text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this article we consider the production of identified light hadrons in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions or more precisely the production of charged hadrons built from light up, down and strange valence quarks, i.e. dominantly pions, kaons and nucleons. Within perturbative QCD the light hadron production dynamics of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations inevitably comprise a nonperturbative long distance component from the nonperturbative hadronization of perturbatively produced partons. We will fix this latter nonperturbative component in the canonical QCD framework of parton$``$hadron fragmentation functions (FFs) at the low resolution input scale of the radiative GRV parton model . In the naive parton model the FF $`D_p^h(z)`$ has the interpretation of a probability density that some final state parton $`p`$ hadronizes (or fragments) into a mean number $`D_p^h(z)dz`$ of hadrons $`h`$ per $`dz`$ where $`z`$ is the fractional momentum which $`h`$ receives from the parton. Field and Feynman have constructed  an early set of mesonic fragmentation functions footing solely on this intuitive probabilistic interpretation. Today’s state of the art embeds the $`D_p^h(z)`$ functions in the framework of QCD factorization theory  including explicit operator definitions . Fragmentation functions are the final state analogues of the initial state parton distribution functions (PDFs) and precisely as the PDFs do the FFs parametrize our ignorance of QCD bound state dynamics. Fragmentation functions into identified hadrons are therefore in their own right an interesting source of information on the hadronization process and they are a necessary ingredient to interpret present and future measurements of any one-particle-inclusive hard cross section within fundamental (perturbative) QCD theory as compared to Monte Carlo model approaches. Whereas PDFs are mainly determined from fully inclusive DIS the cleanest extraction of FFs is from $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. FFs pinned down in $`e^+e^{}`$ can, by universality, then be applied to, e.g., the hadro- or leptoproduction of identified hadrons and compatibility with the transverse momentum spectrum produced in photon-proton collisions was found in . From a combined use of both - fragmentation and parton distribution functions - in one hadron inclusive deep inelastic scattering information on the initial state parton flavour can be obtained from leading particle effects where a high energetic hadron inside a jet remembers the valence parton it has been produced off . Parton information from semi-inclusive measurements based on an understanding of the fragmentation process also extends to polarized DIS where the spin flavour structure of the nucleon sea is still rather unknown . In this article we will restrict ourselves to the defining $`e^+e^{}`$ process and leave other applications to future work .

The recent years have seen much effort  to establish a similar technical skill for FFs as for existing sets of PDFs . We will take a further step towards this goal and for this purpose we concentrate mainly on data which constrain the flavour decomposition of fragmentation spectra; such data sets exist at the $`Z^0`$ pole for charged $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`K^\pm `$ mesons from SLD  and for the inclusive sum over charged hadrons from ALEPH . Lower energy counterparts from TPC  will be included to correctly take QCD scaling violations \- which have been re-established recently in  \- into account. The flavour separation confronts us with the question of how to treat heavy flavours within $`e^+e^{}`$ production dynamics which we will answer in some detail. Especially the SLD data sets on flavour tagged fragmentation into $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`K^\pm `$ mesons contain new flavour information not included in previous fits  to which we compare our results, thereby formulating the present uncertainty of our knowledge on the individual FFs.

## 2 Parton Fragmentation in $`e^+e^{}`$ Collisions Beyond the Leading Order

The NLO framework111The formulae below include the LO framework in an obvious way by dropping subleading terms. for one-hadron-inclusive $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations is well known since long  and we restrict ourselves to a brief theoretical introduction here in which we closely follow Ref.  in notation.

To be specific we will consider the reaction

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{(e^+e^{}\gamma ,Z^0hX)}}{dz}\frac{d\sigma ^h}{dz}=\frac{d\sigma _T^h}{dz}+\frac{d\sigma _L^h}{dz},$$
(1)
where

$$z2E_h/Q=2P_hq/Q^2$$
(2)
is the energy222 In cases where experimental data are presented in the momentum scaling variable $`z_p2p_h/Q`$ we will transform the data to $`z`$ using the relativistic energy momentum relation $`E_h^2=p_h^2+m_h^2`$ and assuming pion production dominance $`(m_h=m_\pi )`$ whenever the hadron $`h`$ is not specified.  $`E_h`$ of the observed hadron scaled to the beam energy $`Q/2\sqrt{s}/2`$;333 Though $`sQ^2`$ we will use both variables \- $`s`$ and $`Q^2`$ \- in the following in their rôle as the c.m.s. energy and perturbative hard scale, respectively. with the positron/electron beam momentum $`P_{e^\pm }=(Q/2,0,0,\pm Q/2)`$ and $`q=P_{e^+}+P_e^{}`$. The r.h.s. of Eq. (1) distinguishes the contributions from transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) virtual bosons, where the polarization axis is in the direction of the momentum of the observed hadron $`h`$. Experimental data are commonly not presented for the absolute cross section in Eq. (1) but for the normalized distribution

$$\frac{1}{N_{tot}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N^h}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}}\frac{d\sigma ^h}{dz};\text{as}\mathrm{\Delta }z0,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N^h`$ counts the registered $`h`$-events per bin $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ and $`N_{tot}`$ denotes the inclusive sum of hadronic events. Within perturbative QCD and up to $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ the total hadronic cross section $`\sigma _{tot}`$ is given by

$$\sigma _{tot}=\underset{q}{}\sigma _0^q(s)\left[\left(1+\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\pi }\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{m_q^2}{Q^2}\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^4}{Q^4}\right)$$
(4)
where the parton model, i.e. $`𝒪(\alpha _s^0)`$, electroweak cross sections $`\sigma _0^q`$ for producing a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair are given in the Appendix. The power suppressed terms arise from perturbative quark mass effects \[$`𝒪(m_q^2/Q^2)`$\] or nonperturbative higher operator matrix elements \[$`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^4/Q^4)`$\]. We will discuss the quark mass effects in Section 4 where we give ample reasons for our choice of the factorization scheme. Higher operators are not considered in this article.

QCD factorization theory predicts that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{P=T,L}^h}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=\{\begin{array}{c}q=u,d,s,\mathrm{}\\ \overline{q}=\overline{u},\overline{d},\overline{s},\mathrm{}\\ g\end{array}}{}}[{\displaystyle _z^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta }{\zeta }}C_P^i(\zeta ,Q^2,\mu _{F,R}^2)D_i^h({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\zeta }},\mu _F^2)`$
$`+`$ $`𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2}{Q^2}}\right)]+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^n}{Q^n}})`$
where the power $`n`$ of the nonperturbative corrections  cannot be determined from an operator product expansion based analysis, contrary to $`n=4`$ in Eq. (4) and to deep inelastic scattering where higher twists are known to be suppressed by a power $`n=2`$. As anywhere $`\mu _{F,R}^2`$ are the factorization and renormalization scale, respectively, and we will set them both equal to $`\mu ^2\mu _{F,R}^2=Q^2`$ in the applications. The treatment of charm and bottom in the sum over quark flavours $`q=u,d,s,\mathrm{}`$ in (2) will be discussed in Section 4. The coefficient functions $`C_P^i`$ are given up to $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme  by

$`C_T^q(\zeta ,Q^2,\mu _{F,R}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\delta (1\zeta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _R^2)}{2\pi }}C_Fc_T^q(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})\right]\sigma _0^q(s)`$
$`C_T^g(\zeta ,Q^2,\mu _{F,R}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _R^2)}{2\pi }}C_Fc_T^g(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}}){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\sigma _0^q(s)`$
$`C_L^q(\zeta ,Q^2,\mu _{F,R}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _R^2)}{2\pi }}C_Fc_L^q(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})\sigma _0^q(s)`$
$`C_L^g(\zeta ,Q^2,\mu _{F,R}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _R^2)}{2\pi }}C_Fc_L^g(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}}){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\sigma _0^q(s)`$ (9)
and for antiquarks $`C_{T,L}^{\overline{q}}=C_{T,L}^q`$. The $`c_{T,L}^{q,g}`$ and $`\sigma _0^q`$ can be found in the Appendix. The $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ contributions to the coefficient functions $`C_{T,L}^{q,g}`$ in (2) are known  but are of next-to-next-to-leading order and will therefore not be considered in this NLO analysis, with one exception to be discussed in Section 3.

In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme the parton model expectation

$$_0^1𝑑zz\underset{h}{}D_i^h(z)=1$$
(10)
that the entire parton energy is shared by the parton’s fragmentation products is preserved under renormalization \[$`D_i^h(z)D_i^h(z,\mu ^2)`$\] of the fragmentation functions by energy conservation

$$\frac{1}{2\sigma _{tot}}_0^1𝑑zz\underset{h}{}\frac{d\sigma ^h}{dz}=1$$
(11)
where $`d\sigma ^h`$ is related to the $`D_i^h`$ via Eqs. (1), (2). The renormalized fragmentation functions $`D_i^h`$ obey massless Altarelli-Parisi-type renormalization group equations

$$\frac{D_j^h(z,Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\underset{i}{}_z^1\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta }P_{ij}(\frac{z}{\zeta },Q^2)D_i^h(\zeta ,Q^2)$$
(12)
where the $`P_{ij}`$ have a perturbative expansion

$$P_{ij}(z,Q^2)=\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }P_{ij}^{(0)}(z)+\left(\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }\right)^2P_{ij}^{(1)}(z)+𝒪\left(\alpha _s^3\right).$$
(13)
The NLO pieces $`P_{ij}^{(1)}`$ of the timelike $`P_{ij}`$ in (13) differ from their spacelike counterparts. The $`P_{ij}`$ are implicitly understood to represent the timelike splitting functions in 444A misprint in the second Ref. of  was corrected in ..

The evolution equations will be solved analytically in Mellin $`n`$-space as described, e.g. in . We have included the $`n`$-space expressions  for the $`c_{L,T}^{q,g}`$ in Eq. (2) in the Appendix. The timelike splitting functions (13) up to two loop order  have been transformed to $`n`$-space in . To keep this article compact we do not reproduce these lengthy formulae nor do we repeat the solution of Eq. (12) in Mellin space. Suffice to say here that some functional input forms for the $`D_i^h(z,\mu ^2)`$ are required where we make the Ansatz

$$D_i^h(z,\mu _0^2)=N_iz^{\alpha _i^h}(1z)^{\beta _i^h}$$
(14)
which we assume to hold for light partons ($`i=g,u,d,s`$ and corresponding antiquarks) at the low input scale $`\mu _0^2=0.4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ of the recent NLO revision  of the radiative parton model . (Accordingly, $`\mu _0^2=0.26\mathrm{GeV}^2`$  will serve as the input scale for the LO fits to be discussed below.) As already mentioned, the treatment of heavy flavours will be specified in the next Section. Along with the low input scale $`\mu _0^2`$ we also adopt the evaluation of $`\alpha _s^{NLO}`$ used in , i.e. we numerically solve the renormalization group equation

$$\frac{d\alpha _s(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{\beta _0}{4\pi }\alpha _s^2(Q^2)\frac{\beta _1}{16\pi ^2}\alpha _s^3(Q^2)$$
(15)
exactly by finding the root of

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^2}=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _s(Q^2)}\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _s(Q^2)}+\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}\right]$$
(16)
with $`\beta _0=112f/3`$ and $`\beta _1=10238f/3`$ and where the number $`f`$ of active flavours in the quark loop contributions to the beta function is

$$f=\{\begin{array}{c}3,\mu _0^2<Q^2<m_c^2\hfill \\ 4,m_c^2<Q^2<m_b^2\hfill \\ 5,m_b^2<Q^2<m_t^2\hfill \\ 6,m_t^2<Q^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
with  $`m_{c,b,t}=1.4,4.5,175\mathrm{GeV}`$. Eq. (17) guarantees the continuity of $`\alpha _s`$ at the transition scales $`m_{c,b,t}`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme up to two loops , if we furthermore adopt  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{3,4,5,6}=299.4,246,167.7,67.8\mathrm{MeV}`$ in NLO (and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{3,4,5,6}=204,175,132,66.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ in LO). The continuity of $`\alpha _s`$ at the transition scales $`Q_0`$, where $`ff+1`$, is guaranteed for $`Q_0^2=m_{c,b,t}^2`$  from the ratio of the renormalization constants $`Z_3`$ in a renormalization scheme with $`f`$ and $`f+1`$ active flavours, respectively. Hence the continuity is not affected by the choice of solving the NLO renormalization group equation exactly as implied by Eq. (16) or by an analytical approximation up to some inverse power of $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$, as, e.g., in Eq. (9.5a) of . The exact numerical solution of Eq. (16) is more appropriate  in the low $`Q^2m_c^2`$ regime and will be used over the entire $`Q^2`$ range.

## 3 The Longitudinal Cross Section $`d\sigma _L^h/dz`$

We shall comment here briefly on the counting of perturbative orders for the longitudinal structure function on the r.h.s. of (1). Experimentally $`d\sigma _L^h/dz`$ is extracted  by reweighting inclusive hadronic events according to their polar angle ($`\theta `$) distribution as

$$\frac{d\sigma _L^h}{dz}=_v^vd\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{d^2\sigma ^h}{dzd\mathrm{cos}\theta }W_L(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,v),$$
(18)
where the projector $`W_L`$ was introduced in  and $`v=|\mathrm{cos}\theta |_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is set by the detector geometry, e.g. $`v=0.94`$ for ALEPH .

From the theoretical side we can read off Eqs. (2), (2) that $`d\sigma _L^h/dz`$ receives its leading nonzero (finite and scheme-independent) contribution at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$. When considering data on $`d\sigma _L^h`$ obtained from reweighted events as in (18) we will therefore include for our next-to-leading order analysis the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ contributions of Ref. . We will, however, treat the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ coefficients $`C_L^{q,g}`$ in (2) as subleading (NLO) contributions to the total $`d\sigma ^h=d\sigma _T^h+d\sigma _L^h`$ in Eq. (1) which receives its leading contribution from the $`d\sigma _T^h`$ component to $`𝒪(\alpha _s^0)`$.

To $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ the convolutions in (2) are most conveniently decomposed according to the flavour group as described in . The corresponding coefficient functions for $`d\sigma _L^h/dz`$ are given in Eq. (17), (18) and (20) in the second Ref. of . For the transformation to Mellin $`n`$ space the nontrivial ones of the required identities can be found in .

## 4 Treatment of Heavy Flavours

Heavy quark initiated jets provide a substantial contribution to one-hadron-inclusive $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation spectra. In principle, the hard scattering production of heavy quarks has a well defined and unique perturbative expansion within QCD but the residual freedom of arranging the perturbation series at finite order leads into scheme ambiguities . The key question is whether the convergence of perturbative calculations improves if fixed order calculations are supplied with an additional resummation of quasi-collinear logarithms $`[(\alpha _s/2\pi )\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/m^2)]^n`$ to all orders $`n`$, where $`m`$ is the heavy quark mass. The explicit all order resummation is equivalent to solving massless evolution equations from an input scale of $`𝒪(m)`$. The boundary condition at the input scale is again calculable at fixed order and has been derived for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations in  to $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$.

Fixed NLO calculations seem at present to be reliable  for the deep inelastic production of charm and bottom \- dominantly in scattering events off wee gluons at low partonic c.m.s. energy where mass effects are most important . Contrarily, in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations each quark of a primary heavy quark pair receives the energy $`Q/2m`$ at the intermediate boson decay vertex. Such a highly relativistic quark will obviously not ‘feel’ its mass anymore and at the energies which we will consider, primary up- and down-type quarks555 We do, of course, not consider the superheavy top quark here. are each produced in equal number, irrespective of the quark mass. We therefore expect heavy quarks in $`e^+e^{}`$ to behave essentially like massless partons with mass (quasi-)singularities to be resummed. In  all order NLO collinear resummations were demonstrated to be required and adequate in order to describe the energy distribution of charm and bottom quarks over the partonic final state of high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. In particular, all order massless resummations for charm quarks were proven to be necessary to describe the amount of secondary charm quarks from $`gc\overline{c}`$ splittings in the parton showering, visible in a rise of the cross section at lower $`z`$ as observed by OPAL  and ALEPH  and as opposed to the fixed $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ order contribution $`Z^0q\overline{q}gq\overline{q}c\overline{c}`$  which turns out to be far too small . Bottom production has an evolution length which is shorter by the amount of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}Q^2=\mathrm{ln}(m_b^2/m_c^2)`$ which suffices to suppress secondary bottom pairs as experimentally observed  in a flat $`z0`$ B-spectrum.

Hence, we will include $`q_\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{H}h`$ FFs mixing under evolution with their light parton analogues, i.e. describing all long distance (collinear parton showering and hadronization) effects of the fragmentation process. Heavy flavours are treated above their respective $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ ‘thresholds’ $`Q_0=m_{c,b}`$ as active flavours in the evolution of the $`D_{q,g}^h(z,\mu ^2)`$ in Eq. (12). We adopt the functional form of Eq. (14) also for $`D_{c,b}^h`$, i.e.

$$D_{i=c,b}^h(z,\mu _i^2)=N_iz^{\alpha _i^h}(1z)^{\beta _i^h},$$
(19)
to hold at $`\mu _i^2=m_i^2`$ along Eq. (17) which guarantees the continuity of $`\alpha _s`$ at $`\mu _i^2`$ in NLO. The $`D_{i=c,b}^h`$ are then discontinuously ‘switched on’ in the evolution at $`m_i^2`$ but enter the cross section in Eq. (1) only above the partonic threshold $`Q^2>4m_i^2`$.666 The partonic threshold $`4m_i^2`$ \- or similar low resonance threshold scales  \- may therefore be considered a natural choice for $`\mu _i^2`$. We follow existing PDF sets which avoid the discontinuities in $`\alpha _s`$ induced by $`\mu _im_i`$. It is certainly questionable  to fit pure QCD fragmentation functions for heavy quarks to inclusive or heavy quark tagged data because charm and bottom jets are highly contaminated by weak decay channels. Adopting such a procedure anyway is a necessity as long as data corrected for weak decays do not exist.

## 5 Fitting Procedure

Early model attempts  to generate fragmentation functions entirely by QCD dynamics from a delta peak input $`D_p^h(z)\delta (1z)`$ are outruled by modern high statistics data  which require smooth input functions (14), (19) to be fitted to experiment. Recently, fragmentation functions have been fitted to $`e^+e^{}`$ production data using either free fit Ansätze  or Ansätze strongly constrained by $`\mathrm{SU}(3)_\mathrm{f}`$ symmetry . We will take an intermediate path and constrain free fit Ansätze by making power law assumptions about valence enhancement and strangeness suppression within the radiative parton model of Refs. . The model is originally tailored for parton distribution functions to perturbatively generate the high population of quarks and gluons in hadrons at low Bjorken $`x`$. It should be clear from the scratch that its predictivity cannot be transfered to FFs where a well defined low $`z`$ analogue of the deep inelastic low $`x`$ regime is missing .

Our aim is to pin down fragmentation functions $`D_i^h(z,\mu ^2)`$ for (anti-)quarks and gluons hadronizing into charged pions ($`h=\pi ^+,\pi ^{}\pi ^{+,}`$), charged kaons ($`h=K^+,K^{}K^{+,}`$) and the inclusive sum over charged hadrons \[ $`_h(h^++h^{})h^\pm `$\];777 Similarly, $`\pi ^\pm `$ will denote $`\pi ^++\pi ^{}`$ to be distinguished from $`\pi ^{+,}\pi ^+,\pi ^{}`$; for kaons accordingly. basically from high statistics data at the $`Z^0`$ peak measured by ALEPH  at LEP ($`h^\pm `$) and by SLD  ($`\pi ^\pm ,K^\pm `$) at SLAC. Besides their high statistical accuracy, these data sets have the advantage of furnishing along with their fully inclusive measurements also flavour enriched events which can be used to fix the flavour structure of the $`D_i^h(z,\mu ^2)`$ to some extent. Both data sets distinguish between light quark ($`u,d,s`$), charm, and bottom events where the quark flavour refers to the primary $`Z^0`$-boson decay vertex. Since pure flavour separated sets cannot be obtained directly , Monte Carlo simulations are required to estimate the flavour composition of the tagged data sets. From these Monte Carlo studies the flavour enriched event samples have been unfolded at a given systematic uncertainty to pure flavour sets for the SLD data whereas ALEPH quotes percentages for each flavour contribution to any of its flavour enriched samples. In the latter case some uncertainty will reside in the translation of the Monte Carlo studies to the perturbative calculations we are performing here which can unfortunately not be quantified since no systematic errors are quoted  for the percentages. Anyway, we will reweight the electroweak couplings in Table 3 in the Appendix to reproduce the ALEPH flavour composition as quoted in . In order to have our FFs respect QCD scaling violations properly we include lower scale ($`\sqrt{s}=29\mathrm{GeV}`$) TPC data  in our fits which also furnish flavour information (unfolded to pure $`\{u,d,s\}`$, $`c`$ and $`b`$ event samples) for $`h^\pm `$ and for $`\pi ^\pm `$ but only inclusive measurements for $`K^\pm `$. Needless to say, the fits will be dominated statistically by the $`Z^0`$-pole measurements of ALEPH and SLD.

Our Ansätze for the fragmentation functions will be the ones of Eqs. (14), (19) for light parton and heavy quark fragmentation, respectively, where we assume the following symmetries and hierarchy

$`D_q^{h^+,h^{}}=D_{\overline{q}}^{h^{},h^+};h=\pi ,K`$ (20)
$`D_d^{\pi ^+}=D_{s,\overline{s}}^{\pi ^+}<D_u^{\pi ^+}=D_{\overline{d}}^{\pi ^+}`$ (21)
$`D_{\overline{u}}^{K^+}=D_{d,\overline{d}}^{K^+}<D_u^{K^+}<D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+},`$ (22)
where Eq. (20) respects charge conjugation and Eqs. (21), (22) should hold from the valence structure of pions and kaons and strangeness suppression. The equality in Eq. (21) seems to be confirmed by ‘leading particle’ measurements  which also indicate the second inequality in Eq. (22) at large $`z`$ from the suppression of secondary $`s\overline{s}`$ formation which is required to form a $`K^+`$ from a $`u`$ but not from an $`\overline{s}`$ quark. Beyond strangeness suppression, in $`\pi ^{+,}`$ or $`K^{+,}`$ production we expect differences from favoured valence-type (e.g. $`u\pi ^+`$) and unfavoured sea-type (e.g. $`s\pi ^+`$) fragmentation channels. Nevertheless, we assume a universal $`z0`$ behaviour, determined by the input parameters $`N_i`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ in (14), This assumption is guided by the idea that the valence enhancement of, say, $`u\pi ^+`$ fragmentation should manifest itself mainly as a ‘leading particle effect’ , parametrized by $`\beta _i`$ in (14) as $`z1`$. We will assume

$$\beta _d^{\pi ^+}=\beta _{s,\overline{s}}^{\pi ^+}=\beta _{u,\overline{d}}^{\pi ^+}+1,\beta _{\overline{u}}^{K^+}=\beta _{d,\overline{d}}^{K^+}=\beta _u^{K^+}+1=\beta _{\overline{s}}^{K^+}+2,$$
(23)
which suppresses $`s\overline{s}`$ formation as well as sea-type fragmentation as $`z1`$. A linear suppression factor $`D_d^{\pi ^+}/D_u^{\pi ^+}=(1z)`$ for sea-type fragmentation is compatible with semi-inclusive deep inelastic measurements  in the range $`0.1<z0.8`$. These measurements seem to prefer a factor $`(cz)`$ with $`c0.25`$ for $`z>0.8`$. The very large $`z`$ behaviour of the $`D_i^h(z)`$ is, however, not very well constrained by $`e^+e^{}`$ measurements and from the theoretical side soft gluon resummations may become necessary . Also, the universality, i.e. process-independence of the FFs in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations and semi-inclusive DIS, respectively, is not yet well settled at large $`z`$ . We therefore keep $`D_d^{\pi ^+}/D_u^{\pi ^+}=(1z)`$ for the time being. Our assumptions in Eq. (23) are compatible with $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(n=2)0.6D_u^{\pi ^+}(n=2)`$ where the second moments are defined below in Eq. (27) and where their ratio can be estimated from EMC one-pion-inclusive data . These data have been analyzed in a parton model context and the extracted scale-independent FFs of  can therefore not be compared to our fit in more detail. The corresponding one-kaon-inclusive measurements in  seem to prefer an even stronger suppression of sea-type fragmentation in kaon formation. For the time being, we do, however, assume the suppression of sea-type channels to be a universal phenomenon modeled by one extra power in $`(1z)`$ for the input FFs. This assumption, as any of our above assumptions on the light flavour structure of annihilation data, must obviously be expected to be violated to some extent if dedicated measurements will become possible.

If we furthermore assume for simplicity

$$D_{c,b}^{h^+}=D_{c,b}^h^{}$$
(24)
to hold in the heavy quark sector888 We would expect Eq. (24) to hold exactly if heavy quark jets were not contaminated by weak decays., we are left with the following set of independent input parametrizations for pions and kaons:

$`D_{u,\overline{d}}^{\pi ^+}(z,\mu _0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_u^{\pi ^+}z^{\alpha _u^{\pi ^+}}(1z)^{\beta _u^{\pi ^+}}`$ (25)
$`D_{s,\overline{s}}^{\pi ^+}(z,\mu _0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_u^{\pi ^+}z^{\alpha _u^{\pi ^+}}(1z)^{\beta _u^{\pi ^+}+1}`$
$`D_g^{\pi ^+}(z,\mu _0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_g^{\pi ^+}z^{\alpha _g^{\pi ^+}}(1z)^{\beta _g^{\pi ^+}}`$
$`D_{c,\overline{c}}^{\pi ^+}(z,m_c^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c^{\pi ^+}z^{\alpha _c^{\pi ^+}}(1z)^{\beta _c^{\pi ^+}}`$
$`D_{b,\overline{b}}^{\pi ^+}(z,m_b^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_b^{\pi ^+}z^{\alpha _b^{\pi ^+}}(1z)^{\beta _b^{\pi ^+}}`$
$`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z,\mu _0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}z^{\alpha _{\overline{s}}^{K^+}}(1z)^{\beta _{\overline{s}}^{K^+}}`$ (26)
$`D_u^{K^+}(z,\mu _0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}z^{\alpha _{\overline{s}}^{K^+}}(1z)^{\beta _{\overline{s}}^{K^+}+1}`$
$`D_{d,\overline{d}}^{K^+}(z,\mu _0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}z^{\alpha _{\overline{s}}^{K^+}}(1z)^{\beta _{\overline{s}}^{K^+}+2}`$
$`D_g^{K^+}(z,\mu _0^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_g^{K^+}z^{\alpha _g^{K^+}}(1z)^{\beta _g^{K^+}}`$
$`D_{c,\overline{c}}^{K^+}(z,m_c^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c^{K^+}z^{\alpha _c^{K^+}}(1z)^{\beta _c^{K^+}}`$
$`D_{b,\overline{b}}^{K^+}(z,m_b^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_b^{K^+}z^{\alpha _b^{K^+}}(1z)^{\beta _b^{K^+}}.`$
In practice, we will express the normalizations $`N_i^h`$ through the physically more interesting contributions to the energy integral in Eq. (10), given by the second Mellin moment

$$D_i^h(n=2,\mu ^2)_0^1𝑑zzD_i^h(z,\mu ^2)$$
(27)
which would be an exact invariant under evolution in $`\mu ^2`$ only if $`D_i^h(n=2,\mu ^2)`$ were the same for all $`i`$ – which is not the case. Anyway, guided by the idea of having an intermediate gluon in the parton cascade connecting a valence- and a sea-type quark we will reduce the parameter space $`\{N_i^{\pi ^{+,},K^{+,}}`$, $`\alpha _i^{\pi ^{+,},K^{+,}}`$, $`\beta _i^{\pi ^{+,},K^{+,}}\}`$ somewhat by demanding999 We do not include $`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}`$ in the second average of Eq. (5) because gluon fragmentation into a $`K^+`$ must be strangeness-suppressed.

$$\begin{array}{c}D_g^{\pi ^+}(n=2,\mu _0^2)=\frac{1}{2}\left[D_s^{\pi ^+}(n=2,\mu _0^2)+D_u^{\pi ^+}(n=2,\mu _0^2)\right]\\ D_g^{K^+}(n=2,\mu _0^2)=\frac{1}{2}\left[D_d^{K^+}(n=2,\mu _0^2)+D_u^{K^+}(n=2,\mu _0^2)\right]\end{array}$$

which reduces the strength of the evolution of the $`D_i^h(n=2,\mu ^2)`$ considerably and does not influence the quality of the fits.

Samples of inclusive charged hadrons $`h^\pm `$ are dominated by charged pions and adding a kaon background is a reasonable approximation for most applications:

$$D_i^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm }D_i^{\pi ^\pm +K^\pm }.$$
(28)
Eq. (28) is, however, not adequate to compare with high statistics measurement from the $`Z^0`$-pole , which are sensitive at the $`𝒪(1\%)`$-level. We will fit a small residue from higher mesons and baryons along

$$D_i^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm }=D_i^{\pi ^\pm +K^\pm }+D_i^{\mathrm{res}.},$$
(29)
using again simple Ansätze as in (14), (19) where we distinguish between light flavours ($`D_u^{\mathrm{res}.}=D_d^{\mathrm{res}.}=D_s^{\mathrm{res}.}`$), heavy charm and bottom quarks ($`D_c^{\mathrm{res}.},D_b^{\mathrm{res}.}`$) and gluons ($`D_g^{\mathrm{res}.}`$) and where $`D_i^{\mathrm{res}.}>0`$ serves as a consistency check. The residual functions amount to a sufficiently small correction not to constrain them any further. For the same reason the approximation that the hadronic residue is half positively, half negatively charged for any parton, i.e. $`D_i^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^{+,}}=D_i^{\pi ^{+,}+K^{+,}}+D_i^{\mathrm{res}.}/2`$ can be safely used for the inclusive sum of only positively (negatively) charged hadrons. Altogether, the Ansätze (25)-(26), (29) with the constraints (5) will be fed into the evolution equation (12) to evaluate the cross section (1) using the factorization theorem (2). The $`\chi ^2`$-minimization algorithm MINUIT  will be used to obtain best possible agreement of the outcome with experimental data  over the range $`0.05<z<0.8`$. Towards low $`z`$ the TPC data for charged pion production  at $`\sqrt{s}=29\mathrm{GeV}`$ lie above the corresponding SLD data  at $`\sqrt{s}=M_Z`$ ($`d\sigma ^{\mathrm{TPC}}|_{z0.1}>d\sigma ^{\mathrm{SLD}}|_{z0.1}`$) which contradicts the established  QCD evolution ($`d\sigma ^{\mathrm{QCD}}/ds|_{z0.1}>0`$) predicting that $`d\sigma `$ increases with $`\sqrt{s}`$ at low $`z`$. Since the SLD measurements are compatible with the LEP data of e.g. ALEPH  we exclude TPC charged pion data below $`z<0.1`$. Data on the longitudinal structure function $`d\sigma _L^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm }`$ available from ALEPH  will be considered for consistency but are not weighted in the fit because we found no significant statistical impact of these data on the fit results. Although one might hope $`d\sigma _L`$ to constrain the gluon fragmentation function because the gluon enters at ‘leading’ $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ a closer NLO inspection  reveals that $`d\sigma _L`$ is dominated by quark fragmentation over most of the $`z`$ range.

## 6 Results and Discussion

The quality of the fit can be inferred from Figs. 1, 2, and 3. All non-$`b`$ event samples can be well described within errors, even the (non-$`b`$-tagged) ALEPH data where the error is dominated by a normalization uncertainty of only 1%. As already noted in  the $`b`$ quark fragmentation spectrum can not be described perfectly well using the simple functional form (19) as input to the evolution. The $`b`$ sets are only reproducible at some 5% accuracy. With the inherent uncertainty due to weak decays we consider this a reasonable precision and do not investigate more involved functional Ansätze for the $`D_b^h`$. Note that the longitudinal cross section (lowest curve in Fig. 1), calculated along , has not been included in the fit.

We list in Table 1 the input functions introduced in Eqs. (25)-(26), (29) along with their contributions to the energy integral (10). As a representative we show the set $`D_i^{\pi ^+}`$ of input fragmentation functions into (positively) charged pions in Fig. 4. Evolution effects to higher scales can be inferred for the low input scale ($`\mu _0^2=0.4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ ) functions $`D_{i=u,d,s,g}^{\pi ^+}`$ from Fig. 5. They are quite dramatic for the gluon FF but less pronounced for the light flavours. For the higher scale ($`m_{c,b}^2`$) input functions $`D_{c,b}^{\pi ^+}`$, not shown in this Figure, the evolution effects are of course still weaker as for $`D_{u,d,s}^{\pi ^+}`$. The peculiar shape of the input $`D_g^{\pi ^+}(z,\mu _0^2)`$ should be traced back to starting the evolution at the low input scale of  thereby maximizing the driving force of $`D_g^{\pi ^+}`$.

From pion dominance we would assume a value of $`D_i^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm }(n=2)2/3`$ and it is interesting that this expectation is roughly confirmed. Also, estimating the contributions from neutral hadrons from $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{f}`$ symmetry results in values for the r.h.s. of Eq. (10) within $`[0.9;1.0]`$ which confirms energy conservation (11) except for $`D_b^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h}`$ which violates (11) to about $`10\%`$. However, as mentioned above, a pure QCD fit to bottom fragmentation is questionable due to weak decay channels which mostly contaminate $`b`$ jets. Furthermore, a physical interpretation of the second moment integrals (27) over the range $`zϵ[0;1]`$ is delicate and may be misleading in general due to a sizable contribution from the perturbatively unstable very low $`z`$ region, as we will discuss in more detail in Section 6.2.

We have also evolved our $`h^\pm `$ fit to a c.m.s. energy of $`\sqrt{s}=161\mathrm{GeV}`$ and compared the evolution to measurements by OPAL  in Fig. 6. The agreement is convincing albeit not too surprising because scaling violations from $`M_Z161\mathrm{GeV}`$ are rather moderate. In Figs. 7 and 8 we compare our fitted fragmentation functions to a previous NLO fit by Binnewies, Kniehl and Kramer (BKK) . These authors confirm QCD scaling violations within a wider range of data, albeit not with the flavour information of Ref.  on the individual $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`K^\pm `$ spectra. Instead, the flavour separation in  was done by fitting to the flavour tagged ALEPH  $`h^\pm `$ data and assuming $`d\sigma ^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm }=d\sigma ^{(\pi +K)^\pm }+f`$ where $`f`$ is a small residual from (anti-)protons as measured in . Besides discrepancies in the barely constrained $`D_g^h`$, our procedure of decoupled fits to $`h^\pm `$, $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`K^\pm `$ data yields quite different results for the individual flavour fragmentation functions into $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`K^\pm `$. Note that the differences of our fit to BKK decrease stepwise the more flavour-inclusive sums of FFs are considered. For the ‘democratic’ FF $`D_{u+d+s+c+b}^{(\pi +K)^\pm }`$ the difference shrinks to at most 4% within $`0.1<z<0.8`$. In any case, the light flavour ($`uds`$) structure is, at present, arbitrary to some extent in our fit as well as the one of Ref.  and differences between the two fits of the individual $`D_{i=u,d,s}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm }`$ estimate the present uncertainty on these functions.

### 6.1 3-Jet Measurements and Gluon Fragmentation; Leading Particle Effects

Complementary to our considerations of one-particle inclusive $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation data, individual quark and gluon fragmentation functions can also be derived from 3-jet topologies  which can at the leading perturbative order be attributed to partonic $`q\overline{q}g`$ configurations and where an experimental fragmentation function can be defined as

$$D_i^h(x_E,\mu ^2)\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{tot}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_i^h}{\mathrm{\Delta }x_E};x_E\frac{E_h}{E_i^{\mathrm{jet}}};$$
(30)
i.e. as the spectrum in energy $`E_h`$ scaled to the jet energy $`E_i^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ of some hadron species $`h`$ distributed inside a jet initiated by a parton $`i`$. In general, QCD scale dependence from leading logarithms can be understood non-covariantly from the transverse phase space volume available for collinear parton emission (splitting process)

$$_{\mu ^2}^{(p_{}^{\mathrm{max}})^2}\frac{dp_{}^2}{p_{}^2}\left[P_{ji}^{(0)}(z)\right]_{p_{}=0}=P_{ji}^{(0)}(z)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p_{}^{\mathrm{max}}}{\mu }\right)^2$$
(31)
and a phase space boundary $`(p_{}^{\mathrm{max}})^2=𝒪(s)`$ leads to the common choice $`\mu =\sqrt{s}=Q`$ for an (one-particle-)inclusive phase space. A different $`p_{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ is, however, induced in a three jet topology from the requirement that parton emission proceeds into a cone the geometry of which is defined by the hadrons which are grouped together as the jet. The analysis in  has demonstrated the fragmentation function defined in Eq. (30) to undergo scaling violations compatible with LO QCD evolution in the jet topology scale $`\mu =E^{\mathrm{jet}}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle to the nearest jet in a 3-jet event. For the time being, these considerations have to be restricted to a LO treatment, since NLO corrections (stemming e.g. from a kinematical configuration where the quark of the $`q\overline{q}g`$ triple emits a high $`p_{}`$ gluon into the jet clustered around the anti-quark) have to our knowledge not been formulated yet and we have therefore refrained from including the data of  in our fits. The gluon fragmentation function $`D_g^h`$ is, however, barely constrained from one-particle-inclusive final state measurements in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation because it enters the cross section in Eqs. (2), (2) only in subleading order $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ and where the leading part is factorized into the evolution (12) where $`D_g^h`$ mixes with the quark singlet fragmentation function $`_qD_q^h`$. Therefore, keeping the vagueness of this comparison in mind we use the 3-jet data of Ref.  to compare our fitted $`D_g^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm }(z,\mu ^2)`$ with, i.e. we compare $`D_g^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm }\left(z=x_E,\mu ^2=E_g^{\mathrm{jet}}^2(40\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^2\right)`$ with the measured $`\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{tot}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{\mathrm{\Delta }x_E}`$ in Eq. (30) for the time being, with the caveat that this cannot give us more than an idea of the compatibility of our NLO gluon FF with 3-jet measurements. For illustration we also include the gluon fragmentation function of  \[using the approximation (28)\] and an independent experimental LO determination from DELPHI  in our comparison. Hence, the discrepancy between the data  and the LO QCD fit to an independent measurement  estimates the accuracy to which the 3-jet data  can be identified with a QCD gluonic fragmentation function.

From Fig. 9 we judge that the result seems promising and that a refinement of the theoretical framework would probably contribute to removing the existing ambiguities in the gluon fragmentation function.

Similar theoretical limitations as outlined above for 3-jet measurements also prevent at present a detailed pQCD analysis of leading particle effects  in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations which are based experimentally on phase space restrictions which do not fully match a one-particle inclusive QCD framework. Qualitatively, the results of the leading particle measurements in  are accounted for by Eq. (23).

### 6.2 Perturbative Stability and Energy Sum Rule

The full NLO framework of Section 2 is expected to yield more reliable and less scale-sensitive results compared to a LO truncation of the perturbation series where the known $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ terms of the coefficient functions (2) are neglected as well as the $`\beta _1`$ contribution to the running of $`\alpha _s`$ and where the omission of the $`P_{ij}^{(1)}`$ parts of the splitting functions reduces the evolution (12) to summing only the most dominantly leading logs $`(\alpha _s/2\pi \mathrm{ln}Q^2)^n`$ for all $`n`$. Still, an accompanying LO fit is - besides future effective LO applications - valuable as a test of the perturbative LO$``$NLO stability which is a delicate requirement for perturbative (QCD) approaches to strong interaction phenomena \- especially if the perturbative QCD dynamics is supposed to set in at the rather low input scale in (14) taken from . For infrared unsafe quantities - such as the one-particle-inclusive spectra considered here - the nonperturbative parameters have to be redefined at each perturbative order since they replace new infrared sensitive terms of the factorized perturbation series at any order. We have accordingly performed an accompanying LO fit following exactly the same lines as the NLO fit described above and resulting in Table 2.

In order not to overload the logarithmic-scale figures of the preceding sections with narrow pairs (LO, NLO) of lines and instead of repeating the details for the LO fitting procedure we rather concentrate in this separate Section on two LO$``$NLO issues worth mentioning.

As a representative we will consider our sets of pionic fragmentation functions. In Fig. 10 we show $`K`$-factors for $`d\sigma `$ in Eq. (1), $`Kd\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}^h/d\sigma _{\mathrm{LO}}^h`$, as well as for each flavour contribution

$$𝒟_q^{\pi ^\pm }(z,Q^2)\left[\left(D_q^{\pi ^\pm }+D_{\overline{q}}^{\pi ^\pm }\right)C_{T+L}^q\right](z,Q^2)+\left[D_g^{\pi ^\pm }\overline{C}_{T+L}^g\right](z,Q^2)$$
(32)
where $`\overline{C}_{T+L}^gC_{T+L}^g\times [\sigma _0^q/_q^{}\sigma _0^q^{}]`$ is the $`C_{T+L}^g`$ of Eq. (2) ‘per flavour’ and where $``$ denotes a convolution integral as in Eq. (2). Note that the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ terms of Eq. (2) entering Eq. (32) in NLO are neglected in LO where only the $`\delta (1z)`$ term of $`C_T^q`$ contributes. The vertical lines in Fig. 10 indicate the range in $`z`$ where the fit is rather well determined, where $`z>0.05`$ excludes the perturbatively unstable  low $`z`$ region and where for $`z0.7`$ statistics drop rather low (only one data point for $`z>0.7`$). Hence, the spread of the curves towards large $`z`$ should not be taken as a perturbative instablitiy but attributed mainly to the decreasing experimental statistics which do not determine the FFs very well  in the $`z1`$ hard fragmentation limit and where poorly defined $`\chi ^2`$ minima may easily fake perturbative instability in decoupled LO$``$NLO fits. It is therefore reassuring to observe that the flavour-inclusive $`d\sigma `$ has a $`K`$-factor closer to one than the individual flavour-contributions where the latter have poorer experimental statistics and larger systematic errors than the former. On the other hand, the unstable $`z0`$ behaviour is unaffected by the choice of input parameters and can be traced back to including/omitting the NLO pieces $`P_{ij}^{(1)}`$ of the splitting functions in the NLO/LO evolution. Indeed, our choice $`z_{\mathrm{min}}=0.05`$ appears already to be on the edge of perturbative reliability. The far steeper LO evolution has profound impact on the second moments in Table 2 which violate the energy sum rule (11). We demonstrate this point in Fig. 11 where we show the truncated moment

$$\frac{_{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^1𝑑zz𝒟_u^{\pi ^+}(z,Q^2)}{𝒟_u^{\pi ^+}(n=2,Q^2)}$$
(33)
in LO and NLO. It can be seen that the full second moment receives in LO a sizable contribution from the unstable $`z<0.05`$ region where the evolution generates a too steep spectrum resulting in large second moments violating (11). On the other hand, in NLO the second moment, truncated at $`z_{\mathrm{min}}=0.05`$, is rather close to its untruncated value leading to NLO moments that compare rather well with (11). One must note, however, that the choice $`z_{\mathrm{min}}=0.05`$ is rather arbitrary and that the region $`zϵ[0.0;0.05]`$ does not contribute much in NLO partly because $`𝒟_q^{\pi ^\pm }(z,Q^2)`$ turns unphysically negative at very small $`z`$ due to the timelike NLO evolution . This observation renders the energy sum rule (11) a delicate concept for perturbative QCD FFs and we believe it should not be considered within this theoretical framework unless the $`z0`$ behaviour of FFs is under better control.

## 7 Conclusions

Within the radiative parton model  we have fitted parton fragmentation functions to identified hadron ($`\pi ^\pm `$, $`K^\pm `$) and inclusive charged particle spectra measured at the $`Z^0`$ pole . Scaling violations were properly taken into account by simultaneously fitting lower energy TPC data. Special attention was paid to the flavour structure of the parton FFs where a collinearly resummed RGE formalism was argued to be adequate for the treatment of heavy quark contributions. In the light quark sector we made power law assumptions which qualitatively establish a physical hierarchy among the FFs which is guided by the ideas of valence enhancement and strangeness suppression and which is observed in leading particle measurements. It would be desirable to interpret these measurements - as well as gluon-jet measurements from 3-jet topologies - in more quantitative detail within the language of NLO QCD fragmentation functions. A corresponding framework has, however, to our knowledge not been developed yet. Despite the high precision data available, the individual $`D_{i=u,d,s,g,c,b}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }h^\pm ,\pi ^\pm ,K^\pm }`$ are therefore still rather uncertain. To estimate the present theoretical uncertainty we compared our fit to the one of  and found sizable deviations. An inclusive sum over the distinct flavours is, however, rather reliably determined for not too large $`z`$. The missing experimental information at large $`z`$ may fake perturbative instability in independent LO$``$NLO fits manifesting, however, just the fact that the FFs are still unknown in the $`z1`$ hard fragmentation limit. We also considered the contributions of the individual FFs to the energy integral in (10) and found reasonable values in NLO while the steeper LO evolution requires too large moments. The instability of the timelike evolution at low $`z`$ makes, however, energy conservation a concept which may hardly be useful within perturbative QCD even for NLO FFs.

A FORTRAN package of the LO and NLO $`D_i^h`$-functions will be obtainable upon request.

## Acknowledgements

We thank E. Reya and M. Glück for suggestions and many instructive discussions, I. Schienbein for helpful discussions and a careful reading, and W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg and P. Uwer for helpful correspondences. We are thankful to W. Hofmann for making Tables of the flavour tagged TPC data accessible to us. The work has been supported in part by the ‘Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie’, Bonn.

## Appendix:
$`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ Coefficient Functions for One Hadron Inclusive $`e^+e^{}`$ Annihilation

The $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ coefficient functions for One Hadron Inclusive $`e^+e^{}`$ Annihilation as introduced in Section 1 read :

$`c_T^q(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\zeta ^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1\zeta )}{1\zeta }}\right]_+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\zeta }}\right]_++2{\displaystyle \frac{1+\zeta ^2}{1\zeta }}\mathrm{ln}\zeta `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1\zeta )+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}})\delta (1\zeta )+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\zeta ^2}{1\zeta }}\right]_+,`$
$`c_T^g(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1\zeta )^2}{\zeta }}\left(\mathrm{ln}(1\zeta )+2\mathrm{ln}\zeta +\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}}\right)4{\displaystyle \frac{1\zeta }{\zeta }},`$
$`c_L^q(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`c_L^g(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{1\zeta }{\zeta }}.`$ (34)
The parton model, i.e. $`𝒪(\alpha _s^0)`$ electroweak cross section $`\sigma _0^q`$ for producing a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation are given by

$$\sigma _0^q(s)=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{s}\left[e_q^2+2e_qv_ev_f\rho _1(s)+(v_e^2+a_e^2)(v_q^2+a_q^2)\rho _2(s)\right]$$
(35)
with the QED fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ and where

$`\rho _1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{s(M_Z^2s)}{(M_Z^2s)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}},`$
$`\rho _2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{(M_Z^2s)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}},`$ (36)
and the electric charges $`e_i`$ and electroweak vector ($`v_i`$) and axial ($`a_i`$) couplings are listed in Table 3 according to their standard model values:

$`v_i`$ $`=`$ $`T_{3,i}2e_i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$
$`a_i`$ $`=`$ $`T_{3,i},`$ (37)
where $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ is the weak isospin and $`\theta _W`$ the Weinberg angle.

The Mellin transforms of the $`c_{T,L}^{q,g}`$ in Eq. (34) read

$`c_T^q(n,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`5\mathrm{S}_2(n)+\mathrm{S}_1^2(n)+\mathrm{S}_1(n)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(n+1)}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(n+1)^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(n+1)}}2\mathrm{S}_1(n)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}}`$
$`c_T^g(n,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[\mathrm{S}_1(n){\displaystyle \frac{n^2+n+2}{(n1)n(n+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(n+1)^2}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{n^2+n+2}{n(n^21)}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}}`$
$`c_L^q(n,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}`$
$`c_L^g(\zeta ,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu _F^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n1)n}},`$ (38)
where the sums

$$\mathrm{S}_k(n)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{j^k}$$
(39)
have to be analytically continued  to the complex $`n`$ plane

$`\mathrm{S}_1(n)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _E+\psi (n+1),\gamma _E=0.577216`$
$`\mathrm{S}_2(n)`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta (2)\psi ^{}(n+1),\zeta (2)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}`$ (40)
with the help of logarithmic derivatives of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function $`\psi ^{(k)}(n)d^{(k+1)}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)/dn^{k+1}`$. Analogously to the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ contribution $`F_L`$ to the deep inelastic electron nucleon cross section, the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^1)`$ contribution from longitudinally polarized virtual bosons to the fragmentation spectrum in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations is scheme independent and finite. The $`c_L^{q,g}`$ do therefore not depend on the factorization scale $`\mu _F^2`$, contrary to the $`c_T^{q,g}`$ which are infrared safe only after factorization of the collinear singularities.


format: text

text:
# Design Considerations for Large Detector Arrays on Submillimeter-wave Telescopes

## 1 INTRODUCTION

It will be possible in the coming decade to construct arrays of submillimeter-wave detectors having $`10^3`$ to $`10^4`$ pixel elements. This is an exciting prospect because there is important science to be done at these wavelengths, observational work that requires deep imaging capability over large areas of sky. There is, however, a problem: an array of $`N\times N`$ pixels requires a telescope whose field of view is larger than $`N`$ beams in diameter, and no such submillimeter-wave telescope exists for $`N>25`$. Design of such a telescope is a novel optical problem which differs significantly from the optical design problems encountered for visual wavelength telescopes, essentially because submillimeter-wave telescope apertures are only $`10^5`$ wavelengths across.

The problem can be summarized thus:

1. An aperture $`D10\mathrm{m}`$ is needed to provide the sensitivity and resolution to meet science goals.
2. If a detector array has $`100\times 100`$ pixels, the telescope field of view must be at least $`\sqrt{2}100\lambda /D0.8^{}`$ in diameter.
3. Visual wavelength telescopes 10 m in diameter don’t have well corrected fields of view which are $`0.8^{}`$ in diameter because of optical aberrations. Visual wavelength telescopes can feed very large CCD arrays, but only because they have $`D/\lambda >10^6`$. Many pixels then fit within a field of view that is $`0.3^{}`$ in diameter.
4. Radio and submillimeter telescopes 10 m in diameter with fields of view $`0.8^{}`$ in diameter have large and mechanically awkward secondary and ancillary optics.

This paper discusses aspects of this problem and offers some design solutions. In §2, the science goals are discussed, to indicate the type of observation needed. In §3, submillimeter telescope designs are compared in sensitivity and resolution, to show that design and construction of a wide field submillimeter telescope is desirable. The design of wide-field submillimeter telescopes having one or more optical elements is treated in §4.

## 2 SUBMM SCIENCE WITH LARGE DETECTOR ARRAYS

#### Primary cosmic microwave background anisotropy at arcminute scales.

Current CMBR observations show a clear maximum in the anisotropy spectrum at a spatial scale near 1. The damping tail region at arcminute scales provides a test of the acoustic oscillation model. The shape of the damping tail is a manifestation of the speed at which the recombination process occurs, and the degree to which recombination is mixed with re-ionization. To study primary anisotropy at arcminute angular scales, it will be important to simultaneously understand the secondary contribution to anisotropy due to Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (S-Z) distortion in galaxy clusters between the recombination last scattering surface and the observer. The 200-300 GHz range of frequencies are needed to allow spectral separation of thermal S-Z effect from primary anisotropy. Since there are $`10^4`$ to $`10^5`$ visible clusters of galaxies, a small beam size is needed at 200-300 GHz to locate the cluster-free regions of sky that will be observed for primary anisotropy studies (see Figure 1).

#### Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect in known clusters.

As CMBR photons travel from the surface of last scattering to the observer, secondary anisotropies can arise due to the interaction of the CMBR photons with intervening matter. Of particular interest is the S-Z effect, which occurs when CMBR photons travel through a cluster of galaxies. Approximately 10% of the total mass of rich clusters of galaxies is in the form of hot ($`10^8\mathrm{K}`$) ionized plasma. Compton scattering of CMBR photons by electrons in this intra-cluster plasma can result in an optical depth as high as 0.02, resulting in a distortion of the CMBR spectrum at the mK level.

The thermal component of the S-Z effect can be used in combination with X-ray data to provide a measure of the Hubble constant ($`H_0`$). In addition, when combined with a measurement of electron temperature, the ratio of the kinematic and thermal component amplitudes provides a direct measurement of the cluster’s peculiar velocity relative to the rest frame of the CMBR. The observed surface brightness difference of both the thermal and kinematic components is independent of the cluster redshift, as long as the cluster is resolved. Clusters are large objects, typically of order $`1`$Mpc, and subtend an arcminute or more at any redshift, so all clusters will be resolved with a 10m telescope. Accurate S-Z measurements can be made throughout the Universe, all the way back to the epoch of formation of the hot intra-cluster gas.

#### Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect blank-sky survey.

The fast survey capability of a wide-field submillimeter telescope will allow detection of S-Z effect in blank-sky searches. Detections of small-scale decrements in CMBR intensity not associated with known clusters may have been discovered by Ryle Telescope and VLA  observations. These may be due to the S-Z effect in very distant clusters. As shown in Figure 1, serendipitous detection of distant clusters will necessarily occur in studies of arcminute-scale CMBR primary anisotropy. These detections, both with and without additional X-ray data, allow powerful tests of cosmological models and galaxy formation theories. In particular, the cluster counts are sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and provide an independent check of type Ia supernova results.

S-Z effect also results from low density, warm baryonic gas between clusters. Models of structure formation predict that most of the baryonic matter in the Universe is located in intra-cluster filaments which are responsible for the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest seen in quasar spectra. The S-Z effect caused by the filaments can be directly imaged, permitting study of the filaments in the spaces between quasars.

#### Continuum detection of high redshift protogalaxies not detectable in the visible or near-IR.

Most of the luminosity resulting from the collapse energy of galaxies and the first generations of stars may not appear at visual or near-infrared wavelengths (even in the rest frame of the distant galaxy), but may instead be reradiated by dust. Detection of the cosmic far-infrared background radiation (CFIRBR) is evidence that most of the energy released in the initial collapse of galaxies and the creation of metals appears at the current epoch as submillimeter-wave radiation. In a recent review of work on the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), P. Madau wrote that “the poorly constrained amount of starlight that was absorbed by dust and reradiated in the far-IR at early epochs represents one of the biggest uncertainties in our understanding of the evolution of luminous matter in the universe” .

Within the next decade, submillimeter studies of known sources at high redshift will be carried out with powerful interferometer arrays, the SMA and the ALMA, at least at longer submillimeter wavelengths. A fundamental contribution of wide-field single dish submm telescopes will be to detect and locate high redshift sources by studying the structure of the CFIRBR on a scale of $`10^{\prime \prime }`$. Such work has already begun on Mauna Kea. At 850$`\mu `$mwavelength, SCUBA has observed a 10 square arcminute field to an rms noise level of 2 mJy beam-1 and a 6 square arcminute field centered on the HDF to an rms noise level of 0.5 mJy beam-1. These surveys show detected source number densities of about 1 per square arcminute, where at least some sources are at $`z0.3`$ to $`4`$ and have inconspicuous (or possibly no) optical counterparts. Some models of protogalaxies consistent with a protogalactic origin for the CFIRBR predict hundreds of sources per square degree which are detectable at the $`1`$ mJy level in the submillimeter, but which have optical counterparts below the detection limit of the HST HDF image.

## 3 TELESCOPE SENSITIVITY

Table 1 shows the continuum sensitivity and beam size of submillimeter-wave telescopes and illustrates the strength of wide field single dish for deep continuum surveys. The NEFD values in this table for each of the instruments originate if possible from the scientific group operating or proposing that instrument; they are a mixed bag of actual results on the telescope and calculations, some of which are based on optimistic assumptions. A surprising implication of Table 1 is that a wide field single dish is faster at submillimeter detection of protogalaxies than the ALMA and FIRST. Is this plausible, given that these instruments are at least an order of magnitude more expensive? Suppose we are conducting a large-scale survey at $`\lambda 450\mu \text{m}`$ for point-source objects at an rms flux density $`F_{limit}`$. The time required for $`1\sigma `$ detection in one pixel of a map of the sky is given by the radiometer equation

$$t_{limit}=\frac{(2kT_{sys})^2}{B(\eta AF_{limit})^2}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{N}EFD}{F_{limit}}\right)^2,$$
(1)
where

$$T_{sys}=\left(T_{receiver}+\eta T_{atmosphere}[1\mathrm{e}^\tau ]+[1\eta ]T_{ambient}\right)\frac{\mathrm{e}^\tau }{\eta }$$

is the atmosphere-corrected effective system temperature, $`A`$ is the total collecting area of the telescope, $`\eta `$ is telescope efficiency, $`\tau `$ is the atmospheric opacity at the elevation angle of the observation, and $`B`$ is the pre-detection bandwidth. $`T_{atmosphere}T_{ambient}200\mathrm{K}`$ at the South Pole and $`260\mathrm{K}`$ at mid-latitude sites. Here we neglect polarization, relative sideband gain, the distinction between telescope efficiency and aperture efficiency, digitization and data processing corrections: these introduce factors of order unity which have been considered in Table 1 but which can be neglected in the present plausibility argument. We assume that the radiometer is switched rapidly enough to filter out sky noise. Equation 1 is then approximately correct regardless of whether the system is heterodyne or bolometric, or whether the collecting area, $`A`$, is arranged in multiple antennas or a single dish. All telescopes will be designed for reasonably high efficiency, $`\eta 0.9`$. Future submillimeter-wave systems will be background-limited, meaning that the $`T_{receiver}`$ term will be smaller than the atmospheric ($`T_{atmosphere}`$) and telescope background ($`T_{ambient}`$) terms. When $`\tau >1`$, as it often is for ground-based submillimeter-wave observations, the opacity-correction term, $`e^\tau `$, dominates all other effects: $`T_{sys}\mathrm{e}^\tau (T_{atmosphere}+T_{receiver}/\eta ),`$ and $`t_{limit}\mathrm{e}xp(2\tau )`$; in this case relatively small improvements in $`\tau `$ make a large difference. At $`\lambda 450\mu \text{m}`$ and $`45^{}`$ elevation the 25% opacity values in winter are $`\tau <0.36`$ at the South Pole and $`\tau <0.79`$ at Chajnantor. When $`\tau `$ is small or zero, for example in space or on the ground at centimeter wavelengths, then the telescope background $`(1\eta )T_{ambient}`$ dominates. For a single dish located at the South Pole, $`T_{sys}1000\mathrm{K}`$ (a value that is often surpassed on AST/RO), for the ALMA, $`T_{sys}2500\mathrm{K}`$ (this high system temperature is due mostly to atmospheric opacity), and for FIRST, $`T_{sys}50\mathrm{K}`$ (the low background of a cooled telescope in space). For the wide-field single dish $`B100\mathrm{GHz}`$, for FIRST, $`B200\mathrm{GHz}`$, whereas for the ALMA $`B16\mathrm{GHz}`$. We therefore conclude that the time required to achieve a $`F_{limit}=1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{y}`$ noise level, $`t_{\mathrm{mJy}}`$, is about four hours for the wide-field single dish, forty minutes for FIRST, and one minute for the ALMA. To reach an rms noise of, say, 0.1 mJy would require 100 times longer integration in each case. ALMA and FIRST are both faster than the ground-based single dish at detecting individual sources.

Now we note that the area of sky covered by the field of view during this integration time, the “instantaneous sky coverage” ($`S`$ in Table 1, see Figure 3), is very different for the three telescopes. For the wide field 10m, $`S`$ is over an order-of-magnitude larger than FIRST and nearly four orders-of-magnitude larger than the ALMA (see Figure 3). An efficient configuration of $`n`$ diffraction-limited detectors (bolometer pixels or heterodyne receivers) on a telescope of total area $`A`$ will yield an instantaneous sky coverage of $`S\frac{n\lambda ^2}{\eta A}.`$ The speed at which the the sky can be mapped is $`S/t_{limit}`$. A figure of merit for blank sky surveys can therefore be defined:

$$\mathrm{s}urveyspeed\mathrm{f}igureofmerit\frac{nB\eta A}{T_{sys}^2}.$$
(2)
The trade-offs in survey speed between a wide-field single-dish telescope and an array instrument like the ALMA can be estimated by evaluating Equation 2. Suppose the single dish telescope has a focal plane array containing $`N\times N`$ detectors, and the interferometer consists of $`E`$ antenna elements, each with the same diameter as the single-dish telescope, and each having one heterodyne receiver. Then $`S_{\mathrm{d}ish}=N^2S_{\mathrm{i}nterferometer},`$ $`A_{\mathrm{i}nterferometer}=EA_{\mathrm{d}ish},`$ $`n_{\mathrm{i}nterferometer}=E,`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{d}ish}=N^2.`$ If the two instruments have the same $`T_{sys}`$, the single dish telescope will be faster in survey mode by a factor

$$\frac{N^2}{E^2}\frac{B_{\mathrm{d}ish}}{B_{\mathrm{i}nterferometer}}.$$

Comparing the wide-field 10m with the ALMA, $`N100`$, $`E80`$, and $`B_{\mathrm{d}ish}/B_{\mathrm{i}nterferometer}8`$ . The single-dish 10m is at least an order-of-magnitude faster than the ALMA at submillimeter-wave sky surveys. It might be argued that $`N^2`$ detectors represents a lot of complex electronics, and that for large numbers it may be easier to build $`E`$ whole antennas than $`N^2`$ detectors—however, any interferometer will necessarily have $`E^2`$ correlators; these correlators are likely to be more complex than the photolithographically-produced detector plus amplifier plus multiplex needed for each of the $`N^2`$ pixels of a bolometer array. Table 2 shows the number of detectors, $`n`$, in some current and proposed millimeter and submillimeter instruments. The large jump in $`n`$ between the current version of BOLOCAM and SAFIRE reflects the development of cryogenic multiplex readouts. Compared to single-dish maps, maps made by the interferometric instrument have much higher resolution and positional accuracy, but the rate at which the maps are made is at least an order-of-magnitude slower and the initial capital cost is at least an order-of-magnitude higher. It is a waste of scarce resources to map large areas of blank sky with the ALMA. Note too that at a survey speed of $`2.4\times 10^3`$ hours per square degree, the ALMA will not be able to survey more than a hundred square degrees during its operating lifetime, but there are many thousands of square degrees containing potentially interesting sources. The best strategy to detect and study protogalaxies is to survey the sky quickly with the relatively inexpensive single dish and then study the detected sources in detail with the ALMA.

For speed and coverage in deep surveys, a wide-field telescope can pursue an optimization strategy:

1. Build a reflector whose beamsize is equal to the spatial scale of interest.
2. Make the telescope losses, blockage and spillover as small as possible at the frequencies of interest.
3. Make the field of view as large as possible.
4. Populate that field of view with as many broadband detectors as possible.
5. Place the telescope at the best possible site.

Such a wide-field single dish is an “optimal design” for the discovery of objects at spatial frequencies near $`\frac{1}{2}D/\lambda `$.

## 4 Telescope Design

The physical size of a single pixel in an array of bolometer detectors must be half a wavelength or more in order to efficiently couple power into the detector. If the pixel size is as small as a wavelength, the beam impinging on the bolometer array must be highly convergent (have an $`f/dF_{\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟}}<1`$), since the beamwaist diameter at the detector is $`\lambda F_{\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟}}/\pi `$. A submillimeter-wave detector array containing $`N^2`$ pixels will necessarily be $`NF_{\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟}}/\pi `$ wavelengths across, or about 3 cm for a $`100\times 100`$ array. Suppose the telescope which will feed the array has an aperture $`D`$ and an effective focal length $`f_e`$. Then a diffraction-limited beam on the sky will have an angular width of $`\lambda /D`$. The telescope field of view must be about $`2N`$ beams across to fully feed the array and allow for beam chopping. Let the desired field of view be $`\zeta N\lambda /D`$ where $`\zeta 1.5`$ is an arbitrary parameter to allow for illumination of the corners of the array and the extra field of view needed for chopping. At the surface of the detector, this field of view has a physical size $`\zeta N\lambda f_e/D=\zeta N\lambda F_e`$. The telescope must provide a field of view at least this large such that aberrations are small compared to the pixel size.

### 4.1 Prime focus

A prime focus feed is the simplest possible design. The detector array is designed for a focal ratio $`F_{\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟}}`$, so perhaps it can be matched by simply placing it at the focus of a single reflector having a focal ratio $`Ff/D=F_{\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟}}`$. This will, in fact, match the central pixel and provide the correct plate scale (overall magnification of the telescope in, e.g., millimeters per arcsecond) to match the immediately surrounding pixels to adjacent beams on the sky.

A field of view the size of the array must have sufficiently small aberrations. The dominant aberrations for a single paraboloidal reflector are coma and astigmatism. The angular coma is $`\theta _c=\frac{\theta }{16F^2},`$ and the angular astigmatism is $`\theta _a=\frac{\theta ^2}{2F},`$ where $`\theta _c`$ and $`\theta _a`$ are the angular blur due to coma and astigmatism for a beam at angle $`\theta `$ from the center of the field. The angular blur due to diffraction is $`\theta _d=\lambda /D,`$ so the coma blur is less than the diffraction blur for field angles $`\theta <16F^2\lambda /D,`$ and the astigmatic blur is less than the diffraction blur for field angles $`\theta <\sqrt{2F\lambda /D}.`$ These aberrations place two constraints on the mirror optics:

$$F>\sqrt{\frac{\zeta N}{32}},$$
(3)
and

$$f=FD>\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^2N^2\lambda .$$
(4)
For a submillimeter-wave telescope operating with a large detector array, Equation 3 requires that $`F>2.2`$, while Equation 4 requires that $`f>10\mathrm{m}`$. A reflector satisfying these constraints will have an acceptable image, but it makes for a telescope design with five disadvantages:

1. The $`F`$ number is much bigger than the values usually chosen for radiotelescopes, resulting in a large, elongated structure. Most radiotelescopes have $`F0.5`$ for the primary mirror.
2. Since there is no chopper mirror, there is no way to rapidly switch the position of the array on the sky—the entire telescope must be moved.
3. The detector package must tilt with the movement of the telescope. If the telescope system is ground-based, the direction of gravity will rotate by $`90^{}`$ with respect to the detector and its cryogenics system as the telescope moves in elevation.
4. The detector package blocks the primary mirror.
5. Since $`F_{\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟}}=F>2.2`$, the size of the detector package and the size of the opening into the cryogenics will be larger than optimal.

Problem 4, the blockage of the primary, can be avoided by using an off-axis section of the parabola. This brings with it additional problems of cross-polarization and asymmetric illumination, but for a system with large $`F`$ number these will not be large effects. An off-axis single reflector has about the same aberrations as an on-axis reflector with the same focal length and twice the aperture, so the $`F`$ number of the off-axis system must be about twice as large as the value given by Equation 3.

Problems 2 and 3 could be obviated by placing the telescope in space. Imagine a spacecraft with a large submillimeter detector package fed by a $`2`$ m diameter off-axis mirror with a $`10`$ m focal length. This instrument would scan in a “stare” mode and would produce maps with a resolution about $`1^{}`$.

A possible variant of the single mirror offset telescope is a primary mirror with a flat or nearly flat secondary. This mirror could fold the beam back below the primary mirror and act as a chopper—a kind of folded Newtonian. Such a mirror might also act as an aspheric corrector, providing a better compromise between spherical aberration and coma, or providing correction for a spherical primary.

### 4.2 Cassegrain and Gregorian designs

The addition of a second curved mirror brings considerable additional freedom and improved performance to telescope design. Cassegrain designs, with a concave primary and a convex secondary, are ubiquitously successful from visual to radio wavelengths. The reasons for this success differ at different wavelengths. At radio wavelengths, the design criterion is to provide high aperture efficiency and minimal blockage for a single beam or a few beams near the center of the field of view. At visual wavelengths, the design criterion is to provide a field of view about $`10^{}`$ across which is free of coma, the otherwise dominant aberration—this is accomplished by the aplanatic Cassegrain (or Ritchey-Chretien) which reduces coma to less than a second of arc at the expense of increased image curvature. The submm telescope problem is novel because a large field of view is needed in a situation where diffraction dominates the classical aberrations, and it is curvature of field rather than coma which tends to limit the field of view. These issues were discussed at an earlier SPIE conference.

A telescope having only two mirrors would not be used to feed a submillimeter-wave detector array directly. Large submillimeter-wave detector arrays require a small value for $`F_{\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟}}`$ ($`<3`$) so that the detector size is manageable, whereas two mirror telescopes have large values of $`F_e`$ ( $`1.5(\mathrm{focal}\mathrm{length}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{primary})/(\mathrm{diameter}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{secondary})30`$). At least a few additional optical elements are needed as focal reducers. If the primary and secondary produce a sufficiently corrected image with a suitably large field of view, additional optics can feed that image onto the array.

Let $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ be radius of curvature at the vertex of the primary and secondary mirrors, respectively. The focal length of the primary mirror is half the radius of curvature, $`f_1=R_1/2`$. Let $`m2f_e/R_1`$ be the magnification of the secondary. If the secondary is made as small as it can be without vignetting the center of the field, then the ratio of the diameter of the secondary, $`D_2`$, to the diameter of the primary, $`D_1`$, is $`k\frac{D_2}{D_1}=\frac{R_2}{R_1}\frac{m1}{m}.`$ The distance from the back of the primary to the focus of the two-mirror system is $`f_1\beta f_1[k(m+1)1],`$ where $`\beta `$ is the “scaleless backfocal distance” and is either positive or negative depending on whether the focus is behind or before the primary mirror. These variables and their sign conventions are as defined by Schroeder.

Consider first a conventional on-axis design. The beam passes through a hole in the primary mirror, and the hole in the primary should be no larger than $`D_2`$, the diameter of the secondary. The diameter of the image is

$$D_i\zeta N\frac{\lambda }{D_1}f_e=\zeta N\lambda mF_1.$$
(5)
To avoid vignetting, $`D_i`$ must be smaller than or equal to the diameter of the central hole in the primary, which must be smaller than or equal to the diameter of the secondary, $`D_2`$. But as $`D_2`$ becomes smaller, $`|m|`$ becomes larger and $`D_i`$ becomes larger. The best that can be done is to make $`D_2`$, $`D_i`$, and the hole in the primary the same size. Letting $`D_2=D_i`$ in Equation 5 and substituting for $`k`$ and $`m`$ yields a quadratic equation that can be solved for $`D_2`$:

$$D_2D_i=\frac{1}{2}\zeta N\lambda F_1\left[\sqrt{\frac{4(1+\beta )D_1}{\zeta N\lambda F_1}+1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\right]\sqrt{(1+\beta )\zeta N\lambda f_1}.$$
(6)
This is a minimum size for the secondary mirror of a two mirror telescope to feed an $`N\times N`$ array at wavelength $`\lambda `$. For a 10m diameter $`F_1=0.4`$ telescope feeding an $`N=100`$ array at $`\lambda =1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}`$, $`D_2>1.1\mathrm{m}`$. This is considerably larger than the secondary mirrors usually fitted to Cassegrain systems. In order to feed a $`100\times 100`$ array, the CSO and JCMT would have to be refitted with secondary mirrors (and primary mirror openings) which are about twice as large as the current ones. Antennas designed as elements of interferometric arrays are particularly bad, since they are highly optimized to feed a single beam with high efficiency and therefore have minimal secondaries.

#### Ancillary optics.

If the value of $`D_2`$ satisfies Equation 6, it is possible to achieve a $`1^{}`$ diameter field of view at $`\lambda =1\mathrm{mm}`$ with a $`D_1=10\mathrm{m}`$ Cassegrain or Gregorian. The dominant aberration is curvature of field; such a telescope has a surface of best images which resembles a 3 steradian cap on a 1.5 m diameter sphere (concave toward the secondary in a Cassegrain and convex toward the secondary in a Gregorian).

Additional optics are needed to match a Cassegrain or Gregorian focus to a detector array, and these can be used to correct some of the deficiencies in the quality of focus. In particular a field-flattening mirror is a mirror placed at the telescope focus which has the same direction of curvature as the focal plane. The surfaces of best images will be flattened when the beam is refocused by subsequent optics,

The ancillary optics in a wide field telescope of conventional telescope design will be large—one to three meters in diameter, in order to handle an image as large as that given by Equation 6, and the further behind the primary backup structure they are located, the larger they must be (since $`D_i`$ increases with increasing $`\beta `$). This creates problems in structural design. Large cavities with big mirrors need to be located within the support structure of primary mirror. If the telescope has a Nasmyth focus, the hole in the elevation bearing must be large.

#### Offset optics.

An off-axis design for the primary mirror helps solve this problem. If the receiver does not block the primary, then $`\beta `$ can be negative, placing the focus of the secondary in front of but below the primary. This reduces the overall focal length, $`f_e`$ and thereby reduces the size of the image. The ancillary optics are then both smaller and removed from the region behind the primary mirror. Figure 4 shows an off-axis Gregorian design that provides for beam chopping and has a $`1^{}`$ usable field of view. This design is very nearly a $`1/10`$ model of the Green Bank Telescope, because it solves similar design problems at approximately $`1/10`$ the wavelength.

There is no optical penalty for using offset optics. Dragone has shown that if the offset angles in an offset two mirror telescope are chosen correctly, then aberrations and cross-polarization effects in that offset telescope are the same as those in a conventional on-axis antenna with the same diameter and focal length. The beam efficiency, aperture efficiency, and sidelobe levels in the off-axis antenna are better than those in the on-axis antenna, because in the on-axis design there will be diffraction, reflection, and blockage from the secondary mirror and its supports. An off-axis two mirror telescope with correctly chosen offset angles will always be optically superior to a similar on-axis configuration.

Avoidance of internal reflections is beneficial to the design of submillimeter-wave telescopes. Any receiver or detector placed at the focus of the instrument will necessarily emit into the telescope some amount of submillimeter-wave power in the band of interest. If there is a reflection in the system, for example at the secondary mirror some 6 meters distant, then a resonant cavity is formed whose modes are spaced at roughly 25 MHz intervals. Also critical to submillimeter-wave telescope design is minimization of variations in antenna thermal emissions as a function of chopper angle. Chopper offsets can more easily be minimized in an off-axies design. In an off-axis Gregorian the placement of the chopper at an image of the primary allows the beam to be steered on the sky without changing the illumination of the primary.

It is more expensive to build a telescope off-axis. Compared to an on-axis design of the same aperture, there are twice as many types of surface panels for the primary mirror. The primary backup structure is less symmetric, making the structural design for homology more complex and increasing the number of dissimilar parts. These detriments are mitigated by the modern use of computers in design and manufacturing. A detailed consideration of the design problems for on-axis systems will likely show that for a given cost, an offset design can provide more pixels with a greater effective collecting area than an on-axis design.

## 5 CONCLUSION

The salient results of this investigation are:

1. There is important science to be done which requires large-scale imaging at submillimeter wavelengths.
2. Single-dish telescopes with large detector arrays are faster and more cost effective at mapping large areas of sky than are other telescope types. Such instruments are highly complementary to interferometric arrays, detecting sources to be studied in detail by interferometeric techniques.
3. None of the existing designs for submillimeter-wave telescopes are capable of feeding large detector arrays. In particular, the secondary mirror must be large.
4. It is nevertheless possible to design a telescope which will accommodate large detector arrays while providing for beam chopping, if the design starts with a clean slate.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank J. B. Peterson and C. Cantalupo of Carnegie-Mellon U. for Figures 1 and 2. This work was supported in part by the Smithsonian Institution and in part by the National Science Foundation under a cooperative agreement with the Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica (CARA), grant number NSF DPP 89-20223. CARA is a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center.