1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2: \voffset0cm
3: \hoffset0cm
4: \oddsidemargin0cm
5: \evensidemargin0cm
6: \topmargin0cm
7: \textwidth16.cm
8: \textheight22.cm
9:
10: \newcommand{\agt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
11: \hbox {$>$}\,}
12: \newcommand{\alt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
13: \hbox {$<$}\,}
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
16:
17: \catcode`@=11
18: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
19: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
20: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
21: \newcount\@tempcntc
22: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
23: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
24: {\@ifundefined
25: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf ?}\@warning
26: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
27: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
28: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
29: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
30: \else
31: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
32: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
33: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
34: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
35: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
36: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
37: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else \def\@citea{--}\fi
38: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
39: \catcode`@=12
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: \begin{document}
42: \title{\vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
43: \centerline{\normalsize DESY~05--054\hfill ISSN~0418--9833}
44: \centerline{\normalsize INT--ACK--05--34\hfill}
45: \centerline{\normalsize hep--ph/0504058\hfill}
46: \centerline{\normalsize April 2005\hfill}}
47: \vskip1.5cm
48: $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ Fragmentation Functions from CERN
49: LEP1}
50: \author{Bernd A. Kniehl$^a$\thanks{Permanent address:
51: II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
52: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany.}
53: and Gustav Kramer$^b$\\
54: $^a$ Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington,\\
55: Box 351550, Seattle, WA 98195-1550, USA\\
56: $^b$ II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,\\
57: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
58: \date{}
59: \maketitle
60: \begin{abstract}
61: We present new sets of nonperturbative fragmentation functions for $D^0$,
62: $D^+$, and $D_s^+$ mesons as well as for $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons, both at leading
63: and next-to-leading order in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ factorization scheme
64: with five massless quark flavors.
65: They are determined by fitting data of $e^+e^-$ annihilation taken by the OPAL
66: Collaboration at CERN LEP1.
67: We take the charm-quark fragmentation function to be of the form proposed by
68: Peterson {\it et al.}\ and thus obtain new values of the $\epsilon_c$
69: parameter, which are specific for our choice of factorization scheme.
70:
71: \medskip
72: \noindent
73: PACS numbers: 13.60.-r, 13.85.Ni, 13.87.Fh, 14.40.Lb
74: \end{abstract}
75: \newpage
76:
77: \section{Introduction}
78:
79: Several experimental collaborations at $ep$ and $p\overline{p}$ colliders
80: presented data on the differential cross section $d^2\sigma/dy\,dp_T$ for the
81: inclusive production of $D^0$, $D^+$, and $D_s^+$ mesons, $\Lambda_c^+$
82: baryons, and their charge-conjugate counterparts.
83: At DESY HERA, such data were collected by the ZEUS Collaboration
84: \cite{zeus,pad} in low-$Q^2$ $ep$ collisions, equivalent to photoproduction,
85: and by the H1 Collaboration \cite{h1} in deep-inelastic $ep$ scattering.
86: At the Fermilab Tevatron, such data were taken by the CDFII Collaboration
87: \cite{cdf} in $p\overline{p}$ collisions.
88:
89: On the theoretical side, fragmentation functions (FF's) for the transitions
90: $c,b\to X_c$, where $X_c$ denotes a generic charmed hadron, are needed as
91: nonperturbative inputs for the calculation of all the cross sections mentioned
92: above.
93: Such FF's are preferably constructed by using precise information from
94: $e^+e^-\to X_c+X$ via $e^+e^-$ annihilation at the $Z$-boson resonance, where
95: $X$ denotes the hadronic rest.
96: In this process, two mechanisms contribute with similar rates:
97: (i) $Z\to c\overline{c}$ decay followed by $c\to X_c$ (or
98: $\overline{c}\to X_c$) fragmentation; and
99: (ii) $Z\to b\overline{b}$ decay followed by $b\to X_b$ (or
100: $\overline{b}\to X_b$) fragmentation and weak $X_b\to X_c+X$ decay of the
101: bottom-flavored hadron $X_b$.
102: The latter two-step process is usually treated as a one-step fragmentation
103: process $b\to X_c$.
104:
105: Using ALEPH \cite{aleph} and OPAL \cite{opal} data on inclusive $D^{*+}$
106: production at the $Z$-boson resonance, we determined separate FF's for
107: $c\to D^{*+}$ and $b\to D^{*+}$ in collaboration with Binnewies \cite{bkk}.
108: It is the purpose of this work to extract nonperturbative FF's for
109: $c,b\to D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$ from the respective data samples collected
110: by the OPAL Collaboration at LEP1 \cite{opal1} using the same theoretical
111: framework as in Ref.~\cite{bkk}.
112:
113: The work in Ref.~\cite{bkk} is based on the QCD-improved parton model
114: implemented in the modified minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$)
115: renormalization and factorization scheme in its pure form with $n_f=5$
116: massless quark flavors, which is also known the as the massless scheme
117: \cite{spira} or zero-mass variable-flavor-number scheme.
118: In this scheme, the masses $m_c$ and $m_b$ of the charm and bottom quarks are
119: neglected, except in the initial conditions of their FF's.
120: This is a reasonable approximation for center-of-mass (c.m.) energies
121: $\sqrt s\gg m_c,m_b$ in $e^+e^-$ annihilation or transverse momenta
122: $p_T\gg m_c,m_b$ in $ep$ and $p\overline{p}$ scattering, if the respective
123: FF's are used as inputs for the calculation of the cross sections for these
124: reactions.
125: Hence, we describe the $c,b\to X_c$ transitions by nonperturbative FF's, as is
126: usually done for the fragmentation of the up, down, and strange quarks into
127: light hadrons.
128:
129: The outline of this paper is as follows.
130: In Sec.~\ref{sec:two}, we briefly recall the theoretical framework underlying
131: the extraction of FF's from the $e^+e^-$ data, which has already been
132: introduced in Refs.~\cite{bkk,bkk1}.
133: In Sec.~\ref{sec:three}, we present the $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and
134: $\Lambda_c^+$ FF's we obtained by fitting the respective LEP1 data samples
135: from OPAL \cite{opal1} at leading order (LO) and next-to-leading order (NLO)
136: in the massless scheme and discuss their properties.
137: In Sec.~\ref{sec:four}, we present predictions for the inclusive production of
138: these $X_c$ hadrons in nonresonant $e^+e^-$ annihilation at lower c.m.\
139: energies and compare them with data from other experiments.
140: Our conclusions are summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec:five}.
141:
142: \section{Theoretical Framework}
143: \label{sec:two}
144:
145: Our procedure to construct LO and NLO sets of $D$ FF's has already been
146: described in Refs.~\cite{bkk,bkk1}.
147: As experimental input, we use the LEP1 data from OPAL \cite{opal1}.
148:
149: In $e^+e^-$ annihilation at the $Z$-boson resonance, $X_c$ hadrons are
150: produced either directly through the hadronization of charm quarks produced
151: by $Z\to c\overline{c}$ or via the weak decays of $X_b$ hadrons from
152: $Z\to b\overline{b}$.
153: In order to disentangle these two production modes, the authors of
154: Ref.~\cite{opal1} utilized the apparent decay length distributions and energy
155: spectra of the $X_c$ hadrons.
156: Because of the relatively long $X_b$-hadron lifetimes and the hard $b\to X_b$
157: fragmentation, $X_c$ hadrons originating from $X_b$-hadron decays have
158: significantly longer apparent decay lengths than those from primary production.
159: In addition, the energy spectrum of $X_c$ hadrons originating from
160: $X_b$-hadron decays is much softer than that due to primary charm production.
161:
162: The experimental cross sections \cite{opal1} were presented as distributions
163: differential in $x=2E(X_c)/\sqrt s$, where $E(X_c)$ is the measured energy of
164: the $X_c$-hadron candidate, and normalized to the total number of hadronic
165: $Z$-boson decays.
166: Besides the total $X_c$ yield, which receives contributions from $Z\to c\bar c$
167: and $Z\to b\bar b$ decays as well as from light-quark and gluon fragmentation,
168: the OPAL Collaboration separately specified results for $X_c$ hadrons from
169: tagged $Z\to b\bar b$ events.
170: As already mentioned above, the contribution due to charm-quark fragmentation
171: is peaked at large $x$, whereas the one due to bottom-quark fragmentation has
172: its maximum at small $x$.
173:
174: For the fits, we use the $x$ bins in the interval $[0.15,1.0]$ and integrate
175: the theoretical cross sections over the bin widths used in the experimental
176: analysis.
177: For each of the four charmed-hadron species considered here,
178: $X_c=D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$, we sum over the two charge-conjugate states as
179: was done in Ref.~\cite{opal1}.
180: As a consequence, there is no difference between the FF's of a given quark
181: and its antiquark.
182: As in Refs.~\cite{bkk,bkk1}, we take the starting scales for the $X_c$ FF's of
183: the gluon and the $u$, $d$, $s$, and $c$ quarks and antiquarks to be
184: $\mu_0=2m_c$, while we take $\mu_0=2m_b$ for the FF's of the bottom quark and
185: antiquark.
186: The FF's of the gluon and the first three flavors are assumed to be zero at
187: their starting scale.
188: At larger scales $\mu$, these FF's are generated through the usual
189: Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) \cite{dglap} evolution at LO
190: or NLO.
191: The FF's of the first three quarks and antiquarks coincide with each other at
192: all scales $\mu$.
193:
194: We employ two different forms for the parameterizations of the charm- and
195: bottom-quark FF's at their respective starting scales.
196: In the case of charm, we use the distribution of Peterson {\it et al.}\
197: \cite{pet},
198: \begin{equation}
199: D_c(x,\mu_0^2)=N\frac{x(1-x)^2}{[(1-x)^2+\epsilon x]^2}.
200: \label{eq:peterson}
201: \end{equation}
202: In the case of bottom, we adopt the ansatz
203: \begin{equation}
204: D_b(x,\mu_0^2)=Nx^{\alpha}(1-x)^{\beta},
205: \label{eq:standard}
206: \end{equation}
207: which is frequently used for the FF's of light hadrons.
208: Equation~(\ref{eq:peterson}) is particularly suitable for FF's that peak at
209: large values of $x$, as is typically the case for $c\to X_c$ transitions.
210: Since the $b\to X_c$ FF is a convolution of the $b\to X_b$ fragmentation and
211: the subsequent $X_b\to X_c+X$ decay, it has its maximum at small $x$ values.
212: Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{eq:peterson}) is less suitable in this case.
213: We apply Eqs.~(\ref{eq:peterson}) and (\ref{eq:standard}) for the FF's of all
214: four $X_c$-hadron species considered here.
215:
216: The calculation of the cross section $(1/\sigma_{\rm tot})d\sigma/dx$ for
217: $e^+e^-\to\gamma/Z\to X_c+X$ is performed as described in Ref.~\cite{bkk}, in
218: the pure $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ subtraction scheme, {\it i.e.}, without the
219: subtraction terms $d_{Qa}(x)$ specified in Eq.~(2) of Ref.~\cite{kks}.
220: All relevant formulas and references may be found in Ref.~\cite{bkk1}.
221: As for the asymptotic scale parameter for five active quark flavors, we adopt
222: the LO (NLO) value $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(5)}=108$~MeV (227~MeV) from
223: our study of inclusive charged-pion and -kaon production \cite{bkk2}.
224: The particular choice of $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(5)}$ is not essential,
225: since other values can easily accommodated by slight shifts of the other fit
226: parameters.
227: As in Refs.~\cite{bkk,bkk1}, we take the charm- and bottom-quark masses to be
228: $m_c=1.5$~GeV and $m_b=5$~GeV, respectively.
229:
230: \boldmath
231: \section{Determination of the $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ FF's}
232: \label{sec:three}
233: \unboldmath
234:
235: The OPAL Collaboration \cite{opal1} presented $x$ distributions for their full
236: $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ samples and for their $Z\to b\bar b$
237: subsamples.
238: We received these data in numerical form via private communication
239: \cite{martin}.
240: They are displayed in Figs.~4 (for the $D^0$ and $D^+$ mesons) and 5 (for the
241: $D_s^+$ meson and the $\Lambda_c^+$ baryon) of Ref.~\cite{opal1} in the form
242: $(1/N_{\rm had})dN/dx$, where $N$ is the number of $X_c$-hadron candidates
243: reconstructed through appropriate decay chains.
244: In order to convert this into the cross sections
245: $(1/\sigma_{\rm tot})d\sigma/dx$, we need to divide by the branching
246: fractions of the decays that were used in Ref.~\cite{opal1} for the
247: reconstruction of the various $X_c$ hadrons, namely,
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: B(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)&=&(3.84\pm0.13)\%,\nonumber\\
250: B(D^+\to K^-\pi^+\pi^-)&=&(9.1\pm0.6)\%,\nonumber\\
251: B\left(D_s^+\to \phi\pi^+\right)&=&(3.5\pm0.4)\%,\nonumber\\
252: B\left(\Lambda_c^+\to pK^-\pi^+\right)&=&(4.4\pm0.6)\%,
253: \end{eqnarray}
254: respectively.
255: The experimental errors on these branching fractions are not included in our
256: analysis.
257:
258: The values of $N$ and $\epsilon$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:peterson}) and of $N$,
259: $\alpha$, and $\beta$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:standard}) which result from our LO and
260: NLO fits to the OPAL data are collected in Table~\ref{tab:par}.
261: From there, we observe that the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, which
262: characterize the shape of the bottom FF, take very similar values for the
263: various $X_c$ hadrons, which are also similar to those for the $D^{*+}$
264: meson listed in Table~I of Ref.~\cite{bkk}.
265: On the other hand, the values of the $\epsilon$ parameter, which determines
266: the shape of the charm FF, significantly differ from particle species to
267: particle species.
268: In the $D^{*+}$ case \cite{bkk}, our LO (NLO) fits to ALEPH \cite{aleph} and
269: OPAL \cite{opal} data, which required separate analyses, yielded
270: $\epsilon=0.144$ (0.185) and 0.0851 (0.116), respectively.
271: We observe that, for each of the $X_c$-hadron species considered, the LO
272: results for $\epsilon$ are considerably smaller than the NLO ones.
273: Furthermore, we notice a tendency for the value of $\epsilon$ to decrease as
274: the mass ($m_{X_c}$) of the $X_c$ hadron increases.
275:
276: \begin{table}
277: \begin{center}
278: \caption{Fit parameters of the charm- and bottom-quark FF's for the various
279: $X_c$ hadrons at LO and NLO.
280: The corresponding starting scales are $\mu_0=2m_c=3$~GeV and
281: $\mu_0=2m_b=10$~GeV, respectively.
282: All other FF's are taken to be zero at $\mu_0=2m_c$.}
283: \label{tab:par}
284: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
285: \hline\hline
286: $X_c$ & Order & $Q$ & $N$ & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\epsilon$ \\
287: \hline
288: $D^0$ & LO & $c$ & 0.998 & -- & -- & 0.163 \\
289: & & $b$ & 71.8 & 1.65 & 5.19 & -- \\
290: & NLO & $c$ & 1.16 & -- & -- & 0.203 \\
291: & & $b$ & 97.5 & 1.71 & 5.88 & -- \\
292: $D^+$ & LO & $c$ & 0.340 & -- & -- & 0.148 \\
293: & & $b$ & 48.5 & 2.16 & 5.38 & -- \\
294: & NLO & $c$ & 0.398 & -- & -- & 0.187 \\
295: & & $b$ & 64.9 & 2.20 & 6.04 & -- \\
296: $D_s^+$ & LO & $c$ & 0.0704 & -- & -- & 0.0578 \\
297: & & $b$ & 40.0 & 2.05 & 4.93 & -- \\
298: & NLO & $c$ & 0.0888 & -- & -- & 0.0854 \\
299: & & $b$ & 21.8 & 1.64 & 4.71 & -- \\
300: $\Lambda_c^+$ & LO & $c$ & 0.0118 & -- & -- & 0.0115 \\
301: & & $b$ & 44.1 & 1.97 & 6.33 & -- \\
302: & NLO & $c$ & 0.0175 & -- & -- & 0.0218 \\
303: & & $b$ & 27.3 & 1.66 & 6.24 & -- \\
304: \hline\hline
305: \end{tabular}
306: \end{center}
307: \end{table}
308:
309: In Table~\ref{tab:chi}, we list three values of $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom
310: ($\chi_{\rm DF}^2$) for each of the fits from Table~\ref{tab:par}:
311: one for the $Z\to b\overline{b}$ subsample, one for the total sample (sum of
312: tagged-$c\overline{c}$, tagged-$b\overline{b}$, and gluon-splitting events),
313: and an average one evaluated by taking into account the $Z\to b\overline{b}$
314: subsample and the total sample.
315: The actual $\chi_{\rm DF}^2$ values are rather small.
316: This is due to the sizeable errors and the rather limited number of data
317: points, especially for the $D_s^+$ and $\Lambda_c^+$ data.
318: In each case, the $Z\to b\overline{b}$ subsample is somewhat less well
319: described than the total sample.
320: The NLO fits yield smaller $\chi_{\rm DF}^2$ values than the LO ones, except
321: for the $\Lambda_c^+$ case.
322:
323: \begin{table}
324: \begin{center}
325: \caption{$\chi^2$ per degree of freedom achieved in the LO and NLO fits to the
326: OPAL \cite{opal1} data on the various $D$ hadrons.
327: In each case, $\chi_{\rm DF}^2$ is calculated for the $Z\to b\overline{b}$
328: sample ($b$), the full sample (All), and the combination of both (Average).}
329: \label{tab:chi}
330: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
331: \hline\hline
332: $X_c$ & Order & $b$ & All & Average \\
333: \hline
334: $D^0$ & LO & 1.16 & 0.688 & 0.924 \\
335: & NLO & 0.988 & 0.669 & 0.829 \\
336: $D^+$ & LO & 0.787 & 0.540 & 0.663 \\
337: & NLO & 0.703 & 0.464 & 0.584 \\
338: $D_s^+$ & LO & 0.434 & 0.111 & 0.273 \\
339: & NLO & 0.348 & 0.108 & 0.228 \\
340: $\Lambda_c^+$ & LO & 1.05 & 0.106 & 0.577 \\
341: & NLO & 1.05 & 0.118 & 0.582 \\
342: \hline\hline
343: \end{tabular}
344: \end{center}
345: \end{table}
346:
347: The normalized differential cross sections $(1/\sigma_{\rm tot})d\sigma/dx$
348: for $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ hadrons (circles), extracted from
349: Ref.~\cite{opal1} as explained above, are compared with our LO (upmost dashed
350: lines) and NLO (upmost solid lines) fits in Figs.~\ref{fig:xs}(a)--(d),
351: respectively.
352: The same is also done for the $Z\to b\overline{b}$ subsamples (squares).
353: In addition, our LO and NLO fit results for the $Z\to c\overline{c}$
354: contributions are shown.
355: In each case, the $X_c$ hadron and its charge-conjugate partner are summed
356: over.
357: From Figs.~\ref{fig:xs}(a)--(d), we observe that the LO and NLO results are
358: very similar, except for very small values of $x$.
359: This is also true for the distributions at the starting scales, as may be seen
360: by comparing the corresponding LO and NLO parameters in Table~\ref{tab:par}.
361: The branching of the LO and NLO results at small values of $x$ indicates that,
362: in this region, the perturbative treatment ceases to be valid.
363: This is related to the phase-space boundary for the production of $X_c$ hadrons
364: at $x_{\rm min}=2m_{X_c}/\sqrt s$.
365: These values are somewhat larger than the $x$ values where our NLO results turn
366: negative.
367: Since our massless-quark approach is not expected to be valid in regions of
368: phase space where finite-$m_{X_c}$ effects are important, our results should
369: only be considered meaningful for $x\agt x_{\rm cut}=0.1$, say.
370: We also encountered a similar small-$x$ behavior for the $D^{*+}$ FF's in
371: Refs.~\cite{bkk,bkk1}.
372:
373: As mentioned above, we take the FF's of the partons
374: $g,u,\overline{u},d,\overline{d},s,\overline{s}$ to be vanishing at their
375: starting scale $\mu_0=2m_c$.
376: However, these FF's are generated via the DGLAP evolution to the high scale
377: $\mu=\sqrt s$.
378: Thus, apart from the FF's of the heavy quarks $c,\overline{c},b,\overline{b}$,
379: also these radiatively generated FF's contribute to the cross section.
380: All these contributions are properly included in the total result for
381: $(1/\sigma_{\rm tot})d\sigma/dx$ shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:xs}(a)--(d).
382: At LEP1 energies, the contribution from the first three quark flavors is still
383: negligible; it is concentrated at small values of $x$ and only amounts to a
384: few percent of the integrated cross section.
385: However, the contribution from the gluon FF, which appears at NLO in
386: connection with $q\overline{q}g$ final states, is numerically significant.
387: As in our previous works \cite{bkk,bkk1}, motivated by the decomposition of
388: $(1/\sigma_{\rm tot})d\sigma/dx$ in terms of parton-level cross sections, we
389: distributed this contribution over the $Z\to c\bar c$ and $Z\to b\bar b$
390: channels in the ratio $e_c^2:e_b^2$, where $e_q$ is the effective electroweak
391: coupling of the quark $q$ to the $Z$ boson and the photon including propagator
392: adjustments.
393: This procedure should approximately produce the quantities that are compared
394: with the OPAL data \cite{opal1}.
395:
396: As in Refs.~\cite{bkk,bkk1}, we study the branching fractions for the
397: transitions\break $c,b\to D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$, defined by
398: \begin{equation}
399: B_Q(\mu)=\int_{x_{\rm cut}}^1dx\,D_Q(x,\mu^2),
400: \label{eq:br}
401: \end{equation}
402: where $Q=c,b$, $D_Q$ are the appropriate FF's, and $x_{\rm cut}=0.1$.
403: This allows us to test the consistency of our fits with information presented
404: in the experimental paper \cite{opal1} that was used for our fits.
405: The contribution from the omitted region $0<x<x_{\rm cut}$ is small.
406: Table~\ref{tab:br} contains the values of $B_Q(\mu)$ for all eight transitions
407: $c,b\to D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$ evaluated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:br}) in
408: LO and NLO at the respective thresholds $\mu=2m_Q$ and at the $Z$-boson
409: resonance $\mu=M_Z$.
410: As expected, the values of $B_Q(\mu)$ change very little under the evolution
411: from $\mu=2m_Q$ to $\mu=M_Z$, and they are rather similar for $Q=c,b$.
412: Leaving aside the insignificant contribution due to strange charm baryons,
413: the values of $B_Q(\mu)$ for $X_c=D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$ should
414: approximately add up to unity for each heavy flavor $Q=c,b$ at any value of
415: $\mu$.
416: Although we did not impose this sum rule as a constraint on our fits, it is
417: well satisfied for $B_c(M_Z)$ and $B_b(M_Z)$ at NLO.
418: In fact, from Table~\ref{tab:br} one obtains 103\% and 99.5\%, respectively.
419: The corresponding LO values, being 108\% and 105\%, are somewhat too large, as
420: may be understood by observing the excess of the LO fits over the experimental
421: data at small values of $x$ in Figs.~\ref{fig:xs}(a)--(d).
422: The corresponding sums of the LO and NLO entries for $B_c(2m_c)$ and
423: $B_b(2m_b)$ in Table~\ref{tab:br} range between 110\% and 116\%.
424: In view of the long evolution paths from the charm and bottom thresholds way
425: up to the $Z$-boson resonance, such violations of the sum rule can be
426: considered acceptable.
427: The situation is expected to improve once experimental data at lower c.m.\
428: energies (see Sec.~\ref{sec:four}) are included in our fits.
429:
430: \begin{table}
431: \begin{center}
432: \caption{Branching fractions (in \%) of $c,b\to D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$
433: evaluated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:br}) in LO and NLO at the respective
434: starting scales $\mu=2m_Q$ and at the $Z$-boson resonance $\mu=M_Z$.}
435: \label{tab:br}
436: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
437: \hline\hline
438: $X_c$ & Order & $B_c(2m_c)$ & $B_c(M_Z)$ & $B_b(2m_b)$ & $B_b(M_Z)$ \\
439: \hline
440: $D^0$ & LO & 72.1 & 66.9 & 57.8 & 52.8 \\
441: & NLO & 69.5 & 63.9 & 55.2 & 49.8 \\
442: $D^+$ & LO & 26.6 & 24.7 & 19.4 & 17.9 \\
443: & NLO & 25.6 & 23.6 & 18.6 & 17.1 \\
444: $D_s^+$ & LO & 11.5 & 10.9 & 22.4 & 20.6 \\
445: & NLO & 10.8 & 10.1 & 21.6 & 19.6 \\
446: $\Lambda_c^+$ & LO & 5.88 & 5.67 & 15.1 & 13.7 \\
447: & NLO & 5.74 & 5.48 & 14.5 & 13.0 \\
448: \hline\hline
449: \end{tabular}
450: \end{center}
451: \end{table}
452:
453: It is interesting to compare our LO and NLO values of $B_c(M_Z)$ and $B_b(M_Z)$
454: for the $D^0$ ,$D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ hadrons with the respective
455: results determined by the OPAL Collaboration through Peterson model fits.
456: These results are presented in Table~9 of Ref.~\cite{opal1} in the dressed form
457: \begin{equation}
458: p_{Q\to X_c}=R_QB_Q(M_Z)B_{X_c},
459: \label{eq:pr}
460: \end{equation}
461: where $R_Q=\Gamma_{Q\overline{Q}}/\Gamma_{\rm had}$ are the production rates of
462: the quarks $Q=c,b$ in $e^+e^-$ annihilation on the $Z$-boson resonance and
463: $B_{X_c}$ are the decay branching fractions of the four $X_c$ hadrons
464: $X_c=D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$ into the channels considered in
465: Eq.~(\ref{eq:br}).
466: For the reader's convenience, these results are copied to Table~\ref{tab:pr},
467: where they are compared with our results for $p_{Q\to X_c}$, which are
468: obtained from the appropriate entries in Table~\ref{tab:br} through
469: multiplication with the branching fractions from Eq.~(\ref{eq:br}) and the
470: production rates $R_c=0.1689\pm0.0047$ and $R_b=0.21643\pm0.00072$ determined
471: by the Particle Data Group \cite{pdg} in the framework of the Standard Model.
472: For simplicity, the values deduced from Table~\ref{tab:pr} do not include the
473: errors on $R_Q$ and $B_{X_c}$ and those on $B_Q(M_Z)$ resulting from our fits.
474:
475: In Table~9 of Ref.~\cite{opal1}, the OPAL Collaboration also presented the
476: total rates $\overline{n}(Z\to X_c)B_{X_c}$, which include the estimated
477: contributions from gluon splitting $g\to Q\overline{Q}$; for further details,
478: see Ref.~\cite{opal1}.
479: In Table~\ref{tab:pr}, these results are quoted and compared with the
480: corresponding quantities $2(p_{c\to X_c}+p_{b\to X_c})$ resulting from our LO
481: and NLO analyses.
482: Notice that the experimental results are corrected to include the unmeasured
483: contributions from $x<0.15$, whereas our evaluations of Eq.~(\ref{eq:br})
484: exclude the contributions from $x<x_{\rm cut}$.
485: This explains why the experimental results somewhat overshoot ours.
486: The agreement is worse at NLO, which may be understood by observing that our
487: evaluations of $2(p_{c\to X_c}+p_{b\to X_c})$ do not include the
488: contributions from gluon fragmentation, which enters the stage at NLO.
489: Keeping these caveats in mind, we find reasonable overall agreement between
490: the OPAL results for $\overline{n}(Z\to X_c)B_{X_c}$ and our results for
491: $2(p_{c\to X_c}+p_{b\to X_c})$.
492:
493: {\scriptsize
494: \begin{table}
495: \begin{center}
496: \caption{$X_c$-hadron production rates reported by OPAL \cite{opal1} compared
497: to results evaluated at LO and NLO from Eq.~(\ref{eq:pr}) using the branching
498: fractions from Table~\ref{tab:br}.}
499: \label{tab:pr}
500: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
501: \hline\hline
502: $X_c$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$p_{c\to X_c}$ [\%]} &
503: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$p_{b\to X_c}$ [\%]} &
504: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\overline{n}(Z\to X_c)B_{X_c}$ [\%]} \\
505: & \cite{opal1} & fit ${{\rm LO}\atop{\rm NLO}}$ &
506: \cite{opal1} & fit ${{\rm LO}\atop{\rm NLO}}$ &
507: \cite{opal1} & fit ${{\rm LO}\atop{\rm NLO}}$ \\
508: \hline
509: $D^0$ & $0.389\pm0.027{+0.026\atop-0.024}$ & 0.434 &
510: $0.454\pm0.023{+0.025\atop-0.026}$ & 0.439 &
511: $1.784\pm0.066\pm0.086$ & 1.746 \\
512: & & 0.414 & & 0.414 & & 1.656 \\
513: $D^+$ & $0.358\pm0.046{+0.025\atop-0.031}$ & 0.380 &
514: $0.379\pm0.031{+0.028\atop-0.025}$ & 0.353 &
515: $1.548\pm0.082{+0.082\atop-0.080}$ & 1.466 \\
516: & & 0.363 & & 0.337 & & 1.400 \\
517: $D_s^+$ & $0.056\pm0.015\pm0.007$ & 0.0644 &
518: $0.166\pm0.018\pm0.016$ & 0.156 &
519: $0.460\pm0.036\pm0.040$ & 0.441 \\
520: & & 0.0597 & & 0.148 & & 0.415 \\
521: $\Lambda_c^+$ & $0.041\pm0.019\pm0.007$ & 0.0421 &
522: $0.122\pm0.023\pm0.010$ & 0.130 &
523: $0.345\pm0.052\pm0.029$ & 0.344 \\
524: & & 0.0407 & & 0.124 & & 0.329 \\
525: \hline\hline
526: \end{tabular}
527: \end{center}
528: \end{table}
529: }
530:
531: Our LO and NLO values of $B_c(M_Z)$ and $B_b(M_Z)$ for the $D^0$, $D^+$,
532: $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ hadrons in Table~\ref{tab:br} can also be compared
533: with experimental results published more recently by the ALEPH \cite{aleph}
534: and DELPHI \cite{delphi} Collaborations.
535: In Ref.~\cite{aleph}, $B_c(M_Z)$ are called $f(c\to X_c)$ and may be found in
536: Secs.~7.1 and 7.3.
537: In Ref.~\cite{delphi}, $B_Q(M_Z)$ are called $P_{Q\to X_c}$ and may be
538: extracted for $Q=c$ from Table 13 (in connection with sum rule of Eq.~(12) and
539: taking into account the discussion of the contribution from the strange charm
540: baryons in Sec.~8.2) and for $Q=b$ from Table 15.
541: For simplicity, we add the three types of errors quoted in
542: Refs.~\cite{aleph,delphi} (from statistics, systematics, and decay branching
543: fractions) in quadrature.
544: In 1999, Gladilin \cite{gla} derived world-average values of $B_c(M_Z)$ for
545: the $D^0$ ,$D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ hadrons related to $e^+e^-$
546: annihilation, which are also listed in Table~\ref{tab:ad}.
547:
548: The branching fractions of the $c\to D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$ transitions
549: were also measured in $ep$ collisions at HERA, in photoproduction by the ZEUS
550: Collaboration \cite{zeus,pad} and in deep-inelastic scattering by the H1
551: Collaboration \cite{h1}.
552: These results are also included in Table~\ref{tab:ad} for comparison.
553: Strictly speaking, they do not correspond to $B_c(M_Z)$, but rather to
554: $B_c(\mu)$, where $\mu$ is set by the average value of $p_T$ (in the case of
555: photoproduction) or $Q$ (in the case of deep-inelastic scattering).
556: However, from Table~\ref{tab:br} we know that the $\mu$ dependence of
557: $B_c(\mu)$ is relatively mild.
558:
559: We observe that the experimental results collected in Table~\ref{tab:ad}, which
560: are mostly independent from each other, are mutually consistent within errors.
561: Comparing them with the corresponding entries in the forth and sixth columns
562: of Table~\ref{tab:br}, we find resonable overall agreement.
563:
564: \begin{table}
565: \begin{center}
566: \caption{Branching fractions (in \%) of $c,b\to D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$
567: reported by ALEPH \cite{aleph}, DELPHI \cite{delphi}, Gladilin \cite{gla},
568: ZEUS \cite{pad}, and H1 \cite{h1}.}
569: \label{tab:ad}
570: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
571: \hline\hline
572: $X_c$ & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$B_c(M_Z)$}& $B_b(M_Z)$ \\
573: & \cite{aleph} & \cite{delphi} & \cite{gla} & \cite{pad} & \cite{h1} &
574: \cite{delphi} \\
575: \hline
576: $D^0$ & $55.9\pm2.2$ & $54.80\pm4.78$ & $54.9\pm2.6$ &
577: $55.7{+2.0\atop-2.3}$ & $65.8{+15.5\atop-15.9}$ & $60.05\pm4.39$ \\
578: $D^+$ & $23.79\pm2.42$ & $22.70\pm1.82$ & $23.2\pm1.8$ &
579: $24.9{+1.5\atop-1.6}$ & $20.2{+5.7\atop-4.4}$ & $23.01\pm2.13$ \\
580: $D_s^+$ & $11.6\pm3.6$ & $12.51\pm2.97$ & $10.1\pm2.7$ &
581: $10.7\pm1.0$ & $15.6{+7.5\atop-7.2}$ & $16.65\pm4.50$ \\
582: $\Lambda_c^+$ & $7.9\pm2.2$ & $8.76\pm3.30$ & $7.6\pm2.1$ &
583: $7.6{+2.6\atop-2.0}$ & -- & $8.90\pm3.00$ \\
584: \hline\hline
585: \end{tabular}
586: \end{center}
587: \end{table}
588:
589: Another quantity of interest, which can directly be compared with experiment,
590: is the mean momentum fraction,
591: \begin{equation}
592: \langle x\rangle_Q(\mu)=\frac{1}{B_Q(\mu)}\int_{x_{\rm cut}}^1dx\,xD_Q(x,\mu).
593: \end{equation}
594: In Table~\ref{tab:xav}, we present the values of $\langle x\rangle_Q(\mu)$ for
595: $Q=c,b$ evaluated at $\mu=2m_Q,M_Z$ with the LO and NLO FF's of the $D^0$,
596: $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ hadrons.
597: At fixed value of $\mu$, the differences between the LO and NLO sets are
598: insignificant.
599: The DGLAP evolution from $\mu=2m_Q$ to $\mu=M_Z$ leads to a significant
600: reduction of $\langle x\rangle_Q(\mu)$, especially in the case of $Q=c$.
601: The values of $\langle x\rangle_b(\mu)$ are appreciably smaller than the
602: values of $\langle x\rangle_c(\mu)$, as is expected because the bottom-quark
603: fragmentation into $X_c$ hadrons is much softer than the charm-quark one.
604:
605: Our values of $\langle x\rangle_c(M_Z)$ for the $D^0$ and $D^+$ mesons should
606: be compared with the respective results obtained by the OPAL Collaboration
607: \cite{opal1} in the framework of the Peterson model \cite{pet}, which read
608: \begin{eqnarray}
609: \langle x\rangle_c(M_Z)&=&0.487\pm0.009{+0.011\atop-0.009}
610: \qquad(D^0),
611: \nonumber\\
612: \langle x\rangle_c(M_Z)&=&0.483\pm0.015{+0.007\atop-0.011}
613: \qquad(D^+)
614: \label{eq:xav}
615: \end{eqnarray}
616: for the $D^0$ and $D^+$ mesons, respectively.
617: The differences to the values obtained for three other fragmentation models
618: are included in the systematical errors.
619: Comparing Eq.~(\ref{eq:xav}) with the corresponding entries in
620: Table~\ref{tab:xav}, we observe that the latter are slightly smaller.
621:
622: \begin{table}
623: \begin{center}
624: \caption{Average momentum fractions of $c,b\to D^0,D^+,D_s^+,\Lambda_c^+$
625: evaluated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:xav}) in LO and NLO at the respective
626: starting scales $\mu=2m_Q$ and at the $Z$-boson resonance $\mu=M_Z$.}
627: \label{tab:xav}
628: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
629: \hline\hline
630: $X_c$ & Order & $\langle x\rangle_c(2m_c)$ & $\langle x\rangle_c(M_Z)$ &
631: $\langle x\rangle_b(2m_b)$ & $\langle x\rangle_b(M_Z)$ \\
632: \hline
633: $D^0$ & LO & 0.588 & 0.452 & 0.316 & 0.284 \\
634: & NLO & 0.568 & 0.431 & 0.300 & 0.270 \\
635: $D^+$ & LO & 0.596 & 0.458 & 0.341 & 0.303 \\
636: & NLO & 0.575 & 0.436 & 0.323 & 0.287 \\
637: $D_s^+$ & LO & 0.676 & 0.512 & 0.349 & 0.310 \\
638: & NLO & 0.644 & 0.482 & 0.332 & 0.296 \\
639: $\Lambda_c^+$ & LO & 0.791 & 0.590 & 0.302 & 0.273 \\
640: & NLO & 0.750 & 0.553 & 0.288 & 0.261 \\
641: \hline\hline
642: \end{tabular}
643: \end{center}
644: \end{table}
645:
646: \boldmath
647: \section{Comparison with $e^+e^-$ data at lower energies}
648: \label{sec:four}
649: \unboldmath
650:
651: The fractional energy spectra of inclusive $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and
652: $\Lambda_c^+$ production was also measured in nonresonant $e^+e^-$ annihilation
653: at lower energies.
654: Specifically, the CLEO Collaboration took $D^0$, $D^+$ (Table~XII in
655: Ref.~\cite{cleo04}), $D_s^+$ (Table~IV in Ref.~\cite{cleo0}), and
656: $\Lambda_c^+$ (Table~V in Ref.~\cite{cleo88}) data at LEPP CESR with
657: $\sqrt s=10.55$~GeV;
658: the HRS Collaboration took $D^0$, $D^+$ (Table~1 in Ref.~\cite{hrs88}), and
659: $D_s^+$ (Table~I in Ref.~\cite{hrs85}) data at SLAC PEP with $\sqrt s=29$~GeV;
660: and the TASSO Collaboration took $D_s^+$ (Fig.~3 in Ref.~\cite{tasso}) data
661: at DESY PETRA with $\sqrt s=34.7$~GeV.
662: It is instructing to confront these data with LO and NLO predictions based on
663: our new FF's, so as to test the scaling violations predicted by the DGLAP
664: evolution equations.
665: An especially interesting situation arises for the CLEO data
666: \cite{cleo04,cleo0,cleo88}, from which all $X_c$ hadrons coming from
667: $X_b$-hadron decays are excluded by appropriate acceptance cuts, so that only
668: $n_f=4$ quark flavors are active and a direct test of the charm-quark FF's is
669: feasible.
670:
671: The $D^+$ and $\Lambda_c^+$ data explicitly refer to the decay channels
672: $D_s^+\to\phi\pi^+\to K^+K^-\pi^+$ and $\Lambda_c^+\to pK^-\pi^+$,
673: respectively, and we have to divide them by the corresponding branching
674: fractions.
675: For this, we use the up-to-date values
676: $B(D_s^+\to\phi\pi^+)B(\phi\to K^+K^-)=(3.6\pm0.9)\%$ and
677: $B(\Lambda_c^+\to pK^-\pi^+)=(5.0\pm1.3)\%$ \cite{pdg}, except for the $D_s^+$
678: data of Ref.~\cite{tasso}.
679: In the latter case, for consistency, we adopt the value
680: $B(D_s^+\to\phi\pi^+)B(\phi\to K^+K^-)=0.13\pm0.03\pm0.04$ from
681: Ref.~\cite{tasso} itself.
682:
683: The differential cross sections $d\sigma/dx$ for the $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$,
684: and $\Lambda_c^+$ hadrons measured by CLEO \cite{cleo04,cleo0,cleo88}
685: (circles), HRS \cite{hrs88,hrs85} (squares), and TASSO \cite{tasso} (diamonds)
686: are confronted with our LO (dashed lines) and NLO (solid lines) predictions in
687: Figs.~\ref{fig:xs1}(a)--(d), respectively.
688:
689: Let us first concentrate on our NLO predictions.
690: As for the $D^0$, $D^+$, and $D_s^+$ mesons, we observe that our NLO
691: predictions generally lead to a satisfactory description of the experimental
692: data, both in normalization and shape.
693: In particular, the maxima of the measured $x$ distributions are approximately
694: reproduced.
695: However, in the case of the $\Lambda_c^+$ baryon, the predicted $x$
696: distribution appears to be too hard, its peak being set off by approximately
697: $+0.2$ relative to the one shown by the experimental data.
698: In particular, the data points at 0.55 and 0.65 are poorly described by the NLO
699: prediction.
700: Although the $\Lambda_c^+$ baryon is 22\% heavier than the $D^0$ and $D^+$
701: mesons, and 16\% heavier than the $D_s^+$ meson, mass effects are unlikely to
702: be responsible for this disagreement, since $\sqrt s=10.55$~GeV is
703: sufficiently far above the charm threshold.
704:
705: Let us now include the LO predictions in our considerations.
706: The CLEO data \cite{cleo04,cleo0,cleo88}, which are most precise, clearly
707: favor the NLO predictions, while the LO predictions are too large at small
708: values of $x$ and too small in the peak region.
709: Unfortunately, the HRS \cite{hrs88,hrs85} and TASSO \cite{tasso} data do not
710: reach the small-$x$ regime, where the LO and NLO predictions depart from each
711: other, and their errors are too large in order to support this observation.
712:
713: Actually, the CLEO data \cite{cleo04,cleo0,cleo88} are considerably more
714: precise than the OPAL data \cite{opal1}, which we fitted to, and it would be
715: desirable to also include them in ours fits.
716: However, we refrain from doing so for the time being because their high
717: precision would make it necessary to properly treat finite-$m_Q$ effects,
718: which are neglected altogether in the theoretical formalism employed here.
719: The general-mass variable-flavor-number (GM-VFN) scheme \cite{acot}, which has
720: recently been extended to inclusive $X_Q$-hadron production in $\gamma\gamma$
721: \cite{ks1}, $ep$ \cite{ks2}, and $p\overline{p}$ \cite{kkss} collisions,
722: provides a rigorous theoretical framework that retains the full finite-$m_Q$
723: effects while preserving the indispensible virtues of the factorization
724: theorem \cite{col}, namely the universality and the DGLAP \cite{dglap} scaling
725: violations of the FF's entailing the resummation of dominant logarithmic
726: corrections.
727: A global analysis of experimental data on inclusive $X_c$-hadron production in
728: the GM-VFN scheme is left for future work.
729:
730: \section{Conclusions}
731: \label{sec:five}
732:
733: The OPAL Collaboration presented measurements of the fractional energy spectra
734: of inclusive $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ production in $Z$-boson
735: decays based on their entire LEP1 data sample \cite{opal1}.
736: Apart from the full cross sections, they also determined the contributions
737: arising from $Z\to b\bar b$ decays.
738: This enabled us to determine LO and NLO sets of FF's for these $X_c$ hadrons.
739:
740: As in our previous analysis of $D^{*+}$ FF's \cite{bkk}, we worked in the
741: QCD-improved parton model implemented in the pure $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$
742: renormalization and factorization scheme with $n_f=5$ massless quark flavors
743: (zero-mass variable-flavor-number scheme).
744: This scheme is particularly appropriate if the characteristic energy scale of
745: the considered production process, {\it i.e.}, the c.m.\ energy $\sqrt s$ in
746: the case of $e^+e^-$ annihilation and the transverse momentum $p_T$ of the
747: $X_c$ hadron in other scattering processes, is large compared to the
748: bottom-quark mass $m_b$.
749: Owing to the factorization theorem, the FF's defined in this scheme satisfy
750: two desirable properties:
751: (i) their scaling violations are ruled by the timelike DGLAP equations; and
752: (ii) they are universal.
753: Thus, this formalism is predictive and suitable for global data analyses.
754:
755: We verified that the values of the branching and average momentum fractions of
756: the various $c,b\to X_c$ transitions evaluated at LO and NLO
757: using our FF's are in reasonable agreement with the corresponding results from
758: OPAL \cite{opal1} and other experiments \cite{pad,h1,aleph,delphi,gla}.
759:
760: We tested the scaling violations of our FF's by comparing the fractional
761: energy spectra of inclusive $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$
762: production measured in nonresonant $e^+e^-$ annihilation at $\sqrt s=10.55$~GeV
763: \cite{cleo04,cleo0,cleo88}, 29~GeV \cite{hrs88,hrs85}, and 34.7 \cite{tasso}
764: with our LO and NLO predictions to find reasonable agreement.
765: Since events of $X_c$-hadron production from $X_b$-hadron decay were excluded
766: from the data samples at $\sqrt s=10.55$~GeV, we obtained a clean test of our
767: charm-quark FF's.
768:
769: It is important to bear in mind that the fit results for the input parameters
770: in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:peterson}) and (\ref{eq:standard}), including the value of
771: Peterson's $\epsilon$ parameter, are highly scheme dependent at NLO, and must
772: not be na\"\i vely compared without careful reference to the theoretical
773: framework which they refer to.
774:
775: \bigskip
776: \centerline{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
777: \smallskip\noindent
778: We thank A. J. Martin for providing to us the OPAL data \cite{opal1} in
779: numerical form.
780: B.A.K. thanks the Department of Energy's Institute for Nuclear Theory at the
781: University of Washington for its hospitality and the Department of Energy for
782: partial support during the completion of this work.
783: This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through
784: Grant No.\ KN~365/3-1, and by the Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung
785: through Grant No.\ 05~HT1GUA/4.
786:
787: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
788:
789: \bibitem{zeus} ZEUS Collaboration, J. Breitweg {\it et al.},
790: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf481}, 213 (2000).
791:
792: \bibitem{pad} S. Padhi, in {\it Proceedings of the Ringberg Workshop on New
793: Trends in HERA Physics 2003}, edited by G. Grindhammer, B. A. Kniehl,
794: G. Kramer, and W. Ochs, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2004), p.~183.
795:
796: \bibitem{h1} H1 Collaboration, A. Aktas {\it et al.},
797: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf38}, 447 (2005).
798: % H1 Collaboration, contribution to the {\it International
799: %Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS03)}, Aachen, Germany,
800: %July 17--23, 2003, Abstract 096.
