format: text

text:
# (a) “Normal”

21 February 2003

hep-ph/0302173

Last CPT-Invariant Hope for LSND Neutrino Oscillations
C. Giunti
INFN, Sezione di Torino, and Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica,

Università di Torino, Via P. Giuria 1, I–10125 Torino, Italy

Abstract

It is shown that the 99% confidence limits from the analyses of the data of cosmological and neutrino experiments imply a small marginally allowed region in the space of the neutrino oscillation parameters of $`3+1`$ four-neutrino mixing schemes. This region can be confirmed or falsified by experiments in the near future.

The impressive results of the first year of observations of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) \[?\] combined with other recent high precision cosmological data sets (2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest data, CBI and ACBAR microwave background data; see references in Ref. \[?\]) allowed to derive tight constraints on the values of cosmological parameters \[?\]. In particular, the combined fit of cosmological data performed in Ref. \[?\] imply the tight bound

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2<7.6\times 10^3\text{(95\% confidence limit)}$$
(1)
for the contribution of massive neutrinos to the energy density of the universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ is the neutrino density relative to the critical density, $`h`$ is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km/s/Mpc), whose dependence on the values of the neutrino masses $`m_i`$ is given by \[?, ?\]

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2=\frac{_im_i}{93.5\mathrm{eV}}.$$
(2)
Strong evidences in favor of neutrino oscillations have been obtained in atmospheric \[?, ?, ?\], solar \[?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?\], long-baseline reactor \[?\] and accelerator \[?\] neutrino experiments. The results of all these neutrino experiments can be explained in the framework of standard three-neutrino mixing (see Refs. \[?, ?\]) with the two squared-mass differences

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^27\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^22.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(3)
which generate, respectively, solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations. In this case, the bound (1) can be saturated only if the three neutrino masses are almost degenerate (see Ref. \[?\]), and each neutrino mass is bounded by \[?\]

$$m_i<0.23\mathrm{eV}\text{(95\% confidence limit)}.$$
(4)
Neutrino oscillations in the framework of three-neutrino mixing cannot explain simultaneously the results of solar, atmospheric, long-baseline neutrino experiments and the evidence in favor of short-baseline $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ transitions found in the LSND experiment \[?\], because an additional large squared-mass difference,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^21\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(5)
is needed. Taking into account only the need of three independent squared-mass differences, the minimal framework that may be able to explain all data with neutrino oscillations is four-neutrino mixing (see Refs. \[?, ?\]). There are two types of schemes that provide the needed hierarchy of squared-mass differences in Eqs. (3) and (5): $`2+2`$ schemes with two pairs of almost degenerate massive neutrinos separated by the so-called “LSND gap” of the order of 1 eV, and $`3+1`$ schemes with a triplet of almost degenerate massive neutrinos and an isolated massive neutrino separated by the LSND gap. In spite of the apparent large freedom in four-neutrino mixing schemes, which have three independent squared-mass differences and six mixing angles, the present data of neutrino experiments are so rich that four-neutrino schemes are tightly constrained. In Refs. \[?, ?\] it has been shown that $`2+2`$ schemes are strongly disfavored by data and $`3+1`$ schemes fail to provide an acceptable fit of the data, except for a few marginally acceptable regions in parameter space.

In a very interesting paper \[?\] Pierce and Murayama considered the marginally allowed $`3+1`$ schemes shown schematically in Fig. 1, in which the isolated neutrino is the heavier one, $`\nu _4`$ with mass $`m_4`$. In this case, only the heaviest massive neutrino saturates the cosmological bound in Eq. (1), leading to the limit

$$m_4<0.71\mathrm{eV}\text{(95\% confidence limit)},$$
(6)
which straightforwardly implies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2<0.50\mathrm{eV}^2\text{(95\% confidence limit)}.$$
(7)
In Fig. 2 we show this limit (dashed horizontal line) superimposed to Fig. 4 of Ref. \[?\], which shows the LSND-allowed regions at 90% and 99% C.L. in the plane of the mixing parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2`$, compared with the upper bound for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}`$ from short-baseline, atmospheric and solar neutrino data. These bounds are due to the fact that in $`3+1`$ four-neutrino mixing schemes the oscillation amplitude $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}`$ in the LSND experiment (as well as in other short-baseline $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ experiments) is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}=4|U_{e4}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2,$$
(8)
where $`U`$ is the unitary mixing matrix (see Ref. \[?\]). The values of $`|U_{e4}|^2`$ and $`|U_{\mu 4}|^2`$ are constrained by the negative results of short-baseline reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e`$ and accelerator $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ disappearance experiments, whose oscillation amplitudes are given, respectively, by

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e}=4|U_{e4}|^2\left(1|U_{e4}|^2\right),\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }=4|U_{\mu 4}|^2\left(1|U_{\mu 4}|^2\right).$$
(9)
Large values of $`|U_{\mu 4}|^2`$ are forbidden by the results of atmospheric neutrino experiments, because in order to have $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillations due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ the muon neutrino must have a large mixing with the three light massive neutrinos, which by unitarity implies a small mixing with the heavy isolated massive neutrino. Similarly, large values of $`|U_{e4}|^2`$ are forbidden by the results of solar neutrino experiments. The resulting upper bounds on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}`$ calculated in Ref. \[?\] at 95% and 99% C.L. are represented by the wiggling lines in Fig. 2.

One can see from Fig. 2 that the cosmological upper bound (7) excludes all the regions which are marginally allowed by solar, atmospheric and terrestrial neutrino experiments. From this comparison Pierce and Murayama \[?\] concluded that a four-neutrino mixing explanation of the LSND results is strongly disfavored and “the only way to reconcile LSND with the cosmological data is to have CPT violation” \[?, ?\].

Here we would like to point out that, although there is a clear tension between different data interpreted in the framework of four-neutrino mixing, before considering this possibility ruled out we should apply more caution. A way to avoid premature conclusions is to consider experimental limits with high confidence level or high probability, which is especially recommended for the comparison of results of different experiments. In this spirit, the 95% confidence of the limit in Eq. (7) does not appear to be sufficient to rule out four-neutrino mixing.

Unfortunately, the authors Ref. \[?\] did not give the values of more robust confidence limits. However, it is possible to extract additional information from Fig. 14 of their paper, which shows the cumulative probability of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$. One can see that the cumulative probability of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$ is rather flat above the limit in Eq. (1) and requiring 99% confidence may raise significantly the bound.

The precise values of the cumulative probability of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$ extracted from the Postscript file of Fig. 14 of Ref. \[?\] are available at $`ftp://wftp.to.infn.it/pub/giunti/wmap0302209/wmap0302209f14.txt`$. The plot in Fig. 14 of Ref. \[?\] ends at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2=0.010`$, where we find a cumulative probability of $`1.4\times 10^2`$ which correspond to a 98.6% confidence limit. For simplicity, let us approximate it with a 99% confidence limit. Hence, in the $`3+1`$ schemes in Fig. 1 we have the bound

$$m_4<0.94\mathrm{eV}\text{(99\% confidence limit)},$$
(10)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2<0.87\mathrm{eV}^2\text{(99\% confidence limit)}.$$
(11)
This bound is represented by the solid horizontal line in Fig. 2.

From Fig. 2 one can see that the three 99% confidence regions obtained from the LSND results, from the results of solar, atmospheric and terrestrial neutrino experiments, and from cosmological data overlap on a tiny region in the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2`$ plane at111 See also the interesting Addendum 4 in Version 4 of the hep-ph version of Ref. \[?\], which appeared after completion of this paper.

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}2.0\times 10^3,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^20.86\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(12)
This region corresponds to the region R2 found in Ref. \[?\].

Although we have to admit that this region is only marginally allowed and its probability is rather low, we think that it is still not excluded and may constitute the “last CPT-invariant hope for LSND neutrino oscillations”222 We do not consider here the constraints imposed by Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis, whose status is still controversial (see Refs. \[?, ?, ?, ?\]). .

The predictions of the values of neutrino oscillation parameters in Eq. (12) for future experiments are rather strong. Of course, such region should be measured in the MiniBooNE experiment \[?\], which is aimed to check the LSND result. Since this region is just below the upper bound for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}`$ from short-baseline, atmospheric and solar neutrino data, for a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2`$ where such bound is due to the combined results of the Bugey reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ disappearance experiment \[?\] and the CDHS accelerator $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance experiment \[?\], future experiments should find $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance at the borders of the Bugey and CDHS bounds at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^20.86\mathrm{eV}^2`$:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e}7\times 10^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }0.1,$$
(13)
which correspond to

$$|U_{e4}|^22\times 10^2,|U_{\mu 4}|^23\times 10^2$$
(14)
(see also Figs. 3–6 of Ref. \[?\]). Furthermore, if there are no fine-tuned cancellations among the contributions to the effective Majorana mass in neutrinoless double-$`\beta `$ decay \[?\], this effective mass could be as high as

$$|U_{e4}|^2m_42\times 10^2\mathrm{eV},$$
(15)
and could be observed in future experiments \[?, ?, ?, ?\]. The contribution of the heavy neutrino $`\nu _4`$ to the effective neutrino mass in tritium beta decay (see Ref. \[?\]) is

$$|U_{e4}|m_40.1\mathrm{eV},$$
(16)
which is not much below the 0.35 eV expected sensitivity of the KATRIN experiment \[?\] and may be observed in the future.

In conclusion, we would like to remark that, although the alternative possibility of large CPT violations in the neutrino sector is undoubtedly very interesting, great caution should be exercised before ruling out four-neutrino mixing schemes that may allow an appealing explanation of all neutrino experiments in the framework of local quantum field theory with the standard three flavor neutrinos and an additional very intriguing sterile neutrino (see Ref. \[?\]). Considering 99% confidence limits from the analyses of the data of cosmological and neutrino experiments we found a small marginally allowed region for the oscillation parameters in $`3+1`$ four-neutrino mixing schemes, which can be confirmed or falsified by experiments in the near future.


text:
# Measurement of the Transverse-Longitudinal Cross Sections in the 𝑝(𝑒⃗,𝑒'𝑝)𝜋⁰ Reaction in the Δ Region

## Abstract

Accurate measurements of the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ reaction were performed at $`Q^2=0.127`$ (GeV/c)2 in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance energy region. The experiments at the MIT-Bates Linear Accelerator used an 820 MeV polarized electron beam with the out of plane magnetic spectrometer system (OOPS). In this paper we report the first simultaneous determination of both the TL and TL (“fifth” or polarized) cross sections at low $`Q^2`$ where the pion cloud contribution is predicted to dominate the quadrupole amplitudes (E2 and C2). The real and imaginary parts of the transverse-longitudinal cross section provide both a sensitive determination of the Coulomb quadrupole amplitude and a test of reaction calculations. Comparisons with model calculations are presented. The empirical MAID calculation gives the best overall agreement with this accurate data. The parameters of this model for the values of the resonant multipoles are $`|M_{1+}(I=3/2)|=(40.9\pm 0.3)10^3/m_\pi ,CMR=C2/M1=6.5\pm 0.3\%,EMR=E2/M1=2.2\pm 0.9\%`$, where the errors are due to the experimental uncertainties.

, , , thanks: Now at Universität, Mainz, Germany. , , , , , , , , , , thanks: Now at ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. , , , , , , , , thanks: Now at Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855. , , , , , , , , thanks: Now at TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada. , , , , thanks: Now at St. Mary’s Univ., Halifax, Canada, B3H 3C3. , , , , , , , , , , , , thanks: Now at Universitat Basel, Switzerland. , , , and

Experimental confirmation of the deviation of the nucleon shape from spherical symmetry is of fundamental significance and has been the subject of intense investigation  since this possibility was originally raised by Glashow . For the $`J=1/2`$ nucleon, this determination has focused on the determination of the electric and Coulomb quadrupole amplitudes (E2, C2) in the predominantly M1(magnetic dipole-quark spin flip) $`\gamma ^{}N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition. Thus measurements of the E2 and C2 amplitudes represent deviations from spherical symmetry of the $`N,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ system and not the nucleon alone. The experimental difficulty is that the E2/M1 and C2/M1 ratios are small (typically $``$ $`2`$ to $`8`$ % at low four momentum transfered, $`Q^2`$). In this case the non-resonant (background) and resonant quadrupole amplitudes are the same order of magnitude. Therefore experiments have to be designed to attain the required precision to separate the signal and background contributions. This has been accomplished for photo-pion reactions using polarized photon beams .

Observation of the deviation from spherical symmetry in pion electroproduction is more pronounced than in photoproduction. This is due to the interference between the longitudinal C2 and the dominant M1 amplitudes in the $`\sigma _{TL}`$ cross section . On the other hand the presence of the additional longitudinal multipoles means that there are more multipoles to determine and therefore more extensive data must be taken. The experiments for an extensive data-base that would allow a model independent analysis have just begun . At the present time one must rely on reaction models to extract the resonant M1, E2, and C2 amplitudes of interest from the data. As has been pointed out in previous publications, the model error can be much larger than the experimental error . Therefore it is important to test model calculations for a range of center of mass(CM) energies $`W`$ in the region of 1232 MeV, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonant energy, which provides a range of background and resonant amplitudes. It is also important to determine specific cross sections (e.g. $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}},\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{^{}}}`$) which are primarily sensitive to the C2 and background amplitudes respectively. In this letter we present the first measurement that provides such information at and below the resonance energy at low $`Q^2`$. This requires a polarized electron beam and out of plane hadron detection.

In the constituent quark model the d state admixtures in the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ wave functions are caused by the hyperfine tensor interaction between quarks . The pion cloud contribution to the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ structure is primarily in the p wave. This is due to the spontaneously broken chiral symmetry of QCD in which the pion, an almost Goldstone Boson, interacts with hadrons via gradient coupling . Therefore it is not surprising  that model calculations have shown that at low $`Q^2`$ the pion cloud contributes significantly to the M1 amplitude and dominates the E2 and C2 contributions to the $`\gamma ^{}N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition. The present experiment was performed at $`Q^2=0.127`$ (GeV/c)2 which is close to the predicted maximum of the pion cloud contribution . Thus this experiment is ideally suited to test these calculations.

The coincident $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\pi )`$ cross section in the one-photon-exchange-approximation can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{e}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi ^{\mathrm{cm}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{v}\sigma _\mathrm{h}(\theta ,\varphi ),`$ (1)
where

$`\sigma _\mathrm{h}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}+\epsilon \sigma _\mathrm{L}+\sqrt{2\epsilon (1+\epsilon )}\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`+\epsilon \sigma _{\mathrm{TT}}\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +hp_\mathrm{e}\sqrt{2\epsilon (1\epsilon )}\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{v}`$ is the virtual photon flux, $`h=\pm 1`$ is the electron helicity, $`p_\mathrm{e}`$ is the magnitude of the longitudinal electron polarization, $`\epsilon `$ is the virtual photon polarization, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the pion CM polar and azimuthal angles relative to the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{L}`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TT}}`$ are the longitudinal, transverse, transverse-longitudinal, and transverse-transverse interference cross sections, respectively .

The TL and the TL (transverse-longitudinal) cross sections are the real and imaginary parts of the same combination of interference multipole amplitudes. Approximate expressions for these are:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{Re}[A_{\mathrm{TL}}+B_{\mathrm{TL}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ],`$ (2)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{Im}[A_{\mathrm{TL}}+B_{\mathrm{TL}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ],`$
$`A_{\mathrm{TL}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{k}}L_{0+}^{}M_{1+},`$
$`B_{\mathrm{TL}}`$ $``$ $`6{\displaystyle \frac{q}{k}}L_{1+}^{}M_{1+},`$
where the pion production multipole amplitudes are denoted by $`M_{l\pm }`$, $`E_{l\pm }`$, and $`L_{l\pm }`$, indicating their character (magnetic, electric, or longitudinal), their total angular momentum ($`J`$=$`l\pm 1/2`$), $`q`$ and $`k`$ are the pion and photon center of mass momenta. In the first two lines of Eq.2 it has been assumed that the pions are produced in s and p waves only. In the next two lines an additional truncated multipole approximation is made, namely only terms which interfere with the dominant magnetic dipole amplitude $`M_{1+}`$ are kept. The exact formulas without this approximation can be found in . In model calculations  this approximation is not made and significant deviations from the truncated multipole approximation occur.

As has been previously demonstrated $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$ is sensitive to the magnitude of the longitudinal quadrupole amplitude C2 . Adding a measurement of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$ to this provides a stringent test of the background magnitudes and phases of the reaction calculations. It should be pointed out that a determination of the background amplitudes is an important part of the physics of the $`\gamma \pi `$N system.

To precisely determine the resonant quadrupole amplitude in the $`\gamma ^{}N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition at low $`Q^2`$ and to address the issue of background contributions, a program has been developed at the MIT-Bates Linear Accelerator. For this purpose we have developed a special out-of-plane magnetic spectrometer system (OOPS) in which the spectrometers are deployed symmetrically about the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ . We observed the TL cross section using a polarized electron beam of 0.85% duty factor at an energy of 820 MeV. A typical polarization and an average current were 37% and 6 $`\mu \mathrm{A}`$, respectively. A liquid H2 target was used in a cylindrical cell of 1.6 cm diameter with a 4.3 $`\mu `$m-thick Havar wall. The scattered electrons were detected in the One Hundred Inch Proton Spectrometer (OHIPS) and the coincident protons in two out-of-plane spectrometers deployed at a fixed laboratory angle relative to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and with out-of-plane angles $`\varphi =225^{},315^{}`$. The focal plane instrumentation of each spectrometer consisted of three horizontal drift chambers for track reconstruction and scintillators for triggering. Detailed optics studies were done for each spectrometer, and the detection efficiencies were measured as functions of all independent reaction coordinates. The total efficiency of the system was calibrated by using elastic electron scattering data from the liquid H2 target. Boiling effects in the target were studied by varying the beam current and they were negligible. The phase-space normalization of the cross section and various corrections applied to the data, including radiative corrections, were calculated with a Monte Carlo simulation. The cross sections were obtained from the part of the phase space of the two spectrometers which were matched in four dimensions ($`W,Q^2,\theta ,\varphi `$, where $`W`$ is a central invariant mass.

The experiment was performed at $`Q^2=0.127`$ (GeV/c)2, $`W=1232`$ MeV and 1170 MeV. The results and kinematic settings are presented in Table 1 and in Figs. 1, 2, and 3. The helicity asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{TL}^{}}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is

$`A_{\mathrm{TL}^{}}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{h=1}(\theta ,\varphi )\sigma _{h=1}(\theta ,\varphi )}{\sigma _{h=1}(\theta ,\varphi )+\sigma _{h=1}(\theta ,\varphi )}},`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\epsilon (1\epsilon )}\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )}{\sigma _{\mathrm{unpol}}(\theta ,\varphi )}}`$
where the quantities were defined in Eq. 1 and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{unpol}}`$ is the electron helicity independent part (the first four terms) of $`\sigma _\mathrm{h}`$. To first approximation this quantity can be extracted from the data without detailed Monte Carlo calculations of the phase space acceptance of the apparatus, and therefore has a smaller error. There are only small corrections due to the finite acceptances of the spectrometers. In the quoted results the quantities have been referred to the central spectrometer settings . The absolute values of the TL cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$ have also been extracted from the data  and are presented here.

We note that the sign of $`A_{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$ is negative. In the $`\pi ^0`$ channel the recoil protons were detected with the protons being emitted in the forward direction relative to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, the momentum transfer with out of plane angles $`\varphi _{\mathrm{pq}}=45^{},135^{}`$. In Eq. 1 the angles of the pion are involved, and $`\varphi =225^{},315^{}`$. Therefore a negative sign for $`A_{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$ means that the sign of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$ is positive.

The experimental results are compared to calculations  in Figs. 1, 2, and 3. The most ambitious calculations are the Sato-Lee model  which calculates all of the multipoles and $`\pi N`$ scattering from dynamical equations. It is in agreement with the photoproduction data (some of the model parameters were fit to these data). The Sato-Lee model also agrees with our data for the unpolarized cross sections $`\sigma _0=\sigma _\mathrm{T}+ϵ\sigma _\mathrm{L}`$ but unfortunately is in strong disagreement with our measurements of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$. The dispersion relations calculation  agrees with some of our data but disagrees with our measurement of $`\sigma _0`$ at $`W`$ = 1170 MeV and with our $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$ measurements. On the other hand dispersion relation calculations provide good agreement with photo-pion production data . The Mainz Unitary Model (MAID) is a flexible way to fit observed cross sections as a function of $`Q^2`$ . It incorporates Breit-Wigner resonant terms, Born terms, higher $`N^{}`$ resonances, and is unitarized using empirical $`\pi `$N phase shifts. The parameters of the model have been previously fit to a range of data, including our previous results , and are in reasonable agreement with our data  with the exception of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}(\theta =119^{},W=1170`$ MeV) which is in disagreement with all calculations. The Dubna - Mainz - Taipei (DMT) model  includes dynamics for the resonant channels and uses the background amplitudes of the MAID model. This model is in reasonable agreement with our data at resonance ($`W`$ = 1232 MeV) but not with $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{TL}}`$ below resonance ($`W`$ = 1170 MeV).

The Sato-Lee and DMT dynamical models  predict that the pion cloud is the dominant contribution to the quadrupole amplitudes at low values of $`Q^2`$. This behavior is an expected consequence of the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD . Unfortunately these models are not in overall agreement with our data. In contrast the Sato-Lee model showed much better predictions of the recently reported JLab Hall B result for the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ reaction in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region from $`Q^2`$ from 0.4 to 1.8 (GeV/c)2 . This seems to indicate that the dominant meson cloud contribution, which is predicted to be a maximum near our values of $`Q^2`$, is not quantitatively correct.

Recently a measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{TL}^{}}`$ for the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ reaction in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region was performed at Mainz . The kinematics include a range of $`Q^2`$ values from 0.17 to 0.26 (GeV/c)2 and backward $`\theta `$ angles. These data were only compared to the MAID model with which they disagreed.

It is of interest to compare the TL and TL results presented here with those of the recoil polarizations which are proportional to the real and imaginary parts of interference multipole amplitudes. For the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})\pi ^0`$ channel the outgoing proton polarizations have been observed in parallel kinematics (the protons emitted along $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ or $`\theta =180^{}`$) . For this case the observables in the truncated multipole approximation are:

$`\sigma _0p_x`$ $``$ $`Re[A_{TL}^x],`$ (4)
$`\sigma _0p_y`$ $``$ $`Im[B_{TL}^y],`$
$`\sigma _0p_z`$ $``$ $`Re[C_{TT}^z],`$
$`A_{TL}^xB_{TL}^y`$ $``$ $`(4L_{1+}^{}L_{0+}^{}+L_1^{})M_{1+},`$
$`C_{TT}^z`$ $``$ $`M_{1+}^2+Re[(6E_{1+}^{}2E_{0+}^{})M_{1+}],`$
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the unpolarized cross section, $`p_x`$, $`p_y`$, and $`p_z`$ are defined in , and the constants of proportionality contain only kinematic factors(for the full expressions see ). This shows both the similarity and detailed difference between a measurement of TL and TL and the recoil polarizations. In the published papers  the data were compared to the MAID model which is found not to be in good agreement with the data. At the present time we do not have sufficient data to pin down the multipoles that are responsible for this difference (a discussion of the data requirements for model independent analyses is presented in ). On the other hand there is a possible experimental problem since the data do not agree with a model independent sum rule .

The empirical MAID calculation gives the best overall agreement with the accurate data presented here but also with the overall set of the data obtained by our collaboration. The parameters of this model for the values of the resonant multipoles are $`|M_{1+}(I=3/2)|=(40.9\pm 0.3)10^3/m_\pi `$, $`CMR=C2/M1=6.5\pm 0.3\%`$, $`EMR=E2/M1=2.2\pm 0.9\%`$. The errors are experimental and were obtained by varying the magnitudes in MAID of the resonant amplitudes by one $`\sigma `$ in a $`\chi ^2`$ fit to our data. In a previous paper  we showed that the dominant error was due to model uncertainties, which was estimated by taking the differences between the multipoles of the different models. We argue here that only one model is in reasonable agreement with our data, and so this approach can no longer be used. Therefore the model errors come from uncertainties in the non-resonant multipole amplitudes of the MAID calculation, which at the present time are not known. We plan to address this issue in a future publication.

In conclusion, we have performed the first simultaneous measurement of both the real and imaginary parts of the transverse-longitudinal interference (TL) cross section for the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ reaction in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region at a low $`Q^2`$ where the meson cloud is predicted to be the leading cause of deformation. It is found that only the more empirical MAID model  is in reasonable agreement with the accurate data obtained for $`\sigma _0=\sigma _T+ϵ\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _{TL^{^{}}}`$ and also with our previous data . On the other hand, for recoil polarization data obtained at the same $`Q^2`$ , and for $`\sigma _{TL^{^{}}}`$ taken at slightly higher values of $`Q^2`$ , there are possible problems with the MAID model (results for other models were not presented in these publications). At the present time there are not sufficient data to ascertain which multipoles might be responsible for this situation. We are presently analyzing new data taken at $`Q^2=0.127`$ (GeV/c)2 which should provide a more accurate determination of these values  in conjunction with the new generation, double polarization experiments .

We would like to thank the Bates staff for making this experiment possible. This work is supported in part by the US Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, Grant-in-Aid for International Scientific Research by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture in Japan, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Humboldt Foundation, and the ESOP.


text:
# Negative-parity baryon spectra in quenched anisotropic lattice QCD

## I Introduction

The lattice QCD simulation has become a powerful method to investigate hadron properties directly based on QCD. The spectroscopy of lowest-lying hadrons in the quenched approximation, i.e., without dynamical quark-loop effects, has been almost established, and reproduces their experimental values within 10 % deviations CPPACS . Extensive simulations including dynamical quarks are in progress and would give us detailed understanding of the spectra of these ground-state hadrons FullQCD . In contrast, several lattice studies on the excited-state hadrons have been started NMNS01 ; LL99 ; SBO01 ; Goc01 ; Mel02 ; Lee02 ; UK02  very recently, and their calculations are far from established even at the quenched level. In this paper, using anisotropic lattice QCD, we investigate the low-lying negative-parity baryon spectra, particularly paying attention to the flavor-singlet baryon. Another purpose of this paper is to examine the correspondence between the flavor-singlet three-quark (3Q) state and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$.

In the context of the flavor-singlet baryon, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is known to be one of the most mysterious hadrons. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is the lightest negative-parity baryon, although it contains strangeness. Moreover, there are two physical interpretations on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$. From the viewpoint of the quark model, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is described as the flavor-singlet 3Q system. As another interpretation, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is an interesting candidate of the hadronic molecule such as the $`N\overline{K}`$ bound state with a large binding energy of about 30 MeV. We aim to clarify whether the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ can be explained as a flavor-singlet baryon in quenched lattice QCD.

Historically, excited-state baryons have been so far mainly investigated within the framework of the non-relativistic quark model, in which baryons can be classified in terms of the spin-flavor $`SU(6)`$ symmetry. While the ground-state baryons have completely symmetric spin-flavor wave functions and form the 56-dimensional representation, the low-lying negative-parity baryons are parts of the $`L=1`$ orbitally excited states and belong to the $`SU(6)`$ 70-dimensional representation. We summarize the classification of the $`SU(6)`$ symmetry and its assignment to experimentally observed baryons in Table 1. Both the non-relativistic IK79  and the semi-relativistic CI86  quark models reproduce the negative-parity baryon spectra fairly well in the octet and the decuplet sectors CR00 . Such success of the quark model implies that the constituent quark picture holds well and the gluonic excitation modes play a less important role. The potential form is being clarified with the recent lattice QCD calculations of the static 3Q potential TMNS01 ; IBSS02 . Furthermore, the large gluonic excitation energy TS02  obtained with lattice QCD explains the reason why the quark potential model without such gluonic excitations well describes the hadron spectra.

Among the low-lying negative-parity baryons, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is an exception of such success of the quark potential model. In fact, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is much lighter than the lowest-lying non-strange negative-parity baryons, $`N(1520)`$ with $`J^P=3/2^{}`$ and $`N(1535)`$ with $`J^P=1/2^{}`$. There are two physical interpretations proposed for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$: an $`SU(3)`$ flavor-singlet 3Q state, and an $`N\overline{K}`$ bound state, i.e., a penta-quark (5Q) system. The simple quark model is based on the former picture, and it predicts that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ with $`J^P=3/2^{}`$ are nearly degenerate IK79 ; CI86 . In this picture, the large mass difference between them is explained to originate from a large $`LS`$-force PDG02 , but such a strong $`LS`$ splitting is not observed in other baryon spectra, and therefore it seems difficult to reproduce the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ within the simple quark model.

Another interesting interpretation for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is the penta-quark (5Q) system or the $`N\overline{K}`$ bound state as a hadronic molecule PDG02 ; Ch98 . Note here that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ lies about 30 MeV below the $`N\overline{K}`$ threshold, and this binding energy of about 30 MeV is rather large in comparison with about 2.2 MeV, that of the deuteron. If this picture holds true, the large binding energy between $`N`$ and $`\overline{K}`$ results in a significant role of the attractive effect for the $`\overline{K}`$ put inside nuclei or nuclear matter. In this way, the study of such an exotic and strange baryon, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$, is important also for understanding of the manifestation of strangeness in the hyper-nuclei and the neutron stars.

The 3Q and the 5Q states, however, would mix in the real world. Therefore, a more realistic question would be as follows. Which is the dominant component of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$, the 3Q state or the 5Q state? We try to answer this question using lattice QCD simulations. In lattice QCD simulations, even if one chooses the operator as the 3Q or the 5Q state, it generally overlaps with both the states through the quark and anti-quark pair creation. In the quenched simulation, however, owing to the absence of dynamical quark-loop effects, such a mixing between 3Q and 5Q states are rather suppressed, which would enable us to investigate the properties of genuine 3Q and 5Q states in a separate manner.

In this paper, we focus on the 3Q state and investigate whether this picture can explain the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$. Apparent discrepancy with the experimentally observed mass implies that the penta-quark state gives significant contribution to the physical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ state. In practice, lattice QCD results suffer from various systematic errors. It is therefore essential to compare the mass of the flavor-singlet 3Q state with other negative-parity baryon masses as well as with lowest-lying baryon masses.

It is also important to understand the gross structure of low-lying negative-parity baryon spectrum in relation to spontaneous chiral-symmetry breaking in QCD. If the chiral symmetry is restored, such as at high temperature and/or density, the masses of a baryon and its parity partner should be degenerate. Spontaneous chiral-symmetry breaking causes mass splitting between positive- and negative- parity baryons. It is important to study nonperturbatively negative-parity baryons in terms of the parity partners of the positive-parity ones.

Since the negative-parity baryons have relatively large masses, their correlators rapidly decrease in the Euclidean temporal direction. As a technical improvement, we adopt an anisotropic lattice where the temporal lattice spacing $`a_\tau `$ is finer than the spatial one, $`a_\sigma `$ Kar82 . With the high resolution in the temporal direction, we can follow the change of the correlator in detail and specify the relevant region for extraction of the mass. Thus efficient measurements would be possible. This approach is efficient also for other correlators of heavy particles, such as the glueballs ISM02 . (The anisotropic lattice is extremely powerful for the study of the finite temperature QCD ISM02 ; Ume01 ; TAROFT , where the temporal distance is severely limited in the imaginary-time formalism.)

In this study, we adopt the standard Wilson plaquette gauge action and $`O(a)`$ improved Wilson quark action, for which the sizes of errors are rather well evaluated Kla98 ; Aniso01b . The simulations are performed on the quenched anisotropic lattices with renormalized anisotropy $`\xi =a_\sigma /a_\tau =4`$ at three lattice spacings in the range of $`a_\sigma ^1`$1–2 GeV. For these lattices, the quark parameters were tuned and the light hadron spectrum was calculated in order to estimate the effects of uncertainties due to anisotropy on the spectrum Aniso01b .

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we summarize the anisotropic lattice actions used in this study. We show the numerical results on the negative-parity baryon in Section III, and discuss their physical consequences in Section IV. The last section is dedicated to the conclusion and perspective for further studies.

## II Anisotropic lattice

We employ the standard Wilson plaquette gauge action and the $`O(a)`$ improved Wilson quark action on anisotropic lattices. We briefly summarize the anisotropic lattice action. The gauge field action takes the from

$`S_G`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i>j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _G}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}U_{ij}(x)]`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\gamma _G[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}U_{i4}(x)]\}`$
with $`\beta 2N_c/g^2`$. Here, $`U_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the parallel transport around a plaquette in $`\mu `$-$`\nu `$ plane,

$$U_{\mu \nu }(x)=U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x).$$
(2)
The gluon field is represented with the link-variable as $`U_\mu \mathrm{exp}(iga_\mu A_\mu )`$. The bare anisotropy $`\gamma _G`$ coincides with the renormalized anisotropy $`\xi =a_\sigma /a_\tau `$ at the tree level.

Note here that the bare anisotropy is no longer the same as $`\xi `$ due to the quantum effect, and one needs to measure $`\xi `$ through some physical observables for each input value of $`\gamma _G`$. Although $`\xi `$ is in general a function of gauge and quark parameters, ($`\beta ,\gamma _G`$) and ($`\kappa ,\gamma _F`$) respectively, on a quenched lattice, the calibrations of the gauge and quark actions can be performed separately. For the gauge action of the form (1), Klassen nonperturbatively obtained an expression of $`\gamma _G`$ in terms of $`\beta `$ and $`\xi `$ with the accuracy better than 1% using the Wilson loops Kla98 . We adopt the same lattice actions as those in Ref.Aniso01b  which made use of the Klassen’s result for the gauge action and also performed sufficient analysis for the quark actions as mentioned below.

For the Wilson type quark action, $`O(a)`$ improvement is significant in quantitative computation of hadron spectrum. Among several types of the anisotropic lattice quark action, we use the form proposed in Refs. Ume01 ; Aniso01a ; Aniso01b . As a merit of this form, the calibration with a good precision is rather easy in the light quark mass region, since the quark mass dependence is expected to be small there, as was numerically shown in Ref. Aniso01b .

The quark action is written as

$$S_F=\underset{x,y}{}\overline{\psi }(x)K(x,y)\psi (y),$$
(3)
$`K(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{x,y}`$ (4)
$`\kappa _\tau \left\{(1\gamma _4)U_4(x)\delta _{x+\widehat{4},y}+(1+\gamma _4)U_4^{}(x\widehat{4})\delta _{x\widehat{4},y}\right\}`$
$`\kappa _\sigma {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left\{(r\gamma _i)U_i(x)\delta _{x+\widehat{i},y}+(r+\gamma _i)U_i^{}(x\widehat{i})\delta _{x\widehat{i},y}\right\}`$
$`\kappa _\sigma c_E{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _{i4}F_{i4}\delta _{x,y}r\kappa _\sigma c_B{\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}\sigma _{ij}F_{ij}\delta _{x,y},`$
where $`\psi `$ denotes the anticommuting quark field, $`\kappa _\sigma `$ and $`\kappa _\tau `$ the spatial and temporal hopping parameters, respectively, $`r`$ the spatial Wilson parameter and $`c_E`$, $`c_B`$ the clover coefficients. The field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined with the standard clover-leaf-type construction. In principle, for a given $`\kappa _\sigma `$, the four parameters $`\kappa _\sigma /\kappa _\tau `$, $`r`$, $`c_E`$ and $`c_B`$ should be tuned so that Lorentz symmetry is satisfied up to discretization errors of $`O(a^2)`$. Following Refs. Aniso01b ; Ume01 ; Aniso01a , we set the spatial Wilson parameter as $`r=1/\xi `$ and the clover coefficients as the tadpole-improved tree-level values, namely,

$$r=1/\xi ,c_E=1/u_\sigma u_\tau ^2,c_B=1/u_\sigma ^3.$$
(5)
To reduce large contribution from the tadpole diagram, the tadpole improvement LM93  is applied by rescaling the link variables as $`U_i(x)U_i(x)/u_\sigma `$ and $`U_4(x)U_4(x)/u_\tau `$, with the mean-field values of the spatial and temporal link variables, $`u_\sigma `$ and $`u_\tau `$, respectively. This is equivalent to redefining the hopping parameters with the tadpole-improved ones (with tilde) through $`\kappa _\sigma =\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_\sigma /u_\sigma `$ and $`\kappa _\tau =\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_\tau /u_\tau `$. We define the anisotropy parameter $`\gamma _F`$ as $`\gamma _F\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_\tau /\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_\sigma `$. This parameter in the action is to be tuned nonperturbatively in the numerical simulation. It is convenient to define $`\kappa `$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_\sigma }}2(\gamma _F+3r4)=2(m_0\gamma _F+4),`$ (6)
where $`m_0`$ is the bare quark mass in temporal lattice units. This $`\kappa `$ plays the same role as in the case of isotropic lattice, and is convenient to parameterize the quark mass together with the bare anisotropy $`\gamma _F`$.

The above action is constructed following the Fermilab approach EKM97 , which proposes to tune the bare anisotropy parameter so that the rest mass and the kinetic mass equal each other. In practice, hadronic states are convenient to carry out this program. In Ref. Aniso01b , the bare anisotropy was tuned nonperturbatively using the relativistic dispersion relation of the pseudoscalar and vector mesons. The main result of Ref. Aniso01b  is as follows: They tuned $`\gamma _F`$ in the quark mass range from the strange to charm quark masses with the accuracy better than 1%, and found that the tuned bare anisotropy, $`\gamma _F^{}`$, is well fitted to the linear form in $`m_q^2`$, where $`m_q=(\kappa ^1\kappa _c^1)/2\xi `$ is naively defined quark mass. Then $`\gamma _F^{}`$ in the massless limit was obtained within 2% error, i.e., 1% as a statistical error and 1% as a systematic error in the form of fit in terms of $`m_q`$. Then, they computed the light hadron spectrum using the value of $`\gamma _F^{}`$ at the chiral limit, and observed the effect of uncertainty in $`\gamma _F^{}`$ on the spectrum for physical quark masses of the 1%-level. In the present study, we also treat the same quark mass region and therefore adopt the value of $`\gamma _F^{}`$ in the chiral limit. The precision of 2% error in $`\gamma _F^{}`$ is sufficient for the present purpose.

As was pointed out in Refs. Ume01 ; Aniso01b , with the choice $`r=1/\xi `$, the action (4) leads to a smaller spatial Wilson term for a larger anisotropy $`\xi `$. Since the negative-parity baryons measured in this paper are the lowest state of the parity projected baryon correlators, the statements in Ref. Aniso01b  for light hadrons also hold in our calculation. Even for the coarsest lattice in our calculation, the cutoff $`a_\tau ^14.0`$ GeV seems sufficiently large to avoid the artificial excitation due to the doublers in the ground-state signals. At least, the finest lattice with $`a_\tau ^18`$ GeV would be sufficiently large to avoid the doubler effect.

## III Numerical Simulation

### III.1 Lattice setup

The numerical simulation is performed on the same lattices as in Ref. Aniso01b . Here, we briefly summarize the fundamental parameters and physical quantities. We use the three anisotropic lattices with the renormalized anisotropy $`\xi =4`$, at the quenched level. The statistical uncertainties are, otherwise noted, estimated by the Jackknife method with appropriate binning.

The lattice sizes and parameters in generating the gauge field configurations are listed in Table 2. The spatial lattice scales $`a_\sigma ^1`$ roughly cover 1–2 GeV. The values of bare gluonic anisotropy $`\gamma _G`$ are chosen according to the result by Klassen Kla98 . The uncertainty of his expression is of the order of 1%, and in the following analysis we do not include this uncertainty in the quoted statistical errors. The gauge configurations are separated by 2000 (1000) pseudo-heat-bath sweeps, after 20000 (10000) thermalization sweeps at $`\beta `$=5.95 and 6.10 (5.75). The configurations are fixed to the Coulomb gauge, which is convenient in applying the smearing of hadron operators.

The mean-field values of link variables are determined on the smaller lattices with half size in temporal extent and otherwise with the same parameters for $`\beta =5.75`$ and $`5.95`$, while at $`\beta =6.10`$ the lattice size is $`16^3\times 64`$. The mean-field values, $`u_\sigma `$ and $`u_\tau `$, are obtained as the averages of the link variables in the Landau gauge, where the mean-field values are self-consistently used in the fixing condition Ume01 . In a study of hadron spectrum, it is convenient to define the lattice scales through a hadronic quantity. We determine $`a_\sigma ^1`$ through the $`K^{}`$ meson mass, $`m_K^{}=893.9`$ MeV(isospin averaged). The procedure is the same as in Ref. Aniso01b , while with larger statistics. The result is quoted in Table 2 as $`a_\sigma ^1(m_K^{})`$.

The quark parameters are listed in Table 3. These hopping parameters roughly cover the quark masses $`m_qm_s`$$`2m_s`$. The numbers of configurations are larger than those of the hadronic spectroscopy in Ref. Aniso01b . As already noted in the previous section, the values of $`\gamma _F`$ and $`\kappa _c`$ are taken from the result of Ref. Aniso01b . Although the uncertainty of 2% level is associated with the values of $`\gamma _F`$, the quoted errors of hadron masses in the following analysis do not include this uncertainty. According to Ref. Aniso01b , this uncertainty in the physical masses of vector mesons and positive-parity baryons are at most of order of 1%. For the negative-parity baryon masses, the effect is expected to be similar amount and not significant compared with the present level of statistical error. Therefore, this effect can be negligible in our calculation.

As described later, we first extrapolate the vector meson mass linearly in the pseudoscalar meson mass squared to the point at which the ratio of these meson masses are equal to the physical value, $`m_K^{}/m_K`$. At this point, aforementioned lattice scale is determined. The physical ($`u`$, $`d`$) and $`s`$ quark masses are determined through the $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ meson masses, $`m_\pi ^\pm =139.6`$ MeV and $`m_K=495.7`$ MeV (isospin averaged), respectively.

### III.2 Baryon correlators

We measure the correlators in pseudoscalar and vector meson channels and octet ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ types), decuplet and singlet channels of SU(3) flavor representation of baryons. As listed in Table 4, we use the standard meson and baryon operators which have the same quantum numbers as the corresponding baryons and survive in the non-relativistic limit. It is known that there are mainly two ways to choose the baryon operator. One is the operator taken here, $`(q^TC\gamma _5q)q`$, and the other is of the form $`(q^TCq)\gamma _5q`$. There are two reasons why we take the former. It is well-known that the former operators strongly couple to the the ground-state baryons and reproduce experimental values well. Therefore, it is suitable for investigation of the parity partner of the ground state baryons. Furthermore, the recent lattice calculation shows that these two operators give the similar results for the negative-parity baryon spectrum while the latter is more noisy SBO01 .

For baryons, two of three quark masses are taken to be the same value as specified by the hopping parameter $`\kappa _1`$, and the other quark mass is specified by $`\kappa _2`$. This corresponds to taking the same value for $`u,d`$ current quark masses as $`m_u=m_dm_n`$. Then, the baryon masses are expressed as the function of two masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, or equivalently of $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$, like $`m_B(\kappa _1,\kappa _2)`$. In the source operator, each quark field is smeared with the Gaussian function of width $``$0.4 fm.

At large $`t`$ (and large $`N_tt`$), the baryon correlators are represented as

$`G_B(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}}B(\stackrel{}{x},t)\overline{B}(\stackrel{}{x},0)`$ (7)
$`=(1+\gamma _4)\left[c_{B^+}e^{tm_{B^+}}+bc_B^{}e^{(N_tt)m_B^{}}\right]`$
$`+(1\gamma _4)\left[bc_{B^+}e^{(N_tt)m_{B^+}}+c_B^{}e^{tm_B^{}}\right],`$
where $`b=+1`$ and $`1`$ for the periodic and antiperiodic temporal boundary conditions for the quark fields. Since we adopt the standard Dirac representation for $`\gamma `$ matrices, the upper and lower two components correspond to the first and second contributions of Eq. (7).

Combining the parity-projected correlators under two boundary conditions, one can single out the positive- and negative-parity baryon states with corresponding masses $`m_{B^+}`$ and $`m_B^{}`$, respectively, without contributions from the backward propagating parity partners. In practical simulation, however, we take a sufficient temporal extent so that we can observe an enough range of plateau in effective mass plot for extraction of mass in each parity channel, and hence there is no advantage in computing correlators under two boundary conditions except for the reduction of statistical fluctuation. We obtain the baryon correlators at $`\beta =5.75`$ under two boundary conditions, and compare the statistical fluctuations in the parity-projected correlator and in not projected one. We conclude that it is not worth doubling the computational cost and hence adopt only the periodic boundary condition hereafter. Instead, at each $`\beta `$ we obtain the correlators with the source at $`t=N_t/2`$ in addition to ones with the source at $`t=0`$, and average them. This is efficient to reduce the statistical errors for limited number of configurations.

### III.3 lattice QCD results for hadron masses

Fig. 1 shows the effective mass plots for the baryon correlators at $`\beta =6.10`$. The effective mass is defined without considering the contribution of the associated parity partner propagating backward from the source at $`t=N_t`$,

$$m_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{G_B(t)}{G_B(t+1)}\right).$$
(8)
We observe that in the region where the effective mass exhibits a plateau, the contribution of parity partner is sufficiently small. In particular for the negative-parity baryon channels, fine temporal lattice spacing seems to be helpful to specify the region in which the ground state dominates.

The meson correlator is fitted to the single hyperbolic cosine form and analyzed independently of Ref. Aniso01b . The results are shown in Fig. 2. and consistent with Ref. Aniso01b . For the baryons, we fit the data to a single exponential form. The result is listed in Tables 5, 6 and 7.

Following Ref. Aniso01b , we extrapolate the hadron masses to the chiral limit in terms of the pseudoscalar meson mass squared, instead of $`1/\kappa `$. The assumed relation between PS meson mass and quark mass is

$$m_{PS}^2(m_1,m_2)=B(m_1+m_2),$$
(9)
then for the degenerate quark masses, $`m_1=m_2`$, $`m_{PS}^2=2Bm_1`$ holds. Instead of $`m_i`$ ($`i`$=1,2), one can extrapolate other hadron masses in term of $`m_{PS}(m_i,m_i)^2`$ to the chiral limit.

In our calculation for baryons, two of quark masses are taken to be the same value, $`m_1`$, and the other quark mass $`m_2`$ is taken to be an independent value. Then, the baryon masses are expressed as the function of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ like $`m_B(m_1,m_2)`$, and therefore they are to be depicted on the $`(m_1,m_2)`$ plane. However, the result for the baryon masses seem to be well described with the linear relation,

$$m_B(m_1,m_2,m_3)=m_B(0,0,0)+B_B(2m_1+m_2).$$
(10)
Therefore, we fit the baryon mass data to the linear form in the sum of corresponding PS meson masses squared. The vector meson is also fitted to a linear function in $`m_1+m_2`$.

Note here that, in quenched QCD, a non-analyticity appears in the chiral extrapolation near the chiral limit Lei20 . For nucleons, it is reported that the departure from the simple chiral extrapolation is observed for $`m_\pi <400`$ MeV DL03 . Although we have to keep this effect in our mind, we do not argue it here because there is no distinct behavior for both the positive- and negative-parity baryons in our calculation with $`m_\pi >600`$MeV.

The results of fits for baryons are shown in Fig. 3 for each lattice. The horizontal axis is the averaged pseudoscalar meson mass squared,

$$m_{PS}^2(m_i)=\frac{1}{N_q}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_q}{}}m_{PS}^2(m_i,m_i)=\frac{1}{N_q}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_q}{}}2Bm_i$$
(11)
with $`N_q=3`$ for baryons. The results of fits are displayed as the solid lines in these figures. The linear relation seems to hold well.

As stated in Section III, we determine the scale $`a_\tau ^1`$ through the $`K^{}`$ meson mass. The physical ($`u`$, $`d`$) and $`s`$ quark masses are determined with the $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ meson masses. The scales of the vertical and horizontal axes in Fig. 3 are set in this way. The corresponding hadron masses for the physical quark masses are listed in Table 8. These results for the meson masses and positive-parity baryon masses are consistent with those obtained in Ref. Aniso01b .

### III.4 Systematic errors

Finally before discussing physical implications of our numerical results, we briefly comment on the systematic uncertainties.

* Anisotropy (calibration)

According to the detailed inspection given in Ref. Aniso01b , the 2% uncertainty in $`\gamma _F`$ causes uncertainties in hadron masses at 1% level. Although the effect of uncertainty coming from anisotropy on the negative parity baryon masses is unknown, its size is expected to be the same level as for the positive-parity baryons and smaller than their statistical errors. Therefore, we do not perform a detailed analysis of the calibration uncertainty here. The uncertainty in $`\gamma _G`$, the gluonic anisotropy parameter, is also kept within 1% level, and hence for the same reason as for $`\gamma _F`$, we do not argue its effect on the negative-parity baryon masses.
* Finite volume effects

Since the excited baryons may have larger spatial extent than the ground state baryons, they may seriously suffer from the finite size effects. Our present three lattices, however, have almost the same size ($``$ 2 fm), and we cannot examine the finite volume effects on these lattices. In Ref. Goc01 , the finite volume effect on the negative-parity baryon masses was evaluated as 5% by comparing the masses on lattices with volume sizes 1.5fm and 2.2fm (1.6fm and 2.1fm) at $`\beta =6.0`$ (6.2) on quenched isotropic lattices. This amount of finite size effect may also exist in our results, while our lattice volumes are close to the larger ones in Ref. Goc01 .
* Lattice discretization error

Table 8 shows the baryon masses on each lattice. We find it hard to take the continuum limit even for the ground-state baryons and mesons, since only the three $`\beta `$’s are taken here and their behavior is not so smooth that one can apply a simple extrapolation. In addition, such fluctuating behavior of data may be large due to the lack of statistics, genuine discretization errors would not be negligible. In the range of lattice cutoff 1–2 GeV, the fluctuation of masses is at most about 5%, except for the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{sing}}^+`$ for which 7% deviation is found. This gives us a hint on the potential size of the discretization errors. We also note that Ref. Aniso01b  examined how the $`O(\alpha a)`$ and $`O(a^2)`$ discretization effects decrease as $`\beta `$ increases in the meson sectors, and found that those in the calibration of $`\gamma _F`$ are sufficiently reduced already at $`\beta =6.10`$. For these reason we discuss physical consequences of our result mainly based on the data of $`\beta =6.10`$ lattice in the next section.
* Chiral extrapolation

From the study of the chiral perturbation theory, there appears a non-analyticity in the chiral extrapolation at the quenched level near the chiral limit as $`m_\pi <400`$ MeV Lei20 . We have, however, taken the naive linear extrapolation for both the positive- and negative-parity baryons, because the results for the baryon masses seem to be well described with the linear relation in the quark-mass region corresponding to $`m_\pi >600`$ MeV in the present calculation. In addition, the behavior of the negative-parity baryon masses near the chiral limit is less known. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate the non-analyticity in the chiral extrapolation from the present results. The quantitative estimate of its effect on the negative-parity baryon masses is a future problem with high precision data with small quark masses.
* Quenching effects

There is about 10% uncertainty for the ground-state hadron spectra coming from the quenching effect. Also for the negative-parity baryons, there should appear such a quenching effect. In addition, there may appear nontrivial excitation effect of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson in quenched QCD, where $`\eta ^{}`$ degenerates with the other Nambu-Goldstone bosons in the chiral limit due to the ignorance of the fermionic determinant. Such an effect from $`\eta ^{}`$ is reported to appear near the chiral limit as $`m_\pi <300`$MeV DL03 .

## IV Discussion

Our numerical results for the hadron spectra are summarized in Fig. 3 and Table 8. The masses of the negative-parity baryons are found to be heavier than those of the corresponding positive-parity sectors, as expected. The flavor-singlet baryon is, however, an exception: the positive-parity baryon is much heavier than the negative-parity one. This tendency seems consistent with the 3Q state in the quark model, in which the flavor-singlet positive-parity baryon belongs to the 70-dimensional representation of the $`SU(6)`$ symmetry with the principal quantum number $`N=2`$. This multiplet is in general heavier than that belonging to the negative-parity baryons. QCD sum rule analysis JO96  and the other recent lattice calculation Mel02  also predict the mass of the flavor-singlet negative-parity baryon lighter than that of the positive one.

In order to compare our lattice results with experimental values, various baryon masses at $`\beta =6.10`$ together with the experimental values are shown in Fig. 4. For the positive-parity baryons, the nucleon and the delta masses are somewhat higher than the experimental ones. Note again that quenched QCD exhibits the non-analytic behavior in the chiral extrapolation on the nucleon near the chiral limit of $`m_\pi <400`$ MeV Lei20 . In comparison with the naive linear extrapolation, this effect lowers the nucleon mass in the chiral limit, although we have not taken into account the non-analytic behavior because of the absence of its signal in our relatively heavy quark-mass region of $`m_\pi >600`$MeV. The other positive-parity baryons with strangeness reproduce the experimentally observed masses within 10% deviations. The better reproduction of strange baryon masses may be natural because of the following reason. For the strange baryon, the ambiguity from the chiral extrapolation would be less than that of the nucleon and the delta, because the strange quark is relatively massive and the non-analytic behavior arises only from up and down quark mass region.

As for the negative-parity baryons, most of the present lattice results comparatively well reproduce the experimental spectra as shown in Fig. 4, in spite of a relatively large statistical error. However, the flavor-singlet negative-parity baryon is exceptional, and its calculated mass of about 1.7GeV is much heavier than the experimentally observed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ with the difference of more than 300 MeV. The difference between the lattice result of 1.7GeV and the experimental value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is, however, the largest in all the hadrons in consideration. Even taking the quenching effect into account, this discrepancy seems too large. (Note again that the flavor-singlet baryon has one strange quark, and the ambiguity from the chiral extrapolation is expected to be less than that of the nucleon and the delta.)

If the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ could be well described as a three valence quark system, its mass would be reproduced with the simple three-quark operator in quenched QCD. However, the light mass of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is not reproduced in the present simulation. Therefore, the present lattice QCD result physically indicates that the experimentally observed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ cannot be described with a simple three valence quark picture, that is, the overlap of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ with the 3Q component is rather small. This seems to support other possible pictures for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ such as the penta-quark state or the $`N\overline{K}`$ molecule. In this sense, lattice QCD simulations with the penta-quark operator would be meaningful to elucidate the nature of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$.

Here, we add several comments and cautions in quenched QCD. First, there is possible mixing between 3Q and 5Q states through the “Z-graph” even in the quenched approximation Liu99 . Therefore, to be strict, the separability into 3Q and 5Q states does not hold even in the quenched approximation, although the mixing between the two states is rather suppressed. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the non-3Q picture for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is still plausible, because, if the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is described as the 3Q state, its mass is to be reproduced with the 3Q operator in quenched QCD. Second, for the definite conclusion, we have to pay attention to the non-analytic behavior in the flavor-singlet negative-parity baryon near the chiral limit Lee02 , in spite of the naive expectation of its smaller effect for strange baryons. Third, according to the neglect of the fermionic determinant, $`\eta ^{}`$ becomes unphysically “light” as the Nambu-Goldstone particle in quenched QCD, and the non-unitary behavior appears in the baryon correlator due to the “light” $`\eta ^{}`$ excitation near the chiral limit below $`m_\pi 250`$ MeV DL03 , where there appears an unphysical “decay” process of the negative-parity baryon into an $`\eta ^{}`$-N state. Although these non-analytic and the non-unitary behaviors are not observed in the present simulation with relatively heavy quark masses as $`m_\pi >600`$MeV, these effects should be taken into account for the simulation near the chiral limit.

We now focus on other negative-parity baryons. The mass ratio between the positive- and the negative-parity baryons is shown in Table 9. For both the octet and the decuplet baryons, the relative mass difference between the parity partners becomes smaller, as the averaged quark mass increases by the inclusion of the strange quark. This tendency is experimentally observed for the octet baryons. (The empirical identification of negative-parity decuplet baryons is not established.) This behavior is also reported in another lattice QCD analysis by the domain wall fermion SBO01 . From Fig. 4 and Table 9, we find that the lattice results of the flavor octet and decuplet baryons are all close to the observed lowest-lying negative-parity baryons, the $`N(1535)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1620)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1700)`$, in spite of the relatively large statistical error. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1620)`$, which is experimentally confirmed as the negative-parity strange baryon with $`J^P=1/2^{}`$ PDG02 , is consistent with the parity partner of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryon. The parity partner of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ baryon is expected to be the $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1690)`$ from our calculation, although the spin-parity of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1690)`$ is not yet confirmed experimentally. Recently it has been proposed based on the chiral unitary approach Ben02  that the $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1620)`$ has the negative-parity, although its experimental status is still one-star (evidence of existence is poor). It is, however, difficult to distinguish between the $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1620)`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1690)`$ from our result due to the statistical errors. For the decuplet baryons, we can regard the parity partner of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ as the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1700)`$, although the experimental data is poor. The positive-parity flavor-singlet baryon is found to be much heavier than the negative-parity decuplet, and hence its investigation seems much difficult both theoretically and experimentally.

Finally, we comment on recent lattice studies on the negative-parity baryons. Sasaki et al. investigated the negative-parity non-strange baryon $`N^{()}`$, the parity partner of the nucleon $`N^{(+)}`$, with the domain wall fermion SBO01 . Their lattice is $`16^3\times 32`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ ($`a^1=1.9`$ GeV) and the result is $`N^{()}/N^{(+)}1.45`$, which is consistent with ours. Göckler et al. studied the negative-parity non-strange baryon $`N^{(+)}`$ using the $`O(a)`$ improved Wilson quark on the isotropic lattices with the size of $`16^3\times 32`$ and $`32^3\times 64`$ Goc01 . They obtained the similar result, $`N^{()}/N^{(+)}=1.50(3)`$. Melnitchouk el al. also studied the negative-parity baryons using the $`O(a)`$ improved Wilson quark on the isotropic lattice, $`16^3\times 32(a=0.125`$ fm) Mel02 . Since they did not carry out the chiral extrapolation, we do not compare the results quantitatively, but the qualitative behavior is similar to us. They also investigated the flavor-singlet baryons. Instead of the flavor-singlet interpolating field, they used the “common” interpolating field which is the common part of the interpolating fields for the octet $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon and the singlet baryon. The result is much heavier than the experimental value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ even for such an field. Lee et al. investigated the excited state baryons with the overlap fermion with the lattice $`16^3\times 28`$ Lee02 . They employed the constrained curve fitting method for the mass fitting and obtained the baryon masses lower than those from the conventional fitting method. Thus, their results seem to be lower than ours and the other’s, while they did not carry out the chiral extrapolation. Dynamical quark simulation of excited-state baryons is also in progress UK02 . As for the negative-parity nucleon, their present result is consistent with the quenched result within statistical errors.

## V Summary and Concluding Remarks

We have studied the mass spectra of the negative-parity baryons and the flavor-singlet baryons in quenched anisotropic lattice QCD. We have used three lattices of almost the same physical spatial volume of about $`(2\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m})^3`$ with the spatial cutoffs $`a_\sigma ^1=1`$–2 GeV and the renormalized anisotropy $`\xi =a_\sigma /a_\tau =4`$. We have adopted the standard Wilson plaquette gauge action and the $`O(a)`$ improved Wilson quark action at the tadpole-improved tree-level Aniso01b . The positive- and negative-parity baryon masses are extracted with the parity projection from the same baryon correlators based on the three valence quark picture.

For the flavor octet and decuplet negative-parity baryons, the calculated masses are close to the experimental values of corresponding lowest-lying negative-parity baryons. For several negative-parity baryons, our lattice data have suggested some predictions. For instance, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1700)`$ can be regarded as the parity partner of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1690)`$ would be the parity partner of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ baryon, although the spin-parity of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1690)`$ is not yet confirmed experimentally.

As for the flavor-singlet negative-parity baryon, such a three-quark state has been found to lie around 1.7GeV, and has been much heavier than the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$. Even considering the systematic errors, this difference of about 300 MeV seems too large. If the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is described as a three valence-quark state, its mass would be reproduced in the present simulation. In fact, the present lattice result which cannot reproduce the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ physically implies that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is not described as the simple three quark picture, i.e., the overlap of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ with the three-quark state is rather small. This seems to support an interesting picture of the penta-quark state or the $`N\overline{K}`$ molecule for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$. For more definite understanding of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$, it would be desired to perform lattice QCD simulations in terms of the $`N\overline{K}`$ molecule or the penta-quark state. Such a study is interesting even at the quenched level, where dynamical quark loop effect is absent and then the quark-level constitution of hadrons is clearer. As for the positive-parity flavor-singlet baryon, its calculated result is found to be much heavier than the negative-parity one, as is consistent with the quark models IK79 ; CI86  and the QCD sum rule analysis JO96 .

Very recently, LEPS Collaboration has experimentally observed the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ (or $`Z^+`$) baryon with $`S=+1`$ N03 , which requires at least “five valence quarks” as $`\mathrm{uudd}\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$ and is physically identified as a “penta-quark system”. The comparison between the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ baryon and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ may be useful to investigate the features of the penta-quark system. It is also interesting to investigate this type of a penta-quark system using lattice QCD simulation.

From aspect of the chiral symmetry, the parity partner should be degenerate if the symmetry is restored at finite temperature and/or density. It is interesting to see how the mass difference between the parity partners changes at finite temperature on the lattice. Several works on it are already reported for the screening mass of the nucleon DK87  and they favor the parity degeneracy at the chiral phase transition. Recently based on the chiral effective theory such as the linear sigma model JI00  and the chiral perturbation theory NE97 , two different assignments for the negative-parity baryons have been proposed: under the chiral transformation, the negative-parity baryon transforms in the same way as the positive-parity one in one scheme and in the opposite way in the other. These two assignments behave differently toward the chiral restoration. Therefore, it is interesting to study them from the quark degrees of freedom such as in lattice QCD at finite temperature.

## Acknowledgments

Y.N. thanks S. Sasaki, T. Blum and S. Ohta for useful discussions and comments. H.M. thanks T. Onogi and T. Umeda for useful discussions. The simulation was done on NEC SX-5 at Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University and Hitachi SR8000 at KEK (High Energy Accelerator Research Organization). H.S. is supported in part by Grant for Scientific Reserch (No.12640274) from Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology, Japan. H.M. is supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists. Y.N. was supported by the center-of-excellence (COE) program at YITP, Kyoto University in most stage of this work and thanks RIKEN, Brookhaven National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy for providing the facilities essential for the completion of this work.