text:
# Exact multipoint and multitime correlation functions of a one-dimensional model of adsorption and evaporation of dimers

## Abstract

In this work, we provide a method which allows to compute exactly the multipoint and multi-time correlation functions of a one-dimensional stochastic model of dimer adsorption-evaporation with random (uncorrelated) initial states. In particular explicit expressions of the two-point noninstantaneous/instantaneous correlation functions are obtained. The long-time behavior of these expressions is discussed in details and in various physical regimes.

One-dimensional reaction-diffusion (RD) processes of interacting particles have been extensively studied in the last decade because of their relevance as examples of strongly-correlated nonequilibrium systems and their connexion with experimental situations .

Among the RD systems, the “diffusion-limited with pair-annihilation and creation” (DPAC) model  plays a particular role. In fact it is one of the rare nonequilibrium model for which it has been possible, in some special cases, to compute some dynamical correlation functions. In addition this model carries valuable informations for various experimental situations where particles diffuse and dimer can be adsorpted/evaporated . Despite the interest in the DPAC-model, not all the desirable information on the correlation functions was available so far. In particular considerably less results are available for the (complete) DPAC-model than for the “diffusion-limited pair annihilation” (DPA) model (where there is no pair-creation).

Recently, there has been a regain of interest for the study of the DPAC-model because its possible application in various fields such as the experimental study of the photogrowth properties of long-lived midgap absorption band in a $`MX`$ chain  and in interdisciplinary studies . In particular, it has been shown that the autocorrelation functions of the DPAC-model provide valuable informations on the relaxation of biological dimer adsorption . In this work we consider the (free-fermion) DPAC and DPA-model and obtain results which remained inaccessible so far. In particular, we explicitly compute the exact and complete expression of the noninstantaneous two-point correlation functions for random initial conditions and then analyse the long-time behavior of the latter.

We consider a periodic lattice of $`L`$ sites (without restriction, $`L`$ is assumed to be even) on which an even number of (classical) particles interact. Each site is either empty or occupied by a particle at most (because of the hard-core interaction). When a particle and a vacancy are adjacent to each other, the particle can jump to the right with a rate $`h^{}`$ or to the left with a rate $`h`$. When two particles are adjacent, they can annihilate in pairs with a rate $`ϵ`$. In addition, when two vacancy are adjacent, a pair of particles can be created with rate $`ϵ^{}`$. We now adopt the so-called stochastic Hamiltonian formalism (see e.g.  and references therein). To do this, at each of the $`L`$lattice sites, we associate to a particle (vacancy) a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ down (up) . In so doing the master equation governing the dynamics of the model can formally be rewritten as an imaginary-time Schrödinger equation for a quantum spin-chain: $`(/t)|P(t)=H|P(t)`$, where $`|P(t)=_{\{n\}}P(\{n\},t)|\{n\}`$ describes the state of the system at time $`t`$ (the sum runs over all the $`2^L`$ configurations $`\{n\}`$). Performing a standard Jordan-Wigner transformation and then a Fourier transformation, the stochastic Hamiltonian can be recasted in a fermionic representation . We also define the “left vacuum” $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|_{\{n\}}\{n\}|`$. The probability conservation yields $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|H=0`$.

Exact solution of the DPAC-model is only possible in the free-fermion case  , and therefore, with $`\gamma ϵ+ϵ^{}(h+h^{})`$, one has to impose: $`\gamma =0`$.

Hereafter, we always consider that the constraint $`\gamma =0`$ is fulfilled. In this case, the stochastic Hamiltonian reads:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q>0}{}}\left[\omega (q)a_q^{}a_q+\omega ^{}(q)a_q^{}a_q+2\mathrm{sin}q\left(ϵa_qa_q+ϵ^{}a_q^{}a_q^{}\right)\right]+ϵ^{}L`$ (1)
where $`a_q^{}`$ and $`a_q`$ are usual fermion operators. In addition, $`\omega (q)\stackrel{~}{c}b\mathrm{cos}q+iv\mathrm{sin}q`$, with $`bϵ+ϵ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}ϵϵ^{}`$, $`vh^{}h`$ and $`q=\pm \pi (2l1)/L,l=1,2,\mathrm{},L/2`$.

We consider translationally invariant and uncorrelated random initial states $`|\rho _0`$ with an even number $`N`$ of particles, of density $`\rho _0=N/L`$, i.e. $`|\rho _0=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\rho _0\\ \rho _0\end{array}\right)^L`$. From the fermion reformulation, an important property of the left vacuum follows (in the subspace with an even number of particles that we consider here): $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|a_q^{}=\mathrm{cot}(\frac{q}{2})\stackrel{~}{\chi }|a_q`$, .

The free-fermion character of the stochastic Hamiltonian (1) allows the computation of the following zero-time correlators , with $`\mu \rho _0/(1\rho _0)`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|a_q^{}a_q|\rho _0`$ $``$ $`a_q^{}a_q(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{cot}(q/2)}{1+\mu ^2\mathrm{cot}^2(q/2)}}\delta _{q,q^{}}`$ (2)
$`a_{q_1}a_{q_2}\mathrm{}a_{q_{2n1}}a_{q_{2n}}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{}}𝒮(\pi )a_{q_{\pi (1)}}a_{q_{\pi (2)}}(0)\mathrm{}a_{q_{\pi (2n1)}}a_{q_{\pi (2n)}}(0),`$ (3)
where the sum is over all the permutations $`\pi `$ of the indices $`\{q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_{2n}\}`$, with the constraints $`\pi (1)<\pi (2);\mathrm{};\pi (2n1)<\pi (2n)`$. Each permutation $`\pi `$ has a signature $`𝒮(\pi )`$ .

It is advantageous at this point to introduce the “pseudo-fermion” operators  $`\xi _q=\alpha ^1\mathrm{cos}\theta _qa_q+\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta _qa_q^{}`$ and $`\xi _q^+=\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta _qa_q^{}+\alpha ^1\mathrm{sin}\theta _qa_q`$, with $`\theta _q=\theta _q`$. Although they are not adjoint each other , these operators fulfill the canonical anticommutation relation $`\{\xi _q,\xi _q^{}^+\}=\delta _{q,q^{}}`$. The probability conservation yields $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|\xi _q^+=0`$ .

It has been shown  that if one chooses the following parameters $`\mathrm{tan}(2\theta _q)=\frac{2\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}\mathrm{sin}q}{b\mathrm{cos}q\stackrel{~}{c}};\alpha ^2=\sqrt{ϵ^{}/ϵ},`$ the stochastic free-fermion Hamiltonian (1) is diagonal in the pseudo-fermion representation and reads: $`H=_q\lambda _q\xi _q^+\xi _q,\text{ with}\lambda _q=b\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{cos}q+iv\mathrm{sin}q`$. Because of this diagonal representation, the pseudo-fermion operators evolve according to $`\xi _q(t)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _qt}\xi _q(0)`$ and $`\xi _q^+(t)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _qt}\xi _q^+(0)`$.

Using the fact that, the pseudo-fermion operators $`\xi _q`$ are linear combination of fermion operators $`a_q`$ and $`a_q^{}`$, and using the expression (2) as well as the property of the left vacuum, it follows that:

$`\xi _q\xi _q^{}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _q\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}{\alpha ^2}}a_qa_q^{}(0)+\alpha ^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _q\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}a_q^{}a_q^{}^{}(0)+\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _qa_qa_q^{}^{}(0)+\mathrm{sin}\theta _q\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}a_q^{}a_q^{}(0)`$ (4)
For the sequel it is useful to compute $`\xi _q\xi _q^{}(0)\stackrel{~}{\chi }|\xi _q\xi _q|\rho _0\delta _{q^{},q}`$. Therefore we introduce the following function :

$`f(q)`$ $``$ $`\xi _q\xi _q(0)=\nu _q{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2ϵ\nu _q\mathrm{cos}^2(q/2)}{\left(1+\frac{\mu ^2ϵ}{ϵ^{}}\nu _q^2\right)\mathrm{Re}(\lambda _q)}}\left[1+2\nu _q^2+2/\nu _q^2\right],\text{ where}\nu _q\sqrt{ϵ^{}/ϵ}\mathrm{cot}(q/2),`$ (5)
One can also check that

$`\xi _{q_1}\mathrm{}\xi _{q_{2n}}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{}}𝒮(\pi )\xi _{q_{\pi (1)}}\xi _{q_{\pi (2)}}(0)\mathrm{}\xi _{q_{\pi (2n1)}}\xi _{q_{\pi (2n)}}(0),`$ (6)
where we adopted the same notations as in (2).

Let us now sketch a four-step procedure which allows to compute explicitly the multipoint and multi-time correlation functions $`n_{j_1}(t_1)\mathrm{}n_{j_{m1}}(t_{m1})n_{j_m}(t_m)\stackrel{~}{\chi }|n_{j_1}\mathrm{e}^{H(t_1t_2)}\mathrm{}n_{j_{m1}}\mathrm{e}^{H(t_{m1}t_m)}n_{j_m}\mathrm{e}^{Ht_m}|\rho _0`$:

(i) One first has to write the expression of the correlation functions in the Fourier space:

$`n_{j_1}(t_1)\mathrm{}n_{j_m}(t_m)={\displaystyle \underset{q_1,q_1^{},\mathrm{},q_m,q_m^{}}{}}\mathrm{e}^{i(q_1q_1^{})j_1+\mathrm{}+i(q_mq_m^{})j_m}a_{q_1}^{}(t_1)a_{q_1^{}}(t_1)\mathrm{}a_{q_m}^{}(t_m)a_{q_m^{}}(t_m).`$ (7)
(ii) One has then to rewrite the expression (7) in the pseudo-fermion language. This achieved with help of

$`a_q^{}a_q^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _q\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}\xi _q^+\xi _q^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _q\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}\xi _q^+\xi _q^{}^+\mathrm{sin}\theta _q\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}\xi _q\xi _q^{}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _q\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}\xi _q\xi _q^{}^+.`$ (8)
(iii) Using the fact that $`H`$ is diagonal in the (pseudo-fermion) representation \[with (8)\], one extracts the time-dependence of terms appearing in the pseudo-fermion rewritten expression (7). As an example, we have:

$`\xi _{q_1}(t_1)\xi _{q_1^{}}(t_1)\mathrm{}\xi _{q_m}(t_m)\xi _{q_m^{}}(t_m)=\mathrm{e}^{(\lambda _{q_1}+\lambda _{q_1^{}})t_1\mathrm{}(\lambda _{q_m}+\lambda _{q_m^{}})t_m}\xi _{q_1}\xi _{q_1^{}}\mathrm{}\xi _{q_m}\xi _{q_m^{}}(0)`$ (9)
(iv) Finally, the zero-time correlation functions of pseudo-fermion operators appearing in the r.h.s. of (7), after the steps (i)-(iii), are computed with help of the Wick factorization (6) and using $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|\xi _q^+=0`$.

This general four-step procedure provides a systematic method to obtain explicitly, starting from homogeneous random initial conditions, the multipoint and multitime correlation functions of the free-fermion model under consideration here. It is however important to notice that the computation of each of these quantities leads to rather complicated technical difficulties. Let us mention that using the domain-wall duality and with help of the generating function studied in , we can compute the stationary multipoint correlation functions of the DPAC-model from the spin-spin correlation functions of the one-dimensional Ising model with a generalized (biased) Glauber’s dynamics . In fact we can show ($`j_m>\mathrm{}>j_1`$) that $`n_{j_1}\mathrm{}n_{j_m}(\mathrm{})=[\rho (\mathrm{})]^m`$ , where $`\rho (\mathrm{})=\sqrt{ϵ^{}}/(\sqrt{ϵ}+\sqrt{ϵ^{}})`$ is the stationary density of particles. In addition, for an homogeneous system with initial density $`\rho _0=1/2`$ of particles, because of the quadratic form of the generating function, the expressions of spin-spin correlation functions of the dual of the DPAC-model are Pfaffians . In this case it is therefore possible, via the domain-wall duality , to sort out the technical complications and explicitly compute the instantaneous multipoint correlation functions. As an example for the DPA-model ($`ϵ=h+h^{}`$, $`ϵ^{}=0`$), the long-time behavior ($`bt1`$) of the three-point correlation functions read $`8n_j(t)n_{j+r_1}(t)n_{j+r_2}(t)\frac{1+8\{r_1^2+r_1r_2(5(r_2r_1)1)\}}{1280\pi (\stackrel{~}{c}t)^3}`$, with $`r_2>r_1`$ .

Because of the general technical problems inherent to the computation of the correlation functions, the above-mentioned systematic four-step procedure is in particular useful to take into account random initial conditions, which affect the long-time dynamics of the non-universal relaxation (when all the rates $`h,h^{},ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$ are $`>0`$, see below).

To illustrate the difficulties which appear in computing the multipoint and multitime correlation functions (from uncorrelated but random initial states), as well as their importance, one can point out the work of Derrida and Zeitak , where these authors obtained the universal distribution of domain sizes of one-dimensional Potts model with zero temperature Glauber dynamics. This was achieved using the properties of coalescing random walkers to compute the probability of having the same value at time $`t`$ for $`N`$ spins located at $`N`$ distinct and ordered sites, which is related to the distribution of domain sizes. The authors also studied the domain-walls dynamics and thus considered the following (free-fermion) RD model $`A\mathrm{}\mathrm{}A,`$ $`AAA`$ and $`AA\mathrm{}`$, with reaction-rates $`1`$, $`(\mathrm{q}2)/(\mathrm{q}1)`$ and $`1/(\mathrm{q}1)`$, respectively. For this RD model, with random (but uncorrelated) initial conditions, the authors of  computed the density of particles and the instantaneous two-point correlation functions. It has to be noticed that there exists a similarity transformation (see e.g.  and references therein) which maps the DPA-model studied here (with $`ϵ^{}=0`$) onto the RD model considered in .

Another important problem where the (stationary) multipoint correlation functions of a free-fermion model play a relevant role is the computation, for the q-state Potts model in the zero-temperature Glauber dynamics, of the exact persistence exponent which gives the fraction of spins $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_L(\mathrm{q})`$ which have never flipped . To compute $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_L(\mathrm{q})`$, the authors mapped the problem onto an exactly solvable (free-fermion) RD model: $`A\mathrm{}\mathrm{}A`$ (with reaction-rate $`1`$) and $`AAA`$ (with reaction-rate $`2`$). In addition it is assumed that a “source” ensures that the origin of the (periodic) lattice is always occupied. Starting from an uncorrelated but random initial state (with the initial site always occupied) denoted $`|P^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ , the problem of finding $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_L(\mathrm{q})`$ reduces to the computation of the following multipoint correlator  : $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_L(\mathrm{q})=\mathrm{lim}_\mathrm{t}\mathrm{}0|(1+a_L)\mathrm{}(1+a_1)e^{H^{}t}|P^{\prime \prime }(0)`$, where the $`a_j`$’s are fermion operators, $`|0`$ is the vacuum ($`a_j|0=0`$) and $`H^{}`$ is the stochastic Hamiltonian associated to RD model considered in .

To be specific we now focus on the computation of the connected non-instantaneous two-point correlation functions of the DPAC-model for random initial conditions $`|\rho _0`$.

Following the above-mentioned four-step procedure \[(i)-(iv)\], adopting the notation $`\varphi _q\mathrm{Re}(\lambda _q)=b\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{cos}q`$, we obtain, in the thermodynamic limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$):

$`𝒞_r(t,t_0)`$ $``$ $`n_{j+r}(t+t_0)n_j(t_0)\rho (t+t_0)\rho (t_0)=ϵϵ^{}\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}q}{\varphi _q}}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _qt}\right)^2`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`4ϵϵ^{}\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(q/2)}{\varphi _q}}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _qt}\right)\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(q/2)}{\varphi _q}}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _qt}\right)`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`2ϵ^{}\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}q}{\varphi _q}}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _qt}\right)\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(q/2)}{\varphi _q}}f(q)\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _q(t+2t_0)}\right)`$ (12)
$``$ $`\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}b\mathrm{cos}q}{\varphi _q}}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _qt}\right)\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}q}{\varphi _q}}f(q)\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _q(t+2t_0)}\right)`$ (13)
$``$ $`2ϵ\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}q}{\varphi _q}}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _qt}\right)\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(q/2)}{\varphi _q}}f(q)\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _q(t+2t_0)}\right)`$ (14)
$``$ $`4ϵϵ^{}\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(q/2)}{\varphi _q}}f(q)\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _q(t+2t_0)}\right)\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(q/2)}{\varphi _q}}f(q)\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _q(t+2t_0)}\right)`$ (15)
$``$ $`ϵϵ^{}\left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}[qrvt\mathrm{sin}q]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}q}{\varphi _q}}f(q)\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _q(t+2t_0)}\right)^2`$ (16)
In this expression $`\rho (t)=\frac{\sqrt{ϵ^{}}}{\sqrt{ϵ}+\sqrt{ϵ^{}}}\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}_0^\pi \frac{dq}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}q}{\varphi _q}f(q)\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi _qt}`$ designates the (translationally-invariant) density of particles at time $`t`$. The latter has been previously studied (for the initial states $`|\rho _0`$) in .

The equation (10) is the main result of this work and provides the complete expression of the noninstantaneous two-point correlation functions of the (free-fermion version of the) DPAC-model. From the latter, it is clear that one can also obtain the instantaneous two-point connected correlation functions $`𝒞_r(t=0,t_0>0)`$, and one can check , as expected from the general properties of the DPAC-model , that the latter do not depend on the bias $`v`$. In addition, it is clear that the expression (10) also includes the instantaneous and noninstantaneous connected two-point correlation functions of the DPA-model, where $`ϵ^{}=0`$ and $`b=\stackrel{~}{c}>0`$. It is worthwhile to notice that the noninstantaneous correlation functions (10) \[with $`t>0`$ and $`v0`$\] depend on the sign of $`r`$ : $`𝒞_r(t,t_0;v)=𝒞_r(t,t_0;v)`$. Conversely, the instantaneous correlation functions \[with $`t=0`$ and $`t_0>0`$ in (10) \] do not  depend on the sign of $`r`$. Let us also stress the fact that setting in (10) $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`\rho _0=1`$), $`\mu =0`$ (i.e. $`\rho _0=0`$) or $`\mu =1`$ (i.e. $`\rho _0=1/2`$), we recover results obtained in .

To proceed with a long-time study of the expression (10), we have carried out a systematic asymptotic expansion of the integrals appearing in (10), in which the small $`q`$ regime of integration dominates. Hereafter, we analyse two different regimes and distinguish the case with pair creation (i.e. with $`ϵ^{}>0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}0`$) from the case with only (asymmetric) diffusion and pair-annihilation (i.e. with $`ϵ^{}=0`$ and $`ϵ>0`$). The cases where $`\stackrel{~}{c}=0`$ (i.e. $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$, $`h=h^{}`$; and $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$, $`h+h^{}=2ϵ`$) have already been studied in .

1.i) We first consider the case where $`ϵ^{}>0`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ in the regime where $`ϵt,ϵt_01`$ and $`ϵ^{}t,ϵ^{}t_01`$ \[with $`\stackrel{~}{c}>0`$\]. In this situation the main contribution to the noninstantaneous correlation function arises from the second term of the r.h.s. of (10). We thus obtain ($`v0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}>0`$):

$`𝒞_r(t,t_0){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ(1u)\mathrm{e}^{u4ϵ^{}t}}{16\pi ϵ^{}(\stackrel{~}{c}t)^2}},u(rvt)^2/\stackrel{~}{c}t`$ (17)
It is clear from (17) that in this regime the late behavior of the noninstantaneous correlation functions $`𝒞_r(t,t_0)`$ only depends on the time $`t`$ (and not on $`t_0`$). We notice the non-trivial effect of the bias $`v0`$ through the parameter $`u`$. In the absence of the bias and for $`r<\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. for the autocorrelation functions) we obtain: $`𝒞_r(t,t_0;v=0)\frac{ϵ}{32\pi ϵ^{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[4ϵ^{}t]}{(\stackrel{~}{c}t)^2}`$.

In this regime we now focus of the long-time behavior of the instantaneous correlation functions $`𝒞_r(t)`$ (obtained setting $`t=0`$ in (10) and relabelling $`t_0`$ as the variable $`t`$). The cases $`\rho _0=1`$ and $`\rho _0=0`$ having been studied previously \[$`𝒞_r(t;\rho _0=0,1)\mathrm{e}^{4ϵ^{}t}t^\nu ^{}`$, $`\nu ^{}=3/2`$ for $`\rho _0=1`$ and $`\nu ^{}=1/2`$ for $`\rho _0=0`$ \], here we focus on the case of random initial states, i.e. with $`0<\mu <\mathrm{}`$ \[and $`\rho _0\rho (\mathrm{})=\sqrt{ϵ^{}}/(\sqrt{ϵ^{}}+\sqrt{ϵ})`$, which would correspond to the trivial case where $`f(q)0`$\]. The main contribution to $`𝒞_r(t)`$ comes from the third and fourth term of the r.h.s. of (10). Introducing the parameters:

$`4A_0`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{ϵ/ϵ^{}}(1\zeta )^2\zeta ^{r1};B_0(1\zeta ^2)\zeta ^{r1};\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}C_0\sqrt{ϵ^{}/ϵ}(1+\zeta )^2\zeta ^{r1};\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ}\sqrt{ϵ^{}}}{\sqrt{ϵ}+\sqrt{ϵ^{}}}},`$ (18)
we obtain ($`r<\mathrm{}`$):

$`𝒞_r(t){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{e}^{4ϵ^{}t}(\mu ,\mathrm{r},ϵ,ϵ^{})}{4(\pi \stackrel{~}{c}t)^{3/2}}},`$ (19)
where the rather complicated expression of the amplitude $`(\mu ,r,ϵ,ϵ^{})`$ reads:

$`(\mu ,r,ϵ,ϵ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_0C_0}{4\mu ^2\sqrt{ϵϵ^5}}}\left\{2\mu ^2(ϵϵ^{})^{3/2}2ϵ^2\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}(\mu r)^2+ϵϵ^{}\left(\sqrt{ϵ^3/ϵ}+\mu ^2[2r^2\sqrt{ϵ^3/ϵ}3\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}]\right)\right\}`$ (20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_0r}{12ϵϵ^2\mu ^2}}\left\{6\mu ^2(ϵϵ^{})^{3/2}\mu ^2(2r^2+1)ϵ^2\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}+ϵϵ^{}\left(3\sqrt{ϵ^3/ϵ}+\mu ^2\left[(2r^2+1)\sqrt{ϵ^3/ϵ}9\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}}\right]\right)\right\}`$ (21)
It is remarkable that conversely to the instantaneous correlation functions (19), which amplitude (20) depends on the initial state through the parameter $`0<\mu <\mathrm{}`$, the long-time behavior of the noninstantaneous correlation functions (17) do not  depend on $`\rho _0`$. This is due to the fact that the second term of (10) does not depend on $`f(q)`$.

1.ii) Another interesting asymptotic regime to investigate is the one first studied by Torney and McConnell , where one considers initially very diluted systems, i.e. $`\rho _0\mu 1`$, but keeps the products $`ϵ\rho _0^2t,ϵ\rho _0^2t_0`$, $`ϵ^{}\rho _0^2t,ϵ^{}\rho _0^2t_0`$ fixed and finite, with $`ϵt,ϵt_01`$ and $`ϵ^{}t,ϵ^{}t_01`$ \[and $`\stackrel{~}{c}>0`$\].

In this regime, the noninstantaneous two-point correlation functions $`𝒞_r(t,t_0)`$ are still dominated by the second term of (10) and thus the asymptotic ($`v0`$) decay of $`𝒞_r(t,t_0)`$ is still given by (17).

The situation is however different for the instantaneous correlation functions \[because the third and fourth term of (10) depend on $`f(q)`$\]. With help of (18), we obtain ($`r<\mathrm{}`$):

$`𝒞_r(t)\rho _0^3\mathrm{e}^{4ϵ^{}t}𝒢(\rho _0,r,ϵ,ϵ^{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\rho _0^2\pi \stackrel{~}{c}t)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{e}^{4\rho _0^2\stackrel{~}{c}t}\mathrm{Erfc}(2\rho _0\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{c}t})\right],`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{Erfc}(z)`$ denotes the usual complementary error function. The amplitude $`𝒢(\rho _0,r,ϵ,ϵ^{})`$ has the following form:

$`𝒢(\rho _0,r,ϵ,ϵ^{})`$ $``$ $`(A_0C_0)\left[\rho _0^24r^2+ϵ/ϵ^{}\right]B_0\sqrt{ϵ^{}/ϵ}\left[r/\rho _0^210r(2r^2+1)\sqrt{ϵ/ϵ^{}}\right]`$ (23)
We now pass to the case of the DPA-model, where $`ϵ^{}=0`$ and $`b=\stackrel{~}{c}=ϵ>0`$. Again, we distinguish two different regimes.

2.i) We first consider the regime where $`bt1`$ and $`bt_01`$. In this situation, the main contribution to the long-time dynamics arises from the fourth and the last terms of (10) and we obtain :

$`𝒞_r(t,t_0;ϵ^{}=0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(rvt)^2}{bt}\frac{t_0+t}{2t_0+t}\right]}{2\pi b\sqrt{t(t+2t_0)}}}\left(1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t}{t+2t_0}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{(rvt)^2}{bt}\frac{t_0}{2t_0+t}}\right)`$ (24)
It has to be noticed that, according to (24), when $`r>0`$ and $`v>0`$ (or, $`r<0`$ and $`v<0`$), $`𝒞_r(t,t_0)`$ has a local maximum (a “peak”) at time $`t_pr/v`$. When $`btbt_01`$, we recover the result : $`𝒞_r(t,t_0;ϵ^{}=0)\frac{t_0\mathrm{e}^{(rvt)^2/bt}}{2\pi bt^2}`$.

In this regime, the main contribution to the instantaneous correlation function arises from the last term of (10), and we obtain the following result:

$`𝒞_r(t;ϵ^{}=0)1/4\pi bt,`$ (25)
where the minus sign manifests the fact that the long-time dynamics of the DPA-model is dominated by anticorrelation, due to the pair-annihilation of the particles. The results (24) and (25) and the fact that the latter do not depend on $`\rho _0`$ confirm, for random initial case, the universal character of the DPA-model in this regime.

2ii) We now consider the low-density regime of the DPA-model, where $`\rho _0\mu 1`$ and $`ϵt,ϵt_01`$, with $`ϵ\rho _0^2t`$ and $`ϵ\rho _0^2t_0`$ finite. Also in this regime the main contribution to $`𝒞_r(t,t_0;ϵ^{}=0)`$ arises from the fourth and the last terms of (10) and one has the long-time behavior ($`v=0`$ and $`r<\mathrm{}`$):

$`𝒞_r(t,t_0;ϵ^{}=0)\rho _0\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _0^2b(t+2t_0)}\mathrm{Erfc}\left(2\rho _0\sqrt{b(t_0+t/2)}\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi bt}}}\rho _0\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _0^2b(t+2t_0)}\mathrm{Erfc}\left(2\rho _0\sqrt{b(t_0+t/2)}\right)\right\}`$ (26)
For the instantaneous  correlation functions, we obtain the following long-time behavior:

$`𝒞_r(t;ϵ^{}=0)\rho _0^2\mathrm{e}^{8\rho _0^2bt}\left[\mathrm{Erfc}(2\rho _0\sqrt{bt})\right]^2,`$ (27)
where the anticorrelated character of the DPA-model clearly appears.

Despite the fact that the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{c}=ϵϵ^{}`$ can take negative values, so far we have always considered the case where $`\stackrel{~}{c}>0`$. With help of the similarity transformation $`=_{j=1}^L\sigma _j^x`$, where $`\sigma _j^x`$ is the usual Pauli’s matrix acting on the site $`j`$, we show that the case where $`\stackrel{~}{c}<0`$ is directly related to the one where $`\stackrel{~}{c}>0`$. In fact, according to $``$, the (free-fermion) DPAC stochastic Hamiltonian $`H=H(b,\stackrel{~}{c},v)`$ is mapped onto $`H(b,\stackrel{~}{c},v)^1=H(b,\stackrel{~}{c},v)`$ and the initial state $`|\rho _0`$ is mapped onto $`|\rho _0=|1\rho _0`$. Therefore, we have: $`𝒞_r(t,t_0)_{b,\stackrel{~}{c},v;\rho _0}=𝒞_r(t,t_0)_{b,\stackrel{~}{c},v;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\rho _0}.`$

In summary, in this work we sketch a four-step procedure which allows the explicit computation of the multipoint and multitime correlation functions of the free-fermion DPAC-model starting from random (uncorrelated) initial states. We then specifically compute the noninstantaneous/instantaneous two-point correlation functions in the presence as well as in the absence of the pair-creation term. When all the reaction-rates are positive, the dynamics turns out to be non-universal and the long-time relaxation is exponential (with a subdominant a power-law factor): the amplitude of the instantaneous two-point correlation functions depends on the initial density $`\rho _0`$ and is explictly determined. In the absence of the pair creation, i.e. when $`ϵ^{}=0`$ and $`h+h^{}=ϵ>0`$, the dynamics turns out to be universal (in the regime where $`\rho _0`$ is finite and $`bt1`$, $`bt_01`$) and there is a power-law relaxation. The effect of the bias $`v=h^{}h0`$, only appears in the noninstantaneous correlation functions and can be absorbed (for $`ϵ^{}0`$) in a Galilean transformation, as noticed in  in considering the DPA-model (in these previous works, $`ϵ^{}=0`$).

To close this work, it is natural to wonder what is the effect on the dynamics of the restriction $`\gamma =0`$. In fact, it is by now well established on the basis of numerous consistent numerical results , and from comparison with experiments , that the results obtained for the free-fermion version of the DPAC-model give a qualitative picture which is still valid when $`\gamma 0`$. One can therefore expect that the results obtained in this work could have a general validity and, in particular, a direct relevance for recent interdisciplinary studies .

We are grateful to P.-A. Bares, M. Michalakis and L. Zuppiroli for discussions. The support of the Swiss National Foundation is acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Intrinsic Polarized Strangeness and Λ⁰ Polarization in Deep-Inelastic Production

## 1 Introduction

The spin stucture of hadrons is still not understood at a fundamental level in QCD, despite having been extensively studied both theoretically and experimentally over past two decades. The trigger for many of these activities was the so-called spin crisis, namely an unexpectedly small net quark contribution to the total spin of the nucleon: $`0.27\pm 0.04`$ at $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2, reported initially by the EMC Collaboration EMC , and subsequently confirmed by a number of other experiments SMC ; E143 ; E155 ; HERMES . Defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ to be the net polarization of a given quark species $`q`$, and likewise $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}`$ for the corresponding antiquarks, it has been found that:

| $`\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}=0.82\pm 0.03`$, |
| --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}=0.44\pm 0.03`$, |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }s+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{s}=0.11\pm 0.03`$. |

(1)
This result indicates the presence of strange sea quarks with negative net polarization, though the interpretation depends strongly on the gluon contribution to the nucleon spin GluonAnomaly . Among the many questions still challenging both theoretical and experimental efforts we may mention:

* Are strange quarks in the nucleon indeed polarized as suggested by the deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) data?
* What is the gluon contribution to the nucleon spin?
* What is the spin content of other baryons?

There are several ongoing experimental activities dedicated to investigating the gluon contribution to the nucleon spin E143 ; HERMES ; compass . In principle, it is possible to measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }s,\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{s}`$ directly in an experiment with neutrino and anti-neutrino charged-current (CC) and neutral-current (NC) (quasi) elastic scattering off neutrons and protons Alberico:2001sd  and in DIS from a polarized target nufac . However, for the moment there are no approved experiments of this type. Therefore, it is of great interest to have estimates of the polarization of the strange quarks in the nucleon using indirect measurements.

Using a model of polarized intrinsic strangeness polstr  it was suggested ekk  that strange quark polarization could manifest itself via the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in the target fragmentation region of lepton-nucleon DIS along an axis that is longitudinal with respect to the momentum of the exchanged boson. Several experimental measurements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization have been made in neutrino and anti-neutrino DIS. Longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons was first observed in bubble chamber (anti) neutrino experiments wa21 ; wa59 ; e632 , with the results shown in Table 1. The observed longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons varied from $`0.29\pm 0.18`$ to $`0.63\pm 0.13`$, increasing in absolute value in the region $`x_F<0`$. However, all these early experiments suffered from a lack of statistics, and the results could not be considered conclusive, although they were very suggestive.

The NOMAD Collaboration has recently published new and interesting results on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$ polarization with much larger statistics NOMAD\_lambda\_polar ; NOMAD\_alambda\_polar ; DN\_thesis . The observed longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in neutrino DIS from an isoscalar target was $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}=0.15\pm 0.03(stat.)`$, again increasing in absolute value when $`x_F<0`$: $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}(x_F<0)=0.21\pm 0.04(stat.)`$.

There have been a few attempts in the literature to describe $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$ polarization in the target fragmentation region. The polarized intrinsic strangeness model ekk  mentioned earlier predicted a negative sign for the longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$ hyperons. The polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons in the target fragmentation region of DIS has also been considered in the meson cloud model melthom . Due to the pseudoscalar nature of the $`NK\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ coupling, the polarization of final-state $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons was predicted to be strongly anticorrelated to that of the nucleon, vanishing for an unpolarized target.

In addition to studies of the nucleon’s intrinsic strangeness content, the self-analyzing properties of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$ decays are crucial for investigations of the spin structure of these hadrons in experiments with a source of polarized fragmenting quarks. The possible correlation of the polarizations of the scattered quark and the final-state hadron is described by the spin transfer coefficient:

$$C_q^h(z)\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z)/D_q^h(z),$$
(2)
where $`D_q^h(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z)`$ are unpolarized and polarized fragmentation functions for the quark $`q`$ to yield a hadron $`h`$ with a fraction $`z`$ of the quark energy. We recall that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$ polarization has been, or is planned to be measured in several different processes where the fragmentation of polarized quarks can be measured:

* in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at the $`Z^0`$ pole at LEP LEP\_LAMBDA ,
* in polarized charged-lepton DIS off a target nucleon compass ; hermes ; e665 ,
* in (anti) neutrino DIS off a target nucleon wa21 ; wa59 ; e632 ; NOMAD\_lambda\_polar ; NOMAD\_alambda\_polar ; DN\_thesis .

These processes have been extensively studied in different theoretical models BJ ; Anselmino\_group ; Kotzinian\_group ; Liang:2001yt ; Liang\_group ; Boros:1998kc ; Soffer\_group ; Vogelsang ; ashli , in attempts to understand the spin structure of final-state hadrons and spin effects in the quark fragmentation process. A key assumption, adopted widely, is that the struck quark fragmentation can be disentangled from the nucleon remnant fragmentation by imposing a cut: $`x_F>0`$. We discuss in Sec. 2.4 the validity of this assumption, which is important also for attempts to probe intrinsic strangeness.

It is important to recall that a significant fraction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons are produced via decays of heavier strange particles, such as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. As was first pointed by Bigi bigi , in polarized lepton-nucleon DIS these heavy hyperons may inherit polarization from the remnant diquark left behind when the struck quark is removed, or from the polarization of the fragmenting quark. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons originating from decays of these hyperons will then also acquire some polarization, and this effect should be taken into account in any theoretical consideration.

We formulate in Section 2.1 of this paper a refinement of the polarized intrinsic strangeness model polstr ; ekk , in which $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs are associated with individual valence quarks. The intrinsic strange quarks and antiquarks may then have polarizations that are (anti) correlated with the valence quark polarizations, rather than with that of the nucleon as a whole. We assume that the valence quark wave functions are described by non-relativistic $`SU(6)`$ wave functions. In Section 2.2 we use this model to calculate the polarizations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced promptly or via the decays of heavier hadrons from fragmentation of the the remnant diquark, and in Section 2.3 we calculate the effect of struck quark fragmentation. The fragmentation model used in this paper is described in Section 2.4, and we fix free parameters of our model from a fit to the NOMAD data. In Section 3 we present the model predictions for the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons. Those produced in (anti) neutrino DIS are discussed in Section 3.1 and those in charged-lepton DIS are discussed in Section 3.2. Wherever possible, these predictions are compared with available data. Finally, in Section 4 we draw our conclusions.

## 2 Model for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ Polarization

### 2.1 Polarized Intrinsic Strangeness Model

The main idea of the polarized intrinsic strangeness model applied to semi-inclusive DIS is that the polarization of $`s`$ quarks and $`\overline{s}`$ antiquarks in the hidden strangeness component of the nucleon wave function should be (anti)correlated with that of the struck quark. This correlation is described by the spin correlation coefficients $`C_{sq}`$

$$P_s=C_{sq}P_q,$$
(3)
where $`P_q`$ and $`P_s`$ are the polarizations of the initial struck (anti)quark and remnant $`s`$ quark.

Such a correlation can be motivated by a strong attraction between quark and antiquark in the spin-singlet pseudoscalar $`J^P=0^{}`$ channel, and the fact that vacuum quark-antiquark pairs must be in a relative spin-triplet $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state. In the original version of this model polstr ; ekk , the spin projection of the $`\overline{s}s`$ pair on the direction of the struck quark spin was taken to be $`S_z(\overline{s}s)=1`$, i.e., maximal anticorrelation between the polarizations of the struck quark and the remnant $`s`$ quark was assumed, corresponding to a spin correlation coefficient $`C_{sq}=1`$. However, other values of $`C_{sq}`$ are also conceivable. For example, an alternative scenario for polarized intrinsic strangeness in which the $`S_z(\overline{s}s)=1`$ and $`S_z(\overline{s}s)=0`$ states of the $`\overline{𝗌}𝗌`$-pair are equally probable has been considered in nufac ; akqdq . In that case, one would have $`C_{sq}=\frac{1}{3}`$. Moreover, the spin correlation coefficients could in principle be different for scattering off a valence and a sea quark: ($`C_{sq_{val}}C_{sq_{sea}}`$).

In this paper we refine the polarized intrinsic strangeness model polstr ; ekk  as follows:

* We leave $`C_{sq_{val}}`$ and $`C_{sq_{sea}}`$ as free parameters, that are fixed in a fit to the NOMAD data NOMAD\_lambda\_polar .
* We take into account the polarization transfer from heavier hyperons.

### 2.2 Polarization of Strange Hadrons in Diquark Fragmentation

After removing a polarized scattered quark from an unpolarized nucleon, the remnant diquark may combine with an $`s`$ quark - which could originate from the nucleon sea or from a colour string between the diquark and the scattered quark - to form a strange baryon $`Y`$. This baryon could be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperon - which we term prompt production - or a heavier hyperon that decays subsequently into a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$. Polarization transfer to a promptly-produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ in $`\nu n`$ charged-current DIS is shown in Fig. 1. In general, the strange baryon $`Y`$ may inherit polarization form the spin configuration of the remnant diquark and/or the possible polarization of the strange quark.

We calculate the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons assuming the combination of a non-relativistic $`SU(6)`$ quark-diquark wave function and the polarized intrinsic strangeness model described above. Specifically, we use the usual spin-flavor $`SU(6)`$ wave functions of octet and decuplet baryons and (3) to model the strange quark polarization.

We define the quantization axis along the three-momentum vector of the exchanged boson. The longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced via the $`l^{}Nl^{}Y(J,M)X`$ process, where the strange baryon $`Y(J,M)`$ has total spin $`J`$ and third component $`M`$, is given in the target fragmentation region by:

$`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{lq}(Y;N)=`$
$`=`$ $`P_q{\displaystyle \frac{_MP_s\left(Y(J,M)\right)Y(J,M)Nqs_{pol}^2}{_MY(J,M)Nqs_{pol}^2}},`$
where $`P_q`$ is the polarization of the struck quark, $`P_s\left(Y(J,M)\right)`$ is the polarization of the strange quark in the baryon $`Y`$ with spin state $`Y(J,M)`$, and $`Nqs_{pol}`$ is the combined wave function of the remnant diquark and of the $`s`$ quark with longitudinal polarization $`C_{sq}`$.

In (2.2), we have taken into account the fact that, in both the electromagnetic decay of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and the strong decay of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$, the non-strange diquark changes its spin from 1 to 0, while the strange quark retains its polarization ashli .

After some straightforward algebra, we obtain the following predictions of non-zero polarization for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons, where more details can be found in Appendix B:

$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu d}(prompt;N)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\nu }u}(prompt;N)=`$
$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{lu}(prompt;N)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ld}(prompt;N)=C_{sq}P_q,`$
$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu d}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0;n)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\nu }u}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0;p)=`$
$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{lu}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0;p)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ld}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0;n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2+C_{sq}}{3+2C_{sq}}}P_q,`$
(5)
$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu d}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0};n)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu d}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+};p)=`$
$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\nu }u}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0};p)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\nu }u}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+};n)=`$
$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{lu}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0};p)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ld}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0};n)=`$
$`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ld}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+};p)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{lu}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{};n)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1C_{sq}}{3C_{sq}}}P_q.`$
In these expressions, $`l`$ stands for either the charged lepton in an electromagnetic interaction or the (anti)neutrino in a neutral-current interaction. The interacting quark polarization, denoted by $`P_q`$ in (2.2), is different in different processes, and depends in general on the quark flavour. The polarization of the interacting quark ($`d`$ and $`u`$) for (anti)neutrino interactions via both charged and neutral current and for charged-lepton interactions via the electromagnetic current is shown in Table 2. In this Table, $`\xi 2/3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`P_B`$ is the charged-lepton longitudinal polarization, and $`D(y)=\frac{1(1y)^2}{1+(1y)^2}`$ is the virtual photon depolarization factor, while $`y`$ represents the relative energy loss of the lepton.

### 2.3 Polarization of Strange Hadrons in Quark Fragmentation

We now discuss in more detail how strange hadrons produced in the fragmentation of a polarized quark could also be polarized. The polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced promptly or via a strange baryon $`Y`$ in quark fragmentation is related to the quark polarization $`P_q`$, see Table 2, by:

$$P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^q(Y)=C_q^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}(Y)P_q,$$
(6)
where $`C_q^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}(Y)`$ is the corresponding spin transfer coefficient. The negative sign in (6) appears because of the opposite polarizations of the incoming and outgoing quarks: see Fig. 1.

We use two different models to calculate $`C_q^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}(Y)`$. The first one is based on non-relativistic $`SU(6)`$ wave functions, where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ spin is carried only by its constituent $`s`$ quark. In this case, the promptly-produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons could be polarized only in $`s`$ quark fragmentation. However, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced via the decays of heavier strange hyperons originating from $`u`$ or $`d`$ quark fragmentation could also be polarized.

The second approach was suggested by Burkardt and Jaffe BJ , who assumed that the ‘spin crisis’ exists not only for the nucleon, but also for other octet hyperons. Then, using flavor $`SU(3)`$ symmetry and polarized DIS data, they concluded that the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperon are polarized in the opposite direction to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ spin at the level of $`20\%`$ each. In the same way, the spin contents of all octet baryons were obtained in Boros:1998kc . Then, they assumed that the polarized quark-to-hyperon fragmentation function was equal to the quark distribution function in that hyperon. We note that, in this Burkardt-Jaffe (BJ) model, all the strong-interaction effects are in principle included in the fragmentation and distribution functions. Therefore, one should not consider spin transfer from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperons to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperon in BJ model. Table 3 summarizes the spin correlation coefficients in the $`SU(6)`$ and BJ models for both prompt $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons and octet and decuplet intermediate hyperons.

### 2.4 Fragmentation Models

In order to apply our formalism to a real experimental environment, it is important to know the relative fractions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in different channels in both quark and diquark fragmentation in different regions of the DIS phase space.

It is well known from inclusive reactions at high energies that the typical hadronic rapidity correlation length is $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_h2`$. Thus to select, for example, the current fragmentation region one has to choose the hadrons with centre-of-mass rapidity $`y_h^{CM}>2`$ berger . According to this criterion, the minimal fraction $`z_{min}`$ of the energy transferred to the struck quark required to select particles produced in the quark fragmentation region depends on the particle species and on the invariant mass of hadronic system, $`W`$. For example mulders , in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production at $`W=5`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_h<1.5`$ at any value of $`z`$, and at $`W=20`$ GeV the criterion is satisfied only for $`z>0.5`$, where the production yield of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons is strongly suppressed.

However, as we now show, the beam energies in current experiments on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization compass ; NOMAD\_lambda\_polar ; NOMAD\_alambda\_polar ; hermes ; e665  are not enough for the $`x_F>0`$ region to be populated by $`q\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ fragmentation only.

To describe $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production and polarization in the full $`x_F`$ interval, we use the LUND string fragmentation model, as incorporated into the JETSET7.4 program JETSET . We use the LEPTO6.5.1 lepto  Monte Carlo event generator to simulate charged-lepton and (anti)neutrino DIS processes. With suitable choices of input parameters, these event generators reproduce well the distributions of various observables and particle yields. It was recently found by the NOMAD Collaboration that JETSET7.4 with its default set of parameters overestimates the observable yields of strange hadrons produced in neutrino charged-current interactions by factors of 1.5 to 3 NOMAD\_resonances . Therefore, we use here the new set of JETSET parameters found by the NOMAD Collaboration NOMAD\_JETSET , so as to adjust the yields of strange particles in DIS processes. We have also modified the LEPTO code as follows:

* The cut on the minimal value of the energy in a fragmenting jet is removed. This was found by the NOMAD Collaboration to reproduce better the observed $`W^2`$ distribution in neutrino charged-current events.
* A split of the nucleon is implemented when the exchanged boson interacts with a sea $`u`$ or $`d`$ quark. In the default version of the LEPTO code, this is done for all sea quarks except $`u`$ and $`d`$ sea quarks.

In the framework of JETSET, it is possible to trace the particles’ parentage. We use this information to check the origins of the strange hyperons produced in different kinematic domains, especially at various $`x_F`$. It is widely assumed that the current fragmentation region, defined to have $`x_F>0`$, corresponds to the quark fragmentation region. However, as we mentioned above, arguing on the basis of the criterion berger , this is not true at moderate energies, even for high $`z`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons. According to the LEPTO and JETSET event generators, the $`x_F`$ distribution of the diquark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ fragmentation is weighted towards large negative $`x_F`$. However, its tail in the $`x_F>0`$ region overwhelms the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ $`x_F`$ distribution at these beam energies. In Fig. 2, we show the $`x_F`$ distributions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in diquark and quark fragmentation, as well as the final $`x_F`$ distributions. We tag $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons as being produced by quark and diquark fragmentation according to the rank of these particles in two different descriptions called ‘model A’ and ‘model B’, which we explain in Section 2.5. The distributions in Fig. 2 are shown for $`\nu _\mu `$ CC DIS at the NOMAD mean neutrino energy $`E_\nu =43.8`$ GeV, and for $`\mu ^+`$ DIS at the COMPASS muon beam energy $`E_\mu =160`$ GeV. The relatively small fraction of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced by quark fragmentation in the region $`x_F>0`$ is related to the relatively small centre-of-mass energies - about 3.6 GeV for HERMES, about 4.5 GeV for NOMAD, about 8.7 GeV for COMPASS, and about 15 GeV for the E665 experiment - which correspond to low $`W`$. The authors Liang:2001yt , using on Lund and JETSET generators, also reported that the mean $`W^2`$ in HERMES and NOMAD is too low to populate the $`x_F>0`$ region with struck-quark fragmentation alone.

The situation changes drastically for (anti)neutrino experiments, if the beam energy is increased to 500 GeV. As one can see in the left part of Fig. 3, now the $`x_F>0`$ region is populated mainly by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in quark fragmentation. However, the beam energy would have to be further doubled in the charged-lepton DIS process, in order to populate the $`x_F>0`$ region by struck-quark fragmentation. This is related to the lower $`W`$ for electromagnetic interactions compared to that in (anti)neutrino DIS at the same beam energies.

### 2.5 Fixing Free Parameters of the Model.

We now compute the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization produced in any allowed kinematic domain, taking into account the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ origins predicted by the LUND model, using the formalism developed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. We assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons could be polarized only if they have one of the following origins:

1. Prompt $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons containing the struck quark,
2. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in the decays of heavier strange hyperons containing the struck quark,
3. Prompt $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons containing the target nucleon remnant,
4. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in the decays of heavier strange hyperons containing the remnant diquark.

In the framework of the JETSET generator, it is possible to identify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons unambiguously in one of these categories, since all hadrons generated in the Lund colour-string fragmentation model are ordered in rank from one end of the string to the other. Therefore, we introduce two rank counters: $`R_{qq}`$ and $`R_q`$ which correspond to the particle rank from the diquark and quark ends of the string, correspondingly. A hadron with $`R_{qq}=1`$ or $`R_q=1`$ would contain the diquark or the quark from one of the ends of the string.

However, one should perhaps not rely too heavily on the tagging specified in the LUND model. Therefore, we consider the following two variant fragmentation models:

Model A:

* The hyperon contains the stuck quark only if $`R_q=1`$, and
* The hyperon contains the remnant diquark only if $`R_{qq}=1`$.

Model B:

* The hyperon contains the stuck quark if $`R_q1`$ and $`R_{qq}1`$, and
* The hyperon contains the remnant diquark if $`R_{qq}1`$ and $`R_q1`$.

Clearly, Model B weakens the Lund tagging criterion by averaging over the string, whilst retaining information on the end of the string where the hadron originated.

We vary the two correlation coefficients $`C_{sq_{val}}`$ and $`C_{sq_{sea}}`$ in fitting Models A and B to the NOMAD $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization data NOMAD\_lambda\_polar . Scattering of the exchange $`W`$ boson on the sea quark is expected to be enhanced in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced at low $`x_{Bj}`$ or high $`W^2`$. A strong target nucleon effect was also found by NOMAD. Therefore, we fit the following 4 NOMAD points to determine our free parameters:

* $`\nu p`$: $`P_x^\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.26\pm 0.05(stat)`$,
* $`\nu n`$: $`P_x^\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.09\pm 0.04(stat)`$,
* $`W^2<15`$ GeV2: $`P_x^\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2<15)=0.34\pm 0.06(stat)`$,
* $`W^2>15`$ GeV2: $`P_x^\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2>15)=0.06\pm 0.04(stat)`$.

We find from these fits similar values for both the $`SU(6)`$ and BJ models:

* Model A: $`C_{sq_{val}}=0.35\pm 0.05`$, $`C_{sq_{sea}}=0.95\pm 0.05`$.
* Model B: $`C_{sq_{val}}=0.25\pm 0.05`$, $`C_{sq_{sea}}=0.15\pm 0.05`$.

The error bars are obtained from the variation in the $`\chi ^2`$ functional around its minimum.

The coefficients found in models A and B are quite different, as could be anticipated from the different descriptions of the strange hadrons’ origins in these models. However, the two fragmentation models give similar predictions for the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in various lepton-nucleon DIS experiments, as we discuss in the next Section.

## 3 Results and Discussion

We present in this Section our model predictions for the longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons as a function of the kinematic variables $`W^2`$, $`Q^2`$, $`x_{Bj}`$, $`y_{Bj}`$, $`x_F`$ and $`z`$ in both charged- and neutral-current DIS for neutrinos and antineutrinos, and in charged-lepton DIS processes. Where data are available, we compare them with our model predictions.

### 3.1 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Polarization in (Anti)Neutrino DIS

#### 3.1.1 Charged Currents

Our model predictions for the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons produced in $`\nu _\mu `$ charged-current DIS interactions off nuclei as functions of different kinematic variables are shown in Fig. 4. The predictions are compared with the observed dependences of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization found by the NOMAD Collaboration NOMAD\_lambda\_polar ; DN\_thesis . We see that the predictions of models A and B are both in quite good agreement with the NOMAD data, with model B perhaps being slightly preferred by the $`W^2`$ and $`x_{Bj}`$ distributions. We note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization in quark fragmentation is calculated using the $`SU(6)`$ model for the spin transfer \- see Table 3. However, as mentioned in Section 2.4, the fraction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced via quark fragmentation is relatively small even at $`x_F>0`$. Thus the predictions of the $`SU(6)`$ and BJ BJ  spin-transfer models for the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons are indistinguishable within the experimental errors, at the present energies of DIS on fixed targets, and both models predict correctly the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization.

The NOMAD Collaboration has measured separately the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced off proton and neutron targets. Our model predictions are compared to the NOMAD data in Table 4. We observe good agreement, within the statistical errors, between the model B description and the NOMAD data. On the other hand, although model A reproduces quite well the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced from an isoscalar target, it does not describe so well the separate proton and neutron data.

The predictions for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ charged-current DIS are shown in Fig. 5, for which data are currently not available. The neutrino energy was taken to be $`E_\nu =43.8`$ GeV, which corresponds to the mean neutrino energy in the NOMAD experiment for events containing identified $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons. The predicted dependence on the target nucleon is summarized in Table 5.

#### 3.1.2 Neutral Currents

The degree of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization in (anti)neutrino neutral-current DIS processes is of great interest, since the $`Z^0`$ boson interacts with both flavours of valence quark, in contrast to charged-current interactions. Therefore, it is possible in principle to check the universality of $`C_{sq}`$ coefficients using neutral-current data. We have been informed that the NOMAD Collaboration plans to investigate for the first time the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$ hyperons produced in neutrino neutral-current DIS. Also, we observe that this process is of potential interest for a future neutrino factory nufac .

Therefore, we provide here our model predictions for the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons as a function of $`W^2`$, $`Q^2`$, $`x_{Bj}`$, $`y_{Bj}`$, $`x_F`$ and $`z`$ produced in the neutral-current DIS interactions with nuclei of neutrinos, in Figs. 6, and antineutrinos, in Figs. 7. In Tables 6 and 7 we summarize our model predictions for the target nucleon effects for $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ NC DIS processes respectively. The beam energy is again taken to be 43.8 GeV.

### 3.2 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Polarization and Spin Transfer in Charged-Lepton-Nucleon DIS

The sign of the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons produced in polarized charged-lepton DIS off and unpolarized nucleon depends on the sign of the beam polarization. Therefore we provide our model predictions for the spin transfer, which is defined as $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }/P_BD(y)`$. We note that the spin transfer is positive for negatively-polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in the scattering of negatively-polarized beams.

#### 3.2.1 HERMES

The HERMES experiment at HERA is collecting data on the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in polarized $`e^+`$ beam interactions with different targets, including protons and neon nuclei hermes . We present here our model predictions for the spin transfer of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons, imposing the kinematic criteria used by HERMES Collaboration. The spin transfer as a function of kinematic variables predicted by our model is compared with the available HERMES data in Fig. 8. The observed $`x_F`$ and $`z`$ dependences of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ spin transfer are compatible with our predictions. An investigation of the dependences of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization on other kinematic variables could be an important check of our model. More statistics would be needed to make a detailed comparison, and these may soon be provided by the new runs of HERA.

#### 3.2.2 E665

The E665 Collaboration has reported e665  a measurement of the spin transfer to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$ hyperons produced by the electromagnetic DIS of 470 GeV $`\mu ^+`$. The kinematic domain used for the measurement was: $`x_{Bj}<0.1`$, $`0.25\text{ GeV}^2<Q^2<2.5\text{ GeV}^2`$. In Fig. 9 we present our model predictions for the spin transfer to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons produced in $`\mu ^+`$ DIS interactions on nuclei in this kinematic domain. Unfortunately, the large experimental errors render the comparison with our model predictions inconclusive.

#### 3.2.3 COMPASS

The COMPASS Collaboration plans to investigate the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in the DIS of polarized $`\mu ^+`$ on a $`{}_{}{}^{6}LiD`$ target. The beam energy and polarization are 160 GeV and -0.8, respectively.

The calculated value of the spin transfer for events with with $`Q^2>1`$ GeV2 is presented as a function of different kinematic variables in Fig. 10. Thanks to the large statistics expected in this experiment, one can select kinematic regions where the predicted polarization is very sensitive to the value of the spin correlation coefficient for sea quarks, $`C_{sq_{sea}}`$. For example, in the region $`x_F>0.2`$, which is experimentally accessible, and imposing the cut $`0.5<y<0.9`$, one ensure a large spin transfer from the incident lepton to the struck quark, and enhance the contribution from the sea quarks. The predicted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization is presented in Table 10.

## 4 Summary

We now summarize the key points of this paper. We have developed a model for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in DIS that combines polarized intrinsic strangeness with non-relativistic $`SU(6)`$ wave functions. This model has been combined with the Lund model to describe the fragmentation processes. We have emphasized that the struck-quark and target fragmentation regions overlap significantly in experiments in the energy range currently available, and this effect is taken into account in our calculations.

Our model has only two free parameters, which are fixed from a fit to NOMAD data on the longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons produced in neutrino DIS. Our model describes well the various data available from this experiment NOMAD\_lambda\_polar ; DN\_thesis  and from experiments on charged-lepton DIS hermes ; e665 . We have proposed two model variants that differ in the extent to which Lund tagging information is used, and variant B is favoured by NOMAD data in which DIS off proton and neutron targets are separated. We have presented predictions for future data, including neutral-current DIS from NOMAD and charged-lepton DIS from HERMES and COMPASS. The dependences on the model details predicted here provide many possibilities for further checks of our approach.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to G. Ingelman and T. Sjöstrand for useful discussions of the LEPTO and JETSET event generators. We thank A. V. Efremov, M. G. Sapozhnikov, R. Jaffe, Zuo-tang Liang and O. Teryaev for very interesting and valuable discussions. D. N. is grateful to all members of the NOMAD Collaboration, with special thanks to his Dubna collaborators in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization analysis: S. A. Bunyatov, A. V. Chukanov, D. V. Kustov and B. A. Popov. D. N. thanks also V. A. Naumov for valuable discussions of preliminary versions of this paper.

## Appendix A \- $`SU(6)`$ Wave Functions of Octet and Decuplet Hyperons

The quark-diquark $`SU(6)`$ wave functions of octet and decuplet baryons for non-vanishing matrix elements in (2.2) read:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}}[2(ud)_{0,0}s^{}+\sqrt{2}(us)_{1,1}d^{}`$
$`((us)_{1,0}(us)_{0,0})d^{}\sqrt{2}(ds)_{1,1}u^{}`$
$`+((ds)_{1,0}(ds)_{0,0})u^{}],`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}}}[2(ud)_{1,1}s^{}\sqrt{2}(ud)_{1,0}s^{}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}((ds)_{1,0}+3(ds)_{0,0})u^{}(ds)_{1,1}u^{}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}((us)_{1,0}3(us)_{0,0})d^{}(us)_{1,1}d^{}],`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}[\sqrt{2}(us)_{1,1}u^{}+(uu)_{1,1}s^{}]`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{9}}}[2(us)_{1,0}u^{}+\sqrt{2}(us)_{1,1}u^{}+\sqrt{2}(uu)_{1,0}s^{}+`$
$`+(uu)_{1,1}s^{}]`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}[(ds)_{1,1}u^{}+(ud)_{1,1}s^{}+(us)_{1,1}d^{}]`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}}}[2(ds)_{1,0}u^{}+\sqrt{2}(ds)_{1,1}u^{}+2(us)_{1,0}d^{}`$
$`+\sqrt{2}(us)_{1,1}d^{}+2(ud)_{1,0}s^{}+\sqrt{2}(ud)_{1,1}s^{}],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$) denotes a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ state with $`M=\frac{3}{2}`$ ($`M=\frac{1}{2}`$). The symbols $`(qq)_{J,M}`$ represent the diquark in the spin state $`J,M`$.

## Appendix B \- Details of $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Calculations

We use non-relativistic $`SU(6)`$ wave functions (see App. A) in order to compute the matrix elements in (2.2). We consider here in more detail calculations for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons produced in charged-lepton-nucleon, as the most general example. In this case, the struck quark can be polarized only  if the beam or/and target are polarized. We consider the case of polarized beam and unpolarized target. After removing a polarized quark $`q`$ from the nucleon, the product of the wave functions of the diquark remnant and $`s`$ quark reads:

$`Nq_{pol}s_{pol}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\sqrt{1+P_q}Nq^{}(\sqrt{1+C_{sq}}s^{}+\sqrt{1C_{sq}}s^{})+`$
$`+\sqrt{1P_q}Nq^{}(\sqrt{1C_{sq}}s^{}+\sqrt{1+C_{sq}}s^{})],`$
where $`\left(\sqrt{1+C_{sq}}s^{}+\sqrt{1C_{sq}}s^{}\right)`$ corresponds to the spin part of the polarized $`s`$ quark wave function, and $`|Nq_{pol}`$ is the wave function of the nucleon remnant. Explicitly:

$`|pd^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{36}}}[\sqrt{2}(uu)_{1,0}+2(uu)_{1,1}],`$
$`|pu^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{36}}}[3(ud)_{0,0}+(ud)_{1,0}\sqrt{2}(ud)_{1,1}],`$
(8)
$`|nd^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{36}}}[3(ud)_{0,0}+(ud)_{1,0}\sqrt{2}(ud)_{1,1}],`$
$`|nu^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{36}}}[\sqrt{2}(uu)_{1,0}+2(uu)_{1,1}].`$
Using (2.2, A, B), one can obtain the results presented in (2.2).