text:
# Information about the neutrino mass matrix from Double Beta Decay

## 1 Introduction

Recently atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation experiments have shown that neutrinos are massive. This is the first indication of beyond standard model physics. The absolute neutrino mass scale is, however, still unknown, and only neutrino oscillations and neutrinoless double beta decay together can solve this problem (see, e.g. ).

In this paper we will discuss the contribution, that can be given by present and future $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experiments to this important question of particle physics. We shall, in section 2, discuss the expectations for the observable of neutrinoless double beta decay, the effective neutrino mass $`m_\nu `$, from the most recent $`\nu `$ oscillation experiments, which tells us the required sensitivity for future $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experiments. In section 3 we shall discuss the present status and future potential of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experiments. It will be shown, that if by exploiting the potential of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay to its ultimate experimental limit, it will be possible to test practically all neutrino mass scenarios allowed by the present neutrino oscillation experiments (except for one, the hierarchical LOW solution).

## 2 Allowed ranges of $`\mathbf{}𝒎\mathbf{}`$ by $`𝝂`$ oscillation experiments

After the recent results from Superkamiokande (e.g. see ), the prospects for a positive signal in $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay have become more promising. The observable of double beta decay $`m=|U_{ei}^2m_i|=|m_{ee}^{(1)}|+e^{i\varphi _2}|m_{ee}^{(2)}|+e^{i\varphi _3}|m_{ee}^{(3)}|`$ with $`U_{ei}`$ denoting elements of the neutrino mixing matrix, $`m_i`$ neutrino mass eigenstates, and $`\varphi _i`$ relative Majorana CP phases, can be written in terms of oscillation parameters

$`|m_{ee}^{(1)}|`$ $`=`$ $`|U_{e1}|^2m_1,`$ (1)
$`|m_{ee}^{(2)}|`$ $`=`$ $`|U_{e2}|^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2+m_1^2},`$ (2)
$`|m_{ee}^{(3)}|`$ $`=`$ $`|U_{e3}|^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2+m_1^2}.`$ (3)
The effective mass $`m`$ is related with the half-life for $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay via $`\left(T_{1/2}^{0\nu }\right)^1m_\nu ^2`$, and for the limit on $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu }`$ deducible in an experiment we have $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu }a\sqrt{\frac{Mt}{\mathrm{\Delta }EB}}`$. Here $`a`$ is the isotopical abundance of the $`\beta \beta `$ emitter; $`M`$ is the active detector mass; $`t`$ is the measuring time; $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the energy resolution; $`B`$ is the background count rate.

Neutrino oscillation experiments fix or restrict some of the parameters in (1)–(3), e.g. in the case of normal hierarchy solar neutrino experiments yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, $`|U_{e1}|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}`$ and $`|U_{e2}|^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}`$. Atmospheric neutrinos fix $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, and experiments like CHOOZ, looking for $`\nu _e`$ disappearance restrict $`|U_{e3}|^2`$. The phases $`\varphi _i`$ and the mass of the lightest neutrino, $`m_1`$ are free parameters. The expectations for $`m`$ from oscillation experiments in different neutrino mass scenarios have been carefully analyzed in. In sections 2.1 to 2.3 we give some examples.

### 2.1 Hierarchical spectrum $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$

In hierarchical spectra (Fig. 1), motivated by analogies with the quark sector and the simplest see-saw models, the main contribution comes from $`m_2`$ or $`m_3`$. For the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution which is favored at present for the solar neutrino problem (see ), the contribution of $`m_2`$ becomes dominant in the expression for $`m`$, and

$$mm_{ee}^{(2)}=\frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}.$$
(4)
In the region allowed at 90% C.L. by Superkamiokande according to , the prediction for $`m`$, becomes

$$m=(1÷3)10^3\mathrm{eV}.$$
(5)
The prediction extends to $`m=10^2`$ eV in the 99% C.L. range (Fig. 2).

### 2.2 Inverse Hierarchy $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$

In inverse hierarchy scenarios (Fig. 3) the heaviest state with mass $`m_3`$ is mainly the electron neutrino, its mass being determined by atmospheric neutrinos, $`m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$. For the LMA MSW solution one finds

$$m=(1÷7)10^2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(6)
### 2.3 Degenerate spectrum $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_\mathrm{𝟑}{}_{\mathbf{}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{>}}\mathbf{0.1}`$eV)

In degenerate scenarios (fig. 3) the contribution of $`m_3`$ is strongly restricted by CHOOZ. The main contributions come from $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, depending on their admixture to the electron flavors, which is determined by the solar neutrino solution. We find

$$m_{\mathrm{min}}<m<m_1\text{with}m_{\mathrm{min}}=(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{})m_1.$$
(7)
This leads for the LMA solution to $`m=(0.25÷1)m_1`$, the allowed range corresponding to possible values of the unknown Majorana CP-phases.

After these examples we give a summary of our analysis  of the $`m`$ allowed by $`\nu `$ oscillation experiments for neutrino mass models in the presently favored scenarios, in Fig. 4. The size of the bars corresponds to the uncertainty in mixing angles and the unknown Majorana CP-phases.

## 3 Status of $`𝜷𝜷`$ Experiments

The status of present double beta experiments is shown in Fig. 5 and is extensively discussed in . The HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment using the largest source strength of 11 kg of enriched 76Ge in form of five HP Ge-detectors in the Gran-Sasso underground laboratory , yields after a time of 37.2 kg$``$y of measurement (Fig. 6) a half-life limit of

$$T_{1/2}^{o\nu }>2.1(3.5)10^{25}\mathrm{y},90\%(68\%)\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$$

and a limit for the effective neutrino mass of

$$m<0.34(0.26)\mathrm{eV},90\%(68\%)\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$$

This sensitivity just starts to probe some (degenerate) neutrino mass models (see Fig. 4). In degenerate models from the experimental limit on $`m`$ we can conclude an upper bound on the mass scale of the heaviest neutrino. For the LMA solar solution we obtain from (7) $`m_{1,2,3}<1.1`$eV implying $`m_i<3.2`$eV. This first number is sharper than what has recently been deduced from single beta decay of tritium ($`m<2.2`$ eV ), and the second is sharper than the limit of $`m_i<5.5`$eV still compatible with most recent fits of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and Large Scale Structure data (see, e.g. ).

The result has found a large resonance, and it has been shown that it excludes for example the small angle MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem in degenerate scenarios, if neutrinos are considered as hot dark matter in the universe. This conclusion has been made, before the SMA MSW solution has been disfavored by the SUPERKAMIOKANDE collaboration in June 2000. Figure 7 shows that the present sensitivity probes cosmological models including hot dark matter already now on a level of future satellite experiments MAP and PLANCK. It starts to become interesting also in connection with ’Z-burst’ models recently discussed as explanation for super-high energy cosmic ray events beyond the GZK cutoff energy.

The HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment, yields now since eight years already the by far sharpest limits worldwide. If future searches will show that $`m>0.1`$ eV, then the three-$`\nu `$ mass schemes, which will survive, are those with $`\nu `$ mass degeneracy, and in 4-neutrino schemes, those with inverse mass hierarchy (Fig. 4 and see also ref.).

It has been discussed in detail earlier (see e.g. ), that of present generation experiments no one has a potential to probe $`m`$ below the present HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW level (see Fig. 5).

A second experiment using enriched 76Ge, IGEX, has stopped operation by end of 1999 . This experiment already started in 1992 with 2.1 kg of 76Ge  and operated in 1995 already 8 kg of 76Ge . In 1999 they published a measuring time of 5.7 kg y (less than one year of full operation) , and in autumn 99 of about 9 kg y  (less than one quarter of the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW significance) and an optimistic value for $`m`$, using a method criticized. The Milano cryogenic experiment using TeO2 bolometers improved their values for the $`m_\nu `$ from $`\beta \beta `$ decay of 130Te, from 5.3 eV in 1994 to 1.8 eV in 2000, and according to to 0.9 eV in early 2001. Also CUORICINO (with 45 kg of detectors) scheduled for starting in autumn 2001 will hardly reach the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW limit (see also discussion in ). NEMO-III, originally aiming at a sensitivity of 0.1 eV, reduced their goals recently to $`0.3÷0.7`$ eV (see ), (which is more consistent with estimates given by ), to be reached in 6 years from starting of running, foreseen for the year 2002.

A possibility to probe $`m`$ down to $`0.1`$ eV (90% c.l.) exists with the GENIUS Test Facility (see below), which should reduce the background by a factor of 30 compared to the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment, and thus could reach a half-life limit of $`1.510^{26}`$ y.

## 4 Future of $`𝜷𝜷`$ Experiments

To extend the present sensitivity of $`\beta \beta `$ experiments below a limit of 0.1 eV, requires completely new experimental approaches, as discussed extensively in.

Figure 4 shows that an improvement of the sensitivity down to $`m10^3`$ eV is required to probe all neutrino mass scenarios allowed by present neutrino oscillation experiments. With this result of $`\nu `$ oscillation experiments nature seems to be generous to us since such a sensitivity seems to be achievable in future $`\beta \beta `$ experiments, if this method is exploited to its ultimate limit, as by the GENIUS project.

### 4.1 GENIUS, Double Beta Decay and the Light Majorana Neutrino Mass

With the era of the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment which will remain the most sensitive experiment for the next years, the time of the small smart experiments is over.

The requirements in sensitivity for future experiments to play a decisive role in the solution of the structure of the neutrino mass matrix can be read from Fig. 4.

To reach the required level of sensitivity $`\beta \beta `$ experiments have to become large. On the other hand source strengths of up to 10 tons of enriched material touch the world production limits. At the same time the background has to be reduced by a factor of 1000 and more compared to that of the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment.

Table 1 lists some key numbers for GENIUS, which was the first proposal for a third generation double beta experiment, and which may be the only project, which will be able to test all neutrino mass scenarios, and of some other proposals made after the GENIUS proposal. The potential of some of them is shown also in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. It is seen that not all of these proposals fully cover the region to be probed. Among them is also the recently presented MAJORANA project , which does not really apply any new strategy for background reduction. For more recent information on XMASS, EXO, MOON experiments see the contributions of Y. Suzuki, G. Gratta and H. Ejiri in these Proceedings. The CAMEO project will have to work on very long time scales, also since it has to wait the end of the BOREXINO solar neutrino experiment. CUORE has, with the complexity of cryogenic techniques, still to overcome serious problems of background to enter into interesting regions of $`m_\nu `$. EXO needs still very extensive research and development to probe the applicability of the proposed detection method.

In the GENIUS project a reduction by a factor of more than 1000 down to a background level of 0.1 events/tonne y keV in the range of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay is reached by removing all material close to the detectors, and by using naked Germanium detectors in a large tank of liquid nitrogen. It has been shown that the detectors show excellent performance under such conditions.

For technical questions and extensive Monte Carlo simulations of the GENIUS project for its application in double beta decay we refer to.

### 4.2 GENIUS and Other Beyond Standard Model Physics

GENIUS will allow besides the major step in neutrino physics described above the access to a broad range of other beyond SM physics topics in the multi-TeV range. Already now $`\beta \beta `$ decay probes the TeV scale on which new physics should manifest itself (see, e.g.). Basing to a large extent on the theoretical work of the Heidelberg group in the last five years, the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment yields results for SUSY models (R-parity breaking, neutrino mass), leptoquarks (leptoquarks-Higgs coupling), compositeness, right-handed $`W`$ mass, nonconservation of Lorentz invariance and equivalence principle, mass of a heavy left or righthanded neutrino, competitive to corresponding results from high-energy accelerators like TEVATRON and HERA. The potential of GENIUS extends into the multi-TeV region for these fields and its sensitivity would correspond to that of LHC or NLC and beyond (for details see).

## 5 GENIUS-Test Facility

Construction of a test facility for GENIUS — GENIUS-TF — consisting of $``$ 40 kg of HP Ge detectors suspended in a liquid nitrogen box has been started. Up to end of January 2001, four detectors each of $``$ 2.5 kg and with a threshold of as low as $``$ 500 eV have been produced.

Besides test of various parameters of the GENIUS project, the test facility would allow, with the projected background of 2–4 events/(kg y keV) in the low-energy range, to probe the DAMA evidence for dark matter by the seasonal modulation signature within about one year of measurement with 95% C.L. Even for an initial lower mass of 20 kg the time scale would be not larger than three years, see (for details see). If using the enriched 76Ge detectors of the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment in the GENIUS-TF setup, a background in the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ region a factor 30 smaller than in the HEIDELBERG-MOSCOW experiment could be obtained, which would allow to test the effective Majorana neutrino mass down to 0.15 eV (90% C.L.).

This limit is similar to what some much larger experiments aim at (Table 1).

## 6 Conclusion

Nature is extremely generous to us, that with an increase of the sensitivity by two orders of magnitude compared to the present limit, down to $`m_\nu <10^3`$ eV, indeed essentially all neutrino scenarios allowed by present neutrino oscillation experiments can be probed by double beta decay experiments.

GENIUS is the only of the new projects (see also Table 2) which exploits double beta decay to this ultimate limit. It is also the only one which simultaneously has a huge potential for cold dark matter search, and for real-time detection of low-energy neutrinos (see).


format: text

text:
# References

1. The understanding of the hadron substructure as well as the dynamics of hadron constituents requires mutual efforts from both the theoretical and experimental side. Theoretically, we have to deduce as much information as possible from perturbative and non-perturbative QCD calculations. Until now, on the experimental side the nucleon structure has been mostly probed in inclusive processes, e.g. measurements of deep-inelastic structure functions in leptoproduction experiments, which give access to parton distribution functions. Additional information has been gained from exclusive measurements of electroweak form factors sensitive at high momentum transfer to the lowest Fock component of the hadron wave function. Since recently it became clear that far richer information can be extracted from generalized parton distributions (GPDs) , which appear e.g. in the processes of deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) $`\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}^{}\gamma N^{}`$ and exclusive leptoproduction of mesons $`\mathrm{}N\mathrm{}^{}MN^{}`$. The GPDs include as limits the conventional hadron characteristics alluded to before .

The first experimental results  show the experimental feasibility of DVCS measurements. The DVCS process contributes together with the contaminating Bethe-Heitler (BH) one to exclusive electroproduction of the real photon and requires detailed theoretical studies. Obviously, the first issue is to define appropriate observables and to determine the phase space regions that would allow for a clean interpretation of experimental measurements. As has been shown in previous studies, diverse asymmetries give an access to the interference term. Here the DVCS signal gets augmented by the Bethe-Heitler process, which provides the required handle on the GPDs from leptoproduction reactions . Certainly, at very large values of the photon virtuality $`𝒬^2`$ the DVCS process is dominated by its leading twist-two approximation arising from the so-called handbag diagram (including radiative corrections). Practically the onset of scaling can only be judged experimentally as present day theory does not provide necessary non-perturbative tools for the computation of soft contributions to such a reaction. For deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) it turned out, that the twist-two approximation is valid down to a rather low photon virtuality of order of a few GeV. Although the DIS process is given by the absorptive part of forward Compton scattering, calculated by means of the same operator product expansion, the DVCS case remains an issue for studies. Since the average $`𝒬^2`$ for all present facilities is about 4 GeV2 or even below, it is vital for a clean isolation of the leading twist GPDs, to have a control over power suppressed effects.

Recently, the issues of twist-three effects  and target mass corrections  have been addressed in the literature (in the latter case only partially). In the present paper we make a step towards accomplishing the goal of handling the higher twist contributions by defining and computing twist-three observables in the DVCS cross section with polarized lepton beam and unpolarized nucleon target.

2. The DVCS hadronic tensor is given by the time ordered product of the electromagnetic currents $`j_\mu =\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi `$ sandwiched between hadronic states with different momenta. In leading order of perturbation theory it reads

$`T_{\mu \nu }(q,P,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{e}^{ixq}P_2|Tj_\mu (x/2)j_\nu (x/2)|P_1}`$
$`=`$ $`𝒫_{\mu \sigma }g_{\sigma \tau }𝒫_{\tau \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{qV_1}{Pq}}+\left(𝒫_{\mu \sigma }P_\sigma 𝒫_{\rho \nu }+𝒫_{\mu \rho }P_\sigma 𝒫_{\sigma \nu }\right){\displaystyle \frac{V_{2\rho }}{Pq}}𝒫_{\mu \sigma }iϵ_{\sigma \tau q\rho }𝒫_{\tau \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{A_{1\rho }}{Pq}},`$
where we have kept all contributions to twist-three accuracy. Here we have used conventional conditions on invariants in the Bjorken limit, $`q^2Pq=`$ large, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=`$ small, $`\xi =q^2/qP=`$ fixed, constructed from the vectors $`P=P_1+P_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=P_2P_1`$, and $`q=(q_1+q_2)/2`$. The vectors $`P_1`$ ($`q_1`$) and $`P_2`$ ($`q_2`$) refer here to the incoming and outgoing proton (photon) momentum, respectively. The reality of the final state photon implies the presence of only one scaling variable $`\xi `$. Current conservation in the tensor decomposition (S0.Ex1) is ensured here by means of the projection operator

$$𝒫_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{q_{1\mu }q_{2\nu }}{q_1q_2}.$$
(2)
This is consistent with an explicit calculation of the amplitude (S0.Ex1) to twist-three accuracy . In the above equation the vector $`V_{2\rho }`$ is expressed in terms of the vector $`V_{1\rho }`$ and the axial-vector $`A_{1\rho }`$ form factors

$`V_{2\rho }=\xi V_{1\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_\rho }{Pq}}qV_1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\rho \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }q}}{Pq}}A_{1\sigma }.`$ (3)
The latter are given as convolutions w.r.t. the momentum fraction $`x`$, $`_1^1dx`$,

$$V_{1\rho }=C^{()}(\xi ,x)v_{1\rho }(x,\xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2),A_{1\rho }=C^{()}(\xi ,x)a_{1\rho }(x,\xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)$$
(4)
of the leading order coefficient functions

$$\xi C_i^{()}(\xi ,x)=Q_i^2(1x/\xi iϵ)^1(xx),$$
(5)
with $``$ ($`+`$) standing for the parity even (odd) case, $`Q_i`$ being the electric charge of a quark of type-$`i`$, and the Fourier transforms of light-ray operators ($`n^2=0`$) being defined by

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}v_{1\rho }\\ a_{1\rho }\end{array}\right\}(x,\xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\frac{d\kappa }{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix\kappa (nP)}P_2|\overline{\psi }(\kappa n)\left\{\begin{array}{c}\gamma _\rho \\ \gamma _\rho \gamma _5\end{array}\right\}[\kappa ,\kappa ]\psi (\kappa n)|P_1.$$
(6)
The general decomposition of the vector and axial-vector amplitudes, in a complete basis of form factors to twist-three accuracy, reads

$`V_{1\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`P_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{qh}{qP}}+P_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{qe}{qP}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{qh}{qP}}_+^3+\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{qe}{qP}}_+^3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{h}}{qP}}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{e}}{qP}}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^3,`$ (7)
$`A_{1\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`P_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{h}}{qP}}\stackrel{~}{}+P_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{e}}{qP}}\stackrel{~}{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{h}}{qP}}\stackrel{~}{}_+^3+\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{e}}{qP}}\stackrel{~}{}_+^3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{qh}{qP}}_{}^3+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{qe}{qP}}_{}^3,`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho +\xi P_\rho `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}iϵ_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }Pq}/Pq`$ and the Dirac bilinears are defined conventionally by

$`h_\rho =\overline{U}(P_2,S_2)\gamma _\rho U(P_1,S_1),e_\rho =\overline{U}(P_2,S_2)i\sigma _{\rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma }{2M}}U(P_1,S_1),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_\rho =\overline{U}(P_2,S_2)\gamma _\rho \gamma _5U(P_1,S_1),\stackrel{~}{e}_\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho }{2M}}\overline{U}(P_2,S_2)\gamma _5U(P_1,S_1),`$
with $`U`$ being the nucleon bispinor.

In order to simplify our presentation, we introduce a unified convention for the twist-two $`\{,,\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{}\}`$ and twist-three $`_\pm ^3\{_\pm ^3,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{}_\pm ^3\}`$ Compton form factors. Replacing the sets of Compton form factors $``$ and $`_\pm ^3`$ by the sets of GPDs $`F_i\{H_i,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{E}_i\}`$ and so on, we write in analogy to Eqs. (7,8) the decomposition for the matrix elements $`v_{1\rho }`$ and $`a_{1\rho }`$ in terms of GPDs for quark species $`i`$. Here $`H_i`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$) and $`E_i`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$) are leading twist-two spin non-flip and spin flip GPDs, respectively, in the parity even (odd) sector. The remaining two sets, containing together eight independent functions, belong to the twist-three sector. As mentioned before, the three sets of Compton form factors are given as a convolution of the coefficient functions with GPDs, generically written as (replace $`_\pm ^3`$ and $`FF_\pm ^3`$ to get the result in the twist-three sector):

$$(\xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\underset{i=u,d,\mathrm{}}{}C_i^{()}(\xi ,x)F_i(x,\xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }^2).$$
(9)
In order to deduce the GPDs from the result in Ref. , we decompose the (axial-) vector Dirac bilinears $`h_\rho `$ ($`\stackrel{~}{h}_\rho `$) in its twist-two and -three components by means of the Dirac equation

$`h_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`P_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{qh}{qP}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{(1\xi ^2)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2\right)}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{qh}{qP}}{\displaystyle \frac{qe}{qP}}\right)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{h}}{qP}}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{e}}{qP}}\right)\right\},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`P_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{h}}{qP}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{(1\xi ^2)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2\right)}}\{\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}\xi (({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}1){\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{h}}{qP}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{e}}{qP}})`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{qh}{qP}}{\displaystyle \frac{qe}{qP}})\},`$
where twist-four terms, proportional to $`q_\rho `$, have been neglected. The GPDs can now be easily read off from Ref. . All twist-three GPDs are decomposed in the so-called Wandzura-Wilczeck terms $`F_\pm ^{WW}`$ (also calculated in Ref. ) and a function $`F_\pm ^{qGq}`$ that contains new dynamical information arising from antiquark-gluon-quark correlations:

$`F_\pm ^3=F_\pm ^{WW}+F_\pm ^{qGq}.`$ (11)
According to the analysis of Ref. , the WW parts have the following form

$`F_+^{WW}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}W_+\widehat{d}F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}F{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{(1\xi ^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2)}}F_+^{},`$
$`F_{}^{WW}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}W_{}\widehat{d}F{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{(1\xi ^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2)}}F_{}^{},`$ (12)
where the convolution with the $`W`$-kernels

$$W_\pm (\frac{x}{\xi },\frac{y}{\xi })=\frac{1}{2\xi }\left\{W(\frac{x}{\xi },\frac{y}{\xi })\pm W(\frac{x}{\xi },\frac{y}{\xi })\right\},W(x,y)=\frac{\theta (1+x)\theta (xy)}{1+y},$$
(13)
is defined as previously in Eq. (4)

$$W\widehat{d}F_1^1𝑑yW(\frac{x}{\xi },\frac{y}{\xi })\widehat{d}(y,\xi )F(y,\xi ),$$
(14)
with the differential operator $`\widehat{d}(y,\xi )=y\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{y}\xi \frac{\stackrel{}{}}{\xi }`$.

Compared to the results for a (pseudo) scalar target (cf. with Eq. (24) in Ref. ), in the WW-sector of Eq. (S0.Ex6) there appear in addition the functions $`F_\pm ^{}`$, which arise from the decomposition of $`h_\rho ^{}=h_\rho P_\rho qh/qP`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\rho ^{}=\stackrel{~}{h}_\rho P_\rho q\stackrel{~}{h}/qP`$, respectively. Their calculation is straightforward and they read

$`H_\pm ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}\left\{\xi W_\pm \left(H+E\right)W_{}\stackrel{~}{H}\right\},`$
$`E_\pm ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \left\{\xi W_\pm \left(H+E\right)W_{}\stackrel{~}{H}\right\},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_\pm ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \left\{\xi \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}\right)W_\pm \stackrel{~}{H}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}W_{}\left(H+E\right)\right\},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\pm ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\left\{W_\pm \stackrel{~}{H}\xi W_{}\left(H+E\right)\right\}.`$ (15)
The antiquark-gluon-quark contributions,

$`F_\pm ^{qGq}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{\xi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{1u}{2}}\left\{W({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\xi }},{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\xi }}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{^2}}{y^2}}S_F^+(y,u,\xi )\pm W({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\xi }},{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\xi }}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{^2}}{y^2}}S_F^{}(y,u,\xi )\right\},`$
can be read off from the parametrization of the corresponding operators and result in eight independent functions

$`S_\rho ^\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{qh}{qP}}S_H^\pm +\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{qe}{qP}}S_E^\pm \pm \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{h}}{qP}}S_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^\pm \pm \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\rho ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{q\stackrel{~}{e}}{qP}}S_{\stackrel{~}{E}}^\pm `$
(see Ref.  for details).

It turn out that only the difference $`F_+^3F_{}^3`$ will enter in the DVCS amplitude, thus, only four new GPDs remain at twist-three level. In the WW approximation, i.e. neglecting the quark-gluon-quark correlation, all the twist-three Compton form factors are entirely determined by the four twist-two GPDs $`H`$, $`E`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$.

3. In this section we define the twist-three observables, which are accessible by measuring the four-fold cross section for the process $`e(k)h(P_1)e(k^{})h(P_2)\gamma (q_2)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dx_\mathrm{B}dyd|\mathrm{\Delta }^2|d\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3x_\mathrm{B}y}{8\pi 𝒬^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2x_\mathrm{B}^2}{𝒬^2}}\right)^{1/2}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{e^3}}\right|^2.`$ (16)
This cross section depends on the Bjorken variable $`x_\mathrm{B}=q_1^2/(2P_1q_1)`$ (with $`q_1=kk^{}`$ and $`q_1^2=𝒬^2`$), the momentum transfer square $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=(P_2P_1)^2`$, the lepton energy fraction $`y=P_1q_1/P_1k`$, and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ between lepton and hadron scattering planes. In the twist-three approximation $`\xi `$ can be replaced by $`x_\mathrm{B}`$ via $`\xi =x_\mathrm{B}/(2x_\mathrm{B})`$. Furthermore, we choose a frame rotated w.r.t. the laboratory one in such a way that the virtual photon has no transverse components111It is a reference system related to the centre-of-mass system of  by a boost of the hadron in the $`z`$-direction.. We fix our kinematics by choosing a negative $`z`$ component for the virtual photon momentum and a positive $`x`$ component of the incoming electron: $`k=(E,E\mathrm{sin}\theta _e,0,E\mathrm{cos}\theta _e)`$, $`q_1=(q_1^0,0,|q_1^3|)`$, $`P_1=(M,0,0,0)`$ and $`P_2=(E_2,|𝑷_2|\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _H,|𝑷_2|\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _H,|𝑷_2|\mathrm{cos}\theta _H)`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle between the lepton and hadron scattering planes.

The amplitude $`𝒯`$ is the sum of the virtual Compton scattering (VCS) $`𝒯_{VCS}`$ and the BH amplitude $`𝒯_{BH}`$. The latter one is real and is parametrized in terms of electromagnetic form factors, which we assume to be known from other measurements. The azimuthal angle dependence of each of the three terms in $`𝒯^2=|𝒯_{BH}|^2+|𝒯_{VCS}|^2+`$, where $`𝒯_{VCS}𝒯_{BH}^{}+𝒯_{VCS}^{}𝒯_{BH}`$, is given in our frame by a finite Fourier sum. In the case of an unplolarized or longitudinally polarized lepton beam, the interference term $``$ and the squared DVCS amplitude $`|𝒯_{VCS}|^2`$ may be written as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_\mathrm{B}y^3𝒫_1𝒫_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{𝒬^2}}c_0^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{2}{}}}K^m\left[c_m^{}\mathrm{cos}(m\varphi )+\lambda s_m^{}\mathrm{sin}(m\varphi )\right]\right\},`$
$`|𝒯_{\mathrm{DVCS}}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2𝒬^2}}\left\{c_0^{\mathrm{DVCS}}+K\left[c_1^{\mathrm{DVCS}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+\lambda s_1^{\mathrm{DVCS}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )\right]\right\}.`$ (17)
The coefficients $`c_1^{},s_1^{}`$ as well as $`c_0^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$ and $`s_0^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$ arise at the twist-two level and their dependence on GPDs has been calculated in Refs. . $`c_0^{}`$, $`c_2^{}`$, $`s_2^{}`$, $`c_1^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$, and $`s_1^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$ provide an additional angular dependence and are given in terms of twist-two and twist-three GPDs, while the terms222They are induced at twist-two level by the gluon transversity, which is perturbatively suppressed by $`\alpha _s`$ and is contaminated by twist-four contributions. that are discarded here are either proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(3\varphi )`$ \[$`\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$\] or $`\mathrm{sin}(3\varphi )`$ \[$`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$\] for the interference \[squared DVCS\] term. Note that all $`c`$’s and $`s`$’s are $`\varphi `$ independent. There is an important difference between the interference term and the squared DVCS amplitude. The former has an additional $`\varphi `$ dependence due to the lepton propagators333For convenience we scale them with respect to $`𝒬^2`$.:

$$𝒬^2𝒫_1(kq_2)^2=𝒬^2+2k\mathrm{\Delta },𝒬^2𝒫_2(k\mathrm{\Delta })^2=2k\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^2,$$
(18)
with

$$k\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{𝒬^2}{2y}\left\{1+2K\mathrm{cos}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{𝒬^2}\left(1x_\mathrm{B}(2y)\right)\frac{2M^2}{𝒬^2}(2y)x_\mathrm{B}^2\right\}\left\{1+𝒪(M^2/𝒬^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2/𝒬^2)\right\}.$$

The $`1/𝒬`$-power suppressed kinematical factor, appearing also in the Fourier series (17),

$$K=\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{𝒬^2}(1x_\mathrm{B})\left(1y\right)\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right)\right\}^{1/2}\left\{1+𝒪(M^2/𝒬^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2/𝒬^2)\right\}$$
(19)
vanishes at the kinematical boundary $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$, determined by the minimal value

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{M^2x_\mathrm{B}^2}{1x_\mathrm{B}+x_\mathrm{B}M^2/𝒬^2}}\left\{1+𝒪\left(M^2/𝒬^2\right)\right\}.`$
Since $``$ and $`|𝒯_{BH}|^2+|𝒯_{VCS}|^2`$ are charge odd and even, respectively, those experimental facilities that possess beams of both charges can separately extract the BH-DVCS interference term and the sum of the squared BH and DVCS terms. Combining the charge asymmetry with different nucleon/lepton polarizations and azimuthal asymmetries  one can extract, in principle, the real and imaginary part of the four twist-two amplitudes $``$, $``$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ from the interference term . Since $``$ is linear in amplitudes involving GPDs, one gets access to the twist-two GPDs, which, however, are convoluted with the real or imaginary part of the coefficient functions. The precise definition of the Fourier coefficients is crucial for the interpretation of experimental results, since the $`u`$-channel lepton propagator gives a contribution that behaves like $`𝒫_1=\left[1yK\mathrm{cos}\varphi +𝒪(1/𝒬^2)\right]/y`$. For instance, in the case of the single lepton spin asymmetry it may be possible that in some kinematical regions, i.e. large $`y`$ and not too small $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2/𝒬^2`$, this propagator effectively induces a $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$ term that is canceled by a $`s_2^{}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$ term resulting in a (fake) $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ dependence of the cross section.

The procedure, outlined above, can also be used to access the twist-three contributions. For a successful separation of definite twist components, one should compensate for the strong azimuthal dependence of the lepton propagators in the BH amplitude. The $`\mathrm{cos}(m\varphi ),\mathrm{sin}(m\varphi )`$ components are e.g. unraveled by weighting the cross section with $`𝒫_1𝒫_2\{\mathrm{cos}(m\varphi ),\mathrm{sin}(m\varphi )\}`$. If this is not done, the magnitude of the twist-three effects can be judged by the distortion of the leading twist angular dependence $`\{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ),\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )\}𝒫_1^1𝒫_2^1`$.

In the following we only present the Fourier coefficients to twist-three accuracy for an unpolarized nucleon target. A complete analysis will be given elsewhere . A straightforward computation provides the following analytical results for the squared DVCS amplitude

$`c_{0,\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$ $`=`$ $`2(22y+y^2)𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}(,^{}),`$ (20)
$`c_{1,\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$ $`=`$ $`8{\displaystyle \frac{2y}{2x_\mathrm{B}}}\mathrm{Re}𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}(^{\mathrm{eff}},^{}),`$
$`s_{1,\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$ $`=`$ $`8{\displaystyle \frac{y}{2x_\mathrm{B}}}\mathrm{Im}𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}(^{\mathrm{eff}},^{}).`$
Both twist-three coefficients $`c_{1,\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$ and $`s_{1,\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}`$ are given as interference of twist-two GPDs with an ‘effective’ twist-three GPD

$`^{\mathrm{eff}}=2\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\xi }}+_+^3_{}^3\right),`$ (21)
where $`_\pm ^3`$ are defined in Eqs. (S0.Ex6-S0.Ex10). Surprisingly they have the same functional dependence as the leading twist-two function :

$`𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}(,^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2x_\mathrm{B})^2}}\{4(1x_\mathrm{B})(^{}+\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{}^{})x_\mathrm{B}^2(^{}+^{}+\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{}^{})`$ (22)
$`(x_\mathrm{B}^2+(2x_\mathrm{B})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}})^{}x_\mathrm{B}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{}^{}\}.`$
For the interference term we found the same property for the $`\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )/\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$ coefficients:

$`c_{0,\mathrm{unp}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`8(2y)\left\{(2x_\mathrm{B})(1y)(1x_\mathrm{B})(2y)^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\right)\right\}\mathrm{Re}𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{}\left(\right)`$
$`+`$ $`8(2y)(1y)x_\mathrm{B}(F_1+F_2)\mathrm{Re}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x_\mathrm{B}}{2x_\mathrm{B}}}(+)+\stackrel{~}{}\right\},`$
$`c_{1,\mathrm{unp}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`8(22y+y^2)\mathrm{Re}𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{}\left(\right),s_{1,\mathrm{unp}}^{}=8y(2y)\mathrm{Im}𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{}\left(\right),`$
$`c_{2,\mathrm{unp}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`16{\displaystyle \frac{2y}{2x_\mathrm{B}}}\mathrm{Re}𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{}\left(^{\mathrm{eff}}\right),s_{2,\mathrm{unp}}^{}=16{\displaystyle \frac{y}{2x_\mathrm{B}}}\mathrm{Im}𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{}\left(^{\mathrm{eff}}\right).`$ (23)
Here the twist-two function

$`𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{}\left(\right)=F_1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_\mathrm{B}}{2x_\mathrm{B}}}(F_1+F_2)\stackrel{~}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}F_2`$ (24)
also depends on the Dirac and Pauli form factors $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, respectively.

Note that twist-three GPDs, having generical discontinuities at $`|x|=\xi `$, enter in the Compton form factors in a singularity free combination just as for a (pseudo) scalar target. The convolutions444This can be done by means of $`_1^1\frac{dx}{|\eta |}\frac{1}{\xi xi0}W(\frac{x}{\eta },\frac{y}{\eta })=\frac{\mathrm{sign}(\eta )}{\eta +y}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\eta +\xi }{\xi yi0}\right)`$ and proper symmetrization. of the coefficient functions $`C_i^{}`$ with the $`W`$-kernels make this property transparent:

$`^{\mathrm{eff}}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\xi }}+2\xi {\displaystyle \underset{i=u,d,\mathrm{}}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}C_i^{3()}(\xi ,x)F_i(x,\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{(1\xi ^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2)}}_i^{}(\xi )`$
$`{\displaystyle _1^1}du{\displaystyle \frac{1+u}{\xi +x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{\xi xi0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{^2}}{x^2}}(S_{F_i}^+(x,u,\xi )S_{F_i}^{}(x,u,\xi ))\},`$
where we have used a new convention for the coefficient function

$$C_i^{3()}(\xi ,x)=\frac{Q_i^2}{\xi +x}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\xi }{\xi xi0}\{xx\},$$
(26)
with the $``$ ($`+`$) sign standing for $`=\{(\stackrel{~}{}),(\stackrel{~}{})\}`$ and

$`_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}\left\{\xi C_i^{3()}\left(H_i+E_i\right)C_i^{3(+)}\stackrel{~}{H}_i\right\},`$ (27)
$`_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi C_i^{3()}\left(H_i+E_i\right)C_i^{3(+)}\stackrel{~}{H}_i,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}\right)C_i^{3(+)}\stackrel{~}{H}_i+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4M^2}}C_i^{3()}\left(H_i+E_i\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\left\{C_i^{3(+)}\stackrel{~}{H}_i\xi C_i^{3()}\left(H_i+E_i\right)\right\}.`$
We should note that the kinematical factor in front of $`^{}`$ drops out in the final results (20,S0.Ex19) and, therefore, the $`1\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ dependence in the Fourier series (17) will not be altered. More precisely, the $`^{}`$ dependence in the ‘effective’ twist-three amplitude (S0.Ex21) generates the following terms:

$`𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{}\left(^{\mathrm{eff}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{}\left(^{\mathrm{eff}},^{}=0\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_\mathrm{B}}{2x_\mathrm{B}}}(F_1+F_2){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}C_i^{3(+)}\stackrel{~}{H}_i,`$ (28)
$`𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}(^{\mathrm{eff}},^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞_{\mathrm{unp}}^{\mathrm{DVCS}}\left(^{\mathrm{eff}},^{};^{}=0\right)`$
$`+`$ $`2x_\mathrm{B}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}C_i^{3()}\left(E_i+H_i\right)\right)\left((2x_\mathrm{B})\stackrel{~}{}^{}x_\mathrm{B}(+)^{}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`2x_\mathrm{B}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}C_i^{3(+)}\stackrel{~}{H}_i\right)\left((2x_\mathrm{B})(+)^{}x_\mathrm{B}(\stackrel{~}{}+\stackrel{~}{})^{}\right).`$
4. In this paper we have defined twist-two and twist-three observables in such a way that the twist-three contributions, suppressed by $`𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}/𝒬\right)`$, do not alter the leading twist angular dependence. Thus, the corrections to the twist-two Fourier components are expected at twist-four level $`𝒪(M^2/𝒬^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2/𝒬^2)`$. Combining charge and spin asymmetries together with a careful extraction of the different Fourier coefficients allows a separate measurement of all coefficients of the interference and the squared DVCS term. In the latter case, the subtraction of the squared BH amplitude from the data is necessary. At the same time it drops out in single spin asymmetries.

For a lepton beam with definite charge, a separate measurement of the interference term is not possible. In this case the leading twist $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )/\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$ dependence in the cross section, which stems from the interference term, gets corrected by the twist-three contribution of the squared DVCS amplitude. Although such corrections are kinematically suppressed by $`x_\mathrm{B}\frac{1y}{y}\mathrm{\Delta }^2/𝒬^2`$, their numerical value depends on the magnitude of the form factors $``$.

Let us also mention that for a (pseudo) scalar target the Fourier coefficients fulfill certain constraints derived from general arguments . They provide a basic test of the applicability of the operator product expansion at a given $`𝒬`$-scale. We expect similar constraints for a spin-1/2 target, however, their derivation will require an evaluation of the squared amplitudes for longitudinally and transversely polarized targets. Of course, one can not test the dominance of leading contributions in this way or the magnitude of higher twist and $`\alpha _s`$ suppressed contaminations. This can be judged by comparing the measured scale dependence of the coefficients $`c_i`$ and $`s_i`$ with the ones arising from the evolution of GPDs and power suppressed contributions in a sufficiently large $`𝒬^2`$-interval. Note that this task is complicated for experiments with fixed center-of-mass energy, since the kinematical variables $`x_\mathrm{B},y`$ and $`𝒬`$ do not form an independent basis in this setting. On the theoretical side the complete perturbative NLO corrections have been calculated while an estimate of twist-four effects still has to be done.

Extraction of the leading twist-two and -three Fourier coefficients allows to test models for GPDs and even to measure them in single spin asymmetries on the diagonal555This statement is only true at leading order in perturbation theory. Unfortunately, there are large pertubative corrections that require a careful interpretation of such experimental results. $`x=\xi `$. Having tested those predictions and processing to higher twist, one can study the validity of the ‘Wandzura-Wilczek model’ for twist-three functions suggested in Ref. . A significant deviation from the latter would imply an essential contribution from antiquark-gluon-quark correlators.

To conclude, the full experimental exploration of the deep electroproduction of real photons with leptons of both charges and polarizations will lead to a direct confrontation of the data with theoretical predictions and will result in systematic tests of our understanding of the quark-gluon content of the nucleon via generalized parton distributions.


text:
# N∗ electroproduction amplitudes in a model with dynamical confinement

## Abstract

The Roper resonance is described in a chiral version of the chromodielectric model as a cluster of three quarks in radial-orbital configuration (1s)2(2s)1, surrounded by $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$-meson clouds and by a chromodielectric field which assures quark dynamical confinement. Radial profiles for all fields are determined self-consistently for each baryon. Transverse $`A_{1/2}`$ and scalar $`S_{1/2}`$ helicity amplitudes for the nucleon-Roper transition are calculated. The contribution of glueball and $`\sigma `$-meson vibrations is estimated; although small for N(1440), the $`\sigma `$ contribution can be large for N(1710).
(PACS 12.39.Fe, 13.40.Gp, 14.20.Gk)

, , and

thanks: E-mail:pedro@teor.fis.uc.ptthanks: E-mail:tmanuel@teor.fis.uc.ptthanks: E-mail:bojan.golli@ijs.sithanks: E-mail:jpcmarques@hotmail.com

The new facilities for intermediate energy nuclear physics, operating with continuous electron beams, make more accessible accurate measurements of electromagnetic properties of both the nucleon and excited states, thus providing more and better information on the structure of baryons, and stimulating theoretical research on the structure of the nucleons and its resonances. The Roper resonance, N(1440), is of particular interest since, due to its relatively low excitation energy, a simple picture in which one quark populates the 2s level does not work here. The constituent quark model (CQM) does not yield sensible results for the electromagnetic properties unless the quark dynamics is treated relativistically  and, furthermore, approximations beyond the simple Gaussian approximation , or inclusion of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs  are taken into account. These difficulties suggest that additional degrees of freedom, such as explicit excitations of glue-field , glueball field , or chiral fields  may be important for formation of the Roper resonance.

In this letter we use a simple model, the chromodielectric model (CDM), which is particularly suitable to describe the interplay of glueball and meson excitations together with the usual quark radial excitation. In contrast to the nonrelativistic or relativistic versions of the constituent quark model, in the CDM the electromagnetic current operator is derived directly from the Lagrangian, hence no additional assumptions have to be introduced in the calculation of electroexcitation amplitudes. The electromagnetic current contains an explicit contribution from the pion field which has been shown to play an important role in the description of the N–$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ electroproduction .

The Roper has been considered in a non-chiral version of the CDM using the RPA techniques to describe coupled vibrations of valence quarks and the background chromodielectric field . The energy of the lowest excitation turned out to be 40 % lower than the pure 1s–2s excitations. A similar result was obtained by Guichon , using the MIT bag model and considering the Roper as a collective vibration of valence quarks and the bag.

In our approach we describe the nucleon and the Roper as chiral solitons resulting from the non-linear interactions between quarks and a scalar-isoscalar chiral singlet field $`\chi `$ which, through the peculiar way it couples to the quarks, provides a mechanism for confinement. In addition, the quarks interact with scalar-isoscalar ($`\sigma `$) and pseudoscalar-isovector ($`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$) mesons similarly as in the linear $`\sigma `$-model, though in the CDM the chiral fields are weaker and similar to the solution in the CBM for bag radius above 1 fm. The Lagrangian of the model can be written as

$$=_q+_{\sigma ,\pi }+_{q\mathrm{meson}}+_\chi ,$$
(1)
where

$$_q=\mathrm{i}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi ,_{\sigma ,\pi }=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \widehat{\sigma }^\mu \widehat{\sigma }+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}^\mu \widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}𝒰(\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}^2+\widehat{\sigma }^2),$$
(2)
$`𝒰(\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}^2+\widehat{\sigma }^2)`$ being the usual Mexican hat potential, and the quark meson interaction is given by

$$_{q\mathrm{meson}}=\frac{g}{\chi }\overline{\psi }(\widehat{\sigma }+\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{\tau }\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}\gamma _5)\psi .$$
(3)
The last term in (1) contains the kinetic and the potential piece for the $`\chi `$-field:

$$_\chi =\frac{1}{2}_\mu \widehat{\chi }^\mu \widehat{\chi }\frac{1}{2}M^2\widehat{\chi }^2.$$
(4)
Other versions of the CDM consider a quartic potential in (4). By taking just the mass term the confinement is imposed in the smoothest way, which seems to be the most appropriate choice for the quark matter sector of the CDM .

The parameters of the model have been fixed by requiring that the calculated static properties of the nucleon agree best with the experimental values: we take $`g=0.03`$ GeV and $`M=1.4`$ GeV . The pion decay constant and the chiral meson masses are fixed to $`f_\pi =0.093`$ GeV and $`m_\pi =0.14`$ GeV, while for the mass of the $`\sigma `$-meson we consider values between $`m_\sigma =0.7`$ GeV and $`m_\sigma =1.2`$ GeV. We have checked that our results depend very weakly on the variations of these parameters.

The starting point to describe a baryon is the hedgehog coherent state, which we write in the form:

$`|Hh`$ $`=`$ $`N\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \underset{tm}{}}(1)^m\delta _{t,m}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \omega _\pi (k)}{3}}}\xi (k)a_{tm}^{}(k)\}\times `$ (5)
$`\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k\sqrt{2\pi \omega _\sigma (k)}\eta (k)\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)\}\times `$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k\sqrt{2\pi \omega _\chi (k)}\zeta (k)b^{}(k)\right\}\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1,3}{}}c_h^{}(i)|0.`$
Here $`a_{tm}^{}(k)`$ is the creation operator for a p-wave pion with isospin and angular momentum third components $`t`$ and $`m`$ respectively, orbital wave function $`\xi (k)`$ and frequency $`\omega _\pi =\sqrt{k^2+m_\pi ^2}`$; similarly, $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)`$ and $`b^{}(k)`$ create s-wave $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ quanta, with orbital wave functions $`\eta (k)`$ and $`\zeta (k)`$, and frequencies $`\omega _\sigma `$ and $`\omega _\chi `$, respectively; $`N`$ is a normalization constant. The amplitudes, $`\xi (k)`$, $`\eta (k)`$ and $`\zeta (k)`$, are Fourier transforms of the corresponding pion, $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ radial profiles, which we denote as $`\varphi (r)`$, $`\sigma (r)`$, and $`\chi (r)`$, respectively. Finally, the operator $`c_h^{}(i)`$ creates a s-wave valence quark in a spin-isospin hedgehog state:

$$rrr|c_h^{}(i)|0=q_i(rrr)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_i(r)\\ \mathrm{i}v_i(r)\sigma \sigma \sigma \widehat{rrr}\end{array}\right)|h,|h=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|u|d).$$
(6)
The index $`i`$ distinguishes between different radial states. The physical states are obtained by performing the Peierls-Yoccoz projection :

$$|\mathrm{N}_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}=𝒩P_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}^{\frac{1}{2}}|Hh,|\mathrm{R}_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}^{}=𝒩^{}P_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}^{\frac{1}{2}}|Hh^{}.$$
(7)
The $`\chi `$ and the $`\sigma `$-fields are not affected by projection. The radial profiles $`\varphi (r)`$, $`\sigma (r)`$ and $`\chi (r)`$, and the quark profiles are determined self-consistently using variation after projection , separately for the nucleon and for the Roper. For the Roper, one has still to distinguish between the radial functions for quarks in 1s state and in 2s state, and we shall use the self-explanatory notation $`u_1^{}`$, $`v_1^{}`$, $`u_2^{}`$, $`v_2^{}`$, $`\sigma ^{}`$, $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\chi ^{}`$. The states (7) are normalized but not mutually orthogonal. They can be orthogonalized by taking

$$|\mathrm{R}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1c^2}}(|\mathrm{R}^{}c|\mathrm{N}),c=\mathrm{N}|\mathrm{R}^{}.$$
(8)
A better procedure results from a diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by $`|\mathrm{R}^{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{N}`$:

$$|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{R}}=c_R^R|\mathrm{R}^{}+c_N^R|\mathrm{N},|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{N}}=c_R^N|\mathrm{R}^{}+c_N^N|\mathrm{N}.$$
(9)
A central point in our treatment of the Roper is the freedom of the chromodielectric profile, as well as of the chiral meson profiles, to adapt to a (1s)2(2s)1 configuration. Therefore, quarks in the Roper experience mean fields which are different from the mean boson fields felt by the quarks in the nucleon.

The self-consistently determined fields shown in Fig. 1 depend noticeably on the quark source configuration. The $`\chi `$-field is almost insensitive to the $`\sigma `$-meson mass while the strength of the chiral fields increase with decreasing $`\sigma `$-meson mass. In Fig. 2 we show the quark radial profiles calculated self-consistently and, for the 2s state, also the radial profile calculated with the fixed background fields determined in the self-consistent calculation of the nucleon ground state (hereafter we call this approximation “frozen fields” calculation and denote it by “ff” to distinguish it from the self-consistent calculation, denoted by “sc”). In Table 1 we give the nucleon energy, $`E_N`$, and the Roper–nucleon energy splitting for various approximations. The 1s–2s level splitting corresponds to the ff calculation (in this case the boson fields do not contribute to the difference), while $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_R`$ refers to the self-consistent calculations. In the latter case, the level splitting itself is reduced by 35 % with respect to ff, but the total Roper–nucleon splitting is actually higher due to the increase of the potential energy of the fields and to the orthogonalization (8).

The ansatz (7) for the Roper represents the breathing mode of the three valence quarks with the fields adapting to the change of the source. There is another possible type of excitation in which the quarks remain in the ground state while the $`\chi `$-field and/or the $`\sigma `$-field oscillate. Such oscillations can be simply described if the ground state is taken in the form of a (projected) coherent state. We expand the field operators of the scalar bosons around their expectation value in the ground state $`|\mathrm{N}`$ (7):

$$\widehat{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{r})=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\epsilon _n}}\phi _n(r)\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\left[\stackrel{~}{a}_n+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^{}\right]+\sigma (r),$$
(10)
where the operators $`\stackrel{~}{a}_n`$ annihilate the ground state, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{a}_n|N=0`$. (We write here explicitly only the vibrations of the $`\sigma `$-meson; for the $`\chi `$ field the derivation is analogous.) From $`\stackrel{~}{a}(k)|N=\sqrt{2\pi \omega _\sigma (k)}\eta (k)|N`$ one can obtain a simple expression for the annihilation (creation) operator of the $`n`$-th mode111The most general expression would involve the Bogoljubov transformation; however, the corresponding ground state would not be a simple coherent state. If we want to keep the simple ansatz which allows us to perform calculations of matrix elements, the expression is the most general transformation that preserves the ground state. Performing the Bogoljubov transformation leads to RPA equations; the present approach is therefore a simplified treatment of RPA excitations.:

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_n=k\stackrel{~}{\phi }_n(k)\left(\stackrel{~}{a}(k)\sqrt{2\pi \omega _\sigma (k)}\eta (k)\right),$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_n(k)`$ is the Fourier transform of the $`n`$-th mode in (10).

The stability conditions for the ground state require that the $`\phi _n`$ and $`\epsilon _n`$ satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation:

$$\left(^2+m^2+\frac{^2V(\sigma (r))}{\sigma (r)^2}\right)\phi _n(r)=\epsilon _n^2\phi _n(r).$$
(12)
Here $`V`$ stands for the potential originating from the term $`_{q\mathrm{meson}}`$ and the potential parts of $`_\chi `$ and $`_{\sigma ,\pi }`$ in (1). For the self-consistently determined profiles of the ground state we find that the potential in (12) is repulsive for the $`\chi `$-field and attractive for the $`\sigma `$-field. This means that there are no glueball excitation in which the quarks would act as spectators: the $`\chi `$\- field oscillates only together with the quark field. On the other hand, the effective $`\sigma `$-meson potential supports at least one bound state with the energy $`\epsilon _1`$ of typically 100 MeV below the $`\sigma `$-meson mass222The appearance of an attractive potential is not only a feature of the CDM, it appears in other chiral models in which the chiral fields are not constrained to the chiral circle; e.g. in the recent calculation of the nucleon in the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model with nonlocal regulators  the chiral fields in the center of the soliton turn out to be quite far away from the chiral circle, producing a strong attractive potential for the $`\sigma `$-meson.  (see Table 1). The lowest excited state is obtained by populating the lowest mode of the vibrator with one boson.

We can now extend the ansatz (8) by introducing

$$|\mathrm{R}^{}=c_1|\mathrm{R}+c_2\stackrel{~}{a}_\sigma ^{}|N,$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\sigma ^{}`$ is the creation operator for this lowest vibrational mode. The coefficients $`c_i`$ and the energy are determined by solving the (generalized) eigenvalue problems in the $`2\times 2`$ subspace. The solution with the lowest energy corresponds to the Roper while the orthogonal combinations could be attributed to the second excited state with nucleon quantum numbers, the $`N(1710)`$, provided the $`\sigma `$-meson mass is sufficiently small. In such a case the latter state is described as predominantly the $`\sigma `$-meson vibrational mode rather than the second radial excitation of quarks.

The energy of the Roper resonance is reduced when the lowest vibrational mode is included in the ansatz; the reduction is small due to the small coupling between the state (8) and the lowest vibrational state with the energy $`\epsilon _1`$ (see Table 1). The orthogonal combination is practically at energy $`E_N+\epsilon _1`$. The orthogonalization procedure (9) lowers the ground-state energy and increases the nucleon–Roper energy splitting with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_R`$.

We now turn to the presentation of the electromagnetic nucleon–Roper transition amplitudes. Using the state vectors (9) the nucleon–Roper resonant electromagnetic transition amplitudes are readily evaluated. One usually introduces the resonant transverse helicity amplitude defined in the rest frame of the resonance as

$$A_{1/2}=\zeta \sqrt{\frac{2\pi \alpha }{k_W}}^3rrr\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{R}}_{+\frac{1}{2},M_T}|JJJ_{\mathrm{em}}(rrr)ϵϵϵ_{+1}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}kkkrrr}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{N}}_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}$$
(14)
and a scalar helicity amplitude

$$S_{1/2}=\zeta \sqrt{\frac{2\pi \alpha }{k_W}}rrr\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{R}}_{+\frac{1}{2},M_T}|J_{\mathrm{em}}^0(rrr)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}kkkrrr}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{N}}_{+\frac{1}{2},M_T}.$$
(15)
where $`\alpha =\frac{e^2}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{137}`$ is the fine-structure constant, the unit vector $`ϵϵϵ_{+1}`$ is the polarization vector of the electromagnetic field, $`k_W`$ is the photon momentum at the photon point, $`k_W=(M_\mathrm{R}^2M_\mathrm{N}^2)/2M_\mathrm{R}`$, and $`\zeta `$ is the sign of the $`N\pi `$ decay amplitude : $`\zeta =\mathrm{sgn}\left\{R(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2})\pi _a+N_b(M=\frac{1}{2})/(1a\frac{1}{2}b|\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2})\right\}`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the third components of pion and nucleon isospin, respectively. This sign has to be explicitly calculated within the model. Performing the multipole decomposition of the (transverse) electromagnetic field, $`AAA_{+1}=ϵϵϵ_{+1}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}kkkrrr}`$, and using the Wigner-Eckart theorem, Eq. (14) becomes

$$A_{1/2}=\zeta \sqrt{\frac{\pi \alpha }{k_W}}^3rrr\frac{3j_1(kr)}{r}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{R}}_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}|\left[rrr\times JJJ_{\mathrm{em}}(rrr)\right]_0|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{N}}_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}.$$
(16)
Similarly, Eq. (15) becomes

$$S_{1/2}=\zeta \sqrt{\frac{2\pi \alpha }{k_W}}^3rrrj_0(kr)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{R}}_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}|J_{\mathrm{em}}^0(rrr)|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{N}}_{\frac{1}{2},M_T}.$$
(17)
The electromagnetic operator in the CDM, $`J_{\mathrm{em}}^\mu (J_{\mathrm{em}}^0,JJJ_{\mathrm{em}})`$, contains a quark part and a pion part and reads:

$$J_{\mathrm{em}}^\mu =\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{q}_i\gamma ^{\mu ,(i)}\left(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{2}\tau _0^{(i)}\right)q_i+\left(\stackrel{}{\pi }\times ^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }\right)_0$$
(18)
where the index 0 refers to the isospin third component.

Our results for the transverse helicity amplitudes for the charged and neutral states are shown in figs. 3 and 4 for the parameter set $`g=0.03`$ GeV, $`M=1.4`$ GeV and $`m_\sigma =0.85`$ GeV (the amplitudes for $`m_\sigma =0.7`$ GeV and $`m_\sigma =1.2`$ GeV are quantitatively similar to those shown in figs. 3 and 4). Shown are the model predictions for the self-consistent calculations (using states (9)) and for ground state frozen fields (using states (7)). The experimental values at the photon point are the PDG most recent estimate  $`A_{1/2}^p=0.065\pm 0.004`$ (GeV/$`c`$)-1/2 and $`0.040\pm 0.010`$ (GeV/$`c`$)-1/2 for $`A_{1/2}^n`$. The pion contribution to the charged states only accounts for a few percent of the total amplitude. The large discrepancy at the photon point can be attributed to a too weak pion field in the model which we already noticed in the calculation of nucleon magnetic moments  and of the electroproduction of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . Other chiral models  predict a much stronger pion contribution which enhances the value of the amplitudes at the photon point. If we calculate perturbatively the leading pion contribution we also find a strong enhancement at the photon point; however, when we properly orthogonalize the state with respect to the nucleon, this contribution almost disappears.

In Fig. 5 we present the scalar helicity amplitudes for the proton; the amplitude for the neutron is very close to 0 and is not shown. No data are available which prevents any judgment of the quality of the approaches.

In CQM calculations  which incorporate a consistent relativistic treatment of quark dynamics, the amplitudes change the sign around $`Q^20.2`$$`0.5`$ (GeV$`/c)^2`$. The amplitudes with this opposite sign remain large at relatively high $`Q^2`$, though, as shown in , the behavior at high $`Q^2`$ can be substantially reduced if either corrections beyond the simple Gaussian-like ansatz or pionic degrees of freedom are included in the model. Other models, in particular those including exotic (gluon) states, do not predict this type of behavior . The present experimental situation is unclear. If in the future a more accurate experimental analysis confirms the change of the sign at low $`Q^2`$, this would certainly be a success of the CQM; if, however, this is not the case, one should not rule out conventional quark model explanations in favor of the exotic states as proven by our calculation. Our model, similarly as other chiral models , predicts the correct sign at the photon point, while it does not predict the change of the sign at low $`Q^2`$. Let us also note that with the inclusion of a phenomenological three-quark interaction Cano et al.  shift the change of the sign to $`Q1`$ (GeV$`/c)^2`$ beyond which, in our opinion, predictions of low energy models become questionable anyway.

It is interesting to note that, in the self-consistent calculation, there is a substantial contribution to the amplitudes from the admixures of $`|\mathrm{N}`$ in $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{R}}`$ and of $`|\mathrm{R}^{}`$ in $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{N}}`$ (see expressions (9)). Such contributions are not present in the calculation with frozen profiles (since the states (7) are already orthogonal) but nonetheless, both approaches yield similar results for the amplitudes, indicating that the results are not very sensitive to small variations of the profiles. We should stress that we have made no attempt to fit the electroexcitation amplitudes nor the excitation energy of the Roper resonance but have used model parameters that were fixed in the ground state calculation.

We do not give the amplitudes for the second excited state $`N(1710)`$. As we have already mentioned, provided that the $`\sigma `$-meson mass is sufficiently small, this state can be dominated by a component carrying one quantum of $`\sigma `$-meson vibration. Such a picture predicts very small production amplitudes since mostly the scalar fields are excited. The presence of $`\sigma `$-meson vibrations is consistent with the recent phase shift analysis by Krehl at al.  who found that the resonant behavior in the P11 channel can be explained solely through the coupling to the $`\sigma `$-N channel, without assuming any internal (i.e. quark) radial excitation of the nucleon. In our view, radial excitations of quarks are needed in order to explain relatively large electroproduction amplitudes, which would indicate that the $`\sigma `$-N channel couples to all nucleon $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ excitations rather than be concentrated in the Roper resonance alone.

To conclude, though our model gives only a qualitative picture of the lowest nucleon radially excited states and their electroproduction amplitudes, it yields some interesting features, in particular the possibility of $`\sigma `$-meson vibrations, not present in other calculations. Its main advantage over other approaches is that all properties, including the EM amplitudes and the resonance decay, can be calculated from a single Lagrangian without introducing additional assumptions; it also allows us to exactly treat the orthogonalization of states which is particularly important in the description of nucleon radial excitations. It would be instructive to check our predictions in other chiral models and extend the present calculation to include other radially excited states such as radial excitations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

This work was supported by FCT (POCTI/FEDER), Lisbon, and by The Ministry of Science and Education of Slovenia. We thank S. Širca and M. Rosina for useful discussions.