text:
# SAURON Observations of Disks in Spheroids

## 1. Introduction

The physical properties of early-type galaxies correlate with luminosity and environment, as exemplified by the morphology-density relation (Dressler 1980) and the dependence of color, metal content, isophotal shape, nuclear cusp slope, and dynamical support on luminosity (e.g. Bender & Nieto 1990; Faber et al. 1997). It is unclear to what extent these properties were acquired at the epoch of galaxy formation or result from subsequent dynamical evolution.

Progress toward answering these and related issues requires a systematic investigation of the kinematics and line-strengths of a representative sample of early-type galaxies. The intrinsic shape, internal orbital structure, and radial dependence of the mass-to-light ratio are constrained by the stellar and gas kinematics (e.g. van der Marel & Franx 1993; Cretton, Rix, & de Zeeuw 2000); the age and metallicity of the stellar populations are constrained by the absorption line-strengths (Gonzalez 1993; Davies, Sadler, & Peletier 1993). SAURON contributions to these two complementary approaches are discussed in turn by Bacon et al. (2002) and Emsellem et al. (2002) in these proceedings.

Here, we focus on the importance of disks in spheroids. In the current context of hierarchical (i.e. merger-driven) structure formation, the dichotomy in the properties of early-type galaxies (e.g. Faber et al. 1997) is often explained by the mass ratio of the progenitor galaxies (e.g. Barnes 1998; Naab, Burkert, & Hernquist 1999). However, as revealed by SAURON, the presence of cold disks in a large number of spheroids suggests a non-negligible role for dissipation, reminiscent of the old galaxy formation debate between merging (Searle & Zinn 1978) and dissipational collapse (Eggen, Lynden-Bell, & Sandage 1962).

After reviewing the core properties of the SAURON instrument and sample (§ 2), we present in § 3 SAURON observations of a few cold central stellar disks embedded spheroids. We also illustrate the emission line distributions and kinematics of large-scale gaseous disks in § 4, and compare generic N-body simulations of barred galaxies with SAURON data in § 5.

## 2. SAURON: Instrument and Survey

SAURON (Spectrographic Areal Unit for Research on Optical Nebulae) is a panoramic integral-field spectrograph optimized for studies of the large-scale kinematics and stellar populations of spheroids (Bacon et al. 2001, hereafter Paper I). In its low-resolution mode, it has a $`41{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 33^{\prime \prime }`$ field-of-view sampled with $`0.^{\prime \prime }94\times 0.^{\prime \prime }94`$ lenslets, 100% coverage, and high throughput. The spectra cover 4810–5350 Å with simultaneous sky subtraction. Stellar kinematic information is derived from the Mgb triplet and the Fe lines. The \[OIII\], H$`\beta `$, and \[NI\] emission lines provide the morphology, kinematics, and limited information on the ionization state of the ionized gas. The Mgb, H$`\beta `$, and Fe5270 absorption lines constrain the age and metallicity of the stellar populations.

The SAURON survey targets a representative sample of 72 nearby ellipticals, lenticulars, and early-type bulges constructed to be as free of biases as possible while ensuring the existence of complementary data (preferably space-based; $`M_B18`$). The galaxies are further split into “cluster” and “field” objects and populate the six $`ϵM_B`$ planes uniformly (de Zeeuw et al. 2002, hereafter Paper II). By construction, the sample covers the full range of environment, flattening, rotational support, nuclear cusp slope, isophotal shape, etc.

## 3. Stellar Disks Embedded in Spheroids

We discuss below the stellar kinematics of 3 galaxies showing the presence of a central stellar disk with varying strengths. The SAURON strategy is to map galaxies to one effective radius $`R_e`$, which for nearly half the sample requires only one pointing. For the largest galaxies, mosaics of two or three pointings reach 0.5 $`R_e`$ only. The mean stellar velocity $`V`$, the velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$, and the Gauss-Hermite moments $`h_3`$ and $`h_4`$ (e.g. van der Marel & Franx 1993) are derived using the FCQ method (Bender 1990).

### 3.1. NGC 3384

NGC 3384 is a large SB0-(s) galaxy in the Leo I group ($`M_B`$= –19.6). It forms a triple on the sky with NGC 3379 and NGC 3389 but there is only marginal evidence for interactions. The light distribution in the central $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ is complex. The inner isophotes are elongated along the major axis, suggesting an embedded disk, but beyond $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ the elongation is along the minor-axis (e.g. Busarello et al. 1996). The isophotes are off-centered at much larger radii. NGC 3384 shows no emission lines, remains undetected in HI, CO, radio continuum, and X-ray, but has IRAS detections at 12 and 100 $`\mu `$m (e.g. Roberts et al. 1991).

Figure 1 displays the stellar kinematics of NGC 3384 and illustrates a key advantage of SAURON. Summing the flux in wavelength, the galaxy surface brightness distribution is recovered and there is no doubt about the relative location of the measurements. Figure 1 shows that the bulge of NGC 3384 rotates regularly. Mean velocities increase steeply along the major axis up to $`r4^{\prime \prime }`$, then decrease slightly, and rise again. No velocity gradient is observed along the minor axis. The velocity dispersion map shows a symmetric dumb-bell structure and the $`h_3`$ map is anti-correlated with $`V`$ also within $`r4^{\prime \prime }`$ (see Fisher 1997). All these facts point to the presence of a cold, central stellar disk in NGC 3384.

### 3.2. NGC 4526 and NGC 4459

Many other galaxies in our sample show evidence of a central stellar disk. NGC 3623 is discussed in Paper II. Figure 2 shows two cases where the disk appears to corotate with a central gaseous disk limited by the dust lane (Rubin et al. 1997). NGC 4526 is a highly inclined SAB00(s) galaxy in the Virgo cluster ($`M_B`$= –20.7). The stellar disk is not visible in the reconstructed image but is evident in the velocity and velocity dispersion fields. As in NGC 3384, the rotation on the major axis first increases, then decreases, and increases again in the outer parts, but the disk is much larger. It appears almost edge-on, giving rise to an elongated depression across the (hot) spheroid in the velocity dispersion map, and completely overwhelming the central peak.

NGC 4459 is another S0+(r) galaxy ($`M_B`$= –20.0) in Virgo. The same behavior as in NGC 3384 and NGC 4526 is observed along the major axis (see also Peterson 1978) but the minimum is shallower. The isovelocity contours are also less skewed, indicating a more face-on or intrinsically thicker disk (or both). This is supported by the absence of a clear disk signature in the velocity dispersion map. A statistical analysis of the entire SAURON sample will reveal the true fraction and necessary conditions for spheroids to harbor disks.

## 4. Gaseous Kinematics and Ionization Mechanisms

We now illustrate the scientific potential of the SAURON gaseous data. Paper II describes how the H$`\beta `$, \[NI\], and \[OIII\] emission lines are disentangled from the absorption lines by means of a spectral library and optimal template fitting. Results on the non-axisymmetric gaseous disks of NGC 3377 and NGC 5813 are presented in Papers I and II, respectively.

### 4.1. NGC 7742

NGC 7742 is a face-on Sb(r) spiral ($`M_B`$= –19.8) in a binary system and is among the latest spirals included in our sample. De Vaucouleurs & Buta (1980) identified the inner stellar ring; Pogge & Eskridge (1993) later detected a corresponding small, bright ring of HII regions with faint floculent spiral arms. NGC 7742 possesses a large amount of HI, molecular gas, and dust (e.g. Roberts et al. 1991) and is classified as a LINER/HII object.

Figure 3 shows the \[OIII\] and H$`\beta `$ intensity maps, together with the derived velocity and velocity dispersion fields. Most of the emission is confined to a ring coinciding with the spiral arms. H$`\beta `$ dominates in the ring (H$`\beta `$/\[OIII\]$`716`$) but it is much weaker in the center (H$`\beta `$/\[OIII\]$`1`$). Also shown in Figure 3 is a reconstructed image composed of \[OIII\] and stellar continuum, and a similar image composed of HST/WFPC2 exposures. The SAURON data does not have HST’s spatial resolution, but it does show that our algorithms yield accurate emission-line maps. The main surprise comes from the stellar and gas kinematics: the gas and stars within the ring are counter-rotating.

### 4.2. NGC 4278

NGC 4278 is an E1-2 galaxy ($`M_B`$= –19.9) in the Virgo cluster. It contains large-scale dust and a blue central point source (Carollo et al. 1997). Its stellar rotation curve is peculiar, rising rapidly at small distances from the nucleus and dropping to nearly zero beyond $`r30^{\prime \prime }`$ (Davies & Birkinshaw 1988; van der Marel & Franx 1993). NGC 4278 also contains a massive HI disk extending beyond 10 $`R_e`$. The HI velocity field is regular but has non-perpendicular kinematic axes, indicating non-circular motions (Raimond et al. 1981; Lees 1992).

Figure 4 displays the reconstructed stellar intensity and \[OIII\] map obtained with SAURON. Despite the regular and well-aligned stellar isophotes, the distribution of ionized gas is very extended and strongly non-axisymmetric, similar to a bar terminated by ansae as observed in spiral galaxies. The gaseous bar is reminiscent of the dust structure observed at the center of Cen A (Mirabel et al. 1999), thought to have formed from the accretion of a gas-rich object, and could be linked to the active nucleus (LINER/Sy1) and compact radio core (Wrobel & Heeschen 1984). Again, observations of the entire SAURON sample will reveal the fraction of spheroids with ionized gas and its ionization and dynamical state.

## 5. Comparing SAURON and N-Body Data

With full knowledge of phase-space, N-body simulations can easily be projected and binned into three-dimensional data cubes. This allows an easy comparison with stellar kinematic data from integral-field spectrographs such as SAURON, without the intermediate step of deconvolution.

### 5.1. NGC 3623

In Figure 5, we compare SAURON observations of NGC 3623, a highly inclined SAB(rs)a galaxy in the Leo I Group ($`M_B`$=–20.8; Paper II and references therein), with a generic barred galaxy N-body simulation provided by E. Athanassoula (Athanassoula & Misiriotis 2002; see also Bureau & Athanassoula, in prep.). This is for illustration purposes only, as no attempt was made to match either a timestep or specific simulation with the observations. A viewing angle was roughly estimated by eye. The line-of-sight velocity profiles extracted from the simulations were fitted with the same algorithm as the observations (the latter after deconvolution with FCQ), allowing a direct comparison, but only major axis profiles were extracted due to low S/N.

The rotation curve disk signature discussed above is clearly seen in both datasets, but the simulation only shows a flattening of the dispersion in the center, not a dip, and the $`h_3`$ profile is correlated (rather than anti-correlated) with $`V`$ in the inner parts. This suggests that the N-body central component is dynamically hot and rather elongated, contrary to the central stellar disk of NGC 3623. It remains to be seen if this is due to $`x_2`$ orbits. The simulation also suggests that dissipation may indeed be necessary to create the many stellar disks observed by SAURON in spheroids.

#### Acknowledgments.

Support for this work was provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01136.01 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555.

## References

Athanassoula, E., & Misiriotis, A. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 35

Bacon, R., et al. 1995, A&AS, 113, 347

Bacon, R., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 23 (Paper I)

Bacon, R., et al. 2002, in Galaxies: The Third Dimension, eds. M. Rosado, L. Binette, & L. Arias (San Francisco: ASP), in press.

Barnes, J. E. 1998, in Galaxies: Interactions and Induced Star Formation, eds. D. Friedli, L. Martinet, & D. Pfenniger (Berlin: Springer), 275

Bender, R. 1990, A&A, 229, 441

Bender, R., & Nieto, J.-L. 1990, A&A, 239, 97

Birkinshaw, M., & Davies, R. L. 1985, ApJ, 291, 32

Busarello, G., Capaccioli, M., D’Onofrio, M., Longo, G., Richter, G., & Zaggia, S. 1996, A&A, 314, 32

Caon, N., Macchetto, F. D., & Pastoriza, M. 2000, ApJS, 127, 39

Carollo, C. M., Franx, M., Illingworth, G. D., & Forbes, D. 1997, ApJ, 710

Cretton, N., Rix, H.-W., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, ApJS, 536, 319

Davies, R. L., & Birkinshaw, M. 1988, ApJS, 68, 409

Davies, R. L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 548, L33

Davies, R. L., Sadler, E. M., & Peletier, R. F. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 650

Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

Efstathiou, G., Ellis, R. S., & Carter, D. 1982, MNRAS, 201, 975

Eggen, O. J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A. R. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748

Emsellem, E., et al. 2002, in Galaxies: The Third Dimension, eds. M. Rosado, L. Binette, & L. Arias (San Francisco: ASP), in press.

Faber, S. M., et al. 1997, AJ, 114, 1771

Fisher, D. 1997, AJ, 113, 950

Gorgas, J., Efstathiou, G., & Aragon-Salamanca, A. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 217

Gonzalez, J. J. 1993, PhD Thesis, Univ. of California at Santa Cruz

Lees, J. F. 1992, PhD Thesis, Princeton University

van der Marel, R. P., & Franx, M. 1993, ApJ, 407, 525

Mirabel, I. F., et al. 1999, A&A, 341, 667

Naab, T., Burkert, A., & Hernquist, L. 1999, ApJ, 523, L133

Peterson, C. J. 1978, ApJ, 222, 84

Pogge, R. W., & Eskridge, P. B. 1993, AJ, 106, 1405

Raimond, E., Faber, S. M., Gallagher, J.S., & Knapp, G.R. 1981, ApJ, 246, 708

Roberts, M., et al. 1991, ApJS, 75, 751

Rubin, V. C., Kenney, J. D. P., & Young, J. S. 1997, AJ, 113, 1250

Searle, L., & Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357

de Vaucouleurs, G., & Buta, R. 1980, AJ, 85, 637

Worthey, G., Faber, S. M., Gonzalez, J. J., & Burstein, D. 1994, ApJS, 94, 687

Wrobel, J. M., & Heeschen, D. S. 1984, ApJ, 287, 41

de Zeeuw, P. T., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 513 (Paper II)


format: text

text:
# 1 The bulk PCM and boundary scattering in the vector representation

## 1 The bulk PCM and boundary scattering in the vector representation

The principal chiral field, $`g(x,t)`$, takes values in a compact Lie group $`G`$. Its dynamics are governed by the lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu g^1^\mu g\right).$$
(1.1)
In the bulk model the spacetime coordinates $`x,t`$ are allowed to take any values in the reals, $`\mathrm{}<x,t<\mathrm{}`$.

The model is classically integrable  and this classical integrability is believed to extend to the quantum level, allowing the techniques of 1+1 dimensional integrable QFT to be applied. The exact $`S`$-matrices describing two-particle interactions were calculated for various cases by Ogievetsky, Reshetikhin and Wiegmann .

In this paper we shall be concerned with the particular case $`G=SU(N)`$, for which the $`S`$-matrix describing the scattering of two vector particles can be written

$$S_{(1,1)}^{PCM}(\theta )=X_{(1,1)}(\theta )\left(S_{(1,1)}(\theta )_LS_{(1,1)}(\theta )_R\right).$$
(1.2)
Here $`X_{(1,1)}(\theta )=(4)`$ is the CDD factor, where

$$(y)=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\theta }{2}+\frac{i\pi y}{4N})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\theta }{2}\frac{i\pi y}{4N})}$$
(1.3)
and $`S_{(1,1)}(\theta )_{L,R}`$ are left and right copies of the minimal $`S`$-matrix

$$S_{(1,1)}(\theta )=\sigma (\theta )\left(P_2^S[4]P_2^A\right).$$
(1.4)
The scalar prefactor $`\sigma (\theta )`$ is given by

$$\sigma (\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{N}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{N}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }\right)},$$
(1.5)
whilst the square brackets denote the function

$$[y]=\frac{2N\theta +i\pi y}{2N\theta i\pi y}.$$
(1.6)
The $`S`$-matrix (1.4) acts on the tensor product of two copies of the vector representation space: $``$ is the transposition operator acting on the two spaces, whilst $`P_2^{S,A}`$ are the projectors onto the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces of the product space. The variable $`\theta `$ is the rapidity difference between the two incoming multiplets; for a discussion of 1+1 dimensional factorisable scattering theory the reader is directed to .

### 1.1 The spectrum of bound states

The bound state spectrum of the bulk model was described in ; here we shall recall some of the features of the particles and their interactions which will prove useful later.

Firstly, there are $`N1`$ particle types, which transform as the fundamental representations (that is the completely antisymmetric representations) of $`SU(N)`$. We label the particle type transforming as the $`n`$th fundamental representation by $`n`$. Thus a particle of type $`n`$ is conjugate to one of type $`Nn`$.

If we set the mass scale $``$ to be such that the mass of the vector particle is given by

$$_1=\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}\right)$$

then the mass of the $`n`$th particle is given by

$$_n=\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{n\pi }{N}\right).$$
(1.7)
This mass formula follows from the fact that the particle interactions are such that particles of type $`n`$ and $`m`$ (for $`n+mN`$) scattering at rapidity difference $`\theta =\frac{(n+m)i\pi }{N}`$ form a particle of type $`n+m`$ as a bound state.

### 1.2 The half-line model: scattering of the vector particle

We now turn our attention to the PCM on the half-line: the space coordinate is restricted to the range $`\mathrm{}<x0`$. In a previous paper  various boundary conditions were found which are believed to preserve the quantum integrability of the model with boundary.

The $`S`$-matrix description for the model must now be extended to include scattering off the boundary. It was established in  that certain classical boundary conditions classified by the symmetric spaces

$$\frac{SU(N)}{SO(N)}\mathrm{and}\frac{SU(N)}{Sp(N)}$$

correspond to representation conjugating $`K`$-matrices. These $`K`$-matrices, describing the scattering of a vector particle off the boundary, are given by

$$K_1^{PCM}(\theta )=Y_1(\theta )\left(K_1(\theta )_LK_1(\theta )_R\right).$$
(1.8)
The CDD factor is given by

$$Y_1(\theta )=(\gamma N+2)(\delta N+4),$$
(1.9)
where the four choices $`\gamma ,\delta =1,3`$ each provide a suitable PCM $`K`$-matrix for the vector particle: in each of the four cases the $`K`$-matrix has no poles in the physical strip (Im$`(\theta )[0,\frac{\pi }{2}]`$). We shall find in section 3 that one of the four choices is preferred by the boundary interactions of the higher rank particles. $`K_1(\theta )_{L,R}`$ are left and right copies of the minimal $`K`$-matrices

$$K_1(\theta )=\rho (\theta )E$$
(1.10)
where the matrix part, $`E`$, is unitary; it is symmetric in the case of $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and antisymmetric in the case of $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$. The scalar prefactor is given by

$$\rho (\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{4}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{\alpha }{4}+\frac{1}{2N}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{4}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{\alpha }{4}+\frac{1}{2N}\right)}$$
(1.11)
where $`\alpha =1`$ for $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`\alpha =3`$ for $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$.

Before going on to consider the scattering of higher rank bulk particles off the ground state, we note that because neither of these PCM $`K`$-matrices has any poles on the physical strip the bulk vector particle cannot bind to the boundary with either choice of BC.

## 2 Higher rank particle boundary scattering

We calculate the $`K`$-matrices for higher rank particles by fusion. We shall illustrate the procedure, in some detail, with the $`n=2`$ particle before proceeding to the general case. Diagrammatically this calculation is
Thus, we have the following expression for the second rank particle minimal $`K`$-matrix

$$K_2(\theta )=S_{(1,1)}(\frac{2i\pi }{N})\left(IK_1(\theta +\frac{i\pi }{N})\right)S_{(1,\overline{1})}(2\theta )\left(IK_1(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\right).$$
(2.1)
We note that since the reflection matrix is representation conjugating it is $`S_{(1,\overline{1})}(2\theta )`$ that we require. This is obtained as

$$S_{(1,\overline{1})}(\theta )=\omega (i\pi \theta )(\text{}\text{}\frac{N(i\pi \theta )}{2i\pi }\text{}),(\mathrm{Note}:\omega (\theta )=\frac{\sigma (\theta )}{(1\frac{N\theta }{2i\pi })})$$
(2.2)
where we have introduced a diagrammatic notation to make the subsequent calculations more transparent: we represent the $`N\times N`$ identity matrix by a line, . We denote the matrix part, $`E`$, of the vector particle $`K`$-matrix by . Matrix multiplication is given by concatenation of the lines and the scattering order goes from right to left. The lines are implicitly directed, with conjugation of the particle reversing the line direction, but we can ignore this here.

Substituting in for all the minimal $`S`$\- and $`K`$-matrices we obtain

$$K_2(\theta )=\omega (\frac{2i\pi }{N})\omega (i\pi 2\theta )\rho (\theta +\frac{i\pi }{N})\rho (\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\left(\text{}\text{}\right)\text{}\left(\text{}\text{}\frac{N(i\pi 2\theta )}{2i\pi }\text{}\right)\text{}.$$
(2.3)
At this point the cases $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$ diverge: we need to consider the matrix parts separately. Firstly we consider $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$, for which $`(\text{})^t=\text{}`$. We have

$`\left(\text{}\text{}\right)\text{}\left(\text{}\text{}\frac{N(i\pi 2\theta )}{2i\pi }\text{}\right)\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{N(i\pi 2\theta )}{2i\pi }\left(\text{}\text{}\right)\text{}`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{N(i\pi 2\theta )}{i\pi }P_2,`$
where we have set

$$P_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{}\text{}\right)\text{}.$$
(2.4)
This satisfies $`P_2(P_2)^{}=P_2^A`$ (we recall that $`E`$ is unitary).

Moving on to the case $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$, for which $`(\text{})^t=(\text{})`$, we have

$`\left(\text{}\text{}\right)\text{}\left(\text{}\text{}\frac{N(i\pi 2\theta )}{2i\pi }\text{}\right)\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{}+\frac{N(i\pi 2\theta )}{2i\pi }\left(\text{}\text{}\right)\text{}`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{N(i\pi 2\theta )}{i\pi }\left(P_2^{(2)}\left[N\right]P_2^{(0)}\right),`$
where we have set

$$P_2^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{}\text{}\right)\text{}+\frac{1}{N}\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{},P_2^{(0)}=\frac{1}{N}\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{}.$$
(2.5)
Setting $`(\text{})^{}=\text{}`$, these satisfy (recall $`\text{}\text{}=\text{}`$)

$$P_2^{(2)}(P_2^{(2)})^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{}\text{}\right)\frac{1}{N}\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{},P_2^{(0)}(P_2^{(0)})^{}=\frac{1}{N}\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{},$$
(2.6)
which are orthogonal projectors.

In both cases, $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$, we obtain the scalar prefactor

$$\rho _2(\theta )=(N\frac{2N\theta }{i\pi })\omega (\frac{2i\pi }{N})\omega (i\pi 2\theta )\rho (\theta +\frac{i\pi }{N})\rho (\theta \frac{i\pi }{N}).$$
(2.7)
Thus we have calculated the second rank particle minimal $`K`$-matrices

$`K_2(\theta )=\rho _2(\theta )P_2`$ $`SU(N)/SO(N),`$ (2.8)
$`K_2(\theta )=\rho _2(\theta )\left(P_2^{(2)}\left[N\right]P_2^{(0)}\right)`$ $`SU(N)/Sp(N).`$ (2.9)
The CDD factor is given by

$$Y_2(\theta )=\underset{v=\frac{2i\pi }{N}}{Res}\left(X_{(1,1)}(v)\right)Y_1(\theta +\frac{i\pi }{N})X_{(1,1)}(i\pi 2\theta )Y_1(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N}),$$
(2.10)
and so we have the PCM $`K`$-matrices

$$K_2^{PCM}(\theta )=Y_2(\theta )\left(K_2(\theta )_LK_2(\theta )_R\right).$$
(2.11)
### 2.1 The $`n`$th rank particle $`K`$-matrices

Having considered the calculation of the second rank particle $`K`$-matrices, we now proceed to the general $`n`$th rank case. We consider the diagram
Algebraically we have

$`K_n(\theta )=S_{(1,n1)}(\frac{ni\pi }{N})\left(I^{(n1)}K_1(\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{(n1,\overline{1})}(2\theta +\frac{(n2)i\pi }{N})\left(I\stackrel{~}{K}_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\right),`$ (2.12)
where the relations

$`S_{(n1,\overline{1})}(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Omega }(n1)\stackrel{~}{S}_{(n1,\overline{1})}(\varphi ),K_{n1}(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Omega }(n1)\stackrel{~}{K}_{n1}(\varphi )`$ (2.13)
$`\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Omega }(n)={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l}{}}}(k+1)\omega (\frac{2ki\pi }{N})`$ (2.14)
define the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$. (Note that we keep track of these $`\theta `$-independent factors, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, for the sake of completeness rather than necessity.)

In order to calculate $`K_n(\theta )`$ from the expression above we again turn to our diagrammatic notation. We can then express the $`S`$-matrix $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{(1,n1)}(\theta )`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{(1,n1)}(\theta )=\psi _{n1}(\theta )\text{}\left(\text{}\text{}+\text{}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{n1}(\frac{N\theta }{2i\pi }\frac{n}{2}+1)\text{}\right),$$
(2.15)
where

$$\psi _{n1}(\theta )=\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\omega (\theta \frac{ni\pi }{N}+\frac{2ki\pi }{N})\right)\left(\underset{k=2}{\overset{n1}{}}(\frac{N\theta }{2i\pi }\frac{n}{2}+k)\right)$$
(2.16)
and $`P_{n1}^A`$ is the projector onto the completely antisymmetric subspace of the $`n1`$-fold tensor product of vector representations (the $`n1`$ th fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$). Setting $`\theta =\frac{ni\pi }{N}`$ we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{(1,n1)}(\frac{ni\pi }{N})=n\psi _{n1}(\frac{ni\pi }{N})P_n^AS_{(1,n1)}(\frac{ni\pi }{N})=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)P_n^A,$$
(2.17)
which follows from $`n\mathrm{\Omega }(n1)\psi _{n1}(\frac{ni\pi }{N})=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$. We note that the above expression for $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{(1,n1)}(\theta )`$ is obtained by fusing bulk vector particles together. We will not prove the result here (it was established in ), but remark that we have provided enough details for the interested reader to assemble an inductive proof fairly straightforwardly.

In order to obtain $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{(n1,\overline{1})}(\theta )`$ we perform the usual crossing operation, obtaining

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{(n1,\overline{1})}(\theta )=\psi _{n1}(i\pi \theta )`$
$`\left(\text{}\right).`$ (2.18)
Substituting into our expression for $`K_n(\theta )`$ we have

$`K_n(\theta )=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)\rho (\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\psi _{n1}(i\pi 2\theta +\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N})`$
$`\text{}\text{}\left(\text{}\right)\text{},`$ (2.19)
where we have split the $`n1`$ rank particle $`K`$-matrix into a scalar prefactor and a matrix part,

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{n1}(\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta )X_{n1}(\theta ).$$
(2.20)
We again have to consider the two cases separately, as we did for $`n=2`$; firstly we calculate the minimal $`K`$-matrix for $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$.

### 2.2 Calculating $`K_n(\theta )`$ for $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$

In the case of $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ we shall find that the matrix part of the minimal $`K`$-matrix, $`X_n(\theta )`$, is constant. We recall that $`X_1(\theta )=E(=P_1)`$ and $`X_2(\theta )=P_2`$ and we take as an induction hypothesis $`X_{n1}(\theta )=P_{n1}`$ (with $`P_{n1}`$ the obvious generalisation of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$; thus $`P_{n1}(P_{n1})^{}=P_{n1}^A`$). Substituting into our expression for $`K_n(\theta )`$ we have

$`K_n(\theta )=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)\rho (\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\psi _{n1}(i\pi 2\theta +\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N})`$
$`\text{}\text{}\left(\text{}\right)\text{}.`$ (2.21)
The $`P_{n1}^A`$ factor contracts with the $`P_n^A`$ factor, leaving us to consider a sum of terms whose matrix parts are of the form

$$\text{}\text{}\left(\text{}\right)\text{}.$$

Since is symmetric it is clear that all these will give zero except the contribution from

$$\text{}\text{}\left(\text{}\right)\text{}=(1)^{n1}\text{}.$$

Thus, we have

$$K_n(\theta )=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)\rho (\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\psi _{n1}(i\pi 2\theta +\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N})(\frac{N}{2}\frac{N\theta }{i\pi }n+2)P_n.$$
(2.22)
From this we read off the scalar prefactor

$$\rho _n(\theta )=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)\rho (\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\psi _{n1}(i\pi 2\theta +\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N})(\frac{N}{2}\frac{N\theta }{i\pi }n+2),$$
(2.23)
whilst the matrix part is $`X_n(\theta )=P_n`$. We have proven the conjectured form of $`K_n(\theta )`$ by induction and established a recurrence relation for the scalar prefactor, $`\rho _n(\theta )`$. We turn our attention now to the analogous calculation for $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$.

### 2.3 Calculating $`K_n(\theta )`$ for $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$

For the $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$ case we appeal to the boundary tensor product graph method , which gives the matrix part of the minimal $`K`$-matrix as

$$X_n(\theta )=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}(1)^r\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}[N2n+4k]P_n^{(n2r)},$$
(2.24)
where $`P_n^{(n2r)}(P_n^{(n2r)})^{}`$ are the orthogonal projectors corresponding to the irreducible representations of the embedded $`Sp(N)`$. We note the relation $`P_n^{(n2r)}(P_n^{(n2s)})^{}=0`$ for $`rs`$, which allows us to write

$$K_n(\theta )(P_n^{(n)})^{}=\rho _n(\theta )P_n^{(n)}(P_n^{(n)})^{}.$$
(2.25)
If we are to simplify our expression for $`K_n(\theta )`$ (2.1) we will need to know how the operators $`P_{n1}^{(n12r)}`$, in $`K_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})`$, relate to the operators $`P_n^{(n2s)}`$. The relation which allows us to make progress is $`(EP_{n1}^{(n1)})(P_n^{(n)})^{}=P_n^{(n)}(P_n^{(n)})^{}`$; then we have

$`K_n(\theta )(P_n^{(n)})^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)\rho (\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\psi _{n1}(i\pi 2\theta +\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N})`$
$`\text{}\text{}\left(\text{}\right)\text{}\text{}.`$ (2.26)
The $`P_{n1}^A`$ factor contracts with the $`P_n^A`$ factor, leaving us to consider a sum of terms whose matrix parts are of the form

$$\text{}\text{}\left(\text{}\right)\text{}\text{}.$$

The orthogonal property, $`(P_n^{(n2r)})^{}P_n^{(n)}=0`$ for $`r0`$, guarantees that the only such term not equal to zero is

$$\text{}\text{}\left(\text{}\right)\text{}\text{}=(1)^{n1}\text{}.$$

Thus, we have

$$K_n(\theta )(P_n^{(n)})^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)\rho (\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\psi _{n1}(i\pi 2\theta +\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N})(\frac{N}{2}\frac{N\theta }{i\pi }n+2)P_n^{(n)}(P_n^{(n)})^{}.$$
(2.27)
Comparing this with the expression (2.25) we obtain

$$\rho _n(\theta )=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)\rho (\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\psi _{n1}(i\pi 2\theta +\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N})(\frac{N}{2}\frac{N\theta }{i\pi }n+2),$$
(2.28)
which is exactly the recurrence we had for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ case.

In order to calculate fully the minimal $`K`$-matrices for the two cases, $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$, we need to use the above recurrence relation to calculate an expression for $`\rho _n(\theta )`$ in terms of basic quantities. Starting from the recurrence

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_n(\theta )=\rho (\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N})\psi _{n1}(i\pi 2\theta +\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N})(\frac{N}{2}\frac{N\theta }{i\pi }n+2)$$
(2.29)
we can prove by induction that the following expression for $`\rho _n(\theta )`$ holds:

$$\rho _n(\theta )=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\rho (\theta +\frac{(2kn1)i\pi }{N})\underset{k=2n}{\overset{n2}{}}(\eta (i\pi 2\theta +\frac{2ki\pi }{N}))^{\frac{n|k|}{2}}$$
(2.30)
where

$$\eta (\theta )=\frac{N\theta }{2i\pi }\omega (\theta ).$$
(2.31)
We note that the procedure we have used to calculate the minimal $`K`$-matrices is valid only for $`n\frac{N}{2}`$. We can obtain the boundary scattering description for the particles of rank $`>\frac{N}{2}`$ by recalling that they are the conjugates of particles of rank $`<\frac{N}{2}`$ and fusing together conjugate vector particles. The minimal $`K`$-matrix for the conjugate vector particle is given by

$$K_{\overline{1}}(\theta )=\rho (\theta )E^{}.$$
(2.32)
Thus, more generally, we can exchange the $`K`$-matrix of a particle and that of its conjugate particle by hermitian conjugation of the $`P_n`$ or $`P_n^{(n2r)}`$ operators.

### 2.4 The PCM $`K`$-matrices

Now that we have calculated the minimal $`K`$-matrices for the cases $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$ we need to determine the CDD factors (which will have the same functional form, in terms of the basic vector particle CDD quantities, for both cases). We have the following recurrence for the CDD factors

$$Y_n(\theta )=\underset{\varphi =\frac{ni\pi }{N}}{Res}\left(X_{(1,n1)}(\varphi )\right)Y_1(\theta +\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{X}_{(n1,\overline{1})}(2\theta +\frac{(n2)i\pi }{N})\stackrel{~}{Y}_{n1}(\theta \frac{i\pi }{N}),$$
(2.33)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_{n1}(\theta )=\frac{Y_{n1}(\theta )}{Res_{\varphi =\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N}}\left(X_{(1,n2)}(\varphi )\right)},\stackrel{~}{X}_{(n1,\overline{1})}(\theta )=\frac{X_{(n1,\overline{1})}(\theta )}{Res_{\varphi =\frac{(n1)i\pi }{N}}\left(X_{(1,n2)}(\varphi )\right)}.$$
(2.34)
From this we can prove inductively the result

$$Y_n(\theta )=\underset{\varphi =\frac{ni\pi }{N}}{Res}\left(X_{(1,n1)}(\varphi )\right)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}Y_1(\theta +\frac{(2kn1)i\pi }{N})\underset{k=2n}{\overset{n2}{}}(X_{(1,\overline{1})}(2\theta +\frac{2ki\pi }{N}))^{\frac{n|k|}{2}}.$$
(2.35)
Having calculated the complete PCM $`K`$-matrices we can move on to analyse their pole structures.

## 3 The physical strip pole structure of the PCM $`K`$-matrices and boundary Coleman-Thun mechanisms

We recall the structure of the PCM $`K`$-matrices

$$K_n^{PCM}(\theta )=Y_n(\theta )\left(K_n(\theta )_LK_n(\theta )_R\right).$$
(3.1)
Determining the physical strip poles of these $`K`$-matrices involves collecting together all the pole and zero locations of the constituent parts, remembering that any poles and zeroes in the minimal $`K`$-matrices, $`K_n(\theta )`$, will appear with their order doubled as there are two copies present in the above expression. We present just the results here as the method is only a matter of meticulous accounting.

In section 1.2 we gave four possible CDD factors for the vector particle $`K`$-matrix

$$Y_1(\theta )=(\gamma N+2)(\delta N+4),$$
(3.2)
where $`\gamma ,\delta =1,3`$ were the four possibilities. The vector particle scattering indicates no preference between these four choices. The higher rank particle scattering, however, singles out a preferred choice in each of the cases $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$.

For $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ we find that $`\gamma =3,\delta =1`$ is the preferred choice. The other three possibilities lead to physical strip poles which are either inconsistent (for example a pole at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}`$ when $`K_n(\frac{i\pi }{2})`$ does not project onto a scalar representation subspace of $`Sp(N)`$) or undesirable. With the preferred choice $`K_n^{PCM}(\theta )`$ has no physical strip poles, and only has the following simple zeroes on the physical strip

$$\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2},\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}+\frac{(1n)i\pi }{N},\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}\frac{ni\pi }{N}(\mathrm{not}\mathrm{present}\mathrm{when}n=\frac{N}{2}).$$
(3.3)
Since there are no poles on the physical strip in $`K_n^{PCM}(\theta )`$ for any $`n\frac{N}{2}`$, we conclude that no boundary bound states can be formed. We have a consistent set of $`K`$-matrices describing boundary interactions in the case of boundary conditions corresponding to the symmetric space $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ with no boundary bound states.

For $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$ we find that $`\gamma =3,\delta =1`$ is again allowed and produces the, rather trivial, structure described above. More interestingly, $`\gamma =\delta =1`$ is also allowed (again the other two possibilities lead to inconsistent/undesirable physical strip poles) and this we take as the preferred choice. With this choice $`K_n^{PCM}(\theta )`$ has the following poles and zeroes which lie on the physical strip

$`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}(n\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{only}),\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}+\frac{(1n)i\pi }{N}\mathrm{simple}\mathrm{zeroes},`$
$`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}(n\mathrm{even}\mathrm{only})\mathrm{simple}\mathrm{pole},`$ (3.4)
$`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}+\frac{(2n)i\pi }{N},\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}+\frac{(4n)i\pi }{N},\mathrm{},\theta =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i\pi }{2}\frac{2i\pi }{N}& n\mathrm{even}\\ \frac{i\pi }{2}\frac{i\pi }{N}& n\mathrm{odd}\end{array}\mathrm{double}\mathrm{poles}.`$ (3.7)
We note that at rapidity $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}+\frac{(2rn)i\pi }{N}`$ for $`r=1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{n}{2}`$ the minimal $`K`$-matrix projects onto the subspace associated with

$$P_n^{(n2r)}P_n^{(n2r2)}\mathrm{}P_n^{(b)},\mathrm{where}b=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& n\mathrm{even}\\ 1& n\mathrm{odd}\end{array}.$$
(3.8)
### 3.1 Boundary Coleman-Thun mechanisms for $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$

Having established the physical strip pole structure we can examine it to see what bulk-boundary couplings are required for a consistent description of the boundary interactions.

Firstly we note that $`K_n^{PCM}(\theta )`$ has a simple pole at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}`$ when $`n`$ is even. Since the boundary is in the ground state, appealing to lemma 2 of a paper by Mattsson and Dorey , there can be no explanation for such simple poles other than a coupling of the even rank bulk particles to the boundary at this rapidity. The minimal $`K`$-matrix contains only a contribution from the projector $`P_n^{(0)}`$ at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}`$ and so projects onto the embedded $`Sp(N)`$ scalar representation subspace. This is consistent with such a coupling of the bulk particles to the boundary and we conclude that the even rank particles couple to the boundary at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}`$. Diagrammatically we have
We are now in a position to explain all the other physical strip poles, namely the double poles at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}+\frac{(2rn)i\pi }{N}`$ for $`r=1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{n1}{2}`$, by boundary Coleman-Thun mechanisms. We consider the diagram
which provides a valid bCTm for the double pole in $`K_n^{PCM}(\theta )`$ at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}+\frac{(2rn)i\pi }{N}`$ as the diagram is second order. We recall that the order of a diagram is given by

$$\mathrm{order}=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{internal}\mathrm{edges}2\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{closed}\mathrm{loops}$$
(3.9)
(there is no contribution from $`K_{n2r}^{PCM}(\frac{i\pi }{2}\frac{ni\pi }{N})`$ to the order as this is finite, non-zero).
The diagram we have drawn is valid for all $`2n<\frac{N}{2}`$. In the case $`n=\frac{N}{2}`$ it becomes
which is still second order. Since we are dealing with representation conjugating $`K`$-matrices a factor $`K_{\frac{N}{2}2r}^{PCM}(0)`$ must be present in the above or the diagram would not be consistent. We allow this since we can make the $`\frac{N}{2}2r`$ bulk particle arbitrarily close to the boundary.

Thus we have constructed a consistent picture of boundary interactions in which all physical strip poles are explained by the coupling of all even rank bulk states to the boundary at rapidity $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have investigated the scattering of particles off the boundary in the $`SU(N)`$ Principal Chiral Model on a half-line with conjugating boundary conditions. We have constructed boundary scattering matrices for all the bulk particles in the two cases where the BCs correspond to the symmetric spaces $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$. Having examined the physical strip pole structures of these $`K`$-matrices, we have concluded that none of the bulk particles couple to the boundary in the case where the BCs correspond to $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$. Taking BCs corresponding to $`SU(N)/Sp(N)`$ we have found that all even rank bulk particles couple to the boundary at rapidity $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}`$, whilst all other physical strip poles in the $`K`$-matrices can be explained by boundary Coleman-Thun mechanisms involving just these bulk-boundary couplings.

Thus we have revealed that there are no boundary bound states in either case of conjugating boundary conditions. This is in contrast to the model with non-conjugating boundary conditions, which appears to have a very rich boundary spectrum and is the subject of current study by the author.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Niall Mackay for discussions and corrections to the draft manuscript. I thank also Gustav Delius for helpful discussions and the UK EPSRC for a Ph.D. studentship.


text:
# One-loop corrections to 𝝎 photoproduction near threshold

## I Introduction

Experimental data of vector meson photoproductions are now being rapidly accumulated at Bonn Klein96-98 , Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility CLAS , GRAAL of Grenoble GRAAL01 , and LEPS of SPring-8 LEPS01 . The study of photoproduction of vector mesons ($`\omega ,\rho ,\varphi `$) is expected to be useful to resolve the so-called “missing resonances” problem CR00 . In addition, the extracted resonance parameters can shed lights on the structure of nucleon resonances ($`N^{}`$) and can be used to test the existing hadron models. In recent years, some theoretical progress has been made ZLB98c-Zhao01 ; OTL01  in this direction. In this work we will address the question about how these earlier models should be improved for a more reliable extraction of the $`N^{}`$ parameters from the forthcoming data. To be specific, we consider the photoproduction of $`\omega `$ meson.

It is well known that the extraction of $`N^{}`$ parameters from experimental data depends strongly on the accuracy of the treatment of the non-resonant amplitudes. In all of the recent studies of $`\omega `$ photoproduction at resonance region ZLB98c-Zhao01 ; OTL01 , the non-resonant amplitudes are calculated from the tree diagrams of effective Lagrangians. This is obviously not satisfactory for the following reasons. First, the tree-diagram models do not include the hadronic final state interaction (FSI). The importance of FSI in interpreting the data has been demonstrated in the study of pion photoproductions. For example, the calculations of Ref. SL96  have shown that the magnetic $`M1`$ amplitude of the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ transition can be identified with the predictions from constituent quark models only when the pion re-scattering effects (i.e., pion cloud effects), as required by the unitary condition, are accounted for appropriately in analyzing the data. Second, the vector meson productions occur in the energy region where several meson-nucleon channels are open and their influence must be accounted for. This coupled-channel effect was already noticed and explored in 1970’s for vector meson photoproduction SS68 . In this paper we make a first attempt to re-investigate this problem in conjunction with the approach developed in Ref. OTL01 .

In a dynamical formulation, such as that developed in Ref. SL96 , the most ideal approach is to carry out a coupled-channel calculation. At energies near the $`\omega `$ photoproduction threshold, the meson-baryon channels which must be included in a coupled-channel calculation are many, such as $`\pi N`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\rho N`$, and $`KY`$. Such a full coupled-channel calculation is not feasible at the present stage, mainly because some of the experimental information that are needed to constrain the transitions between relevant hadronic meson-baryon channels are not available. For example, there is no information about $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\omega N`$ and $`KY\omega N`$ transitions. We therefore are only able to consider just the effects due to intermediate $`\pi N`$ and $`\rho N`$ channels. In this exploratory investigation, we will follow Ref. SS68  to further simplify the calculations by only considering the one-loop corrections which are the leading order terms in a perturbation expansion of a full coupled-channel formulation, as will be explained in Sec. II. Nevertheless, our results will shed some lights on the importance of coupled-channel effects and provide information for developing a much more complex full coupled-channel calculation. In many respects, our investigation is similar to a recent investigation of coupled-channel effects on kaon photoproduction CTLS01 .

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce a coupled-channel formulation of $`\gamma N`$ reaction and indicate the procedures for calculating the one-loop corrections to $`\omega `$ photoproduction. Section III is devoted to specify various transition amplitudes which will be used as the inputs to our calculations. Numerical results are presented and discussed in Sec. IV. The conclusions are given in Sec. V. Some details on the $`\pi N\omega N`$ reaction are given in Appendix.

## II Dynamical Coupled-Channel Formulation

In the considered energy region, the $`\gamma N`$ reaction is a multi-channel multi-resonance problem. In this work we follow the dynamical approach developed by Sato and Lee SL96  to investigate this problem. It is done by simply extending the scattering formulation of Ref. SL96  to include more $`N^{}`$ states and more meson-nucleon channels. The resulting amplitude $`T_{\gamma N,\omega N}(E)`$ for the $`\gamma N\omega N`$ reaction can be written as

$`T_{\gamma N,\omega N}(E)=t_{\gamma N,\omega N}(E)+{\displaystyle \underset{N^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\gamma NN^{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{N^{}\omega N}}{EM_N^{}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}(E)}},`$ (1)
where $`t_{\gamma N,\omega N}`$ is the non-resonant amplitude. It is defined by the following coupled-channel equations

$`t_{\gamma N,\omega N}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{\gamma N,\omega N}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}B_{\gamma N,\alpha }G_\alpha (E)t_{\alpha ,\omega N},`$ (2)
$`t_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`v_{\alpha ,\beta }+{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}v_{\alpha ,\delta }G_\delta (E)t_{\delta ,\beta },`$ (3)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ denote the considered meson-nucleon channels such as $`\omega N`$, $`\pi N`$, $`\rho N`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`KY`$. $`B_{\gamma N,\alpha }`$ is the non-resonant photoproduction amplitude, $`v_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ are the non-resonant meson-nucleon interactions, and $`G_\alpha `$ is the free meson-nucleon propagator defined by

$`G_\alpha (E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{E\left(H_0\right)_\alpha +iϵ}}.`$ (4)
Here $`(H_0)_\alpha `$ is the free Hamiltonian in channel $`\alpha `$. For channels containing an unstable particle, such as $`\rho N`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, their widths must be included appropriately. Here we follow the procedure of Ref. LEE84 .

The $`N^{}`$ excitations are described by the second term of Eq. (1). It is defined by the dressed vertex functions

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\gamma NN^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma NN^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}v_{\gamma N,\alpha }G_\alpha (E)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha N^{}},`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{N^{}\omega N}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^{}\omega N}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N^{}\alpha }G_\alpha (E)t_{\alpha ,\omega N},`$ (5)
and the $`N^{}`$ self-energy

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{N^{}\alpha }G_\alpha (E)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha N^{}}.`$ (6)
The bare mass $`M_N^{}^0`$ of Eq. (1) and the bare vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma NN^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha N^{}}`$ of Eq. (5) can be identified with the predictions from a hadron model that does not include the continuum meson-baryon states.

In this paper, we focus on the calculation of the non-resonant amplitudes defined by Eqs. (2) and (3). The extraction of resonance parameters from the data depends heavily on the accuracy of this dynamical input. At energies near the $`\omega `$ production threshold, the hadronic meson-baryon channels that must be included in solving Eqs. (2) and (3) are many, such as $`\pi N`$, $`\omega N`$, $`\rho N`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`KY`$. Because of the data which are needed to constraint the interaction $`v_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ of Eq. (3) are very limited, we are only able to consider the effects due to the intermediate $`\pi N`$ and $`\rho N`$ channels. To further simplify the investigation, we make the one-loop approximation that the amplitude in Eq. (2) is evaluated by setting $`t_{\alpha ,\beta }v_{\alpha ,\beta }`$. No attempt is made to solve the coupled-channel equation (3). Furthermore, we assume that the interaction $`v_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ can be calculated from the tree diagrams of effective Lagrangians. This is certainly not very satisfactory, but it should be sufficient for this exploratory study.

Our task in this work is therefore to investigate the non-resonant amplitude $`t_{\gamma N,\omega N}`$ defined by Eq. (2), with $`t_{\alpha ,\omega N}`$ replaced by $`v_{\alpha ,\omega N}`$. The second term of Eq. (2) is then the one-loop correction represented graphically in Fig. 1. Explicitly, the matrix element of this one-loop amplitude in the center of mass frame is

$`t_{\gamma N,\omega N}^{\text{one-loop}}(𝐤,𝐪;E)={\displaystyle \underset{M=\pi ,\rho }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐪^{}B_{\gamma N,MN}(𝐤,𝐪^{};E)G_{MN}(𝐪^{},E)v_{MN,\omega N}(𝐪^{},𝐪;E)},`$ (7)
where $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐪`$ are the momenta for the incoming photon and the intermediate mesons, respectively. The propagator for the $`\pi N`$ state is

$`G_{\pi N}(𝐪^{},E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_N(𝐪^{})E_\pi (𝐪^{})+iϵ}}.`$ (8)
For the $`\rho N`$ propagator, we account for the width of the $`\rho `$ by using the the approach of Ref. LEE84 . Neglecting the energy-dependence of the mass shift term, the $`\rho N`$ propagator takes the following form

$`G_{\rho N}(𝐪^{},E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_N(𝐪^{})E_\rho (𝐪^{})+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathbf{(}\omega (q^{},E)\mathbf{)}}{2}\theta [\omega ^2(q^{},E)4M_\pi ^2]}},`$ (9)
where $`\omega (q^{},E)=[(EE_N(q^{}))^2q^{}_{}{}^{}2]^{1/2}`$ is the energy available for the $`\rho `$ meson in its rest frame, and the step function is $`\theta (x)=1`$ for $`x0`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. The width is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^0{\displaystyle \frac{k^3E_\pi (k)}{k_0^3E_\pi (k_0)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^2+k_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^2+k^2}}\right)^4,`$ (10)
where $`k`$ is defined by $`\omega =2E_\pi (k)`$ and $`k_0`$ by $`M_\rho =2E_\pi (k_0)`$. (The above form can be derived from a resonant model for fitting the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shifts in the $`J=I=1`$ channel with a $`\rho \pi \pi `$ vertex interaction.) We set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^0=150`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =0.5`$ GeV.

In the following Section, we describe how the matrix elements of $`B_{\gamma N,MN}`$ and $`v_{MN,\omega N}`$ are calculated from effective Lagrangians and constrained by experimental data.

## III Non-Resonant Amplitudes

We assume that all non-resonant amplitudes $`B_{\gamma N,MN}`$ and $`v_{MN,\omega N}`$ in the one-loop term in Eq. (7) can be calculated from the tree-diagrams defined by the following effective Lagrangian,

$$=_{V\gamma \phi }+_{VV\phi }+_{\phi NN}+_\sigma +_{\gamma NN}+_{VNN},$$
(11)
where

$`_{V\gamma \phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\rho \gamma \pi }}{2M_\rho }}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\text{Tr}[_\mu \rho _\nu _\alpha A_\beta \pi ]+{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\omega \gamma \pi }}{2M_\omega }}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\text{Tr}[_\mu \omega _\nu _\alpha A_\beta \pi \tau ^3]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\omega \gamma \eta }}{M_\omega }}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\mu \omega _\nu _\alpha A_\beta \eta ,`$
$`_{VV\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\omega \rho \pi }}{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\text{Tr}[_\mu \omega _\nu _\alpha \rho _\beta \pi ],`$
$`_{\phi NN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi NN}}{2M_N}}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5_\mu \pi \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\eta NN}}{2M_N}}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\psi _\mu \eta ,`$
$`_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`g_{\sigma NN}\overline{\psi }\sigma \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\rho \gamma \sigma }}{2M_\rho }}\text{Tr}[\tau ^3_\mu \rho _\nu \left(^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu \right)\sigma ],`$
$`_{\gamma NN}`$ $`=`$ $`e\overline{\psi }\left(\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1+\tau _3}{2}}A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _N}{2M_N}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }_\nu A_\mu \right)\psi ,`$
$`_{VNN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\rho NN}}{2}}\overline{\psi }\left(\gamma _\mu \rho ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{2M_N}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }_\nu \rho _\mu \right)\psi +g_{\omega NN}\overline{\psi }\left(\gamma _\mu \omega ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\omega }{2M_N}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }_\nu \omega _\mu \right)\psi ,`$ (12)
where $`\pi `$ ($`=𝝉𝝅`$), $`\eta `$, $`\rho _\mu `$ ($`=𝝉𝝆_\mu `$), and $`\omega _\mu `$ are the pion, eta, rho, and omega meson fields, respectively. The photon field is represented by $`A_\mu `$, and $`\psi `$ and $`\sigma `$ are the nucleon and $`\sigma `$ meson fields, respectively. $`M_N`$ ($`M_V`$) is the nucleon (vector meson) mass and $`\kappa _N`$ is the anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon, $`\kappa _p=1.79`$ and $`\kappa _n=1.91`$. Throughout this work we use the convention that $`\epsilon ^{0123}=+1`$.

The coupling constants of the Lagrangian (12) are determined as follows. First the coupling constants in $`_{V\gamma \phi }`$ are determined by the vector meson radiative decay widths given by the Particle Data Group (PDG) PDG00 . In $`_{VV\phi }`$, the coupling $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$ has been estimated by many models including the massive Yang-Mills approach KRS84-JJMP88 , the hidden gauge approach FKTU85 , the vector meson dominance model KKW96 , the unitary effective resonance model KVR01 , and QCD sum rules EIK83 . All of these models predict that the value of $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$ is in the range of $`10`$$`16`$ GeV-1. In this work we use $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }=12.9`$ GeV-1 TKR01 .

For $`_{\phi NN}`$, we use the well-known value $`g_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi =14.0`$ and $`g_{\eta NN}^2/4\pi =0.99`$ determined OTL01 ; TLTS99  by using the SU(3) relation. For $`\sigma `$ meson, its mass and couplings to the nucleon and the vector mesons are highly model-dependent. Following Ref. FS96 , we set $`M_\sigma =0.5`$ GeV and determine the coupling constants of the $`\sigma `$ meson by reproducing the experimental data of $`\rho `$ photoproduction at low energies, as explained in Refs. FS96 ; OTL00 . Since the branching ratio of $`\omega \pi \pi \gamma `$ is very small PDG00 , we do not consider the $`\omega \gamma \sigma `$ coupling in this model.

Following Refs. OTL01 ; OTL00 , the values of the coupling constants $`g_{\omega NN}`$ and $`g_{\rho NN}`$ are taken from the analyses of $`\pi N`$ scattering, pion photoproduction, and nucleon-nucleon scattering SL96 ; RSY99 . All of the coupling constants used in our calculations are summarized in Table 1.

In addition to the tree-diagrams which can be calculated by using the Lagrangian (12), we also include the Pomeron exchange in the amplitudes of vector meson photoproduction DL84-92 ; LM95 ; PL97 , although its contribution is relatively small at low energies. The details of the Pomeron exchange can be found, for example, in Refs. TOYM98 ; OTL01 , and will not be repeated here.

The considered tree-diagrams are then illustrated in Fig. 2 for $`\gamma p\omega p`$, Fig. 3 for $`\pi N\omega p`$, Fig. 4 for $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$, and Fig. 5 for $`\rho ^0p\omega p`$. The calculations of these tree-diagrams are straightforward and therefore are not detailed here. These amplitudes are regularized by form factors as follows. For the $`t`$-channel exchanges, we use

$$F_t(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M_{\mathrm{ex}}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2t}$$
(13)
for each vertex, where $`M_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ is the mass of the exchanged particle. For the $`s`$ and $`u`$ channel diagrams, we include PJ91

$$F_{su}(r)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^4+(rM_B^2)^2},$$
(14)
where $`r=(s,u)`$ and $`M_B`$ is the mass of the intermediate baryon, i.e., the nucleon in our case. For the cutoff parameters in the tree-diagrams for $`\gamma p\omega p`$, we use the values adopted in Ref. OTL01 ,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi NN}=0.6,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\eta NN}=1.0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega \pi \gamma }=0.77,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega \eta \gamma }=0.9,\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=0.5$$
(15)
in GeV unit and the other cutoff parameters used for the other reactions will be specified later in Sec. IV. The gauge invariance of the nucleon pole terms are restored by making use of the projection operators as in Ref. OTL01 .

The $`\gamma N\pi N`$ amplitudes are not discussed here because no tree-diagram model until now can describe the data in the considered energy region. Instead we construct the non-resonant amplitudes for $`\gamma p\pi ^0p`$ and $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$ by subtracting the resonance amplitudes from the empirical multipole amplitudes of the SAID program said . The $`\gamma N\pi N`$ resonant amplitudes are calculated by using the procedure given in Ref. DGL02  except that we use the resonance parameters from PDG, not from those of Capstick and Roberts Caps92-CR94 . Clearly, this is very model-dependent approach, but should be sufficient for this very exploratory investigation. The procedures introduced above only define the on-shell matrix elements of $`\gamma N\pi N`$ transition. For the loop integration (7) we need to define its off-shell behavior. Guided by the work of Ref. SL96 , we assume that

$`B_{\gamma N,\pi N}(𝐤,𝐪)=B_{\gamma N,\pi N}(𝐤,𝐪_\mathrm{𝟎})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+q_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+q^2}}\right)^2,`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5`$ GeV is chosen. To be consistent, the off-shell extrapolation Eq. (16) is also used in the loop integration over $`\rho N`$ state.

## IV  Results and Discussions

We can now perform the calculations based on Eqs. (1) and (7). To proceed, the resonant term of Eq. (1) can be fixed by using the quark model predictions Caps92-CR94  and the procedures detailed in Ref. OTL01 .

In this work, we first consider the one-loop corrections due to the intermediate $`\pi N`$ channel in Eq. (7). As discussed in the previous Section, the non-resonant $`B_{\gamma N,\pi N}`$ is generated by using the procedure of Ref. DGL02  to subtract the resonant amplitudes from the empirical $`\gamma N\pi N`$ amplitudes. Thus our results depend on the employed $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitude. To proceed, we adjust the form factors of the tree-diagrams of Fig. 3 to fit the $`\pi N\omega N`$ data. In addition to the $`\rho `$ and nucleon exchanges allowed by the Lagrangian (12), we also consider the exchange of the axial vector $`b_1(1235)`$ meson that was considered to explain the $`\pi N\omega N`$ reaction at high energies. However, we find that its contribution is negligibly small in the considered energy region. The details on the $`b_1`$-exchange amplitude are summarized in Appendix. Our numerical results show that the $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ data222For the interpretation of the experimental data of Ref. KCDG79 , we follow Ref. PM01b . See also Refs. TKR01 ; HK99  for the other interpretation. near threshold can be described to some extent by choosing the following parameters

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega \rho \pi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho NN}=1.55\text{ GeV},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{b_1\omega \pi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{b_1NN}=1.4\text{ GeV},\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=0.5\text{ GeV}.$$
(17)
The results are the solid lines in Figs. 6 and 7. In the same figure, we also show the results (dashed curves) calculated with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega \rho \pi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho NN}=1.3\text{ GeV}.$$
(18)
The dashed curve in Fig. 7 is close to the results from the coupled-channel $`K`$-matrix model of Ref. PM01a  when the resonance contributions and the coupled-channel effects are neglected.333We are grateful to G. Penner for communications on the results of Ref. PM01a . We thus interpret that the model corresponding to the dashed curves of Fig. 7 can be used to generate the non-resonant $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitude for the calculation according to Eq. (2) or Eq. (7).

With the non-resonant amplitudes of $`\gamma N\pi N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ transition obtained above, we now use Eq. (7) to compute the one-loop corrections due to the intermediate $`\pi N`$ channel. As shown in Fig. 8, its magnitudes (dashed lines) are smaller than those of the tree-diagrams (dotted lines). However it can have significant effects through its interference with the tree-diagram amplitude. This is evident by comparing the results (solid curves) from the full calculation and the dotted curves. The one-loop corrections are even more dramatic in determining the polarization observables. An example is shown in Fig. 9. We see that the one-loop corrections can change the photon asymmetry in magnitudes at all angles.

We now turn to investigating the one-loop corrections due to the $`\rho N`$ channel. From the very limited data AHHM76 ; BDLM79 , we know that $`\rho ^\pm `$ photoproduction is much weaker than $`\rho ^0`$ photoproduction. We therefore only keep $`\rho ^0p`$ in the loop integration (7). The $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }`$ channel also is not considered by the same reason. The $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$ amplitude is generated from the tree diagrams in Fig. 4 and the $`\rho ^0p\omega p`$ amplitude from the tree diagrams in Fig. 5. We note that the tree-diagrams in Fig. 2 and Fig. 5 are related in the vector dominance model, except that the Pomeron and the $`\eta `$ exchanges are not allowed in $`\rho ^0p\omega p`$ transition because of their quantum numbers.

We find that the constructed $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$ amplitude (Fig. 4) can reproduce the total cross section data, if we use the following cutoff parameters (in unit of GeV) OTL00

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi NN}=0.6,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho \pi \gamma }=0.77,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma NN}=1.0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \rho \gamma }=0.9,\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=0.5.$$
(19)
Our results are shown in Fig. 10. On the other hand, there is no data to constrain our model for $`\rho ^0p\omega p`$ (Fig. 5). Motivated by vector dominance model, we therefore calculate these tree diagrams using the same form factors, given in Eq. (15), of Fig. 2 for $`\omega `$ photoproduction. The predicted total cross sections of $`\rho ^0p\omega p`$ reaction are shown in Fig. 11. We find that its magnitude at the peak is a factor of about $`3`$ larger than that in Fig. 7 for the $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ reaction. This assumption may lead to an unrealistic estimation of the one-loop corrections due to $`\rho N`$ channel. Another uncertainty in the calculation of Eq. (7) with $`\rho N`$ intermediate state is that the correct input to the loop integration (7) is the non-resonant amplitude, not the full amplitudes constructed above. But there is no experimental information we can use here to extract the non-resonant part from the full amplitude. For these reasons, we perform the $`\rho N`$ loop integration (7) using the constructed full amplitudes of both the $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$ and $`\rho ^0p\omega p`$ transitions. Therefore, our results for the $`\rho N`$ loop can only be considered as an upper bound.

The calculated one-loop corrections due to the $`\rho N`$ channel are shown in Fig. 12. Comparison with the results given in Fig. 8 shows that the effects of the $`\rho N`$ channel are as large as or even bigger than those of the intermediate $`\pi N`$ channel. Thus the full calculation (solid lines) including both $`\pi N`$ and $`\rho N`$ channels gives large corrections to the tree-diagram results (dotted lines). The corresponding coupled-channel effects on photon asymmetry are shown in Fig. 13. Again, we see that the polarization effects are sensitive to the one-loop corrections.

## V Conclusions

As a step toward developing a coupled-channel model of vector meson photoproductions, the one-loop corrections to $`\omega `$ photoproduction have been investigated. The calculations have been performed by assuming that all relevant non-resonant amplitudes can be calculated from tree-diagrams of effective Lagrangians. Our calculation of the one-loop corrections due to the intermediate $`\pi N`$ channel is rather well constrained by the data of $`\gamma N\pi N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ reactions. On the other hand, our treatment of $`\rho N`$ channel involves some uncertainties, mainly due to the lack of enough experimental inputs such as the data of $`\rho N\omega N`$ reaction. Therefore, our results for $`\rho N`$ channel can only be regarded as an upper bound.

As discussed in section II, the one-loop corrections are just the leading terms of a perturbative expansion of a full coupled-channel model. Thus the results presented in this paper can only be taken as a qualitative indication of the importance of channel coupling effects. We have shown that the one-loop corrections due to intermediate $`\pi N`$ and $`\rho N`$ channels are comparable to those of nucleon resonance contributions investigated in Ref. OTL01 . The results from this rather exploratory investigation suggest strongly that the coupled-channel effects should be carefully taken into account in extracting the resonance parameters from the experimental data, in particular the data of polarization observables.

###### Acknowledgements.

Y.O. is grateful to the Physics Division of Argonne National Laboratory for the hospitality. This work was supported in part by the Brain Korea 21 project of Korean Ministry of Education, the International Collaboration Program of KOSEF under Grant No. 20006-111-01-2, and U.S. DOE Nuclear Physics Division Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38. *

## Appendix A The axial $`𝒃_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟑𝟓}\mathbf{)}`$ meson exchange in $`𝝅𝑵\mathbf{}𝝎𝑵`$

In this Appendix, we discuss the axial vector $`b_1(1235)`$ meson exchange in $`\pi N\omega N`$ reaction. Recently, this reaction has been studied by effective Lagrangian method and unitary coupled channel models focusing on the role of the nucleon resonances LWF99 ; LWF01 ; TKR01 ; PM01 ; PM01a . In the early investigations in 1960’s and 1970’s this reaction was studied in some detail mostly based on Regge theory and absorption models and at higher energies JDGK65 ; Barm66-68 ; HKK68 ; HK71 ; IM74 . Based on the Regge theory, the $`b_1`$ trajectory exchange has been discussed as the secondary exchange process in $`\pi N\omega N`$ in addition to the major $`\rho `$-trajectory exchange. The main motivation for the secondary exchange was to account for the experimentally observed non-vanishing vector meson density matrix $`\rho _{00}`$ that is expected to vanish if the natural-parity $`\rho `$-trajectory exchange dominates. The $`b_1(1235)`$ meson has quantum numbers $`I^G(J^{PC})=1^+(1^+)`$ with mass $`M_{b_1}=1230`$ MeV and width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1}=142\pm 9`$ MeV, and it mostly decays into the $`\omega \pi `$ channel PDG00 . Thus its exchange can contribute to $`\pi N\omega N`$ as an unnatural parity exchange. In this work we consider the one-$`b_1`$-exchange process (not the exchange of $`b_1`$ trajectory) in $`\pi N\omega N`$.

The general form of the $`b_1\omega \pi `$ interaction can be written as BD63

$$_{b_1\omega \pi }=iM_{b_1}\epsilon _\mu ^{}(\omega )\left[fg^{\mu \nu }+\frac{h}{M_\omega M_{b_1}}q^\nu k^\mu \right]\epsilon _\nu (b_1),$$
(20)
where $`k`$ and $`q`$ are the momenta of the $`b_1`$ and $`\omega `$, respectively, and $`\epsilon _\mu (b_1)`$ and $`\epsilon _\mu (\omega )`$ are their polarization vectors. Then the total decay width reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1\omega \pi }=\frac{|𝐪|}{24\pi }\left\{2f^2+\frac{1}{M_\omega ^4}\left(E_\omega M_\omega f+|𝐪|^2h\right)^2\right\},$$
(21)
where $`E_\omega `$ is the $`\omega `$ meson energy in the $`b_1`$ rest frame. The unknown coupling constants $`f`$ and $`h`$ can then be determined by the decay width and the $`D/S`$ amplitude ratio in the decay of $`b_1\omega \pi `$, where Eq. (20) gives IMR89

$$f^D/f^S=\frac{\sqrt{2}\left\{M_\omega (E_\omega M_\omega )f+|𝐪|^2h\right\}}{M_\omega (E_\omega +2M_\omega )f+|𝐪|^2h},$$
(22)
which is defined from

$$\omega (𝐪,m_\omega )\pi (𝐪)|H_{\mathrm{int}}|b_1(\mathrm{𝟎},m_b)=if^S\delta _{m_\omega m_b}Y_{00}(\mathrm{\Omega }_q)+if^D\underset{m_{\mathrm{}}}{}2m_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}m_\omega |1m_bY_{2m_{\mathrm{}}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_q),$$
(23)
where $`Y_\mathrm{}m(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`j_1m_1j_2m_2jm`$ are the spherical harmonics and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, and $`m_\omega `$ ($`m_b`$) is the spin projection along the $`z`$ axis for the $`\omega `$ ($`b_1`$) meson. Using the PDG PDG00  values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1\omega \pi }`$ and $`f^D/f^S`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1\omega \pi }=142\pm 9`$ MeV and $`f^D/f^S=0.29\pm 0.04`$, we obtain

$$f3.71,h11.38,$$
(24)
which gives $`h/f3.1`$. This should be compared with the value $`h/f=+9.0`$ used by Ref. Barm66-68  to fit the high energy data of $`\pi N\omega N`$ together with the $`\rho `$-trajectory exchange.

The $`b_1`$-nucleon coupling can be written as

$$_{b_1NN}=\frac{ig_{b_1NN}}{2M_N}\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5q^\nu 𝝉𝒃_\mu \psi ,$$
(25)
due to the $`G`$ parity of the $`b_1`$, where $`b_\mu `$ is the $`b_1`$ meson field and $`\psi `$ is the nucleon. The momentum of the $`b_1`$ meson is denoted by $`q_\mu `$. The coupling constant $`g_{b_1NN}`$ is related to the nucleon tensor charge and has been recently estimated by making use of the axial vector dominance and SU(6) $`\times `$ O(3) spin-flavor symmetry in Ref. GGo01  in a similar way to Ref. BF96 . (See also Ref. KMOV00 .) The result reads

$$g_{b_1NN}=\frac{5}{3\sqrt{2}}g_{a_1NN}.$$
(26)
Using $`g_{a_1NN}7.49`$, one finally obtains $`g_{b_1NN}8.83`$ GGo01 .

Thus the production amplitude for the reaction of $`\pi N\omega N`$ is obtained as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{b_1}g_{b_1NN}C_I}{2M_N[(kq)^2M_{b_1}^2]}}\epsilon _\mu ^{}(\omega )\left\{fg^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{h}{M_\omega M_{b_1}}}q^\nu (kq)^\mu \right\}`$ (27)
$`\times \left\{g_{\nu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{(kq)_\nu (kq)_\alpha }{M_{b_1}^2}}\right\}\overline{u}(p^{})\gamma _5\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }(kq)_\beta u(p),`$
where $`u(p)`$ is the Dirac spinor of the nucleon with momentum $`p`$. The isospin factor $`C_I`$ is

$$C_I=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}\hfill & \text{ for }\pi ^{}p\omega n,\pi ^+n\omega p\hfill \\ +1\hfill & \text{ for }\pi ^0p\omega p\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ for }\pi ^0n\omega n\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
Given in Fig. 14 are the total cross sections for $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$. The solid and dashed lines are obtained with the $`\rho `$ exchange and the nucleon pole terms with the cutoff parameters (17) and (18), respectively. The total cross section due to the $`b_1`$ exchange is given by the dot-dashed line. For the form factor, we use the form of Eq. (13) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{b_1\omega \pi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{b_1NN}=1.4`$ GeV. Since its contribution is suppressed by $`\rho `$ and nucleon exchange contributions, the $`b_1`$ exchange is magnified in Fig. 14 by a factor of $`50`$. This conclusion does not sensitively depend on the cutoff parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{b_1\omega \pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{b_1NN}`$, when they are larger than the exchanged meson mass $`M_{b_1}`$.