simonetta liuti university of virginia “ garyfest 2010 ” jefferson lab october 29, 2010

57
Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “Garyfest 2010” Jefferson Lab October 29, 2010 Generalized Parton Distributions Interpretatio of Exclusive Deep Inelastic Processes

Upload: marc

Post on 04-Jan-2016

33 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Generalized Parton Distributions Interpretation of Exclusive Deep Inelastic Processes. Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29, 2010. Generalized Parton Distributions are a new way of interpreting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Simonetta LiutiUniversity of Virginia

“Garyfest 2010”Jefferson Lab

October 29, 2010

Generalized Parton Distributions Interpretationof Exclusive Deep Inelastic Processes

Page 2: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010
Page 3: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010
Page 4: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010
Page 5: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Generalized Parton Distributions are a new way of interpretinga “growing” class of exclusive deep inelastic phenomena (X.Ji, D. Müller, A. Radyushkin)

Prototype Process: “Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering”

q

k'+=(X- Δ)P+, kT- Δ T

q'=q+Δ

k+=XP+, kT

P'+=(1- Δ )P+, - Δ TP+

Page 6: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Amplitude

GPDs are embedded in soft matrix elements for deeply virtual Compton scattering

p+=XP+ p ’+=(X-Δ)P+

P’+=(1- Δ)P+

P+

p+q

q q ’=q+Δ

Page 7: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

GPDs – using the fact that factorization works at the amplitude level -provide a key to interpreting a number of “exclusive” DIS processes, other than DVCS

GPDs with Gary

Transversity and Tensor ChargeFrom exclusive DIS πo electroproduction

Studies of strange and charm content ofnucleon at Jlab/12 Gev and future ElectronIonCollider transversity

Deeply Virtual Neutrin

o Production of

πo from Nucleon and Nuclear Targets

Hyperon and charmed hyperon

transverse polarizationin unpolarized scattering

Page 8: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Re k-

Im k-

3'1'

2'Re k-

Im k-

2' 3'

1'

X>ζ X<ζ

3

1

2

Page 9: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

P+

k’+=(-X)P+

P’+=(1- )P+

In ERBL region struck quark, k,is on-shell

k+=XP+

P+

k’+=(X-)P+

P’+=(1- )P+

PX+=(1-X)P+

In DGLAP region spectator with diquark q. numbers is on-shell

Analysis done for DIS/forward case by Jaffe NPB(1983)

Page 10: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

P+

k’+=(-X)P+

P’+=(1- )P+

ERBL region corresponds to semi-disconnected diagrams: no partonic interpretation

Page 11: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

(1) GPDs in ERBL region seem to be described withinQCD, consistently with factorization theorems, only by multiparton configurations

(2) Dispersion relations cannot be applied straighforwardly to DVCS. The “ridge” does not seem to contain all the information

borrowed from D. Mueller

Page 12: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

The next decade…role of QCD at the LHC

LHC results from multi-TeV CM energy collisions will open new horizons but many “candidate theories” will provide similar signatures of a departure from SM predictions…

Precision measurements require QCD input

QCD: A background for “beyond the SM discovery”

Interesting dynamical questions for QCD at untested high energies

Measured x-section Parton distributions Hard process x-section

σij

P2

P1

Page 13: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Most important points for EIC

1) Our understanding of the structure of hadrons is … disconcertingly incomplete

2) Rich dynamics of hadrons can only be accessed and tested at the desired accuracy level in lepton DIS

Uncertainties from different PDF evaluations/extractions(ΔPDF)

are smaller than the differences between the evaluations(ΔG)

ΔPDF < ΔG

d-bar

u-valence d-valence

Gluon

Page 14: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Strange and charm components studied through hard exclusive processes

Why exclusive processes?

LHC processes are sensitive to charm content of the proton Higgs production: SM Higgs, charged Higgs,

Precision physics (CKM matrix elements, Vtb ….): single top production, …

C.P.Yuan and collaborators

IC

IC

Electroproduction

Page 15: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Data are at very low x where they cannot discriminate whether IC is there

10-2

x

10-3

IC/no-IC

Page 16: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

-Λc, Do, and Do exclusive production is governed by chiral-odd soft

matrix elements ( Generalized Parton Distributions, GPDs) which cannot evolve from gluons!

Λc, Do, and Do used as triggers of “intrinsic charm content”!

P+

p+q

q q’=q+γ

Chiral-odd GPDs: HT,ET,..

Λc, Do, …

Focus e.g. on heavy flavor production at EIC kinematics

-

Page 17: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Intrinsic Charm (IC)

Gluon Fusion (GF)

vs.

IC content of proton can be large (up to 3 times earlier estimates) but PDF analyses are inconclusive (J.Pumplin, PRD75, 2007)

Inclusive

Page 18: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Intrinsic Charm (IC)

“Light Cone” based Processes

Hadronic Processes

Meson Cloud: Thomas, Melnichouk …

Brodsky, Gunion, Hoyer, R.Vogt, …

Page 19: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

strangeγ*p K+ Λ 2Hu - Hd + Hs

γ*p Ko Σ+ Hd – Hs

γ*n Ko Σo Hu - Hs

(s)

p Hc

c

p

u

u Hc

p u + ud cud = Λc p ccuud (u u) cud = Λc - -

( 2 )( 1 )

What Observables? Spin Asymmetries from Exclusive Strange/Charm Quark Meson Production!

charmγ*p Do Λc

+ 2Hu - Hd + Hc

γ*p Do Σc+

Hd – Hc

γ*n Do Σco Hu - Hc

SU(3) (SU(4) for charm) relations allow one to extract Hs

(Hc)

(Λ)

(K+)

“di”quark“tetra”quark

(s)

(K+)

Page 20: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Slice SU(4) weight diagrams to obtain SU(3) subgroup weight diagrams This replaces u,d,s by u,d,c octet relations

Page 21: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Pseudoscalar Mesons Electroproduction and Chiral Odd GPDs(S. Ahmad, G. Goldstein and S.L., PRD (2008))

Page 22: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

LAB

e'

e γ*

Unpolarized Cross Section

Page 23: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Q2 dependence in exclusive meson production

Jlab

Unexpected dominanceof transverse components

Page 24: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

“Regge factorization” QCD factorization

π o vertex is described by current operators: γ5 or γμ γ5

chiral-even structure

chiral-odd structure

GPDs: H, E,…~

~GPDs: HT, ET, HT, ET…

~

~

JPC=1--

JPC=1+-

ρ, ω, ..

b1, h

1

Page 25: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

t-channel exchange vertex

modeled as pseudoscalar-meson transition form factorIslam Bedir’s talk

ρ, ω b1, h1

ρ, ω, b1, h1

JPC=1-- (3S

1)

JPC=1+-

(1P1)

JPC=0-+

mesons quark content:

Q2 dependence

Page 26: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Chiral Even Sector: M. Diehl and D. Ivanov (2008)

Only combination good for πo

production

Page 27: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

GPDs: H, E, and Weak Form factors~ ~

gP(t) = pseudoscalar form factor dominated by pion pole

Page 28: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

E~

Goeke et al.

1) For o production the pion pole contribution is absent!

2) The non-pole contribution is very small!

“non-pole” contribution

pion pole contribution

Page 29: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

πo,ηc electroproduction happens

mostly in the chiral-odd sector

it is governed by chiral-odd GPDs

issue overlooked in most recent literature on the subject

Since chiral-odd GPDs cannot evolve from gluons we have proven that charmed mesons production uniquely single out the “intrinsic charm content”!

Page 30: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Helicity Amplitudes formalismfrom Goldstein and Owens

photon initial proton

final proton

pion

Factorized form

P’, ’

k’, ’

P,

k,

“quark-proton helicity amp.” quark scattering amp.

6 “f” helicity amps

Page 31: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Rewrite helicity amps. expressions using new GFFs

Q2 dependent pion vertexGFFs

elementary subprocess

Page 32: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Standard approach (Goloskokov and Kroll, 2009)

leading twist contribution within OPE, leads to suppression of transverse vs. longitudinal terms twist-3 contribution is possible

However… suppression is not seen in experiments

Need to devise method to go beyond the collinear OPE: considera mechanism that takes into account the breaking of rotational symmetry by the scattering plane in helicity flip processes (transverse d.o.f.)

See also

Page 33: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Distinction between ρ,ω (vector) and b1,h1 (axial-vector)exchanges

JPC=1--

JPC=1+-

transition from ρ,ω(S=1 L=0) to πo(S=0 L=0) L =0

transition from b1,h1 (S=0 L=1) to πo(S=0 L=0) L =1

“Vector” exchanges no change in OAM

“Axial-vector” exchanges change 1 unit of OAM!

This yields configurations of larger “radius” in b space (suppressed with Q2)

Because of OAM axial vector transition involves Bessel J1

Page 34: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010
Page 35: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010
Page 36: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

At this point we need a sensible parametrization…

Page 37: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

In doing so … a large set of increasingly complicated and diverse observations is involved, from which PDFs, TMDs, GPDs, etc…are extracted and compared to patterns predicted theoretically

What goes into a theoretically motivated parametrization for GPDs...?

The name of the game: Devise an analytical form combining essential dynamical elements with a flexible model whose parameters can be tuned

However…for a fully quantitative analysis that is constrainedby the data it is fundamental to evaluate both the number and type of parameters

Multi-dimensional phase space (Elliott Leader)

Page 38: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

“Conventional” based onmicroscopic properties of the theory(two body interactions)

“Neural Networks” study the behavior of multiparticle systems as they evolve from a large and varied number of initial conditions.

Two main approaches

“Regge”Quark-Diquark

+ Q2 Evolution

Proceed conventionally at first:

Ahmad et al.,

Page 39: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

LSS06

New GPDs“physically motivated”ParametrizationG.Goldstein, O. Gonzalez Hernandez, S.L.

Page 40: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Predict Ju and Jd

Page 41: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Covariant quark diquark model

Re k-

Im k-

2' 3'

1'

X>ζ

3

1

2

Page 42: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Skip some neat details, derivation from helicity amps. and connection withChiral Odd GPDs (Kubarovsky’s pi0 data)

Page 43: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

/2

H-

H+

(H+ + H-)/2=Hq

Q2 dependent

dominated by valence

Implement Crossing Symmetries in ERBL region

Page 44: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

ERBL Region Ahmad et al., EPJC (2009)

Determined from lattice moments up to n=3

Page 45: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Recursive Fitting Procedure vs. Global Fits

In global fits we apply constraints simultaneously calculate χ2 (and covariance matrix) once including all constraints Need to find the solution for a system with n equations

Everytime new data come in the fit needs to be repeated from scratch

In a recursive fitting procedure (Kalman) one applies constraints sequentially

Need to update solution after each constraint Find solutions for < n systems, each one with fewer equations

Better control at each stage

Mandatory for GPDs (some of this is implicit in Moutarde’s approach)

Page 46: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

7 parameters per quark flavor per GPD, but we have not constrained the ζ dependence yet….. DVCS data

Page 47: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Hall A

Hall B

GGL’s prediction based on our choice of physicalmodel, fixing parametersfrom “non-DVCS” data

Hall A

ζ=0.25

xBj=ζ

ζ=0.36

ζ=0.45

ζ=0.13

Page 48: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

For strange and charm Replace PDF used for light quarks GPDs with NP strange/charm based one

Page 49: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

HAPPEx+E734 G0 + BNL E734

Replace FF used for light quarks GPDs with upper limit on charm based one

Pate, McKee, Papavissiliou, PRC78(2008)

Page 50: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

G.Goldstein, S.L. (preliminary)

Ratio ηc/πo

Page 51: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Problem of Transverse Polarization of Hyperons and Charmed Baryons in unpolarized pp collisions

p Λ

p What generates polarization?

Page 52: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Spin degrees of freedom in pp scattering

Outstanding puzzle!

Collinear Factorization

Polarizing Fragmentation Function

Non Collinear Factorization

D. Boer, DIS 2010

Set of all data compiled by K. Heller

Go beyond collinear factorization,Insert kT and polarization dependent

Fragmentation function

Page 53: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

1.Gluon fusiondominant mechanismfor producing polarizedmassive quark pair2. Low pT phenomenon3. Recombination rules

Model of hyperon polarization

Dharmaratna & GRG (1990,96,99)

pT (GeV)

pT (GeV)+pC+X Polzn(ΛC) E791

Large mass scale

Page 54: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Hyperon and Charmed Hyperon Polarization work with G. Goldstein and P. Di Nezza (ALICE)

ud

anti-c

Λc

+

Dharmaratna and Goldstein

Page 55: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Interpretation in new language of GPDs:Generalized Fracture Functions

Next, new frontier…..

H

T

h hpp

See also work by•F. Ceccopieri and L.Trentadue Phys.Lett.B (2006)•D. Sivers, PRD81(2010)•O.Teryaev, Acta Phys. Polonica (2002)•A. Kotzinian, PLB (2003)

Page 56: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Finally, somewhat unrelated…

Work in progress with K. Kathuria,and S.Taneja (BNL) What observables?

AUT.....

Taneja and S.L., arXiv:1008.1706

Page 57: Simonetta Liuti University of Virginia “ Garyfest 2010 ” Jefferson Lab October 29,  2010

Conclusions and Outlook

My own interaction with Gary has given me ”lots of courage”

Together we keep on generating ideas, students are getting involved, more projects, collaborations….