text:
# Universal invariant renormalization for supersymmetric theories.

## 1 Introduction.

This paper addresses the problem of a manifestly invariant renormalization procedure for supersymmetric (SUSY) gauge theories.

A peculiar feature of supersymmetric gauge theories is nonpolynomial structure of the action. The only possibility to reduce the action to a polynomial form is to use the Wess-Zumino gauge. However in this case the manifest supersymmetry is lost and the powerful superdiagram technique cannot be used.

In supersymmetric gauges an infinite number of primitively divergent diagrams is present, which makes the theory formally nonrenormalizable. Nevertheless it can be shown that supersymmetry and gauge invariance reduce the number of independent counterterms, and the usual charge and wave functions renormalizations are sufficient. The corresponding procedure was firstly constructed for SUSY QED by one of the present authors  and then applied to Abelian and non-Abelian models in papers . However the proof given in these papers relies on the assumption of a possibility to use an intermediate regularization preserving the symmetry of the theory. Most popular gauge invariant regularizations like dimensional regularization , dimensional reduction  or lattice regularizations break supersymmetry . Higher covariant derivative regularization  in principle may be used, but the calculations are quite involved (see however ).

A possible alternative is presented by algebraic renormalization. In this method one uses an arbitrary regularization or subtraction scheme, breaking the symmetry of the theory (for example the momentum cut-off regularization or the differential renormalization ). The symmetry is restored at the second step by tuning finite counterterms to provide relevant Generalized Ward Identities (GWI) for the renormalized Green functions. This method was applied successfully to SUSY gauge theories in the papers , where the invariant renormalizability of $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ non-Abelian SUSY gauge models was proven in the framework of algebraic renormalization. However a practical implementation of the algebraic renormalization is rather cumbersome as the procedure requires a tuning of a large number of (noninvariant) counterterms.

Recently a new method of invariant renormalization was proposed , which provides automatically the renormalized Green functions possessing a relevant symmetry for arbitrary intermediate regularization. This method was formulated as a special subtraction procedure which incorporates GWI. Solving explicitly the corresponding GWI one reduces the problem of renormalization in an arbitrary regularization scheme to explicitly gauge invariant procedure. So instead of the two step algebraic renormalization we have the one step procedure which guarantees the symmetry of the renormalized theory.

In the present paper we discuss how this method may be generalized to supersymmetric gauge theories. Renormalization of SUSY QED is described in details. A corresponding procedure for non-Abelian SUSY gauge models is under consideration.

The paper is organized as follows:

In Section 2 we introduce the notations and remind some information about supersymmetric quantum electrodynamics. The universal invariant renomalization scheme for the model is constructed in the next Section 3 and illustrated by an example of the one-loop renormalization in Section 4. The results are discussed in the Conclusion.

## 2 Supersymmetric quantum electrodynamics.

In the superspace $`N=1`$ supersymmetric electrodynamics is described by the following action:

$`S_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4e^2}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta W_aC^{ab}W_b}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4\theta \left(\varphi ^+e^{2V}\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^+e^{2V}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right)}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta m\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\overline{\theta }m\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\varphi ^{}},`$ (1)
where $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ are chiral superfields, $`V`$ is a real superfield. The superfield $`W_a`$ in the abelian case is defined as

$$W_a=\frac{1}{16}\overline{D}(1\gamma _5)D\left[(1+\gamma _5)D_aV\right],$$
(2)
where $`D`$ is the usual supersymmetric covariant derivative

$$D=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}i\gamma ^\mu \theta _\mu .$$
(3)
The integration over the superspace in the equation (2) is defined as

$`{\displaystyle d^2\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}(1+\gamma _5){\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }}};{\displaystyle d^2\overline{\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}(1\gamma _5){\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }}};`$
$`{\displaystyle d^4\theta }={\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }}}\right)^2.`$ (4)
Up to surface terms these expressions can be written in the explicitly supersymmetric form:

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\overline{D}(1+\gamma _5)D}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xD^2};`$
$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\overline{\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\overline{D}(1\gamma _5)D}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\overline{D}^2};`$
$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\overline{D}^2D^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4xD^2\overline{D}^2}.`$
Here we use the following notations:

$$D^2\frac{1}{2}\overline{D}(1+\gamma _5)D;\overline{D}^2\frac{1}{2}\overline{D}(1\gamma _5)D.$$
(6)
Action (2) is invariant under the gauge transformations

$`VV{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^+\right);`$
$`\varphi e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi ;\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}e^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\varphi };\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}e^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an arbitrary chiral superfield. This invariance allows to gauge away some components of $`V(x,\theta )`$, resulting in the following equation:

$`V(x,\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\theta A_\mu (x)+i\sqrt{2}(\overline{\theta }\theta )(\overline{\theta }\gamma _5\chi (x))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\overline{\theta }\theta )^2D(x),`$ (8)
where $`A_\mu `$ is a gauge field, $`\chi `$ is a Maiorana spinor and $`D`$ is a real scalar auxiliary field. In this gauge, which is called Wess-Zumino gauge, residual gauge transformations depend only on a single parameter, while the action is polynomial. However, this gauge breaks explicitly supersymmetry of the model.

Quantization of model (2) is described in details in book  and is not considered here. We only note, that the gauge fixing is made by adding the term

$$S_{gf}=\frac{1}{32e^2\xi }d^4xd^4\theta D^2V\overline{D}^2V,$$
(9)
$`\xi `$ being a constant.

## 3 Universal invariant renormalization.

In this section we consider a renormalization procedure, which may be used with arbitrary not necessary gauge invariant regularization providing renormalized correlators satisfying automatically SUSY GWI. In the language of counterterms it means, that no noninvariant counterterms are needed and renormalization freedom is restricted to the choice of gauge invariant local terms, which are not fixed by GWI. We assume, that a regularization used for calculations is manifestly supersymmetric allowing to use supergraph technique. The construction presented below may be used for arbitrary SUSY gauge models formulated in terms of corresponding superfields. However in this paper we concentrate on renormalization of SUSY QED and explicit equations will refer to this model. We follow the approach, developed in , where the subtraction procedure incorporating automatically GWI was proposed.

To avoid the appearance of spurious infrared divergences we shall work in the ”diagonal” gauge, corresponding to $`\xi =1`$ in equation (9). Consideration of a general gauge requires additional infrared regularization, which in the Abelian case may be achieved by simply adding the mass term for gauge field and putting $`m_A=0`$ after calculation of integrals (see ).

It is well known , that the degree of divergency of a diagram with $`E_\varphi `$ external lines of chiral and antichiral superfields and $`E_V`$ external lines of the gauge superfield is equal to

$$\omega =2PE_\varphi ,$$
(10)
where $`P`$ is a number of $`\varphi \varphi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, $`\varphi ^+\varphi ^+`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^+`$ propagators. Therefore, divergencies are present in the following Green functions: 111Note, that for an invariant regularization divergencies in functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ will be absent for $`n>2`$. However, in the general case it is impossible to ignore their existence.

$`(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(k_\mu +q_\mu +(p_1)_\mu +\mathrm{}+(p_n)_\mu )\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }[(\theta _{x_1},p_1),\mathrm{}(\theta _{x_n},p_n);(\theta _y,q),(\theta _z,qp_1\mathrm{}p_n)]`$
$`{\displaystyle }d^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_nd^4yd^4z{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{n+2}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta V_{x_1}\mathrm{}\delta V_{x_n}\delta \varphi _y\delta \varphi _z^+}}|_{V,\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0}\times `$ (11)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i(p_1)_\mu x_1^\mu +\mathrm{}+i(p_n)_\mu x_n^\mu +iq_\mu y^\mu +ik_\mu z^\mu \right).`$
$`(2\pi )^4\delta ^4\left((p_1)_\mu +\mathrm{}+(p_n)_\mu \right)\mathrm{\Pi }[(\theta _{x_1},p_1),\mathrm{}(\theta _{x_n},p_1\mathrm{}p_{n1})]`$
$`{\displaystyle d^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_n\frac{\delta ^n\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta V_{x_1}\mathrm{}\delta V_{x_n}}}|_{\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi },V=0}\mathrm{exp}\left(i(p_1)_\mu x_1^\mu +\mathrm{}+i(p_n)_\mu x_n^\mu \right)`$ (12)
and in the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, which are constructed similar to functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but differentiation is performed over $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$-fields. Note, that functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ for odd $`n`$ are equal to 0, because contributions of diagrams with loops of $`\varphi `$ are cancelled with contributions of corresponding diagrams with $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$-loops.

The functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ satisfy Ward identities , which in our notations can be written in the following form:

$`(D_{x_1}^2+\overline{D}_{x_1}^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }[(\theta _{x_1},p_1),(\theta _{x_2},p_2),\mathrm{},(\theta _{x_n},p_n);(\theta _y,q),(\theta _z,qp_1\mathrm{}p_n)]=`$
$`=2\overline{D}_{x_1}^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _{x_1})\times `$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[(\theta _{x_2},p_2),\mathrm{},(\theta _{x_n},p_n);(\theta _{x_1},q+p_1),(\theta _z,qp_1\mathrm{}p_n)]+`$
$`+2D_{x_1}^2\delta ^4(\theta _{x_1}\theta _z)\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }[(\theta _{x_2},p_2),\mathrm{},(\theta _{x_n},p_n);(\theta _y,q),(\theta _{x_1},qp_2\mathrm{}p_n)];`$ (13)
$`\left(D_x^2+\overline{D}_x^2\right)\left(\mathrm{\Pi }[(\theta _x,p),(\theta _y,p)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e^2\xi }}p^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)\right)=0;`$ (14)
$`\left(D_{x_1}^2+\overline{D}_{x_1}^2\right)\mathrm{\Pi }[(\theta _{x_1},p_1),\mathrm{},(\theta _{x_{n1}},p_{n1}),(\theta _{x_n},p_1\mathrm{}p_{n1})]=0,n>2.`$
(15)
The supersymmetric covariant derivative in momentum representation is written as

$$D_x=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}\gamma ^\mu p_\mu ,$$
(16)
where $`p`$ is the momentum, corresponding to $`x`$-coordinate. Ward identities for functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ has the same structure.

As the chiral projector $`E_c`$ can be presented as

$$E_c\frac{1}{16^2}\left(\overline{D}^2D^2+D^2\overline{D}^2\right)=\frac{1}{16^2}\left(\overline{D}^2+D^2\right)^2,$$
(17)
these identities express the Green functions with at least one ”chiral” gauge field component in terms of correlators with less number of chiral gauge components.

Equations (3), (14) and (15) are written for SUSY QED. However they have essentially the same structure in non-abelian SUSY models, differing by the RHS which includes in this case also correlators with Faddeev-Popov ghost lines.

Our strategy may be formulated as follows: We firstly consider one-loop diagrams and renormalize in arbitrary (infrared safe) way the diagrams at the RHS of equations (3) – (15). Then having in mind that in an anomaly free theory GWI for correlators calculated with arbitrary subtraction scheme may be violated only by local terms, we define the renormalized Green functions at the LHS of equations (3) – (15) in such a way, that these identities are satisfied automatically. This renormalization still may be incomplete, as GWI obviously allow to add to the vertex function at the LHS an arbitrary gauge invariant counterterm. These counterterms as usual are free parameters which may be fixed by normalization conditions.

In the case of SUSY QED this procedure looks as follows:

First of all it is necessary to renormalize one-loop two-point Green function of matter superfields. The terms, proportional to $`\varphi ^{}\varphi `$ and not containing $`V`$ in the effective action, have the following structure

$$4d^4xd^4\theta \varphi ^{}(x)\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\sqrt{^2}\right)\varphi (x).$$
(18)
Hence, the two-point function of the matter field can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[(x,q),(y,q)]=\overline{D}_x^2D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)\mathrm{\Sigma }(q).$$
(19)
Renormalized two-point function is defined by subtraction

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^r(q)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mu _\sigma ),$$
(20)
where $`\mu _\sigma `$ is a normalization point.

After renormalization of two-point function it is necessary to construct renormalized vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Due to supersymmetry the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be presented in the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\theta ,p]=\underset{i}{}B_i(\theta ,p)F_i(p),$$
(21)
where $`p`$ and $`\theta `$ denote all set of arguments, $`B_i(\theta ,p)`$ are polynomials in $`p`$ and $`\theta `$, which are some linear independent combinations of covariant derivatives, acting on the product of $`\delta ^4(\theta _k\theta _l)`$, and $`F_i(p)`$ are scalar functions of external momenta. Renormalization is performed by subtracting polynomials $`P_i(p)`$ from the functions $`F_i(p)`$. We choose these polynomials in such a way, that the resulting function satisfies GWI (3) – (15) where the RHS includes renormalized functions with less number of chiral external lines.

Let us define ”partially renormalized” function

$$\gamma ^r[\theta ,p]=\underset{i}{}B_i(\theta ,p)\left(F_i(p)P_i(p)\right),$$
(22)
where $`P_i(p)`$ are some polynomials. Then the LHS of equation (3) may be written in the form

$$(D_{x_1}^2+\overline{D}_{x_1}^2)\gamma ^r[\theta ,p]=\underset{i}{}(D_{x_1}^2+\overline{D}_{x_1}^2)B_i(\theta ,p)\left(F_i(p)P_i(p)\right).$$
(23)
The combinations $`\left(D_{x_1}^2+\overline{D}_{x_1}^2\right)B_i(\theta ,p)`$ in the general case are not independent. It is convenient to introduce linear independent polynomials $`Q_j`$, proportional to the chiral parts of $`B_i`$:

$$\left(D_{x_1}^2+\overline{D}_{x_1}^2\right)B_i(\theta ,p)=\underset{j}{}c_{ij}Q_j(\theta ,p).$$
(24)
Expanding the RHS of equation (3) over $`Q_j`$ it is possible to rewrite the Ward identity as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}c_{ij}Q_j(\theta ,p)\left(F_i(p)P_i(p)\right)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Q_j(\theta ,p)R_j(p).`$ (25)
Taking into account, that $`Q_j`$ are linear independent, this equation is equivalent to the following system of linear equations:

$$\underset{i}{}c_{ij}\left(F_i(p)P_i(p)\right)=R_j(p),$$
(26)
which represents Ward identity (3) expanded in terms of linear independent polynomials $`Q_i(p,\theta )`$. If the polynomials $`P_i(p)`$ satisfy system (26), the function $`\gamma ^r`$ defined by equation (22) satisfies SUSY GWI. Indeed,

$$\left(D_{x_1}^2+\overline{D}_{x_1}^2\right)\gamma ^r[\theta ,p]=\underset{i}{}c_{ij}Q_j(\theta ,p)\left(F_i(p)P_i(p)\right)=\underset{j}{}Q_j(\theta ,p)R_j(p).$$
(27)
Note, that a choice of $`P_i`$ is not unique, because any solution of Ward identity is defined up to a term $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}f`$, which can not be determined from the Ward identity. However, this freedom is irrelevant for our procedure.

To eliminate the remaining ultraviolet divergences it is sufficient to subtract from $`\gamma ^r`$ gauge invariant local counterterms $`P_{gi}`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^r[p,\theta ]=\gamma ^r[p,\theta ]P_{gi}.$$
(28)
These counterterms obviously can not be fixed by GWI. So we succeeded to reduce the subtraction procedure in an arbitrary regularization scheme to subtraction of gauge invariant counterterms.

Having obtained the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^r`$, it is necessary to substitute it into the RHS of renormalized Ward identity (3) for the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^r`$. Then the process is repeated. So, we constructed a recurrent procedure, which defines all functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^r`$. This procedure is illustrated in the next Section by an example of one-loop renormalization of the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ in the momentum cut-off regularization.

The functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^r`$ are constructed in a similar manner.

At the next step it is necessary to renormalize Green functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, corresponding to diagrams without external lines of matter superfields. Due to supersymmetry they can be written in the form, similar to equation (21):

$$\mathrm{\Pi }[\theta ,p]=\underset{i}{}B_i(\theta ,p)F_i(p).$$
(29)
For example, the function $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ for $`n=2`$ can be presented as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }[(\theta _x,p),(\theta _y,p)]=F_1(p)p^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)+F_2(p)\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y),`$ (30)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}=\frac{1}{16^2}D^a\overline{D}^2C_{ab}D^b.$$
(31)
In this case

$`B_1(\theta ,p)=p^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y);B_2(\theta ,p)=\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)`$ (32)
As before, the renormalized Green functions are obtained by subtracting from $`F_i(p)`$ some polynomials chosen to provide GWI for the function $`\mathrm{\Pi }^r`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^r[\theta ,p]=\underset{i}{}B_i(\theta ,p)\left(F_i(p)P_i(p)\right),$$
(33)
For the two-point Green function substitution of (30) into equation (14) gives the following equation:

$$\left(F_2(p)P_2(p)\frac{1}{2e^2\xi }p^2\right)\left(D_x^2+\overline{D}_x^2\right)\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)=0.$$
(34)
Therefore,

$$P_2(p)=F_2(p)\frac{1}{2e^2\xi }p^2,$$
(35)
while the function $`P_1`$ can not be defined from GWI and corresponds to a gauge invariant counterterm. It is convenient to choose

$$P_1(p)=F_1(\mu _\pi )\frac{1}{2e^2\xi }p^2,$$
(36)
where $`\mu _\pi `$ is a normalization point, which can be different from $`\mu _\sigma `$. Then the renormalized two-point Green function can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^r[(\theta _x,p),(\theta _y,p)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32e^2\xi }}\left(D^2\overline{D}^2+\overline{D}^2D^2\right)\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)+`$
$`+\left(F_1(p)F_1(\mu _\pi )\right)p^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y),`$ (37)
This Green function satisfies the equation

$$\left(D_x^2+\overline{D}_x^2\right)\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^r[(\theta _x,p),(\theta _y,p)]\frac{1}{2e^2\xi }p^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)\right)=0,$$
(38)
which is a supersymmetric generalization of transversality condition in the usual quantum electrodynamics.

Green functions, containing only external $`V`$-lines with $`E_V>2`$, can be renormalized similarly. It is sufficient to put in equations (25) and (26) $`R_j=0`$. Then equation (22) may be used to define the renormalized function $`\mathrm{\Pi }^r`$.

So, the one-loop renormalization procedure is finished. Due to the locality of the subtraction terms in the limit, when regularization is removed, the present scheme is equivalent to adding the counterterms

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S={\displaystyle \underset{n,i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4\theta _1\mathrm{}d^4\theta _nB_i(\theta ,)P_i()V_1(\theta _1,x)\mathrm{}V(\theta _n,x)}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(Z_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4\theta \varphi ^+(2V)^n\varphi }+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{Z}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4\theta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^+(2V)^n\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}.`$ (39)
It is important to note, that due to the presence of $`\delta `$-functions in $`B_i`$ all these terms can be presented as integrals over a single $`\theta `$. For the noninvariant regularization these counterterms certainly can be not gauge invariant.

Having constructed one-loop counterterms, one can calculate two-loop diagrams and perform similar renormalization at the two-loop level. All combinatorics is given by the standard R-operation. After the renormalization in the each loop renormalized Green functions will automatically satisfy renormalized Ward identities. It means, that the present scheme provides gauge invariant result for the effective action even if a regularization is not gauge invariant.

## 4 Application of universal invariant renormalization at the one-loop level.

To illustrate application of the scheme, described above, let us consider one-loop renormalization of $`N=1`$ supersymmetric QED, regularized by cutting-off loop momenta in the gauge with $`\xi =1`$.

The diagram, corresponding to the one-loop two-point Green function of the matter field is presented at Figure 1. After simple calculations, using Feinman rules, described in book , in the Euclidean space its contribution to the effective action can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{(1)}=\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}d^4\theta e^2\left(\varphi ^{}(q)\varphi (q)+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}(q)\varphi (q)\right)\stackrel{M}{}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{2(k+q)^2(k^2+m^2)},$$
(40)
where integration over loop momentum $`k`$ is defined as

$$\stackrel{M}{}d^4k\underset{0}{\overset{M}{}}𝑑kk^3\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta _3$$
(41)
and $`M`$ is an ultraviolet cut-off. Therefore, according to equation (18) the function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)`$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)={\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8(k+q)^2(k^2+m^2)}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{128\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2+m^2}{q^2+m^2}}+1{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{q^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2+m^2}{m^2}}\right).`$ (42)
Two-point function for the matter superfields is renormalized by subtraction (20), which corresponds to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\frac{\alpha }{8\pi }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2+m^2}{\mu _\sigma ^2+m^2}+1\frac{m^2}{\mu _\sigma ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu _\sigma ^2+m^2}{m^2}\right)d^4xd^4\theta \left(\varphi ^{}\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right).$$
(43)
The next diagram to be considered is the one-loop three-point vertex function, which is described by the diagrams, presented at Figure 2. Having calculated them in the chosen regularization we obtained, that the corresponding three-point function can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[(\theta _x,p);(\theta _y,q),(\theta _z,qp)]=`$
$`=\{{\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}({\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2(k+q+p/2)_\mu }{4k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{D}_x\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5D_x+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}}p^2(\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2})_x\}\times `$
$`\times \left(\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)\right).`$ (44)
The structure functions $`B_i`$ entering equation (21) are

$`B_1(\theta ,p,q)=\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z);`$
$`B_2(\theta ,p,q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{D}_x\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5D_x\left(\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)\right);`$
$`B_3(\theta ,p,q)=p^2(\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2})_x\left(\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)\right).`$ (45)
Renormalized vertex function is defined by subtracting the corresponding polynomials:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^r[(\theta _x,p);(\theta _y,q),(\theta _z,qp)]=`$
$`=\{{\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}({\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}})P(p)`$
$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2(k+q+p/2)_\mu }{4k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{D}_x\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5D_x+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}}p^2(\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2})_x\}\times `$
$`\times \left(\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)\right).`$ (46)
Note, that we do not subtract anything from the last two terms, because the corresponding integrals are convergent. Taking into account, that

$`D^2\overline{D}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5D=4iD^2_\mu ;`$
$`\overline{D}^2\overline{D}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5D=4i\overline{D}^2_\mu ;`$
$`\overline{D}^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}=D^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}=0,`$ (47)
the left hand side of Ward identity can be written as

$`\left(D_x^2+\overline{D}_x^2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^r[(\theta _x,p);(\theta _y,q),(\theta _z,qp)]=`$
$`=\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)\overline{D}_x^2D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)\times `$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}}P(p)\right)+`$
$`+D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)D_x^2\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)\times `$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)}}P(p)\right)`$ (48)
while the right hand side of the Ward identity is written as

$$2\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)\overline{D}_x^2D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)\mathrm{\Sigma }^r(q+p)+2D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)D_x^2\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y)\mathrm{\Sigma }^r(q).$$
(49)
Thus, in this case

$`Q_1(\theta ,p,q)=\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)\overline{D}_x^2D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z);`$
$`Q_2(\theta ,p,q)=D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)D_x^2\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _y).`$ (50)
Taking into account, that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^r(q)=\stackrel{M}{}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mu _\sigma )$$
(51)
we obtain, that

$$P(p)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mu _\sigma ).$$
(52)
Therefore, the renormalized three point function is equal to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^r[(\theta _x,p);(\theta _y,q),(\theta _z,qp)]=\{\mathrm{\Sigma }^r(q)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^r(q+p)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^2(k+q+p/2)_\mu }{4k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}\frac{1}{4}\overline{D}_x\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5D_x}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8k^2\left((k+q)^2+m^2\right)\left((k+q+p)^2+m^2\right)}}p^2(\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2})_x\}\times `$
$`\times \left(\overline{D}_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _y\theta _x)D_x^2\delta ^4(\theta _x\theta _z)\right).`$ (53)
It is evident, that our subtraction (together with the corresponding subtraction for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$) is equivalent to adding the following counterterms:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\frac{\alpha }{8\pi }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2+m^2}{\mu _\sigma ^2+m^2}+1\frac{m^2}{\mu _\sigma ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu _\sigma ^2+m^2}{m^2}\right)d^4xd^4\theta \left(\varphi ^+2V\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^+2V\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right),$$
(54)
where we substituted the explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mu _\sigma )`$, constructed above. So, the renormalization of the three-point function is finished. At the next step it is necessary to consider four-point function with two external matter superfields and continue the recurrent process.

The one-loop contribution to the two-point Green function of the gauge field is defined by diagrams, presented at Figure 3 and is equal to

$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}\{{\displaystyle }d^2\theta W_a(p)C_{ab}W_b(p){\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(k^2+m^2)\left((k+p)^2+m^2\right)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle }d^4\theta V(p)V(p){\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k+p)^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2+m^2}})\}.`$ (55)
Note, that due to using the regularization, which breaks gauge invariance in equation (4) noninvariant terms are present. Equation (4) corresponds to

$`F_1(p)={\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+m^2)\left((k+p)^2+m^2\right)}};`$
$`F_2(p)={\displaystyle \stackrel{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{(k+p)^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{k^2+m^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{16\pi ^2}}+O(1/M^2).`$ (56)
in equation (30). (It is not difficult to find explicit expression for $`F_1(p)`$, but it is rather lengthy and we do not present it here.) After subtraction (3) renormalized contribution of diagrams with two external $`V`$-lines to the effective action can be presented as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}d^2\theta W_a(p)C_{ab}W_b(p)\left(F_1(p)F_1(\mu _\pi )\right)},`$ (57)
so all noninvariant terms disappear and the result becomes finite. The $`\beta `$-function, corresponding to expression (57), is equal to

$$\beta =\frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }+O(\alpha ^3)$$
(58)
and agrees with calculations, made by dimensional reduction .

It is easy to verify, that the above subtraction is equivalent to adding the following counterterms:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\frac{1}{2}F_1(\mu _\pi )\text{Re}d^4xd^2\theta W_aC_{ab}W_b\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}d^4xd^4\theta V^2V,$$
(59)
which are not gauge invariant.

## 5 Conclusion.

In this paper we presented a renormalization procedure for SUSY QED, which guarantees gauge invariance of the renormalized theory for any intermediate regularization. SUSY Ward identities are incorporated into subtractions, which allows to avoid the appearance of noninvariant counterterms.

The same procedure obviously may be applied to non-abelian supersymmetric models provided they are formulated in terms of corresponding superfields. Some technical problems related to more complicated structure of non-abelian theories will be considered elsewhere.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by RBRF grant N 990100190 and by the grant for support of leading scientific schools.


format: text

text:
# Microscopic 𝑁𝑁→𝑁𝑁^∗(1440) transition potential: Determination of 𝜋𝑁𝑁^∗(1440) and 𝜎𝑁𝑁^∗(1440) coupling constants.

## I Introduction

The nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) interaction constitutes the basic process in nuclear dynamics and as such it has been for many years the object of extensive study. Different approaches, going from almost completely phenomenological potentials and meson-exchange treatments at the baryon level to quark model descriptions, have been developed to mitigate the current impossibility to directly obtain the form of the interaction from QCD. Each approach has its own justification. The use of more and more sophisticated phenomenological baryonic potentials allows a very precise fit of some data in a selected energy domain. Meson-exchange approaches at the baryon level make clear the role of effective hadronic degrees of freedom at a given energy scale. Quark model descriptions based on QCD and formulated in terms of effective quark degrees of freedom might be the closest approach to the underlying theory.

From all of them we have been able to reach a quite reasonable, though not complete, understanding of the two-nucleon interaction at low energy ($`T_{lab}300`$ MeV ) . When increasing the energy, the opening of channels involving the excitation of baryon resonances determines to a good extent the character of the interaction. Up to 1 GeV relative kinetic energy in the laboratory, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ and $`N^{}(1440)`$ are the most prominent resonances . The role played by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance has been studied at the baryon level  as well as at the quark level , by means of $`NNN\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`N\mathrm{\Delta }N\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ potentials. These studies show the relevance of a quark analysis to properly treat the short-range part of the interaction.

The $`N^{}(1440)`$ (Roper) is a broad resonance which couples strongly (60$``$70$`\%`$) to the $`\pi N`$ channel and significantly (5$``$10$`\%`$) to the $`\sigma N`$ channel . These features suggest that the Roper resonance should play an important role in nuclear dynamics as an intermediate state. This role has been analyzed at the baryon level. Graphs involving the excitation of $`N^{}(1440)`$ appear in different systems, as for example the neutral pion production in proton-proton reactions  or the three-nucleon interaction mediated by $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ exchange contributing to the triton binding energy . The excitation of the Roper resonance has also been used to explain the missing energy spectra in the $`p(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})`$ reaction  or the $`npd(\pi \pi )^0`$ reaction . The coupling of the $`N^{}(1440)`$ to $`\pi N`$ and $`\sigma N`$ channels could also be important in heavy ion collisions at relativistic energies . The presence of $`NN^{}(1440)`$ configurations on the deuteron has been suggested long ago . Finally, pion electro- and photoproduction may take place through the $`N^{}(1440)`$ excitation . However the use of a $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ transition potential as a straightforward generalization of some pieces of the $`NNNN`$ potential plus the incorporation of resonance width effects may have, as commented above for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, serious shortcomings specially concerning the short-range part of the interaction .

In view of the current interest in nucleon resonances in a nuclear physics context, it seems appropriate to extend the quark model $`NN`$ calculations to treat all presently accepted $`N^{}`$ resonances. In this article we propose a quark model treatment of the $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ interaction. We shall adopt the same quark model approach previously used for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ case and also applied to the $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$ interaction . We shall center our attention in the derivation of a $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ transition potential from a quark-quark ($`qq`$) basic interaction incorporating gluon, pion and sigma exchanges. For the sake of simplicity we shall follow a Born-Oppenheimer (BO) approximation with harmonic oscillator baryon wave functions written in terms of quarks. The Roper resonance, $`N^{}(1440)`$, will be considered as a stable particle.

A main feature of our quark treatment is its universality in the sense that all the baryon-baryon interactions are treated on an equal footing. Moreover, once the model parameters are fixed from $`NN`$ data there are no free parameters for any other case. This allows a microscopic understanding and connection of the different baryon-baryon interactions that is beyond the scope of any analysis based only on effective hadronic degrees of freedom. This is important not only in the short-range regime, where it does not exist a definite prescription for the potentials at the baryon level when resonances are involved, but at all distances. In particular, the asymptotic (long-range) behavior of the $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ potential allows the determination of the $`\pi NN^{}(1440)`$ and $`\sigma NN^{}(1440)`$ coupling constants as well as their ratios to the $`\pi NN`$ and $`\sigma NN`$ coupling constants, respectively. These studies are instructive inasmuch as they are expected to lead to a deeper understanding of the nuclear potential and entail a rethinking of basic nuclear concepts from the point of view of the fundamental quark substructure.

The article is organized as follows. In Sec. II we write the $`qq`$ interaction and analyze the two-baryon wave functions in order to obtain the $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ transition potential. In Sec. III we draw the results for different partial waves and spin-isospin channels. In Sec. IV we proceed to determine the $`\pi NN^{}(1440)`$ and $`\sigma NN^{}(1440)`$ coupling constants and relate them to the $`\pi NN`$ and $`\sigma NN`$ coupling constants. Finally, in Sec. V we summarize our main conclusions.

## II $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ transition potential

In the Born-Oppenheimer approximation the $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ transition potential at the interbaryon distance $`R`$ is obtained by sandwiching between $`NN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)`$ states (expressed in terms of quarks) the $`qq`$ potential for all the pairs formed by two quarks belonging to different baryons. In other words:

$$V_{NN(LST)NN^{}(L^{}S^{}T)}(R)=\xi _{LST}^{L^{}S^{}T}(R)\xi _{LST}^{L^{}S^{}T}(\mathrm{}),$$
(1)
where

$$\xi _{LST}^{L^{}S^{}T}(R)=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{NN^{}}^{L^{}S^{}T}(\stackrel{}{R})_{i<j=1}^6V_{qq}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})\mathrm{\Psi }_{NN}^{LST}(\stackrel{}{R})}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }_{NN^{}}^{L^{}S^{}T}(\stackrel{}{R})\mathrm{\Psi }_{NN^{}}^{L^{}S^{}T}(\stackrel{}{R})}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }_{NN}^{LST}(\stackrel{}{R})\mathrm{\Psi }_{NN}^{LST}(\stackrel{}{R})}}.$$
(2)
The quark-quark potential has been very much detailed elsewhere  and it will only be written here for completeness. It reads,

$$V_{qq}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})=V_{CON}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})+V_{OGE}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})+V_{OPE}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})+V_{OSE}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij}),$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}_{ij}`$ is the interquark distance. $`V_{CON}`$ is the confining potential, whose detailed radial structure being fundamental to study the hadron spectra is expected to play a minor role for the two-baryon interaction . To be consistent with baryon and meson spectroscopy it will be taken to be linear

$$V_{CON}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})=a_c\stackrel{}{\lambda _i}\stackrel{}{\lambda _j}r_{ij},$$
(4)
where the $`\lambda ^{}s`$ stand for the color SU(3) matrices. $`V_{OGE}`$ is the perturbative one-gluon-exchange (OGE) interaction containing Coulomb ($`\frac{1}{r_{ij}}`$), spin-spin ($`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j)`$ and tensor terms ($`S_{ij}`$)

$$V_{OGE}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})=\frac{1}{4}\alpha _s\stackrel{}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{}{\lambda }_j\left\{\frac{1}{r_{ij}}\frac{\pi }{m_q^2}\left[1+\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j\right]\delta (\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})\frac{3}{4m_q^2r_{ij}^3}S_{ij}\right\},$$
(5)
and $`V_{OPE}`$ and $`V_{OSE}`$ are the one-pion (OPE) and one-sigma exchange (OSE) interactions given by:

$`V_{OPE}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _{ch}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\pi ^2}}m_\pi \left\{\right[Y(m_\pi r_{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{m_\pi ^3}}Y(\mathrm{\Lambda }r_{ij})]\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j+`$ (7)
$`[H(m_\pi r_{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{m_\pi ^3}}H(\mathrm{\Lambda }r_{ij})]S_{ij}\}\stackrel{}{\tau }_i\stackrel{}{\tau }_j,`$
$$V_{OSE}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})=\alpha _{ch}\frac{4m_q^2}{m_\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\sigma ^2}m_\sigma \left[Y(m_\sigma r_{ij})\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_\sigma }Y(\mathrm{\Lambda }r_{ij})\right],$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cutoff parameter and

$$Y(x)=\frac{e^x}{x},$$
(9)
$$H(x)=\left(1+\frac{3}{x}+\frac{3}{x^2}\right)Y(x).$$
(10)
The values chosen for the parameters are tabulated in Table I. They are taken from Ref.  where an accurate description of the $`NN`$ scattering phase shifts and the deuteron properties is obtained. They also provide a reasonable description of the baryon spectrum .

The Born-Oppenheimer approximation followed integrates out the quark coordinates keeping R fixed. Hence, quantum fluctuations of the two-baryon center-of-mass are neglected. Nonetheless, a more complete treatment as the one implied by the use of the resonating group method may not represent, at least for the calculations we perform, major changes as it turns out to be the case for the $`NN`$ interaction .

The $`NN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)`$ wave functions we shall use hereforth have been also detailed elsewhere . Here we only quote some results that will be useful in what follows. The $`N`$ and $`N^{}(1440)`$ states are given in terms of quarks by:

$$|N=|[3](0s)^3[1^3]_c,$$
(11)
$$|N^{}(1440)=\left\{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|[3](0s)^2(1s)\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}|[3](0s)(0p)^2\right\}[1^3]_c,$$
(12)
where $`[1^3]_c`$ is the completely antisymmetric color state, $`[3]`$ is the completely symmetric spin-isospin state and $`0s`$, $`1s`$, and $`0p`$, stand for harmonic oscillator orbitals.

For a definite orbital angular momentum $`L`$ and spin $`S`$, the $`NN`$ wave function satisfies, due to the identity of the baryons, the selection rule

$$L_{NN}S_{NN}T_{NN}=\mathrm{odd}.$$
(13)
This is not the case for the $`NN^{}(1440)`$ system, due to the nonidentity of $`N`$ and $`N^{}(1440)`$. Nevertheless antisymmetry at quark level, coming from the identity of quarks, gives rise to a generalized selection rule for any nucleon resonance $`N^{}`$, that can be written as

$$L_{NN^{}}S_{NN^{}}T_{NN^{}}+f=\mathrm{odd},$$
(14)
where $`f`$ is the $`NN^{}`$ spin-isospin parity determining the symmetric ($`f=`$ even) or antisymmetric ($`f=`$ odd) character of the $`NN^{}`$ wave function in the spin-isospin space. The case $`f=`$ even gives rise to the same $`NN^{}`$ channels than in the $`NN`$ case, whereas the case $`f=`$ odd corresponds to channels forbidden in the $`NN`$ case that reflects the effects of quark identity beyond baryon identity. These forbidden channels play a relevant role in the $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$ case . However for the $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ transition we are dealing with the situation simplifies considerably. In fact, as the strong interaction preserves isospin we have $`T_{NN^{}}=T_{NN}`$. Furthermore the structure of the interaction given by Eq. (3) allows only to connect $`NN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)`$ channels verifying $`L^{}L=0`$ or $`2=S^{}S`$. Therefore the initial state selection rule translates to the final state, i.e. only $`f=`$ even $`NN^{}(1440)`$ channels are allowed.

The most representative diagrams contributing to the $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ potential, as calculated from Eq. (1), are drawn in Fig. 1. We distinguish between the direct diagrams (labeled as $`V_{36}`$ in Fig. 1), not involving quark exchanges, and the rest of diagrams including exchange of quarks (labeled as $`V_{ij}P_{36}`$ in Fig. 1). Most diagrams contributing to the interaction are due to the first term of the $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave function ($`|[3](0s)^2(1s)`$), only a few of them, those with two vertical dashed lines, correspond to the second term of the $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave function ($`|[3](0s)(0p)^2`$).

## III Results

In Figs. 2, 3, and 4, we show the potentials obtained for $`L=0`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$), $`L=1`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$), and $`L=2`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$) partial waves, respectively. Contributions from the different terms of the potential as separated in Eq. (3) have been made explicit. For some selected partial waves, we separate in Fig. 5 the contribution of the different diagrams depicted in Fig. 1. Let us mention that an arbitrary global phase between the $`N`$ and $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave functions as written in Eqs. (11) and (12) has to be chosen. We will discuss all aspects depending on this choice.

There are a number of general features that can be enumerated:

(i) The very long-range part of the interaction ($`R>4`$ fm ) comes dominated, as for the $`NNNN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$ cases, by the one-pion exchange, the longest-range piece of the potential. However the asymptotic potential reverses sign with respect to both $`NNNN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$. Thus for $`S`$ and $`D`$ waves the $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ interaction is asymptotically repulsive. This sign reversal is a direct consequence of the presence of a node in the $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave function what implies a change of sign with respect to the $`N`$ wave function at long distances (if the opposite sign for the $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave function were chosen the very long-range part of the interaction would be attractive but there would also be a change in the character of the short-range part). This is also corroborated by the study of the one-sigma exchange interaction that is always asymptotically repulsive at difference to the $`NNNN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$ cases (for $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$ there are two compensating changes of sign coming from the two Ropers).

It is worth to remark that no quark antisymmetrization effects survive either in the numerator or in the denominator (norm) of Eq. (1) at these distances. In other words, the potential corresponds to a direct baryon-baryon interaction.

(ii) For the long-range $`2<R<4`$ fm part, the one-pion and one-sigma-exchange potentials altogether determine the character of the interaction, since the one-gluon-exchange gives a negligible contribution for $`R2`$ fm. One should also notice that although the contribution from quark exchange diagrams is very much suppressed for $`R2`$ fm, some quark antisymmetrization effects may still be present through the norm (see Fig. 1 of Ref. ).

(iii) At intermediate range $`0.6<R<2`$ fm a complex interplay among all pieces of the potential (gluon, pion and sigma) generates the final form of the interaction. When decreasing $`R`$ from 2 fm to 0.6 fm two effects take place. On the one hand, quark exchange diagrams are increasingly important becoming dominant below $`R=1.5`$ fm. On the other hand the different pieces of the potential are changing sign: from attractive to repulsive for the gluon in all partial waves, from repulsion to attraction for the sigma in $`S`$ and $`D`$ waves and from repulsion to attraction and again to repulsion for the pion in $`S`$ and $`D`$ waves. As a combined result of these effects the total potential turns out to be attractive from $`R=1.5`$ fm down to a lower value of $`R`$ different for each partial wave. This behavior, related again to the node in the Roper wave function, contrasts with the $`NNNN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$ cases, where for instance for $`S`$ and $`D`$ waves the scalar (sigma) part keeps always the same sign and gives the dominant contribution for $`R>0.8`$ fm.

(iv) The choice of $`0.6`$ fm as a lower limit for the intermediate range comes motivated by the repulsive character of the potential in all partial waves for shorter distances. The one-gluon and one-pion quark exchange parts are mainly responsible for such a repulsion as it turns out to be the case for $`NNNN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$. Nevertheless there are two distinctive features with respect to these cases: in $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ the intensity of the repulsion at $`R=0`$ and the value of $`R`$ at which the interaction becomes repulsive are significantly lower than in $`NNNN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$. This is a clear effect of the more similarity (higher overlap) in these cases between initial and final states what makes the Pauli principle more active.

## IV $`\pi NN^{}(1440)`$ and $`\sigma NN^{}(1440)`$ coupling constants

The potential obtained can be also written at all distances in terms of baryonic degrees of freedom . One should realize that a $`qq`$ spin and isospin independent potential as for instance the scalar one-sigma exchange, gives rise at the baryon level, apart from a spin-isospin independent potential, to a spin-spin, an isospin-isospin and a spin-isospin dependent interaction . Nonetheless for distances $`R4`$ fm, where quark antisymmetrization interbaryon effects vanish, we are only left with the direct part, i.e. with a scalar one-sigma exchange at the baryon level. The same kind of argument can be applied to the one-pion exchange potential. Thus asymptotically ($`R4`$ fm) OSE and OPE have at the baryon level the same spin-isospin structure than OSE and OPE at the quark level. Hence we can parametrize the asymptotic central interactions as (the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depending exponential term is negligible asymptotically as compared to the Yukawa term)

$$V_{NNNN^{}(1440)}^{OPE}(R)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{g_{\pi NN}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{m_\pi }{2M_N}\frac{m_\pi }{2(2M_r)}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\pi ^2}[(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_N.\stackrel{}{\sigma }_N)(\stackrel{}{\tau }_N.\stackrel{}{\tau }_N)]\frac{e^{m_\pi R}}{R},$$
(15)
and

$$V_{NNNN^{}(1440)}^{OSE}(R)=\frac{g_{\sigma NN}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\sigma ^2}\frac{e^{m_\sigma R}}{R},$$
(16)
where $`g_i`$ stands for the coupling constants at the baryon level and $`M_r`$ is the reduced mass of the $`NN^{}(1440)`$ system $`\left(\frac{1}{M_r}=\frac{1}{M_N}+\frac{1}{M_{N^{}(1440)}}\right)`$. One should note that at these distances the use of the BO approximation is justified and the resonating group method potential would give quite the same results.

By comparing these baryonic potentials with the asymptotic behavior of the OPE and OSE previously obtained from the quark calculation we can extract the $`\pi NN^{}(1440)`$ and $`\sigma NN^{}(1440)`$ coupling constants. As the parameters at the quark level are fixed once for all from the $`NN`$ interaction our results allow a prediction of these constants in terms of the elementary $`\pi qq`$ coupling constant and the one-baryon model dependent structure. The sign obtained for the meson-$`NN^{}(1440)`$ coupling constants and for their ratios to the meson-$`NN`$ coupling constants is ambiguous since it comes determined by the arbitrarily chosen relative sign between the $`N`$ and $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave functions. Only the ratios between the $`\pi NN^{}(1440)`$ and $`\sigma NN^{}(1440)`$ would be free of this uncertainty. This is why we will quote absolute values except for these cases where the sign is a clear prediction of the model. To get such a prediction we can use any partial wave. We shall use for simplicity the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ wave, this is why we only wrote the central interaction in Eq. (15).

The $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_i^2}`$ vertex factor comes from the vertex form factor chosen at momentum space as a square root of monopole $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, the same choice taken at the quark level, where chiral symmetry requires the same form for pion and sigma. A different choice for the form factor at the baryon level, regarding its functional form as well as the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, would give rise to a different vertex factor and eventually to a different functional form for the asymptotic behavior. For instance, for a modified monopole form, $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, where $`m`$ is the meson mass ($`m_\pi `$ or $`m_\sigma `$), the vertex factor would be $`1`$, i.e. $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2}`$, keeping the potential the same exponentially decreasing asymptotic form. Then it is clear that the extraction from any model of the meson-baryon-baryon coupling constants depends on this choice. We shall say they depend on the coupling scheme.

For the one-pion exchange and for our value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4.2`$ fm<sup>-1</sup>, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\pi ^2}=1.03`$, pretty close to $`1`$. As a consequence, in this case the use of our form factor or the modified monopole form at baryonic level makes little difference in the determination of the coupling constant. This fact is used when fixing $`g_{\pi qq}^2/4\pi `$ from the experimental value of $`g_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi `$ extracted from $`NN`$ data. The value we use for $`\alpha _{ch}=\frac{m_\pi ^2}{4m_q^2}\frac{g_{\pi qq}^2}{4\pi }=\left(\frac{3}{5}\right)^2\frac{g_{\pi NN}^2}{4\pi }\frac{m_\pi ^2}{4m_N^2}e^{\frac{m_\pi ^2b^2}{2}}=0.027`$ corresponds to $`g_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi =14.83`$.

To get $`\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}`$ we turn to our numerical results for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ OPE potential, Fig. 6(a), and fit its asymptotic behavior (in the range $`R:59`$ fm) to Eq. (15). We obtain

$$\frac{g_{\pi NN}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\pi ^2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.73},$$
(17)
i.e. $`\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}=0.94`$. As explained above only the absolute value of this coupling constant is well defined. Let us note that in Ref.  a different sign with respect to our coupling constant is obtained what is a direct consequence of the different global sign chosen for the $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave function. The coupling scheme dependence can be explicitly eliminated if we compare $`g_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}`$ with $`g_{\pi NN}`$ extracted from the $`NNNN`$ potential within the same quark model approximation, Fig. 6(b). Thus we get

$$\left|\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}}{g_{\pi NN}}\right|=0.25.$$
(18)
By proceeding in the same way for the OSE potential, i.e. by fitting the potential given in Fig. 7(a) to Eq. (16), and following an analogous procedure for the $`NN`$ case, Fig. 7(b), we can write

$$\left|\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}}{g_{\sigma NN}}\right|=0.47.$$
(19)
The relative phase chosen for the $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave function with respect to the $`N`$ wave function is not experimentally relevant in any two step process comprising $`N^{}(1440)`$ production and its subsequent decay. However it will play a relevant role in those reactions where the same field ($`\pi `$ or $`\sigma `$) couples simultaneously to both systems, $`NN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)`$. In these cases the interference term between both diagrams would determine the magnitude of the cross section .

The ratio given in Eq. (18) is similar to that obtained in Ref.  and a factor 1.5 smaller than the one obtained from the analysis of the partial decay width . Nonetheless one can find in the literature values for $`f_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}`$ ranging between 0.27$``$0.47 coming from different experimental analyses with uncertainties associated to the fitting of parameters .

Regarding the ratio obtained in Eq. (19), our result agrees quite well with the only experimental available result, obtained in Ref.  from the fit of the cross section of the isoscalar Roper excitation in $`p(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})`$ in the 10$``$15 GeV region, where a value of 0.48 is given.

Furthermore, we can give a very definitive prediction of the magnitude and sign of the ratio of the two ratios,

$$\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}}{g_{\pi NN}}=0.53\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}}{g_{\sigma NN}},$$
(20)
which is an exportable prediction of our model.

For the sake of completeness we give the values of $`g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}`$ and $`g_{\sigma NN}`$, though one should realize that the corresponding form factor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\sigma ^2)=2.97`$ differs quite much from 1. Moreover, the quark model dependence is quite strong what can make nonsense any comparison to other values obtained in the literature within a different framework. We get

$$\frac{g_{\sigma NN}^2}{4\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\sigma ^2}=72.4,$$
(21)
i.e. $`g_{\sigma NN}^2/4\pi =24.4`$, and

$$\frac{g_{\sigma NN}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\sigma ^2}=34.3,$$
(22)
i.e. $`g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}^2/4\pi =5.5`$.

Concerning the absolute value of $`g_{\sigma NN^{}}`$ some caveats are in order. Our value is scheme and quark-model dependent and should only be sensibly compared with a value obtained in the same framework. As a matter of fact, if we had extracted the quark model factor dependence from the coupling constant ($`e^{m_\sigma ^2b^2/2}`$)  the result would have been $`g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}^2/4\pi =`$1.14 that compares quite well with the value given in Ref. , $`g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}^2/4\pi =1.33`$. With respect to the results given in Ref.  they are very sensitive to both the decay width of the sigma meson into two pions and the mass of the sigma as reflected in the large error bars given. Both quantities are highly undetermined in the Particle Data Book , the mass of the sigma being constrained between 400$``$1200 MeV and the width between 600$``$1000 MeV. These values have been fixed arbitrarily in Ref.  to $`m_\sigma =`$500 MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =`$250 MeV. Varying the mass of the sigma between 400 and 700 MeV for a fixed width of 250 MeV, the coupling constant according to Eq. (9) of Ref.  varies between 0.18$``$2.54. Taking a width of 450 MeV the resulting coupling is 0.27$``$1.64. In both cases, our value lies in the interval given above what makes it compatible with the $`N^{}(1440)`$ decay and production phenomenology.

Let us finally mention that at short distances, the interaction could be fitted in terms of two different Yukawa functions, one depending on the meson mass, $`m`$, the other with a shorter range depending on $`\sqrt{(M_{N^(1440)}M_N+m)m}`$. These two Yukawa functions could be associated to the two diagrams with different intermediate states ($`mNN`$ and $`mNN^{}(1440)`$) appearing in time ordered perturbation theory when an effective calculation at the baryonic level is carried out (let us realize that in a quark calculation the intermediate state is always $`mqq`$, the $`NN^{}(1440)`$ mass difference being taken into account through the $`N`$ and $`N^{}(1440)`$ wave functions). For practical purposes, as done in previous works , separable expansions of the quark-based interactions can be performed and used in standard few-body calculations.

## V Summary

Starting from a quark-quark chiral symmetric interaction model and assuming simple harmonic wave functions for $`N`$ and $`N^{}(1440)`$ in terms of quarks we have derived a transition $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ potential in an adiabatic approach. The Roper resonance has been taken as a stable particle. Our results for $`S`$, $`P`$ and $`D`$ waves show significant differences concerning the character of the interaction (attractive or repulsive) at intermediate and longer distances with respect to the $`NNNN`$ and $`NN^{}(1440)NN^{}(1440)`$ cases for the chosen $`N^{}(1440)`$ overall phase. This has to do with the presence of a node in the Roper wave function. On the contrary the short-range interaction has the same character in all cases but the intensity gets reduced in the $`NNNN^{}(1440)`$ transition as a consequence of the lesser similarity between initial and final states that makes the Pauli principle to be less active. These results show that the usual procedure of obtaining $`NN^{}`$ interactions by a simple scaling of the $`NN`$ one should be handled with care.

The analysis of the asymptotic behavior of the potentials allows to determine the $`\pi NN^{}(1440)`$ and $`\sigma NN^{}(1440)`$ coupling constants on the same foot than $`\pi NN`$ and $`\sigma NN`$ couplings. Ratios between coupling constants of the type $`\frac{g_{\pi NN^{}(1440)}}{g_{\pi NN}}`$ and $`\frac{g_{\sigma NN^{}(1440)}}{g_{\sigma NN}}`$ are obtained. These ratios, whose sign is ambiguous, are coupling scheme independent and they have a softened quark model dependence (when compared to the dependence of the value of each constant separately). Furthermore the model allows the prediction of not only the magnitude but also the relative sign between the two ratios.

We should finally notice that for dynamical applications our results should be implemented by the inclusion of the $`N^{}(1440)`$ width. Quantum fluctuations of the two baryon center-of-mass, neglected here, could also play some role. Though these improvements will have a quantitative effect we do not think our predictions will be very much modified at a qualitative level. In this sense they could serve either as a first step for more refined calculations or as a possible guide for phenomenological applications.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank to E. Oset for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments and discussion. B.J. thanks Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología for financial support. A.V. thanks Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte of Spain for financial support through the Salvador de Madariaga program. This work has been partially funded by Dirección General de Investigación Científica y Técnica (DGICYT) under Contract No. BFM2001-3563, by Junta de Castilla y León under Contract No. SA-109/01, and by EC-RTN, Network ESOP, contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130.