## Pion photoproduction o GLYPH&lt;11&gt; nucleons in covariant chiral perturbation theory

Gustavo H. Guerrero Navarro GLYPH&lt;3&gt; and M. J. Vicente Vacas y Departamento de F´ ısica Teorica and Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular (IFIC),

Centro Mixto UVEG-CSIC, Valencia E-46071, Spain

Astrid N. Hiller Blin z

Institut f¨r Kernphysik u &amp; PRISMA + Cluster of Excellence, Johannes Gutenberg Universit¨ at, D-55099 Mainz, Germany

## De-Liang Yao x

School of Physics and Electronics, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China

(Dated: November 27, 2019)

## Abstract

Pion photoproduction o GLYPH&lt;11&gt; the nucleon close to threshold is studied in covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory at O( p 3 ) in the extended-on-mass-shell scheme, with the explicit inclusion of the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) resonance using the GLYPH&lt;14&gt; counting. The theory is compared to the available data of cross sections and polarization observables for all the charge channels. Most of the necessary low energy constants are well known from the analysis of other processes and the comparison with data constrains some of the still unknown ones. The GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) contribution is significant in improving the agreement with data, even at the low energies considered.

GLYPH&lt;3&gt; Electronic address: gusguena@ific.uv.es

y Electronic address: vicente@ific.uv.es

z Electronic address: hillerbl@uni-mainz.de

x Electronic address: yaodeliang@hnu.edu.cn

## I. INTRODUCTION

Single pion photoproduction o GLYPH&lt;11&gt; the nucleons has been a subject of strong and continuous theoretical and experimental e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; orts. Many have been dedicated to the investigation of the process at intermediate energies which allowed us to study the spectrum and properties of numerous baryon resonances [1, 2]. Here, we address the near threshold region, where chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) [3-6], the e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ective field theory of QCD at low energies, should provide an adequate framework and only nucleons, pions, and the lowest lying resonances might play a role.

Early work attempted to describe this process through low-energy theorems (LET) obtained from gauge and Lorentz invariance [7] and later from current algebra and the partial conservation of the axial-current [8, 9]. These theorems described well the production of charged pions, but failed for the case of the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; + p ! p + GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 process [10-13]. In one of the earliest successes of ChPT with baryons, Bernard et al. [14-16] could solve the discrepancies between theory and the data available at the time with corrections related to loop-diagram contributions. Still, the theoretical models showed their limitations with the more precise measurements of cross sections and polarization observables obtained at the Mainz Microtron (MAMI) in 2013 [17]. For instance, it was found in an O ( p 4 ) heavy baryon (HB) calculation that the agreement with data was satisfactory only up to some 20 MeV above threshold [18]. This indicated the need of calculations at even higher orders. The situation was not better in other approaches to baryon ChPT, such as the extended-on-mass-shell (EOMS) scheme, which at O ( p 4 ) also obtained a good agreement only for a very limited range of energies [19]. However, a higher order calculation, apart from the added technical complications, would lose its predictive power because of the new set of undetermined low energy contants (LECs) appearing in the Lagrangian. These di GLYPH&lt;14&gt; culties could be intrinsic to this specific process, for instance because of the cancellation happening at the lowest order of the chiral expansion, but they may also signal the need for some revision of the theoretical approach.

In recent years, there has been a considerable advance in the qualitative and quantitative understanding of low energy hadron physics using ChPT. It provides a systematic framework to obtain a perturbative expansion in terms of small meson masses and external momenta and has a quite impressive record on its predictivity and the quality of its description of multiple observables involving mesons, nucleons and photons [20, 21]. Nonetheless, ChPT, when applied to systems with baryons, contains some subtleties which may hinder its progress. As shown in Ref. [22], in the presence of baryon loops the naive power counting is broken because of the nonzero nucleon mass

in the chiral limit, making di GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cult the development of a scheme that allows for a systematic evaluation of higher orders in the chiral expansion. This problem was first solved in the HB formalism (HBChPT) [23, 24], at the expense of losing Lorentz covariance, and later by some covariant methods as the infrared regularization (IrChPT) [25] and the EOMS scheme [26] 1 . Here, we adhere to the latter, which, apart from providing a proper power counting, preserves the analytic structure of the calculated amplitudes. Furthermore, it usually leads to a faster chiral convergence than HBChPT or IrChPT [27-29]. This approach has been used with satisfactory results in the calculation of many baryon observables such as masses, magnetic moments, axial form factors, among others [28-40]. Moreover, it has been successfully applied to many processes, among which GLYPH&lt;25&gt; N scattering [27, 37, 41, 42] and the pion electromagnetic production on the nucleons [19, 43-45]. Both are directly related to the pion photoproduction on the nucleons investigated in this work.

In addition to the power counting problem in baryon ChPT, another issue arises due to the small mass di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erence between the nucleon and the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) resonance. In fact, the mass of the latter is little above the pion production threshold. Due to this proximity of the resonance to the threshold and its large transition couplings to pions and photons, the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) is crucial for the description of GLYPH&lt;25&gt; N and GLYPH&lt;13&gt; N processes even at very low energies [46]. These facts suggest the importance of the explicit inclusion of the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) resonance in our e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ective theory. The hope is that the incorporation of the most relevant degrees of freedom, such as those associated to the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; , could lead to a faster convergence of the chiral series. A price to pay is the emergence of a new small parameter, GLYPH&lt;14&gt; = m GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; mN GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 300 MeV that should be properly accounted for in the chiral expansion, where m GLYPH&lt;1&gt; and mN are the masses of the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance and the nucleon, respectively.

In this work, we investigate the near threshold pion photoproduction o GLYPH&lt;11&gt; nucleons within the aforementioned e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ective theory approach, i.e. EOMS ChPT, at O p ( 3 ). We also choose to include the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) resonance explicitly. This, or a very similar approach has already been used for the analysis of Compton scattering [47, 48], GLYPH&lt;25&gt; N scattering [27, 41, 42] or the weak process GLYPH&lt;23&gt; N ! lN 0 GLYPH&lt;25&gt; [49, 50] of high interest for neutrino detection. Moreover, the fact that we are using the same framework at the same chiral order as some of these works allows us to fix many of the LECs of the theoretical model.

Besides the general reasons given in the previous paragraphs, the inspection of the cross section data shows that the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) resonance is conspicuously dominant for all pion photoproduction

1 See, e.g., Ref. [6] for a review of the three schemes and the discussion in the introduction of Ref. [27].

channels [46], and its tail could well be large even close to threshold. The possible importance of the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance for the chiral analyses of pion photoproduction had already been suggested in Refs. [16-18, 51]. Indeed, the convergence of the chiral series and the agreement with data was found to improve substantially with this inclusion in the investigation of the neutral pion photoproduction on the proton in Refs. [43, 44]. Nevertheless, it is also clear from even a cursory perusal of data, that the energy dependence is very di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p and the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + n processes. In the latter case there is a large nonresonant electric dipole contribution that produces s -wave pions and is strongly suppressed in the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 case. For this reason, the importance of including higher orders and the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance is especially strong for the neutral pion channel. However, also the other ones will have noticeable corrections due to these inclusions. Furthermore, the di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent channels of pion production are sensitive to di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent ChPT LECs, leading to the need of studying carefully also the charged pion channels in the same framework.

Motivated by the sensitivity to di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent mechanisms of the various channels, here we extend the analysis of Refs. [43, 44], restricted to the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p process, by incorporating the other channels, in which charged pions are produced. We perform a global study of all the data currently available in the low energy region. This amounts to measurements of angular distributions, total cross sections and spin observables such as beam and target asymmetries. Ultimately, these studies will benchmark the ability to improve upon the predictions for the weak pion production processes [49, 50, 52, 53], for which the data are very scarce, and integrated over wide ranges of energies, thus making it impossible to constrain well the LECs or to make concrete statements about the behavior at specific energies. While the predictive power of ChPT calculations is limited to the threshold region, they should properly be taken into account in phenomenological models that aim to describe weak pion production in wider energy regions, see also Ref. [54] and references therein.

The inclusion of the charged channels requires the addition of a more extensive set of diagram topologies and also of some extra pieces of the chiral Lagrangian with their corresponding LECs. Furthermore, we incorporate a more detailed analysis of the errors, estimating both the statistical uncertainty coming from the fits and the uncertainty related to the truncation of the chiral series.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we present the basic formalism, the chiral Lagrangian and the theoretical model for the amplitude. Sec. III describes the experimental database and the fit method, including the procedure for the error estimation. Finally, results are presented in Sec. IV. We summarize in Sec. V.

FIG. 1: Kinematics of the pion photoproduction process. k and p are the incoming photon and nucleon momenta, while q and p 0 correspond to the outgoing pion and nucleon momenta, respectively.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-2ebe056e-b225-4632-ac1d-feb6326e7fc5.jpg)

## II. BASIC FORMALISM AND THEORETICAL MODEL

## A. Kinematics, amplitude decomposition and observables

The pion photoproduction o GLYPH&lt;11&gt; the nucleon, depicted in Fig. 1, can occur in four possible charge channels: GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p ; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + n ; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! GLYPH&lt;0&gt; GLYPH&lt;25&gt; p ; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 n . The di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erential cross section in the center of mass (c.m.) system can be written as

$$\frac { d \sigma } { d \Omega _ { \pi } } = \frac { 1 } { 6 4 \pi ^ { 2 } s } \frac { \Lambda ^ { 1 / 2 } ( s, m _ { N } ^ { 2 }, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } ) } { \Lambda ^ { 1 / 2 } ( s, m _ { N } ^ { 2 }, 0 ) } \frac { 1 } { 4 } \sum _ { s _ { i }, s _ { j }, \lambda } | \mathcal { T } | ^ { 2 } \,,$$

where s GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( k + p ) 2 is the Mandelstam variable, GLYPH&lt;3&gt; ( x y z ; ; ) = ( x GLYPH&lt;0&gt; y GLYPH&lt;0&gt; z ) 2 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 4 yz is the K¨ll´n function, a e mN and m GLYPH&lt;25&gt; are the nucleon and pion masses, respectively. The modulus squared of the scattering amplitude T is averaged over the initial nucleon spin ( si ) and photon polarization ( GLYPH&lt;21&gt; ) and summed over the final nucleon spin ( s f ). For practical purposes, it is convenient to use a representation of T in terms of the Chew-Goldberger-Low-Nambu (CGLN) amplitudes F i [55], which lead to simple expressions for multipoles, cross sections and the polarization observables. In the CGLN formalism, T can be written as

$$\mathcal { T } = \frac { 4 \pi \sqrt { s } } { m _ { N } } \chi _ { f } ^ { \dagger } \mathcal { F } \chi _ { i },$$

where GLYPH&lt;31&gt; i and GLYPH&lt;31&gt; f are Pauli spinors of the initial and final nucleon states, respectively. For real photons and in the Coulomb gauge ( GLYPH&lt;15&gt; 0 = 0, ~ GLYPH&lt;15&gt; GLYPH&lt;1&gt; ~ k = 0), the amplitude F may be decomposed as

$$\mathcal { F } = \mathrm i \vec { \sigma } \cdot \vec { \epsilon } \mathcal { F } _ { 1 } + \vec { \sigma } \cdot \hat { q } \vec { \sigma } \cdot \hat { k } \times \vec { \epsilon } \mathcal { F } _ { 2 } + \mathrm i \vec { \sigma } \cdot \hat { k } \hat { q } \cdot \vec { \epsilon } \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } + \mathrm i \vec { \sigma } \cdot \hat { q } \hat { q } \cdot \vec { \epsilon } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 },$$

with ~ GLYPH&lt;27&gt; the Pauli matrices, GLYPH&lt;15&gt; the photon polarization and ˆ q ; ˆ k unit vectors in the direction of ~ q and ~ k , respectively. The explicit expressions for each F i amplitude are given in Appendix A 1,

Eqs. (A8)-(A11). In this representation, the unpolarized angular cross section in the c.m. system in Eq. (1) is recast as

$$\frac { d \sigma } { d \Omega _ { \pi } } = d \sigma _ { 0 } & = \rho _ { 0 } \Re e \left \{ \mathcal { F } _ { 1 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 1 } + \mathcal { F } _ { 2 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 2 } + \sin ^ { 2 } \theta ( \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } + \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } ) / 2 \\ & + \sin ^ { 2 } \theta ( \mathcal { F } _ { 2 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } + \mathcal { F } _ { 1 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } + \cos \theta \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } ) - 2 \cos \theta \mathcal { F } _ { 1 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 2 } \right \},$$

where GLYPH&lt;18&gt; stands for the scattering angle between the incoming photon and the outgoing pion and

$$\rho _ { 0 } = \frac { \Lambda ^ { 1 / 2 } ( s, m _ { N } ^ { 2 }, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } ) } { \Lambda ^ { 1 / 2 } ( s, m _ { N } ^ { 2 }, 0 ) } = \frac { | \vec { q } | } { | \vec { k } | },$$

with j ~ q j and j ~ k j evaluated in the c.m. system.

At the studied energies, apart from the unpolarized angular cross section, there are many data for the polarized photon asymmetry. This observable is defined by

$$\Sigma \equiv \frac { d \sigma _ { \perp } - d \sigma _ { \| } } { d \sigma _ { \perp } + d \sigma _ { \| } },$$

with d GLYPH&lt;27&gt; ? and d GLYPH&lt;27&gt; k the angular cross sections for photon polarizations perpendicular and parallel to the reaction plane, respectively. In the CGLN representation we have [56]

$$\Sigma = - \frac { \rho _ { 0 } } { d \sigma _ { 0 } } \, \sin ^ { 2 } \theta \, \Re e \left \{ ( \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } + \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } ) / 2 + \mathcal { F } _ { 2 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } + \mathcal { F } _ { 1 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } + \cos \theta \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } \right \}.$$

In its turn, the target asymmetry, defined as the ratio

$$T = \frac { d \sigma _ { + } - d \sigma _ { - } } { d \sigma _ { + } + d \sigma _ { - } },$$

where d GLYPH&lt;27&gt; + and d GLYPH&lt;27&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; correspond to the cross sections for target nucleons polarized up and down in the direction of ~ k GLYPH&lt;2&gt; ~ q , can be written as

$$T = \frac { \rho _ { 0 } } { d \sigma _ { 0 } } \sin \theta \, \Im m \left \{ \mathcal { F } _ { 1 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } - \mathcal { F } _ { 2 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } + \cos \theta ( \mathcal { F } _ { 1 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } - \mathcal { F } _ { 2 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } ) - \sin ^ { 2 } \theta \mathcal { F } _ { 3 } ^ { * } \mathcal { F } _ { 4 } \right \}.$$

Useful expressions for other polarization observables in terms of the F i amplitudes can be found, for instance, in Ref. [56].

## B. Power counting and chiral Lagrangians

As was discussed in the Introduction, when the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) resonance is explicitly included a new small parameter GLYPH&lt;14&gt; = m GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; mN GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 300 MeV appears, which must be taken into account in the chiral

expansion. In this work, we use the GLYPH&lt;14&gt; counting, introduced in Ref. [57], in which GLYPH&lt;14&gt; GLYPH&lt;24&gt; O p ( 1 2 = ). Therefore, the chiral order D of a diagram with L loops, V k ( ) vertices of O p k ( ), N GLYPH&lt;25&gt; internal pions, NN nucleon propagators and N GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) propagators is given by

$$D = 4 L + \sum _ { k = 1 } ^ { \infty } k V ^ { ( k ) } - 2 N _ { \pi } - N _ { N } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } N _ { \Delta }.$$

Here, we consider all contributions up through O p ( 3 ). The following pieces of the chiral e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ective Lagrangian are required,

$$\mathcal { L } _ { \text{eff} } = \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 2 } \mathcal { L } _ { \pi \pi } ^ { ( 2 i ) } + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 3 } \mathcal { L } _ { N } ^ { ( j ) } + \mathcal { L } _ { \pi N \Delta } ^ { ( 1 ) } + \mathcal { L } _ { \gamma N \Delta } ^ { ( 2 ) } \,,$$

where the superscripts represent the chiral order of each of the terms. The needed terms of the pionic interaction are given by [4, 22]

$$\mathcal { L } _ { \pi \pi } ^ { ( 2 ) } \, = \, \frac { F _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { 4 } \text{Tr} \left [ \nabla ^ { \mu } U \left ( \nabla _ { \mu } U \right ) ^ { \dagger } + \chi U ^ { \dagger } + U \chi ^ { \dagger } \right ],$$

$$\mathcal { L } _ { \pi \pi } ^ { ( 4 ) } \, = \, \frac { \ell _ { 4 } } { 1 6 } \left ( ( \text{Tr} [ \chi U ^ { \dagger } + U \chi ^ { \dagger } ] ) ^ { 2 } + 2 \text{Tr} [ \nabla _ { \mu } U ( \nabla ^ { \mu } U ) ^ { \dagger } ] \text{Tr} [ \chi U ^ { \dagger } + U \chi ^ { \dagger } ] \right ) + \cdots \,,$$

where the Goldstone pion fields are written in the isospin decomposition

$$U = \exp \left [ i \frac { \vec { \tau } \cdot \vec { \pi } } { F _ { 0 } } \right ] = \exp \left [ \frac { i } { F _ { 0 } } \left ( \begin{array} { c c } \pi ^ { 0 } & \sqrt { 2 } \, \pi ^ { + } \\ \sqrt { 2 } \, \pi ^ { - } & - \pi ^ { 0 } \end{array} \right ) \right ] \,,$$

GLYPH&lt;28&gt; i ( i = 1 2 3) are the Pauli matrices, ; ; F 0 indicates the pion decay constant in the chiral limit, and r GLYPH&lt;22&gt; U = @GLYPH&lt;22&gt; U GLYPH&lt;0&gt; ir GLYPH&lt;22&gt; U + iUl GLYPH&lt;22&gt; is the covariant derivative with external fields r GLYPH&lt;22&gt; = l GLYPH&lt;22&gt; = eQA GLYPH&lt;22&gt; . Here, e is the electric charge of the electron, Q = ( GLYPH&lt;28&gt; 3 + 1 2 GLYPH&lt;2&gt; 2 ) = 2 is the charge matrix, and A GLYPH&lt;22&gt; is the photon field. Tr[ GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;1&gt; ] denotes the trace in flavor space. We will be working in the isospin symmetric limit, and thus GLYPH&lt;31&gt; = m 2 GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 1 2 GLYPH&lt;2&gt; 2 , with m GLYPH&lt;25&gt; the corresponding pion mass.

The relevant terms that describe the interaction with nucleons at O p ( 1 ) are given by [58]

$$\mathcal { L } _ { N } ^ { ( 1 ) } = \bar { N } \left ( i \mathcal { P } - m + \frac { g } { 2 } \mu \gamma _ { 5 } \right ) N,$$

where N = ( p n ; ) T is the nucleon doublet with mass m and axial charge g , both in the chiral limit. Furthermore,

$$D _ { \mu } = \partial _ { \mu } + \Gamma _ { \mu }, \quad \Gamma _ { \mu } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } [ u ^ { \dagger }, \partial _ { \mu } u ] - \frac { i } { 2 } u ^ { \dagger } r _ { \mu } u - \frac { i } { 2 } u l _ { \mu } u ^ { \dagger }, \quad u = U ^ { 1 / 2 }, \quad u _ { \mu } = i u ^ { \dagger } ( \nabla _ { \mu } U ) u ^ { \dagger }.$$

At the second order the only relevant terms are

$$\mathcal { L } _ { N } ^ { ( 2 ) } = \bar { N } \left ( c _ { 1 } \text{Tr} \left [ \chi _ { + } \right ] + \frac { c _ { 6 } } { 8 m } F _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + } \sigma ^ { \mu \nu } + \frac { c _ { 7 } } { 8 m } \text{Tr} \left [ F _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + } \right ] \sigma ^ { \mu \nu } \right ) N + \cdots,$$

with GLYPH&lt;31&gt; GLYPH&lt;6&gt; = m 2 GLYPH&lt;25&gt; GLYPH&lt;16&gt; U y GLYPH&lt;6&gt; U GLYPH&lt;17&gt; in the isospin limit, F GLYPH&lt;6&gt; GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; = u FR y GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; u GLYPH&lt;6&gt; uFL GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; u y , where in our case FR GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; = FL GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; = F GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; results in the electromagnetic tensor F GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; = eQ ( @GLYPH&lt;22&gt; A GLYPH&lt;23&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; @GLYPH&lt;23&gt; A GLYPH&lt;22&gt; ). Here, ci ( i = 1 6 7) are ; ; O p ( 2 ) LECs in units of GeV GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1 .

The contributing terms of O p ( 3 ) are [58]

$$\text{The contributing terms of } \mathcal { O } ( p ^ { \prime } ) \, \text{are} \, [ 5 8 ] \\ \mathcal { L } _ { N } ^ { ( 3 ) } & = d _ { 8 } \bar { N } \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 m } i \tilde { e } ^ { \mu \nu \rho } \Pr \left [ \widetilde { F } _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + } u _ { \alpha } \right ] D _ { \beta } + H. c. \right ] N + d _ { 9 } \bar { N } \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 m } i \tilde { e } ^ { \mu \nu \rho } \Pr \left [ F _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + } \right ] u _ { \alpha } D _ { \beta } + H. c. \right ] N \\ & + d _ { 1 6 } \bar { N } \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 } \tilde { \ } ^ { \mu \nu } \gamma _ { 5 } \Pr \left [ \chi _ { + } \right ] u _ { \mu } \right ] N + d _ { 1 8 } \bar { N } \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 } i \tilde { \ } ^ { \mu \nu } \gamma _ { 5 } \left [ D _ { \mu \nu }, \chi _ { - } \right ] \right ] N \\ & + d _ { 2 0 } \bar { N } \left [ - \frac { 1 } { 8 m ^ { 2 } } i \gamma ^ { \mu } \gamma _ { 5 } \left [ \widetilde { F } _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + }, u _ { \lambda } \right ] D ^ { \nu } + H. c. \right ] N \\ & + d _ { 2 1 } \bar { N } \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 } i \tilde { \ } ^ { \mu } \gamma _ { 5 } \left [ \widetilde { F } _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + }, u ^ { \prime } \right ] \right ] N + d _ { 2 2 } \bar { N } \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 } \gamma ^ { \mu } \gamma _ { 5 } \left [ D ^ { \nu }, F _ { \mu \nu } ^ { - } \right ] \right ] N \,, \\ \text{where } d \colon \, ( i \, = \, 8 \, 9 \, 1 6 \, 1 8 \, 2 0 \, 2 1 \, 2 2 ) \, \text{are} \, \text{new} \, I. \text{FCs} \text{ annearing} \, \text{ at } \mathcal { O } ( n ^ { 3 } ) \text{ in units of GeV} ^ { - 2 } \,. \text{ The}$$

where dj ( j = 8 9 16 18 20 21 22) are new LECs appearing at ; ; ; ; ; ; O p ( 3 ) in units of GeV GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 . The derivative operator D GLYPH&lt;21&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; = D D GLYPH&lt;21&gt; GLYPH&lt;23&gt; + D D GLYPH&lt;23&gt; GLYPH&lt;21&gt; acts over the nucleon doublet 2 and

$$\widetilde { F } _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + } = F _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \text{Tr} [ F _ { \mu \nu } ^ { + } ].$$

The interaction between the nucleon and GLYPH&lt;1&gt; is described by a Lagrangian that decouples the spin-1 = 2 components from the spin-3 2 Rarita Schwinger field [59, 60]. = For a calculation up through O p ( 3 ) in the GLYPH&lt;14&gt; counting the relevant terms are

$$\mathcal { L } _ { \Delta \pi N } ^ { ( 1 ) } = \frac { i h _ { A } } { 2 F m _ { \Delta } } \bar { N } T ^ { a } \gamma ^ { \mu \nu \lambda } ( \partial _ { \mu } \Delta _ { \nu } ) \partial _ { \lambda } \pi ^ { a } + \text{H.c.},$$

$$\mathcal { L } _ { \Delta \gamma N } ^ { ( 2 ) } = \frac { 3 i e g _ { M } } { 2 m ( m + m _ { \Delta } ) } \bar { N } T ^ { 3 } ( \partial _ { \mu } \Delta _ { \nu } ) \tilde { f } ^ { \mu \nu } + \text{H.c.},$$

where GLYPH&lt;13&gt; GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt;GLYPH&lt;21&gt; = 1 4 n GLYPH&lt;2&gt; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; GLYPH&lt;22&gt; ; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; GLYPH&lt;23&gt; GLYPH&lt;3&gt; ; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; GLYPH&lt;21&gt; o , ˜ f GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt; = 1 2 GLYPH&lt;15&gt; GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt;GLYPH&lt;11&gt;GLYPH&lt;12&gt; ( @GLYPH&lt;11&gt; A GLYPH&lt;12&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; @GLYPH&lt;12&gt; A GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ). Furthermore, GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;23&gt; = GLYPH&lt;1&gt; ( ++ GLYPH&lt;23&gt; ; GLYPH&lt;1&gt; + GLYPH&lt;23&gt; ; GLYPH&lt;1&gt; 0 GLYPH&lt;23&gt; ; GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; GLYPH&lt;23&gt; ) T are the components of the spin-3 = 2 Rarita Schwinger field corresponding to the isospin multiplet for the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance. The isospin transition matrices T a can be found in Ref. [60].

2 The totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor can be written as GLYPH&lt;15&gt; GLYPH&lt;22&gt;GLYPH&lt;23&gt;GLYPH&lt;11&gt;GLYPH&lt;12&gt; = GLYPH&lt;0&gt; i 8 h GLYPH&lt;8&gt;GLYPH&lt;2&gt; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; GLYPH&lt;22&gt; ; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; GLYPH&lt;23&gt; GLYPH&lt;3&gt; ; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; GLYPH&lt;11&gt; GLYPH&lt;9&gt; ; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; GLYPH&lt;12&gt; i GLYPH&lt;13&gt; 5 .

FIG. 2: Topologies of tree-level Feynman diagrams for the reaction GLYPH&lt;13&gt; N ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; N 0 . Diagrams (a)-(d) correspond to the O ( p k ) amplitudes T ( k ) ( a ) -T ( k ) ( d ) given in Appendix A.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-c58e895b-3687-4480-8813-df1dbb1d291c.jpg)

FIG. 3: Direct (a) and crossed (b) Feynman diagrams for the reaction GLYPH&lt;13&gt; N ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; N 0 including the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance. The labels in the circles specify the chiral order for each vertex.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-4c0d1586-499c-4dd7-8de3-85268a28885e.jpg)

## C. Theoretical model

The tree level Feynman diagrams contributing to the scattering amplitude up through order O p ( 3 ) are depicted in Fig. 2 for the nucleonic sector, and in Fig. 3 for the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) resonance part. The explicit expressions of the amplitudes are given in Appendix A.

Additionally to the tree diagrams, we need the one loop amplitudes generated by the topologies shown in Fig. 4. The calculation of the amplitudes has been carried out in Mathematica with the help of the FeynCalc package [61, 62]. The analytical results are very lengthy and not shown here but can be obtained from the authors upon request. 3

The ultraviolet (UV) divergences stemming from the loops are subtracted using the modified minimal subtraction scheme, i.e. MS or equivalently MS-1, and here the renormalization scale g GLYPH&lt;22&gt; is taken to be the nucleon mass. 4

3 Expressions for the less general case of the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! p GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 process can be found in Ref. [44]

4 In MS, one subtracts multiples of g R = GLYPH&lt;13&gt; E GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1 =GLYPH&lt;15&gt; UV GLYPH&lt;0&gt; log(4 GLYPH&lt;25&gt; ) GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1, where GLYPH&lt;15&gt; UV = (4 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; d ) = 2 with d the dimension of spacetime, and GLYPH&lt;13&gt; E is the Euler constant.

FIG. 4: One-loop topologies for the reaction GLYPH&lt;13&gt; N ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; N 0 from which Feynman diagrams are generated. Solid lines indicate nucleons, dashed lines stand for pions and the crossed-circle vertices denote the position where incoming photons can be inserted. The topologies that lead to corrections in the external pion and nucleon legs are not shown because they are taken into account by the wave function renormalization.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-f869177d-c7ed-4e06-8de0-b135f35b433c.jpg)

To restore the power counting, we apply the EOMS scheme. Therefore, after the cancellation of the UV divergences we proceed to perform the required finite shifts to the corresponding LECs, so that the transformed parameter ˜ X fulfills

$$X = \tilde { X } + \frac { m \tilde { \beta } _ { X } } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } F ^ { 2 } },$$

which in our case applies for X 2 f m g c ; ; 1 ; c 6 ; c 7 g . For the parameters, m and g , from L (1) GLYPH&lt;25&gt; N , we get

$$\tilde { \beta } _ { m } = - \frac { 3 } { 2 } g ^ { 2 } \bar { A } _ { 0 } \left [ m ^ { 2 } \right ], \quad \tilde { \beta } _ { g } = g ^ { 3 } m + \frac { \left ( 2 - g ^ { 2 } \right ) g } { m } \bar { A } _ { 0 } \left [ m ^ { 2 } \right ],$$

where

$$\bar { A } _ { 0 } [ m ^ { 2 } ] = - m ^ { 2 } \log \frac { m ^ { 2 } } { \mu ^ { 2 } }$$

is the MS-renormalized scalar 1-point Passarino-Veltman function with g GLYPH&lt;22&gt; the renormalization scale introduced in the dimensional regularization. For the second order LECs we have [30] 5

$$\tilde { \beta } _ { c _ { 1 } } = \frac { 3 } { 8 } g ^ { 2 } + \frac { 3 g ^ { 2 } } { 8 m ^ { 2 } } \bar { A } _ { 0 } [ m ^ { 2 } ], \quad \tilde { \beta } _ { c _ { 6 } } = - 5 g ^ { 2 } m, \quad \tilde { \beta } _ { c _ { 7 } } = 4 g ^ { 2 } m.$$

5 Note that the EOMS shifts applied to the c 6 and c 7 parameters in Ref. [30] are di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent, since their Lagrangian has an alternative arrangement so that: c 6 = 4 mc F 6 ; c 7 = m c F GLYPH&lt;16&gt; 7 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 c F 6 GLYPH&lt;17&gt; , where the superscript F is just to identify the LECs in Ref. [30].

Finally, the full amplitude, T , is related to the amputated one, ˆ , via the Lehmann-SymanzikT Zimmermann (LSZ) reduction formula [63]

$$\mathcal { T } = \mathcal { Z } _ { \pi } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \mathcal { Z } _ { N } \hat { \mathcal { T } },$$

where Z GLYPH&lt;25&gt; and Z N are the wave function renormalization constants of the pion and nucleon, respectively. Their explicit expressions are given in Appendix B.

## III. FIT PROCEDURE AND ERROR ESTIMATION

## A. Experimental database

We compare our theoretical model to the data in the energy range from threshold p s GLYPH&lt;24&gt; 1080 MeV up to p s GLYPH&lt;24&gt; 1130 MeV. This choice guarantees that the momentum of the outgoing pion is small and that we stay well below the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance peak. We should point out that we work in the isospin limit, both in the choice of the Lagrangian and in the further calculation of the loops. Therefore, the framework is not well suited for the measurements corresponding to the first MeV's above threshold, where the mass splittings are quite relevant. We have checked, nonetheless, that our numerical results are not modified by the inclusion or exclusion of those data points.

The larger part of the database corresponds to the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p process. Furthermore, the experimental errors are relatively smaller when compared to the other channels. As a consequence, the neutral pion production has a preeminent weight in the fits. There have been extensive measurements in the near threshold region [64-67], although the largest contribution comes from the comprehensive set of data on angular cross sections and photon asymmetries obtained at MAMI [17]. 6 At the higher end of our energy range there are a few data points measured by the LEGS facility at the Brookhaven National Laboratory [68].

In comparison, at these energies data are scarce for the channels with charged pions and there are very few recent experiments on them. For the reaction GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! GLYPH&lt;0&gt; GLYPH&lt;25&gt; p , we use the angular distributions and total cross sections from Refs. [69-72]. There are no data on polarization observables. The early experiments at Frascati [69] and DESY [70] actually measured the reaction on deuterium and then, the cross sections on the neutron were obtained using the spectator model. On the

6 The data from Refs. [65, 66] are not unfolded from the angular spectrometer distortion and have not been included in the fit.

other hand, the experiments at TRIUMF [71, 72] correspond to the inverse reaction: radiative pion capture on the proton. There are some later measurements from the early 1990s, also at TRIUMF, quoted by SAID [73], but they are unfortunately unpublished. Only recently, the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; photoproduction on the deuteron has been measured again at the MAX IV Laboratory [74], but the neutron cross section has not been derived yet.

There are some more data for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + n channel, which can be measured more directly. They are mostly angular and total cross sections but they also include some photon asymmetries. We take the data from Refs. [68, 75-77].

In total, the database contains 957 points. For most of them the total error estimation (statistic plus systematic) was given in the original references. A typical 5% systematic error has been added in quadrature for the few points where only the statistical error was provided [69-71].

## B. Low energy constants

Most of the parameters required in the calculation are readily available as they have been obtained in the analysis of other processes or they are known functions of physical quantities. The constants g , F 0 , m appearing in the lowest order terms of the Lagrangian are given as a function of their corresponding physical values in Appendix B. For the physical magnitudes we take F = 92 42 MeV, : gA = 1 27, : m GLYPH&lt;1&gt; = 1232 MeV and e 2 = 4 GLYPH&lt;25&gt;= 137.

TABLE I: Values of the LECs determined from other processes.

| LEC       |       | Value                                          | Source                                   |
|-----------|-------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| ˜ c 6     |       | 5 : 07 GLYPH<6> 0 : 15                         | GLYPH<22> p and GLYPH<22> n [49, 78, 79] |
| ˜ c 6     | ˜ c 7 | GLYPH<0> 2 : 68 GLYPH<6> 0 : 08                | GLYPH<22> p and GLYPH<22> n [50, 78, 79] |
| d 18 d 22 |       | GLYPH<0> 0 : 20 GLYPH<6> 0 : 80 GeV GLYPH<0> 2 | GLYPH<25> N scattering [27]              |
| d 18 d 22 |       | 5 : 20 GLYPH<6> 0 : 02 GeV GLYPH<0> 2          | h r 2 A i N [80]                         |
| h A       |       | 2 : 87 GLYPH<6> 0 : 03                         | GLYPH<0> strong GLYPH<1> [81]            |
| g M       |       | 3 : 16 GLYPH<6> 0 : 16                         | GLYPH<0> EM GLYPH<1> [48]                |

In Table I, we show the values of LECs obtained with the same framework (EOMS scheme +

explicit GLYPH&lt;1&gt; ) and at the same order [ O p ( 3 ) in the GLYPH&lt;14&gt; counting] as the present work. 7 Apart from them, our theoretical model depends on the LECs d 8 , d 9 , d 16 , d 20 and d 21 . In our case d 16 can be absorbed by g as shown in Appendix A. 8 The remaining four constants have been fitted to the experimental data minimizing the GLYPH&lt;31&gt; squared.

## C. Error estimation

There are two sources of uncertainties in our prediction of any observable. First, there is the uncertainty propagated from the statistical errors of the LECs in the fit, which we take as

$$\delta \mathcal { O } _ { \text{LECs} } = \left ( \sum _ { i, j } \left [ \text{Corr} ( x _ { i }, x _ { j } ) \right ] \frac { \partial \mathcal { O } ( \bar { x } _ { i } ) } { \partial x _ { i } } \delta x _ { i } \frac { \partial \mathcal { O } ( \bar { x } _ { j } ) } { \partial x _ { j } } \delta x _ { j } \right ) ^ { 1 / 2 },$$

where O refers to the observable, and the i and j indices are labels for a given LEC xi , with ¯ xi and GLYPH&lt;14&gt; xi its corresponding mean and error values as obtained from the fit. Finally, Corr( i ; j ) is the ( i ; j )th matrix element of the correlation matrix.

Additionally, we consider the systematic errors due to the truncation of the chiral series. We have used the method from Refs. [42, 82] where the uncertainty GLYPH&lt;14&gt; O ( n ) th , at order n for any observable O is given by

$$\delta \mathcal { O } _ { t h } ^ { ( n ) } = \max \left ( \left | \mathcal { O } ^ { ( n _ { L O } ) } \right | Q ^ { n - n _ { L O } + 1 }, \left \{ \left | \mathcal { O } ^ { ( k ) } - \mathcal { O } ^ { ( j ) } \right | Q ^ { n - j } \right \} \right ), \quad \ n _ { L O } \leq j \leq k \leq n \,,$$

where Q = m GLYPH&lt;25&gt; = GLYPH&lt;3&gt; b , GLYPH&lt;3&gt; b is the breakdown scale of the chiral expansion. We set GLYPH&lt;3&gt; b = 4 GLYPH&lt;25&gt; F GLYPH&lt;24&gt; 1 GeV as in Ref. [80]. In our case, the lowest order considered is nLO = 1 and the upper order calculated is n = 3.

## IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

## A. Fit with and without GLYPH&lt;1&gt; contribution

We have fitted the free LECs of our model comparing our calculation with the experimental database and minimizing the GLYPH&lt;31&gt; squared. The results of the fit for several di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent options are

7 In some of the references, e.g. [78], the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance was not explicitly included, but its contribution starts at a higher order in the GLYPH&lt;14&gt; counting.

8 The parameter d 16 has been investigated, within the current approach, studying the dependence on the pion mass of the axial coupling of the nucleon in lattice data. A value of d 16 = ( GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 0 83 : GLYPH&lt;6&gt; 0 03) GeV : GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 was obtained in Ref. [80].

TABLE II: The values of the LECs are dimensionless for gM and in units of GeV GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 for d 's. Fit I refers to the standard setting, Fit II removes GLYPH&lt;1&gt; mechanisms, Fit III leaves d 18 free. In Fits I and II, d 18 is restricted to the 1 GLYPH&lt;27&gt; range given in Table I, and therefore shown in boldface.

| LECs                                 | Fit I                           | Fit II - = GLYPH<1>             | Fit III                |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|
| d 8 + d 9                            | 1 : 16 GLYPH<6> 0 : 01          | 3 : 53 GLYPH<6> 0 : 01          | 0 : 95 GLYPH<6> 0 : 02 |
| d 8 GLYPH<0> d 9                     | 1 : 09 GLYPH<6> 0 : 18          | 5 : 31 GLYPH<6> 0 : 24          | 0 : 27 GLYPH<6> 0 : 18 |
| d 18                                 | 0 : 60                          | GLYPH<0> 1 : 00                 | 5 : 69 GLYPH<6> 0 : 14 |
| d 20                                 | GLYPH<0> 0 : 74 GLYPH<6> 0 : 17 | GLYPH<0> 3 : 81 GLYPH<6> 0 : 19 | 1 : 87 GLYPH<6> 0 : 19 |
| d 21                                 | 4 : 32 GLYPH<6> 0 : 14          | 6 : 98 GLYPH<6> 0 : 15          | 4 : 58 GLYPH<6> 0 : 15 |
| g M                                  | 2 : 90 GLYPH<6> 0 : 01          | -                               | 3 : 16 GLYPH<6> 0 : 02 |
| GLYPH<31> 2 TOT = dof                | 3 : 22                          | 29 : 5                          | 1 : 58                 |
| GLYPH<31> 2 GLYPH<25> 0 = dof        | 3 : 58                          | 37 : 2                          | 1 : 31                 |
| GLYPH<31> 2 GLYPH<25> + = dof        | 1 : 89                          | 1 : 79                          | 2 : 43                 |
| GLYPH<31> 2 GLYPH<25> GLYPH<0> = dof | 1 : 99                          | 1 : 90                          | 2 : 76                 |

given in Table II. Fit I corresponds to our full model, as described in the previous sections. The LECs from Table I have been set to their central values except for d 18 , which has been left to vary within the quoted range, and gM that was left free. In the minimization procedure, we have chosen the combinations d 8 + d 9 and d 8 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; d 9 because of the strong correlation existing between d 8 and d 9 which cannot be well determined independently. Furthermore, the channel GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p , with the most accurate data, depends just on d 8 + d 9 , which leads to a quite precise value for this combination. With the current data, we are less sensitive to d 8 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; d 9 that would benefit from better data on the other channels that depend only on d 9 for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + n and GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! GLYPH&lt;0&gt; GLYPH&lt;25&gt; p cases, and on d 8 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; d 9 for GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 n .

Also, the O p ( 3 ) constants d 20 and d 21 are less constrained, because they only a GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect the channels with charged pions. These latter channels are already relatively well described by lower order calculations and are not very sensitive to third order e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects. Furthermore, the uncertainties in their data are comparatively larger than for the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 channel. We must also recall that, in pion photoproduction, d 21 is fully correlated with d 22 and only appears in the amplitudes in the 2 d 21 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; d 22 combination. Thus, the value shown in Table II depends straightforwardly on d 22 .

A first remark is that gM takes a value consistent with that obtained from the electromagnetic

GLYPH&lt;1&gt; decay width. This clearly shows the sensitivity of the pion photoproduction to the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance even at the low energies investigated. In fact, removing the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; mechanisms we get Fit II, with a much worse agreement with data. The reshu GLYPH&lt;15&gt; ing of the free parameters is ine GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ective in describing the rapid growth of the cross section of the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 channel. The importance of the resonant mechanisms can be also appreciated in Fig. 5. The quality of the agreement decreases rapidly as a function of the maximum photon energy of the data included in the fit in the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; -less case, whereas it is practically stable for the full model. This behavior (rapid growth of GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 as a function of energy) can also be seen even for O p ( 4 ) covariant and HB calculations that do not include the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance explicitly. See, e.g., Figs. 2 of Refs. [19, 45] and Fig. 1 of Ref. [18] 9 .

Comparing the absolute values of GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 = dof ( GLYPH&lt;31&gt; squared per degree of freedom), we see that the O p ( 3 ) calculation without GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (Fit II) gives GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 = dof = 29 5. : This number is mostly driven by the contribution of the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p channel (Table II), whereas the contribution of the channels with charged pions to GLYPH&lt;31&gt; squared is barely modified. The GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 value is substantially reduced with the explicit inclusion of the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (Fit I), still at O p ( 3 ) and even when the corresponding LECs are previously fixed. A reduction can also be obtained without the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; by doing an O p ( 4 ) calculation [18, 19]. However, apart from requiring a number of extra parameters, in the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; -less calculations the fit quality diminishes rapidly as a function of the photon energy.

In Figs. 6, 7 and 8, we compare the results from Fit I with data from the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 channel. The only free third order LEC is the d 8 + d 9 combination. The agreement is overall good for both cross section and beam asymmetries in the full range of energies considered. Only the total cross sections from Ref. [83] are systematically below the calculation from 165 to 205 MeV, see Fig. 8. However, these data are incompatible with the di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erential cross sections measured at the same energies in Ref. [17]. Also, there is some overestimation (within the error bands but systematic) of the angular distributions at backward angles. The uncertainties due to the truncation of the chiral expansion are considerable. This fact reflects the large size of the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; contribution and the O p ( 3 ) mechanisms to this observable.

The channel GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + n is sensitive to the LECs d 9 , d 20 and d 21 . As shown in Figs. 9, 10 and 11, the agreement is good for the cross sections and for the few data available on beam asymmetry. The model also agrees well with the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; p data as shown in Figs. 12 and 13. This channel

9 The two figures from Refs. [18, 19] only consider the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 channel, whereas Fig. 5 includes all the channels. Still, the comparison is fair as the GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 is basically driven by the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 channel and we obtain a similar figure for that restricted case.

FIG. 5: GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 per degree of freedom as a function of the maximum photon energy of the data included in the fit. Solid diamonds: full model at order O p ( 3 ) with GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance, empty circles: model without the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; inclusion. Lines to guide the eye.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-8c133c6b-cc41-4a5e-844c-c9a228805e57.jpg)

depends on the same third order LECs as the previous one. The measurements in this channel are scarce and the uncertainties are relatively large. However, it gets a larger GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 than the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + channel. This may come from some underestimation of the experimental uncertainties. Actually, most of the contribution of this channel to the GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 comes from regions with conflicting and incompatible measurements, such as the angular distribution at forward angles at E GLYPH&lt;13&gt; = 211 MeV.

The combination d 8 + d 9 is very precisely determined in our fits as compared to the other third order LECs and, in particular, to d 8 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; d 9 . Using the correlation matrix and Eq. (27), we can estimate their individual uncertainties. We obtain d 8 = 1 13 : GLYPH&lt;6&gt; 0 09 GeV : GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 and d 9 = 0 04 : GLYPH&lt;6&gt; 0 09 GeV : GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 for Fit I. The same values and uncertainties are obtained using directly d 8 and d 9 , instead of their combinations, in the fit. These separate uncertainties are 1 order of magnitude larger than for the d 8 + d 9 combination.

We have explored the stability of the minimum of our standard result (Fit I) by removing the constraints previously imposed on d 18 , c 6 and c 7 . Notice that gM was already free, hA always appears in a combination multiplied by gM and d 22 is fully correlated with d 21 . The results are shown in the Fit III of Table II. The GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 improves substantially, mostly due to a better agreement with the

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-531e77c4-a474-477e-9ad3-4916cd617c3c.jpg)

θc.m.

FIG. 6: Angular cross section for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p channel at various energies. Solid line: theoretical model (Fit I). Dashed line: Fit III. Data from Ref. [17] marked as red points and from [68] as violet squares. The inner band represents the statistical errors obtained by varying the LECs within their uncertainties (as shown in Table I) in the fit. The outer band stands for the total errors where the theoretical uncertainties (due to the chiral truncation) are added to the statistical ones in quadrature.

GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 channel and, in particular, the cross section at backward angles, Fig. 6. Notice, however, the slight worsening of the agreement with the charged pion channels. While this might be pointing to some issue with the neutral pion production data at backward angles [17], it could also be arising from the theory side, as detailed below.

Of the now unconstrained LECs, the c 6 and c 7 values remain in the range given in Table I, but d 18 prefers positive values which are not acceptable as they are hardly compatible with the

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-8c97560e-bdf0-486a-b3fa-bea1dca52009.jpg)

cos

θc.m.

FIG. 7: Beam asymmetry for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p channel at various energies. Data from Ref. [17] marked as red points and from [68] as a violet square. Description same as Fig. 6.

pion nucleon coupling constant g GLYPH&lt;25&gt; N [27]. We have also examined how GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 changes when moving d 18 across the range [ GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1 0 0 60] GeV : ; : GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 given in Table I. At d 18 = GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1 0 GeV : GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 , it goes up to GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 = 4 70. : 10

We have found that the value d 18 changes much by modifications such as whether the wave function renormalization is applied to the full amplitude or the first order only, and whether the physical mass or m 2 [see Eq. (B4)] is used in the loops for the nucleons. All these options amount to O p ( 4 ) variations, and the fact that the value of d 18 is strongly a GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ected by them may indicate the

10 In Fit II, it rises up to GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 = 31 7 at : d 18 = 0 6 GeV : GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2 .

FIG. 8: Cross section for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 p channel. Solid line: theoretical model, circles: data from Ref. [67], triangles: data from Ref. [83], not included in the fit. Description same as Fig. 6.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-2ad05681-614b-44e8-b2c7-4986cf7881e1.jpg)

need for a higher order calculation to reach a proper chiral convergence.

A first step would be the inclusion of O p ( 7 2 = ) mechanisms, which correspond to tree mechanisms with higher order GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;25&gt; or GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;13&gt; coupling and a set of loop diagrams with GLYPH&lt;1&gt; propagators inside the loop. This approach was already explored in Ref. [44] for the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 channel and did not change much the results as compared with the third order calculation, remaining consistent with the preference of large positive d 18 values.

A full O p ( 4 ) calculation would incorporate further extra terms. The fourth order Lagrangian, L (4) N , that contributes to the process entails fifteen additional couplings [45]. 11 We have estimated the importance of this order by considering the tree level amplitude generated by L (4) N . The explicit expression can be found in Appendix C from Ref. [45]. In particular, we have explored how d 18 is a GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ected by the new terms and we have found that it is very sensitive to some of the parameters, as e 48 , e 50 or e 112 .

11 With the current dataset, the use of the full L (4) N Lagrangian with fifteen extra parameters and an already small GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 leads to many minima and obvious overfitting.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-9d046d8e-b066-4973-8c72-066c6186145e.jpg)

cos

θc.m.

FIG. 9: Angular cross section for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + n channel at various energies. Going from low to high energy, the data from Ref. [84] are marked as red diamonds, [77] as black squares, [76] as blue triangles, [68] as violet squares. Finally, in the lowest right panel, data for di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent energies from Ref. [75] are marked as magenta circles and from [65] as dark-green squares. In this latter panel the theory has been calculated at precisely the energies and angles of the data points, and the lines and bands have been interpolated. Description same as Fig. 8.

FIG. 10: Cross section for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + n channel at various energies. Data from Ref. [85] presented as red circles. In the same way as in Fig. 9, data from [76] as blue triangles and [77] as black squares. Description same as Fig. 8.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-3755c7ef-91c5-4b95-b3b1-9f85699e3cef.jpg)

FIG. 11: Beam asymmetry for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; + n channel at E GLYPH&lt;13&gt; = 212 9 MeV. Data from Ref. [68]. Description : same as Fig. 8.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-9a40eb15-3b17-4674-968b-621a82b02df5.jpg)

## B. Convergence of the approach

In Table III, we show the GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 results for the calculations at di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent chiral orders. At the lowest order, there is no free LEC. The amplitude only depends on physical magnitudes such as gA , the masses, charges and the pion decay constant. The agreement is acceptable for the pion charged

FIG. 12: Cross section for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! GLYPH&lt;0&gt; GLYPH&lt;25&gt; p channel at various energies. Data from Ref. [86] presented as red square and data from [87] as blue filled circles. Description same as Fig. 8.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-1a8c41a5-a289-46e3-9810-0efae234e29b.jpg)

channels but quite bad for the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 one. The reason is well known as being due to the large cancellation between the di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent pieces of the O p ( ) amplitude which leads to small cross sections and a large sensitivity to higher orders. The situation does not improve in a second order calculation. Again there are no free parameters. The new tree diagrams correspond to c 6 and c 7 terms which are directly connected to the magnetic moments of the neutron and proton. 12 Next, in the GLYPH&lt;14&gt; counting, comes the inclusion of the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; mechanisms which start contributing at O p ( 5 2 = ). Once more, there are no free constants. We already get a much better description in the three channels. Still, the agreement is poor for the neutral pion channel. An even larger improvement is reached in a third order calculation, without GLYPH&lt;1&gt; but with some extra free parameters (Fit II of Table II). At this order, the loop diagrams start appearing. They are also important for improving the agreement of all channels. Finally, in the last column we show our Fit I results, incorporating both GLYPH&lt;1&gt; mechanisms and a full third order calculation. It leads to an overall good agreement with the data in all channels.

Altogether, the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; mechanisms and the third order contributions play a capital role in reaching a good description of the pion photoproduction process. This is especially the case for neutral pion photoproduction, but also the charged pion production channels feel the improvement. We remark

12 Actually, the cross sections are slightly better described, but there are strong disagreements with the beam asymmetry of the GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 channel.

FIG. 13: Angular cross section for the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! GLYPH&lt;25&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; p channel at various energies. Data from Ref. [88] are presented as red filled squares, [71] marked as black triangles, [69] as blue squares, [70] as violet filled triangles and data from [72] as magenta filled diamonds. Description same as Fig. 8.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00890v2-figure-c15548c7-8db7-46eb-8d2d-da224f7d1c44.jpg)

here that these e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects also play a significant role in weak pion production [49, 50].

## V. SUMMARY

In this work, we have investigated pion photoproduction on the nucleon close to threshold in covariant ChPT, following the EOMS renormalization scheme. Our approach includes explicitly the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; (1232) resonance mechanisms. We have made a full calculation up through O p ( 3 ) in the GLYPH&lt;14&gt; counting.

The model reproduces well the total cross section, angular distributions and polarization observables for all the channels. The agreement is better, and for a wider range of energies, than in the O p ( 4 ) calculations in both, covariant [19] and HB [18] schemes, without explicit GLYPH&lt;1&gt; . As

TABLE III: LECs and GLYPH&lt;31&gt; 2 for calculations at di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent chiral orders. Bold numbers are fixed and depend only on physical quantities such as gA , the proton and neutron magnetic moment and the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; decay width. Thus, they are not fitted to the pion photoproduction process.

| LECs                                 | O ( p 1 )   | O ( p 2 )        | O ( p 5 = 2 )    | O ( p 3 ), Fit I                |
|--------------------------------------|-------------|------------------|------------------|---------------------------------|
| g                                    | 1 : 27      | 1 : 27           | 1 : 27           | 1 : 11                          |
| c 6                                  | -           | 3 : 706          | 3 : 706          | 5 : 07                          |
| c 7                                  | -           | GLYPH<0> 1 : 913 | GLYPH<0> 1 : 913 | GLYPH<0> 2 : 68                 |
| d 18                                 | -           | -                | -                | 0 : 60                          |
| d 22                                 | -           | -                | -                | 5 : 20                          |
| d 8 + d 9                            | -           | -                | -                | 1 : 16 GLYPH<6> 0 : 01          |
| d 8 GLYPH<0> d 9                     | -           | -                | -                | 1 : 09 GLYPH<6> 0 : 18          |
| d 20                                 | -           | -                | -                | GLYPH<0> 0 : 74 GLYPH<6> 0 : 17 |
| d 21                                 | -           | -                | -                | 4 : 32 GLYPH<6> 0 : 14          |
| h A                                  | -           | -                | 2 : 87           | 2 : 87                          |
| g M                                  | -           | -                | 3 : 16           | 2 : 90 GLYPH<6> 0 : 01          |
| GLYPH<31> 2 TOT = dof                | 165         | 310              | 60.7             | 3.22                            |
| GLYPH<31> 2 GLYPH<25> 0 = dof        | 208         | 392              | 76.6             | 3.58                            |
| GLYPH<31> 2 GLYPH<25> + = dof        | 10.7        | 9.15             | 2.88             | 1.89                            |
| GLYPH<31> 2 GLYPH<25> GLYPH<0> = dof | 5.73        | 6.29             | 2.33             | 1.99                            |

in their case, our model without GLYPH&lt;1&gt; only reproduces the data very close to threshold. This shows that the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; resonance is instrumental in reproducing the energy dependence of the various observables. We should remark here that the GLYPH&lt;1&gt; couplings are strongly constrained from its strong and electromagnetic widths.

With the simultaneous incorporation of all pion photoproduction channels, our fit constrains some unknown O p ( 3 ) LECs. Of these, the combination d 8 + d 9 is the most precisely determined due to the high quality of the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! p GLYPH&lt;25&gt; 0 data. The constants d 20 , d 21 or d 9 separated from d 8 , which only appear in the other channels involving charged pions, are not so well determined because data are scarce and typically with large uncertainties. New measurements on the GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p ! n GLYPH&lt;25&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; , GLYPH&lt;13&gt; n ! p GLYPH&lt;25&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; or the reverse n GLYPH&lt;25&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; ! GLYPH&lt;13&gt; p processes would be useful to better pin down the values of these LECs. Finally, the extension to the description of electro- and weak production data will advance these

studies even further, while o GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ering the possibility of making reliable and accurate predictions for weak processes where data are more scarce.

## Acknowledgments

This research is supported by MINECO (Spain) and the ERDF (European Commission) grant No. FIS2017-84038-C2-2-P, and SEV-2014-0398. It is also supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11905258, by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No. 531118010379 and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), in part through the Collaborative Research Center [The Low-Energy Frontier of the Standard Model, Projektnummer 204404729 - SFB 1044], and in part through the Cluster of Excellence [Precision Physics, Fundamental Interactions, and Structure of Matter] (PRISMA + EXC 2118 1) within the German Excellence Strategy (Project ID / 39083149).

## Appendix A: Amplitudes

## 1. Representations of the invariant amplitude

We write the scattering amplitude T as

$$\mathcal { T } = & \bar { u } ( p ^ { \prime } ) \left [ a _ { N } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { N } + a _ { E } V _ { E } + a _ { K } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { K } + a _ { E K } V _ { E K } \right ] u ( p ),$$

where u p ( ) and ¯( u p 0 ) = u y ( p 0 ) GLYPH&lt;13&gt; 0 are the Dirac spinors corresponding to the initial and final nucleon states respectively, GLYPH&lt;15&gt; is the photon polarization vector, and q is the 4-momentum of the outgoing pion, the coe GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cients aN , aE , aK and aEK are complex functions of the Mandelstam variables, while there are four operators defined as

$$V _ { N } = \gamma ^ { 5 }, \quad V _ { E } = \not \in \gamma ^ { 5 }, \quad V _ { K } = k \gamma ^ { 5 }, \quad V _ { E K } = \not \in k \gamma ^ { 5 },$$

where k is the photon 4-momentum. There is another representation, commonly used, in terms of Lorentz invariant operators, Mi , where the scattering amplitude reads

$$\mathcal { T } = \epsilon _ { \mu } \mathcal { M } ^ { \mu } = & \epsilon _ { \mu } \bar { u } ( p ^ { \prime } ) \left ( \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 4 } A _ { i } M _ { i } ^ { \mu } \right ) u ( p ),$$

with M GLYPH&lt;22&gt; the factorized hadronic current and

$$\epsilon \cdot M _ { 1 } = & i k \not \in \gamma _ { 5 },$$

$$\epsilon \cdot M _ { 4 } = & \mathfrak { i } ( \not \epsilon k \cdot ( p + p ^ { \prime } ) - \not k p ^ { \prime } \cdot \epsilon - 2 m _ { N } \not k \not \epsilon ) \gamma _ { 5 }.$$

$$& \epsilon \cdot M _ { 1 } = & i k \not \in \gamma _ { 5 }, \\ & \epsilon \cdot M _ { 2 } = & i ( p ^ { \prime } \cdot \epsilon k \cdot q - q \cdot \epsilon k \cdot ( p + p ^ { \prime } ) ) \gamma _ { 5 }, \\ & \epsilon \cdot M _ { 3 } = & i ( \not \in k k \cdot q - k q \cdot \epsilon ) \gamma _ { 5 }, \\ & \epsilon \cdot M _ { 4 } = & i ( \not \in k k \cdot ( p + p ^ { \prime } ) - k p ^ { \prime } \cdot \epsilon - 2 m _ { N } k \not \in \gamma ) \gamma _ { 5 }.$$

Note that in the c.m. system p GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;15&gt; = 0. One can easily find the conversion between the two di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent representations:

$$A _ { 1 } = & \mathfrak { i } \left ( a _ { E K } - \frac { m _ { N } } { k \cdot p } \left ( a _ { E } + k \cdot q a _ { K } \right ) \right ),$$

$$A _ { 2 } = & \mathfrak { i } \frac { \mathfrak { \L a } _ { N } } { 2 k \cdot p }, & \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \ \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \cdot \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \l } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \ L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak {  L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak {\L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak {  \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak{ \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak \L \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L l } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \R } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \r } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \Upsilon } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \Sigma } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \Dag } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \L } \quad \mathfrak { \Pagination }$$

$$A _ { 3 } = & \mathfrak { i } \left ( a _ { K } \overset { \cdot } { \left ( 1 - \frac { k \cdot q } { 2 k \cdot p } \right ) } - \frac { a _ { E } } { 2 k \cdot p } \right ),$$

$$A _ { 4 } = - \, \frac { \dot { 1 } } { 2 k \cdot p } \, ( a _ { E } + k \cdot q a _ { K } ) \,.$$

For practical purposes, as explained in Sec. II A, it is sometimes convenient to use the CGLN amplitudes [55]. In this way the scattering amplitude from Eq. (2) reads

$$\mathcal { T } = \frac { 4 \pi W } { m _ { N } } \chi _ { f } ^ { \dagger } \mathcal { F } \chi _ { i },$$

where W = p s is the center-of-mass energy, and the amplitude F can be expressed as the decomposition of the F i ( i = 1 ; : : : ; 4) pieces as shown in Eq. (3). These pieces are given explicitly by

$$\mathcal { F } _ { 1 } = - \, i \frac { N _ { 1 } N _ { 2 } } { 8 \pi W } ( W - m _ { N } ) \left ( A _ { 1 } + \frac { k \cdot q } { W - m _ { N } } A _ { 3 } + \left ( W - m _ { N } - \frac { k \cdot q } { W - m _ { N } } \right ) A _ { 4 } \right ),$$

$$\mathcal { F } _ { 2 } = - \, i \frac { | \vec { q } ^ { * } | N _ { 1 } N _ { 2 } } { 8 \pi W ( E _ { 2 } + m _ { N } ) } ( W - m _ { N } ) \left ( \frac { A _ { 3 } k \cdot q } { m _ { N } + W } + A _ { 4 } \left ( - \frac { k \cdot q } { m _ { N } + W } + m _ { N } + W \right ) - A _ { 1 } \right ), \quad \ ( A 9 )$$

$$\mathcal { F } _ { 3 } & = - \, i \frac { | q ^ { \dagger } | N _ { 1 } N _ { 2 } } { 8 \pi W } ( W - m _ { N } ) ( A _ { 2 } ( W - m _ { N } ) + A _ { 3 } - A _ { 4 } ),$$

$$\mathcal { F } _ { 4 } = - \, i \frac { | \vec { q } ^ { \cdot } | ^ { 2 } N _ { 1 } N _ { 2 } } { 8 \pi W ( E _ { 2 } + m _ { N } ) } ( W - m _ { N } ) ( - A _ { 2 } ( m _ { N } + W ) + A _ { 3 } - A _ { 4 } ),$$

with Ni = p mN + Ei , E 1 = q m N 2 + j ~ p j 2 , E 2 = q m N 2 + j ~ q j 2 ; j ~ p j and j ~ q j are evaluated in the c.m. system. Ai are the coe GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cients of the scattering amplitude in the Lorentz invariant basis, f Mi g as in Eq. (A3). Having the explicit expressions of Ai in terms of the coe GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cients aN , aE , aK and aEK

through the relations (A4)-(A11), we are able to compute the observables as presented in Eqs. (4), (7) and (9) from the amplitude parametrized in the f VN ; VE ; VK ; VEK g basis of Eq. (A2). We write down the tree level amplitudes in this basis in the following Sec. A 2.

## 2. Tree level amplitude

a. At O p ( 1 )

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( a ) } ^ { ( 1 ) } \, = \, C _ { I } ^ { ( 1 ) } \frac { e g } { F _ { 0 } } V _ { E }, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( b ) } ^ { ( 1 ) } \, = \, C _ { I I } ^ { ( 1 ) } \frac { e g } { F _ { 0 } } \left [ \frac { \left ( s - m _ { N } ^ { 2 } \right ) } { \left ( m _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - s \right ) } V _ { E } + \frac { ( m _ { N } + m _ { 2 } ) } { \left ( m _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - s \right ) } V _ { E K } \right ], \quad \quad \quad$$

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( c ) } ^ { ( 1 ) } \, = \, C _ { I I I } ^ { ( 1 ) } \frac { e g } { F _ { 0 } } \left [ \frac { \binom { \cdot } { m _ { N } ^ { 2 } - u } } { \binom { 2 } { m _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - u } } V _ { E } + \frac { \binom { \cdot } { m _ { N } } ^ { 2 } } { \binom { m _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - u } { m _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - u } } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { N } + \frac { ( m _ { N } + m _ { 2 } ) } { \binom { m _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - u } { m _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - u } } V _ { E K } \right ],$$

$$\ell _ { 0 } \wr \wr \langle \langle m _ { 2 } ^ { \ } - u \rangle & \langle m _ { 2 } ^ { \ } - u \rangle & \langle m _ { 2 } ^ { \ } - u \rangle & \langle m _ { 2 } ^ { \ } - u \rangle & \rangle \\ \mathcal { T } _ { ( d ) } ^ { ( 1 ) } \, = \, C _ { I V } ^ { ( 1 ) } \frac { 2 \sqrt { 2 } e g m _ { N } } { F _ { 0 } \left ( - 2 m _ { N } ^ { 2 } + s + u \right ) } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { N }, & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad &\quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \ \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \	 & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad & \quad &$$

where the coe GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cients C i (1) for i = f I ; II ; III ; IV g are given in Table IV and u GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( p GLYPH&lt;0&gt; q ) 2 . Here mN is the physical nucleon mass coming from the external legs in the Feynman diagrams of Fig. 2, that in our case corresponds to the order O p ( 3 ) nucleon mass, whose expression is derived in Eq. (B3). The inner nucleon propagator has the second order nucleon mass m 2 instead of m . This automatically generates the O p ( 2 ) and higher order contributions corresponding to c 1 mass insertions.

TABLE IV: Tree level amplitude constants for each channel at order O ( q 1 ).

| Channel                            | C (1) I        | C (1) II   | C (1) III   | C (1) IV   |
|------------------------------------|----------------|------------|-------------|------------|
| GLYPH<13> p ! p GLYPH<25> 0        | 0              | 1 2        | 1 2         | 0          |
| GLYPH<13> p ! n GLYPH<25> +        | 1 p 2          | 1 p 2      | 0           | GLYPH<0> 1 |
| GLYPH<13> n ! p GLYPH<25> GLYPH<0> | GLYPH<0> 1 p 2 | 0          | 1 p 2       | 1          |
| GLYPH<13> n ! n GLYPH<25> 0        | 0              | 0          | 0           | 0          |

## b. At O p ( 2 )

In what follows, for the amplitudes of order O p ( 2 ) and higher, the leading order bare constants, e.g. m , can be replaced by their corresponding physical ones since the di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erence is of higher order than our current accuracy [ O p ( 3 )]. This replacement is actually made in our calculation:

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( b ) } ^ { ( 2 ) } \, = \, C _ { I I } ^ { ( 2 ) } \frac { e g _ { A } } { F } \left [ \frac { \left ( 3 m ^ { 2 } + s \right ) } { 2 m \left ( m ^ { 2 } - s \right ) } V _ { E K } - V _ { E } \right ],$$

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( c ) } ^ { ( 2 ) } \, = \, C _ { I I I } ^ { ( 2 ) } \frac { e g _ { A } } { F } \left [ \frac { 2 } { ( m ^ { 2 } - u ) } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { K } + \frac { \stackrel { \prime } { ( 3 m ^ { 2 } + u ) } } { 2 m \left ( m ^ { 2 } - u \right ) } V _ { E K } + V _ { E } \right ].$$

The definitions for the constants C II (2) and C III (2) are presented in Table V.

TABLE V: Tree level amplitude constants for each channel at order O ( q 2 ).

| Channel                            |   C (2) I | C (2) II            | C (2) III           |   C (2) IV |
|------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------|---------------------|------------|
| GLYPH<13> p ! p GLYPH<25> 0        |         0 | 1 2 ( c 6 + c 7 )   | 1 2 ( c 6 + c 7 )   |          0 |
| GLYPH<13> p ! n GLYPH<25> +        |         0 | 1 p 2 ( c 6 + c 7 ) | 1 p 2 c 7           |          0 |
| GLYPH<13> n ! p GLYPH<25> GLYPH<0> |         0 | 1 p 2 c 7           | 1 p 2 ( c 6 + c 7 ) |          0 |
| GLYPH<13> n ! n GLYPH<25> 0        |         0 | GLYPH<0> 1 2 c 7    | GLYPH<0> 1 2 c 7    |          0 |

c. At O p ( 3 )

$$( A 1 8 )$$

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( a ) } ^ { ( 3 ) } \, & = \, C _ { l a } ^ { ( 3 ) \, e } \frac { e } { F } \left [ \frac { 2 \left ( 2 m ^ { 2 } - m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } + s + u \right ) } { m } V _ { E K } + \frac { 2 \left ( s - m ^ { 2 } \right ) } { m } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { N } + 4 q \cdot \epsilon V _ { K } + 2 ( s - u ) V _ { E } \right ] \\ & + \, C _ { l b } ^ { ( 3 ) \, e } \frac { e } { F } \left [ \left ( \frac { m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \left ( 2 m ^ { 2 } - s - u \right ) + 2 \left ( m ^ { 2 } - s \right ) \left ( m ^ { 2 } - u \right ) } { 4 \sqrt { 2 } m ^ { 2 } } d _ { 2 0 } + \frac { \left ( 2 m ^ { 2 } - s - u \right ) d _ { 2 1 2 } - 4 m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } d _ { 1 6 8 } } { 2 \sqrt { 2 } } \right ) V _ { E } \\ & + \left ( \frac { \left ( m ^ { 2 } + m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } - s \right ) } { 2 \sqrt { 2 } m ^ { 2 } } d _ { 2 0 } + \frac { d _ { 2 1 2 } } { \sqrt { 2 } } \right ) q \cdot \epsilon V _ { K } \right ], \\ \mathcal { T } _ { ( 3 ) } \, & = \, C _ { ( 3 ) \, e } ^ { ( 3 ) \, e } _ { d... } \left [ \frac { 2 m m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { m } V _ {.... } - m ^ { 2 } V _ {.. } \right ]$$

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( b ) } ^ { ( 3 ) } \, = \, C _ { I I } ^ { ( 3 ) } \frac { e } { F } d _ { 1 6 8 } \left [ \frac { 2 m \, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { m ^ { 2 } - s } V _ { E K } - m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } V _ { E } \right ],$$

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( c ) } ^ { ( 3 ) } \ = \ C _ { I I I } ^ { ( 3 ) } \frac { e } { F } d _ { 1 6 8 } & \overset { \ell } { [ } \frac { 4 m \, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { m ^ { 2 } - u } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { N } + \frac { 2 m \, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { m ^ { 2 } - u } V _ { E K } + m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } V _ { E } \right ], \\ \ \. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \ \frac { 4 \sqrt { 7 } m \, m ^ { 2 } } { }$$

$$\mathcal { T } _ { ( d ) } ^ { ( 3 ) } \, = \, C _ { I V } ^ { ( 3 ) } \frac { e } { F } d _ { 1 6 8 } \frac { 4 \sqrt { 2 } m \, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { ( 2 m ^ { 2 } - s - u ) } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { N },$$

where d 168 = 2 d 16 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; d 18 and d 212 = 2 d 21 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; d 22 . The coe GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cients C j (3) for j = f Ia Ib II ; ; ; III ; IV g are given in Table VI.

TABLE VI: Tree level amplitude constants for each channel at order O ( q 3 ).

| Channel                            | C (3) Ia         | C (3) Ib   | C (3) II   | C (3) III   | C (3) IV   |
|------------------------------------|------------------|------------|------------|-------------|------------|
| GLYPH<13> p ! p GLYPH<25> 0        | d 8 + d 9        | 0          | 1          | 1           | 0          |
| GLYPH<13> p ! n GLYPH<25> +        | p 2 d 9          | GLYPH<0> 1 | p 2        | 0           | 1          |
| GLYPH<13> n ! p GLYPH<25> GLYPH<0> | p 2 d 9          | 1          | 0          | p 2         | GLYPH<0> 1 |
| GLYPH<13> n ! n GLYPH<25> 0        | d 8 GLYPH<0> d 9 | 0          | 0          | 0           | 0          |

## d. At O p ( 5 2 = )

For the following amplitudes the definitions of the constants DII and DIII are given in Table VII.

$$& \text{For the following amplitudes the definitions of the constants } D _ { I I } \text{ and } D _ { I I I } \text{ are given in Table VII.} \\ & \mathcal { T } _ { ( a ) } ^ { ( S / 2 ) } = D _ { I I } \frac { \ e g _ { M } h _ { A } } { 4 F m \, m _ { \Delta } ( m + m _ { \Delta } ) } \left [ \frac { \left ( m ^ { 2 } - s \right ) ( m \, m _ { \Delta } + s ) } { \left ( - i \Gamma _ { \Delta } ( s ) m _ { \Delta } + m _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } - s \right ) } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { N } - \frac { \left ( m ^ { 2 } m _ { \Delta } + 2 m s + m _ { \Delta } s \right ) } { \left ( - i \Gamma _ { \Delta } ( s ) m _ { \Delta } + m _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } - s \right ) } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { K } \\ + & \frac { \left ( m ^ { 4 } - 8 m ^ { 3 } m _ { \Delta } - m ^ { 2 } \left ( m _ { \tau } ^ { 2 } + 6 s \right ) + 4 m \, m _ { \Delta } \left ( m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } - 2 s \right ) + s \left ( 5 m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } - 5 s - 6 u \right ) \right ) } { 6 \left ( - i \Gamma _ { \Delta } ( s ) m _ { \Delta } + m _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } - s \right ) } V _ { E } \\ + & \frac { \left ( - m ^ { 5 } + 3 m ^ { 4 } m _ { \Delta } + m ^ { 3 } \left ( m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } - 2 s \right ) + m ^ { 2 } m _ { \Delta } \left ( m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } - 1 0 s \right ) - m s \left ( m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } + 3 s - 6 u \right ) + m _ { \Delta } s \left ( - m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } + s + 6 u \right ) \right ) } { 6 \left ( - i \Gamma _ { \Delta } ( s ) m _ { \Delta } + m _ { \Delta } ^ { 2 } - s \right ) } V _ { E } \right ],$$

$$\left \langle \cdot \, \stackrel { \sim } { \sim } \right \rangle, \\ \mathcal { T } _ { ( \flat ) } ^ { ( 5 / 2 ) } & = D _ { \Pi } \frac { \ e g _ { M } h _ { \A } } { 4 F m \, m _ { \A } ( m + m _ { \Delta } ) } \left [ - \frac { \left ( m ^ { 2 } - s \right ) ( m \, m _ { \Delta } + u ) } { \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \Delta } - u \right ) } \right ) \\ + \frac { \left ( - m ^ { 3 } + 6 m ^ { 2 } m _ { \Delta } + m \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } + 3 u \right ) + m _ { \Delta } \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } - 3 s - u \right ) \right ) } { 3 \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \Delta } - u \right ) } q \cdot \epsilon V _ { K } } { 4 \left ( - m ^ { 4 } + 8 m ^ { 3 } m _ { \Delta } + m ^ { 2 } \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } + 6 u \right ) - 4 m \, m _ { \Delta } \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } - 2 u \right ) + u \left ( - 5 m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } + 6 s + 5 u \right ) \right ) } { 6 \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \Delta } - u \right ) } \\ + \frac { \left ( - m ^ { 5 } + 3 m ^ { 4 } m _ { \Delta } + m ^ { 3 } \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } - 2 u \right ) + m ^ { 2 } _ { \Delta } \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } - 1 0 u \right ) - m u \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } - 6 s + 3 u \right ) + m _ { \Delta } u \left ( - m ^ { 2 } _ { \tau } + 6 s + u \right ) \right ) } { 6 \left ( m ^ { 2 } _ { \Delta } - u \right ) } V _ { E } \right ],$$

where the energy dependent width, GLYPH&lt;0&gt; GLYPH&lt;1&gt; ( s ), is given by [89]

$$\Gamma _ { \Delta } ( s ) = \frac { ( h _ { A } / 2 ) ^ { 2 } \, \Lambda ^ { 3 / 2 } ( s, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 }, m ^ { 2 } ) } { 1 9 2 \pi F ^ { 2 } s ^ { 3 } } \left [ \left ( s - m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } + m ^ { 2 } \right ) m _ { \Delta } + 2 s m \right ] \theta \left ( s - ( m + m _ { \pi } ) ^ { 2 } \right ),$$

using GLYPH&lt;18&gt; ( x ) as the step function ensuring the dependence to be above the threshold of pion production on nucleons.

TABLE VII: Tree level amplitude constants for each channel at order O ( q 5 2 = ).

| Channel                            | D II           | D III          |
|------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|
| GLYPH<13> p ! p GLYPH<25> 0        | 1              | GLYPH<0> 1     |
| GLYPH<13> p ! n GLYPH<25> +        | GLYPH<0> 1 p 2 | GLYPH<0> 1 p 2 |
| GLYPH<13> n ! p GLYPH<25> GLYPH<0> | 1 p 2          | 1 p 2          |
| GLYPH<13> n ! n GLYPH<25> 0        | 1              | GLYPH<0> 1     |

## Appendix B: Renormalization factors

The wave function renormalization of the external legs is written as

$$\mathcal { Z } _ { N } = & 1 + \delta _ { \mathcal { Z } _ { N } } ^ { ( 2 ) } + \mathcal { O } ( p ^ { 3 } ), \quad \ \mathcal { Z } _ { \pi } ^ { ( 2 ) } = 1 + \delta _ { \mathcal { Z } _ { \pi } } ^ { ( 2 ) } + \mathcal { O } ( p ^ { 3 } ),$$

where

$$\text{where} \\ \delta _ { \mathcal { Z } _ { \nu } } ^ { ( 2 ) } & = - \frac { 3 g _ { A } ^ { 2 } } { 6 4 \pi ^ { 2 } F ^ { 2 } \left ( m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } - 4 m ^ { 2 } \right ) } \left \{ 4 m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \left ( A _ { 0 } \left [ m ^ { 2 } \right ] + \left ( m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } - 3 m ^ { 2 } \right ) B _ { 0 } \left [ m ^ { 2 }, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 }, m ^ { 2 } \right ] - m ^ { 2 } \right ) \\ & \quad + \left ( 1 2 m ^ { 2 } - 5 m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \right ) A _ { 0 } \left [ m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \right ] \right \}, \\ \delta _ { \mathcal { Z } _ { \pi } } ^ { ( 2 ) } & = - \frac { 2 } { 3 F ^ { 2 } } \left \{ 3 l _ { 4 } m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } + \frac { A _ { 0 } \left [ m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \right ] } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } } \right \}. \\ \text{Furthermore to make correct action as an inv}$$

Furthermore, the mass corrections are given by

$$m _ { N } = & \tilde { m } - 4 \tilde { c } _ { 1 } m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } + \delta _ { m } ^ { ( 3 ) } + \mathcal { O } \left ( p ^ { 4 } \right ),$$

$$m _ { 2 } = & \tilde { m } - 4 \tilde { c } _ { 1 } m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } = m _ { N } - \delta _ { m } ^ { ( 3 ) } + \mathcal { O } \left ( p ^ { 4 } \right ),$$

$$\delta _ { m } ^ { ( 3 ) } = & \frac { 3 g _ { A } ^ { 2 } m \, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { 3 2 \pi ^ { 2 } F ^ { 2 } } \left \{ \bar { B } _ { 0 } \left [ m ^ { 2 }, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 }, m ^ { 2 } \right ] - \left ( 1 + \frac { \bar { A } _ { 0 } \left [ m ^ { 2 } \right ] } { m ^ { 2 } } \right ) \right \}.$$

with

Finally, the corrections to the axial vector coupling and the pion decay constant read

$$g _ { A } = & \tilde { g } \left ( 1 + \frac { 4 d _ { 1 6 } ^ { r } m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { g _ { A } } + \delta _ { g _ { A } } ^ { ( 2 ) } \right ) + O ( p ^ { 3 } ), \quad \ F = F _ { 0 } \left ( 1 + \delta _ { F } ^ { ( 2 ) } \right ) + O ( p ^ { 3 } ),$$

where

$$\delta _ { g _ { A } } ^ { ( 2 ) } = & \frac { 1 } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } F ^ { 2 } \left ( 4 m ^ { 2 } - m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \right ) } \left \{ 4 g _ { A } ^ { 2 } m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \bar { A } _ { 0 } \left [ m ^ { 2 } \right ] + \left ( \left ( 8 g _ { A } ^ { 2 } + 4 \right ) m ^ { 2 } - \left ( 4 g _ { A } ^ { 2 } + 1 \right ) m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \right ) \bar { A } _ { 0 } \left [ m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \right ] \\ & + m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \left ( \left ( \left ( 3 g _ { A } ^ { 2 } + 2 \right ) m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } - 8 \left ( g _ { A } ^ { 2 } + 1 \right ) m ^ { 2 } \right ) \bar { B } _ { 0 } \left [ m ^ { 2 }, m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 }, m ^ { 2 } \right ] - 4 g _ { A } ^ { 2 } m ^ { 2 } \right ) \right \}, \\ \delta _ { F } ^ { ( 2 ) } = & \frac { l _ { 4 } ^ { l _ { 4 } } m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { F ^ { 2 } } + \frac { \bar { A } _ { 0 } \left [ m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \right ] } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } F ^ { 2 } }.$$

$$\delta _ { F } ^ { ( 2 ) } = & \frac { l _ { 4 } ^ { r } m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } } { F ^ { 2 } } + \frac { \bar { A } _ { 0 } \left [ m _ { \pi } ^ { 2 } \right ] } { 1 6 \pi ^ { 2 } F ^ { 2 } }.$$

Note here that l r 4 and d r 16 are MS-renormalized LECs. g

- [1] S. L. Adler, Annals Phys. 50 , 189 (1968), [,225(1968)].
- [2] D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator, Eur. Phys. J. A34 , 69 (2007), 0710.0306.
- [3] S. Weinberg, Physica A96 , 327 (1979).
- [4] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 158 , 142 (1984).
- [5] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250 , 465 (1985).
- [6] S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, Lect. Notes Phys. 830 , pp.1 (2012).
- [7] N. M. Kroll and M. A. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. 93 , 233 (1954), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRev.93.233 .
- [8] P. De Baenst, Nucl. Phys. B24 , 633 (1970).
- [9] A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B36 , 589 (1972).
- [10] E. Mazzucato et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 , 3144 (1986).
- [11] R. Beck, F. Kalleicher, B. Schoch, J. Vogt, G. Koch, H. Stroher, V. Metag, J. C. McGeorge, J. D. Kellie, and S. J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 , 1841 (1990).
- [12] D. Drechsel and L. Tiator, J. Phys. G18 , 449 (1992).
- [13] V. Bernard and U.-G. Meissner, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 , 33 (2007), hep-ph 0611231. /
- [14] V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, J. Gasser, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B268 , 291 (1991).
- [15] V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. B383 , 442 (1992).
- [16] V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U.-G. Meissner, Eur. Phys. J. A11 , 209 (2001), hep-ph 0102066. /

- [17] D. Hornidge et al. (A2, CB-TAPS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 062004 (2013), 1211.5495.
- [18] C. Fernandez-Ramirez and A. M. Bernstein, Phys. Lett. B724 , 253 (2013), 1212.3237.
- [19] M. Hilt, S. Scherer, and L. Tiator, Phys. Rev. C87 , 045204 (2013), 1301.5576.
- [20] J. Bijnens and G. Ecker, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 64 , 149 (2014), 1405.6488.
- [21] V. Bernard, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 60 , 82 (2008), 0706.0312.
- [22] J. Gasser, M. E. Sainio, and A. Svarc, Nucl. Phys. B307 , 779 (1988).
- [23] E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B255 , 558 (1991).
- [24] E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B259 , 353 (1991).
- [25] T. Becher and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C9 , 643 (1999), hep-ph 9901384. /
- [26] T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, G. Japaridze, and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D68 , 056005 (2003), hep-ph 0302117. /
- [27] J. M. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, Annals Phys. 336 , 413 (2013), 1210.4450.
- [28] L. S. Geng, J. Martin Camalich, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 , 222002 (2008), 0805.1419.
- [29] J. Martin Camalich, L. S. Geng, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D82 , 074504 (2010), 1003.1929.
- [30] T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, J. Phys. G30 , 1407 (2004), nucl-th 0305070. /
- [31] B. C. Lehnhart, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, J. Phys. G31 , 89 (2005), hep-ph 0412092. /
- [32] M. R. Schindler, T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. C75 , 025202 (2007), nuclth 0611083. /
- [33] M. R. Schindler, D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, Phys. Lett. B649 , 390 (2007), hepph 0612164. /
- [34] L. S. Geng, J. Martin Camalich, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D79 , 094022 (2009), 0903.4869.
- [35] J. M. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D85 , 051503 (2012), 1110.3797.
- [36] T. Ledwig, J. Martin-Camalich, V. Pascalutsa, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D85 , 034013 (2012), 1108.2523.
- [37] Y.-H. Chen, D.-L. Yao, and H. Q. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D87 , 054019 (2013), 1212.1893.
- [38] L. Alvarez-Ruso, T. Ledwig, J. Martin Camalich, and M. J. Vicente-Vacas, Phys. Rev. D88 , 054507 (2013), 1304.0483.
- [39] T. Ledwig, J. Martin Camalich, L. S. Geng, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D90 , 054502 (2014), 1405.5456.
- [40] V. Lensky, J. M. Alarc´n, and V. Pascalutsa, Phys. Rev. o C90 , 055202 (2014), 1407.2574.
- [41] D.-L. Yao, D. Siemens, V. Bernard, E. Epelbaum, A. M. Gasparyan, J. Gegelia, H. Krebs, and U.-G.

Meißner, JHEP 05 , 038 (2016), 1603.03638.

- [42] D. Siemens, V. Bernard, E. Epelbaum, A. Gasparyan, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C94 , 014620 (2016), 1602.02640.
- [43] A. N. Hiller Blin, T. Ledwig, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Lett. B747 , 217 (2015), 1412.4083.
- [44] A. N. Hiller Blin, T. Ledwig, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D93 , 094018 (2016), 1602.08967.
- [45] M. Hilt, B. C. Lehnhart, S. Scherer, and L. Tiator, Phys. Rev. C88 , 055207 (2013), 1309.3385.
- [46] T. E. O. Ericson and W. Weise, Pions and Nuclei, vol. 74 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1988), ISBN 0198520085, URL http://www-spires.fnal.gov/spires/find/books/www?cl= QC793.5.M42E75::1988 .
- [47] V. Lensky and V. Pascalutsa, Eur. Phys. J. C65 , 195 (2010), 0907.0451.
- [48] A. Hiller Blin, T. Gutsche, T. Ledwig, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D92 , 096004 (2015), 1509.00955.
- [49] D.-L. Yao, L. Alvarez-Ruso, A. N. Hiller Blin, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D98 , 076004 (2018), 1806.09364.
- [50] D.-L. Yao, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Lett. B794 , 109 (2019), 1901.00773.
- [51] T. R. Hemmert, B. R. Holstein, and J. Kambor, Phys. Lett. B395 , 89 (1997), hep-ph 9606456. /
- [52] V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U. G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B331 , 137 (1994), hep-ph 9312307. /
- [53] L. Alvarez-Ruso et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100 , 1 (2018), 1706.03621.
- [54] L. Alvarez-Ruso, Y. Hayato, and J. Nieves, New J. Phys. 16 , 075015 (2014), 1403.2673.
- [55] G. F. Chew, M. L. Goldberger, F. E. Low, and Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. 106 , 1345 (1957).
- [56] A. M. Sandorfi, S. Hoblit, H. Kamano, and T. S. H. Lee, J. Phys. G38 , 053001 (2011), 1010.4555.
- [57] V. Pascalutsa and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C67 , 055202 (2003), nucl-th 0212024. /
- [58] N. Fettes, U.-G. Meißner, M. Mojzis, and S. Steininger, Annals Phys. 283 , 273 (2000), [Erratum: Annals Phys.288,249(2001)], hep-ph 0001308. /
- [59] V. Pascalutsa, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61 , 27 (2008), 0712.3919.
- [60] V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rept. 437 , 125 (2007), hep-ph 0609004. /
- [61] V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207 , 432 (2016), 1601.01167.
- [62] R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64 , 345 (1991).
- [63] H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik, and W. Zimmermann, Nuovo Cim. 1 , 205 (1955).
- [64] M. Fuchs et al., Phys. Lett. B368 , 20 (1996).
- [65] J. C. Bergstrom, J. M. Vogt, R. Igarashi, K. J. Keeter, E. L. Hallin, G. A. Retzla GLYPH&lt;11&gt; , D. M. Skopik, and

- E. C. Booth, Phys. Rev. C53 , R1052 (1996).
- [66] J. C. Bergstrom, R. Igarashi, and J. M. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C55 , 2016 (1997).
- [67] A. Schmidt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 , 232501 (2001), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.110,039903(2013)], nucl-ex 0105010. /
- [68] G. Blanpied et al., Phys. Rev. C64 , 025203 (2001).
- [69] V. Rossi et al., Nuovo Cim. A13 , 59 (1973).
- [70] P. Benz et al. (Aachen-Bonn-Hamburg-Heidelberg-Muenchen), Nucl. Phys. B65 , 158 (1973).
- [71] M. Salomon, D. F. Measday, J. M. Poutissou, and B. C. Robertson, Nucl. Phys. A414 , 493 (1984).
- [72] A. Bagheri, K. A. Aniol, F. Entezami, M. D. Hasino GLYPH&lt;11&gt; , D. F. Measday, J. M. Poutissou, M. Salomon, and B. C. Robertson, Phys. Rev. C38 , 875 (1988).
- [73] INS Data Analysis Center, URL http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu/ .
- [74] B. Strandberg et al. (2018), 1812.03023.
- [75] R. J. Walker, T. R. Palfrey, R. O. Haxby, and B. M. K. Nefkens, Phys. Rev. 132 , 2656 (1963).
- [76] K. G. Fissum, H. S. Caplan, E. L. Hallin, D. M. Skopik, J. M. Vogt, M. Frodyma, D. P. Rosenzweig, D. W. Storm, G. V. O'Rielly, and K. R. Garrow, Phys. Rev. C53 , 1278 (1996).
- [77] J. Ahrens et al. (GDH, A2), Eur. Phys. J. A21 , 323 (2004).
- [78] T. Bauer, J. C. Bernauer, and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. C86 , 065206 (2012), 1209.3872.
- [79] C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C40 , 100001 (2016).
- [80] D.-L. Yao, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and M. J. Vicente-Vacas, Phys. Rev. D96 , 116022 (2017), 1708.08776.
- [81] V. Bernard, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. D87 , 054032 (2013), 1209.2523.
- [82] E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A51 , 53 (2015), 1412.0142.
- [83] S. Schumann et al., Eur. Phys. J. A43 , 269 (2010), 1001.3626.
- [84] E. Korkmaz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 , 3609 (1999).
- [85] D. A. McPherson, D. C. Gates, R. W. Kenney, and W. P. Swanson, Phys. Rev. 136 , B1465 (1964).
- [86] D. H. White, R. M. Schectman, and B. M. Chasan, Phys. Rev. 120 , 614 (1960).
- [87] M. Wang, Ph. D. thesis, University of Kentucky (1992).
- [88] K. Liu, Ph. D. thesis, University of Kentucky (1994).
- [89] J. Gegelia, U.-G. Meißner, D. Siemens, and D.-L. Yao, Phys. Lett. B763 , 1 (2016), 1608.00517.
Gustavo H. Guerrero Navarro Astrid N. Hiller Blin M. J. Vicente Vacas De-Liang Yao
Pion photoproduction off nucleons in covariant chiral perturbation theory
Pion photoproduction off the nucleon close to threshold is studied in
covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory at O($p^3$) in the
extended-on-mass-shell scheme, with the explicit inclusion of the
$\Delta(1232)$ resonance using the $\delta$ counting. The theory is compared to
the available data of cross sections and polarization observables for all the
charge channels. Most of the necessary low energy constants are well known from
the analysis of other processes and the comparison with data strongly
constrains some of the still unknown ones. The $\Delta(1232)$ contribution is
significant in improving the agreement with data, even at the low energies
considered.