1: \documentclass[english]{article}
2: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
3: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
4: \usepackage{geometry}
5: \geometry{verbose,letterpaper,tmargin=3.5cm,bmargin=3cm,lmargin=3cm,rmargin=2cm}
6: \usepackage{float}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8:
9: \makeatletter
10:
11: \newcommand{\boldsymbol}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
12:
13: %% Because html converters don't know tabularnewline
14: \providecommand{\tabularnewline}{\\}
15:
16: \usepackage{babel}
17: \makeatother
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{Higher-twist analysis of moments of spin structure function}
21:
22:
23: \author{A. Deur \\
24: Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606}
25:
26: \maketitle
27: \begin{abstract}
28: Available analyses on moments of the spin structure function $g_{1}$
29: use different methods and are barely consistent with each other. We
30: present a higher twist analysis of $\Gamma_{1}^{p}$ using a method
31: consistent with the studies of $\Gamma_{1}^{n}$ and $\Gamma_{1}^{p-n}$
32: already published. The twist-4 coefficient $f_{2}$ is extracted.
33: One result is that the higher twist coefficients seem to alternate
34: signs: the relatively larger twist-6 contribution is partly suppressed
35: by the twist-4 and twist-8 contributions. The size of twist-6 can
36: be due to the elastic contribution to the moments.
37: \end{abstract}
38: High precision data on doubly polarized electron-nucleon scattering
39: from Jefferson Lab (JLab) have been analyzed in the transition regime
40: from asymptotically free to strongly interacting quarks {[}\ref{EG1a proton},\ref{EG1a Deuteron},\ref{E94010},\ref{E94010-2}{]}.
41: Studying quark-gluon and quark-quark interactions is important to
42: understanding quark confinement. Such study can be cast in the Operator
43: Product Expansion (OPE) formalism, which describes in particular the
44: evolution of structure functions and their moments. The Cornwall-Norton
45: moment is the integral of the structure function over $x$. Here,
46: $x=Q^{2}/2M\nu$ is the Bjorken variable, $Q^{2}$ is the four-momentum
47: transfer from the electron to the nucleon, $\nu$ is the energy transfer
48: and $M$ is the nucleon mass. In OPE, the first moment of $g_{1}(x,Q^{2})$
49: can be written as:
50:
51: ~
52:
53: $\Gamma_{1}(Q^{2})\equiv\int_{0}^{1}dxg_{1}(x,Q^{2})=\sum_{\tau=2,4...}\frac{\mu_{\tau}(Q^{2})}{Q^{\tau-2}}$,
54:
55: ~
56:
57: \noindent where the $\mu_{\tau}(Q^{2})$ are sums of twist elements
58: added up to twist $\tau$. The twist is defined as the mass dimension
59: minus the spin of an operator. Twist elements$\geq3$ can be related
60: to quark-quark and quark-gluon interactions. Hence they are important
61: quantities for confinement study. The leading twist coefficient is:
62:
63: ~
64:
65: $\mu_{2}^{p(n)}(Q^{2})=C_{ns}(Q)^{2}\left(\frac{1}{36}a_{8}\pm\frac{1}{12}g_{A}\right)+C_{s}(Q)^{2}\frac{1}{9}a_{0}$
66:
67: ~
68:
69: \noindent where $C_{ns}$ and $C_{s}$ are flavor non-singlet and
70: singlet Wilson coefficients that represent the $Q^{2}$-dependence
71: due to QCD radiations {[}\ref{Wilson Coef.}{]}, $g_{a}=1.267(35)$
72: is the triplet axial charge {[}\ref{axial charges}{]}, $a_{8}=0.579(25)$
73: is the octet axial charge {[}\ref{axial charges}{]} and $a_{0}$
74: is the singlet axial charge. In the $\overline{MS}$ renormalization
75: scheme that will be used here, $a_{0}=\Delta\Sigma$ where $\Delta\Sigma$
76: is the contribution of the quarks to the nucleon spin. The next to
77: leading order twist coefficient is:
78:
79: ~
80:
81: $\mu_{4}(Q^{2})=\frac{M^{2}}{9}\left(a_{2}(Q2)+4d_{2}(Q^{2})+4f_{2}(Q^{2})\right)$
82:
83: ~
84:
85: \noindent $a_{2}$ ($d_{2}$) is a twist two (three) target mass
86: correction that can be related to higher moments of $g_{1}$ (of $g_{1}$
87: and $g_{2}$), and $f_{2}$ is the twist four contribution {[}\ref{Twist-4 SV}{]}.
88:
89: OPE analysis can also be carried out using Nachtmann moments {[}\ref{Nachtmann}{]},
90: in which the target mass corrections are done by an appropriate combination
91: of $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ in the moment's definition. Such an analysis
92: of the new JLab EG1a data have been carried out on $\Gamma_{1}^{p}$
93: {[}\ref{Osipenko}{]}. On the other hand, analysis of $\Gamma_{1}^{n}$
94: {[}\ref{Meziani}{]} and the flavor non-singlet $\Gamma_{1}^{p-n}$
95: {[}\ref{Bjorken-HT}{]} were done using Cornwall-Norton moments. The
96: results at $Q^{2}=1$ GeV$^{2}$ for $f_{2}$ are $f_{2}^{p}=0.039\pm0.022$(stat)$_{-0.018}^{+0.000}$(syst)$\pm0.030$(low
97: $x$)$_{-0.011}^{+0.007}$($\alpha_{s}$), $f_{2}^{n}=0.034\pm0.005\pm0.043$
98: and $f_{2}^{p-n}=-0.13\pm0.15$(uncor.)$_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$(cor.) where
99: uncor. (cor.) specifies the error due to the uncorrelated (correlated)
100: experimental uncertainty. The $\mu_{6}$ results are $\mu_{6}^{p}*/M^{4}=$$0.011\pm0.013$(stat)$_{-0.000}^{+0.010}$(syst)$\pm0.011$(low
101: $x$)$\pm0.000$($\alpha_{s}$), $\mu_{6}^{n}/M^{4}=-0.019\pm0.002\pm0.017$
102: and $\mu_{6}^{p-n}/M^{4}=0.09\pm0.06$(uncor.)$\pm0.01$(cor.) where
103: the asterisk in $\mu_{6}^{p}*$ recalls that this coefficient contains
104: only a twist 6 term.
105:
106: These results, while coming from the same set of data, barely agree.
107: The disagreement could come from the fact that the low-$x$ extrapolation
108: procedures differ in the three analyses, or the lower $Q^{2}$ considered
109: for the fits are different (1 GeV$^{2}$ for p, 0.5 for n and 0.8
110: for p-n), or the target mass corrections are treated differently in
111: the Nachtmann and Cornwall-Norton analyses: in the Nachtmann moments,
112: target mass corrections are added to all orders while in the Cornwall-Norton
113: analyses, only the first order is corrected for. The Cornwall-Norton
114: analyses indicate that twist 4 and twist 6 terms are of similar magnitude
115: (although twist 6 is larger) but opposite sign, leading to a partial
116: cancellation of higher twist effects. This is not as clear from the
117: Nachtmann analysis. To clarify this issue, it would be beneficial
118: to provide consistent OPE analysis of the data. In that light, we
119: have redone a Cornwall-Norton analysis of the $\Gamma_{1}^{p}$ data
120: consistent with the $\Gamma_{1}^{n}$ and $\Gamma_{1}^{p-n}$ analyses.
121:
122: The low$-x$ extrapolation of the JLab and world data was redone,
123: as in the $\Gamma_{1}^{n}$ and $\Gamma_{1}^{p-n}$ analyses, using
124: the Thomas-Bianchi parametrization {[}\ref{BT}{]} up to the invariant
125: mass squared $W^{2}=1000$ GeV$^{2}$. The uncertainty was estimated
126: by varying all the parameters within their range given in {[}\ref{BT}{]}.
127: A Regge form {[}\ref{regge}{]} was used beyond $W^{2}=1000$ GeV$^{2}$
128: on which an uncertainty of 100\% was assumed. The elastic contribution
129: to the moments was estimated using the parametrization of Mergell
130: \emph{et al}. {[}\ref{FF}{]}. A 2\% uncertainty was assumed. The
131: JLab EG1a experiment (that will mainly determine the higher twist
132: magnitude) is dominated by systematic uncertainties. Its point to
133: point uncorrelated systematic uncertainties were separated from its
134: correlated ones, and added in quadrature to its statistical uncertainty.
135: This error was used in the OPE fit. The effect of the point to point
136: correlated uncertainty was accounted for by shifting the EG1a data
137: set and using it as a new input in the fit.
138:
139: Fitting the world data for $Q^{2}\geq5$ GeV$^{2}$ and assuming no
140: higher twist effects above $Q^{2}=5$ GeV$^{2}$ yields $\Delta\Sigma=0.154\pm0.066$.
141: The target mass correction $a_{0}(Q^{2})=\int_{0}^{1}dx\left(x^{2}g_{1}(x,Q^{2})\right)$,
142: where $g_{1}(x,Q^{2})$ contains only a twist-2 contribution, was
143: estimated with the parton distribution parameterization of J. Bluemlein
144: and H. Boettcher {[}\ref{BB}{]}. The twist-3 contribution $d_{2}(Q^{2})$
145: was obtain from the SLAC E155x experiment {[}\ref{E155x}{]}. Although
146: accounting for the $Q^{2}$ dependence had little effect on the fit,
147: a $Q^{2}-$dependence of the form $A(Q^{2})=A(Q_{0}^{2})\left(\alpha_{s}(Q_{0}^{2})/\alpha_{s}(Q^{2})\right)^{b}$
148: was assumed for $a_{0}(Q^{2})$ and $d_{2}(Q^{2})$ with $b=-0.2$
149: and $b=-1$ respectively. $\Lambda_{QCD}=0.37_{-0.07}^{+0.04}$ was
150: used in computing $\alpha_{s}(Q^{2})$.
151:
152: The world data together with the OPE leading twist evolution (LT)
153: of $\Gamma_{1}^{p}(Q^{2})$ and the elastic contribution to $\Gamma_{1}^{p}(Q^{2})$
154: are shown in the figure below. The band at zero is the point to point
155: correlated uncertainty on the JLab EG1a data. The dot-dashed line
156: is the result of fit 1 (see table).
157:
158: %
159: \begin{figure}[H]
160: \begin{center}\includegraphics[%
161: scale=0.4]{htp_gmp.eps}\end{center}
162:
163:
164: \caption{World data on $\Gamma_{1}^{p}(Q^{2})$. The gray band (LT) is the
165: pQCD leading twist evolution. The band on the horizontal axis is the
166: point to point correlated uncertainty for the JLab CLAS experiment.
167: The uncorrelated uncertainty is of the size of the square symbols.
168: The error bars on the open symbols are systematic and statistic added
169: in quadrature. The dash-dotted line is a fit of the data starting
170: at $Q_{min}^{2}=0.1$ GeV$^{2}$.}
171: \end{figure}
172:
173:
174: To check the convergence of the OPE series, the lowest $Q^{2}$ value,
175: $Q_{min}^{2}$was varied, as well as OPE series truncated to twist-8.
176: The results are given in the table below. All the twist coefficient
177: values are given for $Q^{2}$=1 GeV$^{2}$. The first error represents
178: the uncorrelated uncertainty, coming mainly from the statistical uncertainty,
179: and the second is the point to point correlated uncertainty.
180:
181: ~
182:
183: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
184: \hline
185: {\footnotesize fit}&
186: {\footnotesize $Q_{min}^{2}$}&
187: {\footnotesize $f_{2}$ }&
188: {\footnotesize $\mu_{4}/M^{2}$}&
189: {\footnotesize $\mu_{6}/M^{4}$}&
190: {\footnotesize $\mu_{8}/M^{6}$}\tabularnewline
191: \hline
192: \hline
193: {\footnotesize 1}&
194: {\footnotesize 1.0}&
195: {\footnotesize -0.138$\pm$0.024$_{-0.101}^{+0.113}$}&
196: {\footnotesize -0.055$\pm$0.011$_{-0.046}^{+0.050}$}&
197: {\footnotesize 0.110$\pm0.014$$_{-0.046}^{+0.041}$}&
198: {\footnotesize -}\tabularnewline
199: \hline
200: {\footnotesize 2}&
201: {\footnotesize 0.8}&
202: {\footnotesize -0.120$\pm0.017{}_{-0.015}^{+0.091}$}&
203: {\footnotesize -0.047$\pm0.073$$_{-0.007}^{+0.040}$}&
204: {\footnotesize 0.099$\pm0.008$$_{-0.032}^{+0.028}$}&
205: {\footnotesize -}\tabularnewline
206: \hline
207: {\footnotesize 3}&
208: {\footnotesize 0.8}&
209: {\footnotesize -0.144$\pm0.057{}_{-0.127}^{+0.217}$}&
210: {\footnotesize -0.057$\pm0.025$$_{-0.028}^{+0.097}$}&
211: {\footnotesize 0.124$\pm0.058$$_{-0.137}^{+0.080}$}&
212: {\footnotesize -0.014$\pm0.032$$_{-0.026}^{+0.051}$}\tabularnewline
213: \hline
214: {\footnotesize 4}&
215: {\footnotesize 0.6}&
216: {\footnotesize -0.160$\pm0.027{}_{-0.106}^{+0.111}$}&
217: {\footnotesize -0.064$\pm0.012{}_{-0.047}^{+0.049}$}&
218: {\footnotesize 0.143$\pm0.021$$_{-0.057}^{+0.054}$}&
219: {\footnotesize -0.026$\pm0.008$$_{-0.016}^{+0.017}$}\tabularnewline
220: \hline
221: \end{tabular}
222:
223: ~
224:
225: All the fit results are very consistent with each others. In fits
226: 4 and 6, the smallness of $\mu_{8}$ tends to indicate the convergence
227: of the OPE series. There is good agreement between the $\Gamma_{1}^{n}$
228: and $\Gamma_{1}^{p-n}$ analyses and our analysis, although the central
229: values differ noticeably. Also, our results show the same trend as
230: the results from the neutron {[}\ref{Meziani}{]} and Bjorken sum
231: analysis {[}\ref{Bjorken-HT}{]}: The $f_{2}$ coefficient tends to
232: display an opposite sign as the $\mu_{6}$ coefficient. The alternation
233: of signs seems to continue with $\mu_{8}$, which indicates that the
234: overall effects of higher twist are suppressed. This would indicate
235: that we should expect hadron-parton duality {[}\ref{duality}{]} to
236: hold for $g_{1}$ at the scale at which the higher twist coefficients
237: were extracted. The fact that $\mu_{6}$ stands out as the largest
238: coefficient is, candidly, not surprising since in our $Q^{2}$ ranges,
239: the $Q^{2}$-behavior is dominated by the elastic contribution which
240: roughly behaves as $1/Q^{4}$. This feature was also seen in the Bjorken
241: sum analysis but not in the neutron analysis in which the elastic
242: contribution is smaller.
243:
244: These results can be compared to non-perturbative model predictions:
245: $f_{2}=-0.037\pm0.006$ {[}\ref{col. pol. 1}{]}, $\mu_{4}/M^{2}=-0.040\pm0.023$
246: (QCD sum rules {[}\ref{HTSR}{]}), $f_{2}=-0.10\pm0.05$ (MIT bag
247: model {[}\ref{HTbag}{]}) and $f_{2}=-0.046$ (instanton model {[}\ref{HTinstanton}{]}).
248: As for the extracted $f_{2}$ and $\mu_{4}$, all the predictions
249: are negative. The MIT bag model and QCD sum rules agree best with
250: the fit results, although the other predictions are not ruled out.
251:
252: Although agreeing well within uncertainties, $\Gamma_{1}^{p}\neq\Gamma_{1}^{p-n}+\Gamma_{1}^{n}$
253: from the analyses {[}\ref{Bjorken-HT}{]} and {[}\ref{Meziani}{]}.
254: This comes from the fact that the $\Delta\Sigma$ extracted from the
255: proton and neutron analysis are very different: $\Delta\Sigma^{p(n)}=0.15(0.35)$.
256: This implies that the asymptotic values for the $\Gamma_{1}^{p}$
257: , $\Gamma_{1}^{n}$ and $\Gamma_{1}^{p-n}$ that anchor the OPE evolutions
258: used in the fit are inconsistent. As an example, an offset of the
259: Bjorken sum asymptotic value of $\left(\Delta\Sigma^{p}-\Delta\Sigma^{n}=-0.2\right)/9$
260: changes the value of $f_{2}^{p-n}$ at $Q^{2}=1$ GeV$^{2}$ by a
261: factor 2 and the value of $\mu_{6}^{p-n}$ by 50\%.
