1: % ****** Start of file apssamp.tex ******
2: %
3: % This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
4: % Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
5: %
6: % Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
7: %
8: % See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
9: %
10: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
11: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0
12: %
13: % See the REVTeX 4 README file
14: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
15: %
16: % 1) latex apssamp.tex
17: % 2) bibtex apssamp
18: % 3) latex apssamp.tex
19: % 4) latex apssamp.tex
20: %
21: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
22: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
23:
24: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
25: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
26: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
27: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
28:
29: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
30: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
31: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
32: \usepackage{epsfig}
33:
34: %\nofiles
35:
36: \begin{document}
37:
38: \preprint{DESY~06-102\hspace{11.5cm} ISSN 0418-9833}
39: \preprint{July 2006\hspace{14.9cm}}
40:
41: \title{Charmed-Hadron Fragmentation Functions from CERN LEP1 Revisited}
42:
43: \author{Bernd A. Kniehl}
44: \email{bernd.kniehl@desy.de}
45: \author{Gustav Kramer}
46: \email{gustav.kramer@desy.de}
47: \affiliation{{II.} Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
48: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
49:
50: \date{\today}
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: In Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 014014 (1998) and {\bf71}, 094013 (2005), we
54: determined non-perturbative $D^0$, $D^+$, $D^{*+}$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$
55: fragmentation functions, both at leading and next-to-leading order in the
56: $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ factorization scheme, by fitting $e^+e^-$ data taken
57: by the OPAL Collaboration at CERN LEP1.
58: The starting points for the evolution in the factorization scale $\mu$ were
59: taken to be $\mu_0=2m_Q$, where $Q=c,b$.
60: For the reader's convenience, in this Addendum, we repeat this analysis for
61: $\mu_0=m_Q$, where the flavor thresholds of modern sets of parton density
62: functions are located.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \pacs{13.60.-r, 13.85.Ni, 13.87.Fh, 14.40.Lb}
66: \maketitle
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: The OPAL Collaboration presented measurements of the fractional energy spectra
71: of inclusive $D^{*+}$ \cite{opal}, $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$
72: \cite{opal1} production in $Z$-boson decays based on their entire LEP1 data
73: sample.
74: Apart from the full cross sections, they also determined the contributions
75: arising from $Z\to b\bar b$ decays.
76: This enabled us, partly in collaboration with Binnewies, to determine
77: lowest-order (LO) and next-to-leading-order (NLO) sets of fragmentation
78: functions (FF's) for these charmed ($X_c$) hadrons \cite{bkk,kk}.
79: We took the charm-quark FF to be of the form proposed by Peterson
80: {\it et al.}\ \cite{pet} and thus obtained new values of the $\epsilon$
81: parameter, which are specific for our choice of factorization scheme.
82:
83: We worked in the QCD-improved parton model implemented in the pure modified
84: minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$) renormalization and
85: factorization scheme with $n_f=5$ massless quark flavors (zero-mass
86: variable-flavor-number scheme).
87: This scheme is particularly appropriate if the characteristic energy scale of
88: the considered production process, {\it i.e.}, the center-of-mass energy
89: $\sqrt s$ in the case of $e^+e^-$ annihilation and the transverse momentum
90: $p_T$ of the $X_c$ hadron in other scattering processes, is large compared to
91: the bottom-quark mass $m_b$.
92: Owing to the factorization theorem \cite{col}, the FF's defined in this scheme
93: satisfy two desirable properties:
94: (i) their scaling violations are ruled by the time-like
95: Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) \cite{dglap} evolution
96: equations; and
97: (ii) they are universal.
98: Thus, this formalism is predictive and suitable for global data analyses.
99:
100: We verified that the values of the branching and average momentum fractions of
101: the various $c,b\to X_c$ transitions evaluated at LO and NLO using our FF's
102: \cite{bkk,kk} are in reasonable agreement with the corresponding results from
103: OPAL \cite{opal,opal1} and other experiments~\cite{rest}.
104:
105: We tested the scaling violations of our $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and
106: $\Lambda_c^+$ FF's \cite{kk} by comparing the fractional energy spectra of
107: these hadrons measured in non-resonant $e^+e^-$ annihilation at
108: $\sqrt s=10.55$~GeV \cite{cleo}, 29~GeV \cite{hrs}, and 34.7 \cite{tasso}
109: with our LO and NLO predictions to find reasonable agreement.
110: Since events of $X_c$-hadron production from $X_b$-hadron decay were excluded
111: from the data samples at $\sqrt s=10.55$~GeV, we obtained a clean test of our
112: charm-quark FF's.
113:
114: In Refs.~\cite{bkk,kk}, the starting points $\mu_0$ for the DGLAP evolution in
115: the factorization scale $\mu$ were taken to be $\mu_0=2m_Q$, where $Q=c,b$.
116: This choice is phenomenologically motivated by the observation that, in
117: $e^+e^-$ annhilation, which has been providing the most constraining input for
118: the determinations of FF's, these values of $\mu_0$ represent the very
119: production thresholds of the respective flavors.
120: Unfortunately, this choice is inconsistent with the convention underlying
121: modern sets of parton density functions (PDF's) \cite{pdf}, which prefer to
122: place the flavor thresholds at $\mu_0=m_Q$.
123: For the reader's convenience, in this Addendum to Refs.~\cite{bkk,kk}, we thus
124: repeat the analysis of that papers for the choice $\mu_0=m_Q$, so as to
125: provide alternative LO and NLO sets of $X_c$ FF's that can be conveniently
126: utilized together with those PDF's.
127: The FF's presented below were already used as input for a NLO study
128: \cite{kkss} of charmed-meson hadroproduction in $p\bar p$ collisions, which
129: yielded agreement within errors with data collected by the CDF Collaboration
130: in run II at the Fermilab Tevatron \cite{cdf}.
131: We note in passing that, in the case of perturbatively induced FF's, which is
132: quite different from the case of non-perturbative FF's (involving substantial
133: intrinsic components) under consideration here, the choice $\mu_0=m_Q$ is more
134: natural, since, at NLO, it avoids finite matching conditions at the flavor
135: thresholds \cite{cac}.
136:
137: \section{Results}
138:
139: In the following, we concentrate on the most important results of
140: Refs.~\cite{bkk,kk} that are affected by the shift in $\mu_0$.
141: These include the fit parameters $N$, $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\epsilon$
142: defining the $x$ distributions of the $Q\to X_c$ FF's $D_Q(x,\mu^2)$ at
143: $\mu=\mu_0$,
144: \begin{eqnarray}
145: D_c(x,\mu_0^2)&=&N\frac{x(1-x)^2}{[(1-x)^2+\epsilon x]^2},
146: \label{eq:cff}\\
147: D_b(x,\mu_0^2)&=&Nx^{\alpha}(1-x)^{\beta},
148: \label{eq:bff}
149: \end{eqnarray}
150: the $\chi^2$ values per degree of freedom ($\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}$) achieved
151: in the fits, and the branching fractions $B_Q(\mu)$ and average momentum
152: fractions $\langle x\rangle_Q(\mu)$,
153: \begin{eqnarray}
154: B_Q(\mu)&=&\int_{x_{\rm cut}}^1dx\,D_Q(x,\mu^2),
155: \label{eq:bq}\\
156: \langle x\rangle_Q(\mu)&=&\frac{1}{B_Q(\mu)}\int_{x_{\rm cut}}^1dx\,
157: xD_Q(x,\mu^2),
158: \label{eq:xq}
159: \end{eqnarray}
160: where $x_{\rm cut}=0.1$, at $\mu=2\mu_0$ and $M_Z$.
161: In the present analysis, we adopt the up-to-date input information from our
162: 2005 paper~\cite{kk}.
163:
164: Our new results are presented in Tables~\ref{tab:par}--\ref{tab:xav}.
165: Comparing Tables~\ref{tab:br} and \ref{tab:xav} with the corresponding tables
166: in Refs.~\cite{bkk,kk}, we observe that the branching and average momentum
167: fractions are changed very little by the reduction in $\mu_0$.
168: For a comparison of these observables with experimental data, we refer to
169: Refs.~\cite{bkk,kk}.
170:
171: \begin{table}
172: \begin{center}
173: \caption{Fit parameters of the charm- and bottom-quark FF's in
174: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cff}) and (\ref{eq:bff}), respectively, for the various $X_c$
175: hadrons at LO and NLO.
176: The corresponding starting scales are $\mu_0=m_c=1.5$~GeV and
177: $\mu_0=m_b=5$~GeV, respectively.
178: All other FF's are taken to be zero at $\mu_0=m_c$.}
179: \label{tab:par}
180: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
181: \hline\hline
182: $X_c$ & Order & $Q$ & $N$ & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\epsilon$ \\
183: \hline
184: $D^0$ & LO & $c$ & 0.694 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.101 \\
185: & & $b$ & 81.7 & 1.81 & 4.95 & $\cdots$ \\
186: & NLO & $c$ & 0.781 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.119 \\
187: & & $b$ & 100 & 1.85 & 5.48 & $\cdots$ \\
188: $D^+$ & LO & $c$ & 0.282 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.104 \\
189: & & $b$ & 52.0 & 2.33 & 5.10 & $\cdots$ \\
190: & NLO & $c$ & 0.266 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.108 \\
191: & & $b$ & 60.8 & 2.30 & 5.58 & $\cdots$ \\
192: $D^{*+}$ & LO & $c$ & 0.174 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.0554 \\
193: & & $b$ & 69.5 & 2.77 & 4.34 & $\cdots$ \\
194: & NLO & $c$ & 0.192 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.0665 \\
195: & & $b$ & 20.8 & 1.89 & 3.73 & $\cdots$ \\
196: $D_s^+$ & LO & $c$ & 0.0498 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.0322 \\
197: & & $b$ & 27.5 & 1.94 & 4.28 & $\cdots$ \\
198: & NLO & $c$ & 0.0381 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.0269 \\
199: & & $b$ & 27.5 & 1.88 & 4.48 & $\cdots$ \\
200: $\Lambda_c^+$ & LO & $c$ & 0.00677 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.00418 \\
201: & & $b$ & 41.2 & 2.02 & 5.92 & $\cdots$ \\
202: & NLO & $c$ & 0.00783 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 0.00550 \\
203: & & $b$ & 34.9 & 1.88 & 6.08 & $\cdots$ \\
204: \hline\hline
205: \end{tabular}
206: \end{center}
207: \end{table}
208:
209: \begin{table}
210: \begin{center}
211: \caption{$\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}$ achieved in the LO and NLO fits to the
212: OPAL \cite{opal,opal1} data on the various $X_c$ hadrons.
213: In each case, $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}$ is calculated for the
214: $Z\to b\overline{b}$ sample ($b$), the full sample (All), and the combination
215: of both (Average).}
216: \label{tab:chi}
217: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
218: \hline\hline
219: $X_c$ & Order & $b$ & All & Average \\
220: \hline
221: $D^0$ & LO & 1.26 & 0.916 & 1.09 \\
222: & NLO & 1.10 & 0.766 & 0.936 \\
223: $D^+$ & LO & 0.861 & 0.658 & 0.759 \\
224: & NLO & 0.756 & 0.560 & 0.658 \\
225: $D^{*+}$ & LO & 1.19 & 1.12 & 1.16 \\
226: & NLO & 1.07 & 1.01 & 1.04 \\
227: $D_s^+$ & LO & 0.246 & 0.111 & 0.178 \\
228: & NLO & 0.290 & 0.112 & 0.201 \\
229: $\Lambda_c^+$ & LO & 1.05 & 0.117 & 0.583 \\
230: & NLO & 1.05 & 0.112 & 0.579 \\
231: \hline\hline
232: \end{tabular}
233: \end{center}
234: \end{table}
235:
236: \begin{table}
237: \begin{center}
238: \caption{Branching fractions (in \%) of $Q\to X_c$ for $Q=c,b$ and the various
239: $X_c$ hadrons evaluated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:bq}) in LO and NLO at the
240: respective production thresholds $\mu=2m_Q$ and at the $Z$-boson resonance
241: $\mu=M_Z$.}
242: \label{tab:br}
243: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
244: \hline\hline
245: $X_c$ & Order & $B_c(2m_c)$ & $B_c(M_Z)$ & $B_b(2m_b)$ & $B_b(M_Z)$ \\
246: \hline
247: $D^0$ & LO & 72.8 & 67.6 & 57.5 & 52.7 \\
248: & NLO & 71.6 & 65.8 & 54.3 & 49.3 \\
249: $D^+$ & LO & 28.9 & 26.8 & 19.0 & 17.7 \\
250: & NLO & 26.4 & 24.3 & 18.5 & 17.1 \\
251: $D^{*+}$ & LO & 29.0 & 27.2 & 24.3 & 23.1 \\
252: & NLO & 27.8 & 25.9 & 24.5 & 22.8 \\
253: $D_s^+$ & LO & 12.3 & 11.7 & 23.1 & 21.2 \\
254: & NLO & 10.6 & 10.0 & 22.1 & 20.2 \\
255: $\Lambda_c^+$ & LO & 6.17 & 6.06 & 15.1 & 13.7 \\
256: & NLO & 6.12 & 5.87 & 14.3 & 12.8 \\
257: \hline\hline
258: \end{tabular}
259: \end{center}
260: \end{table}
261:
262: \begin{table}
263: \begin{center}
264: \caption{Average momentum fractions of $Q\to X_c$ for $Q=c,b$ and the various
265: $X_c$ hadrons evaluated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:xq}) in LO and NLO at the
266: respective production thresholds $\mu=2m_Q$ and at the $Z$-boson resonance
267: $\mu=M_Z$.}
268: \label{tab:xav}
269: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
270: \hline\hline
271: $X_c$ & Order & $\langle x\rangle_c(2m_c)$ & $\langle x\rangle_c(M_Z)$ &
272: $\langle x\rangle_b(2m_b)$ & $\langle x\rangle_b(M_Z)$ \\
273: \hline
274: $D^0$ & LO & 0.573 & 0.442 & 0.318 & 0.285 \\
275: & NLO & 0.550 & 0.420 & 0.304 & 0.272 \\
276: $D^+$ & LO & 0.571 & 0.441 & 0.341 & 0.302 \\
277: & NLO & 0.557 & 0.425 & 0.324 & 0.287 \\
278: $D^{*+}$ & LO & 0.617 & 0.472 & 0.393 & 0.344 \\
279: & NLO & 0.592 & 0.448 & 0.366 & 0.322 \\
280: $D_s^+$ & LO & 0.654 & 0.496 & 0.348 & 0.310 \\
281: & NLO & 0.653 & 0.487 & 0.337 & 0.299 \\
282: $\Lambda_c^+$ & LO & 0.765 & 0.571 & 0.302 & 0.272 \\
283: & NLO & 0.738 & 0.544 & 0.290 & 0.261 \\
284: \hline\hline
285: \end{tabular}
286: \end{center}
287: \end{table}
288:
289: For lack of space, we refrain from presenting here any updated versions of
290: figures included in Refs.~\cite{bkk,kk}; they would not exhibit any
291: qualitatively new features.
292: However, as already mentioned in Ref.~\cite{kkss}, the reduction in $\mu_0$
293: has an appreciable effect on the gluon FF's, which are only feebly constrained
294: by $e^+e^-$ data.
295: This effect is visualized for $X_c=D^{*+}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:one}, where the
296: $\mu_0=m_Q$ to $\mu_0=2m_Q$ ratios of $D_g(x,\mu^2)$ at $\mu=5$, 10, and
297: 20~GeV are shown as functions of $x$.
298: We observe that the reduction in $\mu_0$ leads to a significant enhancement of
299: the gluon FF, especially at low values of $x$.
300: The results for $X_c=D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ are very similar
301: and, therefore, not shown here.
302:
303: \begin{figure}[ht]
304: \begin{center}
305: \epsfig{file=ratio.ps,width=\textwidth}
306: \end{center}
307: \caption{$\mu_0=m_Q$ to $\mu_0=2m_Q$ ratios of $D_g(x,\mu^2)$ at $\mu=5$
308: (dashed), 10 (solid), and 20~GeV (dot-dashed) as functions of $x$ for
309: $X_c=D^{*+}$.}
310: \label{fig:one}
311: \end{figure}
312:
313: \section{Conclusions}
314:
315: In this Addendum to Refs.~\cite{bkk,kk}, we repeated the fits of
316: non-perturbative $D^0$, $D^+$, $D^{*+}$, $D_s^+$, and $\Lambda_c^+$ FF's, both
317: at LO and NLO in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ factorization scheme, to OPAL
318: data from LEP1 \cite{opal,opal1} for the reduced choice $\mu_0=m_Q$ ($Q=c,b$)
319: of starting point for the DGLAP evolution in the factorization scale $\mu$.
320: These FF's are appropriate for use in connection with modern sets of PDF's
321: \cite{pdf}, which are implemented with the same convention for the
322: heavy-flavor thresholds.
323: A {\tt FORTRAN} routine that evaluates the values of these FF's as functions
324: of the input variables $x$ and $\mu$ may be obtained by electronic mail upon
325: request from the authors.
326:
327: This reduction in $\mu_0$ is inconsequential for the theoretical
328: interpretation of experimental $e^+e^-$ data because it is compensated by
329: corresponding shifts in the fit parameters $N$, $\alpha$, $\beta$, and
330: $\epsilon$.
331: However, the gluon FF's, which are only feebly constrained by $e^+e^-$ data,
332: play a significant role in hadroproduction.
333: In fact, detailed analysis \cite{kkss} revealed that the increase in the gluon
334: FF's due to the extension of the evolution length leads to a rise in cross
335: section and thus improves the agreement with the CDF data of charmed-meson
336: production in run~II at the Tevatron \cite{cdf}.
337:
338: \bigskip
339: \centerline{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
340: \smallskip\noindent
341:
342: We thank I.~Schienbein and H.~Spiesberger for useful discussions.
343: This work was supported in part by the Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und
344: Forschung through Grant No.\ 05~HT1GUA/4.
345:
346: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
347:
348: \bibitem{opal} OPAL Collaboration, K.~Ackerstaff {\it et al.},
349: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf1}, 439 (1998).
350:
351: \bibitem{opal1} OPAL Collaboration, G.~Alexander {\it et al.},
352: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf72}, 1 (1996).
353:
354: \bibitem{bkk} J.~Binnewies, B.~A.~Kniehl, and G.~Kramer,
355: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 014014 (1998).
356:
357: \bibitem{kk} B.~A.~Kniehl and G.~Kramer,
358: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf71}, 094013 (2005).
359:
360: \bibitem{pet} C.~Peterson, D.~Schlatter, I.~Schmitt, and P.~M.~Zerwas,
361: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf27}, 105 (1983).
362:
363: \bibitem{col} J.~C.~Collins,
364: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 094002 (1998).
365:
366: \bibitem{dglap} V.~N.~Gribov and L.~N.~Lipatov,
367: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf15}, 781 (1972)
368: [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf15}, 438 (1972)];
369: G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi,
370: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B126}, 298 (1977);
371: Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer,
372: Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf73}, 1216 (1977)
373: [Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf46}, 641 (1977)].
374:
375: \bibitem{rest} L.~Gladilin,
376: Report No.\ hep-ex/9912064 (unpublished);
377: DELPHI Collaboration, P.~Abreu {\it et al.},
378: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf12}, 225 (2000);
379: ALEPH Collaboration, R.~Barate {\it et al.},
380: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf16}, 597 (2000);
381: S. Padhi, in {\it Proceedings of the Ringberg Workshop on New
382: Trends in HERA Physics 2003}, edited by G.~Grindhammer, B.~A.~Kniehl,
383: G.~Kramer, and W.~Ochs, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2004), p.~183;
384: H1 Collaboration, A.~Aktas {\it et al.},
385: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf38}, 447 (2005).
386:
387: \bibitem{cleo} CLEO Collaboration, D.~Bortoletto {\it et al.},
388: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf37}, 1719 (1988);
389: CLEO Collaboration, R.~A.~Briere {\it et al.},
390: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf62}, 072003 (2000);
391: CLEO Collaboration, M.~Artuso {\it et al.},
392: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf70}, 112001 (2004).
393:
394: \bibitem{hrs} HRS Collaboration, M.~Derrick {\it et al.},
395: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf54}, 2568 (1985);
396: HRS Collaboration, P.~Baringer {\it et al.},
397: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf206}, 551 (1988).
398:
399: \bibitem{tasso} TASSO Collaboration, M.~Althoff {\it et al.},
400: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf136B}, 130 (1984).
401:
402: \bibitem{pdf} A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling, and R.~S.~Thorne,
403: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf604}, 61 (2004);
404: J.~Pumplin, A.~Belyaev, J.~Huston, D.~Stump, and W.-K.~Tung,
405: JHEP {\bf0602}, 032 (2006).
406:
407: \bibitem{kkss} B.~A.~Kniehl, G.~Kramer, I.~Schienbein, and H.~Spiesberger,
408: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf96}, 012001 (2006).
409:
410: \bibitem{cdf} CDF Collaboration, D.~Acosta {\it et al.},
411: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf91}, 241804 (2003).
412:
413: \bibitem{cac} M.~Cacciari, P.~Nason, and C.~Oleari,
414: JHEP {\bf 0510}, 034 (2005).
415:
416: \end{thebibliography}
417:
418: \end{document}
419: