text:
# Condensate fluctuations in the dilute Bose gas

## I Introduction

The observation of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in trapped alkali-metal gases anddavbrad  has stimulated theoretical and experimental studies of the basic problems related to this phenomenon (see the reviews in leggett ; dalfovo ; walls ). In particular, the statistical properties of the condensate are of especial interest for interacting bosons. In the case of the ideal Bose gas, fluctuations of a number of particles in the Bose-Einstein condensate $`\delta \widehat{N}_0^2\widehat{N}_0^2\widehat{N}_0^2`$ have been studied thoroughly in a box box-id  and a harmonic trap trap-id  as well. However, in the case of the interacting gas, this problem is rather subtle and requires a more refined approach. So far there has been no uniform treatment of this problem in the literature jak ; dunn ; navez ; pit ; idz ; illu ; mei ; koch ; grah ; xio ; xio1 ; xio2 ; bhaduri . It is not even clear what the value of the power $`\gamma `$ is in dependence of the fluctuations on the total number of particles,

$$\delta \widehat{N}_0^2N^\gamma ,$$
(1)
in various Gibbs ensembles (compare, e.g., the different results of Refs. pit  and idz ; illu ). Apart from general theoretical interest, condensate fluctuations can be measured, in principle, by means of a scattering of series of short laser pulses idz1 .

In this paper we deal with the problem of fluctuations in the grand canonical ensemble and consider the global gauge symmetry $`U(1)`$ of the Bose system to be broken. In principle, the properties of the dilute Bose gas in the grand ensemble are described quite well by the Bogoliubov model bog47 , with the condensate terms being treated as asymptotic $`c`$-numbers and with three- and four-boson terms being neglected in the Hamiltonian. However, the statistical properties of the Bose-Einstein condensate are beyond the Bogoliubov theory due to the $`c`$-number replacement. Consequently, in order to tackle this problem, we need other approximations or assumptions that keep the quantum nature of the condensate operators. Assuming that the condensate mode and other modes can be considered as quasi-independent, we obtain the usual thermodynamic fluctuations of the condensate with $`\gamma =1`$ in Eq. (1) and show that this result is consistent quite well with the Bogoliubov theory.

We consider a dilute Bose gas interacting with a short-range pairwise potential \[i.e., the potential that goes to zero at $`r\mathrm{}`$ as $`1/r^m`$ ($`m>3`$) or faster\]. The method used in our paper can be called the approximation of the quasi-independent mode. This assumption is nothing else but a generalization of Bogoliubov’s relation (3) for the operators $`\widehat{a}_0`$ and $`\widehat{a}_0^{}`$ (see Sec. II below). As a result, we consider the condensate mode and the other ones to be uncorrelated. In the framework of this approximation, one can easily derive the effective single-mode Hamiltonian. Our consideration is primarily dedicated to the homogeneous case, except for Sec. IV.2, where fluctuations in the Hartree model are discussed briefly in the nonhomogeneous case.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review some important issues in the field of Bose-Einstein condensation, which might not be well known for a reader. In the next section we derive the effective single-mode Hamiltonian, which is employed for studying condensate fluctuations in the grand canonical ensemble. In Secs. IV.1 and IV.2 the fluctuations are evaluated in the framework of the mean-field approximation and beyond it. Possible corrections to the value of the fluctuations are discussed in Sec. IV.3. In the last section the main results are summarized.

## II General remarks

Let us recall some important issues in the considered problem, following Bogoliubov’s paper bogquasi . A number of bosons in the Bose-Einstein condensate can be defined as the macroscopic eigenvalue $`N_0`$ of the one-body density matrix $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }(𝐫^{})`$ – that is, $`\text{d}^3r^{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)\varphi _0(𝐫^{})=N_0\varphi _0(𝐫)`$, $`\text{d}^3r|\varphi _0(𝐫)|^2=1`$, where $`N_0`$ is proportional to the total number of bosons in the thermodynamic limit, while the other eigenvalues are proportional to the unit. The eigenfunction $`\varphi _0`$ is a one-body wave function of the Bose-Einstein condensate, obeying the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in the first approximation. One can easily introduce the condensate operators $`\widehat{a}_0`$ and $`\widehat{a}_0^{}`$ by expanding the Bose field operators in the complete set of eigenfunctions of the one-body matrix: $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)=\widehat{a}_0\varphi _0(𝐫)+_{j0}\widehat{a}_j\varphi _j(𝐫)`$; then, the operator $`\widehat{N}_0=\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0`$ describes the number of particles in the condensate: $`\widehat{N}_0=N_0`$. For a homogeneous system the index $`j`$ is associated with momentum $`𝐩`$, $`\varphi _𝐩(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(i𝐩𝐫)/\sqrt{V}`$ (V is the volume), and the condensate operators coincide with the Bose zero-momentum operators. Bogoliubov noticed bog47 ; bogquasi  that in this case the operators $`\widehat{a}_0/\sqrt{V}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_0^{}/\sqrt{V}`$ should be very close to $`c`$-numbers, since they commute in the thermodynamic limit $`V\mathrm{}`$, $`n=N/V=\mathrm{const}`$. This implies that

$$\underset{V\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{\widehat{a}_0^{}}{\sqrt{V}}\sqrt{n_0}e^{i\phi }\right)\left(\frac{\widehat{a}_0}{\sqrt{V}}\sqrt{n_0}e^{i\phi }\right)=0,$$
(2)
where $`\phi `$ is an arbitrary phase and $`n_0=N_0/V`$ denotes the density of the Bose-Einstein condensate. However, we always have the constraint $`\widehat{a}_0=\widehat{a}_0^{}=0`$ due to global gauge invariance, which is equivalent to conservation of the total number of bosons (i.e., $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{N}]=0`$). Hence, the ground state is not stable with respect to an infinitesimally small perturbation that breaks the gauge symmetry. For a correct mathematical treatment of the homogeneous Bose system with broken symmetry, Bogoliubov proposed bogquasi  to include the terms $`\nu (\widehat{a}_0^{}e^{i\phi }+\widehat{a}_0e^{i\phi })\sqrt{V}`$ in the Hamiltonian, where the parameter $`\nu >0`$ and $`\nu 0`$. Now the absolute minimum of the energy corresponds to the state with $`\widehat{a}_0/\sqrt{V}=\widehat{a}_0^{}^{}/\sqrt{V}=\sqrt{n_0}e^{i\phi }`$, because the gain in energy per particle, by Eq. (2), is equal to $`2\nu \sqrt{n_0/n}`$ in the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$ due to Bogoliubov’s terms. We stress that the limit $`\nu 0`$ should be performed after the thermodynamic one. These two subsequent limits yield the well-defined order parameter $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)=\widehat{a}_0/\sqrt{V}=\sqrt{n_0}e^{i\phi }`$ with fixed phase $`\phi `$. Thus, due to Bogoliubov’s infinitesimal terms, the values of the anomalous averages (like $`\widehat{\psi }`$, $`\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\psi }`$, and so on) change drastically, and such averages can be called, following Bogoliubov, quasiaverages (hereafter by the term “average” we mean “quasiaverage”). At the same time, the values of the normal averages (like $`\widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }`$ and so on) do not change. In particular, this is valid for the one-body $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }(𝐫^{})`$ and two-body $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(\text{r}_1)\widehat{\psi }^{}(\text{r}_2)\widehat{\psi }(\text{r}_2^{})\widehat{\psi }(\text{r}_1^{})`$ matrices. Hence, in the thermodynamic limit the eigenfunctions of the matrices do not change when the symmetry is broken. On the other hand, the anomalous averages have a transparent physical interpretation: $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)=\sqrt{N_0}\varphi _0(𝐫)`$ is the eigenfunction of the one-body matrix associated with the maximum eigenvalue $`N_0`$, and $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }(𝐫^{})`$ is that of the two-body matrix with the eigenvalue $`N_0(N_01)`$ cherny . Hence, with the concept of broken symmetry we obtain a simple method of evaluating these eigenfunctions.

Equation (2) can be derived from Bogoliubov’s principle of correlation weakening bogquasi , which takes a particular form $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }(𝐫_2)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }(𝐫_2)\mathrm{}`$ when $`|𝐫𝐫_1|\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`|𝐫𝐫_2|\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, using the expression of the condensate operator in the homogeneous system, $`\widehat{a}_0=\text{d}^3r\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)/\sqrt{V}`$, we obtain, in the thermodynamic limit,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_0}{\sqrt{V}}}`$ $`\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }(𝐫_2)\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \text{d}^3r\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }(𝐫_2)\mathrm{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \text{d}^3r\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }(𝐫_2)\mathrm{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_0}{\sqrt{V}}}\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }(𝐫_2)\mathrm{}.`$ (3)
One can indeed replace the condensate operators by the $`c`$-numbers, and this procedure, according to Bogoliubov, still yields exact values bogquasi  of all thermodynamic quantities in the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$. Note that the above relations can easily be extended to the inhomogeneous case. For example, in order to consider the harmonic trap, it is sufficient to replace the volume $`V`$ by $`1/\overline{\omega }^3`$ and define the thermodynamic limit as damle  $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`N\overline{\omega }^3=\mathrm{const}`$ (here $`\overline{\omega }=\sqrt[3]{\omega _x\omega _y\omega _z}`$ is the average harmonic frequency).

We stress once more that the replacement of $`\widehat{a}_0`$ and $`\widehat{a}_0^{}`$ by the $`c`$-numbers gives always the main asymptotics of the averages of these operators (if the Bose-Einstein condensate exists), and this method is sufficient for obtaining an exact value of any thermodynamic quantity (see Sec. 7 of Bogoliubov’s paper bogquasi ). However, the main asymptotic value is canceled when evaluating the condensate fluctuations $`\delta \widehat{N}_0^2`$, and, thus, we have to take into consideration here the quantum nature of the condensate operators. Nevertheless, Eq. (2) results in the constraint $`\gamma <2`$ for the parameter $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (1). The case $`\gamma >1`$ implies that bosons in the Bose-Einstein condensate and beyond it are strongly correlated, and the extent of the correlation is nonthermodynamically large, since the thermodynamic fluctuations of any extensive observable are proportional to the total number of particles. The results $`\gamma =4/3`$ and $`\gamma =1`$ have been obtained in Refs. pit  and idz ; illu , respectively, in the Gibbs canonical ensemble. The results of Refs. idz ; illu  are consistent with ours for the grand canonical ensemble, while those of Ref. pit  are at variance with ours (see Sec. IV.3 below).

If the symmetry is broken (that is, if the ground state is a superposition of states with different numbers of particles), then it is rather difficult to define what the Gibbs canonical ensemble is. Indeed, within a variational scheme, we cannot use the restriction $`N=\mathrm{const}`$ directly and have to impose the additional condition $`\widehat{N}=N`$, which is equivalent to introducing the Lagrange term $`\mu \widehat{N}`$ in the Hamiltonian; this is nothing else but using the Gibbs grand canonical ensemble. So, a reliable treatment of the canonical ensemble can be done in the framework of the number-conserving scheme (for recent developments of the scheme, see Refs. gard ; cast ). For that reason, in this paper we restrict ourselves to the grand ensemble.

## III Approximation of the quasi-independent mode

Let us describe the model and methods of calculation. In order to evaluate the mean square of the number fluctuations in the Bose-Einstein condensate, it sufficient to know the condensate density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{c}`$. According to general rules of quantum mechanics, it can be obtained from the total density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ by taking the partial trace in the occupation number representation

$$\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{c}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}n_p\mathrm{}}{p0}}{Tr}\widehat{\rho }=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}n_p\mathrm{}}{p0}}{}\mathrm{}n_p\mathrm{}|\widehat{\rho }|\mathrm{}n_p\mathrm{},$$
(4)
where we denote $`|\mathrm{}n_p\mathrm{}=_{p0}|n_p`$ and the index $`p`$ is associated with momentum in the homogeneous case. So $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{c}`$ depends on the condensate operators $`\widehat{a}_0^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_0`$ only and acts only on states of the condensate – say, the Fock states $`|N_0`$ and their superpositions. By analogy with Eq. (4), one can also define the density matrix for all noncondensate states $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{out}}=\underset{N_0}{Tr}\widehat{\rho }`$, which depends on the Bose operators $`\widehat{a}_p^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_p`$ with $`p0`$. Certainly, it is difficult to evaluate the density matrix of the Bose-Einstein condensate directly from Eq. (4), and one has to use additional assumptions.

As discussed in Sec. II, Eq. (3), a particular case of Bogoliubov’s principle of correlation weakening, is valid in the thermodynamic limit. This suggests that the state of the condensate mode is, in effect, independent of the other modes. It means that one can use the approximation for the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{c}\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{out}}`$. The parameters of the matrices $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{out}}`$ are assumed to be related in a self-consistent manner. The factorization of the total density matrix implies that the condensate and noncondensate subsystems are considered to be uncorrelated. Hence, we have $`\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\widehat{A}\widehat{B}`$ for arbitrary $`\widehat{A}`$ and and $`\widehat{B}`$, depending on the condensate and noncondensate operators, respectively. This is very consistent with the approximation solomon

$$\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\widehat{A}\widehat{B}+\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\widehat{A}\widehat{B}.$$
(5)
Let us apply the approximation (5) for a homogeneous Bose system with the pairwise potential $`V(r)`$. In this case, the Hamiltonian reads, in terms of the Bose fields operators,

$`\widehat{H}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^3r\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}\mu \right)\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \text{d}^3r\text{d}^3r^{}V(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }(𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)}.`$ (6)
According to the above method, one should separate explicitly the condensate operators in the Hamiltonian by means of substitution $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)=\widehat{a}_0/\sqrt{V}+\widehat{\vartheta }(𝐫)`$ \[here we denote $`\widehat{\vartheta }(𝐫)=_{p0}\widehat{a}_𝐩\mathrm{exp}(i𝐩𝐫)/\sqrt{V}`$\] and employ the decomposition (5) to every operator containing the product of the condensate operators and $`\widehat{\vartheta }`$ or $`\widehat{\vartheta }^{}`$. As one can see, applying Eq. (5) to the Hamiltonian (6), we come to the approximation

$$\widehat{H}\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{out}}+\text{const},$$
(7)
and, hence, the density matrix of the grand canonical ensemble $`\widehat{\rho }\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{H}/T)`$ is really factorized (in this paper we include the term $`\mu \widehat{N}`$ in the Hamiltonian). By virtue of this factorization, the condensate fluctuations arise in the grand canonical ensemble due to the particle and temperature bath rather than the energy excitations. Here we derive the effective grand canonical Hamiltonian of the Bose-Einstein condensate:

$`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_0{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_0^2\widehat{a}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{V}}+A(\widehat{a}_0^2+\widehat{a}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+2(B\mu )\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0`$ (8)
$`+2C(\widehat{a}_0^{}+\widehat{a}_0)\sqrt{V}),`$
where $`V_0`$ is the zero component of the Fourier transform of the pairwise interaction $`V(r)`$, and we introduce by definition the coefficients

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^3rV(r)\widehat{\vartheta }(𝐫)\widehat{\vartheta }(0)},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`V_0\widehat{\vartheta }^{}(0)\widehat{\vartheta }(0)+{\displaystyle \text{d}^3rV(r)\widehat{\vartheta }^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\vartheta }(0)},`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^3rV(r)\widehat{\vartheta }^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\vartheta }(𝐫)\widehat{\vartheta }(0)}.`$ (9)
In the above expressions, the gauge symmetry is certainly assumed to be broken, and for the sake of simplicity, we put $`\phi =0`$ in Bogoliubov’s terms (see Sec. II); in this case, all the coefficients are real. In general, they depend on the density and temperature and will be evaluated below. It is worthwhile to note that $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ tend to constant values in the thermodynamic limit. As to the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{out}}`$, it is given by Eq. (6) but with $`c`$-numbers instead of the condensate operators note6 , so we arrive at the standard asymptotically exact Hamiltonian with Bogoliubov’s replacement. The coefficients (9) can be calculated by means of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{out}}`$.

When calculating the coefficients in the dilute limit, one can employ the results of our previous papers cherny ; cherny1 ; cherny2 ; cherny3 , based on an analysis of the two-body density matrix. One can show the following.
(i) The functions

$$\phi (r)=1+\psi (r),\phi _𝐩(𝐫)=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(𝐩𝐫)+\psi _𝐩(𝐫)(p0)$$
(10)
are eigenfunctions of the two-body density matrix, which belong to the continuous spectrum and describe the scattering of pairs of bosons in a medium of other bosons. The quantum number $`p`$ can be associated with the relative momentum of that scattering \[$`\phi (r)`$ corresponds to zero momentum\]. Their scattering parts $`\psi (r)`$ and $`\psi _𝐩`$, respectively, obey the boundary conditions $`\psi (r),\psi _𝐩(𝐫)0`$ at $`r\mathrm{}`$. The Fourier transforms of the scattering parts can be expressed in terms of the Bose operators:

$`\psi (k)={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_𝐤\widehat{a}_𝐤}{n_0}},\psi _𝐩(𝐤)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2n_0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_{2𝐩}^{}\widehat{a}_{𝐩+𝐤}\widehat{a}_{𝐩𝐤}}{n_{2p}}},`$ (11)
where $`n_p=\widehat{a}_𝐩^{}\widehat{a}_𝐩`$ stands for the average occupation number of bosons.
(ii) The following limiting relations are valid:

$$\underset{p0}{lim}\phi _𝐩(𝐫)=\sqrt{2}\phi (r),\underset{n0}{lim}\phi (r)=\phi ^{(0)}(r),$$
(12)
where $`\phi ^{(0)}(r)`$ obeys the two-body Schrödinger equation, describing the scattering of two bosons in a vacuum with zero relative momentum. Now, using relations (11) and (12), one can obtain the coefficients (9) in the dilute limit $`n0`$ after a small amount of algebra note3

$`A`$ $``$ $`n_0[U^{(0)}(0)V_0],B2(nn_0)V_0,`$
$`C`$ $``$ $`2\sqrt{n_0}(nn_0)[U^{(0)}(0)V_0].`$ (13)
Here $`U^{(0)}(0)=\text{d}^3r\phi ^{(0)}(r)V(r)=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$ stands for the scattering amplitude and $`a`$ is the scattering length.

Now all averages of the operators $`\widehat{a}_0^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_0`$ and their products can be calculated in the grand ensemble by means of the matrix

$$\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}/T)/Z_c,$$
(14)
with the grand partition function for the condensate

$$Z_c=\underset{N_0}{Tr}\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}/T).$$
(15)
Note that the approximation of the quasi-independent mode was introduced earlier in Ref. glass . The authors considered the quadratic terms only in operators $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ in Eq. (8) (see the definition in Sec. IV.2 below) and obtained the condensate ground state, which turns out to be the coherent squeezed state in this case. However, this approach leads to additional approximations, which change drastically the final expression for the condensate fluctuations (see below). In order to avoid the additional approximations, we need to keep the four-boson Hartree term in the condensate Hamiltonian (8).

The model (8) yields the asymptotically exact value of the condensate density provided that the coefficients (9) are known. Indeed, it follows from Eq. (3) that the condensate operators can be replaced by their mean values $`\widehat{a}_0/\sqrt{V}=\widehat{a}_0^{}/\sqrt{V}=\sqrt{n_0}`$ in order to evaluate the main asymptotics of $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}`$ in the thermodynamic limit. Then the condensate density can be found by minimization of $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}`$ with respect to the $`c`$-number parameter $`n_0`$. The condition of this minimum can also be obtained from the initial Hamiltonian (6), since Bogoliubov’s replacement is asymptotically exact  due to Eq. (3). Hence, the condensate density $`n_0`$ can be considered as a variational parameter whose value is obtained by minimization of the thermodynamic potential of the grand canonical ensemble. With the well-known expression for an infinitesimal change of the potential, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }=\delta \widehat{H}`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }/n_0=\widehat{H}/n_0=\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}/n_0=0`$. Here the second equality is due to the condensate operators being involved explicitly only in $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}`$. The last equation reads

$$\mu =V_0n_0+A+B+C/\sqrt{n_0}.$$
(16)
We come to the equation obtained by Bogoliubov and treated by him as asymptotically exact \[see Eq. (7.16) of Ref. bogquasi \], since its derivation is based only on the $`c`$-number replacement of the condensate operators. It can be rewritten as $`\mu =\text{d}^3r^{}V(|𝐫𝐫^{}|)\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }(𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)/\sqrt{n_0}`$, where $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)=\sqrt{n_0}+\widehat{\vartheta }(𝐫)`$. This equation relates the equilibrium value of the condensate density $`n_0`$ with that of the chemical potential.

## IV Condensate fluctuations

### IV.1 Method of parameter differentiation

We adopt a standard method of evaluating the fluctuations from the Hamiltonian (8). One can derive a useful relation by differentiation of the expression for the average $`\widehat{N}_0=\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{c}\widehat{N}_0)`$ with respect to the chemical potential. If the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}`$ had commuted with $`\widehat{N}_0`$, we would have $`\delta \widehat{N}_0^2/N_0=T(n_0/\mu )_T/n_0`$ from Eqs. (14) and (15), but the noncommutativity leads to corrections we need to estimate. One can apply the identity $`\delta \mathrm{exp}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=_0^1\text{d}z\mathrm{exp}[z\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}]\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{exp}[(1z)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}]`$ (here $`\delta `$ denotes variation) to the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\widehat{H}_\mathrm{c}/T`$ and use the first two terms of the expansion

$$e^{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{N}_0e^{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}=\widehat{N}_0+[\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }},\widehat{N}_0]\frac{z}{1!}+[\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }},[\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }},\widehat{N}_0]]\frac{z^2}{2!}+\mathrm{}.$$
(17)
This yields

$`T{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}{\mu }}=\mathrm{Tr}(e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{N}_0),`$
$`T{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}(e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{N}_0)}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{d}z\mathrm{Tr}([\widehat{N}_0+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{T}}(\widehat{a}_0^2\widehat{a}_0^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{T}}\sqrt{V}(\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0)+\mathrm{}]e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{N}_0).`$
In order to estimate the second term on the r.h.s. of the last equation, we note that $`\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{a}_0^2e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{N}_0)=[\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{a}_0^2e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{N}_0)]^{}=\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{N}_0e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{a}_0^2)`$ owing to the reality of the coefficients in the Hamiltonian (8). Here we derive

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left((\widehat{a}_0^2\widehat{a}_0^2)e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{N}_0\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}[\widehat{a}_0^2,\widehat{N}_0]\right)=2\widehat{a}_0^2Z$$

and, in the same manner,

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left((\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0)e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\widehat{N}_0\right)=\widehat{a}_0Z.$$

Thus, we arrive at the asymptotic expression

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2}{N_0}=\frac{T}{n_0}\left(\frac{n_0}{\mu }\right)_T\frac{2A}{T}\frac{C}{T}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_0}}+\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
We stress that the chemical potential (16) is involved in implicit form in the coefficients $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$, but it is clear from the above consideration that one should hold the coefficients constant when taking the derivation $`\mu /n_0`$ in Eq. (18). As a result, we obtain, from Eq. (16),

$$n_0(\mu /n_0)_T=V_0n_0C/(2\sqrt{n_0}).$$
(19)
In the thermodynamic limit, Eq. (16) is the exact relation bogquasi  for the chemical potential, and it can be applied cherny  at any densities and for arbitrary strong pairwise potential classif . By contrast, Eq. (18) cannot be employed in the strong-coupling regime, for which $`V_0+\mathrm{}`$, since the divergence appearing in the coefficients (13) is not canceled in this expression (18) note . However, one can use Eqs. (18) and (19) in the weak-coupling case, for Eq. (17) is in fact the expansion in terms of the coupling constant. Nevertheless, simple physical arguments (see Sec. V in the first paper of Ref. cherny1 ) can help us to extend our results to the strong-coupling regime. Since the properties of dilute quantum gases are ruled by the scattering length, the final expression for condensate fluctuations should depend on the pairwise potential $`V(r)`$ through mediation of the scattering length in the strong-coupling case. From this expression one can derive the formula for the weak-coupling regime by means of the Born series for the scattering amplitude (length): $`U^{(0)}(0)=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m=U_0+U_1+\mathrm{}`$, where $`U_0=V_0`$ and $`U_1=(2\pi )^3\text{d}^3kV_k^2/(2T_k)<0`$, $`T_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/(2m)`$, and $`V_k`$ is the Fourier transform of the pairwise interaction. Otherwise, the relation obtained in the weak-coupling case should involve some first terms of the Born series, but coefficients before the term $`U_0=V_0`$ are the same as before $`U^{(0)}(0)`$ in the strong-coupling case. Thus, in the “weak-coupling” formulas the substitution $`V_0U^{(0)}(0)`$ (and $`U_1,U_2,\mathrm{}0`$) should be made to obtain the “strong-coupling” formulas. Performing this substitution in the coefficients (13) yields $`A0`$, $`C0`$, and Eqs. (18) and (19) result in a simple final answer:

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2}{N_0}=\frac{m}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2n_0}\frac{T}{a}.$$
(20)
This equation is valid for sufficiently small depletion of the condensate – that is, when $`TT_\text{c}`$. Note that the above consideration allows us to avoid cherny1 ; cherny2  the divergence $`U_1\mathrm{}`$ arising in the standard pseudopotential approximation $`V_k=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$.

The result (20) is a direct consequence of the single-mode approximation (8). Indeed, when deriving the Hamiltonian (8), we neglect the correlations between the condensate and noncondensate particles; besides, the condensate depletion is small for the dilute Bose gas. Consequently, we can put

$$\delta \widehat{N}_0^2\delta \widehat{N}^2=T\left(\frac{N}{\mu }\right)_T\frac{mV}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}\frac{T}{a}.$$
(21)
Here the familiar expression is employed for the fluctuations of the total number of particles in the grand ensemble and the formula for the chemical potential, $`\mu =4\pi \mathrm{}^2an/m`$, in leading order at the density, which follows from Eqs. (13) and (16). Note that this expression is nothing else but the relationship between the compressibility $`\chi _T=(n/P)_T/n`$ and the fluctuations of the total number of particles, where $`P`$ stands for the pressure. Indeed, with the help of the thermodynamic relation $`(n/P)_T=n(n/\mu )_T`$ and the definition of the compressibility, it can be written in the form

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2}{N_0}\frac{\delta \widehat{N}^2}{N}=Tn\chi _T.$$

For the ideal Bose gas $`a=0`$, and we come to an infinitely large value of the fluctuations because of the nonphysical behaviour of the compressibility of the ideal Bose gas box-id ; trap-id . Note that the fluctuations of the total number of particles in the grand canonical ensemble remain finite and approach zero as $`T0`$ when $`a`$ is finite, however weak the interaction may be; this is also valid for the one- and two-dimensional Bose gases bhaduri .

### IV.2 Mean-field calculations

It is interesting to compare the result (20) with the mean-field calculations for the condensate fluctuations. By separating the $`c`$-number part $`\sqrt{z}`$ in the condensate operator $`\widehat{a}_0=\sqrt{z}+\widehat{a}`$ (hence, $`\widehat{N}_0=N_0=\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+z`$), the fluctuation of the condensate in the grand ensemble can be represented in the form

$$\delta \widehat{N}_0^2=(x+1/2)^2+y^21/4+2z(x+1/2+y),$$
(22)
where the notations $`x=\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}`$ and $`y=\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}^{}=\widehat{a}\widehat{a}`$ are introduced, and the decoupling $`\widehat{a}^2\widehat{a}^2=2x^2+y^2`$ is employed in accordance with Wick’s theorem.

Let us study the Hartree grand canonical Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_\mathrm{h}=\frac{V_0}{2V}\widehat{a}_0^2\widehat{a}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mu \widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0,$$
(23)
which is the model Hamiltonian (8) in the case of $`A=B=C=0`$. To evaluate the parameters $`x`$ and $`y`$ in Eq. (22), which correspond to the Hamiltonian (23), one can use the Gibbs-Bogoliubov inequality

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\widehat{H}\widehat{H}_0_0.$$
(24)
Here $`\mathrm{}_0`$ means the averages in the grand Gibbs ensemble with the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ are the grand thermodynamic potentials corresponding to the arbitrary Hamiltonians $`\widehat{H}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_0`$, respectively. Now, the basic idea is to choose $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_\mathrm{h}`$ and

$$\widehat{H}_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(A_0\widehat{a}^2+A_0^{}\widehat{a}^2+2B_0\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right),$$
(25)
with arbitrary parameters $`A_0`$ and $`B_0`$, and minimize the r.h.s. of Eq. (24) with respect to them. As a result, we find the stationary values of $`A_0`$ and $`B_0`$. Note that $`B_0`$ is always real, and we can put $`A_0=A_0^{}`$ if all coefficients are real in the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$. By using Bogoliubov’s transformation, one can find the values $`x`$ and $`y`$ with the Hamiltonian (25)

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}_0={\displaystyle \frac{B_0}{2\epsilon }}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2T}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}\widehat{a}_0={\displaystyle \frac{A_0}{2\epsilon }}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2T}},`$ (26)
where $`\epsilon =\sqrt{B_0^2|A_0|^2}`$. We notice that at zero temperature this method is nothing else but the approximation of the coherent squeezed state (see, e.g., Ref. mandel ) for the condensate mode.

It is more convenient to deal with the variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ rather than $`A_0`$ and $`B_0`$, since $`\widehat{H}_0`$ is easily expressed via $`x`$ and $`y`$ with Wick’s theorem and $`\text{d}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0\widehat{H}_0_0)=A_0\text{d}yB_0\text{d}x`$. Hence, we come to the minimum conditions

$$\widehat{H}_0/y=A_0,\widehat{H}_0/x=B_0,$$
(27)
which should be solved in conjunction with

$$\widehat{H}_0/z=0.$$
(28)
For the Hartree Hamiltonian we have $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{h}_0={\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{2V}}(2x^2+y^2+4xz+2zy+z^2)\mu (z+x)`$, and Eqs. (27) and (28) yield

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1y/z}{4\sqrt{y/z}}}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \sqrt{y/z}}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+y/z}{4\sqrt{y/z}}}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \sqrt{y/z}}{T}},`$ (29)
where the asymptotic formula $`V_0z/V\mu `$ is utilized. The limits $`x/z0`$ and $`y/z0`$ at $`V\mathrm{}`$ follow from Eq. (2), since $`z/Vn_0`$. If these limits were not fulfilled, the separation of the condensate operator into quantum and $`c`$-number parts would have made no sense. At zero temperature Eqs. (29) lead to $`xyz^{1/3}/2^{4/3}`$ and $`x+1/2+y2^{5/3}z^{1/3}`$, and Eq. (22) yields

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2}{N_0}\frac{3}{2^{5/3}}\frac{1}{N_0^{1/3}}.$$
(30)
This result was obtained for the Hartree model by another method in Refs. walls ; dunn . We note that the asymptotics (30) is in agreement with Eq. (20) at $`T=0`$, which reproduces only the exact limit $`\delta \widehat{N}_0^2/N_0=0`$ for $`N_0\mathrm{}`$. At nonzero temperature we obtain in the same manner $`xy\sqrt{T/\mu }\sqrt{z}/2`$ and $`x+1/2+yT/(2\mu )`$, and, hence,

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2}{N_0}\frac{3}{2}\frac{T}{\mu }.$$
(31)
The replacement $`V_04\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$, discussed in Sec. IV.1, results in Eq. (20) but with the factor $`3/2`$. Certainly, the previous relation (20) is valid, as based on the more general considerations than the mean-field expression (31). Note that the method of the previous section, applied to the Hartree Hamiltonian (23), also leads to the same correct result (20).

The mean-field scheme works even worse in the case of the Hamiltonian (8), for the subtle balance of the terms is broken in Eqs. (22), (27), and (28). As a result, the term $`V_0=U_0`$ vanishes in the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$, and the main contribution comes in the condensate fluctuations from the term $`U_1`$. Note that the approximations used in Ref. glass  lead to the same effect. Thus, the mean-field scheme, applied to the model Hamiltonian (8), is not consistent for calculating the fluctuations, because it does not reproduce the correct answer (20). Nevertheless, for a qualitative estimation of the condensate fluctuations, it is quite right to make use of the mean-field scheme, which reproduces the correct answer up to a factor of $`3/2`$. Note that the Hartree Hamiltonian can be easily written down for the nonhomogeneous system (see Sec. 2.8 in Ref. walls ); the coefficients depend on the condensate wave function (the eigenfunction of the one-body density matrix), which is the solution of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. So it is possible to estimate qualitatively the condensate fluctuations for the trapped system by means of of Eqs. (30) and (31).

### IV.3 Next-to-leading order corrections for the fluctuations

In this paper we study the condensate fluctuations within the single-mode Hamiltonian (8). As is stressed in Sec. III, it means that we neglect the correlations between the numbers of the particles in the condensate and beyond it; that is, we put $`[\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}]/V0`$ in the thermodynamic limit, where by definition $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}=\widehat{N}\widehat{N}_0=_{p0}\widehat{a}_𝐩^{}\widehat{a}_𝐩`$ is the operator of particles beyond the Bose-Einstein condensate. In Ref. pit  an opposite idea was accepted that $`\delta \widehat{N}_0^2=\delta \widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2`$ due to the restriction $`N=\mathrm{const}`$ in the canonical ensemble, but at the same time, Bogoliubov’s scheme, which does not conserve the number of particles, was used there. This approach leads to nonthermodynamical fluctuations with $`\gamma =4/3`$ in Eq. (1). As discussed in Sec. II, the replacement of the condensate operators by the $`c`$-numbers implies that Bogoliubov’s terms are involved in the Hamiltonian. Such a procedure leads to $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{N}]0`$ and can change the accepted relation $`\delta \widehat{N}_0^2=\delta \widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2`$. On the other hand, within the conserving scheme (when $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{N}]=0`$) the Bogoliubov transformation $`\widehat{b}_𝐩=u_p\widehat{\alpha }_𝐩+v_p\widehat{\alpha }_𝐩^{}`$ relates the creation $`\widehat{\alpha }_𝐩^{}`$ and destruction $`\widehat{\alpha }_𝐩`$ quasiparticle operators with not the particle operator $`\widehat{a}_𝐩`$ but with $`\widehat{b}_𝐩=\widehat{a}_𝐩\widehat{a}_0^{}/\sqrt{N_0}`$ bogzub ; gard ; cast . Hence, the variance of the operator $`_{p0}\widehat{b}_𝐩^{}\widehat{b}_𝐩`$ is no longer equal to the variance of the number of noncondensate bosons $`\delta \widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2`$. For this reason, the approach pit  is implicitly based on the assumption that $`[\widehat{N}_0^2\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2]/N_0^2\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2`$ in leading order. A justification of this assumption is needed, since it may occur that the main contribution to the l.h.s. comes from the term $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2(\widehat{N}_0^2N_0^2)/N_0^2`$, which may be proportional to $`V^{4/3}`$. The question remains open what approximation is more correct, the approximation of the quasi-independent mode or the nonconserving approximation in conjunction with $`\delta \widehat{N}_0^2=\delta \widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}^2`$. Note that our result (20) does not contradict to that of the papers idz ; illu , in which the fluctuations were investigated in the canonical ensemble within the number-conserving simple scheme. We stress that the Bogoliubov model, based on the $`c`$-number replacement, is consistent with any value of $`\gamma <2`$, so all the approaches pit  and idz ; illu  and ours do not contradict to the Bogoliubov’s $`c`$-number replacement. Thus, we are able to use the singe-mode Hamiltonian (8) until a decisive answer has been given what is the value of the correlator $`[\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}]/V`$ within the number-conserving scheme note4 .

Let us formulate the hypothesis for the interacting Bose gas that in the framework of the number-conserving scheme the relation $`\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}/V\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{out}}_c/V`$ should be fulfilled; here, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_c`$ stand for the averages in the grand canonical and canonical ensembles, respectively. This hypothesis is reasonable, since transitions of bosons from the condensate state to the noncondensate ones and back occur in the whole volume, and thus the boundary conditions seem to be of no importance here. In addition, we have the relations $`\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}_c=N_0N`$ and $`\widehat{N}_0\widehat{N}N_0N=T(N_0/\mu )_T`$; the latter can be derived by differentiating $`\widehat{N}_0`$ with respect to the chemical potential (within the number-conserving scheme we do not face the difficulties discussed in Sec. IV.1). Thus, from the accepted hypothesis we obtain

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2}{N_0}=\frac{T}{n_0}\left(\frac{n_0}{\mu }\right)_T+\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2_c}{N_0}.$$
(32)
Here the derivative $`(\mu /n_0)_T`$ is not related to the formula (19), which concerns the single-mode Hamiltonian (8), because the averages in Eq. (32) correspond to the full Hamiltonian with the pairwise potential; one should calculate it from the thermodynamic expression for the chemical potential. In particular, in the temperature region $`n_0U^{(0)}(0)TT_\text{c}`$ \[here $`T_\text{c}`$ is the transition temperature of the ideal Bose gas and $`U^{(0)}(0)=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$\] we have

$$n_0\left(\frac{\mu }{n_0}\right)_Tn_0U^{(0)}(0)\left[16\sqrt{\pi }\frac{(n_0a^3)^{1/2}T}{n_0U^{(0)}(0)}\right],$$

where $`(n_0a^3)^{1/2}T/\left[n_0U^{(0)}(0)\right]1`$ (see, e.g., Ref. shi ). On the other hand, the number-conserving approach of Ref. idz  yields

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2_c}{N_0}2\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\pi }(n_0a^3)^{1/2}\left(\frac{T}{n_0U^{(0)}(0)}\right)^2$$

in that temperature region note5 . Thus, with the proposed equation (32) we obtain the relation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{N}_0^2}{N_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{n_0U^{(0)}(0)}}\left[1+(6+2\sqrt{2})\sqrt{\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{(n_0a^3)^{1/2}T}{n_0U^{(0)}(0)}}\right],`$ (33)
which contains the correction term in comparison with Eq. (20).

## V Summary

Starting from the approximation of the quasi-independent mode, we derive the single-mode Hamiltonian (8) and obtain the condensate fluctuations (20) for the grand canonical ensemble in the dilute limit. This relation is derived beyond the mean-field approximation. The mean-field scheme, applied to the Hamiltonian (8), leads to incorrect results. For the Hartree Hamiltonian (23), the mean-field approximation results in Eq. (31) at nonzero temperature, which differs from the correct relation (20) by a factor of $`3/2`$. With the help of the proposed hypothesis and the estimations of Ref. idz , the next-to-leading term is obtained for the condensate fluctuations (33).

This work was supported by RFBR grant No. 01-02-17650.


format: text

text:
# The chirally-odd twist-3 distribution 𝒆^𝒂(𝒙)

## 1 Introduction

Among the six distribution functions $`f_1^a(x)`$, $`g_1^a(x)`$, $`h_1^a(x)`$ and $`g_T^a(x)`$, $`h_L^a(x)`$, $`e^a(x)`$, which describe the structure of the nucleon in deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) processes up to twist-3, the least known and studied one is probably $`e^a(x)`$ (we use throughout the notation of Refs. ). The distribution function $`e^a(x)`$ is twist-3 and chirally odd. Apart from the first moment of $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$, which sometimes is related to the phenomenologically most interesting pion-nucleon sigma-term, it is experimentally unknown. Only recently it became clear how $`e^a(x)`$ – in principle – could be accessed in DIS experiments. Most recently the corresponding process has been studied by the HERMES and CLAS collaborations. In particular, the CLAS data possibly provide the first experimental indications for $`e^a(x)`$.

This note has partly the character of a brief review, however, also some new results are reported. In Sec. 2 the definition of $`e^a(x)`$ is given, and its theoretical properties are discussed. The known but only casually mentioned fact is emphasized, that $`e^a(x)`$ contains a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution. Different statements in literature on the small-$`x`$ behaviour of $`e^a(x)`$, which at first glance seem to be contradictory, are shown to be consistent. Sum rules for $`e^a(x)`$ are discussed. It is argued that there is no twist-3 inequality constraining $`e^a(x)`$ in terms of other twist-3 distribution functions. In Sec. 3 a brief overview is given about model calculations of $`e^a(x)`$. In particular results from the non-relativistic model, bag model, spectator model and chiral quark-soliton model are discussed. Sec. 4 briefly reports the recent progress on understanding time-odd phenomena – in particular in the fragmentation processes – which give rise to single spin asymmetries. Such asymmetries have recently been studied by the HERMES and CLAS collaborations. Sec. 5 contains the summary and conclusions. Some technical details concerning the gauge invariant decomposition of $`e^a(x)`$ can be found in App. A.

## 2 $`𝒆^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ in theory

### Definition.

The chirally odd twist-3 distribution functions $`e^q(x)`$ and $`e^{\overline{q}}(x)`$ for quarks of flavour $`q`$ and antiquarks of flavour $`\overline{q}`$ are defined as

$$e^q(x)=\frac{1}{2M_\text{N}}\frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)[0,\lambda n]\psi _q(\lambda n)|N,e^{\overline{q}}(x)=e^q(x),$$
(1)
where $`[0,\lambda n]`$ denotes the gauge-link. The scale dependence is not indicated for brevity. The light-like vectors $`n^\mu `$ in Eq. (1) and $`p^\mu `$ are defined such that $`n^\mu p_\mu =1`$ and the nucleon momentum is given by $`P_\text{N}^\mu =n^\mu +\frac{1}{2}M_\text{N}^2p^\mu `$. The matrix element in Eq. (1) is averaged over nucleon spin, i.e. $`N|\mathrm{}|N\frac{1}{2}_{S_3}N,S_3|\mathrm{}|N,S_3`$.

### Evolution.

The renormalization scale dependence of $`e^a(x)`$ has been studied in Refs. , see also Refs.  for reviews. The evolution of $`e^a(x)`$ is characterized by a complicated operator mixing pattern typical for twist-3 quantities. In the multi-colour limit the evolution of $`e^a(x)`$ simplifies to a DGLAP-type evolution – as it does for the other two nucleon twist-3 distribution functions $`h_L^a(x)`$ and (the flavour non-singlet) $`g_T^a(x)`$.

### Sum rules for the $`\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐭}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐}^{\mathrm{𝐧𝐝}}`$ moment.

The first moment of $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$ is related to the pion-nucleon sigma-term

$$_1^1𝑑x(e^u+e^d)(x)=\frac{1}{2M_\text{N}}N|\left(\overline{\psi }_u\psi _u+\overline{\psi }_d\psi _d\right)|N\frac{\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}}{m},$$
(2)
$`m\frac{1}{2}(m_u+m_d)`$ is the average mass of the light quarks. The pion-nucleon sigma-term $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$  is defined as the value of the nucleon scalar isoscalar form factor $`\sigma (t)`$,

$$\sigma (t)=\frac{m}{2M_\text{N}}N(P^{})|\left(\overline{\psi }_u\psi _u+\overline{\psi }_d\psi _d\right)|N(P),t=(PP^{})^2,$$
(3)
at $`t=0`$, i.e. $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}\sigma (0)`$.111 More precisely $`\sigma (t)`$ is defined as the nucleon form factor of the double commutator of the strong interaction Hamiltonian with two axial isovector charges . In the definition (3) a “double isospin violating term” proportional to $`(m_um_d)(\overline{\psi }_u\psi _u\overline{\psi }_d\psi _d)`$ is neglected. The relation (2) of $`e^q(x)`$ to $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$ is correct in a formal mathematical sense. The sum rule (2), however, unfortunately is of no practical use (not even in principle) to gain information on $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$ from DIS experiments – as we shall see below.

The pion-nucleon sigma-term $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$ gives the amount by which the nucleon mass changes, when the $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quarks are given a small mass $`m`$ . The form factor $`\sigma (t)`$ describes the elastic scattering off the nucleon due to the exchange of an isoscalar spin-zero particle, and is not known experimentally except for its value at the Cheng-Dashen point $`t=2m_\pi ^2`$. Low energy theorems  allow to relate $`\sigma (2m_\pi ^2)`$ to pion nucleon scattering amplitudes and one finds

$$\sigma (2m_\pi ^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(64\pm 8)\mathrm{MeV}\hfill & \text{Ref. }\text{[10]}\hfill \\ (79\pm 7)\mathrm{MeV}\hfill & \text{Ref. }\text{[11]}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
The difference $`\sigma (2m_\pi ^2)\sigma (0)`$ has been calculated from a dispersion relation analysis  and in chiral perturbation theory  with the consistent result

$$\sigma (2m_\pi ^2)\sigma (0)14\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(5)
This means that

$$\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}=\sigma (0)(5065)\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(6)
With $`m7\mathrm{MeV}`$ (at a scale of say $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$) one concludes a large number for the first moment of $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$

$$_1^1𝑑x(e^u+e^d)(x)(610).$$
(7)
Since $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$ is normalization scale invariant while the running current quark masses decrease with increasing scale, the number in Eq. (7) becomes even larger at higher scales.

The second moment of $`e^q(x)`$ is proportional to the number of the respective valence quarks $`N_q`$ (for proton $`N_u=2`$ and $`N_d=1`$) and vanishes in the chiral limit

$$_1^1𝑑xxe^q(x)=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}N_q.$$
(8)
### Twist-3 inequality.

In Ref.  the “Soffer-inequality” for twist-2 nucleon distribution functions,

$$f_1^a(x)+g_1^a(x)2|h_1^a(x)|,$$
(9)
was obtained making use of the positivity of the scattering density matrix. (An alternative derivation was given shortly after in .) Assuming that this argument can be generalized to higher twists, similar inequalities were obtained for twist-3 and twist-4 distribution functions in . In particular, the “twist-3 Soffer inequality” reads $`e^a(x)+h_L^a(x)2|g_T^a(x)|`$. Unfortunately, in general the positivity argument is not valid for higher twists.

One way to understand this is to recall that the twist-2 inequalities are derived by relating the imaginary part of the elastic forward quark-nucleon scattering amplitude by means of the optical theorem to the total cross section (which is positive). In the Bjorken-limit the imaginary part of the amplitude can be expressed in terms of twist-2 parton distribution functions. Twist-3 effects, of course, can be taken into account. They appear as corrections of the order $`M_\text{N}/Q`$ to the imaginary part of the amplitude. There is, however, in general no reason for such corrections to be positive. In other words, it is not possible to impose positivity at the level of each twist separately, fore the positivity of the scattering density matrix is already guaranteed by the twist-2 distribution functions (in the limit of large $`QM_\text{N}`$). Interestingly, if for some reason the twist-2 inequality (9) is saturated, i.e. if $`f_1^a(x)+g_1^a(x)=2|h_1^a(x)|`$, then the positivity of the cross section requires certain twist-3 inequalities to hold, and in one case $`e^a(x)+h_L^a(x)2|g_T^a(x)|`$ holds.

A different argument why twist-3 inequalities generally fail was given in Ref. . In the framework of light-cone formalism it was demonstrated that possible positivity constraints on the twist-3 distributions $`e^a(x)`$, $`h_L^a(x)`$ and $`g_T^a(x)`$ inevitably involve twist-2 and twist-4 distributions – which makes such constraints practically useless . (Still, in some cases useful constraints – though involving different twists – can be obtained, see .)

### The large $`𝑵_𝒄`$ limit.

In the limit of a large number of colours $`N_c`$ one observes the following behaviour of the singlet and non-singlet flavour combinations

$`(e^u+e^d)(x)=N_c^2d(N_cx)`$
$`(e^ue^d)(x)=N_cd(N_cx),`$ (10)
where the functions $`d(y)`$ are stable in the large-$`N_c`$ limit for a fixed argument $`y=N_cx`$, and of course different for the different flavour combinations. From (2) we conclude that

$$|(e^u+e^d)(x)||(e^ue^d)(x)|\text{for }N_c\mathrm{}\text{,}$$
(11)
or in other words $`e^u(x)e^d(x)`$ modulo $`1/N_c`$-corrections. Such large-$`N_c`$ relations hold well in nature, see e.g. Ref. , and can serve as a useful guideline.

### Decomposing $`𝒆^𝒂\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ by means of the QCD equations of motion.

The following operator identity follows from the QCD-equations of motion (flavour indices on the quark fields are omitted for simplicity)

$`\overline{\psi }(0)[0,z]\psi (z)=\overline{\psi }(0)\psi (0)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{u}{}}}𝑑v\overline{\psi }(0)\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }z_\beta [0,vz]gG_{\alpha \nu }(vz)z^\nu [vz,uz]\psi (uz)`$
$`im_q{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑u\overline{\psi }(0)\overline{)}z[0,uz]\psi (uz)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑u\left(\overline{\psi }(0)(i\overline{)}Dm_q)\overline{)}z[0,uz]\psi (uz)+\overline{\psi }(0)\overline{)}z[0,uz](i\overline{)}Dm_q)\psi (uz)\right).`$
(12)
The identity (2) is exact up to total derivatives which are irrelevant for the parton distribution functions. The formalism to derive such identities has been introduced in Ref. . The identity (2) can be found, e.g., in Refs. . The “equations of motion” operator in the last line of Eq. (2) vanishes in physical matrix elements, however, its mixing under renormalization with the other operators in Eq. (2) has to be considered in the study of the evolution properties of $`e^a(x)`$, see  and . The other operators in the identity (2), after inserted into the definition (1), yield the following decomposition of $`e^q(x)`$

$$e^q(x)=e_{\mathrm{sing}}^q(x)+e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)+e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x).$$
(13)
The contributions $`e_{\mathrm{sing}}^q(x)`$, $`e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)`$ and $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)`$ are “physically real”, in the sense that each term in the operator decomposition in Eq. (2) is gauge-invariant. They are defined as follows (see also App. A).

The contribution $`e_{\mathrm{sing}}^q(x)`$ arises from the local scalar operator $`\overline{\psi }_q(0)\psi _q(0)`$ on the right-hand-side (RHS) of the identity (2). It is proportional to a $`\delta `$-function at $`x=0`$

$$e_{\mathrm{sing}}^q(x)=\frac{\delta (x)}{2M_\text{N}}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\psi _q(0)|N.$$
(14)
The presence of this singular term is well known but only rarely mentioned (see, e.g., the footnote on p. 233 of Ref. ). It is customary to cancel out this contribution by multiplying $`e^q(x)`$ by $`x`$, since it has no partonic interpretation and is not relevant for the discussion of the evolution properties of $`e^q(x)`$. However, this contribution gives rise to the pion-nucleon sigma-term . The possible existence of a $`\delta (x)`$ singularity in $`e^q(x)`$ and structure functions associated with it has a long history. We shall come to this point later on.

The contribution $`e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)`$ is a quark-antiquark-gluon correlation function, i.e. the actual “pure” twist-3, “interaction dependent” contribution to $`e^q(x)`$. It has a “partonic interpretation” as an interference between scattering from a coherent quark-gluon pair and from a single quark, see  and references therein. It is due to the second operator on the RHS of the identity (2). The explicit expression of this term can be found in  and  (see also App. A). Here we only mention that the first two moments of $`e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)`$ vanish, i.e.

$$_n[e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q]=\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xx^{n1}e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)=0\text{for }n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\text{.}$$
(15)
The contribution $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)`$ is proportional to the current quark mass, and is conveniently defined in terms of its Mellin moments

$$_n[e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q]=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }n=1\text{,}\hfill \\ _{n1}[f_1^q]\hfill & \text{for }n>1\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where $`_n[f_1^q]`$ are the moments of the twist-2 unpolarized distribution $`f_1^q(x)`$. The relation (16) for moments $`n2`$ can be inverted as

$$xe_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}f_1^q(x).$$
(17)
Of course, for $`x0`$ one can divide Eq. (17) by $`x`$ – this allows to draw conclusions on the behaviour of $`e^q(x)`$ at small $`x>0`$ (see below). However, one has to keep in mind that the correct definition of $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)`$ is Eq. (16).

### Small-$`𝒙`$ behaviour of $`𝒆^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$.

The small- and large-$`x`$ behaviour of pure twist-3 distributions has been studied, see e.g. Eqs. (6.38, 6.39) in Ref. . For the following discussion we note the result

$$e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)\mathrm{const}x^0\text{for }x0\text{.}$$
(18)
Let us consider small $`x0`$ and the chiral limit ($`m_q0`$), where the mass-term in Eq. (17) drops out. Then Eq. (18) dictates the small-$`x`$ behaviour of $`e^q(x)`$, and we have $`e^q(x)\mathrm{const}`$ for small but non-zero $`x`$. This result is consistent with the conclusion

$$e^q(x)\mathrm{const}x^{0.04}\text{for }x0\text{,}$$
(19)
drawn in Ref.  from Regge phenomenology assuming a linear trajectory with standard slope (because the Regge trajectory could be slightly non-linear or its slope could be slightly different from $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and have an intercept $`\alpha (0)=1`$). In particular, in  it was concluded that the Pomeron decouples, because the Pomeron residue is spin-non-flip.

Considering finite quark mass effects, however, we see that the behaviour of $`e^q(x)`$ for small but non-zero $`x`$ is dominated by the mass-term $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)=m_qf_1^q(x)/(M_\text{N}x)`$ in Eq. (17), and that the Pomeron contributes to $`e^q(x)`$ (since it contributes to $`f_1^q(x)`$). This agrees with the conclusion

$$e^q(x)\mathrm{const}\frac{1}{x^2}\text{for }x0\text{,}$$
(20)
drawn in Ref.  from Regge phenomenology, where it was argued that the “Pomeron couples”, even though suppressed by the factor $`m_q/M_\text{N}`$.

The small $`x`$ behaviour of $`e^q(x)`$ in (20) makes – at first glance – questionable the convergence of the sum rule (2) . However, from Eq. (16) we see that $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)`$ does not contribute to (2). Thus it is not the small $`x`$ behaviour in (20) which makes the sum rule (2) practically useless for the purpose of relating $`e^q(x)`$, as it could be measured in DIS, to the pion nucleon sigma term. Rather it is, of course, the $`\delta (x)`$ contribution.

### Conclusions from the use of equations of motion.

The first conclusion is that the pion nucleon sigma term originates from the singular $`\delta (x)`$-contribution $`e_{\mathrm{sing}}^q(x)`$ only. This follows from comparing Eqs. (2) and (14) and considering Eqs. (15,16), i.e.

$$\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xe^q(x)=\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xe_{\mathrm{sing}}^q(x)=\frac{1}{2M_\text{N}}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\psi _q(0)|N.$$
(21)
If one neglects current quark mass effects222 Finite quark mass effects are considered in the next paragraph. Eq. (21) has the following consequence. Recalling that $`e^{\overline{q}}(x)=e^q(x)`$ and integrating over $`x`$ in the interval $`[0_+,1][ϵ,1]`$ with a positive $`ϵ`$ arbitrarily close (but not equal) to zero, one obtains

$$\underset{0+}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x(e^q+e^{\overline{q}})(x)=0.$$
(22)
The existence of the $`\delta (x)`$, of course, cannot be confirmed in the experiment. Eq. (22), however, corresponds to the experimental situation and could in principle be tested in the experiment.

### Finite current quark mass effects.

Neither the pure twist-3 contribution $`e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)`$ (due to Eq. (15)) nor the singular term $`e_{\mathrm{sing}}^q(x)`$ (due to $`_1^1𝑑xx\delta (x)=0`$) contribute to the second moment of $`e^q(x)`$. Thus the sum rule in Eq. (8) is saturated by the mass term, i.e.

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xx(e^qe^{\overline{q}})(x)=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x(f_1^qf_1^{\overline{q}})(x)=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}N_q.$$
(23)
Let us investigate in detail the effect of finite quark mass in Eq. (22). The integral of $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^a(x)`$ over $`x`$ in $`[1,1]`$ yields zero according to Eq. (16). So for any $`0<x_{\mathrm{min}}1`$ the following equation is formally true

$$\underset{0}{\overset{x_{\mathrm{min}}}{}}𝑑x(e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q+e_{\mathrm{mass}}^{\overline{q}})(x)=\underset{x_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x(e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q+e_{\mathrm{mass}}^{\overline{q}})(x)=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}\underset{x_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x\frac{(f_1^q+f_1^{\overline{q}})(x)}{x}0.$$
(24)
In the third integral in (24) we made use of Eq. (17) divided by $`x`$ (which is allowed since the point $`x=0`$ is not included in that integral). The final step in (24) follows from the positivity of $`f_1^a(x)`$. All integrals in (24) are (formally) well defined for any $`x_{\mathrm{min}}>0`$.

Thus, if one does not neglect $`m_q/M_\text{N}`$, the DIS sum rule (22) for the first moment of $`e^a(x)`$ becomes333 Due to (15) we have $`_{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^1𝑑x(e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q+e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^{\overline{q}})(x)=`$ $`_0^{x_{\mathrm{min}}}𝑑x(e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q+e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^{\overline{q}})(x)`$ $`0`$ for small $`x_{\mathrm{min}}`$ because of the smooth behaviour of $`e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^a(x)`$ at small $`x`$ in (18). This allows to safely neglect the contribution from $`e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)`$ to (25).

$$\underset{x_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x(e^q+e^{\overline{q}})(x)=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}\underset{x_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x\frac{(f_1^q+f_1^{\overline{q}})(x)}{x}\text{for very small }x_{\mathrm{min}}>0\text{.}$$
(25)
It is clear that also $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^a(x)`$ contains a singularity at $`x=0`$. Formally this singularity can be written as a generalized distribution

$$e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}\left[𝒫\frac{f_1^q(x)}{x}\delta (x)𝒫\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x^{}\frac{f_1^q(x^{})}{x^{}}\right]\stackrel{\mathrm{or}}{=}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}\left[\frac{xf_1^q(x)}{x^2+ϵ^2}\delta (x)\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x^{}\frac{x^{}f_1^q(x^{})}{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+ϵ^2}\right],$$
(26)
where it is understood that the principal value prescription (or the limit $`ϵ0`$) has to be taken only after $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)`$ has been inserted in an integral and integrated over. Thus – for finite $`m_q`$ – there is formally yet another $`\delta `$-function at $`x=0`$ in $`e^a(x)`$. This $`\delta `$-function ensures the formal “convergence” (when the point $`x=0`$ is included) of the sum rule (2) by cancelling the contribution from the mass term which strongly rises with decreasing $`x`$, cf. Eq. (20). Thus the paradoxical situation emerges that the sum rule (2) “practically” (since $`x=0`$ cannot be reached experimentally) diverges, as noticed in . But “theoretically” (when the point $`x=0`$ is included) the sum rule (2) exists (and is then saturated by the $`\delta (x)`$ contribution in Eq. (14)).

In principle, the small factor $`m_q/M_\text{N}`$ in Eq. (25) could be compensated by the factor $`_{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^1𝑑x(f_1^q+f_1^{\overline{q}})(x)/x`$ which rapidly grows with decreasing $`x_{\mathrm{min}}`$. Does this mean that the relation (25) could in principle be used to measure current quark masses in DIS? At leading twist, current quark mass effects are not observable in DIS because they are suppressed by a hard power $`m_q/Q`$ and cannot be distinguished from other (possibly non-factorizing) power suppressed contributions which are generically $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/Q)`$. The attempt to “measure” $`m_q`$ by means of Eq. (25) is also of such kind: Presuming factorization the physical contribution to an observable of the twist-3 $`e^a(x)`$ is accompanied by the factor $`M_\text{N}/Q`$, i.e. the effect of $`m_q`$ is effectively $`(M_\text{N}/Q)\times (m_q/M_\text{N})=m_q/Q`$. The (purely academic) question, whether $`m_q`$ could be measured in this way in DIS, would be answered by thorough proofs of factorization for processes involving $`e^a(x)`$. Such proofs would clarify whether $`m_q`$-contributions factorize from infrared singularities (in a process-independent way). At present, no such proof exists.

It is interesting to remark that – wherever it was assumed that factorization holds  – it was always $`xe^a(x)`$ (and not $`e^a(x)`$) which contributed to the cross-section. From a practical point of view, one can thus redefine $`e^a(x)e_{\mathrm{red}}^a(x)xe^a(x)`$ (as indeed some authors  do), and the discussions about $`\delta (x)`$-functions become superfluous. However, then one faces the interesting phenomenon, that the pion-nucleon sigma-term originates from a non-physical – namely the “minus first” – moment of the redefined $`e_{\mathrm{red}}^a(x)`$. The continuation to non-physical negative moments has been discussed in Ref. .

### The $`𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ singularity in $`𝒆^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$.

We have seen that QCD equations of motion allow to decompose $`e^q(x)`$ in a gauge invariant way into three contributions, one of them being proportional to a $`\delta `$-function type singularity at $`x=0`$. As the limiting point $`x=0`$ can neither be attributed to quark nor to antiquark distribution functions this finding is more clearly expressed as

$$(e^q+e^{\overline{q}})(x)=\frac{\delta (x)}{2M_\text{N}}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\psi _q(0)|N+\text{regular pure twist-3}+𝒪\left(\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}\right).$$
(27)
This means that the connection of $`e^q(x)`$ and the pion nucleon sigma term is of purely formal character; there is no experimental relation between $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$ and $`e^q(x)`$ or a structure function related to it. Interestingly, this possibility was considered already in the early 1970s before the advent of QCD .

In order to carefully derive DIS sum rules – such as (2) – one uses dispersion relations to relate the (at least in principle) measurable structure functions to the imaginary part of the respective forward scattering amplitude. The latter can then further be investigated by means of the operator product expansion, which in the Bjorken limit allows to connect moments of the structure functions to matrix elements of local operators. A sum rule formally derived using the operator product expansion is valid also for the experimentally measurable structure function if the forward scattering amplitude satisfies unsubtracted dispersion relations. If subtraction terms – in the context of Regge phenomenology referred to as “fixed poles”  – have to be included to make the dispersion integral finite, then the sum rule can be spoiled. A subtraction term in the dispersion integral manifests itself as a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution in the structure function . (Cf.  for a nice pedagogical exposition.) On the basis of such dispersion relation and Regge arguments it was observed in Ref.  that the sigma term sum rule444 More precisely, it is the sum rule involving the structure functions $`F_4(x)`$ and $`F_5(x)`$ which are related to $`e^q(x)`$ and – in principle – could be measured in (anti)neutrino-nucleon DIS. (2) could be spoiled. More prominent examples of sum rules which could possibly be spoiled in this way are the Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule  and the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule .

Further indications towards the presence of a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution in $`e^q(x)`$ were presented in Ref. , where $`e^q(x)`$ was constructed explicitly for a one-loop dressed massive quark. Of course, the perturbative calculation of Ref.  does not prove the existence of a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution in $`e^q(x)`$. But it strongly suggests it since one hardly can imagine a mechanism to cancel a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution, which appears in the leading order of some small coupling expansion, by higher order contributions. In the next section we shall see that a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution has recently been observed also in non-perturbative calculations in the framework of a realistic model of the nucleon (chiral quark-soliton model).

## 3 $`𝒆^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ in models

In this section we review results obtained in the non-relativistic quark model, bag model, spectator model and chiral quark-soliton model. We also will mention calculations in some toy models.

A subtle question is whether twist-3 distribution function can be described in models with no gluon degrees of freedom. However, among the most general twist-3 structures in the nucleon $`e^a(x)`$, $`g_T^a(x)`$ and $`h_L^a(x)`$ are distinguished inasmuch they can be expressed in terms of quark fields only, i.e. with no explicit gluon fields. This allows to describe these distribution functions in models with no gluon degrees of freedom, as argued in . However, the results of such model calculations have to be interpreted with care.

### Non-relativistic quark model.

The non-relativistic limit is an intuitive and, in some cases, useful guideline. We recall the popular relation $`h_1^q(x)=g_1^q(x)`$, which is often used to estimate effects of the transversity distribution function. (Irrespective the fact that, taken literally, the non-relativistic model yields $`h_1^q(x)=g_1^q(x)=P_q\delta (x\frac{1}{3})`$ with $`P_u=4/3`$ and $`P_d=1/3`$.) In this paragraph $`q=u,d`$ since there are no antiquarks in the non-relativistic limit, and $`m_q=m_u=m_d`$ is to be understood as the constituent mass of the light quarks, which is one third of the nucleon mass, i.e. $`m_q=M_\text{N}/3`$.

In the non-relativistic limit the twist-3 quark distribution $`e^q(x)`$ and the unpolarized twist-2 quark distribution $`f_1^q(x)`$ coincide

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{non}\\ \mathrm{relativistic}\end{array}}{lim}e^q(x)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{non}\\ \mathrm{relativistic}\end{array}}{lim}f_1^q(x)=N_q\delta \left(x\frac{1}{3}\right).$$
(28)
For the first moment the result in (28) yields $`𝑑x(e^u+e^d)(x)=3`$. This is the correct non-relativistic result for the sum rule (2), since in this limit $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}=3m_q=M_\text{N}`$. The latter can be verified by taking the non-relativistic limit in the expression (3) for $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$, or alternatively by means of the Feynman-Hellmann theorem

$$\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}=m\frac{M_\text{N}(m)}{m},$$
(29)
where $`m=\frac{1}{2}(m_u+m_d)=M_\text{N}/3`$ in this case. For the second moment (28) yields $`𝑑xe^q(x)=N_q/3`$, which is the correct non-relativistic result for the sum rule (8) recalling that $`m_q/M_\text{N}=1/3`$.

Thus, the non-relativistic result (28) satisfies the QCD sum rules (2,8). However, the results $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}=M_\text{N}`$ and $`𝑑x(e^u+e^d)(x)=3`$ strongly overestimate and underestimate, respectively, the phenomenological numbers in Eqs. (6) and (7). In particular, one could be worried that such a large value for the pion nucleon sigma term, $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}=M_\text{N}`$, would imply a huge number for the strangeness content $`y`$ of the nucleon, defined as

$$y=\frac{2N|\overline{\psi }_s\psi _s|N}{N|(\overline{\psi }_u\psi _u+\overline{\psi }_d\psi _d)|N}.$$
(30)
The precise role of $`y`$ in estimating the contribution of the strange quark degree of feedom to the nucleon mass was discussed in . In spite of the large strangeness content $`y`$ the total strange quark contribution to the nucleon mass is rather small .

To leading order in chiral perturbation theory the relation between $`y`$ and $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$ is given by

$$y=1\frac{m}{m_sm}\frac{M_\mathrm{\Xi }+M_\mathrm{\Sigma }2M_\text{N}}{\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}}.$$
(31)
(With $`m_s/m25`$ in Eq. (31) one obtains $`y=126\mathrm{MeV}/\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$. Improved calculations in higher orders of chiral perturbation theory yield $`y=1(35\pm 5)\mathrm{MeV}/\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$ . However, for our purposes the relation (31) is sufficient.) Inserting the non-relativistic mass relations $`M_\mathrm{\Xi }=2m_s+m_q`$, $`M_\mathrm{\Sigma }=m_s+2m_q`$ and $`M_\text{N}=3m_q`$ into (31) one observes that the mass of the strange quarks cancels out exactly, and $`y=1M_\text{N}/\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$, i.e. $`y=0`$ with the non-relativistic result $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}=M_\text{N}`$. This result follows directly from (30) since in the non-relativistic limit $`\overline{\psi }_s\psi _s=\psi _s^{}\psi _s`$ is the number operator for strange quarks, which has a zero expectation value in the nucleon states.

Finally we observe that in the non-relativistic limit $`e^q(x)`$ is due to the mass term in (13) only, as one intuitively would expect. This can be seen by observing that $`e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)=(m_q/M_\text{N})f_1^q(x)/x=f_1^q(x)`$, since the $`\delta (x\frac{1}{3})`$-function in (28) allows to replace $`x`$ in the denominator by $`\frac{1}{3}`$ which cancels the prefactor $`m_q/M_\text{N}=\frac{1}{3}`$. Thus, the non-relativistic “description” of $`e^q(x)`$ is theoretically consistent but phenomenologically not correct and, of course, not suited to provide insights into the twist-3 structure of $`e^q(x)`$.

### Bag model.

The first model studies of $`e^q(x)`$ have been done in the bag model . In Fig. 1 the results from Ref.  are shown. At the low scale of that model estimated to be around $`0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ the quark distribution $`e^q(x)`$ is of comparable magnitude as $`f_1^q(x)`$. (The bag model is not expected to consistently describe antiquark distribution functions, since it yields $`f_1^{\overline{q}}(x)<0`$ in contradiction with the positivity requirement.)

In the bag model the twist-2 Soffer inequality (9) is saturated,555 This naturally happens in quark models with (sufficiently) simple nucleon wave functions . which is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the (generally incorrect) “twist-3 inequality” of Ref.  to be valid. Indeed, it is observed that the “twist-3 Soffer-inequality” holds in the bag model and is saturated, i.e. $`e^q(x)=2g_T^q(x)h_L^q(x)`$ in the bag model .666 This in turn is a necessary condition for the (also generally incorrect) twist-4 inequality of Ref.  to be valid, which again holds in the bag model and is saturated . Thus, out of the three linearly independent quark distribution functions, which exist in general at each twist level in a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ hadron, in the bag model only two respectively are linearly independent. In some sense this is analog to the situation in the non-relativistic model, where $`h_1^q(x)=g_1^q(x)`$. A possible explanation could be that both models contain only quarks and the longitudinally and transversely polarized nucleon states are related to each other geometrically, namely by (respectively ordinary and Melosh) rotations.

There is no $`\delta (x)`$-contribution to $`e^q(x)`$ in the bag model. The first moment arises from a valence-like structure and is of the order of magnitude of unity, underestimating the phenomenologically expected number in Eq. (7). The sum rule for the second moment in Eq. (8) is violated in the bag model. This can be understood because this sum rule follows from equations of motion, which are modified by the bag boundary . It is worthwhile mentioning that $`e^q(x)`$ is entirely a bag surface effect. This in some sense is consistent as the bag models confinement and thus mimics gluons .

### Spectator model.

The quark distribution functions $`e^u(x)`$ and $`e^d(x)`$ were estimated in the spectator model at a scale pressumably lower than $`0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ . In this model $`e^u(x)`$ was found sizeable and $`e^d(x)`$ rather small; i.e. $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$ and $`(e^ue^d)(x)`$ are of comparable magnitude, and the large-$`N_c`$ relation (11) does not hold (which for finite $`N_c`$, of course, does not need to be the case). Also in the spectator model there is no $`\delta (x)`$-function in $`e^q(x)`$. The result for $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$ is shown in Fig. 1a.

### Gross-Neveu model in $`(1+1)`$-dimensions.

In Ref.  $`e^a(x)`$ was discussed in several toy models. The purpose of these studies was not to provide realistic estimates of $`e^a(x)`$, but to shed some light on possible mechanisms leading to the appearance of a $`\delta (x)`$-term. In particular, in a non-perturbative calculation in the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional version of the Gross-Neveu model the twist-3 distribution of “s”-type (model-) quarks in the “u”-type (model-) quark $`e^{s/u}(x)=\frac{1}{2M}\frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}u|\overline{\psi }_s(0)\psi _s(\lambda n)|u`$ was found to be proportional to $`\delta (x)`$. In the Gross-Neveu model the $`\delta (x)`$-term arises from long range correlations along the light cone, i.e. from the fact that the correlator $`u|\overline{\psi }_s(0)\psi _s(z)|u`$ ($`z`$ light-like) contains a contribution independent of $`z`$ . In order to illustrate that this need not be a peculiarity of the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional model it was shown (by means of perturbative methods) that $`e^a(x)`$ contains a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution also in other $`(1+1)`$\- and $`(3+1)`$-dimensional field theories  (cf. also ).

### Chiral quark-soliton model ($`𝝌`$QSM).

The flavour-singlet combination $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$, which is the leading contribution in the large-$`N_c`$ limit (2), has been studied in the $`\chi `$QSM at a low normalization point of about $`0.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ . Interestingly, $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$ was found to contain a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution

$$(e^u+e^d)(x)=C\delta (x)+(e^u+e^d)(x)_{\mathrm{reg}},$$
(32)
where $`(e^u+e^d)(x)_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ is a regular part, which has a valence-like structure and qualitatively looks similar to the bag and spectator model results, see Fig. 1. The coefficient $`C`$ is quadratically UV-divergent in the $`\chi `$QSM and can consistently be regularized. It is remarkable that in the model the baryonic quantity $`C`$ is proportional to the quark vacuum condensate

$$C=A_N\mathrm{vac}|(\overline{\psi }_u\psi _u+\overline{\psi }_d\psi _d)|\mathrm{vac},A_N=\frac{1}{2}d^3𝐱\mathrm{tr}_\text{F}\left(\frac{U+U^{}}{2}1\right).$$
(33)
The proportionality factor $`A_N`$ encodes the information on the nucleon: $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\tau ^a\pi ^a)`$ is the SU(2) chiral pion (soliton) field, $`\mathrm{tr}_\text{F}`$ denotes the trace over flavour. Numerically $`C=(9\pm 3)`$ for the value $`(280\pm 30)^3\mathrm{MeV}^3`$ of the quark-condensate from Ref. . In the $`\chi `$QSM the first moment of $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$ is not solely due to the $`\delta (x)`$-function but also receives a (small) contribution from the regular part $`(e^u+e^d)(x)_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ in (32). The final results are $`𝑑x(e^u+e^d)(x)=(10\pm 3)`$ and $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}=80\mathrm{MeV}`$ in reasonable agreement with Eqs. (6,7). The sum rules for the first and the second777 For the second moment, however, one cannot expect the current quark mass $`m_q`$ to appear in the model-version of the QCD sum rule (8). Instead an “effective” mass appears because the $`\chi `$QSM describes bound quarks at a low scale of $`0.6\mathrm{GeV}`$. moment are satisfied in the $`\chi `$QSM. There are no means in this model (such as gauge-invariance in QCD) to further decompose the regular part in (32), which is to be understood as the entangled pure-twist-3-term and mass-term.

In Ref.  the existence of a $`\delta (x)`$ contribution in $`(e^u+e^d)(x)`$ in the $`\chi `$QSM was concluded independently and in an alternative way to the derivation given in . In particular, in Ref.  it was shown that the $`\delta (x)`$-term is due to long-distance quark-quark correlations. Thus, the underlying non-perturbative mechanism which gives rise to the $`\delta (x)`$ contribution in the $`\chi `$QSM is analog to that observed in the Gross-Neveu model .

Apparently, a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution has no partonic interpretation. However, the model relation (33) “suggests” an “intuitive understanding”. Let us simplifyingly interpret $`e^a(x)`$ as scattering (in a particular way) off a parton in the nucleon, which carries the nucleon momentum fraction $`x`$ (in the infinite momentum frame) . What means scattering off a parton, which carries the momentum fraction $`x=0`$? Eq. (33) suggests that the parton with $`x=0`$ is not “moving” with the fast proton but indeed at rest. And it is not taken out of the proton but out of the vacuum, which to some extent (quantified by the constant $`A_N`$ in (32)) is present also inside the proton . It would be interesting to see whether the naive “interpretation” could be “confirmed” by observing relations analogue to (33) in other chiral models.

Finally we remark that the coefficient $`C`$ of the $`\delta (x)`$-contribution in Eq. (33) implies a relation between the pion nucleon sigma term and the quark vacuum condensate

$$\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}=m\mathrm{vac}|(\overline{\psi }_u\psi _u+\overline{\psi }_d\psi _d)|\mathrm{vac}A_N$$
(34)
with $`A_N`$ (which is negative) as defined in Eq. (33). The only model in which such a relation was known so far is the Skyrme model .888 We thank the referee for pointing out this to us.

### Summary of model results.

In the non-relativistic limit $`e^a(x)`$ and $`f_1^a(x)`$ become equal. The more realistic bag, spectator and chiral quark-soliton model  suggest that $`e^a(x)`$ has a sizeable valence-like structure at a low scale and is roughly half the magnitude of $`f_1^a(x)`$. The equations of motions are modified in these models (compared to QCD) and there is no gauge principle. Therefore a decomposition analogue to (13) is not possible. Still, in the $`\chi `$QSM there is a $`\delta (x)`$-contribution.

The model results certainly do not discourage measurements of observables containing information on $`e^q(x)`$. However, as will be discussed in the next section, this is a difficult task and only recently progress has been reported.

## 4 $`𝒆^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ in experiments

The distribution function $`e^a(x)`$ is a “spin-average” distribution, i.e. accessible in experiments with unpolarized nucleons. However, due to its chiral odd nature it can enter an observable only in connection with another chirally odd distribution or fragmentation function, and due to twist-3 its contribution is suppressed by a factor of $`M_\text{N}/Q`$, where $`Q`$ denotes the hard scale of the process. E.g. the combination $`_qe_q^2e^q(x)e^{\overline{q}}(x)`$ contributes to the Drell-Yan process with unpolarized proton beams, but only at twist-4 and together with other twist-4 quark-gluon-correlation functions . For some time this was the only known process involving $`e^a(x)`$, which of course is inpractical to access $`e^a(x)`$ experimentally.

Then the chirally and T-odd “Collins fragmentation function” $`H_1^a(z)`$ has been introduced , which describes the left-right asymmetry in the fragmentation of a transversely polarized quark of flavour $`a`$ into a hadron. $`H_1^a(z)`$ is “twist-2” in the sense that its contribution to observables is not power suppressed. Assuming factorization for transverse momentum dependent processes, it was shown that the combination $`_qe_q^2e^q(x)H_1^q(z)`$ gives the dominant (tree-level) contribution to a single spin asymmetry, $`A_{LU}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$, in hadron production from semi-inclusive DIS of longitudinally (subscript L) polarized electrons off unpolarized (subscript U) protons . $`A_{LU}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$ is proportional to the sine of the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ of the produced pion around the z-axis defined by the exchanged virtual photon. This azimuthal asymmetry has been measured in the HERMES experiment and found consistent with zero within error bars . More recently, however, the CLAS collaboration reported the measurement of a non-zero $`A_{LU}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$ in a different kinematics .

In the HERMES experiments also another azimuthal asymmetry, $`A_{UL}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$, in pion production from semi-inclusive DIS of unpolarized positrons off a longitudinally polarized proton target has been studied and found to be sizeable for $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ . This asymmetry contains information on $`H_1^a(z)`$ and the chirally odd twist-2 $`h_1^a(x)`$ and twist-3 $`h_L^a(x)`$ distribution functions . Using the model predictions from Refs.  for $`h_1^a(x)`$ and $`h_L^a(x)`$, in Ref.  the relation among the favoured Collins and unpolarized fragmentation functions $`H_1^{}(z)=(0.33\pm 0.06)zD_1(z)`$ for $`0.2z0.7`$ at $`Q^2=2.4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ has been extracted from the HERMES data .

This result for $`H_1^{}(z)`$ has been used in Ref.  to extract first experimental information on the flavour combination $`(e^u+\frac{1}{4}e^{\overline{d}})(x)`$ from the CLAS data on $`A_{LU}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$ in $`\pi ^+`$ production . For that it was assumed that the CLAS data is due to the Collins effect and the tree-level description of the process of Refs.  can be applied at the modest scale $`Q^2=1.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ of the CLAS experiment. The extracted $`(e^u+\frac{1}{4}e^{\overline{d}})(x)`$ is definitely not small, about half the magnitude of the corresponding flavour combination of $`f_1^a(x)`$ in the region $`0.15x0.4`$ covered in the CLAS experiment, see Fig. 2. It will be interesting to see whether the first information on $`e^a(x)`$ reported in Ref.  will be confirmed in future experiments.

The process described above is at present the cleanest way to access $`e^a(x)`$. However, there are other processes, e.g. electro-production of transversely polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from SIDIS of a longitudinally polarized electron beam off an unpolarized proton target, where $`e^a(x)`$ contributes together with further unknown fragmentation and distribution functions .

## 5 Conclusions

A brief discussion of the twist-3 chirally odd distribution function $`e^a(x)`$ has been given, focusing on theoretical properties, model estimates and perspectives to measure $`e^a(x)`$.

In particular, it has been emphasized that QCD equations of motion imply the existence of a $`\delta `$-type singularity in $`e^a(x)`$ at $`x=0`$. The first Mellin moment of $`e^a(x)`$ is solely due to this $`\delta (x)`$-contribution. This means that unfortunately DIS-experiments will not provide any information on the phenomenologically interesting pion nucleon sigma-term, which formally is related to the first moment of $`e^a(x)`$. Historically these conclusions have been drawn first on the basis of Regge arguments before the advent of QCD .

The existence of the $`\delta (x)`$-function, however, can indirectly be confirmed in the experiment by observing that the first moment of $`e^a(x)`$ vanishes if the point $`x=0`$ is not included in the $`x`$-integration. If current quark mass effects are neglected (which practically are suppressed by $`m_q/Q`$), $`e^a(x)`$ satisfies the following “practical DIS-sum rules”

$$\underset{0+}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x(e^q+e^{\overline{q}})(x)0,\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xx(e^qe^{\overline{q}})(x)0.$$
(35)
The integration limit $`0+`$ in the sum rule for the first moment means that the point $`x=0`$ is not included. This corresponds to the experimental situation, since data can be obtained only for $`xx_{\mathrm{min}}>0`$, with $`x_{\mathrm{min}}`$ depending on the facility. In principle the vanishing of the second moment of $`e^a(x)`$ could also be tested experimentally by taking the difference between “structure functions” $`_ae_a^2e^a(x)`$ extracted from proton and neutron data, and assuming a flavour symmetric sea, i.e. the relation $`_0^1𝑑xx(e^{\overline{u}}e^{\overline{d}})(x)=0`$. (However, in the case of $`f_1^{\overline{q}}(x)`$ an analogue relation, the “Gottfried sum rule” turned out to be wrong: $`_0^1𝑑x(f_1^{\overline{u}}f_1^{\overline{d}})(x)0`$ .)

The “practical” sum rules (35) recall the situation of the twist-3 distribution function $`\overline{g}_2(x)=g_2(x)g_2^{WW}(x)`$. The first moment of $`\overline{g}_2(x)`$ vanishes due to the Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule  and the second moment due to the Efremov-Teryaev-Leader-sum rule . In the case of the chirally odd distribution $`e^a(x)`$ the sum rules (35) will be even more difficult to test in the experiment.

In the limit of a large number of colours $`N_c`$ one finds $`e^u(x)=e^d(x)`$ modulo $`1/N_c`$ corrections, and in the non-relativistic one obtains $`e^q(x)=f_1^q(x)`$ modulo relativistic corrections. Both relations could serve as useful guidelines. In relativistic models, such as the bag , spectator  and chiral quark-soliton model ($`\chi `$QSM) , $`e^a(x)`$ has a sizeable valence-like structure at low scales about $`0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ and is roughly half the magnitude of $`f_1^a(x)`$. These models do not respect the practical DIS sum rules (35) since the latter follow from the QCD equations of motions – but in the bag and chiral quark-soliton model different (model-) equations of motions hold. Still, in the $`\chi `$QSM there is a $`\delta (x)`$ in $`e^q(x)`$ . The $`\delta (x)`$-function arises in the $`\chi `$QSM from long-distance quark-quark correlations  – i.e. from basically the same non-perturbative mechanism found previously in the Gross-Neveu model in $`(1+1)`$-dimensions .

Experimentally $`e^a(x)`$ could be accessed by means of the Collins effect  in semi-inclusive DIS of polarized electrons off an unpolarized target . Recently the CLAS collaboration  studied the process $`\stackrel{}{e}p\pi ^+X`$ and observed a particular angular distribution of the produced pions in the single (beam) spin asymmetry – as one would expect on grounds of the Collins effect . If this interpretation, that the CLAS data  are due to the Collins effect, applies then $`e^a(x)`$ is definitely not small, roughly half the magnitude of $`f_1^a(x)`$ at a scale of about $`1.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ .

The CLAS experiment could provide further insights, as could possibly do other fixed target experiments such as HERMES and COMPASS – when focusing on the large $`z`$ region where the analyzing power $`H_1^{}(z)/D_1(z)`$ is larger . Also EMC at CERN (by a reanalysis of old data) and HERA at DESY could provide further information – where the advantage of a polarized lepton beam and an unpolarized proton could be used to explore especially the small $`x`$-region at moderate $`Q^2`$ needed to resolve the twist-3 effect.

###### Acknowledgments.

We are grateful to G. Altarelli and A. V. Belitsky for discussions, and to the Department of Theoretical Physics of Turin University and CERN for warm hospitality where parts of this work have been completed. We also would like to thank the referee for several interesting and valuable remarks. A. E. is partially supported by RFBR grant 03-02-16816 and INTAS grant 00/587. This work has partly been performed under the contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130 of the European Commission.

## Appendix A Consequences from using equations of motions

In this Appendix the consequences are explored of using the identity in Eq. (2) based on the equations of motions. The Mellin moments are defined as $`_n[q]=_1^1𝑑xx^{n1}q(x)`$.

### The $`𝜹`$-function.

The singular contribution originates from the local term $`\overline{\psi }_q(0)\psi _q(0)`$ in the identity (2) and is given by

$$e_{\mathrm{sing}}^q(x)=\frac{1}{2M_\text{N}}\frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\psi _q(0)|N=\delta (x)\frac{1}{2M_\text{N}}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\psi _q(0)|N,$$
(36)
with the Mellin moments $`_n[e_{\mathrm{sing}}^q]=`$ $`\delta _{n1}\frac{1}{2M_\text{N}}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\psi _q(0)|N`$.

### The pure twist-3 term.

The second term on the right hand side (RHS) of the identity (2) gives rise to

$`e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_\text{N}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}\lambda ^2_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(\lambda )},`$ (37)
$`_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{u}{}}}𝑑vN|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }n_\beta [0,v\lambda n]gG_{\alpha \nu }(v\lambda n)n^\nu [v\lambda n,u\lambda n]\psi _q(u\lambda n)|N.`$
For the Mellin moments one obtains (using the support property $`e^a(x)0`$ for $`|x|1`$)

$`_n[e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_\text{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑xx^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda x}\lambda ^2_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(\lambda )`$ (38)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_\text{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}d\lambda \lambda ^2_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(\lambda )\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{i\lambda }}\right)^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda x}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_\text{N}}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{i\lambda }})^{n1}\lambda ^2_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(\lambda )|_{\lambda =0}.`$
From Eq. (38) we immediately see that the first two moments of $`e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q(x)`$ vanish

$$_1[e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q]=_2[e_{\mathrm{tw3}}^q]=0.$$
(39)
Higher Mellin moments, $`n>2`$, are generally non-zero. For explicit expressions see .

### The mass term.

The mass term follows from the third operator on the RHS of the identity (2)

$$e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q(x)=\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}\frac{d\lambda }{4\pi }e^{i\lambda x}i\lambda \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑uN|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\overline{)}n[0,u\lambda n]\psi _q(u\lambda n)|N.$$
(40)
Taking Mellin moments of $`e^q(x)^{\mathrm{mass}}`$ (and using the support property) yields

$`_n[e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q]={\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑xx^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{4\pi }}i\lambda e^{i\lambda x}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑uN|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\overline{)}n[0,u\lambda n]\psi _q(u\lambda n)|N`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{2M_\text{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\lambda i\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑uN|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\overline{)}n[0,u\lambda n]\psi _q(u\lambda n)|N\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{i\lambda }}\right)^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda x}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{2M_\text{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑u\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{i\lambda }}\right)^{n1}i\lambda N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\overline{)}n[0,u\lambda n]\psi _q(u\lambda n)|N|_{\lambda =0}`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }n=1\hfill \\ \frac{m_q}{2M_\text{N}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑u(n1)(i\frac{}{\lambda })^{n2}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\overline{)}n[0,u\lambda n]\psi _q(u\lambda n)|N|_{\lambda =0}\hfill & \text{for }n2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (41)
Using the relation

$$\left(i\frac{}{\lambda }\right)^m[0,u\lambda n]\psi (u\lambda n)|_{\lambda =0}=(iun_\alpha D^\alpha )^m\psi (0)$$

in the expression for $`n2`$ yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{2M_\text{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑u(n1)\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}\right)^{n2}N|\overline{\psi }(0)\overline{)}n[0,u\lambda n]\psi (u\lambda n)|N|_{\lambda =0}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{2M_\text{N}}}N|\overline{\psi }(0)\overline{)}n(in_\alpha D^\alpha )^{n2}\psi (0)|N{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑u(n1)u^{n2}`$
such that we obtain

$$_n[e_{\mathrm{mass}}^q]=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }n=1\hfill \\ \frac{m_q}{2M_\text{N}}N|\overline{\psi }(0)\overline{)}n(in_\alpha D^\alpha )^{n2}\psi (0)|N\hfill & \text{for }n2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
Recalling the definition of the twist-2 “unpolarized” distribution function $`f_1^q(x)`$ and its moments

$`f_1^q(x)={\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{4\pi }e^{i\lambda x}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\overline{)}n[0,\lambda n]\psi _q(\lambda n)|N},f_1^{\overline{q}}(x)=f_1^q(x)`$
$`_n[f_1^q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N|\overline{\psi }_q(0)\overline{)}n(in_\alpha D^\alpha )^{n1}\psi _q(0)|N`$ (43)
we obtain the relation between the mass term and $`f_1^q(x)`$ quoted in Eq. (16).

In the formal manipulations in Eqs. (38,A) it was assumed that the order of integrations over $`x`$ and $`\lambda `$ can be interchanged. In general this may not be allowed (see e.g. the discussion in Sec. 5.4 of Ref. ). However, in above cases one does not need to worry, because all moments of $`e^a(x)`$ are well defined (since $`\sigma _{\pi \text{N}}`$, $`N_q\frac{m_q}{M_\text{N}}`$, etc. are finite).