text:
# Quasiparticle Properties in Effective Field Theory

## I Introduction

A relatively new approach to many-body phenomena is that of effective field theory (EFT). The EFT approach is designed to exploit the separation of scales in physical systems WEINBERG79 ; LEPAGE89 ; KAPLAN95 . Only low-energy (or long-range) degrees of freedom are included explicitly, with the rest parametrized in terms of the most general local (contact) interactions. Using renormalization, the influence of high-energy states on low-energy observables is captured in a small number of low-energy constants. Thus, the EFT describes universal low-energy physics independent of detailed assumptions about the short-distance dynamics. Furthermore, the application of EFT methods to many-body problems gives a consistent organization of many-body corrections, with reliable error estimates, and insight into the analytic structure of observables. EFT provides a model independent description of finite density observables in terms of parameters that can be fixed from scattering in the vacuum. In low-energy particle and nuclear physics, EFT methods have successfully been applied to mesonic systems GaL85 , processes with one baryon Mei00 , and more recently also to processes involving two and more baryons BEANE99 ; Bedaque:2002mn .

A description in terms of quasiparticles is central to many approaches to the many-body problem. It has proven useful in many physical systems from condensed matter physics to nuclear physics NEGELE88 ; FETTER71 . If the states of the noninteracting system are gradually transformed into the interacting states when the interactions are switched on adiabatically, the excitations of the interacting system near the Fermi surface (the quasiparticles) have the same character as the excitations of the noninteracting Fermi gas. This is the basic assumption underlying Landau’s theory of Fermi liquids Landau56 ; Noz97 . The assumption holds, e.g., for a dilute Fermi system with repulsive, short-ranged interactions. This system has been a benchmark problem for many-body techniques for a long time efimov ; baker ; bishop ; HAMMER00 . In particular, the low density allows for a controlled expansion in $`k_Fa_s`$ where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi momentum and $`a_s`$ is the S-wave scattering length of the fermions. In the framework of EFT, this corresponds to an expansion in $`k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the breakdown scale of the EFT. For a natural system the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sets the scale of $`a_s`$ and all other effective range parameters. Initially, there were not many applications for this model system, but recently ultra-cold Fermi gases of atoms have been achieved jin99 ; hulet01 . The dilute Fermi gas also serves as a simpler test case on the way to an EFT description of nuclear matter. The quasiparticle properties in the dilute Fermi gas to $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2)`$ were first calculated by Galitskii GALITSKII . An incomplete numerical study of the quasiparticle properties to $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$ was carried out in Ref. bund . In Ref. SARTOR80 , the proper self-energy was calculated off-shell to $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2)`$ and the momentum dependence of the effective mass was studied in detail.

In this paper, we perform the first complete calculation of the quasiparticle properties in the dilute Fermi gas to $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$ in the low-density expansion. At this order both the S-wave effective range $`r_s`$ and the P-wave scattering length $`a_p`$ contribute. We calculate the quasiparticle energies $`ϵ_k`$, width $`\gamma _k`$, and effective mass $`M^{}`$. As a check, we also calculate the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and the energy per particle and compare with the known results efimov ; baker ; bishop ; HAMMER00 . The outline of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II we repeat briefly the elements of an EFT approach to dilute Fermi systems. In Sec. III, we calculate the proper self-energy at order $`(k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3`$. The quasiparticle properties to $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$ are derived from the self-energy in Sec. IV. In Sec. V, we summarize and present our conclusions.

## II Effective Field Theory for Dilute Fermi Systems

In this section, we review briefly the EFT approach for dilute Fermi systems. We will restrict ourselves to repulsive interactions. An EFT for such a system is discussed in detail in Ref. HAMMER00 . In contrast to more traditional many-body approaches efimov ; baker ; bishop  the EFT for the dilute Fermi gas is fully perturbative. It is appropriate to consider a natural EFT for heavy, nonrelativistic fermions of mass M with spin-independent interactions whose strength is correctly determined by naive dimensional analysis. The scale of all effective range parameters is set by $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the breakdown scale of the theory. For momenta $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, all interactions appear short-ranged and can be modeled by contact terms. Therefore, we consider a local Lagrangian for a nonrelativistic fermion field that is invariant under Galilean, parity, and time-reversal transformations:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{}\left[i_t+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{}^2}{2M}}\right]\psi {\displaystyle \frac{C_0}{2}}(\psi ^{}\psi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{16}}\left[(\psi \psi )^{}(\psi \stackrel{}{}^2\psi )+\text{ H.c.}\right]`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2^{}}{8}}(\psi \stackrel{}{}\psi )^{}(\psi \stackrel{}{}\psi )+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\stackrel{}{}=\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{}`$ is the Galilean invariant derivative and H.c. denotes the Hermitian conjugate. Higher-order time derivatives are not included, since it is most convenient for our purposes to eliminate them in favor of spatial gradients.

For convenience, we choose dimensional regularization with minimal subtraction as our renormalization scheme. Calculating the two-particle scattering amplitude in the vacuum to $`𝒪((k/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$, the coefficients $`C_{2i}`$ can be determined by matching to the leading coefficients of the effective range expansion (see, e.g., Ref. HAMMER00  for details). Thus, the $`C_{2i}`$ can be expressed completely in terms of the effective range parameters:

$$C_0=\frac{4\pi a_s}{M},C_2=C_0\frac{a_sr_s}{2},\text{and}C_2^{}=\frac{4\pi a_p^3}{M},$$
(2)
where $`a_s`$, $`a_p`$ and $`r_s`$ are the S- and P-wave scattering lengths and S-wave effective range, respectively.

We now turn to the finite density system. First, consider a noninteracting Fermi gas. The single particle states of the system are characterized by a momentum $`k`$ and a spin quantum number $`s`$. In particular, the ground-state of the system is the state in which all single-particle states with momentum less than the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ are occupied and all other single-particle states are empty. Any excited state of the system can be created by removing particles with momentum less than $`k_F`$ and adding particles with momentum greater than $`k_F`$.

Now we turn on the interactions. We assume that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the states of the noninteracting Fermi gas and those of the interacting system if the interaction is switched on adiabatically. Note that this is not the case if the interaction is attractive. In this case, it is energetically favorable to form Cooper pairs and our calculation does not lead to the correct ground state. The elementary excitations of the interacting system correspond thus to the particle and hole excitations of the noninteracting Fermi gas, and are referred to as quasiparticles and quasiholes, respectively. Information about the properties of quasiparticles is contained in the proper self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(k_0,𝐤)`$. In terms of diagrams, the proper self-energy represents one-particle irreducible and amputated self-energy insertions. The proper self-energy is related to the full Green’s function $`G_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{~}{k})`$ by Dyson’s equation FETTER71 :

$$G_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{~}{k})=G_{\alpha \beta }^0(\stackrel{~}{k})+G_{\alpha \lambda }^0(\stackrel{~}{k})\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\stackrel{~}{k})_{\lambda \mu }G_{\mu \beta }(\stackrel{~}{k}),$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{k}(k_0,𝐤)`$, $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ are spin indices, and the subscript $`0`$ denotes the noninteracting Green’s function defined in Eq. (5) below. For spin-independent interactions this equation can be solved analytically to give:

$$G_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{~}{k})=\frac{\delta _{\alpha \beta }}{k_0𝐤^2/(2M)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\stackrel{~}{k})}.$$
(4)
Here, we only repeat the Feynman rules for the proper self-energy: The vertices that follow from the Lagrangian (1) are illustrated in Fig. 1. For short-range interactions the direct and exchange contributions differ only by a spin degeneracy factor. As a consequence, it is convenient to use so-called “Hugenholtz” diagrams where the direct and exchange contributions are combined in local four-fermion vertices.

The Feynman rules are HAMMER00 :

1. Write down all Hugenholtz diagrams that scale with a given order in $`k_F`$ as determined by the power counting rules given below.
2. Assign nonrelativistic four-momenta (frequency and three-momentum) to all lines and enforce four-momentum conservation at each vertex.
3. For each vertex, include the corresponding expression from Fig. 1. For spin-independent interactions, the two-body vertices have the structure $`(\delta _{\lambda \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }+\delta _{\lambda \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma })`$, where $`\lambda ,\beta `$ are the spin indices of the incoming lines and $`\gamma ,\delta `$ are the spin indices of the outgoing lines.111It is most convenient to take care of the antisymmetrization in the spin summations. This is discussed in rule 4. For each internal line include a factor $`iG_0(\stackrel{~}{k})_{\lambda \gamma }`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{k}(k_0,𝐤)`$ is the four-momentum assigned to the line, $`\lambda `$ and $`\gamma `$ are spin indices, and

$$iG_0(\stackrel{~}{k})_{\lambda \gamma }=i\delta _{\lambda \gamma }\left(\frac{\theta (kk_F)}{k_0𝐤^2/(2M)+iϵ}+\frac{\theta (k_Fk)}{k_0𝐤^2/(2M)iϵ}\right).$$
(5)
4. Perform the spin summations in the diagram. In every closed fermion loop, substitute a spin degeneracy factor $`g`$ for each $`\delta _{\lambda \lambda }`$.
5. Integrate over all independent momenta with a factor $`d^4k/(2\pi )^4`$ where $`d^4kdk_0d^3k`$. If the spatial integrals are divergent, they are defined in $`D`$ spatial dimensions and renormalized using minimal subtraction as discussed in Ref. HAMMER00 . For a tadpole line with four-momentum $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$, multiply by $`\mathrm{exp}(ik_0\eta )`$ and take the limit $`\eta 0^+`$ after the contour integrals have been carried out. This procedure automatically takes into account that such lines must be hole lines.
6. Multiply every Hugenholtz diagram by the appropriate symmetry factor.222This symmetry factor is most easily obtained by resolving the Hugenholtz vertices in Fig. 1 into vertices with direct and exchange contributions. For a Hugenholtz diagram with $`n`$ vertices this substitution generates $`2^n`$ new diagrams. Now identify the symmetry factor that corrects for the double counting of topologically equivalent diagrams among the $`2^n`$ diagrams.

Furthermore, we repeat the power-counting rules that determine the power of $`k_F`$ with which a given diagram scales:

* for every propagator a factor $`M/k_F^2`$ ,
* for every loop integration a factor of $`k_F^5/M`$ ,
* for every n-body vertex with $`2i`$ derivatives a factor $`k_F^{2i}/(M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2i+3n5})`$ ,

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the breakdown scale of the theory which is determined by the physics not included in the EFT (such as the mass of a heavy exchanged particle). Thus, $`k_F`$ has to be much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is just the case for low density systems with short-range interactions where $`\rho k_F^31/a_s^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$. In the above power counting rules, the external momentum $`𝐤`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is also counted as order $`k_F`$. This is appropriate, since the external momentum is converted to $`k_F`$ if observables like the energy density or quasiparticle properties are calculated. All proper self-energy diagrams have an overall factor of the Fermi energy $`k_F^2/(2M)`$ which we suppress in the labeling of different orders. The leading order contribution then starts at $`𝒪(k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. As a consequence, the expansion of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ reads:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(k_0,𝐤)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(k_0,𝐤)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{}(k_0,𝐤)+\mathrm{},$$
(6)
where the lower index indicates the corresponding power of $`k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In a homogeneous system $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(k_0,𝐤)`$ depends only on $`k=|𝐤|`$. The expressions for the self-energy through $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2)`$ for $`k_0=k^2/(2M)`$ (sometimes called “on shell”) were first calculated by Galitskii GALITSKII . The general expressions for arbitrary $`k_0`$ were obtained in Ref. SARTOR80 . For completeness, we quote the on-shell expressions for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}`$ which will be needed later on:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}(g1){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\pi }}(k_Fa_s),`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)={\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}(g1)(k_Fa_s)^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}[11v+2v^5\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{v1}}\right|`$
$`10(v^21)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{v+1}{v1}}\right|(2v^2)^{5/2}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1+v\sqrt{2v^2}}{1v\sqrt{2v^2}}}\right|],`$
$`0<k<k_F:`$ $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)=(g1){\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{4\pi M}}(k_Fa_s)^2(1v^2)^2,`$ (9)
$`k_F<k<\sqrt{2}k_F:`$ $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)=(1g){\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{15\pi M}}(k_Fa_s)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}\left(5v^27+2(2v^2)^{5/2}\right),`$ (10)
with $`v=k/k_F`$. If the imaginary parts in Eqs. (9) and (10) are expanded around the Fermi surface at $`v=1`$, the first nonvanishing contribution occurs at $`𝒪((1v)^2)`$ as required by Luttinger’s general theorem LUTTINGER61 . In the next section, we calculate the proper self-energy contribution $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{}`$ at $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$ for $`k_0=k^2/(2M)`$. As we will show in Section IV, only the on-shell value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{}`$ is required for the quasiparticle properties.

## III Proper Self-Energy at $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$

In this section, we calculate the contribution to the proper self-energy at $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{}`$.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(3)}^{}(k_0,k)`$ is given by the nine diagrams in shown Fig. 2. We will omit the calculational details in this section and show a sample calculation of diagram (7) in Appendix A. Diagrams (1) to (3) vanish when evaluated. Diagrams (4) and (5) can be related to the derivative of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(k_0,k)`$ with respect to $`k_0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(4)}^{}(k_0,k)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(5)}^{}(k_0,k)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(k_0,k)}{k_0}|_{k_0=\frac{k^2}{2M}}.$$
(11)
They do not contribute the quasiparticle properties at $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$ as will be shown in the next section. Diagrams (8) and (9) can be evaluated analytically and give purely real results. For diagrams (6) and (7), we could not obtain analytical results; instead we have simplified the analytical expressions as far as possible and calculated them numerically using the Vegas Monte Carlo integration routine vegas . Below, we give parametrizations for the contributions of diagrams (6) and (7) to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{}`$ from a fit to the numerical results. We have fitted the results for different external momenta $`k`$ to polynomials in $`(k_Fk)`$ in an expansion around the Fermi surface. We have truncated the expansion at the order in $`(k_Fk)`$ at which adding another term does not improve the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit anymore. According to this criterion a polynomial of seventh degree is sufficient for the real parts, while the imaginary parts require a polynomial of ninth degree in $`(k_Fk)`$. The results for the contributions to the proper self-energy at $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$ are:

$`\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(6)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}(g1)(g3){\displaystyle \frac{2^3}{\pi ^3}}(k_Fa_s)^3\{0.59080.8829(1v)`$ (12)
$`+0.2140(1v)^2+3.7284(1v)^32.7392(1v)^4`$
$`4.7509(1v)^5+7.0977(1v)^62.6709(1v)^7\},`$
$`\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(7)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}(g1){\displaystyle \frac{2^3}{\pi ^3}}(k_Fa_s)^3\{0.7811+1.0589(1v)`$ (13)
$`+0.4160(1v)^2+1.9942(1v)^33.1936(1v)^4`$
$`4.8352(1v)^5+9.6964(1v)^64.1846(1v)^7\},`$
$`\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(8)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{(g+1)}{\pi }}(k_Fa_p)^3\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}v^2\right\},`$ (14)
$`\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(9)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{(g1)}{2\pi }}k_F^3a_s^2r_s\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}v^2\right\},`$ (15)
$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(6)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{16(g1)(g3)}{\pi ^2}}(k_Fa_s)^3[\{0.0065(1v)^21.0778(1v)^3`$ (16)
$`+5.2913(1v)^413.0528(1v)^5+18.7234(1v)^6`$
$`15.4468(1v)^7+6.7036(1v)^81.1653(1v)^9\}\theta (1v)`$
$`+\{0.0700(1v)^25.3866(1v)^384.0177(1v)^4`$
$`721.4519(1v)^53546.7045(1v)^69902.6272(1v)^7`$
$`14617.8867(1v)^88855.7811(1v)^9\}\theta (v1)],`$
$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(7)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{8(g1)}{\pi ^2}}(k_Fa_s)^3[\{0.3835(1v)^2+3.1281(1v)^3`$ (17)
$`7.1868(1v)^4+12.1392(1v)^516.3114(1v)^6`$
$`+14.4972(1v)^77.2813(1v)^8+1.5639(1v)^9\}\theta (1v)`$
$`+\{0.3715(1v)^2+8.0530(1v)^3+77.9691(1v)^4`$
$`+532.4357(1v)^5+2237.8794(1v)^6+5462.8759(1v)^7`$
$`+7100.2592(1v)^8+3791.8271(1v)^9\}\theta (v1)],`$
$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(8)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(9)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (18)
where $`v=k/k_F`$. In Eqs. (12), (13), (16), and (17), we give the numerical constants to four decimal places to ensure that the parametrizations differ from the exact numerical values by less than $`1\%`$. Also, note that the parametrizations for the imaginary parts start with the $`(1v)^2`$ term and satisfy Luttinger’s theorem LUTTINGER61  by construction.

## IV Quasiparticle Properties

The elementary excitations of the interacting system correspond to the particle and hole excitations of the noninteracting Fermi gas, and are referred to as quasiparticles and quasiholes, respectively. Information about the properties of quasiparticles is contained in the proper self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(k_0,k)`$. The singularities of the full Green’s function (4) determine the excitation energies $`ϵ_k`$ of the system and their corresponding widths $`\gamma _k`$. In the quasiparticle approximation, the full Green’s function (4) can be written as

$$G(k_0,k)=\frac{Z}{k_0ϵ_ki\gamma _k}+\text{regular terms},$$
(19)
where $`Z`$ is the wave function renormalization. To determine $`ϵ_k`$ and $`\gamma _k`$, we have to solve the equation:

$$ϵ_k+i\gamma _k\frac{k^2}{2M}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(ϵ_k+i\gamma _k,k)=0,$$
(20)
while the wave function renormalization $`Z`$ is given by

$$Z^1=1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(k_0,k)}{k_0}|_{k_0=ϵ_k+i\gamma _k,k=k_F}.$$
(21)
The effective mass $`M^{}`$ of the quasiparticle is defined using the group velocity of a quasiparticle state at the Fermi surface; that is the slope of the excitation energy at $`p=k_F`$ FETTER71 :

$$M^{}=k_F(\frac{ϵ_k}{k}|_{k=k_F})^1.$$
(22)
The effective mass can be extracted from the heat capacity of the system in the zero temperature limit FETTER71 :

$$\frac{C_V}{V}=\frac{k_B^2TM^{}k_F}{3}\text{as}T0.$$
(23)
Various other observables can be computed from these results as well. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ describes the minimal energy required to add an additional particle to a system. Consequently, it is given by the quasiparticle excitation energy at the Fermi surface:

$$\mu =ϵ_k|_{k=k_F}.$$
(24)
Another observable, which allows a simple check of the calculated excitation energies, is the energy per particle. One can compute the energy per particle directly from the proper self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(p_0,p)`$. It is easier, however, to use thermodynamical identities. The chemical potential at zero entropy $`S`$ is related to the exact ground-state energy $`E`$ by the thermodynamic identity:

$$\mu =\left(\frac{E}{N}\right)_V\text{at}S=0.$$
(25)
Integrating this equation at a constant volume $`V`$ and zero entropy gives:

$$E=_0^N\text{d}N^{}\mu (S=0,V,N^{}).$$
(26)
Since the $`N`$ dependence of $`\mu `$ is hidden in the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ through the relation $`k_F=(6\pi ^2N/gV)^{1/3}`$, the energy per particle is easily evaluated by multiplying each term in the chemical potential of order $`(k_F)^\lambda `$ by a factor of $`3/(3+\lambda )`$.

To obtain all these quantities, we solve Eq. (20) perturbatively in $`k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We therefore expand $`ϵ_k`$ and $`\gamma _k`$ in powers of $`k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as well:

$`ϵ_k`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{k,0}+ϵ_{k,1}+ϵ_{k,2}+\mathrm{},`$
$`\gamma _k`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{k,0}+\gamma _{k,1}+\gamma _{k,2}+\mathrm{}.`$ (27)
Inserting Eqs. (6) and (27) into Eq. (20) and requiring Eq. (20) to hold for every order in $`k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we obtain the matching equations. The solutions through order $`(k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ were first obtained by Galitskii GALITSKII  (see also Ref. FETTER71 ). For completeness, we quote their results:

$`ϵ_{k,0}={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2M}},`$ $`\gamma _{k,0}=0,`$
$`ϵ_{k,1}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{},`$ $`\gamma _{k,1}=0,`$
$`ϵ_{k,2}=\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k),`$ $`\gamma _{k,2}=\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k).`$ (28)
At $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$ we find the equation:

$$ϵ_{k,3}+i\gamma _{k,3}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{}(k_0,k)}{k_0}|_{k_0=\frac{k^2}{2M}}.$$
(29)
Then the third order contribution to $`ϵ_p`$ and $`\gamma _p`$ is just given by the sum of real and imaginary parts of the diagrams, respectively:

$`ϵ_{k,3}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(6)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)+\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(7)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)+\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(8)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)+\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(9)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k),`$ (30)
$`\gamma _{k,3}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(6)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k)+\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(7)}^{}(\frac{k^2}{2M},k).`$ (31)
The real and imaginary parts of quasiparticle energy and width in units of the Fermi energy $`E_F=k_F^2/2M`$ up to order $`(k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3`$ are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.

As an example, we have chosen the parameters $`k_Fa_s=k_Fa_p=k_Fr_s=0.5`$ and $`g=4`$. The width $`\gamma _k`$ shows the behavior predicted by the Lehmann representation, that is $`\gamma _k>0`$ for $`k<k_F`$ and $`\gamma _k<0`$ for $`k>k_F`$.

Our results agree qualitatively with the previous incomplete calculation of Bund and Wajntal bund  where the particle-hole and effective range contributions were omitted. For those contributions for which a detailed comparison is possible, quantitative agreement is obtained as well.

Using Eqs. (28,30,31), we can immediately calculate the third order contributions to the above mentioned observables. As the effective mass $`M^{}`$ is proportional to the inverse of the slope of the excitation energy at the Fermi surface, we need the complete result for $`ϵ_k`$ up to order $`(k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}}{M}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+(g1){\displaystyle \frac{8}{15\pi ^2}}(k_Fa_s)^2(17\mathrm{log}2)+{\displaystyle \frac{(g+1)}{3\pi }}(k_Fa_p)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{(k_Fa_s)^2k_Fr_s}{6\pi }}(g1)`$ (32)
$`+0.11(g1)(g3)(k_Fa_s)^30.15(g1)(k_Fa_s)^3)^1`$
In order to check our calculation, we calculate the third order contribution to the chemical potential and the energy per particle. According to Eq. (24), the contribution to the chemical potential at $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3)`$ is given by:

$`\mu _{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}[(g1){\displaystyle \frac{4}{15\pi }}(k_Fa_s)^2k_Fr_s+(g+1){\displaystyle \frac{8}{15\pi }}(k_Fa_p)^3`$ (33)
$`+(g1)\{0.20+(g3)0.15\}(k_Fa_s)^3].`$
The third order contribution to the energy per particle is then given by:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{N}}\right)_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2}{2M}}[(g1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{10\pi }}(k_Fa_s)^2k_Fr_s+(g+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{5\pi }}(k_Fa_p)^3`$ (34)
$`+(g1)\{0.076+(g3)0.057\}(k_Fa_s)^3],`$
which is in good agreement with previous results efimov ; baker ; bishop ; HAMMER00 .

Finally, we also calculate the wave function renormalization $`Z`$ defined in Eq. (21).333Note that $`Z`$ depends on the representation of fields and is not an observable in the usual sense. See Ref. FuHa02  for a related discussion on the representation dependence of the momentum distribution. We quote $`Z`$ in the standard representation of fields in which no interaction terms proportional to the classical equation of motion are included. This representation is equivalent to the Hamiltonian used in Ref. SARTOR80 . It is related to the discontinuity in the momentum distribution at the Fermi surface Migdal57 . We obtain for $`Z(k_F)`$:

$`Z(k_F)^1`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{4(g1)}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}2(k_Fa_s)^2`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8(g1)}{\pi ^3}}\{0.184(g3)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.224}\}(k_Fa_s)^3.`$
We used the results of Sartor and Mahaux SARTOR80  for the occupation numbers to obtain an analytical expression for the second order term. We verified this result numerically. At third order, the results were computed numerically.

## V Summary and Conclusions

In this paper, we have performed the first complete calculation of the the quasiparticle excitation energies and widths in the dilute Fermi gas to order $`(k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3`$. In order to check our calculation, we have derived and compared the chemical potential and the energy per particle at $`(k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3`$ to previous results.

The calculation has been carried out using an EFT for dilute Fermi systems HAMMER00 . Using dimensional regularization with minimal subtraction the power counting in this EFT is particularly simple. All loop momenta are converted to Fermi momenta which leads to a fully perturbative expansion. This is in contrast to previous calculations efimov ; baker ; bishop . There, a more general set of diagrams had to be first summed and then expanded with care to avoid double counting. The EFT approach is controlled and allows for systematic improvements by simply going to the next order in the power counting. Errors can be estimated reliably using dimensional analysis and error plots.

To order $`(k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^3`$ , no three-body input is required. At $`𝒪((k_F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^4)`$, however, a contact three-body interaction enters. Without the three-body term, the logarithmic divergence appearing at this order can not be renormalized HAMMER00 . A complete calculation of the energy density to this order is in progress Luc02 .

The extension of the present EFT to the nuclear matter problem is not straightforward. The breakdown scale is set by the lowest momentum scale in the effective range expansion which is of order 10 MeV for nuclear matter because of the large S-wave scattering lengths. Similar problems arise for atomic systems near a Feshbach resonance. For scattering in the vacuum, the appropriate power counting to deal with the large scattering lengths is known vanKolck:1998bw ; ksw . It requires to sum all $`C_0`$ interactions which for two-particle nonrelativistic scattering simply involves summing a geometric series. At finite density, the diagrams involving only $`C_0`$ vertices are not easily summed because both particles and holes are present. To make the problem tractable, an additional ordering scheme such as the hole-line expansion in the standard nuclear physics approach is needed. Whether the hole-line expansion can be justified in EFT using power counting arguments remains to be seen. An interesting possibility is to exploit the geometry of intersecting Fermi spheres inherent in the finite density loop integrals which leads to an expansion in $`1/D`$ where $`D`$ is the space time dimension STEELE00 . Furthermore, an expansion in the inverse spin-isospin degeneracy $`g=4`$ might prove useful FURNSTAHL02 . The nuclear matter problem provides additional challenges. Since $`k_F270`$ MeV, the pion exchange is long range and cannot be treated within a purely short range EFT. Both the large scattering length problem and the inclusion of the long range pion exchange are important questions to be addressed by future work.

Recent progress in the field of cold Fermi gases jin99 ; hulet01  also opens the possibility of applications of EFT methods in the physics of cold fermionic atoms. In the case of cold bosons, EFT methods have already been applied successfully to a number of processes Bedaque:2000ft ; Braaten:2001hf ; Braaten:2001ay ; Bedaque:2002xy .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank R.J. Furnstahl and A. Schwenk for useful discussions. HWH thanks the Benasque Center for Science for its hospitality and partial support during completion of this work. This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY–0098645.

## Appendix A Proper Self-Energy Integrals

We illustrate the calculation of the self-energy diagrams in Section III by applying the Feynman rules to diagram (7) from Fig. 2. This diagram has a symmetry factor of $`1/4`$. Thus, one obtains the following expression:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(7)}^{}(\stackrel{~}{p})=(iC_0)^3\frac{i}{4}\frac{4(1g)}{(2\pi )^{12}}\text{d}^4k\text{d}^4q\text{d}^4li^5G_0(\stackrel{~}{k})G_0(\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{q})G_0(\stackrel{~}{k}+\stackrel{~}{q})G_0(\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{l}).$$
(36)
After performing the contour integrations we have:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(7)}^{}(\stackrel{~}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`C_0^3{\displaystyle \frac{g1}{(2\pi )^9}}{\displaystyle \text{d}^3k\text{d}^3q\text{d}^3l}`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta (kk_F)\theta (|𝐤+𝐥|k_F)\theta (|𝐩𝐥|k_F)\theta (k_F|𝐤+𝐪|)\theta (k_F|𝐩𝐪|)}{(p_o+\omega _k\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}\omega _{𝐩𝐪}iϵ)(\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}\omega _{𝐤+𝐥}\omega _{𝐩𝐥}+\omega _{𝐩𝐪}+iϵ)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (kk_F)\theta (k_F|𝐤+𝐥|)\theta (k_F|𝐩𝐥|)\theta (k_F|𝐤+𝐪|)\theta (k_F|𝐩𝐪|)}{(p_o+\omega _k\omega _{𝐤+𝐥}\omega _{𝐩𝐥}iϵ)(p_o+\omega _k\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}\omega _{𝐩𝐪}iϵ)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta (k_Fk)\theta (|𝐤+𝐥|k_F)\theta (|𝐩𝐥|k_F)\theta (k_F|𝐤+𝐪|)\theta (k_F|𝐩𝐪|)}{(p_o+\omega _k\omega _{𝐤+𝐥}\omega _{𝐩𝐥}+iϵ)(\omega _{𝐤+𝐥}\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}+\omega _{𝐩𝐥}\omega _{𝐩𝐪}iϵ)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (k_Fk)\theta (|𝐤+𝐥|k_F)\theta (|𝐩𝐥|k_F)\theta (|𝐤+𝐪|k_F)\theta (|𝐩𝐪|k_F)}{(p_o+\omega _k\omega _{𝐤+𝐥}\omega _{𝐩𝐥}+iϵ)(p_o+\omega _k\omega _{𝐤+𝐪}\omega _{𝐩𝐪}+iϵ)}}].`$
By setting this expression on-shell (that is $`p_0=p^2/(2M)`$) and an appropriate substitution to dimensionless variables using

$$𝐤=k_F𝐮,𝐪=k_F\frac{1}{2}(𝐯𝐮2𝐭),𝐥=k_F\frac{1}{2}(𝐯𝐮2𝐫),𝐩=k_F𝐯,$$
(38)
Eq. (A) can be simplified significantly:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3(7)}^{}(\stackrel{~}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_0^3M^2k_F^5(g1)}{(2\pi )^9}}{\displaystyle \text{d}^3u\text{d}^3t\text{d}^3r}`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta (u1)\theta (|𝐬𝐫|1)\theta (|𝐬𝐫|1)\theta (1|𝐬𝐭|)\theta (1|𝐬+𝐭|)}{(2q^22t^2iϵ)(2t^22r^2iϵ)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (u1)\theta (1|𝐬𝐫|)\theta (1|𝐬𝐫|)\theta (1|𝐬𝐭|)\theta (1|𝐬+𝐭|)}{(2q^22r^2iϵ)(2q^22t^2iϵ)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta (1u)\theta (|𝐬𝐫|1)\theta (|𝐬𝐫|1)\theta (1|𝐬𝐭|)\theta (1|𝐬+𝐭|)}{(2q^22r^2iϵ)(2r^22t^2iϵ)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (1u)\theta (|𝐬𝐫|1)\theta (|𝐬𝐫|1)\theta (|𝐬𝐭|1)\theta (|𝐬+𝐭|1)}{(2q^22r^2+iϵ)(2q^22t^2+iϵ)}}].`$
We consider only the first term in the square brackets:

$`_1={\displaystyle \text{d}^3u\text{d}^3t\text{d}^3r\frac{2\theta (u1)\theta (|𝐬𝐫|1)\theta (|𝐬𝐫|1)\theta (1|𝐬𝐭|)\theta (1|𝐬+𝐭|)}{(2q^22t^2iϵ)(2t^22r^2iϵ)}},`$ (40)
where the constant overall prefactor in Eq. (A) has been dropped. By analyzing the step function, we can rewrite the integral as

$`_1=8\pi ^3{\displaystyle _1^1}\text{d}x{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\text{d}u{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{d}z{\displaystyle _0^{z_{}(s,z)}}\text{d}t{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{d}y{\displaystyle _{z_+(s,y)}^{\mathrm{}}}\text{d}r{\displaystyle \frac{u^2t^2r^2\theta (1s)}{(q^2t^2iϵ)(t^2r^2+iϵ)}},`$ (41)
with

$$z_\pm (s,z)=\pm sz+\sqrt{1s^2(1z^2)}.$$
(42)
The integral over $`r`$ contains a linearly divergent term which can be separated by writing

$$_{z_+(s,y)}^{\mathrm{}}\text{d}r\frac{r^2}{t^2r^2+iϵ}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{d}r\frac{r^2}{t^2r^2+iϵ}+_0^{z_+(s,y)}\text{d}r\frac{r^2}{t^2r^2+iϵ}.$$
(43)
The ultraviolet divergence is contained in the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (43). In dimensional regularization with minimal subtraction the linear divergence is subtracted automatically and the finite part of this term is purely imaginary. Thus, we can write $`_1`$ as:

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi ^3{\displaystyle _1^1}\text{d}x{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\text{d}u{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{d}z{\displaystyle _0^{z_{}(s,z)}}\text{d}t{\displaystyle \frac{u^2t^2\theta (1s)}{(q^2t^2iϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi t}{2}}\right)`$
$`8\pi ^3{\displaystyle _1^1}\text{d}x{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\text{d}u{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{d}z{\displaystyle _0^{z_{}(s,z)}}\text{d}t{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{d}y{\displaystyle _0^{z_+(s,y)}}\text{d}r{\displaystyle \frac{u^2t^2r^2\theta (1s)}{(q^2t^2iϵ)(t^2r^2+iϵ)}}.`$
Separating the real and imaginary part of this integral and some further straightforward manipulations lead to expressions that can be integrated numerically. The remaining terms in the square brackets in Eq. (A) are treated analogously.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

IFT-P.051/2002

N=2 Superconformal Description of Superstring in Ramond-Ramond Plane Wave Backgrounds

Nathan Berkovits1 e-mail: nberkovi@ift.unesp.br

Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista

Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

Juan Maldacena2 e-mail: malda@ias.edu

Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton, NJ 08540, USA

Using the U(4) formalism developed ten years ago, the worldsheet action for the superstring in Ramond-Ramond plane wave backgrounds is expressed in a manifestly N=(2,2) superconformally invariant manner. This simplifies the construction of consistent Ramond-Ramond plane wave backgrounds and eliminates the problems associated with light-cone interaction point operators.

August 2002

1. Introduction

Although the construction of worldsheet actions for the superstring in Neveu-Schwarz backgrounds is well understood using the Ramond-Neveu-Schwarz (RNS) formalism, the worldsheet action for the superstring in Ramond-Ramond (RR) backgrounds has been less studied. Because of the important role of Ramond-Ramond backgrounds in the AdS/CFT conjectures , these worldsheet actions might be very useful for studying aspects of these conjectures.

When the background allows a light-cone gauge choice, the most straightforward method for constructing the superstring action in Ramond-Ramond backgrounds is to use the light-cone Green-Schwarz (GS) formalism . This light-cone formalism is extremely useful for computing the physical spectrum in a given background, however, it is difficult to use for computing scattering amplitudes or for determining consistency conditions on superstring backgrounds. Although the light-cone RNS formalism suffers from similar problems, in the RNS case there exists an N=1 superconformally invariant description of the superstring which can replace the light-cone description (at least when RR fields are zero).

Over ten years ago, an N=2 superconformally invariant description of the superstring was proposed  which reduces in light-cone gauge to the light-cone GS description. In addition to the light-cone transverse variables which are combined into bosonic worldsheet N=2 superfields, this superconformally invariant description also contains fermionic worldsheet N=2 superfields which describe the longtitudinal variables. In a flat background, the action is quadratic and contains manifest U(4) Lorentz invariance as well as twenty manifest spacetime supersymmetries. This U(4) formalism can be obtained by gauge-fixing a “doubly-supersymmetric” action  where $`\kappa `$-symmetry is replaced by worldsheet supersymmetry, and is related to the RNS formalism by a field redefinition which maps the fermionic N=2 superconformal generators to the twisted BRST current and $`b`$ ghost in the RNS formalism . Recently, this U(4) formalism has also been related to the pure spinor formalism  for the superstring via different gauge fixings  of the doubly-supersymmetric action.

In the pure spinor formalism of the superstring , all $`SO(9,1)`$ super-Poincaré invariance is manifest but the original N=2 worldsheet superconformal invariance is hidden. Although one can use the pure spinor formalism to describe any consistent background of the superstring, for describing Ramond-Ramond plane wave backgrounds in which Lorentz invariance is already broken, it is more advantageous to use the U(4) formalism so that the N=2 worldsheet supersymmetry is manifest. For example, the conformally invariant action for the maximally supersymmetric Ramond-Ramond plane wave background  will be much simpler using the U(4) formalism than using the pure spinor formalism . As will be shown here, the U(4) formalism is also extremely useful for determining consistency conditions for Ramond-Ramond plane wave backgrounds with fewer numbers of supersymmetries . Furthermore, since this formalism does not require light-cone interaction point operators, it does not suffer from contact term problems and may also be useful for computing scattering amplitudes in these backgrounds.3 In  and , multiloop scattering amplitudes were computed using the U(4) formalism and a proof was claimed for their finiteness. This proof was incorrect because of subtleties coming from unphysical poles in multiloop correlation functions of chiral bosons. However, the techniques developed in these papers can be used for computing tree and one-loop scattering amplitudes where such subtleties are absent.

In Section 2 of this paper, the U(4) formalism and its relation to the light-cone GS formalism will be reviewed. In Section 3, N=(2,2) superconformally invariant actions will be constructed for the superstring in plane wave Ramond-Ramond backgrounds which preserve either two or four spacetime supersymmetries, and will be proven to be exact superconformal field theories to all perturbative orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$. Such Ramond-Ramond backgrounds are naturally described by real or holomorphic superpotentials and may be useful for studying various aspects of AdS/CFT conjectures. And in the Appendix, the relation between N=2 superconformal invariance and the light-cone GS interaction point operator will be discussed.

2. Review of U(4) Formalism

2.1. Flat background

In a flat background, the Type IIB GS action in light-cone gauge can be written as

$$S=d^2z(x^{+\overline{l}}\overline{}x^l+s^{\overline{l}}\overline{}s^{+l}+\overline{s}^{\overline{l}}\overline{s}^{+l})$$

where $`SO(8)`$ has been broken to $`SU(4)\times U(1)`$ such that the $`SO(8)`$ vector splits into $`(x^{+\overline{l}},x^l)`$ and the $`SO(8)`$ chiral spinor splits into $`(s^{\overline{l}},s^{+l})`$ for $`l=1`$ to 4. Note that under $`SU(4)\times U(1)`$, $`x^{+\overline{l}}`$ and $`x^l`$ transform as $`(\overline{4},+1)`$ and $`(4,1)`$ representations, whereas $`s^{\overline{l}}`$ and $`s^{+l}`$ transform as $`(\overline{4},1)`$ and $`(4,+1)`$ representations. The action of (2.1) can easily be written in N=2 supersymmetric notation as

$$S=d^2zd^2\kappa ^+d^2\kappa ^{}X^{+\overline{l}}X^l$$

where $`X^{+\overline{l}}`$ and $`X^l`$ are chiral and antichiral superfields satisfying

$$D_{}X^{+\overline{l}}=\overline{D}_{}X^{+\overline{l}}=0,D_+X^l=\overline{D}_+X^l=0,$$

$$D_{}=\frac{}{\kappa ^{}}+\kappa ^+_z,D_+=\frac{}{\kappa ^+}+\kappa ^{}_z,\overline{D}_{}=\frac{}{\overline{\kappa }^{}}+\overline{\kappa }^+\overline{}_{\overline{z}},\overline{D}_+=\frac{}{\overline{\kappa }^+}+\overline{\kappa }^{}\overline{}_{\overline{z}},$$

$$X^{+\overline{l}}=x^{+\overline{l}}+\kappa ^+s^{\overline{l}}+\overline{\kappa }^+\overline{s}^{\overline{l}}+\kappa ^+\overline{\kappa }^+h^{\overline{l}},X^l=x^l+\kappa ^{}s^{+l}+\overline{\kappa }^{}\overline{s}^{+l}+\kappa ^{}\overline{\kappa }^{}h^{+l},$$

and $`(h^{\overline{l}},h^{+l})`$ are auxiliary fields.

To construct a conformally invariant action which reduces in light-cone gauge to (2.1), it is useful to recall the construction of conformally invariant actions for the bosonic and RNS string. In bosonic string theory, we can find a map from the complex plane to the light-cone string diagram $`\rho (z)`$ which is a conformal transformation. To construct a conformally invariant action for the bosonic string, the real part of this conformal map $`\rho (z)+\overline{\rho }(\overline{z})`$ is promoted to the target-space light-cone variable $`x^+(z,\overline{z})`$. A similar procedure can be performed for RNS string theory, however, in this case the light-cone string diagram is mapped to an N=1 complex superplane using the N=1 superconformal map $`[\rho (z,\kappa ),\xi (z,\kappa )]`$ where $`[\rho ,\xi ]`$ parameterize the string diagram and $`[z,\kappa ]`$ parameterize the N=1 superplane. As reviewed in the Appendix, the use of an N=1 superconformal map is crucial for obtaining the appropriate light-cone RNS interaction point operator. To construct an N=1 superconformally invariant action, one promotes $`\rho (z,\kappa )+\overline{\rho }(\overline{z},\overline{\kappa })`$ to the worldsheet N=1 superfield $`X^+`$. Since the map is $`N=1`$ superconformal, $`\xi (z,\kappa )`$ is determined by $`\rho (z,\kappa )`$, so $`X^+`$ completely determines the N=1 superconformal map.

It turns out that to obtain a conformally invariant description of the GS superstring, one needs to use an N=2 superconformal transformation

$$[\rho (z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{}),\xi ^+(z,\kappa ^+),\xi ^{}(z,\kappa ^{})]$$

to map the N=2 complex superplane $`[z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{}]`$ to the string diagram $`[\rho ,\xi ^+,\xi ^{}]`$. In fact, as was shown in  and reviewed in the Appendix, precisely such an N=2 superconformal map is required for obtaining the correct light-cone GS interaction point operator. However, unlike N=1 superconformal transformations, the $`\xi ^+(z,\kappa ^+)`$ and $`\xi ^{}(z,\kappa ^{})`$ parameters in an N=2 superconformal map are not uniquely determined by $`\rho (z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{})`$ because of the possibility of performing $`U(1)`$ transformations. For this reason, instead of promoting one variable to a superfield we actually need to promote two. We promote $`\xi ^+(z,\kappa ^+)`$ and $`\xi ^{}(z,\kappa ^{})`$ to worldsheet superfields which will be called $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$. For the Type II superstring, one also has the barred fermions $`\overline{\xi }^+(\overline{z},\overline{\kappa }^+)`$ and $`\overline{\xi }^{}(\overline{z},\overline{\kappa }^{})`$ which will be promoted to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}`$.

These fermionic target-space variables will be defined as N=2 chiral and antichiral worldsheet superfields satisfying

$$D_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^+=\overline{D}_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^+=D_{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+=\overline{D}_{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+=0,D_+\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\overline{D}_+\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=D_+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}=\overline{D}_+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}=0.$$

The fact that the map $`[z,\kappa ^{},\kappa ^{}][\rho ,\xi ^+,\xi ^{}]`$ is $`N=2`$ superconformal then determines $`\rho (z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{})`$ which in turn determines $`X^+`$. More explicitly, we have that $`\rho `$ is related to $`\xi ^\pm `$ by $`\xi ^+D_{}\xi ^{}=D_{}\rho `$ and $`\xi ^{}D_+\xi ^+=D_+\rho `$. The action will be chosen in such a way that the equations of motion for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm `$ are

$$\overline{D}_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\overline{D}_+\mathrm{\Theta }^+=D_{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}=D_+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+=0.$$

This implies, in particular, that $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm `$ are holomorphic. For any solution of the equations of motion we define $`X^+`$ through

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^+D_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=D_{}X^+,\mathrm{\Theta }^{}D_+\mathrm{\Theta }^+=D_+X^+,$$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+\overline{D}_{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}=\overline{D}_{}X^+,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}\overline{D}_+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+=\overline{D}_+X^+.$$

Since (2.1) determines $`X^+`$ up to a constant shift in terms of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm `$, one can treat $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm `$ as the fundamental target-space variables and treat $`X^+`$ as a composite variable. The only subtlety is that on worldsheets with non-zero genus, the equations

$$[D_+,D_{}](\mathrm{\Theta }^+\mathrm{\Theta }^{})=X^+,[\overline{D}_+,\overline{D}_{}](\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{})=\overline{}X^+$$

imply that $`(\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm )`$ must satisfy

$$𝑑z𝑑\kappa ^+𝑑\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^+\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=𝑑\overline{z}𝑑\overline{\kappa }^+𝑑\overline{\kappa }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}$$

when integrated around a non-contractible loop. In other words, these constraints come from the fact that $`X^+`$ defined through (2.1) should be single valued.

To construct a worldsheet action, one needs conjugate momenta for $`(\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm )`$ which will be defined as the partially chiral superfields $`(W^\pm ,\overline{W}^\pm )`$ restricted to satisfy

$$\overline{D}_{}W^+=0,\overline{D}_+W^{}=0,D_{}\overline{W}^+=0,D_+\overline{W}^{}=0.$$

With the constraints of (2.1), (2.1) and (2.1), one can construct the critical N=(2,2) superconformally invariant action

$$S=d^2zd^2\kappa ^+d^2\kappa ^{}(X^{+\overline{l}}X^l+W^+\mathrm{\Theta }^{}+W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^++\overline{W}^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}+\overline{W}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+),$$

which is such that the equations of motion for $`W^\pm ,\overline{W}^\pm `$ enforce (2.1). In components (2.1) becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S=& d^2z(x^{+\overline{l}}\overline{}x^l+s^{\overline{l}}\overline{}s^{+l}+\overline{s}^{\overline{l}}\overline{s}^{+l}+h^{\overline{l}}h^{+l}+p^+\overline{}\theta ^{}+p^{}\overline{}\theta ^++\hfill \\ & +\overline{p}^+\overline{\theta }^{}+\overline{p}^{}\overline{\theta }^++w^+\overline{}\lambda ^{}+w^{}\overline{}\lambda ^++\overline{w}^+\overline{\lambda }^{}+\overline{w}^{}\overline{\lambda }^+),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`X^{+\overline{l}}`$ and $`X^l`$ are defined in (2.1),

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm =\theta ^\pm +\kappa ^\pm \lambda ^\pm +\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm =\overline{\theta }^\pm +\overline{\kappa }^\pm \overline{\lambda }^\pm +\mathrm{},$$

$$W^\pm =\kappa ^\pm w^\pm +p^\pm \kappa ^+\kappa ^{}+\mathrm{},\overline{W}^\pm =\overline{\kappa }^\pm \overline{w}^\pm +\overline{p}^\pm \overline{\kappa }^+\overline{\kappa }^{}+\mathrm{},$$

and $`\mathrm{}`$ includes auxiliary fields which have been ignored in the action of (2.1). The left-moving N=2 stress tensor for this action is given by the superfield

$$T=D_+W^+D_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}D_{}W^{}D_+\mathrm{\Theta }^++D_+X^{+\overline{l}}D_{}X^l,$$

which contains critical N=2 central charge since $`[X^{+\overline{l}},X^l]`$ contribute $`c=12`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm ,W^{}]`$ contribute $`c=6`$.

Like the light-cone action of (2.1), the action of (2.1) is manifestly invariant under $`SU(4)\times U(1)`$ Lorentz transformations which transform $`[X^{+\overline{l}},X^l,\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm ,W^\pm ,\overline{W}^\pm ]`$ as $`[\overline{4}_1,4_1,1_{\pm 2},1_{\pm 2},1_{\pm 2},1_{\pm 2}]`$ representations where the subscript denotes the $`U(1)`$ charge. However, in addition to the sixteen manifest light-cone spacetime supersymmetries, the action of (2.1) is also manifestly invariant under four additional spacetime supersymmetries. Under these twenty spacetime supersymmetries parameterized by $`[ϵ^{+l},ϵ^{\overline{l}},\overline{ϵ}^{+l},\overline{ϵ}^{\overline{l}},ϵ^\pm ,\overline{ϵ}^\pm ]`$, the worldsheet variables of (2.1) transform as

$$\delta X^{+\overline{l}}=ϵ^{\overline{l}}\mathrm{\Theta }^++\overline{ϵ}^{\overline{l}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+,\delta X^l=ϵ^{+l}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}+\overline{ϵ}^{+l}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{},$$

$$\delta \mathrm{\Theta }^\pm =ϵ^\pm ,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm =\overline{ϵ}^\pm ,$$

$$\delta W^+=ϵ^{+l}X^{+\overline{l}},\delta W^{}=ϵ^{\overline{l}}X^l,\delta \overline{W}^+=\overline{ϵ}^{+l}X^{+\overline{l}},\delta \overline{W}^{}=\overline{ϵ}^{\overline{l}}X^l.$$

One can check that the supersymmetry transformations of (2.1) anticommute to give translations. The only subtlety is that translations in the $`x^+`$ direction leave the worldsheet variables $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm `$ and $`W^\pm `$ invariant since (2.1) implies that they are independent of the $`x^+`$ zero mode. And translations in the $`x^{}`$ direction transform $`\delta W^\pm =c\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm `$ and $`\delta \overline{W}^\pm =c\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm `$, as can be seen from the translation generator $`P^+=𝑑zd^2\kappa \mathrm{\Theta }^+\mathrm{\Theta }^{}+𝑑\overline{z}d^2\overline{\kappa }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}`$.

2.2. Consistency of light-cone background

It is clear by construction that the action (2.1) reduces to (2.1) in lightcone gauge. Nevertheless, let us see this more explicitly. The equations of motion for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm `$ (2.1) together with the chirality constraints (2.1) imply that $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm `$ are holomorphic functions which via an $`N=2`$ superconformal transformation can be set to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm =\kappa ^\pm `$. (2.1) then implies that $`x^+=1`$.

In a non-flat background, the action of (2.1) is replaced by a non-quadratic action which can depend in a complicated manner on the worldsheet superfields. Since the fermionic N=2 superconformal generators are related by a field redefinition to the BRST current and $`b`$ ghost in the RNS formalism, one expects that quantum N=(2,2) superconformal invariance of the action implies that background is an exact solution of superstring theory. As will now be argued, this condition of N=2 superconformal invariance can be used to determine when a given light-cone background in the GS formalism describes a solution of superstring theory.

Suppose one is given an action depending on the light-cone GS variables $`X^{+\overline{l}}`$ and $`X^l`$ of (2.1). In general, the action will not be N=2 superconformally invariant or even N=2 worldsheet supersymmetric. However, by coupling $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm `$ in an appropriate manner, one can always construct an action which is classically N=(2,2) superconformally invariant and which reduces to the original action in light-cone gauge where $`\lambda ^\pm =\overline{\lambda }^\pm =1`$ and $`\theta ^\pm =\overline{\theta }^\pm =0`$. If this new action is also N=(2,2) superconformally invariant at the quantum level, then the original light-cone GS background describes a solution of superstring theory. Note that an analogous construction exists for bosonic and RNS light-cone backgrounds where, for the bosonic string, $`x^+`$ and $`\overline{}x^+`$ are used to construct conformally invariant actions and, for the RNS superstring, $`DX^+`$ and $`\overline{D}X^+`$ are used to construct N=(1,1) superconformally invariant actions.

Because the parametrization of $`X^+`$ through (2.1) closely resembles the twistor constraints described in , the action of (2.1) has been called the N=2 twistor-string action. Although this action is not manifestly Lorentz invariant, it can be related to the manifestly Lorentz-invariant “doubly-supersymmetric” action of  by introducing additional gauge and auxiliary fields. Furthermore, this doubly-supersymmetric action has been recently related in  to the “pure spinor” formalism for the superstring  in which the superstring is quantized in a manifestly super-Poincaré invariant manner by constructing a BRST operator out of pure spinors. Also, the U(4)-invariant action of (2.1) can be related to the standard Lorentz-invariant RNS worldsheet action of  by bosonizing some of the worldsheet fields and interpreting the resulting theory as an $`N=1N=2`$ “embedding” of the RNS superstring . However, none of these Lorentz-invariant descriptions of the superstring preserve manifest N=2 worldsheet superconformal invariance. As will be shown in the following section, for Ramond-Ramond plane wave backgrounds in which Lorentz invariance is already broken, the most convenient description is the U(4) formalism which preserves manifest N=2 superconformal invariance.

3. U(4) Formalism for Plane Wave Background

In an plane wave background, the target-space fields are independent of $`x^{}`$ so that the equations of motion for $`x^+`$ are $`\overline{}x^+=0`$. Since $`x^{}`$ is contained in the superfields $`W^\pm `$ and $`\overline{W}^\pm `$ in the U(4) formalism, the plane wave background fields should be independent of $`W^\pm `$ and $`\overline{W}^\pm `$. So the most general classically N=2 superconformal invariant action for a plane wave background is

$$S=S_0+d^2zd^4\kappa U(X^{+\overline{l}},X^l,\mathrm{\Theta }^{},\mathrm{\Theta }^+,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{})$$

where $`S_0`$ is the action in a flat background of (2.1) and $`U`$ is a general scalar superfield. The left-moving N=2 stress tensor in this background is

$$T=T_0+D_+X^{+\overline{l}}D_{}X^m_{\overline{l}}_mU+D_+X^{+\overline{l}}D_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}_{\overline{l}}_{}U$$

$$+D_+\mathrm{\Theta }^+D_{}X^l_+_lU+D_+\mathrm{\Theta }^+D_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}_+_{}U$$

where $`T_0`$ is the stress tensor in a flat background of (2.1), $`_{\overline{l}}=\frac{}{X^{+\overline{l}}}`$, $`_l=\frac{}{X^l}`$ and $`_\pm =\frac{}{\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm }`$.

Notice that since $`W^\pm `$ and $`\overline{W}^\pm `$ do not appear in the interaction term in (3.1), their equations of motion imply the same equations on $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm `$ that we had in flat space (2.1). These implied, in particular, that we could use an $`N=2`$ superconformal transformation to set them to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm =\kappa ^\pm `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm =\overline{\kappa }^\pm `$. So to find which choice of $`U`$ corresponds to which RR background one can go to lightcone gauge, do the superspace integral in (3.1), and compare with light-cone GS vertex operators. Alternatively, one can use the field redefinition to RNS variables of  and compare with the covariant RNS vertex operators of Friedan, Martinec and Shenker . Since Ramond-Ramond vertex operators contain an odd number of unbarred and barred fermions, one finds that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U=& U_{++}(X^l,X^{+\overline{l}})\mathrm{\Theta }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^++U_+(X^{+\overline{l}},X^l)\mathrm{\Theta }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}+\hfill \\ & U_+(X^{+\overline{l}},X^l)\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^++U_{}(X^l,X^{+\overline{l}})\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

describes the RR backgrounds that we are going to be interested in.4 There are other light-cone RR backgrounds that are described by the vertex operators $`d^2zd^4\kappa D_{}X^{[l}\overline{D}_{}X^{j]}\mathrm{\Theta }^+\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(D_{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\overline{D}_{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{})^1`$. Since these other RR backgrounds will not preserve any target-space supersymmetry of the type we are considering, we do not consider them any further.

Besides the maximally supersymmetric Ramond-Ramond plane wave background of , there are other special Ramond-Ramond plane wave backgrounds which preserve less supersymmetries. As shown in , these backgrounds are described by either a real harmonic function $`V(X^{+\overline{l}},X^l)`$ which preserves at least two supersymmetries or a holomorphic function $`Y(X^l)`$ which preserves at least four supersymmetries. For example, the maximally supersymmetric plane wave is described by $`Y(X^l)=\delta _{lm}X^lX^m.`$ In the case of a flat transverse background, it will now be shown how to describe these plane wave backgrounds as exact N=2 superconformal field theories using the U(4) formalism. Note that “exact” superconformal invariance will always mean vanishing of the $`\beta `$-function to all perturbative orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$, and possible non-perturbative contributions will not be discussed here. In \[16,,17\] an argument was presented for the all order conformal invariance of plane waves with constant field strengths. Our argument will also cover certain non-constant field strengths.

By replacing $`d^2zd^4\kappa X^{+\overline{l}}X^l`$ with $`d^2zd^4\kappa K(X^{+\overline{l}},X^l)`$ in $`S_0`$ where $`K(X^{+\overline{l}},X^l)`$ is a Ricci-flat Kahler potential, the plane wave backgrounds in a flat transverse background are easily generalized to a curved transverse background. In this case, however, the acion is not an exact N=2 superconformal field theory because of the usual four-loop divergences in the N=(2,2) non-linear sigma model .

3.1. Plane wave background with real harmonic function

Besides the sixteen light-cone supersymmetries, there are four spacetime supersymmetry transformations that are simply realized in this formalism. As discussed in (2.1), these are generated by spinors that are singlets under $`SU(4)SO(8)`$ and act by shifts as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm \mathrm{\Theta }^\pm +ϵ^\pm ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm +\overline{ϵ}^\pm $$

where $`ϵ^\pm `$ and $`\overline{ϵ}^\pm `$ are constant parameters. Although the transformations of (3.1) naively anticommute, one can see from the definition of $`X^+`$ in (2.1) that their anticommutator generates a constant shift in $`X^+`$. The supersymmetries of (3.1) are generically broken in the plane wave background of (3.1), however, there are special choices of $`U`$ which preserve either two or four of these symmetries. For example,

$$U=(\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^+)(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+)V(X^{+\overline{l}},X^l)$$

is a Ramond-Ramond plane wave background which is invariant under the two supersymmetries in (3.1) generated by $`ϵ^+=ϵ^{}`$ and $`\overline{ϵ}^+=\overline{ϵ}^{}`$. It will now be argued that this supersymmetric background is an exact solution of superstring theory when $`V`$ is harmonic, i.e. that

$$S=S_0+d^2zd^4\kappa (\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^+)(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+)V(X^{+\overline{l}},X^l)$$

is an exact N=2 superconformal field theory if $`_{\overline{l}}_lV=0`$.

To prove this, note that since $`S_0`$ is free and since the interaction vertex does not involve $`[W^\pm ,\overline{W}^\pm ]`$, the fields $`[\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm ]`$ can be set equal to their background values in the interaction term. It is easy to check that Feynman diagrams involving a single interaction vertex are free of divergences if $`_{\overline{l}}_lV=0`$. And Feynman diagrams involving more than one interaction vertex are free of divergences since, by power counting, the only possible divergences could come from terms involving no derivatives on the background variables. But since $`[(\mathrm{\Theta }^+\mathrm{\Theta }^{})(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{})]^2=0`$, there are no such terms.

3.2. Plane wave background with holomorphic function

If $`Y(X^l)`$ is a holomorphic function, the action

$$S=S_0+d^2zd^4\kappa (Y(X^l)\mathrm{\Theta }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^++\overline{Y}(X^{+\overline{l}})\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{})$$

is no longer invariant under the transformations of (3.1). However, if one defines $`W^\pm `$ and $`\overline{W}^\pm `$ to transform as

$$\delta W^+=\overline{Y}(X^{+\overline{l}})\overline{ϵ}^{},\delta W^{}=Y(X^l)\overline{ϵ}^+,\delta \overline{W}^+=\overline{Y}(X^{+\overline{l}})ϵ^{},\delta \overline{W}^{}=Y(X^l)ϵ^+,$$

the invariance under all four transformations is restored. Note that since $`Y(X^l)`$ is holomorphic, the transformation of (3.1) preserves the constraints of (2.1).

To show that (3.1) is an exact N=2 superconformal field theory, first set $`[\mathrm{\Theta }^\pm ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\pm ]`$ to their background values in the interaction vertices. Feynman diagrams involving a single interaction vertex are zero since $`Y(X^l)`$ is holomorphic. For more than one interaction vertex, the only possible divergences come from contractions between $`X^l(z_1,\kappa _1)`$ and $`X^{+\overline{l}}(z_2,\kappa _2)`$ in the vertices $`Y(X^l)\mathrm{\Theta }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^+(z_1,\kappa _1)`$ and $`\overline{Y}(X^{+\overline{l}})\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(z_2,\kappa _2)`$. Using standard superspace rules in momentum space , each such contraction is proportional to

$$D_{1+}\overline{D}_{1+}D_2\overline{D}_2(\kappa _1\kappa _2)^2(\overline{\kappa }_1\overline{\kappa }_2)^2.$$

Integrating by parts, $`D_{1+}`$ can be pulled off one of the contractions of (3.1). Since all other contractions are annihilated by $`D_{1+}`$, this $`D_{1+}`$ derivative can only act on the background variables. But by power counting, divergences cannot come from terms involving derivatives on the background variables, so the action of (3.1) is an exact N=2 superconformal field theory. Note that if $`Y`$ had depended on $`X^{+\overline{l}}`$, this argument would not work since contractions between $`X^{+\overline{l}}(z_1,\kappa _1)`$ and $`X^l(z_2,\kappa _2)`$ are not annihilated by $`D_{1+}`$.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank M. Green, C. Hull, L. Maoz, H. Ooguri, J. Russo, A. Sen and A. Tseytlin for useful conversations and the Newton Institute for their hospitality where this work was done. NB would like to thank CNPq grant 300256/94-9, Pronex grant 66.2002/1998-9, and FAPESP grant 99/12763-0 for partial financial support. This research was partially conducted during the period that NB was employed by the Clay Mathematics Institute as a CMI Prize Fellow. JM was supported by grant DE-FG02-90ER40542.

4. Appendix: Green-Schwarz Light-Cone Interaction Point Operators

To compute scattering amplitudes in light-cone gauge, one needs to introduce light-cone GS operators at the interaction points of the light-cone string diagram. The simplest way to write this operator is

$$|F(z)|^2=|x^{+\overline{l}}\psi ^l+x^l\psi ^{+\overline{l}}|^2$$

where $`(\psi ^l,\psi ^{+\overline{l}})`$ is a fermionic $`SO(8)`$ vector which is constructed as a spin field from the GS $`SO(8)`$ spinor $`(s^{+l},s^{\overline{l}})`$. As in the light-cone RNS formalism , this interaction point operator is necessary for preserving $`SO(9,1)`$ Lorentz invariance and it is easy to see that the GS and RNS light-cone operators are related by SO(8) triality that maps RNS spin fields into GS spinors and maps RNS vectors into GS spin fields.

As is well-known, the RNS light-cone operator $`F=x\psi `$ comes from integration over the fermionic N=1 supermoduli for the worldsheet gravitino which couples to the fermionic stress tensor $`x\psi `$ . If one describes the light-cone string diagram as an N=1 superconformal map using the coordinates $`[\rho (z,\kappa ),\xi (z,\kappa )]`$ where $`[z,\kappa ]`$ parameterizes the complex N=1 superplane, N=1 superconformal implies that $`D_\xi =\frac{}{\xi }+\xi _\rho `$ is proportional to $`D_\kappa =\frac{}{\kappa }+\kappa _z`$, which implies that $`\xi =D_\kappa \rho (_z\rho )^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. In this supersheet description, the moduli of the worldsheet gravitino are described by the value of $`\xi (z_b)`$ at the interaction points $`z_b`$ where $`_z\rho |_{z_b}=0`$. For example, for $`N`$-point tree amplitudes with the external vertex operators located at $`(z_r,\kappa _r)`$ in the complex superplane,

$$\rho (z,\kappa )=\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}P_r^+\mathrm{log}(zz_r\kappa \kappa _r),\xi (z,\kappa )=\underset{r}{}\frac{P_r^+(\kappa \kappa _r)}{zz_r}(\underset{r}{}\frac{P_r^+}{zz_r\kappa \kappa _r})^{\frac{1}{2}},$$

and the $`N2`$ gravitino moduli $`\xi (z_b)`$ are proportional to $`_r\frac{P_r^+\kappa _r}{z_bz_r}`$ where $`z_b`$ are the zeros of $`_r\frac{P_r^+}{zz_r}.`$ So integrating over $`\xi (z_b)`$ has the same effect as introducing light-cone interaction point operators and allows light-cone RNS amplitudes to be expressed as correlation functions on N=1 super-Riemann surfaces .

For example, for tree amplitudes,

$$A=\underset{b=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2(\rho (z_b)\rho (z_1))\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_r(z_r)\underset{b=1}{\overset{N2}{}}|F(z_b)|^2$$

$$=\underset{b=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2(\rho (z_b)\rho (z_1))\underset{b=1}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2\xi (z_b)\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_r(z_r,\kappa _r)$$

$$=\underset{r=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2z_r\underset{r=1}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2\kappa _r|M(z_r,\kappa _r,P_r^+)|^2\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_r(z_r,\kappa _r),$$

where $`V_r`$ are the light-cone vertex operators and $`M(z_r,\kappa _r,P_r^+)`$ is an overall measure factor that comes from the Jacobian $`\frac{_b\rho (z_b)\xi (z_b)}{_rz_r\kappa _r}`$ and from the anomalous transformation of the partition function under the superconformal transformation $`\rho (z,\kappa )`$. Remarkably, one can show that the measure factor simplifies to $`M=(z_Nz_1)(z_{N1}z_1)`$, which is the usual factor that we get in the covariant $`N=1`$ formulation . Since (4.1) contains no singularities when interaction points collide, writing the RNS light-cone amplitude in terms of N=1 superconformal correlation functions resolves the problems of light-cone contact terms and simplifies comparison with computations using the standard Lorentz covariant RNS approach. In other words, the transformation from light-cone coordinates $`[\rho (z_b),\xi (z_b)]`$ to superplane coordinates $`[z_r,\kappa _r]`$ between (4.1) and (4.1) is valid up to the usual surface terms associated with integration over supermoduli . Including this surface term provides an analytic continuation of the scattering amplitude which automatically includes all light-cone contact terms.

As was shown ten years ago , a similar method can be used for treating the GS light-cone operator of (4.1). However, instead of integrating over N=1 worldsheet supermoduli, one needs to integrate over N=2 worldsheet supermoduli. To see this, first write the GS interaction point operator of (4.1) as

$$F(z)=\underset{zz_b}{lim}(x^{+\overline{l}}s^{+l}(z)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(z_b)+x^ls^{\overline{l}}(z)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(z_b))(zz_b)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are two components of an $`SO(8)`$ antichiral spinor constructed as a spin field from the $`SO(8)`$ chiral spinor $`(s^{+l},s^{\overline{l}})`$. Note that under $`SU(4)\times U(1)`$, the eight components of an antichiral $`SO(8)`$ spinor transform as $`(6,0)`$, $`(1,1)`$ and $`(1,+1)`$ representations, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ are defined as the $`(1,1)`$ and $`(1,+1)`$ components. Using the spin field OPE’s that $`s^{\overline{l}}(z)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(0)z^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi ^{+\overline{l}}`$ and $`s^{+l}(z)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(0)z^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi ^l`$, one easily sees that (4.1) is equivalent to (4.1).

Since $`x^{+\overline{l}}s^{+l}`$ and $`x^ls^{\overline{l}}`$ are the N=2 fermionic stress tensors implied by the action of (2.1) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ are the N=2 spectral flow operators, one can understand the GS light-cone operator of (4.1) as coming from integration over N=2 supermoduli combined with appropriately chosen $`U(1)`$ twists. Although the specific combination of N=2 fermionic stress tensors and spectral flow operators appearing in (4.1) might seem strange, it is explained by describing the light-cone string diagram as an N=2 superconformal map from the complex N=2 superplane to the string diagram. Using $`[\rho (z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{}),\xi ^+(z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{}),\xi ^{}(z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{})]`$ as this superconformal map where $`[z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{}]`$ parameterize the N=2 superplane, N=2 superconformal implies that $`D_{\xi ^\pm }=\frac{}{\xi ^\pm }+\xi ^{}_\rho `$ is proportional to $`D_{\kappa ^\pm }=\frac{}{\kappa ^\pm }+\kappa ^{}_z`$, which implies that

$$\xi ^+=(D_\kappa ^{}\rho )(D_\kappa ^{}D_{\kappa ^+}\rho )^{\frac{1}{2}}f(z+\kappa ^{}\kappa ^+),\xi ^{}=(D_{\kappa ^+}\rho )(D_{\kappa ^+}D_\kappa ^{}\rho )^{\frac{1}{2}}f^1(z\kappa ^{}\kappa ^+)$$

where $`f(z)`$ is an arbitrary function associated with $`U(1)`$ twists.

Note that $`\xi ^\pm `$ must be a periodic function of $`z`$ in order that the GS fermions $`(s^{\overline{l}},s^{+l})`$ are periodic in the string diagram. This means that the function $`f(z)`$ in (4.1) must be chosen such that it contains square-root cuts at the same locations as the square-root cuts in $`(_z\rho )^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. So if $`_z\rho `$ has zeros at $`z=z_b`$ and poles at $`z=z_r`$,

$$f=c\sqrt{\underset{b}{}(zz_b)^{N_b}\underset{r}{}(zz_r)^{N_r}}$$

where $`c`$ is a constant and $`(N_b,N_r)`$ are integers. Furthermore, the boundary condition that $`\xi ^+`$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ have at most poles at $`z=z_b`$ implies that $`N_b`$ is either $`\pm 1`$. The choice of $`N_r`$ is fixed by the boundary conditions on the $`r^{th}`$ external string, e.g. $`N_r=1`$ implies that the $`s^{\overline{l}}`$ zero modes annihilate the “ground state” whereas $`N_r=1`$ implies that the $`s^{+l}`$ zero modes annihilate the “ground state”. However, the choice of $`N_b`$ is unfixed by external boundary conditions, which means that all $`2^B`$ possible choices of $`N_b=\pm 1`$ are allowed where $`B`$ is the number of interaction points. Each such choice corresponds to an individual term in the light-cone operator of (4.1). For example, if $`N_b=+1`$ for $`b=1`$ to $`H`$ and $`N_b=1`$ for $`b=H+1`$ to $`B`$, then $`\xi ^+`$ has poles at $`z_b`$ for $`b=1`$ to $`H`$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ has poles at $`z_b`$ for $`b=H+1`$ to $`B`$. So the term $`_{b=1}^Hx^ls^{\overline{l}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+_{b=H+1}^Bx^{+\overline{l}}s^{+l}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ in (4.1) is obtained by integrating over $`_{b=1}^H𝑑\xi ^+(z_b)_{b=H+1}^B𝑑\xi ^{}(z_b)`$ where $`\xi ^\pm (z_b)`$ signifies the residue of the pole at $`z=z_b`$.

As in the light-cone RNS supersheet formalism, this superconformal method allows light-cone GS amplitudes to be expressed as correlation functions on super-Riemann surfaces. For example, for the $`N`$-point tree amplitude described by the map $`\rho =_{r=1}^NP_r^+\mathrm{log}(zz_r\kappa ^+\kappa _r^{}\kappa ^{}\kappa _r^+)`$,

$$A=\underset{b=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2(\rho (z_b)\rho (z_1))\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_r(z_r)\underset{b=1}{\overset{N2}{}}|F(z_b)|^2$$

$$=\underset{b=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2(\rho (z_b)\rho (z_1))|\underset{K=1}{\overset{2^{N2}}{}}𝑑\xi ^+(z_b)𝑑\xi ^{}(z_b)|^2\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_r(z_r,\kappa _r^+,\kappa _r^{})$$

$$=\underset{r=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2z_r\underset{b=1}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2\xi ^+(z_b)d^2\xi ^{}(z_b)|\underset{K=1}{\overset{2^{N2}}{}}\underset{b=1}{\overset{H}{}}\xi ^{}(z_b)\underset{b=H+1}{\overset{N2}{}}\xi ^+(z_b)|^2\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_r(z_r,\kappa _r)$$

$$=\underset{r=2}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2z_r\underset{r=1}{\overset{N2}{}}d^2\kappa _r^+d^2\kappa _r^{}|M(z_r,\kappa _r^\pm ,P_r^+)|^2\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_r(z_r,\kappa _r)$$

where $`_{K=1}^{2^{N2}}`$ sums over the $`2^{N2}`$ different possible boundary conditions at the interaction points and $`M(z_r,\kappa _r^\pm ,P_r^+)`$ is an overall measure factor that comes from the Jacobian

$$\frac{\underset{b}{}\rho (z_b)\xi ^+(z_b)\xi ^{}(z_b)}{_rz_r\kappa _r^+\kappa _r^{}}\underset{K=1}{\overset{2^{N2}}{}}(\underset{b=1}{\overset{H}{}}\xi ^{}(z_b)\underset{b=H+1}{\overset{N2}{}}\xi ^+(z_b))$$

and from the anomalous transformation of the partition function under the superconformal transformation $`\rho (z,\kappa ^+,\kappa ^{})`$. Unfortunately, unlike the RNS measure factor, the GS measure factor $`M`$ has a complicated form which has prevented (4.1) from being used to obtain super-Koba-Nielsen-like formulas for GS tree amplitudes. Nevertheless, it can be argued that $`M`$ has no singularities when interaction points collide. So as in the RNS amplitude of (4.1), expressing the GS amplitude in terms of the N=2 superplane coordinates $`[z_r,\kappa _r^\pm ]`$ resolves the problem of light-cone contact terms by including a surface term which provides an appropriate analytic continuation of the scattering amplitude.

References

relax J.M. Maldacena, The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1113, hep-th/9711200. relax R.R. Metsaev, Type II Green-Schwarz Superstring in Plane Wave Ramond-Ramond Background, Nucl. Phys. B625 (2002) 70, hep-th/0112044. relax N. Berkovits, The Heterotic Green-Schwarz Superstring on an N=(2,0) Worldsheet, Nucl. Phys. B379 (1992) 96, hep-th/9201004. relax N. Berkovits, Calculation of Green-Schwarz Superstring Amplitudes using the N=2 Twistor-String Formalism, Nucl. Phys. B395 (1993) 77, hep-th/9208035. relax D. Sorokin, V. Tkach, D. Volkov and A. Zheltukhin, From the Superparticle Siegel Symmetry to the Spinning Particle Proper Time Supersymmetry, Phys. Lett. B216 (1989) 302; N. Berkovits, A Covariant Action for the Heterotic Superstring with Manifest Spacetime Supersymmetry and Worldsheet Superconformal Invariance, Phys. Lett. B232 (1989) 184; D. Sorokin, Superbranes and Superembeddings, Phys. Rept. 329 (2000) 1, hep-th/9906142. relax M. Tonin, Worldsheet Supersymmetric Formulations of Green-Schwarz Superstrings, Phys. Lett. B266 (1991) 312. relax N. Berkovits, The Ten-Dimensional Green-Schwarz Superstring is a Twisted Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond String, Nucl. Phys. B420 (1994) 332; N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, On the Uniqueness of String Theory, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9 (1994) 653, hep-th/9310170; N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, N=4 Topological Strings, Nucl. Phys. B433 (1995) 123, hep-th/9407190. relax N. Berkovits, Super-Poincaré Covariant Quantization of the Superstring, JHEP 0004 (2000) 018, hep-th/0001035. relax M. Matone, L. Mazzucato, I. Oda, D. Sorokin and M. Tonin, The Superembedding Origin of the Berkovits Pure Spinor Covariant Quantization of Superstrings, hep-th/0206104. relax M. Blau, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, C. Hull and G. Papadopoulos, A New Maximally Supersymmetric Background of IIB Superstring Theory, JHEP 0201 (2002) 047, hep-th/0110242. relax N. Berkovits, Conformal Field Theory for the Superstring in a Ramond-Ramond Plane Wave Background, JHEP 0204 (2002) 037, hep-th/0203248. relax J. Maldacena and L. Maoz, Strings on pp-Waves and Massive Two Dimensional Field Theories, arXiv:hep-th/0207284. relax N. Berkovits, Finiteness and Unitarity of Lorentz-Covariant Green-Schwarz Superstring Amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B408 (1993) 43, hep-th/9303122. relax M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Supersymmetrical Dual String Theory, Nucl. Phys. B181 (1981) 502. relax D. Friedan, E. Martinec and S. Shenker, Conformal Invariance, Supersymmetry and String Theory, Nucl. Phys. B271 (1986) 93. relax D. Amati and C. Klimcik, Nonperturbative Computation Of The Weyl Anomaly For A Class Of Nontrivial Backgrounds, Phys. Lett. B 219, 443 (1989). relax G. T. Horowitz and A. R. Steif, Space-Time Singularities In String Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 260 (1990). relax M. Grisaru, A. van de Ven and D. Zanon, Two-Dimensional Supersymmetric Sigma Models on Ricci Flat Kahler Manifolds are Not Finite, Nucl. Phys. B277 (1986) 388. relax S.J. Gates, M. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, Superspace or One Thousand and One Lessons in Supersymmetry, Front. Phys. 58 (1983) 1, hep-th/0108200. relax M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Superstring Interactions, Nucl. Phys. B218 (1983) 43; S. Mandelstam, Interacting String Picture of the Fermionic String, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 86 (1986) 163. relax S. Mandelstam, Interacting String Picture of the Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond Model, Nucl. Phys. B69 (1974) 77. relax N. Berkovits, Calculation of Scattering Amplitudes for the Neveu-Schwarz Model using Supersheet Functional Integration, Nucl. Phys. B276 (1986) 650; N. Berkovits, Supersheet Functional Integration and the Interacting Neveu-Schwarz String, Nucl. Phys. B304 (1988) 537. relax J. Atick, J. Rabin and A. Sen, An Ambiguity in Fermionic String Perturbation Theory, Nucl. Phys. B299 (1988) 279.


text:
# Determination of the 𝑔_{𝜌𝜎𝛾} coupling constant through the process 𝛾+𝑁→𝑁+𝑉 with circularly polarized photons

## I Introduction

The $`\rho `$\- and $`\omega `$-meson photoproduction, $`\gamma +N\rho (\omega )+N`$, in the near threshold region, $`E_\gamma `$ 2.5 GeV, can be described through quite simple mechanisms: the $`\pi `$-exchange for $`\omega `$ photoproduction and the scalar $`\sigma `$-exchange for $`\rho `$ photoproduction. The two coupling constants, $`g_{\pi NN}`$ and $`g_{\omega \pi \gamma }`$, which enter in the calculation of the absolute values of the differential cross section for $`\gamma +pp+\rho ^0`$, are well known. The existing experimental data on the $`t`$dependence of the differential cross sections in the near threshold region can be reproduced with the help of few parameters such as the cut-off parameters of phenomenological form factors .

In the case of $`\rho ^0`$-photoproduction, $`\gamma +pp+\rho ^0`$, the contribution of $`\pi `$-exchange is too small, and the suggested mechanism of $`\sigma `$-exchange depends on the product of two unknown coupling constants $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }g_{\sigma NN}`$, which can be fitted in order to obtain an agreement of such model with the experimental cross section $`d\sigma (\gamma p\rho ^0p)/dt`$. As a result, using the constant $`g_{\sigma NN}`$, from $`NN`$-potential , it was possible to find the numerical value for the unknown coupling constant $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }3`$ (for the standard choice of the corresponding Lagrangian). The determination of this coupling constant in the framework of QCD sum rules, gives also relatively large values: $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }=3.2\pm 0.2`$  and $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }=2.2\pm 0.4`$ . The analysis of the $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ decay in the framework of two possible mechanisms the $`\sigma `$-exchange, $`\rho ^0\sigma ^0+\gamma \gamma +\pi ^++\pi ^{}`$ and brehmstrahlung radiation by charged pions produced led to even larger values of $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }`$ . In the last case, it was not possible to find an unique value for this constant, because the final result depends on the mass and the width of the $`\sigma `$-meson, which value is given in a broad range, 0.4 GeV$`m_\sigma `$1.4 GeV, 0.6 GeV$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$1 GeV .

Note, in this connection, that a large value of the $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }`$ coupling constant has been considered also for the explanation  of the HERMES effect , concerning the anomalous nuclear dependence of the cross section for the inclusive electroproduction on nuclei at relatively small momentum transfer squared, $`Q^2`$: the increasing absorption of virtual photons with longitudinal polarization and the decreasing cross section with transversally polarized photons.

For completeness we should note that the $`g_{\omega \sigma \gamma }`$ coupling constant (with the corresponding electromagnetic form factor for the space-like momentum transfer) is important for the discussion of very actual problems, concerning the meson exchange currents in the physics of the electromagnetic deuteron structure .

Finally let us mention that the $`V\sigma \gamma `$-coupling constant can be estimated on the basis of the existing experimental data on the radiative decays of $`\rho ^0`$\- and $`\omega `$-mesons:

$$\omega (\rho ^0)\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma .$$
(1)
The very small branching ratios of these decays ($`Br10^5`$, ) are in contradiction with large values of the $`g_{V\sigma \gamma }`$-coupling constant, which have been derived before, using theoretical considerations (QCD-sum rules) , and experimental data on $`\gamma +pp+\rho ^0`$ and the HERMES effect . In the last two cases, the $`g_{V\sigma \gamma }`$-coupling constants have been determined by fitting the data, in the framework of a model. In the case of the process $`\gamma +pp+\rho ^0`$, only the $`\sigma `$-contribution has been taken into account . But in the near threshold region, other mechanisms contribute: the nucleon exchanges in the s- and t-channel, the excitation of various nucleonic resonances and even extrapolation of Pomeron exchange to the threshold region. The same is correct for the model of the HERMES effect. Only the decays (1) can be considered as direct methods to determine the $`g_{V\sigma \gamma }`$-coupling constants.

In this paper we plan to discuss another possible method to determine the $`g_{V\sigma \gamma }`$-coupling constant -through the measurement of T-even asymmetries in the collision of circularly polarized photons with a polarized proton target. The circular polarization of the photon results from the brehmstrahlung of longitudinally polarized electrons. Such beams are available at MAMI (Mainz)  and at the Jefferson Laboratory, where it has recently been used in the study of the deuteron photodisintegration $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+dn+\stackrel{}{p}`$-with the measurement of the polarization of the outgoing proton . In principle such experiments, as $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}p+V^0`$ or $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+p\stackrel{}{p}+V^0`$, $`V^0=\rho ^0`$ or $`\omega `$, are actually feasible.

## II Asymmetries of $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}p+V^0`$-processes

The dependence of the differential cross section of the process $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}p+V^0`$ on the polarizations of the colliding particles can be written in the following form :

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p})=\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_0\left(1+\lambda t_x𝒜_x+\lambda t_z𝒜_z\right),$$
(2)
where $`\left(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }\right)_0`$ is the differential cross section with unpolarized particles, $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ is the photon helicity (we suppose, for simplicity that the photon beam is fully circularly polarized), $`t_x`$ and $`t_z`$ are the possible components of the target proton polarization $`\stackrel{}{t}`$. $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$ are the T-even asymmetries for the process $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}p+V^0`$, which are real functions of the photon energy $`E_\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`\theta `$ is the V-meson production angle in the reaction CMS. The coordinate system is defined as follows: the $`z`$axis is along the photon three-momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and the $`xz`$-plane coincides with the reaction plane, so that the $`y`$axis is along the normal to the scattering plane.

The parametrization (2) is very general and holds for any binary process in $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}`$-collisions, due to the P-invariance of the electromagnetic interaction of hadrons.

Let us calculate these asymmetries, in framework of the $`\sigma +\pi `$-exchange model, for $`\gamma +pp+V`$ (Fig. 1). The Lagrangians for $`\pi NN`$\- and $`\sigma NN`$\- interactions are:

$`_{\pi NN}`$ $`=g_{\pi NN}\overline{N}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }N,`$ (3)
$`_{\sigma NN}`$ $`=g_{\pi NN}\overline{N}N\sigma ,`$ (4)
where $`g_{\pi NN}`$ is the coupling constant for the pseudoscalar $`\pi NN`$-interaction and $`g_{\sigma NN}`$ is the coupling constant of the $`\sigma NN`$-vertex, which is uniquely defined.

The corresponding electromagnetic interactions with vector mesons are described by the following Lagrangians:

$`_{V\pi \gamma }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2m_V}}g_{V\pi \gamma }ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\alpha }{dx_\beta }},`$ (5)
$`_{V\sigma \gamma }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2m_V}}g_{V\sigma \gamma }F_{\mu \nu }(V_\nu d_\mu \sigma V_\mu d_\nu \sigma ),`$ (6)
where $`e`$ is the electric charge, so that $`e^2/4\pi =\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1/137`$, $`m_V`$ is the vector meson mass, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the photon field strength tensor and $`V_\alpha `$ is the vector meson field. In the momentum space the Lagrangians (6) induce the following spin structure for $`V\pi \gamma `$\- and $`V\sigma \gamma `$\- vertices:

$`_{V\pi \gamma }`$ $`=ie{\displaystyle \frac{g_{V\pi \gamma }}{m_V}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }a_\mu k_\nu U_\alpha q_\beta ,`$ (7)
$`_{V\sigma \gamma }`$ $`=e{\displaystyle \frac{g_{V\sigma \gamma }}{m_V}}(aUkqaqUk),`$ (8)
where $`a_\alpha `$ and $`k`$ ($`U_\alpha `$ and $`q`$) are the four vector of polarization and the four momentum of the photon (V-meson), so

$$ak=Uq=0.$$

The matrix element, corresponding to $`\pi +\sigma `$-exchange, in the process $`\gamma +NN+V`$, Fig. 1, can be written as follows:

$$=_\pi +_\sigma ,$$

$`_\pi `$ $`=ie{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi NN}}{tm_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{V\pi \gamma }}{m_V}}F_\pi (t)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }a_\mu k_\nu U_\alpha q_\beta \overline{u}(p_2)\gamma _5u(p_1),`$ (9)
$`_\sigma `$ $`=e{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma NN}}{tm_\sigma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{V\sigma \gamma }}{m_V}}F_\sigma (t)(aUkqaqUk)\overline{u}(p_2)u(p_1),`$ (10)
where $`t=(p_1p_2)^2=(kq)^2`$ (the notation of the particle four-momenta is shown in Fig. 1, $`F_\pi `$ and $`F_\sigma `$ are phenomenological form factors, which insure the correct $`t`$dependence of the differential cross section $`d\sigma (\gamma ppV)/dt`$ in the framework of the considered model.

The matrix element (10) satisfies the condition of gauge invariance of the electromagnetic interaction - for any value of the coupling constants, form factors $`F_\pi `$ and $`F_\sigma `$ and in any kinematical condition.

The sum $`_\pi +_\sigma `$ generates very particular polarization phenomena. First of all, due to the fact that the amplitudes are real (in contradiction with the unitarity condition) all T-odd polarization phenomena, such as, for example, the analyzing powers (induced by the target polarization) or the components of the polarization of the final protons (in collisions of unpolarized particles) are identically zero. The simplest T-even polarization observable, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_B`$-asymmetry, induced by linear polarized photons also vanishes, due to the specific spin structure of both electromagnetic vertices, $`V\pi \gamma `$ and $`V\sigma \gamma `$, which enter in the considered model with $`\pi +\sigma `$-exchange.

The density matrix of the $`V`$-meson is $`\rho _{xx}=\rho _{yy}=1/2`$ \- with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\pi `$-dependence of the decay products in $`\rho ^0\pi ^++\pi ^{}`$. These predictions hold for any kinematical condition, for the considered reactions in the framework of $`\pi +\sigma `$-exchange, independently on the value of the coupling constants and the parametrization of the form factors $`F_\pi `$ and $`F_\sigma `$.

Such predictions on polarization observables, if experimentally verified, constitute a powerful test of the validity of the model, for $`\gamma +pp+\rho ^0`$. The T-even polarization observables $`𝒜_x`$, $`𝒜_z`$, defined in Eq. (2), which are not vanishing, bring information on the details of the model.

The asymmetry $`𝒜_z`$ is related to the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule , which applies to the process of vector meson photoproduction on nucleons, $`\gamma +NN+V`$. Typically, due to the relatively large threshold, its contribution is not so large . But this asymmetry is considered here from another point of view.

The angular dependence of the asymmetry $`𝒜_x`$ follows a $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$-distribution, as a result of the helicity conservation for the collinear regime.

Using the matrix elements, Eq. (10), one can find the following formulas for the asymmetries $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$ in terms of the corresponding coupling constants (assuming, for simplicity, $`F_\pi (t)=F_\sigma (t)`$):

$$𝒜_{x,z}=2R\lambda \left(\frac{m_\pi ^2t}{m_\sigma ^2t}\right)N_{x,z},$$
(11)
$$DN_z=\frac{m}{2E_\gamma }\left[1\frac{W^2}{m^2}+\frac{2}{t}m_V^2\right],$$
(12)
$$DN_x=\frac{W}{2E_\gamma }\sqrt{\left(1\frac{t_{min}}{t}\right)\left(1\frac{t_{max}}{t}\right)},$$
(13)
$$D=1+R^2\left(\frac{m_\pi ^2t}{m_\sigma ^2t}\right)^2\left(1\frac{4m^2}{t}\right),$$
(14)
$$R=\frac{g_{V\sigma \gamma }}{g_{V\pi \gamma }}\frac{g_{\sigma NN}}{g_{\pi NN}},$$
(15)
where $`m`$ is the nucleon mass and $`t_{_{min}^{max}}=m_V^22\omega E\pm 2\omega q`$ and

$$E=\frac{W^2+m_V^2m^2}{2W},\omega =\frac{W^2m^2}{2W}=E_\gamma \frac{m}{W},q=\sqrt{E^2m_V^2},$$

$`E_\gamma `$ is the photon energy in the c.m.s. and $`W^2=m^2+2E_\gamma m`$.

At a fixed value of the ratio $`R`$, the asymmetries $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$, are functions of $`E_\gamma `$ and of the momentum transfer squared, $`t`$, which varies in the interval: $`t_{min}tt_{max}`$. Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the sensitivity of these asymmetries for the processes $`\gamma +pp+\rho ^0(\omega )`$ to the ratio $`R`$ of the coupling constants $`g_{V\sigma \gamma }`$ and $`g_{V\pi \gamma }`$ as functions of $`t`$, for different photon energies (in the near threshold region). One can see that the asymmetry $`𝒜_z`$ is characterized by a weak energy dependence, and by a relatively weak $`t`$-dependence, in the considered $`E_\gamma `$-interval, for a wide interval of $``$ and $`m_\sigma `$. Being positive in the considered kinematical region, this asymmetry shows an essential sensitivity to the ratio $``$ for any value of $`t`$ and for the two values of $`E_\gamma `$, $`E_\gamma =1.2`$ and 1.8 GeV.

The asymmetry $`𝒜_x`$ is large (in absolute value) for small values of $`t`$, where the differential cross section is larger - with a strong energy and $`t`$dependence. This asymmetry is also sensitive to the ratio $``$ and to $`m_\sigma `$.

Note that, in the framework of the considered model, $`\pi `$+$`\sigma `$-exchange, the relative values of the asymmetries $`𝒜_x/𝒜_z`$ can be predicted exactly, without any dependence on $`m_\sigma `$ and on the different coupling constants, being therefore a good test of the validity of the model.

Note that, in a similar way, it is possible to consider also similar polarization phenomena for the inelastic vector meson processes :

$$\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}N^{}(𝒥^P=1/2^\pm )+V,$$
(16)
where $`N^{}(𝒥^P=1/2^\pm )`$ is a nucleon resonance with spin $`𝒥`$ and parity $`P`$ equal to $`𝒥^P=1/2^+`$ (the Roper resonance) or $`𝒥^P=1/2^{}`$ (the N(1535)). Applying the same model of $`\pi +\sigma `$-exchanges, one can see that the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ contributions to the matrix element of the process (15) do not interfere in the differential cross section with unpolarized particles. Therefore the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_B`$-asymmetry vanishes, but with the same the sensitivity to the relative role of $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\sigma `$-exchanges for the double polarization observables $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$. However, instead of the parameter $`R`$, one has to define another ratio, $`R^{}`$,

$$R^{}=\frac{g_{V\sigma \gamma }}{g_{V\pi \gamma }}\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}}}{g_{\pi NN^{}}}.$$

Therefore, the measurement of the two ratios, $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ allows to determine the $`\sigma NN^{}`$ coupling constant:

$$\frac{R^{}}{R}=\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}}}{g_{\pi NN^{}}}/\frac{g_{\sigma NN}}{g_{\pi NN}}.$$

This ratio is independent on the radiative coupling constants, therefore the ratio $`R^{}/R`$ is of the same order for $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$-photoproduction, if the $`\sigma +\pi `$-model applies.

Note that the circular polarization of the photon beam results also in non-zero $`𝒫_x`$\- and $`𝒫_z`$-components of the final proton polarization. Generally the observables $`𝒫_x`$ and $`𝒫_z`$ contain new dynamical information in comparison with the asymmetries $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$, but it is not the case in the considered model, where they are determined by the same formulas.

## III Conclusions

We derived the cross section and the polarization observables for the photoproduction of vector mesons on polarized protons, with a circularly polarized beam, $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}p+V^0`$, $`V^0=\rho ,\omega `$ or $`\varphi `$. We applied the $`\sigma +\pi `$-model in the near threshold region and gave predictions for the polarization observables. The two possible asymmetries $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$ have been determined through the $`\sigma \pi `$-interference, with a resulting sensitivity to the sign and the absolute value of the ratio $`R`$ of the strong and the electromagnetic coupling constants (Eq. 15). Taking into account that the $`g_{V\pi \gamma }`$ and the $`g_{\pi NN}`$ coupling constants are well known from other sources, the measurements of the ratios $`R_\omega `$ and $`R_\rho `$ will open the possibility to determine the $`g_{V\sigma \gamma }`$\- couplings. Taking the $`SU(3)`$ prediction for the ratio $`g_{\omega \pi \gamma }/g_{\rho \pi \gamma }3`$, which is in good agreement with the existing data on the widths of the radiative decays $`V\pi \gamma `$, one can find:

$$\frac{R_\rho }{R_\omega }=\frac{g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }}{g_{\omega \sigma \gamma }}\frac{g_{\omega \pi \gamma }}{g_{\rho \pi \gamma }}3\frac{g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }}{g_{\omega \sigma \gamma }}.$$

It is important to note that the ratio $`R_\rho /R_\omega `$ does not depend on the $`g_{\sigma NN}`$ coupling constant. The comparison of the obtained values of $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }/g_{\omega \sigma \gamma }`$ with this ratio from the decay $`\omega (\rho )\pi ^0+\pi ^0+\gamma `$, will constitute a good test of the existing theoretical approaches.

Note that the asymmetries $`𝒜_x`$ and $`𝒜_z`$, for the vector meson photoproduction on neutrons $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{n}n+V^0`$ have the same absolute values, but differ in sign from the corresponding asymmetries on polarized proton target. This is another possible test of the validity of the $`\sigma +\pi `$-model as any additional contribution to the matrix element of the considered process violates this relation.