format: text

text:
# Continuity of generalized parton distributions for the pion virtual Compton scattering

## I Introduction

Compton scattering provides a unique tool for studying hadronic structure. The Compton amplitude probes the hadrons through a coupling of two electromagnetic currents and thus can be regarded as a generalization of hadron form factors. For the Compton amplitude, when the initial photon is highly virtual but the final one is real, one arrives at the kinematics of deeply virtual Compton scattering(DVCS). According to the Quantum ChromoDynamics(QCD), the amplitudes at large momentum transfer factorize in the form of a convolution of a hard scattering amplitude which can be computed perturbatively from quark-gluon subprocesses multiplied by process-independent distribution amplitudes containing the bound-state nonperturbative dynamics for each of the interacting hadrons. Thus, the most important contribution to DVCS amplitude is given by the convolution of a hard quark propagator and a nonperturbative function describing long-distance dynamics which is known as “generalized parton distributions(GPDs)” and also known as “skewed parton distributions(SPDs)” . The latter has been studied extensively in searching for possible new physics(see, for example, Ref.  and references therein).

The GPDs serve as a generalization of the ordinary (forward) parton distributions and provide much more direct and sensitive information on the light-front(LF) wave function of a target hadron than the hadron form factors. In particular, the momentum of the “probed quark” in GPDs is not integrated over, but rather kept fixed at longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$, while for the form factor it is integrated out (due to the nonlocal current operator $`\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma ^\mu \psi (z)`$ for the GPDs in contrast to the local vertex $`\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma ^\mu \psi (0)`$ for the form factor). The form factors are then just moments of the GPDs. At the expense of being generalized amplitudes, the GPDs always involve the nonvalence contributions due to the nature of longitudinal asymmetry $`\zeta =(PP^{})^+/P^+`$(so called “skewedness” parameter) between initial($`P`$) and final($`P^{}`$) hadron state momenta. While the kinematic region where the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ of the probed quark is greater than the skewedness parameter $`\zeta `$ (i.e. $`1>x>\zeta `$) is called “DGLAP region”, the rest of the longitudinal momentum region $`0<x<\zeta `$ is called “ERBL region”. The DGLAP and ERBL regions have also been denoted as the valence and nonvalence regions in the LF dynamics, respectively, because the parton-number-changing nonvalence Fock-state contributions cannot be avoided for $`0<x<\zeta `$ while only the parton-number-conserving valence Fock-state contributions are needed for $`1>x>\zeta `$. Thus, it has been a great challenge to calculate the nonvalence contributions to the GPDs in the framework of LF quantization.

Although many recent theoretical endeavors  have been made in describing the GPDs in terms of LF wave functions, the task has not yet been satisfactory enough for practical calculations. In Refs.  and , the nonvalence contributions to the GPDs have been rewritten in terms of LF wave functions with different parton configurations. However, the representation given in Refs.  and  requires to find all the higher Fock-state wave functions while there has been relatively little progress in computing the basic wave functions of hadrons from first principles. In Refs.  and , the GPDs were expressed in terms of LF wave function but only within toy models such as the ’t Hooft model of $`(1+1)`$-dimensional QCD  and the scalar Wick-Cutkosky model , respectively. While these toy model analyses are helpful to gain some physical insight on the properties of the GPDs (especially, the time reversal invariance, the continuity at the crossover between the DGLAP and ERBL regions, and the sum rule constrained by the electromagnetic form factor), the real $`(3+1)`$-dimensional QCD motivates us to come up with the more realistic model for the application to the analysis of GPDs.

In an effort toward this direction, we have presented an effective treatment of handling the nonvalence contributions to the GPDs of the pion  using our LF constituent quark model(LFQM), which has been phenomenologically quite successful in describing the spacelike form factors for the electromagnetic and radiative decays of pseudoscalar and vector mesons  and the timelike weak form factors for exclusive semileptonic and rare decays of pseudoscalar mesons . Our effective treatment of handling the nonvalence contributions is based on the covariant Bethe-Salpeter(BS) approach formulated in the LF quantization which we call LFBS approach and has been previously applied to the exclusive semileptonic and rare decays of pseudoscalar mesons  providing reasonable results compared to the data.

However, an artifact of discontinuity at $`x=\zeta `$ occured in our previous calculation of GPDs. As we provided the reasoning, the discontinuity is caused by the different $`x=\zeta `$ behavior between the gauge boson vertex and the hadronic vertex if the wave function for the gauge boson vertex is taken differently from that for the hadronic vertex. The similar observation was made recently in Ref. using a different model(scalar Wick-Cutkosky model). Such discontinuity at $`x=\zeta `$ may cause a divergence in the DVCS amplitude.

In this work, we improve our previous analysis by taking the same LFBS approach for both vertices of meson and gauge boson and explicitly show that our reasoning presented in Ref. is correct; i.e. the continuity of GPDs at the crossover($`x=\zeta `$) is ensured by this consistent treatment of vertices. We also discuss the value of GPDs at $`x=\zeta `$ in conjunction with the single spin asymmetry (SSA) and calculate the scattering amplitude contributing dominantly to the Compton scattering of the pion in the deeply virtual region. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we derive the GPDs as a nonperturbative formulation of the light-front dominated deeply virtual Compton scattering(DVCS) $`\gamma ^{}\pi \gamma \pi `$ of the pion and introduce the necessary kinematics following the notation employed by Radyushkin . In Section III, we discuss the LFBS approach and present the consistent treatment of the gauge boson and hadron vertex functions in handling the nonvalence contributions to the GPDs. The implication of the vector meson dominance(VMD) at the gauge boson vertex in this improved analysis and the GPD value at $`x=\zeta `$ are also discussed. In Section IV, we show our numerical results for the GPDs of the pion that satisfy the continuity at the crossover and in turn give the finite scattering amplitude for DVCS of the pion. The frame-independence of our model is checked by the sum rule between the GPDs and the pion form factor. We also comment on the polynomiality conditions associated with the D-term contribution in ERBL region. Conclusions follow in Section V.

## II Scattering Amplitude in DVCS

We begin with the kinematics of the virtual Compton scattering (see Fig. 1) of the pion

$$\gamma ^{}(q)+\pi (P)\gamma (q^{})+\pi (P^{}),$$
(1)
where the initial (final) hadron state is characterized by the momentum $`P(P^{})`$ and the incoming spacelike virtual and outgoing real photon momenta by $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$, respectively***If both photons are far off-shell and have equal spacelike virtuality, it becomes virtual forward Compton amplitude and its imaginary part determines structure functions of deep inelastic scattering(DIS). If they are both real but the momentum transfer is large, it becomes wide-angle Compton scattering(WACS) amplitude .. We shall use the component notation $`V=(V^+,V^{},𝐕_{})`$ and our metric is specified by $`V^\pm =(V^0\pm V^3)`$ and $`VV=V^+V^{}𝐕_{}^2`$.

Defining the four momentum transfer $`\mathrm{\Delta }=PP^{}`$, one has $`P=[P^+,M^2/P^+,0_{}]`$, $`P^{}=[(1\zeta )P^+,(M^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2)/(1\zeta )P^+,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}]`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=PP^{}=[\zeta P^+,(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2)/\zeta P^+,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}]`$, where $`M`$ is the pion mass and $`\zeta =\mathrm{\Delta }^+/P^+`$ is the skewedness parameter describing the asymmetry in plus momentum. The squared momentum transfer then reads

$$t=\mathrm{\Delta }^2=2P\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\zeta ^2M^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2}{1\zeta }.$$
(2)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^20`$, $`t`$ has a minimum value $`t_{\mathrm{min}}=\zeta ^2M^2/(1\zeta )`$ at given $`\zeta `$. As shown in Fig. 1, the parton emitted by the pion has the momentum $`k`$, and the one absorbed has the momentum $`k^{}=k\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As in the case of spacelike form factors, we choose a frame where the incident spacelike photon carries $`q^+=0`$: $`q=[0,(𝐪_{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{})^2/\zeta P^++(\zeta M^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2)/(1\zeta )P^+,𝐪_{}`$\] and $`q^{}=[\zeta P^+,(𝐪_{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{})^2/\zeta P^+,𝐪_{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}]`$.

In deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) where $`Q^2=q^2`$ is large compared to the mass $`M`$ and $`t`$, one obtains $`Q^2/(2Pq)=\zeta `$, i.e. $`\zeta `$ plays the role of the Bjorken variable in DVCS. For a fixed value of $`t`$, the allowed range of $`\zeta `$ is given by

$$0\zeta \frac{(t)}{2M^2}\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{4M^2}{(t)}}1\right).$$
(3)
In the leading twist ignoring interactions at the quark-gauge boson(photon in this case) vertex, the amplitude contributing dominantly to Compton scattering in the deeply virtual region is given by

$`M^{\mu \nu }=M_s^{\mu \nu }+M_u^{\mu \nu },`$ (4)
where $`M_s^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`M_u^{\mu \nu }`$ are the $`s(=(P+q)^2)`$\- and $`u(=(Pq^{})^2)`$-channel amplitudes(see Fig. 1), respectively. The $`s`$-channel amplitude is given by

$`M_s^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`iN_ce_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma _5(\overline{)}k+m)\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}k+\overline{)}q+m)\gamma ^\nu (\overline{)}k\overline{)}\mathrm{\Delta }+m)\gamma _5(\overline{)}P+\overline{)}k+m)]}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{cov}}(k,P)H_{\mathrm{cov}}^{}(k\mathrm{\Delta },P\mathrm{\Delta })}{[k^2m^2+i\epsilon ][(k+q)^2m^2+i\epsilon ][(k\mathrm{\Delta })^2m^2+i\epsilon ][(Pk)^2m^2+i\epsilon ]}},`$ (6)
where $`N_c`$ is the color factor and $`H_{\mathrm{cov}}(k,P)[H_{\mathrm{cov}}^{}(k\mathrm{\Delta },P\mathrm{\Delta })]`$ is the covariant initial\[final\] state meson-quark vertex function that satisfies the BS equation. As usual in the LFBS formalism, we assume that the covariant vertex function $`H_{\mathrm{cov}}(k)`$ does not alter the $`k^{}`$ pole structure in Eq.(5). The $`u`$-channel amplitude can be easily obtained by $`M_u^{\mu \nu }=M_s^{\mu \nu }(qq^{})`$.

In deeply virtual $`q^{}Q^2/\zeta P^+`$ limit, one obtains $`(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}q+m)\overline{)}q\gamma ^+q^{}/2`$ in the trace term of Eq. (5). Consequently, combining this with the 2nd term of the denominator in Eq. (5) leads to $`q^{}/[(k+q)^2m^2+i\epsilon ]1/[P^+(x\zeta +i\epsilon )]`$, where $`x=k^+/P^+`$. Similarly, one can obtain $`(q^{})^{}/[(kq^{})^2m^2+i\epsilon ]1/[P^+(xi\epsilon )]`$ from the $`u`$-channel amplitude.

Adding these two $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channel amplitudes, we obtain the Compton scattering amplitude in DVCS limit as follows

$`M^{IJ}=ϵ_\mu ^Iϵ_\nu ^JM^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{2P^+}}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{1}{x\zeta +i\epsilon }+\frac{1}{xi\epsilon }\right)H_{\mathrm{cov}}(k,P)H_{\mathrm{cov}}^{}(k\mathrm{\Delta },P\mathrm{\Delta })}`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma _5(\overline{)}k+m)\overline{)}ϵ^I\gamma ^+\overline{)}ϵ^J(\overline{)}k\overline{)}\mathrm{\Delta }+m)\gamma _5(\overline{)}P+\overline{)}k+m)]}{[k^2m^2+i\epsilon ][(k\mathrm{\Delta })^2m^2+i\epsilon ][(Pk)^2m^2+i\epsilon ]}}.`$ (8)
For circularly polarized($`ϵ^+=0`$) initial and final photonsAs discussed in , for a longitudinally polarized initial photon, the Compton amplitude is of order $`1/Q`$ and thus vanishes in the limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$.($`I,J`$ are $``$ or $``$), we obtain from Eq. (7)

$`\overline{)}ϵ^I\gamma ^+\overline{)}ϵ^J`$ $`=`$ $`(ϵ_{}^Iϵ_{}^J)\gamma ^++i(ϵ_{}^I\times ϵ_{}^J)_3\gamma ^+\gamma _5,`$ (9)
where we use the identities $`(\gamma ^+)^2=0`$, $`\gamma ^1\gamma ^+\gamma ^1=\gamma ^2\gamma ^+\gamma ^2=\gamma ^+`$ and $`\gamma ^1\gamma ^+\gamma ^2=\gamma ^2\gamma ^+\gamma ^1=i\gamma ^+\gamma _5`$. Equation (9) reduces to $`\gamma ^+(1\pm \gamma _5)`$ for the parallel helicities(i.e. $`+`$ for $``$ and $``$ for $``$) and zero otherwise. Since the axial current $`\gamma ^+\gamma _5`$ does not contribute to the integral, i.e. $`(𝐤_{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{})`$ after the trace calculation, we shall omit this term from now on.

Then, the DVCS amplitude(i.e. photon helicity amplitude) can be rewritten as the factorized form of hard and soft amplitude

$`M^{}(P,q,P^{})=M^{}(P,q,P^{})`$ $`=`$ $`e_q^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(\frac{1}{x\zeta +i\epsilon }+\frac{1}{xi\epsilon }\right)_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)},`$ (10)
where

$`_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)=`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{}d^2𝐤_{}}{2(2\pi )^4}H_{\mathrm{cov}}(k,P)H_{\mathrm{cov}}^{}(k\mathrm{\Delta },P\mathrm{\Delta })}`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma _5(\overline{)}k+m)\gamma ^+(\overline{)}k\overline{)}\mathrm{\Delta }+m)\gamma _5(\overline{)}P+\overline{)}k+m)]}{[k^2m^2+i\epsilon ][(k\mathrm{\Delta })^2m^2+i\epsilon ][(Pk)^2m^2+i\epsilon ]}}.`$ (12)
The function $`_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)`$ is so called “generalized parton distributions” and it manifests characteristics of the ordinary(forward) quark distribution in the limit of $`\zeta 0`$ and $`t0`$. On the other hand, the first moment of the $`_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)`$ Note that our definition of $`_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)`$ in this work is different from the one used in our previous work  by a factor $`(1\zeta /2)`$ in the normalization. We also used the notation $`\zeta `$ for the ”skewedness” parameter instead of previous $`\xi `$ to be consistent with the notation used by Radyushkin . is related to the form factor by the following sum rules :

$$_0^1\frac{dx}{1\frac{\zeta }{2}}_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)=F_\pi (t).$$
(13)
In general, the polynomiality conditions for the moments of the GPDs defined by

$$_0^1\frac{dx}{1\frac{\zeta }{2}}x^{n1}_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)=F_n(\zeta ,t)$$
(14)
require that the highest power of $`\zeta `$ in the polynomial expression of $`F_n(\zeta ,t)`$ should not be larger than $`n`$. These polynomiality conditions are fundamental properties of the GPDs which follow from the Lorentz invariance. We comment on how our model calculations satisfy the polynomiality conditions in Section IV(numerical results).

An important feature of the DVCS amplitude given by Eq. (10) is that it depends only on the skewedness parameter $`\zeta =Q^2/(2Pq)`$ for large $`Q^2`$ and fixed $`|t|(Q^2)`$, i.e. DVCS is equivalent to an inclusive process exhibiting the Bjorken scaling $`x_{Bj}=\zeta `$. Note also from Eq. (10) that the imaginary part of the DVCS amplitude is proportional to $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$. The single spin asymmetry(SSA) that can be measured in the scattering of a longitudinally polarized probe on an unpolarized target is proportional to the imaginary part of the amplitude, i.e. the value of $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$. The recent measurements of SSA for the proton target have been reported by HERMES  and CLAS  collaborations. We discuss the value of $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$ in Section III C.

## III  Generalized parton distributions in light-front Bethe-Salpeter approach

The GPDs entering as nonperturbative information in DVCS as shown in Fig. 1 can be represented by Fig. 2(a) where the small white blob shown in Fig. 2(a) represents the composite(nonlocal) operator  at the quark-gauge boson vertex. Since the longitudinal component, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+=\zeta P^+`$, of the momentum transfer $`\mathrm{\Delta }=PP^{}`$ is in general nonzero, the covariant diagram Fig. 2(a) is represented by the sum of the LF valence diagram (b) defined in $`\zeta <x<1`$ (DGLAP) region and the nonvalence diagram (c) defined in $`0<x<\zeta `$ (ERBL) region. As one can see from Fig. 2(b) and (c), the large white blobs at the meson-quark vertices in (b) and (c) represent the ordinary LF wave function. However, the large black blob in (c) cannot be represented by the ordinary LF wave function since it is no longer a bound state vertex but non-wave-function vertex. This non-wave-function vertex causes the main source of difficulty in representing the GPDs(as well as the timelike form factor) in terms of light-front wave function. However, in a covariant BS formalism it can be represented as an analytic continuation of the usual BS amplitude.

In our previous work , we have derived the GPDs of the pion starting from the covariant BS amplitude of the current $`𝒥`$(see Eq. (12) in ), which is essentially the same calculation of $`_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)`$ given by Eq. (11). Since the detailed procedures for obtaining the effective solution for the non-wave-function vertex have been given in , here we only briefly present the salient points of our previous effective method  before we discuss the new treatment of the quark-gauge boson vertex function to ensure the continuity of the GPDs at the crossover($`x=\zeta `$) between the DGLAP and ERBL regions.

### A Brief review of our previous method

The essential feature of our approach is to consider the light-front wave function as the solution of light-front Bethe-Salpeter equation(LFBSE) given by

$`(M^2M_0^2)\chi ^{}(x_i^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}[dy^{}][d^2𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}]𝒦(x_i^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{};y_j^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{})\chi ^{}(y_j^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}),`$ (15)
where§§§We present the LFBSE for the final state meson-quark vertex with the final state momentum variables. However, the same form of LFBSE can be used in the initial state meson-quark vertex. $`𝒦`$ is the BS kernel which in principle includes all the higher Fock-state contributions, $`M_0^2=(m^2+𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})/x^{}+(m^2+𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})/(1x^{})`$ is the invariant mass, and $`\chi ^{}(x_i^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{})`$ is the (final state) BS amplitude with the internal momenta of the (struck) quark for the final state, $`x^{}=(x\zeta )/(1\zeta )`$ and $`𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝐤_{}+x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. The internal momenta of the (struck) quark after the kernel are given by $`y^{}=(y\zeta )/(1\zeta )`$ and $`𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝐥_{}+y^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ so that the integration of $`y^{}`$ runs from 0 to 1(or $`y`$ runs from $`\zeta `$ to 1). Note also $`d^2𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=d^2𝐥_{}`$ for a given $`y^{}`$. We define the valence BS amplitude(i.e. $`x>\zeta `$) as $`\chi _{(22)}`$ and the nonvalence BS amplitude(i.e. $`x<\zeta `$) as $`\chi _{(13)}`$ where the subscript indicates the parton number before and after the kernel. Both the valence and nonvalence BS amplitudes are solutions to Eq. (15). As illustrated in Fig. 2(c), the nonvalence BS amplitude is an analytic continuation of the valence BS amplitude. In the LFQM the relationship between the BS amplitudes in the two regions is given by

$`(M^2M_0^2)\chi _{(13)}^{}(x_i^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}[dy^{}][d^2𝐥_{}]𝒦(x_i^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{};y_j^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{})\chi _{(22)}^{}(y_j^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}),`$ (16)
where again the kernel includes in principle all the higher Fock-state contributions because all the higher Fock components of the bound-state are ultimately related to the lowest Fock component with the use of kernel as illustrated in Fig. 3.

After the Cauchy integration over $`k^{}`$ in Eq. (11), we obtain the valence($`\zeta x1`$) and nonvalence($`0x\zeta `$) contributions to the GPDs of the pion as follows

$`_\pi ^{val}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2x(1x)x^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_{}}{16\pi ^3}\chi _{(22)}(x,𝐤_{})S_{val}^+(x,𝐤_{})\chi _{(22)}^{}(x^{},𝐤_{}^{})},`$ (17)
and

$`_\pi ^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2x(1x)(1x^{\prime \prime })}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_{}}{16\pi ^3}\chi _{(22)}(x,𝐤_{})S_{nv}^+(x,𝐤_{})\chi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})}`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{y^{}(1y^{})}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐥_{}𝒦(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\chi _{(22)}^{}(y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})},`$ (19)
where Eq. (16) has been used for the non-wave-function vertex as shown in Fig. 3\[or Fig. 2(c)\]. The trace terms of the quark propagators, i.e. $`S_{val}^+(x,𝐤_{})`$ and $`S_{nv}^+(x,𝐤_{})`$, are given by Eqs. (21) and (25) in Ref. , respectively. The light-front vertex functions of the initial\[final\] hadron $`\chi _{(22)}[\chi _{(22)}^{}]`$ and the gauge boson $`\chi ^g`$ are given byNote that we slightly modified the definition of $`\chi ^g`$ in present work from the one in , i.e. we take the common factor $`\zeta /(1\zeta )`$ from Eq. (24) in Ref.  and put back into the prefactor leading to the present Eq. (18).

$`\chi _{(22)}(x,𝐤_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{LF}}{M^2M_0^2}},\chi _{(22)}^{}(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})={\displaystyle \frac{h_{LF}^{}}{M^2M_0^2}},\chi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2M_0^{\prime \prime 2}}},`$ (20)
where $`x^{\prime \prime }=x/\zeta `$, $`𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}=𝐤_{}+x^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, and $`M_0^{\prime \prime 2}=(𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2)/x^{\prime \prime }+(𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2)/(1x^{\prime \prime })`$ is the invariant mass of $`q\overline{q}`$ pair annihilated into the gauge boson. Equations (17) and (18) were our essential results from our previous analysis . Since the Eqs. (17) and (18) are divergent themselves with a constant LF vertex function $`h_{LF}`$, our idea is to replace the $`h_{LF}`$\[or equivalently $`\chi _{(22)}(x,𝐤_{}`$)\] with the standard LF vertex function(i.e. dressed vertex) , which has been successful in predicting many static properties of ground state mesons. However, we left the gauge boson vertex function $`\chi ^g`$ as the bare vertex given by Eq.(20) in our previous work . We(as well as the authors in ) attributed this different treatment between gauge boson and meson vertex functions to the reason for the artifact of the discontinuity in the GPDs at the crossover($`x=\zeta `$) between the DGLAP and ERBL regions.

### B Consistent treatment of gauge boson and meson vertex functions in LFQM: Update

As discussed in our previous work  and the works by others , in principle one should consider the same BS kernel $`𝒦`$ for $`q\overline{q}`$ pair annihilating into external gauge boson as that for $`q\overline{q}`$ pair merging into the final state meson given by Eq. (18). This is illustrated in Fig. 4 and we shall denote the GPDs coming from Figs. 4(a) and (b) as $`_{\pi (a)}^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ (given by Eq. (18)) and $`_{\pi (b)}^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)`$, respectively. Adding both contributions of $`_{\pi (a)}^{nv}`$ and $`_{\pi (b)}^{nv}`$ assures the cancellation of any infrared divergence that might occur in the kernel $`𝒦`$.

The GPDs from Figs. 4(a) and (b) can be written generically(dropping, for simplicity, relative label for internal momenta)

$`{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑x_{\pi (a)}^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑x{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}_\zeta ^1𝑑yd^2𝐥_{}\chi ^\mathrm{f}(y,𝐥_{})𝒦_a(x,𝐤_{};y,𝐥_{})\chi ^g(x,𝐤_{})S_{nv}^+(x,𝐤_{})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a^\mathrm{i}(x,𝐤_{})},`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑y_{\pi (b)}^{nv}(\zeta ,y,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑y{\displaystyle d^2𝐥_{}_\zeta ^1𝑑xd^2𝐤_{}\chi ^\mathrm{f}(x,𝐤_{})𝒦_b(y,𝐥_{};x,𝐤_{})\chi ^g(y,𝐥_{})S_{nv}^+(x,𝐤_{})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_b^\mathrm{i}(x,𝐤_{})},`$ (22)
where the superscript i(f) in $`\chi `$ indicates the initial(final) valence light-front wave function(i.e. white blob in Fig. 4) and the notation of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{a(b)}^\mathrm{i}`$ implies the product of intitial $`\chi _{a(b)}^\mathrm{i}`$ in Fig. 4a(b) and other terms(such as prefactor in Eq. (18)) that depend on the internal momentum variables. The kernel $`𝒦_b(y,𝐥_{};x,𝐤_{})`$ in Eq. (22) is equivalent to $`𝒦_a(x,𝐤_{};y,𝐥_{})`$ in Eq. (21) upon exchange of dummy variables $`(x,𝐤_{})(y,𝐥_{})`$ except an overall sign due to an exchange of quark and antiquark. If, for instance, the kernel is approximated by one boson exchange, i.e. $`𝒦_a=g^2\theta (yx)/(l^+k^+)[(Pk)^{}(lk)^{}(Pl)^{}]`$ and $`𝒦_b=g^2\theta (xy)/(k^+l^+)[k^{}l^{}(kl)^{}]`$, where $`y=l^+/P^+`$ and $`x=k^+/P^+`$, then one can easily see $`𝒦_a(x,y)=𝒦_b(yx,xy)`$. Note also in this simple one boson exchange case that there is only one light-front time ordered diagram in each kernel and other contributions such as $`\theta (xy)`$-term in $`𝒦_a`$ and $`\theta (yx)`$-term in $`𝒦_b`$ vanish since they contribute to pair creations from the vacuum. Likewise, the vertex functions $`\chi ^\mathrm{f}`$ and $`\chi ^g`$ in Eq. (21) are the same as those in Eq. (22) upon exchange of dummy variables $`(x,𝐤_{})(y,𝐥_{})`$.

Exchanging $`(x,𝐤_{})(y,𝐥_{})`$ in Eq. (22), we now combine these two contributions, $`_{\pi (a)}^{nv}`$ and $`_{\pi (b)}^{nv}`$, to get

$`_\pi ^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`_{\pi (a)}^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)+_{\pi (b)}^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}_\zeta ^1𝑑yd^2𝐥_{}\chi ^\mathrm{f}(y,𝐥_{})𝒦(x,𝐤_{};y,𝐥_{})\chi ^g(x,𝐤_{})S_{nv}^+(x,𝐤_{})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a^\mathrm{i}(x,𝐤_{})}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{S_{nv}^+(y,𝐥_{})}{S_{nv}^+(x,𝐤_{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_b^\mathrm{i}(y,𝐥_{})}{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a^\mathrm{i}(x,𝐤_{})}}\right],`$ (25)
where $`𝒦=𝒦_a`$ and the relative($``$) sign between the two contributions assures the removal of infrared singularity at $`x=y`$ and $`𝐤_{}=𝐥_{}`$ (see also Ref. ). In Eq. (23), the $`(x,𝐤_{})`$ dependence in $`_{\pi (b)}^{nv}`$ comes solely from the term $`𝒦(x,𝐤_{};y,𝐥_{})\chi ^g(x,𝐤_{})`$ (i.e. upper small loop in Fig. 4(b)), which in principle includes the sum of all possible intermediate mesons being coupled to the external current.

By putting the relative label of internal momenta back into Eq. (23), we obtain the same form of $`_\pi ^{nv}`$ as that given by Eq. (18)

$`_\pi ^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2x(1x)(1x^{\prime \prime })}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤_{}}{16\pi ^3}\chi _{(22)}(x,𝐤_{})S_{nv}^+(x,𝐤_{})\chi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})}`$ (26)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{y^{}(1y^{})}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐥_{}\stackrel{~}{𝒦}(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\chi _{(22)}^{}(y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})},`$ (27)
but now with

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ $``$ $`𝒦(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{S_{nv}^+(y,𝐥_{})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_b^\mathrm{i}(y,𝐥_{})}{S_{nv}^+(x,𝐤_{})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a^\mathrm{i}(x,𝐤_{})}}\right].`$ (28)
Thus, in order to make our previous model  more complete, the kernel $`𝒦(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ given by Eq. (18) has to be replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ which is free from any infrared singularity that might occur in the kernel $`𝒦`$. Since it would be a formidable task to solve the kernel $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ directly, we follow the technique illustrated in our previous analysis approximating $`G_\pi `$ defined by

$`G_\pi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{y^{}(1y^{})}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐥_{}\stackrel{~}{𝒦}(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\chi _{(22)}(y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}`$ (29)
as a constant. As we did in our previous analysis, we discuss the validity of a constant $`G_\pi `$ approximation in the next section (Section IV) where our numerical analysis is presented. Although the technical aspect of our numerical analysis remains same, the replacement of kernel from $`𝒦`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ amounts to the addition of new contribution $`_{\pi (b)}^{nv}`$ and thus effectively allow us to change the gauge boson wave function $`\chi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})`$ from the simple energy denominator given by Eq. (20) to the LF vertex function identical to the meson vertex function without introducing any additional parameters In principle, one should use the vector(such as $`\rho `$) meson wave function replacing the gauge boson vertex function. We do not need to introduce any additional parameters since we used the same gaussian wave function with the same parameter $`\beta `$ for both $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons in our previous LFQM analysis ..

Comparing $`\chi _{(22)}`$ with our light-front wave function given by Ref. , we identify

$$\chi _{(22)}(x,𝐤_{})=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi ^3}{N_c}}\sqrt{\frac{k_z}{x}}\frac{[x(1x)]^{1/2}}{M_0}\varphi (x,𝐤_{}),$$
(30)
where the Jacobian of the variable tranformation $`𝐤=(k_z,𝐤_{})(x,𝐤_{})`$ is obtained as $`k_z/x=M_0/[4x(1x)]`$ and the radial wave function is given by $`\varphi (𝐤^2)=\sqrt{1/\pi ^{3/2}\beta ^3}\mathrm{exp}(𝐤^2/2\beta ^2)`$, which is normalized as $`d^3k|\varphi (𝐤^2)|^2=1`$. Note that the radial wave function $`\varphi (𝐤^2)`$ is essentially the same as the Brodsky-Huang-Lepage  LF wave function $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{BHL}}=\mathrm{exp}(M_0^2/8\beta ^2)`$ up to a constant factor.

Thus, the effective gauge boson wave function $`\chi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})`$ is given by

$$\chi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi ^3}{N_c}}\sqrt{\frac{k_z^{\prime \prime }}{x^{\prime \prime }}}\frac{[x^{\prime \prime }(1x^{\prime \prime })]^{1/2}}{M_0^{\prime \prime }}\varphi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{}),$$
(31)
where $`k_z^{\prime \prime }/x^{\prime \prime }=M_0^{\prime \prime }/[4x^{\prime \prime }(1x^{\prime \prime })]`$. Here, the radial wave function $`\varphi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})`$ is given by

$$\varphi ^g(𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2})=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi ^{3/2}\beta ^3}}\mathrm{exp}(𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}/2\beta ^2)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2/8\beta ^2),$$
(32)
where $`𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}=k_z^{\prime \prime 2}+𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and the virtuality $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=t0`$.

Substituting Eqs. (30) and (31) into Eqs. (17) and (26), we obtain the valence and nonvalence contributions to the GPDs of the pion in LFQM as follows

$`_\pi ^{val}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}\sqrt{\frac{k_z^{}}{x^{}}}\sqrt{\frac{k_z}{x}}\varphi ^{}(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\varphi (x,𝐤_{})\frac{(𝐤_{}𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+m^2)}{\sqrt{𝐤_{}^2+m^2}\sqrt{𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}}},`$ (33)
and

$`_\pi ^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^3}{N_c}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^{\prime \prime }}{1x^{}}}\right){\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}\sqrt{\frac{k_z}{x}}\sqrt{\frac{k_z^{\prime \prime }}{x^{\prime \prime }}}\varphi (x,𝐤_{})\varphi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})}`$ (34)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{}𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+m^2+x(1x)x^{}(M^2M_0^2)}{\sqrt{𝐤_{}^2+m^2}\sqrt{𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y^{}{\displaystyle d^2𝐥_{}\sqrt{\frac{l_z^{}}{y^{}}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒦}(x^{},𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}{\sqrt{𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}}\varphi ^{}(y^{},𝐥_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})},`$ (35)
where Eq. (33) is the same as our previous formula Eq. (28) in  but Eq. (34) is now different from Eq. (29) in  due to the modification of the gauge boson vertex function. It is worthwhile to note that the nonvalence $`_\pi ^{nv}`$ in Eq. (34) receives not only the on-mass shell propagating contribution (i.e. the term proportional to $`(𝐤_{}𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+m^2)`$) but also the instantaneous contribution(i.e. the term proportional to $`x(1x)x^{}(M^2M_0^2)`$) from the spectator quark propagator. This also contrasts to the valence $`_\pi ^{val}`$ given by Eq. (33), which receives only on-mass shell propagating contribution. As we shall show in our numerical calculation, the instantaneous contributions from the nonvalence $`_\pi ^{nv}`$ becomes substantial for large $`\zeta >0.5`$.

As discussed earlier, we shall treat the last $`dy^{}d^2𝐥_{}`$-integral term in Eq. (34) as a constant $`G_\pi `$ and check if indeed a constant $`G_\pi `$ approximation is valid by varying the value of $`\zeta `$ in the sum rule expressed in terms of $`_\pi ^{val}`$ and $`_\pi ^{nv}`$, i.e.

$$F_\pi (t)=_0^1\frac{dx}{1\frac{\zeta }{2}}_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)=_\zeta ^1\frac{dx}{1\frac{\zeta }{2}}_\pi ^{val}(\zeta ,x,t)+_0^\zeta \frac{dx}{1\frac{\zeta }{2}}_\pi ^{nv}(\zeta ,x,t),$$
(36)
for given $`t`$. Varying the value of $`\zeta `$ in this sum rule, Eq. (36), we can also check the frame-independence of our model as we discuss in the next section(Section IV).

### C The GPD value at the crossover: $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$

Although the continuity of GPDs at $`x=\zeta `$ is assured in our formulation presented in the last subsection (Section III B), the value of $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$ vanishes in our model calculation as we shall see in our numerical results (Section IV). The reason why this occurs in our model calculation for the meson target is because the final state meson (depicted in Fig.2(b) and Fig.4) shares the total longitudinal momentum fraction $`1\zeta `$ only between the two constituents so that, as $`x\zeta 0`$ (i.e. the struck constituent loses its longitudinal momentum completely), the single spectator-constituent carries the total longitudinal momentum fraction $`1\zeta `$ and the final state two-body wavefunction at this kinematical point ($`x=\zeta `$) is zero. However, the situation is entirely different for the three-body wavefunction such as in the proton target because even at $`x=\zeta `$ the two spectator-constituents can still share the total longitudinal momentum fraction $`1\zeta `$ between themselves and the final state three-body wavefunction does not vanish at $`x=\zeta `$. As discussed in the literature and mentioned in Section II, the value of GPDs at $`x=\zeta `$ is directly related to the SSA that can be measured in the scattering on an unpolarized target by the lepton polarized parallel or antiparallel to its direction. The recent measurements by HERMES and CLAS collaborations showed that the SSA is indeed non-zero for the proton target and our observations based on the three-body wavefunction are not inconsistent with these experimental evidences for the non-zero GPDs of proton at $`x=\zeta `$.

By the same reasoning, if one includes the quark-antiquark-glue three-body state (and any other multi-constituent-states) beyond the ordinary two-body ($`Q\overline{Q}`$) constituents in our model calculation, then it is in principle possible to get a non-zero $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$. In the chiral-quark-soliton model, it is shown that $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$ is non-zero. Thus, if the experiment on the pion is possible at all, then the SSA measurement would be crucial to discreminate different models and also find how much percentage of multi-constituent-component is necessary beyond our current $`Q\overline{Q}`$ state for the more realistic model construction. However, it is interesting to note that our current model calculation still satisfies the polynomiality conditions (See Eq.(14)) and our result on the isosinglet GPD of the pion is qualitatively very similar to the result obtained by the chiral-quark-soliton model satisfying the soft pion theorem, as we comment in the following Section (Section IV).

## IV Numerical Results

In our numerical calculations, we use the model parameters $`(m,\beta )=(0.22,0.3659)`$ \[GeV\] obtained in Ref.  for the linear confining potential model.

In Fig. 5, we show the comparison of the $`\zeta `$-dependence of $`G_\pi `$ between the two gauge boson wave functions, i.e. our new gaussian type (black data), $`\varphi ^g\mathrm{exp}[(tM_0^{\prime \prime 2})/8\beta ^2]`$, and the previous  monopole type (white data), $`\varphi ^g1/(tM_0^{\prime \prime 2})`$ (see Eq.(20)), for a few different momentum transfers, $`t=0`$ (circle), 0.5 (square), and 1.0 (triangle) \[GeV2\], respectively. The invariant mass of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair at the gauge boson vertex is represented as $`M_{g0}^2=M_0^{\prime \prime 2}`$ (see Eq. (20)) in the figure. As one can see in Fig. 5, both (black and white) $`G_\pi `$ values show approximately constant behavior for small momentum transfer $`t<1`$ GeV2 region. It is not surprising to see that $`G_\pi `$ becomes very large as $`\zeta 0`$, however, this does not cause a significant error in our calculation because the nonvalence contribution in the very small $`\zeta `$ region is highly suppressed. Also, a rather large fluctuation of black data for a rather large momentum transfer region $`t=1`$ GeV2 (even exhibiting a sign change near $`\zeta =0.3`$) is neither unexpected nor troublesome because the nonvalence contribution is significantly suppressed in this large momentum transfer region where the gaussian wave function is also exponentially reduced. In order to check the reliability (i.e. frame-independence) of our constant $`G_\pi `$ approximation, we compare the exact solution of the pion electromagnetic form factor obtained from $`\zeta =0`$ value with that of nonzero $`\zeta `$ value using our constant (average) $`G_\pi `$ approximation.

In Fig. 6, we show our effective solutions of the pion form factor with gaussian $`\varphi ^g(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{})`$ for $`\zeta =0.3`$ (thin solid line) and 0.6 (long-dashed line) cases obtained from our average value of $`G_\pi =G_{\mathrm{ave}.}=0.12`$ and compare them with the exact solution (thick solid line) as well as the experimental data . The dotted line represents the nonvalence contributions to the form factor for $`\zeta =0.6`$ case, which increase (decrease) as $`\zeta `$ gets larger (smaller). Also, there are $`t_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values for nonzero $`\zeta `$ due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^20`$ (see Eq. (2)). We thus use the analytic continuation by changing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ to $`i\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ in Eqs. (33) and (34) to obtain the result for $`0tt_{\mathrm{min}}`$ where there is no singularity. A continuous behavior of the form factor near $`t_{\mathrm{min}}`$ confirms the analyticity of our model calculation. As far as the $`G_\pi `$ and the form factor calculations are concerned, the results obtained from the gaussian type gauge boson wave function are overall not much different from our previous results  obtained from the monopole type gauge boson wave function. However, as we shall see below, they are distinguished by the calculation of the GPDs.

In Fig. 7, we compare the nonvalence contributions(in ERBL region) to the GPDs $`_\pi (\zeta ,x,t)/(1\zeta /2)`$ of the pion obtained from the gaussian type gauge boson wave function(thin solid line) with those obtained from the monopole type wave function(long-dashed line) for fixed momentum transfer $`t=0.5`$ GeV2 but with different skewedness parameters $`\zeta =0.3`$ in (a) and 0.6 in (b), respectively. The thick solid line represents the valence contribution(in DGLAP region), which is common for both gaussian and monopole type gauge boson wave functions. Our results are obtained from average values of $`G_\pi `$, i.e. $`G_\pi =0.12`$ for the gaussian type gauge boson wave function and 0.32  for the monopole type gauge boson wave function. We also plot the instantaneous contributions to the GPDs with the gaussian type(dotted line) and the monopole type(dot-dashed line) gauge boson wave functions for $`\zeta =0.6`$ case. We note that the results of the GPDs shown in Fig. 7 with the average $`G_\pi `$ values for both gaussian and monopole type gauge boson wave function cases are very close to the exact ones, i.e. frame-independent, as one can deduce from Fig. 6 for the gaussian wave function and Fig. 9 in  for the monopole type wave function, respectively.

As shown in Fig. 7, the most dramatic change in our updated result of the pion GPDs is that the solutions with the gaussian type gauge boson wave function show the continuity at the crossover($`x=\zeta `$), while the solutions with the monopole type gauge boson wave function show discontinuity at the crossover. As we discussed before, such discontinuity at $`x=\zeta `$ with the monopole type gauge boson wave function is just an artifact due to the different $`x\zeta `$ behavior between the gauge boson vertex ($`\chi ^g`$) and the hadronic vertex ($`\chi _{(22)})`$ functions (see Eq.(20)). This discontinuity problem of the GPDs appeared in our previous analysis  is now resolved by realizing that the same type of bound state wave function should be used for both hadron and gauge boson. Furthermore, we can obtain finite results for the scattering amplitudes for the DVCS region given by Eq. (10) since both valence and nonvalence solutions of the GPDs are not only continuous but also vanish at the crossover($`x=\zeta `$) as well as at $`x=0`$. As we discussed in Section III C, $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$ can be in principle non-zero if the multi-constituent-states are included beyond the ordinary $`Q\overline{Q}`$ state. Within our current $`Q\overline{Q}`$ model, however, we have checked the $`n`$th moment $`F_n(\zeta ,t)`$ in Eq.(14) for up to $`n=3`$ as well as the isosinglet GPDs. With our updated formulation presented in Section III B, we did not find any difference from our previous results, Figs. 10 and 11 of Ref., based on the formulation summarized in Section III A except the change of $`G_\pi `$ value discussed above. Thus, we do not show those figures in duplication but have confirmed that the polynomiality conditions are satisfied in our current model and our result on the isosinglet GPD of the pion is qualitatively very similar to the result (Fig.5 of Ref.) obtained by the chiral-quark-soliton model including the D-term in the ERBL region. The D-term generates the highest power in the polynomial, e.g. the second moment of the pion isosinglet GPD is given by $`F_2^{I=0}(\zeta ,t=0)=\frac{1}{2}(1+C\zeta ^2)`$, where $`C=1/4`$ in the chiral limit\**\**\**The skewedness parameter $`\xi `$ in Ref. is related to $`\zeta `$ by $`\xi =\frac{\zeta }{1\frac{\zeta }{2}}`$. Note, however, that the difference between $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ is negligible in the limit $`t0`$ because the physical region of $`\zeta `$ is restricted by Eq.(3). Our model calculation from Figs. 10 and 11 of Ref. gives $`C=0.2843`$. Incidentally, we note from Fig.5 of Ref. that the chiral-quark-soliton model not neglecting the dynamical quark mass generated in the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry also gives the value of $`|C|`$ slightly greater than 1/4.

In Fig. 8(a), we show the real part of the DVCS squared amplitude (thick solid line), Re($`|M^{IJ}|^2`$)=Re($`|M^{}+M^{}|^2`$) =4Re($`|M^{}|^2`$) in Eq. (10), obtained from the gaussian type gauge boson wave function and the average $`G_\pi =0.12`$ for the range of $`0t1`$ \[GeV2\] with fixed $`\zeta =0.6`$. The thick dashed and dot-dashed lines represent the valence ($`M^{IJ}=M_{val}^{IJ}`$) and nonvalence ($`M^{IJ}=M_{nv}^{IJ}`$) contributions to the total amplitude, respectively. It is interesting to note that the valence and nonvalence amplitudes interfere with each other destructively not constructively. We also note that the DVCS squared amplitude Re($`|M^{IJ}|^2`$) for the monopole type gauge boson wave function shows the logarithmic divergent behavior as expected due to the discontinuity at the crossover $`x=\zeta `$. We thus do not present the corresponding result for the monopole type gauge boson wave function. In Fig. 8(b), we show the $`\zeta `$ dependence of Re($`|M^{IJ}|^2`$) for the gaussian type gauge boson wave function. In our model calculations, the DVCS squared amplitude increases as $`\zeta `$ decreases. As in the case of Fig. 6, we confirm the analyticity of our calculation from the continuous behavior of our results near $`t=t_{\mathrm{min}}`$.

## V Conclusion

In this work, we reinvestigated our previous light-front quark model analysis  of the GPDs in the deeply virtual Compoton scattering (DVCS) of the pion, $`\gamma ^{}\pi \gamma \pi `$. We improved our previous effective treatment  of handling nonvalence (or higher Fock-states) contributions to the GPDs with the inclusion of the BS kernel for the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair annihilating into the gauge boson(see also  for a similar discussion) in addition to that for the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair merging into the final state meson(see Fig.4). It leads us to have a vector meson dominance picture at the gauge boson vertex within our constant approximation of $`G_\pi `$ in Eq. (29) and in turn to use the same type of gaussian wave function at both gauge boson and meson vertices. The continuity of the GPDs at the crossover($`x=\zeta `$) between the DGLAP and ERBL regions is ensured by a consistent treatment of the gauge boson and meson wave functions. Subsequently, the real part of the DVCS amplitude $`M^{IJ}`$ is calculated and its finiteness is confirmed (see Figs.8(a) and (b)). In our current $`Q\overline{Q}`$ constituent model, we obtain $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)=0`$ indicating that the single spectator cannot share its longitudinal momentum at $`x=\zeta `$. In principle, $`_\pi (\zeta ,\zeta ,t)`$ can be non-zero if our model is extended to include the multi-constituent-components. However, our current model is capable of satisfying the polynomiality conditions and yields qualitatively very similar results on the isosinglet GPD of the pion indicating that the D-term is effectively included in the ERBL region. Also, one should note that our model is not inconsistent with the recent HERMES and CLAS data on the SSA for the proton target.

Finally, the GPD of the pion is invariant under the time reversal symmetry($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$)††††††Although it might be convenient to choose a “symmetric” light-front frame  for the momenta of the initial and final target hadrons to see $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ symmetry, the physical interpretation of the initial and final hadron states in terms of light-front wave function is more clear in the present asymmetric frame than in the symmetric one.. As illustrated schematically in Fig. 9, it is not difficult to see that our effective method does not violate the time reversal symmetry.

Using our model calculation of the DVCS amplitude in which the final photon is emitted by the pion, one can calculate the differential cross section of the virtual Compton scattering of the pion, i.e. $`\pi e\pi e\gamma `$, by incorporating the Bethe-Heitler(BH) process  in which the final photon is emitted by either the incoming electron or the outgoing electron. Considerations along this line are in progress.

Acknowledgements

The work of HMC and LSK was supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-00070888 and that of CRJ by the US DOE under grant No. DE-FG02-96ER40947. The North Carolina Supercomputing Center and the National Energy Research Scientific Computer Center are also acknowledged for the grant of Cray time.


text:
# References

Local continuity laws on the phase space of Einstein equations with sources

R. Cartas-Fuentevilla
Instituto de Física, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Apartado Postal J-48 7250 Puebla, Pue., México, and Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60637

Local continuity equations involving background fields and variations of the fields, are obtained for a restricted class of solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell and Einstein-Weyl theories using a new approach based on the concept of the adjoint of a differential operator. Such covariant conservation laws are generated by means of decoupled equations and their adjoints in such a way that the corresponding covariantly conserved currents possess some gauge invariant properties and are expressed in terms of Debye potentials. These continuity laws lead to both a covariant description of bilinear forms on the phase space and the existence of conserved quantities. Differences and similarities with other approaches, and extensions of our results are discussed.

PACS numbers: 04.20.Jb, 04.40.Nr
Running title: Local continuity laws….

I. INTRODUCTION

The study of the conservation laws is present in practically all areas of physics. In the context of the theories involving gravity, such a study becomes particularly interesting because of the lack of conserved currents representing the conservation of energy and momentum. Moreover, in the covariant description of a symplectic structure on the phase space of classical systems, a covariantly conserved two-form on such phase space is required. Such descriptions yield a canonical formalism manifestly covariant in field theory, which represents a starting point for a quantum mechanical treatment . More specifically, in this context, the phase space is defined as the manifold of solutions of the classical equations of motion. Such a definition has the advantage of manifest covariance . The existence of a two-form (say $`J^\mu `$), covariantly conserved ($`_\mu J^\mu =0`$) on such phase space, lead to a symplectic structure $`\omega `$ defined as $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }J^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$ (where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an initial value hypersurface), independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Moreover, the condition that Poisson brackets satisfy the Jacoby identity, holds if $`\omega `$ is closed (which means that $`\omega `$ is a two-form whose exterior derivative vanishes). This condition is satisfied if $`J^\mu `$ itself is closed. Several methods have been proposed in the literature for constructing these conserved currents, from the guess for the explicit form of the currents , to the very general result on the existence of a conserved current (the symplectic current) for the field variations for any field theory derived from a Lagrangian action . Alternatively, equivalent conserved currents have been obtained directly from the equations for the field variations using the fact that there exists a conserved current associated with any system of homogeneous linear partial differential equations that can be written in terms of a self-adjoint operator . Such results have been obtained without any statement about the background fields. Nevertheless, the currents constructed in these ways are associated with the variations of the gauge fields. For example, in the case of the Einstein-Maxwell theory, such currents are expressed in terms of the metric and vector potential variations, and in this manner are defined modulo gauge transformations \[1-4\]. However, as it will be shown in the present paper, one can construct, for a restricted class of spacetimes, conserved currents (and the geometrical structures associated) without the gauge freedom of the matter fields. The approach is based on the concept of the adjoint of a differential operator, which represents an extension of that employed in Refs. . Our starting point is the existence of appropriate decoupled equations for the restricted class of spacetimes under study, which have been obtained using the Newman-Penrose formulation . It is shown that the conserved currents are also independent of the perturbed tetrad gauge freedom, which appears when the variations of the Newman-Penrose quantities are involved.

A previous application of the present approach has been given in the study of the perturbations of the Schwarzschild black hole, leading up to an important result on the existence of conservations laws for non-Hermitian systems, which has a direct extension to the scheme of string theory . In this manner, another of the purposes of this article is to establish conservation laws for more general spacetimes, analogous to that appearing in Ref. . However, unlike the results given in that reference, one of the main novelties in the present article is the interpretation of the corresponding conserved currents as bilinear forms on the phase space, which is connected with the very important concept of symplectic structures. This subject will be extended later on.

The outline of this paper is as follows. Section II is dedicated to establish the general relationship between adjoint operators and conserved currents. The application of this very general result for identifying the conserved currents for the field variations in the Einstein-Maxwell and Einstein-Weyl theories is given in Sec. III. The properties of such conserved currents, and their relations with the existence of symplectic structures on the phase space are discussed. We finish in Sec. IV with some concluding remarks and future extensions of the present results.

II. ADJOINT OPERATORS AND CONSERVED CURRENTS

New branch: In Refs.  it has been shown that there exists a conserved current associated with any system of homogeneous linear partial differential equations that can be written in terms of a self-adjoint operator. This result is limited for a self-adjoint system, for which the corresponding conserved current depends on a pair of solutions admitted by such a system. However, as we shall see below, there exists a more general possibility that extends for systems of equations which are not self-adjoint necessarily. The demonstration is very easy, following the basic idea of Refs. :

In accordance with Wald’s definition , if $``$ corresponds to a linear partial differential operator which maps $`m`$-index tensor fields into $`n`$-index tensor fields, then, the adjoint operator of $``$, denoted by $`^{}`$, is that linear partial differential operator mapping $`n`$-index tensor fields into $`m`$-index tensor fields such that

$$g^{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}[(f_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}})]_{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}[^{}(g^{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}})]^{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}f_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}=_\mu J^\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`J^\mu `$ is some vector field depending on the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$. From Eq. (1) we can see that this definition automatically guarantees that, if the field $`f`$ is a solution of the linear system $`(f)=0`$ and $`g`$ a solution of the adjoint system $`^{}(g)=0`$, then we obtain the local continuity law $`_\mu J^\mu =0`$, which establishes that $`J^\mu `$ is a covariantly conserved current. This fact means that for any homogeneous equation system, one can always construct a conserved current taking into account the adjoint system. This general result contains the self-adjoint case $`(=^{})`$ as a particular one, for which $`f`$ and $`g`$ correspond to two independent solutions.

In the present work, $`f`$ and $`g`$ will be associated with the first-order variations of the backgrounds fields. Such field variations will correspond, on the phase space, to one-forms . In this manner, the left-hand side of Eq. (1) can be understood as a wedge product on such phase space: $`g(f)^{}(g)f=_\mu J^\mu `$, and something similar for the bilinear form $`J^\mu `$ in its dependence on the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$ (the operators $``$, $`^{}`$, and $`_\mu `$ are depending only on the background fields).

Traditional branch: It is important, for completeness, that we outline the original idea for introducing the definition (1) in Ref. : reduction of systems of linear partial differential equations to equations for scalar potentials (called Debye potentials), which determine a complete solution of the original system.

If we have the linear system $`(f)=0`$, and there exist linear operators such that

$$𝒮=𝒪𝒯,$$

identically, then the field $`𝒮^{}(\psi )`$ satisfies the equation

$$^{}(𝒮^{}(\psi ))=0,$$

provided that the scalar field $`\psi `$ satisfies

$$𝒪^{}(\psi )=0.$$

In particular, if $``$ is self-adjoint $`(^{}=)`$, then $`f=𝒮^{}(\psi )`$ is a solution of $`(f)=0`$. For example, in the case considered in the present work, the (matrix) operator governing the field perturbations in the Einstein-Maxwell and Einstein-Weyl theories are, in fact, self-adjoint .

Moreover, the existence of operators $`𝒮`$, $`𝒪`$, and $`𝒯`$ satisfying the above identity, is equivalent to the existence of a decoupled system

$$𝒪(\mathrm{\Psi })=0,$$

obtained from the original system $`(f)=0`$, such that the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒯(f)`$.

Now, we can mix both branches of the adjoint operators scheme: since the fields $`\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfy equation which are adjoints to each other, we can establish, in according to the first branch, that

$$\psi (𝒪\mathrm{\Psi })(𝒪^{}\psi )\mathrm{\Psi }=_\mu 𝒥^\mu (\psi ,\mathrm{\Psi }),$$

which means that $`_\mu 𝒥^\mu (\psi ,\mathrm{\Psi })=0`$. Furthermore, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is finally depending on $`\psi `$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒯(f)=𝒯(𝒮^{}(\psi ))\right)`$, $`𝒥^\mu `$ is dependent only on $`\psi `$ (however, see the paragraph before Eq. (8)).

On the other hand, although this result has been established assuming only tensor fields and the presence of a single equation, such a result can be extended in a direct way to equations involving spinor fields, matrix fields, and the presence of more than one field .

It is worth pointing out some issues on the notation. The first-order field variations appearing in Ref.  are denoted by a superscript B. On the other hand, the field variations coincide, in according to Witten’s interpretation , with an infinite-dimensional generalization of the usual exterior derivative, which is traditionally represented by the symbol $`\delta `$. However, in Ref. , the Newman-Penrose formalism is used, in which the symbol $`\delta `$ is employed for denoting one of the directional derivatives defined by the null tetrad. In this manner, for avoiding confusion, we will maintain the symbol $`\delta `$ as usual in the Newman-Penrose notation, and the superscript B for the first-order field variations (the exterior derivative of background fields). In the present article, the exterior derivative will not be performed explicity, and it will be sufficient for our purposes to understand any quantity with the superscript B as a one-form on the phase space. Quantities without such a superscript will correspond to background fields, which mean zero-forms on the phase space . With these previous considerations, formulae and notation of Ref.  will be used throughout this paper.

III. COVARIANT CONTINUITY LAWS

In Ref. , the metric and the vector potential variations of the Einstein-Maxwell equations have been obtained starting from a decoupled set of equations governing certain combinations of field variations, and have the form:

$$𝒪(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})=0,$$
(2)
where the $`4\times 4`$ matrix operator $`𝒪`$ can be read from Eq. (24) of that reference, and $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})`$ is the matrix:

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}\\ \varphi _1\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}\\ \varphi _1\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}`$ $``$ $`(2\varphi _1\mathrm{\Psi }_1^\mathrm{B}3\mathrm{\Psi }_2\varphi _0^\mathrm{B})/2\varphi _1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}`$ $``$ $`\kappa ^\mathrm{B}+(D2ϵ\rho )(\varphi _0^\mathrm{B}/2\varphi _1),`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}`$ $``$ $`\sigma ^\mathrm{B}+(\delta 2\beta \tau )(\varphi _0^\mathrm{B}/2\varphi _1).`$
The decoupled system (2) was obtained provided that the background electromagnetic field is non-null with one of its principal null directions being geodetic and shear free, which means that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0=\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, $`\kappa =0=\sigma `$, and $`\varphi _0=0`$ in the background . Note that the variations of these vanishing background quantities are those involved in $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})`$. As described in previous Section, the variations of background fields correspond to one-forms, in particular, those ones in Eq. (4). However, as shown in Appendix B, they correspond to exact one-forms. This property will be useful below.

On the other hand, according to Wald’s method used in Ref. , the matrix potential $`(\psi )`$, which determines the complete variations, satisfies the equations (see Eqs. (25) and (27) of Ref. )

$$𝒪^{}(\psi )=0,$$
(5)
where

$$(\psi )=\left(\begin{array}{c}M_1^{}\\ M_0^{}\\ \psi _\mathrm{G}\\ \psi _\mathrm{E}\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Thus, from the definition (1) we have that $`(\psi )𝒪(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})𝒪^{}(\psi )(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})=_\mu J^\mu (\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B},\psi )`$. The left-hand side contains terms of the form $`M_1^{}𝒪_{11}(\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B})𝒪_{11}^{}(M_1^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$, where $`𝒪_{11}\overline{\delta }4\alpha +\pi `$ and $`𝒪_{11}^{}(\overline{\delta }4\alpha +\pi )^{}=\overline{\delta }+3\alpha +\overline{\beta }\overline{\tau }`$, are the entries 11 of the $`4\times 4`$ matrices $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒪^{}`$ respectively (see Eqs. (24) and (25) in Ref. ). Taking into account that $`\overline{\delta }\overline{m}^\mu _\mu `$, and that is acting on scalar fields, such a term can be expressed in the form $`M_1^{}𝒪_{11}(\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B})𝒪_{11}^{}(M_1^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}=_\mu (\overline{m}^\mu M_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B})`$, and similarly for the remaining terms considering that the tetrad vectors $`D`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\delta `$ are defined by $`l^\mu _\mu `$, $`n^\mu _\mu `$, and $`m^\mu _\mu `$ respectively. In this manner, from Eqs. (2) and (5) we obtain explicity the following covariant conservation law:

$`_\mu J^\mu =0,J^\mu l^\mu (M_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}+2\varphi _1\psi _\mathrm{G}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B})n^\mu (M_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}+2\varphi _1\psi _\mathrm{E}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B})`$
$`+m^\mu (M_0^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}+2\varphi _1\psi _\mathrm{G}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B})+\overline{m}^\mu (M_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}+\varphi _1\psi _\mathrm{E}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}).`$ (7)
It is very easy to determine that, like $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})`$ in Eq. (3), $`(\psi )`$ in Eq. (6) is made out of one-forms. From Eqs. (28) and (29) of Ref. , the metric and vector potential variations are given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}(h_{\mu \nu })\\ (b_\mu )\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(g_{\mu \nu })^\mathrm{B}\\ (A_\mu )^\mathrm{B}\end{array}\right)=𝒮^{}(\psi ),$$

where $`𝒮^{}`$ is an operator depending only on background fields (see Eqs. (26), (28), and (29) in Ref. ), which correspond to zero-forms. Since $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`b_\mu `$ correspond to one-forms, from the preceding equation, $`(\psi )`$ correspond also to one-forms. This implies automatically that $`J^\mu `$ in Eq. (7) is a (non-degenerate) two-form on the corresponding phase space. However, we have to demonstrate that $`J^\mu `$ corresponds to a closed two-form for obtaining a symplectic structure on the phase space. For this purpose, we use the results in Appendix B. For example, the first term $`l^\mu M_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}`$ for $`J^\mu `$ in Eq. (7) can be rewritten as:

$$l^\mu M_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}=\left[l^\mu M_1^{}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_1\frac{3\mathrm{\Psi }_2}{2\varphi _1}\varphi _0\right)\right]^\mathrm{B},$$

where Eq. (B1) has been used; the above expression means that such a term is an exact two-form (and automatically a closed two-form). Similarly, using Eqs. (B1) and (B2), the remaining terms in Eq. (7) correspond to closed two-forms. Therefore, $`J^\mu `$ itself is a closed two-form, as required for constructing a symplectic structure. Such geometrical structure is defined by $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }J^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an initial value hypersurface. As $`J^\mu `$ is conserved, $`\omega `$ is independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and, in particular, is Poincaré invariant . In this manner, $`\omega `$ is a covariant symplectic structure on the phase space.

On the other hand, as shown in the Appendix A, the one-forms $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}`$, are invariant under gauge transformations of the vector potential variations, $`b_\mu b_\mu +_\mu \chi `$, and thus, $`J^\mu `$ and $`\omega `$ have the same invariance property (in contrast with those of Refs. \[1-4\]). In field space, $`_\mu \chi `$ corresponds to the gauge directions, therefore, this invariance property defines automatically a gauge-invariant two-form $`\omega `$ on the subtler space $`Z\widehat{Z}/G`$, being $`\widehat{Z}`$ the space of solutions and $`G`$ the group of gauge transformations . Similarly, since such one-forms are also invariant under infinitesimal rotations of the tetrad (see Appendix A), we have also a two-form $`\omega `$ independent on the perturbed tetrad gauge freedom, defined on the subtler space $`T\widehat{Z}/H`$, being $`H`$ the group of infinitesimal rotations of the perturbed tetrad. However, $`J^\mu `$ and $`\omega `$ are not gauge invariant with respect to infinitesimal diffeomorphisms (in similarity to those of Refs. \[1-4\]).

From Eq. (7) we can see that the conserved current depends on the background fields and the solutions admitted by the decoupled system and its adjoint. However, the entries of the matrix $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})`$ can be defined in terms of the metric and vector potential variations, which in turn, are defined in terms of the potential matrix $`(\psi )`$ (see Eqs. (28) and (29) of Ref. ), and therefore, $`J^\mu `$ and $`\omega `$ can be expressed in terms of a single complex solution of the equations for the potential $`(\psi )`$. However, in the more general case, if $`(\psi )_1`$ is a solution admitted by the equations for the potentials, the matrix $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})`$ can be expressed in terms of a second solution $`(\psi )_2`$, in general different of $`(\psi )_1`$. Therefore, $`J^\mu `$ and $`\omega `$ are expressed in terms of a pair of solutions for those equations. Finally, $`J^\mu `$ and $`\omega `$ will be given completely in terms of the potentials (one-forms), which become the fundamental geometrical structures. In this manner, the analysis of the structure of the phase space has been reduced to the study of equations for the potentials, which is a relatively simple issue.

Similarly, when the background electromagnetic field is null (and there is a possibly nonzero cosmological constant) the continuity equation for the field variations in the Einstein-Maxwell theory is given by (see Eqs. (21) and (24) of Ref. )

$`_\mu J^\mu =0,J^\mu l^\mu [\psi _\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{\Delta }4\gamma +\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}+\psi _\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{\Delta }2\gamma +\mu )\phi _0^\mathrm{B}`$
$`+2\overline{\phi }_2(\psi _\mathrm{G}(D2ϵ)\phi _0^\mathrm{B}(D+4ϵ+3\rho )\psi _\mathrm{G}\phi _0^\mathrm{B})].`$
$`n^\mu [(D+4ϵ+3\rho )\psi _\mathrm{G}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}+(D+2ϵ+\rho )\psi _\mathrm{E}\phi _0^\mathrm{B}]`$
$`m^\mu [\psi _\mathrm{G}(\overline{\delta }4\alpha +\pi )\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}+\psi _\mathrm{E}(\overline{\delta }2\alpha +\pi )\phi _0^\mathrm{B}]`$
$`+\overline{m}^\mu [(\delta +4\beta +3\tau )\psi _\mathrm{G}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}+(\delta +2\beta +\tau )\psi _\mathrm{E}\phi _0^\mathrm{B}],`$ (8)
where similarly $`J^\mu `$ is a closed two-form on the phase space, and the corresponding symplectic structure $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }J^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$ is Poncairé invariant because $`J^\mu `$ is conserved. Furthermore, $`J^\mu `$ and the corresponding symplectic form $`\omega `$ have essentially the same invariance properties that the previous case (see Appendix A), and therefore are defined in a gauge-invariant form on the corresponding subtler spaces $`Z`$ and $`T`$. Analogously, they are given, in general, in terms of a pair of solutions admitted by the corresponding equations for the potentials (see Eqs. (24) in Ref. ).

In the case of solutions of the Einstein-Weyl equations such that the flux vector of the neutrino field is tangent to a shear-free congruence of null geodesics, the field variations satisfy the continuity equation (see Eqs. (38)-(47) of Ref. ):

$`_\mu \{l^\mu [M_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}\eta _1\psi _\mathrm{G}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}ik\eta _1\overline{\eta }_1^{}M_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}+2ik\eta _1\overline{\eta }_1^{}M_0^{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}]`$
$`n^\mu [M_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}+\eta _1\psi _\mathrm{N}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}].`$
$`+m^\mu [\eta _1\psi _\mathrm{G}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}+M_0^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}ik\eta _1\overline{\eta }_1^{}M_0^{}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}]+\overline{m}^\mu [M_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}+\eta _1\psi _\mathrm{N}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}].\}=0.`$ (9)
where $`M_0^{}`$, $`M_1^{}`$, $`\psi _N`$, and $`\psi _G`$ are the potentials, and similarly $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}`$ are defined in terms of such potentials (see Eqs. (47) of Ref. ).

The continuity equations (7)–(9) deserve some additional comments. The existence of such continuity laws follows directly from the definition of the adjoint of a differential operator, and we have only to identify conveniently the system of differential equations for applying such definition. In this sense, the adjoint operators scheme allows us to reveal the underlying geometrical structures for the corresponding theory, in a elementary and straightforward way. The argument involved is, as seen above, very simple.

On the other hand, in the Lagrangian approach known in the literature , the symplectic currents arise from the exterior derivative of the so called symplectic potentials, which correspond to one-forms on the phase space. This guarantees that such bilinear forms correspond automatically to closed two-forms (symplectic structures) on the phase space. However, in the present approach, the symplectic currents in Eqs. (7)–(9) are constructed in a direct way using only the concept of adjoint operators, regardless of the existence of symplectic potentials. Furthermore, our symplectic currents are generated from the usual derivatives (essentially directional derivatives) of the potentials, which correspond also to one-forms on the phase space. This suggests a possible relationship between the fundamental structures of the different approaches: the symplectic potentials of the Lagrangian approach and the potentials considered in the present scheme. This may be the subject of forthcoming works.

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS

As we have seen, the present approach based on the concept of the adjoint of a differential operator, represents a more direct and elementary procedure for constructing geometrical structures manifestly covariant on the phase space. Specifically, it has allowed us to demonstrate that, for the restricted class of spacetimes considered here, there exist two covariantly conserved currents for the field variations of each theory, the symplectic current (which coincides fully with that obtained from the Lagrangian approach ), and that found in the present approach (which is no obtained directly from a Lagrangian approach). Since both currents can be expressed, finally, in terms of solutions of the equations for the corresponding scalar potentials, our fundamental geometrical structures, a direct comparison is possible and convenient in order to establish the differences and similarities. On the other hand, although some restrictions on the background fields have been required, a lot of solutions of wide interest is contained in the cases considered here: rotating (charged) black holes, colliding plane waves, etc. The detailed study of the corresponding currents and geometrical structures associated with those particular solutions will be the subject of subsequent works. In fact, as mentioned in the Introduction, works along these lines have permitted to demonstrate that, the continuity equation (8) directly yields, in the particular case of the gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations of the Schwarzschild black hole, the conservation of the energy for those perturbations without invoking, as usually, the Schrödinger-type equation for establishing such a conservation relation. This result is connected with the existence of conserved quantities for non-Hermitian system of differential equations .

Finally, the general result established in Sec. II can be understood as an important extension of the original Wald’s method : wherever there exists an appropriate decoupled equation, it is not only possible to express the complete solution in terms of scalar potentials, but also to find automatically a corresponding (covariantly) conserved current, which can be expressed, in turn, in terms of the same potentials. The possible applications of such a result in the modern theories involving gravity and matter fields such as string theory (and other areas of physics) are open questions .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by CONACyT and the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (México). The author wants to thank Dr. G. F. Torres del Castillo for his comments on the manuscript and suggestions, and Professor Robert Wald for the kind hospitality provided at the Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.

APPENDIX A: INVARIANCE PROPERTIES

Although it is not mentioned explicitly in Refs. , the perturbed quantities appearing in the decoupled equations are invariant under infinitesimal rotations of the tetrad. For example, in the case of the perturbed quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}`$ (see Eqs. (4)) made out of the perturbations of the spin coefficient $`\kappa `$ and of the component of electromagnetic field $`\varphi _0`$, we have that:

$`\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$ $``$ $`(l^\mu l^\nu _\nu m_\mu )^\mathrm{B}=l^\mu l^\nu m_\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\gamma )^\mathrm{B}l^\mu l^\nu _\nu m_\mu ^\mathrm{B}(l^\mu l^\nu )^\mathrm{B}_\nu m_\mu `$ (A1)
$`=`$ $`l^\mu l^\nu m_\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\gamma )^\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\pi }\tau )l^\mu l^\nu h_{\mu \nu }(D2ϵ\rho )(l^\mu m_\mu ^\mathrm{B}),`$
where $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\gamma )^\mathrm{B}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\gamma \rho }(_\mu h_{\nu \rho }+_\nu h_{\mu \rho }_\rho h_{\mu \nu })`$ and $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric perturbation. In this manner, the first and second terms in the above equation are defined completely in terms of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. On the other hand, $`l^\mu m_\mu ^\mathrm{B}`$ is dependent on the perturbed tetrad gauge freedom. Furthermore, from the definition $`\varphi _0l^\mu m^\nu F_{\mu \nu }`$, one finds that

$`\varphi _0^\mathrm{B}=l^\mu m^\nu F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{B}(\varphi _1+\overline{\varphi _1})l^\mu m^\nu h_{\mu \nu }+2\varphi _1(l^\mu m_\mu ^\mathrm{B}),`$ (A2)
where $`\varphi _1`$ is the only nonvanishing component of the background electromagnetic field, and $`F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{B}=_\mu b_\nu _\nu b_\mu `$, being $`b_\mu `$ the vector potential perturbations. Therefore, from Eqs. (A1) and (A2) we can see easily that the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}=\kappa ^\mathrm{B}+(D2ϵ\rho )(\varphi _0^\mathrm{B}/2\varphi _1)`$ is independent of the perturbed tetrad gauge freedom. Similarly for the remainding quantities $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}`$ in Eq. (4). Thus, $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})`$ is invariant under the transformation considered. Since the field perturbation $`F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{B}`$ is invariant under the ordinary gauge transformation $`b_\mu b_\mu +_\mu \chi `$, where $`\chi `$ is an arbitrary scalar field, $`\varphi _0^\mathrm{B}`$ in Eq. (A2) is also invariant under this transformation and, in this manner, ($`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B}`$) is (see Eqs. (4)). However, it is not difficult to demonstrate that ($`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B}`$) is not invariant under infinitesimal diffeomorphisms $`b_\mu b_\mu +_\chi A_\mu `$, and $`h_{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+_\chi g_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\chi ^\mu `$ is an arbitrary vector field, and $`A_\mu `$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ the background fields.

Similarly, in the case of solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell theory with a null background electromagnetic field ($`\varphi _2`$ is the only nonvanishing component) , we find that

$`\varphi _0^\mathrm{B}=l^\mu m^\nu F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\varphi _2}l^\mu m^\nu h_{\mu \nu },`$ (A3)
which is independent of the perturbed tetrad gauge freedom and, of course invariant under $`b_\mu b_\mu +_\mu \chi `$; however it is not under infinitesimal diffeomorphisms. On the other hand, it is easy to verify that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ is invariant under ordinary gauge transformations and infinitesimal diffeomorphisms (and independent of the perturbed tetrad gauge freedom). In this manner, our quantities are, in general, only invariant under both ordinary gauge transformations of the vector potential perturbartions and rotations of the tetrad.

APPENDIX B: EXACT ONE-FORMS ON THE PHASE SPACE

The field variations appearing in the decoupled equation (3) correspond to exact one-forms on the phase space.

The case of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ is trivial: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ is directly the exterior derivative of the zero-form $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (see last paragraph in Sec. II).

The other cases are more elaborated. For example, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}`$ can be rewritten as:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^\mathrm{B}\frac{3\mathrm{\Psi }_2}{2\varphi _1}\varphi _0^\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{\Psi }_1^\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{3\mathrm{\Psi }_2}{2\varphi _1}\varphi _0\right)^\mathrm{B},$$
(B1)
since $`\varphi _0=0`$ in the background. Similarly, $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}`$ can be rewritten as:

$`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^\mathrm{B}+\left[(D2ϵ\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{2\varphi _1}}\right]^\mathrm{B},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^\mathrm{B}+\left[(\delta 2\beta \tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{2\varphi _1}}\right]^\mathrm{B}.`$ (B2)
Therefore, from Eqs. (B1) and (B2), $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}`$ correspond to the exterior derivative of background zero-forms, and then correspond to exact one-forms. A consequence of this property is that $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})`$ is made out of closed one-forms:

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{B})^\mathrm{B}=0.$$
(B3)
Similarly, the field variations $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^\mathrm{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^\mathrm{B}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^\mathrm{B}`$ appearing in Eq. (9) (and defined in Eqs. (39) of Ref. ), correspond to exact one-forms on the phase space.

The cases of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\varphi _0^\mathrm{B}`$ in Eq. (8) are also trivials: they are directly the variations of the corresponding background quantity.


text:
# On the index of a vector field tangent to a hypersurface with non-isolated zero in the embedding space

## 1 Introduction

Let $`(V,0)=(\{f=0\},0)(^n,0)`$ be an isolated singularity of a hypersurface and

$$X=X_1\frac{}{z_1}+\mathrm{}+X_n\frac{}{z_n}$$

the germ of a holomorphic vector field on $`(^n,0)`$ tangent to $`(V,0)`$, say $`Xf=cf`$, with an isolated zero on $`(V,0)`$. In  is defined a notion of an index $`\text{ind}_{V,0}X`$ of this vector field, called GSV index and generalizing the Poincaré-Hopf index. By contracting germs of Kähler forms on $`(V,0)`$ with $`X`$ one obtains two complexes

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^{},X):0\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^n\stackrel{X}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{X}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^1\stackrel{X}{}𝒪_{V,0}0$$

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0},X):0\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^{n1}\stackrel{X}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{X}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^1\stackrel{X}{}𝒪_{V,0}0$$

which have both finite dimensional homology spaces, see . We set

$`h_i^{}:=dim_{}H_i(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^{},X)`$ $`h_i:=dim_{}H_i(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0},X).`$
It has been proved in  that the topologically defined GSV index is given as

$$\text{ind}_{V,0}X=\chi (\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0},X)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^ih_i.$$

Further the numbers $`h_i`$ and $`h_i^{}`$ are computed under the condition that $`X`$ has an isolated zero on $`(^n,0)`$. We want to extend these computations to the case that $`X`$ has an isolated zero only on $`(V,0)`$ using the same methods as in .

Note that one can assume after a linear change of coordinates in $`(^n,0)`$ that $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1},f)`$ is a regular $`𝒪`$-sequence. Throughout this paper we always assume the coordinates to be chosen in this way. We denote by

$$𝒜:=\frac{𝒪}{(f/z_1,\mathrm{},f/z_n)}$$

the Milnor algebra of $`f`$ at $`0`$ and we set

$`:={\displaystyle \frac{𝒪}{(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)}}`$ $`^{}:={\displaystyle \frac{𝒪}{(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1})}}.`$
We simply write $`𝒪`$ resp. $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$ instead of $`𝒪_{^n,0}`$ resp. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{^n,0}^i`$. $`^{}`$ is infinite dimensional and $``$ not necessarily finite dimensional. Our main result is the following:

###### Theorem 1.

The $``$-dimensions of the homology spaces of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0},X)`$ are given by

$$h_0^{}=dim_{}\frac{}{(f)},$$

$$h_1^{}=dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}+dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)^{}(f,f/z_n)},$$

$$h_2^{}=\mathrm{}=h_n^{}=dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_𝒜(f)}{(c)}=dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_𝒜(c)}{(f)}=:\lambda .$$

## 2 The homological index

The first steps are easy generalizations of the computations in . Consider the complex

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X):0\mathrm{\Omega }^n\stackrel{X}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{X}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1\stackrel{X}{}𝒪0.$$

###### Lemma 1.

$`H_j(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)=0\text{ for }j2`$
$`H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)`$, ($`h_1dz_1+\mathrm{}+h_ndz_nh_n`$)
$`H_0(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)`$.

###### Proof.

It follows immediately from the dual version of Corollary 17.12 of . ∎

Multiplication with $`c`$ gives us a map of complexes

$$c:(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X).$$

We denote by $``$ the mapping cone associated to this map, see . We have

$$:0𝒪0\stackrel{\beta }{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1𝒪\stackrel{\beta }{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\beta }{}\mathrm{\Omega }^n\mathrm{\Omega }^{n1}\stackrel{\beta }{}0\mathrm{\Omega }^n\stackrel{\beta }{}0$$

where

$$\beta (\omega ,\eta ):=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& (1)^jc\\ 0& X\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega \\ \eta \end{array}\right):=\left(\begin{array}{c}X(\omega )+(1)^jc\eta \\ X(\eta )\end{array}\right),$$

and $`j`$ is the degree of $`(\omega ,\eta )\mathrm{\Omega }^j\mathrm{\Omega }^{j1}`$.

###### Lemma 2.

$`H_k()=0`$ for $`k3`$
$`H_2()\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)\text{ann}_{^{}}(c)`$
$`H_1()\frac{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}{c\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}\text{ann}_{}(c)`$
$`H_0()\frac{}{(c)}`$.

###### Proof.

$`H_0()\frac{}{(c)}`$ is obvious. We have an exact sequence of complexes

From the long exact sequence of homology we get $`H_k()=0`$ for $`k3`$ and the non-trivial part of the sequence is

$$0\stackrel{}{}H_2()\stackrel{p_2}{}H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)\stackrel{c}{}H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)\stackrel{i_1}{}H_1()\stackrel{p_2}{}\stackrel{c}{}\stackrel{}{}\frac{}{(c)}\stackrel{}{}0,$$

where $`i_1`$ is the inclusion to the first factor and $`p_2`$ the projection onto the second factor. Now one has

$$H_2()\text{im}p_2=\mathrm{ker}c\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)\text{ann}_{^{}}(c)$$

by Lemma 1 and the isomorphism given there. Further we get

$$H_1()\mathrm{ker}p_2\text{im}p_2.$$

We have $`\text{im}p_2=\mathrm{ker}c=\text{ann}_{}(c)`$ and

$$\mathrm{ker}p_2=\text{im}i_1\frac{H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)}{\mathrm{ker}i_1}=\frac{H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)}{\text{im}c}\frac{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}{c\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}.$$

###### Lemma 3.

$$H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^{},X)\frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}\frac{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)^{}(f,f/z_n)}$$

###### Proof.

We have an exact sequence of complexes

where $`^k:=f\mathrm{\Omega }^k+df\mathrm{\Omega }^{k1}`$. From Lemma 1 one gets the last part of the long exact sequence in homology

$$\begin{array}{c}0\stackrel{}{}H_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^{},X)\stackrel{\delta _2}{}H_1(,X)\stackrel{i_1}{}H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)\stackrel{p_1}{}H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^{},X)\stackrel{\delta _1}{}\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{\delta _1}{}H_0(,X)\stackrel{i_0}{}\stackrel{p_0}{}\frac{}{(f)}\stackrel{}{}0,\end{array}$$

where $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$ are the connecting homomorphisms. This gives us

$$H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^{},X)\mathrm{ker}\delta _1\text{im}\delta _1.$$

One has $`\text{im}\delta _1=\mathrm{ker}i_0`$, $`^0=f𝒪`$ and $`^1=f\mathrm{\Omega }^1+df𝒪`$. For

$$\omega =f(h_1dz_1+\mathrm{}+h_ndz_n)+hdf$$

we get

$$X(\omega )=f(X_1h_1+\mathrm{}+X_nh_n)+hcf$$

and therefore

$$\mathrm{ker}i_0=\frac{\{gf𝒪:gfI_n\}}{fI_n+𝒪(cf)}.$$

We have set $`I_n:=𝒪(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ here. On the other hand multiplication gives an isomorphism

$$f:\frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}\frac{\{gf𝒪:gfI_n\}}{fI_n+𝒪(cf)}$$

and this proves

$$\text{im}\delta _1\frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}.$$

Consider $`\mathrm{ker}\delta _1`$ now. Then we have

$$\mathrm{ker}\delta _1=\text{im}p_1\frac{H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)}{\mathrm{ker}p_1}=\frac{H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)}{\text{im}i_1}.$$

We have an isomorphism

$$\varphi :H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)$$

given as $`\varphi (h_1dz_1+\mathrm{}+h_ndz_n)=h_n`$ with $`X_1h_1+\mathrm{}+X_nh_n=0`$. To prove

$$\mathrm{ker}\delta _1\frac{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)^{}(f,f/z_n)}$$

we have to show

$$\varphi i_1(H_1(,X))=\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)^{}(f,f/z_n).$$

" $``$ ": Let $`\omega H_1(,X)`$, say $`\omega =f(h_1dz_1+\mathrm{}+h_ndz_n)+hdf`$ with $`X(\omega )=0`$ and so we have $`f(X_1h_1+\mathrm{}+X_nh_n)+hcf=0`$. $`\omega `$ is mapped to $`fh_n+hf/z_n`$. Modulo $`I_{n1}`$ we have

$$(fh_n+hf/z_n)X_n=fh_nX_n+hcf=0$$

and this shows the inclusion. Here we have set $`I_{n1}:=𝒪(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1})`$.
"$``$": Let $`h\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)^{}(f,f/z_n)`$ be a representative, say

$$hX_n=g_1X_1+\mathrm{}+g_{n1}X_{n1}$$

and $`h=s_1f+s_2f/z_n`$ with $`s_1,s_2𝒪`$. It follows that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s_1fX_n+s_2f/z_nX_n& =f(s_1X_n+s_2c)s_2(f/z_1X_1+\mathrm{}+f/z_{n1}X_{n1})\hfill \\ & =g_1X_1+\mathrm{}+g_{n1}X_{n1}\hfill \end{array}$$

and therefore $`f(s_1X_n+s_2c)`$ is contained in $`I_{n1}`$. This means that $`s_1X_n+s_2c`$ is contained in $`I_{n1}`$, because $`f`$ is not a zero divisor in $`^{}`$. Let

$$s_1X_n+s_2c=l_1X_1+\mathrm{}+l_{n1}X_{n1}.$$

Then one has

$$g_1X_1+\mathrm{}+g_{n1}X_{n1}=fl_1X_1+\mathrm{}+fl_{n1}X_{n1}s_2(f/z_1X_1+\mathrm{}+f/z_{n1}X_{n1}).$$

Set

$$\omega :=(fl_1s_2f/z_1)dz_1\mathrm{}(fl_{n1}s_2f/z_{n1})dz_{n1}+hdz_n.$$

It follows

$$\omega =f(l_1dz_1\mathrm{}l_{n1}dz_{n1}+s_1dz_n)+s_2df^1$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X(\omega )& =f(X_1l_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}l_{n1}+s_1X_n)+s_2cf\hfill \\ & =f(s_1X_ns_2c+s_1X_n)+s_2cf\hfill \\ & =0\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore $`wH_1(,X)`$ with $`\varphi i_1(\omega )=h`$. ∎

### 2.1 Proof of Theorem 1

#### The double complex $`𝒢`$

We use the construction as in . Consider the double complex $`𝒢`$:

Numeration: $`𝒢_{i,0}=\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$, $`𝒢_{i,1}=\mathrm{\Omega }^i\mathrm{\Omega }^{i1}=𝒢_{i+k,1+k}`$ for $`k1`$ and $`𝒢_{i,j}=0`$ for $`i<0`$ or $`j<0`$. The mappings are $`\overline{\alpha }(\omega ,\eta ):=\pm f\omega +df\eta `$,

$$\alpha (\omega ,\eta ):=\left(\begin{array}{cc}df& 0\\ \pm f& df\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega \\ \eta \end{array}\right):=\left(\begin{array}{c}df\omega \\ \pm f\omega +df\eta \end{array}\right)$$

and

$$\beta (\omega ,\eta ):=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& \pm c\\ 0& X\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega \\ \eta \end{array}\right):=\left(\begin{array}{c}X(\omega )\pm c\eta \\ X(\eta )\end{array}\right).$$

In  it is shown that

$$H_i(\text{tot}𝒢)H_i(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^{},X)\text{ for }0in$$

and

$$dim_{}H_i(\text{tot}𝒢)=\lambda \text{ for }i>n,$$

where $`\text{tot}𝒢`$ denotes the total complex of $`𝒢`$ and $`\lambda `$ is defined as in Theorem 1. The argument there does not use at this stage that $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ is a regular sequence. The homology spaces of the total complex are also obtained by analizing the spectral sequence $`(E,d)`$ of $`𝒢`$ obtained by taking first the $`\alpha `$-homology and then the $`\beta `$-homology.

#### The spectral sequence $`(E,d)`$

Let us analyze $`(E,d)`$. We get the following $`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$-terms by Lemma 1 and Lemma 2:

$`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{0,0}^{}`$ $`\text{coker}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{(c)}}\stackrel{f}{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{(f)}}`$
$`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{0,1}^{}`$ $`\text{ker}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{(c)}}\stackrel{f}{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}}`$
$`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{1,0}^{}`$ $`\text{coker}\left(H_1()\stackrel{\overline{\alpha }}{}H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)\right)`$
$`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{1,1}^{}`$ $`\text{ homology }\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{(c)}}\stackrel{𝛼}{}H_1()\stackrel{\overline{\alpha }}{}H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)\right)`$
$`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{l+1,l}^{}`$ $`\text{coker}\left(H_1()\stackrel{𝛼}{}H_2()\right)`$
$`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{l,l+1}^{}`$ $`\text{ker}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{(c)}}\stackrel{𝛼}{}H_1()\right)`$
$`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{l+1,l+1}^{}`$ $`\text{ homology }\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{(c)}}\stackrel{𝛼}{}H_1()\stackrel{𝛼}{}H_2()\right)`$
where $`l1`$ and all other $`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$-terms are trivial. The differential on $`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$ is now given as

$$d_2:^2E_{q1,p+2}^2E_{q,p}.$$

Therefore the spectral sequence degenerates at the second level and we are able to compute the total homology of the double complex. First note that

$$\text{ker}\left(H_1()\stackrel{\overline{\alpha }}{}H_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},X)\right)=\text{ker}\left(H_1()\stackrel{𝛼}{}H_2()\right)$$

by the isomorphisms given in Lemma 1 and Lemma 2. Therefore we get

$$dim_{}H_2(\text{tot}𝒢)=dim_{}H_i(\text{tot}𝒢)=\lambda $$

for $`i2`$ even. Similarly we get

$$dim_{}H_i(\text{tot}𝒢)=\lambda $$

for $`i3`$ odd. Comparing this with the result on $`H_i(\text{tot}𝒢)`$ in  as stated above and using Lemma 3 for $`h_1^{}`$ Theorem 1 follows.

###### Corollary 1.

The following algebras are finite dimensional and for $`n`$ even

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)^{}(f,f/z_n)}\hfill \\ \hfill +dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(c)}dim_{}𝒜\end{array}$$

and for $`n`$ odd

$$\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)}{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_n)^{}(f,f/z_n)}+dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(f)}.$$

###### Proof.

First note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^n\frac{𝒜}{(f)}`$ and so we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_{n1}& =h_{n1}^{}+dim_{}X(\mathrm{\Omega }_{V,0}^n)\hfill \\ & =h_{n1}^{}+dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(f)}h_n^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now it follows

$$\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^\nu h_i=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^\nu h_i^{}+(1)^{n1}dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(f)}$$

and we get the claim for $`n`$ odd and for $`n`$ even

$$\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=h_0^{}h_1^{}dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(f)}+dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_𝒜(f)}{(c)}.$$

Since we have an exact sequence

$$0\stackrel{}{}\text{ann}_𝒜(f)\stackrel{}{}𝒜\stackrel{f}{}𝒜\stackrel{}{}\frac{𝒜}{(f)}\stackrel{}{}0$$

we get

$$dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_𝒜(f)}{(c)}dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(f)}=dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(c)}dim_{}𝒜$$

and the corollary follows. ∎

Now if $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ is a regular sequence our formula reduces to the formula of Gomez-Mont in the following way. We find that

$$\lambda =dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}=dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{}(c)}{(f)}$$

and we get for even $`n`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{ind}_{V,0}(X)& =dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_𝒜(f)}{(c)}+dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(c)}dim_{}𝒜(c)\hfill \\ & =dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}dim_{}\text{ann}_{}(f)\hfill \\ & =dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(f)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`n`$ odd we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{ind}_{V,0}(X)& =dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_𝒜(f)}{(c)}+dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(f)}\hfill \\ & =dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}+dim_{}𝒜(c)\hfill \\ & =dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(c)}+dim_{}𝒜.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that the formula of Gomez-Mont can also be written in this form.

## 3 Relations to residues and examples

The index of the vector field $`X`$ can also be computed as a residue, see : Let $`\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _{n1}_{>0}`$ be chosen small enough and the real hypersurfaces $`\{|X_i|=\delta _i\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, in general position. Further let the real $`(n1)`$-cycle

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\{f=0,|X_i|=\delta _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n1\}$$

oriented so that $`d(\mathrm{arg}X_1)\mathrm{}d(\mathrm{arg}X_{n1})>0`$. One defines the holomorphic function $`\widehat{c}`$ to be the coefficient of $`t^{n1}`$ in the formal power series expansion of

$$\frac{det(\mathrm{𝟙}\frac{ti}{2\pi }DX)}{det(1\frac{ti}{2\pi }c)}.$$

Then one has

$$\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{\widehat{c}dz_1\mathrm{}dz_{n1}}{X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}}.$$

$`DX`$ is the Jacobi matrix of $`X`$ here. Let us compute $`\widehat{c}`$ explicitely. Denote by $`\sigma _i(DX)`$ the coefficients of the characteristical polynomial of $`DX`$, i.e.

$$det(DXtE)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^i\sigma _{ni}(DX)t^i.$$

Set $`g(t):=det(E\frac{ti}{2\pi }DX)`$ and $`h(t):=1/(1\frac{ti}{2\pi }c)`$. We have

$$g^{(k)}(0)=\left(\frac{i}{2\pi }\right)^kk!\sigma _k(DX)$$

and

$$h^{(l)}(0)=l!\left(\frac{ic}{2\pi }\right)^l.$$

Then we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{c}& =\frac{(gh)^{n1}(0)}{(n1)!}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{(n1)!}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{k}\right)g^{(k)}(0)h^{(nk1)}(0)\hfill \\ & =\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\right)^{n1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^{nk1}c^{nk1}\sigma _k(DX)\hfill \\ & =\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\right)^{n1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^kc^k\sigma _{nk1}(DX).\hfill \end{array}$$

Using the formula in  expressing integrals over cycles in $`V`$ as Grothendieck residues in $`^n`$ we obtain

$$\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{f}{z_n}_{k=0}^{n1}(1)^kc^k\sigma _{nk1}(DX)\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}f\end{array}\right].$$

If moreover $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ is a regular $`𝒪`$-sequence we find that there is a $`k`$ with $`f^kI_n`$. This means that there is a $`\beta 𝒪`$ with $`f^k=\beta X_n\text{mod}(I_{n1})`$ and therefore we have for any $`h𝒪`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}hc\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_n\end{array}\right]& =\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}hc\beta \\ X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}f^k\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}h\frac{f}{z_n}\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}f\end{array}\right]& =\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}h\frac{f}{z_n}f^k\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}f^{k+1}\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & =\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}h\beta cf\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}f^{k+1}\end{array}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

which means that

$$\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}hc\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_n\end{array}\right]=\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}h\frac{f}{z_n}\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}f\end{array}\right].$$

We have obtained

###### Proposition 1.

(i) $`\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{f}{z_n}_{k=0}^{n1}(1)^kc^k\sigma _{nk1}(DX)\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}f\end{array}\right]`$.
(ii) If $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ is a regular sequence

$$\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=\text{ind}_{^n,0}(X)\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}det(DXc\mathrm{𝟙})\\ X_1\mathrm{}X_n\end{array}\right].$$

We remark that the residues are very easy to compute: If $`g_1,\mathrm{}g_n`$ is a regular sequence and $`h𝒪`$ we can find integers $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n`$ with $`(x_1^{k_1},\mathrm{},x_n^{k_n})(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)`$ and therefore a matrix $`A`$ with

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x_1^{k_1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ x_n^{k_n}\end{array}\right)=A\left(\begin{array}{c}g_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ g_n\end{array}\right).$$

If $`d`$ is the coefficient of $`x_1^{k_11}\mathrm{}x_n^{k_n1}`$ in the power series expansion of $`hdetA`$ then $`\text{res}_{^n,0}\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g_1\mathrm{}g_n\end{array}\right]=d`$.

Let us consider an example. $`D_k:f=x^2y+y^{k1}`$ , $`k4`$.

$$X:=\frac{k2}{2(k1)}x^{m+1}\frac{}{x}+\frac{1}{k1}x^my\frac{}{y},m2.$$

We have $`c:=x^m`$ here. The index can be computed easily with Proposition 1 and we obtain $`\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=(m1)(k1)`$. We want to verify that Corollary 1 gives the same value. Using residues again we compute

$$dim_{}\frac{𝒪}{(X_1,f)}=(k1)(m+1).$$

Consider the monomial $`x^my`$ in $`\frac{𝒪}{(x^{m+1},x^2y+y^{k1})}`$. We find that the monomials $`x^my,\mathrm{},x^my^{k2}`$ are linearly independent in this algebra and therefore

$$dim_{}\frac{}{(f)}=dim_{}\frac{𝒪}{(X_1,f)}k+2=m(k1)+1.$$

Now we claim

$$\{g𝒪:gf(X_1,X_2)\}=𝒪(x^m).$$

Let

$$gf=c_1x^{m+1}+c_2x^my.$$

Then

$$g(x^2y+y^{k1})c_2x^my𝒪(x^{m+1})$$

and therefore

$$g(x^2+y^{k2})𝒪(x^m)$$

since $`y`$ is not a zero divisor in $`\frac{𝒪}{(x^{m+1})}`$. This means $`g𝒪(x^m)`$ since $`x^2+y^{k2}`$ is not a zero divisor in $`\frac{𝒪}{(x^m)}`$. It follows that

$$dim_{}\frac{\text{ann}_{}(f)}{(c)}=0.$$

We also find immediately $`dim_{}𝒜=k`$ and $`dim_{}\frac{𝒜}{(c)}=k`$. Since $`\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_2)=^{}(x)`$ we find

$$\frac{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_2)}{\text{ann}_{^{}}(X_2)^{}(f,f/y)}=\frac{^{}(x)}{^{}(x)^{}(f,f/y)}𝒜^{}(x)$$

with $`𝒜^{}=\frac{𝒪}{(f,f/y)}`$. A basis of $`𝒜^{}`$ is given by $`1,x,xy,\mathrm{},xy^{k2},y,\mathrm{},y^{k2}`$ and therefore $`dim_{}𝒜^{}(x)=k`$ since $`y^{k2}x^2`$ in $`𝒜^{}`$. Now Corollary 1 gives in fact

$$\text{ind}_{V,0}(X)=(m1)(k1).$$