High-precision charm-quark mass and QCD coupling from current-current correlators in lattice and continuum QCD

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 78, Issue 5, 2008, Pages

  Allison, I ^a   Dalgic, E ^b   Davies, C T H ^c   Follana, E ^d   Horgan, R R ^e   Hornbostel, K ^f   Lepage, G P ^g   McNeile, C ^c   Shigemitsu, J ^d   Trottier, H ^b   Woloshyn, R M ^a   Chetyrkin, K G ^h   Kuhn J H ^h   Steinhauser, M ^h   Sturm, C ⁱ  

^a TRIUMF   (Canada)

^b SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^d OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^f SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g Newman Laboratory for Elementary Particle Physics   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF KARLSRUHE   (Germany)

ⁱ BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 53349151444     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.054513     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. J.H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B619, 588 (2001); 10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00499-0
2. J.H. Kuhn M. Steinhauser Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B640, 415 (2002). 10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00578-3
3. J.H. Kuhn, M. Steinhauser, and C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B778, 192 (2007). 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.04.036
4. K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kuhn, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 371, 93 (1996). PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(95)01593-0
5. K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kuhn, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B482, 213 (1996). 10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00534-2
6. K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kuhn, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B505, 40 (1997). 10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00481-1
7. R. Boughezal, M. Czakon, and T. Schutzmeier, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. NPBSE7 0920-5632 160, 160 (2006). 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2006.09.041
8. A. Maier, P. Maierhofer, and P. Marquard, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B797, 218 (2008). 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.12.035
9. K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kuhn, and C. Sturm, Eur. Phys. J. C 48, 107 (2006). EPCFFB 1434-6044 10.1140/epjc/s2006-02610-y
10. R. Boughezal, M. Czakon, and T. Schutzmeier, Phys. Rev. D 74, 074006 (2006). PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.074006
11. The result for the third pseudoscalar moment, C̄330=14.5789, was provided to us by A. Maier, P. Maierhöfer, and P. Marquard prior to publication.
12. For an earlier exploratory analysis, using quenched (nf=0) QCD and less highly improved actions, see A. Bochkarev and P. de Forcrand, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B477, 489 (1996); 10.1016/0550-3213(96)00396-3
13. A. Bochkarev P. de Forcrand Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. NPBSE7 0920-5632 53, 305 (1997); 10.1016/S0920-5632(96)00644-5
14. For a recent related analysis using light-quark correlators see: E. Shintani (JLQCD Collaboration and TWQCD Collaboration), arXiv:0807.0556.
15. C.T.H. Davies (HPQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 022001 (2004). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.022001
16. Q. Mason (HPQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 052002 (2005). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.052002
17. E. Follana (HPQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 75, 054502 (2007). PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054502
18. E. Follana, C.T.H. Davies, G.P. Lepage, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 062002 (2008). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.062002
19. A. Gray, I. Allison, C.T.H. Davies, E. Dalgic, G.P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, and M. Wingate, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094507 (2005); PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.094507
20. The error on the r1 quoted in this paper, r1=0.321(5)fm, includes estimates of all errors involved in simulating the upsilons. This value has been extensively checked in many other calculations: see, for example, for 11 other calculations that verify this value with precisions ranging from 1.5% to 3%.
21. C. Aubin, Phys. Rev. D 70, 094505 (2004). PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.094505
22. One might worry about large nonperturbative contributions to the ηc mass from cc̄→gluons→cc̄ coming, for example, from mixing between the ηc and a nearby glueball. Such an effect is largely ruled out by the fact that our simulation (which does not allow such mixing) gives the correct masses for both the ηc and the ψ. In particular, the difference between their masses in the simulation agrees with experiments to within ±5MeV, which is less than 0.2% of the ηc's mass.
23. Using mηcexp (amc/amηc)LQCD to determine mc with reduced tuning errors is an old idea: see, for example, C.T.H. Davies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2654 (1994); PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.2654
24. A. Gray, I. Allison, C.T.H. Davies, E. Dalgic, G.P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, and M. Wingate, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094507 (2005). PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.094507
25. We computed the contribution from c-quark loops by comparing results from for nh=1 (with c quarks) with those for nh=0 (without c quarks). The reduced moments Rn are corrected, to include c quarks, by multiplying them by rn(nh=1)/rn(nh=0).
26. G.P. Lepage, B. Clark, C.T.H. Davies, K. Hornbostel, P.B. Mackenzie, C. Morningstar, and H. Trottier, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. NPBSE7 0920-5632 106, 12 (2002). 10.1016/S0920-5632(01)01638-3
27. For a detailed example of how to use constrained fitting, including how to construct an error budget for the results, and also for new results from lattice QCD for the QCD coupling see: C.T.H. Davies, I.D. Kendall, G.P. Lepage, C. McNeile, J. Shigemitsu, and H. Trottier (HPQCD Collaboration), arXiv:0807.1687.
28. This gives a perturbative error that is approximately the same size as the error estimates obtained in by varying the renormalization scale between μ=2 and 4 GeV. The value for R6, for example, varies from +0.5% to -0.4% of the central value as μ is varied over this range; the error estimate from Eq. 16 is ±0.4%.
29. V.A. Novikov, L.B. Okun, M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, M.B. Voloshin, and V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Rep. PRPLCM 0370-1573 41, 1 (1978). 10.1016/0370-1573(78)90120-5
30. D.J. Broadhurst, P.A. Baikov, V.A. Ilyin, J. Fleischer, O.V. Tarasov, and V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 329, 103 (1994). PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(94)90524-X
31. For a recent analysis of condensate values see B.L. Ioffe, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56, 232 (2006). PPNPDB 0146-6410 10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.05.001
32. T. van Ritbergen, J.A.M. Vermaseren, and S.A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 400, 379 (1997). PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00370-5
33. M. Czakon, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B710, 485 (2005). 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.01.012
34. K.G. Chetyrkin, Phys. Lett. B 404, 161 (1997). PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00535-2
35. J.A.M. Vermaseren, S.A. Larin, and T. van Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B 405, 327 (1997). PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00660-6
36. W.-M. Yao (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G JPGPED 0954-3899 33, 1 (2006); 10.1088/0954-3899/33/1/001
37. We use the Particle Data Group's value of mb(mb)=4.20(7)GeV for the b-quark mass when reducing from nf=5 to nf=4.
38. A related problem is that correlators built from these currents are contaminated by contributions from correlators built from opposite-parity operators (see Appendix G of). These lattice artifacts oscillate in sign, as (-1)t/a, and so are suppressed by (amc/π)n-2 in the nth moment since the sum over t is dominated by E 0. Such contamination is absent in the case of the pseudoscalar correlators.
39. The continuum Ward identity relates the axial vector current to the pseudoscalar density, implying that gn(j5μ) gn+2 where the gn's are defined in Eqs. 4 26.
40. For older analyses that include sea quarks, see: A. Dougall, C.M. Maynard, and C. McNeile, J. High Energy Phys. JHEPFG 1029-8479 01 (2006) 171;
41. M. Nobes and H. Trottier, Proc. Sci., LAT2005 (2006) 209. 1824-8039
42. The precision of analyses that do not include sea quarks is hard to quantify because the value of the c mass depends upon how the lattice spacing and the bare c mass are tuned, and it is not possible to obtain consistency from different choices. For example, tuning the bare mass to give the correct Ds mass gives very different results from tuning to get the correct Ds*-Ds mass difference, or the correct ηc or ψ mass. We avoid these problems here by including the full effect of sea quarks. For determinations of the c mass without sea quarks with further discussion of these issues see: J. Rolf and S. Sint (ALPHA Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. JHEPFG 1029-8479 12 (2002) 007; 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/12/007
43. G.M. de Divitiis, M. Guagnelli, R. Petronzio, N. Tantalo, and F. Palombi, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B675, 309 (2003). 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.10.001
44. A world average of 0.1189(10) is given in S. Bethke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58, 351 (2007). PPNPDB 0146-6410 10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001
45. S.R. Sharpe, Proc. Sci., LAT2006 (2006) 022. 1824-8039
46. C. Bernard, M. Golterman, Y. Shamir, and S.R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114504 (2008). PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.114504
47. K.M. Ecklund (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 161801 (2008). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.161801
48. M. Artuso (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 071802 (2007). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.071802
49. B. Aubert (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 141801 (2007). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.141801
50. HPQCD Collaboration (unpublished).
51. D.J. Broadhurst, Phys. Lett. 101B, 423 (1981). PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(81)90167-2
52. Details of the calculation, as well as analytical results, will be presented in C. Sturm (unpublished).
53. A. Maier, P. Maierhofer, and P. Marqaurd, arXiv:0806.3405.
54. M. Czakon and T. Schutzmeier, J. High Energy Phys. JHEPFG 1029-8479 07 (2008) 001. 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/001