\section{Introduction}

 The internal spin structure of the nucleon which is
described by structure functions in deep inelastic lepton-hadron scattering
has been extensively studied in the last decades
both theoretically and experimentally, see e.g. \cite{Kuhn:2008sy} for a
review. The structure functions are related to the
real, virtual  or double virtual Compton scattering (${\rm V}^2{\rm CS}$)
amplitudes by various sum rules which connect information at all energy scales.
On the experimental side only recently it has become possible to work with
polarized beams and polarized targets which is necessary for studying the
nucleon spin structure. One of the main goals of the Jefferson Lab activities
is to provide a precise experimental mapping of spin-dependent observables
from low momentum transfer to the multi-GeV region, see e.g.
\cite{Amarian:2002ar,Amarian:2004yf,Prok:2008ev} for the early  measurements
(that also cover the low-energy region). Concerning the
low-energy spin structure -- which is at the center of this investigation --
more data
also at smaller photon virtualities $Q^2$ have been taken at Jefferson
Lab and their analysis will be completed soon, see e.g. Refs.~\cite{Chen:2010qc,CD12}.
Therefore, it is timely to
reconsider the theoretical predictions for the moments of the nucleon spin
structure functions.

At very low energies, far below the chiral symmetry scale of the order of
$1~{\rm GeV}$, the  nucleon dynamics is dominated by
chiral symmetry of QCD and for this reason can be rigorously
described by chiral perturbation theory (CHPT). This theory provides a
systematic expansion in low momenta and masses of the Goldstone bosons
(identified with the pions in the case of two flavors). At low photon
virtualities one can make rigorous predictions for the spin-dependent part of
${\rm V}^2{\rm CS}$ and use the Jefferson Lab data to test the
chiral dynamics of QCD.

${\rm V}^2{\rm CS}$ has already been considered within the CHPT framework up to
${\cal O}(q^4)$ in the chiral expansion by several theoretical groups,
see~\cite{Bernard:2007zu} for a review (here, $q$ denotes a genuine small
parameter like external momenta or the pion mass). In standard CHPT,
all effects of
the
$\Delta(1232)$-resonance degrees of freedom are encoded in
the low-energy constants. Chiral symmetry prevents spin-dependent
counterterms of  ${\cal O}(q^3)$ and ${\cal O}(q^4)$ in ${\rm V}^2{\rm CS}$
such that their first contribution
is possible at  ${\cal O}(q^5)$ in this scheme.
However, once one introduces the spin-3/2 degrees of freedom explicitly,
one realizes that their tree-level contributions are large and far from
being suppressed. This suggests to perform a systematic analysis of ${\rm
  V}^2{\rm CS}$ with explicit
deltas by using a covariant version of the so-called small scale
expansion (SSE) \cite{Hemmert:1997ye}.
In that extension of CHPT, the nucleon-delta mass splitting, $\Delta =
m_\Delta -m_N$, is counted as an additional small parameter, thus the generic
small parameter $\varepsilon$ collects external momenta, the pion mass and $\Delta$.
Note that calculations within
the SSE
employing the heavy-baryon (HB) expansion
were already performed by Kao et al.~\cite{Kao:2002cp}.
Here, we address this issue up to the order $\varepsilon^3$ in a covariant
SSE. In contrast to the the covariant CHPT calculation  of
Bernard et al.~\cite{Bernard:2002bs,Bernard:2002pw}, we do not use the method
of infrared regularization here as it leads to deformations of the analytical
structure at higher virtualities that leave a trace in the
$Q^2$-dependence
of certain observables (see also Ref.~\cite{Edelmann:1998bz}
for an early study of $\gamma_0(Q^2)$ using a relativistic version of baryon CHPT).
We obtain  parameter-free
predictions for various moments of the spin structure functions at low virtualities.
We focus, in particular, on the so-called forward and longitudinal-transverse
spin-polarizabilities, as these have posed particular problems to the
CHPT calculations. More precisely, the proton spin polarizability at the
photon point comes out larger in magnitude than experiment for most
calculations  and also the magnitude of the $Q^2$-dependent neutron
longitudinal-transverse spin polarizability is predicted much smaller
than found in experiment. This latter finding is particularly puzzling
as the leading $\Delta$-resonance contributions are expected to cancel here. In this
paper, we will shed new light on these issues. It is also important to stress
that the contributions considered here are nothing but the leading order terms
in the chiral expansion of these spin polarizabilities based on an effective
Lagrangian of pions, nucleons, deltas and photons.

Our manuscript is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{sec:form1}, we
give the necessary formalism for double virtual Compton scattering
off the nucleon and the definition of the pertinent moments of spin
structure functions that are amenable to a low-energy expansion.
Sec.~\ref{sec:form2} is devoted to a short discussion of the
underlying effective Lagrangian, the covariant treatment of the
baryon fields and the pertinent Feynman diagrams to be calculated.
Our results are discussed and presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:res}.
We end with a short summary and outlook in Sec.~\ref{sec:summ}.

\section{Formalism I: Double virtual Compton scattering}
\label{sec:form1}

The forward  tensor for double virtual Compton scattering
in terms of the electromagnetic current $J^\mu$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
T^{[\mu\nu]}&=&i\int d^4x\, e^{i q\cdot x}\langle P S|T J^\mu(x)J^\nu(0)|P
S\rangle~, \nonumber\\ J^\mu(x)&=&\sum_i e_i\bar{\psi}_i(x)\gamma^\mu\psi_i(x)~.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\psi_i(x)$ denotes a quark field of flavor $i$ with charge $e_i$, while
$P$ and $S$ are the momentum and spin polarization of the nucleon,
respectively.  The spin-dependent
${\rm V}^2{\rm CS}$ tensor can be parameterized by two structure functions
\begin{equation}
T^{[\mu\nu]} =
-\frac{i}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}q_\alpha \, \biggl[S_\beta
S_1(\nu,Q^2) + \frac{1}{m_N^2}(P\cdot q S_\beta- S\cdot q P_\beta)S_2(\nu,Q^2)\biggr]~,
\end{equation}
which depend on two independent scalar variables $Q^2=-q^2$ (the photon
virtuality) and
$\nu = P\cdot~q/m_N$ (the photon energy),  where $m_N$ is the nucleon mass.
On the other hand, the differential cross
section of polarized spin-dependent inclusive lepton-nucleon scattering
(in the one-photon-exchange approximation) is proportional to the
antisymmetric tensor
\begin{equation}
W^{[\mu\nu]} =\frac{1}{4\pi}\int d^4x\, e^{i q\cdot x}\langle P S|[J^\mu(x),J^\nu(0)]|P
S\rangle
\end{equation}
which can be parameterized again by two structure functions
\begin{equation}
W^{[\mu\nu]} = -\frac{i}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}q_\alpha\, \biggl[S_\beta
G_1(\nu,Q^2)
 +  \frac{1}{m_N^2}(P\cdot q S_\beta- S\cdot q P_\beta)G_2(\nu,Q^2)\biggr]~.
\end{equation}
The amplitudes for ${\rm V}^2{\rm CS}$  can be analytically continued to the
complex $\nu-$plane. They have poles at $\nu_{c}=\pm Q^2/2m_N$, corresponding
to $s-$ and $u-$channel elastic scattering and two cuts on the real
axis extending from $\nu=\pm \nu_{c}$ to $\pm \infty$.
Using analyticity  and assuming a sufficient fast fall-off of
the structure functions at large $\nu$,
one can relate the corresponding structure
functions to each other by dispersion integrals~\cite{Ji:1999mr}
\begin{eqnarray}
S_1(\nu,Q^2)&=&4\int_{Q^2/2m_N}^\infty \frac{dz \,z\, G_1(z,Q^2)}{z^2-\nu^2}~,\\
S_2(\nu,Q^2)&=&4\int_{Q^2/2m_N}^\infty \frac{dz \,\nu\, G_2(z,Q^2)}{z^2-\nu^2}~.
\end{eqnarray}
In the derivation of these relations crossing symmetry
\begin{equation}
S_1(-\nu,Q^2)=S_1(\nu,Q^2),\quad S_2(-\nu,Q^2)=-S_2(\nu,Q^2)~,
\end{equation}
has been  used. Usually one works with the inelastic version of the dispersion
relations where by inelastic we mean that the elastic part of the amplitudes
-- which have a pole at $Q^2/2m_N$ -- is subtracted. In this case the cut starts at
the pion production threshold $s=s_0=(m_N+M_\pi)^2$, which is equivalent to
$\nu_0=(Q^2+M_\pi^2)/(2m_N)+M_\pi$
The dispersion relations are then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{S}_1(\nu,Q^2) &=& 4\int_{\nu_0}^\infty \frac{dz \,z\, G_1(z,Q^2)}{z^2-\nu^2}~,\\
\bar{S}_2(\nu,Q^2) &=& 4\int_{\nu_0}^\infty \frac{dz \,\nu\, G_2(z,Q^2)}{z^2-\nu^2}~,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\bar{S}_i(\nu,Q^2) = S_i(\nu,Q^2) -S_i^{\rm elastic} (\nu,Q^2)$.

For small photon energies, the ${\rm V}^2{\rm CS}$ amplitudes can be
expanded in powers of $\nu^2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{S}_1(\nu,Q^2) &=& \sum_{i=0}^\infty \bar{S}_1^{(2i)}(0,Q^2)\nu^{2i}~, \\
\bar{S}_2(\nu,Q^2) &=& \sum_{i=0}^\infty \bar{S}_2^{(2i+1)}(0,Q^2)\nu^{2i+1}~.
\end{eqnarray}
The next-to-leading order coefficients (called the forward  and the
longitudinal-transverse spin-polariza\-bility, respectively) in this series
are directly related to the moments of structure functions and can be measured.
In this work, we concentrate on the low--energy region. The aforementioned
forward and longitudinal-transverse  polarizabilities are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_0(Q^2)&=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\left(\bar{S}_1^{(2)}(0,Q^2)
   -\frac{Q^2}{m_N}\bar{S}_2^{(3)}(0,Q^2)\right),\\
\delta_0(Q^2)&=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\left(\bar{S}_1^{(2)}(0,Q^2)
   +\frac{1}{m_N}\bar{S}_2^{(1)}(0,Q^2)\right).
\end{eqnarray}
They obviously can be described as dispersion integrals and can be rigorously
calculated by CHPT at low virtualities. Using a dispersion representation one
has access to experimental data such that polarizabilities provide a testing ground
for chiral dynamics of QCD. Similar formulae can be given for the generalized
GDH integral $I_A (Q^2)$ and the first moments of the spin structure
functions $\Gamma_1(Q^2)$, see Ref.~\cite{Ji:1999mr}. For completeness,
we give the corresponding expressions:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_A(Q^2) = \frac{m_N^2}{4e^2}\left[ \bar{S}^{(0)}_1(0,Q^2) -
\frac{Q^2}{m_N} \bar{S}^{(1)}_2(0,Q^2) \right]~, \nonumber\\
\Gamma_1(Q^2) = \frac{Q^2}{2m_N^2} I_1(Q^2)~, ~~ I_1(Q^2) = \frac{m_N^2}{4e^2}
 \bar{S}^{(0)}_1(0,Q^2)~.
\end{eqnarray}
These observables will also be considered here.

\section{Formalism II: Effective Lagrangian and one-loop calculation}
\label{sec:form2}

We now consider the underlying chiral Lagrangian. In
Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2002pw}, the chiral pion-nucleon Lagrangian in the
presence of external sources,  ${\cal L}_{\pi N} [U, N, \bar N; s, p, v_\mu,
a_\mu]$, was utilized combined with infrared regularization to separate the soft
(long-range) from the hard (short distance) dynamics. Contributions from the
$\Delta(1232)$ resonance at tree level  were added in a phenomenological
approach and shown to be important. Here, we improve this calculation by
extending the underlying effective field theory (EFT) to include the delta
based on the so-called covariant small scale expansion to
${\cal O}(\varepsilon^3)$. We use the explicit form of the spin-3/2 propagator
from Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2005fy}. Also, we do not use infrared regularization
as done in Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2002pw} but rather utilize dimensional
regularization. For the case at hand, this is a consistent scheme
as counter terms in the four-point function
only show up at  ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^5)$.
Therefore,
no power-counting violating contributions appear up-to-and-including
${\cal O}(\varepsilon^4)$ and the corresponding loop corrections to
V$^2$CS are all finite after mass and coupling constant renormalization.
Note, however, that one has to deal with  some LECs in the three-point
functions that appear as parts of the fourth order diagrams. In case
of nucleon intermediate states, these are nothing but the
anomalous magnetic moment of the proton and the neutron, see also
Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2002pw}. In case of delta intermediate
states, we have in addition dimension two LECs from ${\cal L}^{(3)}_{\pi N
  \Delta}$, that can be fixed from $\Delta \to N$ transition form factors.

The chiral Lagrangian for V$^2$CS in the pion-nucleon sector is given in
Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2002pw}. The pertinent new Lagrangian structures related to
the inclusion of the spin-3/2 fields read (for the construction principles,
see \cite{Hemmert:1997ye})
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{\pi N\Delta}^{(1)} &=& h_A \, \bar\psi_i^\mu \, \omega_\mu^i \, N +
{\rm h.c.}~, \\
{\cal L}_{\pi\Delta\Delta}^{(1)} &=& \bar\psi_i^\mu
\,(i\slashed{D}_{\mu \nu}^{ij}  - m_\Delta \gamma_{\mu\nu} \delta^{ij}) \, \psi_j^\nu~,\\
{\cal L}_{\pi N \Delta}^{(2)} &=& \frac{1}{2}b_1 \, \bar\psi_i^\mu \,
if_{+\mu\alpha}^i\gamma^\alpha\gamma_5 \, N +
{\rm h.c.}~,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\slashed{D}_{\mu\nu}^{ij} &=& \gamma_{\mu\nu\alpha}\,D_{ij}^\alpha~,~~
D_{ij}^\alpha = (\partial^\alpha + \Gamma^\alpha) \, \delta_{ij}
- i\epsilon_{ijk}\langle\tau^k\Gamma^\alpha\rangle~,\nonumber\\
\Gamma^\alpha &=& \frac{1}{2}[u^\dagger, \partial_\mu u] - \frac{i}{2}
u^\dagger (v_\mu+a_\mu) u - \frac{i}{2} u (v_\mu - a_\mu)u^\dagger\nonumber\\
f_{+\mu\alpha}^i &=& \frac{1}{2}\langle\tau^i f_{+\mu\nu}\rangle~,~~
\omega_\mu^i = \frac{1}{2}\langle\tau^i u_\mu \rangle~,~~\nonumber\\
\gamma_{\mu\nu\alpha} &=& \frac{1}{4}\bigl\{[\gamma_\mu , \,  \gamma_\nu],
\gamma_\alpha\bigr\}~,~~~~~
\gamma_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2} [\gamma_\mu , \,  \gamma_\nu]
~.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\psi_i^\mu$ is a conventional Rarita-Schwinger spinor for the spin-3/2
fields, $N$ denotes the nucleon bi-spinor (throughout, we work in the isospin
limit), $h_A$ is the leading $\pi N\Delta$ axial-coupling (analogous to $g_A$ in
the pion-nucleon sector) and $b_1$ is the leading photon-nucleon-delta
coupling of chiral dimension two (much like the nucleon magnetic moment that
appears first in ${\cal L}_{\pi N}^{(2)}$). As usual, the pions are collected
in the matrix-valued field $U(x) = u^2(x)$.
We only need the external vector source $v_\mu =  Q A_\mu$, with $A_\mu$ the
photon field and $Q =(1,0)e$ the nucleon charge matrix. Therefore
$f_{+\mu\nu} = F_{\mu\nu}(u Q u^\dagger+ u^\dagger Q u)$.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{v2csborn.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Tree diagrams at ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^3)$. Solid, double
  and wiggly lines denote nucleons, deltas and photons, in
  order. The filled circle is an insertion from ${\cal L}_{\pi N \Delta}^{(2)}$.}
\label{fig:tree}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{feyndiagr.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Delta-loop diagrams at ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^3)$. Solid, double,
  dashed and wiggly lines denote nucleons, deltas, pions and photons, in
  order. Crossed graphs are not shown.}
\label{fig:diag}
\end{figure}

Based on this, we are now in the position to calculate V$^2$CS at low
energies in the covariant SSE. At order ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^3)$,
we have tree and the leading one-loop
graphs involving the $\Delta$-resonance, see Figs.~\ref{fig:tree} and
\ref{fig:diag},  respectively. The corresponding third order pion-nucleon
loop graphs are e.g. displayed in Fig.~1 of Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2002pw}.
Note that since the delta propagator is of  ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^{-1})$, the tree
graphs with two insertions from ${\cal L}_{\pi N \Delta}^{(2)}$ appear first
at third order in the SSE. Note further that at this order there are no unknown
low-energy constants (LECs), since the couplings $h_A$ and $b_1$ can be
determined from the decays $\Delta \to N\pi$ and $\Delta \to N\gamma$,
respectively. More precisely, the strong width of the $\Delta$ is given
in terms of the LEC $h_A$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Dws}
\Gamma_\Delta^{\rm str} = h_A^2 \frac{((m_\Delta-m_N)^2-M_\pi^2)^{3/2}
((m_\Delta+m_N)^2-M_\pi^2)^{5/2}}{192\, F_\pi^2 \,\pi \,m_\Delta^5} = (118\pm
2)~{\rm MeV}~,
\end{equation}
and similarly for the electromagnetic width in terms of $b_1$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Dwe}
\Gamma_\Delta^{\rm em} = e^2 b_1^2
\frac{(m_\Delta^2-m_N^2)^3(3m_\Delta^2+m^2)}{576\,\pi\, m_\Delta^5}~,
\end{equation}
with $\Gamma_\Delta^{\rm  em}/(\Gamma_\Delta^{\rm  em} +  \Gamma_\Delta^{\rm
  str}) = 0.55 \ldots 0.65\%$.
The predictions for the generalized  spin polarizabilities and other moments
of the spin structure functions are thus {\it parameter-free}.
It is also important to stress
that in the covariant scheme employed here one has more loop diagrams at leading
order as compared to the heavy baryon approach (cf. Fig.~2 in
\cite{Kao:2002cp}). In that approach,  the ``missing''
graphs only appear at fourth order
due to the additional counting in the inverse baryon mass. Here, we have
to deal with 14 different topologies as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:diag}. None
of  them
involves the leading,  dimension-two $\Delta N \gamma$-vertices,
such contributions only start at ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^4)$. Still, the algebra
to evaluate the diagrams shown in  Fig.~\ref{fig:diag} is
non-trivial. In particular the box-type diagrams which three spin-3/2
propagators generate a large number of terms, as the
spin-3/2 field propagator is given by
\begin{equation}
S^{\mu\nu} = \frac{p\!\!/ + m_\Delta}{p^2-m^2_\Delta}\left( -g^{\mu\nu}
+\frac{1}{3} \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu + \frac{1}{3m_\Delta}\left(\gamma^\mu p^\nu
- \gamma^\nu p^\mu\right) +   \frac{2}{3m_\Delta^2} p^\mu p^\nu \right)~.
\end{equation}
For example, the box diagram (right-most graph in the upper row of
Fig.~\ref{fig:diag}) has $5^3 = 125$ times more terms than the corresponding
pion-nucleon box graph.  Therefore, we have developed
our own algebraic program that combines FORM \cite{Vermaseren:2000nd}
and Mathematica to calculate the tree and the loop diagrams. The code
is able to reduce tensor integrals of any rank in the relativistic and
the heavy baryon formalism. FORM is used to reduce the pertinent tensor
integrals with higher powers of propagators and shifted dimensions while
Mathematica is utilized to perform the standard Passarino-Veltman reduction
\cite{Passarino:1978jh} (if required). In particular, the program
allows for an easy heavy mass
reduction of any given relativistic formulation.

We have calculated the spin-polarizabilities $\gamma_0 (Q^2)$,
$\delta_0 (Q^2)$, the generalized GDH integral $I_A(Q^2)$ and also the
first moment $\Gamma_1(Q^2)$ for the neutron and the proton. The resulting expressions
for the loop contributions are very lengthy and will not be given here
explicitly\footnote{They can be
made available as a Mathematica notebook upon request from Hermann Krebs.}.
However, we mention that our framework allows to take the heavy baryon
limit in which the nucleon and the delta are considered as heavy, static
sources keeping the mass splitting fixed. Indeed, we recover the heavy
baryon results of~Ref.\cite{Kao:2002cp}. For better comparison,
we give here  the explicit Born terms corresponding to Fig.~\ref{fig:tree}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:born}
S_1^{\Delta-{\rm Born}}(\nu, Q^2)&=&\frac{2 e^2 b_1^2}{9
  m_\Delta^2}\cdot\frac{1}{(m_\Delta^2-m_N^2 + Q^2)^2-4 m_N^2 \nu^2}
\bigg[2 m_N^2 \nu^2
  (m_N^2-3(Q^2+m_\Delta^2)) \nonumber\\
&+&Q^2(m_\Delta^2-m_N^2+Q^2)(3 m_\Delta^2-2
  m_N^2 + 2 Q^2 - 2 m_N m_\Delta)\bigg],\nonumber\\
S_2^{\Delta-{\rm Born}}(\nu,Q^2)&=&-\frac{4 e^2 b_1^2 m_N^2 \nu}{9
m_\Delta^2}\,\frac{(m_N+m_\Delta)(m_N^2+Q^2-2m_N m_\Delta)}{(m_\Delta^2-m_N^2 + Q^2)^2-4
m_N^2 \nu^2}~.
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Results and discussion}
\label{sec:res}

For obtaining numerical results, we use the following
set of parameters: $g_A=1.27$, $F_\pi=92.21\,$MeV,
$M_\pi=138.04$~MeV, $m_N=938.9\,$MeV, $\kappa_v=3.706$,
$\kappa_s=-0.120$, $m_\Delta=1232\,$MeV (in the appendix,
we also discuss some results obtained using the S-matrix pole mass
as determined e.g. in pion-nucleon scattering).
For the $\Delta$ couplings, we obtain from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Dws},\ref{eq:Dwe})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:delcoups}
h_A = 1.43 \pm 0.02~, ~~~~ b_1 = -(4.98\pm 0.27)/m_N~.
\end{equation}
For comparison, the corresponding large-$N_C$ relations yield
$h_A  = (3g_A)/(2\sqrt{2}) = 1.35$, and
$b_1 = -3(1+\kappa_p-\kappa_n)/({2\sqrt{2}m_N})
= -{5.0}/{m_N}$, which are consistent with the empirical values.
Note that we take the sign of $h_A$ and $b_1$ to be consistent
with the large-$N_C$ relations, as the formulae for the corresponding
width are quadratic in these couplings.
We will generate theoretical errors by varying these couplings
within the ranges given above. Uncertainties due to neglected higher
orders will not be considered.

First, we consider the forward and the longitudinal-transverse spin-polarizabilities
at the photon point, $\gamma_0 (0)$ and $\delta_0(0)$, respectively.
We find using the central values of the input parameters
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:parts}
\gamma_0^p&=&2.07_{q^3}\, - \, 3.65_{\epsilon^3, {\rm
    tree}}\, - \, 0.16_{\epsilon^3, {\rm loop}} \, = \, -1.74
~~[\pm 0.40]~,\nonumber \\
\gamma_0^n&=&3.06_{q^3}\, - \, 3.65_{\epsilon^3, {\rm
    tree}}\, - \, 0.18_{\epsilon^3, {\rm loop}} \, = \, -0.77
~~[\pm 0.40]~,\nonumber\\
\delta_0^p&=&1.54_{q^3}\, - \, 0.36_{\epsilon^3, {\rm
    tree}}\, + \, 1.22_{\epsilon^3, {\rm loop}} \, = \,\,\,\,\,\, 2.40
~~[\pm 0.01]~,\nonumber \\
\delta_0^n&=&2.41_{q^3}\, - \, 0.36_{\epsilon^3, {\rm
    tree}}\, + \, 0.33_{\epsilon^3, {\rm loop}} \, = \,\,\,\,\,\, 2.38
~~[\pm 0.03]~,
\end{eqnarray}
in units of  $10^{-4}\,$fm$^4$. The first  term refers to the
third order pion-nucleon loop result, whereas the second and third
term are the delta tree and loop corrections at third
order in the SSE. In brackets, we give the results due to the
variation of $h_A$ and $b_1$ within the bounds given above.
We do not attempt here to estimate the error stemming  from
the fourth (and higher) order terms -- this issue will be dealt
with in the future when we present the results of the complete
one-loop analysis.
As already found in Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2002pw}, the corrections from
tree-level delta graphs are large in the forward spin-polarizabilities
whereas the delta loop corrections for $\gamma_0^{n,p}$ are very
small.\footnote{In this work we use dimensional and {\it not}
  infrared regularization as in
  Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2002pw}. For this reason only qualitative
  comparison  is possible  between our results and that of~\cite{Bernard:2002pw}.}
This is different for the transverse-longitudinal polarizabilities,
where the tree contributions are suppressed (as it was also
found in the heavy baryon calculation of~\cite{Kao:2002cp}).
We note that the parameter-free prediction for $\gamma_0^p$
agrees within 1.5~$\sigma$ with the empirical number,
$\gamma_0^p = -1.00 \pm 0.08 \pm 0.12$ \cite{Dutz:2003mm}.
We note that the latter number is obtained using the well-known sum rule
for $\gamma_0$ in terms of the measured difference of the
photon-proton cross sections with helicity $1/2$ and $3/2$
for photon energies between 200 and 1800~MeV combined with the
MAID2003 prediction for the region between the threshold and
200~MeV.  This is a clear improvement as compared to earlier
calculations employing either HBCHPT with explicit deltas or the
covariant ${\cal O}(q^4)$ calculation adding tree-level $\Delta$-contributions.
Of course, before one can claim success, one must consistently
evaluate the fourth order contributions from nucleon and delta
intermediate states. We also note the marked difference in the
delta-loop contribution to $\delta_0^p$. While in the heavy baryon
scheme this contribution is small, it is sizeable in our relativistic
approach. This can be
largely
traced back to the box diagram (the right-most
 diagram in the upper row of Fig.~\ref{fig:diag}). As $m_N$ and $m_\Delta$ (with the
splitting fixed) tend to infinity, the contribution from this
diagram vanishes, whereas its value is $1.32 \cdot 10^{-4}$~fm$^4$
in our case. We have analyzed the $1/m_N$-expansion\footnote{The
$1/m_N$ expansion with fixed $\Delta=m_\Delta-m_N$ leads to the usual
heavy baryon SSE.} of the box diagram. We find that
it only starts to contribute at ${\cal O}(1/m_N^2)$ and that the convergence
of the series is very slow. The effect is much more dramatic for the
proton than for the neutron due to a much larger prefactor. This shows that
the heavy baryon expansion does not provide a good approximation to the
covariant result for this observable.

\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]{gamma0_neutron.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]{gamma0_proton.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Forward spin polarizability
in units of $10^{-4}$ fm$^4$ at finite photon virtuality for the
neutron (left) and the proton (right). Neutron data:
Ref.~\cite{Amarian:2004yf}
and proton data from Ref.~\cite{Dutz:2003mm} ($Q^2 =0$) and
Ref.~\cite{Prok:2008ev}  ($Q^2 > 0$). Only statistical errors are shown.}
\label{fig:gamma0Q2}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]{delta0_neutron.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]{delta0_proton.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Longitudinal-transverse spin polarizability
in units of $10^{-4}$ fm$^4$ at finite photon  virtuality for the
neutron (left) and the proton (right). Neutron data:
Ref.~\cite{Amarian:2004yf}. Only statistical errors are shown.}

\label{fig:delta0Q2}
\end{figure}

Next, we consider the various observables at finite photon virtuality. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:gamma0Q2}, we show the neutron (left panel) and proton (right
panel) forward spin polarizabilities for virtualities $Q^2 \leq 0.15\,$GeV$^2$.
For the neutron, there is only one data point at $Q^2 = 0.1\,$GeV$^2$, which
lies slightly above the predictions. The trend of the proton data is not
recovered, the discrepancy between the chiral prediction and the data grows
with increasing photon virtuality. This
is also reflected in the deviations
of the isoscalar and isovector combinations at $Q^2= 0.1\,$GeV$^2$ given
in Ref.~\cite{Deur:2008ej}.
To get more insights into  these trends, we display the
same decomposition for $\gamma_0^{p,n}(Q^2)$ at $Q^2= 0.1\,$GeV$^2$ as given
at the photon point in Eq.~(\ref{eq:parts}):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:gaq1}
\gamma_0^p&=&1.17_{q^3}\, - \, 4.29_{\epsilon^3, {\rm
    tree}}\, - \, 0.13_{\epsilon^3, {\rm loop}} \, = \, -3.25
~~[\pm 0.48]~,\nonumber \\
\gamma_0^n&=&1.49_{q^3}\, - \, 4.29_{\epsilon^3, {\rm
    tree}}\, - \, 0.15_{\epsilon^3, {\rm loop}} \, = \, -2.95
~~[\pm 0.48]~.
\end{eqnarray}
We see that the decrease of  $\gamma_0^{p,n}(Q^2)$ is a combined
effect of a decreasing positive contribution of the pion-nucleon
loops and an increase in magnitude of negative contribution from
the $\Delta$ tree graphs.  Again, a complete fourth calculations is
required to settle the issue.
Given that the prediction for $\gamma_0^p$ at the
photon point is already close to experiment, one  may hope that such
a fourth order calculation  would provide a  fine test of the chiral
QCD dynamics in view of the upcoming data at low photon virtualities
from Jefferson Lab (down to $Q^2 \approx 0.01\,$GeV$^2$).
It is also interesting to confront our predictions
with the isospin separated forward spin-polarizabilities of
Ref.~\cite{Deur:2008ej}. At $Q^2=0.1\, {\rm GeV}^2$, these authors find
$\gamma_0^{p-n} = 1.53$ and  $\gamma_0^{p+n} = -2.51$. This should
be compared with our predictions of $\gamma_0^{p-n} = -0.30$
and  $\gamma_0^{p+n} = -6.20$ for the central values (all in canonical units).
The third order SSE calculation disagrees markedly from the experimental values.
As stressed before, a complete ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^4)$ calculation is called for.

The $Q^2$-dependence of the transverse-longitudinal spin polarizability
is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:delta0Q2}. In contrast to the IR calculation
of Ref.~\cite{Bernard:2002pw}, it is a monotonically decreasing function of
$Q^2$ for both the neutron and the proton. This is a generic feature
of using dimensional instead of infrared regularization.
Still, the only empirical value of
$\delta_0^n (Q^2= 0.1\,{\rm GeV}^2)$ is slightly missed  by the chiral
prediction, but again a clear improvement as compared to earlier calculations
is achieved. We remark  again that the uncertainty shown here does not
involve the effects of higher orders not considered here.
 The decrease of $\delta_0^{p,n}(Q^2)$ is mostly due to the
pion-nucleon loop graphs, cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:parts})
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:deq1}
\delta_0^p&=&0.59_{q^3}\, - \, 0.53_{\epsilon^3, {\rm
    tree}}\, + \, 1.23_{\epsilon^3, {\rm loop}} \, = \,\,\,\,\,\, 1.29
~~[\pm 0.03]~~,\nonumber \\
\delta_0^n&=&0.95_{q^3}\, - \, 0.53_{\epsilon^3, {\rm
    tree}}\, + \, 0.33_{\epsilon^3, {\rm loop}} \, = \,\,\,\,\,\, 0.75
~~[\pm 0.05]~.
\end{eqnarray}

The $Q^2$-dependence of the generalized GDH sum rule $I_A (Q^2)$ is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:IAQ2}.  Here, we find a clear difference to the
data point at $Q^2 = 0.1\,$GeV$^2$, whereas the phenomenological
inclusion of the tree level $\Delta$-terms produced a broad band that was
consistent with this datum. It remains to be seen how the complete
one-loop calculation will do, as we know that there are sizeable
${\cal O}(q^4)$ pion-nucleon loop corrections.

Finally, the  $Q^2$-dependence of the first moment $\Gamma_1 (Q^2)$
for the proton and the isovector combination $\Gamma_1^{(p-n)}(Q^2)$
are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:Gamma1Q2}. While the ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^3)$
contributions slightly improve the chiral prediction for the proton, more curvature
from the pion-nucleon and pion-delta loop graphs at fourth order is
required. This again points towards the necessity of performing such a
complete fourth order calculations within the framework outlined here.
However, we note that the third order calculation already describes
the admittedly relatively imprecise data for the isovector combination
$\Gamma_1^{(p-n)}(Q^2)$ taken from Ref.~\cite{Deur:2008ej}. Therefore,
in this combination the fourth order corrections should largely cancel,
which was found to be the case in the heavy baryon approach \cite{Ji:1999mr}
but not in the infrared regularized covariant calculation \cite{Bernard:2002bs}.

\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]{IA_neutron.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]{IA_proton.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Generalized GDH integral $I_A$  for the
neutron (left) and the proton (right).
Neutron data: Ref.~\cite{Amarian:2002ar}.
The two data points at the same value of $Q^2$ refer to different extraction methods
as described in~\cite{Amarian:2002ar}. Only the dominant systematic errors are
shown.}
\label{fig:IAQ2}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]{Gamma1_proton.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]{Gamma1_proton_minus_neutron.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{First moment of the integral $I_1(Q^2)$ for the
the proton (left) and the isovector nucleon $(p-n)$ (right).
The proton data are from Ref.~\cite{Prok:2008ev} and the
isovector data from Ref.~\cite{Deur:2008ej}. Only statistical errors are shown.}
\label{fig:Gamma1Q2}
\end{figure}

\section{Summary and outlook}
\label{sec:summ}

We have presented a calculation of the nucleon spin structure
at low energies in the framework of a covariant formulation of
baryon chiral effective field theory
with explicit spin-3/2 degrees of freedom. We have included all
terms up-to-and-including ${\cal O}(\varepsilon^3)$ in the small
scale expansion. At this order, one has contributions from
delta tree diagrams supplemented by  the leading pion-nucleon
and pion-delta loop graphs. Having fixed the LECs from the strong
and the  electromagnetic width of the $\Delta$-resonance, we can make
parameter-free predictions. This is particularly
useful in view of the upcoming precision data from Jefferson Lab at low
photon virtualities. The main results
of this investigation can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[i)] We find an improved description of the forward spin polarizability
$\gamma_0$ for the neutron and the proton. In particular, the value of $\gamma_0^p(0)$ is
consistent with the determination from the GDH collaboration.
However, the $Q^2$-dependence of the $\gamma_0^p(Q^2)$ is not consistent with the data,
with the discrepancy increasing with larger photon virtuality.
\item[ii)] For the longitudinal-transverse spin polarizability, we find
an improved description as compared to earlier calculations. Still, the
experimental value of $\delta_0^n (Q^2=0.1\,{\rm GeV}^2)$ is slightly larger
in magnitude than the chiral prediction.
\item[iii)] The generalized GDH integral $I_A(Q^2)$ shows a faster fall-off
with increasing photon virtuality as indicated by the data on the neutron.
$\pi N$ and $\pi \Delta$ loops at fourth order are expected to supply the
necessary curvature.
\item[iv)] Similar statements can be made for the first moment $\Gamma_1
(Q^2)$, where the approximate $Q^2$-independence of the proton data
(for small values of $Q^2$) is not captured by the third order calculation.
However, we find that the prediction for the isovector combination
 $\Gamma_1^{(p-n)}(Q^2)$ is in agreement with the few existing but not
very precise  data.
\end{itemize}
All this points towards the necessity of performing a  complete one-loop
calculation \cite{BEKMprep}. However, we would like to stress that what
was considered here are just the leading contributions based on a
covariant effective Lagrangian with explicit deltas -- as such, most
of the results can be considered quite encouraging.
In view of the upcoming Jefferson Lab
data at very small photon virtualities, one can finally hope to test
the chiral QCD dynamics related to
the nucleon spin structure with sufficient precision.

\bigskip\bigskip

\section*{Acknowledgments}

\smallskip\noindent

We thank Marina Dorati for collaboration during the
early stage of this investigation and Jian-ping Chen for
strong encouragement to write up these results.
Work supported in part by DFG (SFB/TR 16,
``Subnuclear Structure of Matter''), by the European
Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity ``Study of
Strongly Interacting Matter'' (acronym HadronPhysics3,
Grant Agreement n. 283286) under the Seventh Framework Programme of EU,
and and ERC project 259218 NUCLEAREFT.

\bigskip


\section{Introduction}
The hierarchy problem of the standard model (SM) strongly suggests
new physics at TeV scale, and the idea that there exists extra
dimensions (ED) which first proposed by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos,
and Dvali\cite{ADD} might provide a solution to this problem. They
proposed a scenario in which the SM field is constrained to the
common 3+1 space-time dimensions (``brane"), while gravity is free
to propagate throughout a larger multidimensional space $D=\delta+4$
(``bulk"). The picture of a massless graviton propagating in D
dimensions is equal to the picture that numerous massive
Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons propagate in 4 dimensions. The
fundamental Planck scale $M_S$ is related to the Plank mass scale
$M_{Pl}=G_N^{-1/2}=1.22\times10^{19}~{\rm GeV}$ according to the
formula $M^2_{Pl}=8\pi M^{\delta+2}_{S} R^\delta$ , where $R$ and
$\delta$ are the size and number of the extra dimensions,
respectively. If $R$ is large enough to make $M_S$ on the order of
the electroweak symmetry breaking scale ($\sim 1~ {\rm TeV}$), the
hierarchy problem will be naturally solved, so this extra dimension
model is called the large extra dimension model (LED) or the ADD
model. Postulating $M_S$ to be 1 TeV, we get $R\sim 10^{13}~{\rm
cm}$ for $\delta=1$, which is obviously ruled out since it would
modify Newton's law of gravity at solar-system distances; and we get
$R\sim 1~{\rm mm}$ for $\delta=2$, which is also ruled out by the
torsion-balance experiments\cite{Kapner:2006si}. When $\delta \geq
3$, where $R < 1~{\rm nm}$, it is possible to detect graviton signal
at high energy colliders.

At colliders, exchange of virtual KK graviton or emission of a real
KK mode could give rise to interesting phenomenological signals at
TeV scale\cite{ADD:Gian,ADD:HanTao}. Virtual effects of KK modes
could lead to the enhancement of the cross section of pair
productions in processes, for example, di-lepton, di-gauge boson
($\gamma\gamma$, $ZZ$, $W^+W^-$), dijet, $t\bar{t}$ pair, HH
pair\cite{ADDvirtualA, ADDvirtualB, ADDvirtualC, ADDvirtualD,
ADDvirtualE, ADDvirtualF, ADDvirtualG} etc. The real emission of a
KK mode could lead to large missing $E_T$ signals viz. mono jet,
mono gauge boson\cite{ADD:Gian, ADD:HanTao, ADDrealA, ADDrealB} etc.
The CMS Collaboration has performed a lot of search for LED on
different final states at $\sqrt{s}=7$
TeV\cite{CMS:LED1,CMS:LED2,CMS:LED3}, and they set the most
stringent lower limits to date to be $2.5~{\rm TeV} < M_S <3.8~{\rm
TeV}$ by combining the diphoton, dimuon and dielectron channels.

Studies for LED have been extended to three body final state
processes in recent years. Triple gauge bosons productions in the SM
are important because they involve 3-point and 4-point gauge
couplings in the contributing diagrams, which allow for restrictive
tests of triple and quartic vector boson coupling. And also they
might contribute backgrounds to new physics beyond the SM.
Furthermore they are sensitive to new physics. This kind of
processes have been studied at LO\cite{VVV:Golden, VVV:Barger,
VVV:HanT} and NLO\cite{eevvv_NLO_Fawzi, eevvv_NLO_Su, eevvv_NLO_Sun,
eevvv_NLO_Binoth, eevvv_NLO_Lazopoulos, eevvv_NLO_Bozzi} in the SM,
and virtual graviton exchange effects to these processes within the
LED model at LHC are studied recently\cite{VVV:ED:Kumar}. Linear
colliders have more advantage in testing extra dimensions than LHC
for the following reasons. First, even though the LHC has much
higher center-of-mass (c.m.s.) energy than linear colliders, the
theoretical amplitude at LHC is hampered by the unitary constraint
$\sqrt{\hat{s}}<{\rm M_S}$. Second, linear colliders have cleaner
environment than LHC, so it's much easier to select the ED signals.
The capabilities of the planned International Linear Collider (ILC)
and Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) for precision Higgs studies are
well documented\cite{ILCforHiggs, CLICforHiggs}. They will also
provide opportunities for the search for new physics beyond SM. So
in this paper we consider the triple gauge bosons production at ILC
and CLIC $e^-e^+\to VVV$~ within the LED model, where we restrict V to be
neutral gauge boson ($V=\gamma,Z$). The following four final states
are the subject of this analysis: (i) $\gamma\gamma\gamma$ (ii)
$\gamma\gamma Z$ (iii) $\gamma Z Z$ (iv) $ZZZ$. The case where $V =
W^\pm$ is in prepare and will be part of a different paper.

This paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we present the
analytical calculation of the processes mentioned above with a brief
introduction to the LED model, section 3 is arranged to present the
numerical results of our studies, and finally we summarize the
results in the last section.

\section{Theoretical Framework}

\par
In this section we give the analytical calculations of the process
$e^-e^+\to VVV$~ with $V =\gamma,Z$ at linear colliders in the LED model. In
our calculation we use the de Donder gauge. The relevant Feynman
rules involving graviton in the LED model can be found in
Ref.\cite{ADD:HanTao}. We denote the process as:
\begin{eqnarray}
e^-(p_1) + e^+(p_2) \rightarrow V(p_3) + V(p_4) + V(p_5)
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_1$, $p_2$ and $p_3$, $p_4$, $p_5$ represent the momenta of
the incoming and outgoing particles respectively.

\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1]{fig1.ps}
\caption{\label{feynfig} Feynman diagrams for $e^-e^+\to VVV$~ process with
$V=\gamma,Z$. (a,b) are the diagrams in the SM, and (c,d,e) are the
diagrams in the LED model.}
\end{figure}

In Fig.\ref{feynfig} we display the Feynman diagrams for this
process in both the SM and LED model, among which (a) and (b) are SM
diagrams and (c)$\sim$(e) are LED diagrams. We have neglected the
Higgs coupling to electrons because the Yukawa coupling is
proportional to the fermion mass. But the Higgs coupling to Z
bosons, which appears in $e^-e^+\to ZZZ$~ process (Fig.\ref{feynfig}(b)),
can't be neglected because of its large contribution, e.g., with
$\sqrt{s}$ to be $300-3000~{\rm GeV}$, the cross section for
Fig.\ref{feynfig}(b) is about $26\% - 9\%$ of the total SM cross
section. After considering all possible permutations, we have 12 SM
diagrams for the $ZZZ$ production process and 9 SM diagrams for the
other three processes, and we have 12 LED diagrams for the $\gamma\gamma\gamma$~ and
$ZZZ$ processes and 4 LED diagrams for $\gamma\gamma Z$~ and $\gamma ZZ$~ processes.

\par
In our calculation we consider both the spin-0 and spin-2 KK mode
exchange effect. The spin-0 states only couple through the dilaton
mode, which have none contribution to $\gamma\gamma\gamma$~ and $\gamma\gamma Z$~ processes and
could contribute to $\gamma ZZ$~ and $ZZZ$~ production processes through
couplings to massive gauge bosons. However the cross sections coming
from the dilaton mode are so small that can be neglected, e.g., they
are at most about $10^{-12}$ and $10^{-8}$ times of the total cross
sections for $\gamma ZZ$~ and $ZZZ$~ production processes, respectively. So we
focus our study on the spin-2 component of the KK states.

\par
The couplings between gravitons and SM particles are proportional to
a constant named gravitational coupling $\kappa \equiv \sqrt{16 \pi
G_N}$, which can be expressed in terms of the fundamental Plank
scale $M_S$ and the size of the compactified space R by
\begin{eqnarray}
  \kappa^2 R^{\delta} = 8 \pi (4 \pi)^{\delta/2} \Gamma(\delta/2) M_S^{-(\delta+2)}
\end{eqnarray}

In practical experiments, the contributions of the different
Kaluza-Klein modes have to be summed up, so the propagator is
proportional to $i/(s_{ij}-m^2_{\vec{n}})$, where
$s_{ij}=(p_i+p_j)^2$ and $m_{\vec{n}}$ is the mass of the KK state
$\vec{n}$. Thus, when the effects of all the KK states are taken
together, the amplitude is proportional to $\sum\limits_{\vec{n}}
\frac{i}{s_{ij}-m^2_{\vec{n}}+i\epsilon}=D(s)$. If $\delta \geq 2$
this summation is formally divergent as $m_{\vec{n}}$ becomes large.
We assume that the distribution has a ultraviolet cutoff at
$m_{\vec{n}}\sim M_S$, where the underlying theory becomes manifest.
Then $D(s)$ can be expressed as:
\begin{eqnarray}
 D(s) =\frac{1}{\kappa^2}
\frac{8\pi}{M_S^4}(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{M_S})^{\delta-2}[\pi + 2i
I(M_S/\sqrt{s})].
\end{eqnarray}
The imaginary part I($\Lambda/\sqrt{s}$) is from the summation over
the many non-resonant KK states and  its expression can be found in
Ref.\cite{ADD:HanTao}. Finally the KK graviton propagator after
summing over the KK states is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{prop}
\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}_{KK}=D(s)
 \left(\eta_{\mu\alpha}\eta_{\nu\beta} + \eta_{\mu\beta}\eta_{\nu \alpha}
- \frac{2}{D-2}\eta_{\mu\nu}\eta_{\alpha\beta}\right)
\end{eqnarray}

Using the Feynman rules in the LED model and the propagator given by
Eq.(\ref{prop}), we can get the amplitudes for the  virtual KK
graviton exchange diagrams in Fig.\ref{feynfig}. The total amplitude
can be obtained by adding these LED amplitudes together with the SM
ones. The total cross section can be expressed as the integration
over the phase space of three-body final state:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{tot}&=&\frac{(2\pi)^4 }{4|\vec p_1|\sqrt{s}}\int d\Phi_3
\overline{\sum}|{\cal M}_{tot}|^2.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\overline{\sum}$ represents the summation over the spins of
final particles and the average over the spins of initial particles.
The phase-space element $d\Phi_3$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{d\Phi_3}=\delta^{(4)} \left( p_1+p_2-\sum_{i=3}^5 p_i \right)
\prod_{j=3}^5 \frac{d^3 \textbf{\textsl{p}}_j}{(2 \pi)^3 2 E_j}.
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Numerical Results}
\subsection{Input parameters and kinematical cuts}
We use FeynArts and FormCalc package\cite{FeynArts,FormCalc} to
generate and reduce the amplitudes and then implement numerical
calculation. We use BASES\cite{BASES} to perform the phase space
integration and CERN library to display the distributions. The SM
parameters are taken as follows\cite{ParticleDataGroup}:
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&m_Z=91.1876~{\rm GeV},~ m_W=80.399~{\rm GeV}, ~m_e=0.511~{\rm
MeV},
\\ \nonumber
 &&\alpha(m^2_Z)=1/127.934, ~m_{H}=125~{\rm GeV}\cite{SMHiggs125GeV_ATLAS, SMHiggs125GeV_CMS}.
\end{eqnarray}

We take the cuts on final particles as:
\begin{eqnarray}
 p_T^{\gamma,Z} \geqslant 15~{\rm GeV}, \ \ \eta^{\gamma,Z}\leqslant 2.5,\ \ R_{\gamma\gamma}\geqslant0.4
\end{eqnarray}
where R is defined as $R=\sqrt{(\Delta\phi)^2 + (\Delta\eta)^2}$,
with $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ denoting the separation between
the two particles in azimuthal angle and pseudo-rapidity
respectively.

\subsection{Total Cross sections}

In Fig.\ref{runS} we present the cross sections for
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma,\gamma\gamma Z,\gamma ZZ\
{\rm and}\ ZZZ$ processes as the functions of $\sqrt{s}$ for
$\delta=3$ with different values of $M_S$. The solid lines are the
SM results. The dashed, dotted and dot-dashed lines are
corresponding to the cross sections in the LED model for $M_S=3.5$
TeV, 4.5 TeV and 5.5 TeV respectively. When $\sqrt{s}$ is less than
about 1 TeV, the curves for the total cross sections including the
LED effect seem to be overlapped with that in the SM, then the LED
effect becomes significant with the increment of $\sqrt{s}$. When
$M_S=3.5$ TeV, the $e^-e^+\to \gamma ZZ$~ process has the most significant LED
effect among the four processes considered in this paper, while the
$e^-e^+\to \gamma\gamma Z$~ process has the least. When $\sqrt{s}=500~{\rm GeV}$, the
cross sections for $\gamma\gamma\gamma$~ and $\gamma\gamma Z$~ production processes are
comparable, which are 91 fb and 78 fb respectively, because they
have comparable phase-space. While the cross sections for $\gamma ZZ$~ and
$ZZZ$~ processes are much smaller due to the less phase-space, which
are 18 fb and 1 fb, respectively. With $\sqrt{s}$ increase to be 3
TeV, the cross section for $\gamma ZZ$~ are enhanced to 347 fb, which is
even larger than the $\gamma\gamma\gamma$~ process (323 fb), and the cross sections
for $ZZZ$~ process is enhanced to 34 fb, which is comparable to the
$\gamma\gamma Z$~ process (36 fb). With larger $M_S$ value (5.5 TeV), the LED
contribution to $\gamma\gamma\gamma$~ production process will exceed $\gamma ZZ$~, that's why
$e^-e^+\to \gamma\gamma\gamma$~ process puts the highest limits on $M_S$, as we will see
later.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics*[68pt,42pt][594pt,418pt]{fig2.ps}}
\caption{\label{runS} The cross sections for the process $e^-e^+\to VVV$ with $V=\gamma,Z$~ in
the SM and LED model as the function of $\sqrt{s}$ with $M_{s}=$
3.5, 4.5, 5.5 TeV and $\delta=3$.}
\end{figure}

\par
In Fig.\ref{runMs} we present the dependence of the cross section on
energy scale $M_S$ with $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV, 2 TeV and 3 TeV
respectively. In each figure of Fig.\ref{runMs}, we present the
curves for the cross sections with the extra dimension $\delta$
value being 3, 4, 5 and 6 separately. The solid straight lines,
which are independent of $M_S$, are the SM results, and the dashed,
dotted, dash-dotted and dash-dot-dotted lines are the cross sections
for $\delta$=3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. It's clear that for a given
value of $\delta$, the cross section decreases rapidly with the
increment of $M_S$, and finally approaches to its corresponding SM
result. We can see again that the virtual KK graviton exchange
contribution decreases with the increment of the $\delta$ value. The
LED effect on the cross sections with $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV is too small
to be detected, especially for $e^-e^+\to \gamma\gamma Z$~ process, which is coincidence
with Fig.\ref{runS}. If we got high enough c.m.s energy, say 3 TeV,
the cross sections would be very significant when $M_S$ is not very
large. Even with $M_S=6$ TeV, the cross sections are still several
times of the SM ones.
\par

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics*[68pt,38pt][594pt,418pt]{fig3.ps}}
\caption{\label{runMs} The cross sections for the process
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow VVV$ in the SM and LED model as the function
of $M_S$ with $\sqrt{s}=$ 1, 2, 3 TeV and $\delta=3,~4,~5,~6$.}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Distributions}
\par
The distributions of the Gauge boson pair invariance mass $M_{VV}$
($VV=\gamma\gamma,~ZZ$) and the Gauge boson transverse momentum
$p_{T}^{V}$ as well as their rapidity $y^{V}$ at the 3 TeV CILC, are
shown in Fig.4-6. The results are for $M_S=6.5$ TeV at the fixed
value 4 for the number of extra dimensions and obtained by taking
the input parameters mentioned above.

\subsection*{$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma$}
Before selecting our event samples for triple $\gamma$ production,
we order the photons on the basis of their transverse momentum i.e.,
$p_T^{\gamma_1}\geq p_T^{\gamma_2} \geq p_T^{\gamma_3}$. For
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma$, we are interested in the
$p_{T}^{\gamma}$ and $y^{\gamma}$ distribution which are displayed
in the left and right panel in Fig.4, respectively. The solid,
dashed and dotted lines refer to $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ and
$\gamma_3$, respectively. In high $p_{T}^{\gamma_1}$ and
$p_{T}^{\gamma_2}$ region, the LED effect dominant the total
(SM+LED) distribution, because more KK modes contribute with the
increase of $p_T$. Difference can be found for the
$p_{T}^{\gamma_3}$ production, although it's still enhanced by the
LED effects, it's low $p_T$ region is dominant while in high $p_T$
region it becomes much smaller. Rapidity distribution of the related
photon has been shown in the right panel in Fig.4. As we can see,
the rapidity distributions in the LED model show significantly peaks
around $y = 0$, which implies the large contributions at high
$p_{T}^{\gamma_{1,2}}$ region. Compare with the $\gamma_1$ and
$\gamma_2$ distribution, the $y$ distribution of $\gamma_3$ seems
much flatter.

\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.44}[0.44]{\includegraphics*[7pt,17pt][512pt,416pt]{fig4a.ps}}
\scalebox{0.44}[0.44]{\includegraphics*[7pt,17pt][512pt,416pt]{fig4b.ps}}
\caption{\label{fig4} The transverse momentum($p_T$) and
Rapidity($y$) distribution of photons for the process
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma$, on the basis of their
transverse momentum $p_T^{\gamma_1}\geq p_T^{\gamma_2} \geq
p_T^{\gamma_3}$ with $M_S=$ 6.5TeV, $\sqrt{s}=$3 TeV and $\delta=4$.
The solid, dashed and dotted lines refer to
$p_T^{\gamma_1}$($y^{\gamma_1}$), $p_T^{\gamma_2}$($y^{\gamma_2}$)
and $p_T^{\gamma_3}$($y^{\gamma_3}$).}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow ZZZ$}
Similar to the $e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma$
production, triple Z bosons final particles are classified in such a
way that $p_T^{Z_1}\geq p_T^{Z_2} \geq p_T^{Z_3}$. Similar
conclusion can be found for the $e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow ZZZ$
production. It's not strange that the signal of triple $\gamma$
signal is larger than the triple Z production since the three Z
bosons suppress the phase space integration extremely, so that the
total cross sections as well as the distributions become smaller as
can be seen in Fig.4 and Fig.5, the peak is around 0.0006 fb/GeV for
$p_{T}^{Z_1}$ compared to 0.01 fb/GeV for $p_{T}^{\gamma_1}$ in the
high $p_T$ region. For the $y$ distributions, the peaks for the
$ZZZ$ production are narrower than the $\gamma\gamma\gamma$
distributions, however, the conclusion is the same that the rapidity
distributions in the LED model show significant peaks around $y =
0$.

\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.44}[0.44]{\includegraphics*[7pt,17pt][512pt,416pt]{fig5a.ps}}
\scalebox{0.44}[0.44]{\includegraphics*[7pt,17pt][512pt,416pt]{fig5b.ps}}
\caption{\label{fig5} The transverse momentum($p_T$)and
Rapidity($y$) distribution of $Z$ bosons for the process
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow ZZZ$, on the basis of their transverse
momentum $p_T^{Z_1}\geq p_T^{Z_2} \geq p_T^{Z_3}$ with $M_S=6.5$
TeV, $\sqrt{s}=3$ TeV and $\delta=4$. The solid, dashed and dotted
lines refer to $p_T^{Z_1}$($y^{Z_1}$), $p_T^{Z_2}$($y^{Z_2}$) and
$p_T^{Z_3}$($y^{Z_3}$).}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma Z$ and $e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma Z Z$}
Now let's see the distributions for the $e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow
\gamma\gamma Z$ and $e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma Z Z$ productions.
The photon pair decay of the KK graviton is one of the clean decay
modes, so the distribution of the invariant mass of the photon pair
($M_{\gamma\gamma}$) is a useful observable for $e^-e^+\to \gamma\gamma Z$~. An obvious
enhancement on the tail of this distribution makes such region of
extreme interest. Typically, we find that the KK modes dominate over
SM contribution for larger values of invariant masses (say above 1
TeV for a given set of $M_S$ and $\delta$ values, here we give
$M_S=4.5$ TeV and $\delta=4$) of photon pairs indicating the
observable nature of the signal, see the two dotted line in Fig.6.
The upper and lower ones refer to the SM predict and SM+LED effects.
For the process $e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma Z Z$, it is similar to
$\gamma\gamma Z$ production process, and in this case, the invariant
mass of Z boson pair($M_{ZZ}$) is a useful observable. We thus
display it in Fig.6, see the solid lines. These two solid line
branch at about the invariance mass 1 TeV, and the upper and lower
ones present the SM and SM+LED effects, respectively.

\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.5]{fig6.ps}
\caption{\label{fig6} Invariant mass distribution of
$M_{\gamma\gamma(ZZ)}$ for $e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma
Z$($e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma ZZ$) for $M_S=4.5$ TeV,
$\sqrt{s}=3$ TeV and $\delta=4$.}
\end{figure}

\par
It is clear that if the deviation of the cross section from the SM
prediction is large enough, the LED effects can be found. We assume
that the LED effects can and cannot be observed, only
if\cite{sunhaorrttH}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\sigma=|\sigma_{tot}-\sigma_{SM}|\geq  \frac{5\sqrt{ {\cal
L}\sigma_{tot}}}{{\cal L}} \equiv 5\sigma
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\sigma=|\sigma_{tot}-\sigma_{SM}|\leq  \frac{3\sqrt{ {\cal
L}\sigma_{tot}}}{{\cal L}} \equiv 3\sigma
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c r r r r r r }
\hline\hline
  $\sqrt{s}$    &&\multicolumn{2}{c}{1 TeV}&& \multicolumn{2}{c}{2 TeV}&& \multicolumn{2}{c}{3 TeV} \\ [0.5ex]
      && $5\sigma$ & $3\sigma$&& $5\sigma$ & $3\sigma$ && $5\sigma$ & $3\sigma$ &&  \\
\hline
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma$ && 3599 & 4093  && 6371 & 7187 && 8906  & 10023  \\
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow ZZZ$                && 2530 & 2858  && 4711 & 5312 && 6730 & 7584  \\
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma Z$ &&  2052 & 2289  && 4007 & 4458 && 5823 & 6500   \\
$e^{-}e^{+}\rightarrow \gamma ZZ$ && 3406 & 3835  &&  6027 & 6757  && 8412  & 9421  \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-0.8cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{14cm}
\caption{\label{tab3} The discovery ($\Delta\sigma \geq 5\sigma$)
and exclusion ($\Delta\sigma \leq 3\sigma$) LED model fundamental
scale ($M_S$) values for the $e^-e^+\to VVV$~ processes at the $\sqrt{s}$ = 1,
2, 3 TeV ILC(CLIC). ${\cal L}= 300~ {\rm fb}^{-1}$, $\delta = 4$.}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Our final results show that by using the $\gamma\gamma\gamma$~ production we can set
the discovery limit on the fundamental Plank scale $M_S$ up to
3.1-9.9 TeV, depending on the extra dimension $\delta\subset[3,6]$,
with the luminosity 300 fb$^{-1}$ and the colliding energy 1-3 TeV.
For the other three final states $\gamma\gamma Z$~, $\gamma ZZ$~ and $ZZZ$~, the limits are
1.8-6.3 TeV, 2.9-9.3 TeV and 2.2-7.4 TeV, respectively. To do a more
detailed description, in Table 1, we present the $5\sigma$ discovery
and $3\sigma$ exclusion fundamental scale $M_S$ values at the
ILC/CLIC with the luminosity 300 fb$^{-1}$ for $\delta=4$ . It shows
that compared to the other three channels, $\gamma\gamma\gamma$ can
set the discovery limit bounds much higher, up to 8.9 TeV. The
phenomenology of the neutral triple gauge boson production at the
near future is much richer at linear colliders, though its
production cannot give compete limits as, for example, dilepton
production gives, it's still very interesting and important.

\vspace*{0.4cm}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c r r r r r r }
\hline\hline
&& ${\cal L}$ (${\rm fb}^{-1}$)\\
        && $5\sigma$ & $3\sigma$  \\
\hline
$pp\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma$ && 960 & 1500    \\
$pp\rightarrow ZZZ$                && 21 & 21    \\
$pp\rightarrow \gamma\gamma Z$ &&  20 & 17     \\
$pp\rightarrow \gamma ZZ$ && 170 & 140    \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-0.8cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{14cm}
\caption{\label{tab3} Integrated luminosity needed at 14 TeV LHC to
accomplish the discovery and exclusion bounds at a 1 TeV linear
collider, which are listed in the first two columns in Table 1,
using the neutral triple gauge boson production processes, with
$\delta=4$. }
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{table}

To make a comparison with Ref.\cite{VVV:ED:Kumar}, we repeat the $pp
\to VVV$ ($V=\gamma, Z$) process at LHC, using the same parameters
and cuts with Ref.\cite{VVV:ED:Kumar}, and find that our results are
in good agreement with theirs. In Table 2 we list the integrated
luminosity the 14 TeV LHC needed to accomplish the discovery and
exclusion bounds at a 1 TeV LC (the first two column data listed in
Table 1), by using the corresponding $VVV$ production channels with
extra dimensions $\delta=4$. The table shows that with years of
collection of data, LHC could accomplish the discovery and exclusion
limits set by a 1 TeV LC, even for the most challenging channel
$\gamma\gamma\gamma$~. While the limits set by a 2 or 3 TeV LC are much higher, and
the required amounts of data for matching these bounds are too large
to be a reasonable projection for the LHC reach.

\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\par
In a short summary, we calculate the neutral gauge boson production
processes $\gamma\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma\gamma Z$, $\gamma Z Z$ and
$ZZZ$ in the SM and LED model at ILC and CLIC. We investigate the
integrated cross sections, the distributions of some kinematic
variables $M_{VV}$, $p_T^V$ and $y^{V}$. The 5$\sigma$ discovery and
3$\sigma$ exclusion ranges for the LED parameters $M_S$ are obtained
and compared between different channels. It turns out that the
effects of the virtual KK graviton enhance the total cross sections
and differential distributions of kinematical observables generally.
Among the four processes we considered, $e^-e^+\to \gamma ZZ$~ or $e^-e^+\to \gamma\gamma\gamma$~ process has
the most significant LED effect with relatively small or large
$M_S$, respectively. While $e^-e^+\to \gamma\gamma Z$~ has the least contribution from
LED diagrams. With the development of linear colliders, more
information related to LED effects can be obtained experimentally
through such important productions. At the 3 TeV CLIC, it is
expected that $\gamma ZZ$~ production can be used to explore a range of
$M_S$ values up to 7.3-9.3 TeV depending on the number of extra
dimensions. Through $\gamma\gamma\gamma$ production, we can extend
this search up to 9.9 TeV, While using $\gamma\gamma Z$ and $ZZZ$
productions, lower bounds on $M_S$ can be found, which are 6.3 TeV
and 7.4 TeV, respectively.

\section{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Prof. Zhang Ren-You for useful discussions.
Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No.11147151, No.11205070, No.11105083, No.10947139 and
No.11035003), and by Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation
(No.ZR2012AQ017).

\vskip 10mm


\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
Applications, such as photoacoustic mammography~\cite{Piras:2010ie}, lidar~\cite{Roy:2008p2385,Bruneau:1994p15112} and space applications~\cite{Schall:2002wz} require lasers that have high pulse energy. For photoacoustic applications, \emph{Q}-switched laser pulses are used to generate ultrasound waves comprising a wide range of frequency components. The acoustically acquired image resolution is limited by the highest acoustic frequency generated by the laser pulse. Optimum resolution requires that the ultrasound waves are initiated by a laser pulse that has a duration less than 100~ns (FWHM)~\cite{Piras:2010ie}.  In addition, the penetration depth of the laser light and the image contrast depend on the optical absorption of the tissue components, such that near IR lasers, e.g. Alexandrite lasers, have received increased attention~\cite{Kruger:2010gb}. An important consideration for lasers in industrial and medical applications is simplicity in design by minimizing the number of cavity components, allowing for robust and stable instruments. For \emph{Q}-switched lasers based on low gain materials, such as Alexandrite, this is of interest also from a fundamental point of view, because additional cavity components introduce additional loss, making the laser less efficient.

\emph{Q}-switching is achieved through loss modulation. For instance, a Pockels cell is placed in the optical cavity. In the hold-off state, the Pockels cell acts as a quarter wave plate, and, after two passes, the polarization state of the light is rotated by 90$^{\circ}$. Adding a polarizing beamsplitter then rejects the rotated light from the cavity, introducing large losses (see Fig.~\ref{Q-switching}(a)). When out of the hold-off state, the Pockels cell has no effect on the polarization of the light, reducing the losses of the cavity and allowing the laser to reach threshold. \emph{Q}-switching is an efficient way of producing nanosecond, high energy pulses because the switching device--usually a Pockels cell or acousto-optic modulator--is able to switch the cavity from closed to open in a time that is much shorter than the upper state lifetime of the gain medium.

However, losses that are inevitably associated with intracavity elements, increase the build-up time and reduce the output power of the oscillator. Although intracavity elements are optimized to be low loss, a low gain material is particularly sensitive to the accumulated effect of these losses. This is because it takes many round trips---with losses acquired on a per-pass basis---before the optical energy has grown by, typically, 20 orders of magnitude from spontaneously emitted photons and shows up as a macroscopic pulse. If losses delay this build-up process to an extent that becomes comparable with the lifetime of the upper laser level, a significant fraction of the energy stored in the inversion is lost, which reduces the output pulse energy. In cases like this, it is beneficial to consider pulse generating schemes that eliminate as many intracavity optics as possible.

Gain switching is an alternative that is, in general, considered to be less favourable for nanosecond pulse generation. In addition to requiring that the gain is switched faster than the life time of the upper state, it is also required that the gain is switched faster than the build up time of the laser system. Thus, although Alexandrite has an upper state life time of 1.54~ms~\cite{Verdeyen:wa}, a flash lamp pulse with a duration of 200~$\mu$s results in a burst of laser pulses consisting of weak nanosecond pulses emitted over a timespan that can extend into the millisecond range (an effect that is observed in many laser gain materials). To obtain a single nanosecond pulse, one would preferentially pump a gain switched laser with a \emph{Q}-switched laser to rapidly switch the gain (see e.g.,~\cite{Lee:2002uy}).

In this paper, we demonstrate that nanosecond pulses with high energy can be generated from what we call gain-coefficient switching. In all lasers, the amplification is a product of the population inversion and the coupling between the population and the light field, i.e., the Einstein $B$ gain-coefficient. Conventional gain switching relies on a rapid ramp of the population inversion, while keeping the gain-coefficient constant. However, in gain-coefficient switching, the population inversion need not be ramped rapidly, instead, the gain-coefficient is switched. We demonstrate gain-coefficient switching with an Alexandrite laser, where the Einstein $B$ gain-coefficient for stimulated emission is switched from a lower to a higher value. The observation of such effects date back to work from Walling \emph{et al.}, who obtained $Q$-switching and tuning without an intracavity polarizer~\cite{Walling:1980uk}. However, gain-coefficient switching is unlike the standard gain switching or Q-switching because both the inversion and cavity losses remain unchanged upon switching. Alexandrite is strongly birefringent and has a strongly polarization dependent gain coefficient---an order of magnitude more gain along one axis of birefringence compared to the other~\cite{koechner2006solid}. We use this to modulate the laser gain via a Pockels cell to switch the coupling between the light in the optical cavity and the population inversion via its Einstein $B$ coefficient. This allows the flash lamp to provide a large population inversion over a time interval that is much longer than the build up time of the cavity, while the Pockels cell prevents light, spontaneously emitted into the mode of the cavity, from coupling efficiently to the inversion. After the flash lamp pulse is complete, and the population inversion is built up, the Pockels cell is switched off, allowing the single polarization mode with the highest B coefficient to efficiently build up, generating a single nanosecond duration gain switched pulse.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=3in]{Figure_1a}}\\%Normal-Q-switching
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=3in]{Figure_1b}
\caption{\emph{Q}-switching by loss modulation (a). The Pockels cell, combined with the thin film polarizer selects high and low loss states. Gain-coefficient switched operation (b). The Pockels cell rotates the polarization every roundtrip, coupling each polarization mode to the high and low gain cross sections of the laser gain. In this way, the Pockels cell increases the threshold of the laser, preventing laser action before the Pockels cell is switched off.}
\label{Q-switching}
\end{figure}

\section{Setup}
\label{exp setup}
The laser is based around an Alexandrite crystal that was doped at 0.15\% Cr, 115~mm long, and 7~mm in diameter (Northrup Grumman). The end facets were polished at a 2$^{\circ}$ angle and anti-reflection coated at 755~nm. The laser crystal was placed in one the foci of an elliptical flash lamp housing (Quantel SF 511-07), oriented such that one of the axes of birefringence was parallel with the optical table. The laser crystal was excited by two Xenon flash lamps that were supplied by a capacitor bank that stored up to 281~J of energy.

The laser cavity consisted of two plane mirrors, separated by 31~cm (limited by the physical size of the laser crystal housing and the Pockels cell mount). The available output couplers had reflectivities of 90, 80, 70, and 60\%. We found that a 60\% reflective output coupler provided the shortest pulse duration, while the output energy for all output couplers was limited by the damage threshold of the optical coatings (15~J/cm$^{2}$). All results presented below were taken with the 60\% output coupler. Gain-coefficient switched operation was achieved by placing a Pockels cell between the laser crystal housing and the high reflector. The Pockels cell operation sequence was triggered by the flash lamp discharge control signal. At the same time that the capacitor bank discharge is triggered, a voltage of 1100~V is applied to the Pockels cell. The cell then behaves like a quarter wave plate, which is the hold-off mode. After a delay of 250~$\mu$s, the Pockels cell voltage is switched off with a fall time of 15~ns, coupling a single polarization mode to the highest B coefficient and allowing laser oscillation. The Pockels cell remains in this state until the next flash lamp discharge trigger signal. Careful examination of the time trace with the Pockels cell in hold-off mode revealed that the laser was unable to reach threshold even at the maximum flash lamp power.

\section{Results}
\label{exp results}
Fig.~\ref{pulseEnergy} shows the pulse energy and pulse duration as a function of energy stored in the energy of the capacitor bank. The laser threshold was found to be 170~J (1.95~kV). The pulse energy reaches a maximum value of 240~mJ at a stored energy of 208~J, limited by the damage threshold of the output coupler's optical coating.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{Figure_2
\caption{Pulse energy (filled red diamonds) and pulse duration (FWHM) (open blue circles) as a function of energy stored in the capacitor bank. Lines are a guide to the eye}
\label{pulseEnergy}
\end{figure}

The full width half maximum (FWHM) pulse duration, measured by a photodiode with a rise-time of 1~ns (Thorlabs DET 10A), reduces from 350~ns to 85~ns as the flash lamp energy is increased (Fig.~\ref{pulseEnergy}). The delay between the Pockels cell closing and the centre of the laser pulse was measured to be 2.9~$\mu$s for a capacitor voltage of 2.15~kV. A typical example of the pulse envelope, for a capacitor charging voltage of 2.15~kV, is shown in Fig.~\ref{pulse envelope}.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{Figure_3
\caption{Gain-coefficient switched pulse, obtained at flash lamp voltage of 2.15~kV.}
\label{pulse envelope}
\end{figure}

The spectrum of the laser is shown in Fig.~\ref{spectrum}. The spectrum was acquired by averaging $\sim$100 laser shots using an optical spectrum analyser (Ando AQ6317, spectral resolution 0.05~nm), showing that the laser operates at a central wavelength of 753~nm, and has an average spectral bandwidth of 5~nm (FWHM). The mirror coatings, and the crystal anti-reflection coatings were chosen to optimize the laser for operation at wavelengths longer than 730~nm, where laser performance is also enhanced by high crystal temperatures (we estimate that the laser crystal temperature was about 100$^{\circ}$C)~\cite{Verdeyen:wa}.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{Figure_4
\caption{Average output spectrum.}
\label{spectrum}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
A qualitative understanding of how rapidly switching the polarization of the light fields in the cavity can be used to gain switch the laser can be obtained by examining the threshold gain of the laser. At threshold, where gain equals loss, one obtains a threshold gain of~\cite{Verdeyen:wa}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:threshold gain}
g_{th} = \frac{-1}{2}\log(R_{oc}T_{oc}) + \alpha_{rt}
\end{equation}
where $R_{oc}$ and $T_{oc}$ are the reflectivity and transmissivity of the output coupler, and $\alpha_{rt}$ is the lumped additional loss (e.g., all losses except those due to output coupling) per roundtrip of the optical cavity.

The polarization of the light in the cavity can be described by two orthogonal, linearly polarized light fields with an arbitrary phase difference between the two. We consider two orthogonally polarized light fields, aligned to the high (horizontal) and low (vertical) gain axes of the Alexandrite crystal. Furthermore, since the small signal gain for the vertically polarized light field is an order of magnitude less than that of the horizontally polarized light field, it is considered that the gain of the vertically polarized light field is negligible. Under these conditions, laser oscillation is restricted to just the horizontally polarized light field. By introducing the Pockels cell in the hold-off state into the cavity, reducing the average roundtrip gain to below the laser threshold, without, however, changing the roundtrip loss. Under these conditions, the threshold gain for the horizontal polarization mode increases to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:threshold gain modified}
g'_{th} &=& \frac{-1}{2}\log(R_{oc}^{2}T_{oc}^{2}) + 2\alpha_{RT}\\
g_{th}/g'_{th} &=& 2
\end{eqnarray}
where $g'_{th}$ is the threshold gain for the laser when the Pockels cell is in hold-off mode and the light only experiences gain every second roundtrip. The single pass gain of the horizontal polarization needs to be twice the single pass losses as there is only gain every second roundtrip, while the losses are not changed. For the laser described above, the threshold energy is 170~J (see Fig.~\ref{pulseEnergy}), indicating that the Pockels cell should successfully hold-off up to pump energies of 340~J, considerably higher than the maximum stored energy in the capacitor bank.

A simplified rate equation model was used to confirm this conclusion. In this model, the maximum population inversion was fixed, the ground state is considered to be the lower laser level, and the excited states were considered to be identical except for the orientation of their dipole moments. At the beginning of the simulation, a set fraction of the population is instantly transferred to the excited states. Population transfer between the two excited states is neglected since the difference in gain coefficient indicates that population transfer between excited states is very slow. The ratio of the initial population in the two excited states was varied between 1 and 10. The change in population and growth in the light field intensities are then numerically integrated in time steps of 0.1~ns, while the photon life time in the optical cavity was set to 5~ns. The light intensity was subjected to fractional losses of 0.01 due to intracavity elements and 0.4 due to output coupling. For each excited state population ratio, the output fluence of the laser was calculated twice: once with Pockel's cell in hold-off mode and once with the Pockels cell turned off.

The fraction of population in the excited states required to reach threshold as a function of ratio of the initial population in the excited states is shown in Fig.~\ref{threshold}. The red closed circles show the threshold when the Pockels cell is inactive and the blue open circles show the threshold for when the Pockels cell is in hold-off mode. The difference in threshold for the two operating regimes increases as the ratio increases, as expected. However, the increase in threshold above the ideal (0.5) is a factor of 3.4, indicating that the ratio in the two populations does not have to be as large as it is for Alexandrite. Indeed, a useful threshold difference is obtained, even for population ratios as small as 2. The observed gain ratios for Ti:sapphire~\cite{Verdeyen:wa} (red arrow), Nd:YLF~\cite{Ryan:1992vt} (light blue arrow) and Ruby~\cite{Verdeyen:wa} (black arrow) are also shown in Fig.~\ref{threshold}, indicating that this technique may be of use for other laser gain materials as well.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{Figure_5
\caption{Fraction of the total population in both excited states required to achieve threshold when the Pockels cell is passive (red closed circles) and when the Pockels cell is in hold-off mode (blue open circles) for different ratios of population between excited states. The arrows indicate the gain ratio's for Ti:sapphire (red), Nd:YLF (light blue), Ruby (black), }
\label{threshold}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec: conclusions}
In conclusion, we have presented a gain-coefficient switched Alexandrite laser, emitting up to 240~mJ with a pulse duration of 85~ns and a repetition rate of 5~Hz. The system design takes advantage of the polarization dependent gain of Alexandrite to initiate a gain switched pulse through a Pockels cell, operating in quarter wave mode, but without introducing a polarization dependent loss. Instead, the polarization rotation introduced by the Pockels cell reduces the coupling between the light in the laser cavity and the Einstein $B$ coefficient of the laser gain medium, effectively preventing the laser from oscillating when in hold-off mode. A rate equation model indicates that this mode of operation may be applicable to other laser gain media, such as Ti:sapphire and Nd:YLF.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The financial support of the Agentschap NL Innovation Oriented Research Programmes Photonic Devices under the HYMPACT Project (IPD083374) is acknowledged.

\section*{References}


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

A fundamental result of Putcha (see \cite[Thm.~3.18]{Put}) states that any
{\em linear} algebraic semigroup $S$ over an algebraically closed field $k$
is strongly $\pi$-regular. The proof follows from the corresponding result
for $M_n(k)$ (essentially the Fitting decomposition), combined with the fact
that $S$ is isomorphic to a closed subsemigroup of $M_n(k)$, for some $n>0$.
At the other extreme it is easy to see that any {\em complete} algebraic
semigroup is strongly $\pi$-regular. It is therefore natural to ask
whether {\em any} algebraic semigroup $S$ is strongly $\pi$-regular.
The purpose of this note is to provide an affirmative answer to this
question, over an arbitrary field $F$; then the set $S(F)$ of points of
$S$ over $F$ is an abstract semigroup (we shall freely use the terminology
and results of \cite[Chap.~11]{Spr} for algebraic varieties defined over a field).

\section{The Main Results}
\label{sec:result}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Let $S$ be an algebraic semigroup defined over a subfield $F$ of $k$.
Then $S(F)$ is strongly $\pi$-regular, that is for any
$x \in S(F)$, there exists a positive integer $n$ and an idempotent
$e \in S(F)$ such that $x^n$ belongs to the unit group of $eS(F)e$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
\smartqed
We may replace $S$ with any closed subsemigroup
defined over $F$ and containing some power of $x$. Denote by
$\langle x \rangle$ the smallest closed subsemigroup of $S$ containing $x$,
that is, the closure of the subset $ \{ x^m, m >0 \}$; then
$\langle x \rangle$ is defined over $F$ by \cite[Lem.~11.2.4]{Spr}.
The subsemigroups $\langle x^n \rangle$, $n > 0$, form a family
of closed subsets of $S$, and satisfy
$\langle x^{mn} \rangle \subseteq
\langle x^m \rangle \cap \langle x^n \rangle$.
Thus, there exists a smallest such semigroup, say $\langle x^{n_0} \rangle$.
Replacing $x$ with $x^{n_0}$, we may assume that
$S = \langle x \rangle = \langle x^n \rangle$ for all $n > 0$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:semi}
With the above notation and assumptions, $x S$ is dense in $S$. Moreover,
$S$ is irreducible.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
\smartqed
Since $S = \langle x^2 \rangle$, the subset $ \{ x^n, n \geq 2 \}$
is dense in $S$. Hence $x S$ is dense in $S$ by an easy observation
(Lemma \ref{lem:dense}) that we will use repeatedly.

Let $S_1, \ldots,S_r$ be the irreducible components of $S$.
Then each $x S_i$ is contained in some component $S_j$. Since $xS$
is dense in $S$, we see that $x S_i$ is dense in $S_j$. In particular,
$j$ is unique and the map $\sigma : i \mapsto j$ is a permutation. By induction,
$x^n S_i$ is dense in $S_{\sigma^n(i)}$ for all $n$ and $i$; thus $x^n S_i$
is dense in $S_i$ for some $n$ and all $i$. Choose $i$ such that
$x^n \in S_i$. Then it follows that $x^{mn} \in S_i$ for all $m$.
Thus, $\langle x^n \rangle \subseteq S_i$, and $S = S_i$ is irreducible.
\qed
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:mono}
Let $S$ be an algebraic semigroup and let $x \in S$.
Assume that $S = \langle x \rangle$ (in particular, $S$ is commutative),
$xS$ is dense in $S$, and $S$ is irreducible. Then $S$ is a monoid
and $x$ is invertible.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
\smartqed
For $y \in S$, consider the decreasing sequence
\[
\cdots \subseteq \overline{y^{n+1} S} \subseteq \overline{y^n S}
\subseteq \cdots \subseteq \overline{yS }\subseteq S
\]
of closed, irreducible ideals of $S$. We claim that
\[ \overline{y^d S} = \overline{y^{d+1} S}= \cdots, \]
where $d := \dim(S) + 1$. Indeed, there exists $n \leq d$ such that
$\overline{y^{n+1} S} = \overline{y^n S}$, that is,
$y^{n+1} S$ is dense in $\overline{y^n S}$. Multiplying by $y^{m-n}$
and using Lemma \ref{lem:dense}, it follows that $y^{m+1} S$ is dense
in $\overline{y^m S}$ for all $m \geq n$ and hence for
$m \geq d$. This proves the claim.

We may thus set
\[
I_y := \overline{y^d S} = \overline{y^{d+1} S} = \cdots
\]
Then we have for all $y,z\in S$,
\[
\overline{y^d I_z} = I_{yz} \subseteq I_z,
\]
since $y^d(z^d S) = (yz)^d S \subseteq z^d S$. Also, note that
$I_x = S$, and $I_e = e S$ for any idempotent $e$ of $S$. By
\cite[Sec.~2.3]{Br}, $S$ has a smallest idempotent $e_S$,
and $e_S S$ is the smallest ideal of $S$. In particular,
$e_S S \subseteq I_y$ for all $y$. Define
\[
\mathscr{I} = \{ I \subseteq S\;|\; I = I_y\;\text{for some}\; y \in S\}.
\]
This is a set of closed, irreducible ideals,
partially ordered by inclusion, with smallest element $e_SS$
and largest element $S$. If $S = e_S S$, then
$S$ is a group and we are done. Otherwise, we may choose
$I \in \mathscr{I}$ which covers $e_S S$ (since
$\mathscr{I} \setminus \{ e_S S \}$ has minimal elements
under inclusion). Consider
\[
T = \{ y\in S\:|\; yI \;\text{is dense in}\; I \}.
\]
If $y,z \in T$ then $\overline{yzI} = \overline{y\overline{zI}} = I$
and hence $T$ is a subsemigroup of $S$. Also, note that
$T \cap e_S S = \emptyset$, since $e_S z I \subseteq e_S S$ is not dense
in $I$ for any $z \in S$. Furthermore $x \in T$. (Indeed, $x S$ is dense
in $S$ and hence $x y^d S$ is dense in $\overline{y^dS}$ for all
$y \in S$. Thus, $x \; \overline{y^d S}$ is dense in $\overline{y^d S}$;
in particular, $x I$ is dense in~$I$).

We now claim that
\[
T = \{ y \in S\;|\; y^d I \not \subseteq e_S S \}.
\]
Indeed, if $y \in T$ then $y^d I$ is dense in $I$ and hence not contained
in $e_S S$. Conversely, assume that $y^d I \not \subseteq e_S S$
and let $z \in S$ such that $I = I_z$. Since
$\overline{y^d I} = \overline{y^d I_z} = I_{yz} \in \mathscr{I}$
and $\overline{y^d I} \subseteq I$, it follows that
$\overline{y^d I} = I$ as $I$ covers $e_S S$.

By that claim, we have
\[
S\setminus T = \{ y \in S \;|\; y^d I \subseteq e_S S\}
= \{ y \in S \;|\; e_S y^d z = y^d z \; \text{for all} \; z \in I \}.
\]
Hence $S \setminus T$ is closed in $S$. Thus, $T$ is an open
subsemigroup of $S$; in particular, $T$ is irreducible.
Moreover, since $x \in T$ and $xS$ is dense in $S$, it follows that
$x T$ is dense in $T$; also note that $\{ x^n, n >0 \}$ is dense in $T$.

Let $e_T \in T$ be the minimal idempotent, then $e_T \notin e_S S$ and hence
the closed ideal $e_T S$ contains strictly $e_S S$. Since both are
irreducible, we have
$\dim(e_T T) = \dim(e_T S) > \dim(e_S S)$. Now the proof is completed
by induction on $\kappa(S) := \dim(S) - \dim(e_S S)$.
Indeed, if $\kappa(S) = 0$, then $S = e_S S$ is a group. In the general
case, we have $\kappa(T) < \kappa(S)$. By the induction assumption,
$T$ is a monoid and $x$ is invertible in $T$. As $T$ is dense in $S$,
the neutral element of $T$ is also neutral for $S$, and hence $x$
is invertible in $S$.
\qed
\end{proof}

By Lemmas \ref{lem:semi} and \ref{lem:mono}, there exists $n$ such
that $\langle x^n \rangle$ is a monoid defined over $F$, and $x^n$ is
invertible in that monoid. To complete the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main},
it suffices to show that the neutral element $e$ of $\langle x^n \rangle$
is defined over $F$. For this, consider the morphism
\[
\phi: S \times S \longrightarrow S, \quad (y,z) \longmapsto x^n y z.
\]
Then $\phi$ is the composition of the multiplication
\[
\mu : S \times S \longrightarrow S, \quad (y,z) \longmapsto yz
\]
and of the left multiplication by $x^n$; the latter is an
automorphism of $S$, defined over $F$. So $\phi$ is defined
over $F$ as well, and the fiber $Z := \phi^{-1}(x^n)$ is isomorphic
to $\mu^{-1}(e)$, hence to the unit group of $S$. In particular,
$Z$ is smooth. Moreover, $Z$ contains $(e,e)$, and the tangent map
\[
d\phi_{(e,e)} : T_{(e,e)} (S \times S) \longrightarrow T_{x^n} S
\]
is surjective, since
\[
d\mu_{(e,e)}: T_{(e,e)} (S \times S) = T_e S \times T_eS
\longrightarrow T_e S
\]
is just the addition. So $Z$ is defined over $F$ by
\cite[Cor.~11.2.14]{Spr}. But $Z$ is sent to the point $e$ by $\mu$.
Since that morphism is defined over $F$, so is $e$.
\qed
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:dense}
Let $X$ be a topological space, and $f : X \to X$ a continuous map.
If $Y \subseteq X$ is a dense subset then $f(Y) \subseteq \overline{f(X)}$
is a dense subset.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
\smartqed
Let $U \subseteq \overline{f(X)}$ be a nonempty open subset.
Then $f^{-1}(U) \subseteq X$ is open, and nonempty since $f(X)$ is dense
in $\overline{f(X)}$. Hence $Y \cap f^{-1}(U) \neq \emptyset$.
If $y \in Y\cap f^{-1}(U)$ then $f(y) \in f(Y)\cap U$. Hence
$f(Y)\cap U \neq \emptyset$.
\qed
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:uni}
Given $x \in S$, there exists a {\em unique} idempotent $e = e(x) \in S$
such that $x^n$ belongs to the unit group of $e S e$ for some $n >0$.
Indeed, we then have $x^n S x^n \subseteq e S e$; moreover, since
there exists $y \in eSe$ such that $x^n y = y x^n = e$, we also
have $e S e = x^n y S y x^n e \subseteq x^n S x^n$. Thus,
$x^n S x^n = e S e$. It follows that $x^{mn} S x^{mn}$ is a monoid
with neutral element $e$ for any $m > 0$, which yields the desired
uniqueness.

In particular, if $x \in S(F)$ then the above idempotent $e(x)$
is an $F$-point of the closed subsemigroup $\langle x \rangle$.
We now give some details on the structure of the latter
semigroup. For $x,e,n$ as above, we have $x^n = ex^n = (ex)^n$,
and $y(ex)^n = e$ for some $y \in H_e$ (the unit group of
$e \, \langle x \rangle$). But then $e x \in H_e$ since $(y(ex)^{n-1})(ex) = e$.
Thus, $ex^m = (ex)^m \in H_e$ for all $m > 0$. But if $m \geq n$
then $x^m = ex^m$. Thus, if $x \notin H_e$ then
there exists an unique $r > 0$ such that $x^r \notin H_e$ and $x^m \in H_e$
for any $m > r$. In particular, $x^r \in e \, \langle x \rangle$ for all
$m \geq r$. Thus {\em we can write
\[
\langle x \rangle = e \, \langle x \rangle \sqcup \{x,x^2,...,x^s \}
\]
for some $s < r$}. Notice also that {\em these $x^i$'s, with $i \leq s$,
are all distinct} (if $x^i = x^j$ with $1 \leq i < j \leq s$, then
$x^{i + s + 1 - j} = x^{s + 1} \in e \, \langle x \rangle$, a contradiction).
Moreover, a similar decomposition holds for the semigroup of
$F$-rational points.

The set $\{ ex^m, m > 0 \}$ is dense in $e \,\langle x \rangle$
by Lemma \ref{lem:dense}. But $ex^m = (ex)^m$, and $ex \in H_e$.
So $e \, \langle x \rangle$ {\em is a unit-dense algebraic monoid}.
Furthermore, if $\langle x^{m_0} \rangle$ is the
smallest subsemigroup of $\langle x \rangle$ of the form
$\langle x^m \rangle$, for some $m>0$, then $\langle x^{m_0} \rangle$
{\em is the neutral component of} $e \, \langle x \rangle$
(the unique irreducible component containing $e$).
Indeed, $\langle x^{m_0} \rangle$ is irreducible by
Lemma \ref{lem:semi}, and $y^{m_0} \in \langle x^{m_0} \rangle$
for any $y \in \langle x \rangle$ in view of Lemma \ref{lem:dense}.
Thus, the unit group of $\langle x^{m_0} \rangle$ has finite index
in the unit group of $\langle x \rangle$, and hence in that of
$e \, \langle x \rangle$.
\end{remark}

Finally, we show that Theorem \ref{thm:main} is self-improving
by obtaining the following stronger statement:

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:gen}
Let $S$ be an algebraic semigroup. Then there exists $n > 0$
(depending only on $S$) such that $x^n \in H_{e(x)}$ for all $x \in S$,
where $e : x \mapsto e(x)$ denotes the above map. Moreover, there
exists a decomposition of $S$ into finitely many disjoint locally
closed subsets $U_j$ such that the restriction of $e$ to each $U_j$
is a morphism.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
\smartqed
We first show that for any irreducible
subvariety $X$ of $S$, there exists a dense open subset $U$ of $X$
and a positive integer $n = n(U)$ such that $x^n \in H_{e(x)}$ for all
$x \in U$, and $e\vert_U$ is a morphism. We will consider the semigroup
$S(k(X))$ of points of $S$ over the function field $k(X)$, and view
any such point as a rational map from $X$ to $S$; the semigroup law on
$S(k(X))$  is then given by pointwise multiplication of rational maps.
In particular, the inclusion of $X$ in $S$ yields a point $\xi \in S(k(X))$
(the image of the generic point of $X$). By Theorem \ref{thm:main},
there exist a positive integer $n$ and points $e, y \in S(k(X))$
such that $e^2 = e$, $\xi^n e = e \xi^n = \xi^n$, $y e = e y = y$ and
$\xi^n y = y \xi^n = e$. Let $U$ be an open subset of $X$ on which
both rational maps $e,y$ are defined. Then the above
relations are equalities of morphisms $U \to S$, where $\xi$ is the
inclusion. This yields the desired statements.

Next, start with an irreducible component $X_0$ of $S$ and let
$U_0$ be an open subset of $X_0$ such that $e\vert_{U_0}$ is a
morphism. Now let $X_1$ be an irreducible component of
$X_0 \setminus U_0$ and iterate this construction. This yields
disjoint locally closed subsets $U_0,U_1,\ldots, U_j,\ldots$ such that
$e\vert_{U_j}$ is a morphism for all $j$, and
$X \setminus (U_0 \cup \cdots \cup U_j)$ is closed for all $j$.
Hence $U_0 \cup \cdots \cup U_j = X$ for $j \gg 0$.
\qed
\end{proof}