1 / 49

Modeling the Transverse-Momentum Dependent Parton Distributions

Modeling the Transverse-Momentum Dependent Parton Distributions Barbara Pasquini (Uni Pavia & INFN Pavia, Italy ). Outline. TMDs and Quark Model Results Light-Cone Constituent Quark Model Results for T-even and T-odd TMDs Leading-Twist Spin Asymmetries in SIDIS due to T-even TMDs

astin
Download Presentation

Modeling the Transverse-Momentum Dependent Parton Distributions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modeling the Transverse-Momentum DependentParton Distributions Barbara Pasquini (Uni Pavia & INFN Pavia, Italy)

  2. Outline • TMDs and Quark Model Results • Light-Cone Constituent Quark Model • Results for T-even and T-odd TMDs • Leading-Twist Spin Asymmetries in SIDIS due to T-even TMDs • Conclusions • origin of quark-model relations among T-even TMDS • quark-quark correlation function ! overlap representation in terms of light-cone amplitudes which are eigenstates of orbital angular momentum

  3. TMDs l, x, k l’, x, k + quark-number density G = +5 quark-helicity density isx+ 5 transverse-spin density :Wilson line which ensures the color gauge invariance

  4. quark polarization polarization of quark and nucleon in terms of light-cone helicities nucleon polarization Relations among T-even TMDs in quark models (bag model, light-cone model, chiral quark soliton model, covariant parton model, scalar diquark model) linear relations quadratic relation What are the common features of the models which lead to these relations?

  5. Rotations in light-front dynamics depend on the interaction we study the rotational symmetries for TMDs in the basis of canonical spin • The active quark does not interact with the other quarks in the nucleon during the interaction with the external probe we apply the free boost operator to relate the light-cone helicity and the canonical spin rotation around an axis orthogonal to z and k? of an angle µ=µ(k) Quark Spin Polarization z z k? k? LC Canonical z z k? k? z z k? k?

  6. Rotational Symmetries in Canonical-Spin Basis • Cilindrical symmetry around z direction nucleon spin quark spin • Cilindrical symmetry around Tyk k? • Spherical symmetry: invariance for any spin rotation • Spherical symmetry and SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry Spherical symmetry is a sufficient but not necessary condition for quark-TMD relations [C. Lorce’, B.P., in preparation]

  7. TMD Relations in Quark Models • Spectator models (Jakob, Mulders, Rodrigues, 1997; Gamberg, Goldstein, Schlegel, 2008) • Light-Cone Chiral quark Soliton Model (C. Lorce’, BP, Vanderhaeghen, in preparation) • Light-Cone Constituent Quark model (BP, Cazzaniga, Boffi, 2008) • Covariant parton model (Efremov, Teryaev, Schweitzer, Zavada, 2008) • Bag model (Yuan, Schweitzer, Avakian, 2009) see talk of P. Schweitzer All quark models which satisfy the TMD relations have spherical symmetry (Lz=0) • Spherical Symmetry is a good approximation for quark models • relations can give useful guidelines in phenomenological studies of quark TMDs

  8. internal variables: Light-Cone Fock Expansion ! talk of S. Brodsky fixed light-cone time frame INdependent probability amplitude to find the N parton configuration with the complex of quantum number  in the nucleon with helicity  in the light-cone gauge A+=0, the total angular momentum is conserved Fock state by Fock state ) each Fock-state component can be expanded in terms of eigenfunction of the light-front orbital angular momentum operator

  9. Three Quark Light Cone Amplitudes Lzq = 2 parity time reversal isospin symmetry 6 independent wave function amplitudes: Lzq =1 Lzq =2 Lzq = -1 Lzq =0 Lzq = 1 • classification of LCWFs in angular momentum components [Ji, J.P. Ma, Yuan, 03; Burkardt, Ji, Yuan, 02] total quark LC helicity Jq Jz = Jzq + Lzq Lz q=0 Lzq=-1

  10. Light-Cone Quark Model Lzq =1 Lzq =2 Lzq = -1 Lzq =0 • Phenomenological LCWF for the valence (qqq) component: • momentum-space component: S wave • spin and isospin component in the instant-form: SU(6) symmetric • )Melosh rotation to convert the canonical spin of quarks in LC helicity Schlumpf, Ph.D. Thesis, hep-ph/9211255 parameters fitted to anomalous magnetic moments of the nucleon : normalization constant Jz = Jzq Jz = Jzq+Lzq Six independent wave function amplitudes : eigenstates of the total orbital angular momentum operator in Light-Front dynamics The six independent wave function amplitudes obtained from the Melosh rotations satisfy the model independent classification scheme in four orbital angular momentum components

  11. TMDs in a Light-Cone CQM • SU(6) symmetry Nu =2 Nd =1 Pu =4/ 3 Pd = -1/3 momentum dependent wf factorized from spin-dependent effects B.P., Cazzaniga, Boffi, PRD78, 2008

  12. Orbital angular momentum content f1 g1L h1 up up up TOT TOT S wave S wave P wave P wave D wave D wave f1 g1L h1 down down down • Total results obey SU(6) symmetry relations: f1u = 2 f1d, g1Lu=-4 g1Ld, h1u=-4 h1d • The partial wave contributions do not satisfy SU(6) symmetry relations!

  13. Orbital angular momentum content g1T (1) h1L?(1) h1T?(1) S-P int. up P-P int. TOT P-D int. P-D int. S-D int. S-P int. g1T (1) h1L?(1) h1T?(1) down S-P int. P-P int. P-D int. TOT P-D int. S-P int. S-D int. ONLY TOTAL results (and not partial wave contr.) obey SU(6) symmetry relations:g1T(1) u = -4g1T(1) d, h1L?(1) u =-4 h1L?(1) d, h1T?(1) u=-4 h1T?(1) d

  14. Lattice QCD Light-cone quark model up down up down Haegler, Musch, Negele, Schaefer, Europhys. Lett. 88 (2009) BP, Cazzaniga, Boffi, PRD78 (2008) • Lattice calculation supports results of Light-cone quark model: see talk of B. Musch

  15. T-odd TMDs ¸ ¸’ ¸2 ¸3 + h.c. P+, ¤ P+, ¤’ • Gauge link provides the necessary phase to make non-zero T-odd distributions • We use the one-gluon exchange approximation in the light-cone gauge A+=0 ! conservation of the helicity at the quark-gluon interaction vertex: ¸2=¸3 Sivers function Boer-Mulders function distribution of unpolarized quark in a transversely polarized nucleon distribution of transversely polarized quark in a unpolarized nucleon ¤ = - ¤’ ¸ = ¸’ ¤ = ¤’ ¸ = -¸’ ¢ Lz = 1 ¢ Lz = 1 T-odd distributions from interference of S-P and P-D waves of LCWFs

  16. Sivers function TOT S-P int. P-D int. P-D int. S-P int. TOT • Burkardt sum rule is reproduced exactly: [Burkardt, PRD69 (2004)] LCQM at the hadronic scale Q02=0.094 GeV2 LCQM evolved to Q02= 2.5 GeV2with evolution code of unpolarized PDF Anselmino et al., EPJA39, (2009);PRD71 (2005) Collins et al., PRD73 (2006) Efremov et al.,PLB612 (2005) B.P., Yuan: arXiv: 1001.5398 [hep-ph]: Brodsky, B.P., Xiao,Yuan, PLB327 (2010)

  17. Boer-Mulders function S-P int. P-D int. S-P int. P-D int. TOT TOT LCQM at the hadronic scale Q02=0.094 GeV2 LCQM evolved to Q02= 2.5 GeV2with evolution code of transversity Barone, Melis, ProkudinarXiv:0912.5194 [hep-ph] Zhang, Lu, Ma, Schmidt PRD78 (2008) B.P., Yuan: arXiv: 1001.5398 [hep-ph]: Brodsky, B.P., Xiao,Yuan, PLB327 (2010)

  18. SIDIS l N ! l’ h X X=beam polarization Y=target polarizationweight=ang. distr. hadron

  19. Collinear double spin-asymmetries ALL and A1 • convolution integrals between parton distributions and fragmentation functions can be solved analytically without approximation • no complications due to k?dependence • evolution equations and fragmentation functions are known we can test the model under “controlled conditions”: • in which range and with what accuracy is the model applicable? • how stable are the results under evolution?

  20. ALL and A1 evolved to exp. <Q2> =3 GeV2 at Q2=2.5 GeV2 [Kretzer, PRD62, 2000] initial scale Q20=0.079 GeV2 where q <xq>=1 SMC HERMES inclusive longitudinal asymmetry • description of exp. datawithin accuracy of 20-30%in the valence region • very weak scale dependence [Boffi, Efremov, Pasquini, Schweitzer, PRD79, 2009]

  21. Strategy to calculate the azimuthal spin asymmetries • we focus on the x-dependence of the asymmetries, especially in the valence-x region • we adopt Gaussian Ansatz • low hadronic scale !<k2? (f1)>(MODEL) =0.08 GeV2is much smaller than phenomelogical value <k2?(f1)>(PHEN>)=0.33 GeV2 (fit to SIDIS HERMES data assuming gaussian Ansatz) [Collins, et al., PRD73, 2006] • we rescale the model results for <k2?(TMD)> with <k2? (f1)>(MODEL)/<k2?(f1)>(PHEN) • we do not discuss the z and Ph dependence of azimuthal asymmetries because here integrals over the x dependence extend to low x-region where the model is not applicable

  22. Collins SSA gaussian ansatz from Light-Cone CQM evolved at Q2=2.5 GeV2, from GRV at Q2=2.5 GeV2 Efremov, Goeke, Schweitzer, PRD73 (2006); Anselmino et al., PRD75 (2007); Vogelsang, Yuan, PRD72 (2005) from HERMES & BELLE data HERMES data: Diefenthaler, hep-ex/0507013 More recent HERMES and BELLE data not included in the fit of Collins function COMPASS data: Alekseev et al., PLB673(2009)

  23. Transversity x h1q • Dashed area: extraction of transversity from BELLE, COMPASS, and HERMES data Anselmino et al., PRD75, 2007 • Predictions from Light-Cone CQM evolved from the hadronic scale Q20to Q2= 2.5 GeV2using two different momentum-dependent wf solution of relativistic potential model • no free parameters • fair description of nucleon form factors • phenomenological wf • three fit parameters • , and mq fitted to the anomalous magnetic moments of the nucleon and to gA up down Schlumpf, Ph.D. Thesis, hep-ph/9211255 Faccioli, et al., NPA656, 1999Ferraris et al., PLB324, 1995 BP, Pincetti, Boffi, PRD72, 2005

  24. gaussian ansatz at Q2=2.5GeV2 evolved to Q2 =2.5 GeV2 using evolution eq. of initial scale Q20=0.079 GeV2 [Kretzer, PRD62, 2000] evolved to Q2 =2.5 COMPASS [Kotzinian, et al., arXiv:0705.2402]

  25. gaussian ansatz • from Light-Cone CQM evolved at Q2=2.5 GeV2, with the evolution equations of • from GRV at Q2=2.5 GeV2 from HERMES & BELLE data Efremov, Goeke, Schweitzer, PRD73 (2006); Anselmino et al., PRD75 (2007); Vogelsang, Yuan, PRD72 (2005) HERMES Coll. Airapetian, PRL84, 2000;Avakian, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 79 (1999) Model results compatible with CLAS data for ¼+ and ¼0 but cannot explain the SSA for ¼-CLAS Coll,: arXiv:1003.4549 [hep-ex]

  26. gaussian ansatz • from Light-Cone CQM evolved at Q2=2.5 GeV2, with the evolution equations of • from GRV at Q2=2.5 GeV2 from HERMES & BELLE data Efremov, Goeke, Schweitzer, PRD73 (2006); Anselmino et al., PRD75 (2007); Vogelsang, Yuan, PRD72 (2005) • smaller predictions than expected from positivity boundswith f1 and g1 from GRV at Q2=2.5 GeV2 COMPASS Coll. Kotzinian, arXiv:0705.2402 • experiment planned at CLAS12(H. Avakian at al., LOI 12-06-108) • preliminary HERMES data compatible with zero ! talk of L. Pappalardo

  27. Summary • Model relations among T-even TMDs in quark models • Model calculation in a Light-Cone CQM • Predictions for all the leading-twist azimuthal spin asymmetries in SIDIS due to T-even TMDs • spherical symmetry of the models is a sufficient but not necessary condition • useful guideline for parametrizations of quark contributions to TMDs • representation in terms of overlap of LCWF with different orbital angular momentum • predictions for T-odd TMDs consistent with phenomenological parametrizations and : the model is capable to describe the data in the valence region with accuracy of 20-30% Collins asymmetry is the only non-zero within the present day error bars ! very good agreement between model predictions and exp. data : :available exp. data compatible with zero within error bars! model results with “approximate” evolution are compatible with data

  28. BACKUP SLIDES

  29. Gaussian Ansatz • k? dependence of the model is not of gaussian form • how well can it be approximated by a gaussian form? =1 in Gauss Ansatz results agree within 20% with Gaussian Ansatz Gaussian Ansatz gives uncertainty within typical accuracy of the model exact result from Bacchetta et al., PLB659, 2008

  30. :orbital angular momentum decomposition gaussian ansatz • from Light-Cone CQM evolved at the hadronic scale Q2=0.079 GeV2 • from GRV at Q2=2.5 GeV2 from HERMES & BELLE data Efremov, Goeke, Schweitzer, PRD73 (2006); Anselmino et al., PRD75 (2007); Vogelsang, Yuan, PRD72 (2005) giutgo COMPASS Coll. Kotzinian, arXiv:0705.2402 TOT S-D wave int. P waves int.

  31. Pretzelosity in SIDIS: perspectives • At small x: • There will be data from COMPASS proton target • There will be data from HERMES • More favorable conditions at intermediate x  (0.2-0.6) • experiment planned at CLAS with 12 GeV(H. Avakian at al., LOI 12-06-108) Light-Cone CQM Error projections for 2000 hours run time at CLAS12 Schweitzer, Boffi, Efremov, BP, in preparation

  32. h1L • opposite sign of h1 with with • chiral odd, no gluons • h1L:SP and PD interference termsh1: SS and PP diagonal terms h1L h1 • Wandzura-Wilczek-type approximationAvakian, et al., PRD77, 2008 h1L (1) WW approx. Light-Cone CQM WW approx.

  33. Pretzelosity • large, larger than f1 and h1 • sign opposite to transversity • light-cone quark model and bag model peaked at smaller x • related to chiral-odd GPD down Light-Cone CQMBP, Cazzaniga, BoffiPRD78, 2008 [Meissner, et al., PRD76, 2007and arXiv: 0906.5323 [hep-ph] up Bag Model Avakian, et al., PRD78, 2008 down • positivity satisfied • helicity – transversity = pretzelosity Chiral quark soliton ModelL. Cedric, B,.P., Vdh, in preparation Soffer inequality up

  34. Relations of TMDs in Valence Quark Models (1) Avakian, Efremov, Yuan, Schweitzer, (2008) (2) (3) • (1), (2), and (3) hold in Light-Cone CQM ModelsBP, Pincetti, Boffi, PRD72, 2005; BP, Cazzaniga, Boffi, PRD78, 034025 (2008) • (1) and (2) hold in Bag Model Avakian, Efremov, Yuan, Schweitzer, PRD78, 114024 (2008) • (1) and (2) hold in the diquark spectator model for the separate scalar and axial-vector contributions, (3) is valid more generally for both u and d quarks Jakob, Mulders, Rodrigues, NPA626, 937 (1997) She, Zhu, Ma, PRD 79, 054008 (2009) • (1) and (2) are not valid in more phenomenological versions of the diquark spectator model for the axial-sector, but hold for the scalar contributionBacchetta, Conti, Radici, PRD78, 074010 (2008) • (2) holds in covariant quark-parton model Efremov, Schweitzer, Teryaev, Zavada, arXiv: 0903.3490 [hep-ph] • no gluon dof valid at low hadronic scale • not restricted to S and P wave contributions • SU(6) symmetry is not crucial in the relation withthe pretzelosity see talks by Schweitzer,Ma,Zavada

  35. Charge density of partons in the transverse plane • Infinite-Momentum-Frame Parton charge density in the transverse plane no relativistic corrections G.A. Miller, PRL99, 2007 neutron proton fit to exp. form factor by Kelly, PRC70 (2004) Quark distributions in the neutron B.P., Boffi,PRD76 (2007)(meson cloud model) down up

  36. u u Helicity density in the transverse plane • probability to find a quark with transverse position b and light-cone helicity in the nucleon with longitudinal polarization  2u+u 2u-u d (d+d)/2 d (d-d)/2

  37. Non relativistic limit (k 0) : consistent with Soffer bounds and (Ma, Schmidt, Soffer,’97) up down B.P., Pincetti, Boffi, 05 Light cone wave function overlap representation of Parton Distributions • Melosh rotations: relativistic effects due to the quark transverse motion

  38. Spin-Orbit Correlations and the Shape of the Nucleon spin-dependent charge density operator in non relativistic quantum mechanics spin-dependent charge density operator in quantum field theory nucleon state transversely polarized Probability for a quark to have a momentum k and spin direction n in a nucleon polarized in the S direction TMD parton distributions integrated over x G.A. Miller, PRC76 (2007)

  39. Spin-dependent densities • Fix the directions of S and n  the spin-orbit correlations measured with is responsible for a non-spherical distribution with respect to the spin direction • Diquark spectator model: wave function with angular momentum components Lz = 0, +1, -1 deformation due only to Lz=1 and Lz=-1 components Jakob, et al., (1997) s S x x S x : chirally odd tensor correlations matrix element from angular momentum components with |Lz-L’z|=2 up quark K =0 K =0.5 GeV K =0.25 GeV G.A. Miller, PRC76 (2007)

  40. Light Cone Constituent Quark Model s S x x S x up quark deformation induced from the Lz=+1 and Lz=-1 components adding the contribution from Lz=0 and Lz=2 components B.P., Cazzaniga, Boffi, PRD78, 2008

  41. Angular Momentum Decomposition of h1Tu Lz=0 and Lz=2 Lz=+1 and Lz=-1 h1T u [GeV-3] h1T u [GeV-3] k2 x k2 x SUM h1T u [GeV-3] compensation of opposite sign contributions k2 x no deformation B.P., Cazzaniga, Boffi, PRD78, 2008

  42. Spin dependent densities for down quark s s S S x x x x S S x x • Diquark spectator model: contribution of Lz=+1 and Lz=-1 components • Light-cone CQM: contribution of Lz=+1 and Lz=-1 components plus contribution of Lz=0 and Lz=2 components

  43. Angular Momentum Decomposition of h1Td SUM h1T d[GeV-3] partial cancellation ofdifferent angular momentum components k2 x non-spherical shape h1T d[GeV-3] h1T d[GeV-3] Lz=0 and Lz=2 Lz=+1 and Lz=-1 k2 k2 x x

  44. Evolve in ordinary time Evolve in light-front time¿ = t+z ¾=t-z Front Form Instant Form coordinates x0 timex1, x2, x3 space x+=x0+x3 timex-=x0-x3, x1, x2 space Hamiltonian P.A.M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 392 (1949)

  45. S S P  P D  D P  P P  P S S Light Cone Amplitudes Overlap Representation of TMDs ¢Lz=0 S S P  P P  P D  D ¢Lz=0 ¢Lz=0

  46. |¢Lz |=1 P S P S P  D P  D |¢Lz |=1 S P S P P  D P  D |¢Lz |=2 P  P D  S

  47. Pretzelosity down up Spectator ModelJakob, et al., NPA626 (1997) • large, larger than f1 and h1 • sign opposite to transversity • light-cone quark model and bag model peaked at smaller x • related to chiral-odd GPD Light-Cone CQMBP, Cazzaniga, BoffiPRD78, 2008 [Meissner, et al., PRD76, 2007and arXiv: 0906.5323 [hep-ph] Bag Model Avakian, et al., PRD78, 2008 down • positivity satisfied • helicity – transversity = pretzelosity Soffer inequality up

  48. Rotational Symmetries in Canonical-Spin Basis • Cilindrical symmetry around z direction nucleon spin quark spin • Cilindrical symmetry around Tyk k? • Spherical symmetry: invariance for any spin rotation • Spherical symmetry and SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry • Spherical symmetry is a sufficient but not necessary condition for quark-TMD relations [C. Lorce’, B.P., Vdh, in preparation]

  49. Rotational Symmetries • Cilindrical symmetry around z direction: nucleon spin quark spin • Cilindrical symmetry around Tx • Spherical symmetry: invariance for any spin rotation • Spherical symmetry and SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry

More Related