Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Production cross sections of light and charmed mesons in $e^+e^-$ annihilation near 10.58 GeV

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Belle reports 15 meson production cross sections in e+e− annihilation near 10.58 GeV, finding that light-hadron data need no extra vector-over-pseudoscalar fragmentation enhancement while charmed-meson results update earlier measurements…

desk verdict A solid Belle measurement of 15 meson cross sections; the new light-vector-meson data are the real value, and the null V/P result is reasonable with caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12216 v2 pith:QOSV76F3 submitted 2024-11-19 hep-ex

Belle Collaboration: R. Seidl , I. Adachi , H. Aihara , T. Aushev , R. Ayad , Sw. Banerjee , K. Belous , J. Bennett
show 125 more authors
M. Bessner B. Bhuyan D. Biswas D. Bodrov M. Bračko P. Branchini T. E. Browder A. Budano M. Campajola K. Chilikin K. Cho S.-K. Choi Y. Choi S. Choudhury S. Das G. De Nardo G. De Pietro F. Di Capua J. Dingfelder Z. Doležal T. V. Dong D. Dossett P. Ecker T. Ferber B. G. Fulsom V. Gaur A. Giri P. Goldenzweig E. Graziani Y. Guan K. Gudkova C. Hadjivasiliou T. Hara H. Hayashii D. Herrmann W.-S. Hou C.-L. Hsu K. Inami N. Ipsita A. Ishikawa R. Itoh M. Iwasaki W. W. Jacobs S. Jia Y. Jin K. K. Joo A. B. Kaliyar C. Kiesling C. H. Kim D. Y. Kim K.-H. Kim P. Kodyš A. Korobov S. Korpar P. Križan P. Krokovny D. Kumar K. Kumara Y.-J. Kwon T. Lam L. K. Li Y. B. Li L. Li Gioi J. Libby D. Liventsev Y. Ma M. Masuda T. Matsuda D. Matvienko M. Merola K. Miyabayashi R. Mussa M. Nakao A. Natochii M. Niiyama S. Nishida S. Ogawa H. Ono G. Pakhlova S. Pardi J. Park S.-H. Park A. Passeri S. Patra S. Paul T. K. Pedlar R. Pestotnik L. E. Piilonen T. Podobnik E. Prencipe M. T. Prim G. Russo S. Sandilya L. Santelj V. Savinov G. Schnell C. Schwanda Y. Seino K. Senyo M. E. Sevior W. Shan J.-G. Shiu B. Shwartz J. B. Singh E. Solovieva M. Starič M. Sumihama M. Takizawa K. Tanida F. Tenchini T. Uglov Y. Unno S. Uno Y. Usov C. Van Hulse A. Vinokurova A. Vossen M.-Z. Wang B. D. Yabsley W. Yan Y. Yook C. Z. Yuan L. Yuan Z. P. Zhang V. Zhilich
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords e+e-annihilationfragmentationfunctionsvectormesonscharmeddifferentialcrosssectionsxpscalingvariableinitial-stateradiationMonteCarlotunecomparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports differential production cross sections for fifteen meson species as functions of the fractional hadron momentum $x_p$ in $e^+e^-$ annihilation at center-of-mass energies near 10.58 GeV. For light vector mesons, the central result is a null result: the measured spectra are consistent with the default Monte Carlo fragmentation settings, with no need to increase the rate of vector over pseudoscalar meson production. For charmed mesons, the measurements update and supersede the experiment's earlier results, agree with external charm spectra at large $x_p$, and include the first $D_s^{*+}$ cross section at this experiment. These data provide fragmentation-function input for spin, strangeness, and transverse-momentum studies, and for modeling ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray air showers.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the correction-and-comparison chain: signal yields from fits to invariant mass in each $x_p$ bin are corrected by detector acceptance and reconstruction efficiency ratios obtained from full simulation, by an additional low-momentum efficiency correction, and by initial-state-radiation ratios, then normalized by luminosity, branching fractions, and bin width. The scaling variable is $x_p = p_h/\sqrt{s/4 - m_h^2}$, which runs from zero to unity. The key comparison object is a set of Monte Carlo fragmentation tunes with different Lund-model parameters, especially $\mathrm{PARJ}(11)$, the probability for light quarks to produce a spin-one rather than spin-zero meson, because the claimed null result rests on the data's insensitivity to raising this ratio.

What would settle it

Measure the same fifteen $x_p$ spectra at 10.58 GeV with a nearly hermetic detector that derives acceptance corrections from the measured thrust-axis angular distribution instead of Monte Carlo fragmentation tunes; if any $\rho$ or $K^*$ cross section moves outside the quoted tune uncertainties, the model dependence is underestimated and the null vector/pseudoscalar result would need re-evaluation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a set of differential production cross sections $d\sigma/dx_p$ for $\rho^+$, $\rho^0$, $\omega$, $K^{*+}$, $K^{*0}$, $\phi$, $\eta$, $K_S^0$, $f_0(980)$, $D^+$, $D^0$, $D_s^+$, $D^{*+}$, $D^{*0}$, and $D_s^{*+}$, extracted in forty $x_p$ bins from invariant-mass fits and corrected for acceptance, reconstruction efficiency, low-momentum tracking efficiency, and initial-state radiation. For light hadrons the claim is that no additional enhancement of vector over pseudoscalar fragmentation is needed, based on comparisons with several fragmentation tunes, including one in which the light-quark vector/pseudoscalar probability is raised from 0.5 to 0.6. For charmed mesons the claim is that the results supersede the experiment's previous measurement, agree with an older external measurement at larger $x_p$, and provide the first $D_s^{*+}$ differential cross section. After subtracting feed-down, the data do show a clear preference for vector over pseudoscalar charmed mesons, consistent with standard generator settings, while the light-meson data do not require such a preference.

Load-bearing premise

The corrections that turn reconstructed yields into true cross sections assume that at least one Monte Carlo fragmentation tune describes the real polar-angle and transverse-momentum distributions of the produced mesons; if none does, every quoted cross section would be systematically shifted, and the vector/pseudoscalar comparison could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The light vector-meson spectra provide an unpolarized baseline for future measurements of spin-dependent fragmentation, such as Collins asymmetries of vector mesons.
  • The updated charmed-meson spectra, including the first $D_s^{*+}$ cross section, give new input for global fragmentation-function fits and for heavy-flavor production models at colliders and in heavy-ion environments.
  • The null result for light vector mesons constrains cosmic-ray air-shower simulations: if these data are correct, raising rho production to solve the muon puzzle would conflict with $e^+e^-$ fragmentation measurements.
  • The separate listing of correlated, uncorrelated, and global scale uncertainties allows future fits to use these data without re-deriving the correlation structure.
  • The observed peak positions rising with hadron mass support the local parton hadron duality expectation and can serve as a benchmark for generator tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable next step would be to feed these spectra into a global fragmentation-function fit and see whether the extracted vector-meson fragmentation functions reproduce the default Monte Carlo ratio; the paper stops at direct data-to-generator comparison.
  • The roughly 20% excess of charged over neutral $\rho$ production at intermediate $x_p$, which the paper notes the simulation reproduces only at the few-percent level, hints at a small isospin-breaking fragmentation effect worth a dedicated follow-up.
  • If the $f_0(980)$ branching fraction assumed in the analysis changes, the published $f_0(980)$ cross sections would rescale, so the paper's separation of branching-fraction scale uncertainties will matter for future use.
  • One consequence left implicit is that the null light-vector result is specific to $e^+e^-$ annihilation at this energy; extrapolating it to hadron-hadron or deep-inelastic environments should be checked against measurements there before using it to tune generators globally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports Belle measurements of differential production cross sections d\sigma/dx_p for 15 meson species in e+ e- annihilation near 10.58 GeV, using the on-resonance and continuum data sets. Signal yields are extracted from invariant-mass fits, corrected for acceptance, reconstruction efficiency, low-momentum efficiency, and initial-state radiation, and then compared with several Pythia tunes, including a high-vector-meson tune. The central light-hadron claim is a null result: the data do not require an additional enhancement of vector-meson over pseudoscalar-meson fragmentation. For charmed mesons, the results update and supersede earlier Belle measurements, agree with CLEO at larger x_p, and include a first Belle measurement of D_s^{*+} production. The paper also provides prompt-production comparisons after partial feed-down subtraction and a detailed systematic-uncertainty breakdown.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful precision input for fragmentation-function extractions, for tuning Pythia, and for spin-dependent fragmentation studies at a future EIC. The measurement is valuable because it provides first B-factory cross sections for several light vector mesons, a first Belle D_s^{*+} spectrum, and a public per-source uncertainty decomposition that permits global fits to use the correlations correctly. The analysis is careful about consistency checks, including continuum/on-resonance comparisons, multiple decay modes, and tune variations for the acceptance and ISR corrections. The central V/P null result, however, inherits a model dependence from the MC-based 4\pi extrapolation that is not fully covered by the tune envelope, and the f0(980) normalization rests on an assumed branching fraction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV B, Eq. (4), Figs. 2-3] The 4\pi acceptance extrapolation uses MC-derived \epsilon_acc with the Belle tune as the central value. The generated angular distributions are the leading-order 1+cos^2(theta) distribution for quark pairs smeared by fragmentation transverse momentum, and no spin-dependent polar-angle difference between vector and pseudoscalar mesons is modeled. Since all tunes share this same production angular structure and the HERMES tune is excluded, the tune envelope in Fig. 3 does not cover a possible spin-dependent angular bias. Because the central null result in Sec. VI C is a comparison of vector-meson to pseudoscalar-meson rates, a relative bias in \epsilon_acc between spin-1 and spin-0 mesons would directly shift that conclusion. Please add a data/MC cos(theta) comparison for at least one charged and one neutral final state, and either include a spin-dependent angular systematic or demonstrate quantitatively that the resulting V/P shift is negligible.
  2. [Table II and Eq. (4)] The f0(980) cross sections are normalized by the assumed branching fraction B(f0 to pi+ pi-) = 0.52, which the paper itself labels as currently unknown and implements from the Belle MC. Since d\sigma/dx_p scales as 1/B, the f0 points in Figs. 9, 13, 17, and 18 are conditional on this model assumption, yet no associated scale uncertainty is propagated. The manuscript should either carry this assumption as a scale uncertainty with an externally motivated range, or explicitly remove f0(980) from the quantitative comparisons and conclusions.
  3. [Section VI B, Figs. 13-14] The prompt-production comparisons subtract feed-down only from the parent states analyzed in this paper. The text states that in MC the unaccounted feed-down can reach 60% for pions at low x_p and about 25% for kaons, and no systematic uncertainty on this residual subtraction is assigned. The statement that pions and rho mesons are produced about equally at high x_p depends on this subtraction being reliable in that region. Please provide the residual feed-down as a function of x_p and show how the comparison changes when the MC-based feed-down estimates are varied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section II] The abstract quotes 571 fb^-1 at 10.58 GeV, while Section II states 558 fb^-1 in the on-resonance sample; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Section VI A] There is an unresolved citation placeholder 'Ref. [ ? ]' in the discussion of charged versus neutral K* production.
  3. [Fig. 7] The y-axis labels in Fig. 7 appear corrupted (for example, '4 -103 -102 ...'); the exponent and sign formatting should be fixed.
  4. [Table I] Table I is difficult to read because empty entries and column alignment are ambiguous; please provide a complete table with every parameter value for each tune, and explicitly mark which entry corresponds to the high-VM tune's PARJ(11) setting.
  5. [Fig. 8 and Section VI] To substantiate the claim that the new charm results supersede the previous Belle measurement and agree before the ISR correction, the old Belle curves should be shown in a comparison figure or the agreement should be quantified in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the Belle cross-section measurement is corrected with quantified MC tunes and the Pythia comparison is an independent, non-fitted test.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central quantity is defined by Eq. (4), dsigma/dxp = (N_Fit - N_nonqqbar)/(L x B x Dxp) x 1/(epsilon_rec x epsilon_acc x epsilon_Lowp x epsilon_ISR). The fitted yields come from invariant-mass fits to data; the correction factors are MC-derived, with the Belle tune chosen as the central value and the other tunes propagated as correlated systematic uncertainties. This is a standard model-dependent acceptance correction, not a fit of the physics claim to the data. The light-hadron conclusion, 'no additional increase of vector over pseudo-scalar mesons,' is reached by overlaying Pythia predictions (default, high VM, and other tunes) on the corrected Belle cross sections in Figs. 17-18; no Pythia parameter is fitted to the data in that comparison, and the high-VM tune is not used in the central acceptance or ISR corrections. Thus the conclusion is an externally falsifiable generator-data comparison rather than a renaming of a generator input. The self-citations (Refs. [12], [29], [42], [50]) are previous Belle measurements used for consistency checks, tune context, or supporting comparisons; none is a uniqueness theorem or the sole justification for the central premise. The exclusion of the HERMES tune from the systematic envelope is justified by its failure to describe prior Belle fragmentation data, which is independent empirical evidence; moreover HERMES has a lower, not higher, vector-meson fraction, so excluding it does not artificially protect the null result. The strongest caveat, that the 4pi acceptance extrapolation assumes the MC polar-angle and transverse-momentum distributions span reality, is a model-uncertainty limitation that the paper explicitly acknowledges and quantifies through the tune envelope; it is not a circular reduction because no equation equates a predicted quantity to its own input. The analysis is therefore self-contained in the sense required here: the measured cross sections and the Pythia tune comparison remain logically independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The measurement relies on standard QCD factorization, detector simulation, and MC tunes. The main free parameters are the MC tune parameters and the assumed f0(980) branching fraction. No invented physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • PARJ(11) for high-VM tune = 0.6
    The high-VM tune modifies the light-quark spin-1 meson probability to 0.6, used to test if increased vector meson production is needed.
  • f0(980) branching fraction = 0.52
    The f0(980) to pi+pi- branching fraction is assumed to be 52 percent as implemented in the Belle MC, since it is currently unknown per PDG. Directly affects the f0 cross section.
  • MC tune parameters (PARJ 41, 42, 21, etc.) = multiple
    Several Pythia tune parameters are varied to assess systematic uncertainty. The Belle tune is the central choice. These are model parameters, not data-fitted, but the choice of central tune affects the correction.
  • PMax for wide resonances = PDG masses used
    The definition of xp uses the PDG mass for wide resonances instead of the actual mass, which is an approximation but claimed to be insignificant relative to bin widths.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Factorisation of fragmentation functions from hard interactions in e+e- annihilation
    Assumed in the introduction as standard QCD factorization.
  • ad hoc to paper The MC simulation with the Belle tune approximates the true fragmentation for acceptance and ISR corrections
    The central values for acceptance and ISR corrections use the Belle tune, a model assumption that enters the central result, with the tune spread assigned as systematics.
  • ad hoc to paper The low-momentum reconstruction efficiency correction follows a quadratic form
    A quadratic form provides the best agreement and is assigned as the default correction, with variations as systematic uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The generated MC polar-angle distribution for quark pairs is 1+cos^2(theta)
    Used in the 4-pi extrapolation step; if the true fragmentation angular distribution differs from the generator, biases result.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: No new physical entities are introduced.
    This is a measurement paper; no new particles, forces, or dimensions are proposed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Production cross sections of light and charmed mesons in $e^+e^-$ annihilation near 10.58 GeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QOSV76F3

@misc{pith2026241112216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Production cross sections of light and charmed mesons in $e^+e^-$ annihilation near 10.58 GeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QOSV76F3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12216}
}
abstract

We report measurements of production cross sections for $\rho^+$, $\rho^0$, $\omega$, $K^{*+}$, $K^{*0}$, $\phi$, $\eta$, $K_S^0$, $f_0(980)$, $D^+$, $D^0$, $D_s^+$, $D^{*+}$, $D^{*0}$, and $D^{*+}_s$ in $e^+e^-$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy near 10.58 GeV. The data were recorded by the Belle experiment, consisting of 571 fb$^{-1}$ at 10.58 GeV and 74 fb$^{-1}$ at 10.52 GeV. Production cross sections are extracted as a function of the fractional hadron momentum $x_p$ . The measurements are compared to {\sc pythia} Monte Carlo generator predictions with various fragmentation settings, including those that have increased fragmentation into vector mesons over pseudo-scalar mesons. The cross sections measured for light hadrons are consistent with no additional increase of vector over pseudo-scalar mesons. The charmed-meson cross sections are compared to earlier measurements -- when available -- including older Belle results, which they supersede. They are in agreement before application of an improved initial-state radiation correction procedure that causes slight changes in their \xp shapes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Examples of the invariant-mass fits for an intermediate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Acceptance and reconstruction efficiencies within the barrel part of the detector as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Acceptance efficiencies from the full acceptance to the barrel part of the Belle detector as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different MC tunes (cf. Table I) are investigated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. ISR correction ratios as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Production cross sections as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Production cross sections as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Uncertainty budgets normalized to the cross sections are shown for continuum (on-resonance) data below (above) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Production cross sections as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Production cross sections as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Left: Comparison of neutral and charged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Left: Comparison of neutral and charged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Left: Comparison of neutral and charged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Comparison of pseudoscalar meson cross sections to vector-meson cross sections for various charmed mesons after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Figure 18 also displays the different tunes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Production cross sections as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Production cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Production cross sections as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Production cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Collins, Foundations of perturbative QCD, Camb

    J. Collins, Foundations of perturbative QCD, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 32, 1 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Accardi et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 268 (2016), arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detec- tor Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report (2021), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detec- tor Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report (2021), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Brandelik et al

    R. Brandelik et al. (TASSO), Charged Pion, Kaon, Pro- ton and anti-Proton Production in High-Energy e+e− Annihilation, Phys. Lett. B 94, 444 (1980)

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    Althoff et al.(TASSO), Charged Hadron Composition of the Final State in e+e− Annihilation at High Energies, Z

    M. Althoff et al.(TASSO), Charged Hadron Composition of the Final State in e+e− Annihilation at High Energies, Z. Phys. C 17, 5 (1983)

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    Aihara et al

    H. Aihara et al. (TPC/Two Gamma), Charged hadron inclusive cross-sections and fractions in e+e− annihilia- tion √s = 29 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1263 (1988)

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    Buskulic et al

    D. Buskulic et al. (ALEPH), Inclusive π±, K ± and ( p, ¯p) differential cross-sections at the Z resonance, Z. Phys. C 66, 355 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), π±, K ±, p and ¯p production in Z 0 → q ¯q, Z 0 → b¯b, Z 0 → u¯u, d¯d, s¯s, Eur. Phys. J. C 5, 585 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (SLD), Production of π+, π−, K +, K −, p and ¯ p in Light (uds), c and b Jets from Z 0 Decays, Phys. Rev. D 69, 072003 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0310017

    2004 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Production of charged pions, kaons, and protons in e+e− annihilations into hadrons at √s=10.54 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 88, 032011 (2013), arXiv:1306.2895 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Leitgab et al

    M. Leitgab et al. (Belle), Precision Measurement of Charged Pion and Kaon Differential Cross Sections in e+e− Annihilation at √s = 10.52 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 062002 (2013), arXiv:1301.6183 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    To study the effect of an increase in the ratio, the default pythia setting was also tested with the light-quark ratio set to 0.6, labeled high VM in Fig

    The default values are 0.5 for light quarks and 0.6 for strange quarks. To study the effect of an increase in the ratio, the default pythia setting was also tested with the light-quark ratio set to 0.6, labeled high VM in Fig. 17. Figure 18 also displays the different tunes fo...

  5. [13]

    Artuso et al.(CLEO), Charm meson spectra in e+e− annihilation at 10.5-GeV c.m.e., Phys

    M. Artuso et al.(CLEO), Charm meson spectra in e+e− annihilation at 10.5-GeV c.m.e., Phys. Rev. D70, 112001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0402040

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Measurement of D+ s and D∗+ s production in B meson decays and from continuum e+e− annihilation at √s = 10.6 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 65, 091104 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0201041

    2002 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Seuster et al

    R. Seuster et al. (Belle), Charm hadrons from fragmen- tation and B decays in e+e− annihilation at √s = 19 10.6 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 73, 032002 (2006), arXiv:hep- ex/0506068

    2006

  8. [16]

    Ablikim et al.(BESIII), Measurements of Normalized Differential Cross Sections of Inclusive η Production in e+e- Annihilation at Energy from 2.0000 to 3.6710 GeV, Phys

    M. Ablikim et al.(BESIII), Measurements of Normalized Differential Cross Sections of Inclusive η Production in e+e- Annihilation at Energy from 2.0000 to 3.6710 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021901 (2024), arXiv:2401.17873 [hep-ex]

    2024

  9. [17]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Measurement of inclusive ρ0, f0(980), f2(1270), K ∗0 2 (1430) and f2(1525) production in Z 0 decays, Phys. Lett. B 449, 364 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    M. Ablikim et al.(BESIII), Measurements of Normalized Differential Cross Sections of Inclusive π0 and K 0 S Pro- duction in e+e− Annihilation at Energies from 2.2324 to 3.6710 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 231901 (2023), arXiv:2211.11253 [hep-ex]

    2023

  11. [19]

    Sj¨ ostrand, L

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, L. L¨ onnblad, and S. Mrenna, PYTHIA 6.2: Physics and manual, (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0108264

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sj¨ ostrand, P

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, P. Eden, C. Friberg, L. L¨ onnblad, G. Miu, S. Mrenna, and E. Norrbin, High-energy physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 135, 238 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0010017

    2001 arXiv

  13. [21]

    neutral pions as it affects the hadronic-shower evolution arXiv:2411.12216v2 [hep-ex] 13 Mar 2025 2 [22, 23], and thus the muon content of the cosmic-ray air shower

    in modeling ultra-high-energetic cosmic-ray air- shower measurements can be related to the relative strength of the production of neutral rho mesons vs. neutral pions as it affects the hadronic-shower evolution arXiv:2411.12216v2 [hep-ex] 13 Mar 2025 2 [22, 23], and thus the m...

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ackerstaff et al

    K. Ackerstaff et al. (OPAL), Production of f0(980), f2(1270) and ϕ(1020) in hadronic Z 0 decay, Eur. Phys. J. C 4, 19 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9802013

    1998 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Riehn, R

    F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. K. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Hadronic interaction model Sibyll 2.3d and extensive air showers, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063002 (2020), arXiv:1912.03300 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Albrecht et al

    J. Albrecht et al. , The Muon Puzzle in cosmic-ray induced air showers and its connection to the Large Hadron Collider, Astrophys. Space Sci. 367, 27 (2022), arXiv:2105.06148 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ostapchenko, QGSJET-II: physics, recent improve- ments, and results for air showers, EPJ Web Conf

    S. Ostapchenko, QGSJET-II: physics, recent improve- ments, and results for air showers, EPJ Web Conf. 52, 02001 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Artru and G

    X. Artru and G. Mennessier, String model and multipro- duction, Nucl. Phys. B 70, 93 (1974)

    1974

  19. [27]

    J. C. Collins, Fragmentation of transversely polarized quarks probed in transverse momentum distributions, Nucl. Phys. B 396, 161 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9208213

    1993 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Artru, String fragmentation model with quark spin, Prob

    X. Artru, String fragmentation model with quark spin, Prob. Atomic Sci. Technol. 2012N1, 173 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Seidl et al.(Belle), Update of inclusive cross sections of single and pairs of identified light charged hadrons, Phys

    R. Seidl et al.(Belle), Update of inclusive cross sections of single and pairs of identified light charged hadrons, Phys. Rev. D 101, 092004 (2020), arXiv:2001.10194 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kerbizi, X

    A. Kerbizi, X. Artru, and A. Martin, Production of vector mesons in the String+ 3P0 model of polarized quark fragmentation, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114038 (2021), arXiv:2109.06124 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    G. D. Alexeev et al., Collins and Sivers transverse-spin asymmetries in inclusive muoproduction of ρ0 mesons, Phys. Lett. B 843, 137950 (2023), arXiv:2211.00093 [hep- ex]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kurokawa and E

    S. Kurokawa and E. Kikutani, Overview of the KEKB accelerators, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 1 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    Abashian et al., The Belle Detector, Nucl

    A. Abashian et al., The Belle Detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A479, 117 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Brodzicka et al

    J. Brodzicka et al. (Belle), Physics Achievements from the Belle Experiment, PTEP 2012, 04D001 (2012), arXiv:1212.5342 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation pack- age, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462, 152 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    Abe et al., Achievements of KEKB, PTEP 2013, 03A001 (2013)

    T. Abe et al., Achievements of KEKB, PTEP 2013, 03A001 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual, JHEP 05, 026, arXiv:hep- ph/0603175 [hep-ph]

  30. [38]

    R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Ur- ban, GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool 10.17181/CERN.MUHF.DMJ1 (1994)

    1994 doi

  31. [39]

    F. A. Berends, P. H. Daverveldt, and R. Kleiss, Monte Carlo simulation of two photon processes. 2. Complete lowest order calculations for four lepton production pro- cesses in electron positron collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 40, 285 (1986)

    1986

  32. [40]

    Jadach, J

    S. Jadach, J. H. K¨ uhn, and Z. W¸ as, TAUOLA: A Library of Monte Carlo programs to simulate decays of polarized tau leptons, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 275 (1990)

    1990

  33. [41]

    values, tabulated in Table II for reference. In the case of the K ∗ decays, the fraction decaying into K 0π rather than the charged-kaon related final states studied here are corrected in the following acceptance-correction step because the PDG does not separate the two decay ...

    2004

  34. [42]

    Brandt, C

    S. Brandt, C. Peyrou, R. Sosnowski, and A. Wroblewski, The Principal axis of jets. An Attempt to analyze high- energy collisions as two-body processes, Phys. Lett. 12, 57 (1964)

    1964

  35. [43]

    Throughout this manuscript c is set to unity

  36. [44]

    Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Seidl et al

    R. Seidl et al. (Belle), Invariant-mass and fractional- energy dependence of inclusive production of di-hadrons in e+e− annihilation at √s = 10.58 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 96, 032005 (2017), arXiv:1706.08348 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Soeding, On the Apparent Shift of the rho Meson Mass in Photoproduction, Phys

    P. Soeding, On the Apparent Shift of the rho Meson Mass in Photoproduction, Phys. Lett. B 19, 702 (1966)

    1966

  39. [47]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), ρ0 photoproduction in ultra- peripheral relativistic heavy ion collisions at√sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 77, 034910 (2008), arXiv:0712.3320 [nucl-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Albino, B

    S. Albino, B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and W. Ochs, The Evolution of hadron spectra in the modified leading log- arithm approximation, Eur. Phys. J. C 36, 49 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404287

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Supplement file available online

  42. [50]

    Y. I. Azimov, Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, and S. I. Troyan, Humpbacked QCD Plateau in Hadron Spectra, Z. Phys. C 31, 213 (1986)

    1986

  43. [51]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, and S. I. Troian, On the concept of local parton hadron duality, J. Phys. G 17, 1585 (1991)

    1991

  44. [52]

    This is in contrast to strange-baryon production, where pythia is found to underestimate hyperon production with increasing strangeness [50]

  45. [53]

    Niiyama et al

    M. Niiyama et al. (Belle), Production cross sections of hyperons and charmed baryons from e+e− annihilation near √s = 10.52˜GeV, Phys. Rev. D 97, 072005 (2018), arXiv:1706.06791 [hep-ex]. 20 TABLE I. Parameters for the various tunes used in the comparison to the measured cross...

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.