1: %Revised date 3/15/93
2: %\documentstyle[psfig,twocolumn,prl,aps,epsf]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[psfig,prl,aps,epsf]{revtex}
4: % \documentstyle[preprint,prl,aps,epsfig]{revtex}
5: \documentclass[prl,superscriptaddress,showpacs,amssymb,amsmath,amsfonts,aps]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[article,epsf]{revtex4}
7:
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9: %\input epsf
10:
11: \bibliographystyle{unsrt} % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
12: % first citation.
13:
14: % A useful Journal macro
15: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
16:
17: % Some useful journal names
18: \def\NCA{\rm Nuovo Cimento}
19: \def\NIM{\rm Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
20: \def\NIMA{{\rm Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
21: \def\NP{\rm Nucl. Phys.}
22: \def\PLB{{\rm Phys. Lett.} B}
23: \def\PRL{\rm Phys. Rev. Lett.}
24: \def\PRD{{\rm Phys. Rev.} D}
25: \def\PRC{{\rm Phys. Rev.} C}
26: \def\ZPC{{\rm Z. Phys.} C}
27: % Some other macros used in the sample text
28: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
29: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
30: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
31: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
32: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
33: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
34: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
35: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
36: \def\ko{K^0}
37: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
38: \def\al{\alpha}
39: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
40: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
41: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
42: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
43: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
44: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}%temp replacement due to no font
45:
46:
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: % %
49: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
50: % %
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52:
53: \begin{document}
54: %\draft
55:
56: \title{The Onset of Quark-Hadron Duality in Pion Electroproduction}
57: \author{
58: T.~Navasardyan,$^{1}$
59: G.S.~Adams,$^{2}$ A.~Ahmidouch,$^{3}$ T.~Angelescu,$^{4}$
60: J.~Arrington,$^{5}$ R.~Asaturyan,$^{1}$ O.K.~Baker,$^{6,7}$
61: N.~Benmouna,$^{9}$ C.~Bertoncini,$^{10}$
62: H.P.~Blok,$^{11}$ W.U.~Boeglin,$^{12}$ P.E.~Bosted,$^{13}$ H.~Breuer,$^{8}$
63: M.E.~Christy,$^{6}$ S.H.~Connell,$^{14}$ Y.~Cui,$^{15}$
64: M.M.~Dalton,$^{14}$ S.~Danagoulian,$^{3}$ D.~Day,$^{16}$
65: T.~Dodario,$^{15}$ J.A.~Dunne,$^{17}$ D.~Dutta,$^{18}$
66: N.~El~Khayari,$^{15}$ R.~Ent,$^{7}$ H.C.~Fenker,$^{7}$
67: V.V.~Frolov,$^{19}$ L.~Gan,$^{20}$ D.~Gaskell,$^{7}$
68: K.~Hafidi,$^{5}$ W.~Hinton,$^{6,7}$ R.J.~Holt,$^{5}$
69: T.~Horn,$^{8}$ G.M.~Huber,$^{21}$ E.~Hungerford,$^{15}$
70: X.~Jiang,$^{22}$ M.~Jones,$^{7}$ K.~Joo,$^{23}$
71: N.~Kalantarians,$^{14}$ J.J.~Kelly,$^{8}$ C.E.~Keppel,$^{6,7}$
72: %E.R.~Kinney,$^{24}$
73: V.~Kubarovski,$^{2}$ Y.~Li,$^{15}$
74: Y.~Liang,$^{24}$ S.~Malace,$^{4}$
75: P.~Markowitz,$^{12}$ E.~McGrath,$^{25}$ P.~McKee,$^{16}$
76: D.G.~Meekins,$^{7}$ H.~Mkrtchyan,$^{1}$ B.~Moziak,$^{2}$
77: G.~Niculescu,$^{16}$ I.~Niculescu,$^{25}$ A.K.~Opper,$^{24}$
78: T.~Ostapenko,$^{26}$ P.~Reimer,$^{5}$ J.~Reinhold,$^{12}$
79: J.~Roche,$^{7}$ S.E.~Rock,$^{13}$ E.~Schulte,$^{5}$
80: E.~Segbefia,$^{6}$ C.~Smith,$^{16}$ G.R.~Smith,$^{7}$
81: P.~Stoler,$^{2}$ V.~Tadevosyan,$^{1}$ L.~Tang,$^{6,7}$
82: M.~Ungaro,$^{2}$ A.~Uzzle,$^{6}$ S.~Vidakovic,$^{21}$
83: A.~Villano,$^{2}$ W.F.~Vulcan,$^{7}$ M.~Wang,$^{13}$
84: G.~Warren,$^{7}$ F.~Wesselmann,$^{16}$ B.~Wojtsekhowski,$^{7}$
85: S.A.~Wood,$^{7}$ C.~Xu,$^{21}$ L.~Yuan,$^{6}$ X.~Zheng,$^{5}$ H.Zhu$^{16}$}
86:
87: \address{
88: $^{1}$ Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia \\
89: $^{2}$ Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 12180 \\
90: $^{3}$ North Carolina A \& T State University, Greensboro, North Carolina 27411 \\
91: $^{4}$ Bucharest University, Bucharest, Romania \\
92: $^{5}$ Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439 \\
93: $^{6}$ Hampton University, Hampton, Virginia 23668 \\
94: $^{7}$ Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, Virginia 23606 \\
95: $^{8}$ University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742 \\
96: $^{9}$ The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052 \\
97: $^{10}$ Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York 12604 \\
98: $^{11}$ Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands \\
99: $^{12}$ Florida International University, University Park, Florida 33199 \\
100: $^{13}$ University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 \\
101: $^{14}$ University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa \\
102: $^{15}$ University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204 \\
103: $^{16}$ University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 \\
104: $^{17}$ Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762 \\
105: $^{18}$ Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 \\
106: $^{19}$ California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125 \\
107: $^{20}$ University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 \\
108: $^{21}$ University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, S4S 0A2 \\
109: $^{22}$ Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, 08855 \\
110: $^{23}$ University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269 \\
111: %$^{24}$ University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309 \\
112: $^{24}$ Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45071 \\
113: $^{25}$ James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807 \\
114: $^{26}$ Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 18103}
115: \newpage
116: \date{\today}
117: %\maketitle
118:
119: \begin{abstract}
120: A large data set of charged-pion ($\pi^\pm$) electroproduction from both
121: hydrogen and deuterium targets has been obtained spanning the low-energy
122: residual-mass region. These data conclusively show the onset of the
123: quark-hadron duality phenomenon, as predicted for high-energy hadron
124: electroproduction. We construct several ratios from these data to exhibit
125: the relation of this phenomenon to the high-energy factorization ansatz of
126: electron-quark scattering and subsequent quark $\rightarrow$ pion production
127: mechanisms.
128: \end{abstract}
129:
130: \pacs{12.40.Nn, 13.87.Fh, 12.39.St, 13.60.Le}
131:
132: \maketitle
133:
134: %\narrowtext
135:
136: %Some three decades after the inception of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) as the
137: %accepted theory for strong interactions, mysteries remain.
138: At high energies, the property of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)
139: known as asymptotic freedom allows for an efficient
140: description in terms of quarks and gluons --- or partons, weakly interacting
141: at short distances. In contrast, at low energies the effects of confinement
142: impose a more efficient description in terms of collective degrees of freedom,
143: the physical mesons and baryons --- or hadrons.
144:
145: Despite this apparent dichotomy, in nature there exist instances where
146: low-energy hadronic phenomena, averaged over appropriate energy intervals
147: \cite{PQW}, closely resemble those at asymptotically high energies, calculated
148: in terms of quark-gluon degrees of freedom. This is referred to as
149: quark-hadron duality, and reflects the relationship between the strong and
150: weak interaction limits of QCD --- confinement and asymptotic freedom.
151:
152: The observation of this phenomenon in fact preceded QCD by a decade or so,
153: with remarkable similarity found between the
154: low-energy cross sections and high-energy behavior in hadronic reactions,
155: with the former on average appearing to mimic features of the latter. At
156: that time, this was explained with the development of Finite Energy Sum Rules,
157: relating dispersion integrals over resonance amplitudes at low energies to
158: Regge parameters describing the high-energy scattering \cite{FI77}.
159: The equivalence, on average, of hadron production in electron-positron
160: annihilation and the underlying quark-antiquark production mechanism was later
161: similarly understood \cite{BIGI_REV}.
162: %Due to confinement, of course, quarks and antiquarks must end up as hadrons.
163:
164: It was natural, therefore, that this same framework was used to interpret
165: the early observation of quark-hadron duality
166: %between resonance production and the high-energy continuum
167: in inclusive electron-nucleon scattering.
168: Bloom \& Gilman found that by averaging the proton $F_2$ structure function
169: data over an appropriate energy range, the resulting structure function in
170: the resonance region closely resembled the scaling function which described
171: the high-energy scattering of electrons from point-like partons \cite{BG71}.
172: Recently, the phenomenon has been revisited with unprecedented precision,
173: and was found to work quantitatively far better, and far more locally,
174: than could have been expected \cite{NIC00,MEK05}.
175: %with striking results: Quark-hadron duality occurs at much lower values of
176: %four-momentum transfer squared, $Q^2$, and in far less limited regions
177: %of energy than could have been expected \cite{NIC00,MEK05}.
178:
179: Although postulated to be a general property of QCD, the dynamical origin of
180: quark-hadron duality remains poorly understood. It should manifest itself in
181: a wide variety of processes and observables. In this Letter, we generalize
182: the duality concept to the unexplored region of (``semi-inclusive'') pion
183: electroproduction \cite{CHE74,ACW00}, $eN \rightarrow e\pi^{\pm}X$, in which
184: a charged pion is detected in coincidence with a scattered electron.
185: The missing mass of the residual system $X$, $M_x$, is in the nucleon
186: resonance region (defined here as $M_x^2 <$ 4 GeV$^2$)
187: for the remainder of this Letter, and we will show
188: the dual behavior of this region with a high-energy parton description.
189:
190: At high energies, perturbative QCD predicts factorization between the virtual
191: photon--quark interaction and the subsequent quark hadronization,
192: %
193: \begin{eqnarray}
194: {{{d\sigma} \over {d\Omega_e dE_{e^\prime} dz dp_T^2 d\phi}} \over
195: {{d\sigma} \over {d\Omega_e dE_{e^\prime}}}} = {{dN} \over {dz}} b e^{-bp_T^2}
196: {{1 + A cos(\phi) + B cos(2\phi)} \over {2\pi}}, \\
197: % \\
198: \label{eq:semi-parton}
199: {{dN} \over {dz}} \sim \sum_q e_q^2\ q(x,Q^2)\ D_{q \to \pi}(z,Q^2) ,
200: \end{eqnarray}
201: %
202: where the fragmentation function $D_{q \to \pi}(z,Q^2)$ gives the
203: probability for a quark to evolve into a pion $\pi$ detected
204: with a fraction $z$ of the quark (or virtual photon) energy, $z=E_{\pi}/\nu$.
205: The parton distribution functions $q(x,Q^2)$ are the usual functions depending
206: on the Bjorken variable $x$ and $Q^2$. The transverse momentum $p_T$, $z$ and
207: the angle $\phi$ reflect the extra kinematical degree of freedom associated
208: with the pion momentum. Both the parton distribution functions and the
209: fragmentation functions depend on $Q^2$ through logarithmic $Q^2$ evolution.
210: Their dependence on $p_T$ is removed in a Gaussian approximation, reflected
211: in the noted exponential $p_T$ dependence, with $b$ the average transverse
212: momentum of the
213: struck quark. In the (very) high energy limit, the factors $A$ and $B$ become
214: zero. At lower energies, these ``factors'' reflect the longitudinal-transverse
215: and transverse-transverse interference structure functions of the general
216: pion electroproduction framework \cite{RD88}, and can, {\sl e.g.}, vary with
217: $z$ and $Q^2$. Note that a
218: consequence of this factorization ansatz is that the fragmentation function is
219: independent of $x$, and the parton distribution function is independent of $z$.
220:
221: At lower energies, where hadronic phenomena dominate, it is certainly
222: not obvious that the pion electroproduction
223: process factorizes in the same manner as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:semi-parton}).
224: %At energies where hadronic phenomena dominate, the pion
225: %electroproduction process may rather be described through the excitation
226: %of nucleon resonances, $N^*$, and their subsequent decays into mesons and
227: %lower lying resonances, $N'^*$ \cite{WM_EPIC}. For the quark-hadron duality
228: %phenomenon to occur, non-trivial cancellations of the angular distributions
229: %from various decay channels \cite{IJMV01,CI01} are required to produce the
230: %fast-forward moving pion of the high-energy limit.
231: However, it has been argued that at relatively low, yet sufficiently high
232: energies, with the quark-hadron duality phenomenon to occur, factorization
233: may still be possible \cite{IJMV01,CI01,MEK05}.
234:
235: The experiment (E00-108) ran in the summer of 2003 in Hall C at Jefferson Lab.
236: An electron beam with a current ranging between 20 and 60 $\mu A$ was
237: provided by the CEBAF accelerator with a beam energy of 5.5 GeV.
238: Incident electrons were scattered from a 4-cm-long liquid hydrogen or
239: deuterium target and detected in the Short Orbit Spectrometer (SOS).
240: The SOS central momentum remained constant throughout the experiment, with
241: a value of 1.7 GeV. The electroproduced mesons (predominantly pions) were
242: detected in the High Momentum Spectrometer (HMS), with momenta ranging from
243: 1.3 to 4.1 GeV. The experiment consisted of two parts: i) at a fixed
244: electron kinematics of ($x,Q^2$) = (0.32, 2.30 GeV$^2$) the central HMS
245: momentum was varied to cover a range of 0.3 $< z <$ 1.0;
246: %ii) at the $z$ = 0.55 kinematics, the HMS angle was allowed to vary 8$^\circ$
247: %off the nominal momentum transfer angle (11.5$^\circ$);
248: and ii) similarly, at $z$ = 0.55, the electron scattering angle was varied,
249: at constant momentum transfer angle, to span a range in $x$ from 0.22 to 0.58.
250: Note that this corresponds to an increase in $Q^2$, from 1.5 to 4.2 GeV$^2$.
251: The invariant mass squared, $W^2$, is typically 5.7 GeV$^2$ and always larger
252: than 4.2 GeV$^2$, well in the deep inelastic region, and all measurements were
253: performed for both $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$.
254:
255: Events from the aluminum walls of the cryogenic target cell were subtracted by
256: performing substitute empty target runs. Scattered electrons were selected by
257: the use of both a gas Cherenkov counter and an electromagnetic calorimeter.
258: Pions were selected using the coincidence time difference between scattered
259: electrons and secondary hadrons. In addition, an aerogel detector was used for
260: pion identification \cite{Asa05}. For kinematics with pion momenta above
261: 2.4 GeV a correction was made to remove kaons from the pion sample, 10\% in
262: the worst case (at $z \sim$ 1), as determined from the electron-hadron
263: coincidence time.
264: From a measurement detecting positrons in SOS in coincidence with pions in HMS,
265: we found the background originating from $\pi^0$ production and its subsequent
266: decay into two photons and then electron-positron pairs, negligible.
267:
268: We modelled semi-inclusive pion electroproduction \cite{gaskell}, following the
269: high-energy expectation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:semi-parton}). We used the CTEQ5
270: next-to-leading-order (NLO) parton distribution functions to parameterize
271: $q(x,Q^2)$ \cite{CTEQ}, and the fragmentation function parameterization for
272: $D^+_{q \rightarrow \pi}(z,Q^2) + D^-_{q \rightarrow \pi}(z,Q^2)$,
273: with $D^+$ ($D^-$) the favored (unfavored) fragmentation function, from
274: Binnewies {\sl et al.} \cite{BKK95}. The remaining unknowns are the ratio of
275: $D^-/D^+$, taken from a HERMES analysis \cite{Geiger}, the slope $b$ of the
276: $p_T$ dependence, and the factors $A$ and $B$ describing the $\phi$
277: dependence.
278:
279: We can not constrain $b$ well within our own data set due to the limited
280: ($p_T$,$\phi$) acceptance of a magnetic spectrometer setup. Here, with the
281: possible strong correlation between the $p_T$ and $\phi$ dependence
282: \cite{CAHN}, additional assumptions are required. Hence, we will use the
283: slope $b$ from an empirical fit to the HERMES $p_T$ dependence
284: ($b \approx$ 4.66 GeV$^{-2}$) \cite{Hommez}. Our own best estimate is $b$ = 4.0
285: $\pm$ 0.4 GeV$^{-2}$, with no noticable differences between $b$-values
286: extracted from the $p_T$-dependence of either $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ data,
287: or $^1$H and $^2$H data, somewhat lower than the HERMES slope.
288: We do find a $\phi$ dependence in our data, with typical parameters of
289: $A$ = 0.16 $\pm$ 0.04, and $B$ = 0.02 $\pm$ 0.02, for an average $<p_T>$ =
290: 0.1 GeV. These $\phi$-dependences become smaller to negligible in the ratios of
291: cross sections shown later. Similarly, we find a $Q^2$-dependence in our
292: data that differs from the factorized high-energy
293: expectation, but this does not affect the results shown
294: below. Of course, these findings do cast doubt on the strict applicability
295: of the high-energy approximation for our experiment.
296:
297: Within our Monte Carlo package, we estimated two non-trivial corrections
298: to the data. Radiative corrections were applied in two steps. We directly
299: estimated the radiation tails within our semi-inclusive pion electroproduction
300: data using the Monte Carlo. In addition, we explicitly
301: subtracted radiation tails coming from the exclusive reactions
302: $e + p \rightarrow e^\prime + \pi^+ + n$ and
303: $e + n \rightarrow e^\prime + \pi^- + p$. For these processes, we interpolated
304: between the low-$W^2$, low-$Q^2$ predictions using the MAID model \cite{MAID}
305: and the higher-$W^2$ data of Brauel {\sl et al.} and Bebek {\sl et al.}
306: \cite{Bra79,Beb78}.
307: We subtracted events from diffractive $\rho$ production, using PYTHIA
308: \cite{pythia} to estimate the p(e,e$^\prime\rho^\circ$)p cross section
309: with similar
310: modifications as implemented by the HERMES collaboration \cite{Hommez,Tytgat}.
311: We also made a 2\% correction to the deuterium data to account
312: for the loss of pions traversing the deuterium nucleus \cite{Sar05}.
313:
314: The $^{1,2}$H(e,e$^\prime \pi^\pm$)$X$ cross sections as measured at
315: $x$ = 0.32 are compared with the results of the simulation in
316: Fig.~\ref{fig:hpiminus}, as a function of $z$. The general agreement between
317: data and Monte Carlo is excellent for $z <$ 0.65. Within our kinematics
318: ($p_T \sim$ 0), $M_x^2$ is almost directly related to $z$, as $M_x^2 \approx
319: M_p^2 + Q^2(1/x-1)(1-z)$. Hence, the large excess at $z >$ 0.8 in the data with
320: respect to the simulation mainly reflects the $\gamma N-\pi\Delta(1232)$
321: transition region. Indeed, in {\sl e.g.} a typical $^1$H(e,e$^\prime \pi^-$)$X$
322: spectrum one can see one prominent $\Delta(1232)$ resonance, and only some
323: small structure beyond \cite{Bra79,Beb78}.
324: Apparently, above $M_x^2$ = 2.5 GeV$^2$ or so, there are already sufficient
325: resonances to render a spectrum mimicking the smooth $z$-dependence as
326: expected from the Monte Carlo simulation following the factorization ansatz
327: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:semi-parton}). Lastly, the fast drop of the simulations at
328: large $z$ may be artificial. Whereas fragmentation functions have
329: been well mapped up to $z$ = 0.9 at the LEP collider \cite{AKK05}, to better
330: than 50\%, there remain questions for semi-inclusive pion production at lower
331: $Q^2$. Here, the fragmentation functions could well flatten out \cite{Dre78},
332: as also included in the Field and Feynman expectations \cite{FF78}, that tend
333: to produce more particles at lower energies beyond $z$ = 0.7 or so.
334:
335: To quantify the surprising resemblance of semi-inclusive pion electroproduction
336: data in the nucleon resonance region with the high energy prediction of
337: Eq.~(\ref{eq:semi-parton}), we formed simple ratios of the measured
338: cross sections, insensitive to the fragmentation process (assuming charge
339: symmetry) at leading order (LO) in $\alpha_s$. If one neglects strange quarks
340: and any $p_T$-dependence to the parton distribution functions, these ratios can
341: be expressed in terms of $u$ and $d$ parton distributions, as follows
342: %
343: \begin{eqnarray}
344: \label{eq:fact}
345: {{\sigma_p(\pi^+) + \sigma_p(\pi^-)} \over {\sigma_d(\pi^+) + \sigma_d(\pi^-)}}
346: = {{4u(x) + 4{\bar u}(x) + d(x) + {\bar d}(x)} \over
347: {5(u(x) + d(x) + {\bar u}(x) + {\bar d}(x))}}, \\
348: % \sim {{\sigma_p} \over {\sigma_d}}, \\
349: {{\sigma_p(\pi^+) - \sigma_p(\pi^-)} \over {\sigma_d(\pi^+) - \sigma_d(\pi^-)}}
350: = {{4u_v(x) - d_v(x)} \over {3(u_v(x) + d_v(x))}},
351: \end{eqnarray}
352: %
353: with the notation $\sigma_p(\pi^+)$ refering to the $\pi^+$ pion
354: electroproduction cross section off the proton, $u = u_v + {\bar u}$,
355: $d = d_v + {\bar d}$, and the $Q^2$-dependence left
356: out of these formulas for convenience. These ratios allow us to study the
357: factorization ansatz in more detail, with both ratios rendering results
358: independent of $z$ (and $p_T$).
359:
360: We show our results in Fig.~\ref{fig:factorization}, with
361: %We show our results for these ratios in Fig.~\ref{fig:factorization}, with
362: the solid (open) symbols reflecting the data after (before) subtraction of
363: the diffractive $\rho$ contributions. The hatched areas in the bottom
364: indicate the estimated systematic uncertainty. The shaded bands reflect
365: the expectations under the assumptions described above (factorization, no
366: strange quark effects, charge symmetry for the fragmentation functions),
367: and include a variety of calculations, using both LO and NLO ($M\bar{S}$
368: and valence) parton distribution functions from the GRV collaboration, and
369: NLO calculations from the CTEQ collaboration \cite{grv98,CTEQ}.
370:
371: Our data are remarkably close to the near-independence of $z$ as expected
372: in the high-energy limit, with the clearest deviations in the region of
373: $z >$ 0.7, approaching on the $\Delta(1232)$ residual mass region.
374: Within 10\% we find perfect agreement beyond this region.
375:
376: Using the deuterium data only, the ratio of unfavored to favored fragmentation
377: functions $D^-/D^+$ can be extracted. This ratio is, to a good approximation,
378: at LO simply given by
379: %
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: \label{eq:dmindplus}
382: {D^-}/{D^+} =
383: \left ( {4 - {{\sigma_d(\pi^+)} \over {\sigma_d(\pi^-)}}} \right ) {\big /}
384: \left ( {4~{{\sigma_d(\pi^+)} \over {\sigma_d(\pi^-)}} - 1} \right ).
385: \end{eqnarray}
386: %
387: In the high-energy limit, this ratio should solely depend on $z$ (and $Q^2$),
388: but not on $x$. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dminusdplus},
389: with the closed (open) symbols reflecting the data after (before) subtraction
390: of the diffractive $\rho$ contributions. The solid curves are a fit to
391: the HERMES data for the same ratio \cite{Geiger}. The dashed curve is the
392: expectation $(1-z)/(1+z)$ according to Field and Feynman for independent
393: fragmentation \cite{FF78}. The hatched areas indicate the systematic
394: uncertainties, dominated by uncertainties due to the two non-trivial
395: corrections discussed above.
396:
397: We observe that the extracted values for $D^-/D^+$ closely resemble those
398: of the HERMES experiment \cite{Geiger}. The data show a near-independence
399: as a function of $x$, as expected from Eq.~(\ref{eq:semi-parton}),
400: and a smooth slope as a function of $z$, reflecting a fit to the higher-energy
401: HERMES data, all at $M_x^2 > 4$ GeV$^2$. This is quite remarkable given that
402: our data cover the full resonance region for the residual system $X$,
403: $M_p^2 < M_x^2 < 4.2$~GeV$^2$. Apparently, there is a mechanism at work that
404: removes the resonance excitations in the $\pi^+/\pi^-$ ratio, and hence the
405: $D^-/D^+$ ratio. We note that both our data and the fit to the higher-energy
406: HERMES data far exceed the Field and Feynman expectations for large $z$.
407:
408: The mechanism above can be simply understood in the SU(6) symmetric quark
409: model. Close \& Isgur \cite{CI01} applied this to calculate production rates
410: in various channels in semi-inclusive pion photoproduction,
411: $\gamma N \to \pi X$.
412: The pattern of constructive and destructive interference, which was
413: a crucial feature of the appearance of duality in inclusive structure
414: functions, is in this model also repeated in the semi-inclusive case.
415: The results suggest an explanation for the smooth behavior of
416: $D^-/D^+ \equiv D_d^{\pi^+}/D_u^{\pi^+}$ for a deuterium target in
417: Fig.~\ref{fig:dminusdplus}. The relative weights of the
418: photoproduction matrix elements, summed over $p$ and $n$, is for
419: $\pi^+$ production always 4 times larger than for $\pi^-$ production.
420: In the SU(6) limit, therefore, the resonance contributions to the
421: ratio of Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmindplus}) cancel exactly, leaving behind only the
422: smooth background, as would be expected at high energies.
423: This may account for the glaring lack of resonance structure in
424: the resonance region fragmentation functions in Fig.~\ref{fig:dminusdplus}.
425:
426: In summary, we have measured charged-pion ($\pi^{\pm}$) electroproduction cross
427: sections for both hydrogen and deuterium targets. Our data cover the region
428: where the missing mass of the residual system $X$ is in the resonance region.
429: We observe for the first time the quark-hadron duality phenomenon in such
430: reactions, in that such data equate the high-energy expectations. We have
431: quantified this behavior by constructing several ratios from these data, that
432: exhibit, at low energies, the features of factorization in an electron-quark
433: scattering and a subsequent quark-pion fragmentation process. Furthermore,
434: the ratio of favored to unfavored fragmentation functions closely resembles
435: that of high energy reactions, over the full range of missing mass.
436: This observation can be explained in the $SU(6)$ symmetric quark model.
437: %Quark-hadron duality appears the underlying cause of the smooth transition
438: %``on average'' from hadrons to quarks witnessed in nature, allowing simple
439: %quark-gluon descriptions of observables down to relatively low-energy scales,
440: %and will allow, in this case, access to a study of fragmentation in a much
441: %wider kinematic regime.
442:
443: \medskip
444: The authors wish to thank A. Bruell, C.E. Carlson and W. Melnitchouk for
445: helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by research grants from the
446: U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Natural
447: Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and FOM (Netherlands).
448: The Southeastern Universities Research Association operates the
449: Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility under the
450: U.S. Department of Energy contract DEAC05-84ER40150.
451:
452:
453: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
454:
455: \bibitem{PQW} E.C.~Poggio, H.R.~Quinn and S.~Weinberg,
456: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 13} (1976) 1958.
457: \bibitem{FI77} M.~Fukugita and K.~Igi, Physics Reports {\bf 31} (1977) 237.
458: \bibitem{BIGI_REV}
459: I.I.Y.~Bigi and N.~Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A 16} (2001) 5201.
460: \bibitem{BG71} E.D. Bloom and F.J. Gilman, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 4} (1971) 2901;
461: E.D. Bloom and F.J. Gilman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 25} (1970) 1140.
462: %\bibitem{dgp} A. DeRujula, H. Georgi, and H.D. Politzer, Phys. Lett. {\bf B64}
463: %(1976) 428; A. DeRujula, H. Georgi, and H.D. Politzer, Annals Phys. {\bf 103}
464: %(1977) 315.
465: \bibitem{NIC00} I. Niculescu {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} (2000)
466: 1186; {\sl ibid.} {\bf 85} (2000) 1182.
467: \bibitem{MEK05} W.~Melnitchouk, R.~Ent, and C.~E.~Keppel, Phys. Rep. {\bf 406}
468: (2005) 126.
469: \bibitem{CHE74} C.K.~Chen, SLAC-PUB-1469, Aug. 1974 (unpublished).
470: \bibitem{ACW00} A.~Afanasev, C.E.~Carlson and C.~Wahlquist,
471: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62} (2000) 074011.
472: \bibitem{RD88} A.~S.~Raskin and T.~W.~Donnelly, Annals Phys. {\bf 191} (1989)
473: 78; {\sl ibid.} {\bf 197} (1990) 202.
474: %\bibitem{WM_EPIC} W. Melnitchouk, AIP Conf. Proc. {\bf 588} (2001) 267.
475: \bibitem{IJMV01} N. Isgur, S. Jeschonnek, W. Melnitchouk and J.W. Van Orden,
476: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 054005.
477: \bibitem{CI01} F.E. Close and N. Isgur, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 509} (2001) 81.
478: \bibitem{Asa05} R. Asaturyan {\it et al.}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. {\bf A548}
479: (2005) 364.
480: \bibitem{gaskell} D.~Gaskell, private communications.
481: %See also http://www.jlab.org/Hall-C/.
482: \bibitem{CTEQ} H.L.~Lai {\sl et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C12} (2000) 375.
483: \bibitem{BKK95} J.~Binnewies, B.~A.~Kniehl, and G.~Kramer,
484: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52} (1995) 4947.
485: \bibitem{Geiger} P. Geiger, Ph.D. Dissertation, Heidelberg University (1998),
486: unpublished.
487: \bibitem{CAHN} R.~N.~Cahn, Phys. Lett. {\bf B78} (1978) 269;
488: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 40} (1989) 3107.
489: \bibitem{Hommez} B. Hommez, Ph.D. Dissertation, Gent University (2003),
490: unpublished.
491: \bibitem{MAID} D.~Drechsel, S.S.~Kamalov, and L.~Tiator
492: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A645} (1999) 145.
493: \bibitem{Bra79} P.~Brauel {\sl et al.}, Z. Physik C {\bf 3} (1979) 101.
494: \bibitem{Beb78} C.J.~Bebek {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17} (1978) 1693.
495: \bibitem{pythia} T. Sjostrand, L. Lonnblad, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands,
496: hep-ph/0308153 (2003).
497: \bibitem{Tytgat} M. Tytgat, Ph.D. Dissertation, Gent University (2001),
498: unpublished.
499: \bibitem{Sar05} M.M.~Sargsyan, private communications (2005).
500: \bibitem{AKK05} S.~Albino, B.A.~Kniehl, and G.~Kramer, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B725}
501: (2005) 181, and references therein.
502: \bibitem{Dre78} G.~Drews {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 41} (1978) 1433.
503: \bibitem{FF78} R.D. Field and R.P. Feynman, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B136} (1978) 1.
504: \bibitem{grv98} M. Gl\"uck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C5}
505: (1998) 461.
506: \bibitem{EMC} M.~Arneodo {\sl et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B321} (1989) 541.
507: \end{thebibliography}
508:
509:
510: \begin{figure}
511: \begin{center}
512: %\epsfxsize=3.20in
513: %\epsfysize=2.90in
514: %\epsfxsize=3.00in
515: %\epsfysize=2.80in
516: %\epsffile{ent1.eps}
517: \scalebox{1.0}[1.0]{\includegraphics{ent1.eps}}
518: \caption{\label{fig:hpiminus}
519: The $^{1,2}$H(e,e$^\prime \pi^\pm$)X
520: cross sections at $x$ = 0.32 as a function of $z$
521: in comparison with Monte Carlo simulations
522: (dashed curves) starting from a fragmentation ansatz (see text).
523: The various cross sections have been multiplied as indicated for
524: the purpose of plotting.
525: See Table~I for numerical values.}
526: \end{center}
527: \end{figure}
528:
529:
530: \begin{figure}
531: \begin{center}
532: %\epsfxsize=3.20in
533: %\epsfysize=2.90in
534: %\epsfxsize=3.00in
535: %\epsfysize=2.80in
536: %\epsffile{ent2.eps}
537: \scalebox{1.0}[1.0]{\includegraphics{ent2.eps}}
538: \caption{\label{fig:factorization}
539: The ratio of proton to deuterium results of the sum (top) and
540: difference (bottom) of $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ cross sections as a function
541: of $z$, at $x$ = 0.32.
542: Closed (open) symbols reflect data after (before)
543: events from coherent $\rho$ production are subtracted (see text).
544: The symbols have been sightly offset in $z$ for clarity.
545: The hatched areas in the bottom indicate the systematic
546: uncertainties, whereas
547: the shaded bands represent a variety of calculations,
548: at both leading order
549: and next-to-leading-order of $\alpha_s$, of the shown ratio
550: \protect\cite{grv98,CTEQ}.
551: See Tables~II and III for numerical values.}
552: \end{center}
553: \end{figure}
554:
555:
556: \begin{figure}
557: \begin{center}
558: %\epsfxsize=3.20in
559: %\epsfysize=1.70in
560: %\epsfxsize=3.00in
561: %\epsfysize=3.00in
562: %\epsffile{ent3.eps}
563: \scalebox{1.0}[1.0]{\includegraphics{ent3.eps}}
564: \vspace{0.5cm}
565: %\epsfxsize=3.20in
566: %\epsfysize=1.70in
567: %\epsfxsize=3.00in
568: %\epsfysize=1.55in
569: %\epsffile{ff_ratios_z.eps}
570: \caption{\label{fig:dminusdplus}
571: {\sl Top:} The ratio of unfavored to favored fragmentation
572: function $D^-/D^+$ as a function of $x$ at $z$ = 0.55,
573: evaluated at leading order of $\alpha_s$
574: from the deuterium data. The triangles (square) reflect HERMES (EMC) data
575: \protect\cite{Hommez,EMC}, with the solid curve a fit to HERMES data.
576: Further symbols and the hatched area are as in Fig. 2.
577: % Closed (open) symbols reflect data after (before) events from coherent
578: % $\rho$ production are subtracted (see text). The symbols have been
579: % slightly offset in $x$ for clarity. The solid curve
580: % represents the value
581: % from the HERMES fit, the triangles the actual
582: % data\protect\cite{Hommez}.
583: % Further, the square shows the ratio as determined
584: % by EMC\protect\cite{EMC}.
585: % The hatched area in the bottom indicates the systematic uncertainty.
586: {\sl Bottom:} Same as {\sl top}, but now as
587: a function of $z$ for $x$ = 0.32.
588: The dashed curve represents the expectation \protect\cite{FF78}
589: under the independent fragmentation hypothesis.
590: See Tables~IV and V for numerical values.}
591: \end{center}
592: \end{figure}
593:
594: \begin{table}[htbp]
595: \begin{center}
596: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
597: \hline \hline \small \small
598: $z$ & $\sigma_p(\pi^+)$ & $\sigma_p(\pi^-)$ &
599: $\sigma_d(\pi^+)$ & $\sigma_d(\pi^-)$ \\
600: \hline
601: 0.321 & $5.1022\pm 0.9260$ & $2.9520\pm 0.6990$ & $6.9866\pm 1.2920$ & $6.8482\pm 3.3984$ \\
602: 0.335 & $5.0775\pm 0.3760$ & $2.5860\pm 0.2920$ & $8.0795\pm 0.5360$ & $5.6131\pm 1.2928$ \\
603: 0.349 & $4.5875\pm 0.2620$ & $2.9750\pm 0.2130$ & $7.1233\pm 0.3650$ & $5.0146\pm 0.8896$ \\
604: 0.363 & $4.7595\pm 0.2211$ & $2.8503\pm 0.1767$ & $6.6510\pm 0.3062$ & $4.8947\pm 0.7571$ \\
605: 0.377 & $3.8615\pm 0.1674$ & $2.1376\pm 0.1349$ & $6.3132\pm 0.2364$ & $3.9476\pm 0.5645$ \\
606: 0.391 & $4.0219\pm 0.1484$ & $2.0030\pm 0.1192$ & $5.6805\pm 0.2063$ & $4.2287\pm 0.5348$ \\
607: 0.405 & $3.8327\pm 0.1381$ & $2.0858\pm 0.1150$ & $5.7105\pm 0.1963$ & $3.8901\pm 0.4964$ \\
608: 0.419 & $3.2211\pm 0.1261$ & $1.8373\pm 0.1061$ & $4.9272\pm 0.1762$ & $3.7896\pm 0.4676$ \\
609: 0.433 & $3.2277\pm 0.1103$ & $1.8290\pm 0.0876$ & $4.8902\pm 0.1742$ & $3.1669\pm 0.3816$ \\
610: 0.447 & $2.8839\pm 0.1027$ & $1.5252\pm 0.0765$ & $4.6133\pm 0.1460$ & $2.8639\pm 0.3530$ \\
611: 0.461 & $2.7786\pm 0.1018$ & $1.6006\pm 0.0734$ & $3.8764\pm 0.1357$ & $3.0718\pm 0.3539$ \\
612: 0.475 & $2.6399\pm 0.1016$ & $1.3224\pm 0.0671$ & $3.7653\pm 0.1338$ & $2.7262\pm 0.3348$ \\
613: 0.489 & $2.4154\pm 0.0954$ & $1.3694\pm 0.0610$ & $3.5153\pm 0.1226$ & $2.2797\pm 0.2849$ \\
614: 0.503 & $2.2102\pm 0.0884$ & $1.2570\pm 0.0533$ & $3.5419\pm 0.1153$ & $2.2285\pm 0.2474$ \\
615: 0.517 & $2.1440\pm 0.0832$ & $1.0879\pm 0.0461$ & $2.9755\pm 0.1064$ & $2.0947\pm 0.2295$ \\
616: 0.531 & $1.9303\pm 0.0812$ & $1.0323\pm 0.0441$ & $2.8307\pm 0.1048$ & $1.8624\pm 0.2091$ \\
617: 0.545 & $2.0077\pm 0.0799$ & $1.0071\pm 0.0410$ & $2.7786\pm 0.1125$ & $1.7867\pm 0.1958$ \\
618: 0.559 & $1.6436\pm 0.0720$ & $0.8803\pm 0.0367$ & $2.4638\pm 0.0944$ & $1.6663\pm 0.1816$ \\
619: 0.573 & $1.7433\pm 0.0643$ & $0.8498\pm 0.0319$ & $2.3350\pm 0.0800$ & $1.4832\pm 0.1527$ \\
620: 0.587 & $1.5925\pm 0.0566$ & $0.7649\pm 0.0282$ & $2.1198\pm 0.0734$ & $1.4626\pm 0.1479$ \\
621: 0.601 & $1.4067\pm 0.0504$ & $0.6474\pm 0.0251$ & $2.1260\pm 0.0714$ & $1.3834\pm 0.1430$ \\
622: 0.615 & $1.3711\pm 0.0478$ & $0.6604\pm 0.0244$ & $1.9290\pm 0.0660$ & $1.2753\pm 0.1339$ \\
623: 0.629 & $1.2301\pm 0.0441$ & $0.6232\pm 0.0236$ & $1.9385\pm 0.0636$ & $1.1877\pm 0.1289$ \\
624: 0.643 & $1.1113\pm 0.0393$ & $0.5993\pm 0.0217$ & $1.7834\pm 0.0573$ & $1.0988\pm 0.1162$ \\
625: 0.657 & $1.1037\pm 0.0365$ & $0.5978\pm 0.0197$ & $1.6701\pm 0.0508$ & $1.0364\pm 0.1036$ \\
626: 0.671 & $0.9497\pm 0.0322$ & $0.5131\pm 0.0180$ & $1.4767\pm 0.0459$ & $0.9665\pm 0.0979$ \\
627: 0.685 & $0.9577\pm 0.0320$ & $0.5469\pm 0.0191$ & $1.4249\pm 0.0432$ & $0.9206\pm 0.0923$ \\
628: 0.699 & $0.8742\pm 0.0296$ & $0.4948\pm 0.0177$ & $1.3854\pm 0.0427$ & $0.9392\pm 0.0925$ \\
629: 0.713 & $0.8428\pm 0.0286$ & $0.4895\pm 0.0177$ & $1.3738\pm 0.0423$ & $0.9225\pm 0.0924$ \\
630: 0.727 & $0.8349\pm 0.0283$ & $0.4788\pm 0.0171$ & $1.4706\pm 0.0431$ & $0.8840\pm 0.0887$ \\
631: 0.741 & $0.7730\pm 0.0261$ & $0.4720\pm 0.0165$ & $1.3586\pm 0.0396$ & $0.8252\pm 0.0821$ \\
632: 0.755 & $0.7029\pm 0.0222$ & $0.4195\pm 0.0147$ & $1.2689\pm 0.0345$ & $0.7955\pm 0.0732$ \\
633: 0.769 & $0.6755\pm 0.0216$ & $0.4409\pm 0.0156$ & $1.2450\pm 0.0336$ & $0.7247\pm 0.0674$ \\
634: 0.783 & $0.5922\pm 0.0192$ & $0.4336\pm 0.0145$ & $1.2769\pm 0.0340$ & $0.7418\pm 0.0674$ \\
635: 0.797 & $0.5987\pm 0.0194$ & $0.4654\pm 0.0155$ & $1.3623\pm 0.0360$ & $0.7660\pm 0.0687$ \\
636: 0.811 & $0.6461\pm 0.0192$ & $0.5136\pm 0.0163$ & $1.4704\pm 0.0375$ & $0.7862\pm 0.0692$ \\
637: 0.825 & $0.6808\pm 0.0199$ & $0.5425\pm 0.0166$ & $1.5252\pm 0.0375$ & $0.7965\pm 0.0697$ \\
638: 0.839 & $0.7641\pm 0.0213$ & $0.5979\pm 0.0177$ & $1.6375\pm 0.0397$ & $0.8278\pm 0.0698$ \\
639: 0.853 & $0.7667\pm 0.0212$ & $0.6530\pm 0.0186$ & $1.6277\pm 0.0369$ & $0.8383\pm 0.0670$ \\
640: 0.867 & $0.8048\pm 0.0210$ & $0.6553\pm 0.0171$ & $1.6313\pm 0.0341$ & $0.7840\pm 0.0598$ \\
641: 0.881 & $0.6894\pm 0.0212$ & $0.4966\pm 0.0144$ & $1.4526\pm 0.0311$ & $0.7161\pm 0.0574$ \\
642: 0.895 & $0.5098\pm 0.0209$ & $0.3664\pm 0.0131$ & $1.0932\pm 0.0279$ & $0.4969\pm 0.0500$ \\
643: 0.909 & $0.2692\pm 0.0232$ & $0.2400\pm 0.0122$ & $0.7644\pm 0.0274$ & $0.3685\pm 0.0512$ \\
644: 0.923 & $0.0222\pm 0.0350$ & $0.1380\pm 0.0120$ & $0.5219\pm 0.0365$ & $0.2641\pm 0.0630$ \\
645: \hline \hline
646: \end{tabular}
647: \end{center}
648: \caption{Cross sections as a function of $z$ in nb/GeV$^3$/sr
649: coresponding to Fig.~1. Errors are statistical only.}
650: \end{table}
651:
652: \begin{table}[htbp]
653: \begin{center}
654: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
655: \hline \hline
656: $z$ & $R_{pd}^+$ (after $\rho$) & $R_{pd}^+$ (before $\rho$) \\
657: \hline
658: 0.349 & $1.1790\pm 0.0750$ & $1.1670\pm 0.0710$ \\
659: 0.363 & $1.2700\pm 0.0700$ & $1.2570\pm 0.0650$ \\
660: 0.377 & $1.1180\pm 0.0550$ & $1.1060\pm 0.0510$ \\
661: 0.391 & $1.1850\pm 0.0510$ & $1.1700\pm 0.0480$ \\
662: 0.405 & $1.2110\pm 0.0500$ & $1.1970\pm 0.0460$ \\
663: 0.419 & $1.1040\pm 0.0480$ & $1.0900\pm 0.0440$ \\
664: 0.433 & $1.2070\pm 0.0460$ & $1.1910\pm 0.0420$ \\
665: 0.447 & $1.1490\pm 0.0450$ & $1.1320\pm 0.0410$ \\
666: 0.461 & $1.2330\pm 0.0490$ & $1.2120\pm 0.0440$ \\
667: 0.475 & $1.1960\pm 0.0510$ & $1.1730\pm 0.0450$ \\
668: 0.489 & $1.2090\pm 0.0500$ & $1.1880\pm 0.0440$ \\
669: 0.503 & $1.1340\pm 0.0460$ & $1.1140\pm 0.0400$ \\
670: 0.517 & $1.2660\pm 0.0520$ & $1.2390\pm 0.0460$ \\
671: 0.531 & $1.2300\pm 0.0530$ & $1.2040\pm 0.0470$ \\
672: 0.545 & $1.2890\pm 0.0540$ & $1.2600\pm 0.0470$ \\
673: 0.559 & $1.2010\pm 0.0530$ & $1.1720\pm 0.0460$ \\
674: 0.573 & $1.2720\pm 0.0490$ & $1.2390\pm 0.0420$ \\
675: 0.587 & $1.2890\pm 0.0490$ & $1.2540\pm 0.0420$ \\
676: 0.601 & $1.1760\pm 0.0450$ & $1.1430\pm 0.0380$ \\
677: 0.615 & $1.2700\pm 0.0480$ & $1.2340\pm 0.0410$ \\
678: 0.629 & $1.1410\pm 0.0430$ & $1.1110\pm 0.0370$ \\
679: 0.643 & $1.1370\pm 0.0420$ & $1.1070\pm 0.0360$ \\
680: 0.657 & $1.1760\pm 0.0400$ & $1.1450\pm 0.0340$ \\
681: 0.671 & $1.1690\pm 0.0420$ & $1.1370\pm 0.0350$ \\
682: 0.685 & $1.1870\pm 0.0410$ & $1.1570\pm 0.0350$ \\
683: 0.699 & $1.1450\pm 0.0400$ & $1.1140\pm 0.0340$ \\
684: 0.713 & $1.1590\pm 0.0410$ & $1.1300\pm 0.0350$ \\
685: 0.727 & $1.1050\pm 0.0390$ & $1.0800\pm 0.0330$ \\
686: 0.741 & $1.1220\pm 0.0380$ & $1.0980\pm 0.0330$ \\
687: 0.755 & $1.0580\pm 0.0340$ & $1.0360\pm 0.0300$ \\
688: 0.769 & $1.0650\pm 0.0340$ & $1.0480\pm 0.0300$ \\
689: 0.783 & $0.9990\pm 0.0320$ & $0.9870\pm 0.0280$ \\
690: \hline \hline
691: \end{tabular}
692: \end{center}
693: \caption{The ratio $R_{pd}^+$ of proton to deuterium
694: results of the sum
695: of $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ cross sections as a function
696: of $z$, at $x$ = 0.32. Results
697: reflect data after (left) or before (right)
698: events from coherent $\rho$ production are subtracted
699: (see text). Errors are statistical only.
700: The systematic error is given by
701: $0.0854 - 0.546 z + 1.18 z^2 - 0.778 z^3$ for $0.3<z<0.68$ and by
702: $-3.313 + 13.43 z - 17.99 z^2 + 7.995 z^3$ for $0.68<z<0.80$.
703: }
704: \end{table}
705:
706:
707: \begin{table}[htbp]
708: \begin{center}
709: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
710: \hline \hline
711: $z$ & $R_{pd}^-$ (after $\rho$) & $R_{pd}^-$ (before $\rho$) \\
712: \hline
713: 0.363 & $1.4440\pm 0.2710$ & $1.4570\pm 0.2730$ \\
714: 0.405 & $2.0860\pm 0.3190$ & $2.0910\pm 0.3210$ \\
715: 0.447 & $1.6750\pm 0.2180$ & $1.6300\pm 0.2120$ \\
716: 0.489 & $1.5690\pm 0.2080$ & $1.5210\pm 0.2030$ \\
717: 0.531 & $1.8670\pm 0.2290$ & $1.8610\pm 0.2280$ \\
718: 0.573 & $1.9340\pm 0.2220$ & $1.9720\pm 0.2280$ \\
719: 0.615 & $1.7160\pm 0.1770$ & $1.7640\pm 0.1830$ \\
720: 0.657 & $1.4470\pm 0.1440$ & $1.4930\pm 0.1500$ \\
721: 0.699 & $1.4260\pm 0.1540$ & $1.5070\pm 0.1680$ \\
722: 0.741 & $1.0530\pm 0.1120$ & $1.0740\pm 0.1180$ \\
723: 0.783 & $0.5590\pm 0.0780$ & $0.5270\pm 0.0800$ \\
724: \hline \hline
725: \end{tabular}
726: \end{center}
727: \caption{The ratio $R_{pd}^-$ of proton to deuterium
728: results of the difference
729: of $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ cross sections as a function
730: of $z$, at $x$ = 0.32. Results
731: reflect data after (left) or before (right)
732: events from coherent $\rho$ production are
733: subtracted (see text). Errors are statistical only.
734: The systematic error is given by
735: $0.046 - 0.203 z + 0.538 z^2 - 0.163 z^3$.}
736: \end{table}
737:
738: \begin{table}[htbp]
739: \begin{center}
740: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
741: \hline \hline
742: $z$ & $D^-/D^+$ (after $\rho$) & $D^-/D^+$ (before $\rho$) \\
743: \hline
744: 0.342 & $0.4620\pm 0.0710$ & $0.4920\pm 0.0700$ \\
745: 0.370 & $0.4196\pm 0.0475$ & $0.4449\pm 0.0465$ \\
746: 0.398 & $0.4838\pm 0.0453$ & $0.5126\pm 0.0438$ \\
747: 0.426 & $0.4764\pm 0.0429$ & $0.5087\pm 0.0411$ \\
748: 0.454 & $0.4575\pm 0.0414$ & $0.4940\pm 0.0392$ \\
749: 0.482 & $0.4425\pm 0.0413$ & $0.4837\pm 0.0395$ \\
750: 0.510 & $0.4059\pm 0.0318$ & $0.4530\pm 0.0306$ \\
751: 0.538 & $0.3635\pm 0.0270$ & $0.4134\pm 0.0257$ \\
752: 0.566 & $0.3699\pm 0.0266$ & $0.4288\pm 0.0253$ \\
753: 0.594 & $0.3638\pm 0.0274$ & $0.4280\pm 0.0267$ \\
754: 0.622 & $0.3448\pm 0.0298$ & $0.4124\pm 0.0284$ \\
755: 0.650 & $0.3157\pm 0.0289$ & $0.3853\pm 0.0279$ \\
756: 0.678 & $0.3587\pm 0.0314$ & $0.4376\pm 0.0307$ \\
757: 0.706 & $0.3934\pm 0.0327$ & $0.4800\pm 0.0319$ \\
758: 0.734 & $0.3137\pm 0.0273$ & $0.3889\pm 0.0264$ \\
759: 0.762 & $0.3164\pm 0.0254$ & $0.3911\pm 0.0254$ \\
760: 0.790 & $0.2738\pm 0.0223$ & $0.3375\pm 0.0223$ \\
761: 0.818 & $0.2625\pm 0.0198$ & $0.3177\pm 0.0198$ \\
762: 0.846 & $0.2380\pm 0.0177$ & $0.2808\pm 0.0168$ \\
763: 0.874 & $0.2294\pm 0.0161$ & $0.2607\pm 0.0159$ \\
764: 0.902 & $0.2423\pm 0.0243$ & $0.2555\pm 0.0238$ \\
765: 0.930 & $0.3025\pm 0.0739$ & $0.2944\pm 0.0724$ \\
766: \hline \hline
767: \end{tabular}
768: \end{center}
769: \caption{The ratio of unfavored to favored
770: fragmentation function $D^-/D^+$
771: as a function of $z$ at $x$ = 0.32, evaluated at
772: leading order of $\alpha_s$ from the deuterium data. Results
773: reflect data after (left) or before (right)
774: events from coherent $\rho$ production are subtracted (see text).
775: Errors are statistical only.
776: The systematic error is given by
777: $2.445 -18.434 z + 46.196 z^2 - 38.194 z^3$ for $0.2<z<0.3$,
778: $0.273 - 1.684 z + 3.461 z^2 - 2.132 z^3$ for $0.4<z<0.835$, and
779: $-24.15 + 89.532 z - 110.09 z^2 + 44.974 z^3$ for $0.835<z<0.935$.}
780: \end{table}
781:
782: \begin{table}[htbp]
783: \begin{center}
784: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
785: \hline \hline
786: $x$ & $D^-/D^+$ (after $\rho$) & $D^-/D^+$ (before $\rho$) \\
787: \hline
788: 0.213 & $0.5048\pm 0.0835$ & $0.5682\pm 0.0800$ \\
789: 0.238 & $0.4272\pm 0.0458$ & $0.4789\pm 0.0435$ \\
790: 0.263 & $0.4008\pm 0.0341$ & $0.4472\pm 0.0322$ \\
791: 0.287 & $0.3939\pm 0.0311$ & $0.4361\pm 0.0294$ \\
792: 0.312 & $0.4049\pm 0.0289$ & $0.4446\pm 0.0277$ \\
793: 0.338 & $0.4278\pm 0.0285$ & $0.4660\pm 0.0274$ \\
794: 0.363 & $0.3334\pm 0.0252$ & $0.3631\pm 0.0242$ \\
795: 0.388 & $0.3690\pm 0.0263$ & $0.3987\pm 0.0253$ \\
796: 0.413 & $0.3476\pm 0.0262$ & $0.3732\pm 0.0249$ \\
797: 0.438 & $0.3914\pm 0.0298$ & $0.4177\pm 0.0287$ \\
798: 0.463 & $0.3907\pm 0.0320$ & $0.4142\pm 0.0310$ \\
799: 0.488 & $0.4198\pm 0.0362$ & $0.4420\pm 0.0349$ \\
800: 0.513 & $0.4336\pm 0.0403$ & $0.4546\pm 0.0395$ \\
801: 0.538 & $0.4202\pm 0.0454$ & $0.4385\pm 0.0440$ \\
802: 0.562 & $0.4721\pm 0.0581$ & $0.4890\pm 0.0572$ \\
803: 0.588 & $0.3533\pm 0.0553$ & $0.3668\pm 0.0539$ \\
804: \hline \hline
805: \end{tabular}
806: \end{center}
807: \caption{The ratio of unfavored to favored
808: fragmentation function $D^-/D^+$
809: as a function of $x$ at $z$ = 0.55, evaluated at
810: leading order of $\alpha_s$ from the deuterium data. Results
811: reflect data after (left) or before (right)
812: events from coherent $\rho$ production are
813: subtracted (see text). Errors are statistical only.
814: The systematic error is given by
815: $0.126 - 0.669 x + 1.445 x^2 - 1.119 x^3.$
816: }
817: \end{table}
818:
819:
820: \end{document}
821:
822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
823: % End of sprocl.tex %
824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
825:
826:
827:
828:
829:
830:
831: