text:
# References

Rare kaon decays provide a very useful laboratory both to test the standard model (SM) and to explore new physics beyond it . It is of particular interest to study the CP-violating effects, which arises in such weak decays from dimension-five operators, including the electromagnetic and chromomagnetic penguin operators (EMO and CMO) since the CP violation induced by these operators is suppressed in the SM; however, it could be enhanced in its extensions . On the other hand, present experiments, HyperCP , and future NA48 experiments , are going to substantially improve the present limits on the Wilson coefficients of these operators by studying CP-violating charge asymmetries in charged kaon decays, such as $`K^\pm (3\pi )^\pm `$, $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, as well as one-photon or two-photon radiative decays. It is expected that charged kaon decays could be an ideal framework to explore direct CP violation, or CP violation of pure $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ origin . The purpose of this paper is devoted to the analysis of the CP-violating charge asymmetry induced by the EMO in the two-photon radiative charged kaon decay, $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$, both in the SM and in its possible extensions.

The general weak effective Hamiltonian, contributed by the EMO and CMO, can be written as

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=C_\gamma ^+(\mu )Q_\gamma ^+(\mu )+C_\gamma ^{}(\mu )Q_\gamma ^{}(\mu )+C_g^+(\mu )Q_g^+(\mu )+C_g^{}(\mu )Q_g^{}(\mu )+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(1)
where $`C_{\gamma ,g}^\pm `$ are the Wilson coefficients and

$`Q_\gamma ^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{eQ_d}{16\pi ^2}}(\overline{s}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }d_R\pm \overline{s}_R\sigma _{\mu \nu }d_L)F^{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
$`Q_g^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{16\pi ^2}}(\overline{s}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }t_ad_R\pm \overline{s}_R\sigma _{\mu \nu }t_ad_L)G_a^{\mu \nu }.`$ (3)
Here $`Q_d=1/3`$, and $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=i/2[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]`$. Note that eq. (1) with complex Wilson coefficients $`C_{\gamma ,g}^\pm `$ could lead to new flavor structures beyond the SM, which generally depart from minimal flavor violation . It is easy to see that the SM structure, $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, will impose the following chiral suppression for these operators :

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{SM}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{td}V_{ts}^{}[C_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{8\pi ^2}}(m_d\overline{s}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }t_ad_R+m_s\overline{s}_R\sigma _{\mu \nu }t_ad_L)G_a^{\mu \nu }`$
$`+C_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{8\pi ^2}}(m_d\overline{s}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }d_R+m_s\overline{s}_R\sigma _{\mu \nu }d_L)F^{\mu \nu }]+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (4)
with

$`C_{11}(m_W)={\displaystyle \frac{3x^2}{2(1x)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x{\displaystyle \frac{x^35x^22x}{4(1x)^3}},`$ (5)
$`C_{12}(m_W)={\displaystyle \frac{x^2(23x)}{2(1x)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x{\displaystyle \frac{8x^3+5x^27x}{12(1x)^3}},`$ (6)
where $`x=m_t^2/m_W^2`$ and $`t_a`$ are the $`SU(3)`$-matrices. However, as we shall see, new flavor structures, for instance, from the supersymmetric extensions of the SM, allow us to avoid the chiral suppression for the operators in eq. (4) .

It has been known that the $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ transitions are dominated by long distance effects . Within the framework of chiral perturbation theory , $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ receives the first non-vanishing contribution at $`O(p^4)`$ including both loops and anomalous and non-anomalous couterterms. The general $`O(p^4)`$ amplitude of the decay can be decomposed in the following way

$`M(K^+(k)\pi ^+(p)\gamma (q_1,ϵ_1)\gamma (q_2,ϵ_2))`$
$`=ϵ_{1\mu }(q_1)ϵ_{2\nu }(q_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A(y,z)}{m_K^2}}(q_2^\mu q_1^\nu q_1q_2g^{\mu \nu })+{\displaystyle \frac{C(y,z)}{m_K^2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_{1\alpha }q_{2\beta }\right],`$ (7)
with

$$y=\frac{k(q_1q_2)}{m_K^2},z=\frac{(q_1+q_2)^2}{m_K^2}.$$
(8)
The physical region in the dimensionless variables $`y`$ and $`z`$ is given by

$$0|y|\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^{1/2}(1,z,r_\pi ^2),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}z(1r_\pi )^2,$$
(9)
where $`r_\pi =m_\pi /m_K`$ and $`\lambda (a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^22(ab+ac+bc).`$ Note that the invariant amplitudes $`A(y,z)`$ from loops and non-anomalous counterterms, and $`C(y,z)`$ from anomalous counterterms have to be symmetric under the interchange of $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ as required by Bose symmetry. In the SM, the $`O(p^4)`$ amplitude for $`A(y,z)`$ has been given in Ref. , which is

$$A(y,z)=\frac{G_8m_K^2\alpha _{\mathrm{EM}}}{2\pi z}\left[(r_\pi ^21z)F\left(\frac{z}{r_\pi ^2}\right)+(1r_\pi ^2z)F(z)+\widehat{c}z\right],$$
(10)
where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{EM}}=e^2/4\pi `$, and $`|G_8|=9.2\times 10^6`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup>. We do not display the explicit expression for $`C(y,z)`$ since it is irrelevant to the present discussion. $`F(z/r_\pi ^2)`$ and $`F(z)`$ are generated from $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ loop diagrams respectively, which could be defined as

$$F(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{4}{x}\mathrm{arcsin}^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{x}}{2}\right)& x4,\\ & \\ 1+\frac{1}{x}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{1\sqrt{14/x}}{1+\sqrt{14/x}}+i\pi \right)^2& x4.\end{array}$$
(11)
$`\widehat{c}`$ in eq. (10) is from $`O(p^4)`$ non-anomalous local counterterms

$$\widehat{c}=\frac{128\pi ^2}{3}\left[3(L_9+L_{10})+N_{14}N_{15}2N_{18}\right],$$
(12)
where $`L_9`$ and $`L_{10}`$ are couplings in the $`O(p^4)`$ strong chiral lagrangian  and $`N_i`$ ($`i`$=14, 15,18) are couplings in the $`O(p^4)`$ weak chiral lagrangian .

From eq. (11) it is obvious that the $`\pi `$ loop contribution, which is proportional to $`F(z/r_\pi ^2)`$ in eq. (10), will generate a CP invariant absorptive part. Thus if $`\widehat{c}`$ has a non-vanishing phase, the interference between these two parts will lead to the charge asymmetry in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\pi ^+\gamma \gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma )|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\pi ^+\gamma \gamma )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma )}},`$ (13)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\pi ^+\gamma \gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma )|`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\widehat{c}|G_8\alpha _{\mathrm{EM}}|^2m_K^5}{2^{10}\pi ^5}}{\displaystyle _{4r_\pi ^2}^{(1r_\pi )^2}}𝑑z\lambda ^{1/2}(1,z,r_\pi ^2)(r_\pi ^21z)z\mathrm{Im}F(z/r_\pi ^2).`$
Thus information about the imaginary part of $`\widehat{c}`$ is relevant to the estimate of $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is clear that $`L_9`$ and $`L_{10}`$ cannot contribute to it. In the SM, $`\mathrm{Im}\widehat{c}`$ is therefore governed by the weak coupling combination $`N_{14}N_{15}2N_{18}`$ due to the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) phase . This point has been explored in the past literature, and some small values of the charge asymmetry in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ have been obtained in Refs.  and , respectively;

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\right)^{\mathrm{SM}}10^3\text{[24]},`$ (15)
and

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\right)^{\mathrm{SM}}<10^4\text{[3]}.`$ (16)
We would like to give some remarks here. First, eq. (15) is the updated version of the result given in Ref. , and a vanishing imaginary part of $`N_{14}N_{15}2N_{18}`$ has been predicted by the authors of Ref.  using $`1/N_C`$ analysis. Second, in deriving eq. (16), the $`O(p^6)`$ unitarity corrections  from the physical $`K^\pm 3\pi `$ vertex to $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ have been taken into account. As an order-of-magnitude estimate for the charge asymmetry in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ induced by the EMO, in the present paper we do not consider the $`O(p^6)`$ unitarity contributions since, as pointed out in Ref. , it does not alter significantly the value of the charge asymmetry obtained at $`O(p^4)`$ in chiral perturbation theory.

Let us now try to delve into the analysis of the CP-violating charge asymmetry in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ arising from the EMO formulated in the general effective Hamiltonian of eq. (1). It will be shown below that, this asymmetry is very small in the SM, however, it could be significant in the supersymmetric scenarios beyond the SM by comparison with those given in eqs. (15) and (16). Using the same way given in Ref. , we first construct the effective lagrangian that represents the EMO. In fact there are many possible chiral realization of these operators. To the purpose of this paper, the leading order $`O(p^4)`$ realizations of the EMO, which are relevant to $`K\pi \gamma \gamma `$ transitions, could be expressed as

$$=a_1_1+a_2_2,$$
(17)
$$_1=\frac{eQ_d}{16\pi ^2}C_\gamma ^\pm \lambda U(F_{L\mu \nu }+U^{}F_{R\mu \nu }U)\pm \lambda (F_{L\mu \nu }+U^{}F_{R\mu \nu }U)U^{}F^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(18)
and

$$_2=i\frac{eQ_d}{16\pi ^2}C_\gamma ^\pm \lambda UL_\mu L_\nu \pm \lambda L_\mu L_\nu U^{}F^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(19)
where $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are unknown coupling constants, $`L_\mu =iU^{}D_\mu U`$, and $`(\lambda )_{ij}=\delta _{3i}\delta _{2i}`$. We use the standard notation in chiral perturbation theory , $`F_{L\mu \nu }=F_{R\mu \nu }=eQF_{\mu \nu }`$, $`D_\mu U=_\mu Uie[Q,U]A_\mu `$, and $`Q=\mathrm{diag}(2,1,1)/3`$. $`U`$ is a unitary $`3\times 3`$ matrix with det $`U`$=1, which collects the Goldstone meson fields ($`\pi `$, $`K`$, and $`\eta `$) as follows

$`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Phi }/f_\pi ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\lambda ^a\varphi _a(x)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}& \pi ^+& K^+\\ & & \\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}& K^0\\ & & \\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \frac{2\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}\end{array}\right),`$ (25)
where the $`\lambda ^a`$’s are $`3\times 3`$ Gell-Mann matrices and $`f_\pi 93`$ MeV. Note that our result \[eq. (17)\] is not contrary to that in Ref.  since it does not give any contribution to the imaginary part of the weak coupling combination $`N_{14}N_{15}2N_{18}`$. However, it is easy to see that the effective lagrangian \[eq. (17)\] will give new contributions to decays $`K^+\pi ^+\gamma \gamma `$ and $`K^{}\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$, respectively, one can therefore expect that the new structures in eqs. (18) and (19) with the complex Wilson coefficients $`C_\gamma ^\pm `$ will induce a possible charge asymmetry in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ decays. Consequently, the interference between the amplitude for $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ from eq. (17) and the absorptive part in eq. (10) will give

$`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{EMO}}`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\pi ^+\gamma \gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma )|^{\mathrm{EMO}}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{EM}}^2|G_8|m_K^5}{32^8\pi ^5f_\pi ^2}}\left|\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_1a_2\right)\right|`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{4r_\pi ^2}^{(1r_\pi )^2}}dz\lambda ^{1/2}(1,z,r_\pi ^2)(r_\pi ^21z)z\mathrm{Im}F(z/r_\pi ^2).`$
The first observation of $`K^+\pi ^+\gamma \gamma `$ has been reported by BNL E787 Collaboration , and the branching ratio of the decay has been measured

$$\mathrm{Br}(K^+\pi ^+\gamma \gamma )=(1.1\pm 0.3\pm 0.1)\times 10^6.$$
(27)
Thus we have

$$\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^{\mathrm{EMO}}=(2.4\pm 0.7)\times 10^6\left|\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+\left(\frac{2}{3}a_1a_2\right)\right|.$$
(28)
Our next task is to evaluate the magnitude of $`\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+`$ and $`(2/3a_1a_2)`$ to check whether it is possible to get a significant charge asymmetry of $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ from eq. (28). However, since unknown constants $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ in eqs. (18) and (19) are related to the low energy chiral dynamics, at the present we have no model-independent way to give a reliable determination of them. In the following we will estimate them using naive dimensional analysis, within the chiral quark model, and employing lattice calculation, respectively.

Naive dimensional analysis As the order-of-magnitude estimate, using naive dimensional analysis , we can obtain

$$a_1a_2f_\pi \frac{f_\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi },$$
(29)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi =4\pi f_\pi `$ as the chiral symmetry spontaneously breaking scale. So we get

$$\left|\left(\frac{2}{3}a_1a_2\right)\right|a_1a_2\frac{f_\pi }{4\pi },$$
(30)
and

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\right)^{\mathrm{EMO}}1.8\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}|\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+|.`$ (31)
The chiral quark model The chiral quark model has been extensively used to study low energy hadronic physics involving strong and weak interactions . In order to study the direct CP violation in decays $`K\pi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$), this model has been employed by the authors of Ref.  to evaluate the bosonization of the EMO, which corresponds to the $`a_2`$ part in eq. (17). In the same way as that in Ref. , one can obtain the effective lagrangian corresponding to the $`a_1`$ part in eq. (17). This leads to

$$a_1=\frac{f_\pi ^2}{4M_Q},a_2=\frac{3M_Q}{8\pi ^2},$$
(32)
where the constituent quark mass $`M_Q`$ could be set about 0.3 GeV . Thus we get

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\right)^{\mathrm{EMO}}=(1.6\pm 0.4)\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}|\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+|.`$ (33)
Lattice calculation So far there is no direct lattice calculation on $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$. However, note that the $`a_2`$ part in eq. (17) will also contribute to transition $`K\pi \gamma ^{}\pi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, and the first lattice calculation of the matrix element of the EMO, $`\pi ^0|Q_\gamma ^+|K^0`$, has been done in Ref. . One therefore could determine the value of $`a_2`$ by comparing the result from eq. (17) and that from the lattice calculation. In general, the matrix element of the EMO can be parametrized in terms of a suitable parameter $`B_T`$

$$\pi ^0|Q_\gamma ^+|K^0=i\frac{\sqrt{2}eQ_d}{16\pi ^2m_K}B_Tp_\pi ^\mu p_K^\nu F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(34)
On the other hand, using the effective lagrangian in eq. (17), one can get

$$\pi ^0|Q_\gamma ^+|K^0=i\frac{\sqrt{2}eQ_d}{16\pi ^2m_K}\frac{2a_2m_K}{f_\pi ^2}p_\pi ^\mu p_K^\nu F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(35)
Since $`B_T=1.18\pm 0.09`$ has been found in the lattice calculation , from eq. (34) and (35), we have

$$a_2=0.010\pm 0.001\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(36)
Unfortunately, now we are not able to use the similar way to extract any information on $`a_1`$ from the lattice calculation. However, by comparing the value of $`a_2`$ in eq. (36) with those from naive dimensional analysis \[in eq. (29)\] and the chiral quark model \[in eq. (32)\], one can find that they are of the same order of magnitude. Meanwhile, $`a_1`$ from eqs. (29) and (32) are also of the same order of magnitude. This leads to the same order of magnitude estimates for the charge asymmetry in eqs. (31) and (33), which are from naive dimensional analysis and the chiral quark model, respectively. Therefore, in general,

$$\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^{\mathrm{EMO}}1.0\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}|\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+|$$
(37)
could be expected except in a fine-tuning case in which there is an accidental cancellation between $`2/3a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ (since we cannot reliably fix the relative sign of $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ in a model-independent way).

In order to go further into the charge asymmetry in eq. (37), now one has to compute the imaginary parts of the Wilson coefficients $`C_\gamma ^\pm `$, which are related to the short distance physics. In the SM it is easy to get $`\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+`$ from eqs. (1) and (4) as

$$|\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+|^{\mathrm{SM}}=\frac{3G_F}{\sqrt{2}}(m_s+m_d)|\mathrm{Im}\lambda _tC_{12}|,$$
(38)
where $`\lambda _t=V_{td}V_{ts}^{}.`$ Due to the smallness of $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t10^4`$, this contribution from the SM to the charge asymmetry in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ is strongly suppressed and could be negligible. Therefore in the following we will turn our attention to physics beyond the SM.

Among the possible new physics scenarios, low energy supersymmetry (SUSY) , represents one of the most interesting and consistent extensions of the SM. In generic supersymmetric models, the large number of new particles carrying flavor quantum numbers would naturally lead to large effects in CP violation and flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) amplitudes . Particularly, one can generate the enhancement of $`C_{\gamma ,g}^\pm `$ at one-loop, via intermediate squarks and gluinos, which is due both to the strong coupling constant and to the removal of chirality suppression present in the SM. Full expressions for the Wilson coefficients generated by gluino exchange at the SUSY scale can be found in Ref. . We are interested here only in the contributions proportional to $`1/m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, which are given by

$`C_{\gamma ,\mathrm{SUSY}}^\pm (m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}\left[(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{21}\pm (\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{12}^{}\right]F_{\mathrm{SUSY}}(x_{gq}),`$ (39)
$`C_{g,\mathrm{SUSY}}^\pm (m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}\left[(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{21}\pm (\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{12}^{}\right]G_{\mathrm{SUSY}}(x_{gq}),`$ (40)
where $`(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{ij}=(M_\mathrm{D}^2)_{i_\mathrm{L}j_\mathrm{R}}/m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$ denotes the off-diagonal entries of the (down-type) squark mass matrix in the super-CKM basis, $`x_{gq}=m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$ with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ being the average gluino mass and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ the average squark mass. The explicit expressions of $`F_{\mathrm{SUSY}}(x)`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{SUSY}}(x)`$ are given in Ref. , but noting that they do not depend strongly on $`x`$, it is sufficient, for our purposes, to approximate $`F_{\mathrm{SUSY}}(x)`$ $`F_{\mathrm{SUSY}}(1)=2/9`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{SUSY}}(x)`$ $`G_{\mathrm{SUSY}}(1)=5/18`$. In any case it will be easy to extend the numerology once $`x_{gq}`$ is better known. Also the determination of the Wilson coefficients in eqs. (39) and (40) can be improved by the renormalization group analysis . Then by taking $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=500`$ GeV, $`m_t=174`$ GeV, $`m_b=5`$ GeV, and $`\mu =m_c=1.25`$ GeV, we will have

$$\left|\mathrm{Im}C_\gamma ^+\right|^{\mathrm{SUSY}}=2.4\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^1\left|\mathrm{Im}[(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{21}+(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{12}^{}]\right|.$$
(41)
Using the experimental upper bound on the branching ratio of $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ measured by KTeV Collaboration , the lattice calculation  has given

$$\left|\mathrm{Im}[(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{21}+(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{12}^{}]\right|<1.0\times 10^3(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.).$$
(42)
Thus from eqs. (37), (41), and (42), the charge asymmetry in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ induced by the EMO in the supersymmetric extensions of the SM could be bound as

$$\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^{\mathrm{EMO}}<\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10^3,$$
(43)
which is significantly larger than the charge asymmetries given in the SM .

In conclusion, we have studied the CP-violating charge asymmetry induced by the electromagnetic penguin operators in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ transitions, and supersymmetric extensions of the SM may enhance the Wilson coefficients of these operators, which leads to interesting phenomenology in this study. It is found that the constrain imposed by experiments  on the SUSY parameter $`\left|\mathrm{Im}[(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{21}+(\delta _{\mathrm{LR}}^\mathrm{D})_{12}^{}]\right|`$ allows a significant upper bound on the charge asymmetry given in eq. (43). Our analysis shows that the charge asymmetry in $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma \gamma `$ up to $`10^3`$ would be a signal of new physics, and thus high-precision measurements of this CP-violating observable might probe interesting extensions of the SM.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank G. D’Ambrosio for very helpful communications. This work was supported in part by the NSF of China under Grant No. 10275059.


format: text

text:
# Imaging in Hard X-ray Astronomy

## 1. Introduction

The hard X-ray band with photon energies from $`10`$ keV to a few hundred keV is very important for the study of high energy processes near compact objects, super-massive black holes and in relativistic outflows. Astronomical imaging in hard X-rays is still an observational problem. This is because high energy photons in this range can neither be focused like lower energy photons, nor can their arrival direction be determined from Compton scattering or e± pair production as in the high energy $`\gamma `$-ray range. Due to the technological difficulties no detailed all-sky map of hard X-rays has been provided yet.

In contrast to direct imaging methods used in the optical and soft X-ray bands, currently imaging in the hard X-ray band is mainly achieved through various modulation techniques. M. Oda (1965) proposed that a collimator composed of two parallel grids of wires, scanning cross a X-ray source over a detector, could reveal the positional information of the source. After then the rotation modulation collimator (RMC) technique (Schnopper et al. 1968; Willmore 1970) and coded aperture mask (CAM) technique (Dick 1968; Ables 1968) were developed with good angular resolution and a wide field of view (FOV) for hard X-ray imaging. By rotating the modulation grids, a periodic modulation of the source flux is introduced which contains unique information on the position and intensity of the sources in the FOV. Images are obtained with the aid of Fourier analysis or cross-correlation analysis. Composite-aperture telescopes, e.g. multipitch telescopes, may be used in order to reduce the side lobes and perform imaging of diffuse sources. Currently, in hard X- ray imaging observations, the CAM is widely used. Modulated spatially by the coded aperture mask, the incident photons are recorded by a position sensitive detector. The true spatial intensity distribution is reconstructed from the observational data by using the cross-correlation analysis method or other mathematical decording techniques. The coded aperture mask technique is most widely used in hard X-ray imaging: modulated spatially by the coded aperture mask, the incident photons are recorded by a position sensitive detector. The true objective distribution is reconstructed from the observational data by using the cross-correlation (CC) technique or other inversion methods. Due to the position sensitive detector a hard X-ray coded aperture telescope is fairly complicated and expensive. The intrinsic angular resolution of a coded aperture mask instrument can be estimated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{arctan}(2\delta x/d)`$, where $`\delta x`$ is the detector-mask pixel size and $`d`$ the distance between the mask and detector plane. With a limited position resolution of the detector, say 1 cm, the telescope can reach a length of $`67`$ m to get about $`10^{}`$ angular resolution, which leads to large structure, heavy weight and difficulties in suppressing the local background. The effective area is reduced to half or more due to the occultation of the mask and a wide field of view will lead to a higher background through the aperture. Complicated image distortions (e.g. side lobes, pseudo images etc.) are usually appeared in images obtained by coded aperture telescopes, which strongly reduce the angular resolution and imaging capability for weak sources.

Since early 1990s a direct demodulation method has been developed. The direct demodulation technique can extract the information on the observed object from the observational data more sufficiently than conventional inversion techniques, with which one can perform wide field and high resolution imaging with a non-position-sensitive detector and relatively simple modulation methods.

## 2. Direct Demodulation Method

In observations with any kind of telescopes, the relation between the observational data $`d(k)`$ and the intensity distribution $`f(i)`$ of a sky region can be described by the following observation equation (modulation equation):

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p(k,i)f(i)=d(k)(k=1,\mathrm{},M)$$
(1)
where $`p(k,i)`$, the modulation coefficients of the telescope, represent the instrument response character. The equation system (1) can be written in matrix form as

$$Pf=d$$
(2)
Since early 1990s the direct demodulation (DD) technique has been developed (Li & Wu 1992; 1993; 1994) for deriving high spatial resolution maps from incomplete and noisy data. The DD technique reconstructs the object $`f`$ from the observed data $`d`$ by directly solving the observation equations. In general the modulation matrix $`P`$ is not a square one and the observation equation system is unsolvable. We can first multiply two sides of Eg. (2) by the transpose, $`P^T`$, of the modulation matrix to obtain a new equation system

$$P^{}f=c$$
(3)
where $`c=P^Td,P^{}=P^TP`$. The matrix of coefficients, $`P^{}`$, in the correlation equations (3) is then a positive definite symmetric matrix. The DD technique performs a deconvolution from $`c`$ by iteratively solving Eg. (3) under some proper physical constraints ( Li & Wu 1994). The formula of DD algorithm by using the Gauss-Seidel iterations is

$$f^{(l)}(i)=\frac{1}{p^{}(i,i)}[c(i)\underset{ji}{}p^{}(i,j)f^{(l1)}(j)]$$
(4)
with the constraint condition

$$f(i)b(i)$$
(5)
where the lower intensity limit $`b(i)`$ is the background intensity.

The iterative process described in equation (4) under the nonlinear constraint (5) is in fact a sort of artificial neural network computing (Li 1997). Let $`x(i)=f(i)b(i),\theta (i)=b(i)[1_{ji}p^{}(i,j)/p^{}(i,i)]c(i)/p^{}(i,i),w(i,j)=p^{}(i,j)/p^{}(i,i)`$, the DD algorithm (4), (5) can be represented by the state transfer equation of a continual Hopfield network (Hopfield 1984)

$$x^{(l)}(i)=F[\underset{ji}{}w(i,j)x^{(l1)}(j)\theta (i)]$$
(6)
where $`x(i)`$ is the output of neuron $`i`$, $`\theta (i)`$ the threshold of neuron $`i`$, $`w(i,j)`$ the weight from the output of neuron $`j`$ to the input of neuron $`i`$, and the transfer function $`F`$ is a nonlinear ramp function

$$F(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x\hfill & \text{if }x0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Figure 1 shows a three-neuron network representing the DD algorithm. Cohen and Grossberg (1983) have shown that recurrent networks are stable if the weight matrix is symmetrical with zeros on its main diagonal and the inverse function of transfer function is continual and monotonously increasing. It is easy to see that the network defined by (6) and (7) satisfies the above mentioned conditions. Therefore the direct demodulation calculations always converge to a stable solution, a globally optimal one in the meaning of the Liapunov energy function being minimum.

An alternative algorithm of direct demodulation is to solve the observation equation system (1) by Richardson-Lucy iteration (Richardson 1972; Lucy 1974) under the background constraint:

$$f^{(l)}(i)=f^{(l1)}(i)\underset{j}{}\frac{p(j,i)d(j)}{_i^{}p(j,i^{})f^{(l1)}(i^{})}/\underset{j}{}p(j,i)$$

$$f(i)b(i)$$
(8)
The DD method is a general inversion method, which can be used to deal with observational data obtained by different kinds of instrument and has been used to analyze data from both simulations and real space experiments with various types of telescope. The results obtained show that the DD technique can improve the spatial resolution and sensitivity significantly. Mont Carlo simulations show that, comparing with the conventional cross-correlation deconvolution technique the DD technique can improve the image quality for rotation modulation telescope (Chen et al. 1998) and coded mask telescope (Li 1995). Figure 2 shows the simulation results of the DD image reconstruction for a rotating modulation telescope (Chen et al. 1998). The image reconstructed from a object shown in Fig. 2(a) with the cross-correlation and with the DD technique are shown in figures 2(b) and 2(c), respectively. From figure 2(c) one can see that with the DD technique much better reconstruction for point source, extended source and flat background can be obtained.

The DD technique has been successfully applied to improving the angular resolution of the Wolter I type telescope PSPC aboard ROSAT mission (Chen et al. 1998). A strong evidence for an X-ray jet associated with SNR G54.1+0.3 has been found with PSPC/ROSAT and DD technique (Lu et al. 2001).

To construct intensity map from the Compton telescope with unusual modulation function and 3-D data space is a difficult task in space high energy astronomy. The DD technique has also been successfully applied to high resolution imaging of the double Compton scattering telescope COMPTEL on board CGRO. By using this technique Zhang et al. (1998) re-analyzed the data from the COMPTEL observation of PKS0528+134 during the 1993 March flare in $`\gamma `$-rays; the result revealed new information about the flare activity of the Blazar. As an example of DD images from Compton telescope, figure 3 shows the first 10-30 MeV map of the Geminga pulsar in the phase region of peak 1 determined by the light curve of the Geminga pulsar from the EGRET data in the same observing period (Zhang et al. 1997).

The COMPTEL observation of the $`\gamma `$-ray burst GRB 910601 has been re-analyzed using the DD method (Zhang 1998). The location of GRB 910601 derived from the DD imaging is closer to the annulus obtained by the Ulysses-BATSE system than that from the maximum-likelihood method.

The all-sky monitor (ASM), aboard the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), consists of one-dimensional position-sensitive counters mounted on a motorized rotation drive viewing the sky through slit masks. Intensities of sources listed in a master catalog of X-ray sources with known positions are obtained via least squares fits of shadow patterns to the data (Levine et al. 1996). Song et al. (1999) has successfully performed image reconstruction from ASM/RXTE data with the DD technique without using any a prior knowledge about the sources. Figure 4 shows a DD image with ASM/RXTE data and DD technique.

The DD technique has been applied to derive high resolution maps from scanning observations by non-position-sensitive detectors. The European X-ray satellite EXOSAT, in a survey mode, made scanning observation of the galactic plane with its medium energy (2-6 keV) collimated detector, ME, which had a spatial resolution of $`0^{}.75`$ (FWHM). The data analysis technique used by the EXOSAT team at that time was unable to resolve some of the complex regions (Warwick et al. 1988). Lu F.J. et al. (1996) re-analyzed the EXOSAT-ME scan data using the DD technique and got new X-ray maps of the Galactic plane which are much better than those made by the traditional cross-correlation method. For example, the region around $`l=346^{}`$ is a confused region in the previous analysis, but with the DD technique a well resolved X-ray map is derived successfully. Figure 5(b) is the X-ray map of this region derived with the DD technique, revealing quite a few point sources in an $`8^{}\times 8^{}`$ region. In comparison, figure 5(a) is the cross-correlation map. All point sources in Fig. 5 observed by the DD technique have been confirmed by X-ray imaging telescopes, including the weak source DD 1701-380 confirmed later by 2E 1701.1-3804 found in accumulative data of Einstein Observatory ( Thompson et al. 1998).

Another example is for the hard X-ray survey telescope HEAO1-A4, which consists of two similar detectors with 100 cm2 sensitive area, in the 13–180 keV energy range, and FOV of $`1^{}.5\times 20^{}`$ (FWHM) each (Matteson 1978). The two detectors rotate around the pointing axis clockwisely and counter-clockwisely by 30, respectively. The detectors scan the sky by the orbit precession of the satellite (Levine et al. 1984). No traditional technique can produce meaningful images from the HEAO1-A4 data. However, good quality images have been derived with the DD technique. Figure 6(b), as an example, is a direct reconstruction from the scanning observation data of HEAO1-A4 for the Galactic center region, where the crosses mark the positions of the known hard X-ray sources (Lu F.J. et al. 1995). Again, in comparison, figure 6(a) gives the cross-correlation map of the same data.

## 3. The Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope HXMT

The possibility of a collimated telescope to perform high resolution imaging with scan observation and DD technique (Li et al. 1993; Li & Wu 1994) has been proved by the results of reanalyzing space data, shown in Figs. (5) and (6), and by raster scan imaging experiments in the laboratory and balloon flight with the hard X-ray telescope HAPI-4 (Lu Z.G. et al. 1995). The balloon-borne telescope HAPI-4 is a slat-collimated hard X-ray telescope of the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP),Beijing, in cooperation with the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute of Russia and Astronomisches Institut, Universitaet Tuebingen of Germany. The telescope consists of a collimated multiple wire proportional counter (MWPC) and NaI(Tl)/CsI(Na) phoswich detector. The effective area of both the MWPC and the phoswich detector is 1600 cm2 each and the energy range is 10-400 keV (10-100 keV when only the MWPC are used). The collimator is made of lead slats, which define a FOV of 3$`\times `$3 (FWHM). A raster scan modulation imaging experiment for radioactive sources in the laboratory with HAPI-4 has been done and the observed data were analyzed with the DD technique. The derived positions and flux of the radioactive sources are consistent with the true values. On September 25, 1993, at the altitude of about 35 km over Beijing at a northern latitude of 40 a raster scan observation of the Cygnus region was performed for about one hour by HAPI-4. The observed data were analyzed with DD technique (Lu Z.G. et al. 1995). The derived X-ray image of the Cygnus region is shown in figure 7.

Based the development of methodology and instrumentation, a Chinese high enerrgy astrophysics mossion – Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope (HXMT) has been proposed. In the energy range of 10 - 200 keV, HXMT can make full-sky hard X-ray survey with high spatial resolution, deep imaging observations of selected sky regions, and high sensitivity pointing observations of scientific hot spot sources for detailed temporal and spectral studies.

The detector of the HXMT consists of 18 same hexagonal prism NaI(Tl)/CsI(Na) phoswiches (Figure 8), the area of single module is 286 cm2, then the total detecting area is 5148 cm2. The primary detector of each module is a NaI(Tl) crystal with the thickness of 3 mm, and a 500 $`\mu `$m thick Be slice is used as the incident window. A CsI(Na) crystal of 3 cm thick is placed at the back of the primary crystal to act as an anticoincidence shield: it stops the hard X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray background of the lower 2$`\pi `$ solid angle (assuming the telescope is pointing upwards) and reduces the effect of Compton scattering in the primary counter. The two kinds of crystals are optically coupled. Fluorescence photons are received by a $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ photomultiplier (PMT) for each phoswich module. A pulse shape discrimination circuit (PSD) is used to distinguish the two kinds of pulses with different fluorescent decay times. In front of the primary detector a plastic scintillator with thickness 2 mm is used to distinguish charged particles.

In high sensitivity observation, the angular resolution is very important to avoid the confusion of point sources. The principal objective of the HXMT is to obtain the map of hard X-ray sky by the aid of the direct demodulation technique. The designed 10 angular resolution and 1 source location precision of the HXMT can help to accomplish the identification of sources in radio, optical and soft X-ray bands, on the other hand, images of the extended sources like the Galactic plane, the Galactic halo, clusters and SNRs can also be obtained. Imaging for a wide field and increasing exposure time during scanning observation require a wide field of view (FOV). However, a too wide FOV will damage the resolution of imaging, precision of source location and sensitivity of the instrument. After a comprehensive consideration of the requirement of imaging and flexibility of technology, the view field of the HXMT is chosen to be 5$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 5^{}`$ (FWHM), which consists of 18 collimators with non-symmetric FOV of 5$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 0^{}.5`$ (FWHM) placed with a cross angle of 10 one another.

The spatial resolution ability of the HXMT was studied with the high precision reconstruction for part celestial region within the FOV based on direct demodulation method. The data of deep scanning survey in a $`6^{}\times 6^{}`$ region which contains a strong source generated by computer simulation. The scan mode is: the angular differences between two sequential pointing directions is $`0^{}.5`$ within a $`1^{}.5\times 1^{}.5`$ region near the source and 1 in other region. The total observation lasts 2 hours. The background intensity is assumed to be 0.02 cm-2s-1 and the source has an intensity of $`1.7\times 10^2`$ cm-2s-1. From the resultant image of the point source by direct demodulation process the angular resolution (FWHM) of the HXMT can be estimated as $`<2^{}`$ and the accuracy of source location is much better than $`1^{}`$.

The effect of the stability of satellite attitude on the HXMT spatial resolution was further studied. In a simulation the pointing axis moves along a random direction with a speed of $`0^{}.005`$/s for each pointing observation. The mean pointing direction of each crystal with respect to the mean pointing direction and the number of photons detected in each crystal during the observation are all calculated. The difference between the real direction of the source and its calculated value from the direct demodulation map is only about $`0^{}.4`$, and the angular resolution of the point source is about $`5^{}`$ (FWHM).

The background was estimated with Monte-Carlo simulations and according to experiential results (Dean et al. 1989; 1990). The solid angle of $`5^{}\times 0^{}.5`$ collimator of HXMT is 7 times smaller that of IMAGER/INTEGRAL, which is much beneficial to reducing background of hard X-ray photons. The estimated total background rate in the energy range $`10200`$ keV is 0.02 cm-2s-1. The following formulas are used to calculate the minimum detectable flux of a pointing observation:

$$F_{min}\text{(cm}\text{-2}\text{s}\text{-1}\text{keV}\text{-1}\text{)}=(2n_\sigma /\epsilon )\sqrt{B/ATE}$$

for continuum spectrum and

$$F_{min}\text{(cm}\text{-2}\text{s}\text{-1}\text{)}=(2.4n_\sigma /\epsilon _p)\sqrt{B\delta E/AT}$$

for narrow lines. Where $`n_\sigma `$ is the significance, $`B`$(cm-2s-1keV-1) background level, $`A`$(cm2) detector area, $`T`$(s) observation duration, $`\epsilon `$ efficiency, $`E`$(keV) widths of energy bands, $`\epsilon _p`$ the detection efficiency of full energy peak and $`\delta E`$(keV) the FWHM of the narrow line. It has been estimated that the expected sensitivity of HXMT at 100 keV is three times better than that of IMAGER/INTEGRAL.

HXMT can make observation in three different modes: full-sky survey, deep scanning observation of a selected region, and pointing observation. In the sky survey mode, the satellite attitude is three-axis stabilized with respect to the earth. The survey is carried through the motion of the satellite in its orbit and precession of the orbital plane. For a satellite with a low circular orbit at the altitude of 550 km and an inclination of 43, the scan survey is divided into three phases with roll angle being $`0^{},30^{}`$ and $`30^{}`$, separately. The above scan observations will take six months to cover most of the sky. The three-phase scanning observation mode ensures that some regions can be observed up to six times. After the sky survey, HXMT will start to pointing observation of some objects and deep scanning observation of selected sky regions. In this phase the attitude of the satellite is controlled in the 3-axis stabilized mode with respect to stars in the sky. With the 3-axis stabilized mode guided by the star image, HXMT will perform scanning monitoring of the sources in the galactic plane several times for about every ten days. The time to finish a scan of the galactic plane is the orbital period of the satellite, in order not to be affected by the earth occultation.

The key performance parameters of HXMT mission are listed in Table 1.

Table 2: Key Performance Parameters of HXMT Mission

| Energy Range | 10–200 keV |
| --- | --- |
| Energy Resolution | $`18\%`$ @ 60 keV |
| Angular Resolution | $`10^{}`$ |
| Source Location ($`20\sigma `$ source) | $`1^{}`$ |
| Sensitivity ($`3\sigma `$, in $`10^5`$s @ 100keV) | $`3\times 10^7`$ cm-2s-1keV-1 (continuum) |
|  | $`1\times 10^5`$ cm-2s-1 (narrow line) |
| Orbit | Altitude: $`550`$ km circular |
|  | Inclination: $`43^{}`$ |
| Attitude | Three-axis stabilization |
|  | Control precision: $`\pm 0^{}.25`$ |
|  | Measurement accuracy: $`\pm 0^{}.01`$ |
| Data Rate | $`30`$ kbps |
| Mass | Science instrument: $`600`$ kg |
|  | Total payload: $`1400`$ kg |
| Nominal Mission Lifetime | 2 years |

The HXMT mission was proposed in 1994 and selected as one of the Major State Basic Research Projects in China in April, 2000 and funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Tsinghua University. The implementation of the HXMT project is a collaboration between the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Tsinghua University. With the fund the detector system and the prototype of the payload are under construction. It has also been listed as a candidate of the state scientific satellites of China. International collaborations on this project are welcome. In 10 - 200 keV hard X-ray range, HXMT mission with its unprecedented sensitivity and imaging ability is expected to play an important role in space astronomy.

## 4. Discussion: Direct Approach to Inversion

Sufficiently using the information on the observed object is of great importance in dealing with the reconstruction problem. The observation equation system

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p(k,i)f(i)=d(k)(k=1,\mathrm{},M)(1)$$

or

$$Pf=d(2)$$

contains all information about the object $`f`$ in the observed data $`d`$ obtained by the observation with an instrument $`P`$. The maximum-entropy method (ME) is a widely used method of reconstructing object $`f`$ from observed data $`d`$. ME is to choose a solution $`f(i)(i=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ from all satisfying the statistical criterion

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\{[\underset{i}{}p(k,i)f(i)d(k)]/\sigma _k\}^2=M$$
(9)
by the condition that the information entropy

$$\underset{i}{}f(i)\mathrm{log}f(i)=\mathrm{max}$$
(10)
Many informations on the object $`f`$ are lost when using the single equation (9) instead of the equation system (1) containing $`M`$ equations, that infinite intensity distribution $`f`$ can satisfy Eg. (9). The maximum-entropy condition (10) helps us to pick out a most smooth one from them, but not necessary the best one. Another widely used method is the cross-correlation technique, which takes the cross-correlation distribution $`c`$ of the data and the modulation pattern to estimate the object intensity

$$fc=P^Td$$
(11)
From the correlation equations

$$P^{}f=c(5)$$

one can see $`cf`$, the cross-correlation $`c`$ is just an image of the object $`f`$ through a modulation (distortion) of a certain imaging instrument with a point spread function $`P^{}`$. The cross-correlation reconstruction completely ignores the information included in the correlation equations, still does not make full use of the information on the object obtained by the observation. In general the two kinds of inversion methods have no significant difference in their results, the resultant resolution are limited by the intrinsic resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ of the instrument

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{CC}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ME}\mathrm{\Delta }_0$$
(12)
The direct decording approach, reconstructing objects by iteratively solving observational equations or correlation equations under nonlinear constraints, each iterative calculation is directly based on the modulation equation. Obviously the direct approach can use the information containing in the equations more sufficiently than any indirect one through a statistical criteria or cross-correlation transformation and then can obtain much better resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DD}\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

With conventional techniques the resolution is limited by the intrinsic one, it does not matter how sensitive the observation is. For improving the precision and resolution of an experiment, people are usually devoted to improving the intrinsic resolution by constructing high-precision instrument, more and more complicated and high-priced. It is a most difficult task to conduct an experiment with both high resolution and high sensitivity. Under the direct inversion technique, the resultant resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DD}`$ is not only dependent on the instrumental intrinsic resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, but also dependent on the amount $`S`$ of observed signal, the ratio of signal to noise $`SNR`$ and modulation pattern $`M`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{DD}=f(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,S,SNR,M)$$
(13)
Applying the direct demodulation technique to space instrument design, we can realize high resolution imaging with a low resolution or even non-position-sensitive detector, and can conduct observations with both high resolution and high sensitivity by improving the resolution ability through increasing the detection sensitivity, as shown by the expected performance of HXMT mission.

The main difficult of the direct methods is the illness of solution causing by errors in data and other uncertainties in modulation equations. Introducing physical constraints to make nonlinear control in the iterative process of solving modulation equations is a key point to make the direct demodulation realizable, and, furthermore, stable, convergent and global optimal. Benefited from the physical constraints in iterates the effect of errors can be depressed effectively in the demodulation process. As a consequence, the direct demodulation can get images with much less false appearances and be capable of reconstructing not only discrete sources, but also extended features as well.

## References

Ables J. G. 1968, Proc. Astron. Soc. Australia, 1, 172

Chen Y., Li T.P., & Wu M. 1997, in: Proc. ADASSVI, ASP conf. ser., 125, 178

Chen Y., Li T.P., & Wu M., 1998, A&AS, 128, 363

Chen Y., Song L.M., Li T.P., & Cui W. 2000, Acta Astron. Sinica, 41, 214

Cohen M. & Grossberg S. 1983, IEEE Trns. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 13, 815

Dean A.J. et al. 1989, A&A, 219, 358

Dean A.J. et al. 1990, Space Sci.Rev., 57, 109

Dick R. H. 1968, ApJ, 153, L101

Levine A.M. et al. 1984, ApJS, 54, 581

Levine A.M. et al. 1996, ApJ, 469, L33

Li T.P. 1995, Exper. Astron., 6, 63

Li T.P. 1997, Space observation of hard X-rays, in: Hu W.R. (ed.) Space Science in China, Gordon & Breach Science Publisher

Li T.P. & Wu M. 1992, in: Astronomical Data Analysis Software & Systems I (eds Worrall D.M., Biemesderfer C. & Barnes J.), BookCrafters, Inc., 229

Li T.P. & Wu M. 1993, Ap&SS, 206, 9

Li T.P. & Wu M. 1994, Ap&SS, 215, 213

Li T.P., Wu W., Lu Z.G., Wang J.Z. & Zhang C.S. 1993, Ap&SS, 205, 381

Lu F.J., Li T.P., Sun X.J., & Wu M. 1995, in Shellard & Nguyen (eds) Proceedings of CHEP’95, 848

Lu F.J., Li T.P., Sun X.J., Wu M., & Page C.G. 1996, A&AS, 115, 395

Lu F.J., Aschenbach B.,& Song L.M. 2001, å, 370, 570

Lu Z.G. et al. 1995, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. Sec. A, 362, 551

Lucy L.B. 1974, AJ, 79, 745

Matteson J.L. 1978, Proc. AIAA, No.78-35

Song L.M., Li T.P., Cui W., 1999, Acta Astrophys. Sinica, 19, No.1

Thompson R.J., Shelton R.G., & Arning C.A. 1998, AJ, 115, 2587

Oda M. 1965, Appl.Optics, 4, 143

Richardson B.M. 1972, J.Opt.Soc.Am., 62, 55

Schnopper H. W. et al. 1968, Space Sci. Res., 8, 534

Willmore A.P. 1970, MNRAS, 147, 387

Warwick R. S. et al. 1988, MNRAS, 232, 551

Zhang S. 1998, Acta Astrophysica Sinica, 18, 197

Zhang S., Li T.P., Wu M., & Yu W.F. 1997, in: AIP Conf. Proc., 410, 578

Zhang S., Li T.P., & Wu M. 1998, å, 340, 62


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Pure $`𝒩=1`$ Super Yang–Mills (SYM) theory is known to possess nonzero gluino condensate $`<\lambda \lambda >`$ whose phase distinguishes between one of the discrete vacua of the theory . The exact value of $`<\lambda \lambda >`$ has been found by several independent methods of controllable deformation to weak coupling. One method  uses matter supermultiplets whose nonzero Higgs condensate breaks explicitly the gauge group and gives masses to certain fields. One is then able to compute $`<\lambda \lambda >`$ from a single instanton, with extra fermion zero modes contracted via mass terms. The other method  compactifies the Euclidean space $`R^4R^3\times S^1`$, so that BPS dyons arise as classical saddle points. Again, the gauge $`SU(N)`$ group is broken, this time spontaneously, by the nonzero expectation value of the Yang–Mills potential $`A_4`$ in the compact direction. Dyons have zero fermionic modes saturating $`<\lambda \lambda >`$; it turns out to be independent of the circumference $`l`$ of the compact dimension. It is then argued that the power of holomorphy allows one to assert the same value in the decompactified limit $`l\mathrm{}`$. We briefly review these methods below. The results of the two seemingly different methods of getting $`<\lambda \lambda >`$ coincide, including the numerical coefficient . The same result which is apparently exact , follows independently from a deformation of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory – see ref.  for a recent discussion.

In all those approaches, the gauge symmetry is broken by the deformation. Although in all cases the symmetry-breaking parameter tends to zero as one approaches the strong coupling limit, one can ask if the spontaneous breaking of gauge symmetry (i.e. a dynamical Higgs effect) is not a property of the pure SYM theory itself. We present arguments that it is indeed the case. Matter mutliplets which break color explicitly or compactification which breaks it spontaneously, serve as a ‘seed’ to disclose the true nature of the SYM theory in the strong-coupling limit.

Historically, the first calculation of the gluino condensate  was directly in the strong-coupling limit of the pure SYM theory. However, a seemingly “clean” calculation of $`<\lambda \lambda >^N`$ in the pure $`SU(N)`$ SYM theory by saturating it by instanton zero modes yields a value different from the exact result. This paradox attracted much attention over the years. There have been several attempts in the past to explain the puzzle. It has been suggested  that instantons average over the $`Z_N`$ vacua, or over an additional vacuum with zero gluino condensate . However, ref.  doubts the validity of those arguments.

In this paper, we suggest an alternative strong-coupling calculation of the gluino condensate $`<\lambda \lambda >^N`$. On the one hand it yields the correct result. On the other hand it is very close to the old instanton calculation, and it becomes possible to pinpoint what exactly is wrong there. Namely, the new calculation reduces to the old strong-coupling instanton calculation provided one neglects long-ranged fields vanishing as $`1/l`$ where $`l`$ is the size of the system. Normally, such fields have no effect on the local properties of the theory, but not in this case: a small perturbation has a dramatic effect because the system is unstable with respect to spontaneous color symmetry breaking.

## 2 Spontaneous color symmetry breaking in the compactified SYM theory

In this section we briefly review one of the ways to obtain the correct value of the gluino condensate .

Let us consider the $`SU(2)`$ SYM theory compactified to $`R^3\times S^1`$ with the ‘time’ dimension $`x_4`$ being of circumference $`l`$. It should be stressed that it is not an introduction of the physical temperature $`T=1/l`$ as fermions satisfy periodic conditions in the $`x_4`$ direction. Therefore, the usual perturbative periodic potential in $`A_4`$ does not emerge as in the temperature case: owing to supersymmetry it is zero to all orders of the perturbation theory. We remind the reader that the perturbative potential $`V(A_4)`$ is zero at $`\sqrt{A_4^aA_4^a}=0,2\pi /l,4\pi /l\mathrm{}`$ at which points the Polyakov line (the holonomy) is trivial. If the holonomy is nontrivial (more precisely, if its spatial average is nontrivial) then $`V(A_4)>0`$ and the corresponding gauge configuration has an unacceptable volume-divergent positive energy. This is the usual argument against configurations with nontrivial average holonomy in the pure gauge theory . However, in the compact SYM theory the perturbative potential is identically zero for any $`A_4`$ and one is free to consider configurations with any holonomy at spatial infinity.

Choosing the gauge where at spatial infinity $`A_4v\tau ^3/2`$ one finds that there are two self-dual ($`L,M`$) and two anti-self-dual ($`\overline{L},\overline{M}`$) dyon solutions of the YM equations, with the same asymptotic value of $`A_4^3=v`$ at spatial infinity . These solutions have all four possible signs of the electric and magnetic charges. The corresponding fields are given explicitly in the Appendix.

The nonperturbative dyon-induced superpotential found in ref.  shows that the minimum (zero) energy is achieved when the weights of the $`L`$ and $`M`$ dyons become equal, which happens at

$$\sqrt{A_4^aA_4^a}=v=\frac{\pi }{l}.$$
(1)
We notice that this value corresponds to the maximum of the would-be perturbative potential but it is absent. The system settles at the minimum (1) of the nonperturbative potential. It clearly demonstrates that in compactified SYM theory color is spontaneously broken by the Higgs mechanism, with $`A_4^a`$ playing the role of the Higgs field in the adjoint representation. The symmetry breaking pattern is $`SU(2)U(1)`$. For higher $`SU(N)`$ gauge groups the minimum (zero) energy is achieved at

$$A_4=\mathrm{diag}(\frac{N1}{N},\frac{N3}{N},\mathrm{},\frac{N1}{N})\frac{\pi }{l}.$$
(2)
It means that the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group is spontaneously broken down to the maximal Abelian subgroup $`U(1)^{N1}`$, at least at small compactification circumference $`l\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the SYM scale parameter.

Eq. (2) is not gauge-invariant. To put it in a gauge-invariant form one can consider the Polyakov line (the holonomy) along the compactified dimension; its eigenvalues are gauge invariant:

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`\text{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑x^4A_4\right)=\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{N1}{N}}\right),\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{N3}{N}}\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}(i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{N1}{N}})),`$ (3)
$`\text{Tr}P`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4)
For $`SU(2)`$ the Polyakov line’s eigenvalues are

$$P=\mathrm{diag}(i,i),\text{Tr}P=0.$$
(5)
One dyon can be considered in whatever gauge. However, if we wish to consider the vacuum filled by dyons, we have to take more than one dyon. Two and more dyons can be put together only in the singular ‘stringy’ gauge (see Appendix) where all of them have the same orientation in color space. This orientation is preserved throughout the $`R^3`$ volume. The mere notion of the ensemble of dyons (or monopoles) implies that color symmetry is broken. Of course, once color is aligned, one can always randomize the color orientation by an arbitrary point-dependent gauge transformation, just as the direction of the Higgs field can be randomized but that does not undermine the essence of the Higgs effect. In our case, the eigenvalues of the holonomy (3,5) and $`\text{Tr}P=0`$ are gauge-invariant signatures of the Higgs effect.

Eqs.(4, 5) do not mean that $`\text{Tr}P`$ is zero identically: it experiences point-to-point fluctuations, of course. For example, if $`\text{Tr}P`$ is measured near the dyon center it will be anything but zero. The statement is that $`\text{Tr}P0`$ far away from dyon centers. A simple calculation shows that also $`<\text{Tr}P>=0`$ for a Coulomb gas of dyons. As a matter of fact, this is the usual confinement requirement.

Although $`A_4=\frac{\pi }{l}0`$ in the strong-coupling decompactified limit $`l\mathrm{}`$, taken naively, the holonomy (3) remains non-trivial. Unfortunately, it is not a holomorphic quantity so that one cannot prove it rigorously. Nevertheless, we shall argue in the next section that the holonomy does remain non-trivial and that color symmetry remains broken in the decompactified limit. To that end we would need to consider the gluino condensate which is a holomorphic quantity.

Both $`L`$ and $`M`$ dyons have two gluino zero modes being the Grassmann partners of the four translational zero modes and thus being related to the dyon field strength:

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{zero}\mathrm{mode}}^{a\alpha }=\left(\sigma _\mu ^+\right)_{\dot{\beta }}^\alpha \left(\sigma _\nu ^{}\right)_\gamma ^{\dot{\beta }}\xi ^\gamma F_{\mu \nu }^a=\left(\sigma _i\right)_\gamma ^\alpha \xi ^\gamma E_i^a$$
(6)
where $`E_i^a=B_i^a`$ is the electric field strength of a dyon, see eqs. (Appendix. ,A.14). As shown in ref.  the dyon zero modes saturate the gluino condensate

$`<\lambda \lambda >`$ $`=`$ $`<ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^{a\alpha }(x)\lambda ^{a\beta }(x)>=2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{4\pi v}}{\displaystyle d^3zE_i^a(xz)E_i^a(xz)}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{v}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^2\left[2F_1^2(r)+F_2^2(r)\right]=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2M_{\mathrm{PV}}^3}{g^2(M_{\mathrm{PV}})}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{g^2(M_{\mathrm{PV}})}}\right]`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the renormalization-invariant combination of the Pauli-Villars regularization mass and the bare gauge coupling 111$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ used here is 6 times bigger than that used in the QCD convention.. The coefficient ‘2’ comes from summing up the (equal) contributions of $`L`$ and $`M`$ dyons. The radial functions $`F_{1,2}(r)`$ are the profile functions of the dyon, see eqs. (A.4,A.5). We remark that it is actually the anti-self-dual $`\overline{L},\overline{M}`$ dyons that lead to the $`<\lambda \lambda >`$ condensate (self-dual $`L,M`$ dyons lead to $`<\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda }>`$) but we shall not stress this distinction. Although technically obtained in the small $`l`$ limit the result (7) coincides with the exact one in the decompactified strong-coupling limit.

## 3 Instantons vs dyons

Let us now recall the strong-coupling instanton calculation of the gluino condensate . Contrary to the dyon, the instanton has four gluino modes for the $`SU(2)`$ group. Therefore, a single gluino condensate cannot be saturated by an instanton. Instead, one considers a two-point correlation function

$$C(xy)=<ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^{a\alpha }\lambda ^{a\beta }(x)ϵ_{\gamma \delta }\lambda ^{c\gamma }\lambda ^{c\delta }(y)>$$
(8)
which can be saturated by a single instanton. This correlation function does not actually depend on $`xy`$ owing to supersymmetry. Therefore, one can evaluate the correlator at $`|xy|0`$ using small-size instantons. Since the correlator is $`|xy|`$-independent, the same value holds at $`|xy|\mathrm{}`$ where it can be factorized into the product of two gluino condensates $`<\lambda \lambda >`$. This procedure known as ‘strong-coupling instantons’ gives a famous discrepancy factor of $`\frac{4}{5}`$ as compared to the exact result. We shall show that the evaluation of $`C(xy)`$ from an instanton is incorrect both for vanishing and for large $`|xy|`$: the seemingly clean calculation has a loophole because of the spontaneous breaking of the gauge group.

We start with a simple algebraic argument showing that instantons do not handle color in a way compatible with supersymmetry. Let us consider the correlation function of two gauge-invariant gluino bilinears like in eq. (8) but which are not contracted in spinor indices. Since fermion operators anticommute we find that the correlation function must be antisymmetric inside the two pairs of spin indices:

$$<\lambda ^{a\alpha }\lambda ^{a\beta }(x)\lambda ^{c\gamma }\lambda ^{c\delta }(y)>=\frac{1}{4}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{\gamma \delta }C(xy),C=\mathrm{const}.$$
(9)
This correlator is actually $`|xy|`$-independent since its contraction with $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\gamma \delta }`$ is. Therefore one can put $`x=y`$ in eq. (9) so that it becomes a one-point average. We next consider a one-point average of gluino fields which are contracted in spin but not in color indices:

$$T^{ab,cd}=<ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^{a\alpha }\lambda ^{b\beta }(x)ϵ_{\gamma \delta }\lambda ^{c\gamma }\lambda ^{d\delta }(x)>.$$
(10)
Under gauge transformations this tensor is gauge-rotated with respect to all indices. After averaging over gauge rotations only invariant tensors can result. Fermion statistics requires that $`T^{ab,cd}`$ is symmetric in $`(ab)`$ and in $`(cd)`$. In the $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory there are only two possible invariant structures made of Kronecker deltas, consistent with symmetry:

$$T^{ab,cd}=A\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{cd}+B(\delta ^{ac}\delta ^{bd}+\delta ^{ad}\delta ^{bc}).$$
(11)
In higher groups more structures are possible but we do not consider them here. Contracting eq. (10) once with $`\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{cd}`$ and the other time with $`\delta ^{ac}\delta ^{bd}`$ we reduce it to eq. (9) contracted in the first case with $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\gamma \delta }`$ and in the second case with $`ϵ_{\alpha \gamma }ϵ_{\beta \delta }`$ (the minus sign arises from adjusting the order of fermion operators). It gives a system of linear equations on the coefficients $`A,B`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccccc}9A& +& 6B& =& C\\ 3A& +& 12B& =& \frac{1}{2}C\end{array}$$
(12)
with a unique solution

$$A=\frac{C}{6},B=\frac{C}{12}.$$
(13)
Thus, the color structure of the one-point average (10) is unambiguously determined by supersymmetry:

$$<ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^{a\alpha }\lambda ^{b\beta }(x)ϵ_{\gamma \delta }\lambda ^{c\gamma }\lambda ^{d\delta }(x)>=\frac{C}{6}\left[\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{cd}\frac{1}{2}(\delta ^{ac}\delta ^{bd}+\delta ^{ad}\delta ^{bc})\right].$$
(14)
The next observation is that the instanton contribution to the l.h.s. of eq. (14) fails to reproduce its color structure. There are four gluino zero modes in the instanton background: two are super-translational and two are super-dilatational (or super-conformal) . One has to insert those zero modes into eq. (14), in all possible combinations. A simple exercise in algebra demonstrates that only the color-singlet structure $`\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{cd}`$ arises, with the coefficient $`B`$ being identically zero! This is true not only for exactly coinciding points $`x=y`$ but also for $`xy`$. It is true identically, even before one integrates over instanton center and sizes. We have also checked that it does not depend on the gauge in which the instanton field is considered.

To gain further insight, let us introduce a traceless color gluino bilinear operator

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\left(\lambda ^{a\alpha }\lambda ^{b\beta }\frac{\delta ^{ab}}{N^21}\lambda ^{e\alpha }\lambda ^{e\beta }\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }^{aa}=0.$$
(15)
In the case of the $`SU(2)`$ group $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}`$ belongs to the irreducible dimension-5 ‘isospin’-2 representation. For higher $`N`$ the symmetric rank-2 traceless representation is reducible; for example in $`SU(3)`$ it is a mixture of $`\mathrm{𝟖}^d`$ (adjoint) and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ representations.

A direct consequence of eq. (14) is that the one-point average of gluinos in the traceless dimension-5 representation of $`SU(2)`$ is

$$<\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}(y)>_{|xy|0}\frac{5}{6}<\lambda \lambda >^2.$$
(16)
In the $`SU(N)`$ case $`\frac{5}{6}`$ is replaced by the general $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{N^2+1}{N^21}`$; the negative sign is related to that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}`$ is a fermion operator. Meanwhile, the strong-coupling instanton calculation of this quantity (implying $`B=0`$) yields identical zero! Instantons are ‘color-blind’ and average out any ‘colored’ operator. Were color symmetry preserved in the pure SYM theory strong-coupling instantons would be all right. This is the first indication that the instantons’ failure is related to the actual color symmetry breaking in the theory, but there will be more 222It was noticed earlier  that multi-instantons do not support the cluster decomposition of gluino correlators. Since eq. (16) is very general (it can be derived directly from first rearranging gluinos into color-singlet operators and then applying eq. (9)), instantons’ failure to reproduce the equation is another but simpler manifestation of the non-clusterization..

We next consider the correlation function (8) at large separations between $`x`$ and $`y`$. This correlation function has chirality two, meaning that only gauge configurations with unity topological charge can contribute. Instanton is an obvious candidate. From the instanton viewpoint, the correlator is saturated by instantons of size $`\rho |xy|`$  but the result turns out to be $`\frac{4}{5}`$ of the exact one. So far all calculations yielding the correct value were made for a single gluino condensate, whereas the suspicious strong-coupling instanton calculation was for the two-point correlator. Therefore, to pin down the mistake one should perform in parallel a correct calculation but for the two-point correlator of gluino condensates.

There is an alternative strong-coupling calculation of $`<\lambda \lambda (x)\lambda \lambda (y)>`$ stemming from the compactified version of the SYM theory. The unity topological charge can be obtained from any two dyons $`LL,MM,LM`$. In the compactified $`R^3\times S^1`$ space there are exact classical solutions of all three types. The full eight-parameter static double-monopole $`MM`$ solution has been known for a while . The $`LL`$ double-monopole solution can be obtained from the $`MM`$ one by a gauge transformation. The time-dependent eight-parameter $`LM`$ solution has been recently constructed explicitly and named ‘the caloron with non-trivial holonomy’ . The first two objects have double electric and magnetic charges so that both their electric and magnetic fields decay as $`1/r^2`$ at large distances. The third object has zero charges so that it is similar to the instanton.

To compute the correlator $`<\lambda \lambda (x)\lambda \lambda (y)>`$ one needs to take one of the three ($`LL`$, $`MM`$, $`LM`$) exact solutions, find their four adjoint fermion zero modes, substitute them into the correlator in question in all possible combinations, and integrate over the solutions’ moduli space; finally sum up the contributions of all three exact solutions.

In practice, the calculation of the correlator depends on the relation between $`|xy|`$ and the compactification circumference $`l`$. Let us first discuss the ‘weak-coupling’ case of $`l|xy|`$. In this case, only part of the moduli space of the exact solutions contribute, corresponding to widely separated ‘constituent’ $`L,M`$ dyons. Since the field of constituents decreases rapidly beyond their size $`l`$, the leading contribution comes from one of the dyons staying at the distance $`l`$ from point $`x`$ and the other being at the distance $`l`$ from point $`y`$. Their interference can be neglected. Therefore, at $`l|xy|`$ the calculation of the correlator just copies (twice) the calculation of the gluino condensate from a single dyon  (recall section 2) with an evident result: the correlator is independent of $`|xy|`$ and coincides with the square of the (correct) gluino condensate. Notice that all four possible combinations $`LL,MM,LM,ML`$ contribute exactly $`\frac{1}{4}<\lambda \lambda >^2`$ apiece.

We next turn to the opposite case, $`l|xy|1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, appropriate to the decompactified strong-coupling limit. One should keep in mind that compactification does not spoil supersymmetry. Owing to supersymmetry $`<\lambda \lambda (x)\lambda \lambda (y)>`$ is independent of $`|xy|`$ for any given $`l`$. Thus, the correlator must be precisely the same as in the previous case and equal to the square of the gluino condensate. The correct result can be foreseen without calculations! 333Out of curiosity, we have computed the one-point average (10) assuming a sum Ansatz of dyons at all separations. Surprisingly, it works quite well: the color structure (13) following from supersymmetry is reproduced and the absolute value of the gluino condensate turns out to be only 4% bigger than the exact one. It would be illuminating to compute $`<\lambda \lambda (x)\lambda \lambda (y)>`$ exactly from the $`LL(MM)`$ and $`LM`$ solutions.

When $`l\mathrm{}`$ while $`|xy|`$ is kept fixed, the exact $`LL(MM)`$ and $`LM`$ solutions look very different. The $`LM`$ solution (the caloron) at $`l\mathrm{}`$ and fixed size $`\rho `$ becomes the instanton . Its action density is well localized both in $`x_4`$ and space. In the leading order in $`1/l`$ the solution is the usual instanton. The difference with the instanton shows up only in the subleading $`1/l`$ terms. As to the $`LL`$ and $`MM`$ exact solutions, they can be made static by an appropriate gauge choice. At $`l\mathrm{}`$ their field is weak everywhere: it is of the order of $`1/l`$ inside the region of space $`l`$ and falls as $`1/r`$ outside that region. The action gets its unity value owing to the integration of a weak field over a large volume.

Naively, one would argue that fields of the order of $`1/l0`$ are irrelevant for the calculation of the gluino condensate which is a local quantity, and hence one would i) neglect altogether the $`LL`$ and $`MM`$ contributions, ii) replace the exact $`LM`$ field by the instanton. Following this argument, one would conclude that the two-dyon and the instanton calculations are equivalent in the strong-coupling limit. However, we shall see in a moment that this is incorrect.

The $`LL,LM,MM`$ solutions represent sectors with definite (electric, magnetic) charges (-2,-2), (0,0) and (2,2), respectively. These sectors do not mix up under supersymmetric transformations: it is only their moduli spaces that transform (separately) under supersymmetry. It means that the independence of the correlator $`<\lambda \lambda (x)\lambda \lambda (y)>`$ of $`|xy|`$ is satisfied separately for the three sectors. At $`l|xy|`$ we know that $`LL`$ and $`MM`$ sectors contribute apiece exactly $`\frac{1}{4}`$ of the gluino condensate squared, whereas the $`LM`$ sector contributes exactly the other half. Because of supersymmetry, at $`l|xy|`$ those configurations contribute precisely the same fractions, despite that the $`LL,MM`$ fields tend to zero. At the same time the exact $`LM`$ configuration (i.e. the caloron with non-trivial holonomy) contributes precisely $`\frac{1}{2}`$ of the gluino condensate squared, whereas the instanton (to which it is reduced if one neglects $`1/l`$ corrections) is known to contribute $`\frac{4}{5}`$. Rather unusual, a vanishing field $`A_41/l`$ is necessary to maintain the correct result for the local gluino condensate 444Experts in the Schwinger model may find the present situation familiar: the chiral condensate in the $`2d`$ QED is induced by fields that are of the order of $`1/l`$ where $`l`$ is the size of the world ..

The difference between strong-coupling instanton and multi-dyon calculations becomes even greater for higher $`SU(N)`$ groups. At large $`N`$, the instanton gives only a $`O(1/N)`$ fraction of the true gluino condensate (see below); where does the rest come from?

In the compactified $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, there are $`N1`$ ‘static’ dyons $`M_1\mathrm{}M_{N1}`$ having unit (electric, magnetic) charges with respect to the $`N1`$ Abelian subgroups, and one ‘time-dependent’ $`L`$ dyon . When one computes the single gluino condensate in compactified space each of the $`N`$ configurations contributes equally $`\frac{1}{N}<\lambda \lambda >`$ . Adding up the contributions of $`M_1,M_2\mathrm{}M_{N1}`$ and $`L`$ dyons one gets the correct gluino condensate.

To compare it with the strong-coupling instanton calculation, one considers a $`N`$-point correlator

$$<\lambda \lambda (x_1)\lambda \lambda (x_2)\mathrm{}\lambda \lambda (x_N)><\lambda \lambda >^N,$$
(17)
with $`x_1\mathrm{}x_N`$ taken far apart. This correlator can be saturated by one instanton but also, in the compactified space, by exact N-dyon solutions. Again, we start with the case $`l|x_{mn}|`$ where the exact multi-dyon solutions reduce to widely separated constituents. Each of the $`N`$ dyon species stay at the distance $`l`$ from the points $`x_1\mathrm{}x_N`$, with all possible $`N^N`$ permutations. Therefore, the l.h.s. of eq. (17) is

$$\left(\frac{1}{N}<\lambda \lambda >\right)^NN^N=<\lambda \lambda >^N$$
(18)
as it should be. By supersymmetry, the l.h.s of eq. (17) does not depend on the relation between the compactification circumference $`l`$ and the separations $`x_{mn}`$. Therefore, the same result holds at $`l|x_{mn}|`$, i.e. in the strong-coupling limit. Meanwhile, only one particular configuration, namely $`M_1M_2\mathrm{}M_{N1}L`$, has zero (electric, magnetic) charges with respect to all $`U(1)`$ subgroups. It is the ‘caloron with non-trivial holonomy’ of refs. . At $`l\mathrm{}`$ it becomes the usual instanton of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group, plus $`1/l`$ corrections. The instanton contribution to the l.h.s. of eq. (17) is

$$\left(<\lambda \lambda >_{\mathrm{inst}}\right)^N=\frac{2^N}{(N1)!(3N1)}<\lambda \lambda >^N\stackrel{N\mathrm{}}{}\left(\frac{2e}{N}<\lambda \lambda >\right)^N.$$
(19)
Meanwhile, the true caloron contribution to eq. (17) is

$$\left(<\lambda \lambda >_{\mathrm{calor}}\right)^N=\left(\frac{1}{N}<\lambda \lambda >\right)^NN!\stackrel{N\mathrm{}}{}\left(\frac{1}{e}<\lambda \lambda >\right)^N$$
(20)
where the factor $`N!`$ comes from the permutations of $`M_1,M_2,\mathrm{},L`$. Again, we see that a vanishing distinction between the instanton and the caloron with non-trivial holonomy makes a big difference. Also, contributions from all the rest of multi-dyon solutions whose field at $`l\mathrm{}`$ is $`O(1/l)`$ (or less) everywhere, are needed to maintain the correct result for the gluino condensate in the strong-coupling limit.

We see, thus, that the non-trivial holonomy is important in determining the gluino condensate in the strong-coupling regime. This is not very usual. The holonomy is a global quantity; the difference between trivial and non-trivial holonomy is the difference between $`A_4=0`$ and $`A_4=\pi /l0`$. The fact that this tiny difference plays a crucial role in determining such a local quantity as $`<\lambda \lambda >`$ means that the system is unstable with respect to infinitesimal perturbation breaking color symmetry. In other words, the gauge group is spontaneously broken.

## 4 Color gluino condensate from a deformation of $`𝒩=2`$ theory

In this section we compute directly the value of the color-breaking gluino condensate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}`$, see eq. (15). To that end, we consider the compactified version of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory. As compared to the pure SYM theory, it has an additional chiral multiplet $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^{a\alpha },\mathrm{\Phi }^a)`$ in the adjoint representation.

The classical potential $`g^2\text{Tr}[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }]^2`$ has a flat zero-energy valley which we shall choose in the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ V\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
where $`V`$ is an arbitrary complex number. It breaks the color group $`SU(2)U(1)`$ even without compactification. However, we shall add the mass term for the chiral supermultiplet,

$$m\left(ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }^{a\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }^{a\beta }+\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a\right).$$
(22)
In the decompactified case the mass term drives $`V0`$ at large $`m`$ . At large $`m`$ the matter supermultiplet decouples and one is left with the pure SYM theory with a seemingly restored full $`SU(2)`$ gauge group. Such conclusion is, however, too hasty. Compactification of the softly broken (by the mass term) $`𝒩=2`$ theory is a way to make a gradual transition to the SYM theory, ultimately in the strong coupling regime. We shall see that the $`SU(2)`$ group is not restored in that limit but remains broken to $`U(1)`$ by the colored gluino condensate.

Compactifying the $`x_4`$ coordinate one finds classical solutions being $`L,M`$ dyons modified by the presence of the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$. Assuming the fields are ‘time’-independent and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ is parallel to $`A_4^a`$, the modified $`M`$ dyon in the regular ‘hedgehog’ gauge is given by (cf. eqs. (A.1,A.2))

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ $`=`$ $`n_aV\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\sqrt{v^2+V^2}r\right),\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\mathrm{coth}z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}`$ (23)
$`A_4^a`$ $`=`$ $`n_av\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\sqrt{v^2+V^2}r\right)\stackrel{z\mathrm{}}{}n^a\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{v^2+V^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right),`$ (24)
$`A_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{aij}n_j{\displaystyle \frac{1R\left(\sqrt{v^2+V^2}r\right)}{r}},R(z)={\displaystyle \frac{z}{\mathrm{sinh}z}}.`$ (25)
Its action is $`\frac{4\pi l}{g^2}\sqrt{v^2+V^2}`$. The $`S_{}`$ gauge transformation (A.7) puts the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a,A_4^a`$ fields along the third color axis, with the asymptotics

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{a3}\left(V{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{v^2+V^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right),`$ (26)
$`A_4^a`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{a3}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{v^2+V^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right).`$ (27)
The $`L`$ dyon is obtained by replacing $`v\frac{2\pi }{l}v`$ and $`VV`$ in eqs.(23-25). It is then transformed to the stringy gauge by $`S_+`$ (A.6) and subsequently gauge-transformed by the time-dependent matrix $`U(x^4)`$ (A.9). The fields’ asymptotics become

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{a3}\left(V{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{2\pi }{l}v\right)^2+V^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right),`$ (28)
$`A_4^a`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{a3}\left(v+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2\pi }{l}v}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{2\pi }{l}v\right)^2+V^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right).`$ (29)
The action of the modified $`L`$ dyon is $`\frac{4\pi l}{g^2}\sqrt{\left(\frac{2\pi }{l}v\right)^2+V^2}`$.

Both $`L`$ and $`M`$ dyons have two $`\lambda `$ and two $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ zero modes. The mass term for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ allows one to contract the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ zero modes of a dyon. The $`L,M`$-induced superpotential is a slight modification of that found in ref.  in the pure SYM case:

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{dyon}}=\left(M_{\mathrm{PV}}^{𝒩=2}\right)^2m\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\pi l}{g^2}\sqrt{v^2+V^2}\right)+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\pi l}{g^2}\sqrt{\left(\frac{2\pi }{l}v\right)^2+V^2}\right)\right]$$
(30)
Here the Pauli–Villars mass of the full $`𝒩=2`$ theory appears in the second power since there are four boson and four fermion zero modes. The factor $`m`$ arises from the contraction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ zero modes via the mass term. Apparently, the minimum (zero) energy is achieved, as before, at $`v=\frac{\pi }{l}`$, independently of the v.e.v. of the matter field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$. From now on, we shall use this value of $`<A_4>`$.

It is straightforward to calculate the gluino condensate in this setting, basically repeating the steps leading to eq. (7). The only (technical) difference is that the dyon weight is now proportional to $`\left(M_{\mathrm{PV}}^{𝒩=2}\right)^2m`$. This quantity is, however, equal to $`\left(M_{\mathrm{PV}}^{𝒩=1}\right)^3`$ at large $`m`$ (see e.g. ). Therefore, we get the same result as before:

$$<\lambda \lambda >=<\lambda ^1\lambda ^1>+<\lambda ^2\lambda ^2>+<\lambda ^3\lambda ^3>=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3.$$
(31)
The $`𝒩=2`$ extension allows us to compute another holomorphic quantity

$$\chi =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^b}{\mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }^c}$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}`$ is the traceless gluino bilinear in the dimension-5 representation, see eq. (15). This operator is chiral and transforms under supersymmetry through the parameter $`ϵ`$ only (not $`\overline{ϵ}`$). It gets a contribution from one dyon but cannot acquire corrections either from perturbation theory or from additional dyon pairs. Therefore, we can find the above average at small $`l`$ and claim that it remains unaltered in the decompactified limit, just as the normal gluino condensate (31) does.

Saturating $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}`$ by the two gluino modes of a dyon we obtain (cf. eq. (7)):

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}E_i^aE_i^b\frac{\delta ^{ab}}{3}E_i^eE_i^e=\left(F_2^2(r)F_1^2(r)\right)\left(\delta ^{a3}\delta ^{b3}\frac{1}{3}\delta ^{ab}\right).$$
(33)
Eq. (33) is written for $`M`$-dyons; in the case of the time-dependent $`L`$-dyons eq. (33) should be gauge-rotated by a time-dependent matrix (A.9). It is easy to check, however, that this gauge transformation commutes with the color structure in eq. (33), i.e. leaves it unchanged. Therefore, eq. (33) is correct both for $`L`$ and $`M`$ dyons.

The scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ is directed along the third color axis, according to eqs. (26,28). The concrete profile of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ solution cancels out in the ratio (32). For the same reason the v.e.v. of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ field is irrelevant also, although it goes to zero at large $`m`$ (necessary to pass from the $`𝒩=2`$ to the pure SYM theory). It is only the color direction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ that matters in eq. (32), but it is fixed by the dyon solution. Consequently, the average (32) is

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`<\mathrm{\Lambda }^{33}>={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}<\lambda ^3\lambda ^3>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}<\lambda ^1\lambda ^1>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}<\lambda ^2\lambda ^2>`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{4\pi v}}{\displaystyle d^3z\left[F_2^2(r)F_1^2(r)\right]}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right).`$
Combining it with eq. (31) we find

$`<\lambda ^1\lambda ^1>`$ $`=`$ $`<\lambda ^2\lambda ^2>=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{\displaystyle 𝑑rr^2F_1^2(r)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^26}{18}}0.214978\mathrm{\Lambda }^3,`$ (35)
$`<\lambda ^3\lambda ^3>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{\displaystyle 𝑑rr^2F_2^2(r)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{\displaystyle \frac{15\pi ^2}{9}}0.570044\mathrm{\Lambda }^3,`$ (36)
We see that one of the color directions is preferred. In this case it is the 33 direction as we have aligned $`A_4`$ at spatial infinity along the third axis. Contrary to $`<A_4^3>`$ which vanishes in the decompactified limit as $`1/l`$ the difference in the color components of the gluino condensate remains finite (and computable) in the strong-coupling limit.

Eqs.(35, 36) demonstrate the dynamical Higgs effect (as there are no elementary Higgs fields in the pure SYM theory). In this case, the colored gluino condensate $`<\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}>`$ (the composite Higgs field) belonging to the dimension-5 traceless symmetric tensor representation has a nonzero v.e.v. (34) that breakes $`SU(2)`$ down to the $`U(1)`$ subgroup in the same sense as the v.e.v. of an elementary Higgs field does.

## 5 Discussion

The appearance of a nonzero color gluino condensate is, in a sense, trivial. In partially compactified $`R^3\times S^1`$ SYM theory the gauge group is apparently spontaneously broken to the maximal Abelian subgroup by dyons, at least when the compact dimension is much less than the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ scale of the theory. The minimum of the superpotential induced by dyons corresponds to a nonzero $`A_4`$  which has to lie in some direction in color space thus breaking the color group. Therefore, in the compactified pure SYM theory a Higgs effect takes place, with $`A_4`$ playing the role of the Higgs field in the adjoint representation. Unpleasantly, $`A_4`$ is not Lorentz-invariant, but the effect is there. The non-zero value of the colored gluino condensate $`<\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}>`$ is a Lorentz-invariant manifestation of the same symmetry breaking.

What is interesting, the value of the color gluino condensate we have found does not depend on the compactification circumference $`l`$ – just as the ‘normal’ gluino condensate is independent of $`l`$; they are holomorphic quantities. Therefore, one can claim that color symmetry remains broken in the decompactified strong-coupling limit. An indirect evidence for color symmetry breaking follows from the fact that the correct value of the color-singlet gluino condensate is obtained from field configurations with a non-trivial holonomy. Strong-coupling instantons have a trivial holonomy, and they produce only a color-singlet condensate – in contradiction with eq. (16) following merely from supersymmetry. But even the color-singlet condensate gets a wrong value from instantons. We have shown in section 3 that to get the correct value it is insufficient to add other field configurations on top of the instanton: one has to replace the instanton by the caloron with non-trivial holonomy, in the first place. A non-trivial holonomy means that there is a privileged direction in color space, which is equivalent to color symmetry breaking.

An additional although so far indirect demonstration of the importance of dyons at strong coupling has come very recently from another end. Using wrapped $`D5`$ branes  or warped deformed conifold  the authors obtained the correct all-loop $`\beta `$ function of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM theory from corresponding supergravity solutions. In addition, both references find the same non-analytic corrections to the $`\beta `$ function, which are naturally associated with the pairs of dyons, not instantons.

Dyons have long-range Coulomb interactions which are Debye-screened in the plasma. It results in magnetic photons getting a mass and in confinement à la Polyakov . Polyakov’s scenario of confinement in $`3d`$ is essentially Abelian. It implies that the gauge group is spontaneously broken to the maximal Abelian subgroup, that the ‘charged’ gluons get masses via the Higgs mechanism but are confined, and that the Abelian magnetic ‘photons’ get mass from Debye screening. Qualitatively, the same Abelian scenario has been discussed for the $`4d`$ pure gauge theory by ’t Hooft . It can be made quantitative in the weak-coupling regime of the $`4d`$ $`𝒩=2`$ theory softly broken to $`𝒩=1`$ . The spontaneous breaking of the gauge group to the maximal Abelian subgroup is a welcome feature: the Abelian confinement is well understood, at least on the philosophical level, and has a chance to be ultimately put into a quantitative form following the lines of the references cited above.

The Abelian scenario has clear signatures in the weak-coupling regime but they become not so clear in the strong-coupling limit, especially if the theory confines color and only gauge-invariant correlators are the observables. Strictly speaking, there is no gauge-invariant local order parameter which would distinguish between Abelian confinement and a ‘true’ non-Abelian case. To find out uniequivocal observable signatures of the color-broken scenario and to check whether the pure (not supersymmetric) YM theory has the same features is an intriguing task which we postpone for the future.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Gennady Danilov, Alexander Gorsky, Alex Kovner, Alexei Yung and Ariel Zhitnitsky for useful discussions. V.P. acknowledges partial support from the RFBR grant No. 00-15-96610. Both of us are grateful to Klaus Goeke and Maxim Polyakov for the hospitality at Bochum University where part of this work has been done, and for a support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Sofia Kovalevskaya grants.

## Appendix. L,M monopoles

We give here explicit expressions for the fields of the four dyons in the compactified $`R^3\times S^1`$ space, with all four possible signs of the electric and magnetic charges. The two usual Bogomolny–Prasad–Sommerfeld (BPS) dyons in the regular (‘hedgehog’) gauge have the form:

$`A_4^a`$ $`=`$ $`n_av\mathrm{\Phi }(vr),\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\mathrm{coth}z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\stackrel{z\mathrm{}}{}1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}+O(e^z),`$ (A.1)
$`A_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{aij}n_j{\displaystyle \frac{1R(vr)}{r}},R(z)={\displaystyle \frac{z}{\mathrm{sinh}z}}\stackrel{z\mathrm{}}{}O(ze^z).`$ (A.2)
Here $`r=\sqrt{x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2}`$, $`n_a=x_a/r`$. The upper sign in $`A_4`$ corresponds to the self-dual ($`E_i^a=F_{i4}^a=B_i^a=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}F_{jk}^a`$) and the lower sign to the anti-self-dual ($`E_i^a=B_i^a`$) solution. We shall call them $`M`$\- and $`\overline{M}`$-monopoles, respectively.

The magnetic field strength in the hedgehog gauge is given by two structures:

$`B_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta _{ai}n_an_i)F_1(r)+n_an_iF_2(r),\mathrm{where}`$ (A.3)
$`F_1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}R(vr)=v{\displaystyle \frac{R(vr)\mathrm{\Phi }(vr)}{r}}={\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(vr)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{vr}}\mathrm{coth}(vr)\right)=v^2O\left(e^{vr}\right),`$ (A.4)
$`F_2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}v\mathrm{\Phi }(vr)={\displaystyle \frac{R^2(vr)1}{r^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(vr)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+v^2O\left(e^{2vr}\right).`$ (A.5)
If there is more than one monopole in the vacuum it is impossible to add them up in the hedgehog gauge: one has to “gauge-comb” them to a gauge where $`A_4^a`$ has the same asymptotic value at spatial infinity for all monopoles involved, – say, along the third color axis. It is achieved with the help of two unitary matrices dependent on the spherical angles $`\theta ,\varphi `$:

$`S_+(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}\tau ^3}e^{i\frac{\theta }{2}\tau ^2}e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}\tau ^3},S_+(n\tau )S_+^{}=\tau ^3,`$ (A.6)
$`S_{}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}\tau ^3}e^{i\frac{\pi \theta }{2}\tau ^2}e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}\tau ^3},S_{}=i\tau ^2S_+,S_{}(n\tau )S_{}^{}=\tau ^3.`$ (A.7)
We shall gauge-transform the $`M`$-monopole field with $`S_{}`$ and the $`\overline{M}`$-monopole with $`S_+`$. As the result their $`A_4`$ components become equal:

$$A_4^{M,\overline{M}}=v\mathrm{\Phi }(vr)\frac{\tau ^3}{2}=\left[v\frac{1}{r}+O\left(e^{vr}\right)\right]\frac{\tau ^3}{2}.$$
(A.8)
On the contrary, the spatial components differ in sign. We write them in spherical components:

$$\pm A_i^{M,\overline{M}}=\{\begin{array}{c}A_r=0\\ \\ A_\theta =\frac{R(vr)}{2r}(\tau ^1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\tau ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\\ \\ A_\varphi =\frac{R(vr)}{2r}(\tau ^1\mathrm{cos}\varphi \tau ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )+\frac{1}{2r}\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{2}\tau ^3.\end{array}$$

The azimuthal component of the gauge field has a singularity along the negative $`z`$ axis, therefore we shall call it the stringy gauge. The field strength, however, has no singularities. The electric field both of $`M`$ and $`\overline{M}`$ monopoles in the stringy gauge is

$$E_i^{M,\overline{M}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}E_r=\frac{F_2(r)}{2}\tau ^3\stackrel{r\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\tau ^3}{2}& & \\ & & \\ E_\theta =\frac{F_1(r)}{2}(\tau ^1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\tau ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )=v^2O\left(e^{vr}\right)& & \\ & & \\ E_\varphi =\frac{F_1(r)}{2}(\tau ^1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\tau ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi )=v^2O\left(e^{vr}\right)& & \end{array}$$

while the magnetic field is $`B_i=\pm E_i`$. Therefore, $`M`$ monopole has (electric, magnetic) charges $`(++)`$ whereas the $`\overline{M}`$ one has $`(+)`$.

There is a second pair of dyons : a self-dual one with the charges $`()`$ which we shall name $`L`$-monopole, and an anti-self-dual one with charges $`(+)`$ which we shall name $`\overline{L}`$ monopole. They are obtained from eqs.A.1-A.5 by replacing $`v\frac{2\pi }{l}v`$. One first transforms them from the hedgehog to the stringy gauge with the help of the unitary matrices $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$, respectively. As the result, they get the same asymptotics $`A_4(\mathrm{})=\left(\frac{2\pi }{l}+v+\frac{1}{r}\right)\frac{\tau ^3}{2}`$. To put the asymptotics in the same form as for $`M,\overline{M}`$-monopoles (see eq. (A.8)) one makes an additional gauge transformation with the help of the time-dependent matrix

$$U=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{l}x^4\tau ^3\right).$$
(A.9)
This gives the following fields of $`L,\overline{L}`$ monopoles in the stringy gauge:

$$A_4^{L,\overline{L}}=[(\frac{2\pi }{l}v)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\right|\frac{2\pi }{l}v\left|r\right)\frac{2\pi }{l}]\frac{\tau ^3}{2}\stackrel{r\mathrm{}}{}=(v+\frac{1}{r})\frac{\tau ^3}{2},$$
(A.10)
$`E_i^{L,\overline{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}E_r=\frac{F_2(r)}{2}\tau ^3\stackrel{r\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\tau ^3}{2}& & \\ & & \\ E_\theta =\frac{F_1(r)}{2}U(x^4)(\tau ^1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\tau ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )U^{}(x^4)& & \\ & & \\ E_\varphi =\frac{F_1(r)}{2}U(x^4)(\tau ^1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\tau ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi )U^{}(x^4),& & \end{array}`$ (A.14)
$`B_i^{L,\overline{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm E_i^{L,\overline{L}}.`$ (A.15)
The ‘profile’ functions $`F_{1,2}`$ are given by eqs. (A.4,A.5), with the replacement $`v\frac{2\pi }{l}v`$. We notice that “the interior” of the $`L,\overline{L}`$ dyons, represented by the $`\theta ,\varphi `$ field components are time dependent. This is why in the true $`3d`$ case these objects do not exist.

The properties of the four dyons are summarized in Table 1.