1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2:
3: \voffset0cm
4: \hoffset0cm
5: \oddsidemargin0cm
6: \evensidemargin0cm
7: \topmargin0cm
8: \textwidth16.cm
9: \textheight22.cm
10: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
14:
15: \catcode`@=11
16: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
17: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
18: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
19: \newcount\@tempcntc
20: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
21: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
22: {\@ifundefined
23: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf ?}\@warning
24: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
25: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
26: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
27: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
28: \else
29: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
30: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
31: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
32: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
33: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
34: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
35: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else \def\@citea{--}\fi
36: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
37: \catcode`@=12
38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
39:
40: \begin{document}
41: \title{\vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
42: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 00-053\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
43: \centerline{\normalsize MPI/PhT/2000-13 \hfill}
44: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0003297\hfill}
45: \centerline{\normalsize March 2000\hfill}
46: }
47: \vskip1.5cm
48: Strong Coupling Constant from Scaling Violations in Fragmentation
49: Functions}
50: \author{{\sc B.A. Kniehl,$^1$ G. Kramer,$^1$ B. P\"otter$^2$}\\
51: {\normalsize $^1$ II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at
52: Hamburg,}\\
53: {\normalsize Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}\\
54: {\normalsize $^2$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik
55: (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut),}\\
56: {\normalsize F\"ohringer Ring 6, 80805 Munich, Germany}}
57:
58: \date{\today}
59:
60: \maketitle
61:
62: \thispagestyle{empty}
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65: We present a new determination of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$
66: through the scaling violations in the fragmentation functions for charged
67: pions, charged kaons, and protons.
68: In our fit we include the latest $e^+e^-$ annihilation data from CERN LEP1 and
69: SLAC SLC on the $Z$-boson resonance and older, yet very precise data from SLAC
70: PEP at center-of-mass energy $\sqrt s=29$~GeV.
71: A new world average of $\alpha_s$ is given.
72:
73: \bigskip
74:
75: {\noindent PACS numbers: 13.65.+i, 13.85.Ni, 13.87.Fh}
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \newpage
79:
80: The strong force acting between hadrons is one of the four fundamental forces
81: of nature.
82: It is now commonly believed that the strong interactions are correctly
83: described by quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the SU(3) gauge field theory which
84: contains colored quarks and gluons as elementary particles.
85: The strong coupling constant $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)=g_s^2/(4\pi)$, where $g_s$
86: is the QCD gauge coupling, is a basic parameter of the standard model of
87: elementary particle physics; its value $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ at the $Z$-boson
88: mass scale is listed among the constants of nature in the Review of Particle
89: Physics \cite{pdg}.
90: Here, $\mu$ is the renormalization scale, and $n_f$ is the number of active
91: quark flavors, with mass $m_q\ll\mu$.
92: The formulation of $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ in the modified minimal-subtraction
93: ($\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$) scheme, with four-loop evolution and three-loop
94: matching at the flavor thresholds, is described in Ref.~\cite{cks}.
95:
96: There are a number of processes in which $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ can be measured
97: (see Refs.~\cite{pdg,alphas}, for recent reviews).
98: A reliable method to determine $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ is through the extraction
99: of the fragmentation functions (FF's) in the annihilation process
100: \begin{equation}
101: e^+e^-\to(\gamma,Z)\to h+X,
102: \label{process}
103: \end{equation}
104: which describes the inclusive production of a single charged hadron, $h$.
105: Here, $h$ may either refer to a specific charged-hadron species, such as
106: $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, or $p/\bar p$, or to the sum of all charged hadrons.
107: The partonic cross sections pertinent to process~(\ref{process}) can
108: entirely be calculated in perturbative QCD with no additional input, except
109: for $\alpha_s$.
110: They are known at next-to-leading order (NLO) \cite{3} and even at
111: next-to-next-to-leading order \cite{rn96}.
112: The subsequent transition of the partons into hadrons takes place at an energy
113: scale of the order of 1~GeV and can, therefore, not be treated in perturbation
114: theory.
115: Instead, the hadronization of the partons is described by FF's $D_a^h(x,Q^2)$.
116: Their values correspond to the probability that the parton $a$, which is
117: produced at short distance, of order $1/Q$, fragments into the hadron $h$
118: carrying the fraction $x$ of the momentum of $a$.
119: In the case of process~(\ref{process}), $Q$ is typically of the order of the
120: center-of-mass (CM) energy $\sqrt s$.
121: Given their $x$ dependence at some scale $Q_0$, the evolution of the FF's with
122: $Q$ may be computed perturbatively from the timelike Altarelli-Parisi
123: equations \cite{ap1}, which are presently known through NLO \cite{ap2}.
124: This method to determine $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ is particularly clean in the
125: sense that, unlike other methods, it is not plagued by uncertainties
126: associated with hadronization corrections, jet algorithms, parton density
127: functions (PDF's), {\it etc.}
128: We recall that, similarly to the scaling violations in the PDF's, perturbative
129: QCD only predicts the $Q^2$ dependence of the FF's.
130: Therefore, measurements at different CM energies are needed in order to
131: extract values of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$.
132: Furthermore, since the $Q^2$ evolution mixes the quark and gluon FF's, it is
133: essential to determine all FF's individually.
134:
135: In 1994/95, two of us, together with Binnewies, extracted $\pi^{\pm}$ and
136: $K^{\pm}$ FF's through fits to PEP and partially preliminary LEP1 data and
137: thus determined $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ to be 0.118 (0.122) at NLO (LO)
138: \cite{5} (BKK).
139: However, these analyses suffered from the lack of specific data on the
140: fragmentation of tagged quarks and gluons to $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and
141: $p/\bar p$ hadrons.
142: This drawback has been cured in 1998 by the advent of a wealth of new data
143: from the LEP1 and SLC experiments \cite{9,D,S,gA,gO}.
144: The data partly come as light-, $c$-, and $b$-quark-enriched samples with
145: identified final-state hadrons ($\pi^\pm$,$K^\pm$, and $p/\bar p$)
146: \cite{9,D,S} or as gluon-tagged three-jet samples without hadron
147: identification \cite{gA,gO}.
148: This new situation motivates us to update, refine, and extend the BKK analysis
149: \cite{5} by generating new LO and NLO sets of $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and
150: $p/\bar p$ FF's.
151: By also including in our fits $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\bar p$ data (without
152: flavor separation) from PEP \cite{T}, with CM energy $\sqrt s=29$~GeV, we
153: obtain a handle on the scaling violations in the FF's, which allows us to
154: extract LO and NLO values of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$.
155: The latter data \cite{T} combines small statistical errors with fine binning
156: in $x$ and is more constraining than other data from the pre-LEP1/SLC era.
157:
158: The NLO formalism for extracting FF's from $e^+e^-$ data was comprehensively
159: described in Ref.~\cite{5}.
160: We work in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ renormalization and factorization
161: scheme and choose the renormalization scale $\mu$ and the factorization scale
162: $M_f$ to be $\mu=M_f=\xi\sqrt s$, except for gluon-tagged three-jet events,
163: where we put $\mu=M_f=2\xi E_{\mathrm{jet}}$, with $E_{\mathrm{jet}}$ being
164: the gluon jet energy in the CM frame.
165: Here, the dimensionless parameter $\xi$ is introduced to determine the
166: theoretical uncertainty in $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ from scale variations.
167: As usual, we allow for variations between $\xi=1/2$ and 2 around the default
168: value 1.
169: For the actual fitting procedure, we use $x$ bins in the interval
170: $0.1\le x\le 1$
171: and integrate the theoretical functions over the bin widths as is done in the
172: experimental analyses.
173: The restriction at small $x$ is introduced to exclude events in the
174: nonperturbative region, where mass effects and nonperturbative
175: intrinsic-transverse-momentum effects are important and the underlying
176: formalism is insufficient.
177: We parameterize the $x$ dependence of the FF's at the starting scale $Q_0$ as
178: \begin{equation}
179: D_a^h(x,Q_0^2)=Nx^{\alpha}(1-x)^{\beta}.
180: \label{ansatz}
181: \end{equation}
182: We treat $N$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ as independent fit parameters.
183: In addition, we take the asymptotic scale parameter
184: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$, appropriate for five quark flavors,
185: as a free parameter.
186: Thus, we have a total of 46 independent fit parameters.
187: The quality of the fit is measured in terms of the $\chi^2$ value per degree
188: of freedom, $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$, for all selected data points.
189: Using a multidimensional minimization algorithm \cite{18}, we search this
190: 46-dimensional parameter space for the point at which the deviation of the
191: theoretical prediction from the data becomes minimal.
192:
193: \begin{table}[hhh]
194: \caption{CM energies, types of data, and $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$ values
195: obtained at LO and NLO for the various data samples. \vspace{0mm}}
196: \label{Table1}
197: \begin{center}
198: \begin{tabular}{c|l|ll} \hline \hline
199: $\sqrt{s}$ [GeV] & Data type &
200: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\makebox[4.5cm][c]{$\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$ in NLO (LO)}} \\
201: \hline
202: 29.0 & $\sigma^\pi$~(all) & 0.64 (0.71) \cite{T} & \\
203: & $\sigma^K$~(all) & 1.86 (1.40) \cite{T} & \\
204: & $\sigma^p$~(all) & 0.79 (0.70) \cite{T} & \\ \hline
205: 91.2 & $\sigma^h$~(all) & 1.28 (1.40) \cite{D} & 1.32 (1.44) \cite{S} \\
206: & $\sigma^h$~(uds) & 0.20 (0.20) \cite{D} & \\
207: & $\sigma^h$~(b) & 0.43 (0.41) \cite{D} & \\ \hline
208: & $\sigma^\pi$~(all) & 1.28 (1.65) \cite{9} & \\
209: & & 0.58 (0.60) \cite{D} & 3.09 (3.13) \cite{S} \\
210: & $\sigma^\pi$~(uds) & 0.72 (0.73) \cite{D} & 1.87 (2.17) \cite{S} \\
211: & $\sigma^\pi$~(c) & & 1.36 (1.16) \cite{S} \\
212: & $\sigma^\pi$~(b) & 0.57 (0.58) \cite{D} & 1.00 (0.99) \cite{S} \\ \hline
213: & $\sigma^K$~(all) & 0.30 (0.32) \cite{9} & \\
214: & & 0.86 (0.79) \cite{D} & 0.44 (0.45) \cite{S} \\
215: & $\sigma^K$~(uds) & 0.53 (0.60) \cite{D} & 0.65 (0.64) \cite{S} \\
216: & $\sigma^K$~(c) & & 2.11 (1.90) \cite{S} \\
217: & $\sigma^K$~(b) & 0.14 (0.14) \cite{D} & 1.21 (1.23) \cite{S} \\ \hline
218: & $\sigma^p$~(all) & 0.93 (0.80) \cite{9} & \\
219: & & 0.09 (0.06) \cite{D} & 0.79 (0.70) \cite{S} \\
220: & $\sigma^p$~(uds) & 0.11 (0.14) \cite{D} & 1.29 (1.28) \cite{S} \\
221: & $\sigma^p$~(c) & & 0.92 (0.89) \cite{S} \\
222: & $\sigma^p$~(b) & 0.56 (0.62) \cite{D} & 0.97 (0.89) \cite{S} \\ \hline
223: $E_{\mathrm{jet}}$ [GeV] & & & \\ \hline
224: 26.2 & $D_g^h$ & 1.19 (1.18) \cite{gA} & \\
225: 40.1 & $D_g^h$ & 1.03 (0.90) \cite{gO} & \\ \hline \hline
226: \end{tabular}
227: \end{center}
228: \end{table}
229:
230: The $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$ values achieved for the various data sets used in
231: our LO and NLO fits may be seen from Table~\ref{Table1}.
232: Most of the $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$ values lie around unity or below,
233: indicating that the fitted FF's describe all data sets within their respective
234: errors. In general, the $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$ values come out
235: slightly in favor for the DELPHI \cite{D} data. The overall goodness
236: of the NLO (LO) fit is given by $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}=0.98$ (0.97).
237: The goodness of our fit may also be judged from Figs.~\ref{Figure1} and
238: \ref{Figure2}, where our LO and NLO fit results are compared with the ALEPH
239: \cite{9,gA}, DELPHI \cite{D}, OPAL \cite{gO}, and SLD \cite{S} data.
240: In Fig.~\ref{Figure1}, we study the differential cross section
241: $(1/\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}})d\sigma^h/dx$ of process~(\ref{process}) for
242: $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, $p/\bar p$, and unidentified charged hadrons at
243: $\sqrt{s}=91.2$~GeV, normalized to the total hadronic cross section
244: $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$, as a function of the scaled momentum
245: $x=2p_h/\sqrt s$. As in Refs.~\cite{D,S}, we assume that the sum of
246: the $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\bar p$ data exhaust the full
247: charged-hadron data. We observe that, in all cases, the various data
248: are mutually consistent with each other and are nicely described by
249: the LO and NLO fits, which is also reflected in the relatively small
250: $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$ values given in Table~\ref{Table1}.
251: The LO and NLO fits are almost indistinguishable in those regions of $x$,
252: where the data have small errors. At large $x$, where the statistical
253: errors are large, the LO and NLO results sometimes moderately deviate
254: from each other. In Fig.~\ref{Figure2}, we compare the ALEPH \cite{gA}
255: and OPAL \cite{gO} measurements of the gluon FF in gluon-tagged
256: charged-hadron production, with $E_{\mathrm{jet}}=26.2$ and 40.1~GeV,
257: respectively, with our LO and NLO fit results. The data are nicely
258: fitted, with $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$ values of order unity, as may be
259: seen from Table~\ref{Table1}. By the same token, this implies that the
260: data \cite{gA,gO} are mutually consistent\footnote{The new FF sets
261: can be obtained from http://www.desy.de/\~{}poetter/kkp.html}.
262:
263: The purpose of this letter is to update and improve the determinations of
264: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$ and $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ from the
265: scaling violations in the FF's.
266: We obtain
267: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=88{+34\atop-31}{+3\atop-23}$~MeV at
268: LO and
269: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=213{+75\atop-73}{+22\atop-29}$~MeV at
270: NLO, where the first errors are experimental and the second ones are
271: theoretical.
272: The experimental errors are determined by varying
273: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$ in such a way that the total
274: $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}$ value is increased by one unit if all the other fit
275: parameters are kept fixed, while the theoretical errors are obtained by
276: repeating the LO and NLO fits for the scale choices $\xi=1/2$ and 2.
277: From the LO and NLO formulas for $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ \cite{cks}, we thus
278: obtain
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: \alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)&=&0.1181{+0.0058\atop-0.0069}{+0.0006\atop-0.0049}\qquad
281: \mbox{(LO)},\nonumber\\
282: \alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)&=&0.1170{+0.0055\atop-0.0069}{+0.0017\atop-0.0025}\qquad
283: \mbox{(NLO)},
284: \label{as}
285: \end{eqnarray}
286: respectively.
287: Adding the maximum experimental and theoretical deviations from the central
288: values in quadrature, we find
289: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=(88\pm41)$~MeV and
290: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181\pm0.0085$ at LO and
291: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=(213\pm79)$~MeV and
292: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1170\pm0.0073$ at NLO.
293: We observe that our LO and NLO values of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ are quite
294: consistent with each other, which indicates that our analysis is
295: perturbatively stable.
296: The fact that the respective values of
297: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$ significantly differ is a well-known
298: feature of the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ definition of
299: $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ \cite{cks}.
300:
301: Our values of $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$ and
302: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ perfectly agree with those presently quoted by the
303: Particle Data Group (PDG) \cite{pdg} as world averages,
304: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=212{+25\atop-23}$~MeV and
305: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1185\pm0.002$, respectively.
306: Notice that, in contrast to our LO and NLO analyses, the PDG evaluates
307: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$ from $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ using the
308: three-loop relationship \cite{cks}.
309: The PDG combines twelve different kinds of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ measurements,
310: including one from the scaling violations in the FF's \cite{bus}, by
311: minimizing the total $\chi^2$ value.
312: The world average cited above is then estimated from the outcome by allowing
313: for correlations between certain systematic errors.
314: It is interesting to investigate how the world average of
315: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ is affected by our analysis.
316: To this end, we first combine the twelve $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ measurements
317: reported in Ref.~\cite{pdg} to find $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181\pm0.0014$ with
318: $\chi^2=3.74$.\footnote{This result slightly differs from the corresponding
319: one found in Ref.~\cite{pdg}.}
320: If we replace the value $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.125\pm0.005\pm0.008$ resulting
321: from previous FF analyses \cite{bus}, which enters the PDG average, with our
322: new NLO value, then we obtain $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1180\pm0.0014$ with
323: $\chi^2=3.21$, {\it i.e.}, the face value of the world average essentially
324: goes unchanged, while the overall agreement is appreciably improved.
325: This is also evident from the comparison of Fig.~\ref{Figure3}, which
326: summarizes our updated world average, with the corresponding Fig.~9.1 in
327: Ref.~\cite{pdg}.
328: We observe that the central value of our new NLO result for
329: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ falls into the shaded band, which indicates the error of
330: the world average, while in Fig.~9.1 of Ref.~\cite{pdg} the corresponding
331: central value \cite{bus} exceeds the world average by 3.3 standard deviations
332: of the latter, which is more than for all other eleven processes.
333: Furthermore, our new NLO result has a somewhat smaller error (0.0073) than the
334: corresponding result \cite{bus} used by the PDG (0.009).
335: If we take the point of view that our new NLO value of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$
336: should rather be combined with the result from the previous FF analyses
337: \cite{bus} before taking the world average, then the latter turns out to be
338: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181\pm0.0014$ with $\chi^2=3.29$.
339:
340: In summary, we presented an updated and improved determination of
341: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ from the LO and NLO analyses of inclusive light-hadron
342: production in $e^+e^-$ annihilation.
343: Our strategy was to only include in our fits high-precision LEP1 and SLC data
344: with both flavor separation and hadron identification (namely, light-, $c$-,
345: and $b$-quark-enriched samples of $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p\bar p$ data)
346: \cite{S,D}, gluon-tagged three-jet samples with a fixed gluon-jet energy
347: \cite{gA,gO}, and the $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\bar p$ data sets from the
348: pre-LEP1/SLC era with the highest statistics and the finest binning in $x$
349: \cite{T}.
350: Our LO and NLO results for $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ are given in Eq.~(\ref{as}).
351: They should be compared with the result from scaling violations in FF's quoted
352: in Ref.~\cite{pdg}, $0.125\pm0.005\pm0.008$ \cite{bus}.
353: If we repeat the global analysis of Ref.~\cite{pdg} with this result replaced
354: by our new NLO value, then the world average (before taking into account
355: estimated correlations between systematic errors) is changed from
356: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181\pm0.0014$ with $\chi^2=3.74$ to
357: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1180\pm0.0014$ with $\chi^2=3.21$, {\it i.e.}, the
358: overall agreement is appreciably improved.
359:
360: The II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik is supported by the
361: Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung under Contract No.\ 05~HT9GUA~3,
362: and by the European Commission through the Research Training Network
363: {\it Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles}
364: under Contract No.\ ERBFMRXCT980194.
365:
366: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
367:
368: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, C. Caso {\it et al.},
369: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf3}, 1 (1998) and 1999 off-year partial update for the
370: 2000 edition available on the PDG WWW pages (URL: http://pdg.lbl.gov/).
371:
372: \bibitem{cks} K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser,
373: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf79}, 2184 (1997).
374:
375: \bibitem{alphas} M. Davier, Report No.\ LAL~98-53 (July 1998), to appear in
376: {\it Proceedings of the XXXIIIst Rencontres de Moriond: `98 Electroweak
377: Interactions and Unified Theories}, Les Arcs, France, 14--21 March 1998;
378: S. Bethke, in the proceedings of the {\it Fourth International Symposium on
379: Radiative Corrections (RADCOR 98): Application of Quantum Field Theory to
380: Phenomenology}, Barcelona, Spain, 8--12 September 1998, edited by J. Sol\`a
381: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999), p.~243;
382: J. Womersley, Report No.\ FERMILAB-Conf-99/353 and hep-ex/9912009 (August
383: 1999), to appear in the proceedings of the {\it XIX International Symposium on
384: Lepton and Photon Interactions (LP '99)}, Stanford, Califonia, 9--14 August
385: 1999.
386:
387: \bibitem{3} G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis, G. Martinelli, and S.-Y. Pi,
388: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B160}, 301 (1979);
389: R. Baier and K. Fey,
390: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf2}, 339 (1979).
391:
392: \bibitem{rn96} P. J. Rijken and W. L. van Neerven,
393: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf386}, 422 (1996); B {\bf392}, 207 (1997);
394: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B487}, 233 (1997).
395:
396: \bibitem{ap1} V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov,
397: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf15}, 781 (1972) [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 15}, 438 (1972)];
398: G. Altarelli and G. Parisi,
399: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B126}, 298 (1977);
400: Yu.\ L. Dokshitser,
401: Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 73}, 1216 (1977) [Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf46}, 641
402: (1977)].
403:
404: \bibitem{ap2} G. Curci, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio,
405: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B175}, 27 (1980);
406: W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio,
407: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97B}, 437 (1980).
408:
409: \bibitem{5} J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer,
410: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf65}, 471 (1995);
411: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf52}, 4947 (1995).
412:
413: \bibitem{9} ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic {\it et al.},
414: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf66}, 355 (1995).
415:
416: \bibitem{D} DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu {\it et al.},
417: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf5}, 585 (1998).
418:
419: \bibitem{S} SLD Collaboration, K. Abe {\it et al.},
420: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 052001 (1999).
421:
422: \bibitem{gA} ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate {\it et al.},
423: Report No.\ CERN-EP/98-16, February 1998, submitted to Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C.
424:
425: \bibitem{gO} OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi {\it et al.},
426: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf11}, 217 (1999).
427:
428: \bibitem{T} TPC Collaboration, H. Aihara {\it et al.},
429: LBL Report No.\ LBL-23737, March 1988 (unpublished).
430:
431: \bibitem{18} F. James and M. Roos,
432: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf10}, 343 (1975).
433:
434: \bibitem{bus} ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic {\it et al.},
435: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf357}, 487 (1995); {\bf364}, 247(E) (1995);
436: DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu {\it et al.},
437: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf398}, 194 (1997).
438:
439: \end{thebibliography}
440:
441: \newpage
442: \begin{figure}[hhh]
443: \unitlength1mm
444: \begin{picture}(122,160)
445: \put(3,0){\epsfig{file=figure1.eps,width=16cm}}
446: \end{picture}
447: \caption{Normalized differential cross section of inclusive hadron production
448: at $\protect\sqrt{s}=91.2$~GeV as a function of $x$.
449: The LO (dashed lines) and NLO (solid lines) fit results are compared with data
450: from ALEPH \protect\cite{9} (triangles), DELPHI \protect\cite{D} (circles),
451: and SLD \protect\cite{S} (squares).
452: The upmost, second, third, and lowest curves refer to charged hadrons,
453: $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\bar{p}$, respectively.
454: Each pair of curves is rescaled relative to the nearest upper one by a factor
455: of 1/5.}
456: \label{Figure1}
457: \end{figure}
458:
459: \newpage
460: \begin{figure}[hhh]
461: \unitlength1mm
462: \begin{picture}(122,160)
463: \put(3,0){\epsfig{file=figure2.eps,width=16cm}}
464: \end{picture}
465: \caption{Gluon FF for charged-hadron production at $Q=52.4$ and 80.2~GeV as a
466: function of $x$.
467: The LO (dashed lines) and NLO (solid lines) predictions are compared with
468: three-jet data from ALEPH \protect\cite{gA} with $E_{\mathrm{jet}}=26.2$~GeV
469: (upper curves) and from OPAL \protect\cite{gO} with
470: $E_{\mathrm{jet}}=40.1$~GeV (lower curves).
471: The OPAL data and the pertinent predictions are rescaled by a factor of
472: 1/100.}
473: \label{Figure2}
474: \end{figure}
475:
476: \newpage
477: \begin{figure}[hhh]
478: \unitlength1mm
479: \begin{picture}(122,160)
480: \put(3,0){\epsfig{file=figure3.eps,width=16cm}}
481: \end{picture}
482: \caption{Summary of the values of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ from various
483: processes.
484: The errors shown represent the total errors including theoretical
485: uncertainties.}
486: \label{Figure3}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489: \end{document}
490: