text:
# A Catalog of Mass Models for Gravitational Lensing

## 1 Introduction

As applications of strong gravitational lensing have become more sophisticated, the variety and complexity of mass distributions used for lensing studies have increased. Gone are the days when the singular isothermal sphere was all you needed to know. Now we have softened power law ellipsoids, pseudo-Jaffe models, generalized NFW models, exponential disks embedded in isothermal halos, and so on. Plus, all of these models are likely to be perturbed by other galaxies, groups, or clusters near the lens galaxy or along the line of sight.

I have developed software called gravlens for a variety of lensing and lens modeling applications.222The software is discussed in a separate paper (Keeton 2001), and is available to the community via the web site of the CfA/Arizona Space Telescope Lens Survey, at http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/castles. In the course of writing the code I have collected most of the mass models used for lensing studies, and this paper reviews those models. The outline is as follows. Section 2 discusses circular and elliptical symmetry in lensing mass distributions, and argues that a canonical set of circular and elliptical models provides a useful basis set for building much more complex composite models. Section 3 gives some suggestions (propaganda, really) about selecting models appropriate for your application. Section 4 presents the general equations that describe the lensing properties of a given mass distribution. Finally, Section 5 presents a detailed catalog of results for a number of models. The mass models discussed in this paper (and included in the gravlens software) are listed in Table 1.

## 2 Circular, Elliptical, and Composite Lens Models

The lensing properties of any mass distribution can be written in terms of two-dimensional integrals over the surface mass density (see §4). In general the integrals cannot be evaluated analytically, but many lensing applications offer simplifications due to symmetry. Applications such as microlensing may permit the use of a lens with circular symmetry, in which case the lensing properties can usually be found analytically. In other applications, such as lensing by galaxies, it may be reasonable to assume elliptical symmetry, which allows the lensing properties to be written as a set of one-dimensional integrals (see §4); the integrals can sometimes be evaluated analytically and are always amenable to fast numerical techniques.

The geometric simplifications may not hold in increasingly sophisticated lensing applications. For example, companion stars or planets can break circular symmetry in microlensing (e.g., Mao & Paczyński 1991; Gould & Loeb 1992); neighboring galaxies (e.g., Young et al. 1981; Schechter et al. 1997; Koopmans & Fassnacht 1999) or the lens galaxy’s internal structure (e.g., Maller, Flores & Primack 1997; Bernstein & Fischer 1999; Keeton et al. 2000) may break elliptical symmetry in lensing by galaxies; and individual cluster members can ruin the symmetry of the smooth background potential in lensing by clusters (e.g., Bartelmann & Steinmetz 1995; Tyson, Kochanski & Dell’Antonio 1998). Nevertheless, in all of these examples the total mass distribution can be written as a combination of circular or elliptical components, either placed at different positions to represent different objects, or combined at the same position to mimic an object with more complicated internal structure (also see Schneider & Weiss 1991). Because the Poisson equation is linear, the lensing potential of such composite models is simply the sum of the component potentials. In other words, arbitrary combinations of circular and elliptical models yield a wide range of complex mass distributions whose lensing properties are nevertheless easy to compute.

While composite models provide a great deal of freedom and complexity, they are not completely general. This limitation is eliminated in the elegant algorithm by Saha & Williams (1997; also Williams & Saha 2000) for finding non-parametric lens models. The approach is to introduce a set of mass pixels and construct a large linear programming problem for determining their masses. The problem is severely underconstrained, but by requiring positive-definite masses and imposing some smoothness criteria it is possible to find a wide but finite range of non-parametric models consistent with the data.

A limitation of the Saha & Williams algorithm is that the constraint of a positive-definite surface density is weaker than the constraint of a positive 3-d mass density — or, better yet, a positive-definite quasi-equilibrium distribution function. In other words, while parametric models may provide too little freedom, the Saha & Williams non-parametric models provide too much. For example, their method does not determine whether models are consistent with stellar dynamics, and many of the models found by the method probably are not consistent. The gravlens software includes only parametric models that have physical motivations apart from lensing, but it offers the ability to combine them in arbitrary ways to achieve extensive and reasonable complexity.

## 3 Selecting Models

Selecting the class of models to use for a particular application is a key part of lens modeling. When modeling lenses produced by galaxies, a simple and useful place to start is an isothermal model, i.e. a model with density $`\rho r^2`$ and a flat rotation curve. Spiral galaxy rotation curves (e.g., Rubin, Ford & Thonnard 1978, 1980), stellar dynamics of elliptical galaxies (e.g., Rix et al. 1997), X-ray halos of elliptical galaxies (Fabbiano 1989), models of some individual lenses (e.g., Kochanek 1995; Cohn et al. 2001), joint lensing and dynamical analyses (e.g., Treu & Koopmans 2002; Koopmans & Treu 2002), and lens statistics (e.g., Maoz & Rix 1993; Kochanek 1993, 1996) are all consistent with roughly isothermal profiles.

However, an isolated isothermal ellipsoid rarely yields a good quantitative fit to observed lenses (e.g., Keeton et al. 1997, 1998; Witt & Mao 1997). In general, adding parameters to the radial profile of the galaxy fails to produce a good fit, but adding parameters to the angular structure of the potential dramatically improves the fit (e.g., Keeton & Kochanek 1997; Keeton et al. 1997). The additional angular structure comes from the tidal perturbations of objects near the main lens galaxy or along the line of sight. In other words, the fact that few galaxies are truly isolated means that lens models generically require two independent sources of angular structure: an ellipsoidal galaxy plus external perturbations. The combination of angular terms can make it difficult to disentangle the shape of the galaxy and the nature of the external perturbations, and it is extremely important to understand any degeneracies between the two sources of angular structure before drawing conclusions from the models (see Keeton et al. 1997).

To move beyond isothermal models and explore other radial profiles, softened power law lens models have traditionally been very popular. However, these models have flat cores, while many early-type galaxies have cuspy luminosity distributions (e.g., Faber et al. 1997), and dark matter halos in cosmological simulations have cuspy mass distributions (e.g., Navarro, Frenk & White 1996, 1997; Moore et al. 1998, 1999). The lack of central or “odd” images in most observed galaxy lenses also limits the extent to which galaxies can have flat cores (e.g., Wallington & Narayan 1993; Rusin & Ma 2001). Cohn et al. (2001) thus argue that softened power law models are outdated and should be replaced with families of cuspy lens models. There are three traditional families of models in which the profile of the cusp is fixed: NFW (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996, 1997), Hernquist (1990), and de Vaucouleurs (1948) models. In addition, there are three families of models in which the cusp is taken to be an arbitrary power law: Nuker law models (Lauer et al. 1995; Byun 1996; Keeton 2002), and two variants of NFW models (see §5 for definitions; Jing & Suto 2000; Keeton & Madau 2001; Muñoz, Kochanek & Keeton 2001; Wyithe, Turner & Spergel 2001).

An important reason to study families of cuspy lens models is to test the prediction from the Cold Dark Matter paradigm that halos at a wide range of masses are consistent with a unified family of halo models (e.g., Navarro et al. 1996, 1997). The distribution of image separations among the known lenses rules out the hypothesis that galaxies and clusters can be described by identical lens models (Keeton 1998; Porciani & Madau 2000; Kochanek & White 2001). However, it may be possible to resolve the conflict with a model in which galaxies and clusters start out with similar halo profiles, but baryonic processes such as cooling modify the inner profiles of galaxies. Kochanek & White (2001) show that such a model can match the observed image separation distribution, but it remains to be seen whether the model agrees with the lack of central or “odd” images in observed lenses, or with detailed models of individual lenses.

## 4 General Equations

For a mass distribution with surface mass density $`\kappa (𝐱)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐱)/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ in units of the critical surface density for lensing, the two-dimensional lensing potential is (e.g., Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992)

$$\varphi (𝐱)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}|𝐱𝐲|\kappa (𝐲)𝑑𝐲.$$
(1)
The other lensing properties can be derived from the potential. The deflection angle $`\varphi `$ determines the positions of images via the lens equation,

$$𝐮=𝐱\varphi (𝐱),$$
(2)
where $`𝐮`$ is the source position. The magnification tensor,

$$\mu \left(\frac{𝐮}{𝐱}\right)^1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1\varphi _{xx}& \varphi _{xy}\\ \varphi _{xy}& 1\varphi _{yy}\end{array}\right]^1,$$
(3)
determines the distortions and brightnesses of images. (Subscripts denote partial differentiation, $`\varphi _{ij}^2\varphi /x_ix_j`$.) Many lensing applications involve only the locations and brightnesses of the images, and thus require only the deflection and magnification components. Applications that involve the time delays, such as lensing measurements of the Hubble constant $`H_0`$, also require the potential.

If the mass distribution has circular symmetry, the deflection vector is purely radial and has an amplitude given by the 1-d integral

$$\varphi _r(r)=\frac{2}{r}_0^ru\kappa (u)𝑑u=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}}\frac{M_{\mathrm{cyl}}(r)}{r},$$
(4)
where $`M_{\mathrm{cyl}}(r)`$ is the mass enclosed by a cylinder of radius $`r`$ (the projected mass), which is often easily evaluated. The potential and magnification components can be obtained by integrating or differentiating $`\varphi _r`$.

More general is the case of elliptical symmetry, in which the surface mass density has the form

$$\kappa =\kappa (\xi ),\text{where}\xi ^2=x^2+y^2/q^2,$$
(5)
where $`q`$ is the projected axis ratio and $`\xi `$ is an ellipse coordinate. This is the functional form in a coordinate system with the ellipse centered on the origin and aligned along the $`x`$-axis; other coordinate systems can be reached by suitable translation and rotation. With elliptical symmetry the lensing properties can be written as a set of 1-d integrals (see Schramm 1990, although I have changed variables in the integrals),

$`\varphi (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}I(x,y)`$ (6)
$`\varphi _x(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`qxJ_0(x,y)`$ (7)
$`\varphi _y(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`qyJ_1(x,y)`$ (8)
$`\varphi _{xx}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`2qx^2K_0(x,y)+qJ_0(x,y)`$ (9)
$`\varphi _{yy}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`2qy^2K_2(x,y)+qJ_1(x,y)`$ (10)
$`\varphi _{xy}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`2qxyK_1(x,y)`$ (11)
where the integrals are

$`I(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (u)}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _r\left(\xi (u)\right)}{\left[1(1q^2)u\right]^{1/2}}}𝑑u`$ (12)
$`J_n(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \left(\xi (u)^2\right)}{\left[1(1q^2)u\right]^{n+1/2}}}𝑑u`$ (13)
$`K_n(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{u\kappa ^{}\left(\xi (u)^2\right)}{\left[1(1q^2)u\right]^{n+1/2}}}𝑑u`$ (14)
$`\text{where}\xi (u)^2`$ $`=`$ $`u\left(x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{1(1q^2)u}}\right)`$ (15)
and $`\kappa ^{}(\xi ^2)=d\kappa (\xi ^2)/d(\xi ^2)`$. Note from eq. (12) that the potential can be written as an integral over the circular deflection function $`\varphi _r`$ from eq. (4), but $`\varphi _r`$ must be evaluated at the appropriate ellipse coordinate $`\xi (u)`$.

All of the previous expressions assume that the surface density $`\kappa `$ is known. Some models have 3-d density distributions for which the projection integral cannot be evaluated analytically. In this case even a spherical lens model requires computationally expensive double integrals (the projection integral followed by the lensing integral). However, the double integrals can be rewritten as follows so the projection integral is replaced by the enclosed mass $`M(r)`$, which can often be computed analytically. (The mass $`M(r)`$ is the mass in spheres, which is different from $`M_{\mathrm{cyl}}(r)`$ in eq. 4.) Writing $`\kappa (r)`$ as an integral over $`\rho (r)`$ — the projection integral — and substituting $`\rho (r)=M^{}(r)/(4\pi r^2)`$ where $`M^{}(r)=dM/dr`$, we find

$`\kappa (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}(u)}{u\sqrt{u^2r^2}}},`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}r}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+y^2}}\left[M^{}\left(r\sqrt{1+y^2}\right)+M^{}\left(r\sqrt{1+y^2}\right)\right],`$ (17)
where the second line represents a change of variables so the integral has a finite range, which is convenient for numerical integration. Combining eqs. (4) and (16) gives the circular deflection as

$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}r}}{\displaystyle _0^r}𝑑uu{\displaystyle _u^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}(v)}{v\sqrt{v^2u^2}}},`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}r}}{\displaystyle _0^r}𝑑uu{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}{\displaystyle _u^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑vM^{}(v){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{v^2u^2}}{v}},`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}r}}\left[M_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑vM^{}(v){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{v^2u^2}}{v}}\right],`$ (20)
where $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the total mass. Integrating by parts then yields

$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}}}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{M(v)}{v^2\sqrt{v^2r^2}}},`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}r}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+y^2)^{3/2}}}\left[M\left(r\sqrt{1+y^2}\right)+yM\left(r\sqrt{1+y^2}\right)\right],`$ (22)
where again the second line represents a change of variables for numerical integration. Eqs. (16) and (21), or eqs. (17) and (22) for numerical integration, represent the desired 1-d integrals for the surface density and deflection. The magnification also requires $`\varphi _{rr}`$, which could be computed by differentiating $`\varphi _r`$; however, it is easier to compute $`\kappa `$ and $`\varphi _r`$ and then use the identity $`r^1\varphi _r+\varphi _{rr}=2\kappa `$ to determine $`\varphi _{rr}`$.

## 5 The Catalog

Table 1 lists a wide variety of popular lens models, all of which are available in the gravlens software. This section summarizes what is known about the mass distributions and lensing properties of the models. Analytic results are given where available, which includes all but one of the circular models and some of the elliptical models. Note that if the potential $`\varphi `$ is regular at the origin, it is normalized to have $`\varphi (0)=0`$. Lensing is insensitive to an arbitrary constant added to the potential.

I have tried to include relevant references. If you use results given here, please cite the original references rather than this catalog. As for the unreferenced results, some of them are new, while others are derived easily enough that references seem unnecessary. Use your own judgement about citing such material.

Point mass: This model is inherently circular. A point mass $`M`$ produces a lensing potential

$`\varphi =R_E^2\mathrm{ln}r,`$ (23)
where the Einstein radius is (in angular units)

$$R_E=\sqrt{\frac{4GM}{c^2}\frac{D_{\mathrm{ls}}}{D_{\mathrm{ol}}D_{\mathrm{os}}}}.$$
(24)
Softened power law potential: Sometimes for analytic simplicity it is convenient to put the elliptical symmetry in the potential rather than in the density (e.g., Blandford & Kochanek 1987; Witt & Mao 1997, 2000; Evans & Hunter 2002),

$$\varphi =b\left(s^2+x^2+y^2/q^2\right)^{\alpha /2}bs^\alpha .$$
(25)
The deflection and magnification are given by simple derivatives.

Softened power law ellipsoid: This model has a projected surface density

$$\kappa (\xi )=\frac{1}{2}\frac{b^{2\alpha }}{\left(s^2+\xi ^2\right)^{1\alpha /2}},$$
(26)
which represents a flat core with scale radius $`s`$, and then a power law decline with exponent $`\alpha `$ defined such that the mass grows as $`M_{\mathrm{cyl}}(r)r^\alpha `$ asymptotically. The core radius can be zero if $`\alpha >0`$. The model gives a softened isothermal model for $`\alpha =1`$, a modified Hubble model for $`\alpha =0`$, and a Plummer model for $`\alpha =2`$ (see Binney & Tremaine 1987). The circular model has lensing properties

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}b^{2\alpha }r^\alpha {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}};1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{r^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}b^{2\alpha }s^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{s}}\right)`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}b^{2\alpha }s^\alpha \left[\gamma _E\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}b^{2\alpha }r^\alpha (\alpha >0,s=0)`$ (28)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^{2\alpha }}{\alpha r}}\left[\left(s^2+r^2\right)^{\alpha /2}s^\alpha \right](\alpha 0)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{r}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{s^2}}\right)(\alpha =0)`$ (30)
In the potential, $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[a,b;c;x]`$ is a hypergeometric function, which can be written as or transformed into a quickly converging series (see Press et al. 1992; Gradshteyn & Ryzhik 1994, §9.1). Also, $`\gamma _E=0.577216\mathrm{}`$ is Euler’s constant, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=d[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)]/dx`$ is the digamma function, or the logarithmic derivative of the factorial function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$. Analytic solutions for the elliptical model are possible for $`\alpha =0,\pm 1`$, and two of these are given below. Barkana (1998) gives a fast numerical algorithm for general softened power law ellipsoid models.

Isothermal ellipsoid, $`\alpha =1`$: This model describes mass distributions with flat rotation curves (outside the core). Its lensing properties are:

$`\text{circular:}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`r\varphi _rbs\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s+\sqrt{s^2+r^2}}{2s}}\right)`$ (31)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\left(\sqrt{s^2+r^2}s\right)`$ (32)
$`\text{elliptical:}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`x\varphi _x+y\varphi _ybqs\mathrm{ln}[(\psi +s)^2+(1q^2)x^2]^{1/2}`$ (33)
$`+bqs\mathrm{ln}\left[(1+q)s\right]`$
$`\varphi _x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{bq}{\sqrt{1q^2}}}\text{tan}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1q^2}x}{\psi +s}}\right]`$ (34)
$`\varphi _y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{bq}{\sqrt{1q^2}}}\text{tanh}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1q^2}y}{\psi +q^2s}}\right]`$ (35)
where $`\psi ^2=q^2(s^2+x^2)+y^2`$. The elliptical solutions have been given by Kassiola & Kovner (1993), Kormann, Schneider & Bartelmann (1994), and in the simple form quoted here by Keeton & Kochanek (1998). In the limit of a singular ($`s=0`$) and spherical ($`q=1`$) model, $`b`$ is the Einstein radius of the model and is related to the 1-d velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ by

$$b=4\pi \left(\frac{\sigma }{c}\right)^2\frac{D_{\mathrm{ls}}}{D_{\mathrm{os}}}$$
(36)
(in angular units).

$`\alpha =1`$ ellipsoid: This model corresponds to an unnamed density profile with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }r^3`$ ($`\rho r^4`$) asymptotically. Its lensing properties are:

$`\text{circular:}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{s}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s+\sqrt{s^2+r^2}}{2s}}\right)`$ (37)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{sr}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\sqrt{s^2+r^2}}}\right]`$ (38)
$`\text{elliptical:}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^3q}{s}}\mathrm{ln}[(\psi +s)^2+(1q^2)x^2]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{b^3q}{s}}\mathrm{ln}\left[(1+q)s\right]`$ (39)
$`\varphi _x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^3qx}{s\psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi +q^2s}{(\psi +s)^2+(1q^2)x^2}}`$ (40)
$`\varphi _y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^3qy}{s\psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi +s}{(\psi +s)^2+(1q^2)x^2}}`$ (41)
where $`\psi ^2=q^2(s^2+x^2)+y^2`$. The elliptical solutions are given by Keeton & Kochanek (1998).

Pseudo-Jaffe ellipsoid: A standard Jaffe (1983) model has a 3-d density distribution $`\rho r^2(r+a)^2`$ where $`a`$ is the break radius. For lensing it is useful to modify this model and write $`\rho (r^2+s^2)^1(r^2+a^2)^1`$, where $`a`$ is again the break radius and we have added a core radius $`s<a`$. The projected surface density of the elliptical model has the form

$$\kappa (\xi )=\frac{b}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{s^2+\xi ^2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{a^2+\xi ^2}}\right],$$
(42)
which is constant inside $`s`$, falls as $`R^1`$ between $`s`$ and $`a`$, and falls as $`R^3`$ outside $`a`$; the total mass is $`M=\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}qb(as)`$. Eq. (42) defines the pseudo-Jaffe ellipsoid. In the limit $`a\mathrm{}`$ it reduces to the isothermal ellipsoid ($`\alpha =1`$). In the limit $`as`$ it reduces to the $`\alpha =1`$ ellipsoid, although the limit must be taken in $`\rho `$ rather than in $`\kappa `$ (i.e., the limit must be taken before the projection integral is evaluated). The pseudo-Jaffe model is equivalent to a combination of two softened isothermal ellipsoids, so its lensing properties can be computed with appropriate combinations of eqs. (33)–(35).

King model: The King model can be approximated as a combination of two softened isothermal models (see Young et al. 1980; Barkana et al. 1999),

$$\kappa (\xi )=\frac{2.12b}{\sqrt{0.75r_s^2+\xi ^2}}\frac{1.75b}{\sqrt{2.99r_s^2+\xi ^2}}.$$
(43)
It has a single scale radius $`r_s`$. This approximation is convenient because it is written as the difference of two softened isothermal ellipsoids, so its lensing properties can be computed with appropriate combinations of eqs. (33)–(35).

De Vaucouleurs model: This is the prototypical constant mass-to-light ratio lens model (de Vaucouleurs 1948), with surface mass density

$$\kappa (\xi )=\kappa _0\mathrm{exp}\left[k(\xi /R_e)^{1/4}\right],$$
(44)
where $`k=7.66925001`$ and $`R_e`$ is the major-axis effective (or half-mass) radius. The circular deflection is (Maoz & Rix 1993)

$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _0{\displaystyle \frac{40320}{k^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_e^2}{r}}[1`$
$`e^\zeta (1+\zeta (1+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{3}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{4}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{5}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{6}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{7}})))))))],`$
where $`\zeta =k(r/R_e)^{1/4}`$. The elliptical model can be computed numerically with eqs. (6)–(11).

Hernquist model: The Hernquist (1990) model is a 3-d density distribution with a projected distribution that mimics the luminosity distribution of early-type galaxies. It has the form

$$\rho =\frac{\rho _s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^3},$$
(46)
where $`r_s`$ is a scale length and $`\rho _s`$ is a characteristic density. The projected surface mass density has the form

$$\kappa (r)=\frac{\kappa _s}{(x^21)^2}\left[3+(2+x^2)(x)\right],$$
(47)
where $`x=r/r_s`$, $`\kappa _s=\rho _sr_s/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and $`(x)`$ is the function

$$(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^21}}\text{tan}^1\sqrt{x^21}\hfill & (x>1)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1x^2}}\text{tanh}^1\sqrt{1x^2}\hfill & (x<1)\hfill \\ 1\hfill & (x=1)\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
A useful technical result is the derivative of this function,

$$^{}(x)=\frac{1x^2(x)}{x(x^21)}.$$
(49)
The circular potential and deflection are

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _sr_s^2\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}}+2(x)\right],`$ (50)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa _sr_s{\displaystyle \frac{x[1(x)]}{x^21}},`$ (51)
where again $`x=r/r_s`$. The elliptical model $`\kappa (\xi )`$ can be computed numerically with eqs. (6)–(11).

NFW model: Cosmological $`N`$-body simulations (e.g., Navarro et al. 1996, 1997) suggest that dark matter halos can be described by a “universal” density profile with the form

$$\rho =\frac{\rho _s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}.$$
(52)
For the spherical NFW model, the projected surface mass density, potential, and deflection are (Bartelmann 1996; Meneghetti, Bartelmann & Moscardini 2001, 2002; Golse & Kneib 2001)

$`\kappa (r)`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa _s{\displaystyle \frac{1(x)}{x^21}},`$ (53)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa _sr_s^2\left[\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\text{arctanh}^2\sqrt{1x^2}\right],`$ (54)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`4\kappa _sr_s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(x/2)+(x)}{x}},`$ (55)
where $`x=r/r_s`$, $`\kappa _s=\rho _sr_s/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and the function $`(x)`$ is the same as in the Hernquist model. The elliptical model $`\kappa (\xi )`$ can be computed numerically with eqs. (6)–(11).

Cuspy NFW model: Moore et al. (1998, 1999) have suggested that the inner cusp of the NFW profile is too shallow, so Jing & Suto (2000), Keeton & Madau (2001), and Wyithe et al. (2001) have studied a generalized NFW-type profile of the form

$$\rho =\frac{\rho _s}{(r/r_s)^\gamma (1+r/r_s)^{3\gamma }},$$
(56)
so the central cusp has $`\rho r^\gamma `$. The projected surface density cannot be computed analytically even for a spherical halo. For a spherical model, eqs. (16) and (21) allow the surface density and deflection to be written as

$`\kappa (r)`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa _sx^{1\gamma }\left[(1+x)^{\gamma 3}+(3\gamma ){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y(y+x)^{\gamma 4}\left(1\sqrt{1y^2}\right)\right],`$ (57)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`4\kappa _sr_sx^{2\gamma }\times `$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\gamma }}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[3\gamma ,3\gamma ;4\gamma ;x]+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y(y+x)^{\gamma 3}{\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{1y^2}}{y}}\right\},`$
where $`x=r/r_s`$, $`\kappa _s=\rho _sr_s/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the hypergeometric function. The integrals can be evaluated for several values of $`\gamma `$ to obtain simple analytic expressions. For $`\gamma =1`$ the model reduces to the standard NFW model (see eqs. 53 and 55). Two other analytic cases are as follows:

$`\gamma =2:\kappa (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{x}}2(x)\right],`$ (59)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`4\kappa _sr_s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1x^2}{x}}(x)\right],`$ (60)
$`\gamma =0:\kappa (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _s{\displaystyle \frac{1+x^2[23(x)]}{(x^21)^2}},`$ (61)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _sr_s}{x}}\left[2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2+(23x^2)(x)}{1x^2}}\right].`$ (62)
Elliptical NFW-cusp models $`\kappa (\xi )`$ can be computed numerically with eqs. (6)–(11). In general they are slow to compute because they require double integrals.

Cuspy halo models: To obtain a general cuspy model that is more amenable to lensing, Muñoz et al. (2001) introduce a model with a profile of the form

$$\rho =\frac{\rho _s}{(r/r_s)^\gamma [1+(r/r_s)^2]^{(n\gamma )/2}},$$
(63)
where again $`r_s`$ is a scale length, and $`\gamma `$ and $`n`$ are the logarithmic slopes at small and large radii, respectively. This model is a subset of the models whose physical properties were studied by Zhao (1996). The central cusp must have $`\gamma <3`$ for the mass to be finite. For $`(\gamma ,n)=(1,4)`$ this is a pseudo-Hernquist model, for $`(1,3)`$ it is a pseudo-NFW model, and for $`(2,4)`$ it is a singular pseudo-Jaffe model. Compared with eq. (56), replacing $`(1+r/r_s)`$ with $`\sqrt{1+(r/r_s)^2}`$ does not greatly change the profile shape but does make it possible to solve the spherical model analytically (Muñoz et al. 2001),

$`\kappa (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _sB({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left(1+x^2\right)^{(1n)/2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x^2}}],`$ (64)
$`n3:\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _sr_s}{x}}\{B({\displaystyle \frac{n3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma }{2}})`$
$`B({\displaystyle \frac{n3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})(1+x^2)^{(3n)/2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{n3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x^2}}]\},`$
where $`x=r/r_s`$, $`\kappa _s=\rho _sr_s/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the hypergeometric function, $`B(a,b)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b)`$ is the Euler beta function. For $`n=3`$ eq. (5) is not valid (it has singularities of the form 0/0), so it must be replaced with one of the two following expressions:

$`n=3:\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa _sr_s\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\mathrm{ln}(1+x^2)G[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{1+x^2}}]`$
$`x^{2\gamma }(1+x^2)^{(\gamma 3)/2}B({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma }{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{5\gamma }{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{1+x^2}}]\}`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _sr_s}{x}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}(1+x^2)G[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x^2}}]+\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma }{2}}\right)\right\}`$ (67)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ is the digamma function (see eq. 27), and $`G(b,c;z)`$ is the function

$`G(b,c;z)`$ $``$ $`\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[a,b,c;z]1}{a}}`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{c}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{b(b+1)}{c(c+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b(b+1)(b+2)}{c(c+1)(c+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^3}{3}}+\mathrm{}`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b(b+1)\mathrm{}(b+j1)}{c(c+1)\mathrm{}(c+j1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^j}{j}}`$ (70)
Note that eqs. (5) and (67) are equivalent and can be transformed into each other using identities for the hypergeometric function (see Gradshteyn & Rhyzik 1994, §9.131). It is convenient to use eq. (5) for $`x<1`$ and eq. (67) for $`x>1`$ in order to make the series for the $`G`$ function converge rapidly.

Elliptical cusp models $`\kappa (\xi )`$ can be computed numerically with eqs. (6)–(11), or with a Fourier series solution (Chae 2002).

Nuker law: Many early-type galaxies have surface brightness profiles that can be modeled as a Nuker law (e.g., Lauer et al. 1995; Byun et al. 1996),

$$I(r)=2^{(\beta \gamma )/\alpha }I_b\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^\gamma \left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^\alpha \right]^{(\gamma \beta )/\alpha },$$
(71)
where $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ are inner and outer power law indices, respectively, $`r_b`$ is the radius where the break in the power law occurs, $`\alpha `$ gives the sharpness of the break, and $`I_b`$ is the surface brightness at the break radius. If the luminosity distribution has circular symmetry and the mass-to-light ratio is $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, the lensing deflection is (Keeton 2002)

$$\varphi _r=\frac{2^{1+(\beta \gamma )/\alpha }}{2\gamma }\kappa _br_b\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^{1\gamma }{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{2\gamma }{\alpha },\frac{\beta \gamma }{\alpha };1+\frac{2\gamma }{\alpha };\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^\alpha ],$$
(72)
where $`\kappa _b=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}I_b/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is the surface mass density at the break radius in units of the critical density for lensing, and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the hypergeometric function. Ellipsoidal models can be computed numerically with eqs. (6)–(11).

Exponential disk: The projected surface density is

$$\kappa (\xi )=q^1\kappa _0\mathrm{exp}\left[\xi /R_d\right],$$
(73)
which represents a thin, circular disk with intrinsic central density $`\kappa _0`$ and scale length $`R_d`$, seen in projection with axis ratio $`q=|\mathrm{cos}i|`$ where $`i`$ is the inclination angle (such that $`i=0\mathrm{°}`$ is face-on and $`i=90\mathrm{°}`$ is edge-on). The circular deflection is

$$\varphi _r=2\kappa _0\frac{R_d^2}{r}\left[1\left(1+\frac{r}{R_d}\right)e^{r/R_d}\right].$$
(74)
The elliptical model $`\kappa (\xi )`$ can be computed with eqs. (6)–(11), or it can be approximated with one or more Kuzmin disks (see Keeton & Kochanek 1998).

Kuzmin disk: The $`\alpha =1`$ ellipsoid can be re-interpreted as the projection of a thin disk, in which case it corresponds to a Kuzmin (1956) or Toomre (1962) Model I disk; see Keeton & Kochanek (1998). Its projected surface density is

$$\kappa (\xi )=q^1\kappa _0r_s^3\left(r_s^2+\xi ^2\right)^{3/2},$$
(75)
where $`\kappa _0`$ is the intrinsic central surface density of the disk, and $`q=|\mathrm{cos}i|`$ is again the projected axis ratio of the inclined disk. The only difference between the Kuzmin disk and the $`\alpha =1`$ ellipsoid is the normalization.

External perturbations: Objects near the main lens galaxy or along the line of sight often perturb the lensing potential. If the perturbation is weak it may be sufficient to expand the perturbing potential as a Taylor series and keep only a few terms. In a coordinate system centered on the lens galaxy, the expansion to 3rd order can be written as (see Kochanek 1991; Bernstein & Fischer 1999)

$$\varphi \varphi _0+𝐛𝐱+\frac{r^2}{2}\left[\kappa \gamma \mathrm{cos}2(\theta \theta _\gamma )\right]+\frac{r^3}{3}\left[\delta \mathrm{cos}(\theta \theta _\delta )\epsilon \mathrm{cos}3(\theta \theta _\epsilon )\right]+\mathrm{}$$
(76)
The 0th order term $`\varphi _0`$ represents an unobservable zero point of the potential and can be dropped. The 1st order term $`𝐛𝐱`$ represents an unobservable uniform deflection and can also be dropped. The 2nd order term $`\kappa `$ represents the convergence from the perturbing mass and is equivalent to a uniform mass sheet with density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}=\kappa `$. The only observable effect of this term is to rescale the time delay(s) by $`1\kappa `$, which leads to the “mass sheet degeneracy” (e.g., Falco, Gorenstein & Shapiro 1985); hence this term is often omitted from lens models and introduced a posteriori using independent mass constraints (see, e.g., Bernstein & Fischer 1999). The 2nd order term $`\gamma `$ represents an external tidal shear with strength $`\gamma `$ and direction $`\theta _\gamma `$. The 3rd order term $`\delta `$ arises from the gradient of the surface density $`\kappa (𝐱)`$ of the perturber; it has an amplitude $`\delta =(3/4)|\kappa |`$ and a direction equal to the direction of $`\kappa `$. The 3rd order term $`\epsilon `$ arises from the $`m=3`$ multipole moment of the perturbing mass. The constant coefficients $`(\kappa ,\gamma ,\delta ,\epsilon )`$ are all evaluated at the position of the lens galaxy, and the corresponding direction angles are written here as theory angles measured counter-clockwise from the $`x`$-axis.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Chris Kochanek, Joanne Cohn, Jose Muñoz, David Rusin, Brian McLeod, and Joseph Lehár for many helpful discussions about the models and about the gravlens software. Support for this work has been provided by ONR-NDSEG grant N00014-93-I-0774, NSF grant AST-9407122, NASA ATP grant NAG5-4062, Steward Observatory, and Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01141.01-A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.


format: text

text:
# Quark Transversity Distribution in Perturbative QCD: Light-Front Hamiltonian Approach

## Abstract

To resolve the current ambiguity in the splitting function corresponding to the quark transversity distribution $`h_1(x)`$, we calculate $`h_1(x)`$ for a dressed quark in light-front Hamiltonian perturbation theory. Our result agrees with the expected form of the splitting function found in the literature and disagrees with the recent calculation in . We emphasize the importance of quark mass in $`h_1(x)`$ in perturbative QCD and show its connection with a part of $`g_T`$.

PACS: 11.10.Ef, 12.38.-t, 13.60.Hb

Keywords: transversity distribution, light-front Hamiltonian perturbation theory, splitting function

1. Introduction

The quark transversity distribution $`h_1(x)`$ has received some attention lately as a recent calculation  of its corresponding splitting function does not agree with the expected result found in the literature . The transversity distribution function does not appear in polarized inclusive deep inelastic scattering in the limit of massless quark, because it corresponds to a flip of quark chirality which is absent in DIS when quark mass is zero. $`h_1(x)`$ can be measured in polarized Drell-Yan process. $`h_1(x)`$ was first discussed by Ralston and Soper for this process . Since then, there has been a lot of theoretical investigations and also several attempts to experimentally measure the transversity distribution (see  and references therein). However, the effect of quark mass has not been discussed so far.

The leading contribution of the transversity distribution is twist two and it gives the difference of quark densities with eigenvalues $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in the eigenstates of the transverse Pauli-Lubanski spin operator. In order to calculate its corresponding splitting function, Artru and Mekhfi analyzed the helicity amplitude of hadron-hadron scattering in the t channel and used Altarelli-Parisi evolution equation. The splitting function calculated by them is given by in the limit of zero quark mass,

$`P_s_{}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{C_f}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1x)_+}}4+3\delta (1x)\right],`$ (1)
where the color factor $`C_f=\frac{N^21}{2N}`$ for $`SU(N)`$. The delta function comes from a counterterm which is the same as in the helicity non-flip splitting function, $`P_{qq}(z)`$.

However in a recent work, Hermann, Kuhn and Schutzhold have calculated the splitting function for $`h_1`$ and their result does not agree with Artru et al . They have started with the forward scattering amplitude $`T_\mu `$ which contribute to the nonsinglet transversity distribution. By Wick expansion of the products of currents in the amplitude, they found that $`32`$ Feynman diagrams contribute to the splitting function, although considering various constraints on $`T`$, they showed that calculation of $`8`$ Feynman diagrams is sufficient for their purpose. They have taken the quark mass to be zero. The singularity structure of the splitting function is found by using a dispersion relation and the splitting functions are obtained by doing inverse Mellin transformation. The splitting function is given by,

$`P_{}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{C_f}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(4{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1x)_+}}\right)`$ (2)
and the corresponding anomalous dimension

$`\gamma _n={\displaystyle \frac{C_f}{(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{1+n}}+4S_n\right),`$ (3)
where

$$S_n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{j}.$$

The splitting function differs from the earlier result by a delta function. They have also calculated $`g_1(x)`$ in the same method. $`g_1(x)`$ calculated in this method agrees with the expected result in the literature. On comparing the two calculations, they have shown that the splitting function for $`g_1`$ contains a delta function that comes from inverse Mellin transformation. The behavior at $`x=1`$ is usually fixed by assuming a sum rule, whereas no such sum rule is there for $`h_1(x)`$. They pointed out that in the earlier works, the behavior of $`h_1`$ at $`x=1`$ has been fixed by hand.

To resolve the above confusion generated by mutually contradictory results, we calculate the transversity distribution in an entirely different method based on light-front Hamiltonian technique. To uncover the physical picture of $`h_1(x)`$, it is most useful to go to light-front formalism where the polarized and unpolarized parton distributions in hard scattering can be expressed as the light-cone Fourier transform of the matrix element of bilocal operators in light-front gauge $`A^+=0`$ . In this method we can directly calculate the structure function itself and hence we do not need to do any inverse Mellin transformation as other formalisms need. Also, the role played by the quark mass can be seen clearly in this picture. We then compare $`h_1(x)`$ with the transverse polarized structure function $`g_T`$.

2. Transversity Distribution $`h_1(x)`$ in Light-Front Hamiltonian Perturbation Theory

The leading contribution to the transversity distribution function $`h_1(x)`$ in $`A^+=0`$ gauge is given by

$`h_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}PS_{}|\psi _+^{}(0)\gamma _{}\gamma _5\psi _+(y^{})|PS_{}}.`$ (4)
Here $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}P^+y^{}`$ and $`\psi =\psi ^++\psi ^{}`$, where $`\psi ^\pm =\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm \psi `$, the projection operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm =\frac{1}{4}\gamma ^\pm \gamma ^{}`$. The above expression differs from Jaffe and Ji by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ in the denominator because of our different convention. $`P^\mu `$ and $`S^\mu `$ are the total momentum and polarization of the target state. The operator in $`h_1(x)`$ does not involve the constrained field $`\psi ^{}`$, so is a ’good’ operator. Because of this, unlike the transverse structure function $`g_T`$, $`h_1`$ has a simple parton interpretation. Also, here we are calculating $`h_1(x)`$ which is a gauge invariant object, in the light-front gauge $`A^+=0`$. In this gauge, the link operator involved in the bilocal expression is unity. For simplicity, we have not considered the flavor dependence.

The representation of the light-front $`\gamma `$-matrix we use here is the following

$`\gamma ^0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right],\gamma ^3=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right],\gamma ^i=\left[\begin{array}{cc}i\stackrel{i}{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}& 0\\ 0& i\stackrel{i}{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}\end{array}\right]`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{1}{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}=\sigma ^2,\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}=\sigma ^1`$. The expression Eq.(4) in general is nonperturbative and the target is a bound state. However, this expression can be used in pertubative calculation of the splitting function corresponding to $`h_1(x)`$ in a straightforward manner by replacing the target state by a dressed quark state in light-front Hamiltonian perturbation theory.

The transversely polarized state can be expressed in terms of helicity states as,

$`|PS_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|P\pm |P).`$ (12)
Without any loss of generality, we take the state to be polarized along $`x`$ direction. The polarization vector $`S^\mu `$ is defined as,

$`S^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5u`$ (13)
where $`u`$ is the Dirac spinor. The components of the above polarization vector can be calculated for both longitudinal and transverse polarization. For longitudinal polarization, we get, $`S^+=P^+`$, $`S^{}=0`$. However for transverse polarization along $`x`$ direction, the components are, $`S^2=0`$, $`S^1=M`$, $`S^{}=2\frac{P^1}{P^+}M`$, $`S^+=0`$ where $`M`$ is the mass of the state. It is clear that one needs a massive state in order to have transverse polarization.

A dressed quark state of total momentum $`P`$ and helicity $`\sigma `$ can be expanded in Fock space as,

$`|P\sigma =\sqrt{N}`$ $`\{b_\sigma ^{}(P)|0+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _2,\lambda _2}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk_1^+d^2k_1^{}}{\sqrt{2(2\pi )^3k_1^+}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk_2^+d^2k_2^{}}{\sqrt{2(2\pi )^3k_2^+}}}\psi _2(P,\sigma |k_1,\sigma _2;k_2,\lambda _2)`$ (15)
$`\times \sqrt{2(2\pi )^3P^+}\delta ^3(Pk_1k_2)b_{\sigma _2}^{}(k_1)a_{\lambda _2}^{}(k_2)|0+\mathrm{}\}`$
where $`N`$ is the normalization constant and $`\psi _2(P,\sigma |k_1,\sigma _2;k_2,\lambda _2)`$ is the probability amplitude to find a bare quark with momentum $`k_1`$ and helicity $`\sigma _2`$ and a bare gluon with momentum $`k_2`$ and helicity $`\lambda _2`$ in the dressed quark. Here, we consider upto two-particle sector in the Fock-space.

We introduce the Jacobi momenta

$$x_i=\frac{k_i^+}{P^+},\kappa _i^{}=k_i^{}x_iP^{}$$

so that

$$\underset{i}{}x_i=1,\underset{i}{}\kappa _i^{}=0.$$

We redefine $`\psi _2`$ in a boost invariant form

$$\sqrt{P^+}\psi _2(k_i^+,k_i^{})=\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x_i,\kappa _i^{}).$$

The two particle amplitude is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\sigma _2,\lambda _2}(x,\kappa ^{};1x,\kappa ^{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m^2\frac{m^2+\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{x}\frac{\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{1x}\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1x}}}T^a\chi _{\sigma _2}^{}`$ (17)
$`\times \left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{}}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}\kappa ^{}im}{x}}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}im\right]\chi _\sigma (ϵ_{\lambda _2}^{})^{}.`$
Here $`m`$ is the mass of the quark and $`\chi _\sigma `$ is the two component spinor for the quark and $`ϵ_{\lambda _2}^{}`$ is the gluon polarization vector.

We first calculate the matrix element contribution to $`h_1(x)`$ between two helicity states (of helicity $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$) of dressed quarks,

$`h^{}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}P\sigma |\psi _+^{}(0)\gamma _{}\gamma _5\psi _+(y^{})|P\sigma ^{}}.`$ (18)
Since the state is polarized along $`x`$ direction, $`\gamma _{}=\gamma _1`$. In the two component formalism

$`\psi _+(x)=\left[\begin{array}{c}\xi (x)\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ (21)
and the chirality flip operator reduces to

$`\psi _+^{}(0)\gamma _{}\gamma _5\psi _+(y)=\xi ^{}(0)\sigma ^1\xi (y)`$ (22)
with

$`\xi (x)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\chi _\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{dk^+d^2k^{}}{2(2\pi )^3\sqrt{k^+}}[b_\lambda (k)e^{ikx}+d_\lambda ^{}(k)e^{ikx}]}.`$ (23)
At this stage, the mass terms in the vertex Eq.(17) contains $`\sigma ^{}`$ which flips helicity. These terms give zero contribution in $`h_1`$ because of the $`\sigma ^1`$ present in the operator. We now have

$`h^{}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}P\sigma |\xi ^{}(0)\sigma ^1\xi (y)|P\sigma ^{}}`$ (25)
$`=N\left[\delta (1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_f}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4x}{1x}}{\displaystyle d^2\kappa ^{}\frac{1}{(\kappa ^{})^2}}\right](\chi _\sigma ^{}\sigma ^1\chi _\sigma ^{}).`$
The first term comes from the single particle sector and the second term comes from the two-particle (one quark and one gluon) sector. Regulating the lower limit by $`\mu `$ and upper limit by Q in $`\kappa `$ integration we get

$`h^{}(x)=N\left[\delta (1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_f}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right](\chi _\sigma ^{}\sigma ^1\chi _\sigma ^{}).`$ (26)
$`h^{}(x)0`$ only if $`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$.

The normalization of the state

$`P\sigma |P^{}\sigma ^{}=2(2\pi )^3P^+\delta (P^+P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+})\delta ^2(P^{}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$ (27)
gives,

$`N\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}C_f{\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1+x^2}{1x}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right]=1.`$ (28)
Upto order $`\alpha _s`$ we get

$`N=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}C_f{\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1+x^2}{1x}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}.`$ (29)
It is important to mention here that, the mass terms in the vertex in Eq.(17) gives $`m^2`$ terms in the normalization condition, which are power suppressed. We have neglected such contributions. In the denominator, $`m^2`$ is neglected compared to $`(\kappa ^{})^2`$ since $`m^2<<(\kappa ^{})^2`$. Here $`ϵ`$ is a small cutoff on the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ which can be safely taken to be zero at the end of the calculation. Using the definition Eq.(12) for the transversely polarized state in terms of the helicity states, we get the transversity distribution function

$`h_1(x)=\delta (1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}C_fln{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x}}\delta (1x){\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{1+y^2}{1y}}\right]`$ (30)
which can be written as,

$`h_1(x)=\delta (1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_f}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1x)_+}}2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\delta (1x)\right)ln{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}.`$ (31)
The splitting function can be easily obtained from the above expression:

$`P_s_{}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{C_f}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1x)_+}}4+3\delta (1x)\right]`$ (32)
which exactly agrees with Eq.(1). Depending on the plus or minus sign in the definition of $`|PS_{}`$ given by Eq.(12), the result can have an overall minus sign. The anomalous dimension is defined as,

$`\gamma _n={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zz^{n1}P_s_{}(z).`$ (33)
Using the above splitting function, we get,

$`\gamma _n=C_f\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j}}\right)`$ (34)
which again agrees with the expected result found in the literature . However, the above analysis is done is a completely different approach based on light-front Hamiltonian perturbation theory. Instead of Feynman diagrams, here we have old-fashioned $`x^+`$ ordered diagrams. The complexities of the operator product expansion are absent. There is no need to calculate the moments of the structure functions and then invert it. In this formalism, we get the expressions of the structure functions themselves directly in terms of bilocal matrix elements. As we have shown above, the splitting functions can be obtained easily by calculating the matrix element for a dressed parton state. In our calculation, we have not assumed any sum rule for $`h_1(x)`$. The final result for the splitting function is obtained only after taking the normalization of the state into account.

Another very important point is that, the role played by the quark mass in the perturbative analysis of $`h_1(x)`$ can be seen very clearly in this picture, whereas it is obscure in other formalisms. In order to show clearly the effect of quark mass, we compare our calculation with the calculation of $`g_T`$ in this method.

3. Comparison with the Transverse Polarized Structure Function $`g_T`$

It is very interesting to compare and contrast the above calculation with the calculation of $`g_T`$ for a dressed quark in order to understand the effect of quark mass in the two cases. Recently, $`g_T`$ has been calculated in light-front Hamiltonian perturbation theory . $`g_T`$ is given by,

$`g_T(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi (S_{}\frac{P_{}}{P^+}S^+)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\eta e^{i\eta x}PS|(O_m+O_k_{}+O_g)}+h.c.|PS`$ (35)
where

$`O_m`$ $`=m\psi _+^{}(\xi ^{})\gamma _{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i^+}}\gamma _5\psi _+(0),`$ (36)
$`O_k_{}`$ $`=\psi _+^{}(\xi ^{})(\gamma _{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{^{}}}\gamma ^{}^{}+2{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{P^+}})\gamma _5\psi _+(0),`$ (37)
$`O_g`$ $`=g\psi _+^{}(\xi ^{})(\gamma ^{}A^{}(\xi ^{})){\displaystyle \frac{1}{i^+}}\gamma _{}\gamma _5\psi _+(0),`$ (38)
and $`h.c.`$ stands for hermitian conjugate. In the above expression, we have used the equation for the constrained field $`\psi ^{}`$. The operator $`O_m`$ involves $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^5`$ which is similar to $`h_1`$. In the dressed quark calculation, the mass terms in the expression of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ do not contribute in $`O_m`$, exactly like $`h_1`$. However, the other parts of the operator involve $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}\gamma ^5`$ which gets nonzero contribution only from the helicity flip (mass dependent) part of the vertex. So in the case of $`g_T`$, the mass of the quark plays a very important role both in the transversely polarized state and in the matrix element but in $`h_1`$, though the mass terms in the vertex do not contribute in the matrix element, quark mass is still important in perturbative calculations because one cannot get a transversely polarized dressed quark state in the massless theory. We emphasize that this effect can be seen more clearly in our approach, because it is a Hamiltonian perturbation theory approach and the state plays a very important role.

The contribution of the mass dependent part $`O_m`$ to $`g_T`$ for a dressed quark is given by :

$`g_T^m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta (1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}C_fln{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{1x}}\delta (1x){\displaystyle _ϵ^{1ϵ}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{1+y^2}{1y}}\right)\right].`$ (39)
The above expression is similar to $`h_1`$ Eq.(30), the additional $`x`$ in the numerator of the second term in Eq.(30) comes due to the absence of the $`\frac{1}{^+}`$ in the operator. Thus in perturbation theory, we directly see the connection of $`h_1(x)`$ with the mass dependent part of $`g_T`$.

4. Conclusion

We have calculated the splitting function corresponding to the transversity distribution upto $`O(\alpha _s)`$ in a recently developed light-front Hamiltonian QCD approach. The structure function in hard scattering can be directly expressed in terms of the matrix elements of light-front bilocal currents. There is no need to do an inverse Mellin transformation and the splitting functions can be easily extracted. Another advantage over the Altarelli-Parisi method is that here one deals with the probability amplitudes instead of probability densities and real and virtual processes are calculated to the same order without any difficulty. Here we have not assumed any particular behavior of $`h_1(x)`$ at $`x=1`$. The delta function with the correct coefficient in the final expression comes from the normalization constant of the state.

We have taken the quark mass to be nonzero in our calculation and shown that $`h_1(x)`$ can be related to one part of the transverse polarized structure function $`g_T`$. We have emphasized the importance of quark mass in the perturbative analysis of $`h_1(x)`$. To our knowledge, this is done for the first time in the literature. We emphasize that in light-front Hamiltonian perturbation theory, this effect is seen in a more clear way since it is not a Feynman diagram based calculation.

Our result not only verifies the earlier result of Artru et. al.  but does so in a completely different and much more straightforward way. The disagreement with  introduces questions regarding the validity of various assumptions made in their paper.

We acknowledge Prof. A. Harindranath for suggesting this problem and also for many useful discussions.


text:
# Validity of the one-body current for the calculation of form factors in the point form of relativistic quantum mechanics

## 1 Introduction

Calculations of form factors often retain in a first approximation the single-particle current (impulse approximation). In most approaches, this contribution has to be completed by at least two-body currents, especially to fulfil current conservation. This also holds for relativistic approaches where a covariant calculation of the single-particle current does not necessarily imply that physics is properly accounted for. For each relativistic approach, it is therefore important to test the degree of validity by comparing its predictions to a case where an exact calculation can be performed. Neglecting vertex and mass corrections, as usually done on the basis that they are partly incorporated in the physical inputs, such an exact calculation is generally believed to be provided by the Bethe-Salpeter equation with an appropriate interaction kernel.

A particular case of interest is the Wick-Cutkosky model , where the Bethe-Salpeter equation  is solved in the ladder approximation while the interaction kernel results from the exchange of a scalar zero-mass boson between two distinguishable scalar particles. Solutions can be obtained relatively easily due to an extra hidden symmetry. Using the expressions of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes, calculations of form factors can be performed for the lowest bound states that we intent to consider here. Contrary to other approaches, there is no need to add two-body currents. The contribution of the single-particle current is sufficient in the present model to ensure current conservation, which can be checked with the expressions of the matrix elements of the current111This result together with some of the expressions used in the present paper for the Wick-Cutkosky model are part of a work in preparation. A preliminary presentation was made in .. This model was used by Karmanov and Smirnov as a test of the description of form factors in the light-front approach for systems composed of scalar particles with small binding energy . They used the non-relativistic expression, $`\frac{\alpha ^2}{4n^2}`$, for the binding energy, which differs from the exact one, but this does not seem to affect their conclusion. Interestingly enough, the comparison of the exact calculation with the non-relativistic one does not show much difference up to $`Q^2100m^2`$ where $`m`$ is the constituent mass. Beyond, relativistic corrections with a log character slowly begin to show up.

We propose to make a similar test for the point form of relativistic quantum mechanics, which is one of the forms proposed by Dirac, beside the instant and the light-front forms . This form, which is much less known than the other two, has been developed in  and recently used for a calculation of form factors of the deuteron  and the nucleon . In both cases, the form factors decrease faster with $`Q^2`$ than the non-relativistic ones. In the first case, the discrepancy with experiment tends to increase while, in the other one, it almost vanishes. We will not extend in this letter on the questions that are raised by this last observation. We will only present a few results which, by themselves, are quite significant. A more complete analysis will be presented elsewhere .

In the present study, we calculate the ground-state ($`l=0`$) form factor as well as a transition form factor to the first radial excited state. Different couplings are considered, corresponding to states weakly, moderately and strongly bound ($`\alpha =1.0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.0}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi `$ in terms of the QED coupling). The last value implies a total zero mass of the system, which is an extreme (unphysical) case, nevertheless interesting to look at, too. Momentum transfers, $`Q^2`$, up to 10 times the constituent mass squared, $`m^2`$, are considered. These different cases will provide a sample of results which are significant enough to test the validity of the single-current approximation in the point-form approach and give insight on the results presented in refs. .

## 2 Expression of the single-particle matrix element in different approaches

The contribution which we are interested in is shown in Fig. 1. The general expression of the corresponding matrix element between two states with $`l=0`$, possibly different, is given by

$$\sqrt{2E_f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E_i}f|J^\mu |i=F_1(q^2)(P_f^\mu +P_i^\mu )+F_2(q^2)q^\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`q^\mu =P_f^\mu P_i^\mu `$. Current conservation imposes constraints on the form factors $`F_1(q^2)`$ and $`F_2(q^2)`$. For an elastic process, $`F_2(q^2)`$ has to vanish but this result automatically stems from symmetry arguments alone. It does not imply that current conservation holds at the operator level, as it should. For an inelastic process, the following relationship has to be fulfilled:

$$F_1(q^2)(M_f^2M_i^2)+F_2(q^2)q^2=0.$$
(2)
Form factors using the Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes.
For the model under consideration here, the general (and exact) expression of the matrix element of the current, which reduces to a single-particle one in this case, can be written in terms of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes, $`\chi P(p)`$,

$`\sqrt{2E_f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E_i}f|J^\mu |i=`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\chi P_f\left(\frac{1}{2}P_fp\right)\left(P_f^\mu +P_i^\mu 2p^\mu \right)(p^2m^2)\chi P_i\left(\frac{1}{2}P_ip\right)}.`$ (3)
For the Wick-Cutkosky model, the Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes take the form of a relatively simple integral representation, i.e. for the lowest energy state with a given orbital angular momentum $`l`$:

$$\chi P(p)=_1^1𝑑z\frac{g_n(z)Y_l^m(\widehat{p})|\stackrel{}{p}|^l}{(m^2\frac{1}{4}P^2p^2zPpiϵ)^{n+2}},$$
(4)
with $`n=l+1`$. In this expression, $`g_n(z)`$ is the solution of a second order differential equation , that can be solved easily.

Form factors in the non-relativistic limit.
Opposite to the full relativistic calculation, a non-relativistic one can be performed. Using wave functions that are solutions of a Schrödinger equation, general expressions for both elastic and inelastic form factors can be obtained:

$`F_1(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^3}\varphi _f\left(\stackrel{}{p}\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{q}\right)\varphi _i\left(\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{q}\right)},`$
$`F_2(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}}{4m}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^3}\varphi _f\left(\stackrel{}{p}\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{q}\right)\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{m}\varphi _i\left(\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{q}\right)}.`$ (5)
It can be checked that the above form factors verify the current conservation condition, Eq. (2), provided the interaction is local. The second form factor vanishes in the elastic case.

Form factors in the point-form approach.
It has been shown  that a calculation of form factors in the point form approach could be performed relatively easily by using standard wave functions obtained from a mass operator of the form

$$M=M_{free}+M_{int}.$$
(6)
This includes a large class of wave functions, since the sum of the kinetic and potential energies appearing in the standard Schrödinger equation can be identified with the operator $`M^2`$ (up to a factor). This holds for a two-body system and provided the energy $`E`$ is appropriately redefined. Therefore, wave functions entering the non-relativistic expressions of Eq. (5) can be used. How the matrix element of the single-particle current is calculated has been described in ref. . Instead of using an expression where appropriate boosts have to be performed, we here give one whose Lorentz-covariance is explicit:

$`\sqrt{2E_f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E_i}f|J^\mu |i=\sqrt{2M_f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M_i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^4pd^4p_fd^4p_id\eta _fd\eta _i\delta (p^2m^2)\delta (p_f^2m^2)\delta (p_i^2m^2)`$
$`\times \theta (\lambda _fp_f)\theta (\lambda _fp)\theta (\lambda _ip)\theta (\lambda _ip_i)\delta ^4(p_f+p\lambda _f\eta _f)\delta ^4(p_i+p\lambda _i\eta _i)`$
$`\times \varphi _f\left(({\displaystyle \frac{p_fp}{2}})^2\right)\varphi _i\left(({\displaystyle \frac{p_ip}{2}})^2\right)\sqrt{(p_f+p)^2(p_i+p)^2}(p_f^\mu +p_i^\mu ).`$ (7)
In this expression, all quantities are Lorentz-invariant ones (except obviously for the current which behaves as a 4-vector). The auxiliary variables, $`\eta _i`$ and $`\eta _f`$, have been introduced to make the covariance manifest. When these variables are integrated over, they give rise to 3-dimensional $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$-functions

$$\delta \left(\stackrel{}{p}_i+\stackrel{}{p}\frac{\stackrel{}{\lambda }_i}{\lambda _i^0}(p_i^0+p^0)\right)\mathrm{and}\delta \left(\stackrel{}{p}_f+\stackrel{}{p}\frac{\stackrel{}{\lambda }_f}{\lambda _f^0}(p_f^0+p^0)\right),$$

that are essential relations in the point-form approach. The $`\lambda _i^\mu \mathrm{and}\lambda _f^\mu `$ 4-vectors are unit vectors proportional to the 4-momenta of the total system in the initial and final states, $`\lambda _i^\mu =\frac{P_i^\mu }{M_i}\mathrm{and}\lambda _f^\mu =\frac{P_f^\mu }{M_f}`$. They can be expressed in terms of the corresponding velocities222The quantity, $`v`$, here refers to the usual velocity 3-vector, $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, a notation that differs from the one employed in ref.  where it represents a 4-vector which corresponds to our 4-vector $`\lambda ^\mu `$., $`\lambda ^0=(\sqrt{1v^2})^1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }=\stackrel{}{v}(\sqrt{1v^2})^1`$ (c=1). In the c.m., it can be checked that the wave function $`\varphi (\mathrm{})`$ only depends on the relative momentum of the two particles. On the other hand, it can also be verified, by direct integration or after performing a change of variable, that the current of the system under consideration is given by $`(J^0,\stackrel{}{J})=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\stackrel{}{v})`$, in agreement with the standard normalisation of the wave function

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^3}\varphi ^2(\stackrel{}{p})=1.$$

Expressions of the form factors, $`F_1(q^2)`$ and $`F_2(q^2)`$, can be obtained in any frame. With an appropriate change of variables, they can always be expressed in the forms they take in the Breit frame (here defined by $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{v}_f=\stackrel{}{v}_i`$), where they may be simpler. Using auxiliary quantities, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_1(q^2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2(q^2)`$, they read:

$`F_1(q^2)\sqrt{2M_f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M_i}=\stackrel{~}{F}_1(q^2)(M_f+M_i)\stackrel{~}{F}_2(q^2)(M_fM_i),`$
$`F_2(q^2)\sqrt{2M_f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M_i}=\stackrel{~}{F}_1(q^2)(M_fM_i)+\stackrel{~}{F}_2(q^2)(M_f+M_i),`$ (8)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_1(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1+v^2}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^3}\varphi _f(\stackrel{}{p}_{tf})\varphi _i(\stackrel{}{p}_{ti})},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_2(q^2)\stackrel{}{v}={\displaystyle \frac{1+v^2}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^3}\varphi _f(\stackrel{}{p}_{tf})\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{e_p}\varphi _i(\stackrel{}{p}_{ti})}.`$ (9)
In the above equations, the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, defined in the Breit frame, is related to the momentum transfer by the relation $`v^2=\frac{Q^2+(M_fM_i)^2}{Q^2+(M_f+M_i)^2}`$. The (Lorentz-) transformed momenta are defined as: $`(p^x,p^y,p^z)_{tf}=(p^x,p^y,\frac{p^zve_p}{\sqrt{1v^2}})`$ and $`(p^x,p^y,p^z)_{ti}=(p^x,p^y,\frac{p^z+ve_p}{\sqrt{1v^2}})`$, together with $`e_p=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}`$.

Wave functions and analytical results.
For the wave functions of the ground and first excited states, $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{p})`$ and $`\varphi ^{}(\stackrel{}{p})`$, we use solutions obtained with a Coulomb-like potential,

$`\varphi (\stackrel{}{p})=\sqrt{4\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa ^{5/2}}{(\kappa ^2+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})^2}},`$
$`\varphi ^{}(\stackrel{}{p})=\sqrt{4\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{8\kappa ^{5/2}}{(\kappa ^2+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})^3}}(\kappa ^2\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}),`$ (10)
where $`\kappa ^2=m^2\frac{1}{4}M^2`$, the total mass $`M`$ being that one obtained from the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the ground state. It has been shown  that the spectrum of the normal states for the Wick-Cutkosky model, which has the same degeneracy as the Coulomb potential, could be reproduced with a 3-dimensional equation and an effective interaction of the Coulomb-type333The spectrum of normal states of the Wick-Cutkosky model is reproduced within a factor 2 by an equation of the type $`[4(m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})M^2]\varphi (r)=4m\frac{\alpha _{eff}}{r}\varphi (r)`$, even for $`\alpha _{eff}\mathrm{}`$.. Due to the appearance of $`M^2`$ in such an equation, the energy redefinition mentioned previously is not even needed in the present case. The wave functions of Eqs. (10) should therefore be a good zeroth order approximation for our study, including the extreme case $`M^2=0`$. Accordingly, we assume $`\kappa ^2=0.25\kappa ^2=0.25(m\alpha _{eff}/2)^2`$, which differs from the Bethe-Salpeter result, $`\kappa ^2=m^2\frac{1}{4}M^2`$, by a few percent. With these wave functions, the form factors can be calculated analytically. We checked that the main features evidenced by our results were insensitive to this choice by using a different (numerical) wave function , more in the spirit of the point-form approach, i.e. obtained directly from the linear mass operator, Eq. (6).

In the non-relativistic case, the elastic and inelastic form factors are respectively given by:

$`F_1(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{(\kappa ^2+Q^2/16)^2}},F_2(q^2)=0,`$
$`F_1(q^2)=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{64\kappa ^4Q^2}{(9\kappa ^2+Q^2)^3}},F_2(q^2)=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{192\kappa ^6}{(9\kappa ^2+Q^2)^3}}.`$ (11)
Taking into account that $`M_f^2M_i^2=3\kappa ^2`$, one can verify that the condition of current conservation, Eq. (2), is fulfilled.

In the point-form approach, the elastic form factor, written in a way that resembles the non-relativistic one, reads:

$$F_1(q^2=Q^2)=\frac{\kappa ^4\left(1+2\frac{Q^2}{4M^2}\right)}{\left(\kappa ^2+\frac{Q^2}{16\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{4M^2}\right)}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{4M^2}\right)^4},F_2(q^2=Q^2)=0.$$
(12)
Interestingly, the factor $`1/(1+\frac{Q^2}{4M^2})`$ which multiplies the quantity $`\frac{Q^2}{16}`$ in the denominator of $`F_1(q^2)`$ is the same as the one sometimes introduced by hand in order to account for the Lorentz-contraction effect (see discussion in ref. ). Contradicting asymptotic results (in QCD for instance), the range of validity of this recipe is limited to small $`Q^2`$. Curiously, part of the extra factors also look like a Lorentz-contraction effect.

As for the inelastic form factors for a transition from the ground- to the first radially excited state, they are most easily expressed in terms of the quantities, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_1(q^2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2(q^2)`$, which can also be calculated analytically:

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_1(q^2)=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{64\kappa ^4v^2(16m^24\kappa ^2(1v^2))}{(9\kappa ^2+v^2(16m^210\kappa ^2)+v^4\kappa ^2)^3}}(1+v^2)(1v^2)^3,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_2(q^2)=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{64(3+v^2)\kappa ^6}{(9\kappa ^2+v^2(16m^210\kappa ^2)+v^4\kappa ^2)^3}}(1+v^2)(1v^2)^4,`$ (13)
where $`v^2`$ is defined after Eq. (9). These expressions generalise those for the non-relativistic case, Eq. (11) (it is reminded that in this limit $`Q^2=16v^2m^2`$). In contrast however, they do not allow us to fulfil current conservation, Eq. (2).

## 3 Results

In Table 1, results are presented for elastic form factors corresponding to small ($`\alpha =1`$), moderate ($`\alpha =3`$) and strong binding ($`\alpha =2\pi `$). In the last case, the elastic form factors in the point form vanish at finite $`Q^2`$ and results are actually those obtained when approaching the limit $`\alpha 2\pi `$, with $`E=1.90m`$ and $`E=1.95m`$. For these energy values, the non-relativistic results, to which the previous ones may be compared, are essentially the same as for $`E=2.0m`$, given in the table.

One immediately notices that the non-relativistic results are very close to the exact ones for all cases, including the extreme case where the total mass of the system is zero. This agreement extends up to $`Q^2=100m^2`$ with an error of 20% for $`\alpha =1`$ and 50% for $`\alpha =2\pi `$. The discrepancy at small momentum transfers is typically of the order of $`\frac{Q^2}{16m^2}`$. Most probably, it can be traced back to the wave function used in the non-relativistic calculation or to the electromagnetic single-particle current. These ingredients do not fully account for corrections due to factors $`\frac{m}{e}`$ (in the potential for instance) or for the field-theory character of the Wick-Cutkosky model. A major lesson of these results is that relativistic effects are not necessarily important and that most probably, for any non-relativistic calculation of form factors, there exists a covariant calculation (the exact one in the present case) which gives very close results over a large range of momentum transfers. However, this does not mean that this calculation involves all relativistic effects and is physically relevant, especially with respect to current conservation. An example is provided by the deuteron electro-disintegration near threshold in the light-front approach. Two covariant calculations of the transition form factors have been shown to be very close to the non-relativistic ones up to $`Q^2=10`$ (GeV/c)2 , completely missing the contribution due to the pair term whose relativistic character is well known. In the non-relativistic approach, this contribution, which is required to fulfil current conservation, is essential to account for experiment in the low momentum transfer range. How this contribution appears in the covariant light-front formalism was shown later on .

The comparison with the point-form results evidences a discrepancy that increases with the momentum transfer as well as with the coupling strength. It becomes especially large when approaching the extreme case where $`M=0`$. Two features are worthwhile to be mentioned, that stem from examining the analytic expressions of the form factors, Eq. (12). First, there is a contribution to the squared-charge radius which varies like $`\frac{1}{M^2}`$, as it was found numerically in ref. . Second, the form factor drops more quickly with $`Q^2`$ than in the exact or in the non-relativistic calculations, roughly like $`\frac{1}{Q^6}`$ instead of $`\frac{1}{Q^4}`$. This can be seen in Table 1 for $`E=1.90m`$ and $`E=1.95m`$ and is in agreement with what the examination of the Born amplitude reveals. The effect becomes especially sizeable when approaching $`Q^2=4M^2`$ and beyond.

Results for an inelastic transition are given in Table 2. The results obtained in the non-relativistic approach compare well with the exact ones over the full range of $`Q^2`$. The slight discrepancies are quite similar to those observed for the elastic form factors. While the point-form results compare well with the other ones in the intermediate range, $`0.1<Q^2/m^2<3`$, they fail at low and at large $`Q^2`$. In the former case, $`F_1(q^2)`$ does not go to zero when $`Q^20`$, violating the current conservation, Eq. (2). In the latter case, $`F_2(q^2)`$ evidences a change in sign around $`Q^210m^2`$, also preventing one from fulfilling this relation. This can be traced back to the different behaviour of the intermediate form factors $`\stackrel{~}{F}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_2`$, which keep the same sign but scale like $`Q^6`$ and $`Q^8`$ at high $`Q^2`$, respectively. These results for an inelastic transition complement those for the elastic case. Again, a large discrepancy with exact results appears, but the bad behaviour of form factors at low as well as large momentum transfers is more clearly correlated with a violation of current conservation.

## 4 Discussion and conclusion

The present study was motivated by the necessity to check the reliability of retaining the single-particle current for the calculation of form factors in the point form of quantum relativistic mechanics, which was recently employed in different works . With this aim, we considered a simple model where the exact result is known. It was found that the non-relativistic approach does particularly well up to momentum transfers of 3-4 times the constituent mass, including the case of a strong binding. While the point-form approach does correctly for small bindings and small couplings, large discrepancies with the exact results appear as soon as the momentum transfer or the coupling increases. Detailed examination evidences three features.
\- The form factors decrease more rapidly than they should. This points to an extra $`\frac{1}{Q^2}`$ dependence that is absent in the exact calculation.
\- For strong couplings, corresponding to a sizeable presence of high momentum components in the wave function, the charge radius turns out to be much larger than the exact one.
\- Finally, as emphasised by the results for an inelastic transition, current conservation is strongly violated.

Although it is not quite certain, there is good reason to believe that the non-relativistic calculation does relatively well because it fulfils current conservation. With this respect, the failure of the point-form approach is likely to reside in the incomplete character of the current operator. Current conservation may be enforced by the replacement

$$J^\mu J^\mu q^\mu J_\nu q^\nu /q^2.$$

Apart from the unsatisfactory character of this recipe, due to the presence of a pole at $`q^2=0`$ , it does not solve the problem of the too fast drop-off of the elastic charge form factor at high $`Q^2`$. Most probably, two-body currents have to be considered. This is consistent with the known fact that, in the point form approach, the interaction appears in all the components of the 4-momentum operator . Whether a minimal set of two-body currents will be sufficient to provide results in better agreement with the exact ones is not clear however. These currents should also correct for the failure of the point-form results to reproduce the Born amplitude expected from the underlying field-theory model.

The above results cannot be applied directly to the calculation of the deuteron or nucleon form factors . However, the qualitative similarity in the results strongly suggests that the kinematical boost, which provided a nice description of the nucleon form factors, represents an incomplete account of relativistic effects. More likely, the agreement is the consequence of neglecting significant contributions to the current. This conclusion is to be preferred with two respects.
\- It leaves some room for the well known contribution of the coupling of the nucleon to the photon through vector-meson exchange (vector-meson dominance mechanism), which roughly provides half of the proton’s squared charge radius.
\- On the other hand, it leaves room for another relativistic effect related to the nature of the coupling of the constituents to the exchanged boson. This effect increases the form factor at high $`Q^2`$ rather than the opposite as in ref. . It is known to explain the different asymptotic form factors in a non-relativistic and a relativistic calculation in QCD, which scale like $`\frac{1}{Q^8}`$ and $`\frac{1}{Q^4}`$, respectively (see for instance refs. ).

Altogether, two-body currents should produce quite sizeable contributions. Their role seems to be more essential in the point form than in other approaches.

Acknowledgements We are very indebted to W. Klink for information about his work, which largely motivated the present one. Helpful discussions with him are greatly appreciated.


text:
# 1 An intrisic parity 𝒫 of various fields (see eqs. (-).

## Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank Zurab Berezhiani and Ilia Gogoladze for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 163394.

### Note added

After this work was completed the paper  appeared in the hep-archive where the proton decay problem is discussed within the $`SU(5)`$ model in five dimensions compactified on $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{^{}})`$ orbifold.