text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

The generally accepted ‘triviality’  of $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ theories in four space-time dimensions is usually interpreted within leading-order perturbation theory in a very intuitive way. One starts with the perturbative one-loop $`\beta `$function

$$\beta _{\mathrm{pert}}(\lambda )=\frac{3\lambda ^2}{16\pi ^2}+𝒪(\lambda ^3)$$
(1.1)
and integrates the differential equation

$$\frac{dx}{x}=\frac{d\lambda }{\beta (\lambda )}$$
(1.2)
between a fixed energy scale $`x=\mu `$ and the ‘Landau pole’ $`x=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`\lambda (x)=+\mathrm{}`$. In this way, at energy scales $`𝒪(\mu )`$, the theory is governed by a 1PI 4-point function

$$\lambda \lambda (\mu )=\frac{32\pi ^2}{3\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}}$$
(1.3)
that would vanish in the continuum limit where the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ within all loop diagrams. In this picture, differently from the original renormalization-group approach where $`\lambda (\mu )`$ is changed along a given integral curve of Eq.(1.2) by changing $`\mu `$, one considers all possible integral curves at the same time. After that, one changes $`\lambda `$, at fixed $`\mu `$, depending on the magnitude of the Landau pole associated with the various integral curves. In this way, the ‘bare’ theory is always defined in the infinite-coupling limit, i.e. as in an Ising model. However, at any finite scale $`\mu `$, the continuum limit corresponds to a vanishingly small interaction strength so that perturbation theory in the small parameter $`\lambda (\mu )`$ should provide very accurate predictions for low-energy physical observables.

By adopting this view of ‘triviality’ in the spontaneously broken phase of $`(\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4)_4`$, the euclidean propagator for the Higgs particle should approach the form

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(q)\frac{Z_{\mathrm{prop}}}{q^2+M_h^2}$$
(1.4)
with a residue

$$Z_{\mathrm{prop}}=1|𝒪(\lambda )|1$$
(1.5)
consistent with the Källen-Lehmann decomposition that dictates the spectral function $`\rho _h(s)`$ to approach $`\delta (sM_h^2)`$ in the continuum limit of a ‘trivial’ theory.

This simple picture neglects, however, that the origin of spontaneous symmetry breaking is not necessarily of perturbative nature. Indeed, one may be faced with non-analytic $`1/\lambda `$ effects so that, even with an infinitesimal two-body interaction strength, there may be non-perturbative effects. To understand the possible implications, one should remember the case of superconductivity. This is due to the basic instability of a normal Fermi system in the presence of an infinitesimally small attractive interaction between electrons. Due to the presence of a very large density of quantum states near the Fermi surface, superconductivity is a non-perturbative phenomenon.

In the case of spontaneous symmetry breaking with an elementary scalar field the delicate issue concerns the limit $`q0`$ that requires some care in the case of a macroscopic occupation of the same quantum state, i.e. of Bose-Einstein condensation. Just for this reason, and contrary to the most naive expectations, the approach to the continuum limit in the spontaneously broken phase of $`(\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4)_4`$ theories may contain unexpected features. These are discovered whenever one takes seriously ‘triviality’ as a technical statement controlling the approach to the continuum theory and, thus, supporting the idea of a trivially free fluctuation field with a gaussian quantum measure for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. In fact, as pointed out in refs., assuming gaussian (and post-gaussian) ansatz for the ground state wave functional, one finds

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(0)}{M_h^2}=𝒪(1/\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda })0$$
(1.6)
once the zero-momentum two-point function is computed through the effective potential

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(0)\frac{d^2V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{d\varphi ^2}|_{\varphi =v}$$
(1.7)
As pointed out in refs., Eq. (1.6) requires a non-trivial re-scaling

$$ZZ_\varphi =𝒪(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{}$$
(1.8)
of the vacuum field $`\varphi `$

$$\varphi _R^2\frac{\varphi ^2}{Z_\varphi }$$
(1.9)
in order to match the quadratic shape of the effective potential with the physical mass $`M_h`$ defined from the $`q0`$ behaviour of the propagator

$$\frac{d^2V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{d\varphi _R^2}|_{\varphi _R=v_R}M_h^2.$$
(1.10)
As such, $`Z=Z_\varphi `$ is quite distinct from the ‘trivial’ re-scaling $`Z=Z_{\mathrm{prop}}`$ in Eq.(1.5), and one may obtain a continuum limit where, although $`M_h`$ vanishes in units of the bare $`v`$, both $`M_h`$ and $`v_R`$ are finite quantities (with potentially important implications for the commonly quoted upper bounds on the Higgs mass from ‘triviality’ ).

The result in Eq.(1.6) is also striking for the following reason. The euclidean value $`q=0`$ corresponds, indeed, to the single point $`(q_o,𝐪)=0`$ in the continuum theory. However, in the cutoff theory, Eq.(1.6) implies that there is a region of 3-momenta say $`𝐪^2𝒪(1/\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda })M_h^2`$ where the energy spectrum is not $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐪)=\sqrt{𝐪^2+M_h^2}`$. This region, although infinitesimal in units of $`M_h`$, can have a physical meaning (for $`M_h=𝒪(10^2)`$ GeV, think of the values $`|𝐪|10^5`$ eV/c corresponding to wavelengths much larger than 1 cm).

The previous result was obtained in the formalism of the gaussian ( and post-gaussian) approximations to the effective potential. In the next section, we shall outline a simple semi-perturbative argument that leads to the same conclusions and can help to understand in a more intuitive way the singular nature of the limit $`q0`$ when approaching the continuum theory from the broken phase.

## 2. A simple semi-perturbative calculation

Let us consider a one-component $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ theory

$$=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi })^2U(\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(2.1)
with a classical potential ($`\lambda >0`$)

$$U(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}m_B^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{\lambda }{4!}\mathrm{\Phi }^4$$
(2.2)
Classically, non-vanishing constant field configurations $`\varphi =\pm v`$ occur where $`U^{}(\pm v)=0`$. At these values, one gets a quadratic shape

$$U^{\prime \prime }(\pm v)=\frac{\lambda v^2}{3}M_h^2$$
(2.3)
that represents the well known classical result for the Higgs mass.

In the quantum theory, the question of vacuum stability is more subtle and one has to replace $`U(\varphi )`$ with the quantum effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )`$. However, the basic expectation is that the excitation spectrum of the broken phase will maintain the Lorentz-covariant form $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐪)=\sqrt{𝐪^2+M_h^2}`$ down to $`𝐪=0`$ so that $`M_h`$ should coincide with $`\stackrel{~}{E}(0)`$ that represents the energy-gap of the broken phase.

To check this prediction, let us consider the one-loop structure of the gap-equation for the euclidean two-point function

$$\stackrel{~}{G}^1(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(q)=q^2+m_B^2+\frac{\lambda \varphi ^2}{2}+\frac{\lambda }{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{G}(k)\frac{\lambda ^2\varphi ^2}{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{G}(k)\stackrel{~}{G}(k+q)$$
(2.4)
together with the vanishing of the one-loop tadpoles, i.e.

$$T(\varphi )m_B^2+\frac{\lambda \varphi ^2}{6}+\frac{\lambda }{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{G}(k)=0$$
(2.5)
Eqs.(2.4) and (2.5) can be understood, for instance, as coupled minimization equations of the effective potential for composite operators introduced by Cornwall, Jackiw and Tomboulis . As such, they are non-perturbative, being equivalent to the all-order resummation of one-loop graphs with the tree-level propagator in the external background field $`\varphi `$

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(q)_{\mathrm{tree}}=\frac{1}{q^2+m_B^2+\frac{\lambda \varphi ^2}{2}}$$
(2.6)
Notice that for $`\varphi 0`$, the gap-equation would also contain one-particle reducible terms (i.e. not contained in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(q)`$) proportional to the zero-momentum limit of the shifted field propagator $`\stackrel{~}{G}(0)`$. In this sense, by considering the 1PI gap-equation, we are assuming a non-singular zero-momentum limit, even for $`\varphi =\pm v`$ where $`\pm v`$ are the solutions of (2.5) and represent, to this order, the minima of the effective potential.

The possibility to solve simultaneously Eqs.(2.4) and (2.5), in the continuum limit of the regularized theory by using Eqs. (1.3) - (1.5), amounts to describe spontaneous symmetry breaking as a quantum phenomenon of vacuum instability consistently with (the intuitive interpretation of) rigorous quantum field theoretical results on $`(\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4)_4`$ theories.

By using (2.5) in (2.4) we get

$$\stackrel{~}{G}^1(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(q)=q^2+\frac{\lambda v^2}{3}A(q)$$
(2.7)
where

$$A(q)=1\frac{3\lambda }{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{G}(k)\stackrel{~}{G}(k+q)$$
(2.8)
Notice that a form of the propagator as in Eq.(1.4) can be a solution of Eq.(2.4) only if the coupling $`\lambda `$ is understood as an infinitesimally small quantity, i.e. as in Eq.(1.3) with $`\mu M_h`$. In this case, for $`G(q)\frac{1}{q^2}`$ at large euclidean $`q^2`$, one finds $`A(q)=A(0)+𝒪(1/\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and one indeed gets a form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(q)=q^2+const`$, up to terms vanishing in the continuum limit where $`\lambda 0`$. In this sense, renormalized perturbation theory should be considered an external input whose overall consistency with the all-order Eqs.(2.4) and (2.5) can only be checked a posteriori.

By using Eq. (1.4) in Eqs.(2.7) and (2.8) we obtain the leading-order expression

$$Z_{\mathrm{prop}}=\frac{1}{1+\frac{\lambda v^2}{3M_h^2}\frac{\lambda Z_{\mathrm{prop}}^2}{64\pi ^2}}$$
(2.9)
and the estimate of the Higgs mass

$$M_h^2=\frac{\lambda v^2Z_{\mathrm{prop}}}{3}(1\frac{3\lambda Z_{\mathrm{prop}}^2}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_h^2})$$
(2.10)
At this point we find a strong contradiction. Indeed, by using Eq. (1.3) and assuming (1.5) we obtain from (2.10)

$$M_h^2=𝒪(\lambda ^2v^2)$$
(2.11)
that when inserted in Eq.(2.9), does not produce a $`Z_{\mathrm{prop}}1`$ when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$.

It is true that in a more conventional fixed-order perturbative calculation one would tend to regard (2.10) as the first two terms in the expansion of the renormalized coupling constant at a scale $`M_h`$ (i.e. the renormalization-group improved version of the classical result (2.3)). However, this cannot work in our case for two reasons. First, as anticipated, Eqs.(2.4) and (2.5) resum one-loop graphs with the tree propagator (2.6) to all orders, so that our results cannot be considered fixed order calculations. Second, using the simple form of the propagator (1.4) to solve Eq.(2.4) requires an infinitesimal $`\lambda `$, as in (1.3). However, if one tries to improve on (2.4) and (2.5), by introducing genuine two-loop terms, the intuitive interpretation of ‘triviality’ based on Eqs.(1.1)-(1.5) is destroyed. This is due to the presence of a (spurious) ultraviolet fixed point at finite coupling in the two-loop perturbative $`\beta `$ function  so that, beyond a leading-order calculation, there are no reasons for the 1PI four point function $`\lambda (\mu )`$ to vanish in the continuum limit as in Eq.(1.3) and for Eqs. (1.4) and (1.5) to be valid.

The previous results suggest that, contrary to our assumption, either ‘triviality’ cannot be understood within leading-order perturbation theory, or one is faced with a singular $`\stackrel{~}{G}(0)`$ when $`\varphi =\pm v`$. Namely, a result $`M_h^2=𝒪(\lambda v^2)`$ from Eqs. (2.5) and (2.4), in order Eq.(2.9) to agree with (1.5), can only be obtained if there are one-particle reducible contributions to the propagator. These, at a generic value of $`\varphi `$, are proportional to the combination

$$R=T(\varphi )\stackrel{~}{G}(0)$$
(2.12)
and the case $`\varphi =\pm v`$ should be understood as a limiting procedure due to a possible divergence in $`\stackrel{~}{G}(0)`$. To this end, let us introduce $`\varphi ^2v^2(1+\delta )`$ with $`|\delta |1`$, and define

$$g\stackrel{~}{G}(0)\frac{\lambda v^2}{3}$$
(2.13)
Now a non vanishing $`R`$ requires

$$g\frac{1}{\delta }$$
(2.14)
implying that, at $`\varphi =\pm v`$ where $`\delta =0`$, there is a mode whose energy vanishes for $`𝐪0`$. For this reason, the energy-gap of the broken phase, obtained from $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐪)`$ for $`𝐪0`$, cannot be $`M_h`$.

## 3. The zero-momentum discontinuity

We believe that the discrepancy we have pointed out, is related to the subtleties of Bose-Einstein condensation  in an almost ideal gas  where there is a macroscopic occupation of the same quantum state. This phenomenon cannot be fully understood in a purely perturbative manner. However, as anticipated in the Introduction, the peculiarity of the zero-momentum limit is found in other approaches such as:

i) variational evaluations of the effective potential

ii) lattice computations of the propagator and of the zero-momentum susceptibility $`\chi ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(0)`$ in the broken phase . These show that Eq.(1.4), although valid at higher momenta, has non-perturbative corrections for $`q0`$. Indeed, these become larger and larger by approaching the continuum limit and therefore cannot represent perturbative $`𝒪(\lambda )`$ effects

Due to this qualitative agreement with other approaches, the semi-perturbative calculation of sect.2 can be considered a reasonably self-contained treatment of the basic zero-momentum discontinuity.

The discrepancy persists in the case of an O(N) continuous-symmetry $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ theory. To this end, one can check with a non-perturbative Gaussian effective-action approach . In this case, the minimization conditions of the gaussian effective potential provide suitable relations that replace the ‘triviality pattern’ Eqs.(1.3) and (1.5) and where the equivalent of $`T(\varphi )`$ plays the role of a mass term for the Goldstone bosons. By neglecting one-particle reducible contributions in the $`\sigma `$field propagator, one finds (N-1) massless fields with propagator $`D_\pi (q)=1/q^2`$ and a $`\sigma `$field two-point function of the type as in Eqs.(2.7) and (2.8). By following the steps of ref., it is not difficult to check that one gets in this way the same discrepancy as in sect.2 for the mass of the $`\sigma `$field. This can also be understood since, for the Goldstone bosons, the non-perturbative wave functional of ref. reproduces ‘triviality’ and is exact. In fact, it yields (N-1) non-interacting fields that decouple from each other and from the $`\sigma `$field. As a consequence, one gets effectively the same type of $`\sigma \sigma `$ interactions as in our discrete-symmetry case.

On the other hand, in the case of an O(N) continuous symmetry, the singular nature of the zero-momentum limit of the singlet-Higgs propagator is well known. It was first pointed out by Symanzik for the linear $`\sigma `$-model , and later on by Patashinsky and Pokrowsky  and Anishetty et al. .

Symanzik’s analysis for the $`\sigma `$ field, although purely perturbative, displays the essential features of the phenomenon, i.e. the perturbative contradiction between finite 1PI vertex diagrams and finite Green’s functions that introduces the zero-momentum discontinuity. Just for this reason, he introduced two different notations, namely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (0)M^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (q^2)(q^2+\overline{M}^2)`$, to emphasize that the limit $`q0`$ is not defined.

From ref., on the other hand, one can get a better feeling of what is actually going on. In fact, in the case of a spontaneously broken O(N) symmetry, the longitudinal susceptibility is found

$$\chi _{||}(𝐪)\frac{1}{|𝐪|}arctg\frac{|𝐪|}{2\kappa }$$
(3.1)
where

$$\kappa ^2(\varphi v)^2$$
(3.2)
Now, for any $`\varphi v`$, the limit $`𝐪0`$ yields a finite result. However, just in the case $`\varphi =v`$, $`\chi _{||}(𝐪)`$ becomes singular when $`𝐪0`$ as in our case.

Our results show no qualitative difference with respect to the continuous-symmetry case of ref. and, therefore, the agreement is not surprising. Indeed, the zero-momentum discontinuity does not depend on the existence of a continuous symmetry of the Lagrangian. Rather, its physical origin has to be searched in the presence of the scalar condensate, i.e. in the phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensation that leads to a gap-less mode and to a long-range $`1/r`$ potential .

This can be understood as follows. As discussed in refs., variational approximations to $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ describe spontaneous symmetry breaking as an infinitesimally weak first-order transition. This occurs when the mass-gap at $`\varphi =0`$, say $`0m^2m_c^2`$, is still positive, but in a ‘hierarchical’ relation

$$\frac{m^2}{M_h^2}=𝒪(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}})$$
(3.3)
with the mass scale of the broken phase .

As discussed in ref., the gap-less mode with $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐪)=const.|𝐪|`$ is associated with the infinitesimal region of momenta

$$𝐪^2\frac{M_h^2}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}}$$
(3.4)
that goes, indeed, into the single point $`(q_o,𝐪)=0`$ in the continuum limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. However, in the cutoff theory this region defines the non-relativistic limit $`|𝐪|m`$ where $`m`$ is the mass of the quanta in the condensate (see Eq. (3.3)).

In this regime, any scalar condensate, whatever its origin may be, is a highly correlated structure with long-range order due to the coherence effects associated with the phase of the non-relativistic condensate wave-function . Therefore, for $`𝐪0`$, the deviations from a Lorentz-covariant energy spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐪)=\sqrt{𝐪^2+M_h^2}`$ are not surprising.

Now, for $`M_h=𝒪(10^2)`$ GeV, it is a matter of taste to decide whether, for instance, values $`|𝐪|10^5`$ eV/c (corresponding to wavelengths much larger than 1 cm) may be considered infinitesimal or not. In the case of a positive answer, these deviations from exact Lorentz-covariance on such scales should be taken seriously. Indeed, as discussed in , the associated extremely weak $`1/r`$ potential does not disappear when coupling the scalar fields to gauge bosons.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The light current quark masses are baisc input of quantum chromodynamics(QCD). The inequality of the light quark masses, especially, $`m_um_d`$, breaks the isospin symmetry or charge symmetry. This breaking of isospin symmetry induces various measurable physics processes such as $`\pi ^0\eta `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ mixing and $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay etc. In this paper, we will focus on the $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay, which is considered as the important source of charge symmetry breaking in nuclear physics.

In ref.(we will quote it as $`𝐈`$ hereafter) we have shown that the chiral expansion at vector meson energy region converges slowly. Therefore, a well-defined effective field theory describing the physics in this energy region must be available for calculation on high order terms of the chiral expansion and meson loops. Obviously, method of chiral perturbative theory(ChPT) is impractical to cupature the high order term contribution because the number of free parameter increases very rapidly as perturbative order raising. In $`𝐈`$, following the spirit of Manohar-Georgi(MG) model, we have constructed chiral constituent quark model(ChCQM) including lowest vector meson resonances. The advatanges of this approach are that high order contribution of the chiral expansion and $`N_c^1`$ expansion can be calculated consistently, and only fewer free parameters are required. Low energy limit and unitarity of the model are also examined successfully. In particular, it is a attractive property that although the leading order theoretical prediction does not match with experimental data, larger contribution from high order of the chiral expansion and pseudoscalar meson one-loop corrects theoretical prediction close to data very much. It is just the characteristic of the chiral expansion in this energy region. Therefore, in this the present paper, we also need to calculate $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay to include all high order contribution and pseudoscalar meson one-loop correction.

This research is also motivated by the following reasons:

i) In the most recent references, the $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay was treated as being dominant via $`\rho `$-resonance exchange, and the direct $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ coupling is neglected. It has been pointed out in ref. that the neglect of $`\omega `$ “direct” coupling to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is not valid. It can be naturally understood since $`\pi \pi `$ can make up of vector-isovector system, whose quantum numbers are same to $`\rho `$ meson. Thus in an effective lagrangian based on chiral symmetry, every $`\rho `$ field can be replaced by $`\pi \pi `$ and does not conflict with symmetry. Although authors of ref. also pointed out that the present experimental data still can not be used to separate “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling from $`\omega \rho `$ mixing contribution in model-independent way, it is very interesting to perform a theorectical investigation on “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling contribution. We will show that the contribution from interfernce of “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling and $`\omega \rho `$ is about 15$`\%`$. Thus “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling can not be neglected indeed.

ii) The present study involves the investigation of $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing, which has been an active subject\[5–14\]. The mixing amplitude for on-mass-shell vector mesons has been observed directly in the measurement of the pion form-factor in the time-like region from the process $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. For roughly twenty years, $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing amplitude was assumed constant or momentum independt even if $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ have the space-like momenta, far from the on-shell point. Several years ago, this assumption was firstly questioned by Goldman et. al., and the mixing amplitude was found to be significantly momentum dependent within a simple quark loop model. Subsequently, various authors have argued such momentum dependence of the $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing amplitude by using various approaches. In particular, the authors of ref. has pointed out that $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing amplitude must vanish at $`q^2=0`$(where $`q^2`$ denotes the four-momentum square of the vector mesons) within a broad class of model. This point will be also exmined in ChCQM.

iii) It has been known that $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay amplitude receive the contribution from two sources: isospin symmetry breaking due to $`ud`$ quark mass difference and electromagnetic interaction. In I we have shown that VMD in meson physics is natural consequence of the present formlism instead of input. The vector $`e^+e^{}`$ decays are also predicted successfully. Therefore, the dynamics of electromagnetic interactions of mesons has been well established, and the calculation for $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay from the transition $`\omega \gamma \rho \pi \pi `$ and “direct” $`\omega \gamma \pi \pi `$ is straightforward. In this the present paper, we will pay our attention to isospin breaking due to $`m_um_d`$. It is another purpose of this paper to determine isospin breaking parameter $`\delta m_qm_dm_u`$ via $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. This parameter is urgently wanted by determination of light quark mass ratios.

The contents of the paper are organized as follows. In sect. 2 we review the basic notations of the chiral constituent quark model with the lowest vector meson resonances. In sect. 3, the tree level effective lagrangian, which including all order contribution of the chiral expansion, is obtained. The pseudoscalar meson one-loop corrections are calculated in sect. 5. In sect. 6, the formulas and numerical results of $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing amplitude and $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ are given. The sect. 7 is devoted to a brief summary.

## II Chiral Constituent Quark Model with Vector Meson

The simplest version of chiral quark model which was originated by Weinberg, and developed by Manohar and Georgi provides a QCD-inspired description on the simple constituent quark model. In view of this model, in the energy region between the chiral symmetry spontaneously broken (CSSB) scale and the confinement scale ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}0.20.3GeV`$), the dynamical field degrees of freedom are constituent quarks(quasi-particle of quarks), gluons and Goldstone bosons associated with CSSB(these Goldstone bosons correspond to lowest pseudoscalar octet). In this quasiparticle description, the effective coupling between gluon and quarks is small and the important interaction is the coupling between quarks and Goldstone bosons. In I we have further included the lowest vector meson resonances into this formlism. At chiral limit, this model is parameterized by the following chiral constituent quark lagrangian

$`_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{q}(/+/\mathrm{\Gamma }+g__A/\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _5i/V)qm\overline{q}q+{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{16}}<_\mu U^\mu U^{}>+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_0^2<V_\mu V^\mu >.`$ (1)
Here $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denotes trace in SU(3) flavour space, $`\overline{q}=(\overline{q}_u,\overline{q}_d,\overline{q}_s)`$ are constituent quark fields. $`V_\mu `$ denotes vector meson octet and singlet, or more convenience, due to OZI rule, they are combined into a singlet “nonet” matrix

$$V_\mu (x)=\lambda 𝐕_\mu =\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\rho _\mu ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\omega _\mu }{\sqrt{2}}& \rho _\mu ^+& K_\mu ^+\\ \rho _\mu ^{}& \frac{\rho _\mu ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\omega _\mu }{\sqrt{2}}& K_\mu ^0\\ K_\mu ^{}& \overline{K}_\mu ^0& \varphi _\mu \end{array}\right).$$
(2)
The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ are defined as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\xi ^{}(_\mu ir_\mu )\xi \xi (_\mu il_\mu )\xi ^{}\},`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\xi ^{}(_\mu ir_\mu )\xi +\xi (_\mu il_\mu )\xi ^{}\},`$ (4)
and covariant derivative are defined as follows

$`_\mu U`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu Uir_\mu U+iUl_\mu =2\xi \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \xi ,`$ (5)
$`_\mu U^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu U^{}il_\mu U^{}+iU^{}r_\mu =2\xi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi ^{},`$ (6)
where $`l_\mu =v_\mu +a_\mu `$ and $`r_\mu =v_\mu a_\mu `$ are linear combinations of external vector field $`v_\mu `$ and axial-vector field $`a_\mu `$, $`\xi `$ associates with non-linear realization of spontanoeusly broken global chiral symmetry introduced by Weinberg. This realization is obtained by specifying the action of global chiral group $`G=SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ on element $`\xi (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ of the coset space $`G/SU(3)__V`$:

$$\xi (\mathrm{\Phi })g_R\xi (\mathrm{\Phi })h^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=h(\mathrm{\Phi })\xi (\mathrm{\Phi })g_L^{},g_L,g_RG,h(\mathrm{\Phi })H=SU(3)__V.$$
(7)
Explicit form of $`\xi (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is usual taken

$$\xi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{exp}\{i\lambda ^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a(x)/2\},U(\mathrm{\Phi })=\xi ^2(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(8)
where the Goldstone boson $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ are treated as pseudoscalar meson octet. The compensating $`SU(3)__V`$ transformation $`h(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ defined by eq.( 3) is th wanted ingredent for a non-linear realization of G. In practice, we shall be interested in transformations of $`V_\mu ,\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ and constituent quark fields under $`SU(3)__V`$. The $`q,\overline{q}`$ transform as matter fields of SU(3)$`__V`$,

$$qh(\mathrm{\Phi })q,\overline{q}\overline{q}h^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(9)
The vector meson fields transform homogeneously under SU(3)$`__V`$

$$V_\mu h(\mathrm{\Phi })V_\mu h^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(10)
which was suggested by Weinberg and developed further by Callan, Coleman et. al.. Since under local G, the expilcit transformations of external vector and axial-vector fields are

$`l_\mu v_\mu a_\mu g_L(x)l_\mu g_L^{}(x)+ig_L(x)_\mu g_L^{}(x),`$ (11)
$`r_\mu v_\mu +a_\mu g_R(x)r_\mu g_R^{}(x)+ig_R(x)_\mu g_R^{}(x),`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ is SU(3)$`__V`$ is invariant field gradients and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ transforms as field connection of SU(3)$`__V`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu h(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu h^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }),\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu h(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu h^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })+h(\mathrm{\Phi })_\mu h^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(13)
Thus the lagrangian( 1) is invariant under $`G_{\mathrm{global}}\times G_{\mathrm{local}}`$.

The several remarks are need here. 1) Note that there is no kinetic term for vector meson fields in $`_\chi `$. Therefore, in this formlism the vector mesons are treated as composited fields of constituent equarks instead of fundamental fields. The dynamics of vector meson resonances will be generated via loop effects of constituent quarks. 2) Note that there is kinetic term of pseudoscalar mesons in $`_\chi `$. This is different from some other chiral quark models, in which there is no such term. Existing of this kinetic term is consistent with basic assumption of our model, because in this energy region, the dynamical field degrees of freedom are both constituent quarks and Goldstone bosons associated with CSSB. 3) In $`_\chi `$ the parameter $`g_A0.75`$ is determined by $`\beta `$ decay of neutron. It has been pointed out in I that this value has included effects of intermediate axial-vector resonances exchanges at low energy. In addition, the constituent quark mass parameter $`m480`$MeV has been fitted in I via low energy limit of the model. Such large value is requireed by convergence of chiral expansion at vector meson energy scale.

In this paper, we must go beyond chiral limit for obtaining isospin breaking results. The light current quark matrix $`=\mathrm{diag}\{m_u,m_d,m_s\}`$ can be usually included into external scalar fields, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=s+ip`$, where $`s=s_{ext}+`$, $`s_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ and $`p`$ are scalar and pseudoscalar external fields respectively. The chiral transformation for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }g_R\stackrel{~}{\chi }g_L^{}.$$
(14)
Thus together with $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ can form SU(3)$`__V`$ invariant scalar source $`\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{}+\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi `$ and pseudoscalar source $`(\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{}\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi )\gamma _5`$. Then current quark mass dependent lagrangian is written

$$\frac{1}{2}\overline{q}(\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{}+\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi )q\frac{\kappa }{2}\overline{q}(\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{}\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi )\gamma _5q.$$
(15)
The above lagrangian will return to QCD lagrangian $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ in absence of pseudoscalar mesons at high energy. So that there is a free parameter $`\kappa `$ which can not be determined by symmetry alonely. From viewpoint of phenomenology, this ambiguity is similar to Kaplan-Manohar ambiguity in ChPT. It will be studied at elsewhere so that we do not further discuss it here. In next section, rigorous calculation will show that our results in this paper is independent of $`\kappa `$.

To conclude this section, the ChCQM lagrangian including the lowest vector meson resonances and light current quark masses is

$`_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{q}(/+/\mathrm{\Gamma }+g__A/\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _5i/V)qm\overline{q}q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{q}(\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{}+\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi )q{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}\overline{q}(\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{}\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi )\gamma _5q`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{16}}<_\mu U^\mu U^{}>+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_0^2<V_\mu V^\mu >.`$
The effective lagrangian describing interaction of vector meson resonances will be generated via loop effects of constituent quarks.

## III Leading Order Effective Lagrangian in $`N_c^1`$ Expansion

In this section, we will derive relevant effective lagrangian via calculating one-loop diagrams of constituent quarks, which is at the leading order in $`N_c^1`$ expansion. In our calculation, the light current quark masses will be treated as perturbation and be expanded to the leading order. Pseudoscalar mesons which are localed in external line should satisfy soft pion theorem, i.e., $`k^20`$(where $`k^2`$ denotes the four-momentum square of pseudoscalar mesons). However, $`q^2`$ is the four-momentum square of vector mesons, and obviously it is not very small comparing with chiral symmetry spantoneously broken scale. Therefore, the higher order terms of $`q^2`$ in the chiral expansion, have significant contribution which can not be neglected. Or in the other words, the chiral expansion at vector meson energy scale converge slowly. We will rigorously calculate all $`q^2`$-dependent term contribution.

We start with constituent quark lagrangian( 1), and define vector external source $`\overline{V}_\mu ^a(a=0,1,\mathrm{},8)`$, axial-vector external source $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^a`$, scalar external source $`S^a`$ and pseudoscalar external source $`P^a`$ as follows

$`\overline{V}_\mu ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\lambda ^\alpha (V_\mu +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )>,\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\lambda ^a\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu >,`$ (18)
$`S^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}<\lambda ^a(\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{}+\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi )>,P^a={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4}}<\lambda ^a(\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{}\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi )>`$ (19)
(where $`\lambda ^1,\mathrm{},\lambda ^8`$ are SU(3) Gell-Mann matrices and $`\lambda ^0=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}`$). Then in lagrangian( 1), the terms associating with constituent quark fields can be rewritten as follow

$`_\chi ^q=\overline{q}(i/m)q+\overline{V}_\mu ^a\overline{q}\lambda ^a\gamma ^\mu q+ig_A\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^a\overline{q}\lambda ^a\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5qS^a\overline{q}\lambda ^aqP^a\overline{q}\lambda ^a\gamma _5q.`$ (20)
The effective action describing meson interaction can be obtained via integrating over degrees of freedom of fermions

$$e^{iS_{\mathrm{eff}}}𝒟\overline{q}𝒟qe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x_\chi (x)}}=<vac,out|in,vac>_{\overline{V},\mathrm{\Delta },S,P},$$
(21)
where $`<vac,out|in,vac>_{\overline{V},\mathrm{\Delta },S,P}`$ is vacuum expectation value in presence external sources. The above path integral can be performed explicitly, and heat kernal method has been used to regulate the result. However, this method is extremely difficult to compute very high order contributions in practice. In I we have provided an equivalent and efficient method to evaluate the effective action via calculating one-loop diagrams of constituent quarks directly. This method can capture all high order contributions of the chiral expansion.

In interaction picture, the equation( 21) is rewritten as follow

$`e^{iS_{\mathrm{eff}}}`$ $`=`$ $`<0|𝒯_qe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x_\chi ^\mathrm{I}(x)}}|0>`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}i{\displaystyle d^4p_1\frac{d^4p_2}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{}\frac{d^4p_n}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_n(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)\delta ^4(p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)}`$ (23)
$``$ $`i\mathrm{\Pi }_1(0)+{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_1}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{}\frac{d^4p_{n1}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Pi }_n(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1})},`$ (24)
where $`𝒯_q`$ is time-order product of constituent quark fields, $`_\chi ^\mathrm{I}`$ is interaction part of lagrangian( 20), $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_n(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ is one-loop effects of constituent quarks with $`n`$ external sources, $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n`$ are four-momentas of $`n`$ external sources respectively and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_n(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1})=d^4p_n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_n(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)\delta ^4(p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n).$$
(25)
To get rid of all disconnected diagrams, we have

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}S_n,`$ (26)
$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(0),`$ (27)
$`S_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_1}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{}\frac{d^4p_{n1}}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Pi }_n(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1})},(n2).`$ (28)
Hereafter we will call $`S_n`$ as $`n`$-point effective action.

The $`S_1`$ is tadpole-loop contribution of constituent quarks, which is independent of the purpose this paper. The two-point effective action $`S_2`$ has been evaluated in I,

$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^2}{16}}{\displaystyle d^4x<_\mu U^\mu U^{}>}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Pi }_2^V(q)},`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_2^V(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )<\overline{V}^\mu (q)\overline{V}^\nu (q)>,`$ (30)
where kinetic term of pseudoscalar mesons has been renormalized, and $`A(q^2)`$ is defined as follow

$`A(q^2)=g^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt(1t)\mathrm{ln}(1{\displaystyle \frac{t(1t)q^2}{m^2}}).`$ (31)
Here a universal constant of the model, $`g`$, is defined to absorbe logarithmic divergence from quark loop integral

$`g^2={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}})^{ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}).`$ (32)
In I we have fitted $`g\pi ^1\sqrt{N_c/3}`$ which satisfy the first KSRF sum rule rigorously.

### A Three-point effective action

Up to the leading order of light current quark masses, there are three kinds of three-point effective action. They are made up of by external sources $`\overline{V}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\overline{V}\overline{V}S`$ and $`\overline{V}\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ respectively. The effective action with external source $`\overline{V}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has been obtained in I,

$`S_3^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}B(q^2)q^\mu <\overline{V}^\nu (q)[\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (x),\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (x)]>},`$ (33)
where

$`B(q^2)=g^2`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dt_1t_1{\displaystyle _0^1}dt_2(1t_1t_2)[1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{m^2t_1(1t_1)(1t_2)q^2}}`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_1(1t_1)(1t_2)q^2}{m^2}})].`$ (35)
Let us now calculate three-point effective action with external source $`\overline{V}\overline{V}S`$. Note that since $`\overline{V}_\mu =V_\mu +ie𝒬A_\mu +i\pi _\mu \pi +\mathrm{}`$, for $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing or $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling vertices, scalar external source $`S`$ will reduce to constant matrix.

$`iS_3^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4z\overline{V}_\mu ^a(x)\overline{V}_\nu ^b(y)S^c<0|T\{\overline{q}(x)\gamma ^\mu \lambda ^aq(x)\overline{q}(y)\gamma ^\nu \lambda ^bq(y)\overline{q}(z)\lambda ^cq(z)\}|0>}`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}<\overline{V}_\mu (q)\overline{V}_\nu (q)S>Tr_{(c,L)}\{S_F(l)\gamma ^\nu S_F^2(l+q)\gamma ^\mu \}},`$ (37)
where $`Tr_{(c,L)}`$ denotes trace taking over color and Lorentz space, $`S_F(k)=i(/km+iϵ)^1`$ is propagator of constituent quark fields in momentum space. The direct calculation will give

$`S_3^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2m}}{\displaystyle d^4x\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}h_0(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )<\overline{V}^\mu (q)\overline{V}^\nu (x)S(x)>}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{24\pi ^2m}}{\displaystyle d^4x\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}h_0(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )<\overline{V}^\mu (q)\overline{V}^\nu (x)(\xi \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\xi +\xi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi ^{})>},`$ (39)
where

$`h_0(q^2)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{6t(1t)}{1t(1t)q^2/m^2}}.`$ (40)
Next, we calculate three-point effective action with external source $`\overline{V}\mathrm{\Delta }P`$.

$`iS_3^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_A{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4z<0|T\{\overline{q}(x)\gamma ^\mu \lambda ^aq(x)\overline{q}(y)\gamma ^\nu \gamma _5\lambda ^bq(y)\overline{q}(z)\gamma _5\lambda ^cq(z)\}|0>\overline{V}_\mu ^a(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^b(y)P^c(z)}`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`g_A{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}}\{<\overline{V}_\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (k)P(qk)>Tr_{(c,L)}[S_F(l)\gamma ^\nu \gamma _5S_F(lk)\gamma _5S_F(l+q)\gamma ^\mu ]`$ (43)
$`+<\overline{V}_\mu (q)P(qk)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (k)>Tr_{(c,L)}[S_F(l)\gamma ^\mu S_F(lq)\gamma _5S_F(l+k)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5]\}.`$
Due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu _\mu \pi +\mathrm{}`$ and $`P\pi +\mathrm{}`$, for purpose of this paper, the soft pion theroem tell us $`k^20`$ and $`(k+q)^20`$. In addition, we can find that $`k_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu (k)k^2\pi (k)0`$. Then performing the loop-integral in eq.( 41), and employing the above discussion in our calculation, we obtain

$`S_3^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_cm}{4\pi ^2}}g_A{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\{\alpha _1(q^2)<[\overline{V}_\mu (q),\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu (k)]P(kq)>`$ (45)
$`+\alpha _2(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )<[\overline{V}^\nu (q),\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)]P(kq)>\},`$
where

$`\alpha _1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}})^{ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}){\displaystyle _0^1}dt_1{\displaystyle _0^1}dt_2\{2t_1\mathrm{ln}(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_1(1t_1)(1t_2)q^2}{m^2}})`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{t_1t_2(1t_1)q^2}{m^2t_1(1t_1)(1t_2)q^2}}\},`$
$`\alpha _2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{2t_1(1t_1)}{m^2t_1(1t_1)(1t_2)q^2}}.`$ (48)
The third three-point effective action $`S_3^{(3)}`$ is $`O(m_q)`$ and free parameter $`\kappa `$-dependent. However, if $`\overline{V}_\mu =\omega _\mu `$, $`S_3^{(3)}`$ vanish, and if $`\overline{V}_\mu =\rho _\mu ^0\lambda ^3`$, $`S_3^{(3)}`$ provide an isospin conservation $`\rho \pi \pi `$ vertex which is order $`m_u+m_d`$ and much smaller that leading order vertex. Thus the contribution from $`S_3^{(3)}`$ will be omitted in this paper.

### B Four-point effective action

There is only one four-point effective action relating to $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. It is made up of by four external source $`\overline{V}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }S`$. As shown in the above subsection, here $`S`$ reduces to a constant matrix.

$`iS_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4zd^4w\overline{V}_\mu ^a(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^b(y)\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^c(z)S^d(w)}`$ (50)
$`\times <0|T\{\overline{q}(x)\gamma ^\mu \lambda ^aq(x)\overline{q}(y)\gamma ^\nu \gamma _5\lambda ^bq(y)\overline{q}(z)\gamma ^\sigma \gamma _5\lambda ^cq(z)\overline{q}(w)\lambda ^dq(w)\}|0>`$
$`=`$ $`g_A^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}}`$ (54)
$`\times \{<\overline{V}_\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (k)\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (kq)S>Tr_{(c.L)}[S_F^2(l)\gamma ^\mu S_F(lq)\gamma ^\nu \gamma _5S_F(lqk)\gamma ^\sigma \gamma _5]`$
$`+<\overline{V}_\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (k)S\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (kq)>Tr_{(c.L)}[S_F(l+q+k)\gamma ^\mu S_F(l+k)\gamma ^\nu \gamma _5S_F^2(l)\gamma ^\sigma \gamma _5]`$
$`+<\overline{V}_\mu (q)S\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (k)\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (kq)>Tr_{(c.L)}[S_F(l+q)\gamma ^\mu S_F^2(l)\gamma ^\nu \gamma _5S_F(lk)\gamma ^\sigma \gamma _5]\}.`$
To perform integral of four-momenta $`l`$ in the above equation and employ indentities in Appendix to simplify result, we can obtain

$`S_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2m}}g_A^2{\displaystyle d^4x\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}(\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\sigma \delta _{\mu \sigma }q_\nu )}`$ (56)
$`\times \{h_1(q^2)<\{\overline{V}^\mu (q),S(x)\}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x)>+h_2(q^2)<\overline{V}^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (x)S(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x)>\},`$
where

$`h_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t_1t_1^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t_2(1t_2){\displaystyle \frac{32t_1^2t_2(1+2t_1)(1t_2)q^2/m^2}{[1t_1^2t_2(1t_2)q^2/m^2]^2}},`$ (57)
$`h_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t_1t_1^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t_2(1t_2){\displaystyle \frac{4(1t_1)[34t_1^2t_2(1t_2)q^2/m^2]}{[1t_1^2t_2(1t_2)q^2/m^2]^2}}.`$ (58)
### C Relevant effective vertices at tree level

In the following we will give all relevant effective vertice at tree level. Since one-loop correction of pseudoscalar mesons will be calculated, we also need to include four-pseudoscalar meson vertices, which will be derived from $`O(p^4)`$ effective lagrangian of this formlism. The effective vertices involving electromagnetic interaction have been calculated up to one-loop level in I. We will quote them in sect. 5 directly. All effective vertices can be divided into two part: one is isospin conservation and anthor is isospin broken. In addition, we should point out that, so far, all meson fields are still non-physical. The physical meson fields can be obtained via the following field rescaling which make kinetic terms of pseudoscalar mesons and vector mesons into standard form

$`\rho _\mu ^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\rho _\mu ^0,\omega _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\omega _\mu ,`$ (59)
$`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{2}{f_\pi }}\pi ,K{\displaystyle \frac{2}{f_\pi }}K.`$ (60)
Since in this paper $`K`$-mesons only appear as intermediate states in one-loop diagrams, for sake of convenience, we neglect the difference between $`f_\pi `$ and $`f_K`$(since the results yielded by this difference are twofold suppressed by light current quark mass expansion and $`N_c^1`$ expansion).

The $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing vertex, which breaks isospin symmetry, is included in eq.( 38)

$`_{\omega \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2g^2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}h_0(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(x)<\lambda ^3(\xi \xi +\xi ^{}\xi ^{})>}`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi ^2g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}h_0(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(x)}+\mathrm{}.`$ (62)
The isospin symmetry unbroken vector$`\phi \phi `$ vertex is included in eqs.( 29) and ( 33)

$`_{V\phi \phi }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}=2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}b(q^2)q_\mu <V_\nu (q)[\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu ,\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu ]>},`$ (63)
where

$$b(q^2)=\frac{1}{gf_\pi ^2}[A(q^2)+g_A^2B(q^2)].$$
(64)
The isospin symmetry broken vector$`\phi \phi `$ vertex is include in eqs.( 38) and ( 56)

$`_{V\phi \phi }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2mg}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}(\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\sigma \delta _{\mu \sigma }q_\nu )}`$ (67)
$`\times \{[h_0(q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_A^2h_1(q^2)]<\{\overline{V}^\mu (q),\xi \xi +\xi ^{}\xi ^{}\}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (x)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x)>`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_A^2h_2(q^2)<\overline{V}^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (x)(\xi \xi +\xi ^{}\xi ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x)>\}.`$
In particular, define

$$s(q^2)=\frac{4}{gf_\pi ^2}[h_0(q^2)+\frac{3}{4}g_A^2(h_1(q^2)\frac{h_2(q^2)}{2})],$$
(68)
we have

$`_{\rho ^0\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}b(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\rho ^{0\mu }(q)[\pi ^+(x)^\nu \pi ^{}(x)^\nu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)]}`$ (69)
$`_{\omega \pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}s(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)}`$ (71)
$`\times [\pi ^+(x)^\nu \pi ^{}(x)^\nu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)]`$
$`_{\rho ^0KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}b(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\rho ^{0\mu }(q)}`$ (72)
$`\times `$ $`\{[K^+(x)^\nu K^{}(x)^\nu K^+(x)K^{}(x)][K^0(x)^\nu \overline{K}^0(x)^\nu K^0(x)\overline{K}^0(x)]\}`$ (73)
$`_{\rho ^0KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}s(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\rho ^{0\mu }(q)}`$ (74)
$`\times `$ $`\{[K^+(x)^\nu K^{}(x)^\nu K^+(x)K^{}(x)]+[K^0(x)^\nu \overline{K}^0(x)^\nu K^0(x)\overline{K}^0(x)]\}`$ (75)
$`_{\omega KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}b(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)}`$ (76)
$`\times `$ $`\{[K^+(x)^\nu K^{}(x)^\nu K^+(x)K^{}(x)]+[K^0(x)^\nu \overline{K}^0(x)^\nu K^0(x)\overline{K}^0(x)]\}`$ (77)
$`_{\omega KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}s(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)}`$ (78)
$`\times `$ $`\{[K^+(x)^\nu K^{}(x)^\nu K^+(x)K^{}(x)][K^0(x)^\nu \overline{K}^0(x)^\nu K^0(x)\overline{K}^0(x)]\}`$ (79)
Up to $`O(p^4)`$, the tree level four-pseudoscalar meson effective lagrangian has been derived in I. The isospin symmetry unbroken four-pseudoscalar vertex is included in the following lagrangian

$`_{4\phi }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi ^2}{16}}<_\mu U^\mu U^{}>+{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12(4\pi )^2}}<_\mu U_\nu U^{}_\mu U_\nu U^{}>`$ (81)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12(4\pi )^2}}(1g_A^4)<_\mu U^\mu U^{}_\nu U^\nu U^{}>,`$
where we have used $`g^2=N_c/(3\pi ^2)`$. The isospin symmetry broken four-pseudoscalar vertex is proportional to $`m_dm_u`$, which is included in the following lagrangian

$`_{4\phi }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}={\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi ^2}{8}}B_0<(U+U^{})>+{\displaystyle \frac{N_cm}{(4\pi )^2}}g_A^2<_\mu U^\mu U^{}(U^{}+U)>.`$ (82)
I can be found that the eqs.( 61)-( 82) are free parameter $`\kappa `$ independent. Moreover, we can see that every vector$`\phi \phi `$ in eq.( 69) includes an antisymmetry factor $`(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )`$(where $`q_\mu `$ denotes four-momenta of vector mesons). Thus the first term of eq.( 82) does not contribute to $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay via pseudoscalar meson loops. This antisymmetry factor also constrains that the vertices with one of factors $`K\overline{K}`$, $`_\mu K^\mu \overline{K}`$ and $`K^2\overline{K}`$ do not contribute to $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay via pseudoscalar meson loops. Then the relevant four-pseudoscalar vertices can explicitly read as follows,

$`_{4\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{f_\pi ^2}}(\pi ^+_\mu \pi ^{})(\pi ^+^\mu \pi ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c}{3\pi ^2f_\pi ^4}}_\mu \pi ^+_\nu \pi ^{}[^\mu \pi ^+^\nu \pi ^{}(1g_A^4)^\mu \pi ^{}^\nu \pi ^+],`$ (83)
$`_{KK\pi \pi }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{f_\pi ^2}}(K^+_\mu K^{}+_\mu K^0\overline{K}^0)\pi ^+^\mu \pi ^{}`$ (85)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c}{3\pi ^2f_\pi ^4}}(_\mu K^+_\nu K^{}+_\nu K^0_\mu \overline{K}^0)[2^\mu \pi ^+^\nu \pi ^{}(1g_A^4)^\mu \pi ^{}^\nu \pi ^+],`$
$`_{KK\pi \pi }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16N_c}{\pi ^2f_\pi ^4}}g_A^2m(m_uK^+_\mu K^{}m_dK^0_\mu \overline{K}^0)\pi ^+^\mu \pi ^{}.`$ (86)
## IV One-loop Corrections of Pseudoscalar Mesons

In this section we calculate one-loop correction of mesons. Because of $`m__V^2>m__K^2>>m_\pi ^2`$, it can be expected that the dominant contribution comes from one-loop digrams of pseudoscalar mesons. In addition, we can treat pion as massless particle but must take $`m__K^20`$. This difference is very important, since $`\pi `$-loop yields imaginary part of $`𝒯`$-matrix but $`K`$-loop does not at $`m_\omega `$ scale. In our calculation, the mass difference between $`K^\pm `$ and $`K^0`$ is also neglected.

There are three kinds of one-loop diagrams correcting to “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ couping and $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing(fig. 1 and fig. 2).

It must be pointed out that, in $`𝒯`$-matrices yielded by figure 1-(b) and figure 2-(b), the contribution of imaginary part is dominant. We have shown in I that it can not ensure unitarity of $`S`$-matrix if we only calculate figure 1-(b) and figure 2-(b). The unitarity can be ensured through summing over all diagrams in chain approximation(fig. 3 and fig. 4).

### A Tadpole diagram

Since pion is treated as massless particle, the nonzero tadpole diagram contribution is yielded by $`K`$ or $`\eta _8`$ mesons(fig. 1-(a) and fig. 2-(a)). For sake of convenience, here we assume $`m_{\eta _8}=m__K`$.

Correction to $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing

The tree level $`\omega \rho ^0\phi \phi `$ is contained in eq.(35),

$`_{\omega \rho ^0\phi \phi }={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2g^2f_\pi ^2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}h_0(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(x)<\lambda ^3(\phi ^2+\phi ^2+\phi \phi )>}.`$ (87)
In momentum space, the calculation on fig. 2-(a) is straighforward

$`_{\omega \rho ^0}^{(tad)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2g^2f_\pi ^2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}h_0(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(x)}`$ (89)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2m__K^2+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=4}{\overset{8}{}}}<\lambda ^3(\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\lambda ^a\lambda ^a)>.`$
The generators $`\lambda ^a`$ of SU(N) obey the completeness relations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N^21}{}}}<\lambda ^aA\lambda ^aB>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}<AB>+2<A><B>,`$ (90)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N^21}{}}}<\lambda ^aA><\lambda ^aB>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}<AB>{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}<A><B>.`$ (91)
Then we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=4}{\overset{8}{}}}<\lambda ^3(\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\lambda ^a\lambda ^a)>={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}<\lambda ^3>={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}(m_um_d).`$ (92)
Substituting eq.( 92) into eq.( 89) and performing loop integral, we obtain

$`_{\omega \rho ^0}^{(tad)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi ^2g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}h_0(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(x)},`$ (93)
where

$$\zeta =\frac{2\lambda }{(4\pi )^2}\frac{m__K^2}{f_\pi ^2},\lambda =(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m__K^2})^{ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2}).$$
(94)
Here we define a constant $`\lambda `$ to absorbe quadratic divergence from meson loop integral. Its value has been determined as $`\lambda =2/3`$ in I by OZI rule.

Correction to “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ mixing

The isospin symmetry broken $`\omega `$-4$`\phi `$ couping vertex is included in eq.( 67). Expanding eq.( 67) to contain four pseudoscalar meson fields, we can obtain

$`_{\omega \pi \pi }^{(tad)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2f_\pi ^2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}s(q^2)(\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\sigma \delta _{\mu \sigma }q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i}{k^2m__K^2+iϵ}}`$ (97)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{a=4}{\overset{8}{}}}\{<I_2(^\nu \pi \lambda ^a[\lambda ^a,^\sigma \pi ]+\lambda ^a[\lambda ^a,^\nu \pi ]^\sigma \pi )>`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<I_2^\nu \pi ^\sigma \pi (\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\lambda ^a\lambda ^a)>\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}s(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)}`$ (99)
$`\times [\pi ^+(x)^\nu \pi ^{}(x)^\nu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)],`$
where $`I_2=\mathrm{diag}\{1,1,0\}`$, $`s(q^2)`$, to see eq.( 68) and eq.( 90) has been used.

### B $`K`$-loop contribution

Here $`K`$-loop denotes that one-loop diagrams in fig.1-(c) and fig.2-(c). In this subsection, $`T`$ will denote time-order product of $`K`$-meson field.

Correction to $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing

The $`\omega \rho ^0`$ effective action yielded by $`K`$-loop is follow

$`iS_{\omega \rho }^{(Kloop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y<0|T\{_{\rho KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}(x)_{\omega KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}(y)+_{\rho KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}(x)_{\omega KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}(y)\}|0>}`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}b(q^2)s(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )(q^2\delta _{\alpha \beta }q_\alpha q_\beta )}`$ (102)
$`\times \omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\alpha }(q)(l+q)^\nu l^\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_K(l)\mathrm{\Delta }_K(l+q),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(l)=i(l^2m__K^2+iϵ)^1`$ is propagator of $`K`$-meson. Integrating over $`l_\mu `$ in the above equation and defining

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\{\lambda (m__K^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{6}})+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t[m__K^2t(1t)q^2]\mathrm{ln}(1{\displaystyle \frac{t(1t)q^2}{m__K^2}})\},`$ (103)
we have

$`S_{\omega \rho }^{(Kloop)}={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}b(q^2)s(q^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2)q^2(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(q)}.`$ (104)
The corresponding effective lagrangian read

$`_{\omega \rho }^{(Kloop)}={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}b(q^2)s(q^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2)q^2(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(x)}.`$ (105)
Correction to “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ couping

The “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ couping effective action yielded by $`K`$-loop can be evaluated as follow

$`iS_{\omega \pi \pi }^{(Kloop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y<0|T\{_{\rho KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}(x)_{\pi \pi KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}(y)+_{\rho KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=1)}(x)_{\pi \pi KK}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }I=0)}(y)\}|0>}`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}[16m^2f_\pi ^2b(q^2)\frac{2}{3}s(q^2)\frac{(3g_A^4)N_c}{18\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}q^2s(q^2)]}`$ (108)
$`\times (q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )(kl)l^\nu \omega ^\mu (q)\pi ^+(qk)\pi ^{}(k)\mathrm{\Delta }_K(l)\mathrm{\Delta }_K(l+q)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}[8m^2f_\pi ^2b(q^2)\frac{1}{3}s(q^2)(1+\frac{q^2N_c}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2})]\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2)}`$ (110)
$`\times (q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )k^\nu \omega ^\mu (q)\pi ^+(qk)\pi ^{}(k),`$
where we have taken soft pion limit and $`3g_A^43`$ due to $`g_A^40.3`$. The corresponding effective lagrangian reads

$`_{\omega \pi \pi }^{(Kloop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{2\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}[8m^2f_\pi ^2b(q^2)\frac{1}{3}s(q^2)(1+\frac{q^2N_c}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2})]\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2)}`$ (112)
$`\times (q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)[\pi ^+(x)^\nu \pi ^{}(x)^\nu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)].`$
### C Chain contribution of $`\pi `$-loop

Finally, we calculate chain approximation corrections of $`\pi `$-loop in fig. 3 and fig. 4.

Correction to “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling

The effective action yielded by $`\pi `$-loop in fig. 1-(b) is evaluated as follow

$`iS_{\omega \pi \pi }^{(\pi loop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y<0|T\{_{\omega \pi \pi }(x)_{4\pi }(y)\}|0>}`$ (113)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4N_c}{3\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}s(q^2)(1+\frac{q^2N_c}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2})(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )}`$ (115)
$`\times (lk)l^\nu \omega ^\mu (q)\pi ^+(qk)\pi ^{}(k)\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (l)\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (l+k),`$
where we have employed soft pion limit and $`g_A^43`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi (l)=i(l^2+iϵ)^1`$ is propagator of pion. Integrating over $`l`$ in the above equation and defining

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(4\pi )^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{6}}+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt(1t)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t(1t)q^2}{m__K^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}Arg(1)\theta (q^24m_\pi ^2)\},`$ (116)
we have

$`S_{\omega \pi \pi }^{(\pi loop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c}{3\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}s(q^2)(1+\frac{q^2N_c}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2})\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2)}`$ (118)
$`\times (q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )k^\nu \omega ^\mu (q)\pi ^+(qk)\pi ^{}(k).`$
In eq.( 116), $`Arg(1)=\pi `$ has been fitted in I due to requirement of unitarity. The corresponding effective lagrangian reads

$`_{\omega \pi \pi }^{(\pi loop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{3\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}s(q^2)(1+\frac{q^2N_c}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2})\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2)}`$ (120)
$`\times (q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)[\pi ^+(x)^\nu \pi ^{}(x)^\nu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)].`$
Comparing eq.( 120) and tree level vertex( 69), we can find that every one-loop in fig.3 contributes a factor

$`\mathrm{\Xi }(q^2)=4f_\pi ^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2N_c}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}})\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2).`$ (121)
Thus summing over all diagrams in fig. 3, we obtain

$`_{\omega \pi \pi }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}\frac{s(q^2)}{1+\mathrm{\Xi }(q^2)}(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)[\pi ^+(x)^\nu \pi ^{}(x)^\nu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)]}.`$ (122)
Correction to $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing

If in fig. 2-(b), tree level vertex $`_{\omega \pi \pi }`$ is replaced by $`_{\omega \pi \pi }^{}`$ which contains all diagram contribution in fig. 3, then summing tree diagram and fig. 2-(b) is just chain approximation correction to $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing. The effective action yielded by $`\pi `$-loop in fig. 2-(b) is evaluated as follow

$`iS_{\omega \rho }^{(\pi loop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y<0|T\{_{\omega \pi \pi }^{}(x)_{\rho \pi \pi }(y)\}|0>}`$ (123)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}b(q^2)s(q^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2)\frac{q^2(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )}{1+\mathrm{\Xi }(q^2)}\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(q)}.`$ (124)
Thus chain approximation of fig. 4 yield effective lagrangian as follow

$`_{\omega \rho }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}\{g^2h_0(q^2)\frac{q^2}{(1+\mathrm{\Xi }(q^2))}b(q^2)s(q^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2)\}(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q^2)\rho ^{0\nu }(x)}.`$ (125)
## V $`\omega \rho ^0`$ Mixing and $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ Decay

Due to VMD, the eleectromagnetic interaction contributes to $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay through $`\omega \gamma \rho ^0\pi \pi `$ and $`\omega \gamma \pi \pi `$. In I we have evaluated $`\rho \pi \pi `$ vertex, $`\rho ^0\gamma `$ mixing vertex and “direct” $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ vertex up to one-loop level. The “direct” $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ vertex reads

$`_{\gamma \pi \pi }^c={\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}\overline{F}_\pi (q^2)A_\mu (q)[\pi ^+(x)^\mu \pi ^{}(x)^\mu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)]},`$ (126)
where $`A_\mu `$ is photon field, $`\overline{F}_\pi (q^2)`$ is nonresonant background part of pion form factor. Explicitly, $`\overline{F}_\pi (q^2)`$ reads

$`\overline{F}_\pi (q^2)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2b_\gamma (q^2)}{1+\mathrm{\Sigma }(q^2)}},`$ (127)
where

$`b_\gamma (q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b(q^2)}{2(1+3\zeta )}}D(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{C(q^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(q^2)}{1+11\zeta /3}},`$ (128)
$`C(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f_\pi ^2}}[A(q^2)+2g_A^2B(q^2)],`$ (129)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{f_\pi ^2}}[2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2)],`$ (130)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2C(q^2)}{1+11\zeta /3}}]\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(q^2),`$ (131)
$`D(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}\{\lambda +{\displaystyle _0^1}dxx(1x)\mathrm{ln}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{x(1x)p^2}{m__K^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{x(1x)p^2}{m__K^2}})^2]`$ (133)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}i\pi \theta (p^24m_\pi ^2)\}.`$
The complete $`\rho \pi \pi `$ vertex reads

$$_{\rho \pi \pi }^c=\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}g_{\rho \pi \pi }(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\rho ^{0\mu }(q)[\pi ^+(x)^\mu \pi ^{}(x)^\mu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)],$$
(134)
with

$$g_{\rho \pi \pi }(q^2)=\frac{b(q^2)}{(1+2\zeta )(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }(q^2))}.$$
(135)
Moreover, the complete $`\rho \gamma `$ mixing vertex reads

$$_{\rho \gamma }^c=\frac{1}{2}e\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}b_{\rho \gamma }(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\rho ^{0\mu }(q)A^\nu (x),$$
(136)
where

$$b_{\rho \gamma }(q^2)=\frac{A(q^2)}{g(1+\zeta )}f_\pi ^2b(q^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(q^2)}{1+2\zeta }[1+\frac{q^2b_\gamma (q^2)}{1+\mathrm{\Sigma }(q^2)}].$$
(137)
Thus due to VMD, the complete $`\omega \gamma `$ mixing vertex can be obtained directly

$$_{\omega \gamma }^{}=\frac{1}{6}e\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}b_{\rho \gamma }(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\rho ^{0\mu }(q)A^\nu (x).$$
(138)
Eqs.( 136) and ( 138) will lead to $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing at the order of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ through the transition process $`\omega \gamma \rho ^0`$, which is

$$_{\omega \rho }^{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}=\frac{1}{12}e^2\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}b_{\rho \gamma }^2(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(x).$$
(139)
In addition, eqs.( 126) and ( 138) also lead to “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ couping at the order of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ through the transition process $`\omega \gamma \pi \pi `$, which is

$`_{\omega \pi \pi }^{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}\overline{F}_\pi (q^2)b_{\rho \gamma }(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )}`$ (141)
$`\times \omega ^\mu (q)[\pi ^+(x)^\nu \pi ^{}(x)^\nu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)].`$
Eq.( 139) together with eqs.( 93), (105) and (125) give the complete $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing vertex as follow

$$_{\omega \rho }^c=\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\omega \rho }(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)\rho ^{0\nu }(x),$$
(142)
where vector meson fields have been normalized to physical fields, and

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\omega \rho }(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}\{g^2h_0(q^2)(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\zeta )+q^2b(q^2)s(q^2)[\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2)}{1+\mathrm{\Xi }(q^2)}}]\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \pi }{3}}b_{\rho \gamma }^2(q^2).`$ (143)
The complete “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ vertex can be obtained via summing eqs.(97), (112), (122) and (141),

$`_{\omega \pi \pi }^c`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iqx}g_{\omega \pi \pi }(q^2)(q^2\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )\omega ^\mu (q)[\pi ^+(x)^\nu \pi ^{}(x)^\nu \pi ^+(x)\pi ^{}(x)]}.`$ (144)
where all meson fields have been normalized to physical fields, and $`g_{\omega \pi \pi }(q^2)`$ is defined as follow

$`g_{\omega \pi \pi }(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_um_d}{m}}\{s(q^2)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Xi }(q^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\zeta )`$ (146)
$`6f_\pi ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2)[8m^2f_\pi ^2b(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{s(q^2)}{3}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2N_c}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}})]\}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha \pi }{3}}\overline{F}_\pi (q^2)b_{\rho \gamma }(q^2).`$
Thus G-parity forbidden $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ includes a nonresonant background contribution, eq.( 144), and $`\rho `$ resonance exchange contribution(eqs.( 134) and (142)). The decay width on $`\omega `$ mass-shell is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^5}{48\pi }}|{\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{\omega \rho }(m_\omega ^2)g_{\rho \pi \pi }(m_\omega ^2)}{m_\omega ^2m_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }}g_{\omega \pi \pi }(m_\omega ^2)|^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{m_\omega ^2}})^{3/2}.`$ (147)
Using the experimental data $`B(\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{})=(2.21\pm 0.30)\%`$ together with eq.( 147), we obtain

$$m_um_d=(3.9\pm 0.22)\mathrm{MeV}$$
(148)
at energy scale $`\mu m_\omega `$. Here the error bar is from the uncertainty in branch ratio of the process $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. In the standard way, the $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing amplitude is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\omega \rho }(q^2)}=<\omega |{\displaystyle d^4x_{\omega \rho }(x)}|\rho >\mathrm{\Pi }_{\omega \rho }(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`q^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{\omega \rho }(q^2).`$ (149)
The off-shell $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing amplitude is obviously momentum dependent, and vanished at $`q^2=0`$. This is consistent with the arguement by O’Connell et. al. in ref. that this mixing amplitude must vanish at the transition from time-like to space-like four momentum within a broad class of models. In addition, the value of isospin broken parameter( 148) leads on $`\omega `$ mass-shell $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing amplitude as follow

$$\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\omega \rho }(m_\omega ^2)=(3956\pm 280)\mathrm{MeV}^2,\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\omega \rho }(m_\omega ^2)=(1697\pm 130)\mathrm{MeV}^2.$$
(150)
In ref., the on-shell mixing amplitude has extracted from the $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ experimental data in a model-dependent way. In eq.( 150), the real part of on-shell mixing amplitude agree with result of ref.. The imaginary part, however, is much larger than one in ref. which is around $`300`$MeV<sup>2</sup>. It must be pointed out that, in ref. the author’s analysis bases on a model without “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling. Therefore, it is insignificant to compare the value of on-shell mixing amplitude of this the present paper with one of ref.. Fortunately, the ratio between $`\omega \pi \pi `$ decay amplitude and $`\rho \pi \pi `$ decay amplitude should be model-indenpendent. This value can test whether a model is right or not. The on-shell mixing amplitude in ref. yields

$$R_{\omega \rho }^{\mathrm{exp}}=\frac{<\pi ^+\pi ^{}|\omega >}{<\pi ^+\pi ^{}|\rho >}=(0.0060\pm 0.0009)+(0.0322\pm 0.0050)i.$$
(151)
The present paper predicts

$$R_{\omega \rho }=\frac{m_\omega ^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{\omega \rho }(m_\omega ^2)}{m_\omega ^2m_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }\frac{g_{\omega \pi \pi }(m_\omega ^2)}{g_{\rho \pi \pi }(m_\omega ^2)}=(0.0084\pm 0.0007)+(0.0331\pm 0.0021)i.$$
(152)
We can see that this theoretical prediction agree with experimental excellently.

Moreover, the follows have also been revealed in our studies of this paper:

i) If we take $`g_{\omega \pi \pi }(q^2)=0`$ in eq.( 147), we have $`B(\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{})=(2.56\pm 0.34)\%`$. So that the contribution from interference between “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling and $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing is about $`15\%`$. The dominant contribution are from $`\rho `$-resonance exchange. This conclusion indicates all pervious studies which without “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling are good approximation even though this neglect is an ad hoc assumption. However, in mechanism of $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ with “direct” $`omega\pi \pi `$ coupling, larger imagnary part of on-shell $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing amplitude is allowed, but it is not allowed in the mechnism without the direct couping.

ii) If we do not consider the contributions from one-loop diagrams of pseudoscalar mesons, i.e. setting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K(q^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (q^2)=0`$, we obtain $`B(\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{})=(2.86\pm 0.47)\%`$. Thus the contribution from one-loop of pseudoscalar mesons is about $`30\%`$ and can not be omitted. This conclusion is consistent with I. In addition, in this case, the on-shell $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing amplitude is about $`4700`$MeV<sup>2</sup>. So that we can see that the larger imagnary part of on-shell $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing amplitude is yielded by pseudoscalar meson loops. In I, we have shown that this larger imagnary part is required by the unitarity of this effective field theory.

## VI Summary

In this paper, we study G-parity forbidden $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay up to one-loop level of mesons. This process is yielded by isospin symmetry breaking due to $`m_um_d`$ and electromagnetic interaction of mesons. The decay amplitude contains two parts of contributions which are from “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ couping and $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing respectively. In the previous studies, the “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ couping is neglected. We show that the “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ couping and its interference with $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing contribute to on-shell decay amplitude about 15$`\%`$ only. It also interprets why the previous studies are good approximations even without “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ couping. We suggest that the decay amplitude ratio $`R_{\omega \rho }`$ should be model-independent, and our prediction agree with experimental data excellently.

The formula of $`\omega \rho ^0`$ mixing amplitude is also obtained. Since our calculation is beyond the chiral expansion(including all orders contribution of the chiral expansion) and one-loop contribution of pseudoscalar mesons is considered, the momentum-dependence of the off-shell mixing amplitude is very complicated. However, the mixing amplitude also vanishes at $`q^2=0`$. For case of on $`\omega `$ mass-shell, the mixing amplitude emerges larger imagnary which is from one-loop contribution of pion and is required by unitarity of this effective field theory.

In our calculation, all vertices are expanded to the leading order light current quark masses. At this order, the decay amplitude yielded by isospin broken is proportional to $`m_dm_u`$. The theorectical prediction of isospin breaking parameter is $`m_dm_u=(3.9\pm 0.22)`$MeV at energy scale $`\mu m_\omega `$. This value is important for determining light quark masses at vector meson energy scale.

Appendix

Here we provide some identities which are used in calculation on four-point effective action. In sect. 3.2 we have used $`q`$, $`k`$ and $`kq`$ to denote four-momentum square of external source $`\overline{V}_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma `$. For the purpose of this paper, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (k)`$ reduces to $`k_\nu \pi (k)`$. So that due to soft pion theorem we have $`k^20`$, $`(q+k)^20`$ and $`k_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu (k)0`$. Moreover, due to space-like condition of vector meson fields, $`q^\mu V_\mu (q)=0`$, we have

$`(\delta _{\mu \sigma }q_\nu +\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\sigma )<\{V^\mu (q),S\}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$ (153)
$`(\delta _{\mu \sigma }q_\nu +\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\sigma )<V^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)S\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$ (154)
$`q_\nu q_\sigma k_\mu <\{V^\mu (q),S\}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}q_\sigma \delta _{\mu \nu }<\{V^\mu (q),S\}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>,`$ (155)
$`q_\nu q_\sigma k_\mu <V^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)S\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}q_\sigma \delta _{\mu \nu }<V^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)S\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>,`$ (156)
$`k_\mu \delta _{\nu \sigma }<\{V^\mu (q),S\}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>q_\sigma \delta _{\mu \nu }<\{V^\mu (q),S\}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>,`$ (157)
$`k_\mu \delta _{\nu \sigma }<V^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)S\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>q_\sigma \delta _{\mu \nu }<V^\mu (q)\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu (k)S\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (kq)>,`$ (158)
The following integral identities are also used in our calculation

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y(1y){\displaystyle \frac{xy}{[l^2m^2+xy(1x)q^2]^4}}={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y(1y){\displaystyle \frac{(1x)}{[l^2m^2+xy(1x)q^2]^4}}`$ (159)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y(1y){\displaystyle \frac{x(12y)}{[l^2m^2+x^2y(1x)q^2]^4}}={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y(1y){\displaystyle \frac{(1x)}{[l^2m^2+x^2y(1x)q^2]^4}}.`$ (160)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is partially supported by NSF of China through C. N. Yang and the Grant LWTZ-1298 of Chinese Academy of Science.


text:
# Reorientation of Anisotropy in a Square Well Quantum Hall Sample

\[

## Abstract

We have measured magnetotransport at half-filled high Landau levels in a quantum well with two occupied electric subbands. We find resistivities that are isotropic in perpendicular magnetic field but become strongly anisotropic at $`\nu `$ = 9/2 and 11/2 on tilting the field. The anisotropy appears at an in-plane field, $`B_{ip}2.5`$ T, with the easy-current direction parallel to $`B_{ip}`$ but rotates by 90 at $`B_{ip}10`$ T and points now in the same direction as in single-subband samples. This complex behavior is in quantitative agreement with theoretical calculations based on a unidirectional charge density wave state model.

\]

A two-dimensional (2D) electron gas is an attractive system for many-body physics studies. A particularly rich variety of phenomena associated with strong interactions among electrons appears in the regime of the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) . During much of the last decade, studies of the FQHE have focused on even-denominator Landau level filling factors  such as the compressible $`\nu =1/2`$ state and the $`\nu =5/2`$ incompressible quantum Hall fluid. Most recently, strongly anisotropic transport has been observed in high quality GaAs/AlxGa1-xAs single heterojunctions  at filling factors $`\nu `$ = 9/2, 11/2, etc., and in 2D hole systems starting at $`\nu =5/2`$. In these experiments, the magnetoresistance shows a strong peak in one current direction and a deep minimum in the perpendicular current direction. Tilting the magnetic field away from the sample normal causes the high resistance direction to change from its original orientation to the in-plane magnetic field direction.

The origin of the magnetotransport anisotropy has not been firmly established yet. The most appealing interpretation suggests that the 2D electron gas spontaneously breaks the translational symmetry by forming a unidirectional charge density wave (UCDW), as predicted by Hartree-Fock theory . This idea has spurred much theoretical interest . Because of uncertainty about the reliability of this Hartree-Fock prediction, there has been a special emphasis  placed on tests of its ability to explain experimental results on “stripe” orientation in tilted magnetic fields. In particular, Jungwirth et al.  carried out detailed many-body RPA/Hartree-Fock calculations combined with a self-consistent local-spin-density-approximation (LSDA) description of one-particle states in experimental sample geometries. For the sample parameters of the traditional, single-interface specimens of Refs.  with a single electric subband occupied, the theory  gives stripes oriented perpendicular to the field, consistent with experiment.

A theoretical study  of UCDWs in parabolic quantum wells that have two subbands occupied in zero magnetic field, has predicted much more complex behavior of the UCDW state, including stripe states induced by an in-plane field and rotation of stripe orientation at critical in-plane field strengths. A comparison between theory and experiment in a geometry for which this intricate behavior occurs, constitutes an excellent test of the UCDW explanation of anisotropic transport in higher Landau levels. Since parabolic quantum wells are experimentally difficult to realize and suffer from poor mobility we, instead, chose a square well structure which is expected to exhibit similarly complex behavior, provided that more than one electric subband is occupied in zero field.

Our sample, detailed in Figure 1(c), consists of a 350Å wide GaAs quantum well bracketed between thick Al0.24Ga0.76As layers grown on a (100) GaAs substrate by MBE. Two Si delta-doping layers are placed symmetrically above and below the quantum well at a distance of 800Å. The specimen has a size of 5mm $`\times `$ 5mm and is contacted via eight indium contacts, placed symmetrically around the perimeter. The electron density is established after illuminating the sample with a red light-emitting diode at $``$4.2K and we measure an electron mobility of $`\mu `$ = 7 $`\times `$ 106 cm2/V s. The total electron density, $`n=4.6\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, is determined from low-field Hall data. The subband densities, $`n_1=3.3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 and $`n_2=1.3\times 10^{11}`$ /cm-2, are obtained by Fourier analysis of the low-field Shubnikov-de Haas oscillation. Their values coincide with the results of our numerical self-consistent LSDA calculation. All angular-dependent measurements were carried out at T = 40 mK in a top-loading dilution refrigerator equipped with an in-situ rotator  placed inside a 33T resistive magnet. A low-frequency ($``$ 7 Hz) lock-in technique at a current $`I`$ = 10 nA is used. We define the axis of rotation as the y-axis. Consequently, the in-plane field, $`B_{ip}`$, is along the x-axis when the sample is rotated. Therefore, $`R_{xx}`$ refers to “$`I`$ parallel to $`B_{ip}`$” and $`R_{yy}`$ refers to “$`I`$ perpendicular to $`B_{ip}`$.

Figure 1(a) shows an overview of magnetoresistance at zero-tilt. The shaded region highlights the transport features around $`\nu `$ = 9/2 and 11/2. The integer quantum Hall effect (IQHE) states at $`\nu =1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ and the FQHE states at $`\nu `$ = 2/3, etc. are clearly visible. Figure 1(b) shows the results of self-consistent LSDA calculations of Landau levels (measured from the bottom of the quantum well) in perpendicular magnetic field.

Figure 2 shows the $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{yy}`$ data for $`4<\nu <6`$ at four different tilt angles $`\theta `$ = 0, 41.2, 67.9, and 76.2. The tilt angle is determined using the shift of prominent QHE states, which depend only on the perpendicular magnetic field, $`B_{perp}=B\times `$ cos$`\theta `$.

In the absence of $`B_{ip}`$ ($`\theta `$ = 0), $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{yy}`$ show a peak at $`\nu `$ = 9/2 and a slight dip at $`\nu `$ = 11/2 and negligible anisotropy. The small difference in magnitude between $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{yy}`$ is probably a result of the different contacts involved in both measurements. This practically isotropic behavior of $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{yy}`$ is distinctively different from results  on single-subband, single-heterojunctions, where the states at $`\nu `$ = 9/2 and 11/2 are strongly anisotropic in the absence of $`B_{ip}`$. This lack of anisotropy in our sample has a simple interpretation. The diagram in Figure 1(b) indicates that the $`\nu `$ = 9/2 and 11/2 states are the $`\nu `$ = 3/2 state of the lowest Landau level (N=0) in the second quantum well subband (i=2). The $`\nu `$ = 3/2 state in single subband samples exhibits isotropic transport, which seems to carry over to the second subband. Yet, exceptional behavior develops on tilting the specimen.

At $`\theta =41.2^{}`$ the $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{yy}`$ traces are very different from those taken at zero field-tilt and different from each other. The $`\nu `$ = 9/2 and $`\nu `$ = 11/2 states are strongly anisotropic with the hard-axis perpendicular to $`B_{ip}`$ ($`R_{yy}`$) and the easy-axis parallel to $`B_{ip}`$ ($`R_{xx}`$). The direction of this tilt-induced anisotropy (TIA) is rotated by 90 as compared to the direction in traditional single-subband, single-heterojunction structures . As the tilt angle increases further, the $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{yy}`$ traces approach each other again at $`\theta 67.9^{}`$ rendering the transport nearly isotropic (Figure 2(c)). Beyond this angle the anisotropy reemerges but the hard-axis and easy-axis have traded places, as seen in Figure 2(d).

In Figures 3(a,b) we plot $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{yy}`$ at filling factors $`\nu `$ = 9/2 and 11/2 versus $`B_{ip}`$. Their general behavior is rather similar. Practically isotropic transport prevails in the range of $`0<B_{ip}<2`$ T, but there is a clear onset to anisotropy at $`B_{ip}2.5`$ T. The level of anisotropy rapidly increases, reaching its peak at $`B_{ip}5.0`$ T, whereupon the $`R_{xx}`$ and $`R_{yy}`$ values approach each other again and cross at $`B_{ip}10`$ T. For higher in-plane fields the transport is again anisotropic, but its direction has rotated by 90. Figures 3(c,d) show the anisotropy factor, defined as $`(R_{xx}R_{yy})/(R_{xx}+R_{yy})`$ and derived from the data of the panels above. They clearly depict the initially, practically isotropic behavior followed by a strong anisotropy that rotates direction by 90 at $`B_{ip}10`$ T. The direction of anisotropy in single-subband samples corresponds to the high $`B_{ip}`$ direction in our double-subband specimen.

We now turn to the analysis of correspondence between the measured TIA and the theory based on the UCDW picture. For an infinitely narrow electron layer the effective 2D Coulomb interaction, $`V(\stackrel{}{q})`$, reduces to $`e^{q^2\mathrm{}^2/2}/q(L_N(q^2/2))^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi e^2\mathrm{}/ϵ`$ where $`L_N(x)`$ is the Laguerre polynomial, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the wavevector, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the magnetic length, and $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric function. Starting from $`N=1`$, zeros of $`L_N(q^2/2)`$ occur at finite $`q=q^{}`$, producing a zero in the repulsive Hartree interaction at wave vectors where the attractive exchange interaction is strong. For the half-filled valence Landau level the corresponding UCDW state consists of alternating occupied and empty stripes of electron guiding center states with a modulation period $`2\pi /q^{}`$.

In finite-thickness 2D systems subjected to tilted magnetic fields, the dependence of the effective interaction on wavevector magnitude $`q`$ and orientation $`\varphi `$ relative to the in-plane field direction can be accurately approximated  by $`V(\stackrel{}{q})=V_0(q)+V_2(q)\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$. At $`B_{ip}=0`$, the isotropic term $`V_0(q)`$ has a wavevector-dependence similar to that of the effective interaction in the infinitely narrow 2D layer. The corresponding curve for the valence Landau level at $`\nu =9/2`$, shown in the top inset of Figure 4, has no zeros at finite $`q`$-vectors because the half-filled valence Landau level is the $`N=0`$ state of the second subband (as shown in detail in Figure 1(b)) . Hence, the UCDW state is not expected to form, consistent with the isotropic transport measured in perpendicular field.

Because of the finite thickness of the 2D system in our 350Å wide quantum well, the orbital effect of the in-plane field causes Landau levels emanating from different electric subbands to coincide, depending on the strength of $`B_{ip}`$. The in-plane field mixes electric and magnetic levels so the subband and orbit radius indices are no longer good quantum numbers. However, the effect of $`B_{ip}`$ near the level (anti)crossing can sometimes be viewed approximately as a transfer of valence electrons from the lowest ($`N=0`$) Landau level of the second subband to a higher ($`N>0`$) Landau level of the first subband. For filling factor $`\nu =9/2`$, such a circumstance occurs in our sample at $`B_{ip}3`$ T, as seen from the top and bottom insets of Figure 4. Indeed, $`V_0(q)`$ is only slightly modified at low in-plane fields, while a clear minimum develops for $`B_{ip}>3`$ T. As discussed above for the case of perpendicular magnetic field it is the minimum of the interaction energy at finite wavevector that opens the possibility for the formation of the UCDW state. The theoretical and experimental critical in-plane fields corresponding to the onset of the UCDW and TIA, respectively, are remarkably close.

The non-zero anisotropy coefficient $`V_2(q)`$ of the effective interaction at $`B_{ip}>0`$ is responsible for the non-zero UCDW anisotropy energy $`E_A`$, defined  as the total Hartree-Fock energy of stripes oriented parallel with $`B_{ip}`$ minus the total energy of stripes perpendicular to $`B_{ip}`$. The direction of the anisotropy results from a delicate competition between electrostatic and exchange contributions to $`E_A`$ and can be determined only by an accurate calculation which takes into account details of the experimental configuration. As shown in Figure 4, the stripes align parallel with $`B_{ip}`$ at low in-plane fields, consistent with the measured easy-current direction parallel with $`B_{ip}`$. The sign of the UCDW anisotropy energy changes at $`B_{ip}=10`$ T which coincides with the experimental critical field for the interchange of easy and hard current axes. This theoretical discussion of the $`\nu =9/2`$ state was found to apply for $`\nu =11/2`$ as well.

In conclusion, we have observed complex transport behavior in a two-subband QW at half-filled high Landau levels. Both the transition to an anisotropic transport state, at finite $`B_{ip}`$, and the rotation of the direction of anisotropy by 90 at higher $`B_{ip}`$ are explained quantitatively by the UCDW picture. The close agreement between complex experimental data and theoretical results leaves little doubt as to the origin of the observed transport anisotropies in high Landau levels.

We would like to thank E. Palm and T. Murphy for experimental assistance, and N. Bonesteel, R.R. Du, and K. Yang for useful discussion. A portion of this work was performed at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory which is supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-9527035 and by the State of Florida. The work at Indiana University was supported by NSF grant DMR-9714055, and at the Institute of Physics ASCR by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under grant 202/98/0085. D.C.T. and W.P. are supported by the DOE and the NSF.