text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, some suggestions appeared that the classical Lorentz invariance should be treated as an approximate symmetry in ultra-high energy processes (shift of GZK kinematic threshold) and the relativistic space-time symmetries on Planck scale should be modified . There are also some theoretical predictions coming from the string theory and quantum gravity models that space-time at very short distances of order Planck length should be quantum i.e. noncommutative . One can modify the standard Lorentz or Poincaré relativistic symmetry in two different ways: obtaining a commutative space-time (as in the standard relativistic theory) or noncommutative space-time with space and time non-commuting variables.
The first type of modified relativistic symmetries follows from the concept of the double special relativistic (DSR) theory introduced by Amelino-Camelia , where two observer-independent parameters (scales) – $`c,\lambda _p`$ – velocity of light and Planck length play the fundamental role. In this framework, two basic models of such DSR theory are considered: DSR1 theory proposed by Amelino-Camelia and DSR2 theory considered by Magueijo and Smolin . In both proposals the energy-momentum vector space is extended to the four-momentum algebra considered as enveloping algebra of this linear energy-momentum space. In this algebra the nonlinear transformation of the basis vectors (of energy-momentum space) is realized according to DSR1 or DSR2 theory models. In this way we get four non-linearly transformed generators belonging to the energy-momentum algebra which are assumed to represent physical energy and momentum. Using this transformed four-momentum basis we obtain for instance the standard dispersion relation in a modified form which is, however, quite equivalent (under an inverse nonlinear transformation) to the standard one. One can also consider the action of the relativistic symmetry on physical energy and momentum as a nonlinear realization of the Lorentz group and express the addition laws of energy and momentum by the coproduct (non-linearly transformed trivial coproduct)  and extending in this way the energy-momentum algebra to a bialgebra structure. Space-time related to this bialgebra structure is defined as a dual bialgebra where multiplication of the space-time variables follows from the coproduct. The momentum coproduct is symmetric, therefore space-time is commuting. In consistency with conclusions in , recently it has been observed  that DSR theories with symmetric coproduct law describe just the standard special relativity framework in nonlinear disguise.
The second type of modified relativistic symmetries bases on the concept of the Hopf algebra (quantum group) ,  and quantum deformations of the classical Lorentz or Poincaré symmetry . In this approach there is a distinguished deformation, the so called $`\kappa `$-deformation of the Poincaré symmetry , where $`O(3)`$-rotational symmetry is not deformed. The Hopf algebra structure of this deformation will be discussed in detail in Section 2. However, we would like to stress that the four-momentum algebra for DSR1 theory and the $`\kappa `$-deformed theory (in bicrossproduct basis) are the same, and give us the same physical predictions. The main difference between both theories lies in their coalgebra sectors, because in the $`\kappa `$-deformed Poincaré algebra the coproduct of the four-momentum is non-symmetric. This fact has important consequences for a possibility of physical interpretation of the $`\kappa `$-deformed addition law of energy-momentum. On the other hand, this non-symmetricity of coproduct allows us to obtain non-commutativity of space-time in the Hopf algebra framework. The idea of a non-commutativity of space-time appeared in physics since Snyder’s articles , where the space-time is isomorphic to a quotient of de Sitter $`SO(4,1)`$ and Lorentz $`SO(3,1)`$ groups.
Further, we shall consider $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time defined as a dual Hopf algebra to the $`\kappa `$-deformed four-momentum algebra considered as a subalgebra of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré Hopf algebra i.e. the space-time is understood in Majid and Ruegg sense . Such a space-time has a Hopf algebra structure given by coproduct of trivial form. In this paper we shall consider a twisting operation acting on the $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time algebra. The notion of twisting of Hopf algebra was introduced by Drinfeld  and then applied to enveloping algebras of simple Lie algebras  and the applications to physical symmetry algebras one can find in  and recently in $`\kappa `$-deformations of Weyl and conformal symmetries .
For a given pair of space-time and four-momentum algebras one can define a phase-space algebra using the notion of cross product algebra . It is well known that although both paired algebras have a Hopf algebra structure, the phase space algebra is no longer a Hopf algebra. The case of $`\kappa `$-deformed phase space is considered in , .
In Section 2 we recall the Hopf algebra structure of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra in a very useful bicrossproduct basis  in which the Lorentz algebra sector has a classical form. We also discuss the $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time underlying the role of duality relations.
In Section 3.1 we show that one can define only two kinds of twisting operations on $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time: twisting in space directions (SD) and in time direction (TD). For both cases we derive their Hopf algebra structure. In Section 3.2 we extend our dual pair to a phase space algebra and we find phase space commutation relations. It appears that the SD-twisted phase space can not be considered as a linear vector space because of nonlinear phase space commutation relations.
Section 4 is devoted to the derivation of duality relations between the twisted space-time algebra and the momentum algebra for simplicity in two dimensional space-time. It is more a computational part of the paper where we find that the space-time twisting effectively changes only duality relations. In this way the basis of twisted space-time algebra becomes non-orthogonal (one can say ”twisted”) with respect to the momentum basis. We also consider D=2 twisted $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time by nonsymmetric twisting function (Jordanian twist) ,  and dual momentum algebra. The phase space for this Jordanian deformation is obtained and considered.

## 2 $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra in the bicrossproduct basis <br>and $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time

Let us recall the structure of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra given in the bicrossproduct basis
\- non-deformed (classical) Lorentz algebra ($`g_{\mu \nu }=(1,1,1,1)`$)

$$[M_{\mu \nu },M_{\rho \tau }]=i(g_{\mu \rho }M_{\nu \tau }+g_{\nu \tau }M_{\mu \rho }g_{\mu \tau }M_{\nu \rho }g_{\nu \rho }M_{\mu \tau }),$$
(1)
\- deformed covariance relations ($`M_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}M_{jk},N_i=M_{i0}`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[M_i,p_j]\hfill & =iϵ_{ijk}p_k,\hfill & [M_i,p_0]=0,\hfill \\ [N_i,p_0]\hfill & =ip_i,\hfill & [p_\mu ,p_\nu ]=0,\hfill \\ [N_i,p_j]\hfill & =i\delta _{ij}\left[\kappa c\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{p_0}{\kappa c})e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}+\frac{1}{2\kappa c}(\stackrel{}{p})^2\right]\frac{i}{\kappa c}p_ip_j,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\kappa `$ \- massive deformation parameter and c - light velocity.
One can extend this algebra to a Hopf algebra defining the coalgebra sector by coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X)`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }(M_i)=\hfill & M_i1+1M_i,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(N_i)=\hfill & N_i1+e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}N_i+\frac{1}{\kappa c}ϵ_{ijk}p_jM_k,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(p_0)=\hfill & p_01+1p_0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(p_i)=\hfill & p_i1+e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}p_i,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
with antipode $`S(X)`$ and counit $`ϵ(X)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S(M_i)\hfill & =M_i,\hfill & S(N_i)=e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}N_i+\frac{1}{\kappa c}ϵ_{ijk}e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}p_jM_k,\hfill \\ S(p_0)\hfill & =p_0,\hfill & S(p_i)=p_ie^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
$$ϵ(X)=0,ϵ(1)=1,forX=M_i,N_i,p_\mu .$$
(5)
Therefore, in the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré Hopf algebra one can distinguish the following three subalgebras
\- classical Lorentz algebra $`=\{_{\mu \nu }\}`$ given by (1),
\- non-deformed $`O(3)`$-rotation algebra $`=\{M_i,\mathrm{\Delta },S,ϵ\}`$ as a Hopf subalgebra with trivial coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M_i)`$,
\- abelian four-momentum algebra $`𝒫_\kappa =\{p_\mu ,\mathrm{\Delta },S,ϵ\}`$ as a Hopf subalgebra with
non-symmetric coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_\mu )`$ given by the relations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]\hfill & =0,\hfill & ϵ(p_\mu )=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(p_0)\hfill & =p_01+1p_0,\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }(p_i)=p_i1+e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}p_i,\hfill \\ S(p_0)\hfill & =p_0,\hfill & S(p_i)=p_ie^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The Hopf four-momentum algebra $`𝒫_\kappa `$ can be considered as a deformation of universal enveloping algebra of classical translation algebra, generated (in Drinfel’d sense ) by polynomial functions of linear momentum generators $`p_\mu `$ (translations).
To define the $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time we adopt Majid and Ruegg point of view , namely, using this algebra $`𝒫_\kappa `$ we define $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time algebra $`𝒳_\kappa `$ in a natural way, as a dual algebra to four-momentum translation algebra $`𝒫_\kappa `$. One can assume the standard duality relations between linear bases of both algebras, respecting Hopf algebra structure.
Let $`𝒳_\kappa `$ be generated by space-time variables $`\{x_0,\stackrel{}{x}\}`$ dual to four-momentum $`p_\mu `$ satisfying the following duality relations

$`<p_\mu ,x_\nu >=ig_{\mu \nu },`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }=(1,1,1,1),`$ (7)
$`<p_\mu ,1>=<1,x_\mu >=0,`$ $`<1,1>=1,`$ (8)
$`<pq,x>=<pq,\mathrm{\Delta }(x)>,`$ $`<p,xy>=<\mathrm{\Delta }(p),xy>,`$ (9)
where $`p_\mu ,p,q𝒫_\kappa ,x_\nu ,x,y𝒳_\kappa `$,
or using Sweedler coproduct notation (see for instance ) $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=a_{(1)}a_{(2)}`$ relations (9) can be rewritten as

$`<pq,x>`$ $`=`$ $`<pq,\mathrm{\Delta }(x)>=<p,x_{(1)}><q,x_{(2)}>,`$ (10)
$`<p,xy>`$ $`=`$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }(p),xy>=<p_{(1)},x><p_{(2)},y>.`$ (11)
Relations (6-9) do not describe the Hopf algebra structure of space-time algebra uniquely, in particular they describe a wide class of coproducts $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_\nu )`$. The form of space-time coproduct depends on the choice of higher order duality relations and vice versa. If we assume orthogonality of space-time and four-momentum monomial basis in the form ($`i,j=1,2,3,k,l,m,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$)

$$<p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{n},x_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}x_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}>=m!n!\delta _{mk}\delta _{nl}\delta _{ij}<p_0,x_0>^n<p_i,x_i>^m,$$
(12)
then we get the following form of non-commuting space-time Hopf algebra

$`[x_0,x_i]`$ $`=<e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}},x_0>x_i={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa c}}x_i,`$ $`[x_i,x_j]=0,\text{}`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_\mu )`$ $`=x_\mu 1+1x_\mu ,S(x_\mu )=x_\mu ,`$ $`ϵ(x_\mu )=0,`$ (14)
with trivial, symmetric coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_\mu )`$.
In this place we would like to stress the difference between the notion of space-time algebra and the concept of deformed (quantum or $`\kappa `$-deformed) space-time – the linear span of space-time variables $`x_\mu `$. For the commuting (classical) space-time both notions are equivalent – commuting space-time algebra is simply the algebra of commuting (polynomial) functions on space-time. Classical space-time can be regarded as a dual to the four-momentum (translation) space because of trivial momentum coproduct. However, in the deformed (quantum) case the momentum coproduct (6) contains the exponential factor which belongs to the momentum algebra. It is the reason why we use the notion of space-time algebra for non-commuting space-time.
Because the space-time variables $`x_\mu `$ do not commute among themselves, one can also choose a space-time monomial basis with opposite ordering and satisfying the duality relations

$`<p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{n},x_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}x_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l!\delta _{km}\delta _{ij}}{(ln)!}}<p_i,x_i>^m<p_0,x_0>^n<e^{\frac{mp_0}{\kappa c}},x_0^{ln}>,\text{}`$ (15)
$`<p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{n},x_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}x_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}>`$ $`=`$ $`0forn>l,`$ (16)
therefore, for this ordering, we obtain non-orthogonal duality relations for $`0nl`$. Both relations (12) and (16) one can rewrite in a more convenient form using the exponential generating function

$`<p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}e^{\xi p_0},x_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}x_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`<e^{\xi p_0},x_0^l><p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{m},x_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}>,`$ (17)
$`<p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}e^{\xi p_0},x_0^lx_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}>`$ $`=`$ $`<e^{\xi p_0\frac{mp_0}{\kappa }},x_0^l><p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{m},x_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}>=`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`<e^{\xi p_0},(x_0i{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\kappa c}})^l><p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{m},x_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}>.`$
Comparing these formulae one can easy obtain the general form of the space-time commutation relations

$$[x_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{k},x_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}]=x_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\left\{x_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}\left(x_0i\frac{k}{\kappa c}\right)^l\right\},$$
(19)
in the right-time-ordered basis (12) (with all powers of the time variable $`x_0`$ on the right).
We would like to notice, that the duality relations (12) have the same form as in the case of the classical Poincaré algebra with trivial Hopf structure and its commuting dual space-time algebra. This duality relation can be rewritten in an equivalent form (see )

$$<f(p_i,p_0),:\varphi (x_j,x_0):>=\left(f(i\frac{}{x_i},i\frac{}{x_0})\varphi \right)(0,0),$$
(20)
for polynomial functions $`f,\varphi `$ and $`:\varphi :`$ denotes right-time-ordered polynomial.
Further, we shall consider the coproducts of space-time variables related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_\mu )`$ by twisting procedure, and we shall discuss twisted duality relations.

## 3 Twisted $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time and phase space

### 3.1 Twisting procedure

It is well known, that $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time (13) can be extended to a Hopf algebra up to similarity transformation (twisting) in the coalgebra sector. The choice of coproduct in the form (14) is the simplest one, however one can also consider a more general class of twisted coproducts ,  given by the following similarity transformation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_\mu )=F\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_\mu )F^1,$$
(21)
where $`(ab)(cd)=acbd`$ and an invertible twisting function $`F𝒳_\kappa 𝒳_\kappa `$ satisfies the additional Hopf structure requirements which follow from the properties of twisted coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_\mu )`$
coassociativity

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }^F1)\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_\mu )=(1\mathrm{\Delta }^F)\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_\mu ),$$
(22)
consistency relations

$`(ϵ1)\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`(1ϵ)\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_\mu )=x_\mu ,`$ (23)
$`(S^F1)\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`(1S^F)\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_\mu )=0,`$ (24)
where we denote $`(ab)(cd)=acbd`$. We would like to notice, that twisted space-time is defined by twisted coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }^F`$ and antipode $`S^F`$.

The coassociativity condition (22) can be rewritten in a more familiar form as a 2-cocycle condition imposed on the twisting function $`F`$

$$(1F)(1\mathrm{\Delta }_0)F=(F1)(\mathrm{\Delta }_01)F.$$
(25)
Without loss of generality we assume the following exponential form  of the twisting function

$$F=\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _n\varphi ^n\right),$$
(26)
where $`\varphi _n,\varphi ^n𝒳_\kappa `$. Then the coassociativity condition (25) one can express by the formula

$$e^{1\varphi _n\varphi ^n}e^{\varphi _n\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\varphi ^n)}=e^{\varphi _n\varphi ^n1}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\varphi _n)\varphi ^n}.$$
(27)
Let us notice that the relations (13) - (14) define noncommuting space-time as a four dimensional Lie algebra and $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time algebra as an enveloping Lie algebra $`𝒳_\kappa `$. Therefore, one can use the results of ref.  to find twisted space-time as a twisted Lie algebra with the Hopf structure. It is equivalent to put the additional requirements on the twisting function $`F`$

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_01)F=F_{13}F_{23}=F_{23}F_{13},[F_{12},F_{23}]=0,$$
(28)
where we use the standard notation

$$F_{12}=F1,F_{23}=1F,F_{13}=e^{\varphi _n1\varphi ^n}.$$
(29)
In this framework, the elements $`\varphi _n,\varphi ^n`$ belong to commutative subalgebra of $`𝒳_\kappa `$, with trivial coproduct

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\varphi ^n)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^n1+1\varphi ^n,[\varphi _n\varphi ^n,\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\varphi ^m)]=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\varphi _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _n1+1\varphi _n,[\varphi _n\varphi ^n,\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\varphi _m)]=0.`$ (30)
Of course, it is not the most general case of a twisting function $`F`$. For instance, if we do not assume commutativity of $`F_{12},F_{23}`$ in (28) (so, we give up a Lie algebra twisting framework) we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\varphi _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _n1+1\varphi _n,[\varphi _m,\varphi _n]=0,`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^F(\varphi ^n)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^n1+1\varphi ^n,[\varphi ^m,\varphi ^n]=0.`$ (32)
In this case we obtain more general twisting function $`F`$ of noncommuting space-time (so called Jordanian twist, discussed in Section 4).

If we consider the twisting of $`\kappa `$-deformed space time algebra, we deal with symmetric function $`F`$ because the dual fourmomentum algebra is commuting one. Therefore, a symmetric twisting function $`F`$ satisfying the relations (25) and (28) is given by

$$F=e^{\varphi \varphi }=\mathrm{exp}[(ax_0+b_ix_i)(ax_0+b_jx_j)],$$
(33)
where the four twisting parameters $`a,b_i`$ are in general the complex numbers. For this twisting function $`F`$ we immediately obtain the following formulae for twisted coproduct of space-time variables

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{a}}\left[x_i\left(1e^{a\lambda \varphi }\right)+\left(1e^{a\lambda \varphi }\right)x_i\right],`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^F(x_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_i)+x_i\left(e^{a\lambda \varphi }1\right)+\left(e^{a\lambda \varphi }1\right)x_i,`$ (35)
where $`\lambda =i/\kappa c`$ (13).

Because a time variable should not depend on the space inversion, therefore it is physically reasonable to assume that the twisting function $`F`$ is a space-inversion invariant. Using this fact one can construct two twisting functions related with two abelian subalgebras of $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time. The first one generated by the time variable $`x_0`$ and the other one by the space variables $`x_i`$ (13), both with trivial coproduct (14)
twisting of space directions (SD)

$$F_0(a)=e^{ax_0x_0},$$
(36)
twisting of time direction (TD)

$$F(b)=e^{b_{ij}x_ix_j},$$
(37)
where $`a,b_{ij}=b_ib_j\text{ }\text{C}`$ in general case. If we consider the space-time Hopf algebra with involution $``$ satisfying $`(ab)^{}=a^{}b^{}`$ then, the assumption of hermiticity of space-time generators $`x_\mu ^{}=x_\mu `$ implies the unitarity of twisting functions i.e. $`a,b_{ij}i\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$ are pure imaginary complex numbers.

For the twisting function $`F_0(a)`$, using formulae (21) and (24) we obtain SD-twisted space-time Hopf algebra $`𝒳_\kappa (\alpha )`$ hermitian basis)

$`[x_0,x_i]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa c}}x_i,[x_i,x_j]=0,\text{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{F_0(a)}(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha (x_0)=x_01+1x_0,\text{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{F_0(a)}(x_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha (x_i)=x_ie^{\alpha x_0}+e^{\alpha x_0}x_i,\text{}`$ (38)
$`S^{F_0(a)}(x_i)`$ $`=`$ $`S_\alpha (x_i)=x_ie^{\alpha (\frac{i}{\kappa c}2x_0)},\text{}`$
$`S^{F_0(a)}(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`S_\alpha (x_0)=x_0,ϵ(x_\mu )=0,`$
where

$$\alpha a<e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}},x_0>=\frac{ia}{\kappa c}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R},$$
(39)
and similarly, choosing the twisting function as $`F(b)`$ we get the TD-twisted space-time Hopf-algebra $`𝒳_\kappa (\beta )`$ hermitian basis)

$`[x_0,x_i]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa c}}x_i,[x_i,x_j]=0,\text{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{F(b)}(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta (x_0)=x_01+1x_0+\beta _{ij}x_ix_j,\text{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{F(b)}(x_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta (x_i)=x_i1+1x_i,\text{}`$ (40)
$`S^{F(b)}(x_i)`$ $`=`$ $`S_\beta (x_i)=x_i,\text{}`$
$`S^{F(b)}(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`S_\beta (x_0)=x_0+\beta _{ij}x_ix_j,ϵ(x_\mu )=0,`$
where

$$\beta _{ij}=\frac{2i}{\kappa c}b_{ij}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}.$$
(41)
It is obvious, that in the limit $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$ we obtain a $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time algebra given by (13-14).

It is well known that a twisting by a symmetric function $`F`$ is equivalent to nonlinear transformation of space-time, therefore SD-twisted coproduct (38) is given by the function $`s(x_\mu )`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha (x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(s(x_0)),s(x_0)=x_0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha (x_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(s(x_i)),s(x_i)=x_ie^{\alpha x_0},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(s(x_i))`$ $`=`$ $`s(x_i)e^{\alpha s(x_0)}+e^{\alpha s(x_0)}s(x_i),`$ (42)
and analogously, TD-twisted coproduct (40) can be rewritten using function $`t(x_\mu )`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta (x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(t(x_0)),t(x_0)=x_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{ij}x_ix_j,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta (x_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(t(x_i)),t(x_i)=x_i,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(t(x_0))`$ $`=`$ $`t(x_0)1+1t(x_0)+\beta _{ij}t(x_i)t(x_j).`$ (43)
We see that the twisting of $`\kappa `$\- deformed space-time is equivalent to nonlinear transformation of the space-time variables.

### 3.2 Phase space as cross product algebra

Let us notice, that we have two pairs of dual Hopf algebras $`𝒳_\kappa (\alpha )𝒫_\kappa `$ and $`𝒳_\kappa (\beta )𝒫_\kappa `$ which in the non-deformed limit $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$ turn out to be classical space-time and momentum algebras with multiplication defined by the commutator, therefore we should get the quantum-mechanical phase space with standard Heisenberg commutation relations.
In order to construct such a deformed phase space algebra $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa `$ isomorphic as a vector space to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa 𝒳_\kappa 𝒫_\kappa `$ one has to extend the commutation relations (6) and (38) or (40) by adding a cross commutators between $`𝒳_\kappa `$ and $`𝒫_\kappa `$.
It appears that a consistent construction of phase space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa `$ can be done using the notion of a left (right) cross product (smash product) algebra . For simplicity, we shall consider only left cross product algebra.
One can define a left action (representation) of the momentum algebra $`𝒫_\kappa `$ on the space-time algebra $`𝒳_\kappa `$ as a linear map

$$:𝒫_\kappa 𝒳_\kappa 𝒳_\kappa :pxpx,$$
(44)
such that

$$(p\stackrel{~}{p})x=p(\stackrel{~}{p}x),1x=x.$$
(45)
We choose the following left action

$$px=x_{(1)}<p,x_{(2)}>,$$
(46)
therefore $`𝒳_\kappa `$ is a left $`𝒫_\kappa `$-module or even a left $`𝒫_\kappa `$-module algebra, because $`𝒳_\kappa `$ and $`𝒫_\kappa `$ are also Hopf algebras and the left action (46) satisfies

$$p(x\stackrel{~}{x})=(p_{(1)}x)(p_{(2)}\stackrel{~}{x}),p1=ϵ(p)1.$$
(47)
This implies that we can regard the twisted space-time as the left $`\kappa `$-deformed momentum $`𝒫_\kappa `$-module algebra for both choices of twisting functions (36) and (37) with the following left action (46) in the case of SD-twisted space-time (38)

$`p_0x_0`$ $`=i,`$ $`p_ix_0=0,`$ (48)
$`p_0x_i`$ $`=i\alpha x_i,`$ $`p_ix_j=i\delta _{ij}e^{\alpha x_0},`$ (49)
and in the case of TD-twisted space-time (40) we get

$`p_0x_0`$ $`=i,`$ $`p_kx_0=i\beta _{ik}x_i,`$ (50)
$`p_0x_i`$ $`=0,`$ $`p_kx_i=i\delta _{ki}.`$ (51)
We recall the definition of a left cross product algebra .
Let $`𝒫_\kappa `$ be a Hopf algebra and $`𝒳_\kappa `$ a left $`𝒫_\kappa `$-module algebra. A left cross product algebra $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa =𝒳_\kappa >𝒫_\kappa `$ is a vector space $`𝒳_\kappa 𝒫_\kappa `$ with the product (left cross product)

$$(xp)(\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{p})=x(p_{(1)}\stackrel{~}{x})p_{(2)}\stackrel{~}{p},$$
(52)
and the unit element $`11`$, where $`x,\stackrel{~}{x}𝒳_\kappa `$ and $`p,\stackrel{~}{p}𝒫_\kappa `$. It appears that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa =𝒳_\kappa >𝒫_\kappa `$ is an associative algebra, however it can not be extended to a Hopf algebra (). This fact suggests that one can construct $`\kappa `$-deformed phase-space $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ for many particle system in a usual way as a tensor product algebra $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa `$.
The obvious isomorphism $`𝒳_\kappa 𝒳_\kappa 1`$, $`𝒫_\kappa 1𝒫_\kappa `$ allows us to define the commutator for the whole phase space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa `$

$$[x,p]=xppx,xp=xp,px=(p_{(1)}x)p_{(2)}.$$
(53)
Using this definition and formulae (38) and (49) we obtain the commutation relations for the linear basis of SD-twisted phase space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa (\alpha )=𝒳_\kappa (\alpha )>𝒫_\kappa `$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[x_0,x_i]=\hfill & \frac{i}{\kappa c}x_i,\hfill & [x_i,x_j]=0,\hfill \\ [x_i,p_0]=\hfill & i\alpha x_i,\hfill & [x_0,p_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa c}p_i,\hfill \\ [x_0,p_0]=\hfill & i,\hfill & [p_\mu ,p_\nu ]=0,\text{}\hfill \\ [x_i,p_j]=\hfill & i\delta _{ij}e^{\alpha x_0}+\left(1e^{\frac{i\alpha }{\kappa c}}\right)x_ip_j\hfill & .\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
Let us notice that because of the exponential term in the last relation, the SD-twisted phase space can be considered only as an algebra.
In the limit $`\alpha 0`$ we obtain the standard $`\kappa `$-deformed phase space considered in , a deformed generalization of Heisenberg algebra. It is interesting to notice that one can also consider the limit $`\kappa \mathrm{},\alpha =const.`$ (i.e. one can assume the linear dependence of the twisting parameter $`a`$ on the deformation parameter $`\kappa `$, see (39)) of phase space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa (\alpha )\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha )`$ given by the non-vanishing commutators

$$[x_0,p_0]=i,[x_i,p_j]=i\delta _{ij}e^{\alpha x_0},[x_i,p_0]=i\alpha x_i,$$
(55)
with commuting space-time and momentum.
Similarly, from formulae (40) and (51) we obtain the commutation relations for the linear basis of TD-twisted phase space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa (\beta )=𝒳_\kappa (\beta )>𝒫_\kappa `$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[x_0,x_i]=\hfill & \frac{i}{\kappa c}x_i,\hfill & [x_i,x_j]=0,\hfill \\ [x_i,p_0]=\hfill & 0,\hfill & [x_0,p_i]=\frac{i}{\kappa c}p_i+\beta _{ji}x_j,\hfill \\ [x_0,p_0]=\hfill & i,\hfill & [p_\mu ,p_\nu ]=0,\text{}\hfill \\ [x_i,p_j]=\hfill & i\delta _{ij}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(56)
We see that commutators are given by linear combinations of $`p_i,x_i`$ therefore one can regard these formulae as defining phase space (not an algebra) in the classical sense. Also in this case we can consider the limit $`\kappa \mathrm{},\beta =const.`$ (see (41)) of phase space $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa (\beta )\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(\beta )`$ given by the non-vanishing commutators

$$[x_0,p_0]=i,[x_i,p_j]=i\delta _{ij},[x_0,p_i]=i\beta _{ji}x_j,$$
(57)
with commuting space-time and momentum.
It turns out that both phase spaces $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(\beta )`$ can be realized by the standard position and momentum operators $`\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{p}_\nu `$ satisfying the Heisenberg commutation relations $`[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{p}_\nu ]=ig_{\mu \nu }`$

$$x_i=\widehat{x}_ie^{\alpha \widehat{x}_0},x_0=\widehat{x}_0,p_\mu =\widehat{p}_\mu ,\text{for}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha ),$$
(58)
and assuming $`\beta _{ij}=\beta \delta _{ij}`$

$$x_\mu =\widehat{x}_\mu ,p_0=\widehat{p}_0,p_i=\widehat{p}_i\beta \widehat{p}_0\widehat{x}_i,\text{for}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(\beta ).$$
(59)
We notice that both algebras $`𝒳_\kappa `$ and $`𝒫_\kappa `$ possess the Hopf structure therefore one can also consider a left action of space-time algebra on the momentum algebra $`:𝒫_\kappa 𝒳_\kappa 𝒳_\kappa `$ formally a changing the position and momentum generators $`xp`$. It corresponds in quantum mechanical language to the exchange of momentum for positions representation. In this case one can define a phase space as the cross product algebra $`𝒫_\kappa >𝒳_\kappa `$ (see ) with slightly different cross commutation relations. However, we do not consider twisting of this kind of phase space.

## 4 Duality for twisted D=2 space-time

Considering the formulae (9) we notice that different choices of coproducts $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ provide changes in duality relations $`<p^mq^n,x>`$ and $`<p,x^ky^l>`$, respectively. Therefore, we can expect the modified duality relations $`<p_i^mp_0^n,x_j>`$ between four-momentum $`p_\mu `$ in the bicrossproduct basis (4) and SD-twisted or TD-twisted space-time given by relations (38) or (40). We find these twisted duality relations in the case of two dimensional (D=2) space-time applying tensor methods to twisted coproduct. This simplification is convenient because of tedious calculations, however, one can immediately generalize the obtained results to the four-dimensional space-time.

### 4.1 SD-twisted space-time

In the case of the two dimensional SD-twisted space-time relations (38) take the following form (we assume $`c=1`$ in order to simplify the notation)
space-time

$`[x_0,x]`$ $`=`$ $`<f(p_0),x_0>x,`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`x_01+1x_0,\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=xe^{\alpha x_0}+e^{\alpha x_0}x,`$ (61)
momentum space

$`[p_0,p]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (62)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`p_01+1p_0,\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=p1+f(p_0)p,`$ (63)
where we denote $`f(p_0)=\mathrm{exp}\left(p_0/\kappa \right)`$,
duality relations are given by (7)-(9) for two dimensional case ($`\mu ,\nu =0,1`$).

One can also describe these duality relations in terms of a nonlinear transformed basis of $`𝒳_\kappa `$ (42)

$$s(x_0)=x_0,s(x_1)=s(x)=xe^{\alpha x_0},$$
(64)
and using a trivial coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_\mu )`$ (14)

$`<p_\mu ,s(x_\nu )>=ig_{\mu \nu },`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }=(1,1),`$ (65)
$`<pq,s>=<pq,\mathrm{\Delta }_0(s)>,`$ $`<p,ss^{}>=<\mathrm{\Delta }(p),ss^{}>,`$
for $`s,s^{}𝒳_\kappa ,p,q𝒫_\kappa `$.

Taking into account the coproduct relations (61) and (63) we can immediately generalize the relations (8) and obtain

$$<p_\mu ^m,1>=<1,x_\mu ^m>=\delta _{m0},m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(66)
In order to find other duality relations we apply the useful relation which expresses the coassociativity of coproduct (see )

$`<p_\mu ^m,x_\nu ^k>`$ $`=`$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^{(k1)}(p_\mu ^m),x_\nu ^k>=<\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(k1)}(p_\mu )\right)^m,x_\nu ^k>=`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`<p_\mu ^m,\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m1)}(x_\nu ^k)>=<p_\mu ^m,\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m1)}(x_\nu )\right)^k>,`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}=(I^{(n1)}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n1)}=(\underset{(n1)times}{\underset{}{1\mathrm{}1}}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n1)},$$
(68)
$$x_\nu ^k=\underset{ktimes}{\underset{}{x_\nu x_\nu \mathrm{}x_\nu }},p_\mu ^m=\underset{mtimes}{\underset{}{p_\mu p_\mu \mathrm{}p_\mu }}.$$
(69)
In particular

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}x_i^{(m1)},x_i^{(m1)}=(e^{\alpha x_0})^{(i1)}x(e^{\alpha x_0})^{(mi)},`$ (70)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m1)}(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(x_0)_i^{(m1)},(x_0)_i^{(m1)}=I^{(i1)}x_0I^{(mi)},`$ (71)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(k1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}p_i^{(k1)},p_i^{(k1)}=f^{(i1)}pI^{(ki)},`$ (72)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(k1)}(p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(p_0)_i^{(k1)},(p_0)_i^{(k1)}=I^{(i1)}p_0I^{(ki)}.`$ (73)
Using the coproduct formulae (61) for space-time variables, duality relations and relations (70-71) we obtain

$`<p_0^n,x_0>=`$ $`\delta _{n1}<p_0,x_0>,`$ $`<p^m,x_0>=0,`$ (74)
$`<p_0^n,x>=`$ $`0,`$ $`<p^m,x>=\delta _{m1}<p,x>.`$ (75)
For instance

$`<p^m,x_0>`$ $`=`$ $`<p^m,\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m1)}(x_0)>=`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}<p\mathrm{}p,I^{(i1)}x_0I^{(mi)}>=`$
$`=`$ $`m<p,1>^{m1}<p,x_0>=0.`$
Analogously, using the momentum coproduct (63) and formulae (72)-(73) we derive

$`<p_0,x_0^l>=`$ $`\delta _{l1}<p_0,x_0>,`$ $`<p,x_0^n>=0,`$ (78)
$`<p_0,x^k>=`$ $`0,`$ $`<p,x^k>=\delta _{k1}<p,x>.`$ (79)
The relations (74)-(75) or (78)-(79) can be generalized to the following form

$`<p_0^n,x_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`n!<p_0,x_0>^n\delta _{nl},<p^m,x_0^l>=\delta _{m0}\delta _{l0},`$ (80)
$`<p^m,x^k>`$ $`=`$ $`m!<p,x>^m\delta _{mk},<p_0^n,x^k>=\delta _{n0}\delta _{k0}.`$ (81)
From (73) and the trivial form of coproduct (63) we compute for instance

$`<p_0^n,x_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^{(l1)}(p_0^n),x_0^l>=`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`<\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}(p_0)_i^{(l1)}\right)^n,x_0\mathrm{}x_0>=`$
$`=`$ $`n!<p_0^n,x_0^l>=n!<p_0,x_0>^l\delta _{nl}.`$
We would like to stress that the duality relations (80)-(81) do not depend on SD-twisting transformation and they have the same form in both, $`\kappa `$-deformed and non-deformed cases.
Let us derive the relation which depends on the twisting parameter. Using (80)-(81) and coproduct formula (61) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ we find

$`<p_0^np^m,x>`$ $`=`$ $`<p_0^np^m,\mathrm{\Delta }(x)>=<p_0^np^m,xe^{\alpha x_0}+e^{\alpha x_0}x>=`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{m1}<p,x><p_0^n,e^{\alpha x_0}>=\delta _{m1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^k}{k!}}<p,x><p_0^n,x_0^k>=`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`\alpha ^n\delta _{m1}<p,x><p_0,x_0>^n,`$ (86)
It is convenient to use instead the power function $`p_0^n`$, its generating function $`g(p_0)=e^{\xi p_0}`$. Then we obtain

$$<p^me^{\xi p_0},x>=\delta _{m1}<p,x>e^{\alpha \xi <p_0,x_0>},$$
(87)
or using (72) we find a more general formula

$$<p^me^{\xi p_0},x^k>=k!(<p,x>)^k\delta _{mk}e^{k\alpha \xi <p_0,x_0>}f^{\frac{1}{2}k(k1)}(\alpha <p_0,x_0>).$$
(88)
From (80) we can easy calculate the following duality relation

$`<p^me^{\xi p_0},x_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{l}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}l\\ s\end{array}\right)<p^me^{\xi p_0},x_0^{ls}x_0^s>=`$ (91)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{l}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}l\\ s\end{array}\right)<p^m,x_0^{ls}><e^{\xi p_0},x_0^s>=`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{m0}<e^{\xi p_0},x_0^l>=(\xi <p_0,x_0>)^l\delta _{m0},`$ (95)
and finally we find

$`<p^me^{\xi p_0},x^kx_0^l>=<\mathrm{\Delta }(p^me^{\xi p_0}),x^kx_0^l>=`$ (96)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ s\end{array}\right)<p^{ms}f^s(p_0)e^{\xi p_0}p^se^{\xi p_0},x^kx_0^l>=`$ (99)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ s\end{array}\right)<p^{ms}f^s(p_0)e^{\xi p_0},x^k><p^se^{\xi p_0},x_0^l>=`$ (102)
$`=(\xi <p_0,x_0>)^l<p^me^{\xi p_0},x^k>=`$ (103)
$`=k!(<p,x>)^k\delta _{mk}(\xi <p_0,x_0>)^le^{k\alpha \xi <p_0,x_0>}f^{\frac{1}{2}k(k1)}(\alpha <p_0,x_0>),`$ (104)
or equivalently (expanding the generating function in powers of $`p_0^n`$)

$$<p^mp_0^n,x^kx_0^l>=k!n!(<p,x>)^k(<p_0,x_0>)^l\delta _{mk}\frac{(ik\alpha )^{nl}}{(nl)!}f^{\frac{1}{2}k(k1)}(\alpha <p_0,x_0>).$$
(105)
In the limit $`\alpha 0`$ of the twisting parameter we obtain the duality relations (12). Therefore, we see that the twisting map destroys some orthogonal duality relations i.e. roughly speaking twisting changes the orthogonal basis of dual momentum and space-time algebras to a non-orthogonal one.

Because twisted space-time is a non-commuting algebra, one can also consider a polynomial basis with opposite ordering of space and time variables i.e. left-time ordered polynomials. In order to find the duality relations for this case, we would like to stress that space-time commutation relations (19) are related to the momentum coproduct in the bicrossproduct basis and do not depend on the twisting map, therefore we can use these relations to derive duality relations for the opposite ordering. Taking into account (7) and the explicit form of the function $`f(p_0)`$ we obtain the SD-twisted duality relations

$`<p^me^{\xi p_0},x^kx_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`k!(i)^k(i\xi )^l\delta _{mk}e^{ik\alpha \left(\xi +\frac{1k}{2\kappa }\right)},`$ (106)
$`<p^me^{\xi p_0},x_0^lx^k>`$ $`=`$ $`k!(i)^k\delta _{mk}e^{ik\alpha \left(\xi +\frac{1k}{2\kappa }\right)}<e^{\frac{kp_0}{\kappa }},(x_0+i\xi )^l>,`$ (107)
or equivalently

$`<p^mp_0^n,x^kx_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`k!\delta _{km}(i)^ke^{\frac{i\alpha }{2\kappa }k(k1)}<(p_0+ik\alpha )^n,x_0^l>,`$ (108)
and a non-vanishing duality relation only for $`nl`$

$`<p^mp_0^n,x_0^lx^k>`$ $`=`$ $`k!\delta _{km}(i)^ke^{\frac{i\alpha }{2\kappa }k(k1)}<e^{\frac{mp_0}{\kappa }}(p_0+im\alpha )^n,x_0^l>.`$ (109)
The duality relations (108)-(109) one can also describe in terms of a transformed basis $`s(x_\mu )`$ (64) as follows

$`<p^mp_0^n,x^kx_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`<p^mp_0^n,\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(s^k(x)s^l(x_0)\right)>,`$ (110)
$`<p^mp_0^n,x_0^lx^k>`$ $`=`$ $`<p^mp_0^n,\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(s^l(x_0)s^k(x)\right)>.`$ (111)
### 4.2 TD-twisted space-time

Similarly, in the two-dimensional case the TD-twisted space-time (40) is given by the relations

$`[x_0,x]`$ $`=`$ $`<f(p_0),x_0>x,`$ (112)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`x_01+1x_0+\beta xx,\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=x1+1x,`$ (113)
and additional formulae (62)-(63) describing the momentum space and duality relations. Also in this case the relations (see (80)-(81))

$$<p_0^n,x_0^l>=n!<p_0,x_0>^n\delta _{nl},<p^m,x^k>=m!<p,x>^m\delta _{mk},$$
(114)
are valid and the remaining ones are changed. It is easy to observe that the form of coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_0)`$ (113) implies a vanishing duality relation for any odd power of the momentum

$`<p^m,x_0>`$ $`=`$ $`<p^2,x_0>\delta _{m2}=\beta <p,x>^2\delta _{m2},`$ (115)
$`<p^{2k+1},x_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`0<\mathrm{sinh}(\xi p),x_0^l>=0.`$ (116)
Let us derive the duality relations for even power of the momentum. Using the generating function we obtain

$`<e^{\xi p},x_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`<\mathrm{cosh}(\xi p),x_0^l>=<\mathrm{\Delta }^{(l1)}\mathrm{exp}(\xi p),x_0^l>=`$ (117)
$`=`$ $`<\mathrm{exp}\left(\xi \mathrm{\Delta }^{(l1)}(p)\right),x_0^l>=<\mathrm{exp}\left(\xi {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}p_i^{(l1)}\right),x_0^l>=`$ (118)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}<\mathrm{cosh}\left(\xi p_i^{(l1)}\right),x_0^l>.`$ (119)
The non-vanishing duality relations are implied by the square power of the momentum variable (116), therefore we can use the expansion

$$\mathrm{cosh}\left(\xi p_i^{(l1)}\right)I^l+\frac{1}{2}\xi ^2\left(p_i^{(l1)}\right)^2,$$
(120)
and we get

$`<\mathrm{cosh}(\xi p),x_0^l>={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}<\left(I^l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^2\left(p_i^{(l1)}\right)^2\right),x_0^l>=`$ (121)
$`=\delta _{l\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^k}}\xi ^{2k}D_k^l,`$ (122)
where

$$D_k^lD_k^l(\kappa ,\beta )=\underset{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{k1}}{\overset{l1}{}}<(p_{i_1}^{(l1)})^2(p_{i_2}^{(l1)})^2\mathrm{}(p_l^{(l1)})^2,x_0^l>,$$
(123)
satisfying

$$D_k^l(0,0)=D_k^l(\kappa ,0)=0,$$
(124)
and comparing the appropriate left and right terms in (122) we find nonvanishing relations for $`ml`$

$$<p^{2m},x_0^l>=\frac{(2m)!}{2^m}D_m^l(\kappa ,\beta ).$$
(125)
Now, we can derive a more general formula

$`<e^{\xi p_0}p^m,x_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`<e^{\xi p_0}p^m,\mathrm{\Delta }^l(x_0)>=<e^{\xi p_0}p^m,\mathrm{\Delta }_0^l(x_0)>=`$ (126)
$`=`$ $`<e^{\xi p_0}p^m,(x_01+1x_0)^l>=`$ (127)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{l}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}l\\ s\end{array}\right)<e^{\xi p_0}p^m,x_0^{ls}x_0^s>=`$ (130)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{l}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}l\\ s\end{array}\right)<e^{\xi p_0},x_0^{ls}><p^m,x_0^s>,`$ (133)
or expanding we get non-vanishing duality relations for $`nl`$

$$<p_0^np^m,x_0^l>=\frac{l!}{(ln)!}<p_0,x_0>^n<p^m,x_0^{ln}>.$$
(134)
Finally, using this relation and (114) and coproduct formula (63) we derive the general duality relations for the TD-twisted space-time

$`<p^mp_0^n,x^kx_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^m(p)\mathrm{\Delta }^n(p_0),x^kx_0^l>`$ (135)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m!n!<p,x>^k<p_0,x_0>^n}{(mk)!(ln)!}}<p^{mk},x_0^{ln}>,`$ (136)
or equivalently we get a nonvanishing duality relations for $`mk=2s,sln,(s=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$

$`<p^mp_0^n,x^kx_0^l>`$ $`=`$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^m(p)\mathrm{\Delta }^n(p_0),x^kx_0^l>`$ (137)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m!n!<p,x>^k<p_0,x_0>^n}{(mk)!(ln)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2s)!}{2^s}}D_s^{ln}(\kappa ,\beta ).`$ (138)
In the limit $`\beta 0`$ using (124) we obtain the duality relation (12). Therefore we see that TD-twisting appears as an additional term to the conventional duality relations (12). One can also easily find the duality relations for the opposite space-time ordering using formula (19) but they have rather complicated form.
Also in this case one can describe the duality relations (136) in terms of nonlinearly transformed basis (43)

$$<p^mp_0^n,x^kx_0^l>=<p^mp_0^n,\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(t^k(x)t^l(x_0)\right)>.$$
(139)
### 4.3 Space-time and phase-space; beyond $`\kappa `$-deformed framework

One can give up the assumption of a commutative dual momentum space (required by $`\kappa `$-deformed symmetry) and consider a noncommuting fourmomentum algebra dual to the space-time algebra $`𝒳_\kappa `$ defined by (13)-(14). In such a case we deal with nonsymmetric space-time coproduct. As an example we shall discuss space-time algebra obtained by the Jordanian twist  (see also ) of two dimensional space-time $`𝒳_\kappa `$. First we notice that the relations (13)-(14) for the case D=2 describe a Lie algebra $`B(2)`$ isomorphic to a Borel subalgebra of $`sl(2)`$ therefore, we can apply the Jordanian twisting function (with $`\xi `$ as a twisting parameter) in the form

$$F_J(\kappa ,\xi )=e^{i\kappa cx_0\sigma _\xi (x)}=e^{i\kappa cx_0\mathrm{ln}(1+\xi x)},$$
(140)
to the trivial coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_\mu )`$, ($`\mu =0,1,x_1=x`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_J(x_\mu )=F_J(\kappa ,\xi )\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_\mu )F_J^1(\kappa ,\xi ).$$
(141)
This coproduct defines the following two dimensional Jordanian twisted space-time $`𝒳_\kappa ^J(\xi )`$

$`[x_0,x]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa c}}x,ϵ(x_\mu )=0,`$ (142)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_J(x_0)=x_0e^{\sigma _\xi (x)}+1x_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x_0)\xi x_0x(1+\xi x)^1,`$ (143)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_J(x)=x1+e^{\sigma _\xi (x)}x=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x)+\xi xx,`$ (144)
$`S_J(x_0)=x_0e^{\sigma _\xi (x)}=x_0(1+\xi x),`$ (145)
$`S_J(x)=xe^{\sigma _\xi (x)}=x(1+\xi x)^1.`$ (146)
From the two dimensional version of duality relations (7)-(12) one can find a dual momentum algebra $`𝒫_\kappa ^J(\xi )`$. Because there is an isomorphism between the Hopf algebras $`𝒳_\kappa ^J(\xi )`$ and its dual $`𝒫_\kappa ^J(\xi )`$  given by $`\sigma _\xi (x)p_0/\kappa c,x_0p/\kappa c\xi `$ therefore we can find the defining relations ($`\mu =0,1,p_1=p`$)

$`[p_0,p]=i\kappa c\xi \left(1e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}\right),ϵ(p_\mu )=0,`$ (147)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_0)=p_01+1p_0,S(p_0)=p_0,`$ (148)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=p1+e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}p,S(p)=e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}p.`$ (149)
However the form of the coproduct is the same as for the $`\kappa `$-deformed momentum algebra (63), the momentum algebra becomes noncommuting.
This pair of dual algebras we can extend to a Jordanian phase space algebra $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa ^J(\xi )`$ by the left cross product construction $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa ^J(\xi )=𝒳_\kappa ^J(\xi )>𝒫_\kappa ^J(\xi )`$ (52) and we find the following commutation relations of the linear basis

$`[x_0,x]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa c}}x,`$ $`[p_0,p]=i\kappa c\xi \left(1e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}\right),`$ (150)
$`[x,p_0]=0,`$ $`[x_0,p]=i\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{\kappa c}}\xi x_0\right),`$ (151)
$`[x_0,p_0]=i,`$ $`[x,p]=i(1+\xi x).`$ (152)
In the limit $`\xi 0`$ we obtain the standard $`\kappa `$-deformed phase space .

## 5 Final remarks

It is worthwhile to notice, that one can describe the duality relations between space-time and momentum algebras in terms of linearly transformed momentum basis. This possibility is similar to the description using the functions $`s(x_\mu ),t(x_\mu )`$. We consider the case of SD-twisting in the two-dimensional case. First we notice that the duality relations (108) allow us to define a linear (because of the bilinear form $`<,>`$) transformation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ in the momentum algebra $`𝒫_\kappa `$ corresponding to the twist operation in the space-time $`𝒳_\kappa (\alpha )`$ as follows

$$<p^mp_0^n,x^k(\alpha )x_0^l(\alpha )>=<\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (p^mp_0^n),x^kx_0^l>=<f_{mn}(\alpha ),x^kx_0^l>,$$
(153)
where ($`x(\alpha ),x_0(\alpha )`$) are space-time variables (60)-(61) generating the twisted algebra $`𝒳_\kappa (\alpha )`$ and $`x,x_0𝒳_\kappa `$ (see (13)-(14)) or in explicit form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (p^mp_0^n)=f_{mn}(\alpha )=(p_0+im\alpha )^np^me^{\frac{i\alpha }{2\kappa }m(m1)}.$$
(154)
In particular

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (p^m)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(\alpha )=p^me^{\frac{i\alpha }{2\kappa }m(m1)},`$ (155)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (p_0^n)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{0n}(\alpha )=p_0^n,`$ (156)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (1)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (157)
therefore, the action of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ on the momentum space (generated linearly by $`p_0,p`$) is trivial because $`p_0=f_{01}(\alpha ),p=f_{10}(\alpha )`$ and their coproduct is given by (6). The action of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ on the momentum algebra basis $`p^mp_0^n`$ allows us to extend this transformation onto an arbitrary polynomial function of momentum $`\varphi =\varphi _{mn}p^mp_0^n`$ in a natural way, by the replacement $`p^mp_0^nf_{mn}(\alpha )`$. Thus, one can consider the dual pair ($`𝒳_\kappa (\alpha ),𝒫_\kappa `$) of the twisted space-time algebra and the $`\kappa `$-deformed momentum algebra or equivalently the pair of a algebras ($`𝒳_\kappa ,𝒫_\kappa (\alpha )`$) of $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$-transformed momentum algebra with the same duality relations (153) in both cases. The essential difference in both dual constructions lies in their coalgebra sectors.
Our construction of the SD-twisted phase space algebra $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\kappa (\alpha )`$ (54) leans on the notion of the cross algebra where the multiplication (52) depends on both coproducts (61) and (63). Therefore, for the second pair of algebras ($`𝒳_\kappa ,𝒫_\kappa (\alpha )`$) we obtain the different phase space algebra although both pairs are equivalent as far as the duality relations are concerned. In derivation of phase space commutation relations we use only the first order duality relations (for instance in the definition of the left action (49)) therefore, in the case of the pair ($`𝒳_\kappa ,𝒫_\kappa (\alpha )`$) we obtain a two-dimensional version of commutation relations (54) for $`\alpha =0`$ i.e. the standard $`\kappa `$-deformed phase space. The same conclusions one can obtain by considering TD-twisting space-time.
Therefore, one can find the linear transformation of the momentum algebra which corresponds the twist operation in the space-time algebra, this construction however does not provide the twisted phase space.
In Section 3 we described two possible twistings (in space and time directions) of the space-time algebra and derived corresponding phase spaces.
The duality relations obtained in Section 4 for two-dimensional space-time and momentum algebras one can immediately extend to the four-dimensional case. They describe explicitly the effect of the twisting operation in the space-time algebra.

## Acknowledgements

The author wish to thank Anatol Nowicki for inspiration, advice and support. I would like to thank the referee for useful suggestions and comments.


format: text

text:
# 1 The results of extraction of ℎ^𝐴₁(𝑥) from the next-to-leading order fits of Ref. [] in the JET scheme [] .

hep-ph/0302101

The constraints on the non-singlet polarised parton densities from the infrared-renormalon model
A.L. Kataev
Institute for Nuclear Research of the Academy of Sciences of Russia,

117312, Moscow, Russia

ABSTRACT

Using the infrared-renormalon approach, we obtain the constraints on the next-to-leading order non-singlet polarised parton densities. The advocated feature follows from the consideration of the effect revealed in the process of the next-to-leading order fits to the data for the assymetry of polarised lepton-nucleon scattering which result in the approximate nullification of the $`1/Q^2`$-correction to $`A_1^N(x,Q^2)`$.

The study of the QCD predictions for the photon-nucleon asymmetry $`A_1^N=\frac{\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2}}{\sigma _{1/2}+\sigma _{3/2}}`$, where subscripts denote the total angular momentum of the photon-nucleon pair along the incoming lepton’s direction, plays the essential role in the analysis of polarised deep inelastic scattering (DIS) (see e.g. Ref. ). It is related to the well-known structure function $`g_1^N`$ of polarised DIS by the following way

$$A_1^N(x,Q^2)=(1+\gamma ^2)\frac{g_1^N(x,Q^2)}{F_1^N(x,Q^2)}$$
(1)
where the kinematic factor $`\gamma `$ is defined as $`\gamma =(4M_N^2x^2/Q^2)`$ and $`g_1^N(x,Q^2)`$ is the structure function (SF) of polarised DIS, while $`F_1^N(x,Q^2)`$ SF enters into the cross-section of unpolarised charged lepton-hadron DIS (see e.g. Ref. ). Quite recently several procedures of the study of the $`Q^2`$-behaviour of $`A_1^N`$ were discussed in the literature (see Refs. -). Moreover, in Refs.  by fitting existing CERN, DESY and SLAC data for polarised DIS in the kinematic region $`0.005x0.75`$ and 1 GeV2$`Q^258`$ GeV2 the $`1/Q^2`$ dynamical power correction to $`A_1^N`$ was extracted. In general it gives additional contribution to the perturbation theory part of $`(A_1^N)_{PT}`$ and can be parameterised as

$$A_1^N(x,Q^2)=(A_1^N(x,Q^2))_{PT}+\frac{h^{A_1}(x)}{Q^2}.$$
(2)
It is interesting, that in the process of the fits of Refs.  it was found that the $`x`$-shape of $`h^{A_1}(x)`$ is consistent with zero (see e.g. Fig.1 from Ref.).

In this note we are describing the possible consequences of this effect in the non-singlet (NS) approximation, which is valid for the $`x`$-cut $`x0.25`$. Our consideration will be based on the infrared-renormalon (IRR) approach, developed in QCD in Ref.  and reviewed in detail in Ref. . This approach was used in Ref.  to study the behaviour of the $`1/Q^2`$ corrections to the NS contributions to $`F_2`$ and $`F_1`$ SFs of unpolarised DIS of charged leptons on nucleons and the pure NS $`xF_3`$ SF of $`\nu N`$ DIS using $`\overline{MS}`$-scheme calculations111Note that we avoid considerations of the IRR renormalon free expansions in QCD coupling constants with the “freezing-type” behaviour at small $`Q^2`$ (see Refs. ). . It is interesting that the predicted in Ref.  $`x`$-shape of the IRR induced power corrections to $`xF_3`$ was supported in Refs.  by the leading order (LO) and next-to-leading order (NLO) fits to CCFR’97 data ( the detailed description and refinements of the fits of Ref.  is given in Refs. ). Therefore, it is worth to consider the consequences of calculations of the IRR contributions to the NS part of $`g_1^N`$ SF of polarised deep-inelastic scattering, which was also performed in Ref. .

Let us rewrite Eqs.(1),(2) in the following way

$$A_1^N=(1+\gamma ^2)\frac{g_1^N(x,Q^2)(1+\frac{h^{g_1}(x)}{Q^2g_1^N(x,Q^2)})}{F_1^N(x,Q^2)(1+\frac{h^{F_1}(x)}{Q^2F_1^N(x,Q^2)})}$$
(3)
where $`h^{g_1}(x)/Q^2`$ and $`h^{F_1}(x)/Q^2`$ are the model-independent parameterisations for the twist-4 contributions to $`g_1^N`$ and $`F_1^N`$ SFs, which in general are non-zero. Using the above mentioned effect of approximate nullification of the twist-4 correction to $`A_1^N`$ we get

$$\frac{h^{g_1}(x)}{Q^2g_1^N(x,Q^2)}\frac{h^{F_1}(x)}{Q^2F_1^N(x,Q^2)}.$$
(4)
At the next step we will use the existing inequality for $`g_1^N(x,Q^2)`$ SF, namely

$$|g_1^N(x,Q^2)|F_1^N(x,Q^2).$$
(5)
Combining it with Eq. (4) we arrive to to the following bound

$$|h^{g_1}(x)||h^{F_1}(x)|$$
(6)
It should be stressed that the calculations of Ref.  predict that in the NS approximation (or in the valence-quarks approximation) the contributions of the $`1/Q^2`$ corrections to $`F_1`$ and $`xF_3`$ SFs are the same. Indeed, the corresponding results of Ref.  can be re-written in the following way:

$$h^{F_1}(x,\mu ^2)=h^{F_3}(x,\mu ^2)=A_2^{^{}}_x^1\frac{dz}{z}C_1(z)q^{NS}(x/z,\mu ^2)$$
(7)
where

$$C_1(z)=\frac{4}{(1x)_+}+2(2+x+2x^2)5\delta (1x)\delta ^{^{}}(1x),$$
(8)
the $`{}_{}{}^{}+_{}^{}`$-prescription, for any test function, is defined as

$$_0^1F(x)_+f(x)𝑑x=_0^1F(x)[f(x)f(1)]𝑑x,$$
(9)
and

$$q^{NS}(x,\mu ^2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}\left(e_i^2\frac{1}{n_f}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}e_k^2\right)\left(q_i(x,\mu ^2)+\overline{q}_i(x,\mu ^2)\right)$$
(10)
are the NS parton densities, $`\mu ^2`$ is the normalisation point of order 1 GeV2 and $`A_2^{^{}}`$ is is the IRR model parameter, to be extracted from the fits to the concrete data. Its value was extracted from the low-energy $`xF_3`$ data, collected by the IHEP-JINR Neutrino detector at the IHEP 70 GeV proton synchrotron . (see also Ref.  for a review). The result of Ref.  $`A_2^{^{}}`$=$`0.10\pm 0.09`$ (exp) GeV2 is in agreement with the value extracted from the NLO analysis of the CCFR’97 $`xF_3`$ data , namely with $`A_2^{^{}}`$=$`0.125\pm 0.053`$ (stat) GeV2 . It should be noted, that the identity of Eq. (7) does not contradict point of view, expressed in Refs. , that to study the $`Q^2`$ behaviour of $`A_1(Q^2)`$ in the NS approximation it might be convenient to use the concrete $`xF_3`$ data instead of theoretical expression for $`F_1^N`$.

Consider now the case of $`g_1^N`$ SF of polarised DIS. In general, the IRR contributions to $`g_1^N`$ were studied in Ref. . In the NS approximation the IRR contributions to $`g_1^N`$ were calculated in Ref. , where the following result was obtained

$$h^{g_1}(x,\mu ^2)=A_2_x^1\frac{dz}{z}C_1(z)\mathrm{\Delta }^{NS}(x/z,\mu ^2).$$
(11)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{NS}(x,\mu ^2)`$ are the NS polarised parton densities, namely

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{NS}(x,\mu ^2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}\left(e_i^2\frac{1}{n_f}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}e_k^2\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }q_i(x,\mu ^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}(x,\mu ^2)\right)$$
(12)
and the IRR model coefficient function $`C_1(z)`$ is the same, as in the case of the IRR model contributions to the $`1/Q^2`$ corrections for $`F_1`$ and $`xF_3`$ SFs of unpolarised deep-inelastic scattering (see Eq. (8)). As to the IRR model parameter $`A_2`$, in general one should not expect that it has the same value as the parameter $`A_2^{^{}}`$ in Eq. (7). In principle, it should be extracted from the separate fits to $`g_1`$ data in the NS approximation. However, it is worth to stress, that in the NS approximation the IRR contributions to $`g_1^N`$ and $`F_1^N`$ are closely related (the similar feature was revealed while comparing IRR model contributions to the Bjorken sum rule for $`g_1^N`$ SF  and still unmeasured Bjorken sum rule for $`F_1^{\nu N}`$ SF ).

Using now Eqs. (6),(7) and Eq.(11), we get the following constraint

$$|A_2\mathrm{\Delta }^{NS}(x,\mu ^2)||A_2^{^{}}q^{NS}(x,\mu ^2)|$$
(13)
which is valid both at the LO and NLO. This constraint is the main result of our note. The consequences for its $`Q^2`$-dependence can be further studied using the machinery of the DGLAP equations

It is rather impressive that the NLO constraint of Eq. (13) is similar to the well-known LO bound of Ref. , namely

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }(x,Q^2)|q(x,Q^2).$$
(14)
Moreover, Eq. (13) can be also transformed to the LO relation between the IRR model parameters of Eq. (3) and Eq. (7), namely

$$|A_2||A_2^{^{}}|.$$
(15)
We hope that it will be possible to check the relation of Eq. (15) using the fits of the concrete data for $`g_1`$ SF.

The final version of this work was presented at COMPASS meeting at Dubna (5 March 2003). I am grateful to M. G. Sapozhnikov for invitation. It is the pleasure to thank A. V. Sidorov and D.B. Stamenov for discussions of the preliminary version of this note and to G. Altarelli and B. Webber for the useful questions and comments.

This work is done within the program of the RFBR Grants N 02-01-00601 and N 03-02-17177.


text:
# Choice of heavy baryon currents in QCD sum rules

## I Introduction

Strong interactions between quarks can be well described by QCD in the standard model. Recently important progresses in the theoretical description of hadrons containing a heavy quark have been achieved with the development of the Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) HQET ; review ; KKP . Based on the spin-flavor symmetry of QCD, exactly valid in the infinite heavy quark mass limit, $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$, this framework provides a systematic expansion of heavy hadron spectra and both the strong and weak transition amplitudes in terms of the leading contribution, plus corrections decreasing as powers of $`1/m_Q`$. HQET has been applied successfully to learn about the properties of meson and baryon made of both heavy and light quarks.

Due to the asymptotic freedom of QCD, non-perturbative effect plays an important role in the hadronic physics. Thus it is inevitable to employ some non-perturbative technique in strong interaction related problems. QCD sum rule svzsum  formulated in the framework of HQET hqetsum  is a desirable approach and proves to be predictive Braun99 . This method allows one to relate hadronic observable to QCD parameter via the operator product expansion (OPE) of the correlator. The choice of the interpolating current for a state with given spin and parity is the first step in the application of QCD sum rule method. Principally, if a current is chosen within the framework of HQET, QCD sum rule can be applied to many fields without ambiguity and successfully. But the real situation is not so simple. The main problem lies just on the choice of the interpolating currents. On the heavy meson side, the current interpolating a given spin and parity ground state is unique for it constitutes of one heavy and one light quark. However, on the heavy baryon side, the interpolating current is not uniqueDHLL ; GrYa ; Ivanov . For a given state there exist two commonly adopted interpolating currents. Both bear the general form as GrYa ; Ioff

$$j^v=ϵ_{abc}(q_1^{Ta}C\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau q_2^b)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}h_v^c,$$
(1)
in which $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix, $`\tau `$ is the flavor matrix which is antisymmetric for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q`$ baryon and symmetric for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{()}`$ baryon, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ are some gamma matrices, and a, b, c denote the color indices. One kind of current’s $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ can be chosen covariantly as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _5,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=1,$$
(2)
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q`$ baryon,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=(\gamma _\mu +v_\mu )\gamma _5,`$ (3)
for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ baryon, and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _\nu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\gamma _\mu v_\nu \gamma _\nu v_\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}v_\nu v_\mu ,`$ (4)
for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}`$ baryon. Another kind of current can be obtained by inserting a factor $`\text{/}v`$ behind the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices defined by equations (2)-(4). We denote them as $`j_1^v`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}^v`$, respectively. In QCD sum rule applications those two currents are usually used separatelyDHLL ; GrYa ; WHL ; DHHL ; HLLS ; GKY ; CDNP . Constituent quark type current which is the linear combination of the two previously defined currents with the same coefficient can also be found in applicationGKY2 . But generally speaking, the interpolating current should be the linear combination of the two currents with arbitrary coefficients. And also there have been many papers treating just the question of the choice of baryon currents both in full QCD and in HQET sum rulesChung ; Bagan . In this paper we adopt the general form $`j^v=aj_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}^v+bj_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}^v`$, in which the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be arbitrary real numbers, to investigate the effects of different choice of baryon currents on physical observable.

The baryon coupling constants in HQET are defined through the vacuum-to-baryon matrix element of the interpolating current as follows

$`0j^v\mathrm{\Lambda }(v)`$ $`=`$ $`F_\mathrm{\Lambda }u,`$
$`0j^v\mathrm{\Sigma }(v)`$ $`=`$ $`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }u,`$
$`0j^v\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}F_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}u^\alpha ,`$ (5)
where $`u`$ is the spinor and $`u_\alpha `$ is the Rarita-Schwinger spinor in the HQET, respectively. The coupling constants $`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are equivalent since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}`$ belong to the doublet with the same spin-parity of the light degrees of freedom.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we focus our emphasis on two-point and three-point correlators and thus obtained sum rules for ground state baryons. In Sec. II.1 mass sum rules and in Sec. II.2 sum rules for Isgur-Wise functions are presented. Sec. III is devoted to numerical results and our conclusions.

## II Two-point and three-point correlators

### II.1 Two-point correlator and mass sum rule

Two-point correlators are T-product of interpolating currents saturated between vacuum

$$i𝑑xe^{ikx}0T\{j^v(x)\overline{j}^v(0)\}0=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\frac{1+\text{/}v}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}Tr[\tau \tau ^+]\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ),$$
(6)
where $`k`$ is the residual momentum and $`\omega =2vk`$. The QCD sum rule determination of baryon coupling constants can be achieved by analyzing the two-point correlator. These diagonal correlators of the single interpolating currents have been obtained long ago by many authors and are of the same form for both the interpolating currents $`j_1^v`$ and $`j_2^v`$. Non-diagonal correlators have been analyzed in Ref.GrYa  in the leading order in $`\alpha _s`$ and in next to leading order in $`\alpha _s`$ in Ref.GKY . In our previous worksWHL ; DHHL ; HLLS  we adopted the diagonal correlator as the starting point since for the non-diagonal correlator there is no perturbative contribution under the usual assumption of quark-hadron duality, let alone to be the dominant part to the sum rules derived. Here we only have one unique interpolating current and there is only one diagonal correlator and no non-diagonal case to be analyzed. Our theoretical result thus is the combination of the previously called diagonal and non-diagonal results. It should be noted that the non-diagonal one is merely treated as power corrections of OPE in our choice of current.

In our calculations condensates with a dimension higher than $`6`$ are not included for lack of information and radiative corrections are out of consideration contemporarily. In order to obtain an estimate of the dimension $`3`$ nonlocal quark condensate we adopt the gaussian ansatz $`\overline{q}(0)q(x)=\overline{q}q\text{exp}(m_0^2x^2/16)`$. Relevant Feynman diagrams are presented in Fig. 1. Then it is straightforward to obtain the two-point sum rules:

$`2F_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2e^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }/T}`$ $`=`$ $`(a^2+b^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3T^6}{2^4\pi ^4}}\delta _5(\omega _c/T)+{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{2^6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{q}q^2e^{m_0^2/2T^2}\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{\pi ^2}}\overline{q}q[T^3e^{m_0^2/4T^2}+T{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{8}}],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}F_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2e^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mathrm{\Sigma }/T}`$ $`=`$ $`(a^2+b^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3T^6}{2^4\pi ^4}}\delta _5(\omega _c/T){\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}2}^6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{q}q^2e^{m_0^2/2T^2}\right]`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{\pi ^2}}\overline{q}q[T^3e^{m_0^2/4T^2}T{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{24}}].`$
Our two-point sum rules do agree with results previously obtained in Refs.GrYa ; WHL  . The functions $`\delta _n(\omega _c/T)`$ arise from the continuum subtraction and are given by

$$\delta _n(x)=\frac{1}{n!}\underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}\text{d}tt^ne^t=1e^x\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{x^k}{k!}.$$
(8)
The second term of the last equation is assigned to the continuum mode, which can be much larger than the ground state contribution for the typical value of parameter T if the dimension of the spectral densities are very high.

### II.2 Three-point sum rules

For a heavy-heavy velocity changing current $`𝒥=\overline{h}\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{h}^{}`$ we can define a three-point correlator in which $`J`$ is inserted between two interpolating currents as below

$`i^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2e^{i(kx_1k^{}x_2)}0T\{j^v(x_1)𝒥(0)\overline{j}^v^{}(x_2)\}0}`$ $`=`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\text{/}v}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1+\text{/}v^{}}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}Tr[\tau \tau ^+]T(\omega ,\omega ^{},y),`$ (9)
where $`T(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)`$ is analytic function in the “off-shell energies” $`\omega =2vk`$ and $`\omega ^{}=2v^{}k^{}`$ with discontinuities for positive values of these variables. It furthermore depends on the velocity transfer $`y=vv^{}`$, which is fixed at its physical region for the process under consideration. In the heavy quark limit, the matrix element of current $`𝒥`$ can be parameterized by one or two scalar functions of $`y`$. Those scalar functions are called Isgur-Wise functionsIW  and can be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q|\overline{h}\mathrm{\Gamma }h^{}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}=\xi (y)\overline{u}\mathrm{\Gamma }u^{},$$
(10)
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon, and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q|\overline{h}\mathrm{\Gamma }h^{}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q^{}=[\xi _1(y)g_{\mu \nu }+\xi _2(y)v_\mu ^{}v_\nu ]\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^{},$$
(11)
for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-type baryon, in which $`u`$ is the Dirac spinor as defined in (I) and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ is the covariant representation of the spin $`1/2`$ doublets $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =u_\mu +\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(v_\mu +\gamma _\mu )u`$. Both $`\xi (y)`$ and $`\xi _1(y)`$ are normalized to unity at the zero recoil $`y=1`$ due to the heavy quark symmetry. However, one cannot invoke symmetry arguments to predict the normalization at $`y=1`$ of $`\xi _2(y)`$.

Saturating the three-point correlator with complete set of baryon states, one can divide it into two parts. One is the part of interest, the contribution of the lowest-lying baryon states associated with the heavy-heavy currents, as one having poles in both the variables $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ at the value $`\omega =\omega ^{}=2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The other contribution to the correlator comes from higher resonant states. For the little knowledge of this part of contribution it is common to resort to the quark-hadron duality, which insures that continuum contribution can be approximated by the integral of the perturbative spectral density over a continuum threshold, to get a predictive result.

On theoretical side the scalar function $`T(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)`$ can be calculated using quark and gluon language with vacuum condensates. Dispersion relation enables one to express the correlator in the form of integrals of the double spectral density as

$$T(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)=_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\text{d}s}{s\omega }\frac{\text{d}s^{}}{s^{}\omega ^{}}\rho (\text{s},\text{s}^{},y).$$
(12)
With the redefinition of the integral variablesDHLL ; HLLS ; IWfun ; Neubert92D

$`s_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s+s^{}}{2}},`$
$`s_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{y1}{y+1}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{ss^{}}{2}},`$ (13)
the integration domain becomes

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s^{}=2\left(\frac{y1}{y+1}\right)^{1/2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_+_{s_+}^{s_+}𝑑s_{}.$$
(14)
It is in variable $`s_+`$ that the commonly adopted quark-hadron duality is assumedNeubert92D ; BS

$$res.=2\left(\frac{y1}{y+1}\right)^{1/2}_{\omega _c^{}}^{\mathrm{}}ds_+_{s_+}^{s_+}ds_{}\frac{\rho (\text{s},\text{s}^{},y)}{(s\omega )(s^{}\omega ^{})},$$
(15)
and for simplicity we take $`\omega _c^{}`$ to be equal to the two-point continuum threshold $`\omega _c`$: $`\omega _c^{}=\omega _c`$.

In our theoretical calculations of the three-point correlator only condensates with dimension no more than 6 are included. Order $`1/m_Q`$ power corrections and radiative corrections are not included in present calculations, either. For their contributions to the correlator only amount to several percents and do not change the numerical result dramatically. Also the gaussian ansatz for the nonlocal quark condensate is adopted. Feynman diagrams related to the calculations of three-point correlator are shown in Fig. 2.

Then following the standard procedure we resort to the Borel transformation $`B_\tau ^\omega `$, $`B_\tau ^{}^\omega ^{}`$ to suppress the contributions of the excited states. Considered the symmetry of the correlation function it is natural to set the parameters $`\tau `$, $`\tau ^{}`$ to be the same and equal to 2T, where T is the Borel parameter of the two-point sum rules. Finally, we obtain the sum rules for the Isgur-Wise functions as

$`4F_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\xi (y)e^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }/T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(a^2+b^2)}{\pi ^4(1+y)^3}}T^6\delta _5(\omega _c/T)+{\displaystyle \frac{[a^2(2y+1)+b^2y(y+2)]T^2}{24(1+y)^2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(a^2+b^2y)}{3}}\overline{q}q^2e^{(1+y)m_0^2/4T^2}{\displaystyle \frac{4ab\overline{q}q}{(1+y)\pi ^2}}[T^3e^{m_0^2(1+y)/8T^2}+T{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{24}}(y+2)],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\xi _1(y)e^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mathrm{\Sigma }/T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(a^2+b^2)}{\pi ^4(1+y)^3}}T^6\delta _5(\omega _c/T){\displaystyle \frac{(a^2+b^2)T^2}{24(1+y)^2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(a^2+b^2y)}{3}}\overline{q}q^2e^{(1+y)m_0^2/4T^2}{\displaystyle \frac{4ab\overline{q}q}{(1+y)\pi ^2}}[T^3e^{m_0^2(1+y)/8T^2}T{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{24}}y],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\xi _2(y)e^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mathrm{\Sigma }/T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(a^2+b^2y)}{\pi ^4(1+y)^4}}T^6\delta _5(\omega _c/T)+{\displaystyle \frac{(a^2yb^2)T^2}{24(1+y)^3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2b^2}{3}}\overline{q}q^2e^{(1+y)m_0^2/4T^2}{\displaystyle \frac{4ab\overline{q}q}{(1+y)^2\pi ^2}}[T^3e^{m_0^2(1+y)/8T^2}+T{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{24}}(y2)],`$
The unitary normalization of flavor matrix $`Tr[\tau \tau ^+]=1`$ has been applied to get those sum rules. It is obvious that the normalization of the Isgur-Wise functions $`\xi (y)`$ and $`\xi _1(y)`$ at zero recoil is satisfied automatically.

## III numerical results and conclusions

It is obvious that in the expressions of two-point and three-point sum rules the relative value of the two parameters but not the absolute value plays an important role. So in this section we change the current mixing parameters $`a,b`$ to one angular variable $`\theta `$ through relations $`b/a=\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ where $`\theta `$ can be restrained to the range $`\theta [\pi /2,\pi /2]`$, in which $`\theta =0,\pm \pi /2`$ correspond to the diagonal cases. In the numerical analysis we will investigate the current mixing effects in those sum rules. Standard values of the vacuum condensates are

$`\overline{q}q=(0.23\text{GeV})^3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2=0.012\text{GeV}^4,`$
$`\overline{q}g\sigma _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }q=m_0^2\overline{q}q,m_0^2=0.8\text{GeV}^2.`$ (17)
They will be used in the following numerical analysis of the sum rules.

### III.1 mass sum rules

In the analysis of the coupling constant sum rules we need the effective mass of the baryons in consideration as the input parameter. One way to obtain this parameter is to extract it from the experimental data assuming the heavy quark mass to be the commonly recognized value from the outset of the analysis. For the aim of consistency we adopt another way of obtaining the effective mass parameter from Eq. (II.1) which is based on the QCD sum rule method entirely. The effective mass can be expressed through the derivative of Borel variable T in the coupling constant sum rules as

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{T^1}\mathrm{ln}\text{K(T)},$$
(18)
in which K(T) denotes the right hand side of Eq.(II.1). So the first step of our numerical analysis of those two-point sum rules is to find the value of the effective mass. But the second step, which is the analysis of coupling constant sum rules, will be omitted here as the focus of our interest is on the mass sum rules entirely. Our main idea in the consideration of the effect of the current mixing parameter to the sum rules is to see if there exists a reasonable stability window of the Borel parameter T under the variation of $`\theta `$ in the range from $`\pi /2`$ to $`\pi /2`$. For the analysis of the coupling constant and mass sum rules it is enough to take $`\theta `$ from $`0`$ to $`\pi /2`$ for on the range of $`\theta `$ from $`\pi /2`$ to $`0`$ the mass sum rules oscillate for the Borel parameter $`\text{T}1\text{GeV}`$ so sharply that it is impossible to find a desirable stability window. Thus we do not take into account of that half part of $`\theta `$.

For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon mass sum rule we find that there is no agreeable stability window except around the vicinity of $`\theta =0`$ or $`\theta =\pi /2`$, i.e. $`a=1,b=0`$ or $`a=0,b=1`$. So there is no or at most little space left for the mixing of currents and what we obtained is the diagonal sum rule. It is reasonable to assume this result does indicate that there exists some mechanism which forbids the mixing of the two sector interpolating currents in the mass sum rule in the leading order. The diagonal sum rule result can be checked with previous work: When $`\omega _c`$ lies between $`1.92.5\text{GeV}`$ there exists the stability window $`0.35<\text{T}<0.65\text{GeV}`$. The effective mass thus obtained is $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.73\pm 0.07\text{GeV}`$, in which the error only reflects the variation of Borel parameter T and continuum threshold $`\omega _c`$.

For the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-type baryon all sum rule windows are narrower than that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon and the stability is not as good as that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon, eitherGrYa . With the increasing of $`\theta `$ the stability falls drastically that the optional space left for the variation of $`\theta `$ is smaller than that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon. When $`\omega _c`$ lies between $`2.83.3\text{GeV}`$ there exists the stability window $`0.4<\text{T}<0.7\text{GeV}`$ for the diagonal sum rules, which appear to be the only surviving result with respect to the mixing of currents. The effective mass thus obtained is $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.90\pm 0.14\text{GeV}`$, in which the error only reflects the variation of Borel parameter T and continuum threshold $`\omega _c`$, too. Those results can be checked with Refs.GrYa ; WHL . It is also worth noting that the constituent quark type interpolating current cannot be distinguished from the currents with arbitrary mixing parameters from the stability point of view. Both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-type mass sum rules are presented in Fig. 3.

### III.2 sum rules for the three-point correlators

#### III.2.1 Isgur-Wise functions

In order to get the numerical results for the Isgur-Wise functions, we divide our three-point sum rules by two-point functions to obtain $`\xi `$, $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ as functions of the continuum threshold $`\omega _c`$ and the Borel parameter T. This procedure can eliminate the systematic uncertainties and cancel the dependence on mass parameter $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. As for the mixing parameter $`\theta `$ in this part, we take it varying from $`\pi /2`$ to $`\pi /2`$ to determine the stability of the sum rules.

For the Isgur-Wise function of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon, $`\xi (y)`$, we find that it is not sensitive to the mixing parameter $`\theta `$. Almost in the gamut of $`\theta `$ there exists a stability window, and the stability does not change rapidly when $`\theta `$ goes far beyond the vicinity of the diagonal $`\theta `$s. The continuum threshold is the same as that for the two-point sum rule for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon. For $`\omega _c`$ lies between $`1.92.5\text{GeV}`$ there exists the stability window. The stability window for $`\xi (y=1.2)`$ is a much narrower one, $`0.4<\text{T}<0.8\text{GeV}`$. The numerical results are shown in Fig. 4. In the numerical analysis it is interesting that there seems to exist a more stable window for the constituent quark type current with $`\theta =\pi /4`$, though the tendency is not so predominant.

The numerical analysis of the two Isgur-Wise functions of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-type baryon can be compared with each other. For the function $`\xi _1`$, the existence of stability window can only allow for the appearance of two diagonal sum rules and one constituent quark type sum rule with mixing parameter $`\theta =\pi /4`$. As for the function $`\xi _2`$, the existence of stability window can allow for the appearance of two diagonal sum rules besides one constituent quark type sum rule with mixing parameter $`\theta =\pi /4`$. When the continuum threshold $`\omega _c`$ lies between $`2.53.3\text{GeV}`$ there exist the stability windows for both functions with the allowed mixing angles. The numerical results of two Isgur-Wise functions are shown in Fig. 5. Due to lack of stability window of those two constituent quark type sum rules with the mixing parameters $`\theta =\pm \pi /4`$ for $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$, both numerical results related to those two sum rules are taken from the range $`0.8<\text{T}<1.2`$, the continuum threshold is the same as that of the diagonal sum rules. We also present our results for the function $`\xi _2(1)`$ in Table 1. Our results of the two constituent quark type currents are approximately equal to 0.5 at the zero recoil, which is consistent with the value obtained from constituent quark model and large $`N_c`$ limit in Refs.korner ; Chow .

If we put the two Isgur-Wise functions which are normalized to unity at the zero recoil into the linear form $`\xi _{(1)}(y)=1\rho _{(1)}^2(y1)`$, in which the parameters $`\rho ^2`$ and $`\rho _1^2`$ are the slopes (or charge radii) of the Isgur-Wise functions, we can obtain the slopes $`\rho ^2`$ and $`\rho _1^2`$ via a linear fit for $`\xi (y)`$ and $`\xi _1(y)`$ near the zero recoil. The final results of the slopes are presented in Table 2. Many predictions have been made on the value of the charge radii, and the results vary greatly from each otherIvanov ; DHHL ; JMW ; prd56-348 ; MNNFD ; IL .

#### III.2.2 semi-leptonic decay rates

With the appropriate forms for the Isgur-Wise functions $`\xi ,\xi _1\text{and}\xi _2`$ as we have derived in Eq. (II.2), we can discuss various semi-leptonic decays involving the heavy-to-heavy transition $`bc`$. As some illustrative examples here we shall only consider three types of semi-leptonic decays: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$.

The semi-leptonic decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ can be analyzed directly after obtaining the Isgur-Wise function from the QCD sum rules. By neglecting the lepton mass, the differential decay rate is DHHL

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{y^21}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl\overline{\nu })}{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^3}{(2\pi )^3}}`$
$`\times \{(12ry+r^2)[(y1)F_1^2+(y+1)G_1^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{y^21}{3}}(Ar^2+2Br+C)\},`$ (19)
where $`r=m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}/m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$. In the above equation,

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`2F_1F_2+(y+1)F_2^2+2G_1G_2+(y1)G_2^2,`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^2+F_1F_2+F_2F_3+F_3F_1+yF_2F_3+G_1^2G_1G_2G_2G_3+G_3G_1+yG_2G_3,`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`(y+1)F_3^2+2F_1F_3+(y1)G_3^22G_1G_3.`$ (20)
To the next to leading order of $`1/m_Q`$, the form factors $`F_i`$ and $`G_i`$ bear the simple form

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`C(\mu )\xi (y)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2m_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2m_b}}\right)[2\chi (y)+\xi (y)],`$
$`G_1`$ $`=`$ $`C(\mu )\xi (y)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2m_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2m_b}}\right)[2\chi (y)+{\displaystyle \frac{y1}{y+1}}\xi (y)],`$
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`G_2={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_c(y+1)}}\xi (y),`$
$`F_3`$ $`=`$ $`G_3={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b(y+1)}}\xi (y),`$ (21)
where $`C(\mu )`$ is the perturbative QCD coefficient, $`\chi (y)`$ is the sub-leading order Isgur-Wise function, which is only amounts to the order of a few percents to the leading function and can be safely neglectedDHHL ; KorMel . With the form of the leading order Isgur-Wise function (12), the differential decay rate of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl\overline{\nu }`$ is shown in Fig. 5. In this analysis, we choose those related heavy quark masses to be: $`m_b=4.77\text{GeV},m_c=1.41\text{GeV}`$WHL , and parameters $`m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}=5.641\text{GeV},m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}=2.285\text{GeV}`$ can be found in Ref.data , the renormalization point is $`\mu =470\text{MeV}`$. It seems to be inconsistent to use the quark masses obtained in Ref.WHL  using factorization instead of gaussian ansatz to parameterize the non-local quark condensate as done in Ref.DHLL  . But the fact that the decay width is not sensitive to the heavy quark masses allows us to use either pair of parameters without varying the width significantly. The decay widths corresponding to four typical mixing variables are listed in Table 3. Also listed in Table 3 are some predictions made by QCD sum rule and other phenomenological approaches. The averages of the decay widths are taken between $`0.8<\text{T}<1.1\text{GeV}`$ and $`1.9\omega _c2.5\text{GeV}`$. Our results are in good consistence with the experimental value, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(4.0\pm 1.0)\times 10^{14}\text{GeV}`$data .

As to the two decays between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-type baryons, the decay widths have simple and easy-to-be-interpreted forms when expressed with helicity amplitudes. Related formulae can be found in many referencesKKP ; prd56-348 ; EIKL  and the decay widths corresponding to various mixing parameters are listed in Table 3. In this part of numerical analysis we only take into account of the contributions of the leading order Isgur-Wise functions and omit the higher order effects. The masses of the heavy baryons are taken to be $`m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}=5.80\text{GeV}`$WHL , $`m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}}=2.52\text{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}=2.455\text{GeV}`$data . For comparison we list the results for those three types of decays predicted by QCD sum rule and other phenomenological approaches in Table 3, too. It should be noted here that function $`\xi _1`$ is the predominant part in the decay rates, so even though for the mixing parameter $`\theta =\pi /4`$ there exists no stability window for function $`\xi _2`$, the total decay rates still have a mild stability window for $`\theta =\pi /4`$.

For conclusions, we have investigated the mixing of currents interpolating ground heavy baryon state within the framework of HQET using QCD sum rule approach. For the two-point sum rules there can only survive the diagonal ones and the constituent quark type current is not preferable from the stability point of view for both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-type baryons. As for the three-point sum rules, Isgur-Wise function $`\xi (y)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon is not sensitive to the mixing parameter and the stability window exists almost for all the range of mixing parameter; on the other hand, Isgur-Wise function $`\xi _1(y)`$ and $`\xi _2(y)`$ allows for two diagonal, one constituent($`\theta =\pi /4`$) and one anti-constituent($`\theta =\pi /4`$) quark type sum rules. The effect of different currents to semi-leptonic decays $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl\overline{\nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ has also been analyzed in this paper. We find that the current mixing effects in those processes are not significant.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contract No. 19975068 and No. 10275091.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Non-vanishing diagrams for the two-point correlator: (a) perturbative contribution, (b) quark-condensate, (c) gluon-condensate, (d) mixed condensate, (e) four-quark condensate contributions. The interpolating baryonic currents are denoted by black circles. Heavy-quark propagators are drawn as double curves.

Fig. 2. Non-vanishing diagrams for the three-point correlator: (a) perturbative contribution, (b) quark-condensate, (c) and (d) gluon-condensate, (e) mixed condensate and (f) four-quark condensate. The velocity-changing current operator is denoted by a white square, and the interpolating baryonic currents by black circles.

Fig. 3. Sum rules for effective mass parameter $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$: The left one is for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type baryon, in which $`\omega _c=2.2\text{GeV}`$; and the right one is for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-type baryon, in which $`\omega _c=2.8\text{GeV}`$.

Fig. 4. Sum rules of the Isgur-Wise function $`\xi (y)`$ with various mixing parameters. The threshold in this figure is $`\omega _c=2.2\text{GeV}`$ and the momentum transfer is $`y=1.1`$.

Fig. 5. Sum rules of Isgur-Wise function $`\xi _1(y)`$ and $`\xi _2(y)`$ with various mixing parameters. The threshold in this figure is $`\omega _c=2.8\text{GeV}`$ and the momentum transfer is $`y=1.1`$.

Fig. 6. Differential decay ratio of semi-leptonic decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl\overline{\nu }`$ with various mixing parameters as below: (a) $`\theta =0`$, (b) $`\theta =\pi /4`$, (c) $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and (d) $`\theta =\pi /4`$. The solid, dashed and dotted curves correspond to the threshold $`\omega _c=1.9,2.2,2.5\text{GeV}`$, respectively. And the Borel parameter is $`\text{T}=0.85\text{GeV}`$ in this figure.