 one-pion exchange (see the low-energy part of the $c_{1}$ coefficient given in Fig. \[cap:coeffs\]). This feature, which apparently contradicts the statement often made in the past that this contribution is absent in $P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$, is due to the incorporation in our work of the spin term in Eq. (\[eq:Siegert E1\]), which represents a higher order term in $q$. This correction also explains the difference in the behavior of the $c_{1}$ coefficient with the Oka’s result [@Oka:1983sp].

We note that, because the $M1$ transition dominates at the threshold and we only use the impulse approximation for its matrix element, there should be approximately a $-5\%$ correction to $A_{\gamma}^{(th)}$ (also $P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$) when two-body effects are included in $F_{M1}$. On the other hand, as $\tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}$ is calculated using the Siegert theorem, it should be reliable up to the correction of $\tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}^{(S')}$ from the PNC exchange charge at $O(1)$.

When the photon energy gets larger, one can see immediately that the asymmetry gets smaller. A prediction using the DDH best values is shown in Fig. \[cap:Ag DDH\]. In this figure, as soon as the photon energy reaches 1 MeV above the threshold, the asymmetry drops by one order of magnitude. Moreover, the sign changes around $\omega_{\gamma}=4$ MeV. This implies that a higher sensitivity ($\sim10^{-9}$) is needed for any experiment targeting at the kinematic range away from the threshold. Our calculation is consistent with the work by Khriplovich and Korkin [@Khriplovich:2000mb], but is widely different from the one by Oka [@Oka:1983sp]. In the following, we make a closer comparison with these works and, then, present results for the contribution of various PNC two-body currents considered for the first time.

Comparison with Oka’s work \[sub:CompOka\]
------------------------------------------

The major difference comes from the pion sector. In Ref. [@Khriplovich:2000mb], where the scattering wave functions are obtained from the zero-range approximation and the deuteron is purely a $^{3}S_{1}$ state, a simple angular momentum consideration leads to
one - pion exchange (see the low - energy character of the $ c_{1}$ coefficient render in Fig. \[cap: coeffs\ ]). This feature, which apparently contradicts the affirmation often made in the past that this contribution is lacking in $ P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$, is due to the incorporation in our work of the tailspin condition in Eq. (\[eq: Siegert E1\ ]), which represents a high order term in $ q$. This discipline also explains the difference in the behavior of the $ c_{1}$ coefficient with the Oka ’s result [ @Oka:1983sp ]. 

 We note that, because the $ M1 $ transition dominates at the doorway and we only use the impulse approximation for its matrix chemical element, there should be approximately a $ -5\%$ correction to $ A_{\gamma}^{(th)}$ (also $ P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$) when two - body consequence are included in $ F_{M1}$. On the other hand, as $ \tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}$ is calculated using the Siegert theorem, it should be dependable up to the correction of $ \tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}^{(S')}$ from the PNC exchange charge at $ O(1)$. 

 When the photon energy gets larger, one can see immediately that the asymmetry gets smaller. A prediction using the DDH best values is shown in Fig. \[cap: Ag DDH\ ]. In this figure, as soon as the photon energy reaches 1 MeV above the doorway, the asymmetry drops by one order of order of magnitude. furthermore, the sign changes around $ \omega_{\gamma}=4 $ MeV. This implies that a higher sensitivity ($ \sim10^{-9}$) is need for any experiment targeting at the kinematic range away from the threshold. Our calculation is reproducible with the work by Khriplovich and Korkin [ @Khriplovich:2000 mb ], but is widely different from the one by Oka [ @Oka:1983sp ]. In the following, we make a closer comparison with these work and, then, present results for the contribution of various PNC two - body currents considered for the first clock time. 

 Comparison with Oka ’s work \[sub: CompOka\ ] 
 ------------------------------------------ 

 The major difference comes from the pion sector. In Ref. [ @Khriplovich:2000 mb ], where the scattering wave functions are prevail from the zero - range approximation and the deuteron is purely a $ ^{3}S_{1}$ department of state, a simple angular momentum consideration leads to
 onf-pion exchange (see the luw-energy part oy the $c_{1}$ coeffjcient gkven in Fig. \[cap:coeffs\]). This fxatuee, whuch apparently contradkcts the dtatemenr ofuen made in the peat that this dlntrnbntion is absent in $P_{\gamma}^{(dh)}$, is due to tve iucorporation in our work of the spin term im Fq. (\[eq:Siegert E1\]), whibh repdvstnts a higher order term in $q$. Thia correbtion also explaims the difference in the bfhavlor of the $c_{1}$ coefflcient with the Ika’s result [@Uka:1983sp].

We noue that, becaose the $M1$ transition dominates ag the threshold abd ag only use tie impllse approximation fos its mstrix element, bhere shiuld be approximately a $-5\%$ correction to $W_{\gamma}^{(th)}$ (dlao $P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$) when rwi-body effacts qre indlndes in $F_{L1}$. Oi the other hand, as $\tiode{F}_{E1_{5}}$ is calculated ufpmg the Siegedt thejrqm, it should be reliable up to the corrtctioh of $\tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}^{(S')}$ from the PNC exchange charge aj $O(1)$.

When thq photon energy gets larger, one can see immediateny thet tht qsymmdrrj gets smaller. A prediction using the DDH bese vslles is shown in Flg. \[cap:Ag DDH\]. In thos fodure, as soon xs the phkton energy reached 1 MeV wbove the threfholc, the asymmetry drops by onw order of mcgnutude. Moreover, the sign changzs aroond $\omrga_{\gamma}=4$ MeV. This implizs thaf a higher densitivifh ($\sim10^{-9}$) is needed wor aty experiment targeting at the kinenatie range xway from ehe threshlld. Oms calculation is clnsisjent whth the wogk by Khriplovich and Korkin [@Khcmplovich:2000mb], buj iv wpdely difyerent from the one by Oka [@Oka:1983sp]. Nn the fjllowkng, we makv a closec comparison with these wmtks and, then, 'resent rqsulrs fir the zuntribution of various INE two-body currents considercd fot fhe first time.

Cimpqrison with Oka’x wurk \[slb:Cpm[Mka\]
------------------------------------------

The major difwerdmce cumes from tme oion sector. In Ref. [@Khripnovidh:2000mb], where the scaytcring wavg functiogs are obtainrd from the zero-rajge a'proxioatiom agd the deuteron is purely a $^{3}S_{1}$ atate, a slmpje angular mjmenbum sonsideratnon leads to
one-pion exchange (see the low-energy part of coefficient in Fig. This feature, which made the past that contribution is absent $P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$, is due to the incorporation our work of the spin term in Eq. (\[eq:Siegert E1\]), which represents a order term in $q$. This correction also explains the difference in the behavior the coefficient the result [@Oka:1983sp]. We note that, because the $M1$ transition dominates at the threshold and we only the impulse approximation for its matrix element, there be approximately a $-5\%$ to $A_{\gamma}^{(th)}$ (also $P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$) when effects included in On other as $\tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}$ is using the Siegert theorem, it should be reliable up to the correction of $\tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}^{(S')}$ from the PNC charge at the photon gets one see immediately that gets smaller. A prediction using the is shown in Fig. \[cap:Ag DDH\]. In this as soon the photon energy reaches 1 MeV the threshold, the asymmetry drops by one order magnitude. Moreover, the sign changes around $\omega_{\gamma}=4$ MeV. This implies that a higher sensitivity ($\sim10^{-9}$) for any experiment targeting the kinematic range from threshold. calculation consistent with work by Khriplovich and Korkin [@Khriplovich:2000mb], but is widely different from one by Oka [@Oka:1983sp]. In the following, we make a with works and, then, results for the contribution various two-body currents considered for time. with ------------------------------------------ major comes from the pion In Ref. [@Khriplovich:2000mb], where the wave functions are obtained the deuteron is purely a $^{3}S_{1}$ state, a angular momentum consideration leads to
 one-pion exchange (see the low-eNergy part oF the $c_{1}$ CoeFfiCiEnt gIven In Fig. \[cap:coeffs\]). tHis fEature, which apparently cOntraDiCTs thE StAtemeNt often MAdE IN thE pAsT thAt THiS contRibUtion is Absent in $P_{\gAmmA}^{(tH)}$, is due to the iNCoRporation iN ouR work of the spIn tErm in EQ. (\[eQ:SiEGert E1\]), WhiCh repResentS A higheR order terM iN $Q$. This cORrectioN ALsO expLains the differencE In THe behavior of thE $c_{1}$ coefFiCIeNT WitH thE Oka’s resulT [@OKa:1983sp].

WE Note thaT, BeCAUSe tHE $M1$ transition dOminates at tHE thResholD aNd wE Only usE the iMpULse ApproximatiOn foR its matriX elemeNT, there sHOuld be aPproxiMatEly A $-5\%$ corREcTiOn tO $A_{\GAmmA}^{(Th)}$ (AlsO $p_{\gaMma}^{(th)}$) wheN tWo-Body eFfecTS ARE incLudEd in $f_{M1}$. On tHe other hand, as $\TilDe{F}_{E1_{5}}$ IS caLculaTed usIng tHe siegeRt theoRem, it ShOuld be reliable uP to tHe correctIon Of $\TilDe{f}_{E1_{5}}^{(S')}$ frOM the PNc exChaNge charGe at $O(1)$.

WhEN thE pHOTOn Energy gets larger, onE cAN SeE immediaTely thAT tHe ASymmetry GeTs sMallER. a predIctiON uSing the DdH best VAlUeS is showN iN Fig. \[caP:AG DDh\]. In This fIGure, As soon As the phoTon enERgy reaches 1 MeV aBOve the threshoLD, tHE AsYMmetRy dRops by one orDer oF MagnItudE. moReoVEr, the Sign cHaNGeS Around $\omega_{\gamma}=4$ MeV. thIs implIes thAt a higher sensItivity ($\sim10^{-9}$) IS NEeded for Any eXPeRIment targeting At the Kinematic rANge away fRom thE threshoLd. Our calcULAtion is cOnsIstEnt WitH THe Work by KhriploVICh anD KOrkin [@KhRipLovich:2000mB], buT is WidEly DiFferent frOm the one By okA [@OKa:1983Sp]. IN the fOLlowing, wE mAke A cLosEr comPArison With tHese WoRkS And, Then, preSEnT REsulTs FoR the ConTrIbutiOn of VAriOus PNC tWo-body curRenTS conSiDeRed for tHe first time.

CoMpArison with okA’s wOrk \[sub:cOMpOka\]
------------------------------------------

The Major difference comes froM The pion SecTor. In ref. [@KHriplovicH:2000mb], Where tHe sCAtteriNg wave FunctIoNs aRE ObtaiNED fRom ThE zero-range APProXimatIoN and The deutEron is purely a $^{3}S_{1}$ statE, A siMple angular moMenTum cONSiDerATiON leAdS To
 one-pion exchange (see th e low-ener gy pa rtofth e $c _{1} $ coefficientg iven  in Fig. \[cap:coeffs\ ]). T hi s  fea t ur e, wh ich app a re n t lyco nt rad ic t sthe s tat ement o ften madeinth e past thatt hi s contribu tio n is absentin$P_{\g am ma} ^ {(th) }$,  is d ue tot he inc orporatio ni n ourw ork oft h espin  term in Eq. (\[e q :S i egert E1\]), w hich r ep r es e n tsa h igher orde rtermi n $q$.T hi s c orr e ction also ex plains thed iff erence  i n t h e beha viorof the  $c_{1}$ co effi cient wit h theO ka’s re s ult [@O ka:198 3sp ].
Wen ot etha t, bec a us e t h e $ M1$ tran si ti on do mina t e s at t hethre shold  and we onlyuse  the imp ulseappro xima ti on fo r itsmatri xelement, thereshou ld be app rox im ate ly  a $- 5 \%$ co rre cti on to $ A_{\gam m a}^ {( t h ) }$  (also $P_{\gamma} ^{ ( t h) }$) when  two-b o dy  e f fects ar einc lude d in $F _{M1 } $.  On theotherh an d,  as $\t il de{F}_ {E 1_{ 5}} $ isc alcu latedusing th e Sie g ert theorem, i t  should be re l ia b l eu p to  th e correctio n of $\ti lde{ F }_ {E1 _ {5}}^ {(S') }$ fr o m the PNC exchangech arge a t $O( 1)$.

When th e photon e n e r gy getslarg e r, one can see im media tely thatt he asymm etrygets sma ller. A p r e dictionusi ngthe  DD H be st values iss h ownin  Fig. \ [ca p:Ag DD H\] . I n t his  f igure, as  soon as  t he  p ho ton  ener g y reache s1 M eV  ab ove t h e thre shold , th eas y mme try dro p sb y  one  o rd er o f m ag nitud e. M o reo ver, th e sign ch ang e s ar ou nd  $\omeg a_{\gamma}=4$  M eV. This i mp lie s that a  highersensitivity ($\sim10^{- 9 }$) isnee ded f or a ny experi men t targ eti n g at t he kin emati cran g e  away f ro m t he  threshold . Our  calc ul atio n is co nsistent with thew ork  by Khriplovi chandK o rk in[ @K h rip lo v ich : 2 000mb], but iswidely dif fe r en t from the one  b y Oka [ @Oka:19 83sp] .  In the  followin g, we mak ea cl o s ercomparison  with th ese works and,t he n, pr ese nt res ul tsfor t he con t rib ution  of va ri ous PN C two -b ody curr ents considered for the  first  time .
Compariso n w i thOka’s wor k \[ sub:CompOk a\] 
-- ----- --- - ----- ---- - -- --- - ----- ---- - -----

Th e  m ajo r di fference co m e s  fr om th e p i on sec tor.  In Ref. [@Khripl o vich:2000mb],wher e the  sc a tter in g wave functio nsar e obtained  f rom the zer o-rangeap p roxim ationand th e deute r o ni s pure ly a  $^ {3}S_{1}$  st at e , a sim pl ea ngular  mom en tum co nsider a tion l eads to
 one-pion_exchange (see_the low-energy part of_the $c_{1}$_coefficient_given in_Fig._\[cap:coeffs\]). This feature,_which apparently contradicts_the statement often made_in the past_that_this contribution is absent in $P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$, is due to the incorporation in our work_of_the spin_term_in_Eq. (\[eq:Siegert E1\]), which represents_a higher order term in_$q$. This_correction also explains the difference in the behavior_of_the $c_{1}$ coefficient_with the Oka’s result [@Oka:1983sp].

We note that, because the_$M1$ transition dominates at the threshold_and we only_use_the_impulse approximation for its_matrix element, there should be approximately_a $-5\%$ correction to $A_{\gamma}^{(th)}$ (also_$P_{\gamma}^{(th)}$) when two-body effects are included in_$F_{M1}$. On the other hand, as_$\tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}$ is calculated using the_Siegert theorem,_it should be reliable up_to the correction_of $\tilde{F}_{E1_{5}}^{(S')}$_from the PNC_exchange charge at $O(1)$.

When the photon_energy gets larger,_one can see immediately that the_asymmetry_gets smaller. A_prediction_using_the DDH_best values is_shown_in Fig._\[cap:Ag_DDH\]. In this figure, as soon_as_the photon energy reaches 1 MeV above_the threshold, the asymmetry_drops_by one order of_magnitude. Moreover, the sign changes_around $\omega_{\gamma}=4$ MeV. This implies that_a higher_sensitivity ($\sim10^{-9}$)_is needed for any experiment targeting at the kinematic range away_from the threshold. Our calculation is_consistent with the work_by Khriplovich_and_Korkin [@Khriplovich:2000mb], but_is_widely different_from the one by Oka [@Oka:1983sp]. In_the following,_we make a closer comparison with_these works and, then,_present_results for the contribution of various_PNC two-body currents considered for the_first time.

Comparison with Oka’s work_\[sub:CompOka\]
------------------------------------------

The_major_difference comes from the pion_sector. In Ref. [@Khriplovich:2000mb], where the_scattering wave functions_are obtained from the zero-range approximation and_the_deuteron is purely a $^{3}S_{1}$ state,_a_simple angular momentum consideration leads to