text:
# Number Fluctuation in an interacting trapped gas in one and two dimensions

## I Introduction

Consider an ideal bose gas at low temperatures. In the grand canonical ensemble (GCE), the compressibility and the number fluctuation of this system diverge at low temperatures . To quote Landau and Lifshitz :

> …in a bose gas at temperature $`T<T_c`$, the pressure is independent of the volume, i.e. the compressibility becomes infinite. Accordingly…this would imply that the fluctuations of the number of particles also become infinite. This means that, in calculating fluctuations in a gas obeying bose statistics, the interactions between the particles cannot be neglected at low temperatures, however weak this interaction may be. When the interactions, which must exist in any actual gas, is taken into account, the resulting fluctuations are finite.

One purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the validity of this statement in one and two dimensional traps for a special class of interactions.

In one dimension, the quantum many-body problem of particles in a harmonic oscillator interacting with an inverse square two-body potential is exactly solvable . Moreover, it is known that the global properties of these interacting bosons are the same as those of non-interacting particles obeying the Haldane-Wu generalized exclusion statistics (ideal haldons) . Using this mapping, we show that the number fluctuation is finite as $`T0`$, no matter how weak the interaction strength is. In this model, since the exact correlation function is known for some specific strength parameters of the interaction , it is also possible to verify explicitly the well-known relation between its integral and the number fluctuation.

In two dimensions, there is no suitable exactly solvable model for our purpose. We therefore consider the mean-field model of bosons trapped in a harmonic oscillator, and interacting pair-wise with a zero-range repulsive pseudo-potential . In the absence of this interaction, the number fluctuation diverges at $`T=T_c`$. When the interaction is present, however weak, we show that the compressibility and hence the number fluctuation of the system is finite right down to $`T=0`$. Moreover, they are shown to be identical to those of a collection of non-interacting haldons.

Another quantity of some interest is the number fluctuation of particles from the ground state of the system, which is present even when the total number of particles in the trap is fixed. Consider a dilute gas of bosons in a trap at $`T=0`$. The system is in its ground state. When a certain amount of excitation energy is given to the system, it may be absorbed in many possible ways, so that the number of bosons remaining in the ground state is not fixed. This number fluctuation for non-interacting bosons in a harmonic trap has been calculated by a number of authors  as a function of the excitation energy or temperature. Thermodynamic identities and particle number fluctuations in weakly interacting BEC have also been analysed when the particle number is fixed. For ideal bosons, the number fluctuation from the ground state diverges at low temperatures in GCE, but this can be avoided using more careful canonical, or microcanonical treatment. When the inverse square pair-wise interaction is used in one dimension, this divergence is again removed. Further, in this interacting model, we can also perform the canonical ensemble (CE) calculations, and compare with the GCE results. We find that even though the ground state number fluctuation goes to zero as $`T0`$ in both GCE and CE, the very low-temperature behaviors are rather different . At higher temperatures the results from CE and GCE tend to coincide. Similar studies can be made for fermionic systems at low temperatures. Since the interactions that we have used are of statistical character , our results interpolate from bosonic to fermionic behavior with the variation in the strength of the interaction.

The outline of the paper is as follows: Sect. II deals with the total number fluctuation in GCE for interacting models. Sect. II (a) is devoted to a discussion of the fluctuations in one dimension, and II (b) to fluctuation in two dimensions. In Sect. III, the ground state number fluctuations for the one-dimensional interacting model in GCE and CE are calculated and compared. Particular attention is paid to the low temperature behavior (see also Appendix). We conclude the paper with a brief discussion of the results.

## II Fluctuations in GCE

The number fluctuation in a gas in the GCE formalism is defined by $`(\delta N)^2=(<N^2><N>^2)`$, where the angular brackets denote ensemble averaging. For an ideal bose gas,

$$(\delta N)^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n_k(n_k+1),$$
(1)
where the single particle occupancy $`n_k`$ at a given temperature $`T`$ and energy $`ϵ_k`$ are given by the bose distribution function

$$n_k=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (ϵ_k\mu )]1}.$$
(2)
Here $`\beta =1/T`$ with the Boltzmann constant $`k_B=1`$, and $`\mu `$ denotes the chemical potential. The isothermal compressibility $`\chi __T`$ of a gas of density $`\rho _0`$ is related to the number fluctuation of the system in GCE :

$$\frac{(\delta N)^2}{N}=T\rho _0\chi __T.$$
(3)
The problem with the number fluctuation in a bose gas in GCE is obvious from Eq. (1). If there is BEC, then a macroscopic fraction of the particles occupy the ground state for $`T<T_c`$, so that $`(\delta N_0)^2N^2`$. Even if there is no BEC, the same is the case as $`T0`$. In the thermodynamic limit, therefore, the fluctuation diverges below the critical temperature, or in any case at $`T=0`$. This is manifestly incorrect, since at $`T=0`$, all the bosons are in the ground state, and the number fluctuation should vanish. In the presence of interactions, however, this number fluctuation is expected to be finite. We demonstrate this by analyzing two models in one and two dimensions.

### A Fluctuations in a one dimensional model

We first consider the exactly solvable one dimensional Calogero-Sutherland Model (CSM) of a system of interacting particles with the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2x_i^2\right]+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\underset{i<j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{g(g1)}{(x_ix_j)^2},$$
(4)
with the dimensionless coupling parameter $`g0`$. The particles are confined in a harmonic well and the thermodynamic limit is obtained by taking $`\omega 0`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$, with $`\omega N=constant`$. In the thermodynamic limit, the properties of the system are translationally invariant, and would be the same if the particles were on a line, or a circle, instead of a harmonic confinement. To make the problem well-defined quantum mechanically, we have to demand that the wave functions go to zero as $`|x_ix_j|^g`$ whenever two particles i and j approach each other. Since the particles cannot cross each other, we may choose the wave function to be either symmetric (bosonic) or antisymmetric (fermionic). For $`g=0`$ and $`1`$, the model describes free bosons and free fermions respectively.

Using the relation between the integral of the correlation function and the number fluctuation, we now show that the number fluctuation vanishes at zero temperature in the above interacting model unlike the ideal boson result in GCE. If $`\nu (r)`$ denotes the two-particle ground state density-density correlation function in the ground state, with $`r=|x_1x_2|`$, then the number fluctuation is related to the correlation function as

$$\frac{(\delta N)^2}{N}1=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\nu (x)𝑑x.$$
(5)
Note that the ground state correlation function $`\nu (r)`$ is defined only for $`r0`$. However, in computing the above integral it is necessary to assume $`\nu (r)`$ to be even function, and extend the domain of integration to negative values of $`r`$. Unlike the one-particle off-diagonal density matrix, $`\nu (r)`$, by definition, is related to the diagonal element of the the two-particle density matrix, and is the same in CSM for bosons or fermions. In this section we work in the bosonic basis. The correlation functions are known exactly in the CSM for three values of $`g`$ independent of whether the particles are bosons are fermions and are given (in the thermodynamic limit) by

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`1:\nu (r)=s(r)^2=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi r)}{\pi r}}\right]^2`$ (6)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`1/2:\nu (r)=s(r)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{dr}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t[s(t)]`$ (7)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`2:\nu (r)=s(2r)^2{\displaystyle \frac{ds(2r)}{dr}}{\displaystyle _0^{2r}}𝑑t[s(t)],`$ (8)
where the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ is set equal to $`\pi `$ so that the maximum central density is unity. For all three forms of $`\nu (r)`$ given above, explicit calculations show that

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\nu (x)𝑑x=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}[s(r)]^2𝑑x=1,$$
(9)
independent of the value of $`g`$. Substituting this result in Eq.(5) it follows that for interacting bosons in CSM the fluctuation vanishes identically at $`T=0`$.

While we cannot obtain the exact $`\nu (r)`$ in CSM for all $`g`$, the same may be calculated for all values of $`g`$ in the harmonic lattice approximation. The correlation function so obtained compares very well with the exact correlation functions for $`g=1/2,1,2`$ and is given by

$$\nu (x)=\rho _0\underset{n0}{}\left(\frac{1}{4\pi F(n,0)}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(x\rho _0n)^2}{4F(n,0)}\right]\rho _0,$$
(10)
where $`\rho _0=N/L`$ is the average density and

$$\lambda F(n,0)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^\pi 𝑑y\frac{1\mathrm{cos}(yn)}{yy^2/2\pi }=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑y\frac{1\mathrm{cos}(yn)}{y}.$$
(11)
The above expression is given for completeness and its exact form is not needed for further calculations. Again integrating over the real line we get a result identical to that obtained using the exact correlation functions in CSM. Thus the fluctuation vanishes identically for all $`g`$ in this approximation at zero temperature. However, the result does not give any indication of the behavior of the fluctuation at finite temperature. To do this we take recourse to the mapping between the CSM and the exclusion statistics first proposed by Haldane through a generalized Pauli principle.

A crucial property of exclusion statistical interactions is that they should cause shifts in single particle energies at all scales (see next section). This property is realized by a large class of one dimensional models of interacting fermions where Fermi liquid theory breaks down. In fact it has been shown exactly that quasiparticles with nontrivial exclusion statistics exist in a class of models that are solved by the Bethe ansatz. Thus the result obtained below should be, in principle, valid in a large class of models with interactions. In particular, it is well known that the interacting particle of CSM may be regarded as ideal exclusion statistics particles or simply haldons. The thermodynamic properties of an ideal gas of exclusion statistics particles have been investigated widely. The distribution function has been computed and is given by

$$n(ϵ)=\frac{1}{(w(ϵ)+g)},$$
(12)
where $`w(ϵ)`$ is the solution of the equation

$$w(ϵ)^g(1+w(ϵ))^{(1g)}=e^{\beta (ϵ\mu )}$$
(13)
At zero temperature we have,

$$n=\frac{1}{g},forϵ_k\mu $$
(14)
and zero otherwise.

Note that the distribution function reduces to the usual Fermi and Bose distribution functions for $`g=1`$ and $`g=0`$ respectively and in general $`g`$ is regarded as the exclusion statistics parameter. Indeed, the statistical parameter $`g`$ is precisely the interaction strength as given in Eq. (4) in one dimension. However, the distribution function as given above is valid in general and not necessarily restricted to one dimensional models. The following discussion is therefore used for illustration in the case of one-dimensional model but not restricted to this case alone.

The number fluctuation at a given energy $`ϵ_k`$ is given by,

$$(\delta n_k)^2=T\frac{n_k}{\mu }.$$
(15)
Substituting for $`n_k`$ from Eq. (12), we have for total number fluctuation,

$`(\delta N)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}w_k(1+w_k)n_k^3`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n_k(1gn_k)(1+(1g)n_k).`$ (17)
The number fluctuation vanishes at $`T0`$ since $`n_k1/g`$ below the Fermi energy and zero otherwise. This result holds no matter how weak the interaction strength is. However, at $`g=0`$, the bosonic limit, the number fluctuation diverges as noted earlier. In this exactly solvable model, we have thus shown that interactions do remove the fluctuation catastrophe encountered in the ideal Bose gas.

While these results have been derived in one dimension, extension to higher dimension is non-trivial since there is no suitable exactly solvable many body model. However, it has been shown that models with short range interactions in two dimension may be regarded as obeying exclusion statistics in the mean-field picture. We discuss the fluctuation in these models in the next section.

### B Fluctuations in a two dimensional model

We consider a two-dimensional system of bosons interacting via a zero-range repulsive pseudo-potential. The quantum dynamics is then approximated by the following Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{p_i^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2r_i^2\right)+\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\stackrel{~}{g}\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_j),$$
(18)
where the momenta and coordinates are planar vectors. The one-body potential generated by the above zero-range interaction (including exchange) is

$$U(n(𝐫))=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}gn(𝐫),g=2\stackrel{~}{g},$$
(19)
where $`n(𝐫)`$ is the local number density of the system. In two-dimensions, $`g0`$ plays the role of the statistical parameter, with $`g=0`$ for non-interacting bosons. At finite temperature, for $`T>T_c`$, the Thomas-Fermi approximation yields

$$n(𝐫)=\frac{d^2p/(2\pi \mathrm{})^2}{\left[\mathrm{exp}[(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(r)\mu )\beta ]1\right]},$$
(20)
where the Thomas-Fermi mean potential $`V(r)`$ is given by

$$V(𝐫)=V_0(r)+\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}gn(𝐫).$$
(21)
Here $`V_0(r)`$ is the one-body harmonic trap. Note that Eq.(20) is valid only in the absence of a condensate. It has been shown . however, that for a nonzero positive $`g`$, a self-consistent solution of this equation satisfying $`n(r)d^2r=N`$ may be obtained right down to T=0. This solution has a lower free energy than the one with a condensate , so we may take $`T_c=0`$ for $`g>0`$.

The momentum integration may be done analytically:

$$n(r)=\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2\beta }\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}[\beta (V(r)\mu )]\right].$$
(22)
The local number fluctuation (between $`r`$ and $`r+dr`$) in GCE is given by

$$(\delta N)^2=T\frac{n(r)}{\mu },$$
(23)
where the coefficient of the temperature $`T`$ on the rhs is related to the compressibility. Taking the derivative of the local density with respect to the chemical potential we have

$$(\delta N)^2=T\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}[(V(r)\mu )\beta ]1+g},$$
(24)
Note that $`\mu `$ is a function of temperature, and is determined by the condition that $`n(r)d^2r=N`$, and in the thermodynamic limit it approaches the lowest energy eigenstate as the temperature goes to zero. A few remarks on the thermodynamic limit are in order: The thermodynamic limit is reached when $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega 0`$. However, in the limit of no confinement the density of states becomes a constant and there is no critical temperature below which condensation takes place. Preserving the density of states as in a two dimensional oscillator, the condensation temperature of an ideal bose gas is given by

$$T_c^{(0)}=(6/\pi ^2)^{1/2}N^{1/2}\omega .$$

Thus the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega 0`$ is obtained keeping $`T_c^{(0)}`$ constant. In an ideal bose gas ($`g=0`$), no self-consistent solution of Eq. (22) can be found for a fixed $`N`$ below this temperature $`T_c^{(0)}`$. However, when $`g>0`$ no matter how small, the self-consistent solution of Eq. (22) may then be found for all $`T>0`$.

In this limit the fluctuation is given by,

$$(\delta N)^2=T\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}[(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}gn\mu )\beta ]1+g},$$
(25)
where $`n`$ is the constant density given in the thermodynamic limit. (For the one-dimensional case, this was denoted by $`\rho _0`$ earlier.)

In the absence of interaction, $`g=0`$, the chemical potential $`\mu `$ goes to zero at $`T=T_c`$ and the above expression diverges as expected. However, as in the one dimensional case, the fluctuation remains finite and approaches zero as $`T0`$ when $`g`$ is finite, however weak the interaction may be.

The same result may be obtained in the non-interacting exclusion statistics description in two-dimensions. The local density as a function of the radial coordinate is given by ,

$$n(𝐫)=\frac{d^2p/(2\pi \mathrm{})^2}{\left[w+g\right]},$$
(26)
where the local variable $`w(p,r)`$ is defined through Wu’s equation within TF approximation

$$w^g(1+w)^{1g}=\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\frac{p^2}{2m}+V_0(r)\mu )],$$
(27)
and $`g`$ is the exclusion statistics parameter which we will identify with the interaction strength in the mean-field picture. We have retained the trap potential $`V_0`$ as in the interacting picture. Once again the momentum integration may be done easily and we obtain,

$$n(r)=\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2\beta }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+w_0}{w_0}\right],$$
(28)
where the local variable $`w_0(r)`$ is determined through

$$w_0^g(1+w_0)^{1g}=\mathrm{exp}[\beta (V_0(r)\mu )].$$
(29)
The fluctuation is then found by using Eq. (23) and we have

$`\delta N^2`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \frac{n(r)}{\mu }},`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w_0+g}}.`$ (31)
In the bosonic limit taking $`g=0`$ in Eq. (29), we have $`w_0=\mathrm{exp}[\beta (V_0\mu )]1`$. Substituting this in the above expression for the fluctuation in the thermodynamic limit it is easy to see that at $`T_c`$ there is divergence. However, for positive definite $`g`$ there is no divergence. Furthermore the equivalence between the non-interacting exclusion statistics picture and the mean-field description is established using the following relationship

$$w_0(r)=\mathrm{exp}[\beta (V(r)\mu )]1,$$
(32)
where $`V(r)`$ is the self consistent mean-field potential. Substituting this in Eq.(31), and taking the thermodynamic limit yields Eq.(25). Note that this equivalence allows one to calculate fluctuations in either the mean field picture or in the non-interacting exclusion statistics picture. Indeed this holds for the computation of other global thermodynamic quantities as well.

## III  Ground state fluctuation in the canonical ensemble

The total number fluctuation defined in the previous section in the GCE is obtained by summing over all the single particle states. In the canonical ensemble however, the number of particles is fixed and therefore the fluctuation in particle number has to be defined with respect to a reference state. One way defining the fluctuation is to look at the ground state occupancy as a function of temperature, which is present even when the total number of particles in the trap is fixed. At $`T=0`$ all the particles are in the ground state. At a nonzero temperature (or excitation energy), there are many ways of exciting the particles from the ground state, leading to a fluctuation in the ground state population. This number fluctuation for non-interacting bosons in a harmonic trap has been calculated by a number of authors  as a function of the excitation energy or temperature. This has also been calculated for fermions in the CE by us in a previous publication. Unlike the case of GCE for bosons, the ground state fluctuation in the CE is finite at all temperatures.

We may extend the analysis of fluctuations in CE to particles interacting via the inverse square pair-wise interaction in one dimension. It is more convenient to perform the calculation in the fermionic basis, although the formulae given here are applicable for both interacting fermions, or interacting bosons. In this section, quantities like energy and ground state number fluctuation of the interacting system with interaction strength $`g`$ will be denoted by a bracketed superscript, e.g. $`E^{(g)}`$, $`((\delta N_0)^2)^{(g)}`$. We recall that the spectrum of the CSM Hamiltonian given in Eq. (4) is exactly known. The states may be labeled by a set of fermionic occupation numbers $`\{n_k\},k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},n_k=0,1`$. The energy $`E^{(g)}`$ of the system in the fermionic basis is then given by,

$$E^{(g)}\{n_k\}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ_kn_k\omega (1g)\frac{N(N1)}{2},$$
(33)
where $`ϵ_k=(k\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega )`$ denotes the harmonic oscillator energy levels and $`N=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}n_k`$. As can be seen from Eq. (33), the effect of the interaction is that each particle shifts the energy of every other particle by a constant $`\mathrm{}\omega (g1)`$. The energy functional can also be written as

$$E^{(g)}\{n_k\}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ_kn_k\omega (1g)\underset{k_1<k_2=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n_{k_1}n_{k_2}.$$
(34)
The exact spectrum of the model is thus reproduced by an effective Hamiltonian of quasi-particles with constant density of states and constant Landau parameters. As mentioned before, this scale invariant energy shift is the basic reason for the occurrence of nontrivial exclusion statistics where $`g`$ plays the role of exclusion statistics parameter with $`g=0,1`$ for bosons and fermions.

The general canonical partition function in any basis is written in the occupation number representation as

$$Z_N^{(g)}=\underset{\{n_k\}}{}e^{\beta E^{(g)}\{n_k\}}.$$
(35)
Using the energy spectrum in CSM given in Eq. (33), the N-particle partition function in this one dimensional model is given by

$$Z_N^{(g)}=e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }(1g)\frac{N(N1)}{2}}Z_N^F,$$
(36)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta \mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`Z_N^F`$ is the N particle fermion partition function. Setting $`g=0`$, the bosonic partition function is obtained,

$$Z_N^B=e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\frac{N(N1)}{2}}Z_N^F.$$
(37)
Combining Eqs. (36) and (37) we may write the partition function for CSM as,

$$Z_N^{(g)}=(Z_N^F)^g(Z_N^B)^{1g}.$$
(38)
The canonical partition function given above is exact in CE and may be used for calculating the thermodynamic properties of the system in CSM within the canonical ensemble formalism. The moments of the occupation number are related to the partition function by

$`n_k^{(g)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_N^{(g)}}}y_k{\displaystyle \frac{Z_N^{(g)}}{y_k}},`$ (39)
$`n_k^2^{(g)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_N^{(g)}}}y_k{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_k}}\left(y_k{\displaystyle \frac{Z_N^{(g)}}{y_k}}\right),`$ (40)
where $`y_k=\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_k)`$. Therefore, it follows that

$$(\delta n_k)^2^{(g)}=y_k\frac{n_k^{(g)}}{y_k}.$$
(41)
Using Eqs. (38)-(40), $`n_k^(g)`$ can be expressed in terms of those of fermions and bosons via:

$$n_k^{(g)}=gn_k^F+(1g)n_k^B$$
(42)
Unlike $`n_k^{(g)}`$, $`n_k^2^{(g)}`$ does not have a simple form as Eq. (42). However, the expression for the fluctuation in the occupation number does:

$$((\delta n_k)^2)^(g)=g((\delta n_k)^2)^F+(1g)((\delta n_k)^2)^B.$$
(43)
Eq. (43) gives only the fluctuation in the occupation of a given level $`k`$, while the quantity we are seeking is the ground state number fluctuation. The latter is formally defined in any ensemble as:

$$(\delta N_0)^2=\underset{k}{}(\delta n_k)^2=\underset{k}{}(n_k^2n_k^2)$$
(44)
where the sum $`k`$ runs over only the levels which are completely occupied at zero temperature. Thus, in an ab initio calculation, one would formally sum over the quasiparticle levels which are occupied at $`T=0`$ to get $`((\delta N_0)^2)^(g)`$. Fig. 1 shows the level flow in CSM as a function of $`g`$ obtained from Eq. (34) at $`T=0`$. It can be seen that as $`g`$ changes from the fermionic to the bosonic end, the number of levels contributing to the ground state remains constant, while the Fermi energy decreases accordingly. This means that one may obtain $`((\delta N_0)^2)^{(g)}`$ by simply substituting the ground state fluctuations for fermions and bosons. ie:

$$((\delta N_0)^2)^{(g)}=g((\delta N_0)^2)^F+(1g)((\delta N_0)^2)^B$$
(45)
## IV Discussions

In the previous section we have discussed the ground state number fluctuation in GCE and CE in an interacting system. We now compare the results obtained in these two ensembles. Due to numerical difficulty at low temperatures, we are able to do the comparison only for $`N=10`$ particles. Despite this limitation, some interesting points can be made. In Fig. 2(a), we show the behavior of the relative ground state fluctuation against temperature of interacting bosons for both ensembles for interacting strengths of $`g=0,1/2,1`$. The $`g=0`$ case corresponds to free bosons. Fig. 2(b) shows the low temperature region of the curves in Fig. 2(a). Note that as $`T0`$ the GCE fluctuation for free bosons diverges as expected, whereas those for interacting bosons remain finite and approach zero. Note also that in the ideal Haldane gas picture the $`g=1/2`$ case corresponds to semions and the $`g=1`$ case is the non-interacting fermionic limit. The GCE fluctuation for semions is found using Eqs. (12), (13) and (17), where $`\mu `$ is determined by the constraint that the average total number of particles is $`N`$.

Unlike in GCE, the CE ground state fluctuation for free bosons remain finite as $`T0`$. The ground state fluctuation of free bosons, however, approaches zero exponentially (see Fig. 2(b)), contrary to previous results that find a linear dependence with $`T`$ all the way to $`T=0`$ . In Appendix A we give the low temperature expansions of the fluctuation squared $`(\delta N_0)^2`$ in powers of $`x`$, where $`x=e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}`$. Clearly, at very low temperatures $`(\delta N_0)^2`$ is independent of the number of particles $`N`$ (in both GCE and CE). Therefore, the exponential behaviour of the fluctuation of free bosons at low temperatures should remain valid even in the large $`N`$ limit. In the case of fermions the CE and GCE fluctuations are similar except at very low temperatures. Clearly, the CE and GCE curves of fermions approach zero differently as $`T0`$. For high temperatures, on the other hand, GCE and CE give identical results, as expected.

It is to be noted from Fig. 2 (a) that the number fluctuation for free bosons and free fermions cross at a certain temperature, with the fermion one getting bigger at higher temperatures. This is to be expected, since the number of possibilities of creating holes within the fermi sea, and distributing particles above, increases more rapidly than for bosons, whose ground state has only one level. Semions ($`g=1/2`$), which may be regarded either as interacting bosons, or as interacting fermions, have fluctuations intermediate between those of bosons ($`g=0`$) and fermions ($`g=1`$).

In one dimension, we have calculated the number fluctuation of bosons interacting via CSM using the ideal Haldane picture for both GCE and CE. The next challenge is to find the exact fluctuation using combinatorics. This has been done for free fermions which correspond to interacting bosons with interacting strength of $`g=1`$ . Work is in progress to calculate this exact fluctuation for a general $`g`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

Two of us (RKB and MNT) thank the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, where part of this work was done, for hospitality. This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.

## Appendix: Low temperature expansions in GCE and CE

The low temperature behaviour of thermodynamic quantities in GCE are well known for bosonic systems. However, a comparison between GCE and CE calculations at low temperatures is not usually discussed for either Bose or Fermi systems. Further, making use of some asymptotic expansions, the CE fluctuation for bosons was earlier found to be linear right down to $`T=0`$. However, we give here the expansion of the fluctuation squared at low temperature in power of $`x`$, where $`x=e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}`$, and show that the CE fluctuation of bosons is in fact exponential at very low $`T`$. In GCE only expansion for fermions is possible, since the fluctuation tends to infinity at low temperature for bosons. Both expansions are possible in CE.

#### a Grand Canonical Ensemble:

In GCE the (fermionic) occupation number is:

$$n_k_{GCE}=\frac{1}{x^{(\mu ϵ_k)}+1}=\frac{1}{x^{(\mu k1/2)}+1}$$
(46)
for a one dimensional system. The ground state number fluctuation squared is given by:

$$(\delta N_0)^2_{GCE}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{k_F}{}}\frac{x^{(\mu k1/2)}}{\left[x^{(muk1/2)}+1\right]^2}$$
(47)
where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi level. At low temperatures, for the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator, $`\mu \mu _0=N`$. Therefore,

$$(\delta N_0)^2_{GCE}=\sqrt{x}2x+4x^{3/2}4x^2+6x^{5/2}8x^3+8x^{7/2}8x^4\mathrm{},N4.$$
(48)
Note that the first few terms are independent of $`N`$.

#### b Canonical Ensemble:

In CE the first and second moments of the occupation number are known :

$`n_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}}(\pm )^{j+1}x^{jϵ_k}Z_{Nj},`$ (49)
$`n_k^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}}(\pm )^{j+1}\left[j\pm (j1)\right]x^{jϵ_k}Z_{Nj},`$ (50)
where the upper and lower signs refer to bosons and fermions respectively. Summing over the ground states up the Fermi level gives the fermionic ground state number:

$$N_0_{CE}=\frac{1}{Z_N}\underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^{j+1}x^{j/2}\frac{1x^{jN}}{1x^j}Z_{Nj},$$
(51)
where we let $`ϵ_k=k1/2`$, with $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Therefore,

$`(\delta N_0)^2_{CE}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}n_k{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}n_k^2`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`x+2x^4+\mathrm{},N4,`$ (53)
where we have used $`n_k=n_k^2`$ and again the first few terms are independent of the system size $`N`$.

For bosons the ground state consists of one single lowest level, the low temperature expansion of the number fluctuation is given by

$`(\delta N_0)^2_{CE}`$ $`=`$ $`n_0^2n_0^2`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`x+3x^2+4x^3+7x^4+\mathrm{},N>4.`$ (55)
Again as in the fermionic case the first few terms in the low temperature expansions are independent of the system size. Indeed it is interesting to note that in CE, the fluctuations in both the systems approach zero as $`T0`$ in exactly identical fashion.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Electron positron annihilation into hadrons has played an important role in the development of modern particle physics. Precise knowledge of the cross section is essential for many purposes, in particular for the determination of the hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and for running the fine-structure constant up to $`M_Z`$ to analyse electroweak precision measurements.

At high energies, the inclusive cross section can be calculated in QCD. It provides one of the standard tests of QCD allowing for the extraction of the strong coupling constant. At energies below approximately 2 GeV, the different exclusive channels are measured separately. As perturbative QCD cannot be applied to those exclusive processes the theoretical challenge consists in modeling them in a way that is at least consistent with QCD.

At very low energies ($`E<<`$ 1 GeV), the most reliable approach is furnished by chiral perturbation theory (CHPT), the systematic low-energy effective theory  of the standard model. Although the low-energy expansion of CHPT breaks down at typical hadronic scales of $`O(M_\rho )`$ it can still provide important constraints how to match the low-energy amplitudes on to the intermediate-energy region governed by meson resonance exchange . A simple but very illustrative example is the pion form factor measured in $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ that can be continued from threshold to the region beyond 1 GeV in a straightforward way .

Inspired by this success and by the phenomenological importance of four-pion production, especially for the calculation of $`\alpha (E)`$, we have undertaken a systematic study of $`e^+e^{}4\pi `$ in CHPT (with the two possible charge configurations $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$). At first sight, this does not appear very promising with the threshold $`E=4M_\pi 560`$ MeV already in the vicinity of the most prominent meson resonance, the $`\rho `$ meson. However, once again the chiral amplitudes of $`O(p^4)`$ can be continued into the resonance region and the decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho 4\pi )`$ can be calculated with reasonable accuracy. We will also consider the energy dependence of cross sections for $`E`$ 1 GeV.

There is an essential difference between the two- and four-pion modes. Whereas the two-pion amplitude is completely dominated by $`\rho `$ exchange even beyond 1 GeV the situation is much more involved for four-pion final states where at least $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange are relevant (e.g., Refs. ). It is then all the more important to have unambiguous theoretical guidelines for the construction of those amplitudes such as the correct low-energy behaviour dictated by QCD.

In addition to electron positron annihilation, multi-pion final states can also be studied in $`\tau `$ decays (for reviews of the theory see, e.g., Refs. ). In the limit of isospin symmetry that will be assumed throughout this paper both the two- and the four-pion modes are related. There is again an important difference between the two modes. Whereas the annihilation amplitude and the decay amplitude for two pions in the final states are in one-to-one correspondence the situation is more subtle in the four-pion case : given the amplitude for $`e^+e^{}2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ or for $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau 2\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, the three remaining annihilation and decay amplitudes are uniquely determined but not vice versa. Therefore, in the isospin limit it is sufficient for a complete determination of all four amplitudes to construct the amplitude for the $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel only. All calculations in this paper will be performed for this particular channel.

In Sec. 2 we collect the kinematics, matrix elements and cross sections for the process $`e^+e^{}4\pi `$. We recall the isospin relations relating $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\tau `$ decays into four pions. To make Bose symmetry and $`C`$ invariance manifest, we express all matrix elements in terms of a reduced amplitude that reduces the size of the various amplitudes roughly by a factor four. The leading-order amplitudes of $`O(p^2)`$ for both $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\tau `$ decays are presented in Sec. 3. The matrix elements of $`O(p^4)`$, consisting of both one-loop and tree-level contributions, are calculated in Sec. 4. The structure of the local amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ determines the resonance exchange amplitudes generated by $`\rho `$ and scalar exchange. The relevant chiral resonance Lagrangian and the resulting matrix elements are presented in Sec. 5. To extend the amplitudes into the resonance region, additional contributions are necessary. In Sec. 6 we analyse double $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange to obtain the final amplitude. We collect the leading terms in the low-energy expansion of the pion form factor and we resum those terms to the complete $`\rho `$ dominated form factor. The energy dependent cross sections for the two channels and the partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^02\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^02\pi ^+2\pi ^{})`$ are analysed in Sec. 7. We compare our results with available data in the region 0.65 $`E`$(GeV) $``$ 1.05 and we discuss the necessary steps for proceeding to higher energies. Our conclusions are summarized in Sec. 8. Three appendices contain a discussion of the isospin relations, a brief summary of the two possibilities for incorporating spin-1 mesons in chiral Lagrangians and a collection of numerical input for the calculation of cross sections.

## 2 Kinematics and symmetries

The amplitude for the process

$$e^+(k_+)e^{}(k_{})\pi (p_1)\pi (p_2)\pi (p_3)\pi (p_4)$$

is written in the form

$$=\frac{e^2}{q^2+i\epsilon }\overline{v}(k_+)\gamma _\mu u(k_{})J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4),q=k_++k_{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i,$$
(2.1)
with $`J^\mu `$ the pionic matrix element of the electromagnetic current

$$J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=\pi (p_1)\pi (p_2)\pi (p_3)\pi (p_4)|J_{\mathrm{elm}}^\mu (0)|0.$$
(2.2)
The differential cross section is then given by (setting $`m_e=0`$)

$$d\sigma =\frac{\alpha ^2}{32\pi ^6q^6}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{d^3p_i}{2E_i})\delta ^{(4)}(q\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i)l^{\mu \nu }J_\mu J_\nu ^{}$$
(2.3)
with the leptonic tensor

$$l^{\mu \nu }=k_+^\mu k_{}^\nu +k_{}^\mu k_+^\nu \frac{q^2}{2}g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(2.4)
We will only be interested in the integrated cross sections $`\sigma (q^2)`$ where the appropriate statistical factors have to be applied for the two possible channels $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$.

With the charge assignments

$$\pi ^0(p_1)\pi ^0(p_2)\pi ^+(p_3)\pi ^{}(p_4),\pi ^+(p_1)\pi ^+(p_2)\pi ^{}(p_3)\pi ^{}(p_4),$$

a convenient set of Dalitz variables111The main convenience is in making symmetries manifest as discussed below. is

$`q^2,`$ $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2,`$ $`\nu =(p_3p_4)(p_1p_2)/2,`$ (2.5)
$`t_i=p_iq(i=1,\mathrm{},4).`$
There is a redundancy due to the relation $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}t_i=q^2`$ but especially for displaying symmetries of the amplitudes it is useful to keep the complete set. For compactness of notation, we will often express amplitudes in terms of the various scalar products instead of using $`s`$ and $`\nu `$.

In the isospin limit that will be assumed throughout this paper, the current matrix element for the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ channel can be expressed in terms of the matrix element for the $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel :

$`\pi ^0(p_1)\pi ^0(p_2)\pi ^+(p_3)\pi ^{}(p_4)|J_{\mathrm{elm}}^\mu (0)|0`$ $`:=`$ $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ (2.6)
$`\pi ^+(p_1)\pi ^+(p_2)\pi ^{}(p_3)\pi ^{}(p_4)|J_{\mathrm{elm}}^\mu (0)|0`$ $`=`$ $`J^\mu (p_1,p_3,p_2,p_4)+J^\mu (p_1,p_4,p_2,p_3)`$ (2.7)
$`+`$ $`J^\mu (p_2,p_3,p_1,p_4)+J^\mu (p_2,p_4,p_1,p_3).`$
Likewise, the matrix elements of the charged vector current relevant for $`\tau `$ decay can also be expressed in terms of $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ :

$`\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)\pi ^+(p_+)\pi ^0(p_0)|V_{\mathrm{cc}}^\mu (0)|0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\left\{J^\mu (p_+,p_1,p_2,p_0)+J^\mu (p_+,p_2,p_1,p_0)\right\}`$ (2.8)
$`\pi ^0(p_1)\pi ^0(p_2)\pi ^0(p_3)\pi ^{}(p_{})|V_{\mathrm{cc}}^\mu (0)|0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\{J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_{},p_3)`$ (2.9)
$`+`$ $`J^\mu (p_1,p_3,p_{},p_2)+J^\mu (p_2,p_3,p_{},p_1)\},`$
with the usual normalization of the charged vector current $`V_{\mathrm{cc}}^\mu =\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu u`$ in terms of quark fields. We come back to these matrix elements in Sec. 3 for the lowest-order chiral expansion.

In addition to isospin, the electromagnetic current matrix elements are also constrained by gauge invariance, Bose symmetry and $`C`$ invariance. It is sufficient to consider these symmetries in the $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel. Via the isospin relation (2.7), the matrix element for the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ final state is then automatically gauge invariant, Bose symmetric and odd under $`C`$. Of course, all these symmetries are implemented in CHPT so the following relations emerge automatically in the calculation and need not be imposed a posteriori.

Gauge invariance (vector current conservation) implies

$$q_\mu J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=0.$$
(2.10)
The remaining symmetry constraints for $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$,

$`\mathrm{Bose}\mathrm{symmetry}:`$ $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=J^\mu (p_2,p_1,p_3,p_4)`$ (2.11)
$`C\mathrm{invariance}:`$ $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_4,p_3),`$ (2.12)
can always be made manifest by writing

$`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`A^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)+A^\mu (p_2,p_1,p_3,p_4)`$ (2.13)
$`A^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_4,p_3)A^\mu (p_2,p_1,p_4,p_3)`$
in terms of a reduced amplitude $`A^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ that is not further constrained by $`C`$ invariance or Bose symmetry. In this paper, we shall express all amplitudes in terms of $`A^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$. This makes the sometimes quite elaborate matrix elements considerably more compact. Another simplification consists in dropping terms in $`A^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ and therefore also in $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ that are proportional to $`q^\mu `$. Of course, such terms cannot contribute to the differential cross section (2.3). Dropping such terms may lead to seeming violations of gauge invariance. It goes without saying that those terms can always be recovered uniquely for a given matrix element by imposing current conservation (2.10). This trivial remark will be relevant when calculating $`\tau `$ decay matrix elements via the isospin relations (2.8,2.9).

## 3 Amplitudes at leading order

At leading order in the low-energy expansion of the standard model, $`O(p^2)`$, the amplitudes for $`e^+e^{}4\pi `$ are determined by “virtual” bremsstrahlung. The corresponding diagrams shown in Fig. 1 are easily calculated from the chiral Lagrangian of $`O(p^2)`$ for chiral $`SU(2)`$

$$_2=\frac{F^2}{4}D_\mu UD^\mu U^{}+\chi U^{}+\chi ^{}U.$$
(3.1)
The notation is standard (see, e.g., Ref. ). For our purposes, the covariant derivative of the pion matrix field $`U`$ contains only the external electromagnetic field $`A^\mu `$. The scalar field $`\chi `$ is proportional to the light quark mass $`\widehat{m}`$ (we set $`m_u=m_d:=\widehat{m}`$) and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the 2-dimensional trace:

$`D^\mu U`$ $`=`$ $`^\mu U+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}eA^\mu [\tau _3,U]`$
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`2B\widehat{m}\mathrm{𝟏}=M^2\mathrm{𝟏}=M_\pi ^2[1+O(\widehat{m})]\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`F_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`F[1+O(\widehat{m})]=92.4\mathrm{MeV}`$
$`0|\overline{u}u|0`$ $`=`$ $`F^2B[1+O(\widehat{m})].`$ (3.2)
As discussed in Sec. 2, we express our results in terms of the basic amplitude $`A^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ defined in (2.13) that determines all matrix elements of interest (2.6), …, (2.9). For the tree-level amplitude of $`O(p^2)`$ corresponding to the diagrams of Fig. 1 one finds

$$A_{(2)}^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=\frac{sM_\pi ^2}{F_\pi ^2}\frac{p_3^\mu }{2t_3q^2}.$$
(3.3)
The complete current matrix element (2.6) at $`O(p^2)`$ is therefore given by

$$J_{(2)}^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=\frac{sM_\pi ^2}{F_\pi ^2}\left(\frac{2p_3^\mu }{2t_3q^2}\frac{2p_4^\mu }{2t_4q^2}\right).$$
(3.4)
We have used the physical quantities $`M_\pi ,F_\pi `$ in these matrix elements. The renormalization of $`M,F`$ to $`M_\pi ,F_\pi `$ is an effect of at least $`O(p^4)`$ and will of course be included in the amplitudes of next-to-leading order.

The matrix element (3.4) has an obvious interpretation: $`(sM_\pi ^2)/F_\pi ^2`$ is the leading-order amplitude for $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and the second factor reduces to the usual bremsstrahlung factor for real photons ($`q^20`$). Although we do not discuss $`\tau 4\pi `$ decays in any detail here, we also display the tree-level current matrix elements (2.8), (2.9), after repairing gauge invariance in (3.4) by adding the appropriate amplitude proportional to $`q^\mu `$:

$`\pi ^{}(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)\pi ^+(p_+)\pi ^0(p_0)|V_{\mathrm{cc}}^\mu (0)|0`$ $`=`$ (3.5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{F_\pi ^2}}\left\{2(p_+^\mu +p_0^\mu )+2R^\mu (p_0)p_+(qp_0)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}R^\mu (p_i)[2p_0(qp_i)M_\pi ^2]\right\}`$
$`\pi ^0(p_1)\pi ^0(p_2)\pi ^0(p_3)\pi ^{}(p_{})|V_{\mathrm{cc}}^\mu (0)|0`$ $`=`$ (3.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{F_\pi ^2}}\left\{4p_{}^\mu M_\pi ^2R^\mu (p_{}){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}R^\mu (p_i)[2p_{}(qp_i)M_\pi ^2]\right\}`$
$`R^\mu (p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu 2p^\mu }{q^22pq}}.`$
In the chiral limit ($`M_\pi =0`$), these matrix elements have the same structure as in the standard reference on the subject . There are two misprints in Ref.  that have propagated into some of the subsequent literature: Eqs. (2.9a) and (2.9b) of Ref.  must be multiplied by the same factor $`\sqrt{2}/(3\sqrt{3})`$. We have checked the matrix elements (3.5), (3.6) also by direct computation from the chiral Lagrangian (3.1) (adding the appropriate external charged vector field).

The amplitudes of $`O(p^2)`$ define the low-energy limit that all amplitudes must satisfy in order to be consistent with QCD. By themselves, they cannot be expected to provide a realistic approximation to the physical amplitudes except in the immediate threshold region. Naive extrapolation to the resonance region yields cross sections that are much smaller than the available experimental cross sections .

## 4 Next-to-leading order

At $`O(p^4)`$, the amplitudes consist of the usual two parts: the first one from one-loop diagrams with vertices of the lowest-order Lagrangian (3.1) and a second one from tree-level diagrams with exactly one vertex of the chiral Lagrangian of $`O(p^4)`$:

$$A_{(4)}^\mu =A_{(4)\mathrm{loop}}^\mu +A_{(4)\mathrm{tree}}^\mu .$$
(4.1)
The loop amplitudes are calculated from diagrams of the general form displayed in Fig. 2 where a virtual photon must be appended wherever possible. For the loop amplitude we have used a compact representation of the one-loop generating functional for chiral $`SU(2)`$ with at most three propagators  (of $`O(\varphi ^6)`$ in the notation of Refs. ). We have checked the result in the limit of a real photon ($`q^2=0`$) by comparing with the general formulas for radiative four-meson amplitudes . Even the reduced amplitude $`A_{(4)\mathrm{loop}}^\mu `$ is quite lengthy and we refer to Ref.  for the explicit form. Our excuse for not reproducing it here is that that the one-loop amplitude will play a relatively minor role for the cross sections in the experimentally accessible region that we consider in this paper (0.65 $`E`$(GeV) $``$ 1.05).

The relevant part of the chiral $`SU(2)`$ Lagrangian of $`O(p^4)`$ is given by  (in the notation of, e.g., Ref. )

$`_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_1}{4}}u^\mu u_\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{l_2}{4}}u_\mu u_\nu u^\mu u^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{l_3}{16}}\chi _+^2`$ (4.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{il_4}{4}}u_\mu \chi _{}^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{il_6}{4}}f_+^{\mu \nu }[u_\mu ,u_\nu ].`$
The low-energy constants (LECs) $`l_1,l_2`$ appear in the (radiative) $`\pi \pi `$ amplitudes, $`l_3,l_4`$ enter through renormalization of the pion mass and decay constant and $`l_6`$ governs the pion charge radius term in the expansion of the pion form factor. The diagrams are the same as in Fig. 1 except that exactly one vertex from (4.2) must be inserted, with at most one other vertex from the lowest-order Lagrangian (3.1). The result expressed in terms of the reduced amplitude $`A_{(4)\mathrm{tree}}^\mu `$ is as follows:

$`F_\pi ^4A_{(4)\mathrm{tree}}^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{l}_2(\nu t_3)p_1^\mu `$
$`+\{2\stackrel{~}{l}_1(s^24sM_\pi ^2+4M_\pi ^4)+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{l}_2}{2}}(s^22t_1t_2+2t_1^28t_1\nu +4\nu ^2(q^22t_3)^2)`$
$`+2\stackrel{~}{l}_3M_\pi ^4+2\stackrel{~}{l}_4(sM_\pi ^2M_\pi ^4)+\stackrel{~}{l}_6q^2(M_\pi ^2s)\}{\displaystyle \frac{p_3^\mu }{2t_3q^2}}.`$
We have included in $`A_{(4)\mathrm{tree}}^\mu `$ the chiral logs from the loop diagrams. The quantities $`\stackrel{~}{l}_i`$, the amplitude (4) and the loop amplitude $`A_{(4)\mathrm{loop}}^\mu `$ are then separately scale independent:

$`\stackrel{~}{l}_1=l_1^r(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{\mu ^2}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{l}_2=l_2^r(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{\mu ^2}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{l}_3=l_1^r(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{\mu ^2}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{l}_4=l_4^r(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{\mu ^2}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{l}_6=l_6^r(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi ^2}{\mu ^2}}.`$ (4.4)
For the numerical analysis, we use the following values for the LECs that correspond to the one-loop analysis in Ref. :

$`\stackrel{~}{l}_1=2.0\times 10^3,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{l}_2=1.1\times 10^2,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{l}_3=4.6\times 10^3,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{l}_4=2.8\times 10^2,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{l}_6=1.7\times 10^2.`$ (4.5)
The $`O(p^4)`$ cross sections constructed from the amplitude

$$A^\mu =A_{(2)}^\mu +A_{(4)\mathrm{loop}}^\mu +A_{(4)\mathrm{tree}}^\mu $$
(4.6)
are shown as dotted curves in Figs. 7,8 for the energy range 0.65 $`E`$(GeV) $``$ 1.05. Comparison with the available data for the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ channel  indicates that the theoretical cross sections are still too small. The reason is clear: the amplitudes of $`O(p^4)`$ contain only the low-energy remainders of resonance exchange. We have to include meson resonance exchange explicitly if we want to extrapolate the chiral amplitudes to the 1 GeV region.

## 5 Resonance amplitudes generated at $`𝐎(𝐩^\mathrm{𝟒})`$

The renormalized LECs $`l_i^r(\mu )`$ as well as their $`SU(3)`$ counterparts are known to be dominated by meson resonance exchange  at typical scales $`\mu M_\rho `$. The tree-level amplitude (4) of $`O(p^4)`$ therefore specifies how to extend the amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ into the resonance region. In the $`SU(3)`$ notation, the relevant part of the resonance Lagrangian is given by :

$`[V(1^{}),A(1^{++}),S(0^{++})]`$ $`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{kin}}[V,A,S,S_1]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_V}{2\sqrt{2}}}V_{\mu \nu }f_+^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{iG_V}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{F_A}{2\sqrt{2}}}A_{\mu \nu }f_{}^{\mu \nu }`$
$`+c_dSu_\mu u^\mu +c_mS\chi _++\stackrel{~}{c}_dS_1u_\mu u^\mu +\stackrel{~}{c}_mS_1\chi _+.`$
The octets of vector and axial-vector mesons $`V(1^{}),A(1^{++})`$ are described by antisymmetric tensor fields $`V_{\mu \nu },A_{\mu \nu }`$ (see App. B). $`S,S_1`$ are the scalar octet and singlet fields, respectively. Resonance exchange dominance of the LECs at a scale $`\mu =M_\rho `$ amounts to the following relations:

$`l_1^r(M_\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_V^2}{M_\rho ^2}}+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}_d^2}{M_\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_d^2}{6M_{f_0}^2}}\right)`$
$`l_2^r(M_\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_V^2}{M_\rho ^2}}`$
$`l_3^r(M_\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`8\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}_m^2\stackrel{~}{c}_d\stackrel{~}{c}_m}{M_\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_m^2c_dc_m}{6M_{f_0}^2}}\right)`$
$`l_4^r(M_\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`8\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}_d\stackrel{~}{c}_m}{M_\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_dc_m}{6M_{f_0}^2}}\right)`$
$`l_6^r(M_\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_VG_V}{M_\rho ^2}}.`$ (5.2)
We have omitted the small contributions from kaon and eta loops . The axial coupling $`F_A`$ does not enter at this order but will be needed in the following section. At the $`SU(2)`$ level, there is of course no distinction between the $`SU(2)`$ singlet in $`S`$ and the $`SU(3)`$ singlet $`S_1`$. We associate the singlet field in $`S`$ with the $`f_0`$ and the $`SU(3)`$ singlet with the putative $`\sigma `$ meson. The overall contribution from scalar exchange turns out to be very small so that the issue of scalar mixing with or without glueballs  has no impact on our amplitudes in practice.

We use $`M_\rho =0.775`$ GeV and the following values for the vector couplings $`F_V,G_V`$:

$`F_V=0.14\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`G_V=0.066\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (5.3)
$`G_V`$ is obtained from the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \pi )`$= 0.15 GeV. The chosen value for $`F_V`$ is the mean value of two possible determinations from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^0e^+e^{})`$ and from the pion charge radius, respectively . These values compare well with the theoretically favoured values

$`F_V=\sqrt{2}F_\pi =0.13\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`G_V=F_\pi /\sqrt{2}=0.065\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (5.4)
In the scalar sector, we use

$`c_d=0.032\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`c_m=0.042\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}_i=c_i/\sqrt{3}(i=d,m),`$ (5.5)
with the latter nonet relation holding in the large-$`N_c`$ limit.

In the tree-level amplitude (4) of $`O(p^4)`$ the renormalized LECs $`l_i^r(M_\rho )`$ are now set to zero and only the chiral logs of Eq. (4.4) are kept. Instead, the explicit resonance exchange diagrams in Fig. 3 are calculated giving rise to amplitudes $`A_\rho ^\mu `$ and $`A_S^\mu `$, thereby matching the $`O(p^4)`$ amplitude on to the resonance region:

$`F_\pi ^4A_\rho ^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$
$`4G_V^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_3^\mu p_1p_2p_1^\mu p_2p_3}{D_\rho [(p_1+p_3)^2]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2p_3^\mu [p_1p_4(p_2p_3t_2)p_1p_2(p_3p_4t_4)]}{(2t_3q^2)D_\rho [(p_2+p_4)^2]}}\right\}`$
$`+F_VG_V(p_3^\mu t_1p_1^\mu t_3)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_\rho (q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_\rho [(p_1+p_3)^2]}}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_VG_Vq^2(sM_\pi ^2)}{D_\rho (q^2)(2t_3q^2)}}p_3^\mu `$
$$F_\pi ^4A_S^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)=\underset{S=f_0,\sigma }{}\frac{2[(s2M_\pi ^2)c_d^S+2M_\pi ^2c_m^S]^2}{3(2t_3q^2)D_S(s)}p_3^\mu ,$$
(5.7)
with scalar couplings

$`c_i^{f_0}=c_i,`$ $`c_i^\sigma =\sqrt{6}\stackrel{~}{c}_i`$ $`(i=d,m)`$ (5.8)
and propagators with energy dependent widths

$`D_P(t)`$ $`=`$ $`M_P^2tiM_P\mathrm{\Gamma }_P(t)`$ (5.9)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_\rho t}{96\pi F_\pi ^2}}(14M_\pi ^2/t)^{3/2}\theta (t4M_\pi ^2)`$ (5.10)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S{\displaystyle \frac{t(14M_\pi ^2/t)^{1/2}}{M_S^2(14M_\pi ^2/M_S^2)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{\Theta }(t4M_\pi ^2).`$ (5.11)
In the numerical analysis, we take

$`M_{f_0}=0.98\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}=0.05\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`M_\sigma =0.6\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =0.6\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (5.12)
Finally, we recall that $`F_VG_V`$ and $`c_dc_m`$ are both positive .

At this point, the amplitude $`A^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ takes the following form:

$$A^\mu =A_{(2)}^\mu +A_{(4)\mathrm{loop}}^\mu +\widehat{A}_{(4)\mathrm{tree}}^\mu +A_\rho ^\mu +A_S^\mu $$
(5.13)
where the amplitude $`\widehat{A}_{(4)\mathrm{tree}}^\mu `$ contains only the chiral logs in (4.4) for $`\mu =M_\rho `$. The renormalized LECs $`l_i^r(M_\rho )`$ have been traded for the explicit resonance exchange amplitudes $`A_\rho ^\mu ,A_S^\mu `$. The resulting cross sections are more realistic than the strictly $`O(p^4)`$ cross sections from the amplitude (4.6), but they are still too small in comparison with the available data around 1 GeV .

## 6 Beyond $`𝐎(𝐩^\mathrm{𝟒})`$

There must be additional ingredients in the amplitudes that make important contributions to the cross sections already for energies below 1 GeV. To the extent that the LECs $`l_i^r(M_\rho )`$ are known to be dominated by $`\rho `$ (and scalar) exchange as given in Eqs. (5.2), those additional amplitudes must vanish222Small additional contributions to the LECs of $`O(p^4)`$ are possible and even expected, e.g. from $`\rho ^{}`$ exchange. to $`O(p^4)`$. We will try to locate the dominant contributions that appear first at $`O(p^6)`$ but in contrast to the previous section we cannot claim completeness here. At this order, also diagrams with more than one meson resonance contribute. Even for single resonance exchange, a complete analysis of $`O(p^6)`$ is not available at present.

However, we may turn to existing phenomenological treatments  for guidance. In addition to the obvious $`\rho `$ (and the less important scalar) exchange, the data  clearly indicate the presence of $`\omega `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange.

### 6.1 Double $`\rho `$ exchange

The resonance Lagrangian (5) also generates amplitudes starting at $`O(p^6)`$ with two $`\rho `$ mesons exchanged. The corresponding diagrams are displayed in Fig. 4. The diagram where the virtual photon couples to $`\rho ^+\rho ^{}`$ is actually required by gauge invariance because the (charged) vector mesons are dynamical fields here. The diagrams of Fig. 3 produce a gauge invariant amplitude in the strict $`O(p^4)`$ limit only where the resonance propagators shrink to points. Although of different chiral order, the amplitudes of Figs. 3 and 4 must be added for a meaningful amplitude in the resonance region.

All couplings needed for the diagrams of Fig. 4 have already been defined. The (reduced) double $`\rho `$ exchange amplitude has the explicit form

$`F_\pi ^4A_{\rho \rho }^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_V^2}{D_\rho [(p_1+p_3)^2]D_\rho [(p_2+p_4)^2]}}\{p_2^\mu (M_\pi ^2+p_1p_3)(p_1p_3)p_4`$
$`+p_3^\mu (M_\pi ^2+p_2p_4)p_1(p_2p_4)\}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_VG_V}{D_\rho (q^2)D_\rho [(p_2+p_4)^2]}}\{p_2^\mu q^2(p_1p_3)p_4+p_4^\mu q^2p_2(p_3p_1)`$
$`+[(p_1p_3)^\mu (t_4t_2)(p_2p_4)^\mu (t_3t_1)](M_\pi ^2+p_2p_4)\}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8F_VG_V^3q^2}{F_\pi ^2D_\rho (q^2)D_\rho [(p_2+p_4)^2](2t_3q^2)}}p_3^\mu \left\{p_1p_4(p_2p_3t_2)p_1p_2(p_3p_4t_4)\right\}.`$
Putting together the lowest-order amplitude $`A_{(2)}^\mu `$ in (3.3) and the single and double $`\rho `$ exchange amplitudes $`A_\rho ^\mu `$, $`A_{\rho \rho }^\mu `$ in (5), (6.1), one observes that some terms can be combined as the leading terms in the low-energy expansion of the pion form factor in view of the relation $`F_VG_VF_\pi ^2`$ :

$$F_\pi (q^2)=1+\frac{F_VG_Vq^2}{F_\pi ^2D_\rho (q^2)}+\frac{i}{M_\rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)+\mathrm{}\frac{M_\rho ^2}{D_\rho (q^2)}.$$
(6.2)
We have included the leading-order absorptive part $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q^2)/M_\rho `$ that is contained in the one-loop amplitude $`A_{(4)\mathrm{loop}}^\mu `$ in one case and is of higher order in the other case. Replacing the expansion terms on the left-hand side of (6.2) by the usual $`\rho `$ dominance form (the right-hand side of Eq. (6.2)) is equivalent to the order considered. Of course, the partial resummation yields a phenomenologically much more realistic amplitude. A similar resummation applies to the scalar exchange amplitude. We therefore express the combined $`\rho `$ and scalar exchange amplitude in the following form

$$\left(A_{(2)}^\mu +A_S^\mu \right)M_\rho ^2/D_\rho (q^2)+\widehat{A}_\rho ^\mu +\widehat{A}_{\rho \rho }^\mu .$$
(6.3)
The modified single and double $`\rho `$ exchange amplitudes are now given by

$`F_\pi ^4\widehat{A}_\rho ^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ (6.4)
$`4G_V^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_3^\mu p_1p_2p_1^\mu p_2p_3}{D_\rho [(p_1+p_3)^2]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2p_3^\mu [p_1p_4(p_2p_3t_2)p_1p_2(p_3p_4t_4)]M_\rho ^2}{(2t_3q^2)D_\rho [(p_2+p_4)^2]D_\rho (q^2)}}\right\}`$
$`+F_VG_V(p_3^\mu t_1p_1^\mu t_3)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_\rho (q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_\rho [(p_1+p_3)^2]}}\right\}`$
$`F_\pi ^4\widehat{A}_{\rho \rho }^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ (6.5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_V^2}{D_\rho [(p_1+p_3)^2]D_\rho [(p_2+p_4)^2]}}\{p_2^\mu (M_\pi ^2+p_1p_3)(p_1p_3)p_4`$
$`+p_3^\mu (M_\pi ^2+p_2p_4)p_1(p_2p_4)\}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_VG_V}{D_\rho (q^2)D_\rho [(p_2+p_4)^2]}}\{p_2^\mu q^2(p_1p_3)p_4+p_4^\mu q^2p_2(p_3p_1)`$
$`+[(p_1p_3)^\mu (t_4t_2)(p_2p_4)^\mu (t_3t_1)](M_\pi ^2+p_2p_4)\}.`$
The leading-order absorptive part of the pion form factor must be subtracted from the one-loop amplitude yielding a modified loop amplitude $`\widehat{A}_{(4)\mathrm{loop}}^\mu `$.

### 6.2 $`\omega `$ exchange: vector meson dominance

Vector meson dominance (VMD) for $`\omega `$ decays postulates the dominant role of an $`\omega \rho \pi `$ coupling . We write the corresponding Lagrangian (unique to lowest order in derivatives) as

$$(\omega \rho \pi )=g_{\omega \rho \pi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\omega ^\mu ^\nu \stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\rho }^{\rho \sigma }.$$
(6.6)
In this case, it is more convenient to describe the $`\omega `$ in terms of a vector field $`\omega ^\mu `$ (see App. B).

The decay $`\omega \rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ proceeds with a rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )=\frac{\alpha g_{\omega \rho \pi }^2F_V^2}{6M_\omega ^3M_\rho ^4}\left(M_\omega ^2M_\pi ^2\right)^3.$$
(6.7)
The measured partial width  corresponds to $`|g_{\omega \rho \pi }|=5.0`$. On the other hand, the dominant decay chain $`\omega \rho \pi 3\pi `$ leads to $`|g_{\omega \rho \pi }|=5.7`$. A small direct $`\omega 3\pi `$ amplitude is allowed but VMD clearly accounts for the dominant features of both decays.

For $`e^+e^{}4\pi `$, the relevant $`\omega `$ exchange diagram is shown in Fig. 5.

It gives rise to a (reduced) amplitude

$`A_\omega ^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8F_VG_Vg_{\omega \rho \pi }^2}{F_\pi ^2D_\rho (q^2)D_\omega [(qp_1)^2]}}\left\{p_2^\mu t_4p_1p_3+p_3^\mu (t_4p_1p_2t_2p_1p_4)\right\}`$ (6.8)
$`\left\{D_\rho ^1[(p_2+p_3)^2]+D_\rho ^1[(p_2+p_4)^2]+D_\rho ^1[(p_3+p_4)^2]\right\}.`$
In view of the small value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega =`$ 8.44 MeV  we employ an energy independent width in the propagator function $`D_\omega [(qp_1)^2]`$. The amplitude (6.8) completely dominates the cross section for $`e^+e^{}2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ around 1 GeV in accordance with experimental findings . In order to appreciate the size of this amplitude of $`O(p^6)`$, we compare it to a typical $`\rho `$ exchange amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ as given in (5). By naive chiral counting, the dimensionless quantity $`c_\omega `$ defined by

$$\frac{c_\omega }{(4\pi F_\pi )^2}=\frac{24g_{\omega \rho \pi }^2F_\pi ^2}{M_\omega ^2M_\rho ^2}$$
(6.9)
would be expected to be of $`O(1)`$. With $`|g_{\omega \rho \pi }|=5.7`$ one finds instead $`|c_\omega |=24`$, quite a drastic deviation from naive chiral counting. The sign of the $`\omega `$ exchange amplitude (6.8) is fixed by the positive sign of $`F_VG_V`$ . Of course, the corresponding amplitude due to $`\varphi `$ exchange is completely negligible.

### 6.3 $`𝐚_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ exchange

Although $`\omega `$ exchange dominates the cross section for the $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final state it does not contribute to the other channel $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$. Here $`a_1`$ exchange will play an important role. We follow the usual VMD assumption that the dominant decay mode $`a_13\pi `$ proceeds via an intermediate $`\rho `$.

Contrary to $`\omega \rho \pi `$, there are several possible chiral couplings for the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ vertex. The ideal place to analyse this vertex is the process $`\tau \nu _\tau 3\pi `$ and such an analysis is under way . In the tensor field formalism, there are altogether five a priori independent $`a_1\rho \pi `$ couplings of lowest possible chiral order . Two of them give the same amplitudes in our case and another one is proportional to $`M_\pi ^2`$ and therefore vanishes in the chiral limit . We will restrict ourselves here to the remaining terms that boil down to the following Lagrangian for the charged $`a_1`$ fields (the neutral $`a_1`$ cannot be exchanged in the diagrams of Fig. 6):

$`(a_1^+\rho \pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_2}{M_{a_1}}}a_1^{+\mu \nu }\left(\rho _{\nu \lambda }^0_\mu ^\lambda \pi ^{}\rho _{\nu \lambda }^{}_\mu ^\lambda \pi ^0\right)`$ (6.10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_3}{M_{a_1}}}a_1^{+\mu \nu }\left(^\lambda \rho _{\nu \lambda }^0_\mu \pi ^{}^\lambda \rho _{\nu \lambda }^{}_\mu \pi ^0\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_4}{M_{a_1}}}a_1^{+\mu \nu }\left(_\mu \rho _{\lambda \nu }^0^\lambda \pi ^{}_\mu \rho _{\lambda \nu }^{}^\lambda \pi ^0\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
with dimensionless couplings $`c_2,c_3,c_4`$.

The analysis of $`\tau \nu _\tau 3\pi `$ that should determine or at least relate the constants $`c_i`$ is not yet available . In order to proceed, we make the simplifying assumption that the couplings are all equal:

$`c_2=c_3=c_4.`$ (6.11)
From the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_1\rho \pi 3\pi )`$, accounting for the finite $`\rho `$ width, we find

$$|c_2|=319[\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_13\pi )/0.5\mathrm{GeV}]^{1/2}.$$
(6.12)
The surprisingly large value of $`|c_2|`$ is due to the fact that the (off-shell) $`a_1\rho \pi 3\pi `$ vertex function vanishes in the chiral limit for the choice (6.11), as long as the pions are on-shell. Although this property is certainly not required by chiral symmetry it has interesting implications for the high-energy behaviour of the $`\tau \nu _\tau 3\pi `$ amplitude . In this case, the neglected coupling proportional to $`M_\pi ^2`$ should be added in a complete analysis of the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ vertex. We have also investigated other choices for the couplings $`c_i`$: the resulting cross sections are always smaller than for the choice (6.11).

As shown in Fig. 6, there are two $`a_1`$ exchange diagrams that must be taken into account here. The first one has a direct $`a_1\pi \gamma `$ coupling $`F_A`$ defined in the resonance Lagrangian (5). We take the theoretically favoured value  $`F_A=F_\pi `$ for this coupling. In addition, also the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ couplings in (6.10) contribute to the radiative decay $`a_1\pi \gamma `$. For the choice (6.11) we obtain an effective coupling

$$F_A^{\mathrm{eff}}=F_A\frac{c_2F_VF_\pi M_\pi ^2}{M_{a_1}M_\rho ^2},$$
(6.13)
with the two terms approximately equal in magnitude. Requiring constructive interference (sgn$`(c_2F_AF_VF_\pi )<0`$), the resulting partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_1\pi \gamma )`$ is larger than the PDG value of 640 keV (based on a single experiment) by about a factor 2.5 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_13\pi )=`$ 0.5 GeV.

The (reduced) amplitude $`A_{a_1}^\lambda (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ from the two diagrams in Fig. 6 is in an obvious notation given by

$`A_{a_1}^\lambda (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_L^{\lambda \mu \nu }N_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(qp_4)V_R^{\rho \sigma }}{M_{a_1}^2D_{a_1}[(qp_4)^2]D_\rho [(p_1+p_3)^2]}}`$ (6.14)
$`V_L^{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_V}{M_{a_1}D_\rho (q^2)}}\left[c_2p_4^\mu (t_4g^{\lambda \nu }p_4^\lambda q^\nu )c_3q^2p_4^\mu g^{\lambda \nu }+c_4t_4q^\mu g^{\lambda \nu }\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_A}{F_\pi }}q^\mu g^{\lambda \nu }`$
$`N_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \sigma }(M_{a_1}^2k^2)+g_{\mu \rho }k_\nu k_\sigma g_{\mu \sigma }k_\nu k_\rho (\mu \nu )`$
$`V_R^{\rho \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2G_V}{F_\pi ^2M_{a_1}}}\{c_2(p_1p_2p_2^\rho p_3^\sigma p_2p_3p_2^\rho p_1^\sigma )+c_3(p_1p_3+M_\pi ^2)p_2^\rho (p_3^\sigma p_1^\sigma )`$
$`+c_4p_2(p_1+p_3)p_3^\rho p_1^\sigma \}.`$
The relative signs in this amplitude are determined by the choice (6.11), the constructive interference in (6.13) and by $`F_VG_V>0`$ .

The energy dependence of the $`a_1`$ width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1}(t)`$ has also a considerable numerical impact. Awaiting the results of Ref. , we assume for the present analysis the functional form (all numbers are to be understood in appropriate units of GeV) suggested by Kühn and Santamaria :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1}g(t)/g(M_{a_1}^2)`$
$`g(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(1.623t+10.389.23/t+0.65/t^2)\mathrm{\Theta }[t(M_\rho +M_\pi )^2]`$
$`+4.1(t9M_\pi ^2)^3[13.3(t9M_\pi ^2)+5.8(t9M_\pi ^2)^2]\mathrm{\Theta }(t9M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Theta }[(M_\rho +M_\pi )^2t].`$
Putting all contributions together, we arrive at our final amplitude

$$A_{\mathrm{final}}^\mu =\left\{A_{(2)}^\mu +A_S^\mu \right\}M_\rho ^2/D_\rho (q^2)+\widehat{A}_{(4)\mathrm{loop}}^\mu +\widehat{A}_{(4)\mathrm{tree}}^\mu +\widehat{A}_\rho ^\mu +\widehat{A}_{\rho \rho }^\mu +A_\omega ^\mu +A_{a_1}^\mu .$$
(6.16)
This amplitude has the correct low-energy behaviour to $`O(p^4)`$ and is expected to contain the relevant ingredients for an extrapolation to the 1 GeV region.

## 7 Cross sections and decay rates

In Fig. 7 we compare our results for the cross section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}2\pi ^+2\pi ^{})`$ with available data taken from Ref. . The dotted curve corresponds to the strictly $`O(p^4)`$ amplitude (4.6) and the full curve is the cross section for the final amplitude (6.16). Whereas the dotted curve is definitely too low the full curve agrees well with experimental data up to 1 GeV. The more pronounced rise of the full curve is mainly due to $`a_1`$ exchange. The $`\rho `$ exchange amplitude generated at $`O(p^4)`$ is also important, to a lesser extent also the lowest-order amplitude with resummed pion form factor. Loops and chiral logs are much less important. Finally, scalar exchange contributes very little to the cross section and double $`\rho `$ exchange does not contribute at all in this channel.

At low energies where our amplitude should be most reliable the predicted cross section is below the shaded band in Fig. 7. That band  describes an extrapolation from data at higher energies  with a non-chiral resonance model.

The analogous theoretical results for $`\sigma (e^+e^{}2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ are shown in Fig. 8. Although there are so far no data in the region below 1 GeV the theoretical cross section (full curve) connects well with the data starting at 1 GeV . For this channel, the much steeper rise compared to the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ mode is almost exclusively due to $`\omega `$ exchange. $`a_1`$ exchange, even though less important here, interferes constructively with $`\omega `$ exchange in the 1 GeV region. All other contributions are very small there.

Near the $`\rho `$ pole, the amplitudes are of course completely dominated by the resonant parts containing the propagator function $`D_\rho ^1(q^2)`$. The cross sections at $`E=M_\rho `$ therefore determine the branching ratios for $`\rho ^04\pi `$ according to the general formula

$$BR(\rho ^0f)=\frac{M_\rho ^2\sigma (e^+e^{}f)|_{E=M_\rho }}{12\pi BR(\rho ^0e^+e^{})}.$$
(7.1)
For the channel $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$, the relevant contributions are the lowest-order amplitude with pion form factor, single $`\rho `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange. There is a destructive interference between the modified lowest-order amplitude on the one hand and the two single-resonance exchange amplitudes at $`E=M_\rho `$. Except for $`a_1`$ exchange, this interference is dictated by the QCD structure of $`O(p^4)`$. Although the $`a_1`$ amplitude depends on our assumption (6.11) for the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ vertex the relative sign to the other two amplitudes is also fixed. The situation is a little different in the $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel because of the additional $`\omega `$ exchange. In this channel, the interference pattern is: lowest-order amplitude with pion form factor + $`a_1`$ exchange – single $`\rho `$ exchange – $`\omega `$ exchange. Although the couplings involved are relatively well known we assign a 40 $`\%`$ error to the calculated branching ratios in view of the destructive interferences:

$`BR(\rho ^02\pi ^+2\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(6.7\pm 2.7)\times 10^6`$
$`BR(\rho ^02\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(5.0\pm 2.0)\times 10^6.`$ (7.2)
The result for the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ mode agrees within errors with the experimental value  (extracted from the cross section in Fig. 7 at $`E=M_\rho `$) although our mean value is almost a factor three smaller. For the $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel there is only an experimental upper limit  that is compatible with (7.2). There is a wide range of model predictions for the $`4\pi `$ decay modes of the $`\rho `$ as reviewed in Ref. .

We have plotted the cross sections only for energies $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ 1 GeV because our amplitudes do not have the correct high-energy behaviour. This manifests itself already in the 1 to 2 GeV region where our cross sections exceed the experimental cross sections .

Scaling all four-momenta in the same way and requiring that $`\sigma (e^+e^{}4\pi )`$ decreases at least as fast as (most likely faster than) $`1/E^2`$ at large energies to satisfy the asymptotic QCD constraint, one finds that the basic current matrix element $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ in (2.6) must vanish at large energies at least as $`1/E`$. This criterion is not even met by the lowest-order matrix element (3.4) although it is satisfied by the modified lowest-order amplitude in (6.3) due to the pion form factor.

In addition to resummations of parts of the amplitude, additional higher-mass states must be included in order to access the region up to 2 GeV and to satisfy the high-energy constraints of QCD. The Particle Data Group lists  many such resonances with the appropriate quantum numbers, e.g., $`\rho (1450)`$, $`\rho (1700)`$, $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1710)`$, $`\omega (1420)`$, $`\omega (1650)`$ and states with higher spins. In the spirit of duality, all those states are expected to conspire to produce the right asymptotic behaviour of the amplitudes at high energies.

## 8 Conclusions

We have performed the first calculation of the processes $`e^+e^{}4\pi `$ and $`\tau \nu _\tau 4\pi `$ with the correct structure to $`O(p^4)`$ in the low-energy expansion of the standard model. In addition to the proper low-energy structure, CHPT automatically produces amplitudes with all relevant symmetries of the standard model, in our case (spontaneously and softly broken) chiral symmetry, gauge invariance, Bose symmetry and $`C`$ invariance.

Although the chiral amplitude to $`O(p^4)`$ is only valid close to threshold it contains information how to extrapolate to the resonance region. This information on $`\rho `$ and scalar exchange is however not sufficient to describe the $`e^+e^{}`$ cross sections up to energies of around 1 GeV. We have therefore included as additional contributions $`\omega `$, $`a_1`$ and double $`\rho `$ exchange that first show up at $`O(p^6)`$. All necessary couplings were determined from the decay widths of the various resonances involved.

The predicted cross sections for $`E\stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ 1 GeV and the branching ratios $`BR(\rho ^04\pi )`$ are in good agreement with available data. Our amplitudes do not have an acceptable high-energy behaviour so that additional ingredients are needed (such as higher-mass resonance exchange) to make predictions in the phenomenologically interesting region up to 2 GeV.

In the isospin limit, the $`\tau `$ decay amplitudes can be calculated from the annihilation amplitude for the channel $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ . The comparison with $`\tau `$ decay data will be postponed until the proper high-energy behaviour has been implemented.

## Acknowledgements

We thank J. Portolés for informing us of his unpublished work with A. Pich on the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ vertex and J.H. Kühn for helpful informations.

## A Isospin relations

From the isospin relations  (2.6),…,(2.9) for the four possible final states it is evident that the amplitude for the $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel is sufficient to obtain the remaining three amplitudes. From the observation that $`\omega `$ exchange cannot contribute to the $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$, $`3\pi ^0\pi ^{}`$ modes one finds immediately that none of those latter modes is sufficient to calculate the remaining ones.

The only nontrivial question333We thank Hans Kühn for raising this question. concerns the channel $`2\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$. At first sight, one would expect that from the sum of two current matrix elements in (2.8) one cannot determine $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ itself. However, one has to take into account the symmetry relations for $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$. It is the purpose of this appendix to show explicitly that knowledge of the amplitude for the $`2\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ mode is also sufficient to determine all four matrix elements in the isospin limit.

For this purpose, we write the general decomposition of $`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ as

$`J^\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`p_1^\mu B(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)+p_2^\mu B(p_2,p_1,p_3,p_4)`$ (A.1)
$`+`$ $`p_3^\mu C(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)p_4^\mu C(p_1,p_2,p_4,p_3)`$
in terms of two invariant amplitudes that satisfy the constraints

$`B(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`B(p_1,p_2,p_4,p_3)`$
$`C(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`C(p_2,p_1,p_3,p_4)`$ (A.2)
due to charge conjugation invariance and Bose symmetry. Gauge invariance leads to a further relation between $`B`$ and $`C`$ but we do not need this relation here.

The isospin relation (2.8) can now be written as

$`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0|V_{\mathrm{cc}}^\mu (0)|0/\sqrt{2}`$ $`=`$ $`p_+^\mu D(p_+,p_1,p_2,p_0)+p_1^\mu F(p_+,p_1,p_2,p_0)`$ (A.3)
$`+`$ $`p_2^\mu F(p_+,p_2,p_1,p_0)p_0^\mu G(p_+,p_1,p_2,p_0)`$
with

$`D(p_+,p_1,p_2,p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`B(p_+,p_1,p_2,p_0)+B(p_+,p_2,p_1,p_0)`$
$`F(p_+,p_1,p_2,p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`B(p_1,p_+,p_2,p_0)+C(p_+,p_2,p_1,p_0)`$ (A.4)
$`G(p_+,p_1,p_2,p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`C(p_+,p_1,p_0,p_2)+C(p_+,p_2,p_0,p_1).`$
With the symmetry relations (A.2) one easily verifies

$`2B(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`D(p_1,p_3,p_2,p_4)+F(p_2,p_1,p_3,p_4)F(p_3,p_1,p_2,p_4)`$
$`2C(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ $`=`$ $`D(p_3,p_2,p_1,p_4)+F(p_1,p_3,p_2,p_4)+F(p_2,p_3,p_1,p_4).`$ (A.5)
Therefore, the amplitude for the $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel can be obtained from the $`2\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ amplitude. Consequently, knowledge of the $`2\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ mode is enough to determine the other three amplitudes in the isospin limit.

## B Vector and axial-vector mesons

Spin-1 mesons can be described either by the more conventional vector (or axial-vector) fields $`V_\mu `$ or by antisymmetric tensor fields $`V_{\mu \nu }`$. For matching resonance exchange amplitudes with standard CHPT amplitudes, the choice of fields is a matter of convenience. The tensor field formalism has the advantage of producing immediately the correct LECs of $`O(p^4)`$ . On the other hand, single resonance exchange that contributes first at $`O(p^6)`$ such as $`\omega `$ exchange is better described by vector fields . The two descriptions are equivalent but the transformation from one formalism to the other involves the introduction of explicit local amplitudes. Those local terms may be avoided by employing the proper formalism.

We recall first the usual normalization of a conventional massive vector field $`V_\mu `$ for a vector meson of mass $`M`$, with polarization vector $`\epsilon _\mu (p)`$, and the associated propagator:

$`0|V_\mu (0)|V,p`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _\mu (p)`$ (B.1)
$`0|T\{V_\mu (x),V_\nu (0)\}|0`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4ke^{ikx}}{(2\pi )^4(M^2k^2i\epsilon )}\left(g_{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu /M^2\right)}.`$ (B.2)
The same spin-1 particle can also be described by an antisymmetric tensor field $`V_{\mu \nu }`$. The corresponding one-particle matrix element and the propagator are given by

$`0|V_{\mu \nu }(0)|V,p`$ $`=`$ $`iM^1\{p_\mu \epsilon _\nu (p)p_\nu \epsilon _\mu (p)\}`$ (B.3)
$`0|T\{V_{\mu \nu }(x),V_{\rho \sigma }(0)\}|0`$ $`=`$ $`iM^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4ke^{ikx}}{(2\pi )^4(M^2k^2i\epsilon )}}[g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \sigma }(M^2k^2)`$ (B.4)
$`+g_{\mu \rho }k_\nu k_\sigma g_{\mu \sigma }k_\nu k_\rho (\mu \nu )].`$
In many cases, the tensor field propagator can be simplified. Whenever the $`\rho `$ meson couples either directly to the (virtual) photon or to two pions the transverse part of (B.4) does not contribute  and the $`\rho `$ propagator may be replaced by

$`0|T\{\rho _{\mu \nu }(x),\rho _{\rho \sigma }(0)\}|0`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4ke^{ikx}}{(2\pi )^4(M^2k^2i\epsilon )}\left[g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \sigma }g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \rho }\right]}.`$ (B.5)
This happens to be the case for all diagrams considered involving $`\rho `$ exchange. The simplification does not apply for the $`a_1`$ propagator in the diagrams of Fig. 6.

## C Numerical input

In this appendix we collect the numerical values of masses and coupling constants that we have used for the calculation of cross sections.

Chiral LECs

| $`F_\pi `$ = 0.0924 GeV | $`\stackrel{~}{l}_1`$ = -2.0 $`\times 10^3`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{l}_2`$ = 1.1 $`\times 10^2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\stackrel{~}{l}_3`$ = -4.6 $`\times 10^3`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{l}_4`$ = 2.8 $`\times 10^2`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{l}_6`$ = -1.7 $`\times 10^2`$ |

Vector mesons

| $`M_\rho `$ = 0.775 GeV | $`F_V`$ = 0.14 GeV | $`G_V`$ = 0.066 GeV |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`M_\omega `$ = 0.783 GeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega `$ = 0.00844 GeV | $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$ = 5.7 |

Axial-vector meson

| $`M_{a_1}`$ = 1.23 GeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1}`$ = 0.5 GeV |
| --- | --- |
| $`F_A=F_\pi `$ | $`c_2=c_3=c_4`$ = 319 |

Scalar mesons

| $`M_{f_0}`$ = 0.98 GeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}`$ = 0.05 GeV |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`M_\sigma `$ = 0.6 GeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ = 0.6 GeV |  |
| $`c_d`$ = 0.032 GeV | $`c_m`$ = 0.042 GeV | $`\stackrel{~}{c}_i`$ = $`c_i/\sqrt{3}(i=d,m)`$ |