format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The concept of generalized parton distributions  has recently generated considerable interest. On the theory side it has become clear that these quantities contain a wealth of information about the quark and gluon structure of the nucleon, well beyond what can be learned from the usual parton densities. From an experimental point of view, the measurement of the exclusive processes where generalized distributions occur is becoming possible. There are for instance encouraging preliminary analyses of deeply virtual Compton scattering, $`epe\gamma p`$, at DESY .

In this note we will be concerned with generalized parton distributions that describe quark or gluon helicity flip. In the case of quarks they generalize the usual quark transversity distributions , which remain the least well-known of the spin densities in the nucleon and are the object of intense studies. Unfortunately, no process is known to date where the generalized quark transversity distributions contribute—initial hopes to access them in vector meson electroproduction  have not been borne out since the corresponding hard scattering kernels vanish for symmetry reasons .

The situation is different for gluons: generalized distributions describing gluon helicity flip appear in deeply virtual Compton scattering to order $`\alpha _s`$, and their contribution to the cross section can be isolated from suitable angular correlations in the final state . An important feature of gluon helicity flip distributions is that they do not mix with quark distributions under evolution. In this sense they probe gluons in a qualitatively different way than the usual gluon distributions do.

In ordinary parton distributions, gluon helicity flip can only occur for targets with spin 1 or higher , since the change of helicity on the parton side must be compensated by a corresponding change for the target in order to ensure angular momentum conservation. There is no such constraint for generalized distributions, because they admit a transfer of transverse momentum and thus of orbital angular momentum. The generalized gluon helicity flip distributions for a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ target thus involve the orbital angular momentum between partons in an essential way.

The generalized quark and gluon helicity flip distributions for a hadron with spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ have been classified and investigated in a paper by Hoodbhoy and Ji . By an argument based on the counting of helicity amplitudes they concluded that in addition to the four well-known quark helicity conserving distributions there are *two* quark helicity changing ones, and a corresponding number for gluon distributions. In this note we wish to point out that there are actually *four* helicity flip distributions for quarks and *four* for gluons, i.e., twice as many as introduced in . In Section 2 we will introduce a complete set of helicity flip distributions for quarks and discuss their general symmetry properties. In the following section, we will give a helicity representation of these distributions and show at which point the counting argument of Hoodbhoy and Ji fails. We introduce the helicity flip distributions for gluons in Section 4, and briefly discuss their phenomenology in the Compton process in Section 5. We summarize our findings in Section 6. In an Appendix we give some technical details on the form factor decomposition underlying our definition of the helicity flip distributions. Throughout our paper we will only consider parton distributions of twist 2.

## 2 Quark helicity flip distributions

Although the principal practical interest in generalized helicity flip distributions is at present in the gluon sector, we will first discuss the case of quarks, where the algebra is slightly less involved. To introduce our notations, let us first recall the definitions of the quark helicity conserving distributions ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|\overline{\psi }(\frac{1}{2}z)\gamma ^+\psi (\frac{1}{2}z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P^+}}\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})\left[H^q\gamma ^++E^q{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{+\alpha }\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha }{2m}}\right]u(p,\lambda ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|\overline{\psi }(\frac{1}{2}z)\gamma ^+\gamma _5\psi (\frac{1}{2}z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P^+}}\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})\left[\stackrel{~}{H}^q\gamma ^+\gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{E}^q{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Delta }^+}{2m}}\right]u(p,\lambda ),`$
where $`p,p^{}`$ and $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ respectively denote proton momenta and helicities. We use light-cone coordinates $`v^\pm =(v^0\pm v^3)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`𝐯_T=(v^1,v^2)`$ for any four-vector $`v`$, Ji’s kinematical variables

$$P=\frac{1}{2}(p+p^{}),\mathrm{\Delta }=p^{}p,\xi =\frac{p^+p^+}{p^++p^+},$$
(2)
and $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Throughout this paper we will work in the light-cone gauge $`A^+=0`$, so that no gauge link appears between the quark field operators in Eq. (2).

The quark helicity flip distributions go with the Dirac matrix $`\sigma ^{+i}`$, where $`i=1,2`$ is a transverse index, and we define

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|\overline{\psi }(\frac{1}{2}z)i\sigma ^{+i}\psi (\frac{1}{2}z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P^+}}\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})[H_T^qi\sigma ^{+i}+\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q{\displaystyle \frac{P^+\mathrm{\Delta }^i\mathrm{\Delta }^+P^i}{m^2}}`$
$`+E_T^q{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^+\mathrm{\Delta }^i\mathrm{\Delta }^+\gamma ^i}{2m}}+\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^+P^iP^+\gamma ^i}{m}}]u(p,\lambda ).`$
$`H_T^q`$ and $`E_T^q`$ respectively correspond to the distributions $`H_{Tq}`$ and $`E_{Tq}`$ introduced by Hoodbhoy and Ji , whereas the distributions $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q`$ are new. Eq. (3) below explicitly shows that the four Dirac structures on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) are linearly independent. On the other hand, there cannot be more than four distributions to parameterize the left-hand side of Eq. (3). We have two quark-antiquark operators (one with $`i=1`$ and one with $`i=2`$) and four helicity combinations ($`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$) of the proton states. With the constraints of parity invariance these $`2\times 4=8`$ matrix elements are related pairwise, so that the number of independent distributions is four. The functions $`H_T^q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q`$, $`E_T^q`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q`$ thus represent a complete set of generalized quark helicity flip distributions.

In the definition of quark transversity one often uses the matrix $`\sigma ^{+j}\gamma _5`$ with $`j=1,2`$ instead of $`\sigma ^{+i}`$. With the relation

$$\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5=\frac{i}{2}ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\sigma _{\gamma \delta },$$
(4)
where our convention is $`ϵ_{0123}=1`$, we find that the definition (3) is equivalent to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|\overline{\psi }(\frac{1}{2}z)\sigma ^{+j}\gamma _5\psi (\frac{1}{2}z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P^+}}\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})[H_T^q\sigma ^{+j}\gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{+j\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha P_\beta }{m^2}}`$
$`+E_T^q{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{+j\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha \gamma _\beta }{2m}}+\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{+j\alpha \beta }P_\alpha \gamma _\beta }{m}}]u(p,\lambda ).`$
The counting argument in  was based on time reversal invariance. Let us therefore see what this symmetry implies for the distributions we have introduced. Introducing the antiunitary operator $`V`$ that implements time reversal in Hilbert space, we can insert $`1=V^1V`$ in the matrix elements on the left-hand sides of Eqs. (2), (3) and obtain

$$f^q(x,\xi ,t)=f^q(x,\xi ,t)$$
(6)
for $`f=H`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, $`E`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$, $`H_T`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T`$, $`E_T`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q(x,\xi ,t)=\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q(x,\xi ,t).$$
(7)
That time reversal changes the sign of $`\xi `$ reflects the fact that under time reversal initial and final states are interchanged. Taking the complex conjugates of Eqs. (2) and (3) gives, on the other hand,

$$\left[f^q(x,\xi ,t)\right]^{}=f^q(x,\xi ,t)$$
(8)
for all distributions except $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q`$, and

$$\left[\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q(x,\xi ,t)\right]^{}=\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q(x,\xi ,t).$$
(9)
Taking these constraints together we see that all 8 distributions are required to be real valued as a consequence of time reversal invariance. In other words, this symmetry fixes the phases of the distributions, but does not require any linear combination of them to be zero.

That $`E_T^q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q`$ have opposite behavior under time reversal, as borne out by Eqs. (6) and (7), could have been anticipated from inspection of the tensors that multiply them in their definition (3). Namely, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ changes sign under $`pp^{}`$ but $`P`$ does not. As we have seen, this does not constrain either of these distributions to be zero. It is interesting to note that this situation changes if instead of the bilocal quark-antiquark operator in Eq. (3) one considers the local one,

$$T^{\alpha \beta }=p^{},\lambda ^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)i\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\psi (0)|p,\lambda .$$
(10)
In the Appendix we will show that, under the constraints of parity invariance, a complete set of Dirac bilinears $`\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha \beta }u(p,\lambda )`$ to define the form factor decomposition of the matrix element (10) is given by the four bilinears on the right-hand side of Eq. (3). Time reversal now does imply that the form factor multiplying the fourth bilinear, $`\overline{u}(\gamma ^\alpha P^\beta P^\alpha \gamma ^\beta )u`$, must vanish.

The components $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(+,i)`$ of the tensor (10) are readily obtained by integrating the left-hand side of Eq. (3) over $`x`$ and multiplying with $`2P^+`$. The corresponding first $`x`$-moments of the quark distributions are thus just the form factors of the local matrix element, and by Lorentz invariance only depend on the invariant transfer $`t`$. That the form factor corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q`$ must vanish can thus be directly seen by integrating the relation (7) over its support $`1x1`$. Since the result must not depend on $`\xi `$, one finds in fact

$$_1^1𝑑x\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q(x,\xi ,t)=0.$$
(11)
Thus, we have found that by time reversal invariance there are only *three* independent form factors of local matrix element (10) but *four* independent generalized quark distributions to describe the bilocal matrix element (3). In other words, the first moment of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q`$ is zero by time reversal symmetry, but not its higher moments, $`𝑑xx^{n1}\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q(x,\xi ,t)`$ with $`n>1`$. In fact, these correspond to local matrix elements as in (10) but with further additional derivatives $`^+`$. The corresponding Lorentz tensors have rank larger than two and allow more than 3 independent form factors. For more detail we refer to the Appendix.

## 3 Helicity representation

To investigate the spin structure of the generalized parton distributions it is useful to represent them in a form similar to that of helicity amplitudes. Since we are dealing here with matrix elements involving two independent proton momenta, some comments are in order regarding the choice of helicity states for the protons. We note that in the definitions of the distributions one singles out a direction that defines the light-cone coordinates (in a physical process where these distributions appear, this direction is provided by the hard probe, such as the virtual photon in deeply virtual Compton scattering). It is useful to also utilize this light-cone direction for defining the spin states for the protons with momenta $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$. This leads to the concept of light-cone helicity states .111For a brief review of their construction, cf. e.g. . The results of that paper also illustrate how light-cone helicity naturally appears in the context of generalized parton distributions. A set of corresponding spinors, given in the usual Dirac representation, is

$`u_{\mathrm{LC}}(p,+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(p^0+p^3)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p^0+p^3+m\\ p^1+ip^2\\ p^0+p^3m\\ p^1+ip^2\end{array}\right),`$ (16)
$`u_{\mathrm{LC}}(p,)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(p^0+p^3)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p^1+ip^2\\ p^0+p^3+m\\ p^1ip^2\\ p^0p^3+m\end{array}\right)`$ (21)
for a particle with mass $`m`$. For the sake of legibility we denote helicity labels for fermions by $`+`$ and $``$ instead of $`+\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ here are in the following. For zero mass the spinors (16) are identical with the usual helicity spinors $`u_\mathrm{H}(p,\pm )`$, but not if the mass is finite. Since in phenomenological applications one will often deal with usual helicity amplitudes let us briefly give the transformation between the two sets. It can be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill u_\mathrm{H}(p,+)\\ \hfill u_\mathrm{H}(p,)\end{array}\right)=𝐔\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill u_{\mathrm{LC}}(p,+)\\ \hfill u_{\mathrm{LC}}(p,)\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
with a unitary matrix

$$𝐔=N^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (|𝐩|+p^3)\sqrt{p^0+|𝐩|}& \hfill (p^1+ip^2)\sqrt{p^0|𝐩|}\\ \hfill (p^1ip^2)\sqrt{p^0|𝐩|}& \hfill (|𝐩|+p^3)\sqrt{p^0+|𝐩|}\end{array}\right),$$
(23)
where

$$N=\sqrt{2(p^0+p^3)|𝐩|(|𝐩|+p^3)}.$$
(24)
We see that for a right-moving particle ($`p^3>0`$) the ratio $`|U_+/U_{++}|=|U_+/U_{}|`$ between off-diagonal and diagonal elements in this matrix is bounded by $`m/(2|𝐩|)`$. This means that in reference frames where the particle moves fast to the right, the difference between usual and light-cone helicity is small. In following we will only use light-cone spinors and drop the subscript $`\mathrm{LC}`$, and understand “helicity” as “light-cone helicity”.

Let us now discuss the helicity of the partons. It is often said that parton distributions can be represented as amplitudes for the scattering of a parton on a proton, see Fig. 1. This observation is at the base of the covariant parton model . It will be important in our context that the above formulation is somewhat imprecise: rather, parton distribution are amplitudes that are integrated over the minus- and transverse momentum of the partons.222Due to the integration over the parton minus-momentum they are both amplitudes and discontinuities of amplitudes. In other words, it does not matter whether the field operators in their definition are time ordered or not . This is readily seen by rewriting the Fourier transform occurring in the definitions of our distributions as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|𝒪(z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{}d^2k_T}{(2\pi )^4}\left[d^4ze^{ikz}p^{},\lambda ^{}|𝒪(z)|p,\lambda \right]_{k^+=xP^+}},`$
where $`𝒪(z)`$ stands for the relevant quark-antiquark operators. The expression in square brackets corresponds to the discontinuity of an amplitude with off-shell quark legs. This off-shellness is integrated over, keeping only the parton plus-momentum fixed.

In order to assign helicities to the quarks it is convenient to have them on-shell. A way to achieve this is to quantize the theory on the light-cone and to work in a noncovariant, Hamiltonian framework . In this framework, the dynamically independent (so called “good”) part of the fermion field is given by $`\varphi (z)=P_+\psi (z)`$ with the projector $`P_+=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{}\gamma ^+`$. It can be written as

$$\varphi (z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \varphi _R(z)\\ \hfill \varphi _L(z)\\ \hfill \varphi _R(z)\\ \hfill \varphi _L(z)\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
where again we use the Dirac representation of four-spinors. At light-cone time $`z^+=0`$, the Fourier components of $`\varphi _R(z)`$ are the annihilation operator for an on-shell quark with helicity $`+\frac{1}{2}`$ and the creation operator for an on-shell antiquark with helicity $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Conversely, the Fourier components of $`\varphi _L(z)`$ are the annihilation operator for an on-shell quark with helicity $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and the creation operator for an on-shell antiquark with helicity $`+\frac{1}{2}`$. The operators occurring in the definitions of the quark distributions can be written as

$`𝒪_{+,+}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi _R^{}\varphi _R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^+(1+\gamma _5)\psi ,`$
$`𝒪_,={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi _L^{}\varphi _L^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^+(1\gamma _5)\psi ,`$
$`𝒪_{,+}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi _L^{}\varphi _R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{+1}(1+\gamma _5)\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\overline{\psi }(\sigma ^{+1}i\sigma ^{+2})\psi ,`$
$`𝒪_{+,}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi _R^{}\varphi _L^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{+1}(1\gamma _5)\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\overline{\psi }(\sigma ^{+1}+i\sigma ^{+2})\psi ,`$ (27)
where for brevity we have omitted the position arguments $`\pm z/2`$ of the field operators. For definiteness we will in the following restrict ourselves to the region $`\xi <x<1`$ of plus-momentum fractions, where the generalized quark distributions describe the emission of a quark with plus-momentum $`(x+\xi )P^+`$ and its reabsorption with plus-momentum $`(x\xi )P^+`$.

We now are in a position to define the matrix elements

$`A_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|𝒪_{\mu ^{},\mu }(z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_T}{(2\pi )^3}\left[𝑑z^{}d^2z_Te^{ikz}p^{},\lambda ^{}|𝒪_{\mu ^{},\mu }(z)|p,\lambda \right]_{z^+=0,k^+=xP^+}}`$
for definite parton helicities $`\mu `$ and $`\mu ^{}`$. We remark that our labeling of the helicities corresponds to the ordering of lines shown in Fig. 1(a) and is different from the usual one for helicity amplitudes, represented in Fig. 1(b). Notice in Eq. (3) that in the noncovariant framework there is no longer an integration over the minus-momentum of the partons as there was in Eq. (25). One now keeps the condition $`z^+=0`$ in the bilocal operator since it is at that point where the field operators can be replaced in a simple manner by the creation and annihilation operators for on-shell partons. Put in a different way, the $`k^{}`$ of the partons is not integrated over because it is fixed by the on-shell condition. We emphasize, however, that still one does integrate over the transverse parton momentum.

As we have discussed, the $`A_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }`$ are not exactly helicity amplitudes. What is important in our context is that they share several symmetry properties which are satisfied by helicity amplitudes. In particular, one has the relations

$$A_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }=(1)^{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{}\lambda +\mu }A_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }$$
(29)
from parity invariance, provided one works in a reference frame where the momenta $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩^{}`$ lie in the $`x`$-$`z`$ plane, which we will do from now on. Explicit calculation gives

$`A_{++,++}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\xi ^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^q+\stackrel{~}{H}^q}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^q+\stackrel{~}{E}^q}{2}}\right),`$
$`A_{+,+}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\xi ^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^q\stackrel{~}{H}^q}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^q\stackrel{~}{E}^q}{2}}\right),`$
$`A_{++,+}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_0t}}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^q\xi \stackrel{~}{E}^q}{2}},`$
$`A_{+,++}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_0t}}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^q+\xi \stackrel{~}{E}^q}{2}},`$ (30)
in the quark helicity conserving sector, and

$`A_{++,+}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_0t}}{2m}}\left(\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q+(1\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{E_T^q+\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q}{2}}\right),`$
$`A_{+,}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_0t}}{2m}}\left(\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q+(1+\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{E_T^q\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q}{2}}\right),`$
$`A_{++,}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\xi ^2}\left(H_T^q+{\displaystyle \frac{t_0t}{4m^2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2}}E_T^q+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{1\xi ^2}}\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q\right),`$
$`A_{+,+}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\xi ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{t_0t}{4m^2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q`$ (31)
for quark helicity flip, with the other helicity combinations given by parity invariance. Here

$$t_0=\frac{4m^2\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2}$$
(32)
is the minimum value of $`t`$ for given $`\xi `$, and $`ϵ=\mathrm{sgn}(D^1)`$, where $`D^1`$ is the $`x`$-component of $`D^\alpha =P^+\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+P^\alpha `$. The case $`D^1=0`$ corresponds to $`t=t_0`$ so that no ambiguity appears in Eqs. (3) and (3) at that point. Apart from restriction that $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩^{}`$ lie in $`x`$-$`z`$ plane, Eqs. (3) and (3) are valid for any choice of proton momenta.

We note in Eqs. (3) and (3) that the matrix elements where helicity is not conserved vanish like

$$\left(\frac{\sqrt{t_0t}}{2m}\right)^{|\lambda ^{}\mu ^{}\lambda +\mu |}$$
(33)
in the collinear limit $`t=t_0`$, reflecting the fact that the mismatch of the helicities has to be compensated by one or two units of orbital angular momentum in order to ensure angular momentum conservation. One finds that in the collinear limit the distribution $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q`$ decouples, whereas in the forward limit, $`t=0,\xi =0`$, the only nonzero contribution comes from $`H_T^q`$, which in that limit reduces to the conventional quark transversity distribution, $`H_T^q(x,0,0)=\delta q(x)`$.

From Eq. (3) we explicitly see that the Dirac bilinears multiplying the distributions $`H_T^q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T^q`$, $`E_T^q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q`$ in the decomposition (3) are linearly independent. If the right-hand side of (3) is to be identically zero, then all four helicity combinations in Eq. (3) must vanish, and this is only the case if all four distributions are zero.

Let us now see why the counting argument of Hoodbhoy and Ji  does not apply. They invoke that with the constraints from parity and time reversal invariance there are only six independent helicity amplitudes for elastic quark-proton scattering. This is correct, but closer inspection reveals that three of these amplitudes flip the helicity of the quark and three do not. This does not correspond to the four non-flip distributions in Eq. (2) and the two flip distributions $`H_T^q`$ and $`E_T^q`$ considered in Ref. .

At this point we must remember that the matrix elements defining generalized parton distributions are *not* helicity amplitudes in the strict sense. Time reversal exchanges initial and final state momenta. For usual helicity amplitudes, this exchange can be compensated for by a suitable rotation in the center-of-mass of the collision, where the three-momenta of the incoming and outgoing particles have equal length. The matrix elements (2) and (3), however, refer to a fixed light-cone axis with respect to which transverse, plus- and minus-momenta are defined. Notably, the integration over transverse parton momenta in Eq. (3) refers to this particular axis. Time reversal changes $`\xi `$ into $`\xi `$ and thus provides the relations (6) and (7). One might perform a Lorentz transformation to another frame in order to compensate for this change, but such a transformation will not leave the light-cone axis invariant. In the new frame, the generalized parton distributions are then no longer given as in Eq. (3), i.e., by an integration over the transverse parton momentum with all plus-momenta fixed.

One may ask whether it is possible to find further time reversal constraints, for instance by first considering the matrix elements that correspond to (3) but are not integrated over the parton $`𝐤_T`$, trying to obtain constraints of the type one has for usual helicity amplitudes, and then performing the integrations over $`𝐤_T`$. We will not pursue this here, but remark that even for fixed $`k^+`$ and $`𝐤_T`$ one still has singled out a light-cone direction, namely by the condition $`z^+=0`$ in the matrix element (3).

The argument just given indicates however that the number of independent structures *is* reduced from eight to six in the case $`\xi =0`$ (note that this does not imply $`p=p^{}`$ since one can still have $`t0`$). Clearly, the change $`\xi \xi `$ of time reversal is of no consequence then. Indeed, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q`$ vanishes at $`\xi =0`$ due to the constraint (7). At the same point $`\stackrel{~}{E}^q`$, although nonzero, decouples from all amplitudes because in its definition (2) it is multiplied with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+=2\xi P^+`$. Inspecting Eqs. (3) and (3) we then find $`A_{++,+}=A_{+,++}`$ and $`A_{++,+}=A_{+,++}`$, where in the second equation we have used the parity relation (29). These are precisely the constraints on usual helicity amplitudes arising from time reversal invariance. We see that one of the two distributions that have thus been removed flips quark helicity, while the other does not, in accordance with our remark above.

The main results of our discussion can be generalized to targets with arbitrary spin. As is well known, the number of ordinary quark or gluon distributions is equal to the corresponding number of independent helicity amplitudes allowed by parity and time reversal invariance (and by helicity conservation, since one is dealing with forward amplitudes) . For generalized parton distributions, the counting works differently. Their number is obtained from counting the helicity amplitudes under the constraints of parity invariance only. Time reversal invariance determines the behavior of the generalized distributions under exchange of the hadron momenta ($`\xi \xi `$) and fixes their phase.

## 4 Gluon helicity flip distributions

We now turn to gluon distributions. As is well known, there are again four distributions conserving gluon helicity,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|F^{+i}(\frac{1}{2}z)F^{+i}(\frac{1}{2}z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P^+}}\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})\left[H^g\gamma ^++E^g{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{+\alpha }\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha }{2m}}\right]u(p,\lambda ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|F^{+i}(\frac{1}{2}z)\stackrel{~}{F}^{+i}(\frac{1}{2}z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P^+}}\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})\left[\stackrel{~}{H}^g\gamma ^+\gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{E}^g{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _5\mathrm{\Delta }^+}{2m}}\right]u(p,\lambda ),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }F_{\gamma \delta }`$ is the dual field strength tensor and a summation over $`i=1,2`$ is implied. These definitions differ from those of Hoodbhoy and Ji , ours are normalized such that in the forward limit one has

$$H^g(x,0,0)=xg(x),\stackrel{~}{H}^g(x,0,0)=x\mathrm{\Delta }g(x)$$
(35)
with the usual spin averaged and spin dependent gluon densities $`g(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g(x)`$. Compared with Ref. , we have

$$2xH_g|_{\mathrm{Ref}.[9]}=H^g|_{\mathrm{here}},$$
(36)
and analogous relations for $`E^g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}^g`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{E}^g`$. The gluon helicity flip distributions involve the gluon tensor operator $`𝐒F^{+i}(\frac{1}{2}z)F^{+j}(\frac{1}{2}z)`$, where $`𝐒`$ denotes symmetrization in $`i`$ and $`j`$ and subtraction of the trace. To parameterize this structure we use the same Dirac bilinears as in the definition (3) for quarks and introduce

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}p^{},\lambda ^{}|𝐒F^{+i}(\frac{1}{2}z)F^{+j}(\frac{1}{2}z)|p,\lambda }|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0}`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`𝐒{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^+\mathrm{\Delta }^j\mathrm{\Delta }^+P^j}{2mP^+}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})[H_T^gi\sigma ^{+i}+\stackrel{~}{H}_T^g{\displaystyle \frac{P^+\mathrm{\Delta }^i\mathrm{\Delta }^+P^i}{m^2}}`$
$`+E_T^g{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^+\mathrm{\Delta }^i\mathrm{\Delta }^+\gamma ^i}{2m}}+\stackrel{~}{E}_T^g{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^+P^iP^+\gamma ^i}{m}}]u(p,\lambda ).`$
Our distributions $`H_T^g`$ and $`E_T^g`$ are identical with $`H_G^T`$ and $`E_G^T`$ used in , and related with those of Hoodbhoy and Ji by

$$2xH_{Tg}|_{\mathrm{Ref}.[9]}=H_T^g|_{\mathrm{here}},2xE_{Tg}|_{\mathrm{Ref}.[9]}=E_T^g|_{\mathrm{here}}.$$
(38)
As in the case of quarks, one can see that there are at most four independent distributions to parameterize the matrix element (37) with the constraints of parity invariance, and we have shown in Section 3 that the four Dirac bilinears are linearly independent.

The support of all eight gluon distributions is $`1x1`$. It is easy to see that $`\stackrel{~}{H}^g(x,\xi ,t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}^g(x,\xi ,t)`$ are odd in $`x`$, whereas the other six distributions are even. Time reversal invariance leads to the same constraints as in the case of quarks, and Eqs. (6) to (9) remain valid with the subscripts $`q`$ changed into $`g`$. In particular, one also finds that the first moment in $`x`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^g`$ has to vanish, in analogy to Eq. (11).

To find a helicity representation for the gluon distributions we use again the framework of light-cone quantization. We recall that in the gauge $`A^+=0`$ we are working in one has $`F^{+i}=^+A^i`$. The transverse components of the gluon potential $`A^i`$ are the “good” components of the field, and combinations with definite helicity are projected out by contracting them with the two-dimensional polarization vectors

$$ϵ(+)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ i\end{array}\right),ϵ()=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ i\end{array}\right).$$
(39)
In the region $`\xi <x<1`$, where the operator $`F^{+i}(\frac{1}{2}z)`$ is associated with an incoming and $`F^{+j}(\frac{1}{2}z)`$ with an outgoing gluon, we then define helicity combinations

$`A_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP^+z^{}}}`$ (40)
$`\times `$ $`p^{},s^{}|ϵ^i(\mu ^{})F^{+i}(\frac{1}{2}z)F^{+j}(\frac{1}{2}z)ϵ^j(\mu )|p,s|_{z^+=0,𝐳_T=0},`$
where summation over $`i,j=1,2`$ is understood. One easily sees that the matrix elements $`A_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }`$ which conserve gluon helicity read exactly as those in Eq. (3) with the superscript $`q`$ changed to $`g`$ in the distributions $`H`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, $`E`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$. For gluon helicity flip we find

$`A_{++,+}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\xi ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{t_0t}{4m^2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{H}_T^g+(1\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{E_T^g+\stackrel{~}{E}_T^g}{2}}\right),`$
$`A_{+,}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\xi ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{t_0t}{4m^2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{H}_T^g+(1+\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{E_T^g\stackrel{~}{E}_T^g}{2}}\right),`$
$`A_{++,}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(1\xi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_0t}}{2m}}`$
$`\times \left(H_T^g+{\displaystyle \frac{t_0t}{4m^2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_T^g{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2}}E_T^g+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{1\xi ^2}}\stackrel{~}{E}_T^g\right),`$
$`A_{+,+}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(1\xi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_0t}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}{8m^3}}\stackrel{~}{H}_T^g.`$ (41)
The remaining helicity combinations are given by the parity relation (29). Notice that all gluon helicity flip matrix elements go to zero with a factor (33) in the collinear limit, $`t=t_0`$, where angular momentum conservation requires $`\lambda \mu =\lambda ^{}\mu ^{}`$. In other words, the gluon helicity flip distributions for a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ target decouple from any observable for collinear scattering.

## 5 Compton scattering

The generalized gluon helicity flip distributions appear in deeply virtual Compton scattering, i.e., in the process $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p`$ at large photon virtuality $`Q^2`$, large c.m. energy, and small squared momentum transfer $`t`$. This process is observable in electroproduction, $`epe\gamma p`$.

It is easy to see that to leading order in $`1/Q`$, the gluon helicity flip distributions only contribute to the $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p`$ amplitudes where the photon helicity is flipped by two units . This is because, to that accuracy, the hard scattering subprocess is collinear, so that the gluon helicity flip needs to be compensated by the photons. Conversely, to leading order in $`1/Q`$, it is only the helicity flip gluon distributions that appear in the photon helicity flip amplitudes. Although only coming in at order $`\alpha _s`$, these distributions thus provide the leading contribution to photon helicity flip. This is different for the helicity conserving gluon distributions (4). They contribute at order $`\alpha _s`$ to the photon helicity conserving amplitudes, which receive Born level contributions from the quark distributions (2). Given that the different photon helicity amplitudes can be separated by the measurement of angular distributions in the final state , one may thus be able to experimentally access the gluon helicity flip distributions in a rather direct and clean way.

The Feynman diagrams involving gluon helicity flip (see Fig. 2) have been calculated by two groups . They give the relevant $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p`$ amplitudes to leading order in $`1/Q`$ as

$`e^2M_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e^2e_q^2{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{A_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }(x,\xi ,t)}{(\xi xiϵ)(\xi +xiϵ)}}`$ (42)
for $`(\mu ^{},\mu )=(1,1)`$ and $`(\mu ^{},\mu )=(1,1)`$, where $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mu `$ in $`M_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }`$ denote the respective helicities of the outgoing and incoming photon. The matrix elements $`A_{\lambda ^{}\mu ^{},\lambda \mu }`$ are given by Eqs. (4) and (29). Our polarization vectors for both photon states read $`ϵ(\pm )=(0,1,i,0)/\sqrt{2}`$, up to corrections in $`1/Q`$, where it is understood that in our reference frame the photons are left-moving and the protons right-moving.

Whether the gluon helicity flip distributions can be accessed experimentally at a given value of $`Q^2`$, depends on their size. They have to be large enough to compensate for the factor $`\alpha _s/\pi `$ in the leading-twist contribution (42), which competes with power suppressed terms that already start at zeroth order in $`\alpha _s`$. Unfortunately, nothing is presently known about the size of gluon helicity flip distributions in the proton.

In which combinations the distributions $`H_T^g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_T^g`$, $`E_T^g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^g`$ appear in the cross section of $`epe\gamma p`$, shall not be studied here in detail. As an example we mention only their contribution to the interference term between the Compton and the Bethe-Heitler processes, where they give rise to a $`\mathrm{cos}3\phi `$ angular distribution (for more details we refer to ). With unpolarized electrons and protons, they appear in the combination333The accompanying global factor in the cross section can be found in , where only the distributions $`H_T^g`$ and $`E_T^g`$ were considered.

$$\frac{\sqrt{t_0t}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}{8m^3}\left[H_T^gF_2^{}E_T^gF_1^{}2\stackrel{~}{H}_T^g\left(F_1^{}+\frac{t}{4m^2}F_2^{}\right)\right]\mathrm{cos}3\phi ,$$
(43)
where $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are the Dirac and Pauli form factor of the proton, respectively. It is amusing to note that the distribution $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^g`$ does not appear in this term, just as the parton helicity conserving distributions $`\stackrel{~}{E}^q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}^g`$ are absent in the corresponding $`\mathrm{cos}\phi `$ term, see Eq. (30) of . $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^g`$ is however present in the contribution to the cross section from the Compton process alone, and also in the interference term with the Bethe-Heitler process if the initial proton is polarized.

## 6 Summary

We have given a complete set of generalized parton helicity flip distributions for a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ target. Both in the quark and gluon sector there are four independent distributions, i.e., two more than previously considered in the literature .

The constraints of parity invariance are very similar for ordinary and generalized parton distributions and for the helicity amplitudes of two-particle elastic scattering, as is embodied in Eq. (29). This is not the case for invariance under time reversal, which acts to reduce the number of independent helicity amplitudes and of ordinary parton distributions, but *not* of generalized ones. This can be traced back to the dependence of generalized parton distributions on the momentum fraction $`\xi `$ or, more broadly speaking, to the fact that generalized distributions not only depend on two independent hadron momenta, but also on a light-cone direction. Time reversal symmetry determines the behavior of generalized distribution under $`\xi \xi `$ and fixes their phase. For counting the independent generalized distributions of targets with arbitrary spin, one can still use the analogy with helicity amplitudes, but must at that stage only use the constraints from parity invariance, not those from time reversal.

As a by-product of our investigation we found that time reversal invariance reduces the number of form factors of the local quark tensor current $`\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\psi `$ from four to three. This illustrates that this symmetry also acts in slightly different, although related ways on generalized parton distributions and on elastic form factors.

At present we do not know a physical process that would give access to generalized quark helicity distributions. Their gluonic counterparts can be rather cleanly investigated in deeply virtual Compton scattering, under the condition that they are large enough. This would be extremely interesting because, as that they do not mix with the quark sector under evolution, gluon helicity flip distributions should provide a rather unique glimpse into the dynamics of glue in the nucleon.

## Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge inspiring discussions with J. Soffer and O. Teryaev, and useful correspondence with D. Müller. I would like to thank the Centre de Physique Théorique at Marseille for a kind invitation which initiated this work.

## Appendix

In this appendix we study the form factor decomposition of the tensor current (10) for the proton, which is also needed for the parameterization of quark helicity flip distributions. We will classify the Dirac bilinears

$$\overline{u}(p^{},\lambda ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{\alpha \beta }u(p,\lambda )$$
(44)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{\alpha \beta }`$ is a matrix in Dirac space and antisymmetric in the Lorentz indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. By parity invariance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{\alpha \beta }`$ must be a Lorentz tensor, not a pseudotensor. We do not use any restrictions from time reversal at this point. Let us show that an independent set of bilinears can be chosen as the one on the right-hand side of Eq. (3). For this, we use the equations of motion for spinors, i.e., the Gordon identities

$`2m\overline{u}(p^{})\gamma ^\alpha u(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p^{})\left[(p^{}+p)^\alpha +i\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }(p^{}p)_\beta \right]u(p),`$ (45)
$`2m\overline{u}(p^{})\gamma ^\alpha \gamma _5u(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p^{})\left[\gamma _5(p^{}p)^\alpha +i\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5(p^{}+p)_\beta \right]u(p),`$ (46)
and furthermore

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p^{})\left[(p^{}p)^\alpha +i\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }(p^{}+p)_\beta \right]u(p),`$ (47)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p^{})\left[\gamma _5(p^{}+p)^\alpha +i\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5(p^{}p)_\beta \right]u(p).`$ (48)
Now we show that all possible parity even structures in Eq. (44) can be reduced to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{\alpha \beta }=i\sigma ^{\alpha \beta },`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{\alpha \beta }=P^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^\beta \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha P^\beta ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{\alpha \beta }=\gamma ^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^\beta \mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha \gamma ^\beta ,`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^{\alpha \beta }=\gamma ^\alpha P^\beta P^\alpha \gamma ^\beta .`$ (49)
The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{\alpha \beta }`$ must be constructed out of invariants and the vectors $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We treat all possible Dirac currents in turn:

1. axial vector current ($`\overline{u}\gamma ^\delta \gamma _5u`$): We can use the Gordon identity (46) and replace it by the pseudoscalar current and by $`\overline{u}i\sigma ^{\gamma \delta }\gamma _5u`$. Then go to 2 and 3.
2. pseudoscalar current ($`\overline{u}\gamma _5u`$): Due to parity invariance, this must be multiplied with a pseudotensor of rank 2. The only possible choice is $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma P_\delta `$. Using Eq. (48), we can eliminate $`\overline{u}\gamma _5P_\delta u`$ in favor of $`\overline{u}i\sigma ^{\gamma \delta }\gamma _5u`$. Then go to 3.
3. pseudotensor current ($`\overline{u}i\sigma ^{\gamma \delta }\gamma _5u`$): can be replaced by the tensor current using Eq. (4). Then go to 4.
4. tensor current ($`\overline{u}i\sigma ^{\gamma \delta }u`$): If any of the indices $`\gamma `$ or $`\delta `$ is contracted with $`P`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we can express this current in terms of the scalar and vector current using the identities (45) and (47). The contraction of $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ with the $`ϵ`$-tensor is not allowed by parity invariance, so that the only possibility left gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{\alpha \beta }=i\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }`$.
5. vector current ($`\overline{u}\gamma ^\delta u`$): If the index $`\delta `$ is contracted with $`P`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we can use the equations of motion to obtain the scalar current or zero. Again we cannot contract with the $`ϵ`$-tensor because of parity invariance. The only possibilities left to form an antisymmetric tensor of rank 2 are thus those in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$.
6. scalar current ($`\overline{u}u`$): must be multiplied with an antisymmetric tensor of rank 2. We cannot use the $`ϵ`$-tensor because of parity constraints, so the only possibility left leads to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

As we discussed in Section 2, time reversal invariance forbids $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ in the decomposition of the local current matrix element $`T^{\alpha \beta }`$ in (10), but not in the case of the bilocal current (3) defining the quark helicity flip distributions. The second moment $`𝑑xx\stackrel{~}{E}_T^q(x,\xi ,t)`$ is connected with the local matrix element

$$p^{},\lambda ^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\stackrel{}{}^+i\sigma ^{+i}\psi (0)|p,\lambda .$$
(50)
Now we do have four linearly independent tensors respecting the constraints of both parity and time reversal invariance, namely $`P_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{+i}`$, $`P_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{+i}`$ , $`P_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{+i}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^{i+}`$.


text:
# Electric Dipole moments of charged leptons and lepton flavor violating interactions in the general two Higgs Doublet model

## 1 Introduction

Lepton Flavor Violating (LFV) interactions are one of the important source of physics beyond the Standard model (SM) and have reached great interest with the improvement of experimental measurements. The processes $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ are the examples of LFV interactions and the current limits for their branching ratios ($`BR`$) are $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$  and $`1.1\times 10^6`$  respectively. In such decays, the assumption of the non-existence of Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) type matrix in the leptonic sector forbids the charged Flavor Changing (FC) interactions and therefore the physics beyond the SM plays the main role, where the general two Higgs doublet model (2HDM), so called model III, is one of the candidate. In this model, LFV interactions can exist at loop level with the help of the internal neutral higgs bosons $`h_0`$ and $`A_0`$. The Yukawa couplings appearing in these loops are free parameters and their strength can be detemined by the experimental data. In the literature, there are several studies on LFV interactions in different models. Such interactions are studied in a model independent way in , in the framework of model III 2HDM , in supersymmetric models .

CP violating effects also provide comprehensive information in the determination of free parameters of the various theoretical models. In extensions of the SM, new source of CP-violating phases occur. The exchanges of neutral Higgs bosons in the 2HDM  or the charged sector in multi Higgs doublet models (more than two Higgs doublets)  induce CP violating effects. In the model III 2HDM, one of the source for the CP violation is the complex Yukawa coupling. Non-zero Electric Dipole Moments (EDM) of the elementary particles are the sign of such violation. These are interesting from the experimental point of view since there are improvements in the experimental limits of charged lepton EDM. EDM of electron, muon and tau have been measured and the present limits are $`d_e=1.8\pm 1.2\pm 1.0\times 10^{27}`$ , $`d_\mu =(3.7\pm 3.4)\times 10^{19}`$  and $`d_\tau =3.1\times 10^{16}`$ .

Dipole moments of leptons have been studied in the literature extensively. In , it is emphasized that the dominant contribution to the EDM of lighter leptons comes from two loop diagrams that involve one power of the Higgs Yukawa couplings. In this work, the CP-violation is assumed to be mediated by neutral Higgs scalars  and the EDM of electron is predicted at the order of the magnitude of $`10^{26}ecm`$. Further EDM of leptons have been analyzed in supersymmetric models . In the recent work  EDM of leptons are studied by scaling them with corresponding lepton masses and the EDM of electron is predicted as $`10^{27}ecm`$.

In our work, we study EDM of leptons $`e,\mu ,\tau `$ and LFV processes $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ in the general 2HDM (model III). The source of EDM of a particle is the CP violated interaction and it can come from the complex Yukawa couplings. In the model III, it is possible to get a considerable EDM at one-loop level. Further, LFV processes can exist also at one-loop level with internal mediating neutral particles $`h_0`$ and $`A_0`$ since there is no CKM type matrix and therefore no charged FC interaction in the leptonic sector according to our assumption.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present EDMs of $`e,\mu ,\tau `$ leptons and the expressions for the decay width of processes $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ in the framework of the model III. Section 3 is devoted to discussion and our conclusions.

## 2 Electric dipole moments of charged leptons and LFV interactions in the general two Higgs Doublet model.

The 2HDM type III permits flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC) at tree level and makes CP violating interactions possible with the choice of complex Yukawa couplings. The Yukawa interaction for the leptonic sector in the model III is

$`_Y=\eta _{ij}^D\overline{l}_{iL}\varphi _1E_{jR}+\xi _{ij}^D\overline{l}_{iL}\varphi _2E_{jR}+h.c.,`$ (1)
where $`i,j`$ are family indices of leptons, $`L`$ and $`R`$ denote chiral projections $`L(R)=1/2(1\gamma _5)`$, $`\varphi _i`$ for $`i=1,2`$, are the two scalar doublets, $`l_{iL}`$ and $`E_{jR}`$ are lepton doublets and singlets respectively. Here $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are chosen as

$`\varphi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ v+H^0& \end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}\chi ^+& \\ i\chi ^0& \end{array}\right)\right];\varphi _2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}H^+& \\ H_1+iH_2& \end{array}\right),`$ (8)
and the vacuum expectation values are

$`<\varphi _1>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ v& \end{array}\right);<\varphi _2>=0.`$ (11)
With this choice, the SM particles can be collected in the first doublet and the new particles in the second one. The part which produce FCNC at tree level is

$`_{Y,FC}=\xi _{ij}^D\overline{l}_{iL}\varphi _2E_{jR}+h.c..`$ (12)
Here the Yukawa matrices $`\xi _{ij}^D`$ have in general complex entries. Note that in the following we replace $`\xi ^D`$ with $`\xi _N^D`$ where ”N” denotes the word ”neutral”. The complex Yukawa couplings are the source of CP violation and EDM of particles are created by the CP violated interactions. The effective EDM interaction for a lepton is defined as

$`_{EDM}=id_l\overline{l}\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }lF^{\mu \nu },`$ (13)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic field tensor and ”$`d_l`$” is EDM of the lepton. Here, ”$`d_l`$” is a real number by hermiticity. Concentrating only on neutral currents in the model III, the neutral Higgs bosons $`h_0,A_0`$ can induce CP violating interactions which can create EDM at loop level. Note that, we take $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ in eq. (8) as the mass eigenstates $`h_0`$ and $`A_0`$ respectively since no mixing between CP-even neutral Higgs bosons $`h_0`$ and the SM one, $`H_0`$, occurs at tree level. Due to possible small mixing at loop level we also study the mixing effects on the physical parameters in the Discussion part.

Now, we give the necessary 1-loop diagrams due to neutral Higgs particles in Fig. 1. Since, in the on-shell renormalization scheme, the self energy $`(p)`$ can be written as

$`{\displaystyle (p)}=(\widehat{p}m_l)\overline{{\displaystyle }}(p)(\widehat{p}m_l),`$ (14)
diagrams $`a`$, $`b`$ in Fig. 1 vanish when $`l`$-lepton is on-shell. However the vertex diagram $`c`$ in Fig. 1 gives non-zero contribution. The most general Lorentz-invariant form of the coupling of a charged lepton to a photon of 4-momentum $`q_\nu `$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`G_1(q^2)\gamma _\mu ++G_2(q^2)\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu `$ (15)
$`+`$ $`G_3(q^2)\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5q^\nu `$
where $`q_\nu `$ is photon 4-vector and $`q^2`$ dependent form factors $`G_1(q^2)`$ and $`G_2(q^2)`$ are proportional to the charge and anamolous magnetic moment of $`l`$-lepton respectively. Non-zero value of $`G_3(q^2)`$ is responsible for the CP violation and it is proportional to EDM of $`l`$-lepton. By extracting this part of the vertex, $`l`$-lepton EDM ”$`d_l`$$`(l=e,\mu ,\tau )`$ (see eq.(13)) can be calculated as a sum of contributions coming from neutral Higgs bosons $`h_0`$ and $`A_0`$,

$`d_l={\displaystyle \frac{iG_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\tau }{m_\tau }}((\overline{\xi }_{N,l\tau }^D)^2(\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau l}^D)^2)(F_1(y_{h_0})F_1(y_{A_0})),`$ (16)
for $`l=e,\mu `$ and

$`d_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iG_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{32\pi ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\tau }{m_\tau }}((\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D)^2(\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D)^2)(F_2(r_{h_0})F_2(r_{A_0}))`$ (17)
$``$ $`Q_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau ^2}}((\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \tau }^D)^2(\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D)^2)(r_{h_0}ln(z_{h_0})r_{A_0}ln(z_{A_0}))\},`$
where the functions $`F_1(w)`$, $`F_2(w)`$ and $`F_3(w)`$ are

$`F_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(34w+w^2+2lnw)}{(1+w)^3}},`$
$`F_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`wlnw+{\displaystyle \frac{2(2+w)wln\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{w}\sqrt{w4})}{\sqrt{w(w4)}}}.`$ (18)
Here $`y_H=\frac{m_\tau ^2}{m_H^2}`$, $`r_H=\frac{1}{y_H}`$ and $`z_H=\frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_H^2}`$, $`Q_\tau `$ and $`Q_\mu `$ are charges of $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ leptons respectively. In eqs. (16) and (17) $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^D`$ is defined as $`\xi _{N,ij}^D=\sqrt{\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^D`$. In eq. (16) we take into account only internal $`\tau `$-lepton contribution since, in our assumption, the Yukawa couplings $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^D,i,j=e,\mu `$, are small compared to $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau i}^Di=e,\mu ,\tau `$ due to the possible proportionality of the Yukawa couplings to the masses of leptons underconsideration in the vertices. In eq. (17) we take also the internal $`\mu `$-lepton contribution besides internal $`\tau `$-lepton one and ignore the one coming from the internal $`e`$-lepton respecting our assumption (see Discussion part). Note that, we make our calculations in arbitrary $`q^2`$ and take $`q^2=0`$ at the end.

Using the parametrization

$`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau l}^D=|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau l}^D|e^{i\theta _l},`$ (19)
the Yukawa factors in eqs. (16) and (17) can be written as

$`((\overline{\xi }_{N,l\tau }^D)^2(\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau l}^D)^2)=2isin\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta _l|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau l}^D|^2`$ (20)
where $`l=e,\mu ,\tau `$. Here $`\theta _l`$ are CP violating parameters which are the sources of the lepton EDM.

Now, let us consider the lepton number violating process $`\mu e\gamma `$ which is a good candidate in the determination of the Yukawa couplings and new physics beyond the SM. Since we take into account only the neutral Higgs contributions in the lepton sector of the model III, the contribution comes from neutral Higgs bosons $`h_0`$ and $`A_0`$ (see Fig. 1). In the on-shell renormalization scheme the self energy diagrams are cancelled and the vertex diagram (Fig. 1-c) contributes. Taking only $`\tau `$ lepton for the internal line, the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ reads as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )=c_1(|A_1|^2+|A_2|^2),`$ (21)
where

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`Q_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m_\mu m_\tau }}\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D(F_1(y_{h_0})F_1(y_{A_0})),`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`Q_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m_\mu m_\tau }}\overline{\xi }_{N,e\tau }^D\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \tau }^D(F_1(y_{h_0})F_1(y_{A_0})),`$ (22)
$`c_1=\frac{G_F^2\alpha _{em}m_\mu ^5}{32\pi ^4}`$ and the function $`F_1(w)`$ is given in eq. (18). Here the amplitudes $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ have right and left chirality respectively. In eq. (21) we ignore the contributions coming from internal $`\mu `$ and $`e`$ leptons respecting our assumption on the Yukawa couplings (see Discussion).

Another LFV process is $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and it is rich from the theoretical point of view. The decay width of this process can be calculated using the same procedure and reads as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )=c_2(|B_1|^2+|B_2|^2),`$ (23)
where

$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`Q_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{48m_\mu m_\tau }}\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D\{\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D(G_1(y_{h_0})+G_1(y_{A_0}))+6\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D(F_1(y_{h_0})F_1(y_{A_0})\},`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`Q_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{48m_\mu m_\tau }}\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \tau }^D\{\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D(G_1(y_{h_0})+G_1(y_{A_0}))+6\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D(F_1(y_{h_0})F_1(y_{A_0})\},`$ (24)
and $`c_2=\frac{G_F^2\alpha _{em}m_\tau ^5}{32\pi ^4}`$. Here the amplitudes $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ have right and left chirality respectively. The function $`G_1(w)`$ is given by

$`G_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(2+3w6w^2+w^3+6wlnw)}{(1+w)^4}}.`$
Note that, in the case of the possible loop induced mixing of the neutral Higgs bosons $`h_0`$ and the SM one $`H_0`$, the functions $`F_1(y_{h_0})`$, $`F_2(r_{h_0})`$, $`ln(z_{h_0})`$ and $`G_1(y_{h_0})`$ in eqs. (16, 17, 22, 24) should be multiplied by $`cos^2\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ is the small mixing angle.

## 3 Discussion

The Yukawa couplings $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^D,i,j=e,\mu ,\tau `$ play the main role in the determination of the lepton EDM and the physical quantities for LFV interactions, in the model III. These couplings are complex in general and they are free parameters which can be fixed by present and forthcoming experiments. The experimental results on the EDM of leptons $`e,\mu ,\tau `$ and LFV process $`\mu e\gamma `$ are our starting point of the predictions on Yukawa couplings related with leptons. Note that, in our predictons, we assume that the Yukawa couplings $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^D,i,j=e,\mu `$, are small compared to $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau i}^Di=e,\mu ,\tau `$ since the strength of these couplings are related with the masses of leptons denoted by the indices of them, similar to the Cheng-Sher scenerio . Further, we assume that $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^D`$ is symmetric with respect to the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$.

Since non-zero EDM can be obtained in case of complex couplings, there exist a CP violating parameter $`\theta _l`$ coming from the parametrization eq. (19). At this stage, we find a restriction for $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D`$ using eq. (16) and the experimental result of $`\mu `$ EDM ,

$`0.3\times 10^{19}ecm<d_\mu <7.1\times 10^{19}ecm.`$ (25)
Fig. 2 shows $`m_{A_0}`$ dependence of $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D`$ for $`sin\theta _\mu =0.5`$ and $`m_{h_0}=70GeV`$. Here the coupling is restricted in the region between solid lines. As shown in the figure, $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D`$ is at the order of the magnitude $`10^2`$ and take smaller values if $`m_{A_0}`$ takes larger values compared to $`m_{h_0}`$ in the theory. If neutral Higgs masses are almost degenerate, namely $`m_{A_0}=m_{h_0}`$, $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D`$ should be very large since the contributions of $`h_0`$ and $`A_0`$ have opposite signs and the same functional dependences. Therefore to be able control the numerical value of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D`$, the masses should not be degenerate.

Now, we use the upper limit of the $`BR`$ of the process $`\mu e\gamma `$ to restrict the Yukawa combination $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$ (see eq. (22)). Here we take into account only the internal $`\tau `$-lepton contribution. Using the restrictions for $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$ we find a constraint region for $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$. In Fig. 3 we plot $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$ as a function of $`m_{A_0}`$ for $`sin\theta _\mu =0.5`$ and $`m_{h_0}=70GeV`$. Here the coupling is restricted in the region between solid lines. As shown in the figure $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$ is at the order of the magnitude $`10^4`$ and becomes smaller if the mass of the particle $`A_0`$ is larger compared to $`m_{h_0}`$ in the theory, similar to the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\mu \tau }^D`$. Fig. 4 represente the effect of possible mixing between CP even neutral Higgs bosons $`h_0`$ and $`H_0`$ on the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$. When the mixing parameter $`sin\alpha `$ changes in the range $`00.1`$, the upper limit of $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$ is affected at the order of the magnitude $`3\%`$ for the fixed values of $`sin\theta _\mu =0.5`$ , $`m_{h_0}=70GeV`$ and $`m_{A_0}=80GeV`$. The lower limit of the coupling is almost non-sensitive to the mixing as shown in the figure.

At this stage we are ready to predict the electron EDM, $`d_e`$. Using eq. (16) and the restriction for $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$, $`d_e`$ is plotted with respect to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _e`$ in Fig. 5 for fixed values of $`sin\theta _\mu =0.5`$, $`m_{h_0}=70GeV`$ and $`m_{A_0}=80GeV`$. For the intermediate values of $`sin\theta _e`$, $`d_e`$ is at the order of the magnitude $`10^{32}`$ which lies in the experimental restriction region

$`d_e=1.8\pm 1.2\pm 1.0\times 10^{27}ecm`$ (26)
We also present $`m_{h_0}`$ dependence of $`d_e`$ for fixed values of $`sin\theta _e=0.5`$ and $`m_{A_0}=80GeV`$ in Fig. 6. This figure shows that $`d_e`$ is bounded by the solid lines and decreases with increasing values of $`m_{h_0}`$. For completeness, we study $`h_0`$-$`H_0`$ mixing effect on $`d_e`$. Fig. 7 shows that $`d_e`$ is not sensitive to mixing of two CP-even bosons in the given range of $`sin\alpha `$.

Finally, we would like to predict the behaviour of $`d_\tau `$ with respect to $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$. Since we take into account internal $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ leptons in the calculation of $`d_\tau `$, it has a functional dependence (see eq. (17))

$`d_\tau =f_1+f_2|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D|^2,`$ (27)
where $`f_1`$ contains the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D`$ and its complex conjugate, which can be fixed by the constraint plotted in Fig. 2. On the other hand $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ has in the form

$`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )=g_1|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D|^2|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D|^2,`$ (28)
where $`|\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D|^2`$ is again fixed by the constraint we have. As a result, we connect $`d_\tau `$ and
$`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ by an expression in the form

$`d_\tau =f_1+g_2BR(\tau \mu \gamma ).`$ (29)
Here the lower limit of $`f_1`$ is at the order of the magnitude of $`10^{15}`$ for the fixed values of $`m_{h_0}=70GeV`$, $`m_{A_0}=80GeV`$ and $`sin\theta _\mu =0.5`$. Therefore, even internal $`\mu `$-lepton causes to exceed the upper limit of experimental value of $`d_\tau `$

$`d_\tau =3.1\times 10^{16}ecm,`$ (30)
In eq. (29), the part $`g_2BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ is due to the internal $`\tau `$-lepton contribution. Here $`g_2`$ is at the order of the magnitude of $`10^{14}`$. Therefore it is not possible to get a strict bound for $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ using the eqs. (29) and the experimental result eq. (30).

In our work we choose the 2HDM type III and assume that only FCNC interactions exist at tree level. First we obtain constraints for the couplings $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau e}^D`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^D`$. The previous one is at the order of the magnitude of $`10^4`$ and the last one is $`10^2`$. Numerical values of these couplings decrease when the mass difference of neutral Higgs bosons $`h_0`$ and $`A_0`$ increases. Further, we predict the $`d_e`$ as $`10^{32}ecm`$ using the experimental result of $`d_\mu `$ and the upper limit of $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$. This lies in the experimental restriction region of $`d_e`$, however it is far from the present limits. Finally, we calculated the $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ and $`d_\tau `$ and connect these physical quantities in the form of a linear expression (eq. (29)). This expression does not provide a strict bound for $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ and the constraint region for the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^D`$.

In future, with the reliable experimental result of $`BR(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ and obtaining more strict bounds for $`BR(\mu e\gamma )`$, $`d_e`$, $`d_\mu `$ and $`d_\tau `$ it would be possible to test models and free parameters underconsideration more accurately.

## 4 Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Prof. T. M. Aliev for useful discussions.


text:
# Northwestern University: Report No. N.U.H.E.P. 713 University of Wisconsin-Madison: Report No. MADPH-00-1203 December 2000 Survival Probability of Large Rapidity Gaps in 𝑝̄𝑝,𝑝𝑝,𝛾𝑝and𝛾𝛾 Collisions

Using an eikonal analysis, we simultaneously fit a QCD-inspired parameterization of all accelerator data on forward proton-proton and antiproton-proton scattering amplitudes, together with cosmic ray data (using Glauber theory), to predict proton–air and proton-proton cross sections at energies near $`\sqrt{s}`$ 30 TeV. The p-air cosmic ray measurements greatly reduce the errors in the high energy proton-proton and proton-air cross section predictions—in turn, greatly reducing the errors in the fit parameters. From this analysis, we can then compute the survival probability of rapidity gaps in high energy $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ collisions, with high accuracy in a quasi model-free environment. Using an additive quark model and vector meson dominance, we note that that the survival probabilities are identical, at the same energy, for $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions, as well as for nucleon-nucleon collisions. Significantly, our analysis finds large values for gap survival probabilities, $`30`$% at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, $`21`$% at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV and $`13`$% at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV.

Rapidity gaps are an important tool in new-signature physics for ultra-high energy $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions. In this note, we will use an eikonal model to make a reliable calculation of the survival probability of rapidity gaps in nucleon-nucleon collisions.

In an eikonal model, we define our (complex) eikonal $`\chi (b,s)`$ so that $`a(b,s)`$, the (complex) scattering amplitude in impact parameter space $`b`$, is given by

$$a(b,s)=\frac{i}{2}\left(1e^{i\chi (b,s)}\right)=\frac{i}{2}\left(1e^{\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)+i\chi __\mathrm{R}(b,s)}\right).$$
(1)
Using the optical theorem, the total cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)`$ is given by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)=2\left[1e^{\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)}\mathrm{cos}(\chi __\mathrm{R}(b,s))\right]d^2\stackrel{}{b},$$
(2)
the elastic scattering cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}(s)`$ is given by

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{elastic}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left|1e^{\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)+i\chi __\mathrm{R}(b,s)}\right|^2d^2\stackrel{}{b}}`$ (3)
and the inelastic cross section, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{inelastic}}(s)`$, is given by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{inelastic}}(s)=\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)\sigma _{\mathrm{elastic}}(s)=\left[1e^{2\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)}\right]d^2\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(4)
The ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the forward nuclear scattering amplitude, $`\rho `$, is given by

$`\rho (s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\left\{i(1e^{\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)+i\chi __\mathrm{R}(b,s)})d^2\stackrel{}{b}\right\}}{\mathrm{Im}\{i((1e^{\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)+i\chi __\mathrm{R}(b,s)})d^2\stackrel{}{b}\}}}`$ (5)
and the nuclear slope parameter $`B`$ is given by

$$B=\frac{b^2a(b,s)d^2\stackrel{}{b}}{2a(b,s)d^2\stackrel{}{b}}.$$
(6)
It is readily shown, from unitarity and eq. (4), that the differential probability in impact parameter space $`b`$, for not having an inelastic interaction, is given by

$$P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{inelastic}}=e^{2\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)}.$$
(7)
Our even QCD-Inspired eikonal $`\chi _{\mathrm{even}}`$ is given by the sum of three contributions, gluon-gluon, quark-gluon and quark-quark, which are individually factorizable into a product of a cross section $`\sigma (s)`$ times an impact parameter space distribution function $`W(b;\mu )`$, i.e.,:

$`\chi ^{\mathrm{even}}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{gg}}(s,b)+\chi _{\mathrm{qg}}(s,b)+\chi _{\mathrm{qq}}(s,b)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`i\left[\sigma _{\mathrm{gg}}(s)W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{gg}})+\sigma _{\mathrm{qg}}(s)W(b;\sqrt{\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{gg}}})+\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}(s)W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})\right],`$
where the impact parameter space distribution function is the convolution of a pair of dipole form factors:

$$W(b;\mu )=\frac{\mu ^2}{96\pi }(\mu b)^3K_3(\mu b).$$
(9)
It is normalized so that $`W(b;\mu )d^2\stackrel{}{b}=1.`$ Hence, the $`\sigma `$’s in eq. (8) have the dimensions of a cross section. The factor $`i`$ is inserted in eq. (8) since the high energy eikonal is largely imaginary (the $`\rho `$ value for nucleon-nucleon scattering is rather small). The total even contribution is not yet analytic. For large $`s`$, the even amplitude in eq. (8) is made analytic by the substitution (see the table on p. 580 of reference , along with reference ) $`sse^{i\pi /2}.`$ The quark contribution $`\chi _{\mathrm{qq}}(s,b)`$ accounts for the constant cross section and a Regge descending component ($`1/\sqrt{s}`$), whereas the mixed quark-gluon term $`\chi _{\mathrm{qg}}(s,b)`$ simulates diffraction ($`\mathrm{log}s`$). The gluon-gluon term $`\chi _{\mathrm{gg}}(s,b)`$, which eventually rises as a power law $`s^ϵ`$, accounts for the rising cross section and dominates at the highest energies. In eq. (8), the inverse sizes (in impact parameter space) $`\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{gg}}`$ are to be fit by experiment, whereas the quark-gluon inverse size is taken as $`\sqrt{\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{gg}}}`$. For more detail, see ref..

The high energy analytic odd amplitude (for its structure in $`s`$, see eq. (5.5b) of reference , with $`\alpha =0.5`$) that fits the data is given by

$`\chi __\mathrm{I}^{\mathrm{odd}}(b,s)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\mathrm{odd}}W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{odd}}),`$ (10)
with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{odd}}1/\sqrt{s}`$, and with

$$W(b,\mu _{\mathrm{odd}})=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{odd}}^2}{96\pi }(\mu _{\mathrm{odd}}b)^3K_3(\mu _{\mathrm{odd}}b),$$
(11)
normalized so that $`W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{odd}})d^2\stackrel{}{b}=1.`$ Hence, the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{odd}}`$ in eq. (10) has the dimensions of a cross section. Finally,

$$\chi _{pp}^{\overline{p}p}=\chi _{\mathrm{even}}\pm \chi _{\mathrm{odd}}.$$
(12)
We have constructed a QCD-inspired parameterization of the forward proton–proton and proton–antiproton scattering amplitudes  which is analytic, unitary, satisfies crossing symmetry and, using a $`\chi ^2`$ procedure, fits all accelerator data of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$, nuclear slope parameter $`B`$ and $`\rho `$, the ratio of the real-to-imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude for both $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions; see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. In addition, the high energy cosmic ray cross sections of Fly’s Eye  and AGASA  experiments are also simultaneously used. Because our parameterization is both unitary and analytic, its high energy predictions are effectively model–independent, if you require that the proton is asymptotically a black disk. Using vector meson dominance and the additive quark model, we find further support for our QCD fit—it accommodates a wealth of data on photon-proton and photon-photon interactions without the introduction of new parameters. A major difference between the present result, in which we simultaneously fit the cosmic ray and accelerator data, and our earlier result, in which only accelerator data are used, is a significant reduction (about a factor of 2.5) in the $`1.5`$ % error of our prediction for $`\sigma _{pp}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=30`$ TeV, which results from major reductions in our fit parameters.

The plot of $`\sigma _{pp}`$ vs. $`\sqrt{s}`$, including the cosmic ray data that have been converted from $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ to $`\sigma _{pp}`$, is shown in Fig. 1. Clearly, we have an excellent fit, with good agreement between AGASA and Fly’s Eye. The overall agreement between the accelerator and the cosmic ray $`pp`$ cross sections with our QCD-inspired fit, as shown in Fig. 1, is striking.

As an example of a large rapidity gap process, we consider the production cross section for Higgs-boson production through W fusion. The inclusive differential cross section in impact parameter space $`b`$ is given by $`\frac{d\sigma }{d^2\stackrel{}{b}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{WW}\mathrm{H}}W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}),`$ where we have assumed that $`W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})`$ (the differential impact parameter space quark distribution in the proton) is the same as that of the W bosons.

The cross section for producing the Higgs boson and having a large rapidity gap (no secondary particles) is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{gap}}}{d^2\stackrel{}{b}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{WW}\mathrm{H}}W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})e^{2\chi __\mathrm{I}(s,b)}=\sigma _{\mathrm{WW}\mathrm{H}}\frac{d(|S|^2)}{d\stackrel{}{b}^2}.$$
(13)
In eq. (13) we have used eq. (4) to get the exponential suppression factor, and have used the normalized impact parameter space distribution $`W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2}{96\pi }(\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}b)^3K_3(\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}b)`$, with $`\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}=0.901\pm 0.005`$ GeV, whose error comes from the fitting routine.

We now generalize and define $`<|S|^2>`$, the survival probability of any large rapidity gap, as

$$<|S|^2>=W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})e^{2\chi __\mathrm{I}(s,b)}d^2\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(14)
We note that the energy dependence of the survival probability $`<|S|^2>`$ is through the energy dependence of $`\chi __\mathrm{I}`$, the imaginary part of the eikonal.

For illustration, we show in Fig. 3 a plot of $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\overline{p}p}`$ and the exponential damping factor of eq. (14), as a function of the impact parameter $`b`$, at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV. The results of numerical integration of eq. (14) for the survival probability $`<S^2>`$ at various c.m.s. energies are summarized in Table 1.

As emphasized earlier, the errors in $`<|S|^2>`$ are quite small, due to the fitting parameter errors being very small when we determine the eikonal using both accelerator and cosmic ray data.

Further, we find for the quark component that the mean squared radius of the quarks in the nucleons, $`<R_{\mathrm{nn}}^2>`$, is given by $`<R_{\mathrm{nn}}^2>=b^2W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})d^2\stackrel{}{b}=16/\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2=19.70\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Thus, $`b_{\mathrm{rms}}`$, the r.m.s. impact parameter radius is given by $`b_{\mathrm{rms}}=4/\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}=4.44`$ GeV-1. Inspection of Fig. 3 (1.8 TeV) at $`b_{\mathrm{rms}}`$ shows a sizeable probability for no interaction ($`e^{2\chi __\mathrm{I}}`$) at that typical impact parameter value.

In ref. , using the additive quark model, we show that the eikonal $`\chi ^{\gamma p}`$ for $`\gamma p`$ reactions is found by substituting $`\sigma \frac{2}{3}\sigma `$, $`\mu \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu `$ into $`\chi ^{\mathrm{even}}(s,b)`$, given by eq. (8). In turn, $`\chi ^{\gamma \gamma }`$ for $`\gamma \gamma `$ reactions is found by substituting $`\sigma \frac{2}{3}\sigma `$, $`\mu \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu `$ into $`\chi ^{\gamma p}(s,b)`$. Thus,

$$\chi ^{\gamma p}(s,b)=i[\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{\mathrm{gg}}(s)W(b;\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu _{\mathrm{gg}})+\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{\mathrm{qg}}(s)W(b;\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{gg}}}+\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}(s)W(b;\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})],$$
(15)
and

$$\chi ^{\gamma \gamma }(s,b)=i[\frac{4}{9}\sigma _{\mathrm{gg}}(s)W(b;\frac{3}{2}\mu _{\mathrm{gg}})+\frac{4}{9}\sigma _{\mathrm{qg}}(s)W(b;\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{gg}}}+\frac{4}{9}\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}(s)W(b;\frac{3}{2}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})].$$
(16)
It can be shown, that by an appropriate change of variables, that

$$<|S^{\gamma p}|^2>=W(b;\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})e^{2\chi __\mathrm{I}^{\gamma p}(s,b)}d^2\stackrel{}{b}$$
(17)
where $`\chi ^{\gamma p}(s,b)`$ is given by eq. (15), and

$$<|S^{\gamma \gamma }|^2>=W(b;\frac{3}{2}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})e^{2\chi __\mathrm{I}^{\gamma \gamma }(s,b)}d^2\stackrel{}{b},$$
(18)
where $`\chi ^{\gamma \gamma }(s,b)`$ is given by eq. (16), are both equal to

$$<|S^{\mathrm{nn}}|^2>=W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})e^{2\chi __\mathrm{I}^{\mathrm{even}}(s,b)}d^2\stackrel{}{b}$$
(19)
where $`\chi ^{\mathrm{even}}(s,b)`$ is given by eq. (8). Thus, we have the interesting result that

$$<|S^{\gamma p}|^2>=<|S^{\gamma \gamma }|^2>=<|S^{\mathrm{nn}}|^2>.$$
(20)
Neglecting the small differences at low energy between $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ collisions, we see from eq. (20) that $`<|S|^2>`$, the survival probability for either nucleon-nucleon, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions, is reaction-independent, depending only on $`\sqrt{s}`$, the cms energy of the collision. We show in ref.  that this result is true for any factorization scheme where the eikonal factorizes into sums of $`\sigma _i(s)\times W_i(b;\mu )`$, with the scaling feature that the product $`\sigma _i\mu _i^2`$ is reaction-independent—not only for the additive quark model that we have employed here. The energy dependence of the large rapidity gap survival probability $`<|S|^2>`$ calculated from eq. (19) is given in Fig. 4.

This somewhat surprising result can be more readily understood once one realizes that the survival probability is a function of the product $`\sigma \mu ^2`$ and the dimensionless variable $`x=\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}b`$. This is most simply seen in a toy model in which the even eikonal is given by

$$\chi ^{\mathrm{even}}(s,b)_{\mathrm{toy}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})=\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2\times \frac{(\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}b)^3K_3(\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}b)}{96\pi }=\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2\times \frac{x^3K_3(x)}{96\pi },$$
(21)
and hence,

$$<|S^{\mathrm{nn}}|_{\mathrm{toy}}^2>=\frac{1}{96\pi }e^{2\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2x^3K_3(x)/96\pi }d^2\stackrel{}{x}.$$
(22)
In our scheme $`\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2`$ is the same for nucleon-nucleon, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ interactions, since cross sections are multiplied by $`\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}`$ and $`\frac{2}{3}`$ for $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$, respectively, whereas $`\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2`$ is divided by $`\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}`$ and $`\frac{2}{3}`$. Although $`x`$ is different for the 3 processes—being $`\mu _qb`$ for nucleon-nucleon, $`\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}b`$ for $`\gamma p`$ and $`\frac{3}{2}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}b`$ for $`\gamma \gamma `$—it only plays the role of an integration variable and therefore the dependence on the subprocess label disappears. We see from eq. (22) that S=S($`\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2`$), which is process-independent. This argument is easily generalized to the full eikonals of eq. (8), eq. (15) and eq. (16).

The physics is now clear. One could be tempted to conclude that the survival probability is larger for $`\gamma p`$ than for $`pp`$ interactions because there are only 2 quarks in the photon and 3 in the proton to produce additional inelastic collisions filling the gap. And that is true and it is reflected by the factor 2/3 change in the cross section. This is not the whole story, however. In the eikonal model, the inverse transverse size of the 2-quark system (photon) is larger than that of the proton (the $`\frac{3}{2}\mu _{\mathrm{qq}}^2`$ factor) and the two effects compensate. Therefore, we have the same $`<|S|^2>`$ for all processes.

We have been able to calculate the survival probability $`<|S|^2>`$ to a high degree of accuracy by using an eikonal that has been found by fitting both accelerator and cosmic ray data over a very large energy range which includes the LHC energy. Our numerical results are considerably larger than other calculations. In the case of ref.  and ref.  it is probably due to their using a Gaussian probability distribution in impact parameter space, whereas our distribution, $`W(b,\mu _{qq})=\frac{\mu _{qq}^2}{96\pi }(\mu _{qq}b)^3K_3(\mu _{qq}b)`$ which is the Fourier transform of the square of a dipole distribution, has a long exponential tail $`e^{\mu b}`$, significantly increasing the probability of survival. In the case of ref. , the authors determine the parameters for their minijet model using only the Tevatron results. Our large values are more in line with the earlier predictions of Gotsman et al for what they called Regge and Lipatov1 and Lipatov2 models, although with somewhat different energy dependences than that shown in Table 1. The color evaporation model of Èboli et al gives somewhat larger values than our calculation, but again with a different energy dependence. Most recently, Khoze et al, using a two-channel eikonal, have calculated the survival probabilities for rapidity gaps in single, central and double diffractive processes at several energies, as a function of $`b`$, the slope of the Pomeron-proton vertex. For double diffraction, they have a large range of possible parameters. Choosing $`2b=5.5`$ GeV-2 (corresponding to the slope of the electromagnetic proton form factor), they obtain $`<|S|^2>=0.26`$, 0.21 and 0.15 at $`\sqrt{s}=0.54`$, 1.8 and 14 TeV, respectively. These survival probabilities are in excellent agreement with our values given in Table 1. However, their calculations for other choices of $`2b`$ and for single and central diffractive processes do not agree with ours, being model-dependent, with their results varying considerably with their choice of parameters and model.

We see that there is a serious model dependence, both in the size of the survival probabilities and in their energy dependence. Further, until now, there has been no estimates for gap survival probabilities for $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ reactions. Thus, we hope that our quasi model-independent fit to experimental data on $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ total cross sections, $`\rho `$ values and nuclear slopes $`B`$, over a large energy range, $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 15 GeV to 30,000 GeV, provides a reliable quantitative estimate of the survival probability $`<|S|^2>`$ as a function of energy, for both $`\overline{p}p`$, $`pp`$, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions. The fact that our estimates of large rapidity gap survival probabilities are independent of reaction, thus being equal for nucleon-nucleon, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ processes—the equality surviving any particular factorization scheme—has many interesting experimental consequences.