text:
# Renormalization of relativistic baryon chiral perturbation theory and power counting

## I Introduction

Starting from the pioneering work of Weinberg in 1979 Weinberg:1979kz , effective field theory has evolved into one of the most important theoretical tools for investigating strong-interaction processes in the low-energy regime. The concept of spontaneous symmetry breakdown, leading to the appearence of massless Goldstone bosons with vanishing interactions in the zero-energy limit, was already well-known in the beginning of the 1960s Nambu:xd ; Nambu:tp ; Goldstone:eq ; Goldstone:es . Explicit symmetry breaking was taken into account in the framework of current algebra in combination with the partially conserved axial-vector current (PCAC) hypothesis Gell-Mann:1964tf  (for an overview see, e.g., Adler:1968 ; Treiman:1972 ; DeAlfaro:1973 ). Already in the 1960s, Weinberg realized that the predictions derived from current algebra could be reproduced in the framework of the so-called phenomenological approximation (tree-level diagrams) of an effective Lagrangian Weinberg:1966fm . The key progress due to Weinberg’s approach in 1979 was to systematically analyze corrections to the leading soft-pion results invoking a perturbative scheme not in terms of a coupling constant but rather in terms of external momenta and the pion mass Weinberg:1979kz . Because of spontaneous symmetry breaking such an expansion is expected to work for momenta which are small compared to some intrinsic scale of the underlying theory. Since the starting point is a nonrenormalizable theory, infinities encountered in the calculation of loop diagrams need to be removed by a renormalization of the infinite number of free parameters of the most general effective Lagrangian. However, as long as one includes all of the infinite number of interactions allowed by symmetries, from the point of view of removing divergences there is no difference between the so-called nonrenormalizable theories and renormalizable theories Weinberg:mt . As will be discussed later in detail, the freedom of choosing a renormalization scheme Collins:xc  can be advantageously used to formulate a power counting for the perturbative calculation of renormalized diagrams.

The ideas of Weinberg were further developed and comprehensively applied by Gasser and Leutwyler Gasser:1984yg ; Gasser:1984gg  in terms of the generating functional of color-neutral quark bilinears which, at low energies, is dominated by the exchange and interaction of Goldstone bosons. A correspondence between the loop expansion and the chiral expansion in terms of momenta and quark masses at a fixed ratio was set up. Chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) in the mesonic sector has generated a host of successful applications up to and including the two-loop level (for a recent review see, e.g., Ref. Scherer:2002tk ). The extension to processes involving one external nucleon was developed by Gasser, Sainio, and Švarc Gasser:1988rb . One of the findings in their approach was that higher-loop diagrams can contribute to terms as low as $`𝒪(q^2)`$, where $`q`$ generically denotes a small expansion parameter such as, e.g., the pion mass. This “mismatch” between the chiral and the loop expansion has widely been interpreted as the absence of a systematic power counting in the relativistic formulation. Gasser, Sainio, and Švarc pointed out that the appearance of another scale, namely, the mass of the nucleon (which does not vanish in the chiral limit) is one of the origins for the complications in the baryonic sector. The heavy-baryon formulation of ChPT Jenkins:1990jv ; Bernard:1992qa  provides a power counting scheme which is very similar to the mesonic sector. The basic idea consists in expressing the relativistic nucleon field in terms of a velocity-dependent field, thus dividing nucleon momenta into a large piece close to on-shell kinematics and a soft residual contribution. Most of the calculations in the one-baryon sector have been performed in this framework (for an overview see, e.g., Ref. Bernard:1995dp ) which essentially corresponds to a simultaneous expansion of matrix elements in $`1/m_N`$ and $`1/(4\pi F_\pi )`$. Although this scheme leads to a straightforward power counting, its disadvantage is that, in some cases, it does not provide the correct analytic behavior even in the threshold regime Bernard:1996cc . Several methods have been suggested to reconcile power counting with the constraints of analyticity in the relativistic approach Tang:1996ca ; Ellis:1997kc ; Becher:1999he ; Gegelia:1999gf ; Gegelia:1999qt ; Lutz:1999yr ; Lutz:2001yb . The most widely used technique is the so-called infrared regularization of Becher and Leutwyler Becher:1999he  which has been applied in various calculations of baryon properties Ellis:1999jt ; Kubis:2000zd ; Zhu:2000zf ; Kubis:2000aa ; Zhu:2002tn , pion-nucleon scattering Becher:2001hv ; Torikoshi:2002bt , mesonic U(3) chiral perturbation theory Borasoy:2001ik ; Beisert:2001qb ; Beisert:2002ad , a discussion of the generalized Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule and the spin structure of the nucleon Bernard:2002bs ; Bernard:2002pw , and the ground-state energy of pionic hydrogen Gasser:2002am .

The purpose of this work is to devise a new renormalization scheme leading to a simple and consistent power counting for the renormalized diagrams of a relativistic approach. The basic idea consists in performing additional subtractions of dimensionally regularized diagrams beyond the modified minimal subtraction scheme employed in Ref. Gasser:1988rb . Our approach is motivated by an observation made in the context of nonrelativistic nucleon-nucleon scattering, where the application of the minimal subtraction scheme proved to be problematic. It was shown that the use of an appropriately chosen renormalization condition allows one to solve the problem of an “unnaturally” large scattering length and to obtain a consistent power counting in the two-nucleon sector Lepage:1997cs ; Kaplan:1998tg ; Gegelia:1998xr . Essentially the same idea of using a suitable renormalization condition has been discussed in Refs. Gegelia:1999gf ; Gegelia:1999qt  for a simplified model of the one-nucleon sector of relativistic baryon chiral perturbation theory. One of the advantages of this approach, besides its simplicity, is that it may also be easily used in the renormalization of higher-order loop diagrams.

Our work is organized as follows. In Sec. II we provide those elements of the most general effective Lagrangian which are relevant for the calculation of the nucleon self-energy. In Sec. III we illustrate our method by means of a simple dimensionally regularized one-loop integral and compare the result with the infrared regularization of Becher and Leutwyler. In Sec. IV we apply our renormalization scheme to the calculation of the nucleon mass. General conclusions are presented in Sec. V.

## II The effective Lagrangian

In this section we will briefly discuss those elements of the most general effective Lagrangian in the single-nucleon sector which are relevant for the subsequent calculation of the nucleon self-energy. The effective Lagrangian consists of the sum of the purely mesonic and the $`\pi N`$ Lagrangians, respectively,

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=_\pi +_{\pi N},$$

both of which are organized in a (chiral) derivative and quark-mass expansion Weinberg:1979kz ; Gasser:1984yg ; Gasser:1984gg ; Gasser:1988rb ; Fearing:1994ga ; Bijnens:1999sh ; Fettes:2000gb ; Ebertshauser:2001nj ; Bijnens:2001bb ,

$`_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`_2+_4+_6+\mathrm{},`$
$`_{\pi N}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\pi N}^{(1)}+_{\pi N}^{(2)}+_{\pi N}^{(3)}+_{\pi N}^{(4)}+\mathrm{},`$
where the subscripts (superscripts) in $`_\pi `$ ($`_{\pi N}`$) refer to the order in the expansion. Counting the quark-mass term as $`𝒪(q^2)`$ Gasser:1984yg ; Colangelo:2001sp , the mesonic Lagrangian contains only even powers, whereas the baryonic Lagrangian involves both even and odd powers due to the additional spin degree of freedom.

From the mesonic sector we only need the lowest-order Lagrangian \[$`𝒪(q^2)`$\] Gasser:1984yg ,

$$_2=\frac{F^2}{4}\text{Tr}(_\mu U^\mu U^{})+\frac{F^2M^2}{4}\text{Tr}(U^{}+U),$$
(1)
where $`U`$ is a unimodular unitary $`(2\times 2)`$ matrix containing the Goldstone boson fields. In Eq. (1), $`F`$ denotes the pion-decay constant in the chiral limit: $`F_\pi =F[1+𝒪(\widehat{m})]=92.4`$ MeV. Here, we work in the isospin-symmetric limit $`m_u=m_d=\widehat{m}`$, and the lowest-order expression for the squared pion mass is $`M^2=2B\widehat{m}`$, where $`B`$ is related to the quark condensate $`\overline{q}q_0`$ in the chiral limit Gasser:1984yg .

In order to discuss the $`\pi N`$ Lagrangian, let

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ n\end{array}\right)$$

denote the nucleon field with two four-component Dirac fields $`p`$ and $`n`$ describing the proton and neutron, respectively. The most general $`\pi N`$ Lagrangian $`_{\pi N}`$ is bilinear in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ and involves the quantities $`u`$, $`u_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$, and $`\chi _\pm `$ (and their derivatives), which, in the absence of external fields, read

$$u^2=U,u_\mu =iu^{}_\mu Uu^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\frac{1}{2}[u^{},_\mu u],\chi _\pm =M^2(U^{}\pm U).$$

In terms of these building blocks the lowest-order Lagrangian reads Gasser:1988rb

$$_{\pi N}^{(1)}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(i\gamma _\mu D^\mu m+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{g_A}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u^\mu \right)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(2)
where $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=(_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }`$ denotes the covariant derivative (in the absence of external vector and axial-vector fields) and $`m`$ and $`\stackrel{}{g_A}`$ refer to the chiral limit of the physical nucleon mass and the axial-vector coupling constant, respectively. We have not displayed the corresponding counterterms in $`_{\pi N}^{(1)}`$ which are understood to be fixed in such a manner that the pole position of the nucleon propagator as well as the axial-vector coupling constant (in the chiral limit) are not affected by loop contributions. The explicit expressions of these counterterms in lowest order were identified in Ref. Gasser:1988rb .

For our purposes, we only need to consider four of the seven structures of the Lagrangian at $`𝒪(q^2)`$ Gasser:1988rb ; Fettes:2000gb ,

$`_{\pi N}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1\text{Tr}(\chi _+)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{4m^2}}\text{Tr}(u_\mu u_\nu )\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}D^\mu D^\nu \mathrm{\Psi }+\text{H.c.}\right)`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{2}}\text{Tr}(u^\mu u_\mu )\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{c_4}{4}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu [u_\mu ,u_\nu ]\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{},`$
where H.c. refers to the Hermitian conjugate. While the Lagrangian $`_{\pi N}^{(3)}`$ does not contribute to the nucleon mass, at $`𝒪(q^4)`$ we need to consider the term

$$\frac{\alpha }{2}M^4\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(4)
resulting in the contribution $`\alpha M^4/2`$ to the nucleon mass. This term results from identifying the relevant part of the most general chiral Lagrangian at $`𝒪(q^4)`$. To be specific, the coefficient $`\alpha `$ of Eq. (4) is related to the parameters $`e_i`$ of the Lagrangian $`_{\pi N}^{(4)}`$ of Ref. Fettes:2000gb  by

$$\alpha =4(8e_{38}+e_{115}+e_{116}).$$
(5)
## III  Extended On-Mass-Shell Renormalization versus the infrared regularization of Becher and Leutwyler

The basic idea of our renormalization scheme consists of providing a rule determining which terms of a given diagram should be subtracted in order to satisfy a “naive” power counting by which one associates a well-defined power with the diagram in question. The terms to be subtracted are polynomials in small variables and parameters (external momenta and squared pion mass) and can thus be realized by a suitable adjustment of the counterterms of the most general effective Lagrangian. In other words, our proposition is to perform additional subtractions (finite in number) of dimensionally regularized diagrams beyond the modified minimal subtraction scheme employed in Ref. Gasser:1988rb .

In order to illustrate our method and to compare it with the approach of Becher and Leutwyler Becher:1999he , we will first consider as an example the dimensionally regularized one-loop integral

$$H(p^2,m^2,M^2;n)i\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{[(pk)^2m^2+i0^+][k^2M^2+i0^+]},$$
(6)
where $`n`$ denotes the number of space-time dimensions. The masses $`m`$ and $`M`$ refer to the (lowest-order) nucleon and pion masses, respectively. Such a type of integral is needed in, e.g., the calculation of the one-pion-loop contribution to the nucleon self-energy Gasser:1988rb . Dimensional regularization provides a convenient tool to handle the ultraviolet divergence resulting from the region where all components of $`k^\mu `$ get large. However, as it stands, the loop integral of Eq. (6) does not yet satisfy a simple chiral power counting. Using Eq. (6) we will propose a renormalization procedure generating a power counting for tree-level and loop diagrams of the relativistic effective field theory (REFT) which is analogous to that given in Ref. Weinberg:1991um  (for nonrelativistic nucleons). As will be explained below, by subtracting a suitable number of counterterms in the integrand,111Here we make use of the fact that we may take more subtractions than would actually be necessary for the sole purpose of enforcing (ultraviolet) convergence. we apply a renormalization scheme resulting in an effective cutoff $`Q`$ for loop integrals which is of the order of some small expansion parameters such as $`Q^2M^2`$ and $`Qm|p^2m^2|`$ for the specific case of Eq. (6). Using the forest formula of Zimmermann Collins:xc ; Zimmermann  allows one to systematically deal with any diagram. The relevant subtractions can be implemented by adjusting the coefficients of the most general effective Lagrangian, i.e., the corresponding counterterms are local (polynomial) in momentum Collins:xc , which implies that only a finite number of counterterms are needed for the subtraction of a specific diagram. In general, this will then allow us to apply the following power counting: a loop integration in $`n`$ dimensions counts as $`Q^n`$, pion and fermion propagators count as $`Q^2`$ and $`Q^1`$, respectively, vertices derived from $`_{2k}`$ and $`_{\pi N}^{(k)}`$ count as $`Q^{2k}`$ and $`Q^k`$, respectively. In total this yields for the power $`D`$ of a diagram in the one-nucleon sector the standard formula Weinberg:1991um ; Ecker:1995gg

$$D=nN_L2I_\pi I_N+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2kN_{2k}^\pi +\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}kN_k^N,$$
(7)
where $`N_L`$ is the number of independent loop momenta, $`I_\pi `$ the number of internal pion lines, $`I_N`$ the number of internal nucleon lines, $`N_{2k}^\pi `$ the number of vertices originating from $`_{2k}`$, and $`N_k^N`$ the number of vertices originating from $`_{\pi N}^{(k)}`$. In the language of chiral perturbation theory, $`Q`$ counts as a small momentum, i.e., as $`𝒪(q)`$, with the net result that Eq. (6), after renormalization, is expected to be of order $`𝒪(q^{n3})`$.

Let us turn to the discussion of Eq. (6). We make use of the Feynman parametrization

$$\frac{1}{ab}=_0^1\frac{dz}{[az+b(1z)]^2}$$
(8)
with $`a=(pk)^2m^2+i0^+`$ and $`b=k^2M^2+i0^+`$, interchange the order of integrations, and perform the shift $`kk+zp`$ to obtain

$$H(p^2,m^2,M^2;n)=i_0^1𝑑z\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{[k^2+p^2z(1z)m^2zM^2(1z)+i0^+]^2}.$$
(9)
Making use of

$$\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{(k^2)^p}{(k^2A)^q}=\frac{i()^{pq}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(p+\frac{n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(qp\frac{n}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)}A^{p+\frac{n}{2}q},$$

with $`p=0`$ and $`q=2`$, we find

$$H(p^2,m^2,M^2;n)=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{n}{2}\right)_0^1𝑑z[A(z)]^{\frac{n}{2}2},$$
(10)
where

$$A(z)=p^2(1z)z+m^2(1z)+M^2zi0^+.$$

### III.1 Chiral limit

For the sake of simplicity, let us for the moment restrict ourselves to the (chiral) limit $`M^2=0`$ and introduce

$$C(z,\mathrm{\Delta })=z^2\mathrm{\Delta }z(1z)i0^+,\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{p^2m^2}{m^2},$$

so that we obtain

$$H(p^2,m^2,0;n)=\kappa (m;n)_0^1𝑑z[C(z,\mathrm{\Delta })]^{\frac{n}{2}2},$$
(11)
where

$$\kappa (m;n)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{n}{2}\right)}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}m^{n4}.$$
(12)
For the purpose of evaluating the integral of Eq. (11) we write222The boundary condition is properly taken into account by replacing $`m^2m^2i0^+`$ in the final expression.

$$_0^1𝑑z[C(z,\mathrm{\Delta })]^{\frac{n}{2}2}=(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{n}{2}2}_0^1𝑑zz^{\frac{n}{2}2}\left(1\frac{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}z\right)^{\frac{n}{2}2}$$

and apply Eqs. 15.3.1 and 15.3.4 of Ref. Abramowitz  to obtain

$$H(p^2,m^2,0;n)=\kappa (m;n)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)}F(1,2\frac{n}{2};\frac{n}{2};\frac{p^2}{m^2}),$$
(13)
where $`F(a,b;c;z)`$ is the hypergeometric function Abramowitz . In order to discuss the power counting properties of $`H`$ (in the chiral limit), we make use of Eq. 15.3.6 of Ref. Abramowitz  to rewrite Eq. (13) as

$`H(p^2,m^2,0;n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{n4}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{n}{2}\right)}{n3}}F(1,2{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}};4n;\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (14)
$`+(\mathrm{\Delta })^{n3}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3n)F({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}1,n2;n2;\mathrm{\Delta })].`$
Making use of

$$F(a,b;c;z)=1+\frac{ab}{c}z+\frac{a(a+1)b(b+1)}{c(c+1)}\frac{z^2}{2}+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
for $`|z|<1`$ and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ counts as a small quantity of order $`𝒪(q)`$, we immediately see that the first term of Eq. (14) contains a contribution which does not satisfy the above power counting, i.e., which is not proportional to $`𝒪(q)`$ as $`n4`$. Using the expansion of Eq. (15) together with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+x)=x\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ we obtain, as $`n4`$,

$$H=\frac{m^{n4}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{n}{2}\right)}{n3}+\left(1\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)+\left(1\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ refers to terms which are at least of order $`𝒪(q^3)`$ or $`O(n4)`$.333Note that we count a term of the type $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ as $`𝒪(q)`$. If we subtract

$$\frac{m^{n4}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\frac{n}{2}\right)}{n3}$$
(17)
from Eq. (16) we obtain as the renormalized integral

$$H_R(p^2,m^2,0;n)=\frac{m^{n4}}{(4\pi )^{n/2}}\left[\left(1\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)+\left(1\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(18)
The subtracted term of Eq. (17) is local in the external momentum $`p`$, i.e., it is a polynomial in $`p^2`$ and can thus be obtained by a finite number of counterterms in the most general effective Lagrangian. In other words, using an ordinary subtractive renormalization with an appropriately chosen renormalization condition we obtained the renormalized expression of Eq. (18) which satisfies the power counting discussed above.

Using the example of Eq. (6) (in the chiral limit) we now apply a conventional renormalization prescription which allows us to identify those terms which we subtract from a given integral without explicitly calculating the integral beforehand. In essence we work with a modified integrand which is obtained from the original integrand by subtracting a suitable number of counterterms.444In the often used zero-momentum subtraction scheme a Taylor series expansion of the integrand with respect to the external momentum $`p^\mu `$ around $`p^\mu =0`$ is used. The meaning of suitable in the present context will be explained in a moment. To that end we consider the series

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2m^2)^l}{l!}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^2}}p_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{p_\mu }}\right)^l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+i0^+)[k^22kp+(p^2m^2)+i0^+]}}\right]_{p^2=m^2}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+i0^+)(k^22kp+i0^+)}}|_{p^2=m^2}`$
$`+(p^2m^2)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^22kp+i0^+)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+i0^+)(k^22kp+i0^+)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+i0^+)(k^22kp+i0^+)^2}}]_{p^2=m^2}`$
$`+\mathrm{},`$
where $`[\mathrm{}]_{p^2=m^2}`$ means that we consider the coefficients of $`(p^2m^2)^l`$ only for four-momenta $`p^\mu `$ satisfying the on-mass-shell condition.555Equation (19) is not a Taylor series of the integrand. Although the coefficients still depend on the direction of $`p^\mu `$, after integration of this series with respect to the loop momentum $`k`$ and evaluation of the resulting coefficients for $`p^2=m^2`$, the integrated series is a function of $`p^2`$ only. In fact, as was shown in Ref. Gegelia:1994zz , the integrated series exactly reproduces the first term of Eq. (14). At this point we stress that

$$i\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{(k^2+i0^+)(k^22kp+i0^+)}|_{p^2=m^2}$$

and

$$\left[i\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{(k^2+i0^+)(k^22kp+p^2m^2+i0^+)}\right]_{p^2=m^2}$$

are not the same for $`n3`$. Let us provide a formal definition of our renormalization scheme: we subtract from the integrand of $`H(p^2,m^2,0;n)`$ those terms of the series of Eq. (19) which violate the power counting. These terms are always analytic in the small parameter and do not contain infrared singularities. In the above example we only need to subtract the first term. All the higher-order terms contain infrared singularities. For example, the last term of the second coefficient would generate a behavior $`k^3/k^4`$ of the integrand for $`n=4`$. The integral of the first term of Eq. (19) is given by Eq. (17), and we end up with Eq. (18) for the renormalized integral. Since we make use of the subtraction point $`p^2=m^2`$, we denote our renormalization condition “extended on-mass-shell” (EOMS) scheme in analogy with the on-mass-shell renormalization scheme in renormalizable theories.

Let us now compare with the approach of Becher and Leutwyler of Ref. Becher:1999he , where the integral $`H`$ is divided into the so-called infrared (singular) part $`I`$ and the remainder $`R`$, defined as

$`I`$ $``$ $`\kappa (m;n){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z[C(z,\mathrm{\Delta })]^{\frac{n}{2}2},`$ (20)
$`R`$ $``$ $`\kappa (m;n){\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z[C(z,\mathrm{\Delta })]^{\frac{n}{2}2}.`$ (21)
The analytical expressions for both integrals are given by666The correct imaginary parts are obtained by replacing $`m^2m^2i0^+`$.

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{n4}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{n3}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3n\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{n}{2}1}}},`$ (22)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (m;n)(1+\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{n}{2}2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4n)}}F(2{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}},3n;4n;{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}}).`$ (23)
Let us discuss a few properties of $`I`$ and $`R`$, respectively. Counting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a small quantity of $`𝒪(q)`$, the infrared part $`I`$ respects a simple power counting by being proportional to $`q^{n3}`$. As $`n4`$, $`I`$ cannot be expanded in a power series in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, because

$$(\mathrm{\Delta })^{n3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3n)=\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\frac{1}{n4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(1)1\right]\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta })+O(n4).$$

Finally, for noninteger values of $`n`$, $`I`$ contains noninteger powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. On the other hand, due to the analytic properties of the hypergeometric function, the remainder $`R`$ can be expanded in an ordinary Taylor series in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ even for noninteger values of $`n`$. However, as $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, $`R`$ does not fit into the above power counting, i.e., it is not proportional to a small quantity of order $`q`$ raised to the power $`n3`$. In the approach of Becher and Leutwyler one explicitly keeps the contribution $`I`$ of $`H`$ (with subtracted singularities when $`n`$ approaches 4) as the result of the integral and drops $`R`$ arguing that it is effectively taken into account through an infinite number of counterterms in the most general effective Lagrangian. As pointed out in Ref. Becher:1999he , the infrared part $`I`$ also contains an infinite number of divergent terms if expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. An infinite number of divergent terms in $`R`$ and $`I`$ exactly cancel each other and one is left with one ultraviolet divergent term in $`H`$ which is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ independent, namely Eq. (17).

### III.2 Finite pion mass

We now generalize our renormalization scheme to the case of a nonvanishing pion mass \[see Eq. (6)\]. For easier comparison with Ref. Becher:1999he  we introduce the variables

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{p^2m^2M^2}{2mM},\alpha =\frac{M}{m},$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ counts as $`𝒪(q^0)`$ for $`p^2m^2`$ \[$`𝒪(q)`$ for $`p^2=m^2`$\] and $`\alpha `$ counts as $`𝒪(q)`$. We obtain for Eq. (10), as $`n4`$,

$$H=2\overline{\lambda }+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}\mathrm{arccos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha (\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega })}{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}\mathrm{ln}(\alpha ),$$
(25)
where

$$\overline{\lambda }=\frac{m^{n4}}{(4\pi )^2}\left\{\frac{1}{n4}\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(1)+1\right]\right\}.$$
(26)
Clearly, the first two terms of Eq. (25) violate our power counting, since we want the renormalized integral to be of $`𝒪(q)`$ as $`n4`$.

In order to apply our renormalization scheme to Eq. (6), we observe that the dimensionally regularized integral contains a part which, for noninteger $`n`$, is proportional to noninteger powers of $`M`$ but does not violate the power counting. On the other hand, the remaining piece of the integral may always, i.e., for arbitrary $`n`$, be expanded in non-negative powers of $`M`$, and it is this contribution which is responsible for the violation of power counting. We expand this second part in terms of $`M`$ and $`p^2m^2`$ and subtract those terms which violate the power counting. In practice, we realize this scheme by writing down a series similar to Eq. (19), where, in addition, we expand pion propagators in powers of $`M^2`$. In the present case we only need to subtract the first term to satisfy the power counting:

$$H_{\mathrm{subtr}}=i\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+i0^+}\frac{1}{k^22pk+i0^+}|_{p^2=m^2}=2\overline{\lambda }+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}+O(n4).$$
(27)
Subtracting Eq. (27) from Eq. (25) our final expression for the renormalized integral reads

$$H_R=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}\mathrm{arccos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha (\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega })}{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}\mathrm{ln}(\alpha ).$$
(28)
Again, the subtraction term $`H_{\mathrm{subtr}}`$ of Eq. (27) is local in the external momenta and can thus be realized as a counterterm in the most general effective Lagrangian. Let us stress one more time that we count a term $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\alpha )`$ as $`𝒪(q)`$. Moreover, when expanded in small quantities, $`H_R`$ consists of an infinite string of terms of $`𝒪(q^l)`$ with $`l1`$. In other words, when we say that an expression is of $`𝒪(q)`$, we refer to the minimal power $`q^1`$ of that expression. This situation has to be contrasted with the mesonic sector, where an expression of, say, $`𝒪(q^4)`$ exclusively consists of terms of $`𝒪(q^4)`$. We conclude that using ordinary renormalization with appropriately chosen renormalization conditions allows us to obtain the renormalized expression of Eq. (28) which satisfies power counting.

It is instructive to compare Eq. (28) with the result of the infrared regularization of Becher and Leutwyler, where the integral $`H`$ is divided into an infrared part $`I`$ and a remainder $`R`$ Becher:1999he :

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\lambda }\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{arccos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}}}\right)`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega })}{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}}[2\mathrm{ln}(\alpha )1],`$
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`(2+\nu )\overline{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{arcsin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\sqrt{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }}{1+2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+\alpha ^2}},`$ (30)
where

$$\nu =\frac{p^2m^2+M^2}{p^2}.$$

Using elementary relations among the inverse trigonometric functions, the sum of $`I`$ and $`R`$ is indeed identical to Eq. (25). In this decomposition $`I`$ satisfies the power counting whereas $`R`$, violating the power counting, is absorbed into an infinite number of counterterms. The first (infinite) term of $`I`$ is also taken care of by renormalization.

## IV Nucleon self-energy

As a specific example, we will now turn to the calculation of the nucleon self-energy at $`𝒪(q^4)`$. The complete propagator of the nucleon is defined as the Fourier transform

$$S_0(p)=d^4xe^{ipx}S_0(x)$$
(31)
of the two-point function

$$S_0(x)=i0|T[\mathrm{\Psi }_0(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0(0)]|0,$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ denotes the bare nucleon field. We parametrize

$$S_0(p)=\frac{1}{p/m_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(p/)}\frac{1}{p/m\mathrm{\Sigma }(p/)},$$
(33)
where $`m_0`$ refers to the bare mass of Eq. (54), whereas $`m`$ is the nucleon pole mass in the chiral limit. Here, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(p/)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p/)`$ are matrix functions Itzykson:rh  which, using $`p/p/=p^2`$, can be parametrized as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(x)=xf_0(x^2)+m_0g_0(x^2)$$

with an analogous expression for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

We will express the nucleon self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p/)`$ in terms of $`m`$, the lowest-order pion mass $`M`$, and bare coupling constants. In terms of Feynman diagrams, $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }(p/)`$ represents the one-particle-irreducible perturbative contribution to the two-point function. Moreover, it also contains contributions of counterterms generated by $`m_0`$, which make sure that the pole mass in the chiral limit, $`m`$, stays put. However, for the sake of simplicity we will not explicitly show these counterterms.

As usual the physical nucleon mass is defined through the pole of the full propagator at $`p/=m_N`$,

$$m_Nm_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(m_N)=m_Nm\mathrm{\Sigma }(m_N)=0,$$
(34)
while the wave function renormalization constant $`Z_0`$ is defined as the residue at $`p/=m_N`$,

$`S_0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/m_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(m_N+p/m_N)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/m_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(m_N)(p/m_N)\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}(m_N)+O[(p/m_N)^2]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p/m_N)[1\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}(m_N)+O(p/m_N)]}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_0}{p/m_N+i0^+}}\text{for}p/m_N,`$
yielding

$$Z_0=\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}(m_N)}=\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(m_N)}.$$
(35)
At $`𝒪(q^4)`$, the self-energy receives contact contributions from $`_{\pi N}^{(2)}`$ and $`_{\pi N}^{(4)}`$ as well as the one-loop contributions of Fig. 1,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{contact}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{loop}}.$$
(36)
The contact contributions read

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{contact}}=4M^2c_1^02M^4(8e_{38}^0+e_{115}^0+e_{116}^0),$$
(37)
where the superscripts 0 refer to bare parameters. Applying Feynman rules we obtain three one-loop contributions (see Fig. 1)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{loop}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_a+\mathrm{\Sigma }_b+\mathrm{\Sigma }_c,$$
(38)
where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_0^2}{4F_0^2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}k/\gamma _5\frac{1}{p/k/m+i0^+}k/\gamma _5\frac{1}{k^2M^2+i0^+}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_0^2}{4F_0^2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{k/(p/k/m)k/}{(kp)^2m^2+i0^+}\frac{1}{k^2M^2+i0^+}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ $`=`$ $`4M^2c_1^0{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_0^2}{4F_0^2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}k/\gamma _5\left(\frac{1}{p/k/m+i0^+}\right)^2k/\gamma _5\frac{1}{k^2M^2+i0^+}}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`4M^2c_1^0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_a}{m}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{F_0^2}}\left(2c_1^0c_3^0{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_2^0}{n}}\right)i{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2M^2+i0^+}}.`$ (41)
Using $`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2g^{\mu \nu }`$, Eq. (39) can be expressed in terms of the basis integrals of Appendix B as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_0^2}{4F_0^2}}\{(p/+m)I_N+M^2(p/+m)I_{N\pi }(p,0)`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2m^2)p/}{2p^2}}[(p^2m^2+M^2)I_{N\pi }(p,0)+I_NI_\pi ]\}.`$
The renormalization of the loop diagrams is performed in two steps. First we render the diagrams finite by applying the subtraction scheme used by Gasser and Leutwyler Gasser:1984yg ; Gasser:1988rb  which we denote by the modified minimal subtraction scheme of ChPT ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$).777In distinction to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme commonly used in Standard Model calculations, the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme contains an additional finite subtraction term. To be specific, in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$ one uses multiples of $`1/(n4)\left[\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(1)+1\right]/2`$ instead of $`1/(n4)\left[\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(1)\right]/2`$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$.  We choose the renormalization parameter (unit of mass or ’t Hooft parameter) $`\mu =m`$. In a second step we then perform additional finite subtractions for integrals which contain nucleon propagators with the purpose of imposing our power counting scheme. In fact, in order to apply the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$ subtraction in practical calculations, we do not actually need to explicitly write down the corresponding counterterms. We simply subtract all loop diagrams and replace the bare couplings with the couplings corresponding to the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. In the above expressions we replace subscripts and superscripts “0” denoting bare coupling constants with “r” and supply the integrals with indicators “r” referring to the fact that they have been subtracted. For example, the result for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{r,a}`$ then reads

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{r,a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2}{4F_r^2}}\{M^2(p/+m)I_{N\pi }^r(p,0)`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2m^2)p/}{2p^2}}[(p^2m^2+M^2)I_{N\pi }^r(p,0)I_\pi ^r]\},`$
where the expressions for $`I_\pi ^r`$ and $`I_{N\pi }^r`$ are given in Eqs. (63) and (68) of Appendix B.

The $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-subtracted self-energy corresponds to the Green function

$$S_1(p)=d^4xe^{ipx}S_1(x),$$
(44)
where

$$S_1(x)=i0|T[\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(0)]|0$$

is the two-point function of the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized field

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}}(x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0(x)}{\sqrt{Z_{01}}}.$$
(45)
We refer to $`\sqrt{Z_{01}}`$ as the field redefinition constant \[see Eq. (55)\] connecting the bare field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$. Analogous to Eq. (34), the physical nucleon mass is determined through the pole of the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized propagator. We obtain for the mass in the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme

$`m_N`$ $`=`$ $`m4c_1^rM^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2M^2}{32\pi ^2F_r^2}}m\left(1+8c_1^rm\right){\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2M^3}{32\pi F_r^2}}`$ (46)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3M^4}{32\pi ^2F_r^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{m}}\right)\left(8c_1^rc_2^r4c_3^r{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2}{m}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2M^4}{32\pi ^2F_r^2m}}\left[1+4c_1^rm\right]`$
$`+M^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{128\pi ^2F_r^2}}c_2^r16e_{38}^r2e_{115}^r2e_{116}^r\right)+O\left(M^5\right),`$
where “r” refers to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized quantities. When solving Eq. (34) in terms of Eqs. (37) and (38), we consistently omitted terms which count as $`O(\mathrm{}^2)`$ in the loop expansion, i.e., terms proportional to $`(\stackrel{}{g_A}_0/F_0)^4`$, as well as terms proportional to $`(c_1^r)^2`$ which do not contribute in our final extended on-mass-shell expression for the nucleon mass.

Correspondingly, the wave function renormalization constant of the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized propagator,

$$S_1(p)=\frac{1}{p/m\mathrm{\Sigma }_r(p/)}\frac{Z_1}{p/m_N+i0^+}\text{for}p/m_N,$$

is an expression of $`𝒪(q^3)`$,888The reduction by one chiral order in comparison with the self-energy can be understood in terms of the derivative in the definition of the wave function renormalization constant. given by

$$Z_1=\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Sigma }_r^{}(m_N)}=1\frac{9\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2M^2}{32\pi ^2F_r^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M}{m}\right)\frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2M^2}{16\pi ^2F_r^2}+\frac{9\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2M^3}{64\pi F_r^2m}.$$
(47)
Clearly, we do not require that the propagators of renormalized fields have unit residue at the physical pole mass Collins:xc ; Itzykson:rh . The relation between $`Z_1`$ on the one hand and $`Z_0`$ and the field redefinition constant $`\sqrt{Z_{01}}`$ on the other hand is given by

$$Z_1=\frac{Z_0}{Z_{01}}.$$

Note, in particular, that $`Z_1`$ is finite, whereas both $`Z_0`$ and $`Z_{01}`$ contain infinities resulting from ultraviolet divergences.

In order to perform the second step, namely another finite renormalization, a given $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized diagram is written as the sum of a subtracted diagram which, through the application of the subtraction scheme described in the previous sections, satisfies the power counting and a remainder which violates the power counting and thus still needs to be subtracted. We expand the finite renormalized couplings of the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme in a series in terms of couplings of our generalized on-mass-shell scheme. In doing so, we generate finite counterterms, responsible for additional finite subtractions. These counterterms are fixed so that the net result of combining the counterterm diagrams with those parts of the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized diagrams which violate the power counting are of the same order as the subtracted diagram. (Note that depending on the applied renormalization condition the net result may vanish.) Hence the sum of an $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized diagram and the corresponding counterterm diagram satisfies the power counting.

For the case at hand, we determine the terms to be subtracted from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ by first expanding the integrands and coefficients in Eq. (42) in powers of $`M^2`$, $`p/m`$ and $`p^2m^2`$. In this expansion we keep all the terms having a chiral order which is smaller than what is suggested by the power counting for the given diagram. We then obtain

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{r,a+b}^{\mathrm{subtr}}=\frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2}{32\pi ^2F_r^2}[mM^2\frac{(p^2m^2)^2}{4m}]+\frac{3c_1^r\stackrel{}{g_A}_r^2M^2}{8\pi ^2F_r^2}[m(p/+m)\frac{3}{2}(p^2m^2)].$$
(48)
Equation (48) specifies the part of the self-energy diagram which has to be subtracted. We fix the corresponding counterterms so that they exactly cancel the expression given by Eq. (48). Since the most general Lagrangian contains all the structures consistent with the symmetries of the theory, it also provides the required counterterms. Finally, the renormalized self-energy expression is obtained by subtracting Eq. (48) from the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-subtracted version of Eqs. (39) and (40) and replacing the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized couplings with the ones of our generalized on-mass-shell scheme. We note that the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-subtracted version for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ needs no further subtraction because it is already of order $`𝒪(q^4)`$.

The correction to the nucleon mass resulting from the counterterms is calculated by substituting $`p/=m_N`$ into the negative of Eq. (48). \[Recall that Eq. (48) has to be subtracted.\] We thus obtain the following expression for the contribution to the mass:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=\frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}^2M^2}{32\pi ^2F^2}(m+8c_1m^2).$$
(49)
Finally, we express the physical mass of the nucleon up to and including order $`q^4`$ as Leutwyler:1999mz ; Sainio:2001bq 999In our convention $`k_3`$ is larger by a factor of two than in Refs. Leutwyler:1999mz ; Sainio:2001bq , because we use $`\mathrm{ln}(M/m)`$ instead of $`\mathrm{ln}(M^2/m^2)`$.

$$m_N=m+k_1M^2+k_2M^3+k_3M^4\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M}{m}\right)+k_4M^4+O(M^5),$$
(50)
where $`m`$ is the nucleon mass in the chiral limit and $`M^2=2B\widehat{m}`$ is the leading-order result for $`M_\pi ^2`$. In terms of the EOMS-renormalized parameters, the coefficients $`k_i`$ are then given by

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`4c_1`$
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}^2}{32\pi F^2}},`$
$`k_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32\pi ^2F^2}}\left(8c_1c_24c_3{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}^2}{m}}\right),`$
$`k_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}^2}{32\pi ^2F^2m}}(1+4c_1m)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{128\pi ^2F^2}}c_216e_{38}2e_{115}2e_{116}.`$ (51)
Comparing with Ref. Becher:1999he , we see that the lowest-order correction ($`k_1`$ term) and those terms which are nonanalytic in the quark mass $`\widehat{m}`$ ($`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ terms) coincide. On the other hand, the analytic $`k_4`$ term ($`M^4`$) is different. This is not surprising, because we use a different renormalization scheme and hence the difference between the two results is compensated by different values of the renormalized parameters.

The contribution of the counterterms in Eq. (49) to the physical mass is generated by the following expansion of the coupling $`c_1^r`$ in terms of our renormalized parameters:

$$c_1^r=c_1+\frac{3m\stackrel{}{g_A}^2}{128\pi ^2F^2}\left[1+8mc_1\right]+\mathrm{},$$
(52)
while the net result of the contributions of the counterterms which are generated by expanding the other parameters vanishes at the given order. Finally, the wave function renormalization (residue at the pole) does not obtain a contribution from counterterms at this order so that $`Z`$ for our renormalization scheme reads

$$Z=1\frac{9\stackrel{}{g_A}^2M^2}{32\pi ^2F^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M}{m}\right)\frac{3\stackrel{}{g_A}^2M^2}{16\pi ^2F^2}+\frac{9\stackrel{}{g_A}^2M^3}{64\pi F^2m}.$$
(53)
## V Conclusions

We have discussed a new renormalization scheme which allows for a simple and consistent power counting in the single-nucleon sector of relativistic chiral perturbation theory. In order to renormalize a given diagram, using Eq. (7) one first assigns a chiral order $`D`$ to that diagram. Applying standard techniques the diagram is reduced to the sum of dimensionally regularized scalar integrals multiplied by corresponding Dirac structures. By expanding the integrands as well as the coefficients in small quantities one identifies those terms which need to be subtracted in order to produce the renormalized diagram with the chiral order $`D`$ determined beforehand. It is this aspect which we refer to as “appropriately chosen renormalization conditions,” because these subtractions can be realized in terms of local counterterms in the most general effective Lagrangian. For pedagogical reasons we have performed the subtractions in two steps: the first step, namely, applying a modified minimal subtraction scheme (of ChPT) to get rid of the ultraviolet divergences, corresponds to the procedure used by Gasser, Sainio, and Švarc Gasser:1988rb . In a second step we have then performed additional finite subtractions for those integrals which contain nucleon propagators such that the subtracted diagram satisfies our power counting scheme. We have explicitly applied our scheme to a calculation of the nucleon mass. Comparing with the results of the infrared regularization method Becher:1999he  we have seen that the expressions for the nucleon mass in the two schemes only differ by terms which are analytic in the quark masses. These findings are consistent, because such terms are renormalization-scheme dependent.

Finally, our renormalization scheme is neither restricted to the single-nucleon sector nor to the interaction of Goldstone bosons with fermions. For example, it may also be used in the NN sector or for describing the interaction of vector and axial-vector mesons Gegelia:2003b . In conclusion, we have presented a simple renormalization scheme which produces a consistent power counting for relativistic baryon chiral perturbation theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work of T.F. and S.S. was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443). J.G. acknowledges the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. G.J. was supported by NSF grant OPP-0236449/G067771.

## Appendix A The generation of counterterms

The renormalization of the effective field theory (of pions and nucleons) is performed by expressing all the bare parameters and bare fields of the effective Lagrangian in terms of renormalized quantities Collins:xc . In this process, one generates counterterms which are responsible for the absorption of all the divergences occurring in the calculation of loop diagrams. In order to illustrate the procedure let us discuss $`_{\pi N}^{(1)}`$ and consider the free part in combination with the $`\pi N`$ interaction term with the smallest number of pion fields,

$$_{\pi N}^{(1)}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0\left(i\gamma _\mu ^\mu m_0\frac{1}{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}_0}{F_0}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\tau ^a^\mu \pi _0^a\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_0+\mathrm{},$$
(54)
given in terms of bare fields and parameters denoted by subscripts 0. Introducing renormalized fields (we work in the isospin-symmetric limit) through

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{\sqrt{Z_\mathrm{\Psi }}},\pi ^a=\frac{\pi _0^a}{\sqrt{Z_\pi }},$$
(55)
we express the field redefinition constants $`\sqrt{Z_\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`\sqrt{Z_\pi }`$ and the bare quantities in terms of renormalized parameters:

$`Z_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`1+\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }(m,\stackrel{}{g_A},g_i,\nu ),`$
$`Z_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`1+\delta Z_\pi (m,\stackrel{}{g_A},g_i,\nu ),`$
$`m_0`$ $`=`$ $`m(\nu )+\delta m(m,\stackrel{}{g_A},g_i,\nu ),`$
$`\stackrel{}{g_A}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{g_A}(\nu )+\delta g_A(m,\stackrel{}{g_A},g_i,\nu ),`$ (56)
where $`g_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, collectively denote all the renormalized parameters which correspond to bare parameters $`g_{i}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}`$ of the full effective Lagrangian. The parameter $`\nu `$ indicates the dependence on the choice of the renormalization prescription.101010Note that our choice $`m(\nu )=m`$, where $`m`$ is the nucleon pole mass in the chiral limit, is only one among an infinite number of possibilities. Substituting Eqs. (55) and (56) into Eq. (54), we obtain

$$_{\pi N}^{(1)}=_{\mathrm{basic}}+_{\mathrm{ct}}+\mathrm{}$$
(57)
with the so-called basic and counterterm Lagrangians, respectively,111111 Reference Collins:xc  uses a slightly different convention which is obtained through the replacement $`(\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }m+Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\delta m)\delta m`$.

$`_{\mathrm{basic}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(i\gamma _\mu ^\mu m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}}{F}}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\tau ^a^\mu \pi ^a\right)\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (58)
$`_{\mathrm{ct}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\gamma _\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\delta \{m\}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}}{F}}\right\}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\tau ^a^\mu \pi ^a\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (59)
where we introduced the abbreviations

$`\delta \{m\}`$ $``$ $`\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }m+Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\delta m,`$
$`\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}}{F}}\right\}`$ $``$ $`\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}}{F}}\sqrt{Z_\pi }+Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}_0}{F_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}}{F}}\right)\sqrt{Z_\pi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{g_A}}{F}}(\sqrt{Z_\pi }1).`$
In Eq. (58), $`m`$, $`\stackrel{}{g_A}`$, and $`F`$ denote the chiral limit of the physical nucleon mass, the axial-vector coupling constant, and the pion-decay constant, respectively. Expanding the counterterm Lagrangian of Eq. (59) in powers of the renormalized coupling constants generates an infinite series, the individual terms of which are responsible for the subtraction of loop diagrams.

## Appendix B Loop integrals

In this appendix we collect the loop integrals needed in the calculation of the nucleon mass. Most of them can be found in Ref. Becher:1999he  or have been calculated using the method of dimensional counting Gegelia:1994zz . We use the following convention for scalar loop integrals:

$$I_{N\mathrm{}\pi \mathrm{}}(p_1,\mathrm{},q_1,\mathrm{})=i\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{[(k+p_1)^2m^2+i0^+]\mathrm{}[(k+q_1)^2M^2+i0^+]\mathrm{}}.$$
(60)
Tensor integrals are then derived in the standard fashion (see, for example, Appendix C of Ref. Scherer:2002tk ). We do not display terms of $`O(n4)`$ and higher. In what follows, $`\overline{\lambda }`$ is defined as

$$\overline{\lambda }=\frac{m^{n4}}{16\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{1}{n4}\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(1)+1\right]\right\}.$$
(61)
From the set of purely pionic integrals we need

$$I_\pi (q)=I_\pi (0)=I_\pi =i\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2M^2+i0^+}=2M^2\overline{\lambda }+\frac{M^2}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M}{m}\right).$$
(62)
The $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized integral is obtained by simply dropping the term proportional to $`\overline{\lambda }`$:

$$I_\pi ^r=\frac{M^2}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M}{m}\right).$$
(63)
Next we consider the integral containing only a nucleon propapagator:

$$I_N(p)=I_N(0)=I_N=i\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2m^2+i0^+}=2m^2\overline{\lambda }.$$
(64)
The $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized integral then reads

$$I_N^r=0.$$
(65)
Finally, we list the relevant integrals containing both a pion and a nucleon propagator:

$`I_{N\pi }(p,0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{[(k+p)^2m^2+i0^+][k^2M^2+i0^+]}}`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`2\overline{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m^2+M^2}{p^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{m}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2mM}{p^2}}F(\mathrm{\Omega })\right],`$
where

$`F(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^21}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^21}\right),\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }1,\hfill \\ \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{arccos}(\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & 1\mathrm{\Omega }1,\hfill \\ \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^21}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^21}\right)i\pi \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^21},\hfill & 1\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \end{array}`$
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{p^2m^2M^2}{2mM}.$$

Correspondingly,

$$I_{N\pi }^r(p,0)=I_{N\pi }(p,0)2\overline{\lambda }.$$
(68)
Furthermore we need

$`I_{N\pi }^\mu (p,0)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{k^\mu }{[(kp)^2m^2+i0^+][k^2M^2+i0^+]}}`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu }{2p^2}}\left[(p^2m^2+M^2)I_{N\pi }(p,0)+I_NI_\pi \right].`$


format: text

text:
# Formation of antideuterons in heavy ion collisions

## Abstract

The antideuteron production rate at high-energy heavy ions collisions is calculated basing on the concept of $`\overline{d}`$ formation by antinucleons which move in the mean field of the fireball constituents (mainly pions). The explicit formula is presented for the coalescence parameter $`B_2`$ in terms of deuteron binding energy and fireball volume.

PACS numbers: 25.75.-q, 25.75.Dw, 12.38.Mh

1.Introduction. Recent measurements have reported the production of antideuterons in heavy ion collisions , , . The theoretical description of this interesting effect is complicated, because the antideuterons are produced at intermediate stage of fireball evolution, when the density of hadronic matter is rather low, but the particle collisions are still important. In other words they are produced at the ”dense gas” stage of the fireball evolution.

Here we present the theoretical picture of this stage and calculate the $`\overline{d}`$ production. The basic ideas of our approach are the following. The dominant mechanism of $`\overline{d}`$ production is the formation of antideuterons through the fusion reaction $`\overline{p}+\overline{n}\overline{d}`$. The fusion reaction is not possible if all participating particles are on mass shell. However, in the fireball at the ”dense gas” stage of its evolution $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$, $`\overline{d}`$ are not on mass shell, since they interact with surrounding matter. The interaction with the fireball constituents leads to appearance of the mass shift and widths of all particles propagating in the medium (or width broadening for unstable ones), analogous to refraction and attenuation indices in case of photon propagation. The fusion reaction rate is strongly enhanced in comparison with the main process of $`\overline{d}`$ production in vacuum $`\overline{p}+\overline{n}\overline{d}+\pi `$. Another important ingredient of the theoretical picture is the balance of the deuteron formation and desintegration rates. This balance is achieved because of large number of produced pions and high rate of $`\pi +\overline{d}`$ collisions leading to $`\overline{d}`$ desintegration. The balance does not imply a statistical equilibrium, but rather a stationary process, like a balance in the isotope concentrations in a radiative chain. The formation rate $`\overline{p}+\overline{n}\overline{d}`$ vanishes, when $`\overline{d}`$ size increases, i.e. its binding energy $`\epsilon 0`$. This fact explicitly manifests itself in our calculations. The previous theoretical investigations of the problem were performed in statistical models , in the model of (anti)nucleon sources in the fireball  and in the Wigner function approach (see  and references therein). In all these approaches the interaction of nucleons, forming $`\overline{d}`$ (or $`d`$) with the fireball constituens as well as $`\overline{d}`$ ($`d`$) desintegration was not accounted (in  the results do not depend on $`\epsilon `$).

According to the dominant coalescence mechanism it is convenient to characterize $`\overline{d}`$ production in heavy ion collisions by the coalescence parameter:

$$B_2=E_{\overline{d}}\frac{d^3N_{\overline{d}}}{d^3p_{\overline{d}}}\left(E_{\overline{p}}\frac{d^3N_{\overline{p}}}{d^3p_{\overline{p}}}E_{\overline{n}}\frac{d^3N_{\overline{n}}}{d^3p_{\overline{n}}}\right)^1,$$
(1)
where we can put $`d^3N_{\overline{p}}/d^3p_{\overline{p}}=d^3N_{\overline{n}}/d^3p_{\overline{n}},p_{\overline{p}}=p_{\overline{n}}=p_{\overline{d}}/2`$. In what follows, we will consider only the central heavy ion collisions.

2. Theory. Consider the ”dense gas” stage of fireball evolution, which follows after so-called ”chemical freeze-out” stage . Assume, that particle propagations at this stage may be described classically using kinetic equations. We use the notation $`q_i(x,p)`$, $`i=\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$, $`\overline{d}`$, $`\pi `$ $`\mathrm{}`$ for the double densities in coordinate and momentum spaces, $`n_i(x)=q_i(x,p)d^3p`$ are the densities. ($`q_i(x,p)`$ – are Lorentz invariant.) Let us work in the c.m. system of colliding ions. The kinetic equation for $`q_{\overline{d}}(p_{\overline{d}},x)`$ reads:

$$\frac{m_{\overline{d}}}{E_{\overline{d}}}\frac{q_{\overline{d}}(p_{\overline{d}},x)}{x_\mu }u_\mu ^{\overline{d}}=\frac{q_{\overline{d}}}{t}+𝐯_{\overline{d}}q_{\overline{d}}=d^3p_{\overline{p}}d^3p_{\overline{n}}q_{\overline{p}}(p_{\overline{p}})q_{\overline{n}}(p_{\overline{n}})\sigma _{\overline{p}\overline{n}\overline{d}}v_{\overline{p}\overline{n}}^{rel}\times $$

$$\times \delta ^3(p_{\overline{p}}+p_{\overline{n}}p_{\overline{d}})q_{\overline{d}}(p_{\overline{d}})\left[d^3p_\pi q_\pi (p_\pi )\sigma _{\pi \overline{d}}v_{\pi \overline{d}}^{rel}+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(2)
where $`u_\mu ^{\overline{d}}=(1,𝐯_{\overline{d}})/\sqrt{1v_{\overline{d}}^2}`$ is the $`\overline{d}`$ 4-velocity, the ellipsis mean similar terms for collisions of $`\overline{d}`$ with other constituents of the fireball ($`p,n`$ etc.) and $`v_{\overline{p}\overline{n}}^{rel}`$, $`v_{\pi \overline{d}}^{rel}`$ are the differences of $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$ and $`\pi ,\overline{d}`$ velocities $`v_{\overline{p}\overline{n}}^{rel}=|𝐯_{\overline{p}}𝐯_{\overline{n}}|`$ etc. The terms, when $`\overline{d}`$ appears in the momentum interval $`p_{\overline{d}}+\mathrm{\Delta }p_{\overline{d}}`$ due to elastic collisions are neglected. Necessary applicability condition of (2) is $`\lambda =p_i^1d`$, where $`d`$ is the mean distance between fireball constituents.

The cross section $`\sigma _{\overline{p}\overline{n}\overline{d}}=\sigma _{pnd}`$ is equal to:

$$\sigma _{pnd}=\frac{3}{4}\frac{\pi }{4}\frac{g^2}{E_pE_nE_d}\frac{1}{v_{pn}^{rel}}\delta (E_p+E_nE_d),$$
(3)
where $`E_p,E_n,E_d`$ are $`p,n`$ and $`d`$ total energies, 3/4 is the spin factor and $`g`$ is the coupling constant of low energy effective $`pnd`$ intraction (in the $`d`$ c.m. system). The value of $`g^2`$ was found by Landau  from the requirement of coincidence (at the deuteron pole) of the $`pn`$ scattering amplitude in effective theory with the amplitude in the Bethe-Peierls theory of the low-energy $`pn`$-scattering . In the limit of zero range of nuclear forces $`g^2`$ is

$$g^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}128}\pi m_N\sqrt{m_N\epsilon },$$
(4)
where $`m_N`$ is the nucleon mass, $`\epsilon =2.2\mathrm{MeV}`$ is the deuteron binding energy. The account of non-zero range $`r_0`$ increases $`g^2`$ by a factor of $`(1\sqrt{m_N\epsilon }r_0)^11.6`$ .

The mass of the particle moving in medium is shifted being compared with its vacuum value. Similarly, due to interaction with medium constutuents, the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ appears (or width broadening, if the particle has its proper width). The mass shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }m(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ are expressed through the forward scattering amplitude $`f(E)`$ of the particle on medium constituent (see  and references therein).

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m(E)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \frac{n}{m}\mathrm{Re}f(E)$$
(5)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \frac{n}{m}\mathrm{Im}f(E)=\frac{np}{m}\sigma (E),$$
(6)
where $`E`$, $`p`$ and $`m`$ are particle energy, momentum and mass, $`n`$ is the density of the constutuent in medium. Eqs. (5),(6) take place in the system, where constutuents are at rest. In case of moving constituents the corresponding Lorentz boost must be done. (By definition $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are Lorentz invariant, for details see ).

Therefore, $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ in the reaction $`\overline{p}+\overline{n}\overline{d}`$ can be considered as Breit-Wigner resonances with varying masses distributed according to the Breit-Wigner formula. In process of the fireball expansion these Breit-Wigner resonances smoothly evolve to their stable counterparts. So we integrate the first term in the r.h.s. of (2) after substituting (3) over the masses $`m^{}`$ of the Breit-Wigner resonances:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑m_{\overline{p}}^{}𝑑m_{\overline{n}}^{}𝑑m_{\overline{d}}^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}/2\pi }{(m_{\overline{p}}^{}m_{\overline{p}})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}^2/4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}}/2\pi }{(m_{\overline{n}}^{}m_{\overline{n}})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}}^2/4}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{d}}/2\pi }{(m_{\overline{d}}^{}m_{\overline{d}})^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{d}}^2/4}}`$ (7)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{E_{\overline{d}}^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_{\overline{p}}}{E_{\overline{p}}^{}}\frac{d^3p_{\overline{n}}}{E_{\overline{n}}^{}}q_{\overline{p}}(p_{\overline{p}})q_{\overline{n}}(p_{\overline{n}})\delta ^3(p_{\overline{p}}+p_{\overline{n}}p_{\overline{d}})\delta (E_{\overline{p}}^{}+E_{\overline{n}}^{}E_{\overline{d}}^{})}`$
where $`E_{\overline{p}}^{}=\sqrt{p_{\overline{p}}^2+m_{\overline{p}}^{}^2}`$ etc. We assume that the widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }m`$ are much smaller than the typical momenta in $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$ distributions. Than the distributions $`q_{\overline{p}}(p_{\overline{p}})=q_{\overline{n}}(p_{\overline{n}})`$ can be taken out from the integral sign at the values $`p_{\overline{p}}=p_{\overline{n}}=p_{\overline{d}}/2`$. The result of calculation is given by

$$I=\frac{3\pi ^2}{16E_{\overline{d}}}g^2\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{d}}}{m_N}}q_{\overline{p}}^2(p_{\overline{p}})$$
(8)
(the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_{\overline{d}}m_{\overline{p}}m_{\overline{n}}30\mathrm{MeV}`$ is small in comparison with the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }300\mathrm{MeV}`$ and neglected in (8)). Later we assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{d}}`$ generally is not equal to the antideuteron width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}2\mathrm{\Gamma }600\mathrm{MeV}`$. The $`\overline{p}\overline{n}`$ system with $`\overline{d}`$ quantum numbers at high excitations will not evolve to $`\overline{d}`$ in the process of fireball expansion, but may decay in other ways. One may expect $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{d}}<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}`$. We shall keep the ratio $`a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{d}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}`$ as free parameter in the calculations. However, the results weakly depend on this ratio: the variation within the limits $`0<a<1`$ may change the coalescence parameter (1) by at most $`\sqrt{2}`$ times, but in real cases about $`20\%`$. This uncertainty is within accuracy of the whole method, estimated as $`50\%`$.

The contributions of direct processes $`\overline{p}+\overline{p}\overline{d}+\pi ^{}`$, $`\overline{n}+\overline{n}\overline{d}+\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{p}+\overline{n}\overline{d}+\pi ^0`$ are small, alltogether about $`20\%`$ in comparison with (8). If these processes were essential, the coalescence parameter $`B_2`$ (1) would be meaningless, since the antideuteron distribution $`d^3N_{\overline{d}}/d^3p_{\overline{d}}`$ is given by complicated integral over the antinucleon distributions in this case.

At large $`p_{\overline{p}}`$ the $`\overline{p}`$ spectrum decreases steeply, so the approximation $`p_{\overline{p}}=p_{\overline{d}}/2`$ becomes inaccurate which leads to an underestimation of $`B_2`$. The case of large $`p_{\overline{p}}>1\mathrm{GeV}`$ is not considered here.

Using (6) and performing Lorentz boost to heavy ion c.m. frame, the term in square brackets in (2) can be brought to the form $`(m_d/E_{\overline{d}})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}=\underset{i}{}d^3p_iq_i(p_i)v_{i\overline{d}}^{rel}\sigma _{i\overline{d}}(\overline{d}\text{at rest})$$
(9)
Suppose, that the rate of antideuteron collisions with other constituents of the fireball resulting in antideuteron desintegration is much larger than the rate of fireball expansion. This happens at collisions of heavy nuclei at high energies, when the fireball size is large because of large number of produced pions per nucleon. In this case one may expect the balance: the first term in the r.h.s. of (2) is equal to the second one and

$$q_{\overline{d}}(p_{\overline{d}})=\frac{I}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}(m_{\overline{d}}/E_{\overline{d}})}=\frac{3\pi ^2}{32m_N}\sqrt{\frac{1+a}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }m_N}}g^2q_{\overline{p}}^2(p_{\overline{p}})$$
(10)
The momentum distribution $`d^3N_{\overline{d}}/d^3p_{\overline{d}}`$ entering (1) is obtained from (10) by integration over the fireball volume

$$\frac{d^3N_{\overline{d}}(p_{\overline{d}})}{d^3p_{\overline{d}}}=d^3xq_{\overline{d}}(p_{\overline{d}},x)$$
(11)
Using (1), (10), (11) and (4) (with $`r_0`$ correction) we find for the coalescence parameter

$$B_2^{th}=\frac{24\pi ^3}{E_{\overline{p}}}\times 1.6\sqrt{\frac{(1+a)\epsilon }{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\frac{d^3xq_{\overline{p}}^2(p_{\overline{p}},x)}{\left[d^3xq_{\overline{p}}(p_{\overline{p}},x)\right]^2}$$
(12)
Since the $`x`$-dependence of $`q_{\overline{p}}(p_{\overline{p}},x)`$ is not known, we replace (12) by:

$$B_2^{th}=\frac{24\pi ^3}{E_{\overline{p}}}\times 1.6\sqrt{\frac{(1+a)\epsilon }{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\frac{2}{V}\frac{\overline{n^2}_{\overline{p}}}{(\overline{n}_{\overline{p}})^2}$$
(13)
where $`V`$ is the fireball volume, $`\overline{n}_p`$ and $`\overline{n^2}_p`$ are the mean and mean square $`\overline{p}`$ densitites in the fireball. (The coordinate dependence of $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is neglected). $`B_2^{th}`$ is Lorenz invariant, as it should be. The volume $`V`$ may be understood as a mean value of the fireball volume at a stage, where, on one side, hadrons are already formed, i.e., mean distances between them are larger than the confinement radius $`R_c1/m_\rho (1/4)\mathrm{fm}`$, but on the other side, hadron interactions are still essential. The antinucleon distributions $`n_{\overline{p}}(𝐫),n_{\overline{n}}(𝐫)`$ inside the fireball are nonuniform: at the dense gas stage and before it the antinucleons strongly annihilate in the internal part of the fireball and in much less extent in its external layer of the thickness of order $`\overline{p}(\overline{n})`$ annihilation length $`l_{ann}`$ (this effect was considered in ). For this reason $`\overline{n^2}_p/\overline{n}_p^2`$ may be remarkable larger than 1. For the same reason the antinucleons and antideuterons from the backside of the fireball (relative to the observer) are absorbed in the fireball and cannot reach the detector (see Fig. 1). Therefore, only one half of the fireball volume contributes to the number of registered $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$. The corresponding factor approximately equal to 2 is accounted in (13).

In fact, the fireball evolution after the balance may reduce the antideuteron number as $`N_{\overline{d}}N_{\overline{d}}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is a typical time, required for the antideuteron to leave the interaction region. (Such $`50\%`$ reduction of $`K^{}`$ mesons was observed in .) However, this effect does not change the coalescence parameter $`B_2`$. Indeed, in this case $`B_2`$ should be multiplied on the factor $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}\mathrm{\Delta }t}/(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}\mathrm{\Delta }t})^2`$; the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the same both for antideuteron and antiproton in consideration, because they move with equal velocities. But since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}`$ with good accuracy (we checked it explicitly by eq (9)), this factor is close to 1 regardless of the evolution details.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may be calculated if the spectrum and densities of the fireball constituents at hadronic gas stage are known. At high energy of heavy ion collisions (SPS, RHIC) the main conributions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}`$ come from the collisions of $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$, $`\overline{d}`$ with pions. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}`$ essentially depend on pionic density in the fireball, the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the densities of other fireball constituents is much weaker. Also weak is the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the spectrum of the fireball constituents, since the main contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{p}}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{n}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}`$) arises from the collisions at high energies in c.m. system of $`\overline{p}(\overline{n},\overline{d})+\pi `$, where the cross sections are approximately constant. For this reason, without a serious error, for the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we can take the spectra from the experimental data, i.e. corresponding to the final stage of the fireball evolution. Moreover, since the widths enters as $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ in (13), the errors are reduced twice. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is known, then by comparison with the data the parameter $`V^1(\overline{n^2}_{\overline{p}}/\overline{n}_{\overline{p}}^2)`$ can be found, what would allow to check various models of fireball evolution.

3. Comparison with the data. Consider the NA44 experiment at SPS (CERN): $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=17A\mathrm{GeV}`$ . Antideuterons were observed at $`0.6<p_{\overline{d}t}<1.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ and in the rapidity interval 1.9 to 2.1 in lab. system, which corresponds to $`\overline{p}_{\overline{p}t}=0.55\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`(E_{\overline{p}})_{c.m.}=1.5\mathrm{GeV}`$. The spectra and particle yields at such collisions are given in . The number of active nucleons, participating in collision (”wounded” nucleons) $`N_N`$ and the number of produced pions are presented in : $`N_N=362`$, $`N_\pi =1890`$, $`Q_\pi =N_\pi /N_N=5.2`$ (see also  for the review of the data on heavy ion collisions).

We accept the following model for the dense gas stage of fireball evolution . (A related model had been suggested long ago : it may be called Fermi–Pomeranhuk model). Neglect for a moment contributions of all particles except for nucleons and pions. Assume that any participant – nucleon or pion occupies the volume $`v_N`$ or $`v_\pi `$, respectively. Then

$$n_N=\frac{N_N}{V}=\frac{n_N^0}{1+Q_\pi \beta },n_\pi =\frac{N_\pi }{V}=\frac{n_N^0Q_\pi }{1+Q_\pi \beta }$$
(14)
where $`n_N^0=1/v_N`$, $`\beta =v_\pi /v_N`$. For numerical estimations we take $`n_N^0=0.26\mathrm{fm}^3`$, 1.5 times standard nucleus density and $`\beta =(r_\pi /r_N)^30.55`$, where $`r_\pi =0.66\mathrm{fm}`$ and $`r_N=0.81\mathrm{fm}`$ are pion and nucleon electric radii. It must be stressed, that $`n_N^0`$ is the only essential uncertain parameter in our approach. Even if $`Q_\pi `$ at dense gas stage differs from ones at the final stage, the arising error is essentially compensated by the appearance of $`Q_\pi `$ both in numerator and denominator in (14). (As was already mentioned, the nucleon contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is small.)

Check first the applicability conditions of our approach. We have: $`n=n_N+n_\pi 0.42\mathrm{fm}^3`$ and the mean distance between the fireball constutuents is $`d=1/n^{1/3}=1.3\mathrm{fm}`$. Evidently, the condition $`\lambda _{\overline{p}}=1/p_{\overline{p}}d`$ is well satisfied. The calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ according to (9) ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{d}}/2`$) gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }300\mathrm{MeV}`$. (Only inelastic cross sections were accounted, the pion contribution comprises about $`75\%`$, the nucleon one about $`25\%`$. Note, that the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is close to the momentum integration interval in the Wigner function approach, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P200300\mathrm{MeV}`$, found in .) Check now the balance condition – that the probability of deuteron desintegration exceeds the fireball expansion rate. The former is given by $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }(m_N/E_{\overline{p}})`$. The estimation for the escape rate (or fireball expansion) is $`w(1/4)\mathrm{fm}^1`$. We have: $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }(m_N/E_p)2.0\mathrm{fm}^10.25\mathrm{fm}^1`$. So, this condition is also fulfilled. Even more, the balance condition would be fullfilled at much lower hadronic densities than chosen above, up to $`n_N^00.05\mathrm{fm}^3`$, i.e. up to densities not much higher, than supposed for thermal freeze-out , , . However, such low densities would lead to much lower values of $`B_2`$, than ones obtained in experiments. Eq.6 is legitimate, if $`Imf(E)d`$ . Since $`Imf1\mathrm{fm}`$, this condition is not well satisfied. For this reason the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, presented above, has a large (may be 50%) uncertainty, amd, probably, is overestimated (the effect of screening). This fact, however, does not influence too much the value $`B_2^{th}`$, since $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ enters (12). One may expect, that because of their slightly larger velocities in comparison with nucleons, pions form a halo around the fireball. This effect also may lead to an overestimation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

At the parameters used above the fireball volume comes out to be: $`V=6.2\times 10^3\mathrm{fm}^3`$ (15% correction for other particles, except for pions and nucleons were accounted). This value is about 2 times larger, than the ones found in  at chemical freeze-out and about 2 times smaller, than at thermal freeze-out . (Note, that the dense gas stage is an intermediate between these two.) In the case of sphere its radius is equal to $`R=11.4\mathrm{fm}`$. If we assume, that antiprotons are mainly concentrated in the outer shell of the fireball of the thickness of $`l_{ann}3\mathrm{fm}`$, then $`\overline{n^2}/\overline{n}^22`$ and we get for the coalescence parameter

$$B_2^{th}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.0}\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(15)
(We put $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{d}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, or $`a=1/2`$.) Experimentally , for the average value of the most central 10% events it was found: $`B_2^{exp}=(4.4\pm 1.3)\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. However, $`B_2^{exp}`$ strongly depends on centrality: the results for $`05\%`$ centrality are about 1.5 times lower. Taking in mind all uncertaintlies – theoretical and experimental, we believe, that the NA44 data for coalescence parameter are not in contradiction with theoretical expectation.

Turn now to the STAR experiment at RHIC: $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130A\mathrm{GeV}`$ . Antideuterons were measured at $`0.5<p_t<0.8\mathrm{GeV}`$ and in the rapidity interval $`|\mathrm{\Delta }y_{c.m.}|<0.3`$, $`18\%`$ of central collisioins were collected. We take $`\overline{E}_{\overline{p},c.m.}=1.05\mathrm{GeV}`$. The number of ”wounded” nucleons in the $`18\%`$ central $`Au+Au`$ collisions can be estimated as $`N_N=320`$ . Multiplicity of negative hadrons $`\overline{h}`$ (mainly, pions) was measured in  at pseudorapidity $`\eta =0`$ only and it was found an increasing of $`dh^{}/d\eta _{\eta =0}`$ by $`52\%`$ comparing with the SPS data at $`\sqrt{s}=17A\mathrm{GeV}`$. But it is known that $`dh/d\eta /_{\eta =0}`$ increase faster with energy than the total multiplicity. We estimate $`Q_\pi =N_\pi /N_N7\pm 1`$. (A value close to the presented above, can be found from the data compilation ). At $`N_N=320`$ with account of $`20\%`$ correction for $`K`$-mesons and hyperons $`V=7.2\times 10^3\mathrm{fm}^3`$. The coalescence parameter is equal to

$$B_2^{th}=3.8\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(16)
($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=320\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`\overline{n}^2/(\overline{n})^2`$ was put to be 2). Experimentally, STAR found $`B_2^{exp}=(4.5\pm 0.3\pm 1.0)\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

The main uncertainty of $`B_2^{th}`$ comes from the fireball volume $`V`$ which was calculated by (14). However, the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ also depends on the fireball volume, so that $`B_2^{th}1/\sqrt{V}`$, which suppresses this uncertainty twice. We expect the accuracy of our estimations (15), (16) to be about $`50\%`$.

In E864 experiment  at AGS the antideuterons were observed in $`Au+Pt`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=4.8A\mathrm{GeV}`$. 10% of central collisions we selected. From the data we take: $`p_{\overline{p}t}=0.17\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\overline{E}_{\overline{p},c.m.}=0.99\mathrm{GeV}`$. The number of ”wounded” nucleons and $`\pi /N`$ ratio are $`N_N=350`$, $`Q_\pi =1.6`$ (see  and references herein). In the same way as before, we find: $`V=2.8\times 10^3\mathrm{fm}^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=220\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`l_{ann}=1.2\mathrm{fm}`$. In this case the validity conditions of our approach are at the edge of their applicability. So, the theoretical expectations for $`B_2`$ are valid only by the order of magnitude:

$$B_2^{th}1.5\times 10^3\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(17)
in comparison with $`B_2^{exp}=(4.1\pm 2.9\pm 2.3)\times 10^3\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

4. Summary and Acknowledgements. The coalescence parameter $`B_2`$ for the antideuteron production in heavy ions collisions was calculated. It was supposed, that the $`\overline{d}`$ production proceeds at the stage, when the fireball may be treated as a dense gas of interacting hadrons. The $`\overline{d}`$ production is described as the formation process $`\overline{p}+\overline{n}\overline{d}`$, where $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{n}`$, $`\overline{d}`$ are moving in the mean field of the fireball constituents (mainly pions). It was shown, that in case of large $`N_\pi /N_N`$ ratio one may expect a balance: the number of produced antideuterons is equal to the number of desintegrated $`\overline{d}`$ due to collisions with pions. The balance condition determines $`\overline{d}`$ production rate and the value of coalescence parameter $`B_2`$. The later is expressed in terms of deuteron binding energy and mean fireball volume at this stage. The comparison with data demonstrates, that $`\overline{d}`$-production proceeds at the stage intermediate between chemical and thermal freeze-out – the dense gas stage of the fireball evolution. The theoretical values of $`B_2`$ are in satisfactory agreement with experimental data at SPS, RHIC and AGS but more data at various nuclei and various energies of collision and $`\overline{d}`$ energies would be very desirable. The comparison of the data with theory would allow to check various models of fireball evolution.

We are thankful to G.Brown, L.McLerran, E.Shuryak for discussions and S.Kiselev, Yu.Kiselev, A.Smirnitsky, N.Rabin for information about experimental data. This work was supported in part by INTAS grant 2000-587 and RFBR grant 03-02-16209.