1: %\documentclass[aps,prd,showpacs,preprintnumbers,eqsecnum,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
3: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
4: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
5: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0}
6: \documentclass[aps,preprintnumbers,eqsecnum,amsmath,amssymb,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
8: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
9: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
10: %\usepackage{simpleConference}
11: \usepackage{epsfig}
12: %\usepackage{showkeys}
13: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
14: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\arabic{table}}
15: \renewcommand{\thefigure}{\arabic{figure}}
16: \renewcommand{\tablename}{Table}
17: \renewcommand{\figurename}{Fig.}
18: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
19: \begin{document}
20: %\preprint{}
21: %\preprint{RM3-TH/07-8}
22: \title{Systematic uncertainties of hadron parameters obtained with QCD sum rules}
23: \author{Wolfgang Lucha$^{a}$, Dmitri Melikhov$^{a,b}$ and Silvano Simula$^{c}$}
24: \affiliation{
25: $^a$ Institute for High Energy Physics, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Nikolsdorfergasse 18, A-1050, Vienna, Austria\\
26: $^b$ Nuclear Physics Institute, Moscow State University, 119992, Moscow, Russia\\
27: $^c$ INFN, Sezione di Roma III, Via della Vasca Navale 84, I-00146, Roma, Italy}
28: \date{\today}
29: \begin{abstract}
30: We study the uncertainties of the determination of the ground-state parameters from
31: Shifman-Vainshtein-Zakharov
32: (SVZ) sum rules, making use of the harmonic-oscillator potential model as an example.
33: In this case, one knows the exact solution for the polarization operator
34: $\Pi(\mu)$, which allows one to obtain both the OPE to any order and the
35: spectrum of states.
36: %
37: We start with the OPE for $\Pi(\mu)$ and analyze the extraction of
38: the square of the ground-state wave function, $R\propto|\Psi_0(\vec r=0)|^2$,
39: from an SVZ sum rule, setting the mass of the ground state $E_0$ equal to its known
40: value and treating the effective continuum threshold as a fit parameter.
41: %
42: We show that in a limited ``fiducial'' range of the Borel parameter
43: there exists a solution for the effective threshold which {\it precisely}
44: reproduces the exact $\Pi(\mu)$ for any value of $R$ within the range
45: $0.7 \le R/R_0 \le 1.15$ ($R_0$ is the known exact value).
46: Thus, the value of $R$ extracted from the sum rule is determined to a great
47: extent by the contribution of the hadron continuum. Our main finding is that
48: in the cases where the hadron continuum is not known and is modeled by an effective
49: continuum threshold, the systematic uncertainties of the sum-rule procedure cannot be controlled.
50: \end{abstract}
51: \pacs{11.55.Hx, 12.38.Lg, 03.65.Ge}
52: \maketitle
53: %\vspace{-.5cm}
54:
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57: A QCD sum-rule calculation of hadron parameters \cite{svz}
58: involves two steps: (i) one calculates the operator product expansion (OPE) series
59: for a relevant correlator, and (ii) one extracts the parameters
60: of the ground state by a numerical procedure.
61: Each of these steps leads to uncertainties in the final result.
62:
63: The first step lies fully within QCD and allows a rigorous treatment of the uncertainties:
64: the correlator in QCD is not known precisely (because of
65: uncertainties in quark masses, condensates, $\alpha_s$, radiative corrections, etc), but the
66: corresponding errors in the correlator may be systematically controlled (at least in principle).
67:
68: The second step lies beyond QCD and is more cumbersome: even if several terms
69: of the OPE for the correlator were known precisely, the hadronic parameters might be extracted
70: by a sum rule only within some error, which may be treated as a systematic error of the method.
71: It is useful to recall that a successful extraction of the hadronic parameters by a sum
72: rule is not guaranteed: as noticed already in the classical papers \cite{svz,nsvz},
73: the method may work in some cases and fail in others; moreover, error estimates
74: (in the mathematical sense) for the numbers obtained by sum rules may not be easily provided ---
75: e.g., according to \cite{svz}, any value obtained by varying the parameters in the sum-rule
76: stability region has equal probability.
77: However, for many applications of sum rules, especially in flavor physics,
78: one needs rigorous error estimates of the theoretical results for comparing theoretical predictions
79: with the experimental data.
80: Systematic errors of the sum-rule results are usually estimated by varying the Borel
81: parameter and the continuum threshold within some ranges and are believed to be under control.
82:
83: The goal of this paper is to study systematic uncertainties of the sum-rule procedure in detail.
84: To this end, a quantum-mechanical harmonic-oscillator (HO) potential model is a perfect
85: tool (see also \cite{bb}):
86: in this model both the spectrum of bound states (masses and wave functions)
87: and the exact correlator (and hence its OPE to any order) are known precisely.
88: Therefore one may apply the sum-rule machinery for extracting parameters of the ground
89: state and check the accuracy of the extracted values by comparing with the exact
90: known results. In this way the accuracy of the method can be probed.
91:
92: We show that the knowledge of the correlator in the limited range of the
93: Borel parameter is not sufficient for a reliable extraction of the
94: ground-state characteristics from the sum rule, even if the mass of
95: the ground state is known.
96: One should also know the continuum contribution to the correlator with a good accuracy.
97:
98: In connection with this observation, we indicate two dangerous points
99: in a typical sum-rule analysis:
100: %\begin{itemize}
101: %\item
102:
103: \noindent
104: (i) A simple modeling of the hadron continuum by a constant effective
105: continuum threshold leads
106: to uncontrolled errors in the extracted hadron parameters. This
107: occurs even in the case when the true effective continuum threshold
108: may be well approximated by a constant, as it happens in the HO model
109: considered.
110: %\item
111:
112: \noindent
113: (ii) The independence of the extracted ground-state parameter of the
114: Borel mass does not guarantee the extraction of its true value.
115: %\end{itemize}
116:
117: \section{The model}
118: We consider a non-relativistic potential model with the HO potential
119: \begin{eqnarray}
120: \label{1.1}
121: V(r)=\frac{m\omega^2 \vec r^2}{2}, \qquad r=|\vec r|,
122: \end{eqnarray}
123: and study the polarization operator $\Pi(E)$ defined by
124: \begin{eqnarray}
125: \label{pi}
126: \Pi(E)=\left(2\pi/m\right)^{3/2}
127: \langle \vec r_f=0|G(E)|\vec r_i=0\rangle,
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: with $G(E)$ the full Green function of the model,
130: \begin{eqnarray}
131: G(E)=(H-E)^{-1}, \quad H=H_0+V(r), \quad H_0=\vec p^2/2m.
132: \end{eqnarray}
133: The full Green function satisfies the Lippmann-Schwinger operator equation
134: \begin{eqnarray}
135: \label{ls1}
136: G^{-1}(E)=G_0^{-1}(E)+V, \quad\mbox{ with} \quad G_0(E)=(H_0-E)^{-1},
137: \end{eqnarray}
138: which may be solved perturbatively:
139: \begin{eqnarray}
140: \label{ls2}
141: G(E)=G_0(E)-G_0(E)VG_0(E)+G_0(E)VG_0(E)VG_0(E)+\cdots.
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: For the polarization operator given by a dispersion representation
144: \begin{eqnarray}
145: \Pi(E)=\int \frac{dz}{z-E} \rho(z),
146: \end{eqnarray}
147: the Borel transform \cite{svz} has the form
148: \begin{eqnarray}
149: \Pi(\mu)=\int {dz}\exp(-z/\mu) \rho(z).
150: \end{eqnarray}
151: Therefore the Borel transform corresponds to the evolution operator in the imaginary time $1/\mu$:
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: \Pi(\mu)=\left(2\pi/m\right)^{3/2}
154: \langle \vec r_f=0|\exp(- H/\mu)|\vec r_i=0\rangle.
155: \end{eqnarray}
156: For the HO potential (\ref{1.1}), the exact $\Pi(\mu)$ is known \cite{nsvz}:
157: \begin{eqnarray}
158: \label{piexact}
159: \Pi(\mu)=\left(\frac{\omega}{\sinh(\omega/\mu)}\right)^{3/2}.
160: \end{eqnarray}
161: Expanding this expression in inverse powers of $\mu$, we get the OPE series for $\Pi(\mu)$:
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: \label{piope}
164: \Pi_{\rm OPE}(\mu)\equiv \Pi_{0}(\mu)+\Pi_{1}(\mu)+\Pi_{2}(\mu)+\cdots=
165: \mu^{3/2}
166: \left[1-\frac{\omega^2}{4\mu^2}+\frac{19}{480}\frac{\omega^4}{\mu^4}
167: -\frac{631}{120960}\frac{\omega^6}{\mu^6}
168: +\cdots \right],
169: \end{eqnarray}
170: and higher coefficients may be obtained from (\ref{piexact}).
171: Each term of this expansion may be also calculated from (\ref{pi}) and (\ref{ls2}),
172: with $\Pi_0$ corresponding to $G_0$:
173: \begin{eqnarray}
174: \label{pi0}
175: \Pi_0(\mu)=\int\limits_0^\infty dz\rho_0(z)\exp(-z/\mu),\quad
176: \rho_0(z)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\sqrt{z}.
177: \end{eqnarray}
178: The ``phenomenological'' representation for $\Pi(\mu)$ is obtained by using the
179: basis of hadron eigenstates of the model, namely
180: \begin{eqnarray}
181: \label{piphen1}
182: \Pi(\mu)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty R_n \exp(-E_n/\mu),
183: \end{eqnarray}
184: with $E_n$ the energy of the $n$-th bound state and $R_n$
185: %(the square of the leptonic decay constant of the $n$-th bound state)
186: given by
187: \begin{eqnarray}
188: R_n=(2\pi/m)^{3/2}|\Psi_n(\vec r=0)|^2.
189: \end{eqnarray}
190: The quantity $R_n$ determines the square of the leptonic decay constant of the $n$-th bound state.
191:
192: For the lowest states one has\footnote{Note that, due to the non-relativistic nature of our HO model,
193: the states corresponding to orbital excitations do not contribute to (\ref{pi}) and therefore the
194: excited states contributing to (\ref{piexact}) are separated in energy by multiples of $2\omega$ from
195: the ground state.}
196: \begin{eqnarray}
197: \label{E0}
198: E_0=\frac{3}{2}\omega,\quad E_1=\frac{7}{2}\omega,\quad \ldots.
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: and
201: \begin{eqnarray}
202: \label{r0}
203: R_0=2\sqrt{2}\omega^{3/2}, \quad R_1=3\sqrt{2}\omega^{3/2},\quad \ldots.
204: \end{eqnarray}
205: For later use we isolate the contribution of the ground state and write
206: \begin{eqnarray}
207: \label{piphen}
208: \Pi(\mu)=R_0 \exp(-E_0/\mu)+\Pi_{\rm cont}(\mu), \qquad
209: \Pi_{\rm cont}(\mu)\equiv \int\limits_{z_{\rm cont}}^\infty dz \,\rho_{\rm phen}(z)\exp(-z/\mu),
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: where $\Pi_{\rm cont}$ describes the contribution of the excited states (the model has purely
212: discrete
213: spectrum, but we use the QCD terminology and refer to the excited
214: states as the
215: ``continuum''), $z_{\rm cont}$ is the continuum threshold and
216: $\rho_{\rm phen}(z)$ is the spectral density corresponding to excited states.
217: For the HO potential, the continuum threshold lies at $z_{\rm cont}=\frac{7}{2}\omega$.
218:
219: \section{Sum rule}
220:
221: The sum rule claims the equality of the correlator calculated in the
222: ``quark'' basis (\ref{piope}) and in the hadron basis (\ref{piphen}):
223: \begin{eqnarray}
224: \label{sr}
225: R_0 e^{-{E_0}/{\mu}}+\int\limits_{z_{\rm cont}}^\infty dz \rho_{\rm phen}(z)e^{-{z}/{\mu}}=
226: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty}dz \rho_0(z)e^{-{z}/{\mu}}
227: +\mu^{3/2}
228: \left[
229: -\frac{\omega^2}{4\mu^2}
230: +\frac{19}{480}\frac{\omega^4}{\mu^4}
231: -\frac{631}{120960}\frac{\omega^6}{\mu^6}+\cdots\right].
232: \end{eqnarray}
233: Following \cite{nsvz}, we use explicit expressions for the
234: power corrections, but for the zero-order free-particle term we use
235: its expression in terms of the spectral integral (\ref{pi0}).
236: The reason for this will become clear in few lines.
237:
238: Let us introduce the effective continuum threshold $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$,
239: different from the physical $\mu$-independent continuum threshold $z_{\rm cont}$,
240: by the relation
241: \begin{eqnarray}
242: \label{zeff}
243: \Pi_{\rm cont}(\mu)=
244: \int\limits_{z_{\rm cont}}^\infty dz \,\rho_{\rm phen}(z)\,\exp(-z/\mu)=
245: \int\limits_{z_{\rm eff}(\mu)}^\infty dz\, \rho_{0}(z)\,\exp(-z/\mu).
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: Generally speaking, the spectral densities $\rho_{\rm phen}(z)$
248: and $\rho_{0}(z)$ are different functions, so the two sides of (\ref{zeff}) may be equal to
249: each other only if the effective continuum threshold depends on $\mu$.
250: In our model, we can calculate $\Pi_{\rm cont}$ precisely,
251: as the difference between the known exact correlator and the known ground-state contribution,
252: and therefore we can obtain the function $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ by solving (\ref{zeff}) numerically.
253: In the general case of a sum-rule analysis, the effective continuum threshold is not known
254: precisely and is one of the essential fitting parameters.
255:
256: Making use of (\ref{zeff}), we rewrite now the sum rule (\ref{sr}) in the form
257: \begin{eqnarray}
258: \label{sr2}
259: R_0 \exp({-{E_0}/\mu})=\Pi(\mu,z_{\rm eff}(\mu)),
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: where the cut correlator $\Pi(\mu,z_{\rm eff}(\mu))$ reads
262: \begin{eqnarray}
263: \label{cut}
264: \Pi(\mu,z_{\rm eff}(\mu))\equiv
265: \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int\limits_{0}^{z_{\rm eff}(\mu) }dz \sqrt{z}\exp(-z/\mu)
266: +\mu^{3/2}
267: \left[
268: -\frac{\omega^2}{4\mu^2}
269: +\frac{19}{480}\frac{\omega^4}{\mu^4}
270: -\frac{631}{120960}\frac{\omega^6}{\mu^6}+\cdots\right].
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: As is obvious from (\ref{sr2}), the cut correlator satisfies the equation
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: \label{e0a}
275: -\frac{d}{d(1/\mu)}\log \Pi(\mu,z_{\rm eff}(\mu)) =E_0.
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: The cut correlator is the actual quantity which governs the extraction of the ground-state
278: parameters.
279: It might be useful to notice that the relative weight of power corrections
280: in the cut correlator $\Pi(\mu,z_{\rm eff}(\mu))$ has been considerably
281: increased compared to the initial $\Pi_{\rm OPE}(\mu)$: whereas
282: in $\Pi_{\rm OPE}(\mu)$ power
283: corrections are suppressed as $1/\mu^2$ compared to the free-particle term, in
284: $\Pi(\mu,z_{\rm eff}(\mu))$ they are suppressed only as $1/\sqrt{\mu}$ compared to the
285: cut free-particle term. In the problem under discussion this makes no difference
286: since the power corrections are known precisely.
287: In QCD this, however, leads to additional uncertainties since condensates are not
288: always known with good accuracy.
289:
290: The sum rule (\ref{sr2})
291: allows us to restrict the structure of the effective continuum threshold $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$.
292: Let us expand both sides of (\ref{sr2}) near $\omega/\mu=0$. The l.h.s.\ contains only integer
293: powers of $\omega/\mu$, i.e., even powers of $\sqrt{\omega/\mu}$.
294: Power corrections on the r.h.s., on the contrary, contain only odd powers of
295: $\sqrt{\omega/\mu}$. In order that both sides match each other, the effective continuum threshold
296: should be a power series of the parameter $\sqrt{\omega/\mu}$:
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: \label{zeff2}
299: z_{\rm eff}(\mu)=\omega
300: \left[\bar{z}_0+\bar{z}_1\sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\mu}}+\bar{z}_2\frac{\omega}{\mu}+\cdots\right].
301: \end{eqnarray}
302: Inserting this series in (\ref{sr2}) and expanding the integral on its
303: r.h.s., we obtain an infinite chain of equations emerging at different orders of
304: $\sqrt{\omega/\mu}$.
305: The equations corresponding to the odd powers of $\sqrt{\omega/\mu}$
306: do not contain the parameters $E_0$ and $R_0$ and
307: constrain the odd-number coefficients $\bar{z}_{2i+1}$ which
308: provide the cancellation of power corrections on the r.h.s.~of
309: (\ref{sr2}).
310: The three lowest-order equations read
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: &&R_0=\frac{4}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\bar{z}_0^{3/2}\omega^{3/2}=
313: \int\limits_{0}^{\omega \bar{z}_0}\rho_0(z)dz, \label{1} \\
314: &&\bar{z}_1=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{8\sqrt{\bar{z}_0}}, \label{2}\\
315: &&R_0 E_0=\frac{4}{5\sqrt{\pi}}\bar{z}_0^{5/2}\omega^{5/2}-
316: \frac{\omega^{5/2}}{2\sqrt{\pi}\sqrt{\bar z_0}}(\bar{z}_1^2+4{\bar{z}_0}\bar{z}_2)=
317: \int\limits_{0}^{\omega \bar{z}_0}\rho_0(z)z\,dz-
318: \frac{\omega^{5/2}}{2\sqrt{\pi}\sqrt{\bar{z}_0}}(\bar{z}_1^2+4{\bar{z}_0}\bar{z}_2). \label{3}
319: \end{eqnarray}
320: What is essential is that the $i$-th equation contains only the
321: variables $\bar{z}_0,\ldots,\bar{z}_i$.
322:
323: Setting $E_0=\frac{3}{2}\omega$ and
324: $R_0=2\sqrt2\omega^{3/2}$, the equations above yield the following solution for the
325: exact effective continuum threshold in the HO model:
326: $\bar{z}_0=2.418$, $\bar{z}_1=0.142$, $\bar{z}_2=-0.081$, etc.
327:
328: \vspace{.2cm}
329: The following comments are in order here:
330: \begin{itemize}
331: \item[1.] Equation (\ref{2}) rules out the $\mu$-independent solution $z_{\rm eff}=\mbox{const}$.
332:
333: \item[2.] For $E_0$ and $R_0$ within a broad range of values
334: $0\le R_0 \le R_{\rm upper}$
335: there exists a solution $z_{\rm eff}(\mu,R_0,E_0)$ which
336: {\it exactly} solves the sum rule (\ref{sr}).
337: Here, the upper boundary $R_{\rm upper}$ is determined from the condition that the
338: ground state fully saturates the correlator at $\mu_{\rm min}$, the lower boundary of the
339: considered $\mu$-interval:
340: \begin{eqnarray}
341: \label{upper}
342: R_{\rm upper}\exp({-E_0/\mu_{\rm min}})=\Pi_{\rm OPE}(\mu_{\rm min}).
343: \end{eqnarray}
344: For $\mu_{\rm min}\to 0$, $R_{\rm upper} \to 2\sqrt2\omega^{3/2}$.
345:
346: Therefore, in a limited range of $\mu$ the OPE alone cannot say much about the
347: ground-state parameters. What really
348: matters is the continuum contribution, or, equivalently, $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$.
349: Without constraints on the effective continuum threshold the
350: results obtained from the OPE are not restrictive.\footnote{The expected sensitivity of the
351: method should not be overestimated: Imagine, e.g., that we modify the potential as follows:
352: $V(r)\to V(r)\exp(-r/r_0)$. Then
353: the discrete spectrum of states is replaced by a continuous spectrum.
354: However, for sufficiently large values $r_0\gg 1/\omega$, the power corrections
355: remain numerically almost unchanged. So the Borel-transformed OPE is not very
356: sensitive to the dynamics at long distances.}
357:
358: \item[3.] The approximate extraction of $E_0$ and $R_0$ worked out in a limited range of values
359: of $\mu$ becomes possible only by constraining $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$. If the constraints are
360: realistic and turn out to reproduce
361: with a reasonable accuracy the exact $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$, then the approximate procedure
362: works well. If a good approximation is not found, the approximate procedure fails to
363: reproduce the true value. Anyway, the accuracy of the extracted value is difficult
364: to be kept under control.
365: \end{itemize}
366: The last conclusion is quite different from the results of QCD sum rules presented
367: in the literature (see e.g.~the review \cite{ck}).
368: In the next section we shall demonstrate that a typical sum-rule analysis contains additional
369: explicit or implicit assumptions and criteria for extracting the parameters of the ground state.
370: Whereas these assumptions may lead to reasonable central values, the accuracy of the extracted
371: parameters cannot be controlled.
372:
373: \begin{figure}[t]
374: \begin{center}
375: \begin{tabular}{cc}
376: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{svz_1a.eps}
377: &
378: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{svz_1b.eps}
379: \end{tabular}
380: \caption{\label{Fig:1}
381: (a) The exact polarization operator $\Pi(\mu)$.
382: (b) The accuracy of the OPE:
383: the quantity $\left(\Pi(\mu)-\Pi_{\rm OPE}(\mu)\right)/\Pi(\mu)$,
384: where $\Pi(\mu)$ is the exact
385: correlator
386: and $\Pi_{\rm OPE}$ is the result of the OPE involving the first three power corrections.}
387: \end{center}
388: \end{figure}
389:
390: \section{Numerical analysis}
391: In practice, one knows only the first few terms of the OPE, so one
392: must stay in a region of $\mu$ bounded from below to guarantee that
393: the truncated OPE series reproduces the exact correlator within a controlled accuracy.
394: The ``fiducial'' \cite{svz} range of $\mu$ is the range where, on the
395: one hand, the
396: OPE reproduces the exact expression better than some given accuracy, e.g., within 0.5\%,
397: and, on the other hand, the ground state is expected to give a sizable contribution to the
398: correlator.
399: If we include the first three power corrections, $\Pi_1$, $\Pi_2$, and $\Pi_3$, then the fiducial region
400: lies at $\omega/\mu<1.2$ (see Fig.~\ref{Fig:1}). Since we know the ground-state parameters, we fix
401: $\omega/\mu>0.7$, where the ground state gives more than 60\% of the full correlator.
402: So the working range is $0.7<\omega/\mu<1.2$.
403:
404: If one knows the continuum contribution with a reasonable
405: accuracy, one can obviously extract the resonance parameters from the
406: sum rule (\ref{sr}). We shall be interested, however, in the situation
407: when the hadron continuum is not known, which is a typical situation in heavy-hadron
408: physics and in studying properties of exotic hadrons.
409: Can we still extract the ground-state parameters?
410:
411: We shall seek the (approximate) solution to the equation
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: \label{fit}
414: %\Pi_{\rm fit}(\mu) \equiv
415: R \exp({-{E}/\mu})+\int\limits_{z_{\rm eff}(\mu)}^\infty dz \rho_0(z) \exp(-z/\mu)
416: =\Pi_{\rm OPE}(\mu)
417: \end{eqnarray}
418: in the range $0.7<\omega/\mu<1.2$.
419: Hereafter, we denote by $E$ and $R$ the
420: values of the ground-state parameters as extracted from the sum rule (\ref{fit}).
421: The notations $E_0$ and $R_0$ are reserved for the known exact values.
422:
423: \subsection{$\mu$-dependent effective continuum threshold}
424:
425: As already explained, since the continuum contribution to the correlator is positive,
426: for any $R$ within the range $0<R<R_{\rm upper}$ there exists a solution
427: $z_{\rm eff}(\mu,E,R)$, which {\it exactly} solves the sum rule (\ref{fit}).
428: Clearly, for different $E$ and $R$ one has a different, specific continuum contribution
429: $\Pi_{\rm cont}(\mu,E,R)$. Thus, without measuring $\Pi_{\rm cont}$ or
430: imposing constraints on it based on some other considerations
431: we cannot extract the ground-state parameters!\footnote{This is a typical situation when one
432: studies the existence of exotic states, like tetra- or pentaquarks, with
433: QCD sum rules: in this case the relevant continuum is not known, and
434: from our point of view, the positive or negative answer to the
435: question whether these states exist or not depends mainly on the model used for the continuum.}
436:
437: In some cases the ground-state energy may be obtained, e.g., from the experiment. However, fixing
438: the ground-state energy $E$ equal to its known value $E_0$ does not help much: for any $R$
439: within the range $0 < R < R_{\rm upper}$ one can still find a solution
440: $z_{\rm eff}(\mu, R)$ which solves the sum rule (\ref{fit}) exactly.
441:
442: Let us therefore consider constraints on the effective continuum threshold.
443: It is natural to require $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)>E_0$ for all $\mu$. Then the sum rule (\ref{fit})
444: may be solved for any $R$ within the range $0.7<R/R_0<1.15$. The solution
445: $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ for the boundary values of this interval, and the corresponding
446: $E(\mu)=-\frac{d}{d\mu} \log \Pi(\mu,z_{\rm eff}(\mu))$, $R(\mu)$, and
447: $\Pi_{\rm cont}$ given by (\ref{zeff}) are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:2}. Clearly,
448: $\Pi_{\rm cont}$ corresponding to different values of $R$ differ very strongly.
449:
450: Fig.~\ref{Fig:2} also presents the exact effective continuum threshold $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$
451: obtained as a numerical solution of
452: the sum rule (\ref{fit}) with the known $E_0=\frac{3}{2}\omega$ and $R_0=2\sqrt{2}\omega^{3/2}$,
453: and the corresponding $E(\mu)$, $R(\mu)$, and $\Pi_{\rm cont}(\mu)$.
454:
455: In the model under discussion, one may expect the exact effective continuum threshold to be
456: somewhere between $E_0$ and $E_1$: it is indeed not far from
457: $\frac12(E_0+E_1)=\frac{5}{2}\omega$, see Fig.~\ref{Fig:2}(a).
458: Requiring, e.g., $z_{\rm eff}>\frac12(E_0+E_1)$ gives $0.95<R/R_0<1.15$,
459: which is also not too restrictive.
460:
461:
462: \begin{figure}[b]
463: \begin{center}
464: \begin{tabular}{cc}
465: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{svz_2.eps}
466: &
467: \hspace{.2cm}
468: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{svz_3.eps}
469: \\
470: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{svz_4.eps}
471: &
472: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{svz_5.eps}
473: \end{tabular}
474: \caption{\label{Fig:2}
475: Different choices of the effective continuum threshold $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ (a)
476: and the corresponding $E(\mu)=-d/d\mu \log \Pi(\mu,z_{\rm eff}(\mu))$ (b),
477: $R(\mu)$ obtained from the sum rule (\ref{fit}) (c), and $\Pi_{\rm cont}(\mu)$ given by
478: Eq.~(\ref{zeff}) (d):
479: 1 [solid (red) line] the exact effective continuum threshold as obtained by a numerical
480: solution of (\ref{sr2}),
481: 2 [long-dashed (blue) line] the effective continuum threshold obtained by
482: solving the sum rule (\ref{fit}) for $R=0.7 R_0$ and $E=E_0$,
483: 3 [dash-dotted (green) line] same as line 2, but for $R=1.15 R_0$ and $E=E_0$,
484: 4 [short-dashed (dark-blue) line] the constant effective continuum threshold $z_c$
485: determined according to Sec.~\ref{constant}. In Plot (b), the lines 1, 2, and 3
486: lie one on top of the other and cannot be distinguished.}
487: \end{center}
488: \end{figure}
489:
490: \subsection{Constant effective continuum threshold\label{constant}}
491:
492: Strictly speaking, the constant effective continuum threshold $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)=z_c={\rm const}$
493: is incompatible with the sum rule, as it can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{2}).
494: Nevertheless, this Ansatz may work well, especially in our model:
495: as can be seen from Fig.~\ref{Fig:2}(a), the exact $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ is almost flat in
496: the fiducial interval. Therefore, the HO model represents a very favorable situation for
497: applying the QCD sum-rule machinery.
498:
499: Now, one needs to impose a criterion for fixing $z_c$.
500: One of the widely used ways is the following \cite{jamin}: one calculates
501: \begin{eqnarray}
502: \label{e0b}
503: -\frac{d}{d(1/\mu)}\log \Pi(\mu,z_c)\equiv E(\mu,z_c).
504: \end{eqnarray}
505: The r.h.s.~depends on $\mu$ due to approximating $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ with a constant.
506: Then, one determines $\mu_0$ and $z_c$ as the solution to the system
507: of equations
508: \begin{eqnarray}
509: \label{add}
510: E(\mu_0,z_c)=E_0,\qquad
511: \frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}E(\mu,z_c)|_{\mu=\mu_0}=0,
512: \end{eqnarray}
513: yielding the values $z_c=2.454\,\omega$ and $\mu_0/\omega=1$, see
514: Fig.~\ref{Fig:2}(a,b).
515: The central value of the sum-rule estimate $R$ is obtained by setting
516: $\mu\to\mu_0$, and $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)\to z_c$ in (\ref{sr2}). For this value of $z_c$
517: one has a
518: very good description of $\Pi(\mu)$ (less than 1\% deviation in the full
519: range $0.7\le \mu/\omega \le 1.2$)
520: and the stability of $E(\mu,z_c)$ against $\mu$ is also very satisfactory.
521: Finally, in the model under discussion one obtains also a rather good estimate
522: $R/R_0=0.96$, with the function
523: $R(\mu,z_c)$ being extremely stable in the region $0.7\le \omega/\mu\le
524: 1.2$.
525: Note, however, a dangerous point: the description of $\Pi(\mu)$ with
526: better than 1\% accuracy and the deviation of the
527: $E(\mu,z_c)$ from $E_0$ at
528: the level of only 1\% in the fiducial range leads to a 4\% error
529: in the extracted value of $R$!
530:
531: The crucial conclusion from this observation is the following:
532: even when the effective continuum threshold $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ is
533: almost flat in the fiducial interval
534: of $\mu$, as in our simple model, one still cannot
535: control the accuracy of the extracted value of $R$. As is obvious from Fig.~\ref{Fig:2}(c),
536: it would be incorrect to estimate the error, e.g., from the range covered by $R$
537: when varying the Borel parameter $\mu$ within the fiducial interval.
538:
539: \subsection{Local-duality limit $\mu\to\infty$}
540:
541: Let us consider another scheme: a local-duality (LD) sum rule proposed in \cite{radyushkin}.
542: This scheme corresponds to the limit $\mu\to\infty$ in (\ref{sr2}) and has several attractive
543: features \cite{lm}.
544: In the limit $\mu\to\infty$ all power corrections in the OPE vanish and we end up with the simple
545: relation (cf.\ Eq.~(\ref{1}))
546: \begin{eqnarray}
547: \label{ldsr1}
548: R_{\rm LD}=
549: \int\limits_{0}^{z_{\rm LD}}dz \rho_0(z)=\frac{4}{3\sqrt{\pi}}z_{\rm LD}^{3/2}.
550: \end{eqnarray}
551: Let us consider the average energy calculated with the cut correlator
552: \begin{eqnarray}
553: \label{ldsr2}
554: E_{\rm LD}=\frac{\displaystyle\int\limits_{0}^{z_{\rm LD}}dz z\rho_0(z)}
555: {\displaystyle\int\limits_{0}^{z_{\rm LD}}dz \rho_0(z)}
556: =\frac{3}{5}z_{\rm LD}.
557: \end{eqnarray}
558: It is natural to require $E_{\rm LD}=E_0$. Then
559: $z_{\rm LD}=\frac52\omega$ and (\ref{ldsr1}) leads to
560: \begin{eqnarray}
561: \label{ldsr4}
562: R_{\rm LD}/R_0=\frac{5\sqrt{5}}{6\sqrt{\pi}}\simeq 1.05.
563: \end{eqnarray}
564: As follows from (\ref{1}) and (\ref{3}), the exact values $R_0$ and $E_0$ satisfy the equations
565: \begin{eqnarray}
566: \label{ldsr3}
567: R_0=\frac{4}{3\sqrt{\pi}}(\omega\bar {z}_0)^{3/2},\qquad
568: E_0=
569: \frac{\displaystyle\int\limits_{0}^{\omega \bar{z}_0}dz z\rho_0(z)}
570: {\displaystyle\int\limits_{0}^{\omega \bar{z}_0}dz \rho_0(z)}
571: -\frac{3}{8} \omega\frac{\bar{z}_1^2+4{\bar{z}_0}\bar{z}_2}{\bar{z}_0^{2}}.
572: \end{eqnarray}
573: Comparing these equations with (\ref{ldsr1}) and (\ref{ldsr2}), we see that if
574: $E_{\rm LD}=E_0$, then $R_{\rm LD}\ne R_0$. This leads to the
575: 5\% discrepancy in (\ref{ldsr4}). Anyway, the estimate (\ref{ldsr4}) is
576: quite good (due to the specific values of the constants $\bar{z}_i$ in the HO model)
577: but its accuracy cannot be controlled.
578:
579: Closing this section, we note that the issue of the uncertainties
580: within QCD sum rules
581: (see also \cite{LC} for the case of light-cone QCD sum rules) appears
582: to be qualitatively similar to what happens in
583: other phenomenological approaches, like the constituent quark model,
584: which have indeed many
585: common features with sum rules, as discussed in \cite{ms}.
586:
587: \section{Conclusions}
588: We studied the extraction of the ground-state parameters from the polarization operator
589: using various versions of sum rules in the case of the non-relativistic harmonic-oscillator
590: potential model. The advantage of such a simple model is that both
591: the OPE for the polarization operator and the exact spectrum are known,
592: therefore allowing us to compare the results obtained by sum rules with the exact
593: values and to probe in this way the uncertainties of the method.
594:
595: \vspace{.3cm}
596: Our conclusions are as follows:
597: \begin{itemize}
598: \item
599: The knowledge of the correlator in a limited range of the Borel
600: parameter $\mu$
601: is not sufficient for an extraction of the ground-state parameters with a controlled
602: accuracy, even if the ground-state mass is known precisely:
603: Rather different models for the correlator in the form (\ref{fit}) --- a ground state
604: plus an effective continuum, described by an effective continuum
605: threshold $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ --- lead to the same correlator.
606: \item
607: The procedure of fixing the effective continuum threshold by requiring
608: that the average mass calculated with the cut correlator (\ref{cut}) should
609: reproduce the known value of the ground-state mass \cite{jamin,bz} is,
610: in general, not restrictive:
611: a $\mu$-dependent effective continuum threshold $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ which solves
612: the sum rule (\ref{fit}) leads to the cut correlator
613: (\ref{cut}) which automatically
614: (i) reproduces precisely $E(\mu)=E_0$ for all values of the Borel parameter $\mu$,
615: and
616: (ii) leads to the $\mu$-independent value of $R$ which, however, may be rather far from
617: the true value.
618:
619: In the model considered we obtained the following results:
620:
621: a. Without constraining $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$, for any
622: value of $R$ within the range $0\le R/R_0\le 1.15$ one can find a function
623: $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)$ which exactly solves the sum rule for $0.7\le\omega/\mu\le 1.2$.
624:
625: b. Requiring $z_{\rm eff}(\mu)>E_0=\frac32\omega$ for $0.7\le
626: \omega/\mu \le 1.2$ gives $0.7\le R/R_0\le 1.15$.
627:
628: \item
629: We studied in detail the standard approximation of the effective
630: continuum threshold with a constant $z_c$. Within this approximation,
631: one can tune the value $z_c$ by requiring that the average
632: energy $E(\mu)$ calculated with the cut correlator (\ref{cut}) should reproduce the ground-state
633: energy $E_0$ in the stability region. In the model under discussion, one obtains in this way a
634: good estimate $R/R_0=0.96$, with practically $\mu$-independent $R$.
635: The unpleasant feature is that the deviation of $R$ from $R_0$ turns out to be much larger
636: than the variations of $E(\mu)$ and $R$ over the range $0.7\le
637: \omega/\mu\le 1.2$. And, more importantly, error estimates for $R$ cannot be provided.
638: \item
639: Therefore, we conclude that a sum-rule extraction of the ground-state
640: parameters without knowing the hadron continuum suffers from uncontrolled systematic
641: uncertainties (not to be confused with the uncertainties related to errors in quark masses,
642: $\alpha_s$, renormalization point, condensates, etc; the latter errors are usually properly taken
643: into account). Unfortunately, a typical sum-rule analysis of heavy-meson observables belongs
644: to this class of
645: problems: in this case, the hadron continuum is usually not known and is modeled by an effective
646: continuum threshold treated as a fit parameter.
647: Then, no estimates of systematic errors for the ground-state
648: parameters obtained with sum rules can be given,
649: although the central values may be rather close to the true values.
650: Let us also emphasize an important point: as we have demonstrated, the independence of the extracted hadron
651: parameters from the Borel mass does not guarantee the extraction of their true values.
652: \end{itemize}
653: We have nevertheless seen that in the model under consideration the sum rules give good
654: estimates for the parameter $R_0$. This seems to be due to the
655: following specific features of the model:
656: (i) a large gap between the ground state and the first excitation that contributes to the sum rule;
657: (ii) an almost constant exact effective continuum threshold in a wide range of $\mu$.
658: Whether or not the same good accuracy may be achieved in QCD, where the
659: features mentioned above are absent, is not obvious:
660: within the standard procedures adopted in QCD sum rules it is practically impossible
661: to control the systematic uncertainties of the obtained hadron parameters.
662: This shortcoming ---
663: the impossibility to control the systematic errors ---
664: remains the weak feature of the method of sum rules and an
665: obstacle for using the results from QCD sum rules for precision
666: physics, such as electroweak physics.
667:
668: %\newpage
669: \vspace{1cm}
670: \noindent
671: {\it Acknowledgments.}
672: We are grateful to R.~A.~Bertlmann for interesting discussions.
673: D.~M.~was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under project
674: P17692. The work was supported in part by RFBR project 07-02-00551a. S.~S.~thanks
675: the Institute for High Energy Physics of the
676: Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Faculty of Physics of the
677: University of Vienna for warm hospitality.
678:
679: \newpage
680: \begin{thebibliography}{30}
681: \bibitem{svz} M.~Shifman, A.~Vainshtein, and V.~Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B147}, 385 (1979).
682: \bibitem{nsvz} V.~Novikov, M.~Shifman, A.~Vainshtein, and V.~Zakharov,
683: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B237}, 525 (1984).
684: \bibitem{bb}J.~Bell and R.~Bertlmann, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B177}, 218
685: (1981); Nucl. Phys. {\bf B187}, 285 (1981).
686: \bibitem{ck}P.~Colangelo and A.~Khodjamirian,
687: {\it QCD sum rules: a modern perspective}, in {\em At the Frontier of Particle Physics},
688: edited by M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001), vol.~3, p.~1495 [hep-ph/0010175].
689: \bibitem{jamin} M.~Jamin and B.~Lange, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 056005 (2002).
690: \bibitem{bz}P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky, Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 014015 (2005).
691: \bibitem{radyushkin}V.~A.~Nesterenko and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. {\bf 115B}, 410 (1982).
692: \bibitem{lm} W.~Lucha and D.~Melikhov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 054009 (2006).
693: \bibitem{LC} W.~Lucha, D.~Melikhov, and S.~Simula, Phys. Rev. {\bf D75}, 096002 (2007). %hep-ph/0702009
694: \bibitem{ms} D.~Melikhov and S.~Simula, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C37}, 437 (2004).
695:
696: \end{thebibliography}
697: \end{document}
698:
699: 11.55.Hx - Sum rules,
700: 12.38.Lg - other nonperturbative methods,
701: 11.10.St bound and unstabel states, Bethe-Salpeter equations
702:
703: 13.20.-v semileptonic decays of mesons
704: 13.20.He decays of bottom mesons
705: 03.65.Ge - solutions of wave equations
706: