1: \documentclass[aps,prd,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: %\def\baselinestretch{2}
4: \textheight=9in
5: \textwidth=6.5in
6: \topmargin=-0.5in
7: \oddsidemargin=0in
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \begin{flushright}{OITS 709}\\
11: February 2002
12: \end{flushright}
13:
14: \vspace*{1cm}
15:
16: \title{Parton Distributions in the Valon Model}
17: \author{\bf Rudolph C. Hwa$^1$ and C.\ B.\ Yang$^{1,2}$}
18: \affiliation{$^1$Institute of Theoretical Science and Department of Physics\\
19: University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5203, USA\\
20: \bigskip
21: $^2$Institute of Particle Physics, Hua-Zhong Normal University,
22: Wuhan 430079, P.\ R.\ China}
23:
24: \vskip.5cm
25: \begin{abstract}
26: The parton distribution functions determined by CTEQ at low
27: $Q^2$ are used as inputs to test the validity of the valon model.
28: The valon distributions in a nucleon are first found to be nearly
29: $Q$ independent. The parton distribution in a valon are shown
30: to be consistent with being universal, independent of the valon
31: type. The momentum fractions of the partons in the valon add up
32: separately to one. These properties affirm the validity of the
33: valon model. The various distributions are parameterized for
34: convenient application of the model.
35:
36: \end{abstract}
37: \maketitle
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40:
41: The parton distributions in proton have been studied extensively in
42: recent years over wide ranges of $Q^2$ and $x$
43: \cite{ct,mrs,grv}. For example, in the CTEQ global analysis
44: framework
45: \cite{ct} the distribution functions have been determined by fitting
46: some 1300 data points obtained for various reactions in 16
47: experiments; over 30 parameters are used in the input parton
48: distribution functions (PDF's) in the next-to-leading -order
49: calculations in perturbative QCD \cite{gs}. The results on the PDF's at
50: various $Q^2$ are presented in the form of graphs available on the
51: web \cite{ct4}. The distribution functions are accurately calculated
52: numerically, but they are inconvenient to describe analytically. The
53: purpose of this paper is twofold. One is to provide a simple
54: parameterization of the parton distribution functions that is
55: accurate to within 5\% for $1<Q^2<100$ (GeV/c)$^2$ and
56: $10^{-2}<x<1$. The other is to provide firm evidence for the
57: validity of a model that can be very useful in the study of soft
58: processes in hadronic and nuclear collisions.
59:
60: The model under discussion is the valon model \cite{hvm,hz}.
61: Valons play a role in scattering problems as the constituent quarks
62: do in bound-state problems. In the model it is assumed that the
63: valons stand at a level in between hadrons and partons and that the
64: structure of a hadron in terms of the valons is independent of
65: $Q^2$. That is, the property that a nucleon has three valons which
66: carry all the momentum of the nucleon does not change with
67: $Q^2$. Each valon may be viewed as a parton cluster associated with
68: one and only one valence quark, so the flavor quantum
69: numbers of a valon are those of a valence quark. The $Q^2$
70: evolution of the parton distributions in a nucleon is effected through
71: the evolution of the valon structure, as the higher resolution of a
72: probe reveals the parton content of the valons.
73:
74: When the valon model was first proposed, the deep inelastic
75: scattering data was not precise enough either to rule out the model
76: or to determine accurately the parameters in the model. One may
77: regard the situation then as one in which the model satisfies the
78: sufficiency condition for an approximate description of the nucleon
79: structure, but not necessary. Now, the experimental data have vastly
80: improved and the PDF's have been so precisely determined that the
81: validity of the valon model can be put to a stringent test. That is
82: what we intend to do in this paper. Although no model is ever
83: necessary in the mathematical sense, we shall show that the concept
84: of valons as constituents of the nucleon is eminently acceptable by
85: virtue of the $Q^2$ independence of the valon distribution
86: functions, the universality of the parton distributions in valons,
87: and the momentum sum rule of the partons in a valon being
88: satisfied.
89:
90: In terms of the parameterization in the valon model the parton
91: distributions are much simpler to describe and therefore more
92: convenient to transport to different problems. Our focus will be on
93: soft processes at low $Q^2$, for which perturbative QCD is
94: inapplicable. The valon picture then provides a systematic way of
95: organizing various contributions to inclusive processes. One such
96: problem is the study of proton-nucleus collisions in which the
97: degradation of the momenta of the produced nucleons can be well
98: described in the valon model \cite{hy}. The new parameterizations
99: determined in this paper will affect the details of the model, for
100: which we have previously made simplifying assumptions. The
101: application of the results obtained now will not be considered here.
102: We mention such applications here only to motivate our
103: concentration in the range $1<Q^2<100$ (GeV/c)$^2$ in this
104: paper.
105:
106: \section {The Valon Model}
107:
108: In the valon model we assume that a proton consists of three valons
109: $(UUD)$, which separately contain the three valence quarks
110: $(uud)$. Let the exclusive valon distribution function be
111: \begin{eqnarray}
112: G_{UUD}(y_1, y_2, y_3) = g \, (y_1y_2)^{\alpha}y^{\beta}_3
113: \, \delta (y_1 + y_2 + y_3 -1) ,
114: \label{2.1}
115: \end{eqnarray}
116: where $y_i$ are the momentum fractions of the $U$ valons
117: $(i=1, 2)$ and $D$ valon $(i=3)$. The variable $y$ will never refer
118: to rapidity in this paper. The normalization factor $g$ is determined
119: by the requirement that the probability for the proton to consist of
120: three and only three valons is one, i.e.,
121: \begin{eqnarray}
122: \int^1_0 dy_1 \int^{1 - y_1}_0dy_2 \int^{1 - y_1-y_2}_0dy_3 \,
123: G_{UUD}(y_1, y_2, y_3) = 1 .
124: \label{2.2}
125: \end{eqnarray}
126: Note that the valon distribution function is not defined in the
127: invariant phase space. From Eq.\ (\ref{2.2}) we have
128: \begin{eqnarray}
129: g = \left[B (\alpha + 1, \beta +1) B(\alpha + 1,
130: \alpha +\beta +2)\right]^{-1},
131: \label{2.3}
132: \end{eqnarray}
133: where $B(m,n)$ is the beta function. The single-valon distributions
134: are
135: \begin{eqnarray}
136: G_U(y) = \int^{1-y}_0 dy_2 \int^{1-y-y_2}_0
137: dy_3 G_{UUD} (y, y_2, y_3) = g B (\alpha + 1,
138: \beta +1) y^{\alpha} (1 - y)^{\alpha +\beta +1},
139: \label{2.4}
140: \end{eqnarray}
141: \begin{eqnarray}
142: G_D(y) = \int^{1-y}_0 dy_1 \int^{1-y-y_1}_0
143: dy_2 G_{UUD} (y_1, y_2, y)= g B (\alpha + 1, \alpha +1) y^{\beta}
144: (1 - y)^{2\alpha +1}.
145: \label{2.5}
146: \end{eqnarray}
147:
148: An essential property of the valon model is that the structure of the
149: proton in terms of the valons is independent of the probe. It means
150: that when probed at high $Q^2$, whatever the experiment may be,
151: the parton distributions in a proton can be expressed as a
152: convolution of the valon distribution and the parton distribution in
153: a valon, i.e.,
154: \begin{eqnarray} x \, u (x,Q^2) = \int^1_x dy \left[ 2G_U (y)
155: K(x/y,Q^2)
156: + G_D(y) L_u (x/y,Q^2)\right],
157: \label{2.6}
158: \end{eqnarray}
159: \begin{eqnarray} x \, d (x,Q^2) = \int^1_x dy \left[G_D (y)
160: K(x/y,Q^2)
161: + 2 G_U(y) L_u (x/y,Q^2)\right],
162: \label{2.7}
163: \end{eqnarray}
164: where $u(x, Q^2)$ and $d(x,
165: Q^2)$ are the $u$ and $d$ quark distributions, respectively, and
166: $x$ the momentum fraction of the quark. We emphasize that on the
167: right-hand side (RHS) of the above equations the $Q^2$
168: dependences appear only in parton distributions in the valons, $K(z,
169: Q^2)$ and $L_u(z, Q^2)$, but not in the valon distributions,
170: $G_U(y)$ and $G_D(y)$. We regard this as the defining property of
171: the valon model. In that sense the model is analogous to the one in
172: which a deuteron is treated as a bound state of two nucleons; in that
173: treatment a high-$Q^2$ probe resolves the structure of one or the
174: other nucleon without affecting the nucleon wave function of the
175: deuteron.
176:
177: There are two types of parton distributions in the valons that
178: appear in Eqs. (\ref{2.6}) and (\ref{2.7}). $K(z, Q^2)$ refers to the
179: favored partons, i.e., $u$ in $U$ and $d$ in $D$, whereas $L_u(z,
180: Q^2)$ refers to the unfavored partons, i.e., $u$ in $D$ and $d$ in
181: $U$. The distribution $K (z, Q^2)$ can be further divided into two
182: types
183: \begin{eqnarray} K(z,Q^2 ) = K_{NS}(z,Q^2 ) + L_f (z,Q^2 ),
184: \label{2.8}
185: \end{eqnarray}
186: where the first term on the RHS is the valence quark
187: distribution (hence, non-singlet), while the second is the sea quark
188: distribution for the same flavor type. Since the sea quarks should
189: respect charge conjugation invariance, the $u$ and $\bar{u}$ in the
190: sea (and similarly $d$ and $\bar{d}$) have the same distributions,
191: i.e.,
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: x \, \bar{u} (x, Q^2) = \int^1_x dy \left[2G_U (y)
194: L_f (x/y, Q^2)
195: + G_D(y) L_u (x/y, Q^2)\right],
196: \label{2.8a}
197: \end{eqnarray}
198: \begin{eqnarray}
199: x \, \bar{d} (x, Q^2) = \int^1_x dy \left[G_D (y)
200: L_f (x/y, Q^2)
201: + 2 G_U(y) L_u (x/y, Q^2)\right].
202: \label{2.9}
203: \end{eqnarray}
204: The valence quark distributions are then
205: \begin{eqnarray} x \, u_v (x,Q^2) = \int^1_x dy 2 G_U(y) K_{NS}
206: (x/y,Q^2),
207: \label{2.10}
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: \begin{eqnarray} x \, d_v (x,Q^2) = \int^1_x dy G_D (y) K_{NS}
210: (x/y,Q^2) .
211: \label{2.11}
212: \end{eqnarray}
213:
214: In earlier treatment \cite{hvm}-\cite{hy} $L_f$ and $L_u$ have been
215: regarded as identical due to the assumption of the symmetric sea.
216: Indeed, putting $L_f = L_u$ in Eqs. (\ref{2.8a}) and (\ref{2.9})
217: results in $\bar{u}(x, Q^2) = \bar{d}(x, Q^2)$, which is a necessary
218: consequence of the sea quarks satisfying $SU(2)$ symmetry.
219: However, there is experimental evidence \cite{ma} that Gottfried
220: integral $\int (F_2^p-F_2^n) dx/x$ is less than $1/3$, which is the
221: value expected in the simple quark model. Thus we should allow
222: $L_f$ to be different from $L_u$. Indeed, in the valon model we may
223: expect that in a $U$ valon the necessary presence of a $u$ valence
224: quark would on the grounds of Fermi statistics make a gluon have
225: more difficulty converting virtually into a $u\bar{u}$ pair than into
226: a $d\bar{d}$ pair. Hence, $L_f$ should be suppressed relative to
227: $L_u$. Since there are two $U$ and one $D$ is a proton, we should
228: expect the overall
229: $\bar{u}$ to be less than $\bar{d}$. The data do indicate
230: $\bar{u}<\bar{d}$ after integration over $x$ \cite{ma}. We thus see
231: that the breaking of
232: $SU(2)$ in the sea is related to Pauli blocking in the valons.
233:
234: \section{The Valon Distributions}
235:
236: The valence quark distributions, $u_v$ and $d_v$, are given by
237: CTEQ4LQ \cite{ct4}. From Eqs.\ (\ref{2.10}), and (\ref{2.11}) we see
238: that they are directly related to the valon distributions, $G_U(y)$
239: and $G_D(y)$, by convolutions with the common factor $K_{NS}$. It
240: is therefore possible to isolate the valon distributions by
241: deconvolution using the moments. Let us define
242: \begin{eqnarray}
243: \tilde{G}_{U, D} (n) = \int^1_0 dy y^{n-1} G_{U, D} (y),
244: \label{3.1}
245: \end{eqnarray}
246: \begin{eqnarray}
247: \tilde{K}_{NS} (n,Q^2) = \int^1_0 dz z^{n-2} K_{NS}
248: (z,Q^2),
249: \label{3.2}
250: \end{eqnarray}
251: \begin{eqnarray}
252: \tilde{u}_v (n,Q^2) = \int^1_0 dx x^{n-1} u_v (x,Q^2),
253: \label{3.3}
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: and similarly for $\tilde{d}_v$ in terms of $d_v$. Then by the
256: convolution theorem we have from Eqs. (\ref{2.10}) and
257: (\ref{2.11}),
258: \begin{eqnarray}
259: \tilde{u}_v (n,Q^2) = 2\tilde{G}_U(n) \tilde{K}_{NS} (n,Q^2),
260: \label{3.4}
261: \end{eqnarray}
262: \begin{eqnarray}
263: \tilde{d}_v (n,Q^2) = \tilde{G}_D(n) \tilde{K}_{NS} (n,Q^2).
264: \label{3.5}
265: \end{eqnarray}
266: It thus follows that
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: {\tilde{G}_U(n) \over \tilde{G}_D(n)} =
269: {\tilde{u}_v (n,Q^2)
270: \over 2 \tilde{d}_v (n,Q^2)} .
271: \label{3.6}
272: \end{eqnarray}
273: If the valon model is valid, then the LHS is
274: $Q^2$ independent, a property that we can check directly by
275: examining the
276: $Q^2$ dependence of the RHS. Since $u_v(x, Q^2)$ and $d_v(x,
277: Q^2)$ can separately be determined from \cite{ct4}, we only have to
278: take their moments and calculate their ratio.
279:
280: To do the above analysis, we have to set the range of $Q^2$ to be
281: examined, since the valon model is not expected to be accurate for
282: all
283: $Q^2$. As we have discussed near the end of Sec. I, the valon model
284: has been applied to soft production problems because they involve
285: non-perturbative processes. For hard processes at very high
286: $Q^2 \, [Q^2 >100$ (GeV/c)$^2]$ perturbative QCD is very
287: successful and there is no need to introduce any inaccuracies through
288: the use of a model. We shall therefore limit ourselves to the range
289: $1<Q^2<100 $(GeV/c)$^2$. This is actually a very wide range for
290: hadronic processes that can involve the production of soft
291: particles and semi-hard mini-jets.
292:
293: For the range of $Q^2$ chosen we must use low-$Q^2$
294: parameterization of the PDF's. CTEQ4LQ \cite{ct4} gives the graphs
295: of $u$, $d$, $s$, $\bar{u}$, $\bar{d}$, and $g$ distributions at
296: any $Q$ evolved from the starting scale at $Q^2_0 =
297: 0.49$~(GeV/c)$^2$. Since $u_v$ and $d_v$ distributions are not
298: included in the list of PDF's posted, we have to calculate
299: \begin{eqnarray}
300: u_v (x,Q^2) = u (x,Q^2) - \bar{u} (x,Q^2)
301: \label{3.7}
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: \begin{eqnarray}
304: d_v (x,Q^2) = d (x,Q^2) - \bar{d} (x,Q^2)
305: \label{3.8}
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: from the $q$ and $\bar{q}$ graphs for the RHS available
308: from the web. We extract the numerical values at up to 60 points of
309: $x$ values per PDF for three values of $Q: 1, 3, 10$ GeV/c. From
310: the values of
311: $u_v$ and
312: $d_v$ thus determined, we then compute the moments in
313: accordance to Eq.\ (\ref{3.3}) for $n = 2, \cdots 9$. Denoting the
314: RHS of Eq.\ (\ref{3.6}) by $r(n, Q)$ we then calculate the ratio of
315: ratios
316: \begin{eqnarray}
317: R(n, Q) = r (n, Q)/r(n, Q = 1)
318: \label{3.9}
319: \end{eqnarray}
320: relative to $Q = 1$ GeV/c. Figure 1 shows how $R(n, Q)$ depends on
321: $n$ for $Q = 3$ and 10 GeV/c. It is evident that the dependence is
322: very mild, the maximum deviation from 1 being around 7\% at $n =
323: 9$ and $Q = 10$ GeV/c. We regard this approximate constancy of
324: $R(n, Q)$, while $Q$ is increased by an order of magnitude, as the
325: first step toward a confirmation of the validity of the valon model.
326: That is, the insensitivity of $R(n, Q)$ to $Q$ variation supports our
327: assumption that $\tilde{G}_U(n)/\tilde{G}_D(n)$ is $Q$
328: independent to a degree sufficient for the application of the valon
329: model.
330:
331: The $n$ dependence of $r(n, Q) = \tilde{u}_v(n, Q)/2\tilde{d}_v(n,
332: Q)$, as determined from the CTEQ4LQ data, can now be used to fix
333: the parameters, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, in the valon distributions.
334: From Eqs.\ (\ref{2.4}), (\ref{2.5}) and (\ref{3.1}) we have
335: \begin{eqnarray}
336: \tilde{G}_U(n) = B (\alpha + n, \alpha + \beta + 2)/B(\alpha + 1,
337: \alpha + \beta +2)
338: \label{3.10}
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: \begin{eqnarray}
341: \tilde{G}_D(n) = B (\beta + n, 2 \alpha + 2)/B(\beta + 1,
342: 2 \alpha + 2)
343: \label{3.11}
344: \end{eqnarray}
345: from which follows
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: {\tilde{G}_U(n) \over \tilde{G}_D(n)}= {\Gamma (\alpha +
348: n)\Gamma (\beta + 1)
349: \over \Gamma (\alpha +
350: 1)\Gamma (\beta + n)}
351: \equiv
352: \gamma(\alpha, \beta, n).
353: \label{3.12}
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: The parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can now be determined by
356: minimizing
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: C = \sum^N_{n=2} \left[{\gamma(\alpha, \beta, n) - r(n,
359: Q) \over \gamma(\alpha, \beta, n) + r(n,
360: Q)}\right]^2,
361: \label{3.13}
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: where $N$ is the maximum number of moments we extract from the
364: CTEQ4LQ data, which we take to be $N = 10$. Note that $n = 1$
365: is excluded in Eq.\ (\ref{3.13}), since $\gamma(\alpha, \beta, 1) = 1$
366: basically due to Eq.\ (\ref{2.2}), and $r(1, Q) = 1$ because there are
367: two $u_v$ and one
368: $d_v$. Varying $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in search for a minimum in
369: $C$ results in incredibly small $C$, in the order of $10^{-5}$. We
370: find
371: \begin{eqnarray}
372: \alpha = 1.755, \qquad \beta = 1.05, \qquad \qquad\mbox{for} \ Q
373: = 1 \,
374: \mbox{GeV}/c .
375: \label{3.14}
376: \end{eqnarray}
377: \begin{eqnarray}
378: \alpha = 1.545, \qquad \beta = 0.89, \qquad \qquad \mbox{for} \ Q
379: = 10 \,
380: \mbox{GeV}/c,
381: \label{3.15}
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: We have not ignored the small $Q$ dependences of $\alpha$ and
384: $\beta$ since the data on $r(n, Q)$ contain some $Q$ dependence.
385: Moreover, the $Q$ independence of the ratio $\tilde{G}_U(n)/
386: \tilde{G}_D(n)$ does not mathematically preclude the $Q$
387: dependences of $\tilde{G}_U(n)$ and $\tilde{G}_D(n)$ separately.
388: However, the difference between Eqs.\ (\ref{3.14}) and (\ref{3.15})
389: is not very great, as we can see in Fig.\ 2, where $G_U(y)$ and
390: $G_D(y)$ are shown [through the use of Eqs.\ (\ref{2.4}) and
391: (\ref{2.5})] for the two extreme $Q$ values, $1$ and $10$ GeV/c.
392: The difference is insignificant compared to those of the quark
393: distributions, one of which is shown in Fig.\ 3. With the drastic
394: difference between Figs.\ 2 and 3 in mind, it is reasonable to
395: conclude that the essence of the valon model has been verified to
396: the extent that the valon distributions exhibit approximate scaling
397: in $Q$.
398:
399: It should be remarked that the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$
400: determined above are very different from the ones obtained
401: previously. In Ref.\ \cite{hz} the early data of muon \cite{bag} and
402: electron scattering \cite{abe} were used in conjunction with a
403: number of theoretical assumptions to yield the values of $\alpha =
404: 0.65$ and $\beta = 0.35$. In Ref.\
405: \cite{hy} the modern data of CTEQ4LQ were used, but the values
406: $\alpha = 0.70$ and $\beta = 0.25$ were obtained due to the
407: assumption of a specific form of the sea quark distribution (proven
408: to be grossly inaccurate below). Here in this
409: paper we have avoided making any assumption about the sea quark
410: distributions. By extracting the valence quark distributions from
411: CTEQ4LQ we have been able to determine $G_U(y)$ and
412: $G_D(y)$ directly. Clearly, the new values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$
413: are more reliable. Further support for their reliability will be given
414: below in connect with the quark distributions $u$ and $d$, for
415: which our previous parameterization in Ref.\ \cite{hy} has led to
416: unaccountable discrepancies that are unsatisfactory.
417:
418: From Eq.\ (\ref{3.1}) one sees that the momentum fractions of the
419: valons are given by the $n=2$ moments. From Eqs.\
420: (\ref{3.10}), (\ref{3.11}), (\ref{3.14}) and (\ref{3.15}), one can
421: then calculate the momentum fractions $\left<y\right>$, yielding
422: \begin{eqnarray}
423: \left<y\right>_U = &0.3644, &\qquad\qquad Q = 1 \, \mbox{GeV}/c,
424: \nonumber
425: \\ &0.3646,&\qquad\qquad Q = 10 \, \mbox{GeV}/c,
426: \label{3.16}
427: \end{eqnarray}
428: \begin{eqnarray}
429: \left<y\right>_D = &0.2712 &\qquad\qquad Q = 1 \,
430: \mbox{GeV}/c,\nonumber
431: \\ &0.2708,&\qquad\qquad Q = 10 \,
432: \mbox{GeV}/c.
433: \label{3.17}
434: \end{eqnarray}
435: At either $Q$ the sum rule
436: \begin{eqnarray}
437: 2\left<y\right>_U + \left<y\right>_D = 1
438: \label{3.18}
439: \end{eqnarray}
440: is satisfied identically. We see that the momentum fractions
441: carried by the valons are essentially independent of $Q$ and that
442: each $U$ valon carries as much as 1.345 times more than the $D$
443: valon.
444:
445: \section{The Quark and Gluon Distributions}
446:
447: Having determined the valon distributions, we can now proceed to the
448: quark and gluon distributions in the valons. From Eq.\ (\ref{3.4}) we
449: have
450: \begin{eqnarray}
451: \tilde{K}_{NS} (n, Q) = \tilde{u}_v (n, Q)/2 \tilde{G}_U(n,Q)
452: \label{4.1}
453: \end{eqnarray}
454: where we allow $\tilde{G}_U(n,Q)$ to have its weak $Q$ dependence
455: given by Eqs.\ (\ref{3.14}) and (\ref{3.15}). Using the moments
456: $\tilde{u}_v (n, Q)$ that we have already calculated from CTEQ4LQ,
457: we obtain the values of $\tilde{K}_{NS} (n, Q)$ as shown in Fig.\ 4.
458: As expected, $\tilde{K}_{NS} (n, Q)$ undergoes substantial evolution,
459: especially from $Q = 1$ to $3$ GeV/c.
460:
461: To test how good our determination of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is, we
462: use the $\tilde{K}_{NS} (n, Q)$ calculated above in conjunction with
463: $\tilde{G}_D(n,Q)$ that can be obtained from Eqs.\ (\ref{2.5}) and
464: (\ref{3.1}) so that $\tilde{d}_v (n, Q)$ can be computed using Eq.\
465: (\ref{3.5}). Note that this computation of $\tilde{d}_v (n, Q)$
466: requires the knowledge of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, while the
467: computation of $\tilde{d}_v (n, Q)$ for the RHS of Eq.\ (\ref{3.6}),
468: i.e., $r(n, Q)$, is based on the CTEQ4LQ data for the RHS of Eq.\
469: (\ref{3.8}). Our point here is to calculate $d(x,Q)$ from the CTEQ
470: input on $\tilde{u}_v (n, Q)$ in Eq.\ (\ref{4.1}), a procedure that is
471: made possible by the common factor $\tilde{K}_{NS} (n, Q)$ in both
472: Eqs.\ (\ref{3.4}) and (\ref{3.5}). Physically, it means that the
473: evolution of quarks in a valon is independent of the flavor of the host
474: valon.
475:
476: After $\tilde{d}_v (n, Q)$ is obtained by the above procedure that
477: tests the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, we then make the inverse
478: transform to get the distribution $d_v(x, Q)$. This transform can be
479: facilitated by exploiting the orthogonality of the Legendre
480: polynomials, the details of which are discussed in Ref.\ \cite{hy}.
481: Upon the determination of $d_v(x, Q)$ we can add to it the
482: $\bar{d}(x, Q)$ distribution from Ref.\ \cite{ct4} and obtain $d(x,
483: Q)$. In Fig. 5 we show the $u$ and $d$ quark distributions at $Q = 1$
484: GeV/c. The solid lines are the distributions posted by CTEQ4LQ
485: \cite{ct4}. The dotted line for $xd(x)$ is what we have computed
486: using the procedure outlined above. Note that its agreement with the
487: solid line is excellent. The dotted line for $xu(x)$ is essentially the
488: result from fitting the CTEQ4LQ data in the valon model; it merely
489: affirms that the fit is extremely good, so the values of $\alpha$ and
490: $\beta$ are reliable. The result on $xd(x)$ reveals more about the
491: soundness of the model, since it is not obtained by fitting, but
492: calculated using the valon distribution $G_D(y)$ and the universality
493: of $K_{NS}(z, Q)$.
494:
495: For the sea quark and gluon distributions, it is for the convenience of
496: the applications of the valon model that we find simple
497: parameterizations of their distributions in a valon. To that end we
498: first write Eqs.\ (\ref{2.8a}) and (\ref{2.9}) in moment form
499: \begin{eqnarray}
500: \tilde{\bar{u}} (n, Q) = 2\tilde{G}_U (n)
501: \tilde{L}_f (n, Q)
502: + \tilde{G}_D(n) \tilde{L}_u (n, Q),
503: \label{4.2}
504: \end{eqnarray}
505: \begin{eqnarray}
506: \tilde{\bar{d}} (n, Q) = \tilde{G}_D(n) \tilde{L}_f (n, Q) +
507: 2\tilde{G}_U (n) \tilde{L}_u (n, Q) .
508: \label{4.3}
509: \end{eqnarray}
510: For the strange quark and gluons, we have
511: \begin{eqnarray}
512: \tilde{s} (n, Q) = \left[2\tilde{G}_U (n)
513: + \tilde{G}_D(n)\right] \tilde{L}_s (n, Q),
514: \label{4.4}
515: \end{eqnarray}
516: \begin{eqnarray}
517: \tilde{g} (n, Q) = \left[2\tilde{G}_U (n)
518: + \tilde{G}_D(n)\right] \tilde{L}_g (n, Q) .
519: \label{4.5}
520: \end{eqnarray}
521: Since $\tilde{\bar{u}}$, $\tilde{\bar{d}}$, $\tilde{s}$ and $\tilde{g}$
522: are known from CTEQ4LQ, and $\tilde{G}_U$ and $\tilde{G}_D$
523: known from Eqs.\ (\ref{3.10}) and (\ref{3.11}), we can solve for
524: $\tilde{L}_f$, $\tilde{L}_u$, $\tilde{L}_s$ and $\tilde{L}_g$. From
525: the result we perform the inverse transform to $L_f (z, Q)$, $L_u (z,
526: Q)$, $L_s (z, Q)$ and $L_g (z, Q)$, respectively. These distributions
527: are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, for $Q = 1, 3,$ and $10$ GeV/c. Being in
528: log-log plots, the evolutions due to the changes in $Q$ are
529: substantial, as expected. What we have not expected is the drastic
530: difference between $L_f (z, Q)$ and $L_u (z, Q)$. For $0 < -\ln (1 - z)
531: < 0.4$, the range of $z$ is
532: $0 < z < 0.33$. For $z > 0.4$ we find that $L_f (z, Q) \ll L_u (z,
533: Q)$, at least for $Q = 1$ and $3$ GeV/c. At higher $Q$ the evolution
534: can generate more favored sea quarks. Thus at low $Q$, where sea
535: quarks are few, Pauli blocking suppresses the favored sea quarks so
536: much at high $z$ that the unfavored sea quarks dominate. Indeed,
537: our calculation of $L_f (z, Q)$ is unreliable for $z > 0.4$ because
538: from the finite number of moments $(n < 10)$ that we have taken the
539: inverse transform generates oscillations in $z$ at high $z$. There is
540: no such problem with the $s$ quark and gluon distributions, as is
541: evident in Fig. 7, since they are not inhibited by Pauli blocking. The
542: general property is that all the parton distributions increase
543: significantly at small $z$, when $Q$ is increased.
544:
545: There is no simple way to describe both the $z$ and $Q$
546: dependences of the parton distributions. In order for the valon model
547: to be useful, especially in applications to the study of inclusive cross
548: sections in hadronic collisions at low $p_T$, an analytic description
549: of each of the parton distributions is needed. For such problems only
550: the distributions at $Q = 1$ GeV/c are relevant, so we fit those
551: distributions by polynomials. The formula used for the fitting is
552: \begin{eqnarray}
553: \ln L_i (z, Q = 1) = \sum^3_{j = 0} a^{(i)}_j t^j, \qquad \qquad t =
554: - \ln (1 - z).
555: \label{4.6}
556: \end{eqnarray}
557: The result of the fitting is shown in Fig. 8, for which the values of the
558: coefficients are given in Table I. The fits are evidently very good.
559: Thus we have completely specified the PDF's at $Q = 1$ GeV/c in
560: analytical and numerical ways, suitable for transport to problems
561: where such PDF's are needed.
562: \begin{table}[ht]
563: \begin{center}
564: \caption{Coefficients in Eq.\ (\ref{4.6})}
565: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
566: $i$&$a^{(i)}_0$&$a^{(i)}_1$&$a^{(i)}_2$&$a^{(i)}_3$\\\hline
567: $f$&-2.66&0.08&-10.4&-6.0\\\hline
568: $u$&-2.92&4.0&-5.95&-1.4\\\hline
569: $s$&-3.30&-2.4&2.7&-1.65\\\hline
570: $g$&-0.63&-3.1&4.9&-1.9\\\hline\hline
571: \end{tabular}
572: \end{center}
573: \end{table}
574:
575: In applications, such as in Ref.\ \cite{hy}, the moments are more
576: useful than the PDF's themselves. We show the moments at $Q =
577: 1$ GeV/c in Fig.\ 9, together with their fits. The fitting
578: is done mainly for the convenience of applications. The formula
579: used for fitting is
580: \begin{eqnarray}
581: \ln \tilde{L}_i(n) = -\sum^3_{j = 0} b^{(i)}_j u^j, \qquad\qquad
582: u = \ln (n -1),
583: \label{4.7}
584: \end{eqnarray}
585: where the coefficients are given in
586: Table II.
587: \begin{table}[ht]
588: \begin{center}
589: \caption{Coefficients in Eq.\ (\ref{4.7})}
590: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
591: $i$&$b^{(i)}_0$&$b^{(i)}_1$&$b^{(i)}_2$&$b^{(i)}_3$\\\hline
592: $f$&4.12&2.2&0.2&0.18\\\hline
593: $u$&3.07&1.5&0.08&0.05\\\hline
594: $s$&4.21&1.6&0.1&0.02\\\hline
595: $g$&0.98&1.0&0.05&0\\\hline\hline
596: \end{tabular}
597: \end{center}
598: \end{table}
599: The rapid decrease of the favored quark moments
600: $\tilde{L}_f(n)$ with increasing $n$ is now very evident, while
601: the other three parton moments have roughly similar $n$
602: dependences.
603:
604: It is important to check the momentum sum rule of the partons.
605: We have seen in Eq.\ (\ref{3.18}) that the valon momentum
606: fractions add up to 1; now the parton momentum fractions in
607: each valon must also add up to 1. Since $K_{NS}(z)$ and $L_i(z)$
608: are invariant distributions, their moments at $n=2$ are their
609: momentum fractions. We therefore should have
610: \begin{eqnarray}
611: \tilde{K}_{NS} (2) + \tilde{L}_g(2) + 2 \sum _{i = f, u. s}
612: \tilde{L}_i(2) = 1 .
613: \label{4.8}
614: \end{eqnarray}
615: We have $\tilde{K}_{NS}(2) = 0.4707$ at $Q=1$ GeV/c, and from
616: Table II we can calculate $\tilde{L}_i(2) = \exp [-b^{(i)}_0]$, yielding
617: $0.0162$, $0.0465$, $0.0148$, and $0.3754$ for $i=f$, $u$, $s$,
618: and $g$, respectively. According to the LHS of Eq.\ (\ref{4.8})
619: they sum up to $1.001$, an excellent confirmation of the
620: momentum sum rule.
621:
622: As a final item of paremetrizing the moments of the parton
623: distributions, we give here also a formula that fits
624: $\tilde{K}_{NS} (n, Q)$ at $Q=1$ GeV/c
625: \begin{eqnarray}
626: \ln \tilde{K}_{NS} (n) = - \sum^3_{j = 0} c_j u^j ,
627: \label{4.9}
628: \end{eqnarray}
629: where $c_j = 0.753$, $0.401$, $0.0962$, and $0.0555$, for $j =
630: 0, 1, 2, 3,$ respectively. The solid line in Fig. 4 shows the fit.
631:
632: \section {Conclusion}
633:
634: We have shown that the PDF's in a proton can be described in two
635: stages: valons in a proton and then partons in a valon. The valon
636: distribution functions are essentially independent of $Q$, while the
637: parton distributions in the valons are $Q$ dependent. The three
638: valons carry all the momentum of the proton, and the way that
639: the parton momenta are distributed in a valon is independent of
640: the host valon so long as the sea quark flavors are identified as
641: favored or unfavored, instead of by specific flavors like $u$ or
642: $d$. We have found that Pauli blocking significantly suppress the
643: favored quarks compared to the unfavored quarks. At $Q=1$
644: GeV/c, the valence quarks carry 47.1\% of the proton
645: momentum, while the gluons carry 37.5\%. The scaling behavior
646: of the valon distributions and the universality of the valon
647: structure give support to the valon model as a simple and
648: organized description of the nucleon structure.
649:
650: We have determined the parameters in simple formulas that
651: adequately describe the parton distributions (and their moments)
652: in a valon at $Q=1$ GeV. This is done for the benefit of
653: applications of the valon model to low-$p_T$ hadronic reactions
654: that are not perturbative. Such distributions are needed when the
655: parton degrees of freedom are released. If in some nuclear
656: reactions at some energy where the partons do not exhibit their
657: dynamical effect beyond the valons, as suggested by
658: Cs\"{o}rg\H{o} \cite{tc} for heavy-ion collisions at SPS, then the
659: valon distributions are all that is needed. Since the exclusive
660: valon distribution is the absolute square of the wave function of
661: the proton in the valon representation, it is also the
662: recombination function of valons in forming a proton \cite{hvm}.
663: Thus the new values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ found here affect
664: the calculation of hadron production at low $p_T$.
665:
666: The valon model can, of course, also be applied to other hadrons
667: beside the proton. Although the data on the PDF's of
668: the pion or the kaon are not of the same quality as those of the
669: proton, some data on the Drell-Yan and prompt photon
670: production initiated by mesons do exist. It will be a natural
671: extension of this work to determine the valon distributions in the
672: mesons by using the PDF's obtained from such data. By virtue of
673: the universality of the parton distributions in valons, what we
674: have found here from the proton is good enough for the mesons
675: also.
676:
677: The affirmation of the validity of the valon model makes possible a
678: logical link between the bound-state problem of the hadrons in
679: terms of the constituent quarks and the scattering problem in
680: terms of the partons. The relationship between the wave functions
681: of the constituent quarks and the valon distributions was studied
682: in the context of form factors \cite{hl}. In view of the new
683: distributions determined here, that problem needs to be revisited.
684: On the whole our understanding of the hadron structure problem
685: is enhanced by our study here of the modern parton distribution
686: functions in the framework of the valon model.
687:
688: \section*{Acknowledgment} We are grateful to D.\ Soper for
689: helpful comments. This work was supported, in part, by the U.\
690: S.\ Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-96ER40972.
691: \newpage
692:
693: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
694:
695: %1
696: \bibitem{ct} CTEQ Collaboration, H.\ L.\ Lai, {\it et.\ al.}, Phys.\
697: Rev.\ D{\bf 51}, 4763 (1995); Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 55}, 1280 (1997).
698:
699: %2
700: \bibitem{mrs}A.\ D.\ Martin, W.\ J.\ Stirling, and R.\ G.\ Roberts, Phys.\
701: Rev.\ D{\bf 47}, 867 (1993); Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 50}, 6734 (1994).
702: %3
703: \bibitem{grv}M.\ Gl\"uck, E.\ Reya, and A.\ Vogt, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf
704: 53}, 127 (1992).
705:
706: %4
707: \bibitem{gs}G.\ Sterman, {\it et.\ al.}, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 67},
708: 157 (1995).
709:
710: %5
711: \bibitem{ct4}CTEQ, http://zebu.uoregon.edu/$\sim$parton/partongraph.html
712:
713: %6
714: \bibitem{hvm}R.\ C.\ Hwa, Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 22}, 759 (1980).
715:
716: %7
717: \bibitem{hz} R.\ C.\ Hwa, and M.\ S.\ Zahir, Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf
718: 23}, 2539 (1981).
719:
720:
721: %8
722: \bibitem{hy}R.\ C.\ Hwa, and C.\ B.\ Yang, nucl-th/0108043,
723: Phys.\ Rev.\ C (to be published).
724:
725: %9
726: \bibitem{ma}New Muon Collaboration, M. Arneodo {\it et.\ al.},
727: Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 50}, R1 (1994).
728:
729: %10
730: \bibitem{bag} CHIO Collaboration, B.\ A.\ Gordon, {\it et.\ al.},
731: Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 20}, 2645 (1979).
732:
733: %11
734: \bibitem{abe}
735: A.\ Bodek, {\it et.\ al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 20}, 1471 (1979); W.\ B.\
736: Atwood, {\it et.\ al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 64B}, 479 (1976) .
737:
738: %12
739: \bibitem{tc}
740: T. Cs\"{o}rg\H{o}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf 92}, 62
741: (2001).
742:
743: %13
744: \bibitem{hl}
745: R.\ C.\ Hwa, and C.\ S.\ Lam, Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf
746: 26}, 2338 (1982).
747:
748: \end{thebibliography}
749:
750: \begin{figure}[tbh]
751: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ratio.eps}
752: \caption{The ratio of ratios defined in Eq.\,(\ref{3.9}).}
753: \end{figure}
754:
755: \begin{figure}[tbh]
756: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{valon-dis.eps}
757: \caption{The $U$ and $D$ valon distributions at two $Q$ values.}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: \begin{figure}[tbh]
761: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{u-dis-q.eps}
762: \caption{The $u$ quark distribution functions from Ref.\cite{ct4}.}
763: \end{figure}
764:
765: \begin{figure}[tbh]
766: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{kns-mom.eps}
767: \caption{The moments $\tilde K_{NS}$ for three values of
768: $Q$. The solid line is a fit by Eq.\,(\ref{4.9}).}
769: \end{figure}
770:
771: \begin{figure}[tbh]
772: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ud-dis.eps}
773: \caption{The $u$ and $d$ quark distribution functions at
774: $Q=1$ GeV/c. The solid lines are from CTEQ \cite{ct4}; the dotted
775: lines are calculated in the valon model.}
776: \end{figure}
777:
778: \begin{figure}[tbh]
779: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{sea-dis.eps}
780: \caption{The favored and unfavored sea quark
781: distributions in the valon at three values of $Q$.}
782: \end{figure}
783:
784: \begin{figure}[tbh]
785: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{sg-dis.eps}
786: \caption{The strange quark and gluon
787: distributions in the valon at three values of $Q$.}
788: \end{figure}
789:
790: \begin{figure}[tbh]
791: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fitted.eps}
792: \caption{Fits of the $f, u, s, g$ distributions at $Q=1$
793: GeV/c, as shown by the dotted lines.}
794: \end{figure}
795:
796: \begin{figure}[tbh]
797: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{mom-sea.eps}
798: \caption{The moments $\tilde L_g(n), \tilde L_u(n), \tilde
799: L_s(n), {\rm and} \tilde L_f(n)$ at $Q=1$ GeV/c and their fits.}
800: \end{figure}
801:
802: \end{document}
803: