1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,cite]{article}

2: %\documentstyle[12pt,aps,epsf]{revtex}

3: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0pt}

5: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0pt}

6: \setlength{\topmargin}{0pt}

7: \setlength{\headheight}{0pt}

8: \setlength{\topskip}{0pt}

9: \setlength{\footheight}{30pt}

10: \setlength{\footskip}{20pt}

11: \setlength{\textwidth}{480pt}

12: \setlength{\textheight}{650pt}

13: \begin{document}

14: %

15: hep-ph/0006212

16: %

17: \begin{flushright}

18:   June, 2000 \ \ \\

19:   OU-HEP-352 \ \\

20: % hep-ph/000****

21: \end{flushright}

22: \vspace{0mm}

23: %

24: \begin{center}

25: \large{Polarized Structure Functions $g_2 (x)$ in the

26: Chiral Quark Soliton Model}

27: \end{center}

28: \vspace{0mm}

29: \begin{center}

30: M.~Wakamatsu\footnote{Email \ : \ wakamatu@miho.rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp}

31: \end{center}

32: \vspace{-4mm}

33: \begin{center}

34: Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, \\

35: Osaka University, \\

36: Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPAN

37: \end{center}

38: 

39: \vspace{4mm}

40: PACS numbers : 12.39.Fe, 12.39.Ki, 12.38.Lg, 13.60.Hb, 14.20.Dh

41: 

42: \vspace{6mm}

43: \begin{center}

44: \small{{\bf Abstract}}

45: \end{center}

46: \vspace{-2mm}

47: \begin{center}

48: \begin{minipage}{15.5cm}

49: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}

50: \small

51: \ \ \ The spin-dependent structure functions $g_2 (x, Q^2)$ are

52: investigated within the framework of the chiral quark soliton

53: model. It turns out that the twist-3 part of $g_2 (x, Q^2)$ gives

54: nonnegligible contributions to the total distributions at

55: the energy scale of $Q^2 = 5 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ but mainly

56: in the smaller $x$ region only, so that the corresponding third

57: moments $\int_0^1 \,x^2 \,{\bar{g}}_2 (x, Q^2) \,dx$ are pretty

58: small for both of the proton and neutron in conformity with

59: the recent E155 data.

60: %

61: \normalsize

62: \end{minipage}

63: \end{center}

64: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2.0}

65: 

66: \vspace{8mm}

67: \ \ \ In our opinion, the unexpectedly small quark spin

68: fraction of the nucleon indicated by the EMC

69: experiment \cite{EMC88} and the light flavor sea-quark

70: asymmetry revealed by the NMC measurement \cite{NMC91}

71: are two remarkable discoveries in the

72: field of nucleon structure function physics.

73: Undoubtedly, both are manifestation of

74: nonperturbative QCD dynamics imbedded in the physics

75: of high-energy deep-inelastic scatterings. An outstanding

76: feature of the chiral quark soliton model (CQSM) is that

77: it can explain both of these observations without recourse to

78: any fine-tuning. (This potentiality of the CQSM was

79: already noticed in \cite{WY91,WAKAM92}.)

80: In fact, we have already shown that it

81: reproduces all the qualitatively noticeable features of the

82: recent high-energy measurements, including the NMC

83: data for $F_2^p (x) - F_2^n (x)$,

84: $F_2^n (x) / F_2^p (x)$ \cite{NMC91}, the Hermes and E866

85: data for $\bar{d} (x) - \bar{u} (x)$ \cite{HERMES,E866},

86: the EMC and SMC data for $g_1^p (x)$, $g_1^n (x)$ and

87: $g_1^d (x)$ \cite{E143,E154,E155,SMC99},

88: in no need of adjustable parameters except for

89: the starting energy scale of the renormalization-group

90: evolution equation \cite{WK99,WW00A,WW00B}.

91: 

92: Encouraged by this success, we now push on with our analyses

93: to the twist-3 parton distributions in the nucleon.

94: It is well known that, altogether, there are three twist-3

95: distribution functions -- chiral odd, $e(x, Q^2)$ and

96: $h_L (x, Q^2)$, and chiral-even,

97: $g_2 (x, Q^2)$. They are generally believed to provide us with

98: valuable information on quark-gluon correlations

99: in hadrons. In the present investigation, we shall focus

100: our attention on $g_2 (x, Q^2)$. There already exist

101: several theoretical investigations of the polarized structure

102: functions $g_2 (x, Q^2)$. The most of those are based on

103: various modifications of the MIT bag model as well as its

104: original version \cite{JJ91,STRAT93,JU94,SHT95,SONG96}.

105: There also exists an investigation based on the

106: Nambu-Jona-Lasinio soliton model \cite{WGR97}, which is

107: essentially equivalent to the CQSM. Confining to the lower

108: moments of $g_2 (x, Q^2)$, also available are theoretical

109: predictions based on the QCD sum rule \cite{STEIN95,BBK90}

110: as well as the quenched lattice QCD \cite{GOCKEL96}, etc.

111: 

112: Although based on essentially the same model as \cite{WGR97},

113: the present investigation goes far beyond the previous one

114: in many respects. First, the polarization effects of the

115: negative-energy Dirac-sea quarks in the hedgehog mean-field

116: are fully taken into account. This is very important for

117: offering any reliable predictions for antiquark distributions.

118: Secondly, we also include

119: the novel $1 / N_c$ correction (or the first order rotational

120: correction in the collective angular velocity $\Omega$) to

121: the isovector distribution functions.

122: Without inclusion of it, some fundamental isovector observables

123: like the nucleon isovector axial coupling constant would be

124: largely underestimated, thereby being led to the so-called

125: ``$g_A$ problem'' in the hedgehog soliton

126: model \cite{WW93,Wakam96}.

127: Thirdly, the nonlocality effects (in time) inherent in the

128: theoretical definition of parton distributions are treated

129: in a consistent way \cite{WK99,PPGWW99}.

130: 

131: We start with the following definition of the distribution

132: functions :

133: %

134: \begin{eqnarray}

135:  g_1^{(I=0/I=1)} (x) &=& \frac{1}{2 M} \,

136:  \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \,\frac{d \lambda}{2 \pi} \,

137:  e^{\,i \lambda \,x} \,\langle PS \,\vert \,\psi^\dagger (0) \,

138:  ( 1 + \gamma^0 \,\gamma^3 ) \,\gamma_5 \,

139:  \left\{ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \tau_3 \end{array} \right\} \,

140:  \psi (\lambda \,n) \,\vert \,PS \rangle \, , \\

141:  g_T^{(I=0/I=1)} (x) &=& \frac{1}{2 M} \,

142:  \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \,\frac{d \lambda}{2 \pi} \,

143:  e^{\,i \lambda \,x} \,\langle P S_{\bot} \,\vert \,

144:  \psi^\dagger (0) \, \gamma^0 \,\gamma_{\bot} \,\gamma_5 \,

145:  \left\{ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \tau_3 \end{array} \right\} \,

146:  \psi (\lambda \,n) \,\vert \,P S_{\bot} \rangle \, ,

147: \end{eqnarray}

148: %

149: which is just standard except for the isospin dependence

150: explained below. Here the parts containing $1$ and $\tau_3$

151: respectively give isoscalar ($I=0$) and isovector ($I=1$)

152: combinations of the relevant distributions. They are

153: normalized such that the corresponding quark distributions

154: $g_T^{(q)} (x)$ with $q = u, d$ are given as

155: %

156: \begin{equation}

157:  g_T^{(u/d)} (x) \ = \ \frac{1}{2} \,\,[ \,

158:  g_T^{(I=0)} (x) \pm g_T^{(I=1)} (x) \,] \hspace{15mm}

159:  (0 < x < 1),

160: \end{equation}

161: %

162: and similarly for $g_1 (x)$. The distribution functions (1) and (2)

163: are formally defined in the region $-1 < x < 1$. The functions

164: with negative $x$ are to be interpreted as giving antiquark

165: distributions $g_T^{(q)} (x)$ with $q = \bar{u}, \bar{d}$

166: according to the rule :

167: %

168: \begin{equation}

169:  g_T^{(\bar{u}/\bar{d})} (x) \ = \ \frac{1}{2} \,\,

170:  [ \,g_T^{(I=0)} (-x) \pm g_T^{(I=1)} (-x) \,] \hspace{15mm}

171:  (0 < x < 1) \, ,

172: \end{equation}

173: %

174: and similarly for $g_1 (x)$.

175: The corresponding structure functions for the proton and the

176: neutron at the model energy scale are then constructed as

177: %

178: \begin{equation}

179:  g_T^{(p/n)} (x) \ = \ \frac{5}{36} \,[ \,

180:  g_T^{(I=0)} (x) + g_T^{(I=0)} (-x) \,] \ \pm \ 

181:  \frac{1}{18} \,[ \,

182:  g_T^{(I=1)} (x) + g_T^{(I=1)} (-x) \,] \, .

183: \end{equation}

184: %

185: The twist-2 distribution functions

186: $g_1 (x)$ were already evaluated in \cite{WK99,WW00A}.

187: The distribution functions

188: $g_T^{(I=0)} (x)$ and $g_T^{(I=1)} (x)$ can be evaluated within

189: the same theoretical framework.

190: Skipping the detail, here we only recall the fact that the isoscalar

191: and isovector parts have totally different dependences on the

192: collective angular velocity $\Omega$ of the rotating hedgehog mean field,

193: which itself scales as $1 / N_c$ \cite{WK99} :

194: %

195: \begin{eqnarray}

196:  g_T^{(I=0)} (x) &\sim& N_c \,O (\Omega^1) \ \sim \ O (N_c^0) \, ,\\

197:  g_T^{(I=0)} (x) &\sim& N_c \,[ \,O (\Omega^0) \ + \ O (\Omega^1) \,]

198:  \ \sim \ O (N_c^1) + O (N_c^0) \, .

199: \end{eqnarray}

200: %

201: 

202: \vspace{3mm}

203: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

204: \epsfxsize=15.0cm 

205: \epsfbox{pdfini.eps}

206: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.00}

207: \caption{(a) The isoscalar parts of the distribution functions

208: $g_1 (x)$ and $g_T (x)$. (b) The isovector parts of $g_1 (x)$ and

209: $g_T (x)$.}

210: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

211: \label{fig:fig1}

212: \end{figure}

213: \vspace{3mm}

214: 

215: Shown in Fig.1 are the results for $g_T^{(I=0)} (x)$ and

216: $g_T^{(I=1)} (x)$ in comparison with the twist-2 distributions

217: $g_1^{(I=0)} (x)$ and $g_1^{(I=1)} (x)$. We first point out that

218: the isoscalar and isovector distributions have totally dissimilar

219: shapes reflecting quite different $N_c$-dependence given

220: in (6) and (7).

221: Next, comparing $g_T^{(I=0)} (x)$ and $g_1^{(I=0)} (x)$, one

222: finds that the $g_T^{(I=0)} (x)$ has a peak at smaller value of

223: $x$ than $g_1^{(I=0)} (x)$ and damps faster as $x$ increases.

224: The same tendency is also observed for the isovector distributions,

225: but in this case the concentration of the distribution

226: $g_T^{(I=1)} (x)$ into the smaller $x$ region is even more profound.

227: This is due to more significant effect of vacuum polarization,

228: which is peaked around $x \simeq 0$.

229: It means that the ``valence-quark-only'' approximation adopted

230: in \cite{WGR97} cannot be justified at least for $g_T^{(I=1)} (x)$ and

231: to a lesser extent also for $g_1^{(I=1)} (x)$. Note, however, that

232: the vacuum polarization contributions, which are dominant in the

233: smaller $x$ region, are partially canceled in the corresponding

234: spin structure function $g_2^{(I=1)} (x)$ defined as a difference

235: of $g_T^{(I=1)} (x)$ and $g_1^{(I=1)} (x)$.

236: In any case, we emphasize

237: the following. The CQSM gives fairly different predictions for the

238: shapes of $g_1 (x)$ and $g_T (x)$. Moreover, the shapes of both

239: distributions are strongly dependent on the isospin (or more

240: generally flavor) combinations.

241: Furthermore, both distributions $g_1^{(I=1)} (x)$

242: and $g_T^{(I=1)} (x)$ have large support in the negative $x$ region,

243: which implies sizable flavor asymmetry of the spin-dependent

244: sea-quark (antiquark) distributions \cite{WW00A,DGPPWW98}.

245: 

246: To compare these predictions of the CQSM with the

247: existing high-energy data for $g_2^p (x,Q^2)$ and

248: $g_2^d (x,Q^2)$, we must take account of the scale dependence of

249: the distribution functions. We have done it as follows.

250: Remember first that the spin structure function $g_2 (x,Q^2)$

251: is defined as a difference of $g_T (x,Q^2)$ and

252: $g_1 (x,Q^2)$, i.e. $g_2 (x,Q^2) = g_T (x,Q^2) - g_1 (x,Q^2)$.

253: (In the following discussion on the scale dependence, we omit

254: the isospin indices for the structure functions, for notational

255: simplicity.)

256: The Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule \cite{BC70} holds exactly, i.e.

257: %

258: \begin{equation}

259:  \int_0^1 \,g_2 (x,Q^2) \,dx \ = \ 0 \, ,

260: \end{equation}

261: %

262: if the charges (or the first moments) of $g_1 (x,Q^2)$

263: and $g_T (x,Q^2)$ are equal, which in turn follows from the

264: rotational invariance of the whole theoretical scheme.

265: This property is automatically satisfied in usual low

266: energy models like the MIT bag model \cite{JJ91,STRAT93,

267: JU94,SHT95,SONG96} or the CQSM \cite{WGR97}.

268: The $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ is further decomposed into the twist-2

269: (Wandzura-Wilczek) part and the genuine twist-3 part

270: as \cite{WW77}

271: %

272: \begin{eqnarray}

273:  g_2^{WW} (x,Q^2) &\equiv& - \,g_1 (x,Q^2) \ + \ 

274:  \int_x^1 \,\frac{dy}{y} \,\,g_1 (y,Q^2) \,  \\

275:  \bar{g}_2 (x,Q^2) &\equiv& g_2 (x,Q^2) \ - \ 

276:  g_2^{WW} (x,Q^2) \, .

277: \end{eqnarray}

278: %

279: 

280: For the QCD evolution of the structure function $g_1 (x,Q^2)$

281: and twist-2 piece of $g_2 (x,Q^2)$, the ordinary

282: Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) equation

283: can be used. Here, we use the leading-order Fortran code

284: provided by Saga group \cite{HKM98}.

285: The flavor non-singlet and singlet

286: channels are treated separately, since the mixing with the

287: gluon distribution occurs in the latter.

288: On the other hand, the $Q^2$-evolution of twist-3 distributions

289: is known to be quite complicated due to mixing with

290: quark-antiquark-gluon operators, the number of which increases

291: rapidly with spin or the moment of the distributions.

292: However, Ali, Braun and Hiller

293: found that, in the large $N_c$ limit, the $Q^2$-evolution

294: of the chiral-even twist-3 flavor-nonsinglet distribution

295: $\bar{g}_2 (x,Q^2)$ is described by simple DGLAP type equation

296: with slightly different forms for the anomalous dimensions

297: from the twist-2 distributions \cite{ABH91}.

298: Accordingly, the moments of

299: $\bar{g}_2 (x,Q^2)$ obey the following simple equation :

300: %

301: \begin{equation}

302:  {\cal M}_n [ \bar{g}_2 (Q^2) ] \ = \ L^{\gamma_n^g / b_0} \,

303:  {\cal M}_n [ \bar{g}_2 (Q_{ini}^2) ] \, ,

304: \end{equation}

305: %

306: where ${\cal M}_n [ g(Q^2) ] \equiv \int_{0}^1 \,dx \,x^{n - 1}

307: \,g (x,Q^2)$, $L \equiv \alpha_S (Q^2) / \alpha_S (Q_{ini}^2)$,

308: $b_0 = \frac{11}{3} \,N_c - \frac{2}{3} \,N_f$, and

309: %

310: \begin{equation}

311:  \gamma_n^g \ = \ 2 \,N_c \,\left( \,S_{n-1} - \frac{1}{4} + 

312:  \frac{1}{2 \,n} \,\right) \, ,

313: \end{equation}

314: %

315: with $S_n = \sum_{j=1}^n \,\frac{1}{j}$.

316: The $Q^2$-evolution of the corresponding distribution functions

317: can be handled by the method described in \cite{KK97}.

318: In principle, the flavor-singlet part of $\bar{g}_2 (x,Q^2)$

319: mixes with the gluon distribution, and the $Q^2$-evolution of

320: it is not given by a simple equation as above even in the

321: large $N_c$ limit.

322: In the following study, we shall

323: neglect this mixing effect with gluons in the twist-3

324: flavor-singlet distributions, for simplicity.

325: Finally, the total $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ at the desired energy scale is

326: obtained after combining the twist-2 and twist-3 pieces of

327: $g_2 (x,Q^2)$, which are evolved separately.

328: 

329: \vspace{3mm}

330: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

331: \epsfxsize=15.0cm 

332: \epsfbox{xsg2.eps}

333: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.00}

334: \caption{The theoretical structure functions 

335: $x^2 \,g_2^p (x,Q^2)$ and $x^2 \,g_2^d (x,Q^2)$

336: at $Q^2 = 5 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ (solid curves) are compared

337: with the corresponding E143 and E155 data

338: (respectively shown by crosses and filled

339: circles) as well as the predictions of Song's center-of-mass

340: MIT bag model (dashed curves). The twist-2 parts of the

341: theoretical structure functions (dash-dotted curves) are also

342: shown for comparison.}

343: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

344: \label{fig:fig2}

345: \end{figure}

346: \vspace{3mm}

347: 

348: We show in Fig.2 the theoretical structure functions $g_2 (x,Q^2)$

349: at $Q^2 = 5 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ for the proton (a) and the deuteron (b)

350: in comparison with the corresponding experimental data.

351: Here, the crosses and the filled circles respectively stand for

352: the E143 \cite{E143G2} and E155 data \cite{E155G2}.

353: The final theoretical predictions for

354: $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ are represented by the solid curves, while

355: their twist-2 part $g_2^{WW} (x,Q^2)$ are shown by the dash-dotted

356: ones. The predictions of the center-of-mass MIT bag model by

357: Song are also shown for the sake of comparison \cite{SONG96}.

358: We point out that the predictions of the CQSM for both of

359: $g_2^p (x,Q^2)$ and $g_2^d (x,Q^2)$ are relatively close to those

360: of another version of MIT bag model given by Strattmann shown

361: in \cite{E143G2} and sizably larger than those of Song's results.

362: We also find that,

363: according to the predictions of the CQSM, the differences between

364: the full $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ and their twist-2 parts are relatively small

365: except for the smaller $x$ region, although it is not clear from

366: Fig.2 in which $x^2$ times $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ are plotted.

367: This tendency is also close to Stratmann's results rather

368: than Song's results. 

369: 

370: \vspace{3mm}

371: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

372: \epsfxsize=15.0cm 

373: \epsfbox{xsg23.eps}

374: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.00}

375: \caption{The twist-3 parts of the structure functions,

376: $x^2 \,\bar{g}_2^p (x,Q^2)$ and $x^2 \,\bar{g}_2^d (x,Q^2)$

377: are compared with Song's predictions as well as the

378: corresponding experimental data from his paper.}

379: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

380: \label{fig:fig3}

381: \end{figure}

382: \vspace{3mm}

383: 

384: To see it more clearly, we show in Fig.3 our

385: results for the twist-3 part of $g_2^p (x,Q^2)$ and $g_2^d (x,Q^2)$

386: in comparison with Song's predictions. Here, the solid curves are the

387: predictions of the CQSM, while the dashed curves are those of the

388: center-of-mass bag model by Song. The experimental data in this

389: figure are from \cite{SONG96}.

390: One clearly sees that the twist-3 parts of

391: $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ are much smaller in the CQSM than in Song's bag model

392: calculation. Because of the large uncertainties of the available

393: experimental data, it is difficult to say  at the present moment

394: which theoretical prediction is favored.

395: Nonetheless, small twist-3 contributions to the spin structure

396: functions $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ appears to be favored by the recent E155

397: analysis of the twist-3 matrix element :

398: %

399: \begin{eqnarray}

400:  d_2 (Q^2) \ = \ 3 \,\int_0^1 \,x^2 \,\bar{g}_2 (x,Q^2) \,dx \ = \ 

401:  2 \,\int_0^1 \, x^2 \,[ \,g_1 (x,Q^2) \ + \ \frac{3}{2} \,

402:  g_2 (x,Q^2) \,] \,dx \, .

403: \end{eqnarray}

404: %

405: (Also interesting to notice here would be the fact that the

406: instanton-liquid model of the QCD vacuum offers a qualitative

407: explanation of the suppression of the twist-3 matrix element

408: of $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ relative to the twist-2 one \cite{BPW97}.)

409: We compare in Fig.4 the predictions of various theoretical calculations

410: with the recent E155 data. As already shown in \cite{E155G2},

411: the predictions of some models are apparently incompatible

412: with the E155 analysis, although we must be cautious about

413: difficulties in obtaining reliable and precise experimental

414: information for these quantities.

415: For instance, large and negative $d_2$ for the neutron

416: predicted by the QCD sum rules \cite{STEIN95,BBK90} apparently

417: contradicts the E155 data.

418: Similarly, large and negative $d_2$ for the proton predicted by the

419: lattice QCD \cite{GOCKEL96} seems incompatible with the E155 data.

420: 

421: \vspace{3mm}

422: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

423: \epsfxsize=15.0cm 

424: \epsfbox{d2pn.eps}

425: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.00}

426: \caption{The predictions of various theoretical models for the

427: twist-3 matrix element $d_2$ for the proton (a) and the

428: neutron (b) are compared with the recent E155 analysis.

429: Shown theoretical models are from left to right : 

430: QCD sum rules \cite{STEIN95,BBK90}, lattice

431: QCD \cite{GOCKEL96}, MIT bag models \cite{SONG96,JU94},

432: and the CQSM.}

433: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

434: \label{fig:fig4}

435: \end{figure}

436: \vspace{3mm}

437: 

438: On the other hand, the predictions of the CQSM as well as those of

439: the MIT bag models seems consistent with the E155 data at least

440: qualitatively. We see that the prediction of the naive MIT bag model

441: for $d_2^p$ is accidentally close to that of the CQSM.

442: Its prediction $d_2^n = 0$ also seems to lie within the

443: experimental error bars. Note however that the predictions of

444: the naive MIT bag model must be taken with care, since the SU(6)

445: structure of the bag wave function (this is the cause of the result

446: $d_2^n = 0$ \cite{JU94}) apparently contradicts large and negative

447: behavior of the twist-2 neutron structure functions $g_1^n (x,Q^2)$

448: confirmed in several previous experiments \cite{E143,E154,E155,SMC99}.

449: This shortcoming of the original MIT bag model is remedied in

450: Song's modified one, in which sizable SU(6) symmetry breaking

451: effects are incorporated by hand, so that it reproduces both of

452: $g_1^p (x,Q^2)$ and $g_1^n (x,Q^2)$ \cite{SONG96}.

453: However, now we sees that the MIT bag model so refined gives a

454: prediction for $d_2^p$, which is about two times larger than that

455: of the CQSM and lies outside the errorbars of the E155 data.

456: More precise experimental data are absolutely awaited for drawing

457: more decisive conclusion about the twist-3 contributions to the

458: nucleon spin structure functions, thereby selecting various models

459: of nucleon internal structure.

460: 

461: To sum up, it has been shown in a series of

462: paper \cite{WK99,WW00A,WW00B} that the CQSM

463: reproduces all the qualitatively noticeable

464: features of the recent high-energy data for the twist-2

465: structure functions of the proton, the neutron and the deuteron,

466: with {\it no adjustable parameter} except for the ititial

467: energy scale of the DGLAP evolution equation.

468: In the present investigation, we have extended

469: this parameter-free analyses to the twist-3 spin structure

470: function $g_2 (x,Q^2)$. The theoretical predictions are

471: shown to be consistent with the E143 and E155 measurements for

472: $g_2^p (x,Q^2)$ and $g_2^d (x,Q^2)$ at $Q^2 = 5 \,\mbox{GeV}$,

473: although the uncertainties of the existing experimental data are

474: still too large to draw a decisive conclusion. We have also shown

475: that the CQSM predicts very small twist-3 matrix elements $d_2$ for

476: the proton and the neutron in conformity with the recent

477: E155 analysis. The accumulation of more precise experimental

478: data for $g_2 (x,Q^2)$ as well as $g_1 (x,Q^2)$ is absolutely

479: necessary for more complete understanding of the nucleon

480: spin structure.

481: 

482: \vspace{10mm}

483: %\newpage

484: \noindent

485: \begin{large}

486: {\bf Acknowledgement}

487: \end{large}

488: \vspace{3mm}

489: 

490: The author would like to express his sincere thanks to

491: Y.~Koike for many helpful discussions concerning the scale

492: dependence of the twist-3 distributions.

493: 

494: %

495: %  Reference

496: %

497: 

498: \setlength{\baselineskip}{5mm}

499: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

500: \bibitem{EMC88} EMC Collaboration, J.~Aschman et al.,

501: Phys. Lett. B206 (1988) 364 ; \\

502: Nucl. Phys. B328 (1989) 1.

503: \bibitem{NMC91} NMC Collaboration, P.~Amaudruz et al.,

504: Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 2712.

505: \bibitem{WY91} M.~Wakamatsu and H.~Yoshiki, Nucl. Phys. A525

506: (1991) 561.

507: \bibitem{WAKAM92} M.~Wakamatsu, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 3762.

508: \bibitem{WK99} M.~Wakamatsu and T.~Kubota, Phys. Rev. D60

509: (1999) 034020.

510: \bibitem{WW00A} M.~Wakamatsu and T.~Watabe, Phys. Rev. D62

511: (2000) 017506.

512: \bibitem{WW00B} M.~Wakamatsu and T.~Watabe, hep-ph/9912500,

513: to appear in Phys. Rev. D.

514: \bibitem{HERMES} HERMES Collaboration, K.~Ackerstaff et al.,

515: Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 (1998) 5519. 

516: \bibitem{E866} E866 Collaboration, E.A.~Hawker et al.,

517: Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 3715. 

518: \bibitem{E143} E143 Collaboration, K.~Abe et al., Phys. Rev.

519: D58 (1998) 112003.

520: \bibitem{E154} E154 Collaboration, K.~Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.

521: 79 (1997) 26.

522: \bibitem{E155} E155 Collaboration, P.L.~Anthony et al., hep-ex/994002.

523: \bibitem{SMC99} SMC Collaboration, B.~Adeva et al., Phys. Rev.

524: D58 (1998) 112001.

525: \bibitem{JJ91} R.L.~Jaffe and X.~Ji, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 724.

526: \bibitem{STRAT93} M.~Stratmann, Z. Phys. C60 (1993) 763.

527: \bibitem{JU94} X.~Ji and P.~Unrau, Phys. Lett. {B333} (1994) 228.

528: \bibitem{SHT95} F.M.~Steffens, H.~Hoffmann and A.W.~Thomas,

529: Phys. Lett. B358 (1995) 139.

530: \bibitem{SONG96} X.~Song, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1955.

531: \bibitem{WGR97} H.~Weigel, L.~Gamberg and H.~Reinhardt, Phys Rev.

532: D55 (1997) 6910.

533: \bibitem{STEIN95}  E.~Stein, Phys. Lett. B343 (1995) 369.

534: \bibitem{BBK90} I.~Balitsky, V.~Braun and A.~Klesnichenko,

535: Phys. Lett. B242 (1990) 245 ; \\

536: B318 (1993) 648(E).

537: \bibitem{GOCKEL96} M.~G\"{o}ckeler et al., Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 2317.

538: \bibitem{WW93} M.~Wakamatsu and T.~Watabe, Phys. Lett. B312

539: (1993) 184 ; \\

540: Chr.V.~Christov, A.~Blotz, K.~Goeke, P.~Pobylitsa,

541: V.Yu.~Petrov, M.~Wakamatsu, \\

542: and T.~Watabe, Phys. Lett. B325 (1994) 467.

543: \bibitem{Wakam96} M.~Wakamatsu, Prog. Theor. Phys. 95 (1996) 143.

544: \bibitem{PPGWW99} P.V.~Pobylitsa, M.V.~Polyakov, K.~Goeke, T.~Watabe

545: and C.~Weiss,

546: Phys. Rev. 59 (1999) 034024.

547: \bibitem{DGPPWW98} B.~Dressler, K.~Goeke, P.V.~Pobylitsa,

548: M.V.~Polyakov, T.~Watabe, and C.~Weiss, \\

549: hep-ph/9809487.

550: \bibitem{BC70} H.~Burkhardt and W.N.~Cottingham, Ann. Phys. (NY)

551: 56 (1970) 453.

552: \bibitem{WW77} S.~Wandzura and F.~Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 72B (1977)

553: 195.

554: \bibitem{HKM98} M.~Hirai, S.~Kumano, and M.~Miyama, Compt.

555: Phys. Commun. 108 (1998) 38.

556: \bibitem{ABH91} A.~Ali, V.M.~Braun and G.~Hiller, Phys. Lett.

557: B266 (1991) 117.

558: \bibitem{KK97} Y.~Kanazawa and Y.~Koike, Phys Lett. B403 (1997) 357.

559: \bibitem{E143G2} E143 Collaboration, K.~Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.

560: 76 (1996) 587.

561: \bibitem{E155G2} E155 Collaboration, P.L.~Anthony et al.,

562: Phys. Lett. B458 (1999) 529.

563: \bibitem{BPW97} J.~Balla, M.V.~Polyakov and C.~Weiss, Nucl. Phys.

564: B510 (1997) 327.

565: %

566: %\bibitem{DPP88} D.I.~Diakonov, V.Yu.~Petrov, and P.V.~Pobylitsa,

567: %Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 306}, 809 (1988).

568: %\bibitem{WY91} M.~Wakamatsu and H.~Yoshiki, Nucl. Phys. A{\bf 524},

569: %561 (1991).

570: %\bibitem{Reviews} For reviews, see, M.~Wakamatsu, Prog. Theor. Phys.

571: %Suppl. {\bf 109}, 115 (1992) ;\\

572: %Chr.V.~Christov, A.~Blotz, H.-C.~Kim, P.~Pobylitsa, T.~Watabe,

573: %Th.~Meissner, \\

574: %E.~Ruiz-Arriola, and K.~Goeke, Prog. Part. Nucl.

575: %Phys. {\bf 37}, 91 (1996) ;\\

576: %R.~Alkofer, H.~Reinhardt, and H.~Weigel, Phys. Rep. {\bf 265},

577: %139 (1996).

578: %\bibitem{Witten84} E.~Witten, in {\it Nuclear and Elementary Particle

579: %Physics}, eds. A.~Chodos, E.~Hadjimichael, \\

580: %and C.~Tze (World Scientific, Singapore, 1984).

581: \end{thebibliography}

582: %

583: \end{document}

584: