text:
# Non–gaussian probability distribution functions in two dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

## Abstract

Intermittency in MHD turbulence has been analyzed using high resolution 2D numerical simulations. We show that the Probability Distribution Functions (PDFs) of the fluctuations of the Elsässer fields, magnetic field and velocity field depend on the scale at hand, that is they are self–affine. The departure of the PDFs from a Gaussian function can be described through the scaling behavior of a single parameter $`\lambda _r^2`$ obtained by fitting the PDFs with a given curve stemming from the analysis of a multiplicative model by Castaing et al. . The scaling behavior of the parameter $`\lambda _r^2`$ can be used to extract informations about the intermittency. A comparison of intermittency properties in different MHD turbulent flows is also performed.

One of the relevant features of turbulent systems is small–scale intermittency . Starting from the Kolmogorov 1962 theory , several models have been developed to take into account the intermittency effects on the statistics of the turbulent fields. Measurements show the presence of self–affine fields, which is the most remarkable of such effects, leading to the scaling departure from gaussianity of the Probability Distribution Functions (PDFs) of turbulent fluctuations (see  and references therein). The usual statistical tool to check such departure is the analysis of the scaling exponents $`\zeta _p^\psi ^{}`$ of the longitudinal structure functions of an (as yet) unspecified vector field $`𝝍^{\mathbf{}}`$, i.e. the moments of the distributions of the fluctuations, namely: $`S_r^{(p)}(\delta \psi _r^{})=\delta \psi _r^p=[(𝝍^{}(𝒙+𝒓)𝝍^{}(𝒙))𝒓/r]^p`$; here $`𝝍^{}`$ represents either the velocity field $`𝒗`$, the normalized magnetic induction $`𝒃=𝑩/\sqrt{4\pi \rho }`$ ($`\rho `$ is the constant density), or the Elsässer variables $`𝒛^\pm =𝒗\pm 𝒃`$; $`r=|𝒓|`$ is the scale we are examining and homogeneity is assumed. The structure functions are assumed to scale like $`S_r^{(p)}(\delta \psi ^{})r^{\zeta _p^\psi ^{}}`$ in the inertial range. In the non–intermittent case the scaling exponents $`\zeta _p^\psi ^{}`$ should display a linear dependence on the order index of the moments; in the framework of the Kolmogorov theory, for example, this dependence is a $`\zeta _p^v=p/3`$ law. However, experimental observations have shown a nonlinear behavior of such scaling exponents, suggesting the multifractal nature of the energy transfer . This kind of behavior has been observed both in neutral fluids and in plasmas . A different approach to the study of intermittency consists in analysing the scaling behavior of the PDFs of fluctuations instead of the scaling of the moments . In the framework of the multiplicative cascade, the presence of very intense fluctuations of the fields becomes more probable as the scale decreases, because of the progressive strong localization of the active structures. As a result, the tails of the PDFs are higher than gaussian ones, and rare events become significant in the statistics. By fitting experimental data with a model distribution function, it is possible to describe intermittency through a small set of parameters. The characterization performed through the structure functions, on the contrary, requires, in principle, the determination of an infinite set of scaling exponents. Unfortunately, predictions and models concerning the scaling behavior of the PDFs are less common and less firmly established than those concerning the scaling behavior of structure functions, a notable exception being the turbulence coming from Burgers equation . In this paper, we follow one such model for PDFs , and we show that the informations thus obtained are in agreement with the previous results derived directly from moments.

The data we use stem from the turbulent fields obtained from two–dimensional magnetohydrodynamics incompressible simulations, with periodic boundary conditions at a resolution of $`1024^2`$ grid points (see also ). The forcing consists in maintaining constant the amplitudes of Fourier modes with $`|𝐤|=1`$, and the resulting energy is concentrated at large scales. There is on average an excess of magnetic energy $`E^M`$ over its kinetic counterpart $`E^V`$, as can be seen on the left of figure 1 showing the temporal evolution of the ratio $`E^M/E^V`$; better equipartition is obtained in the small scales as diagnosed by the ratio of enstrophies (not shown). The data analyzed in the paper are averaged over approximatively 160 eddy turnover times in the statistically steady state, from $`t=6.30`$ to $`t=12`$. This lengthy computation is rendered necessary by the long–time fluctuations in the flow, as is visible on figure 1; these fluctuations are induced by the large–scale forcing. The data sets thus consist of about $`10^7`$ points, and up to now, these are the largest data sets used to investigate intermittency in statistically steady MHD flows. The temporal window of analysis is chosen on the basis of the stationarity of the integral Reynolds number, shown on the right of figure 1.

In order to get PDFs with zero average and unit standard deviation, we use, as is customary, the normalized fluctuations of the turbulent fields:

$$\delta \psi _r=\frac{\delta \psi _r^{}\delta \psi _r^{}}{(\delta \psi _r^{}\delta \psi _r^{})^2^{1/2}},$$

where $`\delta \psi _r^{}`$ is any one of the relevant fields at scale $`r`$. We built up the PDFs of the normalized fluctuations by dividing the range between $`3.5`$ and $`+3.5`$ (in standard deviation units) in bins of length $`A_{bins}`$. We then used the histogram of the fluctuations $`N_r(\delta \psi _r)`$ to compute the probability density:

$$P(\delta \psi _r)=\frac{N_r(\delta \psi _r)}{A_{bins}N_{tot}(r)},$$

where $`N_{tot}(r)`$ is the actual number of fluctuations at scale $`r`$ in the interval $`(3.5,3.5)`$. The PDFs have been computed for several values of the scale $`r`$, ranging from $`r/L=10^3`$ up to $`r/L=0.5`$, where $`L=2\pi `$ is the length of the simulation box. Samples of the so obtained PDFs are shown in figure 2 for the normalized fluctuations of the $`𝐳^+`$ field; similar PDFs hold for the $`𝐳^{}`$, magnetic and velocity fields. As can be easily seen, the PDFs are gaussian at large scales, but become more and more stretched as the scale decreases. This scaling behavior is present for all fields and is an indication that these fields are self–affine. Such an intermittent behavior, in the framework of the Kolmogorov’s refined similarity hypothesis , can be attributed to the fluctuations of the energy transfer rate, and the dependence on scales of the PDFs can be eliminated by looking at the PDFs conditioned to a given value of the energy transfer rate at the scale $`r`$ (see  for the fluid case). In MHD, we can introduce the local energy transfer rates for both Elsässer variables, defined as: $`r\epsilon _r^\pm =(\delta z_r^\pm )^2\delta z_r^{}`$ (see e. g. ). The PDFs $`P(\delta z_r^+|r\epsilon _r^+)`$, conditioned to two different values of $`\epsilon _r^+`$, are shown in figure 3. The same gaussian shape is observed at all scales, which means that intermittency has been eliminated. We found the same behavior for the PDFs $`P(\delta z_r^{}|r\epsilon _r^{})`$. As reported in the caption of figure 3, for a fixed scale $`r`$, the width of the PDFs can be different when conditioned by different values of the energy transfer rate. The departure from gaussianity observed in the unconditioned PDFs is then the imprint of the multifractal model of intermittency. In fact for each scale $`r`$, the intermittency can be described as the superposition of different PDFs of fluctuations belonging to subsets with different $`\epsilon _r^\pm `$ transfer rates. Using the multifractal framework , we can give a quantitative analysis of the continuous scaling departure of PDFs from a gaussian. In fact, as stated by Castaing et al.  in order to describe the PDFs at a given scale $`r`$, two ingredients are needed: the parent distribution at the scale $`L`$ and the distribution of the energy transfer rate. The first information can be extracted directly from the experimental observations, just looking at the large scale PDFs of the fields fluctuations which is a Gaussian curve. The second item needs some a priori hypothesis about the shape of the PDF of the $`\epsilon _r^\pm `$ transfer rates. In other words, the resulting PDFs of fluctuations at scale $`r`$ can be described as a convolution of the parent gaussian distribution with a chosen distribution for $`\epsilon _r^\pm `$. Following , this can be done in a continuous way by introducing a distribution $`_{\lambda _r}(\sigma _r)`$ for the width $`\sigma _r`$ of the gaussians (which is directely proportional to $`\epsilon _r^\pm `$), and by then computing the convolution:

$$P(\delta \psi _r)=_0^{\mathrm{}}_{\lambda _r}(\sigma _r)\mathrm{exp}\left(\delta \psi _r^2/2\sigma _r^2\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _r}\frac{d\sigma _r}{\sigma _r}.$$
(1)
In this paper, we use the log–normal ansatz, as in Castaing et al. :

$$_{\lambda _r}(\sigma _r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\lambda _r}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\sigma _r/\sigma _{0,r}}{2\lambda _r^2}\right).$$
(2)
The PDF of a field is thus seen, in this model, as a superposition of gaussian curves whose standard deviations are distributed according to a log–normal law. The parameter $`\sigma _{0,r}`$ is the most probable value of the $`\sigma _r`$ deviations for a given scale $`r`$, while the parameter $`\lambda _r`$ represents the width of the log–normal distribution $`_{\lambda _r}(\sigma _r)`$. In so doing, the scaling properties of the PDFs are concentrated into the single scaling behavior of the parameter $`\lambda _r^2`$. For $`\lambda _r^2=0`$, the distribution $`_{\lambda _r}(\sigma _r)`$ is a delta function, and the convolution (1) is a single gaussian of width $`\sigma _{0,r}`$. As $`\lambda _r^2`$ increases, the spectrum of the values of $`\sigma _r`$, involved in the convolution, is wider and the tails of the PDFs consequently become stronger.

The results of the fit of the measured PDFs with the model (1) are shown in figure 2. It can be seen that the model reproduces quite well the scaling properties of the PDFs $`P(\delta \psi _r)`$ of the various fields, although with a lesser agreement at the largest scales of the flow. In order to get informations about intermittency, we compute $`\lambda _r^2`$ from the PDFs using (1)-(2) and we then look at the scaling of this parameter with the separation length $`r/L`$ (figure 4). When considering the scaling of the structure functions $`S_r^{(p)}(\delta 𝐳^\pm )`$, it was shown in  that the inertial scales for the Elsässer variables, fundamental in this problem , are in the domain $`0.01r/L0.1`$. This can be our main guide for scaling here. We however perform a careful examination of the data to check the scaling ranges of $`\lambda _r^2`$; in particular, for the velocity field, this will lead us to shorten this range at large scales (see table I). A typical nontrivial behavior can be distinguished as a power–law scaling:

$$\lambda _r^2(r)(r/L)^\beta ,$$
(3)
in the previously defined inertial range: a saturation of $`\lambda _r^2`$ is reached at the onset of the dissipative range, while the gaussian regime is found on scales larger than $`r/L0.1`$.

This method leads to a characterisation of the turbulent system using only two parameters: the scaling exponent $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda _{max}^2`$, the maximum value of $`\lambda _r^2`$ over $`r`$. The parameter $`\beta =d\mathrm{log}\lambda _r^2/d\mathrm{log}(r/L)`$, the logarithmic derivative of $`\lambda _r^2`$, represents how “fast” the generation of intermittency occurs throughout the inertial range. In fact, a greater value of $`\beta `$ is related to an energy cascade mechanism which produces intermittency in a more efficient way (the wings of the distribution of $`\delta \psi _r`$ increase more quickly). The parameter $`\lambda _{max}^2`$, being related to both the maximum number of gaussians needed in the convolution (1) and to the weight of the widest gaussians in that convolution, tells us how “strong” is the intermittency, i.e. how deeply the intermittent cascade is active and generates the strongest events $`\delta \psi _r`$.

The computed values of $`\lambda _r^2`$ provide $`\lambda _{max}^2`$ and $`\beta `$ which are given in table I, together with their variations obtained by a chi–square test, as well as the range of scales where (3) is verified. Note that the analysis of each temporal data set separately led us to eliminate some samples: $`\lambda _r^2`$ was ill–defined on average on one third of the individual temporal data sets. The magnetic field appears more intermittent than the velocity, in agreement with previous numerical results , and with the results in solar wind plasmas  (see also  for a 3D computation in a decaying helical MHD flow using hyper viscosity). This result resembles what happens in fluid turbulence where passive scalars are more intermittent than the velocity field . In MHD the stronger intermittency of the magnetic field is perhaps due to the fact that, when nonlinearly coupled with a velocity field, the magnetic field behaves like a passive vector, at least in the kinematic phase of the dynamo. The Elsässer variables (dominated by the magnetic field, see figure 1) display also a strong intermittency; the values of the parameters found for the $`𝐳^{}`$ field are comparable to those for the magnetic field, while the parameters found for $`𝐳^+`$ are intermediate between those obtained for the magnetic field and the velocity. The slight difference between the $`\pm `$ $`\beta `$–parameter could appear significant: although the global correlation coefficient between the velocity and the magnetic field is low when averaged over the whole flow, it presents regions with strong pointwise values of either signs (not shown) and this may reflect in the $`\pm `$ discrepancy observed here. A similar result is found in the solar wind .

As a comparison with some previous experimental analysis, the values of $`\beta `$ obtained here are larger than those found for fluid flows ($`\beta 0.3`$) , for solar wind turbulence ($`\beta 0.2`$)  and for magnetic turbulence in a Reverse Field Pinch laboratory plasma ($`\beta 0.4`$) . This fact can be interpreted as an indication that 2D MHD turbulence in the present numerical simulations is strong, with a low degree of anisotropies and inhomogeneities which could exist, on the contrary, in geophysical or laboratory plasma turbulence. Again, the values of $`\lambda _{max}^2`$ found here are greater than those found in the solar wind (slightly so for the magnetic field, more clearly for the velocity) , and the magnetic field is strongly more intermittent than in the laboratory plasma mentioned above.

In conclusion, this paper shows that the analysis of the PDFs is a useful tool to quantify intermittency. In the present approach, only two parameters, $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda _{max}^2`$, are used to characterize the intermittency in a way which is found consistent with previous analysis. An improvement of the method using different distributions for the energy transfer rates is presently in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

Numerical simulations were performed at IDRIS (Orsay). We are thankful to a referee for a useful remark. H. Politano and A. Pouquet aknowledge partial financial support from CNRS, PNST.


format: text

text:
# DEEP INELASTIC SCATTERING OF LEPTONS AND HADRONS IN THE QCD PARTON MODEL AND EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

## I Introduction

The deep inelastic phenomena has been extensively studied, for about a quarter of a century, both theoretically and experimentally. The main purposes of this vast physics programme were, first to elucidate the internal structure of the nucleon and later on, to test perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) which generalizes the parton model. At the end of the sixties, the first measurements on charged lepton deep inelastic scattering (DIS) at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) have shown that the nucleon is made of hard point-like objects, which was the first evidence for the existence of sub-nuclear particles called partons. Unlike the $`ep`$ elastic scattering cross section which drops very rapidly for large momentum transfer, the observed cross sections for $`eNe^{}X`$ were much larger than expected, when the off-shell photon probing the nucleon had a large $`Q^2`$. Actually these cross sections were $`Q^2`$ independent and they obeyed the scaling behavior predicted by Bjorken, whose physical picture was first given by Feynman, in terms of the quark parton model (QPM). The explanation of scaling was based on the fact that a hard collision among partons takes place in such a short time, so that partons behave as if they were free objects. This significant observation led to the consideration of non-Abelian gauge field theories, which possess the crucial property of asymptotic freedom, and to propose QCD as the fundamental theory for strong interactions. It is now well established that QCD is an asymptotically free theory and the strong interaction coupling $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ becomes small when $`Q^2`$ is large, i.e. at short distances. However scale invariance is broken because of quantum corrections and therefore one expects scaling violations which are calculable in perturbative QCD.

The outline of this chapter is as follows. In section II we discuss the kinematics of DIS and define the relevant structure functions for both unpolarized and polarized cases. We provide the physical interpretation of the structure functions in terms of quark parton distributions in section III. We also give their main features from some recent data on unpolarized and polarized structure functions and we recall several important sum rules. In section IV we go briefly one step beyond the QPM to consider scaling violations and to make phenomenological tests. Finally in section V, we give a short summary on significant open questions, and we try to clarify where we stand and what we expect to learn in the future.

## II Kinematics of DIS and structure functions

### A $`epe^{}X`$ unpolarized case

Let us start to recall the basic kinematics entering in the calculation of the cross section for the DIS process $`epe^{}X`$ to lowest order in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), as shown in Fig. 1. We define the Lorentz invariants in the usual way

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`(p+k)^2,q^2=(kk^{})^2=Q^2(Q^2>0),`$ (1)
$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`pq/M,W^2=p^2=M^2+2M\nu Q^2,`$ (2)
where $`M`$ is the proton mass and we neglect the lepton mass. In the laboratory frame, if $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ are the energies of the incoming and outgoing leptons and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle one has

$$Q^2=4EE^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2\text{and}\nu =EE^{},$$
(3)
which are the invariant mass and the energy of the exchange off-shell photon. One also defines two dimensionless scaling variables

$$x=Q^2/2p.q=Q^2/2M\nu \text{and}y=p.q/p.k=\nu /E,$$
(4)
which can vary between zero and one. We recall that $`x`$ is called the Bjorken variable and we note that $`x=1`$ corresponds to elastic $`ep`$ scattering, since from eq.(2), if $`W^2=M^2`$ one has $`Q^2=2M\nu `$. Moreover for $`x=0`$, i.e. $`Q^2=0`$, we have real photoproduction. Let us recall that DIS corresponds to the ideal situation where $`x`$ is fixed and $`Q^2`$ and $`\nu `$ are going to infinity, which is never achieved in practice.

The unpolarized cross section described by the Feynman diagram shown in Fig. 1 has the following expression

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_e}=\frac{4\alpha ^2}{Q^4}\frac{E^{}}{E}L_{\mu \nu }^{(e)}W^{\mu \nu },$$
(5)
where $`\alpha =1/137.036`$ is the fine-structure constant, $`L_{\mu \nu }^{(e)}`$ is the symmetric leptonic tensor

$$L_{\mu \nu }^{(e)}=2[k_\mu ^{}k_\nu +k_\mu k_\nu ^{}+(m_e^2k.k^{})g_{\mu \nu }],$$
(6)
and where $`W_{\mu \nu }`$ is the symmetric hadronic tensor defined as

$$W_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{X}{}p|J_\mu ^+|XX|J_\nu |p(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(4)}(p+qp_X).$$
(7)
Because the electromagnetic current $`J_\mu `$ is conserved, namely $`_\mu J_\mu =0`$, we have $`q_\mu W_{\mu \nu }=q_\nu W_{\mu \nu }=0`$, and by using parity conservation and $`T`$ invariance, one shows that $`W_{\mu \nu }`$ can be expressed in terms of two real structure functions $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$

$`W_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`W_1(\nu ,Q^2)\left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}\right)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W_2(\nu ,Q^2)}{M^2}}\left(p_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p.q}{q^2}}q_\mu \right)\left(p_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p.q}{q^2}}q_\nu \right).`$ (9)
If one neglects the electron mass $`m_e`$, the cross section eq.(5) reads

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_e}=\frac{4\alpha ^2(E^{})^2}{Q^4}\left[W_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta /2+2W_1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2\right],$$
(10)
and for the elastic contribution when $`Q^2=2M\nu `$, i.e. $`x=1`$, we have with $`\tau =Q^2/4M^2`$,

$`W_1^e\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau G_M^2\delta (\nu Q^2/2M),`$ (11)
$`W_2^e\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_E^2+\tau G_M^2}{1+\tau }}\delta (\nu Q^2/2M),`$ (12)
where $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ are the electric and magnetic form factors. Clearly this contribution vanishes in the large $`Q^2`$ region since $`G_{E,M}(Q^2)(Q^2)^2`$ ***This behavior is firmly established for $`G_M(Q^2)`$ but recent Jefferson Lab data  have cast some doubts on its validity for $`G_E(Q^2)`$ .. However for a point-like particle, from eq.(12) we have

$$2MW_1^{pt}=x\delta (1x)\text{and}\nu W_2^{pt}=\delta (1x),$$
(13)
where $`x=Q^2/2M\nu `$, and we will come back later to this important result. From the 1968 SLAC experiment, it was observed that at a fixed value of $`W^2`$, the invariant square mass of $`X`$ (see eq.(2)), when $`Q^2`$ is large enough, both $`MW_1`$ and $`\nu W_2`$ vanish, like in the elastic case. However in the scaling limit, that is when both $`\nu `$ and $`Q^2`$ are large, with $`x=Q^2/2M\nu `$ fixed, this is no longer the case and according to Bjorken , one expects

$$MW_1(\nu ,Q^2)\underset{Q^2\mathrm{}}{}F_1(x),\nu W_2(\nu ,Q^2)\underset{Q^2\mathrm{}}{}F_2(x),$$
(14)
where $`F_{1,2}(x)`$ are two scaling functions independent of $`Q^2`$. Therefore the SLAC experiment has shown that the DIS cross section is much larger than expected and obeys scaling as predicted by Bjorken. These observations were the basis of the Feynman’s idea for the parton model which can be formulated as follows: hadrons possess a granular structure and the ”granules” behave as hard point-like almost free objects.

Finally we recall that the structure functions $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ can be related to the absorption cross sections for transverse and longitudinal virtual photons $`\sigma _T`$ and $`\sigma _L`$

$`W_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2+\nu ^2}}{4\pi \alpha ^2}}\sigma _T`$ (15)
$`W_2(\nu ,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\sqrt{Q^2+\nu ^2}}}(\sigma _T+\sigma _L).`$ (16)
This allows to write eq.(8) as

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_e}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma _T+\epsilon \sigma _L),$$
(17)
where $`\epsilon `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are kinematic factors

$`\epsilon =\left[1+2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2+\nu ^2}{Q^2}}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta /2\right]^1\text{and}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2+\nu ^2}}{2\pi ^2Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\epsilon }}.`$ (19)
The positivity of $`\sigma _L`$, $`\sigma _T`$ leads to the inequalities

$$0W_1\left(1+\frac{\nu ^2}{Q^2}\right)W_2.$$
(20)
One also defines a useful quantity, the ratio $`R`$ of longitudinal to transverse cross sections for polarized virtual photons on an unpolarized target

$$R=\sigma _L/\sigma _T=\frac{W_2(\nu ,Q^2)}{W_1(\nu ,Q^2)}\left(1+\frac{\nu ^2}{Q^2}\right)1.$$
(21)
In the limit of large $`Q^2`$, $`\sigma _L`$ vanishes, so $`R=0`$ and we have $`2xMW_1=\nu W_2`$, that is the so-called Callan-Gross relation

$$2xF_1(x)=F_2(x),$$
(22)
which is approximately valid for finite $`Q^2`$. However at finite $`Q^2`$, quark transverse momentum effects generate non-zero values of $`R`$. These have been observed in the measurements made at SLAC showing that $`R`$ is slowly varying with $`Q^2`$ at fixed $`x`$. A recent world data compilation is depicted in Fig. 2.

Although the two scaling functions $`F_{1,2}(x)`$ were introduced above in the limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, for finite $`Q^2`$ we have $`F_{1,2}(x,Q^2)`$ which are $`Q^2`$ dependent because of scaling violations. These important aspects will be discussed in section 0.1.4, but meanwhile in order to complete our presentation of the data, we give in Fig. 3 a compilation of $`F_{1,2}^p(x,Q^2)`$ for fixed proton target experiments (NMC, BCDMS, E665) and collider experiments at HERA-DESY (ZEUS, H1). Within this broad kinematic domain in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$, the data exhibit indeed, a clear evidence for scaling violations.

### B The neutrino induced reactions $`\nu (\overline{\nu })p\mu ^{}X`$

For these reactions the proton is now probed by a weak charged current and the lowest order diagram is also shown in Fig. 1, where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is replaced by a virtual $`W^\pm `$. Actually, if $`\mu ^\pm `$ are replaced by $`e^\pm `$, one can also consider the line reversed reactions $`e^{}p\nu (\overline{\nu })X`$ which will be studied at HERA DESY with polarized incident beams $`e^{}`$. The cross section is in this case

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{G_F^2}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{M_W^2}{M_W^2+Q^2}\right)^2\frac{E^{}}{E}L_{\mu \nu }^{(\nu )}W^{\mu \nu },$$
(23)
with $`G_F=10^5/M^2`$, $`M_W=80.43\text{GeV}`$ and where the leptonic tensor $`L_{\mu \nu }^{(\nu )}`$ is no longer symmetric

$$L_{\mu \nu }^{(\nu )}=k_\mu ^{}k_\nu +k_\mu k_\nu ^{}k.k^{}g_{\mu \nu }\pm i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }k^\rho k^\sigma ,$$
(24)
with $`+`$ for the left-handed neutrino and $``$ for the right-handed antineutrino.

For the hadronic tensor associated to the weak charged current, which is not conserved, one has now in addition to the symmetric part analogous to the previous case, an antisymmetric term due to the interference between vector and axial parts of the current. The hadronic tensor can be expressed in terms of three structure functions

$`W_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`W_1^\nu (\nu ,Q^2)\left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}\right)`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{W_2^\nu (\nu ,Q^2)}{M^2}}\left(p_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p.q}{q^2}}q_\mu \right)\left(p_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p.q}{q^2}}q_\nu \right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{M}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p^\rho q^\sigma W_3^\nu (\nu ,Q^2).`$
The new structure function $`W_3^\nu `$, which is not necessarily positive, is due to the parity violating coupling of the weak gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$. The cross sections for $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ now read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma ^{\nu ,\overline{\nu }}}{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2E^2}{2\pi ^2(1+Q^2/M_W^2)^2}}`$ (29)
$`\left[W_2^\nu \mathrm{cos}^2\theta /2+2W_1^\nu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E+E^{}}{M}}\right)W_3^\nu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2\right],`$ (30)
and clearly by taking the difference between $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ cross sections one can isolate $`W_3^\nu `$. As in the previous case, one can interpret the $`W_i^\nu (\nu ,Q^2)`$ in terms of the virtual $`W`$-proton cross sections and from positivity one obtains the inequalities

$$0\frac{\sqrt{Q^2+\nu ^2}}{2M}|W_3^\nu |W_1^\nu (1+\nu ^2/Q^2)W_2^\nu .$$
(31)
Finally one also expects in the scaling limit

$`MW_1^\nu (\nu ,Q^2)`$ $`\underset{Q^2\mathrm{}}{}F_1^\nu (x),`$ (32)
$`\nu W_2^\nu (\nu ,Q^2)`$ $`\underset{Q^2\mathrm{}}{}F_2^\nu (x),`$ (33)
$`\nu W_3^\nu (\nu ,Q^2)`$ $`\underset{Q^2\mathrm{}}{}F_3^\nu (x),`$ (34)
where $`F_{1,2,3}^\nu (x)`$ are three scaling functions independent of $`Q^2`$ and similarly to eq.(22), one should have

$$2xF_1^\nu (x)=F_2^\nu (x)=x|F_3^\nu (x)|.$$
(35)
For finite $`Q^2`$ these three functions are also $`Q^2`$ dependent and for completness we show in Fig. 4, the results on $`xF_3^{\nu N}`$ from the CCFR collaboration  at FNAL, as a function of $`Q^2`$, for fixed $`x`$ values. The existence of scaling violations is also shown by these data.

### C $`epe^{}X`$ polarized case

Let us consider the case of DIS where both electron and proton are polarized. If $`s_e`$ denotes the polarization vector of the incident electron, it is a space-time vector orthogonal to the momentum $`k`$ of the electron, so it is such that $`k.s_e=0`$ and $`s_e^2=1`$. Consequently the leptonic tensor $`L_{\mu \nu }`$ has now, in addition to the symmetric part (see eq.(6)), an antisymmetric part

$$L_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}=2i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }s_e^\alpha q^\beta .$$
(36)
Similarly, if $`s_p`$ denotes the polarization vector of the proton the antisymmetric part of the hadronic tensor is linear in $`s_p`$ and reads

$`W_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q^\alpha s_p^\beta MG_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }}{M}}q^\alpha [(p.q)s_p^\beta (s_p.q)p^\beta ]G_2(\nu ,Q^2),`$
where $`G_{1,2}`$ are two spin-dependent new structure functions. These structure functions can be related to the absorption cross sections $`\sigma _{1/2}`$ and $`\sigma _{3/2}`$ for virtual photons with projection $`1/2`$ and $`3/2`$ of the total spin along the incident photon direction. $`\sigma _T`$ introduced above (see eq.(16)) is the total transverse cross section $`\sigma _T=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{1/2}+\sigma _{3/2})`$ and $`\sigma _{TL}`$ is the cross section corresponding to the interference between the transverse and longitudinal polarizations of the photon. We have

$`\nu MG_1Q^2G_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2+\nu ^2}}{2\pi \alpha ^2}}(\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2})\text{and}`$ (39)
$`\sqrt{Q^2}(MG_1+\nu G_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2+\nu ^2}}{2\pi \alpha ^2}}\sigma _{TL}.`$ (40)
One can also define asymmetries for the virtual photon scattering, namely,

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2}}{\sigma _{1/2}+\sigma _{3/2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\nu MG_1Q^2G_2}{W_1}}\text{and}`$ (41)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma _{TL}}{\sigma _{1/2}+\sigma _{3/2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2}(MG_1+\nu G_2)}{W_1}},`$ (42)
with the following positivity bounds

$$|A_1|1\text{and}|A_2|\sqrt{R},$$
(43)
where $`R`$ is defined in eq.(21). The first inequality is rather trivial unlike the second one, which can badly restrict the allowed values of $`A_2`$. This bound has been recently improved  as follows

$$|A_2|\sqrt{R(1+A_1)/2}.$$
(44)
It involves $`A_1`$ and in the kinematic regions where $`A_1`$ is small or negative, one gets a much stronger bound than eq.(43) which corresponds to $`A_1=1`$. In the scaling limit one also expects

$`\nu M^2G_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ $`\underset{Q^2\mathrm{}}{}g_1(x)\text{and}`$ (45)
$`\nu ^2MG_2(\nu ,Q^2)`$ $`\underset{Q^2\mathrm{}}{}g_2(x),`$ (46)
where $`g_{1,2}(x)`$ are two scaling functions independent of $`Q^2`$. Of course in this limit, $`A_2`$ is going to vanish since $`R`$ also goes to zero.

Finally these asymmetries $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ can be simply related to the measured spin asymmetries. In the case of longitudinal beam and target polarization along the beam direction (i.e. $`s_e=\frac{1}{m_e}(|\stackrel{}{k}|,E\stackrel{}{k}/|\stackrel{}{k}|)`$ and idem for $`s_p`$), one has

$$A_{}=\frac{d^2\sigma ^{}d^2\sigma ^{}}{d^2\sigma ^{}+d^2\sigma ^{}}=D(A_1+\eta A_2),$$
(47)
where $`D`$ and $`\eta `$ are kinematic factors (the factor $`D`$ is also called the depolarization factor)

$$D=\frac{1E^{}\epsilon /E}{1+ϵR},\eta =\frac{\epsilon \sqrt{Q^2}}{EE^{}ϵ}.$$
(48)
In the region where $`\nu `$ and $`Q^2`$ are large, $`\eta `$ is small and one has

$$A_{}DA_1.$$
(49)
In the case of longitudinally polarized beam and transversely polarized target (i.e. $`s_p=(0,\stackrel{}{s})`$, $`\stackrel{}{s}.\stackrel{}{p}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{s}^2=1`$), one has

$$A_{}=\frac{d^2\sigma ^{}d^2\sigma ^{}}{d^2\sigma ^{}+d^2\sigma ^{}}=d(A_2\xi A_1),$$
(50)
where $`d`$ and $`\xi `$ are kinematic factors

$$d=D\sqrt{\frac{2ϵ}{1+ϵ}},\xi =\eta \frac{1+ϵ}{2ϵ}.$$
(51)
When $`\nu `$ and $`Q^2`$ are large

$$A_{}dA_2.$$
(52)
We show in Fig.5 a compilation of the world data on the asymmetries $`A_2`$ for polarized proton and deuteron targets, which turn out to be rather small. Experimental results on the asymmetry $`A_1`$ allow to extract the function $`g_1`$, which is also $`Q^2`$ dependent, and we show the most recent data at $`Q^2=5GeV^2`$, for a polarized proton target in Fig. 6 and for polarized deuterium and neutron targets  Although such a neutron target does not exist, the data are obtained from deuterium or from helium 3. in Fig. 7.

## III Physical interpretation of structure functions, parton distributions and sum rules

### A The physical picture : the quark parton model

The experimental facts observed at SLAC in 1968 gave a strong support to the existence of point-like objects in the proton structure and were the inspiration for trying to elaborate a simple physical picture for interpreting the structure functions of DIS. When $`E\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`\nu \mathrm{}`$), because of time dilatation, the life time of the proton virtual states is also very large. When $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, the interaction time $`1/\sqrt{Q^2}`$ becomes very small. So in the scaling limit, $`\nu `$ and $`Q^2`$ very large, the virtual photon $`\gamma ^{}`$ (see Fig. 1) sees a ”frozen” state of quasi-real, quasi-free point like objects called partons.

According to the parton model, in this kinematical region, the proton behaves as a gas of free partons. In particular, it is very unlikely to recover a proton in the final state and this is why the elastic form factors $`G_{E,M}`$ vanish when $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, as recalled above. So in the calculation of the DIS cross section (e.g. see eq.(5)), the hadronic tensor $`W_{\mu \nu }`$ is evaluated according to the parton model graph, shown in Fig. 8, namely

$$W_{\mu \nu }=\underset{i}{}\underset{s}{}d^4kf_s^i(p,k)w_{\mu \nu }^i(q,k)\delta [(k+q)^2],$$
(53)
where $`f_s^i(p,k)`$ is the probability for the virtual photon to struck a parton $`i`$ of spin $`s`$ and momentum $`k`$, inside the proton of momentum $`p`$. It seems very natural nowdays to assume that the charged partons which interact directly with $`\gamma ^{}`$ are quarksGluons are also fundamental constituents of the proton, but since they don’t carry electric charge, they don’t couple directly to $`\gamma ^{}`$.. This step was not so obvious to make in 1968, although we had already the $`SU(3)`$ classification of hadrons, as built up from quarks, and the Cabibbo theory of weak interactions simply formulated in terms of leptons and quarks. It is important to recall that nowdays six quarks have been identified. They have very different masses: three of them are the light quarks up, down and strange ($`u,d,s`$) and three are the heavy quarks charm, bottom and top ($`c,b,t`$). The quark flavor corresponds to one of these six labels $`u,d,s,c,b,t`$ and the $`u,c,t`$ quarks have a charge $`e=2/3`$, while the charge of the $`d,s,b`$ quarks is $`e=1/3`$. The summation over $`i`$ in eq.(53)) and subsequent equations stands for a flavor summation $`i=u,d,s,..`$. In the nucleon $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks dominate and their mass can be neglected in high energy DIS. So if these partons are indeed spin $`1/2`$ massless quarks, we are now in the framework of the quark parton model (QPM), $`w_{\mu \nu }^i(q,k)`$ is the tensor which describes the interaction of $`\gamma ^{}`$ with the quark $`i`$ of momentum $`k`$ and we have, for its symmetric part

$$w_{\mu \nu }^i(q,k)=\frac{e_i^2}{2}Tr\left\{\text{/}k\gamma _\mu (\text{/}k+\text{/}q)\gamma _\nu \right\},$$
(54)
which is similar to the leptonic tensor (e.g. see eq.(6)). If $`x_i`$ is the fraction of the proton momentum carried by the quark $`i`$, $`x_i=k.q/M\nu `$, so $`\delta [(k+q)^2]=\frac{1}{2M\nu }\delta (xx_i)`$ and the hadronic tensor becomes

$`W_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{2M\nu }}f_s^i(p,k)\delta (xx_i)`$ (56)
$`[2k_\mu k_\nu +k_\mu q_\nu +k_\nu q_\mu g_{\mu \nu }k.q],`$
where $`e_i`$ is the charge of the quark $`i`$. From this expression, one can extract $`W_{1,2}`$ whose features correspond to the scattering of point-like objects (see eq.(13)) and by comparing with eq.(9), one finds after some partial integration and using eq.(14)

$$F_1(x)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}e_i^2q_i(x),$$
(57)
where

$$q_i(x)=\underset{s=\pm }{}d^2k_Tf_s^i(p,k)=q_{i+}(x)+q_i(x).$$
(58)
Clearly $`q_i(x)`$, which is called the unpolarized quark distribution function, contains the sum over two quark spin directions and the average over the quark intrinsic transverse momentum $`k_T`$. Usually in the QPM one interprets $`q_{i+()}(x)dx`$ as the probability to find a quark $`i`$, with helicity parallel (antiparallel) to the nucleon spin, and with momentum fraction of the proton between $`x`$ and $`x+dx`$. From eq.(56) one also finds $`\nu W_2=2xMW_1`$, that is the Callan-Gross relation (see eq.(22)) which leads to $`R=0`$, as mentioned before. This is what one expects for quarks of spin $`1/2`$ and let us recall the argument. Consider a collision quark-virtual photon in the Breit frame. By conservation of the total spin along the momentum direction, a scalar quark $`(s=0)`$ cannot absorb a photon of helicity $`\lambda =\pm 1`$, so $`\sigma _T=0`$ and $`R=\mathrm{}`$. However for $`s=1/2`$, the quark helicity flips in the electromagnetic interaction and therefore only the photon with $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ can be absorbed, so $`\sigma _L=0`$ and $`R=0`$.

Finally let us consider polarized DIS and the interpretation of the polarized structure functions $`g_{1,2}(x)`$. Similarly in the QPM, the antisymmetric part of the hadronic tensor (see eq.(38)) can be expressed as

$$W_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}=\underset{i}{}\underset{s}{}d^4kf_s^i(p,k,s_p)w_{\mu \nu }^{(A)i}(q,k,s)\delta [(k+q)^2],$$
(59)
where $`s_p`$ denotes the proton polarization vector and

$$w_{\mu \nu }^{(A)i}=\frac{e_i^2}{4}Tr\left\{(1+\text{/}s\gamma _5)\text{/}k\gamma _\mu (\text{/}k+\text{/}q)\gamma _\nu \right\}.$$
(60)
So

$`W_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }q_\rho {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i^2{\displaystyle }d^4k[f_+^i(p,k,s_p)f_{}^i(p,k,s_p)]`$ (62)
$`k_\sigma \delta \left[(k+q)^2\right].`$
By comparing with eq.(38) and using eq.(46) one finds

$$g_1(x)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}e_i^2\mathrm{\Delta }q_i(x)\text{and}g_2(x)=0,$$
(63)
where with the help of the definitions in eq.(58)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q_i(x)=q_{i+}(x)q_i(x),$$
(64)
which is called the polarized quark distribution function. Therefore in the scaling limit the longitudinal polarization of the proton is described by $`g_1(x)`$ and we find that $`g_2(x)`$ vanishes.

Actually if one goes beyond the most naive QPM (see section IV), one must also consider the existence of gluons which produce quark-antiquark pairs. Since the antiquark contribution can be computed similarly, all the above quark distributions must be replaced by adding quarks and antiquarks, so the correct expressions are indeed

$`F_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i^2\left[q_i(x)+\overline{q}_i(x)\right]\text{and}`$ (65)
$`g_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i^2\left[\mathrm{\Delta }q_i(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_i(x)\right].`$ (66)
One sees from these expressions that by measuring only $`F_1(x)`$ (or $`F_2(x)`$), it will not be possible to disentangle neither unpolarized quark distributions of different flavors, nor quarks from antiquarks. For polarized quark (antiquark) distributions the situation is the same if one measures only $`g_1(x)`$. So we give now a short discussion to clarify this point.

Let us go back to $`\nu (\overline{\nu })p\mu ^{}X`$ which are interpreted in the QPM in terms of four different scattering processes, i.e. $`\nu q`$, $`\nu \overline{q}`$, $`\overline{\nu }q`$ and $`\overline{\nu }\overline{q}`$. For $`\nu q`$ scattering (resp. $`\overline{\nu }\overline{q}`$) both $`\nu `$ and $`q`$ are left-handed (resp. both $`\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ are right-handed), so the cross section $`d\sigma /dy`$ is isotropic ($`s`$ wave) whereas for $`\nu \overline{q}`$ since $`\overline{q}`$ is right-handed, in this case ($`p`$ wave) $`d\sigma /dy\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}\right)^2(1y)^2`$, (idem for $`\overline{\nu }q`$ since $`q`$ is left-handed). Therefore one can write for a given flavor

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma ^\nu }{dxdy}}\left[q(x)+(1y)^2\overline{q}(x)\right]\text{and}`$ (67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma ^{\overline{\nu }}}{dxdy}}\left[\overline{q}(x)+(1y)^2q(x)\right].`$ (68)
Consequently the $`y`$ dependence allows to separate $`q(x)`$ from $`\overline{q}(x)`$ and by measuring both $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ cross sections, one can isolate $`q(x)\overline{q}(x)`$ and therefore we have (see eqs.(29) and (33))

$$xF_3^\nu (x)=\underset{i}{}x(q_i(x)\overline{q}_i(x)).$$
(69)
A similar analysis can be done to separate $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}(x)`$ by using charged current reactions in $`e^\pm p`$ polarized DIS, which might be done at HERA DESY in the future.

### B Main features of quark distributions from DIS data

Once the parton structure of the proton has been detected, to establish it firmly, we need to make a detailed study of its basic constituents. A very high energy proton is not a simple three quarks objects like a proton at rest, but much more complex and it is actually made of valence quarks, gluons and quark-antiquark pairs which carry a small fraction of its momentum (see Fig. 9). We define the valence quark distributions as

$$q_{val}(x)=q(x)\overline{q}(x)=q(x)q_{sea}(x),$$
(70)
where $`q_{sea}(x)`$ denotes the sea quark distribution and we assume $`q_{sea}(x)=\overline{q}(x)`$. From neutrino-nucleon DIS via the charged current, one can extract valence quarks from the measurement of $`F_3^\nu (x)`$ (see eq.(69)) and the most accurate data comes from CCFR shown in Fig. 4. By looking at a fixed $`Q^2`$ value, as shown in Fig. 11, we see from this pure valence

contribution, that $`xu_{val}(x)`$ and $`xd_{val}(x)`$ are maximum around $`x0.2`$ or so and they vanish for $`x1`$ and $`x0`$. Since one can also isolate the antiquark distributions, the results from CCFR show that $`x\overline{q}(x)`$ (or $`xq_{sea}(x)`$) goes to zero very rapidly for $`x1`$ and has a sharp rise for $`x0`$ (see Fig. 11). The small $`x`$ kinematic region which corresponds to $`Q^2`$ fixed and $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, is called the Regge region. A simple Regge analysis of the absorption cross sections $`\gamma ^{}p`$ leads to

$$q_{sea}(x)\underset{x0}{}1/x\text{and}q_{val}(x)\underset{x0}{}1/\sqrt{x}.$$
(71)
Clearly the singular behavior shown in Fig.11 is stronger than this prediction and we will come back to this important point. From $`epe^{}X`$ and $`ede^{}X`$ DIS on hydrogen and deuterium targets, one can extract the electromagnetic structure functions $`F_2^p(x)`$ and $`F_2^n(x)`$ for proton and neutron, in terms of valence quark and antiquark distributions.

By using eq.(22) and eq.(66) we have

$`F_2^p(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\left[xu_{val}(x)+2x\overline{u}(x)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left[xd_{val}(x)+2x\overline{d}(x)\right]`$ (73)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left[xs(x)+x\overline{s}(x)\right],`$
if we restrict ourselves to three flavors $`u,d`$ and $`s`$. $`F_2^n(x)`$ is obtained from eq.(73) by exchanging $`u`$ and $`d`$. The NMC experiment at CERN provides a rather accurate determination of $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)`$ and $`F_2^p(x)F_2^n(x)`$ as shown in Fig.12. These data confirm and complete some of the features observed in neutrino data. The difference $`F_2^p(x)F_2^n(x)`$ has a maximum around $`x=0.3`$ or so, where $`u_{val}(x)`$ and $`d_{val}(x)`$ dominate and it vanishes for $`x1`$. As we will see later, its behavior in the small $`x`$ region has revealed the flavor symmetry breaking of the sea quarks, i.e. $`u_{sea}(x)d_{sea}(x)`$.

Since sea quarks dominate for small $`x`$, we expect the ratio $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)`$ to go to one in the low $`x`$ region as indicated by the NMC data. The E665 data, which have larger errors, suggest a departure from this trend in the very small $`x`$ region. The behavior of $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)`$ for large $`x`$ indicates that $`u_{val}(x)`$ dominates over $`d_{val}(x)`$. The NuSea-experiment, has measured the ratio of muon pair yields from Drell-Yan production of proton-proton or proton-deuteron interactions. This ratio allows the determination of $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ ratio (see Fig. 14), which has a strong $`x`$ dependence and confirms the antiquark flavor asymmetry, mentioned above and the fact that $`\overline{d}>\overline{u}`$. Using a parametrization of $`\overline{d}+\overline{u}`$, one can also extract $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ (see Fig.14), which is mainly positive (except may be at large $`x`$) and exhibits a rapid rise for low $`x`$, in agreement with what was observed in neutrino DIS (see Fig. 11).

The simple parametrization $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)=(1x)^7`$, which was proposed ten years ago , is consistent with these new data (see Fig.14). The antiquark flavor asymmetry is an important topic which has generated new developments and for a complete review see ref..

We have already said that a direct flavor decomposition of the polarized quark distributions is not possible from the data on $`g_1^p(x)`$ and $`g_1^d(x)`$ (see eq.(66)), but this can be done using polarized semi-inclusive DIS, where one detects a hadron in the final state. We show in Fig. 15 some recent results from HERMES  for the determination of $`x\mathrm{\Delta }u_v(x)`$, which turns out to be positive, $`x\mathrm{\Delta }d_v(x)`$ which is negative and $`x\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ which is compatible with zero. The accuracy of these results is limited, but these trends agree with some global fits of the $`g_1^{p,n,d}(x,Q^2)`$ data, as we will see later.

We now turn to a short review of different sum rules, the structure functions we have introduced so far must satisfy. We will also discuss their validity or breakdown versus experiment, as well as some theoretical considerations.

### C Sum rules

There exists a number of sum rules for unpolarized and polarized structure functions, some of which are rigorous results and other which rely on more or less well justified assumptions. Let us first consider the unpolarized case and for the electromagnetic structure functions we start with the Gottfried sum rule (GSR). If one assumes an $`SU(2)`$ symmetric sea, i.e. $`\overline{u}(x)=\overline{d}(x)`$, one can easily show, using eq.(73), that

$$I_G=_0^1\frac{dx}{x}\left[F_2^p(x)F_2^n(x)\right]=\frac{1}{3},$$
(74)
because

$$N_u=_0^1𝑑xu_{val}(x)=2\text{and}N_d=_0^1𝑑xd_{val}(x)=1.$$
(75)
In fact the NMC experiment has observed a large defect of the GSR, since their measurement (see Fig. 12) gives at $`Q^2=4\text{GeV}^2`$, $`I_G=0.235\pm 0.026`$. This flavor symmetry breaking, more precisely $`\overline{d}>\overline{u}`$, is a consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle which favors $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs with respect to $`u\overline{u}`$ pairs, since the proton contains two $`u`$ quarks and only one $`d`$ quark.

Next for the charged current structure functions, we have two rigourous results based on eq.(75), namely the Adler sum rule (ASR)

$$_0^1\frac{dx}{2x}\left[F_2^{\overline{\nu }p}(x)F_2^{\nu p}(x)\right]=N_uN_d=1$$
(76)
(an experimental verification with large errors show an agreement) and the Gross-Llewellyn Smith sum rule (GLSSR)

$$I_{GLS}=_0^1\frac{dx}{2x}[xF_3^{\nu p}(x)+xF_3^{\overline{\nu }p}(x)]=N_u+N_d=3.$$
(77)
The ASR is exact and receives no QCD corrections, but its experimental verification is at a very low level of accuracy . The GLSSR gets a negative QCD correction and the CCFR data (see Fig.4) gives $`I_{GLS}=2.55\pm 0.06\pm 0.1`$ at $`Q^2=3\text{GeV}^2`$, in fair agreement with the theoretical prediction. If we turn to polarized structure functions, there is first a fundamental result called the Bjorken sum rule (BSR). It was derived about thirty years ago in the framework of quark current algebra and it relates the first moment of the difference between $`g_1^p(x)`$ for the proton and $`g_1^n(x)`$ for the neutron and the neutron $`\beta `$-decay axial coupling

$$_0^1𝑑x\left[g_1^p(x)g_1^n(x)\right]=\frac{1}{6}g_A/g_V,$$
(78)
where $`g_A/g_V=1.2573\pm 0.0028`$ is very accurately known. The BSR gets also a negative QCD correction and we will come back later to the test of this firm prediction of QCD. One can also derive sum rules for $`g_1^p`$ and $`g_1^n`$ separately. These are the Ellis-Jaffe sum rules (EJSR) which read

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xg_1^p(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}(9FD+6\mathrm{\Delta }s)\text{and}`$ (79)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xg_1^n(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}(6F4D+6\mathrm{\Delta }s),`$ (80)
where $`F=0.459\pm 0.008`$ and $`D=0.798\pm 0.008`$ are the $`\beta `$-decay axial coupling constants of the baryon octet and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=_0^1\mathrm{\Delta }s(x)𝑑x`$ is the total polarization of the proton carried by the strange quarks. One recovers eq.(78) by taking the difference because $`F+D=g_A/g_V`$. In their original work, Ellis and Jaffe made the critical assumption that $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0`$, which allows to make definite predictions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$.

Using the spin-dependent photoabsorption cross sections $`\sigma _{1/2(3/2)}(\nu )`$, Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn (GDH) have derived the following sum rule valid for real photons

$$I_{GDH}=_{\nu _{thr}}^{\mathrm{}}[\sigma _{1/2}(\nu )\sigma _{3/2}(\nu )]\frac{d\nu }{\nu }=\frac{2\pi ^2\alpha }{M^2}\kappa ^2,$$
(81)
where $`\nu `$ is the photon energy in the target rest frame, $`\nu _{thr}`$ is the pion production threshold and $`\kappa `$ the anomalous nucleon magnetic moment. This important sum rule which predicts $`204\mu b`$ for the proton, has never been tested directly due to the need for a circularly polarized beam with a longitudinally polarized target and a wide range of photon energies to be covered. However the GDH integral can be generalized to the case of absorption of polarized transverse virtual photons with $`Q^2`$

$$I_{GDH}(Q^2)=_{\nu _{thr}}^{\mathrm{}}[\sigma _{1/2}(\nu ,Q^2)\sigma _{3/2}(\nu ,Q^2)]\frac{d\nu }{\nu }.$$
(82)
One can show that, within a good approximation, one has in the scaling limit

$$I_{GDH}(Q^2)=\frac{16\pi ^2\alpha }{Q^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1$$
(83)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=_0^1𝑑xg_1(x)`$, so the GDH sum rule is connected to polarized DIS. The $`Q^2`$-dependence of the generalized GDH sum rule has been measured by the HERMES Collaboration in the range $`1.2Q^212\text{GeV}^2`$ (see Fig.16). The $`Q^2`$-behavior of $`I_{GDH}(Q^2)`$ agrees with the theoretical prediction of ref. and this suggests that there are no important effects from either resonances or non-leading-twist.

Concerning the structure function $`g_2(x)`$, which is related to transverse polarization (see eq.(52), but has no simple interpretation in the parton model, it is possible to derive a superconvergence relation by considering the asymptotic behavior of a particular virtual Compton helicity amplitude. This leads to the Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule (BCSR)

$$_0^1𝑑xg_2^p(x)=0\text{and}_0^1𝑑xg_2^n(x)=0,$$
(84)
for proton and neutron and from this result, it has been naively argued that $`g_2(x)`$ vanishes identically. Actually from what we discussed in section II about the asymmetry $`A_2`$ in the scaling limit, one can alternatively expect $`g_1(x)+g_2(x)=0`$, a simple relation between $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$. However $`g_2(x)`$ is more complicated than that and only part of it (twist-$`2`$ contribution) is entirely related to $`g_1(x)`$ by means of the Wandzura-Wilczek sum rule (WWSR) which reads for $`J1`$

$$_0^1𝑑xx^{J1}\left[\frac{J1}{J}g_1(x)+g_2^{WW}(x)\right]=0.$$
(85)
Clearly for $`J=1`$ one recovers the BCSR eq.(84) and for $`J=2`$ one has

$$g_2^{WW}(x)=_x^1g_1(y)\frac{dy}{y}g_1(x).$$
(86)
Very preliminary data obtained recently by E155X and shown in Fig.17 for proton, are consistent with eq.(86), as shown by the dashed curves, but this has to wait for further confirmation. This approximation gives also the same kind of agreement with the $`A_2`$ data for proton and deuteron, as noticed above in Fig.5.

## IV Beyond the QPM, scaling violations and phenomenological tests

### A Scaling violations

So far we have considered the proton structure in the framework of the QPM, a picture valid only in the scaling limit. For finite $`Q^2`$, there are several experimental facts which confirm the existence of scaling violations and we have already shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ and $`xF_3^{\nu N}(x,Q^2)`$, for different values of $`x`$. For small $`x`$, $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ increases with larger $`Q^2`$ and for large $`x`$, it decreases with larger $`Q^2`$. Actually this can be understood in the framework of QCD, a color gauge theory, which is the underlying field theory for describing quark interactions and in particular, deep inelastic phenomena.

From the knowledge of the structure functions $`F_2^p,F_2^n,F_2^{\nu p}`$ and $`F_2^{\nu n}`$, one basic observation, which was made long time ago, is the fact that in DIS, the total fraction of the proton momentum carried by quarks and antiquarks, i.e. $`_j_0^1𝑑x\left[xq_j(x)+x\overline{q}_j(x)\right]`$, is about $`1/2`$. So half of the proton momentum is carried by electrically neutral objects, which have been identified with the gluons, already mentioned above. Gluons are the carriers of the color force and therefore in the QPM diagram shown in Fig.8 (see also Fig.9), one can no longer neglect the possibility that the quark may radiate a gluon, before or after being struck by the virtual photon $`\gamma ^{}`$. These contributions are of order $`\alpha \alpha _s(Q^2)`$, where $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ is the strong interaction coupling and moreover a gluon as a parton in the proton can contribute to DIS via the diagram $`\gamma ^{}gq\overline{q}`$ to the same order. From the QCD Lagrangian and the corresponding Feynman rules one can compute these contributions, so partons in QCD are no longer described by distributions which are functions of $`x`$ alone, but of $`x`$ as well as $`Q^2`$. These scaling violations will affect the predictions of the QPM and, as an example, the ratio $`R`$ (see eq.(21)) is not equal to zero, so the Callan-Gross relation (see eq.(22)) is not exact any more, and so on. The $`Q^2`$ dependence of the parton (quark, antiquark and gluon) distributions has been investigated by several authors and can be summarized in the following way. Given the parton distributions at some reference point $`Q^2=Q_0^2`$, the $`Q^2`$ evolution is given by a set of coupled equations between singlet part§§§There is a similar equation for the non-singlet $`q^{NS}=q\overline{q}`$ with no gluon contribution. $`q^S=q+\overline{q}`$ and gluon $`G`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{}nQ^2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}q^S(x,Q^2)\\ G(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }}`$ (89)
$`{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}P_{qq}(z)& N_fP_{qG}(z)\\ P_{Gq}(z)& P_{GG}(z)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}q^S(x/z,Q^2)\\ G(x/z,Q^2)\end{array}\right),`$ (94)
where $`N_f`$ is the number of flavors and the $`P_{ij}(z)`$, the so-called splitting functions, are known. This set of equations, usually called the DGLAP equations, is valid in leading order (LO) QCD, but it can be generalized to next-to-leading order (NLO), i.e. by including corrections of order $`(\alpha _s(Q^2))^2`$, because we have

$$P_{ij}(x)=P_{ij}^{(0)}(x)+\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }P_{ij}^{(1)}(x)+\mathrm{}.$$
(95)
A more formal approach to derive the $`Q^2`$ behavior of the structure functions is based on the use of the operator product expansion (OPE). The starting point is to consider time ordered products of two currents, which are related to the hadronic tensors introduced above, and to study their singularities on the light cone. This is also a very powerful method to derive directly sum rules in QCD, together with their radiative corrections at the level of one or several loops.

Concerning the polarized distributions there exists a set of equations similar to eq.(94) which provides their $`Q^2`$ evolution, and the corresponding polarized splitting functions can be found in refs.. We note that in addition to the quark (antiquark) polarizations $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_i(x,Q^2)`$, one also introduces the gluon polarization $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x,Q^2)`$ defined as in eq.(64). This distribution plays also a crucial rôle in connection with the anomaly of the axial current, as we briefly recall now. For a given flavor $`i`$, the first moment $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_i`$ is defined as the nucleon matrix element of the quark axial current

$$
=2s_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }q_i.$$
(96)
Due to the fact that this axial current is not conserved, it was shown that eq.(96) gets a gluon contribution which generates a shift of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_i`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q_i\mathrm{\Delta }q_i\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }G(Q^2).$$
(97)
It is worth recalling that from the QCD evolution equations $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_i`$ is $`Q^2`$ independent, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(Q^2)`$ increases logarithmically with $`Q^2`$, but such an increase exactly compensates the decrease of $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ with $`Q^2`$. However the size of this gluonic correction, which can be partly absorbed in the definition of the quark distributions, is purely a matter of scheme convention . Finally we note that so far, we have no direct experimental information on the sign and magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$.

### B Phenomenological tests

There is an enormous literature devoted to phenomenological work on DIS but we shall discuss only very briefly, a few aspects of this broad area of high energy physics. Clearly one particular goal is to parametrize all the parton distributions as function of $`x`$, at a given low $`Q^2`$ value, $`Q^2=Q_0^2`$, and to test whether the $`Q^2`$ evolution agrees with the QCD predictions. In several analysis the quark and gluon parton densities were described by a polynomial standard form

$$xp(x,Q_0^2)=\eta Ax^a(1x)^b(1+\gamma x+\rho \sqrt{x}),$$
(98)
where $`\eta ,a,b,\gamma ,\rho `$ are free parameters. These twenty or so parameters were determined by making a global NLO fit of the data on unpolarized structure functions and the results obtained are rather satisfactory.

In a different approach, one is using, for valence quarks and antiquarks, a set of Fermi-Dirac distributions, with the following expression

$$xp(x,Q_0^2)=\frac{Ax^a}{\mathrm{exp}[(xV(x))/\overline{x}]+1},$$
(99)
where $`V(x)`$ plays the role of the ”thermodynamical potential” and $`\overline{x}`$ is the ”temperature”. The gluon density function $`G(x,Q_0^2)`$ is given in this approach by a Bose-Einstein distribution with no free parameter.

In this case we have a small number of parameters, say ten at most, which were determined at $`Q^2=4\text{GeV}^2`$ by fitting the CCFR data displayed in Fig. 11 for valence quarks, in Fig. 11 for antiquarks and the NMC data on the ratio and the difference of $`F_2^p`$ and $`F_2^n`$ in Fig. 12.

From these distributions at $`Q^2=4\text{GeV}^2`$, after a standard $`Q^2`$ evolution using the DGLAP equations at LO only A new work updating ref. with new data and a NLO $`Q^2`$ evolution, is in preparation., one obtains the unpolarized parton distributions for different flavors, shown in Fig. 19 at $`Q^2=20\text{GeV}^2`$. We note that, as expected $`u`$ quarks dominate over $`d`$ quarks, $`\overline{d}(x)>\overline{u}(x)`$ and the $`s`$ and $`c`$ quarks are very small. Clearly the gluon distribution $`G(x,Q^2)`$, which was divided by a factor 10 and represented by the curve $`g/10`$ in the Figure, dominates largely in the small $`x`$ region. The predictions obtained in a larger $`Q^2`$ range are in excellent agreement with the CCFR data for $`xF_3^{\nu N}(x,Q^2)`$ depicted in Fig. 4 and also with the very recent data at HERA-DESY from the Zeus and H1 collaborations on $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ displayed in Fig. 3. The rapid rise in the very small $`x`$ region, down to $`x=10^6`$ or so, where sea quarks dominate, is well described by the QCD predictions and this rise is the direct extrapolation of what has been observed by CCFR for $`x=10^2`$. We gave only these two examples for illustration, but these tests have been widely extended as discussed in ref.. The large amount of available data on the unpolarized structure functions was also used to perform a global analysis by several authors and they all find for the parton densities a general pattern similar to the one displayed in Fig. 19.

We now turn to some tests involving the polarized structure functions. As we have seen before, there is a substantial experimental information on the $`x`$ dependence of $`g_1^{p,n}(x)`$ with proton, deuterium and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ polarized targets, for $`Q^2`$ in a rather limited range, i.e. $`2Q^210\text{GeV}^2`$. Given the present accuracy of the data and the small $`Q^2`$ range investigated so far, the $`Q^2`$ evolution of $`g_1^{p,n}(x,Q^2)`$ predicted by QCD cannot be tested at the level it was done for the unpolarized case. Moreover this test depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x,Q^2)`$, for which only theoretical speculations can be made. In ref., since the initial quark (antiquark) distributions are $`q_{i\pm }(x,Q^2)`$ for each flavor $`i`$, one gets immediately $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_i(x,Q^2)`$. Therefore one can calculate consistently the $`F_2`$’s and the $`g_1`$’s structure functions, with no additional parameters and the agreement with the data is rather good. We show in Fig. 19 a typical pattern of polarized parton distributions. $`\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)`$ are rather well determined and they are consistent with the results shown in Fig. 15. We also see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)`$ is small and we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}(x)`$, for $`q=d,s,c`$ are compatible with zero. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ shown in the Figure is one possible solution but it has large uncertainties. There are several other QCD analysis of the $`g_1`$’s, where one relates the polarized parton distributions to the unpolarized ones with some additional parameters. These analysis conclude that $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ is weakly constrained by present data and they all agree that a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ is prefered.

Finally let’s say a few words on testing the first moment of $`g_1`$, i.e. the EJSR and the BSR. Since data are obtained for each $`x`$ at a different $`Q^2`$, in order to have $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ for a constant $`Q^2`$, one has to rely on the crucial hypothesis that the asymmetry $`A_1`$ (see eq.(42)) is $`Q^2`$ independent, so the $`Q^2`$ evolution of $`g_1`$ is driven by that of $`F_2`$.

Moreover, the sum rules involve integrals from $`x=0`$ to $`x=1`$ and since there is no data at both ends, one has to make some reliable extrapolations in these two regions, low $`x`$ being the most critical one. The QPM results given in eqs.(78) and (80) are modified by QCD corrections, which have been calculated up to order $`(\alpha _s(Q^2))^3`$. For example, in the gauge invariant factorization scheme, perturbative QCD corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{p(n)}`$ lead to the following results :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{p(n)}=C_{NS}\left(\pm \frac{1}{12}g_A^3+\frac{1}{36}g_A^8\right)+\frac{1}{9}C_Sg_A^0,$$
(100)
where

$`g_A^0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }s,`$ (101)
$`g_A^3`$ $`=`$ $`F+D,`$ (102)
$`g_A^8`$ $`=`$ $`3FD,`$ (103)
the coefficients non-singlet $`C_{NS}`$ and singlet $`C_S`$ are given by

$`C_{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{43}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^220.2153\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^3,`$ (104)
$`C_S`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}1.10\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2,`$ (105)
for three quarks flavors. The BSR becomes now

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n=\frac{1}{6}\frac{g_A}{g_V}\left[1\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\frac{43}{12}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^220.2153\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^3\right].$$
(106)
Here we have neglected the theoretical uncertainties in the very low $`Q^2`$ region due to the higher-twist effects which go like $`1/Q^2`$.

The world data for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(Q^2)`$’s show a defect in the EJSR for proton and deuterium both at $`Q^2=3\text{GeV}^2`$ from E143 and $`Q^2=10\text{GeV}^2`$ from SMC. From this one deduces also a defect for neutron, which was confirmed by the E154 result. If one combines the world data one finds for the BSR

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n=0.171\pm 0.005\pm 0.01\text{at}Q^2=5\text{GeV}^2,$$
(107)
to be compared to the QCD prediction $`0.182\pm 0.005`$. One can also turn the argument around and given the experimental result, use the theoretical expression for the BSR to extract $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$. We also note that the defect in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$ are usually interpreted as being mainly due to a large and negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ (see eq.(80)), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0.13\pm 0.02`$, but of course this does not necessarily holds if one considers $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking effects. The total contribution of the quark spins to the proton spin, is defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }s`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0`$, the Ellis-Jaffe prediction gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }0.58`$, but according to all experiments, one gets a smaller value, for instance, E155 experiment has obtained $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.23\pm 0.04\pm 0.6`$ at $`Q^2=5\text{GeV}^2`$, which is not so easy to reconcile with our first intuition from the naive quark model, namely, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$.

## V Summary

Our knowledge of the unpolarized and polarized structure functions has improved considerably over the last twenty years or so and consequently also, our basic understanding of the proton structure. The enormous quantity of high statistics experimental data which is now available, allows us to make rather precise tests of the QCD parton model and this theoretical picture is nowdays established on very serious basis. Deep inelastic phenomena is only one of the several areas of high energy particle physics which are the testing grounds of perturbative QCD and obviously, it has to be supplemented at least by electron-positron annihilation and hard hadron-hadron collisions.

For the unpolarized parton distributions, the flavor symmetry breaking of the sea quarks (i.e. $`d_{sea}>u_{sea}`$) was only discovered recently with the violation of the GSR and it should be investigated more precisely for example in Drell-Yan lepton pair production or in $`W^\pm `$ production. Our knowledge about the gluon distribution, i.e. its small $`x`$ behavior and $`Q^2`$ dependence, is improving but a real experimental effort remains to be done to put it on equal footing with the quark distributions. It requires, for example, better measurements of $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ in the very small $`x`$ region and this makes HERA-DESY really exciting for the coming years.

Concerning the polarized parton distributions significant progress have been made and we have now the following results. The violation of the EJSR is confirmed for the proton and for the neutron. The BSR is verified up to 10% and this important test must be strengthened at a higher level of accuracy. The kinematic domain presently accessible is still too limited to answer some important questions, in particular about the small $`x`$ behavior of $`g_1`$, the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the quark distributions and about the, so far, elusive $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x,Q^2)`$. The perspective of having polarized protons at HERA-DESY, which is seriously envisaged, is opening a new experimental window for answering these questions. Finally let us mention the very exciting spin physics programme which has been approved at RHIC-BNL and will start operating by 2001 as a polarized $`pp`$ collider. Hopefully it will also shade some light on parton helicity distributions as well as quark transversity distributions. A facility called eRHIC, which combines a few GeV polarized electron beam onto one of the high energy polarized proton beam, is also under serious studies at BNL.