801:
802: \bibitem{cdf} CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta {\it et al.},
803: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf91}, 241804 (2003).
804:
805: \bibitem{aleph} ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate {\it et al.},
806: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf16}, 597 (2000).
807:
808: \bibitem{opal} OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff {\it et al.},
809: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf1}, 439 (1998).
810:
811: \bibitem{bkk} J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer,
812: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 014014 (1998).
813:
814: \bibitem{opal1} OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander {\it et al.},
815: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf72}, 1 (1996).
816:
817: \bibitem{spira} B. A. Kniehl, M. Kr\"amer, G. Kramer, and M. Spira,
818: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf356}, 539 (1995).
819:
820: \bibitem{bkk1} J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer,
821: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf76}, 677 (1997).
822:
823: \bibitem{dglap} V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov,
824: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf15}, 781 (1972)
825: [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf15}, 438 (1972)];
826: G. Altarelli and G. Parisi,
827: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B126}, 298 (1977);
828: Yu.~L. Dokshitzer,
829: Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf73}, 1216 (1977)
830: [Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf46}, 641 (1977)].
831:
832: \bibitem{pet} C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas,
833: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf27}, 105 (1983).
834:
835: \bibitem{kks} B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and M. Spira,
836: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf76}, 689 (1997).
837:
838: \bibitem{bkk2} J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer,
839: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf52}, 4947 (1995).
840:
841: \bibitem{martin} A. J. Martin, private communication.
842:
843: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman {\it et al.},
844: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf592}, 1 (2004).
845:
846: \bibitem{delphi} DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu {\it et al.},
847: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf12}, 225 (2000).
848:
849: \bibitem{gla} L. Gladilin,
850: Report No.\ hep-ex/9912064 (unpublished).
851:
852: \bibitem{cleo04} CLEO Collaboration, M. Artuso {\it et al.},
853: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf70}, 112001 (2004).
854:
855: \bibitem{cleo0} CLEO Collaboration, R. A. Briere {\it et al.},
856: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf62}, 072003 (2000).
857:
858: \bibitem{cleo88} CLEO Collaboration, D. Bortoletto {\it et al.},
859: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf37}, 1719 (1988).
860:
861: \bibitem{hrs88} HRS Collaboration, P. Baringer {\it et al.},
862: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf206}, 551 (1988).
863:
864: \bibitem{hrs85} HRS Collaboration, M. Derrick {\it et al.},
865: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf54}, 2568 (1985).
866:
867: \bibitem{tasso} TASSO Collaboration, M. Althoff {\it et al.},
868: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf136B}, 130 (1984).
869:
870: \bibitem{acot} M. A. G. Aivazis, J. C. Collins, F.I. Olness, and W.-K. Tung,
871: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf50}, 3102 (1994).
872:
873: \bibitem{ks1} G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger,
874: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf22}, 289 (2001);
875: {\it ibid.} {\bf28}, 495 (2003).
876:
877: \bibitem{ks2} G. Kramer and H. Spiesberger,
878: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf38}, 309 (2004).
879:
880: \bibitem{kkss} B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein, and H. Spiesberger,
881: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf71}, 014018 (2005);
882: Report No.\ DESY 05-030, MZ-TH/05-04, hep-ph/0502194, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C
883: (in press).
884:
885: \bibitem{col} J. C. Collins,
886: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 094002 (1998).
887:
888: \end{thebibliography}
889:
890: \newpage
891: \begin{figure}[ht]
892: \begin{center}
893: \epsfig{figure=dn.ps,width=\textwidth}
894: \caption{The normalized differential cross sections
895: $(1/\sigma_{\rm tot})d\sigma/dx$ of inclusive (a) $D^0/\overline{D}^0$, (b)
896: $D^\pm$, (c) $D_s^\pm$, and (d) $\Lambda_c^\pm$ production in $e^+e^-$
897: annihilation on the $Z$-boson resonance evaluated at LO (dashed lines) and NLO
898: (solid lines) with our respective FF sets are compared with the OPAL data
899: \cite{opal1} renormalized as explained in the text (circles).
900: The same is also done for the $Z\to b\overline{b}$ subsamples (squares).
901: In addition, our LO and NLO fit results for the $Z\to c\overline{c}$
902: contributions are shown.
903: In each case, the $X_c$ hadron and its charge-conjugate counterpart are summed
904: over.}
905: \label{fig:xs}
906: \end{center}
907: \end{figure}
908:
909: \newpage
910: \begin{figure}[ht]
911: \begin{center}
912: \epsfig{figure=dp.ps,width=\textwidth}\\
913: Fig.~\ref{fig:xs} (continued).
914: \end{center}
915: \end{figure}
916:
917: \newpage
918: \begin{figure}[ht]
919: \begin{center}
920: \epsfig{figure=ds.ps,width=\textwidth}\\
921: Fig.~\ref{fig:xs} (continued).
922: \end{center}
923: \end{figure}
924:
925: \newpage
926: \begin{figure}[ht]
927: \begin{center}
928: \epsfig{figure=lc.ps,width=\textwidth}\\
929: Fig.~\ref{fig:xs} (continued).
930: \end{center}
931: \end{figure}
932:
933: \newpage
934: \begin{figure}[ht]
935: \begin{center}
936: \epsfig{figure=dn1.ps,width=\textwidth}
937: \caption{The differential cross sections $d\sigma/dx$ (in nb) of inclusive (a)
938: $D^0/\overline{D}^0$, (b) $D^\pm$, (c) $D_s^\pm$, and (d) $\Lambda_c^\pm$
939: production in $e^+e^-$ annihilation at $\sqrt s=10.55$, 29, and $34.7$~GeV
940: evaluated at LO (dashed lines) and NLO (solid lines) with our respective FF
941: sets are compared with data from CLEO at CESR (squares), HRS at PEP (circles),
942: and TASSO at PETRA (diamonds), respectively.
943: In each case, the $X_c$ hadron and its charge-conjugate counterpart are summed
944: over.}
945: \label{fig:xs1}
946: \end{center}
947: \end{figure}
948:
949: \newpage
950: \begin{figure}[ht]
951: \begin{center}
952: \epsfig{figure=dp1.ps,width=\textwidth}\\
953: Fig.~\ref{fig:xs1} (continued).
954: \end{center}
955: \end{figure}
956:
957: \newpage
958: \begin{figure}[ht]
959: \begin{center}
960: \epsfig{figure=ds1.ps,width=\textwidth}\\
961: Fig.~\ref{fig:xs1} (continued).
962: \end{center}
963: \end{figure}
964:
965: \newpage
966: \begin{figure}[ht]
967: \begin{center}
968: \epsfig{figure=lc1.ps,width=\textwidth}\\
969: Fig.~\ref{fig:xs1} (continued).
970: \end{center}
971: \end{figure}
972:
973: \end{document}
974: