format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

During three decades high energy processes related to the Bjorken limit of scattering amplitudes are playing a major role in the investigation of the hadronic structure and the interaction of hadronic constituents. Quite a number of theoretical concepts and methods have been developed resulting by now in a standard treatment described in textbooks  and reviews .

In the last years increasing attention is devoted to topics going beyond the standard deep inelastic structure functions, among them the long standing problem of the explicite treatment of higher twist contributions and their scale dependence , the generalization to non-forward kinematics , interpolating between the scale dependence of structure functions (DGLAP evolution ) and the scale dependence of light cone meson wave functions (ERBL evolution  ) as two limiting cases. The existence of this interpolation has been pointed out early in .

The small $`x`$ behaviour of structure functions and related questions have drawn the attention also to the relations between the Bjorken and the Regge limits. The evolution in the latter asymptotics, as far as it proceeds in the perturbative region, is represented by the BFKL equation .

In view of these topics a discussion of the Bjorken asymptotics invoking concepts not aligned to the standard approach may be of interest. We advocate an effective action approach  in analogy to the one developed for the Regge asymptotics .

The light ray position as the essential variable of operators in the Bjorken limit appeared explicitely first in the approaches by Geyer, Robaschik et al.  and by Balitsky and Braun .

The parton interaction operators can be obtained as external field effective vertices, where two type of external fields are introduces describing the asymptotic interaction with the currents of high virtuality and with the hadrons. This calculation can be done analyzing the space-time field configurations only without transforming to momentum space.

From the very beginning conformal symmetry was underlying the ideas about Bjorken scaling and its violation. It turned into a tool for finding multiplicatively renormalized operators  and for relating the forward to the non-forward evolutions . Combining conformal and supersymmetry leads to interesting relations between different evolution kernels .

Integrability of the effective interaction in high energy QCD amplitudes has been discovered by Lipatov  in the Regge limit for the case of multiple exchange of reggeized gluons and a similar symmetry property was expected in the Bjorken limit. The first examples of higher twist evolutions tractable by integrability have been studied by Braun, Korchemsky et al.  and by Belitsky . Relying on well known methods  solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation with conformal ($`sl(2)`$ and superconformal ($`sl(2|1)`$) symmetries have been ontained  in a form suitable for the Bjorken asmptotics. Some results will be reviewed in sections 3 and 4.

## 2 Parton interactions in QCD

The standard process is electron - proton scattering $`epeX`$ at high energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ with a large momentum transfer $`q,q^2=xs,x=𝒪(1)`$, from the electron to the hadron. The hadronic part of the process can be written in terms of the forward imaginary part of the virtual photon - proton amplitude.

The non-forward deeply virtual Compton scattering off the proton , $`\gamma ^{}(q_1)+p(p_1)\gamma ^{}(q_2)+p(p_2)`$, is an appropriate generalization (Fig. 1a):

$`q_{1/2}=q^{}x_{1/2}p^{},q^2=0,p^2=0,p^{}p_1,s=2p^{}q^{},`$ (2.1)
$`q_{1/2}^2=Q_{1/2}^2=x_{1/2}s.`$
The Bjorken limit corresponds to $`s\mathrm{}`$ with the Bjorken variables $`x_1`$ and/or $`x_2`$ being of order $`1`$.

Let us represent the light cone factorization graphically as in Fig. 1b where a sum over t-channel parton intermediate states is implied. The approach to the asymptotics can be visualized as a process of iterating this factorization. The next step is shown in Fig. 1c.

The Green function H (not necessarily connected) represents the parton interaction. The effective action is to describe just this parton interaction.

In the lowest order of perturbative expansion there are only pair interactions. The partons can be identified as modes of the underlying gluon $`A`$ and quark $`f,\stackrel{~}{f}`$ fields in the gauge $`q^\mu A_\mu =0`$ after integrating over the redundant field components $`p^\mu A_\mu `$ and $`p^\mu \gamma _\mu \psi `$.

We represent 4-vectors $`x^\mu `$ by their light cone components $`x_\pm `$ and a complex number involving the transverse components $`x_{}=x_1+ix_2`$. In the case of the gradient vector we change the notation in such a way to have $`_+x_{}=_{}x_+=1,_{}x=_{}^{}x^{}=1`$. In particular the complex valued field $`A`$ represents the transverse components of the gauge field. We choose the frame where the light-like vector $`q^{}`$ has the only non-vanishish component $`q_{}^{}=\sqrt{s/2}`$ and $`p^{}`$ the only non-vanishing component $`p_+^{}=\sqrt{s/2}`$.

We decompose the Dirac fields into light cone components,

$`\psi =\psi _{}+\psi _+,\gamma _{}\psi _+=\gamma _+\psi _{}=0`$ (2.2)
$`\psi _+=fu_++\stackrel{~}{f}u_{++},\gamma ^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{s}}(\gamma _{}q^\mu +\gamma _+p^\mu )+\gamma _{}^\mu .`$ (2.3)
$`u_{a,b},a,b=\pm ,`$ is a basis of Majorana spinors,

$$\gamma _+u_{,b}=\gamma _{}u_{+,b}=0,\gamma u_{a,}=\gamma ^{}u_{a,+}=0.$$
(2.4)
The gauge group structure of the action has been written by using brackets combining two fields into the colour states of the adjoint ($`a`$) and of the two fundametal ($`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha `$) representations:

$`(A_1^{}T^aA_2)=if^{abc}A_1^bA_2^c,(f_1^{}t^af_2)=t_{\alpha \beta }^af_1^\alpha f_2^\beta ,`$ (2.5)
$`(f^{}t^\alpha A)=t_{\beta \alpha }^cf^\beta A^c,(A^{}t^\alpha f)=t_{\alpha \beta }^bA^bf^\beta .`$ (2.6)
We shall restrict the detailed discussion to pure gluodynamics, presenting the final results with fermions included.

The action in light-cone form can be recovered from the kinetic term

$`{\displaystyle d^4x}2A^a(_+_{}^{}^{})A^a`$ (2.7)
$`={\displaystyle d^4x}2A^a_+_{}A^a^{}A^a^2^{}A^a`$ (2.8)
by extending the transverse derivatives in the second form of eq. (2.7), relying on the residual gauge symmetry,

$$^{}A^a(𝒟^{}A)^a=^{}A^a+\frac{ig}{2}(A^{}T^aA),$$
(2.9)
The result can be written as

$`S=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\{2A^a(x)(_+_{}_{}_{}^{})A^a(x)`$ (2.10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}(_1\widehat{V}_{123}^{}[_1A^a(x_1)(A^{}(x_2)T^aA^{}(x_3))+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (2.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}`$ $`\widehat{V}_{11^{},22^{}}[2(A^{}(x_1)T^cA(x_1^{})(A^{}(x_2)T^cA(x_2^{}))]_{x_i=x_i^{}=x}\}.`$ (2.12)
The elimination of redundant field components has lead to non-local vertices,

$`\widehat{V}_{123}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{3_1_2_3}}[_1^{}(_2_3)+\mathrm{cycl}.],\widehat{V}_{11^{},22^{}}=(_1+_1^{})^2.`$ (2.13)
Here and in the following we omit the space index $`+`$ on derivatives, i.e. derivative operators not carrying subscripts $`,`$ are to be read as $`_+`$. Integer number subscripts refer to the space point on which the derivative acts. The definition of the inverse $`^1`$ is to be specified.

## 3 Space-time picture

The block H of the virtual Compton amplitude describes the interaction between sources located in the vicinity of the light ray $`x_{}=0,x_{}=0,x_+=z𝐑^1`$ and other sources the distribution of which is almost constant in the variables $`x_{}^{},x_+^{}`$ depending essentially only on the coordinate along the light-ray $`x_{}^{}=z^{}`$. The small width of the first distribution near the light cone is characterized by the short distance scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q^1`$ and the variation of the second distribution in directions away from the light ray is determined by the large distance scale $`\delta m^1`$.

Consider now the QCD functional integral with such sources or the related vertex functional with corresponding external gluon and quark fields. we divide the fields of quarks and gluons into two types of external fields $`A^{(\pm )}`$ and a quantum fluctuation $`A_q`$,

$$AA^{(+)}+A_q+A^{()}.$$
(3.1)
$`A^{(+)}`$ has the support near the light cone and has to be substituted by the following expression in terms of (regularized) delta functions,

$$A^{(+)}(x)=A_1(z)\delta (x_+)\delta ^{(2)}(x_{})+𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(3.2)
The other external field $`A^{()}`$ has to be substituted as

$$A^{()}(x^{})=A_1^{}(z^{})\mathrm{const}+𝒪(m).$$
(3.3)
The vertex functional or the external field effective action is now obtained by doing the integration over the quantum fluctuations $`A_q`$. Consider in particular the resulting vertex involving two $`A^{(+)}`$ and two $`A^{()}`$ type fields on the tree level. It has the form

$`{\displaystyle d^4x_1d^4x_2d^4x_1^{}d^4x_{^{}}A^{(+)}(x_1)A^{(+)}(x_2)G(x_{11^{}})G(x_{22^{}})}`$ (3.4)
$`[\stackrel{~}{V}_{11^{}}G(x_{1^{}2^{}})\stackrel{~}{V}_{22^{}}+\delta ^{(4)}(x_{1^{}2^{}})V_{11^{},22^{}}]A^{()}(x_1^{})A^{()}(x_2^{})`$ (3.5)
Contributions from disconnected graphs have to be added; they result in the cancellation of IR divergencies.

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{11^{}},\stackrel{~}{V}_{22^{}}`$ are simply related to the triple vertex in (2.12) depending on the case considered and $`G(x)`$ stands for the quark or gluon propagator.

For example, the triple vertex contributes to the tree graph Fig. 2a as

$$igd^4x_1x^4x_1^{}\frac{^2}{_1+_1^{}}\left(\frac{_1^{}}{_1}\frac{_1^{}^{}}{_1^{}}\right)A_q^{}(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})|_{x_q=x_1^{}}$$
(3.6)
and reduces in application to $`A^{(+)}(x_1),A^{()}(x_1^{})`$ to

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{11^{}}=igd^4x_1x^4x_1^{}\frac{_1^{}^2}{_1+_1^{}}\frac{_1^{}}{_1}A_q^{}(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})|_{x_q=x_1^{}}$$
(3.7)
We substitute the particular asymptotic form of the external fields (3.2, 3.3) and obtain

$`c\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z_1𝑑z_2𝑑z_1^{}𝑑z_2^{}A_1A_2A_1^{}A_2^{}\left[\stackrel{~}{V}_{11^{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{22^{}}J_\mathrm{\Delta }+V_{11^{},22^{}}J_0\right]}`$ (3.8)
We abbreviate the residual dependence of the parton fields on the light ray positions by indices $`1,2`$ for $`A_1^{(+)}(z_1)`$, $`A_1^{(+)}(z_2)`$ and by indices $`1^{},2^{}`$ for $`A_1^{()}(z_1^{})`$, $`A_1^{()}(z_2^{})`$. The integration over the transverse and $`+`$ components of $`x_1,x_2`$ is done due to the delta functions and the integrals over the transverse and $`+`$ components of $`x_1^{},x_2^{}`$ are represented by $`J_\mathrm{\Delta },J_0`$,

$`c\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}J_\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle 𝑑x_{1^{}+}𝑑x_{2^{}+}d^2x_1^{}d^2x_2^{}_1^{}_1^{}(x_{11^{}}^2)^1(x_{22^{}}^2)^1(x_{1^{}2^{}}^2)^1}`$ (3.9)
$`c\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}J_0={\displaystyle 𝑑x_{1^{}+}𝑑x_{2^{}+}d^2x_1^{}d^2x_2^{}_1^{}_1^{}(x_{11^{}}^2)^1(x_{22^{}}^2)^1\delta ^{(4)}(x_{1^{}2^{}})}`$ (3.10)
The integrals are regularized by taking into account the smearing of the near light cone distribution by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the large scale cutoff $`\delta `$ for the other distribution. We shall do the integration in the logarithmic approximation. For this we have substituted in (3.8) already the effective triple vertices omitting terms which do not result in logarithmic integrals.

The integral over the transverse coordinates is logarithmic in the region $`Q^2<|x_{}^{}|^2<m^2`$.

$`c\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}J_0={\displaystyle \frac{dx_+^{}d^2x_{}^{}\delta (z_{1^{}2^{}}}{(x_+^{}z_{11^{}}|x_{}^{}|^2+i\epsilon )(x_+^{}z_{22^{}}|x_{}^{}|^2+i\epsilon )}}=`$ (3.11)
$`{\displaystyle _{Q^2}^{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x_{}^{}}{|x_{}^{}|^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\overline{\alpha }(\overline{\alpha }z_{11^{}}+1i\epsilon )^1(\overline{\alpha }z_{22^{}}+1i\epsilon )^1\delta (z_{1^{}2^{}})`$ (3.12)
The result can be represented in the convenient form $`J_0=J_0^{(0)}`$, where

$$J_0^{(p)}(z_1,z_2;z_1^{},z_2^{})=_0^1𝑑\alpha \chi _0^{(p)}(\alpha )\delta (z_{11^{}}\alpha z_{12})\delta (z_{22^{}}+(1\alpha )z_{12}),$$
(3.13)
$$\chi _0^{(0)}=1,\chi _0^{(g)}=\alpha (1\alpha ).$$

The case of $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a bit more involved and can be done as follows.

$`c\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}J_\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle 𝑑x_{+1^{}}x_{+2^{}}d^2x_1^{}d_2^{}^2(x_1^{}^{}x_2^{}^{})(x_{+1^{}}z_{11^{}}|x_1^{}^{}|^2+i\epsilon )^2}`$ (3.14)
$`(x_{+2^{}}z_{22^{}}|x_2^{}^{}|^2+i\epsilon )^2(x_{+1^{}2^{}}z_{1^{}2^{}}|x_{1^{}2^{}}^{}|^2+i\epsilon )^1`$ (3.15)
We use the Fock-Schwinger method to do the integrals over the $`x_+`$ variables and obtain

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta ({\displaystyle \alpha _i}1)\alpha _1\alpha _2\delta (\alpha _1z_{11^{}}\alpha _3z_{1^{}2^{}})\delta (\alpha _2z_{22^{}}+\alpha _3z_{1^{}2^{}})`$ (3.16)
$`{\displaystyle d^2x_1^{}d_2^{}^2(x_1^{}^{}x_2^{}^{})(\alpha _1|x_1^{}^{}|^2+\alpha _2|x_2^{}^{}|^2+\alpha _3|x_{1^{}2^{}}^{}|^2)^3}.`$ (3.17)
The logarithmic contribution of the transverse integral results in

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta ({\displaystyle \alpha _i}1){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3}{(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(\alpha _1\alpha _2+\alpha _2\alpha _3+\alpha _3\alpha _1)^2}}`$ (3.18)
$`\delta (\alpha _1z_{11^{}}\alpha _3z_{1^{}2^{}})\delta (\alpha _2z_{22^{}}+\alpha _3z_{1^{}2^{}}){\displaystyle _{Q^2}^{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d|x_1^{}^{}|^2}{|x_1^{}^{}|^2}}.`$ (3.19)
The convenient representation of the result is $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }=J_{111}`$, where

$`J_{n_1n_2n_3}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_1+n_2+n_31)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_3)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta ({\displaystyle \alpha _i}1)`$ (3.20)
$`\alpha _1^{n_11}\alpha _2^{n_21}\alpha _3^{n_31}\delta (z_{11^{}}\alpha _1z_{12})\delta (z_{22^{}}+\alpha _2z_{12}).`$ (3.21)
The general definition of the $`\overline{\alpha }`$ integrals appearing here is

$`J_{n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_N}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\alpha }}{2\pi i}}[\overline{\alpha }x_1+1iϵ]^{n_1}[\overline{\alpha }x_2+1iϵ]^{n_2}`$ (3.22)
$`\mathrm{}[\overline{\alpha }x_N+1iϵ]^{n_N}.`$ (3.23)
$`n_i`$ are positive integers. The Feynman parameter representation is

$`J_{n_1n_2\mathrm{}}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_i1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n_N)}}{\displaystyle 𝒟^{(N)}\alpha \alpha _1^{n_11}\alpha _2^{n_21}}`$ (3.24)
$`\mathrm{}\alpha _N^{n_N1}\delta ({\displaystyle \alpha _ix_i})`$ (3.25)
In the latter integral the varibles $`\alpha _i`$ range from 0 to 1 and $`𝒟^{(N)}\alpha =d\alpha _1\mathrm{}d\alpha _N\delta ((1\alpha _i)`$.

By decomposition into simple fractions one can reduce the number of factors in the denominator of (3.23). In this way one derives relations like

$`J_{12}(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_1x_2}}J_{11}(x_1,x_2),`$ (3.26)
$`J_{111}(x_1,x_2,x_3)={\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{x_{23}}}J_{11}(x_1,x_2){\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{x_{23}}}J_{11}(x_1,x_3),`$ (3.27)
$`J_{112}(x_1,x_2,x_3)={\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_{13}x_{23}}}J_{11}(x_1,x_2)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{x_{23}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_{13}}}\right)J_{111}(x_1,x_2,x_3),`$ (3.28)
$`J_{221}(x_1,x_2,x_3)={\displaystyle \frac{x_3^2}{x_{13}x_{23}}}J_{111}(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ (3.29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_{12}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{x_{23}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_{13}}}\right)J_{11}(x_1,x_2).`$ (3.30)
We consider now in some detail the effective interaction of gluonic partons. The vertex in the external field effective action $`A^{(+)}(x_1)A^{(+)}(x_2)A^{()}(x_1^{})A^{()}(x_2^{})`$ referring to the case of parallel helicities (chiral odd channel) gets a contribution from the original quartic vertex (2.12) and one from contracting two triple vertices by integrating over the quantum fluctuation $`A_q`$. The triple vertices in the Bjorken limit corresponding to Fig. 2a, b are

$$ig\frac{_1^{}^2_1^{}}{(_1_1^{})_1}A_q^a(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})|_{x_1=x_1^{}=x_q};ig\frac{_1^2_1^{}}{(_1_1^{})_1}A_q^a(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})|_{x_1=x_1^{}=x_q}$$
(3.31)
Writing down the extenal field vertex as in (3.5), substituting the asymptotic form of the external fields and doing the interations besides of the ones in the light-ray coordinates we obtain as the particular case of (3.8)

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑z_1𝑑z_2𝑑z_1^{}𝑑z_2^{}\left[\frac{_1^2_2^{}^2+_1^{}^2_2^2}{(_1+_1^{})^2_1_2}J_{111}+\frac{_1_2^{}+_1^{}_2}{(_1+_1^{})^2}J_0\right]}`$ (3.32)
$`(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(A_2^{}T^aA_2^{})`$ (3.33)
The first term in the brackets is obtained by contracting the triple vertices by substituting the points $`1,1^{}`$ in the second and $`2,2^{}`$ in the first vertex in (3.31) and vice versa. The second terms emerges from the quartic vertex (2.12) for the case that $`A_1^{},A_2^{}`$ are of $`A^{(+)}`$ type and the remaining two field of the $`A^{()}`$ type.

The second relation in (3.30) Fourier transformed to light ray variables implies

$$\frac{_1^2_2^{}^2}{(_1+_1^{})^2_1_2}J_{111}+\frac{_1_2^{}}{(_1+_1^{})^2}J_0=_1^{}_2^{}_1^1_2^1J_{11^{}}^{(g)},$$
(3.34)
where

$$J_{11^{}}^{(p)}=_0^1𝑑\alpha \frac{\chi _1^{(p)}(\alpha )}{\alpha }\delta (z_{11^{}}\alpha z_{12})\delta (z_{22^{}}),$$
(3.35)
$$\chi _1^{(g)}=(1\alpha )^2,\chi _1^{(f)}=(1\alpha ),\chi _1^{(0)}=\alpha (1\alpha ).$$

We use this relation and the one obtained by interchanging $`1,1^{}2,2^{}`$. The remaining divergence signalled by $`\frac{1}{\alpha }`$ in the latter integral is cancelled after including the disconnected contribution of order $`g^2`$ to the self energy in the two propagators connecting $`A_1^{}`$ with $`A_1^{}`$ and $`A_2^{}`$ with $`A_2^{}`$ separately,

$$2𝑑z_1𝑑z_2𝑑z_1^{}𝑑z_2^{}w_g\delta (z_{11^{}})\delta (z_{22^{}})(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(A_2^{}T^aA_2^{}),$$
(3.36)
$`w_p=C_p\left({\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\alpha }}+w_p^{(0)}\right),C_g=N,C_f={\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{2N}},`$ (3.37)
$`w_g^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2N_f}{3N}}),w_f^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}.`$ (3.38)
Adding (3.36) to (3.33) the singular part of $`w_g`$ results in replacing in $`J_{11^{}}^{(g)}`$ (3.35) $`\frac{1}{\alpha }`$ by $`\frac{1}{[\alpha ]_+}`$, adopting the conventional ”plus prescription”. In the following we understand the factor $`\frac{1}{\alpha }`$ in $`J_{11^{}}`$ with this prescription.

We obtain

$`{\displaystyle }dz_1dz_2dz_1^{}dz_2^{}[J_{11^{}}^{(g)}+w_g^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}+(1,1^{}2,2^{})]`$ (3.39)
$`(_1^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(_2^1A_2^{}T^aA_2^{}),\mathrm{where}\delta ^{(2)}=\delta (z_{11^{}})\delta (z_{22^{}})`$ (3.40)
We have calculated in the space-time effective action approach the vertex of parallel helicity gluon interaction to order $`g^2`$ in the logarithmic approximation.

In the case of antiparallel helicity gluons the calculation of the effective two-parton interaction results instead of (3.33 ) in

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{_1^{}^2_2^{}^2+_1^2_2^2}{(_1+_1^{})^2_1_2}}J_{111}+{\displaystyle \frac{(_1^{}_2^{}+_1_2)}{(_1+_1^{})^2}}J_0\right)(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(A_2T^aA_2^{}^{})`$ (3.41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(_1_1^{}+_2_2^{})}{(_1+_2)^2}}J_0(A_1^{}T^aA_2)(A_1^{}T^aA_2^{}^{})`$ (3.42)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(_1+_1^{})^2}{_1_2}}J_{111}(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{}^{})(A_2T^aA_2^{})`$ (3.43)
Here the self-energy contributions are not included yet. We separate in the first bracket a term equal to the result for the parallel helicity case (3.33). Adding now the self-energy contribution (3.36) results in the replacement of the first bracket by

$$2_1^{}_2^{}[J_{11^{}}+w_g^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}](_1^{}_1)(_2^{}_2)J_{111}+_1_2J_0,$$
(3.44)
where now each term represents a regular operator.

The last two relations given in (3.30) for the $`J`$ integrals Fourier transformed to light ray variables can be used now to substitute $`(_1^{}_1)(_2^{}_2)J_{111}`$ and $`(_1^{}+_1)^2J_{111}`$ by $`J_{112}`$ and $`J_{221}`$ plus remainders involving $`J_0`$. This results in

$`\left(2[J_{11^{}}+w_g^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}]+J_{221}2J_{112}\right)(_1^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(_2^1A_2T^aA_2^{}^{})`$ (3.45)
$`+J_{221}(_1^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{}^{})(_2^1A_2T^aA_2^{})`$ (3.46)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(_1+_2)^2}}J_0\{(_1_2^{}+_2_1^{})(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{}^{})(A_2T^aA_2^{})`$ (3.47)
$`+(_1_1^{}+_2_2^{})[(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(A_2T^aA_2^{}^{})(A_1^{}T^aA_2)(A_1^{}T^aA_2^{}^{})]\}.`$ (3.48)
Due to the commutation relation of the generators $`T^a`$ we have for the gauge group brackets (2.6)

$$(A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(A_2T^aA_2^{}^{})(A_1^{}T^aA_2)(A_1^{}T^aA_2^{}^{})=(A_1^{}T^aA_2^{}^{})(A_2T^aA_1^{}).$$
(3.49)
Thus the last term in the brackets multiplying $`J_0`$ in (3.45) is equal to the first one up to the sign and the exchange of $`1^{}`$ and $`2^{}`$. We remember that the above expressions are understood as integrated over the light ray positions $`1,2,1^{},2^{}`$. Therefore the exchange of $`1^{}`$ and $`2^{}`$ is just a substitution of integration variables. We conclude that the contribution involving $`J_0`$ cancels and arrive at the result (3.56) up to normalization.

The resulting effective action involves two types of fields $`A^\pm (z)`$ living on the light ray. The (non-local) vertices in this action are converted into Hamiltonians by considering $`A^{}`$ as annihilation and $`A^+`$ as creation operators of partons. The Bjorken asymptotics is calculated by studying the evolution generated by those Hamiltonians in the (Euklidian) time variable $`\xi `$,

$$\xi (\kappa ^2,m^2)=_{m^2}^{\kappa ^2}\frac{d\kappa ^2}{\kappa ^2}\frac{\alpha _S(\kappa ^2)}{2\pi }.$$
(3.50)
We list the operators of the leading parton interaction in the QCD Bjorken limit, the momentum kernels of which are well known, in the light-ray and Feynman parameter form. We restrict ourselves to the ones involving gluons ($`A`$) and/or only one flavour and one chirality of quarks ($`f`$). We use the abbreviations for the kernels (3.13, 3.20, 3.35) and also $`J^\pm =z_{12}^{\pm 1}J`$. The position arguments of the fields will be abbreviated as indices 1, $`1^{}`$, 2, $`2^{}`$. We suppress the label $`(\pm )`$ distinguishing creation and annihilation operators, since the fields at points $`1,2`$ act always as creation and the fields at the points $`1^{},2^{}`$ always as annihilation operators. The integration over the positions, summation over colour indices and operator normal ordering is implied.

parallel helicity interactions

$`\{4[J_{11^{}}^{(g)}+w_g^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}](^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})2i[J_{11^{}}^{(f)}+w_f^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}](^1f_1^{}t^af_1^{})\}`$ (3.51)
$`[2(^1A_2^{}T^aA_2^{})+i(^1f_2^{}t^af_2^{})]`$ (3.52)
$`4iJ_{11^{}}^{(0)}(^1f_1^{}t^\alpha A_1^{})(^1A_2^{}t^\alpha f_2^{})+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.53)
anti-parallel gluon interactions

$`\{8[J_{11^{}}^{(g)}+w_g^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}]+4J_{221}8J_{112}\}`$ (3.54)
$`(^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(^1A_2T^aA_2^{}^{})`$ (3.55)
$`+4J_{221}(^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{}^{})(^1A_2T^aA_2^{})+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.56)
anti-parallel helicity quark interactions (one chirality, one flavour)

$`\{2[J_{11^{}}^{(f)}+w_f^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}]+J_{111}\}(^1f_1^{}t^af_1^{})(^1f_2t^af_2^{}^{})`$ (3.57)
$`+2J_0^{(g)}(^1f_1^{}t^af_2)(^1f_1^{}t^af_2^{}^{})+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.58)
anti parallel helicity quark - gluon interactions

$`4i[J_{11^{}}^{(g)}+w_g^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}](^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(^1f_2t^af_2^{}^{})`$ (3.59)
$`4i[J_{11^{}}^{(f)}+w_f^{(0)}\delta ^{(2)}](^1f_1^{}t^af_1^{})(^1A_2T^aA_2^{}^{})`$ (3.60)
$`4iJ_{211}[(^1f_1^{}t^\alpha A_1^{}^{})(^1A_2t^\alpha f_2^{})(^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(^1f_2t^af_2^{}^{})]`$ (3.61)
$`8iJ_{111}(^1A_1^{}T^aA_1^{})(^1f_2t^af_2^{}^{})+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.62)
annihilation-type interactions

$`4iJ_{111}^{}(^1A_1^{}t^\alpha f_1^{}^{})(^1A_2t^\alpha f_2^{})+2i\delta ^{(2)}(^1A_1^{}t^\alpha f_1^{})(^1A_2t^\alpha f_2^{}^{})`$ (3.63)
$`+12iJ_0^{(g)}(^1A_1^{}T^a^1A_2)(f_1^{}t^af_2^{}^{})`$ (3.64)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}iJ_{221}^+[(^1f_1^{}t^\alpha A_1^{})(^1f_2t^\alpha A_2^{}^{})(^1f_1^{}t^\alpha A_1^{}^{})(^1f_2t^\alpha A_2^{})]`$ (3.65)
$`iJ_{112}^+[(^1f_1^{}t^\alpha A_1^{})(^1f_2t^\alpha A_2^{}^{})`$ (3.66)
## 4 Conformal symmetry on the light ray

The conformal transformations act on the light ray positions $`z`$ as

$$zz^{}=\frac{az+b}{cz+d}$$

This action is generated by

$$S^{(0),}=,S^{(0)0}=z,S^{(0)+}=z^2.$$
(4.1)
The generators obey the $`sl(2)`$ algebra,

$$[S^0,S^\pm ]=\pm S^\pm ,[S^+,S^{}]=2S^0$$
(4.2)
We need other representations $`\mathrm{}`$ on functions of $`z`$ generated by

$$S^{(\mathrm{})}=S^{(0)},S^{(\mathrm{})0}=z^{\mathrm{}}S^{(0)0}z^{\mathrm{}},S^{(\mathrm{})+}=z^2\mathrm{}S^{(0)+}z^2\mathrm{}.$$
(4.3)
The representation space $`V^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is spanned by $`z^m`$, and the function $`1`$ represents the lowest weight state.

The tensor product representation, $`V^{(\mathrm{}_1)}V^{(\mathrm{}_2)}`$, is represented by polynomial functions of two variables $`\psi (z_1,z_2)`$ and is generated by $`S_{12}^a=S_1^{(\mathrm{}_1)a}+S^{(\mathrm{}_2)a}`$. It decomposes into irreducible representations, the lowest weight states of which, $`S_{12}^{}\psi =0,S_{12}^0\psi =\lambda \psi `$, are $`\psi _n^{(0)}=(z_1z_2)^n,`$ with $`\lambda =\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+n.`$

The two-parton Hamiltonians obtained from QCD can be considered as acting on the tesor product representation spaces

$$\widehat{H}:V^{(\mathrm{}_1^{})}V^{(\mathrm{}_2^{})}V^{(\mathrm{}_1)}V^{(\mathrm{}_2)}$$

The operator is symmetric if

$$\left(S_1^{(\mathrm{}_1)a}+S_2^{(\mathrm{}_2)a}\right)\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}\left(S_1^{(\mathrm{}_1^{})a}+S_2^{(\mathrm{}_2^{})a}\right).$$
(4.4)
Writing the operator in integral form,

$$\widehat{H}\psi (z_1,z_2)=𝑑z_1^{}𝑑z_2^{}J(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})\psi (z_1^{},z_2^{}),$$
(4.5)
this results in the following condition on the kernel,

$$\left(S_1^{(\mathrm{}_1a}+S_2^{(\mathrm{}_2)a}+S_1^{}^{(1\mathrm{}_1^{})a}+S_2^{}^{(1\mathrm{}_2^{})a}\right)J(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})=0.$$
(4.6)
Here we assume that the integration is over closed contours in order to have no boundary terms in the interation by parts. The condition on the kernel is solved by the simple expression

$$J_{\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2,\mathrm{}_1^{},\mathrm{}_2^{}}(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})=z_{12}^{a_{12}}z_{1^{}2^{}}^{a_{1^{}2^{}}}z_{11^{}}^{a_{11^{}}}z_{22^{}}^{a_{22^{}}}z_{12^{}}^{a_{12^{}}}z_{1^{}2}^{a_{1^{}2}},$$
(4.7)
where the exponents are given in terms of the conformal weights $`\mathrm{}_i`$ and two paramenters $`d,M`$ as

$`a_{12}=d+1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{}_i},a_{1^{}2^{}}=d1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{}_i}`$ (4.8)
$`a_{12^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_2^{})+M,a_{1^{}2}=+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_2^{})+M`$ (4.9)
$`a_{11^{}}=(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_1^{}+1)dM,a_{22^{}}=(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_1^{}+1)dM`$ (4.10)
$`\sigma =\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_1^{}+\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}_2^{}`$ (4.11)
The general solution is a superposition of the above expression with varying paramenters $`M`$ and $`d`$. In order to close the contour one should choose a double-loop enclosing two branch points as in Fig. 2 (Pochhammer contour). For our applications we need integral operators where the integration is along the real axis in $`z_1^{}`$ and $`z_2^{}`$.

The kernel for closed contours transforms into the kernel for integration along the light ray by contraction of the contours to the branch cuts and rewriting the integral over finite intervals in $`\alpha `$ representation.

In the regular case, if the exponents are larger than -1, we obtain the kernel in the form

$`z_{12}^\sigma {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1{\displaystyle _0^{\alpha _1}}𝑑\alpha _2\delta (z_{11^{}}\alpha _1z_{12})\delta (z_{22^{}}+\alpha _2z_{12})`$ (4.12)
$`\alpha _1^{a_{11^{}}}\alpha _2^{a_{22^{}}}(1\alpha _1)^{a_{21^{}}}(1\alpha _2)^{a_{12^{}}}(1\alpha _1\alpha _2)^{a_{1^{}2^{}}}`$ (4.13)
Singular cases arise if some powers approach negative integers, e.g. if $`a=1+\epsilon `$ then the kernel is obtained from the one above by by the formal substitution

$$\frac{1}{\alpha ^{1\epsilon }}\delta (\alpha )+\epsilon \frac{1}{[\alpha ]_+}.$$
(4.14)
Now it is not difficult to check that the kernels obtained in QCD have the conformally symmetric form with the weights $`\mathrm{}=\frac{3}{2}`$ for gluons and $`\mathrm{}=1`$ for quarks.

For example if $`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2=\mathrm{}_1^{}=\mathrm{}_2^{}=\mathrm{}`$, $`M=0,d=\epsilon `$ we have in the integrand (4.12)

$$\frac{(1\alpha _1\alpha _2)^{\epsilon +2\mathrm{}1}}{\alpha _1^{1\epsilon }\alpha _2^{1\epsilon }}\delta (\alpha _1)\delta (\alpha _2)+\epsilon \left(\delta (\alpha _1)\frac{(1\alpha _2)^{2\mathrm{}1}}{[\alpha _2]_+}+\delta (\alpha _2)\frac{(1\alpha _1)^{2\mathrm{}1}}{[\alpha _1]_+}\right)$$
(4.15)
The second term results in the QCD kernel

$$J_{11^{}}^{(2\mathrm{}1)}(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})+(11^{}22^{}),$$

$$J_{11^{}}^{(p)}=_0^1𝑑\alpha \frac{(1\alpha )^p}{\alpha }[\delta (z_{11^{}}\alpha z_{12})\delta (z_{11^{}})]\delta (z_{22^{}}).$$

encountered in the results (3.53 \- 3.66). One checks also easily that the functions $`(z_1z_2)^n`$ representing the lowest weight states are eigenfunctions of this kernel. The eigenvalues are

$$\lambda _n=_0^1𝑑\alpha \frac{(1\alpha )^{2\mathrm{}1+n}1}{\alpha }=\psi (1)\psi (2\mathrm{}+n)$$
(4.16)
They are proportional to the anomalous dimensions in the parallel helicity exchange channel related to tranversity parton distributions.

The remaining kernels in the QCD operators correspond to the following particular cases of the conformal ones:

$`gggg`$ (3.56),

$`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2=\mathrm{}_1^{}=\mathrm{}_2^{}=\frac{3}{2}`$

$`M=0,d=1`$ results in $`J_{112}`$ and $`M=0,d=2`$ results in $`J_{221}`$.

$`ffff`$ (3.56),

$`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2=\mathrm{}_1^{}=\mathrm{}_2^{}=1`$

$`M=0,d=1`$ results in $`J_{111}`$ and $`M=0,d=2+\epsilon `$ results in $`J_0^{(g)}`$.

$`ffgg`$ (3.66),

$`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2=\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}_1^{}=\mathrm{}_2^{}=1,\sigma =1`$

$`M=0,d=\frac{3}{2}`$ results in $`z_{12}^1J_{111}`$ and $`M=0,d=\frac{5}{2}+\epsilon `$ results in $`z_{12}^1J_0^{(g)}`$.

$`ggff`$, (3.66)

$`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2=1,\mathrm{}_1^{}=\mathrm{}_2^{}=\frac{3}{2},\sigma =+1`$

$`M=0,d=\frac{1}{2}`$ results in $`z_{12}J_{112}`$ and $`M=0,d=\frac{3}{2}`$ results in $`z_{12}J_{221}`$.

$`gfgf`$ (3.62),

$`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_1^{}=\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}_2=\mathrm{}_2^{}=1`$

$`M=\frac{1}{2},d=\frac{3}{2}`$ results in $`J_{111}\frac{1}{2}J_{211}`$ and $`M=\frac{3}{2},d=\frac{3}{2}+\epsilon `$ results in

$`J_{11^{}}^{(g)}+J_{22^{}}^{(f)}`$.

$`gffg`$ (3.62),

$`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2^{}=\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}_2=\mathrm{}_1^{}=1`$

$`M=0,d=\frac{3}{2}`$ results in $`J_{121}`$ and $`M=0,d=\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon `$ results in $`J_{11^{}}^{(0)}`$.

## 5 Integrable systems of interacting parton

Consider operators acting on the tensor product $`V_1V_2V_3`$ and in particular ones acting non-trivially on two of the three spaces (as indicated by subscripts) and obeying the Yang-Baxter equation (YBE)

$$R_{12}(uv)R_{13}(u)R_{23}(v)=R_{23}(v)R_{13}(u)R_{12}(uv).$$
(5.1)
R- operators obeying this relation can be used to construct integrable quantum systems. Consider $`N`$ subsystems, the quantum states of which span the representation spaces $`V^{(\mathrm{}_i)},i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ in a periodic chain-like configuration where the interaction betweeen the subsystems are due to exchanges along the chain with intermediate states out of the auxiliary space $`V^{(\mathrm{}_0)}`$. A complete set of commuting operators is obtained from the transfer matrix

$$t_\mathrm{}_0(u)=\mathrm{Sp}_0\left(R_{01}^{(\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_1)}(u)R_{02}^{(\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_2)}(u)\mathrm{}R_{0n}^{(\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_n)}(u)\right)$$
(5.2)
by expansion in the spectral paramenter $`u`$. In the homogeneous case, $`\mathrm{}_i=\mathrm{},i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, these operators appear as sums of local operators (involving only a few neighbouring sites) for $`\mathrm{}_0=\mathrm{}`$. The first non-trivial operator in the expasion can be considered as Hamiltonian

$$\frac{d}{du}\mathrm{ln}t_{\mathrm{}}(u)|_{u=0}=H_{i,i+1},H_{12}=P_{12}\frac{d}{du}R^{(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)}(u)|_{u=0}$$
(5.3)
Here $`P_{12}`$ denotes the operator of permutation of subspaces.

The best known example of a R-operator is the one related to the Heisenberg XXX spin chain and is given by the $`4\times 4`$ matrix

$$R_{12}^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}(u)=I_{4\times 4}+(u+\frac{1}{2})\sigma ^a\sigma ^a$$
(5.4)
In this case the representation spaces correspond to spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ ( $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}`$ in our notation) and are two dimensional. The tensor product with the unit matrix acting on the third subspace is not written explicitely here.

The extension by $`sl(2)`$ symmetry leads to another solution, called also Lax operator, appearing in YBE for one subspace of arbitrary representation $`\mathrm{}`$ and two of the fundamental one.

$$R_{12}^{(\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{})}(u)=I_{2\times 2}\widehat{I}^{(\mathrm{})}+(u+\frac{1}{2})\sigma ^a\widehat{S}_2^a=(u+\frac{1}{2})I+\widehat{R}_2.$$
(5.5)
The goal is to construct the universal R-operator: $`R^{(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)}`$. which appears in YBE with $`\mathrm{}_3=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2`$ arbitrary. This particular YBE implies the defining condition conditions

$`(\widehat{R}_1+\widehat{R}_2)R^{(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)}(u)=R^{(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)}(u)(\widehat{R}_1+\widehat{R}_2),`$ (5.6)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(\widehat{R}_1\widehat{R}_2)+\widehat{R}_1\widehat{R}_2\right)R^{(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)}(u)=R^{(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)}(u)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(\widehat{R}_1\widehat{R}_2)+\widehat{R}_1\widehat{R}_2\right)`$ (5.7)
The first condition is equivalent to the condition of conformal symmetry which we solved before. The second fixes the freedom left in (3.8) for conformal operators.

We look for the universal R operator in integral form. The conditions turn into differential equations for the kernel $`R(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})`$.

$`\left(\widehat{R}_1^{(\mathrm{}_1)}+\widehat{R}_2^{(\mathrm{}_2)}+\widehat{R}_1^{}^{(1\mathrm{}_1)}+\widehat{R}_2^{}^{(1\mathrm{}_2)}\right)R(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})=0`$ (5.8)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(\widehat{R}_1^{(\mathrm{}_1)}\widehat{R}_2^{(\mathrm{}_2)})+\widehat{R}_1^{(\mathrm{}_1)}\widehat{R}_2^{(\mathrm{}_2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(\widehat{R}_1^{}^{(1\mathrm{}_1)}\widehat{R}_2^{}^{(1\mathrm{}_2)})+\widehat{R}_2^{}^{(1\mathrm{}_2)}\widehat{R}_1^{}^{(1\mathrm{}_1)}\right)R=0`$ (5.9)
Here $`\widehat{R}_i^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is the non-trivial piece in the Lax operator matrix acing on $`z_i`$.

$$\widehat{R}_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_i^{(\mathrm{})0}& S_i^{(\mathrm{})}\\ S_i^{(\mathrm{})+}& S_i^{(\mathrm{})0}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ z_i\end{array}\right)(z_i1)+\mathrm{}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)(z_i1)+\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ z_i\end{array}\right)(\mathrm{1\; 0})\right].$$

The decomposition of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix structure into simple tensor products simplifies essentially the solution of (5.9). As an equivalent representation we may take the matrix element with repect of two vectors paramentrized by positions $`z_l`$ and $`z_r`$.

$`<l|R_i|r>=(z_l1)\widehat{R}_i\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ z_r\end{array}\right)=`$ (5.12)
$`z_{li}z_{ir}_i\mathrm{}_i(z_{ir}z_{li})=z_{ir}^{\mathrm{}_i+1}z_{li}^{\mathrm{}_i+1}_iz_{ir}^\mathrm{}_iz_{li}^\mathrm{}_i`$ (5.13)
We rewite the conditions (5.9) in terms of those generic matrix elements and use the fact that some derivative terms vanish for if $`z_l`$ or $`z_r`$ tends to some of the points $`z_i`$. In this way one obtains that the conditions (5.9) are equivalent to four first order equations.

$$𝒟_iR(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})=0.$$
(5.14)
Their consistency implies that the first order differential operators are similarity transformations of the simple derivatives,

$$𝒟_i=R_iR^1,$$

and this transformation is just given by the wanted R operator kernel,

$$R(z_1,z_2|z_1^{},z_2^{})=z_{12}^{a_{12}}z_{1^{}2^{}}^{a_{1^{}2^{}}}z_{12^{}}^{a_{12^{}}}z_{12^{}}^{a_{12^{}}}.$$
(5.15)
It is indeed a particular case of the conformal symmetric kernels with $`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_1^{},\mathrm{}_2=\mathrm{}_2^{},d=u,M=u1`$,

$`a_{12}=u+1\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2,a_{1^{}2^{}}=u1+\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2`$ (5.16)
$`a_{12^{}}=u1\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2,a_{1^{}2}=u1+\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2`$ (5.17)
$`a_{11^{}}=a_{22^{}}=\sigma =0.`$ (5.18)
In the special case $`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2`$ we have

$$R^{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}=_0^1𝑑\alpha _1_0^{\alpha _1}𝑑\alpha _2\delta (z_{11^{}}\alpha _1z_{12})\delta (z_{22^{}}+\alpha _2z_{12})$$

$$(1\alpha _1\alpha _2)^{u1+2\mathrm{}}(1\alpha _1)^{u1}(1\alpha _2)^{u1}$$

We expand for small $`u`$ using (4.14)

$$\delta (z_{21^{}})\delta (z_{12^{}})+$$

$$u_0^1d\alpha \frac{(1\alpha )^{2\mathrm{}1}}{[\alpha ]_+}\delta (z_{12^{}}\alpha z_{12})\delta (z_{21^{}})+(11^{}22^{})+𝒪(u^2)$$

Comparing with the formula for the integrable Hamiltonian (5.3 ) we see that the terms with $`J_{11^{}}^{(g/f)}`$ in the QCD operators (3.53 \- 3.66) coincide with this Hamiltonian for $`\mathrm{}_g=\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_f=1`$.

It is remarkable that particular cases of parton interaction operators coincide with the integrable Hamiltonian of a generalization to (non-compact) representations $`\mathrm{}=1`$ or $`\frac{3}{2}`$ of the periodic homgeneous XXX spin chain. The multi-parton exchange contribution for parallel helicities of only gluons or only quarks is determined just by this operator. In the approximation of a large number of colours $`N_C`$ closed chain configurations of gluons dominate and the corresponding contribution to the Bjorken asymptotics is calculated from the solution of the XXX integrable system. In particular the lowest energy eigenvalues determine the powers of the large scale $`s`$ of this contributions.

Integrable systems corresponding to other helicity configurations of QCD parton interactions have not been constructed yet. There are some results related to open chains with three sites . Besides of the terms related to the integrable Hamiltonian $`J_{11^{}}^{(q/g)}+(12)`$ there are other terms in the QCD results. However there is a close relation of the other operator terms appearing in QCD to the R operator.

For the gluon case (3.56) $`P_{12}R^{(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2})}(u)`$ for $`u=1`$ results in the kernel $`J_{112}`$ and for $`u=2`$ in $`J_{221}`$. For the fermion case (3.58) $`P_{12}R^{(1,1)}(u)`$ results for $`u=1`$ and $`2`$ is $`J_{111}`$ and $`J_0^{(g)}`$. The kernels of the annihilation interactions (3.66) are obtained as $`z_{12}^1P_{12}R^{(1,1)}(u)`$ with $`u=1,2`$ for $`ffgg`$ and $`z_{12}P_{12}R^{(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2})}(u)`$ with $`u=1,2`$ for $`ggff`$.

In case of mixed quark-gluon interactions $`P_{12}R^{(1,\frac{3}{2})}(u)`$ with $`u=\frac{1}{2}`$ reproduces $`J_{211}`$ and by crossing also $`J_{111}\frac{1}{2}J_{121}`$ and with $`u=\frac{3}{2}`$ reproduces $`J_{11^{}}^{(0)}=J_{11^{}}^{(f)}J_{11^{}}^{(g)}`$. In this case there is one contribution left, the kernel $`J_{11^{}}^{(f)}+J_{11^{}}^{(g)}`$, not reproducible from this R-operator kernel. In the supersymmetric extension this kernel appears as a component of the interaction Hamiltonian of XXX chain constructed from the superconformal $`sl(2|1)`$ solution of the Yang-Baxter equation .

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to S. Derkachov and D. Karakhanyan for collaboration on topics related to this contribution. I thank the organizers of the 36th Winter school of St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute for kind hospitality. The work has been supported in part by the German Federal Ministry BMBF.


text:
# Do parity doublets in the baryon spectrum reflect restoration of chiral symmetry ?

## 1 Introduction

The observation of parity doublets in high-mass excitations of the nucleon and of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has stimulated a discussion if this effect signals restoration of chiral symmetry -. At high masses, resonances can be grouped into doublets of states having the same total angular momentum $`J`$ but opposite parities. At lower masses, chiral symmetry is broken, and the mass of the chiral partner of the nucleon, the N(1535)$`S_{11}`$, differs from the nucleon mass substantially. In this letter, we will denote resonances like the N(1535)$`S_{11}`$ as N$`{}_{1/2^{}}{}^{}(1535)`$ where spin and parity are given explicitely.

Chiral symmetry allows for separate parity doublets in the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ sector even though it supports also a higher symmetry in which N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances of a given $`J`$ and opposite in parity are all degenerate in mass. Data seem to support this higher symmetry. This interpretation is however not uncontested: in a relativistic quark model with instanton induced forces, nucleonic parity doublets arise naturally -. However, none of the present quark model calculations reproduces the parity doublets in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ mass spectrum -. The interpretation of the parity doublets as evidence for chiral symmetry restoration seems thus unavoidable.

In this letter we suggest a different interpretation of parity doublets. We show that parity doublets develop naturally when spin orbit forces are neglected. The symmetry leading to the occurence of parity doublets is thus identified as absence of spin-orbit forces.

Table 1, adapted from Cohen and Glozman , shows N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ masses above 1.9 GeV, for states with positive and negative parity. In many cases, the effect of parity doubling is striking: states with identical $`J`$ but opposite parity often have very similar masses. This does of course not imply that chiral symmetry restoration is the reason for the occurence of parity doublets.

Consider e.g. the first six $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states in Table 1 with $`J=1/2,3/2`$ and 5/2, and with positive and negative parities . The masses are clearly degenerate; they form three parity doublets. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{7/2^+}(1950)`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{7/2^{}}(2200)`$ should also form a parity doublet but the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{7/2^+}(1950)`$ has a mass which is very close to the other three positive-parity resonances; the four positive-parity resonances rather seem to belong to a spin quartet of states with intrinsic orbital angular momentum $`L=2`$ and intrinsic spin $`S=3/2`$ coupling to $`J=1/2,..,7/2`$. The question arises if the parity doublets are really due to restoration of chiral symmetry or if the parity doublets reflect a symmetry of the underlying quark dynamics.

Cohen and Glozman  emphasize that the scheme requires the existence of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{11/2^{}}`$ and a N$`_{11/2^+}`$ at about 2500 MeV, of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13/2^{}}`$ and a N$`_{13/2^{}}`$ at 2750 MeV, and of three additional states at 2950 MeV. The existence of these states is a compelling prediction of chiral symmetry restoration. Experimental searches for these states are being carried out at ELSA in Bonn . Also at Jlab , GRAAL , and at Spring8  the high-mass baryon spectrum is studied.

## 2 N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances

The discussion of which resonances one should expect, and at which masses, seems to require an understanding of how three valence quarks interact to form baryons and baryon resonances. This we do not have. Instead, we emphasize regularities in the mass spectra which can be used to identify leading quantum numbers.

A baryon resonance can be characterized by its flavor structure, by its spin $`J`$ and parity $`P`$. In addition, there are quantum numbers which are not directly accessible: the total spin $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ can be decomposed into its orbital and spin angular momentum; the total orbital angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ is a sum of two orbital angular momenta $`\stackrel{}{l}_\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{l}_\lambda `$ of the two oscillators allowed in a three-body system, $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ the sum of the three quark spins. In a relativistic situation, $`\stackrel{}{l}_\rho `$, $`\stackrel{}{l}_\lambda `$, $`\stackrel{}{L}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ are not observable. Further, a flavor-octet resonance may have a symmetric or mixed-symmetry spacial wave function, and the spacial wave functions can have $`n_\rho `$ and $`n_\lambda `$ nodes, the baryon could be radially excited. The multitude of dynamical degrees of freedom leads to a rich spectrum. This is the problem of the missing resonances: quark models predict a much larger number of states than observed.

An alternative was proposed by Lichtenberg who suggested that baryons should be considered as quark-diquark excitations where two quarks are frozen into a quasi-stable subsystem . This possibility was never scrutinized in a dynamical model; however, resonances like the N$`{}_{7/2^+}{}^{}(1990)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{7/2^+}(2020)`$ are not easily accomodated in a diquark model.

We conjecture that the solution of the missing resonances might be found in a different interpretation of diquark configurations. Quark models expand the wave functions into harmonic oscillator wave functions $`|(l_\rho ,n_\rho );(l_\lambda ,n_\lambda )`$. It is plausible that baryon resonances are formed with one oscillator excited in the scattering process. Since it is not known which one is hit, there is a coherent superposition of $`|(l_\rho ,n_\rho )0;(l_\lambda ,n_\lambda )=0`$ and $`|(l_\rho ,n_\rho )=0;(l_\lambda ,n_\lambda )0`$ wave functions. No baryon is excited to a $`|(l_\rho ,n_\rho )0;(l_\lambda ,n_\lambda )0`$ component of a wave function, at the moment the resonance is formed. For these states, the initial $`l_\rho `$ or $`l_\lambda `$ (only one is non-zero) can be identified with the total orbital angular momentum $`L`$ and the initial $`n_\rho `$ or $`n_\lambda `$ with $`N=n_\rho +n_\lambda `$ (which we define as radial quantum number). The wave functions constructed in this way are in general no energy eigenfunctions but should form a wave packet of energy eigenfunctions with a defined phase of the rotation or vibration.

This constraint leads to a large reduction in the number of expected states. We leave open the question if the ’missing’ states do not exist or if they decouple from the $`\pi `$N system. Since most of the N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances were found in $`\pi `$N elastic scattering, they could have escaped detection so far. They should uncover themselves in photoproduction experiments of complex final states  which allow to study cascades of high-mass resonances. Two-oscillator excitations could be populated via pion emission from a high-mass resonance.

We now show that the leading quantum numbers, $`L,S,J,N`$ of the known N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances can be identified in most cases, and that mixing between different internal configurations is small. This is an old observation stressed, e.g., by Feynman, Pakvasa and Tuan .

Table 2 shows all known N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances except the 1-star $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2^+}(1750)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{5/2^+}(2000)`$. The ground states N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are known to be members of a SU(6) 56-plet which decomposes into a spin-1/2 octet and a spin-3/2 decuplet with $`L=0`$. Likely, there is a small contribution of $`L=2`$ in the wave function  but this effect does not prevent us from identifying $`L=0`$ as leading component. In any case, the spatial wave function of these ground-state baryons is symmetric, and their spin-flavor wave function must be symmetric, too. The antisymmetry of the wave function w.r.t. the exchange of two quarks as required by the Pauli principle is guaranteed by the three colors.

In the first two rows of Table 2 there are two series’ of states having the same quantum numbers as the ground state baryons, with mass square differences of $`a1.1`$ GeV2. The Roper N$`_{1/2^+}`$(1440) and the analogous state $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2^+}(1600)`$ are supposed to be first radial excitations of the respective ground states; the N$`_{1/2^+}`$(1710) and N$`_{1/2^+}`$(2100) the second and third radial excitation. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2^+}(1920)`$ could be a radial excitation even though the assignment of intrinsic orbital angular momentum $`L=2`$ and quark spin $`S=3/2`$ is possible as well and perhaps more likely. Also the N$`_{1/2^+}`$(2100) could belong to a quartet of states with $`L=2`$ and $`S=3/2`$, yet its mass is rather high in comparison to the other positive parity N states assigned to $`L=2`$. We prefer to reserve this entry for the N$`{}_{1/2^+}{}^{}(1986)`$ proposed by the SAPHIR collaboration .

In many cases, quantum numbers can be assigned to groups of states on the basis of an evident multiplet structure. The low-mass negative parity resonances with $`L=1`$ cannot have a completely symmetric spatial wave function, hence they cannot be assigned to a 56-plet and must be in a SU(6) 70-plet. The latter decomposes into a N spin doublet, a N spin quartet and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ spin doublet, in accordance with the experimental findings. These states are listed in rows 3-5 in Table 2.

In line 7, we find a triplet of negative-parity $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances at about 1930 MeV. We are tempted to assign $`L=1,S=3/2`$ to these states; however spin $`S=3/2`$ and isospin $`I=3/2`$ require a symmetric spatial wave function. This can only be achieved if not only the angular momentum is excited (to $`L=1`$), also the radial wave function needs to have a node. The only way to avoid this conclusion would be to assign $`L=3,S=1/2`$ to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{5/2^{}}(1930)`$ and $`L=1,S=1/2`$ to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2^{}}(1900)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2^{}}(1940)`$. We prefer to consider these three states as a triplet. The gap in mass square to the negative-parity doublet is $`1.1`$ GeV2 and we assign one unit of radial excitation energy $`(N=1)`$ to these states.

We may expect e.g. also resonances in a SU(6) 70-plet with $`(N=1,L=1,S=1/2)`$. The 70-plet would contain a N spin doublet $`1/2^{},3/2^{}`$ at 1866 MeV, a N spin quartet $`1/2^{},3/2^{},5/2^{}`$ at 1950 MeV and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ doublet $`1/2^{},3/2^{}`$ also at 1950 MeV. There are no entries for these states in the Review of Particle Properties even though there are two resonances proposed by SAPHIR, a N$`{}_{1/2^{}}{}^{}(1897)`$  observed in the N$`\eta ^{}`$ decay mode and a N$`_{3/2^{}}`$(1895)  decaying into K$`{}_{}{}^{+}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. These are good candidates for the $`(N=1,L=1,S=1/2)`$ multiplet.

In rows 8-10 we list further negative-parity resonances. Their assignment as $`L=1,N=2`$ states is an educated guess.

Positive-parity baryons with $`L=2`$ are possible as $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|(2,0);(0,0)\pm (0,0);(2,0)`$ configurations building a 56-plet and a 70-plet. The next rows (11-12) list a doublet of N’s and a quartet of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s belonging to the 56-plet. The N quartet at 1950 MeV (row 14) is part of the 70-plet. All these resonances could have partners with radial excitation $`N`$ but no candidates are known. (Except perhaps the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{5/2^+}(2000)`$ for which two mass values, 1752 and 2200 MeV, are listed by the Particle Data Group. The larger value would allow a $`L=2,N=1`$ assignment.)

For $`L=3`$ and $`L=4`$ we should expect a repetition of the pattern observed for $`L=1`$ and for $`L=2`$. Indeed, the known states can be mapped onto the predicted pattern.

The quantum numbers of high-mass resonances can best be identified when they are ’stretched’ states, with their spin and orbital angular momentum aligned. Their observation can be used to assign quantum numbers to states where only one resonance of a spin multiplet is observed. For $`L=4`$ there is no state which would need to be assigned to a 70-plet. In particular, there is no N$`_{11/2^+}`$. For large excitation energies, the largest total angular momenta J in a given mass range is often given by $`J=L+S`$ with $`S=1/2`$ for N and $`S=3/2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$: spin and isospin are locked.

The most straightforward assignment for nucleon resonances in the mass range above 2.5 GeV is $`(L,S)=(5,1/2)`$ for the N$`{}_{11/2^{}}{}^{}(2600)`$, and $`(L,S)=(6,1/2)`$ for the N$`{}_{13/2^+}{}^{}(2700)`$. To the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13/2^{}}`$(2750) we assign $`(L=5,S=3/2)`$ and $`N=1`$ since for $`N=0`$, a one-oscillator excitation to $`L=5`$ cannot be fully symmetric. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{15/2^+}`$(2950) should have $`(L=6,S=3/2)`$. These two states are expected here to have the same mass. This expectation is not really supported by the data but also not falsified, due to the large experimental errors.

## 3 Baryon masses

The regularity of the excitation energies suggests a baryon mass formula  which is discussed in this section. The mass formula reproduces with good $`\chi ^2`$ the masses of all but one baryons with known spin and parity. The baryon mass formula reads

$$\mathrm{M}^2=\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\frac{\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{s}}{3}\left(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)+a(L+N)I_{sym}\left(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{N}^2\right).$$
(1)
$`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{N},\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are input parameters taken from , $`a=1.142`$ GeV2 is the Regge slope determined from the series of light (isoscalar and isovector) mesons with quantum numbers $`J^{\mathrm{PC}}=1^{},2^{++},3^{},4^{++},5^{},6^{++}`$. There is no adjustable parameter in the mass formula.

The first two terms define the offset masses of Regge trajectories with $`n_s`$ strange quarks in the baryon. Regge trajectories are usually drawn as functions of $`J`$. They can, however, also be drawn as functions of $`L`$. The squared masses then increase linearly with $`L`$, with good consistency. A motivation for this dependence was given by Nambu . Note that the physical picture behind the mass formula is radically different from present quark models for baryon resonances. Here, the baryonic mass-gain with $`L`$ is assigned to an increasing mass of the flux tube connecting (nearly massless) quarks. In quark models, the mass gain with $`L`$ is due to an increase of kinetic and potential energy of the constituent quarks.

N is the radial excitation quantum number. There are 17 cases in which baryon resonances are observed which are higher in mass but have the same quantum numbers as a lower-mass state (see Table II in ) the Roper N$`_{1/2^+}`$(1440) being the best known example. The spacings in mass square are nearly the same as those for consecutive values of $`L`$. These facts require the $`L+N`$ dependence of the baryon masses while $`L+2N`$ gives the harmonic-oscillator band. This observation has also been made by Bijker, Iachello and Leviatan . They proposed a baryon mass formula which is based on a spectrum-generating algebra. The Hamiltonian is bilinear in six vector boson operators constructed for the two oscillators, plus one scalar boson operator. Excitations of $`n_\rho ,n_\lambda `$ are described as phonon vibrational excitations; calculated masses reproduce well experimental values.

The total angular momentum $`J`$ does not enter the formula. The spin orbit or $`\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S}`$ coupling is supposed to vanish or to be small.

The spin $`S`$ enters only through the last symmetry term which is defined to reproduce the N-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass difference. It acts only on octet and singlet particles having spin 1/2; N’s with spin 3/2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s are predicted to be degenerate in mass. $`\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{sym}}`$ is the fraction of the harmonic-oscillator wave function (normalized to the nucleon wave function) which is antisymmetric in spin and flavor. It is given by

| $`\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{sym}}=`$ | 1 | for $`S=1/2`$ | octet particles in a 56-plet; |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{sym}}=`$ | 1/2 | for $`S=1/2`$ | octet particles in a 70-plet; | (2) |
| $`\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{sym}}=`$ | 3/2 | for $`S=1/2`$ | singlet particles; |  |
| $`\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{sym}}=`$ | 0 | otherwise. |  |  |

Instantons and anti-instantons induce interactions in quark pairs when they are antisymmetric in both, in spin and in flavor. The data require, through the term $`\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{sym}}`$, a mass contribution proportional to this fraction in the wave function. It is this peculiar pattern of (2) which leads us to conclude that deviations from the leading Regge trajectory originate from instanton-induced interactions. In particular the N-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass splitting is thus assigned to instanton-induced interactions and not to magnetic spin-spin interactions due to one-gluon exchange. The numerical agreement between predicted and observed baryon masses is quite good. For 44 the N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances listed in  the $`\chi ^2`$ is 40. With the same errors, the one-gluon exchange model results in $`\chi ^2=82`$ calculated for the 32 resonances for which a mass is given in ; the one-boson exchange model  yields a $`\chi ^2`$ of 8 but uses only the 14 resonances below 1700 MeV. The number of parameters used for the mass formula is 4, in the one-gluon-exchange model 10 and in the one-boson exchange model 5.

It may be useful to exploit the predictive power of the mass formula also for some states which are not related to the question of parity doublets. We have included in Table 2 baryon resonances which are unobserved so far, and masses predicted by eq. (1). In particular a negative-parity doublet at 1779 MeV and a positive-parity doublet at 1866 MeV is expected. Not listed are resonances with a $`(L,S,N)`$ assignment for which no state is known. In the subsequent discussion we use only the lowest and second lowest mass baryon in a given partial wave. Thus uncertainties due to the problem of missing resonances are mostly avoided.

## 4 Chiral parity doublets versus SU(6) multiplets

The mass formula predicts parity doublets, either of identical or of approximately equal masses. The origin of the mass doublets is different for N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances. We begin with a discussion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances.

The three $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{5/2^{}}(1930)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{9/2^{}}(2400)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13/2^{}}(2750)`$ are unlikely to have intrinsic $`L=3,5,7`$, respectively, but rather $`L=1,3,5`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{5/2^{}}(1930)`$ is nearly degenerate in mass with two other negative-parity states, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{9/2^{}}(2400)`$ with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{5/2^{}}(2350)`$, suggesting that they all belong to a spin quartet (see Table 2), that they have $`S=3/2`$. Hence their wave function is symmetric in spin and in flavor. The Pauli principle now requires a symmetric spatial wave function but negative parity states can have a symmetric wave function only when they are also excited radially.

Figure 1 (left) shows the multiplet structure of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances. According to eq. (1) the masses depend on $`L+N`$, hence positive-parity $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s with $`L`$ even and $`N=0`$ are mass degenerate with negative-parity $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s with orbital angular momentum $`L1`$ and $`N=1`$. In absence of spin-orbit forces, the four positive-parity $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s with $`J=L3/2,\mathrm{},L+3/2`$ have the same mass, and so have the four negative-parity states. But the $`L`$ values differ by one unit,

the quartet of positive-parity $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s is shifted to the right. Only six states form parity doublets, two states remain ’solitaires’, the negative-parity state with $`J=L13/2`$ and the positive-parity state with $`J=L+3/2`$. This effect is visualized in Fig. 1 for $`(L+N,P)=2\pm ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pm ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\pm `$. The solitaire states are separated from their parity partners by one spacing $`a=1.142`$ GeV2. The spacing is even larger ($`2a`$) when high-mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances all have intrinsic spin 3/2 as we suggested above.

We predict that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{11/2^+}(2420)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{15/2^+}(2950)`$ should remain solitaires, should not have close-by chiral partners, in contrast to the prediction of . On the contrary, a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13/2^+}`$ should exist at about 2893 MeV, about mass-degenerate with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13/2^{}}(2750)`$, in this case in agreement with the prediction of .

The nucleon mass spectrum is more complicated, as shown in Fig. 1 (right). Nearly mass-degenerate chiral doublets develop due to the $`I_{sym}`$ term in eq. (1). For positive-parity baryons with spin $`S=1/2,I_{sym}=1`$; for negative parity baryons with $`S=3/2,I_{sym}=0`$. A positive-parity baryon with orbital angular momentum $`L`$ thus undergoes a shift downwards (in mass square equal to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-N mass separation) and is thus found at a mass not too far from negative-parity N resonances having orbital angular momentum $`L1`$ and $`S=3/2`$. Mass degeneracy is thus expected but only approximately. The predicted mass splitting is small enough that data may mimic parity doublets. Striking differences are only expected for negative-parity states with $`J=L3/2`$. These states are difficult to establish experimentally but they are true solitaires.

A decision if nucleonic resonances form parity doublets requires a quantitative analysis which is presented next. First we notice that according to eq. (1) the mass difference between two resonances with consecutive $`L`$ and otherwise identical quantum numbers vanishes asymptotically: $`M_{L+1}^2M_L^2=(M_{L+1}M_L)(M_{L+1}+M_L)=a`$ and hence $`M_{L+1}M_L=a/(M_{L+1}+M_L)`$. Asymptotically, all mass separations vanish with $`1/M`$ and chiral symmetry is trivially restored.

We now look for an effect of chiral symmetry beyond this trivial asymptotic behavior. We do so by comparing the consistency of the data with the assumption of parity doublets and, alternatively, with their consistency with $`(L,S)`$ multiplets with vanishing $`\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S}`$ coupling.

First we calculate the mean mass deviation of baryon resonances when they are interpreted as parity doublets:

$$\sigma _{paritydoublets}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{10}\underset{i=1,20}{}(M_iM_\pm )^2}=97\mathrm{MeV}(3)$$

where $`M_\pm `$ are the mean masses of positive- and negative-parity resonances paired to one parity doublet (see Table 1). The sum extends over 20 resonances; there are 10 degrees of freedom.

We now determine the deviation of baryon masses from the mean value of a $`(L,S)`$-multiplet:

$$\sigma _{spinmultiplets}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{13}\underset{i=1,20}{}(M_iM_{cg})^2}=39\mathrm{MeV}(4)$$

where the $`M_{cg}`$ are the mean values (center of gravity) of the 7 multiplets involved. 13 is number of degrees of freedom.

The comparison of the two hypotheses reveals that evidence for parity doublets in the high-mass spectrum is weak, at most. The data are better described in terms of $`(L,S)`$-multiplets embracing SU(6) multiplets of different $`J`$ but having the same intrinsic orbital and spin angular momenta. The symmetry leading to parity doublets is the vanishing of spin-orbit forces and not a phase transition to chiral dynamics.

Finally we examine the possibility that chiral symmetry is not yet fully restored but does already influence the mass spectrum. We do so by testing the hypothesis that the solitaire states could be slightly ’attracted’ by its nearest chiral partner (even thought the solitaire state remains within its $`(L,S)`$ multiplet).

Indeed, the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{7/2^+}`$(1950) is larger than the mean of its three partners of lower $`J`$, possibly it is ’attracted’ by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{7/2^{}}`$(2200). The same effect is found for the $`L=2`$ states N$`_{5/2^+}`$(2000)and N$`_{7/2^+}`$(1990) having masses which are larger than the N$`_{3/2^+}`$(1900) and thus closer to the masses of the N$`_{5/2^{}}`$(2200) and N$`_{7/2^{}}`$(2190) (which have $`L=3`$). The N$`_{9/2^{}}`$(2250) (with an assigned $`L=3`$) is even slightly above the ($`L=4`$) N$`_{9/2^+}`$(2220). (In this case, we do not have a neighbor state to quantify an attraction). If we normalize for these resonances the mass difference to be zero at the masses at the center of gravity of a multiplet (1921 MeV for the four positive parity $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with $`L=2`$) and 1 at the mass of the chiral partner (2200 MeV), we find a attraction factor $`\gamma _{attr}`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{7/2^+}`$(1950) of $`\gamma _{attr}=0.10\pm 0.14`$. The error is derived assuming errors as given in (4). The mean attraction factor for the three cases, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{7/2^+}`$(1950), N$`_{5/2^+}`$(2000) and N$`_{5/2^+}`$(1990), in which $`\gamma _{attr}`$ can be defined is $`\gamma _{attr}=0.13\pm 0.09`$. There is thus a hint that the solitaire states are attracted by their parity-doublet partner, even though chiral symmetry breaking effects still dominate the interaction. Optimistically, the non-zero value $`\gamma _{attr}=0.13\pm 0.09`$ can be seen as onset of a regime in which chiral symmetry is restored.

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied the question if parity doubling observed in high-mass N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ resonances can be interpreted as evidence for chiral symmetry restoration in baryon excitation. We find that the appearance of parity doublets does not reflect chiral symmetry but rather the vanishing of spin-orbit forces in quark-quark interactions in baryons. This new interpretation of the parity doublets gives predictions for masses of high-mass baryon resonances which differ distinctively from those based on the hypothesis of chiral symmetry restoration.

We have searched for indications that chiral symmetry might lead to a weak attraction between chiral partners. We find a positive 1.4$`\sigma `$ effect. Clearly, more precise data are required to establish an onset of chiral symmetry restoration in the baryon mass spectrum.

### Acknowledgments

I would like to thank S.U. Chung, L.Y. Glozman, D. Diakonov, U. Löring, B. Metsch, H. Petry, B. Schoch, S.F. Tuan and Chr. Weinheimer for stimulating discussions on parity doublets and on the baryon spectrum.