This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

ϕ\phi-meson lepto-production near threshold and the strangeness 𝑫D-term

Yoshitaka Hatta Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA RIKEN BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA    Mark Strikman Department of Physics, Penn State University, University Park PA 16802, USA
Abstract

We present a model of exclusive ϕ\phi-meson lepto-production epepϕep\to e^{\prime}p^{\prime}\phi near threshold which features the strangeness gravitational form factors of the proton. We argue that the shape of the differential cross section dσ/dtd\sigma/dt is a sensitive probe of the strangeness D-term of the proton.

I Introduction

Exclusive lepto-production of vector mesons epeγpepVep\to e^{\prime}\gamma^{*}p\to e^{\prime}p^{\prime}V is a versatile process that can address a wide spectrum of key questions about the proton structure. Depending on the γp\gamma^{*}p center-of-mass energy WW, photon virtuality Q2Q^{2} and meson species, the spacetime picture of the reaction looks different and requires different theoretical frameworks. At high energy in the large-Q2Q^{2} region, and for the longitudinally polarized virtual photon, a QCD factorization theorem Collins:1996fb dictates that the scattering amplitude can be written in terms of the generalized parton distribution (GPD), the meson distribution amplitude (DA) and the perturbatively calculable hard part. Even in cases where such a rigorous treatment is not available, many phenomenologically successful models exist. Generally speaking, light vector mesons probe the up and down quark contents of the proton, whereas in the Regge-regime WW\to\infty, or for heavy vector mesons such as quarkonia (J/ψ,Υ,J/\psi,\Upsilon,...), the process is primarily sensitive to the gluonic content of the proton.

The ϕ\phi-meson (a bound state of ss¯s\bar{s}) has a somewhat unique status in this context because its mass mϕ=1.02m_{\phi}=1.02 GeV, being roughly equal to the proton mass mN=0.94m_{N}=0.94 GeV, is neither light nor heavy. In the literature, ϕ\phi-production is often discussed on a similar footing as quarkonium production. Namely, since the proton does not contain valence ss-quarks, the ϕ\phi-proton interaction proceeds mostly via gluon exchanges. However, the proton contains a small but non-negligible fraction of strange sea quarks already on nonperturbative scales of 1GeV2\sim 1\,{\rm GeV}^{2}. It is then a nontrivial question whether the gluon exchanges, suppressed by the QCD coupling αs\alpha_{s}, always dominate over the ss-quark exchanges.

In this paper, we take a fresh look at the lepto-production of ϕ\phi-mesons epepϕep\to e^{\prime}p^{\prime}\phi in the high-Q2Q^{2} region near threshold, namely when WW is very low and barely enough to produce a ϕ\phi-meson Wmϕ+mN=1.96W\gtrsim m_{\phi}+m_{N}=1.96 GeV. Measurements in the threshold region have been performed at LEPS Mibe:2005er ; Chang:2010dg ; Hiraiwa:2017xcs for photo-production Q20Q^{2}\approx 0 and at the Jefferson laboratory (JLab) for both photo- and lepto-productions 4Q204\gtrsim Q^{2}\gtrsim 0 Santoro:2008ai ; Qian:2010rr ; Dey:2014tfa . One of the main motivations of these experiments was to study the nature of gluon (or Pomeron) exchanges. Our motivation however is drastically different, so let us quickly provide relevant background information:

It has been argued that the near-threshold photo-production of a heavy quarkonium (see Ali:2019lzf for an ongoing experiment) is sensitive to the gluon gravitational form factors P|Tgμν|P\langle P^{\prime}|T_{g}^{\mu\nu}|P\rangle where TgμνT_{g}^{\mu\nu} is the gluon part of the QCD energy momentum tensor Frankfurt:2002ka ; Hatta:2018ina ; Hatta:2019lxo (see also Xie:2019soz ; Mamo:2019mka ). In lepto-production at high-Q2Q^{2}, this connection can be cleanly established by using the operator product expansion (OPE) Boussarie:2020vmu . The analysis Frankfurt:2002ka of J/ψJ/\psi photo-production over a wide range of WW indicates that the tt-dependence of these form factors (or that of the gluon GPDs at high energy WW) is weaker than what one would expect from the Q2Q^{2}-dependence of the electromagnetic form factors. This suggests that the gluon fields in the nucleon are more compact and localized than the charge distribution. Moreover, it has been demonstrated Hatta:2018ina ; Hatta:2019lxo ; Boussarie:2020vmu that the shape of the differential cross section dσ/dtd\sigma/dt is sensitive to the gluon D-term Dg(t)D_{g}(t) which, after Fourier transforming to the coordinate space, can be interpreted as an internal force (or ‘pressure’) exerted by gluons inside the proton Polyakov:2018zvc (see however, Freese:2021czn ). The experimental determination of the parameter Dg(t=0)D_{g}(t=0) is complementary to the ongoing effort Burkert:2018bqq ; Kumericki:2019ddg ; Dutrieux:2021nlz to extract the u,du,d-quark contributions to the D-term Du,dD_{u,d} from the present and future deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) experiments. Together they constitute the total D-term

D(0)=Du(0)+Dd(0)+Ds(0)+Dg(0)+.\displaystyle D(0)=D_{u}(0)+D_{d}(0)+D_{s}(0)+D_{g}(0)+\cdots. (1)

Only the sum is conserved (renormalization-group invariant) and represents a fundamental constant of the proton.

The strangeness contribution to the D-term DsD_{s} has received very little, if any, attention in the literature so far. However, a large-NcN_{c} argument Goeke:2001tz suggests the approximate flavor independence of the D-term DuDdD_{u}\approx D_{d} (nontrivial because uu-quarks are more abundant than dd-quarks in the proton) which by extension implies that DsD_{s} could be comparable to Du,dD_{u,d} at least in the flavor SU(3) symmetric limit. It is thus a potentially important piece of the sum rule (1) when the precision study of the D-term becomes possible in future. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the lepto-production of ϕ\phi-mesons near threshold is governed by the strangeness gravitational form factors including DsD_{s}. By doing so, we basically postulate that the ϕ\phi-meson couples more strongly to the ss¯s\bar{s} content of the proton than to the gluon content at least near the threshold at high-Q2Q^{2}, contrary to the prevailing view in the literature. Also, by using the local version of the OPE following Ref. Boussarie:2020vmu , we do not work in the collinear factorization framework Collins:1996fb whose applicability to the threshold region does not seem likely. In the appendix, we briefly discuss the connection between the two approaches. Other approaches to ϕ\phi-meson photo- or lepto-production near threshold can be found in Laget:2000gj ; Titov:2003bk ; Strakovsky:2020uqs .

In Section II, we collect general formulas for the cross section of lepto-production. In Section III, we describe our model of the scattering amplitude inspired by the OPE and the strangeness gravitational form factors. The numerical results for the differential cross section dσ/dtd\sigma/dt are presented in Section IV for the kinematics relevant to the JLab and the future electron-ion collider (EIC).

II Exclusive ϕ\phi-meson leptoproduction

Consider exclusive ϕ\phi-meson production cross section in electron-proton scattering epeγpepϕep\to e^{\prime}\gamma^{*}p\to e^{\prime}p^{\prime}\phi. The epep and γp\gamma^{*}p center-of-mass energies are denoted by sep=(+P)2s_{ep}=(\ell+P)^{2} and W2=(q+P)2W^{2}=(q+P)^{2}, respectively. The outgoing ϕ\phi has momentum kμk^{\mu} with k2=mϕ2k^{2}=m_{\phi}^{2}. The cross section can be written as

dσdWdQ2\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dWdQ^{2}} =\displaystyle= αem24π116(P)2Q4Pcmdϕ2πLμν𝑑t12spinP|Jemμ(q)|PϕPϕ|Jemν(q)|P,\displaystyle\frac{\alpha_{em}^{2}}{4\pi}\frac{1}{16(P\cdot\ell)^{2}Q^{4}P_{cm}}\int\frac{d\phi_{\ell}}{2\pi}L_{\mu\nu}\int dt\,\frac{1}{2}\sum_{spin}\langle P|J_{em}^{\mu}(-q)|P^{\prime}\phi\rangle\langle P^{\prime}\phi|J_{em}^{\nu}(q)|P\rangle, (2)

where JemJ_{em} is the electromagnetic current operator, mNm_{N} is the proton mass and PcmP_{cm} is the proton momentum in the γp\gamma^{*}p center-of-mass frame

Pcm=W42W2(mN2Q2)+(mN2+Q2)22W.\displaystyle P_{cm}=\frac{\sqrt{W^{4}-2W^{2}(m_{N}^{2}-Q^{2})+(m_{N}^{2}+Q^{2})^{2}}}{2W}. (3)

For simplicity, we average over the outgoing lepton angle ϕ\phi_{\ell}, but its dependence can be restored Arens:1996xw if need arises. We can then write, in a frame where the virtual photon is in the +z+z direction,

dϕ2πLμν=2Q21ϵ(12gμν+ϵεLμεLν)\displaystyle\int\frac{d\phi_{\ell}}{2\pi}L^{\mu\nu}=\frac{2Q^{2}}{1-\epsilon}\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}_{\perp}+\epsilon\varepsilon^{\mu}_{L}\varepsilon^{\nu}_{L}\right) (4)

where gij=δijg_{\perp}^{ij}=\delta^{ij} and

εLμ(q)=1Q1+γ2(qμ+Q2PqPμ).\displaystyle\varepsilon_{L}^{\mu}(q)=\frac{1}{Q\sqrt{1+\gamma^{2}}}\left(q^{\mu}+\frac{Q^{2}}{P\cdot q}P^{\mu}\right). (5)

is the polarization vector of the longitudinal virtual photon. ϵ\epsilon is the longitudinal-to-transverse photon flux ratio

ϵ=1yy2γ241y+y22+y2γ24,11ϵ=2y21y+y22+y2γ241+γ2\displaystyle\epsilon=\frac{1-y-\frac{y^{2}\gamma^{2}}{4}}{1-y+\frac{y^{2}}{2}+\frac{y^{2}\gamma^{2}}{4}},\qquad\frac{1}{1-\epsilon}=\frac{2}{y^{2}}\frac{1-y+\frac{y^{2}}{2}+\frac{y^{2}\gamma^{2}}{4}}{1+\gamma^{2}} (6)

where

yPqP,γ2xBmNQ=mNQPq\displaystyle y\equiv\frac{P\cdot q}{P\cdot\ell},\qquad\gamma\equiv\frac{2x_{B}m_{N}}{Q}=\frac{m_{N}Q}{P\cdot q} (7)

The parameter γ\gamma accounts for the target mass correction which should be included in near-threshold production. The variable yy can be eliminated in favor of seps_{ep} using the relation

W2=y(sepmN2)+mN2Q2.\displaystyle W^{2}=y(s_{ep}-m_{N}^{2})+m_{N}^{2}-Q^{2}. (8)

In the hadronic part, let us define

12spinP|Jemμ(q)|PϕPϕ|Jemν(q)|P(ρμ)ρν,\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{spin}\langle P|J_{em}^{\mu}(-q)|P^{\prime}\phi\rangle\langle P^{\prime}\phi|J_{em}^{\nu}(q)|P\rangle\equiv-({\cal M}_{\rho}^{\ \mu})^{*}{\cal M}^{\rho\nu}, (9)

where the minus sign is from the vector meson polarization sum εVρεVρ=gρρ+kρkρmϕ2\sum\varepsilon_{V}^{\rho}\varepsilon_{V}^{\rho^{\prime}}=-g^{\rho\rho^{\prime}}+\frac{k^{\rho}k^{\rho^{\prime}}}{m_{\phi}^{2}}. (The amplitude {\cal M} satisfies the conditions kρρμ=ρμqμ=0k_{\rho}{\cal M}^{\rho\mu}={\cal M}^{\rho\mu}q_{\mu}=0.) Contracting with the lepton tensor (4), we get

(12gμν+ϵεLμεLν)ρμνρ\displaystyle-\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}_{\perp}+\epsilon\varepsilon^{\mu}_{L}\varepsilon^{\nu}_{L}\right){\cal M}^{*}_{\rho\mu}{\cal M}^{\rho}_{\ \nu} =\displaystyle= (12gμν+ϵ1+γ2Q2(Pq)2PμPν)ρμνρ\displaystyle-\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}_{\perp}+\frac{\epsilon}{1+\gamma^{2}}\frac{Q^{2}}{(P\cdot q)^{2}}P^{\mu}P^{\nu}\right){\cal M}^{*}_{\rho\mu}{\cal M}^{\rho}_{\ \nu} (10)
=\displaystyle= (12gμν(12+ϵ)Q2(1+γ2)(Pq)2PμPν)ρμνρ,\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}-\frac{\left(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon\right)Q^{2}}{(1+\gamma^{2})(P\cdot q)^{2}}P^{\mu}P^{\nu}\right){\cal M}^{*}_{\rho\mu}{\cal M}^{\rho}_{\ \nu},

where we used

gμν=gμν+εLμεLνqμqνQ2.\displaystyle g_{\perp}^{\mu\nu}=-g^{\mu\nu}+\varepsilon_{L}^{\mu}\varepsilon_{L}^{\nu}-\frac{q^{\mu}q^{\nu}}{Q^{2}}. (11)

We thus arrive at

dσdWdQ2=αem4πW(W2mN2)(P)2Q2(1ϵ)𝑑tdσdt,\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dWdQ^{2}}=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{4\pi}\frac{W(W^{2}-m_{N}^{2})}{(P\cdot\ell)^{2}Q^{2}(1-\epsilon)}\int dt\frac{d\sigma}{dt}, (12)

with111 In Ref. Boussarie:2020vmu , the authors calculated the spin-averaged cross section gμνρμνρg^{\mu\nu}{\cal M}^{*}_{\rho\mu}{\cal M}^{\rho}_{\ \nu}. To directly compare with the lepto-production data, one should rather use the formula (10).

dσdt=αem8(W2mN2)WPcm(12gμν(12+ϵ)Q2(1+γ2)(Pq)2PμPν)ρμνρ.\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dt}=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{8(W^{2}-m_{N}^{2})WP_{cm}}\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}-\frac{\left(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon\right)Q^{2}}{(1+\gamma^{2})(P\cdot q)^{2}}P^{\mu}P^{\nu}\right){\cal M}^{*}_{\rho\mu}{\cal M}^{\rho}_{\ \nu}. (13)

Note that the γp\gamma^{*}p cross section (13) depends on the epep center-of-mass energy seps_{ep} because ϵ\epsilon depends on yy, and yy depends on seps_{ep} as in (8). Experimentalists at the JLab have measured dσdWdQ2\frac{d\sigma}{dWdQ^{2}} Santoro:2008ai , and from the data they have reconstructed the differential cross section (13) and the total cross section σ(W,Q2)=𝑑tdσdt\sigma(W,Q^{2})=\int dt\,\frac{d\sigma}{dt}. In the next section we present a model for the scattering amplitude {\cal M}.

III Description of the model

Our model for the matrix element Pϕ(k)|Jemν(q)|P\langle P^{\prime}\phi(k)|J_{em}^{\nu}(q)|P\rangle has been inspired by the recently developed new approach to the near-threshold production of heavy quarkonia such as J/ψJ/\psi and Υ\Upsilon Boussarie:2020vmu . The main steps of Boussarie:2020vmu are summarized as follows. One first relates the J/ψJ/\psi production amplitude PJ/ψ(k)|Jemν(q)|P\langle P^{\prime}J/\psi(k)|J_{em}^{\nu}(q)|P\rangle to the correlation function of the charm current operator Jcμ=c¯γμcJ_{c}^{\mu}=\bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}c

𝑑x𝑑yeikxiqyP|T{Jcμ(x)Jcν(y)}|P,\displaystyle\int dxdye^{ik\cdot x-iq\cdot y}\langle P^{\prime}|{\rm T}\{J_{c}^{\mu}(x)J_{c}^{\nu}(y)\}|P\rangle, (14)

in a slightly off-shell kinematics k2mJ/ψ2k^{2}\neq m_{J/\psi}^{2}. One then performs the operator product expansion (OPE) in the regime Q2|t|,mJ/ψ2Q^{2}\gg|t|,m_{J/\psi}^{2} and picks up gluon bilinear operators FF\sim FF. The off-forward matrix elements P|FF|P\langle P^{\prime}|FF|P\rangle are parameterized by the gluon gravitational form factors. These include the gluon momentum fraction AgA_{g} (the second moment of the gluon PDF), the gluon D-term DgD_{g} and the gluon condensate (trace anomaly) FμνFμν\langle F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}\rangle.

When adapting this approach to ϕ\phi-production, we recognize a few important differences. First, we need to keep ss-quark bilinear operators s¯s\sim\bar{s}s rather than gluon bilinears. A quick way to estimate their relative importance in the present approach is to compare the momentum fractions As+s¯A_{s+\bar{s}} and αs2πAg\frac{\alpha_{s}}{2\pi}A_{g}. Taking As+s¯0.04A_{s+\bar{s}}\approx 0.04, Ag0.4A_{g}\approx 0.4 Maguire:2017ypu and αs=0.20.3\alpha_{s}=0.2\sim 0.3 for example, we see that the strange sea quarks are more important than gluons, though not by a large margin. In the appendix, we give a slightly improved argument and show that the ss-quark contribution gets an additional factor 2\sim 2. Second, the condition Q2|t|Q^{2}\gg|t| is more difficult to satisfy.222This condition is needed in order to ensure that the large momentum QQ does not flow into the nucleon vertex so that one can perform the JJJJ OPE. For example, the momentum transfer at the threshold is

|tth|=mN(mV2+Q2)mN+mV.\displaystyle|t_{th}|=\frac{m_{N}(m_{V}^{2}+Q^{2})}{m_{N}+m_{V}}. (15)

When Q2mV2Q^{2}\gg m_{V}^{2}, |tth||t_{th}| is a larger fraction of Q2Q^{2} in ϕ\phi-production mV=mϕmNm_{V}=m_{\phi}\approx m_{N} than in J/ψJ/\psi-production mV=mJ/ψ3mNm_{V}=m_{J/\psi}\approx 3m_{N}. As one goes away (but not too far away) from the threshold, the region Q2|t|Q^{2}\gg|t| does exist. In principle, our predictions are limited to such regions, though in practice they can be smoothly extrapolated to |t|>Q2|t|>Q^{2} as long as |t||t| is not too small.

We now perform the OPE. A simple calculation shows

𝒜sμν\displaystyle{\cal A}_{s}^{\mu\nu} \displaystyle\equiv iddreirq(s¯(0)γμS(0,r)γνs(r)+s¯(r)γνS(r,0)γμs(0))\displaystyle i\int d^{d}re^{ir\cdot q}\Bigl{(}\bar{s}(0)\gamma^{\mu}S(0,-r)\gamma^{\nu}s(-r)+\bar{s}(-r)\gamma^{\nu}S(-r,0)\gamma^{\mu}s(0)\Bigr{)} (16)
=\displaystyle= 4(q2ms2)2(q2gμαgνβgμαqνqβgνβqμqα+gμνqαqβ)Tαβs+\displaystyle\frac{-4}{(q^{2}-m_{s}^{2})^{2}}\left(q^{2}g^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta}-g^{\mu\alpha}q^{\nu}q^{\beta}-g^{\nu\beta}q^{\mu}q^{\alpha}+g^{\mu\nu}q^{\alpha}q^{\beta}\right)T_{\alpha\beta}^{s}+\cdots
\displaystyle\to 4(q2ms2)2(qkgμαgνβgμαkνqβgνβqμkα+kαqβgμν)Tαβs+,\displaystyle\frac{-4}{(q^{2}-m_{s}^{2})^{2}}(q\cdot kg^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta}-g^{\mu\alpha}k^{\nu}q^{\beta}-g^{\nu\beta}q^{\mu}k^{\alpha}+k^{\alpha}q^{\beta}g^{\mu\nu})T^{s}_{\alpha\beta}+\cdots,

where

S(0,r)=ddq(2π)deiqri(/q+ms)q2ms2,\displaystyle S(0,-r)=\int\frac{d^{d}q}{(2\pi)^{d}}e^{-iq\cdot r}\frac{i({\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$q$}}+m_{s})}{q^{2}-m_{s}^{2}}, (19)

is the ss-quark propagator and

Tαβs=is¯γ(αDβ)s.\displaystyle T^{s}_{\alpha\beta}=i\bar{s}\gamma_{(\alpha}\overleftrightarrow{D}_{\beta)}s. (20)

is the ss-quark contribution to the energy momentum tensor (DDD2\overleftrightarrow{D}\equiv\frac{D-\overleftarrow{D}}{2}). We neglect the ss-quark mass msm_{s} whenever it appears in the numerator. However, we keep it in the denominator to regularize the divergence 1q2ms21Q2+ms2\frac{1}{q^{2}-m_{s}^{2}}\sim\frac{1}{Q^{2}+m_{s}^{2}} just in case we may want to extrapolate our results to smaller Q2Q^{2} values in future applications. In the last line of (16), we have implemented minimal modifications to make 𝒜sμν{\cal A}_{s}^{\mu\nu} transverse with respect to both qνq^{\nu} and kμk^{\mu} as required by gauge invariance. While this is ad hoc at the present level of discussion, we anticipate that total derivative/higher twist operators restore gauge invariance, similarly to what happens in deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) Anikin:2000em

Of course, even after restricting ourselves to quark bilinears, there are other operators that can contribute to (16). Potentially important operators include the axial vector operator s¯γμγ5s\bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}s and the ss-quark twist-two operators with higher spins. The former is related to the (small) ss-quark helicity contribution Δs\Delta s to the proton spin in the forward limit. Its off-forward matrix element is basically unknown. The latter are discussed in the appendix where it is found that, unlike in the quarkonium case Boussarie:2020vmu , the twist-two, higher-spin operators are not negligible for the present problem. To mimic their effect, we introduce an overall phenomenological factor of 2.5 in (16).

To evaluate the matrix element P|𝒜sμν|P\langle P^{\prime}|{\cal A}_{s}^{\mu\nu}|P\rangle, we use the following parameterization of the gravitational form factors Kobzarev:1962wt ; Ji:1996ek

P|Tsαβ|P=u¯(P)[As(t)γ(αP¯β)+Bs(t)P¯(αiσβ)λΔλ2mN+Ds(t)ΔαΔβgαβΔ24mN+C¯s(t)mNgαβ]u(P),\displaystyle\langle P^{\prime}|T_{s}^{\alpha\beta}|P\rangle=\bar{u}(P^{\prime})\left[A_{s}(t)\gamma^{(\alpha}\bar{P}^{\beta)}+B_{s}(t)\frac{\bar{P}^{(\alpha}i\sigma^{\beta)\lambda}\Delta_{\lambda}}{2m_{N}}+D_{s}(t)\frac{\Delta^{\alpha}\Delta^{\beta}-g^{\alpha\beta}\Delta^{2}}{4m_{N}}+\bar{C}_{s}(t)m_{N}g^{\alpha\beta}\right]u(P), (21)

where P¯=P+P2\bar{P}=\frac{P+P^{\prime}}{2}, Δμ=PμPμ\Delta^{\mu}=P^{\prime\mu}-P^{\mu} and t=Δ2t=\Delta^{2}. D(t)/4D(t)/4 is often denoted by C(t)C(t) in the literature. We neglect BsB_{s} following the empirical observation that the flavor-singlet Bu+dB_{u+d} is unusually small (see, e.g., Hagler:2003jd ). We further set C¯s=14As\bar{C}_{s}=-\frac{1}{4}A_{s} assuming that the trace anomaly is insignificant in the strangeness sector. [However, this point may be improved as was done for gluons in Hatta:2019lxo ; Boussarie:2020vmu .] For the remaining form factors, we employ the dipole and tripole ansatze suggested by the perturbative counting rules at large-tt Tanaka:2018wea ; Tong:2021ctu

As(t)=As(0)(1t/mA2)2,Ds(t)=Ds(0)(1t/mD2)3,\displaystyle A_{s}(t)=\frac{A_{s}(0)}{(1-t/m_{A}^{2})^{2}},\qquad D_{s}(t)=\frac{D_{s}(0)}{(1-t/m_{D}^{2})^{3}}, (22)

with As(0)=As+s¯=0.04A_{s}(0)=A_{s+\bar{s}}=0.04 as mentioned above. We use the same effective masses mA=1.13m_{A}=1.13 GeV and mD=0.76m_{D}=0.76 GeV as for the gluon gravitational form factors from lattice QCD Shanahan:2018nnv . This is reasonable given that ss-quarks in the nucleon are generated by the gluon splitting gss¯g\to s\bar{s}.333In Frankfurt:2002ka and more recently in Wang:2021dis , the authors fitted the ϕ\phi-meson photo- and lepto-production data using the form dσ/dtA2(t)1/(1t/mA2)4d\sigma/dt\propto A^{2}(t)\propto 1/(1-t/m_{A}^{2})^{4} and found that the mass parameter mAm_{A} is consistent with the J/ψJ/\psi case. This partially supports our procedure. The value Ds(0)D_{s}(0) is our main object of interest, and is treated here as a free parameter. As mentioned in the introduction, even though ss-quarks are much less abundant in the proton AsAu,dA_{s}\ll A_{u,d}, a large-NcN_{c} argument suggests that the D-terms are ‘flavor blind’ DsDuDdD_{s}\sim D_{u}\approx D_{d} Goeke:2001tz .444The prediction |Du+Dd||DuDd||D_{u}+D_{d}|\gg|D_{u}-D_{d}| from large-NcN_{c} QCD is supported by the lattice simulations Hagler:2003jd . Interestingly, and in contrast, the BB-form factor is dominantly a flavor nonsinglet quantity |BuBd||Bu+Bd||B_{u}-B_{d}|\gg|B_{u}+B_{d}| as already mentioned. In the flavor SU(3) limit, and at asymptotically large scales, the relation (CF=Nc212Nc=4/3C_{F}=\frac{N_{c}^{2}-1}{2N_{c}}=4/3)

Ds(0)14CFDg(0),\displaystyle D_{s}(0)\approx\frac{1}{4C_{F}}D_{g}(0), (23)

together with the recent lattice result for the gluon D-term Dg(0)7.2D_{g}(0)\approx-7.2 Shanahan:2018nnv gives Ds(0)1.35D_{s}(0)\approx-1.35. We thus vary the parameter in the range 0>Ds(0)>1.350>D_{s}(0)>-1.35, with a particular interest in the possibility that |Ds||D_{s}| is of order unity. Note that this makes ϕ\phi-production rather special, compared to light or heavy meson productions. If AsAu,d,gA_{s}\ll A_{u,d,g} but DsDu,dD_{s}\sim D_{u,d}, the effect of the D-term will be particularly large in the strangeness sector.

Finally, the proportionality constant between μν{\cal M}^{\mu\nu} and P|𝒜sμν|P\langle P^{\prime}|{\cal A}_{s}^{\mu\nu}|P\rangle can be determined similarly to the J/ψJ/\psi case (see Eqs. (48,49) of Boussarie:2020vmu ). Using the ϕ\phi-meson mass mϕ=m_{\phi}=1.02 GeV and its leptonic decay width Γe+e=1.27\Gamma_{e^{+}e^{-}}=1.27 keV, we find

es4e2mϕ4gγϕ2=4πes4αem2mϕ3Γe+e2.21,\displaystyle\frac{e_{s}^{4}e^{2}m_{\phi}^{4}}{g_{\gamma\phi}^{2}}=\frac{4\pi e_{s}^{4}\alpha^{2}_{em}m_{\phi}}{3\Gamma_{e^{+}e^{-}}}\approx 2.21, (24)

where es=1/3e_{s}=-1/3 and gγϕg_{\gamma\phi} is the decay constant. There is actually an uncertainty of order unity in the overall normalization of the amplitude as mentioned in Boussarie:2020vmu (apart from the factor of 2.5 mentioned above). This can be fixed by fitting to the total cross section data. Then the shape of dσ/dtd\sigma/dt is the prediction of our model.

IV Numerical results and discussions

We now present our numerical results for the JLab kinematics with a 6 GeV electron beam (sep3.5\sqrt{s_{ep}}\approx 3.5 GeV). The experimental data Santoro:2008ai have been taken in the range

1.4<Q2<3.8GeV2,|ttmin|<3.6GeV2,2<W<3GeV,\displaystyle 1.4<Q^{2}<3.8\,{\rm GeV}^{2},\qquad|t-t_{min}|<3.6\,{\rm GeV}^{2},\qquad 2<W<3\,{\rm GeV}, (25)

where tmint_{min} is the kinematical lower limit of tt which depends on Q2Q^{2} and WW. Admittedly, even the maximal value Q2=3.8Q^{2}=3.8 GeV2 is not large from a perturbative QCD point of view. However, (25) is the only kinematical window where the lepto-production data exist. Our model actually provides smooth curves for observables in the above range of Q2Q^{2}.

Fig. 1 shows dσ/dtd\sigma/dt at W=2.5W=2.5 GeV, Q2=3.8Q^{2}=3.8 GeV2. We chose ms=100m_{s}=100 MeV for the current ss-quark mass.555 While this choice is natural in the present framework, it leads to a too steep rise of the cross section σ(Q2)\sigma(Q^{2}) as Q2Q^{2} is decreased towards 11 GeV2. Of course, our approach breaks down in this limit, but it is still possible to get a better Q2Q^{2} behavior in the low-Q2Q^{2} region by switching to the constituent ss-quark mass ms=mϕ/2500m_{s}=m_{\phi}/2\approx 500 MeV, or perhaps even msmϕm_{s}\to m_{\phi} as in the vector meson dominance (VMD) model. The four curves correspond to different values of the DD-term, Ds=0,0.4,0.7,1.3D_{s}=0,-0.4,-0.7,-1.3 in descending order. We see that if the D-term is large enough, it causes a flattening or even a bump in the |t||t|-distribution in the small-tt region. This is due to the explicit factors of Δμ\Delta^{\mu} (t=Δ2t=\Delta^{2}) multiplying DsD_{s} in (21) which tend to shift the peak of the tt-distribution to larger values. Unfortunately, we cannot directly compare our result with the JLab data. The relevant plot, Fig. 18 of Ref. Santoro:2008ai is a mixture of data from different values of Q2Q^{2} in the range (25). For a meaningful comparison, dσ/dtd\sigma/dt should be plotted for a fixed (large) value of Q2Q^{2}, and there should be enough data points in the most interesting region |t|1|t|\lesssim 1 GeV2. By the same reason, we cannot adjust the overall normalization of the amplitude mentioned at the end of the previous section. Incidentally, we note that in this kinematics the cross section is dominated by the contribution from the transversely polarized photon, namely, the part proportional to gμνg_{\perp}^{\mu\nu} in (10).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Differential cross section dσ/dtd\sigma/dt in units of nb/GeV2 as a function of |t||t| (in GeV2). W=2.5W=2.5 GeV, Q2=3.8Q^{2}=3.8 GeV2. The four curves correspond to Ds=0,0.4,0.7,1.3D_{s}=0,-0.4,-0.7,-1.3 from top to bottom.

For illustration, in Fig. 2 we show the result with Q2=20Q^{2}=20 GeV2 and W=2.5W=2.5 GeV, having in mind the kinematics of the Electron-Ion Colliders (EICs) in the U.S. Accardi:2012qut ; Proceedings:2020eah and in China Anderle:2021wcy . We chose sep=30\sqrt{s_{ep}}=30 GeV for definiteness, but the dependence on seps_{ep} is very weak as it only enters the parameter ϵ\epsilon in (13) and ϵ1\epsilon\approx 1 in the present kinematics. (Of course the epep cross section (12) strongly depends on seps_{ep}.) The contribution from the longitudinally polarized photon (the part proportional to ϵεLμεLν\epsilon\varepsilon_{L}^{\mu}\varepsilon_{L}^{\nu} in (10)) is now comparable to the transverse part. Again the impact of the D-term is noticeable, but the bump has almost disappeared and we only see a flattening of the curve in the extreme case Ds=1.3D_{s}=-1.3. The reason is simple. The cross section schematically has the form

dσdtf(t)(1t/m2)a,\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma}{dt}\sim\frac{f(t)}{(1-t/m^{2})^{a}}, (26)

where f(t)f(t) is a low-order polynomial in tt and a=4,5,6a=4,5,6. (See (22). The amplitude squared is a linear combination of As2(t),As(t)Ds(t)A_{s}^{2}(t),A_{s}(t)D_{s}(t) and Ds2(t)D_{s}^{2}(t).) The tt-dependence of f(t)f(t) comes from the D-term and gamma matrix traces involving nucleon spinors (21). Clearly, f(t)f(t) can affect the shape of dσ/dtd\sigma/dt only when |t|<m21|t|<m^{2}\sim 1 GeV2. Beyond that, one simply has the power law dσ/dt1/tcd\sigma/dt\sim 1/t^{c} with c<4c<4. In Fig. 1, |tmin|<1|t_{min}|<1 GeV, and this is why we see more interesting structures. As Q2Q^{2} gets larger, so does |tmin||t_{min}| and the structure disappears.

In conclusion, we have proposed a new model of ϕ\phi-meson lepto-production near threshold. In our model, the cross section is solely determined by the strangeness gravitational form factors, similarly to the J/ψJ/\psi case where it is determined by the gluon counterparts Boussarie:2020vmu . Of particular interest is the value of DsD_{s}, the strangeness contribution to the proton D-term. While DsD_{s} is ignored in most literature, an argument based on the large-NcN_{c} QCD suggests that it may actually be comparable to Du,dD_{u,d} Goeke:2001tz . If this is the case, we predict a flattening or possibly a bump in the tt-distribution of dσ/dtd\sigma/dt in the small-tt region. It is very interesting to test this scenario by re-analyzing the JLab data Santoro:2008ai or conducting new experiments focusing on the |t|<1|t|<1 GeV2 region.

There are number of directions for improvement. As already mentioned, operators other than the energy momentum tensors should be included as much as possible, although this will unavoidably introduce more parameters in the model. We have argued in the appendix that the contribution from the twist-two, higher spin operators is small, but this needs to be checked. Also the renormalization group evolution of the form factors should be taken into account if in future one can measure this process over a broad range in Q2Q^{2} such as at the EICs in the U.S. and in China Accardi:2012qut ; Anderle:2021wcy .

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Differential cross section dσ/dtd\sigma/dt in units of pb/GeV2 as a function of |t||t| (in GeV2). W=2.5W=2.5 GeV, Q2=20Q^{2}=20 GeV2, sep=30\sqrt{s_{ep}}=30 GeV. The four curves correspond to Ds=0,0.4,0.7,1.3D_{s}=0,-0.4,-0.7,-1.3 from top to bottom.

Acknowledgments

Y. H. thanks the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics for hospitality. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, under contracts No. DE- SC0012704, DE-SC-0002145 and DE-FG02-93ER40771. It is also supported in part by Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) funds from Brookhaven Science Associates.

Appendix A Connection to the GPD approach

In this appendix, we argue how our OPE approach is connected to the usual light-cone approach in terms of the generalized parton distribution (GPD), see, e.g., Goeke:2001tz for a review. Consider doubly virtual Compton scattering (VVCS) p(P)γ(q)p(P)γ(q)p(P)\gamma^{*}(q)\to p(P^{\prime})\gamma^{*}(q^{\prime}) or deeply virtual meson production (DVMP) p(P)γ(q)p(P)V(q)p(P)\gamma^{*}(q)\to p(P^{\prime})V(q^{\prime}) and introduce the variables

q¯=q+q2,P¯=P+P2,Δ=PP=qq,ξ=q¯22P¯q¯,η=Δq¯2P¯q¯.\displaystyle\bar{q}=\frac{q+q^{\prime}}{2},\qquad\bar{P}=\frac{P+P^{\prime}}{2},\qquad\Delta=P^{\prime}-P=q-q^{\prime},\qquad\xi=\frac{-\bar{q}^{2}}{2\bar{P}\cdot\bar{q}},\qquad\eta=\frac{-\Delta\cdot\bar{q}}{2\bar{P}\cdot\bar{q}}. (27)

η\eta is the skewness parameter and ξ\xi is the analog of the Bjorken variable xB=q22Pqx_{B}=\frac{-q^{2}}{2P\cdot q} in DIS. In the regime of our interest q2mϕ2q2=Q2q^{\prime 2}\sim m_{\phi}^{2}\ll-q^{2}=Q^{2}, we can write

ηξ11+Δ22Q21,ηxB2xB(1Δ2Q2)xB2xB,\displaystyle\frac{\eta}{\xi}\approx\frac{1}{1+\frac{\Delta^{2}}{2Q^{2}}}\approx 1,\qquad\eta\approx\frac{x_{B}}{2-x_{B}\left(1-\frac{\Delta^{2}}{Q^{2}}\right)}\approx\frac{x_{B}}{2-x_{B}}, (28)

where the second approximation is valid when Q2|t|=|Δ2|Q^{2}\gg|t|=|\Delta^{2}|. In DIS or DVCS, one takes the scaling limit q¯2-\bar{q}^{2}\to\infty and 2P¯q¯2\bar{P}\cdot\bar{q}\to\infty (and implicitly W2=(P+q)2W^{2}=(P+q)^{2}\to\infty) keeping the ratio 1>ξ>01>\xi>0 fixed. However, near the threshold where W2=(P+q)2W^{2}=(P+q)^{2} is constrained to be close to (mN+mϕ)2(m_{N}+m_{\phi})^{2}, the scaling limit cannot be taken literally because xBx_{B} and Q2Q^{2} are no longer independent

xB=Q22Pq=Q2W2+Q2mN2Q2Q2+2mϕmN+mϕ2.\displaystyle x_{B}=\frac{Q^{2}}{2P\cdot q}=\frac{Q^{2}}{W^{2}+Q^{2}-m_{N}^{2}}\approx\frac{Q^{2}}{Q^{2}+2m_{\phi}m_{N}+m_{\phi}^{2}}. (29)

In the limit Q2Q^{2}\to\infty, we have that

xBξη1.\displaystyle x_{B}\approx\xi\approx\eta\approx 1. (30)

The partonic interpretation of scattering in this regime is rather peculiar. Normally one works in a frame in which the incoming and outgoing protons are fast-moving

ξηP+P+P++P+.\displaystyle\xi\approx\eta\approx\frac{P^{+}-P^{\prime+}}{P^{+}+P^{\prime+}}. (31)

The incoming proton has the light-cone energy P+=(1+η)P¯+P^{+}=(1+\eta)\bar{P}^{+}, and it emits two partons with momentum fractions

η+x1+η,ηx1+η.\displaystyle\frac{\eta+x}{1+\eta},\quad\frac{\eta-x}{1+\eta}. (32)

When ηξ1\eta\approx\xi\approx 1, P+2P¯+P^{+}\approx 2\bar{P}^{+} and the outgoing proton has vanishing light-cone energy P+0P^{\prime+}\approx 0. Moreover, the condition 2PqQ22P\cdot q\approx Q^{2} means q+P+q^{+}\approx-P^{+} and (P++q+)qmN2(P^{+}+q^{+})q^{-}\sim m_{N}^{2}. Therefore, the outgoing meson is not fast-moving in the minus direction q𝒪(mN)q^{-}\sim{\cal O}(m_{N}). Since the suppression of final state interactions due to large relative momenta is crucial for the proof of factorization Collins:1996fb , we suspect that the standard approach based on GPDs is not applicable for near-threshold production, at least in its original form.

Nevertheless, we can make a rough connection to the present approach as follows. When ξ1\xi\approx 1, the ss-quark contribution to the Compton form factor may be Taylor expanded as

As(ξ,η)11𝑑x(1ξxiϵ1ξ+xiϵ)Hs(x,η,t)211𝑑x(x+x3+)Hs(x,1,t),\displaystyle A_{s}(\xi,\eta)\sim\int^{1}_{-1}dx\left(\frac{1}{\xi-x-i\epsilon}-\frac{1}{\xi+x-i\epsilon}\right)H_{s}(x,\eta,t)\approx 2\int^{1}_{-1}dx(x+x^{3}+\cdots)H_{s}(x,1,t), (33)

where HsH_{s} is the ss-quark GPD. The lowest moment is proportional to the gravitational form factor P|Ts++|P\langle P^{\prime}|T_{s}^{++}|P\rangle that we keep, and higher moments give the form factors of the twist-two higher spin operators xnP|s¯γ+(D+)ns|P\langle x^{n}\rangle\sim\langle P^{\prime}|\bar{s}\gamma^{+}(D^{+})^{n}s|P\rangle. To estimate the impact of the latter, let us substitute the asymptotic form at large renormalization scales Goeke:2001tz

Hs(x,η=1,t)x(1x2).\displaystyle H_{s}(x,\eta=1,t)\propto x(1-x^{2}). (34)

The above integral proportional to

01𝑑xx2(1x2)1x2=13.\displaystyle\int_{0}^{1}dx\frac{x^{2}(1-x^{2})}{1-x^{2}}=\frac{1}{3}. (35)

If we only keep the first term in the Taylor expansion (corresponding to the energy momentum tensor), we get

01𝑑xx2(1x2)=215,\displaystyle\int_{0}^{1}dxx^{2}(1-x^{2})=\frac{2}{15}, (36)

that is, 40% of the full result. This is in contrast to the J/ψJ/\psi case Boussarie:2020vmu where one has instead the gluon GPD

𝑑xHg(x,η=1,t)1x201𝑑x(1x2)21x2=23.\displaystyle\int dx\frac{H_{g}(x,\eta=1,t)}{1-x^{2}}\sim\int_{0}^{1}dx\frac{(1-x^{2})^{2}}{1-x^{2}}=\frac{2}{3}. (37)

The first term in the Taylor expansion (corresponding to the gluon energy momentum tensor)

01𝑑x(1x2)2=815.\displaystyle\int_{0}^{1}dx(1-x^{2})^{2}=\frac{8}{15}. (38)

accounts for 80% of the total. The origin of this difference is easy to understand. The ss-quark GPD HsH_{s} vanishes at x=0x=0 because the ss and s¯\bar{s} sea quarks are symmetric Hs¯(x)=Hs(x)=Hs(x)H_{\bar{s}}(x)=-H_{s}(-x)=H_{s}(x). On the other hand, the gluon GPD HgH_{g} is peaked at x=0x=0 so higher moments in xx are numerically more suppressed.

We thus conclude that the twist-two, higher spin operators are not negligible in the ss-quark case, although they are relatively innocuous in the gluon case. To cope with this, we introduce an overall factor 1/0.4=2.51/0.4=2.5 in the leading order result (16) as a model parameter. Note that the GPD HsH_{s} contains a part related to the D-term Polyakov:1999gs , so this factor is common to both the AsA_{s} and DsD_{s} form factors.

References

  • (1) J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997), 2982-3006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.2982 [arXiv:hep-ph/9611433 [hep-ph]].
  • (2) T. Mibe et al. [LEPS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005), 182001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.182001 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0506015 [nucl-ex]].
  • (3) W. C. Chang et al. [LEPS], Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010), 015205 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.015205 [arXiv:1006.4197 [nucl-ex]].
  • (4) T. Hiraiwa et al. [LEPS], Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) no.3, 035208 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.035208 [arXiv:1711.01095 [nucl-ex]].
  • (5) J. P. Santoro et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008), 025210 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.025210 [arXiv:0803.3537 [nucl-ex]].
  • (6) X. Qian, W. Chen, H. Gao, K. Hicks, K. Kramer, J. M. Laget, T. Mibe, Y. Qiang, S. Stepanyan and D. J. Tedeschi, et al. Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011), 338-342 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.12.065 [arXiv:1011.1305 [nucl-ex]].
  • (7) B. Dey et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) no.5, 055208 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.055208 [arXiv:1403.2110 [nucl-ex]].
  • (8) A. Ali et al. [GlueX], Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) no.7, 072001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.072001 [arXiv:1905.10811 [nucl-ex]].
  • (9) L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002), 031502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.031502 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205223 [hep-ph]].
  • (10) Y. Hatta and D. L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.7, 074003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.074003 [arXiv:1808.02163 [hep-ph]].
  • (11) Y. Hatta, A. Rajan and D. L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.1, 014032 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.014032 [arXiv:1906.00894 [hep-ph]].
  • (12) W. Xie, A. Watanabe and M. Huang, JHEP 10 (2019), 053 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)053 [arXiv:1901.09564 [hep-ph]].
  • (13) K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.8, 086003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.086003 [arXiv:1910.04707 [hep-ph]].
  • (14) R. Boussarie and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.11, 114004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.114004 [arXiv:2004.12715 [hep-ph]].
  • (15) M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) no.26, 1830025 doi:10.1142/S0217751X18300259 [arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]].
  • (16) A. Freese and G. A. Miller, [arXiv:2102.01683 [hep-ph]].
  • (17) V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri and F. X. Girod, Nature 557 (2018) no.7705, 396-399 doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0060-z
  • (18) K. Kumerički, Nature 570 (2019) no.7759, E1-E2 doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1211-6
  • (19) H. Dutrieux, C. Lorcé, H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, A. Trawiński and J. Wagner, [arXiv:2101.03855 [hep-ph]].
  • (20) K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47 (2001), 401-515 doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00158-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106012 [hep-ph]].
  • (21) J. M. Laget, Phys. Lett. B 489 (2000), 313-318 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00945-X [arXiv:hep-ph/0003213 [hep-ph]].
  • (22) A. I. Titov and T. S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 67 (2003), 065205 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.67.065205 [arXiv:nucl-th/0305002 [nucl-th]].
  • (23) I. I. Strakovsky, L. Pentchev and A. Titov, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) no.4, 045201 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.045201 [arXiv:2001.08851 [hep-ph]].
  • (24) T. Arens, O. Nachtmann, M. Diehl and P. V. Landshoff, Z. Phys. C 74 (1997), 651-669 doi:10.1007/s002880050430 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605376 [hep-ph]].
  • (25) E. Maguire, L. Heinrich and G. Watt, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 898 (2017) no.10, 102006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/898/10/102006 [arXiv:1704.05473 [hep-ex]].
  • (26) I. V. Anikin, B. Pire and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 071501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.071501 [arXiv:hep-ph/0003203 [hep-ph]].
  • (27) I. Y. Kobzarev and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43 (1962), 1904-1909
  • (28) X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997), 610-613 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.610 [arXiv:hep-ph/9603249 [hep-ph]].
  • (29) P. Hagler et al. [LHPC and SESAM], Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 034505 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.034505 [arXiv:hep-lat/0304018 [hep-lat]].
  • (30) K. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.3, 034009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.034009 [arXiv:1806.10591 [hep-ph]].
  • (31) X. B. Tong, J. P. Ma and F. Yuan, [arXiv:2101.02395 [hep-ph]].
  • (32) P. E. Shanahan and W. Detmold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.7, 072003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.072003 [arXiv:1810.07589 [nucl-th]].
  • (33) R. Wang, W. Kou and X. Chen, [arXiv:2102.01610 [hep-ph]].
  • (34) A. Accardi, J. L. Albacete, M. Anselmino, N. Armesto, E. C. Aschenauer, A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, W. K. Brooks, T. Burton and N. B. Chang, et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) no.9, 268 doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16268-9 [arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]].
  • (35) A. Prokudin, Y. Hatta, Y. Kovchegov and C. Marquet, doi:10.1142/11684 [arXiv:2002.12333 [hep-ph]].
  • (36) D. P. Anderle, V. Bertone, X. Cao, L. Chang, N. Chang, G. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Cui and L. Dai, et al. [arXiv:2102.09222 [nucl-ex]].
  • (37) M. V. Polyakov and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999), 114017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.114017 [arXiv:hep-ph/9902451 [hep-ph]].