1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: %\usepackage{amsfonts}
5: %\usepackage[mathscr]{eucal}
6:
7:
8:
9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\ov}{\overline}
14: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}
15: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}
16: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
17: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
18: \newcommand{\cchi}{\raisebox{2pt}{$\chi$}}
19: \newcommand{\mb}{\mathbb}
20: \newcommand{\mf}{\mathfrak}
21: \newcommand{\ms}{\mathscr}
22:
23:
24: \textheight=230mm
25: \textwidth=165mm
26: \hoffset=-1.9cm
27: \voffset=-2cm
28:
29:
30: \begin{document}
31:
32: \begin{flushright}
33: ITEP-PH-4/2000\\
34: hep-ph/0010089
35: \end{flushright}
36:
37: \vspace{5mm}
38: \centerline{\LARGE\bf The {\boldmath $V-A$} sum rules and the Operator}
39: \vspace{1mm}
40: \centerline{\LARGE\bf Product Expansion in complex {\boldmath $q^2$}-plane }
41: \vspace{1mm}
42: \centerline{\LARGE\bf from {\boldmath $\tau$}-decay data}
43: \vspace{7mm}
44: \centerline{\large B.L.Ioffe and K.N.Zyablyuk}
45: \vspace{5mm}
46: \centerline{e-mail: {\tt ioffe@vitep5.itep.ru, zyablyuk@heron.itep.ru}}
47: \vspace{3mm}
48: \centerline{\it Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics,}
49: \centerline{\it B.Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow 117259, Russia}
50:
51: \begin{abstract}
52: The operator product expansion (OPE) for the difference of vector and axial current correlators
53: is analyzed for complex values of momentum $q^2$. The vector and axial spectral functions,
54: taken from hadronic $\tau$-decay data, are treated with the help of Borel, Gaussian and
55: spectral moments sum rules. The range of applicability, advantages and disadvantages
56: of each type are discussed. The general features of OPE are confirmed by the data.
57: The vacuum expectation values of dimension 6 and 8 operators
58: are found to be $O_6=-(6.8\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-3} \, {\rm GeV}^6$,
59: $O_8=(7\pm 4)\times 10^{-3} \, {\rm GeV}^8$.
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64:
65: Precise measurements of vector $V$ and axial $A$ spectral functions in $\tau$-decay have been
66: recently performed by ALEPH \cite{ALEPH2} and OPAL \cite{OPAL} collaborations.
67: Define the polarization operators of hadronic currents:
68: \be
69: \label{pol0}
70: \Pi_{\mu\nu}^U(q)\,=\,
71: i\!\int e^{iqx}<TU_\mu(x) U_{\nu}(0)^\dagger> dx\,=\,\left(q_\mu q_\nu -g_{\mu\nu} q^2\right)
72: \Pi_U^{(1)}(q^2)+ q_\mu q_\nu \Pi_U^{(0)}(q^2) \; ,
73: \ee
74: $$
75: {\rm where} \qquad U=V,A \, ; \qquad
76: V_\mu=\bar{u}\gamma_\mu d \; , \qquad
77: A_\mu=\bar{u}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 d \; .
78: $$
79: The imaginary parts of the correlators are the so-called spectral functions ($s=q^2$),
80: \be
81: v_1/a_1(s)=2\pi\,{\rm Im}\,\Pi^{(1)}_{V/A}(s+i0) \; , \qquad
82: a_0(s)=2\pi\,{\rm Im}\,\Pi^{(0)}_{A}(s+i0) \; .
83: \ee
84: which have been measured from hadronic $\tau$-decays
85: for $0<s<m_\tau^2$. The spin-0 axial spectral function $a_0(s)$ is basically saturated by
86: $\tau\to \pi\nu_\tau$ channel, which gives $\delta$-function. It will not be considered here.
87:
88: In this paper the experimental data for $v_1-a_1$ will be used to determine numerical
89: values of the quark condensates in QCD. An early attempt to realize such programm was performed by
90: Eidelman, Vainstein and Kurdadze \cite{EVK} using $e^+e^-$ annihilation data, but the experimental
91: errors were rather large and the result not very conclusive. Also, higher order condensates and
92: higher order perturbative corrections were not included in the analysis. More recent analysis
93: \cite{G} of $e^+e^-$ annihilation data demonstrates, that the spread of the values of the quark and
94: gluon condensates is larger than found in \cite{EVK}. Therefore the consideration of the problem
95: based on new precise $\tau$-decay data is reasonable.
96:
97: The spin-1 parts $\Pi^{(1)}_V(q^2)$ and $\Pi^{(1)}_A(q^2)$ are
98: analytical functions in the complex $q^2$-plane with a cut along the right semiaxes starting from
99: the threshold of the lowest hadronic state: $4m_\pi^2$ for $\Pi^{(1)}_V$ and
100: $9m_\pi^2$ for $\Pi^{(1)}_A$. The latter has a kinematical pole at $q^2=0$. This is a
101: specific feature of QCD, which follows from the chiral symmetry in the limit of massless
102: $u,d$-quarks and its spontaneous violation. Indeed, in this limit the axial current is conserved and
103: there exists a massless Goldstone boson, namely the pion. Its contribution to the axial polarization
104: operator is given by:
105: \be
106: \label{pola1}
107: \Pi_{\mu\nu}^A(q)_\pi\,=\,f_\pi^2\left( \,g_{\mu\nu}\,-\,{q_\mu q_\nu \over q^2}\, \right) \; ,
108: \ee
109: where $f_\pi$ is the pion decay constant, $f_\pi=130.7 \; {\rm MeV}$ \cite{PDG}. When the quark
110: masses are taken into account, then in the first order of quark masses or, what is equivalent, in
111: $m_\pi^2$, eq.~(\ref{pola1}) gets modified:
112: \be
113: \label{pola2}
114: \Pi_{\mu\nu}^A(q)_\pi\,=\,f_\pi^2\left( \,g_{\mu\nu}\,-\,{q_\mu q_\nu \over q^2-m_\pi^2}\, \right) \; .
115: \ee
116: It can be decomposed in the tensor structures of (\ref{pol0}):
117: \be
118: \label{pola3}
119: \Pi_{\mu\nu}^A(q)_\pi\,=\,-\,{f_\pi^2\over q^2}\left( \, q_\mu q_\nu - g_{\mu\nu}q^2\, \right)
120: -\,{m_\pi^2\over q^2}\, q_\mu q_\nu \, {f_\pi^2\over q^2- m_\pi^2}
121: \ee
122: According to this equation the residue at the kinematical pole is equal to $-f_\pi^2$. The accuracy
123: of this statement is of order of the chiral symmetry violation in QCD, $\sim m_\pi^2/m_\rho^2$,
124: where $m_\rho$ is characteristic hadronic scale (say, $\rho$-meson mass) \cite{GL}
125: (e.g. a subtruction term $\sim g_{\mu\nu} f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2/m_\rho^2$ can be added to
126: $\Pi^A_{\mu\nu}$).
127:
128: The difference $\Pi_V-\Pi_A$ is of particular interest, since in QCD it does not have any perturbative
129: contribution in the limit of massless quarks.
130: We use the analytical properties of $\Pi^{(1)}_V(s)$ and $\Pi^{(1)}_A(s)$ in the complex $s$-plane in
131: order to construct the sum rules for $\Pi_V-\Pi_A$ valid at large $|s|$. At large $|s|$ the operator
132: product expansion (OPE) takes place
133: \be
134: \label{ope1}
135: \Pi_V^{(1)}(s)-\Pi_A^{(1)}(s)\,=\,\sum_{D\ge 4} \,{O^{V-A}_D \over
136: (-s)^{D/2} } \left( \,1\,+\,c_D {\alpha_s\over \pi}\, \right)\,=\,
137: \sum_{D\ge 4} \,{O_D \over (-s)^{D/2} } \; ,
138: \ee
139: where $O^{V-A}_D$ are the vacuum averages of local operators, constructed from quark
140: and gluon field. In what follows the operators $O_D$ without index $V-A$ include the
141: radiative corrections $O_D=O_D^{V-A}(1+c_D\alpha_s/\pi)$.
142: Higher order perturbative corrections to $O_D^{V-A}$, as well as the terms $\sim m_{u,d}^2$ are
143: neglected. One may expect, that OPE is valid in the whole complex $s$-plane, except for the
144: domain of small $|s|$ and near positive real semiaxes (see Fig.~\ref{opereg}).
145: \begin{figure}[tb]
146: \hspace{35mm}
147: \epsfig{file=ope_reg.eps}%, height=50mm, width=70mm}
148: \caption{Domain of OPE validity}
149: \label{opereg}
150: \end{figure}
151:
152: The measured difference of the spectral functions $v_1(s)-a_1(s)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{vma_exp}.
153: In this paper we use the ALEPH data, since the files with invariant mass spectra and
154: correspondent covariance matrices are publicly available.
155: \begin{figure}[tb]
156: \hspace{5mm}
157: \epsfig{file=vma_exp.eps}%, height=75mm, width=150mm}
158: \caption{The measured difference $v_1(s)-a_1(s)$. Figures from \cite{ALEPH2} and \cite{OPAL}.}
159: \label{vma_exp}
160: \end{figure}
161:
162: The operators $O^{V,A}_D$ have been computed up to dimension $D=6$ in \cite{SVZ}.
163: The earlier calculations of $O^V_8$ have been done in \cite{BG}--\cite{DS}, but there
164: are some discrepancies in the results. We have recalculated $O_8^{V,A}$ (see Appendix).
165: In the calculation of $O_6^{V-A}$ and $O_8^{V-A}$ the factorization hypothesis, i.e. the
166: saturation by intermediate vacuum state, is assumed. As shown in Appendix, there is
167: an ambiguity in the factorization of $D=8$ operators among the terms
168: of order $N_c^{-2}$; they are neglected here. The results are:
169: \bea
170: O^{V-A}_4 & = & 2 \,(m_u +m_d)\,<\bar{q}q> \; = \; -\, f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2
171: \label{o4} \\
172: O^{V-A}_6 & = & 2\pi \alpha_s \left<\,
173: (\bar{u}\gamma_\mu\lambda^a d)(\bar{d}\gamma_\mu \lambda^a u) -
174: (\bar{u}\gamma_5\gamma_\mu\lambda^a d)(\bar{d}\gamma_5\gamma_\mu \lambda^a u)\, \right>
175: \nonumber \\
176: & = & -\,{64\pi\alpha_s\over 9} <\bar{q}q>^2 \label{o6vma} \\
177: O^{V-A}_8 & = & 8\pi \alpha_s \, m_0^2 <\bar{q}q>^2 \; .
178: \label{o8vma}
179: \eea
180: The definition of $m_0^2$ is given in Appendix, we assume the isotopic symmetry
181: among the quark condensates: $<\bar{u}u>=<\bar{d}d>=<\bar{q}q>$.
182:
183: Let us discuss what is known about the vacuum averages $O_D^{V-A}$.
184: The numerical value $O_4^{V-A}=-f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2=-3.4\times 10^{-4} \;
185: {\rm GeV}^4$ is very small and in almost all cases can be ignored. The quark condensate
186: $<\bar{q}q>$ can be found from Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner low energy theorem \cite{GOR}:
187: \be
188: \label{qc1}
189: <\bar{q}q>\,=\,-\,{1\over 2}\,{f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2 \over m_u+m_d}
190: \ee
191: At standard values (see e.g. \cite{IKL}) $m_u=4.2 \; {\rm MeV}$, $m_d=7.5 \; {\rm MeV}$ we have
192: \be
193: \label{qc2}
194: <\bar{q}q>\,=\,-\,1.4 \times 10^{-2} \; {\rm GeV}^3
195: \ee
196: The value of $<\bar{q}q>$ depends on the normalization point $\mu^2$ and it is unclear to which
197: normalization point it refers. In recent analysis of QCD sum rules for proton \cite{I} the same
198: numerical value as (\ref{qc2}) was found at the point $\mu^2=1\; {\rm GeV}^2$. Using this value
199: and $\alpha_s(1\; {\rm GeV}^2)=0.5$, which follows from $\alpha(m_Z^2)=0.119$ by using
200: three loop QCD renormalization group evolution, we get for renorminvariant quantity:
201: \be
202: \label{qc3}
203: \alpha_s \, <\bar{q}q>^2\,=\,1.0 \times 10^{-4} \; {\rm GeV}^6
204: \ee
205: Here, however, we have to be careful. In QCD sum rule analysis \cite{I} no $\alpha_s$ corrections were
206: accounted. They may result in $20-30\%$ uncertainty in $<\bar{q}q>_{1\, {\rm GeV}^2}$.
207: Taking (\ref{qc3}), we get for $O_6^{V-A}$:
208: \be
209: \label{op6e1}
210: O_6^{V-A}\,=\,-\,2.2\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^6
211: \ee
212: The value of $m_0^2$ was found in \cite{BI} from the analysis of QCD sum rules for baryons:
213: \be
214: \label{m01}
215: m_0^2\,=\,0.8\pm 0.2 \; {\rm GeV}^2
216: \ee
217: The substitution of (\ref{qc3}) and (\ref{m01}) in (\ref{o8vma}) gives:
218: \be
219: \label{op8e1}
220: O_8^{V-A}\,=\,2\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^8
221: \ee
222:
223: Perturbative $\alpha_s$ corrections were calculated for the contribution of
224: $D=4$ \cite{CGS} and $D=6$ \cite{LSC, AC} operators. The correction to $O_4^{V-A}$ is
225: $c_4=4/3$; it increases the effective value of the operator $O_4$ on $20\%$.
226: Concerning $O_6$, two essentially different values have been obtained:
227: $c_6=247/48$ in \cite{LSC} and $c_6=89/48$ in \cite{AC}
228: \footnote{There is also the logarithmical correction $ (\alpha_s/4\pi)\ln{(s/\mu^2)}$ to the operator $O_6$,
229: which was not included in (\ref{ope1}). However this term is small for physically reasonable
230: values of the scale $\mu^2$.}. In \cite{AC} it was argued, that the
231: last one is more reliable, since in its calculation the correct treatment of $\gamma_5$ in
232: dimensional regularization scheme was done and more plausible vacuum saturation of 4-quark
233: operators was performed. If we take $c_6=89/48$, put $\alpha_s(1\, {\rm GeV}^2)=0.5$ and neglect the
234: $q^2$ dependence, then we get for the effective operator:
235: \be
236: \label{op6e2}
237: O_6\,=\,-\,3\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^6
238: \ee
239: In leading order $O_8$ weakly depends on the normalization point. So we will consider
240: $O_8=O_8^{V-A}$ as effective $D=8$ operator with $\alpha_s$ correction included.
241:
242: Our goal is to find $O_6$ and $O_8$ from $\tau$ decay data and compare them with (\ref{op6e2})
243: and (\ref{op8e1}). Higher order operators with $D\ge 10$ also contribute to OPE (\ref{ope1}).
244: OPE is an asymptotic series. The comparision of numerical values (\ref{op6e1}) and
245: (\ref{op8e1}) indicates, that at $|s|=1\,{\rm GeV}^2$ this series starts to diverge at $D=8$
246: (the same conclusion $|O_6|\sim |O_8|$ in GeV follows also from our final result). Therefore in order to
247: get reliable results we have to go to higher $|s|$ or to improve the convergence of the series.
248: In order to estimate the error in the $O_{6,8}$ determination we will accept the conservative
249: assumption, that $O_D$ measured in $(\rm GeV)^D$ increase starting from $D=10$,
250: for instance $|O_{10}|\sim 2|O_6|$.
251:
252:
253:
254:
255: \section{Moments sum rules}
256:
257: The dispersion relation or Borel transformation requires the knowledge of the spectral
258: functions for all $s$. Although the vector function $v_1(s)$ within isotopic symmetry
259: can be found for $s>m_\tau^2$ from $e^+e^-$ annihilation, the precision is low, since
260: the experimental analysis involves the states with 6 mesons and more.
261: The axial-vector function $a_1(s)$ is not known beyond this point at all.
262:
263: The technique of the spectral moments \cite{DP} used for the evaluation
264: of hadronic $\tau$-decay branching ratio does not need this information.
265: The following moments are computed:
266: \bea
267: M^{kl}(s_0) & = & {1\over 2\pi^2}\int_0^{s_0} {ds\over s_0} \left(1-{s\over s_0}\right)^k
268: \left({s\over s_0}\right)^l (v_1-a_1)(s) \label{mome} \\
269: & = & {i\over 2\pi} \oint_{|s|=s_0} {ds\over s_0} \left(1-{s\over s_0}\right)^k
270: \left({s\over s_0}\right)^l (\Pi_V^{(1)} - \Pi_A^{(1)})(s)
271: \,=\,(-)^l\sum_{j=0}^k C^k_j \,{O_{2(l+j+1)}\over s_0{}^{l+j+1}} \; ,
272: \label{momt}
273: \eea
274: $C^k_j$ are binomial factors (we take $O_2=f_\pi^2$ here).
275: For $s_0<m_\tau^2 $ the moments can be computed from experimental data.
276: In the equation (\ref{momt}) the integral goes counterclockwise over the circle with radius $s_0$.
277:
278: In principle one can find all operators $O_D$ in this way. Nevertheless, for $k<2$ the
279: experimental error is very high, so the number of independent moments in (\ref{momt})
280: which can be computed with desirable accuracy is less, than
281: the number of unknown operators. Consequently
282: we have to neglect the contribution of higher dimensional operators, introducing thereby
283: a theoretical uncertainty.
284:
285: In order to find the operators up to $D=8$, one should compute four independent moments
286: $M^{kl}$. The experimental error is large for small $k$ and large $l$. The theoretical
287: uncertainty grows with $k+l$, since unknown operators from $O_{10}$ to $O_{2(k+l+1)}$
288: are involved. Although the experimental error could be in acceptable range, the
289: result depends on particular set of moments.
290:
291: On the other hand, $f_\pi^2$ and $O_4$ are known from other data with high accuracy.
292: One may use this information and moments with $k=2$ in order to find the
293: operator of dimension 6 and higher:
294: \be
295: (-)^n\,O_{2n} \, = \, s_0^n \left[\, -\,\sum_{l=0}^{n-3}(n-l-2)M^{2l}(s_0)\,
296: + \,(n-2)\,{f_\pi^2\over s_0} \,+\,(n-1)\,{O_4\over s_0^2}\,
297: \right] \; , \qquad n\ge 3 \, . \label{o6m}
298: \ee
299: Provided that the OPE (\ref{ope1}) works, the r.h.s. of this equation
300: should not depend on $s_0$. It is plotted versus $s_0$ in the Fig.~\ref{o6o8fig}a,b for
301: $n=3$ and $n=4$ respectively. According to these figures the operator $O_6$ can be estimated as
302: $-(5\pm 3)\times 10^{-3} \, {\rm GeV}^6$, while the operator $O_8$ is even remotely
303: does not look as a constant. The uncertainty in the determination of $f_\pi$ strongly
304: affects the result. In the Figs \ref{o6o8fig}a,b we have plotted the operators for 3 different cases:
305: the central value $f_\pi =130.7 \, {\rm MeV}$ and with $\pm 1.5\%$ excess.
306:
307:
308: \begin{figure}[tb]
309: \hspace{5mm}
310: \epsfig{file=o6.eps, height=65mm, width=70mm} \hspace{10mm}
311: \epsfig{file=o8.eps, height=65mm, width=70mm}
312: \caption{Right hand sides of the equation (\ref{o6m}) for $n=3$ (a) and $n=4$ (b).}
313: \label{o6o8fig}
314: \end{figure}
315:
316: The reason of this failure is the invalidity of the expansion (\ref{ope1}) in all complex $s$-plane.
317: In the moments (\ref{momt}) the integral over the circle crosses the area
318: where OPE does not work (see Fig.~\ref{opereg})
319: and it is questionable whether this contribution is suppressed enough by the factor $(1-s/s_0)^k$.
320: As Fig.~\ref{o6o8fig} demonstrates, this is true only for the radius of the circle greater than
321: $\sim 2 \, {\rm GeV}^2$.
322:
323: In principle eq.~(\ref{o6m}) can be used for $n\ge 5$, but the experimental error in this
324: case is so high that it does not allow us to extract any reliable information about the values
325: of $D\ge 10$ operators.
326:
327:
328:
329: \section{Borel sum rules}
330:
331: The Borel sum rules can be considered at complex values of $s$.
332: Represent $\Pi^{(1)}_V-\Pi^{(1)}_A$ via unsubtructed dispersion relation
333: \be
334: \Pi^{(1)}_V(s)-\Pi^{(1)}_A(s)\,=\,{1\over 2\pi^2}\int_0^\infty {v_1(t)-a_1(t)\over t-s} \, dt\,+
335: \,{f_\pi^2\over s}
336: \label{dr}
337: \ee
338: The last term in the r.h.s. is the contribution of the kinematic pole.
339: Let us substitute the OPE (\ref{ope1}) in the l.h.s. of (\ref{dr}). Consider $s$ in the complex plane
340: $s=s_0e^{i\phi}$ ($\phi=0$ on the upper side of the cut) and perform Borel (Laplace) transformation
341: of (\ref{dr}) by $s_0$. The real and imaginary parts give us the following sum rules:
342: \be
343: \label{bre}
344: \int_0^\infty
345: \exp{\!\left({s\over M^2}\cos{\phi}\right)}\cos{\!\left({s\over M^2}\sin{\phi}\right)}
346: (v_1-a_1)(s)\,{ds\over 2\pi^2} \, = \, f_\pi^2+\,\sum_{k=1}^\infty
347: (-)^k {\cos{(k\phi)} \,O_{2k+2}\over k!\, M^{2k}}
348: \ee
349: \be
350: \label{bim}
351: \int_0^\infty
352: \exp{\!\left({s\over M^2}\cos{\phi}\right)}\,\sin{\!\left({s\over M^2}\sin{\phi}\right)}
353: (v_1-a_1)(s)\,{ds\over 2\pi^2 M^2} \, = \,\sum_{k=1}^\infty
354: (-)^k {\sin{(k\phi)} \,O_{2k+2}\over k!\, M^{2k+2}}
355: \ee
356: The expression in the exponent is negative for $\pi/2<\phi<3\pi/2$. Since
357: eq.~(\ref{bre}) is symmetric and eq.~(\ref{bim}) is antisymmetric
358: in the lower half plane, it is enough to analyze the region $\pi/2<\phi<\pi$.
359:
360: At certain angles the contribution of some operators vanishes. This fact
361: can be used to separate the operators from each other. In particular,
362: eq.~(\ref{bre}) with $\phi=3\pi/4$ and eq.~(\ref{bim}) with $\phi=2\pi/3$
363: do not contain the operator of dimension 8.
364: For $\phi=5\pi/6$ the operator $O_6$ disappears from the eq.~(\ref{bre}) and mainly the
365: operator $O_8$ contributes to the excess over $f_\pi^2$. All these cases are shown in
366: Figs \ref{borc},\ref{bors}.
367: We also show eq.~(\ref{bim}) for $\phi=3\pi/4$, where the contributions of the operators
368: $O_6$ and $O_8$ are comparable. Thin areas on the graphs are just because the sin or cos
369: for particular $\phi$ and $M^2$ has zero at $s=m_\tau^2$ , where the experimental error is high.
370:
371: \begin{figure}[tb]
372: \hspace{5mm}
373: \epsfig{file=borel_c1.eps, height=65mm, width=70mm} \hspace{10mm}
374: \epsfig{file=borel_c2.eps, height=65mm, width=70mm}
375: \caption{Left hand side of (\ref{bre}). Dash lines display OPE prediction with operators
376: equal to the central values of (\ref{borbest}).}
377: \label{borc}
378: \end{figure}
379: \begin{figure}[tb]
380: \hspace{5mm}
381: \epsfig{file=borel_s1.eps, height=65mm, width=70mm} \hspace{10mm}
382: \epsfig{file=borel_s2.eps, height=65mm, width=70mm}
383: \caption{Left hand side of (\ref{bim}). Dash lines display OPE prediction with operators
384: equal to the central values of (\ref{borbest}).}
385: \label{bors}
386: \end{figure}
387:
388: Borel sum rules have serious advantage, since the operators of higher dimensions are factorially
389: suppressed. This allows one in the sum rules to go from above up to $M^2\approx 1\, {\rm GeV}^2$
390: and even lower in some cases. But they have also a disadvantage: at $M^2> 1\, {\rm GeV}^2$
391: the upper tail of the integrals in the l.h.s.'s of (\ref{bre}), (\ref{bim}) are not suppressed enough.
392: But, luckely, the oscillating factors in the l.h.s.'s of (\ref{bre}), (\ref{bim}) help in some cases as
393: can be seen from Figs \ref{borc},\ref{bors}. We exploit this fact.
394:
395: Let us look first at eq.~(\ref{bre}) at $\phi=5\pi/6$. The r.h.s. of (\ref{bre}) is equal to:
396: \be
397: f_\pi^2\,+\,{\sqrt{3}\over 2}\,{O_4 \over M^2}\,+\,{1\over 4}\,{O_6\over M^4}\,-
398: \,{1\over 48}\,{O_{10}\over M^8} \; ,
399: \label{bre5pi6}
400: \ee
401: higher orders are discarded. As seen from Fig \ref{borc}b at $M^2=0.8\, {\rm GeV}^2$, the
402: deviation from $f_\pi^2$ is definitely outside the limit of errors. The second term in (\ref{bre5pi6})
403: is small $\approx -3.0 \times 10^{-4}\; {\rm GeV}^2$. The main contribution comes from the operator
404: $O_6$, since $O_{10}$ contribution is strongly suppressed. If we neglect it, then one gets from
405: Fig \ref{borc}b:
406: \be
407: O_6\,=\,-(6.3\pm 1.4)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^6
408: \label{o6nb2}
409: \ee
410: Possible contribution of $O_{10}$ (at $O_{10}\sim 2|O_6|$) and $3\%$ uncertainty in $f_\pi^2$
411: increases the error to $2.5\times 10^{-3} \, {\rm GeV}^6$ (the errors are added in quadratures) and
412: finally we get from eq.~(\ref{bre}) at $\phi=5\pi/6$:
413: \be
414: O_6\,=\,-(6.3\pm 2.5)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^6
415: \label{o6nb3}
416: \ee
417: This value can be checked by considering the sum rule (\ref{bim}) at $\phi=2\pi/3$ (Fig \ref{bors}a).
418: The r.h.s. of (\ref{bim}) reads:
419: \be
420: -\,{\sqrt{3}\over 2}\,{O_4 \over M^4} \,-\, {\sqrt{3}\over 4}\,{O_6\over M^6}\,+
421: \,{\sqrt{3}\over 48}\,{O_{10}\over M^{10}}
422: \label{bim2pi3}
423: \ee
424: The most suitable $M^2$ is in the region of the isthmus in the experimental errors area,
425: $M^2\approx 0.85 \, {\rm GeV}^2$. Here, according to Fig \ref{bors}a, the l.h.s. of (\ref{bim})
426: is $(5.3\pm 1.0)\times 10^{-3}$ and we have from (\ref{bim2pi3})
427: \be
428: O_6\,=\,-(6.8\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^6
429: \label{o6nb4}
430: \ee
431: in agreement with (\ref{o6nb2}) (the error from $O_{10}$ is included).
432:
433: Let us try to find the value of the operator $O_8$. In (\ref{bre}) at $\phi=3\pi/4$ the
434: contribution of $O_6$ vanishes and in the r.h.s. we get:
435: \be
436: f_\pi^2\,+\,{1\over \sqrt{2}}\,{O_4\over M^2}\,-\,{1\over 6\sqrt{2}}\,{O_8\over M^6}
437: \,-\,{1\over 24}\,{O_{10}\over M^8}
438: \ee
439: The most appropriate domain of $M^2$ is the area of small $M^2$, where the deviation
440: from $f_\pi^2$ is remarkable. At the assumption $|O_{10}|\sim 2|O_6|$ the minimal squared error
441: is achieved at $M^2=0.6\, {\rm GeV}^2$
442: \be
443: O_8\,=\,(6\pm 8)\times 10^{-3}\; {\rm GeV}^8 \; ,
444: \ee
445: which gives us only the upper limit of $O_8<14\times 10^{-3}\, {\rm GeV}^8$. Similar upper limit
446: follows from consideration of large $M^2\approx 1.4 \, {\rm GeV}^2$, where the contribution
447: of $O_{10}$ operator is small and experimental error dominates.
448:
449: Consider finally the eq.~(\ref{bim}) at $\phi=3\pi/4$, where both operators $O_6$ and $O_8$
450: contribute (Fig \ref{bors}b). This value of $\phi$ has the advantage, that $O_{10}$ operator
451: disappear from the r.h.s. of (\ref{bim}), which becomes:
452: \be
453: -\,{1\over \sqrt{2}}\,{O_4\over M^4}\,-\,{1\over 2}\,{O_6\over M^6}
454: \,-\,{1\over 6\sqrt{2}}\,{O_8\over M^8}\,+\,{1\over 120\sqrt{2}}\,{O_{12}\over M^{12}}
455: \label{bim3pi4}
456: \ee
457: The small numerical factor in front of $O_{12}$ operator allows one to go to low values of $M^2$,
458: where the experimental errors are small. We choose $M^2=0.65\, {\rm GeV}^2$. Then, even if
459: $O_{12}\sim 5 |O_6|$, its contribution to (\ref{bim3pi4}) is small. At $M^2=0.65\, {\rm GeV}^2$
460: the data give the value $(8.5\pm 0.6)\times 10^{-3}$ for the expression (\ref{bim3pi4}).
461: The substitution of $O_6=-(6.8\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm GeV}^6$ given by (\ref{o6nb4}) results to:
462: \be
463: O_8\,=\,(7\pm 7)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^8
464: \ee
465: (The possible error from $O_{12}$ contribution is accounted at $|O_{12}|\sim 5 |O_6|$,
466: all errors are added quadratically.) Again, only the upper limit.
467:
468: More definite result for $O_8$ can be obtained if we accept more optimistic assumption,
469: that the magnitudes of $O_{10,12}$ operators in GeV are of the same order as $|O_6|$. Then
470: the error of $O_6$ in eq.~(\ref{o6nb4})
471: is reduced to $1.6 \times 10^{-3}$ and in eq.~(\ref{bim}) at $\phi=3\pi/4$
472: one may go down to $M^2=0.4 \; {\rm GeV}^2$ to minimize the total error. In this case
473: our best values from Borel sum rules are:
474: \be
475: O_6\,=\,-(6.8\pm 1.6)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^6 \; , \qquad
476: O_8\,=\,(7.2\pm 3.4)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^8
477: \label{borbest}
478: \ee
479: These results must be taken with a certain care, sine the errors may be underestimated:
480: at such low $M^2$ there could be some terms, not given by OPE (e.g. of exponential
481: type, $\exp{(-\rho\sqrt{-s})}$).
482:
483:
484: \section{Gaussian sum rules}
485:
486: In Borel sum rules the spectral functions are integrated with the weight function $e^{-s/M^2}$.
487: This exponent suppresses the contribution of the points near $s=m_\tau^2$ with low
488: experimental accuracy and unknown tail beyond them. However this suppression is not
489: always enough, especially when one would like to find the excess due to operators $O_{6,8}$
490: over dominating $f_\pi^2$.
491:
492: Gaussian sum rules have an advantage, that the high energy tail in the dispersion integrals
493: are suppressed by the factor $e^{-s^2/M^4}$, stronger than in Borel sum rules even at $M^2$
494: not much lower $m_\tau^2$. But they also have a disadvantage, because the factorial suppression
495: of high order terms in OPE starts in fact at operators of very high dimension.
496:
497: The sum rules of this kind can be constructed with the help of the analysis of the correlators
498: on the complex plane. Consider for instance the real part of the polarization operator
499: on the imaginary axes:
500: \be
501: {\rm Re}\,\Pi^{(1)}_{V-A}(is_0)\,=\,{1\over 2\pi^2}\,\int_0^\infty
502: {(v_1-a_1)(s)\over s^2+s_0^2}\,s\,ds\,=\,\sum_{k=1}^\infty {O_{4k}\over (-s_0^2)^k}
503: \ee
504: Since both sides of this equation depend only on $s_0^2$, one may apply the Borel operator
505: over this variable to get the following gaussian sum rule:
506: \be
507: \label{4ksr}
508: {1\over 2\pi^2}\,\int_0^\infty
509: e^{-s^2/M^4}(v_1-a_1)(s)\,{s\,ds\over M^4}\,=\,\sum_{k=1}^\infty
510: {(-)^k O_{4k}\over (k-1)!\, M^{4k}}
511: \ee
512: Since the operator $O_4$ is negligible, the expansion in the r.h.s. starts from $O_8$.
513: Consequently the eq.~(\ref{4ksr}) can be used to find the operator of dimension 8.
514: The l.h.s. of (\ref{4ksr}) is plotted in Fig.~\ref{gausso6o8}a.
515:
516: \begin{figure}[tb]
517: \hspace{5mm}
518: \epsfig{file=gauss_o8.eps, height=65mm, width=70mm} \hspace{10mm}
519: \epsfig{file=gauss_o6.eps, height=65mm, width=70mm}
520: \caption{Left hand sides of the equations (\ref{4ksr}) and (\ref{4kp2sr}) respectively.
521: Dash lines display OPE prediction with operators taken from Borel sum rules (\ref{borbest}).}
522: \label{gausso6o8}
523: \end{figure}
524:
525:
526: In order to find the operator $O_6$ from Gaussian-like sum rule, one has to construct an another
527: function of $s_0^2$ from the correlator $\Pi(s)$ which consists of the operators of
528: dimension $4k+2$. To kill the leading term $f_\pi^2$, consider the imaginary part
529: of $e^{i\varphi}\Pi(s_0e^{i\varphi})$ at some angle $\varphi$.
530: Further, to cancel the operators of dimension
531: $4k$, one can add this function at the point symmetric with respect to imaginary axes. The result is:
532: $$
533: {1\over 2s_0}\,{\rm Im}\left[ \,e^{i\phi/2}\Pi^{(1)}_{V-A}(s_0e^{i\phi/2})
534: +e^{-i\phi/2}\Pi^{(1)}_{V-A}(-s_0e^{-i\phi/2}) \,\right]\,=
535: $$
536: \be
537: =\,{\sin{\phi}\over 2\pi^2}\int_0^\infty \, {(v_1-a_1)(s) \over s^4+s_0^4 - 2s^2s_0^2\cos{\phi}}\,s^2\,ds
538: \,=\,\sum_{k=1}^\infty \,\sin{(k\phi)}\,{O_{4k+2}\over s_0^{2k+1}}
539: \ee
540: Applying the Borel operator by variable $s_0^2$, we get:
541: \be
542: \label{4kp2sr}
543: {1\over 2\pi^2}\int_0^\infty
544: \exp{\!\left({s^2\over M^4}\cos{\phi}\right)}\,\sin{\!\left({s^2\over M^4}\sin{\phi}\right)}
545: (v_1-a_1)(s)\,{ds\over M^2}\,=\,\sum_{k=1}^\infty
546: \sin{(k\phi)} \,{O_{4k+2}\over k!\, M^{4k+2}}
547: \ee
548: The r.h.s. starts from $O_6$. For the exponent to be decreasing, the angle $\phi$ must be in the
549: range $\pi/2<\phi<\pi$ (the range $\pi<\phi<3\pi/2$ obviously does not contain any new information).
550: The l.h.s. of (\ref{4kp2sr}) for $\phi=3\pi/4$ is plotted
551: versus $M^2$ on Fig.~\ref{gausso6o8}b.
552:
553: The operators $O_{4k}, k\ge 1$ contribute to the sum rule (\ref{4ksr}). If we neglect contributions
554: of high orders starting from $O_{12}$, then from the Fig \ref{gausso6o8}a at $M^2=1.5 \, {\rm GeV}^2$
555: for $O_8$ we would have
556: \be
557: O_8\,=\,(10.6\pm 3.6)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^8
558: \label{o8gn1}
559: \ee
560: However, the result strongly depends on $O_{12}$ operator. If we use the same estimation as
561: in the previous section $|O_{12}|=5|O_6|$, then (\ref{o8gn1}) may change on $\pm 7.7\times 10^{-3}$.
562: Considering this amount as possible error in (\ref{o8gn1}) and adding the errors in
563: quadratures, we get:
564: \be
565: O_8\,=\,(10.6\pm 8.5)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^8
566: \label{o8gn2}
567: \ee
568: Going to lower energies is dangerous, because the contribution of $O_{12}$ increases drastically.
569: At higher $M^2$, where the higher order operator can be neglected, the experimental error
570: does not allow to get any definite conclusion about the magnitude of $O_8$.
571:
572: Now we turn to eq.~(\ref{4kp2sr}) at $\phi=3\pi/4$. The most suitable scale is
573: $M^2=1.5 \; {\rm GeV}^2$. The next to $O_6$ in (\ref{4kp2sr}) is the operator $O_{10}$.
574: Its contribution at $1.5\, {\rm GeV}^2$ is suppressed not so much, by a factor $(\sqrt{2}M^4)^{-1}$.
575: If we allow, that $|O_{10}|$ could be as large as $2|O_6|$ (in GeV) and include this uncertainty
576: as an error, then the following esimation goes from Fig \ref{gausso6o8}b:
577: \be
578: O_6\,=\,-\,(7.2\pm 5.1)\times 10^{-3}\; {\rm GeV}^6
579: \label{o6gn1}
580: \ee
581:
582: In case of more optimistic assumption used in previous section $|O_{10,12}|\sim |O_6|$
583: we get better results, especially for the operator $O_8$:
584: \be
585: \label{gaussbest}
586: O_6\,=\,-(7.7\pm 3.2)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^6 \; , \qquad
587: O_8\,=\,(9.8\pm 2.3)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^8
588: \ee
589: One may stress, however, that the assumption $|O_{12}|\sim |O_6|$ is the most dubious.
590:
591: The conclusion is the following. The operators, obtained from Gaussian sum rules are compatible
592: with Borel ones. However the range of applicability is different. Indeed, the Borel exponent
593: effectively suppresses the high energy contribution only for $M^2<1\, {\rm GeV}^2$.
594: But in the Borel expansion each operator of dimension $D$ has the factor $1/(D/2)!$, which
595: provides much stronger suppression then the Gaussian factor $1/(D/4)!$.
596: Consequently the effective radius of convergence of borel series could be lower.
597: As the Figs \ref{borc}-\ref{bors}
598: show, this is indeed true: the coincidence of the right and left hand sides begins with
599: $M^2=0.6\,{\rm GeV}^2$, twice lower the correspondent gaussian value.
600:
601: \section{Summary}
602:
603: The recently obtained data by ALEPH and OPAL collaborations on $V-A$ spectral functions
604: in $\tau$-decay were used for determination of quark and quark-gluon condensates:
605: vacuum expectation values of dimension 6 and 8 operators $O_6^{V-A}$ and $O_8^{V-A}$.
606: The analytical properties of polarization operator $\Pi^{(1)}_V(q^2)-\Pi^{(1)}_A(q^2)$
607: in the complex $q^2$-plane were exploited. Three types of sum rules were used:
608: moments sum rules, Borel and Gaussian ones. The results are summarized in Tables 1,2.
609: They are in agreement with one another in the limit of errors and the best values of $O_{6,8}$ are:
610: \be
611: O_6\,=\,-(6.8\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^6 \; , \qquad
612: O_8\,=\,(7\pm 4)\times 10^{-3} \; {\rm GeV}^8
613: \label{sumval}
614: \ee
615: The errors here are not quite well defined, they are just our estimations based on the data,
616: presented in Tables 1,2. Particularly, in case of $O_8$ operator the errors strongly depend
617: on the assumption about the magnitude of $O_{12}$. In the most pessimistic case of large $|O_{12}|$,
618: say $|O_{12}|\sim 5|O_6|$ in GeV, we have only the upper limit
619: $O_8\lesssim 14\times 10^{-3}\, {\rm GeV}^8$.
620:
621: The values (\ref{sumval}) are by a factor $1.5-2$ larger, than the values (\ref{op6e1}), (\ref{op8e1})
622: found from low energy theorems and QCD sum rules (see Introduction). If this discrepancy
623: is addressed to the quark condensate, then, in accord with (\ref{qc1}) it
624: means that $m_u+m_d$ at $1 \, {\rm GeV}^2$
625: is by $20-40\%$ less than the standard value $12\, {\rm MeV}$. Up to this may be not so essential
626: discrepancy the analysis of $\tau$-decay data confirms the general concept of OPE and the
627: magnitudes of quark and quark-gluon condensates.
628:
629:
630: \begin{table}
631: \hspace{10mm}
632: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c||c||c|c|c|c}
633: \hline
634: {\small source} & {\small assumption} & {\small scale $M^2$} & {\small central} &
635: {\small exp.} & {\small $3\%$ $f_\pi^2$} & {\small $O_{10}$} & {\small total} \\
636: & &{\small in GeV${}^2$} & {\small value of $O_6$} &
637: {\small error} & {\small error} & {\small error} & {\small error} \\ \hline\hline
638: {\small eq.~(\ref{bre}) at} & {\small $O_{10}\sim 2O_6$} &
639: 0.80 & $-6.3$ & 1.4 & 1.3 & 1.6 & 2.5 \\ \cline{2-8}
640: {\small $\phi=5\pi/6$} & {\small $O_{10}\sim O_6$} &
641: 0.62 & $-6.1$ & 0.7 & 0.8 & 1.3 & 1.7 \\ \hline
642: {\small eq.~(\ref{bim}) at} & {\small $O_{10}\sim 2O_6$} &
643: 0.85 & $-6.8$ & 1.4 & --- & 1.6 & 2.1 \\ \cline{2-8}
644: {\small $\phi=2\pi/3$} & {\small $O_{10}\sim O_6$} &
645: 0.85 & $-6.8 $& 1.4 & --- & 0.8 & 1.6 \\ \hline
646: {\small eq.~(\ref{4kp2sr}) at} & {\small $O_{10}\sim 2O_6$} &
647: 1.53 & $-7.2$ & 2.8 & --- & 4.3 & 5.1 \\ \cline{2-8}
648: {\small $\phi=3\pi/4$} & {\small $O_{10}\sim O_6$} &
649: 1.47 & $-7.7$ & 2.0 & --- & 2.5 & 3.2 \\ \hline
650: \end{tabular}
651: \caption{Values of the operator $O_6$ with possible errors in $10^{-3}\, {\rm GeV}^6$,
652: obtained from Borel and Gaussian sum rules. In each case the scale $M^2$ is choosen in such way,
653: that the total squared error (the sum of all squared errors), is minimal. In second column the
654: magnitudes of operators are given in GeV.}
655: \end{table}
656:
657:
658: \begin{table}
659: \hspace{4mm}
660: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c||c||c|c|c|c|c}
661: \hline
662: {\small source} & {\small assumption} & {\small scale $M^2$} & {\small central} &
663: {\small exp.} & {\small $3\%$ $f_\pi^2$} & {\small $O_6$} & {\small $O_{10, 12}$} & {\small total} \\
664: & &{\small in GeV${}^2$} & {\small value of $O_8$} &
665: {\small error} & {\small error} & {\small error} & {\small error} & {\small error} \\ \hline\hline
666: {\small eq.~(\ref{bre}) at} & {\small $O_{10}\sim 2O_6$} &
667: 0.65 & 6.2 & 2.8 & 1.2 & --- & 7.4 & 8.0 \\ \cline{2-9}
668: {\small $\phi=3\pi/4$} & {\small $O_{10}\sim O_6$} &
669: 0.59 & 5.5 & 1.3 & 0.9 & --- & 4.1 & 4.4 \\ \hline
670: {\small eq.~(\ref{bim}) at} & {\small $O_{12}\sim 5O_6$} &
671: 0.65 & 7.0 & 1.0 & --- & 5.8 & 4.0 & 7.1 \\ \cline{2-9}
672: {\small $\phi=3\pi/4$} & {\small $O_{12}\sim O_6$} &
673: 0.41 & 7.2 & 0.1 & --- & 2.8 & 2.0 & 3.4 \\ \hline
674: {\small eq.~(\ref{4ksr})} & {\small $O_{12}\sim 5O_6$} &
675: 1.49 & 10.6 & 3.6 & --- & --- & 7.7 & 8.5 \\ \cline{2-9}
676: & {\small $O_{12}\sim O_6$} &
677: 1.29 & 9.8 & 1.0 & --- & --- & 2.0 & 2.3 \\ \hline
678: \end{tabular}
679: \caption{Values of the operator $O_8$ with possible errors in $10^{-3}\, {\rm GeV}^8$.}
680: \end{table}
681:
682:
683:
684: \vspace{10mm}
685:
686: The authors are thankful to A.Oganesian for his help in the calculation of dimension 8 operator.
687: The research described in this publication was made possible in part by Award No RP2-2247
688: of U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation for Independent States of Former
689: Soviet Union (CRDF) and by Russian Found of Basic Research grant 00-02-17808.
690:
691:
692: \section*{Appendix: The condensate of dimension 8\footnote{
693: A.Oganesian participated in the calculation of dimension 8 operator.}}
694:
695: It consists of three different contributions:
696: \be
697: O_8\,=\,O_8^{(0)}\,+\,O_8^{(2)}\,+\,O_8^{(4)} \; ,
698: \ee
699: where the upper index denotes the number of quarks in vacuum. The purely gluonic condensate
700: $O_8^{(0)}$ and two-quark one $O_8^{(2)}$ have been computed in \cite{BG}. They contain
701: many independent operators, which cannot be expressed in terms of condensates of lower dimensions.
702: However in the masseless quark limit these operators are the same for vector and axial
703: correlators and disappear in the difference $O_8^{V-A}$.
704:
705: We have explicitly computed the four quark condensate for the vector
706: current correlator:
707: \bea
708: O^{V\,(4)}_8 & = &
709: {g^2\over 36 }\, \Bigl<
710: \,8\,(\bar{u}\gamma_\alpha \lambda^a\! \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D}_\beta d)
711: (\bar{d} \gamma_\alpha \lambda^a\! \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D}_\beta u) \,
712: -\,11\,g\,f^{\,abc}G_{\alpha\beta}^c
713: (\bar{u} \gamma_\alpha\gamma_5 \lambda^a d)(\bar{d} \gamma_\beta\gamma_5 \lambda^b u)
714: \nonumber \\
715: & &
716: -\,14\, (\bar{u}\overleftarrow{D}_\alpha \gamma_\beta\gamma_5
717: \lambda^a \overrightarrow{D}_\alpha d )
718: (\bar{d}\gamma_\beta\gamma_5 \lambda^a u)
719: \,-\,14\,(\bar{d}\,\overleftarrow{D}_\alpha \gamma_\beta\gamma_5
720: \lambda^a \overrightarrow{D}_\alpha u)
721: (\bar{u}\gamma_\beta\gamma_5 \lambda^a d)
722: \nonumber \\
723: & &
724: +\,(\bar{u}\gamma_\alpha \{ \tilde{G}_{\alpha\beta}, \lambda^a\}d)
725: (\bar{d}\gamma_\beta\gamma_5 \lambda^a u)
726: \,+\,(\bar{d}\gamma_\alpha\{ \tilde{G}_{\alpha\beta}, \lambda^a\}u)
727: (\bar{u}\gamma_\beta \gamma_5 \lambda^a d)\, \Bigr> \; ,
728: \label{4qvecall}
729: \eea
730: where $G_{\alpha\beta}={g\over 2}\lambda^a G^a_{\alpha\beta}$ is gluon field,
731: ${\tilde G}_{\alpha\beta}={1\over 2}\ve_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}$,
732: $\ve_{0123}=1$, $\gamma_5=i\gamma_0\gamma_1\gamma_2\gamma_3$,
733: $\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D}=\overrightarrow{D}-\overleftarrow{D}$,
734: $D_\mu=\partial_\mu-{ig\over 2}\lambda^a A^a_\mu$,
735: the derivatives in the brackets $(\ldots)$ act only on the objects inside these brackets;
736: $\lambda^a$ are Gell-Mann matrices, $[\lambda^a,\lambda^b]=if^{abc}\lambda^c$.
737: One may check, that the eq.~(\ref{4qvecall}) can be brought to the form obtained
738: in \cite{GP}, which verifies our results.
739:
740: The condensate of axial currents $O^{A\,(4)}_8$ can be easily obtained from
741: (\ref{4qvecall}) with the help of the replacement $d\to \gamma^5 d$.
742:
743: To reduce the number of independent
744: operators in (\ref{4qvecall}), the vacuum insertion can be applied to $O^{(4)}_8$.
745: Nevertheless this procedure is not unambiguous. Indeed, let us consider the following
746: operator, which appears in the derivation of (\ref{4qvecall}):
747: \bea
748: <(\bar{q}\gamma_\alpha\lambda^a q) D_{(\alpha}D_{\beta)}(\bar{q}\gamma_\beta\lambda^a q)>
749: & = & {g\over 4}<f^{abc}G^c_{\alpha\beta}(\bar{q}\gamma_\alpha\lambda^a q)
750: (\bar{q}\gamma_\beta\lambda^b q)> \nonumber \\
751: & = & -\,{i\over 2}<\bar{q}\hat{G} q><\bar{q}q> \; ,
752: \label{viex1}
753: \eea
754: where $\hat{G}=\gamma_{\alpha\beta}G_{\alpha\beta}$. In (\ref{viex1}) we used the
755: quark equation of motion and commutational relation for the covariant derivatives, and then
756: applied the vacuum insertion. On the other hand, one may apply the vacuum insertion at first
757: and use equations of motion after then:
758: \bea
759: <(\bar{q}\gamma_\alpha\lambda^a q) D_{(\alpha}D_{\beta)}(\bar{q}\gamma_\beta\lambda^a q)>
760: & = & -\left( 1-{1\over N_c^2} \right) <\bar{q} D^2 q><\bar{q}q> \nonumber \\
761: & = & -\, {i\over 2}\left( 1-{1\over N_c^2} \right)
762: <\bar{q}\hat{G} q><\bar{q}q> \; ,
763: \label{viex2}
764: \eea
765: where $N_c$ is the number of colors. We see, that two different ways of the vacuum insertion
766: give the same result only up to the terms of order $\sim 1/N_c^2$.
767:
768: Consequently, within the framework of the factorization hypothesis we
769: may write the four quark operators (\ref{4qvecall}) in the following form:
770: \be
771: O^{V\,(4)}_8\,=\,-\,O^{A\,(4)}_8\,=
772: \,4\pi\alpha_s m_0^2 <\bar{q}q>^2 \left( \,1\,+\,O(N_c^{-2})\, \right)
773: \label{4qvacf}
774: \ee
775: The parameter $m_0$ is introduced as $<\bar{q}\hat{G}q>=im_0^2<\bar{q}q>$ according to
776: \cite{DS}. Within this accuracy the equation (\ref{4qvacf}) coincides with the result of
777: ref.~\cite{DS} (according to the isotopic symmetry the current correlators
778: $\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{\rm (here)}=2 \Pi_{\mu\nu}^{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize (ref.~\cite{DS})}}$).
779:
780:
781:
782: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
783: %\bibitem{ALEPH1}
784: %ALEPH collaboration: "Measurement of the spectral functions of vector
785: %current hadronic tau decays", CERN-PRE/97-013
786: \bibitem{ALEPH2}
787: ALEPH collaboration: R. Barate et al, Eur.J.Phys. {\bf C4} (1998) 409.
788: %"Measurement of the spectral functions of axial-vector hadronic $\tau$ decays
789: %and determination of $\alpha_s(M_\tau^2)$", CERN-EP/98-12.
790: The data files are taken from {\tt http://alephwww.cern.ch/ALPUB/paper/paper.html}
791: \bibitem{OPAL}
792: OPAL collaboration: K.Ackerstaff et al, Eur.J.Phys. {\bf C7} (1999) 571
793: %"Measurement of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the vector and
794: %axial vector spectral functions in hadronic tau decays", CERN-EP/98-102, hep-ex/9808019
795: \bibitem{EVK}
796: S.I.Eidelman, L.M.Kurdadze, A.I.Vainstein, Phys.Lett. {\bf B82} (1979) 278
797: \bibitem{G}
798: A.Grozin, Dissertation thesis, Novosibirsk, 1999, unpublished
799: \bibitem{PDG}
800: Particle Data Group, C.Caso et al, Eur.J.Phys. {\bf C3} (1998) 1
801: \bibitem{GL}
802: J.Gasser, H.Leutwyler, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B250} (1985) 539
803: \bibitem{SVZ}
804: M.A.Shifman, A.I.Vainstein, V.I.Zakharov, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B147} (1979) 385
805: \bibitem{BG}
806: D.J.Broadhurst, S.C.Generalis,
807: %"Dimension 8 contribution to light-quark QCD sum rules",
808: Phys.Lett. {\bf B165} (1985) 175
809: \bibitem{GP}
810: A.Grozin, Y.Pinelis,
811: %"Contribution of higher quark condensates to the light quark vacuum polarization",
812: Phys.Lett. {\bf B166} (1986) 429
813: \bibitem{DS}
814: M.S.Dubovikov, A.V.Smilga,
815: %"Nonperturbative QCD effects in physical cross sections",
816: ITEP-82-42
817: \bibitem{GOR}
818: M.Gell-Mann, R.J.Oakes and B.Renner, Phys.Rev. {\bf 175} (1968) 2195
819: \bibitem{IKL}
820: B.L.Ioffe, V.A.Khoze and L.N.Lipatov, Hard processes, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1984
821: \bibitem{I}
822: B.L.Ioffe, Lecture at St.Petersburg IV WinterSchool, Surveys in High Energy Physics, {\bf 14} (1999) 89
823: \bibitem{BI}
824: V.M.Belyaev and B.L.Ioffe, Sov.Phys. JETP {\bf 56} (1982) 493
825: \bibitem{CGS}
826: K.G.Chetyrkin, S.G.Gorishny and V.P.Spiridonov, Phys.Lett. {\bf B160} (1985) 149
827: \bibitem{LSC}
828: L.V.Lanin, V.P.Spiridonov and K.G.Chetyrkin, Yad.Phys. {\bf 44} (1986) 1372
829: \bibitem{AC}
830: L.-E.Adam and K.G.Chetyrkin, Phys.Lett. {\bf B329} (1994) 129, hep-ph/9404331
831: \bibitem{DP}
832: F.Le Diberder, A.Pich, Phys.Lett. {\bf B289} (1992) 165
833: \end{thebibliography}
834:
835:
836:
837:
838: \end{document}