1: \documentclass[twocolumn,prc,aps,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}

3: %\usepackage{epsfig,a4}

4: %\usepackage{showkeys}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: 

7:  \topmargin -1cm

8:  \def\Pom{{ I\!\!P}}

9:  \def\Reg{{ I\!\!R}}

10:  \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

11:  \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}

12:  \renewcommand{\topfraction} {0.8}

13:  \renewcommand{\bottomfraction} {1}

14:  \renewcommand{\textfraction} {0}

15:  \renewcommand{\floatsep} {-3cm}

16:  \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction} {1}

17:  \newcommand\la{\langle}

18:  \newcommand\ra{\rangle}

19:  \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}

20:  \newcommand\noi{\noindent}

21:  \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}

22:  \newcommand\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}

23:  \newcommand\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}

24: \def\mb{\,\mbox{mb}}

25: \def\fm{\,\mbox{fm}}

26: \def\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}

27: \def\TeV{\,\mbox{TeV}}

28: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

29:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

30: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

31:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

32: %\newcommand{\doublespace} {

33: \def\lg{l^g_c}

34: \def\lpi{L^\pi_c}

35: \def\Re{\,\mbox{Re}\,}

36: \def\Im{\,\mbox{Im}\,}

37: \def\mb{\,\mbox{mb}}

38: \def\fm{\,\mbox{fm}}

39: \def\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}

40: \def\MeV{\,\mbox{MeV}}

41: \def\T{T^h_A(b)}

42: \def\s0{\sigma_0(s)}

43: \def\sq{\sigma_{\bar qq}}

44: \def\st{\sigma_{tot}^{pN}}

45: \def\sel{\sigma_{el}^{pN}}

46: \def\sinhad{\sigma_{in}^{pN}}

47: \def\sdd{\sigma_{sd}^{pN}}

48: \def\ssdh{\sigma_{sd}^{pN}}

49: \def\sqa{\sigma_{\bar qq}^A}

50: \def\sta{\sigma_{tot}^{pA}}

51: \def\sela{\sigma_{el}^{pA}}

52: \def\sina{\sigma_{in}^{pA}}

53: \def\stn{\sigma_{tot}^{NN}}

54: \def\seln{\sigma_{el}^{NN}}

55: \def\sinn{\sigma_{in}^{NN}}

56: \def\std{\sigma_{tot}^{pd}}

57: \def\seld{\sigma_{el}^{pd}}

58: \def\sind{\sigma_{in}^{pd}}

59: \def\ssdn{\sigma_{sd}^{NN}}

60: \def\sddn{\sigma_{dd}^{NN}}

61: \def\sdda{\sigma_{dd}^{pA}}

62: \def\sddd{\sigma_{dd}^{pN}}

63: \def\ssda{\sigma_{sd}^{pA}}

64: \def\doublespace{\def\baselinestretch{1.6}\large\normalsize}

65: \def\normalspace{\def\baselinestretch{1.0}\normalsize}

66: \def\Caption#1{

67:   \normalspace

68:   \begin{quotation}\caption{\sl #1}\end{quotation}

69:   \doublespace

70: }

71: \begin{document}

72: 

73: \title{\bf Perturbative fragmentation}

74: 

75: \author{B.Z.~Kopeliovich$^{1-3}$}

76: \author{H.-J.~Pirner$^{2,4}$}

77: \author{I.K.~Potashnikova$^1$}

78: \author{Ivan~Schmidt$^1$}

79: \author{A.V.~Tarasov$^{2,3}$}

80: 

81: \affiliation{$^1$Departamento de F\'\i sica

82: y Centro de Estudios

83: Subat\'omicos,\\ Universidad T\'ecnica

84: Federico Santa Mar\'\i a, Casilla 110-V, Valpara\'\i so, Chile\\

85: {$^2$Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik der Universit\"at,

86: Philosophenweg 19, 69120

87: Heidelberg, Germany}\\

88: {$^3$Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia}

89:  %\\$^4$Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Postfach 103980,

90:  %69029 Heidelberg, Germany

91: }

92: 

93: \date{\today}

94: 

95: \begin{abstract}

96: 

97: The Berger model of perturbative fragmentation of quarks to pions

98: \cite{berger} is improved by providing an absolute normalization and

99: keeping all terms in a $(1-z)$ expansion, which makes the

100: calculation valid at all values of fractional pion momentum $z$. We

101: also replace the nonrelativistic wave function of a loosely bound

102: pion by the more realistic procedure of projecting to the light-cone

103: pion wave function, which in turn is taken from well known models.

104: The full calculation does not confirm the $(1-z)^2$ behavior of the

105: fragmentation function (FF) predicted in \cite{berger} for $z>0.5$,

106: and only works at very large $z>0.95$, where it is in reasonable

107: agreement with phenomenological FFs. Otherwise, we observe quite a

108: different $z$-dependence which grossly underestimates data at

109: smaller $z$. The disagreement is reduced after the addition of pions

110: from decays of light vector mesons, but still remains considerable.

111: The process dependent higher twist terms are also calculated exactly

112: and found to be important at large $z$ and/or $p_T$.

113: 

114:  \end{abstract}

115: 

116: 

117: \pacs{12.38.-t, 12.38.Bx, 12.39.-x, 13.66.Bc}

118: 

119: \maketitle

120: 

121: 

122: \section{Introduction}

123: 

124: The fragmentation of colored partons, quarks and gluons, into colorless

125: hadrons is an essential ingredient of any semi-inclusive hadronic

126: reaction, since confinement does not allow propagation of free color

127: charges. For this reason hadronization is usually considered to be related

128: necessarily to confinement specific to the string model \cite{cnn}.  

129: Indeed, the string model of hadron production is rather successful in

130: describing data.

131: 

132: In a typical event of quark fragmentation the mean production time

133: $t_p$ of a pre-hadron (i.e. a colorless cluster developing

134: afterwards a corresponding wave function) linearly rises with its

135: energy, and the most energetic hadron in such event takes about half

136: of the initial quark energy. In some rare events, however, the

137: leading hadron may take the main fraction $z\to1$ of the initial

138: quark energy. This process cannot last long, since the leading quark

139: is constantly losing momentum, $dp_q/dt=-\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is

140: the string tension. Therefore the production time should shrink at

141: $z\to1$ as \cite{kn},

142:  \beq

143: t_p=(1-z)\,\frac{E_q}{\kappa}\,.

144: \label{10}

145:  \eeq

146:  Notice that the end-point behavior of the production time, $t_p\propto

147: (1-z)$, is not specific for the string model, but is a result of

148: energy conservation.

149: 

150:  The shortness of the production time is an indication that a

151: nonperturbative approach for the production of hadrons with large

152: $z\to1$ is not really required. Indeed, according to (\ref{10}), in this

153: region the hadronization time shrinks, i.e. the quark directly radiates

154: a hadron, $q\to h+q$. Furthermore, since the invariant mass squared of

155: the final state is $M_{qh}^2= m_h^2/z+m_q^2/(1-z)+p_T^2/z(1-z)$, where

156: $p_T$ is the transverse hadron momentum, at $z\to1$ the initial quark is

157: far off mass shell, and this process can be treated perturbatively. This

158: observation motivates a perturbative QCD calculations for leading pion

159: production $q\to\pi q$, within the model proposed by Berger

160: \cite{berger}, as is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{eebar} for $l\bar l$

161: annihilation.

162:  \begin{figure}[htb]

163:  \includegraphics[width=6cm]{eebar.eps}

164: \caption{\label{eebar} $l\bar l$ annihilation with production of two

165: $\bar qq$ pairs. The large blob contains gluon radiation by either

166: $\bar q_1$ or $q_2$. Four-momenta of particles are shown in parentheses.}

167:  \end{figure}

168:  He found that the fragmentation function of a quark to a pion vanishes

169: as $(1-z)^2$ at $z\to1$, and falls as function of transverse pion

170: momentum as $1/p_T^4$. Besides, a nonfactorizable, scaling violating

171: term was found to dominate at $z\to1$. The shape of $z$-dependence

172: calculated by Berger \cite{berger} was found to agree well with data

173: after the inclusion of gluon radiation cf.  Ref.~\cite{kpps}.

174: 

175: Unfortunately, the calculation performed in \cite{berger} missed the

176: absolute normalization of the cross section, which makes it difficult

177: to compare with data. Moreover, it was done in lowest order in

178: $(1-z)$, therefore it is not clear in which interval of $z$ the

179: model is realistic. And last, but not least, the calculations were

180: based on the nonrelativistic approximation for the pion structure

181: function, assuming equal sharing of longitudinal and transverse

182: momenta by the quark and antiquark in the pion. However, the

183: dominant configuration of the $\bar qq$ pair projected to the pion

184: is asymmetric, with the projectile quark carrying the main fraction

185: of the momentum.

186: 

187: Here we perform calculations first in the Berger approximation, but

188: retaining the absolute normalizations and higher powers of $(1-z)$

189: (Sect.~3). Then, in Sect.~4 we give up the nonrelativistic

190: approximation and project the amplitude of $\bar qq$ production onto

191: the light-cone (LC) wave function of the pion. For this wave function

192: we consider three different models and find reasonable agreement

193: with phenomenological fragmentation functions (FF), but only at

194: large $z>0.95$. To improve agreement at smaller $z$ we add pions

195: originating from decays of $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons, which are

196: produced by the same mechanism, and which is depicted in

197: Fig.~\ref{eebar}. In Sect.~5 we study higher twist contributions,

198: which gives a sizeable contribution in semi-inclusive pion

199: production in DIS at moderately large $Q^2$ and large $z$.

200: 

201: \section{Leading hadrons in Born approximation}

202: 

203: The amplitude of the process $l\bar l \to \bar q_1+q_2+G \to \bar q_1+q_2 + 

204: \bar

205: q_3+q_4$, depicted in Fig.~\ref{eebar}, in the lowest order of pQCD is given by,

206:  \beqn

207: &&A(l\bar l\to\bar q_1q_2\bar q_3q_4)

208: ={1\over Q^2}\,

209: J_\mu^{(l)}(k_1,\bar\lambda_1;k_2,\bar\lambda_2)

210: \nonumber\\ &\times&

211: J_\mu^{(h)}(p_1,\lambda_1,i_1;p_2,\lambda_2,i_2;

212: p_3,\lambda_3,i_3;p_4,\lambda_4,i_4).

213: \label{100}

214:  \eeqn

215:  Here $k_1,\bar\lambda_1$ and $k_2,\bar\lambda_2$ are 4-momenta and

216: helicities of the lepton and antilepton respectively; $p_l,\

217: \lambda_l$ and $i_l$ are the 4-momenta, helicities and color indexes

218: of the quarks $q_1$ and $q_3$ ($l=1,3$) and antiquarks $\bar q_2$

219: and $\bar q_4$ ($l=2,4$).  The 4-momentum $Q=k_1+k_2$.

220: 

221: The leptonic and hadronic currents in (\ref{100}) read,

222:  \beq

223: J_\mu^{(l)}(k_1,\bar\lambda_1;k_2,\bar\lambda_2)=

224: e\,\bar u_{\bar\lambda_2}(k_2)\gamma_\mu

225: v_{\bar\lambda_1}(k_1)\,;

226: \label{120}

227:  \eeq

228:  \beqn

229: &&J_\mu^{(h)}(p_1,\lambda_1,i_1;p_2,\lambda_2,i_2;

230: p_3,\lambda_3,i_3;p_4,\lambda_4,i_4)

231: \nonumber\\ &=&

232: {1\over M^2}\,\sum\limits_{a=1}^{8}

233: {g_s\over2}\,\lambda^{(a)}_{i_2i_1}

234: {g_s\over2}\,\lambda^{(a)}_{i_4i_3}

235: \nonumber\\ &\times&

236: T_{\mu\nu}(p_1\lambda_1,p_2\lambda_2)\,

237: j_{\nu}(p_3\lambda_3,p_4\lambda_4)\,.

238: \label{140}

239:  \eeqn

240:  Here $M^2=(p_3+p_4)^2$ is the gluon invariant mass squared;

241: $g_s^2=4\pi\alpha_s$; $\lambda^{(a)}_{ij}$ are Gell-Mann matrices;

242:  \beqn

243: T_{\mu\nu}(p_1\lambda_1,p_2\lambda_2)&=&

244: e_{q_1}\,\bar u_{\lambda_2}(p_2)\,

245: \bigl[\gamma_{\mu}\hat G(Q-p_1)\gamma_{\nu}

246: \nonumber\\ &+&

247: \gamma_{\nu}\hat G(p_2-Q)\gamma_{\mu}\bigr]\,

248: v_{\lambda_1}(p_1)\,,

249: \label{160}

250:  \eeqn

251:  where $\hat G(q)=(\hat q+m_q)/(q^2-m_q^2)$; $\hat q=q_{\mu}\gamma_{\mu}$;

252: $m_q$ is the quark mass; and

253:  \beq

254: j_{\nu}(p_3\lambda_3,p_4\lambda_4)=

255: \bar u_{\lambda_4}(p_4)\,\gamma_\nu\,

256: v_{\lambda_3}(p_3)\,.

257: \label{170}

258:  \eeq

259: 

260: \section{Berger model}

261: 

262: In the Berger model \cite{berger} the amplitude $\tilde A$ of the

263: reaction $l\bar l\to\pi q_1q_4$ is a result of projection of the

264: amplitude Eq.~(\ref{100})  on the $S$-wave colorless state of the

265: $q_2\bar q_3$ pair having zero total spin. The result of the

266: projection is proportional to $\Psi_\pi(\vec r=0)$ ($\vec r$ is

267: 3-dimensional) with a pre-factor $\sqrt{2/m_\pi}$ \cite{nemenov},

268: where $m_\pi$ is the pion mass. Then we get,

269:  \beq

270: \tilde A(l\bar l\to\pi q_1q_4)=

271: {1\over Q^2}\,J_\mu^{(l)}\,\bar J_\mu^{(h)}\,

272: \sqrt{2\over m_\pi}\,\Psi_\pi(0)\,.

273: \label{180}

274:  \eeq

275:  Here

276:  \beqn

277: &&\bar J_\mu^{(h)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^3

278: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum\limits_{\lambda=\pm1/2} {\rm sgn}(\lambda)

279: \nonumber\\ &\times& J_\mu^{(h)}(p_1,\lambda_1,i_1;p,\lambda,i;

280: p,-\lambda,i;p_4,\lambda_4,i_4)\,,

281:  \label{200}

282:  \eeqn

283: and the summations $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sum_{i=1}^3$ and

284: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{\lambda=\pm1/2}{\rm sgn}(\lambda)$ perform

285: projections to colorless and spinless states of the $q_2\bar q_3$

286: pair, respectively.

287: 

288: Then we can make use of the relations,

289:  \beqn

290: \sum\limits_{a=1}^8 \sum\limits_{i_1}^3

291: \lambda^{a}_{i_4 i}

292: \lambda^{a}_{i i_1} &=&

293: {16\over 3}\,\delta_{i_4i_1}\,;

294: \nonumber\\

295: \sum\limits_{\lambda=\pm1/2}

296: {\rm sgn}(\lambda)v_{-\lambda}(p_4)

297: \bar u_{\lambda}(p_3)\Bigr|_{p_3=p_4\equiv p}

298:  &=&

299: \gamma_5(\hat p+m),\nonumber\\

300: \label{220}

301:  \eeqn

302:  and arrive at the following form of the hadronic current,

303:  \beq

304: \bar J_{\mu}^{(h)} =

305: \frac{2g_s^2 e_{q_1}}{3\sqrt{6}\,M^2}\,

306: (j_{1\mu}+j_{2\mu})\,,

307: \label{240}

308: \eeq

309:  where

310:  \beqn

311: j_{1\mu}&=&

312: \bar u_{\lambda_4}(p_4)\,

313: \gamma_{\nu}\gamma_5(\hat p+m_q)

314: \gamma_{\nu}\hat G(Q-p_1)\gamma_{\mu}\,

315: v_{\lambda_1}(p_1)

316:  \nonumber\\&=&

317: \bar u_{\lambda_4}(p_4)\,\gamma_5

318: \left(\gamma_{\mu}-

319: \frac{2m_q\hat p\,\gamma_{\mu}}{M^2}\right)\,

320: v_{\lambda_1}(p_1)\,;

321: \label{260}

322:  \eeqn

323: 

324:  \beqn

325: j_{2\mu}&=&

326: \bar u_{\lambda_4}(p_4)\,

327: \gamma_{\nu}\gamma_5(\hat p+m_q)

328: \gamma_{\mu}\hat G(p_2-Q)\gamma_{\nu}\,

329: v_{\lambda_1}(p_1)

330:  \nonumber\\&=&

331: \frac{4}{Q^2-2pQ}\,

332: \bar u_{\lambda_4}(p_4)\,\gamma_5

333: \Bigl[(p_1p+m_q^2)\gamma_{\mu}

334:  \nonumber\\&-&

335: (p_{1\mu}+p_{\mu})\hat p -

336: m_q\hat p\,\gamma_{\mu} +

337: m_qQ_{\mu}\Bigr]\,

338: v_{\lambda_1}(p_1)\,.

339: \label{280}

340:  \eeqn

341:  Here we applied the algebra of $\gamma$-matrices, the Dirac equation and

342: 4-momentum conservation, $Q=p_1+2p+p_4$. The invariant gluon mass $M$ was

343: defined in (\ref{140}).

344: 

345: It is convenient to choose the $z$-axis along the momentum $\vec

346: p_1$ in the collision c.m. frame, and to switch from Lorentz

347: 4-vectors $a_{\mu}$ (e.g. $J_{\mu}^{(l,h)},\ p_{\mu1},\ p_{\mu4},\

348: Q_{\mu},\ etc.$) to light-cone vectors, $(a_+,a_-,\vec a_\perp)$,

349: where $a_{\pm}=a_0\pm a_z$. Since $\vec Q=0$, i.e. $Q_+=Q_-$, the

350: condition of gauge invariance, $Q_{\mu}J^{(l)}_{\mu}=Q_{\mu}\bar

351: J^{(h)}_{\mu}=0$, takes the form, $J^{(l)}_+=-J^{(l)}_-$ and $\bar

352: J^{(h)}_+=-\bar J^{(h)}_-$. Then the product of the lepton and

353: hadronic currents can be presented as,

354:  \beq

355: J^{(l)}_{\mu}\bar J^{(h)}_{\mu}=

356: -J^{(l)}_{+}\bar J^{(h)}_{+} -

357: J^{(l)}_{\perp}\bar J^{(h)}_{\perp}\,.

358: \label{300}

359:  \eeq

360: 

361: The typical values of transverse components are $|\vec p_\perp|\sim m_q$,

362: $\vec p_{4T}=-2\vec p$, $\left|\vec J^{(l)}_\perp\right|\sim J^{(l)}_+$, so

363:  \beq

364: \bar J^{(h)}_+\sim

365: {m_q\over Q}\left|\vec J^{(h)}_\perp\right|

366: \label{320}

367:  \eeq

368: Therefore, the first term in (\ref{300}) can be safely neglected.

369: Then we get,

370:  \beqn

371: \bar J^{(h)}_{\perp} &=&

372: \frac{4g_s^2e_{q_1}\delta{i_4i_1}}

373: {3\sqrt{6}\,M^2}\,

374: \bar u(p_4)\,\gamma_5

375: \nonumber\\ &\times&

376: \left[\xi\,\gamma_{\perp}-

377: \frac{2m_q}{M^2}\,\hat p\gamma_{\perp}\right]\,

378: v(p_1)\,,

379: \label{340}

380:  \eeqn

381:  where $\xi=(2+z)/(2-z)$, and

382:  \beq

383: z=\frac{p_{\pi+}}{Q_+}=\frac{2p_+}{Q_+}\,,

384: \label{380}

385: \eeq

386:  is the fractional pion momentum. In this approximation the invariant gluon

387: mass reads,

388:  \beq

389: M^2=(p+p_4)^2=

390: 2\,\frac{m_q^2(1-z/2)^2+\vec p_{\perp}^2}

391: {z(1-z)}\,.

392: \label{360}

393:  \eeq

394: 

395: Notice that although the second term in (\ref{340}) is proportional

396: to the quark mass (which was assumed in \cite{berger} to be zero),

397: it should not be neglected. Indeed, after integration over $\vec

398: p_T$ the interference of the two terms in (\ref{340}) is of the same

399: order as the first term squared.

400: 

401: In this approximation the fragmentation function gets the form,

402:  \beqn

403: D_q^\pi(z)&=&\frac{64\alpha_s^2}{27m_\pi m_q^2}\,

404: \left|\Psi_\pi(0)\right|^2\,

405: \frac{z(1-z)^2}{(2-z)^2}

406: \nonumber\\ &\times&

407: \left[\xi^2+2(\xi+1)\left(\frac{z}{2-z}\right)^2 -

408: {16\over3}\,

409: \frac{z^2(1-z)}{(2-z)^4}\right].\nonumber\\

410: \label{400}

411:  \eeqn

412: 

413: The pion wave function at the origin correlates with the shape of the

414: parametrization for $\Psi_\pi(r)$. In the case of a Gaussian

415: parametrization,

416:  \beq

417: \left|\Psi_\pi(\vec r)\right|^2_{gauss}=

418: \frac{\kappa_1^3}{\pi^{3/2}}\exp(-\kappa_1^2 r^2/2)\,,

419: \label{420}

420:  \eeq

421:  the pion form factor has the form, $F_\pi(q^2)=\exp(-q^2/16\kappa_1^2)$. So

422: $\kappa_1^2=3/8\la r_{ch}^2\ra$.

423: 

424: With a bit more realistic exponential shape,

425:  \beq

426: \left|\Psi_\pi(\vec r)\right|^2_{exp}=

427: \frac{\kappa_2^3}{\pi^2}\exp(-2\kappa_2 r)\,,

428: \label{440}

429:  \eeq the pion form factor reads,

430: $F_\pi(q^2)=\left(1+q^2/16\kappa_2^2\right)^{-2}$. Then

431: $\kappa_2^2=2\kappa_1^2$.

432: 

433: These two examples demonstrate the high sensitivity of the wave function

434: at the origin to the choice of $r$-dependence. One finds

435: $|\Psi_\pi(0)|^2_{exp}/|\Psi_\pi(0)|^2_{gauss}=\sqrt{8\pi}\approx5$.

436: Therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether the Berger model agrees or not 

437: with data.

438: 

439: Another, more realistic option would rely on the pole form of the pion

440: form factor, $F_\pi(q^2)=\kappa_3^2/(\kappa_3^2+q^2)$, where

441: $\kappa_3^2=1/6\la r_{ch}^2\ra$. Then,

442:  \beq

443: \left|\Psi_\pi(\vec r)\right|^2=

444: \frac{1}{r}\exp(-\kappa_3 r)\,.

445: \label{460}

446:  \eeq

447:  In this case, however, the wave function at the origin is divergent.

448: 

449:  The Berger approximation, assuming that the pion production amplitude is

450: proportional to the amplitude of $\bar qq$ production with equal

451: momenta, would be justified if the pion was a nonrelativistic,

452: loosely bound system, i.e. $m_\pi\approx 2m_q$, $2m_q-m_\pi\ll m_q$.

453: However, the mean charge radius squared is much smaller than the

454: value given by such a nonrelativistic model, $\la

455: r_{ch}^2\ra=(4m_q^2-m_\pi^2)^{-1}$.

456: 

457: On the other hand, a description of the pion as a relativistic

458: bound system has been a challenge so far.

459: 

460: 

461: \section{Projection to the LC wave function}

462: 

463: \subsection{Direct pions}

464: 

465: In the light-cone (LC) representation the pion wave function depends

466: on the fractional LC momenta of the quark, $\alpha=p_{2+}/p_{\pi+}$,

467: and antiquark, $1-\alpha=p_{3+}/p_{\pi+}$, and the relative

468: transverse momentum, $k_\perp=\alpha

469: p_{3\perp}-(1-\alpha)p_{2\perp}$. In this representation the

470: amplitudes, Eqs.~(\ref{180}) and (\ref{100}), are related as,

471:  \beq

472: \tilde{A}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}

473: \int\limits_0^1\frac{d\alpha}{\sqrt{2\alpha(1-\alpha)}}

474: \int d^2k_\perp\, A(\alpha,k_\perp)\,

475: \Psi_\pi(\alpha,k_\perp)\,,

476: \label{480}

477:  \eeq

478:  where the $\bar qq$ Fock component of the pion LC wave function

479: is normalized to unity,

480:  \beq

481: \int\limits_0^1 d\alpha\int d^2k_\perp\,

482: \left|\Psi_\pi(\alpha,k_\perp)\right|^2=1\,.

483: \label{500}

484:  \eeq

485: 

486: In this case the projection of the distribution amplitude of $q_2$ and

487: $\bar q_3$ on the pion LC wave function is more complicated that in

488: Berger model ($\alpha=1/2$), however it can be grossly simplified if one

489: neglects small terms of the order of $m$ and $k_\perp$ in comparison

490: with large $p_{2+}$ and $p_{3+}$ order terms. Then the combination in

491: Eq.~(\ref{220}) gets the simple form,

492:  \beq

493: \sum\limits_{\lambda=\pm1/2}

494: {\rm sgn}(\lambda)\,

495: v_{-\lambda}(p_3)\bar u_{\lambda}(p_2) =

496: \gamma_5\,\hat p_\pi+O(m,k_\perp)\,.

497: \label{520}

498:  \eeq

499:  Furthermore, neglecting small terms we arrive at a new relation for the

500: hadronic current of Eq.~(\ref{340}),

501:  \beqn

502: \bar J^{(h)}_{\perp} =

503: \frac{8g_s^2e_{q_1}\delta{\alpha_4\alpha_1}}

504: {3\sqrt{6}\,M^2}\,

505: \frac{1+(1-\alpha)z)}{1-\alpha z}\,

506: \bar u(p_4)\gamma_5\gamma_\perp

507: v(p_1).

508: \label{540}

509:  \eeqn

510:  When the momentum fractions of the quark and antiquark in the pion

511: wave function are $\alpha$ and $1-\alpha$, then the invariant mass 

512: squared reads,

513:  \beq

514: M^2=

515: \frac{m^2(1-\alpha z)^2+[(1-\alpha)\vec p_{\pi\perp}

516: -(1-z)\vec k_\perp]^2}

517: {z(1-z)(1-\alpha)}\,.

518: \label{560}

519:  \eeq

520: 

521: The light-cone pion wave function can be parametrized as

522:  \beq

523: \Psi_\pi(\alpha,\vec r) =

524: \phi(\alpha)\psi(r,\alpha)\,.

525: \label{740}

526:  \eeq

527:  If the wave function in momentum representation has a monopole form,

528: $\Psi_\pi(\alpha,k)\propto [k^2/\alpha(1-\alpha)+\kappa^2]^{-1}$,

529: then

530:  \beq

531: \psi(r,\alpha) =

532: N\,K_0(\kappa r\sqrt{\alpha(1-\alpha)}),

533: \label{750}

534:  \eeq

535:  where $K_0$ is the modified Bessel function.

536: Since the momentum dependence of $\Psi_\pi(\alpha,k)$ is poorly

537: known, we also performed calculations with a dipole dependent

538: wave function in the Appendix, since comparison of the results shows

539: the scale of the theoretical uncertainty.

540: 

541: The parameter $\kappa$ is fixed by the condition,

542:  \beq

543: -\frac{dF_\pi(q)}{dq^2}\Bigr|_{q^2=0}=

544: {1\over6}\,\la r_{ch}^2\ra\approx 1.83\GeV^{-2},

545: \label{760}

546:  \eeq

547:  where the pion form factor reads,

548:  \beq

549: F_\pi(q)=\int d^2r\int\limits_0^1 d\alpha

550: |\Psi_\pi(\alpha,\vec r)|^2\,

551: e^{i\alpha\vec q\cdot\vec r}\,.

552: \label{780}

553: \eeq

554: 

555: Thus, the parameter $\kappa$ as well as the normalization constant $N$ in

556: (\ref{740}) depend on the choice of function $\phi(\alpha)$.

557: We consider two popular models (compare with \cite{dijet}):

558: 

559: Model~1: Standard (asymptotic) shape \cite{asymp,radyushkin},

560:  \beqn

561: \phi_1(\alpha)&=&\alpha(1-\alpha)\,;

562: \label{790}\\

563: N_1^2&=&\frac{6\kappa_1^2}{\pi}\,;

564: \nonumber\\

565: \kappa_1^2&=&\frac{2}{\la r_{ch}^2\ra}\,.

566: \label{800}

567:  \eeqn

568: 

569: Model~2: Chernyak-Zhitnitsky model \cite{ch-zh},

570:  \beqn

571: \phi_2(\alpha)&=&\phi_1(\alpha)\,(1-2\alpha)^2\,;

572: \label{810}\\

573: N_2^2&=&\frac{70\kappa_2^2}{\pi}\,;

574: \nonumber\\

575: \kappa_2^2&=&\frac{6}{\la r_{ch}^2\ra}\,.

576: \label{820}

577:  \eeqn

578: 

579: To be specific we will calculate $D_{u}^{\pi^+}(p_T^2,z)$ which is

580: the FF of a $u$ quark into $\pi^+$. For the transverse momentum

581: dependent fragmentation function we have for each of these versions

582: (taking into account the longitudinal current contribution),

583:  \beqn

584: &&\left.\frac{dD_{u}^{\pi^+}(z,p_T^2)}{dp_T^2}

585: \right|_i =

586: 2\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}\right)^2

587: C_i\kappa_i^2z

588: \nonumber\\ &\times&

589: \left[(1-z)^2\,F_i^2(z,p_T)+

590: \epsilon z^2\frac{4p_T^2}{Q^2}\,

591: G_i^2(z,p_T)\right]\,.

592: \label{860}

593:  \eeqn

594:  Here $i=1,\ 2$; $C_1=1$; $C_2=35/3$;

595:  \beqn

596: F_i(z,p_T)&=&\int\limits_0^1 d\alpha\,

597: \frac{(1-\alpha)\phi_i(\alpha)}{\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}\

598: \frac{1+(1-\alpha)z}

599: {1-\alpha z}

600: \nonumber\\ &\times&

601: \ln\left(\frac{a_i+\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}

602: {a_i-\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}\right)\,;

603: \label{880}

604:  \eeqn

605: 

606:  \beqn

607: G_i(z,p_T)&=&\int\limits_0^1 d\alpha\,

608: \frac{(1-\alpha)^2\phi_i(\alpha)}

609: {(1-\alpha z)\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}\,

610: \nonumber\\ &\times&

611: \ln\left(\frac{a_i+\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}

612: {a_i-\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}\right)\,;

613: \label{900}

614:  \eeqn

615: 

616:  \beqn

617: a_i &=& p_T^2(1-\alpha)^2+m_q^2(1-\alpha z)^2

618: \label{920a}\\ &+&

619: \kappa_i^2\alpha(1-\alpha)(1-z)^2\,;

620: \nonumber\\

621: b_i &=& 4m_q^2\kappa_i^2(1-\alpha z)^2(1-z)^2

622: \alpha(1-\alpha)\,.

623: \label{920b}

624:  \eeqn

625: 

626: In fact, only the first leading twist term in square brackets in

627: (\ref{860}) corresponds to the factorized FF. The second term is a

628: higher twist term, whose value (factor $\epsilon$) is process

629: dependent, and which is discussed in more detail in Sect.~\ref{ht}

630: below .

631: 

632: The results of the numerical calculations of the $p$-integrated FF,

633: for each of the three models, are plotted as functions of $z$ in

634: Fig.~\ref{3models}. The QCD coupling was fixed at $\alpha_s=0.4$.

635:  \begin{figure}[htb]

636:  \includegraphics[width=7cm]{2models.eps}

637:  \caption{\label{3models} The fragmentation function,

638:  Eq.~(\ref{860}),

639: integrated over transverse momentum. Solid and dashed curves correspond to

640: the models $1$ and $2$ for the pion LC wave function (see text)

641: respectively. }

642:  \end{figure}

643: 

644: The calculated fragmentation functions fall off with $z$ only at

645: very large $z\to1$, otherwise are rather flat, or even rise at small

646: values of $z$. Such a behavior does not comply with data which

647: suggest FF monotonically falling with $z$ \cite{{florian}}.

648: Apparently, the present calculations are missing some mechanisms

649: contributing at small $z$.

650: 

651: \subsection{Vector meson decays}

652: 

653: One of the processes contributing to the pion spectrum should be the

654: production, by the same mechanism shown in Fig.~\ref{eebar}, of

655: heavier mesons which decay to pions. One of the most important

656: corrections should come from $\rho$-meson production, which gives

657: the following contribution

658:  \beq

659: \Delta D_{u}^{\rho/\pi^+}(z)=

660: \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\xi}}

661: \int\limits_{z_{min}}^1

662: \frac{dz'}{z'}\,\left[D_{u}^{\rho^+}(z')+

663: D_{u}^{\rho^0}(z')\right]\,.

664: \label{940}

665:  \eeq

666:  The bottom integration limit reads,

667:  \beqn

668: z_{min} &=& 2z\,\frac{1-\sqrt{1-\xi}}{\xi}\,;

669: \nonumber\\

670: \xi &=& \frac{4m_\pi^2}{m_\rho^2}\,.

671: \label{960}

672:  \eeqn

673: 

674:  We assume that $D_{u}^{\rho^+}(z)=3D_{u}^{\pi^+}(z)$, since $\rho$ has spin 1,

675: and that $D_{u}^{\rho^0}(z)={1\over2}D_{u}^{\rho^+}(z)$.

676: 

677: The $\omega$-meson production may also be important. Pions from

678: $\omega$ decays should be even softer because of the three-particle

679: phase space. The corresponding correction to the pion spectrum can

680: be calculated as follows.

681:  \beq

682: \Delta D_{u}^{\omega/\pi^+}(z)=

683: \frac{\int_{2m_\pi}^{m_\omega-m_\pi}

684: dM_{2\pi}\,g(M_{2\pi})\,I(z,M_{2\pi})}

685: {\int_{2m_\pi}^{m_\omega-m_\pi}

686: dM_{2\pi}\,g(M_{2\pi})}\,,

687: \label{962}

688:  \eeq

689:  where

690:  \beqn

691: g(M_{2\pi})&=&\sqrt{(M_{2\pi}^2-4m_\pi^2)

692: \left(\Omega^2-4m_\omega^2 m_\pi^2\right)}\,,

693: \nonumber\\

694: \Omega&=&m_\omega^2+m_\pi^2-M_{2\pi}^2\,;

695: \label{964}

696:  \eeqn

697:  and

698:  \beq

699: I(z,M_{2\pi})=\int\limits_{z_1}^{z_2}

700: \frac{dz'}{z'}\,D_{u}^{\omega}(z')\,,

701: \label{966}

702:  \eeq

703:  \beqn

704: z_1&=&{\rm min}\left\{1,\ \frac{2m_\omega^2\,z}

705: {\Omega +

706: \sqrt{\Omega^2-4m_\omega^2 m_\pi^2}}

707: \right\}\,,

708: \nonumber\\

709: z_2&=&{\rm min}\left\{1,\

710: z\,\frac{\Omega+

711: \sqrt{\Omega^2-4m_\omega^2 m_\pi^2}}

712: {2m_\pi^2}

713: \right\}\,.

714: \label{968}

715:  \eeqn

716: We assume that $D_{u}^{\omega}(z)= D_{u}^{\pi^+}(z)$, since the

717: factor of 3 coming from spin enhancement is compensated by an

718: isospin suppression.

719: 

720: Fig.~\ref{pi-rho} shows our results for $D_{u}^{\pi^+}(z)$

721: (dashed-dotted), $\Delta D_{u}^{\rho/\pi^+}(z)$ and $\Delta

722: D_{u}^{\omega/\pi^+}(z)$ (dotted), and their sum (solid). We also

723: plotted the phenomenological $D_{u}^{\pi^+}(z)$ (dashed) obtained

724: from a global fit to data \cite{florian}.

725:  \begin{figure}[htb]

726:  \includegraphics[width=7cm]{pi-rho.eps}

727:  \caption{\label{pi-rho} Comparison of the Model~1 (asymptotic shape of

728: the pion wave function) with data. The curves from bottom to top are: {\it

729: dotted}: pions from $\omega$ and $\rho$ decays; {\it dot-dashed:} direct

730: fragmentation to pions; {\it solid:} sum of the three previous

731: contributions;  {\it dashed:} phenomenological FF for charged pions

732: \cite{florian} fitted to data at scale $\mu^2=0.5\GeV^2$.}

733:  \end{figure}

734:  As anticipated, the production of $\rho$ contributes to the softer part of the

735: pion momentum distribution, and does not affect its hard part.

736: 

737: Other meson decays should pull the medium-$z$ part of $D_{u}^{\pi^+}(z)$

738: further up, but accurate calculation of all those contributions is still a

739: challenge.

740: 

741: Notice that our results have no $Q^2$ evolution, since the calculations are done

742: in Born approximation. Modification of the $z$-dependence by gluon radiation

743: makes it softer, closer to data, generating also a $Q^2$ evolution. These

744: corrections were studied within the Fock state representation in \cite{kpps}.

745: 

746: The transverse momentum distribution of pions is given by Eq.~(\ref{860}). One

747: cannot compare with data the mean value of $\la p_T^2\ra$ since it is poorly

748: defined. Indeed, $F_i\sim \ln(p_T)/p_T^2$ at high $p_T$ , so $\la p_T^2\ra$ is

749: divergent and depends on the upper cutoff.

750: 

751: Instead, one should compare with data the $p_T$ dependence. Our results for the

752: $p_T$-distribution of the FF, Eq.~(\ref{860}), is depicted in Fig.~\ref{pt} for

753: several values of $z$.

754:  \begin{figure}[htb]

755:  \includegraphics[width=7cm]{pt-data.eps}

756:  \caption{\label{pt} The transverse momentum dependent FF,

757: $dD_q^\pi(z)/dp_T^2$, calculated with Eq.~(\ref{860}) and the Model~1

758: for the production of direct pions. Solid, dashed and dotted curves are

759: calculated at $z=0.75,\ 0.85$ and $0.95$ respectively. Data from

760: \cite{emc} at $W^2>350\GeV^2$ are renormalized for a better

761: comparison with our results.}

762:  \end{figure}

763:  

764: It might be too early to compare these results with data, since we did not

765: include yet the gluon radiation, intrinsic motion of quarks in the

766: target, and decays of heavier mesons. Nevertheless it is useful to check 

767: whether the calculated 

768: $p_T$

769: dependence is in a reasonable accord to data. Notice that the data

770: depicted in Fig.~\ref{pt} are integrated over a rather large $z$-bin,

771: $0.4<z<1$. The latter causes a considerable mismatch in normalization (see

772: Fig.~\ref{pi-rho}), so we renormalized the data \cite{emc} to be able to

773: compare the shapes, which then are in reasonable agreement.

774: 

775: \section{Higher twist terms}\label{ht}

776: 

777: The last term, in square brackets in Eq.~(\ref{860}), is a higher

778: twist effect. It does not vanish at $z\to1$, but is suppressed by

779: powers of $Q$. We neglected corrections of the order of $\la

780: p_T^2\ra/(zQ^2)$, which are important only at small $z$.

781: 

782: This higher twist term breaks down the universality of the

783: fragmentation function, since the factor $\epsilon$ depends on the

784: process. For $e^+e^-$ annihilation it is given by,

785:  \beq

786: \epsilon(l\bar l\to\pi\bar q_1q_4)=

787: \frac{sin^2\theta}{1+cos^2\theta}\,,

788: \label{980}

789:  \eeq

790:  where $\theta$ is the angle between the direction of $l\bar l$ collision and

791: momentum $\vec p_1$ in the c.m. frame.

792: 

793: For deep-inelastic scattering it reads,

794:  \beq

795: \epsilon(lq_1\to l'q_4\pi)=\frac{1-y}{2(1-y)+y^2}\,,

796: \label{1000}

797:  \eeq

798:  where $y=q_+/l_+$; $q_\mu$ is 4-momentum of the virtual photon;

799: $l$ is 4-momentum of the initial lepton.

800: 

801: The relative contribution of the higher twist term is,

802:  \beq

803: R_i(z,p_T)=4\epsilon\,

804: \left(\frac{z}{1-z}\right)^2

805: \frac{p_T^2\,G_i^2(z,p_T)}{Q^2\,F_i^2(z,p_T)}\,,

806: \label{1020}

807:  \eeq

808:  where subscript $i$ denotes the number of the model used for the LC pion wave

809: function, and $G_i$, $F_i$ are defined in (\ref{880})-(\ref{900}).

810: 

811: While the relative value of the nonfactorizable higher twist term is

812: expected to be vanishingly small in $l\bar l$ annihilation, it might

813: be a sizeable effect in SIDIS, usually associated with medium to

814: large values of $Q^2$. The relative correction, Eq.~(\ref{1020}), is

815: plotted in Fig.~\ref{h-twist-p} as function of $p_T$, for

816: $Q^2=2.5\GeV^2$ and several fixed values of $z$.

817:  \begin{figure}[htb]

818:  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{h-twist-p.eps}

819:  \caption{\label{h-twist-p} The relative higher twist correction to the FF

820: of a quark in DIS as function of transverse momentum for fixed values of

821: $z=0.75,\ 0.95$, and $Q^2=2.5\GeV^2$. The solid and dashed curves come

822: from calculations with Model~1, Eq.~(\ref{790}). and Model~2,

823: Eq.~(\ref{810}), respectively}

824:  \end{figure}

825:  Solid and dashed curve correspond to the models 1 and 2 for the LC pion

826: wave function, respectively. Although the higher twist term is relatively

827: small for forward fragmentation, it becomes a dominant effect at

828: $p_T^2\gsim 1\GeV^2$.

829: 

830: 

831: 

832: The corresponding higher twist correction to the $p_T$-integrated FF reads,

833:  \beq

834: R_i(z)= 4\epsilon\,\frac{\la p_T^2\ra}{Q^2}\,

835: \left(\frac{z}{1-z}\right)^2

836: \frac{\int_0^\infty dp_T^2\,G_i^2(z,p_T)}

837: {\int_0^\infty dp_T^2\,F_i^2(z,p_T)}\,,

838: \label{1040}

839: \eeq

840:  The factor $\la p_T^2\ra$ is divergent and depends on experimental

841: kinematic cuts. Therefore one should rely on its value specific for each 

842: experiment.

843: 

844: Apparently, a direct way to see the higher twist contribution in data is

845: to study the $Q^2$ behavior of the FF. However, such data at sufficiently

846: large $z$ are not available so far. Therefore, we try to extract the

847: higher twist contribution from the $z$-dependence. To do so we first fit

848: data at moderate values $z<0.65$ where we do not expect a sizeable

849: higher-twist corrections, with the standard parametrization

850: $D_q^\pi(z)=Nz^\alpha(1-z)^\beta$. We use data from the HERMES experiment

851: \cite{hermes}.  We added the statistic and systematic errors in

852: quadratures.  The data are corrected by subtraction of the contribution

853: from diffractive vector mesons, $\gamma^*p\to\pi p$, which is another

854: higher twist contribution (see section \ref{3r-sect}).

855: We found $\alpha=-1.24\pm0.04,\ \beta=1.5\pm0.07,\ N=0.88\pm0.07$.

856: The data divided by this fitted $z-dependence$ are depicted in

857: In Fig.~\ref{ht-hermes} 

858:  \begin{figure}[htb]

859:  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{ht-hermes.eps}

860:  \caption{\label{ht-hermes} Hermes data \cite{hermes} for multiplicity of

861: charged pions produced in DIS on a proton, corrected for decays of vector

862: mesons. The data points are divided by the fit to the data at $z<0.65$

863: (see text). The curve corresponds to $R_1(z)+1$ calculated with

864: Eq.~(\ref{1040}) at $Q^2=2.5\GeV^2$ and $\la p_T^2\ra= 0.25\GeV^2$.}

865:  \end{figure}

866:  We compare this data with the relative contribution of higher twists

867: $R_1(z)$, Eq.~(\ref{1040}), calculated at $Q^2=2.5\GeV^2$ and with the

868: measured value of $\la p_T^2\ra\approx 0.25\GeV^2$ \cite{hermes}. Our

869: results agree with the data reasonable well.

870: 

871: An attempt to see the higher twist effects in nuclear attenuation 

872: data was made in \cite{pg}. They found higher twist corrections of similar 

873: magnitude. 

874: 

875: Notice that other sources of pions, like decays of heavier mesons produced

876: via the same mechanism, are important for leading twist part. However,

877: they also supply the cross section with higher-twist terms. Nevertheless,

878: we assume that these corrections affect the ratio much less than the cross

879: section.

880: 

881: \section{Hints from triple-Regge phenomenology}\label{3r-sect}

882: 

883: The factorized part, Eq.~(\ref{400}), of the cross section of pion

884: production in $l\bar l$ annihilation, is the same as in

885: deep-inelastic scattering (DIS), where it can be compared with the

886: expectations of the triple-Regge description, illustrated in

887: Fig.~\ref{3r}.

888:  \begin{figure}[htb]

889:  \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{3r.eps}

890: \caption{\label{3r} Virtual photoproduction of a pion via Reggeon

891: exchange. The projectile quark from the photon fluctuation picks up

892: an antiquark, produced either from the vacuum or perturbatively (see

893: Fig.~\ref{eebar}), and they form a pion.}

894:  \end{figure}

895:  The inclusive cross section at fixed $z$ is energy independent (Feynman

896: scaling), and at fixed energy and $1-z\ll1$ depends on $z$ as,

897:  \beq

898: \frac{d\sigma(\gamma^*p\to\pi X)}{dz\,dp_T^2} \propto

899: (1-z)^n\,,

900: \label{462}

901:  \eeq

902:  where $z$ equals to Feynman $x_F$ in the triple-Regge kinematic region,

903:  \beq

904: z\approx x_F=\left(1-\frac{M_X^2}{s}\right)(1-x_{Bj})\,,

905: \label{463}

906:  \eeq

907:  and $x_{Bj}$ is the Bjorken variable.

908: 

909: The exponent in (\ref{462}) is related to the parameters of the

910: Regge trajectories involved,

911:  \beq

912: n=1-2\alpha_\Reg(p_T^2)\,.

913: \label{464}

914:  \eeq

915:  Here $\alpha_\Reg(p_T^2)$ is the trajectory of Reggeon $\Reg$.

916: The rapidity interval, $\Delta y \approx -\ln(1-z)$, covered by the

917: Reggeon is not large for the values of $z\sim 0.9$ under discussion.

918: Therefore the pion Regge pole should dominate, since it has large

919: coupling to nucleons. In this case, $\alpha_\pi(p_T^2)\approx

920: -\alpha^\prime_\pi p_T^2$, where $\alpha^\prime_\pi\approx

921: 1\GeV^{-2}$. Thus,

922:  \beq

923: n_\pi = 2\alpha^\prime_\pi\,\la p_T^2\ra\approx 1.5\,.

924: \label{466}

925:  \eeq

926:  Here we rely on the value $\la p_T^2\ra\approx 0.25\GeV^2$ measured in

927: both HERMES \cite{hermes} and EMC \cite{emc} experiments. The value

928: of the exponent given in Eq.~(\ref{466}) agrees quite well with

929: data. Although our calculation confirmed the value $n=2$ found in

930: \cite{berger}, the inclusion of gluon radiation reduces the exponent

931: $n$ down to the value observed in data \cite{kpps}.

932: 

933: Notice that the $z$-dependence presented in

934: Eqs.~(\ref{462})-(\ref{464}) changes at very small $1-z\ll1$, and

935: becomes rather flat. Indeed, we assumed that the invariant mass

936: squared of the excitation $X$ is sufficiently large, $s(1-z)\gg

937: m_N^2$ for the Pomeron to dominate in the bottom leg of the triple

938: Regge graph in Fig.~\ref{3r}. However, this condition breaks down at

939: very small $1-z$ and Reggeons with $\alpha_\Reg(0)=1/2$ dominate in

940: the bottom leg. Another assumption we have made, pion dominance in

941: the $t$-channel exchange, is also violated when the rapidity

942: interval $\ln(1-z)$ becomes very large. Then Reggeons with a higher

943: intercept $\alpha_\Reg(0)=1/2$ become the dominant contribution.

944: Thus, the end-point behavior has the same power dependence,

945: Eq.~(\ref{462}), but with a different exponent,

946:  \beq

947: n(z\to1)=\alpha_\Reg(0)-2\alpha_\Reg(p_T^2)\approx

948: -{1\over2}+2\alpha^\prime_\Reg\,\la p_T^2\ra

949: \approx 0\,.

950: \label{468}

951:  \eeq

952: 

953:  Thus we arrive at the remarkable conclusion that the FF, which falls

954: steeply with $z$, levels off at very small $1-z\ll1$. This behavior,

955: dictated by the triple-Regge formalism, is more general than

956: perturbative calculations. One may wonder why this end-point feature

957: is absent in our calculations. What has been missed?  Notice that we

958: did not care about the fate of the recoil quark $q_4$ in

959: Fig.~\ref{eebar}, which was justified by the condition of

960: completeness. However, if the target excitation $X$ has a small

961: invariant mass, it affects the probabilities of different final

962: states of $q_4$.

963: 

964: The triple-Regge approach also indicates as an additional source of

965: a higher twist contribution, which is specific for semi-inclusive

966: DIS (SIDIS), the diffractive inclusive process $\gamma^*p\to\rho X$.

967: The $p_T$-integrated cross section corresponding to the

968: triple-Pomeron graph can be presented in the form,

969:  \beqn

970: \frac{d\sigma(\gamma^*p\to\rho X)}{dz} &=&

971: \frac{G^{pp}_{3\Pom}(0)/2\alpha_\Pom^\prime}

972: {(1-z)|\ln(1-z)|}\,

973: \frac{16\pi}{(\sigma_{tot}^{pp})^2}

974: \nonumber\\ &\times&

975: \left.\frac{d\sigma(\gamma^*p\to\rho p)}

976: {dp_T^2}\right|_{p_T=0}\,,

977: \label{1120}

978:  \eeqn

979:  where $G^{pp}_{3\Pom}(0)=3.2\mb/\GeV^2$ is the effective triple-Pomeron

980: coupling, extracted from the fit \cite{kklp} to data on $pp\to pX$.

981: Here we neglected the transverse size of the $\bar qq$ dipole

982: projected to $\rho$, since it is small, $1/Q^2$, and the $p_T$

983: dependence of the bare triple Pomeron vertex, since it is very weak

984: \cite{spots}. All the cross sections in (\ref{1120}) should be taken

985: at a c.m. energy squared $s^\prime=s_0/(1-z)$, where $s_0=1\GeV^2$.

986: 

987: The $z$-distribution of the produced $\rho^0$-mesons strongly peaks

988: at $z\to1$ (as any diffractive process should) and their decays feed

989: the effective FF $D_q^\pi(z)$,

990:  \beq

991: \left[\Delta D_{u}^{\rho/\pi^+}(z)\right]_{diff}=

992: \frac{1}{\sigma^{\gamma^*p}_{tot}}

993: \int\limits_{z_{min}}^1

994: \frac{dz'}{\sqrt{1-\xi}}\,

995: \frac{d\sigma(\gamma^*p\to\rho^0 X)}{z'dz'}\,.

996: \label{1140}

997:  \eeq

998:  Here $\xi$ and $z_{min}$ are defined in (\ref{960}). Due to color

999: transparency the amplitude of $rho$ production is inversely proportional

1000: to $Q^2$, therefore $\sigma(\gamma^*p\to\rho^0 X)\propto 1/Q^4$. On the

1001: other hand, the total virtual photoabsorption cross section is

1002: $\sigma^{\gamma^*p}_{tot}\propto 1/Q^2$ (Bjorken scaling). Therefore, the

1003: diffractive contribution to the effective FF $q\to\pi$ is a higher twist

1004: effect, $\left[\Delta D_{u}^{\rho/\pi^+}(z)\right]_{diff}\propto 1/Q^2$.

1005: 

1006: The elastic production of vector mesons, $\gamma^* p\to Vp$

1007: certainly also contributes to inclusive pion production, and is also

1008: a higher twist effect. It can be evaluated using Eq.~(\ref{1140})

1009: and a delta function for the $z'$-distribution of produced vector

1010: mesons. However, in some cases, like in \cite{hermes}, this

1011: contribution has been removed from data.

1012: 

1013: 

1014: \section{Summary}

1015: 

1016: We performed calculations for the Berger perturbative mechanism

1017: \cite{berger} of quark fragmentation into leading pions, keeping all

1018: the sub-leading terms in powers of $(1-z)$ and all the coefficients.

1019: Our results can be summarized as follows.

1020: 

1021: \begin{itemize}

1022: 

1023:  \item We performed a full calculation of the quark FF including higher

1024: twist terms within the Berger approximation. However, we concluded

1025: that the approximation of a nonrelativistic pion wave function is

1026: unrealistic and brings too much uncertainty to the results of the

1027: calculation.

1028: 

1029: \item

1030:  We projected the produced $\bar qq$ pair distribution amplitude to the

1031: light-cone pion wave function. For the latter we employed two

1032: popular models: (i) the standard asymptotic shape (\ref{790}); (ii)

1033: Model of Chernyak-Zhitnitsky (\ref{810}). Both models lead to a

1034: $z$-dependence quite different from the one inferred from data. Only

1035: at $z\geq 0.95$ our calculations agree reasonably with data (both

1036: the shape and value), but greatly underestimate data at smaller

1037: values of $z$.

1038: 

1039: \item

1040:  Remarkably, the main amount of pions produced in quark fragmentation are

1041: not produced directly, except the most energetic ones with $z>0.95$.

1042: This fact should be taken into account in models employing

1043: perturbative hadronization \cite{knph}

1044: 

1045: 

1046: \item

1047:  Searching for ways of improving the description of data we added

1048: pions originated from decay of light vector mesons $\rho$ and

1049: $\omega$. Although this contribution pulled up the production of

1050: pions at medium to large $z$, apparently some contributions are

1051: still missing. That may be production and decays of heavier mesons,

1052: which are difficult to evaluate.

1053: 

1054: \item

1055:  We also performed a full calculation for the higher twist term originated

1056: from the longitudinal current contribution. It overcomes the leading twist

1057: term at large $z$ and/or large transverse momenta.

1058: 

1059: \item

1060:  A new higher twist contribution to pion production is found. It is

1061: related to decays of diffractively produced vector mesons.

1062: 

1063: \end{itemize}

1064: 

1065: It worth reminding that our results for the FF at large $z>0.9$

1066: should be compared with a phenomenological one with precaution.

1067: First of all, data at such large $z$ are scarce and different

1068: parametrizations \cite{florian,bkk,kkp} differ from each other

1069: considerably. Second of all, our FF is calculated in the Born

1070: approximation. Evolution (gluon radiation) may considerably change

1071: the shape of the $z$-dependence \cite{kpps}.

1072: 

1073: 

1074: \begin{acknowledgments}

1075: 

1076: We are grateful to Delia Hasch, Achim Hillenbrand and Pasquale Di Nezza

1077: for providing us with the preliminary HERMES data. This work was supported

1078: in part by Fondecyt (Chile) grants 1050519 and 1050589, and by DFG

1079: (Germany)  grant PI182/3-1.

1080: 

1081: \end{acknowledgments}

1082: 

1083: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1084: 

1085:  \def\appendix{\par

1086:  \setcounter{section}{0}

1087: \setcounter{subsection}{0}

1088:  \def\thesection{Appendix \Alph{section}}

1089: \def\thesubsection{\Alph{section}.\arabic{subsection}}

1090: \def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}

1091: \setcounter{equation}{0}}

1092: 

1093: 

1094:  \appendix

1095: 

1096: \section{Dipole form of the pion LC wave function}

1097: \label{dipole} \setcounter{equation}{0}

1098: 

1099:  \begin{figure}[h]

1100:  \includegraphics[width=6cm]{pole-dipole.eps}

1101:  \caption{\label{pole-dipole} Fragmentation functions for direct pions

1102: calculated with pole, Eq.~(\ref{740})  (solid curves), and dipole,

1103: Eq.~(\ref{A740}) (dashed curves), parametrization for the transverse

1104: momentum dependent part of the LC pion wave function. Labels $1$ and $2$

1105: indicate the model used for the longitudinal momentum dependence of the

1106: pion wave function.}

1107:  \end{figure}

1108: 

1109: To see the sensitivity to the form $r$-dependence of the LC

1110: wave function of the pion we also performed calculations with the dipole

1111: parametrization of transverse momentum dependent part of the LC wave

1112: function $\Psi_\pi(\alpha,\vec k)\propto

1113: \left[\frac{k^2}{\alpha(1-\alpha)}+\kappa^2\right]^{-2}$. In impact parameter

1114: representation it takes the form (compare with (\ref{740})),

1115:  \beq

1116: \Psi_\pi(\alpha,\vec r) =

1117: N\,\phi(\alpha)\sqrt{\alpha(1-\alpha)}\,

1118: rK_1(\kappa r\sqrt{\alpha(1-\alpha)}),

1119: \label{A740}

1120:  \eeq

1121:  In this case we can still employ Eq.~(\ref{860}) for the fragmentation

1122: function, but with a new form of function $F_i(z,p_T)$,

1123:  \beqn

1124: &&F_i(z,p)=\int\limits_0^1 d\alpha\,

1125: \frac{(1-\alpha)\phi_i(\alpha)}{a_i^2-b_i}\

1126: \frac{1+(1-\alpha)z}

1127: {1-\alpha z}

1128: \nonumber\\ &\times&

1129: \left[a_i-2d_i+\frac{d_i(a-2e_i)}{\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}

1130: \ln\left(\frac{a_i+\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}

1131: {a_i-\sqrt{a_i^2-b_i}}\right)\right]\,,

1132: \nonumber\\

1133: \label{A880}

1134:  \eeqn

1135:  where $d_i=\kappa_i^2\alpha(1-\alpha)(1-z)^2$; $e_i=m_q^2(1-\alpha z)^2$.

1136: 

1137: Parameters $C_i$ and $\kappa_i$ in (\ref{860}) also get new values,

1138: 

1139: Model~1: asymptotic shape,

1140:  \beqn

1141: N_1^2&=&\frac{9\kappa_1^2}{2\pi};

1142: \nonumber\\

1143: \kappa_i^2&=&\frac{36}{5\la r_{ch}^2\ra};

1144: \nonumber\\

1145: C_1&=&3\,.

1146: \label{A900}

1147:  \eeqn

1148: 

1149: Model~2: Chernyak-Zhitnitsky shape,

1150:  \beqn

1151: N_1^2&=&\frac{105\kappa_2^2}{2\pi};

1152: \nonumber\\

1153: \kappa_i^2&=&\frac{108}{5\la r_{ch}^2\ra};

1154: \nonumber\\

1155: C_2&=&35\,.

1156: \label{A920}

1157:  \eeqn

1158: 

1159: The results of numerical calculations are depicted in Fig.~\ref{pole-dipole}

1160: in comparison with calculations performed with the pole parametrization for the

1161: pion wave function.

1162: 

1163: 

1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1165: 

1166: 

1167: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1168: 

1169: \bibitem{berger}

1170: E.~L.~Berger,

1171:   %``Quark Structure Functions Of Mesons, Fragmentation Functions, Higher Twist

1172:   %Effects In QCD, Deep Inelastic Scattering, And The Drell-Yan Process,''

1173: Z.\ Phys.\  C {\bf 4}, 289 (1980);

1174:   %``Higher Twist Effects In Deep Inelastic Scattering,''

1175: Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 89} (1980) 241.

1176: 

1177: \bibitem{cnn} A.~Casher, H.~Neuberger and S.~Nussinov,

1178:   %``Chromoelectric Flux Tube Model Of Particle Production,''

1179:  Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 20}, 179 (1979).

1180: 

1181: \bibitem{kn} B.~Z.~Kopeliovich and F.~Niedermayer,

1182:   %``Color Dynamics In Large P(T) Hadron Production On Nuclei,''

1183:   Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 42}, 504 (1985)

1184:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 42}, 797 (1985)].

1185: 

1186: \bibitem{kpps} B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, H.~J.~Pirner, I.~K.~Potashnikova and

1187: I.~Schmidt,

1188:   %``Jet lag effect and leading hadron production,''

1189:   arXiv:0706.3059 [hep-ph].

1190: 

1191: \bibitem{nemenov}

1192: L.L.~Nemenov,

1193: %``Elementary Relativistic Atoms,''

1194: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 41}, 629 (1985)

1195: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 41}, 980 (1985)].

1196: 

1197: \bibitem{dijet}

1198:   V.~M.~Braun, D.~Y.~Ivanov, A.~Schafer and L.~Szymanowski,

1199:   %``Towards the theory of coherent hard dijet production on hadrons and

1200:   %nuclei,''

1201: Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 638}, 111 (2002)

1202: 

1203: \bibitem{asymp} G.P.~Lepage and S.J.~Brodsky, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 87}

1204: (1979)  359; Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43} (1979) 545,1625 (E); Phys. Rev. D

1205: {\bf 22} (1980) 2157; S.J. Brodsky, G.P.  Lepage and A.A. Zaidi, Phys.

1206: Rev. D{\bf 23} (1981) 1152.

1207: 

1208: \bibitem{radyushkin} A.V. Efremov and A.V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B{\bf

1209: 94} (1980) 245.

1210: 

1211: \bibitem{ch-zh} V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,

1212:   %``Asymptotic Behavior Of Exclusive Processes In QCD,''

1213:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 112}, 173 (1984).

1214: 

1215: \bibitem{florian}

1216:   D.~de Florian, R.~Sassot and M.~Stratmann,

1217:   %``Global analysis of fragmentation functions for pions and kaons and their

1218:   %uncertainties,''

1219:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 75}, 114010 (2007).

1220: 

1221: \bibitem{emc} J.~Ashman {\it et al.}  [European Muon Collaboration],

1222:   %``Forward produced hadrons in mu p and mu d scattering and investigation of

1223:   %the charge structure of the nucleon,''

1224:   Z.\ Phys.\  C {\bf 52}, 361 (1991).

1225: 

1226: \bibitem{hermes} M. Hartig, A. Hillenbrand et al. [HERMES collaboration]

1227: Proceedings of the 40th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Hadronic

1228: Interactions, La Thuile, Aosta Valley, Italy, 12-19 Mar 2005.

1229:   e-Print: hep-ex/0505086.

1230: 

1231: \bibitem{pg} H.J.~Pirner and D.~Gr\"unewald,

1232: Nucl. Phys. A{\bf 782}, 158 (2007).

1233: 

1234: \bibitem{kklp}

1235: Yu.~M.~Kazarinov, B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, L.~I.~Lapidus and I.~K.~Potashnikova,

1236:   %``Triple Regge Phenomenology In The Reaction P + P $\to$ P + X,''

1237: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 43}, 598 (1976)

1238: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 70}, 1152 (1976)].

1239: 

1240: \bibitem{spots}

1241: B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, I.~K.~Potashnikova, B.~Povh and I.~Schmidt,

1242:   %``Evidences for two scales in hadrons,''

1243: Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 76}, 094020 (2007)

1244: 

1245: \bibitem{kkp} B.A.~Kniehl, G.~Kramer, B.~P\"otter, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 597}

1246: (2001) 337.

1247: 

1248: \bibitem{bkk} J.~Binnewies, B.A.~Kniehl and G.~Kramer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf

1249: 52} (1995) 4947.

1250: 

1251: \bibitem{knph} B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Nemchik, E.~Predazzi and

1252: A.~Hayashigaki,

1253:   %``Nuclear hadronization: Within or without?,''

1254: Nucl.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 740}, 211 (2004)

1255: 

1256: 

1257: 

1258: \end{thebibliography}

1259: \end{document}

1260: