1: \documentclass[aps,prc,groupedaddress,showpacs,twocolumn,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,prc,groupedaddress,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[aps,prc,groupedaddress,showpacs,preprint,floatfix]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage[dvips]{color}
7: \usepackage{colordvi}
8: \usepackage{latexsym}
9:
10: \def\micro{\mu}
11: \def\deg{^\circ}
12: \def\gtorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu
13: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
14: \def\ltorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu
15: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
16:
17: \def\gep{G_{Ep}}
18: \def\gmp{G_{Mp}}
19: \def\gen{G_{En}}
20: \def\gmn{G_{Mn}}
21: \def\ges{G_{Es}}
22: \def\gms{G_{Ms}}
23: \def\gaz{G_A^Z}
24: \def\apv{A_{PV}}
25: \def\ans{A_{PV}^{S=0}}
26: \def\sigr{\sigma_{\mathrm{red}}}
27:
28:
29: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
30: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
31: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
32: \newcommand{\rt}{\langle r \rangle_{(2)}}
33: \begin{document}
34:
35:
36: \title{Precise determination of low-Q nucleon electromagnetic form factors and
37: their impact on parity-violating $e$--$p$ elastic scattering}
38:
39: \author{John Arrington}
40: \affiliation{Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA}
41:
42: \author{Ingo Sick}
43: \affiliation{Dept.~f\"{u}r Physik und Astronomie, Universit\"{a}t Basel,
44: Basel, Switzerland}
45:
46: \date{\today}
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49:
50: The extraction of the strangeness form factors from parity violating elastic
51: electron-proton scattering is sensitive to the electromagnetic form factors at
52: low $Q^2$. We provide parameterizations for the form factors and
53: uncertainties, including the effects of two-photon exchange corrections to the
54: extracted EM form factors. We study effect of the correlations between
55: different form factors, in particular as they impact the parity violating
56: asymmetry and the extraction of the strangeness form factors. We provide a
57: prescription to extract the strangeness form factors from the asymmetry that
58: provides an excellent approximation of the full two-photon correction. The
59: corrected form factors are also appropriate as input for other low-$Q$
60: analyses, although the effects of correlations and two-photon exchange
61: corrections may be different.
62:
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65:
66: \maketitle
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: The parity-violating (PV) asymmetry in elastic scattering of polarized
71: electrons from unpolarized protons can be used to extract information on the
72: strangeness contribution to the proton form factors~\cite{cahn78, mckeown89,
73: beck89}. Because the electromagnetic (EM) coupling is proportional to the
74: quark charge-squared, scattering from the proton is strongly dominated by
75: interaction with the up quarks. Electron--neutron scattering provides a
76: different relative weighting of the up and down quark distributions, allowing
77: one to study the difference between up and down quark contributions to the nucleon
78: form factor under the assumption that the up-quark distribution in the proton
79: is identical to the down quark distribution in the neutron, and neglecting
80: heavier quarks. Because the parity violating cross section comes from
81: interference between photon and $Z$ exchange, the quark flavors have a
82: different weighting in the interaction, allowing separation of up, down, and
83: strange contributions to the form factors by combining proton and neutron
84: electromagnetic form factors and parity-violating $e$--$p$ scattering.
85: However, the small contribution of the strange quarks to the parity-violating
86: asymmetry requires precise knowledge of the contributions from the up and down
87: quarks before one is able to achieve sensitivity to the strange
88: quark contributions.
89:
90: The parity-violating asymmetry arises due to interference between
91: photon exchange and $Z$ exchange, and in the Born
92: approximation is given by~\cite{afanasev05b}
93: %
94: \beq
95: \label{eq:born}
96: \apv^{Born} = - \frac{G_F Q^2}{4 \pi \alpha \sqrt{2}}
97: \frac{A_E + A_M + A_A}{(\tau \gmp^2 + \varepsilon \gep^2)},
98: \eeq
99: %
100: where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant,
101: and $Q^2$ is the four-momentum transfer squared. The individual asymmetry
102: terms can be written in terms of the proton's EM vector form factors, $\gep$
103: and $\gmp$, and the proton's neutral weak vector and axial form factors,
104: $\gep^Z$, $\gmp^Z$, and $\gaz$:
105: %
106: \begin{eqnarray*}
107: A_E = \varepsilon \gep \gep^Z,~~~A_M = \tau \gmp \gmp^Z, \\
108: A_A = (1 - 4 \sin^2{\theta_W}) \varepsilon^\prime \gmp \gaz,
109: \end{eqnarray*}
110: %
111: where $\theta_e$ is the electron scattering angle,
112: $\tau = Q^2/(4 M_p^2)$, $\varepsilon^{-1}=(1+2(1+\tau)\tan^2{\theta_e})$,
113: $\theta_W$ is the weak mixing angle, and $\varepsilon^\prime =
114: \sqrt{\tau(1+\tau)(1-\varepsilon^2)}$.
115: %
116:
117: In the standard model and with the assumption of isospin symmetry, the weak
118: form factors can be expressed in terms of the
119: proton and neutron EM form factors and the strangeness contribution to the
120: nucleon EM form factors, $\ges$ and $\gms$, neglecting contributions from
121: heavier quarks~\cite{beck89}. Making this substitution, and removing
122: the common factor $A_0 = -(G_F Q^2)/(4 \pi \alpha \sqrt{2})$, $\apv$ contains
123: the terms
124: %
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: (1 - 4 \sin^2{\theta_W}),~~~~~~~ \label{eq:term1} \\
127: \frac{-\varepsilon \gep \gen} {\sigr},~~~~~~~ \label{eq:term2} \\
128: \frac{-\tau \gmp \gmn} {\sigr},~~~~~~~ \label{eq:term3} \\
129: \frac{-\varepsilon^\prime (1 - 4 \sin^2{\theta_W}) \gmp \gaz}{\sigr}, \label{eq:term4}
130: \end{eqnarray}
131: %
132: which depend only on quantities that are measured or which can be reliably
133: estimated, and one final term,
134: %
135: \beq
136: \label{eq:strange}
137: \frac{\varepsilon \gep \ges+ \tau \gmp \gms}{\sigr},
138: \eeq
139: %
140: which contains the unknown quantities of interest: $\ges$ and $\gms$. In the
141: above expressions, we have written the denominator in terms of the $e$--$p$
142: reduced cross section, $\sigr = \tau \gmp^2 + \varepsilon \gep^2$.
143:
144:
145: To extract the strangeness-containing term, the best known values and
146: uncertainties for the other terms are needed. We present an analysis of the
147: {\em world} $e$--$p$ and $e$--$n$ scattering data to determine the nucleon
148: form factors, the $e$--$p$ reduced cross section (the denominator of
149: Eqs.~\ref{eq:term2}-\ref{eq:strange}), and their uncertainties. We also study
150: the impact of the \textit{correlations} between the different form factors as
151: well as the effect of two-photon exchange (TPE) corrections on the extraction
152: of $\ges$ and $\gms$. Electroweak radiative corrections have been
153: calculated~\cite{musolf94, erler04}, and their uncertainties do not generally
154: limit the extraction of the strangeness contributions.
155:
156: The extracted form factors and uncertainties are also appropriate for use in
157: the analysis of other high precision, low $Q^2$ experiments. However, the
158: analysis of correlations and TPE exchange effects presented in this paper is
159: aimed specifically at parity-violating elastic electron-proton scattering.
160: Care must be taken in using these fits in analysis of other experiments, as it
161: is necessary to determine if the analysis requires the Born form factors or
162: simply needs the form factors as a parameterization of the elastic cross
163: section. When the cross section is required, using the Born form factors
164: requires making an explicit correction for TPE effects~\cite{arrington04a}.
165: For other cases, such as the extraction of the axial form factor from neutrino
166: scattering~\cite{budd03}, determining corrections to hyperfine splitting in
167: hydrogen~\cite{brodsky04b}, or determining the Bethe-Heitler term in the
168: analysis of DVCS measurements, one needs to carefully consider whether TPE
169: corrections are needed and to which degree they are different from the ones
170: needed for the unpolarized cross section.
171:
172:
173: \section{Analysis of low-$Q$ data}
174:
175: \subsection{Proton form factors}\label{sec:proton}
176:
177: A fit to the world e-p cross section data at very low momentum transfer
178: has been described in~\cite{sick03}. This fit uses a Continued Fraction (CF)
179: expansion,
180: %
181: \beq
182: G_{CF}(Q) = \frac{1}{\displaystyle 1
183: + \frac{b_1 Q^2 \hfill }{\displaystyle 1
184: + \frac{b_2 Q^2 \hfill }{\displaystyle 1
185: + \cdots}}},
186: \label{eq:cf}
187: \eeq
188: %
189: of $\gep$ and $\gmp$ most suitable for the lower momentum transfers, and
190: extends up to $Q=\sqrt{Q^2} \approx 0.8$~GeV/c. Note that these fits should
191: only be used in the quoted range of $Q$ values. The analysis includes the
192: effects of Coulomb distortion which, contrary to common belief, are {\em not}
193: negligible~\cite{arrington04c}. The effect of two-photon exchange {\em beyond}
194: Coulomb distortion, which includes only the exchange of an additional soft
195: photon, has also been studied~\cite{blunden05a,borisyuk06}. In our main
196: analysis, we will correct the proton cross sections for Coulomb distortion,
197: though we also provide parameterizations using the full calculation for TPE
198: effects and discuss the impact of TPE corrections on the neutron form factors.
199:
200: Here, we extend this fit to higher momentum transfers, up to $Q = 1.2$~GeV/c,
201: such as to sufficiently bracket the kinematics covered by the different PV
202: experiments. The approach taken is identical to the one employed
203: in~\cite{sick03}: We start from the {\em world} cross sections for $e$--$p$
204: scattering~\cite{bumiller61, janssens66, borkowski74, borkowski75, simon80,
205: simon81, albrecht66, bartel66, frerejacque66, albrecht67, bartel67, bartel73,
206: ganichot72, kirk73, murphy74, berger71, bartel70}, apply the Coulomb
207: corrections according to~\cite{sick98,arrington04c} and fit the cross sections
208: with CF parameterizations of both $\gep$ and $\gmp$. The
209: longitudinal/transverse (L/T)-separation is done implicitly by the fit.
210:
211: This approach allows one to keep track of the random and systematic
212: uncertainties of the data and propagate them to the final quantities of
213: interest. From the resulting CF parameters and the error matrix of the fit one
214: can calculate the values of $\gep$ and $\gmp$ together with their random
215: error for any desired value of $Q$. To obtain the systematic error of the
216: proton form factors, each data set is changed by the quoted systematic
217: uncertainty, the world set is refit, and the change in $\gep$ and $\gmp$
218: calculated. These changes are added up quadratically for all data sets,
219: yielding the systematic uncertainty on $\gep$ and $\gmp$. This is usually the
220: dominant error. The total error is obtained by adding quadratically the random
221: and the systematic errors, a procedure that should be applicable given the
222: large number of data sets used.
223:
224: \begin{table}
225: \caption{Fit parameters for the low-Q form factors, valid up to $Q=1$~GeV/c,
226: using the CF parametrization of Eq.~\ref{eq:cf} (with $Q^2$ in (GeV/c)$^2$) for
227: $\gep$, $\gmp/\mu_p$, $\gmn/\mu_n$, and the parameterization of
228: Eq.~\ref{eq:gen} for $\gen$. The proton data are corrected for Coulomb
229: distortion.
230: \label{tab:fit}}
231: \begin{ruledtabular}
232: \begin{tabular}{l|ccccc}
233: & $b_1$ & $b_2$ & $b_3$ & $b_4$ & $b_5$ \\
234: \hline
235: $\gep$ & 3.440 & --0.178 & --1.212 & 1.176 & --0.284 \\
236: $\gmp / \mu_p$ & 3.173 & --0.314 & --1.165 & 5.619 & --1.087 \\
237: $\gen$ & 0.977 & --20.82 & 22.02 & - & - \\
238: $\gmn / \mu_n$ & 3.297 & --0.258 & 0.001 & - & - \\
239: \end{tabular}
240: \end{ruledtabular}
241: \end{table}
242:
243: \begin{figure}[htb]
244: \includegraphics[scale=0.49,clip]{proton_error2.ps}
245: \caption{Uncertainties in the fits for $\gep$ (solid) and $\gmp/\mu_p$
246: (dashed). The uncertainty is the random and systematic uncertainties, combined
247: in quadrature.
248: \label{fig:proton}}
249: \end{figure}
250:
251: The fit to the proton cross sections, after correcting for Coulomb distortion,
252: yields the coefficients given in Table~\ref{tab:fit}. The fits are valid for
253: $Q$ from 0.3 to 1.0 GeV/c. The uncertainty for $\gep$ ($\gmp / \mu_p$), is
254: given by the solid (dashed) line in Fig.~\ref{fig:proton}.
255: At low $Q$, the error bar on
256: $\gmp$ is larger than the one on $\gep$ as the data base is less complete,
257: although in the low-$Q$ region there are two data sets with measurements at
258: 180$^\circ$~\cite{frerejacque66, ganichot72}.
259:
260:
261:
262: \subsection{Neutron form factors}\label{sec:neutron}
263:
264: The most precise data for the neutron magnetic form factor $\gmn$ come from
265: measurements of the ratio of $^2$H($e,e'n$) to $^2$H($e,e'p$)~\cite{kubon02,
266: anklin98}. The value of $\gmn$ is extracted from the neutron cross section,
267: which is determined from the combination of the neutron to proton ratio in
268: deuterium and the (free) proton elastic cross section. We also include
269: measurements from the asymmetry on polarized $^3$He~\cite{anderson06}, which
270: are of somewhat lower precision, and data points for $Q < 1.3$~GeV/c from
271: Ref.~\cite{rinat04}. The high $Q$ points have larger uncertainties, and
272: are outside the range of validity of the fit, but are included to avoid
273: ``extreme'' behavior for $Q < 1$~GeV/c. We fit these data to a 3rd order
274: CF expansion, and the parameters are shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:fit}. The random
275: and systematic uncertainties of $\gmn$ have been estimated in
276: Ref.~\cite{kubon02}. In the range of momentum transfer of interest here, they
277: are approximately 1.5\%, roughly independent of $Q$.
278:
279: The value of the neutron charge form factor, $\gen$, is obtained by fitting all
280: data presently available from polarization-transfer
281: experiments~\cite{passchier99, herberg99, ostrick99, becker99, zhu01,
282: bermuth03, madey03, warren04, glazier05}. Care has been taken to employ the
283: most recent values, as some of the experimental $\gen$'s published early on
284: did not contain the best corrections for FSI and MEC (or no corrections at
285: all). To study the uncertainty due to FSI and MEC corrections, an additional
286: uncertainty equal to 30\% of the calculated correction was added in quadrature
287: with the experimental uncertainties. Including this additional uncertainty in
288: the extraction of $\gen$ has little effect on the fit or the uncertainties.
289: Also included in the fit are the $\gen$-values determined from the deuteron C2
290: form factor~\cite{schiavilla01} and the slope of $\gen$ at $Q=0$, known from
291: $n$--$e$ scattering. For $\gen$ the error bars of the published data contain a
292: mix of random and systematic uncertainties. This mix is difficult to take
293: apart, and therefore no distinction between random and systematic errors is
294: made here.
295:
296: The fits of $\gen$ are done using a modified 3-parameter CF expansion:
297: \beq
298: \gen(Q) = 0.484 \cdot Q^2 \cdot G_{CF},
299: \label{eq:gen}
300: \eeq
301: %
302: with $Q^2$ in (GeV/c)$^2$. The constant value in front fixes the slope at
303: $Q^2=0$ to match the measured $rms$-radius squared value of
304: --0.113~fm$^2$~\cite{koester95}. The fit parameters are given in
305: Tab.~\ref{tab:fit}, and the fit is valid up to $Q=1$~GeV/c.
306:
307: \begin{figure}[htb]
308: \includegraphics[scale=0.49,clip]{gen_error2.ps}
309: \caption{Total uncertainty for the fit to $\gen$.
310: \label{fig:gen}}
311: \end{figure}
312:
313: The error matrix is used to compute the error of $\gen$ at any desired value
314: of $Q$. Fits using a functional form similar to the Galster
315: fit~\cite{galster71} are systematically below our fit, while fits attempting
316: to include an explicit pion cloud contribution~\cite{friedrich03} lie above
317: our fit. We performed fits using different fit functions and took the fit
318: dependence as an additional contribution to the uncertainty in $\gen$. This
319: is the dominant source of the uncertainty below $Q \approx 0.3$~GeV/c, where no
320: direct measurements exist. The final estimated uncertainty on
321: $\gen$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}. The figure shows the absolute
322: uncertainty on $\gen$; the relative uncertainty is well parameterized by
323: taking the minimum of ($5.2 + 12.6 \cdot Q^2$)\%, which fits the curve below
324: $Q=0.3$~GeV/c, and ($9.2 + 11 \cdot \exp{(-Q^2/0.19)})$\%, which fits above
325: $Q=0.3$~GeV/c.
326:
327:
328: \subsection{Cross Section}\label{sec:sigr}
329:
330: In the Born approximation, $\apv$ is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:born}. The
331: inclusion of two-photon exchange terms leads to the replacement of the Born
332: form factors $\gep(Q^2)$ and $\gmp(Q^2)$ with generalized form factors that
333: depend on both $\varepsilon$ and $Q^2$, as well as introducing two new terms,
334: $A_M'$ and $A_A'$~\cite{afanasev05b}. Given a complete calculation of the
335: two-photon exchange correction, one can extract the Born form factors by
336: correcting the Rosenbluth and polarization extractions for TPE effects, and
337: then applying the TPE corrections to $\apv$. However, the TPE corrections to
338: the denominator of Eq.~\ref{eq:born} are identical to the corrections to the
339: $e$--$p$ unpolarized cross section. So rather than correcting the unpolarized
340: cross section measurements for TPE and then re-applying TPE correction to
341: evaluate $\sigr$, one can make a model-independent evaluation of $\sigr$ by
342: taking a fit to the TPE-uncorrected $e$--$p$ cross section. Thus, we also
343: provide a fit to the measured $e$--$p$ cross section, without applying any
344: kind of TPE correction.
345:
346: The procedure is identical to the extraction of the proton form factors,
347: except that a global fit is performed to the {\em uncorrected} cross
348: sections. The reduced cross section is fit to the the form $\sigr = \tau
349: F_m(Q^2) + \varepsilon F_e(Q^2)$, such that in the Born approximation, $F_m =
350: \gmp$ and $F_e = \gep$. While the fit to the TPE-uncorrected data can also
351: have an $\varepsilon$ dependence, a global analysis of the $\varepsilon$
352: dependence of $\sigma_{ep}$ indicates that that deviations from linearity are
353: extremely small~\cite{tvaskis06}. Table~\ref{tab:sigrfit} gives the parameters
354: for the fit to the uncorrected cross sections. This fit is appropriate both
355: for the reduced cross section term in the evaluation of $\apv$, but also as
356: a parameterization of the elastic cross section with the TPE corrections
357: absorbed into the fit function. It is therefore useful as a low $Q$ model
358: of the elastic cross section if one does not wish to explicitly treat the TPE
359: corrections for unpolarized $e$--$p$ scattering.
360:
361: \begin{table}
362: \caption{Fit parameters for the low-Q $e$--$p$ cross section, neglecting TPE
363: corrections.
364: \label{tab:sigrfit}}
365: \begin{ruledtabular}
366: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
367: & $b_1$ & $b_2$ & $b_3$ & $b_4$ & $b_5$ \\
368: \hline
369: $F_e$ & 3.366 & --0.189 & --1.263 & 1.351 & --0.301 \\
370: $F_m / \mu_p$ & 3.205 & --0.318 & --1.228 & 5.619 & --1.116 \\
371: \end{tabular}
372: \end{ruledtabular}
373: \end{table}
374:
375:
376: \begin{figure}[htb]
377: \includegraphics[scale=0.49,angle=0,clip]{terrsig2.ps}
378: \caption{Total uncertainty for the fit to the TPE-uncorrected value of $\sigr$
379: at the kinematics of several past and planned measurements.
380: The kinematics of forward angle are shown for the JLab ($\Diamond$), while
381: backward angle kinematics are shown for Bates ($\Box$) measurements. The
382: Mainz ($+$) points are for forward angle measurements at low $Q$, and backward
383: angle measurements at higher $Q$.
384: \label{fig:sigr}}
385: \end{figure}
386:
387: The uncertainties in $F_e$ and $F_m$ are essentially identical to those
388: of $\gep$ and $\gmp$. However, the calculation of the uncertainty in $\sigr$
389: requires special care. The values of $F_e$ and $F_m$ are strongly correlated
390: as they result from the (implicitly made) L/T-separation of the cross
391: sections. The uncertainty on the cross section thus is smaller than the one
392: one would obtain by combining the errors in $F_e$ and $F_m$. The
393: error matrix is used to evaluate the random uncertainties, while the
394: systematic uncertainty is taken as the combined effect of individually varying
395: the normalization of each data set. It is not possible to provide a simple
396: parameterization for the cross section uncertainty at all $\varepsilon$ and
397: $Q$ values. The cross section uncertainties at kinematics corresponding to a
398: variety of PV experiments are given in Figure~\ref{fig:sigr}. For the forward
399: angle measurements, the cross section uncertainty is a relatively simple
400: function of $Q$, so the uncertainty for other large-$\varepsilon$ can be
401: estimated from the small angle data in Fig.~\ref{fig:sigr}. The $Q$ dependence
402: is more complicated for large angle, and we have tried to include the complete
403: set of planned measurements.
404:
405:
406:
407: \subsection{Two-photon exchange beyond Coulomb distortion}\label{sec:tpevcoul}
408:
409: In the extractions of the proton form factors described above, we have applied
410: Coulomb distortion corrections~\cite{sick98,arrington04c} to the $e$--$p$
411: scattering data, and no correction to the $e$--$n$ data. Coulomb distortion
412: takes into account the effect of a second soft photon, but does not include the
413: contribution from a second hard photon. At low $Q$, the difference between
414: Coulomb distortion and full TPE is small~\cite{blunden05b}.
415:
416: To gauge the effect of the full two-photon corrections, we perform another
417: extraction of the proton form factors, after correcting $\sigma_{ep}$ using
418: the TPE calculation of Blunden \etal~\cite{blunden05a}, rather than the
419: Coulomb distortion correction. These authors calculate the contribution of
420: the exchange of a second photon, soft or hard, restricted to the case for the
421: intermediary state being a proton in its ground state. This calculation
422: includes only the unexcited proton in the intermediate state; the contribution
423: from excited intermediate states is neglected. This calculation explains most
424: but not all of the discrepancy between Rosenbluth and Polarization
425: measurements above $Q^2$=2~(GeV/c)$^2$, but appears to be sufficient at lower
426: $Q^2$ values. A calculation including an intermediate
427: $\Delta$~\cite{kondratyuk05} also indicates that this contribution is
428: important at $Q^2$=2--3~(GeV/c)$^2$, but provides only a small modification
429: below 1~(GeV/c)$^2$.
430:
431:
432:
433: \begin{table}
434: \caption{Fit parameters for the low-Q proton form factors, using the two-photon
435: exchange correction from Ref.~\cite{blunden05a}.
436: \label{tab:fit2}}
437: \begin{ruledtabular}
438: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
439: & $b_1$ & $b_2$ & $b_3$ & $b_4$ & $b_5$ \\
440: \hline
441: $\gep$ & 3.478 & --0.140 & --1.311 & 1.128 & --0.233 \\
442: $\gmp / \mu_p$ & 3.224 & --0.313 & --0.868 & 4.278 & --1.102 \\
443: \end{tabular}
444: \end{ruledtabular}
445: \end{table}
446:
447:
448: Table~\ref{tab:fit2} shows the results of the fit to the proton cross sections
449: corrected for TPE, as opposed to the Coulomb distortion corrections used for
450: the fits in Table~\ref{tab:fit}. For this fit, the explicit Coulomb distortion
451: corrections done above were omitted, as the TPE corrections already contain
452: the contribution from Coulomb distortion. The fit is valid for $Q$ from 0.3 to
453: 1.0 GeV/c. The uncertainties of $\gep$ and $\gmp$ (random plus systematic added
454: quadratically) are essentially identical to the fit with Coulomb distortion
455: (Fig.~\ref{fig:proton}).
456: While some of the parameters in the fits are noticeably different, the
457: difference between correcting for Coulomb distortion and TPE on the extracted
458: form factors is small. While the size of the Coulomb distortion corrections
459: can be up to 3\% for $\gep$ and 1\% for $\gmp$, the difference between Coulomb
460: and full TPE corrections is typically 0.3--0.4\%, and never more than 0.5\% for
461: $\gep$ and 0.7\% for $\gmp$. This difference is always less then the
462: uncertainties shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:proton}, and more importantly, is well
463: within the radiative correction uncertainties assumed in the initial
464: measurements, which are dominated by the uncertainty in TPE contributions.
465: While the estimates of the uncertainties in the radiative correction procedure
466: were clearly underestimates when neglecting TPE corrections, they provide a
467: reasonable estimate of the uncertainty in the TPE calculation, especially for
468: these small $Q$ values.
469:
470: For the neutron, the TPE correction to the cross section as calculated by
471: Blunden \etal~\cite{blunden05a} is well parameterized at low $Q$ as $\Delta
472: \sigma / \sigma = 0.8\% \cdot Q^2 \cdot (1-\varepsilon)$, with $Q^2$ in
473: (GeV/c)$^2$.
474: For $Q < 1$~GeV/c,this yields a maximum correction go $\gmn$ of 0.4\% at
475: $Q=1$~GeV/c and large scattering angle. Since most measurements are at
476: relatively forward angle, the typical correction is $\ltorder$0.1\%.
477:
478: The calculated two-photon corrections to the polarization measurements of the
479: neutron electric form factor are extremely small. It must be noted, however,
480: that most modern experiments determining $\gen$ measure an asymmetry depending
481: on the ratio $\gen/\gmn$, so a TPE correction to $\gmn$ propagates into the
482: extracted value of $\gen$. As this correction is well below 1\%, the effect
483: is negligible compared to the experimental uncertainties of these measurements.
484:
485: Thus, the overall difference between the full TPE correction and the Coulomb
486: distortion is quite small. For protons, this different can amount to about
487: half of the final uncertainty coming from the input form factors, but is
488: within the radiative correction uncertainty applied in the individual
489: measurements, and thus is properly accounted for in the final uncertainties.
490: However, one also has to consider correlations between the uncertainties in
491: different form factors, which can enhance the effect on the parity violating
492: asymmetry. This is discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:correlations}.
493:
494:
495:
496: \section{Determination of $\apv$}
497:
498: Given the nucleon electromagnetic form factors, as well as $\theta_W$
499: and $\gaz$, one can calculate $\ans$, the PV asymmetry for $\ges = \gms =
500: 0$. One then takes the difference between the measured asymmetry and $\ans$
501: as the contribution from the unknown term (Eq.~\ref{eq:strange}). To obtain
502: a reliable value for the strangeness contribution, one must include radiative
503: corrections in evaluating $\ans$, and determine the uncertainty in $\ans$
504: due to uncertainty in the form factor and other terms. The uncertainty in
505: $\ans$ is usually determined by varying the individual form factors that
506: contribute to the asymmetry by their assumed uncertainties. This approach
507: ignores two effects which could be significant in these measurements. First,
508: it neglects the correlation between the extracted values of the
509: electromagnetic form factors, which can impact the total uncertainty on
510: $\ans$. Second, it neglects the impact of two-photon exchange corrections on
511: $\ans$, as well as their effect on the extracted values of the form factors.
512: In the following sections, we will study the effect of the correlated
513: uncertainties between the extractions of the different form factors, and
514: estimate the size of TPE corrections. We will present a procedure for
515: determining the size and uncertainty of the parity-violating asymmetry that
516: does not require an explicit calculation of TPE, but which minimizes the
517: uncertainty in extracting the strangeness contributions. We will compare
518: this to the result obtained if one ignores both TPE corrections to $\apv$
519: and the TPE corrections in the extraction of the electromagnetic form factors,
520: as has been done in all previous extractions of the strangeness contributions.
521:
522:
523: \subsection{Impact of correlations}\label{sec:correlations}
524:
525: The effects of these correlations need to be evaluated to obtain an accurate
526: measure of the uncertainty in $\ans$. Taking the correlations into account
527: can noticeably increase or decrease the contribution of the form factors to the
528: total uncertainty. We examine here the impact of these correlations on the
529: evaluation of $\ans$, in the region of $0.3 < Q < 1.0$~GeV/c, where such
530: measurements have been carried out or proposed.
531:
532: At the $Q$ values of interest here the main issues of concern are the
533: anti-correlation between $\gep$ and $\gmp$ extracted from Rosenbluth
534: separation, the correlation between $\gmn$ and $\sigma_{ep}$ ($\sigr$) for data
535: extracted in measurements of the proton/neutron ratio or the $^3$He
536: quasielastic asymmetry, and the correlation between $\gen$ and $\gmn$ in
537: polarization measurements that extract $\gen/\gmn$. In some cases, it is
538: difficult to precisely quantify the level of correlation and difficult to
539: propagate to the value of $\ans$. The aim of this analysis is to determine
540: where these correlations can be neglected or treated in some approximate
541: fashion, and to determine the uncertainty related to these approximations.
542:
543:
544: \subsubsection{Correlation between $\gep$ and $\gmp$}
545:
546: At the low values of $Q$ of interest here, the proton form factors are determined by
547: L-T separations, which yield a significant anti-correlation between the
548: extracted values of $\gep$ and $\gmp$. This has an impact in determining the
549: uncertainty in $\sigr$, which appears in the denominator of most of the terms,
550: as well as introducing a correlation between the errors in the term involving
551: $\gep$ and the term involving $\gmp$.
552:
553: The largest effect results from the fact that the uncertainty on $\sigr$ is much
554: smaller than one obtains by varying $\gep$ and $\gmp$ individually.
555: By treating $\sigr$ and $\delta \sigr$ as being independent quantities from
556: $\gep$ and $\gmp$, we eliminate the overestimate of the uncertainty,
557: and we better account for TPE effects as well (see Sec.~\ref{sec:sigr}).
558: When $\sigr$ is extracted directly from the cross sections, the remaining
559: correlation between $\sigr$ and the individual form factors is very small.
560:
561: The remaining effect is the correlation between the terms in $\apv$ involving
562: $\gep$ and $\gmp$ (Eqs.~\ref{eq:term2} and~\ref{eq:term3}). These terms have
563: the opposite sign in the final asymmetry, so the anti-correlation between the
564: values of $\gep$ and $\gmp$ will tend to increase the total uncertainty. For
565: small $\varepsilon$ values, the term involving $\gep$ is only a few percent of
566: the total asymmetry, and so its uncertainty has a negligible small effect
567: ($<0.1\%$ of $\ans$ for $\varepsilon<0.05$). At large $\varepsilon$ values,
568: this term contributes roughly 20\% the of $\ans$, and so has a greater impact.
569: If taken to be 100\% anti-correlated with $\gmp$, the difference at large
570: $\varepsilon$ grows from 0.1\% of $\ans$ at $Q^2=0.1$~(GeV/c)$^2$ to 0.4\% at
571: 1~(GeV/c)$^2$. In reality, the effect will be smaller, as the correlation is
572: not 100\%, especially in the region where $\gmp$ is mainly given by the data
573: taken at 180$^\circ$. The completed and proposed measurements of $\ans$
574: typically have $\sim$10\% precision on $\ans$, and never better than 4\%, and
575: so neglecting this correlation will again have a very small effect on the
576: final uncertainty. Thus, it is a good approximation to treat $\gep$ and $\gmp$
577: as uncorrelated, as long as one takes the uncertainty $\delta \sigr$ directly,
578: rather than calculating $\delta \sigr$ from $\delta \gep$ and $\delta \gmp$.
579:
580:
581: \subsubsection{Correlation between $\gmn$ and $\sigr$}
582:
583: The most precise values of $\gmn$ come from measurements of the ratio
584: of d(e,e'n) to d(e,e'p). By normalizing to $\sigma_{ep}$, measured on the
585: proton, one can extract $\sigma_{en}$ and thus $\gmn$, since the contribution
586: from $\gen$ is almost negligible. Measurements utilizing quasielastic
587: scattering of polarized electrons from polarized $^3$He are essentially
588: measuring the same quantity~\cite{anderson06}. The transverse asymmetry for
589: scattering from the polarized neutron is nearly independent of the neutron
590: form factors, and so the $^3$He asymmetry is mainly sensitive to the dilution
591: due to the two (nearly) unpolarized protons, and thus is sensitive
592: to $\sigma_{ep}/\sigma_{en}$. Therefore, both experiments yield a direct
593: correlation between the extracted value of $\gmn$ and the value of
594: $\sigma_{ep}$ used in the analysis.
595:
596: Because of this correlation, it is important that TPE are treated in a
597: consistent fashion. If the proton form factors are corrected for TPE, then
598: the TPE contributions must be included in calculating $\sigma_{ep}$ as observed
599: in the $\sigma_{en}/\sigma_{ep}$ measurements. Because TPE corrections were
600: neglected in both the extraction of the proton form factors and the calculation
601: of $\sigma_{ep}$ as used in the $\gmn$ extractions, one obtains a correct
602: parameterization of the unpolarized $e$--$p$ cross section, as in
603: Sec.~\ref{sec:sigr}.
604:
605: The typical uncertainties in $\sigma_{ep}$ at kinematics where $\gmn$ has been
606: extracted are $\approx$1.4\%, yielding a contribution to the uncertainty in
607: $\gmn$ of $\approx$0.7\%. For $Q < 1$~GeV/c, the uncertainty in $\ans$ due to
608: $\gmn$ is close to half the size of the uncertainty coming from $\sigr$, so a
609: perfect correlation would have the effect of reducing this contribution to the
610: uncertainty by roughly a factor of two. However, the uncertainty on $\sigr$
611: is usually not the dominant contribution, and so the effect of reducing this
612: contribution is never more than 0.4\% of $\ans$. In fact, the effect is even
613: smaller since the uncertainties are not 100\% correlated between different
614: extractions of $\gmn$.
615:
616:
617: \subsubsection{Correlation between $\gen$ and $\gmn$}
618:
619: The polarization measurements are sensitive only to the ratio $\gen/\gmn$, and
620: thus the error in $\gmn$ used in the analysis yields an identical shift
621: in $\gen$. However, the contribution to $\delta \gen$ from $\delta \gmn$ is a
622: very small part (typically 10\%) of the total uncertainty in $\gen$.
623:
624:
625: \subsection{Two-photon exchange corrections to $\apv$}\label{sec:tpe}
626:
627:
628: A full calculation of the TPE corrections to $\apv$ requires starting
629: with the TPE-corrected (i.e. Born) form factors, and then applying the full
630: TPE corrections for parity-violating scattering to Eq.~\ref{eq:born}. We have
631: made fits to the proton and neutron form factors, both with partial TPE
632: corrections, neglecting the effect of a second hard photon, and with full
633: TPE corrections. The full corrections are more model dependent, but are
634: close to the corrections applied, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:tpevcoul}. The
635: uncertainties assumed for the radiative corrections are now consistent with
636: the corrections applied, even for the partial correction.
637:
638: We apply TPE corrections based on the formalism by Afanasev and
639: Carlson~\cite{afanasev05b}. This includes the effect of the two photon
640: box (and crossed-box) diagrams, but not the effect of the $\gamma$-Z box
641: diagram, which has been examined (for $Q^2=0$) in Ref.~\cite{marciano84}. It
642: should be noted that for these corrections, it is \textit{not} sufficient to
643: apply the correction for only the second soft photon; one must go beyond
644: Coulomb distortion. This is because the Coulomb distortion is a long range
645: contribution that, to first order, yields a helicity-independent rescaling of
646: the cross sections, and thus cancels in the evaluation of $\apv$. So for
647: $\apv$, one must use the full calculation, including the exchange of a
648: hard photon.
649:
650: For convenience, we separate the TPE effects into three categories. First,
651: there are two new terms, $A_M'$ and $A_A'$, that appear in the expression for
652: $\apv$. Second, the Born form factors that go into the terms $A_E$, $A_M$,
653: and $A_A$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:born} are replaced with generalized form factors that
654: depend on both $\varepsilon$ and $Q^2$. Finally, the TPE correction changes
655: the unpolarized $e$--$p$ reduced cross section, $\sigr$, which appears as part
656: of the denominator. This involves both replacing the Born form factors with
657: the generalized form factors, and introducing new terms related the new
658: amplitude that appears when including TPE.
659:
660: We evaluate the corrections to $\apv$ using the TPE calculations of
661: Refs.~\cite{borisyuk06, blunden05a}, which give identical results for
662: the $Q$ range of interest. The new terms, $A_M'$ and $A_A'$, have
663: small contributions, below 0.1\% to $\apv$ for $Q < 1$~GeV/c. While these
664: terms become comparable in size to the corrections to $A_A, A_E,$ and $A_M$
665: at higher $Q$ values, they are negligible at low $Q$. The effect of the
666: generalized form factors on $A_E$, $A_M$, and $A_A$ is larger, but still
667: relatively small; on the order of 1\% for $Q<1$~GeV/c. The final TPE
668: contribution, the correction to $\sigr$ (the denominator of Eq.~\ref{eq:born})
669: can be 2--3\% at small $\varepsilon$ values. Due to cancellation between the
670: different terms, the combined effect of TPE on $\apv$ is $\ltorder$1\% for $Q
671: < 1$~GeV/c.
672:
673: However, the TPE correction to the $\apv^{Born}$ is not the complete story;
674: one must also take into account the \textit{indirect} impact of TPE
675: corrections on the extraction of $\ans$. In the past, TPE contributions were
676: neglected in extracting the nucleon electromagnetic form factors, and so
677: the calculated value of $\apv$ is \textit{not} the correct value for
678: $\apv^{Born}$. The TPE corrections to $\gep$ and $\gmp$ change $\ans$ by
679: 1--2\% for $Q$ below 1~GeV/c, and as much as 5\% for $Q=2$~GeV/c. The largest
680: corrections coming for small scattering angles, where the precision of the
681: completed and planned measurements is the highest, and so one must apply TPE
682: correction to the extraction of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors, as
683: done in Section~\ref{sec:proton}.
684:
685: In summary, the largest effects are the corrections to the Rosenbluth
686: extracted values of $\gep$ and $\gmp$, and the application of the TPE effects
687: to the denominator of Eq.~\ref{eq:born}. The TPE effect on the denominator
688: are identical to those in the unpolarized cross section measurements, and so a
689: model-independent extraction of the denominator can be achieved by using
690: \textit{uncorrected} $e$--$p$ cross section. We have provided TPE-corrected
691: fits to the form factors, as well as uncorrected fits to the unpolarized cross
692: sections, which allow these corrections to be applied without requiring an
693: explicit calculation of the TPE corrections to $\ans$. If one neglects the
694: remaining corrections to the numerator of Eq.~\ref{eq:born}, the result is
695: within 1\% of the full calculation. However, a simple linear parameterization
696: of these remaining terms provides a calculation of $\ans$ that is within 0.2\%
697: of the full calculation:
698: %
699: \begin{equation}
700: \apv \rightarrow \apv \cdot [1+(C_0+\varepsilon C_1)]
701: \label{eq:correction}
702: \end{equation}
703: %
704: where $C_0 = .013-.022Q$, $C_1 = -.010+.018Q$, with $Q$ in GeV/c.
705:
706:
707:
708: \begin{figure}[htb]
709: \includegraphics[scale=0.47,angle=0,clip]{final_plot3.ps}
710: \caption{Comparisons of different calculations of $\apv$ to the calculation
711: including the full TPE effects. Top left plot is $\apv^{Born}$, bottom left
712: is neglecting TPE in both the extraction of the EM form factors and in
713: calculating $\apv$, i.e. the procedure used in analyzing previous experimental
714: results. The top right is the approximation presented here,
715: \textit{neglecting} the additional parameterization of the TPE effect on the
716: numerator of Eq.~\ref{eq:born}, and the bottom right is the final
717: prescription, including this correction (Eq.~\ref{eq:correction})
718: \label{fig:pv_tpe}}
719: \end{figure}
720:
721: Figure~\ref{fig:pv_tpe} compares various approximations for $\apv$ to the full
722: calculation explicitly including TPE corrections. The top left panel shows
723: that the correction to the Born value is small, due to the relatively small
724: direct TPE contributions, and the cancellation between TPE contributions to
725: different terms. The bottom left plot shows the error made when neglecting
726: TPE corrections in both the calculation of $\apv$ \textit{and} the extraction
727: of the EM form factors. The right hand plots show the approximation discussed
728: in this paper, neglecting the additional correction due to the effect on the
729: numerator in Eq.~\ref{eq:born} (top figure), and including the parameterization
730: of this correction from Eq.~\ref{eq:correction} (bottom figure).
731:
732:
733:
734: \subsection{Extension to larger $Q$}
735:
736: While corrections to individual terms in Eq.~\ref{eq:born} can be at the
737: 1--2\% level, and additional corrections due to TPE effects in the extraction
738: of the Born EM form factors can be even larger, significant cancellation
739: between different terms yields a total correction that is typically below 1\%
740: for $Q < 1$~GeV/c. After applying the TPE corrections as discussed above, the
741: uncertainties in the TPE corrections for $Q<1$~GeV/c are dominated by the
742: uncertainty in extracting the TPE-corrected form factors. This uncertainty is
743: taken into account in the typical 1.5\% uncertainty assumed for radiative
744: corrections, and thus no additional uncertainty need be applied.
745:
746: At larger $Q$, these corrections grow significantly, as shown in
747: Fig.~\ref{fig:pv_tpe}, and the total error made in neglecting TPE corrections
748: can reach 10\% by $Q=2$~GeV/c. The procedure described here is provides a
749: correction good to 0.2\% up to $Q=1$~GeV/c, and 1\% up to 2~GeV/c. At higher $Q$,
750: the corrections become even larger, and the calculation of TPE corrections
751: becomes less reliable. An estimate of the contributions from an intermediate
752: $\Delta$ in the box diagram~\cite{kondratyuk05} indicates that this
753: contribution is less than 0.3\% for $Q^2<1$~(GeV/c)$^2$, while at
754: $Q^2=3$~(GeV/c)$^2$, the contribution is as large as 2\%, and is significantly
755: more model dependent.
756:
757:
758:
759: \section{Summary of the procedure}\label{sec:uncertainties}
760:
761: The final prescription involves evaluating the terms in Eq.~\ref{eq:born},
762: using TPE-corrected fits for the nucleon form factors in the terms $A_E$,
763: $A_M$, and $A_A$, the \textit{TPE-uncorrected} fits to $\sigr$ for the
764: denominator, and applying the correction from Eq.~\ref{eq:correction} to
765: account for the TPE corrections for the terms in the numerator of
766: Eq.~\ref{eq:born} and the additional terms $A_M'$ and
767: $A_A'$~\cite{afanasev05b}. Without this final correction, the approximation
768: is valid to better than 1\% for $Q$ values from 0.3-1.0~GeV/c, and better than
769: 0.5\% except for $Q \approx 1$~GeV/c and $\varepsilon < 0.5$. With this correction,
770: the approximation is good to 0.2\%.
771:
772: To get the overall error of the term Eq.~\ref{eq:strange}, one should
773: quadratically add the following contributions: \\
774: -- the effect of the error of $\gep$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:proton}) \\
775: -- the effect of the error of $\gmp$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:proton}) \\
776: -- the effect of the error of $\gen$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}) \\
777: -- the effect of the error of $\gmn$ (1.5\%) \\
778: -- the effect of the error of the $e$--$p$ cross section (the denominator of
779: Eqs.~\ref{eq:born}-\ref{eq:strange}) (Fig.~\ref{fig:sigr}) \\
780: -- the uncertainty associated with neglected TPE corrections \\
781:
782: Note that in evaluating the error due to $\gep$ and $\gmp$, the values of
783: the form factors are changed only in the numerator of Eq.~\ref{eq:born};
784: the value of $\sigr$ is left unchanged, as it's contribution to the uncertainty
785: is treated separately (Sec.~\ref{sec:sigr}). For the complete analysis of the
786: uncertainly of PV experiments, one must of course add the uncertainties
787: stemming from uncertainty in $\theta_W$ and $\gaz$ as well as uncertainty in
788: the scattering kinematics.
789:
790: Finally, one obtains the term involving the strange form factors
791: by equating the term in Eq.~\ref{eq:strange} with ($\apv - \ans$). Thus,
792: the uncertainty in $\sigr$ enters again when isolating the linear combination
793: $\ges + \eta \gms$. Because $\apv \approx \ans$, the 1--2\% overall scale
794: uncertainty on the extracted value of $\ges + \eta \gms$ will always be very
795: small compared to the effect of the uncertainty of $\sigr$ on $\ans$, and so
796: again these uncertainties can be treated as uncorrelated without significant
797: effect on the final uncertainties.
798:
799:
800: \section{Conclusions}
801:
802: We have evaluated the effect of TPE corrections on parity-violating elastic
803: electron--proton scattering using the TPE exchange calculations of
804: Refs.~\cite{blunden05a, borisyuk06}. The direct effect of TPE on the parity
805: violating asymmetry is small, $\ltorder$1\% for $Q < 1$~GeV/c. However,
806: the effect of TPE on the Rosenbluth extractions of $\gep$ and $\gmp$, which
807: are needed to extract the strangeness contribution from the asymmetry, can be
808: significant, and should be taken into account in the analysis of the
809: parity-violating measurements. We have provided fits to the form factors and
810: their uncertainties, and provided a prescription to allows for an extraction
811: of the strangeness form factors without explicitly requiring a calculation of
812: the TPE exchange effects. As we have shown, this prescription provides an
813: excellent approximation to the full procedure, based on tests performed using
814: the full TPE calculation. This provides a common set of form factors and
815: uncertainties for the analysis of low-$Q$ parity violating measurements, as
816: well as a consistent application of TPE corrections on the extraction of the
817: strangeness form factors. This approach has the advantage that it can be
818: applied without requiring an explicit calculation of the TPE amplitudes,
819: while providing an approximation of the the TPE corrections to better than
820: 0.2\%, with model dependence in the TPE correction that is consistent with the
821: assumed uncertainties due to RC for the measurements.
822:
823: These TPE-corrected form factors are needed for determining the value and
824: uncertainty in $\apv$ for the case of no strange quark contributions. They
825: are also the true, Born form factors that are related to the structure of
826: the nucleon, and which should be used in the analysis of other experiments.
827: However, the effect of TPE is different in different observables, and one
828: must consider if the Born form factors are the correct input in the case
829: being considered. For example, many analyses such as Rosenbluth separations
830: in quasielastic A(e,e'p) scattering~\cite{dutta03} or the extraction of $\gmn$
831: from polarization~\cite{anderson06} or ratio measurements~\cite{kubon02},
832: require knowledge of the $e$--$p$ cross section to extract information on other
833: quantities. If one uses the TPE-corrected form factors, then one must include
834: TPE corrections in calculating the cross section. In such cases, it is simpler
835: and less model-dependent to use the fits to the uncorrected cross sections.
836: Other cases, such as quasielastic neutrino scattering or the case of
837: parity-violating electron scattering considered here, will not have the same
838: TPE effects and need to be evaluated with care.
839:
840:
841: \begin{acknowledgments}
842:
843: The authors thank P. Blunden and A. Kobushkin for providing calculations of
844: the two-photon amplitudes, and A. Afanasev, J. Jourdan, W. Melnitchouk, K.
845: Paschke, and D. Trautmann for useful discussions. This work was supported by
846: the U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics, under contract
847: W-31-109-ENG-38.
848:
849: \end{acknowledgments}
850:
851:
852: \bibliography{hap}
853:
854: \end{document}
855: