Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

The first measurement of the gluon-to-quark production ratio for doubly strange baryons, Ξ−, in Z decays, is reported as 1.21 ± 0.18 (stat.) ± 0.26 (syst.).

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The first measurement of the gluon-to-quark production ratio for Ξ−/Ξ+ baryons in Z decays gives R=1.21±0.18±0.26, consistent with JETSET and with unity.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Competent open-data re-analysis yielding the first gluon-to-quark ratio for doubly strange baryons, but the central value rests on an untested universality assumption and is consistent with unity anyway. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13804 v2 pith:2TWTYRBB submitted 2026-07-15 hep-ex

Measurement of Xi^-/bar{Xi}⁺ production in jets from Z boson decays with the DELPHI open data

Zhouyue Fan , Yuzhi Che , Xinchou Lou , Zhaoru Zhang , Jinfei Wu , Gengyuan Zhang , Gang Li , Yanping Huang
show 1 more author
Manqi Ruan
This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords Xi baryon productionquark-gluon jetsZ boson decaysstrangeness productionDELPHIhadronizationjet energy ranking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses 3.2 million hadronic Z decays recorded by the DELPHI experiment to measure how often double-strange Ξ− baryons are produced in quark jets versus gluon jets. It reports the first such ratio for baryons containing two strange quarks: R = 1.21 ± 0.18 (stat.) ± 0.26 (syst.), meaning gluon jets produce about 21% more Ξ− per charged track than quark jets, though the result is consistent with unity within uncertainties. The measurement is consistent with Monte Carlo predictions and with earlier results for single-strange hadrons. It also shows that the softest, gluon-enriched jets contain fewer and less energetic Ξ− baryons than the leading jets.

Core claim

The production rate of Ξ− and its charge conjugate in energy-ranked jets from Z→hadrons decays is measured, and the softest jet (most gluon-enriched) is found to have a lower yield and a softer momentum spectrum than the two harder jets. Using a linear-mixture ansatz with generator-level gluon fractions, the ratio of Ξ− production per mean charged multiplicity in pure gluon jets to that in pure quark jets is extracted as R_{g/q} = 1.21 ± 0.18 (stat.) ± 0.26 (syst.). This is the first determination of this ratio for doubly strange baryons, and it is consistent with both JETSET expectations and previous measurements of K_S^0 and Λ production.

What carries the argument

Energy-ranked jets built with the Durham algorithm at ycut=0.005 provide quark- and gluon-enriched samples via jet energy ordering (the softest jet has a 63.2% gluon fraction). The central extraction uses the linear mixture equation R_k = ρ_k R_g + (1−ρ_k) R_q, where each energy-ranked jet category is treated as a two-component mixture of pure quark and pure gluon jets with universal rates; a χ² fit then yields the ratio R_{g/q}.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes each energy-ranked jet sample is a two-component mixture of pure quark and pure gluon jets with the same per-track production rates in every category; if the intrinsic production in quark or gluon jets varies with jet energy or quark flavor, the fitted ratio is biased.

What would settle it

Measure R_{g/q} in a different event topology, such as Y-events where the gluon jet is back-to-back to a quark-antiquark pair and the energy ranking is not the only separation, and compare with the value obtained here; a significant shift beyond uncertainties would invalidate the universal-mixture assumption.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If confirmed, this measurement establishes the first benchmark for gluon-to-quark production of doubly strange baryons, testing non-perturbative QCD hadronization models.
  • The result supports the picture that strangeness production in gluon jets scales with charged multiplicity, consistent with earlier single-strange measurements.
  • The softer momentum spectrum observed in the gluon-enriched jet category provides a new differential constraint on fragmentation functions for multi-strange baryons.
  • The methodology can be applied to other identified hadron species in the same data set, extending the comparison across baryon types.
  • Larger Z samples at future e+e− colliders can reduce the statistical uncertainty and make the compatibility with unity a sharper test.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A more stringent test would come from measuring R_{g/q} over multiple ycut values or jet-energy bins; if universal, the ratio should stay constant within uncertainties.
  • Comparing the measured R_{g/q} for Ξ− with the same observable for Ω− (which contains three strange quarks) could probe whether the strangeness enhancement grows with the number of strange quarks.
  • The large systematic uncertainty (0.26) is dominated by the acceptance correction; a generator-independent acceptance estimate, e.g., from a wider ξ range, could reduce the dominant systematic and sharpen the result.
  • If the ratio is exactly unity, it would imply that gluon jets and quark jets produce Ξ− proportionally to their charged multiplicity, a non-trivial statement about strangeness and baryon-number compensation mechanisms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a measurement of Ξ−/barΞ+ baryon production in energy-ranked jets from 3.2 million hadronic Z decays in the DELPHI open data. Jets are reconstructed with the Durham algorithm at y_cut=0.005; Ξ− candidates are reconstructed through the cascade decay Ξ−→Λπ− and yields are extracted from invariant-mass fits using KDE signal shapes and wrong-sign backgrounds. The average Ξ− yield per jet is measured for two- and three-jet events, and ξ=−ln(p/E_beam) spectra are presented for the three energy-ranked jets. Using generator-level gluon fractions from the DELPHI/JETSET simulation, the paper applies a linear-mixture fit (Eq. 6) to derive R^{Ξ−}_{g/q}=1.21±0.18(stat.)±0.26(syst.). The softest jets are found to have lower Ξ− yields and softer momentum spectra, consistent with JETSET expectations and with previous OPAL results for K_S^0 and Λ.

Significance. If the central extraction is reliable, this is the first measurement of the gluon-to-quark production ratio for doubly strange baryons, adding a new observable for strangeness and baryon-number compensation in QCD fragmentation. The paper uses public open data, follows established analysis techniques, and provides a detailed systematic table. However, the central R_{g/q} value rests on a generator-dependent mixture model and an acceptance extrapolation whose validity is not demonstrated with a closure test. The measurement is therefore a useful but conditional contribution; it would be strengthened substantially by adding explicit validation of the model assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The linear-mixture ansatz assumes universal rates R_g and R_q for every jet category. The three energy-ranked jet categories have different energy scales and, in e+e−→Z→qq̄g, the softer quark jet is likely to have radiated the gluon, so the quark flavor/hardness composition may not be identical between Jet 1 and Jet 2. The fit has only one degree of freedom beyond the two unknowns, yet the paper does not report the per-category R_k values, the fit χ²/ndf, or a closure test. A failure of universality would directly bias R^{Ξ−}_{g/q}. Please add: (i) a table of the fitted inputs R_k=⟨NΞ⟩/⟨Nch⟩ with uncertainties and correlations; (ii) the fit quality; and (iii) a MC closure test (e.g., fit pseudo-data generated with JETSET with known truth-level R_g and R_q and check recovery, or split jet categories by energy to test whether R_q is stable). Varying only the gluon fractions with Pythia8 do
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (4) and Table II] The acceptance correction extrapolates from the measured range 1.0<ξ<4.0 to the full kinematic range using JETSET. The quoted facc values are 84.5%, 88.0%, and 92.2% for Jet 1, 2, and 3, so the correction is as large as ~18% and is category dependent. The assigned systematic is ±50% of the compensation (3.9–7.8% per category). If the true ξ shape for Ξ− production in quark jets relative to gluon jets differs from JETSET—especially at low ξ—the category-dependent acceptance could bias the relative R_k values and hence R_{g/q}. Please quantify this with an alternative generator/tuning or a data-driven shape check, and state explicitly whether a similar acceptance correction is applied to ⟨Nch⟩.
  3. [Section VI and Table II (reproducibility)] The central fit is not reproducible from the paper as written. The per-category ⟨Nch⟩ values, the covariance matrix V in Eq. (7), and the resulting R_k values are not tabulated; only ⟨NΞ⟩ and its relative uncertainties are given. Since this is an open-data analysis, the inputs to the fit should be provided, at least in an appendix, so that the χ² minimization and the quoted R^{Ξ−}_{g/q} can be independently checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Grammar: 'The softest jet are found' should be 'The softest jets are found'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says '(left) two- and (right) three-jet events', but the figure in the text appears to show only three-jet results. Please clarify or correct the caption.
  3. [Section IV, 'Uncertainties' paragraph] The paragraph begins 'Uncertainties The statistical uncertainty...'—missing a paragraph break or colon after 'Uncertainties'.
  4. [Table II] The table header has two columns both labeled σsyst; please disambiguate (e.g., 'relative statistical' and 'relative systematic' headings), and clarify whether Nobs values are fit yields with fractional units.
  5. [Footnote 29] Typo: 'official' should be 'official'. Also, the residual mass-scale correction is described in a footnote; consider moving this important calibration detail to the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Rg/q measurement is solved from data with MC as auxiliary corrections; the JETSET comparison is weakened but not definitionally forced.

full rationale

The central quantity RΞ− g/q is obtained by fitting measured per-jet rates R_k to Eq. 6 with MC-determined gluon fractions, then minimizing χ² in Eq. 7. The rates R_k derive from data mass fits corrected by MC efficiency/acceptance factors, but the fit does not constrain the result to equal the MC expectation; the paper explicitly reports that replacing the nominal JETSET gluon fractions with Pythia8 fractions changes Rg/q by an amount much smaller than the other uncertainties. The linear-mixture ansatz and the model dependence of facc are genuine assumptions or systematic risks, and the manuscript itself flags the acceptance factor as model dependent with a ±50% uncertainty. However, these are not circular steps: no quantity is defined in terms of the target ratio, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness claim is present. The use of JETSET both for corrections and as a comparison does reduce the independence of the JETSET agreement as a cross-check, but it does not make the measured Rg/q equivalent to an input by construction. The derivation chain is therefore not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the linear-mixture ansatz, MC-derived gluon fractions and acceptance factors, and several detector-calibration assumptions. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are invented; the free parameters are the two production-rate unknowns solved from the data. The main model-dependence enters through JETSET-based corrections and the unquantified mass-scale calibration.

free parameters (2)
  • R_g (Ξ production per charged track in pure gluon jets) = not reported individually; ratio R_g/R_q = 1.21
    Free parameter in the χ2 fit of Eq. 7 to the three energy-ranked jet categories; the published quantity is the ratio, not the individual rate.
  • R_q (Ξ production per charged track in pure quark jets) = not reported individually
    Second free parameter in the same fit; the extrapolation to ρ=1 from quark-enriched jets determines it.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Linear mixture ansatz (Eq. 6): each energy-ranked jet category is a two-component mixture of pure quark and pure gluon jets with category-independent rates R_q and R_g.
    The extraction of Rg/q solves R_k = ρ_k R_g + (1−ρ_k) R_q. If R_g varies with jet energy or quark flavor, the fit returns a biased effective ratio. Invoked in Section VI.
  • domain assumption Generator-level gluon fractions ρ_k from the DELPHI JETSET MC are accurate enough (10.3%, 26.3%, 63.2% for Jets 1–3).
    These fractions are used as the design matrix in the fit; a Pythia8 alternative gives 10.9%, 24.7%, 56.1% and is said to change the result much less than other uncertainties, but no numerical shift is given (Section VI).
  • domain assumption JETSET models the Ξ ξ-distribution well enough for the acceptance factor f_acc outside 1.0<ξ<4.0.
    f_acc extrapolates to the full phase space; a ±50% uncertainty is assigned following Ref. [10], but the central value remains model-dependent (Section IV).
  • domain assumption The residual mass-scale correction (footnote 29), calibrated on Λ and K0S mass shifts, applies to Ξ− and to the shifted MC KDE signal template.
    Magnetic-field conditions are 'not fully known'; the MC is artificially shifted to match the nominal Ξ mass. No dedicated systematic is listed for this correction.
  • domain assumption The wrong-sign Λπ+/barΛπ− control sample models the combinatorial background in the right-sign Ξ− mass spectrum.
    The background KDE is built from wrong-sign candidates; if charge-asymmetric background differs, the signal-yield fit is biased (Section IV).

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of $\Xi^-/\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ production in jets from $Z$ boson decays with the DELPHI open data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TWTYRBB

@misc{pith2026260713804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of $\Xi^-/\bar\Xi^+$ production in jets from $Z$ boson decays with the DELPHI open data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TWTYRBB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13804}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The production rates of $\Xi^{-}/\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ baryons in energy-ranked jets produced in $Z\to\text{hadrons}$ decays are measured using $3.2$ million hadronic $Z$ events recorded by the DELPHI experiment. Jets are reconstructed using the Durham algorithm with $y_{\text{cut}}=0.005$. Quark- and gluon-enriched jet samples are obtained by ranking the jet energies in three-jet events. The softest jet are found to produce fewer $\Xi^{-}/\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ and less energetic baryons than the other jets. The ratio of $\Xi^{-}/\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ production rates in gluon and quark jets, each normalized to the corresponding mean charged-particle multiplicity, is measured to be $1.21 \pm 0.18~\mathrm{(stat.)} \pm 0.26~\mathrm{(syst.)}$. The result is consistent with the JETSET expectation and the OPAL measurements of $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ productions in $Z$ decays. This study presents the first measurement of the gluon-to-quark production ratio for baryons containing two $s$ quarks, providing new insights into strange-quark production and hadronization. Future $e^{+}e^{-}$ colliders such as CEPC and FCCee will provide much larger $Z$-boson samples and will allow far more precise studies of the subject.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13804 by Gang Li, Gengyuan Zhang, Jinfei Wu, Manqi Ruan, Xinchou Lou, Yanping Huang, Yuzhi Che, Zhaoru Zhang, Zhouyue Fan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Left) Energy distributions of the most energetic, second most energetic, and softest jets in (upper row) two-jet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The invariant mass distribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between MC and data in the distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Differential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The invariant mass distribution of the selected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the gluon-to-quark jet production ra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the average Ξ − baryon production per jet for energy-ranked jets, and the corresponding values are given in Table II of Appendix V. The measurements in the leading and subleading jets are similar in both 2- and 3-jet events. In 3-jet events, the softest jet cate￾gory gives a lower value. All the measurement remains compatible with the JETSET prediction within the un￾certainties. The ξ spectra of Ξ − … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Differential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of the gluon-to-quark jet production ra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Capella, I

    A. Capella, I. M. Dremin, J. W. Gary, V. A. Nechitailo, and J. Tran Thanh Van, Evolution of average multiplic- ities of quark and gluon jets, Phys. Rev. D 61, 074009 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9910226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    Bethke, QCD studies at LEP, Phys

    S. Bethke, QCD studies at LEP, Phys. Rept. 403-404, 203 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0406058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Ackerstaff et al

    K. Ackerstaff et al. (OPAL), Production of K0(S) and Lambda in quark and gluon jets from Z0 decay, Eur. Phys. J. C 8, 241 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9805025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL), A Study of parton fragmen- tation in hadronic Z0 decays using Lambda anti-Lambda correlations, Eur. Phys. J. C 13, 185 (2000), arXiv:hep- ex/9808031

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL), Sigma- - antihyperon cor- relations in Z(0) decay and investigation of the baryon production mechanism, Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 609 (2009), arXiv:0910.2174 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Rapidity correlations in Lambda baryon and proton production in hadronic Z0 decays, Phys. Lett. B 416, 247 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    P. D. Acton et al. (OPAL), A Measurement of strange baryon production in hadronic Z0 decays, Phys. Lett. B 291, 503 (1992)

    1992

  8. [8]

    Alexander et al

    G. Alexander et al. (OPAL), Strange baryon production in hadronic Z0 decays, Z. Phys. C 73, 569 (1997)

    1997

  9. [9]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Strange baryon production in Z hadronic decays, Z. Phys. C 67, 543 (1995)

    1995

  10. [10]

    Abdallah et al

    J. Abdallah et al. (DELPHI), Masses, Lifetimes and Pro- duction Rates of Xi- and anti-Xi+ at LEP 1, Phys. Lett. B 639, 179 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0606030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    DELPHI Collaboration, Delphi data preservation, re-use, and open access policy, CERN Open Data Portal (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Aarnio et al

    P. Aarnio et al. (DELPHI Collaboration), The delphi de- tector at lep, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 303, 233 (1991)

    1991

  13. [13]

    Chabaud et al

    V. Chabaud et al. , The delphi silicon strip microvertex detector with double sided readout, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 368, 314 (1996)

    1996

  14. [14]

    The DELPHI Collaboration, Creating DELPHI simulated data, https://opendata.cern.ch/docs/ delphi-guide-simulation ()

  15. [15]

    Zhang, T.-A

    J. Zhang, T.-A. Sheng, Y.-C. Chen, H. Bossi, A. Badea, A. Baty, C. McGinn, Y.-J. Lee, and Y. Chen (Electron- Positron Alliance), Analysis note: measurement of thrust and track energy-energy correlator in e+e− col- lisions at 91.2 GeV with DELPHI open data (2025), arXiv:2510.18762 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers, ROOT — An object ori- ented data analysis framework, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 389, 81 (1997)

    1997

  17. [17]

    DELPHI, DELPHI collision data short92_e2, 10.7483/OPENDATA.DELPHI.J105.9ADK (2024)

    doi:10.7483/opendata.delphi.j105.9adk 2024

  18. [18]

    DELPHI, DELPHI collision data short93_d2, 10.7483/OPENDATA.DELPHI.V1V A.4A1S (2024)

    doi:10.7483/opendata.delphi.v1v 2024

  19. [19]

    DELPHI, DELPHI collision data short94_c2, 10.7483/OPENDATA.DELPHI.0XNE.G96F (2024)

    doi:10.7483/opendata.delphi.0xne.g96f 2024

  20. [20]

    DELPHI, DELPHI collision data short95_d2 (2024)

    2024

  21. [25]

    DELPHI Collaboration, DELPHI skeleton analysis framework manual (2024), data recorded in 1999 and published in 2024

    2024

  22. [26]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, New clustering algorithm for multi - jet cross-sections in e+ e- annihilation, Phys. Lett. B 269, 432 (1991)

    1991

  23. [27]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [28]

    Xu et al

    M. Xu et al. , Decay vertex reconstruction and 3- dimensional lifetime determination at BESIII, Chin. Phys. C 33, 428 (2009)

    2009

  25. [29]

    Following the calibration used in the official study [10], a residual mass-scale correction is applied to the Ξ− mass in data

    Because the magnetic-field conditions are not fully known, the Ξ− candidate mass distributions are biased. Following the calibration used in the official study [10], a residual mass-scale correction is applied to the Ξ− mass in data. The correction is calibrated using the mass shifts of Λ and K 0 S candidates, and the distribution in the MC samples is arti...

  26. [30]

    I. S. Abramson, On Bandwidth Variation in Kernel Estimates-A Square Root Law, The Annals of Statistics 10, 1217 (1982)

    1982

  27. [31]

    P. D. Acton et al. (OPAL), A Study of differences be- tween quark and gluon jets using vertex tagging of quark jets, Z. Phys. C 58, 387 (1993)

    1993

  28. [32]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Studying strangeness and baryon production mechanisms through angular correlations between charged Ξ baryons and identified hadrons in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 09, 102

  29. [33]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Measurement of the cross section for e+e− → Ξ− ¯Ξ+ and observation of an ex- cited Ξ baryon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 032002 (2020), arXiv:1910.04921 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  30. [34]

    Acciarri et al

    M. Acciarri et al. (L3), K(s)0 and Lambda production in quark and gluon jets at LEP, Phys. Lett. B 407, 389 (1997), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 427, 409–412 (1998)]

    1997

  31. [35]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Identified particles in quark and gluon jets, Phys. Lett. B 401, 118 (1997)

    1997

  32. [36]

    B. R. Webber, A QCD Model for Jet Fragmentation In- cluding Soft Gluon Interference, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 492 (1984)

    1984

  33. [37]

    Andersson, The Lund Model , Vol

    B. Andersson, The Lund Model , Vol. 7 (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1998)

    1998

  34. [38]

    Niiyama et al

    M. Niiyama et al. (Belle), Production cross sections of hyperons and charmed baryons from e+e− annihilation 7 near √s = 10 .52~GeV, Phys. Rev. D 97, 072005 (2018), arXiv:1706.06791 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [39]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Multi-strange baryon produc- tion in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV with ALICE, Phys. Lett. B 712, 309 (2012), arXiv:1204.0282 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [40]

    Derradi de Souza (ALICE), Identified particle pro- duction in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 13 TeV measured with ALICE, J

    R. Derradi de Souza (ALICE), Identified particle pro- duction in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 13 TeV measured with ALICE, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 779, 012071 (2017), arXiv:1610.02744 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [41]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Measurement of cross section for e+e− → Ξ− ¯Ξ+ near threshold at BESIII, Phys. Rev. D 103, 012005 (2021), arXiv:2010.08320 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  38. [42]

    Schael et al

    S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Precision electroweak mea- surements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rept. 427, 257 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0509008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [43]

    The DELPHI Collaboration, Getting started with DELPHI data, https://opendata.cern.ch/docs/ delphi-getting-started ()

  40. [44]

    The DELPHI Collaboration, DELPHI data and sim- ulation sets for analysis, http://delphiwww.cern.ch/ offline/data/castor/html ()

  41. [45]

    ch/delphi-www/ ()

    The DELPHI Collaboration, Welcome to the DELPHI Experiment at LEP, https://delphi-www.web.cern. ch/delphi-www/ ()

  42. [46]

    Bocci et al

    V. Bocci et al. (DELPHI Trigger Group), Architecture and performance of the delphi trigger system, Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A 362, 361 (1995)

    1995

  43. [48]

    DELPHI, DELPHI simulation data sh_kk2f4146qqpy_e91.25_l93_2l_d2, 10.7483/OPEN- DATA.DELPHI.V8X2.HLDP (2024)

    doi:10.7483/open- 2024

  44. [49]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

  45. [50]

    P. D. Acton et al. (OPAL), A Global determination of α−s (M(z0) ) at LEP, Z. Phys. C 55, 1 (1992)

    1992

  46. [51]

    Steiner, Performance of univariate kernel density es- timation methods in tensorflow

    M. Steiner, Performance of univariate kernel density es- timation methods in tensorflow

  47. [52]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, and S. I. Troian, Phe- nomenology of the particle spectra in QCD jets in a mod- ified leading logarithmic approximation, Z. Phys. C 55, 107 (1992)

    1992

  48. [1995]

    The sample nicknames and Digital Object Iden- tifiers (DOIs) are listed in Table I. The corresponding MC samples of inclusive e+e− → Z → q ¯q events, pro- duced with the DELPHI built-in generator [14] and re- leased with the data set, are used to interpret the data and estimate the selection efficiency for Ξ− candidates. These samples are also listed in Ta...

    1992

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.