1: \documentstyle[aps,epsfig,floats]{revtex}
2: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.0cm}
3: \setlength{\textheight}{22.0cm}
4: \setlength{\textwidth}{15.0cm}
5: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.cm}
6: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.5cm}
7: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\st}{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}
13: \newcommand{\xbj}{x_{\scriptscriptstyle B}}
14: \newcommand{\zh}{z_h}
15: \def\slash{\rlap{/}}
16: %
17: \newcommand{\NP}[1]{{\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf #1}}
18: \newcommand{\ZP}[1]{{\it Z.\ Phys.}\ {\bf #1}}
19: \newcommand{\PL}[1]{{\it Phys.\ Lett.}\ {\bf #1}}
20: \newcommand{\PR}[1]{{\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf #1}}
21: \newcommand{\PRL}[1]{{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ {\bf #1}}
22: \newcommand{\MPL}[1]{{\it Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.}\ {\bf #1}}
23: \newcommand{\SNP}[1]{{\it Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf #1}}
24: \newcommand{\EPJ}[1]{{\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}\ {\bf #1}}
25: \newcommand{\IJMP}[1]{{\it Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.}\ {\bf #1}}
26: %
27: \begin{document}
28: \tighten
29: \thispagestyle{empty}
30: \title{
31: \begin{flushright}
32: \begin{minipage}{4 cm}
33: \small
34: hep-ph/0001196\\
35: VUTH 00-04
36: \end{minipage}
37: \end{flushright}
38: \vspace{3mm}
39: Azimuthal Spin Asymmetries in Semi-Inclusive Production from Positron-Proton
40: Scattering.
41: \protect}
42: \vspace{3mm}
43: \author {M. Boglione and P.J. Mulders\\
44: \vspace{3mm}
45: \mbox{}\\
46: {\it Division of Physics and Astronomy, Faculty of Science, Free University}\\
47: {\it De Boelelaan 1081, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands}\\
48: {\sf boglione@nat.vu.nl, mulders@nat.vu.nl}
49: }
50:
51: \maketitle
52:
53: \vspace{1cm}
54:
55: \begin{abstract}
56: The recent measurements of azimuthal single spin asymmetries by the HERMES
57: collaboration at DESY may shed some
58: light on presently unknown fragmentation and distribution functions.
59: We present a study of such functions and give some estimates of weighted
60: integrals directly related to those measurements.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \vspace{0.5cm}
64:
65: PACS Numbers 13.85.Ni,13.87.Fh,13.88.+e
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68:
69: The HERMES collaboration has recently presented interesting results on the
70: measurement of some single spin asymmetries, relative to inclusive
71: pion production in the scattering of positrons off a longitudinally polarized
72: hydrogen target~\cite{hermes99}.
73: In particular, they are a $\sin(2\phi^l_h)$ and a $\sin(\phi^l_h)$ asymmetry,
74: for which a theoretical analysis has been performed in
75: Ref.~\cite{tm9596,bm98}.
76: Given as weighted cross-sections, $\langle W\rangle = \int W\,d\sigma$
77: with subscripts indicating polarization of beam and target,
78: the relevant ones are
79:
80: \bea
81: \left< \frac{Q_T^2}{4MM_h}\sin(2\phi ^l _h) \right>_{OL} =
82: - \frac{ 4 \pi \alpha ^2 s}{Q^4} \, \lambda (1-y)\,
83: \sum _{a,\overline a} e_a ^2 \ x_B \, h_{1L}^{\perp (1) a}
84: (x_B) \, H_1 ^{\perp (1) a} (z_h) ,
85: \label{W1}
86: \eea
87:
88: \bea
89: \lefteqn{
90: \left< \frac{Q_T}{M}\sin(\phi ^l _h) \right>_{OL} =
91: \frac{ 4 \pi \alpha ^2 s}{Q^4} \,\lambda \, (2-y)\sqrt{1-y}\,
92: \frac{2M_h}{Q} } \nonumber \\ && \hspace*{1.0cm}
93: \times \sum _{a,\overline a} e_a ^2
94: \Biggl\{ \, x_B \, h_{1L}^{\perp (1) a}(x_B) \, \frac{\tilde{H}^a(z_h)}{z_h}
95: \, - \, x_B \Bigl[x_B \, {h}_L^a(x_B) -\frac{m}{M} \, g_{1L}^a(x_B)\Bigr]
96: \,H_1 ^{\perp (1) a} (z_h) \,
97: \Biggr\} ,
98: \label{W2}
99: \eea
100: where $\phi ^l _h$ is the azimuthal angle between the lepton scattering plane
101: and the hadron production plane
102: (see Ref.~\cite{bm98}),
103: $M$ and $M_h$ are the masses of the target proton and of the produced
104: hadron, respectively, whereas $Q_T$ is the transverse momentum of the
105: produced hadron divided by $z_h$.
106: If we neglect the term proportional to the quark mass $m$ in
107: Eq.~(\ref{W2}),
108: we can see that four functions play a dominant role here: the distribution
109: functions $h_{1L}^{\perp a}(x)$ and $h_L^a(x)$,
110: and the fragmentation functions $H_1^{\perp a }(z)$
111: %or, more precisely, its first moment $H_1 ^{\perp (1)}(z)$.
112: and $\tilde H^{a}(z)$.
113: More precisely, the functions appearing in the weighted cross-sections are
114: $h_{1L}^{\perp (1) a}(x)$ and $H_1 ^{\perp (1)a}(z)$, where the superscript
115: $(1)$ indicates that we are dealing with $k_T^2$-moments.
116: But let's examine our ingredients in some more detail.
117:
118: The function
119: $h_{1L}^{\perp a}(x)$ is a leading (twist-two) chiral-odd distribution
120: function, which describes the probability of finding a transversely polarized
121: quark of flavour $a$ in a longitudinally polarized proton.
122: The superscript $\perp$
123: signals a correlation between the proton longitudinal polarization, $\lambda$,
124: and the intrinsic transverse momentum of the quark, $k_T$: the contribution to
125: the correlator $\Phi_{ij}$ of the term proportional to $h_{1L}^{\perp}$
126: is zero any time we neglect intrinsic $k_T$.
127:
128: The function $h_L^a(x)$ is the twist-3 chiral-odd function relevant for
129: a longitudinally polarized proton.
130: It can be expressed in terms of leading functions
131: plus interaction dependent terms as
132: \be
133: h_L(x) =
134: -\frac{2}{x} \, h_{1L}^{\perp (1)} (x)
135: + \frac{m}{M\,x}\,g_1(x)
136: + \tilde h_L (x) ,
137: \label{intermediate}
138: \ee
139: where $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)}$ is a $k_\st^2$-moment defined as
140: \be
141: h_{1L}^{\perp (1)}(x) = \int d^2k_\st
142: \ \frac{\vert \bm k_\st\vert^2}{2M^2}
143: \,h_{1L}^\perp (x,\bm k_\st).
144: \ee
145: By making use of a relation following from Lorentz covariance,
146: \be
147: h_L(x) = h_1(x) -\frac{d}{dx} h_{1L}^{\perp (1)} (x),
148: \ee
149: one can solve Eq.~(3) for $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)}$ and obtain the well-known
150: result~\cite{jj92}
151: \be
152: h_L(x) = 2x \, \int _x^1 dy\, \frac{h_1(y)}{y^2}
153: \, + \, \frac{m}{M} \Biggl(\frac{g_1(x)}{x}
154: - 2x\int _x^1 dy \frac{g_1(y)}{y^3}\Biggr)
155: \, + \, \Biggl(\tilde h _L (x)
156: - 2x \int _x^1 dy \frac{\tilde h_L(y)}{y^2}\Biggr).
157: \label{h_Llong}
158: \ee
159: The last bracket in
160: Eq.~(\ref{h_Llong}) contains the interaction dependent terms, involving
161: $\tilde h_L (x)$, and will be indicated by $\overline h_L(x)$
162: \be
163: \overline h_L (x) =
164: \tilde h _L (x) - 2x \int _x^1 dy \frac{\tilde h_L(y)}{y^2}\,.
165: %= -x\int _x ^1 dy \frac{1}{y^2}\frac{d}{dy}(y\tilde h_L).
166: \label{hL-bar}
167: \ee
168: Neglecting the terms proportional to the quark mass $m$, one can simply
169: write $h_L(x)$ as
170: \be
171: h_L(x) = 2x \, \int _x^1 dy\, \frac{h_1(y)}{y^2} + \overline h_L (x)\,.
172: \label{h_Lshort}
173: \ee
174: Notice that $h_L(x)$, $\overline h_L (x)$ and $\tilde h_L(x)$, being higher
175: twist, cannot be given an intuitive interpretation in terms of probability
176: densities.
177:
178: As far as the fragmentation process is concerned, $H_1^{\perp}$ is a
179: T-odd leading twist function which gives the probability of a spinless or
180: unpolarized hadron (like the pion, for example) to be created from a
181: transversely polarized
182: scattered quark.
183: The role and the features of this function were extensively studied in
184: Ref.~\cite{bm99} and in Ref.~\cite{abm99,bl99}, where
185: parameterizations based on a fit on $pp^{\uparrow} \to \pi X$ experimental
186: data \cite{adams} was given.
187: It is worth to point out here that the contribution to the correlator
188: $\Phi_{ij}$ of the term proportional to this function would be zero if the
189: intrinsic transverse momentum of the fragmenting quark was neglected, as
190: signaled by the superscript $\perp$.
191:
192: Its first moment, $H_1 ^{\perp (1) a} (z_h)$, which appears in the weighted
193: integrals of Eqs.~(\ref{W1})~and~(\ref{W2}), is defined as
194: \be
195: H_1^{\perp (1)}(z) = \int d^2k_\st^\prime
196: \ \frac{\vert \bm k_\st\vert^2}{2M_h^2}
197: \,H_1^\perp (z,\bm k_\st^\prime).
198: \label{wH1Tperp}
199: \ee
200: %
201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
202: %\begin{figure}[t]
203: %\[\begin{array}{ll} \hspace*{-1.0cm}
204: %\mbox{~\epsfig{file=hdist.eps,angle=0,width=5.0cm}}
205: %&\hspace*{2.0cm}
206: %\mbox{~\epsfig{file=hfrag.eps,angle=0,width=5.0cm}}
207: %\end{array}\]
208: %\vspace{0.6cm}
209: %\caption{Pictorial representation of the leading order distribution and
210: %fragmentation functions involved in our calculation. It is not
211: %possible to give an intuitive interpretation of $h_L(x)$,
212: %$\overline h_L (x)$ and $\tilde h_L(x)$ in terms of probabilities, since
213: %they are higher twist functions.}
214: %\label{drawings}
215: %\end{figure}
216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
217: %
218:
219: The fragmentation function $\tilde H^a(z)$, appearing in the first term of
220: Eq.~(\ref{W2}), is a subleading function which also can be split into
221: a leading function and an interaction dependent part,
222: \be
223: H^a(z) =
224: -2z\,H_1^{\perp (1) a}(z) + \tilde H^a(z) .
225: \label{H-tilde}
226: \ee
227: By making use of a relation following from Lorentz covariance,
228: \be
229: \frac{H^a(z)}{z}=z^2\,\frac{d}{dz}\,
230: \Bigl( \frac{H_1^{\perp (1) a}(z)}{z} \Bigr),
231: \ee
232: we can solve Eq. (10) to find:
233: \be
234: \frac{\tilde H^a(z)}{z} = \frac{d}{dz}\,
235: \Bigl(zH_1^{\perp (1) a}(z) \Bigr),
236: \ee
237: which straightforwardly connects $\tilde H^a(z)$ to $H_1^{\perp (1) a}(z)$.
238:
239: Unfortunately, most of the distribution functions which
240: appear in these expressions are not known a priori, since they have not been
241: measured yet. Thus, no direct information can be extracted from the HERMES
242: measurement.
243: Nevertheless, some light can be shed by considering extreme cases
244: and exploit the consequences and the results they lead to.
245: In what follows, we will examine in detail two possible opposite scenarios.
246:
247: It is worth mentioning that the HERMES collaboration also measured a third
248: azimuthal single spin asymmetry, namely a $\sin\phi ^l _h$ asymmetry for polarized
249: leptons. It can be expressed as a weighted integral as follows
250: \bea
251: \left< \frac{Q_T}{M_h}\;\sin(\phi ^l _h) \right>_{LO} =
252: - \frac{ 4 \pi \alpha ^2 s}{Q^4} \, 2y\sqrt{1-y} \,
253: \sum _{a,\overline a} e_a ^2 \ \frac{M}{Q}\ x_B^2 \,
254: \tilde{e}^a(x_B) \,
255: H_1 ^{\perp (1) a} (z_h) ,
256: \label{W3}
257: \eea
258: in which, this time, it is the lepton beam to be polarized and not the
259: hydrogen target.
260: This quantity involves, besides the same fragmentation function
261: as in the earlier-mentioned asymmetries,
262: the interaction dependent part of the higher twist distribution
263: function $e^a(x)$,
264: \be
265: e^a(x)
266: =
267: \frac{m_a}{M}\frac{f_1^a(x)}{x}
268: +
269: \tilde{e}^a(x) .
270: \ee
271: The asymmetry in Eq. (\ref{W3}) is found to be small in HERMES experiment.
272: Consistency among the various measurements seems to indicate that $\tilde
273: e (x)$ is small.
274:
275: \section{Results}
276:
277: Our first approach is to assume that the contribution of the function
278: $\tilde h _L (x)$, the interaction dependent term in $h_L$, and the
279: quark mass terms can be neglected. This means
280: \begin{eqnarray}
281: \overline h_L (x) &=& 0 , \\
282: h_L (x) &=& 2x \, \int _x^1 dy\, \frac{h_1(y)}{y^2} ,
283: \label{h_L}
284: \end{eqnarray}
285: as follows from Eqs.~(\ref{hL-bar}) and~(\ref{h_Lshort}). Furthermore,
286: from Eq. (3) we find
287: \be
288: h_{1L}^{\perp (1)} (x) = -\frac{1}{2} x h_L(x) =
289: -x^2 \, \int _x^1 dy\, \frac{h_1(y)}{y^2} ,
290: \label{h1Lperp}
291: \ee
292: assuming suitable boundary conditions, $h_1(1)=0$.
293: Thus Eqs.~(\ref{h_L})~and~(\ref{h1Lperp}) allow us to express
294: all the distribution functions we
295: need in terms of one function only, the leading twist transverse spin
296: distribution function $h_1(x)$.
297: Very recently, this approximation has also been used in a calculation of the
298: $\sin(\phi^l_h)$ and $\sin(2\phi^l_h)$ asymmetries using the effective
299: chiral quark-soliton model \cite{e00}.
300:
301: %In Ref. \cite{bl99} , Boglione and Leader presented a recent determination of
302: %the
303: As one possible input, we use the functions $h_1(x)$ and $H_1^{\perp}(z)$
304: recently determined in Ref. \cite{bl99} by performing a new
305: set of fits of the FNAL E704 $p^{\uparrow}p \to \pi X$ experimental data
306: \cite{adams}. There, both the Soffer bound~\cite{soff}
307: $|h_1(x)| \leq 1/2[f_1(x)+g_1(x)]$ and the positivity bound
308: $H_1^{\perp}(z)\leq 2\,D_1(z)$ are respected, and it is showed how a
309: completely satisfactory fit can only be obtained by using sets of
310: distribution functions which respect the requirement $g_1/f_1 \to 1$
311: as $x \to 1$.
312: Strictly speaking, an unambiguous determination of these functions is not
313: possible without the aid of new and more accurate experimental data on a
314: wider range, especially in the high $x$ region. Nevertheless, reasonable
315: estimates can be given by using their parameterizations, which are the most
316: involved and reliable presently available.
317: Here, we will consider three of their choices of distribution functions: the
318: old BBS parameterizations~\cite{bbs}, which
319: respect the constraint $g_1/f_1 \to 1$ as $x \to 1$ and give the best fit
320: in terms of $\chi^2$ in Ref. ~\cite{bl99} but does not involve any $Q^2$
321: evolution, the more recent LSS$_{(BBS)}$ set~\cite{lss-bbs}, parameterized
322: in the same spirit but satisfying the correct $Q^2$ evolution and fitting
323: the most recent world data and, for comparison, the
324: LSS \cite{lss} and MRST \cite{mrst} sets of longitudinally polarized and
325: unpolarized distribution functions, which include a
326: ``conventional'' $\Delta d(x)$, negative over the whole $x$ range.
327: Fig.~\ref{fig-h1} shows the function $h_1$ as obtained from the fit of
328: Ref.~\cite{bl99} by using the three sets.
329: Notice that the $h_1^u(x)$ and $h_1^d(x)$ obtained by
330: using the BBS and LSS$_{(BBS)}$ distribution functions are roughly a
331: factor 1/2 smaller than those obtained by using the LSS-MRST sets.
332:
333: Substituting the explicit form of $h_1^a(x)$ in
334: Eqs.~(\ref{h1Lperp}) and (\ref{h_L}), we can solve the integral and find the
335: explicit parameterization of $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)a} (x)$ and $h_L ^a (x)$
336: (where $a$ means $u$ and $d$, since we are considering valence contribution
337: only).
338: The distribution functions $h_L(x)$ and $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)} (x)$
339: obtained assuming $\tilde h _L (x)=0$ in the two possible scenarios are
340: presented in Fig.~\ref{fig-hLperp}.
341: Notice that $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)} (x)$ satisfies the required bound
342: $(h_{1L}^{\perp (1)} (x))^2 + (h_{1L}^{\perp} (x))^2
343: \le \frac{p_T^2}{4M^2}f_1^2$, see Ref.~\cite{bbhm00} for details.
344: %between these functions is less pronounced than in the case of $h_1$,
345: %especially for the $d$ flavour.
346:
347: The second assumption we consider is that $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)} (x)$
348: is small enough to be neglected (and again quark mass terms are
349: neglected too). It is interesting to point out that this approximation
350: seems at first sight the most appropriate, since the HERMES collaboration
351: finds the $\sin(2\phi _h ^l)$ single spin asymmetry of Eq.~(\ref{W1}) to be
352: much smaller than the $\sin(\phi_h^l)$ asymmetry~\cite{hermes99}.
353: A preliminary HERMES analysis \cite{oga} is actually going to use this
354: approximation.
355: We will comment on this choice later.
356:
357: In this approximation, by using Eqs.~(\ref{intermediate}) and
358: (\ref{h_Lshort}), we obtain
359: \begin{eqnarray}
360: h_L(x) &=& h_1(x) \,, \\
361: \tilde h_L(x) &=& h_1(x) \,,\\
362: \overline h_L(x) &=& h_1(x) - 2x\int _x^1 dy \frac{h_1(y)}{y^2}\,.
363: \end{eqnarray}
364: Again, we can solve the integral and
365: find an explicit parameterization of $h_L(x)$.
366:
367: Plots of the distribution function $\overline h_L^a(x)$,
368: obtained assuming $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)} (x)=0$ by the BBS, LSS$_{(BBS)}$ or the
369: LSS-MRST sets of distribution functions, are presented in
370: Fig.~\ref{fig-hLbar}.
371: Notice that in both cases we find
372: \be
373: \int _0 ^1 \; dx \, h_L^a(x) = 0 \,.
374: \ee
375:
376: To be able to calculate the weighted integrals in
377: Eqs.~(\ref{W1},\ref{W2},\ref{W3}),
378: we need an estimate of the fragmentation functions involved.
379: $H_1^{\perp (1)}(z)$ was extensively studied and discussed in
380: Refs.~\cite{bm99,abm99}, and in the recent Ref.~\cite{bl99}
381: a suitable parameterization was given which respects the positivity
382: constraint and is consistent with the transversity distribution function
383: $h_1(x)$ used above [see Ref.~\cite{bl99} for details and discussion].
384: We then have
385: \be
386: H_1^{\perp (1)}(z) = \frac{1}{z^{0.73}}\, \Big[\,1.21 \,(1-z)^{1.40} +
387: 1.35\,(1-z)^{4.97}\,\Big] \;,
388: \label{H1perp}
389: \ee
390: where we used the unpolarized pion fragmentation functions as given by
391: Ref.~\cite{bkk1}, using isospin simmetry to separate the $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$
392: contributions. The function
393: $\tilde H (z)$ can be expressed as a function of $H_1^{\perp (1)}(z)$
394: via Eq.~(\ref{H-tilde})
395: \bea
396: \tilde H(z) &=&
397: [0.33 \, (1 - z)^{1.40} + 0.37 \, (1 - z)^{4.97}] \, z^{0.27} + \\ &&
398: [-1.70 \, (1 - z)^{0.40} - 6.73 \, (1 - z)^{3.97}] \, z^{1.27} \;.
399: \eea
400:
401: One might be tempted to examine the two possible extreme situations,
402: $H_1^{\perp (1)}=0$ or $\tilde H(z)=0$, in analogy to what was done for the
403: distribution functions. But this would not lead to relevant results.
404: In fact, if $H_1^{\perp (1)}=0$ then also $\tilde H(z)=0$ and all the
405: weighted integrals would be zero.
406: On the other hand, if $\tilde H(z)=0$,
407: then Eq.~(\ref{H-tilde}) give the constraint $z\,H_1^{\perp (1)}=$ const,
408: which is only consistent with the requirement of $H_1^{\perp (1)}$ being zero
409: itself.
410:
411: In Figs.~\ref{fig-WW1} and \ref{fig-WW2-3} we present plots of the
412: azimuthal spin asymmetries as a function of $x$
413: and $z$, obtained by using the BBS set of distribution
414: functions. Choosing the LSS$_{(BBS)}$ set would give very similar results,
415: whereas for the MRST-LSS set the asymmetries retain the same shape and
416: features but are larger of roughly a factor two.
417: %as can easily be seen from Figs.~\ref{fig-h1},
418: %~\ref{fig-hLperp}~and~\ref{fig-hLbar}.
419: Fig.~\ref{fig-WW1} shows the weighted integral of
420: Eq.(\ref{W1}) in the only scenario in which it is non-zero, i.e. for
421: $\tilde h_L(x)=0$. The plots correspond to the BBS
422: choice of distribution functions.
423: The weighted integral of Eq.~(\ref{W2}), corresponding to the two possible
424: extreme situations we discussed in the previous session, is shown in
425: Fig.~\ref{fig-WW2-3}.
426: Notice that under the approximation $\tilde h_L = \overline h_L = 0$,
427: Fig.~\ref{fig-WW2-3}, both the terms proportional to
428: $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)}$ and $h_L$ contribute to the weighted
429: integral,
430: whereas under the assumption $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)}(x)=0$ the weighted integral
431: is proportional to the term $h_L$ only.
432: It is interesting to notice that the $\sin(2\phi^l_h)$ asymmetry is suppressed
433: compared to the $\sin(\phi^l_h)$ asymmetry even in the approximation
434: $\tilde h_L = 0$, which leads to a maximal $h_{1L} ^{\perp (1)}$.
435: This tells us that the experimental measurement of HERMES yielding a small
436: $\sin(2\phi^l_h)$ spin-asymmetry, consistent with zero, allows no
437: conclusions on $h_{1L} ^{\perp (1)}$. This result is confirmed by the
438: calculation in Ref.~\cite{e00}.
439: Note also that all the weighted integrals have roughly the same overall
440: shape. They are sizeable in the small $z$ region for central values of $x$.
441: Of course one needs to be aware that, depending on $Q^2$, at small $z$-values
442: threshold effects in the production of hadrons and contributions from target
443: fragmentation become important.
444:
445: \section{Conclusions}
446:
447: Distribution and fragmentation functions are a fundamental issue.
448: They tell us about the internal structure of the nucleons and of the role
449: their elementary constituents play in accounting for their total spin.
450: It is then crucial to study those processes in which these functions can be
451: exploited. After many years of efforts, both on the experimental and
452: theoretical point of view, experimental information on polarized distribution
453: and fragmentation functions is now starting
454: to come from different sources (HERMES, SMC, SLAC, COMPASS and JLAB). Thus,
455: some light can be shed, even though we are still far from a completely clear
456: picture.
457: In this paper, we have studied two possible scenarios corresponding to two
458: extreme approximations. Further experimental results could possibly give
459: us enough handles to distinguish between the two extreme cases, and present
460: more conclusive results and parameterization for the functions we would like
461: to uncover.
462: This would be another step helping to draw a neater picture of the very
463: intriguing ``soft'' physics which governs the hadronic world.
464:
465:
466: \section*{Acknowledgments}
467:
468: \noindent
469: This work is part of the research program of the foundation for the
470: Fundamental Research of Matter (FOM) and the TMR program ERB FMRX-CT96-0008.
471:
472: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
473: %
474: \bibitem{hermes99} HERMES Collaboration, A. Airapetian {\it et al.},
475: hep-ex/9910062.
476: \bibitem{tm9596}
477: R.D. Tangerman and P.J. Mulders, \PR{D51} 3357 (1995);
478: P.J. Mulders and R.D. Tangerman, \NP{B461} 197 (1996).
479: \bibitem{bm98} D. Boer and P.J. Mulders, \PR{D57}, 5780 (1998).
480: \bibitem{jj92} R.L. Jaffe and X. Ji, \NP{B375}, 527 (1992).
481: \bibitem{bm99} M. Boglione and P.J. Mulders, \PR{D60}, 054007 (1999).
482: \bibitem{abm99} M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, F. Murgia, \PR{D60}, 054027 (1999);
483: M. Boglione and P.J. Mulders, \PR{D60}, 054007 (1999).
484: \bibitem{bl99} M. Boglione and E. Leader, hep-ph/9911207.
485: \bibitem{adams}
486: D.L. Adams {\it et al}, \PL{B261}, 201 (1991) and \PL{B264}, 462 (1991).
487: \bibitem{e00} A.V. Efremov, K. Goeke, M.V. Polyakov, D. Urbano, hep-ph/0001119.
488: \bibitem{soff} J. Soffer, \PRL{74}, 1292 (1995).
489: \bibitem{bbs} S.J. Brodsky, M. Burkhardt, I. Schmidt, \NP{B441}, 197 (1995).
490: \bibitem{lss-bbs} E. Leader, A.V. Sidorov, D.B. Stamenov,
491: \IJMP{A13}, No.32, 5573 (1998).
492: \bibitem{lss} E. Leader, A.V. Sidorov, D.B. Stamenov, \PL{B462}, 189 (1999).
493: \bibitem{mrst} A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne,
494: \EPJ{C4}, 463 (1988).
495: \bibitem{bbhm00} A. Bacchetta, M. Boglione, A. Henneman, P.J. Mulders,
496: hep-ph/9912490.
497: \bibitem{oga} E. DeSanctis, W.-D. Nowak, K.A. Oganessyan, in preparation.
498: \bibitem{bkk1} J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, \ZP{C64}, 471 (1995).
499:
500: \end{thebibliography}
501:
502: \newpage
503:
504: \listoffigures
505:
506: \newpage
507:
508:
509:
510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
511: \begin{figure}[t]
512: \begin{center}
513: \mbox{~\epsfig{file=h1.eps,angle=-90,width=7.6cm}}
514: \vspace{0.6cm}
515: \caption{\label{fig-h1}
516: The distribution functions $h_1^u(x)$ and $h_1^d(x)$
517: as obtained by using the MRST-LSS, BBS and LSS$_{(BBS)}$ sets of distribution
518: functions. The curves in the positive quadrant correspond to the $u$ flavour,
519: whereas the curves in the negative quadrant correspond to the $d$ flavour.}
520: \end{center}
521: \end{figure}
522: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
523:
524: \newpage
525:
526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
527: \begin{figure}[t]
528: \[\begin{array}{ll} \hspace*{-1.0cm}
529: \mbox{~\epsfig{file=hl.eps,angle=-90,width=7.6cm}}
530: &
531: \mbox{~\epsfig{file=hperp.eps,angle=-90,width=7.6cm}}
532: \vspace{0.2cm}
533: \end{array}\]
534: \caption{
535: \label{fig-hLperp}
536: The distribution functions $h_L^u(x)$, $h_L^d(x)$ and
537: $h_{1L}^{\perp (1) u}(x)$, $h_{1L}^{\perp (1) d}(x)$, as obtained by using
538: the MRST-LSS, BBS and LSS$_{(BBS)}$
539: sets of distribution functions respectively,
540: under the approximation $\tilde h_L(x) =0$.}
541: \end{figure}
542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
543:
544: \newpage
545:
546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
547: \begin{figure}[t]
548: \begin{center}
549: \mbox{~\epsfig{file=hlbar.eps,angle=-90,width=7.6cm}}
550: \vspace{0.6cm}
551: \caption{\label{fig-hLbar}
552: The distribution functions $\overline h_L^u(x)$ and $\overline h_L^d(x)$,
553: as obtained under the approximation $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)}(x)=0$, by using
554: the MRST-LSS, BBS and LSS$_{(BBS)}$ sets of distribution functions.}
555: \end{center}
556: \end{figure}
557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
558:
559: \newpage
560:
561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
562: \begin{figure}[p]
563: \begin{center}
564: \mbox{~\epsfig{file=W1bbs.eps,angle=0,width=7.5cm}}
565: \vspace{0.6cm}
566: \caption{\label{fig-WW1}
567: A three-dimensional view of
568: $-\sum _{a,\bar a} e^2_a x_B h_{1L}^{\perp(1)a} (x_B)
569: H_1 ^{\perp (1) a} (z_h)$, relevant for the $\sin (2\phi^l _h)$ asymmetry in
570: $\pi^+$ production, under the approximation
571: $\tilde h_L(x)= \overline h_L =0$, as obtained by using the BBS set of
572: distribution functions.
573: }
574: \end{center}
575: \end{figure}
576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
577:
578: \newpage
579:
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581: \begin{figure}[p]
582: \[\begin{array}{ll} \hspace*{-1.0cm}
583: \mbox{~\epsfig{file=W2bbs.eps,angle=0,width=7.5cm}}
584: &
585: \mbox{~\epsfig{file=W3bbs.eps,angle=0,width=7.5cm}}
586: \end{array}\]
587: \vspace{0.6cm}
588: \caption{
589: \label{fig-WW2-3}
590: A three-dimensional view of
591: $-\sum _{a,\bar a} e^2_a \Bigl[x_B h_{1L}^{\perp(1)a} (x_B)
592: \tilde H ^a (z_h)/z
593: - x_B^2 h_L^a (x_B) H_1^{\perp (1) a}(z_h)\Bigr]$, relevant for the
594: $\sin (\phi^l _h)$ asymmetry in $\pi^+$
595: production, as obtained by
596: using the BBS set of distribution functions,
597: under the approximation $\tilde h_L = \overline h_L = 0$ (on the left) and
598: under the approximation $h_{1L}^{\perp (1)}(x)=0$ (on the right).}
599: \end{figure}
600: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
601:
602: \end{document}
603:
604:
605: