Comment on "QCD factorization with multihadron fragmentation functions"

TL;DR

This paper clarifies the relationship between recent works on multihadron fragmentation functions, reaffirming the standard definitions, and emphasizing their consistency with collinear factorization and evolution equations.

Contribution

It demonstrates the equivalence of factorization formulas, advocates for a standard n-hadron FF definition, and clarifies the operator form of dihadron FFs in recent literature.

Findings

The factorization formula aligns with the n-hadron FF definition.

Dihadron FF evolution equations share splitting functions with single-hadron FFs.

The operator definition of D_1^{h_1h_2} matches previous work and clarifies literature inconsistencies.

Abstract

We make several comments on the recent work in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} while also reaffirming and adding to the work in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. We show that the factorization formula for $e^+e^-\to (h_1\cdots h_n)\, X$ in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} is equivalent to a version one can derive using the definition of a $n$-hadron fragmentation function (FF) introduced in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. In addition, we scrutinize how to generalize the number density definition of a single-hadron FF to a $n$-hadron FF, arguing that the definition given in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} should be considered the standard one. We also emphasize that the evolution equations for dihadron FFs~(DiFFs) in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} have the same splitting functions as those for single-hadron FFs. Therefore, the DiFF (and $n$-hadron FF) definitions in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx} have a natural number density interpretation and are consistent with collinear factorization using the standard hard factors and evolution kernels. Moreover, we make clear that the operator definition for the DiFF $D_1^{h_1h_2}(\xi,M_h)$ written down in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb} agrees exactly with the one in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. Contrary to what is implied in Ref.~\cite{Rogers:2024nhb}, this definition did not appear in the literature prior to the work in Ref.~\cite{Pitonyak:2023gjx}. There also seem to be inconsistencies in how $D_1^{h_1h_2}(\xi,M_h)$ appears in previous unpolarized cross section formulas in the literature.