format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there have been some significant progress in understanding the flavor and spin structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon from various fragmentation processes, both theoretically \[1-18\] and experimentally \[19-24\]. One of the most interesting new observations is related to the polarizations of the up ($`u`$) and down ($`d`$) quarks inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the naive quark model, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spin is totally provided by the strange ($`s`$) quark, and the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are unpolarized. Based on novel results concerning the proton spin structure from deep inelastic scattering (DIS) experiments and SU(3) symmetry between the octet baryons, it was found that the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be negatively polarized . It was also pointed out that the $`u`$ and $`d`$ polarizations in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are related to the $`s`$ polarizations of the proton . However, based on a perturbative QCD (pQCD) counting rule analysis  and an SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model , it was later predicted  that, although the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ might be unpolarized or negatively polarized in the integrated Bjorken range $`0x1`$, they should be positively polarized at large $`x`$. This prediction seems to be supported by all available data from longitudinally polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation , polarized charged lepton DIS process , and most recently, neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process .

However, there are still many unknowns to be explored before we can arrive at some definite conclusion on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ quark and spin structure. First, what one actually measures in experiments are the hyperons from quark fragmentation, and therefore one needs a relation between quark distributions and fragmentation functions. The Gribov-Lipatov relation

$$D_q^h(z)zq_h(z),$$
(1)
with $`D_q^h(z)`$ being the fragmentation function for a quark $`q`$ splitting into a hadron $`h`$ with longitudinal momentum fraction $`z`$, and $`q_h(z)`$ being the quark distribution of finding the quark $`q`$ inside the hadron $`h`$ carrying a momentum fraction $`x=z`$, was used to connect the fragmentation functions from predictions on the quark distributions . However, such a relation is only known to be valid near $`z1`$ and on a certain energy scale $`Q_0^2`$ in leading order approximation, and there are serious doubts, coming from both theory and experiment, as to whether this relation can be applied anywhere else. Thus it might be more practical to consider Eq. (1) as a phenomenological Ansatz to parameterize the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions, and then check the validity and reasonableness of the method by comparing the theoretical predictions with the experimental data. In fact, most other theoretical estimates  on the quark fragmentation functions are also based on some knowledge of quark distributions. Second, there are still uncertainties on the quark distributions, even for the valence components. For example, the flavor structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ differs significantly in the pQCD based analysis and the quark-diquark model: the ratio $`u(x)/s(x)`$ at $`x=1`$ is 1/2 in the pQCD analysis whereas it is 0 in the quark-diquark model . But the two models have similar predictions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarizations of fragmentations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation , polarized charged lepton DIS process , and neutrino (antineutrino) process , and it is still difficult to distinguish between the two different model predictions with the available data. Therefore we still need to look for new quantities and kinematic regions where the distinction of the different predictions is feasible.

It has been pointed out  that the two different predictions of the quark distributions for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ hyperons can be directly tested in Drell-Yan processes of charged hyperon beams on the nucleon target. However, it might take a long time for performing such experiments, since the technique on the charged hyperon beams still needs improvement for precision experimental purposes. By comparison, the detection technique of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ hyperons is more mature in order to measure the various quark to hyperon fragmentation functions . Except for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, which decays electromagnetically, all other hyperons in the octet baryons have their major decay modes mediated by the weak interaction. Because these weak decays do not conserve parity, information from their decay products can be used to determine their polarization . The polarization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ can be also re-constructed from the dominant decay chain $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ . Therefore we can use the measurable fragmentation functions to extract information on the spin and flavor content of hyperons with the available experimental facilities. From another point of view, studying the fragmentation functions of various hyperons is also interesting in itself, in addition to its connection to the quark distributions. The purpose of this paper is to study the longitudinal polarizations of various hyperon fragmentations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation, charged lepton DIS process, and neutrino DIS process, based on predictions of quark distributions for the hyperons in the pQCD analysis and quark-diquark model. This is useful as a systematically survey of various hyperon fragmentation functions, as well as checking different model predictions.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we will present a brief review of the quark distributions for the octet baryons in both the quark-diquark model and the pQCD based analysis. For the pQCD based analysis we make a new set of leading order quark distributions for the valence quarks with SU(3) symmetry between the octet baryons. This set of quark distributions has no other free parameters, therefore it has predictive ability. In Sec. III we calculate the baryon polarizations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation for the octet baryons at two energies: LEP I at the $`Z`$ resonance $`\sqrt{s}91`$ GeV and LEP II at $`\sqrt{s}200`$ GeV. We find that predicted polarizations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s are quite different in the two models in the medium to large $`z`$ region, and a distinction between different predictions can be checked by measuring the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ polarizations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation. Sec. IV contains our predictions for the baryon and anti-baryon polarizations of the octet baryons in polarized charged lepton DIS process. We find that the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ has the biggest difference for the spin transfer in the two different models, and we propose to measure the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ polarization in this process as a sensitive test of different predictions. Sec. V is devoted to the baryon and anti-baryon polarizations of the octet baryons in neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process. We find that the neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process is ideal to test different predictions concerning both the valence and sea content of the hyperons. Finally, we present a summary of our new results together with our conclusions in Sec. VI.

## 2 The quark flavor and spin structure of octet baryons

The valence quark distributions of the octet baryons, in both the light-cone SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model  and the pQCD based counting rule analysis , have been discussed in previous publications . Here we briefly outline the main ingredients and new features that are present in this paper for the later applications.

### 2.1 The light-cone SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model

The application of the quark-spectator-diquark model to discuss the quark distributions of nucleons at large $`x`$ can be traced back to a work of Feynman, to explain the unexpected behavior of $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)=1/4`$ at $`x1`$ in the experimental observation at that time . There have been many developments along this line , and the light-cone SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model  is a revised version with the new ingredient of Wigner-Melosh rotation effect  taken into account. This model does not necessarily break the bulk SU(6) symmetry of the wavefunction, and is successful in describing the large $`x`$ behavior of polarized structure functions of nucleons. The main idea of this model is to start from the three quark SU(6) quark model wavefunction of the baryon and then if any one of the quarks is probed, reorganize the other two quarks in terms of two quark wavefunctions with spins 0 or 1 (scalar and vector diquarks), i.e., the diquark serves as an effective particle which is called the spectator. The advantage of this model is that the non-perturbative effects such as gluon exchanges between the two spectator quarks or other non-perturbative gluon effects in the hadronic debris can be effectively taken into account by the mass et al. of the diquark spectator. So the complicated many-particle system can be effectively treated by a simple two particle system technique . The mass difference between the scalar and vector diquarks is proved to be important for producing consistency with experimental observations , in comparison with the naive quark model with exact SU(6) symmetry.

The light-cone SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model  is extended to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon in Refs. . It is interesting to notice that the mass difference between the scalar and vector diquarks causes a suppression of anti-parallel spin components of quark distributions at large $`x`$, and as a consequence the totally non-polarized $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks should be positively polarized at large $`x`$. Surprisingly, the predictions of the model with naive parameters, and without any adjustment, have been proved to be successful in describing all of the available data of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarizations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation , polarized charged lepton DIS process , and neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process , by adopting the simple Ansatz of the Gribov-Lipatov relation Eq. (1), in order to connect fragmentation functions with distribution functions. It is natural that we should try to check or refine the validity of this method by exploring hadron fragmentations of other octet baryons. The extension of the light-cone SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model to the octet baryons has been done in Ref. , and we outline the main ingredients in the following.

The unpolarized quark distribution for a quark with flavor $`q`$ inside a hadron $`h`$ is expressed as

$$q(x)=c_q^Sa_S(x)+c_q^Va_V(x),$$
(2)
where $`c_q^S`$ and $`c_q^V`$ are the weight coefficients determined by the SU(6) quark-diquark model wavefunctions and are different for various baryons, and $`a_D(x)`$ ($`D=S`$ for scalar spectator or $`V`$ for axial vector spectator) can be expressed in terms of the light-cone momentum space wavefunction $`\phi (x,𝐤_{})`$ as

$$a_D(x)[\mathrm{d}^2𝐤_{}]|\phi (\mathrm{x},𝐤_{})|^2(\mathrm{D}=\mathrm{S}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{V})$$
(3)
which is normalized such that $`_0^1dxa_D(x)=3`$ and denotes the amplitude for quark $`q`$ to be scattered while the spectator is in the diquark state $`D`$. We employ the Brodsky-Huang-Lepage (BHL) prescription  of the light-cone momentum space wavefunction for the quark-diquark

$$\phi (x,𝐤_{})=A_D\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{8\alpha _D^2}[\frac{m_q^2+𝐤_{}^2}{x}+\frac{m_D^2+𝐤_{}^2}{1x}]\},$$
(4)
with the parameter $`\alpha _D=330`$ MeV. Other parameters such as the quark mass $`m_q`$, vector(scalar) diquark mass $`m_D`$ ($`D=S,V`$) for the octet baryons are listed in Table 1.

One needs to introduce the Melosh-Wigner correction factor  in order to calculate the polarized quark distributions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)=\stackrel{~}{c}_q^S\stackrel{~}{a}_S(x)+\stackrel{~}{c}_q^V\stackrel{~}{a}_V(x),$$
(5)
where the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{c}_q^S`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_q^V`$ are also determined by the SU(6) quark-diquark wavefunctions, and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_D(x)`$ is expressed as

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_D(x)=[\mathrm{d}^2𝐤_{}]\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{D}(\mathrm{x},𝐤_{})|\phi (\mathrm{x},𝐤_{})|^2(\mathrm{D}=\mathrm{S}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{V})$$
(6)
where

$$W_D(x,𝐤_{})=\frac{(k^++m_q)^2𝐤_{}^2}{(k^++m_q)^2+𝐤_{}^2},$$
(7)
with $`k^+=x`$ and $`^2=\frac{m_q^2+𝐤_{}^2}{x}+\frac{m_D^2+𝐤_{}^2}{1x}`$. The weight coefficients for all octet baryons, $`c_q^S`$, $`c_q^V`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_q^S`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_q^V`$, can be also found in Table 1. We thus have all the formalism to calculate the quark distributions of the octet baryons. We should mention that the SU(3) symmetry between the octet baryons is in principle maintained, but the mass difference between different quarks and diquarks breaks the SU(3) symmetry explicitly. There is still degrees of freedom to refine the model by improving the parameters and the explicit forms of the momentum space wavefunctions.

Table 1 The quark distribution functions of octet baryons in SU(6) quark-diquark model

|  |  |  |  |  | $`m_q`$ | $`m_V`$ | $`m_S`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Baryon | $`q`$ |  | $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ |  | (MeV) | (MeV) | (MeV) |
| p | $`u`$ | $`\frac{1}{6}a_V+\frac{1}{2}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ | -$`\frac{1}{18}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 330 | 800 | 600 |
| (uud) | $`d`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}a_V`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ | -$`\frac{1}{9}\stackrel{~}{a}_V`$ | 330 | 800 | 600 |
| n | $`u`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}a_V`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ | -$`\frac{1}{9}\stackrel{~}{a}_V`$ | 330 | 800 | 600 |
| (udd) | $`d`$ | $`\frac{1}{6}a_V+\frac{1}{2}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ | -$`\frac{1}{18}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 330 | 800 | 600 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ | $`u`$ | $`\frac{1}{6}a_V+\frac{1}{2}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ | -$`\frac{1}{18}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 330 | 950 | 750 |
| (uus) | $`s`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}a_V`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ | -$`\frac{1}{9}\stackrel{~}{a}_V`$ | 480 | 800 | 600 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ | $`u`$ | $`\frac{1}{12}a_V+\frac{1}{4}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ | -$`\frac{1}{36}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 330 | 950 | 750 |
| (uds) | $`d`$ | $`\frac{1}{12}a_V+\frac{1}{4}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ | -$`\frac{1}{36}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 330 | 950 | 750 |
|  | $`s`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}a_V`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ | -$`\frac{1}{9}\stackrel{~}{a}_V`$ | 480 | 800 | 600 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ | $`d`$ | $`\frac{1}{6}a_V+\frac{1}{2}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ | -$`\frac{1}{18}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 330 | 950 | 750 |
| (dds) | $`s`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}a_V`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ | -$`\frac{1}{9}\stackrel{~}{a}_V`$ | 480 | 800 | 600 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ | $`u`$ | $`\frac{1}{4}a_V+\frac{1}{12}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ | -$`\frac{1}{12}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{12}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 330 | 950 | 750 |
| (uds) | $`d`$ | $`\frac{1}{4}a_V+\frac{1}{12}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ | -$`\frac{1}{12}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{12}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 330 | 950 | 750 |
|  | $`s`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 480 | 800 | 600 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ | $`d`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}a_V`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ | -$`\frac{1}{9}\stackrel{~}{a}_V`$ | 330 | 1100 | 900 |
| (dss) | $`s`$ | $`\frac{1}{6}a_V+\frac{1}{2}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ | -$`\frac{1}{18}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 480 | 950 | 750 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ | $`u`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}a_V`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ | -$`\frac{1}{9}\stackrel{~}{a}_V`$ | 330 | 1100 | 900 |
| (uss) | $`s`$ | $`\frac{1}{6}a_V+\frac{1}{2}a_S`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ | -$`\frac{1}{18}\stackrel{~}{a}_V+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{a}_S`$ | 480 | 950 | 750 |

### 2.2 The perturbative QCD counting rule analysis

We now look at the pQCD counting rule analysis of the quark distributions based on minimally connected tree graphs of hard gluon exchanges. In the region $`x1`$ such an approach can give rigorous predictions for the behavior of distribution functions . In particular, it predicts “helicity retention”, which means that the helicity of a valence quark will match that of the parent nucleon. Explicitly, the quark distributions of a hadron $`h`$ have been shown to satisfy the counting rule ,

$$q_h(x)(1x)^p,$$
(8)
where

$$p=2n1+2\mathrm{\Delta }S_z.$$
(9)
Here $`n`$ is the minimal number of the spectator quarks, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_z=|S_z^qS_z^h|=0`$ or $`1`$ for parallel or anti-parallel quark and hadron helicities, respectively . Therefore the anti-parallel helicity quark distributions are suppressed by a relative factor $`(1x)^2`$, and consequently $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)/q(x)1`$ as $`x1`$. A further input of the model, explained in detail in Ref. , is to retain the SU(6) ratios only for the parallel helicity distributions at large $`x`$, since in this region SU(6) is broken into SU(3)$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$SU(3). With such power-law behaviors of quark distributions, the ratio $`d(x)/u(x)`$ of the nucleon was predicted  to be 1/5 as $`x1`$, and this gives $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)=3/7`$, which is (comparatively) close to the quark-diquark model result $`1/4`$ . From the different power-law behaviors for parallel and anti-parallel quarks, one easily finds that $`\mathrm{\Delta }q/q=1`$ as $`x1`$ for any quark with flavor $`q`$, unless the $`q`$ quark is completely negatively polarized . This prediction is quite different from the quark-diquark model prediction that $`\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)/d(x)=1/3`$ as $`x1`$ for the nucleon . The most recent analysis  of experimental data for several processes seems to support the pQCD based prediction of the unpolarized quark behaviors $`d(x)/u(x)=1/5`$ at $`x1`$, but there is still no definite test of the polarized quark behaviors $`\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)/d(x)`$ since the $`d`$ quark is the non-dominant quark for the proton and does not play a dominant role at large $`x`$.

The extension of pQCD based counting rule analysis to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is done in Refs. , where it is shown that the ratio $`u(x)/s(x)1/2`$ at $`x1`$, and this is different from the quark-diquark model prediction that $`u(x)/s(x)0`$. However, the pQCD based analysis also predicts the positively polarized $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks at large $`x`$ and this is similar to the quark-diquark model prediction. It is interesting that with some adjustment to the parameterizations, the pQCD analysis can also reproduce all available data of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarizations in fragmentations . The pQCD analysis of quark distributions has also been extended to the octet baryons , and predictions on the Drell-Yan proceses involving hyperons have been given. This paper is purposed to study the quark distributions of all octet hyperons through fragmentations, similar to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case .

However, we shall adopt a different set of quark distributions from those used in Ref. . The reason is that the next-to-leading order terms of every quark helicity distributions were introduced in , and this is meaningful only if explicit data is available. The parameters still have large freedom and there is actually less predictive power with such parameters. Here our goal is different, since we want to predict the rough features of the quark distributions, a similar form with no adjustable parameters is enough for this purpose. Therefore we only use the leading terms for quark helicity distributions of the valence quarks

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& q_i^{}(x)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_i}}{B_3}x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1x)^3;\hfill & & \\ & q_i^{}(x)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_i}}{B_5}x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1x)^5,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(10)
with $`i=1,2`$, where $`B_n=B(1/2,n+1)`$ is the $`\beta `$-function defined by $`B(1\alpha ,n+1)=_0^1x^\alpha (1x)^ndx`$ for $`\alpha =1/2`$, and $`B_3=32/35`$ and $`B_5=512/693`$. From (10), we obtain the valence quark normalization for quark $`q_i`$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}N_i=\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_i}+\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_i},& & & & \end{array}$$
(11)
and the corresponding polarized distribution in the $`J^p=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ octet

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\Delta }Q_i& =\hfill & \stackrel{~}{A}_{q_i}\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_i},\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(12)
which can be adjusted from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }s0.3`$, and the Bjorken sum rule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^p\mathrm{\Gamma }^n=\frac{1}{6}(\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }d)=\frac{1}{6}g_A/g_V0.2`$, obtained in polarized DIS experiments . The coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_i}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_i}`$ ($`i=1,2`$) obtained in this way can make the ratio

$$R_A=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_1}}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_2}}$$
(13)
satisfy the $`x1`$ behavior of $`q_1^{}(x)/q_2^{}(x)`$ for a baryon in the SU(6) quark model. However, due to the non-collinearity of the quarks, one cannot expect that the quark helicities will simply sum up to the baryon spin, as the helicity distributions measured on the light-cone are related by the Melosh-Wigner rotation to the ordinary spins of the quarks in the quark model . Furthermore, the coefficients for every baryon are completely connected to each other by the SU(3) symmetry between the octet baryons, which means

$$\begin{array}{cccc}u^p=d^n=u^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=d^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=s^\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=s^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}=\frac{2}{3}u^\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{4}{3}s^\mathrm{\Lambda }=2u^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}=2d^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0};\hfill & & & \\ d^p=u^n=s^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=s^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=d^\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=u^{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}=\frac{4}{3}u^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{3}s^\mathrm{\Lambda }=s^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}.\hfill & & & \end{array}$$
(14)
Therefore there are actually no free parameters in this set of pQCD based quark distributions for the whole set of octet baryons, and the predictive ability of the approach is guaranteed. This set of pQCD quark distributions corresponds to a revised version of case 2 for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in Ref. . Of course, in this paper we are concerned by the $`x1`$ behavior of the valence quark distributions, so that the predictions should be considered to be valid qualitatively rather than quantitatively, and the model can be improved quantitatively by adding higher order terms in the quark distributions . The parameters for quark distributions of octet baryons can be found from Table 2.

Table 2 The parameters for quark distributions of octet baryons in pQCD

| Baryon | $`q_1`$ | $`q_2`$ | $`R_A`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_2`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_1}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_1}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_2}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_2}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| p | u | d | 5 | 0.75 | -0.45 | 1.375 | 0.625 | 0.275 | 0.725 |
| n | d | u | 5 | 0.75 | -0.45 | 1.375 | 0.625 | 0.275 | 0.725 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ | u | s | 5 | 0.75 | -0.45 | 1.375 | 0.625 | 0.275 | 0.725 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ | u(d) | s | $`\frac{5}{2}`$ | 0.375 | -0.45 | 0.6875 | 0.3125 | 0.275 | 0.725 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ | d | s | 5 | 0.75 | -0.45 | 1.375 | 0.625 | 0.275 | 0.725 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ | s | u(d) | $`2`$ | 0.65 | -0.175 | 0.825 | 0.175 | 0.4125 | 0.5875 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ | s | d | $`5`$ | 0.75 | -0.45 | 1.375 | 0.625 | 0.275 | 0.725 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ | s | u | $`5`$ | 0.75 | -0.45 | 1.375 | 0.625 | 0.275 | 0.725 |

## 3 Baryon polarizations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation at two energies

In the standard model of electroweak interactions, the produced quarks and antiquarks should be polarized in the unpolarized $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation process due to the parity-violating coupling of the fermions, and this leads to the polarizations of the baryons (antibaryons) from the decays of the quarks (antiquarks). Therefore we can study the polarized quark to hadron fragmentations by the semi-inclusive production of hadrons in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation .

The polarizations of the initial quarks from $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation are given by

$$P_q=\frac{A_q(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )+B_q\mathrm{cos}\theta }{C_q(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )+D_q\mathrm{cos}\theta },$$
(15)
where

$$A_q=2\chi _2(v_e^2+a_e^2)v_qa_q2e_q\chi _1a_qv_e,$$
(16)
$$B_q=4\chi _2v_ea_e(v_q^2+a_q^2)4e_q\chi _1a_ev_q,$$
(17)
$$C_q=e_q^22\chi _1v_ev_qe_q+\chi _2(a_e^2+v_e^2)(a_q^2+v_q^2),$$
(18)
$$D_q=8\chi _2a_ea_qv_ev_q4\chi _1a_ea_qe_q,$$
(19)
in which

$$\chi _1=\frac{1}{16\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}\frac{s(sM_Z^2)}{(sM_Z^2)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2},$$
(20)
$$\chi _2=\frac{1}{256\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _W}\frac{s^2}{(sM_Z^2)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2},$$
(21)
$$a_e=1$$
(22)
$$v_e=1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W$$
(23)
$$a_q=2T_{3q},$$
(24)
$$v_q=2T_{3q}4e_q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,$$
(25)
where $`T_{3q}=1/2`$ for $`u`$, $`c`$, while $`T_{3q}=1/2`$ for $`d`$, $`s`$, $`b`$ quarks, $`N_c=3`$ is the color number, $`e_q`$ is the charge of the quark in units of the proton charge, $`\theta `$ is the angle between the outgoing quark and the incoming electron, $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle with $`sin^2\theta _W=0.2312`$, and $`M_Z=91.187`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.49`$ GeV are the mass and width of $`Z^0`$ . Averaging over $`\theta `$ for Eq. (15), one obtains $`P_q=0.67`$ for $`q=u`$, $`c`$, $`P_q=0.94`$ for $`q=d`$, $`s`$, and $`b`$, and $`r_{d/u}=C_d/C_u=1.29`$ at the $`Z`$-pole, i.e., the LEP I energy $`\sqrt{s}=91.187`$ GeV. However, at the LEP II energy $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, we can find that the $`\gamma ^{}/Z^0`$ interference should contribute since the terms involving $`\chi _1`$ do not vanish. One obtains, $`P_q=0.29`$ for $`q=u`$, $`c`$, $`P_q=0.71`$ for $`q=d`$, $`s`$, and $`b`$, and $`r_{d/u}=0.61`$, which are different from those at LEP I. We notice that the absolute value of $`P_q`$ decreases with the energy square $`s`$ from LEP I to LEP II, as a result of non-zero $`\chi _1`$.

From the cross section formulae  for the unpolarized and polarized hadron $`h`$ production, we can write the formula for the hadron $`h`$ polarization

$$P_h(\theta )=\frac{\underset{q}{}\left\{A_q(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )[\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z)\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{q}}^h(z)]+B_q\mathrm{cos}\theta [\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z)+\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{q}}^h(z)]\right\}}{\underset{q}{}\left\{C_q(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )[D_q^h(z)+D_{\overline{q}}^h(z)]+D_q\mathrm{cos}\theta [D_q^h(z)+D_{\overline{q}}^h(z)]\right\}}.$$
(26)
By averaging over $`\theta `$ we obtain

$$P_h=\frac{\underset{q}{}A_q[\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z)\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{q}}^h(z)]}{\underset{q}{}C_q[D_q^h(z)+D_{\overline{q}}^h(z)]}.$$
(27)
We now present in Fig. 1 the calculated hadron polarizations for the octet baryons by adopting the Ansatz of Eq. (1) connecting the fragmentation functions with the quark distributions, in both the quark-diquark model and the pQCD based analysis presented in the previous section.

There have been measurements of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-polarization near the $`Z`$-pole , i.e., at LEP I energy, and we have already shown that the predictions of the two models are compatible with the data . At LEP II energy, the predictions for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the two models are also qualitatively similar, as can be seen from Fig. 1(a). Therefore in order to distinguish between the two models we need high precision measurements at large $`z`$. For $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, the predictions for the polarizations in the two models are also close to each other, and a clear distinction between the two models is not easy, although there is some difference between the $`z1`$ behavior for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ in both models. However, we notice from Fig. 1(b)-(d) that the predictions for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s are quite different in the two models, and it is possible to distinguish between them by the qualitative behavior of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ polarizations in the medium to large $`z`$ region. This can be easily understood since the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s have the most significant difference in the flavor and spin structure between the two models in the medium to large $`x`$ region . It is also interesting that our predictions for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ polarizations are in an opposite direction to the predictions by Liu and Liang, based on Monte-Carlo event generators of two different pictures of quark polarizations inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ without a physical mechanism for the $`z`$-dependence, as can be seen by comparing our Fig. 1(c)-(d) with their Fig. 10 .

The different trends for the polarizations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s can be easily understood. The contributions of $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks to the polarization of the produced hadron are of the same order as can be seen from the calculated ratio $`r_{d/u}`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation. In the pQCD based analysis, both the $`s`$ quark and the $`u`$ ($`d`$) quarks for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) are positively polarized inside the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s at large $`x`$, therefore the spin transfer from the initial quarks to the produced hadron is positive. In the quark-diquark model, the $`s`$ quarks inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s are negatively polarized, and their distribution is big in the medium to large $`x`$ region; but the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are positively polarized and dominant at $`x1`$, as can be seen from Figs. 3-4 in Ref. , and therefore the contribution from the $`s`$ quark causes a decrease in the spin transfer from all initial quarks in the medium to large $`z`$ region. However, in the analysis based on Monte-Carlo event generators , the $`s`$ quark contribution to the hadron fragmentation is dominant at $`z>0.5`$ so that the spin of the produced $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s comes from the initial $`s`$ quarks, which are negatively polarized inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s in their inputs, therefore the produced $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s should be negatively polarized in comparison to the quark polarization. We know that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ polarizations can be measured in experiments  and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ fragmentations can also be measured in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation . Therefore there should be no problem to measure the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation with the available experimental technique, and this can provide a sensitive test of the above different predictions.

Nevertheless, in both the pQCD based analysis and the quark-diquark model, the $`s`$ quarks inside $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$’s are positively polarized, and they contribute dominantly to the polarizations of the produced $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$’s at large $`z`$. This is also true in the Monte-Carlo analysis, and we thus arrive at the same conclusion as Liu and Liang  that there is little theoretical uncertainty to predict the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ polarizations at large $`z`$, as can be seen from our Fig. 1(e)-(f) and Fig. 10 in . But there are still quantitative difference in the predictions and high precision measurements can tell the difference. This implies that the polarizations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s produced in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation can provide clearer information to distinguish between the quark contributions to the hadron fragmentation from different flavors than the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$’s, therefore the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ polarizations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation deserve experimental attention.

## 4 Baryon polarizations in polarized charged lepton DIS process

We now look at the spin transfers for a hadron $`h`$ production in polarized charged lepton DIS process. For a longitudinally polarized charged lepton beam and an unpolarized nucleon target, the longitudinal spin transfer to the fragmented hadron $`h`$ is given in the quark parton model by

$$A^h(x,z)=\frac{\underset{q}{}e_q^2[q^N(x,Q^2)\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z,Q^2)+(q\overline{q})]}{\underset{q}{}e_q^2[q^N(x,Q^2)D_q^h(z,Q^2)+(q\overline{q})]}.$$
(28)
Here $`y=\nu /E`$, $`x=Q^2/2M_N\nu `$, and $`z=E_h/\nu `$, where $`q^2=Q^2`$ is the squared four-momentum transfer of the virtual photon, $`M_N`$ is the proton mass, and $`\nu `$, $`E`$, and $`E_h`$ are the energies of the virtual photon, the target nucleon, and the produced hadron $`h`$ respectively, in the target rest frame; $`q^N(x,Q^2)`$ is the quark distribution for the quark $`q`$ in the target nucleon, $`D_q^h(z,Q^2)`$ is the fragmentation function for $`h`$ production from quark $`q`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z,Q^2)`$ is the corresponding longitudinal spin-dependent fragmentation function, and $`e_q`$ is the quark charge in units of the elementary charge $`e`$. For $`\overline{h}`$ production the spin transfer $`A^{\overline{h}}(x,z)`$ is obtained from Eq. (28) by replacing hadron $`h`$ by anti-hadron $`\overline{h}`$. The $`h`$ and $`\overline{h}`$ fragmentation functions are related since we can safely assume matter-antimatter symmetry, i.e., $`D_{q,\overline{q}}^h(z)=D_{\overline{q},q}^{\overline{h}}(z)`$ and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{q,\overline{q}}^h(z)`$.

Recently, the HERMES Collaboration at DESY reported the preliminary result of the longitudinal spin transfer to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in polarized positron DIS on the proton . The E665 Collaboration at FNAL also measured the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ spin transfers from muon DIS , and they observed very different behaviour for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ polarizations, which might be related to the quark/antiquark asymmetry of the nucleon sea either in the fragmentation functions or in the distribution functions of the target . The available data are consistent with both the quark-diquark model and the pQCD based analysis for the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions , and this again supports the use of the Gribov-Lipatov relation as an Ansatz to connect fragmentation functions with distribution functions. In this section we only discuss the contribution from valence quarks in the fragmentation functions, and therefore the predictions should be only reasonable qualitatively at large $`z`$.

We extend our analysis of the spin transfers for the octet baryons and present our results in Figs. 2-3, where the spin transfers for baryons and anti-baryons are given respectively. There is no much difference between the two figures since the integrated $`x`$ range of the target quark distributions is $`0.020.4`$ where both quarks and antiquarks are important. From Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 we notice that the predictions of the spin transfers are very similar between the pQCD based analysis and the quark-diquark model for most baryons and anti-baryons, except for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ and $`n`$ where the spin transfers might be negative at medium $`z`$ in the quark-diquark model. This can be easily understood since the dominant fragmentation chains contributing to this behavior are $`u\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ and $`un`$ as the $`u`$ quarks should be negatively polarized at $`x1`$ inside $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ and $`n`$, and the square charge factor of the $`u`$ quarks is $`4/9`$ compared to $`1/9`$ for the $`d`$ quarks. Also the larger number of $`u`$ quarks inside the proton target amplifies this negative contribution. We propose to measure the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ transfer in the polarized DIS process to check the two different predictions, as the experimental technique for measuring $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ polarization is also well developed .

## 5 Baryon polarizations in neutrino/antineutrino DIS process

One advantage of neutrino (antineutrino) process is that the scattering of a neutrino beam on a hadronic target provides a source of polarized quarks with specific flavor structure, and this particular property makes the neutrino (antineutrino) process an ideal laboratory to study the flavor-dependence of quark to hadron fragmentation functions, especially in the polarized case . For the production of any hadron $`h`$ from neutrino and antineutrino DIS processes, the longitudinal polarizations of $`h`$ in its momentum direction, for $`h`$ in the current fragmentation region can be expressed as ,

$$P_\nu ^h(x,y,z)=\frac{[d(x)+\varpi s(x)]\mathrm{\Delta }D_u^h(z)(1y)^2\overline{u}(x)[\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{d}}^h(z)+\varpi \mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{s}}^h(z)]}{[d(x)+\varpi s(x)]D_u^h(z)+(1y)^2\overline{u}(x)[D_{\overline{d}}^h(z)+\varpi D_{\overline{s}}^h(z)]},$$
(29)
$$P_{\overline{\nu }}^h(x,y,z)=\frac{(1y)^2u(x)[\mathrm{\Delta }D_d^h(z)+\varpi \mathrm{\Delta }D_s^h(z)][\overline{d}(x)+\varpi \overline{s}(x)]\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{u}}^h(z)}{(1y)^2u(x)[D_d^h(z)+\varpi D_s^h(z)]+[\overline{d}(x)+\varpi \overline{s}(x)]D_{\overline{u}}^h(z)},$$
(30)
where the terms with the factor $`\varpi =\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _c/\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _c`$ ($`\theta _c`$ is the Cabibbo angle) represent Cabibbo suppressed contributions. We have neglected the charm contributions both in the target and in hadron $`h`$. The detailed $`x`$-, $`y`$-, and $`z`$\- dependencies can provide more information concerning the various fragmentation functions. As a special case, the $`y`$-dependence can be simply removed by integrating over the appropriate energy range and we can also integrate the $`x`$-dependence to increase the statistics in experimental data treatments.

In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case there is an interchange symmetry between the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks: $`ud`$, which in general is not present for other hadrons. After considering the symmetries between different quark to hadron and anti-hadron fragmentation functions , there should be 8 independent fragmentation functions which can be measured in neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process for each hadron $`h`$,

$$D_u^h,D_{\overline{u}}^h,D_d^h+\varpi D_s^h,D_{\overline{d}}^h+\varpi D_{\overline{s}}^h,$$
(31)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D_u^h,\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{u}}^h,\mathrm{\Delta }D_d^h+\varpi \mathrm{\Delta }D_s^h,\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{d}}^h+\varpi \mathrm{\Delta }D_{\overline{s}}^h.$$
(32)
Different combinations of unpolarized and polarized $`h`$ and $`\overline{h}`$ productions in neutrino and antineutrino processes, and choices of specific kinematics regions with different $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$, can measure the above fragmentation functions efficiently. Unlike the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case where the $`ud`$ symmetry can be used , it is not possible to separate the $`d`$ and $`s`$ quark fragmentation functions for any hadron $`h`$ due to the Cabibbo mixing. However, in combination with the flavor dependence of fragmentation functions in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation and polarized charged lepton DIS process, it should be possible to extract the various $`d`$ and $`s`$ quark fragmentation functions, provided the accuracy of the data is high enough. Another advantage of the neutrino (antineutrino) processes is that the antiquark to hadron fragmentation can also be conveniently extracted, and this can be compared to specific predictions concerning the antiquark polarizations inside baryons.

In Figs. 4-11 we present our predictions for the hadron and anti-hadron polarizations of the octet baryons in neutrino and anti-neutrino DIS processes. Some precision data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production have been taken by the NOMAD neutrino beam experiment , and our predictions for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in both the pQCD based analysis and the quark-diquark model, as presented in Fig. 4(a), has been proved to be supported by the preliminary data. Notice that another work  predicted quite different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization compared to ours. Thus our knowledge of the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions is improving. In principle, the polarizations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and their anti-hadron partners can be also measured by the NOMAD collaboration, therefore we can systematically study the flavor decomposition of various quark to octet baryon fragmentation functions. This will enrich our knowledge on the fragmentation functions and the detailed quark structure of octet baryons.

Now we look only at the contributions from the valence quarks, shown in Figs. 4-11 as solid curves for the pQCD based analysis and dashed curves for the quark-diquark model. We find that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ have significant different predictions between the two models, as can be seen from Fig. 6(b) and (c) for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, and from Fig. 8(a) and (d) for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$. The difference can be understood as follows. For the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ production in $`\overline{\nu }`$ DIS, we can see from Eq. (30) that only the $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks contribute, whereas inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ only the $`s`$ valence quark contributes. The $`s`$ quark is positive polarized at large $`x`$ in the pQCD based analysis, whereas it is negatively polarized in the quark-diquark model. This gives opposite trends of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ polarizations at large $`z`$ in the two models. This discussion can also be extended to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ in $`\nu `$ DIS as shown in Fig. 6(c). For the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ production in $`\nu `$ DIS, as can be seen from Eq. (29), only the $`u`$ quarks contribute and the $`u`$ valence quarks inside $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ are positively polarized in the pQCD based analysis at large $`x`$ whereas it is negatively polarized in the quark-diquark model. This gives different trends of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ polarizations at large $`z`$ between the two models, and a similar discussion applies to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0`$ production in $`\overline{\nu }`$ DIS as shown in Fig. 8(d). Thus the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ polarizations in neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process can test different predictions between the pQCD based analysis and the quark-diquark model.

We now look at Fig. 10(b),(c) and Fig. 11(a), (d), and find that a similar discussion also applies to the nucleon. This means that measuring the nucleon polarizations in the neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process, for example $`p`$ polarization in $`\overline{\nu }`$ DIS, can provide a good test for the different predictions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d=1/3`$ at large $`x`$ in the quark-diquark model  and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d=1`$ at $`x1`$ in the pQCD based analysis .

We also notice that there are no valence quark contributions to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ productions in $`\nu `$ DIS process, and similarly for the productions of their anti-baryon partners, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^+`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$, in $`\overline{\nu }`$ DIS process. This means that the above channels are the most suitable in order to study the contributions from antiquarks to the fragmentation functions. In order to show the sensitivity to the sea quark content of the octet baryons, we adopt the two scenarios of sea quark distributions in Ref.  for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and simply assume that the sea is the same for all octet baryons. This assumption is surely not correct, but our knowledge of the sea quark distributions inside hyperons is rather poor at the moment. From another point of view, the Gribov-Lipatov relation Eq. (1) should be only valid at large $`z`$, and we should consider our method as a phenomenological way to parameterize the quark (antiquark) to baryon fragmentations in the small $`z`$ region. Therefore we should not rely strongly on the predictions for the sea quark content of the hyperons, and our purpose is only to show that the results are rather sensitive to different scenarios of the sea quarks. Scenario I of the sea quarks corresponds to asymmetric quark-antiquark helicity distributions, and scenario II corresponds to a symmetric case, and the predictions including the sea contributions together with the valence quarks in the pQCD based analysis are shown as dotted curves (thin curves for scenario I and thick curves for scenario II) in Figs. 4-11. From Figs. 7(a) and 9(a) we find that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ polarizations are rather sensitive to the different scenarios and therefore a measure of these polarizations in $`\nu `$ DIS process can provide important information concerning the contributions from antiquark to hyperon fragmentations. We also notice that the sea contributions also play an important role in hyperon productions of neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process, as can be seen from Figs. 4-11. Thus neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process is a sensitive place to study the sea quark content of hyperons, although this requires high precision data.

## 6 Summary and Conclusion

In this paper we systematically extend our study of the spin and flavor structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, to all other hyperons of the octet baryons, by considering quark fragmentation in three different processes. The predictions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ longitudinal polarizations in both the quark-diquark model and pQCD based analysis, have been proved to be supported by the available data for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production in the three processes: $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation, polarized charged lepton DIS, and neutrino (antineutrino) DIS. We presented in this paper the predictions of the hyperon longitudinal polarizations for the octet baryons obtained by fragmentation in the above three processes, and suggested sensitive tests to check the different predictions. We find that the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation provides a new direction to test different predictions. The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ polarization in polarized charged lepton DIS process on the proton target can also test the different predictions between the pQCD based analysis and the quark-diquark model. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ polarizations in neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process can test the different predictions concerning the valence structure of the hyperons, whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ polarizations are suitable to study the antiquark to hyperon fragmentations. The predictions of this paper are supposed to be valid qualitatively rather than quantitatively, and the difference in the predictions can be understood by clear physical pictures which can be tested explicitly by various methods. We expect that systematic studies on the various hyperon fragmentations, both theoretical and experimental, will enrich our knowledge of the quark to hadron fragmentations and of the quark structure of the octet baryons.

Acknowledgments:  This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Numbers 19975052 and 19875024, by Fondecyt (Chile) postdoctoral fellowship 3990048, by the cooperation programmes Ecos-Conicyt and CNRS- Conicyt between France and Chile, and by Fondecyt (Chile) grant 1990806 and 8000017, and by a Cátedra Presidencial (Chile).


text:
# BEAM LOADING COMPENSATION IN THE MAIN LINAC OF CLIC

## 1 Introduction

Multi-bunch beam loading is a strong effect in the main linac of CLIC. It needs to be compensated with help of the RF to avoid extreme variations of the beam energy along the pulse. Several approaches to solve the problem exist. All of them are based on manipulations of the drive beam which generates the RF power.

The first possibility is to reduce the bunch charge in the first part of the drive-beam pulse . In this scheme, the first bunch has about $`70\%`$ of the nominal charge. The charge is then slowly increased from one bunch to the next until it reaches the nominal value. This charge ramp creates a ramp in the RF voltage. By carefully shaping the charge ramp, one can achieve beam-loading compensation. In principle, this compensation can be perfect. However, it may be very difficult to control the bunch charge with the required precision so as to achieve the required compensation of the gradient variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G_010^3`$ ($`G_0`$ is the nominal gradient).

Another method is described in reference . It achieves $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G_02\times 10^3`$. It requires additional hardware and may compromise the stability of the drive beam in the decelerator.

In a third option, presented in this paper, one creates a ramp in the current of the drive-beam pulse comparable to the first option. But instead of varying the bunch charge, one varies the number of bunches per unit length of the pulse. This can be achieved by modifying the drive beam in the drive-beam injector . To understand this, it is necessary to understand the drive-beam generation, which is described below.

## 2 The Drive-Beam Generation

The drive beam is produced and accelerated at a frequency of about $`937\mathrm{MHz}`$. In the injector of the drive-beam linac, one has a sub-harmonic buncher which can be switched to fill either odd or even buckets. In the drive-beam accelerator, the beam then consists of short trains of bunches that fill every second bucket. The first train fills the odd buckets, the immediately following second train fills the even ones, and this pattern is then repeated . The current in the drive-beam accelerator, and consequently the beam loading, therefore remains constant. After acceleration, the trains are separated using an RF-deflector running at half the linac frequency. The first train is deflected into a delay loop and merged with the second one in a second RF-deflector, see Fig. 1. The newly created pulses are separated by gaps that allow conventional deflectors to be switched on and off.

They are sent into two combiner rings . These rings have a circumference equal to the distance between two pulses plus (or minus) a quarter wavelength. This allows to merge four pulses to form a single one, using an RF-deflector. The new pulse has four times as many bunches as each of the initial ones, with a distance between the bunches that is four times smaller. The bunches comprising the four pulses have been inter-leaved by this operation so that the first bunch of each of the initial pulses is one of the first four of the final pulse.

The first ring is followed by a second one, four times larger, which merges four of the pulses of the first ring. At the end, the bunch-to-bunch distance has been reduced from the initial $`64\mathrm{cm}`$ to only $`2\mathrm{cm}`$. In the following, each $`64\mathrm{cm}`$ long section of the beam pulse is called a bin and it contains 32 bunches. The bunches that were in the first bin of each initial train are in the first bin of the final pulse. The bunches that were in the second bin of an initial pulse are in the second bin of the final pulse, and so on.

## 3 Delayed Switching

In order to create a current ramp in the final pulse, the first few bins of this pulse must contain a smaller number of bunches than nominal. This in turn requires that some of the pulses after the delay loop have less than the nominal two bunches per bin. This can be achieved by delaying the switching of the sub-harmonic buncher. The effect of the nominal switching is illustrated in the upper part of Fig. 2. The two trains before the delay loop and the pulse after this loop are shown. In the delay loop, the bunches of the first train are delayed by one nominal train length. In the lower part of the figure, the sub-harmonic buncher is switched slightly later. The bunch that, in the nominal scheme, would have been the first one of the second train is therefore appended to the first train. The second train starts one bunch later than nominal. As a consequence, the pulse after the delay loop contains only one bunch in the first bin. The last bunch of the first train is appenended after at the end of the pulse.

The additional tail of the pulse creates no problem in the combiner ring, as long as the distance to the first bin of the next pulse is long enough to switch the ejection kickers of the rings on and off. In the drive-beam decelerator, the additional tail is not important, since it will just add a little tail to the RF-pulse produced in the power extraction and transfer structures (PETS).

The switching time can be individually chosen for each train, so a rather fine ramp in the final pulse can be created. This solution does not require any additional hardware; one must only be able to switch the sub-harmonic buncher at non-regular intervals.

## 4 Numerical Results

To achieve beam-loading compensation in the CLIC main linac, 11 of the 32 initial trains need to be delayed in the drive-beam linac. The maximum delay necessary is 11 bins. The gradient seen by the main-linac bunches can be simulated with ASTPC . In this program, the transient effects in the PETS of the drive-beam decelerator, as well as in the main-linac accelerating structures are taken into account. Each structure is represented by a series of reflectors that are located at the cell boundaries. This makes it possible to simulate precisely the beam acceleration in the time domain.

The gradient errors depend on which of the trains are delayed. To find a good choice, a number of different delay patterns was created randomly. These were evaluated with the program and the best case was accepted. For this case, Fig. 3 shows the RF-pulse as it is produced by the PETS. This pulse leads to a bunch-to-bunch gradient error in the main linac that remains below $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G_0=5\times 10^4`$, see Fig. 4. This is better than the required precision of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G_010^3`$.

The method described achieves a constant amplitude of the accelerating field in the main linac. The main beam is, however, not accelerated on the crest of the RF wave, but at a small phase in the main part of the linac, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{RF}=6^{}`$. At the end of the acceleration, this phase is even larger, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{RF}=30^{}`$. Since the amplitude is increased in the RF phase and the beam loading is in phase with the beam, this leads to an effective phase shift of the total accelerating field during the first part of the main-linac pulse. In order to prevent this, one can think of shifting the delayed trains before they are merged with the other ones. The shift has to be such that the bunches are in phase with the main beam. In this case, not only the amplitude but also the acceleration phase is maintained.

## 5 Simulation of the Drive Beam

To estimate the impact of the beam-loading compensation on the stability of the drive beam in the decelerator, simulations are performed using PLACET . A lattice is chosen in which each six-waveguide structure feeds three main linac structures.

As a measure of the stability, the maximum amplification of an initial jitter is used, which is determined as follows: in the simulation, each bunch is cut into slices. The beam is offset and then tracked through the decelerator. The maximum offset that the centre of any slice reaches, divided by the initial offset, is the maximum amplification. Figure 5 shows this amplification of a transverse jitter along the drive-beam decelerator. If no transverse wakefields were present, the final amplification factor would be $`A=\sqrt{10}`$ from the adiabatic undamping of the motion. As can be seen, a rectangular current pulse (case 1) is close to this case. The bunch ramp increases the amplification somewhat (case 2). This seems tolerable. Most of the effect is due to the trailing bunches.

If the delayed trains are shifted in phase, so as to prevent phase shift of the acceleration field, the wakefield effects in the drive-beam decelerator may become worse. The simulation shows that also in this case, the jitter amplification is almost the same as without the shift; they could not be distinguished in the plot. The method therefore seems to be practical. But other methods, such as a slow phase change along the train, might achieve the same result.

## 6 Application to CTF3

Delayed switching could also be used in CTF3, the new CLIC Test Facility, which will be constructed at CERN. In this case, the switching time will be longer, about $`4\mathrm{ns}`$. Since only ten pulses are merged to form the drive beam, one only delays three of them. Again, different cases were searched for an optimum. The achieved compensation is very good, about $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G_01.2\times 10^3`$, see Fig. 6.

## 7 Conclusion

The method presented, to compensate the beam loading in the main linac, achieves the required precision of better than one part in 1000. It is very simple, can be adjusted to different switching times, and requires no additional hardware. It seems to be the method of choice for CLIC.


text:
# Kinetic Capacity of a Protein

## Abstract

The ability of a protein to recognise multiple independent target conformations was demonstrated in . Here we consider the recognition of correlated configurations, which we apply to funnel design for a single conformation. The maximum basin of attraction, as parametrised in our model, depends on the number of amino acid species as $`\mathrm{ln}A`$, independent of protein length. We argue that the extent to which the protein energy landscape can be manipulated is fixed, effecting a trade-off between well breadth, well depth and well number. This clarifies the scope and limits of protein and heteropolymer function.

87.14.Ee 36.20.Ey 87.15.Aa 87.15He

It is believed that a stable, fast folding protein requires an energy landscape in which the native conformation is both a deep global minimum and lies at the bottom of a basin of attraction sloping towards it . These conditions are known as thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility, respectively. While stability may be readily achieved by suppressing the energy of the sequence arranged in the target conformation, constructing a broad funnel leading towards the target has remained elusive.

The first satisfactory method of protein design, introduced by Shakhnovich in 1994 , relies on the correlation between stability and accessibility: stable sequences are found to fold more quickly as well. Minimising the energy or relative energy over sequence space while the conformation remains quenched to the target  yields protein sequences which fold much more rapidly than random heteropolymers of equal length. We have provided evidence, nonetheless, that the most stable sequences are not the fastest folding, and that a reduction in stability allows significant gain in efficiency .

In this Letter we investigate the introduction of a folding funnel above the target conformation in the protein energy landscape . Our method of design relies on the technique of training to multiple targets discussed in . Unlike the independent conformations previously considered, here our patterns are correlated to a single target conformation. We find that the extent of the optimal folding funnel, as parameterised by our model, is smaller than the conformational space and depends on the number of amino acid species available. The influence of alphabet size on the folding performance of untrained sequences is considered in .

Our approach to funnel design is to turn off all the monomer interactions (equivalent to an interacting system at infinite temperature) and to consider the dynamics by which a protein would then spontaneously unfold from the target state into a random ensemble. By the principle of detailed balance in equilibrium statistical mechanics, the ensemble of unfolding trajectories from the target state to random conformations is equivalent to the ensemble of folding trajectories from random configurations to the target — but of course the former ensemble is much more easily sampled. Therefore, observations of unfolding will tell us how the molecule would with least dynamical constraint fold.

We provide estimates of the unfolding contact map based on a blob model of unfolding. This is motivated by thermodynamic tractability and its basis in established polymer physics, despite its at times unrealistic representation of kinetics. It leads to a definite proposal as to how different stages in the unfolding contact map should be weighted in training so as to create an optimal funnel.

We find, however, that training to the ideal folding funnel cannot be achieved. Remarkably, the bound on funnel size (in terms of a relaxation length scale) is identical to the thermodynamic capacity derived in . Taken together, our results suggest that the extent to which the protein energy landscape can be manipulated — whether it be by the introduction of multiple independent minima, well depth or well breadth (or a combination thereof) — is limited and proportional to the $`\mathrm{log}`$ of the number of amino acid species.

Generalisation to Weighted Training In a separate Letter  we investigated the design of multi-stable proteins by training to a uniform superposition of contact maps. The typical well depth of a protein of length $`N`$ embedded in one of the target conformations was found to be

$$E_\mu ^{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{\frac{z^{}}{p}}N\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{ln}A}.$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is the number of amino acid species, $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation of the interaction energies and $`z^{}=z2`$ is the effective coordination number, i.e., the maximum number of local contacts excluding the backbone. After training to a weighted superposition of contact maps, we expect conformations associated with higher weights to have deeper wells. The derivation of the precise dependence follows.

The total contact map is defined by summing over the individual maps with suitable weights,

$$C_{\mathrm{tot}_{ij}}=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}w_\mu C_{\mu _{ij}},$$
(2)
where $`w_\mu `$ is the weight associated with conformation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$. The minimum Hamiltonian associated with the total weighted contact map is

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_{\mathrm{tot}_{ij}}\stackrel{~}{U}_{ij}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}w_\mu C_{\mu _{ij}}\stackrel{~}{U}_{ij}^{}.$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$ minimises $`H_{\mathrm{tot}}`$.

By analogy with calculations in , we re-express (3) as a sum over $`H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}`$, each minimised by the choice of $`S_i`$,

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{min}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{S_i}{\mathrm{min}}[H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}],$$
(4)
where $`H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}`$ is the sum over connections to monomer $`i`$,

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}w_\mu C_{\mu _{ij}}\stackrel{~}{U}_{ij}.$$
(5)
The local Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}`$ is simply a weighted sum of the independent local conformational energies,

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{p}{}}w_\mu E_{\mu _i}.$$
(6)
Proceeding as in , we approximate the distribution of $`H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}`$ by its central limit form; it is a gaussian with variance $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2=\frac{z^{}}{2}\sigma ^2_{\mu =1}^pw_\mu ^2.`$ This estimation is valid out to $`|H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}|`$ $``$ $`\frac{z^{}}{2}\sigma _{\mu =1}^pw_\mu `$.

We now consider $`H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}`$ in (6) as a sum of two terms,

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}=w_\mu E_{\mu _i}+\underset{\nu =1,\nu \mu }{\overset{p}{}}w_\nu E_{\nu _i}=H_{\mu _i}+H_{\mathrm{oth}_i}.$$
(7)
Since $`H_{\mu _i}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{oth}_i}`$ are independently gaussianly distributed with variances

$$\sigma _{\mu _i}^2=\frac{z^{}\sigma ^2}{2}w_\mu ^2\mathrm{and}\sigma _{\mathrm{oth}_i}^2=\frac{z^{}\sigma ^2}{2}\underset{\nu =1,\nu \mu }{\overset{p}{}}w_\nu ^2,$$
(8)
the distribution of $`H_{\mu _i}`$ for fixed $`H_{\mu _i}+H_{\mathrm{oth}_i}=H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ reduces to

$$f(H_{\mu _i}|H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}^{\mathrm{min}})c\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2}{2\sigma _{\mu _i}^2\sigma _{\mathrm{oth}_i}^2}(H_{\mu _i}\frac{\sigma _{\mu _i}^2}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2}H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}^{\mathrm{min}})^2\right),$$
(9)
where $`c`$ is a normalising constant and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2=\sigma _{\mu _i}^2+\sigma _{\mathrm{oth}_i}^2`$. The value of $`H_{\mu _i}`$ of maximum likelihood from (9) is given by

$$H_{\mu _i}^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\sigma _{\mu _i}^2}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2}H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}^{\mathrm{min}},$$
(10)
which reduces to

$$H_{\mu _i}^{\mathrm{min}}=w_\mu E_{\mu _i}^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{w_\mu ^2}{_{\mu =1}^pw_\mu ^2}H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}^{\mathrm{min}}.$$
(11)
The minimum local Hamiltonian corresponds to the smallest of $`A`$ samples from the distribution of $`H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}`$. We approximate the minimum of $`A`$ samples from a gaussian of zero mean and standard deviation $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}`$ by

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}^{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{2}\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}A}.$$
(12)
Substituting (12) into (11) and summing over $`i`$ yields

$$E_\mu ^{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{z^{}}N\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{ln}A}\frac{w_\mu }{\left(_{\mu =1}^pw_\mu ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
(13)
This establishes how the minimised Hamiltonian distributes over the individual weighted configurations; for the special case of equal weights it duly reduces to (1).

Blob Model of Unfolding It is a well known trend in polymer physics that the larger scale features of molecular conformations have systematically longer relaxation times. For example, for non-interacting chains with simple kink-jump dynamics, a subsection of $`g`$ monomer units has relaxation time $`\tau (g)`$ proportional to $`g^2`$ . On this basis we assume that after time $`t`$, a spontaneously unfolding polymer will have equilibrated locally up to scale $`g`$, such that $`\tau (g)=t`$, but still reflect the folded conformation on larger scales.

This blob view of proteins, that time scales relate uniformly to length scales, is of course a particular and simplified outlook, motivated by its tractability. Complications which we do not address here include spatially localised nucleation events and specific configurational bottlenecks. Nevertheless, it allows us to make some quantitative predictions about the limits of the basin of attraction, which has long proved to be evasive.

The folded protein, which we assume to be compact and associate with $`g=1`$, consists of $`N`$ single monomer blobs. The contact map $`C(1)`$ has $`z^{}`$ non-zero entries in each row and column, $`z^{}N`$ non-zero entries in total.

For the state unfolded up to length scale $`g`$, the protein may be thought of as a chain of $`\frac{N}{g}`$ blobs, folded to its coarse grained original conformation. Accordingly, the contact map $`C(g)`$ has $`\frac{N}{g}`$ intra-blob blocks along the diagonal and $`\frac{z^{}N}{g}`$ inter-blob blocks corresponding to nearest neighbour blobs (not along the backbone). Scaling theories for polymer configurations with excluded volume would imply that the average total number of contacts between two neighbouring blobs be of order unity. Averaging over an ensemble of conformations at constant $`g`$, this requires that each of the $`g^2`$ entries for each blob be of order $`\frac{1}{g^2}`$.

The total number of conformations (compact or otherwise) available to a protein grows as $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^N`$  (not to be confused with $`\kappa 1.85`$  for compact structures only); this becomes $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^{\frac{N}{g}}`$ for a chain of $`\frac{N}{g}`$ blobs. Since the product of the internal and external conformational freedoms of a partially relaxed protein must equal $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^N`$, a protein relaxed to length scale $`g`$ can be estimated to take on $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^{(N\frac{N}{g})}`$ configurations. It follows that the entropy gained in folding from a denatured configuration down to a conformation relaxed to length scale $`g`$ is

$$S(g)=k_B\frac{N}{g}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }.$$
(14)
Training to a Funnel While an energy minimum significantly below the minimum copolymer energy ensures thermodynamic stability of the target conformation, rapid convergence necessitates a funnel of kinetic pathways sloping towards the target. The widest possible funnel is that which least constrains the dynamics, which we propose is given by the conformations sampled in unfolding via the blob model. We thus consider combining the contact maps from different times (and values of $`g`$) of a noninteracting, spontaneously unfolding compact conformation with weights $`w(g)`$,

$$C_{\mathrm{tot}_{ij}}=\underset{\mathrm{ln}g=1}{\overset{\mathrm{ln}N}{}}w(g)C_{ij}(g).$$
(15)
The minimum Hamiltonian associated with the total contact map then appears as

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{\mathrm{ln}g=1}{\overset{\mathrm{ln}N}{}}w(g)C_{ij}(g)\stackrel{~}{U}_{ij}^{},$$
(16)
analogous to (3). The total Hamiltonian associated with monomer $`i`$ is the sum of the individual local Hamiltonians evaluated at different values of $`g`$,

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}^{\mathrm{min}}=\underset{\mathrm{ln}g=1}{\overset{\mathrm{ln}N}{}}H_i^{\mathrm{min}}(g),$$
(17)
where $`H(g)=w(g)E(g)`$. In accordance with our previous calculation, we require $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2`$. We first estimate the variance in the choice of $`H(g)`$ available to a single monomer as

$$\sigma _{g_i}^2\frac{z^{}g}{2}\left(\frac{w(g)}{g^2}\right)^2\sigma ^2,$$
(18)
where $`\frac{z^{}g}{2}`$ is the number of contacts available to a given monomer equilibrated to scale $`g`$ and $`\frac{w(g)}{g^2}`$ is the overall weighting for each one. The variance of the local energy per monomer integrated over all $`g`$ is then

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2\underset{\mathrm{ln}g=1}{\overset{\mathrm{ln}N}{}}\sigma _{g_i}^2\frac{z^{}\sigma ^2}{2}_e^N\frac{dg}{g}g\frac{w^2(g)}{g^4}.$$
(19)
Again we wish to establish how the minimised Hamiltonian distributes over weighted configurations unfolded to length scale $`g`$. Applying the general result (10) yields

$$H_i^{\mathrm{min}}(g)w(g)E_i^{\mathrm{min}}(g)\frac{\sigma _{g_i}^2}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2}H_{\mathrm{tot}_i}^{\mathrm{min}}.$$
(20)
Substituting (12) and (18) into (20) and summing over $`i`$, the minimum energy associated with matching the conformation at scale $`g`$ can then be estimated as

$$E^{\mathrm{min}}(g)\frac{z^{}}{\sqrt{2}}N\sigma ^2\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}A}\frac{w(g)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}g^3}.$$
(21)
In order that the training reverse the unfolding dynamics, the required funnel must have sufficient slope, that is, $`F(g)=E(g)TS(g)<0`$. Equating the two expressions $`T\times `$ (14) and (21) gives

$$w(g)\frac{\sqrt{2}k_BT\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}}{z^{}\sigma ^2\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}A}}g^2,$$
(22)
and thus $`w(g)g^2`$. Unfortunately this form for $`w`$ is inconsistent with a convergent ($`N`$-independent) evaluation of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}`$ in (19). Our assumption that the training energy could reverse the unfolding dynamics does not hold for all values of $`g`$.

We consequently introduce the cutoff scale $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$, up to which our funnel extends. Substituting (22) into (19) and reducing the domain of integration yields

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2\frac{(k_BT)^2\mathrm{ln}^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}{z^{}\sigma ^2\mathrm{ln}A}\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}_i}^2_e^{g_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑g,$$
(23)
from which it follows that

$$g_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{z^{}\sigma ^2\mathrm{ln}A}{(k_BT)^2\mathrm{ln}^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}.$$
(24)
The width of our funnel, as parametrised by $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$ above, increases strongly as folding temperature $`T`$ decreases. At too low a temperature, however, the coil will collapse as a random copolymer into what we presume to be a glassy state. The loss in entropy resulting from collapse will be equivalent to $``$(14) evaluated at $`g=1`$ (the collapsed copolymer will be fully folded). The modest decrease in energy afforded by the minimum copolymer energy can overcome this entropic loss only at low temperature $`T_{\mathrm{cp}}`$. Equating the minimum copolymer energy $`E_{\mathrm{cp}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ from $`(7)`$ in  and $`T_{\mathrm{cp}}`$ times the loss in entropy $``$(14)$`|_{g=1}`$ leads to

$$k_BT_{\mathrm{cp}}\sigma \frac{\sqrt{z^{}\mathrm{ln}\kappa }}{\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }},$$
(25)
and hence at $`TT_{\mathrm{cp}}`$,

$$g_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}A}{\mathrm{ln}\kappa },$$
(26)
which is identical to the form of $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ derived in .

Discussion of Capacity That the bound on the folding funnel $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is less than $`N`$ implies the extent of the achievable folding funnel is less than the conformational space of the protein. Folding at finite temperature cannot be made as direct as unfolding at infinite temperature. The cutoff $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the length scale of the structure below which the energy landscape corresponding to the trained sequence is characterised by a funnel. Above $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the protein must organise itself into the desired (coarse grained) conformation without the help of kinetic guidance, that is, it must traverse an effective copolymer landscape (Figure 1). What happens to the protein energy landscape upon increasing the width of the funnel? As $`gg_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the slope of the funnel becomes sufficiently shallow such that, at $`g=g_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the decrease in energy no longer overcomes the loss of entropy (Figure 2); the well ceases to be a free energy minimum.

Consider the protein as a sequence of $`N/g_{\mathrm{max}}`$ blobs, each of size $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The benefit of the funnel is realised once the chain of blobs folds to its coarse grained target state. Assuming this statistical bottleneck to be the rate determining step, the time necessary for the protein to fold is reduced by the factor $`\kappa ^{(11/g_{\mathrm{max}})N}`$, which is significant even for small values of $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

Manipulation of the Energy Landscape In both the thermodynamic  and kinetic contexts, the extent to which the protein energy landscape can be manipulated is limited by $`\frac{\mathrm{ln}A}{\mathrm{ln}\kappa }`$, where $`A`$ is the number of amino acid species and $`\kappa `$ is the compact conformational freedom per monomer. Like squeezing one end of a balloon at the expense of inflating the other, further deformation of the energy landscape is counter-balanced by its relaxation elsewhere.

The agreement between the bounds on protein memory, on the one hand, and the basin of attraction, on the other, was unexpected. Taken together, these results suggest that the engineering of proteins and heteropolymers is constrained by a fixed budget. The finite freedom in the sequence can be invested in various attributes: in well number, well breadth and well depth. A reduction in expenditure in one allows increased investment in another.

In particular, our results suggest that thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility, while correlated over a significant region, are in conflict near the extremes of either; maximally stable sequences are not the fastest folding and the fastest folders are not the most stable. (We presented preliminary evidence to this end in ). Accordingly, thermodynamically oriented sequence design need not select for the fastest folding proteins and a reduction in stability admits increased accessibility. If Nature has designed proteins to fold as quickly as possible, we would expect only marginal stability in the native conformation. The preceding premise might be established by observation of normal and mutated naturally occurring proteins.

Notably, the bound on manipulating the energy landscape is independent of protein length; the diversity of protein function grows with alphabet size only. The large (relative to $`\kappa `$) amino acid alphabet found in Nature is crucial to the variety of protein function within the cell or in multicellular organisms. To the extent that heteropolymer models are intended to provide insight into proteins, their alphabet sizes should reflect this. Elementary representations, such as frequently studied H-P models, are not able to effect the thermodynamic and kinetic diversity possible with larger alphabets.

Perhaps most interesting is the increased scope for protein and heteropolymer function. The discovery that prions fold to multiple conformations  has extended our notion of heteropolymer behaviour beyond familiar protein collapse. We have presented arguments that the energy landscape may, within limits, be tailored to effect function heretofore unobserved. Further discovery of novel protein mechanisms should prove fascinating.


text:
# Embedded Star Clusters: The ISO View

## 1. Introduction

Large scale cluster properties, such as the stellar Initial Mass Function (IMF) and the spatial distributions, are likely to hold important clues to the questions related to the origin and early evolution of stellar clusters. In order to address these problems we approach the large scale properties observationally in as young clusters as possible. By doing that, we should avoid the potential incompleteness problems often encountered in studies of clusters of ages $`>10^8`$ yrs, such as mass segregation and loss of low-mass members through dynamical evolution. In addition, in these young regions there is a closer link between the stars and the material from which the stars form, such that studies of the cloud morphology and e.g. the clump mass functions can be directly compared to the stellar mass functions. Detection and classification of stellar and sub-stellar members of embedded clusters require sensitivity and spatial resolution in the infrared (IR). Since the majority of the cluster members are contracting down the Hayashi track, or in some cases even in their protostellar phases at these young ages, they are more luminous than later on, especially in the IR. This paper reviews what has been discerned about embedded star clusters from ISOCAM, the mid-IR camera aboard the Infrared Space Observatory (Cesarsky et al. 1996; Kessler et al. 1996).

Before ISOCAM, our knowledge of the stellar content of embedded clusters was in most cases limited to observations in the near-IR and the IRAS survey. Extensive ground based surveys in the J (1.25 $`\mu `$m), H (1.65 $`\mu `$m), and K (2.2 $`\mu `$m) bands have revealed numerous Young Stellar Objects (YSOs) clustered in star formation regions (e.g. Eiroa & Casali 1992, Prusti et al. 1992; Wilking et al. 1997; Barsony et al. 1997), while mid-IR ground based data have been more scarce (Lada & Wilking 1984, Greene et al. 1994), and the spatial resolution of IRAS has been a limitation. See Wilking (2000) for an observational review on embedded clusters.

Section 2 gives an overview of the ISOCAM star formation surveys, Section 3 presents the general result of improved YSO samples based on the IR excess criterion, Section 4 discusses the nature of the IR-excess population, Section 5 the spatial distributions, Section 6 the improved luminosity functions, and Section 7 the implications for the IMF.

## 2. The ISOCAM surveys of star-formation regions

The surveys LNORDH.SURVEY\_1 and GOLOFSSO.D\_SURMC within the ISO central programme mapped selected parts of the major nearby star formation regions in the two broad band filters LW2 (5-8.5 $`\mu `$m) and LW3 (12-18 $`\mu `$m), designed to avoid the silicate features, and selected to sample the mid-IR Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) of YSOs in different evolutionary phases. The objective of the survey was to make a deep search for low-mass YSOs.

A review of these surveys was given by Nordh et al. (1998). The first results increased the number of recognized YSOs in the Chamaeleon dark clouds by almost a factor of 2 (Nordh et al. 1996). Olofsson et al. (1998) obtained a luminosity function for the Chamaeleon I IR-excess YSOs, finding that a substantial fraction of these objects could be young brown dwarfs with circumstellar disks, as suggested from their IR colours. An improved luminosity function from re-analyzed data was presented by Persi et al. (2000). The first results from the R Corona Australis region are found in Olofsson et al. (1999). The $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi embedded cluster is presented by Bontemps et al. (2000a, 2000b) with a thorough derivation of the luminosity and mass function. ISOCAM results on the Serpens Cloud are found in Kaas et al. (1999, 2000a, 2000b). Analysis of other regions is on-going, and specific results will be detailed elsewhere.

## 3. Deep sample of embedded YSOs with ISOCAM

The observational challenge in a statistical study of an embedded cluster is primarily to detect the stellar objects, then to separate the cluster members from field stars, and finally to determine intrinsic properties such as luminosity and mass of the members. The degree of embeddedness (A$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$ 10-100) requires sensitive IR observations, and the clustering requires good spatial resolution. With the 3-6′′/pix resolution of ISOCAM, and with an achievable sensitivity of a few mJy for $``$ 15 s on-source integration at 6.7 and 14.3 $`\mu `$m, we are able to sample objects down to at least 0.02 $`L_{}`$ for the nearby regions. This corresponds to masses well into the brown dwarf regime, for reasonable estimates of the ages.

A summary of the main observational result in Chamaeleon, RCrA, $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi, and Serpens is given in Fig. 1a)-d), where we plot the colour index $`[14.3/6.7]`$, defined as the logarithm of the flux ratio between the two filters, versus the flux at 14.3 $`\mu `$m (in Jansky). As an alternative to the $`[14.3/6.7]`$ index, one can calculate the SED index $`\alpha =d\mathrm{log}(\lambda F_\lambda )/d\mathrm{log}\lambda `$ between 6.7 and 14.3 $`\mu `$m, shown on the right-hand y-axes. In each region the sources fall in two separate groups. One is located at $`[14.3/6.7]0.66`$ ($`\alpha _{6.714.3}3`$), which is the colour expected for normal photospheres, i.e. the slope in the Rayleigh-Jeans tail. The spread around this value mainly indicates the increasing photometric uncertainty with decreasing flux. The effect of extinction is small, and a reddening vector of size corresponding to A$`{}_{K}{}^{}=3`$ (A$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$ 30) is indicated in each panel. The second group of sources comprises all objects located well above the first group. These are sources with mid-IR excess emission. Most of these sources have colours typical of classical T Tauri stars (CTTS), and the IR excess is interpreted in terms of optically thick circumstellar disk emission.

Fig. 1 a) shows sources from 3 maps (about 0.8 square degrees) located in Cha I (Persi et al. 2000), Cha II and Cha III (Nordh et al. 1996). Fig. 1 b) shows point sources from $``$ 0.42 square degrees in RCrA (Olofsson et al. 1999), where the central Coronet cluster could not be mapped due to detector saturation precautions. The $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi sample from a total of 0.7 square degrees mapping (Bontemps et al. 2000a,b) is shown in Fig. 1 c). Fig. 1 d) shows the sample from a 0.22 square degree survey of the Serpens Cloud (Kaas et al. 1999). Filled circles indicate the new YSOs found with ISOCAM.

Practically all sources detected with ISOCAM have near-IR K-band counterparts; although in dense clouds and for the youngest objects, relatively deep K-band ($`>`$ 15 mag) data might be required. Thus, rather than having discovered previously unseen objects, the main value of the ISOCAM surveys has been to provide a means by which IR-excess YSOs can be easily distinguished from field stars, mainly due to the small effect of reddening in the mid-IR. YSOs without IR-excesses, on the other hand, can not be recognized, and alternative approaches, such as X-ray surveys (Feigelson & Montmerle 1999), appear promising in order to sample this part of the cluster population. ISOCAM has, on the average, doubled the IR-excess populations.

While circumstellar dust easily is recognized by the IR excesses that show up in broad band photometry, it is necessary, however, to go to sufficiently long wavelengths in order to clearly separate the effects of cloud extinction to those of intrinsic IR excess. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 where we compare the frequently used $`JH/HK`$ colour diagram with the single colour index $`[14.3/6.7]`$ for sources from $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi and Serpens with available ISOCAM and JHK photometry. The left panel shows a clear separation of the IR excess population (filled circles). In the $`JH/HK`$ diagram, however, sources with IR-excess (filled circles) mix with those without IR excesses (open triangles) and cluster along the reddening vector. We find that on the average about 50% of the mid-IR excess population have near-IR excesses in the $`JH/HK`$ diagram (e.g. Kaas et al. 2000b). Thus, studies of embedded clusters based on JHK data alone are seriously incomplete, and any determination of disk frequencies based on such studies must be interpreted with care.

The IR excesses, so apparent in the $`[14.3/6.7]`$ colour index, show up already at 6.7 $`\mu `$m, and both the $`JK/Km_{6.7}`$ diagram (Olofsson et al. 1999, Persi et al. 2000) and the $`HK/Km_{6.7}`$ diagram (Kaas et al. 2000b) are efficient in distinguishing between intrinsic IR excess and effects of scattering and extinction. These diagrams are used to sample faint IR-excess sources not detected at 14.3 $`\mu `$m.

## 4. The nature of the IR-excess sources

According to the current empirical picture of early stellar evolution (Adams et al. 1987; Lada 1987; André et al. 1993), young stars can be observationally classified along the evolutionary sequence: Class 0 - Class I - Class II - Class III; corresponding to a gradual loss of circumstellar matter with age. For sources with near-IR and mid-IR photometry, one can use the classical parametrization of the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) and calculate the mid-IR spectral index $`\alpha =d\mathrm{log}(\lambda F_\lambda )/d\mathrm{log}\lambda `$, usually taken between 2 and 10 $`\mu `$m (Wilking & Lada 1984). In Fig. 3 we plot $`\alpha _{2.26.7}`$ versus $`\alpha _{2.214.3}`$, or equivalently the $`Km_{6.7}/Km_{14.3}`$ colour diagram, for a subset of our sources and draw the YSO class loci according to current definitions. Previously known Class I sources (large stars), Class II sources (filled circles), and Class III sources (filled triangles) appear mainly within their respective loci.

Following this simplified IR spectral classification scheme, the new IR-excess population (open circles) can now be tentatively classified as Class I and Class II sources. In Chamaeleon I and in $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi the resulting Class I/Class II number ratio is about $`0.10.2`$, as expected based on current ideas about the timescales for each phase. In the Serpens Cloud Core, however, this ratio is appreciably larger (close to 1), and this has been interpreted in terms of an extremely young age for this region (Kaas et al. 2000a, 2000b).

The strong influence of extinction at 2.2 $`\mu `$m is apparent. Sources without IR-excesses (triangles) are outlining the reddening line in this diagram. These are a mix of reddened field stars and Class III sources, and the large scatter is probably from the contribution of small IR excesses in a number of Class II - Class III transition objects. The border used in Fig. 1 to separate between Class II and Class III sources, at $`[14.3/6.7]=0.2`$ corresponding to $`\alpha _{6.714.3}=1.6`$, is shown as a dashed slope. The mid-IR excess group to the right follows roughly the same slope as the reddening vector, and Class I sources are found at the extreme end of the $`Km_{14.3}`$ colour, rather than at the extreme of the $`[14.3/6.7]`$ colour. We speculate that this roughly similar $`[14.3/6.7]`$ colour for Class II and Class I sources could be due to dust properties such as broad silicate absorption features or the presence of H2O and CO2 ices in the 14.3 $`\mu `$m band for the more embedded sources (Class Is), but this requires further study.

Since we cannot distinguish between Class III sources and field stars from broad band photometry alone, we can only give rough upper limits on the disk frequencies in the populations sampled by ISOCAM, based on previous studies of the stellar populations and/or models of the mid-IR point source sky. As an example, we mention that within the region covered by ISOCAM in Chamaeleon I, the fraction of IR-excess sources among currently known YSOs is 76% (Persi et al. 2000). There could be more Class IIIs, however, among the non-IR-excess sources. Also, the fraction of disk sources among YSOs should be counted as a function of cluster radius or cloud density, in order to compare between the regions.

## 5. Spatial distributions

The spatial distribution of the IR-excess YSOs is always found clustered at the scale of the molecular clouds, but also more locally, as a few sub-clusters which are normally associated with the dense cores of the molecular clouds. In Chamaeleon I clustering is apparent around the reflection nebula Ced 112 on a size scale of about 10-15 arcmin or 0.5-0.7 pc, while the clustering around Ced 110 and Ced 111 is less confined (Nordh et al. 1996; Persi et al. 2000). In $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi 4 sub-clusters are found associated with dense cores: Oph A, B, EF (between Oph E and Oph F) and L1689S. These have approximate sizes of 4-8 arcmin, or 0.2-0.3 pc (Bontemps et al. 2000b). For comparison, the spatial distribution in TMC-1 shows no sign of clustering.

Figure 4 shows a 13’ $`\times `$ 13’ ISOCAM image covering the Serpens Cloud Core ($``$ 1 square pc for a distance of 260 pc). The YSOs with sufficient IR-excess to be of Class II and Class I type (encircled) mainly follow a NW-SE oriented ridge, and most are further seen clustered into 4 dense sub-clusters (large circles), each with a diameter of about 1.5 arcmin, or $``$ 0.1 pc. Each of these contains between 5 and 14 YSOs in general (at the sensitivity and resolution of ISOCAM), and between 2 and 6 Class I sources in particular (Kaas et al. 2000a,b). The unusually rich collection of clustered Class I sources strongly argues in favour of this region being especially young. The locations of the sub-clusters coincide well with the distribution of tracers of the dense cloud, such as 1100 $`\mu `$m continuum emission (Casali et al. 1993), C18O line emission (White et al. 1995), and high resolution 3 mm continuum emission (Testi & Sargent 1998). In particular, the 4 clusters coincide with the spatially and kinematically separated N2H+ cores A,B,C,D found by Testi et al. (2000), which strongly supports their claim of an observational evidence for hierachical fragmentation within a cluster-forming core.

## 6. Luminosity and mass functions

As shown in the previous sections, mid-IR surveys significantly improve the census of young stars in embedded clusters. This provides new and larger samples of newly formed stars in these star forming regions. The resulting luminosity functions (LF) are therefore more complete and give more precise constraints on the distribution of stellar masses which can give clues to the origin of the galactic IMF. The embedded young stars are, however, difficult to study, and even their stellar luminosities are not easy to estimate from simple photometric data (without spectroscopy).

For embedded (not optically visible) pre-main sequence stars, the most reliable method to estimate stellar luminosities from photometric data consists in deriving dereddened I or J band magnitudes and to convert them to stellar luminosities. This is possible because I and J are close to the maximum of the photospheric energy distribution and not too much affected by intrinsic IR excesses (e.g. Greene et al. 1994, Persi et al. 2000, Bontemps et al. 2000b). The resulting luminosity functions for the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi (140 pc) and the Chamaeleon I (160 pc) clusters are shown in Fig. 5. These luminosity functions are actually limited to Class II YSOs. The Class III YSO samples are still too incomplete to be included.

The global shapes of these two luminosity functions are similar: the number of stars per logarithmic $`L_{}`$ bin sharply decreases for $`L_{}>0.51.0L_{}`$ and is more or less constant at low luminosities, down to the completeness level, which is equal to $`0.03L_{}`$ in both cases. However, the flattening occurs at $`L_{}1.5L_{}`$ for $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi while at $`0.3L_{}`$ for Chamaeleon I. Even if the “flattening luminosity” for Chamaeleon I is rather uncertain due to the smaller number of stars (66 instead of 118 for $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi), the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi luminosity function certainly flattens out at a higher luminosity than the Chamaeleon I LF. According to Bontemps et al. (2000b), the clear flattening over two orders of magnitude in the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi cluster can be explained only by a similar flattening of the underlying mass function. Assuming a flat (in logarithmic units) mass function, these authors have built a simple modeling of the LFs using D’Antona & Mazzitelli (1998) pre-main sequence tracks and assuming some simple age distributions for the young stellar population (see Bontemps et al. 2000b for details). The results of this modeling are shown in Fig. 5 for $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi and Chamaeleon I. The parameters for these fits (made on the parameter $`M_{\mathrm{f}lat}`$ at which the mass function flattens out) are given in the plots. For $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi the best fit is obtained with the combination of a rather small age of 0.4 Myr for the Class IIs and $`M_{\mathrm{f}lat}=0.37M_{}`$. A model with a broad distribution of ages between 0.2 and 2.0 Myr, and a larger flattening mass $`M_{\mathrm{f}lat}=0.69M_{}`$ can, however, also fit the data acceptably. A small age for the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi embedded population has been favored by recent, independent works (Greene & Meyer 1995; Luhman & Rieke 1999). Our new results might therefore support very well these previous suggestions. Fig. 5b shows the result of a similar modeling for the Chamaeleon I data (reduced to the 66 Class IIs with $`L_{}`$ estimates in Persi et al. 2000). It shows that a good modeling of the observed luminosity function is also possible here. An older population of stars is used because there are good evidences that the Chamaeleon I region is older than $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi (e.g. Lawson et al. 1996). With such a larger average age, the flattening at a lower luminosity can be reproduced with more or less the same mass function as for $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi: the best fit is obtained with $`M_{\mathrm{f}lat}=0.55M_{}`$.

## 7. Implications for the IMF

The constraints on the mass functions within the surveyed clusters, which are born in typical star-forming regions, are expected to ultimately explain the origin of the field star IMF. Up to now a mass function has been derived only for the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi cluster. After correction for hidden binaries, Bontemps et al. (2000b) obtained a single star mass function which is very similar to the field star IMF derived by Kroupa et al. (1993). No turnover or local maximum is recognized down to $`0.05M_{}`$. This shows that a large number of young brown dwarfs are actually present in the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi cluster. Thirty brown-dwarf candidates111They all have a mid-IR excess since they have been selected using this criterium. have been detected there.

## 8. Conclusions

The ISOCAM survey has significantly improved our understanding of embedded clusters. Because the samples of IR-excess YSOs are now much more complete, the IMF can be studied with confidence well into the brown dwarf domain for the nearest regions, and the distribution of the youngest YSOs (Class I and Class II sources) can be studied on small spatial scales. There is good correspondance between the currently estimated ages of the 3 star formation regions Chamaeleon I, $`\rho `$ Ophiuch and Serpens, and the size of their sub-clusters of IR-excess YSOs. We conclude that the luminosity functions which are complete down to $`0.03L_{}`$ can easily be modeled with plausible age distributions. The mass functions needed to reproduce the observations are roughly flat in logarithmic units in the low-mass range, and the flattening occurs at $`M_{}`$ of the order of $`0.5M_{}`$. For future work we would like to build luminosity functions for more clusters to test whether such a flat mass function can always reproduce the observations.

## References

Adams, F.C., Lada, C.J., Shu, F.H., 1987, ApJ 312, 788

Andre, P., Ward-Thompson, D., Barsony, M., 1993, ApJ 406, 122

Andre, P., Montmerle, T., 1994, ApJ 420, 837

Barsony, M., Kenyon, S.J., Lada, E.A., Teuben, P.J., 1997, ApJS 112, 109

Bontemps, S., 2000a, In: Star Formation from the Small to the Large Scale, eds. F. Favata, A.A. Kaas, A. Wilson, ESA SP-445, 427

Bontemps, S., André, P., Kaas, A.A., Nordh, L., Olofsson, G., Huldtgren, M., et al. 2000b, submitted to A&A

Casali, M.M. Eiroa, C., Duncan, W.D., 1993, A%A 275, 195

Cesarsky, C.J., et al. 1996, A&A 315, L32

D’Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I., 1998. In: Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, Rebolo R., Martín E.L., Zapatero Osorio M.R. (eds.), ASP Conf. Ser., vol. 134, 442

Eiroa, C., Casali, M.M., 1992, A&A 262, 468

Feigelson, E.D., Montmerle, T., 1999, ARA&A 37, 363

Greene, T.P., Meyer, M.R., 1995, ApJ 450, 233

Greene, T.P., Wilking, B.A., André, P., Young, E.T., Lada, C.J., 1994, ApJ 434, 614

Kaas, A.A., Olofsson, G., Bontemps, S., et al., 1999, In: The Universe as seen by ISO, ESA SP-427, 493

Kaas, A.A., Olofsson, G., Bontemps, S., et al., 2000a, In: Star Formation from the Small to the Large Scale, ESA SP-445, 427

Kaas, A.A., Olofsson, G., Bontemps, S., et al., 2000b, in prep. for A&A

Kessler, M.F., et al., 1996, A&A 315, L27

Kroupa, P., Tout, C., Gilmore, G.F., 1993, MNRAS 262, 545

Lada, C., 1987, In: IAU Symp. 115, Star Forming Regions, eds. Peimbert, M., Jugaku, J., p. 1

Lada, C., Wilking, B.A., 1984, ApJ 287, 610

Lawson, W.A., Feigelson, E.D., Huenemoerder, D.P., 1996, MNRAS 280, 1071

Luhman, G.H., Rieke, G.H., 1999, ApJ 525, 440

Nordh, L., Olofsson, G., Abergel, A., et al. 1996, A&A 315, L185

Nordh, L., Olofsson, G., Bontemps, S., Huldtgren, M., Kaas, A.A., et al., 1998, In: Star Formation with ISO, eds. Yun, J., Liseau, R., p. 127

Olofsson, G., Kaas, A.A., Nordh, L., Bontemps, S., Huldtgren, M., et al., 1998, In: Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, eds. R. Rebolo, E.L. Martin, M.R. Zapatero Osorio, p. 81

Olofsson, G., Huldtgren, M., Kaas, A.A., Bontemps, S., Nordh, L., et al., 1999, A&A 350, 883

Persi, P., Marenzi, A.R., Olofsson, G., et al., 2000, A&A 357, 219

Prusti, T., Whittet, D.C.B., Wesselius, P.R., 1992, MNRAS 254, 361

Strom, K.M., Strom, S.E., Merrill, K.M., 1993, ApJ 412, 233

Strom, K.M., Kepner, J., Strom, S.E., 1995, ApJ 438, 813

Testi, L., Sargent, A.I., 1998, ApJ 508, L91

Testi, L., Sargent, A.I., Olmi, L., Onello, J.S., 2000, in press

White, G.J., Casali, M.M., Eiroa, C., 1995, A&A 298, 594

Wilking, B.A., Greene, T.P., Lada, C.J., Meyer, M.R., Giblin, T., Reyner, J.T., Zinnecker, H., 1997, AJ 114, 2029

Wilking, B.A., 2000, this issue