text:
# Exclusive electroproduction of lepton pairs as a probe of nucleon structure

## Abstract

We suggest the measurement of exclusive electroproduction of lepton pairs as a tool to study inter-parton correlations in the nucleon via generalized parton distributions in the kinematical region where this process is light-cone dominated. We demonstrate how the single beam-spin asymmetry allows to perform such kind of analysis and give a number of predictions for several experimental setups. We comment on other observables which allow for a clean separation of different species of generalized parton distributions.

preprint: DOE/ER/40762-270 UMD-PP#03-024

Since the discovery of a non-zero spatial extent of the proton in pioneering measurements of electromagnetic form factors HofMcA51 , the exploration of the hadron’s internal structure in terms of quark-gluon degrees of freedom was the subject of intensive theoretical and experimental studies. Until recently, however, only information on one-dimensional slices of the nucleon was extractable from hadronic observables: The spatial charge and magnetization distributions from the form factors alluded to the above; the $`x`$-momentum fraction space parton densities from inclusive reactions, e.g., deeply inelastic scattering of leptons off hadrons Breetal69 . With the realization of the power of exclusive reactions MueRobGeyDitHor94 , the opportunity of nucleon holography BelMul02  was brought to life; namely, the simultaneous measurement of the longitudinal momentum fraction of partons and their transverse localization within the area of resolution set by the photon virtuality Bur00  (see also RalPir01 ; Die02 ). The corresponding hadronic characteristics, known as generalized parton distributions (GPDs), intertwine the aforementioned conventional hadronic functions. However, they also depend on an extra variable: the $`t`$-channel longitudinal momentum fraction $`\eta `$, the so-called skewedness, which changes the apportion of longitudinal momentum between the absorbed, $`(x\eta )`$, and created, $`(x+\eta )`$, partons. Thus, GPDs, contrary to conventional Feynman’s parton densities, give access to inter-parton correlations rather than mere probabilities through the study of skewedness dependence.

The pioneering experimental study of these new functions at HERMES Aip01 , CLAS Ste01  and HERA Adl01  has been done through the exclusive leptoproduction of the real photon off the proton $`\mathrm{}p\mathrm{}^{}\gamma p^{}`$ at high momentum transfer. This process is sensitive to deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) amplitude (see Eq. (4)) parametrized in terms of GPDs. The latter enter also in the leptoproduction of mesons, i.e., $`\mathrm{}p\mathrm{}^{}Mp^{}`$. Single lepton and nucleon spin asymmetries GouDiePirRal97 ; BelMulKir01  in the former case allow the direct measurement of GPDs, however, in a very specific kinematics, namely, $`x=\eta `$. This restriction is a direct consequence of the reality of the outgoing photon. Such a measurement is unable to constrain the spin sum rule involving the parton’s orbital momentum Ji96 . Here a processes is needed where the momentum fraction varies independently of the skewedness. This can be achieved by the relaxation of the reality condition for the photon in the final state, i.e., by the measurement of lepton pairs produced from a timelike $`\gamma `$-quantum in the elastic electron scattering $`epe^{}p^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ BelMulKir01 ; GuiVan02 ; see also Ref. BerDiePir01  for a related reaction.

The differential cross section for the process in the kinematics displayed in Fig. 1 reads

$$d\sigma =\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^4}{16(2\pi )^3}\frac{x_\mathrm{B}y}{𝒬^2}|𝒜|^2dx_\mathrm{B}dyd|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|d\varphi dM_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(1)
The incoming photon virtuality and the invariant mass of the lepton pair are $`q_1^2𝒬^2`$ and $`M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2=(\mathrm{}_++\mathrm{}_{})^2`$, respectively. The Bjorken variable and the lepton energy loss is defined conventionally as $`x_\mathrm{B}𝒬^2/(2p_1q_1)`$ and $`ypq_1/pk`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=(p_2p_1)^2`$ is the $`t`$-channel momentum transfer. The solid angle of the lepton pair in the photon rest frame is $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}d\theta _{\mathrm{}}d\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$. $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle between the lepton and hadron scattering planes and plays a distinguished role below. The amplitude $`𝒜`$ represents the sum of the signal in question and “contaminating” Bethe-Heitler processes,

$$𝒜=𝒜_{\mathrm{VCS}}+𝒜_{\mathrm{BH}_1}+𝒜_{\mathrm{BH}_2},$$
(2)
corresponding to the first, second and third diagrams in Fig. 2, respectively. The latter two are expressed in terms of the Dirac and Pauli form factors parametrizing the nucleon matrix element of the quark electromagnetic current,

$$J_\mu =\overline{u}_2\left(\gamma _\mu F_1+\frac{i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu }{2M_N}F_2\right)(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)u_1,$$
(3)
with $`u_i`$ being the nucleon bispinor $`u_iu(p_i)`$. As we already mentioned above, they are measurable elsewhere, see, e.g., Gay01  for the most recent results.

The gauge invariant decomposition of the hadronic tensor contributing to $`𝒜_{\mathrm{VCS}}`$ was found in Ref. BelMul00  by an explicit twist-three analysis at leading order of perturbation theory. To leading twist accuracy, it reads

$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4z\mathrm{e}^{iqz}p_2|T\left\{j_\mu (z/2)j_\nu (z/2)\right\}|p_1}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2pq}}ϵ_{\theta \lambda \rho \sigma }p_\rho q_\sigma \left(g_{\mu \theta }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu q_{2\theta }}{pq_2}}\right)\left(g_{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\nu q_{1\lambda }}{pq_1}}\right)𝒜_1(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q_{1\mu }q_{2\nu }}{q_1q_2}}\right)𝒱_1(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2pq}}\left(p_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{pq_2}{q_1q_2}}q_{1\mu }\right)\left(p_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{pq_1}{q_1q_2}}q_{2\nu }\right)𝒱_2(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2).`$
Here the symmetrized combinations of momenta $`q(q_1+q_2)/2`$ and $`pp_1+p_2`$ are used to define the generalized Bjorken variable $`\xi `$ and skewedness parameter $`\eta `$:

$`\xi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{pq}}=x_\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2/2}{\left(2x_\mathrm{B}\right)𝒬^2x_\mathrm{B}\left(M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)}},`$ (5)
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }q}{pq}}=\xi {\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2+M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2}{𝒬^2M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2/2}}.`$ (6)
Since the light-cone dominance in Eq. (4) is set by the average virtuality $`q^2`$ at small $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and moderate $`x_\mathrm{B}`$, the perturbative QCD approach is applicable provided

$$|q^2|\left|𝒬^2M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2/2\right|/21\mathrm{GeV}^2.$$
(7)
It is lost for $`𝒬^2M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2`$, which implies, according to Eq. (5), that $`\xi `$ approaches zero. The minimal allowed value is set by $`|\xi _{\mathrm{min}}|1\mathrm{GeV}^2/ys`$, where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the center-of-mass energy. In the light-cone dominated region (7), the Compton form factors factorize into calculable coefficient functions and GPDs. To leading order in coupling constant the Compton form factors satisfy the generalized Callan-Gross relation

$$𝒱_2=\xi 𝒱_1.$$
(8)
Performing the Dirac decomposition one gets

$`𝒱_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_2{\displaystyle 𝑑xC_{}(x,\xi )\left(\gamma _+H+\frac{i\sigma _{+\nu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu }{2M_N}E\right)(x,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)u_1},`$
$`𝒜_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_2{\displaystyle 𝑑xC_+(x,\xi )\left(\gamma _+\gamma _5\stackrel{~}{H}+\frac{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Delta }_+}{2M_N}\stackrel{~}{E}\right)(x,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)u_1},`$
in terms of GPDs $`H`$, $`E`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ MueRobGeyDitHor94 . The plus subscript stands for the contraction of the corresponding Lorentz index with the light-like vector $`n_\mu =\xi (2q_\mu +\xi p_\mu )/q^2`$, which projects out the leading power contribution. From here, one immediately sees the difficulty to measure these functions: one of the dynamical variables enters integrated out with the coefficient function, which reads to leading order in QCD coupling constant,

$$C_{}(x,\xi )=\frac{1}{\xi xi0}\frac{1}{\xi +xi0}.$$
(9)
One can get rid of the convolution provided the observable is sensitive to the imaginary part of the Compton form factors only, i.e., $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}𝒱_i`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}𝒜_1`$.

The most illuminating experimental observables in this respect are single beam or target spin asymmetries. Their advantage is that they (i) depend linearly on Compton form factors, and (ii) are proportional to their imaginary part. The complete result for the cross section (1), which is represented by a double Fourier sum in azimuthal angles $`d\sigma _{m,n}\mathrm{cos}(m\varphi )\{cc_{m,n}\mathrm{cos}(m\phi _{\mathrm{}})+cs_{m,n}\mathrm{sin}(m\phi _{\mathrm{}})\}+(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{sin})`$, will be published elsewhere. Here we limit ourselves to the case of the lepton helicity difference and when one does not distinguish the final state pair with respect to their angular distribution. The integration over the solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ leads to the vanishing of the interference term $`𝒜_{\mathrm{VCS}}𝒜_{\mathrm{BH}_2}^{}`$ and so the only term which survives in the asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \sigma (\lambda =1)\sigma (\lambda =1)`$ is $`𝒜_{\mathrm{VCS}}𝒜_{\mathrm{BH}_1}^{}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{dx_\mathrm{B}dyd|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|d\varphi dM_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^4}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(2y)y\sqrt{(1x_\mathrm{B})𝒬^2x_\mathrm{B}M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{𝒬^2M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\sqrt{1y}(𝒬^2+M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2)+2(2y)\sqrt{(1x_\mathrm{B})𝒬^2x_\mathrm{B}M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \right)}}`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\left(F_1(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)H_s(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)+\xi (F_1+F_2)(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)\stackrel{~}{H}_s(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M_N^2}}F_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)E_s(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)\right),`$
where $`F_s(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)F(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)F(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$. The minimal value of the $`t`$-channel momentum transfer is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^24M_N^2\eta ^2/(1\eta ^2)`$. The unique feature of the process is that GPDs can be studied as functions of all three arguments independently. Note that if the timelike virtuality is away from the resonance region, the hadronic component of the photon can be neglected and consequently all subprocesses with vector meson production.

As Fig. 3 demonstrates, the region of the GPD surface accessible in this reaction for a fixed target experiment setup is quite extensive. For a given $`\xi `$, cf. Eq. (5), with $`x_\mathrm{B}=𝒬^2/(2M_NEy)`$, the variable $`\eta `$ varies in limits

$$\mathrm{min}|\eta ||\eta |\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{max}|\eta |,|\eta _{\mathrm{cut}}|\},$$
(11)
where $`\eta `$ is evaluated according to Eq. (6) and the bound $`|\eta _{\mathrm{cut}}|\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2/(4M_N^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}`$ comes from the condition $`|\mathrm{\Delta }^2||\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2|`$. The minimal value of $`\xi `$ is governed by the requirement of applicability of perturbative QCD treatment, Eq. (7), chosen here as $`𝒬^2M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2+1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The restriction $`|\eta |\xi `$ is a simple consequence of the timelike nature of the final state photon.

The ratio of (10) to the DVCS signal

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{DVCS}}}}{\displaystyle _{4m_e^2}^{𝒬^2}}𝑑M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{dM_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{3\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2}{m_e^2}},`$ (12)
is of order $`0.01`$ for $`𝒬^22\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Difficulties in measuring such a small cross section will be overcome at high-luminocity machines, like JLab@12GeV with $`L=10^{35}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ or in collider experiments due to growth of the cross section with increasing $`\xi `$.

The cross section (10) being directly proportional to GPDs is extremely sensitive to their skewedness dependence. Such kinds of measurements can easily establish the credibility of our current understanding of mesonic-like components of GPDs and thus constrain the region which is lacking in the establishment the total spin sum rule Ji96 . In Fig. 4, we present estimates for JLab@12GeV kinematics using two different models of GPDs: A model without skewedness dependence, which corresponds to the conventional parton density taken to be the same at all values of $`\eta `$, the so-called forward parton distribution (FPD) model. And a model based on a more sophisticated construction Rad99  which takes the aforementioned parton densities as input and leads to a nontrivial $`\eta `$-dependence. It is called the double distribution (DD) model. For specific details we refer to Ref. BelMulKir01 . The most prominent way to discriminate between these models is to study the $`M_\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^2`$ or $`𝒬^2`$ dependence of the cross section (10) as shown in Fig. 5. One will be easily able to distinguished between different behaviors by varying the timelike photon virtuality over a short interval below the $`\rho `$-meson threshold. As Fig. 6 shows, the higher energy of HERA results into even higher sensitivity to the skewedness dependence of GPDs. We like to mention that at HERA the skewedness dependence can already be studied in measurements of the unpolarized cross section, since the imaginary part of the Compton amplitude dominates over the real part.

To conclude, the exclusive electroproduction of lepton pairs provides a unique opportunity to determine exhaustive information on the nucleon’s internal structure by accessing inter-parton correlations. The underlying GPD can be mapped uniquely as a function of all its variables which encode dynamics in longitudinal and transverse spaces. Our analysis demonstrates a high sensitivity of the lepton helicity asymmetry to the skewedness dependence of GPDs. Similar conclusions apply to nucleon spin asymmetries which again extract the interference term of Bether-Heitler and Compton amplitude and separate yet another combination of functions in question. The angular distribution of the final state lepton pairs has a very rich structure and its measurement will lead to an indispensable complementary information on GPDs. One might expect that such studies at collider energies will pin down the skewedness dependence of gluon GPDs in the small-$`\xi `$ region and thus reduce theoretical uncertainties in diffractive leptoproduction of vector mesons. Finally, let us point out that the difference between the space- and timelike region is perturbatively computable and so the onset of the light-cone dominance can be elucidated as well.

We would like to thank L. Elouadrhiri, S. Stepanyan and M. Diehl for discussions. Both authors are grateful to the Theory Group and Hall B at Jefferson Lab and D.M. thanks the Nuclear Theory Group at the University of Maryland for the hospitality at the intermediate stages of the work. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-93ER40762.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Spin foam (SF) models of quantum gravity represent a promising approach for formulating a consistent theory of quantum gravity . It is a discretized spacetime path-integral approach, and the main result is the finitenness of the 3-geometry to 3-geometry transition amplitude for a non-degenerate space-time triangulation . Incorporating matter in the SF framework has been started in . However, the constructions given there were algebraic, without a direct connection to the discrete path-integral considerations. The difficulty in the path-integral approach is that the usual matter fields couple to gravity via the fierbein one-forms, while in the SF framework the fundamental field is a 2-form $`B`$ which can be considered as an exterior product of two fierbein one-forms. Still, in some cases the coupling of matter can be expressed conveniently in terms of the $`B`$ fields, like in the Yang-Mills (YM) theory case

$$S_{YM}ϵ_{abcd}B^{ab}B^{cd}Tr(F^{kl}F_{kl}),$$
(1)
where $`F_{kl}=e_k^\mu e_l^\nu F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`e_k^\mu `$ is the inverse of the fierbein matrix $`e_\mu ^a`$. $`F`$ is the YM two-form field strength, and $`Tr`$ is the gauge group trace.

In such cases one can use the discretized path-integral techniques developed for the $`SU(2)`$ BF theory by Freidel and Krasnov , in order to derive the SF amplitude. Note that Oritti and Pfeiffer have proposed recently a YM euclidian SF amplitude without using the path-integral approach . In order to better understand their result, we will study the discretized path-integral for a general BF theory with polynomial in $`B`$ interactions by using the Friedel-Krasnov approach. The algebraic structure of the corresponding SF amplitudes is such that it is straightforward to adapt them via the Barrett-Crane ansatz  to the case when the $`B`$ field is a simple bivector, i.e. when it describes a realistic spacetime geometry.

In section two we generalize the Friedel-Krasnov results to the case of an arbitrary Lie group $`G`$. In section three we perform the Barrett-Crane reduction of the results from the section two. In section four we construct the YM spin foam amplitudes. In section five we present our conclusions.

## 2 Path-integral approach

Consider a BF theory with a polynomial interaction, depending only on the $`B`$ field

$$S=_MBF+_MP(B)d^4x,$$
(2)
where $`M`$ is a four-dimensional manifold and $`B`$ is a two-form taking values in the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ of the Lie group $`G`$. $`F=(dA_I+f_I^{JK}A_JA_K)T^I`$ is the curvature two-form taking values in $`𝐠`$ and $`,`$ is an invariant quadratic form on $`𝐠`$.

We would like to define the path integral

$$Z=𝒟A𝒟Be^{iS},$$
(3)
via the discretization procedure provided by a simplical decomposition of $`M`$. We will use the generating functional technique, so that we introduce

$$Z[J]=𝒟A𝒟Be^{iS+i_MBJ}$$
(4)
and

$$Z_0[J]=𝒟A𝒟Be^{i_MB(F+J)}.$$
(5)
Hence

$$Z[J]=\mathrm{exp}\left(i_MP\left(i\frac{\delta }{\delta J}\right)\right)Z_0[J],$$
(6)
and $`Z=Z[0]`$.

In order to define $`Z_0`$ let $`𝒞`$ be a simplical complex associated to $`M`$, and let $`𝒞^{}`$ be the dual complex. We denote by $`\sigma `$, $`\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a 4-simplex, a tetrahedron and a triangle of $`𝒞`$ respectively, and by $`v`$, $`l`$ and $`f`$ the corresponding dual cells, i.e. a vertex, a link and a face, so that

$$v=\sigma ^{},l=\tau ^{},f=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}.$$
(7)
Let $`B`$ field be piece-wise constant in the 4-polytopes formed by the pairs $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ such that the only non-zero components of $`B`$ lay in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ planesThis discretization procedure is more suitable for treating interactions than the one used in , which was based on the delta-function B fields. See  for basic notions about the forms on simplical complexes.. Then

$$S=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}B_\mathrm{\Delta },F_f+\underset{\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{}C_{I\mathrm{}I^{}}(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }^{})B_\mathrm{\Delta }^I\mathrm{}B_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}^I^{},$$
(8)
where

$$B_\mathrm{\Delta }=_\mathrm{\Delta }B,F_f=_fF.$$
(9)
Given the variables (9), we define

$$Z_0[J]=\underset{l}{}dA_l\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}dB_\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i_\mathrm{\Delta }B_\mathrm{\Delta },F_f+J_f},$$
(10)
where $`A_l=_lA`$. Following the ref.  we will fix the measures of integration $`dA`$ and $`dB`$ such that

$$Z_0[J]=\underset{l}{}dg_l\underset{f}{}\delta \left(\underset{lf}{}\left(g_le^{J_f^{(v)}}\right)\right),$$
(11)
where $`g_l=e^{A_l}`$, and $`J_f^{(v)}`$ are the Lie algebra elements associated to the vertices $`v`$ of the face $`f`$ such that

$$\underset{vf}{}J_f^{(v)}=J_f.$$
(12)
The formula (11) differs from the one given in  by the absence of the factor $`_{vf}P(J_f^{(v)})`$. We do not put this factor because the simpler expression (11) is also invariant under the gauge transformations

$$g_lh_vg_lh_v^{}^1,J_f(v)h_vJ_f(v)h_v^1,h_v,h_v^{}G,$$
(13)
where $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are the ends of the link $`l`$ . Also when $`J0`$ the expression (11) gives the standard formula for the partition function for the BF theory . Hence we take the expression (11) as the definition of $`Z_0(J)`$.

The expression (11) can be further simplified by taking

$$J_f^{(v)}=J_f^{(v^{})}=\mathrm{}=\frac{J_f}{n_f},$$
(14)
where $`n_f`$ is the number of vertices of the face $`f`$. By rescaling $`J_fn_fJ_f`$ we can get rid of the $`n_f`$ factors. By using the group theory formulas

$$\delta (g)=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\text{dim}\mathrm{\Lambda }\chi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(g),$$
(15)
and

$$_G𝑑gD_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)}(g)D_{\alpha _2\beta _2}^{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)}(g)D_{\alpha _3\beta _3}^{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_3)}(g)D_{\alpha _4\beta _4}^{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_4)}(g)=\underset{\iota }{}C_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3\alpha _4}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\iota )}\left(C_{\beta _1\beta _2\beta _3\beta _4}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\iota )}\right)^{},$$
(16)
where $`D^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ is the group representation matrix in a representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\chi _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the corresponding trace, as well as the associated graphical calculus , one arrives at

$$Z_0=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }_f,\iota _l}{}\underset{f}{}\text{ dim}\mathrm{\Lambda }_f\underset{l}{}C(\iota _l)\underset{v}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_5(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{f(v)},\iota _{l(v)},e^{J_{f(v)}}),$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5`$ is the spin network function associated to the pentagram graph and $`C(\iota )`$ is a constant coming out from the recoupling theory calculus.

The problem with (17) is that the sum over the irreps diverges. This sum can be regularized in the $`J=0`$ case by passing to the quantum group $`G_q=U_q(𝐠)`$, $`q`$ root of unity . One could generalize this procedure for the non-zero $`J`$ case, but since in this paper we are not interesting in the topological gravity case, we will not elaborate upon this.

## 3 The Barrett-Crane ansatz

General relativity can be understood as a BF theory with constraints since

$$\sqrt{|g|}Rd^4x=ϵ^{abcd}e_ae_bR_{cd}=B^{ab}R_{ab},$$
(18)
where $`e_a`$ are the fierbein one-forms and $`R_{ab}`$ is the spin-connection curvature two-form. Hence $`G=SO(4)`$ in the Euclidian case or $`G=SO(3,1)`$ in the Lorentzian case and the constraint is $`B^{ab}=(e^ae^b)`$. In the SF framework this constraint is implemented as a restriction on the set of irreps $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_f\}`$ such that

$$T(\mathrm{\Lambda }_f),T(\mathrm{\Lambda }_f)=ϵ^{abcd}T_{ab}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_f)T_{cd}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_f)=0,$$
(19)
where $`T(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are the generators of $`G`$ in the representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . The corresponding solutions are called simple irreps, which we denote as $`N`$. Equivalently, $`N`$ is the irrep containing an $`SO(3)`$ invariant vector .

Given the set of simple irreps $`\{N_f\}`$ one postulates that $`Z`$ is of the same form as in the topological case

$$Z=\underset{N_f}{}\underset{f}{}A_2(N_f)\underset{l}{}A_1(N_{f(l)})\underset{v}{}A_0(N_{f(v)}),$$
(20)
but now the amplitudes $`A_i`$ are different. In the Euclidian case $`N=(j,j)`$, $`j\frac{1}{2}𝐙`$, and the face amplitude $`A_2=\text{dim}N=(2j+1)^2`$ . In the Lorentzian case $`A_2=p^2dp`$, where $`N=(0,p)`$, $`p0`$ . The vertex amplitude $`A_0`$, which is associated to the pentagram spin net, is given now as

$$A_0(N_1,\mathrm{},N_{10})=_{G/H}\underset{v=1}{\overset{5}{}}dx_v\underset{l=1}{\overset{10}{}}K_{N_l}(x_{v(l)},x_{v^{}(l)}),$$
(21)
where $`x_v`$ are the points in the homogeneous space $`G/H`$ and $`H=SO(3)`$ . The propagators $`K`$ are given as

$$K_N(x,y)=0|D^{(N)}(g_xg_y^1)|0,$$
(22)
where $`|0`$ is the invariant vector from $`N`$, which corresponds to the identity irrep of the subgroup $`H`$ contained in $`N`$. There is a freedom in choosing the edge amplitude $`A_1`$, and a choice which makes the sum (20) finite is the spin net amplitude for the theta-four graph .

Given these results and the formula (17) for the topological case, it is natural to propose the following expression for $`Z_0(J)`$ in the non-topological case

$$Z_0(J)=\underset{N_f}{}\underset{f}{}A_2(N_f)\underset{l}{}A_1(N_{f(l)})\underset{v}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_5(N_{f(v)};e^{J_{f(v)}}),$$
(23)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_5(N_1,\mathrm{},N_{10};e^{J_1},\mathrm{},e^{J_{10}})=_{G/H}\underset{v=1}{\overset{5}{}}dx_v\underset{l=1}{\overset{10}{}}K_{N_l}(x_{v(l)},x_{v^{}(l)};e^{J_l}),$$
(24)
and the propagator

$$K_N(x,y;e^J)=0|D^{(N)}(g_xe^Jg_y^1)|0,$$
(25)
is the ”source” propagator introduced in . Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }_5`$ is an example of the simple spin network functions introduced in .

## 4 The Yang-Mills model

The YM action on $`𝒞`$ is given by

$$\lambda ^2S_{YM}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\frac{A(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}{A(\mathrm{\Delta })}\left(ReTr\stackrel{~}{U}(\mathrm{\Delta })n\right),$$
(26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is the triangle holonomy associated to the gauge group $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`n`$ is the dimension of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$. $`A(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the area of the triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, while $`A(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ is the area of its dual face. Let us rewrite this action as

$$\lambda ^2S_{YM}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\frac{6V(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}{A^2(\mathrm{\Delta })}\left(ReTr\stackrel{~}{U}(\mathrm{\Delta })n\right),$$
(27)
where $`V(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})=\frac{1}{6}A(\mathrm{\Delta })A(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ is the 4-volume of the 4-polytope $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ . This can be further rewritten as

$$\lambda ^2S_{YM}=\frac{1}{3}\underset{\sigma }{}\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{}\frac{6V(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}{A^2(\mathrm{\Delta })}\left(ReTr\stackrel{~}{U}(\mathrm{\Delta })n\right),$$
(28)
which is suitable for the spin foam formalism.

The Oriti-Pfeiffer proposal  can be understood as an approximation

$$V(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\sigma }{}C(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})B_\mathrm{\Delta },B_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}.$$
(29)
This is an approximation because $`V(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ depends in general on the $`B`$ fields from the adjoint 4-simplices which share the polytope $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$, so that for an exact formula one would have to include the terms with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\sigma ^{}`$. A further approximation is to take the $`C`$’s to be constant up to the orientation sign factors $`\text{sign}(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$. This happens for the symmetric lattices when $`V(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})=(2/5)V(\sigma )`$, where $`V(\sigma )`$ is the 4-volume of the 4-simplex $`\sigma `$. Since

$$V(\sigma )=\frac{1}{304!}\underset{\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{}\text{sign}(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})B_\mathrm{\Delta },B_\mathrm{\Delta }^{},$$
(30)
one obtains

$$C(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\frac{4}{305!}\text{sign}(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{}).$$
(31)
One can then define

$$Z_{YM}=\underset{ϵ}{}d\stackrel{~}{g}_ϵ\underset{l}{}dg_l\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}dB_\mathrm{\Delta }e^{iS_0+iS_{YM}}=\underset{ϵ}{}d\stackrel{~}{g}_ϵ\stackrel{~}{Z}_{YM},$$
(32)
where $`ϵ`$’s are the edges of the complex $`𝒞`$. By using the previous results we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_{YM}\underset{N_f}{}\underset{f}{}A_2(N_f)\underset{l}{}A_1(N_{f(l)})\underset{v}{}\left[e^{i\beta \widehat{S}_v}\mathrm{\Phi }_5(N_{f(v)};e^{J_{f(v)}})\right]_{J=0},$$
(33)
where $`\beta `$ is a numerical constant and

$$\widehat{S}_v=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\sigma }{}\frac{\left(ReTr\stackrel{~}{U}(\mathrm{\Delta })n\right)}{A^2(\mathrm{\Delta })}\text{sign}(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\frac{}{J_f},\frac{}{J_f^{}}.$$
(34)
A natural further simplification is to take

$$A(\mathrm{\Delta })=\sqrt{j(j+1)},$$
(35)
in the Euclidian case . In the Lorentzian case the labels of the triangles can be related to the areas of space-like triangles , and hence it is natural to take

$$A(\mathrm{\Delta })=\sqrt{p^2+1}.$$
(36)
One can show that

$$\left[e^{i\beta \widehat{S}_v}\mathrm{\Phi }_5(N_{f(v)};e^{J_{f(v)}})\right]_{J=0}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}C_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{10}}^{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{10}}\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{10}|e^{i\beta \widehat{S}_v(T)}|\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{10},$$
(37)
where $`\widehat{S}(T)`$ is the operator obtained from (34) by replacing the $`J`$’s with the $`T(N)`$’s. It acts in the space $`H_v=_{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }V(N_f)`$. The coeficients $`C`$ are given as products of five Barrett-Crane intertwiners

$$S_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _4}^{N_1\mathrm{}N_4}=\underset{N}{}C_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _4}^{N_1\mathrm{}N_4(N)}.$$
(38)
From (37) it is clear that in the Euclidian case the expression $`e^{i\beta \widehat{S}_v}\mathrm{\Phi }_5|_{J=0}`$ is well defined since $`N`$’s are finite-dimensional and hence all the sums are finite. The expectation value in (37) is the matrix element of an exponential of a finite matrix, which exists.

In the Lorentzian case, the operator representation (37) is not that useful for showing that $`e^{i\beta \widehat{S}_v}\mathrm{\Phi }_5|_{J=0}`$ is well-defined. We expect it to be well defined because in the Euclidian case the propagatorsThe extra factor $`(2j+1)^1`$ follows from the formula (22), since the $`SU(2)`$ invariant vector has a normalisation factor $`(2j+1)^{1/2}`$.

$$K_j(x,y)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2j+1)d(x,y)}{(2j+1)\mathrm{sin}d(x,y)},\mathrm{cos}d(x,y)=xy,$$
(39)
get deformed when the sorce $`J`$ is turned on as

$$\mathrm{cos}d\mathrm{cos}d\mathrm{cos}|J|+\mathrm{sin}_Jd\mathrm{sin}|J|,$$
(40)
where

$$\mathrm{sin}_Jd=\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi _J+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta _J$$
(41)
for $`x=(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,0)`$ and $`y=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,0)`$. The angles $`\theta _J`$ and $`\varphi _J`$ are determined by the 3-vectors $`x`$ and $`J`$ and $`y`$ and $`J`$, respectively, which are associated to the corresponding $`SU(2)`$ subgroup elements. The deformation (40) is qualitatively similar to the deformation $`dd+|J|`$, so that it is no surprise that the integral (24) is finite, given that the $`J=0`$ integral is finite. Since the Lorentzian propagator

$$K_p(x,y)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}pd(x,y)}{p\mathrm{sinh}d(x,y)},\mathrm{cosh}d(x,y)=xy,$$
(42)
can be obtained from the Euclidian one via analytical continuation $`2j+1ip`$ and $`did`$, we then expect to have a deformation

$$\mathrm{cosh}d\mathrm{cosh}d\mathrm{cos}|J|+\mathrm{sinh}_Jd\mathrm{sin}|J|,$$
(43)
where

$$\mathrm{sinh}_Jd=\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\varphi \mathrm{cosh}\varphi _J+\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\varphi \mathrm{cosh}\theta _J$$
(44)
for $`x=(\mathrm{cosh}\theta ,\mathrm{sinh}\theta ,0,0)`$ and $`y=(\mathrm{cosh}\varphi ,\mathrm{sinh}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sinh}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,0)`$. This is similar to the deformation $`dd+i|J|`$. Since the $`J=0`$ integral (24) converges, we then expect that the $`J0`$ integral will converge as well.

## 5 Conclusions

The discretized path-integral approach to spin foam amplitudes based on the generating functional technique is very useful, because the algebraic structure of the expressions one obtains in the topological case is such that it can be straightforwardly extended to the non-topological cases. This algebraic structure is the tensor category of irreducible representations of the symmetry group, so that the spin foam transition amplitudes can be understood as functors constructed from the special morphisms, which are the spin networks . Even in the non-topological case, when the simple irreps $`N`$ do not form a tensor category, one is actually dealing with the tensor category of the irreps of the subgroup $`H`$ , which in the YM case are just the trivial identity irreps, so that it is natural that we have proposed the generating functional in terms of the simple spin network functions.

Because of this, we consider our proposal for the vertex amplitude (37) more appropriate for the spin foam formalism than the one proposed in , which is

$$\frac{Tr_{H_v}(e^{i\beta \widehat{S}_v(T)})}{\text{dim}H_v}=\underset{\alpha }{}(\text{dim}H_v)^1\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{10}|e^{i\beta \widehat{S}_v(T)}|\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{10}.$$
(45)
Although this is a reasonable proposal, this expression does not have a simple interpretation in terms of spin network evaluations. Consequently, it is not clear what would be a Lorentzian extension of this expression. On the other hand, our expression (37) is based on a simple spin network evaluation, and hence it makes sense in the Lorentzian case.

We expect that the YM amplitude (33) is finite both in the Euclidian and in the Lorentzian case because of the very rapid convergence properties of the $`J=0`$ sums in the Euclidian case .

Note that the structure of the vertex amplitude is such that one can use the perturbative expansion for small $`\beta `$

$$\left[e^{i\beta \widehat{S}_v}\mathrm{\Phi }_5\right]_{J=0}=\left[(1i\beta \widehat{S}_v+\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Phi }_5\right]_{J=0}=A_0i\beta \left[\widehat{S}_v\mathrm{\Phi }_5\right]_{J=0}+\mathrm{}.$$
(46)
The second term in (46) can be interpreted as the pentagram spin network amplitude with the insertions of two endomorphisms $`T(N)`$ and $`T(N^{})`$ at the edges $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$. If we neglect the higher-order terms in the expansion (46) we will obtain a spin foam amplitude which is a sum of amplitudes where a string of pentagram spin networks is connected by the matter edges carrying the adjoint representation of $`G`$. This amplitude is of the general type proposed in , but it is more complicated then the ones considered there. In , only the amplitudes where the matter edges link the vertices of the pentagrams were considered, while the amplitude corresponding to (46) has the matter edges linking the edges of the pentagrams and there are $`T(N)`$ insertions. This demonstrates that in order to understand completely the coupling of matter in the spin foam formalism, it is necessary to study the corresponding discretized path integral.