Realistic lattice determination of αs(MZ) revisited

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 78, Issue 11, 2008, Pages

  Maltman, K ^a,b   Leinweber, D ^b   Moran, P ^b   Sternbeck, A ^b  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149260249     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.114504     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Q. Mason, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 052002 (2005). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.052002
2. See the review section on QCD in Ref.
3. P.A. Baikov, K.G. Chetyrkin, and J.H. Kuhn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 012002 (2008). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.012002
4. M. Davier, Eur. Phys. J. C 56, 305 (2008). EPCFFB 1434-6044 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0666-7
5. A. Aktas (H1 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 653, 134 (2007); PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.07.050
6. C. Glasman (H1 and ZEUS Collaborations), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 110, 022013 (2008). 1742-6588 10.1088/1742-6596/110/2/022013
7. See, e.g., M. Gouzevitch, in Proceedings of DIS 2008, London, and C. Diaconu, in Proceedings of the HERA-LHC Workshop, CERN, 2008.
8. G. Dissertori, J. High Energy Phys. JHEPFG 1029-8479 02 (2008) 040. 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/040
9. T. Becher and M.D. Schwartz, J. High Energy Phys. JHEPFG 1029-8479 07 (2008) 034. 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/034
10. J.H. Kuhn, M. Steinhauser, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D PRVDAQ 1550-7998 76, 074003 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.074003
11. N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Torma, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D PRVDAQ 1550-7998 75, 074014 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.074014
12. M. Jamin and M. Beneke, J. High Energy Phys. JHEPFG 1029-8479 09 (2008) 044.
13. K. Maltman and T. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D PRVDAQ 1550-7998 78, 094020 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.094020
14. We have quoted, to be specific, the τ decay result of Ref., which contains a careful treatment of the small, but (for a precision determination) numerically important, D>4 operator product expansion contributions, the inconsistent treatment of which created unquantified theoretical systematic errors in a number of the earlier τ-decay-based analyses. The results of the fifth order fixed order perturbation theory analysis, 0.1185-0.0009+0.0014, and of the more model-dependent extension, 0.1180±0.0008, both reported in Ref., are compatible within errors with that of Ref., but are based on assumed, rather than fitted, values for the relevant D=6 and 8 operator product expansion contributions. The ranges corresponding to the two results of Ref., however, are fully contained within the range listed in the table.
15. S.J. Brodsky, G.P. Lepage, and P.B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D PRVDAQ 1550-7998 28, 228 (1983). 10.1103/PhysRevD.28.228
16. Q. Mason, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, UMI Thesis Depository, 2004;
17. Q. Mason and H. Trottier (unpublished).
18. C.T.H. Davies, arXiv:0807.1687.
19. 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
20. M. Czakon, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B710, 485 (2005). 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.01.012
21. C.T.H. Davies, Phys. Rev. D PRVDAQ 1550-7998 56, 2755 (1997). 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.2755
22. M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B147, 385 (1979). 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90022-1
23. The details on the treatment of αs G2/π reported here are not contained in Ref. We thank G.P. Legage of the HPQCD Collaboration for providing us with this information.
24. K.G. Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2184 (1997). PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2184
25. To be explicit, a self-consistent combination of 2-loop matching and 3-loop running was employed, with the nf=3→4 and nf=4→5 flavor thresholds taken to be at mc(mc)=1.25GeV and mb(mb)=4.25GeV, respectively. The use of 2-loop matching and 3-loop running rather than 3-loop matching and 4-loop running is inessential; the resulting value at the scale MZ is lowered by only 0.0002 if one uses the latter approach, a change which is small on the scale of the final quoted error.
26. Y. Schroder, Phys. Lett. B PYLBAJ 0370-2693 447, 321 (1999). 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00010-6
27. The definition of αV is, in fact, not clear from what is written in Ref. We thank the members of the HPQCD Collaboration for clarifying the procedure used in defining it.
28. C. Bernard, Proc. Sci., LAT2007 (2007) 090. 1824-8039
29. B.L. Ioffe and K.N. Zyablyuk, Eur. Phys. J. C 27, 229 (2003); EPCFFB 1434-6044 10.1140/epjc/s2002-01099-8
30. B.L. Ioffe, Phys. At. Nucl. PANUEO 1063-7788 66, 30 (2003). 10.1134/1.1540654
31. J.H. Kuhn, M. Steinhauser, and C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. NUPBBO 0550-3213 B778, 192 (2007). 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.04.036
32. W.-M. Yao (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G JPGPED 0954-3899 33, 1 (2006). 10.1088/0954-3899/33/1/001