1: \documentclass[12pt,paper]{JHEP3}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4:
5:
6: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
10:
11: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re}}
12: \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{Im}}
13:
14: %\renewcommand{\FIGURE}[1]{\begin{figure}#1\end{figure}}
15: %\renewcommand{\TABLE}[1]{\begin{table}#1\end{table}}
16:
17: \preprint{LU TP 04-19\\
18: hep-ph/0404150\\
19: April 2004}
20:
21: \title{$\pi K$ Scattering in Three Flavour ChPT\thanks{Supported
22: in part by the European Union TMR
23: network, Contract No. HPRN-CT-2002-00311 (EURIDICE)}
24: }
25: \vfill
26: \author{Johan Bijnens, Pierre Dhonte\\
27: Department of Theoretical Physics 2, Lund University,\\
28: S\"olvegatan 14A, S 223-62 Lund, Sweden}
29: \author{Pere Talavera\\
30: Departament de F\'\i sica i Enginyeria Nuclear, Universitat Polit\`ecnica
31: de Catalunya,\\Jordi Girona 1-3, E 08034 Barcelona, Spain}
32:
33: \abstract{
34: We present the scattering lengths for the $\pi K$ processes in
35: the three flavour Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) framework at
36: next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO). The calculation has been performed
37: analytically but we only include analytical results for the
38: dependence on the low-energy constants (LECs) at NNLO due to the size
39: of the expressions. These results, together with resonance estimates
40: of the NNLO LECs are used to obtain constraints on the Zweig rule
41: suppressed LECs at NLO, $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$. Contrary to expectations
42: from NLO order calculations we find them to be compatible with zero.
43: We do a preliminary study of combining the results from $\pi\pi$ scattering,
44: $\pi K$ scattering and the scalar form-factors and find only a marginal
45: compatibility with all experimental/dispersive input data.}
46:
47:
48: \keywords{Chiral Lagrangians, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking}
49:
50: \begin{document}
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53:
54:
55: Effective Lagrangians have become a widely used tool in understanding
56: physics involving a mass gap in the spectrum. They can be used
57: in theories in a weakly coupled regime but with unknown underlying physics
58: (as is the case in the Higgs sector of the standard model)
59: or in theories with a strongly coupled regime where the usual
60: perturbation formalism breaks down. Our interest will be
61: focused on Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD). It is
62: a well established theory at high energy where our theoretical knowledge and
63: the experimental outcome agree with rather good accuracy.
64: At low energy the situation is less
65: satisfactory because the theory becomes strongly coupled and non-perturbative,
66: standard perturbative methods can not be applied.
67: One of the immediate differences is given by the degrees of freedom
68: at low and high energy.
69: At the former they are characterised by hadrons while in the latter
70: they are better described in terms of the fundamental interacting quarks and
71: gluons.
72:
73: A suitable method to tackle phenomenology at low energy in the mesonic sector,
74: besides direct numerical computation as done in lattice QCD,
75: is to use the fact that QCD possesses an almost exact symmetry.
76: One can then rely on these symmetries
77: and their breaking pattern using an effective Lagrangian method.
78: We will use the chiral symmetry present in the QCD Lagrangian in the limit
79: of massless quarks. The use of this symmetry and the effective Lagrangian method
80: is now known as Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT).
81: It was introduced by Weinberg \cite{Weinberg} and systematized
82: by Gasser and Leutwyler \cite{GL1} for the case of the light up and down quarks
83: as well as for the case where the strange quark is treated as light
84: in addition \cite{GL2}.
85: %YYY they did include the correlations partly YYY
86: They performed a basic set of next-to-leading order (NLO) calculations
87: allowing a first determination of all low-energy constants at NLO, the
88: $L_i^r$, invoking the Zweig rule to set $L_4^r=L_6^r\approx0$.
89: It was hoped this could be tested in $K_{\ell4}$ easily, but it
90: turned out, when the explicit calculations were performed, that these
91: only had very suppressed contributions to the
92: form-factors \cite{Bijnenskl4,Riggenbach}.
93:
94: One question is how to order the various terms in the chiral
95: expansions. The proposal
96: used by most people is to count energies and momenta as a small parameter
97: of order $p$ and the quark masses as order $p^2$. Alternative countings,
98: taking the quark masses also as order $p$ are possible,
99: see \cite{Stern1} and references therein. Combining
100: the two-flavour two-loop calculations of $\pi\pi$ scattering
101: \cite{BCEGS1,BCEGS2} and the pion
102: scalar form-factor \cite{BCT} with the Roy equation analysis \cite{ACGL}
103: it could be shown that in the two flavour case the correct counting was
104: the standard one \cite{CGL1,CGL2} using the recent determination of the
105: pion scattering length from $K_{\ell4}$ \cite{Pislak1,Pislak2}.
106:
107: The up and down quark masses are much smaller than the strange quark mass.
108: The question thus remains whether three flavour ChPT itself converges
109: sufficiently well to be of practical use and whether alternative countings
110: of contributions involving the strange quark mass need to be used.
111: This possibility is discussed in the recent work
112: \cite{Stern2,Stern3}. The argument is that disconnected
113: loop contributions from strange quarks, via kaons and etas, can be large,
114: making a convergent three flavour ChPT difficult to achieve in the usual
115: sense \cite{Stern3,LJP}.
116: Answering this question is part of the larger problem of whether the strange
117: quark can be considered a light quark.
118: This was part of the motivation behind the recent work
119: in three flavour ChPT at NNLO on $\pi\pi$ scattering
120: \cite{BDT} and the various scalar form-factors \cite{BD}.
121: Earlier calculations of the pseudoscalar
122: masses and decay constants, see Ref.~\cite{ABT1}
123: and references therein, showed the possibility of this behaviour.
124: The various vector form-factors calculated did not seem to have problems
125: with convergence \cite{Post1,Post2,BT1,BT2}.
126:
127: Work on $\pi K$ scattering began soon after Weinberg's calculation of
128: $\pi\pi$ scattering \cite{Weinbergpipi}. The earliest reference known to us
129: is \cite{Griffith}. During the 1970s there was a dedicated series of
130: experiments culminating in the review by Lang \cite{Langreview}.
131: These were used extensively together with dispersion relations
132: and crossing symmetry in \cite{Lang} and \cite{JN}.
133:
134: The development of ChPT led after some time to the calculation of the
135: $\pi K$ scattering amplitude to NLO \cite{BKM,BKM2}. There were also
136: earlier attempts at unitarization of current algebra for
137: this process. An example can be found in the discussion in
138: \cite{SaBorges1,SaBorges2} and references therein.
139: Other recent related works are the various attempts at putting in
140: resonances in this process starting with \cite{BKM3}. Approaches involving
141: resummations can be found in \cite{JOP} and \cite{MO}. An alternative
142: approach is to consider the kaon as heavy and treat only the pion as a
143: Goldstone boson. This is known as heavy kaon ChPT.
144: The applications to $\pi K$ scattering
145: can be found in \cite{Roessl} and \cite{FKM}. Unfortunately this approach has
146: many free parameters and does not allow to connect $\pi K$ scattering to other
147: processes. It does, however, have the possibility of being applicable
148: even if standard ChPT does not work.
149:
150: On the dispersive side, the analyses of \cite{Lang} were slowly updated to
151: get at a determination of the $p^4$ LECs. The first work was \cite{AB}
152: and the full analysis has recently become available \cite{BDM}.
153: In the mean time, the isospin breaking corrections to $\pi K$ scattering
154: at NLO have been evaluated in \cite{Nehme1,Nehme2,KM1,KM2}. Since we
155: work in the isospin limit and the dispersive calculation of \cite{BDM} has been
156: performed in the same approximation we do not discuss these works further.
157:
158: In this paper we calculate the standard ChPT expression for $\pi K$
159: scattering to next-to-next-to-leading-order.
160: A large number of calculations to this order exist
161: in three flavour ChPT and we have thus been able to determine most
162: $p^4$ LECs with this precision after making some assumptions on the values
163: of the $p^6$ constants. In earlier work it has been found that the Zweig rule
164: suppressed constants $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ could be sufficiently different
165: from zero that the scenario of large corrections due to disconnected
166: strange quark loops was not ruled out. Pushing this calculation to NNLO
167: allows then to perform this comparison at the same footing as all the
168: other $p^4$ LECs. Earlier attempts at using $K_{\ell4}$ had led to rather
169: large errors for these constants, e.g.
170: $L_4^r = (-0.2\pm0.9)\,10^{-3}$\cite{ABT4}.
171: The work on $\pi\pi$ scattering \cite{BDT} and scalar form-factors \cite{BD}
172: at NNLO order gave an indication that the region with
173: $L_4^r\approx 0.45\,10^{-3}$ was preferred. This fitted with the NLO $\pi K$
174: work done earlier \cite{BDM}. As discussed below, contrary to our expectations,
175: the results from $\pi K$ scattering at NNLO are more indicative of a smaller
176: value for $L_4^r$.
177:
178: This paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{chpt} we give a very short
179: overview of ChPT and the references for NNLO techniques.
180: In Sect.~\ref{piKgeneral} we discuss a few general properties of the
181: $\pi K$ scattering
182: amplitude.
183: Sect.~\ref{analytical} gives an overview of our main result, the
184: calculation of the $\pi K$ scattering amplitude to NNLO in three flavour ChPT.
185: We also present here some plots showing the importance of the various
186: contributions. The inputs we use to do the numerical analysis are
187: described in Sect.~\ref{inputs}. The main numerical analysis is
188: presented in Sect.~\ref{numerical} and we give our conclusions
189: in Sect.~\ref{conclusions}.
190:
191: \section{Chiral Perturbation Theory}
192: \label{chpt}
193:
194: ChPT is the effective field theory for QCD at low energies introduced in
195: \cite{Weinberg,GL1,GL2}. Introductory references are
196: in Ref.~\cite{chptlectures}.
197: The usual expansion is
198: in quark masses and meson momenta generically labeled $p$ and
199: assumes $m_q\sim p^2$.
200: The Lagrangian for the strong and semi leptonic mesonic sector
201: to NNLO can be written as
202: \be
203: {\cal L} = {\cal L}_2+ {\cal L}_4+{\cal L}_6\,,
204: \ee
205: where the subscript refers to the chiral order.
206: The lowest order Lagrangian is
207: \be
208: \label{L2}
209: {\cal L}_{2} = \frac{F_0^2}{4} \langle u_\mu u^\mu + \chi_+ \rangle \,.
210: \ee
211: The mesonic fields enter in a non-linear fashion via
212: $u = \exp\left( i M /(F_0 \sqrt{2})\right)$, with $M$ parametrising
213: the pseudoscalar fields.
214: The quantity $u_\mu$ also contains the external vector ($v_\mu$)
215: and axial-vector ($a_\mu$)
216: currents
217: \be
218: \label{covariant}
219: u_\mu = i
220: (u^\dagger \partial_\mu u - \partial_\mu u u^\dagger
221: -i u^\dagger r_\mu u + i u l_\mu u^\dagger)\,,
222: \quad
223: l_\mu(r_\mu) = v_\mu -(+) a_\mu\,.
224: \ee
225: The scalar ($s$) and pseudo scalar ($p$) currents are contained in
226: \be
227: \chi_\pm = u^\dagger \chi u^\dagger \pm u \chi^\dagger u\,,\quad
228: \chi = 2 B_0\left(s+ip\right)\,.
229: \ee
230: The $p^4$ or NLO Lagrangian, ${\cal L}_4$, was introduced in Ref.~\cite{GL2}
231: and is of the general form
232: \be
233: \label{L4}
234: {\cal L}_{4} = \sum_{i=1}^{12} L_i P_i
235: = \ldots
236: +L_4 \langle u^\mu u_\mu \rangle \langle \chi_+ \rangle
237: +L_6 \langle \chi_+ \rangle^2 \nonumber
238: +\ldots
239: \,.
240: \ee
241: We have explicitly shown two terms with chiral symmetry breaking
242: which in addition present a double flavour trace structure, which indicates
243: that these two terms are suppressed by the Zweig rule.
244:
245: The schematic form of the NNLO Lagrangian in the three flavour case is
246: \be
247: \label{L6}
248: {\cal L}_6 = \sum_{i=1,94} C_i\,O_i
249: \ee
250: and we refer to \cite{BCE} for their explicit expressions.
251:
252: The ultra-violet divergences produced by loop diagrams of order
253: $p^4$ and $p^6$ cancel in the process of renormalization with the divergences
254: extracted from the low-energy constants $L_i$'s and $C_i$'s.
255: We use dimensional regularization and
256: the modified minimal subtraction
257: $(\overline{MS})$ version usually used in ChPT.
258: An extensive description of the
259: regularization and renormalization procedure
260: can be found in Refs.~\cite{BCEGS2} and \cite{BCE2}.
261: The divergences are known in general \cite{BCE2,GL1,GL2,BCE3} and their cancellation
262: is a check on our calculation.
263:
264: \section{The $\pi K$ amplitude: general properties}
265: \label{piKgeneral}
266:
267: The $\pi K$ scattering amplitude in isospin channel $I$
268: can be written as
269: \be
270: A(\left(\pi(p_1)K(p_2)\to\pi(p_3)K(p_4)\right)
271: = T^I(s,t,u)\,.
272: \ee
273: $s,t,u$ are the usual Mandelstam variables
274: \be
275: s = (p_1+p_2)^2\,,\quad t=(p_1-p_3)^2\quad\mbox{and}\quad u=(p_1-p_4)^2\,.
276: \ee
277: There are two possible isospin combinations $I=1/2$ and $I=3/2$. These
278: two are related via $s\leftrightarrow u$ crossing which yields
279: \be
280: T^{\frac{1}{2}}(s,t,u) =
281: -\frac{1}{2}T^{\frac{3}{2}}(s,t,u)+\frac{3}{2}T^{\frac{3}{2}}(u,t,s)\,.
282: \ee
283: We also define the crossing symmetric amplitudes $T^+$ and $T^-$ as,
284: \be
285: T^{\pm}(s,t,u) =
286: \frac{1}{2}\left(\pm T^{\frac{3}{2}}(s,t,u)+ T^{\frac{3}{2}}(u,t,s)\right)\,.
287: \ee
288: These amplitudes can be calculated most easily from the purely $I=3/2$
289: process $\pi^+ K^+\to\pi^+ K^+$.
290:
291: In order to describe
292: scattering kinematics it is convenient
293: to introduce the variable
294: \be
295: q_{\pi K}^2 = \frac{s}{4}\left(1-\frac{(m_K+m_\pi)^2}{s}\right)
296: \left(1-\frac{(m_K-m_\pi)^2}{s}\right)\,.
297: \ee
298: The kinematical variables $t,u$ can be expressed in terms of $s$
299: and $\cos\theta$ as
300: \be
301: t = -2 q_{\pi K}^2(1-\cos\theta)\,,\quad
302: u = -s-t+2 m_K^2+2 m_\pi^2\,.
303: \ee
304:
305: The various amplitudes are expanded in partial waves via
306: \be
307: T^I(s,t,u) =
308: 16\pi\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty (2\ell+1) P_\ell(\cos\theta) t^I_\ell(s)\,.
309: \ee
310: Near threshold these can be expanded in a Taylor series
311: \be
312: \label{defaij}
313: t^I_\ell(s) \equiv \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s}
314: q_{\pi K}^{2\ell}\left(a^I_\ell + b^I_\ell q_{\pi K}^2
315: + {\cal O}(q_{\pi K}^4)\right)\,,
316: \ee
317: defining the threshold parameters $a^I_\ell$ and $b^I_\ell$.
318:
319: Below the inelastic threshold the partial waves satisfy
320: \be
321: \im t^I_\ell(s) = \frac{2 q_{\pi K}}{\sqrt{s}}
322: \left|t^I_\ell(s)\right|^2\,.
323: \ee
324: In ChPT the inelasticity only starts at order $p^8$.
325: In this regime the partial waves can be written in terms of the phase-shifts
326: as
327: \be
328: t^I_\ell(s) = \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2 q_{\pi K}}\,\frac{1}{2i}\left\{
329: e^{2i\delta^I_\ell(s)}-1\right\}\,.
330: \ee
331:
332: The amplitudes are often expanded around the point $t=0$, $s=u$
333: via
334: \ba
335: \label{defci}
336: T^+(s,t,u) &=& \sum_{i,j=0}^\infty c^+_{ij} t^j \nu^{2j}\,,
337: \nonumber\\
338: T^-(s,t,u) &=& \sum_{i,j=0}^\infty c^-_{ij} t^j \nu^{2j+1}\,,
339: \ea
340: where $\nu = (s-u)/(4 m_K)$ and the $c^\pm_{ij}$ are referred to
341: as subthreshold expansion parameters. They are normally quoted in units of the
342: relevant power of $m_{\pi^+}$. We will always list these parameters in
343: increasing order corresponding to powers of $t$ and $s-u$.
344:
345: The $p^2$ result for the amplitude
346: has only a few nonzero items. As a consequence
347: the imaginary parts for all other partial waves starts only at order $p^8$.
348: This allows the amplitude to be written in the form
349: \be
350: \label{defGi}
351: T^{\frac{3}{2}}(s,t,u) = G_1(s)+G_2(t)+G_3(u)+(s-u) G_4(t)+(s-t) G_5(u)\,.
352: \ee
353: The functions $G_i(s)$ have a polynomial ambiguity due to
354: $s+t+u=2 m_\pi^2+ 2 m_K^2$.
355: The functions $G_i(s)$ have various singularities. $G_1$, $G_3$ and $G_5$
356: contain singularities from the $\pi K$ and $\eta K$ intermediate states
357: and $G_2$ and $G_4$ from the possible nonstrange two meson intermediates.
358: The precise relation with the various singularities can be found in \cite{AB}.
359:
360:
361: \section{ChPT results}
362: \label{analytical}
363:
364: \subsection{Results at order $p^2$}
365:
366: The lowest order result is very simple and corresponds to
367: \be
368: c^+_{00} = 0,\quad c^+_{10} = \frac{1}{4 F_\pi^2}
369: \quad\mbox{and}\quad c^-_{00} = \frac{m_K}{F_\pi^2}\,.
370: \ee
371: All higher terms vanish. This was initially performed
372: using current algebra methods
373: \cite{Griffith}.
374:
375: \subsection{Results at order $p^4$}
376:
377: The next-to-leading
378: calculation was first performed in \cite{BKM,BKM2}.
379: We present it here in a slightly different form,
380: but the final expression given in that reference agrees with ours up to
381: terms of order $p^6$. Note that as mentioned also in \cite{AB} there are some
382: misprints in the formulas in \cite{BKM}.
383:
384: We present the analytical expressions for the $G_i$ functions
385: defined in (\ref{defGi}) and where the polynomial part was isolated in a
386: function $G_6(s,t,u)$. We also use $\Delta = m_K^2-m_\pi^2$ and
387: $\Sigma=m_K^2+m_\pi^2$.
388:
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: F_\pi^4\, G_1(s) &=&\overline{B}_{}(m_\pi^2,m_K^2,s)\,(-1/2\,s\,\Sigma+1/4\,s^2+1/4\Sigma^2)\,,
391: \\
392: F_\pi^4\, G_2(t) &=&\overline{B}_{}(m_\pi^2,m_\pi^2,t)\,(1/16\,t\,\Delta-1/16\,t\,\Sigma+1/4\,t^2)\nonumber\\&&
393: +\overline{B}_{}(m_K^2,m_K^2,t)\,(3/16\,t^2)\nonumber\\&&
394: + \overline{B}_{}(m_\eta^2,m_\eta^2,t)\,( 1/24\,m_\eta^2\,\Delta - 1/24\,m_\eta^2\,\Sigma - 1/16\,t\,\Delta
395: \nonumber\\ &&\hspace{1cm}+ 1/16\,t\,\Sigma+ 1/72\,\Delta\,\Sigma - 1/144\,\Delta^2 - 1/144\,\Sigma^2 )\,,
396: \\
397: F_\pi^4 G_3(u) &=&\overline{B}_{}(m_\pi^2,m_K^2,u)\,(-3/8\,u\,\Sigma+11/32\,u^2+1/8\Delta\Sigma
398: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{3cm}-7/32\Delta^2+1/8\Sigma^2)\nonumber\\&&
399: +\overline{B}_{}(m_K^2,m_\eta^2,u)\,( - 1/16\,m_\eta^2\,u - 41/288\,m_\eta^2\,
400: \Delta + 1/32\,m_\eta^2\,\Sigma
401: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{3cm}+ 1/96\,m_\eta^4 + 5/96\,u\,\Delta
402: - 3/32\,u\,\Sigma + 3/32\,u^2
403: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{3cm}+ 31/192\,\Delta\,\Sigma + 493/3456\,\Delta^2
404: + 3/128\,\Sigma^2 )
405: \nonumber\\&&
406: +\overline{B}_{1}(m_\pi^2,m_K^2,u)\,(-1/4\Delta\Sigma-3/8\Delta^2)\nonumber\\&&
407: +\overline{B}_{1}(m_K^2,m_\eta^2,u)\,( - 1/8\,m_\eta^2\,\Delta
408: - 3/16\,\Delta\,\Sigma - 13/48\,\Delta^2 )\nonumber\\&&
409: +\overline{B}_{21}(m_\pi^2,m_K^2,u)\,(3/8\Delta^2)\nonumber\\&&
410: +\overline{B}_{21}(m_K^2,m_\eta^2,u)\,(3/8\Delta^2)\,,
411: \\
412: F_\pi^4\, G_4(t) &=&\overline{B}_{}(m_\pi^2,m_\pi^2,t)\,(-1/24\,t\,-1/12\Delta+1/12\Sigma)\nonumber\\&&
413: +\overline{B}_{}(m_K^2,m_K^2,t)\,(-1/48\,t\,+1/24\Delta+1/24\Sigma)\,,
414: \\
415: F_\pi^4\, G_5(u) &=&\overline{B}_{}(m_\pi^2,m_K^2,u)\,(-1/32u-1/32\Delta+1/16\Sigma)\nonumber\\&&
416: +\overline{B}_{}(m_K^2,m_\eta^2,u)\,( 1/32\,m_\eta^2 - 1/32\,u + 3/64\,\Delta
417: + 3/64\,\Sigma )
418: \nonumber\\&&
419: +\overline{B}_{1}(m_\pi^2,m_K^2,u)\,(1/16\Delta)\nonumber\\&&
420: +\overline{B}_{1}(m_K^2,m_\eta^2,u)\,( 1/16\,m_\eta^2 - 1/32\,\Delta
421: - 1/32\,\Sigma )\,,
422: \\
423: F_\pi^4\, G_6(s,t,u) &=&F_\pi^2(-1/2\,s\,+1/2\Sigma)\nonumber\\&&
424: +(16\pi^2)^{-1}\,( 3/32\,m_\eta^2\,s-1/32\,m_\eta^2\,(t-u)-1/16\,m_\eta^2\,\Sigma
425: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{2cm}- 1/64\,s\,\Delta +31/192\,s\,\Sigma + 1/16\,s^2
426: - 7/192\,(t-u)\,\Delta
427: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{2cm}+ 1/64\,(t-u)\,\Sigma - 1/48\,(t-u)^2
428: + 1/96\,\Delta\,\Sigma
429: - 13/96\,\Sigma^2 )\nonumber\\&&
430: +L_1^r\,\,(-4\,s\,(t-u)+2\,s^2+2(t-u)^2-8\Delta^2)\nonumber\\&&
431: +L_2^r\,\,(2\,s\,(t-u)-8\,s\,\Sigma+5\,s^2+(t-u)^2+4\Sigma^2)\nonumber\\&&
432: +L_3^r\,\,(\,s^2+(t-u)^2-2\Delta^2)\nonumber\\&&
433: +L_4^r\,\,(-4\,s\,\Sigma+4(t-u)\Sigma+8\Delta^2)\nonumber\\&&
434: +L_5^r\,\,(2\,s\,\Delta-2\,s\,\Sigma-2\Delta\Sigma+2\Delta^2)\nonumber\\&&
435: +L_6^r\,\,(-8\Delta^2+8\Sigma^2)\nonumber\\&&
436: +L_8^r\,\,(-4\Delta^2+4\Sigma^2)\nonumber\\&&
437: +\overline{A}(m_\pi^2)\, - 21/32\,s - 5/96\,(t-u) - 7/32\,\Delta
438: + 13/24\,\Sigma )\nonumber\\&&
439: +\overline{A}(m_K^2)\,( 1/96\,m_\eta^2 - 3/16\,s + 1/48\,(t-u) + 31/576\,\Delta
440: + 5/64\,\Sigma )\nonumber\\&&
441: +\overline{A}(m_\eta^2)\,( 9/160\,m_\eta^2 + 3/32\,s + 1/32\,(t-u) + 7/64\,\Delta
442: - 49/320\,\Sigma)\,.\nonumber\\
443: \end{eqnarray}
444:
445: The finite part of the one-loop integrals are denoted
446: by $\overline{A}, \overline{B}_j$ as defined in \cite{ABT1}.
447:
448: \subsection{Results at order $p^6$}
449:
450: The full result at order $p^6$ is rather cumbersome\footnote{It can be obtained from the
451: website \cite{formulas} or from the authors upon request.}.
452: In this section we quote
453: only the dependence on the order $p^6$ constants. This contribution
454: can be written exactly in the form of the subthreshold expansion
455: (\ref{defci})
456: with as nonzero combinations, normalized to $F_\pi^4\,m_{\pi^+}^{2i+2j}$ and
457: $F_\pi^4\,m_{\pi^+}^{2i+2j+1}$ for $c^+_{ij}$ and $c^-_{ij}$ respectively,
458: \ba
459: c^+_{00} &=&
460: 16\,m_{K^+}^2\,m_{\pi^+}^4 \, ( C^r_{1} + 4\,C^r_{2} + C^r_{5} + C^r_{6}
461: + 2\,C^r_{7} - C^r_{12} - 4\,C^r_{13} - 2\,C^r_{14}
462: - 3\,C^r_{15}
463: \nonumber\\
464: & &\qquad\qquad\qquad
465: - 4\,C^r_{16}
466: + 3\,C^r_{19} + 6\,C^r_{20} + 12\,C^r_{21}
467: - C^r_{26} - 4\,C^r_{28} + 3\,C^r_{31} + 6\,C^r_{32} )
468: \nonumber\\
469: & &+ 16\,m_{K^+}^4\,m_{\pi^+}^2 \, ( C^r_{1} + 4\,C^r_{2} + 2\,C^r_{6}
470: + 2\,C^r_{7} + C^r_{8} - C^r_{12} - 4\,C^r_{13}
471: - 4\,C^r_{15} - 4\,C^r_{16}
472: \nonumber\\
473: & &\qquad\qquad\qquad- 2\,C^r_{17} + 3\,C^r_{19}
474: + 8\,C^r_{20} + 24\,C^r_{21} - C^r_{26} - 4\,C^r_{28} +
475: 3\,C^r_{31} + 8\,C^r_{32} )\,,
476: \nonumber\\
477: c^+_{10} &=& 8\,m_{K^+}^2\,m_{\pi^+}^2 \, ( - 4\,C^r_{1} - 16\,C^r_{2}
478: + 2\,C^r_{4} - C^r_{5} - 3\,C^r_{6} - 4\,C^r_{7} - C^r_{8}
479: + 4\,C^r_{12} + 10\,C^r_{13}
480: \nonumber\\
481: & &\qquad\qquad\qquad+ C^r_{14} + 5\,C^r_{15} + 2\,C^r_{17}
482: - 2\,C^r_{22} - 2\,C^r_{25} - C^r_{26}- 2\,C^r_{29} - 4\,C^r_{30} )
483: \nonumber\\
484: & &+ 8\,m_{K^+}^4 \, ( - C^r_{1} - 4\,C^r_{2} - 2\,C^r_{6} - 2\,C^r_{7}
485: - C^r_{8} - 2\,C^r_{12} - 4\,C^r_{13}
486: \nonumber\\
487: & &\qquad\qquad -C^r_{14} + 4\,C^r_{16} + C^r_{26} + 4\,C^r_{28} )
488: \nonumber\\
489: & &+ 8\,m_{\pi^+}^4 \, ( - C^r_{1} - 4\,C^r_{2} - C^r_{5} - C^r_{6}
490: - 2\,C^r_{7} - 2\,C^r_{12}
491: \nonumber\\
492: & &\qquad\qquad- 2\,C^r_{13} +C^r_{14} + 1/2\,C^r_{15} + 4\,C^r_{16} - C^r_{17} + C^r_{26}
493: + 4\,C^r_{28} )\,,
494: \nonumber\\
495: c^-_{00} &=& 16\,m_{K^+}\,m_{\pi^+}^4 \, ( C^r_{15} + 2\,C^r_{17} )
496: \nonumber\\
497: & &+ 16\,m_{K^+}^3\,m_{\pi^+}^3 \, ( 4\,C^r_{4} + 2\,C^r_{14} + 2\,C^r_{15} - 4\,C^r_{22} + 4\,C^r_{25}
498: + 2\,C^r_{26}- 4\,C^r_{29} )\,,
499: \nonumber\\
500: c^+_{20} &=& m_{K^+}^2 \, ( 12\,C^r_{1} + 48\,C^r_{2} - 8\,C^r_{4} + C^r_{5}
501: + 10\,C^r_{6} + 8\,C^r_{7} + 4\,C^r_{8}
502: + C^r_{10}
503: \nonumber\\
504: & &\qquad\qquad+ 4\,C^r_{11} - 2\,C^r_{12} - 4\,C^r_{13} + 2\,C^r_{22}
505: - 4\,C^r_{23} + 4\,C^r_{25} )
506: \nonumber\\
507: & &+ m_{\pi^+}^2 \, ( 12\,C^r_{1} + 48\,C^r_{2} - 8\,C^r_{4} + 4\,C^r_{5}
508: + 5\,C^r_{6} + 8\,C^r_{7} + C^r_{8} +
509: C^r_{10}
510: \nonumber\\
511: & &\qquad\qquad+ 2\,C^r_{11} - 2\,C^r_{12} - 10\,C^r_{13} + 2\,C^r_{22}
512: - 4\,C^r_{23} + 4\,C^r_{25} )\,,
513: \nonumber\\
514: c^-_{10} &=& 8\,m_{K^+}\,m_{\pi^+}^2 \, ( - 4\,C^r_{4} - C^r_{6} - C^r_{8}
515: + C^r_{10}
516: + 2\,C^r_{11} - 2\,C^r_{12} - 6\,
517: C^r_{13} + 2\,C^r_{22} - 2\,C^r_{25} )
518: \nonumber\\
519: & & + 8\,m_{K^+}^3\,m_{\pi^+} \, ( - 4\,C^r_{4} - C^r_{5} - 2\,C^r_{6}
520: + C^r_{10}
521: + 4\,C^r_{11} - 2\,C^r_{12} - 12
522: \,C^r_{13} + 2\,C^r_{22}
523: \nonumber\\& &\qquad\qquad\qquad
524: - 2\,C^r_{25} )\,,
525: \nonumber\\
526: c^+_{01} &=&16\,m_{K^+}^2\,m_{\pi^+}^2 \, ( C^r_{6} + C^r_{8} + C^r_{10} + 2\,C^r_{11}
527: - 2\,C^r_{12}
528: - 2\,C^r_{13} + 2\,C^r_{22} + 4\,C^r_{23} )
529: \nonumber\\
530: & &+16\,m_{K^+}^4\,m_{\pi^+}^2 \, ( C^r_{5} + 2\,C^r_{6} + C^r_{10}
531: + 4\,C^r_{11}
532: - 2\,C^r_{12}
533: - 4\,C^r_{13} + 2\,C^r_{22} + 4\,C^r_{23} )\,,
534: \nonumber\\
535: c^+_{30} &=&1/2\,( - 7\,C^r_{1} - 32\,C^r_{2} + 2\,C^r_{3} + 10\,C^r_{4} )\,,
536: \nonumber\\
537: c^-_{20} &=&6\,m_{K^+} \, ( - C^r_{1} + 2\,C^r_{3} + 2\,C^r_{4} )\,,
538: \nonumber\\
539: c^+_{11} &=&8\,m_{K^+}^2 \, ( 3\,C^r_{1} + 6\,C^r_{3} - 2\,C^r_{4} )\,,
540: \nonumber\\
541: c^-_{01} &=&32\,m_{K^+}^3 \, ( - C^r_{1} + 2\,C^r_{3} + 2\,C^r_{4} )\,.
