1: %
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3: %
4: %\usepackage{latexsym}
5: %\usepackage{graphics}
6: %\usepackage{showkeys}
7: \usepackage{amsbsy}
8: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
9: %
10: %
11: %
12: % Page layout:
13: %
14: \linespread{1.3}
15: \addtolength{\hoffset}{-0.6in}
16: \addtolength{\textwidth}{1in}
17: %\addtolength{\voffset}{-0.5in}
18: \addtolength{\textheight}{1in}
19: %
20: \title{Nuclear effects and higher twists in $F_3$ structure function
21: }
22: %
23: \author{
24: S. A. Kulagin$^{1}$ and A. V. Sidorov$^{2}$ \\[0.5cm]
25: \small
26: ${}^1$ Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences,\\
27: \small
28: 117312 Moscow, Russia
29: \\
30: \small
31: ${}^2$ Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,\\
32: \small
33: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Russia
34: } % Do not remove
35: %
36: %%%\date{\today}
37:
38: \begin{document}
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40: %
41: \maketitle
42: %
43: %
44: \begin{abstract}
45: \noindent
46: We analyze the CCFR collaboration iron target data on the $xF_3$
47: structure function making particular emphasis on the extraction of the higher
48: twist contributions from data.
49: Corrections for nuclear effects are applied in order to extract data on the structure
50: function of the isoscalar nucleon.
51: Our analysis confirms the observation made earlier, that the higher twist terms depend
52: strongly on the level to which QCD perturbation theory analysis is applied.
53: We discuss the impact of nuclear effects on the higher twist term as well as
54: on the QCD scale parameter $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}$ extracted from the fit
55: to data.\\[1cm]
56: %
57: PACS: {12.38.Bx}; {12.38.Cy}; {13.85.Hd} % end of PACS codes
58: \end{abstract} %end of abstract
59: %
60:
61: %
62: %
63: %
64: %
65: \newpage
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68: \label{intro}
69:
70: In the present paper we report the results of our analysis of the CCFR
71: collaboration data \cite{CCFR} on the structure function $xF_3$.
72: The particular emphasis of the analysis is to constrain the higher twist
73: (HT) contributions to the structure function from data.
74: %
75: The HT effects in the $xF_3$
76: structure function are of
77: particular interest because of certain theoretical predictions
78: made in the framework of infrared renormalon
79: technique \cite{renormalon,h-function,renormrev,Zakharov}.
80: %\cite{BB,DMW,DW,Stein,Beneke:1998ui}.
81: %
82: An attempt to constrain the HT terms from the CCFR/NuTeV
83: collaboration data was done in \cite{fit1,fit2}, where
84: the $F_3$ structure function was written as the sum of two terms,
85: %
86: \begin{eqnarray}
87: \label{LTplusHT}
88: xF_3(x,Q^2)=xF_3^{LT}(x,Q^2) +\frac{h(x)}{Q^2},
89: \end{eqnarray}
90: %
91: with $F_3^{LT}$ the leading twist contribution and $h/Q^2$ the HT term.
92: An important observation which follows from the analysis \cite{fit1,fit2,S1}
93: is that the magnitude of the HT term depends on the level to which the perturbation
94: theory analysis of $F_3^{LT}$ is applied.
95: If $F_3^{LT}$ is evaluated in a leading order (LO) renormalization group formalism
96: a large $h(x)$ appears from the fit. When a next-to-leading order (NLO) formalism
97: is used for $F_3^{LT}$ a somewhat smaller but still substantial contribution from
98: the HT term is needed. If $F_3^{LT}$ is evaluated to next-to-next-to-leading order
99: (NNLO) very little room is left for the HT term.
100: %
101:
102: We note that QCD analysis of data implies that data are given
103: for isolated proton and neutron. In practice, due to the reason of
104: statistics, neutrino data are taken mainly on nuclear targets rather
105: than on isolated proton and neutron. For example,
106: the CCFR/NuTeV collaboration uses the iron target,
107: the IHEP-JINR Neutrino Detector uses the aluminum target \cite{IHEP-JINR},
108: and the forthcoming data from CHORUS
109: collaboration is obtained on the lead target \cite{oldeman}).
110: %
111: It is known from muon and electron DIS experiments, that nuclear effects are
112: quite essential in a wide kinematical region of $x$ and $Q^2$
113: (the EMC effect at large $x$,
114: nuclear shadowing at small $x$, for a review see e.g. \cite{arneodo}).
115: %
116: Therefore, the separation of nuclear effects from data introduces
117: certain corrections to QCD analysis of data.
118:
119:
120: %
121: All these motivate us to make a new analysis of the CCFR neutrino data
122: taking into account corrections due to nuclear effects.
123: %
124: Our analysis involves two steps.
125: In section \ref{nucl-eff} we discuss our approach to calculate nuclear structure
126: functions and to correct data for nuclear effects,
127: and then in section \ref{qcd-fit} we report the results of QCD analysis of corrected data.
128: In sect. \ref{summary} we summarize.
129:
130:
131: \section{%%Corrections for nuclear effects}
132: Nuclear structure functions}
133: \label{nucl-eff}
134:
135: In order to apply corrections for nuclear effects in our analysis we first calculate
136: the ``EMC ratio'' for the iron target, $R_3(x,Q^2)=F_3^{A}(x,Q^2)/A F_3^N(x,Q^2)$,
137: with $F_3^A$ the structure function of a heavy nucleus of $A$ nucleons
138: and $F_3^N$ the structure function of an isolated isoscalar nucleon.%
139: \footnote{
140: The isoscalar nucleon structure function is defined as
141: $F_3^N=\frac12(F_3^p+F_3^n)$.
142: }
143: Then we extract the structure function of an isolated isoscalar nucleon
144: from the CCFR data, $F_3^N(x,Q^2)=F^{\rm CCFR}_3(x,Q^2)/R_3(x,Q^2)$.
145:
146: Bulk of neutrino data with $Q^2> 1$\,GeV$^2$ is located in the region of
147: $x>0.1$.
148: For this kinematical regime it is usually assumed that nuclear DIS of leptons
149: from nuclear targets can be viewed as incoherent scattering
150: from bound nucleons.
151: Major nuclear effects found in this region are due to
152: nuclear binding \cite{binding}
153: and Fermi motion \cite{fm}
154: and off-shell modification of bound nucleon
155: structure functions \cite{off-shell}.
156: For the simplest nuclear system, the deuteron, the relation between the deuteron
157: and the nucleon $F_3$ structure function reads as follows \cite{Ku98},
158: %
159: \begin{eqnarray}
160: \label{F3D}
161: xF_3^D(x,Q^2)=2\int\frac{d^3\boldsymbol{p}}{(2\pi)^3}
162: \left|\Psi_D(\boldsymbol{p})\right|^2\left(1+\frac{p_z}{\gamma M}\right)
163: x'F_3^N(x',Q^2;p^2),
164: \end{eqnarray}
165: %
166: where $\Psi_D(\boldsymbol{p})$ is the deuteron wave function which describes
167: the probability to find the bound proton (or neutron) with momentum $\boldsymbol{p}$,
168: %%the other nucleon balances the overall momentum so that
169: $x'=Q^2/2p{\cdot}q$ is the Bjorken variable of the bound
170: nucleon with the four-momentum $p$ which is given by the difference of the target
171: four-momentum and the four-momentum of the spectator nucleon.
172: Eq.(\ref{F3D}) is written for the target rest frame
173: and the axis $z$ is chosen along the direction of momentum transfer,
174: $q=(q_0,0_\perp,-|\boldsymbol{q}|)$. In this reference frame
175: $p=(M_D-\sqrt{\boldsymbol{p}^2+M^2},\boldsymbol{p})$
176: with $M_D$ and $M$ the deuteron and the nucleon mass respectively
177: and $\gamma=|\boldsymbol{q}|/q_0=(1+4x^2M^2/Q^2)^{1/2}$ is the `velocity'
178: of the virtual boson.
179: %
180: Note that the bound proton and neutron are off-mass-shell and their structure
181: functions depend
182: on the nucleon off-shellness $p^2$ as an additional variable.
183:
184: For the scattering off a heavy nucleus of $A$ nucleons,
185: there appears a rich spectrum of spectator nuclear
186: states of $A{-}1$ nucleons, over which we have to sum.
187: The nuclear structure function is then given by equation similar to (\ref{F3D})
188: where we have to substitute the deuteron wave function by nuclear spectral function
189: ${\cal P}(\varepsilon,\boldsymbol{p})$ and introduce an additional integration over
190: the energy spectrum of spectator states \cite{Ku98},
191: %
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \label{F3A}
194: xF_3^A(x,Q^2)=\sum_{\tau=p,n}\int\frac{d\varepsilon\,d^3\boldsymbol{p}}{(2\pi)^4}
195: \,{\cal P}^\tau(\varepsilon,\boldsymbol{p})\left(1+\frac{p_z}{\gamma M}\right)
196: x'F_3^\tau(x',Q^2;p^2),
197: \end{eqnarray}
198: %
199: where the sum is over protons ($\tau=p$) and neutrons ($\tau=n$).
200: The nucleon four-momentum $p=(M+\varepsilon,\boldsymbol{p})$.
201: The proton and neutron
202: spectral functions, ${\cal P}^p$ and ${\cal P}^n$, are normalized to the number
203: of bound protons ($Z$) and neutrons ($N$) respectively.
204:
205: Heavy nuclei, such as iron $^{56}$Fe$_{26}$, generally have got unequal numbers of protons
206: and neutrons with an excess of the latter over the former.
207: The neutron excess is generally small, $(N{-}Z)/A\ll 1$. Therefore, it is a good approximation
208: to assume that the neutron and the proton spectral functions calculated per one
209: particle are equal, ${\cal P}^p/Z={\cal P}^n/N$. Then we find from (\ref{F3A}),
210: %
211: \begin{eqnarray}
212: \label{N-Z}
213: xF_3^A = \left\langle
214: \left(1+\frac{p_z}{\gamma M}\right)
215: \left(x'F_3^N +
216: \frac{N{-}Z}{2A}\left(x'F_3^n-x'F_3^p\right)
217: \right)
218: \right\rangle,
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: %
221: where
222: the averaging is done with respect to the isoscalar spectral function,
223: ${\cal P}^p{+}{\cal P}^n$.
224: The last term in (\ref{N-Z}) gives a correction
225: due to excess of neutrons in a nucleus. We notice that the sign of this correction
226: is different for neutrino and anti-neutrino scattering. Indeed,
227: we have $F_3^\nu=2(d-\bar u)$ with $d$ and $u$
228: the parton distributions of corresponding quarks in the target (we neglect
229: for simplicity the contributions due to $s$- and $c$-quarks).
230: Since the neutron has more $d$-quarks
231: than the proton has (in the valence quark region),
232: the neutrino-neutron structure function is larger than the proton one,
233: $F_3^{\nu n}>F_3^{\nu p}$.
234: Therefore $F_3^{\nu A}$ receives a positive correction due to excess of
235: neutrons. Repeating this argument for
236: anti-neutrino scattering, we find that the corresponding correction
237: is equal in magnitude but opposite in sign (i.e. negative).
238: Therefore the $N{-}Z$ correction vanishes for the structure function
239: averaged over neutrino and antineutrino.
240: Similar discussion can also be applied to the $F_2$ structure function.
241: One can also see that the $N{-}Z$ correction is negative for
242: the charged leptons scattering, i.e. for the $F_2^{\mu A}$ structure function.
243:
244: As it is obvious from (\ref{F3A}),
245: calculation of nuclear structure functions requires the knowledge
246: of nuclear spectral function. In the next section we discuss
247: the nuclear spectral function used in the present calculation in
248: more detail.
249:
250: \subsection{Nuclear spectral function}
251:
252: Nuclear spectral function ${\cal P}$
253: determines the probability to find the nucleon with
254: the momentum ${\boldsymbol p}$ and (non relativistic)
255: energy $\varepsilon$ in the ground state of the nucleus
256: and can be written as follows
257: %%(we drop here explicit isospin notations for simplicity)
258: %
259: \begin{eqnarray}
260: \label{SF}
261: {\cal P}(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p})=2\pi \sum_{n,\sigma}\left|
262: \langle(A-1)_n,{-}{\boldsymbol p}\left|a_\sigma({\boldsymbol p}) \right|A\rangle\right|^2
263: \delta\left(
264: \varepsilon+E_n^{A{-}1}+\frac{{\boldsymbol p}^2}{2M_{A{-}1}}-E_0^A\right) .
265: \end{eqnarray}
266: %
267: Here the sum is over the quantum numbers of the whole set of the residual states
268: of $A{-}1$ nucleons which includes the bound states as well as the sates in continuum,
269: $a_\sigma({\boldsymbol p})$ is the annihilation operator of the nucleon with momentum
270: ${\boldsymbol p}$ and polarization $\sigma$, and $E_n^{A{-}1}$ and $E_0^A$ are respectively
271: the energy of the residual nucleus and the ground state energy of the
272: target nucleus. The residual system balances momentum of the removed nucleon and
273: acquires the recoil energy ${\boldsymbol p}^2/2M_{A{-}1}$ though its effect is small for
274: heavy nuclei.
275: %
276: The nuclear momentum distribution is
277: %
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: \label{n}
280: n({\boldsymbol p})=\int \frac{d\varepsilon}{2\pi}\,
281: {\cal P}(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p}).
282: \end{eqnarray}
283: %
284: The integration of the spectral function over energy and momentum gives the number
285: of bound nucleons $A$.
286:
287:
288: The spectral function (\ref{SF}) determines the rate of nucleon removal
289: reactions such as $A(e,e'p)X$ that makes it possible to
290: extract the spectral function from experimental data.\footnote{
291: Though one should notice, that the direct connection
292: between the cross sections and the spectral function
293: holds only in the impulse approximation,
294: and is destroyed by other effects such as final state interactions
295: and meson exchange currents.}
296: %
297: The picture of the spectrum of residual states as revealed from these
298: experiments with heavy nuclei can be summarized as follows.
299: For small energies and momenta\footnote{
300: The momenta should be compared with Fermi momentum $p_F$
301: which is for heavy nuclei $p_F\approx 300$\,MeV/c. The corresponding Fermi
302: energy is of order $\varepsilon_F\approx 40$\,MeV.}
303: the energy spectrum of residual states
304: follows to that predicted by the mean field model of the nucleus, i.e.
305: it consists of the set of sharp peaks whose positions can be identified with
306: the energies needed to separate bound nucleons from
307: the occupied single particle levels in the nuclear mean field.
308: %
309: The deviations from the mean field picture become significant at high momentum ${\boldsymbol p}$
310: and high nucleon removal energy $\varepsilon$. The widths of the resonances
311: increase as $\varepsilon$ increases as well as the positions of the peaks
312: move from that predicted by the energy independent mean field model.
313: At high energy the spectral function is dominated by contributions from the states
314: with one and more nucleons in the continuum. These contributions are due to
315: NN-correlations in the nuclear ground state and can not be accounted for within
316: the mean field model.
317:
318: \subsubsection{Phenomenological model of spectral function}
319:
320: The calculation of the nuclear spectral function for complex nuclei
321: requires to solve many body problem. The latter is known to be a
322: difficult task and presently can be done only within certain approximations.
323: %
324: In our discussion we follow \cite{CS96} and consider a phenomenological model for
325: the spectral function which incorporates both the single particle
326: nature of the spectrum at low energy as well as high energy and high
327: momentum components due to NN-correlations in the ground state.%
328: \footnote{
329: We note that our definition of the spectral function is different from the one
330: used in \protect\cite{CS96}, where the recoil energy was not included into
331: the energy $\delta$-function in (\protect\ref{SF}).
332: }
333: To this end we separate the full spectral function (\ref{SF}) into two parts,
334: %
335: \begin{eqnarray}
336: \label{01}
337: {\cal P}(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p})={\cal P}_0(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p})
338: +{\cal P}_1(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p}),
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: %
341: which correspond to contributions from low excitation energy intermediate states
342: (${\cal P}_0$) and high excitation energy states (${\cal P}_1$).
343: The low energy part can be approximated by the sum of the energy $\delta$-functions
344: which pick the positions of the occupied single particle levels
345: weighted with the corresponding wave functions squared.
346: In practice we use an approximate expression instead where the sum
347: over occupied levels is substituted by its average value,
348: %
349: \begin{eqnarray}
350: \label{P0}
351: {\cal P}_0(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p})=2\pi\, n_0({\boldsymbol p})
352: \delta\left(\varepsilon+E^{(1)}+\frac{{\boldsymbol p}^2}{2M_{A{-}1}}\right),
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: %
355: with $E^{(1)}=E^{A{-}1}-E_0^A$ the nucleon separation energy
356: averaged over residual configurations of $A{-}1$ nucleons
357: with low excitation energies, i.e. mean field configurations,
358: and $n_0({\boldsymbol p})$ the corresponding part of the nucleon
359: momentum distribution.
360:
361: The high energy part ${\cal P}_1$ is determined by excited states
362: in (\ref{SF}) with one or more nucleons in the continuum.
363: %
364: It was observed within many body calculations \cite{md,CS96}
365: for a wide range of nuclei
366: that nuclear momentum distributions at high momenta
367: $(|{\boldsymbol p}|>p_F$ with $p_F$ the Fermi momentum)
368: run parallel to
369: the deuteron distribution $n_D({\boldsymbol p})$,
370: %
371: \begin{eqnarray}
372: \label{n1-nD}
373: n_1({\boldsymbol p})\approx C^A n_D({\boldsymbol p}),
374: \end{eqnarray}
375: %
376: where the normalization
377: constant $C^A$ incorporates the many body aspects of the problem.
378: It was found \cite{CS96}
379: that the constants $C^A$ increase from $2$ for $^3$He
380: to $4.5$ for $^{56}$Fe. Going to a larger mass number does not bring in more
381: high momentum component, $C^A=5$ for nuclear matter.%
382: \footnote{
383: One should note however, that the relation (\ref{n1-nD}) does not hold
384: at low momentum where $n_1({\boldsymbol p})$ contributes only a little
385: to the full momentum distribution. }
386:
387: This observation finds a simple interpretation if one assumes that
388: high momentum component is generated by ground state configurations
389: with a correlated NN-pair with a small distance between the nucleons.
390: One can expect therefore that the relative motion in the NN-pair is
391: determined by the properties of the NN-interaction in the vacuum
392: rather than by long range nuclear interactions, and the distribution
393: in the relative momentum will be similar to momentum distribution in
394: the deuteron.
395:
396: In terms of the spectral function ${\cal P}_1$ this corresponds to
397: the assumption about the dominance of the contribution from the states
398: with one nucleon in the continuum
399: and the remaining $A{-}2$ nucleons being in a state with
400: low momentum and low excitation energy,
401: %
402: \begin{eqnarray}
403: \label{final-st}
404: |A{-}1,-{\boldsymbol p}\rangle \approx
405: a^\dagger({\boldsymbol p}_1)|(A{-}2)^*,{\boldsymbol p}_2\rangle
406: \delta({\boldsymbol p}_1+{\boldsymbol p}_2+{\boldsymbol p}) .
407: \end{eqnarray}
408: %
409: The coprresponding matrix element in (\ref{SF}) is then determined by the wave
410: function of the NN-pair embeded into nuclear environment,
411: %
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: \label{factor}
414: %\nonumber
415: \left\langle (A{-}2)^*,{\boldsymbol p}_2\left|
416: a({\boldsymbol p}_1)a({\boldsymbol p})
417: \right|A\right\rangle =
418: \psi_{\rm rel}({\boldsymbol k})
419: \psi_{\rm CM}^{A{-}2}({\boldsymbol p}_{\rm CM})
420: \delta({\boldsymbol p}_1+{\boldsymbol p}_2+{\boldsymbol p}).
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: %
423: We assume here factorization into the wave functions describing
424: the relative motion in the NN pair, $\psi_{\rm rel}({\boldsymbol k})$,
425: with relative momentum
426: ${\boldsymbol k}=({\boldsymbol p}-{\boldsymbol p}_1)/2$
427: and the center-of-mass
428: (CM) motion of the pair in the field of $A{-}2$ nucleons,
429: $\psi_{\rm CM}^{A{-}2}({\boldsymbol p}_{\rm CM})$ with
430: ${\boldsymbol p}_{\rm CM}={\boldsymbol p}_1+{\boldsymbol p}$.
431: In general $\psi_{\rm CM}$ depends on the quantum
432: numbers of the state of $A{-}2$ nucleons, however the
433: corresponding dependence of the $\psi_{\rm rel}$ is weak.
434:
435: We substitute (\ref{factor}) into (\ref{SF})
436: and sum over the spectrum of $A{-}2$ nucleons states and
437: obtain an approximate expression for ${\cal P}_1$,
438: %
439: \begin{eqnarray}
440: \label{P1}
441: {\cal P}_1(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p})&=&(2\pi)
442: \int d^3{\boldsymbol p}_1 d^3{\boldsymbol p}_{\rm CM}
443: n_{\rm rel}({\boldsymbol k}) n_{\rm CM}({\boldsymbol p}_{\rm CM})
444: \delta({\boldsymbol p}_1+{\boldsymbol p}-{\boldsymbol p}_{\rm CM}) \\ \nonumber
445: && \delta\left(\varepsilon+\frac{{\boldsymbol p}_1^2}{2M}+
446: \frac{{\boldsymbol p}_{\rm CM}^2}{2M_{A{-}2}}+E^{(2)}\right).
447: \end{eqnarray}
448: %
449: Here $n_{\rm rel}$ and $n_{\rm CM}$ are the relative and the CM momentum
450: distributions respectively and $E^{(2)}=E^{A{-}2}-E_0^A$ is the energy
451: needed to separate two nucleons from the ground state averaged over
452: configurations of $A{-}2$ nucleons with low excitation energy.
453: Note that the minimum two nucleon separation energy
454: $E^{(2)}=E_0^{A{-}2}-E_0^A$
455: is of order of $20\,$MeV for medium range nuclei like $^{56}$Fe.
456:
457: The factorization of the matrix element (\ref{factor}) into the relative
458: and the CM motion wave functions is justified if relative momentum in
459: the NN-pair is large relative to the CM momentum of the pair. This can be written
460: as $|{\boldsymbol p}|\gg |{\boldsymbol p}_{\rm CM}|$.
461: This condition allows us to approximate (\ref{P1})
462: by taking the relative momentum distribution out of the integral over
463: the CM momentum at the point ${\boldsymbol k}={\boldsymbol p}$. Then
464: we have,
465: %
466: \begin{eqnarray}
467: \label{P1-av}
468: {\cal P}_1(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p})&=&(2\pi)n_{\rm rel}({\boldsymbol p})
469: \left\langle
470: \delta\left(\varepsilon+\frac{({\boldsymbol p}+{\boldsymbol p}_2)^2}{2M}+
471: \frac{{\boldsymbol p}_2^2}{2M_{A{-}2}}+E^{(2)}\right)
472: \right\rangle_{\rm CM} .
473: \end{eqnarray}
474: %
475: where the averaging is done with respect to the CM motion of the pair.
476: From the latter equation it is clear that the high momentum part of
477: nuclear momentum distribution is given by the relative momentum
478: distribution in the correlated NN pair embedded into nuclear
479: environment, $n_1({\boldsymbol p})=n_{\rm rel}({\boldsymbol p})$.
480:
481: The characteristic momentum for the CM motion of the NN-pair is
482: similar to the one in the mean field model. In fact the averaged CM
483: momentum squared of the pair can be estimated from the balance of the
484: overall nucleus momentum \cite{CS96},
485: $\langle(\sum {\boldsymbol p}_i)^2\rangle=0$,
486: where the sum is taken over all bound nucleons and
487: the averaging is performed with respect to the intrinsic wave
488: function of the nucleus. This gives $\langle{\boldsymbol p}^2_{\rm
489: CM}\rangle= 2(A{-}2)\langle{\boldsymbol p}^2\rangle/(A{-}1)$, with
490: $\langle{\boldsymbol p}^2\rangle$ the mean value of the squared single
491: nucleon momentum.
492: Since, by our assumption, the CM distribution does not include
493: high-momentum component, we should also exclude the contribution of high-momentum part
494: in estimating $\langle{\boldsymbol p}^2\rangle$.
495: We follow \cite{CS96} and parameterize the CM momentum distribution of
496: the correlated NN pair in the field of other $A{-}2$ nucleons by a
497: Gaussian distribution,
498: %
499: \begin{eqnarray}
500: \label{nCM}
501: n_{\rm CM}({\boldsymbol p}_{\mathrm CM})=\left({\alpha}/{\pi}\right)^{3/2}
502: \exp(-\alpha {\boldsymbol p}_{\mathrm CM}^2),
503: \end{eqnarray}
504: %
505: with the parameter $\alpha$ determined from the averaged CM momentum of the pair,
506: $\alpha=3/(2\langle{\boldsymbol p}^2_{\rm CM}\rangle)$.
507:
508: Using (\ref{nCM}) we find that the integration over the CM momentum in (\ref{P1-av})
509: can be done analytically and finally the result reads,
510: %
511: \begin{eqnarray}
512: \label{P1-gauss}
513: {\cal P}_1(\varepsilon,{\boldsymbol p})=n_1({\boldsymbol p})\frac{2M}{|{\boldsymbol p}|}
514: \sqrt{\alpha\pi}
515: \left(\exp({-\alpha p_{\rm min}^2})-\exp({-\alpha p_{\rm max}^2})\right),
516: \end{eqnarray}
517: %
518: where $p_{\rm min}$ and $p_{\rm min}$
519: are respectively the minimum and the maximum CM momenta allowed by the energy-momentum
520: conservation in (\ref{P1}) for the given $\varepsilon$ and ${\boldsymbol p}$,
521: %
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: %\label{}
524: %%p_{{}\!\raisebox{-\medskipamount}{${\rm max\atop min}$} }
525: &&
526: p_{\rm max}^2=\left(\frac{A{-}2}{A{-}1}|{\boldsymbol p}|+ p_T\right)^2,\quad
527: p_{\rm min}^2=\left(\frac{A{-}2}{A{-}1}|{\boldsymbol p}|- p_T\right)^2,
528: \\
529: \nonumber
530: &&
531: \mbox{with}\quad
532: {p_T}=\left(
533: \frac{A{-}2}{A{-}1}\left(
534: -2M(\varepsilon + E^{(2)})-\frac{{\boldsymbol p}^2}{{A{-}1}}
535: \right)\right)^{1/2}.
536: \end{eqnarray}
537: %
538: We notice that $p_T$ has the interpretation of the maximal allowed CM momentum
539: in the correlated NN-pair in the direction transverse to ${\boldsymbol p}$
540: for the fixed $\varepsilon$ and $|{\boldsymbol p}|$.
541: Note that the separation energy $\varepsilon$ is negative, as it follows from its definition
542: in (\ref{SF}). The condition $p_T^2=0$ determines the threshold value of $\varepsilon$
543: for the fixed $|{\boldsymbol p}|$.
544:
545: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIXING PARAMETERS
546:
547: In numerical evaluations we use the parameterizations for $n_0({\boldsymbol p})$ and
548: $n_1({\boldsymbol p})$
549: of \cite{CS96}, which fit nicely the results of many body calculation of nuclear momentum
550: distribution. It follows from this calculation that
551: low momentum part incorporates about 80\% of the total normalization
552: of the spectral function while the other 20\% are taken by the high momentum part.
553: The mean kinetic energy obtained from integration of the full momentum distribution
554: $n_0+n_1$ for the iron nucleus
555: is $\langle{\boldsymbol p}^2\rangle/2M=31\,$MeV (the share of the high-momentum
556: component $n_1$ is about 20\,MeV).
557: The two parameters, $E^{(1)}$ and $E^{(2)}$, determine characteristic range of
558: nucleon separation energy. We set $E^{(2)}=E_0^{A{-}2}-E_0^A=20\,$MeV, and therefore
559: neglect possible contributions due to excited states of $A{-}2$ nucleons in (\ref{P1}).%
560: \footnote{
561: The effect of $A{-}2$ excited states would lead to an overall increase
562: of nucleon separation energy. We believe, however, that concrete estimates
563: of this effect would require us to go beyond the model discussed in the present
564: paper}
565: In order to fix the parameter $E^{(1)}$ we employ the Koltun sum rule \cite{KSR},
566: which gives the relation between mean separation energy $\langle\varepsilon\rangle$,
567: mean kinetic
568: energy $\langle{\boldsymbol p}^2\rangle/2M$,
569: and the ground state energy per nucleon
570: $E_0^A/A$.
571: For the mean kinetic energy of $31\,$MeV the sum rule gives
572: $\langle\varepsilon\rangle\approx -50\,$MeV. By integrating our model spectral
573: function we find the value $E^{(1)}=27\,$MeV which satisfies the Koltun sum rule.
574:
575:
576:
577: \subsection{The EMC ratios $R_2$ and $R_3$}
578:
579:
580: In Fig.\ref{emc_ratios} we compare the iron/deuterium ratios for the charged lepton
581: structure
582: function $F_2^\mu$ and the neutrino and antineutrino averaged
583: structure function $F_3$, calculated with the model
584: nuclear spectral function discussed above.
585: Also shown are the BCDMS \cite{bcdms} and the SLAC \cite{slac}
586: data on the iron/deuterium
587: $F_2$ structure function ratios. In numerical calculations we
588: use the CTEQ4 parameterizations for the nucleon parton
589: distributions \cite{cteq}.
590: %
591: We see that the behavior of the ratio $R_3$ is very similar
592: to that of the ratio $R_2$ (for large $x$ and large $Q^2$
593: this does not come as a big surprise, since both $F_2$ and $xF_3$ are determined
594: by valence quarks in this region). A small difference between the $R_2$ and
595: $R_3$ curves is due to the neutron excess correction. As it was discussed in sect. \ref{intro},
596: the $F_2^\mu$ structure function receives a negative $N{-}Z$ correction, while
597: similar correction cancels out in the neutrino and antineutrino averaged structure functions.
598: %
599: It is well known, that the depletion of nuclear structure functions at $x<0.7$
600: is due to nuclear binding effect \cite{binding}, while
601: the rise of the ratios at large $x>0.7$ is due to nuclear momentum distribution
602: effect (Fermi motion).
603: %
604:
605: We recall also that bound nucleons are off-mass-shell.
606: Off-shell effects in the structure functions appear as the dependence
607: on the target invariant mass $p^2$. Target mass corrections can be of two
608: different kinds. First of all, we have to take into account `kinematical'
609: target mass dependence due to finite $p^2/Q^2$ ratio.
610: To this end we use the Nachtmann
611: scaling variable \cite{Nacht}
612: $\xi=2x'/(1+(1+4x'^2p^2/Q^2))^{1/2}$
613: instead of the Bjorken variable $x'$.
614: Other (`dynamical') sources of $p^2$-dependence of structure functions
615: are also possible. In this respect we refer to a model where $p^2$-dependence of
616: structure functions appears in the leading order \cite{off-shell,Ku98}.
617: %
618: We note also here, that we take into account off-shell effects in
619: the bound nucleon structure function in a way that it does not
620: affect the number of valence quarks in the nucleon \cite{Ku98}.
621: %
622: The off-shell effect
623: acts coherently with
624: nuclear binding effect and leads to an additional suppression of
625: nuclear structure functions at intermediate range of $x$.
626:
627: The ratio $R_2$ follows quite closely to data on the EMC effect in the iron
628: nucleus (see Fig. \ref{emc_ratios}). This gives us the confidence in our method
629: to calculate the EMC effect in the $F_3$ structure function.
630:
631:
632: %%% QCD FIT
633: \section{QCD analysis and fit}
634: \label{qcd-fit}
635:
636: Our QCD fit proceeds as follows.
637: The nucleon structure function $F^N_3(x,Q^2)$ is written as a sum of the leading twist
638: and the high twist terms, (\ref{LTplusHT}).
639: We parametrize $xF_{3}^{LT}$
640: at some scale $Q^2=Q_0^2$
641: in terms of a simple function,
642: %
643: \begin{eqnarray}
644: xF_3^{LT}(x,Q^2_0) =a_1x^{a_2}(1-x)^{a_3}(1+a_4 x).
645: \label{xf30}
646: \end{eqnarray}
647: %
648: Then we apply the renormalization group equation in order to calculate evolution of
649: $xF_{3}^{LT}$ with $Q^2$. We solve the renormalization group equation in the
650: leading (LO), next-to-leading (NLO) and next-to-next-to-leadig (NNLO) logarithm
651: approximations of QCD. In doing so we expand the leading twist
652: structure function $xF_3^{LT}$ in terms of its
653: Mellin moments within the framework of the Jacobi polinomial method and then apply
654: the evolution equations to the moments (for more detail on the method used see
655: \cite{jacobi-pol}).
656:
657: It should be noticed that in general the higher twist terms can be of two kinds:
658: those which have the kinematical
659: nature, e.g. the terms due to finite target mass, and those which arise due to
660: higher twist operators and reflect the quark-gluon interaction effects in the
661: target (``pure'' higher twists).
662: In order to ensure that the higher twist term in (\ref{LTplusHT})
663: describes effects due to quark-gluon
664: interaction in the target
665: we explicitly take into account
666: the kinematical corrections due to finite target mass.
667: To this end we substitute
668: the Mellin moments by the Nachtmann moments
669: \cite{Nacht} in the the Jacobi polinomial expansion
670: of the leading twist structure function $xF_{3}^{LT}$.
671:
672:
673: The CCFR data points are given in terms of discrete $x$-bins structure which range
674: from $x=0.0075$ to $x=0.75$.
675: % In our discussion we focus on the region $x>0.1$ where
676: % neutrino data on structure functions agree
677: % with charged lepton data.
678: We fit 116 data points with $Q^2$ in the range between
679: $1.3\,$GeV$^2$ and $200\,$GeV$^2$. The fit parameters are the parameters
680: $a_2$, $a_3$, and $a_4$ of
681: (\ref{xf30}) at the scale $Q^2_0$, the values of the function $h(x_i)$ at the center of
682: each $x_i$-bin, as well as the QCD scale parameter $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}$.
683: We fix the parameter $a_1$ by normalizing (\ref{xf30}) to the
684: Gross-Llewellyn-Smith sum rule, which was calculated in QCD to the second order
685: in $\alpha_S$ \cite{GL},
686: $S_{\rm GLS}= 3(1-\alpha_S/\pi-3.25(\alpha_S/\pi)^2)$.
687: %
688:
689: Our results are shown in Fig. \ref{ht} for the LO, NLO and NNLO
690: approximations to the evolution equation. Also shown are the results
691: with and without applying corrections for nuclear effects. We found
692: that the fitting parameters are stable for $Q_0^2>15\,$GeV$^2$ and
693: have chosen $Q_0^2=20\,$GeV$^2$ for the results presented in
694: Fig. \ref{ht}.
695: %
696: The present fit includes more experimental points than that of
697: \cite{fit1,fit2}. In particular, the inclusion of low-$Q^2$ data points into the fit
698: allows us to reduce the error bars in $h(x)$ as compared to those presented in
699: \cite{fit1,fit2}.
700: Though we should notice some increasing theoretical uncertainties associated
701: with low $Q^2$ data included into our analysis.
702: We found that, in general, our present fit agrees with \cite{fit1,fit2},
703: though introduces certain corrections especially at large $x$.
704:
705: A special care was taken to insure that our method to separate target mass
706: correction is self-consistent. In particular we have done a special fit with
707: $h(x_i)$ fixed at values presented in Fig. \ref{ht}, but let the mass parameter
708: in the Nachtmann moments to be free. We found that the minimum of $\chi^2$
709: corresponds to the value of the mass parameter about $0.9\,$GeV with an error
710: about $0.2\, $GeV. This value only weakly depends on the order of perturbative
711: analysis and is close to the proton mass, that gives us confidence in the method
712: used.
713:
714: %%% OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FIT
715:
716: As one can clearly see from Fig. \ref{ht} the magnitude of the higher twist effects
717: depends on the level to which
718: the perturbation theory analysis of $F_3^{LT}$ is done.
719: The more perturbative corrections are included into the evolution equation,
720: the less room is left for the function $h(x)$.
721: The shape of $h(x)$ in NLO is in a qualitative agreement with
722: the prediction of
723: infrared renormalon approach \cite{h-function}.
724: In particular, we found that the function $h(x)$ is negative
725: in the region $0.1<x<0.6$.
726: %
727:
728:
729: The separation of nuclear effects from data leads to a further suppression of
730: the higher twist term $h(x)$ at all levels of perturbation theory analysis of
731: $F_3^{LT}$.
732: The effect of nuclear corrections on $h(x)$ is most pronounced at large $x$, where we
733: observe a systematic reduction of $h(x)$ as compared with no-nuclear-effects analysis.
734: Nuclear corrections result in the decrease of the values of the function $h(x)$ at
735: $x>0.6$. As one can see from Fig. \ref{ht}, the central points of
736: $h(x)$ at $x=0.65$ and $x=0.75$ bins become negative
737: in contrast to the infrared renormalon prediction for large $x$ \cite{h-function}.
738: %
739: An attempt to take into account nuclear effects in the QCD fit was previously done in
740: \cite{ST97,fit2}.
741: We comment in this respect that authors of
742: \cite{ST97} used the deuteron model for nuclear effects,
743: which is not a realistic one for the iron target.
744: In particular, we found that $h(x)$ is negative for large $x$, while it was positive in
745: \cite{ST97}.
746: %
747: Authors of \cite{fit2} attempted to introduce nuclear corrections to QCD fit in terms
748: of the moments of structure functions. However, it was incorrectly
749: assumed in \cite{fit2}, that the nuclear structure function
750: $F_3^A\to 0$ as $x\to 1$,
751: that, to our mind, caused the $\chi^2$ increase in their QCD fit.
752:
753: We found that the scale parameter $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}$ decreases
754: for about $40\,$MeV after nuclear effects are taken into account.
755: This will lead to a shift of $\alpha_S(M_Z)$ for about $2\cdot 10^{-3}$.
756: Within the NNLO fit we get $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}=(394 \pm
757: 55)\,$MeV for four quark flavors.
758:
759: %%% SUMMARY
760: \section{Summary and conclusions}
761: \label{summary}
762:
763: In the present paper we report the results of our QCD analysis of
764: CCFR data on $F_3$ structure function. The main emphasis was put
765: on the extraction of higher twist contribution from data.
766: We took special care to separate nucler effects from data,
767: and compare the results of both analyses with and without
768: corrections for nuclear effects.
769:
770: We found that nuclear effects cause about 10\% decrease in the
771: $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}$ value.
772:
773: Our analysis confirms the observation made earlier, that the
774: magnitude of higher twist terms decreases
775: strongly when going from LO to NLO, and then to NNLO,
776: approximations to the evolution equation.
777: We observe an additional suppression of higher twist terms
778: when corrections due to nuclear effects have been applied.
779:
780: In conclusion we note that small-$x$ region in $F_3$ structure
781: function is of particular interest, where a strong nuclear shadowing effect
782: is anticipated \cite{shadow}.
783: We plan to address nuclear shadowing effect in application to QCD analysis
784: of neutrino data.
785:
786:
787: \section{Acknowledgements}
788:
789: This work was supported in part by the RFBR project no. 00-02-17432.
790: We are grateful to A. L. Kataev for useful discussions.
791:
792:
793: %%%%% REFERENCES
794: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
795:
796: \bibitem{CCFR}
797: W.G. Seligman, Columbia Univ, Thesis R-1257, CU-368,
798: Nevis-292, 1997;\\
799: CCFR-NuTeV Collab., W.G. Seligman et al.,
800: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 79} (1997) 1213.
801:
802: \bibitem{IHEP-JINR}
803: IHEP-JINR Neutrino Detector Collab., A.V.~Sidorov et al.,
804: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 79}
805: (1999) 99; {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C10} (1999) 405.
806:
807:
808: \bibitem{oldeman}
809: R.G.C.~Oldeman for the CHORUS collab.,
810: {\em Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 79}
811: (1999) 96.
812:
813: \bibitem{renormalon}
814: M. Beneke and V.M. Braun, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B348} (1995) 513;\\
815: Yu. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and B.R. Webber, {\em Nucl. Phys.}
816: {\bf B469} (1996) 93.
817:
818: \bibitem{h-function}
819: M. Dasgupta and B.R.~Webber, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B382} (1996) 273;\\
820: M. Maul, E. Stein, A. Sch\"{a}fer and L. Mankiewicz,
821: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B401} (1997) 100.
822:
823: \bibitem{renormrev}
824: M.~Beneke, {\em Phys.\ Rept.}\ {\bf 317} (1999) 1.
825:
826: \bibitem{Zakharov}
827: F.V. Gubarev, M.I. Polikarpov and V.I. Zakharov.
828: Lectures given at 27th ITEP Winter School of Physics, Moscow, 16-24
829: Feb 1999. Preprint ITEP-TH-36-99 (1999),
830: [hep-ph/9908292].
831:
832: \bibitem{fit1}
833: A.L.~Kataev, A.V.~Kotikov, G.~Parente and A.V.~Sidorov,
834: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B417} (1998) 374.
835: %INR 947/97, Moscow, 1997; JINR E2-97-194, Dubna;
836: %US-FT/20-97, Santiago de Compastela;
837: % [hep-ph/9706534]. Submitted to Phys. Lett. B.
838:
839: \bibitem{fit2}
840: A.L.~Kataev, G.~Parente, and A.V.~Sidorov,
841: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B573} (2000) 405.
842:
843: \bibitem{S1}
844: A.V.~Sidorov, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B389} (1996) 379.
845:
846: \bibitem{ST97}
847: %A.V.~Sidorov and M.V.~Tokarev, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf 358} (1995) 353;\\
848: M.V.~Tokarev and A.V.~Sidorov, {\em Nuovo Cim.} {\bf A110} (1997) 1401.
849:
850: \bibitem{arneodo}
851: M. Arneodo, {\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf 240} (1994) 301.
852:
853: \bibitem{binding}
854: S. V. Akulinichev, S. A. Kulagin, and G. M. Vagradov,
855: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B158} (1985) 485;
856: S. V. Akulinichev, S. Shlomo, S. A. Kulagin, and G. M. Vagradov,
857: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 55} (1985) 2239;
858: S. A. Kulagin, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A500} (1989) 653.
859:
860: \bibitem{fm}
861: G.B. West, {\em Ann. Phys.} {\bf 74} (1972) 464
862:
863: \bibitem{off-shell}
864: S.A. Kulagin, G. Piller and W. Weise, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf C50} (1994) 1154.
865: %%W. Melnitchouk, A.W. Schreiber and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. {\bf C49} (1994) 1183.
866:
867: \bibitem{Ku98}
868: S.A.~Kulagin, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A640} (1998) 435.
869:
870: \bibitem{CS96}
871: C. Ciofi degli Atti and S. Simula, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf C53} (1996) 1689.
872:
873: \bibitem{md}
874: J.G. Zabolitsky and W. Ey, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B76} (1978) 527.
875:
876: \bibitem{KSR}
877: D.S. Koltun, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf C9} (1974) 484.
878:
879: \bibitem{cteq}
880: H.L. Lai {\em et al.}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D55} (1997) 1280.
881:
882: \bibitem{bcdms}
883: A.C. Benvenuti {\em et al., Phys. Lett.} {\bf 189B} (1985) 483
884:
885: \bibitem{slac}
886: J. Gomez {\em et al., Phys. Rev.} {\bf D49} (1994) 4348
887:
888: \bibitem{jacobi-pol}
889: G.~Parisi and N.~Sourlas, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B151} (1979) 421;\\
890: I.S. Barker, C.B. Langensiepen, and G. Shaw, {\em Nucl. Phys.}
891: {\bf B186} (1981) 61;\\
892: V.G.~Krivokhizhin {\em et al., Z. Phys.} {\bf C36} (1987) 51;
893: {\bf C48} (1990) 347; \\
894: A.L.~Kataev and A.V.~Sidorov, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B331} (1994) 179.
895:
896: \bibitem{Nacht}
897: O. Nachtmann, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B63} (1973) 237; \\
898: S. Wandzura, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B122} (1977) 412.
899:
900: \bibitem{GL}
901: S.G. Gorishny and S.A. Larin, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B172}(1986) 109.
902:
903: \bibitem{shadow}
904: S.A. Kulagin, hep-ph/9812532.
905:
906: \end{thebibliography}
907:
908:
909:
910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES
911:
912: \begin{figure}[p]
913: \begin{center}
914: %\vspace{-2cm}
915: %
916: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{emc_rat.eps}
917: %
918: \caption{
919: The iron/deuterium ratios (EMC ratios)
920: calculated for the structure functions $F_2$ (solid curve)
921: and $F_3$ (dashed curve) within the model described in the text.
922: The data points are from BCDMS \protect\cite{bcdms}
923: (open boxes) and SLAC \protect\cite{slac} (filled boxes) experiments.
924: The curves were calculated at fixed $Q^2=16\,$GeV$^2$ using CTEQ4 parameterizations
925: for the nucleon parton distributions.
926: \label{emc_ratios}
927: }
928: \end{center}
929: \end{figure}
930:
931:
932: \begin{figure}[p]
933: \begin{center}
934: \vspace{-2cm}
935: %
936: %\includegraphics[width=17cm,height=20cm]{ht_lin.ps}
937: \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{ht_lin.ps}
938: %\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{htline.ps}
939: %
940: %\vspace{1cm}
941: \caption{
942: The function $h(x)$, which describes the strength of the higher twist
943: term in the $xF_3$ structure function as extracted from the fit to the
944: CCFR neutrino data (see text).
945: The labels on the figure indicate the level to which the perturbation theory
946: analysis of $xF_3^{LT}$ is done.
947: \label{ht}
948: }
949: \end{center}
950: \end{figure}
951:
952:
953: \end{document}
954: %
955: %
956: %