format: text

text:
# Metal nanoplasmas as bright sources of hard x-ray pulses

## Abstract

We demonstrate a 13-fold increase in hard x-ray bremsstrahlung yield (10 - 200 keV) emitted by a copper plasma created by 100 fs, 806 nm pulses at $`10^{14}10^{15}`$ Wcm-2. This enhancement is achieved by depositing a thin film of copper nanoparticles of size 15 nm, on the target surface. A simple model that invokes local field modifications by surface plasmon excitation and ‘lightning rod’ effects explains the observed enhancement quantitatively and provides pointers to the design of structured surfaces for maximizing the emission.

The interaction of intense, ultrashort laser pulses with solid plasmas is of immense interest not only from a basic physics point of view but also due to their promise as micron-sized sources of ultrashort x-rays, in areas like lithography and time resolved diffraction Jiang ; Siders . Methods to enhance the x-ray yield are of great importance, and the influence of various laser and target conditions is widely investigated. Pre-formed plasmas Stearns ; Nishikawa  yield significant enhancements at the cost of an increase in the x-ray pulse duration. Recent literature reports impressive enhancements in soft Murnane  and moderately hard x-ray regions Wulker  using structured surfaces, viz. gratings Murnane ; Gauthier ; Gordon , “velvet” coatings Kulcsar , porous and nanocylinder Nishikawa ; Gordon ; Nishikawa2  targets. However, little attention has been paid to examine ways of improving the very hard ($`>`$ 10 keV) x-ray yield, a signature of hot electrons created in the plasma mainly by resonance absorption (RA) Kruer , in the intensity regime $`10^{14}10^{15}`$ Wcm-2. Enhanced x-ray yield, therefore, implies enhanced hot electron production, an issue that is of immense interest to inertial fusion research Tabak  and particle acceleration Wilks .

In this Letter, we demonstrate a method to enhance hard x-ray bremsstrahlung by coating nanoparticles (NP) on optically smooth metal targets. We report a 13-fold enhancement in the total x-ray emission in the 10-200 keV range using copper NP coated targets and show that they yield hotter electrons in comparison to optically polished, uncoated targets. These results are well explained by a simple model that invokes local electric field enhancement via surface plasmon excitation and ‘lightning rod’ effects. In addition, our model provides clear guidelines to the design of surface microstructures that would maximize hot electron and x-ray yields. The giant enhancement in nonlinearity that such fractal structures provide Shalaev  and the ease of patterning such targets can prove invaluable in the design of efficient ultrashort x-ray sources.

Our Ti:Sapphire laser system generates 806 nm, 100 fs (FWHM) pulses with 5 mJ energy per pulse. The pulses have a contrast ratio of $`10^5`$ with the pedestal in picosecond timescales. A detailed description of the experimental set-up can be found elsewhere Sudeep . P-polarized laser pulses are focused on targets housed in a vacuum chamber at $`10^3`$ Torr. A 1mJ laser pulse yields a peak intensity of $`1.3\times 10^{15}`$ Wcm-2 at a typical focal spot size of 40 $`\mu `$m. The target is constantly rotated and translated in order to avoid multiple laser hits at the same spot. X-ray emission from the plasma is observed in the plane of incidence, at $`45^{}`$ to the target normal, with a NaI (Tl) scintillation detector, wherein energy of the incident photon determines the amplitude of the PMT signal yielding energy-dispersed yields in the observed energy range. The detector is gated with the laser pulse and the signal is collected only in a time window of 30 $`\mu `$s, to ensure background-free acquisition. The observed spectrum is essentially bremsstrahlung as the characteristic emissions are blocked by the 5-mm BK-7 window of the chamber.

We use two types of Cu NP coated targets, one with spherical (inset of Fig. 1) and the other with ellipsoidal nanoparticles (SNP and ENP, respectively). Their emission is compared with highly polished copper targets. Cu nanoparticles are deposited by high pressure dc sputtering Praveen  on such polished copper discs (held at $`0^{}`$C for spherical particles and at $`50^{}`$C for ellipsoids). The resulting nanocrystalline Cu films are optically flat and 1 $`\mu `$m thick. The coherently diffracting crystallographic domain size ($`d_{XRD}`$) is obtained from x-ray diffraction line broadening, using the Scherrer technique. For a film deposited in 180 mTorr Ar environment at a sputtering power of 200W, we obtain $`d_{XRD}`$ = 15nm. The aspect ratio is obtained from a comparison of $`d_{XRD}`$ calculated from (111) and (200) diffraction lines. For basic optical characterization, the linear absorption spectra are measured (Fig. 1). The ENP (aspect ratio $``$ 1.5) have comparatively less absorption in the linear regime, in contrast to their behavior at higher intensities, as discussed later.

The reflectivity data were fitted to the Drude model for $`\lambda >650`$ nm, below which the inter-band transitions contribute to the dielectric function. Assuming a constant plasma frequency and with a collision frequency adjusted for a best fit, we get $`ϵ`$ as a function of $`\lambda `$. The fits yield effective permittivity ($`ϵ^{}+iϵ^{\prime \prime }`$) of the NP-void composite. Using the generalized Bruggeman effective medium approximation Granqvist , the permittivities of the SNP and ENP are obtained as $`27+i33`$ and $`27+i44.4`$ respectively, as opposed to their bulk value of $`27+i2.5`$. Extensive studies have been carried out on the variation of the dielectric constant with particle size Kreibig ; Exp . The real part of the dielectric constant is shown to be unaffected in most systems, unless the particle size is extremely small. The imaginary part increases due to the limited electron mean-free path in the NP Kreibig2 . The imaginary parts mentioned above are, however, much larger than the theoretically predicted values Kreibig2  and this mismatch is likely to be due to the factors like particle size distribution and dipole interactions between particles that are excluded in the modeling. However, this discrepancy does not significantly affect the interpretations of our results, as will be evident later.

To elucidate the role of nanoparticles in hot electron generation in two distinct regimes of RA, we present hard x-ray bremsstrahlung data at two angles of incidence, $`10^{}`$ and $`45^{}`$. For a flat target, collisional absorption is expected to be the main contributor at $`10^{}`$, while RA is expected to play a major role at $`45^{}`$. Fig. 2 presents a comparison of bremsstrahlung emission for $`10^{}`$, measured at a solid angle of 720 $`\mu `$Sr, from the polished and SNP-coated copper targets irradiated at $`2.0\times 10^{15}`$ Wcm-2. The total energy emitted per laser pulse in the above range from the polished target is $`2.2\times 10^{12}`$ J, whereas it is $`1\times 10^{11}`$ J from the nanoparticle coated target, assuming isotropic emission. It is clearly evident that there are two temperature components (6 keV and 14 keV) in the spectrum from the NP-coated target, while the higher component is insignificant in the emission from the polished target.

The hot electron temperature given by RA is expected to follow the scaling law Zhang  $`T_{hot}=6\times 10^5(I\lambda ^2(Wcm^2\mu m^2))^{0.33}`$, where $`I`$ is the intensity and $`\lambda `$ is the laser wavelength. These parameters, at $`2\times 10^{15}`$ Wcm-2 yield $`T_{hot}`$ = 5.8 keV, close to the observed hot electron temperature for polished targets. The NP coated targets, however, yield a significantly higher temperature component, which arises from the excess absorption caused by local field enhancements as we show below.

Modification of electric field due to surface protrusions has been well studied in connection with second harmonic generation Shen  and surface enhanced Raman scattering Gersten . At higher intensities, the electric field resonance is known to be a major source of hot electrons in a cluster plasma Ditmire . However, this idea has not been utilized so far to understand the excess absorption of intense laser light on modulated surfaces.

For simplicity, the NP target is modeled as a collection of hemispheroids of permittivity $`ϵ`$, embedded on a flat substrate kept in vacuum, as shown in the inset of Fig.3 (a). Consider a p-polarized wavefront of amplitude $`E`$, incident at an angle $`\theta `$ to the major axis of the spheroid. The model becomes much simpler with the assumption that the field along the major axis alone contributes to the enhancement. Thus, the resultant electric field at any point on the surface of the hemispheroid becomes

$$𝐄_𝐫=𝐄_𝐋^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐟}}+E\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{𝒙},$$
(1)
where $`𝐄_𝐋^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐟}}`$ is the locally enhanced field and $`E\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is the tangential component of the incident electric field on the metal surface. The enhanced local field on the surface of the spheroid can be computed as Shen

$$𝐄_𝐋^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐟}}=[L_{}^{surf}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{𝜼}+L_{}^{surf}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{𝝃}]E\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(2)
where $`L_{}^{surf}`$ and $`L_{}^{surf}`$ are the local field correction factors given by

$$L_{}^{surf}=L_Rϵ/[ϵ1+L_R[1+i\frac{4\pi ^2V}{3\lambda ^3}(1ϵ)]]$$
(3)
and $`L_{}^{surf}=L_{}^{surf}/ϵ`$, which is absent for metals, as there cannot be a parallel component of electric field on the metal surface. $`L_R`$ is the ‘lightning rod’ factor defined as $`L_R=1\xi Q^{}(\xi )/Q(\xi )`$, where $`\xi =[1(b/a)^2]^{1/2}`$ and $`Q(\xi )=(\xi /2)ln[(\xi +1)/(\xi 1)]1`$. $`V`$ is the volume of the spheroid. The maximum enhancement occurs towards the tip of the structure (low $`\alpha `$ values). The effective intensity at the tip ($`\alpha =0^{}`$) can be written as

$$I_r=I_{in}[(L_{}^{surf})^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ].$$
(4)
The local field correction factors have a resonant behavior with $`a/b`$, the aspect ratio of the spheroid, as shown in fig.3 (a). The dielectric constant, $`ϵ`$, is assumed to be a function of the particle diameter, viz. $`ϵ_{nano}=ϵ_{bulk}^{}+iϵ_{bulk}^{\prime \prime }(1+l/b)`$, where $`l`$ is the mean free path of the electrons Kreibig . As is evident, silver NPs with aspect ratios close to the resonance values will yield greater enhancement than similar ones of gold and copper, although the absolute values could be affected by the possible plasma screening effects for large aspect ratios. Fig. 3 (b) provides the variation of dielectric functions of bulk Cu and ENP with input laser intensity, derived from self-reflectivity measurements Downer . The deviation from room temperature values occurs only above $`10^{14}`$ Wcm-2. In fig. 3 (a), the resonance behavior depends on $`ϵ`$, although $`L_{}^{surf}`$ does not depend critically on $`ϵ`$ for small $`a/b`$ values. Thus, in the present study, the room temperature values of $`ϵ`$ will be quite good approximations in the calculations as $`L_{}^{surf}`$ will be more or less the same even for a drastically different plasma $`ϵ`$ (‘stars’, fig.3 (a)) and the plasma shape remains intact as it is a femtosecond interaction.

Substituting the value of $`L_{}^{surf}`$ for the spherical particle, we obtain $`I_r/I_{in}1.4`$, at $`\theta =10^{}`$. Thus, *the NP-coated target is equivalent to a polished target with a rescaled (enhanced) intensity*. Fig.2 (inset) provides a comparison of the original data of yields of SNP and polished targets with the data obtained by rescaling the points for the NP target by $`I_r=1.4I`$, and they are in reasonably good agreement. The apparent convergence of the yields was due to the peeling of the NP coating at high intensities and does not indicate any closure of the nanostructures.

Fig. 4 presents a comparison of bremsstrahlung emission, measured at a solid angle of 22 mSr, from the polished, spherical and ellipsoidal NP-coated Cu targets irradiated at $`45^{}`$, at $`6.0\times 10^{14}`$ Wcm-2. The total energy emitted per pulse from a polished target is $`4.2\times 10^{14}`$ J, while it is $`5.7\times 10^{13}`$ J using the ENP target, assuming isotropic emission. This amounts to a 13-fold enhancement in hot electron production at an intensity which is less than half of that used for $`10^{}`$ incidence. The spherical nanoparticles yield $`1.4\times 10^{13}`$ J, giving $``$ 3-fold enhancement as at the lowest intensity at $`10^{}`$. Two temperature components, 3 keV and 11 keV, are observed in the spectrum from both NP-coated targets, whereas the higher component is hardly present in the emission from polished target. That the ellipsoidal nanoparticles give more than 4 times yield than the spherical particles is easily understood from Fig. 3 to be due to the enhancement of both ‘lightning rod’ effect and plasmon resonance. An intensity rescaling, as above, gives $`I_r/I_{in}9`$, almost in agreement with the x-ray yield enhancement as predicted by RA ($`I^{4/3}`$). The RA scalings are equally applicable for NP targets as their dimensions are much smaller than $`\lambda `$. The higher component $`T_{hot}`$ obtained using ENP target corresponds to that obtained using a polished target at $`9\times 10^{15}`$ W cm-2 (close to the rescaled intensity for the ellipsoidal particle), as reported in our earlier work Rajeev .

The field enhancements are also responsible for enhanced nonlinearities Shalaev . Thus, multiphoton ionization in an NP target will be significantly enhanced as compared to the polished targets, which, in turn results in denser plasma formation and excess energy absorption. Due to the enhanced local fields and finite size of the surface protrusions, the oscillation energy of electrons reach a high value even at moderate intensities Kupersztych . At higher intensities, these ‘hot’ electrons yield bremsstrahlung and characteristic emissions in hard x-ray regime, when they undergo collisions.

Intensity enhancements by the surface structures could form pre-plasma for low contrast pulses, which would destroy the structure and adversely affect enhancement by the main pulse Kulcsar . In our case, however, pre-plasma formation is negligible as the threshold intensity for plasma formation is $`10^{12}10^{13}`$ Wcm-2 YZhang , and our pre-pulses have intensities lower than this, given our contrast and enhancement factors. The observed enhancements themselves substantiate the integrity of the structure and the irrelevance of pre-formed plasma in our case.

In summary, we report a 13-fold enhancement of the total bremsstrahlung emission in the 10-200 keV range from a copper nanoparticle-coated target in comparison to an optically polished Cu target. A simple model of the surface shows that enhancements in local electromagnetic fields result in excess absorption and hotter electrons that, in turn, enhance x-ray emission. Such enhanced emission is very attractive for practically viable hard x-ray sources. Further, our model provides guidance for designing better sources of ultrashort hard x-ray pulses; further studies are in progress towards this goal. The intensity levels we have used in this study are quite modest and are easily available from modern femtosecond lasers operating at multi-kHz repetition rates Murnane2 , making applications of nanoparticle coated targets very promising.

The authors thank N. Kulkarni for help with experiments and M. Krishnamurthy, V. Kumarappan and D. Mathur for useful discussions. The high energy, femtosecond laser facility has received substantial funding from the Department of Science and Technology.


text:
# Octet baryon magnetic moments in light cone QCD sum rules

## 1 Introduction

The method of QCD sum rule  has become a powerful tool in studying hadron physics on the basis of QCD. It is a framework which connects physical parameters of hadrons to the QCD parameters. In this approach hadrons are represented by their interpolating quark currents taken at large virtualities and then correlation function of these quark currents is introduced. Following this, on one side, the correlation function is calculated by the operator product expansion (OPE), and on the other side, its phenomenological part is constructed. Physical quantities of interest are determined by matching these two descriptions at large virtualities via dispersion relations.

The QCD sum rule method is discussed in many review articles (see  and references therein) and successfully applied in studying various characteristics of hadrons. One of the important characteristic static parameters of hadrons is their magnetic moments. Magnetic moments of nucleon were calculated in framework of the QCD sum rule approach in  using external field technique. They were later refined and extended to the entire baryon octet .

In this work, we present an independent calculation of the magnetic moments of the octet baryons in the framework of an alternative approach to the traditional sum rules method, i.e., the light cone QCD sum rules method (LCQSR). In the LCQSR method OPE is carried out near the light cone $`x^2=0`$ instead of at the short distance $`x0`$. This is an expansion over the twists of the operators rather than the dimensions, as is the case in the traditional QCD sum rules. The nonperturbative dynamics is parametrized by the so called light cone wave functions, rather than the vacuum condensates used in the traditional QCD sum rules. A detailed description of this method can be found in . There are many applications of the LCQSR in the current literature. Note that magnetic moments of the nucleon and decuplet baryons were studied in  and ,respectively, using the LCQSR method.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the LCQSR for the magnetic moments of the octet baryons are derived. In section 3 we present our numerical calculations and a comparison of the prediction of the LCQSR method on the magnetic moments of the octet baryons with the results of the other methods and experimental results.

## 2 LCQSR for the magnetic moments of the octet baryons

As we have already noted, in order to construct the sum rules for the magnetic moments of hadrons, it is necessary to introduce the correlation function of interpolating quark currents which have the same quantum numbers as corresponding hadrons. For this aim we consider the following correlator function:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}0|T\{\eta _B(x)\overline{\eta }_B(0)\}|0_\gamma },`$ (1)
where $`\gamma `$ means the external electromagnetic field, $`\eta _B`$ is the interpolating current of the corresponding baryon. It follows from this expression that we need the explicit expression of the interpolating currents to calculate the correlation function. It is well known that there is a continuum number of interpolating currents for the baryons. The general form of the interpolating currents for the octet baryons can be represented as

$`\eta _p`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(u^{aT}CA_1^{\mathrm{}}d^B\right)A_2^{\mathrm{}}u^c,`$
$`\eta _n`$ $`=`$ $`n_p\left(u^cd^c\right),`$
$`\eta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[\left(u^{aT}CA_1^{\mathrm{}}s^b\right)A_2^{\mathrm{}}d^c\left(d^{cT}CA_1^{\mathrm{}}s^b\right)A_2^{\mathrm{}}u^a\right],`$
$`\eta _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}}ϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[2\left(u^{aT}CA_1^{\mathrm{}}d^b\right)A_2^{\mathrm{}}s^c+\left(u^{aT}CA_1^{\mathrm{}}s^b\right)A_2^{\mathrm{}}d^c+\left(d^{cT}CA_1^{\mathrm{}}s^b\right)A_2^{\mathrm{}}u^a\right],`$
$`\eta _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ_{abc}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(s^{aT}CA_1^{\mathrm{}}u^b\right)A_2^{\mathrm{}}s^c,`$
$`\eta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}\left(du\right),`$
$`\eta _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}\left(ud\right),`$
$`\eta _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}\left(ud\right),`$ (2)
where $`a,b,c`$ are the color indices, $`A_1^1=1`$, $`A_1^2=t\gamma _5`$, $`A_2^1=\gamma _5`$, $`A_2^2=t`$ and $`t`$ is an arbitrary parameter. Ioffe current corresponds to the choice $`t=1`$.

Let us firstly discuss the hadronic representation of the correlator function. By inserting a complete set of states between the currents in Eq. (1) with quantum numbers of the corresponding baryon $`B`$, one obtains the hadronic representation of the correlator

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0|\eta _B|B(p_1)}{p_1^2m_B^2}}B(p_1)|B(p_2)_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{B(p_2)|\overline{\eta }_B|0}{p_2^2m_B^2}}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{0|\eta _B|h(p_1)}{p_1^2m_h^2}}h(p_1)|h(p_2)_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{h(p_2)|\overline{\eta }_B|0}{p_2^2m_h^2}},`$
where $`p_2=p_1+q`$, and $`q`$ is the photon momentum. The second term in Eq. (3) takes into account higher states and continuum contributions and $`h`$ forms a complete set of baryons having the same quantum number as the ground state baryon $`B`$ (here $`B`$ represents any one of $`p,n,\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$). The coupling strength of the interpolating currents with the baryon states parametrized with the overlap amplitudes $`\lambda _B`$ is defined as

$`0|\eta _B|B(p)=\lambda _Bu_B(p).`$ (4)
It follows from Eq. (3) that in order to obtain an expression for the phenomenological part of the correlator, explicit form of the matrix element $`B(p_1)|B(p_2)_\gamma `$ is needed. Electromagnetic vertex of the spin $`1/2`$ baryons can be written as

$`B(p_1)|B(p_2)_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_B(p_1)\left[f_1\gamma _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m_B}}f_2\right]u_B(p_2)\epsilon ^\mu ,`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\overline{u}_B(p_1)\left[(f_1+f_2)\gamma _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1+p_2)_\mu }{2m_B}}f_2\right]u_B(p_2)\epsilon ^\mu ,`$
where the form factors $`f_i`$ are in general functions of $`q^2=(p_2p_1)^2`$, and $`\epsilon ^\mu `$ is the polarization vector of the photon. In the problem under consideration, only the values of the form factors at $`q^2=0`$ are needed.

Using Eqs. (3)–(5), for the phenomenological part of the correlator (1) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=\lambda _B^2\epsilon ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p_1+m_B}{p_1^2m_B^2}}\left[(f_1+f_2)\gamma _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1+p_2)_\mu }{2m_B}}f_2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p_2+m_B}{p_2^2m_B^2}}+\mathrm{},`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ represents contributions from the higher states and the continuum. As is obvious from Eq. (6), the correlator function contains some number of different structures. Among all possible structures, we choose the one $`\overline{)}p_1\overline{)}\epsilon \overline{)}q`$ that contains the magnetic form factor $`f_1+f_2`$. The value of $`f_1+f_2`$ at $`q^2=0`$ gives the magnetic moment of the baryon in units of its natural magneton, i.e., $`e\mathrm{}/2m_Bc`$.

Isolating the structure $`\overline{)}p_1\overline{)}\epsilon \overline{)}q`$ from the phenomenological part of the correlator, which describes the magnetic form factor, we get

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=\lambda _B^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1^2m_B^2}}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_2^2m_B^2}}+\mathrm{},`$ (7)
where $`\mu =\left(f_1+f_2\right)|_{q^2=0}`$.

Using the explicit form of the interpolating currents given in Eq. (2) and after some calculations, for the QCD part of the correlator functions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ baryons, we get

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ_{abc}ϵ_{def}{\displaystyle }d^4xe^{ipx}\gamma |{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\{4A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_s^{be}(x)A_2^k\text{Tr}S_d^{cf}(x)CA_1^kS_u^{adT}(x)CA_1^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+`$ $`2A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_s^{be}(x)CA_1^kS_u^{adT}(x)CA_1^{\mathrm{}}S_d^{cf}(x)A_2^k2A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_s^{be}(x)CA_1^kS_d^{cfT}(x)(CA_1^{\mathrm{}})^TS_u^{ad}(x)A_2^k`$
$`+`$ $`2A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_d^{cf}(x)CA_1^kS_u^{adT}(x)CA_1^{\mathrm{}}S_s^{be}(x)A_2^k+A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_d^{cf}(x)A_2^k\text{Tr}S_s^{be}(x)CA_1^kS_u^{adT}(x)CA_1^{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_d^{cf}(x)(CA_1^k)^TS_s^{beT}(x)(CA_1^{\mathrm{}})^TS_u^{ad}(x)A_2^k2A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_u^{ad}(x)(CA_1^k)^TS_d^{cfT}(x)CA_1^{\mathrm{}}S_s^{be}(x)A_2^k`$
$``$ $`A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_u^{ad}(x)(CA_1^k)^TS_s^{beT}(x)(CA_1^{\mathrm{}})^TS_d^{cf}(x)A_2^k+A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_u^{ad}(x)A_2^k\text{Tr}S_s^{be}(x)CA_1^kS_d^{cfT}(x)CA_1^{\mathrm{}}\}|0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=2ϵ_{abc}ϵ_{def}{\displaystyle }d^4xe^{ipx}\gamma |{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\{A_2^{\mathrm{}}S_u^{cf}(x)A_2^k\text{Tr}S_s^{be}(x)CA_1^kS_u^{adT}(x)CA_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`A_2^{\mathrm{}}[S_u^{cf}(x)(CA_1^k)^TS_s^{beT}(x)(CA_1^{\mathrm{}})^TS_u^{ad}(x)A_2^k+S_u^{ad}(x)(CA_1^k)^TS_s^{beT}(x)(CA_1^{\mathrm{}})^TS_u^{cf}(x)A_2^k`$
$`+`$ $`S_u^{ad}(x)A_2^k\text{Tr}S_s^{be}(x)CA_1^kS_d^{cfT}(x)CA_1^{\mathrm{}}]\}|0,`$
where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation operator, subscripts $`a,b,c,d,e,f`$ are the color indices and $`S_q`$ is the full propagator of the light quark involving both perturbative and nonperturbative parts. The expression for the theoretical parts of the correlator functions of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ baryons can be obtained from Eq. (9) by the following replacements:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}(ud),`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}(us),`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}(us,sd),`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^p`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(su).`$ (10)
Our calculations show that contributions from quadratic terms in strange quark mass $`m_s`$ are negligibly small compared to that of linear terms in $`m_s`$, which is about $`6\%`$. Because of this reason theoretical part of the correlator function is calculated up to linear order in $`m_s`$. For the full light quark propagator we have used the following expression

$`S_q(x)=0\left|T\left\{\overline{q}(x)q(0)\right\}\right|0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\overline{)}x}{2\pi ^2x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{4\pi ^2x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{12}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{im_q}{4}}\overline{)}x\right){\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{192}}m_0^2\overline{q}q\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{im_q}{6}}\overline{)}x\right)`$
$``$ $`ig_s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑v\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}x}{16\pi ^2x^2}}G_{\mu \nu }(vx)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }vx^\mu G_{\mu \nu }(vx)\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi ^2x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{im_q}{32\pi ^2}}G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4}}+2\gamma _E\right)\right],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the energy cut off separating perturbative and nonperturbative regimes.

Few words about this expression of the light quark propagator are in order. The complete light cone expansion of the light quark propagator in external field has been carried in , and it has been shown that it gets contributions from nonlocal quark operators $`\overline{q}Gq,\overline{q}GGq,\overline{q}q\overline{q}q`$, where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluon field strength tensor. In the present work we consider the operators with only one–gluon field and neglect components with two–gluon and four–quark field. Formally, neglecting two–gluon and four–quark field terms can be justified on the basis of an expansion in conformal spin .

Perturbative part (i.e., photon interacting with quarks perturbatively) of the correlator function can be obtained by making the following substitution in one of the propagators in Eq. (9)

$`S_{q}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ee_q\left({\displaystyle 𝑑y^{\mu \nu }y_\nu S_q^{free}(xy)\gamma _\mu S_q^{free}(y)}\right)_{\alpha \beta }^{ab},`$ (12)
where the Fock–Schwinger gauge $`x^\mu A_\mu (x)=0`$ is used and $`S_q^{free}=i\overline{)}x/(2\pi ^2x^4)`$ is the free propagator, the remaining two propagators are the full propagators of the quarks (see Eq. (9)) and $`^{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor. The explicit expression of the nonperturbative contribution can be obtained from Eq. (2) by replacing one of the propagators

$`S_{q}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{q}^aA_jq^b(A_j)_{\alpha \beta },`$ (13)
where $`A_j=\{1,\gamma _5,\gamma _\alpha ,i\gamma _5\gamma _\alpha ,\sigma _{\alpha \beta }/\sqrt{2}\}`$ is the full set of Dirac matrices and sum over $`A_j`$ is implied, and the other two propagators are the full ones.

It follows from Eqs. (2) and (9) that in order to calculate the nonperturbative contributions to the theoretical part of the correlator functions, one needs to know the matrix elements $`\gamma \left|\overline{q}A_jq\right|0`$ of the nonlocal operators between photon and vacuum states. Up to twist–4, non–zero matrix elements of the nonlocal operators are determined in terms of the photon wave functions as follows:

$`\gamma (q)|\overline{q}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5q|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{4}}e_qϵ_{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma }\epsilon ^\beta q^\rho x^\sigma {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ue^{iuqx}\psi (u),`$
$`\gamma (q)|\overline{q}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }q|0`$ $`=`$ $`ie_q\overline{q}q{\displaystyle _0^1}due^{iuqx}\{(\epsilon _\alpha q_\beta \epsilon _\beta q_\alpha )[\chi \varphi (u)+x^2(g_1(u)g_2(u))]`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`[qx(\epsilon _\alpha x_\beta \epsilon _\beta x_\alpha )+\epsilon x(x_\alpha q_\beta x_\beta q_\alpha )]g_2(u)\},`$
where $`\chi `$ is the magnetic susceptibility of the quark condensate, $`e_q`$ is the quark charge, $`\varphi (u)`$ and $`\psi (u)`$ are the leading twist–2 photon wave functions, while $`g_1(u)`$ and $`g_2(u)`$ are the twist–4 functions, respectively. Note that twist–3 photon wave functions are neglected in further calculations since their contribution changes the results about 5%.

Using Eqs. (2) and (2), we can calculate theoretical part of the correlator functions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ baryons from Eqs. (2) and (9). The sum rule is obtained by equating the theoretical and phenomenological parts of the corresponding correlator function. Performing double Borel transformations on the variables $`p_1^2=p^2`$ and $`p_2^2=(p+q)^2`$ in order to suppress the continuum and higher state contributions (for a discussion concerning this point, see ), the following sum rules for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ baryons are obtained:

$`\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{M^2/M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\pi ^4}}M^6E_2(x)\left[(1+t^2)(e_u+e_d)+(13+10t+13t^2)e_s\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{48\pi ^2}}M^4E_1(x)(5+4t+t^2)\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{q}q(e_u+e_d)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi ^2}}M^4E_1(x)f\psi (u_0)\left[(1+t)^2(e_u+e_d)+(13+10t+13t^2)e_s\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{12\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)(14t+5t^2)\overline{q}q\left(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)e_s`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{288\pi ^2}}m_0^2\overline{q}q\left[9(1+t^2)(e_u+e_d)+(312t+16t^2)e_s\right]\left(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left[g_1(u_0)g_2(u_0)\right]\overline{q}q\left[(5+4t+t^2)\overline{s}s+(1+t)^2\overline{q}q\right](e_u+e_d)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{6\pi ^2}}(5+4t+t^2)\left[g_1(u_0)g_2(u_0)\right]M^2E_0(x)\overline{q}q(e_u+e_d)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}(14t5t^2)\left[g_1(u_0)g_2(u_0)\right]\overline{s}s\overline{u}ue_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{48\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)\left[(1+t)^2\overline{s}s2(5+4t+t^2)\overline{u}u\right](e_u+e_d)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{12\pi ^2}}M^2\overline{u}u(14t+5t^2)e_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}M^2E_0(x)\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{q}q\left[(5+4t+t^2)\overline{s}s+(1+t)^2\overline{q}q\right](e_u+e_d)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}M^2E_0(x)(1+4t5t^2)\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{s}s\overline{q}qe_s`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{72}}f\psi (u_0)\left[(1+t)^2\overline{s}s2(5+4t+t^2)\overline{q}q\right](e_u+e_d)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}m_0^2\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{u}u\left[2(5+4t+t^2)\overline{s}s+(32t+5t^2)\overline{q}q\right](e_u+e_d)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{216}}m_0^2(312t+16t^2)\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{s}s\overline{q}qe_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}\overline{q}q\left[(5+4t+t^2)\overline{s}s(e_u+e_d)+(112t+13t^2)\overline{q}qe_d\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{288\pi ^2}}m_0^2\left[(1+t)^2\overline{s}s3(5+4t+t^2)\overline{q}q\right](e_u+e_d),`$
$`\lambda _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}^2\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}e^{M^2/M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}^2}=`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^4}}\left[M^6E_2(x)2M^4E_1(x)f\psi (u_0)\right]\left[(1+t)^2e_s2(3+2t+3t^2)e_u\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{4\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)\left[(1+t^2)\overline{s}s+(1+t)^2\overline{u}u\right]e_u\left(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{4\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)(1+t^2)\overline{u}ue_s\left(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{192\pi ^2}}m_0^2\overline{u}u\left[(15+14t^2)e_s12(3+t+3t^2)e_u\right]\left(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{96\pi ^2}}m_0^2\left[(7+19t^2)\overline{s}s+3(13t+t^2)\overline{u}u\right]e_u\left(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(1+t^2)\left[g_1(u_0)g_2(u_0)\right]\overline{s}s\overline{u}ue_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left[g_1(u_0)g_2(u_0)\right]\overline{u}u\left[(1+t^2)\overline{s}s+(1+t)^2\overline{u}u\right]e_u`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}\overline{u}u\left[g_1(u_0)g_2(u_0)\right]M^2E_0(x)\left[(1+t^2)m_s+(1+t)^2m_u\right]e_u`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}(1+t^2)\left[g_1(u_0)g_2(u_0)\right]M^2E_0(x)m_u\overline{s}se_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}M^4E_1(x)\left[(1+t^2)m_s+(1+t)^2m_u\right]\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{u}ue_u`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{8\pi ^2}}M^4E_1(x)(1+t^2)\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{s}se_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(1+t^2)M^2E_0(x)\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{s}s\overline{u}ue_s`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}M^2E_0(x)\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{u}u\left[(1+t^2)\overline{s}s+(1+t)^2\overline{u}u\right]e_u`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{8\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)\left[4(1+t^2)\overline{s}s+(52t+5t^2)\overline{u}u\right]e_u`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{8\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)(16t+t^2)\overline{u}ue_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{8\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)\left[(3+2t+3t^2)\overline{s}s6(1+t^2)\overline{u}u\right]e_u`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{4\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)(1+t^2)\overline{u}ue_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{12}}f\psi (u_0)\left[6(1+t^2)\overline{s}s(3+2t+3t^2)\overline{u}u\right]e_u`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{12}}f\psi (u_0)(16t+t^2)\overline{u}ue_s`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{12}}f\psi (u_0)\left[(3+2t+3t^2)\overline{s}s6(1+t^2)\overline{u}u\right]e_u`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\overline{u}u\left[(1+t)^2\overline{u}ue_s6(1+t^2)\overline{s}se_u\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}m_0^2\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{u}u\left[(1+t^2)\overline{s}s+3(13t+t^2)\overline{u}u\right]e_u`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}m_0^2(1514t^2)\chi \phi (u_0)\overline{s}s\overline{u}ue_s`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{48\pi ^2}}m_0^2\left[9(1+t^2)\overline{s}s(3+2t+3t^2)\overline{u}u\right]e_u`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{24\pi ^2}}m_0^2(14t+t^2)\overline{u}ue_s`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{48\pi ^2}}m_0^2\left[(3+2t+3t^2)\overline{s}s9(1+t^2)\overline{u}u\right]e_u.`$
In Eqs. (15) and (16) the functions

$`E_n(x)=1e^x{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^k}{k}},`$
are used to subtract the continuum and higher state contributions, $`x=s_0/M^2`$ and $`s_0`$ is the continuum threshold. Moreover

$`u_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2}{M_1^2+M_2^2}},`$
$`M^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2M_2^2}{M_1^2+M_2^2}},`$
but, since we are dealing with just a single baryon, the Borel parameters $`M_1^2`$ and $`M_2^2`$ should be set to equal each other, from which it follows that $`u_0=1/2`$.

As has already been noted, the sum rules for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{},p,n`$ baryons can be obtained by making the following replacements:

$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}\left(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0},\lambda _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}\lambda _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0},e_u{\displaystyle \frac{e_u+e_d}{2}},s_0^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}s_0^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}\right),`$
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}\left(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\lambda _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}\lambda _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},e_ue_d,s_0^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}s_0^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\right),`$
$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}m_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0},e_se_u,m_sm_u,\overline{s}s\overline{u}u,s_0^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}s_0^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}),`$
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}(m_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}m_\mathrm{\Xi }^{},e_ue_d,s_0^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}s_0^\mathrm{\Xi }^{}),`$
$`\mu _p`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\left(m_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}m_p,e_se_u,m_sm_u,\overline{s}s\overline{u}u,s_0^\mathrm{\Xi }^{}s_0^p\right),`$
$`\mu _n`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _p\left(e_u{\displaystyle \frac{e_u+e_d}{2}},s_0^ps_0^n\right).`$
Note that, after we make these replacements we set masses of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks to zero and assume $`SU(2)`$ flavor symmetry, which implies that $`\overline{u}u=\overline{d}d`$.

Obviously, it follows from Eqs. (15) and (16) that one needs to know the residues $`\lambda _B`$ of the octet baryons in order to determine their magnetic moments. These residues are determined from mass sum rules of the corresponding baryons:

$`\lambda _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}^2e^{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}^2/M^2}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^6}{256\pi ^4}}E_2(x)(5+2t+5t^2){\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{24M^2}}\overline{u}u\left[12(1+t^2)\overline{s}s+(1+t)^2\overline{u}u\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{32\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)\left[(5+2t+5t^2)\overline{s}s12(1+t^2)\overline{u}u\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{96\pi ^2}}m_s\left[(5+2t+5t^2)\overline{s}s3(1+t^2)\overline{u}u\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}u}{6}}\left[6(1+t^2)\overline{s}s+(1+t)^2\overline{u}u\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3m_s}{16\pi ^2}}m_0^2\overline{u}u(1+t^2)\left(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$
$`\lambda _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}^2e^{m_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}^2/M^2}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^6}{256\pi ^4}}E_2(x)(5+2t+5t^2){\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{24M^2}}\overline{s}s\left[12(1+t^2)\overline{d}d+(1+t)^2\overline{s}s\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3m_s}{16\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)\left[2(1+t^2)\overline{d}d+(1+t)^2\overline{s}s\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{s}s}{6}}\left[6(1+t^2)\overline{d}d+(1+t)^2\overline{s}s\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2m_s}{96\pi ^2}}\left[3(1+t^2)\overline{d}d+(7+10t+7t^2)\overline{s}s\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3m_0^2m_s}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{d}d(1+t^2)\left(\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$
$`\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }^2e^{M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M^2}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256\pi ^4}}(5+2t+5t^2)M^6E_2(x)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}(1t){\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{M^2}}\left\{4(1+2t)\overline{s}s\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)+(25+23t)\overline{u}u\overline{d}d\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{96\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)\left\{3(5+2t+5t^2)\overline{s}s+2(1+4t5t^2)\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{32\pi ^2}}m_0^2\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)(1t^2)\left\{\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}(1t)\left\{(1+5t)\overline{s}s\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)+(13+11t)\overline{u}u\overline{d}d\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{192\pi ^2}}m_0^2\left\{2(5+2t+5t^2)\overline{s}s+(5+4t+t^2)\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)\right\}`$
$`\lambda _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}^2e^{M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}^2/M^2}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256\pi ^4}}(5+2t+5t^2)M^6E_2(x)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{32\pi ^2}}M^2E_0(x)\left\{(5+2t+5t^2)\overline{s}s6(1+t^2)\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{M^2}}(1t)\left\{6(1+t)\overline{s}s\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)+(1+t)\overline{u}u\overline{d}d\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3m_s}{32\pi ^2}}m_0^2\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)(1t^2)\left\{\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{192\pi ^2}}m_0^2\left\{2(5+2t+5t^2)\overline{s}s3(1+t^2)\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(1t)\left\{3(1+t)\overline{s}s\left(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right)+(1+t)\overline{u}u\overline{d}d\right\}`$
## 3 Numerical Analysis

In this section we present the numerical analysis of the sum rules for the magnetic moments of the octet baryons. The main input parameters in the LCQCD are the photon wave functions which have been introduced in the previous section. In  and  it has been shown that the leading photon wave functions do not deviate much from their asymptotic form. Therefore in numerical calculations we shall use the following forms of the photon wave functions

$`\varphi (u)`$ $`=`$ $`6u(1u),\psi (u)=1,`$
$`g_1(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(1u)(3u),g_2(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1u)^2.`$
The values of the other input parameters that are used in the numerical analysis are: $`f=0.028GeV^2`$, $`\chi =3.3GeV^2`$  (in  this quantity is estimated to be $`\chi =4.4GeV^2`$), $`\overline{q}q(1GeV)=(0.243)^3GeV^3`$, $`m_0^2=(0.8\pm 0.2)GeV^2`$ , $`m_s(1GeV)=(150\pm 50)MeV`$, $`\overline{s}s(1GeV)=0.8\overline{q}q(1GeV)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5GeV`$. In the problem under consideration we have three auxiliary parameters, namely parameter $`t`$ in the hadron interpolating currents, Borel mass square $`M^2`$ and the continuum threshold $`s_0`$. No doubt, it is expected that any physically measurable quantity must be independent of these auxiliary parameters. So, our problem is to find the appropriate regions, for which magnetic moments of octet baryons are independent of the above–mentioned parameters.

For this aim we consider the following three–step procedure. In the first step we attempt to find working region of $`M^2`$, where magnetic moments of octet baryons are independent of the Borel parameter at fixed values of $`s_0`$ and $`t`$. In Figs. (1)–(8) we present the dependence of the magnetic moments of the corresponding baryons on $`M^2`$. From these figures we see that the magnetic moments of octet baryons seem to be almost independent of $`M^2`$ for different choices of $`t`$ and $`s_0`$. However, the working region for the Borel mass square parameter for the members of octet baryons are different, i.e., $`0.9GeV^2<M^2<1.2GeV^2`$ for $`p,n`$; $`1.3GeV^2<M^2<1.6GeV^2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; $`1.7GeV^2<M^2<2.1GeV^2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$.

Before determining the magnetic moment of baryons, the next problem to be considered is to find the working region of $`t`$, i.e. the region where the sum rules make sense. For this purpose we consider the mass sum rules (Eqs. (22)). Two criteria should be satisfied for mass sum rules. First of all, each mass sum rule must separately be positive. The second criteria is that, the predicted mass of the baryons which is obtained by taking the logarithmic derivative of the corresponding sum rule with respect to $`M^2`$ should be stable with respect to the variation of the parameter $`t`$. As a result of analysis of the mass sum rules we found that, the region $`0.5<t<0.5`$ is unphysical (see Fig. (9)). Our analysis shows that the working region of $`t`$ where the second criteria is satisfied is given by $`0.6<\mathrm{cos}\theta <0.3`$, where $`\theta `$ is defined through the relation $`\theta =\mathrm{tan}^1t`$. This region of $`\theta `$ corresponds to $`t<1.4`$ and $`t>3.3`$. We observe that the Ioffe current, which corresponds to the choice $`t=1`$ does not lie in the working region.

Our last attempt is to determine a region for the parameter $`t`$ where the magnetic moments of the octet baryons are independent of its variation. Here we stress again that in the first step the working region for the Borel mass square $`M^2`$ has been determined for which $`\mu _B`$ is practically independent of its variation, as well as insensitive to the continuum threshold. We present in Fig (10) the dependence of the magnetic moments of the octet baryons (in units of the nucleon magneton $`\mu _N`$) on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, at fixed values of $`M^2`$ (remember that the fixed values of $`M^2`$ are different for each one of the octet baryons) and at fixed value of $`s_0`$ (again different fixed values of $`s_0`$ are used for each baryon). From this figure we observe that $`\mu _B`$ is practically independent of the parameter $`t`$ in the region $`0.6<\mathrm{cos}\theta <0.3`$ and insensitive to the variation of the continuum threshold $`s_0`$. Our final results on the magnetic moments of the octet baryons are presented in Table (1) . For completeness, in this table we also present the predictions of other approaches on the magnetic moments of octet baryons and the experimental results as well as our results for the value of the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi =4.4GeV^2`$. It follows from our analysis that light cone QCD sum rule prediction on magnetic moments of octet baryons are close to their experimental values for $`\chi =3.3GeV^2`$, but considerable departure is observed for $`\chi =4.4GeV^2`$. Obviously, it follows from Table 1 that similar situation takes place for the traditional sum rule predictions on the magnetic moments of octet baryons. The uncertainties in the results we have presented could be attributed to the variation of $`s_0`$, Borel parameter $`M^2`$, twist–3 photon wave functions which are neglected and errors in the input parameters such as $`\overline{q}q`$, $`m_0^2`$ and $`m_s`$. All errors are added quadratically to the final predictions. It should be stressed here that the predictions on magnetic moments at $`t=1`$, which corresponds to the Ioffe current, are not reliable.

From our results we see that the values of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}\mu _p`$; $`2\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu _n`$; $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}\mu _n`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. It should be added here that, in exact $`SU(3)`$ symmetry, the relations between the magnetic moments are as follows :

$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _p,`$
$`2\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _n,`$
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\mu _n`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _p,`$
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},`$
$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _n.`$ (21)
Violation to the relations (3) comes from $`SU(3)`$ breaking terms (the mass of the $`s`$ quark, $`s`$ quark condensate, etc.). So, our predictions give us a clue about sizable $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking effects.

In summary, we have calculated magnetic moments of the octet baryons in light cone QCD sum rules, using the general form of the baryonic interpolating currents. We have obtained that light cone QCD sum rule predictions on magnetic moments of the octet baryons are in good agreement with the experimental data at $`\chi =3.3GeV^2`$.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank V. S. Zamiralov for fruitful discussions.

Note added: After we have completed the present work, we have received a recent work  where the mass sum rules for general form of the interpolating currents for the baryons are calculated. Our results on mass sum rules coincide with with the ones predicted in this work.

## Figure captions

Fig. (1) The dependence of the magnetic moment (in units of nuclear magneton $`\mu _N`$) of $`p`$ on the Borel parameter $`M^2`$, at the continuum threshold $`s_0=2.0GeV^2`$.
Fig. (2) The same as in Fig. (1), but for $`n`$.
Fig. (3) The same as in Fig. (1), but for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, at the continuum threshold $`s_0=2.5GeV^2`$ and $`m_s=0.15GeV`$.
Fig. (4) The same as in Fig. (3), but for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, at the continuum threshold $`s_0=3.0GeV^2`$ and $`m_s=0.15GeV`$.
Fig. (5) The same as in Fig. (4), but for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.
Fig. (6) The same as in Fig. (4), but for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$.
Fig. (7) The same as in Fig. (3), but for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$, at the continuum threshold $`s_0=3.2GeV^2`$ and $`m_s=0.15GeV`$.
Fig. (8) The same as in Fig. (7), but for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$.
Fig. (9) The dependence of $`\lambda _B^2`$ on $`t`$, for all members of the octet baryons, at the continuum threshold $`s_0=2.0GeV^2`$ (for $`p`$ and $`n`$), $`s_0=2.5GeV^2`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), $`s_0=3.0GeV^2`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and $`s_0=3.2GeV^2`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$).
Fig. (10) The dependence of the magnetic moments of the octet baryons on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ at the continuum threshold $`s_0=2.0GeV^2`$ (for $`p`$ and $`n`$), $`s_0=2.5GeV^2`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), $`s_0=3.0GeV^2`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and $`s_0=3.2GeV^2`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$), and at $`M^2=1GeV^2`$ (for $`p`$ and $`n`$), $`M^2=1.5GeV^2`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and $`M^2=1.9GeV^2`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$).