SciPost Submission Page
Phenomenological extraction of a universal TMD fragmentation function from single hadron production in $e^+ e^-$ annihilations
by M. Boglione, J.O. Gonzalez-Hernandez, A. Simonelli
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Ontological classification |
|---|
| Academic field: |
Physics |
| Specialties: |
- High-Energy Physics - Phenomenology
|
| Approach: |
Phenomenological |
Abstract
Factorizing the cross section for single hadron production in $e^+e^-$ annihilations, differential in $z_h$, $P_T$ and thrust, is a highly non trivial task. We have devised a factorization scheme that allows us to recast the $e^+e^- \to hX$ cross section in the convolution of a calculable hard coefficient and a universal Transverse Momentum Dependent (TMD) Fragmentation Function (FF). The predictions obtained from our NLO-LL perturbative computation, together with a simple ansatz to model the non-perturbative part of the TMD, are applied to the experimental measurements of the BELLE Collaboration for the phenomenological extraction of this process independent TMD FF.
Author: Mariaelena Boglione on 2022-03-02 [id 2258]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2022-03-01)For the process e+e- ---> hadron + X , BELLE has measured the cross section for two-hadron production as well as one-hadron production, namely e+e- ---> h1 + h2 + X as well as e+e- ---> h + X. For the first process usual TMD factorization theorems can be applied, while for the second process the factorization properties are still under debate. In this paper we focus on the analysis of the latter process, e+e- ---> h + X.
I think the introduction specifies this point well enough.
Anonymous on 2022-03-03 [id 2265]
(in reply to Mariaelena Boglione on 2022-03-02 [id 2258])Thank you for the reply. Although the overall subject is clear, it is not as clear whether the discussion is always with regards to the entire h+X final state, or some subset. The requested revision, that the author clarify the meaning of the 'one hadron involved', was meant to address this: While a theorist may understand this to mean 'only one hadron meaningfully present in the calculations', an experimentalist might well take it as 'only one hadron present in the final state', which is clearly not the case in the context of a jet.
Taken as a whole, the paper does not support the second interpretation, and a sufficiently invested reader will come to this conclusion even if the misleading wording remains. Since the author believes this does not merit revision, this reviewer relents.