1: \documentclass[12pt,cite,epsfig,wrapfig,subfigure]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{cite}
4: \setlength{\textwidth}{15.5cm}
5: \setlength{\textheight}{23cm}
6: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.0cm}
7: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.0cm}
8: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.5cm}
9: \setlength{\footskip}{1.4cm}
10: \setlength{\parskip}{1.5ex}
11: %
12: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
13: %
14: \newcommand{\tdm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
15: \newcommand{\unit}[1]{\mbox{\rm #1}}
16: \newcommand{\eq}{\begin{equation}}
17: \newcommand{\eqx}{\end{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\eqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
19: \newcommand{\eqnx}{\end{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\dt}{\Delta}
21: \newcommand{\fsn}{$g_1(x,Q^2)$}
22: \newcommand{\dln}{ln$^2(1/x)$}
23: \newcommand{\nnu}{\nu^{\prime}}
24: \newcommand{\ove}{\overline}
25: \newcommand{\sd}{\displaystyle}
26: \newcommand{\nin}{\noindent}
27: %
28: %
29: \def\lapproxeq{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle
30: <}{\sim}\;$}}
31: \def\gapproxeq{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle
32: >}{\sim}\;$}}
33: %
34: %
35: \thispagestyle{empty}
36: \begin{document}
37: \nin
38: %\hfill{\today} \\
39:
40: %{\bf PACS Classification:} $\,$\\ \\
41:
42:
43: %
44: %\centerline{\Large DRAFT}
45: %
46: \mbox{}
47: \\
48:
49: \vskip2cm
50: \begin{center}
51: {\Large \bf Spin dependent structure function $g_1(x,Q^2)$
52: at low $x$ and low~$Q^2$
53: }\\
54: \vspace{10mm}
55:
56: {\bf Barbara~Bade\l{}ek}
57: \footnote {\noindent On leave of absence from the
58: Institute of Experimental Physics, Warsaw University,
59: Ho\.za 69, \\ PL-00 681 Warsaw, Poland;
60: e-mail address: badelek@cern.ch
61: }\\
62: {European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland} \\
63:
64:
65: \vspace{1cm}
66: {\it Dedicated to Jan Kwieci\'nski in honour of his 65th birthday}
67:
68: \end{center}
69:
70:
71:
72: \vspace{5mm}
73: \nin
74: {\bf Abstract:}
75: {\footnotesize
76: This is a review of experimental and phenomenological
77: investigations of the
78: nucleon spin dependent structure function $g_1$ at low values of $x$ and $Q^2$.
79:
80: }
81: \vspace{6mm}
82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
83: \section{Introduction}
84:
85: Spin has for the first time manifested itself experimentally as a new and
86: non-classical quantity in the Stern-Gerlach experiment
87: in 1921, essentially before the birth of the modern quantum mechanics
88: and before (what is being accepted as) the spin discovery.
89: The history of spin, \cite{martin}, and its predictable future, \cite{future},
90: are both very exciting. With spin research programmes presently operating
91: at BNL, CERN, DESY, JLAB and SLAC and with prospects of polarised
92: $e-p$ collider, EIC, and polarised $e^+e^-$ linear colliders
93: we are witnessing a wide attempt to understand the spin, test
94: the spin sector of QCD and possibly also use it in the search for
95: ``new physics''.
96:
97: This paper is a review of results of the experimental and theoretical
98: investigations of the nucleon spin structure
99: at low values of the Bjorken scaling variable $x$. This is a region
100: of high parton densities, where new dynamical mechanisms may be revealed
101: and where the knowledge of the spin dependent nucleon structure function
102: \fsn ~is required to
103: evaluate the spin sum rules necessary to understand the origin of
104: the nucleon spin. The behaviour of $g_1$ at $x\lapproxeq$ 0.001 and
105: in the scaling region, $Q^2 \gapproxeq$1 GeV$^2$,
106: is unknown due to the lack of colliders with polarised beams.
107: Information about spin-averaged structure function $F_2(x,Q^2)$ in that
108: region comes almost entirely from the experiments at HERA: the $F_2$ rises
109: with decreasing $x$, in agreement with QCD and the rise
110: is weaker with decreasing $Q^2$, \cite{heraf2}.
111: However even if such an inclusive quantity as $F_2$ can be described
112: by the conventional DGLAP resummation, certain non-inclusive observables
113: seem to be better described by the BFKL approach, \cite{lowx_coll}. Thus
114: non-inclusive reactions are crucial to understand the dynamics of high parton
115: densities.
116: Unfortunately in the case od spin, the longitudinal structure function, \fsn,
117: is presently
118: the only observable which permits the study of low $x$ spin dependent processes.
119: Since it is being obtained exclusively from fixed-target experiments where
120: low values of $x$ are correlated with low values of $Q^2$,
121: one faces new complications: not only the measurements
122: put very high demands on event triggering and reconstruction but also theoretical
123: interpretations of the results require a suitable
124: extrapolation of parton ideas to the low $Q^2$ region and inclusion of
125: dynamical mechanisms, like the Vector Meson Dominance (VMD). The latter may
126: indeed be important apart of the partonic contributions as it is the case
127: for the low $Q^2$ spin-averaged electroproduction,
128: see e.g. \cite{breitweg,el89,el92}. In the spin-dependent case and
129: in the $Q^2$=0 limit $g_1$ should be a finite function of $W^2$,
130: free from any kinematical singularities or zeros.
131: For large $Q^2$ the VMD contribution to $g_1$ vanishes as $1/Q^4$
132: and can usually be neglected.
133: The partonic contribution to $g_1$
134: which controls the structure functions in the deep inelastic domain
135: and which scales there {\it modulo} logarithmic corrections, has to be
136: suitably extended to the low $Q^2$ region.
137:
138:
139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
140: \section{Results of measurements}
141:
142:
143: %{
144: %\footnotesize
145: %
146: %\begin{table}[ht]
147: %\caption
148: %{\label{tab_exp} New generation experiments on polarised deep
149: %inelastic charged lepton -- nucleon scattering. The third column
150: %gives the time of data taking start, the last one
151: %shows references to the principal physics results obtained until
152: %now, (from \protect\cite{voss}, updated).}
153: %
154: %\begin{center}
155: %\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|}
156: %\hline \hline
157: % Experiment & Beam & Year & Beam energy (GeV) & Target & References\\ \hline \hline
158: %SMC & $\mu^+$& 1992--5 & 100,190 & C$_4$D$_9$OD & \cite{smcd93,smcd95,smcd96} \\
159: %& & 1993 & 190 & C$_4$H$_9$OH & \cite{smcp96,smcp94,smcg2} \\
160: %& & 1996 & 190 & NH$_3$ & \\ \hline
161: %E142 & $e^-$ & 1992 & 19.4 --25.5 & $^3$He & \cite{e142,e142_new} \\
162: %E143 & $e^-$ & 1993 & 29.1 & NH$_3$, ND$_3$ & \cite{e143p,e143d,e143g2} \\
163: %E154 & $e^-$ & 1995 & 50 & $^3$He & \cite{e154} \\
164: %E155 & $e^-$ & 1996 & 50 & NH$_3$, ND$_3$ & \\ \hline
165: %HERMES & $e^-$ & 1995-- & 30--35 & H, D, $^3$He & \cite{uta} \\ \hline
166: %COMPASS&$\mu^+$&2002 &160 &$^6$LiD & \\ \hline
167: %JLAB &$e^-$ & & & &i\\
168: %\hline \hline
169: %\end{tabular}
170: %\end{center}
171: %\end{table}
172: %
173: %}
174: %
175: Experimental knowledge on the longitudinal spin dependent structure
176: function $g_1(x,Q^2)$ comes entirely from the
177: fixed-target setups: EMC, SMC and
178: %COmmon Muon and Proton Apparatus for Structure and Spectroscopy (COMPASS)
179: COMPASS at CERN, experiments at SLAC
180: %and the unconventional though {\it par excellence} fixed-target,
181: (E142, E143, E154, E155, E155X)
182: and the HERMES experiment at HERA $ep$ collider.
183: Information on the kinematic variables comes from measurements of
184: the incident and scattered leptons. Hadrons resulting
185: from the target breakup are often also measured, and -- in the case
186: of HERMES and COMPASS -- identified, if their momenta are larger than 1 GeV
187: in the former- and larger than 2.5 GeV in the latter case.
188:
189:
190: In fixed-target experiments the low $x$ region is correlated
191: with low values of $Q^2$ and the range of $Q^2$ covered at low $x$ is usually
192: limited. In the past the lowest values of $x$ were reached by the SMC
193: due to a high energy of the muon beam and to a demand of
194: a final state hadron, imposed either in the off-line analysis \cite{smc98} or
195: in the dedicated low $x$
196: trigger with a hadron signal in the calorimeter \cite{ssmc98}. These requirements
197: permitted measurements of
198: muon scattering angles as low as 1 mrad, Fig.\ref{fig_t15} and
199: efficiently removed the dominant background of muons scattered
200: elastically from target atomic electrons at $x=$0.000545, cf. \cite{ssmc98}.
201: Much lower values of $x$ are presently being obtained by COMPASS,
202: Fig.\ref{fig_compass}, thanks to a specially designed trigger system, \cite{claude}.
203: %
204: \begin{figure}[ht]
205: \begin{center}
206: %\epsfig{figure=t15.eps,width=13.7cm,height=6cm}
207: \epsfig{figure=t15.eps,height=7cm}
208: \end{center}
209: %\vspace*{-7.cm}
210: \caption{\label{fig_t15}\footnotesize{Contours of the kinematic acceptance
211: in the $(x,Q^2)$
212: plane for the standard triggers (dotted line) and for the low $x$ trigger
213: (solid line) in the SMC.
214: Figure taken from \protect\cite{ssmc98}.}
215: }
216: \end{figure}
217: %
218: %
219: %
220: \begin{figure}[ht]
221: \begin{center}
222: \epsfig{figure=comp_kin.eps,height=9cm}
223: \end{center}
224: \caption{\label{fig_compass}\footnotesize{ Contours of the kinematic
225: acceptance in the $(x,Q^2)$
226: plane for the COMPASS triggers. Only about 5\% of data taken in 2002 are
227: marked. Figure taken from \protect\cite{claude}.}
228: }
229: \end{figure}
230: %
231: Charged lepton deep inelastic scattering experiments benefit from high rates and
232: low (albeit complicated) systematic biases. They have to deal
233: with a strong $Q^2$ dependence of the cross section (due to photon
234: propagator effects) and with large contribution of radiative processes.
235: Electron and muon measurements are complementary: the former offer
236: very high beam intensities but their kinematic
237: acceptance is limited to low values of $Q^2$ and moderate values
238: of $x$, the latter extend to higher $Q^2$ and
239: to lower values of $x$ (an important aspect in the study
240: of sum rules) but due to limited muon beam intensities the data
241: taking time has to be long to ensure a satisfactory statistics.
242:
243: %%The CERN experiments, EMC, SMC and COMPASS, use
244: %%a naturally polarised muon beam ($\sim$80 $\%$ polarisation)
245: %%and a double-cell, cryogenic, solid state target.
246: %The beam polarisation at the SMC has been measured
247: %with a purpose-built polarimeter, using two independent methods:
248: %polarised $\mu e$ scattering and an analysis of the energy spectrum of
249: %electrons coming from the muon decay.
250: %%Average polarisation of the target in the SMC was
251: %%about 86$\%$ and 50$\%$ for the butanol (proton) and deuterated butanol
252: %%(deuteron) respectively.
253:
254:
255:
256: Spin-dependent cross sections are only a small contribution to the total deep
257: inelastic cross section. Therefore they can best be determined by mesuring
258: the cross section asymmetries in which spin-independent contributions
259: cancel.
260: Direct result of all measurements is thus the
261: longitudinal cross section asymmetry, $A_{\|}$ which permits to
262: extract the virtual photon -- proton asymmetry, $A_1$ and finally,
263: using $F_2$ and $R$, to get $g_1$. Asymmetry $A_{\|}$ is small, thus a large
264: statistics is necessary to make a statistically significant measurement.
265: Problems connected with evaluation of spin structure functions from the data
266: are described in detail in \cite{roland_exp}.
267:
268:
269:
270:
271:
272: As a result of a large experimental effort over the years, proton and
273: deuteron $g_1$ was measured for 0.000 06 $< x <$ 0.8, cf. Fig.
274: \ref{fig_uta}, \cite{uta}.
275: %
276: %
277: \begin{figure}[ht]
278: \begin{center}
279: \epsfig{figure=uta.eps,height=12cm}
280: \end{center}
281: \caption{\label{fig_uta}\footnotesize{Compilation of data on $x$\fsn ~including new,
282: preliminary data from HERMES and JLAB (E99-117). All the data
283: are given at their quoted mean $Q^2$ values. Errors are total.
284: Figure taken from \protect\cite{uta}.}
285: }
286: \end{figure}
287: %
288: %
289: Direct measurements on the neutron are limited to $x\gapproxeq$ 0.02.
290: No significant spin effects were observed at lowest values of $x$,
291: explored only by the SMC.
292: Scaling violation in $g_1(x,Q^2)$
293: is weak: the average $Q^2$ is about 10 GeV$^2$ for the SMC
294: and almost an order of magnitude less for the SLAC and HERMES experiments.
295: For the SMC data \cite{ssmc98}, $\langle x \rangle$ = 0.0001 corres\-ponds to
296: $\langle Q^2 \rangle$ = 0.02 GeV$^2$; $Q^2$ becomes larger than 1 GeV$^2$
297: at $x\gapproxeq$ 0.003 (at $x\gapproxeq$ 0.03 for HERMES).
298: At lowest $x$ results on $g_1$ have very large errors but it seems that
299: both $g_1^p$ and $g_1^d$ are positive there.
300: %and $g_1^n$ are negative there.
301: Statistical errors dominate in that kinematic interval.
302:
303:
304:
305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
306: \section{Regge model predictions}
307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
308:
309: The low $x$ behaviour of $g_1$ for fixed $Q^2$ reflects the high energy behaviour
310: of the virtual Compton scattering cross section with centre-of-mass
311: energy squared, $s\equiv W^2=M^2+Q^2(1/x - 1)$; here $M$ is the nucleon mass.
312: This is the Regge limit of the (deep) inelastic scattering
313: where the Regge pole exchange model should be applicable.
314: This model gives the following parametrisation of the (singlet and
315: nonsinglet) spin dependent structure function at $x \rightarrow 0$
316: (i.e. $Q^2 \ll W^2$):
317: %
318: \eq
319: g_1^i(x,Q^2) \sim \beta(Q^2) x^{-\alpha_i(0)}
320: \label{regge_g1}
321: \eqx
322: where the index $i$ refers to singlet ($s$) and nonsinglet ($ns$)
323: combinations of proton and neutron structure functions, $g_1^s(x,Q^2)=
324: g_1^p(x,Q^2)+g_1^n(x,Q^2)$ and $g_1^{ns}(x,Q^2)= g_1^p(x,Q^2)-g_1^n(x,Q^2)$
325: respectively. Intercepts of the Regge trajectories,
326: $\alpha_i(0)$, are universal
327: quantities, independent of the external particles or currents and
328: dependent only on the quantum numbers of the exchanged Regge poles.
329: In the case of $g_1$ the intercepts correspond to the axial vector mesons
330: with $I$=0 ($g_1^s$; $f_1$ trajectory) and $I$=1 ($g_1^{ns}$; $a_1$ trajectory).
331: It is expected that $\alpha_{s,ns}(0) \lapproxeq 0$ and that
332: $\alpha_s(0)\approx \alpha_ns(0)$, \cite{hei}.
333: This behaviour of $g_1$ should go smoothly to the $W^{2 \alpha}$
334: dependence for $Q^2 \rightarrow 0$.
335: A Regge type approach has been used in a global analysis of the proton and
336: neutron spin structure function data in the range 0.3 GeV$^2 < Q^2 <$ 70 GeV$^2$
337: and 4 GeV$^2 < W^2 <$ 300 GeV$^2$, \cite{nicola}; fits gave a smooth
338: extrapolation of $g_1$ down to the photoproduction limit.
339:
340: At large $Q^2$ it is well known that
341: the Regge behaviour of $g_1(x,Q^2)$
342: is unstable against the DGLAP evolution and against
343: resummation of the ${\rm ln^2}(1/x)$ terms
344: which generate more singular $x$ dependence than that implied by
345: Eq.(\ref{regge_g1}) for $\alpha_{s,ns}(0) \lapproxeq 0$, cf. Section 4.
346: %This is contrary to the
347: %spin averaged structure function where e.g. the resummation of the
348: %${\rm ln^2}(1/x)$ does not affect the low $x$ leading order behaviour
349: %of $F_2^{ns}$ given by the Regge theory.
350:
351: %Other predictions of the low $x$ behaviour of $g_1$,
352: %based on the Regge theory give $g_1\sim$ {ln}$x$, \cite{clo_rob},
353: %while the model based on the exchange of two nonperturbative gluons
354: %gives $g_1\sim$ 2~{ln}(1/$x$)--1, \cite{bass_land}. A perverse behaviour,
355: %$g_1\sim$1/$(x$ln$^2x)$, recalled in \cite{clo_rob}, is not valid
356: %for $g_1$, \cite{misha}.
357:
358: Other considerations based on the Regge theory give further
359: isosinglet contributions to the low $x$ behaviour of $g_1$: a term proportional
360: to {ln}$x$ (from a vector component of the short range exchange potential),
361: \cite{clo_rob} and a term proportional to 2~{ln}(1/$x$)--1 (exchange of two
362: nonperturbative gluons), \cite{bass_land}; a perversly behaving term
363: proportional to 1/$(x$ln$^2x)$, recalled in \cite{clo_rob} is not valid
364: for $g_1$, \cite{misha}.
365:
366: Testing the Regge behaviour of $g_1$ through its $x$ dependence
367: should in principle be possible with the
368: low $x$ data of the SMC \cite{ssmc98} which include the kinematic region where
369: $W^2$ is high, $W^2$\gapproxeq 100 GeV$^2$, and $W^2\gg Q^2$.
370: Thus the Regge model should be applicable there.
371: However for those data $W^2$ changes very little:
372: from about 100 GeV$^2$ at $x=$ 0.1 to about 220 GeV$^2$ at $x=$ 0.0001,
373: contrary to a strong change of $Q^2$: from about 20 GeV$^2$
374: to about 0.01 GeV$^2$ respectively. Thus those data cannot test the Regge
375: behaviour of $g_1$. %
376: %
377: %
378: \begin{figure}[htb]
379: \begin{center}
380: %\includegraphics*[width=6cm]{extr.eps}
381: \epsfig{figure=extr.eps,height=10cm}
382: \end{center}
383: \caption{\label{fig_g1extrapo} \footnotesize{Three scenarios of the possible
384: behaviour of $g_1^p$ at low $x$ \cite{hera_study}.}}
385: \end{figure}
386: %
387: %
388: Moreover
389: %A strong correlation between low $x$ and low $Q^2$ values in the SMC
390: %is a reason of another difficulty: the values of $g_1$ measured at different $x$
391: %correspond to different values of $Q^2$. Therefore
392: employing the Regge model
393: prediction, $g_1\sim x^0$ to obtain the $x\rightarrow 0$ extrapolation of $g_1$,
394: often used in the past to extract the $g_1$ moments
395: (cf.\cite{qcd_old} and Fig.\ref{fig_g1extrapo}) is not correct.
396: The values of $g_1$ should be evolved to a common value of $Q^2$ before
397: the extrapolation, cf. Eq.(\ref{regge_g1}). Therefore other ways of extrapolation
398: of $g_1$ to low values of $x$ were adopted in the analyses, see Sections 4.1
399: and 4.3. Testing the Regge behaviour of $g_1$ may be possible in COMPASS,
400: cf. Fig. \ref{fig_compass}.
401:
402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
403: \section{Low $x$ implications from the perturbative QCD }
404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
405: \subsection{DGLAP fits to the $g_1$ measurements}
406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
407:
408: In the standard QCD, the asymptotic, small $x$ behaviour of $g_1$ is created by the
409: ``ladder'' processes, Fig.\ref{fig_ladder}. In the LO approximation
410: %and assuming constant (spin dependent) splitting functions
411: it is given by:
412:
413: \eq
414: g_1(x,Q^2)\sim {\rm exp}\left[A\sqrt{\xi(Q^2){\rm ln}(1/x)}\right]
415: \label{asympt_g1}
416: \eqx
417: where
418: \eq
419: \xi(Q^2)=\int_{Q^2_0}^{Q^2}{dq^2\over q^2}{\alpha_s(q^2)\over 2\pi}
420: \eqx
421: and the constant $A$ is different for singlet and non-singlet case.
422: The above behaviour of $g_1$ is more singular than that implied by
423: Eq.(\ref{regge_g1}) for $\alpha_{s,ns}(0) \lapproxeq 0$: Regge behaviour
424: of $g_1(x,Q^2)$ is unstable against the QCD evolution. Let us mention for
425: comparison that in the spin-averaged case, $xF_1^s$ has the small $x$
426: behaviour as that
427: in Eq.\ref{asympt_g1} (in the Regge theory $F_1^s$ is controlled by the
428: exchange of the pomeron with intercept $\sim$1.08) while $F_1^{ns}$ remains
429: stable under the QCD evolution ($F_1^{ns}$ is controlled by the exchange
430: of the $A_2$ trajectory of intercept $\sim$0.5).
431:
432: \begin{figure}[ht]
433: \begin{center}
434: \epsfig{figure=ladder.eps,height=8cm}
435: \end{center}
436: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
437: \caption{\label{fig_ladder}\footnotesize{An example of a ``ladder'' diagram.
438: Figure taken from \protect\cite{bbjk}.}
439: }
440: \end{figure}
441:
442: Several analyses of the $Q^2$ dependence of $g_1$ have been performed on
443: the world data \cite{qcd_old,roland,grsv,qcd_bb,sidorov,qcd_soffer},
444: in the framework of the NLO QCD. However the present data do not permit to
445: determine the shapes of parton distributions with sufficient
446: accuracy. This is true especially for the small $x$ behaviour of parton
447: densities where neither the measurements nor the calculations of
448: possible new dynamic effects exist. Thus extrapolations of the DGLAP fit results
449: to the unmeasured low $x$ region give different $g_1$ behaviours
450: in different analyses, e.g. $g_1^p$ at $x\lapproxeq$
451: 0.001 is positive and increasing with decreasing $x$ in \cite{qcd_soffer}, Fig.
452: \ref{fig_soffer} and negative and decreasing in \cite{qcd_old,grsv}.
453: It should be stressed that
454: the $g_1$ results for $x$ values below these of the data do not influence
455: the results of the fit. Thus there is no reason to expect that
456: the partons at very low $x$ behave as those in the measured (larger $x$) region.
457: Nevertheless extrapolations of the QCD fit are
458: presently being used to get the $x\rightarrow$ 0 extrapolation of $g_1$
459: \cite{qcd_old}, necessary to evaluate its first moments. They
460: strongly disagree with the Regge asymptotic form, cf. Fig. \ref{fig_g1extrapo}.
461:
462: \begin{figure}[htb]
463: \begin{center}
464: %\includegraphics*[width=6cm]{extr.eps}
465: \epsfig{figure=soffer.eps,height=10cm}
466: \end{center}
467: \caption{\label{fig_soffer} \footnotesize{Spin dependent structure functions
468: of proton, deuteron
469: and neutron from a global NLO QCD analysis in a statistical picture of
470: the nucleon at $Q^2$ = 5 GeV$^2$ (curves).
471: The curves maintain their behaviour at least down to
472: $x\sim$10$^{-5}$. Figure taken from \cite{qcd_soffer}.}}
473: \end{figure}
474:
475:
476:
477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
478: \subsection{Double logarithmic \dln ~corrections to \fsn}
479:
480: The LO (and NLO) QCD evolution which sums the powers of ln$(Q^2/Q^2_0)$
481: is incomplete at low $x$. Powers of another large logarithm, ln$(1/x)$, have to
482: be summed up there. In the spin-independent case this is accomplished by the
483: BFKL evolution equation (see e.g. \cite{bfkl}) which gives the leading low $x$
484: behaviour of the structure function, e.g. $F_1^s\sim x^{-\lambda_{BFKL}}$
485: where $\lambda_{BFKL}>$1.
486:
487: It has recently been pointed out that the small $x$ behaviour of both singlet
488: and non-singlet
489: spin dependent structure function $g_1(x,Q^2)$ is controlled by the double
490: logarithmic terms, i.e. by those terms of the perturbative expansion which
491: correspond to powers of
492: $\alpha_s {\rm ln}^2(1/x)$ at each order of the expansion, \cite{bartels}.
493: The double logarithmic terms also
494: appear in the non-singlet spin averaged structure function $F_1^{ns}$
495: \cite{MANA} but the leading small $x$ behaviour
496: of the $F_1^{ns}$ which they generate is
497: overriden by the (non-perturbative) contribution of the $A_2$ Regge
498: pole, \cite{jk_spin}. In case
499: of the $g_1$ its Regge behaviour is unstable against the resummation of the
500: ${\rm ln}^2(1/x)$ terms which generate more singular $x$ dependence
501: than that implied by Eq.(\ref{regge_g1}) for $\alpha_{s,ns} \lapproxeq
502: 0$, i.e. they generate the leading small $x$ behaviour of the $g_1$.
503:
504: The double logarithmic terms in the non-singlet part of the $g_1(x,Q^2)$
505: are generated by ladder diagrams \cite{GORSHKOV,JKNS} as in Fig.
506: \ref{fig_ladder}. Contribution of non-ladder diagrams \cite{bartels} in
507: the non-singlet case is non-leading in
508: the large $N_c$ limit ($N_c$ is a number of colours); it is numerically small
509: for $N_c$=3.
510: The contribution of non-ladder diagrams is however non-negligible for the
511: singlet spin dependent structure function; they are obtained from
512: the ladder ones by adding to them soft bremsstrahlung gluons or soft quarks,
513: \cite{kz}. At low $x$, the singlet part, $g_1^s$ dominates $g_1^{ns}$.
514:
515: The double logarithmic ${\rm ln}^2(1/x)$ effects go beyond the standard
516: LO (and NLO) QCD evolution of spin dependent parton densities.
517: They can be accomodated for in the QCD
518: evolution formalism based upon the renormalisation group equations, \cite{BLUM}.
519: An alternative approach is based on unintegrated spin dependent parton
520: distributions, $f_j(x^{\prime},k^2)$ ($j=u_{v},d_{v},\bar u,\bar d,\bar s,g$) where
521: $k^2$
522: is the transverse momentum squared of the parton $j$ and $x^{\prime}$
523: the
524: longitudinal momentum fraction of the parent nucleon carried by a parton
525: \cite{bbjk,kz,jk_app}. This formalism is very suitable for extrapolating
526: $g_1$ to the region of low $Q^2$ at fixed $W^2$, \cite{bbjk}.
527:
528: The conventional (integrated) distributions $\Delta p_j(x,Q^2)$ (i.e.
529: $\Delta q_u=\Delta p_{u_v} + \Delta p_{\bar u}, ~
530: \Delta \bar q_u = \Delta p_{\bar u}$ etc. for quarks, antiquarks
531: and gluons) are
532: related in the
533: following way to the unintegrated distributions $f_j(x^{\prime},k^2)$:
534: \begin{equation}
535: \Delta p_j(x,Q^2)=\Delta p_j^{0}(x)+
536: \int_{k_0^2}^{W^2}{dk^2\over k^2}f_j(x^{\prime}=
537: x(1+{k^2\over Q^2}),k^2)
538: \label{dpi}
539: \end{equation}
540: Here $\Delta p_j^{0}(x)$ denote the
541: nonperturbative parts of the of the distributions, corresponding to
542: $k^2 < k^2_0$ and the parameter $k_0^2$ is the infrared cut-off
543: ($k_0^2 \sim $1 GeV$^2$). In \cite{bbjk,jk_app,kz} they were treated
544: semiphenomenologically and were parametrised as follows:
545: \begin{equation}
546: \Delta p_j^0(x) = C_j (1-x)^{\eta_j}
547: \label{input}
548: \end{equation}
549: %In Eq.(\ref{input}) we
550: %assumed ${\eta_u}_v = {\eta_d}_v = $3, $\eta_{\bar u} = \eta_{\bar s} =$ 7
551: %and
552: %$\eta_g =$ 5. We also used $k_0^2 = $1 GeV$^2$. The normalisation constants
553: %$C_j$ were determined by imposing
554: %the Bjorken sum rule for $\Delta u_v^{0} - \Delta d_v^{0}$ and
555: %by requiring that the first moments of all other distributions are the same
556: %as those determined from the QCD analysis of \cite{stratmann}.
557: The unintegrated distributions $f_j(x^{\prime},k^2)$ are the solutions of the
558: integral equations \cite{bbjk,jk_app,kz} which embody both the LO Altarelli-Parisi
559: evolution and the double
560: ln$^2(1/x^{\prime})$ resummation at small $x^{\prime}$.
561: These equations combined with
562: %equations (\ref{gp1}) and
563: Eq.(\ref{dpi})
564: and with a standard relation of $g_1$ to the
565: polarised quark and antiquark distributions $\Delta q_i$
566: and $\Delta \bar q_i$ corresponding to the quark (antiquark)
567: flavour $i$:
568: \begin{equation}
569: g_1(x,Q^2) = {1\over 2}\sum_{i=u,d,s} e_i^2\left[\Delta q_i(x,Q^2) +
570: \Delta \bar q_i(x,Q^2)
571: \right].
572: \label{gp1}
573: \end{equation}
574: (assuming $\Delta \bar q_{u} =\Delta \bar q_{d}$ and
575: number of flavours equal 3)
576: lead to approximate $x^{-\lambda}$ behaviour of the $g_1^{}$ in
577: the $x \rightarrow 0$ limit, with $\lambda \sim 0.4$ and
578: $\lambda \sim 0.8$ for the nonsinglet and singlet parts
579: respectively which is more singular at low $x$ than
580: that generated by the (nonperturbative) Regge pole exchanges.
581: %\footnote{ To be precise the singular $x^{-\lambda}$
582: %behaviour with $\lambda \sim 1$ for singlet and gluon spin dependent
583: %distributions does hold in the approximation when only the
584: %ladder diagrams are retained \cite{JKAPP}. Complete double logarithmic
585: %$ln^2(1/x)$ resummation which
586: %includes also the non-ladder bremmstrahlung diagrams generates less singular
587: %behaviour of these distributions \cite{kz}.}
588: %
589: \begin{figure}[htb]
590: \begin{center}
591: \epsfig{figure=jkbz.eps,height=6cm}
592: \end{center}
593: \caption{\label{fig_kz} \footnotesize{
594: $g_1^p(x,Q^2)$ at $Q^2$=10 GeV$^2$. A thick solid line
595: corresponds to full calculations, a dashed one -- only the ladder ln$^2(1/x)$
596: resummation with LO Altarelli-Parisi evolution, a dotted one - pure LO
597: Altarelli-Parisi evolution and a thin solid line - the nonperturbative
598: input, $g_1^{(0)}$, related to $\Delta p_j^{0}(x)$ in Eq.\ref{dpi}. Figure
599: taken from \cite{kz}.
600: }}
601:
602: \end{figure}
603:
604: \begin{figure}[htb]
605: \begin{center}
606: \epsfig{figure=jkbb.eps,height=9cm}
607: \end{center}
608: \vskip-1.7cm
609: \caption{\label{fig_bbjk} \footnotesize{
610: Non-singlet part of the proton spin structure function $g_1(x,Q^2)$
611: at $Q^2=$10 GeV$^2$. Continuous line
612: corresponds to full calculations,
613: broken line is a pure leading order Altarelli--Parisi prediction,
614: and a dotted one marks the nonperturbative input, $g_1^{(0)}$,
615: assumed as $g_1^{(0)}(x)=2g_A(1-x)^3/3$ and satisfying the Bjorken sum rule,
616: $\Gamma_1=g_A/6$. Figure taken from \cite{bbjk}.
617: }}
618: \end{figure}
619:
620:
621:
622: %
623: %
624: %
625: %
626: %
627: Results of a complete, unified formalism incorporating
628: the LO Altarelli--Parisi evolution and the ln$^2(1/x)$ resummation at low $x$
629: for $g_1^p$ are shown in Figs \ref{fig_kz} and \ref{fig_bbjk},
630: separately for the total \cite{kz} and nonsinglet %g_1$
631: \cite{bbjk} parts of the spin dependent structure function. Resummation
632: of ln$^2(1/x)$ terms gives $g_1$ steeper than that generated by the
633: LO evolution alone and this effect is in $g_1^{ns}$ visible already for
634: $x\lapproxeq$ 10$^{-2}$.
635:
636:
637: The double ln$^2(1/x)$ effects are not important
638: in the $W^2$ range of the fixed target experiments.
639: However since $x(1+k^2/Q^2) \rightarrow k^2/W^2$ for $Q^2 \rightarrow 0$
640: in the integrand in Eq. (\ref{dpi}) and since $k^2 >k_0^2$ there,
641: the $g_1^{}(x,Q^2)$ defined by Eqs (\ref{gp1}) and (\ref{dpi})
642: can be smoothly extrapolated to
643: the low $Q^2$ region, including $Q^2=0$. In that limit, the
644: $g_1$ should be a finite function of $W^2$, free from any
645: kinematical singularities or zeros. The extrapolation,
646: valid for fixed and large $W^2$, can thus be done
647: %for the $g_1^{}(x,Q^2)$ given by Eqs (\ref{gp1}) and (\ref{dpi})
648: provided that nonperturbative parts of the parton distributions
649: $\Delta p_j^{0}(x)$ are free from
650: kinematical singularities at $x=0$, as in the parametrisations
651: defined by Eq. (\ref{input}). If however $\Delta p_j^{0}(x)$ contain kinematical
652: singularities at $x$=0 then one may replace it with $\Delta p_j^{0}(\bar x)$
653: where $\bar x = x(1+k^2_0/Q^2)$ and leave the remaining parts of the calculations
654: unchanged.
655:
656:
657: The formalism including
658: the ln$^2(1/x)$ resummation and the LO
659: Altarelli-Parisi evolution,
660: \cite{kz}, was used to calculate $g_1$ at $x$ and $Q^2$ values of the SMC
661: measurement and a reasonable description of the data on $g_1^{p,d}(x,Q^2)$
662: extending down to $x\sim$0.0001 at $Q^2\sim$0.02 GeV$^2$
663: was obtained, cf. Fig.1 in \cite{bkk}.
664: Of course the (extrapolated) partonic contribution
665: may not be the only one at low $Q^2$; the VMD part may play a non-negligible role as
666: well, cf. Section 5.
667:
668:
669:
670:
671:
672:
673:
674: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
675: \subsection{Low $x$ contributions to $g_1$ moments}
676: Fundamental tools in investigating the
677: properties of the spin interactions are the sum rules, expected to be satisfied by
678: the spin structure functions.
679: These sum rules involve first moments of $g_1$, i.e. integrations of $g_1$ over the
680: whole range of $x$ values, from 0 to 1. This means that experimentally unmeasured
681: regions, [0,$x_{min}$) and ($x_{max}$,1] must also be included in the integrations.
682: The latter is not critical, see e.g.\cite{roland_exp}, but contribution from
683: the former may significantly influence the moments. The value of $x_{min}$
684: depends on the value of the maximal lepton energy loss, $\nu_{max}$, accessed
685: in an experiment at a given $Q_0^2$. For the CERN experiments, with muon beam
686: energies about 200 GeV and at $Q_0^2$=1 GeV$^2$ it is about 180 GeV which
687: corresponds to $x_{min}\approx$ 0.003. Contribution to the
688: $g_1$ moments from the unmeasured region, 0$\leq x <$ 0.003, has thus to be done
689: phenomenologically.
690:
691: Unified system of equations including
692: the double ln$^2(1/x)$ resummation effects and the complete leading-order
693: Altarelli-Parisi evolution,
694: \cite{kz}, was used to extrapolate the spin dependent parton distributions
695: and the polarised nucleon structure functions down to $ x \sim 10^{-5}$,
696: \cite{beata}. Calculated moments of the proton stucture function for
697: 2 $< Q^2 <$ 15 GeV$^2$, i.e. where the low $x$ measurements exist, agreed well with
698: the latter and the estimated contribution of the integral over $g_1(x,Q^2)$ in the
699: interval 10$^{-5} < x < 10^{-3}$ was about 2\% of the total $g_1^p$ moment
700: in the above interval of $Q^2$. In the same limits of $Q^2$, moments of
701: $g_1^n$ were found to lie below the experimental data and the calculated low $x$
702: contribution was 8\% of the total neutron moment. All these contributions
703: increase with increasing $Q^2$. It was also estimated that
704: the above low $x$ region contributes only
705: in about 1\% and 2\% to the Bjorken and Ellis--Jaffe sum rules respectively.
706:
707: %The same formalism applied to the non-singlet part of the $g_1^p$
708: %gave at $Q^2=$10 GeV$^2$
709: Within the same formalism and at $Q^2$=10 GeV$^2$, a contribution of 0.0080
710: from the unmeasured region, 0$\leq x <$ 0.003, to the Bjorken integral was obtained
711: while the contribution resulting from
712: the pure LO Altarelli-Parisi evolution
713: was 0.0057. These numbers have to be compared with 0.004 obtained when $g_1$=const
714: behaviour, consistent with Regge prediction was assumed and fitted to the
715: lowest $x$ data points for proton and deuteron targets (see \cite{bbjk} and
716: references therein).
717:
718: Extrapolation to the unmeasured region (0$\leq x <$ 0.003) of the NLO DGLAP fits
719: to the world data
720: results in about 10\% contribution of that low $x$ region to the $g_1^p$
721: moment, \cite{qcd_old}.
722: The NLO DGLAP fit to the SMC data gave a contribution of 0.010 to the Bjorken
723: integral at $Q^2$=10 GeV$^2$,
724: i.e. about 6\% of that integral, \cite{qcd_old}.
725: These numbers rely on the validity of the assumption that
726: the parton distributions behave as $x^\delta$ as $x\rightarrow$0.
727:
728: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
730: \section{Nonperturbative effects in $g_1$}
731: Data on polarized nucleon structure function $g_1(x,Q^2)$
732: %in a wide kinematic range of $Q^2$ and $x$.
733: extend to the region of low values of
734: $Q^2$, \cite{nne143,smc98,ssmc98,uta}.
735: This region is of particular interest since
736: nonperturbative mechanisms dominate the particle dynamics there and
737: a transition from soft- to hard physics may be studied.
738: In the fixed target experiments the low values
739: of $Q^2$ are reached simultaneously with the low values of the Bjorken variable,
740: $x$, cf. Figs \ref{fig_t15} and \ref{fig_compass}, and therefore predictions for
741: spin structure functions in both the low $x$
742: and low $Q^2$ region are needed. Partonic contribution to $g_1$ which controls
743: the structure function in the deep inelastic domain
744: % and which scales there{\it modulo} logarithmic corrections,
745: has thus to be suitably extended to the
746: low $Q^2$ region and complemented by a non-perturbative component.
747:
748: The low $Q^2$ spin-averaged electroproduction is very successfuly described by
749: the Generalised Vector Meson Dominance (GVMD) model,
750: see e.g. \cite{breitweg,el89,el92}.
751: Therefore me\-thods based on GVMD should also be used to describe the behaviour of
752: the $g_1$ in the low $x$, low $Q^2$ region. Two attempts using such methods
753: have recently been made. In the first one, \cite{bkk}
754: the following representation of $g_1$ was assumed:
755: \eq
756: g_1(x,Q^2)=g_{1}^{VMD}(x,Q^2) + g_{1}^{part}(x,Q^2).
757: \label{g1tot}
758: \eqx
759: The partonic contribution, $g_{1}^{part}$ which at low $x$ is controlled
760: by the logarithmic ln$^2(1/x)$ terms, was parametrised as discussed in Section 4.2.
761:
762: The VMD contribution, $g_1^{VMD}(x,Q^2)$, was represented as:
763: \noindent
764: \eq
765: g_{1}^{VMD}(x,Q^2) = {M\nu\over 4 \pi} \sum_{V=\rho,\omega,\phi}
766: {M_V^4 \Delta \sigma_{V}(W^2) \over \gamma_V^2
767: (Q^2+M_V^2)^2}
768: \eqx
769: where $M_V$ is the mass of the vector meson $V$,
770: $\gamma_V^2$ are determined from the leptonic widths of the vector mesons
771: and $\nu=Q^2/2Mx$.
772: The unknown cross sections $\Delta \sigma _{V}(W^2)$ are combinations
773: of the total cross sections for the scattering of polarised vector mesons
774: and nucleons. It was assumed that they are proportional
775: (with a proportionality coeffcient $C$)
776: to the appropriate combinations of the nonperturbative contributions
777: $\Delta p_j^0(x)$ to the polarised quark and antiquark distributions:
778: $$
779: {M\nu\over 4 \pi} \sum_{V=\rho,\omega}{M_V^4 \Delta \sigma_{V}
780: \over \gamma_V^2 (Q^2 + M_V^2)^2} =
781: $$
782: \begin{equation}
783: C \left [ {4\over 9} \left(\Delta u^0_{val}(x) + 2\Delta \bar u^{0}(x)\right)
784: +{1\over 9} \left(\Delta d^{0}_{val}(x) + 2\Delta \bar d^0(x)\right)\right]
785: {M_{\rho}^4\over (Q^2+M_{\rho}^2)^2},
786: \label{nsvmd}
787: \end{equation}
788: %
789: %
790: \begin{equation}
791: {M\nu\over 4 \pi} {M_{\phi}^4 \Delta \sigma_{\phi p} \over \gamma_{\phi}^2
792: (Q^2 + M_{\phi}^2)^2} =
793: C{2\over 9}\Delta \bar s^0(x){M_{\phi}^4 \over (Q^2 +M_{\phi}^2)^2},
794: \label{svmd}
795: \end{equation}
796: %
797: where $\Delta u^0(x)=\Delta p_u^{0}(x)$, etc.
798: The $\Delta p^0_j(x)$, Eq.(\ref{input}), behave as $x^0$ for $x\rightarrow$0.
799: As a result the cross sections $\Delta \sigma_{V}$ behave as
800: $1/W^2$ at large $W^2$ which corresponds to zero intercepts of
801: the appropriate Regge trajectories.
802: %It should be noticed that the exact $x$ dependence of $\Delta p_j^0(x)$ was
803: %included in the calculations.
804: \begin{figure}[ht]
805: %\vspace*{1cm}
806: \epsfig{figure=new.a1p.smc.eps,height=7cm}
807: \hspace*{0.5cm}
808: \epsfig{figure=new.a1p.16.2.eps,height=7cm}
809: \caption{\label{fig_a1p} \footnotesize{
810: Spin asymmetry $A_1$ for the proton as a function
811: of $x$ at the measured $Q^2$ values (marked above the $x$ axis),
812: obtained by the SMC (stars \protect\cite{smc98} and dots \protect\cite{ssmc98})
813: and by SLAC E143 \protect\cite{nne143} (at 16.2 GeV incident energy only).
814: Errors are statistical. Curves are predictions of the model for
815: %(\protect\ref{gp1}) -- (\protect\ref{vmdg1}) assuming
816: different values of $C$. Figure comes from \protect\cite{bkk}.}
817: }
818: \end{figure}
819:
820: Results of calculations for $Q^2<$1 GeV$^2$ are shown in Fig.\ref{fig_a1p}
821: for different values of $C$.
822: The statistical accuracy of the SMC data is too poor to constraint
823: the value of the coefficient $C$. The SLAC E143 data apparently prefer a small
824: negative value of $C$. Similar analysis of the neutron and deuteron spin
825: structure functions was inconclusive.
826:
827:
828: In the other attempt to describe the \fsn ~in the low $x$, low $Q^2$ region,
829: \cite{bkz}, the GVMD model was used together
830: with the Drell-Hearn-Gerasimov-Hosoda-Yamamoto (DHGHY) sum rule, \cite{DH,GER,HY}.
831: %In the photoproduction limit the first moment of $g_1$
832: %is related to the static properties of nucleon via the DHGHY.
833: In the GVMD, the \fsn ~has the following representation, valid for fixed
834: $W^2\gg Q^2$, i.e. small values of $x$, $x=Q^2/(Q^2+W^2-M^2)$:
835: {\footnotesize
836: \eq
837: g_1(x,Q^2)=g_1^{L}(x,Q^2)+g_1^{H}(x,Q^2)=\frac{M\nu}{4\pi}\,\sum_V\,
838: \frac{M^4_V \Delta \sigma_V(W^2)}{\gamma_V^2(Q^2+M^2_V)^2}+
839: g_1^{AS}({\bar x},Q^{2}+Q_0^2).
840: \label{gvmd}
841: \eqx
842: }
843: %
844: \noindent
845: The first term
846: sums up contributions from light vector mesons, $M_V < Q_0$ where $Q_0^2
847: \sim$ 1 GeV$^2$ \cite{el89}. The unknown $\Delta \sigma_V$ are
848: expressed through the combinations of nonperturbative parton distributions,
849: $\Delta p_j^{0}(x)$, evaluated at fixed $Q_0^2$, similar to the previous
850: case.
851:
852: The second term in (\ref{gvmd}), $g_1^{H}(x,Q^2)$, which represents
853: the contribution of heavy ($M_V > Q_0$) vector mesons to $g_1(x,Q^2)$
854: can also be treated as an extrapolation of the QCD improved parton model
855: structure function, $g_1^{AS}(x,Q^{2})$, to arbitrary values of $Q^2$:
856: $g_1^H(x,Q^2)=g_1^{AS}(\bar x,Q^2+Q_0^2)$, cf. \cite{el92}. Here
857: the scaling variable $x$ is replaced by ${\bar x}=(Q^2+Q_0^2)/(Q^2+Q_0^2+W^2-M^2)$.
858: It follows that $g_1^{H}(x,Q^2)\rightarrow g_1^{AS}(x,Q^{2})$ as $Q^2$ is large.
859: We thus get:
860: %
861: {\footnotesize
862: \eqn
863: g_1(x,Q^2)&=&
864: %g_1^{L}(x,Q^2)+ g_1^{AS}({\bar x},Q^{2}+Q_0^2)=\nonumber \\
865: %
866: C\left[ \frac{4}{9}(\Delta u_{val}^{0}(x)+2\Delta \bar u^{0}(x))
867: +\frac{1}{9}(\Delta d_{val}^{0}(x)+2\Delta \bar d^{0}(x))\right]
868: \frac{M^4_{\rho}}{(Q^2+M^2_{\rho})^2}\nonumber\\
869: %
870: &+&C\left[ \frac{1}{9}(2\Delta \bar s^{0}(x))\right]\frac{M^4_{\phi}}
871: {(Q^2+M^2_{\phi})^2}\nonumber \\
872: %
873: &+&g_1^{AS}({\bar x},Q^{2}+Q_0^2).\label{gvmdu}
874: \eqnx
875: }
876: %
877: \noindent
878: The only free parameter in (\ref{gvmdu}) is the constant $C$. Its value
879: may be fixed in the photoproduction limit where the first moment of
880: $g_1(x,Q^2)$ is related to the anomalous magnetic moment of the
881: nucleon via the DHGHY sum rule, cf.\ \cite{ioffe,ioffe2}:
882: %
883: \eq
884: I(0)=I_{res}(0)
885: + M\,\int_{\nu_t(0)}^{\infty}\,\frac{d\nu}{\nu^2}\,g_1\left(x(\nu),0\right)
886: =-\kappa^2_{p(n)}/4,
887: \label{i0}
888: \eqx
889: %
890: where the DHGHY moment before taking the $Q^2$=0 limit has been split into
891: two parts, one corresponding
892: to $W < W_t\sim$ 2 GeV (baryonic resonances) and the other to $W > W_t$:
893: %
894: \eq
895: I(Q^2)=I_{res}(Q^2)
896: + M\,\int_{\nu_t(Q^2)}^{\infty}\,\frac{d\nu}{\nu^2}\,g_1\left(x(\nu),Q^2\right).
897: \label{iq2}
898: \eqx
899: %
900: Here $\nu_t(Q^2)=(W_t^2+Q^2-M^2)/2M$. Substituting $g_1\left(x(\nu),0\right)$
901: in Eq. (\ref{i0}) by Eq. (\ref{gvmdu}) at $Q^2=0$
902: %and performing the integral in (\ref{i0}),
903: we may obtain the value of $C$ from (\ref{i0}) if $I_{res}(0)$, the contribution
904: from resonances, is known e.g. from measurements.
905:
906: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
907: %
908: % FIGURES
909: %
910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
911: %
912: \begin{figure}[ht]
913: \begin{center}
914: \vspace*{-1cm}
915: \epsfig{width=12cm, file=9_VI_g1comp_18.eps}
916: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
917: \end{center}
918: \caption{\label{dhg_g1}\footnotesize{Values of $xg_1$ for the proton
919: as a function of $x$ and $Q^2$, Eq.(\ref{gvmdu}). The asymptotic contribution,
920: $g_1^{AS}$,
921: is marked with broken lines, the VMD part, $g_1^{\rm L}$, with dotted lines
922: and the continuous curves mark their sum, according to (\ref{gvmdu}).
923: Figure comes from \cite{bkz}.
924: }
925: }
926: \end{figure}
927: %
928: To obtain the value of $C$ from Eq.
929: (\ref{i0}), $I_{res}(0)$ was evaluated using the preliminary
930: data taken at ELSA/MAMI by the GDH Collaboration \cite{elsa}
931: at the photoproduction, for $W_t$=1.8 GeV. The $g_1^{AS}$
932: was parametrized using GRSV fit \cite{grsv} for the ``standard
933: scenario'' at the NLO accuracy.
934: %The $\Delta p_j^{(0)}(x)$ in Eq.(\ref{gvmdu})
935: %were evaluated at fixed $Q^2 = Q_0^2$, using, either (i) the GRSV2000 fit,
936: %or (ii) a simple, ``flat'' input, $\Delta p_i^{(0)}(x)=N_i (1-x)^{\eta_i}$
937: %with $\eta_{u_v}=\eta_{d_v}=3,$ $\eta_{\bar u} = \eta_{\bar s} = 7 $
938: %and $\eta_g=5$, \cite{STRATMAN}.
939: $Q_0^2$ = 1.2 GeV$^2$ was assumed as in the analysis of $F_2$, \cite{el89}.
940: As a result the constant $C$ was found to be --0.24 or
941: --0.30, for the $\Delta p_j^{0}(x)$ in Eq.(\ref{gvmdu}) parametrised
942: at $Q^2=Q_0^2$ as
943: Eq. (\ref{input}) or as \cite{grsv}, respectively.
944: %These values change at most by 13$\%$ when
945: %$Q_0^2$ changes in the interval 1.0$ < Q_0^2 < $1.6 GeV$^2$.
946:
947: The nonperturbative, Vector Meson Dominance
948: contribution was obtained negative in both attempts, \cite{bkk,bkz}
949: as well as from earlier phenomenological analyses
950: of the sum rules \cite{ioffe2,burkert}.
951:
952:
953: The $g_1$ obtained from the above formalism is shown in Fig. \ref{dhg_g1}.
954: It reproduces well a general trend in the data, cf.
955: Fig.\ref{fig1}a; however experimental errors are too large for
956: a more detailed analysis. To compute the DHGHY moment, Eq.(\ref{iq2}),
957: for the proton, preliminary results of the JLAB E91-023
958: experiment \cite{e91-023} for 0.15$\lapproxeq Q^2 \lapproxeq $1.2 GeV$^2$
959: and $W < W_t=W_t(Q^2)$~\cite{fatemi} were used. Results, Fig.\ref{fig1}b, show that
960: partons contribute significantly even at $Q^2\rightarrow$ 0 where the
961: main part of the $I(Q^2)$ comes from resonances.
962: %
963: \begin{figure}[ht]
964: \vspace*{1cm}
965: \hspace*{0.5cm}
966: \epsfig{width=7cm, file=19_VI_gp2nlo.eps}
967: \vspace*{2cm}
968: \hspace*{0.5cm}
969: \epsfig{width=7cm, file=19_VI_ip2nlo.eps}
970: \vspace*{-2cm}
971: \caption{\label{fig1}\footnotesize{a) Values of $xg_1$ for the proton as a function of $x$ at the
972: measured values of $Q^2$ in the non-resonant region, $x<x_t=Q^2/2M\nu_t(Q^2)$.
973: Both the VMD input and $g_1^{AS}$ have been evaluated using the GRSV
974: fit for standard scenario at the NLO accuracy \cite{grsv}.
975: Contributions of the VMD and of the $xg_1^{AS}$
976: are shown separately. Points are the SMC measurements at
977: $Q^2 <$ 1 GeV$^2$, \cite{ssmc98}; errors are total. The
978: curves have been calculated at the measured $x$ and $Q^2$ values.
979: b) The DHGHY moment $I(Q^2)$ for the proton. Details as in Fig.\ref{fig1}a.
980: Points mark the contribution of resonances as measured by the JLAB E91-023,
981: \cite{e91-023} at $W < W_t(Q^2)$. Figures come from \cite{bkz}.}
982: }
983: \end{figure}
984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
985: The DHGHY moment is shown in Fig. \ref{fig3} together with the results
986: of calculations of Refs \cite{burkert,soffer} as well as with
987: the E91-023 measurements in the resonance region used as an input to the
988: $I(Q^2)$ calculations. The E91-023 data
989: corrected by their authors for the deep inelastic contribution are also presented.
990: Results of calculations are slightly
991: larger than the DIS-corrected data and the results of \cite{burkert} but
992: clearly lower than the results of \cite{soffer} which overshoot the data.\\
993: %
994: %
995: %
996: \noindent
997: \vskip-1cm
998: \begin{figure}[ht]
999: \begin{center}
1000: \epsfig{width=8cm, height=5.3cm, file=19_VI_iptot.eps}\\
1001: \end{center}
1002: \caption{\label{fig3}\footnotesize {The DHGHY moment $I(Q^2)$ for the proton with the VMD part
1003: parametrized using the GRSV fit \cite{grsv}.
1004: Shown are also calculations of \cite{burkert}
1005: (``B--I'') and \cite{soffer} (``S--T''). Points marked ``CLAS'' are from
1006: the JLAB E91-023 experiment
1007: %using the Cebaf Large Angle Spectrometer, CLAS
1008: \cite{e91-023}: the open circles refer to the resonance region, $W < W_t(Q^2)$
1009: and the full circles contain a correction for the DIS contribution.
1010: Errors are total. Figure comes from \cite{bkz}.}
1011: }
1012: \end{figure}
1013: %
1014: %
1015:
1016:
1017:
1018:
1019:
1020:
1021: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1023: \section{Outlook}
1024:
1025: The longitudinal spin dependent structure function, \fsn, is presently the only
1026: observable which permits an insight into the spin dependent low $x$ physics.
1027: Contrary to spin-independent structure functions, it is sensitive to double
1028: logarithmic, ln$^2(1/x)$ corrections, generating its leading small $x$ behaviour.
1029: However its knowledge is limited by the statistical accuracy
1030: and by the kinematics of the fixed-target experiments. In the latter, the
1031: low values of $x$ are reached simultaneously with the low values of the four
1032: momentum transfer, $Q^2$. While the low $Q^2$ domain may be of great interest due
1033: to a transition from soft to hard physics, it also challenges theoretical
1034: predictions based on partonic ideas which have to be suitably extended
1035: to the nonperturbative region.
1036:
1037: Until now, experimental data on the \fsn ~at low $x$ came mainly from the SMC at CERN.
1038: They do not permit to constrain the low $x$ parton distributions, nor
1039: to test the Regge model but they seem to leave room for contributions
1040: other than (low $Q^2$ extrapolated) partonic mechanisms. They also permitted
1041: first quantitative studies of nonperturbative mechanisms; results consistently
1042: point towards large and negative contribution of the latter.
1043:
1044: New low $x$ data on \fsn
1045: ~will soon be available from COMPASS. Their statistics will be by far
1046: larger so that statistical errors should no longer be do\-mi\-nating. Also
1047: the experimental acceptance at low $x$ will be much wider in the
1048: nonperturbative domain and thus tests of the Regge behaviour of $g_1$
1049: will be possible. A crucial extension of the kinematic domain of the
1050: (deep) inelastic spin electroproduction will take place with the advent of
1051: the polarised Electron-Ion Collider, EIC, at BNL \cite{eic,hera_study_lowq}. With its
1052: centre-of-mass energy only about 2 times lower than that at HERA, this machine will
1053: open a field of pertubative low $x$ spin physics where also other,
1054: semi-inclusive and exclusive observables, will be accessible for testing the high
1055: parton density mechanisms.
1056:
1057: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1058: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1059:
1060: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1061: Many subjects in low $x$ physics were for the first time addressed
1062: and developed by Jan Kwieci\'nski. One of these is the non-perturbative
1063: aspect of the low $x$ electroproduction . His involvement in the phenomenology
1064: of this exciting and still not understood branch of high energy physics
1065: was stimulated by the EMC measurements, followed by results of NMC, E665,
1066: SMC and HERA. I am greatly indebted to Jan for many years of most
1067: enjoyable scientific collaboration.
1068:
1069: This research has been supported in part by the Polish Committee for Scientific
1070: Research with grant number 2P03B 05119.
1071:
1072: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1073: %This research has been supported in part by the Polish Committee for Scientific
1074: %Research with grant 2 P03B 05119.
1075: %
1076:
1077: \begin{thebibliography}{9999}
1078: \bibitem{martin}A. Martin, in ``Spin in physics'', X S\'eminaire Rhodanien de
1079: Physique, Villa Gualino, March 2002, edited by M. Anselmino, F. Mila and
1080: J. Soffer, Frontier Group.
1081: \bibitem{future}J. Soffer, hep-ph/0212011, closing talk at the 15th International
1082: Spin Physics Symposium (SPIN2002), Long Island, NY, September 2002 (to appear
1083: in the Proceedings).
1084: %\bibitem{voss} R.\ Voss, Proc. of the Workshop on the Deep Inelastic Scattering
1085: % and QCD, Paris, April 1995, eds J.-F.\ Laporte and Y.\ Sirois, p.77.
1086: \bibitem{heraf2} ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C21}
1087: (2001) 443; H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B520} (2001) 183.
1088: \bibitem{lowx_coll}Small $x$ Collaboration, B. Andersson et al.,
1089: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C25} (2002) 77.
1090: \bibitem{breitweg} ZEUS Collaboration, J. Breitweg et al., Phys. Lett.
1091: {\bf B487} (2000) 53 and references therein.
1092: \bibitem{el89} B. Bade\l ek and J. Kwieci\'nski, Z. Phys. {\bf C43} (1989) 251.
1093: \bibitem{el92} B. Bade\l ek and J. Kwieci\'nski, Phys. Lett. {\bf B295} (1992)
1094: 263.
1095: \bibitem{smc98} SMC, B. Adeva et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} (1998) 112001.
1096: \bibitem{ssmc98} SMC, B. Adeva et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 072004
1097: and erratum: {\it ibid.} {\bf D62} (2000) 079902.
1098: \bibitem{claude}COMPASS Collaboration, C. Marchand, talk at the XIth
1099: International Workshop on
1100: Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS2003), April 2003, St Petersburg, Russia;
1101: to appear in the Proceedings.
1102: \bibitem{roland_exp} R. Windmolders, in ``Spin in physics'', X S\'eminaire
1103: Rhodanien de Physique, Villa Gualino, March 2002, edited by M. Anselmino,
1104: F. Mila and J. Soffer, Frontier Group.
1105:
1106: \bibitem{uta} U. St\"osslein, Proceedings of the Xth
1107: International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS2002),
1108: May 2002, Cracow, Poland, Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf B33} (2002) 2813.
1109:
1110: \bibitem{hei} R.L. Heimann, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B64} (1973) 429;
1111: J. Ellis and M. Karliner, Phys. Lett. {\bf B213} (1988) 73.
1112: \bibitem{nicola} N. Bianchi and E. Thomas, Phys. Lett. {\bf B450} (1999) 439.
1113: \bibitem{clo_rob} F.E. Close and R.G. Roberts, Phys. Lett. {\bf B336} (1994) 257.
1114: \bibitem{bass_land} S.D. Bass and P.V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. {\bf B336} (1994) 537.
1115: \bibitem{misha} J. Kuti in ``The Spin Structure of the Nucleon'',
1116: World Scientific, Singapore, 1996; M.G. Ryskin, private communication (Durham, 1998).
1117: \bibitem{qcd_old} SMC, B. Adeva et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} (1998) 112002.
1118: \bibitem{hera_study} A. De Roeck et al., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C6} (1999) 121.
1119: \bibitem{bbjk} B. Bade\l ek and J. Kwieci\'nski, Phys. Lett. {\bf B418} (1998)
1120: 229.
1121: \bibitem{roland} For a review of early QCD analyses of $g_1$ see e.g.
1122: R. Windmolders, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 79} (1999) 51.
1123: \bibitem{grsv} M. Gl\"uck, E. Reya, M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev.
1124: {\bf D63} (2001) 094005.
1125: \bibitem{qcd_bb} J. Bl\"umlein and H. B\"ottcher, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B636} (2002) 225.
1126: \bibitem{sidorov} E. Leader, A.V. Sidorov and D.B. Stamenov, Eur. Phys. J.
1127: {\bf C23} (2002) 479.
1128: \bibitem{qcd_soffer} C. Bourrely, J. Soffer and F. Buccella, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C23}
1129: (2002) 487.
1130: \bibitem{bfkl}E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V. Fadin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.
1131: {\bf 72} (1977) 373 [Sov. Phys. JETP, {\bf 45} (1977) 199]; Ya. Ya. Balitzkii and
1132: L.N. Lipatov, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 28} (1978) 1597 [Sov. J. Nuc. Phys. {\bf 28} (1978) 822;
1133: L.N. Lipatov, in ``Perturbative QCD'', edited by A.H. Mueller, World Scientific, 1989.
1134: \bibitem{bartels}J. Bartels, B.I. Ermolaev and M.G. Ryskin, Z. Phys.
1135: {\bf C70} (1996) 273; {\it ibid.} {\bf C72} (1996) 627.
1136: \bibitem{MANA} B.I. Ermolaev, S.I. Manayenkov and M.G. Ryskin,
1137: Z. Phys. {\bf C69} (1996) 259; S.I. Manayenkov, Z. Phys. {\bf C75} (1997) 685.
1138: \bibitem{jk_spin}J. Kwieci\'nski, Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf B27} (1996) 893.
1139: \bibitem{GORSHKOV}V.G. Gorshkov {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 6} (1967)
1140: 129 (Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 6} (1968) 95); L.N. Lipatov, Zh.
1141: Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 54} (1968) 1520 (Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 27}
1142: (1968) 814. R. Kirschner and L.N. Lipatov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
1143: B213} (1983) 122; R. Kirschner, Z. Phys. {\bf C67} (1995) 459.
1144: \bibitem{JKNS} J. Kwieci\'nski, Phys. Rev. {\bf D26} (1982)
1145: 3293.
1146: \bibitem{kz} J. Kwieci\'nski and B. Ziaja, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 054004.
1147: \bibitem{jk_app}J. Kwieci\'nski, Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf B29} (1998) 1201.
1148: \bibitem{BLUM}
1149: J. Bl\"umlein and A. Vogt, Acta Phys. Polon. {\bf B27} (1996) 1309;
1150: Phys.Lett. {\bf B386} (1996) 350; J. Bl\"umlein, S. Riemersma and A. Vogt
1151: Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl) {\bf 51C} (1996) 30.
1152: \bibitem{bkk} B. Bade\l ek, J. Kiryluk and J. Kwieci\'nski, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}
1153: (2000) 014009.
1154: \bibitem{beata} B. Ziaja, Acta Phys. Pol., {\bf B32} (2001) 2863.
1155: \bibitem{nne143}SLAC, E143, K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}
1156: (1998) 112003.
1157:
1158: %\bibitem{stratmann} M. Stratmann, hep-ph/9710379 and contribution to
1159: %the Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering off Polarized Targets:
1160: %Theory Meets Experiment (SPIN 97), Zeuthen, 1997, DESY 97-200, p.94.
1161:
1162: \bibitem{bkz}B. Bade\l ek, J. Kwieci\'nski and B. Ziaja, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C26}
1163: (2002) 45.
1164: \bibitem{DH} S.D. Drell and A.C. Hearn, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 16} (1966)
1165: 908.
1166: 5A
1167: \bibitem{GER} S.B. Gerasimov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 2} (1966) 430.
1168: \bibitem{HY} M. Hosoda and K. Yamamoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Lett. {\bf 36} (1966)
1169: 425.
1170: \bibitem{ioffe} B.L. Ioffe, Surveys in High Energy Physics, {\bf 8} (1995) 107.
1171: \bibitem{ioffe2} B.L. Ioffe, Phys. At. Nucl. {\bf 60} (1997) 1707.
1172: \bibitem{elsa} GDH Collaboration, K. Helbing, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)
1173: {\bf 105} (2002) 113.
1174: \bibitem{burkert} V. Burkert and B.L. Ioffe, Phys. Lett. {\bf B296} (1992) 223;
1175: V. Burkert and B.L. Ioffe, J. Exp. Th. Phys. {\bf 78} (1994) 619.
1176: \bibitem{e91-023} JLAB E91-023, R. De Vita, talk at BARYONS 2002,
1177: Jefferson Lab., March 3-8, 2002,
1178: http://www.jlab.org/baryons2002/program.html.
1179: \bibitem{fatemi} JLAB E91-023, R. Fatemi, private communication (June 2002).
1180: \bibitem{soffer} J. Soffer and O. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70} (1993) 3373.
1181: %\bibitem{STRATMAN} M. Stratmann, hep-ph/9710379.
1182: %\bibitem{IOFFE} V. Burkert and B.L. Ioffe, Phys. Lett. {\bf B296} (1992)
1183: %223; B.L. Ioffe, Phys. Atom. Nucl. {\bf 60} (1997) 1707.
1184:
1185: \bibitem{eic}See e.g. http://www.bnl.gov/eic.
1186: \bibitem{hera_study_lowq} S.D. Bass and A. De Roeck, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C18} (2001)
1187: 531.
1188: %\bibitem{bauer} T.H. Bauer et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 50} (1978) 261.
1189: %\bibitem{low} F.E. Low, Phys. Rev. {\bf 96} (1954) 1428.
1190: \end{thebibliography}
1191:
1192: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
1193: %\bibliography{mom1}
1194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1195: \end{document}
1196:
1197:
1198:
1199: