very mild, the maximum deviation from 1 being around 7% at $`n=9`$ and $`Q=10`$ GeV/c. We regard this approximate constancy of $`R(n,Q)`$, while $`Q`$ is increased by an order of magnitude, as the first step toward a confirmation of the validity of the valon model. That is, the insensitivity of $`R(n,Q)`$ to $`Q`$ variation supports our assumption that $`\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)/\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)`$ is $`Q`$ independent to a degree sufficient for the application of the valon model.

The $`n`$ dependence of $`r(n,Q)=\stackrel{~}{u}_v(n,Q)/2\stackrel{~}{d}_v(n,Q)`$, as determined from the CTEQ4LQ data, can now be used to fix the parameters, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, in the valon distributions. From Eqs. (4), (5) and (13) we have

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)=B(\alpha +n,\alpha +\beta +2)/B(\alpha +1,\alpha +\beta +2)`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)=B(\beta +n,2\alpha +2)/B(\beta +1,2\alpha +2)`$ (23)
from which follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)}{\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +n)}}\gamma (\alpha ,\beta ,n).`$ (24)
The parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can now be determined by minimizing

$`C={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\alpha ,\beta ,n)r(n,Q)}{\gamma (\alpha ,\beta ,n)+r(n,Q)}}\right]^2,`$ (25)
where $`N`$ is the maximum number of moments we extract from the CTEQ4LQ data, which we take to be $`N=10`$. Note that $`n=1`$ is excluded in Eq. (25), since $`\gamma (\alpha ,\beta ,1)=1`$ basically due to Eq. (2), and $`r(1,Q)=1`$ because there are two $`u_v`$ and one $`d_v`$. Varying $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in search for a minimum in $`C`$ results in incredibly small $`C`$, in the order of $`10^5`$. We find

$`\alpha =1.755,\beta =1.05,\text{for}Q=1\text{GeV}/c.`$ (26)
$`\alpha =1.545,\beta =0.89,\text{for}Q=10\text{GeV}/c,`$ (27)
We have not ignored the small $`Q`$ dependences of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ since the data on $`r(n,Q)`$ contain some $`Q`$ dependence. Moreover, the $`Q`$ independence of the ratio $`\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)/\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)`$ does not mathematically preclude the $`Q`$ dependences of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)`$ separately. However, the difference between Eqs. (26) and (27) is not very great, as we can see in Fig. 2, where $`G_U(y)`$ and $`G_D(y)`$ are shown \[through the use of Eqs. (4) and (5)\] for the two extreme $`Q`$ values, $`1`$ and $`10`$ GeV/c. The difference is insignificant compared to those of the quark distributions, one of which is shown in Fig. 3. With the drastic difference between Figs. 2 and 3 in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that the essence of the valon model has been verified to the extent that the valon distributions exhibit approximate scaling in $`Q`$.

It should be remarked that the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ determined above are very different from the ones obtained previously. In Ref. hz  the early data of muon bag  and electron scattering abe  were used in conjunction with a number of theoretical assumptions to yield the values of $`\alpha =0.65`$ and $`\beta =0.35`$. In Ref. hy  the modern data of CTEQ4LQ were used, but the values $`\alpha =0.70`$ and $`\beta =0.25`$ were obtained due to the assumption of a specific form of the sea quark distribution (proven to be grossly inaccurate below). Here in this paper we have avoided making any assumption about the sea quark distributions. By extracting the valence quark distributions from CTEQ4LQ we have been able to determine $`G_U(y)`$ and $`G_D(y)`$ directly. Clearly, the new values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are more reliable. Further support for their reliability will be given below in connect with the quark distributions $`u`$ and $`d`$, for which our previous parameterization in Ref. hy  has led to unaccountable discrepancies that are unsatisfactory.

From Eq. (13) one sees that the momentum fractions of the valons are given by the $`n=2`$ moments. From Eqs. (22), (23), (26) and (27), one can then calculate the momentum fractions $`y`$, yielding

$`y_U=`$ $`0.3644,`$ $`Q=1\text{GeV}/c,`$ (28)
$`0.3646,`$ $`Q=10\text{GeV}/c,`$
$`y_D=`$ $`0.2712`$ $`Q=1\text{GeV}/c,`$ (29)
$`0.2708,`$ $`Q=10\text{GeV}/c.`$
At either $`Q`$ the sum rule

$`2y_U+y_D=1`$ (30)
is satisfied identically. We see that the momentum fractions carried by the valons are essentially independent of $`Q`$ and that each $`U`$ valon carries as much as 1.345 times more than the $`D`$ valon.

## IV The Quark and Gluon Distributions

Having determined the valon distributions, we can now proceed to the quark and gluon distributions in the valons. From Eq. (16) we have

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q)=\stackrel{~}{u}_v(n,Q)/2\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n,Q)`$ (31)
where we allow $`\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n,Q)`$ to have its weak $`Q`$ dependence given by Eqs. (26) and (27). Using the moments $`\stackrel{~}{u}_v(n,Q)`$ that we have already calculated from CTEQ4LQ, we obtain the values of $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q)`$ as shown in Fig. 4. As expected, $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q)`$ undergoes substantial evolution, especially from $`Q=1`$ to $`3`$ GeV/c.

To test how good our determination of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is, we use the $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q)`$ calculated above in conjunction with $`\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n,Q)`$ that can be obtained from Eqs. (5) and (13) so that $`\stackrel{~}{d}_v(n,Q)`$ can be computed using Eq. (17). Note that this computation of $`\stackrel{~}{d}_v(n,Q)`$ requires the knowledge of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, while the computation of $`\stackrel{~}{d}_v(n,Q)`$ for the RHS of Eq. (18), i.e., $`r(n,Q)`$, is based on the CTEQ4LQ data for the RHS of Eq. (20). Our point here is to calculate $`d(x,Q)`$ from the CTEQ input on $`\stackrel{~}{u}_v(n,Q)`$ in Eq. (31), a procedure that is made possible by the common factor $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q)`$ in both Eqs. (16) and (17). Physically, it means that the evolution of quarks in a valon is independent of the flavor of the host valon.

After $`\stackrel{~}{d}_v(n,Q)`$ is obtained by the above procedure that tests the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, we then make the inverse transform to get the distribution $`d_v(x,Q)`$. This transform can be facilitated by exploiting the orthogonality of the Legendre polynomials, the details of which are discussed in Ref. hy . Upon the determination of $`d_v(x,Q)`$ we can add to it the $`\overline{d}(x,Q)`$ distribution from Ref. ct4  and obtain $`d(x,Q)`$. In Fig. 5 we show the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark distributions at $`Q=1`$ GeV/c. The solid lines are the distributions posted by CTEQ4LQ ct4 . The dotted line for $`xd(x)`$ is what we have computed using the procedure outlined above. Note that its agreement with the solid line is excellent. The dotted line for $`xu(x)`$ is essentially the result from fitting the CTEQ4LQ data in the valon model; it merely affirms that the fit is extremely good, so the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are reliable. The result on $`xd(x)`$ reveals more about the soundness of the model, since it is not obtained by fitting, but calculated using the valon distribution $`G_D(y)`$ and the universality of $`K_{NS}(z,Q)`$.

For the sea quark and gluon distributions, it is for the convenience of the applications of the valon model that we find simple parameterizations of their distributions in a valon. To that end we first write Eqs. (9) and (10) in moment form

$`\stackrel{~}{\overline{u}}(n,Q)=2\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)\stackrel{~}{L}_f(n,Q)+\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)\stackrel{~}{L}_u(n,Q),`$ (32)
$`\stackrel{~}{\overline{d}}(n,Q)=\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)\stackrel{~}{L}_f(n,Q)+2\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)\stackrel{~}{L}_u(n,Q).`$ (33)
For the strange quark and gluons, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{s}(n,Q)=\left[2\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)+\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)\right]\stackrel{~}{L}_s(n,Q),`$ (34)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}(n,Q)=\left[2\stackrel{~}{G}_U(n)+\stackrel{~}{G}_D(n)\right]\stackrel{~}{L}_g(n,Q).`$ (35)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{u}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{d}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are known from CTEQ4LQ, and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_U`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_D`$ known from Eqs. (22) and (23), we can solve for $`\stackrel{~}{L}_f`$, $`\stackrel{~}{L}_u`$, $`\stackrel{~}{L}_s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_g`$. From the result we perform the inverse transform to $`L_f(z,Q)`$, $`L_u(z,Q)`$, $`L_s(z,Q)`$ and $`L_g(z,Q)`$, respectively. These distributions are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, for $`Q=1,3,`$ and $`10`$ GeV/c. Being in log-log plots, the evolutions due to the changes in $`Q`$ are substantial, as expected. What we have not expected is the drastic difference between $`L_f(z,Q)`$ and $`L_u(z,Q)`$. For $`0<\mathrm{ln}(1z)<0.4`$, the range of $`z`$ is $`0<z<0.33`$. For $`z>0.4`$ we find that $`L_f(z,Q)L_u(z,Q)`$, at least for $`Q=1`$ and $`3`$ GeV/c. At higher $`Q`$ the evolution can generate more favored sea quarks. Thus at low $`Q`$, where sea quarks are few, Pauli blocking suppresses the favored sea quarks so much at high $`z`$ that the unfavored sea quarks dominate. Indeed, our calculation of $`L_f(z,Q)`$ is unreliable for $`z>0.4`$ because from the finite number of moments $`(n<10)`$ that we have taken the inverse transform generates oscillations in $`z`$ at high $`z`$. There is no such problem with the $`s`$ quark and gluon distributions, as is evident in Fig. 7, since they are not inhibited by Pauli blocking. The general property is that all the parton distributions increase significantly at small $`z`$, when $`Q`$ is increased.

There is no simple way to describe both the $`z`$ and $`Q`$ dependences of the parton distributions. In order for the valon model to be useful, especially in applications to the study of inclusive cross sections in hadronic collisions at low $`p_T`$, an analytic description of each of the parton distributions is needed. For such problems only the distributions at $`Q=1`$ GeV/c are relevant, so we fit those distributions by polynomials. The formula used for the fitting is

$`\mathrm{ln}L_i(z,Q=1)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}}a_j^{(i)}t^j,t=\mathrm{ln}(1z).`$ (36)
The result of the fitting is shown in Fig. 8, for which the values of the coefficients are given in Table I. The fits are evidently very good. Thus we have completely specified the PDF’s at $`Q=1`$ GeV/c in analytical and numerical ways, suitable for transport to problems where such PDF’s are needed.

In applications, such as in Ref. hy , the moments are more useful than the PDF’s themselves. We show the moments at $`Q=1`$ GeV/c in Fig. 9, together with their fits. The fitting is done mainly for the convenience of applications. The formula used for fitting is

$`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{L}_i(n)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}}b_j^{(i)}u^j,u=\mathrm{ln}(n1),`$ (37)
where the coefficients are given in Table II.

The rapid decrease of the favored quark moments $`\stackrel{~}{L}_f(n)`$ with increasing $`n`$ is now very evident, while the other three parton moments have roughly similar $`n`$ dependences.

It is important to check the momentum sum rule of the partons. We have seen in Eq. (30) that the valon momentum fractions add up to 1; now the parton momentum fractions in each valon must also add up to 1. Since $`K_{NS}(z)`$ and $`L_i(z)`$ are invariant distributions, their moments at $`n=2`$ are their momentum fractions. We therefore should have

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(2)+\stackrel{~}{L}_g(2)+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=f,u.s}{}}\stackrel{~}{L}_i(2)=1.`$ (38)
We have $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(2)=0.4707`$ at $`Q=1`$ GeV/c, and from Table II we can calculate $`\stackrel{~}{L}_i(2)=\mathrm{exp}[b_0^{(i)}]`$, yielding $`0.0162`$, $`0.0465`$, $`0.0148`$, and $`0.3754`$ for $`i=f`$, $`u`$, $`s`$, and $`g`$, respectively. According to the LHS of Eq. (38) they sum up to $`1.001`$, an excellent confirmation of the momentum sum rule.

As a final item of paremetrizing the moments of the parton distributions, we give here also a formula that fits $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n,Q)`$ at $`Q=1`$ GeV/c

$`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{K}_{NS}(n)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}}c_ju^j,`$ (39)
where $`c_j=0.753`$, $`0.401`$, $`0.0962`$, and $`0.0555`$, for $`j=0,1,2,3,`$ respectively. The solid line in Fig. 4 shows the fit.

## V Conclusion

We have shown that the PDF’s in a proton can be described in two stages: valons in a proton and then partons in a valon. The valon distribution functions are essentially independent of $`Q`$, while the parton distributions in the valons are $`Q`$ dependent. The three valons carry all the momentum of the proton, and the way that the parton momenta are distributed in a valon is independent of the host valon so long as the sea quark flavors are identified as favored or unfavored, instead of by specific flavors like $`u`$ or $`d`$. We have found that Pauli blocking significantly suppress the favored quarks compared to the unfavored quarks. At $`Q=1`$ GeV/c, the valence quarks carry 47.1% of the proton momentum, while the gluons carry 37.5%. The scaling behavior of the valon distributions and the universality of the valon structure give support to the valon model as a simple and organized description of the nucleon structure.

We have determined the parameters in simple formulas that adequately describe the parton distributions (and their moments) in a valon at $`Q=1`$ GeV. This is done for the benefit of applications of the valon model to low-$`p_T`$ hadronic reactions that are not perturbative. Such distributions are needed when the parton degrees of freedom are released. If in some nuclear reactions at some energy where the partons do not exhibit their dynamical effect beyond the valons, as suggested by Csörgő tc  for heavy-ion collisions at SPS, then the valon distributions are all that is needed. Since the exclusive valon distribution is the absolute square of the wave function of the proton in the valon representation, it is also the recombination function of valons in forming a proton hvm . Thus the new values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ found here affect the calculation of hadron production at low $`p_T`$.

The valon model can, of course, also be applied to other hadrons beside the proton. Although the data on the PDF’s of the pion or the kaon are not of the same quality as those of the proton, some data on the Drell-Yan and prompt photon production initiated by mesons do exist. It will be a natural extension of this work to determine the valon distributions in the mesons by using the PDF’s obtained from such data. By virtue of the universality of the parton distributions in valons, what we have found here from the proton is good enough for the mesons also.

The affirmation of the validity of the valon model makes possible a logical link between the bound-state problem of the hadrons in terms of the constituent quarks and the scattering problem in terms of the partons. The relationship between the wave functions of the constituent quarks and the valon distributions was studied in the context of form factors hl . In view of the new distributions determined here, that problem needs to be revisited. On the whole our understanding of the hadron structure problem is enhanced by our study here of the modern parton distribution functions in the framework of the valon model.

## Acknowledgment

We are grateful to D. Soper for helpful comments. This work was supported, in part, by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-96ER40972.


text:
# Gauge coupling renormalization in orbifold field theories

## 1 Introduction

Recently higher-dimensional field theories compactified on orbifold have been proposed as models providing an efficient mechanism for symmetry breaking, e.g. the supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking  and/or the grand unified gauge symmetry breaking . One can construct realistic grand unified models more efficiently in such framework . Higher-dimensional orbifold models may also lead to a geometric understanding of various hierarchical mass scales in particle physics , the suppression of some Yukawa couplings , and the $`b`$-$`t`$ mass ratio .

In this paper, we wish to discuss the gauge coupling renormalization in orbifold field theories preserving the 4-dimensional (4D) $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in the framework of 4D effective supergravity (SUGRA). We are particularly interested in theories with large scale hierarchies, for instance a model in which the Kaluza-Klein (KK) threshold scale is significantly lower than the cutoff scale of the theory so that the KK towers are important for the gauge coupling renormalization. In such cases, it is quite convenient to consider the gauge coupling renormalization in the framework of 4D effective SUGRA since the 1-loop gauge couplings can be determined by the loop-induced axion couplings and the tree level properties of 4D effective SUGRA which are much easier to be computed. As a concrete example, we will consider 5D SUGRA-coupled super-Yang-Mills (SYM) theory on a slice of 5D Anti-de Sitter space ($`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$)  with four well-seperated mass scales: the KK scale, the orbifold length, the AdS curvature, and finally the cutoff scale. However, much of the discussions here can be easily extended to generic higher dimensional orbifold field theories. Also the results for a flat supersymmetric 5D geometry can be obtained from our AdS results by taking the limit that the AdS curvature becomes zero.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In section II, we discuss some features of the supersymmetric gauge theory on a slice of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$, including the gauged $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry and also the possible form of gauge coupling renormalization. In section III, we derive the 4D effective SUGRA of the 5D theory on $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ and match the renormalized low energy gauge couplings in 5D theory with the moduli-dependent gauge couplings in 4D effective SUGRA. With this matching, one can determine the 1-loop gauge couplings by the 1-loop induced axion couplings and the tree level properties of 4D effective SUGRA. Section IV is the conclusion.

## 2 Supersymmetric gauge theory on a slice of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$

In this section, we discuss some features of the SUGRA coupled SYM theory on a slice of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ which is orbifolded w.r.t $`yy`$ and $`yy+2\pi `$ where $`y`$ is the coordinate of the 5-th dimension. The model under consideration contains 5D vector multiplets for YM fields, 5D hypermultiplets for charged matter fields, as well as the 5D SUGRA multiplet. To be general, we also assume that there are charged brane matter fields living on 3-branes at the orbifold fixed points $`y=0`$ and $`\pi `$.

The action of the SUGRA multiplet is given by

$`S_{\mathrm{sugra}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4xdy\sqrt{G}M_{}^3\{+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\gamma ^{MNP}D_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{iP}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}C^{MN}C_{MN}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{G}}}ϵ^{MNPQR}B_MC_{NP}C_{QR}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}kϵ(y)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\gamma ^{MN}(\sigma _3)_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j`$
$`12k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\delta (y)\delta (y\pi )\right)}{\sqrt{G_{55}}}}12k+\mathrm{}\},`$
where $``$ is the 5D Ricci scalar for the metric $`G_{MN}`$, $`C_{MN}=_MB_N_NB_M`$ is the field strength of the graviphoton $`B_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are the symplectic Majorana gravitinos, $`M_{}`$ is the 5-dimensional Planck scale, $`k`$ is the AdS curvature, and the ellipsis stands for the higher dimensional terms which are not relevant for the present discussion. Here the gravitino kink mass and the brane cosmological constants are determined by supersymmetry, and the indices $`i,j`$ label the fundamental representation of the $`SU(2)_R`$ automorphism group of 5D SUGRA, which is raised or lowered by $`\epsilon ^{ij}=\epsilon _{ij}=(i\sigma _2)^{ij}`$ in the NW-SE convention. The SUGRA multiplet has the standard $`Z_2`$ boundary condition:

$`e_M^A(y)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_B^AZ_M^Ne_N^B(y),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^i(y)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_M^N(\sigma _3)_j^i\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j(y),`$
$`B_M(y)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_M^NB_N(y),`$ (2)
where $`e_M^A`$ is the 5-bein and

$$Z_M^N=Z_A^B=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,1).$$

The above orbifolding breaks the $`N=2`$ SUSY down to $`N=1`$. One may break the residual $`N=1`$ SUSY by imposing a nontrivial boundary condition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^i`$ for $`yy+2\pi `$ (the Sherk-Schwarz SUSY breaking). In this paper, we consider only the orbifolding preserving $`N=1`$ SUSY, so all gravity multiplets are assumed to be periodic under $`yy+2\pi `$. The above action for SUGRA multiplet leads to the following $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ metric as a solution of the equations of motion:

$$ds^2=e^{2k|y|R}g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +R^2dy^2,$$
(3)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the massless 4D graviton and $`R`$ is the orbifold radius.

The action of vector multiplets is given by

$`S_{\mathrm{vector}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4xdy\sqrt{G}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{5a}^2}}F^{aMN}F_{MN}^a+D_M\varphi ^aD^M\varphi ^a+\overline{\lambda }^{ia}\gamma ^MD_M\lambda _i^a`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{G}g_{5a}^2}}ϵ^{MNPQR}B_MF_{NP}^aF_{QR}^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}kϵ(y)\overline{\lambda }^{ia}(\sigma _3)_{ij}\lambda ^{ja}4k^2\varphi ^a\varphi ^a`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (y)}{\sqrt{G_{55}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{0a}^2}}F^{a\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^a+4k\varphi ^a\varphi ^a+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (y\pi )}{\sqrt{G_{55}}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{\pi a}^2}}F^{a\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^a4k\varphi ^a\varphi ^a+\mathrm{})+\mathrm{}\},`$
where $`F_{MN}^a`$ are the YM field strengths, $`\lambda ^{ia}`$ are the symplectic Majorana gauginos, $`\varphi ^a`$ are real scalar fields spanning a very special target manifold, and the ellipses denote the higher dimensional terms. Again the gaugino kink mass and the scalar (bulk and brane) masses are determined by supersymmetry. Here we are interested in the vector multiplets containing zero mode gauge fields, so the $`Z_2`$ boundary conditions are given by

$`A_M^a(y)=Z_M^NA_N^a(y),\lambda ^{ia}(y)=(\sigma _3)_j^i\gamma _5\lambda ^{ja}(y),\varphi ^a(y)=\varphi ^a(y),`$ (5)
where all fields in the vector multiplet are assumed to be periodic under $`yy+2\pi `$.

The action of hypermultiplets has the form

$`S_{\mathrm{hyper}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4xdy\sqrt{G}[|D_Mh_I^i|^2+i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_I\gamma ^MD_M\mathrm{\Psi }_I+ic_Ikϵ(y)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_I\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}((c_I^2+ϵ_ic_I{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}})k^2+k(32ϵ_ic_I){\displaystyle \frac{(\delta (y)\delta (y\pi ))}{\sqrt{G_{55}}}})|h_I^i|^2+\mathrm{}]`$
where $`h_I^i`$ are two complex scalar fields in the $`I`$-th hypermultiplet spanning a quaternionic target manifold with the tangent space group $`SU(2)_R\times Sp(2n_H)`$ ($`I=1,..,n_H`$), $`\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ are the Dirac fermions with kink mass $`c_Ikϵ(y)`$, and $`ϵ_{1,2}=\pm 1`$. Under the $`[U(1)]^{n_H}`$ subgroup of $`[SU(2)]^{n_H}Sp(2n_H)`$, the hypermultiplets transform as111Here we choose the scalar field fluctuations not being the coordinates of the quaternionic target manifold, but being a fundamental representation of the tanget space group $`SU(2)_R\times Sp(2n_H)`$, which is always possible with the $`4n_H`$-beins on the quaternionic manifold.

$$h_I^ie^{i\alpha _I}h_I^i,\mathrm{\Psi }_Ie^{i\alpha _I}\mathrm{\Psi }_I,$$

while the $`SU(2)_R`$ transformation can be read off from the index $`i`$. Here the hypermultiplets are allowed to have nontrivial boundary conditions for both $`yy`$ and $`yy+2\pi `$:

$`h_I^i(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _I(\sigma _3)_j^ih_I^j(y),h_I^i(y+\pi )=\eta _I(\sigma _3)_j^ih_I^j(y+\pi ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_I(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _I\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_I(y),\mathrm{\Psi }_I(y+\pi )=\eta _I\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_I(y+\pi ),`$ (7)
where $`\omega _I=\pm 1`$ and $`\eta _I=\pm 1`$. Note that $`y+\pi y+\pi `$ corresponds to the successive transformation of $`yy`$ and $`yy+2\pi `$.

To obtain supersymmetric AdS background, we need to gauge $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry by graviphoton. It has been noted in  that the gauge coupling of $`B_M`$ is required to be $`Z_2`$-odd when the 5D SUGRA model contains matter fields and nontrivial brane actions. Then the $`U(1)_R`$ gauge transformation and the corresponding covariant derivative are given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }e^{iϵ(y)\mathrm{\Omega }(x,y)g_BT_B}\mathrm{\Phi },`$
$`B_MB_M+_M\mathrm{\Omega },`$
$`D_M\mathrm{\Phi }=_M\mathrm{\Phi }+iϵ(y)g_BT_BB_M\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (8)
where $`g_B`$ is a coupling constant, $`T_B`$ is the gauged $`U(1)_R`$ generator, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a continuous gauge function obeying the orbifolding boundary condition

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(y)=\mathrm{\Omega }(y)=\mathrm{\Omega }(y+2\pi ).$$

Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=\mathrm{\Omega }(\pi )=0`$ guarantees that (i) $`D_M\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the same gauged $`U(1)_R`$ transformation as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, (ii) the Chern-Simons terms in the action are invariant under the gauged $`U(1)_R`$, (iii) there is no $`U(1)_R`$-anomaly. It also means that bulk and brane matter fields at $`y=0,\pi `$ are all invariant under the gauged $`U(1)_R`$.

In order for the $`U(1)_R`$ covariant derivative to be consistent with the SUSY transformation, $`T_B`$ is required to commute with the $`Z_2`$ transformation associated with $`yy`$. Without loss of generality, such $`U(1)_R`$ generator can be written as222Note that $`T_B`$ can always be matched with an isometry generator in the quaternionic manifold of hypermultiplet scalar fields.

$`g_BT_B=g_RT_{3R}+g_IT_{3I},`$ (9)
where $`T_{3R}`$ is the $`U(1)`$-generator of $`SU(2)_R`$ and $`T_{3I}`$ is the $`U(1)`$-generator of the $`I`$-th $`SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`Sp(2n_H)`$. It is then straightforward to find (see Appendix)

$`g_R=3k,g_I=c_Ik,`$ (10)
yielding the following form of covariant derivatives:

$`D_Mh_I^i`$ $`=`$ $`_Mh_I^ii\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\sigma _3)_j^ic_I\delta _j^i\right)kϵ(y)B_Mh_I^j,`$
$`D_M\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ $`=`$ $`_M\mathrm{\Psi }_I+ic_Ikϵ(y)B_M\mathrm{\Psi }_I,`$
$`D_M\lambda ^{ia}`$ $`=`$ $`_M\lambda ^{ia}i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\sigma _3)_j^ikϵ(y)B_M\lambda ^{aj},`$ (11)
where $`_M`$ denotes the covariant derivative containing other gauge fields including the spin connection.

In addition to $`S_{\mathrm{sugra}}`$, $`S_{\mathrm{vector}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{hyper}}`$, there can be additional brane actions involving the brane fields as well as the bulk fields at the fixed points. Such brane actions are required to be invariant under the unbroken $`N=1`$ SUSY generated by the Killing spinor on $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ which will be discussed in Appendix. Also the gauged $`U(1)_R`$ enforces that $`B_M`$ can appear in the brane actions only through $`C_{\mu 5}=_\mu B_5_5B_\mu `$, not through the covariant derivative of matter field. As a result, the brane actions do not have any non-derivative coupling of $`B_5`$ in the field basis of $`S_{\mathrm{vector}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{hyper}}`$.

Let us now consider the mass scales involved in the model. Generically, orbifold field theories on a slice of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ have the KK scale, i.e. the scale where the massive KK modes start to appear and/or the KK level spacing, given by

$$M_{KK}\frac{\pi k}{e^{\pi kR}1}.$$
(12)
In the limit of large AdS curvature $`\pi kR1`$, the KK scale is exponentially suppressed, $`M_{KK}\pi ke^{\pi kR}`$, so we have the mass scale hierarchies333 Our orbifold field theory has many scalar fields, e.g. scalar fields in 5D vector or hypermultiplets, which can have nonzero vacuum expectation values (VEV) $`\sigma `$ in general. In case that $`\sigma \mu `$, we should take into account this additional mass scale in the analysis. Here we assume that there is no such mass scale, so no more mass scales other than $`M_{KK}`$, $`1/R`$ and $`k`$ between $`\mu `$ and $`M_{}`$.

$$\mu M_{KK}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/RkM_{},$$
(13)
where $`\mu `$ denotes the low energy scale for currently available experiments. In the other limit with small AdS curvature $`\pi kR1`$, the geometry is (approximately) flat and the KK scale is given by

$$M_{KK}1/R,$$
(14)
for which the scale hierarchies are given by

$$\mu M_{KK}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/RM_{}.$$
(15)
The low energy couplings of gauge field zero modes in $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ would appear as a dimensionless function of the involved mass scales $`M_{KK},R,k,M_{}`$ as well as of the bare couplings $`g_{5a}^2,g_{0a}^2,g_{\pi a}^2`$ . (Here we assume that $`M_{}`$ corresponds to the cutoff scale of the model.) At tree level, the 4D gauge couplings $`g_a^2`$ are simply given by

$$\left(\frac{1}{g_a^2}\right)_{\mathrm{tree}}=\frac{\pi R}{g_{5a}^2}+\frac{1}{g_{0a}^2}+\frac{1}{g_{\pi a}^2}.$$

At 1-loop order, there can be two types of quantum corrections: those which are power-law dependent on the involved energy scales and the others which are logarithmic in scales. As for the power-law dependent part, it is dominated by the contribution from the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$, while the logarithmic part receives equally important contributions from all scales. When $`\pi kR1`$ so that we have the mass hierarchy (13) with $`M_{KK}\pi ke^{\pi kR}`$, writing the dimensionless 1-loop 4D gauge coupling at low energy scale $`\mu M_{KK}`$ in terms of the involved mass scales in a manner having sensible limiting behavior at large $`R`$, we find that $`g_a^2(\mu )`$ can be generically written as444 Here we consider the case with $`M_{}k`$ to see the gauge coupling renormalization proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(M_{}/k)`$. However in most of the practical applications of the model, one assumes $`kM_{}`$. The gauge coupling renormalization in such case can be obtained from our result by simply ignoring $`\mathrm{ln}(M_{}/k)`$ .

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_a^2(\mu )}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{5a}^2(M_{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _a}{8\pi ^3}}M_{}\right]\pi R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{0a}^2(M_{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{\pi a}^2(M_{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_a}{8\pi ^2}}`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b_a^{\prime \prime \prime }}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{k}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_a^{\prime \prime }}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(kR\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_a^{}}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{KK}R}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_a}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{KK}}{\mu }}\right),`$
where $`C_a`$ are some constants which do not depend on any of $`\mu ,M_{KK},R`$ and $`k`$ at one-loop approximation, and $`b_a`$ are the conventional one-loop beta function coefficients receiving the contribution only from the massless 4D modes at scales below $`\mu `$. The other coefficients $`b_a^{},b_a^{\prime \prime },b_a^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ and $`\gamma _a`$ receive the contribution from the KK towers. Among them, $`b_a^{},b_a^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`b_a^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ can be unambiguously calculated within the orbifold field theory as they reflect the infrared property of the model below the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$, while $`\gamma _a`$ are uncalculable as they reflect the unknown UV physics around $`M_{}`$. We stress that the logarithms $`\mathrm{ln}(M_I/M_J)`$ in (16) for $`\{M_I\}=\{M_{},k,1/R,M_{KK}\}`$ can not be interpreted solely as the coupling running between $`M_I`$ and $`M_J`$. There can be some contribution from the coupling running, particularly from the running localized at the orbifold fixed points. However they include also the finite KK threshold corrections. So (16) should be interpreted as one simple way to reorganize the whole quantum corrections including both the KK threshold effects and the running effects.

In case with large scale ratios given by (13), the large logs of $`b_a,b_a^{}`$ and $`b_a^{\prime \prime }`$ provide important corrections to the 4D gauge couplings. As for $`C_a`$ which are independent of mass scales, they are generically of order unity, so subleading compared to the large-logs. One can also make a strong coupling assumption on the uncalculable bare brane couplings

$$\frac{1}{g_{0a}^2(M_{})}\frac{1}{g_{\pi a}^2(M_{})}=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\right),$$
(17)
and then they are also subleading compared to the large-logs.

As for the power-law running corrections, their coefficients $`\gamma _a`$ highly depend on the way of UV cutoff. Of course, if the bulk gauge group is a simple group, $`\gamma _a`$ will be $`a`$-independent. In other cases that the bulk gauge group is not unified, one may compute $`\gamma _a`$ in certain regularization scheme and argue that different 5D gauge couplings rapidly approach to each other (when the scale is increased) due to the power-law running governed by $`\gamma _a`$ . However, power-law running can not be considered as a calculable property of orbifold field theory since it is highly sensitive to the unknown UV physics . This can be easily noticed by changing the cutoff $`M_{}c_aM_{}`$ for $`a`$-dependent constants $`c_a`$ which are generically of order unity. This change of cutoff leads to $`\gamma _ac_a\gamma _a`$ and represents the effects of unknown threshold effects at $`M_{}`$. As usual, the cutoff-scheme dependence of $`\gamma _a`$ should be cancelled by the cutoff scheme dependence of the corresponding Wilsonian couplings $`g_{5a}^2(M_{})`$. It is thus not meaningful to split the power-law running part from the bare coupling $`1/g_{5a}^2`$ in orbifold field theory. Rather, one has to consider the cutoff-scheme independent combination

$$\kappa _aM_{}\frac{1}{g_{5a}^2(M_{})}+\frac{\gamma _a}{8\pi ^3}M_{}.$$
(18)
Summarizing the above discussions, when we have the scale hierachy (13), the 1-loop low energy gauge couplings in $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_a^2(\mu )}}=\kappa _a\pi M_{}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_a+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\right),`$ (19)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_a=b_a^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{ln}(M_{}/k)+b_a^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{ln}(kR)+b_a^{}\mathrm{ln}(1/M_{KK}R)+b_a\mathrm{ln}(M_{KK}/\mu )`$ (20)
for $`\mu M_{KK}\pi ke^{\pi kR}`$. Here the 4D momentum $`\mu `$ is measured in the metric frame of massless 4D gravition, and $`\kappa _a`$ are uncalculable bare parameters associated with the bare 5D gauge couplings $`g_{5a}^2`$. The other uncalculable bare brane couplings $`g_{0a}^2,g_{\pi a}^2`$ are assumed to give subleading corrections of order $`1/8\pi ^2`$. The 1-loop correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ include both the KK threshold effects and the running effects which can be unambiguously calculated within the orbifold field theory. In the next section, we will calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ using the 4D effective SUGRA of 5D theory on $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$.

## 3 Matching with 4D effective SUGRA

In this section, we derive the 4D effective SUGRA of the 5D SYM theory on a slice of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$, and calculate the low energy gauge coupling (16) in the framework of 4D effective SUGRA. Generic 4D SUGRA action is determined by the real Kähler potential $`K`$, the holomorphic gauge kinetic function $`f_a`$ and the holomorphic superpotential $`P`$. In superspace, the action takes the form

$$d^4xd^4\theta \left\{3\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{K}{3}\right)\right\}+\left[d^4xd^2\theta \left(\frac{1}{4}f_aW^{a\alpha }W_\alpha ^a+P\right)+\text{h.c}\right]$$
(21)
where the gravity multiplet fields are set to their Poincare invariant VEV. The gauge kinetic function $`f_a`$ determines the 4D Wilsonian gauge coupling ($`g_{Wa}`$) and the vacuum angle ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_a`$) as

$$f_a=\frac{1}{g_{Wa}^2}+i\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_a}{8\pi ^2},$$

and the Kähler potential can be expanded in powers of gauge-charged chiral superfields:

$$K=K_0(T,T^{})+Z_\mathrm{\Phi }(T,T^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^{}e^V\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{},$$
(22)
where $`T`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`V`$ denote the gauge-singlet moduli superfields, gauge-charged chiral matter superfields, and vector gauge superfields, respectively.

It has been found in  a relation between the beta function and the anomalous dimension in 4D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, which is exact in perturbation theory. Using this relation, one can express the low energy one-particle-irreducible (1PI) gauge couplings in terms of $`f_a`$ and the Kähler metric $`Z_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of charged matter fields. This procedure can be generalized to find a relation between the moduli-dependent 1PI gauge coupling and the moduli-dependent Wilsonian couplings in 4D SUGRA . For moduli-independent UV regulator, the super-Weyl and Kähler invariance of 4D SUGRA determines the 1PI gauge coupling as555 This relation was confirmed by an explicit computation in  at 1-loop order.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_a^2(\mu )}}=\text{Re}(f_a)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}[`$ $`b_a\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{e^{K_0/6}\mu }}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}}T_a(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_\mathrm{\Phi }}{e^{K_0/3}}}\right)`$ (23)
$`+T_a(\mathrm{Adj})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_a^2(\mu )}}\right)],`$
where $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is the 4D Planck scale of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ which is used to measure the external momentum $`\mu ^2=g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu `$, $`T_a(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{Tr}([T_a(\mathrm{\Phi })]^2)`$ is the Dynkin index of the gauge group representation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`b_a`$ is the one-loop beta function coefficient:

$`b_a=3T_a(\mathrm{Adj})+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}}T_a(\mathrm{\Phi }).`$
Note that the moduli-dependence of $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ differs in different metric frame. For instance, in the 4D superconformal frame in which the action is given by (21), the moduli-dependence of $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is given by $`e^{K_0/6}`$, while in the 4D Einstein frame which is obtained from the superconformal frame after the Weyl scaling $`g_{\mu \nu }e^{K_0/3}g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is moduli-independent. When one matches the 4D SUGRA coupling (23) with the 1PI coupling computed in underlying orbifold field theory, one has to use the same metric frame as well as the same moduli-independent regulator . In the one-loop approximation, the above low energy gauge couplings can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_a^2(\mu )}}=\mathrm{Re}(f_a)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}[`$ $`b_a\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{e^{K_0/6}\mu }}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}}T_a(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}}{e^{K_0/3}}}\right)`$ (24)
$`+T_a(\mathrm{Adj})\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{Re}(f_a)\right)],`$
where $`Z_\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}`$ is the tree level Kähler metric of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Using (24), one can find the 1-loop gauge coupling in 5D gauge theory on a slice of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ by computing $`f_a,K_0`$ and $`Z_\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}`$ of the 4D effective SUGRA. As was noted in the previous section, all scale hierarchies in 5D theory are determined by the orbifold radius $`R`$, so the dominant 1-loop renormalization can be determined by computing the $`R`$-dependence of the 4D effective SUGRA. The only part of (24) which is undetermined by tree-level analysis is the 1-loop threshold correction to $`f_a`$. However due to the holomorphicity of $`f_a`$, in our case of 5D theory on $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$, the 1-loop piece of $`f_a`$ is determined by the loop-induced axion coupling which can be easily computed by using the chiral anomaly structure of the theory.

In order to derive the 4D effective SUGRA action of the 5D theory on $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$, it is convenient to rewrite the 5D actions $`S_{\mathrm{vector}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{hyper}}`$ in terms of the $`N=1`$ superfields of unbroken SUSY . This procedure involves a $`R`$ and $`B_5`$-dependent field redefinition which would generate a new piece of brane action through the chiral anomaly. The Killing spinor generating the unbroken $`N=1`$ global SUSY is given by (see Appendix)

$`e^{\frac{1}{2}k|y|(R3iB_5)}\eta ,`$
where $`\eta `$ is a constant 4D Weyl spinor. It is then straightforward to see that the 5D vector multiplet $`\{\varphi ^a,A_M^a,\lambda ^{ia}\}`$ can be decomposed into an $`N=1`$ vector superfield $`V^a`$ and a chiral superfield $`\chi ^a`$ whose component fields are given by $`\{A_\mu ^a,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^a\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^a+iA_5,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^a\}`$, respectively, where

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^a(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{3}{2}k|y|(R+iB_5)}\lambda ^a(x,y),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^a(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`Re^{\frac{1}{2}k|y|(R3iB_5)}\zeta ^a(x,y),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^a(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`R\varphi ^a(x,y).`$ (25)
for $`\lambda ^a=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5)\lambda ^{1a}`$ and $`\zeta ^a=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5)\lambda ^{2a}`$. The 5D hypermultiplet $`\{h_I^i,\mathrm{\Psi }_I\}`$ can be similarly decomposed into two $`N=1`$ chiral superfields $`H_I`$ and $`H_I^c`$ whose component fields are given by $`\{\stackrel{~}{h}_I^1,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_I\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{h}_I^2,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_I^c\}`$, respectively, where

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_I^1(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\left(\frac{3}{2}c_I\right)k|y|(R+iB_5)}h_I^1(x,y)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_I^2(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\left(\frac{3}{2}+c_I\right)k|y|(R+iB_5)}h_I^2(x,y)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_I(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{k|y|((2c_I)Ric_IB_5)}\psi _I(x,y),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_I^c(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{k|y|((2+c_I)R+ic_IB_5)}\psi _I^c(x,y),`$ (26)
for $`\psi _I=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ and $`(\psi _I^c)^{}=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$.

On each brane, there can be a brane action containing $`N=1`$ supersymmetric ($`B_5`$-independent) gaugino-scalar-fermion interactions $`\varphi _{\mathrm{br}}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{br}}\lambda ^a`$ and/or $`\varphi _{\mathrm{br}}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{br}}\lambda _{\mathrm{br}}`$, where $`\{\varphi _{\mathrm{br}},\psi _{\mathrm{br}}\}`$ and $`\{A_{\mathrm{br}}^\mu ,\lambda _{\mathrm{br}}\}`$ are the $`N=1`$ matter and gauge multiplets, respectively, living only on the brane. In order to rewrite such $`U(1)_R`$-invariant brane actions in $`N=1`$ superspace, one needs also to redefine the brane fermions as follows:

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{br}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{1}{2}k\left|y_{\mathrm{br}}\right|(R3iB_5)}\psi _{\mathrm{br}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\mathrm{br}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{3}{2}k\left|y_{\mathrm{br}}\right|(R+iB_5)}\lambda _{\mathrm{br}},`$ (27)
where $`y_{\mathrm{br}}=0`$ or $`\pi `$ denotes the location of the brane where the field lives on. Then the $`N=1`$ chiral brane superfield $`Q_{\mathrm{br}}`$ is given by the redefined component fields $`\{\varphi _{\mathrm{br}},\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{br}}\}`$ and the $`N=1`$ vector brane superfield $`V_{\mathrm{br}}`$ by $`\{A_{\mathrm{br}}^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\mathrm{br}}\}`$.

After the above field redefinitions, the bulk actions $`S_{\mathrm{vector}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{hyper}}`$ can be written in $`N=1`$ superspace  as follows

$`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5x[{\displaystyle }d^4\theta \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T+T^{})e^{(T+T^{})k|y|}(M_{}^3+M_{}e^{(\frac{3}{2}c_I)(T+T^{})k|y|}H_I^{}e^VH_I`$ (28)
$`+M_{}e^{(\frac{3}{2}+c_I)(T+T^{})k|y|}H_I^ce^VH_I^c))+2\kappa _aM_{}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(T+T^{})k|y|}}{T+T^{}}}(_yV^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\chi ^a+\chi ^a))^2\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle }d^2\theta \{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _aM_{}}{4}}TW^{a\alpha }W_\alpha ^a+H^c(_y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\chi )H+h.c.\}],`$
where $`T`$ is the radion superfield given by

$$T=R+iB_5+\theta \psi _5+\theta ^2F_T,$$

for the fifth-component of the graviphoton ($`B_5)`$ and $`\psi _5=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi }_5^{i=2}`$. Here we included the pure radion action coming from $`S_{\mathrm{sugra}}`$. The brane actions can be also written in $`N=1`$ superspace as

$`S_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y=0}}d^4x\left[{\displaystyle d^4\theta Q_{UV}^{}e^VQ_{UV}}+{\displaystyle d^2\theta \left(\frac{1}{4\widehat{g}_{UV}^2}W_{UV}^\alpha W_{UV\alpha }+P_{UV}(Q_{UV},H_I)\right)}\right]`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle _{y=\pi }}d^4x[{\displaystyle }d^4\theta e^{k\pi (T+T^{})}Q_{IR}^{}e^VQ_{IR}+{\displaystyle }d^2\theta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\widehat{g}_{IR}^2}}W_{IR}^\alpha W_{IR\alpha }`$
$`+e^{3k\pi T}P_{IR}(Q_{IR},e^{\left(\frac{3}{2}c\right)\pi kT}H_I))]+\text{h.c.},`$
where $`Q_{UV}`$ and $`Q_{IR}`$ are the brane chiral superfields living on the UV ($`y=0`$) and IR ($`y=\pi `$) brane, respectively, and $`W_{UV}`$ and $`W_{IR}`$ are the chiral spinor superfields for the brane vector superfields $`V_{UV}`$ and $`V_{IR}`$.

At classical level, the superfield action $`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}+S_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ describes the same theory as the component field action before the field redefinitions (25), (26) and (3). However at quantum level, we should include the anomaly terms induced by these field redefinitions at one-loop order. Since there is no chiral anomaly in 5D bulk, anomalies appear only at the orbifold fixed points , which can be easily calculated to be

$`S_{\mathrm{anomaly}}={\displaystyle d^5xd^2\theta }`$ $`[\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}T_a(\lambda ^a)(\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi )){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_IT_a(\mathrm{\Psi }_I)(\omega _I\delta (y)+\eta _I\delta (y\pi ))`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}T_a(\psi _{IR})\delta (y\pi )\}{\displaystyle \frac{k|y|T}{16\pi ^2}}W^{a\alpha }W^a_\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(T_{IR}(\lambda _{IR})T_{IR}(\psi _{IR}))\delta (y\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{k\pi T}{16\pi ^2}}W_{IR}^\alpha W_{IR\alpha }].`$
It is now straightforward to derive the tree level 4D effective action from the above 5D actions in $`N=1`$ superspace. The bulk superfields $`T`$ and $`W_\alpha ^a`$ have ($`y`$-independent) zero modes as they have $`(+,+)`$ boundary condition under $`yy`$ and $`y+\pi y+\pi `$. On the other hand, $`H_I`$ can have ($`y`$-independent) zero mode only when $`(\omega _I,\eta _I)=(+,+)`$, while $`H_I^c`$ does only when $`(\omega _I,\eta _I)=(,)`$. By integrating over $`y`$, one easily finds the following radion Kähler potential $`K_0`$, the tree level Kähler metric $`Z_{H_I}^{(0)}`$, and the tree level gauge kinetic function $`f_a^{(0)}`$ for the massless 4D modes of $`T`$, $`H_I`$ or $`H_I^c`$, and $`W_\alpha ^a`$:

$`e^{K_0/3}=(1e^{\pi k(T+T^{})}){\displaystyle \frac{M_{}^3}{k}}=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2,`$
$`e^{K_0/3}Z_{H_I}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{(\frac{1}{2}\omega _Ic_I)k}}(e^{(\frac{1}{2}\omega _Ic_I)\pi k(T+T^{})}1),`$
$`f_a^{(0)}=\kappa _a\pi M_{}T.`$ (31)
Here we ignored the contribution to $`f_a^{(0)}`$ from the fixed point gauge couplings $`1/g_{ia}^2`$ based on the strong coupling assumption (17). The contribution to $`Z_{H_I}^{(0)}`$ from the fixed point kinetic terms of bulk fields are ignored also by the similar reasoning. The tree-level Kähler metrics and gauge kinetic functions of brane superfields are also easily obtained to be

$$e^{K_0/3}Z_{Q_{UV}}^{(0)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},e^{K_0/3}Z_{Q_{IR}}^{(0)}=e^{\pi k(T+T^{})},$$

$`f_{IR}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{IR}^2}},f_{UV}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{UV}^2}}.`$ (32)
The $`T`$-dependent one-loop threshold corrections to gauge kinetic functions can be determined by the loop-induced axion ($`B_5`$) couplings to gauge fields: $`B_5ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^a`$. There can be two sources of such axion couplings. One is $`S_{\mathrm{anomaly}}`$ and the other is the one-loop threshold effects of massive KK modes. A nice feature our field basis is that $`B_5`$ does not have any non-derivative coupling in $`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ other than the Chern-Simons coupling. As a result, in our field basis, integrating out the massive KK modes does not generate any $`B_5`$-coupling to gauge fields. Then the $`T`$-dependent one-loop corrections to gauge kinetic functions are entirely given by $`S_{\mathrm{anomaly}}`$, yielding:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_a={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}\left(T_a(Q_{IR}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_a(\mathrm{Adj})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\eta _Ic_IT_a(H_I)\right)k\pi T,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{IR}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}\left(T_{IR}(\mathrm{Adj})T_{IR}(Q_{IR})\right)k\pi T,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{UV}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$ (33)
With (24), (31), (32) and (3), the low energy bulk gauge couplings are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_a^2(\mu ,k,R)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _a\pi M_{}\mathrm{Re}(T)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}[T_a(Q_{UV})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{\mu }}\right)+T_a(Q_{IR})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}e^{\frac{1}{2}\pi k(T+T^{})}}{\mu }}\right)`$ (34)
$`T_a(\mathrm{Adj})\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{\mu }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\pi k(T+T^{})\mathrm{ln}(M_{}(T+T^{}))\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _I=\eta _I}{}}T_a(H_I)\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{\mu }}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\left(\frac{1}{2}\omega _Ic_I\right)\pi k(T+T^{})}1}{\pi (12\omega _Ic_I)}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_a(H_I)\eta _Ic_I\pi k(T+T^{})],`$
where $`\mu ^2=g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu `$ is the external 4D momentum below the KK threshold scale. Here $`_I`$ denotes the summation over all hypermultiplets, while $`_{\omega _I=\eta _I}`$ denotes the summation over the hypermultiplets having a zero mode. The brane gauge couplings at low energies can be similarly obtained as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{UV}^2(\mu ,k,R)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{UV}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_{UV}}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}^2}{\mu ^2}}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{IR}^2(\mu ,k,R)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{IR}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_{IR}}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi k(T+T^{})}M_{}^2}{\mu ^2}}\right),`$ (35)
where $`b_A=3T_A(\mathrm{Adj})+_\mathrm{\Phi }T_A(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ ($`A=`$ UV or IR) are the one-loop beta function coefficients for the couplings of gauge fields living only on the branes.

The above expression of low energy brane couplings is what one would expect based on the notion of position-dependent effective cutoff . The bare brane couplings $`\widehat{g}_A^2`$ ($`A=`$ UV or IR) corresponds to the Wilsonian couplings at the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$ in the 5D metric frame of $`G_{MN}`$. However in the metric frame of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ in which $`\mu ^2=g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu `$ is measured (see Eq. (3)), $`\widehat{g}_{IR}^2`$ can be identified as the Wilsonian coupling at the effective cutoff scale $`e^{\pi kR}M_{}`$, while $`\widehat{g}_{UV}^2`$ is still the Wilsonian coupling at $`M_{}`$.

As for the low energy bulk gauge couplings, our result (34) shows that the (calculable) quantum corrections are generically of order $`\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(M_{}^2/\mu ^2)\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2/M_{\mathrm{weak}}^2)`$. It reproduces correctly the known 1-loop gauge coupling in flat 5D orbifold in the limit $`kR0`$. In this flat limit, (34) is reduced to

$$\frac{1}{g_a^2(\mu )}=\kappa _a\pi M_{}\mathrm{Re}(T)+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left[b_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{\mu R}\right)+b_a^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{ln}\left(M_{}R\right)\right]+\mathrm{}$$
(36)
where the ellipsis stands for the subleading pieces of $`𝒪(1/8\pi ^2)`$, and

$$b_a^{\prime \prime }=2T_a(\mathrm{Adj})+T_a\left(Q_{UV}\right)+T_a\left(Q_{IR}\right).$$

This value of $`b_a^{\prime \prime }`$ agrees with what one would obtain in the explicit KK loop computation . In fact, (34) can be obtained also through a totally independent (but more general) 5D calculation using dimensional regularization , providing a nontrivial check of our result.

The result (34) is valid for arbitrary value of $`k`$ and $`\mu `$ as long as $`kM_{}`$ and $`\mu M_{KK}`$. When $`\pi k(T+T^{})1`$ so that we have the scale hierarchy (13), one can rewrite (34) in terms of the logarithms of four distinctive mass scales $`M_{KK}\pi ke^{\pi k(T+T^{})/2},1/R`$, $`k`$ and $`M_{}`$. In this regard, for the hypermultiplets with $`\omega _I=\eta _I`$ having a massless mode, it is convenient to consider the following three different classes:

$`\text{Class 1:}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _Ic_I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi k(T+T^{})}},`$
$`\text{Class 2:}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _Ic_I\right|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi k(T+T^{})}},`$
$`\text{Class 3:}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _Ic_I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi k(T+T^{})}}.`$ (37)
Then (34) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_a^2(\mu )}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _a\pi M_{}\mathrm{Re}(T)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_a}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{KK}}{\mu }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_a^{}}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{KK}R}}\right)`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b_a^{\prime \prime }}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(kR\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_a^{\prime \prime \prime }}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{k}}\right)+\mathrm{},`$
where

$`b_a`$ $`=`$ $`3T_a(\mathrm{Adj})+{\displaystyle T_a(Q_{IR})}+{\displaystyle T_a(Q_{UV})}+{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _I=\eta _I}{}}T_a(H_I),`$
$`b_a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}T_a(\mathrm{Adj})+{\displaystyle }T_a(Q_{UV})+[{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\eta _Ic_IT_a(H_I)+{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _I=\eta _I}{}}T_a(H_I)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\text{class 1}}{}}(12\omega _Ic_I)T_a(H_I)],`$
$`b_a^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_a(\mathrm{Adj})+{\displaystyle }T_a(Q_{UV})+[{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\eta _Ic_IT_a(H_I)+{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _I=\eta _I}{}}T_a(H_I)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\text{class 1}}{}}(12\omega _Ic_I)T_a(H_I){\displaystyle \underset{\text{class 2}}{}}T_a(H_I)],`$
$`b_a^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`2T_a(\mathrm{Adj})+{\displaystyle T_a(Q_{UV})}+{\displaystyle T_a(Q_{IR})},`$ (39)
and the ellipsis stands for the subleading pieces of $`𝒪(1/8\pi ^2)`$. Obviously $`b_a`$ represents the conventional coupling running at scales between $`\mu `$ and $`M_{KK}`$. On the other hand, other coefficients contain the KK threshold effects, so their logarithms can not be interpreted as a coupling running.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we have examined the gauge coupling renormalization in orbifold field theory in the context of 4D effective SUGRA. The 4D effective SUGRA is a convenient framework to study the gauge coupling renormalization since the 1-loop gauge couplings can be determined by the 1-loop induced axion couplings and the tree level properties of 4D effective SUGRA which are much easier to be computed. To be explicit, we take an example of the 5D SUGRA-coupled SYM theory on a slice of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ with four well-seperated mass scales, the KK threshold scale, the orbifold length, the AdS curvature, and the cutoff scale. In this case, the relevant axion couplings are those of the graviphoton which can be determined simply by the chiral anomaly structure of the model. The calculable piece of gauge coupling renormalization in $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ is logarithmic, which is generically of order $`\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2/M_{\mathrm{weak}}^2)`$, so is numerically of order unity. We have calculated such logarithmic corrections in generic 5D SYM models defined on a slice of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ preserving $`N=1`$ SUSY.

Note added: After this paper is completed, there have appeared several papers discussing the gauge coupling renormalization in $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ .

###### Acknowledgments.

HK thanks the particle theory group of University of Washington, Seattle for their warm hospitality and thanks D. B. Kaplan, A. Katz and A. Nelson for discussions. This work is supported in part by the BK21 program of Ministry of Education, KRF Grant No. 2000-015-DP0080, the KOSEF Sundo Grant, and the Center for High Energy Physics(CHEP), Kyungpook National University.

## Appendix A 5D SUSY transformation and Gauged $`U(1)_R`$

In this appendix, we briefly discuss how the $`U(1)_R`$-gauging (2) is related with the AdS curvature and the mass parameter of the hypermultiplets through the 5D SUGRA transformation. Let us first set up the notation for 5D spinor. Generic spinor field in 5D SUGRA can be represented by symplectic-Majorana spinor satisfying

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^i=\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\gamma ^0=(\mathrm{\Psi }^i)^TC.`$
where

$$C^T=C,(\gamma ^A)^T=C\gamma ^AC^1,$$

and the $`SU(2)_R`$ doublet index $`i=1,2`$ is raised or lowered by $`\epsilon ^{ij}=\epsilon _{ij}=(i\sigma _2)_{ij}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^i=\epsilon ^{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_j,\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }^j\epsilon _{ji}`$
A symplectic-Majorana spinor contains two independent left-handed 4D Weyl spinors $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^c`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{i=1}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi \\ \overline{\psi ^c}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }^{i=2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^c\\ \overline{\psi }\end{array}\right),`$ (44)
so $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{i=1}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{i=2}`$ can be regarded as a Dirac spinor.

The 5D SUGRA action of general vector multiplets and hypermultiplets and their SUGRA transformations are given in . In our notation, the SUGRA transformation of the gravity multiplet $`\{e_M^A,\mathrm{\Psi }_M^i,B_M\}`$ is given by

$`\delta _\xi e_M^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\xi }^i\gamma ^A\mathrm{\Psi }_{iM},\delta _\xi B_M={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\xi _i,`$
$`\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Psi }_M^i`$ $`=`$ $`D_M\xi ^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}kϵ(y)(\sigma ^3)_j^ie_M^A\gamma _A\xi ^j`$ (45)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}e_M^A\left(\gamma _{ABC}\xi ^i4\eta _{AB}\gamma _C\xi ^i\right)C^{BC}+\mathrm{},`$
where $`C_{MN}=_MB_N_NB_M`$ and the ellipsis denotes the piece which is bilinear in hyperino fields. Comparing $`D_M\xi ^i`$ in $`\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Psi }_M^i`$ with the next term, one easily finds

$`D_M\xi ^i=_M\xi ^ii{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}kϵ(y)(\sigma ^3)_j^iB_M\xi ^i,`$
and this determines the $`U(1)_R`$-gauging for the fields carrying $`SU(2)_R`$ index $`i`$, e.g

$`D_M\lambda ^{ia}=_M\lambda ^{ia}i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}kϵ(y)(\sigma ^3)_j^iB_M\lambda ^{ja}.`$
The SUGRA transformation of hypermultiplet $`\{h_I^i,\mathrm{\Psi }_I\}`$ is given by

$`\delta _\xi h_I^i`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\xi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }_I,`$
$`\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left[\gamma ^A\xi ^ie_A^MD_Mh_I^j\epsilon _{ji}+kϵ(y)\xi ^i\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\sigma _3)_k^jc_I\delta _k^j\right)h_I^k\epsilon _{ji}\right].`$ (46)
Again comparing the first term in $`\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ with the second, one easily finds

$`D_Mh_I^i`$ $`=`$ $`_Mh_I^iikϵ(y)\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\sigma _3)_j^ic_I\delta _j^i\right)kϵ(y)B_Mh_I^j,`$
and so

$`D_M\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ $`=`$ $`_M\mathrm{\Psi }_I+ic_Ikϵ(y)B_M\mathrm{\Psi }_I.`$
Let us now make sure that the above $`U(1)_R`$ covariant derivatives correctly lead to the mass parameters in $`S_{\mathrm{hyper}}`$ of (6). For the SUGRA transformation (A), the Killing spinor equation is given by

$`D_M\xi ^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}kϵ(y)(\sigma ^3)_j^ie_M^A\gamma _A\xi ^j=0,`$
which has the solution

$`\xi ^{i=1}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi \\ 0\end{array}\right),\xi ^{i=2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \overline{\xi }\end{array}\right),`$ (51)
where

$`\xi (y)=e^{\frac{1}{2}k|y|(R3iB_5)}\eta `$ (52)
for a constant 4D Weyl spinor $`\eta `$ generating the unbroken $`N=1`$ global SUSY.

From (52) and (46), one can see that $`\{\stackrel{~}{h}_I^1,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_I\}`$ and $`\{(\stackrel{~}{h}_I^2)^{},\stackrel{~}{\psi }_I^c\}`$ form $`N=1`$ chiral superfields $`H_I`$ and $`H_I^c`$ under the global SUSY generated by $`\eta `$, where $`\stackrel{~}{h}_I^i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_I^c`$ are defined in (26). One can also find from (52) and (46) that the $`F`$-components of these chiral superfields are given by

$`F_{H_I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(12c_I)kR|y|}}{R}}_5h_I^2,`$
$`F_{H_I^c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(1+2c_I)kR|y|}}{R}}_5\left(h_I^1\right)^{}.`$ (53)
Using the kinetic terms, it is also straightforward to find that the D-term action of hypermultiplets is given by

$`{\displaystyle d^5xd^4\theta \frac{1}{2}(T+T^{})\left[e^{\left(\frac{1}{2}c_I\right)k|y|(T+T^{})}H_IH_I^{}+e^{\left(\frac{1}{2}+c_I\right)k|y|(T+T^{})}H_I^cH_I^c\right]}.`$
In order for the $`F`$-components of $`H_I`$ and $`H_I^c`$ to be given as (53), the $`F`$-term action should be given by

$`{\displaystyle d^5x\left[d^2\theta H_I^c_5H_I+\text{h.c.}\right]}.`$
It is then straightforward to see that the above $`D`$-term and $`F`$-term actions give the correct hypermultiplet masses:

$`M(\mathrm{\Psi }_I)`$ $`=`$ $`c_Ikϵ(y),`$
$`M^2(h_I^{i=1})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(c_I^2+c_I{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}\right)k^2+(32c_I)k\left(\delta (y)\delta (y\pi )\right),`$
$`M^2(h_I^{i=2})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(c_I^2c_I{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}\right)k^2+(3+2c_I)k\left(\delta (y)\delta (y\pi )\right).`$