# QCD sum rule calculation of the 𝜋⁢𝑁⁢𝑁 coupling-revisited

## Abstract

In the conventional QCD sum rule calculation for the $`\pi NN`$ coupling beyond the soft-pion limit, there are three distinct Dirac structures, each of which can be used to construct separate sum rule. We point out subtleties in the previous sum rule results, based on one of the Dirac structure, associated with using either the PV or the PS coupling schemes in modeling the phenomenological side. We propose a sum rule coming from a different Dirac structure, which is independent of the coupling schemes used and has less uncertainty in the OPE. The obtained value is $`g_{\pi N}=9.76\pm 2.04`$ where the uncertainty mainly comes from the quark-gluon mixed condensate.

preprint:  TIT/HEP-400/NP  

Since first introduced by Shifman, Vainshtein and Zakharov , QCD sum rule has been widely used to study the hadron properties such as masses or couplings of baryons . QCD sum rule is a framework which connects the physical parameters with QCD parameters. In this framework, a correlation function is introduced in terms of interpolating fields constructed from quark and gluon fields. Then, the correlation function, on the one hand, is calculated by Wilson’s operator product expansion (OPE) and, on the other hand, its phenomenological “ansatz” is constructed. A physical quantity of interest is extracted by matching the two descriptions in the deep Euclidean region ($`q^2=\mathrm{}`$) making use of the dispersion relation. The extracted parameter therefore should be independent of the possible ansatz in order to be physically meaningful.

One important quantity to be determined in hadron physics is the pion-nucleon coupling constant, $`g_{\pi N}`$. Empirically its value is known to be around 13.4 but it is of interest to determine the coupling from QCD. QCD sum rule can be used for such purpose and indeed there are such calculations of $`g_{\pi N}`$ . Reinders, Rubinstein and Yazaki  calculated $`g_{\pi N}`$ by retaining only the first nonperturbative term in OPE. Later Shiomi and Hatsuda (SH)  improved the calculation by including higher order terms in OPE. SH considered the two-point correlation function for the nucleon interpolating field $`J_N`$,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,p)=i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}0|T[J_N(x)\overline{J}_N(0)]|\pi (p)},`$ (1)   
and evaluated the OPE in the soft-pion limit ($`p_\mu 0`$).

More recently, Birse and Krippa (BK)  pointed out that the use of the soft-pion limit does not constitute an independent sum rule from the nucleon sum rule because in the limit the correlation function is just a chiral rotation of the nucleon correlation function,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(q)=i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}0|T[J_N(x)\overline{J}_N(0)]|0}.`$ (2)   
Therefore, BK considered the sum rule beyond the soft-pion limit. However, in their approach, the OPE contains some condensates which are not precisely known. This causes large uncertainty in their result, $`g_{\pi N}=12\pm 5`$.

In this letter, we construct an alternative sum rule for $`g_{\pi N}`$ which contains less uncertainty. We start by noting that the previous calculations have coupling scheme dependence, namely the dependence on either the pseudoscalar or the pseudovector type of interaction in the construction of the phenomenological side. We stress the importance of doing the sum rule calculation independent of the coupling scheme. To see the origin of the problem, consider saturating Eq.(1) with a nucleon intermediate state. Then we have,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,p)\lambda _N{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}q+m}{q^2m^2}}N(q)|\overline{J}_N|\pi (p).`$ (3)   
The coupling, $`g_{\pi N}`$, is defined to be the residue of the last term.

$`N(q)|\overline{J}_N|\pi (p){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}q\overline{)}p+m}{(qp)^2m^2}}\lambda _Ng_{\pi N}+nonpoleterm`$ (4)   
How to treat the non pole term will depend on the coupling scheme used and as we will see, influence the subsequent sum rule analysis for $`g_{\pi N}`$

To be more specific, the pion-nucleon coupling has a unique definition as a matrix element of a pion field sandwiched by the nucleon states. This matrix element can appear in Eq.(1) by, with the use of LSZ reduction, moving the pion state into the time-ordered product and inserting on-shell nucleon intermediate state. This corresponds to the residue of the double pole while the rest contains the single nucleon pole which has dependence on the coupling scheme and therefore needs to be treated carefully. The calculation beyond the soft-pion limit is natural in this consideration. When starting from Eq. (1), to leading order in the pion momentum, there are three distinct Dirac structures which can in principle be used to calculate $`g_{\pi N}`$. We discuss them separately and propose a new sum rule to determine $`g_{\pi N}`$.

Regarding the existing sum rule calculations of $`g_{\pi N}`$ , one question is whether the results have any dependence on the $`\pi NN`$ coupling scheme adopted. This issue, within our knowledge, has not been properly considered but it can provide important aspect of how one can proceed in the construction of the sum rule. This question is not specific to $`\pi NN`$ coupling and it can generally apply to any sum rule calculation involving the pion.

In QCD sum rule, the phenomenological side of the correlator is usually constructed by making an “ansatz” based on some effective models. In the case of the two-point correlation function in Eq. (1), one often uses the pseudoscalar interaction Lagrangian,

$`_{ps}=g_{\pi N}\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5𝝉𝝅\psi ,`$ (5)   
in constructing the phenomenological side. However, the pseudovector interaction Lagrangian,

$`_{pv}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi N}}{2m}}\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\mu 𝝉^\mu 𝝅\psi ,`$ (6)   
can also be used for constructing the phenomenological side. At present, we do not know which Lagrangian is more reliable in describing the pion interaction with nucleons. The two descriptions are equivalent when the participating nucleons are on-shell but they are usually not when the nucleons are off-shell. Since on-shell properties of a particle are extracted by matching the OPE with the phenomenological side in the deep Euclidean region, the pion coupling constant determined from QCD sum rules may have the coupling scheme dependence. Let us employ the two descriptions in the phenomenological side of the sum rule and see if they lead to any difference.

Using the interaction Lagrangians in the two-point correlation function, Eq. (1), we find that there are four distinct Dirac structures, (1) $`\gamma _5`$, (2) $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$, (3) $`\gamma _5`$ $`\overline{)}p`$, (4) $`\gamma _5`$ $`\overline{)}q`$. The fourth structure appears only in the pseudovector case with the residue factor, $`p^22pq`$ and this structure is definitely scheme-dependent. In principle, any of these structures can be used to calculate the coupling. Shiomi and Hatsuda (SH)  considered the $`\gamma _5`$ structure in the soft-pion limit.

When the pseudoscalar interaction Lagrangian is used, the $`\gamma _5`$ structure without taking the soft-pion limit takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\pi N}\lambda _N^2}{(qp)^2m^2+iϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\pi N}\lambda _N^2pq}{(q^2m^2+iϵ)[(qp)^2m^2+iϵ]}}+\mathrm{}`$ (7)   
where $`\lambda _N`$ is coupling of the nucleon interpolating field, $`J_N`$, to the physical nucleon, $`m`$ is the nucleon mass. The dots indicate the contribution from continuum whose explicit forms are not necessary for our discussion. In the soft-pion limit, the double pole structure disappears, leaving only the simple pole which was used by SH.

The corresponding expression in the pseudovector coupling scheme is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\pi N}\lambda _N^2p^2/2}{(q^2m^2+iϵ)[(qp)^2m^2+iϵ]}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (8)   
A crucial difference from above is that now the correlator contains the double pole only. More importantly, in the soft-pion limit, the correlator is zero and one can not extract any information about the coupling. Clearly, the method by SH is scheme-dependent. Another problem is that since SH considered the simple pole, the additional simple pole coming from $`NN^{}`$ transition  can not be separated from the nucleon simple pole.

What will then be the reliable procedure using this $`\gamma _5`$ structure ? The common pole in both coupling schemes is the double pole. Consider expanding the denominator of the double pole in terms of the pion momentum and keeping only the leading term. The resulting term can also be obtained by taking the following kinematical condition,

$`p^2=2pq.`$ (9)   
Note that this kinematical condition is also the consequence of the on-shell condition for the participating nucleons, $`q^2=m^2`$ and $`(qp)^2=m^2`$, the condition in which the physical $`\pi NN`$ coupling should be defined. With this condition, the residues of the double poles are the same and in principle the double pole can provide the results independent of the coupling schemes. A nice aspect of this kinematical condition is that the scheme-dependent Dirac structure, namely $`\gamma _5`$$`\overline{)}q`$, which appears only in the pseudovector scheme, disappears and there are only three distinct Dirac structures common to both schemes.

Now we consider $`\gamma _5\overline{)}p`$ structure as studied by Birse and Krippa (BK). Using the pseudoscalar interaction Lagrangion, the phenomenological side of this structure takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\pi N}\lambda _N^2m}{(q^2m^2+iϵ)[(qp)^2m^2+iϵ]}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (10)   
BK carried out the calculation using this phenomenological form with taking $`p_\mu =0`$ in the denominator and their sum rule formula can be succinctly written as

$`g_{\pi N}+AM^2=f(M).`$ (11)   
$`f(M)`$ is a function of the Borel mass $`M`$. The simple pole contribution associated with the transition $`NN^{}`$ is contained in the unknown constant $`A`$. To estimate the contribution from $`A`$, BK first neglected $`A`$ and determined $`g_{\pi N}`$. In their second method, they applied the operator $`1M^2/M^2`$ to eliminate the uncertainty associated with $`A`$. This second method is equivalent  to constructing the sum rule for $`(q^2m^2)\mathrm{\Pi }(q,p)`$, which was proposed by Jin . Anyway, the two prescriptions of BK yield the results differed by less than 5 % and therefore the simple pole contribution from the continuum is claimed to be negligible.

However, the statement about smallness of $`A`$ is actually scheme-dependent. If the pseudovector interaction Lagrangian is used, the phenomenological side for the $`\gamma _5`$$`\overline{)}p`$ structure takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\pi N}\lambda _N^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qp)^2m^2+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\pi N}\lambda _N^2m}{(q^2m^2+iϵ)[(qp)^2m^2+iϵ]}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (12)   
Note that the double pole is the same as above but we have an additional simple pole of the nucleon which in principle could change the results. If this were used in BK’s sum rule, then instead of Eq. (11), BK would have obtained

$`g_{\pi N}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2m^2}}\right)+AM^2=f(M).`$ (13)   
Since $`Mm1`$ GeV, the value of the new term is about 0.5. If we neglect $`A`$ as BK did in their first method, then this sum rule could give the result twice of what BK obtained. On the other hand, the second method of BK leads to the same result of BK, indicating that the contribution from $`A`$ could be large.

One more Dirac structure, $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$, contains the double pole only, independent of the coupling scheme. The common phenomenological side for this structure is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi N}\lambda _N^2p^\mu q^\nu }{(q^2m^2+iϵ)[(qp)^2m^2+iϵ]}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (14)   
This structure is zero in the soft-pion limit, but beyond the soft-pion limit as BK did, this can provide additional sum rule for $`g_{\pi N}`$ independent from the BK sum rule. Since there is no simple nucleon pole in this case, the simple pole structure comes only from $`NN^{}`$. With this in mind, we will construct the sum rule for this structure. As we will see, this structure has also less uncertainty in the OPE.

Now, we construct QCD sum rule for $`g_{\pi N}`$ by considering $`\gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }p_\mu q_\nu `$ structure. Specifically, we consider the correlation function

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,p)=i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}0|T[J_p(x)\overline{J}_n(0)]|\pi ^+(p)}.`$ (15)   
Here $`J_p`$ is the proton interpolating field of Ioffe ,

$`J_p=ϵ_{abc}[u_a^TC\gamma _\mu u_b]\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu d_c`$ (16)   
and the neutron interpolating field $`J_n`$ is obtained by replacing $`(u,d)(d,u)`$. In the OPE, we will only keep the diquark component of the pion wave function and use the vacuum saturation hypothesis to factor out higher dimensional operators in terms of the pion wave function and the vacuum expectation value. This will be more or less similar to BK, with some distinctions as we will see.

The calculation of the correlator, Eq. (15), in the coordinate space contains the following quark-antiquark component of the pion wave function,

$`D_{aa^{}}^{\alpha \beta }0|u_a^\alpha (x)\overline{d}_a^{}^\beta (0)|\pi ^+(p).`$ (17)   
Here, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are Dirac indices, $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are color indices. The other quarks are contracted to form quark propagators. This matrix element can be written in terms of three Dirac structures,

$`D_{aa^{}}^{\alpha \beta }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{aa^{}}}{12}}(\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5)^{\alpha \beta }0|\overline{d}(0)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u(x)|\pi ^+(p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{aa^{}}}{12}}(i\gamma _5)^{\alpha \beta }0|\overline{d}(0)i\gamma _5u(x)|\pi ^+(p)`$ (19)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{aa^{}}}{24}}(\gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu })^{\alpha \beta }0|\overline{d}(0)\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }u(x)|\pi ^+(p).`$   
These matrix elements can be written in terms of pion wave functions . Since we are doing the calculation up to the first order of $`p_\mu q_\nu `$, we need only the overall normalization of the wave functions. In fact, to leading order in the pion momentum, the first and third matrix elements are given as ,

$`0|\overline{d}(0)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u(x)|\pi ^+(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}f_\pi p_\mu +O(x^2)`$ (20)   
$`0|\overline{d}(0)\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }u(x)|\pi ^+(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}(p_\mu x_\nu p_\nu x_\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi m_\pi ^2}{6(m_u+m_d)}}.`$ (21)   
In Eq. (20), $`O(x^2)`$ contains the twist 4 term whose contribution was denoted by $`\delta ^2`$ in Ref. . This term does not contribute to our sum rule up to the dimension we consider below. Note that in Eq. (21) the factor $`f_\pi m_\pi ^2/(m_u+m_d)`$ can be written as $`\overline{q}q/f_\pi `$ by making use of the Gell-Mann$``$Oakes$``$Renner relation. Although the operator seems gauge dependent, it is understood that the fixed point gauge is used throughout. It is then interesting to note that the left hand side of Eq. (21) can also be expanded in $`x`$ such that the matrix element that contributes is effectively one with higher dimension,

$`0|\overline{d}(0)\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }D_\alpha u(0)|\pi ^+(p)=i\sqrt{2}(p_\mu g_{\alpha \nu }p_\nu g_{\alpha \mu }){\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi m_\pi ^2}{6(m_u+m_d)}}.`$ (22)   
The first term in Eq. (19) is the one considered in BK’s sum rule for the $`\gamma _5`$$`\overline{)}p`$ structure. However, the other two matrix elements can contribute to the $`\gamma _5`$$`\overline{)}p`$ structure as the calculation is being done beyond the soft-pion limit. Indeed, up to the highest dimension 7 that BK considered, the third matrix element contributes to the $`\gamma _5`$$`\overline{)}p`$ structure. Note that the chirality of the third term is different from the first term. Because of the chirality difference, the chiral odd condensate contributes to $`\gamma _5`$$`\overline{)}p`$ when the third matrix element is taken for $`D_{aa^{}}^{\alpha \beta }`$. That is, if we include the third term of Eq. (19), because it is effectively dimension 4 \[ Eq. (22)\], one dimension higher than Eq. (20 The physical dimension of Eq. (20) is actually 2. Ordinarily, such operator in vacuum is of dimension 3, which is the way that BK counted the dimension of Eq. (20). In this way of counting, Eq. (22) is of dimension 4., we could have an additional odd dimensional operator, $`\overline{q}q`$, to form a dimension 7 operator. It only changes the highest dimensional operator in the BK’s sum rule \[Eq.(12) of Ref. \] but its contribution is much larger than their highest operator because it contains the quark operator.

In our sum rule for the $`\gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }p_\mu q_\nu `$ structure, the second matrix element in Eq. (19) does not contribute up to dimension 7. It is straightforward to calculate the OPE and up to dimension 7 and we obtain

$`\sqrt{2}\overline{q}q\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(q^2)}{12\pi ^2f_\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi }{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}𝒢^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{216f_\pi q^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2f_\pi }{6q^4}}\right].`$ (23)   
In obtaining the first and third terms, we have used Eq. (21) while the second is obtained by taking the first term in Eq. (19) for the matrix element $`D_{aa^{}}^{\alpha \beta }`$ and replacing one propagator with the quark condensate. The fourth term is also obtained by taking the first term in Eq. (19) but in this case other quarks are used to form the dimension five mixed condensate, $`\overline{q}g_s\sigma 𝒢q`$, which is usually parameterized in terms of the quark condensate, $`m_0^2\overline{q}q`$ . The value of $`m_0^2`$ is not well-known. From Ref. , we take the range, $`0.6m_0^21.4`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> and see the sensitivity of our results. One interesting aspect of our OPE expression is that the quark condensate, which could be the one important source of uncertainty in the final result, is just an overall factor.

By matching the OPE expression with its corresponding phenomenological side after taking Borel transformation, we obtain

$`g_{\pi N}\lambda _N^2\left[B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}\right]e^{m^2/M^2}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M^2E_0(x_\pi )}{12\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}f_\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}𝒢^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{216M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2f_\pi ^2}{6M^2}}\right].`$ (24)   
Here $`x_\pi =S_{\pi N}/M^2`$ with $`S_{\pi N}`$ being the continuum threshold, and $`E_n(x)=1(1+x+\mathrm{}+x^n/n!)e^x`$ . The unknown parameter $`B`$ comes from the simple pole of $`NN^{}`$. To eliminate the parameter $`\lambda _N`$ in the LHS, we use the chiral-odd nucleon sum rule which is given by

$`m\lambda _N^2e^{m^2/M^2}={\displaystyle \frac{M^4E_1(x_N)}{4\pi ^2}}\overline{q}q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\overline{q}q{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}𝒢^2`$ (25)   
where $`x_N=S_N/M^2`$ with $`S_N`$ being the continuum threshold for the nucleon sum rule. As BK did, we take the ratio of Eqs. (24) and (25) to obtain

$`g_{\pi N}(BM^2+1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi }{m}}\right)`$ $``$ $`a+bM^2`$ (26)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^4E_0(x_\pi )/3+16\pi ^2f_\pi ^2M^2/3+\pi ^2\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }𝒢^2/542\pi ^2m_0^2f_\pi ^2/3}{M^4E_1(x_N)\pi ^2\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }𝒢^2/6}}.`$ (27)   
It is now clear why our sum rule has advantages over BK’s sum rule. In BK’s sum rule, there are two main sources for the error. First one is the uncertainty in the twist-4 term, $`\delta ^2`$ in their notation, which yields $`\pm 2`$ error in their final result for $`g_{\pi N}`$. The additional $`\pm 2`$ error comes from the uncertainty in the value of the quark condensate. These large errors are due to the fact that these two terms are the main terms in their OPE. No such uncertainties enter in our sum rule. Instead, we have different sources for the error, $`m_0^2`$ and the gluon condensate. Note that the two sources are the highest dimensional term in our OPE. Therefore, they should be suppressed in the Borel window chosen. However, as $`m_0^2`$ is very uncertain, the result has some dependence on this parameter. The error due to $`m_0^2`$ will be investigated in our numerical calculation. The additional error due to the gluon condensate, which we take $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }𝒢^2=(0.33\mathrm{GeV})^4`$ in our numerical calculation, is very small because firstly its contribution to the sum rule is very small and secondly its variation is canceled in the ratio, Eq. (27).

To extract the value of $`g_{\pi N}`$, we take different approach from BK. Normally, the unknown constant $`B`$ is eliminated by applying the operator, $`1M^2/M^2`$, to both sides of the sum rule. It is fine mathematically but, as the OPE does not represent the total strength of the correlator, this operation for extracting some physical parameter is rather dangerous. For example, when this operation is applied to Eq. (25) after multiplying $`e^{m^2/M^2}`$, the Borel curve for $`m\lambda _N^2`$ is quite different from the one obtained before the operation, depending on the Borel mass but more or less about 20 % difference. Furthermore, the curve for $`g_{\pi N}`$, if obtained from this operation on Eq. (27), is not stable with respect to $`M^2`$. Such $`g_{\pi N}`$ is just a decreasing function of $`M^2`$, showing no stability . Nevertheless, $`g_{\pi N}`$ obtained by following the two methods of BK around $`M^21`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> is about 9.2 or 11.8.

In our analysis, we directly fit the RHS of Eq. (27) with the function $`a+bM^2`$ within a reasonable Borel window and determine the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$. To check the reliability of the fitting process, we also calculate $`\chi ^2=_{i=1}^N[RHS(M_i)LHS(M_i)]^2/N`$. The nucleon continuum $`S_N`$ is set to be 2.07 GeV<sup>2</sup> which corresponds to the mass squared of the Roper resonance. By restricting the continuum contribution to be around 50 % of the first term in the nucleon sum rule of Eq. (25), the maximum Borel mass is found to be around $`M_{max}^21.24`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. The minimum Borel mass is determined by requiring the highest power correction in the pion sum rule of Eq (24) to be less than 10 % of the total OPE. Such chosen window provides the common region of the two sum rules. For example, using $`m_0^2=1`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, this condition leads to $`M_{min}^20.82`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. We take $`S_{\pi N}`$ to be equal to $`S_N`$ in our analysis. But the sensitivity to $`S_{\pi N}`$ is very small. For $`S_{\pi N}S_N=\pm 0.5`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, $`g_{\pi N}`$ changes only by $`\pm 0.3`$. Within the Borel window, the parameters, $`a`$ and $`b`$, are determined by the best fitted method. Then, the coupling, $`g_{\pi N}`$, is obtained via $`g_{\pi N}=ma/f_\pi `$ using the physical values, $`m=0.94`$ GeV and $`f_\pi =0.093`$ GeV.

The results are listed in Table I for various values of $`m_0^2`$. First note that the contribution from the unknown single pole, $`NN^{}`$, represented by $`b`$ is relatively small. At $`m_0^2=0.6`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, this contribution is almost negligible. Our result is $`g_{\pi N}=9.76\pm 2.04`$ which is rather smaller than its empirical value of 13.4. It is however possible to obtain a larger value by reducing $`m_0^2`$, by relaxing the 10 % restriction for $`M_{min}^2`$ or by restricting the continuum further. Any of these moves the Borel window to smaller Borel masses so that the Borel curve contains more contribution from higher nonperturbative operators. So our result should be interpreted within the standard prescription of the conventional QCD sum rule.

In summary, we have constructed QCD sum rule to determine $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant. We noted that the previous calculations have the coupling scheme dependence and the determined value of the coupling suffers from large uncertainties in QCD parameters. We have discussed the issue related to the coupling scheme dependence and stressed that one should look into the double pole beyond the soft-pion limit in the QCD sum rule study of the $`\pi NN`$ coupling. In this work, we have proposed to look at the Dirac structure, $`\gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$, beyond the soft-pion limit. This structure is, first of all, independent of the effective models employed in the phenomenological side and further provides the $`\pi NN`$ coupling with less uncertainties from QCD parameters. It would also be interesting to purse similar work with a different nucleon interpolating field.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for JSPS fellow, and the Grant-in-Aid for scientific research (C) (2) 08640356 of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan. The work of H. Kim is supported by Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The work of S. H. Lee is supported by KOSEF through grant no. 971-0204-017-2 and 976-0200-002-2 and by the Korean Ministry of Education through grant no. 98-015-D00061.