text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this letter we make the observation that, at leading power in the mass of the $`B`$-meson ($`M_B`$), the nonperturbative QCD effects in the radiative $`B`$-decays, $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`B\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`B\gamma \gamma `$ are universal. By this we mean that, for the same photon energy $`E_\gamma `$, the amplitudes for the processes $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`B\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are proportional to each other. For $`E_\gamma =M_B/2`$ they are also proportional to the amplitude for $`B\gamma \gamma `$. The constants of proportionality contain kinematic factors, CKM-matrix elements and a series in $`\alpha _s(M_B)`$ which is therefore calculable in perturbation theory. Thus, in spite of the different weak-decay mechanisms for the three processes, the strong interaction effects are common at scales below $`M_B`$.

In ref.  we showed that the two form factors ($`F_{A,V}`$) for the $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decay are given, up to one-loop order, by the factorization formula:

$$F_{A,V}(E_\gamma )=𝑑\stackrel{~}{k}_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B(\stackrel{~}{k}_+;\mu _F)T(\stackrel{~}{k}_+,E_\gamma ;\mu _F),$$
(1)
with

$$T(\stackrel{~}{k}_+,E_\gamma ;\mu _F)=\left\{C_3^{SCET}(\mu _F)\frac{f_BQ_uM_B}{2\sqrt{2}E_\gamma }\right\}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{k}_+}\left[1+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu _F)C_F}{4\pi }K_t(\stackrel{~}{k}_+,E_\gamma ;\mu _F)\right],$$
(2)
where the momentum of the photon is in the $``$ direction, $`C_3^{SCET}(\mu _F)`$ is a Wilson coefficient relating the weak $`bu`$ current to operators of the Soft-Collinear Effective Theory (SCET) , $`f_B`$ is the $`B`$-meson’s leptonic decay constant and $`Q_u=2/3`$ is the charge of the $`\overline{u}`$-quark 111Although we have chosen to use the SCET formalism to sum the large logarithms, this could equivalently be achieved using earlier approaches, in particular the “Wilson-Line” formalism of ref. .. $`\mu _F`$ is a factorization scale and is conveniently chosen to be $`O(\sqrt{M_B\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}})`$. The $`B`$-meson’s light-cone distribution amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B`$, is the component of the non-local matrix element

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }^H(\stackrel{~}{k}_+)=𝑑z_{}e^{i\stackrel{~}{k}_+z_{}}0|\overline{u}_\beta (z)[z,0]b_\alpha (0)|H|_{z_+,z_{}=0},$$
(3)
with the hadronic initial state $`H=B`$, which contributes to the amplitudes at leading twist. In eq. (3), $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are spinor labels and $`[z,0]`$ denotes a path-ordered exponential. Finally,

$$K_t(\stackrel{~}{k}_+,E_\gamma ;\mu _F)=\mathrm{log}^2\frac{2\sqrt{2}E_\gamma \stackrel{~}{k}_+}{\mu _F^2}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}1.$$
(4)
The above formulae hold for photon energies satisfying $`E_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}`$.

The nonperturbative contribution to the form factors is contained in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B(\stackrel{~}{k}_+)`$ which is convoluted with $`T`$ as in eq. (1). The observation we make here is that precisely the same convolution over $`\stackrel{~}{k}_+`$ appears also in the amplitudes for $`B\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`B\gamma \gamma `$ decays. The $`\stackrel{~}{k}_+`$-independent prefactor in curly brackets in eq. (2) is process-dependent but perturbative. Moreover, although the coefficient $`C_3^{SCET}(\mu _F)`$ in eq. (2) is specific to the decay $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$, the behaviour with $`\mu _F`$ (for $`\mu _F<m_B`$) is common to all coefficients $`C_i^{SCET}`$ appearing in the three radiative decays. Thus ratios of amplitudes for different processes but with the same $`E_\gamma `$ only depend on the $`C_i^{SCET}`$ at $`\mu _F=M_B`$, and are hence calculable as perturbative series in $`\alpha _s(M_B)`$. The formulae for the decay rates are presented explicitly in sec.3.

Additional motivation for this study is provided by the need to understand nonperturbative QCD effects in two-body exclusive nonleptonic decays, for which there is a wealth of experimental data, particularly from the $`B`$-factories. The demonstration of the factorization of long-distance effects at leading twist for these processes  provides the theoretical framework for detailed phenomenological analyses. However, our ignorance of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B`$ (and the lack of a similar framework for higher-twist contributions) limits the precision with which information about the CKM matrix elements and CP-violation can be determined from the experimental measurements of branching ratios and asymmetries. It is therefore important to understand whether there are relations, similar to those presented here, also between different nonleptonic decay amplitudes (or between contributions to the amplitudes) which reduce or eliminate the need for a detailed knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B`$. Finally we repeat that measuring the photon’s energy distribution in $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays may in future be the best way of obtaining information about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B`$ .

In the next section we sketch the evaluation of the amplitudes for $`B\gamma \gamma `$ and $`B\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays at one-loop order and the resummation of the large logarithms. We focus on the differences with the corresponding calculation of the $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decay amplitude, which was described in detail in ref. . The reader who is only interested in the implications of our results can turn immediately to section 3 where we present the expressions for the decay rates and discuss their significance.

## 2 Amplitudes up to One-Loop Order

In ref.  we have described the evaluation of the one-loop contribution to the hard-scattering kernel for the decay $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ in detail. The corresponding calculation for the other radiative decays is very similar, so here we only sketch the main points and present the results.

We wish to write the form factors for each of the three radiative processes in the generic factorized form given in eq. (1), where the hard-scattering kernel $`T`$ depends on the process, but, as its name suggests, does not depend on scales below $`\mu _F`$ and can be calculated in perturbation theory. In order to determine $`T`$ we are free to choose any appropriate and convenient external state, and we take a $`u`$-antiquark with momentum $`k`$ and a $`b`$-quark with momentum $`p`$ – $`k`$. The leading-twist contributions are those in which the photon is emitted from the light quark, and we will see that the diagrams which need to be evaluated are those in figs. 1 and 2.

The evaluation of the one-loop graphs in fig. 2(a), (d), (e) and (f) is common to all the processes and is described in ref. . In ref.  we also show that the leading-twist contribution from the box diagram in fig. 2(c) comes from the soft region of phase-space and is absorbed into the one-loop component of the wave-function, giving no contribution to $`T`$. This is also true for $`B\gamma \gamma `$ and $`B\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays. Thus in the following we present the results for the diagrams in fig. 1 and 2(b) for $`B\gamma \gamma `$ and $`B\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays and combine them with those in ref.  for the other graphs (the graphs are evaluated in the Feynman gauge).

### 2.1 The decay $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝜸𝜸`$

The effective Hamiltonian for $`B_q^0\gamma \gamma `$ decays is

$$=i\lambda _t^{(q)}\frac{eG_F}{4\pi ^2\sqrt{2}}m_bC_7^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _R)[\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu b_R](_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ),$$
(5)
where $`b_R=1/2(1+\gamma _5)b`$, $`q=d`$ or $`s`$ and $`\lambda _t^{(q)}=V_{tq}^{}V_{tb}`$. $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the Wilson coefficient at the scale $`\mu _R`$ (it will generally be convenient to take $`\mu _R=M_B`$). The superscript eff denotes the fact that $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ contains terms proportional to the Wilson coefficients $`C_{1\text{ – }6}`$ (corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ four-quark operators) and $`C_8`$ (corresponding to the chromomagnetic operator). The contributions included in $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are short-distance loop corrections to $`O_{1\text{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}}`$ and $`O_8`$ which result in an effective vertex proportional to the operator $`O_7`$ at tree-level (i.e. to the operator in eq. (5)).

We now briefly illustrate how the leading-twist contributions proportional to $`C_{1\text{ – }6}`$ and $`C_8`$ are absorbed into $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. It is not surprising that the diagram in fig 3(a) has the structure of fig. 1, where the grey circle represents the electromagnetic operator $`O_7`$, and its contribution can therefore be included into $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Indeed this is conventionally done . In fig. 3(b), (c) and (d) we draw, for illustration, three diagrams at $`O(\alpha _s)`$ contributing to $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The key point to note is that the loop integrations are dominated by the short-distance region of phase space, and therefore the contributions to $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are calculable in perturbation theory. In fact $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ at $`O(\alpha _s)`$ can be deduced from the calculations in refs.  (for the penguin operators $`O_{3\text{ – }6}`$, for which the Wilson coefficients are small, the contribution to $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is only known at $`O(\alpha _s^0)`$). In the basis and notation of refs

$$C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}=C_7\frac{C_3}{3}\frac{4C_4}{9}\frac{20C_5}{3}\frac{80C_6}{9}\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\underset{1,2,8}{}C_iF_i^{(7)},$$
(6)
where $`F_{1,2}^{(7)}`$ and $`F_8^{(7)}`$ are given in eq. (56) of ref.  and eq. (82) of ref.  respectively. There are other contributions proportional to $`C_{1\text{ – }6}`$ and $`C_8`$ which cannot be absorbed into $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. An example is drawn in fig. 3(e). However, power-counting arguments show that these contributions are suppressed by at least one power of $`M_B`$. The contributions to the hard-scattering kernel from the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ diagrams drawn in fig. 2, where the grey circle represents the tree-level insertion of $`O_7`$, are evaluated explicitly in this letter.

The amplitude ($`𝒜`$) for the decay $`B\gamma \gamma `$ can be written in terms of invariant form factors $`A_\pm `$:

$$𝒜(B\gamma \gamma )=\frac{\alpha G_Ff_B}{3\pi \sqrt{2}}\left\{2A_{}\epsilon (q_1,q_2,ϵ_1^{},ϵ_2^{})+A_+\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i(q_1ϵ_2^{})(q_2ϵ_1^{})iM_B^2(ϵ_1^{}ϵ_2^{})\right]\right\}.$$
(7)
Following ref. , we choose the external state $`H=b\overline{q}`$ to determine the contribution to the hard-scattering kernel. We denote the contribution from the tree diagram in fig. 1, where the photon with momentum $`q_1`$ is emitted from the effective vertex, to the $`\gamma \gamma ||b\overline{q}`$ matrix element by $`F_1^{(0)}`$ (0 denotes tree-level or “zero loops”). Similarly $`F_2^{(0)}`$ is the contribution with the photon with momentum $`q_2`$ emitted from the effective vertex, and is equal to $`F_1^{(0)}`$ with the obvious replacements $`12`$ and $`+`$ in the expressions below.

Evaluating the diagram we find for the matrix element at tree level

$$F_1^{(0)}=\lambda _t^{(q)}\frac{eG_F}{8\pi ^2\sqrt{2}}m_bC_7^{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{e_q}{\sqrt{2}M_Bk_+}\overline{v}^s(k)\left[ϵ\text{/}_2^{}q\text{/}_2[q\text{/}_1,ϵ\text{/}_1^{}](1+\gamma _5)\right]u^S(pk),$$
(8)
where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are the wave functions of the $`b`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ quarks with spin labels $`S`$ and $`s`$. Writing this amplitude as a convolution

$$F_1^{(0)}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{k}_+}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }^{b\overline{q}(0)}T_{1\beta \alpha }^{(0)}$$
(9)
(with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{b\overline{q}}`$ defined in eq. (3) with $`H=b\overline{q}`$), the contribution to the hard-scattering kernel is

$$T_{1\beta \alpha }^{(0)}=\lambda _t^{(q)}\frac{eG_F}{8\pi ^2\sqrt{2}}m_bC_7^{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{e_q}{\sqrt{2}M_B\stackrel{~}{k}_+}\left[ϵ\text{/}_2^{}q\text{/}_2[q\text{/}_1,ϵ\text{/}_1^{}](1+\gamma _5)\right]_{\beta \alpha }.$$
(10)
Adding the contribution from $`T_{2\beta \alpha }^{(0)}`$, we obtain for the lowest-order contribution to the two form factors:

$`A_+`$ $`=`$ $`A_{}={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{~}{k}_+\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B(\stackrel{~}{k}_+;\mu _F)T^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{k}_+;\mu _R,\mu _F)}=\lambda _t^{(q)}C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _R){\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\lambda _B}},`$ (11)
$`T^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _R){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _t^{(q)}M_B}{\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{k}_+}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _B}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{~}{k}_\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B(\stackrel{~}{k}_\pm )}{\stackrel{~}{k}_\pm }}.`$ (12)
Note that $`\lambda _B`$ is also the nonperturbative quantity which is needed in evaluating the contribution from tree-level hard-spectator interactions to exclusive nonleptonic $`B`$-decay amplitudes .

At one-loop order, the contribution of the diagram in fig. 2(b) to the $`\gamma \gamma ||b\overline{u}`$ matrix element is

$$F_1^{(1)\text{wk}}=F_1^{(0)}\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }\left[\mathrm{log}^2\frac{\sqrt{2}k_+}{M_B}2\mathrm{log}\frac{\sqrt{2}k_+}{M_B}\pi ^2\right].$$
(13)
In order to determine the one-loop contribution to $`T`$ ($`T^{(1)}`$), we need to subtract the corresponding contribution to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{b\overline{q}(1)}T^{(0)}`$, the convolution of the one-loop component of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{b\overline{u}}`$ with $`T^{(0)}`$:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)\text{wk}}T^{(0)}\right)_1=F_1^{(0)}\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }\left[\frac{4}{\omega ^2}+\frac{2}{\omega }\mathrm{log}\frac{2k_+^2}{\mu _F^2}2\mathrm{log}^2\frac{\sqrt{2}k_+}{\mu _F}\frac{3\pi ^2}{4}\right],$$
(14)
where we use dimensional regularization, working in $`4\omega `$ dimensions. We recall that the subscript 1 denotes the contribution from the graphs with the photon of momentum $`q_1`$ emitted from the effective vertex.

The contribution to the hard-scattering kernel from the diagram in fig. 2(b) with $`q_1q_2`$ is the same, since the resulting convolution over $`\stackrel{~}{k}_{}`$ is equal by symmetry to the one over $`\stackrel{~}{k}_+`$ from fig. 2(b). We therefore present our answers below in terms of a convolution with $`\stackrel{~}{k}_+`$ as the (dummy) integration variable, and our expressions for the hard-scattering kernel correspond to the sum of the two contributions.

The results in eqs. (13) and (14), together with those in ref.  for the remaining diagrams in fig. 2 can be combined to give the one-loop expression for the hard-scattering kernel:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`T^{(0)}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{k}_+}{M}}+4\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{k}_+}{M}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mu _F}}`$ (15)
$`+2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mu _F}}+7\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mu _F}}2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _R}{\mu _F}}7{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}})],`$
where the explicit expression for $`T^{(0)}`$ is given in eq. (12).

We now use the SCET formalism to resum the large logarithms following the steps in sec. 5 of ref. . The contribution of the tensor operator to the $`\gamma \gamma ||b\overline{u}`$ matrix element (i.e. the diagrams in figs. 1 and 2(b) plus half of the diagrams in figs. 2(d) and 2(e)) is

$`F^{J_W}=F_1^{(0)}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\left[2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\mu _R}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}k_+}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}k_+}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\pi ^2\right]\right\}`$
$`+F_2^{(0)}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\left[2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\mu _R}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}k_{}}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}k_{}}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\pi ^2\right]\right\}.`$ (16)
In the SCET formalism, only one operator, denoted by $`O_9`$ in ref. , contributes to the form factors. From eq. (66) of ref.  and the neighbouring discussion, we can rewrite $`F^{J_W}`$ in terms of the SCET Wilson coefficient $`C_9^{SCET}(E_\gamma ;\mu _R,\mu _F)`$ as

$`F^{J_W}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{SCET}(M_B/2;\mu _R,M_B)\times `$ (17)
$`\{F_1^{(0)}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}[\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}k_+}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}k_+}{M_B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11\pi ^2}{12}}])`$
$`+F_2^{(0)}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}[\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}k_{}}{M_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}k_{}}{M_B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11\pi ^2}{12}}])\}.`$
Comparing eqs. (16) and (17) we find

$$C_9^{SCET}(\frac{M_B}{2};\mu _R,M_B)=1+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }\left[2\mathrm{log}\frac{M_B}{\mu _R}6\frac{\pi ^2}{12}\right],$$
(18)
which agrees with eq. (33) of ref.  for $`\mu _R=M_B`$.

Finally, we can use the renormalization group equation for $`C_9^{SCET}`$, derived in ref. , to obtain its value at any factorization scale $`\mu _F`$. We conclude that the form factors $`A_+=A_{}`$ are given by the generic form in eq. (1) with

$$T(\stackrel{~}{k}_+;\mu _R,\mu _F)=\frac{\lambda _t^{(q)}M_B}{\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{k}_+}C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _R)C_9^{SCET}(M_B/2;\mu _R,\mu _F)\left[1+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }K_t(\stackrel{~}{k}_+,M_B/2;\mu _F)\right].$$
(19)
Thus the hard-scattering kernel has exactly the same dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{k}_+`$ as that for $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays in eq. (2).

### 2.2 The decay $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$

The procedure for the evaluation of the $`B\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay amplitude follows exactly the same steps. We will assume here that $`x_\gamma 2E_\gamma /M_B`$ satisfies $`(1x_\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}/M_B`$. This allows us to neglect the diagrams in which the real photon is emitted from the weak vertex and the virtual one is radiated from the light quark. The effective Hamiltonian for this process is then :

$$=\lambda _t^{(q)}\frac{\alpha G_F}{\pi \sqrt{2}}\left(C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b_L)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})+C_{10}(\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b_L)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{})2\frac{C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}}{q_1^2}m_b(\overline{q}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_1^\nu b_R)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})\right),$$
(20)
where $`b_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2b`$. Again $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ contains short-distance, leading-twist contributions from four-quark and chromomagnetic operators:

$$C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}=C_9+Y(q_1^2)\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\underset{1,2,8}{}C_iF_i^{(9)},$$
(21)
where $`Y(q_1^2)`$ has contributions from $`O_{1\text{ – }6}`$ and its explicit expression is given in eq. (10) of ref.  and $`F_{1,2}^{(9)}`$ and $`F_8^{(9)}`$ are given in eqs. (54) and (55) of ref.  and eq. (83) of ref.  respectively. We follow the authors of ref.  in neglecting the long-distance effects associated with $`c\overline{c}`$ resonances. For the purposes of this paper, we start with eq. (20) and evaluate the matrix elements of the operators on the right-hand side. The four form factors for this process are defined by:

$$2\gamma (q,ϵ^{})|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b_L|\overline{B}(p)=eϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }v^\rho q^\sigma F_V(E_\gamma )+ie[ϵ_\mu ^{}(vq)q_\mu (vϵ^{})]F_A(E_\gamma )$$
(22)
and

$`2\gamma (q,ϵ^{})|\overline{q}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }(pq)^\nu b_R|\overline{B}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`eM_Bϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }v^\rho q^\sigma F_T(E_\gamma )`$ (23)
$`ieM_B[ϵ_\mu ^{}(vq)q_\mu (vϵ^{})]F_T^{}(E_\gamma ).`$
Since the corrections to the vector and axial currents have already been discussed in ref. , we consider here only the form factors $`F_T`$ and $`F_T^{}`$. Evaluating the diagram in fig. 1 we find that at lowest order the contribution to the matrix element $`2\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\gamma |\overline{q}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_1^\nu b_R|b\overline{q}`$ is

$$F_\mu ^{(0)}=\frac{e_q}{2(q_2)_{}k_+}\overline{v}^s(k)\left[ϵ\text{/}^{}q\text{/}_2[\gamma _\mu ,q\text{/}_1]\right]u_R^S(pk),$$
(24)
and the hard-scattering amplitude is

$$T_\mu ^{(0)}=\frac{e_q}{4(q_2)_{}k_+}\left[ϵ\text{/}^{}q\text{/}_2[\gamma _\mu ,q\text{/}_1](1+\gamma _5)\right]_{\beta \alpha }.$$
(25)
The form factors at lowest order are thus given by

$$F_T=F_T^{}=\frac{Q_qf_BM_B}{2E_\gamma \lambda _B},$$
(26)
where $`Q_q=1/3`$ is the electric charge of $`\overline{q}`$.

At one-loop order the contribution from the diagram of fig. 2(b) to the matrix element $`2\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\gamma |\overline{q}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_1^\nu b_R|b\overline{q}`$ is

$$F_\mu ^{(1)\text{wk}}=F_\mu ^{(0)}\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }\left[\mathrm{log}^2\frac{z}{y}2\mathrm{log}\frac{z}{y}2\mathrm{log}\frac{z}{y}\mathrm{log}\frac{x}{y}\mathrm{log}^2\frac{x}{y}2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2\left(1\frac{y}{x}\right)\pi ^2\right],$$
(27)
where $`x=M_B^2`$, $`y=2M_BE_\gamma `$ and $`z=2q_2k`$. The corresponding contribution to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{b\overline{q}(1)}T^{(0)}`$ is given by the r.h.s. of eq. (14) with $`F_1^{(0)}`$ replaced by $`F_\mu ^{(0)}`$ given in (24).

Combining the above results with the remaining diagrams in fig. 2 from ref.  we find that the hard-scattering kernel is given by

$`T_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`T_\mu ^{(0)}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{z}{x}}+2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{x}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\mu _F^2}}2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _F^2}{y}}2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\mu _F^2}}2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}})\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _R^2}{\mu _F^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\mu _F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}7)].`$
We now perform the resummation of the large logarithms as for the $`B\gamma \gamma `$ decays above. By comparing our results for the contribution of the tensor operator to the matrix element $`F^{J_W}`$ with the results for the same transition in the SCET, we obtain the expression of $`C_9^{SCET}(E_\gamma ;\mu _R,\mu _F=M_B)`$ (it is given explicitly in eq. (33) below). For $`\mu _R=M_B`$ our result agrees with eq. (33) of ref. .

In this way we find that the form factors $`F_T`$ and $`F_T^{}`$ are given by the generic form in eq. (1) with

$$T(\stackrel{~}{k}_+,E_\gamma ;\mu _R,\mu _F)=\frac{f_BM_B}{6\sqrt{2}E_\gamma }\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{k}_+}C_9^{SCET}(E_\gamma ;\mu _R,\mu _F)\left[1+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }K_t(\stackrel{~}{k}_+,E_\gamma ;\mu _F)\right].$$
(29)
This completes the demonstration that at one-loop and leading-twist order the hard-scattering kernel has the same form for all three radiative decays.

## 3 Discussion and Conclusions

As a consequence of the universality of the nonperturbative effects in radiative $`B`$-decays the rates can be related simply using perturbation theory. The decay rates are given by the following expressions:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_q\gamma \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2G_F^2M_B^5f_B^2}{144\pi ^3}}\left(C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}\right)^2|\lambda _t^{(q)}|^2(C_9^{SCET})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^2(M_B/2)}},`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_q\gamma e^+e^{})}{dE_\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3G_F^2M_B^4f_B^2}{1728\pi ^4}}|\lambda _t^{(q)}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{x_\gamma (1x_\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^2(E_\gamma )}}\times `$ (31)
$`[\left|C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}C_3^{SCET}+{\displaystyle \frac{2C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}}{1x_\gamma }}C_9^{SCET}\right|^2+\left|C_{10}C_3^{SCET}\right|^2],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+\gamma e^+\nu )}{dE_\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha G_F^2f_B^2|V_{ub}|^2M_B^4}{54\pi ^2}}(C_3^{SCET})^2{\displaystyle \frac{x_\gamma (1x_\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^2(E_\gamma )}},`$ (32)
where $`x_\gamma =2E_\gamma /M_B`$. $`C_{3,9}^{SCET}`$ in eqs. (30) - (32) denote the matching coefficients relating the QCD and SCET operators evaluated at $`\mu _F=M_B`$ and are calculable in perturbation theory,

$$C_9^{SCET}=1+\frac{\alpha _s(M_B)C_F}{4\pi }\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{M_B^2}{\mu _R^2}2\mathrm{log}^2x_\gamma +2\mathrm{log}x_\gamma 2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2\left(1x_\gamma \right)6\frac{\pi ^2}{12}\right)$$
(33)
and

$$C_3^{SCET}=1+\frac{\alpha _s(M_B)C_F}{4\pi }\left(2\mathrm{log}^2x_\gamma 2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2\left(1x_\gamma \right)+\frac{3x_\gamma 2}{x_\gamma 1}\mathrm{log}x_\gamma 6\frac{\pi ^2}{12}\right).$$
(34)
$`\mu _R`$ is the scale where the Wilson coefficient functions of the operators in the effective Hamiltonian, $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}},C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`C_{10}`$, are evaluated, and for convenience we set $`\mu _R=M_B`$. The only nonperturbative parameter in eqs. (30) - (32) is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B(E_\gamma )`$, which is the generalization of $`\lambda _B`$:

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B(E_\gamma )}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{exp}[S(E_\gamma ;\mu _F)]𝑑\stackrel{~}{k}_+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_+^B(\stackrel{~}{k}_+;\mu _F)}{\stackrel{~}{k}_+}\left[1+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }\left(\mathrm{log}^2\frac{2\sqrt{2}E_\gamma \stackrel{~}{k}_+}{\mu _F^2}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}1\right)\right].$$
(35)
The resummation of large (Sudakov) logarithms is obtained through the evolution of SCET operators from $`M_B`$ down to $`\mu _F`$ (this evolution is common to all the operators), leading to the exponential factor in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B(E_\gamma )`$

$`S(E_\gamma ;\mu _F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(r)}{\alpha _s(m_b)}}+f_1(r),`$ (36)
$`f_0(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi C_F}{\beta _0^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}1+\mathrm{log}r\right],`$ (37)
$`f_1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\beta _1}{\beta _0^3}}\left[1r+r\mathrm{log}r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2r}{2}}\right]`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}2\mathrm{log}x_\gamma \right]\mathrm{log}r{\displaystyle \frac{2C_FB}{\beta _0^2}}[r1\mathrm{log}r],`$
where $`r=\alpha _s(\mu _F)/\alpha _s(m_b)`$, $`\beta _0=11C_A/32N_f/3`$ and $`\beta _1=34C_A^2/310C_AN_f/32C_FN_f`$.

In this letter we do not perform a detailed phenomenological analysis. For illustration however, in fig. 4 we plot the ratio

$$R_q(E_\gamma )=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_q\gamma e^+e^{})/dE_\gamma }{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+\gamma e^+\nu )/dE_\gamma },$$
(39)
for $`q=d,s`$ and for the following values for the Wilson coefficients: $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}=0.390`$, $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}=4.182`$ and $`C_{10}=4.234`$  (a more detailed analysis would include the effects of $`Y(q_1^2)`$ and the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections to these coefficients, but these are sufficiently small to be neglected in this presentation). We take $`|\lambda _t^{(d)}|=7.8\times 10^3`$, $`|\lambda _t^{(s)}|=4.1\times 10^2`$, $`|V_{ub}|=3.6\times 10^3`$, $`f_{B_d}=190`$MeV and $`f_{B_s}=230`$MeV. In other words we plot

$`R_d\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{7.8\times 10^3}{|\lambda _t^{(d)}|}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{|V_{ub}|}{3.6\times 10^3}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_d}}{190\text{MeV}}}\right)^2\text{and}`$ (40)
$`R_s\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{4.1\times 10^2}{|\lambda _t^{(s)}|}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{|V_{ub}|}{3.6\times 10^3}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_s}}{230\text{MeV}}}\right)^2.`$ (41)
The two curves are proportional to each other, differing by the values of the leptonic decay constants and CKM matrix elements. They do not depend however, on the model for the distribution amplitude. As $`x_\gamma `$ approaches 1 the virtual photon approaches its mass shell and this is the reason for the rise of the curves in this region. We recall however that our expressions are valid in the region $`1x_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}/M_B`$ (and $`x_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}/M_B`$).

Knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$, which we do not have at present, is required to determine each of the branching ratios separately. Taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B(M_B/2)=350`$ MeV, we estimate that the $`B\gamma \gamma `$ branching ratios are approximately

$$B(B_d\gamma \gamma )3\times 10^8\text{and}B(B_s\gamma \gamma )10^6,$$
(42)
of the same order of magnitude as in ref. . For the remaining decays we estimate:

$`B(B^+\gamma \mathrm{}^+\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`O(10^6),`$ (43)
$`B(B_s\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{};x_\gamma <0.8)`$ $`=`$ $`O(10^9),`$ (44)
$`B(B_d\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{};x_\gamma <0.8)`$ $`=`$ $`O(10^{11})\text{}O(10^{10}),`$ (45)
where we have imposed the cut-off $`x_\gamma <0.8`$ in order to satisfy the constraint $`(1x_\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}/M_B`$. Assuming that there is no very large enhancement as $`x_\gamma 1`$, the result for $`B(B_s\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ is in broad agreement with the estimates in ref. . This result is an order of magnitude smaller than that of ref. . The discrepancy is partly due to the fact that we do not reproduce the formula for the ratio $`B(B_s\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})/B(B_s\gamma \gamma )`$ used in ref. , partly to a different choice of input parameters, partly due to the fact that the authors of  integrate up to the kinematic limit for $`x_\gamma `$ and partly to the fact that we include higher-order QCD corrections.

The explicit calculations described in the previous section, were performed at one-loop order. Nevertheless, as we now explain, we anticipate that the general features will survive also at higher orders. For all the decays the lowest-order diagram of fig. 1 gives a factor of $`1/k_+`$ which leads to the factor of $`1/\stackrel{~}{k}_+`$ in the hard-scattering kernels. At one-loop order all the diagrams in fig. 2 except for 2(c) have a collinear light-quark propagator external to the loop giving a factor of $`1/k_+`$. In order for the diagram in fig. 2(c) to contribute at leading twist we must recover the factor of $`1/k_+`$ from the loop integration. As explained in ref. , such a contribution comes from the soft region of phase space and is absorbed into the wave function – it cancels when $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}T^{(0)}`$ is subtracted, and therefore does not contribute to the hard-scattering kernel. Thus the one-loop contribution to the hard-scattering kernel has two components:

* the correction to the electromagnetic vertex – figs. 2(a),(e) and half of (d)),
* the correction to the weak vertex – figs. 2(b),(f) and half of (d)).

The power-counting arguments leading to this structure appear to be sufficiently general for us to conjecture that it is true to all orders. The corrections to the electromagnetic vertex are then clearly common to all three decay processes. Even though the corrections to the weak vertex are not common, the differences only arise at scales of $`O(M_B)`$. For soft and collinear gluons, the Dirac structure of the heavy and light quarks is indeed such that the result is independent of the form of the weak operator, and of the $`\gamma `$-matrix (matrices) in particular. Although there are two large scales in each of these decay processes, $`M_B`$ and $`\sqrt{M_B\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}}`$, the differences are only due to physics at the scale $`M_B`$ and can be expressed in terms of a calculable perturbation series in $`\alpha _s(M_B)`$. Recent studies of factorization at higher orders of perturbation theory include a demonstration of the validity of eq.(1) for $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays  and a study of the transitions from soft to collinear quarks in the SCET .

The processes studied in this letter have been rare radiative decays. For other processes, such as the two-body exclusive decays of B-mesons into two light mesons , the hard-scattering kernels will in general be different. Nevertheless, as a result of the independence of soft and collinear QCD effects from the structure of the weak operator, it is to be expected that there are analogous relations between contributions to different decay amplitudes, and we are currently investigating the structure and scope of these relations.

We end by repeating that in this letter we have only considered the leading-twist contributions to radiative $`B`$-decays. For a detailed and precise phenomenology of exclusive $`B`$-decays the extension of the factorization formalism to the $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}/M_B)`$ corrections will be necessary (see, for example, refs.  for recent contributions towards this).

## Acknowledgements

We thank M. Beneke, M. Neubert and L. Sehgal for helpful comments on the manuscript.

This work has been partially supported by PPARC, through grants PPA/G/O/1998/00525 and PPA/G/S/1998/00530.


format: text

text:
# Electromagnetic form factors of the baryon octet in the perturbative chiral quark model

## 1 Introduction

The study of the electromagnetic form factors of baryons is a very important first step in understanding their internal structure. At present, electromagnetic form factors and related properties (magnetic moments, charge and magnetic radii) of the nucleon have been measured precisely, but for the hyperons data rarely exist with the exception of the magnetic moments. Recently, the charge radius of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ has been measured sigm01 ; sigm99  and therefore gives a first estimate of the charge form factor of the hyperon at low momentum transfers.

In Refs. lgf01 -plgfc02  we developed the perturbative chiral quark model (PCQM) for the study of baryon properties: electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon, low-energy meson-baryon scattering and $`\sigma `$-terms, electromagnetic excitation of nucleon resonances, etc. In Ref. lgf01  the PCQM has been applied to study the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon and the results obtained are in good agreement with experimental data. In this paper we extend the PCQM to study the electromagnetic form factors of hyperons and give predictions with respect to future measurements of their magnetic moments, radii and the momentum dependence of form factors. We proceed as follows. In Sect. 2 we describe the basic notions of our approach. In Sect. 3 we present the analytic expressions for the charge and magnetic form factors of the baryon octet. Numerical results for their magnetic moments, charge and magnetic radii, and the momentum dependence of the form factors are discussed in Sect. 4. Sect. 5 contains a summary.

## 2  The Perturbative Chiral Quark Model

### 2.1 Effective Lagrangian and zeroth order properties

The following considerations are based on the perturbative chiral quark model (PCQM) lgf01 ; lgfd01 . The PCQM is a relativistic quark model which is based on an effective Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{eff}}=_{\mathrm{inv}}^{lin}+_{\chi SB}`$. The Lagrangian includes the linearized chiral invariant term $`_{\mathrm{inv}}^{lin}`$ and a mass term $`_{\chi SB}`$ which explicitly breaks chiral symmetry

$`_{\mathrm{inv}}^{lin}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(x)\left[i\partial ̸\gamma ^0V(r)S(r)\right]\psi (x)`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}[_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i(x)]^2\overline{\psi }(x)S(r)i\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)}{F}}\psi (x),`$
$`_{\chi SB}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x){\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}Tr[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2(x)],`$ (2)
where $`r=|\stackrel{}{x}|`$; $`\psi `$ is the quark field; $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is the matrix of the pseudoscalar mesons; $`S(r)`$ and $`V(r)`$ are scalar and vector components of an effective, static potential providing quark confinement; $`=\mathrm{diag}\{\widehat{m},\widehat{m},m_s\}`$ is the mass matrix of current quarks (we restrict to the isospin symmetry limit with $`m_u=m_d=\widehat{m}`$); $`B`$ is the quark condensate parameter; and $`F`$ = 88 MeV is the pion decay constant in the chiral limit. We rely on the standard picture of chiral symmetry breaking and for the masses of pseudoscalar mesons we use the leading term in chiral expansion (i.e. linear in the current quark mass): $`M_\pi ^2=2\widehat{m}B`$, $`M_K^2=(\widehat{m}+m_s)B`$, $`M_\eta ^2=\frac{2}{3}(\widehat{m}+2m_s)B`$. Meson masses satisfy the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner and the Gell-Mann-Okubo relation $`3M_\eta ^2+M_\pi ^2=4M_K^2`$. In the evaluation we use the following set of QCD parameters: $`\widehat{m}`$ = 7 MeV, $`m_s/\widehat{m}=25`$ and B = $`M_{\pi ^+}^2/(2\widehat{m})`$ = 1.4 GeV.

To describe the properties of baryons which are modelled as bound states of valence quarks surrounded by a meson cloud we formulate perturbation theory. In our approach the mass (energy) $`m_N^{core}`$ of the three-quark core of the nucleon is related to the single quark energy $`_0`$ by $`m_N^{core}=3_0`$. For the unperturbed three-quark state we introduce the notation $`|\varphi _0>`$ with the appropriate normalization $`<\varphi _0|\varphi _0>=1`$. The single quark ground state energy $`_0`$ and wave function (WF), $`u_0(\stackrel{}{x})`$ are obtained from the Dirac equation

$`\left[i\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{}+\beta S(r)+V(r)_0\right]u_0(\stackrel{}{x})=0.`$ (3)
The quark WF $`u_0(\stackrel{}{x})`$ belongs to the basis of potential eigenstates (including excited quark and antiquark solutions) used for expansion of the quark field operator $`\psi (x)`$. Here we restrict the expansion to the ground state contribution with $`\psi (x)=b_0u_0(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{exp}(i_0t)`$, where $`b_0`$ is the corresponding single quark annihilation operator. In Eq. (3) the current quark mass is not included to simplify our calculational technique. Instead, we consider the quark mass term as a small perturbation.

For a given form of the potentials $`S(r)`$ and $`V(r)`$ the Dirac equation in Eq. (3) can be solved numerically. Here, for the sake of simplicity, we use a variational Gaussian ansatz for the quark wave function given by the analytical form:

$`u_0(\stackrel{}{x})=N\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{x}^2}{2R^2}}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ i\rho \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{x}}{R}\end{array}\right)\chi _s\chi _f\chi _c,`$ (6)
where $`N=[\pi ^{3/2}R^3(1+3\rho ^2/2)]^{1/2}`$ is a constant fixed by the normalization condition $`d^3xu_0^{}(\stackrel{}{x})u_0(\stackrel{}{x})1`$; $`\chi _s`$, $`\chi _f`$, $`\chi _c`$ are the spin, flavor and color quark wave functions, respectively. Our Gaussian ansatz contains two model parameters: the dimensional parameter R and the dimensionless parameter $`\rho `$. The parameter $`\rho `$ can be related to the axial coupling constant $`g_A`$ calculated in zeroth-order (or 3q-core) approximation:

$`g_A={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho ^2}{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\gamma }{3}},`$ (7)
where $`\gamma =9g_A/101/2`$. The parameter R can be physically understood as the mean radius of the three-quark core and is related to the charge radius $`r_E^2_{LO}^p`$ of the proton in the leading-order (LO) approximation as

$`r_E^2_{LO}^p={\displaystyle \frac{3R^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{5}{2}\rho ^2}{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}}=R^2\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\right).`$ (8)
In our calculations we use the value $`g_A`$ = 1.25. We therefore have only one free parameter, that is R. In the final numerical evaluation R is varied in the region from 0.55 fm to 0.65 fm, which is sufficiently large to justify perturbation theory.

In the PCQM confinement is introduced as a static mean field potential, hence covariance cannot be fulfilled. As a consequence matrix elements are frame dependent: both Galilei invariance of the zeroth order baryon wave functions and Lorentz boost effects, when considering finite momenta transfers, are neglected. Approximate techniques birse ; luthomas  have been developed to account for these deficiencies in static potential models. However, these techniques do not always agree and lead to further ambiguities in model evaluations. Furthermore, existing Galilean projection techniques are known to lead to conflicts with chiral symmetry constraints lgfd01 . In the present manuscript we completely neglect the study of these additional model dependent effects. We focus on the role of meson loops, which, as was shown in the context of the cloudy bag model luthomas , are not plagued by these additional uncertainties.

### 2.2 Renormalization of the PCQM and perturbation theory

We consider perturbation theory up to one meson loop and up to terms linear in the current quark mass. The formalism utilizes a renormalization technique, which, by introduction of counterterms, effectively reduces the number of Feynman diagrams to be evaluated. For details of this technique we refer to the Ref. lgf01 . Here we briefly describe the basic ingredients relevant for the further discussion. We define the renormalized current quark masses, $`\widehat{m}^r`$ and $`m_s^r`$ and the renormalization constants, $`\widehat{Z}`$ and $`Z_s`$ as :

$`\widehat{m}^r`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{m}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{400\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4F_{\pi NN}(p^2)`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{9}{w_\pi ^2(p^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{w_K^2(p^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w_\eta ^2(p^2)}}\right\},`$
$`m_s^r`$ $`=`$ $`m_s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{400\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4F_{\pi NN}(p^2)`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{12}{w_K^2(p^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{w_\eta ^2(p^2)}}\right\},`$
$`\widehat{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{400}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4F_{\pi NN}(p^2)`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{9}{w_\pi ^3(p^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{w_K^3(p^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w_\eta ^3(p^2)}}\right\},`$
$`Z_s`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{400}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4F_{\pi NN}(p^2)`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{12}{w_K^3(p^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{w_\eta ^3(p^2)}}\right\}.`$
For a meson with three-momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ the meson energy is $`w_\mathrm{\Phi }(p^2)=\sqrt{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2+p^2}`$ with $`p=|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ and $`F_{\pi NN}(p^2)`$ is the $`\pi NN`$ form factor normalized to unity at zero recoil ($`\stackrel{}{p}=0`$) :

$`F_{\pi NN}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{p^2R^2}{4}})\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2R^2}{8}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3g_A}})\}.`$ (13)
By adding the renormalized current quark mass term to the Dirac equation of Eq. (3) we obtain the renormalized quark field $`\psi ^r`$ as :

$`\psi _i^r(x;m_i^r)=b_0u_0^r(\stackrel{}{x};m_i^r)\mathrm{exp}[i_0^r(m_i^r)t],`$ (14)
where $`i`$ is the flavor SU(3) index. The renormalized single quark WF $`u_0^r(\stackrel{}{x};m_i^r)`$ and energy $`_0^r(m_i^r)`$ are related to the bare expressions $`u_0(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and $`_0`$ as :

$`u_0^r(\stackrel{}{x};m_i^r)`$ $`=`$ $`u_0(\stackrel{}{x})+\delta u_0(\stackrel{}{x};m_i^r),`$ (15)
$`_0^r(m_i^r)`$ $`=`$ $`_0+\delta _0^r(m_i^r),`$ (16)
where

$`\delta u_0(\stackrel{}{x};m_i^r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^r}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho R}{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}}`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{21}{4}\rho ^2}{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{x}^2}{R^2}}+\gamma ^0\right)u_0(\stackrel{}{x}),`$
$`\delta _0^r(m_i^r)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma m_i^r.`$ (18)
Introduction of the electromagnetic field $`A_\mu `$ is accomplished by adding the kinetic energy term and by standard minimal substitution in the Lagrangian of Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) with

$`_\mu \psi ^r`$ $``$ $`D_\mu \psi ^r=_\mu \psi ^r+ieQA_\mu \psi ^r,`$ (19)
$`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ $``$ $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i+e\left[f_{3ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{8ij}}{\sqrt{3}}}\right]A_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_j,`$ (20)
where $`Q`$ is the quark charge matrix and $`f_{ijk}`$ are the totally antisymmetric structure constants of SU(3). The renormalized effective Lagrangian is obtained from the original one of Eqs. (1) and (2) by replacing $`\psi `$ with $`\psi ^r`$, adding the counterterms and by standard minimal substitution. From this we derive the electromagnetic renormalized current operator as :

$`j_r^\mu =j_{\psi ^r}^\mu +j_\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu +\delta j_{\psi ^r}^\mu .`$ (21)
It contains the quark component $`j_{\psi ^r}^\mu `$, the charged meson component $`j_\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu `$, and the contribution of the counterterm $`\delta j_{\psi ^r}^\mu `$ :

$`j_{\psi ^r}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }^r\gamma ^\mu Q\psi ^r`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[2\overline{u}^r\gamma ^\mu u^r\overline{d}^r\gamma ^\mu d^r\overline{s}^r\gamma ^\mu s^r\right],`$
$`j_\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left[f_{3ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{8ij}}{\sqrt{3}}}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`[\pi ^{}i^\mu \pi ^+\pi ^+i^\mu \pi ^{}`$
$`+`$ $`K^{}i^\mu K^+K^+i^\mu K^{}],`$
$`\delta j_{\psi ^r}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }^r(Z1)\gamma ^\mu Q\psi ^r`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[2\overline{u}^r(\widehat{Z}1)\gamma ^\mu u^r\overline{d}^r(\widehat{Z}1)\gamma ^\mu d^r`$
$``$ $`\overline{s}^r(Z_s1)\gamma ^\mu s^r].`$
Following the Gell-Mann and Low theorem we define the expectation value of an operator $`\widehat{O}`$ for the renormalized PCQM by

$`<\widehat{O}>`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{B}<\varphi _0|{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle }i\delta (t_1)d^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_n`$ (25)
$`\times `$ $`T[_r^{str}(x_1)\mathrm{}_r^{str}(x_n)\widehat{O}]|\varphi _0>_c^B.`$
In Eq. (25) the superscript $`B`$ indicates that the matrix elements are projected on the respective baryon states, the subscript c refers to contributions from connected graphs only and the renormalized strong interaction Lagrangian $`_r^{str}`$, which is treated as a perturbation, is defined as

$`_r^{str}=_I^{str}+\delta ^{str},`$ (26)
where

$`_I^{str}=\overline{\psi }^r(x)i\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)}{F}}S(r)\psi ^r(x).`$ (27)
$`\delta ^{str}`$ is the strong interaction part of the counterterms (see details in Ref. lgf01 ). We evaluate Eq. (25) at one loop to the order $`o(1/F^2)`$ using Wick’s theorem and the appropriate propagators. For the quark field we use a Feymann propagator for a fermion in a binding potential with

$`iG_\psi (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`<0|T\{\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)\}|0>`$
$`=`$ $`\theta (x_0y_0){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}u_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})\overline{u}_\alpha (\stackrel{}{y})e^{i_\alpha (x_0y_0)}`$
$``$ $`\theta (y_0x_0){\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}v_\beta (\stackrel{}{x})\overline{v}_\beta (\stackrel{}{y})e^{i_\beta (x_0y_0)}.`$
Up to order of accuracy we are working in it is sufficient to use $`G_\psi (x,y)`$ instead of $`G_{\psi ^r}(x,y)`$ where renormalized quark fields are used. By restricting the summation over intermediate quark states to the ground state we get

$`iG_\psi (x,y)`$ $``$ $`iG_\psi ^{(0)}(x,y)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`u_0(\stackrel{}{x})\overline{u}_0(\stackrel{}{y})e^{i_0(x_0y_0)}\theta (x_0y_0).`$
Such a truncation can be considered as an additional regularization of the quark propagator, where in the case of SU(2)-flavor intermediate baryon states in loop-diagrams are restricted to $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. From our previous works lgf01 -plgfc02  we conclude that the use of a truncated quark propagator leads to a reasonable description of experimental data. In Ref. plgfc02  we included, for the first time, excited quark states in the propagator of Eq. (2.2) and analyzed their influence on the matrix elements for the $`N`$-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transitions considered. We included the following set of excited quark states: the first $`p`$-states ($`1p_{1/2}`$ and $`1p_{3/2}`$ in the non-relativistic notation) and the second excited states ($`1d_{3/2},1d_{5/2}`$ and $`2s_{1/2}`$). Again, we solved the Dirac equation analytically for the same form of the effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=S(r)+\gamma ^0V(r)`$ as was done for the ground state. The corresponding expressions for the wave functions of the excited quark states are given in the Appendix. In Ref. plgfc02  we demonstrated that the excited quark states can increase the contribution of the loop diagrams but in comparison to the leading order (thee-quark core) diagram this effect was of the order of $`10\%`$. In the context of the electromagnetic properties of baryons, we also estimated the effect of exited states, which again is of the order of $`10\%`$. However, there are quantities (like, e.g., the charge radius of neutron) which are dominated by higher-order effects. Particularly, in the $`SU(2)`$ flavor limit there is no three-quark core diagram contributing to this quantity. Only meson-loop diagram contribute to the neutron charge radius in the context of the PCQM and, therefore, the effects of excited states can be essential. In this paper (see Sec.4) we discuss the effects of excited states only for the neutron charge radius. We found that these effects considerably improved our prediction for the neutron charge radius close to the experimental result.

For the meson fields we use the free Feymann propagator for a boson with

$`i\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(xy)`$ $`=`$ $`<0|T\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_j(y)\}|0>`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4i}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[ik(xy)]}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2k^2iϵ}}.`$
## 3 Electromagnetic form factors of the baryon octet

We define the electromagnetic form factors of the baryon in the Breit frame, where gauge invariance is fulfilled lgf01 . In this frame the initial momentum of the baryon is $`p=(E,\stackrel{}{q}/2+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$, the final momentum is $`p^{}=(E,\stackrel{}{q}/2+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$, and the four-momentum of the photon is $`q=(0,\stackrel{}{q})`$ with $`p^{}=p+q`$. For identical baryons we have $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0`$. With the space-like momentum transfer squared given as $`Q^2=q^2=\stackrel{}{q}^2`$, we define the Sachs charge $`G_E^B`$ and magnetic $`G_M^B`$ form factors of the baryon as

$`<B_s^{}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{2}}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ $`|`$ $`J^0(0)|B_s({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{2}}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})>`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\chi _{B_s^{}^{}}^{}\chi _{B_s}G_E^B(Q^2),`$
$`<B_s^{}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{2}}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ $`|`$ $`\stackrel{}{J}(0)|B_s({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{2}}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }})>`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`\chi _{B_s^{}^{}}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_B\times \stackrel{}{q}}{m_B+m_B^{}}}\chi _{B_s}G_M^B(Q^2).`$
Here, $`J^0(0)`$and $`\stackrel{}{J}(0)`$ are the time and space components of the electromagnetic current operator; $`\chi _{B_s}`$ and $`\chi _{B_s^{}^{}}^{}`$ are the baryon spin WF in the initial and final states; $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_B`$ is the baryon spin matrix. Electromagnetic gauge invariance both on the Lagrangian and the baryon level is fulfilled in the Breit frame lgf01 .

At zero recoil $`(q^2=0)`$ the Sachs form factors satisfy the following normalization conditions:

$`G_E^B(0)=Q_B,G_M^B(0)=\mu _B,`$ (33)
where $`Q_B`$ and $`\mu _B`$ are charge and magnetic moment of the baryon octet, respectively.

The charge and magnetic radii of baryons are given by

$`r_{E,M}^2^B={\displaystyle \frac{6}{G_{E,M}^B(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}G_{E,M}^B(Q^2)|_{Q^2=0}.`$ (34)
For neutral particles $`(Q_B=0)`$ the charge radius is defined by

$`r_E^2^B=6{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}G_E^B(Q^2)|_{Q^2=0}.`$ (35)
In the PCQM the charge and magnetic form factors of the baryon octet are given as

$`\chi _s^{}^{}\chi _sG_E^B(Q^2)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`<\varphi _0|{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \delta (t)d^4xd^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_ne^{iqx}}`$
$`\times `$ $`T[_r^{str}(x_1)\mathrm{}_r^{str}(x_n)j_r^0(x)]|\varphi _0>_c^B,`$
$`\chi _s^{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_B\times \stackrel{}{q}}{m_B+m_B^{}}}\chi _sG_M^B(Q^2)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`<\varphi _0|{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \delta (t)d^4xd^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_ne^{iqx}}`$
$`\times `$ $`T[_r^{str}(x_1)\mathrm{}_r^{str}(x_n)\stackrel{}{j}_r(x)]|\varphi _0>_c^B.`$
The relevant diagrams contributing to the charge and magnetic form factors are indicated in Fig. 1. In the following we give the analytical expressions for the respective diagrams.

1. Three-quark diagram (3q):

$`G_{E,M}^B(Q^2)|_{3q}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{E,M}^B(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}+G_{E,M}^B(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{NLO}},`$ (38)
where $`G_{E,M}^B(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ are the leading-order (LO) terms of the three-quark diagram evaluated with the unperturbed quark WF $`u_0(\stackrel{}{x});G_{E,M}^B(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ is a correction due to the modification of the quark WF $`u_0(\stackrel{}{x})u_0^r(\stackrel{}{x};m_i^r)`$ referred to as next-to-leading order (NLO):

$`G_E^B(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1^BG_E^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}},`$ (39)
$`G_M^B(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`b_1^B{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_N}}G_M^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}},`$ (40)
$`G_E^B(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_2^B+a_3^B\epsilon \right)G_E^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{NLO}},`$ (41)
$`G_M^B(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(b_2^B+b_3^B\epsilon \right){\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_N}}G_M^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{NLO}},`$ (42)
where

$`G_E^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2R^2}{4}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2R^2\rho ^2}{4(1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2)}}\right),`$ (43)
$`G_E^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2R^2}{4}}\right)\widehat{m}^r{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2R^3\rho }{4\left(1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2\right)^2}}`$ (44)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+7\rho ^2+\frac{15}{4}\rho ^4}{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2R^2}{4}}\rho ^2\right),`$
$`G_M^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2R^2}{4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2m_N\rho R}{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}},`$ (45)
$`G_M^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{NLO}}`$ $`=`$ $`G_M^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{m}^rR\rho }{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}}`$ (46)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2R^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}}\right),`$
and $`\epsilon `$ = $`m_s^r`$/$`\widehat{m}^r`$. The constants $`a_i^B`$ and $`b_i^B`$ are given in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. When using isospin symmetry we use for $`m_B`$, the baryon masses, following values

$`m_N`$ $`=`$ $`m_p=m_n=0.938\text{GeV},`$
$`m_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm }=m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}=1.189\text{GeV},`$
$`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`1.115\text{GeV},`$ (47)
$`m_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}=m_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=1.321\text{GeV},`$
$`m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_\mathrm{\Sigma }+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=1.152\text{GeV}.`$
2. Three-quark counterterm (CT):

$`G_E^B(Q^2)|_{\mathrm{CT}}`$ $`=`$ $`[a_2^B(\widehat{Z}1)`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`a_3^B(Z_s1)]G^p_E(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}},`$
$`G_M^B(Q^2)|_{\mathrm{CT}}`$ $`=`$ $`[b_2^B(\widehat{Z}1)`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`b_3^B(Z_s1)]{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_N}}G^p_M(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}.`$
3. Meson-cloud diagram (MC):

$`G_E^B(Q^2)|_{\mathrm{MC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{400}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^2{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x`$ (50)
$`\times `$ $`\left(p^2+p\sqrt{Q^2}x\right)_{\pi NN}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$
$`\times `$ $`t_E^B(p^2,Q^2,x)|_{\mathrm{MC}},`$
$`G_M^B(Q^2)|_{\mathrm{MC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{40}}m_B\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x`$ (51)
$`\times `$ $`(1x^2)_{\pi NN}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$
$`\times `$ $`t_M^B(p^2,Q^2,x)|_{\mathrm{MC}},`$
where

$`_{\pi NN}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\pi NN}(p^2)F_{\pi NN}(p_+^2),`$
$`t_E^B(p^2,Q^2,x)|_{\mathrm{MC}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_4^BC_\pi ^{11}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$
$`+`$ $`a_5^BC_K^{11}(p^2,Q^2,x),`$
$`t_M^B(p^2,Q^2,x)|_{\mathrm{MC}}`$ $`=`$ $`b_4^BD_\pi ^{22}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`b_5^BD_K^{22}(p^2,Q^2,x),`$
$`D_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_1n_2}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_1}(p^2)w_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_2}(p_+^2)}},`$
$`C_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_1n_2}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2D_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_1n_2}(p^2,Q^2,x)}{w_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_1}(p^2)+w_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_2}(p_+^2)}},`$
$`p_\pm ^2`$ $`=`$ $`p^2+Q^2\pm 2p\sqrt{Q^2}.`$
4. Vertex-correction diagram (VC):

$`G_E^B(Q^2)|_{\mathrm{VC}}`$ $`=`$ $`G_E^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{200}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2`$ (53)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4F_{\pi NN}^2(p^2)t_E^B(p^2)|_{\mathrm{VC}},`$
$`G_M^B(Q^2)|_{\mathrm{VC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_N}}G_M^p(Q^2)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{200}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2`$ (54)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4F_{\pi NN}^2(p^2)t_M^B(p^2)|_{\mathrm{VC}},`$
where

$`t_E^B(p^2)|_{\mathrm{VC}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_6^BW_\pi (p^2)+a_7^BW_K(p^2)`$
$`+`$ $`a_8^BW_\eta (p^2),`$
$`t_M^B(p^2)|_{\mathrm{VC}}`$ $`=`$ $`b_6^BW_\pi (p^2)+b_7^BW_K(p^2)`$
$`+`$ $`b_8^BW_\eta (p^2),`$
$`W_\mathrm{\Phi }(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w_\mathrm{\Phi }^3(p^2)}}.`$
5. Meson-in-flight diagram (MF):

$`G_E^B(Q^2)|_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (56)
$`G_M^B(Q^2)|_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{100}}m_B\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4`$ (57)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x(1x^2)_{\pi NN}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$
$`\times `$ $`t_M^B(p^2,Q^2,x)|_{\mathrm{MF}},`$
where

$`t_M^B(p^2,Q^2,x)|_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`=`$ $`b_9^BD_\pi ^{22}(p^2,Q^2,x)`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`b_{10}^BD_K^{22}(p^2,Q^2,x).`$
Due to the use of a static potential the meson-in-flight diagram does not contribute to the charge baryon form factors.

The magnetic moments $`\mu _B`$ of the baryon octet are given by the expression (in units of the nucleon magneton $`\mu _N`$)

$`\mu _B`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _B^{\mathrm{LO}}[1+\delta (b_2^B+b_3^B\epsilon )`$ (59)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{400}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4F_{\pi NN}(p^2)`$
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^B}{w_\pi ^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^B}{w_K^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_3^B}{w_\eta ^3}}\}]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{50}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{\pi F}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^4F_{\pi NN}(p^2)`$
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_4^B}{w_\pi ^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_5^B}{w_K^4}}\right\},`$
where

$`\mu _B^{\mathrm{LO}}=b_1^B{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_N}}G_M^p(0)|_{3q}^{\mathrm{LO}}=b_1^B{\displaystyle \frac{2m_B\rho R}{1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}}`$ (60)
is the leading-order contribution to the baryon magnetic moment. The factor

$`\delta =\widehat{m}^rR\rho {\displaystyle \frac{2\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2}{\left(1+\frac{3}{2}\rho ^2\right)^2}}`$ (61)
defines the NLO correction to the baryon magnetic moments due to the modification of the quark wave function (see Eq. (17)). The constants $`k_i^B`$ are given in Table 3.

## 4 Numerical Results

Numerical results for the magnetic moments, charge and magnetic radii of the baryon octet are given in Tables 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The total results for the electromagnetic properties are separated into three parts: 1) the leading-order (3q\[LO\]) result due to the three quark core contribution; 2) the corrections (3q\[NLO + CT\]) to the three quark core contribution due to the renormalization of the quark WF (NLO) and the three-quark counterterm (CT) and 3) the effects of meson loops. The meson loop contributions include the meson-cloud (MC), the vertex-correction (VC), and the meson-in-flight (MF) diagrams. Experimental data are given in the last column of Tables. As was already mentioned, for a static potential the meson-in-flight diagram does not contribute to the baryon charge form factor. The range of our numerical results is due to variation of the size parameter R in the region 0.55 - 0.65 fm. The mesonic contributions to the baryon magnetic moments are of the order of 20 - 40 % (except for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ they contribute only 3 %). Hence, meson cloud corrections generate a significant influence on baryon magnetic moments. Our results for the baryon magnetic moments are in good agreement with the experimental data. Mesonic contributions to the charge radii of charged baryons are also of 20 - 40 % (except for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ where they contribute less than 1 %). We predict that

$`r_E^2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}>r_E^2^p>r_E^2^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}>r_E^2^\mathrm{\Xi }^{}.`$ (62)
Our result for the proton and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ charge radii squared are in good agreement with the experimental data. In the isospin limit the three-quark core does not contribute to the charge radii of neutral baryons. Only the meson cloud generates a nonvanishing value for the charge radii of these baryons. Since we restrict the quark propagator to the ground state contribution the meson-cloud effects give a small value for the neutron charge radius squared. We found that the result of the neutron charge radius can be improved by including excited states in the quark propagator. In Table 5 we give a comparison of our results for the neutron charge radius squared with the experimental value. The value, where the quark propagator is restricted to the ground state, is indicated by $`r_E^2^n`$(GS). Contributions from excited states (we have use $`1p_{1/2}`$, $`1p_{3/2}`$, $`1d_{3/2}`$, $`1d_{5/2}`$ and $`2s_{1/2}`$) are denoted by $`r_E^2^n`$(ES). Exemplified for the neutron charge radius, we conclude that excited state contributions can also generate sizable corrections when the LO results is vanishing. This result should be viewed as a first indication that excited quark state contributions are influential in ultimately determining observables which are dominated by loop diagrams. At this level a truncation following the $`2s_{1/2}`$ state is not necessarily justified by convergence arguments. An additional scale set by the finite size of the mesons should be introduced to restrict the contribution of intermediate excited quark states. In a further effort we intend to improve our calculations to the whole baryon octet by adding the excited states to the quark propagator and investigating its convergence properties. For $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ we predict that their charge radii squared have a positive sign and follow the pattern

$`r_E^2^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}>r_E^2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0},r_E^2^\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (63)
The mesons also play a very important role for the baryon magnetic radii where they contribute up to 50 %. Our result for the magnetic radius of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is quite small compared to the other’s because the meson-cloud contribution comes with a negative sign. Results for the magnetic radii squared of the proton and neutron are in good agreement with the experimental data.

The $`Q^2`$-dependence (up to 0.4 GeV<sup>2</sup>) of the charge and magnetic form factors are shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Due to the lack of covariance, the form factors can be expected to be reasonable up to $`Q^2<𝐩^2=0.4`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, where $`𝐩`$ is the typical three-momentum transfer which defines the region where relativistic effects $`10\%`$ or where the following inequality $`𝐩^2/(4m_N^2)<0.1`$ is fulfilled. In Fig. 3 we compare our result for the neutron charge form factor to the experimental data varying the parameter $`R`$. Results are given for the case, where the quark propagator is restricted to the ground state. We separate the graphs for the charged and neutral baryons by using a proper normalization and compare to the experimental dipole fit, originally obtained for nucleon given by

$`G_D(Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+Q^2/0.71\text{GeV}^2)^2}}.`$ (64)
There are also detailed analyses of the electromagnetic properties (magnetic moments, radii, form factors) of the baryon octet in literature. Because we are in the position to improve our formalism we relegate a detailed comparison to other theoretical approaches in our forthcoming paper. We just mention the recent papers Kubis\_Meissner1 ; Kubis\_Meissner2  where a comprehensive analysis of baryon form factors (nucleons Kubis\_Meissner1  and baryon octet Kubis\_Meissner2 ) was performed in the context of relativistic baryon chiral perturbation theory.

## 5 Summary

We apply the PCQM to calculate the charge and magnetic form factors of the baryon octet up to one loop perturbation theory. Furthermore, we analyze the magnetic moments, charge and magnetic radii. Since the PCQM is a static model, Lorentz covariance cannot be fulfilled. Approximate techniques to account for Galilei invariance and Lorentz boost effects were shown to change the tree level results by about 10 % luthomas . Higher order, that is loop contributions, are less sensitive to these corrections. We demonstrated that meson cloud corrections play a sizable and important role in reproducing the experimental values both for magnetic moments and for the charge and magnetic radii. The magnetic moments of the baryon octet can be reproduced rather well. Also, charge and magnetic radii are explained with the PCQM, when the LO contribution, that is the valence quarks, dominates as soon as the LO result vanishes, meson cloud corrections which then control the observable tend to be sensitively influenced by the possible contributions of excited states in the loop diagrams. We demonstrated this effect for the case of the neutron charge radius, where inclusion of the excited states tend to improve the model result. Further investigations, which concern the role of excited states in calculating baryon observables are currently in progress.

In order to improve our model we are currently pursuing following aspects. First, we intend to improve our calculations to the whole baryon octet by adding the excited states to the quark propagator and investigating its convergence properties. Second, in order to improve the $`Q^2`$-dependence of baryonic form factors we intend to include short-distance effects in addition to the light-meson cloud contributions which are important only at very low $`Q^2`$. These short-distance effects might be taken into account by the use of low energy constants (LECs) as in chiral perturbation theory or by the use of additional vector meson contributions as is well known to improve the intermediate $`Q^2`$-dependence.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the DFG (Grant Nos. FA67/25-3, GRK 683). S.Cheedket and Y.Yan acknowledge the support of the DAAD (Grant No. a/00/27860) and Thailand Research Fund (TRF, Grant No. RGJ PHD/00165/2541). K.P. thanks the Development and Promotion of Science and Technology Talent Project (DPST), Thailand for financial support.

## Appendix A Solutions of the Dirac equation for the effective potential

We state here again the variational Gaussian ansatz in Eq. (6)

$$u_0(\stackrel{}{x})=N\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{x}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2R^2}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ i\rho \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{x}/R\end{array}\right)\chi _s\chi _f\chi _c,$$
(65)
This ansatz, when put back into the Dirac equation, restricts the form of the effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ to be (note that $`r=|\stackrel{}{x}|`$)

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=S(r)+\gamma ^0V(r)$$
(66)
where the scalar $`S(r)`$ and time-like vector $`V(r)`$ parts are given by

$`S(r)`$ $`=`$ $`M_1+c_1r^2,`$
$`V(r)`$ $`=`$ $`M_2+c_2r^2,`$ (67)
in which $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\rho ^2}{2\rho R}},M_2=_0{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\rho ^2}{2\rho R}},`$
$`c_1`$ $``$ $`c_2={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2R^3}}.`$ (68)
This specific choice of $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ from the variational Gaussian ansatz will be used in obtaining the quark WF in any state. The quark WF $`u_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})`$ in state $`\alpha `$ with eigenenergy $`_\alpha `$ satisfies the Dirac equation

$$[i\alpha +\beta S(r)+V(r)_\alpha ]u_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})=0.$$
(69)
Due to our choice of the $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ the Dirac equation can be solved analytically and the solutions of the Dirac spinor $`u_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})`$ to Eq. (69) can be written in the form Tegen

$$u_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})=N_\alpha \left(\begin{array}{c}g_\alpha (r)\\ i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}}f_\alpha (r)\end{array}\right)𝒴_\alpha (\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}})\chi _f\chi _c.$$
(70)
The radial functions $`g_\alpha (r)`$ and $`f_\alpha (r)`$ has the explicit form

$$g_\alpha (r)=\left(\frac{r}{R_\alpha }\right)^lL_{n1}^{l+1/2}\left(\frac{r^2}{R_\alpha ^2}\right)e^{\frac{r^2}{2R_\alpha ^2}},$$
(71)
where for $`j=l+\frac{1}{2}`$

$`f_\alpha (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R_\alpha }}\right)^{l+1}[L_{n1}^{l+3/2}({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R_\alpha ^2}})`$ (72)
$`+`$ $`L_{n2}^{l+3/2}({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R_\alpha ^2}})]e^{\frac{r^2}{2R_\alpha ^2}},`$
and for $`j=l\frac{1}{2}`$

$`f_\alpha (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R_\alpha }}\right)^{l1}[(n+l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})L_{n1}^{l1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R_\alpha ^2}})`$ (73)
$`+`$ $`nL_n^{l1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R_\alpha ^2}})]e^{\frac{r^2}{2R_\alpha ^2}}.`$
The label $`\alpha =(nljm)`$ characterizes the state with principle quantum number $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, orbital angular momentum $`l`$, total angular momentum $`j=l\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and projection $`m`$. Due to the quadratic nature of the potential the radial wave functions contain the associated Laguerre polynomials $`L_n^k(x)`$ with

$$L_n^k(x)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^m\frac{(n+k)!}{(nm)!(k+m)!m!}x^m.$$
(74)
The angular dependence $`𝒴_\alpha (\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}})𝒴_{lmj}(\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}})`$ is defined by

$$𝒴_{lmj}(\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}})=\underset{m_l,m_s}{}(lm_l\frac{1}{2}m_s|jm)Y_{lm_l}(\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}})\chi _{\frac{1}{2}m_s}$$
(75)
where $`Y_{lm_l}(\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}})`$ is the usual spherical harmonic. $`\chi _f`$ and $`\chi _c`$ are the flavor and color part of the Dirac spinor, respectively.

The coefficients $`R_\alpha `$ and $`\rho _\alpha `$ which are belong to the $`\alpha `$ state are of the form

$`R_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`R(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha \rho R)^{1/4},`$ (76)
$`\rho _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{R_\alpha }{R}}\right)^3`$
and are related to the Gaussian parameters $`\rho `$, $`R`$ of Eq. (65). Here we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha =_\alpha _0`$ to be the difference between the energy of state $`\alpha `$ and the ground state. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha `$ depends on the quantum numbers $`n`$ and $`l`$ and is related to the parameters $`\rho `$ and $`R`$ by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha +\frac{3\rho }{R})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha +\frac{1}{\rho R})=\frac{\rho }{R^3}(4n+2l1)^2.$$
(77)
The normalization condition is

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d^3xu_\alpha ^{}(\stackrel{}{x})u_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})=1$$
(78)
with this condition the normalization constant $`N_\alpha `$ is of the form

$`N_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`[2^{2(n+l+1/2)}\pi ^{1/2}R_\alpha ^3{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+2l)!}{(n+l)!(n1)!}}`$ (79)
$`\times `$ $`\{1+\rho _\alpha ^2(2n+l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\}]^{1/2}.`$