542: \ea
543:
544: Notice that the combinations $ ( - C^r_{1} + 2\,C^r_{3} + 2\,C^r_{4} )$
545: shows up in both $c^-_{20}$ and $c^-_{01}$.
546:
547: \section{Resonance estimate of the contribution from the $p^6$ constants}
548:
549: %YYY removed a lot, many of your statements were not quite true we might
550: %severely underestimate some constants in the scalar sector YYY
551:
552: Up to now we relied only on chiral symmetries to calculate the amplitude
553: function at low energy.
554: In order to give an estimate of the $p^6$ LECs,
555: we assume our process to be saturated by the exchange of vector and scalar
556: meson
557: resonances. The general formalism of resonance saturation (RS) in ChPT was
558: described
559: in \cite{Ecker1}, \cite{Ecker2}.
560: The places where comparisons
561: with experiment are available are in general in reasonable agreement with the
562: estimates obtained via RS.
563:
564: For both types of exchange, we only consider the polynomial
565: contributions to
566: $K\pi$-scattering starting at $\mathcal{O}(p^6)$, thus directly corresponding
567: to the $C_i^r$'s LEC's contribution.
568:
569: The vector resonances are included
570: through the matrix of fields
571: $V^\mu$ \cite{ABT3} with Lagrangian
572: \be
573: {\cal L}_V = -\frac{1}{4}\langle V_{\mu\nu}V^{\mu\nu}\rangle
574: +\frac{1}{2}m_V^2\langle V_\mu V^\mu\rangle
575: -\frac{ig_V}{2\sqrt{2}}\langle V_{\mu\nu}[u^\mu,u^\nu]\rangle
576: +f_\chi\langle V_\mu[u^\mu,\chi_-]\rangle
577: \label{vector}
578: \ee
579: while for the scalar meson nonet, the matrix of fields $S$, we consider
580: \be
581: {\cal L}_S = \frac{1}{2} \langle \nabla^\mu S \nabla_\mu S
582: - M^2_S S^2 \rangle
583: + c_d \langle Su^\mu u_\mu \rangle + c_m \langle S \chi_+ \rangle
584: \label{scalar}
585: \ee
586: After integration of the resonance fields, the Lagrangians relevant to the
587: present case read
588: \begin{equation}
589: {\cal L}_V = -\frac{1}{4 M^2_V} \left\langle \left( i g_V\,
590: \nabla_\mu [ u^\nu,u^\mu ] - f_\chi \sqrt{2}\, [ u^\nu,\chi_- ] \right)^2
591: \right\rangle
592: \label{LagInt}
593: \end{equation}
594:
595: \begin{equation}
596: \label{LagInt2}
597: {\cal L}_S = \frac{1}{2 M^4_S} \left\langle
598: \left( c_d \nabla^\nu ( u_\mu u^\mu )
599: + c_m \nabla^\nu \chi_+
600: \right)^2 \right\rangle
601: \end{equation}
602: where we use \cite{BCEGS2}
603: \begin{eqnarray}
604: f_\chi = -0.025,\quad g_V = 0.09,\quad
605: c_m = 42 \mbox{ MeV},\quad
606: c_d = 32 \mbox{ MeV},
607: \end{eqnarray}
608: and the masses are
609: \begin{eqnarray}
610: m_V = m_\rho = 0.77 \mbox{ GeV}, & m_A = m_{a_1} = 1.23 \mbox{ GeV}, &
611: m_S = 0.98 \mbox{ GeV}.
612: \end{eqnarray}
613: The numerical results from both contributions
614: to the subthreshold expansion parameters
615: are listed in Table~\ref{tab:subthres}. The contribution to the full amplitude
616: at order $p^6$ corresponds precisely to the expansion (\ref{defci})
617: including only these
618: subthreshold constants.
619: The explicit expressions for the nonzero constants are
620: \begin{eqnarray}
621: c^+_{00}&=& -16\, f_\chi\,g_V/(M_V^{2}\sqrt{2}) \, (
622: m_K^2\,m_\pi^4
623: + m_K^4\,m_\pi^2
624: )
625: + 4\,c_m^2/M_S^{4} \, (
626: m_K^2\,m_\pi^4
627: + m_K^4\,m_\pi^2
628: )\nonumber\\&&
629: - 16\, f_\chi^2/M_V^{2} \, (
630: m_K^2\,m_\pi^4
631: + m_K^4\,m_\pi^2
632: )
633: -2\, g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
634: m_K^2\,m_\pi^4
635: + m_K^4\,m_\pi^2
636: )\,,\nonumber\\
637: %
638: c^+_{10} &=& 8\, f_\chi\,g_V/(M_V^{2}\sqrt{2}) \, (
639: 2\,m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
640: + \,m_K^4
641: + \,m_\pi^4
642: )
643: - c_d\,c_m/M_S^{4} \, (
644: 12\,m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
645: ) \nonumber\\&&
646: + c_d^2/M_S^{4} \, (
647: 4\,m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
648: )
649: + 2\, c_m^2/M_S^{4} \, (
650: 3\,m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
651: - \,m_K^4
652: - \,m_\pi^4
653: )\nonumber\\&&
654: + 8\, f_\chi^2/M_V^{2} \, (
655: \,m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
656: + \,m_K^4
657: + \,m_\pi^4
658: )
659: + g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
660: 3\,m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
661: + m_K^4
662: + m_\pi^4
663: )\,,\nonumber\\
664: %
665: c^-_{00}&=& c_d\,c_m/M_S^{4} \, (
666: 16\,m_K^3\,m_\pi^2
667: )
668: + c_m^2/M_S^{4} \, (
669: 8\,m_K^3\,m_\pi^2
670: )\nonumber\\&&
671: + f_\chi^2/M_V^{2} \, (
672: 96\,m_K^3\,m_\pi^2
673: )
674: - g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
675: 4\,m_K^3\,m_\pi^2
676: )\,,\nonumber\\
677: %
678: c^+_{20}&=& -3\, f_\chi\,g_V/(M_V^{2}\sqrt{2}) \, (
679: \,m_K^2
680: + \,m_\pi^2
681: )
682: + 5/2\,c_d\,c_m/M_S^{4} \, (
683: m_K^2
684: + m_\pi^2
685: )\nonumber\\&&
686: -7/4\, c_d^2/M_S^{4} \, (
687: m_K^2
688: + m_\pi^2
689: )
690: - 7/8\,g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
691: m_K^2
692: + m_\pi^2
693: )\,,\nonumber\\
694: %
695: c^-_{10}&=& 24\, f_\chi\,g_V/(M_V^{2}\sqrt{2}) \, (
696: m_K\,m_\pi^2
697: + m_K^3
698: )
699: -4\, c_d\,c_m/M_S^{4} \, (
700: m_K\,m_\pi^2
701: + m_K^3
702: )\nonumber\\&&
703: -2\, c_d^2/M_S^{4} \, (
704: m_K\,m_\pi^2
705: + m_K^3
706: )
707: +3\,g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
708: m_K\,m_\pi^2
709: + m_K^3
710: )\,,\nonumber\\
711: %
712: c^+_{01}&=& 16\, f_\chi\,g_V/(M_V^{2}\sqrt{2}) \, (
713: m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
714: + m_K^4
715: )
716: + 8\,c_d\,c_m/M_S^{4} \, (
717: m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
718: + m_K^4
719: )\nonumber\\&&
720: + 4\,c_d^2/M_S^{4} \, (
721: m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
722: + m_K^4
723: )
724: + 2\,g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
725: m_K^2\,m_\pi^2
726: + m_K^4
727: )\,,\nonumber\\
728: %
729: c^+_{30}&=& c_d^2/M_S^{4} \, (
730: 7/8
731: )
732: + g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
733: 3/16
734: )\,,\nonumber\\
735: %
736: c^-_{20}&=& c_d^2/M_S^{4} \, (
737: 3/2\,m_K
738: )
739: + g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
740: 3/4\,m_K
741: )\,,\nonumber\\
742: %
743: c^+_{11}&=& -6\, c_d^2/M_S^{4} \, (
744: m_K^2
745: )
746: + g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
747: m_K^2
748: )\,,\nonumber\\
749: %
750: c^-_{01}&=& c_d^2/M_S^{4} \, (
751: 8\,m_K^3
752: )
753: + g_V^2/M_V^{2} \, (
754: 4\,m_K^3
755: )\,.
756: \end{eqnarray}
757:
758:
759: \TABLE{
760: \begin{tabular}{lrrrcrrr}
761: \hline
762: & Vector & Scalar & Sum Reso& chiral order& $p^2$ & $p^4$ & $p^6$\\
763: \hline
764: $c^+_{00}$ &$-$0.02 & 0.13 & 0.11 &2& 0 &0.122 &0.007 \\
765: $c^+_{10}$ & 0.018 &$-$0.063 & $-$0.045 &2& 0.5704&$-$0.113 &0.460 \\
766: $c^-_{00}$ & 0.21 & 0.17 & 0.38 &2& 8.070 &0.311 &0.017 \\
767: $c^+_{20}$ &$-$0.0053& 0.0023 & $-$0.0030&4& --- &0.0256 &$-$0.0254\\
768: $c^-_{10}$ & $-$0.11 &$-$0.04 & $-$0.15 &4& --- &$-$0.0254&0.121 \\
769: $c^+_{01}$ &$-$0.27 & 0.28 & 0.01 &4& --- &1.667 &1.492 \\
770: $c^+_{30}$ & 0.00026& 0.00010& 0.00036 &6& --- &0.00121 &0.00071 \\
771: $c^-_{20}$ & 0.0037 & 0.00060& 0.0043 &6& --- &0.00478 &0.00320 \\
772: $c^+_{11}$ & 0.017 &$-$0.008 & 0.009 &6& --- &$-$0.126 &$-$0.006 \\
773: $c^-_{01}$ & 0.25 & 0.04 & 0.29 &6& --- &0.229 &0.196 \\
774: \hline
775: \end{tabular}
776: \caption{\label{tab:subthres} The resonance contributions to the
777: subthreshold parameters. The units are $m_{\pi^+}^{2i+2j}$ and
778: $m_{\pi^+}^{2i+2j+1}$ for $c^+_{ij}$ and $c^-_{ij}$ respectively.
779: We have also shown the chiral order at which they first have tree level
780: contributions as well as the contributions with the $L_i^r=C_i^r=0$
781: at $\mu=0.77$~GeV.}
782: }%TABLE
783:
784: Even if many of our results only get a small contribution from the above RS
785: arguments, these
786: estimates are in general a major source of uncertainty in the $\mathcal{O}
787: (p^6)$ terms.
788: The estimates from resonance exchange for the masses and decay constants
789: and the related sigma terms are the most uncertain because of the
790: simple treatment of the scalar sector.
791: These are discussed in more detail in \cite{ABT1} and \cite{Pich}.
792: Here we have set many
793: effects, e.g. the $d_m$ term of \cite{ABT1},
794: equal to zero, the naive
795: size estimate of \cite{ABT1} led to anomalously large NNLO corrections.
796: The estimates of the $K_{\ell4}$ amplitudes can be found in
797: \cite{ABT3} after the work of \cite{BCG}. The effect of varying
798: these was studied in \cite{ABT3} and found to be reasonable.
799:
800: The above procedure is obviously subtraction
801: point dependent and is normally only performed to leading order in the
802: expansion in $1/N_c$, with
803: $N_c$ the number of colours. Many other approaches
804: exist, some recent relevant papers
805: addressing this issue are \cite{Pich,BGLP,MHA} and
806: references therein. A systematic study of this issue is clearly
807: important, for our present first study the estimates are sufficient.
808:
809: \section{A first numerical look}
810: \label{firstnum}
811:
812: In this section we present a first look at the numerical results
813: for the two loop amplitudes. We choose as input the pion decay constant,
814: the charged pion mass, the charged kaon mass and the physical eta mass.
815: \ba
816: F_\pi &=& 92.4~\mbox{MeV}\,,\qquad m_\pi = m_{\pi^+} = 139.56995~\mbox{MeV}\,,
817: \nonumber\\
818: m_K &=& m_{K^+} = 493.677~\mbox{MeV} \,,\quad m_\eta = 547.3~\mbox{MeV}\,.
819: \ea
820: The subtraction scale $\mu = 770~\mbox{MeV}$ is used throughout
821: the paper unless otherwise mentioned explicitly.
822:
823: We present the results for the subthreshold parameters with all $L_i^r$
824: and $C_i^r$ set equal to zero at the scale of the rho mass. Notice that
825: the very different sizes of the various quantities are to a large extent
826: given by their normalization in powers of $m_K$
827: and $m_\pi$.
828:
829: The order $p^4$ results differ somewhat from those quoted in \cite{BKM}
830: and \cite{AB}. The reason for this is that some variation in the choice
831: of precisely what is called $p^4$ and $p^6$ is possible. The choice we
832: have made is different from those in the mentioned papers.
833: Especially $c^+_{00}$ suffers from this numerically.
834: E.g. taking the eta mass given by
835: the Gell-Mann-Okubo formula instead, the numerical $p^4$ result for it changes
836: to $0.16$. We conclude that we are also in numerical
837: agreement with those papers.
838:
839: The higher order corrections look very large when looked upon as the
840: contributions to the various terms in the expansions. This is partly due
841: to cancellations making some quantities very sensitive
842: to higher order corrections.
843:
844: \FIGURE{
845: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=270]{figt120.ps}
846: \caption{\label{fig:t120} The corrections at order $p^2$, $p^4$ and $p^6$
847: to the $S$ partial wave in the $I=1/2$ channel with all LECs
848: set to zero at $\mu=0.77$~GeV.}
849: }%FIGURE
850: \FIGURE{
851: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=270]{figt320.ps}
852: \caption{\label{fig:t320} The corrections at order $p^2$, $p^4$ and $p^6$
853: to the $S$ partial wave in the $I=3/2$ channel with all LECs
854: set to zero at $\mu=0.77$~GeV.}
855: }%FIGURE
856: We also present some plots of the $S$ channel partial waves both in the
857: $I=1/2$ and $I=3/2$ channel. These are shown in respectively
858: Fig.~\ref{fig:t120}
859: and Fig.~\ref{fig:t320}. Two points of interest
860: are $s=0.263$~GeV$^2$ for the subthreshold expansion
861: and the threshold at $s=0.401$~GeV$^2$. From the sizes of the
862: contributions at orders $p^2$, $p^4$ and $p^6$ as shown it is obvious
863: that there seems to be a better convergence near threshold than at
864: the subthreshold point.
865: Contrary to the $\pi\pi$ scattering case, the lowest order result has already
866: nonlinearities. The amplitude at this level is perfectly linear in
867: $s$, $t$ and $u$ but in taking the partial waves, $t$ and $u$ depend
868: nonlinearly on $s$ via $q^2_{\pi K}$.
869: The partial waves have been extracted from the amplitudes using a five point
870: Gaussian integration over $\cos\theta$.
871:
872: \TABLE{
873: \begin{tabular}{rrrrr}
874: \hline
875: & $p^2$ & $p^4$ & $p^6$ & Reso \\
876: \hline
877: $ a^{1/2}_0$ & 0.142 & 0.035 & 0.022 & 0.013\\
878: $10 a^{1/2}_1$ & 0.100 & 0.006 & 0.056 & $-$0.010\\
879: $10^3 a^{1/2}_2$ & 0 & 0.142 & 0.029 & $-$0.029\\
880: $10 a^{3/2}_0$ & $-$0.708 & 0.145 & 0.105 & $-$0.048\\
881: $10^2 a^{3/2}_1$ & 0 & 0.003 & 0.308 & $-$0.018\\
882: $10^3 a^{3/2}_2$ & 0 & 0.092 & $-$0.139 & 0.002\\
883: $10 b^{1/2}_0$ & 0.664 & 0.311 & 0.112 & 0.191\\
884: $10^2 b^{1/2}_1$ & $-$0.141 & 0.001 & 0.165 & 0.007\\
885: $10^3 b^{1/2}_2$ & 0 & $-$0.065 & $-$0.174 & 0.041\\
886: $10 b^{3/2}_0$ & $-$0.482 & 0.191 & 0.052 & $-$0.087\\
887: $10^3 b^{3/2}_1$ & 0 & $-$0.204 & 0.542 & 0.206\\
888: $10^3 b^{3/2}_2$ & 0 & $-$0.074 & 0.163 & $-$0.028\\
889: $T^+_{CD}$ & 1.141 & 0.010 & 0.831 & 0.011\\
890: \hline
891: \end{tabular}
892: \caption{\label{tab:aij1} The contributions at order $p^2$, $p^4$ and $p^6$
893: for the scattering lengths and ranges
894: and the amplitude at the Cheng-Dashen point with the LECs set equal to zero
895: as well as the resonance estimate to
896: order $p^6$. }
897: }%TABLE
898: In order to show the convergence also around threshold we present as well
899: in Table~\ref{tab:aij1} the contributions at order $p^2$, $p^4$ and $p^6$
900: the scattering lengths and ranges and the value of the $T^+$
901: amplitude at the Cheng-Dashen point
902: \be
903: s=u= m_K^2\,,\quad t=2m_\pi^2\,,
904: \ee
905: as well.
906: These will also be studied in more detail
907: later on when we add the contributions from the LECs and compare to
908: experimental and dispersion relation results.
909:
910:
911: \section{Input parameters}
912: \label{inputs}
913:
914: For our $SU(3)$ ChPT results we use as inputs the masses and decay constants
915: given in Sect.~\ref{firstnum} and a subtraction constant $\mu = 770$~MeV.
916: We work in the limit of exact isospin.
917:
918: In addition we use the full refit of
919: the $L_i^r$ $(i=1,2,3,5,7,8)$ to order $p^6$ using a range
920: of values for $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ as input. These
921: values of $L_i^r,i=1,\ldots,8$, are used to evaluate the matrix element.
922: This is the same procedure
923: used in \cite{BD} and \cite{BDT}
924: to study the variation of some observables as a function of
925: the vector ($L_4^r$,$L_6^r$).
926: The experimental inputs used for the fitting procedure are: {\it i)}
927: the values of the
928: $K_{\ell4}$ form-factors as measured
929: by the E865 experiment \cite{Pislak1,Pislak2}, $f_s(0),g_p(0),f_s^\prime(0),
930: g_p^\prime(0)$, {\it ii)} the pseudoscalar
931: decay constants $F_{\pi^\pm}, F_{K^\pm}$ and {\it iii)} the
932: masses of the pseudoscalar mesons, $m_{\pi^\pm},m_{K^\pm},m_{\eta}$.
933: The performed fits correspond to fit 10 in \cite{ABT4}
934: but with different input values for the vector $(L_4^r,L_6^r)$. These
935: represent the only free parameters, in the analysis. The quark-mass ratio
936: $m_s/\hat{m}$ used is fixed to be $24$. The variation
937: inside the range $(20-30)$ was studied in \cite{ABT4}.
938:
939: The estimates of the $p^6$ contributions to $\pi K$ scattering we use
940: are those given above. These lead to the central value
941: contributions to the various threshold parameters given in
942: Table \ref{tab:aij1}. The uncertainty on these is quite considerable.
943: Other resonance estimates of $\pi K$ scattering can be
944: found in \cite{BKM3,JOP}.
945:
946: The $\pi K$ scattering amplitude also obeys relations from crossing and
947: unitarity. A new recent analysis using these methods is \cite{BDM}.
948: Once the choice of the high energy input is done, no more freedom is allowed.
949: The constraints at the matching point are stronger than in the case
950: of the Roy analysis of $\pi\pi$ scattering. We also quote for comparison
951: the results from the older analysis of \cite{Lang}. This is what we
952: use as our main ``experimental'' input for $\pi K$ scattering.
953:
954:
955: \section{Numerical Analysis}
956: \label{numerical}
957:
958: \subsection{$\pi K$ only}
959:
960: \TABLE{
961: \begin{tabular}{rrrr}
962: \hline
963: & Fit 10 & \cite{BDM} & \cite{Lang}\\
964: \hline
965: $c^+_{00}$ &$ 0.278$&$ 2.01\pm1.10$ & $-0.52\pm2.03$\\
966: $c^+_{10}$ &$ 0.898$&$ 0.87\pm0.08$ & $ 0.55\pm0.07$\\
967: $c^-_{00}$ &$ 8.99$&$ 8.92\pm0.38$ & $ 7.31\pm0.90$\\
968: $c^+_{20}$ &$ 0.003$&$ 0.024\pm0.006$ & \\
969: $c^-_{10}$ &$ 0.088$&$ 0.31\pm0.01$ & $0.21\pm0.04 $\\
970: $c^+_{01}$ &$ 3.8$&$ 2.07\pm0.10$ & $2.06\pm0.22 $\\
971: $c^+_{30}$ &$ 0.0025$&$ 0.0034\pm0.0008$ & \\
972: $c^-_{20}$ &$ 0.013$&$ 0.0085\pm0.0001$ & \\
973: $c^+_{11}$ &$ -0.10$&$-0.066\pm0.010 $ & \\
974: $c^-_{01}$ &$ 0.71$&$0.62\pm0.06 $ & $0.51\pm0.10 $\\
975: $c^+_{02}$ &$ 0.23$&$0.34\pm0.03 $ & \\
976: \hline
977: \end{tabular}
978: \caption{\label{tab:subthres2} The
979: subthreshold parameters. The units are $m_{\pi^+}^{2i+2j}$ and
980: $m_{\pi^+}^{2i+2j+1}$ for $c^+_{ij}$ and $c^-_{ij}$ respectively.
981: Shown are the results for fit 10 of \cite{ABT4} and the dispersive
982: results from \cite{BDM} and \cite{Lang}.}
983: }%TABLE
984: Let us first look at the subthreshold expansions and compare the
985: dispersive calculations with our results. The results from the two
986: analyses \cite{Lang} and \cite{BDM} can be found in Table~\ref{tab:subthres2}
987: together with our calculation for the $L_i^r$ corresponding
988: to fit 10 of \cite{ABT4}.
989:
990: The results for
991: $c^+_{10}$ and $c^-_{00}$, which are the only two that obtain a lowest
992: order contribution, are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:cp10}(a) and \ref{fig:cm00}(b).
993: $c^-_{00}$ has a large lowest order contribution and shows a reasonable
994: convergence over the entire region of variation of $(L_4^r,L_6^r)$ we have
995: covered.
996: It is also in good agreement with the
997: dispersive calculation inside the whole region.
998: The result for $c^+_{10}$ shows somewhat less good convergence but it is still
999: acceptable. This is what was used in earlier analyses of $\pi K$ scattering to
1000: get a determination of the $1/N_c$ suppressed constant $L_4^r$.
1001: As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:cp10}(a) the matching with the dispersive
1002: values is obtained within the region $ L_4^r \approx -0.1\,10^{-3}$
1003: with only a fairly weak dependence on the value of $L_6^r$.
1004: \FIGURE{
1005: \begin{minipage}{7.001cm}
1006: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=270]{figcp10.ps}
1007: \centerline{(a)}
1008: \end{minipage}
1009: \begin{minipage}{7.001cm}
1010: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=270]{figcm00.ps}
1011: \centerline{(b)}
1012: \end{minipage}
1013: \caption{\label{fig:cp10}\label{fig:cm00} (a) The subthreshold
1014: parameter $c^+_{10}$ as a function
1015: of the input values of $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ used in the $L_i^r$ determination.
1016: The unlabeled planes are the result of \cite{BDM} with their errors.
1017: (b) The same for the subthreshold parameter $c^-_{00}$.}
1018: }%FIGURE
1019:
1020: The results for the other subthreshold parameters are more difficult to
1021: interpret. They show a variety of behaviours:{\it i)} some
1022: subthreshold parameters display indication
1023: of reasonable convergence while others obviously do not converge.
1024: {\it ii)} Some agree well with the dispersive values while others
1025: do so only for large values of $L_4^r,L_6^r$. There is also no obvious
1026: pattern to which values for $L_4^r,L_6^r$ gives the best agreements.
1027: Some of these difficulties could be due to the fact that the lowest order
1028: is small in the region relevant for the subthreshold expansion as
1029: can be seen in Figs.~\ref{fig:t120} and \ref{fig:t320}.
1030:
1031: We now discuss some of them to show these issues also
1032: considering
1033: their agreement with the dispersive calculation. The latter can also
1034: be judged from Tab.~\ref{tab:subthres2}.
1035: The $c^+_{00}$ component agrees with the dispersive result in a very small
1036: region for large negative $L_4^r$. That was precisely the place where
1037: the $\chi^2$ of the fits for the input parameters started getting large.
1038: $c^+_{20}$ agrees excellently at order $p^4$ but gets fairly large $p^6$
1039: corrections. It starts agreeing once more
1040: for larger positive values of $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$
1041: than considered here. $c^-_{10}$ had a large negative estimate
1042: of the contribution from the $p^6$ constants. This drives the total
1043: $p^6$ contribution to be negative and the total result stays between 0.04
1044: and 0.15, significantly below the dispersive result of \cite{BDM}.
1045: The remaining subthreshold parameters all have large $p^6$ corrections and
1046: it is not clear whether we have a convergent series or not. But the
1047: general size and the sign is correct.
1048:
1049: We now turn to the scattering lengths. The kinematical quantities
1050: here have values which are already large for ChPT but looking at
1051: Figs.~\ref{fig:t120} and \ref{fig:t320} the convergence seems fine in that
1052: region. The finer features like higher partial waves and the radii
1053: might however work less well.
1054:
1055: \FIGURE{
1056: \begin{minipage}{7cm}
1057: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=270]{figa120.ps}
1058: \centerline{(a)}
1059: \end{minipage}
1060: \begin{minipage}{7cm}
1061: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=270]{figa320.ps}
1062: \centerline{(b)}
1063: \end{minipage}
1064: \caption{\label{fig:a120}\label{fig:a320}
1065: (a) The scattering length $a^{1/2}_0$ as a function
1066: of the input values of $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ used in the $L_i^r$ determination.
1067: The unlabeled planes are the result of \cite{BDM} with their errors.
1068: (b) The same for the scattering length $a^{3/2}_0$.}
1069: }%FIGURE
1070: In Fig.~\ref{fig:a120}(a) we have plotted
1071: the $S$ wave scattering length in the isospin 1/2 channel.
1072: The series shows a nice
1073: convergence and agrees with the dispersive result for most of the
1074: $L_4^r$-$L_6^r$ region we considered. Only a small region of
1075: negative $L_6^r$ and positive $L_4^r$ disagrees.
1076: The result for the $S$ wave scattering
1077: length in the $I=3/2$ channel, shown in Fig,~\ref{fig:a320}(b),
1078: has qualitatively the same behaviour,
1079: ruling out a somewhat larger region of the $(L_4^r,L_6^r)$ plane.
1080: For the $P$ wave scattering lengths, we get agreement in the $I=1/2$ channel
1081: with the dispersive
1082: result in essentially the whole region considered with a preference for
1083: positive values of $L_4^r$. The $I=3/2$ channel,
1084: $a^{3/2}_1$ has large $p^6$ corrections always leading to a value
1085: significantly above the dispersive result.
1086: Looking at higher threshold parameters the picture is again mixed.
1087: $b^{1/2}_0$ is
1088: typically 40 to 60\% above the dispersive result, $b^{3/2}_0$ is too
1089: small by 20 to 50\%
1090: and $b_1^{1/2}$ and $b^{3/2}_1$ have obvious convergence problems.
1091: We have shown the results for fit 10 of \cite{ABT4} in Tab.~\ref{tab:aij2}
1092: together with dispersive estimates of \cite{BDM}.
1093:
1094:
1095: \TABLE{
1096: \begin{tabular}{rrr}
1097: \hline
1098: & Fit 10 & \cite{BDM}\\
1099: \hline
1100: $ a^{1/2}_0$ & 0.220 & $0.224\pm0.022$ \\
1101: $10 a^{1/2}_1$ & 0.18 & $0.19\pm0.01$ \\
1102: $10 a^{3/2}_0$ & $-0.47$ & $-0.448\pm0.077$ \\
1103: $10^2 a^{3/2}_1$ & 0.31 & $0.065\pm0.044$ \\
1104: $10 b^{1/2}_0$ & 1.3 & $0.85\pm0.04$ \\
1105: $10 b^{3/2}_0$ & $-0.27$ & $-0.37\pm0.03$ \\
1106: $T^+_{CD}$ & 2.11 & $3.90\pm1.50$ \\
1107: \hline
1108: \end{tabular}
1109: \caption{\label{tab:aij2} The results
1110: for the scattering lengths and ranges
1111: and the amplitude at the Cheng-Dashen point as well as the dispersive result.
1112: The scattering lengths and ranges are given in units of $m_{\pi^+}$.}
1113:
1114: }%TABLE
1115:
1116: The value of the amplitude at the Cheng-Dashen point is related to the kaon
1117: sigma term. The dependence on $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{figCD}
1118: together with the dispersive result of \cite{BDM}. The corrections are
1119: large over most of the region and can be compared with the direct
1120: calculation of the sigma term shown in Fig.~9(b) of \cite{BD}.
1121:
1122:
1123:
1124: The overall picture we thus obtain in the end is rather mixed. If we look
1125: only at the quantities, $c^+_{10}$, $c^-_{00}$, $a_0^{1/2}$ and
1126: $a_0^{3/2}$ we see a series that converges reasonably well and
1127: reasonable agreement with the dispersive result from \cite{BDM} is found
1128: for large regions of the values in the $(L_4^r,L_6^r)$ plane. In
1129: particular the value with $(L_4^r,L_6^r)\sim (0,0)$, corresponding to fit 10
1130: of \cite{ABT3}, is located inside the allowed region. The other quantities
1131: present more difficult to interpret results depending on how one
1132: judges their convergence and the (dis)agreement with the dispersive results of
1133: \cite{BDM}.
1134:
1135:
1136: \FIGURE{
1137: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=270]{figCD.ps}
1138: \caption{\label{figCD} The amplitude at the Cheng-Dashen point as a function
1139: of the input values of $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ together with the dispersive
1140: estimates of \cite{BDM}.}
1141: }%FIGURE
1142:
1143: \subsection{$\pi K$, $\pi\pi$ and Scalar Form-factors}
1144: \label{piKpipi}
1145:
1146: Even though it seems that the $\pi K$ processes alone do not provide
1147: strong restrictions on the low-energy constants
1148: we can use it together with $\pi\pi$ scattering and the scalar form-factor
1149: to restrict the region in the $(L_4^r,L_6^r)$ plane allowed.
1150: A full analysis is planned for the future but here we discuss
1151: the present results together with the earlier ones of \cite{BD,BDT}.
1152:
1153: The constraints in the $(L_4^r,L_6^r)$ plane
1154: come from several sources:
1155:
1156: {\bf 1.}
1157: The region inferred by the scalar form-factor analysis of \cite{BD}.
1158: \begin{equation}
1159: \label{ffl4l6}
1160: L_6^r \approx L_4^r - 0.35 \, 10^{-3}\,.
1161: \end{equation}
1162: This came from two arguments:
1163: (i) The assumption that the pion and kaon isoscalar
1164: scalar form-factors at zero
1165: do not deviate by large factors from their lowest order values, as
1166: judged from Figs.~9(a) and 9(b) in \cite{BD}.
1167: (ii) The agreement of the ChPT calculation of the pion scalar radius
1168: with the dispersive results. Notice that the dispersive results used
1169: the values of the form-factors at zero as input. The ChPT prediction
1170: for the radius alone was rather constant as shown in Fig.~11(a) in
1171: \cite{BD}.
1172:
1173:
1174: {\bf 2.} From $\pi\pi$ scattering \cite{BDT} we got constraints from
1175: four sources. The parameters $C_1$ and $C_2$ of \cite{CGL2} similar to
1176: subthreshold parameters and the scattering lengths $a^0_0$ and $a^2_0$.
1177: The constraints are
1178: {\bf (a)} $a_0^{0}$ agrees reasonably well over the whole
1179: region considered, see Fig.~4(a) in \cite{BDT}.
1180: {\bf (b)} $a_0^{2}$ gives the strongest constraints,
1181: see Fig.~4(b) in \cite{BDT}. It requires
1182: \be
1183: L_4^r\gtrsim 0.27\,10^{-3}+0.9\,L_6^r\,.
1184: \ee
1185: {\bf (c)} $C_1$ imposes $ L_4^r \gtrsim 0.2~10^{-3}$ and does
1186: not constrain $L_6^r$,
1187: see Fig.~5(a) in \cite{BDT}.
1188: {\bf (d)} $C_2$ does not provide significant more constraints than the above,
1189: note that the plot shown in \cite{BDT} is erroneous.
1190:
1191: {\bf 3.} We review now the constraints we found in this article
1192: from $\pi K$ scattering.
1193: {\bf (a)} $c_{00}^-$ imposes no constraint, see Fig.~\ref{fig:cm00}(b).
1194: {\bf (b)} $c_{10}^+$, delimits
1195: \be
1196: L_4^r \lesssim 0.28 \, 10^{-3}+0.25\,L_6^r\,,
1197: \ee
1198: see Fig.~\ref{fig:cp10}(a).
1199: {\bf (c)} The constraint from $a_0^{1/2}$ is contained in the $a_0^{3/2}$,
1200: see Fig.~\ref{fig:a120}(a).
1201: {\bf (d)} The constraint from $a_0^{3/2}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:a320}(b),
1202: is $L_6^r \gtrsim L_4^r - 0.4 \, 10^{-3}$.
1203:
1204:
1205: Here we have used an error double the ones quoted in the
1206: dispersive results of \cite{CGL2,BDM} to take
1207: the convergence of the chiral series somewhat into account as well.
1208:
1209: The $\pi K$ constraint is essentially only from $c^+_{10}$,
1210: while for $\pi\pi$ scattering it is mainly $a^2_0$ with a little extra
1211: from $C_1$.
1212: These constraints do not overlap but the various regions almost touch
1213: for $L_4^r\approx 0.2\,10^{-3}$ and $L_6^r\lesssim 0.0\,10^{-3}$.
1214: At present the situation is only {\em marginally compatible}.
1215:
1216: With the uncertainties associated in the calculations:
1217: the estimates of ${\cal O}(p^6)$ LECs,
1218: correlations between the $L_i^r$ and
1219: the fact that the errors on the $L_i^r$ from $K_{\ell4}$, the masses and
1220: decay constants is not yet taken into account the above
1221: conclusion is preliminary.
1222:
1223:
1224: \section{Conclusions}
1225: \label{conclusions}
1226:
1227: In this paper we have calculated the $\pi K$ scattering amplitude to
1228: next-to-next-to-leading order. We have presented analytically the results
1229: to next-to-leading order and the dependence on the $p^6$ LECs $C_i^r$.
1230: The remaining analytical expressions at order $p^6$ are very long and can
1231: be obtained from \cite{formulas} or from the authors. This calculation is the
1232: main result of this work.
1233:
1234: We presented some numerics with the LECs at order $p^4$ and
1235: $p^6$ set equal to zero at the scale of the rho mass. These results
1236: allow a first impression about the convergence of the series for various
1237: quantities, in particular we have presented results for the
1238: subthreshold parameters, the scattering lengths and the amplitude at
1239: the Cheng-Dashen point.
1240:
1241: The second part of this work was a first attempt of extending the order
1242: $p^4$ work of constraining low-energy constants from $\pi K$ scattering
1243: of \cite{BDM,AB,ABM}.
1244: In these works values for $L_4^r$ were suggested
1245: that are positive and different from zero.
1246: We used in this work as inputs the correlated values
1247: for the $L_i^r$ determined from the $K_{\ell4}$ form-factors, pseudoscalar
1248: meson masses and decay constants and estimated the contributions from
1249: the order $p^6$ constants
1250: with the same procedure as was used in previous next-to-next-to-leading
1251: processes.
1252: In contrast to the $p^4$ results, a first estimate for
1253: the quantities which appear to be most reliably
1254: obtainable from the $\pi K$ scattering amplitude at order $p^6$ are fully
1255: compatible with both the $1/N_c$ suppressed LECs $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ being
1256: equal to zero. Contrary to expectations, the study of
1257: these $\pi K$ (sub)threshold parameters alone do not allow
1258: to draw definite conclusions on the presence of large Zweig rule violating
1259: contributions as discussed in \cite{Stern2,Stern3} and references therein.
1260:
1261: The remaining $\pi K$ quantities present a rather mixed picture, the
1262: convergence of the series is often questionable and the agreement with
1263: the results from the dispersive analysis is at the same level but no
1264: obvious large discrepancies exist. The estimated contribution of the $p^6$
1265: constants to many quantities is fairly large and rather uncertain,
1266: especially those involving the scalars.
1267:
1268: We have also studied how these results fit together with the earlier
1269: ones on $\pi\pi$ scattering and the scalar form-factors. We found only marginal
1270: compatibility as described in Sect.~\ref{piKpipi}.
1271:
1272: Planned work for the future is to combine
1273: all existing order $p^6$ calculations in three flavour
1274: ChPT in order to determine from experiment and/or dispersion theory
1275: as many as possible of the $p^6$ constants and to fully take into account
1276: all correlations for the $L_i^r$ and errors on the experimental and
1277: dispersive inputs used.
1278:
1279:
1280:
1281: \acknowledgments
1282:
1283: The program FORM 3.0 has been used extensively in these calculations
1284: \cite{FORM}. J.B. and P.D.
1285: are supported in part by the Swedish Research Council
1286: and European Union TMR
1287: network, Contract No. HPRN-CT-2002-00311 (EURIDICE). P.T acknowledges
1288: support by the Spanish Research Council.
1289:
1290:
1291:
1292: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1293:
1294: \bibitem{Weinberg}
1295: S.~Weinberg,
1296: %``Phenomenological Lagrangians,''
1297: Physica A {\bf 96} (1979) 327.
1298: %%CITATION = PHYSA,A96,327;%%
1299:
1300: \bibitem{GL1}
1301: J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,
1302: %``Chiral Perturbation Theory To One Loop,''
1303: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 158} (1984) 142.
1304: %%CITATION = APNYA,158,142;%%
1305:
1306: \bibitem{GL2}
1307: J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,
1308: %``Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions In The Mass Of The Strange Quark,''
1309: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 250} (1985) 465.
1310: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B250,465;%%
1311:
1312: \bibitem{Bijnenskl4}
1313: J.~Bijnens,
1314: %``K(L4) Decays And The Low Energy Expansion,''
1315: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 337} (1990) 635.
1316: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B337,635;%%
1317:
1318: \bibitem{Riggenbach}
1319: C.~Riggenbach, J.~Gasser, J.~F.~Donoghue and B.~R.~Holstein,
1320: %``Chiral Symmetry And The Large N(C) Limit In K(L4) Decays,''
1321: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43} (1991) 127.
1322: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,127;%%
1323:
1324: \bibitem{Stern1}
1325: J.~Stern, H.~Sazdjian and N.~H.~Fuchs,
1326: %``What Pi - Pi Scattering Tells Us About Chiral Perturbation Theory,''
1327: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 3814
1328: [arXiv:hep-ph/9301244].
1329: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9301244;%%
1330:
1331: \bibitem{BCEGS1}
1332: J.~Bijnens, G.~Colangelo, G.~Ecker, J.~Gasser and M.~E.~Sainio,
1333: %``Elastic $\pi\pi$ scattering to two loops,''
1334: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 374} (1996) 210
1335: [arXiv:hep-ph/9511397].
1336: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511397;%%
1337:
1338: \bibitem{BCEGS2}
1339: J.~Bijnens, G.~Colangelo, G.~Ecker, J.~Gasser and M.~E.~Sainio,
1340: %``Pion pion scattering at low energy,''
1341: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 508} (1997) 263
1342: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 517} (1998) 639]
1343: [arXiv:hep-ph/9707291].
1344: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707291;%%
1345:
1346: \bibitem{BCT}
1347: J.~Bijnens, G.~Colangelo and P.~Talavera,
1348: %``The vector and scalar form factors of the pion to two loops,''
1349: JHEP {\bf 9805} (1998) 014
1350: [arXiv:hep-ph/9805389].
1351: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805389;%%
1352:
1353: \bibitem{ACGL}
1354: B.~Ananthanarayan, G.~Colangelo, J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,
1355: %``Roy equation analysis of pi pi scattering,''
1356: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 353} (2001) 207
1357: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005297].
1358: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005297;%%
1359:
1360: \bibitem{CGL1}
1361: G.~Colangelo, J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,
1362: %``The pi pi S-wave scattering lengths,''
1363: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 488} (2000) 261
1364: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007112].
1365: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007112;%%
1366:
1367: \bibitem{CGL2}
1368: G.~Colangelo, J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,
1369: %``pi pi scattering,''
1370: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 603} (2001) 125
1371: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103088].
1372: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103088;%%
1373:
1374: \bibitem{Pislak1}
1375: S.~Pislak {\it et al.} [BNL-E865 Collaboration],
1376: %``A new measurement of K+(e4) decay and the s-wave pi pi scattering length a(0)(0),''
1377: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 221801
1378: [arXiv:hep-ex/0106071].
1379: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106071;%%
1380:
1381: \bibitem{Pislak2}
1382: S.~Pislak {\it et al.},
1383: %``High statistics measurement of K(e4) decay properties,''
1384: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 072004
1385: [arXiv:hep-ex/0301040].
1386: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0301040;%%
1387:
1388: \bibitem{Stern2}
1389: S.~Descotes-Genon, L.~Girlanda and J.~Stern,
1390: %``Chiral order and fluctuations in multi-flavour QCD,''
1391: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 27} (2003) 115
1392: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207337].
1393: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207337;%%
1394:
1395: \bibitem{Stern3}
1396: S.~Descotes-Genon, N.~H.~Fuchs, L.~Girlanda and J.~Stern,
1397: %``Resumming QCD vacuum fluctuations in three-flavour chiral perturbation theory,''
1398: arXiv:hep-ph/0311120.
1399: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311120;%%
1400:
1401: %\cite{Girlanda:2001pc}
1402: \bibitem{LJP}
1403: L.~Girlanda, J.~Stern and P.~Talavera,
1404: %``eta' mass and chiral symmetry breaking at large N(c) and N(f),''
1405: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 5858
1406: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103221].
1407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103221;%%
1408:
1409: \bibitem{BDT}
1410: J.~Bijnens, P.~Dhonte and P.~Talavera,
1411: %``pi pi scattering in three flavour ChPT,''
1412: JHEP {\bf 0401} (2004) 050
1413: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401039].
1414: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401039;%%
1415:
1416: \bibitem{BD}
1417: J.~Bijnens and P.~Dhonte,
1418: %``Scalar form factors in SU(3) chiral perturbation theory,''
1419: JHEP {\bf 0310} (2003) 061
1420: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307044].
1421: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307044;%%
1422:
1423: \bibitem{ABT1}
1424: G.~Amoros, J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera,
1425: %``Two-point functions at two loops in three flavour chiral perturbation theory,''
1426: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 568} (2000) 319
1427: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907264].
1428: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907264;%%
1429:
1430: \bibitem{Post1}
1431: P.~Post and K.~Schilcher,
1432: %``K0 form factor at order p**6 of chiral perturbation theory,''
1433: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 599} (2001) 30
1434: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007095].
1435: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007095;%%
1436:
1437: \bibitem{Post2}
1438: P.~Post and K.~Schilcher,
1439: %``K(l3) form factors at order p**6 in chiral perturbation theory,''
1440: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25} (2002) 427
1441: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112352].
1442: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112352;%%
1443:
1444: \bibitem{BT1}
1445: J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera,
1446: %``Pion and kaon electromagnetic form factors,''
1447: JHEP {\bf 0203} (2002) 046
1448: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203049].
1449: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203049;%%
1450:
1451: \bibitem{BT2}
1452: J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera,
1453: %``K(l3) decays in chiral perturbation theory,''
1454: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 669} (2003) 341
1455: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303103].
1456: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303103;%%
1457:
1458: \bibitem{Weinbergpipi}
1459: S.~Weinberg,
1460: %``Pion Scattering Lengths,''
1461: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 17} (1966) 616.
1462: %%CITATION = PRLTA,17,616;%%
1463:
1464: \bibitem{Griffith}
1465: R.W. Griffith,
1466: %``Scalar Density Terms, K $\pi$ and KK Scattering Lengths, and a Symmetry-Breaking Parameter''
1467: Phys. Rev. 176 (1968) 1705.
1468: %%CITATION = PHRVA,176,1705;%%
1469:
1470: \bibitem{Langreview}
1471: C.~B.~Lang,
1472: %``The Pi K Scattering And Related Processes,''
1473: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 26} (1978) 509.
1474: %%CITATION = FPYKA,26,509;%%
1475:
1476: \bibitem{Lang}
1477: C.~B.~Lang and W.~Porod,
1478: %``Symmetry Breaking And The Pi K Amplitudes In The Unphysical Region,''
1479: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 21} (1980) 1295.
1480: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,1295;%%
1481:
1482: \bibitem{JN}
1483: N.~Johannesson and G.~Nilsson,
1484: %``An Analysis Of Low-Energy Pi K Scattering,''
1485: Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 43} (1978) 376.
1486: %%CITATION = NUCIA,A43,376;%%
1487:
1488: \bibitem{BKM}
1489: V.~Bernard, N.~Kaiser and U.~G.~Meissner,
1490: %``Pi K Scattering In Chiral Perturbation Theory To One Loop,''
1491: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 357} (1991) 129.
1492: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B357,129;%%
1493:
1494: \bibitem{BKM2}
1495: V.~Bernard, N.~Kaiser and U.~G.~Meissner,
1496: %``Threshold Parameters Of Pi K Scattering In QCD,''
1497: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43} (1991) 2757.
1498: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,2757;%%
1499:
1500: \bibitem{SaBorges1}
1501: J.~Sa Borges, J.~Soares Barbosa and V.~Oguri,
1502: %``Kaon Pion Low Energy Phase Shifts From Chiral Perturbation Theory,''
1503: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 412} (1997) 389.
1504: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B412,389;%%
1505:
1506: \bibitem{SaBorges2}
1507: J.~Sa Borges and F.~R.~A.~Simao,
1508: %``Unitary Corrections To Current Algebra Versus Chiral Perturbation
1509: %Calculations In Kaon - Pion Scattering,''
1510: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 4806.
1511: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D53,4806;%%
1512:
1513: \bibitem{BKM3}
1514: V.~Bernard, N.~Kaiser and U.~G.~Meissner,
1515: %``Chiral perturbation theory in the presence of resonances: Application to pi
1516: %pi and pi K scattering,''
1517: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 364} (1991) 283.
1518: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B364,283;%%
1519:
1520: \bibitem{JOP}
1521: M.~Jamin, J.~A.~Oller and A.~Pich,
1522: %``S-wave K pi scattering in chiral perturbation theory with resonances,''
1523: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 587} (2000) 331
1524: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006045].
1525: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006045;%%
1526:
1527: \bibitem{MO}
1528: U.~G.~Meissner and J.~A.~Oller,
1529: %``J/psi $\to$ Phi pi pi (K anti-K) decays, chiral dynamics and OZI
1530: %violation,''
1531: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 679} (2001) 671
1532: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005253].
1533: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005253;%%
1534:
1535: \bibitem{Roessl}
1536: A.~Roessl,
1537: %``Pion kaon scattering near the threshold in chiral SU(2) perturbation
1538: %theory,''
1539: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 555} (1999) 507
1540: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904230].
1541: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904230;%%
1542:
1543: \bibitem{FKM}
1544: M.~Frink, B.~Kubis and U.~G.~Meissner,
1545: %``Analysis of the pion kaon sigma-term and related topics,''
1546: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25} (2002) 259
1547: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203193].
1548: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203193;%%
1549:
1550: \bibitem{AB}
1551: B.~Ananthanarayan and P.~Buttiker,
1552: %``Comparison of pi K scattering in SU(3) chiral perturbation theory and
1553: %dispersion relations,''
1554: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 19} (2001) 517
1555: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012023].
1556: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012023;%%
1557:
1558: \bibitem{BDM}
1559: P.~Buttiker, S.~Descotes-Genon and B.~Moussallam,
1560: %``A re-analysis of pi K scattering a la Roy and Steiner,''
1561: arXiv:hep-ph/0310283.
1562: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310283;%%
1563:
1564: \bibitem{Nehme1}
1565: A.~Nehme,
1566: %``Isospin breaking in low-energy charged pion and kaon elastic scattering,''
1567: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 707
1568: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111212].
1569: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111212;%%
1570:
1571: \bibitem{Nehme2}
1572: A.~Nehme and P.~Talavera,
1573: %``Isospin breaking corrections to low-energy p K scattering,''
1574: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 054023
1575: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107299].
1576: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107299;%%
1577:
1578: \bibitem{KM1}
1579: B.~Kubis and U.~G.~Meissner,
1580: %``Isospin violation in low-energy charged pion kaon scattering,''
1581: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 529} (2002) 69
1582: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112154].
1583: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112154;%%
1584:
1585: \bibitem{KM2}
1586: B.~Kubis and U.~G.~Meissner,
1587: %``Isospin violation in pion kaon scattering,''
1588: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 699} (2002) 709
1589: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107199].
1590: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107199;%%
1591:
1592: \bibitem{ABT4}
1593: G.~Amoros, J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera,
1594: %``QCD isospin breaking in meson masses, decay constants and quark mass ratios,''
1595: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 602} (2001) 87
1596: [arXiv:hep-ph/0101127].
1597: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101127;%%
1598:
1599: \bibitem{chptlectures}
1600: A.~Pich, Lectures at Les Houches Summer School in
1601: Theoretical Physics, Session 68: Probing the Standard Model of Particle
1602: Interactions, Les Houches, France, 28 Jul - 5 Sep 1997,
1603: [hep-ph/9806303];\\
1604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806303;%%
1605: G.~Ecker,
1606: Lectures given at Advanced School on Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD 2000),
1607: Benasque, Huesca, Spain, 3-6 Jul 2000,
1608: [hep-ph/0011026];\\
1609: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011026;%%
1610: S.~Scherer,
1611: %``Introduction to chiral perturbation theory,''
1612: hep-ph/0210398.
1613: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210398;%%
1614:
1615: \bibitem{BCE}
1616: J.~Bijnens, G.~Colangelo and G.~Ecker,
1617: %``The mesonic chiral Lagrangian of order p**6,''
1618: JHEP {\bf 9902} (1999) 020
1619: [arXiv:hep-ph/9902437].
1620: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902437;%%
1621:
1622: \bibitem{BCE2}
1623: J.~Bijnens, G.~Colangelo and G.~Ecker,
1624: %``Renormalization of chiral perturbation theory to order p**6,''
1625: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 280} (2000) 100
1626: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907333].
1627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907333;%%
1628:
1629: \bibitem{BCE3}
1630: J.~Bijnens, G.~Colangelo and G.~Ecker,
1631: %``Double chiral logs,''
1632: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 441} (1998) 437
1633: [arXiv:hep-ph/9808421].
1634: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808421;%%
1635:
1636: \bibitem{formulas}
1637: These can be downloaded
1638: from \verb;http://www.thep.lu.se/~bijnens/chpt.html;.
1639:
1640: \bibitem{Ecker1}
1641: G.~Ecker, J.~Gasser, A.~Pich and E.~de Rafael,
1642: %``The Role Of Resonances In Chiral Perturbation Theory,''
1643: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 321} (1989) 311.
1644: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B321,311;%%
1645:
1646: \bibitem{Ecker2}
1647: G.~Ecker, J.~Gasser, H.~Leutwyler, A.~Pich and E.~de Rafael,
1648: %``Chiral Lagrangians For Massive Spin 1 Fields,''
1649: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 223} (1989) 425.
1650: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B223,425;%%
1651:
1652: \bibitem{ABT3}
1653: G.~Amoros, J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera,
1654: %``K(l4) form-factors and pi pi scattering,''
1655: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 585} (2000) 293
1656: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 598} (2001) 665]
1657: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003258].
1658: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003258;%%
1659:
1660: \bibitem{Pich}
1661: V.~Cirigliano, G.~Ecker, H.~Neufeld and A.~Pich,
1662: %``Meson resonances, large N(c) and chiral symmetry,''
1663: JHEP {\bf 0306} (2003) 012
1664: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305311].
1665: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305311;%%
1666:
1667: \bibitem{BCG}
1668: J.~Bijnens, G.~Colangelo and J.~Gasser,
1669: %``K(l4) decays beyond one loop,''
1670: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 427} (1994) 427
1671: [arXiv:hep-ph/9403390].
1672: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403390;%%
1673:
1674: \bibitem{BGLP}
1675: J.~Bijnens, E.~Gamiz, E.~Lipartia and J.~Prades,
1676: %``QCD short-distance constraints and hadronic approximations,''
1677: JHEP {\bf 0304} (2003) 055
1678: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304222].
1679: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304222;%%
1680:
1681: \bibitem{MHA}
1682: M.~Knecht and A.~Nyffeler,
1683: %``Resonance estimates of O(p**6) low-energy constants and QCD short-distance
1684: %constraints,''
1685: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21} (2001) 659
1686: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106034];\\
1687: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106034;%%
1688: S.~Peris, M.~Perrottet and E.~de Rafael,
1689: %``Matching long and short distances in large-N(c) {QCD},''
1690: JHEP {\bf 9805} (1998) 011
1691: [arXiv:hep-ph/9805442].
1692: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805442;%%
1693:
1694: \bibitem{ABM}
1695: B.~Ananthanarayan, P.~Buettiker and B.~Moussallam,
1696: %``pi K sum rules and the SU(3) chiral expansion,''
1697: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22} (2001) 133
1698: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106230].
1699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106230;%%
1700:
1701: \bibitem{FORM}
1702: J.~A.~Vermaseren,
1703: %``New features of FORM,''
1704: math-ph/0010025.
1705: %%CITATION = MATH-PH 0010025;%%
1706:
1707:
1708:
1709: \end{thebibliography}
1710: \end{document}
1711: