text:
# Compton scattering in a unitary approach with causality constraints

## I Introduction

In Ref.  a relativistic covariant model was presented for pion-nucleon scattering in which constraints due to unitarity were taken into account through the use of the K-matrix formalism with a non-perturbative dressing of the $`\pi NN`$-vertex. An approach based on the use of dispersion relations was employed in this dressing. It was shown that as a result of the dressing the effective form factors were softened. Here we extend this work to include processes involving photons. The fact that our procedure is based on the use of dispersion relations, thus incorporating analyticity, gives a considerable advantage. It is known that in photon induced processes important constraints are imposed by the condition that the amplitude for the process has to be analytic, especially at energies near the pion-production threshold. The usage of dispersion relations allows for an implementation of these analyticity constraints in a unitary K-matrix approach. In quantum field theory analyticity is based on the condition of causality and is a fundamental property of the S-matrix.

As with any process involving photons one should take care to obey gauge invariance of the amplitude since otherwise low-energy theorems may be violated. In the present approach we used the minimal substitution procedure. We discuss this method in some detail and present general formulas.

In the procedure the effects of dressing are expressed in terms of form factors and self-energies. The present work is focused on the $`\gamma NN`$-vertex. Electromagnetic vertices of the nucleon with one or both nucleons off-shell have been studied in the past. The method of dispersion relations was applied in Refs.. Dynamical models based on a perturbative dressing of the vertex with meson loops, within effective Lagrangian approaches, were developed in Refs.. The role of off-shell nucleon-photon form factors has been investigated, for example, in models for proton-proton bremsstrahlung  and virtual Compton scattering . Analyticity considerations have been used in Refs. to construct amplitudes for Compton scattering from those of pion photoproduction through the application of dispersion relations. The present approach incorporates dispersion relations (or analyticity considerations) in a more microscopic approach to pion and photon induced reactions on the proton.

The present model consists of two stages implemented in an iteration procedure to reach self-consistency. In the first stage effective two-, three- and four-point Green’s functions are built which incorporate non-perturbative dressing due to non-pole parts of loop diagrams. At each iteration step, the imaginary parts of the loop integrals are found by applying Cutkosky rules . In doing so, only the intermediate states with one nucleon and one pion are taken into account. The real parts are constructed using dispersion relations . The dispersion integrals converge due to the sufficiently fast falloff of the $`\pi NN`$ form factors in the loop diagrams. The resulting $`\gamma NN`$-vertex is normalized in such a way that, at the point where both nucleons are on-shell, it reproduces the physical anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon.

In the second stage a K-matrix formalism  is employed to calculate the T-matrix, where the kernel, the K-matrix, is built from tree-level diagrams using the dressed vertices and propagators calculated in the first stage. Through the use of the K-matrix formalism the pole contributions of loop integrals are taken into account. The T-matrix obtained from thus constructed K-matrix will contain the principal-value parts of the same loop integrals which were included in the dispersion calculation for the form factors and self-energies, implementing analyticity in the K-matrix framework. Since the dressing is formulated in terms of effective vertices and propagators through the use of form factors and self-energies, a broader application might be possible.

The $`\gamma NN`$-vertex must satisfy the Ward-Takahashi identity. This is achieved in our model by including a loop diagram with a four-point $`\gamma \pi NN`$-vertex (the contact term). The latter is constructed based on the dressed $`\pi NN`$-vertex using the minimal substitution prescription (various constructions of contact terms can be found in Refs.). Such a procedure leads to a unique result only for the longitudinal (with respect to the photon momentum) part of the four-point vertex. To investigate the role of the transverse terms, we calculated the electromagnetic form factors utilizing two different $`\gamma \pi NN`$ vertices. To provide current conservation in the description of Compton scattering also a contact $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ term is built using the minimal substitution prescription.

The model is geared to the calculation of pion-photoproduction and Compton scattering on the nucleon. To study effects of the dressing we compare the $`f_{EE}^1`$ partial wave amplitude for Compton scattering obtained using the dressed $`\gamma NN`$ and $`\pi NN`$ vertices and nucleon propagator with that of a calculation using bare vertices and the free propagator. We also calculated the electric polarizability of the proton.

In Section II we outline the construction of the K-matrix in a coupled-channel unitary description of Compton scattering, pion photoproduction and pion-nucleon scattering. Details of the dressing procedure are given in Sections II.A and II.B where special attention is payed to vertices with photons. Numerical results on $`\gamma NN`$-vertices, expressed in terms of half-off-shell form factors, are given in Section III. In Section IV the formalism is applied to Compton scattering where we focus on the effects of dressing on observables. Conclusions are given in Section V.

## II Structure of the K-matrix

Our model is based on the K-matrix formalism and to explain our procedure we work in a simple model space with only the nucleon, pion and photon degrees of freedom. Only the one-pion threshold discontinuities are taken into account explicitly.

To describe simultaneously pion-nucleon scattering, pion photoproduction and Compton scattering the scattering matrix has two indices corresponding to the channel in the initial and final state, $`𝒯_{c^{}c}`$, where the indices can be $`\pi `$ or $`\gamma `$ for the channels $`\pi N`$ or $`\gamma N`$, respectively. The Bethe-Salpeter equation for the scattering matrix can be written as

$$𝒯_{c^{}c}=V_{c^{}c}+\underset{c^{\prime \prime }}{}V_{c^{}c^{\prime \prime }}𝒢_{c^{\prime \prime }}𝒯_{c^{\prime \prime }c},$$
(1)
where $`V_{c^{}c}`$ is the sum of irreducible diagrams describing the process $`cc^{}`$ and $`𝒢_{c^{\prime \prime }}`$ is the two-body propagator pertinent to the channel $`c^{\prime \prime }`$. $`𝒢_{c^{\prime \prime }}`$ contains the pole contribution $`i\delta _{c^{\prime \prime }}`$ which is imaginary, according to Cutkosky rules, and the regular (principal-value) part $`𝒢_{c^{\prime \prime }}^R`$ which is real,

$$𝒢_{c^{\prime \prime }}=𝒢_{c^{\prime \prime }}^R+i\delta _{c^{\prime \prime }}.$$
(2)
The K-matrix can be introduced as the solution of the equation

$$K_{c^{}c}=V_{c^{}c}+\underset{c^{\prime \prime }}{}V_{c^{}c^{\prime \prime }}𝒢_{c^{\prime \prime }}^RK_{c^{\prime \prime }c}.$$
(3)
According to this formula, the loop diagrams contributing to the K-matrix contain only the principal-value part of the two-particle propagator. We assume throughout that $`V`$ is a sum of tree-level diagrams. The remaining pole contribution enters explicitly in the equation for the T-matrix expressed in terms of the K-matrix,

$$𝒯_{c^{}c}=K_{c^{}c}+\underset{c^{\prime \prime }}{}K_{c^{}c^{\prime \prime }}i\delta _{c^{\prime \prime }}𝒯_{c^{\prime \prime }c},$$
(4)
which can be obtained from Eqs.(1-3). A formal solution of Eq. (4) can be written as (suppressing the channel indices)

$$𝒯=K(1Ki\delta )^1,$$
(5)
from which it follows that the S-matrix, $`S=1+2i𝒯`$, will be unitary provided $`K`$ is hermitian.

Eq. (3) suggests an interpretation of the K-matrix in terms of a dressing of a potential $`V_{c^{}c}`$ with principal-value parts of loop integrals. To illustrate this for the case of Compton scattering we choose $`V_{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`V_{\gamma \pi }`$ as the sum of s- and u- and t-channel tree diagrams plus a possible four-point vertex, where the free nucleon propagator and bare nucleon-photon vertices are used. Up to second order in $`V_{c^{}c}`$ and leading order in the electromagnetic coupling constant, $`K_{\gamma \gamma }`$ can be written as

$$K_{\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}=V_{\gamma \gamma }+V_{\gamma \pi }𝒢_\pi ^RV_{\pi \gamma }.$$
(6)
The set of diagrams corresponding to the right-hand side of this equation is depicted in Fig. (2). The notation $`ss`$, $`su`$ etc. for the loop diagrams refer to their structure in terms of the s-, u- , t-channel and contact tree diagrams contributing to $`V_{\gamma \pi }`$. The index $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}`$ at the loops indicates that only the principal-value integrals are taken into account, in accordance with Eq. (6). Consequently, the self-energy functions and form factors parametrizing these loops are real functions. One can see that the one-particle reducible diagrams in Fig. (2) (diagrams ss, su, st, sc, us, uc, ts, cs and cu) are part of a dressing of the nucleon propagator and half-off-shell nucleon-photon vertices. The other diagrams in Fig. (2), which are one-particle irreducible, are necessary to ensure the gauge invariance of $`K_{\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}`$.

The above description of $`K_{\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}`$ serves as an introduction to the dressing procedure described below. In the full model dressing up to infinite order is taken into account, expressed in terms of an integral equation. Gauge invariance is maintained through the introduction of an appropriate contact term. It should be pointed out that Eq. (3) dictates that only principal-value parts of the loop integrals (or, equivalently, only the real parts of the form factors and self-energy functions) are taken into account in the iteration procedure for the vertices and the nucleon propagator.

To summarize, in our procedure we construct the $`K`$ matrix which enters in Eq. (5) as the sum of tree-level diagrams (those for $`K_{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`K_{\gamma \pi }`$ are depicted in Fig. (1)) where dressed nucleon propagators, dressed nucleon-pion, dressed nucleon-photon vertices, and contact terms (for gauge invariance) are used. The use of dressed quantities is implied by Eq. (3), where, due to taking the principal value integrals, the effect of dressing can be expressed in terms of purely real form factors or self-energy functions. These real functions are obtained by applying dispersion relations to the one-particle reducible pole contributions from Eq. (4), thereby implementing analyticity (causality) constraints in the calculation of the T-matrix. The procedure followed is discussed in detail in the following sections.

### A The dressing procedure

The most general $`\gamma NN`$-vertex for a real photon with momentum $`q=p^{}p`$, in which the outgoing nucleon is on the mass shell, $`p^2=m^2`$, can be written***The notation of Ref. is used throughout this paper. as

$$e\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p)=e\underset{l=\pm }{}\left\{\gamma _\mu F_1^l(p^2)+i\frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m}F_2^l(p^2)\right\}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l(p),$$
(7)
where $`e`$ and $`m`$ are the elementary electric charge and the mass of the nucleon and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm (p)\frac{\pm p/+m}{2m}.$$
(8)
The isospin structure of the form factors is taken as $`F=F^s+\tau _3F^v`$. The dressing of this vertex is expressed in terms of a system of integral equations, shown diagrammatically in Fig. (3),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,R}(p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^0(p)+\text{D.I.}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[1]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[2]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[3]\right\},$$
(9)
where “D.I.” implies taking a dispersion integral, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,R}`$ contains only the real parts of the form factors and each of the terms will be discussed in detail in the following. This equation expresses the dressing of a bare vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^0(p)`$ with an infinite series of pion loops. The bare vertex is taken as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^0(p)=(\gamma _\mu \widehat{e}_N+i\widehat{\kappa }_B\frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m}),$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{e}_N=(1+\tau _3)/2`$ and $`\widehat{\kappa }_B=\kappa _B^s+\tau _3\kappa _B^v`$ is the bare anomalous magnetic moment of nucleon, adjusted to provide the normalization Eq. (37) of the dressed vertex. The solution of Eq. (9) is obtained by requiring self-consistency in an iteration procedure. We consider irreducible vertices, which implies that the external propagators are not included in the dressing of the vertices.

Every iteration step proceeds as follows. The imaginary or pole contributions of the loop integrals for both the propagators and the vertices are obtained by applying cutting rules . Since the outgoing nucleon is on-shell, the only kinematically allowed cuts are those shown in Fig. (3). In calculating these pole contributions, we retain only real parts of the form factors and nucleon self-energies from the previous iteration step as required by Eq. (3). We note that all integrals on the right-hand of Eq. (9), except the one over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[2]`$, are inhomogeneities of the equation because they do not depend on the $`\gamma NN`$-vertex. Therefore, they need to be calculated only once. The dressed $`\pi NN`$-vertices and the nucleon propagator are taken from Ref. where they have been constructed using a compatible procedure.

The real parts of the form factors are calculated at every iteration step by applying dispersion relations  to the imaginary parts just calculated.

This procedure is repeated to obtain a converged solution. The convergence criterion is imposed for a normalized root-mean-square difference $`d_n`$ for the form factors between two subsequent iteration steps $`n`$ and $`n+1`$. The convergence criterion is that $`d_n<10^8`$ for a large number of iterations.

One of the advantages of the use of cutting rules is that throughout the solution procedure we need vertices with only one virtual nucleon (half-off-shell vertices), as can be seen from Fig. (3). In other words, the knowledge of full-off-shell form factors will not be required for the calculation of the pole contributions to the loop integrals. Also for the construction of the K-matrix only half-off-shell vertices are required.

Since in the dressing of the $`\pi NN`$-vertex a bare form factor is required for regularization, the described procedure obeys analyticity only approximately (the bare $`\gamma NN`$-vertex does not contain form factors see Eq. (10)). The influence of the singularities of the bare form factor can be diminished in the kinematical region of interest by a rather large width. This is consistent with the fact that the bare form factor represents physics left out from the model and thus should vary at an energy scale larger than the heaviest meson included explicitly.

### B The loop integrals

The pole contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[1]`$, of the first loop integral on the right hand side of Eq. (9) comes from cutting the nucleon propagator $`S(pk)`$ and the pion propagator $`D(k^2)`$, i.e. from putting the corresponding particles on their mass-shell (see Fig. (3)). According to Cutkosky rules , we replace $`S(pk)`$ with $`2i\pi (p/k/+m)\delta ((pk)^2m^2)\mathrm{\Theta }(p_0k_0)`$ and $`D(k^2)`$ with $`2i\pi \delta (k^2m_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)`$, where $`m_\pi `$ is the pion mass.

The half-off-shell pion-nucleon vertex for an incoming nucleon with momentum $`p`$ and an on-shell outgoing nucleon ($`p^{}`$) entering in the expressions is written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5,\alpha }(p)=\tau _\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_5(p)=\tau _\alpha \gamma _5\left[G_1(p^2)+\frac{p/m}{m}G_2(p^2)\right],$$
(11)
where $`k=pp^{}`$ is the momentum of the pion. The functions $`G_{1,2}(p^2)`$ are the (half-off-shell) form factors in the nucleon-pion vertex. In the approach adopted in  we find that the dependence of the form factor on the pion momentum is small which is therefore ignored. The pion-nucleon coupling constant is taken from Ref. , $`g=13.02`$.

Denoting $`g_iReG_i`$, the pole contribution reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[1]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4k\gamma _5g_1(m^2)(p/k/+m)\gamma _5[g_1(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p/m}{m}}g_2(p^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{2k_\mu +q_\mu }{(k+q)^2m_\pi ^2}}`$ (13)
$`\times \delta ((pk)^2m^2)\mathrm{\Theta }(p_0k_0)\delta (k^2m_\pi ^2)\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0),`$
where $`m_\pi `$ is the pion mass. The pion-photon vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,\alpha \beta }(k^{},k)`$ is chosen such that it satisfies the Ward-Takahashi identity with the free pion propagator,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,\alpha \beta }(k^{},k)=(\widehat{e}_\pi )_{\alpha \beta }(k_\mu +k_\mu ^{}),$$
(14)
where the pion charge operator $`(\widehat{e}_\pi )_{\alpha \beta }=iϵ_{\alpha \beta 3}`$.

Using the notation introduced in Eq. (A1), one can write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[1]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}c^i[1](e_i)_\mu $$
(15)
where it has implicitly been assumed that the final nucleon is on the mass-shell and where

$`c^i[1]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r(p^2)}{16\pi p^2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(p^2(m+m_\pi )^2){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xV^i(x){\displaystyle \frac{g_1(m^2)}{(k+q)^2m_\pi ^2}},`$ (16)
$`V^i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _3{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}(E^1)_j^i(\theta ^j)^\mu \text{,}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})(p/+k/+m)[g_1(p^2)`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{p/m}{m}}g_2(p^2)](2k_\mu +q_\mu )`$
where the brackets $`,`$ are defined in Eq. (A2), the $`(\theta ^j)^\mu `$ is the basis in the dual space, $`q=p^{}p`$ and $`r(p^2)=\sqrt{\lambda (p^2,m^2,m_\pi ^2)}`$, with the Källén function $`\lambda (x,y,z)(xyz)^24yz`$. The integral in Eq. (16) is a Lorentz-scalar and therefore can be evaluated in any frame of reference. We choose the rest frame of the incoming nucleon, i.e. we put $`p_\mu =W\delta _{\mu 0}`$, where $`W=\sqrt{p^2}`$ is the invariant mass of the off-shell nucleon. Furthermore we introduced $`x`$, the cosine of the polar angle between the three-vectors $`(\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. The integral in Eq. (16) is done numerically.

The term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[2]`$ depends on the unknown half-off-shell $`\gamma NN`$-vertex and therefore has to be considered in the context of the iteration procedure. As explained above, when calculating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}^{n+1}[2]`$, the pole contribution to the n+1st iteration for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu [2]`$, we retain only the real parts of $`F_i^{\pm ,n}(p^2)`$ from the previous iteration as well as of the nucleon-pion form factors and the functions $`\alpha (p^2)`$ and $`\xi (p^2)`$ parametrizing the renormalized dressed nucleon propagator

$$S(p)=\left[\alpha (p^2)(p/\xi (p^2))\right]^1.$$
(19)
The functions $`\alpha (p^2)`$, $`\xi (p^2)`$, as well as $`G_{1,2}(p^2)`$, were calculated in Ref.. Using the same approach as for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[1]`$ we write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}^{n+1}[2]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}c^{i,n+1}[2](e_i)_\mu $$
(20)
where

$`c^{i,n+1}[2]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r(p^2)}{32\pi p^2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(p^2(m+m_\pi )^2){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{U^i(x)}{\alpha ((p^{}k)^2)[(p^{}k)^2\xi ^2((p^{}k)^2)]}},`$ (21)
$`U^i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}(E^1)_j^i(\theta ^j)^\mu \text{,}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})\{\tau _\alpha \gamma _5[g_1((p^{}k)^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p/^{}k/m}{m}}g_2((p^{}k)^2)]`$ (25)
$`\times (p/^{}k/+\xi ((p^{}k)^2))\left\}\right\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{}k)[\gamma _\mu f_1^+((p^{}k)^2)`$
$`+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m}}f_2^+((p^{}k)^2)]+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(p^{}k)[\gamma _\mu f_1^{}((p^{}k)^2)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m}}f_2^{}((p^{}k)^2)]\}`$
$`\times (p/k/+m)\tau _\alpha \gamma _5[g_1(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p/m}{m}}g_2(p^2)]\},`$
where $`f_i^\pm (p^2)Re(F^\pm )_i^n(p^2)`$. At the required kinematics the functions $`\alpha (p^2)`$ and $`\xi (p^2)`$ are real. Note that the $`f`$’s contain isospin operators.

The term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[3]`$ contains a “contact” $`\gamma \pi NN`$-vertex. We build such a vertex applying the procedure of minimal substitution (see Appendices B and C for details) to the dressed half-off-shell $`\pi NN`$-vertex,

$`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \pi NN}\right)_\alpha ^\mu (p^{},p,q)=`$ (26)
$`\tau _\alpha \widehat{e}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2p^\mu +q^\mu }{(p+q)^2p^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^5(p+q)\mathrm{\Gamma }^5(p)\right]+\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{g_2((p+q)^2)}{m}}\left[\gamma ^\mu q/{\displaystyle \frac{2p^\mu +q^\mu }{(p+q)^2p^2}}\right]\right\}`$ (27)
$`\widehat{e}\tau _\alpha \{{\displaystyle \frac{2p^\mu q^\mu }{(p^{}q)^2p^2}}[\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^5}(p^{}q)+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^5}(p^{})]+[\gamma ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{2p^\mu q^\mu }{(p^{}q)^2p^2}}q/]{\displaystyle \frac{g_2((p^{}q)^2)}{m}}\gamma ^5\},`$ (28)
where Eqs. (C3,C5), $`p^{}=p+q`$ and Eq. (11) with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^5}(p)=\gamma _0\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^5(p)\right)^{}\gamma _0`$ have been used. Using the same notation as before we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[3]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}c^i[3](e_i)_\mu ,$$
(29)
with

$`c^i[3]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r(p^2)}{64\pi p^2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(p^2(m+m_\pi )^2)\left[(3\tau _3){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xW_1^i(x)+3(1+\tau _3){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xW_2^i(x)\right],`$ (30)
$`W_1^i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}(E^1)_j^i(\theta ^j)^\mu \text{,}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})\{(2p_\mu 2k_\mu +q_\mu )[{\displaystyle \frac{g_{12}((p^{}k)^2)g_{12}(m^2)}{(p^{}k)^2m^2)}}`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p/k/}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_2((p^{}k)^2)g_2(m^2)}{(p^{}k)^2m^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu }{m}}g_2((p^{}k)^2)\}(mp/+k/)`$
$`\times \{g_{12}(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{m}}g_2(p^2)\},`$
$`W_2^i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}(E^1)_j^i(\theta ^j)^\mu \text{,}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})\{(2p_\mu ^{}q_\mu )[{\displaystyle \frac{g_{12}(p^2)g_{12}(m^2)}{p^2m^2}}`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2(p^2)g_2(m^2)}{p^2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p/^{}}{m}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu }{m}}g_2(p^2)\}(mp/+k/)\{g_{12}(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p/}{m}}g_2(p^2)\},`$
where $`g_{12}g_1g_2`$, and $`r(p^2)`$ is defined as in Eq. (18). An alternative expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[3]`$ is obtained if, instead of Eq. (C5), one uses the contact term Eq. (C8). The choice of the contact term has an influence on the nucleon-photon form factors, as will be described below.

Since the half-off-shell form factors are analytic  in the complex $`p^2`$-plane with the cut from the pion threshold $`(m+m_\pi )^2`$ to infinity, dispersion relations can be used to construct the real parts from the imaginary parts. In our model the imaginary parts of the form factors $`F_2^\pm `$ vanish at infinity. At every iteration step we thus write

$$\text{Re}F_2(p^2)=\widehat{\kappa }_B+\frac{𝒫}{\pi }_{(m+m_\pi )^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p^2\frac{\text{Im}F_2(p^2)}{p^2p^2},$$
(36)
where we have dropped the superscripts ± of the form factors to keep the expression transparent. The constant $`\widehat{\kappa }_B`$ originates from the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (9). Note that, according to Eq. (10), $`\kappa _B^{s,v}`$ are chosen the same for the form factors $`F_2^+(p^2)`$ and $`F_2^{}(p^2)`$. They are fixed by the requirement that the vertex reproduces the physical anomalous isoscalar and isovector magnetic moment when both nucleons are on-shell,

$$F_2^{+,s}(m^2)=0.06\text{ and }F_2^{+,v}(m^2)=1.85.$$
(37)
In terms of the parametrization of the propagator, Eq. (19), the Ward-Takahashi identity Eq. (D1) gives

$$(F_1^{})^{s,v}(p^2)=\frac{\alpha (p^2)}{2}$$
(38)
and

$$(F_1^+)^{s,v}(p^2)=\frac{\alpha (p^2)m}{p^2m^2}\left[\frac{p^2+m^2}{2m}\xi (p^2)\right].$$
(39)
where $`lim_{p^2m^2}(F_1^+)^{s,v}(p^2)`$ is finite because $`lim_{p^2m^2}\xi (p^2)=m`$ due to the correct location of the pole of the renormalized propagator. In Ref. the loop contribution to the self-energy vanishes in the limit $`p^2\mathrm{}`$ and therefore $`lim_{p^2\mathrm{}}(F_1^\pm )^{s,v}(p^2)Z_2/2=0`$. $`Z_2`$ is the nucleon-field renormalization constant. The form factors $`(F_1^\pm )^{s,v}(p^2)`$ thus obey the dispersion relations (omitting the superscripts)

$$\text{Re}F_1(p^2)=\frac{Z_2}{2}+\frac{𝒫}{\pi }_{(m+m_\pi )^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p^2\frac{\text{Im}F_1(p^2)}{p^2p^2},$$
(40)
applied at every iteration step.

## III The form factors

The results presented in this section are obtained using the $`\pi NN`$-vertex Eq. (11) and the nucleon propagator calculated in Ref.. The solution for the nucleon-pion form factors depends on the choice of the bare vertex. However, the half-width of this form factor should not exceed a rather well defined maximum for the procedure to converge. For the present calculation of the form factors in the $`\gamma NN`$-vertex, we chose the solution in which the bare pseudovector form factor is given by Eq. (23) of Ref., a di-pole with half-width $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=1.28\text{GeV}^2`$. We also did the calculation using the other choice of the bare $`\pi NN`$-vertex, given by Eq. (24) of Ref., with the half-width $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=1.33\text{GeV}^2`$ (not shown). We found that the results for the nucleon-photon form factors do not depend significantly on the choice of the $`\pi NN`$-vertex.

Since the $`\gamma NN`$-vertex obeys the Ward-Takahashi identity, the form factors $`F_1^\pm (p^2)`$ are uniquely determined, see Eqs. (38,39), by the functions parametrizing the nucleon propagator calculated in Ref.. We checked numerically that these are satisfied by the converged vertex. One of the consequences of the Ward-Takahashi identity is that $`(F_1^\pm )^s=(F_1^\pm )^v`$ and therefore $`F_1^\pm =0`$ for the neutron-photon vertex. The form factors $`F_1^\pm (p^2)`$ in the proton-photon vertex are depicted in Fig. (4). They do not depend on the choice of the $`\gamma \pi NN`$-vertex.

The dominant contribution to the form factors $`F_2`$ is due to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu [1]`$. Since this term is an inhomogeneity of the equation, the bulk of the magnitude of the form factors is already generated in the first iteration. This, however, does not mean that the other integrals on the right-hand side of Eq. (9) are of minor importance. In particular, they are crucial for satisfying the Ward-Takahashi identity.

In Fig. (5) the imaginary and real parts of the form factors $`F_2^+(p^2)`$ (the solid line) and $`F_2^{}(p^2)`$ (the dotted line) are shown for the proton. The slope of $`ImF_2^{}(p^2)`$ at the pion threshold, $`p^2=(m+m_\pi )^2`$, is much steeper as compared to that of $`ImF_2^+(p^2)`$. As a consequence of this, we obtain a pronounced cusp-like behavior of $`ReF_2^{}(p^2)`$ at the threshold. The reason is that in pion photoproduction the $`E_{0^+}`$ multipole has a finite value at threshold while other multipoles tend to zero. Since this multipole corresponds to spin and parity $`1/2^{}`$ in the coupled nucleon-photon channel it contributes to the imaginary part of $`F_2^{}`$ which now obtains a term proportional to the 3-momentum of the cut intermediate pion. The real part of $`F_2^{}`$ calculated from a dispersion integral thus exhibits a pronounced cusp structure, contrary to the case of $`F_2^+`$ ($`F_2^+`$ is associated with the positive energy component of the off-shell nucleon carrying $`J^\pi =1/2^+`$). The magnitude of the cusp in $`F_2^{}`$ depends thus on the magnitude of the $`E_{0^+}`$ multipole multiplied by a weighted difference of the pseudoscalar and pseudovector coupling strengths in the pion-nucleon vertex.

The form factors in Fig. (5) are calculated using the $`\gamma \pi NN`$ contact term of Eq. (28) when evaluating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[3]`$ in Eq. (9). An alternative form of the $`\gamma \pi NN`$-vertex is obtained by using Eq. (C8) instead of Eq. (C5). The difference between these two contact terms, Eq. (C10), is transverse to the photon momentum. To illustrate the influence of the different choices of the contact terms on the $`\gamma NN`$-vertex, in Fig. (5), right panel, we show the form factors $`F_2^\pm (p^2)`$ calculated using the alternative contact term. From a comparison of left and right panels in Fig. (5), it follows that the different choices of the contact term affect mainly $`F_2^{}(p^2)`$. The form factor $`F_2^+(p^2)`$ is normalized at $`p^2=m^2`$ to the physical anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon and is only slightly sensitive to the choice of the contact term. The difference between the two choices for the contact terms shows most strongly in the $`E_{0^+}`$ multipole in pion-photoproduction which explains why mainly $`F_2^{}(p^2)`$ is affected. In a full calculation one would fix the ambiguity in the contact term from a calculation of pion-photoproduction. This goes, however, beyond the scope of the present work but will be discussed in a forthcoming publication.

The results for the form factors $`F_2^\pm (p^2)`$ in the neutron-photon vertex are shown in Fig. (6) for the two choices of the $`\gamma \pi NN`$-vertex. The conclusions drawn above for the proton apply qualitatively to this case as well.

The renormalization conditions, Eq. (37), are fulfilled by adjusting the bare renormalization constants $`\kappa _B^{s,v}`$ defined in Eq. (10). We obtain $`\kappa _B^s=0.03`$ and $`\kappa _B^v=1.51`$ if the contact term Eq. (28) is used and $`\kappa _B^s=0`$ and $`\kappa _B^v=1.6`$ for the alternative contact term.

The off-shell form factors by themselves cannot unambiguously be extracted from experiment. In particular, they can be changed by a redefinition of the nucleon field. At the same time, the field redefinition will in general also change the four- and higher-point vertices. It is known that the S-matrix is independent of the representation of the fields . Therefore, in a consistent calculation of the observables, two- three- and higher-point Green’s functions should be treated using the same model assumptions and representation of the fields. The link between off-shell effects and contact interactions was emphasized in , where pion-nucleon scattering, Compton scattering by a pion and bremsstrahlung processes were considered. The form factors in the present approach are constructed consistently with the nucleon self-energy and the K-matrix, using the same representation to treat all these quantities. A certain care should however be excersized in applying these form factors in other calculations.

## IV Application in Compton scattering

As an example of the application of the formalism, Compton scattering off the nucleon will be calculated. Since only a very restricted model space is included in the present calculation, we do not make a direct comparison with experimental data. For a definitive comparison with experiment, other important degrees of freedom, such as the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance, would have to be included. This extension of the model is in progress.

The amplitude for the Compton scattering process is obtained through solving Eq. (5) in a partial wave basis . The K-matrix matrix elements are constructed as a sum of tree-level Feynman diagrams where, however, dressed vertices and propagators are used. The tree-level diagrams for Compton scattering can be written as the sum of three contributions depicted in Fig. (1),

$$K_{\mu \nu }(q,k)=K_{\mu \nu }^s(q,k)+K_{\mu \nu }^u(q,k)+K_{\mu \nu }^c(q,k).$$
(41)
The incoming and outgoing nucleon momenta are $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$, respectively. The momenta of the incoming and outgoing photons are $`k^\nu `$ and $`q^\mu `$ so that energy and momentum conservation reads $`p^{}=p+k+q`$. The pole contributions to Compton scattering are given by the s- and u-channel diagrams. $`K_{\mu \nu }^c(q,k)`$ denotes the matrix element of the contact term given by Eq. (C24). This term is added to obtain a gauge-invariant matrix elements and is constructed using the minimal substitution procedure. Obeying gauge invariance is important for satisfying low-energy theorems for the matrix elements.

The contact term Eq. (C24) is, however, not unique and a purely transverse contribution may be added,

$$K_{\mu \nu }^c^{}(q,k)=\overline{u}(p^{})\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}i\widehat{e}^2\left\{F_c((p+k)^2)(e_4)_\mu (q,p^{}q)(\overline{e_4})_\nu (k,p+k)+\left[\begin{array}{c}\mu \nu \\ qk\end{array}\right]\right\}u(p),$$
(42)
where the operator $`(e_4)_\mu (q,p^{}q)`$ is given by Eq. (A1) (with photon momentum $`q`$ and off-shell nucleon momentum $`p^{}q`$). The form factor is given by

$$F_c(p^2)=\frac{𝒫}{\pi }_{(m+m_\pi )^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dp^2}{p^2p^2}\frac{\left[\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{F}_2^{}(p^2)\right]^2}{\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_I(p^2)\right]},$$
(43)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_I`$ are calculated from expressions similar to those for the negative energy form factor $`F_2`$ and the imaginary part of the nucleon self-energy, except that in the pion vertex, Eq. (11), we have put $`G_2=0`$. The reason for adding this term is to take into account a contribution arising from cutting the pion line in the “handbag” loop diagram. The contribution from this diagram, generated in the K-matrix procedure, gives rise to a sharply increasing imaginary contribution to the Compton amplitude and thus to a pronounced cusp structure in the corresponding real part.

We checked numerically that the calculated amplitudes obey current conservation which was also proven analytically. In addition the calculations obey constraints imposed by low-energy theorems.

Since we work in a restricted model space we postpone a complete comparison with experiment to a future publication where the model will be extended to include the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-isobar degree of freedom and t-channel meson exchanges. Here we limit ourselves to the $`f_{EE}^1`$ amplitude which shows a highly non-trivial behavior at the pion production threshold. Our results for the $`f_{EE}^1`$ amplitude (the solid line in Fig. (7)) shows a distinct cusp structure at the pion-production threshold. This cusp is generated by the analyticity condition we imposed. For comparison, the dashed line shows the partial wave amplitude calculated using the K-matrix built with the bare vertices and the free nucleon propagator, $`K_{c^{}c}=V_{c^{}c}`$, thereby neglecting the principal-value parts of the loop integrals contributing to the T-matrix (see Eqs. (3,4)) which does not show the cusp. The effect of unitarization on the real part of this amplitude are small, indistinguishable in the figure. We also show the results extracted from pion-photoproduction data through the application of analyticity consideration. A similar cusp structure is also seen in the analysis of Ref.. Extending our model with other degrees of freedom will add a smooth function to $`f_{EE}^1`$, changing the value at the higher energies but should not affect the cusp structure.

Assuming that Compton scattering is dominated by dipole process, the electric polarizability $`\overline{\alpha }`$ can be extracted from $`f_{EE}^1`$,

$$f_{EE}^1=f_B+\frac{\overline{\alpha }}{3}E_\gamma ^2,$$
(44)
where $`f_B`$ is the Born amplitude. Using this relation we extract $`\overline{\alpha }=11.610^4fm^3`$, which is close to the value obtained from chiral-perturbation theory.

## V Conclusions

We have presented a model for Compton scattering on the nucleon. In this model special attention is payed to observing analyticity in addition to unitarity, crossing symmetry and gauge invariance. The model is formulated in terms of half-off-shell form factors in the vertices and a nucleon self-energy which carry the non-perturbative dressing due to the non-pole contributions of pion-loop diagrams. The pole contributions are taken into account through the use of a K-matrix formalism.

The key element of the model is an integral equation which describes dressing of the $`\gamma NN`$-vertex with an infinite number of pion loops. In the solution procedure we take advantage of unitarity and analyticity considerations by using dispersion relations  to obtain the real parts of the form factors from their imaginary parts. The latter, in turn, are obtained by applying cutting rules , with only the one-pion-nucleon discontinuities of the loop integrals taken into account. The dependence of the form factors on the four-momentum squared of the off-shell nucleon deviates from a monopole- (or dipole-) like shape adopted often in phenomenological applications. In particular, a characteristic feature of our results is a cusp-like structure of the form factors in the vicinity of the one-pion threshold, showing most clearly in the magnetic form factors corresponding to negative-energy states of the off-shell nucleon.

One of the important requirements for the electromagnetic vertex is obeying the Ward-Takahashi identity, which relates the vertex with the nucleon propagator. We have included a four-point $`\gamma \pi NN`$ term in our model to obey this condition. In a theory with nucleon-pion form factors such a term is always necessary. We construct a $`\gamma \pi NN`$-vertex using the prescription of minimal substitution. Terms in the contact vertex which are transverse to the photon momentum are not uniquely determined. As an example of this ambiguity, we have constructed two contact terms with different transverse components. We used these two contact terms in the calculation of the half-off-shell nucleon-photon vertex and found that the negative-energy magnetic form factors are influenced noticeably by the choice of the contact term, while the effect on the positive-energy form factors is rather small.

It should be emphasized that off-shell vertices (as any general Green’s functions, for that matter) depend not only on the model used to calculate them, but also on the representation of fields in the Lagrangian. In contrast, the measurable physical observables are obtained from the scattering matrix and are therefore oblivious to the representation of the Lagrangian (see, e.g., ). Even though information on the half-off-shell vertices cannot be unambiguously extracted from experiment, they are important for the calculation of observables.

We have argued that the vertices and propagator generated in the present dressing procedure are consistent with a coupled-channel K-matrix approach to Compton scattering, pion photoproduction and pion scattering. We have shown effects of the dressing on the cross section for real Compton scattering. An extension of the model to include additional degrees of freedom is in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is part of the research program of the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM) with financial support from the “Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek” (NWO). We would like to thank Alex Korchin, Rob Timmermans and John Tjon for discussions.

## A Projection method

The calculation of the imaginary parts of the form factors (the pole contributions in Eq. (9)) is formulated in terms of the following projection procedure. The half-off-shell vertex Eq. (7) can be regarded as a vector in a four-dimensional linear space. For the sake of generality we present here the procedure for a virtual photon where the vertex is a vector in a six-dimensional space $`V_6`$. with the basis

$$\begin{array}{cc}(e_1)_\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p),\hfill & (e_2)_\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(p),\hfill \\ (e_3)_\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})i\frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p),\hfill & (e_4)_\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})i\frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(p),\hfill \\ (e_5)_\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})\frac{q_\mu }{m}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p),\hfill & (e_6)_\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(p^{})\frac{q_\mu }{m}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(p),\hfill \end{array}$$
(A1)
defined over a ring of complex-valued functions (form factors). For the case of a real photon, as discussed in the present paper, basis vectors $`e_5`$ and $`e_6`$ can be truncated from the space. Thus, to find contributions to the imaginary parts of the form factors $`F_i^\pm `$ from the integral $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,I}[k],k=1\mathrm{}4`$, amounts to finding the coefficients of the expansion in the basis Eq. (A1).

The dual space $`V_6^{}`$ can be defined as spanned over the basis $`(\theta ^i)^\mu =g^{\mu \lambda }\overline{(e_i})_\lambda `$, where the over-lining denotes the Dirac conjugate of an operator, $`\overline{A}\gamma _0A^{}\gamma _0`$. We define the scalar product of $`\omega ^\mu V_6^{}`$ and $`v_\mu V_6`$ as

$$\omega ^\mu ,v_\mu =\text{Tr}(\omega ^\mu v_\mu ),$$
(A2)
with a tacit summation over $`\mu `$ and the trace taken in spinor space. For the evaluation of the traces we used the algebraic programming system REDUCE . Now if

$$v_\mu =\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}c^i(e_i)_\mu ,$$
(A3)
then the coefficients are obtained from the formula

$$c^k=\underset{l=1}{\overset{6}{}}(E^1)_l^k(\theta ^l)^\mu ,v_\mu ,$$
(A4)
where the matrix $`E_j^i=(\theta ^i)^\mu ,(e_j)_\mu `$. The coefficients $`c^k`$ are the form factors (or, more precisely, contributions to the imaginary parts of the form factors). Thus, we identify

$$\begin{array}{c}c^1=ImF_1^+,c^2=ImF_1^{},c^3=ImF_2^+,\hfill \\ c^4=ImF_2^{},c^5=ImF_3^+,c^6=ImF_3^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A5)
## B Minimal substitution

The minimal substitution in momentum space amounts to the following replacement of the nucleon momentum, $`P_\mu \stackrel{~}{P}_\mu =P_\mu \widehat{e}A_\mu `$, where $`P_\mu `$ has to be considered as an operator acting on the right and $`\widehat{e}=e\widehat{e}_Ne(1+\tau _3)/2`$. If in a given term $`P_\mu `$ is the rightmost operator and thus acts on the field of the incoming nucleon, it gives $`p_\mu `$ which has c-number components. Our procedure closely follows that of Ref.. Throughout this appendix we assume that the electromagnetic field $`A_\mu `$ carries the four-momentum $`q_\mu `$ directed inwards the vertex, $`[P_\nu ,A_\mu ]=q_\nu A_\mu `$. We thus obtain

$$P^2A_\mu =A_\mu (P+q)^2=A_\mu (p+q)^2=(p+q)^2A_\mu ,$$
(B1)
where for ease of writing the nucleon spinor fields have been omitted. More generally, for any smooth function $`f(p^2)`$ one obtains

$$f(P^2)A_\mu =A_\mu f((p+q)^2).$$
(B2)
Under the minimal substitution, the nucleon momentum squared changes as

$$P^2\stackrel{~}{P}^2=p^22\widehat{e}Ap\widehat{e}Aq+O(A^2)=p^2\widehat{e}A^\mu (2p_\mu +q_\mu )+O(A^2).$$
(B3)
Collecting the coefficients of the terms linear in $`A^\mu `$ results in the photon vertex. This procedure in indicated by the symbol $``$, i.e.

$$p^2\widehat{e}(2p_\mu +q_\mu ),$$
(B4)
which reads that upon minimal substitution a $`p^2`$ term in an n-point Green’s function generates an (n-point+photon) Green’s function corresponding to the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\widehat{e}(2p_\mu +q_\mu )`$.

To generalize this for an arbitrary function $`f(p^2)`$, we first consider the following combination:

$`P^2\stackrel{~}{P}^2`$ $`=`$ $`p^42\widehat{e}q^2Ap2\widehat{e}App^24\widehat{e}qpAp\widehat{e}q^2Aq\widehat{e}Aqp^2`$ (B6)
$`2\widehat{e}Aqqp+O(A^2)=p^4\widehat{e}A^\mu (2p_\mu +q_\mu )(p+q)^2+O(A^2),`$
where Eq. (B3) has been used. The next step is to find the result of the minimal substitution in the monomials $`p^{2n},n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$. Using Eqs. (B1,B3,B6), we have

$`P^{2n}\stackrel{~}{P}^{2n}`$ $`=`$ $`p^{2n}[2\widehat{e}Ap+\widehat{e}Aq]\stackrel{n1}{\stackrel{}{P^2\mathrm{}P^2}}P^2[2\widehat{e}Ap+\widehat{e}Aq]\stackrel{n2}{\stackrel{}{P^2\mathrm{}P^2}}`$ (B8)
$`\mathrm{}\stackrel{n1}{\stackrel{}{P^2\mathrm{}P^2}}[2\widehat{e}Ap+\widehat{e}Aq]+O(A^2)`$
$`=`$ $`p^{2n}\widehat{e}A^\mu (2p_\mu +q_\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(p+q)^{2m}p^{2(n1m)}+O(A^2).`$ (B9)
The corresponding vertex is thus given by

$$p^{2n}\widehat{e}(2p_\mu +q_\mu )\frac{(p+q)^{2n}p^{2n}}{(p+q)^2p^2},$$
(B10)
where the identity

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{k1}{}}x^{2l}y^{2(kl1)}=\frac{y^{2k}x^{2k}}{y^2x^2},$$
(B11)
has been used. Since a generic function $`f(p^2)`$ can be formally expanded in powers of $`p^2`$,

$$f(p^2)=\underset{k}{}a_kp^{2k},$$
(B12)
we obtain

$$f(p^2)\widehat{e}(2p_\mu +q_\mu )\frac{f((p+q)^2)f(p^2)}{(p+q)^2p^2}.$$
(B13)
Minimal substitution in $`p/`$ results in

$$p/\widehat{e}\gamma _\mu .$$
(B14)
Under minimal substitution the product $`f(p^2)p/`$ changes as

$`f(P^2)/P`$ $``$ $`f(\stackrel{~}{P}^2)\stackrel{~}{/P}=f(\stackrel{~}{P}^2)p/f((p+q)^2)\widehat{e}A^\mu \gamma _\mu +O(A^2)`$ (B15)
$`=`$ $`f(p^2)p/\widehat{e}A^\mu (2p_\mu +q_\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{f(p+q)^2)f(p^2)}{(p+q)^2p^2}}p/\widehat{e}A^\mu \gamma _\mu f((p+q)^2)+O(A^2),`$ (B16)
and hence

$$f(p^2)p/\widehat{e}(2p_\mu +q_\mu )\frac{f(p+q)^2)f(p^2)}{(p+q)^2p^2}p/\widehat{e}\gamma _\mu f((p+q)^2).$$
(B17)
Some other useful formulas are stated without proof,

$`g(pk)`$ $``$ $`\widehat{e}k_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g((p+q)k)g(pk)}{qk}},`$ (B18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p+k)^2p^2}}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{e}{\displaystyle \frac{2k_\mu }{[(p+k+q)^2(p+q)^2][(p+k)^2p^2]}},`$ (B19)
$`f(p^2)g(pk)`$ $``$ $`\widehat{e}\{(2p_\mu +q_\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{f((p+q)^2)f(p^2)}{(p+q)^2p^2}}g(pk)`$ (B21)
$`+k_\mu f((p+q)^2){\displaystyle \frac{g((p+q)k)g(pk)}{qk}}\},`$
$`p_\mu `$ $``$ $`\widehat{e}g_{\mu \nu }.`$ (B22)
where $`k`$ is the momentum of an uncharged third particle and $`g(pk)`$ is a generic function.

The formulas for minimal substitution in $`P^{}`$, the momentum associated with the outgoing nucleon, are analogous to the above, except that everywhere $`q`$ should be replaced by $`q`$.

Please note that the terms generated by this minimal substitution procedure are free from poles in the limit of $`q0`$.

## C Vertices from minimal substitution

### 1 The $`\gamma \pi NN`$-vertex

Minimal substitution in the $`\pi NN`$-vertex is discussed separately for the pseudoscalar vertex,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi NN}^{ps}\right)_\alpha =\tau _\alpha \gamma ^5f(p^2)+f(p^2)\tau _\alpha \gamma ^5,$$
(C1)
and the pseudovector vertex,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi NN}^{pv1}\right)_\alpha =\tau _\alpha \gamma ^5g(p^2)p/+p/^{}g(p^2)\gamma ^5\tau _\alpha .$$
(C2)
The sum of these reduces for the half-off-shell vertex Eq. (11) for $`f(p^2)=G_1(p^2)G_2(p^2)G_1(m^2)/2`$ and $`g(p^2)=G_2(p^2)/m`$. Minimal substitution in Eqs. (C1,C2) gives

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \pi NN}^{ps}\right)_\alpha ^\mu =\gamma ^5\left\{\tau _\alpha \widehat{e}(2p^\mu +q^\mu )\frac{f((p+q)^2)f(p^2)}{(p+q)^2p^2}+\widehat{e}\tau _\alpha (2p^\mu q^\mu )\frac{f((p^{}q)^2)f(p^2)}{(p^{}q)^2p^2}\right\},$$
(C3)
and

$`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \pi NN}^{pv1}\right)_\alpha ^\mu =`$ $`\tau _\alpha \widehat{e}\gamma ^5\left\{(2p^\mu +q^\mu )p/{\displaystyle \frac{g((p+q)^2)g(p^2)}{(p+q)^2p^2}}+\gamma ^\mu g((p+q)^2)\right\}`$ (C5)
$`\widehat{e}\tau _\alpha \{(2p^\mu q^\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{g((p^{}q)^2)g(p^2)}{(p^{}q)^2p^2}}p/^{}+\gamma ^\mu g((p^{}q)^2)\}\gamma ^5,`$
respectively where $`p^{}=p+q`$.

Minimal substitution in

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi NN}^{pv2}\right)_\alpha =\tau _\alpha \gamma ^5p/g(p^2)+g(p^2)p/^{}\gamma ^5\tau _\alpha ,$$
(C6)
gives a different contact term (because $`\stackrel{~}{P}_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}^2`$ do not commute),

$`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \pi NN}^{pv2}\right)_\alpha ^\mu =`$ $`\tau _\alpha \widehat{e}\gamma ^5\{(2p^\mu +q^\mu )(p/+q/){\displaystyle \frac{g((p+q)^2)g(p^2)}{(p+q)^2p^2}}+\gamma ^\mu g(p^2)\}`$ (C8)
$`\widehat{e}\tau _\alpha \{(2p^\mu q^\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{g((p^{}q)^2)g(p^2)}{(p^{}q)^2p^2}}(p/^{}q/)+\gamma ^\mu g(p^2)\}\gamma ^5.`$
The difference between the vertices in Eq. (C5) and Eq. (C8) equals

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\tau _\alpha \widehat{e}\gamma ^5\left\{(2p^\mu +q^\mu )q/{\displaystyle \frac{g((p+q)^2)g(p^2)}{(p+q)^2p^2}}+\gamma ^\mu [g(p^2)g((p+q)^2)]\right\}`$ (C10)
$`\widehat{e}\tau _\alpha \{(2p^\mu q^\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{g((p^{}q)^2)g(p^2)}{(p^{}q)^2p^2}}(q/)+\gamma ^\mu [g(p^2)g((p^{}q)^2)]\}\gamma ^5,`$
which is orthogonal to the photon momentum, $`q\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. This presents one example of the known ambiguity in constructing such contact vertices: terms orthogonal to the photon momentum are not uniquely determined by the minimal substitution prescription.

### 2 The $`\gamma \gamma NN`$-vertex

As a first step, the $`\gamma NN`$-vertex needs to be constructed which reduces to the appropriate half-off-shell vertex and in addition obeys the Ward identity. It is constructed through minimal substitution in the inverse dressed nucleon propagator,

$$S^1(p)=\frac{1}{2}[\alpha (p^2)p/+p/\alpha (p^2)]+\beta (p^2)$$
(C11)
where $`\beta (p^2)=\alpha (p^2)\xi (p^2)`$. We can use Eqs. (B13,B17) to write the nucleon-photon vertex obtained by the minimal substitution as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{min}(p^{},p)=\widehat{e}_N\left\{\frac{p_\mu ^{}+p_\mu }{p^2p^2}[S^1(p^{})S^1(p)]+\frac{\alpha (p^2)+\alpha (p^2)}{2}[\gamma _\mu q/\frac{2p_\mu +q_\mu }{p^2p^2}]\right\}.$$
(C12)
where $`p^{}=p+q`$. This vertex clearly satisfies the Ward-Takahashi identity Eq. (D1). In principle, both nucleons can be off-shell in this vertex.

A general form for the vertex can now be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p^{},p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{min}(p^{},p)+[q/,\gamma _\mu ]\{F(p^2)(p/m)+H(p^2)\}`$ (C13)
$`+`$ $`\{(p/^{}m)F(p^2)+H(p^2)\}[q/,\gamma _\mu ].`$ (C14)
To obtain the half-off-shell vertex with the outgoing on-shell nucleon, we apply Eq. (C14) to a positive-energy spinor $`\overline{u}(p^{})`$ on the left, $`\overline{u}(p^{})p/^{}=\overline{u}(p^{})m`$. Equating the resulting half-off-shell vertex to Eq. (7) the functions $`F(p^2)`$ and $`H(p^2)`$ can be determined,

$`(F)^{s,v}(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{(F_2^+)^{s,v}(p^2)(F_2^{})^{s,v}(p^2)}{8m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (p^2)\alpha (m^2)}{8(p^2m^2)}}`$ (C15)
$`(H)^{s,v}(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{2(F_2^+)^{s,v}(p^2)(F_2^+)^{s,v}(m^2)}{8m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (p^2)m+\beta (p^2)}{4(p^2m^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (m^2)1}{16m}},`$ (C16)
where an analogue of the Gordon identity has been used in the form

$$\overline{u}(p^{})(p_\mu +p_\mu ^{})=\overline{u}(p^{})(\gamma _\mu p/+\gamma _\mu mi\sigma _{\mu \lambda }q^\lambda ).$$
(C17)
To obtain the contact $`\gamma \gamma NN`$-vertex we perform a minimal substitution in Eq. (C14), with a second photon field carrying a momentum $`k`$ and polarization index $`\nu `$. Since both incoming $`p`$ and outgoing $`p^{}`$ nucleons are on the mass shell in Compton scattering, we need only the matrix element of the contact $`\gamma \gamma NN`$-vertex between the positive-energy spinors of the incoming and outgoing nucleons,

$`K_{\mu ,\nu }^{ct}(q,k)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{ct}(q,k)u(p)=\overline{u}(p^{})i\widehat{e}^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ((p+q)^2)m+\beta ((p+q)^2)}{2[(p+q)^2m^2]}}`$ (C24)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{(p_\mu +p_\mu ^{}k_\mu )(p_\nu +p_\nu ^{}+q_\nu )}{(p+q)^2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_\mu +p_\mu ^{}+k_\mu )(p_\nu +p_\nu ^{}q_\nu )}{(p+k)^2m^2}}+2g_{\mu \nu }\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ((p+q)^2)\alpha (m^2)}{2[(p+q)^2m^2]}}\left[(p_\nu +p_\nu ^{}+q_\nu )\gamma _\mu +(p_\mu +p_\mu ^{}k_\mu )\gamma _\nu \right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{H((p+q)^2)H(m^2)}{(p+q)^2m^2}}[[k/,\gamma _\nu ](p_\mu +p_\mu ^{}k_\mu )+(p_\nu +p_\nu ^{}+q_\nu )[q/,\gamma _\mu ]]`$
$`+F((p+q)^2)[[k/,\gamma _\nu ]\gamma _\mu +\gamma _\nu [q/,\gamma _\mu ]]+\left[\begin{array}{c}\mu \nu \\ qk\end{array}\right]\}u(p),`$
where $`p^{}=p+k+q`$ and the notation introduced in Eqs. (C11,C15,C16) has been used. In Eq. (C24) $`H=H^s+H^v`$ (and analogously for F) since the contact term vanishes for the neutron. The contact term is explicitly crossing symmetric due to the last term in Eq. (C24).

## D Gauge invariance of the method

The Ward-Takahashi identity, a consequence of gauge invariance, imposes an important constraint on the nucleon-photon vertex,

$$q\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^{},p)=\widehat{e}_N\left[S^1(p^{})S^1(p)\right],$$
(D1)
with the photon momentum $`q^\mu =p^\mu p^\mu `$. In the following we prove that the photon vertex obtained in our procedure obeys the Ward-Takahashi identity Eq. (D1).

Initially we assume that the $`\gamma NN`$-vertex on the right-hand side of Eq. (9) obeys the Ward identity. As a first step we first construct a tree level pion-photoproduction amplitude and prove its gauge invariance. The amplitude is written as a sum of s- ,u-, and t-channel contributions and a contact term (see Fig. (1)),

$$K_\alpha ^\mu =\underset{i=s,u,t,c}{}K_{i,\alpha }^\mu .$$
(D2)
The incoming pion caries momentum $`k`$, the outgoing photon $`q`$ while $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ are the on-mass-shell momenta of the incoming and outgoing nucleons, respectively ($`p^{}=p+k+q`$). Contracting each term in Eq. (D2) with the photon momentum yields

$`q_\mu K_{s,\alpha }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\tau _\alpha \widehat{e}_N\overline{u}(p^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^5(p^{}k)u(p),`$ (D3)
$`q_\mu K_{u,\alpha }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{e}_N\tau _\alpha \overline{u}(p^{})\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^5}(p^{}q)u(p),`$ (D4)
$`q_\mu K_{t,\alpha }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\tau _\beta (\widehat{e}_\pi )_{\beta \alpha }\overline{u}(p^{})\gamma ^5gu(p),`$ (D5)
$`q_\mu K_{c,\alpha }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\tau _\alpha \widehat{e}_N\overline{u}(p^{})\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^5(p^{}k)\gamma ^5g\right]u(p)`$ (D7)
$`\widehat{e}_N\tau _\alpha \overline{u}(p^{})\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^5}(p^{}q)+\gamma ^5g\right]u(p),`$
where we have used Eq. (D1) and the fact that for an on-shell nucleon with momentum $`p`$, $`\overline{u}(p)S^1(p)=0=S^1(p)u(p)`$. We also used the normalization condition for the nucleon-pion vertex with both nucleons on-shell, $`\overline{u}(p^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^5(m)u(p)=\overline{u}(p^{})\gamma ^5gu(p)`$. Adding Eqs. (D3-D7) and using $`[\widehat{e}_N,\tau _\alpha ]=\tau _\beta (\widehat{e}_\pi )_{\beta \alpha }`$, we obtain the desired result, $`q_\mu K_\alpha ^\mu =0`$ .

The gauge invariance of this pion-photoproduction amplitude is used to show that the solution of Eq. (9) obeys the Ward-Takahashi identity for the nucleon-photon vertex. This can be done in a transparent way with the help of diagrammatic expressions. The pole contribution to the vertex is given by the sum of cut loop diagrams entering in the dispersion integral in Eq. (9). (We assume here that the convergence of the procedure has been reached.) This sum can be rewritten by adding and subtracting an additional diagram containing the pole contribution to the self-energy in the incoming nucleon leg, as shown in Fig. (8) (top). Index $`I`$ on the left-hand side (l.h.s.) of this equation indicates that only the pole contribution to the vertex is considered. To evaluate the scalar product of the r.h.s. with the photon momentum $`q_\mu `$, it is convenient to rewrite the equation as shown in Fig. (8) (bottom). Here, a common sub-diagram, which is a nucleon-pion vertex, has been extracted from the r.h.s., and the asterisk indicates that an integration is tacitly understood over the phase space of the cut (on-shell) nucleon and pion lines. Such separation of a sub-diagram is consistent with the interpretation of Cutkosky rules as a unitarity condition . Note also that the Dirac spinor $`\overline{u}(p^{})`$ is explicitly identified with the outgoing nucleon line. The sum of diagrams in the brackets is the scattering amplitude $`K_\alpha ^\mu `$ for pion photoproduction considered above, which is gauge invariant, i.e. $`q_\mu K_\alpha ^\mu =0`$. Therefore, only the last diagram on the r.h.s. contributes to

$$q_\mu \overline{u}(p^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^\mu (p)=q_\mu \overline{u}(p^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p)S(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }_I(p)=\widehat{e}_N\overline{u}(p^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_I(p),$$
(D8)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I(p)`$ stands for the pole contribution to the nucleon self-energy and we have used Eq. (D1) for the vertex on the r.h.s.. Eq. (D8) corresponds precisely to the Ward identity for the pole contribution of the vertex since the pole contribution to $`S_0^1(p)=(p/m)`$ is zero and $`S^1(p)=S_0^1(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$.


format: text

text:
# The lexicographic closure as a revision process

## Introduction and Preliminaries

The methodological connections between the areas of nonmonotonic reasoning, i.e., the process by which an agent may, possibly, withdraw previously derived conclusions upon enlarging her set of hypotheses (?), and belief revision, i.e., the process by which an agent changes her beliefs upon discovering some new information (??), are well-known (see, for example, (????)). As a consequence, it is possible to translate particular problems in one area into problems in the other. One particular problem in nonmonotonic reasoning is the question of default entailment, i.e., when should we regard one item of so-called “default knowledge” (hereafter just “default”), i.e., an expression of the form $`\theta \varphi `$ standing for “if $`\theta `$ then normally (or usually, or typically) $`\varphi `$”, as “following from” a given set of defaults. Several answers to this question have been proposed in the literature (such as in (???????), to name but a few) but none of them (with the exception of the last named) seem to attempt any explicit connection with belief revision. The aim of this paper is to make a start on such a connection by showing how one particular method of default entailment, namely the lexicographic closure construction (??) can be given a formulation in terms of a certain method of belief revision which was first given in (?) and studied further in (?). In the process, we uncover one or two interesting avenues for further research on both sides.

The plan of this paper is as follows. Firstly, in the next section we formally pose the basic question of default entailment outlined above and describe the lexicographic closure. The set of defaults defined by the lexicographic closure, considered as a binary relation, forms a rational consequence relation (in the sense of (?)). The section following this introduces the theory of belief revision and the important notion of epistemic entrenchment relation (E-relation for short) which it utilises. Also in this section we describe the correspondence between E-relations and rational consequence relations. Next, with the aid of this correspondence, we describe Nayak’s operation of revision. Nayak proposes to model revision of an epistemic state (represented as an E-relation) by an arbitrary set of sentences by first converting this set into an E-relation and then revising by this relation. We present one particular method for generating an E-relation from a set of sentences and show our main result: that, given this method, the E-relation corresponding to the lexicographic closure can be obtained by revising the initial epistemic state (which we take to be the E-relation in which the only sentences believed are the tautologies) firstly by the set of (the material counterparts of) those defaults which are the least specific, then those defaults which are the next-least specific and so on up to the set of the most specific defaults. After this we give our ideas for possible further study before offering some short concluding remarks.

Before we get started, let us fix our notation. Throughout this paper, $`L`$ is an arbitrary but fixed propositional language built up from a finite set of propositional variables using the usual connectives $`\neg ,,,,`$ and $``$. Semantics is provided by the (finite) set $`W`$ of propositional worlds. For $`\theta L`$ we set $`S_\theta =\{wWw\theta \}`$, i.e., $`S_\theta `$ is the set of worlds which satisfy $`\theta `$. Given $`E\{\varphi \}L`$ we write $`E\varphi `$ whenever $`_{\theta E}S_\theta S_\varphi `$ and let $`Cn(E)`$ denote the set $`\{\varphi E\varphi \}`$. As usual we write $`\theta \varphi `$ rather than $`\{\theta \}\varphi `$ etc. while, for any $`wW`$ and $`EL`$ we set $`\text{sent}_E(w)=\{\theta Ew\theta \}`$. Finally, for an arbitrary set $`X`$ we use $`|X|`$ to denote the cardinality of $`X`$.

## The Lexicographic Closure of a Set of Defaults

Suppose we have somehow learnt that an intelligent agent believes some finite set of defaults $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{\lambda _i\chi _i\lambda _i,\chi _iL,i=1,\mathrm{},l\}`$. In this case what other assertions of this form should we conclude our agent believes? Or, put another way, what is the binary relation $`^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`L`$ where $`\theta ^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ holds iff we can conclude, on the basis of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, that if $`\theta `$ is true then, normally, $`\varphi `$ is also true? In this paper, one answer to this question which we are particularly interested in is the lexicographic closure construction which was proposed independently in both (?) and (?). We describe this construction now.

Throughout this paper we assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an arbitrary but fixed, finite set of defaults. For this paper we also make the simplifying assumption that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is “consistent”, in the sense that its set of material counterparts $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\{\lambda \chi \lambda \chi \mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ is consistent. Using a procedure given in (?) (or, equivalently, in (?)) we may partition $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ into $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$, where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ correspond, in a precise sense, to “levels of specificity” – given a default $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, the larger the $`i`$ for which $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, the more specific are the situations to which $`\delta `$ is applicable. Following (?), we call this partition the Z-partition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Like many methods of default entailment (see (?) for several examples), the lexicographic closure can be based on a method of choosing maximal consistent subsets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. More precisely the lexicographic closure is a member of a family of consequence relations $`_{}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $``$ is an ordering on $`2^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and, for all $`\theta ,\varphi L`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \theta _{}^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi & \text{iff}& \text{for all}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }\text{such that}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\{\theta \}\text{is}\hfill \\ & & \text{consistent and}\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{is }\text{-maximal amongst}\hfill \\ & & \text{such subsets, we have}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\{\theta \}\varphi .\hfill \end{array}$$

To specify the lexicographic closure we instantiate the order $``$ above, with the help of the Z-partition, as follows: Given subsets $`A,B\mathrm{\Delta }`$ let $`A_i=A\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`B_i=B\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ for each $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$. We define an ordering $`_{lex}`$ on $`2^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A_{lex}B& \text{iff}& \text{there exists }i\text{ such that}|A_i|<|B_i|\text{and,}\hfill \\ & & \text{for all}j>i,|A_j|=|B_j|.\hfill \end{array}$$

(The reason for the name “lexicographic closure” should now be clear.) The lexicographic closure $`_{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is then just defined to be $`_{_{lex}}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

How successful is $`_{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in achieving the goals of default reasoning? We refer the reader to (?) for the details. However, the internal, closure properties of $`_{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be summed up by the following proposition, which can be found jointly in (?) and (?).

###### Proposition 1

The binary relation $`_{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a rational consequence relation (see (??)). Furthermore, $`_{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is consistency preserving, i.e., for all $`\theta `$, $`\theta _{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ implies $`\theta `$.

Now we already know (see, for example, (??)) that rational consequence relations may be represented by finite sequences $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}=(𝒰_0,\mathrm{},𝒰_k)`$ of mutually disjoint subsets of $`W`$ in the following sense: Given such a sequence $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ and $`\theta L`$ we set $`\text{rank}^\stackrel{}{𝒰}(\theta )=`$ the least $`i`$ such that $`𝒰_iS_\theta \mathrm{}`$. If no such $`i`$ exists then we set $`\text{rank}^\stackrel{}{𝒰}(\theta )=\mathrm{}`$. If we then define a binary relation $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ on $`L`$ by setting111Note the first clause includes the case $`\text{rank}^\stackrel{}{𝒰}(\theta \neg \varphi )=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\text{rank}^\stackrel{}{𝒰}(\theta )\mathrm{}`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \theta _\stackrel{}{𝒰}\varphi & \text{iff}& \text{either}& \text{rank}^\stackrel{}{𝒰}(\theta )<\text{rank}^\stackrel{}{𝒰}(\theta \neg \varphi )\hfill \\ & & \text{or}& \text{rank}^\stackrel{}{𝒰}(\theta )=\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

then $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ forms a rational consequence relation, while moreover every rational consequence relation arises in this way from some sequence $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$.222Such sequences are clearly equivalent to the ranked models used to characterise rational consequence relations in (?). The intuition behind the sequences $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ is that they represent a “ranking” of the worlds in $`W`$ according to their plausibility – the lower the $`i`$ for which $`w𝒰_i`$, the more plausible, in relation to the other worlds, it is considered to be. If $`w𝒰_i`$ for all $`i`$ then we may take $`w`$ to be considered “impossible”.

One thing to note about the definition of $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ given above is that we allow $`\mathrm{}`$ to appear, possibly more than once, in $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$.333This approach carries us very close to the “semi-quantitative” approaches of (???), which use an explicit ranking function as a starting point rather than deriving one from a sequence of world-sets. Our approach, though, remains squarely qualitative in character. This freedom comes in useful when proving some of our results. It also has the effect that the mapping $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ detailed above is not injective – given a rational consequence relation $``$ there will be many (in fact infinitely many) sequences $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ such that $`=_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$.444Since clearly we can insert as many copies of $`\mathrm{}`$ into the sequence $`(𝒰_0,\mathrm{},𝒰_k)`$ as we wish without changing the relation $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$. Another thing to note about $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ is that $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ will be consistency preserving iff $`_{i=0}^k𝒰_i=W`$, while it will be trivial, i.e., will satisfy $`\theta _\stackrel{}{𝒰}\varphi `$ for all $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, iff $`_{i=0}^k𝒰_i=\mathrm{}`$. We make the following definitions:

###### Definition 1

Let $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}=(𝒰_0,\mathrm{},𝒰_k)`$ be a finite sequence of mutually disjoint subsets of $`W`$. We shall say that $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ is full iff $`_{i=0}^k𝒰_i=W`$ and that $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ is empty iff $`_{i=0}^k𝒰_i=\mathrm{}`$. We let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ denote the set of all such $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ which are either full or empty.

Hence Proposition 1 tells us that there must exist a full sequence $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ such that $`\theta _{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ iff $`\theta _\stackrel{}{𝒰}\varphi `$. What form does $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ take here? The answer is given in (?) and (?) (and is, in fact, used to define $`_{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the latter). In this paper we show that we can arrive at this answer via a different route.

## Belief Revision and Epistemic Entrenchment

Belief revision is concerned with the following problem: How should an agent revise her beliefs upon receiving some new information which may, possibly, contradict some of her current beliefs? The most popular basic framework within which this question is studied is the one laid down by Alchourŕon, Gärdenfors and Makinson (AGM) in (?). In that framework an agent’s epistemic state is represented as a logically closed set of sentences called a belief set, and the new information, or epistemic input, is represented as a single sentence. AGM propose a number of postulates which a reasonable operation of revision should satisfy. In particular, the revised belief set should contain the epistemic input and should be consistent.555Unless the epistemic input itself is inconsistent. See (?) for the full list of postulates with detailed discussion. In order to meet these requirements, in the general case when the input is inconsistent with the prior belief set, the agent is forced to give up some of her prior beliefs. One way of determining precisely which sentences the agent should give up in this situation is to assign to the agent an E-relation $``$ on $`L`$ (see, for example, (?????)).

The intuitive meaning behind E-relations is that $`\varphi \psi `$ should hold iff the agent finds it at least as easy to give up $`\varphi `$ as she does $`\psi `$, i.e., her belief in $`\psi `$ is at least as entrenched as her belief in $`\varphi `$. In cases of conflict the agent should then give up those sentences which are less entrenched. In what follows we use $``$ to denote the strict part of $``$, i.e, $`\theta \varphi `$ iff $`\theta \varphi `$ and not($`\varphi \theta `$). We follow (?) in formally defining E-relations as follows:

###### Definition 2

An epistemic entrenchment relation (E-relation) (on $`L`$) is a relation $`L\times L`$ which satisfies the following conditions for all $`\theta ,\varphi ,\psi L`$,
(E1) If $`\theta \varphi `$ and $`\varphi \psi `$ then $`\theta \psi `$   (transitivity)  (E2) If $`\theta \varphi `$ then $`\theta \varphi `$ (dominance)  (E3) $`\theta \theta \varphi `$ or $`\varphi \theta \varphi `$ (conjunctiveness)  (E4) Given there exists $`\psi L`$ such that $`\psi `$,   if $`\theta \varphi `$ for all $`\theta L`$, then $`\varphi `$   (maximality)

If there is no $`\psi L`$ such that $`\psi `$, equivalently, if $`\theta \varphi `$ holds for all $`\theta ,\varphi `$, then we call $``$ the absurd E-relation. The original definition of E-relation, such as is found in (?), is given relative to a belief set. However, as is noted in (?), E-relations contain enough information by themselves for the belief set to be extracted from it. The belief set $`Bel()`$ associated with the E-relation $``$ is defined as:

$$Bel()=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\theta \theta \}\hfill & \text{if}\theta ,\text{for some}\theta ,\hfill \\ L\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The belief set associated with an E-relation was called its epistemic content in (?).

### E-relations and Rational Consequence

We now bring in the connection between E-relations, as they have been defined here, and rational consequence relations. The following result is virtually the same as one given in (?).

###### Proposition 2

Let $``$ be a rational consequence relation which is either consistency preserving or trivial. If we define, from $``$, a binary relation $`_{}`$ on $`L`$ by setting, for all $`\theta ,\varphi L`$,

$$\theta _{}\varphi \text{iff}\neg \theta \neg \varphi \mid ̸\theta \text{or}\neg \varphi ,$$
(1)
then $`_{}`$ forms an E-relation. Conversely if, given an E-relation $``$ we define a binary relation $`_{}`$ on $`L`$ by setting, for all $`\theta ,\varphi L`$,

$$\theta _{}\varphi \text{iff}\neg \theta \neg \theta \varphi \text{or}\neg \theta $$

then $`_{}`$ forms a rational consequence relation which is either consistency preserving or trivial. Furthermore the identity $`=_{_{}}`$ holds.

So there is a bijection between rational consequence relations which are either consistency preserving or trivial, and E-relations. Essentially they are different ways of describing the same thing, and so an operation for changing one automatically gives us an operation for changing the other. This observation is at the heart of the present paper. Given $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ we shall denote by $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ the E-relation defined from $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ via (1) above. Since we have already seen that rational consequence relations which are either consistency preserving or trivial are characterised by the sequences in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, Proposition 2 leads us to the following result.

###### Proposition 3

Let $``$ be a binary relation on $`L`$. Then $``$ is an E-relation iff $`=_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ for some $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

Note again that $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}=_\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$ does not imply $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}=\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$. Also note that $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ will be absurd iff $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ is empty. It is straightforward to prove the following.

###### Proposition 4

Let $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`\theta L`$. Then $`\theta Bel(_\stackrel{}{𝒰})`$ iff $`_\stackrel{}{𝒰}\theta `$.

## Revision of E-relations

Nayak (?) deviates from the basic AGM framework in two ways. Firstly, in order to help us deal with iterated revision (see (???)), he argues that we need not only a description of the new belief set which results from a revision, but also a new E-relation which can then guide any further revision. Thus we should enlarge our epistemic state to consist of a belief set together with an E-relation and then perform revision on this larger state. In fact, since, as we have seen, the belief set may be determined from the E-relation, we may take our epistemic states to be just E-relations.666In this context of iterated revision, the consideration of more comprehensive epistemic states of which a belief set is but one component has also been suggested in (?) and (?). Secondly, he suggests that the epistemic input should consist not of a single sentence, but rather another E-relation. (See (?) for motivation.) He claims it is then possible, in his framework, to capture the revision of E-relations by arbitrary sets of sentences $`E`$ by first converting the set $`E`$ into a suitable E-relation $`_E`$ and then revising by $`_E`$. We shall discuss this point further in the next section. In this section we shall use the characterisation of E-relations given in Proposition 3 to describe Nayak’s proposal of how one E-relation should be revised by another to obtain a new E-relation. The ideas behind this formulation can also be seen in (?).

Let $`_K`$ be the prior E-relation and let $`_E`$ be the input E-relation. By Proposition 3, we know that there exist $`\stackrel{}{𝒰},\stackrel{}{𝒱}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ such that $`_K=_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ and $`_E=_\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$. Hence we may reduce the question of entrenchment revision to a question of how to revise one sequence of world-sets by another. More precisely, we can define a sequence revision function $`:\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\times \mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$ is the result of revising $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ by $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$, and then simply lift this to an entrenchment revision function by setting

$$_K_E=_{\stackrel{}{𝒰}\stackrel{}{𝒱}}.$$
(2)
(The context will always make it clear whether we are considering $``$ as an operation on sequences or an operation on E-relations.) All this must be independent of precisely which $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$ are chosen to represent $`_K`$ and $`_E`$ respectively. The definition for the sequence revision function $``$ which we choose, motivated purely in order to arrive at Nayak’s entrenchment revision function, is the following:

###### Definition 3

We define the function $`:\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\times \mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ by setting , for all $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}=(𝒰_0,\mathrm{},𝒰_k)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}=(𝒱_0,\mathrm{},𝒱_m)`$,

$$\stackrel{}{𝒰}\stackrel{}{𝒱}=\{\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}(𝒰_0𝒱_0,𝒰_1𝒱_0,\mathrm{},𝒰_k𝒱_0,\hfill \\ 𝒰_0𝒱_1,𝒰_1𝒱_1,\mathrm{},𝒰_k𝒱_1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{},\hfill \\ 𝒰_0𝒱_m,𝒰_1𝒱_m,\mathrm{},𝒰_k𝒱_m).\hfill \end{array}\text{if}\stackrel{}{𝒰}\text{is full}\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{𝒱}\text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly it is the case that $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$ is always full, unless $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$ is empty, in which case so is $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$. Hence we certainly have $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\stackrel{}{𝒱}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. The following proposition assures us that $``$, when lifted to an operation on E-relations, is well-defined.

###### Proposition 5

Let $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}_i,\stackrel{}{𝒱}_i\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Then $`_{\stackrel{}{𝒰}_1}=_{\stackrel{}{𝒰}_2}`$ and $`_{\stackrel{}{𝒱}_1}=_{\stackrel{}{𝒱}_2}`$ implies $`_{\stackrel{}{𝒰}_1\stackrel{}{𝒱}_1}=_{\stackrel{}{𝒰}_2\stackrel{}{𝒱}_2}`$.

From now on we will follow Nayak and use $`_{KE}`$ as an abbreviation for $`_K_E`$. The authors of (?) propose the following postulates for the revision of E-relations:
(E$`1^{}`$) $`_{KE}`$ is an E-relation.  (E$`2^{}`$) If $`\theta _E\varphi `$ then $`\theta _{KE}\varphi `$.  (E$`3^{}`$) If both $`\theta _E\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _E\theta `$ and if, for all $`\lambda `$,   $`\chi `$ such that $`\theta \varphi \chi `$ and $`\theta \chi `$, we have   $`\lambda _K\chi `$ iff $`\lambda _E\chi `$, then $`\theta _{KE}\varphi `$ iff $`\theta _K\varphi `$.

We refer the reader to (?) for the justification of these postulates. Any operation of revision of E-relations which satisfies the above three conditions is called a well-behaved entrenchment revision operation in (?), where it is shown that there is, in fact, precisely one well-behaved entrenchment revision operation, namely the one given in (?). Thus the above three postulates serve to characterise Nayak’s revision method. Our revision operation, defined by Definition 3 via (2) above, also satisfies (E$`1^{}`$)–(E$`3^{}`$) and hence is semantically equivalent to the operation constructed in (?).

###### Theorem 1

If we set $`_{KE}=_{\stackrel{}{𝒰}\stackrel{}{𝒱}}`$ where $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ ($`\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$) is chosen so that $`_K=_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ ($`_E=_\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$) then the operator $``$ satisfies (E$`1^{}`$), (E$`2^{}`$) and (E$`3^{}`$).

One advantage of this particular formulation is that it is relatively easy to show properties of the well-behaved entrenchment revision operation $``$. For example, the following proposition regarding sequence revision is straightforward to prove.

###### Proposition 6

Let $`\stackrel{}{𝒰},\stackrel{}{𝒱},\stackrel{}{𝒲}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and suppose $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}`$ is not empty. Then $`(\stackrel{}{𝒰}\stackrel{}{𝒱})\stackrel{}{𝒲}=\stackrel{}{𝒰}(\stackrel{}{𝒱}\stackrel{}{𝒲})`$.

This proposition, in turn, gives us the following interesting associativity property of the induced entrenchment revision operation.

###### Proposition 7

Let $`_i`$ be an E-relation for $`i=1,2,3`$. Then, if $`_2`$ is not absurd, we have $`(_1_2)_3=`$ $`_1(_2_3)`$.

## Generating E-relations from Sets of Sentences

As we said in the last section, Nayak proposes that his way of revising one E-relation by another allows a way of modelling the revision of an E-relation by a set of sentences $`E`$ by first converting, according to some suitable method, the set $`E`$ into an E-relation $`_E`$ and then revising by $`_E`$. The question of which “suitable method” we should use for generating $`_E`$ is clearly an interesting question in itself. A strong feeling is that the relation $`_E`$ should adequately convey the informational content of $`E`$, but what does this mean? An obvious first requirement of $`_E`$ would seem to be $`Bel(_E)=Cn(E)`$, but there are different ways in which this can be achieved. The definition which Nayak seems to advocate is the following, based on an idea in (?), and expressed via its strict part.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \theta _E\varphi & \text{iff}& E\vDash ̸,\vDash ̸\theta \text{and}\text{for all}E^{}E\text{such that}\hfill \\ & & E^{}\{\neg \varphi \}\text{is consistent, there exists}\hfill \\ & & E^{\prime \prime }E\text{such that}E^{}E^{\prime \prime }\text{and}E^{\prime \prime }\{\neg \theta \}\hfill \\ & & \text{is consistent.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The clause “$`E\vDash ̸`$” in the above merely ensures that if $`E`$ is inconsistent then $`_E`$ is absurd, while the clause “$`\vDash ̸\theta `$” ensures that tautologies are maximally entrenched. The main body of the definition essentially says that $`\varphi `$ should be strictly more entrenched than $`\theta `$ iff each $``$-maximal subset of $`E`$ which fails to imply $`\varphi `$ may be strictly enlarged to a subset of $`E`$ which fails to imply $`\theta `$. The problem with defining $`_E`$ in this way is that it will fail, in general, to be an E-relation. In particular it will not necessarily satisfy (E1).777It should be noted, however, that $`_E`$ so defined does still enjoy several interesting properties. In fact it belongs to Rott’s family of generalized E-relations (?). How can we modify/extend it so as to obtain an E-relation? The possibility we choose is to compare the sets which fail to imply $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ by cardinality rather than inclusion:888Possibilities in this spirit are also discussed in (?) (Section 2) and (?) (Section 8). See also the closely related Section 5 of (?).

###### Definition 4

Given a set $`EL`$, define a relation $`_EL\times L`$ by, for all $`\theta ,\varphi L`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \theta _E\varphi & \text{iff}& E\vDash ̸,\vDash ̸\theta \text{and}\text{for all}E^{}E\text{such that}\hfill \\ & & E^{}\{\neg \varphi \}\text{is consistent, there exists}\hfill \\ & & E^{\prime \prime }E\text{such that}|E^{}|<|E^{\prime \prime }|\text{and}\hfill \\ & & E^{\prime \prime }\{\neg \theta \}\text{is consistent.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that this definition does indeed extend the “old” definition given above. That $`_E`$ defined by Definition 4 is a genuine E-relation will follow once we have found a sequence $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ such that $`_E=_\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$. We do this as follows. Let us assume for simplicity that $`E`$ is finite with $`|E|=k`$. Then, for each $`i=0,\mathrm{},k`$, we set

$$𝒰_i^E=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{wW|\text{sent}_E(w)|=ki\}\hfill & \text{if}E\vDash ̸\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

So, in the principal case when $`E`$ is consistent, $`𝒰_i^E`$ contains those worlds which satisfy precisely $`ki`$ elements of $`E`$. Let $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^E=(𝒰_0^E,\mathrm{},𝒰_k^E)`$.

###### Proposition 8

If $`E`$ then $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^E`$ is empty, while if $`E\vDash ̸`$ then $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^E`$ is full (and so, either way, $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$). In both cases we have $`_E=_{\stackrel{}{𝒰}^E}`$. Hence $`_E`$ is an E-relation.

Note that, with this notation, we have $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{}}=(W)`$. Hence we can think of $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ as being the initial epistemic state in which each world is equally plausible.

How does $`_E`$ portray the informational content of $`E`$? The sequence $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^E`$ shows us clearly. First of all it is easy to see that $`_E`$ satisfies the basic requirement of $`Bel(_E)=Cn(E)`$ (in particular the only sentences believed in $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the tautologies) since the most plausible worlds in $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^E`$, i.e., the worlds in $`𝒰_0^E`$, are precisely those worlds which satisfy every sentence in $`E`$. The big question is how does $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^E`$ classify the worlds which do not satisfy every sentence in $`E`$? The answer is that it considers one such world more plausible than another iff it satisfies strictly more sentences in $`E`$. This makes the relation $`_E`$ dependent on the syntactic form, not just the semantic form, of $`E`$, i.e., we can have $`Cn(E_1)=Cn(E_2)`$ without necessarily having $`_{E_1}=_{E_2}`$. One situation where this method might be deemed suitable is if we want to regard the elements of $`E`$ as items of information coming from different, independent sources.

From now on, for the special case when $`E`$ is a singleton, we shall write $`_\theta `$ rather than $`_{\{\theta \}}`$ etc. We have the following partial generalisation of Proposition 4.

###### Proposition 9

Let $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be full and let $`\theta ,\varphi L`$. Then $`\varphi Bel(_\stackrel{}{𝒰}_\theta )`$ iff $`\theta _\stackrel{}{𝒰}\varphi `$.

We are now ready to give the sequence $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ such that $`\theta _\stackrel{}{𝒰}\varphi `$ iff $`\theta _{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$. Let $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$ be the Z-partition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then, to obtain our special $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}`$ we start at the sequence $`(W)`$ and then successively revise, using our sequence revision function $``$, by $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}}`$ for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$. Recalling that $`(W)=\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{}}`$ we may give our main result. Recall that we are assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is finite and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is consistent.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a set of defaults with associated Z-partition $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$. Then, for all $`\theta ,\varphi L`$, we have $`\theta _{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ iff $`\theta _{\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}}}\varphi `$.

Note that, by Proposition 6 and the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is consistent, the term $`\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{𝒰}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}}`$ is independent of the bracketing. Similar remarks apply (using Proposition 7) to the next result. Using Propositions 8 and 9 we may re-express Theorem 2 as:

###### Corollary 1

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a set of defaults with associated Z-partition $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$. Then, for all $`\theta ,\varphi L`$, we have $`\theta _{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ iff $`\varphi Bel(_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}}_\theta )`$.

If we go further and actually identify a revision of the form $`_E`$ with $`E`$ then we have the following characterisation of the lexicographic closure.

###### Corollary 2

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a set of defaults with associated Z-partition $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$. Then, for all $`\theta ,\varphi L`$, we have $`\theta _{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ iff $`\varphi Bel(_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{}\theta )`$.

Hence, using this particular method of revision and this particular way of interpreting revision by a set of sentences, we have shown that $`\theta _{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ iff $`\varphi `$ is believed after first successively revising the initial epistemic state by the set of sentences $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$ for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$, and then revising by $`\theta `$.

## Further Work

The developments in the previous sections have raised a couple of questions regarding both belief revision and default entailment. Firstly, while there have been several papers published concerned with iterated revision by single sentences, and also some concerned with revision by sets of sentences,999Either directly (e.g. (?)) or indirectly, via the study of contraction by a set of sentences (e.g. (?)). See (?) for a description of contractions and their close relationship with revision. there seems to be little in the way of any systematic study of iterated revision by sets of sentences.101010An exception, in a slightly more complex framework, is (?). Darwiche and Pearl (?) provide a postulational approach to the question of iterated revision of epistemic states by single sentences. In this approach they take the concept of epistemic state to be primitive, assuming only that from each such state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we may extract a belief set (in the usual AGM sense of the term) $`B(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ representing the set of sentences accepted in that state. For example Darwiche and Pearl’s second postulate may be stated as

$$\text{If}\varphi \neg \theta \text{then}B((\mathrm{\Psi }\theta )\varphi )=B(\mathrm{\Psi }\varphi ).$$

(For the other postulates and their justifications see (?).) It is not difficult to see that, if we identify epistemic state here with E-relation and take $`B()=Bel()`$, then the method proposed by Nayak, on its restriction to single sentences111111We obviously interpret single sentences here as singleton sets. satisfies all of Darwiche and Pearl’s postulates. However, it also satisfies some interesting properties in the general case. For example, given an E-relation $``$ and $`E_1E_2L`$ such that $`E_2`$ is consistent, we have $`(E_2)E_1=(E_2E_1)E_1`$. In particular, if $`\{\theta ,\varphi \}`$ is consistent, we have $`(\{\theta ,\varphi \})\varphi =(\theta )\varphi `$. (Note this is a stronger statement than just $`Bel((\{\theta ,\varphi \})\varphi )=Bel((\theta )\varphi )`$.) The question of whether this, or any other, property of iterated revision by sets is desirable seems to be a question worth investigating. Another question is: Can we, by modifying the various parameters involved in this revision process, model any of the other existing methods of default entailment, apart from the lexicographic closure, or even construct new ones? For example, given our set of defaults $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and its Z-partition $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$, let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i=_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Then, by the above comments, we may rewrite Corollary 2 as

$$\theta _{lex}^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \text{iff}\varphi Bel(_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{}\theta ).$$

We conjecture that if we now replace each $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{}`$ in the above by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{}`$ (i.e., the conjunction, in some order, of the sentences in $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{}`$), then we obtain the rational closure (?) (which is semantically equivalent to System Z (?)) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, instead of the lexicographic closure. This and other variations are the subject of ongoing study. Finally, note that, since we assumed at the outset that our language $`L`$ is based on only finitely many propositional variables, and also that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a finite set of defaults, we have not needed in this paper to confront the question of revision by infinite sets of sentences. It remains to be seen to what extent the ideas in this paper can be extended to cover this more general situation.121212For one treatment of this topic, and its relation with nonmonotonic inference from infinite sets of premises, see (?).

## Conclusion

In this paper we have taken a particular model of default reasoning – the lexicographic closure – and re-cast it in terms of iterated belief revision by sets of sentences, using the particular, independently motivated, revision model of Nayak. In the process of doing this, a couple of interesting avenues for further exploration have suggested themselves. In particular, the questions of which properties of iterated multiple revision should be deemed desirable, and of how we may apply the principles underlying the AGM theory of belief revision in the context of default reasoning.

## Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the DFG project “Computationale Dialektik” within the DFG research group “Kommunikatives Verstehen”. Much of this paper was written while the author was a researcher at the Max-Planck-Institute for Computer Science in Saarbrücken, Germany. The author would like to thank Emil Weydert, Michael Freund, Hans Rott, Leon van der Torre and the anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions.