\section{Introduction}

The flavor and spin structure of the nucleons is one of the most
active research directions of the high energy physics community.
Though there have been remarkable achievements in our knowledge of
the quark-gluon structure of the nucleons from three decades of
experimental and theoretical investigations in various deep
inelastic scattering (DIS) processes, the detailed flavor and spin
structure of nucleons remains a domain with many unknowns, and
there have been many unexpected surprises with respect to naive
theoretical considerations. The sea content of the nucleons has
received extensive investigations concerning its spin structure
\cite{SpinR}, strange content \cite{Bro88,Bro96}, flavor asymmetry
\cite{Kum97}, and isospin symmetry breaking \cite{Isospin}. Even
our knowledge of the valence quarks is still not well established,
reflected from the recent investigations concerning the flavor and
spin structure of the valence quarks for the nucleon near $x=1$.
For example, there are different predictions concerning the ratio
$d(x)/u(x)$ at $x \to 1$ from the perturbative QCD (pQCD) analysis
\cite{Far75,Bro95} and the SU(6) quark-diquark model
\cite{DQM,Ma96,Mel96}, and there are different predictions
concerning the value of $F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)$ at large $x$, which
has been taken to be $1/4$ as in the quark-diquark model in most
parameterizations of quark distributions. A recent analysis
\cite{Yang99} of experimental data from several processes suggests
that $F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x) \to 3/7$ as $x \to 1$, in favor of the
pQCD prediction. The spin structure of the valence quarks is also
found to be different near $x=1$ in these models, and predictions
have been made concerning the non-dominant valence down ($d$)
quark, so that $\Delta d(x)/d(x)=-1/3$ in the quark-diquark model
\cite{Ma96,Mel96}, a result which is different from the pQCD
prediction $\Delta q(x)/q(x)=1$ for either $u$ and $d$
\cite{Bro95}. At the moment, there is still no clear data in order
to check these different predictions, although the available
measurements \cite{SMC96} for the polarized $d$ quark
distributions seem to be negative at large $x$, slightly in favor
of the quark-diquark model prediction.

It is important to perform high precision measurements of
available physical quantities and/or to measure new quantities
related to the flavor and spin structure of the nucleons, in order
to reveal more about the quark-gluon structure of the nucleons.
However, it should be more meaningful and efficient if we can find
a new domain where the same physics concerning the structure of
the nucleons can manifest itself in a way that is more easy and
clean to be detected and checked. It seems that $\Lambda$ Physics
is such a new frontier, and therefore can be used to test various
ideas concerning the structure of the nucleons. It was found by
Burkardt and Jaffe \cite{Bur93} that the $u$ and $d$ quarks inside
a $\Lambda$ should be negatively polarized from SU(3) symmetry. It
was also pointed out by Soffer and one of us \cite{Ma99} that the
flavor and spin content of the $\Lambda$ can be used to test
different predictions concerning the spin structure of the nucleon
and the quark-antiquark asymmetry of the nucleon sea. Most
recently, we found \cite{MSY2} that the flavor and spin structure
of the $\Lambda$ near $x=1$ can provide clean tests between
perturbative QCD (pQCD) and the SU(6) quark-diquark model
predictions. We also found that the non-dominant up ($u$) and down
($d$) quarks should be positively polarized at large $x$, even
though their net spin contributions to the $\Lambda$ might be zero
or negative. Thus it is clear that the quark structure of
$\Lambda$ is a frontier which can enrich our understanding
concerning the flavor and spin structure of the nucleons and
provides a new domain to test various ideas concerning the hadron
structure that come from the available nucleon studies.

Unlike the nucleon case where the protons and neutrons (in the
nuclei) can be used as targets in various DIS processes, direct
measurement of the quark distributions of the $\Lambda$ is
difficulty, since the $\Lambda$ is a charge-neutral particle which
cannot be accelerated as incident beam and its short life time
makes it also difficult to be used as a target.
However, the quark distributions and the quark fragmentation
functions are interrelated quantities that can uncover the
structure of the involved hadron \cite{Ja93,GLR}.
For example, the quark distributions
inside a hadron are related by crossing symmetry to the
fragmentation functions of the same flavor quark to the same
hadron, by a simple reciprocity relation \cite{GLR}
\begin{equation}
q_{h}(x) \propto D_q^h(z),
\end{equation}
where $z=2 p \cdot q/Q^2$ is the momentum fraction of the produced
hadron from the quark jet in the fragmentation process, and
$x=Q^2/2 p \cdot q$ is the Bjorken scaling variable corresponding
to the momentum fraction of the quark from the hadron in the DIS
process. Although such a relation may be only valid
at a specific scale $Q^2$ for $x \to 1$ and $z \to 1$ under
leading order approximation and there are corrections to this relation
from experimental observation and theoretical considerations
\cite{GLRc},
it can provide a reasonable connection
between different physical quantities and lead to different
predictions about the fragmentations based on our understanding of
the quark structure of a hadron \cite{Ma99,Bro97}.
Among the
various possible hadrons that can be produced, $\Lambda$ hyperon
is most suitable for studying the polarized fragmentation due to
its self-analyzing property owing to the characteristic decay mode
$\Lambda \to p \pi^-$ with a large branching ratio of 64\%. Thus
we can use various $\Lambda$ fragmentation processes to
investigate the spin and flavor structure of the $\Lambda$ and to
test various ideas concerning the hadron structure.
From another point of view, studying the quark to $\Lambda$
fragmentations
is also interesting in itself. We may consider our study
as a phenomenological method to parameterize the quark
to $\Lambda$ fragmentation functions,  and the validity
and reasonableness of the
method can be checked by comparison with the experimental
data on various quark to $\Lambda$ fragmentation functions.

There have been many proposals concerning the measurements of the
$\Lambda$ fragmentations functions in different processes, for
different physical goals [13-15,18-27], and in this paper we will
focus our attention on the longitudinally polarized case. One
promising method to obtain a complete set of polarized
fragmentation functions for different quark flavors is based on
the measurement of the helicity asymmetry for semi-inclusive
production of $\Lambda$ hyperons in $e^+e^-$ annihilation on the
$Z^0$ resonance \cite{Bur93}. Measurements of the light-flavor
quark fragmentations into $\Lambda$ have been also suggested from
polarized electron DIS process \cite{Jaf96} and neutrino DIS
process \cite{Kot98}, based on the $u$-quark dominance assumption.
It has been also suggested to determine the polarized
fragmentation functions by measuring the helicity transfer
asymmetry in the process $p \overrightarrow{p} \to
\overrightarrow{\Lambda} X$ \cite{Flo98}. From its dependence on
the rapidity of the $\Lambda$, it is possible to discriminate
between various parameterizations. There is also a recent
suggestion \cite{Ma99} to measure a complete set of quark to
$\Lambda$ unpolarized and polarized fragmentation functions for
different quark flavors by the systematic exploitation of
unpolarized and polarized $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$
productions in neutrino, antineutrino and polarized electron DIS
processes.

Recently there have been detailed measurements of the $\Lambda$
polarizations from the $Z$ decays in $e^+e^-$-annihilation
\cite{ALEPH96,DELPHI95,OPAL97}. The measured
$\Lambda$-polarization has been compared with several theoretical
calculations \cite{Kot98,Bor98,Flo98b} based on simple ansatz such
as $\Delta D_{q}^{\Lambda}(z) =C_{q}(z) D_{q}^{\Lambda}(z)$ with
constant coefficients $C_{q}$, or Monte Carlo event generators
without a clear physical motivation. It is the purpose of this
paper to calculate the $\Lambda$-polarization in
$e^+e^-$-annihilation at the $Z$-pole by using the physics results
presented in Ref.~\cite{MSY2}. It will be shown that the
quark-diquark model gives a very good description of the available
experimental data; pQCD can also give a good description of the
data by taking into account the suppression of quark helicities
compared to the SU(6) quark model values of quark spin
distributions. Thus the prediction of positive polarizations for
the $u$ and $d$ quarks inside the $\Lambda$ at $x \to 1$ is
supported by the available experimental data.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II of the paper we
will present the formulas for the $\Lambda$-polarization in the
$e^+e^-$-annihilation near the $Z$-pole. In Section III we
calculate the $\Lambda$-polarization in the SU(6) quark-diquark
model and find that the model gives a very good description of the
available data. In Section IV we present the analysis for three
cases in the pQCD framework and find that we can also give a good
description of the data by taking into account the suppression of
quark helicities compared to the naive SU(6) quark model spin
distributions. Finally, we present discussions and conclusions in
Section V.

\section{$\Lambda$-Polarization in $e^+e^-$-Annihilation near the
$Z$-Pole}

One interesting feature of quark-antiquark ($q \bar q$) production
in $e^+e^-$-annihilation near the $Z$-pole is that the produced
quarks (antiquarks) are polarized due to the interference between
the vector and axial vector couplings in the standard model of
electroweak interactions, even though the initial $e^+$ and $e^-$
beams are unpolarized. Such quark (antiquark) polarization leads
to the polarization of the $\Lambda$ ($\bar{\Lambda}$) from the
decays of the quarks, therefore we can study the polarized quark
to $\Lambda$ fragmentations by the semi-inclusive production of
$\Lambda$ in $e^+e^-$-annihilation near the $Z$-pole
\cite{Bur93,Gus93,Bor98,Flo98b}.

The differential cross section for the $e^+e^- \to q \bar{q}$
process near the $Z$-pole is
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
\frac{d \sigma}{d \Omega} &=& N_c\frac{\alpha^2(Q^2)}{4 s} \left\{
(1+ \cos^2\theta) [e_q^2-2 \chi_1 v_e v_q e_q + \chi_2
(a_e^2+v_e^2) (a_q^2+v_q^2)] \right.
\\&+& \left.
2\cos\theta [-2 \chi_1 a_e a_q e_q+4 \chi_2 a_e a_q v_e v_q]
\right\},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\chi_1=\frac{1}{16 \sin^2 \theta_W \cos^2 \theta_W}
\frac{s(s-M_Z^2)}{(s-M_Z^2)^2+M_Z^2\Gamma_Z^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\chi_2=\frac{1}{256 \sin^4 \theta_W \cos^4 \theta_W}
\frac{s^2}{(s-M_Z^2)^2+M_Z^2\Gamma_Z^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
a_e=-1
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
v_e=-1+4 \sin^2 \theta_W
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
a_q=2 T_{3q},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
v_q=2 T_{3q}-4 e_q \sin^2 \theta_W,
\end{equation}
where $T_{3q}=1/2$ for $u$, $c$, while $T_{3q}=-1/2$ for $d$, $s$,
$b$ quarks, $N_c=3$ is the color number, $e_q$ is the charge of
the quark in units of the proton charge, $\theta$ is the angle
between the outgoing quark and the incoming electron, $\theta_W$
is the Weinberg angle, and $M_Z$ and $\Gamma_Z$ are the mass and
width of $Z^0$.

In the parton-quark model, the differential cross section for the
semi-inclusive hadron ($h$) production process $e^+e^- \to h+ X$
is obtained by summing over the above cross section, weighted with
the probability $D_q^h(z,Q^2)$ that a quark with momentum $P/z$
fragments into a hadron $h$ with momentum $P$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2 \sigma^h}{d \Omega d z}=\sum\limits_q \frac{d \sigma}{d
\Omega} D_q^h(z,Q^2),
\end{equation}
where the $D_q^h(z,Q^2)$ are normalized so that
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_h \int z D_q^h(z,Q^2) {\mathrm d} z=1.
\end{equation}
 The corresponding cross section for the production of
polarized hadron $h$ production can  be written as
\cite{Bur93}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
\frac{d^2 \Delta \sigma}{d \Omega d z} &=& - N_c
\frac{\alpha^2(Q^2)}{2 s } \sum\limits_{q} \left\{ -e_q \chi_1
\{a_qv_e[\Delta D_q^h(z)-\Delta D_{\bar q}^h(z)](1+\cos ^2 \theta)
\right.
\\
&+& \left. 2 a_e v_q [\Delta D_q^h(z)+\Delta D_{\bar q}^h(z)] \cos
\theta \}\right.
\\
&+& \left. \chi_{2}\{(v_e^2+a_e^2)v_qa_q[\Delta D_q^h(z)-\Delta
D_{\bar q}^h(z)](1+\cos ^2 \theta) \right.
\\ &+& \left. 2 v_e a_e (v_q^2+a_q^2)[\Delta
D_q^h(z)+\Delta D_{\bar q}^h(z)] \cos \theta \} \right\}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}

The polarizations of the initial quarks from $e^+e^-$-annihilation
are given by
\begin{equation}
P_q=-\frac{A_q(1+\cos ^2 \theta )+B_q \cos \theta} {C_q(1+\cos ^2
\theta )+D_q \cos \theta},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
A_q=2 \chi_{2}(v_e^2+a_e^2)v_qa_q-2 e_q \chi_1 a_q v_e,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B_q=4 \chi_2  v_e a_e (v_q^2+a_q^2)-4 e_q \chi_1 a_e v_q,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_q=e_q^2-2 \chi_1 v_e v_q e_q+ \chi_2 (a_e^2+v_e^2)
(a_q^2+v_q^2),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D_q=8 \chi_2 a_e a_q v_e v_q-4 \chi_1 a_e a_q e_q.
\end{equation}
Averaging over $\theta$, one obtains $P_q=-0.67$ for $q=u$, $c$,
and $P_q=-0.94$ for $q=d$, $s$, and $b$ at the $Z$-pole. From the
cross section formulas for the unpolarized and polarized $h$
production, we can write the formula for the
$\Lambda$-polarization
\begin{equation}
P_{\Lambda}(\theta)=-\frac{\sum\limits_{q} \left\{A_q (1+\cos^2
\theta)[\Delta D_q^h(z)-\Delta D_{\bar q}^h(z)] + B_q \cos \theta
[\Delta D_q^h(z)+\Delta D_{\bar q}^h(z)]\right\}}{\sum\limits_{q}
\left\{C_q (1+\cos^2 \theta)[D_q^h(z)+D_{\bar q}^h(z)] + D_q \cos
\theta [ D_q^h(z)+ D_{\bar q}^h(z)]\right\}}.
\end{equation}
By averaging over $\theta$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
P_{\Lambda}=-\frac{\sum\limits_{q} A_q [\Delta D_q^h(z)-\Delta
D_{\bar q}^h(z)]}{\sum\limits_{q} C_q [D_q^h(z)+D_{\bar q}^h(z)]}.
\label{PL2}
\end{equation}

There have been measurements of the $\Lambda$-polarization near
the $Z$-pole \cite{ALEPH96,DELPHI95,OPAL97}. The ALEPH
collaboration \cite{ALEPH96} measured the $\Lambda$-polarization
by combining data of both $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$. Since the
$\bar{q}$ quark helicity is expected to be opposite that of the
$q$ quark, the identical polarization $P_{\Lambda}$ is assumed for
either $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the treatment of the data.
Therefore we can consider their data as $P_{\Lambda}$ for
$\Lambda$ production by Eq.~(\ref{PL2}). From Eq.~(\ref{PL2}) it
can be found that we need both the quark and anti-quark
distributions to calculate the $\Lambda$-polarization
$P_{\Lambda}$ at all $x$. However, the main purpose of this paper
aims at checking the flavor and spin structure of the $\Lambda$ at
large $x$ predicted in Ref.~\cite{MSY2}, thus we neglect the
contribution from the sea quarks in our calculations of the
$\Lambda$-polarization in the following discussions.

\section{$\Lambda$-Polarization in the SU(6) Quark-Diquark Model }

Before we look into the details of the flavor and spin structure
for the valence quarks of the $\Lambda$, we briefly review the
analysis of the unpolarized and polarized quark distributions in
light-cone SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model \cite{Ma96}, which can be
considered as a revised version of the original SU(6)
quark-diquark models \cite{DQM}. The light-cone formalism provides
a convenient framework for the relativistic description of hadrons
in terms of quark and gluon degrees of freedom \cite{LCF,LCr,BHL}.
Light-cone quantization has a number of unique features that make
it appealing, most notably, the ground state of the free theory is
also a ground state of the full theory, and the Fock expansion
constructed on this vacuum state provides a complete relativistic
many-particle basis for diagonalizing the full theory
\cite{Bro94}.

As we know, it is proper to describe deep inelastic scattering as
the sum of incoherent scatterings of the incident lepton on the
partons in the infinite momentum frame or in the light-cone
formalism. The unpolarized valence quark distributions $u_v(x)$
and $d_v(x)$ are given in this model by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&u_{v}(x)=\frac{1}{2}a_S(x)+\frac{1}{6}a_V(x);\nonumber\\
&&d_{v}(x)=\frac{1}{3}a_V(x), \label{eq:ud}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_D(x)$ ($D=S$ for scalar spectator or $V$ for axial vector
spectator) is normalized such that $\int_0^1 {\mathrm d} x
a_D(x)=3$, and it denotes the amplitude for quark $q$ to be
scattered while the spectator is in the diquark state $D$. Exact
SU(6) symmetry provides the relation $a_S(x)=a_V(x)$, which
implies the valence flavor symmetry $u_{v}(x)=2 d_{v}(x)$. This
gives the prediction $F^n_2(x)/F^p_2(x)\geq 2/3$ for all $x$,
which is ruled out by the experimental observation
$F^n_2(x)/F^p_2(x) <  1/2$ for $x \to 1$. The SU(6) quark-diquark
model \cite{DQM} introduces a breaking to the exact SU(6) symmetry
by the mass difference between the scalar and vector diquarks and
predicts $d(x)/u(x) \to 0$ at $x \to 1$, leading to a ratio
$F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x) \to 1/4$, which could fit the data and has been
accepted in most parameterizations of quark distributions for the
nucleon. It has been shown that the SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark
model can reproduce the $u$ and $d$ valence quark asymmetry that
accounts for the observed ratio $F_2^{n}(x)/F_2^{p}(x)$ at large
$x$ \cite{Ma96}. This supports the quark-spectator picture of deep
inelastic scattering in which the difference between the mass of
the scalar and vector spectators is essential in order to
reproduce the explicit SU(6) symmetry breaking while the bulk
SU(6) symmetry of the quark model still holds.

The quark helicity distributions for the $u$ and $d$ quarks can be
written as \cite{Ma96}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{llcr}
\Delta u_{v}(x)=u_{v}^{\uparrow}(x)-u_{v}^{\downarrow}(x)
=-\frac{1}{18}a_V(x)W_q^V(x) +\frac{1}{2}a_S(x)W_q^S(x);
\\
\Delta d_{v}(x)=d_{v}^{\uparrow}(x)-d_{v}^{\downarrow}(x)
=-\frac{1}{9}a_V(x)W_q^V(x),
\end{array}
\label{eq:sfdud}
\end{equation}
in which $W_q^S(x)$ and $W_q^V(x)$ are the Melosh-Wigner
correction factors \cite{Ma96,Ma91b,Ma98} for the scalar and axial
vector spectator-diquark cases. They are obtained by averaging
Eq.~(\ref{eqM1}) over ${\mathbf k}_{\perp}$ with $k^+=x {\cal M}$
and ${\cal M}^2=\frac{m^2_q+{\mathbf
k}^2_{\perp}}{x}+\frac{m^2_D+{\mathbf k}^2_{\perp}}{1-x}$, where
$m_D$ is the mass of the diquark spectator, and are unequal due to
unequal spectator masses, which leads to unequal ${\mathbf
k}_{\perp}$ distributions. The explicit expression for the
Melosh-Wigner rotation factor \cite{Ma91b} is
\begin{equation}
W_q(x,{\mathbf k}_{\perp}) =\frac{(k^+ +m)^2-{\mathbf
k}^2_{\perp}} {(k^+ +m)^2+{\mathbf k}^2_{\perp}}
\label{eqM1},
\end{equation}
which ranges between $0 \to 1$ due to the quark intrinsic
transverse motions.
 From Eq.~(\ref{eq:ud}) one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
&&a_S(x)=2u_v(x)-d_v(x);\nonumber\\ &&a_V(x)=3d_v(x).
\label{eq:qVS}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sfdud}) and (\ref{eq:qVS}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Delta u_{v}(x)
    =[u_v(x)-\frac{1}{2}d_v(x)]W_q^S(x)-\frac{1}{6}d_v(x)W_q^V(x);
\nonumber    \\ &&\Delta d_{v}(x)=-\frac{1}{3}d_v(x)W_q^V(x).
\label{eq:dud}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we arrive at simple relations \cite{Ma96} between the
polarized and unpolarized quark distributions for the valence $u$
and $d$ quarks. The relations (\ref{eq:dud}) can be considered as
the results of the conventional SU(6) quark model, and which
explicitly take into account the Melosh-Wigner rotation effect
\cite{Ma91b} and the flavor asymmetry introduced by the mass
difference between the scalar and vector spectators \cite{Ma96}.
The calculated polarization asymmetries $A_1^N=2 x
g_1^N(x)/F_2^N(x)$, including the Melosh-Wigner rotation, have
been found \cite{Ma96} to be in reasonable agreement with the
experimental data, at least for $x \geq 0.1$. A large asymmetry
between $W_q^S(x)$ and $W_q^V(x)$ leads to a better fit to the
data than that obtained from a small asymmetry.

One interesting feature predicted from the relation is that
$\Delta u(x)/u(x) \to 1$ and $\Delta d(x)/d(x) \to -1/3$ at $x \to
1$. The prediction $\Delta d(x)/d(x) \to -1/3$ is different from
the pQCD prediction $\Delta d(x)/d(x) \to 1$ at large $x$, and
with the available data it is still not possible to make a clear
distinction between the two predictions. Thus the $\Delta
d(x)/d(x)$ behavior at $x \to 1$ can provide a new test between
pQCD and the quark-diquark model predictions.

In the following we analyze the valence quark distributions of the
$\Lambda$ by extending the SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model
\cite{Ma96} from the nucleon case to the $\Lambda$.
The $\Lambda$
wave function in the conventional SU(6) quark model is written as
\begin{equation}
|\Lambda^{\uparrow} \rangle =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} [(u^{\uparrow} d
^{\downarrow} + d^{\downarrow} u ^{\uparrow}) -(u^{\downarrow} d
^{\uparrow} + d ^{\uparrow} u ^{\downarrow} )] s^{\uparrow} +
(\mathrm{cyclic ~~permutation}). \label{SU6}
\end{equation}
The SU(6) quark-diquark model wave function for the $\Lambda$ is
written as
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{\uparrow,\downarrow}_{\Lambda} =\sin \theta ~ \varphi_V |q V
\rangle ^{\uparrow,\downarrow} + \cos \theta ~ \varphi_S |q S
\rangle^{\uparrow,\downarrow},
\label{SU6L}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
|q V \rangle ^{\uparrow,\downarrow}&=&\pm
 \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} [V_0(ds) u
^{\uparrow,\downarrow} - V_0(us) d ^{\uparrow,\downarrow} -
\sqrt{2} V_{\pm}(ds) u ^{\downarrow,\uparrow} + \sqrt{2}
V_{\pm}(us) d ^{\downarrow,\uparrow}];
\\
|q S \rangle ^{\uparrow,\downarrow}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} [S(ds) u
^{\uparrow,\downarrow} + S(us) d ^{\uparrow,\downarrow} -2  S(ud)
s ^{\uparrow,\downarrow}],
\end{array}
\label{SU6LD}
\end{equation}
where $V_{s_z}(q_1 q_2)$ stands for a $q_1 q_2$ vector diquark
Fock state with third spin component $s_z$, $S(q_1 q_2)$ stands
for a $q_1q_2$ scalar diquark Fock state, and $\varphi_D$ stands
for the momentum space wave function of the quark-diquark with $D$
representing the vector (V) or scalar (S) diquarks. The angle
$\theta$ is a mixing angle that breaks the SU(6) symmetry at
$\theta \neq \pi/4$ and in this paper we choose the bulk SU(6)
symmetry case $\theta =\pi/4$.

 From Eq.~(\ref{SU6L}) we get the unpolarized quark distributions for the
three valence $u$, $d$, and $s$ quarks for the $\Lambda$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{clcr}
&u_v(x)=d_v(x)=\frac{1}{4} a_{V(qs)}(x) +\frac{1}{12}
a_{S(qs)}(x);
\\
&s_v(x)=\frac{1}{3} a_{S(ud)}(x),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $a_{D(q_1 q_2)}(x) \propto  \int [\mathrm{d}^2
\vec{k}_\perp] |\varphi (x, \vec{k}_\perp)|^2$ ($D=S$ or $V$)
denotes the amplitude for the quark $q$ being scattered while the
spectator is in the diquark state $D$, and is normalized such that
$\int_0 ^1 a_{D(q_1 q_2)}(x) \mathrm{d} x =3$. We assume the $u$
and $d$ symmetry $D(qs)=D(us)=D(ds)$, from the $u$ and $d$
symmetry inside $\Lambda$.

We get from Eq.~(\ref{SU6L}) the spin distribution probabilities
in the quark-diquark model
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
&u^{\uparrow}_V=d^{\uparrow}_V=1/12;
&u^{\downarrow}_V=d^{\downarrow}_V=1/6;\\
&u^{\uparrow}_S=d^{\uparrow}_S=1/12;
&u^{\downarrow}_S=d^{\downarrow}_S=0;\\ &s^{\uparrow}_V=0;
&s^{\downarrow}_V=0; \\ &s^{\uparrow}_S=1/3;
&s^{\downarrow}_S=0;
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Similar to the nucleon case, the quark spin distributions for the
three valence quarks can be expressed as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{clcr}
&\Delta u_v(x)=\Delta d_v(x)=-\frac{1}{12}
a_{V(qs)}(x)W_{V(qs)}(x) +\frac{1}{12} a_{S(qs)}(x)W_{S(qs)}(x);
\\
&\Delta s_v(x)=\frac{1}{3} a_{S(ud)}(x)W_{S(ud)}(x),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $W_D(x)$ is the correction factor due to the Melosh-Wigner
rotation and is expressed as
\begin{equation}
W_{D(q_1 q_2)}(x) =  \int [\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{k}_\perp] W_{D(q_1
q_2)}(x)(x,\vec{k}_\perp) |\varphi (x, \vec{k}_\perp)|^2/a_{D(q_1
q_2)}(x).
\end{equation}
One can turn off the Melosh-Wigner rotation effect by setting
$W_D(x)=1$, which should be only true at $x \to 1$. This case was
discussed in Ref.~\cite{MSY2}.

 In order to perform the calculation,
we employ the Brodsky-Huang-Lepage (BHL) prescription \cite{BHL}
of the light-cone momentum space wave function for the
quark-spectator
\begin{equation}
\varphi (x, \vec{k}_\perp) = A_D \exp \{-\frac{1}{8\alpha_D^2}
[\frac{m_q^2+\vec{k}_\perp ^2}{x} +
\frac{m_D^2+\vec{k}_\perp^2}{1-x}]\},
\end{equation}
with parameters (in units of MeV) $m_q=330$ for $q=u$ and $d$,
$m_s=480$, $\alpha_D=330$, $m_{S(ud)}=600$, $m_{S(qs)}=750$, and
$m_{V(qs)}=950$, following Ref.~\cite{Ma96}. The differences in
the diquark masses $m_{S(ud)}$, $m_{S(qs)}$, and $m_{V(qs)}$ cause
the symmetry breaking between $a_{D(q_1 q_2)}(x)$ in a way that
$a_{S(ud)}(x) > a_{S(qs)}(x) > a_{V(qs)}(x)$ at large $x$.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode {\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsffile{msy3f1.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{\baselineskip 13pt The ratio $u(x)/s(x)$ of the
$\Lambda$ in the SU(6) quark-diquark model. }\label{msy3f1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode {\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsffile{msy3f2.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{\baselineskip 13pt The ratio $\Delta s(x)/s(x)$ for
the valence strange quark of the $\Lambda$ in the SU(6)
quark-diquark model. The solid and dotted curves are the
corresponding results with (solid) and without (dotted) the
Melosh-Wigner rotation.} \label{msy3f2}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode {\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsffile{msy3f3.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{\baselineskip 13pt The ratio $\Delta u(x)/u(x)$ for
the up and down valence quarks of the $\Lambda$ in the SU(6)
quark-diquark model. The solid and dotted curves are the
corresponding results with (solid) and without (dotted) the
Melosh-Wigner rotation.} \label{msy3f3}
\end{figure}

In Fig.~\ref{msy3f1} we present the ratio $u(x)/s(x)$ calculated
from the quark-diquark model. We also present in Fig.~\ref{msy3f2}
the ratio $\Delta s(x)/s(x)$ for the dominant valence $s$ quark
which provides the quantum numbers of strangeness and spin of the
$\Lambda$ , and the ratio $\Delta u(x)/u(x)$ for the non-dominant
valence $u$ and $d$ quarks. We find that the ratio $\Delta
s(x)/s(x)$ is not a constant equal to 1 as is the case without
Melosh-Wigner rotation. The ratio $\Delta u(x)/u(x)$, presented in
Fig.~\ref{msy3f3}, is also suppressed at $x \neq 1$. But the
end-point behaviors at $x \to 1$ is unchanged. Thus the
quark-diquark model predicts, in the limit $x \to 1$, that
$u(x)/s(x) \to 0$ for the unpolarized quark distributions, $\Delta
s(x)/s(x) \to 1$ for the dominant valence $s$ quark, and also
$\Delta u(x)/u(x) \to 1$ for the non-dominant valence $u$ and $d$
quarks.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode {\epsfysize=7.5cm \epsffile{msy3f4.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{\baselineskip 13pt The comparison of the experimental
data \cite{ALEPH96,DELPHI95,OPAL97} for the longitudinal
$\Lambda$-polarization $P_{\Lambda}$ in $e^+e^-$-annihilation
process at the $Z$-pole with the theoretical calculations in  the
SU(6) quark-diquark model. The solid and dotted curves are the
corresponding results with (solid) and without (dotted) the
Melosh-Wigner rotation.} \label{msy3f4}
\end{figure}

In Fig.~\ref{msy3f4} we present our calculated result for the
$\Lambda$-polarization $P_{\Lambda}(z)$ and we find that the
theoretical results from the quark-diquark model fit the data very
well within its present precision, at least in the large $z$
region. Thus the quark-diquark model provides a successful
description of the $\Lambda$-polarization $P_{\Lambda}(z)$, in
addition to its successful descriptions of the ratio
$F^n_2(x)/F^p_2(x)$ and the polarized structure functions for the
proton and neutron. It is necessary to point out that the
quark-diquark model with simple wave functions such as the BHL
prescription can provide good descriptions of the relations
between different quantities where the uncertainties in the model
can be canceled between each other. It is impractical to expect a
good description of the absolute magnitude and shape for a basic
physical quantity, such as the detailed feature of the cross
section, within such a model with simple wave functions.
In fact there have been
calculations of the explicit shapes for the quark fragmentation
functions in a quark-diquark model \cite{Nza95}
and for the quark distributions inside the $\Lambda$
in the MIT bag model \cite{Bor99}. We are very interested to notice
that the two works arrived at the same qualitative conclusion as ours
for a positive $u$ and $d$ polarization inside $\Lambda$ at large $x$
with small magnitude, though there are some difference in detailed
quantitative features.

\section{$\Lambda$-Polarization in pQCD Analysis}

We now look at the pQCD analysis of the quark distributions. In
the region $x \to 1$ pQCD can give rigorous predictions for the
behavior of distribution functions \cite{Bro95}. In particular, it
predicts ``helicity retention", which means that the helicity of a
valence quark will match that of the parent nucleon. Explicitly,
the quark distributions of a hadron $h$ have been shown to satisfy
the counting rule \cite{countingr},
\begin{equation}
q_h(x) \sim (1-x)^p, \label{pl}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
p=2 n-1 +2 \Delta S_z.
\end{equation}
Here $n$ is the minimal number of the spectator quarks, and
$\Delta S_z=|S_z^q-S_z^h|=0$ or $1$ for parallel or anti-parallel
quark and hadron helicities, respectively \cite{Bro95}. With such
power-law behaviors of quark distributions, the ratio $d(x)/u(x)$
of the nucleon was predicted \cite{Far75} to be 1/5 as $x \to 1$,
and this gives $F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)=3/7$, which is (comparatively)
close to the quark-diquark model prediction $1/4$. From the
different power-law behaviors for parallel and anti-parallel
quarks, one easily finds that $\Delta q/q =1$ as $x \to 1$ for any
quark with flavor $q$ unless the $q$ quark is completely
negatively polarized \cite{Bro95}. Such prediction are quite
different from the quark-diquark model prediction that $\Delta
d(x)/d(x)=-1/3$ as $x \to 1$ for the nucleon \cite{Ma96,Mel96}.
The most recent analysis \cite{Yang99} of experimental data for
several processes supports the pQCD prediction of the unpolarized
quark behaviors $d(x)/u(x)=1/5$ as $x \to 1$, but there is still
no definite test of the polarized quark behaviors $\Delta
d(x)/d(x)$ since the $d$ quark is the non-dominant quark for the
proton and does not play a dominant role at large $x$.

We extend the pQCD analysis from the proton case to the $\Lambda$.
From the SU(6) wave function of the $\Lambda$ we get the explicit
spin distributions for each valence quark,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
&u^{\uparrow}=d^{\uparrow}=\frac{1}{2}; ~~~~
&u^{\downarrow}=d^{\downarrow}=\frac{1}{2};
\\
&s^{\uparrow}=1; &s^{\downarrow}=0.
\end{array}
\label{SU6q}
\end{equation}
In pQCD and at large $x$, the anti-parallel helicity distributions
can be neglected relative to the parallel ones, thus SU(6) is
broken to SU(3)$^{\uparrow}\times$SU(3)$^{\downarrow}$.
Nevertheless, the ratio $u^{\uparrow}/s^{\uparrow}$ is still $1/2$
\cite{Bro95}. Thus helicity retention implies immediately that
$u(x)/s(x) \to 1/2$ and $\Delta q(x)/q(x) \to 1$ (for $q=u$, $d$,
and $s$) for $x \to 1$, and therefore the flavor structure of the
$\Lambda$ near $x=1$ is a region in which accurate tests of pQCD
can be made.

 From the power-law behaviors of Eq.~(\ref{pl}), we write down a
simple model formula for the valence quark distributions,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{clcr}
q^{\uparrow}(x)   \sim x^{-\alpha}(1-x)^3; ~~~~ q^{\downarrow}(x)
\sim x^{-\alpha}(1-x)^5,
\end{array}
\label{pls}
\end{equation}
where $q^{\uparrow}(x)$ and $q^{\downarrow}(x)$ are the parallel
and anti-parallel quark helicity distributions and $\alpha$ is
controlled by Regge exchanges with $\alpha \approx 1/2$ for
nondiffractive valence quarks. This model is not meant to give a
detailed description of the quark distributions but to outline its
main features in the large $x$ region. We define $B_n=B(1/2,n+1)$
where $B(1/2,n+1)$ is the $\beta$-function defined by
$B(1-\alpha,n+1)=\int_0^1 x^{-\alpha}(1-x)^{n} {\mathrm d} x$ for
$\alpha=1/2$. Combining Eq.~(\ref{pls}) with Eq.~(\ref{SU6q}), we
get,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
&u^{\uparrow}(x)=d^{\uparrow}(x)=\frac{1}{2B_3}x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^3;
 ~~~~ &u^{\downarrow}(x)=d^{\downarrow}(x)=\frac{1}{2B_5}x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^5;
\\
&s^{\uparrow}(x)=\frac{1}{B_3}x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^3;
&s^{\downarrow}(x)=0,
\end{array}
\label{case1}
\end{equation}
which obviously satisfies that $u(x)/s(x)=1/2$ and $\Delta
q(x)/q(x)=1$ (for $q=u$, $d$ and $s$) as $x \to 1$, and it is easy
to find that $B_3=32/35$ and $B_5=512/693$.

However, the above simple model satisfies the SU(6) quark model
spin distributions, $\Delta s=1$ and $\Delta u=\Delta d=0$, and
the spin sum $\Sigma \Delta q=1$ which means that the helicity sum
of the quarks equals to the $\Lambda$ spin. From the nucleon case
we know that this is not true in the real situation and the quark
helicity sum is much more suppressed than the naive expectations
from the famous ``spin crisis" or ``spin puzzle"
\cite{SpinR,Bro88}. As emphasized in Ref.~\cite{Ma91b}, the
helicity distributions measured on the light-cone are related by
the Melosh-Wigner rotation to the ordinary spins of the quarks in
an equal-time rest-frame wave function description. Thus, due to
the non-collinearity of the quarks, one cannot expect that the
quark helicities will sum simply to the proton spin. From the
SU(3) symmetry argument of Burkardt-Jaffe \cite{Bur93}, we know
that the $s$ quark helicity $\Delta s=\int_0^1 \Delta s(x)
{\mathrm d} x$ is suppressed from the simple quark model value 1
to $\Delta s \approx 0.6$ and the $u$ and $d$ quarks are also
negatively polarized with quark helicities $\Delta u=\Delta d
\approx-0.2$. The reduction in the quark helicities might be from
sea quarks, but in this paper we simply assume that the
Burkardt-Jaffe values of quark helicities can be attributed to the
valence quarks, in order to amplify the effect due to the
reduction of the quark helicity distributions in the valence quark
region at large $x$ ($z$). For this purpose we adopt a more
general expression\footnote{The coefficients $A_q$, $B_q$, $C_q$
and $D_q$ ($q=u,d,s$) in this section are different from those in
section II.} for the quark distributions
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
&u^{\uparrow}(x)=d^{\uparrow}(x)=A_u x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^3;
 ~~~~ &u^{\downarrow}(x)=d^{\downarrow}(x)=C_u x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^5;
\\
&s^{\uparrow}(x)=A_s x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^3;
&s^{\downarrow}(x)=C_s x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^5,
\end{array}
\label{case2}
\end{equation}
with the following parameters
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
&A_u=0.4/B_3;
 ~~~~ &C_u=0.6/B_5;
 \\
&A_s=0.8/B_3;
 ~~~~ &C_s=0.2/B_5,
\end{array}
\label{case2p}
\end{equation}
which are fixed by the constraints,
\begin{equation}
s=\int_0^1 s(x) {\mathrm d} x=1; ~~~~u=d=\int_0^1 u(x){\mathrm d}
x =1, \label{qn}
\end{equation}
which is exact for the valence quarks due to the quark number
conservation, and
\begin{equation}
\Delta s=\int_0^1 \Delta s(x) {\mathrm d} x=0.6;  ~~~~\Delta
u=\Delta d=\int_0^1 \Delta u(x) {\mathrm d} x=-0.2,
\label{qhs}
\end{equation}
which should be strictly true only for total quark contributions
(valence+sea).  We consider Eq.~(\ref{case2}) as only a simplified
model case in order to check the effect of the quark helicity
suppression, but cannot be really true due to the absence of the
sea contributions. We find that the SU(6) large-$x$ relation
\begin{equation}
A_u=A_s/2 \label{su6r}
\end{equation}
is automatically satisfied for this case.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode {\epsfysize=7.5cm \epsffile{msy3f5.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{\baselineskip 13pt The comparison of the experimental
data \cite{ALEPH96,DELPHI95,OPAL97} for the longitudinal
$\Lambda$-polarization $P_{\Lambda}$ in $e^+e^-$-annihilation
process at the $Z$-pole with the theoretical calculations in  the
the pQCD analysis with three different cases: (a) case 1: the
SU(6) quark-model spin distributions for the quark helicities,
Eq.~(\ref{case1}) (dotted curves); (b) case 2: the Burkardt-Jaffe
values for the quark helicities, Eq.~(\ref{case2}) (dashed curves)
; (c) case 3: the canonical form of quark distributions,
Eq.~(\ref{case3}) (solid curves). }\label{msy3f5}
\end{figure}

In Fig.~\ref{msy3f5} we present the calculated
$\Lambda$-polarization $P_{\Lambda}$ for the above two simple
cases of the pQCD analysis. For the case (case 1) of the naive
SU(6) quark model spin distributions for the quark helicities,
i.e., Eq.~(\ref{case1}), we find that the absolute magnitude is
larger than the experimental data and also than the previous
calculations \cite{Bor98,Flo98b}, which means that there should be
a source to reduce the quark helicities. The large magnitude of
$P_{\Lambda}$ is due to the large positive contributions from $u$
and $d$ quarks, i.e., positive $\Delta u(x)$, at large $x$ from
the pQCD prediction. It is interesting to find that in the case of
the Burkardt-Jaffe values of the valence quark helicities (case
2), i.e., Eq.~(\ref{case2}), one can describe the data well but
with a magnitude still slightly bigger, a result which is
different from previous calculations \cite{Bor98,Flo98b} in which
the reduction in the quark helicities causes much smaller
magnitudes of $P_{\Lambda}$ than the data. This means that the
reduction of quark helicities from the naive values of the SU(6)
quark spin distributions should provide a more physical picture
for the real world to describe the experimental data, contrary to
previous conclusions \cite{Bor98,Flo98b} that the naive SU(6)
quark model predictions fit the data better.

In fact, the above two simple pQCD cases still suffer from the
crudeness of the detailed shapes of the quark distributions with
only the leading term contributions. For a better reflection of
the complicated real situation we adopt the canonical form for the
quark distributions, following Ref.~\cite{Bro95},
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cllr}
&u^{\uparrow}(x)=&d^{\uparrow}(x)=A_u x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^3+B_u
x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^4;\\
&u^{\downarrow}(x)=&d^{\downarrow}(x)=C_u
x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^5+D_u x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^6;
\\
&s^{\uparrow}(x)=&A_s x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^3+B_s
x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^4;
\\
&s^{\downarrow}(x)=&C_s x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^5+D_s
x^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-x)^6.
\end{array}
\label{case3}
\end{equation}
 From the above constraints Eq.~(\ref{qn}),
we get
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{clllc}
s&=&A_s B_3 +B_s B_4 +C_s B_5 +D_s B_6&=&1;
\\
u&=&A_u B_3 +B_u B_4 +C_u B_5 +D_u B_6&=&1;
\end{array}
\label{case3pa}
\end{equation}
where the $\beta$-functions $B_4=256/315$ and $B_6=2048/3003$.
From Eq.~(\ref{qhs}), we get
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{clllc}
\Delta s&=&A_s B_3 +B_s B_4 -C_s B_5 -D_s B_6&=&0.7;
\\
\Delta u&=&A_u B_3 +B_u B_4 -C_u B_5 -D_u B_6&=&-0.1,
\end{array}
\label{case3pb}
\end{equation}
in which we have changed the valence quark helicities from the
Burkardt-Jaffe values $\Delta s=0.6$ and $\Delta u=-0.2$ to
$\Delta s=0.7$ and $\Delta u= -0.1$, to reflect the situation that
the sea quarks might contribute partially to the total $\Delta
s=0.6$ and $\Delta u=-0.2$. Combining with the SU(6) large-$x$
relation (\ref{su6r}) with Eqs.~(\ref{case3pa}) and
(\ref{case3pb}), we have only 5 constraints for the 8 parameters
and there are still large degrees of freedom to adjust the
parameters for a better fit of the $\Lambda$-polarization data.
For example, we choose $A_u=1/B_3$, $C_u=2/B_5$, and $C_s=2/B_5$
as inputs, and then have the following set of parameters:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{clllr}
&A_u=1/B_3; &B_u=-0.55/B_4; &C_u=2/B_5; &D_u=-1.45/B_6;
\\
&A_s=2/B_3; &B_s=-1.15/B_4; &C_s=2/B_5; &D_s=-1.85/B_6,
\end{array}
\label{case3b}
\end{equation}
which is denoted as case 3. This case is not meant to be totally
realistic but only to show that one can have a better description
of the available $P_{\Lambda}$ data with more reasonable picture
for the flavor and spin structure of the $\Lambda$. We also
present the results for this case in
Figs.~\ref{msy3f5}-\ref{msy3f8}. The ratios $\Delta s(x)/s(x)$ and
$\Delta u(x)/u(x)$ in this case have similar behaviors as those in
the quark-diquark model with the Melosh-Wigner rotation effect.
The calculated $\Lambda$-polarization $P_{\Lambda}$ can also give
a good description of the data at large $z$, as can be seen from
Fig.~\ref{msy3f5}, though the ratio of $u(x)/s(x)$ has the pQCD
behavior rather than the quark-diquark type, as seen by comparing
Fig.~\ref{msy3f6} with Fig.~\ref{msy3f1}. For the three cases of
pQCD analysis in our work, the ratios of $u(x)/s(x)$ for the
unpolarized quark distributions, $\Delta s(x)/s(x)$ for the
strange polarized quark distribution, and $\Delta u(x)/u(x)$ for
the $u$ and $d$ polarized quark distributions are presented in
Figs.~\ref{msy3f6}-\ref{msy3f8}. The quark momenta are also
calculated for the three cases and we find:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{clllr}
&\langle x_u \rangle=\langle x_d \rangle=0.094; &\langle x_s
\rangle=0.111; &\sum\limits_q \langle x_q \rangle=0.299, &{\mathrm
(case~1)}
\\
&\langle x_u \rangle=\langle x_d \rangle=0.091; &\langle x_s
\rangle=0.104; &\sum\limits_q \langle x_q \rangle=0.285, &{\mathrm
(case~2)}
\\
&\langle x_u \rangle=\langle x_d \rangle=0.118; &\langle x_s
\rangle=0.148; &\sum\limits_q \langle x_q \rangle=0.385. &{\mathrm
(case~3)}
\end{array}
\nonumber
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode {\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsffile{msy3f6.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{\baselineskip 13pt The ratio $u(x)/s(x)$ of the
$\Lambda$ in the pQCD analysis with three cases: case 1 (dotted
curve); case 2 (dashed curve); and case 3 (solid curve).
}\label{msy3f6}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode {\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsffile{msy3f7.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{\baselineskip 13pt The ratio $\Delta s(x)/s(x)$ for
the valence strange quark in the pQCD analysis with three cases:
case 1 (dotted curve); case 2 (dashed curve); and case 3 (solid
curve). }\label{msy3f7}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode {\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsffile{msy3f8.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{\baselineskip 13pt The ratio $\Delta u(x)/u(x)$ for
the up and down valence quarks of the $\Lambda$ in the pQCD
analysis with three cases: case 1 (dotted curve); case 2 (dashed
curve); and case 3 (solid curve). }\label{msy3f8}
\end{figure}

It is interesting to notice that the ``most unlikely" scenario 3
in Ref.~\cite{Flo98b} is found to be better in reproducing the
data. From our work we know that their scenario 3 with all flavor
of quarks positively polarized is closer to our picture with
$\Delta q(x)/q(x)=1$ at $x \to 1$ for all quark flavors from the
pQCD analysis, thus it is not strange that this scenario can give
a better description of the data than the other two. But in the
pQCD analysis the net quark helicities for the valence $u$ and $d$
quarks should be zero or negative, which is different from their
scenario 3 in which the $u$ and $d$ quark helicities are positive.

There are other contributions that need to be considered
for a detailed description of the polarization. Those coming
from sea quarks and gluons have not been
considered in this work, and consequently the detailed features at small $x$
in Figs.~(\ref{msy3f4}) and (\ref{msy3f5}) should be
unreliable. The contributions of those $\Lambda$'s from the
decay of other hyperons have been discussed
and the corrections are found
to be small \cite{Gus93,Bor98}, therefore we can neglect them
as a first approximation.
In our
work the connection between the quark distributions and
the quark fragmentations should be only valid at low energy
scale of around a few GeV.
The evolution effects on the fragmentation
functions have been analyzed in Ref.~\cite{Flo98}, and from
re-producing the results in that work we notice that
the evolution has a
very small influence on the $\Lambda$ polarization.
Therefore the $\Lambda$ polarization from $e^+e^-$-annihilation
near the $Z$-pole
at the high energy scale does not alter the discussions concerning
the $\Lambda$ quark structure at the scale of our study.
Of course, all these contributions deserve further
study, along with the progress
of the experimental precision and a deeper understanding
concerning various quark to $\Lambda$ fragmentations.

\section{Discussions and Summary}

 From the above results in the paper, we found that the
quark-diquark model gives a very good description of the available
experimental data of the $\Lambda$-polarization in
$e^+e^-$-annihilation near the $Z$-pole. The pQCD analysis can
also describe the data well by taking into account the suppression
in the quark helicities compared to the naive SU(6) quark model
spin distributions. Unfortunately, it is still not possible to
make a clear distinction between the two different predictions of
the flavor and spin structure of the $\Lambda$ by only the
$\Lambda$-polarization in $e^+e^-$-annihilation near the $Z$-pole.
This can be easily understood since the quark polarizations,
$P_d=P_s=-0.94$ and $P_u=-0.67$, are close to each other, and the
same behaviors of $\Delta s(x)/s(x)$, $\Delta u(x)/u(x)$, and
$\Delta d(x)/d(x)$ near $x \to 1$ render it difficult to make a
clean separation of the contributions from different flavors. Thus
new information from other quantities related to the flavor and
spin structure of the $\Lambda$ are needed before we can have a
clean distinction between different predictions, and it seems that
$\Lambda$ ($\bar{\Lambda}$) production in the neutrino
(anti-neutrino) DIS processes \cite{Ma99} are more sensitive to
different flavors.

In summary, we studied the flavor and spin structure of the
$\Lambda$ at large $x$ in a pQCD analysis and in the quark-diquark
model, and then applied the results to discuss the
$\Lambda$-polarization of $\Lambda$ production in
$e^+e^-$-annihilation process near the $Z$-pole. We found that the
two theoretical frameworks give better description of the
available experimental data than previous calculations and also
provide more a reasonable picture, close to the real situation.
Thus the results in this paper can be considered as a
phenomenological support to our prediction \cite{MSY2} that the
$u$ and $d$ quarks should be positively polarized at large $x$,
even though their net helicities might be zero or negative. More
attention, both theoretically and experimentally, is needed to
study the flavor and spin structure of the $\Lambda$ for the
purpose of making a clear distinction between different
predictions.

{\bf Acknowledgments: }
This work is partially supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant
No.~19605006, No.~19975052, and No.~19875024, and by Fondecyt (Chile)
postdoctoral fellowship 3990048, by Fondecyt (Chile) grant 1990806
and by a C\'atedra Presidencial (Chile).

\newpage


\section{Introduction}
In the low-energy sector ($q^2\le 1-2 $~GeV$^2$) the properties of
Quantum Chromodynamics are governed by (approximate)
chiral symmetry and its dynamical breaking. In hot and dense matter
as created through energetic collisions of heavy nuclei chiral symmetry
is believed to be restored, associated with the disappearance of the
chiral condensate and a substantial reshaping of the low-lying
hadronic spectrum. As the chiral condensate does not represent a
physical observable, the detection of signatures for chiral restoration
has to focus on  medium effects in hadronic properties.
Dileptons as penetrating probes provide the opportunity
to study rather directly the in-medium modifications of
light vector mesons through their decays $V\to l^+l^-$.

Measurements of low-mass dilepton spectra in heavy-ion collisions at
CERN-SpS energies~\cite{CERES,HELIOS3} have revealed appreciable
radiation beyond final-state hadron decays.
However, the spectral shape of this additional contribution - stemming
from the interaction phase of the hadronic fireball - is not easily
accounted for. In particular, using the vacuum vector meson line shapes,
the enhancement around  $M_{ll}\simeq (0.2-0.6)$~GeV remains unexplained.
At the same time the yield in the $\rho$/$\omega$ mass region tends
to be overestimated. The central question then is whether one has
possibly observed signatures of (the onset of) chiral symmetry restoration,
and, if so, {\em how} it manifests itself in the vector channel.

Several theoretical approaches have been pursued to study
medium effects in dilepton production rates from hot/dense matter,
{\it e.g.},  the 'dropping rho mass' scenario (within a mean-field type
treatment)~\cite{BR91,CEK,LKB}, the chiral reduction formalism (based on
chiral Ward identities in connection with low-density
expansions)~\cite{SYZ}, chiral Lagrangian frameworks~\cite{Song}
 or many-body-type calculations of in-medium
vector-meson spectral functions~\cite{RCW,FrPi,KKW97,PPLLM}.
As a further complication, the quantitative impact of in-medium
effects on the final spectra depends on another important ingredient,
namely the modeling of the space-time evolution of the global heavy-ion
collision dynamics. Here, transport calculations seem to give
substantially larger dilepton yields than hydrodynamic
simula\-tions. A reason for this discrepancy might be related to an
overpopulation of pion phase space (enhancing the $\pi\pi\to\rho\to ll$
annihilation contribution).

In the present article we will focus on the in-medium spectral
function approach for the elementary dilepton production processes,
presenting its most recent developments, thereby noting
a surprising reminiscence to (perturbative) quark-based calculations.
We then apply the medium-modified dilepton rates to the calculation of
spectra from $\pi\pi\to\rho\to ee$ annihilation in
30\% central Pb(158~AGeV)+Au collisions
and perform a detailed comparison to various projections of the recent
data from the CERES/NA45 collaboration. Special care is taken to adopt
a realistic temperature/density profile of the collision dynamics
using a thermal fireball expansion with a particle composition
consistent with recent hadro-chemical analyses at
SpS energies~\cite{pbm98,CR99}. The subsequent evolution
towards thermal freezeout is determined by assuming entropy as
well as pion- and kaon-number conservation which induces
the build-up of finite pion-/kaon-chemical potentials~\cite{Bebie}.

\section{Production Rates in Hot/Dense Matter}

The radiation of dileptons from a hot and dense
medium characterized by a temperature $T$ and baryon chemical potential
$\mu_B$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^8N_{l^+l^-}}{d^4x d^4q} = -\frac{\alpha^2}{\pi^3 M^2} \ f^B(q_0;T) \
{\rm Im} \Pi_{\rm em}(q_0,\vec q;\mu_B,T) \ ,
\end{equation}
is governed by the thermal expectation value of the (retarded)
electromagnetic current-current correlator, $\Pi_{\rm em}$
($f^B$: Bose function). The latter can
be written in terms of its longitudinal and transverse projections as
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{\rm em}(q_0,\vec q)=\frac{1}{3}
\left[\Pi^L_{\rm em}(q_0,\vec q) +
2\Pi^T_{\rm em}(q_0,\vec q) \right] \ ,
\end{equation}
both depending separately on energy and momentum.
Below momentum transfers of about 1~GeV, the hadronic part of the e.m.
current can be accurately  saturated by the light vector mesons
within the well-established vector dominance model (VDM). The correlator is
then expressed through the imaginary parts of the vector meson
propagators (= spectral functions) as
\begin{equation}
{\rm Im} \Pi_{\rm em} = \sum\limits_{V=\rho,\omega,\phi}
\frac{(m_V^{(0)})^4}{g_V^2} {\rm Im} D_V \ .
\end{equation}
In the following we will neglect the small contributions from the
isoscalar part and concentrate on the $\rho$ meson which plays by far
the dominant role for the time scales involved in heavy-ion reactions.

Along the lines of our earlier analyses~\cite{RCW} the $\rho$
propagator in hot hadronic matter,
\begin{equation}
D_\rho^{L,T}=\frac{1}{M^2-(m_\rho^{(0)})^2-\Sigma_{\rho\pi\pi}^{L,T}
-\Sigma_{\rho M}^{L,T} -\Sigma_{\rho B}^{L,T} } \ ,
\label{Drho}
\end{equation}
is evaluated in terms of various contributions entering
its in-medium selfenergy $\Sigma_\rho$. The meson gas effects (encoded in
$\Sigma_{\rho M}$) are accounted for following Ref.~\cite{RG99}
through interactions with the most abundant thermal
$\pi$, $K$ and $\rho$ mesons saturated with a rather complete set of
$s$-channel resonances $R$ up to 1.3~GeV.  The interaction vertices have
been constrained by both hadronic ($R\to P\rho$) {\em and}
radiative ($R\to P\gamma$) decay branchings. Also, the Bose enhancement
for the in-medium $\rho\pi\pi$ width has been included in
$\Sigma_{\rho\pi\pi}$.

The $\rho$ modifications in nuclear matter are based on the model
constructed in Refs.~\cite{RCW,RUBW,UBRW}, where direct $\rho N\to B$
interactions ($B$=$N$, $\Delta$, $N$(1520), $\Delta$(1700),
$N$(1720), $\dots$, encoded in $\Sigma_{\rho B}$)
as well as pion cloud modifications through $\pi NN^{-1}$ and
$ \pi\Delta N^{-1}$ excitations (entering $\Sigma_{\rho\pi\pi}$)
were calculated. Again, the model parameters have been
thoroughly constrained by analyzing photoabsorption spectra
on nucleons and nuclei as well as $\pi N \to \rho N $ scattering data.
The latter enforce a rather soft form factor on the $\pi NN$
vertex.
Also, since the VDM is less accurate in the baryonic sector, an improved
VDM coupling~\cite{KLZ} has been employed for the (transverse)
$\gamma N \to B$ transition form factors so that
\begin{equation}
{\rm Im } \Pi_{\rm em} = \frac{1}{3 g_{\rho\pi\pi}^2} \left[
{\cal F}^L + 2 {\cal F}^T \right]
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}^L &=& -(m_\rho^{(0)})^4 \ {\rm Im} D_\rho^L
\nonumber\\
{\cal F}^T &=&
-{\rm Im}[\Sigma^T_{\rho\pi\pi}+\Sigma_{\rho M}^T] |d_\rho-1|^2
  -{\rm Im}\Sigma^T_{\rho B} |d_\rho-r_B|^2
\nonumber\\
d_\rho &=&
\frac{ M^2-\Sigma^T_{\rho\pi\pi}-\Sigma_{\rho M}^T  - r_B \Sigma^T_{\rho B} }
{ M^2-(m_\rho^{(0)})^2-\Sigma^T_{\rho\pi\pi}-\Sigma_{\rho M}^T
-\Sigma^T_{\rho B} } \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
cf.~Refs.~\cite{FrPi,RUBW} (here $r_B=0.7$, the ratio between the actual
$\gamma NB$ coupling and its value in the simple VDM).

\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Drho69PbT300.eps,width=8cm}
\caption{Real (lower panel) and imaginary (upper panel) part of the
$\rho$ propagator in hot and dense hadronic matter at fixed
baryon chemical potential $\mu_B=330$~MeV and temperatures $T=180$~MeV
(corresponding to nucleon and total baryon densities of
$\varrho_N=0.67\varrho_0$ and $\varrho_B=2.6\varrho_0$),
$T=150$~MeV ($\varrho_N=0.25\varrho_0$, $\varrho_B=0.72\varrho_0$) and
$T=120$~MeV ($\rho_N=0.06\rho_0$, $\rho_B=0.13\rho_0$).}
\label{fig_drho}
\end{figure}

At finite temperatures two additional features appear in the baryonic
sector. Firstly, the Fermi-Dirac distribution functions are replaced by
thermal ones~\cite{RW94,RCW}, which, at the temperatures of interest here
($T\simeq 150$~MeV), are substantially smeared as compared to the
zero-temperature $\Theta$-functions. Secondly, a large fraction
of the nucleons is excited into baryonic resonances which, in turn,
are no longer active in nucleon-driven effects. However, as
conjectured in Ref.~\cite{BLRRW}, a baryonic resonance $B_1$ might still have
excitations of type $\rho B_2 B_1^{-1}$ built on it.
The particle data table~\cite{PDG96} indeed supports this hypothesis: {\it e.g.},
the $\Sigma(1670)$ (which is a well-established four-star resonance
with spin-isospin $IJ^P=1 \frac{3}{2}^-$), when interpreted  as a $\rho \Sigma$
(or $\rho\Lambda$) 'resonance',   very much resembles the quantum
numbers and excitation energy  ($\Delta E\simeq 500-700$~MeV)
of the $\rho N\to N(1520)$ transition. In addition,
the branching ratio  of $\Sigma(1670)$ decays into 'simple' final states
such as $N\bar K, \Sigma \pi$ or $\Lambda\pi$ is significantly less than
100\% .
Similar excitations on non-strange baryonic resonances are more
difficult to identify as the latter themselves decay strongly via
pion emission ({\it i.e.}, the $B_2\to B_1 \rho$ decay is immediately followed
by further $B_2\to N\pi$ and $\rho\to \pi\pi$ decays). Nevertheless,
from pure quantum numbers it is tempting to associate, {\it e.g.},
$\Delta(1930)\Delta^{-1}$ or $N(2080)N(1440)^{-1}$ excitations
with $S$-wave  'Rhosobar' states. We have conservatively estimated
their coupling constants
to give reasonable branching fractions into $\rho B_1$ and $\gamma B_1$
(the latter are typically in the range of 0.2--0.7~MeV). Due
to the large total widths involved, their impact on the $\rho$ propagator
is weaker as compared to excitations on nucleons at equal densities;
{\it e.g.}, at T=150~MeV and $\mu_B=436$~MeV, where, in chemical equilibrium,
 about 2/3 of the baryons are in excited states, the additional broadening
from the calculated $B_2B_1^{-1}$ excitations as compared to
$BN^{-1}$ ones amounts to
about 40\%. Concerning the pion cloud modifications, we do not
explicitly compute the 'Pisobars' on excited resonances but approximate
their effect by using an effective nucleon  density
$\varrho_{eff}= \varrho_N+0.5\varrho_{B^*}$.

The final result for the $\rho$ spectral function in hot hadronic matter
is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig_drho} at fixed three-momentum and
chemical potentials $\mu_\pi=0$, $\mu_B=330$~MeV for pions and baryons,
respectively. One observes a strong broadening
with increasing temperature and density. Comparing to the pure meson
gas results of Ref.~\cite{RG99} (cf.~Fig.~3 therein), it becomes clear that
especially the low-mass enhancement around $M\simeq 0.4$~GeV is
largely driven by baryons\footnote{With respect to the conditions
realized in URHIC's at the full SpS energy (160-200~AGeV) this statement
has to be taken with care as finite pion chemical potentials might
arise towards freezeout which enhances the contributions from the
meson gas.}.

The pertinent three-momentum integrated dilepton production rates
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_dlrates}.
At moderate temperature and density (upper panel), one still recognizes a
remnant of the $\rho$ peak, which, however, is entirely wiped out
under conditions expected to be close to the phase boundary (lower panel).
This  provokes a comparison with quark-gluon based rate calculations,
which, for simplicity, have been evaluated in terms of lowest order
$O(\alpha\alpha_s^0$) $q\bar q$ annihilation~\cite{CFR},
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dR_{q\bar q \to ee}}{d^4q} &=& \frac{\alpha^2}{4\pi^4}
\frac{T}{q} f^B(q_0;T) \sum\limits_q e_q^2
\nonumber\\
&\times& \ln
\frac{\left(x_-+y\right) \left( x_++\exp[-\mu_q/T]\right)}
{\left(x_++y\right) \left( x_-+\exp[-\mu_q/T]\right)}
\label{qqrate0}
\end{eqnarray}
with $x_\pm=\exp[-(q_0\pm q)/2T]$, $y=\exp[-(q_0+\mu_q)/T]$.
In the vacuum the $q\bar q$ rates are known
to coincide with the hadronic description for invariant
masses $M\ge1.5$~GeV as marked by the cross section ratio
$\sigma(e^+e^-\to hadrons)/\sigma(e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ for the inverse
process of $e^+e^-$ annihilation (up to additional resonance structures in the
vicinity of heavy-quark thresholds such as $c\bar c$).
It seems that the in-medium hadronic rates indeed approach the partonic
ones rather quickly leading to an approximate
agreement at the highest temperatures/densities
for masses of about 0.5--1~GeV (the deviation at masses $M>1$~GeV is due
to the incomplete description of the vector correlator in vacuum which does
not include more than two-pion states; the discrepancy at low masses
might be reduced once higher order $\alpha_S$ corrections are included, in
particular soft Bremsstrahlung-type processes).
A tempting interpretation of this behavior is a lowering of the
'quark-hadron duality threshold' in hot and dense hadronic matter.
We will return to this issue in the discussion in Sect.~\ref{sec_disc}.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=rate69qgp.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of hadronic and partonic dilepton production rates
(integrated over 3-momentum) in hot and dense matter at fixed baryon
chemical potential (and equivalent quark chemical potential
$\mu_q$=$\mu_B/3$) for  T=150~MeV (upper panel) and T=180~MeV (lower panel);
dashed and full lines: $\pi\pi$ annihilation using the free
and the in-medium $\rho$ spectral function, respectively; dashed-dotted
lines: lowest-order quark-antiquark annihilation.}
\label{fig_dlrates}
\end{figure}

\section{Low-Mass Dilepton Observables in Pb(158~AGeV)+Au }
For a sensible application of the in-medium vector correlator to
calculate dilepton production in URHIC's a realistic temperature
and density profile is required. Microscopic
transport or hydrodynamical simulations, {\it e.g.},  have proven very
successful in describing the final hadron observables.
However, the associated  dilepton yields, based on
identical production rates, may differ appreciably~\cite{R99}, cf., {\it e.g.},
Refs.~\cite{CBRW} and \cite{HP99}. As we will show below, a possible origin
of this discrepancy might be related to the build-up of a finite
chemical potential, which is usually not included in most
hydrodynamical calculations to date (see, however,  Ref.~\cite{HS98}).

Recent hadro-chemical analysis~\cite{pbm98,CR99}
of a large body of hadronic heavy-ion
data has shown that the finally observed particle abundances at SpS energies
are consistent with a common {\em chemical} freezeout at
temperatures/baryon chemical potentials around $(T,\mu_B)_{ch}=(175,270)$~MeV.
In the subsequent expansion and cooling the system is still
strongly interacting with elastic collisions maintaining
thermal equilibrium until the {\em thermal} freezeout. The absence
of pion-number changing (inelastic) reactions (which is well supported
phenomenologially from the inelasticities in $\pi\pi$ scattering)
then induces a finite pion chemical potential~\cite{Bebie}.
To incorporate these features, we  here take recourse
to a simple expanding thermal fireball model.
We start by generating a (non-interacting) resonance gas equation of state
of hot hadronic matter including the lowest 32 (16) mesonic (baryonic) states.
Imposing entropy and baryon number conservation determines
the temperature dependence of the baryon chemical potential, $\mu_B(T)$.
The additional requirement of  pion- [kaon-] number conservation
entails a finite $\mu_\pi(T)$ [$\mu_K(T)\simeq\mu_{\bar K}(T)$], with
the various baryon chemical potentials
kept in relative equilibrium (with respect to strong interactions), {\it e.g.},
$\mu_\Delta(T)=\mu_N(T)+\mu_\pi(T)$, etc.. With an entropy per baryon
of $s/\varrho_B=26$, our trajectory is found to pass through
$(T,\mu_N)=(175,250)$~MeV, compatible with the experimentally
deduced point~\cite{pbm98} (here, a small $\mu_\pi\simeq 20$~MeV is needed
to be consistent with the final pion-to-baryon ratio of about 5:1 at
SpS energies).
Towards thermal freezeout at $(T,\mu_N)_{fo}\simeq (110-120,415-450)$~MeV,
$\mu_\pi(T)$  and $\mu_K(T)$ increase approximately linearly
to around 80 and 110~MeV, respectively.
Finally we need to introduce a time scale to obtain the volume expansion.
We approximate the latter by a cylindrical geometry as
\begin{equation}
V_{FC}^{(2)}(t)= 2 \ (z_0+v_z t +\frac{1}{2} a_z t^2) \ \pi \
(r_0+\frac{1}{2} a_\perp t^2)^2
\end{equation}
employing two firecylinders expanding
in the $\pm z$ direction. Guided by hydrodynamical simulations~\cite{HS98}
the primordial longitudinal motion for Pb(158~AGeV)+Au reactions
is taken to be $v_{z}=0.5c$, and the longitudinal and transverse
acceleration are fixed to give final velocities $v_{z}(t_{fo})\simeq 0.75c$,
$v_\perp(t_{fo})\simeq 0.55c$ as borne out from experiment (this, in turn,
requires fireball lifetimes of about $t_{fo}=10-12$~fm/c and implies
transverse expansion by 3-4~fm, consistent with HBT analyses~\cite{hbt}).
The parameter $r_0$ denotes the initial nuclear overlap radius,
{\it e.g.}, $r_0=4.6$~fm for collisions with impact parameter $b=5$~fm and
$N_B\simeq 260$ participant baryons. The parameter $z_0$ is equivalent to
a formation time and fixes the starting point of the trajectory
in the $(T,\mu_N)$ plane.

With the such specified space-time evolution for $\sim$30\%
central Pb(158~AGeV)+Au collisions
the dilepton yields from in-medium radiation are obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d^2N_{ee}}{d\eta dM} &=&
\frac{\alpha^2}{\pi^3 g_{\rho\pi\pi}^2 M} \int\limits_0^{t_{fo}}
dt \ V_{FC}^{(1)}(t)
\int \frac{d^3q}{q_0} \ f^\rho(q_0;T(t)) \
\nonumber\\
 & & \times {\cal F}(M,q; \mu_B(t),T(t)) \ Acc(M,\vec q) \
\label{dNdM_med}
\end{eqnarray}
with $Acc(M,\vec q)$ accounting for the experimental acceptance cuts (as
well as an approximate mass resolution) in the '96 CERES data. The backward
firecylinder is placed at a rapidity $y=2.6$ to ensure the correct
charged particle multiplicity as quoted by CERES. The electromagnetic
'transition form factor' ${\cal F}$
contains the in-medium $\rho$ spectral function
as described above, where the additional effects
of the finite meson chemical potentials have been implemented in
Boltzmann approximation. For initial conditions
$(T,\varrho_B)_{ini}$=(190~MeV,2.55$\varrho_0$) and a freezeout at
$(T,\varrho_{B})_{fo}$=(115~MeV,0.33$\varrho_0$) the fireball lifetime
amounts to about $t_{fo}$=11~fm/c, see also above
(reducing, {\it e.g.}, $(T,\varrho_B)_{ini}$ to (180~MeV,1.92$\varrho_0$) reduces
the dilepton signal from the fireball by about 15\%).

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=dls69PbyT250.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{1996 CERES/NA45 inclusive
dielectron invariant mass spectra from 30\% central
Pb(158~AGeV)+Au collisions~\protect\cite{ceres96} compared to the hadronic
cocktail~\protect\cite{cktl} (without $\rho$ decays, dashed-dotted line)
and to the cocktail plus $\pi\pi$ annihilation from the hadronic fireball
using either the free (dashed line) or the in-medium (solid line)
$\rho$ spectral function from Eq.~(\protect\ref{Drho}).}
\label{fig_Mspec}
\end{figure}

In addition to the in-medium radiation described by Eq.~(\ref{dNdM_med})
the finally observed dilepton spectra contain a sizeable contribution
from free hadron decays after freezeout, the so-called 'cocktail'.
For this we employ the most recent evaluation of the CERES
collaboration~\cite{cktl},
which is generated from particle abundances based on the chemical
freezeout of Ref.~\cite{pbm98} being consistent with our $(T,\mu_B)$
trajectory. As in our previous works~\cite{RCW} the
$\rho$-meson decays have been excluded from the cocktail as, owing
to the short lifetime of the $\rho$,  they are accounted for through
the in-medium part, Eq.~(\ref{dNdM_med}), in the vicinity of the (idealized)
'freezeout'.

The final results for the inclusive invariant mass spectra, shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig_Mspec}, demonstrate that the use of the in-medium spectral
function leads to reasonable agreement with the '96 CERES data, which
cannot be described assuming vacuum $\rho$ properties.
This is in line with the conclusions of our earlier analysis~\cite{RCW},
but we emphasize again that the results presented here are based
on a much improved understanding  of both the microscopic $\rho$
spectral function (being constrained by a large body of independent
data) as well as the space-time evolution dynamics (consistent
with chemical freezeout analyses, without the use
of an overall normalization factor, etc.). As compared to Ref.~\cite{RCW}
the smaller $\mu_B$ in the early stages, the finite $\mu_\pi$ in the
later stages, and the more complete assessment of the meson gas
effects~\cite{RG99} reduces the dominant role of the baryonic contributions
to about equal importance as the mesonic ones.
Another noteworthy point is that the overall dilepton yield exceeds
what has been found in the  hydrodynamical calculations of, {\it e.g.},
Ref.~\cite{HP99} (where $\mu_\pi=0$ has been used throughout)
by about a factor of $\sim$2.5, thereby
essentially resolving the above mentioned discrepancy to
transport calculations~\cite{CEK,LKB}.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=dndmqt0569PbyT.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\protect\ref{fig_Mspec}, but split into two
transverse momentum bins~\protect\cite{ceres96}
 below (upper panel) and above (lower panel) $q_t$=0.5~GeV.}
\label{fig_Mspecqt}
\end{figure}

A more detailed insight into the nature of the low-mass enhancement
is revealed by inspecting its dependence on the transverse pair
momentum $q_t$. Fig.~\ref{fig_Mspecqt} shows the invariant
mass spectrum seperated into two transverse momentum bins below and above
$q_t=0.5$~GeV. Clearly, the excess of the data
over the free calculation is most pronounced in the
small momentum bin which is properly reflected in our in-medium calculations.
The same behavior is exhibited in another
projection of the data in Fig.~\ref{fig_qtspec}, where transverse
momentum spectra in various invariant mass bins are displayed.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=dndqt69PbyT.eps,width=8.3cm}
\end{center}
\caption{1996 CERES/NA45 transverse momentum spectra for $e^+e^-$ pairs
in 30\% central Pb(158~AGeV)+Au collisions~\protect\cite{ceres96}. Line
identification as in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig_Mspec}.}
\label{fig_qtspec}
\end{figure}

\section{Summary and Discussion}
\label{sec_disc}
Based on realistic hadronic interaction vertices we have shown that
the in-medium $\rho$ spectral function, evaluated within standard
many-body techniques,  undergoes a strong broadening
in hot and dense matter. At comparable densities the baryonic effects
prevail over mesonic ones  due to the stronger nature
of the meson-nucleon interactions. Corresponding
thermal dilepton production rates exhibit a remarkable tendency
to approach the lowest-order perturbative $q\bar q$
annihilation with increasing temperature and density.
This might indicate the emergence of 'quark-hadron duality' towards
the phase boundary down to rather low mass scales of $0.5$~GeV,
made possible through large imaginary parts resummed in the Dyson
equation of $\rho$ propagator. The medium effects might thus be
interpreted as a lowering of the 'duality threshold', which in free space
is located around 1.5~GeV. An unambiguous identification of chiral
restoration, however, requires
the simultaneous treatment of the axial correlator ($a_1$ channel)
which has to merge with the vector correlator which we have focused
on here. Although the perturbative $q\bar q$ rate implies restored chiral
symmetry, one has to keep in mind that (thermal) non-perturbative
effects below 1~GeV are not yet well under control.
The argument can be made more rigorous in the 1--1.5~GeV region,
where the lowest-order in temperature mixing between vector and
axialvector correlators suffices to establish a full
degeneracy between them as well as the perturbatively calculated partonic
result.

We have furthermore demonstrated that our model for the in-medium $\rho$
spectral function is in line with current  low-mass
dilepton measurements at the CERN-SpS. For that we have employed
a simple fireball expansion model consistent with recent hadro-chemical
analysis and imposing effective pion-number conservation between chemical
and thermal freezeout via finite pion chemical potentials (the
latter seem to resolve a large part of the discrepancy in the total
dilepton yield between transport and chemical equilibrium-based hydrodynamic
simulations).  The apparent depletion of the in-medium dilepton yield
in the  $\rho/\omega$ region, as well as the
enhancement below can be accounted for. This also holds for the low-$q_t$
nature of the excess.
Upcoming high resolution measurements as well as the more baryon-dominated
40~GeV run will put the model predictions under further scrutiny and
can be expected to advance our understanding of
chiral symmetry restoration in hot and dense hadronic matter.

\vskip1cm

\centerline {\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
We are grateful for productive conversations with P. Braun-Munzinger,
G.E. Brown, C. Gale, A. Drees, V. Koch, E.V. Shuryak, H. Sorge,
H.-J. Specht and J. Stachel.
We are especially indebted to A. Drees for providing us with the
CERES cocktail. One of us (RR) acknowledges support
from the Alexander-von-Humboldt foundation as a Feodor-Lynen fellow.
This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy
under Grant No. DE-FG02-88ER40388 and the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. NSF-PHY-98-00978.


\section{Introduction}

The aim of this paper is giving a criterion for the choice of
kernel functions to be  used in a particular interpolation problem.
The problem is the fitting of spatial derivatives of a function $f$
(for example the gradient of $f$, $\nabla f$)
known on a finite set of points in $\Re^3$.
The results here presented
 do not depend on the way the points are chosen and valid in fully n--dimensional situations.

The problem of gradient interpolation
assumes the form of the right choice of interpolating kernels in
the so-called Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method
(we refer to [1] for
an introduction to this numerical method and to [2] for some recent
improvements).
In this scheme the fluid
is sampled by a set of
massive particles which are ``fluid representatives":
the particle positions  are considered
as moving
grid-points for the interpolation of the physical quantities characterizing
the fluid as well as
their spatial derivatives. SPH is so a fully Lagrangian method.
Analogously to the classic mollification approximation of a
sufficiently regular
function $f$ with the convolution function
$\langle f \rangle \equiv f*\phi$, where
$*$ is the convolution operator and $\phi$ is a kernel function
(whose properties will be specified later),
the spatial derivatives of $f$, resumed by
$\nabla f$, are approximated by $\langle \nabla f \rangle_1
\equiv (\nabla f ) * \phi$. In doing this, we take the advantage that,
under suitable
hypotheses on $f$ and $\phi$, $(\nabla f)*\phi$ can be replaced by
$f*\nabla \phi$. As final step,
the integral $f*\nabla \phi$ is numerically evaluated.
Note that the knowledge of $f$
on a set of points suffices to evaluate $\langle \nabla f \rangle_1$,
and the
numerical evaluation of the integral giving $f*\nabla \phi$ can be
done using a Monte-Carlo estimate.
The interpolation procedure used in SPH follows the scheme we have just
sketched, so we shall refer to this scheme as ``SPH-like".
We start our analysis noting that another approximation for $\nabla f$
can be
given by $\langle \nabla f \rangle_2 \equiv \nabla(f*\phi)$.
As the kernel $\phi$ does not depend explicitely on the position, the
two approximations $\langle \nabla f \rangle_1$ and
$\langle \nabla f \rangle_2$ are equivalent
for any regular enough kernel.
It is easy to verify
that this property is lost when the kernel is position--dependent.

In the applications, to improve spatial resolution the characteristic size of the kernel is actually allowed to depend
on the position and the
approximation $\langle \nabla f \rangle_1$ is implicitely applied. In this
case the SPH scheme is no longer
momentum and energy conservative,[3].
In fact, the use of a position dependent kernel introduces, in the
approximation $\langle \nabla f \rangle_1$, a source of error proportional
to the characteristic size of the kernel while the approximation of
the SPH scheme is of the second order with respect to it, [1].

 To overcome this problem, the discrete SPH equations should be modified
introducing corrective terms as, for example, deeply  discussed
in [4]. In [4] it is shown how the inclusion of the proper $\nabla h$ terms in the equations of motion leads to significant improvement of energy conservation in cases of SPH simulations of
collisions of polytropic spheres.
\par\noindent In this paper we approach this problem in another way trying to answer to the question:

$\bullet$ is it possible to reduce  unconservativity within the general order of approximation of SPH without modifying its, appealingly simple, form?

We believe that the use of the approximation $\langle \nabla f \rangle_2$
would be desirable for this, and
we will give, in the Appendix, a strong argument in support.
Consequently, we simply look for kernels such that
the exchange between the approximation $\langle \nabla f \rangle_2$
and $\langle \nabla f \rangle_1$ introduces a negligible
error. This approach has the advantage that no changes on the discrete
SPH equations are needed.

We stress that the kernels proposed and commonly adopted
in SPH, have
been selected either following the spline interpolation theory,
[5,6], or
minimizing the error in the approximation of $f$ with $f*\phi$,
[7]. A recent paper, [9], gives a quite
complete statistical analysis of the quality  of kernels of various
types (i.e. shapes) to reproduce the derivatives of given functions
sampled on a one-dimensional, even spaced, mesh.
Then our analysis is substantially different from all the previous
ones. In particular we are not interested here in the topic of
selecting the kernel's width as a function of
the particle's position, but rather to identify kernels able to keep second order accuracy of SPH as interpolation technique even in the case of position--dependent kernel width.

The plan of the paper is the following: in Section 2 we introduce
the kind of kernels we deal with; in Section 3 the
interpolation
procedure is studied in detail, and we state a general
criterion for selecting kernels; in Section 4 some
kernels
are accordingly proposed;
in Section 5, a simple numerical test is performed, while Sect. 6 is devoted to draw the Conclusions.

\section{The kernel function}
\noindent

First of all let us define the kernel $\phi$ to use in the
mollification procedure. We shall assume
the following general form
\begin{equation}
\phi({\bf r},h) \propto h^{-n} g(r/h)
\label{kernel}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf r} = (r_1,r_2,...,r_n)$ is the position vector in $\Re^n$,
$r=|{\bf r}|$, $g(x)$ is a smooth
scalar function of the real variable $x$,
with $g'(0) \equiv (d
g/ dx)_{x=0}=0$ and such that the kernel has
finite moments up to a sufficiently high order.
The normalization condition $\int \phi~d{\bf r}=1$
(the integral is extended over all the physical space)
for any $h$ value is imposed.
Notice that these assumptions ensure that $\sup_{\bf r} | f*\phi -f| \propto h^2$, for any sufficiently smooth function $f(\bf r)$.
This means that the regularized approximating function $f*\phi$ tends
uniformly to the ``true" function $f$ as $h$ goes to zero.
The function $g$ defines the shape of the kernel, which is particularly
important when gradients have to be evaluated.

\section{A criterion for the kernel choice}
\noindent

In this Section we consider the step of the SPH-like interpolation
procedure related to the approximation of derivatives of a function.
In particular we study the difference
between
$(\nabla f)*\phi$ and $\nabla( f*\phi)$ when $\phi$ depends explicitly
on the position.
As a result we shall derive a first general criterion for the right
choice of
the shape
of kernels of the type (\ref{kernel}).

Before starting our analysis we find convenient to specify the
notations adopted hereafter. We define two differential operators,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\bf r} \equiv \left ({d\over dr_1}, {d \over dr_2}, ..., {d \over dr_n}
\right ),~~~~
\partial \equiv  \left ({\partial \over \partial r_1},
{\partial \over \partial r_2}, ..., {\partial \over \partial r_n} \right );
\label{diffoper}
\end{equation}
the first one (also referred to as $\nabla$ when no ambiguity occurs) is the usual gradient operator in $\Re^n$ while the second one
is a ``partial" gradient operator,  in the sense that it
 deals
only with the {\it explicit} dependence on the spatial variables.

As we have sketched in the Introduction, the basic idea behind the SPH-like
method is the approximation of the gradient
of a quantity basing on the knowledge of $f$
on the particle positions, only. This idea relies on that
$$
(\nabla f)*\phi = f*\nabla \phi= \nabla (f *\phi),
$$
these identities being true only under appropriate boundary conditions
for $f$ and $\phi$ and if $h=const$. When $h=h({\bf r})$ then integration by parts leads to
$\nabla( f * \phi) = f*\partial \phi$ and

$$
(\nabla f)*\phi \equiv \langle \nabla  f \rangle_1=\int \nabla_{\bf r'} f({\bf r'}) \phi({\bf r}- {\bf r'},h({\bf r})) d{\bf r'} =
$$

\begin{equation} =\nabla_{\bf r} \int f({\bf r'}) \phi({\bf r}- {\bf r'},h({\bf r})) d{\bf r'}
- \delta =
\nabla (f*\phi) -\delta \equiv \langle \nabla f \rangle_2-\delta,
\label{deltaerror}
\end{equation}

where $\delta$ depends on $f$ and $h$.
In this case,
the normalization condition on the kernel
implies
\begin{equation}
\int \partial \phi({\bf r}-{ \bf r'},h({\bf r})) d{\bf r'}=0,
~~~~
\int
{d\over dh} \phi({ \bf r}-{\bf r'},h({\bf r})) d{\bf r'}=0.
\label{integrals}
\end{equation}
Our aim is now to find how making $\delta$ as small as possible independently of $f$.
Taking into account (\ref{kernel}), let us evaluate
$\delta$:
$$
\delta \equiv \int f({\bf r'}) \nabla h({\bf r}){d\over dh} \phi({\bf r}-{\bf r'},h({\bf r}))
 d{\bf r'} \propto
$$
\begin{equation}
-{\nabla h({\bf r})\over h^{n+1}({\bf r})} \int f({\bf r'})
[n g({|{\bf r}-{\bf r'}|/h({\bf r})})
+ {|{\bf r}-{\bf r'}| \over h({\bf r})} g'(|{\bf r}-{\bf r'}|/h({\bf r}))]
d{\bf r'}.
\label{lowdelta}
\end{equation}
In order to recover the equality
$(\nabla f)*\phi= \nabla (f*\phi)$, independently
of $f$, the
function $g$ in (\ref{lowdelta})
should satisfy, in $\Re^+$, the ordinary differential equation
\begin{equation}
n g(x) + x g'(x) =0.
\label{ode}
\end{equation}
The non-trivial solution of this ODE is given by $g\propto x^{-n}$,
which leads to a non--normalizable kernel.
This means that, with a choice of $g$ in the set of normalizable kernels,
$\delta$ cannot vanish for all
functions $f$.

Thus, a possibility is to minimize $\delta$ via its expansion in terms of the parameter $h$, looking for conditions that
allow to eliminate at least some low order terms on $h$.

Performing a Taylor expansion of the function $f$ up to the second
order around the point $\bf r$, and
taking into
account the symmetry of the kernel and the normalizing conditions,
it is easy to verify that
\begin{equation}
\delta = {1\over 2}\nabla h({\bf r}) \Delta f({\bf r})
\int (r_1-{r'}_1)^2
{d \over d h}\phi({\bf r}-{\bf r'},h({\bf r})) d{\bf r'} + \psi({\bf r})
{\it O}(h^{2}),
\label{lowterms}
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is a function of the position and
$\Delta$ is the Laplace operator.
Now, we look for
kernels that minimize the absolute value of the integral in
(\ref{lowterms}).
Let us work out the case $n\geq 3$ (the simpler cases
$n=1$ and $n=2$ must be handled in a slight different way).
Making the substitution ${\bf z}=({\bf r}-{\bf r'})/h({\bf r})$
the integral in (\ref{lowterms}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
h({\bf r}) \int z_1^2 ( n g(|{\bf z}|) + g'(|{\bf z}|) |{\bf z}|) d{\bf z}.
\label{cond1}
\end{equation}
To perform the integral in (\ref{cond1})
we introduce the set of cylindrical variables
 $(z_1, \rho,\theta_3,...,\theta_n)$,
thus getting, after
simple manipulations of variables:
\begin{equation}
{1 \over 2} (n-1)\omega_{n-1}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\rho \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |\rho|^{n-2}
z_1^2 \left [
 n g(\sqrt{z_1^2+\rho^2}) + g'(\sqrt{z_1^2+\rho^2})
\sqrt{z_1^2+\rho^2} \right ] dz_1,
\label{cond2}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_n$ is the volume of the n--dimensional
unitary sphere.
Moreover,
using polar coordinates $(\alpha, \beta)$ on the plane
$(z_1,\rho)$, the expression (\ref{cond2}) becomes
\begin{equation}
{1 \over 2} (n-1)\omega_{n-1}\int_0^{2\pi}  sin^2(\beta) |cos(\beta)| d\beta  \int_0^{\infty}
\alpha^{n+1} (n g(\alpha) + g'(\alpha) \alpha) d\alpha;
\label{cond3}
\end{equation}
the normalization condition, now, is
\begin{equation}
{1 \over 2} (n-1)\omega_{n-1}\int_0^{2\pi} |sin(\beta)| d\beta \int_0^{\infty} g(\alpha)
\alpha^{n-1} d\alpha=1.
\label{norm}
\end{equation}

It is clear that the approximation of $(\nabla f)*\phi$
with $\nabla (f*\phi)$
improves of, at least, one order with respect to $h$
if the normalized kernel has a shape such that the
integral over $\alpha$ in
(\ref{cond3})
is zero. This improvement makes the SPH--like interpolation with variable kernel size of the same order (the second) of the classic SPH
interpolation with  constant $h$ (see Appendix).

Thus, we get a criterion to select kernels:

{\it
\noindent
kernels of type (\ref{kernel}) should be chosen selecting $g$
in the class of differentiable functions such that}
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{\infty} \alpha^{n+1} (n g(\alpha)+g'(\alpha)\alpha)~d\alpha=0~~,~~
0 < \int_0^{\infty} \alpha^{n-1} g(\alpha) d\alpha < \infty .
\label{criterion}
\end{equation}
Remark 1: it is easily shown that also the cases $n=1$ and $n=2$ lead to the same constrain (12) for the selection of the kernel. Remark 2: the stated criterion is of course useless
if $\nabla h({\bf r})$ is imposed to be zero.
Remark 3: this
analysis may be iterated by evaluating higher order terms in the
Taylor expansion of the interpolated function $f$, and imposing them to be zero.
\par As final, relevant, consideration we notice that the shape of
our proposed ~\lq optimal \rq~ kernel depends on the dimension, $n$, of the space ; of course this should be taken into account in the practical applications.

\section{Some examples and applications}
\noindent
We want, now, to apply the stated criterion to select kernels
(in some specific class of functions) in the most common three--dimensional case.  The
most used kernels in SPH numerical applications derive from the
theory of spline
functions, [5,6].
Thus, we consider the class of functions (which corresponds
to the third-order spline functions class) defined as:
\begin{equation}
g(r)=\left \{\matrix{ &ar^3+br^2+cr+d&~~~~~&0\leq r \leq 1&\cr
&a'r^3+b'r^2+c'r+d'&~~~~~&1\leq r\leq 2& \cr
& 0 &~~~~~& r > 2,&} \right .
\label{spline}
\end{equation}
continuous up to the second derivative and such that:

\begin{enumerate}
\item $g(0)=1$ and $g(2)=0$;
\item the first derivative vanishes on the boundary of the
 set $[0,2]$.
\end{enumerate}

Following the criterion discussed in Section 3, the selected normalized $3-D$ kernel
in this class is found to be

\begin{equation}
\phi({\bf r},h)=
{15\over 1152 \pi h^3}
\left \{\matrix{ & ({r/ h})^2 \left (171~({r/h})-321 \right )+172&~~
&0\leq r/h \leq1
&\cr &&&& \cr
&\left (({r/ h})-2\right )^2\left (107-85~({r / h}) \right )
&~~&1\leq r/h \leq 2& \cr &&&& \cr
& 0 &~~& r/h >2. &} \right .
\label{selspline}
\end{equation}

Another kernel often used in the applications belongs to the
super-Gaussian class of kernels:
\begin{equation}
g(r)=(ar^2+b)e^{-r^2}~~~~,~~~~ r \geq 0.
\label{sgauss}
\end{equation}
When applied to this class of functions, our criterion yields (in $3-D$)

\begin{equation}
\phi({\bf r},h)= {1 \over {\pi^{3/2}h^3}}{\left ({5 \over 2}-(r/ h)^2 \right )
}e^{-(r/h)^2}.
\label{selgauss}
\end{equation}

We note that
the kernel (\ref{selspline}) differs
from the kernel belonging to the
same class and suggested by Monaghan and Lattanzio
[6] (see also Figure 1),
i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\phi({\bf r},h) = {1 \over \pi h^3 } \left \{
\matrix{& 1 - {3\over 2} (r/ h)^2 + {3 \over 4} (r/ h)^3
& ~~~ & 0 \leq r/h \leq 1& \cr
& & & & \cr
& {1\over 4} \left (2-(r /h) \right )^3 & ~~~
& 1 \leq r/h \leq 2 & \cr & & & & \cr & 0 & ~~~ & r/h > 2, &} \right .
\label{monlatt}
\end{equation}
On the other hand
the kernel (\ref{selgauss}) is exactly the same super-Gaussian kernel
suggested
by Gingold and Monaghan [7].

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\vbox{\hrule width 5cm height0.001pt}}
\vspace*{1.4truein}
\centerline{\vbox{\hrule width 5cm height0.001pt}}
\caption{The kernel (\ref{selspline}) selected with our method (solid line)
is compared with the kernel (\ref{monlatt})
(dashed line).
}
\end{figure}

Finally, note that a kernel which is somewhere negative
is compatible with our analysis, for we never made assumptions on the
sign of $g$ in (\ref{kernel}). Nevertheless, a non-negative kernel should be
desirable whether the interpolated function is thought to have some
specific physical meaning
(for example when
it represents a mass density). A possible way to overcome this
problem could be the
use of two different kernels to represent the physical quantities
and their gradients separately, but this point should deserve a deeper
analysis.

\section{A numerical test}
\noindent

\par
 The problem of having a good interpolation of derivatives occurs  often
 in the applications and, even if it does not guarantee the quality of SPH evolutive simulations, surely helps in fluid--dynamical numerical simulations.
\par\noindent Of course, when violent shock fronts appear in fluid--dynamical
simulations, to keep energy and momentum conservations at a high level of precision requires both a large number of particles in around the front (i.e. high resolution) and modification of SPH equations by mean of the inclusion of the
relevant $\nabla h$ term, as shown in [4]. Actually, we could check this in
an SPH simulation of the
classic case of 1-D  shock tube calculation, after selecting the best  1-D
kernel in the class
of cubic splines, following our, previously described, recipe. The treatment
 of shocks improves with our kernel, but the most significant improvement
come actually from higher resolutions and $\nabla h$ terms inclusion.
\par
We shall use here  our selected kernel (\ref{selspline}) in a numerical example
of function gradient interpolation,
comparing our results with the analogous ones obtained using the kernel
(\ref{monlatt}) suggested by Monaghan and Lattanzio [6] (of course, the
 3-D  case is by far the most important in practical applications).
To this aim, we evaluate numerically the gradient of a
function $f$, supposed known
on a set of positions, by SPH-like interpolation. We will perform the test
using kernels whose widths strongly depend on the position.  To this end
we will set the points on a non--uniform grid, and will fix the kernel
widths so that only a fixed number of points will be ``touched" by any kernel.

The integral $(\nabla f) * \phi \simeq \nabla (f*\phi)$
is then approximated, on the positions ${\bf r}_i$, by the Monte-Carlo
estimate
$$
{1 \over N} {\sum_{j=1}^N} \left (
{f({\bf r}_j) \partial_{\bf r} \phi({\bf r}
- {\bf r}_j,h({\bf r})) \over \rho({\bf r}_j)} \right )_{{\bf r}={\bf r}_i},
~~~~~~~i=1,\cdots,N
$$
where  $N$ is the number of positions ${\bf r}_j$ over which
$f$ is known and
$\rho$ is the number density of the points ${\bf r}_j$.
As $f$ is assumed to be density of the points, the Monte-Carlo estimate
reduces to the simpler form
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\bf r} f({\bf r}_i) \sim {1 \over N}{\sum_{j=1}^N}~
\left (\partial_{\bf r} \phi({\bf r} - {\bf r}_j,h({\bf r}))
\right )_{{\bf r}={\bf r}_i}.
\label{approxi}
\end{equation}
In this case, the function $f$ itself is approximated as follows:
\begin{equation}
f({\bf r}_i) \sim {1 \over N}
{\sum_{j=1}^N}~ \phi({\bf r}_i - {\bf r}_j,h({\bf r}_i)).
\label{approxi2}
\end{equation}
For the sake of comparison we perform the  numerical evaluations
using both the kernels (\ref{selspline}) and (\ref{monlatt}).

As ``test" function, we choose the function
$f(x,y,z)=(2|x-1/2|)^{-1/2}$
in the cube $0\leq x,y,z \leq 1$, assuming $f$ as
point density, too. Being $f$ diverging as $x \to 1/2$,
a lot of points ${\bf r}_j$ will fall in the neighbourhoud of $x=1/2$.
The exact gradient is $\nabla f(x,y,z) = (
(x-1/2)/(2 \sqrt{2 |x-1/2|^5}),0,0)$, singular in $x=1/2$.
Taking into
account the meaning of $f$ as a density,
the points are displaced on a regular grid. It is easy to verify
that the $i_x-th$
position is given by the root of the expression $1+\sqrt{2}\cdot (x-5)/\sqrt
{|x-0.5|}-2\cdot i_x/n_x$,
where $1 \leq i_x \leq n_x$
and $n_x$ is the number of
grid points
on the cube edge in the $x$ direction.
The setting on the other coordinates is trivial.
The total number of grid points
is so $n_x\cdot n_y\cdot n_z$.
In the test presented here $n_x=60$
and $n_y=n_z=50$. The fit to the function and to its gradient have been
obtained applying formulas (\ref{approxi2}) and (\ref{approxi}) respectively.

The kernel sizes $h$ are chosen such that for each point
the sums (\ref{approxi2}) and (\ref{approxi}) have only 2.5\% of
non-zero terms,
then the size of the kernel depends strongly
on the position. That is,
the width $h$ changes very rapidly in
space. This is surely a situation for which $\delta$, in equation (3),
differs from zero: this fact justifies the choice of this particular $f$.

In Figure 2 the
fits obtained with the two cited kernels, along the
line $y=z=1/2$, are presented. Our kernel seems to
fits quite better either the function $f$ either the $x$ derivative.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\vspace*{13pt}
\centerline{\vbox{\hrule width 5cm height0.001pt}}
\vspace*{1.4truein}
\centerline{\vbox{\hrule width 5cm height0.001pt}}
\vspace*{13pt}
\caption{In Panel (a) the interpolation of the funcion $f$
(solid line) obtained using our kernel (dotted
line) and Monaghan and Lattazio's (dashed line) are shown;
Panel (b) refers to $\partial f / \partial x$.}
\end{figure}

As a final consideration, we note that, from a theoretical point af view,
the results of this test should depend mainly on the specific dependence
of the kernel's widths, $h=h({\bf r})$, with respect to the position, rather than on the particular function, $f$, chosen for the test.

\section{Conclusions}
\noindent
In this paper we have studied an interpolation problem
of great interest in practical applications. The problem is
the approximation
of the derivative of a function, known on a set of points, by a kernel
interpolating method. Given a suitable kernel function $\phi$,
the idea of the method consists in approximating
the derivatives
of a function $f$, and so its gradient,
with its mollified version $\langle \nabla f \rangle_1\equiv (\nabla f)
*\phi= f *\nabla \phi$,
and then evaluating numerically the last
convolution integral. This procedure fails as the kernel size depends
on the position, i.e. as the operation ``$*$" cannot be interpreted as a
convolution. In this case, we
stated a rule to choose the kernel.
The kernel is chosen such to control the difference between
$\langle \nabla f \rangle_1$ and the other possible mollification defined
as $\langle \nabla f \rangle_2 \equiv \nabla ( f * \phi)$ up to a given
order in $h$.
This simple criterion is independent
of the numerical method applied in the integration.
We have given some examples of
kernels selected applying our criterion and discussed results
in a typical case.

\bigskip
{\bf Appendix}

Let us consider the evolutive equations for a compressible fluid
written in conservative form, [8]:
\begin{equation}
\left \{
\matrix{&\rho_t + \nabla_{\bf r} \cdot {\bf q} =0 && \cr
& q_{it} + \nabla_{\bf r} \cdot \left ( {\bf q}{q_i \over \rho} \right )
+ \nabla_{r_i} P =0 &~~i=1,2,3;& \cr
& e_t+ \nabla_{\bf r} \cdot
\left [ (e+P) {{\bf q} \over \rho} \right ]=0,&& \cr} \right .
\label{sisexact}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf q}=\rho {\bf v}$ is the density of momentum, $P$ is the pressure,
$e/\rho= v^2/2+\varepsilon$
is the total energy per unit mass and $\varepsilon$ is the internal
one.

The usual way to get the discrete SPH equations consists in the
convolution of each equation with a kernel $\phi$ and then in
its approximation through
Monte-Carlo integrations, [1]. We shall consider here the
first step only. We begin considering a kernel of the type (\ref{kernel}) where
$h$ is a constant. The set of equations (\ref{sisexact}) becomes:
\begin{equation}
\left \{
\matrix{&\langle \rho \rangle_t + \nabla_{\bf r} \cdot
\langle {\bf q}  \rangle=0 && \cr
& \langle q_i \rangle_t + \nabla_{\bf r} \cdot \langle
\left ( {\bf q}{ q_i \over \rho} \right ) \rangle
+\nabla_{r_i} \langle P \rangle=0 & ~~i=1,2,3;& \cr
& \langle e \rangle_t+ \nabla_{\bf r} \cdot \langle
\left [ (e+P) {{\bf q} \over \rho} \right ] \rangle=0,&& \cr} \right .
\end{equation}
where $\langle \rho \rangle=\int \rho({\bf r'}) \phi({\bf r} - {\bf r'},
h) d{\bf r'}$, and so on. Let us study the conservation of the mollified
quantities. It is straightforward to verify that
${d \over dt} \int \langle \rho \rangle d{\bf r}=0$ and $\int \langle \rho \rangle d{\bf r}
= \int \rho$ d{\bf r}, and similar for the other quantities.
The conservation of the mass derives directly by the equation
$(\nabla \cdot{\bf q}) *\phi = \nabla \cdot ({\bf q}*\phi)$ which means
(see the Introduction)
$\langle \nabla \cdot  {\bf q} \rangle_1 = \langle \nabla \cdot
{\bf q} \rangle_2$.
\par\noindent When
 $h=h({\bf r})$, then
${d \over dt} \int \langle \rho \rangle d{\bf r}= O(h)$ and so on
(see Section
3); that is
the system is not longer conservative and the error derives from the
exchange of $(\nabla \cdot {\bf q}) * \phi$ with $\nabla \cdot ({\bf q}*\phi)
$. In other words, the error derives from the exchange of
$\langle \nabla \cdot {\bf q} \rangle_1$ with $\langle \nabla \cdot
{\bf q} \rangle_2$.
The conclusion is that when the approximation $\langle \nabla f \rangle_2$
cannot be applied, the conservations are lost.

The use of kernels selected
on the basis of the criterion stated in Section 3 ensures
${d \over dt} \int \langle \rho \rangle d{\bf r}={ O}(h^2)$, etc...,
which is the order of approximation  of the SPH method, [3].