1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{cite}
4: \textwidth=16cm
5: \textheight=24cm
6: \topmargin=-1cm
7: \oddsidemargin=0.cm
8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\lb}[1]{\label{#1}}
11: \newcommand{\bi}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Phenomenological analysis of experimental data on
15: $\eta$-photoproduction on protons\footnote{The contributed paper to MENU2001,
16: Washington, USA, 26-31 July}}
17: \author{E.M.Leikin, E.V.Balandina, N.P.Yudin\\
18: \and Nuclear Physics Institute, Moscow State University, Moscow,
19: Russia}
20: \maketitle
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: The results of linear regresion of differential cross sections, $\Sigma$- and
24: $T$-asymmetries of $\eta$-photoproduction on protons in energy region from
25: threshold up to 1 GeV are presented. Serious contradictions between angular
26: distributions measured in different laboratories are revealed. The energy dependance
27: of regression coefficients may be due to transition from energy region of
28: $S_{11}(1535)$ and $D_{13}(1520)$ to energy region of $D_{15}(1675)$ and
29: $F_{15}(1680)$ resonances.\\
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: During the past years $\eta$-photoproduction on protons has
33: attracted increasingly high interest. This is due not only because this item is a new
34: physical phenomenon different from photoproduction of pions but
35: mainly because $\eta$-photoproduction should proceed through the small number of
36: nucleon resonances. Even in energy region up to 1 GeV there will
37: be not too many overlapping resonances that permits to extract
38: reliable information on resonance parameters from experimental
39: data.
40:
41: Complete phenomenological analysis of experimental data on photoproduction, as
42: a rule, encounters a number of problems, e.g. solving of nonlinear
43: equations, removal of continuous and discrete theoretical ambiguities,
44: elimination of experimental ambiguities, etc.
45: Analysis of experimental data may be naturally divided in two stages
46: \cite{1}. The first is the linear regression which provides the
47: information about the number of partial waves that contribute to the measured
48: experimental characteristics of process and provides information on the
49: resonances concerned. The linearity of the model used ensures that
50: the
51: estimates of regression coefficients are unbiased. The second is to determine the
52: multipole amplitudes.
53:
54: This paper is confined to the first stage of analysis. We have analysed all known experimental data on differential
55: cross sections (angular distributions) of process $\gamma p \rightarrow \eta p$
56: \cite{2,3,4}, and also the data on polarization observables, i.e.
57: angular distributions of asymmetry $\Sigma,$ measured with linear polarized beam
58: \cite{5} and angular distributions of asymmetry $T,$ measured on a polarized
59: target \cite{6}. The energy independent analysis consist in expanding angular
60: distribution of the observables at definite energy using Legendre polinomials. To
61: find how many terms in this expansion provide the best description of data
62: standart statistical procedures including the Fisher criterion were used.
63: Unlike the energy dependent analysis that is based on parametric
64: models and, generally, gives biased estimates, energy independent analysis relies on nonparametric model that provides
65: unbiased estimates.
66: Expansion of the observables and corresponding statistics are:
67: $$
68: { k\over q } \, {{d\sigma(\theta)}\over{d\Omega}} =\sum a_n\,P_n(\cos \theta)\,,
69: \hfill \eqno\hbox{(1a)}
70: $$
71: $$
72: { k\over q } \, {{d\sigma}\over{d\Omega}}\,{1\over{\sin^2\theta}}\,\Sigma
73: =\sum b_n\,P_n(\cos \theta)\,,
74: \hfill \eqno\hbox{(1b)}
75: $$
76: $$
77: { k\over q } \, {{d\sigma}\over{d\Omega}}\,{1\over{\sin \theta}}\,T
78: =\sum c_n\,P_n(\cos \theta)\,.
79: \hfill \eqno\hbox{(1c)}
80: $$
81: Multipole decomposition of coefficients $a_n,\ b_n,\ c_n$ up to terms
82: $E_{3-}$ and $M_{3-}$ may be found in \cite{7}.
83: In all cases the best
84: description of experimental data on $d\sigma/d\Omega,$
85: were obtained with three terms
86: of the expansion.
87: The dominance of $s$-wave, the
88: coefficient $a_0,$ was already pointed out \cite{2,8}. However,
89: the coefficients $a_1$ and $a_2$ connected,
90: correspondingly, with the $sp$- and $sd$-interferences demonstrate the existence
91: of serious contradictions between results in \cite{2,3,4}. This is
92: also diplayed by
93: Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
94: \begin{figure}[h]
95: \vspace*{-2cm}
96: \epsfig{file= figure1.eps}
97: %\hfill
98: \vspace*{-2cm}
99: \caption{\label{fig1}
100: Coefficients $a_0,\ a_1,$ $ a_2$ in expansion (1a). Data are taken (a) from
101: \protect\cite{2}, (b) from \protect\cite{3}, (c) from \protect\cite{4}; lines show the results of
102: the fit.}
103: \end{figure}
104: %\vspace*{-2cm}
105: Since the observables $d\sigma/d\Omega,$ $\Sigma,$ $T$ were
106: measured at different energies and angles to form the
107: statistics with $\Sigma$ and $T$ we used interpolated values of $d\sigma/d\Omega.$
108: The polarization statistics $\Sigma$ and $T$ were analysed with both
109: $d\sigma/d\Omega$ obtained in the same laboratory and $d\sigma/d\Omega$
110: from another laboratories. To get the description of $\Sigma (\theta)$ it was
111: necessary to keep three terms in expantion. For the $T(\theta)$ it was sufficient to
112: keep two terms. The energy dependence of $b_n$ and $c_n$ is shown on
113: Fig.~\ref{fig2} and \ref{fig3}.
114: \begin{figure}[h]
115: \vspace*{-2cm}
116: \epsfig{file= figure2.eps}
117: \vspace*{-2cm}
118: \caption{\label{fig2}
119: Coefficients $b_0,\ b_1,$ $ b_2$ in expansion (1b). Data for $\Sigma$ are
120: taken from \protect\cite{5}.
121: (a) $d\sigma/d\Omega$ from \protect\cite{4}, (b) $d\sigma/d\Omega$
122: from \protect\cite{3}. Square symbols: $d\sigma/d\Omega$ from \protect\cite{2}.}
123: \end{figure}
124:
125: \begin{figure}[h]
126: \vspace*{-2cm}
127: \epsfig{file= figure3.eps}
128: %\hspace*{-2cm}
129: %\hfill
130: \vspace*{-2cm}
131: \caption{\label{fig3}
132: Coefficients $c_0,\ c_1$ in expansion (1c). Data for $T$ are taken
133: from \protect\cite{6}.
134: (a) $d\sigma/d\Omega$ from \protect\cite{4}, b) $d\sigma/d\Omega$
135: from \protect\cite{3}. Square symbols: $d\sigma/d\Omega$ from \protect\cite{2}.}
136: \end{figure}
137: \noindent Contradictions between angular distributions
138: obtaned in different laboratories are not reflected in the general behavior
139: of the coefficients $b_n$ and $c_n.$ In other words, these
140: contradictions between $d\sigma/d\Omega$ do not appear in polarizational
141: observables.
142:
143: It seems to be instructive to consider the energy behaviour of coefficients
144: $a_1,\ b_1,\ b_2$ and $c_0,\ c_1.$
145: The change of energy dependence of this coefficients at 0.9 GeV might
146: indicate the change of regime of the process. For instance, the decrease of
147: $a_1$ \cite{4} from the threshold to 0.9 GeV may be due to the damping of $s$-wave and to
148: weakening of $sp$-interference. The further rise of $a_1$ may be related
149: with the contribution of higher partial waves. The decrease of $b_2$ at energies
150: below 0.9 GeV may be related with resonance $D_{13}(1520)$; the growth of
151: $b_2$ at energies 0.9--1.1 GeV may be due to influence of resonances
152: $D_{15}(1675)$ and $F_{15}(1680).$ The interference of $d$- and $f$-waves should
153: lead to the shift of angular distribution $\Sigma (\theta)$ to the smaller
154: angles in the CM system as really seen in experiment \cite{5}. The
155: behaviour of $b_1$ at energies higher than 0.9 GeV can be attributed to
156: $sf$-interference and so on.
157:
158: Thus, energy dependance of regression coefficients found in our analysis may
159: be due to the transition from energy region of $S_{11}(1535)$ and
160: $D_{13}(1520)$ to energy region of $D_{15}(1675)$ and $F_{15}(1680).$
161:
162: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
163: \bibitem{1}
164: V.F.Grushin et al., Yadernaya Fizika {\bf 38}, 1448 (1983).
165: \bibitem{2}
166: B.Krusche et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 3736 (1995).
167: \bibitem{3}
168: L.Soezueer et al., http//gwdac.phys.gwu.edu.
169: \bibitem{4}
170: F.Renard et al., hep-ex/0011098.
171: \bibitem{5}
172: J.Ajaka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1797 (1998).
173: \bibitem{6}
174: A.Bock et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 534 (1998).
175: \bibitem{7}
176: Balandina E.V., Leikin E.M., Yudin N.P., Preprint NPI MSU -- 2001-26/666.
177: \bibitem{8}
178: L.Tiator et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf C60}, 35210 (1999).
179: \end{thebibliography}
180:
181: \end{document}
182: