text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Although the maximal supersymmetric backgrounds have been known for a while, until the strong motivation by AdS/CFT duality (see  for a review), string theory was only formulated on the simpler case of ten dimensional flat background. The AdS/CFT correspondence, in its simplest form, states that string theory (or in certain limits, supergravity) on the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background is dual to the large $`N`$ $`𝒩=4`$ four dimensional SYM . According to this conjecture the spectrum of string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ corresponds to spectrum of single trace operators of the $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory. However, this correspondence has only been studied for the supergravity modes on the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ which are in one-to-one correspondence with the chiral operators of the $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory.

Another supergravity background which admits the maximal supersymmetry is the pp-wave . Soon after that the string theory on this background was formulated  and shown to be exactly solvable . However, the observation that the supersymmetric pp-waves background can be understood as a certain limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ geometry led the authors of  to the conjecture that string theory on the maximally supersymmetric ten dimensional pp-waves has a description in terms of a certain subsector of the large $`N`$ four dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ supersymmetric gauge theory at weak coupling. More precisely this subsector is parametrized by states with conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ carrying $`J`$ units of charge under the $`U(1)_R`$ subgroup of the $`SU(4)_R`$ R-symmetry of the gauge theory, such that both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`J`$ are parametrically large (both scale as $`\sqrt{N}`$ in the large $`N`$ limit) while their difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ is finite. Then, as further evidence the perturbative string spectrum was worked out from gauge theory side.

This procedure has also been generalized for the pp-wave limit of $`AdS_5\times M^5`$, where $`M^5`$ is smooth and preserves some supersymmetry, leading to the conjecture that for such background the pp-wave limit is universal and maximally supersymmetric . In particular focusing on the $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$, it was shown that this pp-wave is identical to the one which appears in the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ case. Therefore there should be a subsector of the corresponding $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory describing the string theory on the pp-wave, which has enhanced $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry.

In this letter we consider non-smooth backgrounds and study their pp-wave limits. We consider the $`AdS_5\times ^5`$ cases, where $`^5`$ is an orbifold of $`S^5`$, namely $`S^5/Z_N`$. The special case of $`S^5/Z_2`$ has been briefly considered in . We start with supergravity solution of $`N_1`$ D3-branes in the $`A_{N_21}`$ singularities, the near horizon limit of which corresponds to geometry of the form $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_{N_2}`$ . We show that the orbifolded case admits two different pp-wave limits. One is with half supersymmetries and is in fact the orbifolded version of maximally supersymmetric pp-wave. The other one is the maximal supersymmetric case. Therefore, the universality of the pp-waves limit for the cases which $`M^5`$ is a smooth manifold  is not maintaining in the non-smooth cases.

The article is organized as follows. In section 2, we review how to construct the supergravity solution of $`N_1`$ D3-branes in the $`A_{N_21}`$ singularities. This solution can be obtained by supergravity solution of a M5-brane configuration in eleven dimensional supergravity with worldvolume of the form $`R^4\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ , where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the Seiberg-Witten holomorphic curve. In section 3, we shall perform the pp-wave limits of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_{N_2}`$ and show the existence of two pp-wave limits. In section 4, we will consider subsector of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory corresponding to the string on the orbifolded pp-wave. In section 5, we study the eleven dimensional $`AdS_4\times S^7/Z_N`$ and $`AdS_7\times S^4/Z_N`$ orbifolds and their pp-wave limits. We show that for the $`AdS_4\times S^7/Z_N`$ case there are two pp-wave limits, one is the orbifold version of eleven dimensional pp-waves of  and the other is the maximal supersymmetric case. However, for the $`AdS_7\times S^4/Z_N`$ the only possible pp-wave limit is the maximally supersymmetric case.

## 2 Gravity solution of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_{N_2}`$

In this section we present the supergravity solution of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_{N_2}`$ starting from intersecting M5-branes solution. This supergravity solution has been studied in . We denote the eleven dimensional space-time coordinates by $`(x_{||},\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z})`$, where $`x_{||}`$ parameterize the $`(0,1,2,3)`$ coordinates, $`\stackrel{}{x}=(x_1,x_2)`$ the $`(4,5)`$ coordinates, $`\stackrel{}{y}=(y_1,y_2)`$ the $`(6,7)`$ coordinates and $`\stackrel{}{z}=(z_1,z_2,z_3)`$ the $`(8,9,10)`$ coordinates.

Let us start with two sets of fivebranes in M theory: $`N_1`$ coinciding M5 branes and $`N_2`$ coincident M5’ branes. Their worldvolume coordinates are $`M5:(x_{||},\stackrel{}{y})`$ and $`M5^{}:(x_{||},\stackrel{}{x})`$. Such a configuration preserves eight supercharges. The eleven-dimensional supergravity background is given by

$$ds_{11}^2=(H_1H_2)^{2/3}[(H_1H_2)^1dx_{||}^2+H_2^1d\stackrel{}{x}^2+H_1^1d\stackrel{}{y}^2+d\stackrel{}{z}^2],$$
(1)
with the 4-form field strength $``$

$$=3(d(H_1^1)dy^1dy^2+d(H_2^1)dx^1dx^2),$$
(2)
where $``$ defines the dual form in the three dimensional space $`(z_1,z_2,z_3)`$. Consider the semi-localized case when the M5 branes are completely localized while the M5’ branes are only localized along the overall transverse directions. When the branes are at the origin of $`(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{z})`$ space the harmonic functions in the near core limit of the M5’ branes take the form

$$H_1=1+\frac{4\pi l_p^4N_1N_2}{(|\stackrel{}{x}|^2+2l_pN_2|\stackrel{}{z}|)^2},H_2=\frac{l_pN_2}{2|\stackrel{}{z}|}.$$
(3)
It is useful to make a change of coordinates $`l_pz=(r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha )/2N_2,x=r\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,0\alpha \pi /2`$. The decoupling limit of the theory is defined by $`l_p0`$ while keeping $`U=r/l_p^2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\widehat{y}}=\stackrel{}{y}/l_p`$ fixed. In this limit the metric (1) is of the form of a warped product of $`AdS_5`$ and a six dimensional manifold $`_6`$

$$ds_{11}^2=l_p^2(4\pi N_1)^{1/3}(\mathrm{sin}^{2/3}\alpha )\left(\frac{U^2}{N_2}dx_{||}^2+\frac{4\pi N_1}{U^2}dU^2+d_6^2\right),$$
(4)
with

$`d_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi N_1(d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{4}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{N_2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }}(d\widehat{y}^2+\widehat{y}^2d\psi ^2)`$ (5)
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`d\gamma ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma d\delta ^2.`$ (6)
The four form field in this limit is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`2\pi N_1l_p^3\mathrm{sin}^3\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\gamma d\alpha d\theta d\gamma d\delta `$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_2l_p^3\mathrm{sin}\gamma d\widehat{y}_1d\widehat{y}_2d\gamma d\delta .`$
The curvature of this metric behaves like $`\frac{1}{l_p^2N_1^{2/3}\mathrm{sin}^{8/3}\alpha }`$. This brane configuration can be understood as uplifted elliptic brane system in type IIA. It consists of $`N_2`$ NS5-branes with the worldvolume directions (0,1,2,3,4,5) periodically arranged in the 6-direction and $`N_1`$ D4-branes with worldvolume coordinates (0,1,2,3,6) stretched between them. The four dimensional theory at low energies on the D4-branes worldvolume is a supersymmetric gauge theory with 8 supercharges. In this brane set-up the R-symmetry group $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)_R`$ is realized as the rotation group $`SU(2)_{8910}\times U(1)_{45}`$.

The near-horizon limit of the ten dimensional metric describing the elliptic type IIA brane configuration is

$$ds_{10}^2=l_s^2\left(\frac{U^2}{R^2}dx_{||}^2+R^2\frac{dU^2}{U^2}+d_5^2\right),$$
(9)
where

$$d_5^2=R^2\left(d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha d\theta ^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right)+\frac{N_2^2}{R^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }d\widehat{y}^2,$$
(10)
and $`R^2=(4\pi g_sN_1N_2)^{1/2}`$. In this limit the dilaton and non-zero three and four form field strengths of the corresponding supergravity solution are given by

$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_sN_2}{R\mathrm{sin}\alpha }},H_{y\gamma \delta }={\displaystyle \frac{N_2l_s^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\gamma ,`$ (11)
$`F_{\alpha \theta \gamma \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi g_sN_1l_s^3\mathrm{sin}^3\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\gamma .`$ (13)
The NS-NS B field corresponding to the NS5-branes charge can be read from (13) as

$$B_{y\delta }=\frac{N_2l_s^2}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma 1).$$
(14)
It is useful to make a T-duality and study these theories from Type IIB string theory point of view. Doing so, we obtain

$$ds_{10}^2=l_s^2\left(\frac{U^2}{R^2}dx_{||}^2+R^2\frac{dU^2}{U^2}+R^2d_5^2\right),$$
(15)
with

$$d^2=d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha d\theta ^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{N_2^2}[d\chi +\frac{N_2}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma 1)d\delta ]^2$$
(16)
where $`\chi =\widehat{y}/l_s`$. The IIB self-dual five form is found to be111Here we are using the conventions of .

$$F_{\chi \alpha \theta \gamma \delta }=(F)_{\chi \alpha \theta \gamma \delta }=\frac{3}{20}\frac{R^4}{N_2}\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}^3\alpha \mathrm{sin}\gamma .$$
(17)
The curvature of the above metric behaves like $`\frac{1}{R^2}`$. Note that (16) is the metric of $`S^5/Z_{N_2}`$ orbifold with $`Z_{N_2}SU(2)SU(4)`$. Therefore the solution is nothing but D3-branes solution in the $`Z_{N_2}`$ orbifold. This theory has been considered in  by orbifolding of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ in the context AdS/CFT correspondence. The theory is four dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ SYM theory with gauge group $`SU(N_1)^{N_2}`$ with $`N_2`$ bi-fundamental matter hypermultiplets i.e. $`(Q_i,\stackrel{~}{Q}_i)`$ in $`𝒩=1`$ notation. The $`Z_{N_2}`$ acts as a permutation of the gauge factors. The dimensionless gauge coupling of each $`SU(N_1)`$ part of the gauge group is $`g_{YM}^2g_sN_2`$.

## 3 PP-waves as limits of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_{N_2}`$

Following , we obtain the pp-wave geometries arising as limits of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_{N_2}`$ and then study string theory on pp-wave background through the corresponding gauge theory. The strategy is to consider the trajectory of a particle which is moving very fast along the $`S^5/Z_{N_2}`$ and focusing on the geometry near this trajectory. We note that the metric of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_{N_2}`$ background (15) can be recast to

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`R^2[dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho +d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{4}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{N_2^2}}[d\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{N_2}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma 1)d\delta ]^2]`$ (20)
Depending on the fact that particle trajectories we consider are near the singular point or far from that one can distinguish two different interesting pp-wave limits:

1) Trajectories near $`\alpha =0`$

Let us consider a particle moving along the $`\theta `$ direction and sitting at $`\rho =0`$ and $`\alpha =0`$. We recall that $`\theta `$ parametrizes the direction which is invariant under the $`Z_{N_2}`$ action. The geometry close to this trajectory can be obtained by the following rescaling

$$t=x^++R^2x^{},\theta =x^+R^2x^{},\rho =\frac{r}{R},\alpha =\frac{v}{R},R\mathrm{},$$
(21)
and keeping $`x^+,x^{},r`$ and $`v`$ fixed. In this limit the above metric reads as

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}(r^2+v^2)dx^{+2}+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`dv^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v^2\left[d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N_2^2}}[d\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{N_2}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma 1)d\delta ]^2\right].`$ (24)
We also have a self-dual RR 5-form flux, $`(F)_{+v\gamma \delta \chi }=F_{+v\gamma \delta \chi }\frac{1}{N_2}d(Vol_4)`$, where $`d(Vol_4)`$ is volume form for $`v\gamma \delta \chi `$ directions. Besides the explicit form of metric (24), the fact that the five form flux is proportional to $`\frac{1}{N_2}`$ justifies that our geometry contains the $`Z_{N_2}`$ orbifold. Since the curvature of the above metric is proportional to $`\frac{1}{R^2}`$, in the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit curvature always remains small. This pp-wave limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_{N_2}`$ is $`Z_{N_2}`$ orbifold of the pp-wave limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$  and hence this background preserves only half of supersymmetry (16 supercharges).

2) Trajectories near $`\alpha =\frac{\pi }{2}`$ Besides the above limit there is another pp-wave metric considering the particles moving very fast along the $`\chi `$ direction, sitting at $`\rho =0`$, $`\gamma =0`$ and $`\alpha =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Note that $`\chi `$ is the direction involved in the orbifolding. Let us consider the scaling

$`t=x^++R^2x^{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_2}}\chi =x^+R^2x^{},`$ (25)
$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}},\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{2x}{R}},\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{R}},R\mathrm{}`$ (26)
while keeping $`x^+`$, $`x^{}`$, $`r,x`$ and $`y`$ fixed. In this limit the metric (18) becomes

$$l_s^2ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{z}^2dx^{+2}+d\stackrel{}{z}^2,$$
(27)
and

$$F_{+1234}=F_{+4567}=\frac{3}{20}\mu .$$
(28)
To obtain the above metric we have redefined $`\delta x^+`$ as the new coordinate $`\delta `$. Moreover the mass parameter $`\mu `$ has been introduced by reacaling $`x^{}x^{}/\mu `$ and $`x^+\mu x^+`$. As we see the above metric, as well as the self dual five form field, do not depend on $`N_2`$ and it is exactly the pp-wave limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ discussed in . This pp-wave limit corresponds to a maximally supersymmetric background. The very fact that the $`N_2`$ dependence has been removed in the pp-wave limit metric can also be understood from the four dimensional gauge field theory side. For that it is enough to recall that in the scaling limit (25) $`x^+`$ is related to $`\chi `$ by a factor of $`N_2`$ and hence the $`U(1)_R`$ charges of the states should now be measured in units of $`N_2`$.

One can work out the pp-wave limit of the eleven dimensional solutions of (4), (6). This we have presented in the Appendix. We note that the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave do not have an eleven dimensional counter-part.

Therefore, for the $`AdS_5\times ^5`$ spaces, where $`^5`$ is an orbifold of $`S^5`$ which preserves some supersymmetry, depending on the scaling we use for going to pp-wave limit, one may find maximally supersymmetry case or the cases with (half) of supersymmetry broken.

Here we will mainly focus on the first pp-wave case. Following  we can write the light-cone momenta in terms of conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the angular momentum, $`J=i_\theta `$, of the operator in the superconformal field theory as following

$`2p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i_{x^+}=i(_t+_\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ (29)
$`2p^+`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{_x^{}}{R^2}}=i{\displaystyle \frac{(_t_\theta )}{R^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+J}{R^2}}.`$ (31)
Configurations with fixed non-zero $`p^+`$ in the limit (21) correspond to the states in the $`AdS`$ with large angular momentum $`JR^2`$. In the gauge theory side such configurations correspond to operators with R-charge $`J\sqrt{N_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ fixed, in the $`N_1\mathrm{}`$ limit and keeping the gauge theory coupling $`g_{YM}^2`$, fixed and small. In next section we will study these operators and identify them with excited string states.

On the other hand for the pp-wave with maximal supersymmetry (27) the light-cone momenta in terms of conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the angular momentum $`J=i_\chi `$ can be written as

$`2p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i_{x^+}=i(_t+N_2_\chi )=\mathrm{\Delta }N_2J`$ (32)
$`2p^+`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{_x^{}}{R^2}}=i{\displaystyle \frac{(_tN_2_\chi )}{R^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+N_2J}{R^2}}.`$ (34)
Therefore in this case we will be looking for spectrum of states with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_2J`$ finite in the limit $`N_1\mathrm{}`$. In fact from pp-wave limit (27) we learn that there should also be a subsector of $`𝒩=2`$ which exhibits the supersymmetry enhancement, similar to the conifold case . This subsector is parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_2J`$ eigenvalue. We would like to comment that, since the above maximal SUSY PP-wave limit do not depend on $`N_2`$, one can study the large $`N_2`$ limit. In particular equations (32) are very suggestive that in the large $`N_2`$ one has the chance to keep $`J`$ finite. However, here we will only consider the half SUSY case and in the next section we construct the gauge theory operators corresponding to the strings on PP-wave orbifolds. Giving the description of strings in PP-waves in terms of $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories is very interesting and important question which we will come back to, in the future works .

## 4 Strings in PP-wave orbifolds from $`𝒩=2`$ SYM

The twisted and untwisted states of AdS orbifolds have been studied in . In fact the twisted states of $`AdS_5\times S^5/N_2`$ orbifold can be identified with the chiral primary operators of $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(N_1)^{N_2}`$ conformal SYM theory which are not invariant under exchange of the gauge group factors, while the untwisted states can be identified with those which are invariant. In our notation the untwisted operators can be considered as single trace operators which are symmetric under exchange of gauge group, i.e. $`_{i=1}^{N_2}\mathrm{Tr}(\phi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{k})`$, where $`\phi _i`$’s are adjoint complex scalars in the vectormultiplet of each gauge factor and carry a unit of R-charge under $`U(1)_R`$ factor of R-symmetry group. This operator has conformal weight $`k`$.

On the other hand the twisted operators which are not invariant under exchange of the gauge factors may be written in the following form

$$𝒪(i)𝒪(i+1),$$
(35)
where $`𝒪`$ can be thought as a basis which is constructed from a certain combination of chiral fields. For example we can consider those operators which are given in terms of scalars in the vectormultiplet, i.e. $`𝒪(i)=\mathrm{Tr}(\phi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{k})`$.

We want to study those states which carry large R-charge $`J\sqrt{N_1}`$ under the generator of $`U(1)_R`$ subgroup of the R-symmetry which acts on the adjoint scalars in the vectormultiplet while has no effect on the scalars of the bi-fundamental matters; and we are looking for the spectrum of states with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ fixed. In the untwisted sector the operator with lowest value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$, which is zero, is $`_{i=1}^{N_2}\mathrm{Tr}(\phi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{J})`$. This operator is chiral primary and therefore its dimension is protected by supersymmetry and, is associated to the untwisted vacuum state of the corresponding string theory in the light-cone gauge, much similar to the $`𝒩=4`$ case . Operators in the twisted sector with lowest value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ can be read from (35) by setting $`𝒪(i)=\mathrm{Tr}(\phi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{J})`$.

Now we can proceed with constructing other operators.222Here we shall only consider the bosonic operators. Their superpartners can be easily obtained using the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry. These operators can be parameterized by their $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ eigenvalue. For example for $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0`$ the corresponding operators are just what we have presented above. According to the prescription given in  the other operators can be obtained by inserting new operators in the trace. In other words replacing some of $`\phi _i`$ in the operator $`\mathrm{Tr}(\phi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{J})`$ by other fields.

The bosonic operators which can be inserted in the trace are as following. We have four scalars in the directions that are not rotated by $`J`$. They are, in fact, the scalars in the hypermultiplet which correspond to the directions in which the $`Z_{N_2}`$ orbifold is defined. On the other hand there are four other fields which are made out of $`\phi _i`$. These fields are derivative of $`\phi _i,D_a\phi _i+[A_a,\phi _i]`$, where $`a=1,2,3,4`$ are the directions in $`R^4`$ parameterized by $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ in (24). Since these directions are not affected by the $`Z_{N_2}`$ orbifold, they should lead to the same excitation as those in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. These are operators with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1`$.

The next bosonic operators we shall consider are those with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=2`$. A basis for these operators can be obtained by inserting the scalars in the hypermultiplet i.e. $`(Q_i^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^\mu )`$ in trace $`\mathrm{Tr}(\phi _\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{J})`$ for $`\mu =1,2`$. These scalars which correspond to the directions where the orbifold is defined, are in the bi-fundemantal representation of the gauge group. This means that under a gauge transformation they transform as $`Q_i^\mu U_iQ_i^\mu U_{i+1}^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^\mu U_{i+1}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^\mu U_i^1`$. Being bi-fundemantal scalars, we need to insert at least two of them in the trace to make a gauge invariant opeartor. Since these scalars are affected by the $`Z_{N_2}`$ orbifold, we can construct operators both in the untwisted (and twisted) sectors by using a combination of these basis which are invariant (and non-invariant) under exchange of the gauge group factor. The basis for these gauge invariant operators are given by

$`𝒪_1^n(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\phi _j^lQ_j^\mu \phi _{j+1}^{Jl}\overline{Q}_j^\nu \right)e^{\frac{2\pi inl}{N_2J}},`$ (36)
$`𝒪_2^n(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\phi _j^lQ_j^\mu \phi _{j+1}^{Jl}\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^\nu \right)e^{\frac{2\pi inl}{N_2J}},`$ (38)
$`𝒪_3^n(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\phi _j^l\overline{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_j^\mu \phi _{j+1}^{Jl}\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^\nu \right)e^{\frac{2\pi inl}{N_2J}},`$ (40)
$`𝒪_4^n(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\phi _j^l\overline{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_j^\mu \phi _{j+1}^{Jl}\overline{Q}_j^\nu \right)e^{\frac{2\pi inl}{N_2J}}.`$ (42)
Analogous to  these operators with $`n`$ being an integer multiple of $`N_2`$ correspond to the excited string states obtained by applying the creation operators $`a_{n/N_2}^\mu (j)a_{n/N_2}^\nu (j+1)`$ on the untwisted or twisted light-cone vacuum. For $`n`$ not an integer multiple of $`N_2`$ we have just states in twisted sector.

In general one can construct gauge invariant operators with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=2(1+k)`$ for $`0kN_21`$. These operators are obtained by inserting $`k+1`$ scalars in the hypermultiplet into the trace in such a way that the whole combination is gauge invariant. For example one can consider the following operator with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=2(1+k)`$

$`𝒪_1^n(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\phi _j^lQ_j^{\mu _0}\mathrm{}Q_{j+k}^{\mu _k}\phi _{j+k+1}^{Jl}\overline{Q}_{j+k}^{\nu _k}\mathrm{}\overline{Q}_j^{\nu _0}\right)e^{\frac{2\pi inl}{N_2J}},`$ (43)
$`𝒪_2^n(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\phi _j^lQ_j^{\mu _0}\mathrm{}Q_{j+k}^{\mu _k}\phi _{j+k+1}^{Jl}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{j+k}^{\nu _k}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^{\nu _0}\right)e^{\frac{2\pi inl}{N_2J}},`$ (45)
$`𝒪_3^n(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\phi _j^l\overline{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_j^{\mu _0}\mathrm{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{j+k}^{\mu _k}\phi _{j+k+1}^{Jl}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{j+k}^{\nu _k}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^{\nu _0}\right)e^{\frac{2\pi inl}{N_2J}}`$ (47)
$`𝒪_4^n(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\phi _j^l\overline{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_j^{\mu _0}\mathrm{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{j+k}^{\mu _k}\phi _{j+k+1}^{Jl}\overline{Q}_{j+k}^{\nu _k}\mathrm{}\overline{Q}_j^{\nu _0}\right)e^{\frac{2\pi inl}{N_2J}}`$ (49)
The corresponding string state can be obtained by applying creation operators like $`a_{n/N_2}^{\mu _0}(j)\mathrm{}a_{n/N_2}^{\mu _k}(j+k)a_{n/N_2}^{\nu _0}(j)\mathrm{}a_{n/N_2}^{\nu _k}(j+k)`$ on the light-cone vacuum.

## 5 PP-wave limits of orbifolds of $`AdS_{4,7}\times S^{7,4}`$

In section 3, studying the pp-wave limit of the $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_N`$ orbifold we showed that depending on how we take the pp-wave limit, we can find maximal and half supersymmetric pp-wave backgrounds. In this section we study the similar limits for eleven dimensional orbifold cases. However, first we need to work out the metric for such orbifold solutions. These solutions have been studied in .

To obtain the supergravity solution corresponding to $`AdS_{4,7}\times S^{7,4}/Z_N`$ supersymmetric orbifolds, one may start with M2 or M5 -branes probing the orbifold. 333 The corresponding field theory in these cases are $`𝒩=(0,1)`$ six dimensional SCFT for $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ orbifold and three dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ SCFT in the Large $`N`$ limit for the $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ orbifold . For that it is enough to replace the metric for the transverse direction by the proper orbifold solution. Since the orbifolds are Einstein manifolds, it is guaranteed that solutions found in this way are supergravity solutions. As we have shown in section 3, the metric of a supersymmetric $`S^3`$ orbifold, i.e. $`S^3/Z_N`$ is given by

$$d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2=\frac{1}{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+\frac{1}{N^2}\left[d\chi +\frac{N}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma 1)d\delta \right]^2,$$
(50)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2=d\gamma ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma d\delta ^2`$. Here $`0\gamma \pi `$ and $`\delta `$ and $`\chi `$ are periodic with period $`2\pi `$. In fact the metric (50) parameterizes the unit 3-sphere where $`\chi `$ ranges from 0 to $`2\pi N`$. The $`Z_N`$ action which leads to an orbifold is given by $`\chi \chi +2\pi `$. With this information, we are ready to write down the eleven dimensional $`AdS`$ orbifold solutions.

### 5.1 The pp-wave limit of $`AdS_4\times S^7/Z_N`$

Let us consider the $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ metric444In our notations $`R`$ is the radius of the $`AdS`$ piece which is half of the radius of the $`S^7`$ for $`AdS_4`$ case and is twice bigger than the radius of $`S^4`$ for the $`AdS_7`$ case.

$`l_p^2ds^2=R^2\left(\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+4d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2\right).`$ (51)
Now we split the transverse direction to two parts

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2=d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2.$$
(52)
Then replacing $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ with $`d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2`$, we obtain

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2=d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2,$$
(53)
which is the metric for $`S^7/Z_N`$. Finally the $`AdS_4\times S^7/Z_N`$ metric is obtained by replacing the the $`S^7`$ part of (51) with (53). The above can also be understood as the near horizon geometry of the supergravity solution of $`N_1N`$ M2-branes in the orbifold background, where $`R=(\pi ^2N_1N/2)^{1/6}`$. The above solution can also be understood as T-dual of the near horizon limit of semi-localised intersection of the D3/D5/NS5 system .

To obtain the pp-wave limits we note that the orbifold action on $`S^7`$ leaves a $`S^3`$ part invariant. Now, we can proceed in the same lines of section 3. Again there are two possibilities corresponding to two following choices:

1) $`t=x^++R^2x^{}\theta =x^+R^2x^{},\beta =\frac{w}{R}`$ where $`\theta `$ and $`\beta `$ are directions along the invariant $`S^3`$.555Here we define $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{2}=\mathrm{cos}^2\beta d\theta ^2+d\beta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta d\eta ^2`$ The other coordinats are scaled as (21). This case, will correspond to the orbifold of the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave discussed in  and hence half of supersymmetric is broken.

2) $`t=x^++R^2x^{}\frac{\chi }{N_2}=x^+R^2x^{}`$, and the other limits as defined in (25). In this case we will end up with the maximal supersymmetric eleven dimensional pp-wave background.

### 5.2 The pp-wave limit of $`AdS_7\times S^4/Z_N`$

One can repeat the above discussions for the $`AdS_7\times S^4/Z_N`$ case (or equivalently the near horizon geometry of M5-brane probing the orbifold). The metric for $`S^4/Z_N`$ is

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2=d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(54)
Hence, the supergravity metric for the $`AdS_7\times S^4/Z_N`$ will be given by

$`l_p^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`R^2\{\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2`$ (56)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}d\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha (d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{N^2}}[d\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma 1)d\delta ]^2)\}.`$
where $`R=2(\pi N_1N)^{1/3}`$. In this case, unlike the previous cases, there is no invariant direction in the $`S^4`$ part of the metric. Therefore, the only pp-wave limit will correspond to the maximally supersymmetric case  which is obtained through

$$t=x^++R^2x^{}\frac{\chi }{2N}=x^+R^2x^{},R\mathrm{},$$
(57)
limit (the other coordinates scaled similar to (25)).

## 6 Discussions

In this note we have studied the Penrose limit of orbifolded $`AdS`$ geometries. Considering $`AdS_p\times S^q/Z_N`$ cases we have shown that for $`q>4`$ in general there are two different pp-wave limits, our result can be summarized as follows:

Consider $`/Z_N`$ orbifold, which preserves half supersymmetries. In general the orbifolding acts only on some subgroup of the isometries of $``$ and leaving some subgroups invariant. Now, if we study the geometries near the trajectories along the invariant directions, we will find half supersymmetries. However, if we consider the directions which are not invariant under the orbifold direction we may find the maximal supersymmetric case.

In particular for the $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ case, the isometries are $`SO(5)`$ and the $`Z_N`$ acts of a $`SU(2)`$ subset, there is no invariant direction. Therefore, we do not find half supersymmetric case.

We have also discussed how to obtain the strings on the $`Z_{N_2}`$ orbifold of pp-wave limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ from the corresponding gauge theory, which in this case is large $`N_1`$ $`𝒩=2,D=4`$ $`SU(N_1)^{N_2}`$ theory at weak Yang-Mills (but large ’t Hooft) coupling. The relevant operators in the gauge theory are those with large conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and large R-charge $`J`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ fixed. In particular we have identified $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0`$ (the corresponding string theory vacuum) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1,2`$ operators, which correspond to higher order stringy oscillations. The twisted and untwisted states of the stringy excitations correspond to a subsector of $`𝒩=2`$ operators which are non-invariant and invariant under the exchange of the gauge group factors, respectively. The question of constructing the strings in (maximal SUSY) PP-waves in terms of the $`𝒩=2`$ operators is an interesting and important question and will be studied in future works .

It would be very interesting to study M-theory on the pp-wave limit of $`AdS_4\times S^7/Z_N`$ which preserves 16 supersymmetries. Similar to the maximal supersymmetric case, we expect that to have a Matrix description. We postpone this to future works.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Keshav Dasgupta for discussions and Sunil Mukhi for helpful comment. The research of M. M. Sh-J. is supported in part by NSF grant PHY- 9870115 and in part by funds from the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics.

Appendix

In the same spirit, one can also study the pp-wave limits of eleven dimensional solution (4), (6). For this purpose it is more convenient to write the $`AdS_5`$ piece in the global $`AdS`$ coordinates:

$`l_p^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{R^4\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{N_2}})^{2/3}[dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho +d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$
$`+`$ $`d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{4}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N_2^2}{R^4\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }}(d\widehat{y}^2+\widehat{y}^2d\psi ^2)]`$
where $`R^4=4\pi N_1N_2`$. In the limit

$$\begin{array}{cc}t=x^++R^2x^{},\hfill & \theta =x^+R^2x^{},\hfill \\ \rho =\frac{r}{R},\hfill & \alpha =\frac{v}{R},R\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$

and keeping $`x^+`$, $`x^{}`$, $`r`$ and $`v`$ fixed. In this limit the metric becomes

$`l_p^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{v}{N_2}})^{2/3}[4dx^+dx^{}(\stackrel{}{r}^2+v^2)(dx^+)^2+d\stackrel{}{r}_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+`$ $`(dv^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{N_2^2}{v^2}}(d\widehat{y}^2+\widehat{y}^2d\psi ^2)].`$
The four form field in the above limits becomes

$`l_p^3_{+v\gamma \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_2}}v^3\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ (62)
$`l_p^3_{\widehat{y}_1\widehat{y}_2\gamma \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\gamma .`$
In this limit the curvature reads as $`l_p^2N_2^{2/3}/v^{8/3}`$. Therefore one can trust the gravity for large $`v`$. The singularity at $`v=0`$ can be interpreted as a signal that some degrees of freedom have been effectively integrated and are needed in order to resolve the singularity. The (DLCQ) of M-theory on the above background should correspond to a Matrix-theory. However, we do not study that Matrix theory here.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction and Motivation

## 1 Introduction and Motivation

Recent lattice QCD calculations done by the CP-PACS  and RBC  collaborations using domain wall fermions have made significant progress in explaining the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule in the decay $`K\pi \pi `$, though their results for the direct CP violation parameterized by $`\text{Re}(ϵ^{}/ϵ)`$ differs rather drastically from experiment. Recall that measurements at CERN  and Fermilab  have yielded an experimental grand average of $`\text{Re}(ϵ^{}/ϵ)=(17.2\pm 1.8)\times 10^4`$. On the theoretical side, both lattice collaborations find a value of $`\text{Re}(ϵ^{}/ϵ)5\times 10^4`$, a *negative* value, though both groups have made rather severe (uncontrolled) approximations. Given that large cancellations occur between contributions of the strong and the electroweak penguins towards $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ (cancellations that are not relevant in the calculation of the CP-conserving $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes), and given the serious approximations, the disagreement with experiment for $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ should not be totally unexpected.

One of these uncontrolled approximations was the use of the quenched approximation, where the fermion determinant in the path integral is set to 1 in order to make the problem tractable on current computers. Another was the use of leading order chiral perturbation theory to relate unphysical $`K\pi `$ and $`K|0`$ amplitudes to the physical $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes. This method was first proposed by Bernard, et al. Because of the difficulty of extracting multi-hadron decay amplitudes from the lattice, as expressed by the Maiani-Testa theorem , it is much easier to compute the two- and three-point functions (i.e. $`K|0`$ and $`K\pi `$, respectively) and use chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) to extrapolate to the physical matrix elements.

It is likely, however, that next-to-leading order ChPT will introduce significant corrections ($`30\%`$ or more) to the leading order amplitudes. Furthermore, since final state (strong) phases cannot arise at tree-level in the chiral amplitudes, chiral-loop corrections are essential to enable us to use the measured phases for the $`I=0`$ and 2 final states as additional testing ground of the calculational apparatus. Unfortunately, at higher orders in ChPT the number of free parameters that enter the theory (and must be determined from first principle methods like the lattice) proliferates rapidly. It has been shown by Cirigliano and Golowich  that the dominant electroweak penguin contributions \[ $`(8_L,8_R)^{}s`$ \] to $`K\pi \pi `$ can be recovered at next-to-leading order (NLO) from $`K\pi `$ amplitudes using momentum insertion. Bijnens et al showed how to obtain most of the low energy constants (LEC’s) relevant for the case of the $`(8_L,1_R)^{}s`$ and $`(27_L,1_R)^{}s`$ using off-shell $`K\pi `$ Green’s functions; not all LEC’s could be determined, however.

On the lattice, though, not only $`K|0`$ and $`K\pi `$ with momentum insertion are calculable, but so is $`K\pi \pi `$ at the two values of unphysical kinematics for which the Maiani-Testa theorem can be bypassed. To recapitulate, despite Maiani-Testa restrictions, direct calculation of $`K\pi \pi `$ on the lattice is accessible at (i) $`m_K^{\mathrm{lattice}}=m_\pi ^{\mathrm{lattice}}`$ where the weak operator inserts energy  and (ii) $`m_K^{\mathrm{lattice}}=2m_\pi ^{\mathrm{lattice}}`$, i.e. at threshold . We will refer to these two special locations as unphysical kinematics point 1 (UK1) and point 2 (UK2), respectively. In this work we therefore focus on using $`K|0`$, $`K\pi `$ with momentum insertion and $`K`$-$`\overline{K}`$, along with information from $`K\pi \pi `$ at these two unphysical values of the kinematics which are accessible to the lattice. Thereby, we are able to show that all the relevant $`O(p^4)`$ LEC’s can be recovered for $`K\pi \pi `$ in the physical $`(8_L,1_R)`$ and $`(27_L,1_R)`$ cases. Expressions for $`O(p^4)`$ finite logarithimic contributions to all the processes that may be needed for fitting the lattice data are then given.

The content of the paper is as follows. Section 2 very briefly recapitulates the formalism of effective four-fermion operators in a Standard Model calculation. Section 3 reviews ChPT and the realization of the effective four-quark operators in terms of ChPT operators for weak processes. Section 4 presents the results of this paper, showing how to obtain the low energy constants necessary for physical $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes at $`O(p^4)`$ from quantities which can, in principle, be computed on the lattice. Section 5 presents the conclusion. Finally, the finite logarithmic contributions to the relevant amplitudes are presented in a set of Appendixes.

## 2 Effective Four Quark Operators

In the Standard Model, the nonleptonic interactions can be expressed in terms of an effective $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ hamiltonian using the operator product expansion ,

$$\pi \pi |_{\mathrm{\Delta }S=1}|K=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ud}V_{us}^{}c_i(\mu )\pi \pi |Q_i|K_\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`c_i(\mu )`$ are the Wilson coefficients containing the short distance perturbative physics, and the matrix elements $`\pi \pi |Q_i|K_\mu `$ must be calculated nonperturbatively. The four quark operators are

$$Q_1=\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)u_a\overline{u}_b\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_b,$$
(2)
$$Q_2=\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)u_b\overline{u}_b\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_a,$$
(3)
$$Q_3=\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_a\underset{q}{}\overline{q}_b\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)q_b,$$
(4)
$$Q_4=\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_b\underset{q}{}\overline{q}_b\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)q_a,$$
(5)
$$Q_5=\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_a\underset{q}{}\overline{q}_b\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma ^5)q_b,$$
(6)
$$Q_6=\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_b\underset{q}{}\overline{q}_b\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma ^5)q_a,$$
(7)
$$Q_7=\frac{3}{2}\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_a\underset{q}{}e_q\overline{q}_b\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma ^5)q_b,$$
(8)
$$Q_8=\frac{3}{2}\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_b\underset{q}{}e_q\overline{q}_b\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma ^5)q_a,$$
(9)
$$Q_9=\frac{3}{2}\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_a\underset{q}{}e_q\overline{q}_b\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)q_b,$$
(10)
$$Q_{10}=\frac{3}{2}\overline{s}_a\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)d_b\underset{q}{}e_q\overline{q}_b\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)q_a.$$
(11)
In the effective theory $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ are the current-current weak operators, $`Q_3Q_6`$ are the operators arising from QCD penguin diagrams, while $`Q_7Q_{10}`$ are the operators arising from electroweak penguin diagrams.

## 3 Chiral Perturbation Theory

Chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) is an effective quantum field theory where the quark and gluon degrees of freedom have been integrated out, and is expressed only in terms of the lowest mass pseudoscalar mesons . It is a perturbative expansion about small quark masses and small momentum of the low mass pseudoscalars. The effective Lagrangian is made up of complicated nonlinear functions of the pseudoscalar fields, and is nonrenormalizable, making it necessary to introduce arbitrary constants at each order in perturbation theory. In such an expansion, operators of higher order in the momentum (terms with increasing numbers of derivatives) or mass appear at higher order in the perturbative expansion. The most general set of operators at a given order can be constructed out of the unitary chiral matrix field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2i\varphi ^a\lambda ^a}{f}\right],$$
(12)
where $`\lambda ^a`$ are proportional to the Gell-Mann matrices with $`tr(\lambda _a\lambda _b)=\delta _{ab}`$, $`\varphi ^a`$ are the real pseudoscalar-meson fields, and $`f`$ is the meson decay constant in the chiral limit, with $`f_\pi `$ equal to 130 MeV in our convention.

At leading order $`[O(p^2)]`$ in ChPT, the strong Lagrangian is given by

$$_{st}^{(2)}=\frac{f^2}{8}\text{tr}[_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }]+\frac{f^2B_0}{4}\text{tr}[\chi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\chi ],$$
(13)
where $`\chi =(m_u,m_d,m_s)_{\mathrm{diag}}`$ and

$`B_0=\frac{m_{\pi ^+}^2}{m_u+m_d}=\frac{m_{K^+}^2}{m_u+m_s}=\frac{m_{K^0}^2}{m_d+m_s}.`$

The leading order weak chiral Lagrangian is given by

$`_W^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{88}\text{tr}[\lambda _6\mathrm{\Sigma }Q\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}]+\alpha _1\text{tr}[\lambda _6_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}]+\alpha _22B_0\text{tr}[\lambda _6(\chi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\chi )]`$ (14)
$`+\alpha _{27}t_{kl}^{ij}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^{})_i^k(\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^{})_j^l+\text{H.c.},`$
where $`t_{kl}^{ij}`$ is symmetric in $`i,j`$ and $`k,l`$, traceless on any pair of upper and lower indices with nonzero elements $`t_{12}^{13}=1`$, $`t_{22}^{23}=1/2`$ and $`t_{32}^{33}=3/2`$. Also, $`Q`$ is the quark charge matrix, $`Q=1/3(2,1,1)_{\mathrm{diag}}`$ and $`(\lambda _6)_{ij}=\delta _{i3}\delta _{j2}`$.

The terms in the weak Lagrangian can be classified according to their chiral transformation properties under $`\text{SU}(3)_L\times \text{SU}(3)_R`$. The first term in (14) transforms as $`8_L\times 8_R`$ under chiral rotations and corresponds to the electroweak penguin operators $`Q_7`$ and $`Q_8`$. The next two terms in (14) transform as $`8_L\times 1_R`$, while the last transforms as $`27_L\times 1_R`$ under chiral rotations. All ten of the four quark operators of the effective weak Lagrangian have a realization in the chiral Lagrangian differing only in their transformation properties and the values of the low energy constants which contain the non-perturbative dynamics of the theory.

For the transition of interest, $`K\pi \pi `$, the operators can induce a change in isospin of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ or $`\frac{3}{2}`$ depending on the final isospin state of the pions. We can then classify the isospin components of the four quark operators according to their transformation properties :

$`Q_1^{1/2},Q_2^{1/2},Q_9^{1/2},Q_{10}^{1/2}:8_L\times 1_R27_L\times 1_R`$;

$`Q_1^{3/2},Q_2^{3/2},Q_9^{3/2},Q_{10}^{3/2}:27_L\times 1_R`$;

$`Q_3^{1/2},Q_4^{1/2},Q_5^{1/2},Q_6^{1/2}:8_L\times 1_R`$;

$`Q_7^{1/2},Q_8^{1/2},Q_7^{3/2},Q_8^{3/2}:8_L\times 8_R.`$

Note that $`Q_3Q_6`$ are pure isospin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ operators. This paper deals only with the $`27_L\times 1_R`$ and $`8_L\times 1_R`$ operators. For the treatment of the $`8_L\times 8_R`$ operators to $`O(p^2)`$ NLO see Ref. . At NLO the strong Lagrangian involves 12 additional operators with undetermined coefficients. These were introduced by Gasser and Leutwyler in . The complete basis of counterterm operators for the weak interactions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1,2`$ was treated by Kambor, Missimer and Wyler in  and . A minimal set of counterterm operators contributing to $`K\pi `$ and $`K\pi \pi `$ for the $`(8_L,1_R)`$ and $`(27_L,1_R)`$ cases is given by , with the effective Lagrangian

$$_W^{(4)}=e_i𝒪_i^{(8,1)}+d_i𝒪_i^{(27,1)},$$
(15)
$$\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_1^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6S^2],\hfill & 𝒪_1^{(27,1)}=t_{kl}^{ij}(S)_i^k(S)_j^l,\hfill \\ 𝒪_2^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6S]\text{tr}[S],\hfill & 𝒪_2^{(27,1)}=t_{kl}^{ij}(P)_i^k(P)_j^l,\hfill \\ 𝒪_3^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6P^2],\hfill & 𝒪_4^{(27,1)}=t_{kl}^{ij}(L_\mu )_i^k(\{L^\mu ,S\})_j^l,\hfill \\ 𝒪_4^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6P]\text{tr}[P],\hfill & 𝒪_5^{(27,1)}=t_{kl}^{ij}(L_\mu )_i^k([L^\mu ,P])_j^l,\hfill \\ 𝒪_5^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6[S,P]],\hfill & 𝒪_6^{(27,1)}=t_{kl}^{ij}(S)_i^k(L^2)_j^l,\hfill \\ 𝒪_{10}^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6\{S,L^2\}],\hfill & 𝒪_7^{(27,1)}=t_{kl}^{ij}(L_\mu )_i^k(L^\mu )_j^l\text{tr}[S],\hfill \\ 𝒪_{11}^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6L_\mu SL^\mu ],\hfill & 𝒪_{20}^{(27,1)}=t_{kl}^{ij}(L_\mu )_i^k(_\nu W^{\mu \nu })_j^l,\hfill \\ 𝒪_{12}^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6L_\mu ]\text{tr}[\{L^\mu ,S\}],\hfill & 𝒪_{24}^{(27,1)}=t_{kl}^{ij}(W_{\mu \nu })_i^k(W^{\mu \nu })_j^l,\hfill \\ 𝒪_{13}^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6S][L^2],\hfill & \\ 𝒪_{15}^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6[P,L^2]],\hfill & \\ 𝒪_{35}^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6\{L_\mu ,_\nu W^{\mu \nu }\}],\hfill & \\ 𝒪_{39}^{(8,1)}=\text{tr}[\lambda _6W_{\mu \nu }W^{\mu \nu }],\hfill & \end{array}$$
(16)
with $`S=2B_0(\chi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\chi `$), $`P=2B_0(\chi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\chi `$), $`L_\mu =i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ , and $`W^{\mu \nu }=2(_\mu L_\nu +_\nu L_\mu )`$.

This list is identical to that of Bijnens et al.  except for the inclusion of $`𝒪_{35,39}^{(8,1)}`$ and $`𝒪_{20,24}^{(27,1)}`$ which contain surface terms, and so cannot be absorbed into the other constants for processes which do not conserve 4-momentum at the weak vertex. Since we must use 4-momentum insertion in a number of our amplitudes, these counterterms must be considered, and they are left explicit even in the physical amplitudes. There are additional operators containing surface terms, but it was checked that these counterterms can be absorbed into linear combinations of the above minimal set for all amplitudes considered in this paper.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ operators are components of the same irreducible tensor  under $`\text{SU}(3)_L\times \text{SU}(3)_R`$, and so the $`d_i`$ are the same for both the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ cases. The operators governing $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ transitions are obtained from the above $`(27_L,1_R)`$’s, only with $`t_{22}^{33}=t_{33}^{22}=1,t_{kl}^{ij}=0`$ otherwise. This is important since some of our information comes from the $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ amplitude.

The divergences associated with the counterterms have been obtained in  and . The subtraction procedure can be defined as

$$e_i=e_i^r+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}\left[\frac{1}{d4}+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _E1\mathrm{ln}4\pi )\right]2(\alpha _1\epsilon _i+\alpha _2\epsilon _i^{}),$$
(17)
$$d_i=d_i^r+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}\left[\frac{1}{d4}+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _E1\mathrm{ln}4\pi )\right]2\alpha _{27}\gamma _i,$$
(18)
with the divergent pieces, $`\epsilon _i,\epsilon _i^{},\gamma _i`$ given in Table 1.

It is also necessary for the method of this paper to consider the $`O(p^4)`$ strong Lagrangian, which was first given by Gasser and Leutwyler, $`_{st}^{(4)}=L_i𝒪_i^{(st)}`$.

The strong $`O(p^4)`$ operators relevant for this calculation are the following :

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_1^{(st)}=\text{tr}[L^2]^2,\hfill & \\ 𝒪_2^{(st)}=\text{tr}[L_\mu L_\nu ]\text{tr}[L^\mu L^\nu ],\hfill & \\ 𝒪_3^{(st)}=\text{tr}[L^2L^2],\hfill & \\ 𝒪_4^{(st)}=\text{tr}[L^2]\text{tr}[S],\hfill & \\ 𝒪_5^{(st)}=\text{tr}[L^2S],\hfill & \\ 𝒪_6^{(st)}=\text{tr}[S]^2,\hfill & \\ 𝒪_8^{(st)}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}[S^2P^2].\hfill & \end{array}$$
(19)
The Gasser-Leuytwyler counterterms also contribute to the cancellation of divergencies in the expressions relevant to this paper. The subtraction is defined similarly to that of the weak counterterms,

$$L_i=L_i^r+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{1}{d4}+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _E1\mathrm{ln}4\pi )\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,$$
(20)
with the divergent parts of the counterterm coefficients given in Table 2 .

## 4 $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes at $`O(p^4)`$

As mentioned before, in this work we will include both $`K\pi `$ with momentum insertion and $`K\pi \pi `$ at the two unphysical kinematics. The complete list of necessary ingredients consists of: the two point functions $`K^0|0`$, the three point functions $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$, and $`K\pi `$, all with $`m_sm_d=m_u`$, and the four point functions $`K\pi \pi `$ at the two values of unphysical kinematics, $`m_K=m_\pi `$ (requiring energy insertion), and $`m_K=2m_\pi `$. These two threshold values of the kinematics bypass the Miani-Testa theorem, which states that multihadron final states are not accessible on the lattice at any other kinematics aside from the threshold . At these kinematics, the strong phases are 0, and the effects of final state interactions vanish. However, these amplitudes at unphysical kinematics do contain information on the $`O(p^4)`$ low energy constants, and when combined with information from the other two- and three-point functions mentioned above, all of the $`O(p^4)`$ low energy constants necessary for $`K\pi \pi `$ can be obtained. The phases of the amplitude are introduced in ChPT via the one-loop unitarity corrections of the $`O(p^2)`$ operators.

Because the $`K\pi `$ amplitudes do not conserve four-momentum for $`m_sm_d`$, it is necessary to allow the weak operator to transfer a four-momentum $`qp_Kp_\pi `$, as in . This is also necessary for the case of $`K\pi \pi ,m_K=m_\pi `$ . At $`O(p^4)`$, this requires the inclusion of (potentially many) surface terms in our minimal counterterm operator basis. The number of additional such terms appearing in linearly independent combinations was discovered to be small (four), and thus the method was not invalidated. Also, this method requires the computation of $`K\pi \pi `$ matrix elements at unphysical kinematics because there are LEC’s which appear in $`K\pi \pi `$ but do not appear in $`K\pi `$ at all. These are $`d_5,e_{13}`$ and $`e_{15}`$.

The diagrams which must be evaluated for the $`O(p^4)`$ corrections are shown in Figure 1. The diagrams to be evaluated for $`K|0`$ are A1 and A2. The diagrams to be evaluated for $`K\pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ are B1-B3. C1-C6 and D1-D6 must be evaluated for $`K\pi \pi `$. D1-D6 contain the tadpole vertex of the weak mass $`O(p^2)`$, (8,1) operator. Also, the renormalization of the external legs via the strong interaction must be taken into account.

### 4.1 $`(27_L,1_R)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$

The counterterms necessary to reconstruct the $`O(p^4)(27_L,1_R),\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2,K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes can be obtained from $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$; $`K^+\pi ^+,\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$; and $`K\pi \pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ at either value of the unphysical kinematics. The expression for $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ is given by (all masses and decay constants are the bare ones)

$`\overline{K^0}|𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}^{(27,1)}|K^0_{ct}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\alpha _{27}}{f^2}}m_K^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}[4(d_1^r+d_2^r+d_{20}^r4d_{24}^rd_4^rd_7^r)m_K^4`$ (21)
$`2(4d_1^r+d_7^r)m_K^2m_\pi ^2+4d_1^rm_\pi ^4]`$
Equation (21), as well as all the following amplitudes, include only the tree level $`O(p^2)`$ and $`O(p^4)`$ weak counterterm contributions. For brevity, the logarithmic terms, as well as the Gasser-Leutwyler $`L_i`$ counterterms have been omitted in the body of the paper, but are included in a set of Appendixes. It was verified that the divergences in the logarithmic terms cancel those of the counterterms, providing a strong check on the calculation. Note also that for the application of this method most of the Gasser-Leutwyler counterterms must be known, and that an improved determination of the relevant ones could be obtained from a lattice calculation of observables in the purely strong sector, e.g. most can be obtained from the pseudoscalar masses and decay constants.

From the above $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ amplitude, one can extract the values of $`d_1^r`$ and $`d_7^r`$ from a fit to terms quadratic in the quark masses. The other relevant expressions for $`K\pi \pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ are

$`\pi ^+|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^+_{ct}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{f^2}}\alpha _{27}p_Kp_\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}[2d_2^rm_K^2m_\pi ^2+(d_{20}^rd_4^r2d_7^r)`$ (22)
$`m_K^2p_Kp_\pi +(d_{20}^rd_4^rd_7^r)m_\pi ^2p_Kp_\pi 8d_{24}^r(p_Kp_\pi )^2],`$
$$\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^0_{ct}=\frac{8i\alpha _{27}}{f^3}m^2+\frac{16im^4}{f^3}(d_{20}^r2d_4^r+d_5^r3d_7^r),$$
(23)
for $`K\pi \pi ,m_K=m_\pi =m,`$ and

$$\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^0_{ct}=\frac{4i\alpha _{27}}{f^3}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)+\frac{3im_K^4}{2f^3}(2d_2^r+2d_{20}^r8d_{24}^r4d_4^r+2d_5^r9d_7^r),$$
(24)
for $`K\pi \pi ,m_{K(1loop)}=2m_{\pi (1loop)}.`$

From Eq. (22) we get the additional combinations of counterterms $`d_2^r,d_{24}^r,`$ and $`d_4^rd_{20}^r`$. From either expression for $`K\pi \pi `$ at unphysical kinematics we can then obtain $`d_4^rd_5^r`$. Along with the tree level LEC, $`\alpha _{27}`$, these five linear combinations $`[d_2^r,d_7^r,d_4^rd_5^r,d_4^rd_{20}^r,d_{24}^r]`$ are sufficient to determine $`K\pi \pi `$ at the physical kinematics as given in Eq. (25). Notice that there is considerable redundancy in determining these coefficients. For example, $`d_4d_{20}`$, $`d_4d_5`$, $`d_2\mathrm{}`$ occur in several of Eqs. (21)–(24).

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^0_{ct}={\displaystyle \frac{4i\alpha _{27}}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)_{(1loop)}+{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)`$ (25)
$`[(d_4^r+d_5^r4d_7^r)m_K^2+(4d_2^r+4d_{20}^r16d_{24}^r4d_4^r2d_7^r)m_\pi ^2].`$
The logarithmic and Gasser-Leutwyler counterterm contributions to the expressions in this subsection are given in Appendix C. Note, also, that for the cases of physical $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes, Eqs. (25),(34), and (35), the pseudoscalar decay constants and masses are the physical (renormalized to one-loop order) ones. For all other amplitudes given in this paper except $`K\pi \pi `$ at physical kinematics the formulas are in terms of the bare constants. The distinction between bare and renormalized constants is made only in tree-level amplitudes, since making this distinction in the $`O(p^4)`$ expressions introduces corrections at higher order \[$`O(p^6)`$\] than is considered in this paper.

### 4.2 $`(8_L,1_R)+(27_L,1_R)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$

The counterterms necessary to reconstruct the $`O(p^4)`$ $`[(8_L,1_R)+(27_L,1_R)]`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2,K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes, relevant for operators such as $`Q_2^{1/2}`$, can be obtained using $`d_i`$’s obtained from the $`[(27,1);\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2]`$ case given above along with information from $`K^0|0;K^+\pi ^+,\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$; and $`K\pi \pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ at both unphysical kinematics. For $`K^0|0`$, we have

$`0|𝒪^{(8,1)}|K^0_{ct}={\displaystyle \frac{4i\alpha _2}{f}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{8i}{f}}[2(e_1^re_2^r+e_5^r)m_K^4`$ (26)
$`+(2e_1^r+e_2^r2e_5^r)m_K^2m_\pi ^2+e_2^rm_\pi ^4],`$
$$0|𝒪^{(27,1)}|K^0_{ct}=\frac{48i}{f}d_1^r(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2.$$
(27)
Given the previously obtained value of $`d_1^r`$ from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ case, we can obtain $`e_2^r`$ and $`e_1^re_5^r`$ from $`K^0|0`$. The other relevant expressions are

$`\pi ^+|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^+_{ct}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{f^2}}\alpha _{27}p_Kp_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}[6d_1^rm_K^42(3d_1^r+d_2^r)m_K^2m_\pi ^2`$ (28)
$`+(d_{20}^r+d_4^r3d_6^r+2d_7^r)m_K^2p_Kp_\pi +(d_{20}^r+d_4^r+3d_6^r+d_7^r)m_\pi ^2p_Kp_\pi `$
$`+8d_{24}^r(p_Kp_\pi )^2],`$
$`\pi ^+|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^+_{ct}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{f^2}}\alpha _1p_Kp_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{f^2}}\alpha _2m_K^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}[2(e_1^r+e_2^re_5^r)m_K^4`$ (29)
$`+(e_2^r+2e_3^r+2e_5^r)m_K^2m_\pi ^2+(2e_{35}^r2e_{10}^r)m_K^2p_Kp_\pi +(2e_{35}^re_{11}^r)`$
$`m_\pi ^2p_Kp_\pi 8e_{39}^r(p_Kp_\pi )^2],`$
as well as

$$\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{ct}=8i\frac{\alpha _{27}}{f^3}m^2+16i\frac{m^4}{f^3}(d_{20}^r2d_4^r+d_5^r3d_7^r),$$
(30)
$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{ct}=8i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{f^3}}m^2+4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{f^3}}m^2+8i{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{f^3}}`$ (31)
$`(2e_1^r+4e_{10}^r+2e_{11}^r+4e_{15}^r+3e_2^r4e_{35}^r2e_5^r),`$
for $`K\pi \pi ,m_K=m_\pi =m,`$ and

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{ct}=4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{27}}{f^3}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{f^3}}`$ (32)
$`(6d_1^r+2d_2^r+2d_{20}^r8d_{24}^r4d_4^r+2d_5^r+12d_6^r9d_7^r),`$
$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{ct}=4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{f^3}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{f^3}}`$ (33)
$`(2e_1^r+6e_{10}^r+e_{11}^r4e_{13}^r+4e_{15}^r4e_2^r2e_3^r4e_{35}^r+8e_{39}^r)`$
for $`K\pi \pi ,m_{K(1loop)}=2m_{\pi (1loop)}.`$

From expressions (28) and (29) one can obtain the leading order LEC’s $`\alpha _1,`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, as well as the linear combinations $`e_{39}^r,e_1^r+e_3^r,e_{10}^re_{35}^r+\frac{3}{2}d_6^r,`$ and $`2e_{10}^re_{11}^r+6d_6^r.`$ From Eqs. (30) and (31) for UK1 one can then obtain $`e_{11}^r+2e_{15}^r3d_6^r.`$ Making use of all the input thus obtained into Eqs. (32,33) for UK2 yields $`e_{13}^r\frac{3}{2}d_6^r`$. These 14 linear combinations (namely $`d_1^r,d_2^r,d_7^r,d_4^rd_5^r,d_4^rd_{20}^r,d_{24}^r,e_2^r,e_1^re_5^r,e_1^r+e_3^r,e_{39}^r,e_{10}^re_{35}^r+\frac{3}{2}d_6^r,2e_{10}^re_{11}^r+6d_6^r,e_{11}^r+2e_{15}^r3d_6^r,e_{13}^r\frac{3}{2}d_6^r`$) are sufficient to reconstruct the physical $`K\pi \pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ amplitudes for operators such as $`Q_1^{1/2},Q_2^{1/2}`$ etc.:

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{ct}=4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{27}}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)_{(1loop)}+4i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)`$ (34)
$`[(d_4^r+d_5^r+9d_6^r4d_7^r)m_K^2+2(6d_1^r+2d_2^r+2d_{20}^r8d_{24}^r`$
$`2d_4^r6d_6^rd_7^r)m_\pi ^2],`$
$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{ct}=4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)_{(1loop)}+8i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)`$ (35)
$`[(e_{10}^r2e_{13}^r+e_{15}^r)m_K^2+(2e_1^r+2e_{10}^r+e_{11}^r+4e_{13}^r4e_2^r`$
$`2e_3^r4e_{35}^r+8e_{39}^r)m_\pi ^2].`$
The logarithmic and Gasser-Leutwyler counterterm contributions to the amplitudes presented in this subsection are given in Appendix D.

### 4.3 $`(8_L,1_R)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$

The case of pure (8,1) operators, i.e. $`Q_{3,4,5,6}`$ is simpler than the previous case of mixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ operators; note also that phenomenologically, pure (8,1)’s are the most important. This is clearly a special case of the previous one for which $`(27_L,1_R)`$ contributions are irrelevant. For the physical $`K\pi \pi `$ reaction at $`O(p^4)`$, Eq. (35), eight new linear combinations are needed: $`e_2^r,e_1^re_5^r,e_3^r+e_5^r,e_{35}^re_{10}^r,2e_{35}^re_{11}^r,e_{39}^r,e_{11}^r+2e_{15}^r,e_{13}^r`$.

The terms quadratic in quark mass for $`K0`$, Eq. (26), yield $`e_2^r`$ and $`e_1^r`$$`e_5^r`$. A similar fit to $`K^+\pi ^+`$, Eq. (29), then leads to $`e_3^r+e_5^r,e_{35}^re_{10}^r,2e_{35}^re_{11}^r`$ and $`e_{39}^r`$. Using this for $`K\pi \pi `$ at UK1, Eq. (31), yields $`e_{11}^r+2e_{15}^r`$ and $`K\pi \pi `$ at UK2, Eq. (33), may be fitted to give $`e_{13}^r`$. While determining these coefficients is expected to be quite demanding, it is useful to note that several of them are obtained via more than one measurement. Note, in particular, that the term linear in quark mass, $`\alpha _2`$, originating from operator mixing occurs in $`K0`$, in $`K\pi `$ and also in $`K\pi \pi `$ at UK1 where the operator injects energy.

The logarithmic and Gasser-Leutwyler counterterm contributions to the amplitudes presented in this subsection are a subset of those given in Appendix D.

## 5 Conclusion

This paper presents all of the counterterm and finite logarithm contributions to $`K^0|0`$, $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$, and $`K\pi `$ with momentum insertion, and $`K\pi \pi `$ (at two values of unphysical kinematics) to $`O(p^4)`$ in ChPT for the $`(27_L,1_R)`$ and $`(8_L,1_R)`$ operators. It demonstrates that these quantities are sufficient to fully determine $`K\pi \pi `$ to $`O(p^4)`$ at the physical kinematics. It should be emphasized that this calculation was done in full ChPT, and that these arguments do not necessarily apply to the quenched theory. In fact it is quite likely that some of the $`K\pi \pi `$ matrix elements suffer from large corrections due to the quenched approximation; this possibilty has recently been raised in Ref.  for the case of $`Q_6`$. Indeed, we have done a fit to the quenched RBC data  for $`Q_7^{3/2}`$ and $`Q_8^{3/2}`$ using the next-to-leading order ChPT prediction of Cirigliano and Golowich  and have found a poor fit ($`\chi ^2/d.o.f.2`$). Thus, the data tends to disfavor a large coefficient for the chiral log term that is predicted by full ChPT. A simple quadratic fit with the coefficient of the log term set to 0 yielded a much better fit $`(\chi ^2/d.o.f.0.1)`$. These arguments suggest that an unquenched lattice calculation is probably necessary in order to correctly extract the $`O(p^4)`$ counterterms from the lattice. It is clearly important to see whether this extraction procedure, especially including $`K\pi \pi `$ at the two unphysical kinematics, can be extended to the case of $`O(p^4)`$ quenched ChPT.

In closing we briefly want to remind the reader that two other interesting methods have been proposed recently  for lattice extraction of $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes. We believe it is important to use all the methods in order to obtain reliable information on this important process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported in part by US DOE Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886. We thank Joachim Kambor and Carl Wolfe for providing us copies of their Ph.D theses , Tom Blum for discussions and Maarten Golterman, Guido Martinelli, Elisabetta Pallante and Chris Sachrajda for communications.

## APPENDIX A

Appendixes B-D contain the finite logarithm and Gasser-Leutwyler counterterm $`O(p^4)`$ contributions to the amplitudes presented in this paper. They were calculated using the FeynCalc package  written for the Mathematica  system. These expressions involve the regularized Veltman-Passarino basis integrals $`A`$ and $`B`$ :

$$A(m^2)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}m^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}=\underset{d4}{lim}\frac{1}{i}\left[\mu ^{4d}\frac{d^d\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2m^2}+2im^2\overline{\lambda }\right],$$
(A1)
$`B(q^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{d4}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\left[\mu ^{4d}{\displaystyle \frac{d^d\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{((\mathrm{}+q)^2m_1^2)(\mathrm{}^2m_2^2)}}+2i\overline{\lambda }\right]`$ (A2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}dx{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}[1+\mathrm{ln}(x(1x)q^2+xm_1^2+(1x)m_2^2)`$
$`\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2],`$
where

$$\overline{\lambda }=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{1}{d4}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{ln}4\pi \gamma _E+1)\right].$$
(A3)
## APPENDIX B

At 1-loop order, the pseudoscalar decay constants and masses are renormalized such that $`f_{\pi ,K}=f\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\pi ,K}}{f}\right)`$ and $`m_{\pi ,K(1loop)}^2=m_{\pi ,K}^2\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\pi ,K}^2}{m_{\pi ,K}^2}\right)`$. The corrections are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_\pi }{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`2A(m_\pi ^2)A(m_K^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}(2m_K^2+m_\pi ^2)L_4+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}m_\pi ^2L_5,`$ (B1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}A(m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A(m_K^2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}A(m_\eta ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}(2m_K^2+m_\pi ^2)L_4`$ (B2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{f^2}}m_K^2L_5.`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`A(m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}A(m_\eta ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{f^2}}[(L_4+2L_6)2m_K^2`$
$`+(L_4L_5+2L_6+2L_8)m_\pi ^2],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2}{m_K^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A(m_\eta ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{f^2}}[(2L_4L_5+4L_6+2L_8)m_K^2`$
$`+(L_4+2L_6)m_\pi ^2].`$
For degenerate quark masses at 1-loop order, $`m_{K(1loop)}^2=m_{\pi (1loop)}^2=m^2\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{m^2}\right)`$, $`f_\pi =f_K=f\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f}\right)`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{m^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A(m^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{16m^2}{f^2}}(3L_4L_5+6L_6+2L_8),`$ (B5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`3A(m^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{8m^2}{f^2}}(3L_4+L_5).`$ (B6)
## APPENDIX C

The logarithmic corrections for the quantities relevant for the determination of the (27,1), $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes in this paper are given by

$`\overline{K}^0|𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}^{(27,1)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\alpha _{27}}{f^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{16\pi ^2f^2}}m_K^48m_K^2A(m_K^2)+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{13}{2}}m_K^2)A(m_\eta ^2)`$ (C1)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}m_K^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\pi ^2)A(m_\pi ^2)2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}m_K^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2],`$
$`\pi ^+|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^+_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _{27}}{f^2}}p_Kp_\pi [2p_Kp_\pi B(q^2,m_K^2,m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A(m_\eta ^2)7A(m_K^2)`$ (C2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}A(m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_\pi }{f}}],`$
$$\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^0_{log}=8i\frac{\alpha _{27}}{f^3}m^2\left[\frac{3m^2}{16\pi ^2f^2}\left(5\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}+1\right)\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{m^2}\right],$$
(C3)
for $`K\pi \pi `$,$`m_K=m_\pi =m`$, and

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`3i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{27}}{f^3}}m_K^2[{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}(114\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{\mu ^2}}+31\mathrm{ln}5148\mathrm{ln}2`$ (C4)
$`16\mathrm{cot}^12+46){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }f_\pi }{f}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3m_K^2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^2)],`$
for $`K\pi \pi `$, $`m_{K(1loop)}=2m_{\pi (1loop)}`$. The logarithmic corrections to the physical $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitude (included for completeness) are given by

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{27}}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}m_K^4(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{m_\pi ^2}})B(m_\pi ^2,m_K^2,m_\eta ^2)`$ (C5)
$`+m_K^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}m_K^2+2m_\pi ^2\right)B(m_\pi ^2,m_K^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`+\left(m_K^43m_\pi ^2m_K^2+2m_\pi ^4\right)B(m_K^2,m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_K^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{m_\pi ^2}}+3\right)A(m_\eta ^2)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{m_\pi ^2}}4m_K^2+4m_\pi ^2\right)A(m_K^2)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{45}{4}}m_K^2+12m_\pi ^2)A(m_\pi ^2)],`$
where the imaginary part of expression (C5) is given by

$$Im(i\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(3/2)}|K^0)=\frac{2\alpha _{27}}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}\frac{1}{16\pi f^2}\sqrt{14\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_K^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)(m_K^22m_\pi ^2).$$
(C6)
## APPENDIX D

The logarithmic corrections for the quantities relevant for the determination of the \[(8,1)+(27,1)\], $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes (as well as the pure (8,1) amplitudes, neglecting the (27,1) expressions) are given by

$`0|𝒪^{(8,1)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4i\alpha _2}{f}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}A(m_\eta ^2)3A(m_K^2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A(m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4i\alpha _1}{f}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(m_\pi ^24m_K^2\right)A(m_\eta ^2)m_K^2A(m_K^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}m_\pi ^2A(m_\pi ^2)\right],`$
$$0|𝒪^{(27,1)}|K^0_{log}=\frac{6i\alpha _{27}}{f}[(m_\pi ^24m_K^2)A(m_\eta ^2)+4m_K^2A(m_K^2)m_\pi ^2A(m_\pi ^2)],$$
(D2)
$`\pi ^+|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^+_{\mathrm{log}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _{27}}{f^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{(7m_K^2m_\pi ^2)(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2}{q^2}}+7m_K^46m_K^2m_\pi ^2`$ (D3)
$`m_\pi ^436(p_Kp_\pi )^26(3m_K^25m_\pi ^2)p_Kp_\pi )B(q^2,m_K^2,m_\eta ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{3(m_K^2+m_\pi ^2)(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2}{q^2}}`$
$`3(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2+20(p_Kp_\pi )^26(m_K^2+m_\pi ^2)p_Kp_\pi )B(q^2,m_K^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{7m_K^48m_K^2m_\pi ^2+m_\pi ^4}{q^2}}+9m_K^2m_\pi ^210p_Kp_\pi \right)A(m_\eta ^2)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3m_K^2(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)}{q^2}}+3m_K^2+10p_Kp_\pi \right)A(m_K^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4m_\pi ^4}{q^2}}m_K^2+m_\pi ^26p_kp_\pi \right)A(m_\pi ^2)`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_\pi }{f}})p_Kp_\pi ],`$
$`\pi ^+|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^+_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _1}{f^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}({\displaystyle \frac{(7m_K^2m_\pi ^2)(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2}{q^2}}7m_K^4+6m_K^2m_\pi ^2+m_\pi ^4`$ (D4)
$`+36(p_Kp_\pi )^2+6(3m_K^25m_\pi ^2)p_Kp_\pi )B(q^2,m_K^2,m_\eta ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{3(m_K^2+m_\pi ^2)(m_k^2m_\pi ^2)^2}{q^2}}`$
$`3(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2+20(p_Kp_\pi )^26(m_K^2+m_\pi ^2)p_Kp_\pi )B(q^2,m_K^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{7m_K^4+8m_K^2m_\pi ^2m_\pi ^4}{q^2}}9m_K^2+m_\pi ^230p_Kp_\pi \right)A(m_\eta ^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4+4m_K^2m_\pi ^25m_\pi ^4}{q^2}}+11m_K^2+5m_\pi ^2+30p_Kp_\pi \right)A(m_K^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4m_\pi ^4}{q^2}}m_K^2+m_\pi ^26p_Kp_\pi )A(m_\pi ^2)({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_\pi }{f}})p_Kp_\pi ]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _2}{f^2}}m_K^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}({\displaystyle \frac{(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2}{q^2}}m_K^2m_\pi ^2+6p_Kp_\pi )B(q^2,m_K^2,m_\eta ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2}{q^2}}3(m_K^2+m_\pi ^2)+10p_Kp_\pi \right)B(q^2,m_K^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)}{q^2}}+7\right)A(m_\eta ^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}{q^2}}+5\right)A(m_K^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}{q^2}}3)A(m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_k}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_\pi }{f}}],`$
$$\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{log}=8i\frac{\alpha _{27}}{f^3}m^2\left[3m^2\frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}\left(5\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}+1\right)\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{m^2}\right],$$
(D5)
for $`K\pi \pi `$, $`m_K=m_\pi =m`$,

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`8i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{f^3}}m^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}m^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}\left(50\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}37\right){\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{m^2}}\right]`$
$`+4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{f^3}}m^2[2m^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{101}{9}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{47}{9}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{32m^2}{f^2}}(2L_1+2L_2+L_3+2L_4+2L_6+L_8)],`$
for $`K\pi \pi `$, $`m_K=m_\pi =m`$,

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`3i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{27}}{f^3}}m_K^2[{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}(456\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{\mu ^2}}20(5+\mathrm{ln}16)`$ (D7)
$`7\mathrm{ln}5+232\mathrm{cot}^12){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }f_\pi }{f}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3m_K^2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^2)],`$
for $`K\pi \pi `$, $`m_{K(1loop)}=2m_{\pi (1loop)}`$, and

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`3i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{f^3}}m_K^2[{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{72}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f^2}}(518\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{\mu ^2}}209\mathrm{ln}5+700\mathrm{ln}2`$ (D8)
$`+184\mathrm{cot}^12+80){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f_K}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }f_\pi }{f}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3m_K^2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^2)]`$
$`+12i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{f^5}}m_K^4(4L_4L_5+8L_6+4L_8),`$
for $`K\pi \pi `$, $`m_{K(1loop)}=2m_{\pi (1loop)}`$. The logarithmic corrections to the physical $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitude are given by

$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{27}}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}m_K^4({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{m_\pi ^2}}1)B(m_\pi ^2,m_K^2,m_\eta ^2)`$ (D9)
$`+m_K^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{2m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}m_K^2+2m_\pi ^2\right)B(m_\pi ^2,m_K^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`+\left(2m_K^4+3m_K^2m_\pi ^2m_\pi ^4\right)B(m_K^2,m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`+m_\pi ^2\left(m_K^2m_\pi ^2\right)B(m_K^2,m_\eta ^2,m_\eta ^2)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^4}{m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}m_K^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}m_\pi ^2\right)A(m_\eta ^2)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{5m_K^4}{2m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}m_K^2+10m_\pi ^2\right)A(m_K^2)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{2m_\pi ^2}}3m_K^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}m_\pi ^2)A(m_\pi ^2)],`$
$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^0_{log}`$ $`=`$ $`4i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}m_K^4({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{m_\pi ^2}}1)B(m_\pi ^2,m_K^2,m_\eta ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_K^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{m_\pi ^2}}5m_K^2+4m_\pi ^2\right)B(m_\pi ^2,m_K^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`\left(2m_K^43m_K^2m_\pi ^2+m_\pi ^4\right)B(m_K^2,m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}m_\pi ^2\left(m_K^2m_\pi ^2\right)B(m_K^2,m_\eta ^2,m_\eta ^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{m_\pi ^2}}+m_\pi ^2\right)A(m_\eta ^2)`$
$`+\left(5m_\pi ^23m_K^2\right)A(m_K^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{m_K^4}{m_\pi ^2}}6m_K^2+3m_\pi ^2)A(m_\pi ^2)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{64i}{f^5}}\alpha _2(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)[2m_K^2L_4+(4L_4L_5+8L_6+4L_8)m_\pi ^2].`$
The imaginary parts of expressions (D9) and (D10) are given by

$$Im(i\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(27,1),(1/2)}|K^0)=\frac{2\alpha _{27}}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}\frac{1}{16\pi f^2}\sqrt{14\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_K^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)(2m_K^2m_\pi ^2),$$
(D11)
$$Im(i\pi ^+\pi ^{}|𝒪^{(8,1),(1/2)}|K^0)=\frac{2\alpha _1}{f_Kf_\pi ^2}\frac{1}{16\pi f^2}\sqrt{14\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_K^2}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)(2m_K^2m_\pi ^2).$$
(D12)


text:
# Determining the Chirality of Yukawa Couplings via Single Charged Higgs Boson Production in Polarized Photon Collision

## I Introduction

The detection of a charged Higgs boson unambiguously signals new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. In most extensions of the SM, the mass ($`M_{H^\pm }`$) of a charged Higgs boson ($`H^\pm `$) is predicted to be around the weak scale. At hadron colliders, such as the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a light charged Higgs boson can be produced from the decay of top quark via $`tH^+b`$, if $`M_{H^\pm }<m_tm_b`$, where $`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$ are the masses of top and bottom quarks, respectively tbH . Otherwise, it can be produced in pairs via the $`s`$-channel $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion process ppHpHm  through the gauge interactions of $`\gamma `$-$`H^+`$-$`H^{}`$ and $`Z`$-$`H^+`$-$`H^{}`$. However, the rate of the pair production is generally smaller than that predicted by the single charged Higgs boson production mechanisms as the mass of the charged Higgs boson increases. At hadron colliders, a single charged Higgs boson can be produced via $`gbH^\pm t`$ gbHt , $`cs,cbH^\pm `$ dhy ; hy , and $`gg`$ (or $`q\overline{q}`$) $`H^\pm W^{}`$ppHW , etc. While the single charged Higgs boson production rate at hadron colliders can be sizable, it is extremely difficult to determine the chirality of the Yukawa couplings of fermions with charged Higgs boson. In this work, we show that it can be readily achieved at a polarized photon collider.

If $`M_{H^\pm }`$ is smaller than half of the center-of-mass energy ($`\sqrt{s}`$) of a Linear Collider (LC), then $`H^\pm `$ can be copiously produced in pairs via the scattering processes $`e^{}e^+H^{}H^+`$ and $`\gamma \gamma H^{}H^+`$ eeHpHm . The production rate of a $`H^{}H^+`$ pair is determined by the electroweak gauge interaction of $`H^\pm `$ and gauge bosons, which depends only on the electric charge and weak-isospin of $`H^\pm `$. When $`M_{H^\pm }>\sqrt{s}/2`$, it is no longer possible to produce the charged Higgs bosons in pairs. In this case, the predominant production mechanism of the charged Higgs boson is via the single charged Higgs boson production processes, such as the loop induced process $`e^{}e^+H^\pm W^{}`$ eeWH , and the tree level processes $`e^{}e^+b\overline{c}H^+,\tau \overline{\nu }H^+`$ and $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+,\tau \overline{\nu }H^+`$. The production rate of the above tree level processes depends on the Yukawa couplings of fermions with $`H^\pm `$. This makes it possible to discriminate models of flavor symmetry breaking by measuring the production rate of the single charged Higgs boson at the LC. We find that the yield of a heavy charged Higgs boson at a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider is typically one or two orders of magnitude larger than that at an $`e^{}e^+`$ collider. \[In this paper, we assume the center-of-mass energy of a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider ($`\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }`$) is about 80% of that of an $`e^{}e^+`$ collider ($`\sqrt{s}_{ee}`$).\]

It is well known that the main motivation for building a high-energy polarized photon collider is to determine the $`CP`$ property of the neutral Higgs bosons CPprop . In this study, we provide another motivation for having a polarized photon collider – to determine the chirality of the Yukawa coupling of fermions with charged Higgs boson via single charged Higgs boson production so as to discriminate models of flavor symmetry breaking.

## II Yukawa Interactions in New Physics Models

The well-motivated new physics models that contain a charged Higgs boson can be classified into the weakly interacting models (with elementary Higgs scalars) Kane  and the strongly interacting models (with composite Higgs scalars) sekhar . A typical example of the weakly interacting models is the Minimal Supersymmetric SM (MSSM) MSSM , and of the strongly interacting models is the dynamical Top-color (TopC) model Hill . In general, the Yukawa coupling of the fermions with $`H^\pm `$ can be written as

$$_\mathrm{Y}=\overline{f^{}}\left(Y_L^{f^{}f}P_L+Y_R^{f^{}f}P_R\right)fH^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(1)
where $`f`$ and $`f^{}`$ represent up-type and down-type fermions, respectively, and $`P_{L,R}`$ are the chirality projection operators $`P_{L,R}=\left(1\gamma _5\right)/2`$ .

We first consider the Yukawa sector of the MSSM, which is similar to that of a Type-II two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM). The corresponding tree-level Yukawa couplings of fermions with $`H^\pm `$ are given by

$`Y_{L(0)}^{f^{}f}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}m_f^{}}{v}}V_{ff^{}}\mathrm{tan}\beta ,Y_{R(0)}^{f^{}f}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}m_f}{v}}V_{ff^{}}\mathrm{cot}\beta ,`$ (2)
where $`m_f`$ ($`m_f^{}`$) is the mass of fermion $`f`$ ($`f^{}`$), $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_u/H_d`$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of two Higgs doublets, $`v=(H_u^2+H_d^2)^{1/2}246`$ GeV, and $`V_{ff^{}}`$ is the relevant Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element. The coupling constants $`Y_{L(0)}^{f^{}f}`$ and $`Y_{R(0)}^{f^{}f}`$ vary as the input parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ changes. For the $`\overline{\tau }`$-$`\nu `$-$`H^{}`$ coupling, $`Y_{L(0)}^{\tau \nu }`$ increases as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ grows, and reaches about $`0.200.51`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2050`$, while $`Y_{R(0)}^{\tau \nu }`$ is zero because of the absence of right-handed Dirac neutrinos in the MSSM. As a typical choice for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, we take

$$(Y_{L(0)}^{\tau \nu },Y_{R(0)}^{\tau \nu })(0.3,0),\mathrm{for}\mathrm{tan}\beta 30.$$
(3)
The tree level $`\overline{b}`$-$`c`$-$`H^{}`$ coupling contains a CKM suppression factor $`V_{cb}0.04`$, so that $`Y_{L(0)}^{bc}`$ is around $`0.03`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and $`Y_{R(0)}^{bc}`$ is less than about $`2\times 10^4`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >2`$. However, some radiative corrections arising from the Supersymmetry (SUSY) interaction can significantly enhance the tree level $`\overline{b}`$-$`c`$-$`H^{}`$ coupling. It was shown in Ref. dhy  that the radiatively generated $`\overline{b}`$-$`c`$-$`H^{}`$ coupling from the natural stop-scharm ($`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{c}`$) mixing in the SUSY soft-breaking sector can be quite sizable. For instance, in some class of MSSM dhy , the non-diagonal scalar trilinear $`A`$-term for the up-type squarks can induce the Yukawa couplings of $`b`$-$`c`$-$`H^\pm `$, such that for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, $`Y_L^{bc}`$ is around 0.05 and $`Y_R^{bc}`$ is about 0. The feature that $`Y_L^{bc}Y_R^{bc}0`$ will be relevant to our latter discussion on how to use a polarized photon collider to discriminate models of new physics by testing the chirality structure of the fermion Yukawa couplings.

We now turn to the TopC model Hill , which provides an attractive scenario for explaining the large top quark mass from the $`\overline{t}t`$ condensation via the strong $`SU(3)_{\mathrm{tc}}`$ TopC interaction at the TeV scale. The associated strong tilting $`U(1)`$ force is attractive in the $`\overline{t}t`$ channel and repulsive in the $`\overline{b}b`$ channel, so that the bottom quark mainly acquires its mass from the TopC instanton contribution Hill . This model predicts three relatively light physical top-pions $`(\pi _t^0,\pi _t^\pm )`$. The Yukawa interactions of these top-pions with the $`b`$, $`t`$ and $`c`$ (charm) quarks can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{m_t\mathrm{tan}\beta ^{}}{v}[iK_{UR}^{tt}K_{UL}^{tt}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{t_L}t_R\pi _t^0+\sqrt{2}K_{UR}^{tt}K_{DL}^{bb}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{b_L}t_R\pi _t^{}+\hfill \\ iK_{UR}^{tc}K_{UL}^{tt}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{t_L}c_R\pi _t^0+\sqrt{2}K_{UR}^{tc}K_{DL}^{bb}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{b_L}c_R\pi _t^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ^{}=\sqrt{\left(v/v_t\right)^21}`$ and the top-pion decay constant $`v_tO(60100)`$ GeV. The rotation matrices $`K_{UL,R}`$ and $`K_{DL,R}`$ are needed for diagonalizing the up- and down-quark mass matrices $`M_U`$ and $`M_D`$, i.e., $`K_{UL}^{}M_UK_{UR}=M_U^{\mathrm{dia}}`$ and $`K_{DL}^{}M_DK_{DR}=M_D^{\mathrm{dia}}`$, from which the CKM matrix is defined as $`V=K_{UL}^{}K_{DL}`$ . To yield a realistic form of the CKM matrix $`V`$ (such as the Wolfenstein-parametrization), the TopC model generally predicts $`K_{UR}^{tt}0.990.94`$, $`K_{UR}^{tc}0.110.33`$, and $`K_{UL}^{tt}K_{DL}^{bb}1`$, which suggests that the $`t_R`$-$`c_R`$ transition can be naturally around $`1030\%`$ hy . Consequently, the Yukawa couplings of fermions with the charged top-pion (pseudoscalar Higgs boson) are $`Y_L^{bt}=Y_L^{bc}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`Y_R^{bt}(\sqrt{2}m_t/v)\mathrm{tan}\beta ^{}`$, and $`Y_R^{bc}Y_R^{bt}K_{UR}^{tc}`$. Thus, taking a typical value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ^{}3`$ and a conservative input of $`K_{UR}^{tc}0.1`$ for the $`t_Rc_R`$ mixing, we obtain

$$Y_R^{bt}3,\mathrm{and}(Y_L^{bc},Y_R^{bc})(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.3}),$$
(5)
which will be used as the sample TopC parameters for our numerical analysis.

As noted earlier, the chirality of the Yukawa couplings of $`b`$-$`c`$-$`\pi _t^\pm `$ is purely right-handed, in contrast to the left-handed Yukawa couplings predicted by the MSSM with a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ value. This makes it possible to discriminate the TopC model from the MSSM or a Type-II 2HDM by measuring the production rate of single charged Higgs boson at a polarized photon collider.

## III  $`H^\pm `$ Production in Photon Collision as a Probe of New Physics

Using the default parameters of the TopC model, as described in the previous section, cf. Eq. (5), we calculate the total cross sections of $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+`$ and $`e^+e^{}b\overline{c}H^+`$ as a function of $`M_{H^\pm }`$. The result is shown in Fig. 1. A few discussions on the feature of the results shown in Fig. 1 are in order. For $`M_{H^\pm }<\sqrt{s}/2`$, the charged Higgs bosons can be produced in pairs. In this case, the production cross section for $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+`$ (and $`e^{}e^+b\overline{c}H^+`$) is dominated by the contribution from the $`H^{}H^+`$ pair production diagrams with the produced $`H^{}`$ decaying into a $`b\overline{c}`$ pair. Hence, its rate is proportional to the decay branching ratio $`Br(H^{}b\overline{c})`$. (For example, for a 200 GeV (400 GeV) $`H^\pm `$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is about 7 GeV (143 GeV), and $`Br(H^{}b\overline{c})`$ is 0.15 (0.015).) As shown in the figure, there is a kink structure when $`M_{H^\pm }`$ is around 180 GeV. That is caused by the change in $`Br(H^{}b\overline{c})`$ when the decay channel $`H^{}b\overline{t}`$ becomes available. Furthermore, for $`M_{H^\pm }<\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }/2`$, the cross section in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision is typically an order of magnitude larger than that in $`e^{}e^+`$ collision.

It is evident that the cross section of $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+`$ is larger than that of $`e^+e^{}b\overline{c}H^+`$ in the whole $`M_{H^\pm }`$ region. For $`M_{H^\pm }>\sqrt{s}/2`$, where the pair production is not kinematically allowed, the difference between these two cross sections becomes much larger (two or three orders of magnitude) for a larger $`M_{H^\pm }`$ value. To understand the cause of this difference, we have to examine the Feynman diagrams that contribute to the scattering processes $`e^{}e^+b\overline{c}H^+`$ and $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+`$ . In the former process, all the Feynman diagrams contain an $`s`$-channel propagator which is either a virtual photon or a virtual $`Z`$ boson. Therefore, when $`M_{H^\pm }`$ increases for a fixed $`\sqrt{s}_{ee}`$, the cross section decreases rapidly. On the contrary, in the latter process, when $`M_{H^\pm }>\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }/2`$, the dominant contribution arises from the fusion diagram $`\gamma \gamma (c\overline{c})(b\overline{b})b\overline{c}H^+`$, whose contribution is enhanced by the two collinear poles (in a $`t`$-channel diagram) generated from $`\gamma c\overline{c}`$ and $`\gamma b\overline{b}`$ in high energy collisions. Since the collinear enhancement takes the form of $`\mathrm{ln}(M_{H^+}/m_q)`$, with $`m_q`$ being the bottom or charm quark mass, the cross section of $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+`$ does not vary much as $`M_{H^\pm }`$ increases until it is close to $`\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }`$.

From the above discussions we conclude that a photon-photon collider is superior to an electron-positron collider to detect a heavy charged Higgs boson. Moreover, a polarized photon collider can determine the chirality of the Yukawa couplings of fermions with charged Higgs bosons via single charged Higgs boson production. This point is illustrated as follows. First, let us consider the case that $`M_{H^\pm }>\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }/2`$. As noted above, in this case, the production cross section is dominated by the fusion diagram $`\gamma \gamma (c\overline{c})(b\overline{b})b\overline{c}H^+`$. In the TopC model, because $`Y_L^{bc}=0`$ (and $`Y_R^{bc}0`$), it corresponds to $`\gamma \gamma (c_R\overline{c}_R)(b_L\overline{b}_L)b_L\overline{c}_RH^+`$. On the other hand, in the MSSM with stop-scharm mixing and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`Y_R^{bc}0`$ (and $`Y_L^{bc}0`$), it becomes $`\gamma \gamma (c_L\overline{c}_L)(b_R\overline{b}_R)b_R\overline{c}_LH^+`$. Therefore, we expect that if both photon beams are right-handedly polarized (i.e. $`\gamma _R\gamma _R`$), then a TopC charged Higgs boson (top-pion) can be copiously produced, while a MSSM charged Higgs boson (with a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) is highly suppressed. To detect a MSSM charged Higgs boson, both photon beams have to be left-handedly polarized (i.e. $`\gamma _L\gamma _L`$). This is supported by an exact calculation whose results are shown in Fig. 2(a) for the TopC model. (A similar feature also holds for the class of MSSM proposed in Ref. dhy  after interchanging the label of $`RR`$ and $`LL`$ in Fig. 2(a).)

The feature of the polarized photon cross sections for $`M_{H^\pm }<\sqrt{s}/2`$ can be understood from examining the production process $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}`$. The helicity amplitudes for the $`H^+H^{}`$ pair production in polarized photon collisions are calculated as

$`M(\gamma _{\lambda _1}\gamma _{\lambda _2}H^+H^{})=`$
$`2e^2\lambda _1\lambda _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta }}}\right)+e^2\left(1\lambda _1\lambda _2\right),`$ (6)
where the degree of polarization of the initial state photons, $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, can take the value of either $`1`$ or $`+1`$, corresponding to a left-handedly ($`L`$) or right-handedly ($`R`$) polarized photon beam, respectively; $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the scattering angle of $`H^+`$ in the center-of-mass frame; and $`\xi =\sqrt{14M_{H^\pm }^2/s_{\gamma \gamma }}`$. In the massless limit, i.e. when $`M_{H^\pm }0`$, the above result reduces to $`M(\gamma _{\lambda _1}\gamma _{\lambda _2}H^+H^{})e^2\left(1\lambda _1\lambda _2\right)`$. Denote $`\sigma _{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\mathrm{pair}}`$ as the cross section of $`\gamma _{\lambda _1}\gamma _{\lambda _2}H^+H^{}`$. We find that $`\sigma _{LR}^{\mathrm{pair}}=\sigma _{RL}^{\mathrm{pair}}`$, and they dominate the total cross section when $`M_{H^\pm }^2s`$, while $`\sigma _{LL}^{\mathrm{pair}}`$ and $`\sigma _{RR}^{\mathrm{pair}}`$ are equal and approach to zero as $`M_{H^\pm }0`$. Since for $`M_{H^\pm }<\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }/2`$ the bulk part of the cross section of $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+`$ comes from $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma H^+H^{})\times Br(H^{}b\overline{c})`$, the $`LL`$ and $`RR`$ cross sections are smaller than the $`LR`$ ($`=RL`$) cross sections as $`M_{H^\pm }`$ decreases, cf. Fig. 2.

It is important to point out that the complete set of Feynman diagrams has to be included to calculate $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+)`$ even when $`M_{H^\pm }<\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }/2`$ because of the requirement of gauge invariance. To study the effect of the additional Feynman diagrams, other than those contributing to the $`H^+H^{}`$ pair production from $`\gamma \gamma H^+H^{}(b\overline{c})`$, one can examine the single charged Higgs boson rate in this regime with the requirement that the invariant mass of $`b\overline{c}`$, denoted as $`M_{b\overline{c}}`$, satisfies the following condition:

$`|M_{b\overline{c}}`$ $``$ $`M_{H^\pm }|>\mathrm{\Delta }M_{b\overline{c}},\mathrm{with}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{b\overline{c}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}[25\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{max}[1.18M_{c\overline{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta m}{m}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_H]],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m}{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.5}{\sqrt{M_{b\overline{c}}/2}}},`$ (7)
where $`\frac{\delta m}{m}`$ denotes the mass resolution of the detector for observing the final state $`b`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ jets originated from the

decay of $`H^{}`$. For example, in Fig. 2(a) the set of dashed-lines are the polarized cross sections after imposing the above kinematical cut. With this cut, the total rate reduces by about one order of magnitude for $`M_{H^\pm }<\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }/2`$. (Needless to say that this cut can hardly change the event rate when $`M_{H^\pm }>\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma }/2`$.) The effect of this kinematic cut on the $`RR`$ and $`LL`$ rates are significantly different in the low $`M_{H^\pm }`$ region. It implies that the $`H^+H^{}`$ pair production diagrams cannot be the whole production mechanism, otherwise, we would expect the rates of $`RR`$ and $`LL`$ be always equal due to the parity invariance of the QED theory. (Again, a similar feature also holds for the MSSM models proposed in Ref. dhy  after interchanging the labels of $`LL`$ and $`RR`$.) In Fig. 2(b), we show the results for $`\gamma _{\lambda _1}\gamma _{\lambda _2}\tau \nu H^+`$ in the MSSM with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$.

## IV Conclusions

The single charged Higgs boson can be produced at polarized photon colliders via the scattering processes $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+`$ and $`\gamma \gamma \tau \nu H^+`$. We have shown that the production rate of $`H^\pm `$ in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision is much larger than that in the $`e^{}e^+`$ collision, cf. Fig. 1. For $`M_{H^+}>\sqrt{s}/2`$, the $`e^+e^{}`$ rate is smaller by at least one or two orders of magnitude than the $`\gamma \gamma `$ rate. This is because in high energy collisions there are two collinear poles ($`\gamma \gamma (c\overline{c})(b\overline{b})b\overline{c}H^+`$) in $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{c}H^+`$, while the $`e^+e^{}`$ processes contain only $`s`$-channel diagrams and cannot generate any collinear enhancement factor to the single charged Higgs boson production rate. Furthermore, we find that it is possible to measure the Yukawa couplings $`Y_L`$ and $`Y_R`$, separately, at photon-photon colliders by properly choosing the polarization states of the incoming photon beams. This unique feature of the photon colliders can be used to discriminate models of flavor symmetry breaking. Hence, we conclude that a polarized photon-photon collider is not only useful for determining the CP property of a neutral Higgs boson, but also useful for detecting a heavy charged Higgs boson and determining the chirality of the Yukawa couplings of fermions with charged Higgs boson.

Needless to say that a full Monte Carlo simulation is needed to determine how well the Yukawa couplings can be measured. For detecting a heavy charged Higgs boson (say, 500 GeV in the TopC model), the SM background rates can be ignored when $`H^+`$ predominantly decays into a $`t\overline{b}`$ pair, and the signal rate is at most reduced by a factor of 2 to 3 by demanding the polar angle ($`\theta `$) of the forward $`b`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ jets to satisfy $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.98`$ or $`0.95`$, respectively, at a 800 GeV photon-photon collider.

Acknowledgments We thank G.L. Kane for valuable discussions on the SUSY flavor mixing. SK would like to thank S. Moretti for useful discussions and for comparing part of our results with his calculation. This work was supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-0100677 and DOE grant DEFG0393ER40757.