1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% file template.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %

3: % This is a template file for The European Physical Journal

4: %

5: % Copy it to a new file with a new name and use it as the basis

6: % for your article

7: %

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Springer-Verlag %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: %

10: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps}

11: %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0

12: %%CreationDate: Mon Jul 13 16:51:17 1992

13: %%DocumentFonts: (atend)

14: %%Pages: 0 1

15: %%BoundingBox: 72 31 601 342

16: %%EndComments

17: 

18: gsave

19: 72 31 moveto

20: 72 342 lineto

21: 601 342 lineto

22: 601 31 lineto

23: 72 31 lineto

24: showpage

25: grestore

26: %%Trailer

27: %%DocumentFonts: Helvetica

28: \end{filecontents}

29: %

30: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}

31: % Remove option referee for final version

32: %

33: % Remove any % below to load the required packages

34: %\usepackage{latexsym}

35: \usepackage{graphics,graphicx}

36: \usepackage{rotating}

37: % etc

38: %

39: \begin{document}

40: \hugehead

41: %

42: \title{Exclusive $\rho^0$ electroproduction on the proton at CLAS}

43: 

44: \newcommand*{\ANL}{Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois 60439}

45: \institute{\ANL}

46: \newcommand*{\ASU}{Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1504}

47: \institute{\ASU}

48: \newcommand*{\UCLA}{University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California  90095-1547}

49: \institute{\UCLA}

50: \newcommand*{\CSU}{California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA 90747}

51: \institute{\CSU}

52: \newcommand*{\CMU}{Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213}

53: \institute{\CMU}

54: \newcommand*{\CUA}{Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 20064}

55: \institute{\CUA}

56: \newcommand*{\SACLAY}{CEA-Saclay, Service de Physique Nucl\'eaire, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France}

57: \institute{\SACLAY}

58: \newcommand*{\CNU}{Christopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia 23606}

59: \institute{\CNU}

60: \newcommand*{\UCONN}{University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269}

61: \institute{\UCONN}

62: \newcommand*{\ECOSSEE}{Edinburgh University, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom}

63: \institute{\ECOSSEE}

64: \newcommand*{\EMMY}{Emmy-Noether Foundation, Germany}

65: \institute{\EMMY}

66: \newcommand*{\FU}{Fairfield University, Fairfield CT 06824}

67: \institute{\FU}

68: \newcommand*{\FIU}{Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199}

69: \institute{\FIU}

70: \newcommand*{\FSU}{Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306}

71: \institute{\FSU}

72: \newcommand*{\GWU}{The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052}

73: \institute{\GWU}

74: \newcommand*{\ECOSSEG}{University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom}

75: \institute{\ECOSSEG}

76: \newcommand*{\ISU}{Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho 83209}

77: \institute{\ISU}

78: \newcommand*{\INFNFR}{INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, 00044 Frascati, Italy}

79: \institute{\INFNFR}

80: \newcommand*{\INFNGE}{INFN, Sezione di Genova, 16146 Genova, Italy}

81: \institute{\INFNGE}

82: \newcommand*{\ORSAY}{Institut de Physique Nucleaire ORSAY, Orsay, France}

83: \institute{\ORSAY}

84: \newcommand*{\BONN}{Institute f\"{u}r Strahlen und Kernphysik, Universit\"{a}t Bonn, Germany}

85: \institute{\BONN}

86: \newcommand*{\ITEP}{Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, 117259, Russia}

87: \institute{\ITEP}

88: \newcommand*{\JMU}{James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807}

89: \institute{\JMU}

90: \newcommand*{\KYUNGPOOK}{Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, Republic of Korea}

91: \institute{\KYUNGPOOK}

92: \newcommand*{\MIT}{Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts  02139-4307}

93: \institute{\MIT}

94: \newcommand*{\UMASS}{University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts  01003}

95: \institute{\UMASS}

96: \newcommand*{\MOSCOW}{Moscow State University, General Nuclear Physics Institute, 119899 Moscow, Russia}

97: \institute{\MOSCOW}

98: \newcommand*{\UNH}{University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3568}

99: \institute{\UNH}

100: \newcommand*{\NSU}{Norfolk State University, Norfolk, Virginia 23504}

101: \institute{\NSU}

102: \newcommand*{\OHIOU}{Ohio University, Athens, Ohio  45701}

103: \institute{\OHIOU}

104: \newcommand*{\ODU}{Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23529}

105: \institute{\ODU}

106: \newcommand*{\PITT}{University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260}

107: \institute{\PITT}

108: \newcommand*{\RPI}{Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 12180-3590}

109: \institute{\RPI}

110: \newcommand*{\RICE}{Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005-1892}

111: \institute{\RICE}

112: \newcommand*{\URICH}{University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173}

113: \institute{\URICH}

114: \newcommand*{\SCAROLINA}{University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208}

115: \institute{\SCAROLINA}

116: \newcommand*{\JLAB}{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, Virginia 23606}

117: \institute{\JLAB}

118: \newcommand*{\UNIONC}{Union College, Schenectady, NY 12308}

119: \institute{\UNIONC}

120: \newcommand*{\NONE}{unknown}

121: \institute{\NONE}

122: \newcommand*{\VT}{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia   24061-0435}

123: \institute{\VT}

124: \newcommand*{\VIRGINIA}{University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901}

125: \institute{\VIRGINIA}

126: \newcommand*{\WM}{College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795}

127: \institute{\WM}

128: \newcommand*{\YEREVAN}{Yerevan Physics Institute, 375036 Yerevan, Armenia}

129: \institute{\YEREVAN}

130: \newcommand*{\VAL}{Universidad T\'ecnica Federico Santa Mar\'{\i}a,

131: Casilla 110-V, Valpara\'\i so, Chile}

132: \institute{\VAL}

133: \newcommand*{\NOWOHIOU}{Ohio University, Athens, Ohio  45701}

134: \newcommand*{\NOWJLAB}{Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, Virginia 23606}

135: \newcommand*{\NOWUNH}{University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3568}

136: \newcommand*{\NOWCNU}{Christopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia 23606}

137: \newcommand*{\NOWGWU}{The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052}

138: \newcommand*{\NOWUMASS}{University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts  01003}

139: \newcommand*{\NOWMIT}{Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts  02139-4307}

140: \newcommand*{\NOWURICH}{University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173}

141: \newcommand*{\NOWECOSSEE}{Edinburgh University, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom}

142: 

143: \author{S.A.~Morrow~\inst{1,2}

144: \and M.~Guidal~\inst{1}\footnote{\textit{Corresponding author:} guidal@ipno.in2p3.fr} 

145: \and M.~Gar\c con~\inst{2}

146: \and J.M.~Laget~\inst{2,3}

147: \and E.S.~Smith~\inst{3}

148: \and G.~Adams~\inst{4} 

149: \and K.P.~Adhikari~\inst{5}

150: \and M.~Aghasyan~\inst{6}

151: \and M.J.~Amaryan~\inst{5}

152: \and M.~Anghinolfi~\inst{7}

153: \and G.~Asryan~\inst{8}

154: \and G.~Audit~\inst{2}

155: \and H.~Avakian~\inst{3}

156: \and H.~Bagdasaryan~\inst{8,5}

157: \and N.~Baillie~\inst{9}

158: \and J.P.~Ball~\inst{10}

159: \and N.A.~Baltzell~\inst{11}

160: \and S.~Barrow~\inst{12}

161: \and M.~Battaglieri~\inst{7}

162: \and I.~Bedlinskiy~\inst{13}

163: \and M.~Bektasoglu~\inst{14,5}

164: \and M.~Bellis~\inst{15}

165: \and N.~Benmouna~\inst{16}

166: \and B.L.~Berman~\inst{16}

167: \and A.S.~Biselli~\inst{17}

168: \and L.~Blaszczyk~\inst{18}

169: \and B.E.~Bonner~\inst{19}

170: \and C.~Bookwalter~\inst{18}

171: \and S.~Bouchigny~\inst{1}

172: \and S.~Boiarinov~\inst{13,3}

173: \and R.~Bradford~\inst{15}

174: \and D.~Branford~\inst{20}

175: \and W.J.~Briscoe~\inst{16}

176: \and W.K.~Brooks~\inst{3,21}

177: \and S.~B\"{u}ltmann~\inst{5}

178: \and V.D.~Burkert~\inst{3}

179: \and C.~Butuceanu~\inst{9}

180: \and J.R.~Calarco~\inst{22}

181: \and S.L.~Careccia~\inst{5}

182: \and D.S.~Carman~\inst{3}

183: \and B.~Carnahan~\inst{23}

184: \and L.~Casey~\inst{23}

185: \and A.~Cazes~\inst{11}

186: \and S.~Chen~\inst{18}

187: \and L.~Cheng~\inst{23}

188: \and P.L.~Cole~\inst{3,24}

189: \and P.~Collins~\inst{10}

190: \and P.~Coltharp~\inst{12}

191: \and D.~Cords~\inst{3}

192: \and P.~Corvisiero~\inst{7}

193: \and D.~Crabb~\inst{25}

194: \and H.~Crannell~\inst{23}

195: \and V.~Crede~\inst{18}

196: \and J.P.~Cummings~\inst{4}

197: \and D.~Dale~\inst{24}

198: \and N.~Dashyan~\inst{8}

199: \and R.~De~Masi~\inst{1,2}

200: \and R.~De~Vita~\inst{7}

201: \and E.~De~Sanctis~\inst{6}

202: \and P.V.~Degtyarenko~\inst{3}

203: \and H.~Denizli~\inst{26}

204: \and L.~Dennis~\inst{18}

205: \and A.~Deur~\inst{3}

206: \and S.~Dhamija~\inst{27}

207: \and K.V.~Dharmawardane~\inst{5}

208: \and K.S.~Dhuga~\inst{16}

209: \and R.~Dickson~\inst{15}

210: \and J.-P.~Didelez~\inst{1}

211: \and C.~Djalali~\inst{11}

212: \and G.E.~Dodge~\inst{5}

213: \and D.~Doughty~\inst{28}

214: \and M.~Dugger~\inst{10}

215: \and S.~Dytman~\inst{26}

216: \and O.P.~Dzyubak~\inst{11}

217: \and H.~Egiyan~\inst{22,9,3}

218: \and K.S.~Egiyan~\inst{8}

219: \and L.~El~Fassi~\inst{29}

220: \and L.~Elouadrhiri~\inst{3}

221: \and P.~Eugenio~\inst{18}

222: \and R.~Fatemi~\inst{25}

223: \and G.~Fedotov~\inst{30}

224: \and R.~Fersch~\inst{9}

225: \and R.J.~Feuerbach~\inst{15}

226: \and T.A.~Forest~\inst{24}

227: \and A.~Fradi~\inst{1}

228: \and G.~Gavalian~\inst{22,5}

229: \and N.~Gevorgyan~\inst{8}

230: \and G.P.~Gilfoyle~\inst{31}

231: \and K.L.~Giovanetti~\inst{32}

232: \and F.X.~Girod~\inst{3,2}

233: \and J.T.~Goetz~\inst{33}

234: \and W.~Gohn~\inst{34}

235: \and C.I.O.~Gordon~\inst{35}

236: \and R.W.~Gothe~\inst{11}

237: \and L.~Graham~\inst{11}

238: \and K.A.~Griffioen~\inst{9}

239: \and M.~Guillo~\inst{11}

240: \and N.~Guler~\inst{5}

241: \and L.~Guo~\inst{3}

242: \and V.~Gyurjyan~\inst{3}

243: \and C.~Hadjidakis~\inst{1}

244: \and K.~Hafidi~\inst{29}

245: \and H.~Hakobyan~\inst{8}

246: \and C.~Hanretty~\inst{18}

247: \and J.~Hardie~\inst{28,3}

248: \and N.~Hassall~\inst{35}

249: \and D.~Heddle~\inst{28,3}

250: \and F.W.~Hersman~\inst{22}

251: \and K.~Hicks~\inst{14}

252: \and I.~Hleiqawi~\inst{14}

253: \and M.~Holtrop~\inst{22}

254: \and E.~Hourany~\inst{1}

255: \and C.E.~Hyde-Wright~\inst{5}

256: \and Y.~Ilieva~\inst{16}

257: \and D.G.~Ireland~\inst{35}

258: \and B.S.~Ishkhanov~\inst{30}

259: \and E.L.~Isupov~\inst{30}

260: \and M.M.~Ito~\inst{3}

261: \and D.~Jenkins~\inst{36}

262: \and H.S.~Jo~\inst{1}

263: \and J.R.~Johnstone~\inst{35}

264: \and K.~Joo~\inst{34,3}

265: \and H.G.~Juengst~\inst{5}

266: \and N.~Kalantarians~\inst{5}

267: \and D. ~Keller~\inst{14}

268: \and J.D.~Kellie~\inst{35}

269: \and M.~Khandaker~\inst{37}

270: \and P.~Khetarpal~\inst{4}

271: \and W.~Kim~\inst{38}

272: \and A.~Klein~\inst{5}

273: \and F.J.~Klein~\inst{23}

274: \and A.V.~Klimenko~\inst{5}

275: \and M.~Kossov~\inst{13}

276: \and L.H.~Kramer~\inst{27,3}

277: \and V.~Kubarovsky~\inst{3}

278: \and J.~Kuhn~\inst{4,15}

279: \and S.E.~Kuhn~\inst{5}

280: \and S.V.~Kuleshov~\inst{13,21}

281: \and V.~Kuznetsov~\inst{38}

282: \and J.~Lachniet~\inst{15,5}

283: \and J.~Langheinrich~\inst{11}

284: \and D.~Lawrence~\inst{39}

285: \and Ji~Li~\inst{4}

286: \and K.~Livingston~\inst{35}

287: \and H.Y.~Lu~\inst{11}

288: \and M.~MacCormick~\inst{1}

289: \and C.~Marchand~\inst{2}

290: \and N.~Markov~\inst{34}

291: \and P.~Mattione~\inst{19}

292: \and S.~McAleer~\inst{18}

293: \and M.~McCracken~\inst{15}

294: \and B.~McKinnon~\inst{35}

295: \and J.W.C.~McNabb~\inst{15}

296: \and B.A.~Mecking~\inst{3}

297: \and S.~Mehrabyan~\inst{26}

298: \and J.J.~Melone~\inst{35}

299: \and M.D.~Mestayer~\inst{3}

300: \and C.A.~Meyer~\inst{15}

301: \and T.~Mibe~\inst{14}

302: \and K.~Mikhailov~\inst{13}

303: \and R.~Minehart~\inst{25}

304: \and M.~Mirazita~\inst{6}

305: \and R.~Miskimen~\inst{39}

306: \and V.~Mokeev~\inst{30,3}

307: \and L.~Morand~\inst{2}

308: \and B.~Moreno~\inst{1}

309: \and K.~Moriya~\inst{15}

310: \and M.~Moteabbed~\inst{27}

311: \and J.~Mueller~\inst{26}

312: \and E.~Munevar~\inst{16}

313: \and G.S.~Mutchler~\inst{19}

314: \and P.~Nadel-Turonski~\inst{16}

315: \and R.~Nasseripour~\inst{16,27,11}

316: \and S.~Niccolai~\inst{1}

317: \and G.~Niculescu~\inst{32,14}

318: \and I.~Niculescu~\inst{32,16,3}

319: \and B.B.~Niczyporuk~\inst{3}

320: \and M.R. ~Niroula~\inst{5}

321: \and R.A.~Niyazov~\inst{4,5}

322: \and M.~Nozar~\inst{3}

323: \and G.V.~O'Rielly~\inst{16}

324: \and M.~Osipenko~\inst{7,30}

325: \and A.I.~Ostrovidov~\inst{12}

326: \and K.~Park~\inst{38,11}

327: \and S.~Park~\inst{18}

328: \and E.~Pasyuk~\inst{10}

329: \and C.~Paterson~\inst{35}

330: \and S.~Anefalos~Pereira~\inst{6}

331: \and S.A.~Philips~\inst{16}

332: \and J.~Pierce~\inst{25}

333: \and N.~Pivnyuk~\inst{13}

334: \and D.~Pocanic~\inst{25}

335: \and O.~Pogorelko~\inst{13}

336: \and E.~Polli~\inst{6}

337: \and I.~Popa~\inst{16}

338: \and S.~Pozdniakov~\inst{13}

339: \and B.M.~Preedom~\inst{11}

340: \and J.W.~Price~\inst{40}

341: \and S.~Procureur~\inst{2}

342: \and Y.~Prok~\inst{25,28,3}

343: \and D.~Protopopescu~\inst{22,35}

344: \and L.M.~Qin~\inst{5}

345: \and B.A.~Raue~\inst{27,3}

346: \and G.~Riccardi~\inst{18}

347: \and G.~Ricco~\inst{7}

348: \and M.~Ripani~\inst{7}

349: \and B.G.~Ritchie~\inst{10}

350: \and G.~Rosner~\inst{35}

351: \and P.~Rossi~\inst{6}

352: \and P.D.~Rubin~\inst{31}

353: \and F.~Sabati\'e~\inst{2}

354: \and M.S.~Saini~\inst{18}

355: \and J.~Salamanca~\inst{24}

356: \and C.~Salgado~\inst{37}

357: \and J.P.~Santoro~\inst{23}

358: \and V.~Sapunenko~\inst{3}

359: \and D.~Schott~\inst{27}

360: \and R.A.~Schumacher~\inst{15}

361: \and V.S.~Serov~\inst{13}

362: \and Y.G.~Sharabian~\inst{3}

363: \and D.~Sharov~\inst{30}

364: \and N.V.~Shvedunov~\inst{30}

365: \and A.V.~Skabelin~\inst{41}

366: \and L.C.~Smith~\inst{25}

367: \and D.I.~Sober~\inst{23}

368: \and D.~Sokhan~\inst{20}

369: \and A.~Stavinsky~\inst{13}

370: \and S.S.~Stepanyan~\inst{38}

371: \and S.~Stepanyan~\inst{3}

372: \and B.E.~Stokes~\inst{18}

373: \and P.~Stoler~\inst{4}

374: \and I.I.~Strakovsky~\inst{16}

375: \and S.~Strauch~\inst{11,16}

376: \and M.~Taiuti~\inst{7}

377: \and D.J.~Tedeschi~\inst{11}

378: \and A.~Tkabladze~\inst{14,16}

379: \and S.~Tkachenko~\inst{5}

380: \and L.~Todor~\inst{31,15}

381: \and C.~Tur~\inst{11}

382: \and M.~Ungaro~\inst{34,4}

383: \and M.F.~Vineyard~\inst{42,31}

384: \and A.V.~Vlassov~\inst{13}

385: \and D.P.~Watts~\inst{20,35}

386: \and L.B.~Weinstein~\inst{5}

387: \and D.P.~Weygand~\inst{3}

388: \and M.~Williams~\inst{15}

389: \and E.~Wolin~\inst{3}

390: \and M.H.~Wood~\inst{11}

391: \and A.~Yegneswaran~\inst{3}

392: \and M.~Yurov~\inst{38}

393: \and L.~Zana~\inst{22}

394: \and J.~Zhang~\inst{5}

395: \and B.~Zhao~\inst{34}

396: \and Z.W.~Zhao~\inst{11}

397: 	\\

398: 	\centerline{(CLAS Collaboration)}

399: %\thanks{\emph{Corresponding author:} guidal@ipno.in2p3.fr}

400: }

401: %

402: \clearpage

403: 

404: \institute{\ORSAY

405: \and\SACLAY

406: \and\JLAB

407: \and\RPI

408: \and\ODU

409: \and\INFNFR

410: \and\INFNGE

411: \and\YEREVAN

412: \and\WM

413: \and\ASU

414: \and\SCAROLINA

415: \and\FSU

416: \and\ITEP

417: \and\OHIOU

418: \and\CMU

419: \and\GWU

420: \and\FU

421: \and\FSU

422: \and\RICE

423: \and\ECOSSEE

424: \and\VAL

425: \and\UNH

426: \and\CUA

427: \and\ISU

428: \and\VIRGINIA

429: \and\PITT

430: \and\FIU

431: \and\CNU

432: \and\ANL

433: \and\MOSCOW

434: \and\URICH

435: \and\JMU

436: \and\UCLA

437: \and\UCONN

438: \and\ECOSSEG

439: \and\VT

440: \and\NSU

441: \and\KYUNGPOOK

442: \and\UMASS

443: \and\CSU

444: \and\MIT

445: \and\UNIONC}

446: 

447:     

448: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}

449: % The correct dates will be entered by Springer

450: %

451: \abstract{The $e p\to e^\prime p \rho^0$ reaction has been measured,

452: using the 5.754 GeV electron beam of Jefferson Lab and the CLAS detector.

453: This represents the largest ever set of data for this reaction in the valence 

454: region. Integrated and differential cross sections are presented.

455: The $W$, $Q^2$ and $t$ dependences of the cross section are compared 

456: to theoretical calculations based on $t$-channel meson-exchange Regge 

457: theory on the one hand and on quark handbag diagrams related to Generalized

458: Parton Distributions (GPDs) on the other hand. The Regge 

459: approach can describe at the $\approx$ 30\% level most of the features 

460: of the present data while the two GPD calculations that are

461: presented in this article which succesfully reproduce the high energy data 

462: strongly underestimate the present data. The question is then raised whether 

463: this discrepancy originates from an incomplete or inexact way of modelling the 

464: GPDs or the associated hard scattering amplitude or whether the GPD formalism is 

465: simply inapplicable in this region due to higher-twists contributions,

466: incalculable at present.

467: %

468: \PACS{

469:       {13.60.Le}{Production of mesons by photons and leptons}   \and

470:       {12.40.Nn}{Regge theory}   \and

471:       {12.38.Bx}{Perturbative calculations}   

472:      } % end of PACS codes

473: } %end of abstract

474: %

475: \maketitle

476: %

477: \section{Introduction}

478: \label{intro}

479: 

480: The exclusive electroproduction of photons and mesons on the nucleon

481: is an important tool to better understand nucleon structure and, 

482: more generally, the transition between the low energy hadronic 

483: and high energy partonic domains of the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) theory.

484: 

485: Among all such exclusive processes, the $e p\to e^\prime p \rho^0$ reaction

486: bears some particular advantages. It is a process for which numerical

487: calculations and predictions are available both in terms of $hadronic$ degrees of 

488: freedom, via Reggeized meson exchanges, and in terms of $partonic$ degrees of freedom,

489: via Generalized Parton Distributions (GPDs). We refer the reader to

490: refs.~\cite{Regge,collinsreg,storrow} and refs.~\cite{muller,ji,rady,collins,goeke,revdiehl,revrady} 

491: for the original articles and general reviews of Regge theory and GPDs respectively.

492: Defining $Q^2$ as the absolute value of the squared mass of the virtual photon

493: that is exchanged between

494: the electron and the target nucleon, partonic descriptions are expected to be valid at large  

495: $Q^2$, while hadronic descriptions dominate in photo- and low-$Q^2$ 

496: electroproduction. Fig.~\ref{diags} illustrates these two approaches at the electron beam energies

497: available at Jefferson Laboratory (JLab).

498: Concerning the Reggeized meson exchange approach, the total and differential cross sections 

499: associated with

500: the exchanges of the dominant Regge $\sigma$ and $f_2$ trajectories have been calculated 

501: by Laget {\it et al.}~\cite{RgModel2,RgModel3}. Concerning the GPDs approach, the so-called ``handbag" diagram,

502: with recent modelings of the

503: unpolarized GPDs, has been calculated by two groups: Goloskokov-Kroll~\cite{gk}

504: and Vanderhaeghen {\it et al.}~\cite{Vdh1,Vdh2,Vdh3,Vdh4}.

505: Let us note here that in the GPD approach the leading twist handbag calculation is valid only 

506: for the longitudinal part of the cross section and that, experimentally,

507: it is important to separate the longitudinal and transverse parts of the 

508: cross sections when measuring this process.

509: 

510: \begin{figure}[h]

511: %\includegraphics{diags.ps}

512: \includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth,bb=75 375 550 600,clip=true]{figures/diags.ps}

513: \caption{The mechanisms for $\rho^0$ electroproduction at JLab

514: energies for low $Q^2$ (left diagram) through the exchange of mesons and

515: for high $Q^2$ (right diagram) through the quark exchange ``handbag" mechanism

516: (valid for longitudinal photons) where $H$ and $E$ are the unpolarized GPDs.}

517: \label{diags}

518: \end{figure}

519: 

520: This article presents results for the exclusive electroproduction 

521: of the $\rho^0$ vector meson on the proton measured with the 5.754 GeV 

522: electron beam of the CEBAF accelerator and the CEBAF Large Acceptance

523: Spectrometer (CLAS) at JLab. 

524: The aim of this analysis is to compare the integrated and differential 

525: cross sections of the $e p\to e^\prime p \rho^0$ 

526: reaction that have been extracted over the intermediate $Q^2$ region accessible 

527: at CLAS, with the two Regge and GPD

528: theoretical approaches, and thus determine their domain of validity and constrain 

529: their various inputs.

530: 

531: There are a few existing electroproduction data in a similar kinematical regime:

532: early data with the 7.2 GeV beam at DESY~\cite{JoosRho}

533: and with the 11.5 GeV beam at Cornell~\cite{Cassel}, and more

534: recently with the 27 GeV beam at HERMES~\cite{HERMESrho} and

535: the 4.2 GeV beam of JLab~\cite{cynthia}. 

536: The present work explores new phase-space regions and,

537: in regions of overlap, has much finer binning and precision.

538: 

539: In section~\ref{exppro} we present the experimental procedure we

540: have adopted to extract our integrated and differential cross sections. 

541: In section~\ref{theo}, after briefly describing the 

542: Regge and GPDs models, we compare these calculations to our data.

543: Finally, we draw our conclusions in section~\ref{conc}.

544: 

545: \section{Experimental procedure}

546: \label{exppro}

547: 

548: The CLAS detector~\cite{mecking} is built around six superconduction coils

549: that generate a toroidal magnetic field primarily in the azimuthal

550: direction. Each sector is equipped with three regions of multi-wire drift

551: chambers (DC) and time-of-flight scintillator counters (SC) that cover 

552: the angular range from 8$^\circ$ to 143$^\circ$. In the forward region 

553: (8$^\circ$$<$ $\theta$ $<$ 45$^\circ$), each sector is furthermore equipped

554: with a gas-filled threshold Cerenkov counter (CC) and a lead-scintillator 

555: sandwich type electromagnetic calorimeter (EC). Azimuthal coverage for 

556: CLAS is limited by the magnet's six coils and is approximatively 90\% 

557: at large polar angles and 50\% at forward angles. 

558: 

559: The data were taken with an electron beam having an energy of 5.754 GeV impinging on 

560: an unpolarized 5-cm-long liquid-hydrogen target.

561: The integrated luminosity of this data set was 28.5 fb$^{-1}$.

562: The data were taken from October 2001 to January 2002.

563: The kinematic domain of the selected sample corresponds approximately to

564: $Q^2$ from 1.5 to 5.5 GeV$^2$. We analyzed data with

565: $W$, the $\gamma^*-p$ center-of-mass energy, greater than 1.8 GeV, which 

566: corresponds to a range of $x_B$ approximatively from 0.15 to 0.7.

567: Here $x_B$ is the standard Bjorken variable equal to $\frac{Q^2}{W^2-m^2_p+Q^2}$ 

568: with $m_p$ the mass of the proton.

569: 

570: The $\rho^0$ decays into two pions ($\pi^+\pi^-$), with a branching

571: ratio of~100\%~\cite{PDG}. To select the channel $ep \rightarrow

572: e^\prime p\rho^0$, we based our analysis on the identification of 

573: the scattered electron, the recoil proton and the positive decay pion

574: (because of the polarity of the magnetic field, negative pions

575: are bent toward the beam pipe and in general escape the acceptance

576: of CLAS); we then used the missing mass $ep\to e^\prime p\pi^+X$ for 

577: the identification of the 

578: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ final state. 

579: 

580: Once this final state is identified and its yield normalized, the reduced 

581: $\gamma^*p \rightarrow p\rho^0$ cross section is extracted 

582: by fitting in a model-dependent way the ($\pi^+\pi^-$) invariant mass

583: using a parametrized $\rho^0$ shape, which will be described later. 

584: The longitudinal and transverse

585: cross sections are then further extracted by analyzing the decay pion 

586: angular distribution in the $\rho^0$ center-of-mass frame. We detail 

587: all these steps in the following sections.

588: 

589: \subsection{Particle identification}

590: \label{partid}

591: 

592: 

593: The electron is identified as a negative track, determined from the DC, 

594: having produced a signal in the CC and the EC. Pions, potentially 

595: misidentified as electrons, were rejected by cutting on the CC amplitude

596: ($>$ 2 photoelectrons), imposing a minimum energy deposition in 

597: the EC (60 MeV) and correlating the measurements of

598: the momentum from the DC and of the energy from the EC. 

599: In order to minimize radiative corrections and residual pion contamination,

600: a further cut E$^\prime\geq$~0.8~GeV was also applied, where E$^\prime$ is 

601: the scattered electron energy. Finally, vertex and geometric fiducial cuts,

602: which select only regions of well understood acceptance, were included. 

603: 

604: The efficiencies of the CC and EC cuts, respectively $\eta_{CC}$ and 

605: $\eta_{EC}$, were determined from data samples, selecting unambiguous electrons 

606: with very tight CC or EC cuts. The CC-cut efficiencies range from 86 to 99\% and 

607: the EC-cut efficiencies from 90 to 95\%, depending on the electron kinematics.

608: The efficiencies of the geometric fiducial cuts were derived from CLAS GEANT-based 

609: Monte-Carlo simulations.

610: 

611: Pions and protons are identified by the correlation between the 

612: momentum measured by the DC and the velocity measured by the SC.

613: This identification procedure is unambiguous for particles

614: with momenta up to 2 GeV. Particles with momenta higher than 2 GeV

615: were therefore discarded. The efficiencies of the cuts imposed for

616: this momentum-velocity correlation and of the geometric fiducial cuts were

617: determined from CLAS GEANT-based Monte-Carlo simulations.

618: 

619: Once the electron, the proton and the positive pion are identified, the 

620: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ final state is identified through the 

621: missing mass technique.

622: Fig.~\ref{fig:mm2dim} shows the square of the missing mass for the system 

623: $e^\prime p\pi^+$ (i.e. $M_{X}^2 [e^\prime p\pi^+X]$) as a function of the 

624: missing mass for the system $ep$ (i.e. $M_{X} [e^\prime pX]$). One distinguishes 

625: the $\rho^0$ and $\omega$ loci quite clearly. A cut on the 

626: $M_{X}^2 [e^\prime p\pi^+X]$ variable is required in order to separate 

627: the $\rho^0$ and the associated $\pi^+\pi^-$ continuum from the 

628: $\omega$ and the three--pion continuum background.

629: The optimum value of this cut:

630: \begin{equation}

631: -0.05 \le M_{X}^2 [e^\prime p\pi^+X] \leq 0.08 \ \hbox{GeV}^2

632: \label{eq:mm2eppipcut}

633: \end{equation}

634: was determined from a study whereby we estimated the number of 

635: $\rho^0$ events, from fits to the $M_{X}^2 [e^\prime pX]$ distribution, 

636: as a function of the cut values. The cuts were chosen in the region where 

637: the number of $\rho^0$ events began to vary 

638: only very weakly with these cut values.The 

639: simulation used to calculate acceptances 

640: reproduces the features of fig.~\ref{fig:mm2eppip}.

641: The position of this cut relative to $M_{X}^2 [e^\prime p\pi^+X]$ is shown

642: in fig.~\ref{fig:mm2eppip}.

643: 

644: \begin{figure}[h]

645: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{figures/MMeppip2vMMep.eps}

646: \caption{Squared missing mass $M_{X}^2 [e^\prime p\pi^+X]$ vs $M_{X} [e^\prime pX]$ for $W \geq$~1.8~GeV 

647:          and $E^\prime\geq$~0.8~GeV.}

648: \label{fig:mm2dim}

649: \end{figure}

650: 

651: 

652: \begin{figure}[h!]

653: \begin{center}

654: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{figures/MMeppip2.eps}

655: \caption{Missing mass $M_{X}^2 [e^\prime p\pi^+X]$ for $W \geq$~1.8~GeV 

656:          and $E^\prime\geq$~0.8~GeV. The red lines show the cut used 

657: 	 (see eq.~\ref{eq:mm2eppipcut}) to select the $e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$final state.}

658: \label{fig:mm2eppip}

659: \end{center}

660: \end{figure}

661: 

662: The missing mass distribution for the system $ep$, obtained after this cut,

663: is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:mmep}. 

664: The $\rho^0$ peak is very 

665: broad~: $\Gamma_{\rho^0}^{th} \approx$ 150~MeV~from ref.~\cite{PDG}. 

666: and sits on top of a background of a non-resonant two pion continuum,

667: which originates from other processes leading to the $e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$  

668: final state, such as 

669: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \Delta^{++}\pi^- \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$.

670: In fig.~\ref{fig:mmep}, one can additionnally distinguish two bumps 

671: at masses around 950 MeV and 1250 MeV corresponding respectively to 

672: the scalar $f_0(980)$ and tensor $f_2(1270)$ mesons. These will be even more

673: evident when we look at the differential spectra later on.

674: 

675: \begin{figure}[h!]

676: \begin{center}

677: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{figures/MMep_mmeppipcut.eps}

678: \caption{Missing mass $M_{X} [e^\prime pX]$ for -0.05~$\leq M_{X}^2 [e^\prime p\pi^+] \leq$~0.08~GeV$^2$, 

679: 	 $W \geq$~1.8~GeV

680:          and $E^\prime\geq$~0.8~GeV. The $\rho^0(770)$, as well as the

681: 	 $f_0(980)$ and $f_2(1270)$ resonances which can be distinguished,

682: 	 sits on top of a background of non-resonant two-pion continuum.}

683: \label{fig:mmep}

684: \end{center}

685: \end{figure}

686: 

687: \subsection{Acceptance calculation}

688: \label{accep}

689: 

690: The acceptance of the CLAS detector for the $e^\prime p\pi^+X$ process has

691: been determined with the standard GEANT-based code developed for CLAS.

692: Our event generator~\cite{genev} contains the three main channels 

693: leading to the $e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ final state: 

694: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\rho^0 \hookrightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$, 

695: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^-\Delta^{++} \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$, 

696: and the non-resonant (phase space) $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$. 

697: This event generator is based on tables of total and differential cross 

698: sections of double pion photoproduction data that have been 

699: extrapolated to electroproduction. This has been done by multiplying these

700: tables by a virtual photon flux factor and a dipole form factor

701: in order to obtain a relatively realistic $Q^2$ dependence of

702: the cross section. We also have tuned the relative weight of all the

703: aforementioned channels in order to reproduce the main kinematical

704: distributions of our experimental data.

705: 

706: Eight independent kinematical variables are necessary to describe a reaction

707: with four particles in the final state. However, in unpolarized electroproduction,

708: the cross section does not depend on the azimuthal angle of the scattered

709: electron. The following seven variables are then chosen: 

710: $Q^2$, $x_B$, $t$, $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$, $\Phi$, $\cos(\theta_{HS})$

711: and $\phi_{HS}$. Here $Q^2$ and $x_B$ are

712: respectively the absolute value of the squared electron four-momentum transfer and 

713: the Bjorken variable, which describe the kinematics of the virtual photon 

714: $\gamma^*$. At some stages, $W$, the $\gamma^*-p$ center-of-mass energy will

715: equivalently be used. Then $t$ is the squared four-momentum transferred to the $\rho^0$,

716: $\Phi$ is the azimuthal angle between the electron scattering plane and 

717: the hadronic production plane,

718: and $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ is the invariant mass of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ system.

719: Finally, $\cos(\theta_{HS})$ and $\phi_{HS}$ describe the decay of the

720: $\rho^0$ into two pions and are respectively the polar and azimuthal 

721: angles of the $\pi^+$ in the so-called Helicity Frame (HS) where the 

722: $\rho^0$ is at rest and the $z$-axis is given by the $\rho^0$ direction 

723: in the $\gamma^*-p$ center-of-mass system.

724: All these variables are illustrated in fig.~\ref{fig:rho0_kine}.

725: 

726: %\vskip-2.cm

727: \begin{figure}[h!]

728: \begin{center}

729: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{figures/ref_frames.eps}

730: \caption{Reference frames and relevant variables for the description

731: of the $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\rho^0 \hookrightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ reaction.}

732: \label{fig:rho0_kine}

733: \end{center}

734: \end{figure}

735: 

736: The procedure we have followed has been to calculate an acceptance for each of the 

737: 7-dimensional bins. In the limit of small bin-size

738: and unlimited statistics, this procedure is independent of the 

739: model used to generate events. Our event generator 

740: has nonetheless been tuned to reproduce the experimental data.

741: The binning in the 7 independent variables is defined in 

742: table~\ref{tab:binning} and its 2-dimensional ($Q^2$, $x_B$) projection

743: is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:binning}.

744: 

745: %\vspace*{1cm}

746: \begin{table}[h!]	

747: \begin{center}	

748: 

749: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|r|}

750: \hline	

751: Variable & Unit  & Range            & \# of bins & Width \\

752: \hline	

753: $Q^2$ & GeV$^2$  & 1.60 --   3.10   & 5 &  0.30 \\

754:       &          & 3.10 --   5.60   & 5 &  0.50 \\

755: \hline	

756: $x_{B}$ & --      & 0.16 --   0.7    & 9 &  0.06 \\

757: \hline		

758: $-t$ & GeV$^2$   & 0.10 --   1.90   & 6 &  0.30 \\

759:      &           & 1.90 --   4.30   & 3 &  0.80 \\

760: \hline	

761: $\Phi$ & deg. & 0.00 -- 360.00   & 9 & 40.00 \\

762: \hline

763: $\cos(\theta^{HS}_{\pi+})$ & --            & -1.00 --   1.00  &  8 &  0.25 \\

764: \hline

765: $\phi^{HS}_{\pi+}$         & deg.       &  0.00 -- 360.00  &  8 & 45.00 \\

766: \hline

767: MM$_{\rm ep}$              & GeV           &  0.22 --   1.87  & 15 &  0.22 \\

768: \hline	

769: \end{tabular}	

770: \caption{Binning in the 7 independent variables for the acceptance table.} 

771: \label{tab:binning}

772: \end{center}	

773: \end{table}	

774: 

775: %\vskip-2.cm

776: \begin{figure}[h!]

777: \begin{center}

778: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{figures/DATA_Q2vXb_withBinning.eps}

779: \caption{Binning in ($Q^2$,$x_{B}$) for our experimental data 

780: (with $W>1.8$~GeV and $E^\prime\geq$~0.8~GeV).}

781: \label{fig:binning}

782: \end{center}

783: \end{figure}

784: 

785: More than 200 million Monte-Carlo (MC) events were generated using CLAS GEANT

786: to calculate the acceptance in each of the individual 7-dimensional bins.

787: Each ``real data" event was then weighted by the ratio 

788: of the number of MC generated to accepted events for each 7-dimensional bin. 

789: The acceptances are at most a few percent. Bins that have 

790: a very small acceptance ($<$ 0.16\%) have a very high 

791: weight, which produces an unphysically high and narrow peak in the weighted 

792: event distributions, and have to be cut away. The efficiency 

793: of this cut is evaluated by MC computation of the ratio of weighted accepted

794: events to generated events mapped onto 1-dimensional distributions. This correction 

795: factor $\eta_{w}$ is therefore model dependent since it is 1-dimensional and thus 

796: integrated over the remaining variables. It is on average 15\%.

797: 

798: Radiative corrections were part of our event generator and 

799: were calculated according to ref.~\cite{RadCorr}. The MC acceptance

800: calculation presented above therefore took into account the effects

801: of the radiation of hard photons and the corresponding losses due

802: to the application of the cut of eq.~\ref{eq:mm2eppipcut}.

803: The contribution of soft photons and virtual corrections were determined by turning

804: on and off the radiative effects in our event generator, defining

805: an $F_{rad}$ factor for each ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bin for the integrated cross sections, 

806: or for each ($Q^2$, $x_B$, $X$) bin for the differential cross sections, 

807: $X$ being one of $t$, $\Phi$, $\cos(\theta_{HS})$ or $\phi_{HS}$.

808: 

809: \subsection{$\gamma^*p \rightarrow p\pi^+\pi^-$ total cross section}

810: 

811: The total reduced cross section for the $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ 

812: reaction can then be obtained from:

813: 

814: \begin{equation}

815: \sigma_{\gamma^* p \rightarrow p\pi^+\pi^-} (Q^2, x_B, E) = 

816: \frac{1}{\Gamma_V(Q^2,x_B,E)} \frac{d^2\sigma_{ep\rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-}}

817: {dQ^2 dx_B}

818: \end{equation}

819: 

820: \noindent with:

821: \begin{equation}

822: \frac{d^2 \sigma_{ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-}}{dQ^2 dx_B} =

823: \frac{n_{w}(Q^2,x_B)}{\mathcal{L}_{int} \ \Delta Q^2 \ \Delta x_B} \times

824: \frac{F_{rad}}{\eta_{CC} \eta_{EC} \eta_{w}},

825: \label{eq:sig_ep_eppippim}

826: \end{equation}

827: 

828: \noindent where

829: \begin{itemize}

830: \item $n_{w} (Q^2,x_B)$ is the weighted number of 

831: 	$ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ events in a given bin ($Q^2$, $x_B$),

832: \item $\mathcal{L}_{int}$ is the effective integrated luminosity (that takes

833: into account the correction for the data acquisition dead time),

834: \item $\Delta Q^2$ and $\Delta x_B$ are the corresponding bin widths 

835: 	(see table~\ref{tab:binning}); 

836: 	for bins not completely filled, because of $W$ or $E^\prime$ cuts on 

837: 	the electron for instance (see fig.~\ref{fig:binning}), 

838: 	the phase space $\Delta Q^2 \Delta x_B$

839: 	includes a surface correction and the $Q^2$ and $x_B$ central

840: 	values are modified accordingly.

841: \item $F_{rad}$ is the correction factor due to the radiative effects

842: (see section~\ref{accep}),

843: \item $\eta_{CC}$ is the CC-cut efficiency (see section~\ref{partid}),

844: \item $\eta_{EC}$ is the EC-cut efficiency (see section~\ref{partid}),

845: \item $\eta_{w}$ is the efficiency of the cut on the weight in

846: the acceptance calculation (see section~\ref{accep}). \\

847: \end{itemize}

848: 

849: We adopted the Hand convention~\cite{Hand} for the

850: definition of the virtual photon flux $\Gamma_V$:

851: 

852: \begin{equation}

853: \Gamma_V (Q^2,x_B,E) = \frac{\alpha}{8\pi} \frac{Q^2}{m_p^2 E^2} 

854: \frac{1-x_B}{x_B^3} \frac{1}{1-\epsilon}

855: \label{eq:GammaV}

856: \end{equation}

857: with 

858: \begin{equation}

859: \epsilon = \frac{1}{1+2\frac{Q^2+(E-E^\prime)^2}{4EE^\prime-Q^2}}

860: \label{eq:epsilon}

861: \end{equation}

862: 

863: \noindent and $\alpha\approx\frac{1}{137}$ the standard electromagnetic coupling constant.

864: 

865: Fig.~\ref{fig:XsectPipPimCompWorldvQ2} 

866: shows the total reduced cross section 

867: $\sigma_{\gamma^*p \rightarrow p \pi^+ \pi^-}$ as a function of 

868: $Q^2$ for constant $W$ bins 

869: compared with the world's data~\cite{JoosRho,Cassel,ripani}.

870: 

871: \begin{figure*}

872: \begin{center}

873: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/Xsect_CompWorld_vQ2_Wbins.eps}

874: \caption{Reduced cross sections $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p \pi^+ \pi^-$ 

875: 	as a function of $Q^2$ for constant $W$ bins, 

876: 	in units of $\mu$barn from the current analysis. Also shown are earlier 

877: 	data from CLAS with a 4.2 GeV beam energy~\cite{ripani} as well as the

878: 	data from DESY~\cite{JoosRho} and Cornell~\cite{Cassel} with, respectively,

879: 	a 7.2 GeV and 11.5 GeV beam energy.}

880: \label{fig:XsectPipPimCompWorldvQ2}

881: \end{center}

882: \end{figure*}

883: %%%%

884: 

885: Relatively good agreement between the various experiments can be seen.

886: %The discrepancies can be attributed to a couple of reasons~:

887: %\begin{itemize}

888: %\item 

889: It is important to realize that what is plotted is the unseparated 

890: cross section, i.e. a linear combination of the transverse ($\sigma_T$) 

891: and longitudinal ($\sigma_L$) cross sections~: 

892: $\sigma=\sigma_T+\epsilon\sigma_L$. This means that, due to $\epsilon$ 

893: (eq.~\ref{eq:epsilon}), 

894: there is a dependence on the beam energy in this observable.

895: Since the CORNELL data have been taken with an 11.5 GeV electron 

896: beam energy~\cite{Cassel}, the DESY data with a 7.2 GeV electron 

897: beam energy~\cite{JoosRho} and the previous CLAS data with a 4.2 GeV beam~\cite{ripani}, 

898: the data sets, although at approximatively

899: equivalent $Q^2$ and $W$ values, are not directly comparable

900: and are not expected to fully match each other. We will come back to this

901: issue in section~\ref{int} when we are comparing the 

902: $\rho^0$ cross sections.

903: 

904: The next step is to extract the $\gamma^*p \rightarrow p \rho^0$ cross 

905: section from the $\gamma^*p \rightarrow p \pi^+ \pi^-$ cross 

906: section, which requires a dedicated fitting procedure.

907: 

908: \subsection{Fitting procedure for the $\gamma^*p \rightarrow p\rho^0$ 

909: cross section}

910: \label{back}

911: 

912: Fig.~\ref{fig:MMepXWeighted} shows the acceptance-weighted $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ 

913: spectra for all our ($Q^2$,$x_B$) bins. The $\rho^0$ peak (along with the 

914: $f_0(980)$ and $f_2(1270)$ peaks clearly visible in some ($Q^2$,$x_B$) bins)

915: sits on top of a $\pi^+\pi^-$ continuum background

916: (see also fig.~\ref{fig:mmep} where all data have been integrated).

917: 

918: This background can be decomposed, in a first approximation, into the non-resonant 

919: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ phase space and the exclusive electroproduction 

920: of a pion and a nucleon resonance, the latter decaying into a pion and a nucleon, 

921: such as $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^-\Delta^{++} \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$.

922: Evidence for this can be seen in figs.~\ref{fig:IMppim} 

923: and~\ref{fig:IMppip}, which show for all our ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bins 

924: the acceptance-corrected $p\pi^-$ and $p\pi^+$ invariant-mass

925: spectra where structures are clearly seen. Most of these

926: nucleon resonances ($N^*$) are rather well known, the most prominent being the 

927: $\Delta^{0,++}$(1232), the D$_{13}$(1520) and the F$_{15}$(1680). However,

928: their production amplitudes with an associated pion  

929: (i.e. $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi N^*\hookrightarrow p\pi$) are mostly unknown.

930: 

931: At low energies ($W<$1.8 GeV) where very few $N^*$

932: can be produced, a phenomenological model has been 

933: developed~\cite{mokeev,ripani} based on an effective Lagrangian

934: where a few $N^*$'s are superposed along with the production

935: of the $\rho^0$. Such a model could be a strong constraint and guide to 

936: extract the $\rho^0$ cross section from all the other mechanisms.

937: However, at the present higher energies, numerous new higher mass $N^*$'s 

938: appear as shown by the spectra of figs.~\ref{fig:IMppim} and~\ref{fig:IMppip}.

939: For theoretical calculations, interference effects between all these channels 

940: are virtually impossible to control and drastically complicate the analysis. 

941: Therefore this approach cannot be pursued in our case.

942: %and so we lack such theoretical guidance.

943: 

944: At present, it is unrealistic to describe simultaneously 

945: the $\pi^+\pi^-$, $p\pi^-$ and $p\pi^+$ invariant mass spectra

946: over our entire phase space because there are too many structures 

947: varying independently with ($Q^2$, $x_B$) in 

948: each invariant mass distribution.

949:  

950: Therefore, since a complete description of the di-pion mass spectra is 

951: not available, we have adopted an empirical description of the data using 

952: non-interfering contributions that, together with a model for the $\rho^0$ 

953: shape, reproduce the $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass spectrum.

954: 

955: The $\rho^0$ peak is broad and the strength of the non-resonant

956: $\pi^+\pi^-$ background under it is quite significant, and, 

957: even more importantly, its nature is unknown. Therefore we must carry out

958: a non-trivial and model-dependent fitting procedure in order to extract 

959: the $\gamma^*p \rightarrow p\rho^0$ cross section.

960: 

961: \begin{figure*}

962: \begin{center}

963: %\begin{sideways}

964: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{figures/MMep.eps}

965: %\end{sideways}

966: \caption{Acceptance-corrected $M_{X} [e^\prime pX]$ (in GeV) missing mass spectra for all

967: our ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bins. The three red lines are located at $M_{X}$ = 0.770, 0.980, 1.275 GeV

968: corresponding to the three well-known resonant states in the ($\pi^+\pi^-$) system.}

969: \label{fig:MMepXWeighted}

970: \end{center}

971: \end{figure*}

972: 

973: \begin{figure*}

974: \begin{center}

975: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{figures/IMppim.eps}

976: \caption{Acceptance-corrected $M_{p\pi^-}$ (in GeV) invariant mass distributions for all

977: our ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bins. The three red lines are located at $M_{X}$ = 1.232, 1.520, 1.680 GeV

978: corresponding to three well-known resonance regions in the ($p\pi^-$) system.}

979: \label{fig:IMppim}

980: \end{center}

981: \end{figure*}

982: 

983: \begin{figure*}

984: \begin{center}

985: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{figures/IMppip.eps}

986: \caption{Acceptance-corrected $M_{p\pi^+}$ (in GeV) invariant mass distributions for all

987: our ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bins. The three red lines are located at $M_{X}$ = 

988: 1.232, 1.600, 1.900 GeV

989: corresponding to the three well-known resonance regions in the ($p\pi^+$) system.}

990: \label{fig:IMppip}

991: \end{center}

992: \end{figure*}

993: 

994: 

995: The procedure we have followed consisted of fitting only the

996: $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ distributions for each ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bin in the case of

997: the integrated cross sections and for each ($Q^2$, $x_B$, $X$) bin, 

998: where $X$ can be $t$, $\Phi$, $\cos(\theta_{HS})$ 

999: or $\phi_{HS}$, in the case of the differential cross sections.

1000: It was possible to fit the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ spectra with five contributions:

1001: three Breit-Wigner shapes to describe the three evident mesonic 

1002: $\pi^+\pi^-$ resonant structures of the $\rho^0 (770)$,

1003: $f_0(980)$ and $f_2(1270)$, where the masses in MeV indicated in parentheses

1004: are the values given by the Particle Data Group (PDG)~\cite{PDG}, and 

1005: two smoothed histograms

1006: that are the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ projections of the reactions

1007: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^-\Delta^{++} \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$ 

1008: and of the non-resonant continuum $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$. 

1009: These two latter spectra are calculated by our aforementioned event generator~\cite{genev}.

1010: We now detail these five contributions and explain why they are 

1011: necessary (and sufficient).

1012: 

1013: We first discuss the contribution of the $\rho^0(770)$ and the way to 

1014: model it. It is well known that simple symmetric Breit-Wigner line shapes 

1015: which are, to first order, used to describe resonances, are too naive to 

1016: reproduce the $\rho$ shape, because of, among other aspects, interference 

1017: effects with the non-resonant $\pi^+\pi^-$ continuum. Several methods

1018: can be found in the literature for treating the $\rho^0$ shape

1019: (see for instance ref.~\cite{bauer} for such a discussion). 

1020: The procedure we adopted was the following:

1021: \begin{itemize}

1022: \item Introduction of an energy-dependent width in order to take into account 

1023: that the $\rho^0$ is an unstable spin-1 particle that decays into two 

1024: spin-0 particles; it is also called a p-wave Breit-Wigner~\cite{Jackson}.

1025: This modified Breit-Wigner reads:

1026: \begin{equation}

1027: BW_{\rho}(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})

1028: =\frac{M_{\rho}\Gamma(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})}{(M_{\rho}^2-M_{\pi^+\pi^-}^2)^2+M_{\rho}^2\Gamma_{\rho}^2(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})}

1029: \label{formbreit1}

1030: \end{equation}

1031: with the energy-dependent width:

1032: \begin{eqnarray}

1033: \Gamma^{\rho}(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})=\Gamma_{\rho}\left(\frac{q}{q_\rho}\right)^{2l+1}\frac{M_{\rho}}{M_{\pi^+\pi^-}},

1034: \end{eqnarray}

1035: where $l=1$ for a p-wave Breit-Wigner, $q$ is the momentum of the decay pion

1036: in the $\rho^0$ center-of-mass frame and $q_\rho$ is equal to $q$ for

1037: $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}=M_{\rho}$:

1038: \begin{eqnarray}

1039: q=\frac{\sqrt{M_{\pi^+\pi^-}^2-4M_{\pi}^2}}{2} ,\,

1040: q_\rho=\frac{\sqrt{M_{\rho}^2-4M_{\pi}^2}}{2}.

1041: \end{eqnarray}

1042: 

1043: \item Ross and Stodolsky~\cite{RossandStod} and S\"oding~\cite{Soding} 

1044: have shown that the interferences between the

1045: broad $\rho^0$ peak and the important non-resonant $\pi^+\pi^-$

1046: contribution underneath leads to

1047: a skewing of the Breit-Wigner. According to

1048: Ross-Stodolsky, one way to take account of this effect

1049: is to introduce a correction term that consists of multiplying 

1050: the Breit-Wigner formula by an empirical factor that shifts the centroid of 

1051: the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ distribution:

1052: \begin{eqnarray}

1053: BW_{\rho}^{sk.}(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})=BW_{\rho}(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})\left(\frac{M_{\rho}}{M_{\pi^+\pi^-}}\right)^{n_{skew}}.

1054: \label{formbreit2}

1055: \end{eqnarray} 

1056: where $n_{skew}$ is the ``skewing'' parameter. Although 

1057: Ross-Stodolsky have predicted the value of $n_{skew}$ to be 

1058: 4, it is often a parameter that is fitted to the data 

1059: since so little is known concerning the interference between the $\rho^0$ 

1060: signal and the $\pi^+\pi^-$ continuum.

1061: \end{itemize}

1062: 

1063: As is evident in fig.~\ref{fig:MMepXWeighted}, in addition to the 

1064: $\rho^0(770)$, there are two well-known resonant structures in 

1065: the $\pi^+\pi^-$ system: the $f_0(980)$ and 

1066: $f_2(1270)$. Due to the large widths of these mesonic resonances (40 to 100 MeV~\cite{PDG} 

1067: for the $f_0(980)$ and $\approx$ 180 MeV~\cite{PDG} for the $f_2(1270)$), 

1068: it is clearly necessary to include them 

1069: in our $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ fit because their contribution can extend into

1070: the $\rho^0$ region, which is itself also broad. 

1071: We also used the formulas of eqs.~\ref{formbreit1}-\ref{formbreit2} for 

1072: these two other mesonic resonant states $f_0(980)$ and $f_2(1270)$

1073: with appropriate parameters $M_{f_0}$, $\Gamma_{f_0}$, $M_{f_2}$, 

1074: $\Gamma_{f_2}$ and took into account their $l=0$ and $l=2$ nature. 

1075: 

1076: In principle, the only free

1077: parameter to vary in eq.~\ref{formbreit2} should be $n_{skew}$.

1078: However, we have also allowed the central masses and widths of the three mesons

1079: to vary in a very limited range of at most 20 MeV from their nominal values

1080: (see table~\ref{tab:bwparam}).

1081: The motivation for this is that, besides the largely unknown

1082: interference effects between the meson and the $\pi^+\pi^-$ continuum, 

1083: several other effects 

1084: can shift or distort the meson shapes: radiative corrections, binning, 

1085: acceptance corrections, imprecise values for the central 

1086: masses and widths of some of these mesons, etc. 

1087: 

1088: \begin{table*}	

1089: \begin{center}	

1090: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}

1091: \hline	

1092: \hspace*{1.cm} {\bf parameter} & {\bf PDG value} & {\bf min. value} & {\bf max. value} \\

1093: \hline \hline

1094: $\rho^0$ mass $M_{\rho}$ (MeV) & $\approx$ 770 & 750 & 790 \\

1095: $\rho^0$ width $\Gamma_{\rho}$ (MeV) & $\approx$ 150 & 140 & 170 \\

1096: $f_0$ mass $M_{f_0}$ (MeV) & $\approx$ 980 & 970 & 990 \\

1097: $f_0$ width $\Gamma_{f_0}$ (MeV) & 40-100 & 40 & 120 \\

1098: $f_2$ mass $M_{f_2}$ (MeV) & $\approx$ 1275 &  1260 & 1280 \\

1099: $f_2$ width $\Gamma_{f_2}$ (MeV) & $\approx$ 185 & 170 & 200 \\

1100: \hline	

1101: \end{tabular}	

1102: \caption{Range of variations permitted for the parameters to be fitted in

1103: formula~\ref{formbreit2}.} 

1104: \label{tab:bwparam}

1105: \end{center}	

1106: \end{table*}	

1107: 

1108: Finally, besides the $\rho^0$, $f_0(980)$ and $f_2(1270)$ 

1109: mesons, the two other contributions entering our fit are: 

1110: the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ projections of the reactions 

1111: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^-\Delta^{++} 

1112: \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$ and the non-resonant continuum (phase space) 

1113: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$. The shapes of these distributions are 

1114: given by our event generator. In particular, the $\Delta^{++}$ 

1115: has the shape of a standard Breit-Wigner in the $p\pi^+$ distribution with

1116: a centroid at 1.232 GeV and a width of 111 MeV~\cite{PDG}. As is obvious

1117: from fig.~\ref{fig:IMppim}, the $\Delta^0$ contribution can be neglected.

1118: 

1119: In principle, of course, other processes contribute to the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ 

1120: continuum, for instance all of the 

1121: $ep \rightarrow e\pi^-N^* \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$ reactions,

1122: as already mentioned. As a test, we modeled the $p\pi^-$ and $p\pi^+$

1123: invariant mass distributions of figs.~\ref{fig:IMppim} and~\ref{fig:IMppip} 

1124: by adding, at the cross section level, several Breit-Wigners matching the 

1125: structures seen in these figures and identifying them with known $N^*$ 

1126: masses (and widths) that can be found in the PDG. Like for the $\Delta^{++}$,

1127: we introduced their contribution into our fit of the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ distribution using 

1128: our event generator. The conclusion we reached was twofold.

1129: Firstly, this procedure introduced a large number of additional free parameters: 

1130: for each of the extra $N^*$'s, two parameters for the central mass and 

1131: width to vary in the approximate ranges given by the PDG

1132: and one more for the weight/normalization. Secondly, we found that

1133: the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ projected shape of these high mass $N^*$'s 

1134: was very similar to the phase-space 

1135: $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ distribution. In other words, in a first approximation,

1136: the phase-space contribution can reflect and absorb the high mass $N^*$'s.

1137: However, the $\Delta^{++}$ contribution to the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$

1138: distribution was found to be sufficiently different from the

1139: phase space distribution to be kept as an individual contribution.

1140: 

1141: 

1142: \begin{figure*}

1143: \begin{center}

1144: \includegraphics[width=19cm]{figures/Fits2.eps}

1145: \caption{Acceptance-corrected $M_{X} [e^\prime pX]$ missing mass distributions , showing our fits. 

1146: 	In red: total fit result; in 

1147: 	green: $\rho^0$ contribution; in blue: $f_0$ contribution;

1148: 	in purple: $f_2$ contribution and in dotted green: $\pi^+\pi^-$

1149: 	continuum, which is the sum of the 

1150: 	$ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^-\Delta^{++} \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$ 

1151: 	projections on $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ and of the phase space 

1152: 	$ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ contributions. The error bars on the data points

1153: 	are purely statistical. The uncertainties on the cross sections given by the fit

1154: 	is also purely statistical. 

1155: 	%\underline{Virtual} radiative corrections 

1156: 	%($F_{rad}$ factor, see end of section~\ref{accep}) are not applied

1157: 	%yet (\underline{real} radiative corrections have been taken into acount at the level

1158: 	%of the Monte-Carlo simulations); this is the only normalization factor which is not 

1159: 	%taken into account at this stage and which needs to be applied to the displayed 

1160: 	%cross section values.

1161: 	}

1162: \label{fig:sousfondex}

1163: \end{center}

1164: \end{figure*}

1165: 

1166: To summarize, each ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bin of fig.~\ref{fig:MMepXWeighted}

1167: was fit with the following formula:

1168: 

1169: \begin{eqnarray}

1170: \frac{dN}{dM_{\pi^+\pi^-}}=&&BW_\rho(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})\nonumber \\

1171: &&+BW_{f_0}(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})+BW_{f_2}(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})\nonumber \\

1172: &&+M_{\Delta^{++}\pi^-}(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})+M_{p\pi^+\pi^-}(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})\nonumber

1173: \\

1174: \label{formbreit3}

1175: \end{eqnarray}

1176: 

1177: \noindent It involves 14 parameters that are:

1178: \begin{itemize}

1179: \item 1) weight (normalization), 2) central mass, 3) width 

1180: and 4) $n_{skew}$ of $\rho^0$;

1181: \item 5) weight (normalization), 6) central mass, 7) width 

1182: and 8) $n_{skew}$ of $f_0$;

1183: \item 9) weight (normalization), 10) central mass, 11) width 

1184: and 12) $n_{skew}$ of $f_2$;

1185: \item 13) weight (normalization) of $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ 

1186: projection of the $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^-\Delta^{++} 

1187: \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$ process; and

1188: \item 14) weight (normalization) of $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$

1189: phase space.

1190: \end{itemize}

1191: 

1192: Fourteen parameters might appear a lot to fit only 

1193: a 1-dimensional distribution. However, on the one hand, six of these (the

1194: central mass and width of the $\rho^0$, $f_0(980)$ and 

1195: $f_2(1270)$ mesons) are quite constrained and are allowed to vary in 

1196: a very limited range. On the other hand this 

1197: simply reflects the complexity and our lack of knowledge of the 

1198: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ reaction, to which many

1199: unknown, independent though interfering processes contribute; namely:

1200: meson production $ep \rightarrow e^\prime pM^0 

1201: \hookrightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$, $N^*$ production 

1202: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^-N^{*++} 

1203: \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$, $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^+N^{*0} 

1204: \hookrightarrow p\pi^-$, non-resonant $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$,

1205: etc.

1206: 

1207: Fig.~\ref{fig:sousfondex} shows the result of our fits to the

1208: $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ distributions, normalized in terms of the reduced cross sections

1209: of eq.~\ref{eq:sig_ep_eppippim} for all of our ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bins. In a few

1210: cases, the fits do not fully describe the data. For instance, for 

1211: 0.46 $< x_B <$ 0.52, 3.10 $< x_B <$ 3.60, the data tend to show a 

1212: ``structure" around $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$=0.9 GeV, i.e. between the

1213: known $\rho^0$ and $f_0$ resonances, which cannot be reproduced by

1214: our fit formula of eq.~\ref{formbreit3}. We attribute this discrepancy

1215: to interference effects not taken into account by our simple fit procedure.

1216: As discussed in more detail in the next subsections, a systematic uncertainty 

1217: of 25\% is assigned to this whole fit procedure which is meant to account, 

1218: among other aspects, for the inadequacies in the model. On all the figures 

1219: that are going to be presented from now on, unless explicitely stated otherwise,

1220: all the error bars associated to our data points will represent the quadratic 

1221: sum of the statistical and systematic errors.

1222: 

1223: \subsection{Integrated $\rho^0$ cross section}

1224: \label{int}

1225: 

1226: We use the $\rho^0$ strength (green line) extracted from the distributions 

1227: shown in fig.~\ref{fig:sousfondex} to calculate the cross section. 

1228: Fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoCompWorldvW} shows the resulting reduced cross section

1229: $\sigma_{\gamma^*p \rightarrow p\rho^0}$ compared with the world's data  

1230: presented as a function of $W$ for constant $Q^2$ bins.

1231: Fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoCompWorldvQ2} shows the reduced cross section

1232: $\sigma_{\gamma^*p \rightarrow p\rho^0}$ compared with the world's data  

1233: presented as a function of $Q^2$ for constant $W$ bins.

1234: 

1235: \begin{figure*}

1236: \begin{center}

1237: %\includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/XsectRho_CompWorld_vW_Q2bins.eps}

1238: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/XsectRho_CompWorld_vW_Q2bins_cynt.eps}

1239: \caption{Reduced cross sections $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p \rho^0$ 

1240: 	as a function of $W$ for constant $Q^2$ bins, 

1241: 	in units of $\mu$barn. The error bars of the CLAS data result

1242: 	from the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties.	

1243: 	The horizontal error bars of the Cornell data indicate

1244: 	their $W$ range. The 4.2 GeV CLAS, CORNELL, HERMES and E665 data are 

1245: 	respectively from refs.~\cite{cynthia}, \cite{Cassel}, \cite{HERMESrho} 

1246: 	and \cite{e665}.}

1247: \label{fig:XsectRhoCompWorldvW}

1248: \end{center}

1249: \end{figure*}

1250: 

1251: \begin{figure*}

1252: \begin{center}

1253: %\includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/XsectRho_CompWorld_vQ2_Wbins.eps}

1254: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/XsectRho_CompWorld_vQ2_Wbins_cynt.eps}

1255: \caption{Reduced cross sections $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p \rho^0$ 

1256: 	as a function of $Q^2$ for constant $W$ bins, 

1257: 	in units of $\mu$barn. The 4.2 GeV CLAS, CORNELL and DESY data are 

1258: 	respectively from refs.~\cite{cynthia}, \cite{Cassel} 

1259: 	and \cite{JoosRho}.

1260: 	}

1261: \label{fig:XsectRhoCompWorldvQ2}

1262: \end{center}

1263: \end{figure*}

1264: 

1265: With respect to the $\gamma^*p \rightarrow p\pi^+\pi^-$ cross section

1266: that we extracted in the previous section, there is an 

1267: additional source of systematic uncertainty for the 

1268: $\sigma_{\gamma^*p \rightarrow p\rho^0}$ cross section 

1269: that arises from the subtraction procedure described in the previous section.

1270: This contribution is quite difficult to evaluate. It is not so much the quality of

1271: the fit in fig.~\ref{fig:sousfondex} that matters; we have varied

1272: the minimum and maximum limits imposed on the parameters 

1273: in table~\ref{tab:bwparam} and found that the results of

1274: the fits are very stable. The uncertainty arises more from the reliability

1275: and confidence we can assign to the modeling that we have adopted

1276: for the $\rho^0$, $f_0(980)$ 

1277: and $f_2(1270)$ mesons with the skewed Breit-Wigners and for the non-resonant 

1278: continuum $\pi^+\pi^-$ distribution. We have tried several shapes for this

1279: latter continuum. As mentioned in the previous subsection, we introduced

1280: $N^*$ states other than the $\Delta^{++}$. Ultimately, we ended up

1281: finding the fits to be stable at the $\approx$ 20 \% level on average. 

1282: Overall, we cannot take account of any interference effects between the 

1283: $\rho^0$ peak and the non-resonant $\pi^+\pi^-$ continuum. This uncertainty is

1284: of a theoretical nature, and in the absence of sufficient guidance at present, 

1285: we have decided to assign a relatively conservative 25\% systematic uncertainty to 

1286: our extracted $\rho^0$ yields.

1287: We will find some relative justification for this estimation

1288: in the next section when we study the differential distributions, in particular

1289: those of $t$ and $\cos\theta_{HS}$. 

1290: 

1291: Recently, a partial wave analysis of data of exclusive 

1292: $\pi^+\pi^-$ photoproduction on the proton from CLAS, 

1293: has been carried out~\cite{batta}. This study showed 

1294: that the $\rho^0$ cross sections resulting from this sophisticated method

1295: were consistent with those resulting from simple fits of the 

1296: two-pion invariant mass as we have just described, to a level much lower 

1297: than 25\%. Although no such partial wave analysis has been done

1298: to the present electroproduction data, this photoproduction comparison

1299: gives relative confidence that the 25\% systematic uncertainty that we 

1300: presently assign, is rather conservative.

1301: 

1302: Coming back to fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoCompWorldvW}, we find that our data 

1303: are in general agreement with the other world's data

1304: in regions of overlap. In the upper left plot of 

1305: fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoCompWorldvW} (1.60$<Q^2<$1.90 GeV$^2$), 

1306: our CLAS (5.754 GeV) data seem to overestimate the CLAS (4.2 GeV) results, but 

1307: this can certainly be attributed to a kinematic effect due to the 

1308: different beam energies of the two data sets. Indeed, we 

1309: are comparing the total reduced cross sections~: 

1310: $\sigma=\sigma_T+\epsilon\sigma_L$. However, at $W$=2.1 GeV and 

1311: $Q^2$=1.7 GeV$^2$, $\epsilon$=0.53 for a 4.2 GeV beam energy but 

1312: $\epsilon$=0.77 for a 5.754 GeV beam energy. This can readily explain 

1313: the lower CLAS (4.2 GeV) data with respect to the CLAS (5.754 GeV) data.

1314: 

1315: On this general account, we could have expected that the Cornell data stand

1316: to some extent above the CLAS (5.754 GeV) data since they have been obtained

1317: with an 11.5 GeV beam energy. This is not the case which might indicate 

1318: a slight incompatibility between the Cornell and CLAS 

1319: data. This point, as well as the compatibility of the CLAS (4.2 GeV)  

1320: and CLAS (5.754 GeV) data, will be confirmed in section~\ref{inter} where we

1321: compare the separated longitudinal and transverse cross sections

1322: for which this beam energy kinematical effect is removed. 

1323: 

1324: \subsection{Differential $\rho^0$ cross sections}

1325: \label{diff}

1326: 

1327: After having obtained the total $\rho^0$ cross section, we now extract 

1328: the differential cross sections in $t$, $\Phi$, $\cos(\theta_{HS})$

1329: and $\phi_{HS}$. 

1330: 

1331: Since the data are now binned in an additional variable, 

1332: each bin has fewer statistics, not only for the real data but also 

1333: for the MC data that are necessary to calculate the acceptance 

1334: correction. Bins for which $\eta_w$  is less than 0.6 were rejected,

1335: where, we recall, $\eta_w$ is the correction factor in the acceptance

1336: calculation that was introduced in section~\ref{accep}.

1337: This explains why some holes occur at several instances, in particular

1338: in the $\Phi$ and $\cos(\theta_{HS})$ distributions.

1339: 

1340: We start by extracting the $d\sigma/dt$ cross section.

1341: Defining $t^{\prime}$ as $t-t_0$, where $t_0$ is the 

1342: maximum $t$ value kinematically allowed for a given ($Q^2$, $x_B$) bin,

1343: we divided the data into 6 bins for $0<-t^{\prime}<1.5\ \hbox{ GeV}^2$ 

1344: and 3 bins for $1.5<-t^{\prime}<3.9\ \hbox{ GeV}^2$.

1345: For each of the ($t$, $Q^2$, $x_B$) bins, we extracted the $\rho^0$ signal

1346: from the $(\pi^+,\pi^-)$ invariant mass spectra using

1347: the fitting procedure previously described.

1348: 

1349: \begin{figure*}

1350: \begin{center}

1351: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{figures/dsdtvst.eps}

1352: \caption{Cross section $d\sigma/dt$ (in $\mu$b/GeV$^2$) for all bins in ($Q^2$,$x_B$)

1353: as a function of $-t$ (in GeV$^2$). The red line shows the fit to the function $e^{bt}$

1354: over the limited range $0<-t^{\prime}<1.5\ \hbox{ GeV}^2$.}

1355: \label{fig:exdsigmadtpr}

1356: \end{center}

1357: \end{figure*}

1358: 

1359: Fig.~\ref{fig:exdsigmadtpr} shows $d\sigma/dt$ for all

1360: our ($Q^2$,$x_B$) bins as a function of $t$.

1361: The general feature of these distributions is that they are of a 

1362: diffractive type, i.e. proportional to $e^{bt}$. 

1363: The values of the slope $b$ are between 0 and 3 GeV$^{-2}$.

1364: They are plotted as a function of $W$ in fig.~\ref{fig:pente_vtpr}

1365: along with the world's data. For the sake of clarity, only the world's data for

1366: $Q^2 >$ 1.5 GeV$^2$ are displayed. For $Q^2 <$ 1.5 GeV$^2$, the data 

1367: show the same trend but with more dispersion. The data exhibit a rise with $W$

1368: until they reach a plateau around $W$= 6 GeV at a $b$ value of 

1369: $\approx$ 7 GeV$^{-2}$. The high-energy experiments 

1370: (H1 and ZEUS) have shown that this saturating value tends to decrease with $Q^2$, 

1371: which is illustrated by the H1 points in fig.~\ref{fig:pente_vtpr}

1372: that correspond to different $Q^2$ values.

1373: 

1374: By integrating the $d\sigma/dt$ cross section,

1375: we are able to recover at the $\approx$ 20\% level the integrated

1376: cross sections that were presented in section~\ref{int}. 

1377: The agreement is not perfect since for the integrated cross section 

1378: one fits a single full statistics $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ spectrum, whereas for 

1379: the differential cross section, one fits several lower statistics $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ 

1380: spectra, that are then summed. This relatively good agreement

1381: serves, among other arguments, to justify 

1382: the 25\% systematic uncertainties that we have applied in the non-resonant 

1383: $\pi^+\pi^-$ background subtraction procedure.

1384: 

1385: We note that the integrated cross sections that 

1386: we have presented so far (and which will be presented in the 

1387: remainder of this article) have been summed over only the domain where we had data

1388: and acceptance. We have not extrapolated our cross

1389: sections beyond the $t$ domain accessed in this experiment, which we deem unsafe

1390: and very model-dependent. Fig.~\ref{fig:exdsigmadtpr} indicates

1391: that this might underestimate some integrated

1392: cross sections for a (very limited) number of ($Q^2$,$x_B$) bins at large $x_B$,

1393: where the $t$ dependence appears rather flat.

1394: 

1395: \begin{figure*}

1396: \begin{center}

1397: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/bVcDeltaTau_tpr_InQ2vXbBins.eps}

1398: \caption{Slope $b$ of $d\sigma/dt$ as a function of $W$.

1399: 	Data of Cornell~\cite{Cassel,CORNELL},

1400: 	HERMES~\cite{HERMESrho}, NMC~\cite{nmc}, Fermilab (1979)~\cite{francis}, 

1401: 	E665~\cite{e665}, H1~\cite{h1} and 

1402: 	ZEUS~\cite{zeus} are shown for comparison.}

1403: \label{fig:pente_vtpr} 

1404: \end{center}

1405: \end{figure*}

1406: 

1407: We proceeded in the same way to extract $d\sigma/d\Phi$.

1408: All of our ($Q^2$,$x_B$) bins are shown in fig.~\ref{fig:exdsigmadPhi}.

1409: Several of the bins near $\Phi$=180$^o$ are empty or have

1410: large error bars because of very low acceptance in CLAS in this region.   

1411: 

1412: \begin{figure*}

1413: \begin{center}

1414: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{figures/Fits_TTTL.eps}

1415: \caption{Cross section $d\sigma/d\Phi$ (in $\mu$b/rad) for all bins in ($Q^2$,$x_B$) as a function 

1416: of $\Phi$ (in deg.).}

1417: \label{fig:exdsigmadPhi} 

1418: \end{center}

1419: \end{figure*}

1420: 

1421: These distributions were fitted with the expected $\Phi$ dependence 

1422: for single meson electroproduction:

1423: \begin{eqnarray}

1424: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Phi} = \frac{1}{2\pi} ( && \sigma_T+\epsilon\sigma_L \nonumber \\ 

1425: &&+ \epsilon \cos 2 \Phi \ \sigma_{TT} + 

1426: \sqrt{2\epsilon(1+\epsilon)} \cos \Phi \ \sigma_{TL} )\nonumber \\

1427: \label{eq:sigmaphidep}

1428: \end{eqnarray}

1429: from which we could extract the interference terms $\sigma_{TT}$ and 

1430: $\sigma_{TL}$. The curves in fig.~\ref{fig:exdsigmadPhi} show the 

1431: corresponding fits, and $\sigma_T+\epsilon\sigma_L$, $\sigma_{TT}$

1432: and $\sigma_{TL}$ are displayed in fig.~\ref{fig:sigTTnsigTL}.

1433: If helicity is conserved in the $s$ channel (SCHC), the

1434: interference terms $\sigma_{TT}$ and $\sigma_{TL}$ would vanish.

1435: Most of our extracted values are consistent with 0 within (large) 

1436: error bars, although one clearly cannot make strong claims about 

1437: SCHC at this point.

1438: 

1439: \begin{figure*}

1440: \begin{center}

1441: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/SigTT_TL_InQ2vXbBins.eps}

1442: \caption{Cross sections $\sigma_{T}+\epsilon\sigma_{L}$, $\sigma_{TT}$ and 

1443: $\sigma_{TL}$ (in $\mu$b) 

1444: for the reaction $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p \rho^0$ as a function of $Q^2$ for different 

1445: bins in $x_B$.}

1446: \label{fig:sigTTnsigTL} 

1447: \end{center}

1448: \end{figure*}

1449: 

1450: Turning to the pion decay angles of the $\rho^0$, $\theta_{HS}$ and 

1451: $\phi_{HS}$, they are expected to follow the general and model

1452: independent distribution~\cite{Schillel}:

1453: \begin{eqnarray}

1454: W(\Phi,\cos \theta_{HS},\varphi_{HS}) =\nonumber \\

1455: && \hspace*{-3cm} \frac{3}{4\pi} \displaystyle\left[ \frac{1}{2}(1-r_{00}^{04}) + \frac{1}{2}(3r_{00}^{04}-1)\cos^2 \theta_{HS} \right] \hspace*{-10cm} \nonumber \\

1456: && \hspace*{-3cm} -\sqrt{2} \mbox{Re} r_{10}^{04} \sin 2\theta_{HS} \cos \varphi_{HS} - r_{1-1}^{04} \sin^2 \theta_{HS} \cos 2\varphi_{HS}  \nonumber \\

1457: && \hspace*{-3cm} -\epsilon \cos 2\Phi ( r_{11}^1 \sin^2 \theta_{HS} + r_{00}^1 \cos^2 \theta_{HS} \nonumber \\

1458: && \hspace*{-3cm} -\sqrt{2} \mbox{Re} r_{10}^1 \sin 2\theta_{HS} \cos \varphi_{HS} - r_{1-1}^1 \sin^2 \theta_{HS} \cos 2\varphi_{HS}) \nonumber \\

1459: && \hspace*{-3cm} -\epsilon \sin 2\Phi ( \sqrt{2} \mbox{Im} r_{10}^2 \sin 2\theta_{HS} \sin \varphi_{HS} \nonumber \\

1460: && \hspace*{-3cm} + \mbox{Im} r_{1-1}^2 \sin^2 \theta_{HS} \sin 2\varphi_{HS}) \nonumber \\

1461: && \hspace*{-3cm} + \sqrt{2\epsilon(1+\epsilon)} \cos \Phi ( r_{11}^5 \sin^2 \theta_{HS} + r_{00}^5 \cos^2 \theta_{HS} \nonumber \\

1462: && \hspace*{-3cm} - \sqrt{2} \mbox{Re} r_{10}^5 \sin 2\theta_{HS} \cos \varphi_{HS} -r_{1-1}^5 \sin^2 \theta_{HS} \cos 2\varphi_{HS}) \nonumber \\

1463: && \hspace*{-3cm} + \sqrt{2\epsilon(1+\epsilon)} \sin \Phi ( \sqrt{2} \mbox{Im} r_{10}^6 \sin 2\theta_{HS} \sin \varphi_{HS} \nonumber \\

1464: && \hspace*{-3cm} + \mbox{Im} r_{1-1}^6 \sin^2 \theta_{HS} \sin 2\varphi_{HS})

1465: \hspace*{-20cm} \left[ \hspace*{+20cm} \displaystyle\right],

1466: \label{eq:omedec}

1467: \end{eqnarray}

1468: where: 

1469: \begin{eqnarray}

1470: r_{ij}^{04} = \frac{\rho_{ij}^0 + \epsilon R \rho_{ij}^4}{1+\epsilon R} \nonumber  \\

1471: &&\hspace*{-3cm}r_{ij}^{\alpha} = \frac{\rho_{ij}^{\alpha}}{1+\epsilon R} \ \ \alpha = 1,2 \nonumber  \\

1472: &&\hspace*{-3cm}r_{ij}^{\alpha} = \sqrt{R} \frac{\rho_{ij}^{\alpha}}{1+\epsilon R} \ \ \alpha = 5,6

1473: \label{eq:rhotor}

1474: \end{eqnarray}

1475: with $R_{\rho}$ equal to the ratio $\sigma_L/\sigma_T$.

1476:  

1477: The parameters $\rho_{ij}^{\alpha}$ are bilinear combinations of 

1478: the helicity amplitudes that describe the $\gamma^*p \to \rho^0 p$ 

1479: transition. They come from a decomposition of the

1480: $3\times 3$ spin density matrix of the $\rho^0$ in a basis of 9

1481: hermitian matrices. The superscript $\alpha$ refers to the virtual photon 

1482: polarization: $\alpha=0$-2 for transverse photons, 

1483: $\alpha=4$ for longitudinal photons, and $\alpha=5$-6 for the interference 

1484: between $L$ and $T$ terms. The subscript refers to the vector meson 

1485: helicity: $i,j=0$ refers to a longitudinal polarization state and

1486: $i,j=-1,1$ to a transverse polarization state. 

1487: For example, $\rho_{00}^0$ is related to the probability of 

1488: the transition between a transverse photon ($\alpha=0$) 

1489: and a longitudinal meson ($i,j=0$) and $\rho_{01}^0$ is an interference term 

1490: between meson helicities 0 and 1 ($i=0, j=1$) produced by a transverse 

1491: photon ($\alpha=0$).

1492: 

1493: If SCHC applies, then by definition, 

1494: $\rho_{00}^0=0$ and $\rho_{00}^4=1$. Then eq.~\ref{eq:rhotor} leads to a direct 

1495: relation between the measured $r_{00}^{04}$ and the ratio 

1496: $R_{\rho}=\frac{\sigma_L}{\sigma_T}$. In that case,

1497: the longitudinal and transverse cross sections, $\sigma_L$ and $\sigma_T$,

1498: may be extracted from the $\cos\theta_{HS}$ distribution, without 

1499: relying on a delicate Rosenbluth separation.

1500: 

1501: SCHC can be tested by studying the integrated distributions

1502: $W(\phi_{HS})$ and $W(\Psi)$ (where $\Psi=\phi_{HS}-\Phi$)

1503: over the other decay angles. Integrating 

1504: $W(\Phi, \cos\theta_{HS}, \phi_{HS})$ of eq.~\ref{eq:omedec} 

1505: over $\cos\theta_{HS}$ and $\Phi$ yields:

1506: \begin{equation}

1507: W(\phi_{HS}) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \left[1-2r_{1-1}^{04}\cos 2\phi_{HS} \right],

1508: \label{eq:WvarphiN}

1509: \end{equation}

1510: which isolates $r_{1-1}^{04}$, a density matrix element violating SCHC.

1511: Integrating $W(\Phi, \cos\theta_{HS}, \phi_{HS})$ over 

1512: $\cos\theta_{HS}$ yields:

1513: \begin{equation}

1514: W(\Psi) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \left[1+2\epsilon r^{1}_{1-1}\cos2\Psi \right].

1515: \label{eq:WPsi}

1516: \end{equation}

1517: 

1518: Another consequence of SCHC is that the $W(\phi_{HS})$ distribution should 

1519: be constant and the $W(\Psi)$ distribution should vary as $\cos2\Psi$ if 

1520: $r^{1}_{1-1}$ is not zero.

1521: 

1522: We extracted the $d\sigma/d\phi_{HS}$ and $d\sigma/d\Psi$ cross sections

1523: in the same way as previously mentioned, i.e. by fitting the 

1524: $M_X[e^\prime pX]$ spectra and extracting the $\rho^0$ yield for each 

1525: ($Q^2$,$x_B$,$\phi_{HS}$) and ($Q^2$,$x_B$,$\Psi$) bin, respectively.

1526: Fig.~\ref{fig:r1-1} shows the extracted values of $r^{04}_{1-1}$

1527: and $r^{1}_{1-1}$, obtained by fitting $d\sigma/d\phi_{HS}$ and 

1528: $d\sigma/d\Psi$ with the functions of eqs.~\ref{eq:WvarphiN} 

1529: and~\ref{eq:WPsi}, respectively. Basically all the SCHC violating matrix 

1530: elements $r^{04}_{1-1}$ are compatible with 0 (though within large 

1531: uncertainties), which gives some relative confidence in 

1532: the validity of SCHC. In addition, $r^{1}_{1-1}$ is also found to be compatible 

1533: with 0 for all kinematics, although this is not a necessary requirement for SCHC.

1534: This indicates that our $\Psi$ distributions are basically flat.

1535: 

1536: \begin{figure*}

1537: \begin{center}

1538: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/allrs.eps}

1539: \caption{Density matrix elements $r^{04}_{1-1}$, $r^{1}_{1-1}$ and $r^{04}_{00}$ for the reaction 

1540: $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p \rho^0$ as a function of $Q^2$ for different 

1541: bins in $x_B$.}

1542: \label{fig:r1-1} 

1543: \end{center}

1544: \end{figure*}

1545: 

1546: We finally extract the $r_{00}^{04}$ matrix element from the 

1547: $\cos\theta_{HS}$ distributions, which result from the integration of

1548: $W(\Phi, \cos\theta_{HS}, \phi_{HS})$ of eq.~\ref{eq:omedec} 

1549: over $\phi_{HS}$ and $\Phi$:

1550: \begin{equation}

1551: W(\cos\theta_{HS}) = \frac{3}{8}

1552: \left[(1-r_{00}^{04})+(3r_{00}^{04}-1)\cos^2\theta_{HS} \right].

1553: \label{eq:WcosthetaN}

1554: \end{equation}

1555: 

1556: As an example, fig.~\ref{fig:exsfCOSthetaHS} shows a $\cos\theta_{HS}$ 

1557: distribution, before and after the non-resonant 

1558: $\pi^+\pi^-$ background subtraction, for one of our typical

1559: ($Q^2$,$x_B$) bins. We note that the unsubtracted distribution is highly 

1560: asymmetrical in $\cos\theta_{HS}$. This is mainly due to the presence of events 

1561: from the $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \Delta^{++}\pi^-$ reaction, whose phase

1562: space is maximum around $\cos\theta_{HS}=1$.

1563: 

1564: \begin{figure}

1565: \begin{center}

1566: \includegraphics[width=7.25cm]{figures/exsfCOSthetaN.eps}

1567: \caption{An example of a (acceptance corrected) $\cos\theta_{HS}$ 

1568: distribution before (black points) and after (red) the non-resonant 

1569: $\pi^+\pi^-$ background subtraction

1570: ($0.58<x_B<0.64$ and $4.10<Q^2<4.60$ GeV$^2$ bin). In this example

1571: the error bars are purely statistical and no systematic uncertainty has been added.

1572: The asymmetry in the red data points between $\cos\theta_{HS}$=-1 and 

1573: $\cos\theta_{HS}$=1 is attributed to some remaining non-resonant 

1574: $\pi^+\pi^-$ background which could not be subtracted by our fitting procedure, 

1575: estimated to lead to a 25\% systematic uncertainty (see section~\ref{back}).}

1576: \label{fig:exsfCOSthetaHS}

1577: \end{center}

1578: \end{figure}

1579: 

1580: Fig.~\ref{fig:exdsigmadcosthHS} shows the $d\sigma/d\cos(\theta_{HS})$ 

1581: cross sections for all bins in ($Q^2$,$x_B$). Even after the non-resonant 

1582: $\pi^+\pi^-$ background subtraction procedure, some of the aforementioned 

1583: asymmetry in the $\cos(\theta_{HS})$ 

1584: distribution remains at the $\approx$ 25\% level. We attribute this to 

1585: interference effects between the $\rho^0$ channel and its background (mostly, 

1586: $ep \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^-\Delta^{*++} \hookrightarrow p\pi^+$

1587: and non-resonant $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ as already discussed),

1588: which obviously cannot be taken into account when subtracting the 

1589: different channels at the cross-section level as we do.

1590: This $\approx$ 25\% $\cos\theta_{HS}$ asymmetry is a further 

1591: confirmation of the systematic uncertainty associated to the

1592: extraction of the $\rho^0$ signal. Fig.~\ref{fig:r1-1} shows then the resulting 

1593: $r^{04}_{00}$ values.

1594: 

1595: \begin{figure*}

1596: \begin{center}

1597: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{figures/MMepVCosThHS_RhoSignal_InQ2vXbBins.DistFits.eps}

1598: \caption{Cross section $d\sigma/d\cos(\theta_{HS})$ (in $\mu$b) for all bins in ($Q^2$,$x_B$). 

1599: The red curve corresponds to the fit with function~\ref{eq:WcosthetaN}.

1600: }

1601: \label{fig:exdsigmadcosthHS} 

1602: \end{center}

1603: \end{figure*}

1604: 

1605: \subsection{Longitudinal/transverse cross section separation}

1606: \label{landt}

1607: 

1608: Following the relative verification of the presence of SCHC in the previous

1609: discussion, the ratio $R_{\rho}$ can be determined from: 

1610: \begin{equation}

1611: R_{\rho} = \frac{\sigma_L}{\sigma_T} = \frac{1}{\epsilon}

1612: \frac{r_{00}^{04}}{1-r_{00}^{04}}.

1613: \label{eq:Rrho}

1614: \end{equation}

1615: 

1616: Although we cannot claim that our data give strong evidence for SCHC (nor

1617: for its violation), it should be noted that ref.~\cite{hermesLT} mentions that 

1618: eq.~\ref{eq:Rrho} is relatively robust to violations of SCHC.

1619: Fig.~\ref{fig:Rrho} shows $R_\rho$ for all our ($Q^2$,$x_B$) bins,

1620: assuming SCHC, which is an assumption that we 

1621: will keep for the remainder of this analysis.

1622: 

1623: We fit our 27 points to a linear function: 

1624: 

1625: \begin{equation}

1626: R_\rho = a + b Q^2,

1627: \label{eq:Rrho_fit}

1628: \end{equation}

1629: 

1630: %which yields~: $a = 0. 592 \pm 0.609$ and $b = 0.487 \pm 0.234$. The

1631: \noindent which yields: $a = 0.281 \pm 0.549$ and $b = 0.439 \pm 0.203$. The

1632: uncertainties on $a$ and $b$ are relatively large but

1633: highly correlated. The normalized correlation coefficent is 0.966.

1634: Fig.~\ref{fig:RrhoWD} shows that the band corresponding to our fit

1635: is in good agreement with the world's data. 

1636: 

1637: \begin{figure*}

1638: \begin{center}

1639: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/Rrho_Table5_InQ2vXbBins.eps}

1640: \caption{The ratio $R_{\rho}$ for the reaction $(\gamma^* p \rightarrow p \rho^0)$ 

1641: as a function of $Q^2$ for different bins in $x_B$.}

1642: \label{fig:Rrho} 

1643: \end{center}

1644: \end{figure*}

1645: 

1646: \begin{figure*}

1647: \begin{center}

1648: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/Rrho_worlddata2.eps}

1649: \caption{World's data for $R_{\rho}$. The grey band represents the fit 

1650: to eq.~\ref{eq:Rrho_fit} using our 27 $R_{\rho}$ points in ($Q^2$,$x_B$). 

1651: The red line shows the central value of the fit 

1652: while the blue lines show the associated uncertainty limits.

1653: The CORNELL, HERMES, E665, H1 and ZEUS data are 

1654: respectively from refs.~\cite{Cassel}, \cite{HERMESrho}, \cite{e665},

1655: \cite{h1} and \cite{zeus}.}

1656: \label{fig:RrhoWD} 

1657: \end{center}

1658: \end{figure*}

1659: 

1660: The separated longitudinal and transverse cross sections, 

1661: $\sigma_L$ and $\sigma_T$, are then calculated as:

1662: \begin{equation}

1663: \sigma_T=\frac{\sigma_{\rho}}{(1+\epsilon R_{\rho})}, \,

1664: \sigma_L=\frac{\sigma_{\rho} R_{\rho}}{(1+\epsilon R_{\rho})}.

1665: \end{equation}

1666: 

1667: We will display these resulting cross sections in section~\ref{theo},

1668: where they will be compared to the theoretical models.

1669: 

1670: \subsection{Systematic uncertainties}

1671: \label{sys}

1672: 

1673: There are several sources of systematic uncertainties. The main one stems undeniably

1674: from the fit to extract the $\rho^0$ cross section and subtract the non-resonant 

1675: $\pi^+\pi^-$ continuum, as discussed in section~\ref{back}, and

1676: estimated to be 25\%. We recall that this estimation arises from several

1677: analyses:

1678: \begin{itemize}

1679: \item Fitting the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ distributions of fig.~\ref{fig:sousfondex}

1680: and changing the shapes of the various

1681: inputs and contributions. Other systematic studies on these fits 

1682: were carried out: removing a few data points on the edges of the $M_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ 

1683: spectra to study edge effects, smoothing the histograms to take into

1684: account potential statistical fluctuations, varying the

1685: ranges of the parameters to be fitted (see Table~\ref{tab:bwparam}), etc. 

1686: All in all, we found a stability and robustness of our fits at the $\approx$ 20\% level. 

1687: \item Integrating $d\sigma/dt$ over $t$ (section~\ref{diff})

1688: and comparing it to the total cross sections (section~\ref{int}),

1689: resulting in a $\approx$ 20\% level agreement.

1690: \item Observing an asymmetry at the $\approx$ 25\% level between the

1691: forward and backward angles in the $\cos\theta_{HS}$ distributions

1692: (section~\ref{diff}).

1693: \end{itemize}

1694: 

1695: A second source of systematic uncertainty stems from the acceptance calculation

1696: which is largely model independent. We have carried out several tests to determine the

1697: associated uncertainty on our procedure. For instance, we have varied the binning of 

1698: the 7-dimensional table (see table~\ref{tab:binning}). As an other test,

1699: we have also varied the input event 

1700: generators: taking for instance only the $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\pi^+\pi^-$ phase space 

1701: channel or only the $ep \rightarrow e^\prime p\rho^0$ channel. 

1702: Ultimately, we estimated the stability of our acceptance to be at the 15\% level.

1703: 

1704: We correct the data for radiative effects. These were generated according to 

1705: ref.~\cite{RadCorr}. The approximations used in this calculation may lead to 

1706: systematic uncertainties that we estimate to be of the order of 4\%. 

1707: 

1708: The determination of the CC efficiencies relies on the assumption that the

1709: distribution of photoelectrons for detected electrons is a generalized Poisson

1710: function and that the shape of this distribution above 4 photoelectrons

1711: is sufficient to determine the whole distribution and to extrapolate to 0.

1712: The maximum error we could make on the integral of the distribution between

1713: 0 and 4 photoelectrons is about 25\%. Since the CC inefficiencies are

1714: at most of the order of 6\%, the corresponding systematic uncertainties on the

1715: cross sections is 1.5\%.

1716: 

1717: The EC efficiency determination relies on the assumption that a particle

1718: with a sufficiently high number of photoelectrons in the CC

1719: was unambiguously an electron. We tried applying several values for this cut to 

1720: estimate the stability of the results and the maximum differences were

1721: found to be on the order of 2\%.

1722: 

1723: The target length is known to about $\pm$ 1~mm.

1724: The hydrogen density was kept fairly constant through temperature and

1725: pressure stabilization. The determination of the beam integrated charge 

1726: also has a small systematic uncertainty. All this is summarized in 

1727: table~\ref{tab:systerr2}, and leads to a normalization error applicable

1728: to the whole data set. 

1729: 

1730: \begin{table}[h!]	

1731: \begin{center}	

1732: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|}

1733: \hline	

1734: \hspace*{1.cm} {\bf Source of error} & {\bf Estimated uncertainty} \\

1735: \hline \hline

1736: Fitting procedure & 25\% \\ \hline

1737: CLAS acceptance & 15\% \\ \hline

1738: Radiative corrections & 4\% \\ \hline

1739: CC efficiency & 1.5\% \\ \hline

1740: EC efficiency & 2\% \\ \hline

1741: Target thickness & 2\% \\ \hline

1742: Target density & 1\% \\ \hline

1743: Beam integrated charge & 2\% \\ 

1744: \hline	

1745: \end{tabular}	

1746: \caption{Systematic uncertainties affecting the overall normalization.

1747: The quadratic sum of all theses errors results in a $\approx$ 30\% 

1748: systematic error bar.} 

1749: \label{tab:systerr2}

1750: \end{center}	

1751: \end{table}	

1752: 

1753: \section{Theoretical interpretation}

1754: \label{theo}

1755: 

1756: \subsection{The Regge ``hadronic" approach}

1757: 

1758: The Regge approach consists of understanding exclusive $\rho^0$

1759: electroproduction, above the resonance region and at forward

1760: angles where the cross section is the largest, in terms of exchanges of 

1761: meson ``trajectories" in the $t$-channel. Regge theory generalizes the notion of 

1762: a $t$-channel {\it single} particle exchange to the notion of a {\it family} 

1763: (i.e. trajectory) of particle exchanges. Indeed, mesons, and more broadly hadrons,

1764: appear in general in sequences made of rotational excitations.

1765: Mesons that have the same quantum numbers, except for spin,

1766: seem to align along linear ``trajectories" $\alpha(t)=\alpha(0)+\alpha^\prime t$

1767: that relate their squared mass $-t$ to their spin $\alpha$. This 

1768: leads in the high energy limit to amplitudes proportional to $s^{\alpha(t)}$, 

1769: where $s=W^2$, and therefore total cross sections are

1770: proportional to $s^{\alpha(0)-1}$.

1771: 

1772: In the following, we will use ``JML" to refer to the latest version~\cite{laget2} 

1773: of the model developed by J.-M. Laget and collaborators~\cite{RgModel2,RgModel3,laget4}. 

1774: The dominant amplitudes correspond to the $t$-channel exchange diagrams 

1775: of fig.~\ref{fig:tech}. Since vector mesons have the same quantum numbers as the 

1776: photon, systems with quantum numbers of the vacuum  can be exchanged. The 

1777: corresponding trajectory is called the pomeron. Although the pomeron contribution 

1778: fully explains $\phi$ meson photo-~\cite{eric} and electroproduction~\cite{joe}, it 

1779: represents only about one third of the cross section in 

1780: the $\gamma^*p\rightarrow p \rho^0$ channel for the energy range covered by our data. 

1781: Here the bulk of the cross section comes from the exchange of the $f_2(1270)$ and 

1782: $\sigma$ mesons. The exchange of the $\pi$ meson, which dominates $\omega$ 

1783: production, contributes very little to the $\rho^0$ production channel.

1784: 

1785: Amplitudes for the pomeron, $\pi$ and $f_2$ meson exchange diagrams

1786: can be found in ref.~\cite{RgModel2} and for the 

1787: $\sigma$ meson exchange diagram in ref.~\cite{laget4}. In photoproduction, the 

1788: only parameters of the model are the coupling 

1789: constants at the vertices of the diagrams. They are taken from a comprehensive study of 

1790: other independent processes. For instance, the quark-pomeron coupling constant is fixed 

1791: by the analysis of $pp$ scattering at high energy ($W\sim 100$~GeV). 

1792: In electroproduction, a monopole form factor is introduced at 

1793: the $\gamma\pi\rho$ vertex and a dipole from factor is used at the 

1794: $\gamma\sigma\rho$ vertex~\cite{RgModel2}. In this latter reference, 

1795: a dependence on $t$ is given to the cut-off mass that accounts for an increasing 

1796: point-like behavior of the coupling of the photon with the meson when $-t$ 

1797: (and consequently the impact parameter) 

1798: increases. By construction, both the $Q^2$ and the $t$ dependency of the 

1799: $\gamma \wp \rho$ (where $\wp$ stands for the pomeron) 

1800: and the $\gamma f_2 \rho$ vertices are intrinsically part

1801: of the corresponding amplitudes, and no other parameters are included.

1802: 

1803: \begin{figure}

1804: \begin{center}

1805: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/tregge.eps}

1806: \caption{Dominant $t$-channel exchange diagrams

1807:  for the reactions $\gamma p \rightarrow p\rho^0$.}

1808: \label{fig:tech} 

1809: \end{center}

1810: \end{figure}

1811: 

1812: With this limited number of parameters, the JML model is able to 

1813: successfully reproduce the main trends of the $W$ and $t$ dependences of the 

1814: total and differential cross sections for the reactions 

1815: $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p\phi$, $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p\omega$ 

1816: and $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p\rho^0$ over the whole $W$ range, i.e. from

1817: threshold up to HERA energies. In order to save computation, in our case, 

1818: the pomeron exchange version of the model has been used instead of the two 

1819: gluon exchange version. In the momentum transfer range of this work, 

1820: i.e. $-t<$ 2 GeV$^2$, the two models lead to almost identical 

1821: results. Overall, as was mentioned before, the pomeron/two-gluon exchange 

1822: contribution does not dominate the cross section in the energy range 

1823: that is accessed in this study ($W$ up to 2.5 GeV). 

1824:  

1825: \subsection{The GPD ``partonic" approach}

1826: \label{gpd_mod}

1827: 

1828: The JML model was originally built 

1829: for photoproduction, i.e. $Q^2=0$, and was extended to electroproduction 

1830: by introducing form factors to take into account the shorter 

1831: distances probed by the virtual photon, inversely related to $Q^2$. 

1832: We now consider another approach, based on the formalism of 

1833: Generalized Parton Distributions (GPDs), which is valid 

1834: in the so-called Bjorken (or ``Deep Inelastic") regime, i.e.

1835: $Q^2,\nu\to\infty$ with $x_B=\frac{Q^2}{2M\nu}$ finite. An important question is

1836: how low in $Q^2$ this asymptotic formalism can still be applied

1837: or extrapolated?

1838: 

1839: Collins {\it et al.}~\cite{collins} have shown that the dominant

1840: processes for exclusive meson electroproduction, in the Bjorken regime,

1841: are given by the so-called handbag diagrams represented in

1842: fig.~\ref{fig:qandg}.

1843: 

1844: \begin{figure}[h!]

1845: \begin{center}

1846: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/qandg.ps}

1847: \caption{The handbag diagrams for (longitudinal) vector meson production.

1848: Quark GPDs are accessed on the left and gluon GPDs are accessed on the right.}

1849: \label{fig:qandg} 

1850: \end{center}

1851: \end{figure}

1852: 

1853: The handbag diagrams are based on the notion of factorization

1854: in leading-order pQCD between a hard scattering process, exactly 

1855: calculable in pQCD and a nonperturbative nucleon structure part that is

1856: parametrized by the Generalized Parton Distributions introduced 

1857: by M\"uller {\it et al.}~\cite{muller}, Ji~\cite{ji} and 

1858: Radyushkin~\cite{rady}. For the quark handbag diagram and for vector mesons,

1859: only the two unpolarized GPDs contribute. They are called, using 

1860: Ji's notation, $H$ and $E$, and they depend upon three variables: 

1861: $x$, $\xi$ and $t$. We refer to the rich literature on GPDs 

1862: (see refs.~\cite{goeke,revdiehl,revrady} for recent reviews)

1863: for the full definition of the formalism and of the variables.

1864: For the gluon handbag diagram, the corresponding 

1865: $H^g$ and $E^g$ gluonic GPDs are usually approximated by and reduced to

1866: the forward gluon density $G(x)$.

1867: 

1868: We recall that for mesons, factorization, 

1869: which is an essential component of the handbag mechanism, is only valid for 

1870: the longitudinal part of the cross section, as the $L$ subscripts on the

1871: photon $\gamma^*_L$ and on the meson $\rho^0$ indicate in fig.~\ref{fig:qandg}. This

1872: is one of the main motivations for separating 

1873: the longitudinal and transverse parts of the cross sections in our data analysis.

1874: 

1875: We stress that theoretical calculations of exclusive meson production cross sections 

1876: in the QCD factorization and GPD approaches are extremely challenging because 

1877: one needs to address several issues at once: how to model the GPDs; 

1878: how to treat the hard scattering process (the choice of an effective scale 

1879: in $\alpha_s$, the role of QCD corrections, etc.); how to consistently 

1880: combine contributions from meson production in small-size and large-size 

1881: configurations, etc. While in theory these are distinct issues that can be 

1882: discussed separately, in practice they are very much related. Therefore,

1883: the choices and approximations one makes in the treatment of one will 

1884: generally influence the conclusions one draws about the others.

1885: 

1886: In the following, we will discuss the two particular GK~\cite{gk} and 

1887: VGG~\cite{Vdh1,Vdh2,Vdh3,Vdh4} GPD-based calculations that

1888: provide quantitative results for the {\it longitudinal} 

1889: exclusive $\rho^0$ cross section. Both groups have 

1890: adopted the same approach. They parametrize the $(x,\xi)$ dependence of

1891: the $H$ and $E$ GPDs based on double distributions as proposed in ref.~\cite{RadyDD}, 

1892: (the treatment of the $t$ dependence being different). They

1893: correct the leading order amplitude with

1894: an intrinsic transverse momentum dependence, the so-called $k_\perp$

1895: corrections or, more generally, the modified perturbative approach~\cite{mpa}. 

1896: On this latter point, it is indeed well-known that at high $W$ the 

1897: leading-twist calculations overestimate the data and that the associated 

1898: prediction of $\frac{d\sigma_L}{dt}$ evolving as $\frac{1}{Q^6}$, 

1899: at fixed $x_B$, is not observed in the data %, as was shown, for instance, at

1900: %high $W$, i.e. in the gluon handbag domain where numerous data exist 

1901: (see for instance ref.~\cite{koepf}). 

1902: 

1903: The main difference between the two calculations lies in 

1904: the fact that the GK group has treated the sum of the two handbags 

1905: at the {\it amplitude} level, while the VGG group has treated it 

1906: at the {\it cross section} level, and has therefore neglected

1907: the interference between the two handbag diagrams. We will see this effect in the

1908: next section where we compare our data to the two particular GPD

1909: models we have just introduced.

1910: 

1911: \subsection{Comparison to data}

1912: \label{inter}

1913: 

1914: Fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoLCompWorldvW} shows our results for

1915: the total {\it longitudinal} cross section for exclusive 

1916: $\rho^0$ electroproduction on the proton as a function of $W$, 

1917: for different $Q^2$ bins, along with the relevant world's data.

1918: 

1919: \begin{figure*}  

1920: \begin{center}

1921: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/XsectRhoL_CompWorld_vW_Q2bins.eps}

1922: \caption{World data for the reduced cross sections 

1923: 	$\gamma^*_L p \rightarrow p \rho^0_L$ 

1924: 	as a function of $W$ for constant $Q^2$ bins, 

1925: 	in units of $\mu$barn. The lowest cross section point in the 

1926: 	2.80 GeV$^2$ $<Q^2<$ 3.10 GeV$^2$ bin (from CORNELL) corresponds to 

1927: 	the low $R_{\rho}$ (=0.38) point in fig.~\ref{fig:RrhoWD}

1928: 	and might be unreliable. The dashed curve shows the result of the 

1929: 	GK calculation and the thin solid curve shows the result of the VGG calculation.

1930: 	Both calculations are based on Double Distributions as proposed in ref.~\cite{RadyDD}

1931: 	for the GPD parametrizations and incorporate higher twist effects through

1932: 	$k_\perp$ dependence. They differ essentially in summing coherently or not the

1933: 	gluon and the quark exchange handbag contributions (see fig.~\ref{fig:qandg}). 

1934: 	The thick solid curve is the

1935: 	VGG calculation with the addition of the D-term inspired contribution. The dot-dashed

1936: 	curve shows the results of the Regge JML calculation.

1937: 	The 4.2 GeV CLAS, CORNELL, HERMES and E665 data are 

1938: 	respectively from refs.~\cite{cynthia}, \cite{Cassel}, \cite{HERMESrho}

1939: 	and \cite{e665}.}

1940: \label{fig:XsectRhoLCompWorldvW}

1941: \end{center}

1942: \end{figure*}

1943: 

1944: The cross sections clearly exhibit two different behaviors as

1945: a function of $W$. At low $W$ the cross sections decrease 

1946: with $W$ and then begin to rise slowly at $W$ $\approx$ 10 GeV. 

1947: 

1948: In fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoLCompWorldvW} the results

1949: of the calculations of the JML, VGG and GK models are also shown. The JML model

1950: (dash-dotted line) reproduces fairly well the two general behaviors just mentioned. 

1951: The drop

1952: of the cross section at low $W$ is due to the $t$-channel 

1953: $\sigma$ and $f_2$ meson exchange diagrams (see fig.~\ref{fig:tech}). 

1954: The intercept $\alpha(0)$ of the $f_2$ trajectory is $\approx 0.5$ 

1955: and therefore the cross sections decrease with energy as 

1956: $\frac{1}{s^{0.5}}$. The flattening of the cross 

1957: section near W $\approx$ 10 GeV comes

1958: from the combined effect of the decreasing $f_2$ contribution and 

1959: the increasing pomeron contribution, whose trajectory has an intercept of 

1960: $\alpha(0)\approx 1+\epsilon$. Although the JML model reproduces 

1961: the general $W$ dependence of the {\it longitudinal} 

1962: exclusive $\rho^0$ cross section relatively well, it drops as a function

1963: of $Q^2$ faster than the data and agrees only up to $Q^2\approx$ 4.10 GeV$^2$.

1964: 

1965: We now turn to the GPD approaches. The dashed line shows the result of the 

1966: GK model, while the thin solid line shows the result of the VGG model.

1967: We see that they give a good description 

1968: of the high and intermediate $W$ region, down to $W$ $\approx$ 5 GeV.

1969: This result was already observed by the HERMES 

1970: collaboration~\cite{HERMESrho}. At high $W$ the slow rise of the cross 

1971: section is due to the gluon and sea contributions, while the valence 

1972: quarks contribute only at small $W$ (this decomposition is shown 

1973: in fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoTCompWorldvW} when we discuss 

1974: the transverse cross section). 

1975: We see a significant disagreement between the GK and VGG models

1976: at intermediate $W$, which can be clearly explained by the fact 

1977: that, as was mentioned in section~\ref{gpd_mod}, the GK model

1978: takes the interference between the two

1979: handbag diagrams of fig.~\ref{fig:qandg} into account, while the VGG model

1980: sums them {\it incoherently}. This interference is of course maximal

1981: at intermediate $W$'s where the gluon handbag diagram starts to become

1982: significant, while the valence part of the quark handbag diagram

1983: is still significant. The data don't particularly favor

1984: GK over VGG but it is clear that, on purely theoretical grounds,

1985: the GK model is more correct. It is remarkable that, except in this

1986: intermediate $W$ region, i.e. in the high- and low-$W$ regions,

1987: the GK and VGG models are in close agreement. The fact that two independent 

1988: groups with different numerical methods and approximations tend to agree 

1989: gives some relative confidence in the calculations.

1990: 

1991: At lower $W$ values, where the new CLAS data lie,

1992: it is striking that both the GK and VGG models fail to reproduce 

1993: the data. This discrepancy can reach an order of magnitude at the lowest 

1994: $W$ values. The trend of these particular GPD calculations is to decrease as $W$ 

1995: decreases, whereas the data increase. In the VGG and GK calculations, these trends 

1996: can be understood as follows: GPDs are approximately proportional to 

1997: the forward quark densities $q(x)$. This relation is not so direct

1998: since the quark densities are, in the double distributions ansatz

1999: of ref.~\cite{RadyDD},

2000: convoluted with a meson distribution amplitude but, still, the main trends

2001: remain. Then, as $x$ increases (i.e. $W$ decreases), GPDs tend to go to $0$

2002: since $q(x)\approx (1-x)^3$ for $x$ close to $1$. There might be, according to the

2003: scale, a slight local increase or bump around $x\approx$ 0.3, due to the valence 

2004: contribution, which is indeed clearly apparent in the VGG calculation

2005: shown in fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoLCompWorldvW}. However, this variation cannot explain 

2006: an increase of an order of magnitude.

2007: 

2008: The conclusion on the GPD approach is then two-fold:

2009: \begin{itemize}

2010: \item The handbag is not at all the dominant 

2011: mechanism in the low $W$ valence region and higher twists or so far 

2012: uncontrollable non-perturbative effects obscure the handbag mechanism. 

2013: If so, one has to explain why the (power-corrected) handbag mechanism works in the 

2014: high/intermediate $W$ (i.e. low $x$) domain and, quite abruptly, fails in 

2015: the valence region. Higher twist can certainly depend on energy, but such 

2016: a strong variation with $W$ is certainly puzzling. Also, the explanation 

2017: might simply be of a {\it kinematic} nature. As shown in 

2018: fig.~\ref{fig:exdsigmadtpr}, the minimum value of $\mid t\mid$ increases significantly

2019: with decreasing $W$. For instance, $t_{min}\approx$ 1.6 GeV$^2$ for the 

2020: ($0.64<x_B<0.70$, $5.10 <Q^2<5.60$ GeV$^2$) 

2021: bin while $t_{min}\approx$ 0.1 GeV$^2$ for the ($0.16<x_B<0.22$, 

2022: $1.60 <Q^2<1.90$ GeV$^2$) bin. In the handbag formalism, higher twists grow 

2023: with $t$ and this purely kinematic effect provides a natural

2024: source for them. However, more than absolute values, the ratio $\frac{t}{Q^2}$ 

2025: should be relevant, and for the largest $t_{min}$ values, one actually finds

2026: $\frac{t_{min}}{Q^2}=\frac{1.6}{5.35}$, i.e. of the order of 30\%.

2027: More generally, the largest $t_{min}$ values correspond to the largest $Q^2$ values

2028: but, since $Q^2$ increases faster than $t_{min}$ in our kinematics, this actually 

2029: makes the ratio $\frac{t}{Q^2}$ more favorable as $Q^2$ increases.

2030: 

2031: \item Or the handbag mechanism, which succesfully describes the

2032: region of intermediate and high $W$, is indeed at work in the valence 

2033: region but the way the GPDs are modeled by the VGG and GK groups is incomplete, 

2034: with a significant and fundamental contribution missing, or incorrect.

2035: \end{itemize}

2036: 

2037: \begin{figure*}

2038: \begin{center}

2039: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{figures/dsldtvst_theo.eps}

2040: \caption{Longitudinal cross section $d\sigma_L/dt$ (in $\mu$b/GeV$^2$) for all bins in ($Q^2$,$x_B$)

2041: as a function of $t$ (in GeV$^2$). The thick solid curve represents the result of the VGG calculation

2042: with the addition of the Generalized D-term. The dash-dotted curve is the result of the 

2043: JML model.}

2044: \label{fig:dsdt_theo} 

2045: \end{center}

2046: \end{figure*}

2047: 

2048: Let us note at this stage that, on general grounds, at large $x_B$, the situation 

2049: is somewhat 

2050: more complex than at small $x_B$. Both real and imaginary parts contribute 

2051: (the so-called ERBL and DGLAP regions), the skewness of the GPDs is substantial 

2052: and non-perturbative effects are expected to play a strong role in determining 

2053: the behavior of the GPDs near $x\to\xi$. Therefore, it is not so clear whether the 

2054: higher twist corrections,

2055: which are already substantial at low $x_B$ through the $k_\perp$ dependence,

2056: have the same character at large $x_B$ and if much can be

2057: concluded about large $x_B$ from the good GPD description of the 

2058: small $x_B$ data.

2059: 

2060: Therefore, with utmost caution, we quote the suggestion

2061: of ref.~\cite{mick} to add a new (strong) component to the 

2062: standard VGG GPD parametrization, in the form of a $D$-term inspired ansatz,

2063: to reconcile the handbag approach with the data.

2064: We recall that the $D$-term was originally introduced by Polyakov and Weiss~\cite{weiss}

2065: in order to complete the Double Distribution representation of GPDs,

2066: so as to satisfy the polynomiality rule, and that it could be interpreted

2067: as the contribution to the GPDs of the exchange of a $\sigma$ meson in the $t$-channel. 

2068: In ref.~\cite{mick}, the $t$-dependence of the $D$-term was modified (making it, 

2069: effectively,

2070: no longer a $D$-term, properly speaking) and renormalized. One of the motivations for 

2071: this new term was to extend the concept of $q\bar{q}$ components, or $t$-channel meson exchange, 

2072: in GPDs, in a spirit similar to the JML model that explains the strong

2073: rise of the cross section as $W$ decreases by

2074: $t$-channel $\sigma$ and $f_2$ meson exchange processes. The thick solid line of 

2075: fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoLCompWorldvW} shows the result of the 

2076: introduction of this new contribution, added coherently to the standard VGG double

2077: distribution parametrization, with its normalization adjusted to the data. 

2078: 

2079: We insist that this extra contribution is a speculation, which however

2080: does have the merit of providing numerical estimates of the cross section.

2081: Several alternative explanations should also be in order. GPDs can 

2082: obviously be parametrized differently than

2083: in VGG and in GK. It was shown for instance that the spectator model

2084: of Hwang and M\"uller with an overlap representation for the modeling of 

2085: the GPDs~\cite{hwang} produces 

2086: naturally an enhancement at large $x$ compared to the VGG model

2087: that should produce quark exchange cross sections dropping with increasing $W$.

2088: Also, NLO QCD corrections might be more sizeable in this region (see ref.~\cite{kugler}).

2089: Let us finally mention that, in the framework of the VGG model, the Feynman mechanism 

2090: (or overlap diagram, see ref.~\cite{Vdh2} for instance) was calculated but, although it 

2091: has the right $W$ dependence, since it is a real contribution that lives in the 

2092: $\mid x\mid <\xi$ region and therefore dominates at large $x_B$, its numerical contribution, 

2093: which does not rely on any extra parameter, is barely significant. 

2094: 

2095: In summary, the only conclusion that we allow ourselves to reach at this stage

2096: is that the

2097: two popular GK and VGG models that provide numerical estimations of 

2098: the $ep\to ep\rho^0$ cross sections and which describe well these data at

2099: large $W$ values, fail to describe the present large $x_B$ CLAS data (the normalisation

2100: as well as the $W$ dependence). This fact does not imply however that the handbag

2101: mechanism is not at work in this latter regime as this might simply

2102: be an artifact of the current double distribution parametrization by these

2103: two groups. We reiterate that the necessary consistent 

2104: treatment of GPD modeling, QCD scale setting, and higher-twist effects 

2105: is much more difficult at low $W$ than at high $W$ and renders conclusions

2106: more difficult.

2107: 

2108: \begin{figure*}

2109: \begin{center}

2110: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/XsectRhoLandT_InQ2vXbBins.eps}

2111: \caption{Cross sections $\sigma_L$ 

2112: 	for the reaction $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p \rho^0$ 

2113: 	as a function of $Q^2$ for different bins in $x_B$, 

2114: 	in units of $\mu$barn. The solid blue curve is the result of the VGG calculation

2115: 	with the Generalized D-term including the $k_\perp$ correction. The dashed curve 

2116: 	shows the leading twist (i.e without the $k_\perp$ correction) VGG handbag calculation 

2117: 	(with the Generalized D-term). The solid red curve is a fit to the data 

2118: 	using a $\frac{1}{Q^{2n}}$ function.}

2119: \label{fig:XsectRhoLandT} 

2120: \end{center}

2121: \end{figure*}

2122: 

2123: Fig.~\ref{fig:dsdt_theo} shows the {\it longitudinal} differential

2124: cross section $d\sigma_L/dt$ as a function of $t$. The model of ref.~\cite{mick},

2125: inspired partly by Regge theory, naturally explains the decrease of the $t$-slope 

2126: as $x_B$ gets larger. So does the spectator model of 

2127: ref.~\cite{hwang}, which quotes a decrease of the $t$ slope from

2128: $b\approx$ 3.5 GeV$^2$ at $x_B$=0.2 and $Q^2$=2 GeV$^2$ to 

2129: $b\approx$ 1.5 GeV$^2$ at $x_B$=0.6 and $Q^2$=5 GeV$^2$.

2130: 

2131: Let us mention here that because of the statistics of the data, which in general 

2132: fall quite rapidly with $t$, we have not been able to extract reliably 

2133: the ratio $R_{\rho} = \frac{\sigma_L}{\sigma_T}$ 

2134: as a function of $t$ and that, in a given $(x_B,Q^2)$ bin, the {\it same} $R_{\rho}$

2135: value has been applied to the data over the whole $t$ range. In other words, 

2136: these differential cross sections might need to be corrected 

2137: if the ratio $R_{\rho}$ depends significantly on $t$.

2138: 

2139: \begin{figure*}[h!]    

2140: \begin{center}

2141: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{figures/XsectRhoT_CompWorld_vW_Q2bins2.eps}

2142: \caption{World data for the reduced cross sections 

2143: 	$\gamma^*_T p \rightarrow p \rho^0_T$ 

2144: 	as a function of $W$ for constant $Q^2$ bins, 

2145: 	in units of $\mu$barn. The dashed curve shows the result of the 

2146: 	GK calculation. The solid curve shows the contribution of the valence

2147: 	part of the quark exchange handbag diagram (fig.~\ref{fig:qandg} left) while

2148: 	the dotted curve shows the sum of the sea quarks

2149: 	part of the quark exchange handbag (fig.~\ref{fig:qandg} left) and of

2150: 	the gluon exchange (fig.~\ref{fig:qandg} right) contributions. The dot-dashed

2151: 	curve shows the results of the Regge JML calculation. The 4.2 GeV CLAS, 

2152: 	CORNELL, HERMES and E665 data are respectively from refs.~\cite{cynthia}, 

2153: 	\cite{Cassel}, \cite{HERMESrho} and \cite{e665}.}

2154: \label{fig:XsectRhoTCompWorldvW}

2155: \end{center}

2156: \end{figure*}

2157: 

2158: The dash-dotted curves in fig.~\ref{fig:dsdt_theo} show the JML model.

2159: In this approach, the natural $t$ dependence given by the Regge formula $s^{\alpha (t)}$

2160: is too sharp, as for the $H$ and $E$ GPD case. Thus, $t$-dependent form 

2161: factors have to be introduced at the electromagnetic vertices of the diagrams of 

2162: fig.~\ref{fig:tech}, according to the procedure and motivations of ref.~\cite{laget2}.

2163: 

2164: Fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoLandT} shows the $Q^2$ dependence of the 

2165: longitudinal $\rho^0$ cross section $\sigma_L$ for different $x_B$ values.

2166: When more than three points are present in an $x_B$ bin, we fit

2167: the $Q^2$ dependence to the function $\frac{1}{Q^{2n}}$, with the extracted values $n$ 

2168: displayed in the figure. We recall that the handbag formalism predicts a value of 3

2169: for $n$ at asymptotically large $Q^2$ values. However, a smaller coefficient, 

2170: i.e. a flatter $Q^2$ dependence, is expected at these low $Q^2$ values due to 

2171: preasymptotic ($k_\perp$) effects.

2172: The thick solid (blue) curves in fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoLandT} show the results of the VGG 

2173: calculation including the extra aforementioned term.

2174: The magnitude and shape of the data are reasonably reproduced. The $k_\perp$ effects

2175: in the calculation flatten the $Q^2$ slope of the cross section. For comparison, 

2176: the asymptotic result, i.e. without $k_\perp$ effects, is shown as the dashed (black)

2177: curve in fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoLandT}. One sees that its normalization is of course higher.

2178: Indeed, $k_\perp$ effects reduce the cross section by a factor 2 to 5 depending

2179: on $x_B$ and $Q^2$. Also, the $Q^2$ dependence of the asymptotic

2180: result is steeper, precisely $\frac{1}{Q^6}$. At asymptotically large $Q^2$ values, the two

2181: calculations, i.e. with and without $k_\perp$ effects, are expected to agree.

2182: 

2183: To complete the interpretation of our data, we finally 

2184: turn to the transverse part of the cross section.

2185: We show in fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoTCompWorldvW} the $W$ dependence

2186: of the $\gamma^*_T p \rightarrow p \rho^0_T$ cross section for different $Q^2$ bins.

2187: The JML model (dot-dashed curve) once again reproduces the general shape 

2188: of the $W$ dependence of this cross section. Though, quantitatively, it seems to 

2189: overestimate by $\approx$ 30\% the CLAS data at low $Q^2$, where it is expected 

2190: to be the most valid. The agreement for the longitudinal 

2191: part of the cross section was much better for this kinematical region.

2192: 

2193: \begin{figure*}

2194: \begin{center}

2195: \includegraphics[width=18cm]{figures/dstdtvst_theo.eps}

2196: \caption{Cross section $d\sigma_T/dt$ (in $\mu$b/GeV$^2$) for all bins in ($Q^2$,$x_B$)

2197: as a function of $t$ (in GeV$^2$). The dash-dotted curve is the result of the 

2198: JML model.}

2199: \label{fig:dstdt_theo} 

2200: \end{center}

2201: \end{figure*}

2202: 

2203: The transverse part of the cross section doesn't lend itself straighforwardly to

2204: a GPD interpretation since it is higher twist. However, the GK group,

2205: taking into account $k_\perp$ effects, has been able to extend its analysis of the 

2206: longitudinal cross section to the transverse case~\cite{gk2}. They showed

2207: that retaining the quark transverse momenta regularizes the infrared singularities

2208: occuring in the transverse process. The dashed curve in fig.~\ref{fig:XsectRhoTCompWorldvW} 

2209: shows the result of this calculation. The high energy E665 data, and to some extent,

2210: the HERMES data are well reproduced, thus comfirming the approach. However, as for the 

2211: longitudinal cross section, the low $W$ CLAS data are completely underestimated. The 

2212: VGG model has not yet 

2213: been extended to the transverse case but it is clearly expected that the addition

2214: of the Generalized D-term to the transverse process produces the same effect

2215: as for the longitudinal one and might explain the rise of the cross section at low $W$.

2216: 

2217: Finally, fig.~\ref{fig:dstdt_theo} shows the transverse differential cross section

2218: $d\sigma_T/dt$ compared to the JML model. One finds that the JML model tends to 

2219: overestimate the experimental cross sections

2220: at the $\approx$ 30\% level, especially at large $t$ values.

2221: 

2222: \section{Summary}

2223: \label{conc}

2224: 

2225: Using the CLAS detector at JLab, we have collected 

2226: the largest ever set of data for the $e p\to e^\prime p \rho^0$

2227: reaction in the valence region. We have presented the $Q^2$ and $x_B$ (and $W$)

2228: dependences of the total, longitudinal and transverse cross sections, as well as

2229: of the differential cross section in $t$.

2230: 

2231: The unique features that we have observed are:

2232: \begin{itemize}

2233: \item The $W$ dependence of our data shows a clear decrease of the cross sections

2234: with increasing $W$, in contrast to the higher $W$ data (HERMES, H1, ZEUS, E665),

2235: which show cross sections that tend to be flat or slowly rising with $W$,

2236: \item The $t$ dependence exhibits a varying slope with energy: the slope

2237: increases as $x_B$ decreases. In particular, our $t$ dependences are almost flat 

2238: at our largest $x_B$ values,

2239: \item The cross sections decrease with $Q^2$

2240: as approximatively $\frac{1}{Q^4}$, i.e. in a flatter way than what is predicted

2241: by the asymptotic handbag diagram.

2242: \end{itemize}

2243: 

2244: These data and features can be interpreted in two ways:

2245: \begin{itemize}

2246: \item In terms of hadronic degrees of freedom, i.e. meson trajectory exchanges

2247: in the $t$-channel, following the JML Regge model. In order to reproduce the rather 

2248: flat $t$ dependences varying with $Q^2$ and $x_B$, electromagnetic form factors varying

2249: with $Q^2$ and $t$ are necessary. For the longitudinal part of the cross section,

2250: good agreement with the data is found up to $Q^2\approx$ 4.10 GeV$^2$. For the

2251: transverse part of the cross section, there seems to be an overestimation 

2252: (by $\approx$ 30\%) of the cross section.

2253: \item In terms of partonic degrees of freedom, i.e. quark handbag diagrams and

2254: Generalized Parton Distributions. However, the GK and VGG calculations cannot 

2255: provide the right $W$ dependence of the cross section. This does not

2256: imply that GPDs cannot be accessed through exclusive $\rho^0$ electroproduction 

2257: in the valence region but that possibly the way double distributions 

2258: are modeled or the hard scattering amplitude is calculated in these 

2259: two particular approaches should be modified or revisited.

2260: We stress that in exclusive meson electroproduction the GPD modeling problem 

2261: is convoluted with other issues such as the treatment of the QCD scale setting, 

2262: higher-twist effects, the meson distribution amplitude, etc. ,

2263: rendering conclusions difficult. The present data 

2264: will provide important input to improve our understanding of these fundamental 

2265: QCD issues.

2266: \end{itemize}

2267: 

2268: \vskip1.cm

2269: 

2270: \textbf{Acknowledgements}

2271: 

2272: \vskip1.cm

2273: 

2274: We would like to thank the staff of the Accelerator and Physics

2275: Divisions at Jefferson Lab who made this experiment possible.

2276: It is also a pleasure to thank S. Goloskokov, P. Kroll, D. M\"uller,

2277: M. Vanderhaeghen and C. Weiss for insightful discussions.

2278: Acknowledgments for the support of this experiment go also to the Italian

2279: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, the French Centre National de la

2280: Recherche Scientifique and Commissariat \`a l'Energie Atomique, the UK

2281: Engineering and Physical Science Research Council, the

2282: U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, and the

2283: Korea Research Foundation. The Southeastern Universities

2284: Research Association (SURA) operated the Thomas Jefferson National

2285: Accelerator Facility under U.S. Department of Energy contract

2286: DE-AC05-84ER40150.

2287: 

2288: 

2289: %%%%%%%%%% 

2290:  \begin{thebibliography}{}

2291: %

2292: % and use \bibitem to create references.

2293: %

2294: \bibitem{Regge} T. Regge, Nuovo Cimento, 14 (1959) 951; Nuovo Cimento, 18 (1960) 947.

2295: \bibitem{collinsreg} P. D. B. Collins, ``An introduction to Regge theory and high energy physics",

2296: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1977).

2297: \bibitem{storrow}

2298: J. K. Storrow, Rep. Prog. Phys. 50 (1987) 1229.

2299: \bibitem{muller}

2300: D. M\"uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F.-M. Dittes, and J. Horejsi,

2301: Fortschr. Phys. {\bf 42} (1994) 101.

2302: \bibitem{ji}

2303: X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78} (1997) 610; 

2304: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55} (1997) 7114.

2305: \bibitem{rady}

2306: A.V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 380} (1996) 417; 

2307: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56} (1997) 5524.

2308: \bibitem{collins}

2309: J.C. Collins, L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, 

2310: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56} (1997) 2982.

2311: \bibitem{goeke} K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen,

2312: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf 47} (2001) 401.

2313: \bibitem{revdiehl}

2314: M. Diehl, Phys.  Rept. {\bf 388} (2003) 41.

2315: \bibitem{revrady}

2316: A.V. Belitsky and A.V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept. {\bf 418} (2005) 1.

2317: \bibitem{RgModel2}

2318: J.-M. Laget, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 489} (2000) 313.

2319: \bibitem{RgModel3}

2320: F. Cano and J.-M. Laget, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002) 074022.

2321: \bibitem{gk} 

2322: S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 42} (2005) 281;

2323: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 50} (2007) 829.

2324: \bibitem{Vdh1} M. Vanderhaeghen, P.A.M. Guichon, and M. Guidal,

2325: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} (1998) 5064.

2326: \bibitem{Vdh2}  M. Vanderhaeghen, P.A.M. Guichon, 

2327: and M. Guidal, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60} (1999) 094017.

2328: \bibitem{Vdh3} K. Goeke, M.V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen,

2329: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 47} (2001) 401.

2330: \bibitem{Vdh4} M. Guidal, M.V. Polyakov, A.V. Radyushkin and M. Vanderhaeghen, 

2331: Phys. Rev. {\bf D72} (2005) 054013.

2332: \bibitem{JoosRho}

2333: P. Joos {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 113} (1976) 53.

2334: \bibitem{Cassel}

2335: D.G. Cassel {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 24} (1981) 2787.

2336: \bibitem{HERMESrho}

2337: A. Airapetian {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 17} (2000) 389.

2338: \bibitem{cynthia}

2339: C. Hadjidakis {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 605} (2005) 256.

2340: \bibitem{mecking}

2341: B. Mecking {\it et al.}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A {\bf 503} (2003) 513.

2342: \bibitem{PDG}

2343: W.-M. Yao {\it et al.}, J. Phys. Lett. G {\bf 33} (2006) 1.

2344: \bibitem{genev}

2345: M. Battaglieri, R. Devita and M. Ripani, INFN Genova, private communication.

2346: \bibitem{RadCorr}

2347: L.W. Mo and Y.S. Tsai, Rev. of Mod. Phys. {\bf 41} (1969) 205.

2348: \bibitem{Hand}

2349: L.N. Hand, Phys. Rev. {\bf 129} (1963) 1834. 

2350: \bibitem{ripani}

2351: M. Ripani {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91} (2003) 022002.

2352: \bibitem{mokeev}

2353: V. Mokeev {\it et al.}, Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 64} (2001) 1292.

2354: \bibitem{bauer}

2355: T.H. Bauer, R.D. Spital and D.R. Yennie, 

2356: Rev. of Mod. Phys. {\bf 50} (1978) 261.

2357: \bibitem{Jackson}

2358: J.D. Jackson, Nuovo Cimento {\bf 34} (1964) 1644.

2359: \bibitem{RossandStod}

2360: M. Ross and L. Stodolsky, Phys.Rev. {\textbf 149}, (1966) 1172.

2361: \bibitem{Soding}

2362: P. S\"oding, Phys. Lett. {\bf 19} (1966) 702. 

2363: \bibitem{e665} M. R. Adams {\it et al.}, Z. Phys. C {\bf 74} (1997) 237.

2364: \bibitem{batta}

2365: M. Battaglieri and A. P. Szczepaniak, private communication.

2366: \bibitem{CORNELL} L. A. Ahrens {\it et al.}, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 42}

2367: (1979) 208.

2368: \bibitem{nmc} P. Amaudruz {\it et al.}, Z. Phys. C {\bf 54} (1992) 239.

2369: \bibitem{francis} W. R. Francis {\it et al.}, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 38}

2370: (1977) 633.

2371: \bibitem{h1} S. Aid, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 468} (1996) 3,

2372: C. Adloff, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 13} (2000) 371.

2373: \bibitem{zeus} J. Breitweg, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 6} (1999) 603.

2374: \bibitem{Schillel}

2375: K. Schilling and G. Wolf, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 61} (1973) 381.

2376: \bibitem{hermesLT}

2377: A. Ackerstaff {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 18} (2000) 303.

2378: \bibitem{laget2}

2379: J. M. Laget, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 054023.

2380: \bibitem{laget4}

2381: F. Cano and J. M. Laget, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551} (2003) 317.

2382: \bibitem{eric} E. Anciant {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 85}, 4682 (2000).

2383: \bibitem{joe}

2384: J. P. Santoro {\it et al.}, arXiv:0803.1592 [nucl-ex].

2385: \bibitem{RadyDD}

2386: A.V. Radyushkin, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 014030;

2387: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 449} (1999) 81.

2388: \bibitem{mpa}

2389: J. Botts and G. Sterman, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 325} (1989) 62.

2390: \bibitem{koepf}

2391: L. Frankfurt, W. Koepf and M. Strikman, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 3194.

2392: \bibitem{mick} M. Guidal and S. Morrow, \textit{Proceeding of the 

2393: International Workshop "Exclusive reactions at high momentum transfer",

2394: Jefferson Laboratory, Newport-News, Virginia, USA,

2395: May 21-24 2007}, World Scientific, arXiv:0711.3743 (hep-ph).

2396: \bibitem{weiss}

2397: M. Polyakov and C. Weiss, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 114017.

2398: \bibitem{hwang} D. S. Hwang and D. M\"uller, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 660} (2008) 350.

2399: \bibitem{kugler}

2400: M. Diehl and W. Kugler, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 660} (2008) 202.

2401: \bibitem{gk2} 

2402: S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 53} (2008) 367.

2403: \end{thebibliography}

2404: 

2405: \end{document}

2406: 

2407: 

2408: