1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: \documentclass[aps,preprint,tightenlines,floatfix]{revtex4}

3: % \documentstyle[aps,preprint,tighten,floats,epsfig]{revtex}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: 

7: % \voffset=1cm

8: 

9: \preprint{

10: \vbox{

11: % \hbox{February 2003}

12: \hbox{JLAB-THY-02-34}

13: }}

14: 

15: \begin{document}

16: 

17: \title{Quark-Hadron Duality in Electron-Pion Scattering}

18: \author{W. Melnitchouk}

19: \affiliation{Jefferson Lab,

20: 	12000 Jefferson Avenue,

21: 	Newport News, VA 23606 \\}

22: 

23: \begin{abstract}

24: We explore the relationship between exclusive and inclusive

25: electromagnetic scattering from the pion, focusing on the transition

26: % preasymptotic

27: region at intermediate $Q^2$.

28: Combining Drell-Yan data on the leading twist quark distribution in the

29: pion with a model for the resonance region at large $x$, we calculate

30: QCD moments of the pion structure function over a range of $Q^2$, and

31: quantify the role of higher twist corrections.

32: Using a parameterization of the pion elastic form factor and

33: phenomenological models for the $\pi\to\rho$ transition form factor,

34: we further test the extent to which local duality may be valid for the

35: pion.

36: \end{abstract}

37: 

38: \maketitle

39: 

40: \newpage

41: 

42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

43: \section{Introduction}

44: 

45: The nature of the transition between quark and hadron degrees of freedom

46: in QCD is one of the most fundamental problems in strong interaction

47: physics.

48: This transition has been extensively explored within nonperturbative

49: models of QCD, which, while retaining some of the apposite features of

50: QCD, make simplifying assumptions that allow approximate solutions to be

51: found \cite{MODELS}.

52: Considerable progress has also been made recently in calculating

53: hadronic properties directly from QCD via lattice gauge theory, and much

54: is anticipated from this approach in the near future with significant

55: advances in computing power available \cite{LATT}.

56: It is clear, however, that while a quantitative description of hadronic

57: structure from first principles in QCD is still some time away,

58: phenomenological input will remain crucial in guiding our understanding

59: for the foreseeable future.

60: 

61: 

62: Of course, assuming QCD can ultimately describe the physics of hadrons,

63: the transition from quarks and gluons to hadrons can be considered

64: trivial in principle from the point of view of quark--hadron duality.

65: So long as one has access to a complete set of states, it is immaterial

66: whether one calculates physical quantities in terms of elementary quark

67: or effective hadron degrees of freedom.

68: In practice, however, truncations are unavoidable, and it is precisely

69: the consequences of working with incomplete or truncated basis states

70: that allows one to expose the interesting dynamics that drives the

71: quark--hadron transition.

72: 

73: 

74: The duality between quarks and hadrons reveals itself in spectacular

75: fashion through the phenomenon of Bloom-Gilman duality in inclusive

76: lepton--nucleon scattering, $e N \to e X$.

77: Here the inclusive $F_2$ structure function of the nucleon measured in

78: the region dominated by low-lying nucleon resonances is observed to

79: follow a global scaling curve describing the high energy data, to which

80: the resonance structure function averages \cite{BG,NICU}.

81: The equivalence of the averaged resonance and scaling structure

82: functions in addition appears to hold for each prominent resonance

83: region separately, suggesting that the resonance--scaling duality also

84: exists to some extent locally.

85: 

86: 

87: The correspondence between exclusive and inclusive observables in

88: electroproduction was studied even before the advent of QCD

89: \cite{DY,WEST,BJORKEN,GBB,LANDSHOFF,EZAWA}.

90: Within QCD, the appearance of duality for the moments of structure

91: functions can be related through the operator product expansion (OPE)

92: to the size of high twist corrections to the scaling structure function

93: \cite{RUJ}, which reflect the importance of long-range multi-parton

94: correlations in the hadron \cite{MANKIEWICZ}.

95: The apparent early onset of Bloom-Gilman duality for the proton

96: structure function seen in recent Jefferson Lab experiments \cite{NICU}

97: indicates the dominance of single-quark scattering to rather low

98: momentum transfer \cite{CM}.

99: It is not {\em a priori} clear, however, whether this is due to an

100: overall suppression of coherent effects in inclusive scattering, or

101: because of fortuitous cancellations of possibly large corrections.

102: Indeed, there are some indications from models of QCD that the workings

103: of duality may be rather different in the neutron than in the proton

104: \cite{IJMV,CI}, or for spin-independent and spin-dependent structure

105: functions.

106: 

107: 

108: {}From another direction, one knows from the large $N_c$ limit of QCD

109: \cite{LARGENC} that duality is an inevitable consequence of quark

110: confinement; in the mesonic sector one can prove (at least in 1+1

111: dimensions) that an exactly scaling structure function can be

112: constructed from towers of infinitesimally narrow mesonic $q\bar q$

113: resonances \cite{EINHORN}.

114: This proof-of-principle example provides a heuristic guide to the

115: appearance of the qualitative features of Bloom-Gilman duality, and has

116: been used to motivate more elaborate studies of duality in quark models,

117: even though application to the baryon sector is somewhat more involved

118: \cite{NCBARYON}.

119: Given that Bloom-Gilman duality is empirically established only for

120: baryons (specifically, the proton), while the application of theoretical

121: models is generally more straightforward in the meson sector, a natural

122: question to consider is whether, and how, duality manifests itself

123: phenomenologically for the simplest $q\bar q$ system in QCD --- the pion.

124: 

125: 

126: As the lightest $q\bar q$ bound state, the pion plays a special role in

127: QCD.

128: Indeed, in Nature the pion presents itself as somewhat of a dichotomy:

129: on the one hand, its anomalously small mass suggests that it should be

130: identified with the pseudo-Goldstone mode of dynamical breaking of chiral

131: symmetry in QCD; on the other, it ought to be described equally well from

132: the QCD Lagrangian in terms of current quarks, with particularly

133: attractive forces acting in the $J^P=0^-$ channel.

134: The complementarity of these pictures may also reflect, loosely-speaking,

135: a kind of duality between the effective, hadronic description based on

136: symmetries, and a microscopic description in terms of partons.

137: This duality is effectively exploited in calculations of hadron properties

138: via the QCD sum rule method \cite{QCDSR}, in which results obtained in

139: terms of hadronic variables using dispersion relations are matched with

140: those of the OPE using free quarks.

141: 

142: 

143: In this paper we connect a number of these themes in an attempt to

144: further develop and elucidate the issue of quark-hadron duality for the

145: pion, focusing in particular on insights that can be gained from 

146: phenomenological constraints.

147: Specifically, we shall examine the possible connections between the

148: structure of the pion as revealed in exclusive scattering, and that

149: which is measured in inclusive reactions.

150: The latter can in principle be reconstructed given sufficient knowledge

151: of the form factors which parameterize transitions from the ground state

152: pion to excited states. % and on the non-resonant background.

153: We do not attempt this rather challenging task directly; instead, we use

154: the tools of the OPE to organize moments of the pion structure function

155: according to (matrix elements of) local operators of a given twist.

156: This exercise is possible because the structure function of the pion has

157: been determined from Drell-Yan $\pi N$ scattering data at high $Q^2$.

158: Of course, the absence of fixed pion targets means that the structure of

159: the pion at low excitation mass $W$ is not known, with the exception of

160: the elastic pion contribution, which has been accurately measured for

161: $Q^2 \alt 2$~GeV$^2$ in $\pi^+$ electroproduction off the proton.

162: % $e p \to e n \pi^+$

163: 

164: 

165: To complement the dearth of data on specific $\pi \to \pi^*$ transitions

166: above threshold (but below the deep inelastic continuum), we consider a

167: simple model for the pion structure function in which the low $W$ spectrum

168: is dominated by the elastic and $\pi\to\rho$ transitions, on top of a

169: continuum which is estimated by evolving the leading twist structure

170: function to lower $Q^2$.

171: The discussion at low $W$ is necessarily more qualitative than for the

172: corresponding case of the nucleon \cite{JF2} where ample data exist.

173: However, even within the current limitations, this analysis provides

174: an estimate of the possible size of higher twist effects in the pion

175: structure function, and the role of the resonance region in deep

176: inelastic scattering (DIS) from the pion.

177: %

178: Preliminary results for the higher twist corrections have been presented

179: in Ref.~\cite{PILET}.

180: Here we shall extend that analysis by considering the extent to which

181: local duality may be valid in the pion structure function, and possible

182: constraints on the $x \to 1$ behavior which can be inferred from the

183: elastic channels.

184: 

185: 

186: This study is timely in view of experiments on the pion elastic

187: \cite{MACK,WHITE} and transition \cite{KOSSOV,BURKERT} form factors

188: being planned or analyzed at Jefferson Lab, which will probe the

189: interplay between soft and hard scattering from the pion and the onset

190: of perturbative QCD (pQCD) behavior.

191: Furthermore, recent measurements of the inclusive pion structure function

192: via the semi-inclusive charge-exchange reaction, $e p \to e n X$, at HERA 

193: have yielded some unexpected results at low $x$ \cite{HERA}, and new

194: experiments over a large range of $x$ are being planned at Jefferson Lab

195: at lower $Q^2$ \cite{KRISHNI12}.

196: This paper discusses the possible interelations between these

197: measurements, in the quest for obtaining a consistent, unified

198: description of the structure of the pion in electromagnetic scattering.

199: 

200: 

201: The structure of this paper is as follows.

202: After briefly reviewing in Section~II the definitions and kinematics of

203: inclusive lepton scattering from the pion, in Section~III we begin the

204: discussion by focusing on the special case of elastic scattering.

205: We construct an efficient parameterization of the elastic pion form

206: factor in the space-like region consistent with the $Q^2 \to 0$ and

207: $Q^2 \to \infty$ constraints.

208: An analysis of moments of the pion structure function is presented in

209: Section~IV, including the extraction of higher twists and a discussion

210: of the role of the resonance region.

211: Some of these results appeared in Ref.~\cite{PILET}.

212: In addition, we carefully examine the large $x$ region, which is

213: important for high moments, and compare predictions of several models

214: for the leading and higher twist contributions to the pion structure

215: function as $x \to 1$.

216: The relation of the structure function at $x \sim 1$ with the

217: $Q^2 \to \infty$ dependence of elastic form factors is discussed in

218: Section~V, where we test the hypothesis of local Bloom-Gilman duality

219: between the scaling structure function and the exclusive elastic and

220: $\pi\to\rho$ transition contributions.

221: %

222: Concluding remarks and a survey of future avenues for developments of

223: the issues presented are outlined in Section~VI.

224: 

225: 

226: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

227: \section{Definitions}

228: 

229: Inclusive scattering of an electron, or any charged lepton, from a pion,

230: $e \pi \to e X$, is described by the pion hadronic tensor,

231: %

232: \begin{eqnarray}

233: W_{\mu\nu}^\pi &=&

234: (2\pi)^3 \delta^4(p + q - p_X)

235: \sum_X \langle \pi | J_\mu(0) | X   \rangle

236:        \langle X   | J_\nu(0) | \pi \rangle\ ,

237: \end{eqnarray}

238: %

239: where $p$ and $q$ and the pion and virtual photon four-momenta,

240: respectively, and $p_X$ is the momentum of the hadronic final state with

241: invariant mass squared $W^2 = m_\pi^2 - q^2 + 2 m_\pi \nu$, with $\nu$

242: the energy transfer in the pion rest frame and $m_\pi$ the pion mass.

243: The hadronic tensor can be parameterized in terms of two structure

244: functions,

245: %

246: \begin{eqnarray}

247: W_{\mu\nu}^\pi

248: &=& \left( -g_{\mu\nu} + { q_\mu q_\nu \over q^2 } \right)\

249:     W_1^\pi(\nu,q^2)\

250:  +\ \left( p_\mu - { p \cdot q \over q^2 } q_\mu \right)

251:     \left( p_\nu - { p \cdot q \over q^2 } q_\nu \right)\

252:     { W_2^\pi(\nu,q^2) \over m_\pi^2 }\ ,

253: \end{eqnarray}

254: %

255: where $W_1^\pi$ and $W_2^\pi$ are in general functions of two variables,

256: for instance $\nu$ and $q^2$.

257: In the limit as $\nu \to \infty$ and $Q^2 \equiv -q^2 \to \infty$, with

258: $x = Q^2/2 p\cdot q = Q^2 / (W^2 - m_\pi^2 + Q^2)$ fixed, the functions

259: $W_1^\pi$ and $\nu W_2^\pi$ become scale-invariant functions of $x$,

260: %

261: \begin{subequations}

262: \begin{eqnarray}

263: m_\pi W_1^\pi(\nu,q^2) &\to& F_1^\pi(x)\ ,	\\

264: \nu W_2^\pi(\nu,q^2) &\to& F_2^\pi(x)\ .

265: \end{eqnarray}

266: \end{subequations}%

267: %

268: Furthermore, in this limit these functions satisfy the Callan-Gross

269: relation, $F_2^\pi = 2 x F_1^\pi$ \cite{CG}.

270: Radiative QCD corrections introduce explicit dependence of $F_{1,2}^\pi$

271: on the strong coupling constant, $\alpha_s(Q^2)$.

272: %

273: While only transversely polarized photons contribute to the $F_1^\pi$

274: structure function, $F_1^\pi \propto \sigma_T$, the $F_2^\pi$ structure

275: function receives both transverse and longitudinal contributions,

276: $F_2^\pi \propto \sigma_T + \sigma_L$, where $\sigma_T$ and $\sigma_L$

277: are the transverse and longitudinal photoabsorption cross sections,

278: respectively.

279: 

280: 

281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

282: \section{Pion Form Factor}

283: 

284: The inclusive spectrum begins with the elastic peak at $W=m_\pi$,

285: or equivalently, $x=1$.

286: Because the pion is spinless, elastic scattering from the pion

287: contributes only to the longitudinal cross section, so that the

288: elastic contribution to the $F_1^\pi$ structure function vanishes.

289: The elastic contribution to the $F_2^\pi$ structure function is

290: proportional to the square of the elastic pion form factor, $F_\pi(Q^2)$,

291: %

292: \begin{eqnarray}

293: F_2^{\pi (\rm el)}(x=1,Q^2) &=&

294: 2 m_\pi \nu\ \left( F_\pi(Q^2) \right)^2\ \delta(W^2 - m_\pi^2)

295: \end{eqnarray}

296: %

297: where $F_\pi(Q^2)$ is the elastic pion form factor.

298: %

299: As the most basic observable characterizing the composite nature of the

300: lightest bound state in QCD, the elastic form factor of the pion is of

301: fundamental importance to our understanding of hadronic structure.

302: %

303: In the approximation that the pion wave function is dominated by its

304: lowest $q\bar q$ Fock state, the pion form factor becomes amenable to

305: rigorous QCD analysis.

306: Indeed, it is well known that the asymptotic behavior of the pion

307: form factor is calculable in pQCD \cite{FJPI,LB,DM},

308: %

309: \begin{eqnarray}

310: F_\pi(Q^2) &\to&

311: { 8 \pi \alpha_s(Q^2)\ f_\pi^2 \over Q^2 }

312: % { 32\pi^2 \over 9 } { f_\pi^2 \over Q^2 \log Q^2/\Lambda^2 }\

313: \ \ \ {\rm as}\ \ Q^2 \to \infty\ ,

314: \label{FpipQCD}

315: \end{eqnarray}

316: %

317: where $f_\pi = 132$~MeV is the pion decay constant.

318: %

319: Current data on $F_\pi$, summarized in Fig.~1, indicate that there are

320: large soft contributions still at $Q^2 \alt 2$~GeV$^2$

321: \cite{NESTERENKO,IL}.

322: %

323: The low $Q^2$ data are obtained from scattering % high energy

324: pions off atomic electrons \cite{FF_ATOMIC}, while the higher $Q^2$ data

325: are taken from $^1{\rm H}(e,e'\pi^+)n$ measurements at CEA/Cornell

326: \cite{FF_CORNELL}, DESY \cite{FF_DESY} and JLab \cite{FF_JLAB}.

327: %

328: For comparison, the leading order pQCD prediction from Eq.~(\ref{FpipQCD})

329: is shown in Fig.~1.

330: Although the region of applicability of the pQCD result is

331: {\em a priori} unknown, the pion represents the best hope of observing the

332: onset of asymptotic behavior experimentally (the corresponding pQCD

333: calculation of the nucleon form factors significantly underestimates the

334: data at the same $Q^2$).

335: 

336: 

337: \begin{figure}[t]	% FIG 1

338: \begin{center}

339: \epsfysize=9cm

340: \leavevmode

341: \epsfbox{pi1.eps}

342: \vspace*{0.5cm}

343: \caption{Pion form factor as a function of $Q^2$.

344: 	Shown are the best fits (solid) using Eq.~(\protect\ref{Fpifit}),

345: 	a monopole fit (dashed) with a cut-off mass of 0.74~GeV, and the

346: 	asymptotic prediction from pQCD (dotted).}

347: \end{center}

348: \end{figure}

349: 

350: %

351: There have been a number of calculations of the elastic pion form

352: factor at low $Q^2$, for instance using the QCD sum rule approach

353: \cite{SMILGA}.

354: Rather than rely on any specific model, however, in this analysis we use

355: empirical data to calculate the elastic contribution to the pion structure

356: function.

357: %

358: %

359: For convenience, and for later use in Sections~IV and V, we present a

360: simple parameterization of the pion elastic form factor

361: %

362: data in the space-like region,

363: %

364: which is valid over the entire range of $Q^2$ currently accessible, and

365: smoothly interpolates between the pQCD and photoproduction limits.

366: For the latter, the pion form factor at low $Q^2$ can be well described

367: in the vector meson dominance hypothesis, in which

368: $F_\pi(Q^2) \sim 1/(1 + Q^2/m_\rho^2)$.

369: A best fit to the low $Q^2$ data using the simple monopole form is shown

370: in Fig.~1 (dashed), with a cut-off mass $\approx 0.74$~GeV.

371: The monopole fit is not compatible, however, with the behavior at high

372: $Q^2$ expected from pQCD.

373: %

374: Building in the $Q^2 \to 0$ and $Q^2 \to \infty$ constraints,

375: Eq.~(\ref{FpipQCD}), the available form factor data can be fitted by the

376: form

377: %

378: \begin{eqnarray}

379: F_\pi(Q^2) &=&

380: { 1 \over 1 + Q^2/m_\rho^2 }

381: \left( { 1 + c_1 Z + c_2 Z^2 \over 1 + c_3 Z + c_4 Z^2 + c_5 Z^3 }

382: \right)\ ,

383: \label{Fpifit}

384: \end{eqnarray}

385: %

386: where $Z = \log(1+Q^2/\Lambda^2)$, and $\Lambda$ is the QCD scale

387: parameter.

388: The form (\ref{Fpifit}) is similar to that proposed in Ref.~\cite{WIN}

389: within a dispersion relation analysis, however, the form there uses 2

390: additional parameters, and takes a rather large value of

391: $\Lambda \sim 1$~GeV.

392: %

393: Note that the parameterization (\ref{Fpifit}) is valid only in the

394: space-like region; for a recent discussion of the properties of

395: $F_\pi(Q^2)$ in the time-like region see Ref.~\cite{GESHK}.

396: 

397: 

398: \begin{table}

399:  \begin{center}

400: \begin{tabular}{|l|cccc|}		\hline\hline

401:                 &  $c_1$   &  $c_2$ &  $c_3$   &  $c_4$

402: 					\\ \hline

403: \ \ fit I \ \	&$-0.201$  &  0.020 &$-0.030$  &$-0.093\ \ $

404: 					\\

405: \ \ fit II\ \	&\ \ 0.100 &  0.060 &    0.538 &$-0.249\ \ $

406: 					\\ \hline\hline

407: \end{tabular}

408: \vspace*{0.5cm}

409: \caption{Fit parameters for the pion form factor in

410: 	Eq.~(\protect\ref{Fpifit}), as discussed in the text.}

411:  \end{center}

412: \end{table}

413: 

414: 

415: The best fit parameters $c_{1 \cdots 4}$ which give the minimum $\chi^2$

416: are given in Table~I.

417: The parameter $c_5$ is constrained by the pQCD asymptotic limit,

418: $c_5 = m_\rho^2 (\beta_0/32\pi^2 f_\pi^2) c_2$, where

419: $\beta_0 = 11 - 2 N_f/3$ (= 9 for the 3-flavor case) \cite{DONOGHUE}.

420: For the QCD scale parameter we take $\Lambda = 0.25$~GeV.

421: %

422: For completeness, we offer two parameterizations, which approach the

423: pQCD limit (\ref{FpipQCD}) differently: in fit~I the form factor becomes

424: dominated by hard scattering at $Q^2 \sim 100$~GeV$^2$, consistent with

425: semi-phenomenological expectations \cite{IL}, while in fit~II around half

426: of the strength of the form factor at this scale still comes from soft

427: contributions.

428: %

429: These are indicated by the solid lines in Fig.~1.

430: Better quality data are needed to constrain $F_\pi(Q^2)$ at higher $Q^2$

431: ($\agt 2$~GeV$^2$).

432: %

433: To this end, there are plans to measure the pion form factor at an

434: energy-upgraded Jefferson Lab to $Q^2 \approx 6$~GeV$^2$ \cite{WHITE}.

435: %

436: % The transition from strongly coupled QCD to that in which the pion is

437: % dominated by its short-distance structure will be probed at Jefferson

438: % Lab with an upgraded 12~GeV electron beam, which will accurately

439: % measure $F_\pi$ to $Q^2 \approx 6$~GeV$^2$ \cite{WHITE}.

440: 

441: 

442: % \newpage

443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

444: \section{Pion Structure Function}

445: 

446: Going from elastic pion scattering ($W=m_\pi$) to the more general case

447: of inelastic scattering ($W > m_\pi$), in this section we analyze the

448: pion structure function, $F_2^\pi$, in terms of an OPE of its moments in

449: QCD, and obtain an estimate for the size of higher twists corrections to

450: the scaling contribution.

451: Following this we discuss the role of higher twists in the pion structure

452: function at large $x$, and compare several models for the $x \to 1$

453: behavior of $F_2^\pi$ with data from Drell-Yan experiments.

454: 

455: 

456: % ......................................................................

457: \subsection{Moments}

458: 

459: From the operator product expansion in QCD, moments of the pion

460: $F_2^\pi$ structure function, defined as

461: %

462: \begin{eqnarray}

463: M_n(Q^2) &=& \int_0^1 dx\ x^{n-2}\ F_2^\pi(x,Q^2)\ ,

464: \label{MnDEF}

465: \end{eqnarray}

466: %

467: can be expanded perturbatively at large $Q^2$ as a power series in

468: $1/Q^2$, with coefficients given by matrix elements of local operators

469: of a given twist (defined as the mass dimension minus the spin of the

470: operator),

471: %

472: \begin{eqnarray}

473: M_n(Q^2) &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty {\cal A}_k^n(\alpha_s(Q^2))

474: 	\left( { 1 \over Q^2 } \right)^k\ .

475: \label{MnOPE}

476: \end{eqnarray}

477: %

478: Here the leading twist (twist 2) term ${\cal A}_0^n$ corresponds to free

479: quark scattering, and modulo perturbative $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ corrections

480: is responsible for the scaling of the structure functions.

481: The higher twist contributions ${\cal A}_{k>0}^n$ represent matrix

482: elements of operators involving both quark and gluon fields, and are

483: suppressed by additional powers of $1/Q^2$.

484: The higher twist terms reflect the strength of nonperturbative QCD

485: effects, such as multi-parton correlations, which are associated with

486: confinement.

487: 

488: 

489: Note that the definition of $M_n(Q^2)$ includes the elastic contribution

490: at $x = Q^2 / (W^2 - m_\pi^2 + Q^2) = 1$, where $W$ is the mass of the

491: hadronic final state.

492: Although negligible at high $Q^2$, the elastic contribution has been

493: found to be important numerically at intermediate $Q^2$ for moments of

494: the nucleon structure function \cite{JF2}.

495: In the definition (\ref{MnDEF}) we use the Cornwall-Norton moments rather

496: than the Nachtmann moments, which are expressed in terms of the Nachtmann

497: scaling variable, $\xi = 2x/(1 + \sqrt{1+4x^2 m_\pi^2/Q^2})$, that

498: includes effects of the target mass.

499: The use of the Cornwall-Norton moments was advocated in Ref.~\cite{JF2}

500: on the grounds that it avoids the unphysical region $\xi > \xi(x=1)$.

501: Because of the small value of $m_\pi$, the difference between the

502: variables $x$ and $\xi$, and therefore between the $x$- and

503: $\xi$-moments, is negligible for the pion.

504: 

505: 

506: The seminal analysis of De~R\'ujula {\em et al.} \cite{RUJ} (see also

507: Ref.~\cite{JF2}) demonstrated that the onset of quark-hadron duality

508: is governed directly by the size of the higher twist matrix elements.

509: In particular, duality implies the existence of a region in the

510: ($n$, $Q^2$) space in which the moments of the structure function are

511: dominated by low mass resonances, and where the higher twist

512: contributions are neither dominant nor negligible.

513: For the case of the proton $F_2$ structure function, even though there

514: are large contributions from the resonance region, conventionally

515: defined as $W \alt 2$~GeV, to the $n=2$ moment ($\sim 70\%$ at

516: $Q^2=1$~GeV$^2$), the higher twists contribute only around 10-20\% to

517: the cross section at the same $Q^2$ \cite{JF2}.

518: The question we wish to address here is whether there exists an

519: analogous region for the pion, where the resonance contributions are

520: important, but higher twist effects are small enough for duality to be

521: observed.

522: 

523: 

524: Of course, the distinction between the resonance region and the deep

525: inelastic continuum is in practice somewhat arbitrary.

526: In the large $N_c$ limit of QCD, for instance, the final state in DIS

527: from the pion is populated by infinitely narrow resonances even in

528: the Bjorken limit, while the structure function calculated at the quark

529: level produces a smooth, scaling function \cite{IJMV}.

530: %

531: Empirically, the spectrum of the excited states of the pion is

532: expected to be rather smooth sufficiently above the $\rho$ mass,

533: for $W \agt 1$~GeV.

534: Resonance excitation of heavier mesons are not expected to be easily

535: discernible from the DIS continuum --- the $a_1$ meson, for instance,

536: at a mass $W \sim 1.3$~GeV, has a rather broad width

537: ($\sim 350-500$~MeV) \cite{PDG}.

538: 

539: 

540: Moments of the pion structure function can also be calculated directly

541: via lattice QCD, and first simulations of the leading as well as some

542: specific higher twist contributions have been performed \cite{LATPI}.

543: Although the detailed $x$ dependence, especially at large $x$ (see next

544: section) requires knowledge of high moments \cite{XDEP}, considerable

545: information on the shape of the valence distribution can already be

546: extracted from just the lowest 3 or 4 moments \cite{XPI}.

547: Calculations of a further 2 or 3 moments may be sufficient to allow both

548: the valence and sea distributions to be extracted as a function of $x$.

549: 

550: 

551: Measurements of the pion structure function have been made using the

552: Drell-Yan process \cite{BNLDY,FNALDY,NA3,NA10,E615} in $\pi N$

553: scattering, covering a large range of $x$, $0.2 \alt x \alt 1$,

554: and for $Q^2$ typically $\agt 20$~GeV$^2$.

555: %

556: It has also been extracted from the semi-inclusive DIS data at HERA for

557: very low $x$ and high $W$ \cite{HERA} (see also Ref.~\cite{PIONPOLE}).

558: %

559: However, there are no data on $F_2^\pi$ at low $W$, in the region

560: where mesonic resonances would dominate the cross section.

561: The spectrum could in principle be reconstructed by observing low $t$

562: neutrons produced in the semi-inclusive charge-exchange reaction,

563: $e p \to e n X$, where $t$ is the momentum transfer squared between

564: the proton and neutron, and extrapolating to the pion pole to ensure

565: $\pi$ exchange dominance.

566: In the meantime, to obtain a quantitative estimate of the importance of

567: the resonance region, we model the pion spectrum at low $W$ in terms of

568: the elastic and $\rho$ pole contributions, on top of the DIS continuum

569: evolved down from the higher $Q^2$ region, as outlined in

570: Ref.~\cite{PILET}.

571: %

572: The leading twist structure function can be reconstructed from

573: parameterizations \cite{GRVPI,SMRSPI,GRSPI} of quark distributions in

574: the pion obtained from global analyses of the pion Drell-Yan data.

575: Unless otherwise stated, in this work we use the low $Q^2$ fit from

576: Ref.~\cite{GRVPI}, which gives the leading twist parton distributions

577: in the pion for $Q^2 > 0.25$~GeV$^2$

578: (our conclusions are not sensitive to the use of other parameterizations

579: \cite{SMRSPI,GRSPI}).

580: %

581: For the elastic contribution we use the parameterization in

582: Eq.~(\ref{Fpifit}) [fit~I].

583: 

584: 

585: The contribution of the $\rho$ meson is described by the $\pi\to\rho$

586: transition form factor, $F_{\pi\rho}(Q^2)$, which is normalized such

587: that $F_{\pi\rho}(0)=1$, and is expected to fall as $1/Q^4$ at large

588: $Q^2$ (compared with $1/Q^2$ for $F_\pi(Q^2)$).

589: Since there is no empirical information on $F_{\pi\rho}(Q^2)$, we

590: consider several models in the literature, based on a relativistic

591: Bethe-Salpeter vertex function \cite{ITOGROSS}, a covariant

592: Dyson-Schwinger approach \cite{MARIS}, and light-cone QCD sum rules

593: \cite{KHODJ}.

594: %

595: These represent a sizable range ($\sim 100\%$) in the magnitude of

596: $F_{\pi\rho}(Q^2)$ over the region of $Q^2$ covered in this analysis,

597: with the calculation of Ref.~\cite{KHODJ} giving a somewhat smaller

598: result than those in Refs.~\cite{ITOGROSS,MARIS}.

599: %

600: The spread in these predictions can be viewed as an indicator of the

601: uncertainty in this contribution.

602: The $\pi\to\rho$ transition form factor can be extracted, for instance,

603: from $\rho$ electroproduction data off the proton, $e p \to e p \rho^0$

604: \cite{KOSSOV,BURKERT}, by reconstructing the decay of the $\rho^0$ into

605: two pions.

606: It also forms an important input into the calculation of meson-exchange

607: current contributions to deuteron form factors at large $Q^2$

608: \cite{DEUTFF}.

609: 

610: 

611: \begin{figure}[t]	% FIG 2

612: \begin{center}

613: \epsfig{figure=pi2.eps,height=9cm}

614: \vspace*{0.5cm}

615: \caption{Contributions to moments of the pion structure function from

616: 	the resonance region, $W < W_{\rm res} = 1$~GeV, relative to the

617: 	total \protect\cite{PILET}.}

618: \end{center}

619: \end{figure}

620: 

621: 

622: The contributions from the ``resonance region'',

623: $W < W_{\rm res} \equiv 1$~GeV, to the moments of the pion structure

624: function,

625: %

626: \begin{eqnarray}

627: M_n^{\rm res}(Q^2) &=& \int_{x_{\rm res}}^1 dx\ x^{n-2} F_2^\pi(x,Q^2)\ ,

628: \label{MnRES}

629: \end{eqnarray}

630: %

631: are plotted in Fig.~2 as a ratio to the total moment,

632: for $n = 2, \cdots, 10$.

633: The integration in $M_n^{\rm res}(Q^2)$ is from

634: $x_{\rm res} = Q^2/(W_{\rm res}^2 - m_\pi^2 + Q^2)$

635: to the elastic point, $x=1$.

636: %

637: The low $W$ region contributes as much as 50\% at $Q^2 = 2$~GeV$^2$

638: to the total $n=2$ moment, decreasing to $\alt 1\%$ for

639: $Q^2 \agt 10$~GeV$^2$ \cite{PILET}.

640: Higher moments are more sensitive to the large $x$ region, and

641: subsequently receive larger contributions from low $W$.

642: The $n=10$ moment, for example, is almost completely saturated by the

643: resonance region at $Q^2 = 2$~GeV$^2$, and even at $Q^2 = 10$~GeV$^2$

644: still receives some 40\% of its strength from $W < 1$~GeV even at

645: $Q^2 = 10$~GeV$^2$.

646: 

647: 

648: \begin{figure}[t]	% FIG 3

649: \begin{center}

650: \epsfig{figure=pi3.eps,height=9cm}

651: \vspace*{0.5cm}

652: \caption{Lowest ($n=2$) moment of the pion structure function.

653: 	The leading twist (solid) and elastic (dashed)

654: 	contributions are shown, and the shaded region represents

655: 	the total moment using different models for the $\pi\to\rho$

656: 	transition \protect\cite{PILET}.}

657: \end{center}

658: \end{figure}

659: 

660: 

661: The relatively large magnitude of the resonance contributions suggests

662: that higher twist effects play a more important role in the moments of

663: the pion structure function than for the case of the nucleon.

664: In Fig.~3 the lowest ($n=2$) moment of $F_2^\pi$ is displayed, together

665: with its various contributions.

666: The leading twist component,

667: %

668: \begin{eqnarray}

669: M_n^{\rm LT}(Q^2) &=& \int_0^1 dx\ x^{n-2} F_{2, {\rm LT}}^\pi(x,Q^2)\ ,

670: \label{MnLT}

671: \end{eqnarray}

672: %

673: is expressed (at leading order in $\alpha_s(Q^2)$) in terms of the

674: twist-2 quark distributions in the pion,

675: %

676: \begin{eqnarray}

677: F_{2, {\rm LT}}^\pi(x,Q^2) &=& \sum_q e_q^2\ x q^\pi(x,Q^2)\ ,

678: \label{F2piLT}

679: \end{eqnarray}

680: %

681: where the valence part of $q^\pi$ is normalized such that

682: $\int dx\ q^\pi_{\rm val}(x,Q^2) = 1$.

683: %

684: The leading twist contribution is dominant at $Q^2 > 5$~GeV$^2$, while

685: the deviation of the total moment from the leading twist at lower $Q^2$

686: indicates the increasingly important role played by higher twists there.

687: While negligible beyond $Q^2 \approx 4$~GeV$^2$, the elastic

688: contribution is as large as the leading twist already at

689: $Q^2 \approx 1$~GeV$^2$.

690: The $\pi\to\rho$ contribution is more uncertain, and the band in Fig.~3

691: represents the total moment calculated using different models

692: \cite{ITOGROSS,MARIS,KHODJ} of $F_{\pi\rho}(Q^2)$.

693: %

694: However, while the current uncertainty in this contribution is

695: conservatively taken to be $\sim 100\%$, doubling this would lead to a

696: modest increase of the band in Fig.~3.

697: %

698: % The overall uncertainty on the moment may be larger, given the

699: % approximation made for the low $W$ spectrum, although at present this

700: % is difficult to quantify.

701: %

702: Uncertainty from poor knowledge of the leading twist distributions at

703: small $x$ \cite{GRVPI,SMRSPI,GRSPI} is not expected to be large.

704: 

705: 

706: \begin{figure}[t]	% FIG 4

707: \begin{center}

708: \epsfig{figure=pi4.eps,height=9cm}

709: \vspace*{0.5cm}

710: \caption{Higher twist contribution to the $n=2$ moment of the pion

711: 	structure function, as a ratio to the total moment.

712: 	The band indicates the uncertainty due to the model dependence

713: 	of the $\pi\to\rho$ transition form factor \protect\cite{PILET}.}

714: \end{center}

715: \end{figure}

716: 

717: 

718: To extract the higher twist part of the moments, one needs to subtract

719: the leading twist contribution in Eq.~(\ref{MnLT}) from the total moments

720: $M_n(Q^2)$,

721: %

722: \begin{eqnarray}

723: M_n^{\rm HT}(Q^2)

724: &=& M_n(Q^2) - M_n^{\rm LT}(Q^2) - M_n^{\rm TM}(Q^2)\ ,

725: \end{eqnarray}

726: %

727: where $M_n^{\rm TM}(Q^2)$ arises from target mass corrections.

728: Because the target mass correction, which is formally of leading twist,

729: is proportional to $m_\pi^2/Q^2$, its contribution will only be felt

730: when $Q^2 \sim m_\pi^2$, which is far from the region where the twist

731: expansion is expected to be valid.

732: %

733: In principle nonperturbative effects can mix higher twist with higher

734: order effects in $\alpha_s$, rendering the formal separation of the two

735: problematic \cite{MUELLERHT,RENORMALON,NNNLO,ALEKHIN}.

736: Indeed, the perturbative expansion itself may not even be convergent.

737: However, by restricting the kinematics to the region of $Q^2$ in which

738: the $1/Q^2$ term is significantly larger than the next order correction

739: in $\alpha_s$, the ambiguity in defining the higher

740: twist terms can be neglected \cite{JF2}.

741: %

742: In Fig.~4 the higher twist contribution to the $n=2$ moment is displayed

743: as a function of $Q^2$.

744: The band again represents an estimate of the uncertainty in the

745: $\pi\to\rho$ transition form factor, as in Fig.~3.

746: At $Q^2 = 1$~GeV$^2$ the higher twist contribution is as large as the

747: leading twist, decreasing to $\sim 1/3$ at $Q^2 = 2$~GeV$^2$, and

748: vanishes rapidly for $Q^2 \agt 5$~GeV$^2$.

749: 

750: 

751: As observed in Ref.~\cite{PILET}, the size of the higher twist

752: contribution at $Q^2 \sim 1$~GeV$^2$ appears larger than that found in

753: similar analyses of the proton $F_2$ \cite{JF2} and $g_1$ \cite{JG1}

754: structure functions.

755: %

756: This can be qualitatively understood in terms of the intrinsic

757: transverse momentum of quarks in the hadron, $\langle k_T^2 \rangle$,

758: which typically sets the scale of the higher twist effects.

759: %

760: % HIGHER TWIST EFFECTS (Q-Q, Q-G INT'S) => NONZERO kT

761: %

762: Since the transverse momentum is roughly given by the inverse size of the

763: hadron, $\langle k_T^2 \rangle \sim 1/R^2$, the smaller confinement radius

764: % spatial extent

765: of the pion means that the average $\langle k_T^2 \rangle$ of quarks in 

766: the pion will be larger than that in the nucleon.

767: Therefore the magnitude of higher twists in $F_2^\pi$ is expected to be

768: somewhat larger (${\cal O}(50\%)$) than in $F_2^p$.

769: %

770: The E615 Collaboration indeed finds the value

771: $\langle k_T^2 \rangle = 0.8 \pm 0.3$~GeV$^2$,

772: within the higher twist model of Ref.~\cite{BB}.

773: % consistent with the qualitative estimate above.

774: %

775: The experimental value is obtained by analyzing the $x \to 1$ dependence

776: of the measured $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs produced in $\pi N$ collisions, and

777: the angular distribution at large $x$.

778: We discuss this in more detail below.

779: 

780: 

781: % ......................................................................

782: \subsection{$x \to 1$ Behavior}

783: 

784: The $x \to 1$ behavior of structure functions is important for several

785: reasons.

786: As discussed in the previous section, higher moments of $F_2^\pi$ receive

787: increasingly large contributions from the large-$x$ region, so that a

788: reliable extraction of higher twists from data requires an accurate

789: determination of quark distributions at $x \sim 1$.

790: In addition, since the $x \sim 1$ region is dominated by the lowest

791: $q\bar q$ Fock state component of the pion light-cone wave function, in

792: which the interacting quark carries most of the momentum of the pion,

793: the behavior of the structure function at $x \to 1$ is expected to be

794: correlated with that of the elastic form factor at $Q^2 \to \infty$.

795: In this section we review various predictions for $F_2^\pi$ in the

796: limit as $x \to 1$, and relate these to the effects of higher twists

797: discussed in the previous section on the $x \to 1$ behavior of the

798: structure function.

799: % This discussion will then naturally lead to the local duality analysis

800: % in Section~V.

801: 

802: 

803: Working within a field theoretic parton model framework which predates

804: QCD, Drell and Yan \cite{DY} and West \cite{WEST} showed that if the

805: asymptotic behavior of the form factor is $(1/Q^2)^n$, then the structure

806: function should behave as $(1-x)^{2n-1}$ as $x \to 1$.

807: This is referred to as the Drell-Yan-West (DYW) relation.

808: %

809: Simple application to the case of the pion, in which the elastic form

810: factor behaves as $1/Q^2$ at large $Q^2$, leads to the prediction

811: %

812: \begin{eqnarray}

813: % F_2^\pi(x\to 1) &\sim& (1-x)\ ,\ \ \ \ \ {\rm [DYW]}\ .

814: F_2^\pi(x\to 1) &\sim& (1-x)\ .

815: \end{eqnarray}

816: %

817: This behavior is also predicted in the model of Ref.~\cite{GBB}.

818: 

819: 

820: A dynamical basis for the exclusive--inclusive relation was provided

821: with the advent of QCD.

822: By observing that the interacting quark at large $x$ is far off its mass

823: shell, Farrar and Jackson \cite{FJ} derived the $x \to 1$ behavior of the

824: structure function at $x \to 1$ by considering perturbative one gluon

825: exchange between the $q$ and $\bar q$ constituents in the lowest Fock

826: state component of the pion wave function.

827: They found a characteristic $\sim (1-x)^2$ dependence for the transverse

828: part of $F_2^\pi$, in apparent contradiction with the naive DYW relation

829: (the breakdown of the DYW relation for spinless hadrons was discussed

830: earlier by Landshoff and Polkinghorne \cite{LANDSHOFF}).

831: The longitudinal cross section was found to scale like $1/Q^2$ relative

832: to the transverse \cite{FJ}.

833: Using so-called `softened' field theory \cite{BRODFAR}, in which the

834: pion-quark vertex function is described by a Bethe-Salpeter type

835: equation, Ezawa \cite{EZAWA} found a similar $(1-x)^2$ behavior.

836: 

837: 

838: Gunion {\em et al.} \cite{GUNION} later generalized the gluon exchange

839: description to include subleading $1/Q^2$ corrections for both the

840: $F_2^\pi$ and longitudinal $F_L^\pi$ structure functions at $x \to 1$,

841: %

842: \begin{eqnarray}

843: F_2^\pi(x) &\sim&

844: S_2 (1-x)^2 + { T_2 \over Q^2}\ ,	\\

845: \label{F2PRED}

846: %

847: F_L^\pi(x) &\sim& { S_L \over Q^2 }\ ,

848: \label{FLPRED}

849: \end{eqnarray}

850: %

851: where the constants $S_2$, $T_2$ and $S_L$ are determined

852: phenomenologically.

853: %

854: More generally, according to the pQCD `counting rules' \cite{LB}, the

855: leading components for any hadron with $n$ spectator (non-interacting)

856: partons were found \cite{GUNION} to behave as

857: $(1-x)^{2n - 1 + 2|\Delta S_z|}$ in the $x \to 1$ limit,

858: where $\Delta S_z$ is the difference between the helicities of the

859: hadron and the interacting quark.

860: %

861: % \begin{eqnarray}

862: % F_2^h(x) &\sim& (1-x)^{2n - 1 + 2|\Delta S_z|}\ ,

863: % F_L^h(x) &\sim& (1-x)^{2n - 2 + 2 S_z^h}\ ,\

864: % \end{eqnarray}

865: % and $S_z^h$ is the helicity of the hadron.

866: %

867: More recently, other nonperturbative models have been used to calculate

868: the pion structure function \cite{PIONMODELS}, however, because of

869: difficulties associated with incorporating high momentum components of

870: the wave function, these may not be reliable in the $x \sim 1$ region.

871: 

872: 

873: \begin{figure}[t]	% FIG 5

874: \begin{center}

875: \epsfig{figure=pi5.eps,height=9cm}

876: \vspace*{0.5cm}

877: \caption{Valence quark distribution in the pion extracted from the FNAL

878: 	E615 Drell-Yan experiment \protect\cite{E615}, fitted with

879: 	leading twist (dashed) and leading + higher twist (solid)

880: 	contributions, as in Eq.~(\protect\ref{e615fit}).

881: 	The functional forms $(1-x)$ and $(1-x)^2$ (dotted) are shown

882: 	for comparison.}

883: \end{center}

884: \end{figure}

885: 

886: 

887: The predicted $x \to 1$ behavior of the pion structure function can be

888: tested by comparing with Drell-Yan data.

889: The $x$ dependence of the pion quark distributions has been measured in

890: Drell-Yan $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair production in $\pi N$ collisions (in practice,

891: $\pi A$) at BNL \cite{BNLDY}, CERN \cite{NA3,NA10} and at Fermilab

892: \cite{FNALDY,E615}.

893: The data for $q^\pi(x) \equiv u^{\pi^+}(x) = \bar d^{\pi^+}(x)$ from the

894: most recent Fermilab experiment \cite{E615} are shown in Fig.~5 for

895: $4.05 < m_{\mu\mu} < 8.55$~GeV, where $m_{\mu\mu}$ is the invariant mass

896: of the $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair.

897: The scale dependence within this region was found to be small \cite{E615}.

898: %

899: The data were fitted using the form

900: %

901: \begin{eqnarray}

902: q^\pi(x,Q^2) &=&

903: N x^a (1-x)^b + \gamma\ { 2\ x^2 \over 9\ Q^2 }\ ,

904: \label{e615fit}

905: \end{eqnarray}

906: %

907: where $N$ is a constant, fixed by normalization, and the scale $Q^2$

908: is identified with the the dimuon mass squared, $m_{\mu\mu}^2$.

909: The form (\ref{e615fit}) parameterizes both leading and higher twist

910: effects.

911: Including corrections from $Q^2$ evolution, the best fit value for the

912: exponent governing the $x \to 1$ behavior was found to be

913: $b \approx 1.21$--1.30 \cite{E615}, consistent with the findings of

914: the earlier CERN experiments \cite{NA3,NA10}.

915: The result of the leading twist E615 fit with $b=1.27$ is shown in

916: Fig.~5 (dashed).

917: The forms $(1-x)$ \cite{DY,WEST,GBB} and $(1-x)^2$

918: \cite{EZAWA,LB,FJ,GUNION,MUELLERX1} are also shown for comparison at

919: large $x$ (dotted).

920: The data clearly favor a shape closer to $(1-x)$, rather than the

921: $(1-x)^2$ shape implied by the counting rules \cite{LB}.

922: 

923: 

924: It has been suggested \cite{BB} that higher twist effects in the pion

925: structure function could obscure the true leading twist behavior.

926: The higher twist coefficient $T_2$ was calculated in a pQCD-inspired

927: model by Berger and Brodsky \cite{BB} in terms of the intrinsic quark

928: momentum in the pion,

929: %

930: \begin{eqnarray}

931: T_2 &=& { 2 \over 9 } { \langle k_T^2 \rangle \over Q^2 }\ .

932: \end{eqnarray}

933: %

934: Since it is independent of $x$, it can be argued \cite{BB} that the

935: higher twist contribution may in fact dominate the scaling term at

936: fixed $Q^2 (1-x)$ as $Q^2 \to \infty$, and mimic the observed $(1-x)$

937: dependence if $\langle k_T^2 \rangle \approx 1$~GeV$^2$.

938: %

939: Conway {\em et al.} \cite{E615} subsequently performed an analysis of

940: the E615 data by fitting also the term $\gamma$ in Eq.~(\ref{e615fit}).

941: The extracted value of $b$ was found to be largely independent of

942: the value of $\gamma$ chosen.

943: To investigate whether the quadratic term may be masked by an additional

944: component not included in the model \cite{BB}, Conway {\em et al.}

945: searched for a nonzero intercept of $F_2^\pi$ at $x=1$.

946: The fit with $\gamma = 0.83$~GeV$^2$ was found to be only marginally

947: better than that with $\gamma=0$ (the significance being 2.5 standard

948: deviations), although the fit at $x \sim 1$ was also sensitive to the

949: input nucleon sea distributions in the analysis of the Drell-Yan data.

950: % (since $x_\pi x_N \propto m_{\mu\mu}^2$).

951: The leading + higher twist fit with $\gamma = 0.83$~GeV$^2$ is shown in

952: Fig.~5 (solid curve).

953: The effect on the overall fit is indeed quite marginal, although at very

954: large $x$ ($\agt 0.9$) the differences between this and the pure leading

955: twist fit are more apparent.

956: 

957: 

958: Mueller \cite{MUELLERX1} has pointed out that Sudakov effects, which

959: introduce terms like $\alpha_s(Q^2) \ln^2(1/(1-x))$ into the $x \to 1$

960: analysis, may invalidate the usual renormalization group analysis of

961: DIS at large $x$.

962: Including power and double logarithmic corrections, one finds that the

963: $x \to 1$ behavior of $F_2^\pi$ in this case becomes \cite{MUELLERX1}

964: %

965: \begin{eqnarray}

966: F_2^\pi &\sim& (1-x)^2

967: \exp\left\{ -{ 4 C_F \over \beta_0 }

968: 	    \left[ \ln{1\over 1-x} \ln\ln Q^2

969: 		 - { \ln^2(1/(1-x)) \over 2 \ln Q^2 }

970: 		 - \ln{1\over 1-x} \ln\ln{1\over 1-x}

971: 	    \right]

972:      \right\}\ .	\nonumber\\

973: & &

974: \label{Mueller}

975: \end{eqnarray}

976: %

977: When $\ln(1/(1-x)) = {\cal O}(\ln Q^2/\ln\ln Q^2)$ higher twist terms

978: compete with the leading twist, and the dominant contribution is then

979: from the longitudinal structure function, which behaves as

980: $F_L^\pi \sim (1/Q^2) \ln(Q^2(1-x))$.

981: Taking this criterion literally, for $Q^2 \sim 1$~GeV$^2$ this would

982: occur at $x \sim 0.93$, while for $Q^2 \sim 100$~GeV$^2$ the higher

983: twists would be expected to dominate at $x \agt 0.97$.

984: A cautionary note regarding Eq.~(\ref{Mueller}), however, is that single

985: logarithmic effects have not been included in the analysis, and their

986: effects on Eq.~(\ref{Mueller}) are unclear.

987: Further discussion of these effects can be found in

988: Refs.~\cite{MUELLERHT,MUELLERX1}.

989: %

990: Carlson and Mukhopadhyay \cite{CMQ2} have also studied the effects of

991: radiative corrections on the $x \to 1$ behavior of the structure

992: function, and the appearance of higher twists in the low-$W$ region.

993: In particular, the scale dependence of the $(1-x)$ exponent was found

994: to be $(1-x)^{b + c \ln\ln Q^2}$, with $c$ calculable perturbatively.

995: The $Q^2$ dependence of the pion structure function at $x \sim 1$

996: clearly deserves further study.

997: 

998: 

999: A cleaner signature of high twist effects at large $x$ comes from the

1000: angular distribution of dimuon pairs produced in Drell-Yan collisions.

1001: The angular dependence of the Drell-Yan cross section is given by

1002: \cite{LAMTUNG} (see also Ref.~\cite{BRAND})

1003: %

1004: \begin{eqnarray}

1005: { d\sigma \over d\Omega }

1006: &\propto& 1 + \lambda \cos^2\theta + \mu \sin 2\theta \cos\phi

1007: 	+ {\nu \over 2} \sin^2\theta \cos 2\phi\ ,

1008: \end{eqnarray}

1009: %

1010: where the angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ are defined in the $\mu^+\mu^-$

1011: rest system, % with respect to the Gordon-Jackson frame.

1012: and $\lambda$, $\mu$ and $\nu$ are functions of the kinematic variables.

1013: % $x$, $Q^2$ and $p_T$

1014: %

1015: In the model of Ref.~\cite{BB}, the leading twist $(1-x)^2$ term is

1016: associated with a $(1+\cos^2\theta)$ dependence, while the higher twist

1017: $\langle k_T^2 \rangle / Q^2$ term has a characteristic $\sin^2\theta$

1018: dependence.

1019: In particular, the transverse cross section corresponds to $\lambda=1$,

1020: while deviation from a pure $(1+\cos^2\theta)$ dependence would indicate

1021: the presence of longitudinal or higher twist contributions.

1022: The data \cite{E615} are consistent with $\lambda=1$ for $x \alt 0.6$,

1023: while the larger-$x$ data show clear deviations from pure transverse

1024: scattering, suggesting the presence of higher twist contributions at

1025: these $x$ values.

1026: With the fitted value of $\beta$ ($\approx 1.2$--1.3), the measured $x$

1027: dependence of $\lambda$ could be accommodated with

1028: $\langle k_T^2 \rangle \approx 0.8$~GeV$^2$.

1029: %

1030: Using the value $\beta=2$ predicted by the pQCD counting rules, the

1031: observed $\lambda$ values could be made to fit the data by requiring

1032: that $\langle k_T^2 \rangle \sim 0.1$~GeV$^2$.

1033: However, in addition to being much smaller than the value

1034: $\langle k_T^2 \rangle \sim 1$~GeV$^2$ suggested in Ref.~\cite{BB},

1035: this scenario is disfavored by a direct comparison with the $x$

1036: dependence of $q^\pi(x)$, as discussed above.

1037: 

1038: 

1039: % The values of $\langle k_T^2 \rangle$ found in Ref.~\cite{E615} are

1040: % somewhat larger than those found in the earlier analysis of Gunion

1041: % {\em et al.} \cite{GUNION}, where $\langle k_T \rangle \sim

1042: % 100$--200~MeV.

1043: % In Ref.~\cite{GUNION} the coefficients in Eq.~(\ref{F2PRED}), as well

1044: % as the value of the average intrinsic transverse momentum of the quarks

1045: % in the pion, were extracted from $\pi N$ Drell-Yan $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair

1046: % production data taken by the NA3 Collaboration at CERN \cite{NA3},

1047: % assuming the leading twist data could be fitted by a $(1-x)^2$ form.

1048: % The resulting coefficients were expressed in terms of the parameter

1049: % $m^2/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$, with $m=100$~MeV determined from the

1050: % normalization of $S_2^\pi$ to the data.

1051: % However, the value of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} = 0.1$~GeV used in this

1052: % analysis is somewhat low compared with the more recent determinations

1053: % \cite{PDG}.

1054: % Furthermore, the values of the intrinsic quark transverse momentum for

1055: % the proton are also found to be smaller,

1056: % $\langle k_T \rangle_p \sim 150$--200~MeV, than the phenomenological

1057: % values usually quoted.

1058: 

1059: 

1060: While the values of the quark intrinsic transverse momentum extracted

1061: from the Drell-Yan data are consistent with the size of higher twist

1062: effects observed in Sec.~III, there does appear to be a clear conflict

1063: between the counting rule predictions for the $x \to 1$ behavior of

1064: $F_2^\pi$ and the empirical $x$ dependence.

1065: Several reasons could account for this discrepancy.

1066: Even higher twist effects, beyond those of twist-4 parameterized in

1067: Eq.~(\ref{e615fit}), could be present and obfuscate an underlying

1068: $(1-x)^2$ leading twist behavior.

1069: This appears unlikely, however, given the relatively large $Q^2$ values

1070: ($Q^2 \agt 20$~GeV$^2$) at which the data are sampled, and the rapid

1071: fall off of the higher twist contributions to the moments observed in

1072: Sec.~IV.A.

1073: 

1074: 

1075: On the other hand, as alluded to above, the extraction of the pion

1076: structure function requires as input the parton distributions in the

1077: nucleon.

1078: Since the bulk of the data for $x > 0.5$ corresponds to a nucleon

1079: light-cone momentum fraction $x_N \approx 0.05$--0.1, errors may be

1080: introduced into the analysis through poor knowledge of the sea quark,

1081: or (at higher order) gluon, distributions in the nucleon.

1082: Furthermore, because the data are taken on nuclear targets (e.g. tungsten

1083: for the E615 experiment), nuclear effects may give rise to corrections to

1084: the nucleon quark distributions, especially in the region $x_N \sim 0.05$,

1085: where nuclear shadowing is known to play an important role \cite{SHAD}.

1086: %

1087: The effects of using more modern nucleon parton distributions, and

1088: including nuclear corrections in the analysis, are currently being

1089: investigated \cite{KRISHNI}.

1090: 

1091: 

1092: It may also be that the asymptotic behavior does not set in until $x$ is

1093: very close to 1, and that the functional form (\ref{e615fit}) is simply

1094: too restrictive to adequately reflect this behavior, in which case a

1095: more sophisticated parameterization

1096: % , incorporating some of the effects in Eq.~(\ref{Mueller}), 

1097: would be required.

1098: Further, nonobservation of the predicted counting rule behavior may not

1099: necessarily imply a breakdown of pQCD.

1100: The derivation of the counting rules for large-$x$ structure functions

1101: from Feynman diagrams in terms of hard gluon exchanges between quarks

1102: involves an infrared cut-off mass parameter, $m$, which regulates the

1103: integrals when $k_T \to 0$ \cite{GUNION,HOODBHOY}.

1104: Although an analysis based on pQCD should be valid also for $m=0$, the

1105: counting rule results are sensitive to the parameter, $m$, and comparison

1106: with phenomenology requires a nonzero value \cite{GUNION}.

1107: 

1108: 

1109: Regardless of the ultimate $x \to 1$ behavior of $F_2^\pi$ extracted

1110: from data, it is instructive to examine whether the asymptotic

1111: inclusive--exclusive relations between the pion structure function and

1112: the pion elastic and transition form factors at large $Q^2$ can provide

1113: additional constraints.

1114: In the next section we use local quark-hadron duality to study these

1115: relations in more detail.

1116: 

1117: 

1118: % \newpage

1119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1120: \section{Local Quark-Hadron Duality}

1121: 

1122: There has been a revival of interest recently in the phenomenon of

1123: Bloom-Gilman duality in electron--nucleon scattering.

1124: This has been stimulated largely by recent high precision measurements

1125: \cite{NICU} at Jefferson~Lab of the $F_2$ structure function of the

1126: proton, which demonstrated that duality works remarkably well for each

1127: of the prominent low-lying resonance regions, including the elastic

1128: \cite{EL,MEL}, as well as for the integrated structure function,

1129: to rather low values of $Q^2$.

1130: Ongoing and planned future studies will focus on duality in other

1131: structure functions, such as $g_1$ \cite{FOREST} and $F_L$ \cite{ERIC},

1132: and for hadrons other than the proton.

1133: 

1134: 

1135: While the existence of local quark-hadron duality appears inevitable in

1136: QCD at asymptotically large momenta \cite{IJMV,DUALMOD}, it is not

1137: {\em a priori} clear that it should work at finite $Q^2$.

1138: Indeed, there are reasons why at low $Q^2$ it should not work at all

1139: \cite{IJMV}, and its appearance may in principle be due to accidental

1140: cancellations (due to quark charges in the proton \cite{CI,GOTT}, for

1141: instance) of possibly large higher twist effects.

1142: A systematic study of local duality for other hadrons, such as the pion,

1143: is therefore crucial to revealing the true origin of this phenomenon.

1144: 

1145: 

1146: Shortly after the original observations of Bloom-Gilman duality for the

1147: proton \cite{BG}, generalizations to the case of the pion were explored.

1148: By extending the finite-energy sum rules \cite{FESR} devised for the

1149: proton duality studies, Moffat and Snell derived a local duality sum rule

1150: relating the elastic pion form factor with the scaling structure function

1151: of the pion \cite{MOFFAT},

1152: %

1153: \begin{eqnarray}

1154: [F_\pi(Q^2)]^2

1155: &\approx& \int_1^{\omega_{\rm max}} d\omega\ \nu W_2^\pi(\omega)\ ,

1156: \label{local}

1157: \end{eqnarray}

1158: %

1159: where $\nu W_2^\pi \equiv F_2^\pi$ is a function of the scaling

1160: variable $\omega = 1/x$.

1161: %

1162: The upper limit $\omega_{\rm max} = 1 + (W^2_{\rm max}-m_\pi^2)/Q^2$

1163: was set in Ref.~\cite{MOFFAT} by $W_{\rm max} \approx 1.3$~GeV, in order

1164: for the integration region to include most of the effect of the hadron

1165: pole, and not too much contribution from higher resonances \cite{MOFFAT}.

1166: To test the validity of the finite-energy sum rule relation (\ref{local}),

1167: Moffat and Snell \cite{MOFFAT}, and later Mahapatra \cite{MAHAPATRA},

1168: constructed Regge-based models of the pion structure function (their

1169: analyses predated the Drell-Yan pion structure function measurements

1170: \cite{BNLDY,FNALDY,NA3,NA10,E615}) to compare with the then available

1171: pion form factor data.

1172: 

1173: 

1174: The existence of Drell-Yan data on $F_2^\pi$ now allows one to test this

1175: relation quantitatively using {\em only} phenomenological input.

1176: Using parameterizations of the $F_2^\pi(x)$ data from Ref.~\cite{E615}

1177: (see Fig.~5), the resulting form factor $F_\pi(Q^2)$ extracted from

1178: Eq.~(\ref{local}) is shown in Fig.~6.

1179: The agreement appears remarkably good.

1180: On the other hand, the magnitude of the form factor depends somewhat on

1181: the precise value chosen for $W_{\rm max}$, so the agreement in Fig.~6

1182: should not be taken too literally.

1183: Nevertheless, the shape of the form factor is determined by the $x$

1184: dependence of the structure function at large $x$.

1185: In particular, while a $(1-x)$ behavior leads to a similar $Q^2$

1186: dependence to that for the E615 fit,

1187: % (since there $F_2^\pi \sim (1-x)^{1.2-1.3}$ \cite{E615}),

1188: assuming a $(1-x)^2$ behavior gives a form factor which drops more

1189: rapidly with $Q^2$.

1190: This simply reflects the kinematic constraint $(1-1/\omega) \sim 1/Q^2$

1191: at fixed $W$.

1192: 

1193: 

1194: \begin{figure}[t]	% FIG 6

1195: \begin{center}

1196: \epsfig{figure=pi6.eps,height=9cm}

1197: \vspace*{0.5cm}

1198: \caption{Local duality prediction for the pion form factor, using

1199: 	phenomenological pion structure function input from the FNAL

1200: 	E615 Drell-Yan experiment \protect\cite{E615} (solid), and the

1201: 	forms $F_2^\pi(x) \sim (1-x)$ and $(1-x)^2$ (dashed).

1202: 	The asymptotic leading order pQCD prediction (dotted) is shown

1203: 	for reference.}

1204: \end{center}

1205: \end{figure}

1206: 

1207: 

1208: Although the apparent phenomenological success of the local duality

1209: relation (\ref{local}) is alluring, there are theoretical reasons why

1210: its foundations may be questioned.

1211: In fact, the workings of local duality for the pion are even more

1212: intriguing than for the nucleon.

1213: Because it has spin 0, elastic scattering from the pion contributes only

1214: to the longitudinal cross section ($F_T^\pi(x=1,Q^2)=0$).

1215: On the other hand, the spin 1/2 nature of quarks guarantees that the deep

1216: inelastic structure function of the pion is dominated at large $Q^2$ by

1217: the transverse cross section \cite{RUJ,FJ}.

1218: Taken at face value, the relation (\ref{local}) would suggest a nontrivial

1219: duality relation between longitudinal and transverse cross sections.

1220: Whether local duality holds individually for longitudinal and transverse

1221: cross sections, or for their sum, is currently being investigated

1222: experimentally.

1223: Indications from proton data are that indeed some sort of duality holds

1224: for both the transverse and longitudinal structure functions of the

1225: proton individually \cite{NICU,ERIC}.

1226: 

1227: 

1228: While the elastic form factor of the pion is purely longitudinal, the

1229: $\pi \to \rho$ transition is purely transverse.

1230: It has been suggested \cite{RUJ} that the average of the pion elastic

1231: and $\pi\to\rho$ transition form factors may instead dual the deep

1232: inelastic pion structure function at $x \sim 1$.

1233: %

1234: If we take the simple model used in Sec.~IV for the low $W$ part of

1235: the pion structure function, in which the inclusive pion spectrum at

1236: $W \alt 1$~GeV is dominated by the $\pi \to \pi$ and $\pi \to \rho$

1237: transitions, we can estimate the degree to which such a duality may

1238: be valid.

1239: Generalizing Eq.~(\ref{local}) to include the lowest-lying longitudinal

1240: and transverse contributions to the structure function, one can replace

1241: the left hand side of (\ref{local}) with

1242: $[F_\pi(Q^2)]^2 + \omega_\rho [F_{\pi\rho}(Q^2)]^2$, where

1243: $\omega_\rho = 1 + (m_\rho^2 - m_\pi^2)/Q^2$.

1244: 

1245: 

1246: The sum of the lowest two `resonance' contributions (elastic + $\rho$)

1247: to the generalized finite-energy sum rule is shown in Fig.~7 as a ratio

1248: to the corresponding leading twist DIS structure function over a similar

1249: range of $W$.

1250: The upper and lower sets of curves envelop different models

1251: \cite{ITOGROSS,MARIS,KHODJ} of $F_{\pi\rho}(Q^2)$, which can be seen as

1252: an indicator of the current uncertainty in the calculation.

1253: Integrating to $W_{\rm max} = 1$~GeV, the resonance/DIS ratio at

1254: $Q^2 \sim 2$~GeV$^2$ is $\sim 50 \pm 30\%$ above unity, and is consistent

1255: with unity for $Q^2 \sim 4$--6~GeV$^2$ (solid curves).

1256: As a test of the sensitivity of the results to the value of $W_{\rm max}$,

1257: the resonance/DIS ratio is also shown for $W_{\rm max} = 1.3$~GeV

1258: (dotted curves).

1259: In this case the agreement is better for $Q^2 \sim 1$--3~GeV$^2$,

1260: with the ratio being $\sim 30 \pm 20\%$ below unity for

1261: $Q^2 \sim 4$--6~GeV$^2$.

1262: 

1263: 

1264: \begin{figure}[t]	% FIG 7

1265: \begin{center}

1266: \epsfig{figure=pi7.eps,height=9cm}

1267: \vspace*{0.5cm}

1268: \caption{Ratio of the pion resonance (elastic + $\pi\to\rho$ transition)

1269: 	contributions relative to the DIS continuum, for different values

1270: 	of $W_{\rm max}$.  The two sets of upper and lower curves

1271: 	reflect the uncertainties in the $\pi\to\rho$ transition form

1272: 	factor.}

1273: \end{center}

1274: \end{figure}

1275: 

1276: 

1277: Given the simple nature of the model used for the excitation spectrum,

1278: and the poor knowledge of the $\pi\to\rho$ transition form factor, as

1279: well as of the pion elastic form factor beyond $Q^2 \approx 2$~GeV$^2$,

1280: the comparison can only be viewed as qualitative.

1281: However, the agreement between the DIS and resonance contributions

1282: appears promising.

1283: Clearly, data on the inclusive $\pi$ spectrum at low $W$ would be

1284: invaluable for testing the local duality hypothesis more quantitatively.

1285: In addition, measurement of the individual transverse and longitudinal

1286: cross sections of the pion, using Rosenbluth separation techniques,

1287: would allow duality to be tested separately for the longitudinal and

1288: transverse structure functions of the pion.

1289: 

1290: 

1291: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1292: \section{Conclusion}

1293: 

1294: Understanding the structure of the pion represents a fundamental

1295: challenge in QCD.

1296: High energy scattering experiments reveal its quark and gluon

1297: substructure, while at low energies its role as a Goldstone boson mode

1298: associated with chiral symmetry breaking in QCD is essential in

1299: describing the long-range structure and interactions of hadrons.

1300: We have sought to elucidate the structure of the pion by considering

1301: its response to electromagnetic probes, focusing in particular on the

1302: connection between inclusive and exclusive channels.

1303: 

1304: 

1305: The relation between the pion structure function and the pion elastic

1306: and transition form factors has been studied in the context of

1307: quark-hadron duality.

1308: Moments of the pion structure function have been evaluated, and the

1309: role of the resonance region studied, assuming that the low $W$

1310: resonant spectrum is dominated by the elastic and $\pi\to\rho$

1311: transitions.

1312: The contribution of the resonance region ($W \alt 1$~GeV) to the lowest

1313: moment of $F_2^\pi$ is $\sim 50\%$ at $Q^2 \approx 2$~GeV$^2$, and only

1314: falls below 10\% for $Q^2 \agt 5$~GeV$^2$.

1315: The elastic component, while negligible for $Q^2 \agt 3$~GeV$^2$, is

1316: comparable to the leading twist contribution at $Q^2 \approx 1$~GeV$^2$.

1317: Combined, this means that the higher twist corrections to the $n=2$

1318: moment are $\sim 50\%$ at $Q^2 = 1$~GeV$^2$, $\sim 30\%$ at

1319: $Q^2 = 2$~GeV$^2$, and only become insignificant beyond

1320: $Q^2 \approx 6$~GeV$^2$.

1321: 

1322: 

1323: Uncertainties on these estimates are mainly due to the poor knowledge of

1324: the inclusive pion spectrum at low $W$, which limits the extent to which

1325: duality in the pion can be tested quantitatively.

1326: Only the elastic form factor has been accurately measured to

1327: $Q^2 \approx 2$~GeV$^2$, although at larger $Q^2$ it is poorly

1328: constrained.

1329: The inclusive pion spectrum can be extracted from data from the

1330: semi-inclusive charge-exchange reaction, $e p \to e n X$, at low $t$,

1331: for instance at Jefferson Lab \cite{BURKERT}.

1332: This could also allow one to determine the individual exclusive channels

1333: at low $W$.

1334: In addition, a Rosenbluth separation would allow the transverse and

1335: longitudinal structure functions to be extracted.

1336: %

1337: % A simultaneous measurement of both the pion structure function and form

1338: % factors in this reaction at similar kinematics will reduce the

1339: % systematic uncertainties that may arise from comparing inclusive and

1340: % exclusive observables in different reaction.

1341: 

1342: 

1343: Within the current uncertainties, the higher twist effects in the pion

1344: appear larger than the analogous corrections extracted from moments of

1345: the nucleon structure functions \cite{JF2,JG1}.

1346: This can be generically understood in terms of the larger intrinsic 

1347: transverse momentum of quarks, which governs the scale of the $1/Q^2$

1348: corrections, in the pion than in nucleon, associated with the smaller

1349: pion confinement radius.

1350: The implication is that duality would therefore be expected to set in

1351: later (at larger $Q^2$) for the pion than for the nucleon.

1352: 

1353: 

1354: Higher twist effects have also been observed in the pion structure

1355: function at large $x$ by the E615 Collaboration at Fermilab \cite{E615}.

1356: The $x$ dependence and angular distribution of $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs

1357: produced in $\pi N$ collisions at $x \sim 1$ suggests a value

1358: $\langle k_T^2 \rangle = 0.8 \pm 0.3$~GeV$^2$, which is larger than the

1359: typical quark transverse momentum in the nucleon (${\cal O}$(500~MeV)).

1360: On the other hand, the measured $x$ dependence appears to be harder than

1361: that predicted by counting rules \cite{LB} or models based on

1362: perturbative one gluon exchange \cite{EZAWA,BB,FJ,GUNION}, favoring a

1363: $(1-x)$ shape over a $(1-x)^2$ dependence.

1364: A reanalysis \cite{KRISHNI} of the Drell-Yan data to take into account

1365: nuclear corrections and updated sea quark distributions in the nucleon,

1366: which are used as input into the analysis, is necessary for a definitive

1367: assessment of the validity of the various approaches.

1368: Additional modification of the $x \to 1$ behavior due to Sudakov-like

1369: effects \cite{MUELLERX1} may also need to be considered before drawing

1370: final conclusions about the implications of the observed $x \to 1$

1371: dependence.

1372: There are also plans to measure $F_2^\pi$ in semi-inclusive reactions

1373: over a range of $x$ at Jefferson Lab \cite{KRISHNI12} to confirm the

1374: Drell-Yan and semi-inclusive HERA measurements, which should allow a

1375: more thorough exploration of the higher twist effects at lower $Q^2$.

1376: 

1377: 

1378: The specific $x \to 1$ behavior of the pion structure function has

1379: consequences for the $Q^2$ dependence of the elastic pion form factor,

1380: if one assumes the validity of local quark-hadron duality for the pion.

1381: In particular, using parameterizations of the Drell-Yan structure

1382: function data, the existing data on $F_\pi(Q^2)$ can be fitted if the

1383: upper limit of the integration region above the elastic peak extends to

1384: $W_{\rm max} \approx 1.3$~GeV.

1385: Analogous fits with a $(1-x)^2$ shape fall off too rapidly with $Q^2$

1386: and do not fit $F_\pi(Q^2)$ as well.

1387: 

1388: 

1389: On the other hand, there may be limitations of the extent to which local

1390: duality can hold for the pion, as such duality implies a nontrivial

1391: relationship between the longitudinal and transverse cross sections.

1392: It may in fact be more appropriate to examine whether the sum of the

1393: longitudinal (elastic) and transverse ($\pi\to\rho$ transition)

1394: contributions duals the DIS structure function at low $W$.

1395: Using phenomenological models for the $\pi\to\rho$ form factor, our

1396: estimate for the sum of the lowest-lying resonant contributions is in

1397: qualitative agreement with the corresponding scaling contribution in the

1398: same $W$ interval.

1399: However, empirical information on the strength and $Q^2$ dependence of

1400: $F_{\pi\rho}(Q^2)$ is necessary for a more quantitative test.

1401: The $\pi\to\rho$ transition form factor can in practice be extracted

1402: from $\rho$ electroproduction data \cite{KOSSOV}.

1403: At larger $Q^2$, the $\pi\to\rho$ transition is expected to be suppressed

1404: relative to the elastic contribution, and to test the local duality here

1405: will require a more accurate determination of $F_\pi(Q^2)$.

1406: The pion form factor $F_\pi(Q^2)$ will soon be measured to

1407: $Q^2 = 2.5$~GeV$^2$ at Jefferson Lab \cite{MACK} in $\pi^+$

1408: electroproduction from the proton, and possibly to $Q^2 = 6$~GeV$^2$

1409: with an energy upgraded facility \cite{WHITE}.

1410: 

1411: 

1412: Finally, this analysis can be easily extended to the strangeness sector,

1413: to study the duality between the form factor and structure function of

1414: the kaon.

1415: Data from the Drell-Yan reaction in $K^-$--nucleus collisions

1416: \cite{KAONSF} indicate that the quark distribution in the kaon is

1417: similar to that in the pion, and measurements of the kaon form factor,

1418: $F_K(Q^2)$, have also recently been reported \cite{KAONFF}.

1419: Future measurements of $F_K(Q^2)$ at larger $Q^2$ ($\sim 2$~GeV$^2$)

1420: \cite{MACK} would allow the first quantitative test of local Bloom-Gilman

1421: duality in strange hadrons.

1422: 

1423: 

1424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1425: \acknowledgements

1426: 

1427: Helpful discussions with V.~Burkert, R.~Ent, P.~Hoodbhoy, D.~Mack,

1428: and K.~Wijesooriya are gratefully acknowledged.

1429: I would also like to thank F.~Gross, P.~Maris and P.~Tandy for sending

1430: the results of their form factor calculations.

1431: This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy contract

1432: \mbox{DE-AC05-84ER40150}, under which the Southeastern Universities

1433: Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National

1434: Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab).

1435: 

1436: 

1437: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1438: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1439: 

1440: \bibitem{MODELS}

1441: A.~W.~Thomas and W.~Weise,

1442: {\em The Structure Of The Nucleon},

1443: Wiley-VCH (Berlin, 2001);

1444: %

1445: R.~K.~Bhaduri,

1446: {\em Models of the Nucleon: from Quarks to Solitons},

1447: Addison-Wesley (New York, 1988).

1448: %

1449: % A.~W.~Thomas and S.~V.~Wright,

1450: %``Classical quark models: An introduction,''

1451: % arXiv:nucl-th/9808008.

1452: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9808008;%%

1453: 

1454: \bibitem{LATT}

1455: {\em Computational Infrastructure for Lattice Gauge Theory

1456: --- A Strategic Plan} (April 2002),

1457: www.lqcd.org/strategic-plan-04-04.pdf.

1458: 

1459: \bibitem{BG}

1460: E.~D.~Bloom and F.~J.~Gilman,

1461: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 25}, 1140 (1970);

1462: %%CITATION = PRLTA,25,1140;%%

1463: %

1464: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 4}, 2901 (1971).

1465: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D4,2901;%%

1466:  

1467: \bibitem{NICU}

1468: I.~Niculescu {\it et al.},

1469: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1182 (2000);

1470: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,1182;%%

1471: %

1472: {\it ibid} {\bf 85}, 1186 (2000).

1473: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,1186;%%

1474: 

1475: \bibitem{DY}

1476: S.~D.~Drell and T.-M.~Yan,

1477: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 24}, 181 (1970).

1478: %%CITATION = PRLTA,24,181;%%

1479: 

1480: \bibitem{WEST}

1481: G.~B.~West,

1482: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 24}, 1206 (1970);

1483: %%CITATION = PRLTA,24,1206;%%

1484: %

1485: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 14}, 732 (1976).

1486: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D14,732;%%

1487: 

1488: \bibitem{BJORKEN}

1489: J.~D.~Bjorken and J.~B.~Kogut,

1490: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 8}, 1341 (1973).

1491: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D8,1341;%%

1492: 

1493: \bibitem{GBB}

1494: J.~F.~Gunion, S.~J.~Brodsky and R.~Blankenbecler,

1495: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 8}, 287 (1973).

1496: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D8,287;%%

1497: 

1498: \bibitem{LANDSHOFF}

1499: P.~V.~Landshoff and J.~C.~Polkinghorne,

1500: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B53}, 473 (1973).

1501: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B53,473;%%

1502: 

1503: \bibitem{EZAWA}

1504: Z.~F.~Ezawa,

1505: Nuovo Cim. A {\bf 23}, 271 (1974).

1506: %%CITATION = NUCIA,A23,271;%%

1507: 

1508: \bibitem{RUJ}

1509: A.~De Rujula, H.~Georgi and H.~D.~Politzer,

1510: Annals Phys. {\bf 103}, 315 (1977).

1511: %%CITATION = APNYA,103,315;%%

1512: 

1513: \bibitem{MANKIEWICZ}

1514: E.~Stein, P.~Gornicki, L.~Mankiewicz and A.~Schafer,

1515: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 353}, 107 (1995).

1516: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9502323;%%

1517: 

1518: \bibitem{CM}

1519: C.~E.~Carlson and N.~C.~Mukhopadhyay,

1520: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 41}, R2343 (1989);

1521: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,2343;%%

1522: {\em ibid} D {\bf 47}, R1737 (1993);

1523: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,1737;%%

1524: {\em ibid} D {\bf 58}, 094029 (1998).

1525: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801205;%%

1526: 

1527: \bibitem{IJMV}

1528: N.~Isgur, S.~Jeschonnek, W.~Melnitchouk and J.~W.~Van Orden,

1529: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 054005 (2001);

1530: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104022;%%

1531: %

1532: S.~Jeschonnek and J.~W.~Van Orden,

1533: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 094038 (2002).

1534: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201113;%%

1535: 

1536: \bibitem{CI}

1537: F.~E.~Close and N.~Isgur,

1538: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 509}, 81 (2001);

1539: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102067;%%

1540: %

1541: F.~E.~Close and Q.~Zhao,

1542: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 054001 (2002).

1543: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202181;%%

1544: 

1545: \bibitem{LARGENC}

1546: G.~'t~Hooft,

1547: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B72}, 461 (1974);

1548: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B72,461;%%

1549: %

1550: E.~Witten,

1551: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B160}, 57 (1979).

1552: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B160,57;%%

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{EINHORN}

1555: M.~B.~Einhorn,

1556: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 14}, 3451 (1976).

1557: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D14,3451;%%

1558: 

1559: \bibitem{NCBARYON}

1560: R.~Dashen and A.~Manohar,

1561: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 315}, 425, 438 (1993);

1562: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9307241;%%

1563: %

1564: R.~Dashen, E.~Jenkins, and A.~Manohar,

1565: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49}, 4713 (1994).

1566: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310379;%%

1567: 

1568: \bibitem{QCDSR}

1569: M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,

1570: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B147}, 385, 448 (1979);

1571: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,385;%%

1572: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,445;%%

1573: %

1574: A.~I.~Vainshtein, V.~I.~Zakharov, V.~A.~Novikov and M.~A.~Shifman,

1575: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 32}, 840 (1980);

1576: % [Yad. Fiz. {\bf 32}, 1622 (1980)];

1577: %%CITATION = SJNCA,32,840;%%

1578: %

1579: % A.~V.~Radyushkin,

1580: % in {\em Strong Interactions at Low and Intermediate Energies},

1581: % ed. J.~L.~Goity (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000).

1582: 

1583: \bibitem{JF2}

1584: X.~Ji and P.~Unrau,

1585: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 72 (1995).

1586: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408317;%%

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{PILET}

1589: W.~Melnitchouk,

1590: JLAB-THY-03-01,

1591: % hep-ph/0302xxx,

1592: to appear in Phys. Rev. D.

1593: 

1594: \bibitem{MACK}

1595: H.~P.~Blok, G.~M.~Huber and D.~J.~Mack,

1596: nucl-ex/0208011;

1597: %

1598: Jefferson Lab experiment E01-004.

1599: 

1600: \bibitem{WHITE}

1601: {\em The Science Driving the 12~GeV Upgrade of CEBAF}

1602: (Jefferson Lab, 2001).

1603: %

1604: % www.jlab.org/div$_-$dept/physics$_-$division/GeV.html.

1605: 

1606: \bibitem{KOSSOV}

1607: Jefferson Lab experiment E93-012,

1608: M.~Kossov spokesperson.

1609: 

1610: \bibitem{BURKERT}

1611: V.~D.~Burkert,

1612: private communication.

1613: 

1614: \bibitem{HERA}

1615: G.~Levman,

1616: J. Phys. G {\bf 28}, 1079 (2002).

1617: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G28,1079;%%

1618: 

1619: \bibitem{KRISHNI12}

1620: Jefferson Lab proposal PR-01-110,

1621: R.~J.~Holt, P.~E.~Reimer and K.~Wijesooriya spokespersons;

1622: %

1623: % R.~J.~Holt, P.~E.~Reimer, K.~Wijesooriya,

1624: and in {\em Hall~A Preliminary Conceptual Design Report for the

1625: Jefferson Lab 12 GeV Upgrade} (2002).

1626: %

1627: % R.~J.~Holt and P.~E.~Reimer,

1628: % {\em Physics with an Electron Polarized Light-Ion Collider Workshop},

1629: % ed. R.~G.~Milner,

1630: % AIP Conf. Proc. 588, p. 234 (2001);

1631: 

1632: \bibitem{CG}

1633: C.~G.~Callan and D.~J.~Gross,

1634: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 22}, 156 (1969).

1635: %%CITATION = PRLTA,22,156;%%

1636: 

1637: % ----- FORM FACTOR -----

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{FJPI}

1640: G.~R.~Farrar and D.~R.~Jackson,

1641: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43}, 246 (1979).

1642: %%CITATION = PRLTA,43,246;%%

1643: 

1644: \bibitem{LB}

1645: G.~P.~Lepage and S.~J.~Brodsky,

1646: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22}, 2157 (1980).

1647: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2157;%%

1648: 

1649: \bibitem{DM}

1650: A.~Duncan and A.~H.~Mueller,

1651: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 21}, 1636 (1980).

1652: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,1636;%%

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{NESTERENKO}

1655: V.~A.~Nesterenko and A.~V.~Radyushkin,

1656: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 115}, 410 (1982).

1657: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B115,410;%%

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{IL}

1660: N.~Isgur and C.~H.~Llewellyn Smith,

1661: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 1080 (1984).

1662: %%CITATION = PRLTA,52,1080;%%

1663: 

1664: \bibitem{FF_ATOMIC}

1665: S.~R.~Amendolia {\it et al.} 	% NA7, pi-atom, low Q^2

1666: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B277}, 168 (1986).

1667: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B277,168;%%

1668: 

1669: \bibitem{FF_CORNELL}

1670: C.~J.~Bebek {\it et al.},

1671: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 1693 (1978).

1672: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D17,1693;%%

1673: 

1674: \bibitem{FF_DESY}

1675: P.~Brauel {\it et al.},

1676: Z. Phys. C {\bf 3}, 101 (1979).

1677: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C3,101;%%

1678: 

1679: \bibitem{FF_JLAB}

1680: J.~Volmer {\it et al.},

1681: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1713 (2001).

1682: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0010009;%%

1683: 

1684: \bibitem{SMILGA}

1685: B.~L.~Ioffe and A.~V.~Smilga,

1686: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 114}, 353 (1982);

1687: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B114,353;%%

1688: %

1689: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 216}, 373 (1983).

1690: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B216,373;%%

1691: 

1692: \bibitem{WIN}

1693: K.~Watanabe, H.~Ishikawa and M.~Nakagawa,

1694: hep-ph/0111168.

1695: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111168;%%

1696: 

1697: \bibitem{GESHK}

1698: B.~V.~Geshkenbein,

1699: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 033009 (2000).

1700: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806418;%%

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{DONOGHUE}

1703: J.~F.~Donoghue and E.~S.~Na,

1704: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 7073 (1997).

1705: % hep-ph/9611418.

1706: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9611418;%%

1707: 

1708: % ----- STRUCTURE FUNCTION -----

1709: 

1710: \bibitem{PDG}

1711: D.~E.~Groom {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],

1712: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).

1713: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{LATPI}

1716: C.~Best {\it et al.},

1717: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 2743 (1997);

1718: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9703014;%%

1719: %

1720: S.~Capitani {\it et al.},

1721: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B570}, 393 (2000).

1722: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9908011;%%

1723: 

1724: \bibitem{XDEP}

1725: W.~Detmold, W.~Melnitchouk and A.~W.~Thomas,

1726: Eur. Phys. J. direct C {\bf 13}, 1 (2001).

1727: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0108002;%%

1728: 

1729: \bibitem{XPI}

1730: W.~Detmold, W.~Melnitchouk and A.~W.~Thomas,

1731: in preparation.

1732: 

1733: \bibitem{BNLDY}

1734: D.~McCal {\it et al.},

1735: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 85}, 432 (1979);

1736: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B85,432;%%

1737: %

1738: J.~Alspector {\it et al.},

1739: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 81}, 397 (1979).

1740: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B81,397;%%

1741: 

1742: \bibitem{FNALDY}

1743: C.~B.~Newman {\it et al.},

1744: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 42}, 951 (1979).

1745: %%CITATION = PRLTA,42,951;%%

1746: 

1747: \bibitem{NA3}

1748: J.~Badier {\it et al.},

1749: Z. Phys. C {\bf 18}, 281 (1983).

1750: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C18,281;%%

1751: 

1752: \bibitem{NA10}

1753: B.~Betev {\it et al.},

1754: Z. Phys. C {\bf 28}, 15 (1985).

1755: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C28,15;%%

1756: 

1757: \bibitem{E615}

1758: J.~S.~Conway {\it et al.},

1759: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 39}, 92 (1989).

1760: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,92;%%

1761: 

1762: \bibitem{PIONPOLE}

1763: M.~Klasen,

1764: J. Phys. G {\bf 28}, 1091 (2002);

1765: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107011;%%

1766: %

1767: B.~Kopeliovich, B.~Povh and I.~Potashnikova,

1768: Z. Phys. C {\bf 73}, 125 (1996);

1769: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601291;%%

1770: %

1771: H.~Holtmann, G.~Levman, N.~N.~Nikolaev, A.~Szczurek and J.~Speth,

1772: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 338}, 363 (1994);

1773: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B338,363;%%

1774: %

1775: G.~G.~Arakelian, K.~G.~Boreskov and A.~B.~Kaidalov,

1776: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 33}, 247 (1981);

1777: % [Yad. Fiz. {\bf 33}, 471 (1981)];

1778: %%CITATION = SJNCA,33,247;%%

1779: %

1780: J.~Pumplin,

1781: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 8}, 2249 (1973);

1782: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D8,2249;%%

1783: %

1784: J.~D.~Sullivan,

1785: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 5}, 1732 (1972).

1786: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D5,1732;%%

1787: 

1788: \bibitem{GRVPI}

1789: M.~Gluck, E.~Reya and A.~Vogt,

1790: Z. Phys. C {\bf 53}, 651 (1992).

1791: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C53,651;%%

1792: 

1793: \bibitem{SMRSPI}

1794: P.~J.~Sutton, A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts and W.~J.~Stirling,

1795: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 2349 (1992).

1796: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,2349;%%

1797: 

1798: \bibitem{GRSPI}

1799: M.~Gluck, E.~Reya and M.~Stratmann,

1800: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 2}, 159 (1998).

1801: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711369;%%

1802: 

1803: \bibitem{ITOGROSS}

1804: H.~Ito and F.~Gross,

1805: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 2555 (1993).

1806: %%CITATION = PRLTA,71,2555;%%

1807: 

1808: \bibitem{MARIS}

1809: P.~Maris and P.~C.~Tandy,

1810: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65}, 045211 (2002).

1811: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0201017;%%

1812: 

1813: \bibitem{KHODJ}

1814: A.~Khodjamirian,

1815: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 6}, 477 (1999).

1816: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712451;%%

1817: 

1818: \bibitem{DEUTFF}

1819: L.~C.~Alexa {\it et al.},

1820: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1374 (1999).

1821: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 9812002;%%

1822: 

1823: \bibitem{MUELLERHT}

1824: A.~H.~Mueller,

1825: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 308}, 355 (1993).

1826: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B308,355;%%

1827: 

1828: \bibitem{RENORMALON}

1829: E.~Stein, M.~Meyer-Hermann, L.~Mankiewicz and A.~Schafer,

1830: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 376}, 177 (1996).

1831: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601356;%%

1832: 

1833: \bibitem{NNNLO}

1834: S.~Schaefer, A.~Schafer and M.~Stratmann,

1835: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 514}, 284 (2001).

1836: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105174;%%

1837: 

1838: \bibitem{ALEKHIN}

1839: S.~I.~Alekhin and A.~L.~Kataev,

1840: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 452}, 402 (1999);

1841: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812348;%%

1842: %

1843: S.~I.~Alekhin,

1844: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 094022 (2001);

1845: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011002;%%

1846: %

1847: hep-ph/0211096.

1848: 

1849: \bibitem{JG1}

1850: X.~Ji and P.~Unrau,

1851: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 333}, 228 (1994);

1852: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308263;%%

1853: %

1854: X.~Ji and W.~Melnitchouk,

1855: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 1 (1997).

1856: %CITATION = HEP-PH 9703363;%%

1857: 

1858: \bibitem{BB}

1859: E.~L.~Berger and S.~J.~Brodsky,

1860: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 42}, 940 (1979).

1861: %%CITATION = PRLTA,42,940;%%

1862: 

1863: \bibitem{FJ}

1864: G.~R.~Farrar and D.~R.~Jackson,

1865: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35}, 1416 (1975).

1866: %%CITATION = PRLTA,35,1416;%%

1867: 

1868: \bibitem{BRODFAR}

1869: S.~J.~Brodsky and G.~R.~Farrar,

1870: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 31}, 1153 (1973).

1871: %%CITATION = PRLTA,31,1153;%%

1872: 

1873: \bibitem{GUNION}

1874: J.~F.~Gunion, P.~Nason and R.~Blankenbecler,

1875: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 29}, 2491 (1984).

1876: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D29,2491;%%

1877: 

1878: \bibitem{PIONMODELS}

1879: P.~Castorina and A.~Donnachie,

1880: Z. Phys. C {\bf 45}, 497 (1990);

1881: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C45,497;%%

1882: %

1883: T.~Shigetani, K.~Suzuki and H.~Toki,

1884: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 308}, 383 (1993);

1885: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402286;%%

1886: %

1887: T.~Frederico and G.~A.~Miller,

1888: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 50}, 210 (1994);

1889: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,210;%%

1890: %

1891: R.~M.~Davidson and E.~Ruiz Arriola,

1892: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 348}, 163 (1995);

1893: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B348,163;%%

1894: %

1895: G.~Altarelli, S.~Petrarca and F.~Rapuano,

1896: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 373}, 200 (1996);

1897: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510346;%%

1898: %

1899: W.~Bentz, T.~Hama, T.~Matsuki and K.~Yazaki,

1900: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A651}, 143 (1999);

1901: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901377;%%

1902: %

1903: M.~B.~Hecht, C.~D.~Roberts and S.~M.~Schmidt,

1904: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 63}, 025213 (2001);

1905: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0008049;%%

1906: %

1907: F.~Bissey {\em et al.},

1908: hep-ph/0207107.

1909: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207107;%%

1910: 

1911: \bibitem{MUELLERX1}

1912: A.~H.~Mueller,

1913: Phys. Rep. {\bf 73}, 237 (1981).

1914: %%CITATION = PRPLC,73,237;%%

1915: 

1916: \bibitem{CMQ2}

1917: C.~E.~Carlson and N.~C.~Mukhopadhyay,

1918: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 1288 (1995).

1919: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410351;%%

1920: 

1921: % \bibitem{EVOLHEAL}

1922: % S.~J.~Brodsky, T.~Huang and G.~P.~Lepage,

1923: % in {\em Proceedings of the Banff Summer Institute on Particles and

1924: % Fields}, ed. A.~Z.~Capri and A.~N.~Kamal (Plenum Press, New York, 1983).

1925: 

1926: \bibitem{LAMTUNG}

1927: C.~S.~Lam and W.~K.~Tung,

1928: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18}, 2447 (1978);

1929: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,2447;%%

1930: %

1931: {\em ibid} {\bf 21}, 2712 (1980).

1932: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,2712;%%

1933: 

1934: \bibitem{BRAND}

1935: A.~Brandenburg, S.~J.~Brodsky, V.~V.~Khoze and D.~Muller,

1936: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 939 (1994).

1937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403361;%%

1938: 

1939: \bibitem{SHAD}

1940: W.~Melnitchouk and A.~W.~Thomas,

1941: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 317}, 437 (1993);

1942: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9310005;%%

1943: %

1944: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 52}, 3373 (1995);

1945: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508311;%%

1946: %

1947: G.~Piller and W.~Weise,

1948: Phys. Rep. {\bf 330}, 1 (2000).

1949: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908230;%%

1950: 

1951: \bibitem{KRISHNI}

1952: K.~Wijesooriya,

1953: private communication.

1954: 

1955: \bibitem{HOODBHOY}

1956: We thank P.~Hoodbhoy for a discussion on this point.

1957: 

1958: % ----- DUALITY -----

1959: 

1960: \bibitem{EL}

1961: R.~Ent, C.~E.~Keppel and I.~Niculescu,

1962: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 073008 (2000).

1963: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,073008;%%

1964: 

1965: \bibitem{MEL}

1966: W.~Melnitchouk,

1967: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 35 (2001);

1968: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106073;%%

1969: %

1970: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 680}, 52 (2000).

1971: %%CITATION = NUPHA,A680,52;%%

1972: 

1973: \bibitem{FOREST}

1974: V.~D.~Burkert,

1975: AIP Conf. Proc. {\bf 603}, 3 (2001),

1976: nucl-ex/0109004;

1977: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0109004;%%

1978: %

1979: T.~Forest,

1980: in {\em Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Stucture

1981: of Baryons}, Jefferson Lab, March 2002;

1982: % Jefferson Lab Hall~B experiment E-91-023

1983: %

1984: Jefferson Lab experiment E01-012,

1985: J.-P.~Chen, S.~Choi and N.~Liyanage spokespersons;

1986: %

1987: A.~Airapetian {\it et al.} [HERMES Collaboration],

1988: hep-ex/0209018, to appear in Phys. Rev. Lett.

1989: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0209018;%%

1990: 

1991: \bibitem{ERIC}

1992: M.~E.~Christy,

1993: in {\em Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Stucture

1994: of Baryons}, Jefferson Lab, March 2002;

1995: %

1996: M.~E.~Christy, R.~Ent, C.~Keppel {\em et al.},

1997: in preparation.

1998: % Jefferson Lab Hall~C experiment E94-110; E00-116

1999: 

2000: \bibitem{DUALMOD}

2001: B.L.~Ioffe, V.A.~Khoze and L.N.~Lipatov,

2002: {\em Hard Processes} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984);

2003: %

2004: B.L.~Ioffe,

2005: JETP Lett. {\bf 58}, 876 (1993);

2006: % [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 58}, 930 (1993)];

2007: %%CITATION = JTPLA,58,876;%%

2008: %

2009: S.A.~Gurvitz and A.S.~Rinat,

2010: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 47}, 2901 (1993);

2011: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9303009;%%

2012: %

2013: E.~Pace, G.~Salme and F.M.~Lev,

2014: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 57}, 2655 (1998);

2015: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 9802020;%%

2016: %

2017: L.~Jenkovszky, V.~K.~Magas and E.~Predazzi,

2018: Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 12}, 361 (2001);

2019: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110374;%%

2020: %

2021: R.~Fiore, A.~Flachi, L.~L.~Jenkovszky, A.~I.~Lengyel and V.~K.~Magas,

2022: hep-ph/0206027.

2023: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206027;%%

2024: 

2025: % \bibitem{MTT}

2026: % W.~Melnitchouk, K.~Tsushima and A.W.~Thomas,

2027: % Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 13} (2002),

2028: % %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0110071;%%

2029: %

2030: % \bibitem{NSTAR}

2031: % W.~Melnitchouk,

2032: % Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 699}, 278 (2002).

2033: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106262;%%

2034: 

2035: \bibitem{GOTT}

2036: K.~Gottfried,

2037: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 18}, 1174 (1967).

2038: %%CITATION = PRLTA,18,1174;%%

2039: 

2040: \bibitem{FESR}

2041: R.~Dolen, D.~Horn and C.~Schmid,

2042: Phys. Rev. {\bf 166}, 1768 (1968).

2043: %%CITATION = PHRVA,166,1768;%%

2044: 

2045: \bibitem{MOFFAT}

2046: J.~W.~Moffat and V.~G.~Snell,

2047: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 4}, 1452 (1971).

2048: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D4,1452;%%

2049: 

2050: \bibitem{MAHAPATRA}

2051: B.~P.~Mahapatra,

2052: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 79}, 131 (1978).

2053: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B79,131;%%

2054: 

2055: % \bibitem{MSN}

2056: % J.~W.~Moffat and V.~G.~Snell,

2057: % Phys. Rev. D {\bf 3}, 2848 (1971);

2058: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D3,2848;%%

2059: %

2060: % Phys. Rev. D {\bf 6}, 859 (1972).

2061: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D6,859;%%

2062: 

2063: % ----- CONCLUSION -----

2064: 

2065: \bibitem{KAONSF}

2066: J.~Badier {\it et al.},

2067: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 93}, 354 (1980).

2068: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B93,354;%%

2069: 

2070: \bibitem{KAONFF}

2071: O.~K.~Baker,

2072: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A623}, 351C (1997).

2073: %%CITATION = NUPHA,A623,351C;%%

2074: %

2075: % Jefferson Lab experiment E-93-018,

2076: 

2077: \end{thebibliography}

2078: 

2079: \end{document}

2080: