1: %% ****** Start of file frif_template.tex ****** %
2: %%
3: %%
4: %% This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
5: %% Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
6: %%
7: %%
8: %% Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
9: %%
10: %% See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
11: %%
12: %
13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0
14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.
15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.
16: %
17: % This is a lightly modified version of the slac template, rendered specific
18: % to the FRIF workshop on first principles non-perturbative
19: % QCD of hadron jets.
20: %
21: % When submitting your contribution to arXiv, remember to include the
22: % file slac_one.rtx
23: %
24: %
25: \documentclass[slac_one]{revtex4}
26: \usepackage{graphicx}
27: \usepackage{fancyhdr}
28: \usepackage{amsmath,epsfig}
29: \pagestyle{fancy}
30: \fancyhead{} % clear all fields
31: \chead{\it FRIF Workshop on First Principles Non-Perturbative
32: QCD of Hadron Jets}
33: \fancyfoot{} % clear all fields
34:
35: %%%% PLEASE REMEMBER TO INSERT YOUR PAPER STATUS NUMBER (PSN)
36: %%%% BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR CONTRIBUTION. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
37: %%%% GIVEN TO YOU BY MAIL AND ALSO APPEARS AT
38: %%%% http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/power/proceedings.html
39: \fancyfoot[LE,LO]{\bf T002}
40:
41: \rfoot{\thepage}
42:
43: \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
44: \renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0pt}
45: \renewcommand{\sfdefault}{phv}
46: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
47: \setlength{\textheight}{235mm}
48: \setlength{\textwidth}{178mm}%{170mm}
49: \setlength{\topmargin}{-20mm}
50: \newcommand{\msbar}{\ensuremath{\overline{\text{MS}}}}
51: \newcommand{\xmu}{\ensuremath{x_{\mu}}}
52: \newcommand{\xmuopt}{\ensuremath{x_{\mu}^\text{opt}}}
53: \newcommand{\xmuech}{\ensuremath{x_{\mu}^\text{ECH}}}
54: \newcommand{\as}{\ensuremath{\alpha_s}}
55: \newcommand{\asZ}{\ensuremath{\alpha_s(M_{\text{Z}})}}
56: \newcommand{\oassq}{\ensuremath{{\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)}}
57: \newcommand{\epem}{\ensuremath{\text{e}^+\text{e}^-}}
58: \newcommand{\lambdamsbar}{\ensuremath{\Lambda_{\overline{\text{MS}}}}}
59: \newcommand{\gev}{{\ifmmode \mbox{Ge\kern-0.2exV}\else
60: Ge\kern-0.2exV\nolinebreak\fi}}
61: \newcommand{\delphi}{{\sc Delphi}}
62: \newcommand{\cleo}{{\sc Cleo}}
63: \renewcommand{\aleph}{{\sc Aleph}}
64: \newcommand{\opal}{{\sc Opal}}
65: \newcommand{\lthree}{{\sc L3}}
66: \newcommand{\lep}{{\sc Lep}}
67: \newcommand{\petra}{{\sc Petra}}
68: %\newcommand{\spqqg}{\ensuremath{\mbox{qerwarten}\rightarrow \mbox{qg}}}
69:
70:
71: % You may use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references
72:
73: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
74:
75: \begin{document}
76:
77: %Title of paper
78: \title{Effective Charges in Practice}
79:
80:
81: % Repeat the \author .. \affiliation etc. as needed
82: %
83: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last
84: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the
85: % other information
86:
87: \author{Klaus Hamacher}
88: \affiliation{Fachbereich Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften,\\ Bergische Universit\"at, Gau\ss{}stra\ss{}e 20,
89: 42097 Wuppertal, Germany,\\ DELPHI Collaboration}
90:
91:
92: \begin{abstract}
93: Experimental results on event shapes obtained within (or related to)
94: the method of Effective Charges are discussed in view of measurements of the
95: strong coupling, \as, the $\beta$-function and non-perturbative contributions
96: to event shapes. The data strongly advocate to use of the ECH scheme
97: instead of the conventional \msbar\ scheme.
98: \end{abstract}
99:
100: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract
101: \maketitle
102:
103: \thispagestyle{fancy}
104:
105: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
106: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
107: % Put \label in argument of \section for cross-referencing
108: %\section{\label{}}
109:
110: \section{Introductory Remarks}
111: \subsection{Assorted Theoretical Formulae and Results}
112: Today the \msbar-scheme is the {\it de facto} standard used for
113: comparisons of QCD predictions as well as experimental results.
114: %The \msbar-scheme
115: It was introduced for practical reason, as an offspring
116: of dimensional regularisation,
117: whereas
118: the method of Effective Charges (ECH) and the corresponding
119: renormalisation scheme are motivated physically.
120: The ECH method has been in some detail discussed in the talk of Maxwell
121: \cite{maxtalk}.
122: For completeness here the basic formulae and results are assembled in view of
123: the later interpretation of the data.
124:
125: ECH has been originally introduced in \cite{Grunberg:1982fw}, a clear
126: access, taking the observable itself as perturbative expansion parameter
127: (called renormalisation group improved perturbation theory, RGI)
128: is given in \cite{Dhar:1983py}. With respect to ECH I follow the arguments
129: of \cite{Barclay:1994qa} which applies the ECH method directly to
130: \epem data.
131: The results especially apply to mean values (or moments) of the event shape
132: distributions which depend on a single energy scale, the centre-of-mass energy,
133: $Q=\sqrt{s}$, only.
134:
135: The general next-to-leading order (NLO) expression for
136: event shape distributions of an observable $y$ reads:
137: \begin{equation}
138: \frac{1}{\sigma_{tot}} \frac{d\sigma(y)}{d y} =
139: \frac{\alpha_s(\mu^2)}{2\pi}\cdot A(y) +
140: \left (\frac{\alpha_s(\mu^2)}{2\pi}\right )^2 \cdot \left[ B(y) +
141: \frac{1}{2}\beta_0
142: \ln(x_\mu)\cdot A(y) \right ] +{\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)^3
143: \label{eq:secondorder}
144: \end{equation}
145: Here $A$ and $B$ are the first and second order coefficients of the
146: perturbative expansion.
147: Note that due to the normalisation to the total cross-section
148: the integral of Eqn.~\ref{eq:secondorder} is normalised to 1.
149: %When instead normalising to the Born cross-section the term $\propto -2$
150: %in Eqn.~\ref{eq:secondorder} has to be omitted.
151: The $\mu^2$ (or alternatively the $x_{\mu}=\mu^2/Q^2$) dependence
152: reflects the dependence of the prediction on the renormalisation scheme.
153: %and parameterises
154: %the uncertainty of the prediction due to uncalculated higher order terms.
155: In NLO
156: the change of renormalisation scheme is fully
157: equivalent to the change of the renormalisation scale.
158:
159:
160: Weighting Eqn.~\ref{eq:secondorder} with and integrating over the
161: observable then yields the mean value
162: $\langle y \rangle$ which can be directly measured.
163: Normalising $\langle y \rangle$ to the leading order
164: coefficient $A$ a measurable quantity $R$ is obtained.
165: Such quantities are called effective charges.
166: The idea of the ECH method is now to chose (in any order of
167: perturbation theory) a scheme
168: such that all higher order coefficients for $R$ vanish.
169: This implies that $R$ coincides with the strong coupling extracted in a
170: leading order analysis and explains the name ECH as such observables
171: are directly comparable to
172: other observables of this kind as well as to the coupling.
173: In NLO this leads to the following scale:
174: \begin{equation}
175: \mu_{\text{ECH}}=Q\cdot
176: e^{-\frac{1}{\beta_0}\frac{B(y)}{A(y)}}
177: \label{eq:xech}
178: \end{equation}
179: An effective charge $R$ obeys the Renormalisation Group Equation (RGE):
180: \begin{equation}
181: \frac{dR}{d\ln Q^2} = \beta_R(Q) \quad = \quad -\frac{\beta_0}{4}R^2\cdot
182: \left [ 1 + \rho_1 R + \rho_2 R^2 + \dots \right ]\quad
183: + \quad K_0\cdot e^{-S/R}R^{\delta}+\dots
184: \label{eq:RGE}
185: \end{equation}
186: As the observables $R$ are directly measurable in dependence of the
187: energy the $\beta_R$-functions are measurable quantities.
188: The leading coefficients of the $\beta$-functions, $\beta_0=11-2/3\cdot n_f$
189: and $\rho_1=\beta_1/2\beta_0$ are universal (the same as for the coupling),
190: the higher coefficients are
191: observable dependent but free of renormalisation scheme ambiguities.
192: Non-perturbative contributions, invisible in perturbation theory, lead to the
193: term with the exponential. $K_0$ is proportional to the factor multiplying
194: a power term in the usual power model expressions.
195: Omitting for simplicity the non-perturbative term Eqn.~\ref{eq:RGE} can
196: be integrated yielding:
197: \begin{equation}
198: \frac{\beta_0}{2} \ln \frac{Q}{\Lambda_R} = \frac{1}{R} +
199: \rho_1\ln\frac{\rho_1 R}{1+\rho_1 R} +
200: \int_0^R \left \{-\frac{1}{\rho (x)}+\frac{1}{x^2(1+\rho_1 x)} \right \} dx
201: \quad,
202: \label{eq:DG}
203: \end{equation}
204: where $\rho(R)$ is defined by the square bracketed term in Eqn.~\ref{eq:RGE}.
205: The constant of integration, $\Lambda_R$, should have
206: {\it physical significance} and
207: is related to $\Lambda_{\msbar}$ by an {\bf{exact}}
208: expression \cite{Celmaster:1979km}. Thus \asZ\ can be calculated from
209: $\Lambda_R$ practically without additional uncertainty.
210:
211:
212: Besides the derivation of the above fundamental equations the paper
213: \cite{Barclay:1994qa}
214: includes a broad discussion of the extraction of \lambdamsbar\ from \epem data
215: and shows the following:
216: % findings:
217: \begin{itemize}
218: \item
219: The {\it ECH formalism ... is more general than the adoption of a
220: particular scheme ...} It can be derived {\it non-perturbatively } assuming
221: only that the high energy behavior of the observable is
222: given by the leading order perturbative expression.
223: \item
224: ... {\it higher orders can be split into a predictable contribution}
225: (of known ``RG predictable'' terms $\propto \log{\mu/Q}$)
226: {\it and a remaining piece containing all
227: the genuinely unknown aspects.}
228: %\item
229: ... {\it the choice $\mu=\mu_\text{ECH}$ \it removes the predictable
230: scatter and provides genuine information on the interesting ... higher-order}
231: terms.
232: \item
233: {\it One can exhibit the relative size of the} (truly) {\it uncalculated
234: higher-order corrections for different quantities}.
235: These corrections {\it are related to how the energy dependence of the quantity
236: differs from its asymptotic dependence as $Q^2 \to \infty$.
237: }
238: \item
239: {\it ... by comparing with data one can test how well the first few}
240: perturbative terms {\it represent the observed running.}
241: Marked discrepancies indicate the importance of {\it higher order terms, or
242: ... non-perturbative contributions.}
243: \end{itemize}
244: These findings imply that the ECH scheme offers exceptional experimental
245: control of higher order contributions by comparing different effective charge
246: observables or measuring their energy evolution.
247:
248: \subsection{Remarks on Experimental Data}
249: The later discussion is mainly based on precise data of shape
250: distributions obtained
251: at the Z-peak and of their
252: mean values in the full range of \epem\ experiments above the
253: b-threshold.
254: Some more recent results
255: \cite{Abdallah:2003xz,ralle,Pfeifenschneider:1999rz,MovillaFernandez:1997fr} refer to the energy range
256: $\sim$20-202\gev\ and comprise data on events with a
257: radiated hard photon ($45 \gev < \sqrt{s´} < M_Z$) \cite{Abdallah:2003xz,ralle}.
258: All experimental results correspond to simple \epem\ annihilation and
259: are fully corrected for experimental effects.
260:
261: %In the \delphi\ analysis \cite{Abreu:2000ck}
262: %of traditional event shape distributions the data was split
263: %additionally binned with respect to the polar angle of the event axis to the
264: %beam.
265: %This is advantageous in view of systematic uncertainties and yields a
266: %large number of independent data points. In the QCD analysis of shape
267: %distributions
268: %Monte Carlo hadronisation corrections were applied.
269:
270: It has been realised
271: \cite{Salam:2001bd}, that hadron mass effects have a particularly strong
272: influence for the so-called jet mass observables.
273: %This is similarly so for the related jet algorithms.
274: This strong mass dependence has been avoided in \cite{Abdallah:2003xz,ralle} by
275: redefining the particle four momenta using the so called p-scheme:
276: ($(\vec{p},E)\to(\vec{p},|\vec{p}|)$) or E-scheme:
277: ($(\vec{p},E)\to(\hat{p}E,E)$). Moreover in \cite{Abdallah:2003xz,ralle}
278: extra transverse momentum from
279: B-hadron decays was corrected for by using Monte Carlo.
280: This correction is power behaved and can have influence on the energy
281: evolution of the observables. A figure displaying the correction is included
282: in \cite{Abdallah:2003xz}.
283:
284: B-decays also influence event shape
285: distributions. For 2-jet like topologies the distributions are depleted.
286: These events are shifted towards 3-jet topologies by the extra transverse
287: momentum from the decay. For observables calculated from the whole
288: event (like $B_{T}$) the decay from the narrow event side contributes
289: for all values of the observable leading to visible effects in the whole range
290: of the observable. In principle, the differences between the observables
291: due to B-decays need to be
292: corrected when applying power correction models to shape distributions.
293: Plots of such corrections are again included in \cite{Abdallah:2003xz,ralle}.
294:
295:
296: \section{Results on Event Shape Distributions}
297: \subsection{Effects of Changing the Renormalisation Scale}
298: %
299: \newlength{\wi} \wi 0.48\textwidth
300: \newlength{\fwi} \fwi 0.9\wi
301: \newlength{\hwi} \fwi 0.9\wi
302: \begin{figure}[hb]
303: \begin{minipage}[b]{\wi}
304: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{xmu_vgl_thr.eps}
305: \caption{\oassq\ prediction for $\tau=1-\text{Thrust}$ for \xmu=1
306: and for the experimentally optimised value of \xmu.}
307: \label{f:thrxmu}
308: \end{minipage}\hfill
309: \fwi 0.72\wi
310: \begin{minipage}[b]{\wi}
311: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{as_thr_1x.eps}
312: \caption{\asZ\ from $\tau=1-\text{Thrust}$ as function of $\tau$ for \xmu=1
313: and for the experimentally optimised value of \xmu.}
314: \label{f:asthrxmu}
315: \end{minipage}
316: \end{figure}
317: Analyses of event shape distributions performed by experimental collaborations
318: mainly employed
319: the \msbar-scheme with $x_{\mu}=1$; information about the explicit use of the
320: ECH scheme \cite{Abreu:2000ck,siggi,Burrows:1995vt} is sparse.
321: Several experiments attempted,
322: however, to determine optimal scales by fitting \as\ and \xmu\ simultaneously
323: to the data. In view of this, so called experimental optimisation, it is
324: instructive to discuss the influence of \xmu\ on the prediction
325: Eqn.~\ref{eq:secondorder}.
326: In Fig.~\ref{f:thrxmu} the data on $\tau=1-\text{Thrust}$ is compared with
327: the prediction Eqn.~\ref{eq:secondorder} for $\xmu=1$ and the optimised scale
328: ($\xmu\sim 0.0033$). Evidently the change of scale leads to a
329: ``turn'' of the prediction. For $\xmu=1$ the slope of the data is barely
330: described. Other observables show a similar though often less pronounced
331: discrepancy.
332: As a consequence the quality of the fits for \xmu=1
333: is, in general, unsatisfactorily bad and the fitted values of \as\ depend
334: on the
335: interval chosen for the fit. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{f:asthrxmu} e.g. for
336: the Thrust \cite{siggi}.
337:
338: This behavior is basically known since \petra\ \cite{Magnussen:1989eh} or
339: the early days of \lep\ and has been observed at small values
340: of the event shape observables (in the 2-jet region)
341: where the perturbative \oassq\ predictions
342: are presumed little reliable. It should be noted, however, that due to the
343: normalisation of the event shape distributions $1/\sigma \int d\sigma/dy~dy=1$,
344: the misfit between data and prediction must persist at large $y$ if present
345: at small $y$. This has indeed been seen \cite{Abreu:2000ck,siggi}.
346:
347: The optimisation of a single scale value for a distribution has been
348: criticised \cite{Barclay:1994qa} as, in principle, the scale is expected
349: to be $y$-dependent (compare Eqn.~\ref{eq:xech}).
350: However, the change of scale expected in the typical fit ranges of the data
351: is moderate (compare Fig.~\ref{f:correl}).
352: Experimental optimisation therefore presents a fair
353: compromise between
354: theoretical prejudice or request and experimental feasibility.
355:
356: Results on experimental optimisation are included in \cite{Abreu:2000ck,Burrows:1995vt,Abreu:1992yc,Acton:1992fa}.
357: The first reference, which is discussed below, comprises 18 observables
358: and is based on high statistics
359: data. Moreover in this analysis the dependence of the event shape
360: distributions on the polar angle of the event axis with respect to the beam
361: has been exploited. This is advantageous in view of experimental systematics
362: and leads to a large number of statistically independent data points.
363:
364: \pagebreak
365: \noindent
366: {\bf Consequences for Matched NLLA {\boldmath\oassq}\ Analyses}\\
367: \indent
368: The mismatch of the slope of data and \oassq\ prediction has consequences
369: also for the analysis of event shape distributions with matched NLLA/\oassq\
370: predictions.
371: %when applied with usual hadronisation corrections but evidently
372: %also when combined with power correction models.
373: \fwi 0.9 \textwidth
374: \begin{figure}[tb]
375: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{mye.eps}
376: \caption{Ratio data over NLLA/\oassq-fit from \opal\
377: \cite{Abbiendi:2004qz,Ford:2004dp}
378: (lines added by the author).}
379: \label{f:opalratio}
380: \end{figure}
381: The matching
382: %of the NLLA and \oassq\ part of the prediction
383: from an
384: experimental point of view represents
385: a kind of ``averaging'' of both
386: predictions where in the 2-jet regime the NLLA part and in the 3-jet regime
387: the \oassq\ part dominates. As in the matching the \oassq\ prediction is used
388: with a renormalisation scale value \xmu=1 the slope of the data is,
389: for many observables, imperfectly described. In consequences the same problems
390: as discussed above for the pure \oassq\ prediction persist, though diminished
391: by the matching with the NLLA part. In consequence the $\chi^2/N_{df}$ is
392: often in-acceptably bad when applying standard rules.
393: Additional theory errors are introduced to regain consistency.
394: As in the \oassq\
395: case the fitted value of \asZ\ often shows a marked dependence on the
396: observable. To illustrate this in Fig.~\ref{f:opalratio} the ratio of the
397: data and the fitted matched predictions is shown for several observables
398: from the
399: concluding \opal\ analysis on event shape distributions
400: \cite{Abbiendi:2004qz,Ford:2004dp}.
401: In order to make the discrepancies directly
402: visible straight lines are additionally put to the data points.
403: For $T$, $C$ and $B_{T}$ a clear increase of the ratio with increasing values
404: of the observables is seen corresponding to an increase of \as\ ($\gtrsim
405: 5\%$).
406: For $M_H/E$ and $y_{23}$ the ratio is almost
407: constant, while for $B_{W}$ the ratio decreases with increasing observable.
408: This more complicated pattern
409: correlates with the importance of higher order corrections in the \oassq\ part
410: of the prediction or simply with the ratio $B/A$.
411: The three observables with increasing ratio also show a large ratio $B/A>15$,
412: for $M_H/E$ and $y_{23}$ the ratio is smaller. For $\langle
413: B_{W} \rangle $ it is negative. The mismatch of the slope of the
414: data and the prediction also deteriorates the initial $\chi^2/N_{df}$.
415: The constructed error bands (dominated by ``theory errors'') restore
416: consistency of the fits.
417: The best stability is obtained for
418: $y_{23}$ and justifies the small error obtained for this observable
419: (see Fig.~\ref{f:opalratio} and
420: \cite{Abbiendi:2004qz,Ford:2004dp,Heister:2002tq}).
421:
422: Still the \asZ\ values depend on the fit range for some
423: observables and are thus biased.
424: This observable dependent biases is even present in the
425: overall \lep\ combination
426: (see Fig.~\ref{f:aslep}, \cite{QCDwg}).
427: The (correlated) \as\ values from $T$ and $B_T$ are high,
428: $y_{23}$ and $B_{W}$ are low
429: compared to the average. $C$ is close to the average and
430: seems to form an exception.
431:
432: It is likely that the imperfect description of the slope by the matched
433: prescription similarly
434: influences analyses of power terms introduced in order to describe the
435: hadronisation.
436: E.g. in the corresponding \delphi\ analysis \cite{Abdallah:2003xz}
437: the \as\ values for $B_T$ and $\rho_h=M^2_h/s$ (E-scheme) are markedly smaller
438: compared to the results from $B_{W}$, $T$ and $\rho_{s}$.
439:
440: \subsection{Results from Distributions on Experimentally Optimised Scales}
441: \wi 0.48\textwidth
442: \fwi 0.8\wi
443: \hwi 0.88\wi
444: \begin{figure}[hb]
445: \begin{minipage}[b]{\wi}
446: \centering\includegraphics[width=\hwi]{xmabh.eps}
447: \caption{$\Delta\chi^2$ and \asZ\ obtained from \oassq\ fits of 18 event shape
448: distributions as function of \xmu\ \cite{siggi}.}
449: \label{f:chiasxmu}
450: \end{minipage}\hfill
451: \fwi 0.8\wi
452: \begin{minipage}[b]{\wi}
453: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{as_both.eps}
454: \caption{\asZ\ results obtained from \oassq\ fits of 18 event shape
455: distributions for \xmu=1 and \xmu=\xmuopt.}
456: \label{f:asboth}
457: \end{minipage}
458: \end{figure}
459: In Fig.~\ref{f:chiasxmu} the $\Delta \chi^2$ and \asZ\ as function of \xmu\ as
460: obtained from several event shape distributions is shown
461: \cite{Abreu:2000ck,siggi}. The fit quality for these fits is satisfactory when
462: including experimental and hadronisation errors only. Marked minima in
463: $\Delta \chi^2$ are observed scattered over a wide range of \xmu.
464: The clear minima imply that the optimised scale values
465: are statistically well determined. The \asZ\ results corresponding to these
466: scales show a much smaller scatter as for fixed \xmu=1. This is more clearly
467: shown in Fig.~\ref{f:asboth}. The spread reduces from $9.4\%$ for \xmu=1
468: to 2.2\% with optimised scales, \xmuopt.
469:
470: \fwi .6\textwidth
471: \begin{figure}[ht]
472: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{my_corel_ech.eps}
473: \caption{Correlation of the experimentally optimised scale \xmuopt\ values with
474: the ECH expectation $x_{\mu}^{ECH}$. The errors of \xmuopt\ are fit errors,
475: for $x_{\mu}^{ECH}$ they indicate the expected change in the fit range.}
476: \label{f:correl}
477: \end{figure}
478: It is particularly interesting to study the
479: correlation of the fitted \xmuopt\ with the values
480: expected from ECH, \xmuech, shown in
481: Fig.~\ref{f:correl}. The \xmuopt-errors are from the fit, the error bars
482: for \xmuech\ indicate the range of scales expected within the fit
483: interval of the data. A significant correlation $\rho=0.75\pm 0.11$ is
484: observed.
485: The wide spread of experimentally optimised scales which has been often criticised is in
486: fact slightly smaller than the range expected from ECH.
487:
488: Regarding the distribution of
489: individual observables (indicated by the letters in the plot) it is seen that
490: observables calculated from the whole event (e.g. the Thrust) tend to populate
491: the region of small \xmuech, observables sensitive mainly to the wide side of
492: the events (e.g. $\rho_h$) populate the center while observables from
493: the difference of the wide and narrow side show large scales. This ordering
494: corresponds (via Eqn.~\ref{eq:xech}) to large (for small \xmuech) and small
495: second order \msbar\ contributions (for big \xmuech).
496: Overall the observed large range of \xmuopt\ can be considered as
497: understood in ECH theory.
498:
499: It may be worth noting that the RMS spread%
500: \footnote{Estimated from the data of Fig.~\ref{f:correl} as
501: $10^{\sigma(P(\lg(x_{\mu}^{ECH}/x_{\mu}^{opt})))}$. }
502: of \xmuopt\ with respect to
503: \xmuech\ is only 2.5 (i.e. similar to the
504: range used for naive \msbar\ theory error estimates). This may be taken as a
505: justification of an ECH theory error estimate by a corresponding scale change.
506: However, the corresponding \as\ uncertainty will be far smaller
507: than in the \msbar\ case as
508: the optimal scales often correspond to the minima of the \asZ(\xmu) curves
509: (compare Fig.~\ref{f:chiasxmu}).
510:
511: \subsection{Results from Event Shape Mean Values}
512: \wi \textwidth
513: \fwi 0.73\wi
514: \begin{figure}[p]
515: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{dg_all.eps}
516: \caption{RGI fits to several event shape means as function of the
517: centre-of-mass energy (full line). The dashed line represents the
518: \msbar-expectation (with the same \asZ). }
519: \label{f:rgifits}
520: \vfill
521: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{allbar.eps}
522: \caption{\asZ\ results obtained from several event shape means or integrals
523: over the JCEF or EEC using \msbar\ theory plus Monte Carlo or power
524: hadronisation corrections and RGI theory with and without
525: non-perturbative terms.}
526: \label{f:rgias}
527: \end{figure}
528: Some relevant data on mean values of shape distributions as function of the
529: centre-of-mass energy \cite{Abdallah:2003xz} is shown in
530: Fig.~\ref{f:rgifits}.
531: The data is compared
532: to fits of Eqn.~\ref{eq:DG} shown as full lines. The dashed lines represent
533: the \msbar-prediction for the same \asZ.
534: It turned out that the data can be well described by
535: the ECH/RGI fits with a
536: single value of \asZ\ ($\sim 0.120$) and negligible additional non-perturbative terms.
537: In Fig.~\ref{f:rgias} the \asZ\ results obtained from this data with
538: \msbar\ prediction and Monte Carlo or power hadronisation corrections
539: and ECH/RGI theory with and without power terms are compared.
540: Evidently the spread of the results is far smaller for the ECH/RGI results.
541: The inclusion of power terms leaves the spread almost unchanged
542: but lowers the average value of \asZ\ to $0.118$.
543: This result implies that the differences due to non-trivial uncalculated higher
544: order terms or non-perturbative terms is small, of ${\cal{O}}(2\%)$.
545: Note that higher order corrections differing by about a factor 2
546: (in \msbar) are
547: expected~\footnote{Compare e.g. the $B/A$ ratios in Fig.~14 of
548: \cite{Abdallah:2003xz}. }
549: for event shape observables calculated from the full event or the wide
550: hemisphere of an event only. This is also reflected e.g. in the perturbatively
551: calculated ratio of the power terms of Thrust and $\rho_h$.
552: The bigger differences seen
553: in the \msbar\ compared to the ECH results then should be due to
554: ``RG predictable'' $\log \mu/Q$ terms.
555:
556: The better agreement of the ECH result is also illustrated by
557: Fig.~\ref{f:a0rgi} where the measured size of the
558: power terms for some observables as parameterised by $\alpha_0$ is
559: compared to the ECH/RGI expectation which has been calculated by
560: setting the \msbar+power terms expression equal to the ECH prediction.
561: It is evident that the RGI/ECH prediction describes the data better than
562: a universal value of $\alpha_0$ presumed by power correction models.
563: \begin{figure}[tbh]
564: \wi 0.16\textwidth
565: \hwi 0.4\textwidth
566: \fwi 0.58\textwidth
567: \begin{minipage}{\fwi}
568: {\centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{as_var_MF_lep.eps}}
569: \caption{Combined \lep\ \asZ\ results for different observables
570: \cite{Ford:2004dp}. \label{f:aslep} }
571: \end{minipage}\hfill
572: \begin{minipage}{\hwi}
573: {\centering\includegraphics[width=\wi]{a0bargraph_dw_m.ps}}
574: \caption{Size of the non-perturbative terms $\alpha_0$ as determined from
575: power model fits compared to ECH expectation (grey bands). }
576: \label{f:a0rgi}
577: \end{minipage}
578: \end{figure}
579:
580: \begin{table}[b]
581: \caption{Results on $\beta_0$ obtained from RGI/ECH fits to
582: \delphi\ data \cite{Abdallah:2003xz}.
583: The first error is statistical, the second is systematic and the
584: third is due to the B-hadron decay correction.
585: The uncertainty due to possible non-pert. contributions is small.}
586: \label{t:bet0cmp}~\\
587: \begin{center}
588: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
589: \hline \textbf{Observable} & $\mathbf{\beta_0}$ & $\mathbf{\chi^2/N_{df}}$ \\
590: \hline
591: $\langle 1-\text{Thrust} \rangle$ & $7.7\pm1.1\pm0.2\pm0.1$ & $9.2/13$\\
592: $\langle \text{C-parameter} \rangle$ & $7.8\pm1.0\pm0.3\pm0.1$ & $7.2/13$\\
593: $\langle \rho_h \rangle$ E-def.& $7.5\pm1.5\pm0.2\pm0.0$ & $8.8/13$\\
594: $\langle \rho_s \rangle$ E-def.& $7.5\pm1.1\pm0.2\pm0.0$ & $7.1/13$\\
595: $\langle B_{\text{W}}\rangle$ & $7.7\pm1.4\pm0.1\pm0.1$ & $6.3/13$\\
596: $\langle B_{\text{T}}\rangle$ & $7.7\pm0.9\pm0.1\pm0.1$ & $5.9/13$\\
597: $\langle {\text{Major}}\rangle$ & $8.0\pm1.1\pm0.1\pm0.1$ & $9.2/13$\\
598: \hline
599: \end{tabular}
600: \end{center}
601: \end{table}
602:
603:
604:
605: Besides the comparison of the \as\ results from different observables
606: the energy dependence of these observables i.e. the observed
607: $\beta_R$-functions
608: can be compared to the NLO expectation.
609: As the NLO terms present only a small
610: ${\cal{O}}(4\%)$ correction $\rho_1$ has been set to the QCD expectation.
611: Then the $\beta_0$ values obtained from the different observables
612: can be directly
613: compared. In order to allow full control of the systematic uncertainties this
614: comparison was made for seven observables determined from
615: \delphi\ data only. The measured $\beta_0$ values
616: agree among each other within part of the correlated
617: statistical uncertainty and with the QCD expectation $\beta_0=7.66$
618: (see Tab.~1). The possible influence of power terms ($\sim 2\%$ at
619: the Z) on the $\beta$-function is small as the energy dependencies of the
620: power terms and the $\beta$-function are similar.
621:
622: Especially in view of a measurement of the $\beta$-function
623: the analysis has been
624: repeated including reliable low energy data on the Thrust.
625: The resulting fit is shown
626: in Fig.~\ref{f:rgithrustfit}, and corresponds to
627: \begin{xalignat}{1}
628: %\frac{dR^{-1}}{d\ln Q} & = 1.38\pm0.05 \quad, &\qquad
629: \beta_0 & = 7.86 \pm 0.32 \quad.
630: \end{xalignat}
631: This measurement of the $\beta$-function is the most precise presented so far
632: and allows to strongly constrain the QCD gauge group to SU(3)
633: in combination with measurements of the multiplicity ratio
634: of gluon and quark jets \cite{Abdallah:2005cy} and four jet angular
635: distributions \cite{Heister:2002tq, Abreu:1997mn, Abbiendi:2001qn}
636: (see Fig.~\ref{f:wimplot}).
637: This agreement in turn lends further support to the measurements using the ECH scheme.
638: \wi \textwidth
639: \fwi 0.43\wi
640: \hwi 0.47\wi
641: \begin{figure}[tb]
642: \begin{minipage}{\hwi}
643: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi,height=9.5cm]{rgiplot_gluino.eps}
644: \caption{ECH/RGI fit to data on $\langle 1-\text{Thrust} \rangle$.
645: The data is corrected for the small influence of B-hadron decays.
646: The full line represents the QCD expectation, the dashed-dotted line the
647: expectation for QCD plus light Gluinos.}
648: \label{f:rgithrustfit}
649: \end{minipage}\hfill
650: \begin{minipage}{\hwi}
651: \centering\includegraphics[width=\fwi]{xgruppenplot.eps}
652: \caption{Constraints on $C_A/C_F$ and $T_R/C_F$ from measurements of the
653: $\beta$-function, the multiplicity ratio in gluon to quark jets and four jet
654: angular distributions.}
655: \label{f:wimplot}
656: \end{minipage}
657: \end{figure}
658:
659: As a final check it has been tried to infer the possible size of $\rho_2$
660: from the overall Thrust data by fitting the corresponding expression
661: with $\beta_0$
662: and $\rho_1$ fixed to the QCD expectation. The resulting value of
663: $\rho_2$ was found to be small and consistent with 0.
664:
665: The above quoted results imply that the running of \epem data already
666: in the energy range above the b-threshold is well described by the leading
667: two coefficients of the QCD $\beta$-function expansion. Neither important
668: NNLO contributions nor important non-perturbative terms are observed from
669: the running of the observables or from the comparison of \as\ obtained from
670: different observables.
671: In turn this gives confidence to the ECH/RGI measurements of
672: \asZ\ from event shape
673: means.
674:
675: \section{Summary}
676: The extraction of \asZ\ from seven event shape distribution mean values
677: (corrected for mass effects) using
678: the ECH/RGI formalism shows a far better consistency between the individual
679: results (spread $\sim 2\%$) compared to the ones obtained using the
680: conventional \msbar\ \oassq\ analysis combined with Monte Carlo or power model
681: hadronisation corrections (spread $\sim 7\%$). Moreover the energy evolution
682: of these observables, the $\beta_R$-functions are well described
683: by the two-loop QCD expression and a universal value of \asZ.
684: Possible non-perturbative contributions turn out to be small ($\sim 2\%$ at the
685: Z). A fit to the precise data on Thrust in the energy range 15-205\gev\
686: precisely confirms the two loop QCD expectation.
687:
688: These experimental result support the theoretical prejudice that the ECH
689: scheme
690: is more general than a particular renormalisation scheme as it can be derived
691: non-perturbatively. Moreover large logarithmic terms $\propto \log\mu/Q$ are
692: avoided in ECH. This fact and the possibility to directly measure the
693: $\beta_R$-functions and thereby to judge the importance of genuine
694: higher order and
695: non-perturbative terms single out the ECH scheme for experimental tests.
696:
697: The inciting results obtained for mean values are corroborated by
698: studies of event shape distributions with experimentally optimised scales.
699: These scales turn out to be similar to the ECH expectation.
700: Also here the spread of
701: the \asZ\ results is strongly reduced although additional logarithmic
702: dependencies on the observables are to be expected.
703:
704: In studies employing \msbar\ theory and the so-called physical scale \xmu=1
705: the slope of the distribution is often badly described. This leads to
706: a dependence of the extracted \asZ\ value on the fit range, thus to a biased
707: result.
708: Due to the normalisation of the event shape distributions to one
709: such a dependence
710: must be present,
711: though to reduced extent, in the state-of-the-art matched
712: \oassq/NLLA analyses and most likely causes part of the spread
713: of the \asZ\ results extracted using this prescription.
714: Despite the technical
715: problems encountered \cite{maxtalk} studies to match ECH and NLLA
716: calculations should therefore proceed.
717:
718: In the concluding talk of the workshop \cite{muller} the question was raised
719: why both ECH and \msbar/power models lead to a reasonable description of the
720: energy evolution of mean values. Taking the ECH results for granted
721: this question can be
722: answered: The \msbar\ perturbative part of the power ansatz will
723: fulfill the RGE.
724: To leading order this is also true for the power contribution as its energy
725: dependence is similar to that of the coupling. As the size
726: of the power term is fit to the data the discrepancy to the ECH
727: expectation must be small. Still the predictability of the size of the power
728: terms (see Fig.~\ref{f:a0rgi}) using a single value of \asZ\ as input gives
729: preference to the ECH description for mean values.
730:
731: It is likely that a large part of the annoying and unsatisfactorily
732: large spread of the \asZ\ results obtained from different event shape
733: observables using
734: standard analyses is due to perturbing logarithmic terms induced by the choice
735: of the so-called physical scale and the \msbar\
736: renormalisation scheme. Given the above quoted positive ECH results
737: experimentalists
738: should be encouraged to also analyse their data using the ECH scheme
739: where possible and not
740: regard this alternative to the \msbar\ convention as a
741: heretical digression.
742:
743: \begin{acknowledgments}
744: I would like to thank the organisers of the FRIF workshop, Gavin Salam,
745: Mrinal Dasgupta and Yuri Dokshitzer for creating
746: the pleasant
747: and truly ``workshoppish'' atmosphere at Jussieu and for the
748: possibility to
749: summarise work prepared over the lifetime of \lep\ and \delphi.
750: I thank J.Drees and D.Wicke for comments to the manuscript.
751: \end{acknowledgments}
752:
753: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
754: %\bibliography{basename of .bib file}
755: \begin{thebibliography}{9} % Use for 1-9 references
756: %\begin{thebibliography}{99} % Use for 10-99 references
757: %\cite{Abreu:2000ck}
758: \bibitem{maxtalk}
759: C.~Maxwell, talk given at this meeting.
760: %\cite{Grunberg:1982fw}
761: \bibitem{Grunberg:1982fw}
762: G.~Grunberg,
763: %``Renormalization Scheme Independent QCD And QED: The Method Of Effective
764: %Charges,''
765: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 29} (1984) 2315.
766: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D29,2315;%%
767: %\cite{Dhar:1983py}
768: \bibitem{Dhar:1983py}
769: A.~Dhar and V.~Gupta,
770: %``A New Perturbative Approach To Renormalizable Field Theories,''
771: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 29} (1984) 2822.
772: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D29,2822;%%
773: %\cite{Barclay:1994qa}
774: \bibitem{Barclay:1994qa}
775:
776: D.~T.~Barclay, C.~J.~Maxwell and M.~T.~Reader,
777: %``Extracting Lambda(MS-bar) from experiment,''
778: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 3480.
779: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,3480;%%
780: %\cite{Celmaster:1979km}
781: \bibitem{Celmaster:1979km}
782: W.~Celmaster and R.~J.~Gonsalves,
783: %``The Renormalization Prescription Dependence Of The QCD Coupling Constant,''
784: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 20}, 1420 (1979).
785: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D20,1420;
786: %%%\cite{Abdallah:2003xz}
787: \bibitem{Abdallah:2003xz}
788: J.~Abdallah {\it et al.} [DELPHI Collaboration],
789: %``A study of the energy evolution of event shape distributions and their means
790: %with the DELPHI detector at LEP,''
791: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 29} (2003) 285
792: [arXiv:hep-ex/0307048].
793: \bibitem{ralle}
794: R.~Reinhardt, Dissertation, Bergische Univ. Wuppertal, WUB-DIS 2001-6, June
795: 2001, see archiv of the Deutsche Bibliothek,
796: {http://www.ddb.de/sammlungen/kataloge/opac\_dbf.htm}
797: \bibitem{Pfeifenschneider:1999rz}
798: P.~Pfeifenschneider {\it et al.} [JADE collaboration],
799: %``QCD analyses and determinations of alpha(s) in e+ e- annihilation at
800: %energies between 35-GeV and 189-GeV,''
801: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17} (2000) 19
802: [arXiv:hep-ex/0001055].
803: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0001055;%%
804: %\cite{MovillaFernandez:1997fr}
805: \bibitem{MovillaFernandez:1997fr}
806: P.~A.~Movilla Fernandez {\it et al.}
807: %O.~Biebel, S.~Bethke, S.~Kluth and P.~Pfeifenschneider
808: [JADE Collaboration],
809: %``A study of event shapes and determinations of alpha(s) using data of e+ e-
810: %annihilations at s**(1/2) = 22-GeV to 44-GeV,''
811: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 1} (1998) 461
812: [arXiv:hep-ex/9708034].
813: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9708034;%%
814: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0307048;
815: %%%\cite{Salam:2001bd}
816: \bibitem{Salam:2001bd}
817: G.~P.~Salam and D.~Wicke,
818: %``Hadron masses and power corrections to event shapes,''
819: JHEP {\bf 0105}, 061 (2001)
820: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102343].
821: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102343;%%
822: \bibitem{Abreu:2000ck}
823: P.~Abreu {\it et al.} [DELPHI Collaboration],
824: %``Consistent measurements of alpha(s) from precise oriented event shape
825: %distributions,''
826: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14} (2000) 557
827: [arXiv:hep-ex/0002026].
828: %\cite{Magnussen:1989eh}
829: \bibitem{siggi}
830: S.~Hahn, Dissertation, Bergische Univ. Wuppertal, WUB-DIS 2000-6, September
831: 2001, see archiv of the Deutsche Bibliothek,
832: {http://www.ddb.de/sammlungen/kataloge/opac\_dbf.htm}
833: %\cite{Burrows:1995vt}
834: \bibitem{Burrows:1995vt}
835: P.~N.~Burrows {\it et al.}, %H.~Masuda, D.~Muller and Y.~Ohnishi,
836: %``Application of 'optimized' perturbation theory to determination of alpha-s
837: %M(Z)**2 from hadronic event shape observables in e+ e- annihilation,''
838: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 382} (1996) 157
839: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602210].
840: The FAC result discussed in this paper corresponds to ECH. The conclusion
841: differs from the one of this talk or \cite{Abreu:2000ck,siggi}
842: as the results obtained for $B_T$ and Oblateness are far outlieing.
843: Omitting these results reduces the spread in \asZ\ from 0.008 to 0.004.
844: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602210;%%
845: \bibitem{Magnussen:1989eh}
846: N.~Magnussen, Dissertation, Bergische Univ. Wuppertal, WUB-DIS 1988,
847: %``Measurement Of Jet Cross-Sections In E+ E- Annihilations At 44-Gev
848: %Center-Of-Mass Energy,''
849: DESY-F22-89-01.
850: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=desy-f22-89-01}{SPIRES entry}
851: %\bibitem{templates-ref}
852: %http://www.cern.ch/accelconf/templates.html
853: %\cite{Acton:1992fa}
854: %\cite{Abreu:1992yc}
855: \bibitem{Abreu:1992yc}
856: P.~Abreu {\it et al.} [DELPHI Collaboration],
857: %``Determination of $alpha_{s}$ in second order {QCD} from hadronic $Z$
858: %decays,''
859: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 54} (1992) 55.
860: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C54,55;%%
861: \bibitem{Acton:1992fa}
862: P.~D.~Acton {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
863: %``A Global determination of alpha-s (M(z0)) at LEP,''
864: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 55} (1992) 1.
865: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C55,1;%%
866: %\cite{Abbiendi:2004qz}
867: \bibitem{Abbiendi:2004qz}
868: G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
869: %``Measurement of event shape distributions and moments in e+ e- $\to$ hadrons
870: %at 91-GeV - 209-GeV and a determination of alpha(s),''
871: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 40} (2005) 287
872: [arXiv:hep-ex/0503051].
873: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0503051;%%
874: %\cite{Ford:2004dp}
875: \bibitem{Ford:2004dp}
876: M.~T.~Ford, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge Univ.,
877: %``Studies of event shape observables with the OPAL detector at LEP,''
878: arXiv:hep-ex/0405054.
879: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0405054;%%
880: %\cite{Heister:2002tq}
881: \bibitem{Heister:2002tq}
882: A.~Heister {\it et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration],
883: %``Measurements of the strong coupling constant and the QCD colour factors
884: %using four-jet observables from hadronic Z decays,''
885: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 27} (2003) 1.
886: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C27,1;%%
887: %\cite{Abdallah:2005cy}
888: \bibitem{QCDwg}
889: The \lep\ QCD Working Group, A combination of \as\ values derived from event
890: shape variables at \lep\ , to be published. Preliminary results are included in
891: \cite{Ford:2004dp}.
892: \bibitem{Abdallah:2005cy}
893: J.~Abdallah {\it et al.} [DELPHI Collaboration],
894: %``Charged particle multiplicity in three-jet events and two-gluon systems,''
895: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 44} (2005) 311
896: [arXiv:hep-ex/0510025].
897: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0510025;%%
898: %\cite{Abreu:1997mn}
899: \bibitem{Abreu:1997mn}
900: P.~Abreu {\it et al.} [DELPHI Collaboration],
901: %``Measurement of the triple gluon vertex from double quark tagged 4-jet
902: %events,''
903: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 414} (1997) 401.
904: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B414,401;%%
905: %\cite{Abbiendi:2001qn}
906: \bibitem{Abbiendi:2001qn}
907: G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
908: %``A simultaneous measurement of the QCD colour factors and the strong
909: %coupling,''
910: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20} (2001) 601
911: [arXiv:hep-ex/0101044].
912: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0101044;%%
913: \bibitem{muller}
914: A.~Mueller, talk given at this meeting.
915: \end{thebibliography}
916: \end{document}
917: %\cite{Barreiro:1985db}
918: %\bibitem{Barreiro:1985db}
919: %F.~Barreiro,
920: %``Jets In E+ E- Annihilation And QCD,''
921: %Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 34} (1986) 503.
922: %%CITATION = FPYKA,34,503;%%
923: %
924: % ****** End of file template.aps ******
925: