8.5 Predictions We compare our results both to e $^{+}$e − $_{collisions performed at LEP (}$√$_{s}$ = $_{91.2 GeV), and at PEP-PETRA (}$√$_{s}$ ∼ 30 GeV). Average multiplicities of various hadrons have been compiled in [3], and we reproduce them here, along with our results, in table 8.2. For both sets of results we have per- formed a four parameter fit so as to minimise the rms error. The pion predictions are expected to be low because our holographic model predicts over-massive excited states. Thus yields of particles such as π (1300) and ρ (1450) are unnaturally suppressed which would otherwise be expected to give significant contributions to the pion multiplicities. Despite this, the fits are very good, with rms errors of 47% and 53% for √$_{s}$ = 91.2 GeV and √$_{s}$ ∼ 30 GeV respectively. The Ω and η ′ yields aren’t ideal, but previous models have had the same problem [3], especially when matching to the PEP-PETRA data. Our model is expected to have poor predictive power for these two hadrons: the η ′ is technically a pseudo-Goldstone boson, but instanton effects cancel out this effect. Our model just treats it as non- Goldstone boson, which is probably over simplistic. In addition, it mixes heavily with η (548): our model contains no good parameterisation of mix- ing. The Ω baryon also highlights weaknesses of our model: it is a baryon, not a meson (our functions g$_{n}$ originally source from a model of mesons, not baryons); it is very heavy, and so is strongly affected by our exclusion of hadrons above 1 . 7 GeV; it contains three strange quarks, making it very sensitive to γ$_{s}$ . 117