text:
# Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations of 𝜌-meson wave functions

## I Introduction

In a recent paper , I have introduced the (two-particle) $`\rho `$-meson wave functions which are related to nonlocal LC-operators of different geometric twist . This twist decomposition of nonlocal operators is based on the notion of geometric twist = mass dimension – (Lorentz) spin, $`\tau =dj`$, originally introduced by Gross and Treiman . I found eight meson wave functions of geometric twist.

On the other hand, Ball et al. used the notion of dynamical twist $`t`$, which was introduced by Jaffe and Ji  by counting powers $`Q^{2t}`$, for the classification of (two-particle) vector meson wave functions and vector meson distribution amplitudes, respectively . They classified the meson wave functions which correspond to the independent tensor structure of the matrix elements of bilocal quark-antiquark operators. One key ingredient in their approach was the use of QCD equations of motion in order to obtain dynamical Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations for wave functions that are not dynamically independent. The pion wave functions were investigated in similar way . A systematic study of Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations for the forward case is given in Ref. .

In the framework of geometric twist, it is possible to investigate the interrelations and the mismatch between the different twist definitions of meson wave functions as a kind of group theoretical relations. By means of this relations, we are able to obtain geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations between the the dynamical twist function which differ from the dynamical Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations.

## II The dynamical twist $`\rho `$-meson wave functions

Usually, the meson light-cone distributions are defined as the vacuum-to-meson matrix elements of quark-antiquark nonlocal gauge invariant operators on the light-cone. In this way, Ball et al.  found eight independent two-particle distributions. The classification of these dynamical twist $`\rho `$-meson wave functions with respect to spin, dynamical twist, chirality and the relations to geometrical twist (see section III) are summarized in Tab. I.

One distribution amplitude was obtained for longitudinally ($`e_{}`$) and transversely ($`e_{}`$) polarized $`\rho `$-mesons of twist-2 and twist-4, respectively. Whereas, the number of twist-3 distribution amplitudes is doubled for each polarization. The higher twist distribution amplitudes contribute to a hard exclusive amplitude with additional powers of $`1/Q`$ compared to the leading twist-2 ones. The underlined distribution amplitudes are chiral-odd, the others chiral-even.

By using the Lorentz decomposition of the matrix elements of relevant operators in analogy to nucleon structure functions, the explicit definitions of the chiral-even $`\rho `$-distributions are***Here I am using the symmetric wave function $`\widehat{\varphi }(\xi )`$ (see also ) instead of $`\varphi (u)`$ because the corresponding integral relations will be easier.:

$`0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\alpha U(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x})d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )`$ $`=f_\rho m_\rho [p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}}{\stackrel{~}{x}P}}{\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\xi (\stackrel{~}{x}P)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi ,\mu ^2)+e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}{\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\xi (\stackrel{~}{x}P)}\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi ,\mu ^2)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}}{(\stackrel{~}{x}P)^2}}m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\xi (\stackrel{~}{x}P)}\widehat{g}_3(\xi ,\mu ^2)]`$ (2)
and

$`0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5U(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x})d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(f_\rho f_\rho ^\mathrm{T}{\displaystyle \frac{m_u+m_d}{m_\rho }}\right)m_\rho ϵ_\alpha ^{\beta \mu \nu }e_\beta ^{(\lambda )}p_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\nu {\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\xi (\stackrel{~}{x}P)}\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi ,\mu ^2),`$ (3)
while the chiral-odd distributions are defined as

$`0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\sigma _{\alpha \beta }U(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x})d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{i}f_\rho ^\mathrm{T}[(e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}p_\beta e_\beta ^{(\lambda )}p_\alpha ){\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\xi (\stackrel{~}{x}P)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi ,\mu ^2)`$ (4)
$`+(p_\alpha \stackrel{~}{x}_\beta p_\beta \stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}}{(\stackrel{~}{x}P)^2}}m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\xi (\stackrel{~}{x}P)}\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi ,\mu ^2)`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}_\beta e_\beta ^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2}{\stackrel{~}{x}P}}{\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\xi (\stackrel{~}{x}P)}\widehat{h}_3(\xi ,\mu ^2)]`$ (6)
and

$$0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})U(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x})d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )=\mathrm{i}\left(f_\rho ^\mathrm{T}f_\rho \frac{m_u+m_d}{m_\rho }\right)(e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x})m_\rho ^2_1^1d\xi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\xi (\stackrel{~}{x}P)}\widehat{h}_{}^{(s)}(\xi ,\mu ^2).$$
(7)
In the above definitions we used the two light-cone vectors

$`\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha =x_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{P_\alpha }{m_\rho ^2}}\left((xP)\sqrt{(xP)^2x^2m_\rho ^2}\right),p_\alpha =P_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2}{\stackrel{~}{x}P}},`$ (8)
with $`p^2=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{x}^2=0`$ and $`p\stackrel{~}{x}=P\stackrel{~}{x}`$. Here $`P_\alpha `$ is the $`\rho `$-meson momentum vector, so that $`P^2=m_\rho ^2`$, $`e^{(\lambda )}e^{(\lambda )}=1`$, $`Pe^{(\lambda )}=0`$, $`m_\rho `$ denotes the $`\rho `$-meson mass. The polarization vector $`e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}`$ can be decomposed into projections onto the two light-like vectors and the orthogonal plane:

$`e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}=p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}}{\stackrel{~}{x}P}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}}{(\stackrel{~}{x}P)^2}}m_\rho ^2+e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}.`$ (9)
The distribution amplitudes are dimensionless functions of $`\xi `$ and describe the probability amplitudes to find the $`\rho `$ in a state with minimal number of constituents (quark and antiquark) which carry momentum fractions $`\xi `$. The nonlocal operators are renormalized at scale $`\mu `$, so that the distribution amplitudes depend on $`\mu `$ as well. This dependence can be calculated in perturbative QCD (from now on we suppress $`\mu ^2`$).

The vector and tensor decay constants $`f_\rho `$ and $`f_\rho ^\mathrm{T}`$ are defined as usually as

$`0|\overline{u}(0)\gamma _\alpha d(0)|\rho (P,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`f_\rho m_\rho e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )},`$ (10)
$`0|\overline{u}(0)\sigma _{\alpha \beta }d(0)|\rho (P,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}f_\rho ^\mathrm{T}(e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}P_\beta e_\beta ^{(\lambda )}P_\alpha ).`$ (11)
All eight distributions $`\widehat{\varphi }=\{\widehat{\varphi }_{},\widehat{\varphi }_{},\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)},\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)},\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)},\widehat{h}_{}^{(s)},\widehat{h}_3,\widehat{g}_3\}`$ are normalized as

$$_1^1d\xi \widehat{\varphi }(\xi )=1.$$
(12)
The wave function moments are given as

$`\varphi _n={\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi ^n\widehat{\varphi }(\xi ){\displaystyle _0^1}du\xi ^n\varphi (u),\xi =2u1`$ (13)
with both types of meson wave functions

$`\widehat{\varphi }(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi +1}{2}}\right),\varphi (u)=2\widehat{\varphi }(2u1).`$ (14)
Eq. (13) means, having information about the wave function moments, one can reconstruct the wave function itself.

## III The geometric twist $`\rho `$-meson wave functions and relations to dynamical twist meson wave functions

Reproducing results of , we define the $`\rho `$-meson wave functions of geometric twist. By means of operators of geometric twist , the chiral-even $`\rho `$-distributions with definite (geometric) twist are:

$`0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\alpha U(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x})d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )=f_\rho m_\rho [p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}}{\stackrel{~}{x}P}}{\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(\xi )e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )`$ (15)
$`+e_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(\xi )e_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}(\xi )[e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )e_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )]\right\}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}}{(\stackrel{~}{x}P)^2}}m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)}(\xi )[e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )3e_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )+2{\displaystyle _0^1}\mathrm{d}te_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi t)]\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(\xi )[e_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )2{\displaystyle _0^1}\mathrm{d}te_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi t)]`$ (17)
$`+4\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}[e_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi ){\displaystyle _0^1}\mathrm{d}te_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi t)]\}]`$ (18)
and

$`0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5U(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x})d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(f_\rho f_\rho ^\mathrm{T}{\displaystyle \frac{m_u+m_d}{m_\rho }}\right)m_\rho ϵ_\alpha ^{\beta \mu \nu }e_\beta ^{(\lambda )}p_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\nu {\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{(3)}(\xi )e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi ),`$ (19)
while the chiral-odd distributions are defined as

$`0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\sigma _{\alpha \beta }U(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x})d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )=\mathrm{i}f_\rho ^\mathrm{T}[2e_{[\alpha }^{(\lambda )}p_{\beta ]}{\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}(\xi )e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )`$ (20)
$`+2\stackrel{~}{x}_{[\alpha }p_{\beta ]}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}}{(\stackrel{~}{x}P)^2}}m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \left\{2\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}(\xi )e_2(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(3)}(\xi )\left[e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )+2e_2(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )\right]\right\}`$ (21)
$`\stackrel{~}{x}_{[\alpha }e_{\beta ]}^{(\lambda )}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2}{\stackrel{~}{x}P}}{\displaystyle _1^1}\mathrm{d}\xi \{2\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}(\xi )[e_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )+e_2(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )]\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(3)}(\xi )[1+2e_2(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )]+\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(4)}(\xi )[1+e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )2e_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )]\}]`$ (22)
and

$`0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})U(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x})d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\left(f_\rho ^\mathrm{T}f_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{m_u+m_d}{m_\rho }}\right)\left(e^{(\lambda )}\stackrel{~}{x}\right)m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}^{(3)}(\xi )e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi ).`$ (23)
Here we used the following “truncated exponentials” (with $`\zeta =(\stackrel{~}{x}P)`$)

$`e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi },e_1(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )={\displaystyle _0^1}\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi t}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi }1}{\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi }},\mathrm{},e_{n+1}(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi )={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\mathrm{d}tt^n\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi t}.`$ (24)
Comparing these expressions (15)–(23) with the meson wave functions of dynamical twist (2) – (7), we observe that it is necessary to re-express the truncated exponentials and perform appropriate variable transformations. After such manipulations we obtain the following relations, which allow to reveal the interrelations between the different twist definitions of meson wave functions:

$`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(\xi ),`$ (25)
$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}(\xi )+{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}\right)\left(\tau \right),`$ (26)
$`\widehat{g}_3(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)}(\xi ){\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\left\{\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}4\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}+3\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)}\right)\left(\tau \right)+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right)\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}2\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)}\right)\left(\tau \right)\right\},`$ (27)
$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{(3)}(\xi ),`$ (28)
$`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}(\xi ),`$ (29)
$`\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(3)}(\xi )+2\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(3)}\right)\left(\tau \right),`$ (30)
$`\widehat{h}_3(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(4)}(\xi )+{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\left\{2\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(4)}\right)\left(\tau \right)2{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(3)}\right)\left(\tau \right)\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right)\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(3)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(4)}\right)\left(\tau \right)\right\},`$ (31)
$`\widehat{h}_{}^{(s)}(\xi )`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}^{(3)}(\xi ).`$ (32)
Obviously, both decompositions coincide in the leading terms, e.g., the meson wave functions $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$ are genuine geometric twist-2 and $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{h}_{}^{(s)}(\xi )`$ are genuine geometric twist-3 functions. But the different twist definitions of meson wave functions differ at higher twist. For instance, the meson wave functions $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )`$ with dynamical twist $`t=3`$ contain contributions with geometrical twist $`\tau =2`$ and $`3`$. Additionally, dynamical twist $`t=4`$ meson wave functions $`\widehat{g}_3(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{h}_3(\xi )`$ contain contributions with geometrical twist $`\tau =2`$, $`3`$ as well as $`4`$.

The conventional wave functions can be written in terms of the new $`\rho `$-meson wave functions. The nontrivial relations are:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}d\tau \left(\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)\left(\tau \right),`$ (33)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{g}_3(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi ^2}}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}d\tau \tau \left(3\widehat{g}_34\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}+\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)\left(\tau \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi ^2}}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}d\tau \tau \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right)\left(\widehat{g}_34\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}+3\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)\left(\tau \right),`$ (34)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(3)}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\xi }}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}d\tau \left(\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)\left(\tau \right),`$ (35)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(4)}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{h}_3(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\xi ^2}}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}d\tau \tau \left(\widehat{h}_3\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}\right)\left(\tau \right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\xi ^2}}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}d\tau \tau \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right)\left(\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)\left(\tau \right).`$ (36)
The relation between the moments may be read off from Eqs. (15) – (23) as follows:

$`\varphi _n`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(2)},`$ (37)
$`g_n^{(v)}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(3)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(2)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(3)}\right),`$ (38)
$`g_{3n}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(2)}4\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(3)}+3\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(4)}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n+1)^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(2)}2\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(3)}+\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(4)}\right),`$ (39)
$`g_n^{(a)}`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }_n^{(3)},`$ (40)
$`\varphi _n`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(2)},`$ (41)
$`h_n^{(t)}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(3)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(3)}\right),`$ (42)
$`h_{3n}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+1}}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(4)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(3)}\right)\delta _{n0}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(3)}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(4)}\right),`$ (43)
$`h_n^{(s)}`$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_n^{(3)}.`$ (44)
In terms of the moments the relations between old and new wave functions may be easily inverted; for the wave functions itself the expression of the new wave functions through the old ones is more involved. The inverse relations are:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(3)}`$ $`=g_n^{(v)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(g_n^{(v)}\varphi _n\right),n>0`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(4)}`$ $`=g_{3n}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n1}}\left(3g_{3n}4g_n^{(v)}+\varphi _n\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(n1)}}\left(g_{3n}4g_n^{(v)}+3\varphi _n\right),n>1`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(3)}`$ $`=h_n^{(t)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\left(h_n^{(t)}\varphi _n\right),n>0`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(4)}`$ $`=h_{3n}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n1}}\left(h_{3n}h_n^{(t)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{n(n1)}}\left(h_n^{(t)}\varphi _n\right),n>1.`$ (48)
The relations between the dynamical and geometrical twist meson wave functions show that the dynamical wave functions can be used to determine the new geometrical ones and vice versa. Obviously, the same holds for their moments. In principle, this allows to determine, e.g., the new wave functions from the experimental data if these are known for the conventional ones. Thus, all of the physical and experimental correlations obtained by Ball et al. , e.g., the asymptotic wave functions, can be used for the geometrical twist wave functions.

## IV Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations

This section is devoted to the general discussion of geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations between the conventional wave functions which we have obtained by means of the wave functions with a definite geometric twist. These geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations are independent from the QCD field equations and the corresponding operator relations. The mismatch between the definition of dynamical and geometric twist gives rise to relations of geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type which show that the dynamical twist functions contain various parts of different geometric twist. Consequently, a genuine geometric twist wave function do not give rise to any geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relation. Thereby, we obtain new (geometric) Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations and sum rules for the meson wave functions of dynamical twist.

We use the notations $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )=\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )+\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )`$, where $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )`$ is the genuine twist-2 and $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )`$ the genuine twist-3 part of $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )`$. Substituting (25) into (26), we get

$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )`$ $`={\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau ),`$ (49)
$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi ){\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau ),`$ (50)
where (49) is really the analogue of the Wandzura-Wilczek relation for the twist-2 part  because they argued that the geometric twist-3 contribution should be small. On the other hand, Eq. (50) is the Wandzura-Wilczek-type relation of geometric twist-3 and gives the information how much is the physical contribution of the geometric twist-3 operator in this non-forward process. These relations show that the transverse distribution $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )`$ is related to the longitudinal distribution $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$. Obviously, this analogy between the Wandzura-Wilczek relations of parton distribution functions and of meson wave functions is not surprising because the operator structures are the same and the $`\rho `$-meson polarization vector formally substitutes the nucleon spin vector in the Lorentz structures. The generalization of the geometric Wandzura-Wilczek relation (49) for non-forward distribution amplitudes was discussed in Ref. . Let me note that the Wandzura-Wilczek relations are obtained in Refs.  for $`g_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw2}}(u)`$ are significantly different (see also ). The reason is that they used equations of motion operator relations in order to isolate the dynamical twist-3 part. Therefore, their Wandzura-Wilczek relations are dynamical relations (dynamical Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations). The corresponding geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations for the moments are:

$`g_n^{(v),\mathrm{tw2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\varphi _n,`$ (51)
$`g_n^{(v),\mathrm{tw3}}`$ $`=g_n^{(v)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\varphi _n,n>0.`$ (52)
Note that Eq. (51) was earlier obtained in Ref.  The reason for this agreement between the twist-2 part of the dynamical and geometric Wandzura-Wilczek relation is that the dynamical and geometric twist-2 meson wave function coincides. Obviously, from the relation (51) for $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$ the following sum rules follow:

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )={\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )=1,{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi ).`$ (53)
Using the formulas (25), (26), (27) and (33), we obtain the integral relations for the function $`\widehat{g}_3(\xi )=\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )+\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )+\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw4}}(\xi )`$ as

$`\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\left\{\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau )+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right)\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau )\right\},`$ (54)
$`\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\tau )+4{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{sign}(\tau )}}d\omega \left(\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\omega )`$ (55)
$`+4{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right)\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\tau )+4{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right){\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{sign}(\tau )}}d\omega \left(\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\omega ),`$ (56)
$`\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw4}}(\xi )=`$ $`\widehat{g}_3(\xi ){\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\left(4\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\tau )4{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{sign}(v)}}d\omega \left(\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\omega )`$ (57)
$`2{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right)\left(2\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\tau )4{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\tau }}\right){\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{sign}(\tau )}}d\omega \left(\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\omega ).`$ (58)
Due to the fact that $`\widehat{g}_3(\xi )`$ contains twist-2, twist-3 as well as twist-4, we have obtained three integral relations. For example, Eq. (54) demonstrates that the twist-2 part $`\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )`$ can be expressed in terms of the twist-2 function $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$. Additionally, the twist-3 part $`\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )`$ is given in Eq. (55) in terms of the functions $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )`$. Eq. (57) expresses how can be obtained the twist-4 part $`\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw4}}(\xi )`$ from $`\widehat{g}_3(\xi )`$. For the wave function moments we obtain:

$`g_{3n}^{\mathrm{tw2}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\varphi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n+1)^2}}\varphi _n,`$ (59)
$`g_{3n}^{\mathrm{tw3}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n+1}}g_n^{(v)}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n+1)n}}\left(g_n^{(v)}\varphi _n\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n+1)^2}}g_n^{(v)}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n+1)^2n}}\left(g_n^{(v)}\varphi _n\right),n>0`$ (60)
$`g_{3n}^{\mathrm{tw4}}=`$ $`g_{3n}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\left(4g_n^{(v)}\varphi _n\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n+1)n}}\left(g_n^{(v)}\varphi _n\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n+1)^2}}\left(2g_n^{(v)}\varphi _n\right)`$ (61)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n+1)^2n}}\left(g_n^{(v)}\varphi _n\right),n>1.`$ (62)
For $`n=0,1`$ in (59) we find the sum rules

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{g}_3(\xi )={\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )=1,{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )=0,`$ (63)
as well as for $`n=1`$ in (60)

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )={\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \left(2\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\xi ).`$ (64)
Let us now discuss the geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations for the chiral-odd meson wave functions. If we substitute (29) into (30) and using $`\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )=\widehat{h}_{}^{(t),\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )+\widehat{h}_{}^{(t),\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )`$ we derive

$`\widehat{h}_{}^{(t),\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )`$ $`=2\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau ),`$ (65)
$`\widehat{h}_{}^{(t),\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )2\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau ),`$ (66)
where (65) is the analogues of the twist-2 Wandzura-Wilczek-type relation of the nucleon structure function $`h_L(z)`$ which was obtained by Jaffe and Ji . These Wandzura Wilczek-type relations point out that the longitudinal distribution $`\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )`$ is related to the transverse distribution $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$. Dynamical Wandzura-Wilczek relations were obtained in Ref. . Obviously, (66) is the corresponding twist-3 relation. The relations for the moments read:

$`h_n^{(t),\mathrm{tw2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}\varphi _n,`$ (67)
$`h_n^{(t),\mathrm{tw3}}`$ $`=h_n^{(t)}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}\varphi _n,n>0.`$ (68)
For $`n=0,1`$ in (67) we observe the following sum rules

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )={\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )=1,{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{h}_{}^{(t),\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi ).`$ (69)
Now, using the formulas (29), (30), (31) and (35), we obtain the integral relations for the function with $`\widehat{h}_3(\xi )=\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )+\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )+\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw4}}(\xi )`$ as

$`\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )`$ $`=2{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau )2\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau ),`$ (70)
$`\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )`$ $`=2\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\tau )+4\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^3}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{sign}(\tau )}}d\omega \left(\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\omega ),`$ (71)
$`\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw4}}(\xi )`$ $`=\widehat{h}_3(\xi )2{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau }}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\tau )2\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\left(\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\tau )4\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^3}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{sign}(\tau )}}d\omega \left(\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}\widehat{\varphi }_{}\right)(\omega )`$ (72)
and for the moments

$`h_{3n}^{\mathrm{tw2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+1}}\varphi _n{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}\varphi _n,`$ (73)
$`h_{3n}^{\mathrm{tw3}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}h_n^{(t)}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n+2)n}}\left(h_n^{(t)}\varphi _n\right),n>0`$ (74)
$`h_{3n}^{\mathrm{tw4}}`$ $`=h_{3n}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+1}}\varphi _n{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}\left(h_n^{(t)}\varphi _n\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n+2)n}}\left(h_n^{(t)}\varphi _n\right),n>1.`$ (75)
Thus, Eq. (70) means that the twist-2 part $`\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )`$ can be expressed in terms of the twist-2 function $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$. Additionally, the twist-3 part $`\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )`$ is given in Eq. (71) in terms of the functions $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )`$. Eq. (72) gives the subtraction rule in order to obtain the twist-4 part $`\widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw4}}(\xi )`$ from the original function $`\widehat{h}_3(\xi )`$. Obviously, the same is genuine for the corresponding wave function moments.

For $`n=0,1`$ in (73) we observe the following sum rules

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{h}_3(\xi )={\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )=1,{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi ),`$ (76)
and for $`n=1`$ in (74)

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \widehat{h}_3^{\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \xi \left(6\widehat{h}_{}^{(t)}(\xi )4\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )\right).`$ (77)
Because the functions $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{h}_{}^{(s)}(\xi )`$ are pure geometric as well as dynamical twist-3 functions, there is no mismatch between the dynamical and geometric twist and no geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relation occurs. However, dynamical Wandzura-Wilczek relations for $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{h}_{}^{(s)}(\xi )`$ were obtained by Ball et al.  by using the QCD equations of motion. Here I am discussing the relation for $`g_n^{(a)}`$. Neglecting quark masses and three-particle quark-antiquark-gluon operators of twist-3 one recovers the operator relation (see )

$`\left[\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5d(\stackrel{~}{x})\right]^{\mathrm{tw3}}=\mathrm{i}ϵ_\alpha ^{\beta \mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{x}_\beta {\displaystyle _0^1}duu\widehat{}_\mu \left[\overline{u}(u\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\nu d(u\stackrel{~}{x})\right]+\mathrm{}`$ (78)
where $`\widehat{}_\mu `$ is the so-called total derivative which translates the expansion point $`y`$:

$`\widehat{}_\mu \left[\overline{u}(u\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\nu d(u\stackrel{~}{x})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{}{y^\mu }}\left[\overline{u}(y+u\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\nu d(yu\stackrel{~}{x})\right]|_{y0}.`$ (79)
The total derivative on the r.h.s. of Eq. (78) is calculated as

$`\widehat{}_\mu \left[\overline{u}(u\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\nu d(u\stackrel{~}{x})\right]=\overline{u}(u\stackrel{~}{x})\left(\stackrel{}{D}_\mu +\stackrel{}{D}_\mu \right)\gamma _\nu d(u\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle _u^u}dv\overline{u}(u\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{x}^\rho F_{\rho \mu }(v\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\nu d(u\stackrel{~}{x}),`$ (80)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluon field strength. Obviously, the second operator on the r.h.s. of Eq. (80) is a Shuryak-Vainshtein type operator having minimal twist-3. The other operator on the r.h.s. of Eq. (80) has, in general, twist-2, 3 and 4. But, after multiplying by the Levi-Civita tensor $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ only the twist-3 part survives and gives contributions which are not small. Therefore, the operator identity (78) is a genuine twist-3 relation. The twist-3 matrix element of the first operator on the r.h.s. of Eq. (80) is given by

$`\mathrm{i}ϵ_\alpha ^{\beta \mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{x}_\beta `$ $`0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\left(\stackrel{}{D}_\mu +\stackrel{}{D}_\mu \right)\gamma _\nu d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )=f_\rho m_\rho ϵ_\alpha ^{\beta \mu \nu }e_\beta ^{(\lambda )}p_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\nu {\displaystyle _1^1}d\xi \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(3)}(\xi )e_0(\mathrm{i}\zeta \xi ),`$ (81)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(3)}(\xi )`$ is the corresponding meson wave function of twist-3.

Taking the matrix element of the operators on both sides of Eq. (78), using Eqs. (19), (28), and (81), and neglecting quark masses and trilocal operators, one obtains a geometric relation between the meson wave functions $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(3)}(\xi )`$ imposed by the QCD equations of motion as

$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )=2\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\text{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(3)}(\tau ),`$ (82)
and for the meson wave function moments

$`g_n^{(a)}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{(3)},`$ (83)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{(3)}`$ are the geometric twist-3 wave function moments. This relation (83) reproduces the fact that the moments $`g_n^{(a)}`$ have genuine geometric twist-3 (see Eq. (40)) and no geometric twist-2 contributions from the total derivative come into the game.

But this is not what Ball et al.  did. They have calculated the r.h.s. of Eq. (78) by means of

$`\widehat{}_\mu 0|\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\nu d(\stackrel{~}{x})|\rho (P,\lambda )`$ (84)
and Eq. (2). Eventually, they obtained the dynamical Wandzura-Wilczek-type relation

$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )=2\xi {\displaystyle _\xi ^{\text{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau }{\tau ^2}}\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\tau ),`$ (85)
and for the moments

$`g_n^{(a)}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+2}}g_n^{(v)}.`$ (86)
Obviously, Eqs. (85) and (86) are relations between equal dynamical twist. But, the l.h.s. of these relations has geometric twist-3 and the r.h.s. has geometric twist-2 and twist-3. Therefore, a dynamical Wandzura-Wilczek relation is a relation for equal dynamical twist in contrast to geometric Wandzura-Wilczek relations which are relations for equal geometric twist. Note that the Wandzura-Wilczek-like relations used in Refs. are dynamical ones.

Similar arguments are valid for all QCD equations of motion operator relations used in Ref. . Thus, from the group theoretical point of view, it is a bit misleading to claim that an additional geometric twist-2 contribution is produced by geometric twist-3 operators with a total derivative and that the QCD equations of motion give a relation between distribution functions of different geometric twist in exclusive processes and off-forward scattering. From this point of view, the geometric twist is a proper concept for classifying non-forward inclusive or general exclusive matrix-elements.

## V Conclusions

Extending an earlier study , we discussed the model-independent classification of meson wave functions with respect to geometric twist. We gave the relations between the geometric twist and Ball and Braun’s dynamical twist wave functions. These relations demonstrate the interrelations between the different twist definitions. Consequently, these relations are “transformation rules” between the dynamical and geometric twist wave functions.

The main results of this letter are geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations between the dynamical twist distributions which we have obtained by means of our “transformation rules”. The reason of these geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations is the mismatch of the dynamical twist with respect to geometric twist. Because we have not used the QCD equations of motion, the geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations are based on a no-dynamical level and are model-independent. Additionally, I have discussed the difference between dynamical and geometric Wandzura-Wilczek-type relations.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is grateful to P. Ball, J. Eilers, B. Geyer, S. Neumeier, D. Robaschik and C. Weiss for stimulating discussions. He acknowledges the Graduate College “Quantum field theory” at Centre for Theoretical Sciences of Leipzig University for financial support and the CERN/TH-division for the support during his stay in Geneva.


format: text

text:
# References

The spin dependent structure function $`g_1^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ of a longitudinally polarized photon was studied  within the framework of the radiative parton model, developed  for the presently well measured and known structure function $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ of an unpolarized photon. In particular the next–to–leading order (NLO) analysis  of $`g_1^\gamma `$ adopted a perturbatively stable DISγ factorization scheme, as advocated in , and implemented some boundary conditions  at the low input scale $`Q^2=\mu ^20.3`$ GeV2 of the radiative parton model. These boundary conditions led, however, to a violation of the positivity constraint

$$|A_1^\gamma (x,Q^2)||g_1^\gamma (x,Q^2)/F_1^\gamma (x,Q^2)|1.$$
(1)
It was therefore suggested  to repeat the analysis  of $`F_2^\gamma `$ in a DISγ factorization scheme related to $`F_1^\gamma `$ rather than to $`F_2^\gamma `$ which was the source of the above mentioned violation. Such a reanalysis is obviously rather time consuming and leads, moreover, to a diminished perturbative stability of the resulting parton distributions. In the present letter we propose an alternative solution to the positivity constraint which avoids the need for the above mentioned reanalysis of the data on $`F_2^\gamma `$.

For this purpose we recall that the DISγ factorization scheme, suggested and adopted in  for unpolarized photon structure functions, is related to $`F_2^\gamma `$ as given in NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s}{}}e_q^2\{q^\gamma (x,Q^2)+\overline{q}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }}[C_{q,2}(q+\overline{q})^\gamma +2C_{g,2}g^\gamma ]+2e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}C_{\gamma ,2}(x)\}`$
where $``$ denotes the usual convolution integral, and $`\overline{q}^\gamma (x,Q^2)=q^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and $`g^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ provide the so–called ‘resolved’ contributions of $`\gamma `$ to $`F_2^\gamma `$ with the usual $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coefficient functions

$`C_{q,2}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{q,1}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}[(1+x^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x)}{1x}}\right)_+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x)_+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+x^2}{1x}}\mathrm{ln}x`$
$`+3+2x({\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}})\delta (1x)]`$
$`C_{g,2}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{g,1}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}x(1x)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\left[x^2+(1x)^2\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}+8x(1x)1\right\},`$
while $`C_{\gamma ,2}`$ provides the ‘direct’ contribution as calculated according to the ‘box’ diagram $`\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma q\overline{q}`$ :

$$C_{\gamma ,i}(x)=\frac{3}{(1/2)}C_{g,i}(x)$$
(4)
with $`i=1,2`$. We have suppressed in (2) the contributions from heavy ($`c,b`$) quarks since they are irrelevant for our present considerations. (The $`C_1`$ coefficient functions refer to $`F_1^\gamma `$ needed below.) Notice that in unpolarized photon (and proton) DIS it is common to use the ‘mixed’ structure function $`F_2=2xF_1+F_L`$, rather than the purely transverse $`F_1`$ structure function, since the measured cross section is, apart from kinematically suppressed contributions, directly proportional to $`F_2`$. In order to avoid the instabilities encountered in NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) in the large–$`x`$ region due to the $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ term in $`C_\gamma `$ in (4), the entire ‘direct’ $`C_{\gamma ,2}`$ term in (2) is absorbed into the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ (anti)quark densities $`q^\gamma =\overline{q}^\gamma `$ in (2) which defines the so–called DISγ factorization scheme : Eq.(5)

$`q^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`q^\gamma (x,Q^2)+e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}C_{\gamma ,2}(x)`$
$`g^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`g^\gamma (x,Q^2).`$ (5)
This redefinition of parton distributions implies that the NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) splitting functions $`k_{q,g}^{(1)}(x)`$ of the photon into quarks and gluons, appearing in the inhomogeneous NLO renormalization group (RG)$`Q^2`$–evolution equations  for $`f^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, have correspondingly to be transformed according to

$`k_q^{(1)}(x)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`k_q^{(1)}(x)e_q^2P_{qq}^{(0)}C_{\gamma ,2}`$
$`k_g^{(1)}(x)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`k_g^{(1)}(x)2{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2P_{gq}^{(0)}C_{\gamma ,2}`$ (6)
where

$`k_q^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\{(12x)\mathrm{ln}^2x(14x)\mathrm{ln}x+4\mathrm{ln}(1x)9x+4`$
$`+[x^2+(1x)^2][2\mathrm{ln}^2x+2\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)+4\mathrm{ln}x4\mathrm{ln}x\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$
$`4\mathrm{ln}(1x)+10{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi ^2]\}`$
$`k_g^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left\{2(1+x)\mathrm{ln}^2x(6+10x)\mathrm{ln}x+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}x^2+8x16\right\}`$ (7)
with $`k_q^{(1)}`$ referring to each single (anti)quark flavor. The LO splitting functions are given by $`P_{qq}^{(0)}=\frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{1+x^2}{1x}\right)_+`$ and $`P_{gq}^{(0)}=\frac{4}{3}\left[1+(1x)^2\right]/x`$. The NLO expression for $`F_2^\gamma `$ in the DISγ factorization scheme is thus given by (2) with $`C_{\gamma ,2}`$ being dropped.

In order to comply with the positivity constraint (1) for the polarized structure function $`g_1^\gamma `$ one has to consider a corresponding factorization scheme, DISγ,1, related to $`F_1^\gamma `$, the spin–averaged analogon to $`g_1^\gamma `$, which is given in NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) by

$`F_1^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s}{}}e_q^2\{q^\gamma (x,Q^2)+\overline{q}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }}[C_{q,1}(q+\overline{q})^\gamma +2C_{g,1}g^\gamma ]+2e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}C_{\gamma ,1}(x)\}`$
with the $`C_1`$ coefficient functions being given by eqs. (3) and (4). Absorbing now the entire ‘direct’ $`C_{\gamma ,1}`$ term into the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ quark densities $`q^\gamma =\overline{q}^\gamma `$ defines the DISγ,1 factorization scheme:

$`q^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`q^\gamma (x,Q^2)+e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}C_{\gamma ,1}(x)`$
$`g^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`g^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ (9)
with the corresponding change of the NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) photon splitting functions $`k_{q,g}^{(1)}(x)`$, appearing in the NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) RG evolution equations,

$`k_q^{(1)}(x)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`k_q^{(1)}(x)e_q^2P_{qq}^{(0)}C_{\gamma ,1}`$
$`k_g^{(1)}(x)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`k_g^{(1)}(x)2{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2P_{gq}^{(0)}C_{\gamma ,1}`$ (10)
in contrast to eq. (6). From the definitions (5) and (9) one obtains:

$`q^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`q^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }+e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left[C_{\gamma ,1}(x)C_{\gamma ,2}(x)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`q^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}x(1x)`$
$`g^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}`$ $`=`$ $`g^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }`$ (11)
Thus the NLO expression for $`F_1^\gamma `$ in the DISγ,1 factorization scheme is given by (8) with the $`C_{\gamma ,1}`$ term being dropped. Furthermore, the parton distributions in the DISγ,1 scheme are uniquely determined in terms of the well known DISγ distributions  in eq. (11), $`f^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }`$ with $`f=u,d,s,g`$, related to $`F_2^\gamma `$. Since the perturbative stability has been optimized  with respect to the experimentally measured structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$, the stability may obviously be diminished at some other place, e.g. $`F_1^\gamma `$, where the difference between the leading order (LO) predictions and the NLO ones is somewhat more pronounced as compared to $`F_2^\gamma `$. This of course does not affect the reliability of the NLO predictions. (The LO expressions for $`F_{1,2}^\gamma `$ are obviously obtained from eqs. (2) and (8) by simply setting $`C_{q,g,\gamma }=0`$.)

The polarized parton distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma `$ in the analogous DISΔγ factorization scheme are obtained in a similar way by considering the spin–dependent structure function $`g_1^\gamma `$ in (1) which, for the light $`u,d,s`$ quarks, is in NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) given by

$`g_1^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=u,d,s}{}}e_q^2\{\mathrm{\Delta }q^\gamma (x,Q^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }}[\mathrm{\Delta }C_q\mathrm{\Delta }(q+\overline{q})^\gamma +2\mathrm{\Delta }C_g\mathrm{\Delta }g^\gamma ]+2e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Delta }C_\gamma (x)\}`$
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}^\gamma =\mathrm{\Delta }q^\gamma =q_+^\gamma q_{}^\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g^\gamma =g_+^\gamma g_{}^\gamma `$ as compared to the spin–averaged $`\overline{q}^\gamma =q^\gamma =q_+^\gamma +q_{}^\gamma `$ and $`g^\gamma =g_+^\gamma +g_{}^\gamma `$ in $`F_1^\gamma `$ in (8) in terms of the positive and negative helicity densities $`q_\pm ^\gamma `$ and $`g_\pm ^\gamma `$. The polarized NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) partonic coefficient functions  for the ‘resolved’ contributions of a longitudinally polarized photon are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }C_q(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}[(1+x^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x)}{1x}}\right)_+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x)}}_+{\displaystyle \frac{1+x^2}{1x}}\mathrm{ln}x`$
$`+2+x({\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}})\delta (1x)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }C_g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(2x1)\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}1\right)+2(1x)\right],`$ (13)
and the ‘direct’ contribution of the polarized photon follows from

$$\mathrm{\Delta }C_\gamma (x)=\frac{3}{(1/2)}\mathrm{\Delta }C_g(x).$$
(14)
Absorbing this latter contribution in (12) entirely into the polarized (anti)quark distributions, one obtains, in complete analogy to the DISγ,1 scheme in (9), the polarized DISΔγ factorization scheme ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }q^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }q^\gamma (x,Q^2)+e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Delta }C_\gamma (x)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }g^\gamma (x,Q^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }g^\gamma (x,Q^2).`$ (15)
Correspondingly, the polarized NLO($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) splitting functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_{q,g}^{(1)}(x)`$ of the polarized photon into quarks and gluons, appearing in the inhomogeneous NLO RG $`Q^2`$–evolution equations , have to be changed according to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }k_q^{(1)}(x)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_q^{(1)}(x)e_q^2\mathrm{\Delta }P_{qq}^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }C_\gamma `$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }k_g^{(1)}(x)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_g^{(1)}(x)2{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2\mathrm{\Delta }P_{gq}^{(0)}\mathrm{\Delta }C_\gamma `$ (16)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }k_q^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\{9\mathrm{ln}x+8(1x)\mathrm{ln}(1x)+27x22`$
$`+(2x1)[\mathrm{ln}^2x+2\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)4\mathrm{ln}x\mathrm{ln}(1x){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi ^2]\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }k_g^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left\{2(1+x)\mathrm{ln}^2x+2(x5)\mathrm{ln}x10(1x)\right\}`$ (17)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_q^{(1)}`$ referring again to each single (anti)quark flavor and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{qq}^{(0)}=P_{qq}^{(0)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{gq}^{(0)}=\frac{4}{3}(2x)`$. The NLO expansion for $`g_1^\gamma `$ in the DISΔγ scheme is thus given by (12) with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_\gamma `$ term being dropped.

Following refs. , we shall now study two extreme scenarios :

(i) a ‘maximal’ scenario corresponding to an input

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}=f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}};$$
(18)
(ii) a ‘minimal’ scenario corresponding to an input

$`\mathrm{\Delta }q^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left[C_{\gamma ,1}(x)C_{\gamma ,2}(x)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}x(1x)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }g^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (19)
which derives from (11) for the minimal (‘pointlike’) boundary condition $`f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }=0`$ of the unpolarized photonic parton distributions in the DISγ scheme . Notice that (19) differs from the minimal (‘pointlike’) input $`\mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma }}=0`$ considered in . In order to facilitate a direct comparison with the results obtained in  we shall also use the older GRVγ results  for the unpolarized $`f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_\gamma }`$ distributions in the DISγ factorization scheme, which refer to a NLO input scale $`\mu ^2=0.3`$ GeV2, and which uniquely fix $`f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}`$ in (18) via eq. (11). (Our main conclusions remain unchanged, if we use the more recent unpolarized photonic parton distributions of .) In LO the ‘maximal’ input (18) refers just to the common (scheme–independent) LO distributions , whereas the ‘minimal’ input obviously implies, instead of (19), also a vanishing quark–input, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{LO}}=0`$ which coincides with the ‘pointlike’ solution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and with the input of  where  $`\mu _{\mathrm{LO}}^2=0.25`$ GeV2.

In fig. 1 we show our maximal and minimal NLO results for $`g_1^\gamma `$ at a typical scale of $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2 as obtained from the maximal and minimal input scenarios in (18) and (19), respectively, which fall somewhat below the results of  as expected. A comparison with $`F_1^\gamma `$ shows furthermore that the fundamental positivity constraint (1), $`|g_1^\gamma |F_1^\gamma `$, is fulfilled throughout the entire $`x`$–region (at any $`Q^2`$), in contrast to the violation of (1) observed in . The corresponding LO and NLO results for the asymmetry $`A_1^\gamma =g_1^\gamma /F_1^\gamma `$ is shown in fig. 2 for two representative values of $`Q^2`$. It should be noticed that at very large values of $`x`$ ($`x`$ $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 0.9) the numerical NLO results in figs. 1 and 2 become unreliable due to the influence of sizeable spurious $`𝒪(\alpha _s,\alpha _s^2)`$ terms  encountered in the convolutions appearing in eqs. (8) and (12). The ‘maximal’ and ‘minimal’ photonic parton distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }u^\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g^\gamma `$ are displayed in fig. 3 in LO and NLO(DISγ,1) at $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2 and the corresponding asymmetries $`A_f^\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma /f^\gamma `$ are shown in fig. 4, where we have again used the unpolarized $`f^\gamma `$ distributions from  in order to facilitate a comparison with . Our results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }u^\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g^\gamma `$ in fig. 3 are similar to the ones in , with a larger difference between our LO and NLO predictions according to our different NLO inputs (18) and (19) which refer to the unpolarized DISγ,1 factorization scheme. This, however, is irrelevant as discussed above for the reliability of the NLO predictions for the experimentally directly observable structure functions $`g_1^\gamma `$ and $`F_1^\gamma `$.

In LO QCD, where cross sections (structure functions) are directly related to parton densities, the positivity constraint (1) for structure functions implies

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma (x,Q^2)|f^\gamma (x,Q^2)$$
(20)
which is satisfied, $`|A_{u,g}^\gamma |1`$, as shown in fig. 4 by the dashed curves. At NLO, however, a simple relation between parton densities and cross sections no longer holds. Parton distributions are renormalization and factorization scheme dependent objects; although universal, they are not physical, i.e. not directly observable. Hence there are NLO contributions which may violate (20) in specific cases . Such a curiosity occurs for our photonic parton densities which, for medium to large values of $`x`$, are dominated by the photon’s splitting functions $`(\mathrm{\Delta })k_{q,g}`$ appearing as inhomogeneous terms in the RG evolution equations . Up to NLO they are given by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta })k_i(x,Q^2)=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }(\mathrm{\Delta })k_i^{(0)}(x)+\frac{\alpha \alpha _s(Q^2)}{(2\pi )^2}(\mathrm{\Delta })k_i^{(1)}(x)$$
(21)
where in LO $`(\mathrm{\Delta })k_q^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}e_q^22\left[x^2\stackrel{+}{_{()}}(1x)^2\right]`$, while the NLO two–loops unpolarized splitting functions are given by (6), (7) or (10), and their polarized counterparts by (16) or (17), depending on the choice of the factorization scheme. Our NLO results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }u^\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d^\gamma `$ still satisfy the positivity constraint (20) as demonstrated by the solid curves for $`A_u^\gamma `$ in fig. 4 since in LO $`|\mathrm{\Delta }k_q^{(0)}|k_q^{(0)}`$ despite the fact that the subleading NLO contributions in general violate $`|\mathrm{\Delta }k_q^{(1)}/k_q^{(1)}|1`$. The NLO gluon distributions, however, violate (20) since the LO terms in (21) obviously vanish , $`k_g^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Delta }k_g^{(0)}=0`$, and the dominant NLO terms $`(\mathrm{\Delta })k_g^{(1)}`$ in (21) violate $`|\mathrm{\Delta }k_g^{(1)}/k_g^{(1)}|1`$. This violation of the NLO gluon ‘positivity’ is illustrated by the solid curves in fig. 4 for $`A_g^\gamma `$ where $`A_g^\gamma >1`$ for $`x`$ $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 0.6 and 0.9 for the maximal and minimal scenario, respectively.

To summarize, our approach to the positivity constraint (1) on the polarized structure function of the photon, $`g_1^\gamma `$, in NLO was to consider appropriate factorization schemes DISγ,1 and DISΔγ which are naturally associated with the structure functions $`F_1^\gamma `$ and $`g_1^\gamma `$, respectively. Utilizing these factorization schemes we have been able to use the well established  unpolarized NLO parton distributions of the photon, as given in the DISγ factorization scheme associated with $`F_2^\gamma `$, in two different hypothetical ‘maximal’ and ‘minimal’ scenarios for the presently unknown $`g_1^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$. We have thus shown that the time consuming NLO reanalysis of the data on $`F_2^\gamma `$ in the DISγ,1 factorization scheme, as proposed in , can in fact be avoided. It turns out that our positivity respecting hypothetical NLO scenarios differ from their corresponding counterparts in  thus illustrating the importance of a consistent implementation of the non–trivial NLO positivity constraint on $`g_1^\gamma `$.

Figure Captions

* NLO predictions of the polarized photon structure function $`g_1^\gamma `$ for the ‘maximal’ and ‘minimal’ inputs in (18) and (19) with the unpolarized photonic parton distributions $`f_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}^\gamma `$ being calculated according to the NLO(DISγ) distributions of ref.  (in order to facilitate a direct comparison with the results of ref. ) . These latter distributions determine also the unpolarized photon structure function $`F_1^\gamma `$ in (8).
* The spin asymmetry $`A_1^\gamma g_1^\gamma /F_1^\gamma `$ in LO and NLO for the ‘maximal’ and ‘minimal’ scenarios using the input distributions as in fig. 1 at two representative values of $`Q^2`$.
* Predictions for the NLO polarized photonic parton densities in the DISΔγ scheme, using the ‘maximal’ and ‘minimal’ inputs in (18) and (19) referring to the unpolarized DISγ,1 scheme where we use again the NLO(DISγ) distributions of ref.  for calculating the $`f_{\mathrm{DIS}_{\gamma ,1}}^\gamma `$ input densities in (18), in order to facilitate a direct comparison with the results of ref. . For comparison we also show the corresponding LO results with the input $`f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{LO}}`$ in (18) being taken from ref.  for the ‘maximal’ scenario, and where ‘minimal’ scenario obviously implies, instead of (19), also a vanishing quark input, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma (x,\mu ^2)_{\mathrm{LO}}=0`$.
* The parton spin–asymmetries $`A_f^\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }f^\gamma /f^\gamma `$ in LO and NLO at $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2 for the ‘maximal’ and ‘minimal’ scenarios using the input distributions as in fig. 3.


text:
# The radial velocities of the RS CVn star UX Ari based on observations collected at the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT), European Northern Observatory, La Palma, Spain, and at the McDonald and Kitt Peak Observatories, USA ,Table 2 is only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html

## 1 Introduction

UX Ari (HD 21242; K0 IV + G5 V) is a short-period ($`P6\stackrel{d}{.}4`$), double-lined spectroscopic binary. It belongs to the class of RS CVn stars, i.e. at least the cool primary shows signs of activity. Thus, it is listed in the catalogue by Strassmeier et al. (SHFS93 (1993)), where more information on the system may be found (UX Ari=CABS 28); it was also put in our long term programme of surface imaging of active stars (for results see e.g. Berdyugina et al. B98 (1998)).

Surface imaging needs good orbital parameters. The spectral lines, whose distortions are followed through the rotational phases111given the evolved state of one of the components and the short period, it is reasonable to assume synchronized rotation, i.e. $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}=P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ need to have the Doppler shift due to the orbital motion removed; while experience shows that small residual shifts do not change the main surface structures, the extra noise in the data might lead to a lower quality of the map. Normally, the cross-correlation technique can be used to align spectra and remove radial velocity shifts without knowledge of any orbital parameters. However, cross-correlation relies on the assumption that the spectral features in the programme spectrum and the template are identical, which they are not in the case of active stars due to the distortions caused by spots. This leads to systematic radial velocity errors. It is hoped that if one compiles a large set of radial velocities spanning a long time, the constraints of orbital motion and the limited lifetime of spots allow the determination of a good set of orbital parameters despite the fact that individual radial velocities obtained in a short time span are systematically shifted. In order to calculate the rotational phases, a good value for the period needs to be known. This is especially important if maps obtained during several seasons are to be compared: an incorrect period and conjunction time lead to increasing phase shifts which mimic motions of the surface structure which are not real and lead to incorrect interpretation of the long term behaviour of the surface structures. Thus a (re-)determination of the orbit prior to surface imaging is strongly recommended.

For UX Ari, there seems to exist only one orbit determination: that by Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)). Given the age and the low number of measurements used, we felt it long overdue to compute a new orbit and improve the orbital parameters as much as possible. The time difference between the first observation given by Carlos & Popper and our last observation is more than 42 years, which lets us hope to significantly improve the period and subsequently all other orbital parameters.

Another finding makes an accurate inspection of the orbit particularly interesting. Lestrade et al. (LPJ99 (1999)) performed high-precision VLBI astrometry of, among others, UX Ari. They used observations at 10 epochs between July 1983 and May 1994 to calculate the acceleration of UX Ari’s position in the sky. The resulting acceleration was much larger than the perspective secular change in proper motion and could be caused by a third body. According to Lestrade et al. (LPJ99 (1999)), the orbital period of this system should be many times their 11-year VLBI data span.

## 2 Observations and data reductions

The new high-resolution, high signal-to-noise spectra were obtained for the purpose of surface imaging during five observing runs using three telescope-instrument combinations:

* 5 spectra obtained in December 1995 using the high-resolution échelle spectrograph SOFIN (Tuominen T92 (1992)) mounted at the Cassegrain focus of the 2.56 m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) on La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain (hereafter denoted S95)
* 10 spectra obtained in November/December 1996 using NOT/SOFIN (hereafter denoted S96)
* 64 spectra obtained in January 1999 using the Sandiford Cassegrain Échelle Spectrograph mounted on the 2.1 m Otto Struve Telescope at McDonald Observatory, Texas, USA (hereafter denoted M99)
* 23 spectra obtained in February 1999 using the Coudé CCD Spectrograph receiving light from the 0.9 m Coudé-Feed Telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory, Arizona, USA (hereafter denoted K99)
* 22 spectra obtained in January 2000 again using the 2.1 m telescope with the Sandiford spectrograph at McDonald Observatory (hereafter denoted M00)

Table 1 shows the wavelength resolution ($`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$) at 6400 Å and the range of signal-to-noise ratios at 6400 Å for each dataset. The spectrograph slit widths were chosen so that one resolution element (FWHM of the ThAr comparison lines) was 2–3 CCD-pixels. The spectra in K99 have considerably lower signal-to-noise ratios than the other datasets due to the smaller telescope.

The spectra in S95 and S96 were reduced using the 3A Software Package (Ilyin I96 (1996)). It uses two-dimensional dispersion curves (rows and columns of the CCD; see e.g. Duemmler et al. (DIT97 (1997)) for a more thorough description) in order to calibrate the wavelength scale. The spectra in M99 were reduced using the 4A Software Package (Ilyin I00 (2000)). The spectra in K99 and M00 were reduced using IRAF. 4A and IRAF use three-dimensional dispersion curves (rows and columns of the CCD as well as time on the basis of several comparison spectra) to calibrate the wavelength scale. For all spectra, telluric lines based on the wavelengths given by Pierce & Breckinridge (PB73 (1973)) were used prior to heliocentric correction to establish the accurate wavelength zero point, correcting for tiny geometrical shifts between the comparison and stellar images due to bending of the spectrograph and the slit-effect, i.e. the shifts due to the fact that the optics is not homogeneously illuminated by the stellar light (Griffin & Griffin G73 (1973), Ilyin I00 (2000)).

The projected equatorial rotational velocity $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of the subgiant primary in the RS CVn binary was determined from our measurements using a Fourier-transform technique described by Gray (G88 (1988); G92 (1992), Ch. 17). The result is $`v\mathrm{sin}i=39`$ km s-1. For the secondary, a value of $`v\mathrm{sin}i=7.5`$ km s-1 was determined by comparing spun-up standard spectra with that of the secondary, a value consistent with the one given by Vogt & Hatzes (VH91 (1991)).

The radial velocities (RVs) were obtained by cross-correlating the UX Ari spectra with spectra of RV standard stars. For the primary we used spectra of $`\beta `$ Gem (K0 IIIb, RV $`=+(3.3\pm 0.1)`$ km s-1) observed in the same run as the UX Ari spectra, reduced in the same way and artificially spun up to match $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of the primary. For the secondary we used the solar FTS spectrum (Kurucz et al. KFBT84 (1984)), artificially spun up to match $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of the secondary. The RVs are weighted averages of the individual RVs measured in several orders. The measured RVs and their standard deviations are given in Table 2222Table 2 is only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html ..

In the spectra of UX Ari there are also weak lines from a third star present. This star was first mentioned by McAlister et al. (MHH87 (1987)) when they measured the angular separation between the RS CVn binary and the third star. This and other measurements of the angular separation are given in Table 3. From Table 3 it seems that the angular separation has decreased by almost $`0\stackrel{}{.}2`$ from 1985.8 to 1996.9. It is not known whether the third star is part of the UX Ari system or a star that just happens to lie on the same line of sight. Its spectral classification is also not known, although Fabricius & Makarov (FM00 (2000)) determined its B and V magnitudes based on Hipparcos (ESA ESA97 (1997)) data. Their B and V magnitudes yield $`\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V}=1.19\pm 0.06`$ for the third star. This in turn yields a spectral type of K5 if the star is unreddened and on the main sequence (Gray G92 (1992)). Vogt & Hatzes (VH91 (1991)) successfully used a synthetic G5 V spectrum to subtract the lines of the third star from the composite spectrum, and we used the solar FTS spectrum as RV template to measure the radial velocities of this star.

Before RV measurements of the third star could be carried out, however, the spectral flux contributions from the primary and the secondary had to be removed from the composite spectrum. Otherwise, the weak lines of the third star are too strongly influenced by the stronger lines of the other two components.

The spectral flux contribution from the primary (secondary) was removed using an observed spectrum of a single, inactive star of the same spectral classification as the primary (secondary). We used HD 71952 (K0 IV, V$`=6\stackrel{m}{.}25`$) and HD 84453 (K0 IV, V$`=6\stackrel{m}{.}83`$) for the primary and HD 23565 (G5 V, V$`=7\stackrel{m}{.}70`$), HD 51419 (G5 V, V$`=6\stackrel{m}{.}94`$) and HD 71148 (G5 V, V$`=6\stackrel{m}{.}30`$) for the secondary. The single star was observed in the same run as UX Ari and reduced in the same way. Its spectrum was artificially spun up to match $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of the primary (secondary), scaled to match the relative continuum flux contribution of the primary (secondary) and shifted by cross-correlation to the position of the primary (secondary) in the composite spectrum. Finally, the spun-up, scaled and shifted spectrum of the single star was subtracted from the composite spectrum. The relative continuum flux contribution for each component was determined using the residual line strength in the composite spectrum.

The spectrum separation technique itself, as well as what applying it to our UX Ari observations can teach us about the three components in the UX Ari spectrum, will be described by Aarum & Engvold (in preparation). The results of applying the surface (Doppler) imaging technique to our UX Ari observations (and thus the details of the line profiles) will be described by Aarum et al. (in preparation).

## 3 The radial velocity curves of UX Ari

### 3.1 The data from the literature

A significant improvement of all orbital parameters depends strongly on the value of the period, which in turn is more sensitive to the overall time span covered by the measurements than to their quality. Thus, we supplement our new radial velocities with data from the literature to increase the time span.

There are not many RVs of UX Ari to be found. The oldest dataset is due to Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)). It contains a few RVs obtained in the 1950s, but mostly data from 1967 to 1970; the total number of RV pairs is 28. The second big dataset is due to Duquennoy et al. (DMH91 (1991)), containing 36 timepoints with RVs (however often only for one of the two stars) obtained mostly in 1977; a few RVs are measured in 1985–1988. Duquennoy et al. (DMH91 (1991)) give only the RVs; they do not determine or improve the orbital parameters. Another dataset is given by Heintz (H81 (1981)). There are only 3 RVs for each component given, and, when compared to a preliminary orbit, they have considerable scatter. This would give them such a low weight in the combined dataset that, together with their small number and the fact that their observing times overlap with the dataset of Duquennoy et al. (DMH91 (1991)), we decided not to use them at all.

### 3.2 The weights

The optimal weights in a least squares fit are the inverse variances of the individual measurements. For all datasets, individual error estimates for the RVs are known, except for the set given by Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)). Thus, we decided to use the inverse variance as the weight, and determine an estimate for this for the Carlos & Popper set.

An independent orbital fit of a double-lined binary RV curve to the data of Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)) alone was performed, using their relative weights333except for the 3 very old measurements, which had weights 0 in their final fit, but obtained 0.7 here; finally, since it improved the fit significantly, all data with RV-differences $`<40`$ km s-1 between primary and secondary obtained weights 0. The resulting orbital parameters are close to those given by Carlos & Popper. Standard deviations for measurements having unit weight for the primary (1.6 km s-1) and the secondary (1.9 km s-1) were obtained and used to calculate for each measurement an error by combining them with the relative weight. These are the errors given in Table 2 for the measurements of Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)) and used to calculate the weights as the inverse variances.

All other measurements obtained their weights as the inverse variances based on the errors as published. Preliminary orbit fits, however, indicated that a considerable improvement is achieved when ignoring all measurements obtained from blended lines, i.e. with RV-differences $`<40`$ km s-1 between primary and secondary. Therefore, we decided to give all those measurements weight 0 in the following; they are indicated by negative errors in Table 2.

During the first orbital fits it turned out that $`\chi ^2`$ for the primary is significantly larger than $`\chi ^2`$ for the secondary, although the smaller accuracy of the RVs due to the much broader lines is already reflected by the much larger RV-errors. This could be due to the systematic deviations of the RVs caused by the fine-structure of the line profiles because of the spot activity. We therefore multiplied all weights of the primary by an additional factor 0.65 to equalize $`\chi ^2`$ for the primary and the secondary.

### 3.3 The first fit results: $`\gamma `$ is changing

For each dataset, i.e. Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)), Duquennoy et al. (DMH91 (1991)), and each of the seasons of our own observations, an individual orbital fit has been done. By this we established:

* that there is no significant (as compared to the formal fit errors) change of any orbital parameter
* except the velocity $`\gamma `$ of the centre of mass of the system, which is different for each dataset.

The following fit, combining all datasets, thus requires that all orbital parameters are the same, but allows each dataset to obtain its own velocity zero-point, i.e. its own $`\gamma `$ velocity. The results of this fit are given in Table 4 and compared to the orbital parameters given by Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)). Here, and throughout the paper, errors are formal fit errors, obtained from the curvature of the $`\chi ^2`$ hypersurface or from error progression, and are likely underestimates of the true errors.

The results can be summarized as follows:

* Most orbital parameters given by Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)) have been confirmed.
* Due to the much larger database and the higher accuracy of the later data, the accuracy of the orbital parameters has considerably increased. The period, in particular, is shorter than that given by Carlos & Popper, while still being consistent with it because of their larger error.
* Despite the high significance given to the eccentricity, we do not believe that the orbit is really elliptical. Firstly, the eccentricity is very small; secondly, its error is relatively large, so that the eccentricity is just a 2.5$`\sigma `$ detection. Thirdly, as will be seen later, there are systematic effects in the radial velocity curve which might mimic the effects of a (small) non-zero eccentricity. Finally, the deviations from the circular orbit are so negligible that all other orbital parameters are indistinguishable from those obtained for the circular orbit; thus, no harm is done by neglecting $`e`$ in the following even if it should be real.
* The values of the velocity of the centre of mass $`\gamma `$ of the system are clearly inconsistent with each other and need further consideration.

While it is not uncommon to have different velocity zero-points from different instruments, especially when old data are involved, the situation here is different. Firstly, there are two pairs of datasets (S95, S96 and M99, M00) which were taken by the same instruments, however one year apart. The $`\gamma `$ velocities are inconsistent within the groups which only becomes apparent thanks to the high quality and number of the radial velocities leading to really small errors in $`\gamma `$. Secondly, all new data are reduced in the same way. This means in particular that the wavelength scale for each spectrum is adjusted (prior to heliocentric correction) to the same wavelength system established by a large number of telluric atmospheric lines based on the wavelengths given by Pierce & Breckinridge (PB73 (1973)). This technique should remove all effects caused by the slit-effect and temporal effects like those caused by the change of ambient temperature and pressure and (for the Cassegrain-spectrographs) bending of the spectrograph due to motion of the telescope. Furthermore, all RVs were measured using the same star as template (the IAU RV-standard $`\beta `$ Gem for the primary and the solar FTS-spectrum for the secondary; while $`\beta `$ Gem has been observed during the same runs with the same instruments as UX Ari, and reduced in the same way, the solar FTS-spectrum used is always the same). Additionally, the paper by Duquennoy et al. (DMH91 (1991)) states that their radial velocities are on the IAU faint (m$`{}_{\mathrm{V}}{}^{}4.3`$) standard system; yet the difference between $`\gamma _{\mathrm{DMH}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{S96}}`$ is 8.4$`\sigma `$. On the other hand, the difference between $`\gamma _{\mathrm{M99}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{K99}}`$, which were obtained with different instruments a month apart, is only 1.5$`\sigma `$. The difference between $`\gamma _{\mathrm{S96}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{M00}}`$ is 44$`\sigma `$! Finally, it seems that we have, at least for the new data, a systematic behaviour of $`\gamma `$: it seems to increase from 1995 to 1996, and from then on it systematically decreases with time.

For these reasons, we believe that the variation in $`\gamma `$ is genuine and not caused by any instrumental effect. The short-period RS CVn system UX Ari is obviously in an accelerated motion, most likely around the centre of mass with a third star.

### 3.4 The final fit of the inner orbit

If we accept this interpretation, we have to make two changes in order to obtain the final orbital parameters: First, the old datasets from the literature cover several years, and we see from the large difference (as compared to the error) between 1999 and 2000 that $`\gamma `$ is changing much over one year; we thus have to subdivide all datasets so that each subset does not cover more than 1 year. Secondly, if $`\gamma `$ is changing, so is the factor between the period in the observer’s frame and the period in the restframe of the system. Given that there is no evidence for any change of the orbital parameters, except $`\gamma `$, we can assume that the period in the restframe of the system is constant, but not the one in the observer’s frame.

The final orbital fit is thus a weighted fit (using the same weights as before) to 17 subsets, ensuring that all parameters have the same values for all datasets, except $`\gamma `$. Given the small eccentricity found before, this fit is forced to be circular. The subsets have been identified in Table 2. The resulting orbit is given in Table 5 and shown in Fig. 1. Unfortunately, several of the 17 datasets consist of only 1–3 measurements, so determination of $`\gamma `$ is only possible, because no other parameter is determined for these small datasets alone; nevertheless, for these small datasets and for others due to large errors in the measurements, the error of $`\gamma `$ is sometimes so large that it hides any change of $`\gamma `$. Due to this and due to the timing of the older observations, no indication for a changing $`\gamma `$ could be detected before our new, accurate datasets.

In Fig. 1 we see that there is a nearly perfect fit of the RVs of the secondary. For the primary, however, we notice a large, systematic deviation near RV-maximum: Most new measurements deviate from the curve towards larger velocities. No such deviations are seen near the minimum. This is the reason for the larger $`\chi ^2`$ of the primary as compared to the secondary mentioned above which motivated us to introduce the extra weight reduction factor of 0.65 for the RVs of the primary. It will be very interesting to see the surface maps of the primary (Aarum et al., in preparation): when the primary is moving away from us, there should be a strong surface feature in the facing hemisphere that lets us overestimate the RV, which is not visible, when the star shows us the other hemisphere. Also, since the deviation is in nearly all new measurements (which cover more than 4 years), this feature must be very long-lived. It cannot be a hot spot in the sub-secondary point, because this would also be visible at RV-minimum.

This also shows that it would not be appropriate to use cross-correlation techniques to adjust the spectra for surface imaging: if we would have chosen a spectrum near RV-maximum as template and adjusted all other spectra to it, we would have introduced a significant wavelength shift. It is thus essential that the Doppler shift corrections prior to surface imaging come from an accurate orbit, determined over a long time span.

### 3.5 The preliminary outer orbit

Now that the $`\gamma `$ velocities at 17 timepoints are known, we could try to determine the parameters of the outer orbit. Unfortunately, this is not simple. While the new data show beyond any doubt that $`\gamma `$ is changing, they alone do not allow to determine the orbit. A maximum $`\gamma `$ was observed in 1996, but since then $`\gamma `$ has been decreasing steadily; no minimum has been observed yet. That means that from the new data alone, only lower limits for the period $`P_{\mathrm{out}}`$ of the outer orbit and the RV-amplitude $`K_{\mathrm{out}}`$ can be obtained. The old datasets, due to their unfortunate timings and their large errors do not improve this situation much. This is with the exception of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{DHM}_1}`$ whose error is only 0.23 km s-1, and which will have a large impact on $`P_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and by that also allow an estimate of $`K_{\mathrm{out}}`$. However, any orbital fit to the $`\gamma `$ velocities as they are available now has to be considered preliminary.

We have done a period search in the interval $`P_{\mathrm{out}}=4,\mathrm{},46`$ years. Two runs were performed, one fixing $`e=0`$, the other allowing for an elliptical orbit. The results of both searches are given in Table 6; of all the orbit fits performed, the one yielding the smallest $`\sigma `$ is given. While the elliptical orbit is much better than the circular one, given the small number of points and their large errors we cannot claim it to be correct.

The period of the circular orbit corresponds to $`(10.66\pm 0.18)`$ yr and the projected major axis $`a_{\mathrm{out}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ to $`(1.04\pm 0.11)`$ AU; the period of the elliptical orbit is $`(21.46\pm 0.06)`$ yr and its projected major axis is $`(1.15\pm 0.06)`$ AU.

### 3.6 The third star

As already mentioned in Sect. 2, in the spectrum of UX Ari there are weak lines of a third star. Vogt & Hatzes (VH91 (1991)) measured its RV “stationary at 6.6 km s-1 blueward of the $`\gamma `$ velocity of the system”. This statement refers to the time November 1986 to January 1987. Assuming that they used the $`\gamma `$ velocity given by Carlos & Popper (CP71 (1971)), this velocity corresponds to 19.9 km s-1. We also measured the velocities of the third star in the spectrum of UX Ari after subtracting the spectra of the primary and the secondary. We did not find any variation within a run; thus, we give the average velocities and standard deviations in Table 7.

It is clear that the velocity of the third star is also changing. However, there are several reasons to believe that the third star is not the body responsible for the changes of the $`\gamma `$ velocity of the short-period RS CVn system:

* While the increase of RV3 reflects the decrease of $`\gamma `$, $`\gamma `$ reaches its maximum in 1996, while RV3 reaches its minimum in (or before) 1995.
* In 1986/7 and 1999, the third star had similar RVs. Either its $`\gamma `$ is less than the 26.5 or 27.2 km s-1 obtained from the long-period orbit of UX Ari, or its period is at least 24 years (it must be longer, if 19.9 is below the $`\gamma `$ velocity of that binary), more than 2 times longer than our estimate for the circular long-period orbit of UX Ari and still longer than the 21.5 yr estimated for the elliptical orbit. However, we caution that it is always possible that a crossing of 19.9 km s-1 between 1986/7 and 1995 has been missed.
* Yet another confirmation is obtained from the conclusions presented in Sect. 4.

## 4 Conclusions

By using high-accuracy radial velocities of the double-lined RS CVn system UX Ari we have shown that the $`\gamma `$ velocity is systematically changing; all other orbital parameters seem to be constant over time. Preliminary (circular and elliptical) orbital solutions of $`\gamma (t)`$ lead to a period of roughly 10 and 21 years, respectively. New, high-accuracy orbits of UX Ari are urgently needed to establish the accurate period of the long-period orbit.

It is interesting that our findings do not compare well with those of Lestrade et al. (LPJ99 (1999)). Their angular accelerations measured for UX Ari, if interpreted as consequences of gravitational pull due to a third star, require a period of the outer orbit of many times their 11-year observational time span. Our circular orbit has a period even shorter than 11 yr; the eccentric orbit’s period is less than twice 11 yr. Furthermore, their observations obtained during JD $``$ 2445000–2449000 covered, according to our eccentric orbit fit, the passage through the apastron, i.e. they should have noticed a change of direction in the proper motions. Our $`\gamma `$s are only compatible with a much larger period if the eccentricity is even higher than $`e0.6`$. Our data time span is not long enough to allow for such a fit. Also for this reason new, high-quality $`\gamma `$ measurements are of great importance.

Several arguments (see also below) indicate that the third star, which produces a weak third set of lines in the spectrum of UX Ari, is not the body responsible for the $`\gamma `$ variations; but we found that the third star’s RV is also systematically varying. Thus, UX Ari is (at least) a triple system with a single-lined spectroscopic binary on the same line of sight. Also for the third star further observations are needed to establish its orbit and to find out whether it is in the fore- or in the background.

If we take the preliminary long-period orbital solution seriously, the period in the observer’s frame is changing between $`6\stackrel{d}{.}437778`$ and $`6\stackrel{d}{.}437902`$ with an error of $`0\stackrel{d}{.}000011`$444These numbers refer to the larger $`\gamma `$ variations of the circular orbit (see Fig. 2).; thus, the period variation is highly significant (11$`\sigma `$). Nevertheless, the phase shift caused by this variation is negligible for Doppler imaging: the apparent motion of a really stationary surface feature during the 5.3 yr between maximum and minimum is only 2. The systematic change of the radial velocity by almost 6 km s-1, however, is highly significant and may lead to artifacts in the maps.

In the following, we want to draw some more conclusions about the physical parameters of the components in UX Ari:

* The spectral type of the secondary is given as G5 V (Vogt & Hatzes VH91 (1991)), which is consistent with the results from our subtraction technique. If it were of significantly different spectral class, the subtraction of G5 V standards would lead to significant residuals in the subtracted spectrum. The classification of G5 V implies a mass of the secondary $`m_2=(0.95\pm 0.05)M_{}`$. This value is obtained as an average between the values given by Schmidt-Kaler (SK82 (1982)) and Gray (G92 (1992), App. B); the error accounts for the difference between their values as well as a small classification error.
* Together with $`m_2\mathrm{sin}^3i`$ from Table 5 this yields an inclination of $`i=59\stackrel{}{.}2\pm 3\stackrel{}{.}3`$. This high inclination (if the orbital and rotational axes are aligned) makes UX Ari an ideal target for surface imaging (for results see Aarum et al. Aa99 (1999), Aarum et al., in preparation).
* $`i`$ and $`m_1\mathrm{sin}^3i`$ (Table 5) give a mass of the primary of $`m_1=(1.100\pm 0.060)M_{}`$.
* With $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and the mass functions $`f(m)`$ from the outer orbit (Table 6), and assuming that the inclination of the long-period orbit is also $`59\stackrel{}{.}2`$, we get for the mass of the third body in the system $`m=(0.460\pm 0.052)M_{}`$ (for $`e=0`$) and $`m=(0.307\pm 0.020)M_{}`$ (for $`e0.6`$). The larger of these masses corresponds to an early M star, whose MV is at least 4m fainter than that of the G5 secondary, much too faint to be responsible for the third set of lines visible in the spectrum of UX Ari, thus confirming our earlier conclusion that the third star in the spectrum is a binary accidentally on the same line of sight.
* The same conclusion is reached in another way: If the third star in the spectrum would be the body responsible for the $`\gamma `$ variations, the amplitude of its RV curve would be $`K_326.514.8=11.7`$ km s-1. This leads to a mass ratio of $`m_3/(m_1+m_2)=K_{\mathrm{out}}/K_30.25`$ and with the above masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ to $`m_30.51M_{}`$, again an early M star with too small luminosity to account for the third set of lines.
* With the plausible assumption that the rotation of the two stars in the short-period system of UX Ari is synchronized with the orbit, i.e. $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}=P_{\mathrm{orb}}=P_{\mathrm{rest}}`$ and $`i_{\mathrm{rot}}=i_{\mathrm{orb}}`$, $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ gives for the radii of the stars $`R_1=(5.78\pm 0.13)R_{}`$, $`R_2=(1.11\pm 0.08)R_{}`$. The radius of the primary is consistent with its subgiant classification; the radius of the secondary, however, is significantly larger than that of a G5 V star: Gray (G92 (1992), App. B) gives 0.96 $`R_{}`$, while Schmidt-Kaler (SK82 (1982)) gives 0.92 $`R_{}`$. With such a large radius the star should have spectral type G0–1 V according to both authors. This seems to be a large deviation for the classification; maybe, also this star has already expanded a little away from the main sequence.
* With the masses and radii we obtain for the surface gravities $`\mathrm{log}g_1=2.96\pm 0.03`$, $`\mathrm{log}g_2=4.32\pm 0.07`$. This means that the model spectra for the primary used in surface imaging can well be calculated with $`\mathrm{log}g=3`$; no interpolation between the models, given by Kurucz (K93 (1993)) in steps of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}g=0.5`$, will be necessary.
* Given the inclination, we can compute $`a=a_1+a_2`$, and from that and the mass ratio (Table 5) obtain the effective radii of the Roche-lobes (Eggleton E83 (1983)), i.e. the radii of the spheres having the same volumes as the Roche-lobes. We get $`R_{\mathrm{Rl},1}=7.24\pm 0.13`$, $`R_{\mathrm{Rl},2}=6.77\pm 0.12`$ (the errors neglect the (at most) 1% error of the Eggleton (E83 (1983)) approximation).
* If we compare the Roche-lobe radii with the radii of the stars themselves it is clear that neither of the stars fills its Roche-lobe. However, the primary is close; a K0 giant has typically a radius of 11 $`R_{}`$ (Gray G92 (1992)) and since the star will go on cooling, the final radius should be even larger. Thus, the RS CVn system of UX Ari will soon become a semi-detached binary.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for his careful reading of the paper and his comments, which helped to significantly improve the paper. This work made use of the SIMBAD database, maintained at the CDS, Strasbourg, France. Part of this work is supported by the Norwegian Research Council under project number 122520/431.