text:
# Merging Locally Correct Knowledge Bases: A Preliminary Report

## 1 Introduction

Most of the existing belief revision semantics are based—in some way—on a principle that has been formulated at the very beginning of the investigation on this topic: the minimal change principle . According to this principle, the result of integrating two or more knowledge bases should be as similar as possible to them. Semantics proposed for merging agree on this principle, and only differ in the way it is applied, i.e., in how to combine the several possibilities arising, in how to measure the difference between knowledge bases, in how the knowledge bases are represented, in what is the relative reliability of sources, etc. Nevertheless, very few arguments against the basic principle exist .

This paper does not contain arguments against the minimal change principle, but only as it being a first principle. Taking a different perspective, we show that it is indeed a particular consequence of a more general assumption. Namely, we present a model of how the knowledge bases to integrate are obtained that justifies the minimal change principle, as it is currently applied, only in particular cases. This model explains inconsistencies between knowledge bases by assuming that mistakes have been done in the process of knowledge acquisition.

This model is not completely new, as existing merging semantics actually rely on its particularization to the case in which mistakes are changes of value of literals. For example, Dalal’s revision semantics  can be reformulated as the result of assuming that one knowledge base is free of mistakes, and the other one results from introducing mistakes in the value of literals in an otherwise correct knowledge base. In formulae, while revising $`K`$ with $`P`$, we assume that the process of acquiring $`P`$ is error-free, while $`K`$ contains some mistakes, each changing the value of a single literal in a model. Therefore, Dalal’s revision can be reformulated as the correction of a minimal number of mistakes. Other belief revision semantics are based on the same principle, but have different rules for combining the different possibilities that arise . Iterated belief revision semantics , updates , and merging/arbitration operators , are based on similar principles.

The model proposed in this paper, however, does not only formalize existing semantics; being more general, it is applicable to other scenarios, leading to different revision techniques. While cases like the example of the stock market experts  are perfectly modeled in the “mistake of value” model, other ones are not. Some examples, like the following one, comes from everyday life.

###### Example 1

Yesterday, I met an old friend I have not been seeing in years. While talking about the high school days, we shared information about other friends we knew at that time. In particular, he told me that George earned a lot of money by creating a startup company he then sold, and now he lives in the Nukunonu island. On the other hand, I knew that George become incredibly rich with some illegal business, and he is currently in jail (but I do not know whether he still has some of the money.)

The union of our knowledge bases is inconsistent, as there are no jails in the Nukunonu island. On the other hand, both of us are completely certain of our current knowledge. We then had to conclude that we were talking about two different Georges. The correct conclusion of merging information should then be that “George\_A is rich”, “George\_A lives in the Nukunonu island”, and that “George\_B is in jail”.

Merging based on the minimal change principle, combined with the “mistake of value” assumption as it is usually done, would have led to a completely different result. Namely, since we assumed that we are talking about the same George, and since both of us have the same confidence on our knowledge, we could only conclude that either “George is in jail” or that “George lives in the Nukunonu island”, but not both (since no jail is in the Nukunonu island.) This is already a problem, as this information is not complete about George’s current location, while in fact we both know exactly where the Georges are. Still worst, since I do not know whether George is still rich while my friend is sure he is, I will incorrectly conclude that the George I am talking about is still rich, a fact that is not backed up by any evidence.

This scenario is about a common life incident, but similar problems are common in computer science: putting together two source files creates the problem of the same name for two different macros; similar problems arise in compiling C code fragments, etc. In the rest of the paper, we make the simplifying assumption that each knowledge base is the knowledge of a different agent involved in the process of merging.

One of the characteristics of the example above is the “local” correctness of the involved knowledge base: both me and my friend had correct information about the George we were thinking about. The fact that each agent regards its knowledge base as correct, and then has to correct it during the merging process, is true in current belief semantics as well. However, the “mistake of value” model implies that the conclusions drawn by each single knowledge base were in fact incorrect. On the contrary, if the only mistakes are like the same name for two different objects, then the conclusions drawn from each knowledge base separately (before the merging) are correct, e.g., the conclusion that George cannot travel any more was correctly entailed by my knowledge base, and this is a correct conclusion, as I am referring to the George who is in jail. The correction to the knowledge bases is therefore only necessary to avoid inconsistency while merging the knowledge bases.

While inconsistency is undoubtedly the most serious problem that may arise during merging, it is not the only one. There are mistakes that cannot be be discovered just by checking for inconsistency the union of the knowledge bases. Indeed, a mistake does not necessarily create an inconsistency. On the contrary, some mistakes make the union of the knowledge bases weaker than it should be. An example of this case is when two knowledge bases give different names to the same object, which forbids drawing conclusions based on two facts contained in the two knowledge bases.

###### Example 2

Still talking with my high school friend, I mentioned Teddy, who entered the Law school; I though that if he ever had graduated, he would have ended up in jail. The friend I was talking with, however, does not remember this Teddy, and the only guy he knows entered Law was Bobby, who actually graduated. In fact, Teddy was a nickname for Bobby, but we did not remember this fact.

No inconsistency arises in this case. However, the conclusion that Bobby is (likely) in jail could not be drawn by simply putting together the knowledge we had. Contrary to common merging scenarios, the conjunction of the knowledge bases is weaker than it should be. Such problems are clearly difficult to diagnose, as they do not create an inconsistency. The only way to find them out is from the fact that the resulting knowledge base is weaker than it should be. For example, knowing that only one person from our class entered the Law school would have allow us to find out that Bobby and Teddy must be the same person.

In order to produce a knowledge base in which as many mistakes as possible are corrected, we use two formulae that act as integrity constraints. Formally, we are given a multiset of knowledge bases $`𝒦`$ and two formulae $`A`$ and $`B`$; the result of the integration process is a formula $`K=_B^A𝒦`$ such that $`KA`$ and $`KB\vDash ̸`$. This way, we constraint the resulting knowledge base to have (at least) a specific set of consequences $`A`$, and not to have some undesired other consequences $`B`$. The formula $`A`$ formalizes the usual integrity constraints (facts that should remain true after integration), while $`B`$ extends the usual consistency requirement: $`B=`$ only enforces the result of integration to be consistent. Since $`K=_B^A𝒦`$ is a formula whose set of models is contained in $`Mod(A)`$, and is not contained in $`Mod(\neg B)`$, we call $`A`$ and $`B`$ the upper and lower bound of the merging operator, respectively.

If the union of the knowledge bases of $`𝒦`$ implies $`A`$ and is consistent with $`B`$, we assume that there is no problem, i.e., the knowledge bases do not contain any mistake. This assumption may be wrong anyway, but we have no way to realize it. The interesting case is when either constraint is not satisfied. In this case, we assume that some mistakes have been made while acquiring the knowledge bases. Some possible mistakes are listed below. The three last mistakes of the list are the only ones leading to a locally incorrect knowledge base.

two agents use the same variable while they should use two different ones;

two agents use different variables while they should use the same one;

a formula is stated using one variable, while it should use a different one;

a formula $`F`$ is extended to another variable or set of variables: formally, the agent assumes $`F[X/Y]`$ in addition of $`F`$;

a formula is assumed to hold in general, while it holds only under some assumptions;

a formula is assumed to hold only in a specific scenario, while it is more general;

a formula containing $`ab`$ is assumed to be $`a`$ alone (or $`b`$ alone, or both $`a`$ and $`b`$);

a formula containing an inclusive or is taken to refer to the exclusive or, or vice versa;

the formula is correct because it contains a model with a wrong value.

Besides the mistake of value, these mistakes can be grouped in three categories: mistakes due to a wrong interpretation of variables (homonymies, synonimies, and subject misunderstanding); mistakes due to a wrong interpretation of context (generalization, particularization, and extension); mistakes due to a wrong of the logic (ambiguity and exclusion).

Some other mistakes are particular cases of the above ones. For example, an agent may incorrectly assume that a previously true fact continues to hold while it does not: this is a subcase of incorrect generalization. Another similar mistake is the incorrect simplification of a definition, like “the water boils at $`100^{}`$C” instead of “the water boils at $`100^{}`$C at sea level”.

In the domain we consider, each agent introduces some mistakes into a truly correct knowledge base. This is modeled by assuming that each agent modified its original knowledge base in some way. Clearly, this is only a theoretical model: if the agent ever had a correct knowledge base, it had not modify it. However, this way we can say that “the agent modified the knowledge base”, that simplifies the more correct sentence “the agent incorrectly considered the information $`x`$ to be $`y`$”.

Merging is the process of first correcting mistakes in the knowledge bases, and then conjoining them. Correcting mistakes, in turns, is a two-phase process: first, we have to find out which mistakes have been made, and then correcting them. We initially assume that an ordering of likeliness of mistakes is known, and then consider the problem of how to derive it from the knowledge bases. In this second case, however, we cannot expect the merging process to do much, given the high number of possible mistakes: for example, the multiset $`\{a,\neg a\}`$ may be inconsistent because the second $`a`$ should be $`b`$, or because $`a`$ is only true when $`b`$ is true (that is, the first formula should be $`ba`$ instead of $`a`$ alone), or because the ambiguity $`ab`$ of the first formula has been interpreted as a choice, and the agent has incorrectly assumed $`a`$, etc. The number of possibilities increases with the number of variables and with the size and complexity of the knowledge bases. The process of correcting the mistakes can also be problematic: knowing that a formula has been obtained by changing a name is not enough if we do not know the original name.

We make some simplifications. The first one is to neglect the mistakes of logic (ambiguity and exclusion). The second one is to restrict our study to propositional knowledge bases. While first-order logic (even without function symbols) is uncommon in belief revision studies, this assumption makes us disregard the very relevant case of epistemic bases , which contain not only the agent’s belief, but also what it considers more or less plausible.

## 2 A Model of the Sources

In this section, we give a formal definition of our framework. The general belief merging process can be visualized as in Figure 1: there are a number of agents (sources) each sending a knowledge base to a centralized “knowledge merger”. We do not consider the more sophisticated models that are sometimes used (e.g., an agent supplies more than one knowledge base.)

We improve over this simple schema by providing a model of how the sources get the knowledge bases $`K_i`$’s they pass to the merger: each $`K_i`$ is obtained by applying one or more transformations to a knowledge base $`S_i`$, which is assumed to be correct. Figure 2 is a graphical representation of this model.

The “mistake of value” revision semantics fit in this model: each $`K_i`$ is obtained from $`S_i`$ by applying the transformation that changes the value of a variable in a model. Namely, let $`\tau _{M,x}^v`$ be the transformation that takes a formula, and gives another formula in which the model $`M`$ is replaced by the model with the opposite value of $`x`$. Each $`K_i`$ is obtained from $`S_i`$ by applying a suitable number of such transformations. Specific revision/arbitration/merging operators can be then formalized by assuming a form of minimality of the mistakes, and then combining in some way the possible results of this assumption.

For example, Dalal’s revision assumes that a. one of the knowledge base is correct (no transformation has been applied to it); b. the other knowledge base results from the application of a number of transformations $`\tau _{M,x}^v`$ to a correct one; and c. a minimal number of transformations have been applied. If more than one knowledge base result from inverting these transformations, they are disjoined. This semantics fits into the proposed model: the $`K_i`$’s are obtained by applying transformations to the $`S_i`$’s, and the process of integration attempts to invert them.

Formalizing Dalal’s revision in this way shows how integration can be done in general: inverting the transformation applied to $`S_i`$, and merging what results. Ideally, we should be able to obtain the knowledge bases $`S_i`$, which are assumed correct. Unfortunately, inverting the transformations cannot be done uniquely, as the merger only knows the $`K_i`$’s, but has no direct knowledge of the transformations used or the original $`S_i`$’s. For example, $`K_i=a`$ may be correct, or may be the result of changing a variable name to $`S_i=b`$, or may be a wrong generalization of $`S_i=ca`$, and so on.

The mistakes listed in Section 1 can be formalized by the following transformations.

$`\tau _{x,y}^h(F)=F[x/y]`$;

$`\tau _x^g(F)=F[x/\mathrm{𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖾}]`$;

$`\tau _x^p(F)=xF`$;

Variable substitution models all mistakes due to mistakes relative to variable names: homonymies, renaming, and subject misunderstanding. Wrong generalization is the mistake of neglecting some assumptions of an (otherwise true) fact. This can be formalized by taking the original (correct) formula $`F`$, and replacing the assumption $`x`$ with $`\mathrm{𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖾}`$. Note that the resulting formula $`\tau _x^g(F)`$ does not contain $`x`$ at all, but has exactly the models $`F`$ would have if $`x`$ is true. The simplest case of generalization is when $`xF`$ is taken to be $`F`$: if $`F`$ does not contain $`x`$, then $`F=\tau _x^g(xF)`$. However, $`\tau _x^g`$ also models more complex cases of generalization. Particularization is easy to formalize: some assumptions are believed to be required for some fact to hold, while they are not. Generalization and particularization can be, to some extent, been considered the opposite of each other, since $`\tau _x^g(\tau _x^p(F))F`$. However, the converse does not hold, as it may be $`\tau _x^p(\tau _x^g(F))F`$; this is the case, for example, if $`F`$ does not mention $`x`$ at all. We neglect mistakes of logic, that is, ambiguity and exclusion, as they are too hard to detect and invert. Especially ambiguity is difficult to detect without a lot of additional information: given a formula, it may be that each of its subformulae was originally disjoined with another formula (that may be an arbitrary formula of the domain). Even restricting to literals, the number of possibilities makes the problem quite difficult.

## 3 The Merging Process

The merging process consists in inverting the transformations, and then putting together the resulting knowledge bases. Since we only have the knowledge bases $`K_i`$’s after the changes, we do not know for sure which transformations are the ones to invert. Extending the principles used for revision and arbitration, we make some hypotheses about the kind of mistakes that have been made. Considering only the most likely possibilities, we are still left with a number of possible scenarios. For each of them, however, we know how to invert the transformations and obtain the original knowledge bases $`S_i`$, which can be then conjoined to get the maximum possible information. What result is the merged knowledge base in one of the possible scenarios we assumed. Therefore, we have one knowledge base for each scenario: since these are alternative possibilities, the right way of combining them is by disjunction.

Formally, we begin with the knowledge bases $`K_1,K_2,\mathrm{},K_n`$, and make an assumption about the transformations that have been used to obtain them. Inverting these transformations, we obtain $`K_1^{},K_2^{},\mathrm{},K_n^{}`$. If the assumption about the transformations is correct, the best way of merging them is simply by putting them together, thus obtaining $`K=K_1^{}K_2^{}\mathrm{}K_n^{}`$.

On the other hand, this is only a possible scenario. In another scenario, we may get a different result of merging $`K^1`$, in another one we may have yet another result $`K^2`$, etc. Since these are the results of considering different alternatives we consider equally likely, the final result of merging should be the disjunction (logical or) of them.

Figure 3 shows this process. Finding and inverting the transformations are central steps of this process: on the one hand, we should select as few possible scenarios as possible to avoid a too weak result; on the other hand, including too few possibilities may lead us to neglect the one that really represents the state of the world.

For simplicity, we replace these first two steps of the process by the one of finding one (or more) $`n`$-tuples of inverse transformations, one for each knowledge base. Indeed, finding the transformations that have been applied and inverting them can be formalized by the single step of finding the transformations that lead from the knowledge bases we have to the original ones; we call them “inverse transformations” simply because they invert the transformations that have been previously applied, but they are still the transformations previously considered, like variable substitution, etc.

In order to select one (or more) $`n`$-tuple of inverse transformations, we define an ordering over all possible $`n`$-tuples of sets of transformations. This way, we can compare a possible scenario with another one, and tell which one is the most likely. A different and simpler model is that in which there is one ordering for each knowledge base. We do not adopt this model because mistakes in one knowledge base should be ranked not only according to that source, but also as a result of comparing it with the other knowledge bases. This is why we consider an ordering ranking $`n`$-tuples rather than comparing transformations locally, i.e., source by source.

This ordering may originate in different ways: it can be part of the knowledge of each source (that is, each agent has its own idea of the mistakes it likely makes), or it can be an information the merger has (possibly based on the meaning of the literals and other related knowledge), or it is derived from the knowledge bases $`K_i`$’s using some heuristics. In the first two cases, we can simply assume that the ordering is given; the problem of obtaining it from the knowledge bases is discussed in the next session. Either way, in the rest of this section we assume that this ordering is given. In particular, we assume that $``$ is a function that associates an integer to each $`n`$-tuple of sets of transformations, giving the likeliness they correct the mistakes in the knowledge bases $`K_1,\mathrm{},K_n`$. As is common in belief revision, we interpret a lower rank as an higher degrees of likeliness, and therefore prefer $`n`$-tuples with the lowest rank.

The set of possible transformation that may have been used for generating $`K_i`$ from $`S_i`$ is defined as follows:

$$𝒯(K_i)=\{\tau _{x,y}^h|yVar(K_i),xVar(K_i)\}\{\tau _x^g|xVar(K_i)\}\{\tau _x^p|\neg xK_i\}$$

For example, $`K_i`$ may result from replacing $`x`$ with $`y`$, and this is why the renaming of $`x`$ with $`y`$ is in the the first part of $`𝒯(K_i)`$ only if $`y`$ is mentioned in $`K_i`$ while $`x`$ is not. The other parts of $`𝒯(K_i)`$ are motivated in a similar way. The set $`𝒯(K_i)`$ is potentially infinite, as there are potentially infinite possible variables $`xVar(K_i)`$. For example, if $`S_i=xy`$, and the source renamed $`x`$ with $`z`$, it ends up with $`K_i=zy`$. Inverting this transformation amounts to deciding which name $`z`$ originally had, and this is impossible by looking at $`K_i`$ only. When a variable disappears from a knowledge base, like in this case, we either use a variable that appears in another knowledge base, or introduce a new one. This limits the set of possible transformations: when we write $`xVar(K_i)`$ we assume that either $`x`$ is a variable occurring in some other knowledge base, or $`x`$ is a new variable created on purpose.

In order to invert the transformations, we define an inverse relation $`Inverse_i(\tau _1,\tau _2)`$, which relates two transformations $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ in such a way $`\tau _2`$ undoes the changes made by $`\tau _1`$ on the knowledge base $`K_i`$. Note that $`Inverse_i`$ is indexed by $`i`$, thus making this relation dependent on the considered knowledge base. However, only the names of the variables in $`K_i`$ are really needed. Also note that $`Inverse_i`$ is not a function, as renaming and generalization cannot be uniquely inverted. This relation is formally defined as follows.

$`Inverse_i`$ $`=`$ $`\{(\tau _{x,y}^h,\tau _{y,z}^h)|\tau _{x,y}^h𝒯(K_i),xVar(K_i),zVar(K_i)\}`$
$`\{(\tau _x^g,\tau _y^p)|\tau _x^g𝒯(K_i),yVar(K_i)\}`$
$`\{(\tau _x^p,\tau _y^g)|\tau _x^g𝒯(K_i),yVar(K_i)\}`$
The relation $`Inverse_i`$ defines the set of all possible inverse transformations on the knowledge base $`K_i`$. Since there are too many such transformations, we also consider the ordering that tells their degree of likeliness. This ordering is formalized as a functions from $`n`$-tuples of sets of transformations to integers. Formally, an integer is associated to each subset of $`Inverse_1\times \mathrm{}\times Inverse_n`$. The idea is that each subset of this set contains a set of transformations for each knowledge base; implicitly, it tells the mistakes that have been done. The ordering simply tells the degree of likeliness of these mistakes. We denote this function as $``$.

This ranking makes the process of merging possible. As it is common in belief revision, we consider all possible changes to the knowledge bases, select only the ones that lead to the expected result ($`A`$ should be derivable but $`\neg B`$ should not), and then use the ranking to further reduce the set of possibilities.

In order to define the first step (selection of transformations), we have to specify, for each $`n`$-tuple of sets of transformations, what is the resulting knowledge base. Let therefore $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be this n-tuple, where $`_i\{\tau |\tau ^{}.\tau ^{},\tau Inverse_i\}`$. The result of applying the transformations in $`_i`$ to $`K_i`$ is as follows:

$$__i(K_i)=\tau _1(\mathrm{}(\tau _n(K_i))\text{ where }_i=\{\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n\}$$

We extend this operator to tuples of set of transformations and to tuples of knowledge bases as follows.

$$_{_1,\mathrm{},_n}𝒦=__i(K_i)$$

This is the result of merging only if $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ is known to be the way in which the transformations have to be inverted, or it is the only way in which both the constraint on $`A`$ and the constraint on $`B`$ can be satisfied. Usually, this is not the case, so we have to use the ranking $``$ to make a selection.

The transformations we consider are the minimal ones among those making the result of merging to imply $`A`$ but not to imply $`\neg B`$. Minimality is defined using the ranking.

$`_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{}{\mathrm{min}}(\{_1,\mathrm{},_n|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,\mathrm{},n}{}}_{_1,\mathrm{},_n}𝒦A\text{ and }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,\mathrm{},n}{}}(_{_1,\mathrm{},_n}𝒦)B\vDash ̸\},)`$
This formula defines a set of transformations for each source. Clearly, there is no warranty that such a minimum is unique. The merger applies each set of possible transformations, and disjoins the results:

$$_B^A(𝒦)=\underset{_\tau }{}_{}𝒦$$

By construction, $`_B^A(𝒦)`$ implies $`A`$ simply because it is a disjunction of terms, each implying $`A`$. For the same reason, since each term is consistent with $`B`$, so is the result of merging.

## 4 Selection Heuristics

The merging process outlined in the last section depends on which the most likely transformations are. So far, we simply assumed the knowledge of the ordering $`_i`$, either because it is an additional information the agents have, or because it is known to the centralized merger. However, the case in which no additional information, besides the knowledge bases, is known is also important. In this section we consider the case in which no information about the likeliness of mistakes is given, and the ordering must be drawn from the knowledge bases $`K_i`$.

While it is always theoretically possible to select all possible transformations that satisfy the constraints $`A`$ and $`B`$, these transformations may be too many to give useful information. Indeed, the more the possible considered scenarios are, the weaker the resulting knowledge base is, and the number of possible scenarios may be very large even for very simple knowledge bases. For example, the knowledge base $`K_1=xy`$ may result from the renaming of $`z`$ to $`x`$, or from the particularization of $`y`$ (i.e. we incorrectly assumed that $`y`$ holds only when $`x`$ is true), or from the generalization of $`xzy`$, etc. A first selection criteria is that we only accepts sets of transformations that produce a knowledge base that satisfies the upper and the lower bounds. This, however, may be still too weak a constraint to limit the number of transformations.

For this reason, we also assume some minimality criteria; namely, we assume that as few mistakes as possible have been made while producing $`K_i`$ from $`S_i`$. In a sense, this is the minimal change principle in disguise: assuming a minimal number of mistakes, we still consider a minimal number of (inverse) transformations to be applied to the knowledge bases. On the other hand, the minimal change principle in this form is not a first principle any longer, but only a consequence of a more general assumption.

The principle of minimizing the number of mistakes/transformations, however, may still be not enough, that is, the number of possible scenarios may still be too high. Therefore, we use the knowledge bases to further limit the number of possible alternatives. In this section, we present a selection heuristics that is based only on the knowledge bases. We assume that no further information is given about the meaning of literals, the likeliness of mistakes, etc. and that we cannot perform any information-gathering actions (a common assumption in belief revision, less in the real world.)

Another problem of the merging process is that some transformations cannot be inverted uniquely. In particular, knowing that $`K_i=\tau _x^g(S_i)`$ does not allow to derive $`S_i`$. In such cases, we simply assume that $`S_i=\tau _x^p(K_i)`$. This is equivalent to assuming that $`\tau _x^g`$ is only applied to formulae like $`xF`$, i.e., having $`x`$ as a precondition.

In order to define this ranking $``$, we observe that it only needs to rank the transformations according to their plausibility, regardless of whether they lead to satisfy the lower and upper bounds of merging: it is the merging process that enforces these constraints to be satisfied.

The ranking $``$ is based on (besides assuming a minimal number of mistakes,) assuming that the initial knowledge bases $`S_i`$’s are similar to each other. Therefore, the best inverse transformations are those making the resulting knowledge bases $`K_i^{}`$ as similar to each other as possible.

Examples justifying this way of operating are easy to find: if a knowledge base is identical to another one except for a different variable name, the change of the name is intuitively the most reasonable action to do before integrating the two knowledge bases.

This example can be generalized to the case in which applying a transformation to $`K_i`$ makes it equal to $`K_j`$: this transformation is likely to be the inverse of the one that changed $`S_i`$ to $`K_i`$. In this case, $`S_i=S_j`$, but is not always the case. To make this criteria to have general applicability, we need a way for applying it even when the two knowledge bases cannot be made identical. To this aim, we measure the similarity between knowledge bases, and trade off between the number of inverse transformations and the degree of similarity of the resulting knowledge bases. We therefore need a way for measuring the similarity between two knowledge bases, and then a way for combining this measure with the number of changes needed to make the knowledge bases similar.

The measure of similarity can be defined either syntactically or semantically; we define a semantical measure. There are two reasons for this choice: first, it is possible to express the same knowledge in different ways (so that $`S_i`$ and $`S_j`$, while identical in their sets of models, are syntactically different); second, each source may have further changed the syntactic form of its knowledge base to suit its purposes.

Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be two knowledge bases, and let $`Mod(K_1)`$ and $`Mod(K_2)`$ be their sets of models. The measure of similarity should grow as the size of the intersection $`Mod(K_1)Mod(K_2)`$, and as the intersection of their complements $`Mod(\neg K_1)Mod(\neg K_2)`$. The total size of these two sets is in fact equal to $`|Mod(K_1K_2)|`$. The degree of similarity should also decrease with the number of models that satisfy only one formula, that is, the size of $`Mod(K_1K_2)`$. A possible choice is the linear combination of these two measures:

$$\delta (K_1,K_2)=|Mod(K_1K_2)||Mod(K_1K_2)|=2|Mod(K_1K_2)||Mod(\mathrm{𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖾})|$$

This function is in practice the same as $`|Mod(K_1K_2)|`$. Another possibility is that of using a quotient: $`\delta (K_1,K_2)=|Mod(K_1K_2)|/|Mod(K_1K_2)|`$.

Having defined the measure of similarity $`\delta `$ of two knowledge bases, we can now combine it with the number of transformations to define the ranking. Let us therefore consider a specific $`n`$-tuple $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$. The knowledge bases generated by the transformations are $`__i(K_i)`$. We compare them using $`\delta `$ and the number of transformations in each set $`_i`$. We use a simple linear combination of these two measures.

$$(_1,\mathrm{},_n)=\underset{K_i,K_j}{}\mathrm{log}(\delta (__i(K_i),__j(K_j))+1)+|_i|$$

The logarithm is used to make the measure of similarity and the number of transformations to be on the same scale: without it, the measure of similarity can be exponentially large, thus making the contribution of the number of transformations irrelevant. We used a logarithm (instead of a multiplying factor) because a difference of distances should be less important when the number of different models is high: the difference between one model and two is more important than the difference between 1000 and 1001.

This ranking $``$ defines a measure of goodness of transformations, and therefore completes the merging process outlined in the previous section: given the knowledge bases $`K_i`$’s, we can now tell exactly what the result of merging is.

A problem of this ranking, however, is that it is based on assuming that all knowledge bases $`K_i`$ derives from similar knowledge bases $`S_i`$ by applying some, equally likely, transformations. While the equal likeliness is the natural result of assuming no information about the likeliness of transformations, the assumption that the $`S_i`$’s are similar is questionable. In particular, it may be more reasonable to assume that each knowledge base is “targeted” to a different subject. Indeed, it is likely that each source uses the knowledge base for a specific purpose; as a result, the knowledge bases may contain only information about some specific subjects.

To take this consideration into account, we do not measure how similar the knowledge bases are, but how similar they are when restricted to a subset of variables. Namely, let $`K^Y`$ be the restriction of the formula $`K`$ to the variables in $`Y`$. The difference between two formulae $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ is:

$$\delta (K_1,K_2)=\underset{\mathrm{}YX}{}\frac{\delta (K_1^Y,K_2^Y)}{|X||Y|+1}$$

This is how we formalize the assumption that the result of the inverse transformations may be a formula that is similar to the other one only for a subset of its variables. The quotient is defined in such a way to avoid a difference in the case $`|Y|=1`$ to count the same as in the case $`Y=X`$.

## 5 The Renaming Merging Operator

The ranking defined in the previous section allows for determining the result of merging from the knowledge bases alone, without any additional information. In the belief revision terminology, this is a merging operator, as opposed to merging schemas, which require some additional information such as ranking, preferences, etc. (they are called schemas because they are the backbones of a merging process, but something has to be added to make them complete merging operators.)

The operator defined in the last section allows for checking the validity of properties that should hold for the merging process. However, the number of possible transformations make the operator quite complicated. We therefore make the simplifying assumption that the only mistakes are those involving renamings. The set of possible transformations is therefore defined as follows.

###### Definition 1

Given a set of variables $`X`$, a permitted inverse transformation is a substitution $`X/Y`$ in which each $`x_i`$ is either substituted with another variable in $`X`$, or it is renamed as the new variable $`x_i^{}`$.

This definition forbids the proliferation of new variables: if we have to replace $`x_i`$ with a new variable, we are forced to name it $`x_i^{}`$. This rule limits the number of choices while renaming variables. Intuitively, if we have to change the name of a variable, this rule allows not to care about the name of the new variable.

The merging operator is based on a particularization of the general model of the sources; namely, the only considered transformations are renamings. Therefore, in order to define a specific merging operator, we only need an ordering over the renamings. Assuming all transformations equally likely we get a merging operator we call Renaming Merging with Equal Likeliness Operator, or RMEL for short. For the sake of clarity, we only consider two knowledge bases, as is common in the merging/arbitration literature.

###### Definition 2

The Renaming Merging with Equal Likeliness Operator $`_{RMEL}^{A,B}`$ associates any two knowledge bases $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ to another knowledge base $`K_1_{RMEL}^{A,B}K_2`$ defined as follows:

$$K_1_{RMEL}^{A,B}K_2=\underset{Y,ZPIT}{}K_1[X/Y]K_2[X/Z]$$

where $`Y,ZPIT`$ if and only if $`X/Y`$ and $`X/Z`$ are permitted inverse transformations that satisfy $`K_1[X/Y]K_2[X/Z]A`$ and $`K_1[X/Y]K_2[X/Z]B\vDash ̸`$ and are of minimal combined size (that is, the size of $`Y`$ plus that of $`Z`$ is minimal.) $`X`$ is a subset of the variables in $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`A`$, and $`B`$.

In this definition, we consider renamings to the variables in $`K_1`$ and in $`K_2`$ that satisfy the bounds $`A`$ and $`B`$. Using only permitted inverse transformations reduces the number of disjuncts in the definition. Indeed, for each variable in each of the two knowledge bases, we can either substitute it with another variable in $`X`$, or with a new variable not appearing anywhere else. The use of new variables is necessary as the two knowledge bases may use the same variables for different facts, so that either one or both of them have to be renamed. Using only permitted inverse transformations we avoid the problem of having to consider transformations that differ only for the name of the new variables, since the name of new variables is defined uniquely. On the other hand, permitted transformations are liberal enough to allow for making the alphabets of $`K_1[X/Y]`$ and $`K_2[X/Z]`$ disjoint (just substitute each $`x_i`$ with $`x_i^{}`$ in $`K_1`$, and make no changes to $`K_2`$.) This may be necessary when the two knowledge bases use exactly the same variables to represent completely different facts.

The rule of minimality excludes transformations that introduce renamings that are not justified. This particular ordering is the one that reduces the number of renamings the most, but other rules can be used instead: minimality w.r.t. set containment, minimal size of $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ considered separately, user supplied ranking of transformations, etc.

Let us consider some properties of this operator. We assume that both $`A`$ and $`B`$ are consistent, and do not contradict each other. This is important: for example, if $`A=a`$ and $`B=\neg a`$, there is no way to make $`A`$ implied and $`B`$ consistent at the same time. We therefore assume that $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`AB`$ are all consistent. A good property this merging operator should have is that of success, that is, it should produce a meaningful result. In our case, since merging is defined as a disjunction of possible hypotheses, this amounts to checking whether the resulting knowledge base is consistent. Unfortunately, this may not be the case, as the following example shows:

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`\neg x_1`$
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`\neg x_2`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`x_1`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $``$
The problem here is that the two knowledge bases both tell that something is false, while we wanted a variable to be true after the merging, as $`A=x_1`$. The problem could be overcome by considering transformations involving negative literals, but this is quite unintuitive in this case: if we assume that the only problem is that we are giving the wrong name to a fact, we cannot infer that a fact is true from a statement saying that a fact is false.

The reason of why we cannot get success in this example is that the operator is based on assuming that the knowledge bases are obtained by renamings of correct ones, but the knowledge bases $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ of this example contradict this assumption. Indeed, $`K_1=\neg x_1`$ cannot be the result of changing a name to a knowledge base that implies $`x_1`$. Obtaining a consistent result from the knowledge bases above would therefore be counterintuitive, as the merging operator would be saying that the assumption on the transformations (only name changes are possible) is consistent with the available data, while in fact it is not.

This example shows that we cannot expect the merging operator to work correctly even when the assumptions it is based on do not hold. On the contrary, the properties of this operator have to be checked with respect to two knowledge bases $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ that actually result from renaming some variables in two knowledge bases $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$, both consistent with $`B`$ and both implying $`A`$.

If this is the case, the transformations can be inverted, and therefore the bounds $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be satisfied. It does not matter that the inverse transformation is not unique: to achieve derivability of $`A`$ and consistency with $`B`$, all that is needed is that there is at least a pair $`Y,Z`$ such that $`K_1[X/Y]K_2[X/Z]A`$ and $`K_1[X/Y]K_2[X/Z]B\vDash ̸B`$. All other disjuncts involved in the definition (if any) are consistent with $`B`$, and therefore their disjunction is consistent with $`B`$ as well. The upper bound $`A`$ is satisfied for the same reason: since each element of the disjunction implies $`A`$, all of its models are models of $`A`$.

A second property that we wish to obtain is that the original knowledge is correctly, even if not completely, recovered. This is to say that, if $`S_1S_2\vDash ̸C`$, then the result of merging $`K_1`$ with $`K_2`$ should not imply $`C`$ either. However, this is not always the case, as the following example shows.

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`x_1\text{ }(S_1=x_2)`$
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }(S_2=)`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $``$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $``$
This example clearly shows a problem that has been already mentioned in the introduction: if we have no way to realize that a mistake has been made, then there is no way to recover from it. In this case, assuming that both knowledge bases are free of mistakes is not inconsistent with the bounds $`A`$ and $`B`$. Therefore, $`K_1K_2=x_1`$ is the result of merging simply because we have no reason to assume that a name change is necessary. This conclusion is incorrect, as $`x_1`$ is not a consequence of $`S_1S_2=x_2`$. This example also shows the obvious fact that we cannot enforce completeness either: $`x_2`$ is a consequence of the original knowledge base, but is not a consequence of the result of merging.

The fact that we cannot always recover the original knowledge bases, however, it is not unique to this operator. Even in the “mistake of value” assumption (that is, in “traditional” belief revision operators), the way the result of merging is related to the real world is conditioned to the validity of the minimal change principle. To make a concrete example, if our real world is $`ab`$, and we have to revise $`K=\neg a`$ to $`P=b`$, we will always get the incorrect conclusion $`\neg a`$. This is simply because:

1. there is no evidence we need to make any change;
2. we commit to the principle of making as few changes as possible.

In our scenario, we do not have any evidence that makes us thinking that a mistake has been made, and we therefore assume that the knowledge bases are correct. Making any other choice without any additional justifying information would be unmotivated.

We now consider the operator obtained by adding the ranking over transformations defined in the previous section. The definition of ranking specializes to the case of renamings only as follows.

###### Definition 3

The degree of a permitted inverse transformation $`X/Y,X/Z`$ w.r.t. $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`A`$, and $`B`$ is given by the following formula:

$$(X/Y,X/Z)=|X/Y|+|X/Z|+\mathrm{log}(\delta (K_1[X/Y],K_2[X/Z]))$$

In words, this ranking combines the number of name changes with the similarity of the knowledge bases after the changes (the similarity measure $`\delta `$ can be defined as shown in the previous section.) In this case, we have used a simple linear combination, but other combinations are possible (for example, we can first consider the number of changes, and then the similarity only in case of ties.)

###### Definition 4

The Renaming Merging Operator $`_{RM}^{A,B}`$ associates with any two knowledge bases $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ another knowledge base $`K_1_{RM}^{A,B}K_2`$ defined as follows:

$$K_1_{RM}^{A,B}K_2=\underset{Y,ZMPIT}{}K_1[X/Y]K_2[X/Z]$$

where $`Y,ZMPIT`$ if and only if $`X/Y`$ and $`X/Z`$ are minimal permitted inverse transformations w.r.t. $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`A`$, and $`B`$.

This operator differs from the previous one only in that the similarity between the two knowledge bases is taken into account, and it is in the same degree as the number of substitutions.

The same drawbacks of the operator with equal likeliness appear here. The difference is that, using an ordering, we select less transformations. Thus, we have less terms in the disjunction, and therefore the result of merging can be logically stronger.

## 6 Complexity Results

In this section, we consider the complexity of inference for the renaming merging with equal likeliness operator. Formally, given $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`Q`$, we want to check whether $`Q`$ is implied by the merge of $`K_1`$ with $`K_2`$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the upper and lower bound, respectively.

###### Theorem 1

The problem of checking whether $`K_1_{RMEL}^{A,B}K_2Q`$ is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2^p`$-hard, and is in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3^p[\mathrm{log}n]`$.

Proof. Membership: finding the size of the minimal renamings that make $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ consistent with $`B`$ and not with $`\neg A`$ can be done with a logarithmic number of queries to an oracle that checks the existence of a substitution that satisfies both constraints (this oracle must be in the second level of the polynomial hierarchy due to the upper bound: it has to check the existence of a substitution such that the resulting knowledge bases imply $`A`$.)

Using the minimal size of substitutions, all is needed is to check whether the knowledge bases imply $`Q`$ using all substitutions of minimal size that satisfy both constraints.

Hardness is proved by reduction from $``$QBF. We prove that $`XY.F`$ is valid if and only if $`K_1_{RMEL}^{A,B}K_2Q`$, where $`Q=a`$ and

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`ax_1\mathrm{}x_n`$
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`\neg a\neg x_1\mathrm{}\neg x_n`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`a(\neg F[Y/Y_1]\mathrm{}\neg F[Y/Y_{n+1}])`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $``$
In order to satisfy the lower bound, the substitutions must make $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ consistent. This is only possible by changing the name of each variable in $`\{a,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ either in $`K_1`$ or in $`K_2`$. This way, putting together $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$, we obtain a formula that contains exactly one literal between $`x_i`$ and $`\neg x_i`$ and one literal between $`a`$ and $`\neg a`$, that is, a formula having exactly one model over variables $`X\{a\}`$.

Changing the names this way is necessary to satisfy the lower bound $`B`$. We can also prove that $`n+1`$ name changes are sufficient to satisfy the upper bound $`A`$. The substitutions that rename $`a`$ in $`K_2`$ are such that $`a`$ is implied by $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ after the renaming; therefore, $`A`$ is implied as well. As a result, exactly $`n+1`$ variable name changes are needed to make both constraints satisfied. In particular, each variable in $`X\{a\}`$ has to be renamed in either $`K_1`$ or $`K_2`$: if the knowledge base that results satisfies $`A`$, then this substitution is considered.

Let us first consider the case in which all variables in $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are replaced with new ones. In order to make $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ consistent, we have to rename any variable in $`\{a,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ either in $`K_1`$ or in $`K_2`$. After the change, $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ is a knowledge base with exactly one model. The substitution is considered only if $`A`$ is implied by this model. By construction, $`A`$ is implied only if either $`a`$ is true, or the value of the variables $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ satisfy $`\neg F`$ for all possible values of $`Y`$. As a result, a substitution that makes $`a`$ false satisfies the upper bound if and only if the corresponding evaluation of the variables $`X`$ falsifies $`F`$ for any possible assignment of the variables $`Y`$. As a result, $`Q=a`$ is implied if and only if such assignments do not exist, that is, for all values of $`X`$, there is a value of $`Y`$ that satisfy $`F`$.

The reduction is proved only if we restrict to substitution changing the name of a variable with a new name. Let us now consider the other substitutions. If a variable $`x_i`$ is renamed to $`x_j`$, all is said above still holds (as the variable $`x_i`$, in a way or another “disappears” from the knowledge base, and therefore it is set to the value it has in the other one.) The only substitutions that cause problems are those changing the value of $`x_i`$ (or $`a`$) into a variable in $`Y`$. Let for example consider the case in which the substitution $`x_1/y_1`$ is applied to $`K_1`$. Then, $`x_1`$ is set to false in the resulting merging. At the same time, however, $`y_1`$ is set to true as well. This is a problem if $`\neg F`$ is not satisfied by the values of $`X`$ alone, but it is if $`y_1`$ is true: if $`a`$ is set to false, we obtain that $`Q=a`$ is not implied any more, while we know that the partial evaluation of $`X`$ does not satisfy $`F`$. This is why $`A`$ contains $`n+1`$ copies of $`F`$: however we change the names of variables in $`X`$ to variables in $`Y`$, the upper bound $`A`$ always contain a copy of $`F`$ whose variables in $`Y_i`$ are not mentioned in $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ after renaming. This ensures that $`A`$ can only be derived if the partial evaluation of $`X`$ falsifies $`F`$

## 7 Conclusions

The contribution of this paper is in the approach taken, rather than the proposed specific belief revision method. Starting from a very general model of the integration domain, we have shown that the existing semantics for knowledge integration correspond to a specific assumption. In this model, the sources get the knowledge bases they have by a process of acquisition that is prone to errors; previous integration semantics correspond to the assumption that mistakes are of a specific kind (which we called “mistakes of value”). Other mistakes are considered in this paper, leading to completely new integration semantics. The work reported here is still preliminary, as the properties of merging in the new models have not yet been fully investigated (comments and suggestions are welcome.)

New issues come from further generalizing this model. For example, we have only considered the case in which all knowledge bases are propositional. For first order logic, new interesting cases arise: a form of generalization is to transform $`P(a)`$ into $`x.P(x)`$; the opposite of particularization is also interesting; subject misunderstanding is in this context different (it is the change of a constant, not the change of a literal), etc.

Other issues arise from comparing the approach taken here with “classical” belief revision. In the usual formalization of belief revision, the knowledge expressed by each source is actually a set of preferences, rather than simply a knowledge base. This is because each agent involved in the merging process not only has some beliefs, but also acknowledges the possibility that they may be indeed false. As a result, it also has a measure of preference (degree of belief) over all facts it considers to be false, generating an ordering over the possible worlds.

Modeling merging with the assumption of mistakes, such ordering cannot be used. As it is clear from the heuristics presented, it is impossible to express merging as a merging of ranking, as the most likely transformations of each source depend on the other knowledge bases. It is also true that we could consider a more sophisticated model accounting both rankings (expressing the measure of likeliness of worlds according to each agent) and mistakes (that each agent did while getting its knowledge).

Finally, let us briefly discuss the computation issues. The result of Section 5 shows that the proposed semantics is computationally harder than the propositional calculus, as expected. Nevertheless, it is not much harder than most of the revision operators, that are $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2^p`$ complete . A simplified definition has been used, but it seems unlikely it did reduce complexity much.


format: text

text:
# Generalized parton distributions and double distributions for 𝑞𝑞̄ pions

## I Introduction

In recent years generalized parton distributions (GPDs) Muller:1998fv  have generated a considerable amount of attention. These distributions stem from hadronic matrix elements that are both non-diagonal with respect to hadron states and involve quark and gluon operators separated by a light-like distance. Thus physics of both inclusive (parton distributions, e.g.) and exclusive (form factors, e.g.) reactions is contained in the GPDs. At the leading-twist level, these new structure functions describe the soft physics of a variety of hard exclusive processes (see the reviews Ji:1998pc ).

Since light-like correlation functions are involved in the description of deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS), e.g., there exists a simple decomposition of these matrix elements in terms of the light-cone Fock space wave functions of the initial and final states Brodsky:2001xy ; Diehl:2000xz . This representation of GPDs is ideal for physical intuition, however, comparatively little has been done to show that the light-cone wave function representation is consistent with the reduction properties required of the generalized parton distributions. Below we undertake a simpler task of presenting covariant models for the pion which respect the properties of GPDs. Albeit simple, these models illustrate the utility and physicality of the light-cone Fock representation as well as provide a guide to understanding how the reduction relations arise in this formalism which will be useful when non-perturbative solutions for the Fock components in QCD become available. The scalar constituent model which we consider is merely the triangle graph with point-like vertices (this has been considered in Pobylitsa:2002vw , see also Theussl:2002xp ). The spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ model is based on an earlier exactly soluble, $`(1+1)`$-dimensional light-front model Sawicki:hs . Extension of this model to $`(3+1)`$ dimensions, which involves regularizing the divergent light-front current, has been done in Bakker:2000pk .

Another approach is to use the formalism of double distributions (DDs) Radyushkin:1997ki ; Radyushkin:1998es . This formalism elegantly explains the polynomiality conditions required of GPDs and thus gives one the ability to construct models consistent with known properties—although insight into model construction has often been limited to factorization *Ansätze*. Recently two-body light-front wave function models of the pion have been used to obtain GPDs Mukherjee:2002gb  based on DDs. Without modifying the quark distribution, the resulting GPDs violate the positivity constraints Tiburzi:2002kr . This inconsistency is attributed to missing contributions from non-wave function vertex diagrams which are absent when one uses non-covariant vertices. In general these diagrams are a substitute for higher Fock components, see Tiburzi:2002mn . The covariant models used here, however, allow us to test the uniqueness of this ostensible construction.

Indeed we find that appealing to Lorentz invariance is only enough to determine one component of the double distribution in the two-component formalism (even for $`C`$-odd distributions, where the Polyakov-Weiss $`D`$-term Polyakov:1999gs  is absent). We show that in the scalar constituent model, missing the second component leads to incorrect GPDs. The same is true for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ constituent model, where additionally the positivity constraint is violated. The correct DDs can be calculated from non-diagonal matrix elements of twist-two operators which we demonstrate for both models. On the other hand, exploiting the ambiguity inherent in defining DDs (which is akin to gauge freedom Teryaev:2001qm ) one can generate infinitely many different GPD models which share the same form factor *and* quark distribution as well as satisfy polynomiality (and likely positivity).

The organization of the paper is as follows. First in section II, we explicitly derive the GPD for the scalar triangle diagram with point-like vertices. Next we show the DD for this model extracted from the form factor in the Drell-Yan frame leads to incorrect GPDs. Having encountered this problem, we review definitions of the double distributions in section III. Here we also calculate the correct DD for the scalar triangle diagram. In IV, we present the model for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ case. Next in section IV.2, we regularize the current and then extract this model’s GPD. Although not manifest, this model satisfies polynomiality, which is demonstrated in section IV.3. Using Mukherjee:2002gb  as a guide, we construct the DD for this model in section IV.4. Similar to section II, this one-component DD too gives rise to a different GPD than the light-front projection. Additionally positivity is not satisfied by this one-component DD (section IV.5). We calculate the missing component of the DD from matrix elements of twist-two operators in section IV.6. Lastly we conclude with a brief summary (section V).

## II Pion with scalar constituents

For the pion model with scalar constituents, we choose the point-like Bethe-Salpeter vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,P)=1`$, where the coupling constant is assumed to be absorbed into the overall normalization. Furthermore, we choose derivative coupling of the photon to charged scalar particles.

The pion electromagnetic form factor for this model can be calculated from the Feynman triangle diagram. In order to derive the GPD, however, we need to choose the kinematics specified in Figure 1 with $`k`$ as the momentum of the struck quark. Using the stated pion vertex and taking the plus-component of the current111For any vector $`a^\mu `$, we define the light-cone variables $`a^\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a^0\pm a^3)`$., we have

$$\begin{array}{c}F(t)=\frac{i|N|^2}{(1\zeta /2)P^+}d^4k(2k^++\mathrm{\Delta }^+)\left[k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^1\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[(k+\mathrm{\Delta })^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^1\left[(Pk)^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^1,\end{array}$$
(1)
where the momentum transfer is $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and the skewness is defined relative to the initial state $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+=\zeta \mathrm{P}^+<0`$. Physically $`\zeta `$ plays the role of Bjorken variable for DVCS. Additionally we work in the frame where $`𝐏^{}=0`$.

To turn Eq. (1) into an expression for the GPD $`H(x,\zeta ,t)`$, we insert $`\delta (k^+/P^+x)`$ to fix the momentum of the struck quark and keep $`\zeta 0`$. This forces

$$F(t)=H(x,\zeta ,t)𝑑x.$$
(2)
Lastly we integrate over $`\mathrm{k}^{}`$ to project onto the light cone. Doing the contour integration to extract $`H(x,\zeta ,t)`$ in Eq. (1), we are confronted with the poles

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}k_a^{}=k_{\text{on}}^{}\frac{\mathrm{i}ϵ}{x}\hfill & \\ k_b^{}=P^{}+(kP)_{\text{on}}^{}\frac{\mathrm{i}ϵ}{x1}\hfill & \\ k_c^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+(k+\mathrm{\Delta })_{\text{on}}^{}\frac{\mathrm{i}ϵ}{x^{}}\hfill & \end{array},$$
(3)
where the on-shell energies are $`p_{\text{on}}^{}=\frac{𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}{2p^+}`$ and the abbreviation $`x^{}=\frac{x\zeta }{1\zeta }`$ is used. Thus the non-vanishing contribution to the integral is

$$2\pi i\theta [x(1x)]\left(\theta (x\zeta )\text{Res}(k_b^{})\theta (\zeta x)\text{Res}(k_a^{})\right),$$
(4)
which leads to

$$\begin{array}{c}(1\zeta /2)H(x,\zeta ,t)=\theta (x\zeta )H_1(x,\zeta ,t)\hfill \\ \hfill +\theta (\zeta x)H_2(x,\zeta ,t).\end{array}$$
(5)
Using $`𝐤^{}=𝐤^{}+(1x^{})𝚫^{}`$ for the relative transverse momentum of the final state, the functional forms are

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_1(x,\zeta ,t)& =(2x\zeta )|N|^2{\displaystyle d𝐤^{}\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}|M_\pi ^2)}\hfill \\ & \times \mathrm{D}_\text{W}(\mathrm{x}^{},𝐤^{}|M_\pi ^2)/x(1x)\mathrm{x}^{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_2(x,\zeta ,t)& =(2x\zeta )|N|^2{\displaystyle d𝐤^{}\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}|M_\pi ^2)}\hfill \\ & \times \mathrm{D}_\text{W}(\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }|t)/\zeta \mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }(1\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime })(1x),\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }x/\zeta `$ and $`𝐤^{\prime \prime }𝐤^{}+\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }𝚫^{}`$ are the relative momenta of the photon. Additionally, we use the replacement

$$\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}|M^2)^1=M^2\frac{𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}{x(1x)},$$
(8)
which is the propagator of the Weinberg equation Weinberg:1966jm .

Comments about the GPD $`H(x,\zeta ,t)`$ in Eq. (5) are in order. Firstly, the model is covariant and thus the sum rule and polynomiality conditions are met (see section IV.3 below for clarification). We have checked this explicitly and suitable discussion can be found in Pobylitsa:2002vw ; Theussl:2002xp . Secondly, $`H_1(x,\zeta ,t)`$ appearing in Eq. (6) satisfies the relevant positivity constraint for a compound scalar of scalar constituents (which appears in the Appendix of Tiburzi:2002kr ) which is clear from inspection.

Consideration of this model was first done from the perspective of DDs, see e.g. the toy model of Radyushkin:1997ki . This DD model was revisited recently with derivative coupling at the photon vertex in the Appendix of Mukherjee:2002gb  and the same DD also appears in Pobylitsa:2002vw . To derive the DD for this simple model, we appeal to Lorentz invariance, recalling along the way the relevant properties of DDs.

First consider the form factor. In the $`\zeta =0`$ frame, Eqs. (6-7) reduce to the Drell-Yan formula Drell:1969km  via the definition in Eq. (2)

$$\begin{array}{c}F(t)=|N|^2\frac{dxd𝐤^{}}{x(1x)}\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}|M_\pi ^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}+(1x)𝚫^{}|M_\pi ^2),\end{array}$$
(9)
where $`t=𝚫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. The form factor is Lorentz invariant and has a decomposition in terms of the Lorentz invariant DD $`F(x,y;t)`$, namely

$$F(t)=_0^1_0^1F(x,y;t)𝑑y𝑑x.$$
(10)
The DD satisfies the following relations Radyushkin:1998es : support property

$$F(x,y;t)\theta (1xy),$$
(11)
reduction to the quark distribution at zero momentum transfer

$$q(x)=_0^{1x}F(x,y;0)𝑑y$$
(12)
and is *München* symmetric Mankiewicz:1997uy

$$F(x,y;t)=F(x,1xy;t).$$
(13)
Using Eq. (9), we can write $`F(t)`$ in the form (10) with

$$F(x,y;t)=\frac{x|N|^2\theta (1xy)}{m^2x(1x)M_\pi ^2y(1xy)t},$$
(14)
which satisfies Eqs. (11-13). The ingenuity of DDs comes about when we construct the GPD via

$$H(x,\zeta ,t)=_0^1_0^1F(z,y;t)\delta (xz\zeta y)𝑑y𝑑z.$$
(15)
In this form the sum rule and polynomiality conditions follow trivially.

In Figure 2, we plot the GPD Eq. (5) as well as the GPD derived from DD via Eq. (15). Surprisingly the two are different despite the fact both models are covariant and posses the same form factor and quark distribution. Additionally we plot their difference ($`\delta `$) as a function of $`x`$.

## III Defining double distributions

In this section we define the DDs via their moments following the two-component formalism of Polyakov:1999gs ; Teryaev:2001qm . Focusing on the ambiguities inherent by defining DDs in this fashion, we will understand why the DD in Eq. (14) leads to an incorrect GPD. Moreover, we shall calculate the correct DD for the scalar triangle diagram from matrix elements of twist-two operators. We remark in passing that the two components of the DD (below $`F`$ and $`G`$, or $`F`$ and $`D`$-term in the standard formalism) can be viewed as projections of a single function of two variables Belitsky:2000vk .

### III.1 Definitions

The non-diagonal matrix elements of twist-two operators are more conveniently expressed in variables symmetric with respect to initial and final states. To this end we define the average momentum $`\overline{\mathrm{P}}^\mu =(P+P^{})^\mu /2`$. Let $`\stackrel{}{D^\mu }=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{^\mu }\stackrel{}{^\mu })`$. Then for a pion of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ constituents we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\mathrm{P}}+\mathrm{\Delta }/2|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma ^{[\mu }i\stackrel{}{D}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}i\stackrel{}{D}{}_{}{}^{\mu _n}{}_{}{}^{]}\psi (0)|\overline{\mathrm{P}}\mathrm{\Delta }/2=\hfill \\ \hfill 2\overline{\mathrm{P}}{}_{}{}^{[\mu }\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{n!}{k!(nk)!}A_{nk}(t)\overline{\mathrm{P}}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{P}}{}_{}{}^{\mu _{nk}}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})_{}^{\mu _{nk+1}}\mathrm{}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})^{\mu _n]}\\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }^{[\mu }\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{n!}{k!(nk)!}B_{nk}(t)\overline{\mathrm{P}}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{P}}{}_{}{}^{\mu _{nk}}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})_{}^{\mu _{nk+1}}\mathrm{}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})^{\mu _n]},\end{array}$$
(16)
where the action of $`{}_{}{}^{[}\mathrm{}^]`$ on Lorentz indices produces only the symmetric traceless part and $`T`$-invariance restricts $`k`$ in the first sum to be even and odd in the second. For a pion of scalar constituents, replace $`\gamma ^\mu `$ with $`2i\stackrel{}{D^\mu }`$. As it stands there is considerable freedom in the above decomposition, e.g. one could rewrite the above with $`k(nk)B_{n,k1}(t)`$ as a contribution to $`A_{nk}(t)`$. Carrying this out for all $`k`$, puts the bulk in the first term and renders the second term proportional only to the symmetric traceless part of ($`n+1`$) $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s— moments of the Polyakov-Weiss $`D`$-term Polyakov:1999gs . This is the usually encountered form of the DD with $`D`$-term. Calculationally, however, we find Eq. (16) is the most useful.

Summing the moments, we produce the DDs

$`A_{nk}(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\beta {\displaystyle _{1+|\beta |}^{1|\beta |}}𝑑\alpha \beta ^{nk}\alpha ^kF(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ (17)
$`B_{nk}(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\beta {\displaystyle _{1+|\beta |}^{1|\beta |}}𝑑\alpha \beta ^{nk}\alpha ^kG(\beta ,\alpha ;t).`$ (18)
As a consequence of the restrictions on $`k`$ in the sums, the function $`F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ is even in $`\alpha `$ while $`G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ is odd. Also for $`n`$-even, there is no contribution from the $`D`$-term to the function $`G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$.

These functions then appear in the decomposition of matrix elements of light-like separated operators

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\mathrm{P}}+\mathrm{\Delta }/2|\overline{\psi }(z^{}/2)\text{/}z\psi (z^{}/2)|\overline{\mathrm{P}}\mathrm{\Delta }/2\hfill \\ \hfill =2\overline{\mathrm{P}}z_1^1𝑑\beta _{1+|\beta |}^{1|\beta |}𝑑\alpha e^{i\beta \overline{\mathrm{P}}z+i\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }z/2}F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)\\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }z_1^1𝑑\beta _{1+|\beta |}^{1|\beta |}𝑑\alpha e^{i\beta \overline{\mathrm{P}}z+i\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }z/2}G(\beta ,\alpha ;t),\end{array}$$
(19)
where $`z^2=0`$.

Denoting $`\xi =\mathrm{\Delta }^+/2\overline{P}^+`$, the GPD in symmetric variables reads

$$\begin{array}{c}H(\stackrel{~}{x},\xi ,t)=\frac{1}{4\pi }𝑑z^{}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{x}}\overline{\mathrm{P}}^+z^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \overline{\mathrm{P}}+\mathrm{\Delta }/2|\overline{\psi }(z^{}/2)\gamma ^+\psi (z^{}/2)|\overline{\mathrm{P}}\mathrm{\Delta }/2.\end{array}$$
(20)
Inserting Eq. (19) into this definition yields

$$\begin{array}{c}H(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{x}},\xi ,t)=_1^1𝑑\beta _{1+|\beta |}^{1|\beta |}𝑑\alpha \delta (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{x}}\beta \xi \alpha )\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)+\xi G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)\right].\end{array}$$
(21)
By integrating over $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{x}}`$, we uncover *two* sum rules: the sum rule for the form factor

$$𝑑\beta 𝑑\alpha F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)=F(t)$$
(22)
and what we call the $`G`$-sum rule

$$𝑑\beta 𝑑\alpha G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)=0,$$
(23)
which is trivial since $`G`$ is an odd function of $`\alpha `$. Eq. (23) has non-trivial consequences however, e.g. it shows the method employed by Mukherjee:2002gb  leads only to the $`F`$ DD in Eq. (19). This function integrates to the form factor via Eq. (22) and in the forward limit $`\{\xi ,t0\}`$ reduces to the quark distribution (when integrated over $`\alpha `$). Thus $`F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ should be properly termed the forward-visible DD, which encompasses *more* than just neglecting the $`D`$-term. From Eq. (16), we see that $`G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ does affect higher moments of the GPD. This is the source of the discrepancy shown in Figure 2 as we now demonstrate.

### III.2 Scalar model, revisited

To derive both $`F`$ and $`G`$ DDs for the scalar triangle diagram of section II, we must now consider the action of the operator $`2i\stackrel{}{D}{}_{}{}^{[\mu }i\stackrel{}{D}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}i\stackrel{}{D}{}_{}{}^{\mu _n}^]`$. This produces a factor

$$\frac{1}{2^n}(2k+\mathrm{\Delta })^{[\mu }(2k+\mathrm{\Delta })^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}(2k+\mathrm{\Delta })^{\mu _n]}$$
(24)
in the integrand of Eq. (9), which we now take in the symmetric frame. After the integration over $`k`$ is performed, we are left only with

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^1𝑑\beta _{1+\beta }^{1\beta }𝑑\alpha D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)\hfill \\ \hfill \times (2\beta \overline{\mathrm{P}}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta })^{[\mu }(\beta \overline{\mathrm{P}}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }/2)^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}(\beta \overline{\mathrm{P}}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }/2)^{\mu _n]},\end{array}$$
(25)
where we have used the replacement

$$D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)=\frac{1}{m^2\beta (1\beta )M_\pi ^2t[(1\beta )^2\alpha ^2]/4}.$$
(26)
Using the binomial expansion, we can identify $`F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ and $`G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ via Eqs. (17) and (18), namely

$`F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ $`=\beta \theta (1\beta \alpha )D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)|N|^2`$ (27)
$`G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ $`=\alpha \theta (1\beta \alpha )D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)|N|^2.`$ (28)
To compare with the results of section II, we must revert to asymmetric variables which is accomplished by $`\{\beta x,y(\alpha \beta +1)/2\}`$. The denominator common to both terms becomes

$$D(x,y;t)=\frac{1}{m^2x(1x)M_\pi ^2y(1xy)t}.$$
(29)
Thus we have

$`F(x,y;t)`$ $`=x\theta (1xy)D(x,y;t)|N|^2`$ (30)
$`G(x,y;t)`$ $`=(2y+x1)\theta (1xy)D(x,y;t)|N|^2.`$ (31)
Notice the function $`G(x,y;t)`$ is *München* antisymmetric which is required because $`G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ is odd with respect to $`\alpha `$.

To construct the GPD $`H(x,\zeta ,t)`$ we must also convert Eq. (21) to asymmetric variables.

$$\begin{array}{c}H(x,\zeta ,t)=_0^1𝑑z_0^{1z}𝑑y\delta (xz\zeta y)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[F(x,y;t)+\frac{\zeta }{2\zeta }G(x,y;t)\right]\end{array}$$
(32)
We can now plot the GPD in Eq. (32) using the two DDs in Eqs. (30) and (31). The result agrees with Eq. (5) depicted in Figure 2. Moreover, the contribution from $`\frac{\zeta }{2\zeta }G`$ is identically the difference $`\delta `$ plotted in the figure.

## IV Pion with spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ constituents

### IV.1 Bethe-Salpeter amplitude and pion wave function

For the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ model, we choose the trivially $`q\overline{q}`$ symmetric Bethe-Salpeter vertex

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,P)=ig\gamma ^55.$$
(33)
Here we have assumed only $`\gamma ^55`$ coupling at the quark-pion vertex with coupling constant $`g`$, whereas four Dirac structures exist Llewellyn-Smith:az . This simple coupling is suggested by an effective interaction Lagrangian of the form (see, e.g. Frederico:ye )

$$_\text{I}=ig𝝅\overline{q}\gamma ^55𝝉q,$$
(34)
where the coupling constant $`g=m/f_\pi `$, with $`m`$ the constituent mass and $`f_\pi `$ the pion decay constant. Notice the (ladder approximation) kernel is independent of light-cone time. Thus this model (as well as the scalar triangle model in section II) are special cases of the instantaneous formalism described by Tiburzi:2001je  in the impulse approximation. The relation of the vertex to the Bethe-Salpeter wave function is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(k,P)=\frac{i}{\text{/}km+\mathrm{i}ϵ}(ig)\gamma ^5\frac{i}{\text{/}k\text{/}Pm+\mathrm{i}ϵ}.$$
(35)
The valence wave function can be found by projecting the Bethe-Salpeter wave function onto the light-cone $`x^+=0`$, see e.g. Liu:1992dg . Using the normalization convention of Lepage:1980fj , we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi (x,𝐤_{\text{rel}}^{};\lambda ,\lambda ^{})=\frac{1}{2P^+}\frac{d\mathrm{k}^{}}{2\pi }\frac{\overline{u}_\lambda (xP^+,𝐤^{})}{\sqrt{x}}\gamma ^+\hfill \\ \hfill \times \mathrm{\Psi }(k,P)\gamma ^+\frac{v_\lambda ^{}((1x)P^+,𝐏^{}𝐤^{})}{\sqrt{1x}},\end{array}$$
(36)
where $`x`$ is the fraction of the pion’s plus momentum carried by the quark ($`x=\mathrm{k}^+/\mathrm{P}^+`$), and the relative transverse momentum is $`𝐤_{\text{rel}}^{}=𝐤^{}x𝐏^{}`$. The valence wave function is found from Eq. (36) to be

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi (x,𝐤^{};\lambda ,\lambda ^{})=\frac{g\sqrt{N_c/2}𝒞}{x(1x)}\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}|M_\pi ^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[k_\lambda \delta _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}\lambda m\delta _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}\right],\end{array}$$
(37)
where we have employed the notation $`k_\lambda =k^1+i\lambda k^2`$. As a result of the contour integration, we have a factor of $`\theta [x(1x)]`$ implicitly in Eq. (37). Additionally the wave function is symmetric under interchange of $`x`$ and $`1x`$. As is known, the simplistic form of this wave function leads to divergent quark distributions and form factors which will be handled below. Since this model is non-renormalizable, the choice of regularization scheme influences the dynamics.

### IV.2 Form factor and generalized parton distribution

The pion electromagnetic form factor for this model can be calculated from the Feynman triangle diagram. In order to extract the GPD, however, we need to choose the kinematics specified in Figure 1 with $`k`$ as the momentum of the struck quark. As it stands, using the wave function Eq. (37), the triangle diagram diverges. Following the approach of Bakker:2000pk , we covariantly smear the point-like photon vertex in Figure 1 in a way reminiscent of Pauli-Villars regularization

$$\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{(k+\mathrm{\Delta })^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}.$$
(38)
Eq. (38) is a simple way to model non-$`q\overline{q}`$ components of the wave function. Alternatively one could smear the $`q\overline{q}\pi `$ vertex in a covariant manner deMelo:1997cb ; Jaus:zv . This smearing should additionally respect the $`q\overline{q}`$ symmetry of the vertex. We do not pursue this option here since positivity constraints (see section IV.5) are likely to be violated. On the other hand, one could use Pauli-Villars subtractions to regulate the theory, however, positivity would also be put into question. Because our concern is with model comparisons not phenomenology, we shall choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m`$ for simplicity. Although not obvious from inspection, results for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m`$ exhibit the same features investigated below. Most noteworthy, positivity remains satisfied when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m`$.

Considering matrix elements of the current operator $`J^\mu `$ between pion states, the model (38) conserves current. This can be demonstrated most easily by calculating $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ in the Breit frame. Additionally since the model is fully covariant, we can extract the electromagnetic form factor from any component of the current. In particular, potential zero-mode singularities present in matrix elements of $`J^{}`$ have been removed by the photon vertex smearing Eq.(38) Bakker:2000pk . Using the plus-component of the current, we have the expression

$$F(t)=\frac{ig^2N_c|𝒞|^2m^4}{1\frac{\zeta }{2}}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4P^+}\frac{\text{Tr}\left[(\text{/}k+m)\gamma ^55(\text{/}k\text{/}P+m)\gamma ^55(\text{/}k+\text{/}\mathrm{\Delta }+m)\gamma ^+\right]}{\left[k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^2\left[(k+\mathrm{\Delta })^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^2\left[(Pk)^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]},$$
(39)
where the momentum transfer is $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and the skewness $`\zeta `$ is defined relative to the initial state: $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+=\zeta P^+<0`$.

To calculate the GPD, we follow the procedure described in section II. The result can be written as

$$(1\zeta /2)H(x,\zeta ,t)=\theta (x\zeta )H_{\text{eff}}(x,\zeta ,t)+\theta (\zeta x)\left(H_{\text{inst}}(x,\zeta ,t)+H_{\text{nval}}(x,\zeta ,t)\right).$$
(40)
where $`H_{\text{eff}}`$ is the piece determined by the effective two-body wave function, $`H_{\text{inst}}`$ is the contribution from instantaneous propagation of the spectator quark, and the remaining contributions we term non-valence (although strictly speaking the instantaneous piece is also of the non-valence variety). It is a peculiarity of this model that explicit instantaneous terms are not present for $`x>\zeta `$.

The functional forms are

$`H_{\text{eff}}(x,\zeta ,t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}\psi _{\text{eff}}^{}(x^{},𝐤^{};\lambda ,\lambda ^{})\psi _{\text{eff}}(x,𝐤^{};\lambda ,\lambda ^{})},`$ (41)
$`H_{\text{inst}}(x,\zeta ,t)`$ $`=𝒜{\displaystyle d𝐤^{}\frac{4\zeta \mathrm{D}_{\text{W}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}(\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}|t)}{(1x)\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }(1\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime })}}`$ (42)
$`H_{\text{nval}}(x,\zeta ,t)`$ $`=𝒜{\displaystyle d𝐤^{}\frac{2(𝐤^{}𝐤^{}+m^2)\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}|M_\pi ^2)\mathrm{D}_{\text{W}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }|t)}{x(1x)\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }(1\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime })x^{}(1x^{})(1\zeta )}}`$
$`\times \left[2\zeta \mathrm{D}_\text{W}(\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }|t)+\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}|M_\pi ^2)\right],`$ (43)
where we have defined the effective wave function

$$\psi _{\text{eff}}(x,𝐤^{};\lambda ,\lambda ^{})=\frac{g\sqrt{N_c/2}𝒞m^2}{x^2(1x)}\left[k_\lambda \delta _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}\lambda m\delta _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}\right]\mathrm{D}_{\text{W}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(x,𝐤^{}|M_\pi ^2).$$
(44)
and made the abbreviation $`𝒜=g^2|𝒞|^2N_cm^4/2(2\pi )^3`$. It is sensible to think of Eq. (44) as an effective wave function since $`x1x`$ symmetry has been lost. Moreover the wave function vanishes at $`x=1`$ and is non-vanishing at $`x=0`$. This is a desirable addition to the dynamics stemming from the regularization. Notice the ladder kernel (34) is momentum independent and hence does not vanish at $`x=0,1`$. This is the dynamical reason why the un-regularized wave function Eq. (37) does not vanish at the end points. Continuity of the GPD at $`x=\zeta `$ follows directly from Eqs. (41-43).

In Figure 3, we plot the GPD for the parameters: $`M=0.14`$ MeV and $`m=0.33`$ MeV. On the left, the graph shows the GPD for a few values of $`\zeta `$ as a function of $`x`$ for fixed $`t`$, while on the right we have fixed $`\zeta `$ and $`t`$ varying.

### IV.3 Sum rule and polynomiality

Since not manifest, one should check the covariance of the model Eq. (40). With the covariant starting point Eq. (39), we anticipate polynomiality will be satisfied which provides a useful check on our expressions Eqs. (41-43). First we define the moments of the GPD with respect to asymmetric variables

$$P_n(\zeta ,t)=x^nH(x,\zeta ,t)𝑑x.$$
(45)
Polynomiality requires the moments $`P_n`$ to be of the form

$$P_n(\zeta ,t)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_{nj}(t)\zeta ^j.$$
(46)
The zeroth moment is merely the sum rule for the form factor, hence $`a_{00}(t)=F(t)`$. For simplicity, we check a few of the lowest moments for the polynomiality condition Eq. (46) at $`t=0`$. In Figure 4, we plot the moments $`P_n(\zeta ,0)`$ for $`n=0,1,2,3`$ which appear as smooth functions. Additionally we plot simple $`(n+1)`$-point polynomial fits to the moments, which line up nicely with the integrals (45).

### IV.4 Double distribution

To construct the DD, we shall first proceed incorrectly by appealing to Lorentz invariance as in section II. This will at least lead to one component of the DD, which can be compared to Eq. (40).

Using Eq. (41) in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+=0`$ (Drell-Yan) frame, we can write $`F(t)`$ in the form (10) with

$$\begin{array}{c}F(x,y;t)=\left(3m^2M_\pi ^2x(1x)+y(1xy)t\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{2\pi 𝒜\theta (1xy)y(1xy)}{(1x)\left[m^2M_\pi ^2x(1x)y(1xy)t\right]^3}.\end{array}$$
(47)
Aside from factors arising from spin, this DD is basically the same as that considered Mukherjee:2002gb  which one can realize by utilizing $`\lambda ^2=M_\pi ^2/4+m^2`$. Not surprisingly, then, this DD satisfies Eqs. (11-13). For reference we give the quark distribution function

$$q(x)=\frac{2\pi 𝒜}{6}\frac{(1x)^2\left[3m^2M_\pi ^2x(1x)\right]}{[m^2M_\pi ^2x(1x)]^3},$$
(48)
which could be calculated directly from $`\psi _{\text{eff}}`$ in Eq. (44).

In Figure 5, we plot the GPD Eq. (40) as well as the GPD derived from DD Eq. (47) via Eq. (15). As in section II, the two are different despite the fact both models are covariant and posses the same form factor and quark distribution. Additionally we plot their difference as a function of $`x`$.

### IV.5 Positivity Constraints

Here we demonstrate another difference between the GPD in (40) and the one stemming from the the one-component DD Eq. (47). To do so, we look at the positivity constraints. Originally these constraints appeared in Radyushkin:1998es ; Pire:1998nw  and were derived from the positivity of the density matrix by restricting the final-state parton to have positive plus-momentum (and ignoring the contribution from $`E(x,\zeta ,t)`$ for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ case). Although the matrix elements involved for GPDs are off diagonal, they are still restricted by positivity and their diagonal elements. Correcting the constraints for the presence of the $`E`$-distribution was first done in Diehl:2000xz . By considering the positivity of the norm on Hilbert space, stricter constraints for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ distributions $`H`$ and $`E`$ have recently appeared as well as constraints for the full set of twist-two GPDs Pobylitsa:2001nt .

For the scalar pion case there is of course no contribution from the non-existent $`E`$-distribution and hence the original bounds are actually correct (modulo factors due to the difference of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ proton versus a spin-$`0`$ pion). Given the matrix element definition of the GPD consistent with equation (2), namely

$$\begin{array}{c}H(x,\zeta ,t)=\frac{1}{1\zeta /2}\frac{dz^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \pi (P^{})|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma ^+\psi (z^{})|\pi (P),\end{array}$$
(49)
the spin-$`0`$ positivity constraint (for $`x>\zeta `$) reads

$$R(x,\zeta )\left(1\zeta /2\right)\frac{\left|H(x,\zeta ,0)\right|}{\sqrt{q(x)q(x^{})}}1,$$
(50)
where $`q(x)`$ is the model distribution function in Eq. (48). Of course the above result holds for finite $`t`$, however since the function $``$ decreases with $`t`$, Eq. (50) is the tightest constraint. Notice for $`M_\pi ^20`$, the limit $`t=0`$ is in an unphysical region. If we treat this limit as formal, however, and analytically continue our expressions, we can use Eq. (50). Such continuation is consistent with the light-cone Fock space representation of GPDs Brodsky:2001xy ; Diehl:2000xz .

Given the constraint Eq. (50), we can test whether GPDs calculated from the light-cone projection (41) and DD (47) satisfy positivity. In Figure $`6`$, we plot $`R(x,\zeta )`$ for each GPD as a function of $`x`$ for the fixed value of $`\zeta =0.4`$. There is noticeably different behavior in the figure: positivity is violated by the DD-based model. As above (section III), we must carefully derive contributions from the other component $`G(x,y;t)`$.

### IV.6 Derivation of the correct DDs

To derive both $`F`$ and $`G`$ DDs for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ pion model, we must consider the action of the operator $`\gamma ^{[\mu }i\stackrel{}{D}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}i\stackrel{}{D}{}_{}{}^{\mu _n}^]`$ between non-diagonal pion states. Inserted into Eq. (39) which is now taken in the symmetrical frame, this operator produces

$$\frac{i𝒜}{\pi }d^4k\frac{\text{Tr}\left\{(\text{/}k+m)\gamma ^55(\text{/}k\text{/}\overline{\mathrm{P}}+\text{/}\mathrm{\Delta }/2+m)\gamma ^55(\text{/}k+\text{/}\mathrm{\Delta }+m)\gamma ^{[\mu }\right\}(k+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}(k+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^{\mu _n]}}{\left[k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^2\left[(k+\mathrm{\Delta })^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^2\left[(k\overline{\mathrm{P}}+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]}.$$
(51)
The presence of the trace

$$\text{Tr}\{\mathrm{}\}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=4[\overline{P}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(m^2k^2k\mathrm{\Delta })+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu }{2}(m^2k^2+2k\overline{\mathrm{P}})+k^\mu (m^2k^2\frac{t}{2}+2k\overline{\mathrm{P}}k\mathrm{\Delta })]$$
(52)
complicates evaluating Eq. (51) by requiring contributions from diagrams reduced by one propagator. Since we have smeared the photon via (38), the reduced diagrams are finite. Let us denote the propagators simply by $`𝔄=(k\overline{\mathrm{P}}+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ`$, $`𝔅=(k+\mathrm{\Delta })^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ`$ and $`=k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ`$. To correctly evaluate Eq. (51), we must write the trace as

$$\text{Tr}\{\mathrm{}\}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=4[\overline{P}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\frac{t}{2}\frac{1}{2}(𝔅+))+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu }{2}(M^2\frac{t}{4}𝔄+\frac{1}{2}(𝔅))+k^\mu (M^2\frac{t}{2}𝔄)]$$
(53)
and evaluate each term separately canceling propagators in the denominator of Eq. (51). These integrals can easily be evaluated using Feynman parameters. For example, let us consider the non-reduced contribution from Eq. (53). The denominator of Eq. 51 appears as $`𝔄𝔅^2^2`$ and so we introduce two Feynman parameters $`\{x,y\}`$ to render the denominator specifically in the form $`[x𝔄+y𝔅+(1xy)]^5`$. One then translates $`k^\mu `$ to render the integral (hyper-) spherically symmetric via the definition $`k^\mu =l^\mu +\beta \overline{\mathrm{P}}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\alpha +1)\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu /2`$. Here $`\beta =x`$ and $`\alpha =x+2y1`$. Using a Wick rotation to evaluate the resulting integral over $`l`$, we can cast the contribution to Eq. (51) from non-reduced terms in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝒜_0^1𝑑\beta _{1+\beta }^{1\beta }𝑑\alpha \frac{1}{4}[(1\beta )^2\alpha ^2]D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)^3\left(2\overline{\mathrm{P}}(\beta M_\pi ^2+(1\beta )t/2)\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (M_\pi ^2t/2)\right)^{[\mu }\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{n!}{k!(nk)!}\beta ^{nk}\alpha ^k\overline{\mathrm{P}}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{P}}{}_{}{}^{\mu _{nk}}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})_{}^{\mu _{nk+1}}\mathrm{}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})^{\mu _n]}\end{array}$$
(54)
with $`D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)`$ given by Eq. (26). Given the form of Eq. (54), we can identify $`\{\beta ,\alpha \}`$ as DD variables and hence read off contributions to $`F`$ and $`G`$ DDs.

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)& =\pi 𝒜[(1\beta )^2\alpha ^2]D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)^3\hfill \\ & \times \left(\beta M_\pi ^2+(1\beta )t/2\right)\hfill \end{array}`$ (55)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)& =\pi 𝒜\alpha [(1\beta )^2\alpha ^2]D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)^3\hfill \\ & \times \left(M_\pi ^2t/2\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (56)
Notice that these contributions respect the properties of DDs, namely $`\delta F`$ is even in $`\alpha `$ while $`\delta G`$ is odd. This need not be the case, however, for each intermediate step of the calculation, e.g. contributions from $`𝔅`$-reduced terms and $``$-reduced terms are individually neither even nor odd in $`\alpha `$ while their sum is even and difference is odd.

Ignoring for the moment contributions from $`𝔄`$-reduced terms, we arrive at the DDs

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F(\beta ,\alpha ;t)& =\pi 𝒜D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)^3[(1\beta )m^2\hfill \\ & \beta \alpha ^2M_\pi ^2+(1\beta )[(1\beta )^2\alpha ^2]t/4]\hfill \end{array}`$ (57)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G(\beta ,\alpha ;t)& =\pi 𝒜\alpha D(\beta ,\alpha ;t)^3[m^2\hfill \\ \hfill M_\pi ^2(1& \beta \alpha ^2)+[(1\beta )^2\alpha ^2]t/4],\hfill \end{array}`$ (58)
The contribution from $`𝔄`$-reduced terms has the form of a $`D`$-term. Using Feynman parameters for the denominator $`𝔅^2^2`$ and suitable changes of variables, we arrive at the contribution to Eq. (51)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{[\mu }_1^1𝑑\alpha \frac{\pi 𝒜\alpha ^{n+1}(1\alpha ^2)}{[m^2(1\alpha ^2)t/4]^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right)^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right)^{\mu _n]}$$
(59)
from which we can identify the $`D`$-term

$$D(\alpha ;t)=\pi 𝒜\frac{\alpha (1\alpha ^2)}{[m^2(1\alpha ^2)t/4]^2}.$$
(60)
Although strictly speaking, the $`D`$-term is a contribution to the $`G`$-DD, we shall treat it separately for ease.

Switching now to asymmetric variables, we have

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F(x,y;t)& =\pi 𝒜D(x,y;t)^3[(1x)m^2\hfill \\ \hfill x(x& +2y1)^2M_\pi ^2+(1x)y(1xy)t]\hfill \end{array}`$ (61)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G(x,y;t)& =\pi 𝒜(x+2y1)D(x,y;t)^3[m^2\hfill \\ \hfill +y(1& xy)tM_\pi ^2(1x(x+2y1)^2)]\hfill \end{array}`$ (62)
$`D(y;t)`$ $`=\pi 𝒜y(1y)(2y1)[m^2y(1y)t]^2`$ (63)
where the function $`D(x,y;t)`$ is given by Eq. (29). Accordingly $`F(x,y;t)`$ is München symmetric and $`G(x,y;t)`$ is antisymmetric, while $`D(y;t)`$ is antisymmetric about $`y=1/2`$. Notice $`F(x,y;t)`$ in Eq. (61) is not that of Eq. (47). Given the ambiguity inherent in defining $`F`$ and $`G`$ DDs (cf. Eq. (23)), there is no reason to believe the $`F`$s would be the same. In principle, we could construct a gauge transformation Teryaev:2001qm  to render the $`F`$s the same. This would enable identification of the missing $`G`$ function unique to section IV.4. We shall not pursue this tangential point.222Notice the contribution to the GPD from the $`D`$-term resembles that of $`H_{\text{inst}}`$ in Eq. (42) but is not identical. Both terms originate from a reduction of the spectator’s propagator. In the case of the $`D`$-term, the spectator’s propagator is completely removed by the $`𝔄`$-reduction. For $`H_{\text{inst}}`$, there is residual $`x`$-dependence stemming from the light-cone instantaneous propagator $`\gamma ^+/2P^+(1x)`$.

The function $`F(x,y;t)`$ satisfies the reduction relations: it reduces to the quark distribution via Eq. (12) and integrates to the form factor (13)—the latter can only be checked numerically. Lastly then it remains to see whether the DD-based GPD lines up with true GPD calculated in section IV.2. To construct the GPD we use the form of Eq. (32) modified to handle the $`D`$-term in Eq. (63) separately

$$\begin{array}{c}H(x,\zeta ,t)=_0^1𝑑z_0^{1z}𝑑y\delta (xz\zeta y)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[F(x,y;t)+\frac{\zeta }{2\zeta }G(x,y;t)\right]+\frac{\theta [\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }(1\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime })]}{2(2\zeta )}D(\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime };t)\end{array}$$
(64)
In Figure 7, we plot the GPD Eq. (40) and the DD-based Eq. (64). They are identical. We also plot the individual $`F`$ and $`G+D`$ contributions to the GPD. Even in the absence of the $`D`$-term, the contribution from $`G`$ cannot be neglected in ascertaining the DD.

The contribution to the GPD from $`F`$ in the Figure is markedly different from Eq. (40) and the analogous contribution from Eq. (47). These three GPDs, however, share the same form factor and quark distribution. Thus one can use DD-gauge freedom Teryaev:2001qm  to transform $`F`$ into a new function and throw away contributions from $`G`$. The result is an infinite set of different GPDs with identical form factors and quark distributions. As pointed out in section IV.5, one must be careful to maintain positivity although it is likely that there still is an infinite set of GPDs which would.

## V Summary

Above we consider two covariant models for pions: one with scalar constituents and the other with spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$. The spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ model requires regularization and we choose the method in Bakker:2000pk  in order to maintain positivity. For each case we derive the GPD from its matrix element definition which forces us to consider the triangle diagram for the form factor with the plus momentum of the struck quark kept fixed in a general $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+0`$ frame.

We also construct the DDs for each model. The approach of Mukherjee:2002gb  leads only to one component of the DD (the “forward-visible” piece), thus resulting GPDs are incorrect and need not satisfy positivity. This fact remains true even for $`C`$-odd distributions. The “gauge freedom” inherent in defining $`F`$ vs. $`G`$ DDs could be exploited, however, for phenomenological studies. To obtain the other component of the DD, we calculate the matrix elements of twist-two operators. Resulting DD-based GPDs then agree with those calculated on the light cone.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was funded by the U. S. Department of Energy, grant: DE-FG$`0397`$ER$`41014`$.


text:
# Thermal conductivity of superfluid 3He in aerogel

## Abstract

We report theoretical calculations of the thermal conductivity of superfluid 3He impregnated into high-porosity aerogel and compare these results with available experimental data.

thanks:  sauls@snowmass.phys.nwu.edu

When 3He is impregnated into high-porosity aerogel, a new scattering channel is available to 3He quasiparticles, viz., elastic scattering off the aerogel strands. We examine the effects of elastic and inelastic scattering on the transport properties of 3He in aerogel, and report new results for the thermal conductivity of superfluid 3He in aerogel within the framework of homogeneous and isotropic scattering. This model predicts significant variations in the temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity as a function of pressure, scattering cross-section and aerogel density. Measurements of the thermal conductivity of 3He in $`98\%`$ aerogel at $`p=7.4\text{bar}`$  are in good agreement with theoretical calculations based on either the BW or the ABM phase order parameters. At higher pressures, where pairbreaking effects are weaker, significant differences in the thermal conductivity for these two phases are predicted.

Figure 1 summarizes theoretical calculations for the thermal conductivity at a pressure of $`p=30\text{bar}`$ over a temperature range, $`0.01\text{mK}<T30\text{mK}`$. At high temperatures $`T>T_{}`$ in the normal-state the transport mean-free path is determined by quasiparticle-quasiparticle scattering. Thus, we recover the bulk thermal conductivity of pure 3He with $`\kappa 1/T`$ for $`T>T_{}`$ ($`5.5\text{mK}`$ at this pressure). The thermal conductivity crosses over in the normal state to a low-temperature regime determined by elastic scattering as shown in Fig. 1. This calculation is based on an exact solution to the Boltzmann-Landau transport equation with both elastic and inelastic scattering . For $`TT_{}`$ in the normal-state $`\kappa T`$ and the mean-free path in the aerogel, $`\kappa =\frac{\pi ^2}{9}N_fk_B^2Tv_f\mathrm{}`$. For aerogel with a porosity of $`98\%`$ we estimate $`\mathrm{}180\text{nm}`$ .

Scattering by the aerogel matrix leads to a suppression of the superfluid transition, pairbreaking  and the formation of a spectrum of low-energy quasiparticle states below the continuum gap edge. The spectrum of these excitations generally depends upon the symmetry of the order parameter, as well as the scattering cross-section and mean-free path  (see Fig. 2). In the unitary limit (strong scattering) a band of gapless excitations at the Fermi level, with energies $`|\epsilon |\gamma 0.67\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\xi _0/\mathrm{}}`$, forms which is relatively insensitive to the symmetry of the order parameter, particularly at lower pressures where $`\xi _0/\mathrm{}`$ is largest.

The transition to the superfluid state is evident in Fig. 1 as a change in the slope of the thermal conductivity. Calculations of $`\kappa /T`$ for the ABM and BW-phases with aerogel scattering included are shown in more detail in Fig. 3 also for $`\mathrm{}=180\text{nm}`$. These results were obtained from solutions to the quasiclassical transport equations, following Graf et al. , for spin-triplet, p-wave pairing.

Note the difference in the limiting $`T0`$ behavior in the Born and unitary limits, and the sensitivity of $`\kappa /T`$ to the order parameter at $`p=30\text{bar}`$. However, in zero field the anisotropy of the thermal conductivity for the ABM state is likely to be averaged out by the orientational disorder of the $`\mathbf{}`$-texture.

At lower pressures, e.g. $`p=10\text{bar}`$ ($`\xi _0/\mathrm{}=0.16`$), the excitation spectrum, and therefore the thermal conductivity, are expected to be less sensitive to the pairing symmetry. In the unitary limit the spectrum of gapless excitations leads to a linear $`T`$-dependence of the thermal conductivity at low temperatures, $`k_BT\gamma `$, with a slope, $`lim_{T0}\kappa /T`$ that is determined by $`\xi _0/\mathrm{}`$.

In Fig. 4 we compare our calculations to experimental data at $`p=7.4\text{bar}`$ from the Lancaster  group. At this pressure pairbreaking is sufficiently strong that the thermal conductivity is only weakly dependent on the symmetry of the order parameter. The data, including $`T_{ca}0.88\text{mK}`$ for $`98\%`$ aerogel, are accounted for by a mean free path of $`205\text{nm}`$ for either the BW phase or the ABM state with $`\mathbf{}𝐉_q`$ (consistent with $`𝐁||𝐉_q`$), in the Born limit. At this pressure the difference between unitary and Born scattering is significant only at very low temperatures, $`T0.2\text{mK}`$ (inset of Fig. 4). Thus, measurements at lower temperatures could provide evidence for gapless excitations ($`\kappa T`$); measurements at higher pressures are more sensitive to the pairing symmetry.