text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0203061 PUPT-2025

A Note on Fluxes and Superpotentials In $``$-theory Compactifications On Manifolds of $`G_2`$ Holonomy

Chris Beasley

Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University

Princeton, New Jersey 08544

and

Edward Witten

School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Studies

Princeton, New Jersey 08540

We consider the breaking of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry by non-zero $`G`$-flux when $``$-theory is compactified on a smooth manifold $`X`$ of $`G_2`$ holonomy. Gukov has proposed a superpotential $`W`$ to describe this breaking in the low-energy effective theory. We check this proposal by comparing the bosonic potential implied by $`W`$ with the corresponding potential deduced from the eleven-dimensional supergravity action. One interesting aspect of this check is that, though $`W`$ depends explicitly only on $`G`$-flux supported on $`X`$, $`W`$ also describes the breaking of supersymmetry by $`G`$-flux transverse to $`X`$.

March 2002

1. Introduction

One route to possible $``$-theory phenomenology is to consider $``$-theory compactifications on eleven-dimensional spaces of the form $`M_4\times X`$, where $`M_4`$ denotes flat Minkowski space. When the seven-fold $`X`$ possesses a metric of $`G_2`$ holonomy, then $`M_4\times X`$ is a vacuum solution of Einstein’s equation. Further, there exists one covariantly constant spinor on $`X`$, leading to an effective theory with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions. However, in contrast to $``$-theory compactifications on Calabi-Yau four-folds , if we generalize this background ansatz to allow for non-zero $`G`$-flux and a warped product metric on $`M_4\times X`$, then no supersymmetric vacua away from the trivial $`G=0`$ background exist. This was demonstrated, for instance, in , .

The issue of supersymmetry-breaking by $`G`$-flux on $`M_4\times X`$ is interesting, as this $`G`$-flux also generates a cosmological constant in the four-dimensional theory , . As in the case of compactifications on Calabi-Yau four-folds , the breaking of supersymmetry by $`G`$-flux can be effectively described in the four-dimensional theory by introducing a superpotential $`W`$  for the moduli of the compactification.

In the case of compactifications on Calabi-Yau four-folds, the superpotentials proposed in  have been directly verified by a Kaluza-Klein reduction of the effective $``$-theory action . One purpose of this note is to perform a similar check of the superpotential describing $`G`$-flux in compactifications on manifolds of $`G_2`$ holonomy. We compare the bosonic potential derived from $`W`$ with the corresponding bosonic potential obtained from the $``$-theory effective action. In addition we want to explore a phenomenon that arises in $``$-theory compactification to four dimensions but not in compactification to three dimensions on a Calabi-Yau four-fold. As in the Freund-Rubin solution, while preserving the four-dimensional symmetries, the $`G`$-field can have a component with all indices tangent to $`M_4`$, possibly triggering the breaking of supersymmetry. We will show that the minimal superpotential that describes the components of $`G`$ along $`X`$ actually also incorporates the component tangent to $`M_4`$. This observation has interesting implications for the structure of the parameter space of compactifications with $`G`$-flux.

The outline for this note is the following. In Section 2 we review the low-energy structure of Kaluza-Klein compactification of the $``$-theory effective action on a smooth manifold1 Compactification on a smooth $`X`$ is not phenomenologically viable, since the low-energy theory will contain only abelian vector multiplets with no charged matter. When $`X`$ is allowed to have appropriate singularities, non-abelian gauge-groups and charged chiral matter ,  can be present, but of course the low-energy supergravity approximation is no longer valid. $`X`$ of $`G_2`$ holonomy. We directly find the effective bosonic potential for $`G`$.

In Section 3 we introduce and motivate the superpotential $`W`$. We then derive the bosonic potential for $`G`$ following from $`W`$. We find a potential which naively differs from the result of Section 2.

Finally in Section 4, we show how the two can be reconciled.

2. Kaluza-Klein Reduction of $``$-Theory on Manifolds of $`G_2`$ Holonomy

In this section, we first review the structure of the massless $`𝒩=1`$ multiplets that arise when eleven-dimensional supergravity is compactified on $`X`$ (with $`G=0`$), as has been discussed in , , . The four-dimensional effective theory possesses $`b_2(X)`$ abelian vector superfields $`V^j`$ and $`b_3(X)`$ neutral chiral superfields $`Z^i`$. These superfields describe massless modes of the flat $`C`$-field and the metric on $`X`$.

To describe these modes explicitly, let us choose bases of harmonic forms $`\{\omega _j\}`$ for $`^2(X)`$ and $`\{\varphi _i\}`$ for $`^3(X)`$. We then make a Kaluza-Klein ansatz for $`C`$,

$$C=c^i(x)\varphi _i+A_\mu ^j(x)dx^\mu \omega _j.$$

This ansatz is slightly oversimplified as it applies only when the $`G`$-flux is trivial. The scalars $`c^i`$ and the vectors $`A_\mu ^j`$ describe the holonomies of a flat $`C`$-field. Because these holonomies take values in $`U(1)`$ and not $`R`$, the fields appearing in (2.1) (in particular the scalars $`c^i`$) should also be regarded as taking values in $`U(1)`$ rather than $`R`$. This observation deserves emphasis—it can also be understood by noting that under “large” gauge-transformations which add to $`C`$ a closed 3-form on $`X`$ of appropriately normalized periods, the $`c^i`$ undergo integral shifts.

We also note that when $`X`$ has $`G_2`$ holonomy, $`b_1(X)=0`$, for the same reasons as in the case of Calabi-Yau three-folds. So no harmonic 1-forms on $`X`$ appear in the ansatz for $`C`$. Each vector $`A_\mu ^j(x)`$ in (2.1) gives rise to one abelian vector superfield $`V^j`$, and each scalar $`c^i(x)`$ in (2.1) appears as the real component of the complex scalar $`z^i`$ in the chiral superfield $`Z^i`$.

The corresponding imaginary components of the $`z^i`$ describe massless fluctuations in the background metric on $`X`$. Recall that associated to any metric of $`G_2`$ holonomy on $`X`$ is a unique covariantly constant (hence closed and co-closed) 3-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Given any such metric, we may associate to it the cohomology class $`[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ in $`H^3(X;R)`$, and this assignment is invariant under diffeomorphisms of $`X`$. In fact, as was shown by Joyce , the moduli space of $`G_2`$ holonomy metrics on $`X`$, modulo diffeomorphisms isotopic to the identity, is a smooth manifold of dimension $`b_3(X)`$. Further, near a point in the moduli space corresponding to the equivalence class of metrics associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the moduli space is locally diffeomorphic to an open ball about $`[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ in $`H^3(X;R)`$. These results imply that massless modes of the metric on $`X`$ may be parametrized by introducing $`b_3(X)`$ scalars $`s^i(x)`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=s^i(x)\varphi _i.$$

(The $`s^i`$ are presumed to fluctuate around some point away from the origin.) Thus the $`s^i`$ in (2.1) naturally combine with the $`c^i`$ as $`z^i=c^i+is^i`$. Note that this holomorphic combination $`C+i\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`X`$ is analogous to the complexified Kähler class $`B+iJ`$ familiar from compactification on Calabi-Yau three-folds.

We now recall the bosonic action of eleven-dimensional supergravity ,

$$S_{11}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{11}^2}d^{11}x[\sqrt{g}R\frac{1}{2}GG\frac{1}{6}CGG].$$

Higher derivative corrections in the $``$-theory effective action, such as the $`CI_8(R)`$ term , will not be relevant for the following. We also find it useful to introduce $`T_2`$ and $`T_5`$, the $`M2`$-brane and $`M5`$-brane tensions, and to recall the relations between $`\kappa _{11}^2`$, $`T_2`$, and $`T_5`$ (as derived, for example, in )

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{2\kappa _{11}^2}& =\frac{1}{2\pi }T_2T_5,\hfill \\ \hfill T_5& =\frac{1}{2\pi }T_2^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Henceforth, we set $`T_2=1`$ to obtain the standard flux quantization conditions on $`G`$. In these units, $`\kappa _{11}^2=2\pi ^2`$ and $`T_5=1/2\pi `$.

We wish to determine the potential induced for the moduli $`Z^i`$ when $`G0`$. We assume that $`G`$ respects the Lorentz symmetry of $`M_4`$ and so decomposes as

$$G=G_0+G_X,$$

where $`G_0=G|_{M_4}`$ and $`G_X=G|_X`$. As explained in , Dirac quantization on $`X`$ generally requires that $`\frac{1}{2\pi }G_X\frac{1}{2}\lambda `$ has integral periods, where $`\lambda =p_1(X)/2`$. So if $`\lambda `$ were not even in $`H^4(X;Z)`$, our earlier assumption that $`G_X=0`$ would not have been consistent quantum mechanically. However, the following simple argument (see footnote 2 of ) implies that when $`X`$ is a spin seven-fold (one consequence of $`G_2`$ holonomy), then $`\lambda `$ is always even. Consider $`S^1\times X`$. This is a spin eight-fold, and $`p_1(S^1\times X)=p_1(X)`$, so it suffices to consider $`\lambda `$ on $`S^1\times X`$. But on any spin eight-fold, $`\lambda `$ being even is equivalent to the intersection form on $`H^4`$ being even (for a proof of this standard fact via index theory, see ). Finally, the intersection form on $`S^1\times X`$ is even for trivial reasons. So we learn that $`\frac{1}{2\pi }G_X`$ must have integral periods on $`X`$, consistent with $`G_X=0`$.

The quadratic $`GG`$ term in $`S_{11}`$ now descends directly to a pair of terms in the low-energy action2 We will not distinguish notationally between the four-, seven-, and eleven-dimensional Hodge $``$, but the distinction should be clear from context. for the metric moduli,

$$\delta S_4^{(GG)}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}d^4x[\text{vol}(X)G_0G_0+\sqrt{g_4}_XG_XG_X].$$

A term in the low-energy action for the moduli of the $`C`$-field is also induced from the $`CGG`$ Chern-Simons term in $`S_{11}`$,

$$\delta S_4^{(CGG)}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}d^4x\left[G_0_XCG_X\right].$$

(In computing this interaction, which will be converted to an ordinary potential in Section 4, we have dropped boundary terms from infinity on $`M_4`$ which can be absorbed in the background value of $`C`$. A factor of three has arisen because the Chern-Simons term is cubic in $`C`$.)

Let us now adopt a slightly more suggestive notation. We dualize the flux $`G_0`$ on $`M_4`$ by introducing a scalar $`f`$ satisfying

$$G_0=fdx^0\mathrm{}dx^3,G_0=f,$$

in a coframe adapted to the metric. We also define

$$\theta \frac{1}{4\pi }_XCG_X.$$

The expression $`\theta `$ is a seven-dimensional Chern-Simons form on $`X`$. It is not well-defined as a real number, due to the fact that $`C`$ is only defined up to shifts $`CC+\varphi _i`$, where the harmonic forms $`\frac{1}{2\pi }\varphi _i`$ are normalized to have integral periods on $`X`$. At first glance, one might have thought that $`\theta `$ is consequently defined only modulo $`\pi \text{integer}`$. In fact, because the class $`\lambda `$ of $`X`$ is even, a careful treatment of $`\theta `$, as given in Section 3 of , shows that $`\theta `$ is actually well-defined modulo $`2\pi \text{integer}`$. Hence our notation is correct in suggesting that $`\theta `$ is an angle.

The four-dimensional effective potential for $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is then determined from (2.1) and (2.1) after we pass to Einstein frame, rescaling the four-dimensional metric $`g_{\mu \nu }2\pi ^2\text{vol}(X)^1g_{\mu \nu }`$. We find this potential to be

$$V(C,\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{32\pi ^6}\text{vol}(X)^3f^2+\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\text{vol}(X)^2_XG_XG_X+\frac{\theta }{2\pi }f.$$

The additional factors of $`\text{vol}(X)`$ in the $`f^2`$ term arise from the explicit factor in (2.1) and the scaling of the four-dimensional Hodge $``$. This term also has the “wrong” sign as it is really a kinetic energy, so we slightly abuse the terminology in referring to $`V`$ as a “potential”. The $`\theta `$ term, as it descends from the eleven-dimensional Chern-Simons term, remains independent of $`\text{vol}(X)`$ under the rescaling.

3. The Superpotential

3.1. Motivating the Superpotential

We can now introduce the superpotential $`W(Z^i)`$, essentially proposed in , which describes the breaking of supersymmetry by $`G`$-flux on $`X`$. We consider

$$W(Z^i)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_X\left(\frac{1}{2}C+i\mathrm{\Phi }\right)G_X.$$

The relative factor of $`1/2`$ between the two terms in $`W`$ is required by supersymmetry. For under a variation

$$CC+\delta C,\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+\delta \mathrm{\Phi },$$

the superpotential varies as

$$WW+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_X(\delta C+i\delta \mathrm{\Phi })G_X.$$

Note that a relative factor of $`2`$ has appeared in the variation of the first term due to its quadratic dependence on $`C`$ and the fact that, whereas $`d\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, $`dC=G`$. $`\delta W`$ is linear in $`\delta C+i\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ as required for holomorphy. The condition for unbroken supersymmetry and zero cosmological constant of a four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity theory with superpotential $`W`$ is that, in the vacuum,

$$W=dW=0.$$

The latter condition, for $`W`$ above, is sufficient to imply that $`G_X`$ must vanish in a supersymmetric vacuum with zero cosmological constant.

A discussion of the proper interpretation of the former condition is called for, since the term $`_XCG_X/(4\pi )^2=\theta /4\pi `$ in $`W`$ is only well-defined modulo $`1/2\text{integer}`$. We have no way to pick a natural definition of this expression as a real number, so the best we can do is to say that all possibilities differing by $`\theta \theta +2\pi `$ are allowed. Thus, the theory depends on an integer that is not fixed when the $`C`$-field on $`X`$ (and its curvature $`G_X`$) are given.

What is the physical interpretation of this integer? Heuristically, it corresponds to the value of the period $`_XG_7/(2\pi )^2(=T_5_XG_7/2\pi \text{ in our conventions})`$, where $`G_7`$ is the seven-form field dual to $`G`$. In fact, the classical equation of motion $`dG_7=\frac{1}{2}GG+\mathrm{}`$ (the $`\mathrm{}`$ being gravitational corrections that we do not consider here) shows that $`_XG_7/(2\pi )^2`$ is not constant because $`G_7`$ is not closed. As observed by Page , what is constant and should be quantized is rather $`_X(G_7+\frac{1}{2}CG)/(2\pi )^2`$, and since $`\frac{1}{2}_XCG/(2\pi )^2(=\theta /2\pi )`$ is anyway only defined mod an integer, we introduce no additional ambiguity if we take $`_X(G_7+\frac{1}{2}CG)=0`$. Thus, $`\frac{1}{2}_XCG/(2\pi )^2`$ can “stand in” for the $`G_7`$-flux, and the possibility of adding an integer to its value amounts to the possibility of shifting the $`G_7`$-flux by an integer number of quanta.

At this point, we can see that the parameter space of $`M`$-theory compactifications with $`G`$-flux is not, as one might have supposed, a product of the space of $`C`$-fields on $`X`$ with a copy of $`Z`$ parametrized by the $`G_7`$-flux. Rather, the parameter space is fibered over the space of $`C`$-fields, with the fiber being a copy of $`Z`$; but the fibration is non-trivial. Consider varying $`C`$ by $`CC+C^{}`$, where $`dC^{}=0`$. If $`C^{}`$ has trivial periods, this change in the $`C`$-field is topologically trivial. But $`\frac{1}{2}_XCG/(2\pi )^2`$ changes in a non-trivial way. If $`G/2\pi `$, restricted to $`X`$, is divisible by an integer $`m`$, then the change in $`\frac{1}{2}_XCG/(2\pi )^2`$ will always be an integer multiple of $`m`$, and so the change in the $`G_7`$-flux is likewise a multiple of $`m`$. Thus, the only invariant under this process is the value of $`G_7`$ modulo $`m`$. For example, if $`m=1`$, $`G_7`$ can be varied arbitrarily, and the overall parameter space of $`C`$-fields plus $`G_7`$-flux is connected. Only when $`G_X=0`$ is the parameter space what one would expect naively: a product of the space of $`C`$-fields with a copy of $`Z`$ parameterizing the $`G_7`$-flux.

For precise computations, it is awkward to work with $`G_7`$, since (as $`G`$ is closed and $`G_7`$ is not) the theory is naturally formulated with a three-form field $`C`$ and not with a dual six-form field. In Section 4, by treating the $`C`$-field quantum mechanically, we will show how the picture we have just described is reproduced if one works with $`G`$, rather than (as in the last few paragraphs) the dual $`G_7`$. The need to work quantum mechanically when one formulates the discussion in terms of $`G`$ should not come as a surprise; duality typically relates a classical description in one variable to a dual quantum mechanical description.

Previously, it was suggested  that a superpotential describing the effects of $`G`$-flux along $`M_4`$ and $`X`$ would be

$$W=_XG_7+_X(C+i\mathrm{\Phi })G_X.$$

One might have naively thought that the two terms in (3.1) involving $`G_7`$ and $`G_X`$ were describing independent effects due to $`G`$-flux along $`M_4`$ and $`X`$. As we have seen, this interpretation would be problematic because generically the parameter space of $`G_7`$-flux fibers non-trivially over the space of $`C`$-fields on $`X`$. A closely related observation is that neither the term involving $`G_7`$ nor the term involving $`G_X`$ individually respects holomorphy. So the relative normalization of the terms is not arbitrary but fixed by holomorphy, contrary to what the naive interpretation would suggest. In fact, taking $`_X(G_7+\frac{1}{2}CG)=0`$, we see that (3.1) corresponds, up to normalization, to the proposed superpotential in (3.1), whose holomorphy we verified and in which $`G_7`$ does not explicitly appear.

The superpotential (3.1) can also be motivated and its normalization fixed from an argument given in . Consider an $`M5`$-brane having worldvolume $`R^{2,1}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a 3-cycle on $`X`$ which is calibrated by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Such a calibrated 3-cycle is a supersymmetric 3-cycle  and has minimal volume, $`\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }|`$, within its homology class. So the wrapped $`M5`$-brane appears as a BPS domain wall in the four-dimensional theory. The tension $`\tau `$ of such a BPS domain wall in the low-energy $`d=4`$, $`𝒩=1`$ Wess-Zumino model describing the $`Z^i`$ is

$$\tau =2|\mathrm{\Delta }W|,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ is the change in $`W`$ upon crossing the wall.

On the other hand, the $`M5`$-brane is a magnetic source for $`G_X`$, and the class of $`G_X`$ must change upon crossing the wall. This change is $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_X=2\pi \delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the fundamental class of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Hence (assuming $`C=0`$) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2|\mathrm{\Delta }W|& =\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\left|_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Delta }G_X\right|,\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2\pi }\left|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }\right|=T_5\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\hfill \end{array}$$

as we expect for an M5-brane domain wall. The dependence on $`C`$ follows from supersymmetry.

We now derive the the bosonic potential $`U`$ which follows from the superpotential $`W`$. Recall that, in terms of the Kähler potential $`𝒦`$, the metric on moduli space $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$, and $`W`$, the potential $`U`$ is given by

$$U=\mathrm{exp}(𝒦)\left[g^{i\overline{j}}D_iW\overline{D_jW}3|W|^2\right],$$

where $`D_iW=_iW+_i𝒦W`$ is the covariant derivative of $`W`$ as a section of a line bundle over the moduli space parametrized locally by the $`Z^i`$.

To evaluate $`U`$, we need to know $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$ and $`𝒦`$. The metric $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$ can be determined most directly from the kinetic terms of the $`c^i`$ fields. These kinetic terms arise from reducing the term $`\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}GG`$ in the action $`S_{11}`$. We find these kinetic terms to be (in Einstein frame)

$$_{kin}=\frac{1}{4}\text{vol}(X)^1_\mu c^i^\mu c^j_X\varphi _i\varphi _j.$$

On the other hand, the metric $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$ appears in the four-dimensional action in the term $`_{kin}=g_{i\overline{j}}_\mu z^i^\mu \overline{z}^j`$. So (3.1) determines the metric $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$ to be

$$g_{i\overline{j}}=\overline{_j}_i𝒦=\frac{1}{4}\text{vol}(X)^1_X\varphi _i\varphi _j.$$

We now claim that the Kähler potential is given, up to shifts $`𝒦(Z^i,\overline{Z^i})𝒦+f(Z^i)+f^{}(\overline{Z^i})`$, by

$$𝒦=3\mathrm{log}[\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{7}_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }].$$

The general form for $`𝒦`$ has appeared in , , but we must be careful to check the factor of $`3`$ appearing in the normalization of $`𝒦`$. We will make this check directly by computing $`\overline{_j}_i𝒦`$.

3.2. Mathematical Preliminaries and Computing $`\overline{_j}_i𝒦`$

In order that the following be self-contained, we must review a few facts about the group $`G_2`$ and metrics of $`G_2`$ holonomy (for which a good general reference is ). As very lucidly described in , the group $`G_2`$ can be defined as the subgroup of $`GL(7,R)`$ preserving a particular 3-form on $`R^7`$. In terms of coordinates $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^7)`$ on $`R^7`$, this 3-form is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\theta ^{123}+\theta ^{145}+\theta ^{167}+\theta ^{246}\theta ^{257}\theta ^{347}\theta ^{356},$$

where we abbreviate $`\theta ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}=dx^{i_1}\mathrm{}dx^{i_n}`$. $`G_2`$ also preserves the Euclidean metric $`ds^2=(dx^1)^2+\mathrm{}+(dx^7)^2`$ (as we expect, since $`G_2`$ occurs as the holonomy of $`X`$ and so must be a subgroup of $`O(7)`$) and hence the dual 4-form with respect to this metric,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\theta ^{4567}+\theta ^{2367}+\theta ^{2345}+\theta ^{1357}\theta ^{1346}\theta ^{1256}\theta ^{1247}.$$

We note that

$$dx^1\mathrm{}dx^7=\frac{1}{7}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi },$$

so that $`G_2`$ also preserves the orientation of $`R^7`$.

When $`X`$ possesses a metric of $`G_2`$ holonomy, then at each point $`p`$ of $`X`$ there exists a local frame in which the covariantly constant 3-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ takes the form in (3.1) and the metric takes the Euclidean form. Hence the local relation (3.1) immediately implies that

$$\frac{1}{7}_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }=\text{vol}(X).$$

This relation explains the factor of $`\frac{1}{7}`$ appearing in $`𝒦`$, which, besides being very natural, will give the correct normalization of $`U`$.

Because we are primarily interested in 3-forms on $`X`$, our interest naturally lies in the $`G_2`$ representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}`$ consisting of rank-three anti-symmetric tensors. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}`$ decomposes under $`G_2`$ into irreducible representations $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$. The trivial representation $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is generated by the invariant 3-form (3.1) which we used to define $`G_2`$. The $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ arises from the fundamental representation of $`G_2`$ as a subgroup of $`GL(7,R)`$ via the map $`(R^7)^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}`$, sending $`\alpha (\alpha \mathrm{\Phi })`$. Note that $`(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ defines a (non-zero) $`G_2`$-equivariant map, which must be an isomorphism onto its image by Schur’s lemma. The $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ can then be characterized as the set of those elements $`\lambda `$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}`$ which satisfy $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }=\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. This identification follows again from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are $`G_2`$-equivariant maps.

Now, as is familiar from the case of Calabi-Yau three-folds, the decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}`$ into irreducible representations of $`G_2`$ implies a corresponding decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3T^{}X`$ under the holonomy. The Laplacian on $`X`$ respects this decomposition, implying a corresponding classification of the harmonic 3-forms on $`X`$, $`^3(X)_1^3(X)_7^3(X)_{27}^3(X)`$. In fact, the Laplacian of $`X`$ as an operator on $`p`$-forms depends only on the representation of the holonomy, not on $`p`$. Hence the dimension of $`_R^p(X)`$ for some representation $`R`$ depends only on $`R`$, not $`p`$. Thus, since $`^1(X)=_7^1(X)=0`$, we also have that $`_7^3(X)=0`$. Further, from our characterization of the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ above, we see that $`_1^3(X)`$ is orthogonal to $`_{27}^3(X)`$ in the usual inner product $`(\alpha ,\beta )=_X\alpha \beta `$.

We are now prepared to evaluate $`\overline{_j}_i𝒦`$. First we observe that $`_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a homogeneous function of the $`s^i`$ of degree $`\frac{7}{3}`$. This observation follows from (3.1) and the fact that under a scaling of the local coframe $`dx^i\lambda dx^i`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ scales as $`\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^3\mathrm{\Phi }`$, or equivalently the $`s^i`$ scale as $`s^i\lambda ^3s^i`$, and $`\text{vol}(X)`$ scales as $`\text{vol}(X)\lambda ^7\text{vol}(X)`$. Remembering that $`s^i=\text{Im}(z^i)`$, homogeneity of $`_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the $`s^i`$ then implies that

$$𝒦/z^i=i\frac{7}{2}\frac{_X\varphi _i\mathrm{\Phi }}{_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$

To evaluate a second derivative of $`𝒦`$, we must evaluate $`\frac{}{s^i}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ arising from the numerator of (3.1). Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }:s^is^i\varphi _i`$ is a linear map of the (local) coordinates $`s^i`$ on the moduli space, and for a fixed metric on $`X`$, the Hodge $``$ is certainly a linear operator on $`^3(X)`$. However, since the operator $``$ depends on the metric, hence the moduli $`s^i`$, in general $`\mathrm{\Phi }(s^i)`$ depends nonlinearly on the $`s^i`$. Following Joyce  (where this derivative appears), we will denote $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s^i)\mathrm{\Phi }(s^i)`$ to emphasize this nonlinearity.

Let us restrict to a local coordinate patch (diffeomorphic to $`R^7`$) on $`X`$ and on this patch consider $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ as a map on a small open ball about the canonical 3-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3T^{}R^7`$. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is well-defined, since for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ sufficiently small, a local change of frame can always be found3 This statement follows from a simple dimension count, noting that $`dimGL(7,R)=49`$, $`dimG_2=14`$ and $`dim\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}=35`$, so that $`dimGL(7,R)dimG_2=dim\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}`$. taking $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Xi }`$ to the canonical form (3.1). The metric associated to $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in the frame for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is canonical is the Euclidean metric, and so $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is very easy to evaluate in this frame.

We now consider the derivative $`D\mathrm{\Theta }`$. $`D\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is locally linear (i.e. linear over $`C^{\mathrm{}}(R^7)`$), so it suffices to consider $`D\mathrm{\Theta }`$ as a linear map on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}`$. Observe that, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`G_2`$-invariant, $`D\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is actually a $`G_2`$-equivariant map. If we denote by $`\pi ^1`$, $`\pi ^7`$, and $`\pi ^{27}`$ the projections on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$, then Schur’s lemma implies that $`D\mathrm{\Theta }`$ decomposes as

$$D\mathrm{\Theta }=D\mathrm{\Theta }\pi ^1+D\mathrm{\Theta }\pi ^7+D\mathrm{\Theta }\pi ^{27}=a\pi ^1+b\pi ^7+c\pi ^{27},$$

for some constants $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$.

The above expression for $`D\mathrm{\Theta }`$ certainly holds when we consider evaluating $`D\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on the restrictions of elements of $`^3(X)`$ to the local patch. But the expression is also a sensible global expression on $`X`$, so it must in fact hold globally. It remains only to evaluate the constants $`a`$ and $`c`$ (since $`_7^3=0`$, $`b`$ is irrelevant for us4 $`b=1`$ for the curious.).

We determine $`a`$ and $`c`$ by explicit computation in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(R^7)^{}`$. We fix $`a`$ by once more considering the scaling $`dx^i\lambda dx^i`$, under which $`\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^3\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^4\mathrm{\Phi }`$. So $`a=4/3`$. To fix $`c`$, let us consider the 3-form $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\theta ^{123}\theta ^{145}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, we see that $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ transforms in the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ of $`G_2`$. By a change in the frame $`dx^2,dx^3(1ϵ/2)dx^2,dx^3`$ and $`dx^4,dx^5(1+ϵ/2)dx^4,dx^5`$, the sum $`\mathrm{\Phi }+ϵ\mathrm{\Xi }`$ can be brought to the canonical form, to linear order in $`ϵ`$. Dualizing and transforming back to the original frame, we easily see that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Phi }+ϵ\mathrm{\Xi })=\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ\mathrm{\Xi }+𝒪(ϵ^2)`$, which fixes $`c=1`$. So we finally conclude that

$$\frac{}{s^i}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{4}{3}\pi ^1(\varphi _i)\pi ^{27}(\varphi _i).$$

This derivative in hand, we evaluate $`𝒦/\overline{z}^jz^i`$ as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{_j}_i𝒦& =\frac{7}{4}\frac{1}{_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}\{_X\varphi _i[\frac{4}{3}\pi ^1(\varphi _j)\pi ^{27}(\varphi _j)]\frac{1}{_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}_X\varphi _i\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{7}{3}_X\varphi _j\mathrm{\Phi }\},\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{4}\text{vol}(X)^1\{\frac{4}{3}_X\pi ^1(\varphi _i)\pi ^1(\varphi _j)_X\pi ^{27}(\varphi _i)\pi ^{27}(\varphi _j)\frac{7}{3}_X\pi ^1(\varphi _i)\pi ^1(\varphi _j)\},\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{4}\text{vol}(X)^1_X\varphi _i\varphi _j,\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have noted that $`\pi ^1(\varphi _i)=\mathrm{\Phi }(_X\varphi _i\mathrm{\Phi })/(_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Comparing to (3.1), we see that $`𝒦`$ is the properly normalized Kähler potential.

3.3. Computing the Potential

The rest of the calculation of $`U`$ from (3.1) is now direct. We have

$$D_iW=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_X\varphi _iG_X+i\frac{7}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{_X\varphi _i\mathrm{\Phi }}{_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]_X(\frac{1}{2}C+i\mathrm{\Phi })G_X.$$

So

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g^{i\overline{j}}D_iW\overline{D_jW}=\frac{1}{7(2\pi )^4}_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\{_XG_XG_X& +\frac{21}{4}(_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })^1(_X\mathrm{\Phi }G_X)^2\hfill \\ & +\left(\frac{7}{2}\right)^2(_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })^1(\frac{1}{2}_XCG_X)^2\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we have noted, for instance, that $`g^{i\overline{j}}_X\varphi _iG_X_X\varphi _jG_X=\frac{4}{7}_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_XG_XG_X`$. This relation may be checked by expanding $`G_X=f^i(s)\varphi _i`$ for some functions $`f^i(s)`$ (although $`G_X`$ is independent of the metric, the basis $`\{\varphi _i\}`$ is not). So we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U& =\frac{7^3\pi ^2}{2}(_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })^2[\frac{1}{7}_XG_XG_X+(_X\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })^1(\frac{1}{2}_XCG_X)^2],\hfill \\ & =\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\text{vol}(X)^2[_XG_XG_X+\text{vol}(X)^1(\frac{1}{2}_XCG_X)^2].\hfill \end{array}$$

Comparing $`V`$ in (2.1) to $`U`$ in (3.1), we see that the superpotential produces the correct $`G_X^2`$ term, but of course the terms in $`V`$ involving $`f`$ do not appear in $`U`$. In terms of the angle $`\theta `$, we can write

$$U=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\text{vol}(X)^2_XG_XG_X+8\pi ^6\text{vol}(X)^3\left(\frac{\theta }{2\pi }\right)^2.$$

4. Comparing the Potentials

There seems to be an obvious disagreement between $`V`$ and $`U`$. They do not even depend on the same variables. The component $`G_0=fdx^0\mathrm{}dx^3`$ of the $`G`$-field appears in $`V`$ as

$$V(f)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^6}\text{vol}(X)^3f^2+\frac{\theta }{2\pi }f.$$

Hence $`V`$ depends on $`G_0`$ as well as on the $`C`$-field along $`X`$. By contrast, $`U`$ depends only on the $`C`$-field along $`X`$.

We will now see that $`V`$ and $`U`$ can be reconciled by treating $`G_0`$ quantum mechanically. In fact, quantum mechanically, there are only discrete allowed values for $`f`$; upon setting it equal to an allowed value, $`V`$ coincides with $`U`$.

A four-form field in 3+1 dimensions is analogous to a two-form field – the curvature of an abelian gauge field – in 1+1 dimensions. We will simply interpret (4.1) as the action for a four-form field and treat it quantum mechanically. (The underlying eleven-dimensional supergravity action also contains couplings of $`G_0`$ to fermions, but these are inessential for our present purposes.) In the analogy with 1+1-dimensional abelian gauge theory, the term in (4.1) that is proportional to $`\theta `$ is analogous to the theta-angle of abelian gauge theory.

Classically, if one were allowed to just minimize $`V`$ with respect to $`f`$, having nonzero $`\theta `$ would induce a non-zero value for $`f`$ and hence a nonzero energy density. This is roughly what emerges from a proper quantum mechanical treatment . If one proceeds naively, the classical value for $`f`$ in (4.1) is

$$f=8\pi ^5\text{vol}(X)^3\theta ,$$

leading to the induced energy density

$$E(\theta )=8\pi ^6\text{vol}(X)^3\left(\frac{\theta }{2\pi }\right)^2.$$

Quantum mechanically, one really wants the energies of all of the states; one finds  that the quantum states of this system are labeled by an integer $`n`$, with the energy density of the $`n^{th}`$ state being

$$E_n(\theta )=8\pi ^6\text{vol}(X)^3\left(n+\frac{\theta }{2\pi }\right)^2.$$

A different way to describe the above results is that (4.1) is, indeed, the correct formula for the energy, but in interpreting $`\theta /2\pi `$ as a real number, one must include all possibilities, differing by the possible addition of an integer. Of course, one could, for any given $`\theta `$ pick the – generically unique – integer that minimizes the energy. However, we prefer to show that our two potentials $`V`$ and $`U`$ agree (when $`V`$ is treated quantum mechanically) without imposing any such restriction. For this, we simply use (4.1), but accepting all real lifts of $`\theta `$ differing by multiples of $`2\pi `$, as we have anyway done throughout this paper.

Comparing to (3.1), we see that the vacuum energy density $`E(\theta )`$ due to $`G_0`$ is exactly the second term in $`U`$, so that the superpotential $`W`$ indeed captures the effects of supersymmetry-breaking by both $`G_X`$ and $`G_0`$.

Finally, we note that the potential $`U`$ is positive-definite. In the regime of large $`\text{vol}(X)`$, for which our effective $``$-theory action is valid, no vacuum exists and we see a runaway to infinite volume, a familiar situation in supergravity compactifications. We might also consider contributions to the potential from membrane instantons wrapping calibrated 3-cycles $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`X`$, but the leading instanton contribution to the potential  in the large volume regime is of order $`e^{\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma })}`$ and so will not help to stabilize the runaway.

Acknowledgements

The work of C.B. is supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship and under NSF Grant PHY-9802484. The work of E.W. is supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-0070928.

References

relax K. Becker and M. Becker, “M-theory on Eight-Manifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B477 (1996) 155–167, hep-th/9605053. relax B. de Wit, D. J. Smit, and N. D. Hari Dass, “Residual Supersymmetry of Compactified D=10 Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B283 (1987) 165–191. relax B. S. Acharya and B. Spence, “Flux, Supersymmetry, and M-theory on 7-Manifolds,” hep-th/0007213. relax M. J. Duff and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Quantum Inequivalence of Different Field Representations,” Phys. Lett. B94 (1980) 179–182. relax A. Aurilia, H. Nicolai, and P. K. Townsend, “Hidden Constants: The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ Parameter of QCD and the Cosmological Constant of $`𝒩=8`$ Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B176 (1980) 509–522. relax S. Gukov, C. Vafa, and E. Witten, “CFT’s From Calabi-Yau Four-folds,” Nucl. Phys. B584 (2000) 69–108, Erratum–ibid. B608 (2001) 477–478, hep-th/9906070. relax S. Gukov, “Solitons, Superpotentials, and Calibrations,” Nucl. Phys. B574 (2000) 169–188, hep-th/9911011. relax M. Haack and J. Louis, “M-theory Compactified on Calabi-Yau Fourfolds with Background Flux,” Phys. Lett. B507 (2001) 296–304, hep-th/0103068. relax M. F. Atiyah and E. Witten, “M-theory Dynamics on a Manifold of $`G_2`$ Holonomy,” hep-th/0107177. relax B. Acharya and E. Witten, “Chiral Fermions from Manifolds of $`G_2`$ Holonomy,” hep-th/0109152. relax G. Papadopoulos and P. Townsend, “Compactifications of D=11 Supergravity on Spaces of Exceptional Holonomy,” Phys. Lett. B357 (1995) 300–306, hep-th/9506150. relax J. A. Harvey and G. Moore, “Superpotentials and Membrane Instantons,” hep-th/9907026. relax J. Gutowski and G. Papadopoulos, “Moduli Spaces and Brane Solitons for M-theory Compactifications on Holonomy $`G_2`$ Manifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B615 (2001) 237–265, hep-th/0104105. relax D. D. Joyce, “Compact Riemannian 7-manifolds with Holonomy $`G_2`$, I.” J. Diff. Geom. 43 (1996) 291–328. relax E. Cremmer, B. Julia, and J. Scherk, “Supergravity Theory in Eleven Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B76 (1978) 409–412. relax C. Vafa and E. Witten, “A One-Loop Test of String Duality,” Nucl. Phys. B447 (1995) 261–270, hep-th/9505053. relax S. P. de Alwis, “A Note on Brane Tension and M-theory”, Phy. Lett. B388 (1996) 291–295, hep-th/9607011. relax E. Witten, “On Flux Quantization in M-Theory and the Effective Action,” J. Geom. Phys. 22 (1997) 1–13, hep-th/9609122. relax E. Witten, “Five-Brane Effective Action in M-Theory,” J. Geom. Phys. 22 (1997) 103–133, hep-th/9610234. relax D. N. Page, “Classical Stability of Round and Squashed Seven-Spheres in Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 2976–2982. relax K. Becker, M. Becker, D. Morrison, H. Ooguri, Y. Oz, and Z. Yin, “Supersymmetric Cycles in Exceptional Holonomy Manifolds and Calabi-Yau 4-Folds,” Nucl. Phys. B480 (1996) 225–238, hep-th/9608116. relax B. Chibisov and M. Shifman, “BPS-Saturated Walls in Supersymmetric Theories”, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 7990–8013, Erratum–ibid. D58 (1998) 109901, hep-th/9706141. relax J. Wess and J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and Supergravity, $`2^{\text{nd}}`$ ed., Princeton Univ. Press, 1992. relax D. D. Joyce, Compact Manifolds with Special Holonomy, Oxford Univ. Press, 2000. relax R. L. Bryant, “Metrics with Exceptional Holonomy,” Ann. Math. 126 (1987) 525–576. relax S. Coleman, “More About the Massive Schwinger Model,” Annals Phys. 101 (1976) 239–267.


format: text

text:
# Consistency of spectroscopic factors from (e,e′p) reactions at different momentum transfers

## I Introduction

During the last fifteen years a quiet revolution has taken place in the perception of the nucleus. During this period the study of the (e,ep) reaction has clarified the limits of validity of the mean-field description of nuclei. In particular, absolute spectroscopic factors have been obtained for the removal of protons from many nuclei . The qualitative features of the strength distribution suggest a considerable mixing between single-hole states and more complicated configurations, like two-hole$``$one-particle states. The resulting fragmentation pattern of the single-particle (sp) strength exhibits a single peak carrying about 65-70% of the strength for states in the immediate vicinity of the Fermi energy, while more deeply bound orbitals display a strongly fragmented distribution reminiscent of a complex sp energy. In addition to these fragmentation features, an important depletion of the sp strength has been established which is associated with ground-state correlations induced by strong short-range and tensor correlations . This leads to an overall reduction of the sp strength for all mean-field orbits in all nuclei by 10-15% . This theoretical result has recently been confirmed also for deeply-bound orbits in an (e,ep) experiment on $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$ in a wide domain of missing energy and momentum .

The analysis of the (e,ep) data has relied on the Distorted Wave Impulse Approximation (DWIA) for both the Coulomb distortion of the electron waves (in heavy nuclei) and the outgoing proton . The proton distortion is described in terms of an optical potential required to describe elastic proton scattering data at relevant energies . There is some uncertainty related to this treatment since elastic proton scattering is considered to be a surface reaction and no detailed information is obtained related to the interior of the nucleus. This uncertainty gives rise to an estimated error of about 10%. Such an estimate may be inferred by considering the difference between the relativistic and nonrelativistic treatment of the proton distortion. It is shown in Ref.  that this difference is essentially due to the reduction of the interior wave function in the relativistic case. This feature can also be generated by including a reasonable amount of nonlocality in the optical potential .

A serious challenge to the interpretation of (e,ep) experiments was recently published in Refs. . This challenge consists in questioning the validity of the constancy of the spectroscopic factor as a function of the four-momentum (squared), $`Q^2`$, transferred by the virtual photon to the knocked-out nucleon. In Ref.  a conventional analysis of the world’s data for (e,ep) experiments on $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ at low $`Q^2`$ generated results consistent with previous expectations. Data at higher values of $`Q^2`$ were then analyzed within the framework of a theoretical model which employs Skyrme-Hartree-Fock bound-state wave functions for the initial proton, a Glauber-type description of the final-state interaction of the outgoing proton, and a factorization approximation for the electromagnetic vertex . Within the framework of this theoretical description, spectroscopic factors were obtained which increase substantially with increasing $`Q^2`$ for the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ nucleus.

The spectroscopic factor is a many-body quantity defined without reference to a probe. For valence hole states in nuclei it simply represents the probability for the removal of a nucleon with prescribed quantum numbers from the ground state of the target while ending up in a state of the nucleus with one particle less. In the conventional analysis of the experimental data these quantum numbers involve the trivial values of parity and total angular momentum but also require the corresponding wave function to be a solution of a Woods-Saxon potential at the appropriate binding energy. This potential is adjusted to generate an optimum description of the shape of the experimental cross section. The resulting theoretical representation of the cross section must then be multiplied by a constant factor to coincide with the experimental cross section. This constant factor is then interpreted as the spectroscopic factor. Another important ingredient in this analysis is the choice of the electron-proton cross section which must be considered off-shell . This leads to a small additional uncertainty in the analysis of low $`Q^2`$ data as discussed recently in Ref. .

Further clarification of this intriguing situation with different spectroscopic factors at different $`Q^2`$ is urgently needed. For this purpose we consider in this paper a study of recently published (e,ep) data for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ at $`Q^2=0.8`$ (GeV/$`c)^2`$ . An unfactorized approach is used, as it is required at low $`Q^2`$  and has been recently advocated also for high $`Q^2`$ reactions in Ref. . However, the higher energy of the outgoing proton requires a description which contains different elements than the conventional low $`Q^2`$ analysis. For the electromagnetic current operator we follow the approach of Ref. , where a relativistic current operator was used in a Schrödinger-based calculation, avoiding any nonrelativistic reduction and including the effect of spinor distortion by the Dirac scalar and vector potentials (see also Refs. ). As for the final state, we employ a recently developed eikonal description of the final-state interaction (FSI) of the proton with the nucleus that has been tested against DWIA solutions of a complex spin-dependent optical potential . The absorption of the proton is described theoretically by linking it to the corresponding absorption of a nucleon propagating through nuclear matter. The relevant quantity is the nucleon self-energy which is obtained from a self-consistent calculation of nucleon spectral functions including the effects of realistic short-range and tensor correlations . This description of FSI is combined with previous results for the bound-state wave functions of the $`p`$-shell quasihole states in $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ , that have been deduced by solving the Dyson equation with a nucleon self-energy containing the same short-range correlations but in a finite volume. In Ref.  these wave functions have been used to analyze low $`Q^2`$ data for the 16O(e,ep) reaction . In the present work, these very same wave functions produce a good description of the shape of the coincidence cross section for the $`p`$-shell quasihole states at high $`Q^2`$  using the same spectroscopic factors obtained from the low $`Q^2`$ data . A preliminary result was reported in Ref. .

A consistent analysis of low and high $`Q^2`$ data requires an approach in which the same quasihole wave functions and corresponding spectroscopic factors are used in both cases. In this paper we present such an approach. In Sec. II we discuss the ingredients of the theoretical description including the structure of the electromagnetic current (Sec. II A), the eikonal approximation (Sec. II B), and the final hadronic tensor (Sec. II C). The many-particle ingredients are discussed in Sec. III which includes a summary of the calculation of the quasihole wave functions in Sec. III A, a description of the construction of the nonlocality factor required by a treatment of relativistic effects in Sec III B, and, finally, an overview of the ingredients to describe the damping of high-momentum protons in nuclear matter (Sec. III C). The results are discussed in Sec. IV while final conclusions are drawn in Sec. V.

## II The model

In the one-photon exchange approximation, the differential cross section for the scattering of an ultrarelativistic electron with initial (final) momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_e(\stackrel{}{p}_e^{})`$, off a nuclear target from which a nucleon is ejected with final momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}`$, reads

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{}{p}_e^{}d\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}}=\frac{e^4}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{Q^4p_ep_e^{}}_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}=0,\pm 1}L_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}},$$
(1)
where $`Q^2=q^2\omega ^2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_e\stackrel{}{p}_e^{},\omega =p_ep_e^{}`$ are the momentum and energy transferred to the target nucleus, respectively. The lepton tensor $`L_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ and hadron tensor $`W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ are conveniently expressed in the basis of unit vectors

$$e_0=(1,0,0,0),e_{\pm 1}=(0,\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}},\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}i,0),$$
(2)
which define the longitudinal (0) and transverse $`(\pm 1)`$ components of the nuclear response with respect to the polarization of the exchanged virtual photon. The hadron tensor is defined as

$$W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}=()^{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}e_\lambda ^\mu e_\lambda ^{}^\nu \text{i}\overline{}\text{ }_f\text{ }J_\mu J_\nu ^{}\delta \left(E_iE_f\right),$$
(3)
i.e. it involves the average over initial states and the sum over the final undetected states (compatible with energy-momentum conservation) of bilinear products of the scattering amplitude $`J^\mu `$.

This basic ingredient of the calculation is built from the matrix element of the nuclear charge-current density operator $`\widehat{J}^\mu `$ between the initial, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A`$, and the final, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^A`$, nuclear states. This complicated $`A`$-body problem can be simplified by projecting out of the Hilbert space the specific channel that corresponds to the experimental asymptotic conditions of a knocked-out nucleon with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}`$ and of a residual nucleus, recoiling with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_m=\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}`$ and mass $`M_R`$, in a well-defined state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}(E_R)`$ with energy $`E_R`$ and quantum numbers $`n`$. The scattering amplitude can be rewritten in a one-body representation (in momentum space and omitting spin degrees of freedom for simplicity) as

$$J_n^\mu (\omega ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_N^{},E_R)=𝑑\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{p}^{}\chi _{p_N^{}E_Rn}^{()}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{q},\omega )\varphi _{E_Rn}(\stackrel{}{p})[S_n(E_R)]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(4)
provided that $`\widehat{J}^\mu `$ is substituted by an appropriate effective one-body charge-current density operator $`\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu `$, which guarantees the orthogonality between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^A`$ besides taking into account effects due to truncation of the Hilbert space. Usually, the orthogonality defect is negligible in standard kinematics for (e,ep) reactions ; in any case, $`\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu `$ is here approximated by a one-body relativistic current operator including spinor distortion along the lines described in the following Sec. II A.

The functions

$`[S_n(E_R)]^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi _{E_Rn}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}(E_R)|a(\stackrel{}{p})|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A,`$ (5)
$`\chi _{p_N^{}E_Rn}^{()}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}(E_R)|a(\stackrel{}{p})|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^A,`$ (6)
describe the overlap between the residual state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}(E_R)`$ and the hole produced in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^A`$, respectively, by removing a particle with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. Both $`\varphi _{E_Rn}`$ and $`\chi _{p_N^{}E_Rn}^{()}`$ are eigenfunctions of a Feshbach-like nonlocal energy-dependent Hamiltonian referred to the residual nucleus, belonging to the eigenvalues $`E_R`$ and $`E_R+\omega `$, respectively . The norm of $`\varphi _{E_Rn}`$ is 1 and $`S_n(E_R)`$ is the spectroscopic factor associated with the removal process, i.e. it is the probability that the residual nucleus can indeed be conceived as the target nucleus with a hole. The dependence of $`\chi _{p_N^{}E_Rn}^{()}`$ upon $`p_N^{}`$ is hidden in the asymptotic state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^A`$ and the boundary conditions are those of an incoming wave.

Because of the complexity of the eigenvalue problem in the continuum, a complex mean-field interaction with energy-dependent parameters is usually assumed between the residual nucleus and the emitted nucleon. Then, $`\chi _{p_N^{}E_Rn}^{()}\chi _{p_N^{}}^{()}`$ and the nonlocality of the original Feshbach Hamiltonian is taken into account by multiplying the scattering wave by the appropriate Perey factor . Several models for this FSI are discussed in the literature (for a review, see Refs. ). Here, the eikonal approximation is adopted and is described in more detail in Sec. II B. Finally, in Sec. II C we present the complete formula for the hadronic tensor used in the calculation.

### A Current operator and spinor distortion

While new data for the (e,ep) reaction have become available at very high proton energies , it has also become evident that many ingredients of the theoretical calculations must be upgraded and made adequate for the new kinematical regime. In particular, a nonrelativistic reduction of the electromagnetic current operator is no longer reliable. Since all other ingredients entering the scattering amplitude will be deduced in a Schrödinger-like framework, we follow the approach of Ref. .

It is well known that a four-component Dirac spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, with positive- and negative-energy components $`\psi _+`$ and $`\psi _{}`$, respectively, and satisfying a Dirac equation with energy eigenvalue $`E`$, mass $`m`$, scalar and vector potentials $`S`$ and $`V`$, respectively, can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _+\\ \psi _{}\end{array}\right)=\sqrt{\frac{E+m}{2m}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\text{ }\\ \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}}{E+m+S(r)V(r)}\end{array}\right)D^{1/2}(r)\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }},r)\varphi ,$$
(7)
namely it can be represented by the action of the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }},r)`$ on the wave function $`\varphi `$, that satisfies a Schrödinger-equivalent equation with central $`U_C`$ and spin-orbit $`U_{LS}`$ potentials, which can either be expressed in terms of $`S`$ and $`V`$ or replaced by intrinsically nonrelativistic potentials. The Darwin nonlocality factor

$$D(r)=1+\frac{SV}{E+m}$$
(8)
is related to $`U_{LS}`$ by

$$U_{LS}(r)=\frac{1}{2\mu }\frac{1}{rD}\frac{dD}{dr},$$
(9)
where $`\mu m(A1)/A`$ is the reduced mass with $`A`$ the mass number.

In Ref. , the calculations were performed in configuration space by defining the effective current operator (omitting spin indices for simplicity)

$$\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\stackrel{}{p}_N^{},r)\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{p}_m,r)$$
(10)
and by evaluating the operator part $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}`$ in the effective momentum approximation (EMA), i.e. by replacing the operator $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}`$ with the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_N^{},\stackrel{}{p}_m`$ determined by asymptotic kinematics. After choosing one out of the three (on-shell) equivalent expressions for the electromagnetic vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ , the effective current operator $`\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu `$ was reduced to a simple 2x2 matrix acting on the nucleon spins, using the standard representation for $`\gamma `$ matrices as 4x4 operators in terms of 2x2 Pauli spin matrices .

Here, the scattering amplitude is worked out in momentum space. Therefore, the operator $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{\pi }}`$ becomes just a multiplicative factor with a 2x2 matrix structure in spin space acting on the nucleon spins. Consequently, Eq. (4) can be specialized to a “relativized Schrödinger framework” by considering the following effective current operator (omitting again spin indices for simplicity),

$$\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{q},\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi ^3}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}e^{i(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}^{})\stackrel{}{r}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\stackrel{}{p}^{},r)\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{p},r),$$
(11)
as can be easily shown by starting from the expression of the scattering amplitude in configuration space and applying the proper Fourier transformations. The nonrelativistic limit of Eq. (11) is recovered by setting $`E,E^{}m`$, and $`S(r)=V(r)=0`$. Inspection of Eqs. (8) and (7) indicates that in this limit the spinor-distortion operator no longer depends on $`r`$ and the Fourier transform in Eq. (11) produces the well known $`\delta (\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})`$ accounting for momentum conservation . In the following, we will keep $`D(r)=1`$ for the scattering state, because the distortion of a high-energy ejectile will be approximated by a uniform damping in nuclear matter with $`U_{LS}=0`$ (see Sec. II B).

The electromagnetic vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ for an on-shell nucleon can be represented through three equivalent expressions related by the Gordon identity . Here, we choose the following

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\gamma ^\mu G_M(Q^2)\frac{P^\mu }{2m}F_2(Q^2),$$
(12)
where $`G_M`$ is the nucleon magnetic form factor, $`F_2`$ is its Pauli form factor, and $`P^\mu =(E^{}+E,\stackrel{}{p}^{}+\stackrel{}{p})`$. By inserting Eq. (12) in Eq. (11), the scattering amplitude becomes

$`J_n^\mu (\omega ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_N^{},E_R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{p}^{}\chi _{p_N^{}E_Rn}^{()}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{q},\omega )\varphi _{E_Rn}(\stackrel{}{p})[S_n(E_R)]^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{p}^{}\chi _{p_N^{}E_Rn}^{()}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})\sqrt{\frac{E+m}{2m}}\sqrt{\frac{E^{}+m}{2m}}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$ (16)
$`\{G_M(Q^2)[\delta _{\mu 0}(\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}^{}}{E^{}+m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}}{E+m}}\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}})+\delta _{\mu i}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}}{E+m}}\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}^{}}{E^{}+m}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P^\mu }{2m}}F_2(Q^2)[\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}^{}}{E^{}+m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}}{E+m}}\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}]\}\varphi _{E_Rn}(\stackrel{}{p})[S_n(E_R)]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
where

$$\widehat{D}^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}e^{i(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}^{})\stackrel{}{r}}D^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}(r)$$
(17)
are functions of $`|\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}^{}|`$.

The nucleon form factors are taken from Ref. , while the Coulomb gauge is adopted to restore current conservation at the one-body level by modifying the longitudinal component accordingly.

### B The eikonal approximation

Similar to the case of current operators, the high proton energies, that can be reached in (e,ep) reactions at the new experimental facilities, also demand a suitable approach to the treatment of the proton scattering wave. Traditionally, the assumed mean-field interaction between the ejectile and the residual nucleus has been described by complex spin-dependent optical potentials with energy-dependent parameters constrained by fitting phase shifts and analyzing powers of elastic (inelastic) (p,p) scatterings on the corresponding residual nucleus. A Schrödinger equation with incoming wave boundary conditions for each partial wave of $`\chi _{p_N^{}}^{()}`$ is solved up to a maximum angular momentum $`L_{\mathrm{max}}(p_N^{})`$ satisfying a convergency criterion. Typically, this method has been successfully applied to (e,ep) reactions at proton momenta below 0.5 GeV/$`c`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{max}}<50`$ .

At higher energies, the optical analysis of proton elastic scattering is improved by the relativistic description via Dirac phenomenology. The scattering wave is still expanded in partial waves, but each component solves the Dirac equation containing the scalar and vector Dirac potentials .

An alternative, simpler but powerful, method by Glauber  suggests that, when the proton is highly energetic, the Schrödinger equation is reduced to a first-order differential equation along the propagation axis $`\widehat{z}`$,

$$\left(\frac{}{z}ip_N^{}\right)\chi =\frac{i}{2p_N^{}}U\chi ,$$
(18)
with boundary conditions such that asymptotically $`\chi 1`$, i.e. corresponding to an incoming unitary flux of plane waves. In the pure Glauber model, $`U(r)`$ is determined in a parameter-free way starting from the elementary free proton-nucleon scattering amplitude at the considered energy and then averaging over all possible configurations of the spectator nucleons. For $`p_N^{}1`$ GeV/$`c`$, the scattering amplitude is dominated by inelastic processes and $`U(r)`$ is supposed to be mostly sensitive to its imaginary part describing the absorption . Moreover, the Glauber model predicts that the ratio between the real and imaginary parts of $`U(r)`$ equals the ratio between the real and imaginary parts of the average proton-nucleon forward scattering amplitude, which is expected to be anyway small beyond the inelastic threshold . Therefore, we can safely assume $`U(r)iW(r)`$. Then, the solution to Eq. (18) looks like

$`\chi _{p_N^{}}^{()}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\left(i\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}\stackrel{}{r}+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2p_N^{}}}_z^{\mathrm{}}U(\stackrel{}{r}_{},z^{})𝑑z^{}\right)}=e^{\left(i\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}\stackrel{}{r}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2p_N^{}}}_z^{\mathrm{}}W(\stackrel{}{r}_{},z^{})𝑑z^{}\right)}`$ (19)
$``$ $`e^{\left(i\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}\stackrel{}{r}\right)}e^{\left(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{r}\right)},`$ (20)
i.e. as a plane wave with a damping factor related to the absorption part of the residual interaction.

The reliability of this eikonal approximation (EA), that has a long tradition of successful results in the field of high-energy proton-nucleus elastic scattering , has been tested in the context of knockout reactions and in the momentum range of interest here ($`0.6q1`$ GeV/$`c`$) against solutions of the Schrödinger equation with nonrelativistic complex optical potentials up to $`L_{\mathrm{max}}=120`$ partial waves  (see also Ref. ). For increasing energies, the EA is supposed to become more and more reliable, despite the actual semirelativistic nature of the approach . Moreover, for emitted protons with outgoing energy beyond the inelastic threshold and initially bound momentum below the Fermi surface ($`p_mp_{\mathrm{Fermi}}p_N^{},q`$, with $`p_{\mathrm{Fermi}}`$ the target Fermi momentum: the same kinematic conditions of the E89003 experiment at CEBAF ), it has been shown that the proton angular distribution can actually be reproduced by representing the scattering wave as a plane wave with an additional damping . After all, for a fast moving object the nuclear density can be considered roughly constant (but for a small portion on the surface) and the eikonal wave of Eq. (20) simply corresponds to the solution of a Schrödinger equation inside homogeneous nuclear matter. In the next Sec. III C, a microscopic justification of the damping factor will be given by a detailed description of the link between $`p_\mathrm{I}`$ and the imaginary part of the self-energy of a nucleon moving inside nuclear matter. Here, it is sufficient to say that for sake of simplicity the damping vector will be kept parallel to the wave vector of the scattered particle, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}`$.

The EA of Eq. (20) can be also formulated by saying that the scattering wave is approximated by a plane wave with a complex momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_f=\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}+i\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}`$ and normalized as

$$\chi _{p_N^{}}^{()}(\stackrel{}{r})=e^{\left(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}\right)}e^{\left(i\stackrel{}{p}_f\stackrel{}{r}\right)}=e^{\left(\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}\right)}e^{\left(i\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{r}\right)},$$
(21)
with $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ a constant vector with modulus equal to the nuclear radius. In fact, for a propagation along the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis, the wave enters the nucleus at $`\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{R}(0,0,R)`$ with unitary modulus and leaves it at $`\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{R}(0,0,R)`$ damped by $`e^{2\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}}`$. In order to consider the Fourier transform of Eq. (21), an extended definition of the distribution $`\delta `$ of a complex variable is required. In the Appendix of Ref. , it is actually shown that such an extension is possible so that we can define the EA of the scattering wave in momentum space as

$$\chi _{p_N^{}}^{()}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})e^{\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}}\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_f\stackrel{}{p}^{}),$$
(22)
where now $`\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$ is a complex vector. The extension of the matrix element of Eq. (16) to the complex plane in $`\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$ is possible if the rest of the integrand is an analytic function asymptotically vanishing for $`|\stackrel{}{p}^{}|\mathrm{}`$ . It is rather easy to check that, apart from the $`\delta `$ distribution, the integrand of Eq. (16) meets these requirements. Therefore, the scattering amplitude in the EA (also with spin indices explicitly indicated) becomes

$`(J^\mu )_{s_N^{}n}(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_N^{},E_R)`$ $``$ $`e^{\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}s_N^{}|\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu (\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}_f,\stackrel{}{q},\omega )|s_n\varphi _{E_Rn}(\stackrel{}{p})[S_n(E_R)]^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}}}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_f+m}{2m}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}\sqrt{\frac{E+m}{2m}}\varphi _{E_Rn}(\stackrel{}{p})[S_n(E_R)]^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ (27)
$`\{G_M(Q^2)[\delta _{\mu 0}(\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}\delta _{s_N^{}s_n}+s_N^{}|\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}_f^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}|s_n{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(E_f+m)(E+m)}})+`$
$`\delta _{\mu i}(s_N^{}|\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}|s_n{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{E+m}}+s_N^{}|\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}_f^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }|s_n{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{E_f+m}})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_f^\mu +p^\mu }{2m}}F_2(Q^2)[\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}\delta _{s_N^{}s_n}s_N^{}|\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}_f^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}|s_n{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(E_f+m)(E+m)}}]\},`$
where $`p^\mu =(E,\stackrel{}{p}),p_f^\mu =(E_f,\stackrel{}{p}_f),`$ with $`E=\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{p}|^2+m^2},E_f=\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{p}_f|^2+m^2}`$, and $`s_N^{},s_n`$ are the projections of the spins of the detected proton and of the residual hole with collective quantum numbers $`n`$, respectively. The Fourier transform of the Darwin nonlocality factor, in agreement with Eq. (17), is function of $`|\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}_f|=\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}|^2+p_\mathrm{I}^2}`$.

### C Hadronic tensor

After summing over the undetected final states with quantum numbers $`n`$ of the residual nucleus, the hadron tensor $`W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ in momentum space becomes

$`W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`()^{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}e_\lambda ^\mu e_\lambda ^{}^\nu e^{2\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{k}s_N^{}|(\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}})_\mu (\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}_f,\stackrel{}{q},\omega )|s_n\varphi _{E_Rn}(\stackrel{}{p})\varphi _{E_Rn}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})S_n(E_R)}`$ (29)
$`\text{ }s_n|(\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}})_\nu ^{}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{p}_f,\stackrel{}{q},\omega )|s_N^{}`$
$``$ $`()^{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}e_\lambda ^\mu e_\lambda ^{}^\nu e^{2\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{k}s_N^{}|(\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}})_\mu (\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}_f,\stackrel{}{q},\omega )S(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{k};E_R)(\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}})_\nu ^{}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{p}_f,\stackrel{}{q},\omega )|s_N^{}},`$ (30)
where

$$S(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{k};E_R)=\underset{n}{}S_n(E_R)\varphi _{E_Rn}(\stackrel{}{p})|s_ns_n|\varphi _{E_Rn}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})$$
(31)
is the hole spectral function discussed in the next Sec. III. The isospin indices have been omitted for simplicity and, as before, the summation over $`n`$ runs over the undetected final states of the residual nucleus that are present at a given excitation energy $`E_R`$.

The hole spectral function can be conveniently expanded in partial waves in a sp basis as

$$S(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{k};E_R)=\underset{lj}{}\underset{m_l,m_l^{}}{}\underset{m_s,m_s^{}}{}\left(l\frac{1}{2}m_lm_s|jm\right)\left(l\frac{1}{2}m_l^{}m_s^{}|jm\right)S_{lj}(p,k;E_R)Y_{lm_l}(\widehat{p})|m_sm_s^{}|Y_{lm_l^{}}^{}(\widehat{k}).$$
(32)
This expansion should not be confused with the sum in Eq. (31): each $`lj`$ term contributes to the hadronic tensor and can come either from a quasihole state or from above the Fermi surface, depending on the excitation energy.

The angular integrations in Eq. (30) can be easily performed by noting that the square root of the Darwin nonlocality factor, $`D^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}(r)`$ in Eq. (17), is not far from 1 which would yield a $`\delta (\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})`$ in momentum space (see Fig. 1 in the next Sec. III B). Therefore, because of Eq. (22), we impose the constraint that the vector $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ in Eq. (30) lies in the same direction as $`\stackrel{}{p}_f\stackrel{}{q}`$, i.e.

$$\stackrel{}{p}p\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_f\stackrel{}{q}}{|\stackrel{}{p}_f\stackrel{}{q}|}=\frac{p}{\sqrt{(\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}\stackrel{}{q})^2+p_\mathrm{I}^2}}\left(\stackrel{}{p}_f\stackrel{}{q}\right),$$
(33)
and similarly for $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. This approximation is reliable for high values of the involved momenta, as is the case for the kinematics of Ref. . It is then easy to get rid of the angular integrations in Eq. (30) so that the hadronic tensor, with explicit spin quantum numbers, takes the form

$`(W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}})_{s_N^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`()^{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}e_\lambda ^\mu e_\lambda ^{}^\nu e^{2\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{I}\stackrel{}{R}}{\displaystyle \underset{lj}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_l,m_l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_s,m_s^{}}{}}\left(l\frac{1}{2}m_lm_s|jm\right)\left(l\frac{1}{2}m_l^{}m_s^{}|jm\right)Y_{lm_l}(\widehat{p_fq})Y_{lm_l^{}}^{}(\widehat{p_fq})`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk^2s_N^{}|(\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}})_\mu (p,\stackrel{}{p}_f,\stackrel{}{q},\omega )|m_sS_{lj}(p,k;E_R)m_s^{}|(\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}})_\nu ^{}(k,\stackrel{}{p}_f,\stackrel{}{q},\omega )|s_N^{},`$
where $`\widehat{J}_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu (p,\stackrel{}{p}_f,\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ is defined by inserting the approximation (33) into Eq. (27).

Since the missing energy of the reaction is defined as

$$E_m=\omega T_{p_N^{}}T_R,$$
(36)
where $`T_{p_N^{}}`$ is the kinetic energy of the detected nucleon and

$$T_R=\left[p_m^2+(M_R+E_R)^2\right]^{1/2}M_RE_R$$
(37)
is the kinetic energy of the residual nucleus, the scattering amplitude $`J_{s_N^{}n}^\mu (\omega ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_N^{},E_R)`$ of Eq. (27) can be conveniently made to depend on $`(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_m,E_m)`$. Therefore, the differential cross section (and other related observables) for a given kinematics $`(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ and a knockout proton corresponding to a missing energy $`E_m`$ will be plotted as a function of the missing momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_m`$. Older experimental (e,ep) data at low proton energy were usually collected in the form of the so-called reduced cross section

$$n(\stackrel{}{p}_m,E_m)\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{}{p}_e^{}d\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}}\frac{1}{K\sigma _{eN}},$$
(38)
where $`K`$ is a suitable kinematic factor and $`\sigma _{eN}`$ is the elementary (half off-shell) electron-nucleon cross section, in order to reduce the information contained in a five-fold differential cross section to a two-fold function of $`\stackrel{}{p}_m`$ and $`E_m`$. Whenever needed, theoretical results will also be presented as reduced cross sections using the CC1 prescription  for $`\sigma _{eN}`$ and the corresponding extrapolation $`\overline{\omega }=E_N^{}\overline{E}`$ (with $`\overline{E}=\sqrt{p_m^2+m^2}`$) for the off-shell nucleon. The electron distortion is included in the EMA by replacing $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ with an effective $`\stackrel{}{q}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$  for the acceleration by the Coulomb field (in the following, for sake of simplicity the eff subscript will be omitted).

## III Quasi-hole and quasi-particle properties

The calculation of the (e,ep) cross section is most easily performed by employing the quasihole wave function of Eq. (6). By considering Eq. (32) in a sp basis with orbital angular momentum $`l`$, total angular momentum $`j`$, and momentum $`p`$, we can relate the spectroscopic amplitude to the spectral function in the following way

$$S_{lj}(p,k;E)=\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{A}a_{klj}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{\mathrm{A}1}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{\mathrm{A}1}a_{plj}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\mathrm{A}\delta (E(E_0^\mathrm{A}E_n^{\mathrm{A}1})),$$
(39)
where $`a_{plj}`$($`a_{klj}^{}`$) denotes the removal (addition) operator for a nucleon. The spectral function $`S_{lj}(p,k;E)`$ can be obtained from the imaginary part of the corresponding sp propagator $`g_{lj}(p,k;E)`$. This Green’s function solves the Dyson equation

$$g_{lj}(p,k;E)=g_{lj}^{(0)}(p,k;E)+𝑑p_1p_1^2𝑑p_2p_2^2g_{lj}^{(0)}(p,p_1;E)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}(p_1,p_2;E)g_{lj}(p_2,k;E),$$
(40)
where $`g^{(0)}`$ refers to a Hartree-Fock propagator and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}`$ represents contributions to the real and imaginary parts of the irreducible self-energy, which go beyond the Hartree-Fock approximation of the nucleon self-energy used to derive $`g^{(0)}`$ (see below). A brief summary of the calculation of the self-energy and the solution of the Dyson equation are included below. More details can be found in Refs. .

### A Quasi-hole properties

The self-energy is constructed by a two-step approach employing the boson-exchange potential B as defined by Machleidt in Ref. . The treatment of short-range correlations is taken into account by solving the Bethe-Goldstone equation. In the first step this equation is solved in nuclear matter at a certain density with a reasonable choice for the starting energy. Employing a vector bracket transformation , the corresponding “Hartree-Fock” self-energy contribution in momentum space is calculated for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ using harmonic oscillator wave functions for the occupied states with oscillator length $`\alpha =1.72`$ fm-1. Since this “Hartree-Fock” self-energy is obtained from nuclear matter, corrections need to be applied to reinstate the properties of the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ Fermi surface. In addition, higher-order self-energy contributions are included. This procedure involves the calculation of the imaginary part of the self-energy for two-particle one-hole (2p1h) and two-hole one-particle (2h1p) intermediate states reached by the G-matrix interaction and calculated in $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$. The intermediate particle states correspond to plane waves and must be orthogonalized to the bound sp states . Pure kinetic energies are assumed for these particle states. While this assumption is not very realistic for the description of the coupling to low-lying states, it is quite adequate for the treatment of tensor and short-range correlations. From these imaginary contributions to the self-energy one can obtain the corresponding real parts by employing the appropriate dispersion relations. Since the “Hartree-Fock” part was calculated in terms of a G-matrix, it already contains the 2p1h contribution mentioned above but generated in nuclear matter. The corresponding real part of the self-energy as calculated in nuclear matter is then subtracted to eliminate the double counting terms. This procedure is quite insensitive to the original choice of density and starting energy for the nuclear matter G-matrix . For the determination of the $`p`$-shell quasihole wave functions only the real part of the self-energy is relevant. Collecting all the contributions to this self-energy one has

$`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}(p,k;E)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}^{HF}(p,k)+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}^{2p1h}(p,k;E)\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}^c(p,k;E)+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}^{2h1p}(p,k;E)`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}^{HF}(p,k)+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}(p,k;E),`$ (42)
with obvious notation. In the last line of Eq. (42) we have included (the real part of) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}`$ which was anticipated in Eq. (40). This self-energy yields a complete treatment of the effect of short-range and tensor correlations for a finite nucleus . The resulting wave functions for $`p`$-shell nucleons also yield an excellent description of the shape of the experimental (e,ep) cross section . The self-energy in Eq. (42) does not include an adequate description of the coupling of the nucleon to low-lying collective excitations which strongly influence the spectroscopic factors . This deficiency is not important for the present paper since we are addressing the question of the reliable extraction of spectroscopic factors from (e,ep) data. It is therefore of great importance that the theoretical wave functions generated by Eq. (42) are of equivalent quality to the empirical ones used in the analysis of the data . Indeed, when these wave functions are used to fit the data , they yield spectroscopic factors that are essentially identical to the ones from the empirical analysis.

The solution of the Dyson equation was previously obtained in a basis generated by enclosing the system in a spherical box . For the present paper the Dyson equation has been solved directly in momentum space by performing the discretization for the relevant eigenvalue problem. For discrete solutions like the quasihole states in $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$, the Dyson equation yields the following eigenvalue equation

$$\frac{p^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}|a_{plj}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}(p,k;E_n)\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}|a_{klj}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A=E_n\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}|a_{plj}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A.$$
(43)
Discretizing the integration in Eq. (43) yields a straightforward diagonalization problem. The resulting quasihole wave functions for the $`p_{1/2}`$ and $`p_{3/2}`$ states are used for the analysis presented in Sec. IV. We have checked that the present solution method yields identical results as compared to those from the “box method.”

### B Darwin nonlocality factor

As discussed in Sec. II A, the Darwin nonlocality factor given by Eq. (8) is required for a proper treatment of the current operator at high proton energies. It is clear from Eq. (9) that this nonlocality factor is related to the spin-orbit potential. This relation can therefore be used to derive the nonlocality factor from the nucleon self-energy discussed in Sec. III A. A complication in deriving this result is that the self-energies constructed for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ are inherently nonlocal in coordinate space. This many-body nonlocality is already present when Fock terms to the self-energy are considered. Additional contributions are generated when higher-order terms are included as in Eq. (42). The terminology here may be confusing so it is useful to point out that the Darwin nonlocality factor refers to the nonrelativistic reduction of the Dirac equation which yields a nonlocal term in the Schrödinger equation when starting from a local Dirac equation.

Since Eq. (9) requires a local spin-orbit potential we will construct local potentials from the nonlocal self-energies. As shown in Ref. , it is possible to construct local potentials from the nonlocal self-energy by using the following expression

$$\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}^{local}(r)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r^{}r^2\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}(r,r^{};E),$$
(44)
where the nonlocal self-energy in coordinate space is obtained from the one in momentum space by a double Fourier-Bessel transformation given by

$$\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}(r,r^{};E)=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pp^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p^{}p^2j_l(pr)\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lj}(p,p^{};E)j_l(p^{}r^{}).$$
(45)
As shown in Ref. , a good representation to local potentials given by Eq. (44) is generated by a Woods-Saxon form. Following this procedure we have obtained two local Woods-Saxon potentials $`V_{p1/2}(r)`$ and $`V_{p3/2}(r)`$ for the relevant $`p`$-shell quasihole states in $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$, respectively. Since the goal of the present work is to study the possibility to extract spectroscopic factors at different $`Q^2`$, we have adjusted these potentials slightly to generate the correct experimental spin-orbit splitting. In addition, we have ensured that the corresponding wave functions in momentum space have the maximum overlap with those of the nonlocal self-energies. These overlaps are given by 99.97% for the $`p_{1/2}`$ and 99.99% for the $`p_{3/2}`$ wave functions, respectively. It is now possible to decompose the local potentials $`V_{p1/2}`$ and $`V_{p3/2}`$ in central and spin-orbit potentials in the following way

$$V=U_0+U_{LS}\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S}.$$
(46)
For $`p`$ states this implies that

$$U_{LS}(r)=\frac{2}{3}\left(V_{p\frac{3}{2}}(r)V_{p\frac{1}{2}}(r)\right).$$
(47)
This potential can then be used to construct the Darwin nonlocality factor by inverting Eq. (9). The latter is displayed in Fig. 1 together with the functions $`D^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}(r)`$ used in Eq. (17). The observed small deviation from unity of the latter functions is the basis for the approximation introduced in Eq. (33) leading to the hadron tensor (35).

### C Damping of a quasi-particle

As discussed in Sec. II B, we will assume that the damping of the nucleon on its way out of the nucleus is described by a corresponding process taking place in nuclear matter. Since the sp momentum is conserved in nuclear matter, the propagation of a nucleon through nuclear matter is diagonal in the sp momentum and can be represented by

$$g(p;E)=_{ϵ_F}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \frac{S_p(p;\omega )}{E\omega +i\eta }+_{\mathrm{}}^{ϵ_F}𝑑\omega \frac{S_h(p;\omega )}{E\omega i\eta },$$
(48)
where $`S_p`$ and $`S_h`$ (particle and hole spectral function) describe the strength distribution above and below the Fermi energy for a nucleon with sp momentum $`p`$. These spectral functions have recently been determined self-consistently by including the effects of short-range and tensor correlations in the self-energy . For this purpose the effective interaction is represented by the equivalent of the T-matrix in the medium . The propagation of the nucleons determining this in-medium interaction is also described by Eq. (48) which includes full off-shell effects. The resulting interaction is employed to construct the nucleon self-energy. This self-energy is then used to solve the Dyson equation for nuclear matter

$$g(p;E)=g^{(0)}(p;E)+g^{(0)}(p;E)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{NM}(p;E)g(p;E),$$
(49)
where the unperturbed propagator is given by

$$g^{(0)}(p;E)=\frac{\theta (pp_F)}{Ep^2/2m+i\eta }+\frac{\theta (p_Fp)}{Ep^2/2mi\eta }.$$
(50)
The solution procedure for this problem involves several iteration steps which are required because the solution to the Dyson equation already appears in the determination of the effective interaction and the self-energy, illustrating the nonlinearity of this problem. The solution of Eq. (49) can be written as

$$g(p;E)=\frac{1}{Ep^2/2m\mathrm{\Sigma }(p;E)}.$$
(51)
Taking advantage of the slow variation of the imaginary part of the self-energy as a function of $`p`$, one can expand the self-energy at the momentum $`p_0`$ for which

$$E\frac{p_0^2}{2m}+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{NM}(p_0;E).$$
(52)
Performing the expansion in the square of this momentum and keeping both the real and imaginary parts of the self-energy at $`p_0`$ plus the first derivative of the real part, one obtains the so-called complex pole approximation (CPA)  for the propagator which gives a very accurate representation of this quantity when transformed to coordinate space. For momenta above the Fermi momentum one has

$$g_{CPA}(p;E)=\frac{c_{p_0}}{p_0^2p^2+i\gamma },$$
(53)
where

$$c_{p_0}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{NM}}{p^2}|_{p_0^2}\right)^1$$
(54)
and

$$\gamma =\left|\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{NM}(p_0;E)\right|\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{NM}}{p^2}|_{p_0^2}\right)^1.$$
(55)
This form of the propagator at a fixed energy has a simple pole structure in the complex momentum plane. The location of the relevant pole is given by

$$\kappa _0=(p_0^4+\gamma ^2)^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\gamma }{p_0^2}\right)}.$$
(56)
The imaginary part of this momentum is then used to describe the damping in the eikonal approximation described in Sec. II B, i.e. $`\mathrm{Im}\kappa _0p_\mathrm{I}`$, with $`p_\mathrm{I}`$ from Eq. (20). To clarify the physics further one may obtain the propagator in coordinate space using

$`g_{CPA}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{};E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle d^3pe^{i\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{})}g_{CPA}(p;E)}`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_{p_0}}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\kappa _0|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}|}}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}|}}.`$ (58)
From this result it is clear that the damping of the nucleon propagating through nuclear matter is determined by the imaginary part of $`\kappa _0`$, which in turn is determined by the imaginary part of the self-energy at this energy. In Fig. 2 the quantity $`\gamma `$ of Eq. (55), related to the imaginary part of the self-energy, is shown as a function of $`p_0\mathrm{Re}\kappa _0p_N^{}`$. It is remarkable that at $`p_N^{}7`$ fm-1, i.e. at the same proton kinematics of the NE18 experiment , $`\gamma `$ is such that $`\mathrm{Im}\kappa _0p_\mathrm{I}50`$ MeV/$`c`$ gives the proper damping necessary to describe the observed absorption. In fact, in the context of the pure Glauber approximation $`(Wp_N^{})`$ one would expect a higher proportionality factor, thus overestimating the quenching due to FSI (see Ref.  and references therein). The outlined derivation of $`\gamma `$ gives a microscopic explanation for reducing this proportionality factor when embedding the travelling proton in nuclear matter.

This absorption effect of the medium is obtained for a realistic nucleon-nucleon interaction . Since this interaction is fitted to low-energy data, it is used in the Lippmann-Schwinger equation to describe these data. As a result, the coupling to intermediate states at higher energy is constrained by the fit to these low-energy data. Whether the description of these intermediate states as nonrelativistic two-nucleon states is accurate is then less relevant. One may also interpret the coupling to these intermediate (nonrelativistic two-nucleon) states as a phenomenological way to include the coupling to inelastic channels, quark effects, etc. For this reason we expect the present microscopic description of nucleon absorption in the medium to be fully relevant for the (e,ep) reactions studied in this paper.

## IV Results

In this section we will discuss the results for the cross section of the 16O(e,ep) reaction leading to the ground state and the first $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ excited state of the residual $`{}_{}{}^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ nucleus. The main theoretical ingredient is the hadronic tensor of Eq. (35), which describes the electromagnetic interaction assuming a relativistic one-body current operator including spinor distortion in the initial state only. This is consistent with the spin-orbit effects associated with the quasihole states in the residual nucleus \[see Eq. (9)\]. The proton scattering wave is described in the eikonal approximation (EA), assuming a uniform and constant damping by nuclear matter through a nucleon self-energy containing the same short-range correlations used to generate the properties of the quasihole in the bound state. The electron wave is described through the EMA, that incorporates the acceleration due to the Coulomb field.

We first reconsider this reaction at low $`Q^2`$ using the conventional optical potential analysis for FSI . In Fig. 3 the data from Ref.  have been collected at a constant proton energy of 90 MeV in the center-of-mass system. They refer to the reduced cross section, defined by Eq. (38), as a function of the missing momentum $`p_m`$ in parallel kinematics, i.e. for $`\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}\stackrel{}{q}`$. Therefore, the $`p_m`$ distribution can be obtained by increasing the momentum transfer $`q`$ from positive to negative values of $`p_m`$. Two transitions were considered, leading to the ground state $`p\frac{1}{2}`$ and to the first excited state $`p\frac{3}{2}`$ at $`E_m=6.32`$ MeV of $`{}_{}{}^{15}\mathrm{N}`$. The data for the transition to the $`p\frac{1}{2}`$ ground state have been multiplied by 20. The solid lines are the result of the calculation employing the quasihole part of the spectral function of Eq. (32) for the $`p\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`p\frac{3}{2}`$ partial waves, respectively. The normalization of the curves is adjusted to fit the data indicating that the intrinsic normalization of the quasihole, 0.89 for the $`p\frac{1}{2}`$ and 0.914 for the $`p\frac{3}{2}`$, must be significantly reduced to $`Z_{0p1/2}=0.644`$ and $`Z_{0p3/2}=0.537`$, respectively, because only the depletion due to short-range correlations has been taken into account . Incidentally, long-range correlations spread the total $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ strength over three states in the discrete spectrum, so that the $`p\frac{3}{2}`$ data account for 86% of the strength only; by rescaling the spectroscopic factor by this fraction we get $`Z_{0p3/2}=0.624`$, in close agreement with the corresponding ground state value . The dashed lines in Fig. 3 refer to the calculation including the same spectroscopic factors but replacing the quasihole bound state by the wave function of Ref. , which is obtained by a Skyrme-Hartree-Fock method for 16O. Both descriptions are in very good agreement with the data, with a slight preference for the quasihole results at negative $`p_m`$.

In Fig. 4 the same reaction is considered in a very different kinematical regime, namely at constant $`(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ with $`Q^2=0.8`$ (GeV$`/c)^2`$ . The data here refer to a five-fold differential cross section, avoiding any ambiguity in modelling the half off-shell elementary cross section $`\sigma _{ep}`$ of Eq. (38). Again, results for the transition to the ground state $`p\frac{1}{2}`$ have been multiplied by 20. The theoretical calculations are displayed with the same notations as in Fig. 3, i.e. solid lines for the results with the quasihole bound state and dashed lines by employing the wave function of Ref. . The preference for the first choice is here more evident. In any case, it is remarkable that the calculations reproduce the data by using the same spectroscopic factors as in the previous kinematics, i.e. $`Z_{0p1/2}=0.644`$ and $`Z_{0p3/2}=0.537`$. Therefore, contrary to the findings of Ref. , we do not find any need for a $`Q^2`$ dependence of the spectroscopic factors over a wide kinematical range. This outcome is particularly welcome, since by definition these factors describe a spectroscopic nuclear property that must be independent of the probe scale $`Q^2`$. Finally, we conclude that the treatment of the bound state wave function is not responsible for the $`Q^2`$ dependence found in Ref. .

In Fig. 5 we show the results for the structure functions $`f_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ in the same kinematics and with the same notations as in Fig. 4. They are defined by

$`f_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{00}^{}`$ (59)
$`f_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{11}^{}+W_{11}^{}`$ (60)
$`f_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left[W_{01}^{}W_{01}^{}\right]`$ (61)
$`f_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left[W_{11}^{}\right],`$ (62)
with $`W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}^{}`$ the hadronic tensor in the proton center-of-mass system. It is related to $`W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ in the lab frame by the transformation $`W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}=e^{i\alpha (\lambda \lambda ^{})}W_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}^{}`$, i.e. by a rotation around the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ direction of the angle $`\alpha `$ between the lepton scattering plane and the plane formed by $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}`$. The rotation affects only the interference components, so that the cross section (1) becomes

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{}{p}_e^{}d\stackrel{}{p}_N^{}}=\frac{e^4}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{Q^4p_ep_e^{}}\{L_{00}f_{00}+L_{11}f_{11}+L_{01}f_{01}\mathrm{cos}\alpha +L_{11}f_{11}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \},$$
(63)
i.e. it becomes parametrized in terms of the different components of the nuclear response $`f_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}`$ to the virtual photon probe in the spherical basis. The agreement with data is still good for both transitions over the whole $`p_m`$ range, except for $`f_{01}`$, the interference between the longitudinal and transverse responses, which is known to be particularly sensitive to relativistic effects .

Correspondingly, the left-right asymmetry

$$A_{LT}=\frac{d\sigma (\alpha =0^0)d\sigma (\alpha =180^0)}{d\sigma (\alpha =0^0)+d\sigma (\alpha =180^0)}$$
(64)
is displayed in Fig. 6 in the same conditions and with the same notations as in Fig. 4. The discrepancy previously noted for $`f_{01}`$ is here amplified, particularly for the results with the bound state of Ref. . A possible explanation is that only a full account of relativistic effects, specifically of spinor distortion in both bound and scattering states, is needed to reproduce the data . In the present calculation this effect is included only for the bound state, while the Darwin nonlocality factor for the scattering state turns out to be 1 because the homogeneous damping in nuclear matter does not include spin-orbit contributions.

## V Conclusions

We have developed a model for describing the (e,ep) reaction at high $`Q^2`$ while linking it to nonrelativistic microscopic many-body ingredients like the quasihole spectral function. The goal is to critically consider the issue raised in Refs.  about a possible dependence of the spectroscopic factors upon $`Q^2`$.

We use an unfactorized approach where, following Ref. , a relativistic one-body electromagnetic current operator is adopted in a Schrödinger-based framework avoiding any nonrelativistic reduction. The effect of spinor distortion by the Dirac scalar and vector potentials is consistently included only for the bound state by evaluating the Darwin nonlocality factor through the spin-orbit potential generated by the self-energy of the quasihole spectral functions. The proton scattering wave is described in an eikonal approximation (tested against DWIA solutions of a complex spin-dependent optical potential ). The absorption is calculated by using a spectral function for nucleons in nuclear matter including the same short-range and tensor correlations adopted in the calculation of the nucleon self-energy in a finite volume for the $`p`$-shell quasihole states of 16O.

In Ref.  these bound state wave functions have been used to analyze the data for 16O(e,ep) at low $`Q^2`$  yielding a very good description of the reduced cross sections. In the present work, we have considered the recent data for the same reaction at higher $`Q^2`$  and we have performed the analysis using the same bound state wave functions and the same spectroscopic factors extracted from the low-$`Q^2`$ analysis. The description of the data at higher $`Q^2`$ is still very good regarding both the 5-fold differential cross section and the structure functions. Only the interference $`f_{01}`$ structure function, and the related left-right asymmetry $`A_{LT}`$, show a visible discrepancy, particularly for the $`p\frac{1}{2}`$ state. A possible explanation could be related to our incomplete treatment of the relativistic effects because the spinor distortion of the final state is not considered.

However, we emphasize that our consistent analysis of low- and high-$`Q^2`$ data using the same microscopic many-body ingredients for the quasihole states and the damping of the proton scattering wave allow us to conclude that we do not observe any $`Q^2`$ dependence of the spectroscopic factors over the considered wide range $`0.02Q^20.8`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2. This outcome is most welcome, since by definition these factors describe a spectroscopic nuclear property that must be independent of the probe scale $`Q^2`$. Finally, since we get a very good description of the high-$`Q^2`$ data replacing our quasihole states with the bound states of Ref. , we can also conclude that the quality of the wave functions is not responsible for the unexpected $`Q^2`$ dependence of the spectroscopic factors observed in Ref. .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-9900713. We acknowledge the hospitality of the Laboratory of Theoretical Physics at University of Gent, where part of this work was done.