262:
263: From the result of fit 1, we can extract the proton color polarizabilities
264: which are the responses of the color magnetic and electric fields
265: to the spin of the proton {[}\ref{col. pol. 1},\ref{col. pol. 2}{]}:
266: $\chi_{E}^{p}=-0.08\pm0.02$ $_{-0.08}^{+0.07}$ and $\chi_{B}^{p}=0.06\pm0.08$$_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$.
267: As for the neutron, these are of opposite sign and compatible with
268: zero.
269:
270: The fact that the higher twist effects are small (at $Q^{2}=1$ GeV$^{2}$)
271: is somewhat surprising and exciting. However, it implies that accurate
272: measurements are more delicate: the size of the uncertainty is presently
273: of the size of the central value itself. In particular, the high energy
274: missing part, very substantial for the JLab data, introduces a significant
275: uncertainty. The 12 GeV upgrade of JLab will improve on this issue
276: and push the $Q^{2}$-coverage of the measurements. It will help in
277: measuring the higher twist coefficients precisely.
278:
279:
280: \paragraph{Acknowledgments}
281:
282: This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and
283: the U.S. National Science Foundation. The Southeastern Universities
284: Research Association operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
285: Facility for the DOE under contract DE-AC05-84ER40150.
286:
287: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
288: \bibitem{key-6}\label{EG1a proton}R. Fatemi \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Let. \textbf{91},
289: 222002 (2003).
290: \bibitem{key-7}\label{EG1a Deuteron}J. Yun \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. \textbf{C67},
291: 055204 (2003).
292: \bibitem{key-10}\label{E94010}M. Amarian \emph{et al}., Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89},
293: 242301 (2002)
294: \bibitem{key-11}\label{E94010-2}M. Amarian \emph{et al.,} Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{92},
295: 022301 (2004)
296: \bibitem{key-12}\label{Wilson Coef.}S.A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen and J. A Vermaseren,
297: Phys. Lett. \textbf{B404}, 153 (1997)
298: \bibitem{key-17}\label{axial charges}K. Hagiwara \emph{et al}., Phys. Rev. \textbf{D}
299: 66, 010001 (2002)
300: \bibitem{key-13}\label{Twist-4 SV}E.V. Shuryak and A.I. Vanshtein, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B201},
301: 141 (1982)
302: \bibitem{key-19}\label{Nachtmann}S. Wandzura, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B122}, 412 (1977)
303: \bibitem{key-20}\label{Osipenko} M. Osipenko \emph{et al.}, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B609},
304: 259 (2005)
305: \bibitem{key-21}\label{Meziani}Z-E Meziani \emph{et al.}, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B613},
306: 148 (2005)
307: \bibitem{3}\label{Bjorken-HT}A. Deur \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{93},
308: 212001 (2004)
309: \bibitem{key-22}\label{BT}N. Bianchi and E. Thomas, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B450}, 439
310: (1999)
311: \bibitem{key-23}\label{regge}S. D. Bass and M. M. Brisudova, Eur. Phys. J. \textbf{A4},
312: 251 (1999)
313: \bibitem{key-24}\label{FF} P. Mergell, Ulf G. Meissner, D. Drechsel, Nucl. Phys.
314: \textbf{A596}, 367 (1996)
315: \bibitem{key-25}\label{BB} J. Bluemlein and H. Boettcher, Nucl. Phys, \textbf{B636},
316: 225 (2002)
317: \bibitem{key-27}\label{E155x}P. L. Anthony \emph{et al.}, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B553},
318: 18 (2003)
319: \bibitem{key-28}\label{col. pol. 1}E. Stein \emph{et al.}, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B353},
320: 107 (1995)
321: \bibitem{key-29}\label{col. pol. 2} X. Ji, hep-ph/9510362
322: \bibitem{key-30}\label{duality}W. Melnitchouk, R. Ent and C. Keppel. Phys. Rept.
323: 406, 127 (2005)
324: \bibitem{key-31}\label{HTSR}I.I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun and A.V. Kolesnichenko, Phys.
325: Lett. \textbf{B242}, 245 (1990), \textbf{318} 648(E) (1993)
326: \bibitem{key-32}\label{HTbag}X. Ji, W and Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D56} 1.
327: (1997)
328: \bibitem{key-33}\label{HTinstanton}N-Y. Lee, K. Goeke and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D65}
329: 054008 (2002)\end{thebibliography}
330:
331: \end{document}
332: