Semi-Inclusive Kaon Electroproduction

with CLAS

M. OsipenkoPSHP 2010,

October 19, 2010,Frascati, Italy

Contribution of s-quarks

2

• Typical kinematics:

CLAS 6 GeV CLAS 6 GeV

CLAS 11 GeV CLAS 11 GeV

Q2=2.5 GeV2

z=0.5

K+

K+

K-

K-

• LO param.:GRV 94 LODSS 07 LO

• Acceptance cuts.

• K- production allows to study of s-quark contribution.

CLAS data

3

• Hadron identification – Time Of Flight system (Scintillation Counter)

cRt

h

SCSC

pst 300

cmRSC 400

cGeVmmc

Rpt

KSCh /2.2

2

22max

Resolution:Flight Distance:

Time of flight

Maximum momentum of 1

K- separation

1

222

SC

SChh R

ctpm

h+ h-+

p

K+

-Convoluted with CLAS acceptance.

TOF PID

4

P=1.7 GeV

P=1 GeVP=1 GeV

P=2 GeV

Monte Carlo GSIM describes

well TOF resolution.

Momentum dependent cuts

is applied to suppress pion

and proton contaminations.

cutcut

Energy loss in scintillator

5

• Energy loss allows to clean pion contamination at momenta Ph<0.8 GeV/c,

• Obtained after TOF cuts distributions do not exhibit large contamination,

• Distributions are slightly different from Bethe-Bloch formula + Birks quenching effect.K+ K-

+ -

Pion Contamination

6

K-K+

• Contamination remaining after all cuts (TOF,Energy loss) ranges from 10% to 20%,

• From previous measurements we know pion rate with systematic precision of 10-15%,

• The main systematic uncertainty is due to ability of Monte Carlo simulations to describe TOF resolution.

7

Kinematical Coverage of E1-6a run

K-K+ 4x105 events 2x104 events

Negative kaons:

• Lower mean z-values,

• 20 times smaller

statistics

8

Transverse momentum2 2 2 2Tp p k z

+

22 2maxT Tp p z

• Parton model predicts simple dependence of the mean transverse momentum:

• Upper limit on transverse momentum:

preliminary

curve - M.Anselmino et al., PRD71

DIS

current fragm.

9

Data vs. pQCDpreliminary

Sys.err. 15%Solid – LO DSSDashed – NLO DSSDotted – LO KretzerDot-dashed – NLO Kretzer

10

Q2-evolutionpreliminary

Sys.err. 15%Solid – LO DSSDashed – NLO DSSDotted – LO KretzerDot-dashed – NLO Kretzer

11

<cosf><Q2>=2.2 GeV2Cahn - M.Anselmino et al., PRD71, Berger – A.Brandenburg et al., PLB347

Sys.err. 2%

12

<cos2f><Q2>=2.2 GeV2Cahn - M.Anselmino et al., PRD71, Berger – A.Brandenburg et al., PLB347

Sys.err. 2%

CLAS12 projection

13

• Proposal “Studies of Boer-Mulders Asymmetry in Kaon Electroproduction with Hydrogen and Deuterium Targets” by H.Avakian et al.

• With 2 RICH sectors statistical uncertainties are of the order of 0.5% for data integrated in SIDIS,

• For large-x kinematics, the accessible f-interval is incomplete, undermining azimuthal asymmetry extraction, proposed run with inbending torus field should solve this problem.

22 4GeVM X

22 04.0 GeVpT 5.0z

22 2GeVQ

3x106 SIDIS K- H. Avakian et al. inbending outbending

14

Summary1. We measured 5-fold differential semi-inclusive electro-production

cross sections for +, -, K+ and K- in a wide kinematical range in all 5 independent variables;

2. In current fragmentation region all the data are in reasonable agreement with naïve current fragmentation pQCD calculations;

3. The measured <cosf> moments are incompatible with Cahn and Berger effects, while <cos2f> is compatible with zero in agreement with theory;

4. Projections for 12 GeV Upgrade show significant improvement in statistics and kinematic coverage.

15

BACKUP SLIDES

16

Status of Un.Semi-Inclusive in CLAS

We measured semi-inclusive electro-production cross sections for +, -, K+, K- and protons:1. + was published in PRD80 (2009),2. - in Deep Processes Working Group review (Kaftar, Harut, Marco

Contalbrigo),3. Parallel analysis of Wes Gohn is on-going, intends to extract

isospin asymmetry of pions, a cross check of the two analyses is expected, we have an agreement that - paper is published first and will not include any discussion of Boer-Mulders functions,

4. Proton is in progress: analysis note is almost ready, draft of the paper to be written,

5. K+/K- first results are obtained, analysis note and draft to be written, depends on velocity of - review,

6. Neutron analysis is foreseen, depending on status of proton analysis.

17

Semi-inclusive Kinematics( ) ( ) ( )V hq p P h p X + +

2 2Q q

~h h hp Pp Ez

q Pq

+

+

2

hT T h

p qp p p q

q

'h e

5 independent variables

Detect the scattered electron in coincidence with hadron h: e+pe'+h+X

Final state:

,h h hp E p

2 2

2 2q QxqP M

,q k k q

In OPE approximation:Four-momenta in Lab:

Initial state:

,0P M

18

Observables

5

1 2 3 42 2 2 cos cos 2T

hEd N ydxdQ dzdp d p

+ + +

H H H H

2( , , , )i i x Q z tH H

3

1 2

(2 )cos2

y f

+H

H H

Cross section is described by 4 functions of 4 variables:

Azimuthal asymmetries (moments):

4

1 2

cos 22f

+

HH H

2

4

2NxQ

beam

yE

2

2Mx

Q 2 211

4y y

2xy

2

11

+

where

coscos

n dn

d

f

J.Levelt & P.Mulders, PRD49

19

SIDIS: constant in f

22 ( ) ( )h

q q qq

H e f x D z2

2 ( , )hq q

q

H e M x z

( )qf x

Current fragmentation Target fragmentation( )h

qD z

( , )hqM x z

1 22H xH

L.Trentadue & G.Veneziano, PLB323

X.Ji et al., PRD71 J.C.Collins, PRD57Factorization proved

( )qf x( )h

h dD zdz

( ) df x

dx

20

SIDIS: f-dependence

2 21 1( , ) ( , )cos 2

( ) ( )BM T Th x p H z p

f x D z

p xP k +

2 2

22 22

2 1

1cos ~ 1 41 (1 )

n

nn T

T

k z pyny Qp

+

+ +

HH H

1.Cahn effect:

2.Berger effect:

3.Boer-Mulders function h1┴ (TMD) contribution:

D.Boer&P.Mulders, PRD57

2

( )cos ~( , , )

h

n T

n dg z p

2 2 2 2Tp p k z +

0, cos , sin ,0k k kf f

H1┴ from e+e- collisions

R.N.Cahn, PRD40

E.Berger, ZPC4

4.Higher Order pQCD corrections:2

2

(2 ) 1( )cos 12 1 (1 )

S y yQ zy

+ H.Georgi&H.Politzer, PRL40

( )h hadron wave

function

21

Q2-dependence for +

22 max2

2 min

22 max2

2 min

2

2

( , )

TTT

T

TTT

T

pppn

T Tp

n ppp

Tp

p e dp

f z

e dp

We compared our data on φ-dependent terms with EMC measurement (J.Aubert et al., PLB130) performed at significantly higher Q2:curves show Cahn effect prediction corrected for threshold effect:

<cosf>

<cos2f>

EMC(83)CLAS

x=0.24z>0.2

pT>0.2 GeV 22maxTp z

and n=1,2

Larger threshold effect predicted in: A.Konig and P.Kroll, ZPC16

22

Normalization

0Fx

2 CMhEzs

1( )tot

dD zdz

T H Hp z W z

1

0

( ) ( ) ( )e e h hh q q

q

n s D z D z dz+

+

1

0,

1( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )

ep h hh q q q q

qqq q

n s f x D z f x D z dzf x

+

In e+e- collisions

In SIDIS, neglecting target fragmentation contribution

Hadron multiplicity:

TH

pzW

=>

Cut on xF removes part of the pT region breaking normalization of transverse momentum distribution.

=>

23

Azimuthal angle definition ,

cosh

h

k q p q

k q p q

k – initial electron 3-momentum,ph – hadron 3-momentum,q – virtual photon 3-momentum

Trentoconvention

24

pT-dependence

cos Tp

Prelim

inary

Q2=2.4 GeV2, x=0.26, z=0.23

CLAS The same pT behavior for all structure functions => trivial kinematical factors for azimuthal asymmetries <cosf> and <cos2f>

H3 contribution is negativeH4 is mostly positiveSuggest only internal transverse

motion of quarks (Cahn)?

Structure functions were separated by fitting f dependences in each separate kinematical bin.

Only bins with complete f-coverage were considered.

2cos 2 Tpf

up to pT~1 GeV

25

e- measurement1. Cherenkov Counter (CC) uniquely identify electrons up to P~3 GeV2. Electromagnetic Calorimeter (EC) separates high energy electrons

e-

-

e-

-+CC noise

26

e- inclusive1. Inclusive cross sections obtained with the same data are in good

agreement with world data.2. Little effort needed to complete the inclusive data analysis at 6 GeV

CLAS E1-6 CLAS E1-6Bodek fit Bodek fit

World World

27

Ep-elastic

28

+ measurement1. Pions are well identified by Time Of Flight (TOF) measurement in

all accessible kinematical range2. Loss of events in data and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations due to PID

cuts was checked in +n peak

all positive hadrons

selected events

+n peak

background

29

+ semi-inclusive1. New CLAS data are in agreement with previously published

measurements within given uncertainties2. Comparison also shows non-trivial pT-behavior

pT=0.07 GeV/cpT=0 or 0.1

30

+ semi-inclusive

Kinematics does not match perfectly, some extrapolations have been performed in CLAS data.

31

EMC data

EMC, PLB95

Much larger <pT2> values measured by EMC, but seen to increase

rapidly with W.

32

Parameterization dependence

CTEQ 5 LOGRV 98 LO

MRST cg LO

CTEQ 5 NLOGRV 98 NLO

MRST cg NLO

1. Very small uncertainty due to parton distribution function2. Larger uncertainty due to fragmentation function

33

ZEUS data

ZEUS, PLB481

ZEUS, PLB481

1. The same limitations as for EMC and E665

2. More detailed data sample in hep-ex/0608053 represented in different variables (pseudorapidity and minimum hadronic energy in HCM) and integrated also over neutral hadrons appears hard to compare

0.01<x<0.1180<Q2<7220 GeV2

0.2<z<1

34

EMC and E665 data

E665, PRD48

EMC, Z.Phys.C34

cos ( ) cosCT

CT T

p

n p dp n

1. The same limitations also in E665 data2. Minimum transverse momentum of hadrons is commonly used pT

C which can mask possible sign change at low pT

3. Strong xF variation is seen by EMC

Q2>4 GeV2

40<W2< 450 GeV2

Q2>3 GeV2

100<W2< 900 GeV2

35

EMC data in pT

l

yE

1 2

1( ) (2 )

1 (1 )y

f y yy

+

EMC, PLB130EMC, Z.Phys.C34

1. Summed over all charged hadrons positive and negative, no PID2. Integrated over all other variables: x, Q2, z3. Radiative corrections with Monte Carlo

2 2

1( )1 (1 )

yf yy

+

Q2>4 GeV2

40<W2< 450 GeV2

36

CLAS Acceptance 0( )

( )

DATAGEN

GSIM

N d

N d

cos cos cos cosDATA GSIM GENn n n n +

Zero-order approximation:

φ-constant term

Acceptance mixes Fourier coefficients

with different n.

37

Fourier analysis of acceptance100 harmonic expansion: CLAS acceptance is cosine-like. Even number of sectors generate mostly even functions in azimuthal distributions.

even (cos nφ) odd (sin nφ)DATA

Fourier seriesDATA

Fourier series

38

CLAS Acceptance

/ 01 1 2 2cos sin cos 2 sin 2 ...

2eff acc AA A B A B + + + + +

2, ,

0

1 ( )cosDATA GSIM DATA GSIMnI LN n d

( ) ( )LN

n nA A

, , ,0 1 2( ) cos cos 2DATA GEN DATA GEN DATA GENV V V + +

2

, , , ,0 1 2

0

01 2

1 cos cos 2

cos cos 2 ... cos2

DATA GSIM DATA GSIM DATA GSIM DATA GSIMnI V V V

A A A n d

+ +

+ + +

, , , ,1 1 2 20 1 22 2

DATA GSIM DATA GSIM DATA GSIM DATA GSIMn n n nn n

A A A AI A V V V + ++ + + +

0,1,2,...n

/1( ) ( ) ( )acc effN AL

39

CLAS Acceptance

0 2 1~DATAV H H+1 3~DATAV H

nA

2 4~DATAV H

1 1

GSIM GEN

N N N NI A V

1 1

DATA DATA

N N N NI A V

Only first 10 harmonics are significant, but 20 harmonics are kept in the analysis.

40

Three methods Comparison of the three

methods for structure function separation:

1. Fit of φ-distribution2. Moments method in zero-

order approximation3. Moments method

accounting for N=20 harmonics of CLAS acceptance

Higher harmonics are important in the extraction of φ–even observables from CLAS data

41

Pseudo-data Cross CheckPseudo-data generated in a limited kinematical area from a known model (different from that used in the reconstruction) were used to check that the two extraction procedures are able to extract correct φ-moments.

modelmodel

42

Results of Integration

22 2 0DIS

T TH p H p

Different assumptions yield slightly different results in low-z region.

Exponential pT

Exponential tNumerical pT integ.Numerical t integ.

exact formulano Eh/p|| correction

unphysical high pT tail

Correct expression for low energy: 2 max 2

222 2 2 2

0

TpTDIS

h T

h h T

H pH E dp

E m p

LO pQCD

43

Data vs. Monte Carlo

44

Semi-Inclusive Kinematical Domains

elastic peakepe’p’

resonances

• Exclusive production• Inclusive production:

• MX<1÷2 GeV - Resonance region• MX>1÷2 GeV - Deep Inelastic

Scattering (DIS)• Q2<1 GeV2 † - Non-perturbative• Q2>1 GeV2 † - Perturbative

• Current fragmentation• Target fragmentation

inelastic

0

h w,r

n

D0

epe’p’X

epe’+X

J.P.Albanese et al.,PLB144

Y CMS rapidity

45

Structure Function Separation 1 2 1 2 cos cos 2 cos 2 cos 2

hH H

ENp

+ + +

coscos

d

d

cos 2

cos 2d

d

Two methods of separation:1. fit of f-dependence2. event-by-event moments

46

pT dependences

2 22 2

0

DIST TH H p dp

2

22

2 2 0T

T

p

pTH p H e

pT dependence cannot be calculated by ordinary pQCD, only TMD-based approach will permit for a complete description of the measurement. One has to integrate the data in pT

2: