format: text

text:
# Symmetric Functions in Noncommuting Variables

## 1. Introduction

Let $`[[x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}]]=[[𝐱]]`$ be the algebra of formal power series over $``$ in a countably infinite set of commuting variables $`x_i`$. For each positive integer $`m`$, the symmetric group $`𝔖_m`$ acts on $`[[𝐱]]`$ by

(1)
$$gf(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})=f(x_{g(1)},x_{g(2)},\mathrm{})$$

where $`g(i)=i`$ for $`i>m`$. We say that $`f`$ is symmetric if it is invariant under the action of $`𝔖_m`$ for all $`m1`$. The algebra of symmetric functions, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$, consists of all symmetric $`f`$ of bounded degree. This algebra has a long, venerable history in combinatorics, algebraic geometry, and representation theory; see, e.g., .

Now consider $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}=𝐱`$, the associative algebra of formal power series in the noncommuting variables $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}`$ Define the algebra of symmetric functions in noncommuting variables, $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$, to be the subalgebra consisting of all elements in $`𝐱`$ which are invariant under the action defined by (1) and of bounded degree. (This is not to be confused with the algebra of noncommutative symmetric functions of Gelfand et. al.  or the partially commutative symmetric functions studied by Lascoux and Schützenberger  as well as by Fomin and Greene .) This algebra was first studied by M. C. Wolf  in 1936. Her goal was to provide an analogue of the fundamental theorem of symmetric functions in this context. The concept then lay dormant for over 30 years until Bergman and Cohn generalized Wolf’s result . Still later, Kharchenko  proved that if $`V`$ is a graded vector space and $`G`$ a group of grading-preserving automorphisms of the tensor algebra of $`V`$, then the algebra of invariants of $`G`$ is also a tensor algebra. Anick  then removed the condition that $`G`$ preserve the grading. Most recently, Gebhard and Sagan  revived these ideas as a tool for studying Stanley’s chromatic symmetric function of a graph .

This paper gives the first systematic study of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ and is structured as follows. In the next section we define $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$-analogues for the monomial, power sum, elementary, and complete homogeneous bases of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$. We relate the two sets of bases in Theorem 2.1 using the projection map $`\rho :𝐱[[𝐱]]`$ which lets the variables commute. In section 3, we derive change of basis equations for these four bases by summation or Möbius inversion over the lattice of partitions. As a consequence, we obtain some properties of the fundamental involution $`\omega :\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ in Theorem 3.5. In the following section, we define a right inverse for $`\rho `$, called the lifting map, and study its relation with an inner product on $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$. In Section 5, we recall some facts about the algebra of MacMahon symmetric functions $``$ and show that a particular subspace of $``$ is naturally isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ as a vector space. This permits us to define a noncommuting-variable analogue, $`S_\lambda `$, of a Schur function in Section 6. The next two sections are devoted to obtaining analogues for $`S_\lambda `$ of the Jacobi-Trudi determinants (Theorem 7.1) and Robinson-Schensted-Knuth algorithm (Theorem 8.1). We end with a list of comments and open questions.

## 2. Basic definitions

Let $`n`$ be a nonnegative integer. For $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _l)`$ a partition of $`n`$, we write $`\lambda n`$ and denote the length of $`\lambda `$ by $`l=l(\lambda )`$. We will use the notation

(2)
$$\lambda =(1^{m_1},2^{m_2},\mathrm{},n^{m_n})$$

to mean that $`i`$ appears in $`\lambda `$ with multiplicity $`m_i`$, $`1in`$. The bases of the symmetric function algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$ are indexed by partitions. Following , we use the notation $`m_\lambda `$, $`p_\lambda `$, $`e_\lambda `$, and $`h_\lambda `$ for the monomial, power sum, elementary, and complete homogeneous symmetric functions bases. Our next goal is to define the analogues of these bases in noncommuting variables; these analogues will be labeled by set partitions.

Define $`[n]=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. A set partition $`\pi `$ of $`[n]`$ is a family of disjoint sets, called blocks $`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_l`$, whose union is $`[n]`$. We write $`\pi =B_1/B_2/\mathrm{}/B_l[n]`$ and define length $`l=l(\pi )`$ as the number of blocks. There is a natural mapping from set partitions to integer partitions given by

$$\lambda (\pi )=\lambda (B_1/B_2/\mathrm{}/B_l)=(|B_1|,|B_2|,\mathrm{},|B_l|)$$

where we assume that $`|B_1||B_2|\mathrm{}|B_l|`$. The integer partition $`\lambda (\pi )`$ is the type of the set partition $`\pi `$.

The partitions of $`[n]`$ form the partition lattice $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$. (Do not confuse $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ with the algebra $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$.) In $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ the ordering is by refinement: $`\pi \sigma `$ if each block $`B`$ of $`\pi `$ is contained in some block $`C`$ of $`\sigma `$. The meet (greatest lower bound) and join (least upper bound) operations in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ will be denoted $``$ and $``$, respectively. There is a rank function in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ given by $`r(\pi )=nl(\pi )`$.

To obtain analogues of the bases of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$ in this setting, it will be helpful to think of the elements of $`[n]`$ as indexing the positions in a monomial $`x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}`$. This makes sense because the variables do not commute. Now given $`\pi [n[`$, define the monomial symmetric function, $`m_\pi `$ in noncommuting variables by

$$\begin{array}{cc}m_\pi =\underset{(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n)}{}x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}\hfill & \text{where the sum is over all }n\text{-tuples }(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n)\text{ with}\hfill \\ & i_j=i_k\text{ if and only if }j,k\text{ are in the same block in }\pi \text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

For example,

$$m_{13/24}=x_1x_2x_1x_2+x_2x_1x_2x_1+x_1x_3x_1x_3+x_3x_1x_3x_1+x_2x_3x_2x_3+x_3x_2x_3x_2+\mathrm{}$$

These functions are precisely the symmetrizations of monomials and so they are invariant under the action of $`𝔖_m`$ defined previously. It follows easily that they form a basis for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$.

We define the power sum function in noncommuting variables, $`p_\pi `$, by

$`p_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n)}{}}x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}`$ where $`i_j=i_k`$ if $`j,k`$ are in the same block in $`\pi `$.
To illustrate,

$$p_{13/24}=x_1x_2x_1x_2+x_2x_1x_2x_1+x_1^4+x_2^4+\mathrm{}=m_{13/24}+m_{1234}.$$

The elementary symmetric function in noncommuting variables is

$`e_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n)}{}}x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}`$ where $`i_ji_k`$ if $`j,k`$ are in the same block in $`\pi `$.
By way of example,

$`e_{13/24}`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_1x_2x_2+x_2x_2x_1x_1+x_1x_2x_2x_1+x_2x_1x_2x_1+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`m_{12/34}+m_{14/23}+m_{12/3/4}+m_{14/2/3}+m_{1/23/4}+m_{1/2/34}+m_{1/2/3/4}.`$
To define the analogue of the complete homogeneous symmetric functions, it will be useful to introduce another way of looking at the previous definitions. (This was the method that Doubilet  used to define certain ordinary symmetric functions associated with set partitions.) Any two sets $`D,R`$ and a function $`f:DR`$ determine a kernel set partition, $`\mathrm{ker}fD`$, whose blocks are the nonempty preimages $`f^1(r)`$ for $`rR`$. For $`f:[n]𝐱`$ we denote by $`M_f`$ the corresponding monomial

$$M_f=f(1)f(2)\mathrm{}f(n).$$

Directly from these definitions it follows that

$$m_\pi =\underset{\mathrm{ker}f=\pi }{}M_f.$$

Using our running example, if $`\pi =13/24`$ then the functions with $`\mathrm{ker}f=\pi `$ are exactly those of the form $`f(1)=f(3)=x_i`$ and $`f(2)=f(4)=x_j`$ where $`ij`$. This $`f`$ gives rise to the monomial $`M_f=x_ix_jx_ix_j`$ in the sum for $`m_{13/24}`$.

Now define

(3)
$$h_\pi =\underset{(f,L)}{}M_f$$

where $`f:[n]𝐱`$ and $`L`$ is a linear ordering of the elements of each block of $`(\mathrm{ker}f)\pi `$. Continuing with our running example,

$$\begin{array}{c}h_{13/24}=m_{1/2/3/4}+m_{12/3/4}+2m_{13/2/4}+m_{14/2/3}+m_{1/23/4}+2m_{1/24/3}+m_{1/2/34}\hfill \\ +m_{12/34}+4m_{13/24}+m_{14/23}+2m_{123/4}+2m_{124/3}+2m_{134/2}+2m_{1/234}+4m_{1234}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now we would like to give some justification to the above nomenclature by exhibiting its relation to that used for the ordinary symmetric functions. To this end, consider the projection map

$$\rho :𝐱[[𝐱]]$$

which merely lets the variables commute. We will need the notation

$`\lambda !`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1!\lambda _2!\mathrm{}\lambda _l!`$
$`\lambda ^!`$ $`=`$ $`m_1!m_2!\mathrm{}m_n!`$
where the $`m_i`$ are the multiplicities in (2). We extend these conventions to set partitions by letting $`\pi !=\lambda (\pi )!`$ and $`\pi ^!=\lambda (\pi )^!`$. Note that

(4)
$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{\lambda }\right):=\text{number of }\pi \text{ of type }\lambda =\frac{n!}{\lambda !\lambda ^!}.$$

The next proposition was proved by Doubilet for his set partition analogues of ordinary symmetric functions, and a similar proof can be given in the noncommuting case. The alternative demonstration given below brings out the combinatorics behind some of Doubilet’s algebraic manipulations.

###### Theorem 2.1.

The images of our bases under the projection map are:

1. $`\rho (m_\pi )=\pi ^!m_{\lambda (\pi )}`$,
2. $`\rho (p_\pi )=p_{\lambda (\pi )}`$,
3. $`\rho (e_\pi )=\pi !e_{\lambda (\pi )}`$,
4. $`\rho (h_\pi )=\pi !h_{\lambda (\pi )}`$.

###### Proof.

For (i), let $`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_k`$ be all blocks of $`\pi `$ of a given size. Recalling the remarks immediately before the definition of $`m_\pi `$, we see that $`m_\pi `$ is constant on the positions indexed by each of these $`B_i`$. Since $`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_k`$ are of the same size, the variables in the positions indexed by $`B_i`$ can be interchanged with the variables in the positions indexed by $`B_j`$ for $`1i,jk`$ to give another monomial in the sum for $`m_\pi `$ which maps to the same monomial in the projection. It follows that these blocks give rise to a factor of $`k!`$ in the projection, and so $`\pi `$ will contribute $`\pi ^!`$.

To prove (ii), note that $`p_{[n]}=m_{[n]}`$ and so, from (i), $`\lambda (p_{[n]})=m_n=p_n`$. Now $`p_\lambda =p_{\lambda _1}p_{\lambda _2}\mathrm{}p_{\lambda _l}`$. Furthermore, $`p_\pi =p_{B_1/B_2/\mathrm{}/B_l}`$ is precisely the shuffle of $`p_{[\lambda _1]}`$, $`p_{[\lambda _2]}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`p_{[\lambda _l]}`$ where $`|B_i|=\lambda _i`$ and the elements from $`p_{[\lambda _i]}`$ are only permitted to be in the positions indexed by $`B_i`$. (We are letting the shuffle operation distribute over addition.) The desired equality follows.

The proof of (iii) is similar. We have $`\rho (e_{[n]})=n!e_n`$ since if all $`n`$ positions have different variables, then they can be permuted in any of $`n!`$ ways and still give the same monomial in the projection. In the general case, we have the same phenomenon of multiplication corresponding to shuffling, with each block $`B`$ contributing $`|B|!`$. So the total contribution is $`\pi !`$.

Finally we consider (iv). By the same argument as in (iii), it suffices to show that $`\rho (h_{[n]})=n!h_n`$. Consider a monomial $`M=x_{j_1}^{\lambda _1}x_{j_2}^{\lambda _2}\mathrm{}a_{j_l}^{\lambda _l}`$ in $`h_n`$. These variables can be rearranged to form $`n!/\lambda !`$ monomials in noncommuting variables where $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _l)`$. To obtain one of these monomials in (3) we must have $`\lambda (\mathrm{ker}f)=\lambda `$ since $`\mathrm{ker}f[n]=\mathrm{ker}f`$. But then the number of pairs $`(f,L)`$ is just $`\lambda !`$. So the number of monomials in $`h_\pi `$ mapping to $`M`$ under $`\rho `$ is just $`\lambda !n!/\lambda !=n!`$, which is what we wanted. ∎

We end this section by defining a second action of the symmetric group which is also interesting. Since our variables do not commute, we can define an action on places (rather than variables). Explicitly, consider the vector space of elements of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ which are homogeneous of degree $`n`$. Given a monomial of that degree, we define

(5)
$$g(x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_n})=x_{i_{g(1)}}x_{i_{g(2)}}\mathrm{}x_{i_{g(n)}}$$

and extend linearly. It is easy to see that if $`b_\pi `$ is a basis element for any of our four bases, then $`gb_\pi =b_{g\pi }`$ where $`g`$ acts on set partitions in the usual manner.

## 3. Change of basis

We will now show that all the symmetric functions in noncommuting variables defined in the previous section form bases for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$. Since we already know this for the $`m_\pi `$, it suffices to find change of basis formulas expressing each function in terms of the $`m_\pi `$ and vice-versa. Doubilet  has obtained these results as well as those in the next section in a formal setting that includes ours as a special case. But we replicate his theorems and proofs here for completeness, to present them in standard notation, and to extend and simplify some of them.

Expressing each symmetric function in terms of $`m_\pi `$ is easily done directly from the definitions, so the following proposition is given without proof. In it, all lattice operations refer to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ and $`\widehat{0}`$ is the unique minimal element $`1/2/\mathrm{}/n`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

We have the following change of basis formulae.

1. $`p_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \pi }{}}m_\sigma `$,
2. $`e_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \pi =\widehat{0}}{}}m_\sigma `$,
3. $`h_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(\sigma \pi )!m_\sigma `$.

To express $`m_\pi `$ in terms of the other functions, we will need the Möbius function of the parition lattice $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$. The Möbius function of any partially ordered set $`P`$ is the function $`\mu :P\times P`$ defined inductively by

$$\mu (a,b)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }a=b\text{,}\hfill \\ \underset{ac<b}{}\mu (a,c)\hfill & \text{else.}\hfill \end{array}$$

This can be rewritten in the useful and more intuitive form

(6)
$$\underset{acb}{}\mu (a,c)=\delta _{a,b}$$

where $`\delta _{a,b}`$ is the Kronecker delta. For more information about Möbius functions, see the seminal article of Rota  or the book of Stanley .

The Möbius function of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ is well known. In particular

$$\mu (\widehat{0},\widehat{1})=(1)^{n1}(n1)!$$

where $`\widehat{1}=12\mathrm{}n`$ is the unique maximal element of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$. This is enough to determine $`\mu `$ on any interval of this lattice. For example, for any $`\pi =B_1/B_2/\mathrm{}/B_l`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda (\pi )`$ we have the lattice isomorphism $`[\widehat{0},\pi ]_i\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda _i}`$. Since the Möbius function is preserved by isomorphism and distributes over products, we have

$$\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )=\underset{i}{}(1)^{\lambda _i1}(\lambda _i1)!$$

Note that, up to sign, this is just the number of permutations $`\alpha 𝔖_n`$ which have disjoint cycle decomposition $`\alpha =\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _l`$ where, for $`1il`$, $`\alpha _i`$ is a cyclic permutation of the elements in $`B_i`$. It follows that

$$\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Pi }_n}{}|\mu (\widehat{0},\sigma )|=n!$$

Or more generally, because of multiplicativity,

(7)
$$\underset{\sigma \pi }{}|\mu (\widehat{0},\sigma )|=\pi !$$

a result which will be useful shortly. We finally note that if $`\sigma =C_1/C_2/\mathrm{}/C_m`$ satisfies $`\sigma \pi `$ then we still have an isomorphism $`[\sigma ,\pi ]_i\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda _i(\sigma ,\pi )}`$ where $`\lambda (\sigma ,\pi )`$ is the integer partition whose $`i`$th part is the the number of blocks of $`\sigma `$ contained in the $`i`$th block of $`\pi `$. (We assume the blocks are listed so that the parts are in weakly decreasing order). Of course, $`\lambda (\widehat{0},\pi )`$ is just the type of $`\pi `$.

The rest of the proofs in this section will all be based on the Möbius Inversion Theorem . We will also need a simple corollary of that theorem which slightly generalizes a result of Doubilet .

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $`P`$ be a poset, let $`F`$ be a field, and consider three functions $`f,g,h:PF`$ where $`g(a)0`$ for all $`aP`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}f(a)=\underset{ba}{}g(b)\underset{cb}{}h(c)\text{for all }aP\hfill \\ h(a)=\underset{ca}{}\frac{\mu (a,c)}{g(c)}\underset{bc}{}\mu (b,c)f(b)\text{for all }aP.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We will prove the forward direction as the converse is obtained by just reversing the steps. Doing (dual) Möbius inversion on the outer sum for $`f(a)`$ gives

$$g(a)\underset{ca}{}h(c)=\underset{ba}{}\mu (b,a)f(b).$$

We can divide by $`g(a)0`$ and then invert the sum containing $`h(c)`$, which gives the desired result.∎

We are now in a position to invert each of the sums in Theorem 3.1.

###### Theorem 3.3.

We have the following change of basis formulae.

1. $`m_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \pi }{}}\mu (\pi ,\sigma )p_\sigma `$,
2. $`m_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \pi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (\pi ,\sigma )}{\mu (\widehat{0},\sigma )}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau \sigma }{}}\mu (\tau ,\sigma )e_\tau `$,
3. $`m_\pi ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \pi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (\pi ,\sigma )}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\sigma )|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau \sigma }{}}\mu (\tau ,\sigma )h_\tau `$.

###### Proof.

Equation (i) follows immediately from the Möbius Inversion Theorem applied to part (i) of Theorem 3.1.

For identity (ii), use equation (6) to write (ii) of Theorem 3.1 in the form

$$e_\pi =\underset{\sigma }{}\left(\underset{\tau \sigma \pi }{}\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )\right)m_\sigma =\underset{\tau \pi }{}\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )\underset{\sigma \tau }{}m_\sigma .$$

Using the corollary to invert this double sum gives the desired result.

Finally consider (iii). Applying (7) to Theorem 3.1 (iii) gives

$$h_\pi =\underset{\sigma }{}\left(\underset{\tau \sigma \pi }{}|\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )|\right)m_\sigma =\underset{\tau \pi }{}|\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )|\underset{\sigma \tau }{}m_\sigma .$$

The corollary again provides the last step.∎

The other bases-change equations are derived using similar techniques, so we will content ourselves with merely stating the result after one last bit of notation. We define the sign of $`\pi `$, $`(1)^\pi `$, to be the sign of any permutation obtained by replacing each block of $`\pi `$ by a cycle. Note that

(8)
$$\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )=(1)^\pi |\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )|.$$

###### Theorem 3.4.

We have the following change of basis formulae.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill e_\pi & =& \underset{\sigma \pi }{}\mu (\widehat{0},\sigma )p_\sigma \hfill & \hfill p_\pi & =& \frac{1}{\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )}\underset{\sigma \pi }{}\mu (\sigma ,\pi )e_\sigma \hfill \\ \hfill h_\pi & =& \underset{\sigma \pi }{}|\mu (\widehat{0},\sigma )|p_\sigma \hfill & \hfill p_\pi & =& \frac{1}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )|}\underset{\sigma \pi }{}\mu (\sigma ,\pi )h_\sigma \hfill \\ \hfill e_\pi & =& \underset{\sigma \pi }{}(1)^\sigma \lambda (\sigma ,\pi )!h_\sigma \hfill & \hfill h_\pi & =& \underset{\sigma \pi }{}(1)^\sigma \lambda (\sigma ,\pi )!e_\sigma \mathit{}\hfill \end{array}$$

As an application of these equations, we will derive the properties of an analogue of the involution $`\omega :\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$ defined by linearly extending $`\omega (e_\lambda )=h_\lambda `$. Define a map on $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$, which we will also call $`\omega `$, by $`\omega (e_\pi )=h_\pi `$ for all set partitions $`\pi `$ and linear extension.

###### Theorem 3.5.

The map $`\omega :\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ has the following properties.

1. It is an involution.
2. Each $`p_\pi `$ is an eigenvector for $`\omega `$ with eigenvalue $`(1)^\pi `$.
3. We have $`\omega \rho =\rho \omega `$.

###### Proof.

(i) It suffices to show that the change of basis matrix between the elementary and complete homogeneous symmetric functions equals its inverse. This follows directly from Theorem 3.4.

(ii) We merely compute the action of $`\omega `$ on the power sum basis by expressing it in terms of the elementary symmetric functions and using equation (8)

$$\omega (p_\pi )=\omega \left(\frac{1}{\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )}\underset{\sigma \pi }{}\mu (\sigma ,\pi )e_\sigma \right)=\frac{1}{\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )}\underset{\sigma \pi }{}\mu (\sigma ,\pi )h_\sigma =\frac{(1)^\pi }{|\mu (0,\pi )|}\underset{\sigma \pi }{}\mu (\sigma ,\pi )h_\sigma =(1)^\pi p_\pi .$$

(iii) It suffices to show that the desired equation holds on a basis. So we compute using Theorem 2.1 (iii) and (iv) : $`\omega \rho (e_\pi )=\omega (\pi !e_{\lambda (\pi )})=\pi !h_{\lambda (\pi )}=\rho (h_\pi )=\rho \omega (e_\pi )`$.∎

## 4. The lifting map and inner products

We will now introduce a right inverse $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ for the projection map $`\rho `$ and an inner product for which $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is an isometry. Define the lifting map $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ by linearly extending

(9)
$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(m_\lambda )=\frac{\lambda !}{n!}\underset{\lambda (\pi )=\lambda }{}m_\pi .$$

###### Proposition 4.1.

The map $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is the identity map on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$.

###### Proof.

Equation (4) and Theorem 2.1 (i) give $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }(m_\lambda )=\frac{\lambda !}{n!}_{\lambda (\pi )=\lambda }\lambda ^!m_\lambda =m_\lambda .`$

Recall that the standard inner product on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$ is defined by $`m_\lambda ,h_\mu =\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }`$. We define its analogue in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ by

(10)
$$m_\pi ,h_\sigma =n!\delta _{\pi ,\sigma },$$

where $`\pi [n]`$. This bilinear form respects the grading of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ in the sense that if $`f,g`$ are homogeneous symmetric functions of different degrees, then $`f,g=0`$.

###### Theorem 4.2.

The bilinear form $`,`$ is symmetric, positive definite, and invariant under the action (5).

###### Proof.

For symmetry, it suffices to show that $`h_\pi ,h_\sigma =h_\sigma ,h_\pi `$. By Theorem 3.1 (iii),

(11)
$$h_\pi ,h_\sigma =\underset{\tau }{}(\pi \tau )!m_\tau ,h_\sigma =n!(\pi \sigma )!$$

where we let $`(\pi \sigma )!=0`$ if $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ are partitions of different sets. Noting that $`(\pi \sigma )!=(\sigma \pi )!`$ completes the proof of symmetry.

As for positive definiteness, take $`f\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ and write $`f=_\pi c_\pi p_\pi `$ for certain coefficients $`c_\pi `$. Then, using the expansions for the power sums in Theorems 3.1 and 3.4, we have

$`f,f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}c_\sigma p_\sigma ,{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}c_\tau p_\tau `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}c_\sigma {\displaystyle \underset{\pi \sigma }{}}m_\pi ,{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}c_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \tau }{}}\mu (\pi ,\tau )h_\pi `$
$`=`$ $`n!{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \pi }{}}c_\sigma \right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\tau \pi }{}}c_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )|}}\mu (\pi ,\tau )\right).`$
Now the coefficient of $`c_\sigma c_\tau `$ in this last sum is

$$\frac{n!}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )|}\underset{\sigma \pi \tau }{}\mu (\pi ,\tau )=\frac{n!\delta _{\sigma ,\tau }}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )|}.$$

Since this is zero for $`\sigma \tau `$ and positive otherwise, our form is positive definite.

Finally, it suffices to verify invariance under the action on a pair of bases:

$$gm_\pi ,gh_\sigma =m_{g\pi },h_{g\sigma }=n!\delta _{g\pi ,g\sigma }=n!\delta _{\pi ,\sigma }=m_\pi ,h_\sigma .\mathit{}$$

###### Theorem 4.3.

The map $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ an isometry, i.e., $`f,g=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(f),\stackrel{~}{\rho }(g)`$ for $`f,g\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to show that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(m_\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{\rho }(h_\mu )=m_\lambda ,h_\mu `$ for all $`\lambda ,\mu `$. To compute $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(h_\mu )`$, consider

$$H_\mu =\underset{\lambda (\pi )=\mu }{}h_\pi .$$

Expressing $`H_\mu `$ in terms of the monomial symmetric function basis using Theorem 3.1 (iii), we see that the coefficient of $`m_\sigma `$ is the sum of $`(\pi \sigma )!`$ over all $`\lambda (\pi )=\mu `$. But the usual action of the symmetric group on set partitions shows that this quantity only depends on $`\lambda (\sigma )`$. Thus by (9), $`H_\mu `$ must be in the image of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. Since $`\rho `$ is a left-inverse for $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, we see that $`H_\mu `$ is the image under $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ of

$$\rho (H_\mu )=\underset{\lambda (\pi )=\mu }{}\rho (h_\pi )=\underset{\lambda (\pi )=\mu }{}\lambda (\pi )!h_{\lambda (\pi )}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{\mu }\right)\mu !h_\mu =\frac{n!}{\mu ^!}h_\mu .$$

So finally

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(m_\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{\rho }(h_\mu )=\frac{\lambda !}{n!}\underset{\lambda (\pi )=\lambda }{}m_\pi ,\frac{\mu ^!}{n!}\underset{\lambda (\sigma )=\mu }{}h_\sigma =\frac{\lambda !\lambda ^!}{n!^2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{\lambda }\right)n!\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }=\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }=m_\lambda ,h_\mu .\mathit{}$$

To define the inner product (10) in terms of other pairs of bases, we will need the zeta function of the partition lattice $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$, defined by

$$\zeta (\pi ,\sigma )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\pi \sigma \text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{else.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Theorem 4.4.

The following formulae define equivalent bilinear forms.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill e_\pi ,e_\sigma & =& n!(\pi \sigma )!\hfill & \hfill e_\pi ,h_\sigma & =& n!\delta _{\pi \sigma ,\widehat{0}}\hfill \\ \hfill e_\pi ,p_\sigma & =& (1)^\sigma n!\zeta (\sigma ,\pi )\hfill & \hfill e_\pi ,m_\sigma & =& (1)^\sigma n!\lambda (\sigma ,\pi )!\zeta (\sigma ,\pi )\hfill \\ \hfill h_\pi ,h_\sigma & =& n!(\pi \sigma )!\hfill & \hfill h_\pi ,p_\sigma & =& n!\zeta (\sigma ,\pi )\hfill \\ \hfill h_\pi ,m_\sigma & =& n!\delta _{\pi ,\sigma }\hfill & \hfill p_\pi ,p_\sigma & =& n!\frac{\delta _{\pi ,\sigma }}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )|}\hfill \\ \hfill p_\pi ,m_\sigma & =& n!\frac{\mu (\sigma ,\pi )\zeta (\sigma ,\pi )}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\pi )|}\hfill & \hfill m_\pi ,m_\sigma & =& n!\underset{\tau \pi \sigma }{}\frac{\mu (\pi ,\tau )\mu (\sigma ,\tau )}{|\mu (\widehat{0},\tau )|}\mathit{}\hfill \end{array}$$

The proof is similar to the derivation of (11), and is omitted.

## 5. MacMahon symmetric functions

Schur functions in noncommuting variables will be defined in Section 6. This will require another piece of machinery, namely the MacMahon symmetric functions. The connection between symmetric functions in noncommuting variables and MacMahon symmetric functions was first pointed out by Rosas .

Consider $`n`$ sets, each consisting of a countably infinite number of commuting variables,

$`\dot{𝐱}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\dot{x}_1,\dot{x}_2,\mathrm{}\},`$
$`\ddot{𝐱}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\ddot{x}_1,\ddot{x}_2,\mathrm{}\},`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`𝐱^{(𝐧)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{x_1^{(n)},x_2^{(n)},\mathrm{}\}.`$
For each positive integer $`m`$, the symmetric group $`𝔖_m`$ acts on $`[[\dot{𝐱},\ddot{𝐱},\mathrm{},𝐱^{(𝐧)}]]`$ diagonally, i.e.,

(12)
$$gf(\dot{x}_1,\ddot{x}_1,\mathrm{},\dot{x}_2,\ddot{x}_2,\mathrm{})=f(\dot{x}_{g(1)},\ddot{x}_{g(1)},\mathrm{},\dot{x}_{g(2)},\ddot{x}_{g(2)},\mathrm{}).$$

where $`g(i)=i`$ for $`i>m`$. We say that $`f[[\dot{𝐱},\ddot{𝐱},\mathrm{},𝐱^{(𝐧)}]]`$ is symmetric if it is invariant under the action of $`𝔖_m`$ for all $`m1`$.

Consider a monomial

$$M=\dot{x}_1^{a_1}\ddot{x}_1^{b_1}\mathrm{}\left(x_1^{(n)}\right)^{c_1}\dot{x}_2^{a_2}\ddot{x}_2^{b_2}\mathrm{}\left(x_2^{(n)}\right)^{c_2}\mathrm{}.$$

Letting $`\lambda ^i=[a_i,b_i,\mathrm{},c_i]`$ be the exponent sequence of the variables of subscript $`i`$, we define the multiexponent of $`M`$ to be the vector partition

$$\stackrel{}{\lambda }=\{\lambda ^1,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{}\}=\{[a_1,b_1,\mathrm{},c_1],[a_2,b_2,\mathrm{},c_2],\mathrm{}\}.$$

By summing up the vectors which make up the parts of $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ we get the multidegree of $`M`$

$$\stackrel{}{m}=[m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_n]=[a_1,b_1,\mathrm{},c_1]+[a_2,b_2,\mathrm{},c_2]+\mathrm{}.$$

In this situation we write $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }\stackrel{}{m}`$, $`\stackrel{}{m}m`$ where $`m=_im_i`$, and call $`m`$ the degree of $`M`$. We say that $`f[[\dot{𝐱},\ddot{𝐱},\mathrm{},𝐱^{(𝐧)}]]`$ has bounded degree if there is a positive integer $`m`$ such that all monomials in $`f`$ have degree at most $`m`$. Define the algebra of MacMahon symmetric functions, $`=(\dot{𝐱},\ddot{𝐱},\mathrm{},𝐱^{(𝐧)})`$, to be the subalgebra of $`[[\dot{𝐱},\ddot{𝐱},\mathrm{},𝐱^{(𝐧)}]]`$ consisting of all $`f`$ which are symmetric under the action defined by (12) and of bounded degree.

Given a vector partition $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$, there is an associated monomial MacMahon symmetric function defined by

$$m_\stackrel{}{\lambda }=\text{ sum of all the monomials with multiexponent }\stackrel{}{\lambda }\text{.}$$

By way of example,

$$m_{[2,1],[3,0]}=\dot{x}_1^2\ddot{x}_1\dot{x}_2^3+\dot{x}_1^3\dot{x}_2^2\ddot{x}_2+\mathrm{}.$$

Note that we drop the curly brackets around $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ for readability. These functions are precisely the symmetrizations of monomials in $`[[\dot{𝐱},\ddot{𝐱},\mathrm{},𝐱^{(𝐧)}]]`$ and so they are invariant under the action (12) of $`𝔖_m`$ for all $`m1`$. It follows easily that they form a basis for $``$.

Call a basis $`b_\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ of $``$ multiplicative if it satisfies

$$b_\stackrel{}{\lambda }=b_{\lambda ^1}b_{\lambda ^2}\mathrm{}b_{\lambda ^l}.$$

We now define the bases of power sum, elementary, and complete homogeneous MacMahon symmetric functions to be multiplicative with

$`p_{[a,b,\mathrm{},c]}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{[a,b,\mathrm{},c]}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b,\mathrm{},c}{}}e_{[a,b,\mathrm{},c]}q^ar^b\mathrm{}s^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i1}{}}\left(1+\dot{x}_iq+\ddot{x}_ir+\mathrm{}+x_i^{(n)}s\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b,\mathrm{},c}{}}h_{[a,b,\mathrm{},c]}q^ar^b\mathrm{}s^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\dot{x}_iq\ddot{x}_ir\mathrm{}x_i^{(n)}s}}.`$
To see the connection with noncommutative symmetric functions, let $`[1^n]`$ denote the vector of $`n`$ ones. Now consider the subspace $`_{[1^n]}`$ of $``$ spanned by all the $`m_\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ where $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }[1^n]`$. There is a linear map

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:\underset{n0}{}_{[1^n]}\mathrm{\Pi }$$

given by

$$\dot{x}_i\ddot{x}_j\mathrm{}x_k^{(n)}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}x_ix_j\mathrm{}x_k.$$

Given any $`B[n]`$, the characteristic vector of $`B`$ is $`[b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_n]`$ where $`b_i=1`$ if $`iB`$ and $`b_i=0`$ otherwise.

###### Theorem 5.1 ().

The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an isomorphism of vector spaces. Furthermore, for each basis we have discussed

$$b_{\lambda ^1,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{},\lambda ^l}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}b_{B_1/B_2/\mathrm{}/B_l}$$

where $`b=m`$, $`p`$, $`e`$, or $`h`$, and $`\lambda ^i`$ is the characteristic vector of $`B_i`$.∎

By way of illustration $`b_{[1,0,1,0],[0,1,0,1]}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}b_{13/24}`$ for any of our bases.

## 6. Schur functions

We will now give a combinatorial definition of an analogue of a Schur function in the setting of MacMahon symmetric functions. This will give, via the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, such a function in noncommuting variables. Consider the alphabet

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{A}\ddot{A}\mathrm{}A^{(n)}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\dot{1},\dot{2},\mathrm{}\}\{\ddot{1},\ddot{2},\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{}\{1^{(n)},2^{(n)},\mathrm{}\}.`$
Partially order $`A`$ by

(13)
$$i^{(k)}<j^{(l)}\text{if and only if}i<j.$$

Consider a partition $`\lambda `$ and a vector $`\stackrel{}{m}=[m_1,\mathrm{},m_n]`$ such that $`\lambda ,\stackrel{}{m}m`$ for some nonnegative integer $`m`$. Define a dotted Young tableaux $`\dot{T}`$ of shape $`\lambda `$ and multidegree $`\stackrel{}{m}=[m_1,\mathrm{},m_n]`$ to be a filling of the shape of $`\lambda `$ (drawn in English style) with elements of $`A`$ so that rows are nondecreasing, columns are strictly increasing, and there are $`m_k`$ entries with $`k`$ dots. Now define the corresponding MacMahon Schur function to be

$$S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}=\underset{\lambda (\dot{T})=\lambda }{}M_{\dot{T}}\text{where}M_{\dot{T}}=\underset{i^{(j)}\dot{T}}{}x_i^{(j)}$$

and the factor $`x_i^{(j)}`$ occurs in the above product with multiplicity, i.e., the same number of times that $`i^{(j)}`$ occurs in $`\dot{T}`$. For example, if $`\lambda =(3,1)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{m}=[2,2]`$, then the coefficient of $`\dot{x}_1^2\ddot{x}_1\ddot{x}_2`$ in $`S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}`$ is 3, corresponding to the three dotted tableaux

$$T_1=\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{1}& \dot{1}& \ddot{1}\\ \ddot{2}& & \end{array},T_2=\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{1}& \ddot{1}& \dot{1}\\ \ddot{2}& & \end{array},T_3=\begin{array}{ccc}\ddot{1}& \dot{1}& \dot{1}\\ \ddot{2}& & \end{array}.$$

The notion of multidegree generalizes to any multiset $`M`$ of elements from $`A`$. If $`M`$ has $`m_k`$ elements with $`k`$ dots, we write $`\stackrel{}{m}(M)=\stackrel{}{m}=[m_1,\mathrm{},m_n]`$.

###### Theorem 6.1.

The function $`S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}`$ is a MacMahon symmetric function.

###### Proof.

It is obvious that $`S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}`$ is of bounded degree, so we need only show that it is symmetric. Because any permutation is a product of adjacent transpositions, it suffices to show that $`S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}`$ is invariant under the transposition $`(i,i+1)`$ where $`i1`$. So it suffices to find a shape-preserving involution on dotted tableaux $`\dot{T}\dot{T}^{}`$ which exchanges the number of elements equal to $`i^{(k)}`$ with the number equal to $`(i+1)^{(k)}`$ for all $`k`$, $`1kn`$. We will use a generalization of a map of Knuth  used to prove that the ordinary Schur functions are symmetric.

Since $`\dot{T}`$ is semistandard, each column contains either a pair $`i^{(k)},(i+1)^{(l)}`$; exactly one of $`i^{(k)}`$ or $`(i+1)^{(l)}`$; or neither. In the first case, replace the pair by $`i^{(l)},(i+1)^{(k)}`$. In the second, replace $`i^{(k)}`$ by $`(i+1)^{(k)}`$ or replace $`(i+1)^{(l)}`$ by $`i^{(l)}`$ as appropriate. And in the third case there is nothing to do. It is easy to verify that this involution has the desired properties. ∎

If $`\stackrel{}{m}=[1^n]`$ then we will write $`S_\lambda `$ for $`S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}`$ and make no distinction between $`S_\lambda `$ and its image under the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The latter will cause no problems because we will never be multiplying these functions. Note also that if $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ has only one component, then $`S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}=s_\lambda `$, the ordinary Schur function.

The $`S_\lambda `$ do not form a basis for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ since we only have one for every integer, rather than set, partition. However, we can still provide analoques of some of the familiar properties of ordinary Schur functions. To state our results, we will need the dominance order on integer partitions, $`\mu \lambda `$, and the Kostka numbers, $`K_{\lambda ,\mu }`$. (For definitions, see .)

###### Theorem 6.2.

The functions $`S_\lambda `$ have the following properties.

1. $`S_\lambda ={\displaystyle \underset{\mu \lambda }{}}\mu !K_{\lambda ,\mu }{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda (\sigma )=\mu }{}}m_\sigma .`$
2. The $`S_\lambda `$ are linearly independent.
3. $`\rho (S_\lambda )=n!s_\lambda `$.
4. $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(n!s_\lambda )=S_\lambda `$.
5. $`S_\lambda ,S_\mu =n!^2\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }`$.

###### Proof.

(i) Consider a monomial $`x^{\dot{T}}`$ where $`\dot{T}`$ has shape $`\lambda `$ and suppose that this monomial occurs in $`m_\sigma `$ where $`\lambda (\sigma )=\mu `$. Then the number of ordinary tableaux $`T`$ with the same content, $`\mu `$, as $`\dot{T}`$ is $`K_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ and this is only nonzero for $`\mu \lambda `$. Furthermore, the number of ways to distribute dots in $`T`$ so as to give the same monomial as $`x^{\dot{T}}`$ is $`\mu !`$, so this finishes the proof.

(ii) The lexicographic order on integer partitions is a linear extension of the dominance order. So from (i), each $`S_\lambda `$ only contains $`m_\sigma `$ where $`\lambda (\sigma )`$ is lexicographically less than or equal to $`\lambda `$, and those with $`\lambda (\sigma )=\lambda `$ have nonzero coefficient. So if one orders the $`S_\lambda `$ this way, then each Schur function will contain at least one monomial symmetric function not found previously in the list.

(iii) Using (i) again along with Theorem 2.1 (i) and equation (4) gives

$$\rho (S_\lambda )=\underset{\mu \lambda }{}\mu !K_{\lambda ,\mu }\underset{\lambda (\sigma )=\mu }{}\rho (m_\sigma )=\underset{\mu \lambda }{}\mu !K_{\lambda ,\mu }\mu ^!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{\mu }\right)m_\mu =n!\underset{\mu \lambda }{}K_{\lambda ,\mu }m_\mu =n!s_\lambda .$$

(iv) Clearly from (i), all $`m_\sigma `$ with $`\lambda (\sigma )=\mu `$ have the same coefficient in $`S_\lambda `$. So $`S_\lambda `$ is in the image of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. The equality now follows from (iii) and the fact that $`\rho `$ is a left-inverse for $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$.

(v) We compute using (iv) and the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is an isometry

$$S_\lambda ,S_\mu =\stackrel{~}{\rho }(n!s_\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{\rho }(n!s_\mu )=n!s_\lambda ,n!s_\mu =n!^2\delta _{\lambda ,\mu }.\mathit{}$$

## 7. Jacobi-Trudi determinants

In this section, we prove analogs of the Jacobi-Trudi determinants  for the $`S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ is arbitrary. The ordinary and noncommuting variable cases are obtained as specializations. We use the lattice-path approach implicit in Lindström  and developed explicitly by Gessel and Viennot ; see  for an exposition.

If $`f[[\dot{𝐱},\ddot{𝐱},\mathrm{},𝐱^{(𝐧)}]]`$ and $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ is a vector, then let $`\stackrel{}{m}f`$ denote the sum of all terms $`q_MM`$ in $`f`$ where $`q_M`$ and $`M`$ is a monomial of multidegree $`\stackrel{}{m}`$. Also let $`\lambda ^{}`$ denote the conjugate of the partition $`\lambda `$.

###### Theorem 7.1.

Given a partition $`\lambda `$ and vector $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ with $`\lambda ,\stackrel{}{m}m`$, we have

$$S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}=\stackrel{}{m}det\left(\underset{\stackrel{}{t}\lambda _ii+j}{}h_\stackrel{}{t}\right)$$

and

$$S_\lambda ^{}^\stackrel{}{m}=\stackrel{}{m}det\left(\underset{\stackrel{}{t}\lambda _ii+j}{}e_\stackrel{}{t}\right).$$

###### Proof.

We will only prove the first identity as the second is obtained by a similar argument.

Consider infinite paths in the extended integer lattice $`\times (\mathrm{})`$:

$$P=s_1,s_2,s_3,\mathrm{}$$

where the $`s_t`$ are steps of unit length either northward (N) or eastward (E). (A point of the form $`(i^{},\mathrm{})`$ can only be reached by ending $`P`$ with an infinite number of northward steps along the line $`x=i^{}`$.) If $`P`$ starts at $`(i,j)`$, then we label an eastward step along the line $`y=j^{}`$ with the label

$$L(s_t)=(j^{}j+1)^{(k)}$$

for some $`k`$ which can vary with the step, $`1kn`$. Considering $`P`$ as a multiset of labels, it has a well-defined multidegree $`\stackrel{}{t}`$. Then for $`\stackrel{}{t}t`$ we have

$$h_\stackrel{}{t}=\underset{P}{}M_P\text{where}M_P=\underset{\mathrm{}^{(k)}}{}x_{\mathrm{}}^{(k)},$$

the sum being over all paths of multidegree $`\stackrel{}{t}`$ from $`(i,j)`$ to $`(i+t,\mathrm{})`$ and the product being over all labels in $`P`$ taken with multiplicity. Note also that if the labels in $`P`$ are read off from left to right, then they correspond to a single-rowed dotted Young tableau of multidegree $`\stackrel{}{t}`$.

To get products of complete homogeneous symmetric functions and tableaux of shape $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _l)`$, consider initial vertices $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_l`$ and final vertices $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_l`$ with coordinates

(14)
$$u_i=(i,1)\text{and}v_i=(\lambda _ii,\mathrm{})$$

for $`1il`$. Consider a family of labeled paths $`𝒫=(P_1,\mathrm{},P_l)`$ where, for each $`i`$, $`P_i`$ is a path from $`u_i`$ to $`v_{g(i)}`$ for some $`g𝔖_l`$. We assign to $`𝒫`$ a monomial and a sign by

$$M_𝒫=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}M_P\text{and}(1)^𝒫=(1)^g,$$

respectively. So denoting the determinant by $`D`$, we have

$$D=\underset{𝒫}{}(1)^𝒫M_𝒫$$

where the sum is over all path families with beginning and ending vertices given by (14).

Construct a monomial-preserving, sign-reversing involution $`ı`$ on such $`𝒫`$ which are intersecting as follows. Let $`i`$ be the smallest index such that $`P_i`$ intersects some $`P_j`$ and take $`j`$ minimum. Consider the NE-most point, $`v_0`$, of $`P_iP_j`$. Create $`𝒫^{}=ı𝒫`$ by replacing $`P_i,P_j`$ with $`P_i^{},P_j^{}`$, respectively, where $`P_i^{}`$ goes from $`u_i`$ to $`v_0`$ along $`P_i`$ and then continues along $`P_j`$, and similarly for $`P_j^{}`$.

Because $`ı`$ pairs up intersecting path families of the same monomial and opposite sign, they all cancel from the determinant leaving only nonintersecting families. Furthermore, by the choice of initial and final points, a family can only be nonintersecting if its associated element of $`𝔖_l`$ is the identity. So we now have

$$D=\underset{𝒫}{}M_𝒫$$

where the sum is over all nonintersecting families. But there is a bijection between such families and tableaux. Given $`𝒫`$, read the elements of $`P_i`$ from left to right to obtain the $`i`$th row of the associated tableau $`\dot{T}`$. The fact that $`𝒫`$ is nonintersecting is equivalent to the fact that $`\dot{T}`$ has increasing columns. The given initial and final vertices ensure that the shape of $`\dot{T}`$ is $`\lambda `$. Applying $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ to both sides of the last equality restricts the multidegree so as to finish the proof of the theorem.∎

Note that if $`\stackrel{}{t}=[t]`$ has a single component, then $`\stackrel{}{t}\lambda _ii+j`$ forces $`t=\lambda _ii+j`$. So the sums in each entry of the determinants reduce to a single term and we recover the ordinary form of Jacobi-Trudi.

We now specialize to the case of noncommuting variables case so as to determine the image of $`S_\lambda `$ under the involution $`\omega `$.

###### Corollary 7.2.

We have $`\omega (S_\lambda )=S_\lambda ^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Merely note that $`\omega `$ exchanges the two Jacobi-Trudi determinants.∎

## 8. The Robinson-Schensted-Knuth map

In this section, we give a generalization of the famous Robinson-Schensted-Knuth bijection  to tableaux of arbitrary multidegree.

A biword of length $`n`$ over $`A`$ is a $`2\times n`$ array $`\beta `$ of elements of $`A`$ such that if the dots are removed then the columns are ordered lexicographically with the top row taking precedence. The lower and upper rows of $`\beta `$ are denoted $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta }`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$, respectively. Viewing $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta }`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$ as multisets, the multidegree of $`\beta `$ is the pair

$$\stackrel{}{m}(\beta )=(\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta }),\stackrel{}{m}(\widehat{\beta })).$$

We now define a map $`\beta \stackrel{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{K}}{}(\dot{T},\dot{U})`$ whose image is all pairs of dotted semistandard Young Tableaux of the same shape. Peform the ordinary Robinson-Schensted-Knuth algorithm on $`\beta `$ (see  for an exposition) by merely ignoring the dots and just having them “come along for the ride.” For example, if

$$\beta =\begin{array}{cccccc}\dot{1}& \dot{2}& \ddot{2}& \dot{2}& \ddot{3}& \dot{4}\\ \dot{2}& \ddot{1}& \ddot{3}& \dot{3}& \ddot{2}& \dot{1}\end{array}$$

then the sequence of tableaux built by the algorithm is

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\dot{2},\hfill & \ddot{1},\hfill & \ddot{1}\ddot{3},\hfill & \ddot{1}\ddot{3}\dot{3},\hfill & \ddot{1}\ddot{2}\dot{3},\hfill & \ddot{1}\dot{1}\dot{3}\hfill & \\ & \dot{2}\hfill & \dot{2}\hfill & \dot{2}\hfill & \dot{2}\ddot{3}\hfill & \dot{2}\ddot{2}\hfill & =\dot{T},\hfill \\ & & & & & \ddot{3}\hfill & \\ & & & & & & \\ \dot{1},\hfill & \dot{1},\hfill & \dot{1}\ddot{2},\hfill & \dot{1}\ddot{2}\dot{2},\hfill & \dot{1}\ddot{2}\dot{2},\hfill & \dot{1}\ddot{2}\dot{2}\hfill & \\ & \dot{2}\hfill & \dot{2}\hfill & \dot{2}\hfill & \dot{2}\ddot{3}\hfill & \dot{2}\ddot{3}\hfill & =\dot{U}.\hfill \\ & & & & & \ddot{4}\hfill & \end{array}$$

The next theorem follows directly from the definitions and the analogous result for the ordinary Robinson-Schensted-Knuth map.

###### Theorem 8.1.

The map

$$\beta \stackrel{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{K}}{}(\dot{T},\dot{U})$$

is a bijection between biwords and pairs of dotted semistandard Young tableaux of the same shape such that

$$\stackrel{}{m}(\beta )=(\stackrel{}{m}(\dot{T}),\stackrel{}{m}(\dot{U})).\mathit{}$$

Because this analogue is so like the original, most of the properties of the ordinary Robinson-Schensted-Knuth correspondence carry over into this setting with virtually no change. By way of illustration, here is the corresponding Cauchy identity  which follows directly by turning each side of the previous bijection into a generating function. Note that for $`\widehat{\beta }`$ and $`\dot{U}`$ we are using a second set of variables $`\dot{𝐲},\ddot{𝐲},\mathrm{},𝐲^{(𝐧)}`$.

###### Theorem 8.2.

We have

$$\underset{m0}{}\underset{\lambda ,\stackrel{}{m},\stackrel{}{p}m}{}S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}(\dot{𝐱},\mathrm{},𝐱^{(𝐧)})S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{p}(\dot{𝐲},\mathrm{},𝐲^{(𝐧)})=\underset{i,j1}{}\frac{1}{1_{k,l=1}^nx_i^{(k)}y_j^{(l)}}.\mathit{}$$

## 9. Comments and questions

(I) Rosas  computed specializations of symmetric functions in noncommuting variables and, more generally, of MacMahon symmetric functions.

(II) Is there an expression for $`S_\lambda ^\stackrel{}{m}`$ analogous to Jacobi’s bialternant formula ?

(III) Is there a connection between $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐱)`$ and the partition algebra $`P_n(x)`$ ?

(IV) Is there a way to define functions $`S_\pi `$ for set partitions $`\pi [n]`$ having properties analogous to the ordinary Schur functions $`s_\lambda `$?

(V) Given a basis $`b_\lambda (𝐱)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$ we say that $`f(𝐱)\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$ is $`b`$-positive if the coefficients in the expansion $`f(𝐱)=_\lambda c_\lambda b_\lambda (𝐱)`$ satisfy $`c_\lambda 0`$ for all $`\lambda `$. Stanley  showed that associated with any combinatorial graph $`G`$ there is a symmetric function $`X_G(𝐱)\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)`$ which generalizes the chromatic polynomial of $`G`$. Together with Stembridge , he conjectured that for a certain family $`𝒢`$ of graphs (those associated with (3+1)-free posets) $`X_G`$ is $`e`$-positive for all $`G𝒢`$. Gasharov  has proved the weaker result that $`X_G`$ is $`s`$-positive for all $`G𝒢`$. Gebhard and Sagan  have proved that $`X_G`$ is $`e`$-positive for all $`G`$ in a subfamily of $`𝒢`$ by using symmetric functions in noncommuting variables. It would be interesting to enlarge the subfamily to which these methods can be applied.

Acknowledgments. Part of the research for this paper was done while both authors were resident at the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge, England. We would like to thank the Institute for support during this period. We are also indebted to Timothy Chow, Ira Gessel, and Larry Smith for helpful discussions. Finally, we owe a great debt of thanks to an anonymous referee whose incredibly detailed and helpful comments greatly improved the exposition.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A general formulation of vector meson couplings to pseudoscalar mesons and baryons can be constructed combining elements of Vector Meson Dominance and SU(3) chiral Lagrangians , hence placing the $`\varphi `$ and the $`\rho `$ on the same footing. Yet, the $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ couple to the nucleon in a very different way, since the Lagrangians are consistent with the OZI rule and thus the $`\varphi `$, which stands for a $`s\overline{s}`$ state in this formulation, does not couple to the nucleon nor to pions at the tree level. The same Lagrangians, however, allow one to perform perturbative calculations to account for loop contributions to the $`\varphi `$ couplings, involving kaons and hyperons to which the $`\varphi `$ couples naturally. One, nevertheless, still expects the couplings to be small since the OZI rule should not be much violated. One of the reactions where the OZI rule shows up, drastically reducing the decay rate, is the $`\varphi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ reaction , where the combination of the OZI rule and isospin symmetry leads to an extremely small branching ratio. This can explicitly be seen in theoretical calculations , where one finds large cancellations as a combined effect of isospin symmetry and the OZI rule.

Unlike the $`\rho `$ coupling to the nucleon which has been the subject of much research from different theoretical points of view , the $`\varphi `$ coupling to the nucleon has comparatively received much less attention. Some studies done using theoretical dispersion relations give a rather large coupling of the $`\varphi `$ to the nucleon  implying a large violation of the OZI rule. A reanalysis of the situation was done in , where the consideration in the dispersion-theoretical analysis of the correlated $`\rho \pi `$ exchange term in the NN potential  drastically reduced the former results for the $`\varphi `$ coupling. At the same time a perturbative calculation by explicitly evaluating the indirect coupling of the $`\varphi `$ to the nucleon through the $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ meson cloud and hyperon excitation was done, and it was concluded that the couplings, although with uncertainties, were indeed small and compatible with the expected OZI rule violation.

New developments in chiral theory and vector meson interaction with nucleons and nuclei have given us more elements to tackle the problem and make a more quantitative evaluation of the $`\varphi `$ coupling. One of the interesting developments was the combination of chiral symmetry with vector meson dominance formulated within a gauge invariant framework. Thanks to this, vertex corrections of the type of contact terms VPBB (vector-pseudoscalar-baryon-baryon) are generated  which introduce new terms in the loop calculations of the vector meson form factors. Such task was undertaken recently in the evaluation of the loop contribution to the $`\rho `$ electric and magnetic form factors , which led to corrections quite stable with respect to moderate changes in the regularizing scale of the theory.

The purpose of the present paper is to make an evaluation of the electric and magnetic form factors of the $`\varphi `$ coupling to the nucleon for which we follow closely the approach of . There are also other new elements in the present evaluation, like the consideration of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(1385)`$ in addition to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the intermediate states. This is done for consistency with the study of the $`\rho `$ coupling where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ intermediate states were also considered. The consideration of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ intermediate states was advocated in  as a way to implement in the chiral perturbative calculations appropriate limits of large $`N_c`$. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(1385)`$ is the element of the SU(3) decuplet which plays to the hyperons the role of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the nucleons. Although there are other reasons to include the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution because of its strong magnetic transition to the nucleon, consistency with $`SU(3)`$ symmetry suggests the inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ in the strange sector if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is included in the non strange one. In fact, as we shall see, the actual calculations show that the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is comparable to that of other intermediate hyperons. We also take into account the $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing which, although with uncertainties, can give a small contribution to the $`\varphi NN`$ vector coupling, but a negligible contribution to the tensor one.

The strength which we get for the couplings is small and consistent with a weak violation of the OZI rule. On the other hand the results obtained are quite stable and provide a realistic determination of the size and sign of the $`\varphi NN`$ electric and magnetic form factors for not too large values of the $`\varphi `$ momentum.

## 2 Model for the $`\varphi NN`$ coupling

In this section we introduce the Lagrangians needed to calculate the one loop contributions to the $`\varphi NN`$ couplings and perform the calculation. In general, the vertex function of the $`\varphi NN`$ coupling can be written in terms of two Lorentz independent functions, $`G^V`$ and $`G^T`$:

$$it_{\varphi NN}=i\left(G^V(q)\gamma ^\mu +\frac{G^T(q)}{2iM_N}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu \right)ϵ_\mu ^{}$$
(1)
being $`q`$ and $`ϵ_\mu ^{}`$ the momentum and the polarization vector of the outgoing $`\varphi `$. For convenience, we work in the Breit frame, i. e., $`q^0=0`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_i=\stackrel{}{q}/2`$ (initial proton) and $`\stackrel{}{p}_f=\stackrel{}{q}/2`$ (final proton), and also in the non-relativistic limit. Then eq. (1) is written as

$$it_{\varphi NN}=iG^E(q)ϵ^0\frac{G^M(q)}{2M_N}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{ϵ}$$
(2)
with

$`G^E(q)`$ $`=`$ $`G^V(q)`$
$`G^M(q)`$ $`=`$ $`G^T(q)+G^V(q)`$ (3)
In order to perform the calculations, we use the effective Lagrangians of refs. , which combine chiral $`SU(3)`$ dynamics with VMD 111We have modified the formulae of  in order to use the normalizations of the $`P`$, $`V_\mu `$ and $`u_\mu `$ matrices of ref.  which are more commonly used in the literature when using chiral Lagrangians, and the sign of $`g`$ to agree with the paper of the $`\rho NN`$ coupling of .. The basic coupling of the pseudoscalar mesons to the baryons is given by the Lagrangian

$$_{BBP}=\frac{F}{2}tr\left(\overline{B}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5[u^\mu ,B]\right)+\frac{D}{2}tr\left(\overline{B}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\{u^\mu ,B\}\right)$$
(4)
with

$$u^\mu =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{f}\left(^\mu P+i\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}[V^\mu ,P]\right)$$
(5)
In these two last equations $`B`$ and $`P`$ represent the $`SU(3)`$ matrix fields of the baryon and pseudoscalar meson octets, respectively, $`f=93`$ MeV is the pion decay constant, and we take $`g=6.05`$, $`F=0.51`$ and $`D=0.75`$, as done in . The vector mesons have been introduced by means of the minimal substitution scheme, in terms of the matrix $`V_\mu `$, which, when considering only neutral states, reads

$$V_\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\text{ }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\rho _\mu ^0+\omega _\mu & 0& 0\\ 0& \rho _\mu ^0+\omega _\mu & 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{2}\varphi _\mu \end{array}\right)$$
(6)
The pseudoscalar meson-vector meson couplings are given in refs. , and can be obtained by introducing a gauge-covariant derivative in the Klein-Gordon Lagrangian

$$_\mu PD_\mu P=_\mu P+i\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}[V_\mu ,P]$$
(7)
In this way we obtain the Lagrangian

$$_{VPP}=\frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}tr\left(V^\mu [_\mu P,P]\right)$$
(8)
The Lagrangian of eq. (4) provides the $`BBP`$ and $`BBVP`$ vertices but does not provide the direct couplings of the vector mesons to the baryon fields $`BBV`$. These vertices are given by the Lagrangian

$$_{BBV}=\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}(tr(\overline{B}\gamma _\mu [V^\mu ,B]+tr(\overline{B}\gamma _\mu B)tr(V^\mu ))$$
(9)
In order to evaluate the contribution of diagrams d) and e) we need the $`BBPP`$ and $`BBPPV`$ vertices. These vertices can be obtained from the chiral Lagrangian

$$=i\text{ }tr\left(\overline{B}\gamma ^\mu [\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,B]\right)$$
(10)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left\{u^{}(_\mu +i\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}V_\mu )u+u(_\mu +i\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}V_\mu )u^{}\right\}$$
(11)
where $`u`$ is defined in reference .

It is important to stress that, according to the OZI rule, we do not get any direct coupling of the $`\varphi `$ to the nucleon from the Lagrangian in eq. (9). As a consequence, all the contributions to the electric and magnetic form factors of the $`\varphi `$ coupling to the nucleon within this framework should come from loop diagrams. The one loop diagrams contributing to these form factors are given in fig. 1. The contribution of each diagram to $`G_{\varphi NN}^E`$ and to $`G_{\varphi NN}^M`$ is given in Appendix B. We will discuss later on with more detail the calculations and results obtained.

In the former Lagrangians only baryons from the octet are involved. Here we will consider also the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ as an intermediate state, which belongs to the decuplet. It is worth including this hyperon in our calculations since its contribution to some processes can be as big as (or even bigger than) the one of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, as can be seen in reference . The $`\overline{K}N\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ vertex is given by

$$V_{\overline{K}N\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}=\frac{2\sqrt{6}}{5}\frac{D+F}{2f}A\stackrel{}{S}^{}\stackrel{}{k}$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{}{S}^{}`$ is the spin transition operator from $`S=1/2`$ to $`S=3/2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the momentum of the incoming kaon. The $`A`$ coefficient takes the values $`1/\sqrt{2}`$, $`1`$, $`1`$, $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ for the $`K^{}p\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`K^{}n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\overline{K}^0p\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, $`\overline{K}^0n\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ transitions respectively. To evaluate the diagram b) of fig. 1 with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, we need also to know the $`\varphi N\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ vertices. These vertices are given in ref.  and have the form

$$V_{\varphi \overline{K}N\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}=g\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{5}\frac{D+F}{2f}A\stackrel{}{S}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\varphi )$$
(13)
where the $`A`$ coefficients have the same values as in the $`\overline{K}N\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ vertex. Eqs. (12), (13) are derived using $`SU(6)`$ symmetry in . Since we are in the strange sector, $`SU(3)`$ could be broken and the most likely way to account for it is through the change $`f`$ to $`f_K=1.22f`$. We shall also evaluate the results using this latter coupling to estimate uncertainties in the results.

Finally, we will need to know the direct $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ vertex in order to evaluate diagram c). We can relate this vertex to the $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ one by means of a quark model (see Appendix A).

With the Lagrangians and vertices previously introduced we can evaluate all the diagrams in figure 1. In diagram a) we can have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ baryons as intermediate states. The evaluation of these diagrams is straightforward and the results obtained for $`G_{\varphi NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})`$ and $`G_{\varphi NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0})`$ are shown in table 1 and table 2.

The other diagrams to be considered contain direct couplings of the $`\varphi `$ to the baryonic leg. In these diagrams we multiply the expressions for $`G_{\varphi NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`G_{\varphi NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q})`$ given in Appendix B by the $`F_\varphi (\stackrel{}{Q})`$ form factor, defined in eq. (28). The contribution of diagram b) to $`G_{\varphi NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is of order $`𝒪(1/M)`$ and we will not consider it here, as also done in , since corrections of order $`𝒪(1/M)`$ in other terms have also been neglected. In Appendix B we give the contributions of diagram b) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ as intermediate mesons to $`G_{\varphi NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q})`$. The expressions in the Appendix include the sum of both diagrams b) with the $`\varphi `$ attached to the upper and lower vertices.

Another set of diagrams that contribute to both $`G_{\varphi NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`G_{\varphi NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is represented by diagram c) in figure 1, where $`\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ vertices appear (we do not have vertices attaching a $`\varphi `$ to two different baryons, in contrast with the $`\rho `$ case, since the $`\varphi `$ is an isoscalar). The $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ coupling is also zero using $`SU(6)`$ arguments as done in Appendix A. The $`\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vertices can be obtained from Lagrangian (9). However, this Lagrangian does not account for baryons belonging to the decouplet, and we have to resort to a quark model to relate the $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ coupling to the $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, as announced before. This is done in Appendix A in an analogous way as it was done in ref.  to relate the $`\rho N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings to the $`\rho NN`$ coupling. We should also note here that the use of the nonrelativistic $`SU(6)`$ symmetry to relate these meson baryon baryon couplings was advocated in  in order to ensure basic large $`N_c`$ counting rules. Note also that diagrams a), b) and c), in the case of intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s, account actually for two diagrams, since the intermediate hyperon can be either a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ or a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$. The same happens in the case of intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Finally, diagrams d) and e) of fig. 1 do not contribute to the $`\varphi NN`$ coupling at $`q=0`$ and we do not consider them (see Appendix B) since we are mostly concerned about the values of the couplings at $`q=0`$, and the qualitative trend at small $`q`$ values. We shall further comment on uncertainties from this source. Furthermore, one can also see from the Appendix that these diagrams do not contribute to $`G^T`$.

It is worth pointing out that the total contribution to $`G_\varphi ^E(\stackrel{}{q})`$ at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ is null, due to the cancellation between the contributions of diagrams a) and c) of fig. 1 for each intermediate baryon (we have done the calculations using an averaged kaon mass $`m_K=495.7`$ MeV). This cancellation is a consequence of the gauge symmetry for vector mesons, whose implications were discussed in detail in . These gauge invariance arguments would break in the presence of form factors. This is well known in the literature where there are several prescriptions to restore it . The implications of this breaking of gauge invariance due to the presence of form factors were discussed in  in the analogous derivation of the $`\rho NN`$ coupling. There it was found that $`G_V^{\rho NN}(q=0)`$ was still zero from these mesonic loops even in the presence of form factors. This is also the case here as we can see analytically from the expressions in Appendix B. At $`q`$ finite there would be a breaking of gauge invariance, but the study of  served to show that the scale at which it is broken is given by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter of the monopole form factors used (of the order of 1 GeV) and the results for values of $`q`$ up to about 500 MeV/c were not affected by that symmetry breaking. These results can be extrapolated to the present case, thus limiting the values of $`q`$ to about the same range. It is interesting to note that the cancellation of $`G^E`$ at $`q=0`$ for the case of the $`\rho `$ required a term with nucleon wave function renormalization. This term is null here since the $`\varphi `$ does not couple directly to the nucleon, but in spite of that, the requirement $`G_{NN\varphi }^E(\stackrel{}{q}=0)=0`$ also holds here and comes from a direct cancellation of the terms associated to diagrams a) and c). We can also see that the contributions of the diagrams with an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are small compared to those of the diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. This is due to the fact that the contributions of the diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are proportional to $`(DF)^2=0.058`$, compared to the factors $`(D+3F)^2=5.20`$ and $`(D+F)^2=1.59`$ in the intermediate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ cases, respectively (see Appendix B). Another interesting fact is that $`G_{\varphi NN}^M`$ is dominated by the contribution of the diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, specially diagram c) of fig. 1 with two intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, as we can see in table 2. The value that we get for this coupling is rather large but still a factor 20 smaller than the corresponding factor in the $`\rho `$ coupling to the nucleon, $`G_{\rho NN}^{M,exp}21`$. It is also about a factor 6 smaller than the contribution from loops to $`G_{\rho NN}^M`$ found in .

In fig. 2 we show the $`q`$ dependence of both couplings. We only present our results up to 500 MeV since we work in the non-relativistic limit and also we have not taken into account the $`𝒪(1/M)`$ corrections. Furthermore, as discussed above, the presence of form factors would break gauge invariance at the scale of 1 GeV. These approximations restrict the range of validity of our approach, being the higher energies region out of the scope of this paper. In the figure we see that $`G_{\varphi NN}^E`$ is null at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ and keeps to small values in the low momentum region which we study. Similarly, the $`q`$ dependence of $`G_{\varphi NN}^M`$ is very smooth. Finally, let us stress that the final results have a non negligible dependence on the input of the calculation, mainly on the value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter in the form factors (see Appendix B). A change of $`20\%`$ in this parameter induces a change of the same magnitude in the couplings. This gives an idea of the accuracy of the results.

The work done here does not follow the heavy baryon formalism. This formalism is useful if one wishes to stick to a strict power counting. Hence our evaluation of the loop contribution to the $`\varphi `$ coupling diverts from this strict power counting. On the other hand, at the one loop level of the present calculation it keeps kinetic energies in the propagators, which is also a desirable feature. For some processes, like the meson baryon scattering, where such corrections matter in order to respect thresholds, phase space, which are of relevance to unitarity, etc. , this diversion from the heavy baryon formalism has proved to be phenomenologically advantageous. Although here these effects are no so relevant we have followed the same philosophy, using baryon propagators in their nonrelativistic approximation.

One can also think about including higher order terms which have proved relevant in the unitarization of chiral perturbation theory . These terms would lead to the $`\varphi `$ coupling to $`K\overline{K}`$ components and back to the $`\varphi `$, plus iterations of such diagrams. This part has been done in the study of the pion and kaon vector form factors in  and would lead to a dressed $`\varphi `$ propagator in any process where the $`\varphi `$ is exchanged, for instance, between two nucleons, or a nucleon and a kaon. The use of the full $`\varphi `$ propagator as it is obtained in  would be the complement to the work done here with the $`\varphi NN`$ coupling.

### 2.1 $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing contribution.

There is still another contribution to the couplings which we want to address here. This comes from the $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing and the coupling of the $`\omega `$ to the nucleon. The $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing problem has received much attention in the literature and it is still an unsettled problem . The mechanism producing this new induced $`\varphi `$ coupling to the nucleon is shown in figure 3.

The $`\omega NN`$ coupling has the same structure as the $`\varphi NN`$ one, eq. (1), and it is commonly accepted from studies of the $`NN`$ interaction that $`G_{\omega NN}^V`$ is of the order of 15 while $`G_{\omega NN}^T`$, unlike the case of the $`\rho `$,is very small, compatible with zero . A reanalysis of the isoscalar $`NN`$ interaction including ”$`\sigma `$” exchange from correlated two pion exchange using a chiral formalism , plus the uncorrelated two pion exchange of the box diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, plus $`\omega `$ exchange, gives a coupling $`G_{\omega NN}^V=13`$ .

The $`\varphi \omega `$ coupling is given by the Lagrangian

$$=i\mathrm{\Theta }_{\varphi \omega }ϵ_\mu (\varphi )ϵ^\mu (\omega )$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\varphi \omega }`$ is the $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing parameter and $`ϵ_\mu (\varphi )`$ and $`ϵ_\mu (\omega )`$ are the polarizations of the $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ resonances, respectively.

Around the $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$ mass there are two possible scenarios , one of which has Re $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\varphi \omega }=0`$ (weak mixing) and the other Re $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\varphi \omega }=2000029000`$ MeV2 (strong mixing). A straightforward evaluation of the diagram of fig. 3 would provide

$$G_{\varphi NN}^V(q=0)=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{\varphi \omega }}{M_\omega ^2}G_{\omega NN}^V(q=0)0.6$$
(15)
in the strong mixing case. This is of the order of $`1/5`$ of $`G_{\rho NN}^V`$, so still within values compatible with the OZI violation. Yet, this value quoted above, apart from the obvious uncertainties in the choice of possible scenarios, could be irrelevant if one assumes that the $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing is largely given by the kaon loops as assumed in . Should this be the case, then the loop function vanishes at $`s=0`$ ($`q^0=0`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ in the present case), as shown in  in order to ensure that the photon remains massless , and also to have current conservation according to , although strictly speaking it should be sufficient that the sum of loops for different hadrons vanishes at $`s=0`$. Other arguments in order to support the vanishing at $`s=0`$ of the individual loops are given . This means that at $`q^0=q=0`$ there would be no contribution to $`G_{\varphi NN}^V(q=0)`$ from $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing. At $`q0`$ there could be some contributions, but in the range of momenta considered here the contribution to $`G_{\varphi NN}^V`$ using the $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing given in  would be also very small. Of course for $`G_{\varphi NN}^T`$, since $`G_{\omega NN}^T`$ is compatible with zero, there would be no contribution from this mixing.

We have also conducted other tests to estimate uncertainties in the results. First we change $`f`$ to $`f_K=1.22f`$ and then all the results are multiplied by the factor $`(1.22)^2`$, hence multiplying the resuts by 0.67, and producing a $`33\%`$ reduction of the present results.

On the other hand we have also used different values for the $`F`$ and $`D`$ parameters. Appart from those used in the text we have redone the calculations with $`D=0.85`$, $`F=0.52`$ , and $`D=0.80`$, $`F=0.50`$ . In the first of these cases we get $`G^M(q=0)=1.29`$ and in the second case $`G^M(q=0)=1.16`$, to be compared with the number $`G^M(q=0)=1.10`$ that was obtained before using $`D=0.75`$, $`F=0.51`$. All this gives us an idea of the uncertainties that we can expect. Together with uncertainties of the order of $`2030\%`$ from uncertainties in the form factors, all these sources could lead to about $`40\%`$ total uncertainty in $`G^M(q=0)`$ when summed in quadrature.

## 3 Conclusions

We have evaluated the contributions to $`G_{\varphi NN}^E(\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`G_{\varphi NN}^M(\stackrel{}{q})`$ for the OZI violating $`\varphi NN`$ coupling. Since there is no direct coupling of the $`\varphi `$ to the nucleon, all the contributions come from loop diagrams, although we have also discussed the effect of $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing. The loops are regularized by means of a form factor, introducing an effective cut off of the order of 1.2 GeV. In addition we also restrict the space of intermediate states to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. This kind of regularization from two sources has been successfully used in a large number of evaluations of chiral bag models .

We find that $`G_{\varphi NN}^E`$ is null at $`q=0`$ and grows smoothly in the low energy regime reaching values of around 0.1 at $`q=500`$ MeV. In the $`G_{\varphi NN}^M`$ coupling case we find a value of 1.1 at $`q=0`$, with a very smooth dependence on the momentum. This coupling is dominated by the contribution of diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. In both $`G_{\varphi NN}^E`$ and $`G_{\varphi NN}^M`$ the contribution of diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is very small compared to those of the diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, due to the smallness of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }KN`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }KN\varphi `$ couplings. The values of the couplings that we have obtained are small compared to the corresponding couplings in the case of the $`\rho NN`$ interaction, $`G_{\rho NN}^E=2.9\pm 0.3`$ and $`G_{\rho NN}^M=20.9\pm 2.3`$, as expected from the OZI rule. However, the one loop calculation of $`G_{\rho NN}^M`$ of ref.  gives a value $`G_{\rho NN}^M=6.05`$, only a factor 6 bigger than the one obtained here.

We have also discussed uncertainties in these form factors. We find that although $`G_{\varphi NN}^V(q=0)`$ is equal to zero from loops and also from the $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing, according to , there would be contributions to $`G_{\varphi NN}^V(q)`$ from the $`\varphi \omega `$ mixing and also from the diagrams d,e of fig. 1 at $`q0`$. We have not included these contributions here, hence the $`q`$ dependence of $`G_{\varphi NN}^V(q)`$ obtained from the loops should be only taken as indicative of the trend of the results. On the other hand the results obtained for $`G_{\varphi NN}^T(q)`$ are in a more solid ground since neither of the aforementioned mechanisms contributes to this form factor. Hence up to the moderate values of $`q500`$ MeV/c, where the presence of the monopole form factors does not spoil gauge invariance, the resuts obtained here should be reliable. Given the weak dependence on $`q`$ found here for $`G_{\varphi NN}^E`$ and $`G_{\varphi NN}^M`$ in that range of momenta, the value for $`G_{\varphi NN}^M(q=0)`$ and its approximate constancy in that range of momenta should be reliable results, within the uncertainties quoted at the end of the former section.

### Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ulf-G. Meissner for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments. One of us, J. P. wishes to acknowledge support from the Ministerio de Educacion. This work is also partly supported by DGICYT contract number BFM2000-1326 and E.U. EURIDICE network contract no. HPRN-CT-2002-00311.

Appendices

## Appendix A Quark model for the $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ vertex

In this Appendix we relate the $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vertices through the $`SU(6)`$ quark model. Let us define the operator corresponding to the $`\varphi `$ coupling to the $`i`$-th quark for $`G^M`$

$$\widehat{g}_M^i=G_{(q)}^M\frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{ϵ})\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i}{2m_q}$$
(16)
where $`m_q`$ is the quark mass, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the momentum of the outgoing $`\varphi `$ and $`G_{(q)}^M`$ is the $`G^M`$ factor corresponding to the $`\varphi `$ coupling to the quark $`q`$. For a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryon with spin up the quark model provides

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^+|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{g}_M^{(i)}|\mathrm{\Sigma }^+=G_{(q)}^M\frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon })_3}{2m_q}$$
(17)
Here we have used that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }|\sigma _3|\mathrm{\Sigma }`$=1, as can be obtained using the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ wave function in the spin-flavor space

$$|\mathrm{\Sigma }^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _{MS}\chi _{MS}+\varphi _{MA}\chi _{MA})$$
(18)
with

$`\varphi _{MS}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}[(us+su)u2uus]`$ $`\varphi _{MA}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(ussu)u`$ (19)
$`\chi _{MS}^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}[(+)2]`$ $`\chi _{MA}^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}()`$ (20)
Using these wave functions and comparing with the definition of magnetic coupling to the nucleon (see eq. (2)), we easily find that

$$\frac{G_{(q)}^M}{2m_q}=\frac{G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^M}{2M_N}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{2M_N}$$
(21)
where the result $`G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^M=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}`$ can be obtained from the Lagrangian of eq. (9).

In the same way, we can relate $`G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^M`$ to $`G_{(q)}^M`$. To do that we must use the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ wave function in the spin-flavor space

$$|\mathrm{\Sigma }^+=|\varphi _S|\chi _S$$
(22)
with

$$\varphi _S^{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(uus+usu+suu)\chi _S^{()}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(++)$$
(23)
Using this wave function we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^+|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{g}_M^{(i)}|\mathrm{\Sigma }^+=2G_{(q)}^M\frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon })_3}{2m_q}$$
(24)
The magnetic coupling to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is defined

$$it_{\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}=iG_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^Eϵ^0\frac{G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^M}{2M_N}(\stackrel{}{S}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times \stackrel{}{q})\text{ }\stackrel{}{ϵ}$$
(25)
Taking care of the normalization of the couplings, it is straightforward to arrive at

$$\frac{G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^M}{2M_N}=4\frac{G_{(q)}^M}{2m_q}=4\frac{G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^M}{2M_N}=2\sqrt{2}g\frac{1}{2M_N}$$
(26)
The evaluation of $`G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^E`$ is analogous and even easier since in this case only matrix elements of the identity in both the spin and flavor space must be calculated. We get

$$G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^E=G_\mathrm{\Sigma }^E=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(27)
We do not get any $`\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ model from $`SU(6)`$ symmetry since in the evaluation we get the scalar products of the flavor wave functions: $`\varphi _S^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}|\varphi _{MS}^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\varphi _S^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}|\varphi _{MA}^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which are null.

## Appendix B  One loop calculations

In this Appendix we give the explicit expressions of the contributions of the loop diagrams to $`G_{NN\varphi }^E`$ and $`G_{NN\varphi }^M`$. In the following equations and diagrams $`ϵ_\mu `$ denotes the $`\varphi `$ polarization vector, and:

$`q(E(\stackrel{}{q}),\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`Q(0,\stackrel{}{q})`$
$`\omega (k)\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_K^2}`$ $`D(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2m_K^2}}`$
$`F_K(\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}}`$ $`F_\varphi (\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.2\text{ GeV}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =2.5\text{ GeV}`$
$`E(\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}^{\text{ }2}}{2M_N}}+M_N`$ $`E_Y(\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}^{\text{ }2}}{2M_Y}}+M_Y`$ (28)
where the subindex $`Y`$ refers to any of the hyperons considered here ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$). The values of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameters appearing in the form factors (1.2 GeV for the coupling of pseudoscalars and 2.5 GeV for the coupling of vector mesons) are motivated by the study of the $`NN`$ interaction in  and are taken there for pions and $`\rho `$ mesons by analogy. We warn the reader that, in order not to complicate excessively the expressions, we have deliberately omitted the form factors and the $`M/E`$ relativistic corrections to the baryonic propagators in the following equations, although it should be kept in mind that one must include them to perform the numerical calculations.

$$G_{\varphi NN}^{E\text{ }a)}(\stackrel{}{q})=\alpha _Y^{a)}g\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}{4}\right)f_1(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})$$
(29)
$$\frac{G_{\varphi NN}^{M\text{ }a)}}{2M_N}=\alpha _Y^{a)}g\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}\right)f_2(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})$$
(30)
where the $`\alpha _Y`$ and $`\beta _Y`$ coefficients, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ intermediate hyperons, are:

$$\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{a)}=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{D+3F}{2f}\right)^2\text{ };\alpha _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{a)}=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{DF}{2f}\right)^2$$
(31)
The $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ functions are defined as:

$`f_1(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)+\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)E_Y(\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)E_Y(\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$`f_2(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)+\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)E_Y(\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)+\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)+E_Y(\stackrel{}{p})E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)E_Y(\stackrel{}{p})}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}`$
In the calculation of diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$’s one has different spin and isospin factors since the spin and isospin transition operators appearing in the corresponding Lagrangians satisfy the following relations:

$`S_iS_j^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _k`$
(33)
Taking this into account one finds

$$G_{\varphi NN}^{E\text{ }b)}(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{12\sqrt{2}}{25}\left(\frac{D+F}{2f}\right)^2g\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}{4}\right)f_1(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})$$
(34)
$$\frac{G_{\varphi NN}^{M\text{ }b)}}{2M_N}=\frac{6\sqrt{2}}{25}\left(\frac{D+F}{2f}\right)^2g\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}\right)f_2(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q})$$
(35)
$$G_{\varphi NN}^{E\text{ }c)}(\stackrel{}{q})=𝒪(1/M_N)$$
(36)
$`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\varphi NN}^{M\text{ }c)}}{2M_N}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _Y^{c)}g{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)}}\times `$ (37)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2)E_Y(\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
with

$`\beta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{c)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D+3F}{2f}}\right)^2`$ $`;\text{ }\beta _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{c)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{DF}{2f}}\right)^2;`$
$`\beta _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^{c)}={\displaystyle \frac{6\sqrt{2}}{25}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D+F}{2f}}\right)^2`$ (38)
$`\text{ }G_{\varphi NN}^{E\text{ }d)}(\stackrel{}{q})=\alpha _Y^{d)}g{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_Y(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_Y(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}`$ (39)
$`G_{\varphi NN}^{M\text{ }d)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _Y^{d)}g{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{2\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_Y(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$ (40)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_Y(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$$\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{d)}=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{D+3F}{2f}\right)^2\text{ };\alpha _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{d)}=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{DF}{2f}\right)^2$$
(41)
$`G_{\varphi NN}^{E\text{ }e)}(\stackrel{}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{12\sqrt{2}}{25}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D+F}{2f}}\right)^2g{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$ (42)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
$`G_{\varphi NN}^{M\text{ }e)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{36\sqrt{2}}{25}}g\left({\displaystyle \frac{D+F}{2f}}\right)^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}(\stackrel{}{p}^{\text{ }2}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{3\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega (\stackrel{}{p})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\omega (\stackrel{}{p})E_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\stackrel{}{q}/2\stackrel{}{p})}}`$
To evaluate this diagram we have used the relation

$$S_iS_jS_k^{}=\frac{5}{6}\text{i}ϵ_{ijk}\frac{1}{6}\delta _{ij}\sigma _k+\frac{2}{3}\delta _{ik}\sigma _j\frac{1}{6}\delta _{jk}\sigma _i$$
(44)
We do not take into account diagrams f) and g) since they cancel at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$. At this value of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ diagram f) is proportional to:

$$\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}2\gamma ^\mu g_{\mu \nu }ϵ^\nu D(p)$$
(45)
and diagram g) is proportional to:

$$\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\gamma ^\mu 4p_\mu ϵ^\nu p_\nu D(p)D(p)$$
(46)
Taking into account the integral identity:

$$d^4p\frac{4p^\mu p^\nu }{(p^2+s+iϵ)^2}=d^4p\frac{2g^{\mu \nu }}{k^2+s+iϵ}$$
(47)
it is straightforward to see that these diagrams cancel at $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{0}`$.