text:
# BI-TP 2002/20 DESY 02-117 August 2002 The H dibaryon on the lattice

## 1 INTRODUCTION

A bound six quark state ($`uuddss`$) called H dibaryon with a mass 81 MeV below the 2231 MeV $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ threshold for strong decay was predicted in a bag model calculation in 1977 . The H dibaryon is the lightest possible SU(3) flavor singlet state with spin zero, strangeness -2 and $`J^P=0^+`$. It has been speculated that the H dibaryon could form a Bose condensate in nuclear matter prior to the quark-hadron phase transition of QCD at high density. In the context of strange quark matter the H dibaryon was suggested as a candidate for the smallest strangelet , which became relevant in the discussion on disaster scenarios at RHIC .

In the 25 years after the initial prediction of a stable H dibaryon state numerous searches for this particle were performed. On the theoretical side this involved various model calculations, QCD sum rules and perturbative calculations including color-spin (One-Gluon-Exchange) or flavor-spin (Instanton Induced Interaction, Goldstone-Boson-Exchange) dependent q-q interactions. The resulting H dibaryon masses scatter in a range of $`𝒪`$(100 MeV) around the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ threshold. Moreover experimental searches showed almost no evidence for a bound H dibaryon. The review article  summarizes both the theoretical and experimental attempts to verify the existence and stability of the H dibaryon.

In the 1980’s two lattice calculations  reported contradictory results on $`m_H`$, but both simulations suffered from heavy quark masses and low statistics. In 1999 yet another calculation  overcame these problems and concluded that the H dibaryon state is unbound in the infinite volume limit. Our aim was to check these results with refined methods, which includes on the one hand the use of improved gauge and fermion actions and on the other hand the use of smearing and fuzzing techniques to enhance the overlap with the ground state.

## 2 DETAILS OF THE SIMULATION

We performed our calculations with the (1,2) Symanzik improved gauge action and the tree-level improved clover fermion action on rather coarse lattices ($`\beta =4.1`$, $`a=0.177(8)`$ fm) of the size $`(824)^3\times 30`$ in order to study the large six quark object with an adequate spatial lattice extent. Depending on the lattice size we generated 40 to 120 configurations on which the propagators for three to five kappa values for the degenerate $`u/d`$ and heavier $`s`$ quark masses in the range of 30 to 250 MeV were calculated.

The particle masses are obtained from exponential decrease of the correlation function $`G(\tau )=d^3x𝒪(\stackrel{}{x},\tau )𝒪^{}(\stackrel{}{0},0)`$ for the appropriate operators of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryon and the H dibaryon  (color indices: roman letters, spinor indices: greek letters):

$`𝒪_\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{abc}(C\gamma _5)_{\beta \gamma }[u_\alpha ^a(x)d_\beta ^b(x)s_\gamma ^c(x)`$
$`+d_\alpha ^a(x)s_\beta ^b(x)u_\gamma ^c(x)2s_\alpha ^a(x)u_\beta ^b(x)d_\gamma ^c(x)]`$
$`𝒪_H(x)`$ $`=`$ $`3(udsuds)3(ussudd)3(dssduu)`$
$`(\mathrm{𝖺𝖻𝖼𝖽𝖾𝖿})`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{abc}ϵ_{def}(C\gamma _5)_{\alpha \beta }(C\gamma _5)_{\gamma \delta }(C\gamma _5)_{ϵ\varphi }`$
$`𝖺_\alpha ^a(x)𝖻_\beta ^b(x)𝖼_ϵ^c(x)𝖽_\gamma ^d(x)𝖾_\delta ^e(x)𝖿_\varphi ^f(x)`$
In addition to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and H dibaryon we calculated the correlators of the (non-)strange mesons $`\pi ,\rho ,K,K^{}`$ as well as the baryons $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. These particle masses were used for scale setting and comparison to the experimental spectrum. The degenerate $`u/d`$-quark mass is fixed by the ratios $`m_\pi /m_N`$, $`m_\pi /\sqrt{\sigma }`$ and $`m_N/\sqrt{\sigma }`$ yielding a common value of $`\kappa _{ud}`$=0.1490(1). In order to eliminate the quenching effects most efficiently in the setting of the strange quark mass, we determined a mean value of $`\kappa _s`$=0.1417(2) by averaging over the $`\kappa _s`$-values obtained from the particle ratios $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_N`$, $`m_\mathrm{\Sigma }/m_N`$ and $`m_K^{}/m_N`$. Furthermore the dependence of the mass difference $`m_H2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the three possible ways of fixing $`\kappa _s`$ is investigated in section 3.

### 2.1 Smearing & Fuzzing

A good projection to the ground state is very important for a reliable extraction of the particle masses. A better overlap with the ground state can be achieved by the iterative smearing of the gauge links and the application of the fuzzing technique for the fermion fields  taking the physical size of the particle into account. The separation of a quark-quark pair by a suitable distance, the so-called fuzzing radius, thus will maximize the ground state contribution relative to the ones of the excited states already at small Euclidean time separations. We apply this method for the calculation of the meson, baryon and dibaryon correlators. We could show  that the largest plateau in the effective mass is obtained for four fuzzed quarks, actually the four light quarks inside the H dibaryon, employing a fuzzing radius of about 0.7 fm. For the strange mesons (baryons) we use the one (two) light quark field(s) fuzzed with the same fuzzing radius.

## 3 RESULTS

The particle masses calculated for different kappa values are first extrapolated linearly to the physical $`\kappa _{ud}`$ value while keeping $`\kappa _s`$ fixed. The final result is determined by interpolating to the mean $`\kappa _s`$ value, where the physical scale is fixed by the particle ratios as mentioned above. The obtained $`K^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ masses are compared to the experimental values and show a deviation less than 8 % except for the smallest lattice size. Such a variance can be considered as usual quenching effect. Relatively strong finite size effects are observed for the smallest lattice size $`L=8a=1.4`$ fm. Whereas the strange mesons masses obtained on this lattice are only slightly higher than the ones on the larger lattices, this effect is more pronounced for the heavier baryon masses. For the six quark H dibaryon state a very strong influence of the spatial lattice size is observed. In figure 1 we show the mass difference $`m_H2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at physical $`\kappa _{ud}`$ for the four different lattice sizes. The grey band indicates the mean $`\kappa _s`$ value as explained in section 2. The points are slightly displaced in $`\kappa _s`$ for better visibility. The slope of the $`\kappa _s`$ dependence is obviously quite different for varying lattice volume, but the mass difference in the physical region is nevertheless quite similar and near zero for all investigated lattice sizes.

In order to clarify the evidence for an unbound H dibaryon state, a closer look at the dependence of the scale setting by the particle ratios seems helpful. Figure 2 shows the mass difference for all lattice sizes using the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or $`K^{}`$ masses as input to fix $`\kappa _s`$ as mentioned above. The points are again a bit displaced - this time in the spatial lattice extent $`L`$. Moreover the interpolation to the mean value of $`\kappa _s=0.1417(2)`$ and the previous results of Pochinsky et al.  are shown to allow a direct comparison. The strong finite size effects are probably the reason for the overestimated mass difference observed for the smallest lattice size. On the intermediate lattice sizes all values of $`m_H2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are compatible with zero independent of the particle ratio used as input. On the largest lattice with $`L/a=24`$ the values are slightly higher, but may come closer to zero with larger statistics. Therefore our simulations provide no evidence of a bound H dibaryon state for the investigated lattice sizes. A detailed table of the particle masses for the respective choice of input particle will be given soon in a longer write-up .

Finally we want to compare our findings with the previous lattice results , which were also obtained on $`L/a=16`$ and 24 lattices but with a smaller lattice spacing of 0.13(3) fm. At a spatial size of about 2 fm the former result lies at bit below our values, while a good agreement can be observed for a larger extent of $`L3`$ fm. Hence a common conclusion arises from the recent and present studies: The H dibaryon does not exist as stable particle in the vacuum, at least in the limit of quenched QCD.

## 4 SUMMARY & OUTLOOK

We have presented the results of the first lattice investigation on the H dibaryon state employing improved gauge and fermion actions, relatively light quark masses as well as smearing and fuzzing techniques to enhance the overlap with the ground state of the particle. We observe a H dibaryon mass slightly above or comparable with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ threshold for strong decay on all lattice sizes. We thus provide further evidence for an unbound H dibaryon state consisting of two lambda baryons.

A final remark concerns the relative error of the H dibaryon correlation function, which is rising only linearly compared to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryon correlator. This observation raises the hope that simulations of larger strangelets or even multi-quark clusters might be possible in the future.


format: text

text:
# A projected correlation function approach to the 𝜋𝑁𝑁 coupling constant in QCD sum rules

## I INTRODUCTION

Within the framework of the QCD sum rule proposed by Shifman, Vainshtein and Zakharov , much work has been done for the meson-baryon-baryon coupling constants \[2-7\]. Sum rules have been constructed in two formulations: one is to start from the vacuum-to-vacuum matrix element of the correlation function of the interpolating fields of two baryons and one meson and the other is to start from the vacuum-to-pion matrix element of the correlation function of the interpolating fields of two baryons. In the pionnering work by Reinders, Rubinstein and Yazaki the former approach was taken but in the following works including the one by the same authors the latter approach was employed since some difficulties seem to exist in the former approach .

Therefore, we discuss only the formulation with the vacuum-to-pion matrix element of the correlation function of the interpolating fields of two nucleons:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)=i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}0|T[\eta (x)\overline{\eta }(0)]|\pi (k)},`$ (1)
where $`\eta (x)`$ is the interpolating field for the nucleon, $`|\pi (k)`$ is the pion state with momentum $`k`$ normalized as $`\pi (k^{})|\pi (k)=2k_0(2\pi )^3\delta ^3(𝒌^{}𝒌)`$ and the isospin is neglected for simplicity. The correlation function can be split into four Dirac structures, $`i\gamma _5`$, $`i\gamma _5\text{/}p`$, $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu `$. The coefficients of the Dirac structures are functions of Lorentz invariants, $`p^2`$ and $`pk`$, and are called invariant correlation functions. Reinders, Rubinstein and Yazaki constructed a sum rule for the pion-nucleon-nucleon ($`\pi NN`$) coupling constant in the chiral limit with vanishing pion momentum from the invariant correlation function with the Dirac structure $`i\gamma _5`$ in the leading order of the operator product expansion (OPE). They showed that if the sum rule is divided by the odd-dimensional sum rule for the nucleon mass, the result is consistent with the Goldberger-Treiman relation with $`g_A=1`$, where $`g_A`$ is the axial charge of the nucleon . Shiomi and Hatsuda improved the sum rule by taking into account higher dimensional terms and $`\alpha _s`$ corrections of the OPE and also the continuum contributions . They showed that even after these corrections are taken into account, the Goldberger-Treiman relation with $`g_A=1`$ holds as long as the same continuum threshold is taken in the sum rule for the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant and the odd-dimensional sum rule for the nucleon mass. In Ref.  Birse and Krippa pointed out that in the chiral limit the vacuum-to-pion correlation function is obtained just by chirally rotating the vacuum-to-vacuum correlation function and therefore it is obvious that the ratio of the two sum rules is consistent with the Goldberger-Treiman relation, which is just a consequence of the chiral symmetry. Then, they tried to obtain a new sum rule for the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant which is not just a consequence of the chiral symmetry. They considered the invariant correlation function with the structure $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ and obtained a sum rule by taking the limit, $`k=0`$, after removing $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$. In all of these works the sum rule is constructed by making an “ansatz ”for the absorptive part of the correlation function based on the effective lagrangian with the pseudoscalar coupling scheme. In Ref.  Kim, Lee and Oka examined how the choices of the effective lagrangian, i.e. the pseudoscalar and pseudovector coupling schemes make differences in the sum rules for all the four Dirac structures. They concluded that only the invariant correlation function with the Dirac structure $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu `$, is independent of the two coupling schemes and obtained a sum rule by taking the limit, $`k=0`$, after removing $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu `$. They also claimed that their sum rule suffers from less uncertainties due to QCD parameters.

In a recent work, we have studied in detail the physical content of the invariant correlation functions without referring to the effective lagrangian . We have shown that the coefficients of the double poles are proportional to the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant but that the coefficients of the single poles are not determined by the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant. In the chiral limit the double-pole terms survive only for the Dirac structures $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu `$. For these structures the single-pole terms as well as the continuum terms turn out to be ill defined in the dispersion integral. Therefore, the use of naive QCD sum rules for these structures in the chiral limit is not justified.

In this paper we propose a new approach, a projrcted correlation function approach. We investigate the QCD sum rule for the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant derived from a projrcted correlation function by applying the procedure of Ref. . An advantage of the new approach is that the discontinuity of the projected correlation function does not include ill-defined terms even in the chiral limit in contrast to the previous approaches. Another point is that we obtain sum rules not only in the chiral limit but also with consistently including $`O(m_\pi )`$ corrections.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we summarize the physical content of the correlation function without referring to the effective lagrangian. We introduce the projected correlation function and study its physical content in Sec. III. In Sec. IV we construct QCD sum rules for the projected correlation function and investigate the numerical results of the obtained sum rules. Section V is devoted to summary.

## II PHYSICAL CONTENT OF THE CORRELATION FUNCTION

In this section, we summarize the physical content of the correlation function defined by Eq. (1) without referring to the effective theory . The correlation function $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)`$ in Eq. (1) has a pole at $`p^2=M^2`$ and $`(pk)^2=M^2`$ where $`p`$ and $`pk`$, respectively, become on-shell momenta for the nucleon where $`M`$ denotes the nucleon mass. The $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant, $`g`$, is defined through the coefficient of the pole as

$`\overline{u}(𝒑r)(\text{/}pM)\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)(\text{/}p\text{/}kM)u(𝒒s)|_{p^2=M^2,(pk)^2=M^2}=i\lambda ^2g\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _5u(𝒒s),`$ (2)
where $`q=pk`$, $`u(𝒑r)`$ is a Dirac spinor with momentum $`p`$, spin $`r`$ and is normalized as $`\overline{u}(𝒑r)u(𝒑r)=2M`$. $`\lambda `$ is the coupling strength of the interpolating field to the nucleon.

In addition to the pole singularity, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)`$ has a branch cut singularity starting from the threshold of the pion-nucleon channel, $`p^2=(M+m_\pi )^2`$, to infinity where $`m_\pi `$ is the pion mass. We restrict ourselves to the positive energy region, $`p_0>0`$, for simplicity.

In order to classify the singularity of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)`$, we define the $`\pi NN`$ vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q^{},k^{})`$ $`(p=q^{}+k^{})`$, and the pion-nucleon T-matrix, $`T(q^{},k^{},q,k)`$ $`(q^{}+k^{}=q+k)`$, by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q^{},k^{})=(\text{/}pM)\left[i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}0|T[\eta (x)\overline{\eta }(0)]|\pi (k^{})}\right](\text{/}q^{}M),`$ (3)
$`T(q^{},k^{},q,k)=(\text{/}q^{}M)\left[i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iq^{}x}\pi (k^{})|T[\eta (x)\overline{\eta }(0)]|\pi (k)}\right](\text{/}qM).`$ (4)
The correlation function is related to the vertex function as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)={\displaystyle \frac{\text{/}p+M}{p^2M^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k){\displaystyle \frac{\text{/}p\text{/}k+M}{(pk)^2M^2}}.`$
Let us regard $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)`$ as a function of the center-of-mass energy, i.e. $`p_0`$ in the frame $`𝒑=0`$, and consider the discontinuity of the correlation function. We adopt the following notation for the dispersive (continuous) part and the absorptive (discontinuous) part, respectively:

$`\mathrm{Re}F(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[F(p)|_{p^0=p^0+i\eta }+F(p)|_{p^0=p^0i\eta }\right],`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{Im}F(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}\left[F(p)|_{p^0=p^0+i\eta }F(p)|_{p^0=p^0i\eta }\right].`$ (6)
The absorptive part of the correlation function, $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)`$, can be written as

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)=(\text{/}p+M)\{`$ $`\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2M^2)((pk)^2M^2)}}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)`$ (8)
$`+\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2M^2)((pk)^2M^2)}}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)\}(\text{/}p\text{/}k+M).`$
The first term represents the pole contribution and the second term represents the continuum contribution.

When the center-of-mass energy, $`p_0`$, is above the threshold of the pion-nuclon channel, $`M+m_\pi `$, but below that of the next channel, only the pion-nucleon channel contributes in the intermediate states and the absorptive part of the vertex function, $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)`$, is given by

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{p_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q^{},k^{})(\text{/}q^{}+M)T^{}(q^{},k^{},q,k)},`$ (9)
where $`t`$ is defined through $`p_0=\sqrt{M^2+t^2}+\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+t^2}`$. $`q^{}`$ and $`k^{}`$ are the on-shell momenta for the nucleon and the pion, respectively.

From Eq. (9), one sees that in the vicinity of the pion-nucleon threshold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be expanded as

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & (p_0<M+m_\pi )\hfill \\ G_1t+O(t^3)\hfill & (p_0>M+m_\pi )\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}G_0+G_1\tau +O(\tau ^3)\hfill & (p_0<M+m_\pi )\hfill \\ G_0+O(t^2)\hfill & (p_0>M+m_\pi )\hfill \end{array},\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
where $`\tau =it`$. In Eq. (16) the behaviour of the dispersive part is determined from that of the absorptive part by analytic continuation. From Eq. (16) one sees that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_0}}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)|_{p_0=M+m_\pi ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & (m_\pi 0)\hfill \\ \text{finite constant}\hfill & (m_\pi =0)\hfill \end{array},`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_0}}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)|_{p_0=M+m_\pi +ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (20)
We found in Ref. that in the chiral limit the double-pole terms survive only for the invariant correlation function with the Dirac structures $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu `$. The coefficients of the single poles for the structures $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu `$ involve the derivatives of the vertex functions with respect to $`p^2`$ and are therefore ill defined due to Eq. (19). Therefore, the use of naive QCD sum rules for these structures in the chiral limit is not justified.

A reasonable procedure to make an ansatz for the absorptive part of the invariant correlation function to be used in the sum rule would be first to transform it, for instance by multiplying by $`p^2M^2`$, to a form which does not include ill-defined terms. However as pionted out in Refs. one is unable to find a reasonable result using this proceedure. In this paper, we will propose a different way to construct a sum rule.

## III PHYSICAL CONTENT OF THE PROJECTED CORRELATION FUNCTION

We define the projected correlation function, $`\pi NN`$ vertex function and pion-nucleon T-matrix by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_+(pr,qs,k)=\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _0\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)\gamma _0u(𝒒s),`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)=\overline{u}(𝒑r)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q,k)u(𝒒s),`$ (22)
$`T_+(qs,k,q^{}s^{},k^{})=\overline{u}(𝒒s)T(q,k,q^{},k^{})u(𝒒^{}s^{}).`$ (23)
The projected vertex function is related to the projected correlation function as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)=(p_0M)(p_0E_q\omega _k)\mathrm{\Pi }_+(pr,qs,k),`$ (24)
where $`E_q=\sqrt{M^2+𝒒^2}`$ and $`\omega _k=\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+𝒌^2}`$. It should be noted that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+(pr,qs,k)`$ has poles at $`p_0=M`$ and $`p_0=E_q+\omega _k`$ but not at $`p_0=M`$ and $`p_0=E_q+\omega _k`$. Then the absorptive part of the projected correlation function, $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$, can be written as

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(pr,qs,k)=`$ $`\pi \delta (p_0M){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)}{E_q+\omega _kM}}\pi \delta (p_0E_q\omega _k){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)}{E_q+\omega _kM}}`$ (26)
$`+\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_0M)(p_0E_q\omega _k)}}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k).`$
Let us now consider the last term of Eq. (26). When the center-of-mass energy, $`p_0`$, is above the threshold of the pion-nucleon channel, $`M+m_\pi `$, but below that of the next channel, $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{p_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,q^{}s^{},k^{})T_+^{}(q^{}s^{},k^{},qs,k)}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{p_0}}\lambda ^2g(p_0,t^2){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{(2\pi )^3}\overline{u}(𝒑r)i\gamma _5(\text{/}q^{}+M)T^{}(q^{}k^{},q,k)u(𝒒s)},`$ (28)
where $`q^{}`$ and $`k^{}`$ are on-shell momenta for the nucleon and the pion, respectively, and $`g(p_0,t^2)`$ is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,q^{}s^{},k^{})=\lambda ^2\overline{u}(𝒑r)i\gamma _5u(𝒒^{}s^{})g(p_0,t^2).`$ (29)
Since $`\overline{u}(𝒑r)i\gamma _5(\text{/}q^{}+M)\overline{u}(𝒑r)i\gamma _5(t^2/2M\gamma _iq_i^{})0`$ as $`p_0M+m`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ behaves in the vicinity of the pion-nucleon threshold as

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & (p_0<M+m_\pi )\hfill \\ O(t^3)\hfill & (p_0>M+m_\pi )\hfill \end{array},`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}G_++O(\tau ^3)\hfill & (p_0<M+m_\pi )\hfill \\ G_++O(t^2)\hfill & (p_0>M+m_\pi )\hfill \end{array},`$ (35)
which is in contrast to Eq. (16).

Here we should discuss the behaviour of $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$ in the chiral limit with $`k=0`$: We obtain

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(pr,qs,k)=`$ $`\pi \delta ^{}(p_0M)\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)+\pi \delta (p_0M){\displaystyle \frac{}{p_0}}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)`$ (37)
$`+\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_0M)^2}}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k).`$
The coefficient of the single pole term vanishes since $`\frac{}{p_0}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ behave as $`(p_0M)^2`$ for $`p_0<M`$ and $`p_0M`$ for $`p_0>M`$. The last term behaves as $`\theta (p_0M)(p_0M)`$ since $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ behaves as $`\theta (p_0M)(p_0M)^3`$. Therefore, the second term and third term on the right-hand side of Eq. (37) are well defined in the dispersion integral.

## IV CONSTRUCTION OF SUM RULES

For the sake of completeness we first summarize the derivation of the Borel sum rule for the projected correlation function. The dispersion relation for the projected correlation function in the variable $`p_0`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_+(p_0,𝒑)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(p_0^{},𝒑)}{p_0p_0^{}+i\eta }}.`$ (38)
By splitting the projected correlation function into the even part, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{even}}=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Pi }(p_0,𝒑)+\mathrm{\Pi }(p_0,𝒑)]`$, and odd one, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{odd}}=\frac{1}{2p_0}[\mathrm{\Pi }(p_0,𝒑)\mathrm{\Pi }(p_0,𝒑)]`$, we rewrite Eq. (38) in terms of the even and odd parts as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{even}}(p_0^2,𝒑)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}\frac{p_0^{}}{p_0^2p_0^2}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(p_0^{},𝒑)},`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{odd}}(p_0^2,𝒑)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}\frac{1}{p_0^2p_0^2}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(p_0^{},𝒑)}.`$ (40)
Applying the Borel transformation,

$`L_B\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\mathrm{}}{p_0^2\mathrm{}}}{p_0^2/n=M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_0^2)^n}{(n1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp_0^2}}\right)^n,`$
where $`M_B`$ is called the Borel mass, we get

$`L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{even}}(p_0^2,𝒑)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}\frac{p_0^{}}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(p_0^{},𝒑)},`$ (41)
$`L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{odd}}(p_0^2,𝒑)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}\frac{1}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(p_0^{},𝒑)}.`$ (42)
These equations with the correlation functions on the left-hand side evaluated by the OPE are the Borel sum rules.

Now, we calculate the OPE of the two-point correlation function. We consider the following correlation function with charged pion,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}0|T[\eta _p(x)\overline{\eta }_n(0)]|\pi ^+(k)}.`$ (43)
with the interpolating field for the proton and the neutron as

$`\eta _p`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{abc}[u_a^TC\gamma _\mu u_b]\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu d_c,`$
$`\eta _n`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{abc}[d_a^TC\gamma _\mu d_b]\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu u_c,`$
where $`u`$ and $`d`$ are the up-quark field and the down-quark field, respectively, $`C`$ is the charge conjugation operator and $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are color indices. The Wilson coefficients for eq.(43) have been calculated in Ref. \[2-6\]. $`O(k^0)`$ terms for the structure $`i\gamma _5`$, $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }k^\mu p^\nu `$ are obtained in Ref. ,  and , respectively. Ref  also gives $`O(k)`$ terms for the structure $`i\gamma _5`$. Here, we also need $`O(k)`$ terms for the structure $`i\gamma _5\text{/}p`$, $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }k^\mu p^\nu `$. We calculate the Wilson coefficients of the short-distance expansion in two steps: we perform the light-cone expansion of the correlation function first and the short-distance expansion of the light-cone operators second. The reason for doing this is to use the parameterization of the vacuum-to-pion matrix elements of the light-cone operators given in Ref.,

$`0|\overline{d}(0)i\gamma _5u(x)|\pi ^+(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi m_\pi ^2}{m_u+m_d}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}kx+O\left((kx)^2\right)\right),`$ (44)
$`0|\overline{d}(0)\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }u(x)|\pi ^+(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}i(k_\mu x_\nu k_\nu x_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi m_\pi ^2}{6(m_u+m_d)}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}kx+O\left((kx)^2\right)\right),`$ (45)
$`0|\overline{d}(0)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu u(x)|\pi ^+(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}ik_\mu f_\pi \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}kx+O\left((kx)^2\right)\right)`$ (48)
$`+\sqrt{2}ik_\mu x^2{\displaystyle \frac{5f_\pi \delta ^2}{36}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}kx+O\left((kx)^2\right)\right)`$
$`\sqrt{2}ix_\mu kx{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi \delta ^2}{18}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}kx+O\left((kx)^2\right)\right),`$
$`0|\overline{d}(0)g_s\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta }(0)\gamma _\mu u(x)|\pi ^+(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}i(k_\beta g_{\alpha \mu }k_\alpha g_{\beta \mu })f_\pi \delta ^2`$ (52)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ikx{\displaystyle \frac{7+6ϵ}{84}}+O\left((kx)^2\right)\right)`$
$`+\sqrt{2}(k_\alpha x_\beta k_\beta x_\alpha )k_\mu f_\pi \delta ^2`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{76ϵ}{252}}ikx{\displaystyle \frac{43ϵ}{504}}+O\left((kx)^2\right)\right).`$
$`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant, $`m_u`$ ($`m_d`$) is the up(down)-quark mass, $`G_{\rho \sigma }`$ is the gluon field tensor and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }`$. $`\delta ^2`$ is defined through $`g_s0|\overline{d}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\nu u|\pi ^+(k)=\sqrt{2}if_\pi \delta ^2k_\mu `$ where $`g_s`$ is the coupling constant of the QCD. $`ϵ`$ is a parameter associated with the deviation of twist-4 pion wave functions from their asymptotic forms .

Going through the above two steps, we obtain the OPE of the correlation function as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(p,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\pi ^2}}\{i\gamma _5[p^2\mathrm{ln}(p^2){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{f_\pi }})]`$ (62)
$`+i\gamma _5\text{/}k[p^2\mathrm{ln}(p^2)2f_\pi +\mathrm{ln}(p^2)2f_\pi \delta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q^2}{f_\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^4}}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}qg_s\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }q}{f_\pi }})]`$
$`+\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu [\mathrm{ln}(p^2){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{3f_\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{3}}f_\pi \overline{q}q`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^4}}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}f_\pi g_s\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }q{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{54}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{f_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{104\pi ^2}{27}}f_\pi \delta ^2\overline{q}q)]`$
$`+i\gamma _5pk\left[\mathrm{ln}(p^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{f_\pi }}\right)\right]`$
$`+i\gamma _5\text{/}ppk\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}f_\pi \delta ^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q^2}{f_\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}g_s\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }q\right]`$
$`+i\gamma _5\text{/}kpk\left[\mathrm{ln}(p^2)(2f_\pi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}f_\pi \delta ^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2\right]`$
$`+\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu pk[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{3}}f_\pi \overline{q}q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^6}}({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{3}}f_\pi g_s\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }q`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{448+32ϵ}{63}}\pi ^2f_\pi \delta ^2\overline{q}q{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2)]\},`$
where $`\widehat{O}`$ denotes the vacuum-to-vacuum matrix element of the operator $`\widehat{O}`$, $`\overline{q}q=\overline{u}u=\overline{d}d`$ and $`G^2=2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\left(G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }\right)`$.

Some comments are in order here. The matrix elements of the four-quark operators and the mixed quark-gluon operators are approximated to factorize. Eq. (62) is expressed in terms of the quark condensate, $`\overline{q}q`$, by the use of the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation, $`f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2=(m_u+m_d)\overline{q}q`$. Though one might think that the terms with $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu `$ are of higher order in $`k`$ than those with $`i\gamma _5`$ and $`i\gamma _5\text{/}p`$, the former and the latter are of the same order when sandwiched by $`\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _0`$ and $`\gamma _0u(𝒒s)`$ in the center-of-mass frame:

$`\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _0i\gamma _5\text{/}k\gamma _0u(𝒒s)`$ $`=`$ $`(E_q+M\omega _k)\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _0i\gamma _5\gamma _0u(𝒒s)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _kE_qM}{p_0}}\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _0i\gamma _5\text{/}p\gamma _0u(𝒒s),`$
$`\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _0\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu \gamma _0u(𝒒s)`$ $`=`$ $`p_0(E_q+M)\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _0i\gamma _5\gamma _0u(𝒒s)`$
$`=`$ $`(E_q+M)\overline{u}(𝒑r)\gamma _0i\gamma _5\text{/}p\gamma _0u(𝒒s).`$
Thus, in Eq. (62) we showed the terms which survive up to $`O\left(p_0^4\right)`$ and $`O\left(\omega _k\right)`$ after projection, and therefore the dimension of the operator does not play the role of the expansion parameter.

Next, we express the right-hand side of the Borel sum rule, Eq. (41), by physical quantities. We would like to make an ansatz for the absorptive part of the projected correlation function of Eq. (21) to be used in the sum rule. Since Eq. (37) does not include irregular terms, we make the following ansatz for the absorptive part of the projected correlation function for the $`\pi ^+`$-neutron-proton vertex:

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(pr,qs,k)=`$ $`\pi \delta (p_0M){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)}{E_q+\omega _kM}}\pi \delta (p_0E_q\omega _k){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(pr,qs,k)}{E_q+\omega _kM}}`$ (64)
$`+\left[\theta (p_0\omega _\pi )+\theta (p_0\omega _\pi )\right]\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+^{\mathrm{OPE}}(pr,qs,k)`$
$`=`$ $`\delta (p_0M)\overline{u}(𝒑r)i\gamma _5u(𝒒s)\sqrt{2}\pi \lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{g(M,𝒌^2)}{E_q+\omega _kM}}`$ (67)
$`\delta (p_0E_q\omega _k)\overline{u}(𝒑r)i\gamma _5u(𝒒s)\sqrt{2}\pi \lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{g(E_q+\omega _k,𝒌^2)}{E_q+\omega _kM}}`$
$`+\left[\theta (p_0\omega _\pi )+\theta (p_0\omega _\pi )\right]\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+^{\mathrm{OPE}}(pr,qs,k),`$
where $`\omega _\pi `$ is the effective continuum threshold of $`\pi N`$ or $`\pi \overline{N}`$ channel and $`\sqrt{2}`$ on the right-hand side is the isospin factor.

As is explained in Eq. (2), the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant is defined at $`p^2=M^2`$, $`(pk)^2=M^2`$, i.e.,

$`g=g\left(p_0=M,𝒌^2=m_\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^4}{4M^2}}\right),`$ (68)
while $`g(M,𝒌^2)`$ and $`g(E_q+\omega _k,𝒌^2)`$ in Eq. (64) refer to different kinematical points. However, if one expands them in $`m_\pi `$ taking $`𝒌=0`$ one finds:

$`g(M,0)=g+O\left(m_\pi ^2\right),`$
$`g(M+m_\pi ,0)=g(M,0)+m_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{g(p_0,0)}{p_0}}|_{p_0=M}+O\left(m_\pi ^2\right)=g+g^{}m_\pi +O\left(m_\pi ^2\right).`$
Therefore, if we are interested only in the result of $`O(m_\pi )`$, the difference of $`g(M,0)`$ and $`g`$ can be ignored. Then, substituting Eq. (64) into the right-han side of Eq. (41) and expanding in $`O(m_\pi )`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}\frac{p_0^{}}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(p^{}r,qs,k)}`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`\overline{u}(𝒑r)i\gamma _5u(𝒒s){\displaystyle \frac{2M}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(g{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}M+g}{2M^2}}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\lambda ^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}})+(\mathrm{Cont}.)`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_0^{}\frac{1}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_+(p^{}r,qs,k)}`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{u}(𝒑r)i\gamma _5u(𝒒s){\displaystyle \frac{2M}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(g{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2M}}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\lambda ^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}})+(\mathrm{Cont}.),`$ (72)
where $`O(m_\pi ^2)`$ terms are ignored. In Eq. (69) $`(\mathrm{Cont}.)`$ denoes the continuum contribution coming from the last term of Eq. (64), which can be taken into account by multiplying the term $`p^{2(n1)}\mathrm{ln}(p^2)`$ in the OPE by

$`C_n(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`1\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)^{n1}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right),`$
after Borel transformation.

Substituting Eq. (62) and Eq. (69) into the left-hand side and the right-hand side of Eq. (41), respectively, we obtain sum rules for the coupling constant,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\left(g{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}M+g}{2M^2}}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\lambda ^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\pi ^2}}\{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}C_2(\omega _\pi )[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}+(E_q+M\omega _k)2f_\pi ]C_1(\omega _\pi )[(E_q+M\omega _k)2f_\pi \delta ^2]`$ (78)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{f_\pi }}+(E_q+M\omega _k){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q^2}{f_\pi }}+f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2)`$
$`\omega _k{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}(8{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q^2}{f_\pi }}+f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2+(E_q+M)16f_\pi \overline{q}q)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}}[(E_q+M\omega _k){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2\overline{q}q^2}{f_\pi }}\omega _k{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2\overline{q}q^2}{f_\pi }}`$
$`\omega _k(E_q+M){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}(4f_\pi m_0^2\overline{q}q{\displaystyle \frac{448+32ϵ}{21}}f_\pi \delta ^2\overline{q}q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2)]\},`$
$``$ $`L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]`$ (79)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\left(g{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2M}}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\lambda ^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4\pi ^2}}\{C_1(\omega _\pi )[(E_q+M){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{3f_\pi }}\omega _k({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}+(E_q+M)2f_\pi )]`$ (84)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\left[(E_q+M)\left({\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{3}}f_\pi \overline{q}q+\omega _k{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}f_\pi \delta ^2\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}}[(E_q+M){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}(2f_\pi m_0^2\overline{q}q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{f_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{104}{9}}f_\pi \delta ^2\overline{q}q)`$
$`+\omega _k{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{f_\pi }}+(E_q+M)f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2)]\},`$
$``$ $`L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}],`$ (85)
where we have used the parametrization, $`g_s\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }q=m_0^2\overline{q}q`$.

From the sum rule for the vacuum-to-vacuum matrix element of the same operator, the strength $`\lambda ^2`$ is given up to the dimension seven by

$`M{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left[M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}C_2(\omega _0)(\overline{q}q)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\overline{q}q\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{6M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right]`$ (86)
$``$ $`L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{0\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}],`$ (87)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{8}}C_3(\omega _0)+{\displaystyle \frac{C_1(\omega _0)}{8}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^4\overline{q}q^2}{3M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right]`$ (88)
$``$ $`L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{0\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}],`$ (89)
where $`\omega _0`$ is the effective continuum threshold.

Now, we eliminate $`\lambda ^2`$ by dividing the vacuum-to-pion sum rule by the vacuum-to-vacuum sum rule. Since we have even and odd equations for the vacuum-to-pion and the vacuum-to-vacuum correlation functions, respectively, we obtain the following four sum rules

$`g{\displaystyle \frac{g+g^{}M}{2M^2}}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4M}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]}{L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{0\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]}},`$ (90)
$`g{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2M}}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4M}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]}{L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{0\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]}},`$ (91)
$`g{\displaystyle \frac{g+g^{}M}{2M^2}}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]}{L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{0\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]}},`$ (92)
$`g{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2M}}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4M}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{+\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]}{L_B[\mathrm{\Pi }_{0\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{OPE}\mathrm{Cont}.}]}}.`$ (93)
The procedure of extracting the coupling constant goes as follows. We regard the right-hand side of the each of the above equations as a function of the Borel mass squared, $`M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Eq. (90) means that if the sum rule works there is a region in $`M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ where the right-hand side is well approximated by a linear function in $`M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. In other words we rewrite the above sum rules in the form,

$`g=f(M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dM_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}f(M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),`$ (94)
where $`f(M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ denotes the right-hand side of the sum rules, Eq. (90), and look for plateau in $`M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. If we find a plateau, we conclude the value of the plateau to be the sum rule prediction. In this procedure the effective continuum thresholds are determined so as to provide the most stable plateau.

We are now ready to discuss the numerical results of the sum rules. In the sum rules, we use the following parameters which determine vacuum-to-vacuum and vacuum-to-pion matrix elements of the quark-gluon composite operators,

$`\overline{q}q=(225\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^3,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2=(330\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^4,`$ (95)
$`m_0^2=1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2,\delta ^2=0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2,ϵ=0.5.`$ (96)
We first discuss the results in the chiral limit. We searched for the effective continuum thresholds, $`\omega _0`$ and $`\omega _\pi `$, between $`1.44`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{}`$ for which the calculated coupling constant, $`g`$, has the most stable plateau as a fanction of the Borel mass squared, $`M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, over the range 1 GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ 2 GeV<sup>2</sup>. The optimum choices are ($`\omega _0`$, $`\omega _\pi `$)= (2.4 GeV, 2.0 GeV), (1.9 GeV, 1.6 GeV), (2.0 GeV, 1.44 GeV) and (1.9 GeV, 1.6 GeV) for the first, second, third and fourth sum rules, respectively. The calculated coupling constant is plotted as a function of the Borel mass squared in Fig. 1. In all four sum rules stable plateaus are found with the value between 7 and 9.5. The OPE of the second sum rule is the same as that for the Dirac structure $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\mu k^\nu `$ in Ref, while the physical parametrization of the former is different from that of the latter since the single pole term vanishes in the former but exists in the latter. However, the prediction of the former, $`g=9`$, is numerically close to the latter since the coefficient of the single pole term is relatively small as is pointed out in Ref . The OPE of the first sum rule is a combination of the $`i\gamma _5`$ and $`i\gamma _5\text{/}k`$ structures and its prediction, $`g=9.5`$, is closer to the empirical value, $`g_{\mathrm{emp}.}=13.4`$, than other sum rules. The third and the fourth sum rules do not correspond to sum rules in previous works, since the former uses the odd part of the vacuum-to-vacuum sum rule while the latter uses the even one. The calculated coupling constants of the third and the fourth sum rules are smaller than those of the first and the second sum rules.

We turn to the results including $`O(m_\pi )`$ corrections. We first examine if the effect of the contninuum is regarded as correction or qualitative change in four sum rules. Figs. 2 and 3 show $`g`$ vs. Borel mass squared for $`\omega _0=\omega _\pi =`$ 1.44 GeV and $`\omega _0=\omega _\pi =\mathrm{}`$, respectively. From Figs. 2 and 3 one sees that the third sum rule is very sensitive to the effective threshold while other three depend rather moderately on the effective threshold. Thus, we exclude the third sum rule from the following analysis. Then, as in the chiral limit we searched for the effective continuum thresholds, $`\omega _0`$ and $`\omega _\pi `$, between $`1.44`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{}`$ for which the calculated coupling constant, $`g`$, has the most stable plateau as a fanction of the Borel mass squared, $`M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, over the range 1 GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ 2 GeV<sup>2</sup>. The calculated coupling constants in the three sum rules are plotted in Fig. 4. From Figs. 1 and 4 one sees that $`O(m_\pi )`$ correction is large for the fourth sum rule which seems to indicate that the sum rule is unreliable. In the second sum rule the coupling constant changes almost 40% from $`M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$=1 GeV<sup>2</sup> to 2 GeV<sup>2</sup>. Thus, the second sum rule does not satisfy the Borel stability. In contrast the first sum rule has a very stable plateau. Therefore, we conclude that the first sum rule is the best for extracting the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant. Comparing the solid line in Fig. 4 and in Fig. 1 we find the $`O(m_\pi )`$ correction for the coupling constant in the first sum rule is about 5%.

Finally, we disscuss the errors due to uncertainties of the parameters. We found that the coupling constant is most sensitive to the quark condensate, typically quoted error, $`\overline{q}q=(225\pm 25\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^3`$, changes $`g`$ by $`\pm 1.7`$. The errors of $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2`$ are expected to be irrelevant since the contribution from the gluon condensate is well known to be small in the nucleon sum rule. We next study the errors due to $`m_0^2`$ and $`\delta ^2`$. The parameter, $`m_0^2`$, lies in the range between $`0.6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`1.4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ according to Ref. . The numerical estimation, $`\delta ^2=0.2\pm 0.02\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, was performed by Novikov et al. through the QCD sum rules in Ref. . The errors due to uncertainty of $`m_0^2`$ and $`\delta ^2`$ turn out to be less than 1% and 5%, respectively. We expect that the uncertainty of $`ϵ`$ is also unimportant, since from Eq. (73) its contribution is too small. We finally investigate the errors due to the uncertainties of the effective continuum thresholds. From the Borel stability analysis we determined the errors of the effective continuum thresholds as $`\omega _0=2.5\pm 0.14`$ GeV and $`\omega _\pi =2.0\pm 0.14`$ GeV.These errors change $`g`$ by $`\pm 1.3`$ and $`\pm 1.4`$, respectively. Taking account of all these uncertainties, we conclude

$`g=10\pm 3,`$ (97)
which is in reasonable agreement with the emprical value.

A comment for the choice of $`\delta ^2`$ is in order here. Birse and Krippa estimated the uncertainty of $`\delta ^2`$ as $`0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2\delta ^20.45\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and took $`\delta ^2=0.35\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in the calculation of $`g`$ . If we take $`\delta ^2=0.35\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, from Eq. (94) we obtain

$`g14.`$ (98)
Thus the prediction of our sum rule does not become bad even if we take $`\delta ^2`$ much larger than the typical value $`0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

## V SUMMARY

We have proposed a new approach in order to construct QCD sum rules for the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant, $`g`$, starting from the vacuum-to-pion correlation function of the interpolating fields of two nucleons and taking its matrix element with respect to nucleon spinors. This is based on the detailed study of the physical content of the correlation function without referring to the effective lagrangian. In the chiral limit either the double-pole term vanishes or the single-pole term as well as the continuum term is not separately well defined under the dispersion integral in previous approaches using invariant correlation functions, while the double-pole term survives but the single-pole term and the continuum term give well-defined contributions in our new approach with projected correlation functions. In this respect the use of the projected correlation function seems advantageous. Another advantage of our approach is that unwanted pole contribution is projected out.

Calculating the Wilson coefficients of the OPE of the correlation function up to $`O\left(M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right)`$ and $`O\left(m_\pi \right)`$ where $`M_B`$ and $`m_\pi `$ are the Borel mass and the pion mass, respectively, we have constructed new QCD sum rules for the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant from the projected correlation function with consistently including $`O(m_\pi )`$ corrections. Since there are even and odd terms both for the vacuum-to-pion and the vacuum-to-vacuum sum rules, by dividing former by the latter in order to eliminate the coupling strength of the interpolating field to the nucleon we have derived four sum rules.

We examined if the pole contribution dominates the continuum contribution, if $`O(m_\pi )`$ correction is reasonably small and if the result is stable in the sense of Borel stability. We concluded that among four sum rules the one obtained by dividing the even vacuum-to-pion sum rule by the even vacuum-to-vacuum sum rule is most pertinent. After roughly estimating errors we obtaind, $`g=10\pm 3`$, as a result of this sum rule, which is in reasonable agreement with the empirical value. . We also found that the $`O(m_\pi )`$ correction is about 5%.

The present approach can be used for other interesting applications. First of all, if we keep the pion momentum finite in the present formalism, we will obtain the information on the $`\pi NN`$ form factors. It is also possible to calculate not only the coupling constants of meson and two same baryons like $`\eta NN`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ but also the coupling constants of meson and two different baryons like $`KN\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ without taking the flavor SU(3) limit.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Makoto Oka and Takumi Doi for helpful discussions and valuable comments.    1. M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385; Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 448.
2. L. J. Reinders, H. R. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rep. 127 (1985) 1.
3. L. J. Reinders, H. R. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. B213 (1983) 109.
4. H. Shiomi and T. Hatsuda, Nucl. Phys. A594 (1995) 294.
5. M. C. Birse and B. Krippa, Phys. Lett. B373 (1996) 9; Phys. Rev. C54 (1996) 3240.
6. H. Kim, S.H. Lee and M. Oka, Phys. Lett. B453 (1999) 199;
Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034007.
7. T. Doi, H. Kim and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. C62 (2000) 055202.
8. K Maltman, Phys. Rev. C57 (1998) 69.
9. Y. Kondo and O. Morimatsu, Phys. Rev. C66 (2002) 028201.
10. Y. Kondo and O. Morimatsu, Prog. Theor. Phys. 100 (1998) 1.
11. B. L. Ioffe, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 317; Nucl. Phys. B191 (1981) 591(E).
12. V. M. Belyaev, V. M. Braun, A. Khodjamirian and R. Rückel,
Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 6177.
13. V. M. Braun, I. B. Filyanov, Z. Phys. C48 (1990) 239.
14. A. A. Ovchinnikov and A. A. Pivovarov,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 48 (1988) 721; M. Kremer and G. Schierholz, Phys. Lett. B194 (1987) 283; M. V. Polyyakov and C. Weiss, Phys. Lett. B387 (1996) 841.
15. V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B237 (1984) 525.


text:
# Improved Measurement of Mixing-induced 𝑪𝑷 Violation in the Neutral 𝑩 Meson System

on leave from \]Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica on leave from \]University of Toronto, Toronto ON The Belle Collaboration

## Abstract

We present an improved measurement of the standard model $`CP`$ violation parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ (also known as $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$) based on a sample of $`85\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. One neutral $`B`$ meson is reconstructed in a $`J/\psi K_S^0`$, $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$, $`\chi _{c1}K_S^0`$, $`\eta _cK_S^0`$, $`J/\psi K^0`$, or $`J/\psi K_L^0`$ $`CP`$-eigenstate decay channel and the flavor of the accompanying $`B`$ meson is identified from its decay products. From the asymmetry in the distribution of the time interval between the two $`B`$ meson decay points, we obtain $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1=0.719\pm 0.074\text{(stat)}\pm 0.035\text{(syst)}`$.

preprint: KEK Preprint 2002-86preprint: Belle Preprint 2002-30

In the standard model (SM), $`CP`$ violation arises from an irreducible complex phase in the weak interaction quark-mixing matrix \[Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix\] bib:ckm . In particular, the SM predicts a $`CP`$-violating asymmetry in the time-dependent rates for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays to a common $`CP`$ eigenstate $`f_{CP}`$, where the transition is dominated by the $`bc\overline{c}s`$ process, with negligible corrections from strong interactions bib:sanda :

$$A(t)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}f_{CP})\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0f_{CP})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}f_{CP})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0f_{CP})}=\xi _f\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0,\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}f_{CP})`$ is the rate for $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ to $`f_{CP}`$ at a proper time $`t`$ after production, $`\xi _f`$ is the $`CP`$ eigenvalue of $`f_{CP}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ is the mass difference between the two $`B^0`$ mass eigenstates, and $`\varphi _1`$ is one of the three interior angles of the CKM unitarity triangle, defined as $`\varphi _1\pi \mathrm{arg}(V_{tb}^{}V_{td}/V_{cb}^{}V_{cd})`$. Non-zero values for $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ have been reported by the Belle and BaBar groups bib:cpv ; bib:babar .

Belle’s published measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ is based on a 29.1 fb-1 data sample containing $`31.3\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs produced at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. In this paper, we report an improved measurement that uses $`85\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs (78 fb-1). Two important changes exist in the analysis with respect to the published result bib:cpv ; we apply a new track reconstruction algorithm that provides better performance and a new proper-time interval resolution function bib:blife  that reduces systematic uncertainties in $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$. The data were collected with the Belle detector bib:belle  at the KEKB asymmetric collider bib:kekb , which collides 8.0 GeV $`e^{}`$ on 3.5 GeV $`e^+`$ at a small ($`\pm 11`$ mrad) crossing angle. We use events where one of the $`B`$ mesons decays to $`f_{CP}`$ at time $`t_{CP}`$, and the other decays to a self-tagging state $`f_{\text{tag}}`$, which distinguishes $`B^0`$ from $`\overline{B}^0`$, at time $`t_{\text{tag}}`$. The $`CP`$ violation manifests itself as an asymmetry $`A(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the proper time interval between the two decays: $`\mathrm{\Delta }tt_{CP}t_{\text{tag}}`$. At KEKB, the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance is produced with a boost of $`\beta \gamma =0.425`$ nearly along the $`z`$ axis defined as anti-parallel to the positron beam direction, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be determined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }z/(\beta \gamma )c`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is the $`z`$ distance between the $`f_{CP}`$ and $`f_{\text{tag}}`$ decay vertices, $`\mathrm{\Delta }zz_{CP}z_{\text{tag}}`$. The average value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is approximately 200 $`\mu `$m.

The Belle detector bib:belle  is a large-solid-angle spectrometer that includes a silicon vertex detector (SVD), a central drift chamber (CDC), an array of aerogel threshold Čerenkov counters (ACC), time-of-flight (TOF) scintillation counters, and an electromagnetic calorimeter comprised of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a superconducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux-return located outside of the coil is instrumented to detect $`K_L^0`$ mesons and to identify muons (KLM).

We reconstruct $`B^0`$ decays to the following $`CP`$ eigenstates footnote:cc : $`J/\psi K_S^0`$, $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$, $`\chi _{c1}K_S^0`$, $`\eta _cK_S^0`$ for $`\xi _f=1`$ and $`J/\psi K_L^0`$ for $`\xi _f=+1`$. We also use $`B^0J/\psi K^0`$ decays where $`K^0K_S^0\pi ^0`$. Here the final state is a mixture of even and odd $`CP`$, depending on the relative orbital angular momentum of the $`J/\psi `$ and $`K^0`$. We find that the final state is primarily $`\xi _f=+1`$; the $`\xi _f=1`$ fraction is $`0.19\pm 0.02\text{(stat)}\pm 0.03\text{(syst)}`$ bib:itoh . $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ mesons are reconstructed via their decays to $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=\mu ,e`$). The $`\psi (2S)`$ is also reconstructed via $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, and the $`\chi _{c1}`$ via $`J/\psi \gamma `$. The $`\eta _c`$ is detected in the $`K_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^+K^{}\pi ^0`$, and $`p\overline{p}`$ modes. For the $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ mode, we use $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays; for other modes we only use $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. For reconstructed $`Bf_{CP}`$ candidates other than $`J/\psi K_L^0`$, we identify $`B`$ decays using the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE_B^{\text{cms}}E_{\text{beam}}^{\text{cms}}`$ and the beam-energy constrained mass $`M_{\text{bc}}\sqrt{(E_{\text{beam}}^{\text{cms}})^2(p_B^{\text{cms}})^2}`$, where $`E_{\text{beam}}^{\text{cms}}`$ is the beam energy in the center-of-mass system (cms) of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, and $`E_B^{\text{cms}}`$ and $`p_B^{\text{cms}}`$ are the cms energy and momentum of the reconstructed $`B`$ candidate, respectively.

Figure 1 (left) shows the $`M_{\text{bc}}`$ distributions for all $`B^0`$ candidates except for $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ that have $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ values in the signal region. Table 1 lists the numbers of observed candidates, $`N_{\text{rec}}`$.

Candidate $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ decays are selected by requiring ECL and/or KLM hit patterns that are consistent with the presence of a shower induced by a $`K_L^0`$ meson. The centroid of the shower is required to be within a $`45^{}`$ cone centered on the $`K_L^0`$ direction inferred from two-body decay kinematics and the measured four-momentum of the $`J/\psi `$. Figure 1 (right) shows the $`p_B^{\text{cms}}`$ distribution, calculated with the $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$ two-body decay hypothesis. The histograms are the results of a fit to the signal and background distributions. There are 1330 entries in total in the $`0.20p_B^{\text{cms}}0.45`$ GeV/$`c`$ signal region; the fit indicates a signal purity of 63%. The reconstruction and selection criteria for all $`f_{CP}`$ channels used in the measurement are described in more detail elsewhere bib:cpv .

Charged leptons, pions, kaons, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryons that are not associated with a reconstructed $`CP`$ eigenstate decay are used to identify the $`b`$-flavor of the accompanying $`B`$ meson. Based on the measured properties of these tracks, two parameters, $`q`$ and $`r`$, are assigned to an event. The first, $`q`$, has the discrete value $`+1`$ ($`1`$) when the tag-side $`B`$ meson is likely to be a $`B^0`$ ($`\overline{B}^0`$), and the parameter $`r`$ is an event-by-event Monte-Carlo-determined flavor-tagging dilution factor that ranges from $`r=0`$ for no flavor discrimination to $`r=1`$ for an unambiguous flavor assignment. It is used only to sort data into six intervals of $`r`$, according to estimated flavor purity. The wrong-tag probabilities, $`w_l(l=1,6)`$, that are used in the final fit are determined directly from data. Samples of $`B^0`$ decays to exclusively reconstructed self-tagging channels are utilized to obtain $`w_l`$ using time-dependent $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing oscillation: $`(N_{\text{OF}}N_{\text{SF}})/(N_{\text{OF}}+N_{\text{SF}})=(12w_l)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, where $`N_{\text{OF}}`$ and $`N_{\text{SF}}`$ are the numbers of opposite and same flavor events. The event fractions and wrong tag fractions are summarized in Table 2.

The total effective tagging efficiency is determined to be $`ϵ_{\text{eff}}_{l=1}^6ϵ_l(12w_l)^2=0.288\pm 0.006`$, where $`ϵ_l`$ is the event fraction for each $`r`$ interval. The error includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties. Improvements in the Monte Carlo simulation bib:kakuno  and in the track reconstruction yield $`ϵ_{\text{eff}}`$ that is higher by 6.7% (relative) than the value in Ref. bib:cpv .

The vertex position for the $`f_{CP}`$ decay is reconstructed using leptons from $`J/\psi `$ decays or charged hadrons from $`\eta _c`$ decays, and that for $`f_{\text{tag}}`$ is obtained with well reconstructed tracks that are not assigned to $`f_{CP}`$. Tracks that are consistent with coming from a $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay are not used. Each vertex position is required to be consistent with the interaction region profile, determined run-by-run, smeared in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ plane to account for the $`B`$ meson decay length. With these requirements, we are able to determine a vertex even with a single track; the fraction of single-track vertices is about 10% for $`z_{CP}`$ and 22% for $`z_{\text{tag}}`$. The proper-time interval resolution function $`R_{\text{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ is formed by convolving four components: the detector resolutions for $`z_{CP}`$ and $`z_{\text{tag}}`$, the shift in the $`z_{\text{tag}}`$ vertex position due to secondary tracks originating from charmed particle decays, and the kinematic approximation that the $`B`$ mesons are at rest in the cms bib:blife . A small component of broad outliers in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distribution, caused by mis-reconstruction, is represented by a Gaussian function. We determine twelve resolution parameters from fits of data to the neutral and charged $`B`$ meson lifetimes bib:blife  and obtain an average $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution of $`1.43`$ ps (rms). The width of the outlier component is determined to be $`42_4^{+5}`$ ps; the fractions of the outlier components are $`(2\pm 1)\times 10^4`$ for events with both vertices reconstructed with more than one track, and $`(2.7\pm 0.2)\times 10^2`$ for events with at least one single-track vertex.

After flavor tagging and vertexing, we find 1465 events with $`q=+1`$ flavor tags and 1493 events with $`q=1`$. Table 1 lists the numbers of candidates used for the $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ determination, $`N_{\text{ev}}`$, and the estimated signal purity in the signal region for each $`f_{CP}`$ mode. Figure 2 shows the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions for the $`q\xi _f=+1`$ (solid points) and $`q\xi _f=1`$ (open points) event samples. The asymmetry between the two distributions demonstrates the violation of $`CP`$ symmetry.

We determine $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ from an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions. The probability density function (PDF) expected for the signal distribution is given by

$$𝒫_{\text{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,q,w_l,\xi _f)=\frac{e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}}{4\tau _{B^0}}[1q\xi _f(12w_l)\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)],$$
(2)
where we fix the $`B^0`$ lifetime $`\tau _{B^0}`$ and mass difference at their world average values bib:pdg . Each PDF is convolved with the appropriate $`R_{\text{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ to determine the likelihood value for each event as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$:

$`P_i`$ $`=`$ $`(1f_{\text{ol}}){\displaystyle }[f_{\text{sig}}𝒫_{\text{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t^{},q,w_l,\xi _f)R_{\text{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t^{})`$ (3)
$`+(1f_{\text{sig}})𝒫_{\text{bkg}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t^{})R_{\text{bkg}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t^{})]d\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}+f_{\text{ol}}P_{\text{ol}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t),`$
where $`f_{\text{sig}}`$ is the signal fraction calculated as a function of $`p_B^{\text{cms}}`$ for $`J/\psi K_L^0`$ and of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`M_{\text{bc}}`$ for other modes. $`𝒫_{\text{bkg}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ is the PDF for combinatorial background events, which is modeled as a sum of exponential and prompt components. It is convolved with a sum of two Gaussians, $`R_{\text{bkg}}`$, which is regarded as a resolution function for the background. To account for a small number of events that give large $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in both the signal and background, we introduce the PDF of the outlier component, $`P_{\text{ol}}`$, and its fraction $`f_{\text{ol}}`$. The only free parameter in the final fit is $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$, which is determined by maximizing the likelihood function $`L=_iP_i`$, where the product is over all events. The result of the fit is

$$\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1=0.719\pm 0.074\text{(stat)}\pm 0.035\text{(syst)}.$$

The systematic error is dominated by uncertainties in the vertex reconstruction (0.022). Other significant contributions come from uncertainties in $`w_l`$ (0.015), the resolution function parameters (0.014), a possible bias in the $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ fit (0.011), and the $`J/\psi K_L^0`$ background fraction (0.010). The errors introduced by uncertainties in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\tau _{B^0}`$ are less than 0.010.

Several checks on the measurement are performed. Table 3 lists the results obtained by applying the same analysis to various subsamples.

All values are statistically consistent with each other.

Figures 3(a)–3(c) show the raw asymmetries and the fit results for all modes combined, $`(c\overline{c})K_S^0`$, and $`J/\psi K_L^0`$, respectively. A fit to the non-$`CP`$ eigenstate modes $`B^0D^{()}\pi ^+`$, $`D^{}\rho ^+`$, $`J/\psi K^0(K^+\pi ^{})`$, and $`D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$, where no asymmetry is expected, yields $`0.005\pm 0.015`$(stat). Figure 3(d) shows the raw asymmetry for these non-$`CP`$ control samples.

The signal PDF for a neutral $`B`$ meson decaying into a $`CP`$ eigenstate \[Eq. (2)\] can be expressed in a more general form as

$`𝒫_{\text{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,q,w_l)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}}{4\tau _{B^0}}}\{1+q(12w_l)`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{2\text{Im}\lambda }{|\lambda |^2+1}}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda |^21}{|\lambda |^2+1}}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)]\},`$ (4)
where $`\lambda `$ is a complex parameter that depends on both $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing and on the amplitudes for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay to a $`CP`$ eigenstate. The presence of the cosine term ($`|\lambda |1`$) would indicate direct $`CP`$ violation; the value for $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ reported above is determined with the assumption $`|\lambda |=1`$, as $`|\lambda |`$ is expected to be very close to one in the SM. In order to test this assumption, we also performed a fit using the above expression with $`a_{CP}=\xi _f\text{Im}\lambda /|\lambda |`$ and $`|\lambda |`$ as free parameters, keeping everything else the same. We obtain

$$|\lambda |=0.950\pm 0.049\text{(stat)}\pm 0.025\text{(syst)}$$

and $`a_{CP}=0.720\pm 0.074\text{(stat)}`$ for all $`CP`$ modes combined, where the sources of the systematic error for $`|\lambda |`$ are the same as those for $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$. This result is consistent with the assumption used in our analysis.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# The Measurement of the Muon’s Anomalous Magnetic Moment Isn’t

thanks: Incumbent of a Technion Management Career Development Chair.

## Abstract

Recent results announced as measurements of the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment are in fact measurements of the muon’s anomalous spin precession frequency. This precession frequency receives contributions from both the muon’s anomalous magnetic and electric dipole moments. We note that all existing data cannot resolve this ambiguity, and the current deviation from standard model predictions may equally well be interpreted as evidence for new physics in the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment, new physics in the muon’s electric dipole moment, or both.

preprint: UCI-TR-2002-29, UFIFT-HEP-02-26, CERN-TH/2002-187

Recently the Muon $`(g2)`$ Collaboration announced a new measurement of the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment Bennett:2002jb . More precisely, however, what has been measured is the muon’s anomalous spin precession frequency. This receives contributions from both the muon’s anomalous magnetic and electric dipole moments, and we point out that the reported data and all existing constraints cannot distinguish between the two.

The recent result is the latest tour de force from the Muon $`(g2)`$ Experiment Carey:dd . This experiment measures the anomalous spin precession frequency of muons circulating in a perpendicular and uniform magnetic field. For fermions with gyromagnetic ratio $`g=2`$, the cyclotron and spin precession frequencies are identical. Measurements of the anomalous spin precession frequency have therefore been reported as measurements of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (MDM) $`a_\mu =(g_\mu 2)/2`$.

The spin precession frequency is also sensitive to the muon’s electric dipole moment (EDM), however Bailey:1979mn ; Feng:2001sq . For a muon traveling with velocity $`\beta `$ perpendicular to both a magnetic field $`B`$ and an electric field $`E`$, the anomalous spin precession vector is

$`\omega _a=a_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_\mu }}Bd_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\mathrm{}}}\beta \times B`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_\mu c}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^21}}a_\mu \right)\beta \times Ed_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}E,`$
where $`m_\mu `$ and $`d_\mu `$ are the muon’s mass and EDM. In recent experiments, the $`\beta \times E`$ term of Eq. (2) is removed by running at the ‘magic’ $`\gamma 29.3`$, and the last term is negligible. For highly relativistic muons with $`|\beta |1`$, then, the anomalous spin precession frequency is

$$|\omega _a||B|\left[\left(\frac{e}{m_\mu }\right)^2a_\mu ^2+\left(\frac{2c}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2d_\mu ^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(3)
and it constrains only a combination of $`d_\mu `$ and $`a_\mu `$.

In Fig. 1 we show regions of the $`(d_\mu ,a_\mu )`$ plane that are consistent with the new $`|\omega _a|`$ measurement. Also shown are the latest standard model (SM) predictions Jegerlehner ; Teubner ; Davier:2002dy . Assuming a negligible $`d_\mu `$, the measurement shows tentative evidence for new physics in $`a_\mu `$ with uncertain significance, given the spread in theoretical predictions. However, the $`|\omega _a|`$ result could just as well be taken as evidence for new physics in $`d_\mu `$. The best direct bound on $`d_\mu `$ Bailey:1979mn  is also shown. Clearly it does not resolve this ambiguity; if anything, it favors the EDM interpretation. In fact, even taking the lowest SM prediction for $`a_\mu `$, a striking and unambiguous conclusion is that, barring a fine-tuned cancelation, the Muon $`(g2)`$ Experiment has now set the most stringent upper bound on the muon’s electric dipole moment with $`|d_\mu |<3.2\times 10^{19}e\text{cm}`$.

The MDM/EDM ambiguity may be resolved by appealing to theoretical prejudice that $`d_\mu `$ is small. In supersymmetry, for example, the maximal value of $`a_\mu `$ is $`a_\mu ^{\text{max}}10^7`$, assuming only flavor conservation Feng:2001tr . By a phase rotation of the relevant operator, this implies a maximal EDM of roughly $`d_\mu ^{\text{max}}(e\mathrm{}/2m_\mu c)a_\mu ^{\text{max}}10^{20}e\text{cm}`$. This conclusion is far from universal, however. For example, large muon EDMs are possible in models where EDMs scale approximately as $`d_fm_f^3`$ Babu:2000cz . Given our current profound ignorance of the origins of electroweak symmetry breaking, flavor, and CP violation, no definitive statement can be made.

The effects of $`d_\mu `$ and $`a_\mu `$ are, of course, distinguishable Bailey:1979mn : $`a_\mu `$ causes precession around the magnetic field’s axis, but $`d_\mu `$ leads to oscillation of the muon’s spin above and below the plane of motion. A search for up-down asymmetry in the current data is in progress miller . A dedicated EDM experiment Semertzidis:1999kv  would provide a conclusive resolution by either measuring a non-vanishing $`d_\mu `$ or constraining the contribution of $`d_\mu `$ to $`|\omega _a|`$ to be insignificant.

For now, however, the reported data is not a model-independent measurement of the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment. If measurements of precession frequency are interpreted as measurements of $`a_\mu `$, the assumption of a negligible muon EDM is best made explicit. Alternatively, the experimental status may be summarized without theoretical assumptions as in Fig. 1.