Comment on "QCD factorization with multihadron fragmentation functions"
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866909722479689728 |
|---|---|
| author | Pitonyak, D. Cocuzza, C. Metz, A. Prokudin, A. Sato, N. |
| author_facet | Pitonyak, D. Cocuzza, C. Metz, A. Prokudin, A. Sato, N. |
| contents | We make several comments on the recent work in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} while also reaffirming and adding to the work in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. We show that the factorization formula for $e^+e^-\to (h_1\cdots h_n)\, X$ in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} is equivalent to a version one can derive using the definition of a $n$-hadron fragmentation function (FF) introduced in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. In addition, we scrutinize how to generalize the number density definition of a single-hadron FF to a $n$-hadron FF, arguing that the definition given in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} should be considered the standard one. We also emphasize that the evolution equations for dihadron FFs~(DiFFs) in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} have the same splitting functions as those for single-hadron FFs. Therefore, the DiFF (and $n$-hadron FF) definitions in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} have a natural number density interpretation and are consistent with collinear factorization using the standard hard factors and evolution kernels. Moreover, we make clear that the operator definition for the DiFF $D_1^{h_1h_2}(ξ,M_h)$ written down in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} agrees exactly with the one in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. Contrary to what is implied in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb}, this definition did not appear in the literature prior to the work in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. There also seem to be inconsistencies in how $D_1^{h_1h_2}(ξ,M_h)$ appears in previous unpolarized cross section formulas in the literature. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2502_15817 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Comment on "QCD factorization with multihadron fragmentation functions" Pitonyak, D. Cocuzza, C. Metz, A. Prokudin, A. Sato, N. High Energy Physics - Phenomenology Nuclear Theory We make several comments on the recent work in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} while also reaffirming and adding to the work in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. We show that the factorization formula for $e^+e^-\to (h_1\cdots h_n)\, X$ in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} is equivalent to a version one can derive using the definition of a $n$-hadron fragmentation function (FF) introduced in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. In addition, we scrutinize how to generalize the number density definition of a single-hadron FF to a $n$-hadron FF, arguing that the definition given in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} should be considered the standard one. We also emphasize that the evolution equations for dihadron FFs~(DiFFs) in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} have the same splitting functions as those for single-hadron FFs. Therefore, the DiFF (and $n$-hadron FF) definitions in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} have a natural number density interpretation and are consistent with collinear factorization using the standard hard factors and evolution kernels. Moreover, we make clear that the operator definition for the DiFF $D_1^{h_1h_2}(ξ,M_h)$ written down in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} agrees exactly with the one in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. Contrary to what is implied in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb}, this definition did not appear in the literature prior to the work in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. There also seem to be inconsistencies in how $D_1^{h_1h_2}(ξ,M_h)$ appears in previous unpolarized cross section formulas in the literature. |
| title | Comment on "QCD factorization with multihadron fragmentation functions" |
| topic | High Energy Physics - Phenomenology Nuclear Theory |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15817 |