1: \documentclass[runningheads]{svmult}
2:
3: \usepackage{makeidx} % allows index generation
4: \usepackage{graphicx} % standard LaTeX graphics tool
5: % for including eps-figure files
6: \usepackage{subeqnar} % subnumbers individual equations
7: % within an array
8: \usepackage{multicol} % used for the two-column index
9: %\usepackage{cropmark} % cropmarks for pages without
10: % pagenumbers - only needed when manuscript
11: % is printed from paper and not from data
12: \usepackage{physmubb} % centered layout of captions etc.
13: \makeindex % used for the subject index
14: % please use the style sprmidx.sty with
15: % your makeindex program
16:
17: \usepackage{epsfig}
18: \newcommand{\agt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
19: \hbox {$>$}\,}
20: \newcommand{\alt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
21: \hbox {$<$}\,}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title*{Hadron Production in Hadron-Hadron and Lepton-Hadron Collisions%
26: \thanks{To appear in the {\it Proceedings of the 14th Topical Conference on
27: Hadron Collider Physics (HCP 2002)}, 29 September -- 4 October 2002,
28: Karlsruhe, Germany.}
29: }
30:
31: \toctitle{Hadron Production in Hadron-Hadron and
32: \protect\newline Lepton-Hadron Collisions}
33:
34: \titlerunning{Hadron Production}
35:
36: \author{Bernd A. Kniehl\\
37: II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
38: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
39:
40: \authorrunning{Bernd A. Kniehl}
41:
42: \maketitle % typesets the title of the contribution
43:
44: \begin{abstract}
45: We review a recent global analysis of inclusive single-charged-hadron
46: production in high-energy colliding-beam experiments, which is performed at
47: next-to-leading order (NLO) in the parton model of quantum chromodynamics
48: endowed with nonperturbative fragmentation functions (FFs).
49: Comparisons of $p\overline{p}$ data from CERN S$p\overline{p}$S and the
50: Fermilab Tevatron and $\gamma p$ data from DESY HERA with the corresponding
51: NLO predictions allow for quantitative tests of the scaling violations in the
52: FFs and their universality.
53: We emphasize the potential of new measurements at the Tevatron to place tight
54: constraints in the large-$x$ region and on the gluon FF, complementary to
55: those from $e^+e^-$ data, which are indispensible in order to reliably predict
56: the $\pi^0$ background for the $H\to\gamma\gamma$ signal of the
57: intermediate-mass Higgs boson at the Tevatron and the CERN LHC.
58: Adopting a similar theoretical framework for $b$-hadron production, we show
59: that the notorious excess of the Tevatron data over existing theoretical
60: calculations can be ascribed, at sufficiently large values of $p_T$, to
61: nonperturbative fragmentation effects inadequately included previously.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \section{Introduction}
65:
66: In the framework of the QCD-improved parton model, the inclusive production of
67: single hadrons is described by means of fragmentation functions (FFs)
68: $D_a^h(x,\mu^2)$.
69: The value of $D_a^h(x,\mu^2)$ corresponds to the probability for the parton
70: $a$ produced at short distance $1/\mu$ to form a jet that includes the hadron
71: $h$ carrying the fraction $x$ of the longitudinal momentum of $a$.
72: Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to calculate the FFs from first
73: principles, in particular for hadrons with masses smaller than or comparable
74: to the asymptotic scale parameter $\Lambda$.
75: However, given their $x$ dependence at some energy scale $\mu$, the evolution
76: with $\mu$ may be computed perturbatively in QCD using the timelike
77: Altarelli-Parisi (AP) equations \cite{gri}.
78: This allows us to test QCD quantitatively within one experiment observing
79: single hadrons at different values of centre-of-mass (CM) energy $\sqrt s$ (in
80: the case of $e^+e^-$ annihilation) or transverse momentum $p_T$ (in the case
81: of scattering).
82: Moreover, the factorization theorem guarantees that the $D_a^h(x,\mu^2)$
83: functions are independent of the process in which they have been determined
84: and represent a universal property of $h$.
85: This enables us to make quantitative predictions for other types of
86: experiments as well.
87:
88: During the last seven years, the experiments at CERN LEP1 and SLAC SLC have
89: provided us with a wealth of high-precision information on how partons
90: fragment into low-mass charged hadrons ($h^\pm$).
91: The data partly comes as light-, $c$-, and $b$-quark-enriched samples without
92: \cite{Al,A} or with identified final-state hadrons ($\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and
93: $p/\overline{p}$) \cite{A1} or as gluon-tagged three-jet samples without
94: hadron identification \cite{Ag,Dg}.
95: Motivated by this new situation, the author, together with Kramer and
96: P\"otter, recently updated, refined, and extended a previous analysis
97: \cite{bkk} by generating new leading-order (LO) and next-to-leading-order
98: (NLO) sets of $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\overline{p}$ FFs \cite{kkp}.
99: By also including in our fits $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\overline{p}$ data
100: (without flavour separation) from PEP \cite{T}, with CM energy
101: $\sqrt s=29$~GeV, we obtained a handle on the scaling violations in the FFs,
102: which enabled us to determine the strong-coupling constant
103: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$.
104:
105: The formation of $D$ and $B$ mesons from $c$ and $b$ quarks, respectively, is
106: a genuinely nonperturbative process, so that it is indispensable to employ
107: nonperturbative FFs.
108: Furthermore, if the characteristic energy scale $\mu$ is large against the
109: heavy-quark mass $m_c$ ($m_b$), then the QCD-improved parton model with
110: $n_f=4$ ($n_f=5$) active quark flavours is the appropriate theoretical
111: framework, which allows for coherent analyses of data from $e^+e^-$,
112: lepton-hadron, and hadron-hadron collisions \cite{dst,bme}.
113:
114: This contribution is organized as follows.
115: In Sect.~\ref{sec:two}, we present some details of our global fits \cite{kkp}
116: and assess the quality of the resulting FFs.
117: We also discuss the determination of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ from the scaling
118: violations in the FFs \cite{kkp1}.
119: In Sect.~\ref{sec:three}, we present comparisons of our NLO predictions for
120: inclusive charged-hadron production \cite{kkp2} with $p\overline{p}$ data from
121: S$p\overline{p}$S \cite{UA1} and the Tevatron \cite{CDF} and with $\gamma p$
122: data from HERA \cite{H1}.
123: In Sect.~\ref{sec:four}, we demonstrate that the $p_T$ distribution of
124: inclusive $B$-meson hadroproduction measured by CDF \cite{cdf1,cdf2} is well
125: described at NLO in the QCD parton model with $n_f=5$ endowed with
126: nonperturbative FFs, once the latter are fitted to LEP1 data \cite{ob}.
127: Our conclusions are summarized in Sect.~\ref{sec:five}.
128:
129: \section{Determination of the FFs
130: \label{sec:two}}
131:
132: The NLO formalism for extracting FFs from measurements of the cross section
133: $d\sigma/dx$ of $e^+e^-\to h+X$ is comprehensively described in \cite{bkk}.
134: We work in the modified minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$)
135: renormalization and factorization scheme and choose the renormalization and
136: factorization scales to be $\mu_R=\mu_F=\xi\sqrt s$, except for gluon-tagged
137: three-jet events, where we put $\mu_R=\mu_F=\xi\times2E_{\mathrm{jet}}$, with
138: $E_{\mathrm{jet}}$ being the gluon-jet energy in the CM frame.
139: Here, the dimensionless parameter $\xi$ is introduced to determine the
140: theoretical uncertainty in $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ from scale variations.
141: As usual, we allow for variations of $\xi$ between $1/2$ and 2 about the
142: default value 1.
143:
144: Our strategy was to only include in our fits LEP1 and SLC data with both
145: flavour separation and hadron identification \cite{A1}, gluon-tagged
146: three-jet samples with a fixed gluon-jet energy \cite{Ag}, and the
147: $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\overline{p}$ data sets from the pre-LEP1/SLC era
148: with the highest statistics and the finest binning in $x$ \cite{T}.
149: The $\chi^2$ value per fitted data point turned out to be
150: $\chi^2_{\mathrm{DF}}=0.97$ (0.98) at LO (NLO).
151: The goodness of our fit may also be judged from Figs.~\ref{fig:fit}(a) and
152: (b), where our LO and NLO fit results are compared with the ALEPH, DELPHI,
153: OPAL, and SLD data \cite{A1,Ag}.
154: Other data served us for cross checks \cite{Al,A,Dg,low,Dl}.
155: In particular, we probed the scaling violations in the FFs through comparisons
156: with $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\overline{p}$ data from DESY DORIS and PETRA,
157: with CM energies between 5.4 and 34~GeV \cite{low}.
158: Furthermore, we tested the gluon FF, which enters the unpolarized cross
159: section only at NLO, by comparing our predictions for the longitudinal cross
160: section, where it already enters at LO, with available data \cite{Al,Dl}.
161: Finally, we directly compared our gluon FF with the one recently measured by
162: DELPHI in three-jet production with gluon identification as a function of $x$
163: at various energy scales $\mu$ \cite{Dg}.
164: All these comparisons led to rather encouraging results.
165: We also verified that our FFs satisfy reasonably well the momentum sum
166: rules, which we did not impose as constraints on our fits.
167:
168: \begin{figure}[t]
169: \begin{center}
170: \begin{tabular}{ll}
171: \parbox{5.65cm}{
172: \epsfig{file=qq.eps,width=5.65cm,bbllx=4pt,bblly=11pt,bburx=428pt,%
173: bbury=526pt,clip=}
174: } &
175: \parbox{5.65cm}{
176: \epsfig{file=gluon.eps,width=5.65cm,bbllx=0pt,bblly=10pt,bburx=428pt,%
177: bbury=526pt,clip=}
178: }
179: \vspace*{-0.3cm} \\
180: (a) & (b) \\
181: \end{tabular}
182: \caption[]{({\bf a}) Comparison of data on inclusive charged-hadron production
183: at $\protect\sqrt{s}=91.2$~GeV from ALEPH ({\it triangles}), DELPHI
184: ({\it circles}), and SLD ({\it squares}) \cite{A1} with our LO ({\it dashed
185: lines}) and NLO ({\it solid lines}) fit results \cite{kkp}.
186: The upmost, second, third, and lowest curves refer to charged hadrons,
187: $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and $p/\overline{p}$, respectively.
188: ({\bf b}) Comparison of three-jet data on the gluon FF from ALEPH with
189: $E_{\mathrm{jet}}=26.2$~GeV ({\it upper curves}) and from OPAL with
190: $E_{\mathrm{jet}}=40.1$~GeV ({\it lower curves}) \cite{Ag} with our LO
191: ({\it dashed lines}) and NLO ({\it solid lines}) fit results \cite{kkp}}
192: \label{fig:fit}
193: \end{center}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196: Since we included in our fits high-quality data from two very different
197: energies, namely 29 and 91.2~GeV, we were sensitive to the running of
198: $\alpha_s(\mu)$ and, therefore, able to extract values of
199: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$.
200: We obtained
201: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=88{+34\atop-31}{+3\atop-23}$~MeV at LO
202: and $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=213{+75\atop-73}{+22\atop-29}$~MeV
203: at NLO, where the first errors are experimental and the second ones are
204: theoretical.
205: %%%%%
206: %The experimental errors were determined by varying
207: %$\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$ in such a way that the total $\chi^2$
208: %value was increased by one unit if all the other fit parameters were kept
209: %fixed, while the theoretical errors were obtained by repeating the LO and NLO
210: %fits for the scale choices $\xi=1/2$ and 2.
211: %%%%%
212: From the LO and NLO formulas for $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$, we thus obtained
213: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181{+0.0058\atop-0.0069}{+0.0006\atop-0.0049}$ (LO)
214: and $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1170{+0.0055\atop-0.0069}{+0.0017\atop-0.0025}$
215: (NLO), respectively, which is already included in the most recent world
216: average by the Particle Data Group \cite{pdg}.
217: As expected, the theoretical error on $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ is significantly
218: reduced as we pass from LO to NLO.
219: We observe that our LO and NLO values of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ are quite
220: consistent with each other, which indicates that our analysis is
221: perturbatively stable.
222: The fact that the respective values of
223: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}$ significantly differ is a well-known
224: feature of the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ definition of
225: $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ \cite{cks}.
226:
227: \section{Global Analysis of Collider Data
228: \label{sec:three}}
229:
230: Recently, we extended our previous tests of scaling violations \cite{kkp} to
231: higher energy scales by confronting new data of $e^+e^-\to h^\pm+X$ from LEP2
232: \cite{D2}, with $\sqrt s$ ranging from 133~GeV up to 189~GeV, with NLO
233: predictions based on our FFs \cite{kkp2}.
234: Furthermore, we quantitatively checked the universality of our FFs by making
235: comparisons with essentially all available high-statistics data on inclusive
236: charged-hadron production in colliding-beam experiments \cite{kkp2}.
237: This includes $p\overline{p}$ data from the UA1 and UA2 Collaborations
238: \cite{UA1} at S$p\overline{p}$S and from the CDF Collaboration \cite{CDF} at
239: the Tevatron, $\gamma p$ data from the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations \cite{H1} at
240: HERA, and $\gamma\gamma$ data from the OPAL Collaboration \cite{Ogg} at LEP2.
241: In hadroproduction and photoproduction, we set $\mu_R=\mu_F=\xi p_T$.
242: As for the parton density functions (PDFs) of the proton, we employed set
243: CTEQ5M provided by the CTEQ Collaboration \cite{CTEQ5}, with
244: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=226$~MeV.
245: As for the photon PDFs, we used the set by Aurenche, Fontannaz, and Guillet
246: (AFG) \cite{AFG}.
247: In all cases, we found reasonable agreement between the experimental data and
248: our NLO predictions as for both normalization and shape, as may be seen from
249: Fig.~\ref{fig:uni}.
250: We conclude that our global analysis of inclusive charged-hadron
251: production provides evidence that both the predicted scaling violations and
252: the universality of the FFs are realized in nature.
253:
254: \begin{figure}[ht]
255: \begin{center}
256: \begin{tabular}{ll}
257: \parbox{5.65cm}{
258: \epsfig{file=kkpu1b.ps,width=5.65cm,bbllx=49pt,bblly=102pt,bburx=542pt,%
259: bbury=681pt,clip=}
260: } &
261: \parbox{5.65cm}{
262: \epsfig{file=kkpu1a.ps,width=5.65cm,bbllx=49pt,bblly=102pt,bburx=542pt,%
263: bbury=681pt,clip=}
264: }
265: \vspace*{-0.3cm} \\
266: (a) & (b) \\
267: \parbox{5.65cm}{
268: \epsfig{file=kkpc.ps,width=5.65cm,bbllx=49pt,bblly=102pt,bburx=542pt,%
269: bbury=681pt,clip=}
270: } &
271: \parbox{5.65cm}{
272: \epsfig{file=kkphp.ps,width=5.65cm,bbllx=49pt,bblly=102pt,bburx=532pt,%
273: bbury=681pt,clip=}
274: }
275: \vspace*{-0.3cm} \\
276: (c) & (d)
277: \end{tabular}
278: \caption[]{Comparisons of ({\bf a}, {\bf b}) S$p\overline{p}$S \cite{UA1} and
279: ({\bf c}) Tevatron \cite{CDF} data of $p\overline{p}\to h^\pm+X$ and ({\bf d})
280: HERA data of $\gamma p\to h^\pm+X$ \cite{H1} with our NLO predictions
281: \cite{kkp2}}
282: \label{fig:uni}
283: \end{center}
284: \end{figure}
285:
286: \section{Inclusive $B$-Meson Production
287: \label{sec:four}}
288:
289: The QCD-improved parton model implemented in the $\overline{\rm MS}$
290: renormalization and factorization scheme and endowed with nonperturbative
291: FFs, which proved itself so convincingly for light- \cite{bkk,kkp,kkp2} and
292: $D^{*\pm}$-meson \cite{dst} inclusive production, also provides an ideal
293: theoretical framework for a coherent global analysis of $B$-meson data
294: \cite{bme}, provided that $\mu\gg m_b$, where $\mu$ is the energy scale
295: characteristic for the respective production process.
296: Then, at LO (NLO), the dominant logarithmic terms, of the form
297: $\alpha_s^{n,n+1}\ln^n\left(\mu^2/m_b^2\right)$ with $n=1,2,\ldots$, are
298: properly resummed to all orders by the AP evolution, while power terms of the
299: form $\left(m_b^2/\mu^2\right)^n$ are negligibly small and can be safely
300: neglected.
301: The criterion $\mu\gg m_b$ is certainly satisfied for $e^+e^-$ annihilation on
302: the $Z$-boson resonance, and for hadroproduction of $B$ mesons with
303: $p_T\gg m_b$.
304: Furthermore, the universality of the FFs is guaranteed by the factorization
305: theorem \cite{col}, which entitles us to transfer information on how $b$
306: quarks hadronize to $B$ mesons in a well-defined quantitative way from
307: $e^+e^-$ annihilation, where the measurements are usually most precise
308: \cite{ob,ab}, to other kinds of experiments, such as hadroproduction
309: \cite{cdf1,cdf2}.
310:
311: In \cite{bme}, the distribution in the scaled $B$-meson energy
312: $x=2E_B/\sqrt s$ measured by OPAL \cite{ob} at LEP1, which is compatible with
313: the subsequent measurements by ALEPH at LEP1 and SLD at SLC \cite{ab}, was
314: fitted at LO and NLO using three different ans\"atze for the $b\to B$ FF at
315: the starting scale $\mu_0=2m_b=10$~GeV.
316: The best fit was obtained for the ansatz by Peterson et al.\ (P) \cite{pet},
317: with $\chi_{\rm DF}^2=0.67$ (0.27) at LO (NLO) [see Fig.~\ref{fig:b}(a)].
318: The $\varepsilon$ parameter was found to be $\varepsilon=0.0126$ ($0.0198$).
319: We emphasize that the value of $\varepsilon$ carries no meaning by itself, but
320: it depends on the underlying theory for the description of the fragmentation
321: process $b\to B$, in particular, on the choice of the starting scale $\mu_0$,
322: on whether the analysis is performed in LO or NLO, and on how the final-state
323: collinear singularities are factorized in NLO.
324: In Fig.~\ref{fig:b}(b), the $B^+$-meson $p_T$ distribution measured by CDF in
325: Run~1A \cite{cdf1} and Run~1 \cite{cdf2} is compared with our LO and NLO
326: predictions evaluated using the CTEQ6 proton PDFs \cite{cteq6} and the
327: BKK-P $B$-meson FFs \cite{bme} and choosing $\mu_{R,F}=\xi_{R,F}\times2m_T$,
328: where $m_T=\sqrt{p_T^2+m_b^2}$.
329: The theoretical uncertainty at NLO is estimated by independently varying
330: $\xi_R$ and $\xi_F$ from 0.5 to 2 about the default value 1.
331: It only amounts to ${+21\atop-27}\%$ at $p_T=15$~GeV, but steadily increases
332: towards smaller values of $p_T$, reaching ${+33\atop-45}\%$ at $p_T=10$~GeV.
333: Variations in the proton PDFs and the ansatz for the $b\to B$ FF \cite{bme}
334: only reach a few percent.
335: We observe that the Run~1A data comfortably lies within the theoretical error
336: band, while the full Run~1 data tends to be somewhat on the high side,
337: especially in the upmost $p_T$ bin.
338: \begin{figure}[t]
339: \begin{center}
340: \begin{tabular}{ll}
341: \parbox{5.65cm}{
342: \epsfig{file=b1b.eps,width=5.65cm,height=5.65cm,bbllx=9pt,bblly=21pt,%
343: bburx=510pt,bbury=397pt,clip=}
344: } &
345: \parbox{5.65cm}{
346: \epsfig{file=bnew.ps,width=5.65cm,height=5.65cm,bbllx=52pt,bblly=102pt,%
347: bburx=532pt,bbury=671pt,clip=}
348: }
349: \vspace*{-0.3cm} \\
350: (a) & (b)
351: \end{tabular}
352: \caption[]{({\bf a}) Our LO and NLO fits \cite{bme} to OPAL data of
353: $e^+e^-\to B+X$ \cite{ob}.
354: ({\bf b}) Comparison of CDF data of $p\overline{p}\to B+X$ \cite{cdf1,cdf2}
355: with our LO and NLO predictions \cite{bme}}
356: \label{fig:b}
357: \end{center}
358: \end{figure}
359:
360: In the case of $\gamma\gamma\to D^{*\pm}+X$ at LEP2, the inclusion of
361: finite-$m_c$ effects was found to reduce the cross section by approximately
362: 20\% (10\%) at $p_T=2m_c$ ($3m_c$) \cite{ks}, i.e., their magnitude is roughly
363: $m_c^2/p_T^2$, as na\"\i vely expected.
364: By analogy, one expects the finite-$m_b$ terms neglected in \cite{bme} to have
365: a moderate size, of order 20\% (10\%) at $p_T=10$~GeV (15~GeV).
366: This is considerably smaller than the scale uncertainty and appears
367: insignificant compared to the excess of the CDF data \cite{cdf1,cdf2} over the
368: traditional NLO analysis \cite{nas} in a scheme with $n_f=4$ active quark
369: flavours, where the $b$ quark is treated in the on-mass-shell renormalization
370: scheme.
371: In this massive scheme, there are no collinear singularities associated with
372: the outgoing $b$-quark lines that need to be subtracted and absorbed into the
373: FFs.
374: In fact, in this scheme there is no conceptual necessity for FFs at all, but
375: they are nevertheless introduced in an ad-hoc fashion in an attempt to match
376: the $B$-meson data.
377: However, in the absence of a subtraction procedure, there is also no
378: factorization theorem in operation to guarantee the universality of the FFs
379: \cite{col}.
380: By the same token, such FFs are not subject to AP evolution.
381: Thus, there is no theoretical justification to expect, e.g., that a single
382: value of the Peterson $\varepsilon$ parameter should be appropriate for
383: different types of experiment or at different energy scales in the same type of
384: experiment.
385: In other words, the feasibility of global data analyses is questionable in
386: this scheme.
387: Moreover, this scheme breaks down for $p_T\gg m_b$ because of would-be
388: collinear singularities of the form $\alpha_s\ln\left(p_T^2/m_b^2\right)$,
389: which are not resummed.
390:
391: The attempt to split the $B$-meson FFs into a so-called perturbative FF (PFF)
392: and a nonperturbative remainder is interesting in its own right.
393: However, detailed analysis for $D^{*\pm}$-meson FFs \cite{pff} revealed that
394: such a procedure leads to deficient results in practical applications.
395: On the one hand, at NLO, the cross section $d\sigma/dx$ of $e^+e^-$
396: annihilation becomes negative in the upper $x$ range, at $x\agt0.9$
397: [see Fig.~\ref{fig:pff}(a)], where the data is very precise, so that a
398: low-quality fit is obtained unless this $x$ range is excluded by hand
399: \cite{pff,gre}.
400: On the other hand, the LO and NLO predictions for other types of processes,
401: such as photoproduction in $ep$ scattering [see Fig.~\ref{fig:pff}(b)],
402: significantly differ \cite{pff}, which implies that the perturbative stability
403: is insufficient.
404: \begin{figure}[t]
405: \begin{center}
406: \begin{tabular}{ll}
407: \parbox{5.65cm}{
408: \epsfig{file=opal.ps,width=5.65cm,height=5.65cm,bbllx=28pt,bblly=161pt,%
409: bburx=523pt,bbury=650pt,clip=}
410: } &
411: \parbox{5.65cm}{
412: \epsfig{file=f4b.ps,width=5.65cm,height=5.65cm,bbllx=52pt,bblly=102pt,%
413: bburx=543pt,bbury=677pt,clip=}
414: }
415: \vspace*{-0.3cm} \\
416: (a) & (b)
417: \end{tabular}
418: \caption[]{({\bf a}) NLO fit \cite{gre} to OPAL data of $e^+e^-\to D^{*\pm}+X$
419: using PFFs.
420: ({\bf b}) Comparison of ZEUS data of $ep\to D^{*\pm}+X$ in photoproduction
421: with our LO and NLO predictions implemented with PFFs \cite{pff}}
422: \label{fig:pff}
423: \end{center}
424: \end{figure}
425:
426: The idea \cite{bme} of performing a coherent analysis of LEP1 and Tevatron
427: data of inclusive $B$-meson production was recently revived using an
428: unconventional scheme named FONLL, in which the traditional result in the
429: massive scheme \cite{nas} and a suitably subtracted result in a massless
430: scheme with PFFs are linearly combined \cite{cac}.
431: The degree of arbitrariness in this procedure may be assessed by noticing that
432: the massless-scheme term is weighted with an ad-hoc coefficient function of
433: the form $p_T^2/\left(p_T^2+25m_b^2\right)$ so as to effectuate its
434: suppression in the low-$p_T$ range and that this term is evaluated at
435: $p_T^\prime=\sqrt{p_T^2+m_b^2}$ while the massive-scheme term is evaluated at
436: $p_T$.
437: Since the FONLL scheme interpolates between the massive scheme and the
438: massless scheme with PFFs, it inherits the weaknesses of both schemes detailed
439: above.
440: In particular, the negativity of the NLO cross section of $e^+e^-\to B+X$ in
441: the upper $x$ range forces one to exclude the data points located there from
442: the fit.
443: In \cite{cac}, this is achieved by resorting to what is called there the
444: moments method, i.e., the large-$x$ region is manually faded out by selecting
445: one particular low moment of the $b\to B$ FF, namely the one corresponding to
446: the average $x$ value, thereby leaving the residual information encoded in the
447: data unused.
448:
449: \section{Conclusions
450: \label{sec:five}}
451:
452: We reviewed recent LO and NLO analyses of $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, and
453: $p/\overline{p}$ FFs \cite{kkp}, which also yielded new values for
454: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ \cite{kkp1}.
455: Although these FFs are genuinely nonperturbative objects, they possess two
456: important properties that follow from perturbative considerations within
457: the QCD-improved parton model and are amenable to experimental tests, namely
458: scaling violations and universality.
459: The scaling violations were tested \cite{kkp,kkp2} by making comparisons with
460: data of $e^+e^-$ annihilation at CM energies below \cite{low} and above
461: \cite{D2} those pertaining to the data that entered the fits.
462: The universality property was checked \cite{kkp2} by performing a global study
463: of high-energy data on hadroproduction in $p\overline{p}$ collisions
464: \cite{UA1,CDF} and on photoproduction in $e^\pm p$ \cite{H1} and $e^+e^-$
465: \cite{Ogg} collisions.
466: Our NLO FFs \cite{kkp} agree with other up-to-date sets \cite{kre} within the
467: present experimental errors \cite{kkp2}.
468:
469: High-energy data on hadroproduction particularly probes the FFs in the
470: large-$x$ region, is especially sensitive to the gluon FFs, and, therefore,
471: carries valuable information complementary to that provided by $e^+e^-$ data.
472: This information, apart from being interesting in its own right, is
473: indispensible in order to reliably predict the $\pi^0$ background for the
474: $H\to\gamma\gamma$ signal of the intermediate-mass Higgs boson at the Tevatron
475: and the LHC.
476: It would thus be highly desirable if the experiments at the Tevatron made an
477: effort to update their analyses, which date back to 1988 \cite{CDF}.
478:
479: Adopting a similar theoretical framework for $B$-meson production, we
480: demonstrated \cite{bme} that the notorious excess of the Tevatron data
481: \cite{cdf1,cdf2} over existing theoretical calculations can be ascribed, at
482: sufficiently large values of $p_T$, to nonperturbative fragmentation effects
483: inappropriately taken into account previously.
484: In combination with the factorization formalism of nonrelativistic QCD
485: \cite{bbl}, this framework also leads to a successful description \cite{kk} of
486: inclusive $J/\psi$ and $\psi^\prime$ production from $B$-meson decay
487: \cite{bpsi}.
488: A rigorous procedure to implement the finite-$m_b$ terms in an NLO framework
489: where terms of the form
490: $\alpha_s^{n+1}\ln^n\left(\mu^2/m_b^2\right)$ are resummed by AP evolution and
491: the universality of the FFs is guaranteed by the factorization theorem
492: \cite{col} is to directly subtract the would-be collinear singularities of the
493: form $\alpha_s\ln\left(p_T^2/m_b^2\right)$ in the massive-scheme result in a
494: way that conforms with the massless scheme \cite{ks} (see also \cite{sca}).
495:
496: \vspace{1cm}
497: \noindent
498: {\bf Acknowledgements}
499: \smallskip
500:
501: \noindent
502: The author is grateful to J. Binnewies, G. Kramer, and B. P\"otter for their
503: collaboration on the work presented here.
504: His research is supported in part by DFG Grant No.\ KN~365/1-1 and BMBF Grant
505: No.\ 05~HT1GUA/4.
506:
507: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
508:
509: \bibitem{gri} V.N. Gribov, L.N. Lipatov:
510: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf15}, 781 (1972) [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf15}, 438 (1972)];
511: G. Altarelli, G. Parisi:
512: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf126}, 298 (1977);
513: Yu.L. Dokshitser:
514: Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf73}, 1216 (1977)
515: [Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf46}, 641 (1977)]
516:
517: \bibitem{Al} ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al.:
518: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf357}, 487 (1995); {\bf364}, 247(E) (1995)
519:
520: \bibitem{A} DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al.:
521: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf398}, 194 (1997);
522: OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al.:
523: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf7}, 369 (1999)
524:
525: \bibitem{A1} ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al.:
526: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf66}, 355 (1995);
527: DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al.:
528: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf5}, 585 (1998);
529: SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al.:
530: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 052001 (1999)
531:
532: \bibitem{Ag} ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate et al.:
533: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf17}, 1 (2000);
534: OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.:
535: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf11}, 217 (1999)
536:
537: \bibitem{Dg} DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al.:
538: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf13}, 573 (2000)
539:
540: \bibitem{bkk} J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer:
541: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf65}, 471 (1995); Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf52}, 4947 (1995)
542:
543: \bibitem{kkp} B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, B. P\"otter:
544: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf582}, 514 (2000)
545:
546: \bibitem{T} TPC/Two-Gamma Collaboration, H. Aihara et al.:
547: LBL Report No.\ LBL-23737 and UC-34D, March 1988 (unpublished);
548: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf61}, 1263 (1988)
549:
550: \bibitem{dst} J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer:
551: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 014014 (1998)
552:
553: \bibitem{bme} J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer:
554: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 034016 (1998)
555:
556: \bibitem{kkp1} B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, B. P\"otter:
557: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf85}, 5288 (2000)
558:
559: \bibitem{kkp2} B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, B. P\"otter:
560: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf597}, 337 (2001)
561:
562: \bibitem{UA1} UA1 Collaboration, G. Arnison et al.:
563: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf118} B, 167 (1982);
564: UA2 Collaboration, M. Banner et al.:
565: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf122} B, 322 (1983);
566: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf27}, 329 (1985);
567: UA1 Collaboration, C. Albajar et al.:
568: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf335}, 261 (1990);
569: UA1 Collaboration, G. Bocquet et al.:
570: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf366}, 434 (1996)
571:
572: \bibitem{CDF} CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.:
573: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf61}, 1819 (1988)
574:
575: \bibitem{H1} ZEUS Collaboration, M. Derrick et al.:
576: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf67}, 227 (1995);
577: H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al.:
578: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf10}, 363 (1999)
579:
580: \bibitem{cdf1} CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.:
581: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf75}, 1451 (1995)
582:
583: \bibitem{cdf2} CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta et al.:
584: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf65}, 052005 (2002)
585:
586: \bibitem{ob} OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander et al.:
587: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B354}, 93 (1995)
588:
589: \bibitem{low} DASP Collaboration, R. Brandelik et al.:
590: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf148}, 189 (1979);
591: TASSO Collaboration, M. Althoff et al.:
592: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf17}, 5 (1983);
593: TASSO Collaboration, W. Braunschweig et al.:
594: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf42}, 189 (1989);
595: ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht et al.:
596: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf44}, 547 (1989)
597:
598: \bibitem{Dl} OPAL Collaboration, R. Akers et al.:
599: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf68} 203 (1995);
600: DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al.:
601: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf6}, 19 (1999)
602:
603: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara et al.:
604: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf66}, 010001 (2002)
605:
606: \bibitem{cks} K.G. Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl, M. Steinhauser:
607: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf79}, 2184 (1997)
608:
609: \bibitem{D2} OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander et al.:
610: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf72}, 191 (1996);
611: OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al.:
612: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf75}, 193 (1997);
613: DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al.:
614: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf459}, 397 (1999);
615: OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.:
616: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf16}, 185 (2000)
617:
618: \bibitem{Ogg} OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al.:
619: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf6}, 253 (1999)
620:
621: \bibitem{CTEQ5} CTEQ Collaboration, H.L. Lai et al.:
622: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf12}, 375 (2000)
623:
624: \bibitem{AFG} P. Aurenche, J.-P. Guillet, M. Fontannaz:
625: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf64}, 621 (1994)
626:
627: \bibitem{col} J.C. Collins:
628: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 094002 (1998);
629: private communication
630:
631: \bibitem{ab} ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al.:
632: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf512}, 30 (2001);
633: SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al.:
634: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf65}, 092006 (2002)
635:
636: \bibitem{pet} C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, P.M. Zerwas:
637: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf27}, 105 (1983)
638:
639: \bibitem{cteq6} CTEQ Collaboration, J. Pumplin et al.:
640: JHEP {\bf0207}, 012 (2002)
641:
642: \bibitem{ks} G. Kramer, H. Spiesberger:
643: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf22}, 289 (2001)
644:
645: \bibitem{nas} P. Nason, S. Dawson, R.K. Ellis:
646: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf327}, 49 (1989); {\bf335}, 260(E) (1990);
647: W. Beenakker, H. Kuijf, W.L. van Neerven, J. Smith:
648: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf40}, 54 (1989)
649:
650: \bibitem{pff} J. Binnewies, B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer:
651: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf76}, 677 (1997)
652:
653: \bibitem{gre} M. Cacciari, M. Greco:
654: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf55}, 7134 (1997)
655:
656: \bibitem{cac} M. Cacciari, P. Nason:
657: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf89}, 122003 (2002)
658:
659: \bibitem{kre} S. Kretzer:
660: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf62}, 054001 (2000);
661: L. Bourhis, M. Fontannaz, J.P. Guillet, M. Werlen:
662: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf19}, 89 (2001)
663:
664: \bibitem{bbl} G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, G.P. Lepage:
665: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf51}, 1125 (1995); {\bf55}, 5853(E) (1997)
666:
667: \bibitem{kk} B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer:
668: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf60}, 014006 (1999)
669:
670: \bibitem{bpsi} CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.:
671: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf79}, 572 (1997);
672: D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott et al.:
673: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf82}, 35 (1999)
674:
675: \bibitem{sca} F.I. Olness, R.J. Scalise, W.-K. Tung,
676: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 014506 (1999)
677:
678: \end{thebibliography}
679:
680: \end{document}
681: