1: \documentstyle[preprint,tighten,aps,prc,epsfig]{revtex}
2: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
3: %\topmargin=-5mm
4: %\oddsidemargin=-7mm
5: %\evensidemargin=-7mm
6: %\textwidth=170mm
7: %\textheight=225mm
8: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\#\arabic{footnote}}
13: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}
14: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
15: \newcommand{\krig}[1]{\stackrel{\circ}{#1}}
16: \newcommand{\barr}[1]{\not\mathrel #1}
17: \newcommand{\Mp}{M_{\pi^\pm}}
18: \newcommand{\Mn}{M_{\pi^0}}
19: \newcommand{\vs}{\vspace{-0.25cm}}
20: \newcommand{\dfrac}{\displaystyle \frac}
21:
22: \date{today}
23: \parindent 20pt
24: \begin{document}
25: \begin{titlepage}
26: \begin{center}
27: {\large{\bf Recoil Order Chiral Corrections to Baryon Octet Axial Currents}}
28: \vspace{1.2cm}
29:
30: Shi-Lin Zhu$^a$, S. Puglia$^a$, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf$^{a,b}$
31: %, B. R. Holstein, S. Puglia$^a$
32: \vspace{0.8cm}
33:
34: $^a$ Department of Physics, University of Connecticut,
35: Storrs, CT 06269 USA\\
36: $^b$ Theory Group, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport
37: News,
38: VA 23606 USA
39: \end{center}
40: \vspace{1.0cm}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43:
44: We calculate chiral corrections to the octet axial currents through ${\cal
45: O}(p^3)$
46: using baryon chiral perturbation theory (BCPT). The relativistic BCPT
47: framework allows one
48: to sum an infinite series of recoil corrections at a given order in the chiral
49: expansion. We also include SU(3)-breaking operators occuring at ${\cal
50: O}(p^2)$ not previously
51: considered. We determine the corresponding low-energy constants (LEC's)
52: from hyperon
53: semileptonic decay data using a variety of infrared regularization schemes.
54: We find that the
55: chiral expansion of the axial currents does not display the proper
56: convergence behavior, regardless
57: of which scheme is chosen. We explore the implications of our analysis for
58: determinations of the
59: strange quark contribution to the nucleon spin, $\Delta s$.
60:
61:
62: \vskip 0.5 true cm
63:
64: PACS Indices: 12.39.Fe, 13.30.Ce, 14.20.Jn
65:
66: \end{abstract}
67: \vspace{2cm}
68: \vfill
69: \end{titlepage}
70:
71: \pagenumbering{arabic}
72:
73: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
74: \section{Introduction}
75: \label{sec1}
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77:
78: In the pseudoscalar meson sector chiral perturbation theory (CPT) provides
79: a consistent and
80: systematic framework for calculating physical observables. Generally, they
81: can be
82: expanded order by order in powers of ${p/ \Lambda_\chi}$, where
83: $\Lambda_\chi =4\pi
84: F_\pi$, $F_\pi=92.4$MeV, and $p$ is the typical small momenta or mass of
85: the Goldstone
86: bosons. When CPT is extended to include the baryons, a difficulty arises
87: due to the presence
88: of the large baryon mass. One encounters terms
89: like ${m_N/ \Lambda_\chi}$, which obscure the convergence of the chiral
90: expansion. To overcome
91: this difficulty, heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBCPT) was
92: introduced
93: \cite{j1,j2,ijmpe}. In this non-relativistic framework, the baryon mass
94: appears only in
95: vertices as powers of $1/ m_N$. One thus obtains a consistent expansion in
96: two small parameters,
97: $p/m_N$ and $p/\Lambda_\chi$. This approach has been applied successfully
98: to a wide variety of
99: baryon observables.
100:
101: Despite its successes, HBCPT comes with its own shortcomings. For example,
102: the $1/m_N$ corrections
103: are unnaturally large for some observables. In some cases, one requires a
104: large number of
105: higher-order terms in $1/m_N$ in order to obtain proper convergence
106: behavior of the chiral
107: expansion. From a conceptual standpoint, it was noted in \cite{kaiser} that
108: HBCPT fails to
109: produce the correct the analytical structure near threshold for the nucleon
110: isovector
111: electromagnetic form factors. The underlying reason is the non-relativistic
112: treatment of the
113: baryon propagators in HBCPT.
114:
115: A relativistic formulation of CPT for baryons was recently proposed in Ref.
116: \cite{becher}
117: and applied to nucleon electromagnetic form factors in Ref. \cite{kubis}.
118: This formulation,
119: which we denote BCPT (baryon CPT), circumvents the problematic
120: $(m_N/\Lambda_\chi)^n$ terms
121: by splitting a given chiral loop integral into an infrared sensitive term,
122: $I$, and an infrared
123: insensitive, or \lq\lq regular" piece, $R$. The former contains all the
124: non-analytic contributions
125: uniquely identified with chiral loops; the latter contains the power
126: dependence on baryon mass.
127: Since $R$ is also analytic in quark masses, its contribution may be
128: completely absorbed into the
129: appropriate terms in a chiral Lagrangian. Since the corresponding
130: low-energy constants (LEC's)
131: are determined entirely from fits to experimental data, the
132: $(m_N/\Lambda_\chi)^n$ behavior never
133: appears explicitly. Moreover, by retaining the fully relativistic form of
134: the baryon propagators in
135: $I$, one includes all of the recoil corrections to the non-analytic
136: contributions at a given order
137: in the chiral expansion. This procedure, known as \lq\lq infrared
138: regularization", contrasts with
139: the HBCPT approach, where one must explicitly work out the recoil
140: corrections order-by-order in
141: $1/m_N$.
142:
143: The simplifications introduced by BCPT have been explored in the case of a
144: few observables.
145: In Ref. \cite{kubis}, for example, it was pointed out that BCPT
146: improves the convergence of the chiral expansion of the nucleon
147: electromagnetic form factors as
148: compared to HBCPT. Moreover, since BCPT is relativistic, analytical
149: behaviour of the resulting form
150: factors is correct.
151:
152: In this work we employ BCPT to calculate the one-loop chiral corrections to
153: the
154: axial currents of the octet baryons. The leading order chiral corrections
155: to the
156: axial currents are of the form $m_s\ln m_s$ and were first calculated in
157: \cite{wise}.
158: For a subtraction scale of $\mu=1$ GeV the corrections calculated in
159: \cite{wise} are less than $30\%$.
160: However, the correction due to the wave function renormalization was
161: ignored in
162: \cite{wise} as pointed out in \cite{j1}, where the same problem was treated
163: with HBCPT
164: formalism. When wave function renormalization
165: and vertex corrections are both included, the leading one-loop
166: correction is large \cite{j1}. For example, the fit values of the $SU(3)$
167: couplings at tree level
168: in Ref. \cite{j1} are $D=0.80\pm
169: 0.14, F=0.50\pm 0.12$. The one-loop chiral corrections shifted the best
170: fit to $D=0.56\pm 0.1,
171: F=0.33\pm 0.06$ \cite{j1}. Later the same authors included the intermediate
172: decuplet baryon states in
173: the chiral loops and found significant cancellations with the octet
174: contributions \cite{j2}.
175: While this cancellation suggests the importance of including the decuplet
176: for obtaining proper
177: convergence, inclusion of the decuplet is not sufficient in the case of
178: some other observables.
179: In the case of octet baryon magnetic moments, for example, one must also
180: include the leading
181: recoil-order ($1/m_N$) corrections \cite{puglia}.
182:
183: In this paper, we use BCPT to explore the effect of recoil corrections on
184: the convergence of the
185: chiral expansion of the octet axial currents. We also include ${\cal
186: O}(p^2)$ chiral symmetry breaking
187: terms not included in previous analyses. In order to maintain predictive
188: power, we truncate the
189: expansion at ${\cal O}(p^3)$. The number of LEC's appearing at ${\cal
190: O}(p^4)$ prevents one from
191: carrying out a model independent analysis. We also follow Refs.
192: \cite{wise,j1} and set $m_u=m_d=0$ in
193: performing numerical fits, although the formulae presented below included
194: results for non-vanishing
195: pion mass. We find that the impact of the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ symmetry breaking
196: (SB) operators is
197: noticeable. More importantly, the ${\cal O}(p^3)$ contributions --
198: corresponding entirely to
199: loop-generated recoil corrections -- are generally larger than the ${\cal
200: O}(p^2)$ terms. Thus, the
201: chiral expansion of the axial currents does not converge in the manner
202: expected when decuplet
203: contributions are integrated out. While the significance of the ${\cal
204: O}(p^2)$ loop corrections was
205: first noted in Ref. \cite{j1}, our study of the expansion through ${\cal
206: O}(p^3)$ makes the
207: non-convergence of the series abundantly clear. Contrary to one's na\"\i ve
208: hope, inclusion of
209: octet-only recoil order contributions only worsens the convergence
210: properties of the axial currents.
211: Whether explicit inclusion of recoil order decuplet contributions remedies
212: this situation remains to be
213: seen.
214:
215: In a related issue, the definition of the infrared loop contributions
216: contains a degree of ambiguity.
217: While the non-analytic quark mass dependence of $I$ is unique, this
218: integral may also contain terms
219: analytic in $m_q$. Whether or not one retains these analytic contributions
220: explicitly is a matter of
221: convention. The standard practice in HBCPT is to keep only the non-analytic
222: loop effects. On the
223: other hand, the authors of Refs. \cite{becher,kubis} also retain analytic
224: pieces of $I$. We analyze
225: the axial currents using both schemes. In this case, the difference amounts
226: only to the treatment of
227: ${\cal O}(p^2)$ analytic contributions to wavefunction renormalization. The
228: corresponding impact on
229: the convergence properties of the chiral expansion is small. We cannot,
230: however, determine whether
231: this scheme insensitivity persists to higher order. While the integrals $I$
232: for the axial currents
233: contain a variety of ${\cal O}(p^4)$ and higher contributions, we truncate
234: at ${\cal O}(p^3)$ for
235: reasons noted earlier.
236:
237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238: \section{Infrared Regularization}
239: \label{sec2}
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241:
242:
243: The motivation and formalism for BCPT are explained extensively in Refs.
244: \cite{becher,kubis}.
245: Interested readers may consult these two references for details. The key
246: feature of
247: BCPT is the so-called infrared regularization procedure. Following Refs.
248: \cite{becher,kubis} we
249: illustrate using the one-loop baryon self energy. The ultraviolet (UV)
250: divergence of the one-loop
251: integral is regulated using dimensional regularization. The regulated
252: integral $H$ is then separated
253: into the $I$ and $R$ pieces using Feynman parameters:
254: \beqa
255: H &=& -i\int \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d} {1 \over AB}
256: =-i \int_0^1 dz \int \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d} {1 \over [(1-z)A+zB]^2}
257: \nonumber \\
258: &=&-i \biggl\{ \int_0^\infty - \int_1^\infty \biggr\} dz
259: \int \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d} {1 \over [(1-z)A+zB]^2} = I + R~,
260: \eeqa
261: with $A=M^2-k^2-i\epsilon$, $B=m_N^2 -(p-k)^2 -i\epsilon$ and $M, m_N$ is
262: the pseudoscalar
263: and nucleon mass. The region of parameter integration for the integral $I$
264: contains $z=0$.
265: At the origin, the denominator is proportional to $A^2$, and thus, is
266: highly infrared sensitive
267: (singular in the case of the self energy). As shown in Ref. \cite{becher},
268: all of the non-analytic
269: $m_q$-dependence uniquely associated with the loop is contained in $I$.
270: For the regular part, $R$, the Feynman parameter runs from one to infinity,
271: and the result is
272: analytic. Consequently, its contribution can be entirely absorbed into the
273: appropriate operators
274: appearing in the effective Lagrangian. In addition, if we expand $I$ in
275: terms of
276: $1/m_N$, we recover the HBCPT result at each order.Thus,
277: the infrared sensitive part $I$ of the corresponding relativistic diagram
278: is just the sum of the leading HBCPT diagram and diagrams with $1/m_N$
279: insertions
280: to all orders. In other words, BCPT effectively sums the $1/m_N$ series in
281: HBCPT.
282:
283: It is important to note that the inclusion of the full tower of recoil
284: corrections renders the chiral
285: counting somewhat ambiguous. Contributions involving recoil effects have
286: the generic
287: form
288: \begin{equation}
289: \label{eq:counting}
290: {m_X^2\over\Lambda_\chi^2} \mu^k f(\mu)\ \ \ ,
291: \end{equation}
292: where $m_X$ is a pseudoscalar mass,
293: $\mu=m_X/m_N\propto\sqrt{m_q}/m_N$, and $f(\mu)$ is a recoil factor. For
294: the axial currents,
295: $\mu^k f(\mu)$ is non-analytic in $m_q$ and, therefore, can never be
296: generated by terms in the
297: effective Lagrangian. Nevertheless, one may perform a Taylor expansion of
298: $f(\mu)$ in powers of
299: $\mu^2$ about $\mu^2=0$. Consequently, the quantity in Eq. (\ref{eq:counting})
300: contains an infinite series of contributions of successively higher orders
301: in $p$. The first
302: term in the series -- obtained by replacing $f(\mu)\to f(0)$ -- is purely
303: of ${\cal O}(p^{k+2})$.
304: In the language of HBCPT, this first term in the series constitutes its
305: leading contribution in
306: the $1/m_N$ expansion. In what follows, we identify the chiral order of the
307: term in
308: (\ref{eq:counting}) by the order of its leading term in the $1/m_N$ expansion.
309:
310: We emphasize that the chiral order of the recoil term in (\ref{eq:counting})
311: is unambiguous only in the heavy baryon limit. Retention of the higher
312: order terms associated with
313: recoil factors is the price one must pay for maintaining the analyticity
314: properties of loops implied by
315: relativity and crossing symmetry. These properties are lost in HBCPT. It
316: does not appear possible to
317: respect the full analytic structure of chiral loops and maintain the
318: standard chiral counting
319: procedure simultaneously. Fortunately, in the case of the axial currents,
320: we find that the {\em
321: numerical} impact of setting $f(\mu)\to f(0)$ is negligible. In short, it
322: is sufficient to work to
323: ${\cal O}(1/m_N)$ in the heavy baryon expansion in order to ascertain the
324: effects of recoil.
325:
326: It was also argued in Ref. \cite{becher} that the baryon mass $m_N$ serves as
327: a ``natural'' subtraction scale in BCPT using the infrared
328: regularization. We follow this convention and set this subtraction scale
329: equal to $m_N$.
330:
331:
332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
333: \section{Axial Currents}
334: \label{sec3}
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336: In writing down the octet axial currents, we follow standard conventions
337: and notations.
338: The most general meson-baryon Lagrangian at lowest order is
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: {\cal L}_0&=&i\hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B} (\gamma^\mu D_\mu -m_N)B \right)+ D
341: \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \{A_\mu, B\}\right)
342: +F\hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 [A_\mu, B]\right)\nonumber \\
343: & &+{F_\pi^2\over4}\hbox{Tr}\left((D^\mu\Sigma)^{\dag}D_\mu\Sigma\right)
344: +a \hbox{ Tr} M (\Sigma +\Sigma^\dag ),
345: \label{lag0}
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: where
348: \begin{equation}
349: D_\mu\ B=\partial_\mu B +[V_\mu, B],
350: \end{equation}
351: \begin{equation}\nonumber
352: V_\mu={1\over 2}(\xi \partial_\mu \xi^\dag +\xi^\dag \partial_\mu \xi )
353: \end{equation}
354: \begin{equation}\nonumber
355: A_\mu={i\over 2}(\xi \partial_\mu \xi^\dag -\xi^\dag \partial_\mu \xi )
356: \end{equation}
357: \begin{equation}
358: \xi =e^{i{\pi\over F_\pi}}, \ \ \ \Sigma=\xi^2=e^{2i{\pi\over F_\pi}},
359: \end{equation}
360: \begin{equation}\nonumber
361: \pi={1\over \sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{lll}
362: {\pi^0\over \sqrt{2}}+ {\eta\over \sqrt{6}} &\pi^+&K^+\\
363: \pi^-&-{\pi^0\over \sqrt{2}}+ {\eta\over \sqrt{6}}&K^0\\
364: K^-&{\bar K}^0&-{2\over \sqrt{6}}\eta
365: \end{array}\right)
366: \end{equation}
367: \begin{equation}\nonumber
368: B=\left(\begin{array}{lll}
369: {\Sigma^0\over \sqrt{2}}+ {\Lambda\over \sqrt{6}} &\Sigma^+&p\\
370: \Sigma^-&-{\Sigma^0\over \sqrt{2}}+ {\Lambda\over \sqrt{6}}&n\\
371: \Xi^-& \Xi^0&-{2\over \sqrt{6}}\Lambda
372: \end{array}\right)
373: \end{equation}
374: \begin{equation}\nonumber
375: M=\left(\begin{array}{lll}m_u&0&0\\
376: 0&m_d&0\\0&0&m_s
377: \end{array}\right)
378: \end{equation}
379:
380: One may obtain vector and axial vector current operators from ${\cal L}_0$
381: by including
382: vector and axial vector sources in the covariant derivatives. The leading
383: ${\cal O}(p^0)$ operator
384: contains only baryon fields and the LEC's $D$ and $F$. Axial currents
385: involving both baryons and
386: mesons first appear at ${\cal O}(p)$. Additional purely baryonic axial
387: currents appear at ${\cal
388: O}(p^2)$. They arise from the SU(3) SB Lagrangian
389: \begin{eqnarray}\label{count}
390: {\cal L}_1&=& {m_K^2\over \Lambda_\chi^2}\{
391: d_1 \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \{A_\mu, \chi_+\}B\right)
392: +d_2\hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 A_\mu B
393: \chi_+\right)\nonumber \\
394: & &+d_3 \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \chi_+ B A_\mu\right)
395: +d_4 \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 B\{A_\mu, \chi_+\}\right)
396: \},
397: \label{lag1}
398: \end{eqnarray}
399: where
400: \begin{equation}
401: \chi_+={1\over 2}(\xi^+ \chi\xi^++\xi\chi^+\xi)
402: \end{equation}
403: \begin{equation}\nonumber
404: \chi=\left(\begin{array}{lll}0&0&0\\
405: 0&0&0\\0&0&1
406: \end{array}\right)
407: \end{equation}
408: The LECs $d_{1-4}$ are expected to be order of unity in our normalization.
409: There are
410: two other terms involving $\chi$:
411: \begin{equation}
412: \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 [A_\mu, B] \right)
413: \hbox{ Tr}(\chi_+)\ \ , \ \ \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5
414: \{A_\mu, B\} \right)
415: \hbox{ Tr}(\chi_+).
416: \end{equation}
417: These terms do not break $SU(3)$ symmetry and can be absorbed into the
418: definition of $D, F$ terms in Eq. (\ref{lag0}).
419:
420: Using ${\cal L}_{0,1}$ one obtains the axial current:
421: \begin{eqnarray}
422: J^A_\mu =&
423: {1\over 2} D\hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 \{\xi T^A\xi^\dag
424: +\xi^\dag
425: T^A\xi, B\}\right) \nonumber \\
426: &+{1\over 2} F\hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 [\xi T^A\xi^\dag
427: +\xi^\dag
428: T^A\xi, B]\right)\nonumber \\
429: &+{1\over 2}d_1 {m_K^2\over \Lambda_\chi^2}
430: \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \{\xi T^A\xi^\dag +\xi^\dag
431: T^A\xi, \chi_+\}B\right) \nonumber \\
432: &+{1\over 2}d_2 {m_K^2\over \Lambda_\chi^2}
433: \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 (\xi T^A\xi^\dag +\xi^\dag
434: T^A\xi ) B
435: \chi_+\right)\nonumber \\
436: &+{1\over 2}d_3 {m_K^2\over \Lambda_\chi^2}
437: \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \chi_+ B(\xi T^A\xi^\dag
438: +\xi^\dag T^A\xi
439: )\right)\nonumber \\
440: &+{1\over 2}d_4 {m_K^2\over \Lambda_\chi^2}
441: \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 B\{\xi T^A\xi^\dag +\xi^\dag
442: T^A\xi, \chi_+\}\right) \nonumber \\
443: &+{1\over 2}\hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma_\mu [\xi T^A\xi^\dag
444: -\xi^\dag T^A\xi, B]\right) \nonumber \\
445: &+{i\over 2}F_\pi^2\hbox{Tr}\ T^A \left((\partial_\mu\Sigma)^{\dag}\Sigma-
446: \partial_\mu\Sigma \Sigma^+\right) .
447: \label{current}
448: \end{eqnarray}
449:
450: Renormalized matrix elements of $J^A_\mu$ between octet baryon states may
451: be written as
452: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ren}
453: \langle B_i| J^A_\mu | B_j\rangle &=&
454: \{ \alpha_{ij} +{\bar \alpha}_{ij}{m_K^2\over \Lambda_\chi^2}
455: + [\lambda_{ij}^\pi I_d^\pi+\lambda_{ij}^K I_d^K +\lambda_{ij}^\eta
456: I_d^\eta]\alpha_{ij}\\
457: \nonumber
458: &&+[\beta_{ij}^\pi I_a^\pi +\beta_{ij}^K I_a^K +\beta_{ij}^\eta I_a^\eta]
459: +[\gamma_{ij}^\pi I_b^\pi +\gamma_{ij}^K I_b^K +\gamma_{ij}^\eta
460: I_b^\eta]\alpha_{ij}\\
461: &&+[\theta_{ij}^\pi I_c^\pi +\theta_{ij}^K I_c^K +\theta_{ij}^\eta
462: I_c^\eta]\alpha_{ij}\}
463: {\bar u}_{B_i}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 u_{B_j}
464: \end{eqnarray}
465: where the first term on the right hand side is the lowest order one. In
466: terms of the $D$ and
467: $F$ coefficients, this term reads for different octet states
468: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
469: \alpha_{pn}^{1+i 2}=(D+F)\; ,&\\ \nonumber
470: \alpha_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}^{1+i 2}={2\over \sqrt{6}}D\; ,&\\ \nonumber
471: \alpha_{\Xi^0\Xi^-}^{1+i 2}=(D-F)\; ,&\\ \nonumber
472: \alpha_{p\Lambda}^{4+i 5}=-{1\over \sqrt{6}}(D+3F)\; ,&\\ \nonumber
473: \alpha_{\Lambda\Xi^-}^{4+i 5}=-{1\over \sqrt{6}}(D-3F)\; ,&\\ \nonumber
474: \alpha_{n\Sigma^-}^{4+i 5}=(D-F)\; ,&\\
475: \alpha_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}^{4+i 5}={1\over \sqrt{2}}(D+F)
476: =\sqrt{2}\alpha_{\Sigma^+\Xi^0}^{4+i 5}
477: \end{eqnarray}
478: where the superscript denotes the corresponding SU(3) indices of the current.
479:
480: The second term arises from the SB terms in Eq. (\ref{count}). The coefficients
481: ${\bar \alpha}_{ij}$ are
482: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
483: {\bar \alpha}_{pn}^{1+i 2}=d_2\; ,&\\ \nonumber
484: {\bar \alpha}_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}^{1+i 2}=0\; ,&\\ \nonumber
485: {\bar \alpha}_{\Xi^0\Xi^-}^{1+i 2}=d_3\; ,&\\ \nonumber
486: {\bar \alpha}_{p\Lambda}^{4+i 5}=-{1\over \sqrt{6}}(d+3f+2d_2)\; ,&\\ \nonumber
487: {\bar \alpha}_{\Lambda\Xi^-}^{4+i 5}=-{1\over \sqrt{6}}(d-3f+2d_3)\; ,&\\
488: \nonumber
489: {\bar \alpha}_{n\Sigma^-}^{4+i 5}=(d-f)\; ,&\\
490: {\bar \alpha}_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}^{4+i 5}={1\over \sqrt{2}}(d+f)
491: =\sqrt{2}{\bar \alpha}_{\Sigma^+\Xi^0}^{4+i 5}
492: \end{eqnarray}
493: where
494: \begin{equation}
495: d={d_1+d_4\over 2}, \ \ \ f={d_1-d_4\over 2}.
496: \end{equation}
497:
498: The remaining terms arise from the loops of Figs 1 and 2. The coefficients
499: $\lambda_{ij}^X$,
500: $\beta_{ij}^X$, $\gamma_{ij}^X$ and $\theta_{ij}^X$ are given in Tables
501: \ref{tab1}-\ref{tab3} and
502: Eq. (\ref{eq:seagull}) below. In presenting the loop results,
503: we give complete expressions for the infrared integrals $I$. When fitting
504: the LEC's $D$, $F$,
505: and $d_1,\ldots,d_4$, however, we include only the pieces occuring through
506: ${\cal O}(p^3)$. In
507: doing so, we follow approach used in Ref. \cite{becher}
508: in making the chiral expansion of the loop integrals.The denominator is always
509: kept intact while we expand the numerator up to order ${\cal O}(p^3)$ only
510: after finishing
511: the loop integral explicitly. Meanwhile we never expand terms like
512: \begin{equation}
513: \left(4-m_K^2/m_N^2\right)^{\pm 1/2}
514: \end{equation}
515: in order to preserve the analyticity properties of the integrals.
516:
517: \medskip
518: \noindent{\bf Wavefunction renormalization}
519: \medskip
520:
521: The third term in Eq. (\ref{ren}) arises from the wave function
522: renormalization in Fig. 1. We have
523: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
524: Z_i=1+\lambda_{ii}^\pi I_d^\pi+\lambda_{ii}^K I_d^K +\lambda_{ii}^\eta
525: I_d^\eta \; ,&\\
526: \sqrt{Z_iZ_j}=1+\lambda_{ij}^\pi I_d^\pi+\lambda_{ij}^K I_d^K
527: +\lambda_{ij}^\eta I_d^\eta
528: \end{eqnarray}
529: The coefficients $\lambda_{ij}^X$ ($X=\pi, K, \eta$) are collected in Table
530: \ref{tab1}. The
531: function
532: $I_D^X$ is defined as
533: \begin{equation}
534: I_d^X={1\over 4}\{ 4m_N^2 m_X^2
535: J^X_A(0)-\Delta_X-2m^2_X [I^X(m_N^2)+m^2_XJ^X_A(0)]\}
536: \end{equation}
537: where the expressions of $J^X_A(0), \Delta_X, I^X(m_N^2)$ are:
538: \beqa
539: \Delta_X &=& ({m_X\over \Lambda_\chi})^2\log\mu^2 ~~,\\
540: I^X(m_N^2) &=& \frac{\mu}{\Lambda_\chi^2}\{-\mu\log\mu
541: + \frac{\mu}{2}-\sqrt{4-\mu^2}
542: \arccos\biggl(-\frac{\mu}{2}\biggr) \} ~~,\\
543: J^X_A(0) &=& \frac{1}{m_N^2\Lambda_\chi^2}\{-
544: \log\mu-\frac{1}{2}
545: +\mu\
546: {\arccos\biggl(-\frac{\mu}{2}\biggr)\over \sqrt{4-\mu^2}}\}
547: ~~,
548: \eeqa
549: where $\mu = m_X/m_N$.
550:
551: \medskip
552: \noindent{\bf Vertex corrections}
553: \medskip
554:
555: The fourth term comes from the vertex correction diagram Fig. 2a. The
556: coeffients
557: $\beta_{ij}^X$ are collected in Table \ref{tab2}. The function $I^X_a$ is
558: defined as
559: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
560: I_a^X=-\Delta_X-m_X^2 I^X(m_N^2)+m_X^4 J_A^X -2{m_X^2\over \Lambda_\chi^2}
561: +{m_X^4\over m_N^2\Lambda_\chi^2}
562: \end{eqnarray}
563: where the last two terms arise from expanding the factors ${D-4\over D-2},
564: {1\over D-2}$ around
565: $D-4$ in the scalar integrals in the appendix of Ref. \cite{kubis}.
566:
567: The fifth term is the vertex correction from the tadpole diagram in Fig.
568: 2b. The
569: coefficients $\gamma_{ij}^X$ are presented in Table \ref{tab3}. The function
570: $I_b^X=\Delta_X$.
571:
572: \medskip
573: \noindent{\bf Seagull graphs}
574: \medskip
575:
576: The last term in Eq. (\ref{ren}) arises from the ${\cal O}(p)$ one-meson
577: operators in
578: $J^A_\mu$. The relevant Feynman diagrams are Fig. 2c and 2d. The
579: contribution from these
580: diagrams is entirely of recoil order, vanishing in the $m_N\to\infty$
581: limit. It was not included
582: in the previous HBCPT analyses which worked to leading order in the $1/m_N$
583: expansion.
584: For this contribution, we have
585: \begin{eqnarray}
586: I_c^X&=&-{1\over 2} m^2_X I^X(m_N^2) \\
587: \label{eq:seagull}
588: \theta_{ij}^X&=&-4\gamma_{ij}^X
589: \end{eqnarray}
590: with $X=K, \eta$.
591:
592: It is straightforward to verify that we recover previous results in Refs.
593: \cite{wise,j1} if we use
594: the relation $m_\eta^2={4\over 3}m_K^2$ and keep only $m_K^2\ln m_K^2$
595: terms in Eq. (\ref{ren}).
596:
597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
598: \section{Numerical analysis and discussions}
599: \label{sec4}
600: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
601:
602: From the expressions of $I_{a,b,c,d}^X$ we find that the full one loop result
603: Eq. (\ref{ren}) contains terms of ${\cal O}(p^3)$ through ${\cal O}(p^5)$.
604: The terms of odd chiral order ($p^3$, $p^5$) are entirely non-analytic,
605: whereas the
606: loops yield both analytic and non-analytic contributions of even chiral
607: order ($p^2$,
608: $p^4$). Recoil order contributions first occur at ${\cal O}(p^3)$. The
609: contributions
610: at this order have the form given in (\ref{eq:counting}) with $k=1$ and
611: \begin{equation}
612: \label{eq:recoil}
613: f(\mu) = \arccos\biggl(-\frac{\mu}{2}\biggr) \times
614: \left(4-\mu^2\right)^{\pm 1/2}
615: \ \ \ .
616: \end{equation}
617: Although the $f(\mu)$ is non-analytic in the complex plane, one may
618: nevertheless expand it in powers of $\mu^2$ about $\mu^2=0$ along the real
619: axis. When
620: multiplied by the prefactor $(m_X/\Lambda_\chi)^2\times\mu$ of
621: (\ref{eq:counting}),
622: the leading term in the series scales as $m_X^3/\Lambda_\chi^2 m_N$, making
623: it of
624: chiral order $p^3$. The remaining terms -- corresponding to successively
625: higher orders in $p$ --
626: represent sub-leading, one-loop recoil corrections. We note, however, that
627: this series cannot
628: be reproduced by any combination of operators in the effective Lagrangian.
629: Each term in the
630: series scales as an odd power of $m_X$, that is, as a fractional power of
631: quark mass. Thus,
632: the infinite series of recoil corrections given by the factors in Eq.
633: (\ref{eq:recoil}) is
634: unambigously associated with loops. In HBCPT, one would compute these
635: sub-leading corrections
636: order by order in $1/m_N$ and would be forced to truncate at some order.
637:
638: Loop contributions involving even powers of $p$ cannot be disentangled from
639: terms
640: in the effective Lagrangian. For example, both the wavefunction
641: renormalization diagrams and
642: the vertex corrections generate analytic contributions of ${\cal O}(p^2)$.
643: Since these contributions
644: are quadratic in $m_X$, one could just as well absorb them into the SB
645: terms of Eq. (\ref{count}).
646: Similarly, at ${\cal O}(p^4)$, one encounters a new set of SB contributions
647: generated by the
648: Lagrangian
649: \begin{eqnarray}\label{count-1}
650: {\cal L}_2&=& {m_K^4\over \Lambda_\chi^4}\{
651: d_5 \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \chi_+ A_\mu \chi_+ B\right)
652: +d_6\hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 A_\mu B
653: \chi^2_+\right)\nonumber \\
654: & &+d_7 \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \chi_+ B \{A_\mu,
655: \chi_+\}\right)\}
656: +d_8 \hbox{ Tr}\left({\bar B}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 A_\mu BA_\nu A^\mu\right)
657: +\cdots
658: \label{lag2}
659: \end{eqnarray}
660: where we have included only a few of the relevant terms. Since the number
661: of LEC's
662: appearing at this order is larger than the number of available data, we
663: truncate at
664: ${\cal O}(p^3)$ in order to avoid introducing model assumptions.
665:
666: To this order, we determine the LEC's $D$, $F$ and $d_1,\ldots,d_4$ from
667: hyperon semileptonic decay
668: data\cite{pdg}, presented in terms of axial vector couplings in Table
669: \ref{tab4}.
670: Since $m_u\sim m_d << m_s$, we set $m_\pi=0$ in performing our numerical fits.
671: We also follow Ref. \cite{j1} and enhance
672: the errors by $0.2$ to avoid the biasing the fit to the precisely known
673: $D+F$ value from neutron
674: beta decay. The tree level best fit yields $D=0.78, F=0.47$ and $F/D=0.60$
675: with a $\chi^2 =0.1$
676: for six data points as presented in Table \ref{tab4}. In obtaining fits at
677: ${\cal O}(p^2)$ and
678: beyond, we follow two different procedures for treating the analytic loop
679: terms: scheme B, in
680: which all the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ analytic loop contributions are kept
681: explicitly, as in Refs.
682: \cite{becher,kubis}; and scheme C in which these analytic terms are
683: effectively absorbed into the
684: ${\cal O}(p^2)$ LEC's.
685:
686: It is interesting first to truncate at ${\cal O}(p^2)$ and determine the
687: impact of the SB
688: contributions. In Ref. \cite{j1}, where these terms were omitted, the best
689: fit values for
690: the LEC's are $D=0.56$ and $F=0.33$ with $F/D=0.6$. Inclusion of the SB
691: terms shifts these
692: values to $D=0.55$ and $F=0.41$ ($D=0.51$, $F=0.37$) in scheme B (C), a
693: 10-25\% shift.
694: Similarly, in when the recoil corrections are included but SB terms
695: omitted, the values for
696: $D$ and $F$ are both reduced by roughly 30\% from results in Ref. \cite{j1}
697: (see Tables
698: \ref{tab5} and \ref{tab7}). The full ${\cal O}(p^3)$ results yield values
699: of $D$ and $F$ nearly 25\%
700: smaller, with $F/D$ remaining close to $0.6$. The dominant effect arises
701: from inclusion of recoil.
702:
703: It is also instructive to determine the numerical importance of including
704: the full recoil
705: factors appearing in Eq. (\ref{eq:recoil}). To that end, we make the
706: replacements
707: \begin{eqnarray}
708: \arccos\biggl(-\frac{\mu}{2}\biggr)&\to& \frac{\pi}{2}\\
709: \sqrt{4-\mu^2}&\to& 2
710: \end{eqnarray}
711: which amounts to retaining only the leading $1/m_N$ corrections appearing
712: at ${\cal O}(p^3)$.
713: Taking this limit is equivalent to working to first order in $1/m_N$ with
714: HBCPT.
715: In this case, the best fit values for $D$ and $F$ are essentially unchanged
716: from the ${\cal O}(p^3)$
717: fit for scheme C, while the SB LEC's $d_1,\ldots ,d_4$ shift somewhat.
718: Since the impact of the
719: SB terms relative to the recoil corrections is small, it appears that
720: retention of the leading
721: recoil corrections is sufficient to determine the convergence behavior of
722: the expansion.
723:
724: More significantly, the ${\cal O}(p^3)$ contributions, arising entirely
725: from recoil effects,
726: are as large if not larger than the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ contributions. The
727: relative importance of
728: each order is shown in Tables \ref{tab6} and \ref{tab8}. To illustrate, we
729: write here the results for a
730: few representative channels (in scheme C):
731: \begin{eqnarray}
732: \label{eq:ganp}
733: g^A_{np}&=&0.658[1+0.419+0.495]=1.26\\
734: g^A_{p\Lambda}&=&-0.488[1-0.252+1.07]=-0.88\ \ \ ,
735: \end{eqnarray}
736: where the terms inside the square brackets represent the relative size of
737: the order $p^0$,
738: $p^2$, and $p^3$ contributions, respectively. A similar pattern holds for
739: the other octet axial
740: vector matrix elements. Far from improving the convergence behavior of the
741: octet-only chiral expansion of the axial currents, inclusion of recoil
742: corrections makes it worse.
743:
744: In order to explore further why the chiral corrections through ${\cal
745: O}(p^2)$ are so
746: significant, we collect the values of loop integral functions
747: in Eq. (\ref{ren}) in Table \ref{tab9}. First, we note that the
748: contribution of the vertex
749: correction from Fig. 2a is suppressed due to its small coefficients
750: $\beta_{ij}^X$,
751: which are cubic functions of $D, F$. Although the coefficients
752: $\lambda_{ij}\alpha_{ij}$
753: are also cubic in $D, F$, the coefficients of $\lambda_{ij}$ are big as can
754: clearly seen in
755: Table \ref{tab1}. Consequently, wavefunction renormalization has a
756: significant impact.
757: Moreover, the contributions from the self-energy, tadpole,
758: and seagull diagrams all have the same sign as the the tree
759: level axial couplings. These contributions add constructively. In addition,
760: the coefficients of tadpole
761: diagram and seagull diagrams are linear function of $D, F$, so they are
762: enhanced relative to
763: the other loops in this respect.
764:
765: The relative size of the recoil corrections requires further explanation.
766: To illustrate, consider
767: the seagull contributions. Na\"\i vely, the latter ought to be suppressed
768: by roughly $m_k/m_N\sim
769: 1/2$ relative to the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ loop effects. However, the presence of
770: the $\arccos(-\mu/2)$
771: in these loops generates an additional numerical factor of $\pi$ for these
772: contributions at leading
773: order in the $1/m_N$ expansion. It is both the large size of the kaon mass
774: and this numerical factor
775: which are responsible for the large size of the ${\cal O}(p^3)$ effects.
776: Moreover, such numerical
777: enhancement factors appear at higher orders as well. For example, the
778: ${\cal O}(p^5)$ contributions
779: generated by wavefunction renormalization are also proportional to
780: $\arccos(-\mu/2)$. Thus, we would
781: expect the pattern shown in Eq. (\ref{eq:ganp}) to persist to higher
782: orders\footnote{The problem of
783: the large kaon mass in SU(3) CPT with baryons has also been addressed in
784: Ref. \cite{barry}.}.
785:
786: Finally, we illustrate the practical consequences of axial vector
787: non-convergence by
788: considering the strange quark contribution to the nucleon's spin, $\Delta
789: s$. As shown in
790: Ref.\cite{ellis}, one may express $\Delta s$ in terms of
791: the polarized structure
792: function integrals
793: \begin{equation}
794: \Gamma_{p,n}=\int_0^1\ dx\ g_1^{p,n}(x) \ \ \
795: \end{equation}
796: as
797: \begin{equation}
798: \label{eq:dels}
799: \Delta s = \frac{3}{2}[\Gamma_p+\Gamma_n]-\frac{5\sqrt{3}}{6} g^A_8
800: \end{equation}
801: where $g^A_8$ is the axial vector coupling associated with the matrix element
802: $\langle p| J_\mu^8 |p\rangle$. The combinations of LEC's required for this
803: matrix element are
804: \begin{equation}
805: \alpha_{pp}^8={1\over 2\sqrt{3}}(3F-D)
806: \end{equation}
807: \begin{equation}
808: \beta_{pp}^{8,K}={1\over \sqrt{3}}({2\over 3}D^3-2D^2F)
809: \end{equation}
810: \begin{equation}
811: \beta_{pp}^{8,\eta}={1\over 24\sqrt{3}}(3F-D)^3
812: \end{equation}
813: \begin{equation}
814: {\bar\alpha}_{pp}^8={1\over \sqrt{3}}({1\over 2}d_2-2d_4)
815: \end{equation}
816: \begin{equation}
817: \gamma_{pp}^{8,K}=-{3\over 2},\; \; \gamma_{pp}^{8,\eta}=0
818: \end{equation}
819: \begin{equation}
820: \theta_{pp}^{8,K,\eta}=-4\gamma_{pp}^{8,K,\eta}
821: \end{equation}
822: Using our results in scheme C, we obtain
823: \begin{equation}
824: g_8^A = 0.11[1+0.55+1]
825: \end{equation}
826: where the terms in the brackets correspond to the order $p^0$, $p^2$, and
827: $p^3$ contributions.
828: Using this result and the world average data for the $\Gamma_{p,n}$, we obtain
829: \begin{equation}
830: \label{eq:delsdata}
831: \Delta s = 0.14 - 0.16[1+0.55+1]
832: \end{equation}
833: where we have omitted the experimental error bars in the first term taken
834: from the
835: polarized deep inelastic scattering (DIS) data. The second term
836: represents the contribution from $g_8^A$, broken by successive orders as above.
837: We do not quote a total for
838: $\Delta s$ given that the ${\cal O}(p^3)$ contribution from $g_8^A$ is as
839: large as both
840: the ${\cal O}(p^0)$ term as well as the first term on the RHS of Eq.
841: (\ref{eq:delsdata}).
842: Given the poor convergence behavior of the expansion of $g_8^A$, extraction
843: of $\Delta s$ from
844: polarized DIS data is problematic. In contrast, extractions of $\Delta s$
845: from semi-inclusive
846: measurements performed by the Hermes collaboration or elastic
847: neutrino-nucleon scattering are not
848: plagued by large SU(3)-breaking uncertainties. Whether inclusion of
849: decuplet intermediate states
850: reduces these SU(3)-breaking uncertainties requires further study.
851:
852:
853:
854:
855: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
856: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
857: \bibitem{kaiser}V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner, Nucl. Phys. A
858: 611, 429
859: (1996).
860: \bibitem{wise}J. Binens, H. Sonoda and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 261, 185
861: (1985).
862: \bibitem{j1}E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 255, 558 (1991).
863: \bibitem{j2}E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 259, 353 (1991).
864: \bibitem{becher} T. Becher and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C9, 643 (1999).
865: \bibitem{ijmpe}V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner,
866: Int. J. Mod. Phys. E4, 193 (1995).
867: \bibitem{kubis}B. Kubis and U.-G.~Mei{\ss}ner, hep-ph/0007056.
868: \bibitem{puglia}S.J. Puglia and M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D62, 034010
869: (2000).
870: \bibitem{pdg}Particle Data Group, E. Caso et al., Euro. Phys. J. C3, 1 (1998).
871: \bibitem{barry}J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein and B. Borasoy, Phys. Rev. D
872: 59, 036002 (1999).
873: \bibitem{ellis}J. Ellis and M. Karliner, hep-ph/9510402, hep-ph/9601280.
874:
875: \end{thebibliography}
876:
877: \newpage
878: {\bf Figure Captions}
879:
880: \begin{center}
881: {\sf FIG 1.} {Feyman diagrams for the wave function renormalization. The
882: dashed and solid line
883: denotes the pseudoscalar meson and baryon respectively.}
884: \end{center}
885: \begin{center}
886: {\sf FIG 2.} {The loop diagrams for the chiral corrections to the axial
887: charge. The filled
888: circle is the insertion of the axial current in Eq. (\ref{ren}). }
889: \end{center}
890:
891:
892: \vspace{2cm}
893:
894: \begin{table}
895: \begin{center}~
896: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
897: & kaon loop & $\eta$ loop&$\pi$ loop
898: \\
899: \hline
900: $\lambda_{pn}$ & ${10\over 3}D^2-4DF+6F^2$ & ${1\over 3}D^2-2DF+3F^2$
901: &$3(D+F)^2$
902: \\ \hline
903: $\lambda_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & ${8\over 3}D^2+8F^2$ & ${4\over 3}D^2$
904: &${8\over 3}D^2+4F^2$\\
905: \hline
906: $\lambda_{\Xi^0\Xi^-}$ & ${10\over 3}D^2+4DF+6F^2$ & ${1\over
907: 3}D^2+2DF+3F^2 $&$3(D-F)^2$\\
908: \hline
909: $\lambda_{p\Lambda}$ & ${7\over 3}D^2-2DF+9F^2$ & ${5\over 6}D^2-DF+{3\over
910: 2}F^2 $&${7\over
911: 2}D^2+3DF+{3\over 2}F^2$\\ \hline
912: $\lambda_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & ${7\over 3}D^2+2DF+9F^2 $ & ${5\over
913: 6}D^2+DF+{3\over 2}F^2 $
914: &${7\over 2}D^2-3DF+{3\over 2}F^2$ \\ \hline
915: $\lambda_{n\Sigma^-}$ & ${11\over 3}D^2-2DF+5F^2 $ & ${5\over
916: 6}D^2-DF+{3\over 2}F^2 $
917: &${13\over 6}D^2+3DF+{11\over 2}F^2$ \\ \hline
918: $\lambda_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & ${11\over 3}D^2+2DF+5F^2$ & ${5\over
919: 6}D^2+DF+{3\over 2}F^2 $
920: &${13\over 6}D^2-3DF+{11\over 2}F^2$ \\
921: \hline
922: $\lambda_{pp}$ & ${10\over 3}D^2-4DF+6F^2$ & $ {1\over 3}D^2-2DF+3F^2$
923: &$3(D+F)^2$\\ \hline
924: $\lambda_{\Lambda\Lambda}$ & ${4\over 3}D^2+12F^2$ & ${4\over 3}D^2 $
925: &$4D^2$\\ \hline
926: $\lambda_{\Sigma\Sigma}$ & $4D^2+4F^2$ & ${4\over 3}D^2 $ &${4\over
927: 3}D^2+8F^2$\\ \hline
928: $\lambda_{\Xi\Xi}$ & ${10\over 3}D^2+4DF+6F^2$ & ${1\over 3}D^2+2DF+3F^2 $
929: &$3(D-F)^2$\\ \hline
930: \end{tabular}
931: \end{center}
932: %\vspace{0.5cm}
933: \caption{\label{tab1} The coefficients $\lambda^X_{ij}$ for the wave function
934: renormalization.}
935: \end{table}
936:
937:
938: \begin{table}
939: \begin{center}~
940: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
941: & kaon loop & $\eta$ loop&$\pi$ loop
942: \\
943: \hline
944: $\beta_{pn}$ & ${-D^3+D^2F-3DF^2+3F^3\over 3}$
945: & ${D^3-5D^2F+3DF^2+9 F^3\over 12}$
946: &${1\over 4}(D+F)^3$ \\ \hline
947:
948: $\beta_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & $-{1\over \sqrt{6}}D^3+{1\over \sqrt{6}}DF^2$
949: & $-{\sqrt{6}\over 9}D^3$ &${2\over \sqrt{6}}D({D^2\over 3}-2F^2)$\\ \hline
950:
951: $\beta_{\Xi^0\Xi^-}$ & $-{D^3+D^2F+3DF^2+3F^3\over 3}$
952: & ${D^3+5D^2F+3DF^2-9 F^3\over 12}$&${1\over 4}(D-F)^3$\\ \hline
953:
954: $\beta_{p\Lambda}$ & ${ -5D^3+15D^2F+9
955: DF^2-27F^3]\over 6\sqrt{6}}$ & ${1\over \sqrt{6}}[-{1\over 6}D^3+{3\over
956: 2}DF^2]$
957: &${\sqrt{6}\over 4}D(D^2-F^2)$ \\ \hline
958:
959: $\beta_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & $ { -5D^3-15D^2F+9
960: DF^2+27F^3]\over 6\sqrt{6}}$
961: & ${1\over \sqrt{6}}[-{1\over 6}D^3+{3\over 2}DF^2] $ &${\sqrt{6}\over
962: 4}D(D^2-F^2)$\\ \hline
963:
964: $\beta_{n\Sigma^-}$ & $-{D^3+D^2F+3DF^2+3F^3\over 6} $
965: & $-{1\over 6}D^3+{2\over 3}D^2F-{1\over 2}DF^2 $
966: &$- {D^3-2D^2F+3DF^2+6F^3\over 6}$\\ \hline
967:
968: $\beta_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & ${-D^3+D^2F-3DF^2+3F^3\over 6\sqrt{2}}$ & $ -{
969: D^3+4D^2F+3DF^2\over 6\sqrt{2}}$ &$- {D^3+2D^2F+3DF^2-6F^3\over 6\sqrt{2}}$
970: \\
971: \hline
972: \end{tabular}
973: \end{center}
974: %\vspace{0.5cm}
975: \caption{\label{tab2} The coefficients $\beta^X_{ij}$ for the vertex correction
976: of Fig. 2a.}
977: \end{table}
978:
979:
980: \begin{table}
981: \begin{center}~
982: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
983: & kaon loop & $\eta$ loop&$\pi$ loop
984: \\
985: \hline
986: $\gamma_{pn}$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $0$ &$-1$\\ \hline
987:
988: $\gamma_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $0$ &$-1$\\ \hline
989:
990: $\gamma_{\Xi^0\Xi^-}$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $0$&$-1$\\ \hline
991:
992: $\gamma_{p\Lambda}$ & $-{3\over 4}$ & $-{3\over 8}$&$-{3\over 8}$\\ \hline
993:
994: $\gamma_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & $-{3\over 4} $& $-{3\over 8}$&$-{3\over 8}$ \\ \hline
995:
996: $\gamma_{n\Sigma^-}$ & $ -{3\over 4}$ & $-{3\over 8}$ &$-{3\over 8}$\\ \hline
997:
998: $\gamma_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & $-{3\over 4}$ & $-{3\over 8} $ &$-{3\over 8}$\\
999: \hline
1000: \end{tabular}
1001: \end{center}
1002: %\vspace{0.5cm}
1003: \caption{\label{tab3} The coefficients $\gamma^X_{ij}$ for the tadpole diagram
1004: Fig. 2b.}
1005: \end{table}
1006:
1007:
1008: \begin{table}
1009: \begin{center}~
1010: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
1011: & Experimental data & tree level fit
1012: \\
1013: \hline
1014: $g^A_{pn}$ & $(1.2573\pm 0.0028)$ & $1.253$ \\ \hline
1015:
1016: $g^A_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & $\sqrt{2\over 3}(0.742\pm 0.018)$ & $0.64$
1017: \\ \hline
1018:
1019: $g^A_{\Xi^0\Xi^-} $$^{\dag }$ & $-$ & $0.31$\\ \hline
1020:
1021: $g^A_{p\Lambda}$ & $-\sqrt{3\over 2}(0.718\pm 0.015)$ & $-0.90$
1022: \\ \hline
1023:
1024: $g^A_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & $\sqrt{3\over 2}(0.25\pm 0.05 )$& $0.26$
1025: \\ \hline
1026:
1027: $g^A_{n\Sigma^-}$ & $(0.340\pm 0.017) $ & $0.31$ \\ \hline
1028:
1029: $g^A_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & ${1\over \sqrt{2}}(1.278\pm 0.158)$ & $0.89$
1030: \\ \hline
1031: $D$ & $-$ & $0.78$ \\ \hline
1032: $F$ & $-$ & $0.47$ \\ \hline
1033: $F/D$ & $-$ & $0.60$ \\ \hline
1034: $\chi^2$ & $-$ & $0.1$ \\ \hline
1035: \end{tabular}
1036: \end{center}
1037: %\vspace{0.5cm}
1038: \caption{\label{tab4} Experimental data and ${\cal O}(p^0)$ fits
1039: for the axial charge from hyperon semileptonix decays. The value in the
1040: bracket is the
1041: experimental value of $g_1/f_1$. The channel with $^\dag$ is the prediction. }
1042: \end{table}
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046: \begin{table}
1047: \begin{center}~
1048: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
1049: & Data & Tree level fit&One loop ${\cal O}(p^2)$ Fit B&One loop ${\cal
1050: O}(p^3)$ Fit B
1051: \\
1052: \hline
1053: $g^A_{pn}$ & $(1.2573\pm 0.0028)$ & $1.253$ & $1.245$ &$1.25$\\ \hline
1054:
1055: $g^A_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & $\sqrt{2\over 3}(0.742\pm 0.018)$ & $0.64$ &
1056: $0.60$&$0.62$\\ \hline
1057:
1058: $g^A_{\Xi^0\Xi^-} $$^{\dag }$ & $-$ & $0.31$& $0.126$&$0.29$\\ \hline
1059:
1060: $g^A_{p\Lambda}$ & $-\sqrt{3\over 2}(0.718\pm 0.015)$ & $-0.90$&
1061: $-0.90$&$-0.89$\\ \hline
1062:
1063: $g^A_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & $\sqrt{3\over 2}(0.25\pm 0.05 )$& $0.26$ &
1064: $0.31$&$0.30$\\ \hline
1065:
1066: $g^A_{n\Sigma^-}$ & $(0.340\pm 0.017) $ & $0.31$ & $0.35$&$0.34$\\ \hline
1067:
1068: $g^A_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & ${1\over \sqrt{2}}(1.278\pm 0.158)$ & $0.89$ &
1069: $0.905$&$0.90$\\ \hline
1070: $D$ & $-$ & $0.78$ & $0.55$&$0.41$\\ \hline
1071: $F$ & $-$ & $0.47$ & $0.41$&$0.26$\\ \hline
1072: $F/D$ & $-$ & $0.60$ & $0.75$&$0.63$\\ \hline
1073: $\chi^2$ & $-$ & $0.1$ & $0.01$&$0.022$\\ \hline
1074: $d_1$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-1.08$&$-2.75$\\ \hline
1075: $d_2$ & $-$ & $-$ & $0.505$&$0.88$\\ \hline
1076: $d_3$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-0.574$&$-0.65$\\ \hline
1077: $d_4$ & $-$ & $-$ & $0.82$&$-0.11$\\ \hline
1078: \end{tabular}
1079: \end{center}
1080: %\vspace{0.5cm}
1081: \caption{\label{tab5} Our fit with Scheme B up to ${\cal O}(p^2)$, ${\cal
1082: O}(p^3)$. The
1083: channel with $^\dag$ is the prediction. }
1084: \end{table}
1085:
1086: \begin{table}
1087: \begin{center}
1088: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
1089: & Full fit results & Tree level only& ${\cal O}(p^2) $ only& ${\cal
1090: O}(p^3)$ only
1091: \\
1092: \hline
1093: $g^A_{pn}$ & $1.25$ & $0.671$ & $0.245$ &$0.334$\\ \hline
1094:
1095: $g^A_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & $0.62$ & $0.33$ & $0.079$&$0.211$\\ \hline
1096:
1097: $g^A_{\Xi^0\Xi^-} $$^{\dag }$ & $0.29$ & $0.143$& $-0.031$&$0.178$\\ \hline
1098:
1099: $g^A_{p\Lambda}$ & $-0.89$ & $-0.489$& $0.123$&$-0.524$\\ \hline
1100:
1101: $g^A_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & $0.30$& $0.157$ & $-0.063$&$0.206$\\ \hline
1102:
1103: $g^A_{n\Sigma^-}$ & $0.34 $ & $0.143$ & $0.053$&$0.144$\\ \hline
1104:
1105: $g^A_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & $0.90$ & $0.474$ & $-0.158$&$0.584$\\ \hline
1106: \end{tabular}
1107: \end{center}
1108: %\vspace{0.5cm}
1109: \caption{\label{tab6} The separation of our full up to ${\cal O}(p^3)$ fit
1110: results
1111: with Scheme B into tree level, pure ${\cal O}(p^2)$, and ${\cal O}(p^3)$
1112: pieces for the sake of
1113: the discussion of convergence of the chiral expansion. }
1114: \end{table}
1115:
1116:
1117: \begin{table}
1118: \begin{center}~
1119: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
1120: & Data & Tree level fit&One loop ${\cal O}(p^2)$ Fit C&One loop ${\cal
1121: O}(p^3)$ Fit C
1122: \\
1123: \hline
1124: $g^A_{pn}$ & $(1.2573\pm 0.0028)$ & $1.253$ & $1.26$ &$1.26$\\ \hline
1125:
1126: $g^A_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & $\sqrt{2\over 3}(0.742\pm 0.018)$ & $0.64$ &
1127: $0.64$&$0.61$\\ \hline
1128:
1129: $g^A_{\Xi^0\Xi^-} $$^{\dag }$ & $-$ & $0.31$& $0.24$&$0.22$\\ \hline
1130:
1131: $g^A_{p\Lambda}$ & $-\sqrt{3\over 2}(0.718\pm 0.015)$ & $-0.90$&
1132: $-0.85$&$-0.88$\\ \hline
1133:
1134: $g^A_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & $\sqrt{3\over 2}(0.25\pm 0.05 )$& $0.26$ &
1135: $0.34$&$0.30$\\ \hline
1136:
1137: $g^A_{n\Sigma^-}$ & $(0.340\pm 0.017) $ & $0.31$ & $0.35$&$0.34$\\ \hline
1138:
1139: $g^A_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & ${1\over \sqrt{2}}(1.278\pm 0.158)$ & $0.89$ &
1140: $0.88$&$0.90$\\ \hline
1141: $D$ & $-$ & $0.78$ & $0.513$&$0.39$\\ \hline
1142: $F$ & $-$ & $0.47$ & $0.370$&$0.26$\\ \hline
1143: $F/D$ & $-$ & $0.60$ & $0.72$&$0.67$\\ \hline
1144: $\chi^2$ & $-$ & $0.1$ & $0.004$&$0.013$\\ \hline
1145: $d_1$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-1.17$&$-2.73$\\ \hline
1146: $d_2$ & $-$ & $-$ & $0.60$&$0.82$\\ \hline
1147: $d_3$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-0.62$&$-0.54$\\ \hline
1148: $d_4$ & $-$ & $-$ & $0.84$&$0.094$\\ \hline
1149: \end{tabular}
1150: \end{center}
1151: %\vspace{0.5cm}
1152: \caption{\label{tab7} Our fit with Scheme C up to ${\cal O}(p^2)$, ${\cal
1153: O}(p^3)$. The
1154: channel with $^\dag$ is the prediction. }
1155: \end{table}
1156:
1157: \begin{table}
1158: \begin{center}
1159: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
1160: & Full fit results & Tree level only& ${\cal O}(p^2) $ only& ${\cal
1161: O}(p^3)$ only
1162: \\
1163: \hline
1164: $g^A_{pn}$ & $1.26$ & $0.658$ & $0.276$ &$0.326$\\ \hline
1165:
1166: $g^A_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & $0.61$ & $0.318$ & $0.095$&$0.197$\\ \hline
1167:
1168: $g^A_{\Xi^0\Xi^-} $$^{\dag }$ & $0.22$ & $0.12$& $-0.042$&$0.142$\\ \hline
1169:
1170: $g^A_{p\Lambda}$ & $-0.88$ & $-0.488$& $0.136$&$-0.528$\\ \hline
1171:
1172: $g^A_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & $0.30$& $0.17$ & $-0.089$&$0.219$\\ \hline
1173:
1174: $g^A_{n\Sigma^-}$ & $0.34 $ & $0.12$ & $0.101$&$0.119$\\ \hline
1175:
1176: $g^A_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & $0.90$ & $0.465$ & $-0.135$&$0.57$\\ \hline
1177: \end{tabular}
1178: \end{center}
1179: %\vspace{0.5cm}
1180: \caption{\label{tab8} The separation of our full up to ${\cal O}(p^3)$ fit
1181: results
1182: with Scheme C into tree level, pure ${\cal O}(p^2)$, and ${\cal O}(p^3)$
1183: pieces.}
1184: \end{table}
1185:
1186: \begin{table}
1187: \begin{center}~
1188: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
1189: & kaon loop & $\eta$ loop
1190: \\
1191: \hline
1192: $I_a$ & $0.21$ & $0.27$ \\ \hline
1193: $I_b$ & $-0.23$ & $-0.237$ \\ \hline
1194: $I_c$ & $0.167$ & $0.230$ \\ \hline
1195: $I_d$ & $0.34$ & $0.424$ \\ \hline
1196: $J_A$ & $0.533$ & $0.504$ \\ \hline
1197: $\Delta$ & $-0.23$ & $-0.237$ \\ \hline
1198: $I (m_N^2) $ & $-1.37$ & $-1.53$ \\
1199: \hline
1200: \end{tabular}
1201: \end{center}
1202: %\vspace{0.5cm}
1203: \caption{\label{tab9} The values of loop integral functions in Eq.
1204: (\ref{ren}).}
1205: \end{table}
1206:
1207:
1208: \end{document}
1209:
1210: \begin{table}
1211: \begin{center}~
1212: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
1213: & Experimental data & tree level fit&One-loop Fit A&Fit A$^\ast$
1214: \\
1215: \hline
1216: $g^A_{pn}$ & $(1.2573\pm 0.0028)$ & $1.253$ & $0.99$ &$1.05$\\ \hline
1217:
1218: $g^A_{\Lambda\Sigma^-}$ & $\sqrt{2\over 3}(0.742\pm 0.018)$ & $0.64$ &
1219: $0.57$&$0.66$\\ \hline
1220:
1221: $g^A_{\Xi^0\Xi^-} $$^{\dag }$ & $-$ & $0.31$& $0.40$&$0.42$\\ \hline
1222:
1223: $g^A_{p\Lambda}$ & $-\sqrt{3\over 2}(0.718\pm 0.015)$ & $-0.90$&
1224: $-1.0$&$-0.92$\\ \hline
1225:
1226: $g^A_{\Lambda\Xi^-}$ & $\sqrt{3\over 2}(0.25\pm 0.05 )$& $0.26$ &
1227: $0.29$&$0.31$\\ \hline
1228:
1229: $g^A_{n\Sigma^-}$ & $(0.340\pm 0.017) $ & $0.31$ & $0.40$&$0.33$\\ \hline
1230:
1231: $g^A_{\Sigma^0\Xi^-}$ & ${1\over \sqrt{2}}(1.278\pm 0.158)$ & $0.89$ &
1232: $1.1$&$1.07$\\ \hline
1233: $D$ & $-$ & $0.78$ & $0.39$&$0.48$\\ \hline
1234: $F$ & $-$ & $0.47$ & $0.22$&$0.29$\\ \hline
1235: $F/D$ & $-$ & $0.60$ & $0.56$&$0.60$\\ \hline
1236: $\chi^2$ & $-$ & $0.1$ & $2.9$&$2.4$\\ \hline
1237: \end{tabular}
1238: \end{center}
1239: %\vspace{0.5cm}
1240: \caption{\label{tab4} Experimental data and ${\cal O}(p^0)$ fits
1241: for the axial charge from hyperon semileptonix decays. The value in the
1242: bracket is the
1243: experimental value of $g_1/f_1$. The channel with $^\dag$ is the prediction. }
1244: \end{table}
1245: