pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.23103 · v3 · pith:BL3U7WD7new · submitted 2025-11-28 · ✦ hep-ph

Event shapes and Inclusive Hadron Spectra at FCC-ee energies

Philip Mathew , Ritu Aggarwal , Manjit Kaur This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 18:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords event shapesstrong couplingFCC-eePYTHIANNLO QCDhadron spectrae+e- annihilationinitial state radiation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Event shape fits to NNLO QCD in PYTHIA-generated FCC-ee collisions extract the strong coupling α_s while mapping high-energy systematics.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper generates hadronic final states for e+e- annihilation at the proposed FCC-ee energies of 91.2, 160, 240, and 365 GeV using the PYTHIA Monte Carlo. It measures how thrust, the C-parameter, and inclusive hadron spectra respond to initial-state photon radiation and to background decays from Z, W, top, and Higgs pairs. These simulated distributions are then compared with next-to-next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD predictions to extract the strong coupling. The study also tracks the energy evolution of mean event-shape values and charged-particle multiplicities against earlier data. The results supply a concrete reference set for planning QCD measurements at any future high-energy electron-positron collider.

Core claim

Event-shape distributions produced by PYTHIA at FCC-ee center-of-mass energies can be fitted to NNLO perturbative QCD calculations to extract α_s, with explicit quantification of the additional systematic uncertainties that appear once initial-state radiation and heavy-particle backgrounds become sizable at the higher energies.

What carries the argument

Fitting of thrust and C-parameter distributions generated by PYTHIA to next-to-next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD predictions across four FCC-ee energies.

If this is right

  • Systematic uncertainties on the extracted α_s grow with increasing center-of-mass energy, driven mainly by initial-state radiation and heavy-particle decays.
  • Mean values of thrust and C-parameter follow the expected energy evolution seen in earlier experiments.
  • Charged-particle multiplicity and momentum spectra probe soft-gluon dynamics across the full FCC-ee energy range.
  • Background processes from Z, W, top, and Higgs pairs produce measurable distortions that must be subtracted or modeled for precision QCD work.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The generated reference distributions can be used to optimize analysis cuts and unfolding procedures before real FCC-ee data arrive.
  • Repeating the same exercise with different Monte Carlo tunes or parton-shower models would quantify how generator choice propagates into the α_s uncertainty.
  • The same framework could be applied to other infrared-safe observables such as jet rates or energy-energy correlators at the same energies.

Load-bearing premise

PYTHIA with its default tuning produces hadronic final states whose event-shape and multiplicity distributions are close enough to real data that the resulting α_s fit and uncertainty estimate remain reliable.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the fitted α_s value and its quoted uncertainty band with an independent extraction performed on actual collision data taken at any of the same center-of-mass energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.23103 by Manjit Kaur, Philip Mathew, Ritu Aggarwal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of a hadronic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of normalized event shape distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Process-wise contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The peaks observed at √ s = 160, 240, 365 GeV in (1-T)≈ 0.325, 0.14, 0.06 and in C ≈ 0.74, 0.54, 0.30, re￾spectively, can be attributed to the radiative returns [25]. These distortions will need to be filtered out through cuts on √ s ′ before performing αs determinations. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Contribution of electroweak backgrounds to event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Contribution of electroweak backgrounds to event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Contribution of electroweak backgrounds to event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. NNLO fits to event shapes at FCC-ee energies de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Energy evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Spectra of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The uncertainty band corresponds to a varia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze hadronic final states of $e^+e^-$ annihilation through event shape observables, Thrust and C-parameter, and inclusive hadron spectra at the planned center-of-mass (c.m.) energies of the Future Circular Electron-Positron Collider (FCC-ee). Collision data is produced using Monte Carlo event generation in PYTHIA at 91.2, 160, 240, and 365 GeV. Distortions of event shapes due to initial-state photon radiation and background decays of Z pairs, W pairs, top-quark pairs, and Higgs bosons are investigated. An extraction of the strong coupling $\alpha_{\text{s}}$ is performed by fitting event shape distributions to perturbative QCD predictions at next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) accuracy, and the sources of systematic uncertainties at high c.m. energies are discussed. Soft gluon dynamics is examined through charged particle multiplicities and momentum distributions, and energy evolution of mean values is compared with prior experimental results. The inferences from this phenomenological study provide a reference to QCD studies at future high-energy $e^+e^-$ colliders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses PYTHIA Monte Carlo event generation to simulate hadronic final states in e+e- annihilation at FCC-ee energies of 91.2, 160, 240, and 365 GeV. It analyzes event-shape observables (Thrust and C-parameter) and inclusive hadron spectra, investigates distortions from initial-state radiation and backgrounds (Z/Z, W/W, tt, Higgs decays), extracts the strong coupling α_s by fitting the simulated event-shape distributions to NNLO perturbative QCD predictions, discusses associated systematic uncertainties at high energies, and examines soft-gluon dynamics through charged-particle multiplicities and their energy evolution compared to prior data.

