Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/SuppMathOperators.js

Drawing insights from pion parton distributions

  • A symmetry-preserving continuum approach to the two valence-body bound-state problem is used to calculate the valence, glue and sea distributions within the pion; unifying them with, inter alia, electromagnetic pion elastic and transition form factors. The analysis reveals the following momentum fractions at the scale ζ2:=2GeV:xvalence=0.48(3), xglue=0.41(2), xsea=0.11(2); and despite hardening induced by the emergent phenomenon of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, the valence-quark distribution function, qπ(x), exhibits the x1 behaviour predicted by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). After evolution to ζ=5.2GeV, the prediction for qπ(x) matches that obtained using lattice-regularised QCD. This confluence should both stimulate improved analyses of existing data and aid in planning efforts to obtain new data on the pion distribution functions.
  • Regarding their valence quark content, pions are Nature's simplest hadrons: π+uˉd, πdˉu, π0uˉudˉd; but this appearance is misleading. Despite being hadrons, their physical masses are similar to that of the μ-lepton; and the pion masses vanish in the absence of a Higgs coupling for u- and d-quarks. Pions are Nambu-Goldstone (NG) modes, generated by dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (DCSB) in the Standard Model. This dichotomous character – simultaneous existence as both NG-bosons and bound-states – entails that the challenges of charting and explaining pion structure are of central importance in modern physics [1]. These problems are made more difficult by the crucial role of symmetries and their breaking patterns in determining pion properties, which must be properly incorporated and veraciously expressed in any theoretical treatment.

    Given their simple valence-quark content, a basic quantity in any discussion of pion structure is the associated distribution function, qπ(x;ζ). This density charts the probability that a valence q-quark in the pion carries a light-front fraction x of the system's total momentum when the observation is made at resolving scale ζ; and one of the earliest predictions of the parton model, augmented by features of perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD), is [2-4]:

    qπ(x;ζ=ζH)(1x)2,

    (1)

    where the energy scale ζH marks the boundary between strong and perturbative dynamics. Moreover, the exponent evolves as ζ increases beyond ζH, becoming 2+γ, where γ0 is an anomalous dimension that increases logarithmically with ζ. (In the limit of exact G-parity symmetry, which is a good approximation in the Standard Model, uπ+(x)=ˉdπ+(x), etc. Hence it is only necessary to discuss one unique distribution.)

    qπ(x) is measurable in π-nucleon Drell-Yan experiments [5-11]. However, conclusions drawn from analyses of these experiments have proved controversial [12]. For instance, using a leading-order (LO) pQCD analysis of their data, Ref. [10] (the E615 experiment) reported

    qπE615(x;ζ5=5.2GeV)(1x)1,

    (2)

    in conflict with Eq. (1). Subsequent calculations [13] confirmed Eq. (1), prompting reconsideration of the E615 analysis, with the result that, at next-to-leading order (NLO) and including soft-gluon resummation [14,15], the E615 data become consistent with Eq. (1).

    Notwithstanding these advances, uncertainty over Eq. (1) will remain until other analyses of the E615 data incorporate threshold resummation effects and, crucially, new data are obtained. Prospects for the latter are good because relevant tagged deep-inelastic scattering experiments are approved at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility [16-18] and the goal has high priority at other existing and anticipated facilities [19-24].

    Meanwhile, progress in theory continues. Novel algorithms within lattice-regularised QCD (lQCD) [25-29] are beginning to yield results for the pointwise behaviour of the pion's valence-quark distribution [30-33], promising information beyond the lowest few moments [34-37]. Extensions of the continuum analysis in Ref. [13] are also yielding new insights. For example: a class of corrections to the handbag-diagram representation of the virtual-photon–pion forward Compton scattering amplitude has been identified and shown to restore basic symmetries in calculations of qπ(x;ζ) [38]. The corrected expression has been used to compute all valence-quark distribution functions in the pion and kaon [39], with the results indicating that the pion's gluon content is significantly greater than that of the kaon owing to the mechanism responsible for the emergence of mass in the Standard Model.

    Capitalising on such recent developments, herein we describe predictions for the pion's parton distributions using a continuum approach that has been used successfully to unify the treatment of the charged-pion-elastic and neutral-pion-transition form factors [40-44]. The framework has also been used to correlate continuum and lattice predictions for the electromagnetic form factors of charged pion-like mesons, enabling an extrapolation of lQCD results to the physical pion mass [45].

    Incorporating the impact of global symmetries and DCSB, we compute the pion's valence-quark distribution function using the following expression [38]:

    qπ(x;ζH)=Nctrdkδxn(kη)Iπ(k;P;ζH),

    Iπ=nkη[ˉΓπ(kη,P)S(kη)]Γπ(kˉη,P)S(kˉη),

    where Nc=3; the trace is over spinor indices; dk:=d4k(2π)4 is a translationally invariant regularisation of the integral; δxn(kη):=δ(nkηxnP); n is a light-like four-vector, n2=0, nP=mπ; and kη=k+ηP, kˉη=k(1η)P, η[0,1]. qπ(x;ζH) in Eq. (3) is independent of η; satisfies baryon number conservation; and is symmetric:

    qπ(x;ζH)=qπ(1x;ζH).

    (4)

    To calculate qπ from Eq. (3) one needs the dressed light-quark propagator, S, and pion Bethe-Salpeter amplitude, Γπ. We follow Ref. [45] and use realistic results calculated with renormalisation-group-invariant current-quark mass ˆmu=ˆmd=6.7MeV, which corresponds to a one-loop evolved mass of mζ2=2GeV=4.6MeV. Consequently, the result for qπ is completely determined once a kernel is specified for the Bethe-Salpeter equation. We use the interaction explained in Refs. [46,47], whose connection with QCD is described in Ref. [48]. In solving all integral equations relevant to the bound-state problem, we employ a mass-independent momentum-subtraction renormalisation scheme and renormalise at ζ=ζH.

    The value of ζH must now be determined. To that end, recall that QCD possesses a process-independent effective charge [49,50]: αPI(k2). This running-coupling saturates in the infrared: αPI(0)/π1, owing to the dynamical generation of a gluon mass-scale [51,52]. These features and a smooth connection with pQCD are expressed via

    αPI(k2)=πγmln[(m2α+k2)/Λ2QCD],

    (5)

    mα=0.30GeVΛQCD, QCD's renormalisation-group-invariant mass-scale: ΛQCD0.23GeV with four active quark flavours. Evidently, mα is an essentially nonperturbative scale whose existence ensures that modes with k2m2α are screened from interactions. It therefore serves to define the natural boundary between soft and hard physics; hence, we identify ζH=mα.

    Using numerical solutions for S and Γπ, one can calculate the Mellin moments:

    xmπζH=10dxxmqπ(x;ζH)

    =NcnPtrdk[nkηnP]mIπ(k;P;ζH);

    and if enough of these moments are computed, then they can be used to reconstruct the distribution. Using Eq. (4), one finds that the value of any given odd moment, xmoπζH, mo=2ˉm+1, ˉmZ, is known once all lower even moments are computed. Consequent identities can be used to validate any numerical method for computing the moments defined by Eq. (6).

    Every moment defined by Eq. (6) is finite. However, direct calculation of the m moments using numerically determined inputs for S , \Gamma_\pi is difficult in practice owing to an amplification of oscillations produced by the [n\cdot k_\eta]^m factor. In any perfect procedure, the oscillations cancel; but that is difficult to achieve numerically. On m\geqslant 3 , we therefore introduce a convergence-factor, {\cal C}_m(k^2 r^2) = 1/[1+k^2 r^2]^{m/2} : the moment is computed as a function of r^2 ; and the final value is obtained by extrapolation to r^2 = 0 . This procedure is reliable for the lowest six moments, m = 0,1,\ldots,5 [53]. The m = 5 moment is not independent; but its direct calculation enables one to ensure that the lower even moments are correct.

    One can extend this set of moments by using the Schlessinger point method (SPM) [54-58] to construct an analytic function, M_S(z) , whose values at z = 0,1,\ldots,5 agree with the moments computed directly and for which M_S(7) satisfies the constraint imposed by Eq. (4). The function M_S(z) then provides an estimate for all moments of the distribution, which is exact for m\leq 5 .

    We tested the efficacy of this SPM approach using the algebraic model described in Ref. [30] (Eqs. (1), (14), (17) and Sec.IV.A). Computing fifty Mellin moments directly, we then used the first six moments and the procedure described above to obtain a SPM approximation. Comparing the moments obtained using the SPM approximation with the true moments, one finds the magnitude of the relative error is <0.2% for m\leqslant 10 and <1% for m\leqslant 15 , i.e. the SPM produces accurate approximations to the first sixteen moments, beginning with just six.

    Having validated the SPM, we computed the moments in Eq. (6) for m = 0,1,\ldots, 5 using our numerical results for S and \Gamma_\pi . Then, to compensate for potential propagation of numerical quadrature error in the moment computations, we constructed two SPM approximations to the results: one based on the m = 0,1,2,3 four-element subset; and another using the complete set of six moments. Working with the first eleven SPM-approximant moments in each case, we reconstructed a pion valence-quark distribution; and subsequently defined our result to be the average of these functions:

    \begin{split} q^\pi(x;\zeta_H) = &213.32 \, x^2 (1-x)^2\\ & \times [1 - 2.9342 \sqrt{x(1-x)} + 2.2911 \,x (1-x)]\,. \end{split}

    (7)

    The mean absolute relative error between the first eleven moments computed using Eq. (7) and those of the separate reconstructed distributions is 4(3)%.

    Given the remarks in Sec. 1, it is worth highlighting that Eq. (7) exhibits the x\simeq 1 behaviour predicted by the QCD parton model, Eq. (1); and because it is a purely valence distribution, this same behaviour is also evident on x\simeq 0 . However, in contrast to the scale-free valence-quark distribution computed in Ref. [38]: q_{\rm sf}(x) \approx 30 \, x^2 (1-x)^2 , obtained using parton-model-like algebraic representations of S , \Gamma_\pi , the distribution computed with realistic inputs is a much broader function. A similar effect is observed in the pion's leading-twist valence-quark distribution amplitude [59] and those of other mesons [60-63]. The cause is the same, viz. the valence-quark distribution function is hardened owing to DCSB, which is a realisation of the mechanism responsible for the emergence of mass in the Standard Model [64]. Emergent mass is expressed in the momentum-dependence of all QCD Schwinger functions. It is therefore manifest in the pointwise behaviour of wave functions, elastic and transition form factors, etc.; and as we have now displayed, also in parton distributions.

    The pion valence-quark distribution in Eq. (7) is computed at \zeta_H = m_\alpha . On the other hand, existing lQCD calculations of low-order moments [34-37] and phenomenological fits to pion parton distributions are typically quoted at \zeta \approx \zeta_2 = 2\, {\rm{GeV}} [65-67]; and the scale relevant to the E615 data is \zeta_5 = 5.2\, {\rm{GeV}} [10,14]. We therefore employ leading-order QCD evolution of q^\pi(x;\zeta_H = m_\alpha) to obtain results for q^\pi(x;\zeta_2) and q^\pi(x,\zeta_5) using the process-independent running coupling in Eq. (5). Notably, given that \zeta_H = m_\alpha is fixed by our analysis, all results are predictions; and \alpha_{\rm PI}(\zeta_H)/(2\pi) = 0.20 , [\alpha_{\rm PI}(\zeta_H)/(2\pi)]^2 = 0.04 , so that leading-order evolution serves as a good approximation. We checked that with fixed \zeta_H , varying m_\alpha \to (1 \pm 0.1) m_\alpha does not measurably affect the evolved distributions. We therefore report results with m_\alpha fixed and an uncertainty determined by varying \zeta_H \to (1\pm0.1) \zeta_H .

    Our prediction for q^\pi(x;\zeta_2) is depicted in Fig. 1A. The solid (blue) curve and surrounding bands are described by the following function, a generalisation of Eq. (7):

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Pion momentum distribution functions, x p^\pi(x;\zeta) , p = q, g, S : A (upper panel), evolved \zeta_H \to \zeta_2 = 2\, {\rm{GeV}}; and B (lower panel), evolved \zeta_H \to \zeta_5 = 5.2\, {\rm{GeV}}. Legend: solid (blue) curve embedded in shaded band, our prediction for x q(x;\zeta) ; long-dashed (black) curve – \zeta_2 result from Ref.[13]; dashed (green) curve within shaded band – predicted gluon distribution in pion, x g^\pi(x;\zeta) ; dot-dashed (red) curve within shaded band – predicted sea-quark distribution, x S^\pi(x;\zeta) . (These last two are detailed in Eqs.(10), (11).) In all the above cases, the shaded band indicates the effect of \zeta_H \to \zeta_H (1 \pm 0.1) . Lower panel: dot-dot-dashed (grey) curve within shaded band – lQCD result [33]; and data (purple) from Ref.[10], rescaled according to the analysis in Ref. [15].

    \begin{split} q^\pi(x) = & n_{q^\pi} \,x^\alpha (1-x)^\beta \times [1 + \rho\, x^{\alpha/4} (1-x)^{\beta/4} \\&+ \gamma \,x^{\alpha/2} (1-x)^{\beta/2} ]\,, \end{split}

    (8)

    where n_{q^\pi} ensures baryon number conservation and the powers and coefficients are listed in Table 1. Evidently, the large- x exponent is \beta(\zeta_2) = 2.38(9) .

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Coefficients and powers that reproduce the computed pion valence-quark distribution functions, depicted in Fig. 1, when used in Eq. (8).
    n_{q^\pi} \alpha \beta \rho \gamma
    \zeta_2 9.83 −0.080 2.29 −1.27 0.511
    8.31 −0.127 2.37 −1.19 0.469
    7.01 −0.162 2.47 −1.12 0.453
    \zeta_5 7.81 −0.153 2.54 −1.20 0.505
    7.28 −0.169 2.66 −1.21 0.531
    6.48 −0.188 2.78 −1.19 0.555
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Here it is also worth listing an array of associated, calculated low-order moments in comparison with those obtained in the more recent lQCD simulations:

    \begin{array}{l|lll} \zeta_2 & \langle x \rangle_u^\pi & \langle x^2 \rangle_u^\pi & \langle x^3 \rangle_u^\pi\\\hline {\rm{Ref. [35]}} & 0.24(2) & 0.09(3) & 0.053(15)\\ {\rm{Ref. [36]}} & 0.27(1) & 0.13(1) & 0.074(10)\\ {\rm{Ref. [37]}} & 0.21(1) & 0.16(3) & \\ \hline {\rm Herein} & 0.24(2) & 0.098(10) & 0.049(07) \end{array}\,.

    (9)

    Both continuum and lQCD results agree on the light-front momentum fraction carried by valence-quarks in the pion at \zeta = \zeta_2 : \langle 2 x \rangle_q^\pi = 0.48(3) , i.e. roughly one-half. This is consistent with a recent phenomenological analysis of data on \pi -nucleus Drell-Yan and leading neutron electroproduction [67]: \langle 2 x \rangle_q^\pi = 0.48(1) at \zeta = 2.24\, {\rm{GeV}}.

    As explained above, the pion is purely a bound-state of a dressed-quark and dressed-antiquark at the hadronic scale: sea and glue distributions are zero at \zeta_H , being generated by QCD evolution on \zeta>\zeta_H . Using LO evolution with the coupling in Eq. (5) we obtain the sea and glue distributions in Fig. 1, from which one computes the following momentum fractions ( \zeta = \zeta_2 ): \langle x\rangle^\pi_g = 0.41(2) , \langle x\rangle^\pi_{\rm sea} = 0.11(2) . The ordering of these values agrees with that in [67], but our gluon momentum-fraction is ~20% larger and that of the sea is commensurately smaller.

    Our computed glue and sea momentum distributions are fairly approximated using the functional form:

    x p^\pi(x;\zeta) = {\cal A} \, x^\alpha \, (1-x)^\beta\,,

    (10)

    with the coefficient and powers listed here ( p = g = {\rm{glue}} , p = S = {\rm{sea}} ):

    \begin{array}{l|cccc} & p & {\cal A} & \alpha & \beta \\\hline \zeta_2 & g & 0.40 \mp 0.03 & -0.55 \mp 0.03 & 3.47 \pm 0.13 \\ & S & 0.13 \mp 0.01 & -0.53 \mp 0.05 & 4.51 \pm 0.03 \\\hline \zeta_5 & g & 0.34 \mp 0.04 & -0.62 \mp 0.04 & 3.75 \pm 0.12 \\ & S & 0.12 \pm 0.02 & -0.61 \mp 0.07 & 4.77 \pm 0.03 \\\hline \end{array}\,.

    (11)

    Our predictions for the pion parton distributions at a scale relevant to the E615 experiment, i.e. \zeta_5 = 5.2\, {\rm{GeV}} [10,14], are depicted in Fig. 1B. The solid (blue) curve and surrounding bands are described by the function in Eq. (8) with the powers and coefficients listed in Table 1. Evidently, the large- x exponent is \beta(\zeta_5) = 2.66(12) . Working with results obtained in an exploratory lQCD calculation [33], one finds \beta_{\rm lQCD}(\zeta_5) = 2.45(58) ; and also the following comparison between low-order moments:

    \begin{array}{l|lll} \zeta_5 & \langle x \rangle_u^\pi & \langle x^2 \rangle_u^\pi & \langle x^3 \rangle_u^\pi\\\hline {\rm{Ref. [33]}} & 0.17(1) & 0.060(9) & 0.028(7)\\ {\rm Herein} & 0.21(2) & 0.076(9) & 0.036(5) \end{array} \,.

    (12)

    The data in Fig. 1B is that reported in Ref. [10], rescaled according to the analysis in Ref. [15]. Our prediction agrees with the rescaled data. Importantly, no parameters were varied in order to achieve this outcome, or any other reported herein.

    As above, the predictions for the glue and sea distributions in Fig. 1B were obtained using LO evolution from \zeta_H = m_\alpha \to \zeta_5 with the coupling in Eq. (5); and from these distributions one obtains the following momentum fractions ( \zeta = \zeta_5 ): \langle x\rangle^\pi_g = 0.45(1) , \langle x\rangle^\pi_{\rm sea} = 0.14(2) . The glue and sea momentum distributions are fairly described by the function in Eq. (10) evaluated using the coefficient and powers in the lower rows of Eq. (11). (Recall that on \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/\zeta^2 \simeq 0 , for any hadron [68]: \langle x\rangle_q = 0 , \langle x\rangle_g = 4/7\approx 0.57 , \langle x\rangle_S = 3/7\approx 0.43 .)

    Figure 1B also displays the lQCD result for the pion valence-quark distribution function [33] evolved to the E615 scale: dot-dot-dashed (grey) curve within bands. As could be anticipated from the comparisons listed in connection with Eq. (12), the pointwise form of the lQCD prediction agrees with our result (within errors).

    Our symmetry-preserving analysis of the pion's parton distribution functions exploits the existence of a process-independent effective charge in QCD, which saturates at infrared momenta [49,50], to introduce an unambiguous definition of the hadronic scale, \zeta_H , and thereby obtain parameter-free predictions, unified with kindred results for the electromagnetic pion elastic and transition form factors [40-45] and numerous other observables (e.g. Refs. [69,70]). At \zeta_H , the computed valence-quark distribution is hard, as a direct consequence of DCSB, i.e. the mechanism which expresses the emergence of mass in the fermion sector of QCD.

    Evolved to \zeta = 5.2\, GeV, the calculated distribution agrees with that obtained in a recent, exploratory lattice-QCD computation [33]. With this confluence, two disparate treatments of the pion bound-state problem are seen to have arrived at the same prediction for the pion's valence-quark distribution function. It also agrees with \pi -nucleon Drell-Yan data [10], rescaled as suggested by the complete next-to-leading-order (NLO) reanalysis in Ref. [15]. Importantly, via evolution, we also deliver realistic predictions for the pion's glue and sea content.

    A pressing extension of this study is the calculation of analogous kaon distribution functions, which would enable validation of earlier analyses [39] that indicate the kaon's gluon content is significantly smaller than that of the pion owing to DCSB and its role in forming the almost-massless pion [64].

    We are grateful for constructive comments from C. Chen, M. Chen, F. Gao, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, J. Repond, J. Rodríguez-Quintero and J. Segovia; for the hospitality and support of RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen - Germany; and likewise for the hospitality and support of the University of Huelva, Huelva - Spain, and the University of Pablo de Olavide, Seville - Spain, during the "4th Workshop on Nonperturbative QCD'' (University of Pablo de Olavide, 6-9 November 2018).

    [1] A. Aprahamian et al, (2015) Reaching for the horizon: The 2015 long range plan for nuclear science
    [2] Z. F. Ezawa, Nuovo Cim. A, 23: 271-290 (1974) doi: 10.1007/BF02739483
    [3] G. R. Farrar and D. R. Jackson, Phys. Rev. Lett., 35: 1416 (1975) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1416
    [4] E. L. Berger and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. Lett., 42: 940-944 (1979) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.940
    [5] J. Badier et al, Phys. Lett. B, 93: 354 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90530-4
    [6] J. Badier et al, Z. Phys. C, 18: 281 (1983) doi: 10.1007/BF01573728
    [7] B. Betev et al, Z. Phys. C, 28: 15 (1985) doi: 10.1007/BF01550244
    [8] S. Falciano et al, Z. Phys. C, 31: 513 (1986) doi: 10.1007/BF01551072
    [9] M. Guanziroli et al, Z. Phys. C, 37: 545 (1988) doi: 10.1007/BF01549713
    [10] J. S. Conway et al, Phys. Rev. D, 39: 92-122 (1989) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.39.92
    [11] J. Heinrich et al, Phys. Rev. D, 44: 1909-1932 (1991) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.1909
    [12] R. J. Holt and C. D. Roberts, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82: 2991-3044 (2010) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2991
    [13] M. B. Hecht, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C, 63: 025213 (2001) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.025213
    [14] K. Wijesooriya, P. E. Reimer, and R. J. Holt, Phys. Rev. C, 72: 065203 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.065203
    [15] M. Aicher, A. Schäfer, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105: 252003 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252003
    [16] D. Adikaram et al, (2015) Measurement of Tagged Deep Inelastic Scattering (TDIS), approved Jefferson Lab experiment E12-15-006
    [17] D. Adikaram et al, (2015) Measurement of Kaon Structure Function through Tagged Deep Inelastic Scattering (TDIS), approved Jefferson Lab experiment C12-15-006A
    [18] J. R. McKenney, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk et al, Phys. Rev. D, 93: 054011 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054011
    [19] V. A. Petrov, R. A. Ryutin, A. E. Sobol et al, Eur. Phys. J. C, 72: 1886 (2012) doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1886-4
    [20] J. C. Peng and J. W. Qiu, The Universe, 4: 34-44 (2016)
    [21] J. C. Peng, W. C. Chang, S. Platchkov et al, (2017) Valence Quark and Gluon Distributions of Kaon from J/Psi Production, arXiv: 1711.00839[hep-ph]
    [22] T. Horn, AIP Conf. Proc., 1970: 030003 (2018)
    [23] O. Denisov et al, arXiv: 1808.00848[hep-ex]
    [24] A. C. Aguilar et al,, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55: 190 (2019) doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12885-0
    [25] K. F. Liu and S. J. Dong, Phys. Rev. Lett., 72: 1790-1793 (1994) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.1790
    [26] X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110: 262002 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.262002
    [27] A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B, 767: 314-320 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.019
    [28] A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D, 96: 034025 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.034025
    [29] A. J. Chambers, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118: 242001 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.242001
    [30] S. S. Xu, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts et al, Phys. Rev. D, 97: 094014 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094014
    [31] J. H. Zhang, J. W. Chen, L. Jin et al, Phys. Rev. D, 100: 034505 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034505
    [32] N. Karthik, T. Izubichi, L. Jin et al, PoS, LATTICE2018: 109 (2018)
    [33] R. S. Sufian, J. Karpie, C. Egerer et al, Phys. Rev. D, 99: 074507 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074507
    [34] C. Best et al, Phys. Rev. D, 56: 2743-2754 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.2743
    [35] W. Detmold, W. Melnitchouk, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D, 68: 034025 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.034025
    [36] D. Brommel et al, PoS, LAT2007: 140 (2007)
    [37] M. Oehm, C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou et al, Phys. Rev. D, 99: 014508 (2019)
    [38] L. Chang, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde et al, Phys. Lett. B, 737: 23-29 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.08.009
    [39] C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts et al, Phys. Rev. D, 93: 074021 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074021
    [40] L. Chang, I. C. Cloët, C. D. Roberts et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111: 141802 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.141802
    [41] K. Raya, L. Chang, A. Bashir et al, Phys. Rev. D, 93: 074017 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074017
    [42] K. Raya, M. Ding, A. Bashir et al, Phys. Rev. D, 95: 074014 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.074014
    [43] F. Gao, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. D, 96: 034024 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.034024
    [44] M. Ding, K. Raya, A. Bashir et al, Phys. Rev. D, 99: 014014 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014014
    [45] M. Chen, M. Ding, L. Chang et al, Phys. Rev. D, 98: 091505(R) (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.091505
    [46] S. X. Qin, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. C, 84: 042202(R) (2011) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.042202
    [47] S. X. Qin, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. C, 85: 035202 (2012)
    [48] D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou et al, Phys. Lett. B, 742: 183-188 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.031
    [49] D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou et al, Phys. Rev. D, 96: 054026 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.054026
    [50] J. Rodríguez-Quintero, D. Binosi, C. Mezrag et al, Few Body Syst., 59: 121 (2018) doi: 10.1007/s00601-018-1437-0
    [51] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, A. Le-Yaouanc et al, Few Body Syst., 53: 387-436 (2012) doi: 10.1007/s00601-011-0301-2
    [52] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Front. Phys. China, 11: 111203 (2016)
    [53] B. L. Li, L. Chang, F. Gao et al, Phys. Rev. D, 93: 114033 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.114033
    [54] L. Schlessinger and C. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett., 16: 1173-1174 (1966) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.16.1173
    [55] L. Schlessinger, Phys. Rev., 167: 1411-1423 (1968), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.167.1411
    [56] R. A. Tripolt, I. Haritan, J. Wambach et al, Phys. Lett. B, 774: 411-416 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.001
    [57] C. Chen, Y. Lu, D. Binosi et al, Phys. Rev. D, 99: 034013 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.034013
    [58] D. Binosi and R. A. Tripolt, arXiv: 190408172[hep-ph]
    [59] L. Chang, I. C. Cloët, J. J. Cobos-Martinez et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110: 132001 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.132001
    [60] F. Gao, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. D, 90: 014011 (2014) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.014011
    [61] C. Shi, C. Chen, L. Chang et al, Phys. Rev. D, 92: 014035 (2015) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.014035
    [62] F. Gao, L. Chang, and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Lett. B, 770: 551-555 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.04.077
    [63] B. L. Li, L. Chang, M. Ding et al, Phys. Rev. D, 94: 094014 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.094014
    [64] C. D. Roberts, Few Body Syst., 58: 5 (2017) doi: 10.1007/s00601-016-1168-z
    [65] P. J. Sutton, A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts et al, Phys. Rev. D, 45: 2349-2359 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2349
    [66] M. Glück, E. Reya, and I. Schienbein, Eur. Phys. J. C, 10: 313-317 (1999) doi: 10.1007/s100529900124
    [67] P. C. Barry, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121: 152001 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.152001
    [68] G. Altarelli, Phys. Rept., 81: 1-129 (1982) doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(82)90127-2
    [69] D. Binosi, L. Chang, M. Ding et al, Phys. Lett. B, 790: 257-262 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.033
    [70] S. X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Few Body Syst., 60: 26 (2019) doi: 10.1007/s00601-019-1488-x
  • [1] A. Aprahamian et al, (2015) Reaching for the horizon: The 2015 long range plan for nuclear science
    [2] Z. F. Ezawa, Nuovo Cim. A, 23: 271-290 (1974) doi: 10.1007/BF02739483
    [3] G. R. Farrar and D. R. Jackson, Phys. Rev. Lett., 35: 1416 (1975) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1416
    [4] E. L. Berger and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. Lett., 42: 940-944 (1979) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.940
    [5] J. Badier et al, Phys. Lett. B, 93: 354 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90530-4
    [6] J. Badier et al, Z. Phys. C, 18: 281 (1983) doi: 10.1007/BF01573728
    [7] B. Betev et al, Z. Phys. C, 28: 15 (1985) doi: 10.1007/BF01550244
    [8] S. Falciano et al, Z. Phys. C, 31: 513 (1986) doi: 10.1007/BF01551072
    [9] M. Guanziroli et al, Z. Phys. C, 37: 545 (1988) doi: 10.1007/BF01549713
    [10] J. S. Conway et al, Phys. Rev. D, 39: 92-122 (1989) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.39.92
    [11] J. Heinrich et al, Phys. Rev. D, 44: 1909-1932 (1991) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.1909
    [12] R. J. Holt and C. D. Roberts, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82: 2991-3044 (2010) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2991
    [13] M. B. Hecht, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C, 63: 025213 (2001) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.025213
    [14] K. Wijesooriya, P. E. Reimer, and R. J. Holt, Phys. Rev. C, 72: 065203 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.065203
    [15] M. Aicher, A. Schäfer, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105: 252003 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252003
    [16] D. Adikaram et al, (2015) Measurement of Tagged Deep Inelastic Scattering (TDIS), approved Jefferson Lab experiment E12-15-006
    [17] D. Adikaram et al, (2015) Measurement of Kaon Structure Function through Tagged Deep Inelastic Scattering (TDIS), approved Jefferson Lab experiment C12-15-006A
    [18] J. R. McKenney, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk et al, Phys. Rev. D, 93: 054011 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054011
    [19] V. A. Petrov, R. A. Ryutin, A. E. Sobol et al, Eur. Phys. J. C, 72: 1886 (2012) doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1886-4
    [20] J. C. Peng and J. W. Qiu, The Universe, 4: 34-44 (2016)
    [21] J. C. Peng, W. C. Chang, S. Platchkov et al, (2017) Valence Quark and Gluon Distributions of Kaon from J/Psi Production, arXiv: 1711.00839[hep-ph]
    [22] T. Horn, AIP Conf. Proc., 1970: 030003 (2018)
    [23] O. Denisov et al, arXiv: 1808.00848[hep-ex]
    [24] A. C. Aguilar et al,, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55: 190 (2019) doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12885-0
    [25] K. F. Liu and S. J. Dong, Phys. Rev. Lett., 72: 1790-1793 (1994) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.1790
    [26] X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110: 262002 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.262002
    [27] A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B, 767: 314-320 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.019
    [28] A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D, 96: 034025 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.034025
    [29] A. J. Chambers, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118: 242001 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.242001
    [30] S. S. Xu, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts et al, Phys. Rev. D, 97: 094014 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094014
    [31] J. H. Zhang, J. W. Chen, L. Jin et al, Phys. Rev. D, 100: 034505 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034505
    [32] N. Karthik, T. Izubichi, L. Jin et al, PoS, LATTICE2018: 109 (2018)
    [33] R. S. Sufian, J. Karpie, C. Egerer et al, Phys. Rev. D, 99: 074507 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074507
    [34] C. Best et al, Phys. Rev. D, 56: 2743-2754 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.2743
    [35] W. Detmold, W. Melnitchouk, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D, 68: 034025 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.034025
    [36] D. Brommel et al, PoS, LAT2007: 140 (2007)
    [37] M. Oehm, C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou et al, Phys. Rev. D, 99: 014508 (2019)
    [38] L. Chang, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde et al, Phys. Lett. B, 737: 23-29 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.08.009
    [39] C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts et al, Phys. Rev. D, 93: 074021 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074021
    [40] L. Chang, I. C. Cloët, C. D. Roberts et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111: 141802 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.141802
    [41] K. Raya, L. Chang, A. Bashir et al, Phys. Rev. D, 93: 074017 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074017
    [42] K. Raya, M. Ding, A. Bashir et al, Phys. Rev. D, 95: 074014 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.074014
    [43] F. Gao, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. D, 96: 034024 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.034024
    [44] M. Ding, K. Raya, A. Bashir et al, Phys. Rev. D, 99: 014014 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014014
    [45] M. Chen, M. Ding, L. Chang et al, Phys. Rev. D, 98: 091505(R) (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.091505
    [46] S. X. Qin, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. C, 84: 042202(R) (2011) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.042202
    [47] S. X. Qin, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. C, 85: 035202 (2012)
    [48] D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou et al, Phys. Lett. B, 742: 183-188 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.031
    [49] D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou et al, Phys. Rev. D, 96: 054026 (2017) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.054026
    [50] J. Rodríguez-Quintero, D. Binosi, C. Mezrag et al, Few Body Syst., 59: 121 (2018) doi: 10.1007/s00601-018-1437-0
    [51] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, A. Le-Yaouanc et al, Few Body Syst., 53: 387-436 (2012) doi: 10.1007/s00601-011-0301-2
    [52] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Front. Phys. China, 11: 111203 (2016)
    [53] B. L. Li, L. Chang, F. Gao et al, Phys. Rev. D, 93: 114033 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.114033
    [54] L. Schlessinger and C. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett., 16: 1173-1174 (1966) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.16.1173
    [55] L. Schlessinger, Phys. Rev., 167: 1411-1423 (1968), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.167.1411
    [56] R. A. Tripolt, I. Haritan, J. Wambach et al, Phys. Lett. B, 774: 411-416 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.001
    [57] C. Chen, Y. Lu, D. Binosi et al, Phys. Rev. D, 99: 034013 (2019) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.034013
    [58] D. Binosi and R. A. Tripolt, arXiv: 190408172[hep-ph]
    [59] L. Chang, I. C. Cloët, J. J. Cobos-Martinez et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110: 132001 (2013) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.132001
    [60] F. Gao, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. D, 90: 014011 (2014) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.014011
    [61] C. Shi, C. Chen, L. Chang et al, Phys. Rev. D, 92: 014035 (2015) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.014035
    [62] F. Gao, L. Chang, and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Lett. B, 770: 551-555 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.04.077
    [63] B. L. Li, L. Chang, M. Ding et al, Phys. Rev. D, 94: 094014 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.094014
    [64] C. D. Roberts, Few Body Syst., 58: 5 (2017) doi: 10.1007/s00601-016-1168-z
    [65] P. J. Sutton, A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts et al, Phys. Rev. D, 45: 2349-2359 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2349
    [66] M. Glück, E. Reya, and I. Schienbein, Eur. Phys. J. C, 10: 313-317 (1999) doi: 10.1007/s100529900124
    [67] P. C. Barry, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121: 152001 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.152001
    [68] G. Altarelli, Phys. Rept., 81: 1-129 (1982) doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(82)90127-2
    [69] D. Binosi, L. Chang, M. Ding et al, Phys. Lett. B, 790: 257-262 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.033
    [70] S. X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Few Body Syst., 60: 26 (2019) doi: 10.1007/s00601-019-1488-x
  • 加载中

Cited by

1. Zhang, J.-L., Wu, J. ρ meson transverse momentum-dependent parton distributions[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2025, 85(1): 13. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13682-w
2. Choi, H.-M., Ji, C.-R. Consistency of the pion form factor and unpolarized transverse momentum dependent parton distributions beyond leading twist in the light-front quark model[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 110(1): 014006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.014006
3. Raya, K., Bashir, A., Binosi, D. et al. Pseudoscalar Mesons and Emergent Mass[J]. Few-Body Systems, 2024, 65(2): 60. doi: 10.1007/s00601-024-01924-2
4. Xing, Z., Ding, M., Raya, K. et al. Fresh look at the generalized parton distributions of light pseudoscalar mesons[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2024, 60(2): 33. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01256-z
5. Almeida-Zamora, B., Cobos-Martínez, J.J., Bashir, A. et al. Algebraic model to study the internal structure of pseudoscalar mesons with heavy-light quark content[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 109(1): 014016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.014016
6. Deur, A., Brodsky, S.J., Roberts, C.D. QCD running couplings and effective charges[J]. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104081
7. Gross, F., Klempt, E., Brodsky, S.J. et al. 50 Years of quantum chromodynamics: Introduction and Review[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2023, 83(12): 1125. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2
8. Binosi, D.. Data-Driven Extraction of Hadron Radii[J]. Few-Body Systems, 2023, 64(4): 85. doi: 10.1007/s00601-023-01865-2
9. Cheng, P., Yu, Y., Xing, H.-Y. et al. Perspective on polarised parton distribution functions and proton spin[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138074
10. Xu, Y.-Z., Raya, K., Cui, Z.-F. et al. Empirical Determination of the Pion Mass Distribution[J]. Chinese Physics Letters, 2023, 40(4): 041201. doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/40/4/041201
11. Xu, Z.-N., Yao, Z.-Q., Qin, S.-X. et al. Bethe–Salpeter kernel and properties of strange-quark mesons[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(3): 39. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00951-7
12. Ding, M., Roberts, C.D., Schmidt, S.M. Emergence of Hadron Mass and Structure[J]. Particles, 2023, 6(1): 57-120. doi: 10.3390/particles6010004
13. Xing, Z., Ding, M., Chang, L. Glimpse into the pion gravitational form factor[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 107(3): L031502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.L031502
14. Cui, Z.-F., Binosi, D., Roberts, C.D. et al. Hadron and light nucleus radii from electron scattering[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2022, 46(12): 122001. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac89d0
15. Albino, L., Higuera-Angulo, I.M., Raya, K. et al. Pseudoscalar mesons: Light front wave functions, GPDs, and PDFs[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(3): 034003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.034003
16. Chávez, J.M.M., Bertone, V., De Soto Borrero, F. et al. Accessing the Pion 3D Structure at US and China Electron-Ion Colliders[J]. Physical Review Letters, 2022, 128(20): 202501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202501
17. Zhang, J.-L., Kang, G.-Z., Ping, J.-L. ρ meson generalized parton distributions in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 105(9): 094015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.094015
18. Cui, Z.-F., Ding, M., Morgado, J.M. et al. Emergence of pion parton distributions[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 105(9): L091502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L091502
19. Miramontes, A., Bashir, A., Raya, K. et al. Pion and Kaon box contribution to aμHLbL[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 105(7): 074013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.074013
20. Cui, Z.-F., Ding, M., Morgado, J.M. et al. Concerning pion parton distributions[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2022, 58(1): 10. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00658-7
21. Raya, K., Cui, Z.-F., Chang, L. et al. Revealing pion and kaon structure via generalised parton distributions[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2022, 46(1): 013105. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3071
22. Roberts, C.D.. On mass and matter[J]. AAPPS Bulletin, 2021, 31(1): 6. doi: 10.1007/s43673-021-00005-4
23. Anderle, D.P., Bertone, V., Cao, X. et al. Electron-ion collider in China[J]. Frontiers of Physics, 2021, 16(6): 64701. doi: 10.1007/s11467-021-1062-0
24. Chang, L., Liu, Y.-B., Raya, K. et al. Linking continuum and lattice quark mass functions via an effective charge[J]. Physical Review D, 2021, 104(9): 094509. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.094509
25. Karthik, N., Sufian, R.S. Bayesian-Wilson coefficients in lattice QCD computations of valence PDFs and GPDs[J]. Physical Review D, 2021, 104(7): 074506. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.074506
26. Alexandrou, C., Bacchio, S., Cloët, I. et al. Pion and kaon 〈x3 〉 from lattice QCD and PDF reconstruction from Mellin moments[J]. Physical Review D, 2021, 104(5): 054504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054504
27. Roberts, C.D., Richards, D.G., Horn, T. et al. Insights into the emergence of mass from studies of pion and kaon structure[J]. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103883
28. Yao, Z.-Q., Binosi, D., Cui, Z.-F. et al. Semileptonic Bc → ηc,J/ψ transitions[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136344
29. Qin, S.-X., Roberts, C.D. Resolving the Bethe-Salpeter Kernel[J]. Chinese Physics Letters, 2021, 38(7): 071201. doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/38/7/071201
30. Arrington, J., Gayoso, C.A., Barry, P.C. et al. Revealing the structure of light pseudoscalar mesons at the electron-ion collider[J]. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 2021, 48(7): 075106. doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/abf5c3
31. Salajegheh, M., Moosavi Nejad, S.M., Atashbar Tehrani, S. Improved Determination of Strange Distribution Function from the Global Analysis Using BHPS Model[J]. Few-Body Systems, 2021, 62(2): 16. doi: 10.1007/s00601-021-01601-8
32. Wan, L., Ruan, J. Higher-Twist Effect in Pion Parton Distribution[J]. Chinese Physics Letters, 2021, 38(4): 042501. doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/38/4/042501
33. Chang, L., Ding, M. Rainbow modified-ladder approximation and degenerate pion[J]. Physical Review D, 2021, 103(7): 074001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.074001
34. De Paula, W., Ydrefors, E., Alvarenga Nogueira, J.H. et al. Observing the Minkowskian dynamics of the pion on the null-plane[J]. Physical Review D, 2021, 103(1): 014002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014002
35. Zhang, J.-L., Cui, Z.-F., Ping, J.-L. et al. Contact interaction analysis of pion GTMDs[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2021, 81(1): 6. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08791-1
36. Cui, Z.-F., Ding, M., Gao, F. et al. Higgs modulation of emergent mass as revealed in kaon and pion parton distributions[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2021, 57(1): 5. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00318-2
37. Barabanov, M.Y., Bedolla, M.A., Brooks, W.K. et al. Diquark correlations in hadron physics: Origin, impact and evidence[J]. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103835
38. Rodríguez-Quintero, J., Chang, L., Raya, K. et al. Process-independent effective coupling and the pion structure function[J]. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2020, 1643(1): 012177. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1643/1/012177
39. Qin, S.-X., Roberts, C.D. Impressions of the Continuum Bound State Problem in QCD[J]. Chinese Physics Letters, 2020, 37(12): 121201. doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/37/12/121201
40. Gao, F., Ding, M. Thermal properties of π and ρ meson[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2020, 80(12): 1171. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08766-2
41. Roberts, C.D., Schmidt, S.M. Reflections upon the emergence of hadronic mass[J]. European Physical Journal: Special Topics, 2020, 229(22-23): 3319-3340. doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2020-000064-6
42. Chen, X., Guo, F.-K., Roberts, C.D. et al. Selected Science Opportunities for the EicC[J]. Few-Body Systems, 2020, 61(4): 43. doi: 10.1007/s00601-020-01574-0
43. Gao, X., Jin, L., Kallidonis, C. et al. Valence parton distribution of the pion from lattice QCD: Approaching the continuum limit[J]. Physical Review D, 2020, 102(9): 094513. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.094513
44. Broniowski, W., Ruiz Arriola, E. Vector - axial vector lattice cross section and valence parton distribution in the pion from a chiral quark model[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135803
45. Cui, Z.-F., Ding, M., Gao, F. et al. Kaon and pion parton distributions[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2020, 80(11): 1064. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08578-4
46. Roberts, C.D.. Empirical consequences of emergent mass[J]. Symmetry, 2020, 12(9): 1468. doi: 10.3390/sym12091468
47. Cui, Z.-F., Zhang, J.-L., Binosi, D. et al. Effective charge from lattice QCD[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2020, 44(8): 083102. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/8/083102
48. Novikov, I., Abdolmaleki, H., Britzger, D. et al. Parton distribution functions of the charged pion within the xFitter framework[J]. Physical Review D, 2020, 102(1): 014040. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.014040
49. Raya, K., Bashir, A., Roig, P. Contribution of neutral pseudoscalar mesons to aμHLbL within a Schwinger-Dyson equations approach to QCD[J]. Physical Review D, 2020, 101(7): 074021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.074021
50. Ding, M., Raya, K., Binosi, D. et al. Symmetry, symmetry breaking, and pion parton distributions[J]. Physical Review D, 2020, 101(5): 054014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.054014

Figures(1) / Tables(1)

Get Citation
Minghui Ding, Khépani Raya, Daniele Binosi, Lei Chang, C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt. Drawing insights from pion parton distributions[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2020, 44(3): 031002. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/3/031002
Minghui Ding, Khépani Raya, Daniele Binosi, Lei Chang, C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt. Drawing insights from pion parton distributions[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2020, 44(3): 031002.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/3/031002 shu
Milestone
Received: 2019-11-26
Article Metric

Article Views(2581)
PDF Downloads(43)
Cited by(50)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of subscription content published by CPC, the users need to request permission from CPC, unless the content was published under an Open Access license which automatically permits that type of reuse.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Drawing insights from pion parton distributions

    Corresponding author: Lei Chang, leichang@nankai.edu.cn
    Corresponding author: C. D. Roberts, cdroberts@nju.edu.cn
  • 1. School of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China
  • 2. European Centre for Theoretical Studies in Nuclear Physics and Related Areas (ECT*) and Fondazione Bruno Kessler Villa Tambosi, Strada delle Tabarelle 286, I-38123 Villazzano (TN), Italy
  • 3. School of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210093, China
  • 4. Institute for Nonperturbative Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210093, China
  • 5. Institute for Advanced Simulation, Forschungszentrum Jülich and JARA, D-52425 Jülich, Germany

Abstract: A symmetry-preserving continuum approach to the two valence-body bound-state problem is used to calculate the valence, glue and sea distributions within the pion; unifying them with, inter alia, electromagnetic pion elastic and transition form factors. The analysis reveals the following momentum fractions at the scale \zeta_2:=2\,{\rm{GeV:}}\langle x_{\rm valence} \rangle = 0.48(3), \langle x_{\rm glue} \rangle = 0.41(2), \langle x_{\rm sea} \rangle = 0.11(2); and despite hardening induced by the emergent phenomenon of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, the valence-quark distribution function, q^\pi(x), exhibits the x\simeq 1 behaviour predicted by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). After evolution to \zeta=5.2\,{\rm{GeV}}, the prediction for q^\pi(x) matches that obtained using lattice-regularised QCD. This confluence should both stimulate improved analyses of existing data and aid in planning efforts to obtain new data on the pion distribution functions.

    HTML

    1.   Introduction
    • Regarding their valence quark content, pions are Nature's simplest hadrons: \pi^+ \sim u\bar d , \pi^- \sim d \bar u , \pi^0 \sim u\bar u - d\bar d ; but this appearance is misleading. Despite being hadrons, their physical masses are similar to that of the \mu -lepton; and the pion masses vanish in the absence of a Higgs coupling for u - and d -quarks. Pions are Nambu-Goldstone (NG) modes, generated by dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (DCSB) in the Standard Model. This dichotomous character – simultaneous existence as both NG-bosons and bound-states – entails that the challenges of charting and explaining pion structure are of central importance in modern physics [1]. These problems are made more difficult by the crucial role of symmetries and their breaking patterns in determining pion properties, which must be properly incorporated and veraciously expressed in any theoretical treatment.

      Given their simple valence-quark content, a basic quantity in any discussion of pion structure is the associated distribution function, q^\pi(x;\zeta) . This density charts the probability that a valence q -quark in the pion carries a light-front fraction x of the system's total momentum when the observation is made at resolving scale \zeta ; and one of the earliest predictions of the parton model, augmented by features of perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD), is [2-4]:

      q^{\pi}(x;\zeta = \zeta_H) \sim (1-x)^{2}\,,

      (1)

      where the energy scale \zeta_H marks the boundary between strong and perturbative dynamics. Moreover, the exponent evolves as \zeta increases beyond \zeta_H , becoming 2+\gamma , where \gamma\gtrsim 0 is an anomalous dimension that increases logarithmically with \zeta . (In the limit of exact {\cal G} -parity symmetry, which is a good approximation in the Standard Model, u^{\pi^+}(x) = \bar d^{\pi^+}(x) , etc. Hence it is only necessary to discuss one unique distribution.)

      q^\pi(x) is measurable in \pi -nucleon Drell-Yan experiments [5-11]. However, conclusions drawn from analyses of these experiments have proved controversial [12]. For instance, using a leading-order (LO) pQCD analysis of their data, Ref. [10] (the E615 experiment) reported

      q_{\rm E615}^{\pi}(x; \zeta_5 = 5.2\,{\rm GeV}) \sim (1-x)^{1}\,,

      (2)

      in conflict with Eq. (1). Subsequent calculations [13] confirmed Eq. (1), prompting reconsideration of the E615 analysis, with the result that, at next-to-leading order (NLO) and including soft-gluon resummation [14,15], the E615 data become consistent with Eq. (1).

      Notwithstanding these advances, uncertainty over Eq. (1) will remain until other analyses of the E615 data incorporate threshold resummation effects and, crucially, new data are obtained. Prospects for the latter are good because relevant tagged deep-inelastic scattering experiments are approved at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility [16-18] and the goal has high priority at other existing and anticipated facilities [19-24].

      Meanwhile, progress in theory continues. Novel algorithms within lattice-regularised QCD (lQCD) [25-29] are beginning to yield results for the pointwise behaviour of the pion's valence-quark distribution [30-33], promising information beyond the lowest few moments [34-37]. Extensions of the continuum analysis in Ref. [13] are also yielding new insights. For example: a class of corrections to the handbag-diagram representation of the virtual-photon–pion forward Compton scattering amplitude has been identified and shown to restore basic symmetries in calculations of q^\pi(x;\zeta) [38]. The corrected expression has been used to compute all valence-quark distribution functions in the pion and kaon [39], with the results indicating that the pion's gluon content is significantly greater than that of the kaon owing to the mechanism responsible for the emergence of mass in the Standard Model.

      Capitalising on such recent developments, herein we describe predictions for the pion's parton distributions using a continuum approach that has been used successfully to unify the treatment of the charged-pion-elastic and neutral-pion-transition form factors [40-44]. The framework has also been used to correlate continuum and lattice predictions for the electromagnetic form factors of charged pion-like mesons, enabling an extrapolation of lQCD results to the physical pion mass [45].

    2.   Valence-quark distribution function
    • Incorporating the impact of global symmetries and DCSB, we compute the pion's valence-quark distribution function using the following expression [38]:

      q^\pi (x;\zeta_H) = N_c {\rm tr}\! \int_{{\rm d}k}\! \delta_n^{x}(k_\eta) \, I^\pi(k;P;\zeta_H)\,, \tag{3a}

      I^\pi = n\cdot\partial_{k_\eta} \left[ \bar\Gamma_\pi(k_\eta,-P) S(k_\eta) \right] \Gamma_\pi(k_{\bar\eta},P)\, S(k_{\bar\eta})\,, \tag{3b}

      where N_c = 3 ; the trace is over spinor indices; \int_{{\rm d}k} : = \int \frac{{\rm d}^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} is a translationally invariant regularisation of the integral; \delta_n^{x}(k_\eta): = \delta(n\cdot k_\eta - x n\cdot P) ; n is a light-like four-vector, n^2 = 0 , n\cdot P = -m_\pi ; and k_\eta = k + \eta P , k_{\bar\eta} = k - (1-\eta) P , \eta\in [0,1] . q^\pi(x;\zeta_H) in Eq. (3) is independent of \eta ; satisfies baryon number conservation; and is symmetric:

      q^\pi(x;\zeta_H) = q^\pi(1-x;\zeta_H)\,.

      (4)

      To calculate q^\pi from Eq. (3) one needs the dressed light-quark propagator, S , and pion Bethe-Salpeter amplitude, \Gamma_\pi . We follow Ref. [45] and use realistic results calculated with renormalisation-group-invariant current-quark mass \hat m_u = \hat m_d = 6.7\,{\rm MeV} , which corresponds to a one-loop evolved mass of m^{\zeta_2 = 2\,{\rm GeV}} = 4.6\, {\rm MeV}. Consequently, the result for q^\pi is completely determined once a kernel is specified for the Bethe-Salpeter equation. We use the interaction explained in Refs. [46,47], whose connection with QCD is described in Ref. [48]. In solving all integral equations relevant to the bound-state problem, we employ a mass-independent momentum-subtraction renormalisation scheme and renormalise at \zeta = \zeta_H .

      The value of \zeta_H must now be determined. To that end, recall that QCD possesses a process-independent effective charge [49,50]: \alpha_{\rm PI}(k^2) . This running-coupling saturates in the infrared: \alpha_{\rm PI}(0)/\pi \approx 1 , owing to the dynamical generation of a gluon mass-scale [51,52]. These features and a smooth connection with pQCD are expressed via

      \alpha_{\rm PI}(k^2) = \frac{\pi \gamma_m }{\ln[(m_\alpha^2+k^2)/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2]}\,,

      (5)

      m_\alpha = 0.30\,{\rm{GeV}} \,\gtrsim \Lambda_{\rm QCD} , QCD's renormalisation-group-invariant mass-scale: \Lambda_{\rm QCD}\approx 0.23\,{\rm{GeV}} with four active quark flavours. Evidently, m_\alpha is an essentially nonperturbative scale whose existence ensures that modes with k^2 \lesssim m_\alpha^2 are screened from interactions. It therefore serves to define the natural boundary between soft and hard physics; hence, we identify \zeta_H = m_\alpha .

      Using numerical solutions for S and \Gamma_\pi , one can calculate the Mellin moments:

      \langle x^m \rangle_{\zeta_H}^\pi = \int_0^1{\rm d}x\, x^m q^\pi(x;\zeta_H) \tag{6a}

      = \frac{N_c}{n\cdot P} {\rm tr}\! \int_{{\rm d}k}\! \left[\frac{n\cdot k_\eta}{n\cdot P}\right]^m I^\pi(k;P;\zeta_H)\,; \tag{6b}

      and if enough of these moments are computed, then they can be used to reconstruct the distribution. Using Eq. (4), one finds that the value of any given odd moment, \langle x^{m_{\rm o}}\rangle_{\zeta_H}^{\pi} , m_{\rm o} = 2 \bar m +1 , \bar m \in \mathbb Z , is known once all lower even moments are computed. Consequent identities can be used to validate any numerical method for computing the moments defined by Eq. (6).

      Every moment defined by Eq. (6) is finite. However, direct calculation of the m\geqslant 3 moments using numerically determined inputs for S , \Gamma_\pi is difficult in practice owing to an amplification of oscillations produced by the [n\cdot k_\eta]^m factor. In any perfect procedure, the oscillations cancel; but that is difficult to achieve numerically. On m\geqslant 3 , we therefore introduce a convergence-factor, {\cal C}_m(k^2 r^2) = 1/[1+k^2 r^2]^{m/2} : the moment is computed as a function of r^2 ; and the final value is obtained by extrapolation to r^2 = 0 . This procedure is reliable for the lowest six moments, m = 0,1,\ldots,5 [53]. The m = 5 moment is not independent; but its direct calculation enables one to ensure that the lower even moments are correct.

      One can extend this set of moments by using the Schlessinger point method (SPM) [54-58] to construct an analytic function, M_S(z) , whose values at z = 0,1,\ldots,5 agree with the moments computed directly and for which M_S(7) satisfies the constraint imposed by Eq. (4). The function M_S(z) then provides an estimate for all moments of the distribution, which is exact for m\leq 5 .

      We tested the efficacy of this SPM approach using the algebraic model described in Ref. [30] (Eqs. (1), (14), (17) and Sec.IV.A). Computing fifty Mellin moments directly, we then used the first six moments and the procedure described above to obtain a SPM approximation. Comparing the moments obtained using the SPM approximation with the true moments, one finds the magnitude of the relative error is <0.2% for m\leqslant 10 and <1% for m\leqslant 15 , i.e. the SPM produces accurate approximations to the first sixteen moments, beginning with just six.

      Having validated the SPM, we computed the moments in Eq. (6) for m = 0,1,\ldots, 5 using our numerical results for S and \Gamma_\pi . Then, to compensate for potential propagation of numerical quadrature error in the moment computations, we constructed two SPM approximations to the results: one based on the m = 0,1,2,3 four-element subset; and another using the complete set of six moments. Working with the first eleven SPM-approximant moments in each case, we reconstructed a pion valence-quark distribution; and subsequently defined our result to be the average of these functions:

      \begin{split} q^\pi(x;\zeta_H) = &213.32 \, x^2 (1-x)^2\\ & \times [1 - 2.9342 \sqrt{x(1-x)} + 2.2911 \,x (1-x)]\,. \end{split}

      (7)

      The mean absolute relative error between the first eleven moments computed using Eq. (7) and those of the separate reconstructed distributions is 4(3)%.

      Given the remarks in Sec. 1, it is worth highlighting that Eq. (7) exhibits the x\simeq 1 behaviour predicted by the QCD parton model, Eq. (1); and because it is a purely valence distribution, this same behaviour is also evident on x\simeq 0 . However, in contrast to the scale-free valence-quark distribution computed in Ref. [38]: q_{\rm sf}(x) \approx 30 \, x^2 (1-x)^2 , obtained using parton-model-like algebraic representations of S , \Gamma_\pi , the distribution computed with realistic inputs is a much broader function. A similar effect is observed in the pion's leading-twist valence-quark distribution amplitude [59] and those of other mesons [60-63]. The cause is the same, viz. the valence-quark distribution function is hardened owing to DCSB, which is a realisation of the mechanism responsible for the emergence of mass in the Standard Model [64]. Emergent mass is expressed in the momentum-dependence of all QCD Schwinger functions. It is therefore manifest in the pointwise behaviour of wave functions, elastic and transition form factors, etc.; and as we have now displayed, also in parton distributions.

    3.   Evolution of pion distribution functions
    • The pion valence-quark distribution in Eq. (7) is computed at \zeta_H = m_\alpha . On the other hand, existing lQCD calculations of low-order moments [34-37] and phenomenological fits to pion parton distributions are typically quoted at \zeta \approx \zeta_2 = 2\, {\rm{GeV}} [65-67]; and the scale relevant to the E615 data is \zeta_5 = 5.2\, {\rm{GeV}} [10,14]. We therefore employ leading-order QCD evolution of q^\pi(x;\zeta_H = m_\alpha) to obtain results for q^\pi(x;\zeta_2) and q^\pi(x,\zeta_5) using the process-independent running coupling in Eq. (5). Notably, given that \zeta_H = m_\alpha is fixed by our analysis, all results are predictions; and \alpha_{\rm PI}(\zeta_H)/(2\pi) = 0.20 , [\alpha_{\rm PI}(\zeta_H)/(2\pi)]^2 = 0.04 , so that leading-order evolution serves as a good approximation. We checked that with fixed \zeta_H , varying m_\alpha \to (1 \pm 0.1) m_\alpha does not measurably affect the evolved distributions. We therefore report results with m_\alpha fixed and an uncertainty determined by varying \zeta_H \to (1\pm0.1) \zeta_H .

      Our prediction for q^\pi(x;\zeta_2) is depicted in Fig. 1A. The solid (blue) curve and surrounding bands are described by the following function, a generalisation of Eq. (7):

      Figure 1.  (color online) Pion momentum distribution functions, x p^\pi(x;\zeta) , p = q, g, S : A (upper panel), evolved \zeta_H \to \zeta_2 = 2\, {\rm{GeV}}; and B (lower panel), evolved \zeta_H \to \zeta_5 = 5.2\, {\rm{GeV}}. Legend: solid (blue) curve embedded in shaded band, our prediction for x q(x;\zeta) ; long-dashed (black) curve – \zeta_2 result from Ref.[13]; dashed (green) curve within shaded band – predicted gluon distribution in pion, x g^\pi(x;\zeta) ; dot-dashed (red) curve within shaded band – predicted sea-quark distribution, x S^\pi(x;\zeta) . (These last two are detailed in Eqs.(10), (11).) In all the above cases, the shaded band indicates the effect of \zeta_H \to \zeta_H (1 \pm 0.1) . Lower panel: dot-dot-dashed (grey) curve within shaded band – lQCD result [33]; and data (purple) from Ref.[10], rescaled according to the analysis in Ref. [15].

      \begin{split} q^\pi(x) = & n_{q^\pi} \,x^\alpha (1-x)^\beta \times [1 + \rho\, x^{\alpha/4} (1-x)^{\beta/4} \\&+ \gamma \,x^{\alpha/2} (1-x)^{\beta/2} ]\,, \end{split}

      (8)

      where n_{q^\pi} ensures baryon number conservation and the powers and coefficients are listed in Table 1. Evidently, the large- x exponent is \beta(\zeta_2) = 2.38(9) .

      n_{q^\pi} \alpha \beta \rho \gamma
      \zeta_2 9.83 −0.080 2.29 −1.27 0.511
      8.31 −0.127 2.37 −1.19 0.469
      7.01 −0.162 2.47 −1.12 0.453
      \zeta_5 7.81 −0.153 2.54 −1.20 0.505
      7.28 −0.169 2.66 −1.21 0.531
      6.48 −0.188 2.78 −1.19 0.555

      Table 1.  Coefficients and powers that reproduce the computed pion valence-quark distribution functions, depicted in Fig. 1, when used in Eq. (8).

      Here it is also worth listing an array of associated, calculated low-order moments in comparison with those obtained in the more recent lQCD simulations:

      \begin{array}{l|lll} \zeta_2 & \langle x \rangle_u^\pi & \langle x^2 \rangle_u^\pi & \langle x^3 \rangle_u^\pi\\\hline {\rm{Ref. [35]}} & 0.24(2) & 0.09(3) & 0.053(15)\\ {\rm{Ref. [36]}} & 0.27(1) & 0.13(1) & 0.074(10)\\ {\rm{Ref. [37]}} & 0.21(1) & 0.16(3) & \\ \hline {\rm Herein} & 0.24(2) & 0.098(10) & 0.049(07) \end{array}\,.

      (9)

      Both continuum and lQCD results agree on the light-front momentum fraction carried by valence-quarks in the pion at \zeta = \zeta_2 : \langle 2 x \rangle_q^\pi = 0.48(3) , i.e. roughly one-half. This is consistent with a recent phenomenological analysis of data on \pi -nucleus Drell-Yan and leading neutron electroproduction [67]: \langle 2 x \rangle_q^\pi = 0.48(1) at \zeta = 2.24\, {\rm{GeV}}.

      As explained above, the pion is purely a bound-state of a dressed-quark and dressed-antiquark at the hadronic scale: sea and glue distributions are zero at \zeta_H , being generated by QCD evolution on \zeta>\zeta_H . Using LO evolution with the coupling in Eq. (5) we obtain the sea and glue distributions in Fig. 1, from which one computes the following momentum fractions ( \zeta = \zeta_2 ): \langle x\rangle^\pi_g = 0.41(2) , \langle x\rangle^\pi_{\rm sea} = 0.11(2) . The ordering of these values agrees with that in [67], but our gluon momentum-fraction is ~20% larger and that of the sea is commensurately smaller.

      Our computed glue and sea momentum distributions are fairly approximated using the functional form:

      x p^\pi(x;\zeta) = {\cal A} \, x^\alpha \, (1-x)^\beta\,,

      (10)

      with the coefficient and powers listed here ( p = g = {\rm{glue}} , p = S = {\rm{sea}} ):

      \begin{array}{l|cccc} & p & {\cal A} & \alpha & \beta \\\hline \zeta_2 & g & 0.40 \mp 0.03 & -0.55 \mp 0.03 & 3.47 \pm 0.13 \\ & S & 0.13 \mp 0.01 & -0.53 \mp 0.05 & 4.51 \pm 0.03 \\\hline \zeta_5 & g & 0.34 \mp 0.04 & -0.62 \mp 0.04 & 3.75 \pm 0.12 \\ & S & 0.12 \pm 0.02 & -0.61 \mp 0.07 & 4.77 \pm 0.03 \\\hline \end{array}\,.

      (11)

      Our predictions for the pion parton distributions at a scale relevant to the E615 experiment, i.e. \zeta_5 = 5.2\, {\rm{GeV}} [10,14], are depicted in Fig. 1B. The solid (blue) curve and surrounding bands are described by the function in Eq. (8) with the powers and coefficients listed in Table 1. Evidently, the large- x exponent is \beta(\zeta_5) = 2.66(12) . Working with results obtained in an exploratory lQCD calculation [33], one finds \beta_{\rm lQCD}(\zeta_5) = 2.45(58) ; and also the following comparison between low-order moments:

      \begin{array}{l|lll} \zeta_5 & \langle x \rangle_u^\pi & \langle x^2 \rangle_u^\pi & \langle x^3 \rangle_u^\pi\\\hline {\rm{Ref. [33]}} & 0.17(1) & 0.060(9) & 0.028(7)\\ {\rm Herein} & 0.21(2) & 0.076(9) & 0.036(5) \end{array} \,.

      (12)

      The data in Fig. 1B is that reported in Ref. [10], rescaled according to the analysis in Ref. [15]. Our prediction agrees with the rescaled data. Importantly, no parameters were varied in order to achieve this outcome, or any other reported herein.

      As above, the predictions for the glue and sea distributions in Fig. 1B were obtained using LO evolution from \zeta_H = m_\alpha \to \zeta_5 with the coupling in Eq. (5); and from these distributions one obtains the following momentum fractions ( \zeta = \zeta_5 ): \langle x\rangle^\pi_g = 0.45(1) , \langle x\rangle^\pi_{\rm sea} = 0.14(2) . The glue and sea momentum distributions are fairly described by the function in Eq. (10) evaluated using the coefficient and powers in the lower rows of Eq. (11). (Recall that on \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/\zeta^2 \simeq 0 , for any hadron [68]: \langle x\rangle_q = 0 , \langle x\rangle_g = 4/7\approx 0.57 , \langle x\rangle_S = 3/7\approx 0.43 .)

      Figure 1B also displays the lQCD result for the pion valence-quark distribution function [33] evolved to the E615 scale: dot-dot-dashed (grey) curve within bands. As could be anticipated from the comparisons listed in connection with Eq. (12), the pointwise form of the lQCD prediction agrees with our result (within errors).

    4.   Perspective
    • Our symmetry-preserving analysis of the pion's parton distribution functions exploits the existence of a process-independent effective charge in QCD, which saturates at infrared momenta [49,50], to introduce an unambiguous definition of the hadronic scale, \zeta_H , and thereby obtain parameter-free predictions, unified with kindred results for the electromagnetic pion elastic and transition form factors [40-45] and numerous other observables (e.g. Refs. [69,70]). At \zeta_H , the computed valence-quark distribution is hard, as a direct consequence of DCSB, i.e. the mechanism which expresses the emergence of mass in the fermion sector of QCD.

      Evolved to \zeta = 5.2\, GeV, the calculated distribution agrees with that obtained in a recent, exploratory lattice-QCD computation [33]. With this confluence, two disparate treatments of the pion bound-state problem are seen to have arrived at the same prediction for the pion's valence-quark distribution function. It also agrees with \pi -nucleon Drell-Yan data [10], rescaled as suggested by the complete next-to-leading-order (NLO) reanalysis in Ref. [15]. Importantly, via evolution, we also deliver realistic predictions for the pion's glue and sea content.

      A pressing extension of this study is the calculation of analogous kaon distribution functions, which would enable validation of earlier analyses [39] that indicate the kaon's gluon content is significantly smaller than that of the pion owing to DCSB and its role in forming the almost-massless pion [64].

      We are grateful for constructive comments from C. Chen, M. Chen, F. Gao, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, J. Repond, J. Rodríguez-Quintero and J. Segovia; for the hospitality and support of RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen - Germany; and likewise for the hospitality and support of the University of Huelva, Huelva - Spain, and the University of Pablo de Olavide, Seville - Spain, during the "4th Workshop on Nonperturbative QCD'' (University of Pablo de Olavide, 6-9 November 2018).

Reference (70)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return