1: %% ****** Start of file frif_template.tex ****** %

2: %%

3: %%

4: %%   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

5: %%   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

6: %%

7: %%

8: %%   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

9: %%

10: %%   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

11: %%

12: %

13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0

14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.

15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.

16: %

17: % This is a lightly modified version of the slac template, rendered specific

18: % to the FRIF workshop on first principles non-perturbative

19: % QCD of hadron jets.

20: %

21: % When submitting your contribution to arXiv, remember to include the

22: % file slac_one.rtx

23: %

24: %

25: \documentclass[slac_one]{revtex4}

26: \usepackage{graphicx}

27: \usepackage{fancyhdr}

28: \pagestyle{fancy}

29: \fancyhead{}  % clear all fields

30: \chead{\it FRIF Workshop on First Principles Non-Perturbative

31:   QCD of Hadron Jets} 

32: \fancyfoot{} % clear all fields

33: 

34: %%%% PLEASE REMEMBER TO INSERT YOUR PAPER STATUS NUMBER (PSN)

35: %%%% BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR CONTRIBUTION. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

36: %%%% GIVEN TO YOU BY MAIL AND ALSO APPEARS AT

37: %%%% http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/power/proceedings.html

38: \fancyfoot[LE,LO]{\bf E005}

39: 

40: \rfoot{\thepage}

41: 

42: \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}

43: \renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0pt}

44: \renewcommand{\sfdefault}{phv}

45: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}

46: \setlength{\textheight}{235mm}

47: \setlength{\textwidth}{178mm}%{170mm}

48: \setlength{\topmargin}{-20mm}

49: 

50: 

51: 

52: 

53: \newcommand\sss{\scriptscriptstyle}

54: \newcommand\sQ{{\sss Q}}

55: \newcommand\pt{p_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle T}}

56: \newcommand\hpt{\hat{p}_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle T}}

57: \newcommand\nlf{{n_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle L}}}

58: \newcommand\nf{{n_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle f}}}

59: %\newcommand\nf{n}

60: \newcommand\tf{{T_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle F}}}

61: \newcommand\cf{{C_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle F}}}

62: \newcommand\nfb{{{\bar n}_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle f}}}

63: \newcommand\aem{\alpha_{\rm em}}

64: \newcommand\as{\alpha_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle S}}

65: \def\Qb{\overline{Q}}

66: \def\qb{\bar{q}}

67: \def\asb{{}\ifmmode \bar{\alpha}_s \else $\bar{\alpha}_s$\fi}

68: \newcommand\MSB{$\overline{\rm MS}$}

69: \newcommand\mQ{m}

70: \newcommand\LambdaQCD{\Lambda_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm QCD}}

71: 

72: %\newcommand\muF{\mu_{\sss F}}

73: \newcommand\muF{\mu}

74: \newcommand\muz{\mu_0}

75: 

76: 

77: %\newcommand\Inlf{\mathbb{I}_{\rm L}}

78: \newcommand\Inlf{\mathbb{I}_\nlf}

79: \newcommand\Inf{\mathbb{I}_\nf}

80: 

81: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

82: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

83: \def\eq{\beq\eeq}

84: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}

85: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}

86: \def\lq{\left[}

87: \def\rq{\right]}

88: \def\rg{\right\}}

89: \def\lg{\left\{}

90: \def\({\left(}

91: \def\){\right)}

92: \def    \nn             {\nonumber}

93: \def \ep{\epsilon}

94: 

95: \def\Dh{\hat{D}}

96: \def\Dnp{D_{\rm NP}}

97: \def\pDnp{\tilde{D}_{\pi}}

98: \def\gDnp{\tilde{D}_{\gamma}}

99: \def\t{\,\log\frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2}\,}

100: \def\pnz{P_N^{(0)}}

101: \def\pnu{P_N^{(1)}}

102: \def\OPAL{\mbox{OPAL}}

103: \def\ALEPH{\mbox{ALEPH}}

104: \def\ARGUS{\mbox{ARGUS}}

105: 

106: \def\ord#1{{\cal O}\(#1\)}

107: 

108: \def\s{\sigma}

109: \def\fix{\right|_{\rm FO}\!\!\!\!}

110: \def\res{\right|_{\rm res}\!\!\!\!}

111: \def\imp{\right|_{\rm imp}\!\!\!\!}

112: \def\TNLL{\right|_{\rm TNLL}\!\!}

113: \def\NLL{\right|_{\rm NLL}\!\!\!\!}

114: \def\LL{\right|_{\rm LL}\!\!}

115: \def\Re{\mathop{\rm Re}}

116: \def\mthr{m_{\rm thr}}

117: 

118: 

119: 

120: 

121: 

122: % You may use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references

123: 

124: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}

125: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}

126: %\bibliographystyle{JHEP}

127: 

128: \begin{document}

129: 

130: %Title of paper

131: \title{Power-suppressed effects in heavy quark fragmentation 

132: functions\footnote{Talk given by M. Cacciari at FRIF workshop on first principles 

133: non-perturbative QCD of hadron jets, LPTHE, Paris, France, 12-14 Jan 2006}}

134: 

135: 

136: % Repeat the \author .. \affiliation  etc. as needed

137: %

138: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last

139: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the

140: % other information

141: 

142: \author{Matteo Cacciari}

143: \affiliation{LPTHE, Universit\'e P. et M. Curie - Paris 6, France}

144: \author{Paolo Nason}

145: \affiliation{INFN, Sezione di Milano, 

146: Piazza della Scienza 3, 20126 Milan, Italy}

147: \author{Carlo Oleari}

148: \affiliation{Universit\`a di Milano-Bicocca,

149: Piazza della Scienza 3, 20126 Milan, Italy}

150: %

151: %\author{P. Lucas}

152: %\affiliation{FNAL, Batavia, IL 60510, USA}

153: 

154: \begin{abstract}

155: This talk summarizes the results of a phenomenological analysis of heavy quark

156: fragmentation data published by the CLEO and BELLE

157: collaborations at $\sqrt{s} = 10.6$~GeV and by the LEP collaborations at

158: $\sqrt{s} = 91.2$~GeV. Several theoretical ingredients are employed: 

159: next-to-leading order initial conditions, evolution and coefficient

160: functions; soft-gluon resummation to next-to-leading-log

161: accuracy; a next-to-leading order matching condition for the crossing

162: of the bottom threshold in the  evolution. 

163: Important initial-state electromagnetic radiation effects in the

164: CLEO and BELLE data are also accounted for. We find that 

165: with reasonably simple choices of a non-perturbative

166: correction to the fixed-order initial condition for the evolution,

167: the data from CLEO and BELLE can be fitted with remarkable accuracy.

168: The fitted fragmentation function, when evolved to LEP energies,

169: does not however represent fairly the 

170: $D^*$ fragmentation spectrum measured by ALEPH.

171: Large non-perturbative corrections

172: to the coefficient functions of the meson spectrum are needed

173: in order to reconcile CLEO/BELLE and ALEPH results.

174: 

175: \end{abstract}

176: 

177: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract

178: \maketitle

179: 

180: \thispagestyle{fancy}

181: 

182: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands

183: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands

184: % Put \label in argument of \section for cross-referencing

185: %\section{\label{}}

186: 

187: 

188: \section{Introduction}

189: 

190: The CLEO~\cite{Artuso:2004pj} and the BELLE~\cite{Seuster:2005tr}

191: Collaborations have recently published high-statistics and high-accuracy data

192: for various charmed mesons fragmentation in $e^+e^-$ collisions at a

193: centre-of-mass energy of $10.6$~GeV. These data are the first ones able

194: to rival in quality (and, in fact, to best) similar ones published a few years

195: ago by the ALEPH Collaboration~\cite{Barate:1999bg} at $91.2$ GeV.

196: 

197: Taken together these sets of data allow for a phenomenological

198: analysis~\cite{Cacciari:2005uk} 

199: which spans a fairly large energy gap. It is therefore possible not only to

200: test the ability of the theoretical framework to describe the data well,

201: but also to perform the evolution from one energy to the other, and look for

202: evidence (or absence) of power suppressed effects.

203: 

204: The theoretical framework employed is based on a next-to-leading order 

205: QCD description of the fragmentation process~\cite{Mele:1990cw}, 

206: including a next-to-leading log accurate resummation of collinear 

207: and soft gluons~\cite{Cacciari:2001cw}\footnote{It is worth noting that very

208: recently next-to-next-to leading order 

209: results for the time-like non-singlet splitting function have become

210: available~\cite{Mitov:2006ic}. Together with the previously available ${\cal

211: O}(\alpha_s^2)$ initial conditions~\cite{Melnikov:2004bm} they make

212: possible to repeat at least part of this analysis with higher accuracy.}.

213: 

214: A few more details complete the theoretical picture. They are briefly

215: summarized below, and they are outlined in detail

216: in~\cite{Cacciari:2005uk}. 

217: 

218: First, and most important, the soft-gluon resummation needs to be

219: artificially regularized at large $x$ (or, equivalently, large $N$ in moment

220: space). The choice of the regularization defines the

221: perturbative distribution and therefore directly influences the non-perturbative

222: one extracted by fitting the experimental data. In this work we have decided to

223: use a prescription which, while being as simple as possible, possesses

224: the following desirable features:

225: \begin{itemize}

226: \item[(i)] it is consistent with all known perturbative results,

227: \item[(ii)] it yields physically acceptable results,

228: \item[(iii)] it does not introduce power corrections larger than

229:       generally expected for the processes in question, i.e.\ $N\Lambda/m$

230:       for the initial

231:       condition~\cite{Nason:1997pk,Jaffe:1993ie,Randall:1994gr,Cacciari:2002xb}

232:       and $N\Lambda^2/q^2$ for the coefficient

233:       functions~\cite{Dasgupta:1996ki}, where $\Lambda$ is a typical hadronic

234:       scale of a few hundreds MeV.

235: \end{itemize}

236: In practical terms, our choice will yield a fragmentation function which

237: does not become negative in the large-$X$ region. This will allow for a

238: good description of the data up to the the $x=1$ endpoint.

239: 

240: Second, while evolving the charm fragmentation function through the bottom

241: threshold, one needs in principle to modify the evolution equations and

242: properly match at this threshold. Moreover, production of charm via gluon

243: splitting should be allowed, since it represents a non entirely negligible

244: source at LEP energies. Both these features have been implemented in

245: \cite{Cacciari:2005uk}, thus departing from the simple non-singlet only description

246: previously usually employed. 

247: 

248: Finally, the experimental data as measured by CLEO and BELLE still contain the

249: effect of electromagnetic initial state radiation. We have estimated that this

250: effect is not negligible in this case (as it is, instead, at LEP, due to the

251: physical cutoff provided by the $Z^0$ resonance peak). We have therefore proceeded

252: to simulate it and to deconvolute it from the data before fitting them with a

253: pure QCD description of the fragmentation process. Again, details can be found

254: in \cite{Cacciari:2005uk}.

255: 

256: 

257: \section{Non-perturbative fragmentation function}\label{sec:nonpFF}

258: In the heavy-quark fragmentation-function formalism, the largest

259: non-perturbative effects come  

260: from the initial condition, since one expects power corrections

261: of the form $\Lambda/\mQ$.

262: We assume that all these

263: effects can be described by a non-perturbative fragmentation function

264: $\Dnp$, that takes into account all low-energy effects, including

265: the process of the heavy quark turning into a

266: heavy-flavoured hadron, that has to be convoluted with the perturbative cross

267: section.

268: Thus, the Mellin transform of the

269: full resummed cross section, including

270: non-perturbative corrections, is

271: \beq

272: \label{eq:hadfactor}

273:    \sigma_{\sss H}(N,q^2) = \sigma_\sQ(N,q^2,\mQ^2)  \Dnp (N) \;.

274: \eeq

275: We have attempted to fit CLEO and BELLE $D^*$ data using several forms for

276: $\Dnp$.

277: We found that the best fits are obtained with the two-component form

278: \begin{equation}

279: \Dnp(x)={\rm Norm.} \times \frac{1}{1+c}

280: \left[ \delta(1-x) + c N_{a,b}^{-1} (1-x)^a x^b\right]\;,

281: \label{eq:threepar}

282: \end{equation}

283: with

284: \begin{equation}

285: N_{a,b}=\int_0^1 (1-x)^a x^b\;.

286: \end{equation}

287: This form is a superposition of a maximally hard component (i.e.\ the delta function)

288: and the form proposed in Ref.~\cite{Colangelo:1992kh}.

289: It can be given a simple phenomenological interpretation,

290: the hard term corresponding in some sense to the direct exclusive

291: production of the $D^*$, and the Colangelo-Nason form accounting for

292: $D^*$'s produced in the decay chain of higher resonances.

293: 

294: Following

295: the approach  of Ref.~\cite{Cacciari:2003zu}, we assume that the $D$ meson 

296: non-perturbative fragmentation function is the sum of a direct component, which

297: is isospin invariant, plus the component arising from the $D^*$ decay.

298: The decay $D^*\to D\pi$ is very close to threshold, so that the $D$ has the same

299: velocity of the $D^*$, and their momenta are thus proportional to their masses.

300: Under these circumstances, the component of the $D$ fragmentation function

301: arising from $D^* \to D\pi$ decays is given by

302: \begin{equation}

303: B(D^*\to D\pi)\; \pDnp^{D}(x)\;,

304: \end{equation}

305: where we have defined

306: \begin{equation}

307: \pDnp^{D}(x) =  \Dnp^{D^{*}}\(x \frac{m_{D^*}}{m_{D}}\)\;\frac{m_{D^*}}{m_{D}}

308: \;\theta\(1-x \frac{m_{D^*}}{m_{D}}\)\,,

309: \end{equation}

310: and $B(D^*\to D\pi)$ is the branching ratio of $D^* \to D\pi$.

311: Observe that $\pDnp^{D}$ has been defined so as to have the same normalization

312: as $\Dnp^{D^{*}}$. In $N$ space we obtain immediately

313: \begin{equation}

314: \pDnp^{D}(N) =  \Dnp^{D^{*}}(N) \left[\frac{m_D}{m_{D^*}}\right]^{N-1}\;.

315: \end{equation}

316: 

317: 

318: For the $D^*\to D\gamma$ decay, in the $D^*$ frame,

319: the $D$ has non-negligible velocity,

320: but it is non-relativistic, its momentum being given by

321: \begin{equation}

322: p_D=\frac{m_{D^*}^2-m_D^2}{2m_{D^*}}\;.

323: \end{equation}

324: It can easily be shown~\cite{Cacciari:2005uk} that, in moment

325: space, we can write

326: \begin{equation}

327: \gDnp^{D}(N) 

328: = \Dnp^{D^*}(N)\, \frac{m_{D^*}}{2p_D}\, \frac{(m_D+p_D)^N-(m_D-p_D)^N}{N m_{D^*}^N}\;.

329: \end{equation} 

330: We thus describe $D^{+/0}$ production as the sum of a primary (i.e.\ not coming

331: from $D^*$ decays) component, plus the contributions coming from

332: $D^*$ decays

333: \begin{eqnarray}

334: \Dnp^{D^{+}}(x) &=& \Dnp^{D^+,p}(x)

335:  + B(D^{*+}\to D^{+}\pi^0) \pDnp^{D^{+}}(x)

336: \nonumber \\&&

337:  + B(D^{*+}\to D^{+}\gamma) \gDnp^{D^{+}}D(x)\;,

338: \\

339: \Dnp^{D^0}(x) &=& \Dnp^{D^0,p}(x)

340:  + [B(D^{*+}\to D^0\pi^+)+ B(D^{*0}\to D^{0}\pi^0)] \pDnp^{D^{0}}(x)

341: \nonumber \\ &&

342: +B(D^{*0}\to D^{0}\gamma) \gDnp^{D^{0}}(x)\;.

343: \end{eqnarray}

344: 

345: 

346: 

347: \section{\boldmath{$D$} mesons data fits near the \boldmath{$\Upsilon(4S)$}}

348: \label{sec:cleobelle}

349: Several parameters enter our calculations. First of all, at all matching

350: points, there are scale choices that could be varied, to yield a perturbative

351: uncertainty in our result. Those are the initial evolution scale $\mu_0$, the

352: matching scale for the crossing of the $b$ threshold $\mu_{\rm thr}$, and the

353: final evolution scale $\mu$.  In the present work we fix

354: \begin{equation}

355: \mu_0=m\,,\quad \mu=\sqrt{q^2}\equiv \sqrt{s}\,,\quad \mu_{\rm thr}=\mthr=m_b\;.

356: \end{equation}

357: These scales could, in principle, be varied by a factor of order two

358: around the values listed above, yielding a sensibly different

359: result. However, in general, the scale variation

360: will simply result in different values for the fitted parameters

361: of the non-perturbative form. When computing cross sections

362: for different processes, one should then use the parametrization

363: appropriate for the scale choice that has been made in the fit, hence

364: compensating for the change.

365: In the present work we will not pursue this issue further,

366: since our aim is simply to show that a fit within QCD is possible.

367: A similar remark applies to the value of $\LambdaQCD$ and the quark masses,

368: that we will fix at

369: \begin{equation}

370: \Lambda^{(5)}_{\rm QCD}=0.226\;\mbox{GeV}\,,\quad m_c=1.5 \;\mbox{GeV}\,,

371: \quad m_b=4.75\;\mbox{GeV}\,.

372: \end{equation}

373: 

374: 

375: \begin{table}[t]

376: \begin{center}

377: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|}

378: \hline

379: \multicolumn{6}{|c|} 

380: {Eq.~(\protect{\ref{eq:threepar}}): $a=1.8 \pm 0.2$, \ $b=11.3 \pm 0.6$, \ 

381:   $c=2.46\pm 0.07$, \ total  $\chi^2= 139 $ } 

382: \\ \hline

383:  Set &

384: (C) $D^{*+}$ & (B) $D^{*+}\to D^0$ & (B) $D^{*+}\to D^+$ &

385: (C) $D^{*0}$ & (B)  $D^{*0}$

386: \\ \hline

387: Norm. & $0.238$ & $0.253$ & $0.227$ &$0.225$ & $0.211$

388: \\ \hline 

389: $\chi^2/$pts & 33/16 & 63/46 & 13/46& 13/16 & 17/46

390: \\ \hline

391: \end{tabular}

392: \caption{\label{tab:fitdstar}

393: Results of the fit to $D^*$ CLEO (C) and BELLE (B) data.

394: The last line reports the $\chi^2$ over the number of fitted points

395: for each data set.}

396: \end{center}

397: \end{table}

398: 

399: The result of the fit is reported in Table~\ref{tab:fitdstar}, and

400: in Figs.~\ref{fig:CLEOdstarp}, \ref{fig:BELLEdstarptoD0}

401: %,\ref{fig:BELLEdstarptoDp}, \ref{fig:CLEOdstar0} and~\ref{fig:BELLEdstar0}

402: we show some of the data and the corresponding fitted curve, 

403: both in $x$ and moment space.

404: \begin{figure}[htb]

405: \begin{center}

406:   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CLEO-Dstarp.eps}

407: \caption{\label{fig:CLEOdstarp}

408: Fit to CLEO $D^{*+}$ data.}

409: \end{center}

410: \end{figure}

411: \begin{figure}[htb]

412: \begin{center}

413:   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{BELLE-Dstarp-to-D0.eps}

414: \caption{\label{fig:BELLEdstarptoD0}

415: Fit to BELLE $D^{*+}\to D^0$ data.}

416: \end{center}

417: \end{figure}

418: % \begin{figure}[htb]

419: % \begin{center}

420: %   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{BELLE-Dstarp-to-Dp.eps}

421: % \caption{\label{fig:BELLEdstarptoDp}

422: % Fit to BELLE $D^{*+}\to D^+$ data.}

423: % \end{center}

424: % \end{figure}

425: % \begin{figure}[htb]

426: % \begin{center}

427: %   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CLEO-Dstar0.eps}

428: % \caption{\label{fig:CLEOdstar0}

429: % Fit to CLEO $D^{*0}$ data.}

430: % \end{center}

431: % \end{figure}

432: % \begin{figure}[htb]

433: % \begin{center}

434: %   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{BELLE-Dstar0.eps}

435: % \caption{\label{fig:BELLEdstar0}

436: % Fit to BELLE $D^{*0}$ data.}

437: % \end{center}

438: % \end{figure}

439: 

440: 

441: 

442: 

443: 

444: \section{\boldmath{$D$} mesons data fits on the \boldmath{$Z^0$}}

445: \label{sec:aleph}

446: 

447: \begin{figure}[htb]

448: \begin{center}

449:   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ALEPH-Dstarp-fit.eps}

450: \caption{\label{fig:ALEPH-Dstarp-fit}

451: ALEPH $D^{*+}$ data and the result of our non-singlet fit (solid line).

452: The dashed line represents the result obtained using full evolution.}

453: \end{center}

454: \end{figure}

455: 

456: Fig.~\ref{fig:ALEPH-Dstarp-fit} shows a similar fit to ALEPH $D^{*+}$ 

457: data~\cite{Barate:1999bg}.

458: We fit the data in the region $x \in [0.4,1]$ using the non-singlet component

459: only, since a subtraction of the gluon-splitting contributions was performed

460: by ALEPH.  Observe that, in this calculation, the bottom-threshold crossing

461: has to be dealt with.  We also show, for comparison, the full

462: evolution result (dashed line), using the same parameters obtained in the

463: non-singlet fit.  As we can see, the difference is only visible at small $x$.

464: The result of the fit for the non-perturbative parameters is

465: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ALEPHDstarfit}

466: a=2.4\pm 1.2\,,\quad  b=13.9\pm 5.7\,\quad c=5.9\pm 1.7\,,

467: \end{equation}

468: with a $\chi^2=4.2$ for 13 fitted points. These results are

469: not really consistent with

470: those for the $\Upsilon(4S)$ data in Tab.~\ref{tab:fitdstar}.

471: 

472: In order to better quantify the discrepancy between

473: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ALEPHDstarfit}) and Tab.~\ref{tab:fitdstar}

474: we use the parametrization of CLEO and BELLE data

475: to predict the $D^{*}$ fragmentation

476: function at LEP energies.

477: The LEP prediction, using the parametrization

478: of Table~\ref{tab:fitdstar}, is reported in

479: Fig.~\ref{fig:ALEPHDstarp} together with the ALEPH data.

480: We find a $\chi^2=60.1$ (for 13 fitted points) for this parametrization.

481: Thus, the description is not satisfactory, especially in the

482: large-$x$ (large-$N$) region.

483: 

484: \begin{figure}[t]

485: \begin{center}

486:   \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ALEPH-Dstarp.eps}

487: \caption{\label{fig:ALEPHDstarp}

488: ALEPH $D^{*+}$ data, compared to the QCD prediction.}

489: \end{center}

490: \end{figure}

491: \begin{figure}[ht]

492: \begin{center}

493:   \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{ALEPH-TH.eps}

494: \caption{\label{fig:ALEPHoTH}

495: ALEPH $D^{*+}$ data, compared to the QCD prediction.}

496: \end{center}

497: \end{figure}

498: 

499: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ALEPHoTH} we show the ratio of the moments

500: of ALEPH $D^{*+}$ data over our prediction.

501: We observe that the $N$ dependence of the ratio is well described

502: by the functional form

503: \begin{equation}\label{eq:depn}

504: \frac{1}{1+ 0.044 \,(N-1)}\;,

505: \end{equation}

506: where,

507: since the first

508: moment of the non-singlet distribution should be exactly

509: given by the theory (because of charge conservation),

510: we normalize to one the extrapolation of the data to $N=1$.

511: 

512: We can only speculate about the possible origin of the discrepancy and the

513: form of the coefficient of $(N-1)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:depn}).

514: Assuming that we are dealing with a non-perturbative correction

515: to the coefficient function of the form

516: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cfpc2}

517: 1+\frac{C(N-1)}{q^2}\;,

518: \end{equation}

519: this would lead to the extra factor

520: \begin{equation}

521:       \frac{1+\frac{C(N-1)}{M_Z^2}}{1+\frac{C(N-1)}{M_\Upsilon^2}}\;,

522: \end{equation}

523: (where  $M_Z$ and $M_\Upsilon$ are the $Z^0$ and $\Upsilon(4S)$ mass)

524: to be applied to our prediction for the ALEPH data.

525: For $C=5~{\rm GeV}^2$ we reproduce the behaviour of

526: Eq.~(\ref{eq:depn}).

527: In Ref.~\cite{Dasgupta:1996ki}, on the basis of a calculation

528: of infra-red renormalon effects, a $1/q^2$ power correction is found,

529: with an $N$ dependence marginally compatible with~(\ref{eq:cfpc2}).

530: No $1/\sqrt{q^2}$ correction is found.

531: Ref.~\cite{Beneke:1997sr} also predicts a leading $1/q^2$ power correction.

532:  However, the

533: $C \approx 5~{\rm GeV}^2$ coefficient would appear to be somewhat too

534: large\footnote{If we believe that it is the maximum meson energy, not

535: $\sqrt{q^2}$,

536: that controls power effects, than we would have $C\approx 1~{\rm GeV}^2$,

537: a more acceptable value.}.

538: Alternatively, if we admitted the existence of corrections to the coefficient

539: functions of the form

540: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cfpc1}

541: 1+\frac{C(N-1)}{\sqrt{q^2}}\;.

542: \end{equation}

543: then we would find $C\approx 0.52~{\rm GeV}$, a much more acceptable value.

544: We observe that a form

545: \begin{equation}

546: \left(1+\frac{C}{\sqrt{q^2}}\right)^{N-2} \approx 1 +

547: \frac{C(N-2)}{\sqrt{q^2}}

548: \end{equation}

549: was required

550: in Ref.~\cite{Nason:1994xx} to fit light-hadron fragmentation data.

551: 

552: Demonstrating the absence (or the existence) of $1/\sqrt{q^2}$ corrections

553: in fragmentation functions would be a very interesting result, since

554: it would help to validate or disprove renormalon-based predictions.

555: Unfortunately, the low precision of the available data  does not allow,

556: for the time being, to resolve this issue.

557: 

558: We would like to remark that the discrepancy between the CLEO/BELLE and

559: ALEPH data exclusively depends upon the evolution between the $\Upsilon(4S)$

560: and $Z^0$ energies. The method we used to describe the CLEO/BELLE data

561: (i.e.\ the perturbative calculation of the fragmentation function,

562: the Sudakov effects in the initial conditions and the parametrization

563: of the non-perturbative part) does not affect the conclusions of the

564: present section.

565:  In fact, we can simply compute the ratio of the moments of the

566: inclusive $D^{*+}$ (ISR corrected) distribution at CLEO/BELLE and ALEPH,

567: and compare it to the theoretical prediction.

568: The result of this comparison (where we have used, for simplicity,

569: BELLE data only) is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:ALEPHoBELLE}.

570: \begin{figure}[t]

571: \begin{center}

572:   \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{ALEPHoBELLE.eps}

573: \caption{\label{fig:ALEPHoBELLE}

574: The ratio of ALEPH and BELLE moments for the $D^{*+}$ fragmentation

575: function, compared to QCD evolution.  The solid band is obtained with

576: QCD NLO evolution and Sudakov effects in the coefficient functions,

577: while the dashed bands is NLO evolution only.

578: The bands are obtained by setting $\mu_{Z/\Upsilon}=\xi M_{Z/\Upsilon}$

579: and varying $1/2<\xi<2$.}

580: \end{center}

581: \end{figure}

582: The curves are given by

583: \begin{equation}\label{eq:evfac}

584: \frac{\sigma_\sQ(N,M_Z^2,m^2)}{\sigma_\sQ(N,M_\Upsilon^2,m^2)} = 

585: \frac{\bar{a}_q(N,M_Z^2,\mu_Z^2)}{

586: 1+\as(\mu_{Z}^2)/\pi}

587: \;

588: E(N,\mu_Z^2,\mu_{\Upsilon}^2) \;

589: \frac{1+\as(\mu_{\Upsilon}^2)/\pi}{

590: \bar{a}_q(N,M_\Upsilon^2,\mu_{\Upsilon}^2)}

591: \end{equation}

592: where $\mu_Z$ and $\mu_\Upsilon$ are the factorization scales and

593: the evolution factor $E$ is given by the solution of the

594: Altarelli-Parisi evolution equation.

595: Notice that low-scale effects, both at the heavy

596: quark mass scale and at the non-perturbative level, cancel completely in

597: this ratio, making its prediction entirely perturbative.

598: % For $\bar{a}_q$, in the NLO results (dashed lines), we have used

599: % \begin{equation}

600: % \bar{a}_q(N,q^2,\mu^2)=1+\asb(\mu^2)\, a_q^{(1)}(N,q^2,\mu^2)\;,

601: % \end{equation}

602: % while for the full result (solid lines) we have included

603: % the NLL resummation of soft gluon emission in the coefficient functions

604: % \beqn

605: % \label{eq:coeffun_sud_noexp}

606: % \bar{a}_q(N,q^2,\mu^2)&=&\Delta_q^S(N,q^2,\mu^2) \nonumber\\

607: % &&\times \left\{  1+\asb(\mu^2) \left[a_q^{(1)}(N,q^2,\mu^2)

608: % -\lq\Delta_q^S(N,q^2,\mu^2)\rq_{\as}\right]\right\}. \phantom{aaa}

609: % \eeqn

610: % The definitions of $a_q^{(1)}$ and $\Delta_q^S$ are

611: % given in Sections~\ref{sec:Collinear_logarithms}

612: % and~\ref{sec:Soft_logarithms} of Ref.~\cite{Cacciari:2005uk}.

613: % We have set $\mu_{Z/\Upsilon}=\xi M_{Z/\Upsilon}$

614: % with $\xi=0.5,2$ to plot our bands. 

615: As we can see from the figure, the rather large scale uncertainty

616: displayed by the NLO result is much reduced when Sudakov effects

617: are included. In both cases, however, the data clearly undershoot

618: the pure QCD prediction, being instead compatible with the inclusion

619: of the correction factor~(\ref{eq:depn}) (dotted lines).

620: % We have also checked that our full result is essentially unchanged

621: % if, instead of formula~(\ref{eq:coeffun_sud_noexp}), we use

622: % the fully exponentiated formula~(\ref{eq:a_Q^res}).

623: 

624: One can legitimately wonder whether some of the theoretical ingredients

625: might hide further uncertainties.

626: We have checked that the regularization procedure needed

627: to deal with the Landau pole in the soft-gluon resummation 

628: has very little impact on our curves.

629: Using the very large value $\LambdaQCD^{(5)}=0.3\,$GeV would lower the

630: theoretical predictions by no more than 11\%{} for $N\leq 20$,

631: very far from explaining the observed effect.

632: The deconvolution of ISR effects, that hardens the $\Upsilon(4S)$ data, but is

633: insignificant on the $Z^0$, widens the discrepancy, which would however

634: still be partially visible even if the data were not corrected for e.m.

635: radiation.

636: 

637: Because of the relatively low energy of the data on the $\Upsilon(4S)$,

638: it is also legitimate to wonder whether charm-mass effects could be responsible

639: for the discrepancy between LEP and $\Upsilon(4S)$ data.

640: We have not included mass effects in the present calculation.

641: However, in Ref.~\cite{Nason:1999zj}, mass effects in charm

642: production on the $\Upsilon(4S)$ where computed at order $\as^2$,

643: and found to be small. In fact, they amount to a correction of the order

644: of  1{\%} at $N=5$, 4{\%} at $N=11$ and  7{\%} at $N=20$,

645: very far from being able to explain our observation.

646: We thus believe that it is

647: unlikely that mass effects 

648: could play an important role in explaining this discrepancy~\footnote{In

649: Refs.~\cite{Jaffe:1993ie} and~\cite{Nason:1997pk}, on the basis of the 

650: analogy with the spacelike case, corrections of the form $\Lambda m/q^2$ are

651: introduced. The importance of these corrections in the present framework

652: would require further investigation.}.

653: 

654: 

655: 

656: 

657: 

658: \section{Conclusions}

659: This phenomenological analysis~\cite{Cacciari:2005uk} of heavy quark 

660: fragmentation in $e^+e^-$

661: collisions shows that it is possible to perform excellent fits of $D^*/D$ meson

662: fragmentation spectra in perturbative QCD, using all known results on the

663: perturbative heavy-quark fragmentation function, and compounding them with a

664: simple parametrization of non-perturbative effects. 

665: 

666: A second striking result is the evidence of large non-perturbative effects,

667: visible in the relation between the $D^*$ fragmentation function at the

668: $\Upsilon(4S)$ and $Z^0$ energies.  It would be interesting to understand the

669: power law of these contributions. Their magnitude would suggest a

670: $1/\sqrt{q^2}$

671: scaling law. Theoretical arguments based upon infrared renormalons would

672: favour, instead, a $1/q^2$ behaviour. Because of the lack of precise

673: $D^*$ production data in the intermediate region, it is difficult, at 

674: this point,

675: to discriminate between the two possibilities.  We point out, however, that,

676: if these non-perturbative corrections involve the coefficient functions, they

677: may be present also in light-hadron production, where data at intermediate

678: energy are available.  It is thus possible that fits to the light-hadron

679: fragmentation functions from $\Upsilon(4S)$ up to $Z^0$ energies may clarify

680: this issue.

681: \label{sec:Conc}

682: 

683: 

684: \bibliography{paper}

685: 

686: 

687: \end{document}

688: %

689: % ****** End of file template.aps ******

690: