1: \documentstyle[11pt,epsfig,psfrag,wrapfig]{article}
2: %============= FORMATING (A4) ======================================
3: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}
4: \setlength{\textheight}{23.5cm}
5: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.1cm}
6: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.7cm}
7: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
8: %\def\baselinestretch{1.2}
9: %============= NEW COMMANDS ========================================
10: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
14: \newcommand{\Phperp}{{\bf P}_{\!\!\!\perp h}}
15: \newcommand{\Pnperp}{{\bf P}_{\!\!\!\perp{\mbox{\tiny N}}}}
16: \newcommand{\modPnperp}{P_{\!\!\!\perp\mbox{\tiny N}}}
17: \newcommand{\Mn}{M_{\mbox{\tiny N}}}
18: \newcommand{\HERMES}{{\mbox{\tiny HERMES}}}
19:
20: \newcommand{\limNR}{\lim\limits_{ {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.5}
21: \begin{array}{c}\mbox{\tiny non}\cr\!\!\!\mbox{\tiny relativistic}
22: \!\!\!\end{array}}} }
23: \newcommand{\di}{ {\rm d} }
24: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}
25: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
26:
27:
28: \begin{document}
29: %============= TITLE, AUTHORS, AFFILIATION, PRE-PRINT NUMBER =======
30: \title{\bf\boldmath
31: Azimuthal asymmetries at CLAS: \\
32: Extraction of $e^a(x)$ and prediction of $A_{UL}$}
33: \author{A.~V.~Efremov$^a$, K.~Goeke$^b$, P.~Schweitzer$^c$ \\
34: \footnotesize\it $^a$
35: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141980 Russia\\
36: \footnotesize\it $^b$
37: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik II,
38: Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany\\
39: \footnotesize\it $^c$
40: Dipartimento di Fisica Nucleare e Teorica,
41: Universit\`a degli Studi di Pavia, I-27100 Pavia, Italy}
42: \date{}
43: \maketitle
44: %\vspace{-9cm}\begin{flushright} Preprint RUB/TP2-??/02\end{flushright}
45: %\vspace{7cm}
46: %
47: %====== ABSTRACT ===================================================
48: \begin{abstract}
49: \noindent
50: First information on the chirally odd twist-3 proton distribution function
51: $e^a(x)$ is extracted from the azimuthal asymmetry, $A_{LU}$, in the
52: electro-production of pions from deeply inelastic scattering of
53: longitudinally polarized electrons off unpolarized protons, which has been
54: recently measured by CLAS collaboration.
55: Furthermore parameter-free predictions are made for azimuthal asymmetries,
56: $A_{UL}$, from scattering of an unpolarized beam on a polarized proton target
57: for CLAS kinematics.
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: %====== SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ====================================
61: \section{Introduction}
62:
63: Experimental information on the chirally odd twist-3 proton distribution
64: function $e^a(x)$ \cite{Jaffe:1991kp,Jaffe:1991ra} from deeply inelastic
65: scattering (DIS) would provide not only insights into the twist-3 nucleon
66: structure.
67: The first moment of $e^a(x)$ is related to the pion-nucleon $\sigma$-term,
68: which in turn is related to the strangeness content of the nucleon.
69: Here one faces the so called ``$\sigma$-term puzzle''.
70: Results from chiral perturbation theory and the value
71: $\sigma \simeq (60-80)\,{\rm MeV}$ extracted from pion-nucleon scattering
72: data \cite{Koch:pu,Pavan:2001wz} imply that around $10\%$ of the nucleon mass
73: is due to the strange quark.
74: This contrasts the fact that strange quarks carry a negligible fraction of
75: the nucleon momentum at say $1\,{\rm GeV}^2$, the ``typical hadronic scale''
76: for nucleon set by the nucleon mass $\Mn$.
77:
78: Since $e^a(x)$ is a spin-average distribution, it can be accessed
79: in experiments with unpolarized nucleons.
80: However, due its chiral-odd nature and twist-3 character it can enter an
81: observable only in connection with another chirally odd distribution or
82: fragmentation function, and with a power suppression $\Mn/Q$, where $Q$ is
83: the hard scale of the process.
84: So one is lead to study processes at moderate $Q$, to which
85: $e^a(x)$ gives the leading contribution.
86:
87: An observable, where $e^a(x)$ appears as leading contribution, is the
88: azimuthal asymmetry $A_{LU}$ in pion electro-production from semi-inclusive DIS
89: of polarized electrons off unpolarized protons
90: \cite{muldt,Mulders:1996dh}\footnote{In $A_{XY}$ $X(Y)$ denotes beam (target)
91: polarization, and one should take the values $U$ for unpolarized,
92: $L$ for longitudinally polarized. We use the notation of
93: \cite{muldt,Mulders:1996dh}, with $H_1^{\perp}(z)$ normalized to
94: $\la P_{h\perp}\ra$ instead of $M_h$.}.
95: In this quantity $e^a(x)$ appears in
96: connection with the chirally and T-odd twist-2 "Collins" fragmentation
97: function $H_1^{\perp a}(z)$, which describes the left-right asymmetry in
98: fragmentation of a transversely polarized quark of flavour $a$ into a hadron
99: \cite{muldt,Mulders:1996dh,collins}. In the HERMES experiment $A_{LU}$ was
100: found consistent with zero within error bars \cite{hermes,hermes-pi0}.
101: More recently, however, the CLAS collaboration reported the measurement of a
102: non-zero $A_{LU}$ in a different kinematics \cite{Avakian-talk}.
103:
104: So the CLAS data \cite{Avakian-talk} allow -- under the assumption of
105: factorization -- an extraction of first experimental information on $e^a(x)$
106: from DIS, provided one knows $H_1^\perp$.
107: First experimental indications to $H_1^\perp$ came from studies
108: of $e^+e^-$-annihilation \cite{todd}.
109: The HERMES data on azimuthal asymmetries $A_{UL}$ in pion electro-production
110: from DIS % of an unpolarized beam off a polarized target
111: \cite{hermes,hermes-pi0} provide further information on $H_1^\perp(z)$.
112: In these asymmetries $H_1^\perp(z)$ enters in combination with the
113: chirally odd twist-2 nucleon transversity distribution $h_1^a(x)$
114: \cite{Jaffe:1991kp,Jaffe:1991ra,transversity}, the twist-3 distribution
115: $h_L^a(x)$ \cite{Jaffe:1991kp,Jaffe:1991ra}, and quark transverse momentum
116: weighted moments thereof \cite{Mulders:1996dh}.
117: In Ref.~\cite{Efremov:2001cz} $H_1^\perp(z)$ has been extracted from the
118: HERMES data \cite{hermes,hermes-pi0}, using for $h_1^a(x)$ and $h_L^a(x)$
119: predictions from the chiral quark soliton model \cite{h1-model}
120: and the instanton model of the QCD-vacuum \cite{Dressler:2000hc}.
121:
122: In this note we will use the information on $H_1^\perp(z)$ obtained
123: in Ref.~\cite{Efremov:2001cz} to extract the twist-3 distribution $e^a(x)$
124: from the CLAS data \cite{Avakian-talk}.
125: Furthermore, we will predict azimuthal asymmetries $A_{UL}$ for CLAS,
126: which are under current study.
127:
128:
129: %====== SECTION 2: e(x) in general =================================
130: \section{\boldmath The twist-3 distribution function $e^a(x)$}
131:
132: The twist-3 quark and antiquark distribution functions $e^q(x)$ and
133: $e^{\bar q}(x)$ are defined as \cite{Jaffe:1991kp,Jaffe:1991ra}
134: \be\label{def-e}
135: e^q(x) = \frac{1}{2\Mn} \int\!\frac{\di\lambda}{2\pi}\,
136: e^{i\lambda x} \la N|\bar{\psi}_a(0)\psi_a(\lambda n)|N\ra \;,\;\;\;
137: e^{\bar q}(x)=e^q(-x) \ee
138: where the insertion of the gauge-link is understood.
139: The $Q^2$-evolution has been studied in
140: Refs.~\cite{Balitsky:1996uh,Belitsky:1997zw,Koike:1997bs}.
141: In the multi-colour limit the evolution of $e^a(x)$ simplifies to a
142: DGLAP-type evolution -- as it does for the other two proton twist-3
143: distributions $h_L^a(x)$ and $g_T^a(x)$.
144: The latter give a constraint on $e^a(x)$, the ``twist-3 Soffer inequality'',
145: as follows from \cite{Soffer:1995ww}
146: \be\label{Soffer-ineq}
147: e^a(x) \ge 2 |g_T^a(x)| - h_L^a(x) \;. \ee
148:
149: At small $x$ it behaves as, with some constants $c_k$,
150: \be\label{small-x}
151: e^a(x)\stackrel{x\to 0}{\longrightarrow}
152: c_1\,x^{-0.04} +c_2\,\delta(x)\;.\ee
153: The first term follows from Regge phenomenology $e(x)\approx x^{-(\alpha+1)}$.
154: However the Pomeron residue is, as is known, non-spin-flip, and thus decouples
155: from the chirally odd $e^a(x)$.
156: Therefore the small $x$-behaviour of $e^a(x)$ is determined by
157: the lowest lying spin flip trajectory, i.e. the one with the
158: scalar meson $f_0(980)$.
159: With the usual slope $\alpha'\approx 1\,{\rm GeV}^{-2}$ this
160: yields a rise like $x^{-0.04}$.
161: The constant $c_1$ in Eq.~(\ref{small-x}) is proportional to
162: $m_q/M_N$ due to Eq.~(\ref{e-2moment}) below.
163: The second term in Eq.~(\ref{small-x}), the possibility of a $\delta$-function
164: at $x=0$, has been recently discussed in Ref.~\cite{Burkardt:2001iy}.
165:
166: The first moment of $(e^u+e^d)(x)$ is related to the pion-nucleon sigma-term
167: \ba
168: \label{e-1moment}
169: \int_{-1}^1\di x\;(e^u+e^d)(x) &=& \frac{1}{2\Mn}\la N|\,
170: \left(\bar{\psi}_u\psi_u+\bar{\psi}_d\psi_d\right)\,|N\ra
171: \equiv \frac{\sigma}{m_{\rm av}\!} \;\;, \\
172: \label{sigma}
173: \sigma &=& \frac{m_{\rm av}}{2\Mn\;}
174: \la N|\,\left(\bar{\psi}_u\psi_u+\bar{\psi}_d\psi_d\right)\,|N\ra
175: = \cases{
176: (64\pm 8)\,{\rm MeV} & Ref.~\cite{Koch:pu}\cr
177: (79\pm 7)\,{\rm MeV} & Ref.~\cite{Pavan:2001wz}.}\;\;\;\;\ea
178: With the average mass of the light quarks
179: $m_{\rm av}\equiv\frac12\,(m_u+m_d)\simeq 5 \,{\rm MeV}$ one obtains
180: \be\label{e-1moment-number}
181: \int_{-1}^1\di x\;(e^u+e^d)(x) \simeq (12-16) \;.\ee
182: However, considering Eq.~(\ref{small-x}), this does not
183: necessarily imply that $(e^u+e^d)(x)$ itself is large.
184: The second moment is proportional to the number of the respective
185: valence quarks $N_q$ (for proton $N_u=2$ and $N_d=1$)
186: and vanishes in the chiral limit
187: \cite{Jaffe:1991ra}
188: \be\label{e-2moment}
189: \int_{-1}^1\di x\;x\,e^q(x) = \frac{m_q}{\Mn}\; N_q \;. \ee
190:
191: A model estimate for quark distributions $e^q(x)$ has been given in the
192: framework of the bag model \cite{Jaffe:1991ra,Signal:1997ct}.
193: At the estimated model scale of about $0.4\,{\rm GeV}$
194: the saturation of the ``twist-3 Soffer inequality'' Eq.~(\ref{Soffer-ineq})
195: as $e(x)= 2g_T(x) - h_L(x)$ has been observed \cite{Signal:1997ct}.
196: The flavour index is dropped, since the quark distributions
197: of Refs.~\cite{Jaffe:1991ra,Signal:1997ct} are flavour independent.
198:
199: Finally we remark that the twist-3 quark distribution $e^q(x)$ and the
200: unpolarized twist-2 quark distribution $f_1^q(x)$ coincide in the
201: non-relativistic limit
202: \be\label{non-rel-limit}
203: \limNR e^q(x) = \limNR f_1^q(x) = N_q\;\,\delta\!\left(x-\frac13\right)
204: \;, \ee
205: in which the current quark mass in Eq.~(\ref{e-2moment}) is to
206: be interpreted as the ``constituent quark'' mass $m_q=\frac13\,\Mn$.
207: The sum rule Eq.~(\ref{e-1moment-number}) is however
208: strongly underestimated in this limit.
209:
210: %====== SECTION 3: H1perp =========================================
211: \section{The Collins fragmentation function}
212:
213: The crucial ingredient for the extraction of the twist-3 distribution
214: function $e^a(x)$ from the azimuthal asymmetry $A_{LU}$ is the knowledge
215: of $H_1^\perp(z)$.
216:
217: This fragmentation function is responsible for a specific azimuthal
218: asymmetry of a hadron in a jet around the axis in direction of the
219: second hadron in the opposite jet
220: due to transversal spin correlation of $q$ and $\bar q$.
221: It was the measurement of this asymmetry,
222: using the DELPHI data collection \cite{todd},
223: which provided first experimental indication to $H_1^\perp$.
224: For the leading particles in each jet of two-jet events,
225: averaged over $z$ and ${\bf k}_\perp$ and over quark flavours,
226: a ``most reliable''
227: (because less sensitive to the unestimated systematic error)
228: value of the analyzing power of
229: $|\la H_1^{\perp}\ra / \la D_1\ra| =(6.3\pm 2.0)\%$ was found.
230: Using the whole available range of the azimuthal angle
231: (and thus a larger statistics) the ``more optimistic''
232: (and also more sensitive to the systematic errors) value for the analyzing
233: power
234: \be\label{apower-DELPHI}
235: \left|{\la H_1^{\perp}\ra\over\la D_1\ra}\right| = (12.5\pm 1.4)\%
236: \;\;\;\mbox{[DELPHI, extraction]} \ee
237: was found.
238: The result Eq.~(\ref{apower-DELPHI}) refers to the scale $M_Z^2$
239: and to an average $z$ of $\la z\ra\simeq 0.4$ \cite{todd}.
240:
241: Combining the information Eq.~(\ref{apower-DELPHI}) for $H_1^\perp$ with
242: predictions for $h_1^a(x)$ and $h_L^a(x)$ from the chiral quark soliton model
243: \cite{h1-model} and the instanton model of the QCD-vacuum
244: \cite{Dressler:2000hc}, it was possible to describe well the HERMES data
245: on the $A_{UL}$ asymmetries \cite{hermes,hermes-pi0} in a parameter-free
246: approach \cite{Efremov:2001cz}.
247: For that a weak scale dependence of the analysing power
248: Eq.~(\ref{apower-DELPHI}) had to be assumed, which however is not supported
249: by studies of Sudakov suppression effects \cite{Boer:2001he}.
250:
251: Furthermore, in Ref.~\cite{Efremov:2001cz} -- assuming the model predictions
252: \cite{h1-model,Dressler:2000hc} for the proton chiral odd distributions --
253: the $z$-dependence of the favoured pion fragmentation function $H_1^\perp(z)$
254: has been deduced from HERMES data \cite{hermes,hermes-pi0}.
255: The result refers to a scale of about $4\,{\rm GeV}^2$
256: and can be parametrized by a simple fit
257: \ba\label{apower-HERMES-z}
258: && H_1^\perp(z) = a\,z\,D_1(z)
259: \;\;\;\mbox{with}\;\;\; a = 0.33 \pm 0.06
260: \;\;\;\mbox{for}\;\;\; 0.2 \le z \le 0.7\;, \\
261: &&\label{apower-HERMES-av}
262: \frac{\la H_1^\perp\ra}{\la D_1\ra} = (13.8\pm 2.8)\%
263: \;\;\;\mbox{for}\;\;\; \la z\ra = 0.41
264: \;\;\;\mbox{[HERMES, extraction]}\;, \ea
265: where $D_1(z)$ is the favoured unpolarized pion fragmentation function.
266: The errors in Eqs.~(\ref{apower-HERMES-z}) are due to experimental error
267: of HERMES data \cite{hermes,hermes-pi0}.
268: The assumption of the predictions from \cite{h1-model,Dressler:2000hc}
269: introduces a model dependence, which can be viewed as a ``systematic error''
270: and is estimated to be around $20\%$.
271: The $z$-averaged value Eq.~(\ref{apower-HERMES-av}) is close to the DELPHI
272: result Eq.~(\ref{apower-DELPHI}), indicating that the ratio
273: $\la H_1^\perp\ra/\la D_1\ra$ might indeed depend on scale only weakly.
274: Note also, that HERMES data favour clearly a positive sign for the analyzing
275: power.
276: It is noteworthy that a similar relation between the favoured fragmentation
277: functions $H_1^\perp(z)$ and $D_1(z)$ (even close numerically!) was found
278: in a recent model calculation \cite{Bacchetta:2002tk}.
279:
280: In order to estimate the analyzing power for the CLAS experiment
281: we assume the result Eq.~(\ref{apower-HERMES-z}) to be valid up to $z\le 0.8$,
282: and to be only weakly scale dependent between HERMES $\la Q^2\ra = 4\,{\rm
283: GeV}^2$ and CLAS $\la Q^2\ra = 1.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$ \cite{Avakian-talk}.
284: Due to the particular fit Eq.~(\ref{apower-HERMES-z}),
285: the analyzing power is related to the average $z$ of the experiment by
286: ${\la H_1^\perp\ra}/{\la D_1\ra} = a\,\la z\ra$
287: with the constant $a$ from Eq.~(\ref{apower-HERMES-z}).
288: For the CLAS experiment \cite{Avakian-talk} we obtain
289: \be\label{apower-CLAS}
290: \frac{\la H_1^\perp\ra}{\la D_1\ra} = (20 \pm 4) \%
291: \;\;\;\mbox{for}\;\;\; \la z\ra = 0.61
292: \;\;\;\mbox{[CLAS, prediction]}. \ee
293:
294: %====== SECTION 4: e(x) extraction =================================
295: \section{The azimuthal asymmetry \boldmath $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}$}
296:
297: %------ FIGURE 1: Kinematics of process
298: %
299: \begin{wrapfigure}{R!}{5cm}
300: \vspace{-2cm}
301: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=fig2-kinematic-corr.eps,width=5cm,height=4.5cm}}
302: \caption{\footnotesize\sl
303: Kinematics of the process $ep\rightarrow e'h X$ in the lab frame.}
304: \vspace{-0.2cm}
305: \end{wrapfigure}
306: %
307: %------ END FIGURE 1.
308: %
309: \paragraph{\boldmath $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}$ in the CLAS experiment.}
310: In the CLAS experiment a longitudinally polarized $4.3\,{\rm GeV}$ electron
311: beam was scattered off an unpolarized proton target.
312: The cross sections $\sigma^{(\pm)}$ for the process $\vec{e}p\to e'\pi^+ X$
313: were measured in dependence of the azimuthal angle $\phi$, i.e. the angle
314: between the lepton scattering plane and the plane defined by the momentum
315: ${\bf q}$ of the virtual photon and momentum ${\bf P}_h$ of the produced pion,
316: see Fig.1.
317: The signs $^{(\pm)}$ refer to the longitudinal polarization of the electrons,
318: with $^{(+)}$ if polarization parallel to beam direction,
319: and $^{(-)}$ if anti-parallel.
320: Let $P$ ($P_h$) be the momentum of the incoming proton (outgoing pion) and
321: $l$ ($l'$) the momentum of the incoming (outgoing) electron.
322: The relevant kinematical variables are
323: center of mass energy square $s:=(P+l)^2$,
324: four momentum transfer $q:= l-l'$ with $Q^2:= - q^2$,
325: invariant mass of the photon-proton system $W^2:= (P+q)^2$,
326: and $x$, $y$ and $z$ defined by
327: \be\label{notation-1}
328: x := \frac{Q^2}{2Pq} \;,\;\;\;
329: y := \frac{2Pq}{s} \;,\;\;\;
330: z := \frac{PP_h}{Pq\;} \;.\ee
331: In this notation the azimuthal asymmetry $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}(x)$
332: measured by CLAS is given by
333: \be\label{ALU-exp}
334: A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}(x) = \frac{\displaystyle
335: \int\!\!\di y\,\di z\,\di\phi\,\sin\phi\,\left(
336: \frac{1}{S_e^{(+)}}\,\frac{\di^4\sigma^{(+)}}{\di x\,\di y\,\di z\,\di\phi}-
337: \frac{1}{S_e^{(-)}}\,\frac{\di^4\sigma^{(-)}}{\di x\,\di y\,\di z\,\di\phi}
338: \right)}{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\displaystyle
339: \frac{1}{2}\int\!\!\di y\,\di z\,\di\phi\,\left(
340: \frac{\di^4\sigma^{(+)}}{\di x\,\di y\,\di z\,\di\phi}+
341: \frac{\di^4\sigma^{(-)}}{\di x\,\di y\,\di z\,\di\phi}\right)}\;\;,\ee
342: where $S_e^{(\pm)}$ denotes the electron polarization.
343: When integrating over $y$ and $z$ the experimental cuts
344: have to be considered \cite{Avakian-talk}
345: \ba\label{exp-cuts-clas}
346: & 0.15\le x \le 0.4 \;,\;\;\;
347: 0.5 \le y \le 0.85\;,\;\;\;
348: 0.5 \le z \le 0.8 \;, & \nonumber\\
349: & 1.0 \le Q^2/{\rm GeV}^2 \le 3.0 \;,\;\;\;
350: 2.0 \le W/{\rm GeV} \le 2.6 \;. & \ea
351:
352: \paragraph{\boldmath $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}$ in theory.}
353: The cross sections entering the asymmetry $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}$
354: Eq.~(\ref{ALU-exp}) have been computed in Ref.\cite{Mulders:1996dh}
355: at tree-level up to order $1/Q$.
356: Assuming a Gaussian distribution of quark transverse momenta one obtains
357: for the $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}$ asymmetry Eq.~(\ref{ALU-exp})
358: \ba\label{ALU-theo}
359: A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}(x)
360: &=&
361: \frac{1}{\la z\ra\sqrt{1+\la\Pnperp^2\ra/\la{\bf k}_{\!\perp}^2\ra}}
362: \;\frac{\int\!\di y\,4y\sqrt{1-y}\,\Mn/Q^5
363: \sum_a e_a^2\,x \,e^a(x) \la H_1^{\perp a}\ra}
364: {\int\!\di y\,(1+(1-y)^2)\,/Q^4
365: \sum_b e_b^2\,f_1^b(x) \la D_1^b\ra}\;\; , \ea
366: where $\la\Pnperp^2\ra$ denotes the mean square transverse momentum of quarks
367: in the nucleon and $\la{\bf k}_{\!\perp}^2\ra$ of the fragmenting quarks.
368: The latter is related to the transverse momentum of the produced pion
369: by\footnote{
370: Whether these relations hold exactly or only approximately,
371: depends on the chosen jet selection scheme, as does the question,
372: whether $\la{\bf k}_{\!\perp}^2\ra$ is a function of $z$.
373: Considering the large uncertainties on both experimental and
374: theoretical side, a discussion of jet selection scheme dependence seems
375: not appropriate here.}
376: $\la{\bf k}_{\!\perp}^2\ra = \la{\bf P}_{h\perp}^2\ra/\la z^2\ra$. In the
377: CLAS experiment $\la P_{h\perp}\ra = 0.44\,{\rm GeV}\approx\la\modPnperp\ra$
378: \cite{Avakian-talk}.
379:
380: Eq.~(\ref{ALU-exp}) assumes factorization to hold,
381: and for that a large $Q^2$ is a necessary condition.
382: Aside the general problem of factorization of $p_T$-dependent processes
383: there is a subtle question is whether Eq.~(\ref{ALU-exp}) can be applied
384: to analyze the CLAS experiment where $\la Q^2\ra = 1.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$
385: \cite{Avakian-talk}. Here we will assume that this can be done.
386: This assumption will receive a certain justification, if our predictions
387: on the asymmetries $A_{UL}$ (see next section) will agree well with future
388: CLAS data taken at comparably low $\la Q^2\ra$.
389: However, one will not have a more definite answer on that, until future
390: experiments performed at higher $Q^2$ will have constrained $e^a(x)$
391: such that a comparison between results at the different scales
392: -- taking $Q^2$-evolution into account -- will be possible.
393:
394: %
395: %------ FIGURE 2: EXTRACTED e(x):
396: \begin{wrapfigure}{RD}{6cm}
397: \vspace{-1.2cm}
398: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=fig-e-CLAS-III.eps,width=6cm,height=7cm}}
399: \caption{\footnotesize\sl
400: The flavour combination
401: $e(x)\!=\!(e^u\!+\!\frac{1}{4}e^{\bar d})(x)$
402: extracted from preliminary CLAS data vs. $x$ at
403: $\la Q^2\ra \!=\! 1.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$.
404: The error bars are due to statistical error of the data.
405: For comparison the same flavour combinations of $f_1^a(x)$
406: and the twist-3 Soffer lower bound are shown.}
407: \end{wrapfigure}
408: %------ END FIGURE 2.
409: %
410: \paragraph{The extraction of \boldmath $e^a(x)$ from preliminary CLAS data.}
411: Using isospin symmetry and favoured flavour fragmentation
412: \be\label{eq-favored-frag}
413: D_1\equiv D_1^{ u/\pi^+}\!\! = D_1^{\bar d/\pi^+}\!\! \gg
414: D_1^{ d/\pi^+}\!\! = D_1^{\bar u/\pi^+}\!\! \simeq 0 \;\ee
415: and the same relations for $H_1^\perp$, in the expression for the
416: azimuthal asymmetry $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}$ Eq.~(\ref{ALU-theo}),
417: we see that the CLAS data yield information on the flavour combination
418: \be\label{def-e-flav-comb}
419: e(x) \equiv e^u(x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar d}(x) \;. \ee
420: With the estimate of the analyzing power Eq.~(\ref{apower-CLAS})
421: and using for $f_1^a(x)$ the parameterization of Ref.~\cite{Gluck:1994uf}
422: we obtain the result for $e(x)$ of Eq.~(\ref{def-e-flav-comb})
423: shown in Fig.~2.
424: For comparison the corresponding flavour combinations of the
425: twist-3 Soffer bound of Eq.~(\ref{Soffer-ineq})\footnote{We use
426: the ``Wandzura-Wilczek approximations''
427: $g_T^a(x)=\int_x^1\di\xi\,g_1^a(\xi)/\xi$ and
428: $h_L^a(x) = 2x\int_x^1\di\xi\,h_1^a(\xi)/\xi^2$. The neglect of
429: the pure twist-3 $\widetilde{h}_L^a(x)$ and $\widetilde{g}_T^a(x)$
430: is justified in the instanton QCD vacuum model
431: \cite{Dressler:2000hc,Balla:1997hf}.
432: For $h_1^a(x)$ the model prediction \cite{h1-model} is used,
433: for $g_1^a(x)$ the parameterization of Ref.~\cite{Gluck:1995yr}.}
434: and the unpolarized distribution function $f_1^a(x)$ are plotted in Fig.~2.
435:
436: Note that the uncertainties of $H_1^\perp(z)$ in Eq.~(\ref{apower-HERMES-z})
437: -- due to experimental error of HERMES data and theoretical assumptions in
438: their analysis -- affect the overall normalization of the extracted $e(x)$.
439: Its $x$-dependence, however, is entirely due to the CLAS data.
440:
441: The extracted $e(x)$ is clearly larger than our estimate of its twist-3
442: Soffer bound Eq.~(\ref{Soffer-ineq}), about two times smaller than
443: $f_1^a(x)$ at the scale of $1.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$.
444: The result indicates also that the large number in the sum rule
445: Eq.~(\ref{e-1moment-number}) may require a significant contribution from
446: the small $x$-region, which is interesting in the light of the predictions
447: in Eq.~(\ref{small-x}).
448:
449: It is worthwhile mentioning that the bag model result for $e(x)$ of
450: Ref.~\cite{Signal:1997ct} (evolved according to naive power counting to
451: the comparable scale of $Q^2=1\,{\rm GeV}^2$) is in qualitative agreement
452: with the extracted $e(x)$.
453:
454:
455: \paragraph{\boldmath $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}$ in the HERMES experiment.}
456: In the HERMES experiment the asymmetry $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}$
457: has been measured with a longitudinally polarized $27.6\,{\rm GeV}$
458: positron beam in the kinematical range
459: \ba\label{exp-cuts-HERMES}
460: && 0.023\le x \le 0.4 \;,\;\;\;
461: 0.2 \le y \le 0.85 \;,\;\;\;
462: 0.2 \le z \le 0.7 \;,\nonumber\\
463: && 1 \le Q^2/{\rm GeV}^2 \le 15 \;,\;\;\;
464: 2 \le W/{\rm GeV} \;,\ea
465: and the following, consistent with zero result for the totally integrated
466: asymmetries found \cite{hermes}
467: \ba\label{ALU-data-HERMES}
468: A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}(\pi^+)_\HERMES &=&-0.005\pm 0.008\pm0.004\nonumber\\
469: A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}(\pi^-)_\HERMES &=&-0.007\pm 0.010\pm0.004
470: \;\;\;\mbox{[HERMES]}\;.\ea
471: In order to see that the CLAS \cite{Avakian-talk} and HERMES \cite{hermes}
472: data are compatible we very roughly 'parameterize'
473: $e^a(x) \approx \frac12\,f_1^a(x)$ at $\la Q^2\ra = 1.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$.
474: This estimate is consistent with CLAS data
475: (for the flavour combination $(e^u+\frac14\,e^{\bar d})(x)$, see Fig.~2)
476: and describes $e^a(x)$ sufficiently well for our purposes.
477: We can assume this parameterization to be valid also at the scales in
478: the HERMES experiment, since evolution effects are small compared to
479: the crudeness of our 'parameterization'.
480: This allows us to estimate $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}(\pi^+)\approx 0.008$ and
481: $A_{LU}^{\sin\phi}(\pi^-)\approx 0.007$ for HERMES kinematics,
482: which is in agreement with the data in Eq.~(\ref{ALU-data-HERMES}).
483: We conclude that the $e^a(x)$ extracted from the CLAS experiment (Fig.~2)
484: is % consistent
485: not in contradiction with HERMES data \cite{hermes}.
486:
487: %
488: %====== SECTION 5: PREDICTIONS =====================================
489: \section{Predictions for \boldmath $A_{UL}$ asymmetries at CLAS}
490:
491: In the HERMES experiment the azimuthal asymmetries $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}$
492: and $A_{UL}^{\sin2\phi}$ in the production of charged \cite{hermes} and
493: neutral \cite{hermes-pi0} pions from a proton target have been measured
494: as functions of $x$ and $z$.
495: For $\pi^+$ and $\pi^0$ sizeable $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}$ asymmetries have been
496: observed, while the other asymmetries have been found consistent with zero
497: within error bars.
498: In Ref.~\cite{Efremov:2001cz} the HERMES data \cite{hermes,hermes-pi0}
499: has been well described in a parameter-free approach, using for $H_1^\perp$
500: the DELPHI result \cite{todd}, see Eq.~(\ref{apower-DELPHI}), and for
501: proton transversity distributions the predictions from the chiral quark
502: soliton model \cite{h1-model} and the instanton model of the QCD vacuum
503: \cite{Dressler:2000hc}.
504: This approach has been used in Ref.~\cite{Efremov:2001ia} to predict
505: $A_{UL}$ azimuthal asymmetries for a deuterium target.
506: Here we predict $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}$ and $A_{UL}^{\sin2\phi}$ for pion
507: production from a proton target for CLAS in an approach similar to
508: Ref.~\cite{Efremov:2001cz}, relying on the assumption that factorization
509: holds at the energies of the CLAS experiment.
510: For the CLAS kinematics, however, the DELPHI result \cite{todd}
511: for $H_1^\perp$ Eq.~(\ref{apower-DELPHI}) cannot be used,
512: as it refers to a different $\la z\ra$.
513: Instead we use our estimate from Eq.~(\ref{apower-CLAS}).
514: Our predictions\footnote{For explicit expressions for
515: the azimuthal asymmetries and further details see
516: Refs.\cite{Efremov:2001cz,Efremov:2001ia,Efremov:2000za}.}
517: are shown in Fig.~3, for beam energies of $4.25\,{\rm GeV}$, $5.7\,{\rm GeV}$
518: and $12\,{\rm GeV}$ which are currently available or proposed for the
519: CLAS experiment.
520:
521: Fig.~3 demonstrates that the predicted CLAS asymmetries are as large as the
522: asymmetries measured by HERMES \cite{hermes,hermes-pi0}.
523: Thus, with the high luminosity of the CLAS experiment, a precise measurement
524: $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}$ and $A_{UL}^{\sin2\phi}$ for $\pi^+$ and $\pi^0$ is
525: probably possible.
526: Moreover, the CLAS kinematics for the $12\,{\rm GeV}$ beam allows to observe
527: the change of sign of the $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}(x)$ asymmetries at $x\simeq 0.5$.
528: This change of sign is due to different signs of the twist-3 and twist-2
529: contributions.
530: For the $5.7\,{\rm GeV}$ beam the $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}(x)$ become zero close to
531: the upper $x$-cut, which makes this phenomenon more difficult to observe.
532: For HERMES kinematics the zero of $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}(x)$
533: lies outside the covered $x$-range and is invisible
534: \cite{Efremov:2001cz,Efremov:2001ia}.
535:
536: The $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}(x)$ asymmetries for different pions cross each other
537: in a single point, see Fig.~3.
538: This interesting observation is due to the fact, that only two of the three
539: cross sections for the production of $\pi^+$, $\pi^0$ and $\pi^-$ are
540: ``linearly independent'' because of isospin symmetry and favoured flavour
541: fragmentation.
542: Thus, if two curves cross each other in some point, the third one
543: necessarily goes through this point as well.
544: The exact positions of this point and of the zero of $A_{UL}^{\sin\phi}(x)$
545: depend on the beam energy and move to smaller $x$ with the energy growth.
546: The experimental check of this prediction, especially at COMPASS energies,
547: would give an argument in favour of the handbag mechanism of the asymmetry
548: with different signs of twist-2 and twist-3 contributions.
549:
550: Our predictions are based on the assumption that factorization holds
551: at the scales $1\,{\rm GeV}^2 \le Q^2 \le 9\,{\rm GeV}^2$ covered in
552: CLAS experiment \cite{Avakian-talk}.
553: It will be exciting to learn from the comparison of these predictions
554: to future CLAS data, to which extent factorization holds.
555: In particular, this will give valuable indications on the
556: correct interpretation of the data on the $A_{LU}$ asymmetry
557: and the extraction of the twist-3 distribution function
558: $e^a(x)$ given in the previous section.
559: %
560: %------ FIGURE 3: Predictions for AUL-proton for pions at CLAS
561: %
562: \vspace{-0.5cm}
563: \begin{figure}[t!]
564: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
565: \hspace{-1.4cm} &
566: \includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{fig-AUL-CLAS-a.eps} &
567: \hspace{-1.4cm} &
568: \includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{fig-AUL-CLAS-b.eps} &
569: \hspace{-1.4cm} &
570: \includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{fig-AUL-CLAS-c.eps}
571: \end{tabular}
572: \caption{\footnotesize\sl
573: Predictions for azimuthal asymmetries $A_{UL}^{W(\phi)}(x)$
574: vs. $x$ for different beam energies and the corresponding
575: kinematical cuts at CLAS.
576: The thick lines correspond to $W(\phi) = \sin\phi$,
577: the thin lines correspond to $W(\phi) = \sin2\phi$.
578: Hereby solid lines refer to $\pi^+$,
579: long-dashed lines to $\pi^0$,
580: and short-dashed lines to $\pi^-$.}
581: \end{figure}
582: %
583: %------ END FIGURE 3.
584:
585: %====== SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS =====================================
586: \section{Conclusions}
587:
588: We have presented the extraction of first information of the chirally
589: odd proton twist-3 distribution function $e^a(x)$ from the azimuthal
590: asymmetry $A_{LU}$ in $\pi^+$ electro-production from semi-inclusive DIS of
591: polarized electrons off unpolarized protons, which has been recently measured
592: by CLAS. The flavour combination $(e^u+\frac14e^{\bar d})(x)$ extracted in the
593: $x$-region $0.15\le x\le 0.4$ refers to a scale of $1.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$
594: and is sizeable -- roughly half the magnitude of the unpolarized
595: distribution function at that scale.
596: But it is not large enough to explain the large number for the first moment
597: of $(e^u+e^d)(x)$, related to the pion nucleon sigma term, by contributions
598: from valence $x$-regions alone.
599:
600: The extraction relies on the assumption of factorization,
601: which might be questioned at the $Q^2$ of the CLAS experiment.
602: To test this assumption, we have predicted azimuthal asymmetries $A_{UL}$
603: in pion electro-production from DIS of unpolarized electrons off polarized
604: protons for CLAS kinematics, which are under current study.
605: The predictions are based on a parameter-free approach, which has been
606: shown to describe well the corresponding data from the HERMES experiment.
607: A successful comparison of these predictions to future CLAS data would
608: support the assumption of applicability of factorization at the moderate scale.
609:
610: For a definite clarification of the question, whether the CLAS data has been
611: interpreted here correctly, we have to wait for data from future high
612: luminosity (needed to resolve the twist-3 effect) experiments
613: performed at scales where factorization is less questioned.
614: Maybe COMPASS experiment at CERN could be one of them.
615: Our predictions for COMPASS will be published elsewhere.
616:
617: \vspace{0.5cm}\noindent
618: \begin{minipage}{16cm} {\footnotesize
619: We would like to thank H.~Avakian for many very fruitful discussions,
620: and B.~Dressler for providing the evolution code.
621: A.~E.~is partially supported by RFBR grant 00-02-16696 and INTAS grant 00/587
622: and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. This work has partly been performed
623: under the contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130 of the European Commission.
624: }\end{minipage}
625:
626:
627:
628: %====== REFERENCES =================================================
629: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
630:
631: \bibitem{Jaffe:1991kp}
632: R.~L.~Jaffe and X.~D.~Ji, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 67} (1991) 552.
633: % Chiral odd parton distributions and polarized Drell-Yan.
634: \bibitem{Jaffe:1991ra}
635: R.~L.~Jaffe and X.~D.~Ji, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 375} (1992) 527.
636: % Chiral odd parton distributions and Drell-Yan processes.
637:
638: % \bibitem{Sainio:2001bq}
639: % M.~E.~Sainio,
640: % Pion nucleon sigma-term: A review,
641: % $\pi$N Newsletter {\bf 16}, 138-143 (2002), hep-ph/0110413.
642: \bibitem{Koch:pu}
643: R.~Koch, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 15} (1982) 161.
644: % A New Determination Of The Pi N Sigma Term Using Hyperbolic
645: % Dispersion Relations In The (Nu**2, T) Plane.
646: \bibitem{Pavan:2001wz}
647: M.~M.~Pavan, I.~I.~Strakovsky, R.~L.~Workman and R.~A.~Arndt,
648: % The pion nucleon Sigma term is definitely large:
649: % Results from a GWU analysis of pi N scattering data.
650: % Talk given at the 9th International Symposium on Meson - Nucleon
651: % Physics and the Structure of the Nucleon (MENU 2001),
652: $\pi$N Newsletter {\bf 16}, 110-115 (2002), hep-ph/0111066.
653: \bibitem{muldt}
654: D.~Boer and P.~J.~Mulders, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D57} (1998) 5780. \\
655: D.~Boer, R.~Jakob and P.~J.~Mulders, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B424} (1998) 143.\\
656: D.~Boer and R.~Tanger\-man, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B381} (1996) 305.
657: \bibitem{Mulders:1996dh}
658: P.~J.~Mulders and R.~D.~Tangerman,
659: % The complete tree-level result up to order 1/Q for
660: % polarized deep-inelastic leptoproduction,
661: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B461} (1996) 197
662: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf B484} (1996) 538], hep-ph/9510301.
663: \bibitem{collins}
664: J.~C.~Collins, {Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B396} (1993) 161. \\
665: X.~Artru and J.~C.~Collins, {Z. Phys. {\bf C69}} (1996) 277.
666: \bibitem{hermes}
667: A.~Airapetian {\it et. al.} [HERMES Collaboration],
668: % Observation of a single-spin azimuthal asymmetry in semi-inclusive
669: % pion electro-production,
670: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84} (2000) 4047, hep-ex/9910062. \\
671: H.~Avakian, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf B79} (1999) 523.
672: \bibitem{hermes-pi0} % \bibitem{Airapetian:2001eg}
673: A.~Airapetian {\it et al.} [HERMES Collaboration],
674: % Single-spin azimuthal asymmetries in electroproduction of neutral
675: % pions in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering,''
676: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 097101, hep-ex/0104005.
677: \bibitem{Avakian-talk}
678: H. Avakian [CLAS Collaboration], talk at 9th International Conference
679: on the Structure of Baryons (Baryons 2002), Newport News, Virginia,
680: 3-8 March 2002.
681: \bibitem{todd}
682: A.~V.~Efremov, O.~G.~Smirnova and L.~G.~Tkatchev,
683: Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf74} (1999) 49 and {\bf79} (1999) 554,
684: hep-ph/9812522
685: % Study of T-odd Quark Fragmentation Function in $Z^0\to 2$-jet Decay.
686: \bibitem{transversity}
687: J.~Ralston and D.~E.~Soper, Nucl.Phys {\bf B152} (1979) 109.\\
688: J.~L.~Cortes, B.~Pire and J.~P.~Ralston, Z. Phys.{\bf C55} (1992) 409.
689: \bibitem{Efremov:2001cz}
690: A.~V.~Efremov, K.~Goeke and P.~Schweitzer,
691: % Azimuthal asymmetry in electroproduction of neutral pions
692: % in semi-inclusive DIS,
693: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{522} (2001) 37, hep-ph/0108213
694: [Erratum hep-ph/0204056].
695: \bibitem{h1-model}
696: P.~V.~Pobylitsa and M.~V.~ Polyakov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B389} (1996) 350.
697: \newline
698: P.~Schweitzer, D.~Urbano, M.~V.~Polyakov, C.~Weiss,
699: P.~V.~Pobylitsa, K.~Goeke, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 034013 (2001),
700: hep-ph/0101300.
701: % Transversity distributions in the nucleon in the large-N(c) limit.
702: \bibitem{Dressler:2000hc}
703: B.~Dressler and M.~V.~Polyakov,
704: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D61} (2000) 097501, hep-ph/9912376.
705: % On the twist-3 contribution to h(L) in the instanton vacuum.
706: \bibitem{Balitsky:1996uh}
707: I.~I.~Balitsky, V.~M.~Braun, Y.~Koike and K.~Tanaka,
708: % The Q**2 evolution of chiral-odd nucleon parton distributions
709: % h(L)(x) and e(x) in multicolor QCD
710: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77} (1996) 3078, hep-ph/9605439.
711: \bibitem{Belitsky:1997zw}
712: A.~V.~Belitsky and D.~Muller,
713: % Scale dependence of the chiral-odd twist-3 distributions
714: % h(L)(x) and e(x)
715: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 503} (1997) 279, hep-ph/9702354.
716: \bibitem{Koike:1997bs}
717: Y.~Koike and N.~Nishiyama,
718: % Q**2 evolution of chiral-odd twist-3 distribution e(x,Q**2)
719: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 3068, hep-ph/9609207.
720: \bibitem{Soffer:1995ww}
721: J.~Soffer, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} (1995) 1292, hep-ph/9409254.
722: % Positivity constraints for spin dependent parton distributions
723: \bibitem{Burkardt:2001iy}
724: M.~Burkardt and Y.~Koike,
725: % Violation of sum rules for twist-3 parton distributions in QCD,
726: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 632} (2002) 311, hep-ph/0111343.
727: \bibitem{Signal:1997ct}
728: A.~I.~Signal, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 497} (1997) 415, hep-ph/9610480.
729: % Calculations of higher twist distribution functions in the MIT bag model
730: \bibitem{Boer:2001he}
731: D.~Boer, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 603} (2001) 195, hep-ph/0102071.
732: % Sudakov suppression in azimuthal spin asymmetries.
733: \bibitem{Bacchetta:2002tk}
734: A.~Bacchetta, R.~Kundu, A.~Metz and P.~J.~Mulders,
735: % Estimate of the Collins fragmentation function
736: % in a chiral invariant approach,
737: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 094021, hep-ph/0201091;
738: and hep-ph/0206309.
739:
740: % \bibitem{Binnewies:1994ju}
741: % J.~Binnewies, B.~A.~Kniehl and G.~Kramer,
742: % Next-to-leading order fragmentation functions for pions and kaons,
743: % Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 65} (1995) 471, hep-ph/9407347.
744:
745: \bibitem{Gluck:1994uf}
746: M.~Gl\"uck, E.~Reya and A.~Vogt, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 433.
747: % Dynamical parton distributions of the proton and small x physics.
748: \bibitem{Balla:1997hf}
749: J.~Balla, M.~V.~Polyakov and C.~Weiss,
750: % Nucleon matrix elements of higher-twist operators
751: % from the instanton vacuum,
752: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 510} (1998) 327, hep-ph/9707515.
753: \bibitem{Gluck:1995yr}
754: M.~Gl\"uck, E.~Reya, M.~Stratmann and W.~Vogelsang,
755: % Next-to-leading order radiative parton model analysis of
756: % polarized deep inelastic lepton - nucleon scattering,
757: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 4775, hep-ph/9508347.
758: \bibitem{Efremov:2001ia}
759: A.~V.~Efremov, K.~Goeke and P.~Schweitzer,
760: % Predictions for azimuthal asymmetries in pion and kaon production in
761: % SIDIS off a longitudinally polarized deuterium target at HERMES,
762: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 24} (2002) 407, hep-ph/0112166.
763: \bibitem{Efremov:2000za}
764: A.~V.~Efremov, K.~Goeke, M.~V.~Polyakov and D.~Urbano,
765: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478} (2000) 94, hep-ph/0001119.
766: % On the azimuthal asymmetries in DIS.
767: \end{thebibliography}
768: \end{document}
769:
770:
771: