strategies to extract gpds from data
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Strategies to extract GPDs from data

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

Strategies to extract GPDs from data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 135 Views
  • Uploaded on

Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia & Gary Goldstein Tufts University INT, 14-19 September 2009 APS DNP Meeting Saturday, October 25th, 2008. Oakland, USA. Strategies to extract GPDs from data. Introduce a step by step analysis Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, Step 4

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Strategies to extract GPDs from data' - grover


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
strategies to extract gpds from data

Simonetta Liuti

University of Virginia

&

Gary Goldstein

Tufts University

INT, 14-19 September 2009

APS DNP Meeting

Saturday, October 25th, 2008.

Oakland, USA

Strategies to extract GPDs from data
outline

Introduce a step by step analysis

Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, Step 4

Interesting applications: Access Chiral-Odd GPDs, Nuclei: DVCS and 0 electroproduction on 4He

Conclusions/Outlook

Outline
slide3

With the new experimental analyses at HERMES, Jlab, Compass… we are entering a new, more advanced phase of extracting GPDs from data

Many concerns have been raised recently:

No longer simple parametrizations (K. Kumericki, D. Muller)

Q2 dependence (M. Diehl et al.)

What type of information and accuracy from simultaneous measurements of different observables? (M. Guidal, H. Moutarde)

How can one use Lattice + Chiral Extrapolations (P. Hägler, S.L.)

How can one connect various experiments, separate valence from sea, flavors separation (P. Kroll, T. Feldman)...

Use of dispersion relation: is it only necessary to measure imaginary part of DVCS, DVMP? (Anikin & Teryaev, Diehl & Ivanov, Vanderhaeghen, Goldstein & S.L.)

Global analysis exists for TMDs (simpler partonic interpretation than

GPDs) see e.g. M. Anselmino and collaborators

slide4

DVCS Cross Section (Belitsky, Kirchner, Muller, 2002)

Amplitude

Angle between transverse spin and final state plane

Azimuthal angle between planes

slide7

Off forward Parton Distributions (GPDs) are embedded in

soft matrix elements for deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS)

q

q’=q+

p+q

p’+=(X-)P+

p+=XP+

P’+=(1- )P+

P+

Amplitude

slide8

What goes into a theoretically motivated parametrization...?

The name of the game: Devise a form combining essential dynamical elements with a flexible model that allows for a fully quantitative analysis constrained by the data

Hq(X, , t)= R(X, , t) G(X, , t)

“Regge”

Quark-Diquark

+ Q2 Evolution

slide9

Quark-Diquark model: two different time orderings/pole structure!

DGLAP: quark off shell, spectator on shell

ERBL: quark on shell, spectator off-shell

X>

X<

Quark anti-quark pair describes similar physics (dual to) Regge

t-channel exchange (JPC quantum numbers)

slide10

Vertex Structures

k’+=(X-)P+

k+=XP+

P’+=(1- )P+

P+

PX+=(1-X)P+

PX+=(1-X)P+

S=0 or 1

Focus e.g. on S=0

Vertex function 

2

2

O. Gonzalez Hernandez, S.L.

slide11

Fixed diquark mass formulation

DGLAP region

ERBL region

slide12

Reggeized diquark mass formulation

Diquark spectral function

(MX2-MX2)

 (MX2)

MX2

DIS  Brodsky, Close, Gunion ‘70s

slide13

Fitting Procedure

  • Fit at=0, t=0  Hq(x,0,0)=q(X)
        • 3 parameters per quark flavor (MXq, q, q) + initial Qo2
  • Fit at=0, t0 
        • 2 parameters per quark flavor (, p)
  • Fit at 0, t0 DVCS, DVMP,… data (convolutions of GPDs with Wilson coefficient functions) + lattice results (Mellin Moments of GPDs)
  • Note! This is a multivariable analysis  see e.g. Moutarde,

Kumericki and D. Mueller, Guidal and Moutarde

  •  additional parameters (how many?)

t

Regge

Quark-Diquark

slide14

=0,t=0

Parton Distribution Functions

Notice! GPD parametric

form is given at Q2=Qo2

and evolved to Q2 of data.

Notice! We provide a

parametrization for GPDs that simultaneously fits

the PDFs:

Hq(X,,t)= R(X,,t) G(X,,t)

Regge

Quark-Diquark

slide15

Nucleon Form Factors

= 0, t0

S. Ahmad, H. Honkanen, S. L., S.K. Taneja, PRD75:094003,2007

slide16

Parameters from PDFs

Parameters from FFs

slide17

Some results…

Hu

Hd

S. Ahmad, H. Honkanen, S. L., S.K. Taneja, (AHLT), PRD75:094003,2007

slide18

, t S. Ahmad et al., EPJC (2009)

 we were able to extend the parametrization to 

taking into account lattice results on n=2,3 moments of GPDs

 the new parametrization is valid for valence quarks only

(not expected to be extended sensibly, “as it is”, into

HERA/HERMES region: need sea quarks + gluons)

 it works fine at Jefferson Lab kinematics

slide19

Use information from Lattice QCD:

(1) Assume lattice results follow dipole behavior for n=1,2,3

 

 Extract dipole masses from

lattice data

 Relate dipole mass to “radius”

parameter

 Chiral extrapolation of dip. mass

slide21

Results of Chiral Extrapolations

proton form factor

 Ashley et al. (2003)

 Ahmad et al. (2008)

-t (GeV2)

slide22

New Developments (H.Nguyen)

We repeated the calculation with improved lattice results

(Haegler et al., PRD 2007, arXiv:0705:4295)

slide23

A20u-d

Results are comparable (up to n=2) to our

“phenomenological” extrapolation

We are investigating the impact of different chiral extrapolation

methods: “direct” extrapolation applicable up to n=2 only

M. Dorati, T. Gail and T. Hemmert (NPA 798, 2008)

(Also using P. Wang, A. Thomas et al. )

slide24

New Results are more precise and compatible with other chiral extrapolations

A20u-d vs. (-t)

Nguyen, S.L.

Dorati

slide25

Lattice results are used to model/fit the ERBL Region…

We know the area from n=1 moment + constrained DGLAP

slide26

Reconstruction of GPDs from Bernstein moments

Weighted Average Value

Location of X-bin

Dispersion (error in X)

*

* Algebra a bit more complicated for  to transformation, details in EPJC(2009)

slide28

ERBL Region

Ahmad et al., EPJC (2009)

Determined from lattice moments up to n=3

slide29

New Analysis

  • Results are more accurate one can see trends
  • both isovector and isoscalar terms
slide30

Summary of first three steps towards parametrization

0

7 + 1 (Qo) parameters

v1

10 + 1 (Qo) parameters

v2

use v1 for DGLAP region(X >  )

0

use lattice calculations for ERBL region(X <  )

slide31

BSA data are predicted at this stage

Munoz Camacho et al., PRL(2006)

slide34

0

Fit to JLAB data: real part of CFF from d+ + d-

Real Part(work with S.Ahmad, H. Nguyen)

slide35

Schematically

Fitted directly at Q2 of data

Cusp from reggeized ERBL  (-X)

either from phenom.“DA type” shape, or diquark model

slide36

Behavior determined by Jlab data on Real Part and Q2 dependence

  • Consistent with lattice determination!
slide37

Dispersion Relations (brief parenthesis…)

Dispersion

Direct

Difference

Direct

Dispersion

G.Goldstein and S.L.,arXiv:0905.4753 [hep-ph]

slide38

Dispersion relations cannot be directly applied to DVCS because one misses a

fundamental hypothesis: “all intermediate states need to be summed over”

This happens because “t” is not zero  t-dependent threshold cuts out

physical states

It is not an issue in DIS (see your favorite textbook, LeBellac, Muta,

Jaffe’s lectures…) because of optical theorem

From DR

to Mellin moments expansion

slide39

DVCS

One proceeds backwards, from polynomiality  analytic properties (Teryaev)

But here one is forced to look into the nature of intermediate states because there is no optical theorem

t-dependent thresholds are important: counter-intuitively as Q2 increases the DRs start failing because the physical threshold is farther away from the continuum one (from factorization)

Is the mismatch between the limits obtained from factorization and the physical limits from DRs a signature of the “limits of standard kinematical approximations”? (Collins, Rogers, Stasto and Accardi, Qiu)

slide41

Dispersion Relations (brief parenthesis…)

Dispersion

Direct

Difference

Direct

Dispersion

G.Goldstein and S.L.,

slide43

Transversity

Simple Ansatz

h1(x,Q2) = q f1(x,Q2)

u

HT(x, , t,Q2) = q H(x, , t,Q2)

d

ET(x,  , t,Q2) = TqHT(x, , t,Q2)

Related to Boer-Mulders function

slide44

Nuclei

GPDs & hadron tensor for Spin 0 nuclear target(Liuti and Taneja, PRC 2005)Exclusive o production from 4He (with G. Goldstein)

OAM sum rule in deuterium (with S.K. Taneja)

slide46

Spatial structure of quarks and gluons in nuclei

Burkardt-Soper

impact parameter

quark\'s position

in nuclei

conclusions and outlook
Conclusions and Outlook
  • Approaching “Global Analysis” for GPDs is a more complex problem than for PDFs and TMDs:
    • combinations of GPDs enter simultaneously the physical observables
    • dependence on several kinematical variables: X,,t,Q2 of which…
    • …X always appears integrated over
  • Strategies to extract GPDs from data are based on multistep analyses: we propose one of such analyses using a physically motivated parametrization + lattice results
  • Focus of the present work was on H and E in “valence” region
    • Several applications and extensions: extraction of tensor charge and transverse anomalous moment from neutral pion production data, studies of spatial structure of nuclei…
  • …but analysis is underway that takes into account all GPDs
  • This analysis is possible thanks to the flexibility offered by our parametrization/model
slide49

, , , ..

b1, h1

JPC=1+-

JPC=1--

ad