1: \documentstyle[11pt,a4,epsfig]{article}
2: \parskip 0cm
3: \parindent 0.5cm
4:
5: \setlength{\textwidth}{17.0cm}
6: \setlength{\textheight}{23.5cm}
7: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.5cm}
8: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.7cm}
9:
10: \newcommand{\kslash}{k \hspace{-0.2cm} / \,}
11: \newcommand{\pslash}{p \hspace{-0.2cm} / \,}
12: \newcommand{\qslash}{q \hspace{-0.2cm} / \,}
13: \newcommand{\pqslash}{p_{1} \hspace{-0.34cm} / \,}
14: \newcommand{\psslash}{p_{2} \hspace{-0.34cm} / \,}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{\bf Twist-3 Single Spin Asymmetries in Semi-Inclusive Deep-Inelastic
19: Scattering}
20:
21: \author{A.~Metz, M.~Schlegel
22: \\[0.3cm]
23: {\it Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik II,} \\
24: {\it Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany}}
25:
26: \date{\today}
27: \maketitle
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: \noindent
31: The single spin asymmetries for a longitudinally polarized lepton beam
32: or a longitudinally polarized nucleon target in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic
33: scattering are twist-3 observables.
34: We study these asymmetries in a simple diquark spectator model of the
35: nucleon.
36: Analogous to the case of transverse target polarization, non-vanishing
37: asymmetries are generated by gluon exchange between the struck quark and
38: the target system.
39: It is pointed out that the coupling of the virtual photon to the diquark
40: is needed in order to preserve electromagnetic gauge invariance at the
41: twist-3 level.
42: The calculation indicates that previous analyses of these observables are
43: incomplete.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: \section{Introduction}
48: The measurements of $A_{UL}$ (longitudinal target polarization) and
49: $A_{LU}$ (longitudinal lepton beam polarization) by the
50: HERMES~\cite{HERMES_00,HERMES_01,HERMES_03} and CLAS~\cite{CLAS_03}
51: collaborations constitute the first clear evidence of non-vanishing
52: single spin asymmetries (SSA) in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic
53: scattering (SIDIS) off the nucleon.
54: From a theoretical point of view, SSA in hard processes are very interesting
55: because of their relation to time-reversal odd (T-odd) correlation
56: functions (parton distributions and fragmentation functions).
57:
58: Already for more than a decade the existence of T-odd fragmentation
59: functions is considered to be established~\cite{collins_93}.
60: In the meantime, explicit model calculations including final state interactions
61: in the fragmentation process have provided non-vanishing results for such
62: functions (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{collins_94,bacchetta_01}).
63: On the other hand, it has been shown only recently that nonzero
64: T-odd parton distributions are compatible with time-reversal invariance of
65: the strong interaction~\cite{brodsky_02,collins_02} (see also
66: Refs.~\cite{brodsky_02b,belitsky_03,boer_03} for related work).
67: In DIS, T-odd parton distributions arise due to the exchange of longitudinally
68: polarized gluons between the struck quark and the target system.
69: This rescattering effect is encoded in the gauge link appearing in the
70: definition of parton distributions.
71: An alternative picture according to which T-odd parton distributions can
72: be generated without rescattering of the struck quark~\cite{anselmino_02}
73: seems to be ruled out~\cite{pobylitsa_02}.
74:
75: In particular, due to the recent developments~\cite{brodsky_02,collins_02},
76: the T-odd and transverse momentum dependent ($k_{\perp}$-dependent)
77: functions $f_{1T}^{\perp}$ (Sivers function, describing the distribution of
78: unpolarized quarks in a transversely polarized target)~\cite{sivers_90}
79: and $h_1^{\perp}$ (distribution of transversely polarized quarks in an
80: unpolarized target)~\cite{boer_98} may well exist.
81: From a practical point of view both distributions can be considered as
82: twist-2 functions, since they appear in observables at leading order
83: of a $1/Q$-expansion, where $Q$ denotes the large scale of the hard process.
84: For instance, $f_{1T}^{\perp}$ enters the leading twist SSA $A_{UT}$
85: in SIDIS~\cite{boer_98}.
86:
87: Despite of the recent progress in understanding the nature of T-odd effects,
88: a complete formalism (including subleading T-odd parton distributions)
89: of T-odd twist-3 observables is still missing even at tree-level.
90: So far, such effects have only been treated on the fragmentation
91: side~\cite{levelt_94,mulders_96}.
92: This point may also be quite important for the description of the twist-3
93: asymmetries $A_{UL}$ and $A_{LU}$ in SIDIS.
94: With the exception of Refs.~\cite{yuan_03,gamberg_03}, all present
95: analyses/calculations of these observables are based on~\cite{mulders_96},
96: i.e., they include only T-odd fragmentation functions
97: (see e.g. Refs.~\cite{oganessyan_98,efremov_00,desanctis_00,ma_01,efremov_01,efremov_03}).
98: In this scenario one finds schematically $A_{LU} \propto e \, H_1^{\perp}$ and
99: $A_{UL} \propto h_L \, H_1^{\perp}$, with the twist-3 T-even parton distributions
100: $e$ and $h_L$, and the twist-2 T-odd Collins fragmentation function
101: $H_1^{\perp}$~\cite{collins_93}.\footnote{In our calculation for $A_{UL}$ the target
102: is polarized along the direction of its momentum (and the direction of the virtual
103: photon). In experiments for the longitudinal target asymmetry, however, the
104: polarization is along the direction of the incoming lepton. Both situations differ
105: by a kinematical twist-3 term which is given by $A_{UT}$.}
106:
107: Analogous to the treatment of $A_{UT}$ presented in Ref.~\cite{brodsky_02}, we
108: compute $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$ in the framework of a simple diquark spectator
109: model of the nucleon, in order to investigate whether T-odd parton distributions
110: may be relevant in these cases.
111: The rescattering of the struck quark, which serves as the potential source of T-odd
112: effects, is modelled by the exchange of an Abelian gauge boson.
113: Such a study has already been performed in Ref.~\cite{afanasev_03}.
114: However, in~\cite{afanasev_03} only $A_{LU}$ has been computed explicitly.
115: Moreover, the calculation of~\cite{afanasev_03} is not gauge invariant.
116: To preserve electromagnetic current conservation also the coupling of the
117: virtual photon to the diquark has to be included.
118:
119: Both $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$ turn out to be nonzero indicating that, in a
120: factorized picture, T-odd distributions have to be taken into account.
121: A first step in this direction has been made in~\cite{yuan_03}, where
122: it has been demonstrated that the T-odd distribution $h_1^{\perp}$ appears in the
123: description of $A_{LU}$ through a term $h_1^{\perp} \, E$, where $E$ is a
124: twist-3 fragmentation function.
125: As will be discussed below, our calculation of $A_{LU}$, however, cannot
126: be identified with such a term suggesting that the formula of~\cite{yuan_03}
127: for the beam SSA is not yet complete.
128:
129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
130: \section{Tree diagrams}
131: In order to study SIDIS off a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particle (for definiteness
132: we think of a proton) in the framework of a spectator model we consider the
133: process (compare also Ref.~\cite{brodsky_02})
134: \begin{equation} \label{e:process}
135: \gamma^{\ast}(q) + p(p,\lambda) \to q(p_1,\lambda') + s(p_2) \,.
136: \end{equation}
137: In full SIDIS, both the quark and the spectator in the final state fragment into
138: hadrons, where we are interested in the situation that one of the hadrons from the
139: quark fragmentation is detected at low transverse momentum.
140: However, for the study of possible T-odd effects related with parton distributions
141: it is not necessary to include the fragmentation process in the calculation.
142: We use the model of~\cite{brodsky_02} with a scalar diquark spectator $s$.
143: In this model the proton has no electromagnetic charge, and a charge $e_1$
144: is assigned to the quark.
145: The interaction between the proton, the quark and the spectator is described
146: by a scalar vertex with the coupling constant $g$.
147:
148: We treat the process~(\ref{e:process}) in the Breit frame of the virtual photon.
149: The proton has a large plus-momentum $Q/x$, where $x = x_{Bj} + {\cal O}(1/Q^2)$.
150: The quark carries the large minus-momentum $p_1^- \approx q^-$ and a soft
151: transverse momentum $\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}$.
152: These requirements specify the kinematics:
153: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:kin}
154: & & q = \Big( -Q, \, Q, \, \vec{0}_{\perp} \Big) , \qquad
155: p = \bigg( \frac{Q}{x}, \, \frac{xM^2}{Q}, \, \vec{0}_{\perp} \bigg) ,
156: \\
157: & & p_1 = \bigg( \frac{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}{Q}, \, Q, \,
158: \vec{\Delta}_{\perp} \bigg) , \qquad
159: p_2 = \bigg( \frac{Q (1-x)}{x}, \,
160: \frac{x (\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + m_s^2)}{Q (1-x)}, \,
161: -\vec{\Delta}_{\perp} \bigg) \,.
162: \nonumber
163: \end{eqnarray}
164: The expressions for $q$ and $p$ are exact, while for $p_1$ and $p_2$ just the
165: leading terms have been listed.
166: In particular, sometimes the $1/Q^2$ corrections of $p_1^-$ and $p_2^+$ are
167: needed which can be readily obtained from 4-momentum conservation.
168: To simplify the calculation we consider massless quarks.
169:
170: The tree-level diagrams of the process (\ref{e:process}) are shown in
171: Fig.~\ref{f:tree}.
172: Their currents, depending on the helicities of the proton and the quark, read
173: \begin{eqnarray}
174: J_{(a,0)}^{\mu}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
175: e_1 g \, \frac{1}{(p_1 - q)^2} \, \bar{u}(p_1,\lambda') \, \gamma^{\mu} \,
176: (\pqslash - \qslash) \, u(p,\lambda) \,,
177: \\
178: J_{(b,0)}^{\mu}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
179: - e_1 g \, \frac{1}{(p_2 - q)^2 - m_s^2} \, (2p_2^{\mu} - q^{\mu}) \,
180: \bar{u}(p_1,\lambda') \, u(p,\lambda) \,.
181: \end{eqnarray}
182: We have defined the current by means of the scattering amplitude
183: according to $T = \varepsilon_{\mu} J^{\mu}$, with $\varepsilon$ denoting the
184: polarization vector of the virtual photon.
185: It is easy to check that current conservation holds for the sum of the
186: two diagrams, i.e.,
187: \begin{equation}
188: q_{\mu} \Big( J_{(a,0)}^{\mu} + J_{(b,0)}^{\mu} \Big) = 0 \,.
189: \end{equation}
190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
191: \begin{figure}[t!]
192: \begin{center}
193: \includegraphics[width=13.0cm]{tree.eps}
194: \end{center}
195: \caption{Tree-level diagrams of the process in (\ref{e:process}).
196: In order to preserve gauge invariance both diagrams have to be considered.
197: \label{f:tree}}
198: \end{figure}
199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
200:
201: As long as one is just interested in leading twist observables, it is sufficient
202: to consider diagram (a,0).
203: This is for instance the case in the calculation of the transverse SSA $A_{UT}$
204: in Ref.~\cite{brodsky_02}.
205: The specific kinematics in Eq.~(\ref{e:kin}) is the reason for the suppression
206: of diagram (b,0) relative to (a,0).
207: The propagator of the diquark in (b,0) behaves like $1/Q^2$, while there is
208: no large momentum flow through the quark propagator in (a,0).
209: Nevertheless, as we discuss in the following, for subleading twist observables
210: diagram (b,0) can no longer be neglected.
211:
212: We compute the various components of the currents using the lightfront helicity
213: spinors of~\cite{lepage_80}.
214: For $J_{(a,0)}^{\mu}$ one obtains
215: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:a1}
216: J_{(a,0)}^{1}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
217: - e_1 g \, \frac{1-x}{\sqrt{x} \, |\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|} \,
218: \frac{Q}{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2}
219: \bigg[ Mx \Big(\Delta^1 - i\lambda \Delta^2 \Big) \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}
220: -\lambda \Big(\Delta^1 + i\lambda\Delta^2 \Big)^2
221: \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \bigg] ,
222: \\ \label{e:a2}
223: J_{(a,0)}^{2}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
224: - e_1 g \, \frac{1-x}{\sqrt{x} \, |\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|} \,
225: \frac{Q}{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2}
226: \bigg[ Mx \Big(i\lambda \Delta^1 + \Delta^2 \Big) \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}
227: -i \Big(-i\lambda\Delta^1 + \Delta^2 \Big)^2
228: \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \bigg] ,
229: \\ \label{e:aplus}
230: J_{(a,0)}^{+}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
231: - 2e_1 g \, \frac{1-x}{\sqrt{x}} \,
232: \frac{|\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|}{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2}
233: \bigg[ Mx \, \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}
234: - \Big(\lambda \Delta^1 + i\Delta^2 \Big)
235: \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \bigg] ,
236: \\ \label{e:aminus}
237: J_{(a,0)}^{-}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
238: - 2e_1 g \, \frac{1-x}{\sqrt{x}} \,
239: \frac{|\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|}{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2}
240: \bigg[ Mx \, \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}
241: - \frac{x M^2}{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}
242: \bigg(1 - \frac{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + m_s^2}{M^2 (1-x)} \bigg)
243: \Big(\lambda \Delta^1 + i\Delta^2 \Big)
244: \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \bigg] ,
245: \\
246: & & \textrm {with} \quad
247: \tilde{m}^2 = x(1-x) \bigg(- M^2 + \frac{m_s^2}{1-x} \bigg) \,.
248: \nonumber
249: \end{eqnarray}
250: One observes here the well-known result that for DIS off a
251: spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particle the transverse current is dominating in the
252: Breit frame.
253: For the second tree-graph we find
254: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:bplus}
255: J_{(b,0)}^{+}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
256: - e_1 g \, \frac{2-x}{\sqrt{x} \, |\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|} \,
257: \Big(\lambda \Delta^1 + i\Delta^2 \Big) \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \,,
258: \\ \label{e:bminus}
259: J_{(b,0)}^{-}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
260: e_1 g \, \frac{\sqrt{x}}{|\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|} \,
261: \Big(\lambda \Delta^1 + i\Delta^2 \Big) \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \,.
262: \end{eqnarray}
263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
264: \begin{figure}[t!]
265: \begin{center}
266: \includegraphics[width=13.0cm]{loop.eps}
267: \end{center}
268: \caption{One-loop diagrams for the imaginary part of the process in (\ref{e:process}).
269: In each diagram the possible on-shell intermediate state is indicated
270: by a thin dotted line.
271: The interaction between the quark and the spectator is modelled by the exchange
272: of an Abelian gauge boson.
273: \label{f:loop}}
274: \end{figure}
275: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
276:
277: The transverse components $J_{(b,0)}^i$ are proportional to $1/Q$ and, hence,
278: indeed are suppressed by a factor $1/Q^2$ compared to $J_{(a,0)}^i$ as
279: expected.
280: Therefore, these terms are not relevant for the discussion of twist-3
281: observables.
282: In contrast, the plus- and the minus-components for both diagrams are of the
283: same order.
284: In this case, the suppression of (b,0) caused by the propagator of the diquark
285: is compensated by a factor $Q$ at the photon-diquark vertex and the fact
286: that $\bar{u}(p_1,\lambda') \, u(p,\lambda) \propto Q$.
287: Even though diagram (b,0) is not compatible with the parton model, since large
288: momentum transfers at the proton-quark-diquark vertex are allowed, a consistent
289: calculation of twist-3 observables in the spectator model must contain
290: this contribution.
291: We note that our results obey the gauge invariance constraint
292: \begin{equation}
293: J_{(a,0)}^+ + J_{(b,0)}^+ = J_{(a,0)}^- + J_{(b,0)}^- \,.
294: \end{equation}
295: Including by hand a formfactor at the proton-quark-diquark vertex in order to suppress
296: large momentum transfers destroys the gauge invariance.
297:
298: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
299: \section{One-loop diagrams}
300: To obtain nonzero SSA in a spectator model one has to go beyond the tree-level
301: approximation and take the rescattering of the quark into account.
302: For our purpose it is sufficient to model this effect by one-photon exchange.
303: Since the imaginary part of the one-loop amplitude is needed for the computation
304: of SSA, just the two diagrams in Fig.~\ref{f:loop} have to be considered.
305: Self-energy and vertex correction diagrams are relevant for the real part
306: of the amplitude, but cannot acquire an imaginary part, because we are dealing
307: with either on-shell or even space-like (internal) lines.
308: In order to avoid infrared singularities at intermediate steps of the calculation
309: we assign a mass $\mu$ to the photon.
310: The final results for $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$ must be infrared-finite which serves
311: as a non-trivial check of the calculation.
312: The currents of the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{f:loop} are given by
313: \begin{eqnarray}
314: J_{(a,1)}^{\mu}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
315: i (e_1)^3 g \int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}
316: \\
317: & & \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{} \times
318: \frac{\bar{u}(p_1,\lambda') \, (\pqslash + 2\psslash - \kslash) \,
319: \kslash \, \gamma^{\mu} \, (\kslash - \qslash) \, u(p,\lambda)}
320: {[k^2 + i\epsilon] [(k - q)^2 + i\epsilon]
321: [(p + q - k)^2 - m_s^2 + i\epsilon] [(k - p_1)^2 - \mu^2 + i\epsilon]} \,,
322: \nonumber \\
323: J_{(b,1)}^{\mu}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
324: - i (e_1)^3 g \int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}
325: \\
326: & & \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{} \times
327: \frac{\bar{u}(p_1,\lambda') \, (\pqslash + 2\psslash - \kslash) \,
328: \kslash \, (2p^{\mu} + q^{\mu} - 2k^{\mu}) \, u(p,\lambda)}
329: {[k^2 + i\epsilon] [(p - k)^2 - m_s^2 + i\epsilon]
330: [(p + q - k)^2 - m_s^2 + i\epsilon] [(k - p_1)^2 - \mu^2 + i\epsilon]} \,.
331: \nonumber
332: \end{eqnarray}
333: Applying Cutkosky-rules to calculate the imaginary part one can verify the
334: gauge invariance condition
335: \begin{equation}
336: q_{\mu} \Big( {\rm Im} \, J_{(a,1)}^{\mu} + {\rm Im} \, J_{(b,1)}^{\mu} \Big) = 0 \,.
337: \end{equation}
338: It is obvious that the full current (including the real part) for the sum of
339: both diagrams is not gauge invariant.
340:
341: The calculation of the imaginary parts has been performed similar to the
342: study of T-odd fragmentation in Ref.~\cite{metz_02}.
343: We refrain from giving any details and just quote the final results.
344: For diagram (a,1) we find
345: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:ima1}
346: {\rm Im} \, J_{(a,1)}^{1}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
347: - \frac{(e_1)^3 g}{8 \pi} \,
348: \frac{1-x}{\sqrt{x} \, |\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|} \, Q \,
349: \bigg[ \frac{\ln L}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}
350: Mx \Big(\Delta^1 - i\lambda \Delta^2 \Big) \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}
351: \\
352: & & \hspace{1cm}
353: - \frac{1}{2 \vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}
354: \bigg( \Big(\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 - \tilde{m}^2 + \mu^2 \Big)
355: \frac{\ln L}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}
356: + \ln \frac{\tilde{m}^2}{\mu^2} \bigg)
357: \lambda \Big(\Delta^1 + i\lambda\Delta^2 \Big)^2
358: \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \bigg] ,
359: \nonumber \\ \label{e:ima2}
360: {\rm Im} \, J_{(a,1)}^{2}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
361: - \frac{(e_1)^3 g}{8 \pi} \,
362: \frac{1-x}{\sqrt{x} \, |\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|} \, Q \,
363: \bigg[ \frac{\ln L}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}
364: Mx \Big(i\lambda \Delta^1 + \Delta^2 \Big) \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}
365: \\
366: & & \hspace{1cm}
367: - \frac{1}{2 \vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}
368: \bigg( \Big(\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 - \tilde{m}^2 + \mu^2 \Big)
369: \frac{\ln L}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}
370: + \ln \frac{\tilde{m}^2}{\mu^2} \bigg)
371: i \Big(-i\lambda\Delta^1 + \Delta^2 \Big)^2
372: \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \bigg] ,
373: \nonumber \\ \label{e:imaplus}
374: {\rm Im} \, J_{(a,1)}^{+}(\lambda,\lambda') & = &
375: - \frac{(e_1)^3 g}{8 \pi} \,
376: \frac{1-x}{\sqrt{x} \, |\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|} \,
377: \bigg[ Mx \bigg( \Big(\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 - \tilde{m}^2 + \mu^2 \Big)
378: \frac{\ln L}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}
379: + \ln \frac{\tilde{m}^2}{\mu^2} \bigg) \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}
380: \\
381: & & \hspace{1cm}
382: + 2 \bigg( \tilde{m}^2 \frac{\ln L}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}
383: - \ln \frac{Q^2 (1-x)}{\mu^2 x} + 1 \bigg)
384: \Big(\lambda\Delta^1 + i\Delta^2 \Big)
385: \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \bigg] ,
386: \nonumber \\
387: & & {\rm with} \quad
388: L = \frac{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2 + \mu^2 + \sqrt{\Lambda}}
389: {\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2 + \mu^2 - \sqrt{\Lambda}} \,,
390: \quad
391: \Lambda = \Big( \vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2 - \mu^2 \Big)^2
392: + 4 \vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 \mu^2 \,.
393: \nonumber
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: The plus-component of diagram (b,1) is given by
396: \begin{equation} \label{e:imbplus}
397: {\rm Im} \, J_{(b,1)}^{+}(\lambda,\lambda') =
398: - \frac{(e_1)^3 g}{8 \pi} \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{x} \, |\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}|} \,
399: \bigg( (2-x) \ln \frac{Q^2 (1-x)}{\mu^2 x} - 2(1-x) \bigg)
400: \Big(\lambda\Delta^1 + i\Delta^2 \Big)
401: \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda'} \,.
402: \end{equation}
403: For the one-loop calculation we make use of gauge invariance to eliminate
404: the minus-component of the current.
405: The $Q$-behaviour of the one-loop expressions corresponds to the one of the
406: tree-graphs.
407: Note also that the plus-component of the currents for both diagrams contains
408: a $\ln Q^2$-term, which is not compatible with the parton model.
409: From our results for the transverse currents in
410: Eqs.~(\ref{e:ima1},\ref{e:ima2}) we were able to reproduce the
411: transverse target SSA computed in Ref.~\cite{brodsky_02}
412: (up to an overall sign).
413:
414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
415: \section{Spin asymmetries}
416: Eventually, we proceed to the calculation of $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$.
417: The full cross section in DIS (including the leptons) in the one-photon exchange
418: approximation can be expressed in the standard form
419: \begin{equation}
420: \sigma \propto L_{\mu\nu} W^{\mu\nu} \,,
421: \end{equation}
422: with the lepton tensor
423: \begin{equation} \label{e:ltensor}
424: L^{\mu\nu} = 2 \Big( l^{\mu} l'^{\nu} + l^{\nu} l'^{\mu}
425: - \frac{Q^2}{2} g^{\mu\nu}
426: + i \lambda_e \varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}q_{\rho}l_{\sigma} \Big) \,.
427: \end{equation}
428: In Eq.~(\ref{e:ltensor}), the 4-momentum of the incoming (outgoing) lepton is denoted
429: by $l$ ($l'$), and $Q^2 = -(l-l')^2$.
430: The hadron tensor is obtained from the above currents according to
431: \begin{equation}
432: W^{\mu\nu} = \Big( J^{\mu} \Big)^{\dagger} J^{\nu} \,.
433: \end{equation}
434: Now, we exploit gauge invariance of both the lepton and hadron tensor, take $q$ from
435: Eq.~(\ref{e:kin}), choose the lepton momenta to be in the $xz-$plane, and ignore
436: a contribution of $W^{++}$ which for our calculation is at least suppressed by a
437: factor $1/Q^2$ relative to the leading term in the cross section.
438: This allows us to write the cross section as
439: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:sigma}
440: \sigma & \propto & \frac{4Q^2}{y^2} \bigg[ - (2-y) \sqrt{1-y} \, W_S^{+1}
441: + \Big( 1 - y + \frac{y^2}{4} \Big) W_S^{11} + \frac{y^2}{4} \, W_S^{22}
442: \\
443: & & \hspace{1cm} + i \lambda_e \bigg( y \sqrt{1-y} \, W_A^{+2}
444: - y \Big( 1 - \frac{y}{2} \Big) W_A^{12} \bigg) \bigg] ,
445: \nonumber
446: \end{eqnarray}
447: where $W_S^{\mu\nu} = (W^{\mu\nu} + W^{\nu\mu})/2$ and
448: $W_A^{\mu\nu} = (W^{\mu\nu} - W^{\nu\mu})/2$ represent the symmetric and the
449: antisymmetric part of the hadronic tensor respectively.
450: We also used the standard definition $y = p \cdot q / p \cdot l$.
451: The first line in Eq.~(\ref{e:sigma}) is relevant for the target spin asymmetry,
452: and the second one for the beam asymmetry.
453: Actually, it turns out that the purely transverse components of the hadronic
454: tensor $(W_S^{11}, \; W_S^{22}, \; W_A^{12})$ don't contribute to the
455: spin-asymmetries at twist-3 level.
456:
457: In order to specify the asymmetries we define
458: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:w_uu}
459: W_{UU}^{11} & = & \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\lambda,\lambda'}
460: \Big( J^1 (\lambda,\lambda') \Big)^{\dagger} J^1 (\lambda,\lambda') \,,
461: \\ \label{e:w_alu}
462: W_{A,LU}^{+2} & = & \frac{1}{4} \sum_{\lambda,\lambda'}
463: \bigg[ \Big( J^+ (\lambda,\lambda') \Big)^{\dagger} J^2 (\lambda,\lambda')
464: - \Big( J^2 (\lambda,\lambda') \Big)^{\dagger} J^+ (\lambda,\lambda')
465: \bigg] \,,
466: \\ \label{e:w_sul}
467: W_{S,UL}^{+1} & = & \frac{1}{4} \sum_{\lambda'}
468: \bigg[ \bigg( \Big( J^+ (\uparrow,\lambda') \Big)^{\dagger}
469: J^1 (\uparrow,\lambda')
470: - \Big( J^+ (\downarrow,\lambda') \Big)^{\dagger}
471: J^1 (\downarrow,\lambda') \bigg)
472: \\
473: & & \hspace{1.0cm} + \bigg( \Big( J^1 (\uparrow,\lambda') \Big)^{\dagger}
474: J^+ (\uparrow,\lambda')
475: - \Big( J^1 (\downarrow,\lambda') \Big)^{\dagger}
476: J^+ (\downarrow,\lambda') \bigg)
477: \bigg] \,,
478: \nonumber
479: \end{eqnarray}
480: where polarization ``$\uparrow$'' in (\ref{e:w_sul}) means polarization
481: along the positive $z$-axis, i.e., along the direction of the target
482: momentum.
483: The element $W_{UU}^{11}$ is given by the tree-level result for diagram
484: (a,0) in Eq.~(\ref{e:a1}).
485: Nonzero contributions to $W_{A,LU}^{+2}$ and $W_{S,UL}^{+1}$ are generated
486: by interference of the tree-level amplitude with the imaginary part of the
487: one-loop amplitude.
488: While the transverse currents in~(\ref{e:w_alu}) and~(\ref{e:w_sul}) are obtained
489: from diagrams (a,0) and (a,1), all four diagrams contribute to the plus-component
490: of the current.
491: The final results for the asymmetries read\footnote{As a reference we
492: mention that the transverse target spin asymmetry of~\cite{brodsky_02} is given by
493: $A_{UT} = W_{UT}^{11} / W_{UU}^{11}$, with $W_{UT}^{11} = W_{S,UT}^{11}$ defined
494: analogous to Eq.~(\ref{e:w_sul}).}
495: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e:lu_res}
496: A_{LU} & = & \frac{i W_{A,LU}^{+2}}{W_{UU}^{11}}
497: = \frac{(e_1)^2}{4\pi} \frac{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2}
498: {M^2 x^2 + \vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}
499: \frac{\Delta^2}{Q}
500: \bigg[ \frac{1}{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}
501: \bigg( -M^2 x^2 - \tilde{m}^2 \frac{2-x}{2(1-x)} \bigg)
502: \ln \frac{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2}{\tilde{m}^2}
503: \\
504: & & \hspace{5.5cm}
505: - \frac{x}{2(1-x)}
506: \ln \frac{Q^2 (1-x)}{(\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2)x}
507: \bigg] ,
508: \nonumber \\ \label{e:ul_res}
509: A_{UL} & = & \frac{W_{S,UL}^{+1}}{W_{UU}^{11}}
510: = \frac{(e_1)^2}{4\pi} \frac{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2}
511: {M^2 x^2 + \vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}
512: \frac{\Delta^2}{Q}
513: \bigg[ \frac{1}{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2}
514: \bigg( M^2 x^2 - \tilde{m}^2 \frac{2-x}{2(1-x)} \bigg)
515: \ln \frac{\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2}{\tilde{m}^2}
516: \\
517: & & \hspace{5.5cm}
518: - \frac{x}{2(1-x)}
519: \ln \frac{Q^2 (1-x)}{(\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}^2 + \tilde{m}^2)x}
520: \bigg] .
521: \nonumber
522: \end{eqnarray}
523: We would like to add some remarks:
524: \begin{itemize}
525: \item An explicit nonzero result for $A_{LU}$ in the framework of the diquark
526: spectator model has already been obtained in Ref.~\cite{afanasev_03}.
527: Our calculation shows that both $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$ remain finite once all
528: diagrams required by electromagnetic gauge invariance are taken into
529: consideration.
530: \item We believe that the effect which generates $A_{LU}$ in our calculation
531: is not related to a term proportional to $h_1^{\perp} \, E$ discussed
532: in Ref.~\cite{yuan_03}.
533: While $h_1^{\perp}$ is chirally odd, we have summed over the polarizations of
534: the outgoing quark.
535: \item Since the asymmetries are proportional to
536: $\Delta^2 = |\vec{\Delta}_{\perp}| \sin \phi_q$ we expect in full
537: SIDIS an effect proportional to $\sin \phi_h$, where $\phi_h$ is the azimuthal
538: angle of the produced hadron.
539: The mechanisms which have been discussed so far in the literature in connection
540: with $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$~\cite{levelt_94,mulders_96,yuan_03} show the same
541: $\sin \phi_h$-behaviour.
542: In addition, the different contributions to the asymmetries have the same
543: $y$-dependence ($y\sqrt{1-y}$ for $A_{LU}$ and
544: $(2-y)\sqrt{1-y}$ for $A_{UL}$, see Eq.~(\ref{e:sigma})).
545: \item In the final results for the asymmetries we have performed the limit
546: $\mu \to 0$ without encountering a divergence.
547: We agree with the observation made in Ref.~\cite{afanasev_03}, that the contribution
548: from diagrams (a,0) and (a,1) to $A_{LU}$ is separately infrared-finite.
549: This behaviour, which holds for $A_{UL}$ as well, seems to be accidental.
550: \end{itemize}
551:
552: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
553: \section{Summary and conclusions}
554: In summary, we have calculated the twist-3 single spin asymmetries $A_{LU}$ and
555: $A_{UL}$ for semi-inclusive DIS off a nucleon target in the framework of a
556: simple diquark spectator model.
557: Our study completes the previous work in Ref.~\cite{afanasev_03}, where only
558: $A_{LU}$ has been computed explicitly.
559: Moreover, the treatment in~\cite{afanasev_03} is lacking electromagnetic gauge
560: invariance.
561:
562: Both $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$ turn out to be nonzero.
563: Although the spectator model calculation contains contributions which are not
564: compatible with the parton model, the non-vanishing results indicate that T-odd
565: distributions have to be included in a factorized description of the asymmetries.
566: So far this has only been done partly in the literature.
567: In fact, we have argued that apparently none of the present analyses/calculations
568: of $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$ within the parton model is complete.
569: Mainly for two reasons we feel confident to make such a speculation:
570: first, within our calculation non-zero asymmetries arise already from the
571: diagram (a,1), whose kinematics is compatible with the parton model.
572: Second, there is no reason why the asymmetries should not contain higher
573: order T-odd distribution functions.
574: The status of the parton model formulae for $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$ needs to be
575: clarified before any definite conclusion can be extracted from the data.
576: \\[0.6cm]
577: \noindent
578: {\bf Note added:} After this work has been completed, a revised parton model
579: analysis for $A_{LU}$ and $A_{UL}$ appeared~\cite{bacchetta_04}.
580: The analysis confirms our suspicion that both asymmetries should contain an
581: additional term with a twist-3 T-odd distribution function, which have not been
582: taken into account in the literature before.
583: \\[0.6cm]
584: \noindent
585: {\bf Acknowledgements:}
586: We are grateful to J.C.~Collins and N.~Kivel for discussions.
587: The work has been partly supported by the Sofia Kovalevskaya Programme of the
588: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the DFG and the COSY-Juelich project.
589:
590: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
591:
592: \bibitem{HERMES_00}
593: HERMES Collaboration, A.~Airapetian, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84},
594: 4047 (2000).
595:
596: \bibitem{HERMES_01}
597: HERMES Collaboration, A.~Airapetian, et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64},
598: 097101 (2001).
599:
600: \bibitem{HERMES_03}
601: HERMES Collaboration, A.~Airapetian, et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 562},
602: 182 (2003).
603:
604: \bibitem{CLAS_03}
605: CLAS Collaboration, H.~Avakian, et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69},
606: 112004 (2004).
607:
608: \bibitem{collins_93}
609: J.~C.~Collins, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B396}, 161 (1993).
610:
611: \bibitem{collins_94}
612: J.~C.~Collins, G.~A.~Ladinsky, hep-ph/9411444.
613:
614: \bibitem{bacchetta_01}
615: A.~Bacchetta, R.~Kundu, A.~Metz, P.~J.~Mulders, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 506},
616: 155 (2001).
617:
618: \bibitem{brodsky_02}
619: S.~J.~Brodsky, D.~S.~Hwang, I.~Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 530},
620: 99 (2002).
621:
622: \bibitem{collins_02}
623: J.~C.~Collins, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 536}, 43 (2002).
624:
625: \bibitem{brodsky_02b}
626: S.~J.~Brodsky, D.~S.~Hwang, I.~Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B642},
627: 344 (2002).
628:
629: \bibitem{belitsky_03}
630: A.~V.~Belitsky, X.~Ji, F.~Yuan, Nucl. Phys {\bf B656}, 165 (2003).
631:
632: \bibitem{boer_03}
633: D.~Boer, P.~J.~Mulders, F.~Pijlman, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B667}, 201 (2003).
634:
635: \bibitem{anselmino_02}
636: M.~Anselmino, V.~Barone, A.~Drago, F.~Murgia, hep-ph/0209073.
637:
638: \bibitem{pobylitsa_02}
639: P.~V.~Pobylitsa, hep-ph/0212027.
640:
641: \bibitem{sivers_90}
642: D.~W.~Sivers, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 41}, 83 (1990);
643: \\ Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 261 (1991).
644:
645: \bibitem{boer_98}
646: D.~Boer, P.~J.~Mulders, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 5780 (1998).
647:
648: \bibitem{levelt_94}
649: J.~Levelt, P.~J.~Mulders, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 338}, 357 (1994).
650:
651: \bibitem{mulders_96}
652: P.~J.~Mulders, R.~D.~Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B461}, 197 (1996);
653: \\ Nucl. Phys. {\bf B484}, 538 (1997) (E).
654:
655: \bibitem{yuan_03}
656: F.~Yuan, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 589}, 28 (2004).
657:
658: \bibitem{gamberg_03}
659: L.~P.~Gamberg, D.~S.~Hwang, K.~A.~Oganessyan,
660: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 584}, 276 (2004).
661:
662: \bibitem{oganessyan_98}
663: K.~A.~Oganessyan, H.~R.~Avakian, N.~Bianchi, A.~M.~Kotzinian,
664: hep-ph/9808368.
665:
666: \bibitem{efremov_00}
667: A.~V.~Efremov, K.~Goeke, M.~V.~Polyakov, D.~Urbano, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 478},
668: 94 (2000).
669:
670: \bibitem{desanctis_00}
671: E.~De Sanctis, W.~D.~Nowak, K.~A.~Oganessyan, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 483},
672: 69 (2000).
673:
674: \bibitem{ma_01}
675: B.~Q.~Ma, I.~Schmidt, J.~J.~Yang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 037501 (2001).
676:
677: \bibitem{efremov_01}
678: A.~V.~Efremov, K.~Goeke, P.~Schweitzer, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 522}, 37 (2001);
679: \\ Phys. Lett. B {\bf 544}, 389 (2002) (E).
680:
681: \bibitem{efremov_03}
682: A.~V.~Efremov, K.~Goeke, P.~Schweitzer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 114014 (2003).
683:
684: \bibitem{afanasev_03}
685: A.~Afanasev, C.~E.~Carlson, hep-ph/0308163.
686:
687: \bibitem{lepage_80}
688: G.~P.~Lepage, S.~J.~Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22}, 2157 (1980).
689:
690: \bibitem{metz_02}
691: A.~Metz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 549}, 139 (2002).
692:
693: \bibitem{bacchetta_04}
694: A.~Bacchetta, P.~J.~Mulders, F.~Pijlman,
695: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 595}, 309 (2004).
696:
697: \end{thebibliography}
698:
699: \end{document}
700: