1: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %

2: %%

3: %%

4: %%   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

5: %%   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

6: %%

7: %%

8: %%   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

9: %%

10: %%   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

11: %%

12: %

13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0

14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.

15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.

16: %

17: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long

18: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.

19: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.

20: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal

21: %     important  ===>   $$$   <===   important     %

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: %  Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes

24: %  Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear

25: %  Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear

26: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

27: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

28: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

29: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

30: 

31: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references

32: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS

33: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line

34: % below if necessary.

35: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

36: 

37: \begin{document}

38: 

39: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report

40: % number in the upper righthand corner of the title page in preprint mode.

41: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.

42: % Use the 'preprintnumbers' class option to override journal defaults

43: % to display numbers if necessary

44: \preprint{OU-HEP-459}

45: %hep-ph/0312044

46: 

47: %Title of paper

48: \title{$\mbox{\boldmath $\pi N$}$ sigma-term and chiral-odd twist-3

49: distribution function $\mbox{\boldmath $e(x)$}$\\

50: of the nucleon in the chiral quark soliton model}

51: 

52: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation  etc. as needed

53: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current

54: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail

55: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.

56: % Please use the appropriate macro foreach each type of information

57: 

58: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last

59: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the

60: % other information

61: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

62: \author{Y.~Ohnishi and M.~Wakamatsu}

63: \email[]{ohnishi@kern1.nclth.osaka-u.ac.jp}

64: \email[]{wakamatu@phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp}

65: %\homepage[]{Your web page}

66: %\thanks{}

67: %\altaffiliation{}

68: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, \\

69: Osaka University, \\

70: Toyonaka, Osaka 560, JAPAN}

71: 

72: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress

73: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be

74: %used with the \author command).

75: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

76: %\collaboration{}

77: %\noaffiliation

78: 

79: %\date{\today}

80: 

81: \begin{abstract}

82: The isosinglet combination of the chiral-odd twist-3 distribution function

83: $e^u(x)+e^d(x)$ of the nucleon has outstanding properties that its

84: first moment is proportional to the well-known $\pi N$ sigma-term and

85: that it contains a $\delta$-function singularity at $x=0$.

86: These two features are inseparably connected in that the above sum rule

87: would be violated, if there is no such a singularity in $e^u(x)+e^d(x)$. 

88: Very recently, we found that the physical origin of this 

89: $\delta$-function singularity can be traced back to the long-range

90: quark-quark correlation of scalar type, which signals the spontaneous

91: chiral symmetry breaking of the QCD vacuum.

92: The main purpose of the present paper is to give

93: complete theoretical predictions for the chiral-odd twist-3 distribution

94: function $e^a(x)$ of each flavor $a$ on the basis of the chiral quark

95: soliton model, without recourse to the derivative expansion type

96: approximation. These theoretical predictions are then compared with

97: the empirical information extracted from the CLAS data of the

98: semi-inclusive DIS processes by assuming the Collins mechanism only.

99: A good agreement with the CLAS data is indicative of a

100: sizable violation of the $\pi N$ sigma-term sum rule, or equivalently,

101: the existence of a $\delta$-function singularity in $e^u(x) + e^d(x)$.

102: \end{abstract}

103: 

104: 

105: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line

106: \pacs{12.39.Fe, 12.39.Ki, 12.38.Lg, 13.40.Em}

107: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this

108: %\keywords{}

109: 

110: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords

111: \maketitle

112: 

113: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands

114: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands

115: 

116: 

117: \section{Introduction}

118: 

119: \ \ \ It is a widely accepted common belief now that the nonperturbative

120: dynamics of QCD (chiral dynamics) is an indispensable element to

121: understand high-energy deep inelastic scattering observables.

122: Undoubtedly, the reconfirmation of this natural fact strongly owes

123: to the two remarkable experimental discoveries in this

124: field \cite{EMC88}\nocite{EMC89}-\cite{NMC91}.

125: They are the unexpectedly small quark spin fraction 

126: of the nucleon revealed by the EMC measurement \cite{EMC88},\cite{EMC89}

127: and the light-flavor sea-quark asymmetry confirmed by the NMC

128: measurement \cite{NMC91}. The most successful theoretical studies of

129: parton distribution functions have been carried out within the

130: framework of the chiral quark soliton 

131: model (CQSM) \cite{DPPPW96}\nocite{DPPPW97}\nocite{WGR96}\nocite{WGR97}

132: \nocite{WK98}\nocite{WK99}\nocite{PPGWW99}\nocite{MW00}\nocite{MW01}

133: \nocite{MW03A}\nocite{MW03B}-\cite{DGPW99}, which is an effective model

134: of baryons maximally incorporating the spontaneous chiral symmetry

135: breaking of the QCD vacuum.

136: In fact, we claim that it is so far the only one effective model of

137: baryons which are able to explain the above two remarkable findings

138: simultaneously within the single theoretical framework

139: \cite{WY91}\nocite{WW00A}\nocite{MW92}-\cite{WW00B}.

140: 

141: Very recently, we became aware of another novel example in which

142: nonperturbative QCD dynamics play an unprecedented role in the

143: physics of parton distribution functions.

144: It concerns the possible existence of a delta-function singularity at

145: the Bjorken variable $x = 0$ in the chiral-odd twist-3 distribution

146: function $e(x)$ of the nucleon  \cite{S03},\cite{WO03}.

147: This distribution function itself, together with its first moment 

148: sum rule giving the familiar $\pi N$ sigma-term, have been known

149: for a long time \cite{JLS73}.

150: In spite of several interesting theoretical features, 

151: however, this distribution function has been thought of as an academic 

152: object of study, since, because of its chiral-odd nature, it does not 

153: appear in the cross section formula of inclusive DIS scatterings.

154: The situation changed drastically, however, since the CLAS 

155: Collaboration was able to get the first experimental information

156: on this interesting quantity through the measurement of the azimuthal

157: asymmetry $A_{LU}$ in the electroproduction of pions from deeply

158: inelastic scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons off

159: unpolarized protons \cite{CLAS}\nocite{herm01}-\cite{herm02}.

160: 

161: Some years ago, within the framework of perturbative QCD, Burkardt 

162: and Koike noticed that the first moment sum rule (or the $\pi N$

163: sigma-term sum rule) for $e(x)$ holds only when $e(x)$ has a 

164: $\delta$-function type singularity at the Bjorken variable 

165: $x = 0$ \cite{BK02}.

166: Unfortunately, the physical origin of this singular term is 

167: not very clear in this perturbative analysis. Very recently, two 

168: independent proofs were given to the fact that the physical origin of 

169: this $\delta$-function singularity can be traced back to 

170: the nonvanishing vacuum quark condensate which signals the spontaneous 

171: chiral symmetry breaking of the QCD vacuum~\cite{S03},\cite{WO03}.

172: An interesting question is whether we can verify  experimentally

173: the existence of this $\delta$-function singularity in $e(x)$.

174: Unfortunately, the point $x = 0$ is experimentally inaccessible.

175: This means that, if there really exists such a $\delta (x)$-type

176: singularity in $e (x)$, the experimental measurement would rather 

177: confirm violation of this $\pi N$ sigma-term sum rule.

178: Nonetheless, since $e (x)$ in the region $ x \neq 0$ can in principle

179: be measured, theorists are challenged to explain its behavior.

180: 

181: The first theoretical study of $e (x)$ was done by using the MIT bag 

182: model \cite{JJ92}. (See also \cite{Signal97}.)

183: However, this estimate based on the bag model cannot be taken

184: as a realistic one by the following reasons.

185: First, its prediction for the magnitude of the $\pi N$ sigma-term is far

186: from reliable. Second, more seriously, it cannot reproduce the 

187: $\delta$-function singularity of $e (x)$. Both these features 

188: (they are not actually unrelated) are easily anticipated, since the 

189: MIT bag model is essentially a relativistic quark model with $N_c \,(=3)$

190: valence quark degrees of freedom only, and the reproduction of the 

191: nonzero vacuum quark condensate is beyond the range of applicability

192: of this model. The first realistic investigation of $e(x)$ was carried out

193: by Efremov et al. on the basis of the chiral quark soliton model but

194: within the ``valence" quark only approximations \cite{EGS01},\cite{EGS02}.

195: More recently, the present authors and Schweitzer independently

196: carried out more careful analysis of the contribution of the Dirac sea

197: quarks on the basis of the gradient expansion type approximation and

198: confirmed that the isosinglet combination of $e(x)$ certainly contains

199: $\delta$-function type singularity \cite{S03},\cite{WO03}.

200: After some analysis of higher derivative terms of the expansion,

201: however, Schweitzer retreated to the assumption that the contribution

202: of the Dirac sea quarks is saturated by this $\delta(x)$ term alone.

203: As admitted by himself, however, whether this last assumption is justified

204: or not is far from trivial \cite{S03}.

205: To confirm it, one has to carry out an 

206: exact numerical calculation within the model without recourse to the

207: gradient expansion type approximation. Furthermore, to compare the 

208: predictions of the model with the experimental data of the CLAS

209: collaboration, one must know $e^a (x)$ of each flavor $a$.

210: To this end, only the knowledge 

211: of the isoscalar combination $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$ is not enough.

212: We need another independent combination, i.e. the isovector distribution 

213: $e^u (x) - e^d (x)$. Within the framework of the CQSM, this latter 

214: distribution survives at the next-to-leading order in $1 / N_c$ 

215: expansion and it was left untouched in \cite{S03}.

216: 

217: In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, we think it

218: important to carry out an exact model calculation within the CQSM

219: for both of the isoscalar and isovector combinations of the chiral-odd

220: twist-3 distribution function $e (x)$. 

221: We also think it useful to analyze the first and the second moment sum

222: rule for $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$ and $e^u (x) - e^u (x)$ within the CQSM 

223: in the light of the corresponding sum rule expected in the general

224: framework of perturbative QCD.

225: The predictions of the model for $e^u (x)$ and $e^d (x)$ (as well as 

226: the corresponding distributions for antiquarks) are then used as initial 

227: distributions given at the model energy scale around $600 \,\mbox{MeV}$

228: (or $Q^2 \simeq 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$), and they are evolved to higher

229: $Q^2$ for the sake of comparison with the phenomenological information

230: obtained by using the CLAS measurement.

231: 

232: The paper is organized as follows. In sect.2, after a brief introduction

233: of the basic idea of the CQSM, the theoretical expression for

234: $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$ and $e^u (x) - e^d (x)$ are given.

235: The fundamental moment sum rules for these distributions are also discussed

236: here in some detail. Sect. 3 is devoted to the discussion of the numerical

237: results. Finally, in sect.4, we summarize what we have found. 

238: 

239: 

240: 

241: \section{$\mbox{\boldmath $e(x)$}$ in the Chiral Quark Soliton Model}

242: 

243: %\subsection{Light-cone representation for $\mbox{\boldmath $e(x)$}$}

244: 

245: The chiral-odd twist-3 quark distribution  $e^a(x)$ of flavor $a$

246: inside a nucleon with 4-momentum $P$, averaged over its spin, is

247: defined by

248: %

249: \begin{equation}

250:  e^a(x)=

251:  P^+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dz^-}{2\pi} \,e^{ixP^+ z^-}\langle

252:  N|\psi_a^{\dagger}(0)\gamma^0\psi_a(z)|N \rangle

253:  \bigr| _{z^+=0,z_{\perp}=0}

254:  \label{eq:dis1} \,\, ,

255: \end{equation}

256: %

257: where $\psi_a$ are quark fields. Similarly, the corresponding

258: antiquark distribution is defined as

259: %

260: \begin{equation}

261:  e^{\bar{a}}(x)=

262:  P^+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dz^-}{2\pi} \,e^{ixP^+ z^-}\langle 

263:  N|\psi_a^{c \dagger} (0) \gamma^0 \psi_a^c (z)|N \rangle

264:  \bigr| _{z^+=0,z_{\perp}=0}

265:  \label{eq:dis2} \,\, ,

266: \end{equation}

267: %

268: with $\psi^c$ being the charge-conjugate field of $\psi$.

269: Here we use the standard light-cone coordinates

270: %

271: \begin{equation}

272:  z^{\pm}=\frac{z^0\pm z^3}{\sqrt{2}},\qquad P^{\pm}=

273:  \frac{P^0\pm P^3}{\sqrt{2}}.

274:  \label{eq:dis3}

275: \end{equation}

276: %

277: The variable $x$ denotes the Bjorken variable, $x=-q^2/(2P\cdot q)$,

278: with $q$ being the 4-momentum transfer to the nucleon.

279: Taking account of the charge-conjugation property of the relevant quark

280: bilinear operator, one can formally extend the domain of quark distribution

281: functions from the interval

282: $0\!\le\! x\! \le\! 1$ to $-1\!\le\! x\!\le\! 1$, such that

283: %

284: \begin{equation}

285:  e^{\bar{a}}(x) = e^a(-x),\quad (0\le x\le 1),

286:  \label{eq:disqa}

287: \end{equation}

288: %

289: which dictates that the distribution function with negative $x$ should be

290: interpreted as antiquark one.

291: 

292: Although the above definitions of the quark and antiquark distribution

293: functions are frame-independent, it is convenient to perform the

294: actual calculation in the nucleon rest frame. In this frame,

295: we have $P^+\!=\!M_N/\sqrt{2}$, and the distribution function is reduced

296: to

297: %

298: \begin{equation}

299:  e^a(x)=M_N\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dz_0}{2\pi} \,

300:  e^{ixM_Nz_0}\langle N|

301:  \psi_a^{\dagger}(0)\gamma^0\psi_a(z)|N\rangle|_{

302:  z_3=-z_0 ,z_{\perp}=0}\label{eq:dis4}\, .

303:  \label{eq:disprest}

304: \end{equation}

305: %

306: Throughout the paper, we will confine ourselves to two flavor case of

307: $u$- and $d$-quarks, and neglect strangeness degrees of freedom

308: in the nucleon.

309: Consequently, we have two independent distributions, i.e. the

310: isosinglet distribution $e^{(T=0)}(x) \equiv e^u(x) + e^d(x)$ and the

311: isovector one $e^{(T=1)}(x) \equiv e^u(x) - e^d(x)$.

312: In the case of $e^{(T=0)}(x)$, we simply sum up (\ref{eq:dis4}) over

313: the flavor components. On the other hand, for $e^{(T=1)}(x)$, 

314: we have to sum up the representation after inserting $\tau_3$ matrix

315: in (\ref{eq:dis4}).

316: 

317: For obtaining quark distribution functions, we must generally evaluate

318: nucleon matrix elements of bilocal and bilinear quark operators

319: containing two space-time coordinates with light-cone separation. 

320: The startingpoint of our theoretical analysis is the following path

321: integral representation of the matrix elements of a bilocal and

322: bilinear quark operator between the nucleon states with definite

323: momentum

324: $\mbox{\boldmath $P$}$ :

325: %

326: \begin{eqnarray}

327:   \langle N (\mbox{\boldmath $P$}) \,| \,\psi^\dagger (0) \,\gamma^0 \,

328:   \psi(z) \,| \,N (\mbox{\boldmath $P$})\rangle

329:   &=& \frac{1}{Z} \,\,\int \,\,d^3 x  \,\,d^3 y \,\,

330:   e^{\,- \,i \mbox{\boldmath $P$} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $x$}} \,\,

331:   e^{\,i \,\mbox{\boldmath $P$} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $y$}} \,\,

332:   \int {\cal D} U \nonumber \\

333:   &&{}\times \int {\cal D}

334:   \psi \,\,{\cal D} \psi^\dagger \,\,

335:   J_N (\frac{T}{2}, \mbox{\boldmath $x$}) \,\,\psi^\dagger (0) \,

336:   \gamma^0 \,\psi(z) \,\,J_N^\dagger (-\frac{T}{2}, 

337:   \mbox{\boldmath $y$})\nonumber \\

338:   &&{}\times \exp \,[\,\,i \int \,d^4 x \,\,\bar{\psi} \,\,

339:   (\,i \! \not\!\partial \,- \,M

340:   U^{\gamma_5}) \,\psi \, ] \, , \ \ \ \ \

341:   \label{eq:cqsm3} 

342: \end{eqnarray}

343: %

344: where 

345: %

346: \begin{eqnarray}

347:   {\cal L} \ \ = \ \ \bar{\psi} \,(\,i \not\!\partial \ - \ 

348:   M U^{\gamma_5} (x) \,) \,\psi  ,\hspace{10mm}

349:   \label{eq:cqsm4}

350: \end{eqnarray}

351: %

352: with

353: %

354: \begin{equation}

355:  U^{\gamma_5} (x) = \exp [ \,i \gamma_5 \mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}

356:  \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} (x) / f_\pi \,] ,

357:  \label{eq:ufield}

358: \end{equation}

359: %

360: being the basic lagrangian of the CQSM with two flavors. The quantity

361: %

362: \begin{equation}

363:  J_N (x) \ \ = \ \ \frac{1}{N_c !} \,\, 

364:  \epsilon^{\alpha_1 \cdots \alpha_{N_c}} \,\,

365:  \Gamma_{J J_3, T T_3}^{\{f_1 \cdots f_{N_c}\}} \,\,

366:  \psi_{\alpha_1 f_1} (x) \cdots \psi_{\alpha_{N_c} f_{N_c}} (x) \,\, ,

367:  \label{eq:intfield}

368: \end{equation}

369: %

370: is a composite operator carrying quantum numbers $J J_3, T T_3$

371: (spin, isospin) of the baryon, where $\alpha_i$ the color indices, while 

372: $\Gamma_{JJ_3,TT_3}^{\{f_1\cdots f_{N_c}\}}$ is a symmetric matrix in spin 

373: flavor indices $f_i$. We start with a stationary pion field configuration

374: of hedgehog shape :

375: %

376: \begin{equation}

377:  \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}(x)=f_{\pi}\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}F(r).

378:  \label{eq:hedgehog}

379: \end{equation}

380: %

381: Next we carry out the path integral over $\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}(x)$ in

382: a saddle point approximation by taking care of two zero-energy modes,

383: i.e. the ``translational zero-modes'' and ``rotational zero-modes''.

384: Under the assumption of ``slow rotation'' as compared with the intrinsic

385: quark motion, the answers can be obtained in a perturbative series in

386: $\Omega$, which can also be regarded as a $1/N_c$ expansion.

387: Up to the first order in the collective rotational velocity

388: $\Omega$, the only surviving contribution to

389: $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ arises at the ${\cal O}(\Omega^0)$ term of this

390: expansion, since the ${\cal O}(\Omega^1)$ term vanishes identically

391: due to the hedgehog symmetry. On the other hand,

392: the first nonvanishing contribution to $e^{(T=1)}(x)$ arises

393: at the ${\cal O}(\Omega^1)$, since the leading ${\cal O}(\Omega^0)$

394: contribution vanishes due to the hedgehog symmetry.

395: Then, between the magnitude of the above two distributions, one may

396: expect the following large-$N_c$ relation :

397: %

398: \begin{equation}

399:  |e^u(x)+e^d(x)| \sim N_c \,|e^u(x)-e^d(x)|\, .

400:  \label{eq:N_c-rel}

401: \end{equation}

402: 

403: 

404: 

405: \subsection{Isosinglet distribution \mbox{\boldmath $e^{(T=0)}(x)$}}

406: 

407: The isosinglet combination of the chiral-odd twist-3 unpolarized

408: distribution is given by

409: %

410: \begin{equation}

411:  e^{(T=0)}(x) \equiv e^u(x)+e^d(x)=M_N\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}

412:  \frac{dz_0}{2\pi} \,e^{ixM_Nz_0} \langle N|\bar{\psi}(0)\psi(z)|

413:  N \rangle |_{z_3=-z_0,z_{\perp}=0}.

414:  \label{eq:e0}

415: \end{equation}

416: %

417: Following the general formalism developed

418: in~\cite{DPPPW96},\cite{DPPPW97},\cite{WK99}, the isosinglet

419: distribution in the CQSM is given in the following form :

420: %

421: \begin{eqnarray}

422:  e^{(T=0)}(x) &=& -N_c M_N

423:  \sum_{n > 0}  \,

424:  \langle n \vert \gamma^0  \delta (xM_N - \hat{p}_3 - E_n) 

425:  \vert n \rangle 

426:  \label{eq:e0xunoccu}

427:  \\ 

428:  &=& \ N_c M_N 

429:  \sum_{n \leq 0}  \,

430:  \langle n \vert \gamma^0  \delta (xM_N - \hat{p}_3 - E_n) 

431:  \vert n \rangle ,

432:  \label{eq:e0xoccu}

433: \end{eqnarray}

434: %

435: where, $|n\rangle $ and $E_n$ are the eigenstates and the associated 

436: eigenenergies of the static Dirac Hamiltonian 

437: %

438: \begin{equation}

439:  H = -i

440:  \mbox{\boldmath $\alpha\cdot\nabla $} + \beta M e^{i\gamma_5

441:  \mbox{\boldmath $\tau\!\cdot\!\hat{r}$}F(r)} ,

442:  \label{eq:Dirac.hamil}

443: \end{equation}

444: %

445: with the hedgehog background. Here, the summation $\sum_{n\le 0}$ in

446: (\ref{eq:e0xoccu}) is meant to be taken over the valence-quark orbital

447: (it is the lowest energy eigenstate that emerges from the

448: positive-energy Dirac continuum) plus

449: all the negative-energy Dirac-sea orbitals.

450: On the other hand, the summation $\sum_{n > 0}$ in (\ref{eq:e0xunoccu})

451: is meant to be taken over all the positive-energy Dirac continuum

452: excluding the discrete valence orbital.

453: We recall that the CQSM is defined with some appropriate regularization.

454: In fact, without regularization, $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ is quadratically divergent,

455: and no practical meaning can be given to either

456: of~(\ref{eq:e0xunoccu}) and (\ref{eq:e0xoccu}).

457: The ideal regularization scheme for our purpose is the Pauli-Villars

458: subtraction scheme, since it preserves several fundamental

459: conservation laws of field theory~\cite{DPPPW96},\cite{DPPPW97}.

460: Furthermore, it is also expected to preserve the equivalence of

461: the two ways of computing the quantity in question, by using

462: (\ref{eq:e0xunoccu}) and (\ref{eq:e0xoccu}).

463: In the present study, we use the double subtraction Pauli-Villars scheme

464: as introduced in~\cite{KWW99}, since $e^{(T=0)}(x)$

465: divergees like the vacuum quark condensate.

466: In this scheme the distribution $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ is replaced with a

467: regularized one defined as 

468: %

469: \begin{equation}

470:  e^{(T=0)}(x) \ \equiv \ 

471:  e^{(T=0)}(x)^M - \sum_{i=1}^2 c_i\left( \frac{\Lambda_i}{M}\right)

472:  e^{(T=0)}(x)^{\Lambda_i} .

473:  \label{eq:pv}

474: \end{equation}

475: %

476: Here $e(x)^{\Lambda_i}$ is obtained from $e(x)^M$  by replacing the mass

477: parameter $M$ by $\Lambda_i$. It was shown in~\cite{KWW99}

478: that, if the parameters $c_1, c_2, \Lambda_1$, and 

479: $\Lambda_2$ are chosen to satisfy the two conditions :

480: %

481: \begin{eqnarray}

482:  1 - \sum_{i = 1}^2 \,c_i \,\left(\frac{\Lambda_i}{M} \right)^2 &=& 0 , 

483:  \label{eq:cond1} \\

484:  1 - \sum_{i = 1}^2 \,c_i \,\left(\frac{\Lambda_i}{M} \right)^4 &=& 0 , 

485:  \label{eq:cond2}

486: \end{eqnarray}

487: %

488: the quadratic as well as the logarithmic divergences in the vacuum quark

489: condensate are completely eliminated.

490: 

491: Actually, we are interested in the nucleon observables measured in

492: reference to the physical vacuum, so that $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ should be

493: replaced by

494: %

495: \begin{equation}

496:  e^{(T=0)}(x)\rightarrow e^{(T=0)}(x)\equiv 

497:  e^{(T=0)}_U(x)-e^{(T=0)}_{U=1}(x).

498:  \label{eq:exregl}

499: \end{equation}

500: %

501: Here the vacuum subtraction term $e^{(T=0)}_{U=1}(x)$ is obtained from

502: $e^{(T=0)}_U(x)$ by setting $U=1$ or $F(r)=0$, and by excluding the sum

503: over the discrete valence level.

504: We point out that, due to the energy-momentum conservation

505: embedded in the factor $\delta(x M_N-\hat{p}_3-E_n)$, the vacuum subtraction

506: terms are required only for $x<0$ in the occupied form (\ref{eq:e0xoccu}),

507: and for $x>0$ in the non-occupied form (\ref{eq:e0xunoccu}).

508: This means that the vacuum subtraction terms need not be considered when

509: $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ is evaluated in the following way, i.e. if it is

510: evaluated by using the occupied form for $x\!>\!0$, while by

511: using the nonoccupied form for $x\!<\!0$.

512: 

513: 

514: 

515: \subsubsection{momentum sum rules of $e^{(T=0)}(x)$}

516: 

517: The most important information of the distribution functions are

518: generally contained in their first few moments of lowest orders.

519: This is also the case for the distribution $e^{(T=0)}(x)$.

520: In a recent paper, Efremov and Schweitzer reviewed some of the

521: important sum rules for the chiral-odd twist-3 distribution functions

522: in an enlightening way \cite{ES03}.

523: Their argument starts with the general definition

524: of the distribution with flavor $a$ as

525: %

526: \begin{equation}

527:  e^a(x)=\frac{1}{2M_N}\int\frac{d \lambda}{2\pi} \,e^{i\lambda x}

528:  \langle N|\bar{\psi}_a(0)[0,\lambda n]\psi_a(\lambda n)|N\rangle , 

529:  \label{eq:link}

530: \end{equation}

531: %

532: where $[0,\lambda n]$ denotes the gauge link. By using an operator

533: identity following from the QCD equation of motion, $e^a(x)$ is shown

534: to be decomposed in a gauge invariant way into the following three

535: pieces :

536: %

537: \begin{equation}

538:  e^a(x) = e^a_{sing}(x) + e^a_{tw3}(x) + e^a_{mass}(x).

539:  \label{eq:exdecomp}

540: \end{equation}

541: %

542: Here, $e^a_{sing}(x)$ denotes a singular term given by

543: %

544: \begin{equation}

545:  e^a_{sing}(x) = \delta(x) \,\langle N | \bar{\psi}^a \psi^a |

546:  N \rangle .

547:  \label{eq:exsing}

548: \end{equation}

549: %

550: On the other hand, $e^a_{tw3}(x)$ is a genuine twist-3 part of $e^a(x)$

551: that contains information on quark-gluon-quark correlations.

552: Finally, $e^a_{mass}(x)$ denotes the term arising from the nonzero current

553: quark mass. It is a somewhat peculiar function defined through its

554: Mellin moments as \cite{BBKT96}\nocite{BM97}\nocite{KN97}-\cite{KT99}

555: %

556: \begin{equation}

557:  \int_{-1}^1 \,x^{n-1} \,e^a_{mass}(x) \,dx = \delta_{n>1} \cdot

558:  \frac{m_0}{M_N} \,\int_{-1}^1 \,x^{n-2} \,f^a_1(x) \,dx ,

559:  \label{eq:exmassmom}

560: \end{equation}

561: %

562: with $f^a_1(x)$ being the twist-2 unpolarized distribution with flavor

563: $a$. The presence of the factor $\delta_{n>1}$ here dictates that the

564: first moment of $e^a_{mass}(x)$ vanishes,

565: %

566: \begin{equation}

567:  \int_{-1}^1 \,e^a_{mass}(x) \,dx = 0 .

568:  \label{eq:exmass1stmom}

569: \end{equation}

570: %

571: It is also known  \cite{BBKT96}\nocite{BM97}\nocite{KN97}-\cite{KT99}

572: that the first two basic Mellin moments of $e^a_{t w 3} (x)$

573: vanish, i.e.

574: %

575: \begin{equation}

576:  \int_{-1}^1 x^{n - 1} e^a_{t w 3} (x) d x = 0 \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ 

577:  n = 1,2 .

578:  \label{eq:extw3mom}

579: \end{equation}

580: %

581: Putting the above-mentioned properties altogether, the first moment sum 

582: rule for the isoscalar combination of $e^a (x)$, i.e. $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ 

583: takes the form. 

584: %

585: \begin{equation}

586:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x = \frac{\sum_{\pi N}}{m_0} ,

587:  \label{eq:ex1stmom}

588: \end{equation}

589: %

590: which is nothing but the $\pi N$ sigma-term sum rule. Note that this sum

591: rule is saturated by the first term of (\ref{eq:exdecomp}) alone.

592: On the other hand, the second Mellin moment of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ is 

593: given by

594: %

595: \begin{equation}

596:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x = \frac{m_0}{M_N} \cdot N_c ,

597:  \label{eq:ex2ndmom}

598: \end{equation}

599: %

600: where $N_c$ is the number of color, which coincides with the number of

601: quarks contained in a baryon-number-one system, i.e. $N_c = 3$.

602: We point out that this second Mellin moment of $e^{(T = 0)}$ vanishes

603: in the chiral limit of $m_0 = 0$.

604: 

605: Next, we turn to the discussion of the moment sum rule in the CQSM.

606: Integrating (\ref{eq:e0xoccu}) over $x$, the first moment of

607: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ is given as

608: %

609: \begin{equation}

610:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x = N_c \sum_{n \leq 0}

611:  \langle n | \gamma^0 | n \rangle .

612:  \label{eq:ex1stmom-cqsm1}

613: \end{equation}

614: %

615: Since the r.h.s. of this equation is nothing but the scalar charge 

616: $\bar{\sigma}$ of the nucleon within the CQSM, the sigma-term sum rule 

617: immediately follows

618: %

619: \begin{equation}

620:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x = \bar{\sigma} = 

621:  \frac{\sum_{\pi N}}{m_0} .

622:  \label{eq:ex1stmom-cqsm2}

623: \end{equation}

624: %

625: The way of this sum rule being satisfied is far more delicate in the CQSM

626: than in the above QCD-motivated analysis. As shown by our previous study,

627: although the model certainly predicts the $\delta (x)$-type singularity in

628: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$, this term alone does not saturate the $\pi N$

629: sigma-term sum rule. The model also predicts nontrivial structure of

630: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ at $x \neq 0$, which may contribute to the first

631: moment sum rule. We shall discuss this point in more detail

632: in the next section.

633: 

634: Turning to the second moment, it is easy to show from (\ref{eq:e0xoccu})

635: that

636: %

637: \begin{equation}

638:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x = \frac{N_c}{M_N}

639:  \sum_{n \leq 0} \langle n | \gamma^0 (\hat{p}_3 + E_n ) | n \rangle .

640:  \label{eq:ex2ndmom-cqsm1}

641: \end{equation}

642: %

643: Owing to the hedgehog symmetry of the soliton, the term containing 

644: $\gamma^0 \hat{p}_3$ vanishes, and we are left with

645: %

646: \begin{equation}

647:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x = \frac{N_c}{M_N}

648:  \sum_{n \leq 0} E_n \langle n | \gamma^0 | n \rangle .

649:  \label{eq:ex2ndmom-cqsm2}

650: \end{equation}

651: %

652: Following \cite{S03}, it is convenient to rewrite the r.h.s. of the

653: above equation in the following manner.

654: First, notice the identity

655: %

656: \begin{equation}

657:  E_n \langle n | \gamma^0 | n \rangle

658:  = \frac{1}{2} \langle n | \{ \hat{H}, \gamma^0 \} | n \rangle

659:  = m_0 + M \langle n | \frac{1}{2} (U + U^{\dagger}) | n \rangle .

660:  \label{eq:anticom}

661: \end{equation}

662: %

663: Here, we have tentatively restored the current quark mass term in the 

664: model Hamiltonian $H$, just for the sake of explanation here only, i.e.

665: we have used here

666: \begin{equation}

667:  H = -i \mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$} \cdot \nabla 

668:  + \beta M e^{i \gamma_5 \mbox{\boldmath $\tau$} \cdot 

669:  \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}} F(r)} 

670:  + m_0 .

671:  \label{eq:dirac.hamil.m}

672: \end{equation}

673: %

674: Then, the second moment sum rule in the CQSM takes the following form :

675: \begin{equation}

676:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x = \frac{N_c}{M_N} \,(m_0 + \beta M) ,

677:  \label{eq:ex2ndmom-cqsm3}

678: \end{equation}

679: %

680: with

681: %

682: \begin{equation}

683:  \beta \equiv \sum_{n \leq 0} \langle n | \frac{1}{2} (U + U^{\dagger})

684:  | n \rangle .

685:  \label{eq:beta}

686: \end{equation}

687: %

688: It is clear now that r.h.s. of this sum rule does not vanish even in the

689: chiral limit of $m_0 = 0$, in contrary to the sum rule derived from the

690: QCD-equation-of-motion method.

691: We shall return to this point in the next section.

692: 

693: 

694: 

695: \subsection{Isovector distribution \mbox{\boldmath $e^{(T=1)}(x)$}}

696: 

697: The isovector distribution is defined by

698: %

699: \begin{equation}

700:  e^{(T=1)}(x) \equiv e^u(x)-e^d(x)=M_N\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}

701:  \frac{dz_0}{2\pi} \,e^{ixM_Nz_0} \langle N|\bar{\psi}(0)\tau_3\psi(z)|

702:  N \rangle |_{z_3=-z_0,z_{\perp}=0} .

703:  \label{eq:e1}

704: \end{equation}

705: %

706: Within the framework of the CQSM,  $e^{(T=1)}(x)$ survives

707: only in the next-to-leading order in the collective angular velocity

708: $\Omega$. Following the formalism derived in~\cite{WK99},\cite{PPGWW99},

709: the final answer is written in the form :

710: \begin{eqnarray}

711:  e^{(T=1)}(x)&=& -\langle 

712:  2T_3\rangle_p M_N \frac{N_c}{2I}\frac13\sum_{a=1}^3

713:    \sum_{m = all, n > 0}  

714:  \langle n | \tau_a | m \rangle

715:  \langle m | \tau_a  \gamma^0  

716:  \left( \frac{\delta_n}{E_m - E_n} - \frac{1}{2M_N} \,

717:  \delta_n^\prime \right)

718:  | n \rangle \nonumber\\

719:  &=&\langle 

720:  2T_3\rangle_p M_N \frac{N_c}{2I}\frac13\sum_{a=1}^3

721:  \sum_{m = all, n \leq 0}

722:  \langle n | \tau_a | m \rangle

723:  \langle m | \tau_a  \gamma^0  

724:  \left( \frac{\delta_n}{E_m - E_n} - \frac{1}{2M_N} \,

725:  \delta_n^\prime \right)

726:  | n \rangle , \ \ 

727:  \label{eq:dis31}

728: \end{eqnarray}

729: %

730: with $\delta_n\equiv \delta(x M_N-E_n-p^3)$ and 

731: $\delta'_n=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\delta(x M_N-E_n-p^3)$.

732: Here $I$ in the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:dis31}) is the moment of inertia

733: of the soliton, given by

734: %

735: \begin{equation}

736:  I = \frac{N_c}{6}\sum_{a=1}^3 \sum_{m > 0} \sum_{n \le 0}

737:  \frac{\langle n |\tau_a |m \rangle \langle m |\tau_a | 

738:  n \rangle}{E_m-E_n}.

739:  \label{eq:momentinertia}

740: \end{equation}

741: %

742: In (\ref{eq:dis31}), $\langle O\rangle_p$

743: should be understood as an abbreviated notation of the matrix element

744: of a collective operator $O$ between the (spin-up) proton state, i.e.

745: %

746: \begin{eqnarray}

747:  {\langle O \rangle}_p &\equiv& \int

748:  \Psi_{T = T_3 = 1/2 ; J = J_3 = 1/2}^{*} [\xi_A] \,O [\xi_A] \,

749:  \Psi_{T = T_3 = 1/2 ; J = J_3 = 1/2} [\xi_A] \,d \xi_A \nonumber \\

750:  &=& \ \ \langle p,S_3=1/2|O|p,S_3=1/2\rangle .

751:  \label{eq:matrcollect}

752: \end{eqnarray}

753: %

754: In the present case, we have ${\langle 2T_3 \rangle}_p = 1$.

755: %As for the isosinglet distribution, the vacuum 

756: %subtruction is implied in Eq.(\ref{eq:dis31}).

757: 

758: We immediately notice that the above expressions are not suitable for

759: the actual numerical calculation. Here, we shall proceed as in the

760: previous studies~\cite{WK99},\cite{PPGWW99}. First, note that the term

761: containing the $x$-derivative of the $\delta$-function

762: in (\ref{eq:dis31}) can be rewritten as

763: %

764: \begin{equation}

765:  e_2(x)=-

766:  \frac{d}{dx} \frac{N_c}{4I}\frac13\sum_a

767:  \sum_{m = all, n \leq 0}  

768:  \langle n | \tau_a | m \rangle

769:  \langle m | \tau_a  \gamma^0 

770:  \delta_n 

771:  | n \rangle  = 

772:  \frac{1}{4IM_N}\frac{d}{dx}\,e^{(T=0)}(x).

773:  \label{eq:de0}

774: \end{equation}

775: %

776: Here, we have made of the completeness of the eigenstates

777: $| n \rangle$ of the static Dirac Hamiltonian $H$.

778: (We recall that $e_2(x)$ term originates from the non-locality in time

779: of the operator $\bar{\psi}(0)\tau^a\psi(z)$ in (\ref{eq:e1}).)

780: It should be recognized that the $x$-derivative of the isosinglet

781: distribution $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ appears in the right-hand side.

782: Since we already know that the isosinglet distribution $e^{(T=0)}(x)$

783: has the $\delta(x)$ type singularity connected with the nonvanishing

784: vacuum expectation, it then follows that $e_2(x)$ has the

785: derivative-of-$\delta(x)$ type singularity.

786: However, it is unlikely that the net isovector distribution

787: $e^{(T=1)}(x)$ has such a singularity, because the QCD vacuum should

788: not violate isospin symmetry so that vacuum quark condensate of

789: isovector type must simply vanish.

790: This apparent discrepancy can be resolved as follows.

791: We first divide the double sum of (\ref{eq:dis31}) into the sum over

792: terms with $E_m=E_n$ and with $E_m\ne E_n$.

793: The point is that the sum with $E_m=E_n$ in $e_1(x)$ can be rewritten

794: in a similar form as the corresponding term in $e_2(x)$,

795: %

796: \begin{eqnarray}

797:  e_1(x)&=&

798:  M_N \frac{N_c}{2I}\frac13\sum_a

799:  \sum_{{m = all, n \leq 0 \atop (E_m \ne E_n)}}\frac{1}{E_m-E_n}  

800:  \langle n | \tau_a | m \rangle

801:  \langle m | \tau_a  \gamma^0  

802:  \delta_n 

803:  | n \rangle

804:  \nonumber\\

805:  &&+

806:  \frac{d}{dx}\frac{N_c}{4I}\frac13\sum_a

807:  \sum_{{m\leq 0,n\leq0\atop (E_m=E_n)}}

808:  \langle n | \tau_a | m \rangle

809:  \langle m | \tau_a  \gamma^0  

810:  \delta_n

811:  | n\rangle ,

812:  \label{eq:dble1}\\

813:  e_2(x)&=&- 

814:  \frac{d}{dx}\frac{N_c}{4I}\frac13\sum_a

815:  \sum_{{m = all,n\leq0\atop (E_m \ne E_n)}}

816:  \langle n | \tau_a | m \rangle

817:  \langle m | \tau_a  \gamma^0  

818:  \delta_n

819:  | n\rangle

820:  \nonumber\\

821:  &&- 

822:  \frac{d}{dx}\frac{N_c}{4I}\frac13\sum_a

823:  \sum_{{m\leq 0,n\leq0\atop (E_m=E_n)}}

824:  \langle n | \tau_a | m \rangle

825:  \langle m | \tau_a  \gamma^0  

826:  \delta_n

827:  | n\rangle .

828:  \label{eq:dblsum}

829: \end{eqnarray}

830: %

831: Now, just as argued in~\cite{PPGWW99},\cite{WK99}, $E_m = E_n$

832: contribution in the double sums in $e_1(x)$ and $e_2(x)$ precisely

833: cancel each other.

834: After regrouping the terms in such a way that this cancellation occurs at

835: the level of analytical expressions, the ${\cal O}(\Omega^1)$

836: contribution to the distribution function $e^{(T=1)}(x)=e^u(x)-e^d(x)$

837: can finally be written in the following form:

838: %

839: \begin{equation}

840:  e^{(T=1)}(x)=

841:  M_N \frac{N_c}{2I}\frac13\sum_a

842:  \sum_{{m = all, n \leq 0\atop(E_m \ne E_n)}}  

843:  \langle n | \tau_a | m \rangle

844:  \langle m | \tau_a  \gamma^0  

845:  \left( \frac{\delta_n}{E_m - E_n} - \frac{1}{2M_N} \,

846:  \delta_n^\prime \right)

847:  | n \rangle .

848:  \label{eq:nosing}

849: \end{equation}

850: %

851: The fact is that, in the double sum of (\ref{eq:dblsum}),

852: the singularity connected with the non-zero vacuum quark condensate

853: comes only from $E_m = E_n$ contribution, i.e. the second term of

854: (\ref{eq:dblsum}). As mentioned above, after the $E_m = E_n$

855: contributions in $e_1(x)$ and $e_2(x)$ are canceled, these singularities

856: disappear in (\ref{eq:nosing}). The final theoretical formula

857: (\ref{eq:nosing}) is therefore free from any

858: singularity which contradicts the symmetries of the QCD vacuum, and

859: it provides us with a sound basis for numerical calculation.

860: 

861: 

862: 

863: \subsubsection{first moment sum rule of $e^{(T=1)}(x)$}

864: \label{sum-rule-e1}

865: 

866:  Here we discuss the first moment sum rule of the isovector

867: distribution. Integrating (\ref{eq:e1}) over $x$, we obtain

868: %

869: \begin{equation}

870:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T=1)}(x) dx = 

871:  \int_{-1}^1 (e^u(x)-e^d(x))dx=\langle N|\bar{\psi}

872:  \tau_3\psi|N\rangle \, .

873:  \label{eq:dis12}

874: \end{equation}

875: %

876: (Here, $\bar{\psi} \tau_3\psi$ should be taken as an

877: abbreviated notation of $\int \bar{\psi}(\mbox{\boldmath $y$}) 

878: \tau_3\psi (\mbox{\boldmath $y$}) \,d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $y$}$,

879: which gives the isovector scalar charge operator.)

880: An interesting observation is that the first moment of $e^{( T=1)}(x)$ is 

881: related to the non-electromagnetic mass difference of neutron and proton.

882: In fact, the nonelectromagnetic neutron-proton mass difference is

883: thought to be generated by the isospin breaking term in the QCD

884: Hamiltonian : 

885: %

886: \begin{equation}

887:  \Delta H=\frac{m_u-m_d}{2} \,(\bar{\psi}_u\psi_u-\bar{\psi}_d\psi_d)\, .

888:  \label{eq:chiralsb}

889: \end{equation}

890: % 

891: Because of the smallness of all the masses $m_u,m_d,m_d-m_u$ compared

892: with the typical energy-scale of hadron physics, we can treat $\Delta H$

893: as the first order perturbation, thereby being led to the following

894: formula for the non-electromagnetic mass difference between neutron

895: and proton :

896: %

897: \begin{eqnarray}

898:  (M_n-M_p)_{QCD}&=&\langle n |\Delta H|n\rangle - 

899:  \langle p|\Delta H |p\rangle

900:  \nonumber\\

901:  &=& (m_d-m_u)\langle p|\bar{\psi}_u\psi_u-\bar{\psi}_d 

902:  \psi_d|p\rangle ,

903:  \label{eq:npmdif}

904: \end{eqnarray}

905: %

906: where use has been made of the isospin symmetry for the unperturbative

907: state $|p\rangle ,|n\rangle $ (i.e., the invariance under the

908: interchanges $p\leftrightarrow n$ and $u\leftrightarrow d$).

909: Empirically, the neutron-proton mass difference of QCD origin can be

910: estimated from the observed mass difference by taking account of

911: the correction due to the electromagnetic interactions :

912: %

913: \begin{equation}

914:  (M_n-M_p)_{QCD}=(M_n-M_p)_{exp}-(M_n-M_p)_{e.m.}\, .

915:  \label{eq:npmdifcor}

916: \end{equation}

917: %

918: Using the values $(M_n-M_p)_{exp}\simeq 1.29 \,\mbox{MeV},\,

919: (M_n-M_p)_{e.m.}\simeq (-0.76\pm 0.30)\mbox{MeV}$~\cite{GL82},

920: we obtain 

921: %

922: \begin{equation}

923:  (M_n-M_p)_{QCD}\simeq (2.05\pm 0.30) \,\mbox{MeV}\, ,

924:  \label{eq:npmdifqcd}

925: \end{equation}

926: %

927: To extract the first moment of $e^{(T=1)}(x)$ empirically, we

928: need to know the value of $m_d - m_u$. By using

929: $m_d - m_u \simeq 5 \,\mbox{MeV}$, as an order of magnitude

930: estimate, we obtain

931: %

932: \begin{eqnarray}

933:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T=1)}(x) \,dx &=& 

934:  \frac{(M_n-M_p)_{QCD}}{m_d-m_u}\simeq 0.41\pm 0.06\, .

935:  \label{eq:dis13}

936: \end{eqnarray}

937: 

938: On the other hand, the theoretical expression for the first moment of

939: $e^{(T=1)} (x)$ is obtained from (\ref{eq:nosing}) as

940: %

941: \begin{equation}

942:  \int^1_{-1} e^{(T=1)}(x) dx = \frac{N_c}{2I}\frac13

943:  \sum_a \sum_{n\le 0}\sum_{m>0}\frac{\langle n |\tau_a |m\rangle

944:  \langle m | \tau_a \gamma^0|n\rangle }{E_m-E_n} \, ,

945:  \label{eq:modelsum}

946: \end{equation}

947: %

948: Here, we have used the fact that, since the contribution $e_2(x)$

949: is a total derivative, it does not contribute

950: to the integral of (\ref{eq:modelsum}). 

951: After integration over $x$, the double sum over levels in 

952: (\ref{eq:modelsum}) is naturally restricted to include only

953: transitions from occupied to non-occupied states.

954: This is reasonable, since

955: the operator appearing in the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:modelsum})

956: is a local operator, and transitions from occupied to occupied states

957: would violate the Pauli principle.

958: Within the framework of the CQSM, we can evaluate the

959: r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:dis12}), i.e. the isovector scalar charge of the

960: nucleon $\langle N|\bar{\psi}\tau^3\psi|N\rangle $, directly

961: without passing through the distribution function.

962: Since the resultant expression of $\langle N|\bar{\psi}\tau^3\psi|N

963: \rangle $ precisely coincides with the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:modelsum}),

964: we conclude that the first moment sum rule of $e^{(T=1)}(x)$ is

965: properly satisfied within the model.

966: 

967: 

968: 

969: \section{Numerical results and discussion}

970: 

971: The numerical method used for evaluating $e(x)$ in this paper is

972: essentially the same as the one used for the computing the

973: twist-2 distributions $q(x),\, \Delta q(x),\,

974: \delta q(x)$~\cite{WK98,WK99}.

975: The eigen-energies and the eigen-vectors of the static Dirac

976: Hamiltonian $H$ with the hedgehog background are obtained by diagonalizing

977: it with the so-called Kahana-Ripka plane-wave basis~\cite{KR84}.

978: Following them, the plane-wave states, introduced as a set of

979: eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian 

980: $H_0 = - i \mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}\cdot\! \nabla\! + \beta M$, 

981: is discretized by imposing an appropriate boundary condition for the 

982: radial wave functions at the radius $D$ chosen to be sufficiently larger

983: than the soliton size. The basis is made finite by

984: retaining only those states with the momentum $k$ satisfying

985: the condition $k<k_{max}$. As a results of using

986: this discretized momentum basis, a resultant distribution

987: becomes a discontinuous function of $x$, due to the factor

988: $\delta(x M_n-E_n-\hat{p}_3)$.

989: In order to get a continuous function with a discretized basis,

990: we introduce a smeared distribution function in the variable $x$

991: as \cite{DPPPW97}

992: %

993: \begin{equation}

994:  e_{\gamma}(x)\equiv \frac{1}{\gamma \sqrt{\pi}}

995:  \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

996:  e^{-\frac{(x-x')^2}{\gamma^2}}e(x') dx',

997:  \label{eq:smeared}

998: \end{equation}

999: %

1000: with a small but finite value of $\gamma$ ($\gamma\ll 1$).

1001: The smeared distribution is expected to be continuous when

1002: the separation between the discretized momenta is much smaller

1003: than the smearing width $\gamma$. Since the physical distribution

1004: corresponds to the limit $\gamma \rightarrow 0$, this 

1005: forces us to employ a very large box size $D$ to get a continuous

1006: distribution function.

1007: 

1008: This procedure works very well at least for the standard distributions

1009: investigated so far.

1010: However, in the numerical calculation of $e^{(T=0)}(x)$, we

1011: have a new problem which we have not encountered before.

1012: Our expectation is that, if a $\delta(x)$-type singularity really

1013: exists in $e^{(T=0)}(x)$, the corresponding smeared distribution

1014: would have a Gaussian peak centered around $x=0$ with the

1015: width $\gamma$.

1016: The problem here is that the distribution function in question

1017: may also have a piece that is non-singular for all value of $x$.

1018: One might think that the contribution of the singular part can

1019: be disentangled from the total contribution by using the

1020: ``unsmearing method" described in \cite{DPPPW97}.

1021: This is not feasible, however, by the following reasons.

1022: First, although the smearing procedure defined with

1023: (\ref{eq:smeared}) preserves the integral value of the

1024: distribution, we have no {\it ad hoc} way to know the overall

1025: coefficient of the $\delta(x)$ term of the

1026: distribution. Secondly, the small $x$ behavior of the nonsingular part of

1027: the distribution would be hard to know, because it is buried

1028: in the very large contribution of smeared $\delta$ function

1029: singularity. This point will be discussed in more detail in the

1030: following subsection.

1031: 

1032: 

1033: 

1034: \subsection{isosinglet distribution $\mbox{\boldmath $e^{(T=0)}(x)$}$}

1035: 

1036: \ \ \ In the numerical calculation, we fix the pion weak decay constant

1037: $f_{\pi}$ in (\ref{eq:hedgehog})

1038: to its physical value, i.e., $f_{\pi}=93\,$MeV, so that only one

1039: parameter of the model is the dynamical quark mass $M$, which

1040: plays the role of the coupling constant between the pion and the 

1041: effective quark fields. 

1042: Through the present analysis, we use the value of $M=375 \,\mbox{MeV}$,

1043: which is favored from the phenomenology of nucleon low energy

1044: observables.

1045: With $M=375 \,\mbox{MeV}$, we have $\Lambda_1\simeq 627 \,\mbox{MeV}$

1046: and $\Lambda_2\simeq 1589 \,\mbox{MeV}$ from the

1047: conditions (\ref{eq:cond1}), (\ref{eq:cond2}).

1048: The static soliton energy

1049: obtained with these parameters is about $1018 \,\mbox{MeV}$.

1050: We point out that, although the soliton mass emerges about $8 \,\%$

1051: larger than the observed nucleon mass $M_N$, the consistency with

1052: the energy-momentum sum rule of the unpolarized distribution functions

1053: enforces us to use this value for $M_N$ in the following evaluation

1054: of the distribution functions.

1055: 

1056: We start with showing the numerical equivalence of the final answers

1057: based on the non-occupied representation and the occupied one.

1058: The problem here is the dependence on the cut-off momentum $k_{max}$,

1059: which is introduced to make finite the discretized Kahana-Ripka basis set.

1060: Since the distribution $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ is ultra-violet finite after 

1061: introduction of the double-subtraction Pauli-Villars regularization, 

1062: one might expect that the answers would be stable as far as one takes 

1063: $k_{max}$ much larger than the second Pauli-Villars cut-off mass 

1064: $\Lambda_2 \simeq 1.6 \,\mbox{GeV}$.

1065: This is not the case, however. As clarified in \cite{WO03}, the

1066: $\delta$-function type singularity in 

1067: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ is generated by the contribution of the infinitely 

1068: deep Dirac-sea levels, which are naturally contained in either of the 

1069: three terms, i.e. the main term and the two Pauli-Villars subtraction 

1070: terms. This implies that the singularity, which will appear in the

1071: smeared distribution as a Gaussian peak around $x = 0$ with the width 

1072: $\gamma$, would be reproduced only in the ideal limit of 

1073: $k_{max} \rightarrow \infty$.

1074: To achieve this ideal limit, we therefore use an extrapolation method

1075: explained below. For this extrapolation to be done smoothly, 

1076: we first introduce an energy cut-off into the level

1077: sums~(\ref{eq:e0xunoccu}) and (\ref{eq:e0xoccu}) of the form.

1078: %

1079: \begin{eqnarray}

1080:  [e^u(x)+e^d(x)] _{non-occupied}^R &=& -N_c M_N

1081:  \sum_{n > 0}  \,

1082:  \langle n \vert \gamma^0  \delta (xM_N - \hat{p}_3 - E_n) \vert n \rangle

1083:  R(E_n) ,

1084:  \label{eq:e0-nonoccu}

1085:  \\ 

1086:  {}[e^u(x)+e^d(x)] _{occupied}^R

1087:  &=& \ N_c M_N 

1088:  \sum_{n \leq 0}  \,

1089:  \langle n \vert \gamma^0  \delta (xM_N - \hat{p}^3 - E_n) \vert n \rangle

1090:  R(E_n) .

1091:  \label{eq:e0-occu}

1092: \end{eqnarray}

1093: %

1094: Here, $R(E_n)$ is a smooth regulator function with an energy cut-off, 

1095: $E_{max} = \sqrt{k_{max}^2 + M^2}$. For this regulator function, 

1096: we employ here a Gauusian function

1097: %

1098: \begin{equation}

1099:  R(E_n) = \mbox{exp} \left[-{\left(E_n / E_{max}\right)}^2\right] ,

1100:  \label{eq:reglfunc}

1101: \end{equation}

1102: %

1103: following Diakonov et al.~\cite{DPPPW97}.

1104: We first compute the level sums (\ref{eq:e0-nonoccu})

1105: and (\ref{eq:e0-occu}) for several values

1106: of $k_{max}$, in the case of masses $M$, $\Lambda_1$,

1107: and $\Lambda_2$ respectively, and then perform 

1108: the Pauli-Villars subtraction, and finally remove the energy cut-off 

1109: by the numerical extrapolation to infinity pointwise in $x$.

1110: In the present study, we use five data (corresponding to 

1111: $k_{max} / M = 12, 16, 20, 24, \mbox{and} \ 28)$ and perform a least

1112: square fit of these data by using a fourth order function of $1/k_{max}$.

1113: %

1114: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1115: \begin{center}

1116:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{occupied.extrp.eps}

1117: \end{center}

1118: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1119: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1120: \caption{The $k_{max}$ dependence of the Dirac-sea contribution

1121: to $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ based on the occupied representation.

1122: The solid curve represents the extrapolated result.} 

1123: \label{fig:e0(x).occupied}

1124: \end{figure}

1125: %

1126: 

1127: Now we are ready to show in Fig.{\ref{fig:e0(x).occupied}

1128: the $k_{max}$ dependence of the 

1129: Dirac-sea contributions based on the occupied representation for all 

1130: values of $x$. Here we use a value of $\gamma = 0.1$.

1131: This figure shows that the peak positions of the Gaussian-like

1132: function obtained with the finite cutoff energy deviate to the

1133: negative $x$ region from the origin $x = 0$.

1134: This deviation of the peak 

1135: position in the smeared distribution may be understood as follows. 

1136: First, when one uses the occupied representation, the vacuum substraction 

1137: as represented by (\ref{eq:exregl}) is necessary only for the region

1138: $x < 0$, while it is not necessary for $x > 0$, since the vacuum term

1139: identically vanishes for $x > 0$ due to the restriction of the factor

1140: $\delta(x M_N - E_n - \hat{p}_3)$.

1141: Secondly, we recall the fact that the singular term of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ 

1142: emerges as a delicate cancellation of two large numbers or the 

1143: infinities, i.e. the difference between the main contribution with 

1144: hedgehog background and the vacuum subtraction term obtained with $U = 1$.

1145: These two facts indicate that the use of the occupied form with

1146: some finite value of $\gamma$ can reproduce 

1147: the redistribution of the delta-function strength at $x = 0$ in the 

1148: $x < 0$ region only, but it cannot do it properly in the $x > 0$ region, 

1149: as far as the finite energy cutoff is used. This is the reason why the 

1150: Gaussian-like peak of the smeared distribution is shifted to the negative 

1151: $x$ region. One can however confirm the behavior that the position of the 

1152: Gaussian peak approaches $x = 0$ as the energy cutoff is 

1153: increased. And, finally, with the extrapolation method, we obtain a

1154: reasonable result which shows that the peak of the smeared distribution

1155: is positioned just at $x= 0$.

1156: (In the above analysis, we fix the box size to

1157: be $DM = 20$. As a matter of course, to get a physically acceptable

1158: answers, we must also investigate the dependence of the answers on

1159: the box size $D$. We found that, above 

1160: $DM = 20$, the change of the small $x$ behavior of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ as

1161: illustrated in Fig.{\ref{fig:e0(x).occupied} is almost due to

1162: the increase of $k_{max}$, and the answer is stable against the

1163: further increase of $DM$ above 20.)

1164: %

1165: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1166: \begin{center}

1167:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{occ.and.nonocc.eps}

1168: \end{center}

1169: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1170: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1171: \caption{Comparison of the Dirac-sea contributions to

1172: $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ based on the occupied (solid curve) and

1173: non-occupied (dashed curve) representations.}

1174: \label{fig:occu.and.non-occu}

1175: \end{figure}

1176: %

1177: After carrying out the similar analysis, this time, with use of the

1178: non-occupied representation, we can now compare the final numerical

1179: results for the Dirac-sea contribution obtained with the two

1180: alternative representations.

1181: Fig.{\ref{fig:occu.and.non-occu} shows this comparison. A reasonable 

1182: agreement between the two ways of evaluating $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ confirms 

1183: the equivalence of the two representations. At the same time, the

1184: analysis above establishes the existence of the $\delta$-function

1185: singularity in $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$ on the numerical ground.

1186: Some difference between the two curves at the positive and negative $x$

1187: tails of the Gaussian like distributions would be a spurious one

1188: generated by the numerical extrapolation method.

1189: The contributions based on the occupied representation for $x<0$ and

1190: the non-occupied representation for $x>0$ can be obtained after the 

1191: cancellation of two large numbers, i.e., the main contribution and the 

1192: corresponding vacuum subtraction term.

1193: On the other hand, if one uses the occupied representation for $x>0$

1194: and the non-occupied representation for $x<0$, one is free from

1195: the spurious contribution due to the cancellation,

1196: so that the extrapolated curves at these tail region have reasonable

1197: smooth behavior.

1198: 

1199: Although we were able to confirm the existence of 

1200: $\delta (x)$-type singularity in the numerical analysis of 

1201: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$, we cannot exclude the possibility that the 

1202: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ may also contain a regular term which is smooth in all

1203: the range of $x$. Is it possible to disentangle such non-singular term of 

1204: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ from the total contribution containing the singular one?

1205: One should recognize that it is not so easy by the following reasons.

1206: First, the deconvolution method as proposed by Diakonov et al. does not 

1207: work because of the very delicate nature of the

1208: singularity~\cite{DPPPW97}.

1209: Second, we have no {\it ad hoc} way to know the coefficient of

1210: $\delta (x)$ term in the original unsmeared distribution.

1211: Nevertheless, we found that the following trick works for obtaining 

1212: the non-singular distribution excluding the $\delta (x)$ term.

1213: That is, as repeatedly emphasized, by using the non-occupied expression 

1214: for $x < 0$ and the occupied one for $x > 0$, we can avoid the vacuum 

1215: subtraction. Interestingly, this also works to remove the singular

1216: contribution in the bare distribution, and the corresponding smeared

1217: distribution would not contain the Gaussian peak corresponding to

1218: $\delta (x)$-type singularity. (One should remember the fact that the

1219: vacuum term plays an indispensable role in reproducing the

1220: $\delta$-function singularity in $e^{(T=0)}(x)$.)

1221: 

1222: 

1223: %

1224: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1225: \begin{center}

1226:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{reg.extrp.eps}

1227: \end{center}

1228: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1229: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1230: \caption{The $k_{max}$ dependence of  

1231: the Dirac-sea contributions to $e^{(T=0)}(x)$

1232: based on the occupied representation for $x>0$ and the non-occupied 

1233: representation for $x<0$. The solid curves represents

1234: the extrapolated result.}

1235: \label{fig:reg.extrp}

1236: \end{figure}

1237: 

1238: Fig.~\ref{fig:reg.extrp} shows the $k_{max}$ dependence 

1239: of the Dirac-sea contributions  based on the occupied 

1240: representation for $x>0$ and the non-occupied representation for $x<0$.

1241: One finds that the large and positive Gaussian peak, the reminiscence

1242: of the $\delta$-function singularity in the bare distribution,

1243: does not appear any more.

1244: One can also see that the negative large contributions of the Dirac sea

1245: in the small $x$ region tend to decrease as the cutoff momentum

1246: $k_{max}$ increase.

1247: We again remove the energy cutoff by the numerical extrapolation to

1248: infinity pointwise in $x$. We observe some difference from the

1249: previous case, however. Owing to the feature that the

1250: $\delta$-function singularity is already excluded in the present way

1251: of calculation, the $k_{max}$ dependence is well reproduced by the

1252: linear function of $1 / k_{max}$ as illustrated in

1253: Fig.~\ref{fig:fit.point}.

1254: After this extrapolation procedure, the result

1255: shows a smooth behavior in the whole region of $x$ except the region

1256: $|x|<0.06$ in which the answer is thought to contain some numerical

1257: instability generated by the extrapolation method.  

1258: Neglecting the data in the $|x|<0.06$ region, we make this

1259: extrapolated result smooth.

1260: After deconvoluting the smeared distribution with use of the

1261: Fourier and its inverse transforms, we obtain the final

1262: prediction for the distribution  $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ within the framework

1263: of the CQSM, the normalization point of which may be interpreted as

1264: about $600 \,\mbox{MeV}$.

1265: %

1266: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1267: \begin{center}

1268:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{fit.point.eps}

1269: \end{center}

1270: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1271: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1272: \caption{The $k_{max}$ dependence of $e^{(T=0)}_{sea}(x)$ at

1273: $x=0.12$ and its linear extrapolation to $k_{max} \rightarrow \infty$.}

1274: \label{fig:fit.point}

1275: \end{figure}

1276: %

1277: 

1278: Summarizing our analysis up to this point, the isosinglet part of the

1279: chiral-odd twist-3 distribution is given as a sum of the valence quark

1280: and Dirac-sea quark contributions,

1281: %

1282: \begin{equation}

1283:  e^{(T = 0)} (x) = e^{(T=0)}_{val} (x) + e^{(T=0)}_{sea} (x),

1284:  \label{eq:exvalsea}

1285: \end{equation}

1286: %

1287: where the Dirac-sea contribution consists of the singular term and the 

1288: nonsingular (regular) term as 

1289: %

1290: \begin{equation}

1291:  e^{(T=0)}_{sea} (x) = C \delta (x) + e^{(T=0)}_{reg} (x),

1292:  \label{eq:exsea}

1293: \end{equation}

1294: %

1295: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1296: \begin{center}

1297:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{e0.t.vl.vc.eps}

1298: \end{center}

1299: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1300: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1301: \caption{The final theoretical predictions of the CQSM for $e^{(T=0)}(x)$.

1302: The dot-dashed curve represents the contribution

1303: of $N_c$ valence level quarks, the dashed curve the

1304: non-singular part of the Dirac-sea contributions, and the solid curve

1305: does their sum. The $\delta$-function singularity at $x=0$ in

1306: the Dirac-sea quarks part is not shown in this figure.}

1307: \label{fig:e0(x)}

1308: \end{figure}

1309: 

1310: Shown in Fig.\ref{fig:e0(x)} are the final theoretical predictions for 

1311: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ obtained in the above-explained way.

1312: The dashed curve here represents the contribution of 

1313: $N_c$ valence level quarks, while the dotted curve does the regular part

1314: of Dirac-sea contribution. The sum of these two contributions is shown

1315: by the solid curve.

1316: (We recall that the $\delta (x)$-type singular term is not 

1317: shown in this figure.) One can convince that the regular part of the 

1318: Dirac-sea contribution shows a nontrivial structure in the $x \neq 0$ 

1319: region.

1320: 

1321: After performing the numerical integration of the above distributions

1322: over $x$, one can obtain the contributions of the valence quark term

1323: and the regular part of the Dirac-sea term to the first moment sum rule :

1324: %

1325: \begin{eqnarray}

1326:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T=0)}_{val} (x) d x &\simeq& 1.7, \\

1327:  \label{eq:exmomval}

1328:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T=0)}_{reg} (x) d x &\simeq& 0.18.

1329:  \label{eq:exmomsea}

1330: \end{eqnarray}

1331: %

1332: Note that the regular part of $e^{(T=0)}_{sea} (x)$ gives small but

1333: non-zero contribution to the sum rule.

1334: To determine the coefficient of the singular 

1335: term in (\ref{eq:exsea}), we use the first moment sum rule

1336: (\ref{eq:ex1stmom-cqsm1}) or (\ref{eq:ex1stmom-cqsm2}) for 

1337: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$, which was already shown to hold within the framework 

1338: of the CQSM. We first recall that the r.h.s. of the sum rule

1339: (\ref{eq:ex1stmom-cqsm1}) or (\ref{eq:ex1stmom-cqsm2}) is 

1340: the nucleon scalar charge defined by

1341: %

1342: \begin{equation}

1343:  \bar{\sigma} = \langle N | \bar{\psi}_u \psi_u + \bar{\psi}_d \psi_d 

1344:  | N \rangle .

1345:  \label{eq:scharge}

1346: \end{equation}

1347: %

1348: The point is that this low energy observable can be calculated within

1349: the CQSM, without asking for the distribution function $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$.

1350: It is given as

1351: %

1352: \begin{equation}

1353:  \bar{\sigma} = \bar{\sigma}_{val} + \bar{\sigma}_{sea},

1354:  \label{eq:schargevalsea}

1355: \end{equation}

1356: %

1357: with

1358: %

1359: \begin{eqnarray}

1360:  \bar{\sigma}_{val} &=& N_c \,\langle 0 | \gamma^0 | 0 \rangle, \\

1361:  \label{eq:schargeval}

1362:  \bar{\sigma}_{sea} &=& N_c \sum_{n < 0} 

1363:  \langle n | \gamma^0 | n \rangle .

1364:  \label{eq:schargesea}

1365: \end{eqnarray}

1366: %

1367: Numerically, we find that

1368: %

1369: \begin{equation}

1370:  \bar{\sigma}_{val} \simeq 1.7, \ \ \ 

1371:  \bar{\sigma}_{sea} \simeq 10.1 ,

1372:  \label{eq:scharge.num.valsea}

1373: \end{equation}

1374: %

1375: so that

1376: %

1377: \begin{equation}

1378:  \bar{\sigma} = \bar{\sigma}_{val} + \bar{\sigma}_{sea} \simeq 11.8 .

1379:  \label{eq:scharg.num.total}

1380: \end{equation}

1381: %

1382: Then, by admitting the validity of the first moment sum rule,

1383: one can extract the coefficient of the $\delta (x)$ term as follows :

1384: %

1385: \begin{equation}

1386:  C = \bar{\sigma}_{sea} - \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T=0)}_{reg} (x) d x 

1387:  \simeq 9.92 .

1388:  \label{eq:coeffc}

1389: \end{equation}

1390: %

1391: Our procedure for obtaining the coefficient $C$ is different from that

1392: of Schweitzer~\cite{S03}.

1393: After some consideration based on the gradient expansion analysis, he

1394: assumed that the Dirac-sea contribution to $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ is saturated 

1395: by the $\delta(x)$ term with the coefficient $\Sigma_{\pi N} / m_0$, and 

1396: simply neglected the possible existence of the nonsingular contribution.

1397: In his treatment, then, the nontrivial shape of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ at 

1398: $x \neq 0$ solely comes from the contribution of $N_c$ valence level 

1399: quarks. Thus, the total distribution consists of these two terms as

1400: %

1401: \begin{equation}

1402:  e^{(T = 0)} (x) = \frac{\Sigma_{\pi N}}{m_0} \delta (x) 

1403:  + e_{val} (x) .

1404:  \label{eq:exschweitzer}

1405: \end{equation}

1406: %

1407: (Here, for simplicity, we ignore the term proportional to the product

1408: of $m_0$ and the unpolarized distribution function.)

1409: In our opinion, this procedure has a 

1410: danger of double counting. Within the framework of the CQSM, the total 

1411: $\pi N$ sigma term divided by the current quark mass $m_0$ is nothing but 

1412: the total scalar charge $\bar{\sigma}$ of the nucleon, which is made up 

1413: of the two terms, $\bar{\sigma}_{val}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{sea}$.

1414: The $x$-integral of (\ref{eq:exschweitzer}) would then lead to

1415: %

1416: \begin{equation}

1417:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x 

1418:  = (\bar{\sigma}_{val} + \bar{\sigma}_{sea}) + \bar{\sigma}_{val} ,

1419:  \label{eq:exmomschweitzer}

1420: \end{equation}

1421: %

1422: which is obviously double counting the valence quark contribution to the 

1423: first moment sum rule. From the practical viewpoint, this double counting 

1424: is not so serious, since $\bar{\sigma}_{val}$ term turns out to be order

1425: of magnitude smaller than $\bar{\sigma}_{sea}$. This dominance of the 

1426: Dirac-sea contribution to the nucleon scalar charge is one of the

1427: distinguishing features of the CQSM. One can say that

1428: it is connected with the unique feature of this model, which is able to

1429: describe simultaneously a localized baryonic excitation 

1430: together with the nontrivial QCD vacuum structure with nonzero quark 

1431: condensate (or nonzero scalar quark density).

1432: In any case, we emphasize that the CQSM predicts fairly large scalar

1433: charge for the nucleon, i.e. $\bar{\sigma} \simeq 11.8$.

1434: Using the current quark 

1435: mass of $m_0 \simeq 5 \,\mbox{MeV}$, as an estimate, this gives 

1436: \begin{equation}

1437:  \Sigma_{\pi N} \equiv m_0 \,\bar{\sigma} \simeq 60 \,\mbox{MeV},

1438:  \label{eq:sigmaterm}

1439: \end{equation}

1440: which seems to favor relatively large values obtained from the 

1441: recent analysis of the pion-nucleon scattering

1442: amplitude~\cite{Koch82}\nocite{PASW99}\nocite{Olsson00}\nocite{PASW02}-\cite{Sainio02}.

1443: 

1444: Next we turn to the discussion of the second moment sum rule. We first

1445: point out that the $\delta (x)$ term in $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ does not 

1446: contribute to the second moment. In the CQSM, then, the second moment of 

1447: $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ receives contributions from two terms in the 

1448: distribution, i.e. the valence quark term $e^{(T = 0)}_{val} (x)$ and the 

1449: regular part of the vacuum polarization term $e^{(T = 0)}_{reg} (x)$. 

1450: After performing the numerical integration, we find that 

1451: %

1452: \begin{eqnarray}

1453:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)}_{val} (x) d x &\simeq& 0.23,

1454:  \label{eq:ex2nd1} \\

1455:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)}_{sea} (x) d x &=& \int_{-1}^1 

1456:  x e^{(T = 0)}_{reg} (x) d x \simeq -0.05 .

1457:  \label{eq:ex2nd2}

1458: \end{eqnarray}

1459: %

1460: The total second moment is therefore given by 

1461: %

1462: \begin{equation}

1463:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)} (x) d x \simeq 0.23 - 0.05 \simeq 0.18 .

1464:  \label{eq:ex2nd3}

1465: \end{equation}

1466: %

1467: We recall that, within the CQSM, there is another independent method

1468: for evaluating the second moment.

1469: Since we are working in the chiral limit, we rewrite

1470: (\ref{eq:ex2ndmom-cqsm3}), by setting $m_0 = 0$, as

1471: %

1472: \begin{equation}

1473:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)}(x) d x = N_c \cdot \frac{M}{M_N} \beta ,

1474:  \label{eq:ex2nd4}

1475: \end{equation}

1476: %

1477: or

1478: %

1479: \begin{eqnarray}

1480:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)}_{val} (x) d x 

1481:  &=& N_c \frac{M}{M_N} \beta_{val}, \\

1482:  \label{eq:ex2nd5}

1483:  \int_{-1}^1 x e^{(T = 0)}_{sea} (x) d x 

1484:  &=& N_c \frac{M}{M_N} \beta_{sea},

1485:  \label{eq:ex2nd6}

1486: \end{eqnarray}

1487: %

1488: with

1489: %

1490: \begin{eqnarray}

1491:  \beta_{val} &=& \langle 0 | \frac{1}{2} (U + U^{\dagger}) | 0 \rangle, \\

1492:  \beta_{sea} &=& \sum_{n < 0} \langle n | \frac{1}{2} (U + U^{\dagger})

1493:  | n \rangle .

1494:  \label{eq:ex2nd7}

1495: \end{eqnarray}

1496: These quantities $\beta_{val}$ and $\beta_{sea}$ can be calculated 

1497: directly within the model, without invoking the corresponding 

1498: distribution functions. Numerically, we find that

1499: \begin{eqnarray}

1500:  N_c \frac{M}{M_N} \beta_{val} &\simeq& 0.23, \\

1501:  \label{eq:betval}

1502:  N_c \frac{M}{M_N} \beta_{sea} &\simeq& -0.06.

1503:  \label{eq:betsea}

1504: \end{eqnarray}

1505: These two numbers are consistent with the corresponding numbers in

1506: (\ref{eq:ex2nd1}) and (\ref{eq:ex2nd2}), obtained through the

1507: distribution functions, A small discrepancy between the numbers in

1508: (\ref{eq:ex2nd2}) and (\ref{eq:betsea}) may be interpreted as giving a

1509: measure of numerical errors introduced by the very delicate interpolation

1510: method for obtaining the vacuum polarization term of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$.

1511: At any rate, we find that the CQSM predicts relatively small but 

1512: nonzero value for the second moment of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$. Since we are 

1513: working in the chiral limit ($m_0 = 0$), this appears to contradict the 

1514: corresponding sum rule (\ref{eq:ex2ndmom}) derived on the basis of

1515: the QCD equations of motion, which states that the second moment

1516: of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ vanishes in the chiral limit.

1517: Does this discrepancy simply mean the limitation of the CQSM as an 

1518: effective theory of QCD?

1519: In our opinion, this is not necessarily the case by the following reasons.

1520: First of all, we point out that moment sum rules containing quark masses 

1521: are somewhat delicate one, since the masses are generally dependent on

1522: the renormalization scale. Secondly, if the QCD vacuum breaks the chiral

1523: symmetry spontaneously as is generally 

1524: believed, a quark acquires a dynamical mass of several hundred MeV, which 

1525: means that massless quarks are nowhere. Naturally, the situation is not

1526: so simple because of the color confinement.

1527: For instance, according to the picture of the MIT bag model, which realizes quark confinement by hand, at least the vacuum inside the bag is 

1528: perturbative and the quarks inside it remains massless.

1529: According to Shuryak~\cite{Shuryak88},

1530: the bag model is based on the idea that the hadron is a piece of 

1531: a qualitatively different (or ``perturbative") phase of the QCD vacuum.

1532: The physical picture of the CQSM for the baryon and the QCD vacuum is 

1533: fairly different from that of the bag model. According to the words of

1534: Shuryak again, the chiral models (including the CQSM) assume that the 

1535: vacuum is only slightly modified inside the hadron : the relative

1536: orientation of the right- and the left-handed quark fields is somewhat

1537: different. This last statement denotes the fact 

1538: that, in the basic lagrangian of the CQSM, the dynamical quark mass 

1539: parameter $M$ appears as a product with the chiral field

1540: $U^{\gamma_5} (x)$, which is space-time dependent.

1541: It is also the cause of the fact that the product of $M$ and $\beta$

1542: enters the r.h.s. of the second moment sum

1543: rule (\ref{eq:ex2ndmom-cqsm3}).

1544: This supports Schweitzer's viewpoint~\cite{S03} that the quantity

1545: $\beta M$ can be interpreted as an effective mass of quarks bound in

1546: the soliton background at least in the 2nd moment sum rule of

1547: $e^{(T=0)}(x)$. Numerically, we have

1548: %

1549: \begin{equation}

1550:  \beta M \sim 51 \,\mbox{MeV} .

1551:  \label{eq:effmass}

1552: \end{equation}

1553: %

1554: This value is smaller than the one obtained in \cite{S03}, since the

1555: contribution of the Dirac-sea quarks neglected in \cite{S03} works

1556: to reduce the value of $\beta$.

1557: 

1558: In any case, the nonzero value of the second moment of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$

1559: is nothing contradictory at least within the framework of the CQSM

1560: in which massless quarks are nowhere at the model energy scale of

1561: about $600 \,\mbox{MeV}$.

1562: However, we anticipate that the dynamical quark mass $M$ is generally a

1563: scale dependent quantity which approaches zero in the high energy limit.

1564: The naive QCD sum rule for the second moment of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$

1565: would be recovered in this limit.

1566: To verify the validity of this idea, what is crucial is experimental 

1567: determination of the second moment sum rule at the relatively low energy 

1568: scale close to the above-mentioned model energy scale.

1569: This may be in principle possible by inversely evoluting high energy

1570: data to low energy scale.

1571: 

1572: 

1573: 

1574: \subsection{isovector distribution $\mbox{\boldmath $e^{(T=1)}(x)$}$}

1575: 

1576: In the case of isovector distribution $e^{(T=1)}(x)$,

1577: no ultraviolet regularization is needed because its first moment,

1578: (\ref{eq:modelsum}), is related to the imaginary part of the

1579: Euclidian effective meson action in the background

1580: soliton field~\cite{GPPSU01} and it is ultraviolet finite.

1581: We have checked that the energy level sum (\ref{eq:nosing}) is

1582: stable enough against the increase of the cutoff momentum $k_{max}$,

1583: above $12M$. The final result for the isovector distribution

1584: $e^{(T=1)}(x)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:e1(x)}.

1585: %

1586: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1587: \begin{center}

1588:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{e1.t.vl.vc.eps}

1589: \end{center}

1590: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1591: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1592: \caption{The theoretical predictions of the CQSM for $e^{(T=1)}(x)$.

1593: The dot-dashed curve stands for the contribution

1594: of $N_c$ valence level quarks, the dashed curve the contribution

1595: of the Dirac-sea quarks, while the solid curves represents

1596: their sum.}

1597: \label{fig:e1(x)}

1598: \end{figure}%

1599: The dashed curve represents the contribution of the $N_c$ valence level

1600: quarks, the dot-dashed curve represents the contribution of

1601: the Dirac-sea quarks, while the solid curve represents their sum.

1602: In contrast to the isosinglet distribution, the Dirac-sea contribution

1603: has no singularity at $x=0$ and it is a smooth function

1604: in the whole region of $x$.

1605: The total contribution is given by the solid curve.

1606: 

1607: %

1608: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1609: \begin{center}

1610:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{e0.vs.e1.eps}

1611: \end{center}

1612: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1613: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1614: \caption{The comparison of the theoretical predictions for

1615: $e^{(T=0)}(x)$ and $e^{(T=1)}(x)$ at the model energy scale.}

1616: \label{fig:e0.vs.e1}

1617: \end{figure}%

1618: The first moment or the $x$-integral of this total contribution 

1619: gives the following value

1620: %

1621: \begin{equation}

1622:  \int_{-1}^1 e^{(T = 1)} (x) d x \simeq 0.28 ,

1623: \end{equation}

1624: %

1625: which is order of magnitude consistent with the estimate obtained from 

1626: the analysis of the non-electromagnetic proton-neutron mass difference.

1627: Shown in Fig.\ref{fig:e0.vs.e1} are the comparison of our final

1628: theoretical predictions for $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ and $e^{(T = 1)} (x)$.

1629: One confirms that the magnitude of $e^{(T = 1)} (x)$ is much smaller

1630: than that of $e^{(T = 0)} (x)$ in conformity 

1631: with the large $N_c$ relation (\ref{eq:N_c-rel}).

1632: Combining these two distributions, we can now give final theoretical

1633: predictions for the chiral-odd twist-3 distribution function $e^a (x)$

1634: of each flavor $a$.

1635: Shown in Fig.\ref{fig:eu.ed}(a) are the distributions for the $u$-quark

1636: and the $\bar{u}$-quark, while Fig.\ref{fig:eu.ed}(b) gives the

1637: distributions for the $d$-quark and the $\bar{d}$-quark.

1638: 

1639: %

1640: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1641: \begin{center}

1642:  \includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{eu.ed.eps}

1643: \end{center}

1644: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1645: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1646: \caption{The theoretical predictions for $e^u(x)$, $e^{d}(x)$,

1647: $e^{\bar{u}}(x)$, and $e^{\bar{d}}(x)$ at the model energy scale.}

1648: \label{fig:eu.ed}

1649: \end{figure}%

1650: 

1651: 

1652: 

1653: 

1654: \subsection{comparison with the empirical information from the CLAS

1655: measurements}

1656: 

1657: Here, we make a very preliminary comparison of our theoretical 

1658: predictions for $e(x)$ with the empirical information extracted from the

1659: high-energy semi-inclusive scatterings.

1660: Because of its chiral-odd nature, the distribution function $e(x)$

1661: does not appear in inclusive DIS cross sections.

1662: To extract any information for it, we must therefore carry out 

1663: more specific semi-inclusive type scattering experiments.

1664: Very recently, such an experiment has in fact been done by the CLAS

1665: Collaboration~\cite{CLAS}.

1666: They measured the azimuthal asymmetry $A_{LU}$ in the

1667: electro-production of pions from deeply inelastic scatterings of

1668: longitudinally polarized electrons off unpolarized protons. 

1669: 

1670: The first theoretical analysis of the CLAS data was carried out by

1671: Efremov et al.~\cite{EGS01},\cite{EGS02}.

1672: Their analysis assume that the beam single spin

1673: asymmetry measured by the CLAS group is dominantly generated by

1674: the so-called Collins mechanism~\cite{Collins93}.

1675: Under this assumption together with a particular

1676: parameterization for the Collins fragmentation function, they were

1677: able to extract the first information on the chiral-odd twist-3

1678: distribution function $e(x)$.

1679: Recently, this analysis was criticized by Yuan~\cite{Yuang03}.

1680: According to him, there may be another mechanism which competes

1681: with the Collins mechanism~\cite{Sivers90},\cite{Sivers91}.

1682: It is the leading order transverse momentum dependent parton

1683: distribution $h^{\bot}_1 (x, k_{\bot})$ convoluted with chiral-odd

1684: fragmentation function $\hat{e} (z)$.

1685: After all, the fact is that we still have poor knowledge about the

1686: mechanism that generates the beam single spin asymmetry in

1687: semi-inclusive deep inelastic scatterings. We must understand the

1688: mechanism of parton fragmentation processes into hadrons, especially

1689: the physics of time-reversal-odd fragmentation

1690: functions~\cite{Collins93},\cite{MT96}.

1691: We must also clarify the dynamics of transverse momentum dependent

1692: parton distribution functions in combination with the physics of

1693: chiral-odd fragmentation

1694: functions~\cite{Sivers90}\nocite{Sivers91}-\cite{MT96}.

1695: A truly reliable extraction of the chiral-odd twist-3

1696: distribution function $e(x)$,

1697: which is of our primary concern here, can be achieved only after

1698: more complete understanding of the above-mentioned mechanisms of

1699: semi-inclusive DIS processes.

1700: 

1701: Keeping this fact in mind, we shall proceed here by assuming the 

1702: dominance of the Collins mechanism. Under this assumption, the

1703: asymmetry measured by the CLAS experiment is interpreted to be

1704: proportional to 

1705: %

1706: \begin{equation}

1707:  A^{\sin \phi}_{LU} \sim -\frac{4 \pi \alpha^2 s}{Q^4} \,\lambda_e \,

1708:  2 y \sqrt{1 - y} \sum_a e^2_a x^2 e^a (x) H^{\bot a}_1 (z) ,

1709: \end{equation}

1710: %

1711: with $y = (P \cdot q) / (P \cdot l), z = (P \cdot p_h) / (P \cdot q)$

1712: and $s$ is the invariant mass squared of the photon-hadron system

1713: in the notation of \cite{EGS01}. $\lambda_e$ denotes the beam helicity.

1714: The chiral- and T-odd twist-2 ``Collins" fragmentation function

1715: $H^{\bot a}_1 (z)$ gives the probability of a spinless or unpolarized

1716: hadron to be created from a transversely polarized scattered quark.

1717: Using informations on $H^{\bot a}_1 (z)$ from HERMES

1718: data~\cite{herm01},\cite{herm02},

1719: one can then get direct information on the distribution function

1720: $e(x)$~\cite{EGS01},\cite{EGS02}.

1721: In the CLAS experiment, the azimuthal asymmetries

1722: $A^{\sin \phi}_{LU}$ for the process

1723: $\vec{e} p \rightarrow e^\prime \pi^+ X$ were measured at

1724: $Q^2 \sim 1.5 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$.

1725: Under the dominant-flavor-only approximation for the fragmentation

1726: functions, the semi-inclusive $\pi^+$ production measures the

1727: following combination of the distributions,

1728: %

1729: \begin{equation}

1730:  e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x) .

1731: \end{equation}

1732: %

1733: In Fig.~\ref{fig:with-clas}, we make a comparison between the

1734: predictions of the CQSM for the above combinations of the distributions

1735: and the corresponding empirical information

1736: extracted from the CLAS data by Efremov et al.~\cite{EGS01},\cite{EGS02}

1737: under the assumption of Collins mechanism dominance.

1738: The theoretical distribution here corresponds to the energy scale of

1739: $Q^2 = 1.5 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$.

1740: The scale dependence of the distribution is taken

1741: into account by solving the leading-order DGLAP type equation

1742: obtained in the large $N_c$ limit~\cite{KN97}.

1743: (The starting energy scale of

1744: this evolution is taken to be $Q^2_{ini} \simeq 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$.)

1745: The distribution $e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x)$ extracted

1746: from the CLAS data contains large errors mainly due to the large

1747: uncertainties of $H^{\bot}_1 (z)$ from the HERMES

1748: data~\cite{herm01},\cite{herm02}.

1749: Still, it was emphasized in \cite{EGS01},\cite{EGS02} that

1750: the extracted distribution

1751: is definitely larger than the ``twist-3 bound" and about two times

1752: smaller than the corresponding unpolarized distribution $f^a_1 (x)$

1753: at the same energy scale. One sees that our theoretical prediction for

1754: $e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x)$ is in fairly good agreement

1755: with the extracted behavior from the CLAS data. The relatively small

1756: magnitude of the extracted $e(x)$ indicates that there must be a

1757: significant contribution to the $\pi N$ sigma-term sum rule from

1758: the small $x$ region. Whether this is due to the indicated

1759: $\delta$-function singularity in $e(x)$ or it is due to the

1760: yet-unresolved Regge behavior in the small $x$ region is difficult

1761: to judge at the present stage of study.

1762: It is highly desirable to extend the region of measurements to

1763: smaller $x$ region. This is important, because the unambiguous

1764: establishment of the violation of the $\pi N$ sigma-term sum rule

1765: would indirectly prove the existence of a novel $\delta$-function

1766: singularity in the distribution function $e(x)$ of the nucleon,

1767: which in turn may be interpteted as a manifestation of the nontrivial

1768: structure of QCD vacuum in an observable of a localized QCD excitation,

1769: i.e. the nucleon.

1770: 

1771: %

1772: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1773: \begin{center}

1774:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{compclas_log.eps}

1775: \end{center}

1776: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1777: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1778: \caption{The theoretical prediction for

1779: $e(x)=e^u(x)+\frac14e^{\bar{d}}(x)$ in comparison with the

1780: corresponding empirical information extracted from the CLAS data at

1781: $\langle Q^2\rangle =1.5\mbox{GeV}^2$ under the assumption of

1782: Collins mechanism dominance.}

1783: \label{fig:with-clas}

1784: \end{figure}

1785: %

1786: 

1787: Finally, we want to make some comments on the prediction for $e(x)$ 

1788: based on the MIT bag model. As mentioned in \cite{EGS02}, the bag model

1789: prediction of \cite{Signal97} evolved to the comparable energy

1790: scale of $Q^2 = 1 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ is in qualitative agreement with the

1791: extracted $e(x)$ from the CLAS data in \cite{EGS02}.

1792: In our opinion, this agreement should be

1793: taken as fortuitous by the following reason. First, as already pointed

1794: out, the isosinglet scalar charge of the nucleon predicted by the

1795: MIT bag model is only about $15 \%$ of the value expected from the

1796: phenomenological knowledge of the $\pi N$ sigma-term.

1797: The fact is that the nucleon isoscalar charge is a quantity of 

1798: order 1 (or order $N_c$, more precisely) in the MIT bag model

1799: or in any other models which contains

1800: three valence-quark degrees of freedom only. 

1801: The situation is totally different in the CQSM. Although the

1802: contribution of the $N_c$ valance level quarks is of the same order

1803: as that of the MIT bag model, the vacuum polarization effect or the

1804: contribution of the Dirac-sea quarks give nearly seven times larger

1805: contribution as compared with that of the valence quarks, thereby

1806: reproducing the correct magnitude of the nucleon scalar charge or

1807: the $\pi N$ sigma-term. Unfortunately, this crucial difference

1808: between the two models is not reflected in the observable distribution

1809: function $e(x)$. Since the Dirac-sea contribution in the CQSM is nearly

1810: saturated by the $\delta$-function singularity, it happens that the

1811: distributions $e(x)$ at $x \neq 0$ predicted by the two models are not

1812: extremely different with each other. This is the reason why the

1813: naive MIT bag model, which fails to explain the magnitude of the

1814: $\pi N$ sigma-term, can reproduce the empirical distribution $e(x)$

1815: extracted from the CLAS data at least qualitatively.

1816: 

1817: %

1818: \begin{figure}[htb] \centering

1819: \begin{center}

1820:  \includegraphics[width=11.0cm]{pi+.pi-.1.5.eps}

1821: \end{center}

1822: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

1823: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.20}

1824: \caption{The predictions of the CQSM for $e^u(x)+(1/4)e^{\bar{d}}(x)$

1825: and $e^d(x)+(1/4)e^{\bar{u}}(x)$ evolved to the energy scale

1826: $Q^2 \simeq 1.5 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ of the CLAS data from the initial scale

1827: of the model $Q^2_{ini} \simeq 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$. Also shown for

1828: comparison is the prediction of the MIT bag model evolved to the

1829: same scale from somewhat lower energy scale of $Q^2_{ini} \simeq

1830: 0.16 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$.}

1831: \label{fig:pi+.pi-}

1832: \end{figure}

1833: %

1834: 

1835: Still, we will show that there are some qualitative and observable

1836: differences between the predictions of the CQSM and the MIT bag model.

1837: The key observation here is that, for the spin-independent chiral-odd  

1838: twist-3 distribution functions, the MIT bag model predicts no flavor 

1839: dependence. That is, within the framework of the naive MIT bag model, 

1840: we have

1841: \begin{equation}

1842:  e^u (x) = e^d (x), \ \ 

1843:  e^{\bar{u}} (x) = e^{\bar{d}} (x) ,

1844: \end{equation}

1845: or more specifically

1846: \begin{equation} 

1847:  e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x) 

1848:  = e^d (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{u}} (x) .

1849: \end{equation}

1850: Such equalities can be expected to hold only in the fictitious limit

1851: of $N_c \rightarrow \infty$. As is in fact the case with the CQSM,

1852: for a finite value of $N_c$, the isovector distribution

1853: $e^{(T = 1)} (x) = e^u (x) - e^d (x)$ does not vanish, so that we

1854: definitely expect that

1855: \begin{equation}

1856:  e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x) 

1857:  \neq e^d (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{u}} (x) .

1858: \end{equation}

1859: %

1860: Fig.~\ref{fig:pi+.pi-} shows the comparison of the predictions of

1861: the two models for the distributions

1862: $e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x)$ and

1863: $e^d (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{u}} (x)$ evolved to the energy scale

1864: of CLAS experiment, i.e. $Q^2 \simeq 1.5 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ from the

1865: initial energy scale of the model $Q^2_{ini} \simeq 0.30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$.

1866: The solid and dashed curves here stand for the predictions of the

1867: CQSM, respectively for $e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x)$ and

1868: $e^d (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{u}} (x)$. On the other hand,

1869: the dot-dashed curve represents the prediction of the MIT bag model,

1870: which gives an identical answer for both these combinations of

1871: distributions. One sees that the CQSM predicts a sizably large

1872: difference between the two distributions

1873: $e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x)$ and 

1874: $e^d (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{u}} (x)$, in sharp contrast to

1875: the MIT bag model.

1876: In principle, the possible differences of these two distributions

1877: can be detected by performing a comparative analysis of the

1878: semi-inclusive $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ productions.

1879: 

1880: 

1881: 

1882: \section{Summary and Conclusion}

1883: 

1884: In summary, we have given theoretical predictions for the chiral-odd 

1885: twist-3 distribution function $e^a (x)$ of the nucleon with each flavor

1886: $a$ on the basis of the chiral quark soliton model.

1887: A prominent feature of the isosinglet combination of the distributions,

1888: $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$, is that its first moment is proportional to the

1889: familiar $\pi N$ sigma-term and that it 

1890: contains a delta-function singularity at $x = 0$. In the previous study 

1891: based on the derivative expansion technique, we demonstrated that the

1892: physical origin of this singularity can be traced back to the long-range

1893: quark-quark correlation of scalar type, which signals the

1894: spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking of the QCD vacuum.

1895: The present calculation, without recourse to 

1896: the derivative expansion type approximation, has revealed the following 

1897: facts. The isosinglet distribution $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$ consists of two 

1898: parts, i.e. the contribution of $N_c$ valence level quarks and that of 

1899: the Dirac sea quarks in the hedgehog mean field.

1900: The former takes a familiar shape of distribution 

1901: which has a peak around the value of $x \simeq 1/3$. On the other hand, 

1902: the latter certainly contains a $\delta$-function

1903: type singularity at $x = 0$, but it 

1904: also has nontrivial support for $x \neq 0$. The isovector 

1905: distribution $e^u (x) - e^d (x)$ also consists of the valence and 

1906: Dirac-sea contributions. For this distribution, however, no delta-function 

1907: type singularity is observed, which means that it is a regular function in

1908: all the range of $x$.

1909: 

1910: The moment sum rules of $e(x)$ provide us with 

1911: valuable information concerning the basic dynamical content of the model

1912: in view of the underlying theory, i.e. QCD.

1913: We showed that the first moment sum 

1914: rule for $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$ is satisfied within the model, if and only

1915: if the delta-function singularity is properly taken into account.

1916: Note however that the delta-function term alone does not saturate the

1917: first moment or the $\pi N$ sigma-term sum rule in contrast to the 

1918: previous argument based on the framework of the perturbative QCD.

1919: We also pointed out that the

1920: second moment sum rule for $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$ does not vanish even in

1921: the chiral limit in contrast to the QCD-equation-of-motion argument.

1922: In our opinion, this violation of the second moment sum rule does not

1923: necessarily show a defect of the model.  It is rather to be 

1924: interpreted as showing the limitation of the perturbative analysis

1925: as a tool of handling a bound state problem and/or the problem of

1926: masses nonperturbatively generated by the mechanism of the

1927: spontaneous chiral-symmetry breaking.

1928: We have also shown that the model prediction for the first moment of the

1929: isovector distribution $e^u (x) - e^d (x)$ comes out to be order of 

1930: magnitude consistent with the phenomenological estimate obtained from

1931: the nonelectromagnetic neutron-proton mass difference.

1932: 

1933: It was shown that the theoretical predictions for the

1934: distribution $e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x)$ are in a good 

1935: agreement with the corresponding empirical information

1936: extracted from the CLAS data for the semi-inclusive $\pi^+$

1937: production under the assumption of the Collins mechanism dominance.

1938: This agreement, combined with our analysis explained in the text,

1939: impiles the existence of $\delta$-function singularity at $x = 0$

1940: in the isosinglet distribution $e^u (x) + e^d (x)$,

1941: although a definite conclusion must awaits for

1942: more complete measurements and more thorough 

1943: understanding of the reaction mechanism that generates the beam single 

1944: spin asymmetry in the semi-inclusive pion productions.

1945: 

1946:  Finally, we compare our theoretical predictions with those of the MIT 

1947: bag model. As shown in the body of the paper, the two models give

1948: accidentally close predictions for the distribution function 

1949: $e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x)$ at $x \neq 0$. We have shown,

1950: however, that the CQSM predicts a sizably large difference between the 

1951: two distributions $e^u (x) + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{d}} (x)$ and $e^d (x) 

1952: + \frac{1}{4} e^{\bar{u}} (x)$, for which the MIT bag model makes no 

1953: difference. The predicted sizable difference between 

1954: the two combinations of distributions will be detected by performing 

1955: a comparative experimental analysis of the semi-inclusive 

1956: $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ productions.

1957: 

1958: 

1959: \newpage

1960: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:

1961: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}

1962: \bibliography{ex3}

1963: 

1964: \end{document}

1965: %

1966: % ****** End of file template.aps ******

1967: