format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A major problem concerning the spin structure of the proton is the possibility of inferring the quark transversity distribution\[1-5\] from data. As pointed out by various authors\[8-12\], it is quite difficult to realize an experiment that is definitely sensitive to this quantity, which we shall denote by $`h_1^f(x)`$, $`f`$ being the quark flavors. Indeed

$`i)`$ $`ep`$ deep inelastic scattering yields terms which are proportional to $`h_1^f`$ but suppressed like $`m_f/Q`$, where $`m_f`$ is the current quark mass and $`Q`$ the mass of the virtual photon.

$`ii)`$ The double transverse spin asymmetry in Drell-Yan processes is proportional to the product $`h_1^f(x)\overline{h}_1^f(x^{})`$, which is probably very small, since we believe that, similarly to the helicity distributions, $`|\overline{h}_1^f(x)|<<|h_1^f(x)|`$.

$`iii)`$ Other suggested or planned experiments are rather complicated and may present serious mishaps.

Up to now we can make only a rough evaluation of $`h_1^f`$, based on the recent results of seminclusive $`\pi `$ electroproduction from HERMES and SMC. Therefore doubts have been cast on the possibility of determining $`h_1^f`$. In the present situation, the best we can do is to search for all possible spin asymmetries, which are related to the transversity distribution, and to try to extract as much as possible information from the data, when it will be available. The aim of the present paper is to suggest a new experiment sensitive to $`h_1^f`$. We propose to observe a muon pair produced by a collision between a transversely polarized proton and an unpolarized one, detecting, by means of standard experimental techniques, the muon helicity asymmetry $`A_1`$ \- that is the average longitudinal polarization - of at least one of the muons (say $`\mu ^{}`$). This kind of proposal is complementary to a typical double polarization experiment (e. g. inclusive DIS with polarized proton target and electron beam) and is somewhat analogous to Collins’ idea, which consists in detecting the final quark polarization through the azimuthal asymmetry of the fragmentation function.

Spin asymmetries (especially with a single transverse spin)\[19-33\] are being currently considered in the literature, in view of experiments realized at FNAL and DESY, or planned at RHIC\[37-40\] and other facilities. The aim of such proposals is to obtain the magnitude of twist-three terms, from which the spin asymmetries are expected to generate a nonzero contribution. The calculation of such terms involves technical difficulties and not all authors agree on the final results. Of particular interest is the left-right asymmetry, often called single transverse spin asymmetry, which can be determined from the Drell-Yan collision described above by detecting only the muon momenta. This asymmetry - which we call $`A_2`$ \- is nonzero only if we consider, at least, the first order correction in the QCD coupling constant $`g`$, for which the contribution of a soft gluon pole plays a major role. However two different calculations do not lead to the same formula.

We calculate asymmetries $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ at tree level, assuming the QCD parton model (see also), and successively inserting ”real” gluon corrections, for which we adopt an axial gauge, allowing us to develop a formalism as close as possible to the parton model. In calculating the gluon corrections, we introduce the quark-quark correlation functions, typical nonperturbative quantities. Our approach is different from the one by other authors, who adopt the formalism of quantum field theory. However we match the two ways, obtaining a precise definition of the correlation function in terms of destruction and creation operators. This suggests a general procedure for calculating higher twist contributions in parton model.

Our results on $`A_2`$ substantially agree with those of ref., however the gluonic pole contribution is unfounded. In our approach the correlation functions are interpreted in terms of transverse quark and gluon polarization; moreover they can be evaluated quantitatively within a model by Qiu and Sterman, which we extend in quite a natural way to the case of polarized correlation functions. The muon helicity asymmetry is strictly related to the transverse momentum dependent transversity distribution, whose integral over transverse momentum is $`h_1^f`$. Furthermore we observe that neglecting transverse momentum implies the vanishing of the average helicity of the final muons, as a consequence of parity conservation. In this connection we like to stress the importance of the transverse momentum of the partons in various asymmetries.

The Drell-Yan cross section is generally complicated \[42-44\]; it becomes considerably simpler \- and in particular it may be approximated by a convolution over transverse momentum \- if we limit ourselves to relatively large transverse momenta of the muon pairs. This limitation is not a serious obstacle for our aims and it is even particularly appropriate for determining $`h_1^f`$, as we shall see.

In sect. 2 we define the two asymmetries we want to calculate and we give some general formulae for the asymmetries, the Drell-Yan cross section and the expression of the leptonic tensor. Sect. 3 is dedicated to the calculation of the hadronic tensor in the QCD parton model. In sect. 4 we write the QCD first order corrections by adopting an axial gauge. Moreover we impose gauge invariance and establish some symmetry properties for the correlation functions. Then we illustrate the properties of the perturbatively calculable (”hard”) coefficients; lastly we perform the calculations. In sect. 5 we give the expressions of the asymmetries and evaluate their orders of magnitude. In sect. 6 we draw some short conclusions.

## 2 General Formulae

In Drell-Yan processes generated by the collisions between an unpolarized proton beam and a transversely polarized one, $`p^{}p\mu ^+\mu ^{}X`$, two different kinds of asymmetries can be defined, i.e., the muon helicity asymmetry, if the polarization of one final muon is detected, and the left-right asymmetry, if only final momenta of the muons are determined.

$`i)`$ The muon helicity asymmetry is defined as

$$A_1=\frac{d\sigma _+d\sigma _{}}{d\sigma _++d\sigma _{}},$$
(1)
where $`d\sigma _\pm `$ is the inclusive Drell-Yan differential cross section with the final $`\mu ^{}`$ having positive (negative) helicity.

$`ii)`$ The left-right asymmetry is

$$A_2=\frac{d\sigma _rd\sigma _l}{d\sigma _r+d\sigma _l},$$
(2)
where $`d\sigma _{r(l)}`$ is the differential cross section with a final $`\mu ^{}`$ at the right (left) of the plane determined by the momentum and by the spin of the polarized proton. Indeed, if the muon helicities are not detected, the only way of constructing an asymmetric term (i.e., containing the $`\epsilon `$ tensor) is

$$A_2\overline{S}p,$$
(3)
where $`p`$ is the $`\mu ^{}`$ four-momentum and

$$\overline{S}_\alpha =\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }n_1^\beta n_2^\gamma S^\delta ,$$
(4)
$`S`$ being the Pauli-Lubanski four-vector of the polarized proton. Here we also have set

$$n_{1(2)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{P_{1(2)}}{|𝐏_{1(2)}|}$$
(5)
and $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are the four-momenta of the two protons, whose spatial parts are $`𝐏_1`$ and $`𝐏_2`$. Proton 1 is polarized, whereas 2 is not. In the laboratory frame, where $`𝐏_1`$ = -$`𝐏_2`$, eq. (3) implies that the number of $`\mu ^{}`$ falling at the right of the plane determined by the spin and momentum of proton 1 is different from those which occur at the left of that plane.

The Drell-Yan cross section reads

$$d\sigma =\frac{1}{4P\sqrt{s}}\frac{e^4}{Q^4}L_{\mu \nu }H^{\mu \nu }d\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(6)
where $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the phase space element, whose expression is

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^4p\delta (p^2)\theta (p_0)d^4\overline{p}\delta (\overline{p}^2)\theta (\overline{p}_0)\delta ^4(p+\overline{p}q).$$
(7)
Here $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ are the four-momenta of $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ respectively, $`q`$ the four-momentum of the virtual photon, $`Q`$ its effective mass, $`P`$ = $`|𝐏_1|`$ = $`|𝐏_2|`$ the modulus of the momentum of each proton in the laboratory frame, $`s`$ the overall energy square, $`L_{\mu \nu }`$ the leptonic tensor and $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ the hadronic tensor.

The leptonic tensor is, in the massless approximation,

$$L_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}Tr[\text{/}p(1\pm \gamma _5)\gamma _\mu \text{/}\overline{p}\gamma _\nu ],$$
(8)
$`\pm `$ being the sign of the the $`\mu ^{}`$ helicity. Then we can write

$$L_{\mu \nu }=S_{\mu \nu }^l\pm iA_{\mu \nu }^l,$$
(9)
where $`S_{\mu \nu }^l`$ and $`iA_{\mu \nu }^l`$ are, respectively, the symmetric (real) part and the antisymmetric (imaginary) part of the leptonic tensor:

$`S_{\mu \nu }^l`$ $`=`$ $`p_\mu \overline{p}_\nu +\overline{p}_\mu p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }p\overline{p},`$ (10)
$`A_{\mu \nu }^l`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }p^\alpha \overline{p}^\beta .`$ (11)
Concerning the hadronic tensor, we set

$$H_{\mu \nu }=H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+H_{\mu \nu }^{},$$
(12)
where $`H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ and $`H_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ are, respectively, the QCD zero order and first order approximations, which will be calculated in the next two sections.

## 3 Drell-Yan Hadronic Tensor in the QCD
Zero Order Parton Model

Now we write the hadronic tensor for the high energy Drell-Yan process. According to the QCD parton model, we take into account the transverse momentum of the quark inside the hadrons. Moreover, as already explained in the introduction, we limit ourselves to time-like photons with transverse momenta $`|𝐪_{}|`$ of order 1 $`GeV`$ and with $`Q>>|𝐪_{}|`$, where $`Q^2=q^2`$ and $`q`$ is the four-momentum of the pair. Then the generalized factorization theorem, in the covariant formalism, yields

$$H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=\underset{f=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_f^2H_{\mu \nu }^f,$$
(13)
where $`f`$ are the three light flavors ($`u,d,s`$), $`e_1`$ = 2/3, $`e_2`$ = $`e_3`$ = -1/3, and

$$H_{\mu \nu }^f=d\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\underset{T_1,T_2}{}[q_{T_1}^f(p_1)\overline{q}_{T_2}^{f,2}(p_2)h_{\mu \nu }^{\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}}(p_1,p_2;S)+(12)].$$
(14)
Here $`q_{T_l}^f`$ ($`\overline{q}_{T_l}^f`$) ($`l`$ = 1,2) are the probability density functions of finding a quark (antiquark) in a pure spin state whose third component along the proton spin is $`T_l`$. Moreover $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is the analog of the element of phase space of muons (see eq. (7)):

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_q=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^4p_1\delta (p_1^2)\theta (p_{10})d^4p_2\delta (p_2^2)\theta (p_{20})\delta ^4(p_1+p_2q)$$
(15)
and $`p_l`$ are the four-momenta of the two active partons. These are taken on shell and massless, which is a good approximation for the values of $`|𝐪_{}|`$ considered. Lastly

$$h_{\mu \nu }^{\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}}=\frac{1}{3}Tr(\rho ^{T_1}\gamma _\mu \overline{\rho }^{T_2}\gamma _\nu ),$$
(16)
where the factor 1/3 comes from color averaging in $`q`$-$`\overline{q}`$ annihilation, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}(T_1,T_2)`$ and $`\rho `$ is the spin density matrix,

$$\rho ^{T_l}(\overline{\rho }^{T_l})=\frac{1}{2}\text{/}p_l[1+2T_l\gamma _5(\pm \eta _{}+\text{/}\eta _{})].$$
(17)
$`2T_l\eta _{}`$ and $`2T_l\eta _{}`$ are respectively the helicity and the transverse Pauli-Lubanski four-vector of the active partons. We have $`\eta _{}=𝐒𝐧_l`$, where $`𝐧_l=𝐩_l/|𝐩_l|`$ and $`𝐒`$ and $`𝐩_l`$ are, respectively, the space components of $`S`$ and of $`p_l`$ in the laboratory frame. Moreover $`\eta _{}(0,𝐒\eta _{}𝐧_l)`$ ($`l=1,2`$) and $`\eta _{}`$, a Lorentz scalar in the limit of zero quark mass, can be defined covariantly .

Carrying on the integration (14) over the time and longitudinal components of $`p_1`$, and adopting the light cone formalism, we get, in the limit of high $`Q^2`$ and $`|𝐩_l|`$ $`<<`$ $`Q`$ ($`l`$ = 1, 2),

$$H_{\mu \nu }^f=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2Q^2}d^2p_1\underset{T_1,T_2}{}[q_{T_1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)\overline{q}_{T_2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)h_{\mu \nu }^{\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}}(x_1,x_2;S)+(12)].$$
(18)
Here $`x_{1,2}`$ = $`(q_0\pm q_{})/\sqrt{s}`$ are the longitudinal fractional momenta of the two active partons, $`q_0`$ and $`q_{}`$ are respectively the time and longitudinal component of $`q`$, and

$$𝐩_2=𝐪_{}𝐩_1.$$
(19)
Since the proton 2 is unpolarized, we set

$$q_{(T_2=1/2)}^f=q_{(T_2=1/2)}^f,\overline{q}_{(T_2=1/2)}^f=\overline{q}_{(T_2=1/2)}^f.$$
(20)
Inserting eqs. (16) to (20) into eq. (14), and taking into account the relation

$$Q^2=4x_1x_2P^2,$$
(21)
we get

$$H_{\mu \nu }^f=S_{\mu \nu }^f+iA_{\mu \nu }^f,$$
(22)
where $`S_{\mu \nu }^f`$ and $`iA_{\mu \nu }^f`$ are respectively the symmetric and antisymmetric part of the hadronic tensor:

$`S_{\mu \nu }^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}}s_{\mu \nu }Q^f,`$ (23)
$`A_{\mu \nu }^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{x_1x_2}}{24\pi ^2Q}}a_{\mu \nu }\delta Q^f,`$ (24)
where

$`Q^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2p_1[q_1^f(x_1,𝐩_1^2)\overline{q}_2^f(x_2,𝐩_2^2)+(12)],`$ (25)
$`\delta Q^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_1\frac{𝐒𝐩_1}{x_1}[\delta q_1^f(x_1,𝐩_1)\overline{q}_2^f(x_2,𝐩_2^2)\delta \overline{q}_1^f(x_1,𝐩_1)q_2^f(x_2,𝐩_2^2)]}.`$ (26)
Here we have introduced the distribution functions:

$$q_l^f=\underset{T_l=1/2}{\overset{1/2}{}}q_{T_l}^{f,l},\delta q_l^f=\underset{T_l=1/2}{\overset{1/2}{}}2T_lq_{T_l}^{f,l},$$
(27)
and similarly for the antiquarks. Furthermore

$$s_{\mu \nu }=n_{1\mu }n_{2\nu }+n_{2\mu }n_{1\nu }g_{\mu \nu },a_{\mu \nu }=\epsilon _{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }n_1^\alpha n_2^\beta .$$
(28)
Such tensors fulfil gauge invariance up to twist-4 terms. The distributions $`\delta q^f`$ are related to the transversity functions $`h_1^f`$:

$$h_1^f(x)=d^2p_{}\delta q^f(x,𝐩_{}),$$
(29)
a similar relation holding true for antiquarks.

Now we discuss a symmetry property of the spin density functions $`\delta q^f`$. Invariance of strong interactions under parity, time reversal and rotations (in particular rotations of $`\pi `$ around the proton momentum) imply

$$\delta q^f(x,𝐩_{})=\delta q^f(x,𝐩_{}).$$
(30)
However, if we take into account the initial state interactions and soft gluon exchange between the protons, we have to introduce also the effective, T-odd, density functions, which do not fulfil eq. (30), since time reversal invariance does not apply trivially to them. This fact has no particular consequences on the integral (26), which in general does not vanish for $`|𝐪_{}|`$ of order 1 $`GeV`$. However, if we integrate the cross section over the transverse momentum of the muon pair, the the antisymmetric hadronic tensor derives its contribution (if any) from the sole effective density functions.

Inserting eq. (22) into eq. (13), we get

$$H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=S_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+iA_{\mu \nu }^{(0)},$$
(31)
where

$$S_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=\underset{f=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_f^2S_{\mu \nu }^f,A_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=\underset{f=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_f^2A_{\mu \nu }^f.$$
(32)
In order to find the asymmetries $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ (see eqs. (1) and (2)), we combine the hadronic tensor (31) with the leptonic tensor (9), according to formula (6) for the differential cross section. Therefore, in the zero order approximation of the QCD parton model, we find the following results:

$`i)`$ If the helicity of the final negative muon is detected, the leptonic tensor has a nonvanishing antisymmetric part, which, combined with the antisymmetric part of the hadronic tensor (31), gives a nonzero contribution to the muon helicity asymmetry $`A_1`$ .

$`ii)`$ On the contrary, if no helicity is detected, only the symmetric part of the leptonic tensor survives and combination with the hadronic tensor drops out $`A_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$. Since $`S_{\mu \nu }^f`$ (see eq. (23)) is spin independent, the left-right asymmetry $`A_2`$ vanishes. This result may be also deduced from parity and time reversal invariance.

Concerning the muon helicity asymmetry, we are faced with two important questions:

1) The asymmetry $`A_1`$ and the transversity function, $`h_1^f`$, depend on the distribution function $`\delta q^f`$ through integral relations, respectively eq. (26) and eq. (29). Therefore, we have to prove that the function we extract from eq. (26) contributes to $`h_1^f`$.

2) One may wonder where a does chiral-odd function like $`h_1^f`$ come from in the process considered. Such a distribution function arises, e. g., in DY with two polarized proton beams, or from a mass term, which causes helicity flip.

To answer the first question, we write the relation

$$\delta q^f=cos\alpha (\delta q_R^f\delta q_L^f)+sin\alpha \delta q_H^f,$$
(33)
where

$`\delta q_{R(L)}^f`$ $`=`$ $`|<q_{R(L)}|P^{}>|^2,`$ (34)
$`\delta q_R^f`$ $`=`$ $`2Re[<P^{}|q_R><q_L|P^{}>],`$ (35)
$`cos\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_T𝐒}{xP}}.`$ (36)
Here $`|P^{}>`$ and $`|q_{R(L)}>`$ are shorthand notations for a canonical state of the proton and for quark helicity states. Relation (33) follows from decomposing into helicity states a quark state with a given transverse momentum and spin parallel or antiparallel to the proton spin. The first term of that relation, which is twist 3 and chiral even, may be expressed as a linear combination of the usual helicity distribution functions. On the contrary, the second term is chiral odd and prevalently twist 2, since $`sin\alpha `$ $``$ 1. Thanks to arguments similar to those which have led to relation (30), we conclude that the first term of eq. (33) does not contribute to $`h_1^f`$, as can be seen from eq. (29). The transversity function depends solely on the chiral-odd function $`\delta q_H^f`$, which contributes to the muon helicity asymmetry, as can be checked by substituting eq. (33) into eq. (26).

As regards the origin of the chiral-odd function in our process, we show in appendix A that the antisymmetric tensor (24) may be written as

$$A_{\mu \nu }^f=m_fϵ_{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }d^2p_1\underset{T_1,T_2}{}[q_{T_1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)\overline{q}_{T_2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2^2)S_f^{T_1\alpha }p_1^\beta (12)].$$
(37)
Here $`m_f`$ and $`S_f^{T_1}`$ are respectively the mass and the Pauli-Lubanski four-vector of the active quark. The quark mass causes helicity flip and therefore a contribution to the chiral-odd distribution function. The smallness of $`m_f`$ is compensated by $`S_f^{T_1}`$, which results to be (see Appendix A)

$$S_f^{T_1}2T_1𝐩_1𝐒\frac{\sqrt{2}n_1}{m_fx_1}.$$
(38)
The effect we have just illustrated is washed out in DIS, since we have to convolute the elementary quark-photon cross section over only one distribution function. In this case also the initial state interactions, and therefore the effective distribution functions, are suppressed.

## 4 QCD first-order contributions to spin
asymmetries

Now we consider the $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation amplitudes with one ”real” gluon emitted (absorbed) by one of the colliding hadrons and absorbed (emitted) by the active parton of the other hadron. These interfere with the amplitudes just considered in the preceding section. The interference terms are twist-three and first order in $`g`$. We adopt the axial gauge $`A^an_2=0`$, where $`A^a`$ is the gluonic field, $`a=1\mathrm{}8`$ and $`n_2`$ is given by eq. (5). This gauge is not covariant, but allows to keep the parton model description; in particular, in our approximation, this gauge avoids the complication of ”link” operators, which we should introduce in a generic gauge, in order to ensure gauge invariance of the nonperturbative (”soft”) functions involved in scattering.

In this section we write the twist-three contributions according to the parton model; secondly we impose gauge invariance and deduce symmetry properties of the ”soft” functions that we are going to introduce, the so-called correlation functions; thirdly we discuss the behavior of the fermionic propagator, which appears in the ”hard” coefficient; lastly we perform calculations.

### 4.1 Parton Model Approach

The twist-three contribution to the hadronic tensor reads, in tree approximation,

$$H_{\mu \nu }^{}=g\underset{f=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_f^2(H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,a}H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,b}),$$
(39)
where

$$H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,a}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,a,l},H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,b}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,b,l}.$$
(40)
Each term in eqs. (40) corresponds to a different graph:

$`i)`$ $`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,a,l}`$ ($`l=1,2`$) refer to a gluon emitted (or absorbed) by proton 1 - which is polarized - and absorbed (or emitted) by the active antiquark ($`l`$ = 1) or quark ($`l`$ = 2) of proton 2.

$`ii)`$ $`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,b,l}`$ refer instead to a gluon emitted (or absorbed) by proton 2 and absorbed (or emitted) by the active parton of proton 1. Analytically we have

$`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,a,1}={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1\underset{T_1,T_1^{},T_2}{}c_{T_1,T_1^{}}^{f,1}(x_1,𝐩_1;x_1^{},𝐩_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})\overline{q}_{T_2}^{f,2}(x_2,𝐩_2)h_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\overline{T}_{12}^{}}(x_1,x_1^{},x_2)},`$ (41)
$`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,a,2}={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1\underset{T_1,T_1^{},T_2}{}\overline{c}_{T_1,T_1^{}}^{f,1}(x_1,𝐩_1;x_1^{},𝐩_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})q_{T_2}^{f,2}(x_2,𝐩_2)\overline{h}_{}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{\overline{T}_{12}}(x_1,x_1^{},x_2)},`$ (42)
while $`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,b,l}`$ are obtained from (41) and (42) by substituting $`(12)`$ and $`\mu \nu `$. $`c_{T_l,T_l^{}}^{f,l}`$ $`(\overline{c}_{T_l,T_l^{}}^{f,l})`$ ($`l`$ = 1, 2) is the correlation function between a quark (antiquark) of four-momentum $`p_l`$ and spin $`T_l`$ and another of four-momentum $`p_l^{}`$ and spin $`T_l^{}`$. $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$ is the phase-space element, i. e.,

$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$ $`=`$ $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}d^4k_l\delta (k_l^2)d^4p_l^{}\delta (p_l^{}_{}{}^{}2)\delta ^4(p_lp_l^{}k_l)\theta (p_{l0}^{})`$ (43)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^5Q^2}}d^2p_ld^2k_l{\displaystyle \frac{dz_l}{z_l}},`$
where $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is given by formula (15), $`k_l`$ is the four-momentum of the absorbed (or emitted) gluon and $`z_l`$ = $`x_l^{}x_l`$. The arrow denotes integration over $`p_{l0}`$, $`p_l`$, $`k_{l0}`$, $`k_l`$. Lastly in the axial gauge $`A^an_2=0`$ we have

$$h_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\overline{T}_{12}^{}}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{\overline{p}_2^2+iϵ}Tr\left[\kappa ^{T_1,T_1^{}}\gamma _\mu \left(\text{/}\overline{p}_2\text{/}e\overline{\rho }^{T_2}+\overline{\rho }^{T_2}\text{/}e\text{/}\overline{p}_2\right)\gamma _\nu \right],$$
(44)
where

$$\overline{T}_{12}(T_1,T_1^{},T_2),\overline{p}_2=p_2k_1,$$
(45)
$`e_\mu `$ is the polarization four-vector of the gluon and $`\kappa ^{T,T^{}}`$ the spin correlation matrix between a quark of spin $`T`$ and another with spin $`T^{}`$. $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\overline{T}_{12}^{}}`$ is obtained from eq. (44) by changing the quark matrices with the antiquark matrices and vice-versa, i. e., $`\kappa ^{T_1,T_1^{}}`$ $``$ $`\overline{\kappa }^{T_1,T_1^{}}`$ and $`\overline{\rho }^{T_2}`$ $``$ $`\rho ^{T_2}`$. As shown in Appendix B,

$$\kappa ^{T,T^{}}=\psi (t)\kappa _p^{T,T^{}},\overline{\kappa }^{T,T^{}}=\psi (t)\overline{\kappa }_p^{T,T^{}},$$
(46)
where

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{xx^{}}{x+x^{}}},\psi (t)={\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{\sqrt{1t^2}}},`$ (47)
$`\kappa _p^{T,T}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }_p^{T,T}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{/}p(1+2T\gamma _5\text{/}S),\kappa _p^{T,T}(\overline{\kappa }_p^{T,T})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{/}p\gamma _5(\text{/}\overline{S}2iT).`$ (48)
Since we are considering the twist-three contribution, we neglect the transverse momentum in the numerators of $`h_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\overline{T}}`$ and $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\overline{T}}`$. In this approximation the spin density matrix reads

$$\rho ^T=\overline{\rho }^T=\frac{1}{2}\text{/}p(1+2T\gamma _5\text{/}S).$$
(49)
In the next subsection we shall show that the sum $`H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+H_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ \- where $`H_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ is given by eq. (13) and $`H_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ by eq. (39)) - is gauge invariant, although the single terms are not.

Since the proton 1 is transversely polarized, quark-gluon interactions involve linearly polarized gluons, either in the direction of the spin of the proton, or in the direction orthogonal to the spin and to the momentum of the proton. In Appendix B we show that

$`T_1^{}=T_1:e=2T_2\overline{S};T_2^{}=T_2:e=2T_1\overline{S};`$ (50)
$`T_l^{}T_l:e=S\delta _{T_1,T_2}.`$ (51)
Substituting eqs. (46) and (48) to (51) into eq. (44), and developing calculations, we get

$$h_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\overline{T}_{12}^{}}=h_{N\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}^{}}\delta _{T_1^{},T_1}+h_{F\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}^{}}\delta _{T_1^{},T_1},$$
(52)
where $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}`$ $``$ $`(T_1,T_2)`$ and

$`h_{N\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\psi (t_1){\displaystyle \frac{2p_2k_1}{\overline{p}_2^2+iϵ}}2(T_1+T_2)(p_{1\mu }\overline{S}_\nu +p_{1\nu }\overline{S}_\mu ),`$ (53)
$`h_{F\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\psi (t_1){\displaystyle \frac{2p_2k_1}{\overline{p}_2^2+iϵ}}\left[2T_1ϵ_{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }S^\alpha p_1^\beta +2T_2(p_{1\mu }\overline{S}_\nu +p_{1\nu }\overline{S}_\mu )\right]\delta _{T_1,T_2}.`$ (54)
Here the suffixes $`N`$ and $`F`$ denote repectively spin nonflip and flip of the active quark. The tensors $`\overline{h}_{}^{}{}_{N(F)\mu \nu }{}^{\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}}`$ are equal to expressions (53) - (54), except for a change of sign in front of the first term of eq. (54). $`h_{N(F)\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{21}^{}}`$ and $`\overline{h}_{}^{}{}_{N(F)\mu \nu }{}^{\stackrel{~}{T}_{21}}`$, involved in the expressions of $`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,b,l}`$, are obtained from $`h_{N(F)\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}^{}}`$ and $`\overline{h}_{}^{}{}_{N(F)\mu \nu }{}^{\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}}`$ by substituting $`(12)`$ and $`\mu \nu `$. Now we establish some important relations, which considerably simplify our calculations.

### 4.2 Correlation Functions: Normalization and
Symmetry Properties

In Appendix C we show that gauge invariance implies the following normalization for the quark correlation functions:

$`c_{T_l,T_l^{}}^{f,l}(x_l,𝐩_l;x_l^{},𝐩_l^{})\delta ^4(p_lk_lp_l^{})=8\pi ^{3/2}(|𝐩_l||𝐤_l||𝐩_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{}|)^{1/2}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{8}{}}}<P_l|c_{T_l^{},i}^f(𝐩_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{})a_m^c(𝐤_l)c_{T_l,j}^f(𝐩_l)|P_l>.`$ (55)
Here $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`c`$ are the color indices of the quarks and of the gluon, combined in such a way that the operator product constitutes a color singlet. $`c_{T,i}^f`$ and $`c_{T,i}^f`$ are the destruction and creation operators for the quarks, $`a_m^c(𝐤_l)`$ $`(m=1,2)`$ are destruction operators for gluons whose polarization four-vector is $`S`$ ($`m=1`$, corresponding to $`T_l^{}T_l`$), or $`\overline{S}`$ ($`m=2`$, corresponding to $`T_l^{}=T_l`$). $`a_m^c(𝐤_l)`$ has to be substituted by $`a_m^c(𝐤_l)`$ for negative values of the gluon energy.

Invariance under parity inversion, time reversal, and rotation by $`\pi `$ around the proton momentum imply, through eq. (55),

$$c_{T_l^{},T_l}^{f,l}(x_l^{},𝐩_l^{};x_l,𝐩_l)=c_{T_l,T_l^{}}^{f,l}(x_l,𝐩_l;x_l^{},𝐩_l^{}).$$
(56)
To show that, we observe that the combined action of the three transformations leaves spin and longitudinal momenta unchanged, while inverting the arguments of the function and transverse momenta. Moreover time reversal produces the same change of phase ($`n\pi `$, with $`n`$ integer) as the rotation. Therefore the minus sign in front the r.h.s. of (56) is due to the product of the intrinsic parities of the two fermions and of the gluon.

Furthermore the hermiticity condition yields

$$c_{T_l^{},T_l}^{f,l}(x_l^{},𝐩_l^{};x_l,𝐩_l)=c_{T_l,T_l^{}}^{f,l}(x_l,𝐩_l;x_l^{},𝐩_l^{}).$$
(57)
Therefore, if we integrate over transverse momenta, the correlation functions are imaginary and antisymmetric under the simultaneous exchange of the momenta and spin of the two quarks. Relations similar to eqs. (55) - (57) hold true for the antiquark correlation functions. Lastly, since the proton 2 is unpolarized, we have

$$c_{T_2,T_2^{}}^{f,2}=c_{T_2,T_2^{}}^{f,2},\overline{c}_{T_2,T_2^{}}^{f,2}=\overline{c}_{T_2,T_2^{}}^{f,2}.$$
(58)
These equations, together with eqs. (20), imply that the terms proportional to $`T_2`$ in eqs. (53) and (54) (or in those which are obtained by substituting $`(12)`$) are dropped after summing over the spin indices.

The symmetry property (56) does not hold if we take into account the initial state interaction and soft gluon exchange between the protons. Indeed, analogously to the effective density functions, it makes sense to introduce effective, T-odd, correlation functions, for which time reversal invariance cannot be expressed in a trivial way. Therefore such functions - whose importance will be shown in the following subsection - have in general a real part even after integration over transverse momentum.

### 4.3 The fermionic propagator

In twist-3 approximation the tensor (44) - the ”hard” coefficient of the hadronic tensor - is independent of the transverse momentum of the active parton. Therefore our preceding considerations imply that, aside from the effective correlation functions, the left-right asymmetry of the cross section integrated over the transverse momentum of the muon pair receives a contribution from first order corrections, only if the tensor (44) has an imaginary part. This is in agreement with the observation by Boer et al., although we arrive at a different conclusion. We examine the question in detail.

The tensor (44) includes the factor $`(2k_1p_2)/(\overline{p}_2^2+iϵ)`$. For a massless quark $`\overline{p}_2^2=2k_1p_2`$, which annihilates the effects of the imaginary part of the tensor, unless the correlation function $`c_{T_l,T_l^{}}^{f,l}`$ has a simple pole - a gluonic pole \- just at $`\overline{p}_2^2`$ = 0. If we would neglect, like Boer et al., the transverse momentum effects in the fraction above, $`\overline{p}_2^2`$ would vanish at $`z_1=0`$ and it would make sense to assume a gluonic pole just at zero momentum (a soft gluon contribution), so that the fermion propagator would yield an imaginary part. But, at least in the approximation of on-shell and massless quarks - adopted also by Boer et al. -, the transverse momentum has dramatic consequences on the pole, which results to be located at

$$z_1=\frac{x_2P𝐩_2𝐤_1\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{P𝐩_2^2},\mathrm{\Delta }=(x_2^2P^2+𝐩_2^2)[(𝐩_2𝐤_1)^2𝐩_2^2𝐤_1^2].$$
(59)
This value is generally complex, and by no means can be approximated by $`z_1`$ $``$ 0. Consequently a soft gluonic pole would not imply an imaginary part for the tensor (44). On the other hand it appears quite arbitrary to assume that $`c_{TT^{}}^{f,2}`$ has a pole located just in correspondence of the value given by the first eq. (59). Analogous considerations can be done for the pole $`(\overline{p}_1^2)^1`$, with $`\overline{p}_1=p_1k_2`$. Therefore the ”hard” coefficient of the hadronic tensor has not an imaginary part. We just set the fractions in front of the tensors (53) and (54) equal to -1. As a consequence the twist-3 contribution (if any) to the left-right asymmetry of the integrated cross section is entirely due to the effective correlation functions. Our considerations are somewhat analogous to those of Anselmino et al., concerning pion inclusive production.

### 4.4 Calculation of the gluon correction

Now we perform the calculation of the hadronic tensor (39). Substituting eqs. (41) to (43) into eqs. (40), and taking into account the results (53) and (54) and the considerations above, we get

$`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}x_1P}{6(2\pi )^5Q^2}}(s_{1\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1Q^f+ia_{1\mu \nu }\widehat{\delta }_1Q^f),`$ (60)
$`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}x_2P}{6(2\pi )^5Q^2}}(s_{2\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2Q^f+ia_{2\mu \nu }\widehat{\delta }_1Q^f).`$ (61)
Here we have set

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1Q^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_1[\delta C_{S,1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)\overline{q}_2^f(x_2,𝐩_2^2)+\delta \overline{C}_{S,1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)q_2^f(x_2,𝐩_2^2)]},`$ (62)
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2Q^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_1[C_{S,2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)\delta \overline{q}_1^f(x_1,𝐩_1)+\overline{C}_{S,2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)\delta q_1^f(x_1,𝐩_1)]},`$ (63)
$`\widehat{\delta }_1Q^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_1[\delta C_{A,1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)\overline{q}_2^f(x_2,𝐩_2^2)\delta \overline{C}_{A,1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)q_2^f(x_2,𝐩_2^2)]},`$ (64)
$`\widehat{\delta }_2Q^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2p_1[C_{A,2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)\delta \overline{q}_1^f(x_1,𝐩_1)\overline{C}_{A,2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)\delta q_1^f(x_1,𝐩_1)]}`$ (65)
and

$$s_{l\mu \nu }=\overline{S}_\mu n_{l\nu }+\overline{S}_\nu n_{l\mu },a_{l\mu \nu }=ϵ_{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }S^\alpha n_l^\beta ,(l=1,2).$$
(66)
Moreover

$`\delta C_{S,1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{T}{}}2TC_{S,T}^{f,1}(x_1,𝐩_1),`$ (67)
$`C_{S,2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{T}{}}C_{S,T}^{f,2}(x_2,𝐩_2),`$ (68)
$`\delta C_{A,1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{T}{}}2TC_{A,T}^{f,1}(x_1,𝐩_1),`$ (69)
$`C_{A,2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{T}{}}C_{A,T}^{f,2}(x_2,𝐩_2),`$ (70)
where

$`C_{S,T}^{f,l}((x_l,𝐩_l)`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left\{{\displaystyle d^2k_l\frac{dz_l}{z_l}\left[\underset{T^{}}{}c_{T,T^{}}^{f,l}(x_l,𝐩_l;x_l^{},𝐩_l^{})\right]\psi (t_l)}\right\},`$ (71)
$`C_{A,T}^{f,l}((x_l,𝐩_l)`$ $`=`$ $`Im\left\{{\displaystyle d^2k_l\frac{dz_l}{z_l}\left[c_{T,T}^{f,l}(x_l,𝐩_l;x_l^{},𝐩_l^{})\right]\psi (t_l)}\right\}`$ (72)
and $`l=1,2`$. Analogous expressions hold for the barred quantities. Here $`z`$ and $`𝐤_{}`$ are defined in the expression (43) of the phase-space element, while $`t`$ is given by the first eq. (47). The QCD first order correction $`H_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is obtained substituting eqs. (60) and (61) into eq. (39)). Three remarks are in order.

* The functions $`C_S^f`$, $`\delta C_S^f`$, $`C_A^f`$ and $`\delta C_A^f`$ have the dimensions of a mass, as can be checked from eq. (55).
* Integrating the cross section over the transverse momentum of the muon pair amounts to independently integrating over the quark transverse momentum the ”soft” functions involved in the hadronic tensor. In particular, as stressed in the previous subsection, the integrals of the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_lQ^f`$ ($`l=1,2`$, see eqs. (62) and (63)) derive their contributions from the sole effective correlation functions.
* Taking into account eqs. (47), the integrals (71) and (72) can be split into two terms, corresponding to

$$\frac{1}{2}[\stackrel{~}{c}^f(x,x+z)+\stackrel{~}{c}^f(x,xz)]\mathrm{a}nd\frac{1}{2z}[c^f(x,x+z)c^f(x,xz)],$$
(73)
where $`c^f=c_{T,T^{}}^{f,l}(1t^2)^{1/2}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}^f`$ = $`t/zc^f`$ and $`t`$ is given by the first eq. (47). If we assume $`c^f(x,x^{})`$ = $`c_0^f(x,x^{})\delta (xx^{})`$, where $`c_0^f`$ is a smooth function of its arguments, the second term (73) corresponds to the derivative term by Qiu and Sterman. (See ref. for details).

## 5 Asymmetries

In QCD first order approximation the hadronic tensor $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ consists, according to eq. (12), of the sum of two terms, which have been calculated in the two previous sections (formulae (31) and (39)). Substituting the expressions of $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and of the leptonic tensor (9) into the differential cross section (6), and taking into account the formulae (1) and (2) of the two asymmetries, we get

$$A_1=A_1^{(0)}+A_1^{(1)},$$
(74)
where

$$A_1^{(0)}=\frac{8\sqrt{x_1x_2}}{Q}\frac{\underset{f}{}e_f^2\delta Q^f}{_fe_f^2Q^f}\frac{cos\theta }{1+cos^2\theta }$$
(75)
and

$$A_1^{(1)}=\frac{g}{(2\pi )^3\sqrt{x_1x_2}Q}\frac{\underset{f}{}e_f^2(x_1\widehat{\delta }_1Q^f+x_2\widehat{\delta }_2Q^f)}{_fe_f^2Q^f}\frac{2sin\theta sin\varphi }{1+cos^2\theta }.$$
(76)
Moreover

$$A_2=\frac{g}{(2\pi )^3\sqrt{x_1x_2}Q}\frac{\underset{f}{}e_f^2(x_1\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1Q^f+x_2\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2Q^f)}{_fe_f^2Q^f}\frac{sin2\theta cos\varphi }{1+cos^2\theta }.$$
(77)
Here $`\theta `$ is the polar angle and $`\varphi `$ the azimuthal angle of the negative muon: we have assumed a reference frame in the center-of-mass system of the muon pair, whose $`z`$-axis is taken along the momentum of the polarized proton, while the $`x`$-axis is along the space component of $`\overline{S}`$. Furthermore $`Q^f,\delta Q^f,\stackrel{~}{\delta }_lQ^f,\widehat{\delta }_lQ^f`$ ($`l=1,2`$) are given, respectively, by eqs. (25), (26) and (62) to (65).

The expression of $`A_2`$ turns out to coincide with the one by Boer et al., provided

\- we integrate the cross section over the transverse momentum of the virtual photon;

\- we take into account the following notation differences: $`q(x)f_1(x)`$, $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_{S_1}\frac{\pi }{2}`$,

\- we identify

$`M_P\stackrel{~}{h}^f(x)=g{\displaystyle \frac{P}{(2\pi )^3Q}}{\displaystyle d^2p_{}C_S^f(x,𝐩_{})},`$ (78)
$`M_P\stackrel{~}{f}_T^f(x)=g{\displaystyle \frac{P}{(2\pi )^3Q}}{\displaystyle d^2p_{}\delta C_S^f(x,𝐩_{})},`$ (79)
where $`M_P`$ is the proton rest mass.

### 5.1 Zero order approximation

As we have seen, the left-right asymmetry at zero order vanishes. In the same approximation the muon helicity asymmetry is sensitive to the $`𝐩_{}`$-dependent transversity distributions $`\delta q^f(x_1,𝐩_1)`$ and $`\delta \overline{q}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)`$, which can be used for calculating the transversity distributions $`h_1^f`$ and $`\overline{h}_1^f`$ (see eq. (29)), with $`f`$ = 1,2,3. Eq. (75) is a linear combination of the six unknown functions. In order to extract them, we need other, independent combinations. For example, considering Drell-Yan events from collisions between a polarized proton beam and, say, a pion, we get an expression of the asymmetry analogous to $`A_1`$ (eq. (75)), where $`q^f`$ and $`\overline{q}^f`$ are replaced respectively by the quark and antiquark density functions inside the pion. It is worth observing that Drell-Yan offers, at least in principle, a variety of independent combinations. For example, we could consider collisions of transversely polarized protons on unpolarized protons, antiprotons, positive and negative pions and kaons. In this way we could obtain six independent asymmetries similar to formula (75), from which (or from part of them) we could extract the unknown distribution functions by a fit, taking into account symmetry properties like isospin invariance, or general constraints like Soffer’s inequality.

In this connection it is worth recalling that in ref. it was proposed, quite analogously to us, to extract the quark helicity distributions from Drell-Yan produced in scattering on longitudinally polarized proton target of beams of pions and unpolarized protons. They obtain an asymmetry formula similar to $`A_1^{(0)}`$ (eq. (75)), although this is a twist-two and not a twist-three effect.

It is known that our procedure of convoluting the elementary cross section over the transverse momentum of the active quarks is a good approximation only for sufficiently large transverse momenta. But this is not a severe constraint, since, as we have seen, transverse momentum is essential for exhibiting helicity asymmetry. Eq. (75) suggests that directions not too far from the forward and backward one are the most proper.

In order to estimate the order of magnitude of the asymmetry $`A_1`$, we take into account the HERMES results, i. e., $`|\delta q^f|/q^f`$ $``$ $`|\delta \overline{q}^f|/\overline{q}^f`$ $``$ $`(50\pm 30)\%`$. Moreover eq. (75) implies $`A_1`$ to vanish for $`x_1`$ = $`x_2`$. Therefore, in order to maximize the asymmetry, we should take $`x_1`$ as different as possible from $`x_2`$, without making $`\delta Q^f`$ and $`Q^f`$ too small. For $`Q^2`$ of order 10 $`GeV^2`$ and $`s`$ $``$ 100 $`GeV^2`$, a good choice, consistent with eq. (21), is $`x_10.5`$, $`x_20.2`$, or, viceversa, $`x_20.5`$, $`x_10.2`$. The evaluation of the asymmetry is particularly complicated, because the integrand at the r.h.s. of eq. (26) is partly positive and partly negative. We just give an upper limit: since $`\overline{|𝐩_{}|}`$ $``$ 0.5 $`GeV`$, under the conditions illustrated above we estimate $`|A_1|`$ $``$ $`(10\pm 6)\%`$.

### 5.2 First order corrections

In order to find the order of magnitude of the first order correction to the two asymmetries, we generalize the Qiu-Sterman guess:

$$C_{S,T}^f(x,𝐩_{})=K_Sq_T^f(x,𝐩_{}),C_{A,T}^f(x,𝐩_{})=K_Aq_T^f(x,𝐩_{}),$$
(80)
where $`C_{S,T}^f`$ and $`C_{A,T}^f`$ are given by eqs. (71) and (72) and $`K_S`$ and $`K_A`$ are constants and independent of $`T`$. Then eqs. (67) to (70) imply

$$C_S^f(x,𝐩_{})=K_Sq^f(x,𝐩_{}^2),\delta C_S^f(x,𝐩_{})=K_S\delta q^f(x,𝐩_{}),$$
(81)
analogous relations holding true for $`C_A^f`$ and $`\delta C_A^f`$. Two remarks are in order.

* The generalization (80) of the Qiu-Sterman model is quite natural and immediate in our approach, whereas it would be rather complicated in the formalism of quantum field theory.
* To be precise, we have generalized one of the two guesses proposed by Qiu and Sterman, the other one being obtained by multiplying the r. h. s. of eqs. (81) by $`x`$. The two models could be distinguished by examining data at very low $`x`$.

According to refs., we may set $`g|K_S|`$ = $`0.08(2\pi )^3\sqrt{2}M_P`$. On the other hand, since the sums (67) and (68) consist of four terms, whereas the sums (69) and (70) consist of two terms, in order to evaluate the order of magnitude, it seems not completely unreasonable to guess that $`|K_A|1/2|K_S|`$.

We fix some parameters as before: $`Q^2`$ $``$ 10 $`GeV^2`$, $`s`$ $``$ 100 $`GeV^2`$, $`x_1=0.5`$ and $`x_2=0.2`$ (or viceversa). Moreover we take into account once more the above mentioned results by HERMES. Lastly, as regards the angular dependence, eqs. (77) and (76) suggest that the most favourable conditions for detecting the left-right asymmetry and the first order correction to the muon helicity asymmetry are, respectively, $`\theta `$ $``$ $`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\pi /2`$ and $`\theta `$ $``$ $`\pi /4`$, $`3\pi /4`$, $`\varphi `$ = 0, $`\pi `$. We find $`|A_2|`$ $``$ $`(2\pm 1)\%`$ and $`|A_1^{(1)}|`$ $``$ $`(1\pm 0.6)\%`$. The uncertainty on these two asymmetries could be even larger, if we take into account that the coupling constant $`g`$ is poorly known. It is worth noticing that the first order correction to the muon helicity asymmetry is much smaller than $`A_1^{(0)}`$, moreover it can be disentangled, since it exhibits a completely different angular dependence.

## 6 Conclusions

We have considered the muon helicity asymmetry ($`A_1`$) and the left-right asymmetry ($`A_2`$) in the Drell-Yan process $`pp^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}X`$. The two quantities are measurable, although for $`A_1`$ some special care is required. Let us recall the main results.

1) We have calculated the two asymmetries in tree approximation by means of the QCD improved parton model, which amounts to replacing transverse momentum by a combination of momentum and gluon field, as dictated by the covariant derivative $`D_\alpha `$ (see formula (C.3)). Indeed both asymmetries vanish at the leading twist and turn out to be generated, at twist-three, by the transverse components of the covariant derivative, i. e.,

$$D_\alpha S^\alpha A_1,D_\alpha \overline{S}^\alpha A_2.$$

In particular $`A_1`$ receives its main contribution from the first term of the covariant derivative, that is, from parton transverse momentum, while $`A_2`$ gets a contribution from the sole second term, corresponding to one gluon corrections.

2) We have performed the calculation in the framework of parton model, assuming an axial gauge and introducing the correlation functions between two partons of different momenta in the hadron. We have matched this simple and intuitive formalism to the quantum field theory approach, obtaining, as a result, condition (55), which uniquely fixes the normalization of the correlation functions and simultaneously guarantees gauge invariance. This procedure is of quite general validity for twist-three terms, owing to the local character of the interaction.

3) If we integrate the cross section over the transverse momentum of the muon pair, only the effective density and correlation functions contribute to $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$. Therefore it appears useful to consider these kinds of asymmetries as well as those from the differential cross section.

4) Our approach leads to a simple physical interpretation of the ”soft” functions $`C^f`$ and $`\delta C^f`$ involved in the left-right asymmetry, and to a natural generalization of the Qiu-Sterman assumption, allowing for a quantitative evaluation of $`A_2`$. As a result, for standard values of $`Q^2`$ and $`s`$, this asymmetry is estimated to be a few percent.

5) Under the same conditions the muon helicity asymmetry is probably a bit larger. This asymmetry is sensitive to the transverse momentum dependent transversity distributions, $`\delta q^f`$ and $`\delta \overline{q}^f`$, which are related to the usual transversity distributions through eq. (29). One possible advantage of our method is that one can obtain independent combinations of such functions by performing various scattering experiments with beams of unpolarized protons, pions and kaons on a transversely polarized proton target.

Acknowledgments: The author is deeply indebted to his friend prof. J. Soffer for useful and stimulating discussions on this work. Furthermore he is grateful to his friend prof. C. M. Becchi for important suggestions.

Appendix A

Here we calculate the antisymmetric part of the hadronic tensor, by inserting the mass of the quark in the density matrix. We show that it reduces to the expression (24) in the limit of zero mass, the smallness of the mass being compensated by the ”good” component of the Pauli-Lubanski (PL) four-vector of the active quark. The hadronic tensor reads

$$H_{\mu \nu }^f=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2Q^2}d^2p_1\underset{T_1,T_2}{}[q_{T_1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)\overline{q}_{T_2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)h_{\mu \nu }^{\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}}(x_1,x_2;S)+(12)],$$
(A.1)
where

$$h_{\mu \nu }^{\stackrel{~}{T}_{12}}(x_1,x_2;S)=\frac{1}{3}Tr(\rho ^{T_1}\gamma _\mu \overline{\rho }^{T_2}\gamma _\nu )$$
(A.2)
and

$$\rho ^T(\overline{\rho }^T)=\frac{1}{2}(\text{/}p\pm m_f)(1+\gamma _5\text{/}S_f^T).$$
(A.3)
Here $`p`$ = $`p_1`$ or $`p_2`$ and the + and - sign refer, respectively, to the quark and to the antiquark; moreover $`S_f^T`$ is the PL four-vector of the quark. We have

$$S_{f\alpha }^T=2TL_\alpha ^\beta \xi _\beta .$$
(A.4)
Here $`\xi (0,𝐒)`$ is the PL four-vector of the proton, in the frame where it is at rest. $`L`$ is the matrix of the boost which takes the quark from rest to a four-momentum $`p(\sqrt{m_q^2+𝐩^2},𝐩)`$, where $`𝐩(𝐩_{},xP)`$ and P is the proton momentum. A standard calculation shows that

$$S_f^T\frac{2T}{m_fx}𝐩_{}𝐒(1,0,0,1).$$
(A.5)
On the other hand the antisymmetric part of the tensor (A.1) turns out to be

$$A_{\mu \nu }^f=\frac{i}{4\pi ^2Q^2}d^2p_1\underset{T_1,T_2}{}a_{\mu \nu }^f[q_{T_1}^f(x_1,𝐩_1)\overline{q}_{T_2}^f(x_2,𝐩_2)(12)],$$
(A.6)
where

$$a_{\mu \nu }^f=\frac{1}{3}m_fϵ_{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }S_f^{T_1\alpha }q^\beta $$
(A.7)
and $`q`$ = $`p_1+p_2`$ is the four-momentum of the virtual photon. Taking into account formula (A.5), we get

$$a_{\mu \nu }^f\frac{2T_1}{3}\frac{𝐩_1𝐒}{x_1}ϵ_{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }\sqrt{2}n_1^\alpha q^\beta .$$
(A.8)
Here $`p_2x_2P\sqrt{2}n_2`$ and $`n_{1(2)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0,0,\pm 1)`$. Substituting the expression (A.8) into the antisymmetric tensor (A.6), and recalling the kinematic relations deduced in sect. 3, $`A_{\mu \nu }^f`$ turns out to coincide with formula (24).

Appendix B

Here we derive the expression of the spin correlation matrix of two quarks, moreover we study in detail the coupling between a transversely polarized quark and a linearly polarized gluon.

B.1 - Spin correlation matrix

The spin correlation matrix is defined as

$$\kappa ^{T,T^{}}(p,p^{})=u_T(p)\overline{u}_T^{}(p^{}),$$
(B.1)
where $`u_T(p)`$ is the Dirac spinor of a quark with four-momentum $`p`$ and third spin component $`T`$. We consider a nonvanishing quark mass. First of all, we take both quarks at rest, secondly we make a Lorentz boost, thirdly we change the momentum of one of the two fermions; lastly we treat the limiting case of a negligible mass.

B.1.1 \- Both quarks at rest

Choosing, as usual, the $`z`$-axis as the quantization axis, we have

$$\kappa _0^{T,T^{}}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\chi _i^T\chi _j^T^{}a_{ij}=a_{11}(1+\sigma _3)+a_{12}(\sigma _1+i\sigma _2)+a_{21}(\sigma _1i\sigma _2)+a_{22}(1\sigma _3),$$
(B.2)
where $`\chi ^T`$ is the usual spinor. For pure spin states, such as those we are interseted in, some coefficients are nonvanishing: for $`T`$ = $`T^{}`$ $`a_{12}`$ and $`a_{21}`$ vanish, while for $`T`$ $``$ $`T^{}`$ $`a_{11}`$ = $`a_{22}`$ = 0. In particular we have

$$\kappa _0^{T,T}=m(1+2T\sigma _3),\kappa _0^{T,T}=m(\sigma _1+2iT\sigma _2),$$
(B.3)
having choosen for the Dirac spinor the normalization $`\overline{u}_T(p)u_T(p)`$ = $`2m`$, where $`m`$ is the rest mass of the quark. The previous expressions can be generalized by introducing three mutually orthogonal unit vectors, $`𝐢`$, $`𝐣`$ and $`𝐤`$. Choosing the quantization axis along $`𝐤`$, we obtain

$$\sigma _3\sigma _ik^i,\sigma _1+2iT\sigma _2\sigma _ib_T^i,𝐛_T=𝐢+2iT𝐣.$$
(B.4)
In terms of the Dirac matrices the spin correlation matrix at rest can be written as

$$\kappa _0^{T,T}=\frac{m}{2}(1\pm \gamma _0)(12T\gamma _5\gamma _ik^i),\kappa _0^{T,T}=\frac{m}{2}(1\pm \gamma _0)\gamma _5\gamma _ib_T^i,$$

where $`m`$ is the fermion rest mass and the $`\pm `$ sign in front of $`\gamma _0`$ refers to the (anti-)quark.

B.1.2 \- Quarks with equal momenta

The previous formulae can be easily extended to the case of two quarks with equal momenta. We get, similarly to the spin density matrix,

$$\kappa _p^{T,T}=\frac{1}{2}(\text{/}p\pm m)(1+2T\gamma _5\text{/}k),\kappa _p^{T,T}=\frac{1}{2}(\text{/}p\pm m)\gamma _5\text{/}b_T,$$
(B.5)
where, in the rest frame of the fermions, $`k(0,𝐤)`$ and $`b_T(0,𝐛_T)`$.

It is worth noticing that, if the two quarks have different third spin components and momenta not parallel to the quantization axis, the final result (second formula (B.5)) depends on the choice of the $`x`$ and $`y`$-axis. We shall solve this ambiguity below, showing that the $`yz`$ plane must be fixed in such a way to contain the quark momentum.

B.1.3 \- Quarks with different collinear momenta

Consider two quarks with different momenta, in a frame where they are collinear. In this case the correlation matrix reads

$$\kappa ^{T,T^{}}(p,p^{})=U(p,p^{})\kappa _p^{}^{T,T^{}}.$$
(B.6)
Here $`p`$ $``$ $`(E,𝐩)`$ and $`p^{}`$ $``$ $`(E^{},𝐩^{})`$ are the quark four-momenta in the frame considered; moreover $`U(p,p^{})`$ is the transformation matrix corresponding to the boost which changes $`p^{}`$ to $`p`$, i. e.,

$$U(p,p^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1t^2}}\left(1+\frac{p_i^{}}{|𝐩^{}|}\gamma _0\gamma _it\right),$$
(B.7)
where

$$t=\frac{|𝐩^{}||𝐩|}{E^{}+E}.$$
(B.8)
By using the Dirac equation, eq. (B.6) yields

$$\kappa ^{T,T^{}}(p,p^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1t^2}}\left(1+t\frac{E^{}\gamma _0m}{|𝐩^{}|}\right)\kappa _p^{}^{T,T^{}}.$$
(B.9)
B.1.4\- Limit of zero quark mass

This limit is trivial in the case of $`T^{}`$ = $`T`$:

$$\kappa ^{T,T}(p,p^{})=\frac{1+t}{2\sqrt{1t^2}}\text{/}p^{}(1+2T\gamma _5\text{/}k).$$
(B.10)
On the contrary, as we have observed above, if $`T^{}`$ $``$ $`T`$, and if the quark momenta $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩^{}`$ are not parallel to the quantization axis, i. e. to $`𝐤`$, we are faced with an ambiguity. In particular, let us consider the case when $`𝐩`$ is orthogonal to $`𝐤`$, which is of interest to us: the correlation matrix is different according as to whether we take $`𝐢`$ or $`𝐣`$ along $`𝐩`$. We show that the latter choice is correct.

Take $`𝐣`$ along $`𝐩`$. Formula (B.9) yields

$$\kappa ^{T,T}(p,p^{})=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1t^2}}\left(1+t\frac{E^{}\gamma _0m}{|𝐩^{}|}\right)(\text{/}p^{}\pm m)\gamma _5(2iT\text{/}p_c^{}m^1+\text{/}l),$$
(B.11)
where $`p_c^{}(|𝐩^{}|,0,0,E^{})`$ and $`l(0,𝐢)`$. In the limit of $`m`$ $``$ 0, taking into account that $`\text{/}p^{}\text{/}p_c^{}`$ = $`O(m^2/𝐩^{}_{}{}^{}2)`$, we get

$$\kappa ^{T,T}(p,p^{})=\frac{1+t}{2\sqrt{1t^2}}\text{/}p^{}\gamma _5(2iT+\text{/}l).$$
(B.12)
In the specific case that we consider in sect. 4, we identify the four-vector $`l`$ with $`\overline{S}`$, which is given by eq. (4). In order to check our choice, consider two massless quarks with equal momenta. Taking the $`y`$-axis along the quark momentum, we have

$$u^{1/2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u_R+u_L),u^{1/2}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(u_Ru_L),$$
(B.13)
where $`u_R`$ and $`u_L`$ are respectively the spinors of the right-handed and of the left-handed quark. Substituting formulae (B.13) into eq. (B.1), we get

$$\kappa _p^{T,T}=\frac{i}{2}[2T(u_R\overline{u}_Ru_L\overline{u}_L)+u_L\overline{u}_Ru_R\overline{u}_L].$$
(B.14)
The usual formulae for the density matrix yield $`u_R\overline{u}_Ru_L\overline{u}_L`$ = $`\pm \text{/}p\gamma _5`$. On the other hand, applying the second eq. (B.5), we get $`u_L\overline{u}_Ru_R\overline{u}_L`$ = $`i\text{/}p\gamma _5\text{/}l`$. Therefore eq. (B.14) turns out to coincide with eq. (B.12) for $`t`$ = 0. Now return to eq. (B.9) and take $`𝐢`$ (instead of $`𝐣`$) along $`𝐩`$. This choice yields a result which differs from eq. (B.12) by a factor $`2iT`$, and it does not satisfy the self-consistency test that we have just illustrated.

Notice that in the massless case $`t`$ = $`(x^{}x)/(x^{}+x)`$, where $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ are the light cone fractional momenta of the quarks; therefore the expression (B.12) is covariant. We do not take into account the quark transverse momentum - which involves a Melosh-Wigner rotation -, however this is not requested in the twist-three approximation, which we are considering.

Lastly it is straightforward to see that in eqs. (B.10) and (B.12) we can interchange $`pp^{}`$. This property we exploit in subsect. 4.1.

B.2 - Linearly polarized gluons

Now we consider a gluon emitted by one of the two protons (say proton 2) and interacting perturbatively with the active quark of the other proton. In this connection we observe that linearly polarized gluons are naturally coupled to transversely polarized quarks. In the reference frame defined above, for a gluon travelling along the $`y`$-axis, we have

$$G_x^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(G_R^\mu +G_L^\mu ),G_z^\mu =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(G_R^\mu G_L^\mu ),$$
(B.15)
where $`G_x^\mu `$ and $`G_z^\mu `$ denote gluon states polarized respectively along the $`x`$\- and along the $`z`$-axis and $`G_R`$ and $`G_L`$ are right-handed and left-handed gluons. Colour indices have been omitted for the sake of simplicity. The perturbative coupling of a massless quark with a gluon is of the type $`G_R^\mu \overline{u}_R\gamma _\mu u_R`$ or $`G_L^\mu \overline{u}_L\gamma _\mu u_L`$. On the other hand we have to do with quark states like (B.13), which couple with gluon states of the type (B.15). Such couplings read

$`(\overline{u}^{T_1}\gamma _\mu u^{T_1})G_x^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(G_R^\mu \overline{u}_R\gamma _\mu u_R+G_L^\mu \overline{u}_L\gamma _\mu u_L),`$ (B.16)
$`(\overline{u}^{T_1}\gamma _\mu u^{T_1})G_z^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2T_1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(G_R^\mu \overline{u}_R\gamma _\mu u_R+G_L^\mu \overline{u}_L\gamma _\mu u_L).`$ (B.17)
Furthermore the gluon is related to the active quarks of protons 1 and 2 by angular momentum conservation, which implies that we have to take into account the factor $`F`$ = $`sgn<1/2,T_1;1,T_g|1/2,T_1^{}>`$ = $`2T_1`$, where $`T_g=T_2^{}T_2`$ and $`T_1^{}`$ = $`T_g+T_1`$. Angular momentum conservation implies as well that for $`T_2^{}`$ = $`T_2`$ we set $`T_2`$ = $`T_1`$.

Therefore the gluon polarization four-vector is $`e`$ = $`2T_2`$ $`l`$ for $`T_2^{}`$ = $`T_2`$ and $`e`$ = -$`k`$ $`\delta _{T_1,T_2}`$ for $`T_2^{}`$ = $`T_2`$, where, in the reference frame defined in subsubsect. A.1.4, $`l`$ $``$ $`(0,𝐢)`$ and $`k`$ $``$ $`(0,𝐤)`$.

Appendix C

Here we write the hadronic tensor according to quantum field theory, up to first order in $`g`$, adopting the axial gauge $`A^an_2=0`$, with $`a`$ = 1 …. 8:

$$H_{\mu \nu }^{G,f}=\frac{1}{3}d^4xd^4ye^{iqx}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{2f}(y)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha \beta \beta ^{}}^{1f}(x,y)+(12)][\gamma ^\alpha S(xy)\gamma _\mu ]^{\beta \sigma }\gamma _\nu ^{\beta ^{}\sigma ^{}},$$
(C.1)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha \beta \beta ^{}}^{lf}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`<P_l|\overline{\psi }_{\beta ^{}i}^f(0)D_\alpha ^{ij}(y)\psi _{\beta j}^f(x)|P_l>,`$ (C.2)
$`D_\alpha ^{ij}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`i_\alpha \delta ^{ij}+gA_\alpha ^a(y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _a^{ij},`$ (C.3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{lf}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`<P_{\overline{l}}|\psi _{\sigma i}^f(0)\overline{\psi }_{\sigma ^{}i}^f(y)|P_{\overline{l}}>,`$ (C.4)
$`S(xy)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q^{}}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i\text{/}q^{}}{q^2+iϵ}e^{iq^{}(yx)}}.`$ (C.5)
Two observations are in order. First of all in the above expression we have omitted the chronological products, according to the considerations by various authors (see also). Secondly, the covariant derivative in the expression (C.2) implies gauge invariance of the tensor (C.1). However we have omitted the gauge ”link” operators in the expressions (C.2) and (C.4), since in the gauge adopted these operators can be made unity. All this simplifies a lot the calculations and immediately allows to establish symmetry properties of the correlation functions (see subsect. 4.2).

We consider the usual Fourier expansions of the of the massless fermion and vector boson fields, i.e.,

$`\psi _{\beta i}^f(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{T=1/2}{\overset{1/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{2^{1/2}|𝐩|^{1/2}}}[c_{T,i}^f(𝐩)u_\alpha ^T(𝐩)\chi _ie^{ipx}`$
$`+d_{T,i}^f(𝐩)v_\alpha ^T(𝐩)\overline{\chi }_ie^{ipx}],`$ (C.6)
$`A_\alpha ^c(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{2^{1/2}|𝐤|^{1/2}}}[a_m^c(𝐤)e_\alpha ^m(𝐤)e^{iky}+c.c.].`$ (C.7)
Here $`e^m`$ ($`m`$ $`=`$ 1, 2) are the two different polarization four-vectors of the physical gluons: $`e^1`$ $`=`$ $`S`$ (i. e., along the proton spin) and $`e^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{S}`$ (i. e., orthogonal to the proton spin and to the proton momentum). $`a_m^c`$ and $`a_m^c`$ are the creation and destruction operators of linearly polarized gluons.

Substituting expressions (C.6) and (C.7) into eq. (C.1), we obtain a tensor of the type

$$H_{\mu \nu }^{G,f}=H_{0\mu \nu }^{G,f}+g(H_{1\mu \nu }^{G,f,a}H_{1\mu \nu }^{G,f,b}).$$
(C.8)
Here, recalling the definition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}<P_l|c_{T_l,i}^f(𝐩_l)c_{T_l,i}^f(𝐩_l)|P_l>=q_{lT_l}^f(x_l,𝐩_l^2),$$
(C.9)
and an analogous one for antiquark densities, we find $`H_{0\mu \nu }^{G,f}`$ = $`H_{\mu \nu }^f`$ (see eq. (22) in the text). Moreover we can identify $`H_{1\mu \nu }^{G,f,a(b)}`$ with $`H_{\mu \nu }^{{}_{}{}^{}f,a(b)}`$ (cfr. eq. (40)), provided we normalize the quark correlation functions according to eq. (55) and assume a similar formula for the antiquark correlation functions. We stress that this normalization guarantees gauge invariance.


text:
# Spectral Statistics of Instantaneous Normal Modes in Liquids and Random Matrices

## I Introduction:

The local topography of the potential energy surface, as characterized by the ensemble averaged spectrum (INM spectrum) of eigenvalues of the second-derivative matrix (Hessian) of the potential energy function, have been studied in recent years as an approach to the analysis of dynamics in liquids. Broadly, the study of the INM spectra has been directed at analysing short time dynamics as in studying solvation , and at elucidating information about pathways to long time relaxation in the form of potential energy barriers etc.

Considerable effort has also been dedicated to developing analytical theories for calculating the INM spectra within an equilibrium description. The approach in much of these attempts has been to formulate the problem of calculating the INM spectrum as an exercise in random matrix theory. If one treats the individual elements of the Hessian matrix as independent, and distributed according to the appropriate Boltzmann weight, then the Hessian may be viewed as a real, symmetric random matrix with a known distribution of matrix elements. Two properties, however, distinguish the Hessian from the standard corresponding case treated in random matrix theory: (i) The diagonal entries of the Hessian are related to the off-diagonal entries by the property $`_{ii}^{\alpha \beta }=_{ji}_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`i,j`$ label the particles and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ the spatial coordinates $`x,y,z`$. (ii) For liquids with short-ranged interaction potentials, the Hessian matrix is sparse, with the fraction of non-zero entries, $`p`$, depending on the system size as $`p1/N`$.

In view of the above considerations, it is of interest to inquire to what extent the INM spectrum displays universal features idenitied in random matrix theory. In this paper, we address this question by obtaining INM spectra numerically for a model atomic liqiud that has been studied in the context of slow dynamics in supercooled liquids. The statistics we consider are the spacing statistics between nearest neighbor eigenvalues and the spectral rigidity, which we explain below.

## II Eigenvalues of the Hessian

The model liquid we study is a binary mixture composed of $`80\%`$ of particles of type $`A`$ and $`20\%`$ of type $`B`$, interacting via the Lennard-Jones potential, with Lennard-Jones parameters $`ϵ_{AB}/ϵ_{AA}=1.5`$, $`ϵ_{BB}/ϵ_{AA}=0.5`$, $`\sigma _{AB}/\sigma _{AA}=0.8`$, and $`\sigma _{BB}/\sigma _{AA}=0.88`$, and a ratio of masses $`m_B/m_A=1`$. Lennard-Jones reduced units are used to report all the quantities, in terms of the $`A`$ particle paramters $`ϵ_{AA}`$, $`\sigma _{AA}`$ and $`m_A`$: temperatures as $`T^{}=k_BT/ϵ_{AA}`$, densities as $`\rho ^{}=\rho /\sigma _{AA}^3`$ and Hessian eigenvalues $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda \frac{m_A\sigma _{AA}^2}{ϵ_{AA}}`$. Further details may be found in . Molecular dynamics simulations of the liquid are performed at ten reduced densities $`\rho ^{}`$ from $`\rho ^{}=0.65`$ to $`1.40`$, at reduced temperature $`T^{}=1.0`$. Two hundred sample configurations in each case are chosen from the equilibrated trajectory for the INM analysis. For each of these configurations, the Hessian is calculated and diagonalized numerically to obtain the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ as well as the eigenvectors $`𝐞_i`$. The eigenvectors are used to calculate the localization properties of the normal modes, via the participation ratio

$$P_i=\left[N\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3N}{}}(𝐞_i^\alpha .𝐞_i^\alpha )^2\right]^1.$$
(II.1)
The participation ratio thus defined is small (order of $`1/N`$) for localized modes and large (order of $`1`$) for extended modes.

By constructing the histogram of eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ of the Hessian for all configurations considered, we obtain the INM Density of States (DOS) or spectrum. Figure 1 shows the INM spectrum $`D(\lambda )`$ verses $`\lambda `$ for different densities. Note that the DOS is very different from the Wigner semi-circle distribution, obtained in RMM. We know from the literature that the correlation and spacing functions are universal in certain regions no matter what the DOS is. Thus we use the corresponding statistics of spacings between eigenvalues, Wigner-Dyson statistics, as the standard of reference.

## III Unfolding The Spectrum

The statistical analysis of the numerical data proceeds by first using an unfolding procedure. The numerical calculation yields the eigenvalues of the Hessian which is ordered and forms the sample spectrum $`\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n\}`$. In order to analyse the spacing statistics, one must transform the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ in such a way that the transformed eigenvalues $`\zeta _i`$ are uniformly distributed. That is, the spectral density $`D(\zeta )=1`$. This procedure is referred to as “unfolding” the spectrum. In general such a transformation for a spectral density function $`D(\lambda )`$ is most easily accomplished through its cumulative distribution

$$C(\lambda )_{\mathrm{}}^\lambda D(\lambda )𝑑\lambda ,$$
(III.2)
by defining $`\zeta (\lambda )=C(\lambda )`$. For a discrete spectrum such as the ones we consider here, the corresponding procedure would be to extract from the sample spectrum the “smooth” part of the “staircase” cumulative distribution. In this work, the procedure we adopt to estimate the smooth part of the cumulative distribution is to evaluate the cumulative distribution for the union of all eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ obtained for $`200`$ independent configurations at each density and temperature value. Such a smooth cumulative spectrum along with the “staircase” cumulative spectrum for a single configuration, is shown in Fig. 2, and the unfolding procedure is indicated.

## IV Spacing Distribution

The spacing distribution $`P(s)`$ for the random matrix models is defined as the probability of finding the next nearest neighbor eigenvalue of the spectrum to be at a distance s i.e. $`s_i=\frac{\lambda _{i+1}\lambda _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean level spacing. In the present case where we use unfolded eigenvalues, $`s_i=\zeta _{i+1}\zeta _i`$. Then $`P(s)=As^\beta e^{Bs^2}`$ where $`\beta =1`$ for the orthogonal random matrix model, which is the “Wigner surmise”. This spacing distribution arises in various quantum systems which show an underlying classically chaotic behavior e.g. quantum billiards, quantum dots, nuclear spectra, disordered mesoscopic systems. The system we analyze, on the other hand, is a classical liquid, with a disordered microscopic structure. The spacing distributions obtained are shown in Fig. 3 for three densities of the liquid. We find that to a first approximation, the cases considered display the universal behavior according to the Wigner surmise, with the agreement being better for the liquid at higher densities. We note here that in Ref.  a sparse random matrix is used to calculate the INM DOS analytically for a one-dimensional system which is very different from the usual Wigner semi-circle, and displays qualitative features very similar to the DOS we calculate numerically here. It would be very interesting to see whether the correlators of the sparse random matrix proposed in ref.  captures the above behaviour for different densities for the liquid.

## V Spectral Rigidity

We next study the spectral rigidity, which measures the fluctuations of the number of eigenvalues in a window of given size as a function of the size of the window (or equivalently, the average number of eigenvalues expected in the window). The number fluctuations are plotted as a function of the mean number of eigenvalues in Fig. 4 for the same three densities as in the preceding figures. For the case of the Poisson spectrum and the harmonic oscillator the number fluctuations are $`<\delta N^2><N>`$ and $`<\delta N^2>=constant`$, while for the Gaussian random matrix ensembles $`<\delta N^2>ln<N>`$ for $`N1`$.

The number fluctuations are of the form $`<\delta N^2>N^\gamma `$ where $`\gamma (\rho )`$ depends on the liquid’s density. This situation is reminescent of that found for the mobility edge in the quantum hall effect and in the Anderson metal-insulator transition. A detailed analysis of this awaits future work.

## VI Participation Ratio

In order to get some insight into the reason for the systematically better agreement with increasing density of the spacing distribution, we consider the localization properties of the normal modes in the liquid. In the standard random matrix case for orthogonal matrices, the eigenvectors are all extended, while from previous numerical and analytical studies we know that a fraction of the INM eigenmodes are localized. As described earlier, we use the participation ratio to quantify the localization of modes, averaging over modes corresponding to eigenvalues in each histogram bin, for the unfolded eigenvalues. In Fig. 5, the participation ratio is plotted as a function of the unfolded eigenvalues for $`T^{}=1.00`$, for values of the density $`\rho ^{}=0.65,1.00`$ and $`1.35`$. One notes that for the highest density $`\rho =1.35`$ the participation ratios are highest overall, while for the lower densities the participation ratios are quite small for a substantial fraction of the eigenmodes, indicating a large number of localized modes.

Next, we calculate the spacing distribution for $`\rho ^{}=1.35`$ for unfolded eigenvalues between $`0.1`$ and $`0.6`$ for which the participation ratio is high ($`>0.75`$) and relatively unchanging (Fig. 5). The resulting spacing distribution is shown in Fig. 6, along with the spacing distribution for the entire eigenvalue spectrum and the expectation based on the RMM result. The data shown clearly demonstrate that the spacing distribution is practically identical to the standard RMM result, confirming the speculation that the increasing fraction of localized states at lower densities are responsible for the deviations at these densities from the standard RMM result. Indeed, this observation has been used, in a different context to locate the mobility edge in disordered systems

## VII Conclusions

We have presented the spacing statistics and spectral rigidity for numerically calculated INM spectra. The spacing statistics is seen to conform better with increasing density (at fixed temerature), with the predictions for random matrix models. We demonstrate that the source of deviations from RMM predictions is related to the presence of localized instantaneous normal modes in the liquid, whose number is greater for lower density. As the two features distinguishing the INM spectra from the standard random matrix case are the nature of the diagonal elements and the sparseness of the Hessian matrix, further understanding of the non-universality of the INM spectra are to be sought in the manner in which these aspects affect the INM spectral statistics.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank S. Jain, V. E. Kravtsov, A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, P. J. Garrahan and P. Carpena for very useful discussions during the course of this work. SF thanks the Jawaharlal Nehru Center for Advanced Scientific Research for hospitality.