Significance. If the Monte Carlo modeling proves reliable, the study supplies a useful phenomenological reference for QCD analyses at future high-energy e+e- colliders, particularly by mapping background-induced distortions and highlighting issues in α_s extraction at 240–365 GeV. The multiplicity and mean-value comparisons add modest value as cross-checks against existing LEP and lower-energy results.

major comments (2)
  1. [α_s extraction procedure] The α_s extraction fits PYTHIA-generated (default-tune) Thrust and C-parameter distributions directly to NNLO perturbative expressions. Because the default tune incorporates an α_s value and hadronization parameters constrained primarily by LEP data near 91 GeV, the fit at higher energies risks absorbing modeling discrepancies into the extracted α_s; the manuscript does not report any variation of the PYTHIA tune parameters or comparison with an alternative generator to quantify this bias.
  2. [Systematic uncertainties and background studies] The claimed systematic uncertainties from ISR and pair-production backgrounds rest on the assumption that the PYTHIA hadron-level distributions faithfully represent the true non-perturbative corrections. No explicit hadronization correction factors, fit ranges, or data-selection cuts are provided, nor is the sensitivity of the fitted α_s to these choices demonstrated; this directly affects the reliability of the uncertainty estimates.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would be clearer if it stated the numerical value and uncertainty of the extracted α_s.
  2. Figures comparing event-shape distributions at different energies should explicitly label the perturbative NNLO curves versus the full hadron-level PYTHIA results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to address the concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [α_s extraction procedure] The α_s extraction fits PYTHIA-generated (default-tune) Thrust and C-parameter distributions directly to NNLO perturbative expressions. Because the default tune incorporates an α_s value and hadronization parameters constrained primarily by LEP data near 91 GeV, the fit at higher energies risks absorbing modeling discrepancies into the extracted α_s; the manuscript does not report any variation of the PYTHIA tune parameters or comparison with an alternative generator to quantify this bias.

    Authors: We agree that the default PYTHIA tune, constrained mainly by LEP data near 91 GeV, carries the risk that modeling discrepancies at higher energies could be absorbed into the extracted α_s. Our study is a phenomenological Monte Carlo investigation using a standard generator setup to explore event shapes, backgrounds, and the extraction procedure at FCC-ee energies. The extracted values are presented with this context in mind rather than as precision results. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit discussion of this limitation and its implications for interpretation at 240–365 GeV. We have also performed and reported a limited variation of key hadronization parameters at one representative energy to illustrate the sensitivity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Systematic uncertainties and background studies] The claimed systematic uncertainties from ISR and pair-production backgrounds rest on the assumption that the PYTHIA hadron-level distributions faithfully represent the true non-perturbative corrections. No explicit hadronization correction factors, fit ranges, or data-selection cuts are provided, nor is the sensitivity of the fitted α_s to these choices demonstrated; this directly affects the reliability of the uncertainty estimates.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient detail on the assumptions underlying the systematic uncertainties. The revised version now specifies the fit ranges used for the NNLO α_s extraction, the event-selection cuts applied to the generated samples, and the hadronization correction factors adopted. We have added a dedicated study quantifying the sensitivity of the fitted α_s to reasonable variations in these choices, which supports the quoted uncertainties associated with ISR and background processes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

α_s extraction relies on PYTHIA-generated distributions embedding prior tuned α_s

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Collision data is produced using Monte Carlo event generation in PYTHIA at 91.2, 160, 240, and 365 GeV. [...] An extraction of the strong coupling α_s is performed by fitting event shape distributions to perturbative QCD predictions at next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) accuracy"

    The input distributions for the α_s fit are produced by PYTHIA whose default tune already encodes a specific α_s value (plus non-perturbative corrections) constrained by earlier experiments. Fitting these MC distributions to NNLO expressions therefore recovers a value whose central result and uncertainty are statistically influenced by the generator's prior tuning rather than arising solely from the perturbative calculation.

full rationale

The paper generates event-shape distributions via PYTHIA default tune (which incorporates α_s and hadronization parameters fitted to LEP data) and then fits those same distributions to NNLO pQCD to extract α_s. This is a standard phenomenological approach for future-collider studies but creates partial dependence on the generator's embedded parameters rather than purely independent data. No self-citation chain or definitional loop is present; the central result retains independent content from the NNLO calculation and background studies, but the fit input is not external.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the accuracy of a tuned Monte Carlo generator and the applicability of fixed-order perturbative QCD at the studied energies; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • PYTHIA strong-coupling and hadronization parameters
    Default or tuned values in PYTHIA control the simulated distributions that are later fitted to NNLO predictions.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption NNLO perturbative QCD predictions plus standard hadronization corrections describe event shapes and multiplicities at FCC-ee energies
    This assumption underpins the α_s extraction procedure described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5721 in / 1322 out tokens · 59054 ms · 2026-05-21T18:08:48.184779+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    in Fig. 3. Good agreement is observed in the 3-jet re- gion (0.1<(1−T)<0.3 and 0.3<C<0.7). Deviations in the higher-jet regions (right of the 3-jet region) are due to limited statistics of experimental data. As a veri- fication of hadronisation models, obtained mean charged hadron multiplicities were within 0.5% of experiment. Fermion production WW produc...

    work page

  2. [2]

    r1 + 2a2c2 + β1 β2 0 ln(2y) + 2 # (10) A3NLO(y) = c2 y

    and the C-parameter [35]. The use of hadronisa- tion correction factors on experimental measurements to relate parton-level and hadron-level data introduce an additional source of systematic uncertainty. These have been computed in PYTHIA for each FCC-ee energy and show a reduced impact at higher c.m. energies in Fig. 11 [36]. The removal of distortions f...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Kluth, Tests of quantum chromo dynamics ate +e− colliders, Reports on Progress in Physics69, R04 (2006)

    S. Kluth, Tests of quantum chromo dynamics ate +e− colliders, Reports on Progress in Physics69, R04 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Grosset al., 50 years of quantum chromodynamics: Introduction and review, The European Physical Journal C83, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2 (2023)

    F. Grosset al., 50 years of quantum chromodynamics: Introduction and review, The European Physical Journal C83, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2 2023

  5. [5]

    Arnisonet al.(UA1), Some Observations on the First Events Seen at the CERN Proton-anti-Proton Collider, Phys

    G. Arnisonet al.(UA1), Some Observations on the First Events Seen at the CERN Proton-anti-Proton Collider, Phys. Lett. B107, 320 (1981), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 109, 510 (1982)]

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    R. Bala, I. Bautista, J. Bielcikova, and A. Ortiz, Heavy- ion physics at the LHC: Review of Run I results, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E25, 1642006 (2016), arXiv:1605.03939 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    O. L. Kodolova, Review of QCD Physics with ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS Experiments, Phys. Part. Nucl.56, 1117 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Stone, Review of QCD results from LEP, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements39, 184 (1995), QCD 94

    H. Stone, Review of QCD results from LEP, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements39, 184 (1995), QCD 94

    work page 1995

  9. [9]

    Abramowicz and A

    H. Abramowicz and A. C. Caldwell, HERA collider physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 1275 (1999)

    work page 1999

  10. [10]

    Shiltsev and F

    V. Shiltsev and F. Zimmermann, Modern and future col- liders, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015006 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Ploerer, QCD at the future circular e +e− collider (2022), arXiv:2208.08250 [hep-ex]

    E. Ploerer, QCD at the future circular e +e− collider (2022), arXiv:2208.08250 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Manganoet al.,FCC Physics Opportunities, Tech

    M. Manganoet al.,FCC Physics Opportunities, Tech. Rep. 6 (CERN, Geneva, 2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Sj¨ ostrand, Challenges for QCD theory: some personal reflections, Physica ScriptaT158, 014002 (2013)

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, Challenges for QCD theory: some personal reflections, Physica ScriptaT158, 014002 (2013)

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Bartmann, J.-P

    W. Bartmann, J.-P. Burnet, C. Carli,et al., Future cir- cular collider feasibility study report volume 1: Physics and experiments (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    High-precision $\alpha_s$ measurements from LHC to FCC-ee

    D. d’Enterriaet al., High-precisionα s measurements from LHC to FCC-ee (2015), arXiv:1512.05194 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Parton Radiation and Fragmentation from LHC to FCC-ee

    D. d’Enterriaet al., Parton radiation and fragmentation from lhc to fcc-ee (2017), arXiv:1702.01329 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Bambahet al., QCD GENERATORS FOR LEP, in LEP Physics Workshop(1989)

    B. Bambahet al., QCD GENERATORS FOR LEP, in LEP Physics Workshop(1989)

    work page 1989

  18. [18]

    Skands, QCD and event generators, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol

    P. Skands, QCD and event generators, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 792 (AIP, 2005) p. 73–84

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    R. K. Ellis, D. A. Ross, and A. E. Terrano, The Pertur- bative Calculation of Jet Structure ine +e− Annihilation, Nucl. Phys. B178, 421 (1981)

    work page 1981

  20. [20]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De- sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to pythia 8.2, Computer Physics Communications191, 159–177 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Heisteret al.(ALEPH), Studies of QCD ate +e− centre-of-mass energies between 91-GeV and 209-GeV, Eur

    A. Heisteret al.(ALEPH), Studies of QCD ate +e− centre-of-mass energies between 91-GeV and 209-GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C35, 457 (2004)

    work page 2004

  22. [22]

    Achardet al.(L3), Studies of hadronic event struc- ture ine +e− annihilation from 30-GeV to 209-GeV with the L3 detector, Phys

    P. Achardet al.(L3), Studies of hadronic event struc- ture ine +e− annihilation from 30-GeV to 209-GeV with the L3 detector, Phys. Rept.399, 71 (2004), arXiv:hep- ex/0406049

    work page arXiv 2004

  23. [23]

    Measurement of alpha_s in radiative hadronic events at OPAL

    J. Schieck, Measurement ofα s in radiative hadronic events at OPAL (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0312036 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    Acciarriet al.(L3), QCD studies and determination of alpha-s ine +e− collisions at √s= 161-GeV and 172- 13 GeV, Phys

    M. Acciarriet al.(L3), QCD studies and determination of alpha-s ine +e− collisions at √s= 161-GeV and 172- 13 GeV, Phys. Lett. B404, 390 (1997)

    work page 1997

  25. [25]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group Collaboration), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group Collaboration), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024). [24]Physics at LEP2, CERN (CERN, Geneva, 1996) com- posed by 3 sessions

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Electroweak corrections to hadronic event shapes

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Gehrmann, and C. Kurz, Electroweak corrections to hadronic event shapes (2010), arXiv:1001.4467 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    T. I. S. Group, The idea detector concept for FCC-ee (2025), arXiv:2502.21223 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    M. Dam, Detector requirements, design, and technologies for the fcc-ee higgs, electroweak, and top factory, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1080, 170648 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Barate et al., A measurement of the b-quark mass from hadronic Z decays, The European Physical Journal C18, 1–13 (2000)

    R. Barate et al., A measurement of the b-quark mass from hadronic Z decays, The European Physical Journal C18, 1–13 (2000)

    work page 2000

  30. [30]

    Chetyrkin, A

    K. Chetyrkin, A. Kataev, and F. Tkachov, Higher-order corrections toσ tot(e+e− →hadrons) in quantum chro- modynamics, Physics Letters B85, 277 (1979)

    work page 1979

  31. [31]

    Weinzierl, Event shapes and jet rates in electron- positron annihilation at nnlo, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 041–041 (2009)

    S. Weinzierl, Event shapes and jet rates in electron- positron annihilation at nnlo, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 041–041 (2009)

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Hatlo, F

    M. Hatlo, F. James, P. Mato, L. Moneta, M. Winkler, and A. Zsenei, Developments of mathematical software libraries for the lhc experiments, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science52, 2818 (2005)

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Dissertori, A

    G. Dissertori, A. G.-D. Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. Glover, G. Heinrich, G. Luisoni, and H. Stenzel, Determination of the strong coupling constant using matched nnlo+nlla predictions for hadronic event shapes ine +e− annihi- lations, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 036–036 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    R. W. L. Jones, M. Ford, G. P. Salam, H. Stenzel, and D. Wicke, Theoretical uncertainties onα s from event- shape variables ine +e− annihilations, Journal of High Energy Physics2003, 007–007 (2003)

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    Abbate, M

    R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, and I. W. Stewart, Thrust atn 3LL with power corrections and a precision global fit forα s(mZ), Phys. Rev. D83, 074021 (2011)

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    A. H. Hoang, D. W. Kolodrubetz, V. Mateu, and I. W. Stewart, Precise determination ofα s from the c- parameter distribution, Phys. Rev. D91, 094018 (2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Determination of alpha_S at 500 GeV from Event Shapes and Jet Rates

    O. Biebel, Determination ofα s at 500 GeV from event shapes and jet rates (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9912051 [hep- ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  38. [38]

    DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, Delphes 3: a modular framework for fast simulation of a generic col- lider experiment, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 10.1007/jhep02(2014)057 (2014)

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/jhep02(2014)057 2014

  39. [39]

    Y. I. Azimov, Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, and S. Trovan, Similarity of parton and hadron spectra in QCD jets, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C Particles and Fields 27, 65 (1985)

    work page 1985

  40. [40]

    Y. I. Azimov, Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, and S. Troyan, Hump-backed QCD plateau in hadron spec- tra, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C Particles and Fields31, 213 (1986)

    work page 1986

  41. [41]

    Lupia and W

    S. Lupia and W. Ochs, Unified QCD description of hadron and jet multiplicities, Physics Letters B418, 214–222 (1998)

    work page 1998

  42. [42]

    Dremin and J

    I. Dremin and J. Gary, Hadron multiplicities, Physics Reports349, 301–393 (2001)

    work page 2001

  43. [43]

    Capella, I

    A. Capella, I. M. Dremin, J. W. Gary, V. A. Nechi- tailo, and J. T. T. Van, Evolution of average multiplic- ities of quark and gluon jets, Physical Review D61, 10.1103/physrevd.61.074009 (2000)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.61.074009 2000

  44. [44]

    Braunschweiget al.(TASSO), Charged Multiplicity Distributions and Correlations ine +e− Annihilation at PETRA Energies, Z

    W. Braunschweiget al.(TASSO), Charged Multiplicity Distributions and Correlations ine +e− Annihilation at PETRA Energies, Z. Phys. C45, 193 (1989)

    work page 1989

  45. [45]

    H. W. Zhenget al.(The AMY Collaboration), Charged- particle multiplicities ine +e− annihilations at √s= 50− 61.4 GeV, Phys. Rev. D42, 737 (1990)

    work page 1990

  46. [46]

    Fong and B

    C. Fong and B. Webber, Higher-order qcd corrections to hadron energy distributions in jets, Physics Letters B 229, 289 (1989)

    work page 1989

  47. [47]

    V. A. Khoze and W. Ochs, Perturbative-qcd approach to multiparticle production, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics A12, 2949–3120 (1997)

    work page 1997

  48. [48]

    Braunschweiget al.(TASSO), Global Jet Properties at 14-GeV to 44-GeV Center-of-mass Energy ine +e− Annihilation, Z

    W. Braunschweiget al.(TASSO), Global Jet Properties at 14-GeV to 44-GeV Center-of-mass Energy ine +e− Annihilation, Z. Phys. C47, 187 (1990)

    work page 1990

  49. [49]

    Jumaniyozov, S

    A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, and A. Verbytskyi, Determina- tion ofα s beyond nnlo using event shape averages, The European Physical Journal C81, 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 021-08975-3 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 2021