1: %\documentstyle[aps,prl,epsf,floats]{revtex}

2: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsf,floats,color]{revtex}

3: 

4: %\usepackage[usenames]{color}

5: 

6: % \input color.sty

7: 

8: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

9: \newcommand{\ppp}{\mbox{$({\mathbf p'}-{\mathbf p})^2$}}

10: \newcommand{\spp}{\mbox{$i\bsigma\cdot ({\mathbf p'\times p})$}}

11: \newcommand{\two}{{\rm 2}}

12: \newcommand{\alpS}{\alpha_{S}}

13: \newcommand{\alpU}{\alpha_{U}}

14: \newcommand{\lmeas}{\mbox{$d^d\!\!\!\!\!\raisebox{0.12cm}{--}\ $}}

15: 

16: \def\bmag#1{{|{\mathbf #1}|}}

17: 

18: \def\xslash#1{{\rlap{$#1$}/}}

19: \def\Dsl{\hbox{/\kern-.6000em D}} %roman D

20: \def\vabsq#1{\left|{\bf #1}\right|^2}

21: \def\vabs#1{\left|{\bf #1}\right|}

22: \def\vev#1{\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}

23: \def\dsl{\,\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-13.5mu D}

24: \def\bsigma{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

25: \def\lqcd{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}

26: \def\psip#1{\psi_{\mathbf{#1}}}

27: \def\chip#1{\chi_{\mathbf{#1}}}

28: \def\bsigma{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

29: \def\muus{\mu_{\rm U}}

30: \def\mus{\mu_{\rm S}}

31: \def\abs#1{\left| #1 \right|}

32: \def\ltap{\ \raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\ }

33: \def\gtap{\ \raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\ }

34: \def\OMIT#1{}

35: 

36: \def\tb#1{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}

37: \def\tbb#1{\textcolor{black}{#1}}

38: 

39: \def\vect#1{{\bf #1}}

40: \def\msb{{\overline{\rm MS}}}

41: \def\ams#1{\mbox{${\overline\alpha_s^{\,#1}}$}}

42: \def\CL{{\cal L}}

43: 

44: \begin{document}

45: \setlength\baselineskip{20pt}

46: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname

47: 

48: \preprint{\vbox{\tighten  \hbox{UCSD/PTH 00-25} \hbox{MPI-PhT/2001-04}

49: %                          \hbox{February 2001} 

50: \hbox{hep-ph/0102257}

51: }}

52: 

53: \title{The Running Coulomb Potential and Lamb Shift in QCD}

54: 

55: \author{ Andre~H.~Hoang\thanks{ahoang@mppmu.mpg.de} \\[4pt]} 

56: 

57: \address{\tighten

58: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik\\

59: (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut)\\

60: F\"ohringer Ring 6, 80805 M\"unchen, Germany}

61: 

62: \author{Aneesh V. Manohar\thanks{amanohar@ucsd.edu}, Iain W.\

63: Stewart\thanks{iain@schwinger.ucsd.edu} \\[4pt]} 

64: \address{\tighten Department of Physics, University of California at San

65: Diego,\\[2pt] 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA }

66: 

67: \maketitle

68: 

69: {\tighten

70: \begin{abstract}

71: 

72: The QCD $\beta$-function and the anomalous dimensions for the Coulomb

73: potential and the static potential first differ at three loop order. We evaluate

74: the three loop ultrasoft anomalous dimension for the Coulomb potential and give

75: the complete three loop running. Using this result, we calculate the leading

76: logarithmic Lamb shift for a heavy quark-antiquark bound state, which

77: includes all contributions to the 

78: binding energies of the form $m\,\alpha_s^4 (\alpha_s\ln \alpha_s)^k$, $k\ge

79: 0$.

80: 

81: \end{abstract}

82: \pacs{12.39.Hg,11.10.St,12.38.Bx}

83: }%end tighten

84: %]\narrowtext %% end two-column

85: 

86: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

87: 

88: In this paper, we construct the three-loop anomalous dimension for the Coulomb

89: potential in non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD)~\cite{nrqcd,pNRQCD}. The formalism we

90: use was developed in Refs.~\cite{LMR,amis,amis2,amis3} and will be referred to

91: as vNRQCD, an effective theory for heavy non-relativistic quark-antiquark

92: pairs. Part of our computation is related to the running of the static

93: potential~\cite{PSstat}, however effects associated with motion of the quarks do

94: play an important role. Our final result for the Coulomb potential differs from

95: the static potential at terms beyond those with a single logarithm (i.e. starting

96: at four loops). Combining our Coulomb potential running with previous results

97: for the running of the $1/m$ and $1/m^2$ potentials~\cite{amis,amis3} allows us

98: to compute the next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (NNLL) corrections in the

99: perturbative energy of a heavy $Q\bar Q$ bound state, which includes the sum of

100: terms $m\, \alpha_s^4 (\alpha_s\ln \alpha_s)^k$, $k\ge 0$, where $m$ is the

101: heavy quark pole mass. This contribution is the QCD analog of the QED

102: $\alpha^5\ln\alpha$ Lamb shift computed by Bethe. In QED, the series $m\,

103: \alpha^4 (\alpha \ln \alpha)^k$ terminates after the $k=1$ term~\cite{amis4}. In

104: QCD, there is an infinite series due to the running QCD coupling as well as the

105: presence of non-trivial anomalous dimensions for other QCD operators.  The

106: results presented here also contribute to the NNLL prediction for the cross

107: section for $e^+e^-\to t\bar t$ near threshold~\cite{hmst}.  Implications for

108: $b\bar b$ sum rules will be addressed in a future publication.

109: 

110: The expansion parameter of the effective theory is the quark velocity $v$. A

111: quark has a momentum of order $mv$ and an energy of order $mv^2$.  We assume

112: that $m$ is large enough that $mv^2\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and a perturbative

113: description of the bound state as a Coulombic system is valid. For a Coulombic

114: bound state, $\alpha_s$ is of order $v$ and contributions suppressed by both $v$

115: and $\alpha_s$ are of the same order.  It is useful to distinguish between

116: powers of $\alpha_s$ and $v$ when carrying out the matching and when evolving

117: couplings and operators in the effective theory, and to only take $v\sim

118: \alpha_s$ for the power counting of bound state matrix elements. In the

119: effective theory, the quark-antiquark potentials appear as four-quark

120: operators~\cite{pNRQCD}.  A potential of the form $\alpha_s^r/\bmag{k}^s$ is of

121: order $\alpha_s^r v^{1-s}$, where ${\bf k}$ is the fermion momentum transfer.

122: With this power counting the time-ordered product of a $v^a$ and $v^b$ potential

123: is of order $v^{a+b}$. Up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) the heavy

124: quark potential has contributions

125: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Vpc} 

126:   V  & \sim & \bigg[\: {\alpha_s \over v} \: \bigg] \ +\ 

127:   \bigg[\: { \alpha_s^2 \over v} \: \bigg] \ + \ \bigg[\: { \alpha_s^3 \over v} 

128:   + {\alpha_s^2 v^0 } + {\alpha_s v } \: \bigg] \ +  \ldots \,. 

129: \end{eqnarray}

130: The order $\alpha_s/v \sim 1$ term in Eq.~(\ref{Vpc}) is the

131: Coulomb potential generated at tree-level. The next-to-leading order (NLO) term

132: is the one-loop correction to the Coulomb potential. The NNLO terms are the

133: two-loop correction to the Coulomb potential, the one-loop value for the $1/(m

134: \bmag{k})$ potential, and the tree-level contribution to the order

135: $\bmag{k}^0/m^2$ potential. Writing the $Q\bar Q$ energy as $E = 2 m + \Delta E$,

136: the terms in Eq.~(\ref{Vpc}) generate contributions of the following order in the

137: binding energy:

138: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Epc} 

139:   {\Delta E} & \sim & \Big[ m\alpha_s^2 \Big] + \Big[ m\alpha_s^3 \Big]  

140:   + \Big[ m\alpha_s^4 \Big] + \ldots \,. 

141: \end{eqnarray}

142: 

143: In Eqs.~(\ref{Vpc}) and (\ref{Epc}) the expansion has been performed at the

144: scale $\mu=m$ so the coupling constants are $\alpha_s = \alpha_s(m)$. A typical

145: perturbative expansion contains logarithms of $\mu$ divided by the various

146: physical scales in the bound state. If the logarithms are large, fixed order

147: perturbation theory breaks down, and one finds a large residual $\mu$

148: dependence. One can minimize the logarithms by setting $\mu$ to a value

149: appropriate to the dynamics of the non-relativistic system.  This is

150: accomplished by summing large logarithms using the renormalization group, and

151: using renormalization group improved perturbation theory. For $Q\bar Q$ bound

152: states, the large logarithms are logarithms of $v\sim \alpha_s$, and can be

153: summed using the velocity renormalization group (VRG)~\cite{LMR}.  For the

154: binding energy this gives the expansion

155: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Ell}

156:   \Delta E &=& \Delta E^{LL}+ \Delta E^{NLL} + \Delta E^{NNLL} + \ldots \,,\\

157:  &\sim & \bigg[m \sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_s^{k+2}(\ln\alpha_s)^k\bigg] 

158:  + \bigg[m \sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_s^{k+3}(\ln\alpha_s)^k \bigg] 

159:  + \bigg[m \sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_s^{k+4}(\ln\alpha_s)^k \bigg] 

160:  + \ldots \,,\nn

161: \end{eqnarray}

162: where the terms are the leading log (LL), next-to-leading log (NLL), and

163: next-to-next-to-leading log (NNLL) results respectively.

164: 

165: In the VRG, one uses a subtraction velocity $\nu$ that is evolved from $1$ to

166: $v$.  This simultaneously lowers the momentum cutoff scale $\mu_S=m\nu$ from $m$

167: to $mv$ and the energy cutoff scale $\mu_U=m\nu^2$ from $m$ to $mv^2$. The VRG

168: properly accounts for the coupling between energy and momentum caused by the

169: equations of motion for the non-relativistic quarks. QED provides a highly

170: non-trivial check of the VRG method. In Ref.~\cite{amis4} it was used to

171: correctly reproduce terms in the subleading series of logarithms, including the

172: $\alpha^3\ln^2\alpha$ corrections to the ortho and para-positronium decay rates,

173: the $\alpha^7\ln^2\alpha$ hyperfine splittings for Hydrogen and positronium, and

174: the $\alpha^8 \ln^3 \alpha$ Lamb shift for Hydrogen. The difference between the

175: VRG, which involves the evolution of the momentum and the energy scale in a

176: single step, and a conventional two stage renormalization group treatment, $m\to

177: mv\to mv^2$, was examined in Ref.~\cite{mss1}.

178: 

179: 

180: In section~\ref{sec:pots} we review the definition of potentials for non-static

181: heavy quarks in the effective theory.  In section \ref{sec:static} we compare

182: these potentials with the Wilson loop definition which is appropriate for static

183: quarks.  In section~\ref{sec:coulomb} we rederive the leading-logarithmic (LL)

184: and next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) results for the $Q\bar Q$ binding energy

185: using the effective theory and discuss the two-loop matching for the Coulomb

186: potential using the results in Refs.~\cite{Peter,Schroeder}.  We also discuss

187: some subtleties in the correspondence between diagrams in the static theory and

188: soft diagrams in the effective theory. In section~\ref{sec:threeloop} we compute

189: the three-loop anomalous dimension for the Wilson coefficient of the Coulomb

190: potential. Results for the NNLL energy are given in section~\ref{sec:nnll},

191: followed by conclusions in section~\ref{sec:conclusion}. In Appendix~\ref{UVIR}

192: we give some technical details on the structure of divergences in the effective

193: theory, and in Appendix~\ref{Ns} we list some functions that appear in the

194: energy at NNLL order.

195: 

196: \section{The vNRQCD Potentials}\label{sec:pots}

197: 

198: The effective theory vNRQCD has soft gluons with coupling constant

199: $\alpS(\nu)$, ultrasoft gluons with coupling constant $\alpU(\nu)$, as well as

200: quark-antiquark potentials. The potential is the momentum dependent coefficient

201: of a four-fermion operator:

202: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Vm}

203: {\mathcal L} &=&  - \sum_{\mathbf p,p'}  V\left({\bf p},{\bf p^\prime}\right)\: 

204:   \Big[ {\psip {p^\prime}}^\dagger\: {\psip p}\: 

205:   {\chip {-p^\prime}}^\dagger\:  {\chip {-p}}{}\Big] \,,

206: \end{eqnarray}

207: where spin and color indices are suppressed. The coefficient $V\left({\bf

208: p},{\bf p^\prime} \right)$ has an expansion in powers of $v$, $ V = V_{(-1)}

209: + V_{(0)} + V_{(1)} + \ldots $, where $V_{(-1)}=V_c$ is the Coulomb

210: potential. For equal mass fermions

211: \begin{eqnarray} \label{V}

212:  V_c &=& (T^A \otimes \bar T^A) { \tb{ {\cal V}_c^{(T)}} \over {\mathbf

213:   k}^2} +  (1 \otimes 1)  { \tb{ {\cal V}_c^{(1)} } \over

214:   {\mathbf k}^2} ,\nn\\[10pt]

215:  V_{(0)} &=& (T^A \otimes \bar T^A) { \pi^2 \tb{ {\cal V}_k^{(T)} } \over m\,

216:  |{\mathbf k}| } + (1 \otimes 1) {\pi^2 \tb{ {\cal V}_k^{(1)} } \over 

217:  m\,|{\mathbf k}|} \,, \nn \\[10pt]

218:  V_{(1)} &=& (T^A \otimes \bar T^A) \left[ {\tb{ {\cal

219:   V}_2^{(T)} } \over m^2 } + { \tb{ {\cal V}_s^{(T)} } {\mathbf

220:   S}^2 \over m^2}\, +  { \tb{ {\cal V}_r^{(T)} }\: ({\mathbf p^2 +

221:   p^{\prime 2}}) \over 2\, m^2\, {\mathbf k}^2}  -{i {\tb{ {\cal

222:   V}_\Lambda^{(T)}} }\, {\mathbf S} \cdot ({\bf p\,^\prime \times p} ) 

223:   \over m^2 {\mathbf k}^2 } + { \tb{ {\cal V}_t^{(T)} } T({\mathbf k}) \over 

224:   m^2}\, \right] \nn \\

225:  && + (1 \otimes 1) \left[{ \tb{ {\cal V}_2^{(1)} } \over m^2}\:+ 

226:   { \tb{ {\cal V}_s^{(1)} } \over m^2}\: {\mathbf S}^2 \right] , 

227: \end{eqnarray}

228: where ${\bf k} = {\bf p'} - {\bf p}$, $\mathbf S = { ({\mathbf \bsigma_1 +

229: \bsigma_2}) / 2}$, $T({\mathbf k}) = (\delta^{ij} - {3 {\mathbf k}^i{\mathbf

230: k}^j/{\mathbf k}^2}){ \bsigma_1^i \bsigma_2^j}$.  The Wilson coefficients,

231: ${\cal V}^{(T,1)}$ depend on the subtraction velocity $\nu$. In Eq.~(\ref{V})

232: the color decomposition $V = (T^A \otimes \bar T^A) { V^{(T)} } + (1 \otimes 1)

233: { V^{(1)} } $ has been used and the potential in the color singlet channel is

234: $V^{(s)}=V^{(1)}-C_F {V}^{(T)}$.  (The Casimirs of the adjoint and fundamental

235: representations are denoted by $C_A$ and $C_F$, respectively.) At LL order the

236: running of the coefficients ${\cal V}^{(1,T)}_{2,s,r}$ was computed in

237: Ref.~\cite{amis} and ${\cal V}^{(1,T)}_{\Lambda,t}$ in Ref.~\cite{amis,chen},

238: while the NLL order running of ${\cal V}_k^{(1,T)}$ was computed in

239: Ref.~\cite{amis3}. In this work we compute the running of ${\cal V}_c^{(s)}$ at

240: NNLL order. This allows the computation of the $Q\bar Q$ energy spectrum at NNLL

241: order.

242: 

243: In vNRQCD additional potential-like effects are generated by

244: loops with soft gluons, for which the Feynman rules can be found in

245: Refs.~\cite{LMR,amis2}. Matrix elements of soft gluon diagrams contribute to

246: the energy beginning at NLO. In contrast, matrix elements with ultrasoft gluons

247: start at ${\rm N}^3{\rm LO}$.  The renormalization group improved energies are

248: obtained by computing the anomalous dimensions for these soft interactions and

249: the four fermion operators in Eq.~(\ref{V}).

250: 

251: \section{The static potential versus the Coulomb potential}

252: \label{sec:static}

253: 

254: Parts of our analysis are related to the study of the static limit of QCD which

255: describes heavy quarks in the $m\to\infty$ limit. We therefore briefly

256: review the pertinent results which have been derived in this framework.

257: 

258: In position space the static QCD potential is defined as the expectation value

259: of the Wilson loop operator,

260: \begin{eqnarray} \label{wilson}

261:  V_{\rm stat}(r) = \lim_{T\to\infty} {1\over T} \ln \vev{ {\rm Tr}\, P\exp - 

262:   i g \oint_C A_\mu dx^\mu}, 

263: \end{eqnarray} 

264: where $C$ is a rectangle of width $T$ and fixed height $r$.  This potential is

265: independent of the mass $m$ of the quarks and depends only on $r$.  In QCD

266: perturbation theory the static potential is known at two-loop

267: order~\cite{Peter,Schroeder} .  These calculations use static fermion sources

268: with propagators which are identical to those in Heavy Quark Effective

269: Theory~\cite{MW}. The exponentiation of the static

270: potential~\cite{Gatheral,FrenkelTaylor} guarantees that one can avoid dealing

271: with graphs which have pinch singularities in momentum space. The analysis of

272: Refs.~\cite{Gatheral,FrenkelTaylor} also gives a prescription for the color

273: weight factors for different graphs based on the c-web theorem.

274: 

275: In Ref.~\cite{ADM}, Appelquist, Dine and Muzinich (ADM) pointed out that at

276: three loops the static potential in Eq.~(\ref{wilson}) has infrared (IR)

277: divergences from graphs of the form in Fig.~\ref{fig_ADM}a,b.

278: \begin{figure}

279:  \centerline{ \hbox{\epsfxsize=12cm\epsfbox{fullus.eps} } } \medskip

280:  {\tighten\caption{Graphs contributing to the three-loop IR divergence of

281:  the QCD static potential.} \label{fig_ADM} }

282: \end{figure}

283: In the color singlet channel Fig.~\ref{fig_ADM}a has color factor $C_F C_A^2

284: (C_A-2 C_F)$ while Fig.~\ref{fig_ADM}b is proportional to $C_F^2 C_A^2$.  Taking

285: into account the exponentiation of $V_{\rm stat}$ using the c-web theorem, the

286: color singlet contribution to $V_{\rm stat}$ from Fig.~\ref{fig_ADM}(a,b) is

287: simply Fig.~\ref{fig_ADM}a with the color factor replaced by $C_A^3 C_F$, and is

288: IR divergent. ADM showed that this IR divergence could be avoided by summing a

289: class of diagrams---those of Fig.~\ref{fig_ADM} with the addition of an

290: arbitrary number of gluon rungs.  Summing over these diagrams regulates the IR

291: divergence by building up Coulombic states for the static quark sources. The

292: summation gives a factor $\exp\Big([V^{(s)}(r)-V^{(o)}(r)]T\Big)$ for the

293: propagation of the intermediate color-octet $Q\bar Q$ pair, where $V^{(s)}(r)$

294: and $V^{(o)}(r)$ are the color-singlet and color-octet potentials. The

295: exponential factor suppresses long-time propagation of the intermediate

296: color-octet state, and regulates the IR divergence by introducing an IR cutoff

297: scale of order $[V^{(s)}(r)-V^{(o)}(r)]\sim \alpha_s/r$.

298: 

299: In Ref.~\cite{static1} the ADM divergence in the static potential was studied by

300: Brambilla et al.\ using the effective theory pNRQCD~\cite{pNRQCD}. They made the

301: important observation that along with potential contributions, the definition in

302: Eq.~(\ref{wilson}) contains contributions from ultrasoft gluons, and the latter

303: are responsible for the ADM IR divergence. They showed that the ADM IR

304: divergence in QCD matches with an IR divergence of a pNRQCD graph that describes

305: the selfenergy of a quark-antiquark system due to an ultrasoft gluon with

306: momenta $q^\mu \sim \alpha_s/r$.  Therefore, the static potential in pNRQCD can

307: be defined as a matching coefficient of a four fermion operator, as in

308: Eq.~(\ref{Vm}), in an infrared safe manner. We will refer to this potential as

309: the soft-static potential. The ultrasoft pNRQCD graph also has an ultraviolet

310: divergence.  Brambilla et al.\ computed the coefficient of this divergence and

311: extracted a new $\ln(\mu)$ contribution to the soft-static potential. In

312: Ref.~\cite{PSstat} the three-loop anomalous dimension was computed for the

313: soft-static potential in this framework. In the color singlet channel for scales

314: $\mu \sim \alpha_s(r)/r$ their solution reads

315: \begin{eqnarray}\label{psVc}

316:  V_{\rm stat}(\mu,r) = V_{\rm stat}^{\rm (2 loops)}(r)- 

317:  \frac{1}{4\pi r} \Bigg[\, \frac{2\pi C_F C_A^3}

318:  {3\beta_0}\alpha_s^3(r) \ln\bigg(\frac{\alpha_s(r)}{\alpha_s(\mu)}\bigg) 

319:  \,\Bigg]  \,,

320: \end{eqnarray}

321: where the first term is the two loop static potential derived in

322: Refs.~\cite{Peter,Schroeder}.

323: 

324: For large but finite $m$ the effective theory for $Q\bar Q$ bound states has an

325: expansion in $v$.  The quark potential in this case differs from that in the

326: static case, and in general one cannot obtain the static theory by taking the $m

327: \to \infty$ limit. To illustrate this consider as an example the loop graph

328: involving the iteration of a $1/(m\bmag{k})$ and a Coulomb potential as shown in

329: Fig.~\ref{fig:tproduct}.

330: \begin{figure}

331:  \centerline{\epsfxsize=4cm \epsfbox{fd1.eps}} \medskip

332:  {\tighten\caption{Loop with an insertion of the $1/(m|{\bf k})$ and 

333:  $1/{\bf k^2}$ potentials.}

334:  \label{fig:tproduct}}

335: \end{figure}

336: In the effective theory for non-static fermions, the fermion propagators give a

337: factor proportional to $m$.  The final result for the graph is independent of

338: $m$ and is the same order in $v$ as the Coulomb potential. On the other hand, if

339: we first take the static limit $m \to \infty$, then $1/(m\bmag{k})\to 0$, and

340: there is no such graph.  This example illustrates the general result that the

341: static theory is not obtained as the $m\to\infty$ (or $v\to0$) limit of the

342: non-static effective theory. Loop integrals can produce factors of $m$ or $1/v$,

343: and thereby cause mixing between operators which are of different

344: orders\footnote{\tighten However, we stress that if powers of $\alpha_s$ are

345: also counted as powers of $v$, then operators which are higher order in $v$

346: never mix into lower order operators.}  in $v$. Furthermore, the energy and the

347: momentum transfer in Coulombic states are coupled by the quark equations of

348: motion. We will see that for this reason the anomalous dimension of the static

349: and Coulomb potentials differ at three loops. The three-loop matching for the

350: static and Coulomb potentials can also differ.

351: 

352: \section{The Coulomb potential at one and two loops}\label{sec:coulomb}

353: 

354: In this work dimensional regularization and the $\msb$ scheme will be used.  The

355: $\msb$ QCD running coupling constant will be denoted by $\ams{}(\mu)$, and is

356: determined by the solution of the renormalization group equation

357: \begin{eqnarray}\label{msbar}

358:  \mu {{\rm d \ams{}(\mu) \over {\rm d} \mu}} &=& 

359:   \overline \beta \left( \ams{}(\mu) \right)\nn\\

360:  &=& -2\beta_0 \frac{\ams{2}(\mu)}{4\pi} 

361:   -2 \beta_1 \frac{\ams{3}(\mu)}{(4\pi)^2}

362:   -2 \beta_2 \frac{\ams{4}(\mu)}{(4\pi)^3} + \ldots \,.

363: \end{eqnarray}

364: In a mass-independent subtraction scheme $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are

365: scheme-independent. The notation $\ams{[n]} \left(\mu \right)$

366: will be used to indicate the solution of Eq.~(\ref{msbar}) with coefficients up

367: to $\beta_{n-1}$ (i.e.\ $n$ loop order) kept in the $\beta$-function.

368: 

369: %%% LO %%%

370: 

371: In the VRG, the soft and ultrasoft subtraction scales $\mu_S$ and $\mu_U$ are

372: given by $\mu_S=m \nu$ and $\mu_U=m \nu^2$. We define the soft and ultrasoft

373: anomalous dimensions $\gamma_S$ and $\gamma_U$ as the derivatives with respect

374: to $\ln\mu_S$ and $\ln \mu_U$, respectively. The derivative with respect to $\ln

375: \nu$ gives the total anomalous dimension, $\gamma=\gamma_S+2\gamma_U$.  vNRQCD

376: has three independent but related coupling constants that are relevant for our

377: calculation: the soft gluon coupling $\alpS(\nu)$, the ultrasoft gluon

378: coupling $\alpU(\nu)$, and the coefficient of the Coulomb potential ${\cal

379: V}_c(\nu)$.  The tree-level matching conditions at ($\mu=m \Leftrightarrow

380: \nu=1$) are

381: \begin{eqnarray}

382:  \alpS(1) &=& \alpU (1) = \ams{} (m) \,, \qquad

383:  {\cal V}_c^{(T)}(1) = 4 \pi \ams{} (m)\,, \qquad 

384:  {\cal V}_c^{(1)}(1)=0 \, ,

385: \end{eqnarray} 

386: and the solutions of the one-loop renormalization group equations for the

387: coupling constants in the effective theory are~\cite{Gries,LMR}

388: \begin{eqnarray}\label{loop1}

389:  \alpS\left( \nu \right) &=& \ams{[1]} (m \nu) \,,\qquad\quad\ \

390:  \alpU \left( \nu \right) = \ams{[1]} (m \nu^2) \,, \nn\\

391:  {\cal V}_c^{(T)}(\nu) &=& 4 \pi \ams{[1]}(m \nu) \,,\qquad

392:  {\cal V}_c^{(1)}(\nu) = 0.

393: \end{eqnarray}

394: In deriving the above equations, it has been assumed that any light fermions

395: have masses much smaller than $mv^2$, so that there are no mass thresholds in

396: the renormalization group evolution. If there is a mass threshold larger than

397: $mv^2$ and widely separated from $mv$ and $m$, then it is possible to also

398: include such effects in the effective theory, see Ref.~\cite{LMR}.

399: 

400: At leading order the Hamiltonian for the color singlet $Q\bar Q$ system is

401: \begin{eqnarray}

402:   H_0 = \frac{\bf p^2}{m} + \frac{ \tbb{ {\cal V}_c^{(s)}(\nu)} }{\bf k^2} \,. 

403: \end{eqnarray}

404: To minimize large logarithms in higher order matrix elements we run $\nu$ to

405: the bound state velocity $v_b$, which we define as the solution of the equation

406: \begin{eqnarray}

407:  v_b =  \frac{ \tbb{ a_c(\nu=v_b) }}{ n} = 

408:  \frac{ C_F\: \ams{[1]}(m v_b)}{n} \,,

409: \end{eqnarray}

410: where for convenience we have defined 

411: \begin{eqnarray}

412:    a_c(\nu)=-\: \frac{ {\cal V}_c^{(s)}(\nu)} {4\pi } \,,

413: \end{eqnarray}

414: and $n$ is the principal quantum number.  The LL binding energy is then simply

415: the eigenvalue of the Schr\"odinger equation, $H_0 |\psi_{n,l}\rangle = \Delta E

416: |\psi_{n,l}\rangle$ with the LL solution for the Coulomb potential, ${\cal

417: V}_c^{(s)}(\nu)=-C_F {\cal V}_c^{(T)}(\nu)$ from Eq.~(\ref{loop1}).

418: Thus,

419: \begin{mathletters}

420: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eLL}

421:   \Delta E^{LL} &=& 

422:    -\frac{m }{4n^2}\: \big[ \tb{ a_c(\nu) } \big]^2 \\

423:    &=& - \frac{m}{4\,n^2}\: C_F^2 \,\Big[ \ams{[1]}(m v_b)\Big]^2 

424:      = -\frac{m v_b^2}{4} \,,

425: \end{eqnarray}

426: \end{mathletters}

427: where in the second line we have evaluated the energy at the low scale $\nu=v_b$.

428: Higher order corrections to the energy are all evaluated as perturbative matrix

429: elements with the leading order wavefunctions, $|\psi_{n,l}\rangle$.

430: 

431: %%% NLO %%%

432: 

433: Consider how the results in Eq.~(\ref{loop1}) are extended to higher orders.

434: The graphs for the renormalization of the ultrasoft gluon self coupling have

435: the same rules as for QCD, and those for the renormalization of the lowest

436: order soft gluon vertex have the same rules as for HQET. Since the

437: momenta of soft and ultrasoft gluons are cleanly separated there is no mixing

438: of scales, so the anomalous dimension for $\alpS$ is independent of $\alpU$ and

439: vica-versa.  Thus, one expects that in the $\msb$ scheme $\alpS\left( \nu

440: \right) = \ams{}(m \nu)$ and $\alpU\left( \nu \right) = \ams{}(m \nu^2)$ to all

441: orders.

442: 

443: However, the coefficient of the Coulomb potential can differ from $4 \pi

444: \ams{}(m\nu)$ at higher orders. At one-loop, the only order $\alpha_s^2/v$ graph

445: in the effective theory is the soft diagram~\cite{amis2}\footnote{\tighten Note

446: that the soft loop includes soft gluons, soft light quarks, as well as soft

447: ghosts.}

448: \begin{eqnarray}  \label{eftvc1}

449: \begin{picture}(60,30)(1,1)

450:  \epsfxsize=2.0cm \lower16pt \hbox{\epsfbox{eft_soft.eps}}

451: \end{picture}

452:   &=& \frac{-i \mu_S^{2\epsilon}\alpS^2(\nu)}{\bf k^2} (T^A  \otimes \bar T^A) 

453:   \bigg[ \frac{\beta_0}{\epsilon} + \beta_0

454:    \ln\Big( \frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big)  + a_1 \bigg] \,, \\[-15pt]\nn

455: \end{eqnarray}

456: where $\beta_0=11/3 C_A-4 T_F n_\ell/3$ and $a_1=31 C_A/9-20 T_F n_\ell/9$ in

457: the $\msb$ scheme, and $n_\ell$ is the number of light soft quarks. The

458: divergence in Eq.~(\ref{eftvc1}) is canceled by a counterterm for ${\cal

459: V}_c^{(T)}$, causing it to run with anomalous dimension

460: $-2\beta_0\alpS^2(\nu)$. The remaining terms in the soft graph are identical to

461: the one-loop soft-static potential calculation and also reproduce the set of

462: $\alpha_s^2/{\bf k^2}$ terms in full QCD with dimensional regularization

463: parameter $\mu$. The one-loop matching correction to ${\cal V}_c^{(T,1)}(1)$ is

464: the difference between the full and effective theory diagrams and therefore

465: vanishes at the matching scale $\mu=\mu_S=m$.

466: 

467: A correspondence between the soft-static potential calculation and soft order

468: $1/v$ diagrams is expected to persist at higher orders in $\alpha_s$ as

469: well. The Feynman rules for the soft vertices are almost identical to the HQET

470: rules used for soft-static potential calculations. There are a few notable

471: differences.  In the effective theory it is not necessary to use the

472: exponentiation theorem~\cite{Gatheral,FrenkelTaylor} to eliminate diagrams with

473: pinch singularities of the form

474: \begin{eqnarray}

475:  \int {\rm d}q^0\ \frac{1}{(q0+i\epsilon)(-q0+i\epsilon)} \,.

476: \end{eqnarray}

477: These are automatically removed in the construction of the tree level soft

478: vertices because the $1/q_0$ factors in the soft Feynman rules do not contain

479: $i\epsilon$'s, and in evaluating diagrams these poles are ignored.  For

480: example~\cite{LMR}, from matching the full theory Compton scattering graphs in

481: Fig.~\ref{fig_compton}

482: \begin{figure}

483:  \centerline{ \hbox{\epsfxsize=10cm\epsfbox{fulls.eps} } } 

484:  {\tighten\caption{Compton scattering graphs that contribute to the soft

485:  vertex.} 

486:  \label{fig_compton} }

487: \end{figure}

488: one obtains the soft vertex in Fig.~\ref{fig_softfr}a which is proportional to

489: \begin{figure}

490:  \centerline{ \hbox{\epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{soft_fr.eps} } } 

491:  {\tighten\caption{Examples of vertices involving soft gluons.} 

492:  \label{fig_softfr} }

493: \end{figure}

494: $[T^A, T^B]/q_0$, where terms proportional to $\{T^A, T^B\}$ have canceled.  In

495: the soft-static calculations this cancellation instead takes place at the level

496: of the box and crossed box graphs, and is guaranteed by exponentiation.  For the

497: soft-static potential it is known that at higher orders there are contributions

498: from the $i\pi \delta(q_0)$ terms that originate from the $i\epsilon$'s. It was

499: exactly this type of contribution that was missed in the two-loop calculation by

500: Peter~\cite{Peter}, and was correctly identified by

501: Schr\"oder~\cite{Schroeder}. In the effective theory these delta function

502: contributions belong to the potential regime~\cite{amis3}, and soft-static graphs

503: with this type of contribution are reproduced by operators such as the one shown

504: in Fig.~\ref{fig_softfr}b, where a soft gluon scatters from a

505: potential. Matching induces these operators to account for the difference

506: between the full and effective theory graphs for Compton scattering off two

507: quarks.  Thus, the treatment of $i\epsilon$'s does affect the correspondence

508: between soft-static and soft graphs. The total contribution of the graphs in the

509: static theory with $k^\mu\sim mv$ gluons is reproduced in the effective theory

510: by graphs with soft gluons.

511: 

512: %

513: %Comment on renormalization of soft vertices, \cite{bauer}.

514: %

515: 

516: A real difference between the soft-static and effective theory calculations is

517: the way in which counterterms are implemented. The soft-static potential is

518: defined by local HQET-like Feynman rules and all UV divergent contributions from

519: soft gluons are absorbed into vertex, field, and coupling renormalization.  The

520: renormalization of the four point function is taken care of by the

521: renormalization of the two and three point functions.  Renormalization of the

522: vNRQCD diagrams is quite different because potential gluons are not treated as

523: degrees of freedom.  The effective theory has graphs with soft gluons and in

524: addition the four-quark Coulomb potential operator.  The overall divergence in

525: soft graphs, such as the one in Eq.~(\ref{eftvc1}), are absorbed by ${\cal

526: V}_c$, while subdivergences are taken care of by counterterms for the soft

527: vertices and lower order ${\cal V}_c$ counterterms. The sum of unrenormalized

528: soft-static and purely soft diagrams in the effective theory agree. So if these

529: were the only considerations, then the description of these effects would be

530: basically a matter of convenience.  However, divergences associated with

531: ultrasoft gluons can only be absorbed into ${\cal V}_c$, so at the level that

532: these gluons contribute in the effective theory it is necessary to adopt the

533: four quark operator description from the start (i.e. just below the scale $m$).

534: 

535: To calculate the NLL energy we also need the two-loop anomalous dimension for

536: ${\cal V}_c$, which is obtained from the renormalization of order $\alpha_s^3/v$

537: diagrams.  At this order there are effective theory graphs with iterations of

538: potentials, shown in Fig.~\ref{eft_p2}, and soft effective theory diagrams, as

539: in Fig.~\ref{eft_s2}.  Graphs with ultrasoft gluons do not contribute at this

540: order.

541: \begin{figure}

542:  \centerline{\hbox{\epsfxsize=3cm \epsfbox{eft2.eps}} \qquad 

543:              \hbox{\epsfxsize=3cm \epsfbox{eft3.eps}} \qquad

544:              \hbox{\epsfxsize=3cm \epsfbox{eft4.eps}} \qquad

545: 	     \hbox{\epsfxsize=2.3cm \epsfbox{eft5.eps}} } \medskip\medskip

546: {\tighten\caption{Order $\alpha_s^3/v$ diagrams with potential 

547:  iterations. The $\times$ denotes an insertion of the ${\bf p^4}/8m^3$ 

548:  relativistic correction to the kinetic term.} 

549: \label{eft_p2}}

550: \end{figure}

551: \begin{figure}

552:  \centerline{\hbox{\epsfxsize=2.cm \epsfbox{eft_s1.eps}} \quad

553:              \hbox{\epsfxsize=2.cm \epsfbox{eft_s2.eps}} \quad

554:              \hbox{\epsfxsize=2.cm \epsfbox{eft_s3.eps}} \quad

555:            \lower2pt  \hbox{\epsfxsize=2.3cm \epsfbox{eft_soft3.eps}} 

556:  \raise20pt \hbox{\Large $\ \ \ldots$} } \medskip

557:  {\tighten\caption{Examples of order $\alpha_s^3/v$ diagrams with soft vertices.

558:  The vertex with a cross denotes an insertion of a one-loop counterterm. }

559:  \label{eft_s2}}

560: \end{figure}

561: The potential diagrams are finite in the ultraviolet and reproduce the Coulombic

562: singularities in perturbative QCD. The contributions from the soft diagrams can

563: be determined from the soft-static potential calculations. For the color singlet

564: channel, the UV divergences in the soft-static two-loop diagrams were calculated

565: in Ref.~\cite{Fischler} and the constant terms in

566: Refs.~\cite{Peter,Schroeder}. The sum of unrenormalized soft diagrams has the

567: form

568: \begin{eqnarray}  \label{stat1}

569:   \frac{i \alpS^3(\nu)}{\bf k^2} \frac{C_F}{4\pi}

570:    \bigg[\frac{\beta_0^2}{\epsilon^2} + \frac{\beta_1\!+\!2\beta_0 a_1}

571:    {\epsilon} 

572:    + \frac{2\beta_0^2}{\epsilon}\ln\Big( \frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big) 

573:    \!+\! \beta_0^2 \ln^2\Big( \frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big) \!+\!

574:    (\beta_1\!+\!2\beta_0 a_1)\ln\Big( \frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big) 

575:    + a_2^{(a)} \bigg] \, .

576: \end{eqnarray}

577: The effective theory counterterm graphs give

578: \begin{eqnarray}  \label{eft_ct}

579:   -\frac{i \alpS^3(\nu)}{\bf k^2} \frac{C_F}{4\pi}

580:    \bigg[\frac{2\beta_0^2}{\epsilon^2} 

581:    + \frac{2\beta_0^2}{\epsilon} \ln\Big( \frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big)

582:    + \frac{2 a_1 \beta_0}{\epsilon} + a_2^{(b)} \bigg] \,.

583: \end{eqnarray}

584: Taking the sum of Eqs.~(\ref{stat1}) and (\ref{eft_ct}) we find that up to

585: two-loops the counterterm for the color singlet Coulomb potential has the form

586: \begin{eqnarray} 

587:  Z_c = 1- \frac{\alpS(\nu)\beta_0}{4\pi\epsilon}  + 

588:  \frac{\alpS^2(\nu)}{(4\pi)^2} \bigg[ 

589:  \frac{\beta_0^2}{\epsilon^2} - \frac{\beta_1}{\epsilon} \bigg]

590:   \,,

591: \end{eqnarray}

592: where $\beta_1 = 34 C_A^2/3-4 C_F T_F n_\ell -20 C_A T_F n_\ell/3$.  The

593: $\alpha_s^2/\epsilon$ divergence is proportional to $\beta_1$, so the two-loop

594: anomalous dimension for ${\cal V}_c^{(s)}$ is determined by the two-loop

595: $\overline{\rm MS}$ $\beta$-function, and the NLL coefficient of the singlet

596: Coulomb potential is ${\cal V}_c^{(s)}(\nu) = 4\pi\ams{[2]}(m \nu)$.

597: 

598: The energy at NLL order involves including the NLL coefficient for the Coulomb

599: potential, ${\cal V}_c^{(s)}(\nu)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eLL}), and calculating the

600: matrix element of the one-loop order $1/v$ soft diagram between Coulombic states

601: [$a_c(\nu)\equiv -{\cal V}_c^{(s)}(\nu)/4\pi$]

602: \begin{eqnarray} \label{s1}

603:  i \: \Bigg\langle \begin{picture}(55,20)(-10,1)

604:   \epsfxsize=1.2cm \lower9pt \hbox{\epsfbox{soft1.eps}}

605:  \end{picture}\Bigg\rangle

606: &=& -C_F\: {\alpS^2(\nu)} \left\langle \frac{1}{\bf k^2}

607:  \bigg[ a_1 + \beta_0 \ln\Big( \frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2} \Big) \bigg]

608: \right\rangle 

609:   \\[5pt]

610: % &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! 

611: &=& - \frac{m\,C_F\,\alpS^2(\nu) \tb{ a_c(\nu)} }{8\pi\,n^2}\: 

612:   \Bigg\{ {a_1} + 2 \beta_0\,\bigg[ \ln\Big(\frac{n\: \nu}{\tb{ a_c(\nu) }}\Big) 

613:   +\psi(n+l+1)+\gamma_E\bigg] \Bigg\} \,. \nn

614: \end{eqnarray}

615: As expected, at the low scale $\nu\simeq v_b$, there are no large logarithms in

616: the matrix element. Combining Eq.~(\ref{s1}) with Eq.~(\ref{eLL}) gives the

617: energy valid at NLL order,

618: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eNLL}

619:   \Delta E^{LL}+\Delta E^{NLL} &=&  -\frac{m}{4n^2}\: \big[\tb{ a_c(v_b) }\big]^2

620:  -\frac{m\,C_F\,\alpS^2(v_b) \tb{ a_c(v_b) }}{8\pi\,n^2}\: 

621:  \bigg\{  2\beta_0 \Big[ \psi(n+l+1)+\gamma_E \Big] + {a_1} \bigg\} \,.\nn\\

622: \end{eqnarray}

623: 

624: In the next section, the three-loop running of the Coulomb potential will be

625: derived. We therefore need the two loop matching condition, and so consider the

626: finite parts for the two loop graphs. The sum of renormalized soft diagrams in

627: Fig.~\ref{eft_s2} is

628: \begin{eqnarray}  \label{eftvc2}

629:   \frac{i \alpS^3(\nu)}{\bf k^2} \frac{C_F}{4\pi} \bigg[\beta_0^2

630:    \ln^2\Big( \frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big) +

631:    (\beta_1+2\beta_0 a_1)\ln\Big( \frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big) 

632:    + a_2 \bigg] \,,

633: \end{eqnarray}

634: where from Ref.~\cite{Schroeder} the sum of constants in Eqs.~(\ref{stat1}) and

635: (\ref{eft_ct}) is $a_2=a_2^{(a)}+a_2^{(b)} = 456.75-66.354 n_\ell+1.235

636: n_\ell^2$ for $n_\ell$ light flavors.  The matching coefficient for ${\cal V}_c$

637: at the scale $m$ is given by the difference between the $1/{\bf k}^2$ terms in

638: the $Q\bar Q$ scattering amplitude in the full and effective theories.  It is

639: convenient to analyze the two loop result in the full theory by using regions in

640: the threshold expansion~\cite{Beneke}. The soft region exactly reproduces the

641: result from the soft graphs. Furthermore, the potential region exactly

642: reproduces the results for the potential graphs in Fig.~\ref{eft_p2}. Thus, the

643: matching correction for ${\cal V}_c(1)$ is also zero at two-loops. In general, a

644: non-zero matching correction appears when there is a full theory contribution

645: from an off-shell region such as the hard regime or when UV divergences appear

646: in the effective theory graphs.\footnote{\tighten An example where UV

647: divergences in the effective theory affect the matching is the two-loop

648: coefficient for the production current.}  In the full theory at two loops there

649: are no contributions proportional to $1/{\bf k}^2$ from off-shell regions. The

650: soft effective theory graphs are UV divergent, however these divergences are in

651: one-to-one correspondence with UV divergences in the full or static theory.

652: Finally, the graphs with iterations of potentials are UV finite.

653: 

654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

655: 

656: \section{Three-loop running of ${\cal V}_{\lowercase{c}}$}\label{sec:threeloop}

657: 

658: To compute the three-loop anomalous dimension for the Coulomb potential we need

659: to evaluate the UV divergent graphs in the effective theory that are order

660: $\alpha_s^4/v$. We begin by considering diagrams with an ultrasoft gluon. In

661: Coulomb gauge we have graphs with ${\bf p}\cdot {\bf A}/m$ vertices as well as

662: the coupling of ultrasoft gluons to the Coulomb potential from the

663: operator~\cite{amis3}

664: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Lpu}

665:   {\cal L} &=& {2 i\: \tb{ {\cal V}_c^{(T)} } \, f^{ABC}\over {\mathbf

666:   k}^4}\mu_S^{2\epsilon}\mu_U^\epsilon \:

667:     {\mathbf k}\cdot (g {\bf A}^C) \: \psip{p^\prime}^\dagger\:

668:   T^A {\psip p}\: \chip{-p^\prime}^\dagger\: \bar T^B {\chip {-p}}{} \,.

669: \end{eqnarray}

670: All graphs with two ${\bf p}\cdot {\bf A}$ vertices are UV finite or

671: are canceled by two loop graphs with insertions of the one-loop counterterms

672: for ${\cal V}_2$ and ${\cal V}_r$ computed in Ref.~\cite{amis}.  The remaining

673: diagrams are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig_us1} and \ref{fig_us2}.  Graphs

674: \ref{fig_us1}a through \ref{fig_us1}e have UV subdivergences which are

675: exactly canceled by the diagram with  ${\cal V}_k$ counterterms shown in 

676: Fig.~\ref{fig_us1}f.  These graphs contain subdivergences that were responsible

677: for the running of the $1/(m|{\bf k}|)$ potential at

678: two-loops~\cite{amis3}. Graph \ref{fig_us1}g is UV finite.

679: 

680: \begin{figure}

681:  \centerline{

682:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfbox{usoft2.eps}} \quad

683:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfbox{usoft3.eps}} \quad 

684:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfbox{usoft1.eps}} } \medskip\medskip

685:  \centerline{

686:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfbox{usoft5.eps}} \quad

687:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfbox{usoft6.eps}} \quad

688:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfbox{usoftct.eps}}\quad

689:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfbox{usoft7.eps}}  

690:  } \medskip\medskip

691:  {\tighten \caption{Graphs with ultrasoft gluons which do not contribute to the

692:  running of the Coulomb potential. The divergences in a)-e) are 

693:  canceled by graph f) which has an insertion of the corresponding ${\cal V}_k$ 

694:  counterterm(s) denoted by $\otimes$. Graph g) is UV finite.}

695:  \label{fig_us1} }

696: \end{figure}

697: 

698: The divergent diagrams with an ultrasoft gluon which are not completely

699: canceled by a counterterm diagram are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_us2}.

700: \begin{figure}

701:  \centerline{

702:  \hbox{ \epsfxsize=4.2cm\epsfbox{eftus2.eps}} \qquad 

703:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=4.2cm\epsfbox{eftus1.eps}} \qquad

704:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=3.8cm\epsfbox{eftus_ct.eps}} 

705:  }

706:  \medskip\medskip

707:  {\tighten \caption{Graphs with an ultrasoft gluon which contributes to the 

708:  three-loop running of the Coulomb potential.} \label{fig_us2} }

709: \end{figure}

710: Consider the three-loop graph in Fig.~\ref{fig_us2}a with momenta $l$ for the

711: loop with the ultrasoft gluon and $k$ and $q$ for the remaining loops.  After

712: performing the $k^0$ and $q^0$ integrals by contours, the loop integration

713: involving $l$ is

714: \begin{eqnarray}

715:    \int d^d l \: \frac{ \delta^{ij}-{\mathbf l^i l^j/l^2}}{

716:   l^2 (l^0+{E}-{\bf k^2}/{m}) (l^0+{E}-{\bf q^2}/{m})    } \,.

717: \end{eqnarray}

718: From this expression we see that the ultrasoft momentum $l$ and potential

719: momentum, ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf q}$, are not completely separable since they

720: appear in the same propagator.  The $l$ integration produces an UV divergence

721: while the remaining integrations are UV and IR finite\footnote{\tighten For

722: static quarks this three-loop graph also has an IR divergence~\cite{static1},

723: but in the non-static case we find that this divergence is regulated by the

724: quark kinetic energy.}. Evaluating the remaining integrals gives

725: \begin{eqnarray} \label{us4}

726:  {\rm Fig.~\ref{fig_us2}a} &=& \frac{4i}{3} ({\cal C}_{\ref{fig_us2}a}) 

727:   \frac{\Big[{\cal V}_c^{(T)}(\nu)\Big]^3 \alpU(\nu)

728:   \mu_S^{2\epsilon}}{(4\pi)^3\: \bf k^2} \bigg[ \frac{1}{\epsilon} 

729:   + \ln\Big(\frac{\mu_U^2}{E^2}\Big) + 2\ln\Big(\frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big) 

730:   + \ldots \bigg] \,,

731: \end{eqnarray}

732: where the color factor is

733: \begin{eqnarray} 

734:   ({\cal C}_{\ref{fig_us2}a}) &=& C_A C_1 \bigg[ \frac{(C_A\!+\!C_d)}{8} 

735:   1\otimes 1 + T\otimes\bar T \bigg] \,,

736: \end{eqnarray}

737: and for gauge group SU($N_c$), $C_d=N_c-4/N_c$ and $C_1=(N_c^2-1)/(4 N_c^2)$.

738: The graph in Fig.~\ref{fig_us2}c involves the iteration of a $1/{\bf k^2}$

739: potential and a ${\cal V}_k$ counterterm and also has a Coulombic infrared

740: divergence.  This graph cancels the corresponding product of IR and UV

741: divergences arising in Fig.~\ref{fig_us2}b. The sum of graphs in

742: Fig.~\ref{fig_us2}b,c still has an UV divergence, and we find

743: \begin{eqnarray} \label{us3}

744: {\rm Fig.~\ref{fig_us2}b+\ref{fig_us2}c} &=&

745:   -\frac{4i }{3}  ({\cal C}_{\ref{fig_us2}bc}) \frac{\Big[{\cal V}_c^{(T)}(\nu)

746:  \Big]^3 \alpU(\nu)\mu_S^{2\epsilon}}{(4\pi)^3\: \bf k^2} 

747:   \bigg[ \frac{1}{\epsilon} + \ln\Big(\frac{\mu_U^2}{E^2}\Big) 

748:   + 2\ln\Big(\frac{\mu_S^2}{\bf k^2}\Big) + \ldots \bigg] \,,

749: \end{eqnarray}

750: where the color factor is

751: \begin{eqnarray} 

752:   ({\cal C}_{\ref{fig_us2}bc}) &=& C_A \bigg[ \frac{C_1 (C_A\!+\!C_d)}{8} 

753:   1\otimes 1 - \Big( C_1 + \frac{(C_A\!+\!C_d)^2}{32} \Big) T\otimes\bar T

754:   \bigg] \,.

755: \end{eqnarray}

756: The sum of divergences in Eqs.~(\ref{us4}) and (\ref{us3}) are canceled by a

757: three-loop counterterm for ${\cal V}_c$. Differentiating with respect

758: to $\ln\mu_S$ and $\ln\mu_U$ gives the anomalous dimensions

759: \begin{eqnarray}

760:   \gamma_U &=&  \frac{8}{3} \bigg[ 2 C_A C_1+\frac{C_A(C_A+C_d)^2}{32} 

761:    \bigg] \frac{\Big[{\cal V}_c^{(T)}(\nu)\Big]^3}

762:   {(4\pi)^3}\: \alpU(\nu)\  \left(T\otimes\bar T\right) \,,\nn\\

763:   \gamma_S &=&  \frac{16}{3} \bigg[ 2 C_A C_1+\frac{C_A(C_A+C_d)^2}{32} 

764:    \bigg]  \frac{\Big[{\cal V}_c^{(T)}(\nu)\Big]^3}

765:   {(4\pi)^3}\: \alpU(\nu)\ \left(T\otimes\bar T\right) \,.

766: \end{eqnarray}

767: The total anomalous dimension from the ultrasoft diagrams is

768: $\gamma=2\gamma_U+\gamma_S$, so

769: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ad1}

770:   \gamma &=& \frac{32}{3} \bigg[ 2 C_A C_1+\frac{C_A(C_A+C_d)^2}{32} 

771:    \bigg]   \frac{\Big[{\cal V}_c^{(T)}(\nu)\Big]^3}

772:   {(4\pi)^3}\: \alpU(\nu)\ \left(T\otimes\bar T\right) \,.

773: \end{eqnarray}

774: 

775: \OMIT{The UV divergence in the ultrasoft graphs is matched by an IR divergence

776: in the purely soft diagrams at order $\alpha_s^4/v$. This IR divergence is fake;

777: it is not associated with $\lqcd$ physics but originates from the separation of

778: soft and ultrasoft gluon fields. It induces an additional purely soft anomalous

779: dimension (as discussed further in Appendix~\ref{UVIR}):}

780: 

781: The presence of an ultraviolet divergence in the ultrasoft graphs induces  

782: an additional ultraviolet divergence in the soft graphs (as discussed 

783: further in Appendix~\ref{UVIR}).  This divergence induces an additional

784: contribution to the soft anomalous dimension:

785: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ad2}

786:   \gamma_S &=& -{8} \bigg[ 2 C_A C_1+\frac{C_A(C_A+C_d)^2}{32} 

787:    \bigg]\:  \alpS^4(\nu)\  \left(T\otimes\bar T\right) \,.

788: \end{eqnarray}

789: For the Coulomb potential the remaining UV divergences in the soft graphs

790: correspond to divergences which are canceled in the static calculation by field,

791: vertex, and coupling renormalization. As discussed before, these divergences

792: give a contribution proportional to the three-loop $\msb$ $\beta$-function, so

793: for the color singlet channel we have the additional contribution

794: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ad3}

795:   \gamma_S^{(s)} &=& 2 C_F \beta_2 \frac{\alpS^4(\nu)}{(4\pi)^2} \,.

796: \end{eqnarray}

797: For QCD, $\beta_2=2857/2-5033 n_\ell/18 + 325 n_\ell^2 /54$ for $n_\ell$ light flavors.

798: 

799: Combining Eqs.~(\ref{ad1})--(\ref{ad3}) in the color singlet channel and using

800: the LL relation ${\cal V}_c^{(T)}(\nu)=4\pi\alpS(\nu)$ gives the total

801: anomalous dimension for the Coulomb potential to three-loop order

802: \begin{eqnarray} \label{adfin}

803:  \gamma_{\rm total}^{(s)} &=& 2 C_F \bigg[ \beta_0 \alpS^2(\nu) 

804:     +\beta_1 \frac{\alpS^3(\nu)}{4\pi}

805:     +\beta_2 \frac{\alpS^4(\nu)}{(4\pi)^2} \bigg] \nn\\

806:   && - {C _A^3 C_F } 

807:   \bigg[ \frac{4}{3} \alpS^3(\nu)\alpU(\nu)-\alpS^4(\nu) \bigg] \,.

808: \end{eqnarray}

809: Solving this equation with the two-loop boundary condition ${\cal V}_c^{(s)}(1)

810: = -4\pi C_F \alpha_s(m)$, the NNLL result for the running Coulomb

811: potential is

812: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Vcfin}

813:   {\cal V}_c^{(s)}(\nu) &=& -4\pi C_F \ams{[3]}(m\nu) 

814:  +\frac{8\pi C_F C_A^3}{3\beta_0} \: \alpha_s^3(m)\: 

815:  \bigg[ \frac{11}{4}- 2z- \frac{z^2}{2} - \frac{z^3}{4} + 4\ln(w) \bigg] \,, 

816: \end{eqnarray}

817: where 

818: \begin{eqnarray}

819:   z=\frac{ \ams{[1]}(m\nu) }{ \alpha_s(m) }\,,\qquad\quad

820:   w=\frac{ \ams{[1]}(m\nu^2) }{ \ams{[1]}(m\nu) } \,.

821: \end{eqnarray}

822: 

823: To compare to the static potential result from Ref.~\cite{PSstat} we can expand

824: the running couplings in $\alpha_s(m)$. Ignoring the $\ams{[3]}(m\nu)$ term, the

825: remaining logarithms in the ${\cal V}_c^{(s)}(\nu)$ coefficient are

826: \begin{eqnarray} \label{expVc}

827:   -\frac{1}{3}\, {C_F C_A^3}\,  \alpha_s^4(m) \ln(\nu) 

828:   +\frac{2\beta_0}{3\pi}\, {C_F C_A^3}\, \alpha_s^5(m) \ln^2(\nu) 

829:   -\frac{17\beta_0^2}{18\pi^2}\, {C_F C_A^3}\, \alpha_s^6(m) \ln^3(\nu) 

830:   +  \ldots \,.

831: \end{eqnarray} 

832: Expanding the analogous contribution to the static result in  Eq.~(\ref{psVc}) 

833: from Ref.~\cite{PSstat}, taking $\mu=m\nu^2$ and $r=1/m\nu$, gives

834: \begin{eqnarray} \label{expVstat}

835:  -\frac{1}{3}\, {C_F C_A^3}\,  \alpha_s^4(m) \ln(\nu) 

836:   +\frac{3\beta_0}{4\pi}\, {C_F C_A^3}\, \alpha_s^5(m) \ln^2(\nu) 

837:   -\frac{77\beta_0^2}{72\pi^2}\, {C_F C_A^3}\, \alpha_s^6(m) \ln^3(\nu) 

838:   +  \ldots \,.

839: \end{eqnarray}

840: From Eqs.~(\ref{expVc}) and (\ref{expVstat}) we see that the single $\ln(\nu)$

841: terms agree, but the higher order logarithms differ.  

842: 

843: The origin of the difference between the running of the Coulomb and static

844: potentials is the relation between scales for the case of moving versus fixed

845: quarks. For the Coulomb potential the non-relativistic quarks obey the

846: dispersion relation $E={\bf p}^2/(2m)$, which relates the energy and momentum

847: scales, and logarithms of $E$, ${\bf p}$ and ${\bf k}$ cannot be treated

848: independently. The anomalous dimension in Eq.~(\ref{adfin}) generates

849: $\ln^2(\nu)$ terms that reproduce the double logarithms that appear when

850: diagrams such as the ones in Fig.~\ref{fig_usv} are evaluated at the hard scale

851: $m$.  The graph in Fig.~\ref{fig_usv}a includes a vacuum polarization loop for

852: the ultrasoft gluon which only sees the scale $mv^2$, while the soft loop in

853: Fig.~\ref{fig_usv}b sees only the scale $mv$. Even though each of the two

854: logarithms in Fig.~\ref{fig_usv}b comes from a different ratio of low energy

855: scales, the modes in the graph must be included at the same time since in

856: the effective theory the division between soft and ultrasoft modes (and the

857: multipole expansion) occur right at the scale $m$. Furthermore, for all scales

858: below $m$ the couplings for soft and ultrasoft gluons run at different rates.

859: \begin{figure}

860:  \centerline{

861:  \hbox{ \epsfxsize=4.2cm\epsfbox{eftusv1.eps}} \qquad 

862:  \hbox{\epsfxsize=4.2cm\epsfbox{eftusv2.eps}} 

863:  }

864:  \medskip\medskip

865:  {\tighten \caption{Graphs with double logarithms that are determined from 

866: Fig.~\ref{fig_us2}a.} \label{fig_usv} }

867: \end{figure}

868: As mentioned in the introduction, this correlation of $E$, ${\bf p}$ and the

869: momentum transfer ${\bf k}$ has been tested successfully for bound

870: states in QED~\cite{amis4}. 

871:  

872: In contrast, consider the situation with two static quarks where the distance

873: between them, $r\sim 1/|{\bf k}|$, is held fixed externally, and the energy

874: fluctuations are about $E=0$. In this case the scales $r$ and $E$ are not

875: correlated.  Furthermore, operators with powers of $1/m$ play no role in the

876: calculation of the anomalous dimension, unlike the Coulombic case with an

877: expansion in the velocity.  The difference between the static and non-static

878: calculations occurs essentially because neither the $m\to \infty$ nor the $v\to

879: 0$ limit of the effective theory is the same as the static theory.

880: 

881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

882: 

883:   

884: \section{The NNLL energy for a $Q \overline Q$ bound state}\label{sec:nnll}

885: 

886: The energy at NNLL has contributions from matrix elements of operators of 

887: order

888: \begin{eqnarray}

889:  && \qquad  \Big\{ \frac{\alpha_s^4}{v^2},\ \frac{\alpha_s^3}{v},\ 

890:   {\alpha_s^2}v^0,\ \alpha_s v,\ v^2 \Big\}\ 

891: % \sum_{k=0}^\infty (\alpha_s\ln\alpha_s)^k 

892: \,. \nn  

893: \end{eqnarray}

894: There are contributions from tree level matrix elements, which include the ${\bf

895: p^4}/m^3$ operator ($\sim v^2$), the order $v$ potentials with LL coefficients

896: ($\sim \alpha_s v$), the order $v^0$ potentials with NLL coefficients ($\sim

897: \alpha_s^2 v^0$), and the correction to the energy from the Coulomb potential

898: with the NNLL coefficient ($\sim \alpha_s^3/v$). We also have the matrix element

899: of the order $\alpha_s^3/v$ one loop and two loop soft diagrams in

900: Fig.~\ref{eft_s2}.  Finally, there are the double insertions of two

901: $\alpha_s^2/v$ soft diagrams ($\sim \alpha_s^4/v^2$).  For simplicity all

902: $n_\ell$ light quarks are taken to be massless.

903: 

904: The contributions from tree level matrix elements are 

905: [$a_c(\nu)=-{\cal V}_c^{(s)}(\nu)/4\pi$]

906: \begin{eqnarray}

907: \Big\langle V^{(0)}\Big\rangle &=& 

908:   \frac{m}{4n^3(2l+1)}\:\big[\tb{ a_c(\nu) } \big]^2\:

909:    \tb{ {\cal V}_k^{(s)}(\nu) } \,,  \\[5pt]

910: \Big\langle  V^{(1)}  \Big\rangle 

911:   &=& \frac{m}{4n^3} \big[{\tb{ a_c(\nu) } } \big]^3 

912:  \Bigg\{ \frac{ \delta_{l0}}{2\pi} \:

913:   \Big[ \tb{ {\cal V}_2^{(s)}(\nu) } + s(s+1) \tb{ {\cal V}_s^{(s)}(\nu) } \Big]

914:   - \frac{ (2l+1-4n)}{8\pi n (2l+1)}\: \tb{ {\cal V}_r^{(s)}(\nu) }  \nn\\[3pt]

915:  &+&\frac{ %(j^2\!+\!j\!-\!l^2\!-\!l\!-\!2)

916:   X_{ljs}\,\delta_{s1}\,(1-\delta_{l0})}

917:  {4\pi l (l+1)(2l+1)}\: \tb{ {\cal V}_\Lambda^{(s)}(\nu) } 

918:   + \frac{3 \langle S_{12}\rangle_{ljs}\,\delta_{s1}\,(1-\delta_{l0}) }

919:   {4\pi l (l+1)(2l+1)}\: \tb{ {\cal V}_t^{(s)}(\nu) } \Bigg\} \,, \nn \\[5pt]

920: \Bigg\langle \frac{-\bf p^4}{4 m^3} \Bigg\rangle &=&  

921:   \frac{m}{16n^3}\:\big[\tb{ a_c(\nu) }  \big]^4

922:   \:\bigg[ \frac{3}{4n}- \frac{2}{2l+1} \bigg]  \,, \nn

923: \end{eqnarray}

924: where the Wilson coefficients ${\cal V}^{(s)}_{c,k,2,s,r,\Lambda,t}$ are defined

925: in section~\ref{sec:pots}. The matrix elements of the soft loops are

926: \begin{eqnarray}

927:   && \left\langle\: i\!\!\!\! \begin{picture}(55,20)(-10,1)

928:   \epsfxsize=1.2cm \lower13pt \hbox{\epsfbox{eft_s1.eps}}

929:  \end{picture} \!\!\!+\ldots \right\rangle

930:   =   -\frac{m C_F\alpS^3(\nu)\,\tb{ a_c(\nu) } }{8\pi^2 n^2}\: \Bigg\{ 

931:   \Big( \frac{\beta_1}{2}+\beta_0 a_1 \Big) \Bigg( \ln\bigg(\frac{n\:\nu}

932:   {\tb{ a_c(\nu) }}\bigg) +\Psi(n+l+1) +\gamma_E\Bigg)   \nn\\

933:   && \quad\quad

934:   + \frac{a_2}{4} +\beta_0^2\: \Bigg( \ln^2\bigg(\frac{n\:\nu}{\tb{ a_c(\nu) }}

935:   \bigg) + 2 \ln\bigg(\frac{n\:\nu}{\tb{ a_c(\nu) }}\bigg)

936:  \Big[ \Psi(n+l+1)+\gamma_E \Big]+ N_{2}(n,l)  

937:   \Bigg) \Bigg\} \,, \\[7pt]

938: && 

939:  \Bigg\langle   T\bigg\{  

940: i \begin{picture}(45,20)(-5,1) 

941:  \epsfxsize=1.0cm \lower8pt \hbox{\epsfbox{soft1.eps}} \end{picture} 

942:  \!\!\! ,\  

943: % \!\!\! \mbox{$\sum$} \bigg| \bigg\rangle   \bigg\langle \bigg| \ 

944: i\! \begin{picture}(45,20)(-5,1) 

945:  \epsfxsize=1.0cm \lower8pt \hbox{\epsfbox{soft1.eps}} \end{picture}\!\!\! 

946:  \bigg\}

947:  \Bigg\rangle 

948: = -\frac{m C_F^2\alpS^4(\nu)}{16\pi^2 n^2}\: \left\{\frac{a_1^2}{4}+ \beta_0 a_1 

949:  \Bigg( \ln\bigg(\frac{n\:\nu}{\tb{ a_c(\nu) }}\bigg) \!+\! 2 N_1(n,l) \!+\! 

950:  \gamma_E \Bigg) \right. \nn\\

951:  && \qquad \left. + \beta_0^2\Bigg(\ln^2\bigg(\frac{n\:\nu}{\tb{ a_c(\nu) }}

952:   \bigg) + 4\ln\bigg(\frac{n\:\nu}{\tb{ a_c(\nu) }}\bigg) 

953:  \Big[ N_1(n,l)+\frac{\gamma_E}{2} \Big] + 4 N_0(n,l)+4\gamma_E N_1(n,l)

954:  +\gamma_E^2   \Bigg)  \right\}   \,, \nn  %\\ \phantom{x}

955: \end{eqnarray}

956: where the functions $N_{0,1,2}(n,l)$, $\langle S_{12}\rangle_{ljs}$ and

957: $X_{ljs}$ are obtained from Refs.~\cite{Yndurain,PY} and are summarized in

958: Appendix~\ref{Ns}.  The only additional contribution is the result for the NLL

959: energy in Eq.~(\ref{eNLL}) with the Wilson coefficients evaluated at one higher

960: order.

961: 

962: Again, at the scale $\nu=v_b$ there are no large logarithms in the matrix

963: elements; the large logarithms are summed up into the Wilson coefficients. For

964: $\nu=v_b$ the energy at NNLL order in terms of the pole mass $m$ reads

965: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eNNLL}

966: \Delta E &=& \Delta E^{LL} + \Delta E^{NLL}+ \Delta E^{NNLL} \\[2mm]

967:  &=&  -\frac{m}{4n^2}\: \big[ \tb{ a_c(v_b) } \big]^2 

968:  - \frac{m\,C_F\,\alpS^2(v_b) \tb{ a_c(v_b)} }{(8\pi\,n^2)}

969:  \bigg[\, 2\beta_0\Big(\psi(n+l+1) + \gamma_E \Big) + {a_1} \,\bigg] \nn\\[2mm] 

970:  &+& \frac{m}{4n^3(2l+1)}\:\big[\tb{ a_c(v_b)  } \big]^2\ 

971:    \tb{ {\cal V}_k^{(s)}(v_b) } 

972:  + \frac{m}{16n^3}\: \big[\tb{ a_c(v_b) }  \big]^4

973:  \:\bigg[ \frac{3}{4n}- \frac{2}{2l+1} \bigg]  \nn\\[1mm]

974:   &+& \frac{m}{4n^3} \big[\tb{ a_c(v_b) }  \big]^3 

975:   \Bigg\{ \frac{ \delta_{l0}}{2\pi} \:

976:   \Big[\tb{ {\cal V}_2^{(s)}(v_b) } + s(s+1)\tb{ {\cal V}_s^{(s)}(v_b) } \Big] -

977:   \frac{ (2l+1-4n)}{8\pi n (2l+1)}\: \tb{ {\cal V}_r^{(s)}(v_b) } \nn\\[3pt]

978:  & & +\frac{ 

979:   %(j^2\!+\!j\!-\!l^2\!-\!l\!-\!2)

980:   X_{ljs}\delta_{s1}(1-\delta_{l0})}

981:   {4\pi l (l+1)(2l+1)}\: \tb{ {\cal V}_\Lambda^{(s)}(v_b) } 

982:   + \frac{3 \langle S_{12}\rangle_{ljs}\delta_{s1}(1-\delta_{l0}) }

983:   {4\pi l (l+1)(2l+1)}\: \tb{ {\cal V}_t^{(s)}(v_b) } \Bigg\}  \nn \\[1mm]

984:  &-& \frac{m\,C_F\,\alpS^3(v_b)\,\tb{ a_c(v_b) }}{8\pi^2 n^2} 

985:  \: \Bigg\{ \,\beta_0^2\:  N_{2}(n,l) +  \bigg( \frac{\beta_1}{2}+

986:  \beta_0 a_1 \bigg)

987: \bigg[ \Psi(n+l+1)+\gamma_E \bigg]   

988:   + \frac{a_2}{4}\,   \Bigg\} \nn \\[1mm]

989: &-& \frac{m C_F^2\alpS^4(v_b)}{16\pi^2 n^2}\: \left\{ \beta_0^2\bigg[ 4 N_0(n,l) 

990:  +4\gamma_E N_1(n,l)+\gamma_E^2 \bigg] + \beta_0 a_1 

991:  \bigg[ 2 N_1(n,l)+ \gamma_E 

992:  \bigg] +  \frac{a_1^2}{4}\right\}   \,. \nn 

993: \end{eqnarray}

994: When this expression is expanded in powers of $\alpha_s$ at a given

995: renormalization scale the LL, NLL, and NNLL predictions for the energy become

996: series in $(\alpha_s\ln\alpha_s)$ as in Eq.~(\ref{Ell}). The terms beyond NNLO

997: that are determined unambiguously are those up to $m\alpha_s^4 (\alpha_s

998: \ln\alpha_s)^k$, $k\ge 1$.  From Eq.~(\ref{eNNLL}) we see that up to NLL the

999: series are determined by the running of $\ams{}(\mu)$ since up to NLL order we

1000: have $a_c(\nu)/C_F=\alpS(\nu)=\ams{}(m\nu)$.  At NNLL order the series is no

1001: longer just determined by the QCD $\beta$-function since operators besides the

1002: strong coupling have non-trivial anomalous dimensions.

1003: 

1004: It is well known that the convergence of predictions for $\Delta E$ in terms of

1005: the pole mass are plagued by the presence of infrared renormalons. If

1006: predictions are made in terms of a short distance mass such as the $\msb$ mass

1007: the leading renormalon in the pole mass and $1/{\bf k}^2$ potentials

1008: cancel~\cite{renorm1,renorm2} and the convergence of the perturbation series is

1009: improved.  A phenomenological analysis, which includes the issue of renormalon

1010: cancellation in the presence of resummed logarithms, will be carried out

1011: elsewhere.

1012: 

1013: Past finite order predictions for the $Q\bar Q$ energies have typically been

1014: made using the strong coupling evaluated at the soft scale $mv$.  At LO and NLO

1015: this is the natural choice since all logarithms $\alpha_s^2 (\alpha_s\ln\mu)^k$

1016: and $\alpha_s^3 (\alpha_s\ln\mu)^k$ in higher order matrix elements are

1017: minimized at $\mu=|{\bf k}|$. Effectively this choice turns the LO and NLO

1018: results into the LL and NLL predictions.  However, at NNLO this choice of $\mu$

1019: may not be optimal since matrix elements begin to involve factors of $\alpha_s^4

1020: [\alpha_s\ln(\mu/E)]$.  The NNLL prediction is not generated by a simple

1021: replacement rule and instead involves the non-trivial Wilson coefficients ${\cal

1022: V}_{c,k,2,s,r,\Lambda,t}(\nu)$.

1023: 

1024: In Fig.~\ref{fig:nnllplots} we compare the NNLL energy predictions at

1025: subtraction velocity $\nu$ (thick black lines) with the NNLO predictions with

1026: coupling $\ams{}(m\nu)$ (thin green lines), to illustrate the impact of summing

1027: the logarithms.

1028: \begin{figure}[t] % fig:nnllplots

1029: \begin{center}

1030:  \leavevmode

1031:  \epsfxsize=6cm

1032:  \epsffile[220 580 420 710]{energyvar.eps}

1033: \vskip 4.9cm 

1034: {\tighten 

1035: \caption{\label{fig:nnllplots} Comparison of the NNLL binding energy predictions

1036: (thick black lines) with the NNLO predictions (thin green lines) for the

1037: $1\,{}^3S_1$ (solid), $1\,{}^1S_0$ (dashed), $2\,{}^3S_1$ (dot-dashed), and

1038: $2\,{}^3P_1$ (dotted) states, and for different values of the subtraction

1039: velocity $\nu$.  } }

1040: \end{center}

1041: \end{figure}

1042: The displayed states include $n\,{}^{2S+1}L_J=1\,{}^3S_1$ (solid lines),

1043: $1\,{}^1S_0$ (dashed lines), $2\,{}^3S_1$ (dash-dotted lines), and $2\,{}^3P_1$

1044: (dotted lines).  As input we have chosen $m_b=4.8$~GeV for the bottom quark pole

1045: mass, $\alpha_s^{(n_\ell=4)}(m_b)=0.22$, and have included three-loop running

1046: for the evolution of the strong coupling to lower scales.  The NNLO and the NNLL

1047: energies are equal for $\nu=1$, because no logarithms are summed into the Wilson

1048: coefficients. The summation has the largest impact on the $n=1$ S-wave states,

1049: and in all cases reduces the size of the binding energy.  In

1050: Table~\ref{table_nums} we summarize for $\nu$ of order a typical quark velocity,

1051: $\nu=(0.35,0.4)$, values for the NNLO result and the renormalization group

1052: improved NNLL calculation. Relative to the NNLO results the scale uncertainty in

1053: the NNLL predictions is somewhat reduced.

1054: 

1055: The summation of NNLL logarithms also reduces the size of the ground state

1056: hyperfine splitting, but increases the size of the analog of the QED Lamb shift,

1057: (the $2{}^3S_1\!-\!2{}^3P_1$ splitting).  For $\nu=(0.35,0.4)$ and at NNLO the

1058: hyperfine splitting and the $2{}^3S_1\!-\!2{}^3P_1$ splitting are

1059: \begin{eqnarray}

1060:   E(1{}^3S_1) - E(1{}^1S_0)=(68,52)~{\rm MeV} \,, \qquad

1061:   E(2{}^3S_1)- E(2{}^3P_1) =(39,35)~{\rm MeV} \,,

1062: \end{eqnarray}

1063: while at NNLL order we find

1064: \begin{eqnarray}

1065:   E(1{}^3S_1) - E(1{}^1S_0)=(27,27)~{\rm MeV} \,, \qquad

1066:   E(2{}^3S_1) - E(2{}^3P_1)=(64,47)~{\rm MeV} \,.

1067: \end{eqnarray}

1068: Summing the logarithms reduces the perturbative contribution to the hyperfine

1069: splitting by a factor of two.  The $2{}^3S_1\!-\!2{}^3P_1$ splitting is fairly

1070: sensitive to the value of $\nu$.

1071: 

1072: \begin{table}[t!]

1073: \begin{center}

1074: \begin{tabular}{cll|cccccc}

1075:  & $b\bar b$ state $\: (n{}^{2S+1}L_J)$ & & $1{}^1S_0$ & $1{}^3S_1$ & $2{}^3S_1$ & $2{}^3P_1$ \\ 

1076:  \hline

1077:  & $\Delta E$ at NNLO (MeV) & 

1078:   $\nu=0.35\ \ $ & $-1040$ & $-972$ & $-449$ & $-488$ \\

1079:  & \hspace{0.9cm}\raisebox{0.2cm}{} &  

1080:   $\nu=0.4$      & $-912$  & $-860$ & $-389$ & $-423$  \\ \hline

1081:  & $\Delta E$ at NNLL (MeV) & 

1082:   $\nu=0.35\ \ $ & $-641$ & $-614$ & $-382$ & $-446$ \\

1083:  & \hspace{0.9cm}\raisebox{0.2cm}{} &  

1084:   $\nu=0.4$      & $-705$ & $-678$ & $-356$ & $-403$ 

1085: \end{tabular}

1086: \end{center}

1087: {\tighten \caption{Comparison of the NNLO and NNLL predictions for the binding

1088:  energy corrections (in MeV) for $b\bar b$ states. The NNLL results include the

1089:  summation of logarithms not accounted for by $\ams{}(m\nu)$. Results are

1090:  shown for two values of $\nu$ of order the heavy quark velocity. }

1091: \label{table_nums} }

1092: \end{table}

1093: \OMIT{

1094: \begin{table}[t!]

1095: \begin{center}

1096: \begin{tabular}{cll|cccccc}

1097:  & $b\bar b$ state $\: (n{}^{2S+1}L_J)$ & & $1{}^1S_0$ & $1{}^3S_1$ & $2{}^3S_1$ & $2{}^3P_1$ \\ 

1098:  \hline

1099:  & $\Delta E^{NNLL}-\Delta E^{NNLO}$ & 

1100:   $\nu=0.35\ \ $ & $399$ & $358$ & $67$ & $42$ \\

1101:  & \hspace{0.9cm}\raisebox{0.2cm}{(in MeV)} &  

1102:   $\nu=0.4$ & $207$ & $183$ & $33$ & $20$ 

1103: \end{tabular}

1104: \end{center}

1105: {\tighten \caption{Reduction in the energy (in Mev) for $b\bar b$ states from

1106:  the summation of logarithms not accounted for by $\ams{}(m\nu)$.  The shifts

1107:  are shown for two values of $\nu$ of order the heavy quark velocity. }

1108: \label{table_nums} }

1109: \end{table}

1110: }

1111: 

1112: In order to examine the size of the logarithmic terms that are summed at NNLL

1113: order we can expand Eq.~(\ref{eNNLL}) in powers of $\alpha_s$.  To suppress

1114: logarithms proportional to the QCD $\beta$-function in the energy at NNLO is it

1115: convenient to expand in the coupling $a_s \equiv\ams{} (m v_b)$:

1116: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eNNLLexpanded}

1117:  \Delta E = &-& \, m\,a_s^2\Big[\,\dots\,\Big]

1118:   - m\,a_s^3\Big[\,\dots\,\Big]

1119:   - m\,a_s^4\Big[\,\dots\,\Big]  \\[2mm]

1120:   &-& m\,a_s^5\,\ln a_s\, \frac{C_F^2}{4\,\pi\,n^2}

1121:   \Bigg\{\, \frac{C_A}{3}\,\bigg[\, \frac{C_A^2}{2} + 

1122:   \frac{4\,C_A\,C_F}{n\,(2l+1)} + \frac{2\,C_F^2}{n}\,\bigg(\frac{8}{2l+1}

1123:   -\frac{1}{n}\bigg) \,\bigg] \nn\\

1124: & &\,\, +\, \frac{3\,\delta_{l0}\,C_F^2}{2\,n}(C_A\!+\!2C_F)

1125:  - \frac{7\,C_A\,C_F^2\,\delta_{l0}\,\delta_{s1}}{3\,n}

1126:  - \frac{C_A\,C_F^2\,(1\!-\!\delta_{l0})\,\delta_{s1}}

1127:         {4\,n\,l\,(l\!+\!1)\,(2l+1)}\,\Big(\,4\,X_{ljs} 

1128:    \!+\! \langle S_{12}\rangle_{ljs}\,\Big) \,\Bigg\} \nn\\[2mm]

1129: %

1130:  &-& m\,a_s^6\,\ln^2 a_s\,  \frac{C_F^2}{4\,\pi^2\,n^2}

1131: \Bigg\{\,  \frac{\delta_{l0}\,C_F^2}{6\,n}\,\bigg[\,

1132:   \beta_0\,\bigg(\frac{13\,C_A}{2}-C_F\bigg)

1133:   +\frac{C_A}{3}\,\bigg(25\,C_A+22\,C_F\bigg)

1134: \,\bigg] \nn\\

1135:  & &\,\,- \frac{C_A\,C_F^2\,\delta_{l0}\,\delta_{s1}}{6\,n}\,

1136:   \Big[\, 5\,\beta_0+ 7\,C_A \,\Big] \nn\\

1137:  & &\,\,- \frac{C_A\,C_F^2\,(1-\delta_{l0})\,\delta_{s1}}

1138:         {8\,n\,l\,(l+1)\,(2l+1)}\,

1139:  \bigg[\,

1140:    \beta_0\,\Big(\,2\,X_{ljs} 

1141:               + \frac{1}{2}\,\langle S_{12}\rangle_{ljs}\,\Big)

1142:    + C_A\,\Big(\,2\,X_{ljs} 

1143:               + \langle S_{12}\rangle_{ljs}\,\Big)

1144:  \,\bigg]

1145: \,\Bigg\} \nn\\[2mm]

1146:  &+& \ldots 

1147: \,.\nn

1148: \end{eqnarray} 

1149: The $a_s^2$, $a_s^3$, $a_s^4$ terms are not displayed, but agree with the result

1150: in Ref.~\cite{PY}. The terms proportional to $m\alpha_s^5\ln\alpha_s$ agree with

1151: Ref.~\cite{a5lna}. The $m\alpha_s^6\ln^2\alpha_s$ result is new, as are higher

1152: terms in the series.  Numerically we find

1153: \begin{eqnarray} \label{lnseries}

1154:   \frac{\Delta E(1{}^1S_0)}{m} &=& -0.444\, a_s^2 -1.595\, a_s^3 -9.73\, a_s^4 

1155:      -8.56\, a_s^5\ln a_s - 3.41\, a_s^6\ln^2 a_s -15.5\, a_s^7\ln^3 a_s\nn\\

1156:      && + \ldots \,, \nn\\

1157:   \frac{\Delta E(1{}^3S_1)}{m} &=& -0.444\, a_s^2 -1.595\, a_s^3 -8.68\, a_s^4 

1158:      -6.80\, a_s^5\ln a_s - 0.904\, a_s^6\ln^2 a_s -12.1\, a_s^7\ln^3 a_s\nn\\

1159:      && + \ldots \,, \nn\\

1160:   \frac{\Delta E(2{}^3S_1)}{m} &=& -0.111\, a_s^2 -0.546\, a_s^3 -3.07\, a_s^4 

1161:      -0.961\, a_s^5\ln a_s - 0.113\, a_s^6\ln^2 a_s -1.73\, a_s^7\ln^3 a_s\nn\\

1162:      && + \ldots \,, \nn\\

1163:   \frac{\Delta E(2{}^3P_1)}{m} &=& -0.111\, a_s^2 -0.644\, a_s^3 -3.22\, a_s^4 

1164:      -0.398\, a_s^5\ln a_s - 0.005\, a_s^6\ln^2 a_s -0.752\, a_s^7\ln^3 a_s\nn\\

1165:      && + \ldots \,.

1166: \end{eqnarray} 

1167: We note that for $(1{}^1S_0,1{}^3S_1,2{}^3S_1,2{}^3P_1)$ using $a_s=0.35$, the

1168: $a_s^5\ln a_s$ terms in Eq.~(\ref{lnseries}) give $(93\%,85\%,84\%,80\%)$ of

1169: the complete sum of logarithmic terms.

1170: 

1171: \section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}

1172:   

1173: The three-loop anomalous dimension for the Coulomb potential was computed in the

1174: presence of non-static quarks.  In terms of the subtraction velocity $\nu$ the

1175: anomalous dimension depends on both $\alpha_s(m \nu)$ and $\alpha_s(m

1176: \nu^2)$. Our result differs from the three-loop anomalous dimension for the

1177: potential for static quarks.  This is due to the fact that the energy and

1178: momentum scales are coupled for non-static quarks.

1179: 

1180: The perturbative energies for $Q\bar Q$ bound states were computed at NNLL

1181: order, including all terms of order $m \alpha_s^4 (\alpha_s\ln\alpha_s)^k$,

1182: $k\ge 0$.  The main effect of summing the logarithms is to reduce the binding

1183: energy for the $1{}^1S_0$ and $1{}^3S_1$ states by an amount of order a few

1184: hundred ${\rm MeV}$.  The effect on states with $n\ge 2$ is substantially

1185: smaller.

1186: 

1187: \section*{Acknowledgment}

1188: 

1189: We would like to thank A.~Pineda and J.~Soto for discussions, and C.~Bauer for

1190: comments on the manuscript.  AM and IS are supported in part by the

1191: U.S.~Department of Energy under contract~DOE-FG03-97ER40546, and IS is also

1192: supported in part by NSERC of Canada.

1193: 

1194: 

1195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1196: 

1197: \appendix 

1198: 

1199: 

1200: %\section{Static Potential}

1201: %%%%% Static stuff %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1202: 

1203: 

1204: 

1205: \section{Ultraviolet and Infrared Divergences}

1206: \label{UVIR}

1207: 

1208: In this appendix we discuss the structure of UV and IR divergences in the

1209: effective theory and their relation to the renormalization group running. In

1210: particular we explain why it is correct to treat all $1/\epsilon$ poles in soft

1211: gluon loops as UV divergences. This result follows from the fact that we have

1212: taken the full propagating gluon field and split it into two parts (soft and

1213: ultrasoft) which fluctuate on different length scales ($mv$ and $mv^2$) and have

1214: different Feynman rules. The information that the two gluons came from a single

1215: field is reflected by a relation between the IR divergences in soft gluon

1216: diagrams and the UV divergences in the ultrasoft diagrams.  Here we address how

1217: this correlation is accounted for in the presence of the relation $\mu_U =

1218: \mu_S^2/m$ between ultrasoft and soft subtraction scales.

1219: 

1220: For simplicity only diagrams with single $1/\epsilon$ poles and either purely

1221: soft or ultrasoft gluons will be discussed. Also, real Coulombic IR divergences

1222: will be dropped. A general diagram with a divergent soft gluon loop then gives a

1223: soft amplitude with the divergence structure:

1224: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Asoft}

1225:  i{\cal A}^S &=& {A\over \epsilon_{UV}} + {B \over \epsilon_{IR}} +

1226:    C \left( {1\over \epsilon_{UV}}-{1\over \epsilon_{IR}} \right)

1227:   = {A+B \over \epsilon_{UV}} +

1228:    (C-B) \left( {1\over \epsilon_{UV}}-{1\over \epsilon_{IR}} \right)\,.

1229: \end{eqnarray}

1230: Strictly speaking pure dimensional regularization does not distinguish between

1231: UV and IR divergences; however a distinction can always be made either by

1232: examining the analytic structure before expanding about $\epsilon=0$ or by also

1233: performing the calculation with a different IR regulator.  The notation in

1234: Eq.~(\ref{Asoft}) is slightly redundant so that $C$ represents diagrams

1235: involving scaleless integrals (such as tadpole graphs), and $A$ and $B$

1236: represent all other graphs. For example, for the Lamb shift in QED for Hydrogen

1237: only $C$ is non-zero, while positronium also has non-zero $A$ and $B$. At the

1238: same order in the power counting as Eq.~(\ref{Asoft}) there is an amplitude with

1239: a divergent ultrasoft gluon loop which has the form:

1240: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Ausoft}

1241:  i{\cal A}^U  &=&  { (C-B) \over \epsilon_{UV}} + {D \over \epsilon_{IR}}\,.

1242: \end{eqnarray}

1243: The nontrivial information is that the $(C-B)$ term in Eq.~(\ref{Ausoft}) is

1244: determined by the IR divergence in the soft amplitude in Eq.~(\ref{Asoft}). In

1245: general $D$ is independent of $C-B$ since ultrasoft graphs are not always

1246: proportional to $1/\epsilon_{UV} - 1/\epsilon_{IR}$. The infrared divergence in

1247: Eq.~(\ref{Ausoft}) will match with an infrared divergence in full QCD.

1248: 

1249: The renormalization group running is determined by the UV divergences. Naively,

1250: in Eq.~(\ref{Asoft}) the $\epsilon_{UV}$'s correspond to the scale $m$ and the

1251: $\epsilon_{IR}$'s correspond to the scale $mv$, while in Eq.~(\ref{Ausoft}) the

1252: $\epsilon_{UV}$'s correspond to the scale $mv$ and the $\epsilon_{IR}$'s

1253: correspond to scales of order $mv^2$. However, examining $i{\cal A}^S+i{\cal

1254: A}^U$ we see that the $(C-B)$ term in the soft amplitude simply pulls up or

1255: transports the $1/\epsilon_{UV}$ in the ultrasoft graph to the hard

1256: scale~\footnote{\tighten This addition might seem strange since it involves

1257: canceling an UV and IR pole.  However, for a multiscale problem what is

1258: ultraviolet and what is infrared is always relative; if we label the

1259: $\epsilon$'s by the corresponding scale then the cancellation is just

1260: $1/\epsilon(mv)-1/\epsilon(mv)=0$.}. The scale dependence of the coefficient

1261: $C-B$ in Eq.~(\ref{Ausoft}) does not affect this argument since the scale

1262: dependence of $C-B$ in Eq.~(\ref{Asoft}) can be chosen arbitrary.  Note that the

1263: $1/\epsilon_{IR}$ divergences in soft diagrams do not always correspond to IR

1264: divergences in QCD, which is further evidence of their unphysical nature.  This

1265: is the case if $D\ne B-C$ such as for the two loop graphs contributing to the

1266: running of ${\cal V}_k(\nu)$~\cite{amis3}.  Finally, we see that setting

1267: $\epsilon_{IR} = \epsilon_{UV}$ in the soft amplitude in Eq.~(\ref{Asoft}) and

1268: running the ultrasoft modes from $m$ to $mv^2$ with an anomalous dimension

1269: proportional to $C-B$ and running the soft modes from $m$ to $mv$ with an

1270: anomalous dimension proportional to $A+B$ correctly performs the running between

1271: the scales.  This is the method used here and in Refs.~\cite{amis,amis4}.

1272: 

1273: The correspondence in Eqs.~(\ref{Asoft}) and (\ref{Ausoft}) also provides a

1274: useful calculational tool: if the UV divergences $A+C$ in the soft diagrams are

1275: known, and the combination $B-C$ is determined from the UV divergences in the

1276: ultrasoft calculation, one arrives at $(A+C)+(B-C) = A+B$ which is the

1277: combination needed to determine the soft anomalous dimension from ${\cal A}^S$.

1278: 

1279: \section{Functions that appear in $\Delta E^{\rm NNLL}$}

1280: \label{Ns}

1281: 

1282: The following functions of the principal and orbital quantum numbers ($n,l,j$)

1283: were derived in Refs.~\cite{Yndurain,PY} and appear in our result in

1284: Eq.~(\ref{eNNLL}):

1285: \begin{eqnarray}

1286:   N_0(n,l) &=& \frac{\Psi(n+l+1)}{4}\Big[\Psi(n+l+1)-2\Big] 

1287:   + \frac{n\Gamma(n-l)}{2\Gamma(n+l+1)} \sum_{j=0}^{n-l-2} \frac{

1288:  \Gamma(j+2l+2)}{\Gamma(j+1)(j+l+1-n)^3}

1289:   \nn\\

1290:  && + \frac{n\Gamma(n+l+1)}{2\Gamma(n-l)} \sum_{j=n-l}^{\infty}  \frac{

1291:  \Gamma(j+1)}{\Gamma(j+2l+2)(j+l+1-n)^3} \,, \\[4mm]

1292:  N_1(n,l) &=&  \frac{\Psi(n+l+1)}{2} -\frac12 \,, \\[4mm]

1293:  N_2(n,l) &=& \Big[ \Psi(n+l+1) +\gamma_E \Big]^2 + \Psi'(n+l+1) 

1294:   + \frac{\pi^2}{12} \nn\\

1295:  && +\frac{ 2 \Gamma(n-l)}{\Gamma(n+l+1)} \sum_{j=0}^{n-l-2} 

1296:  \frac{ \Gamma(2l+2+j) }{\Gamma(j+1) (j+l+1-n)^2 }  \,,

1297: \\[4mm]

1298:  \langle S_{12}\rangle_{ljs} & = &

1299: \left\{

1300: \begin{array}{r@{\quad:\quad}l}

1301:  \displaystyle 

1302:  \frac{2(l+1)}{1-2l} & j=l-1 \\

1303:  2 & j=l\\

1304:  \displaystyle

1305:  \frac{-2\,l}{2l+3} & j=l+1

1306: \end{array}

1307: \right.

1308: \,,

1309: \\[4mm]

1310: X_{ljs} & = & \frac{1}{2}\Big(\,j(j+1)-l(l+1)-s(s+1)\,\Big) \,.

1311: \end{eqnarray}

1312: 

1313: 

1314: {\tighten

1315: \begin{references}

1316: 

1317: \bibitem{nrqcd}

1318: W.E.~Caswell and G.P.~Lepage,

1319: %``Effective Lagrangians For Bound State Problems In QED, QCD, And Other Field

1320: %                  Theories,''

1321: Phys. Lett. {\bf 167B}, 437 (1986);

1322: %%CITATION = PHLTA,167B,437;%%

1323: G.T.~Bodwin, E.~Braaten and G.P.~Lepage,

1324: %``Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy

1325: %                  quarkonium,''

1326: Phys. Rev. {\bf D51}, 1125 (1995), ibid. {\bf D55}, 5853

1327: (1997);

1328: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D51,1125;%%

1329: P.~Labelle,

1330: %``Effective field theories for QED bound states: Extending  nonrelativistic QED to study retardation effects,''

1331: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 093013 (1998);

1332: %[hep-ph/9608491].

1333: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608491;%%

1334: M.~Luke and A.V.~Manohar,

1335: %``Bound states and power counting in effective field theories,''

1336: Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 4129 (1997);

1337: %  hep-ph/9610534.

1338: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,4129;%%

1339: A.V.~Manohar,

1340: %``The HQET / NRQCD Lagrangian to order alpha / m-3,''

1341: Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 230 (1997);

1342: %  hep-ph/9701294.

1343: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,230;%%

1344: B.~Grinstein and I.Z.~Rothstein,

1345: %``Effective field theory and matching in nonrelativistic gauge theories,''

1346: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 78 (1998);

1347: %  hep-ph/9703298.

1348: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D57,78;%%

1349: M.~Luke and M.J.~Savage,

1350: %``Power counting in dimensionally regularized NRQCD,''

1351: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 413 (1998);

1352: % hep-ph/9707313

1353: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D57,413;%%

1354: 

1355: \bibitem{pNRQCD}

1356: A.~Pineda and J.~Soto,

1357: %``Effective field theory for ultrasoft momenta in NRQCD and NRQED,''

1358: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 64}, 428 (1998);

1359: % hep-ph/9707481.

1360: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,64,428;%%

1361: 

1362: \bibitem{LMR} M.~Luke, A.~Manohar and I.~Rothstein,

1363: %``Renormalization group scaling in nonrelativistic QCD,''

1364: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D61}, 074025 (2000).

1365: % [hep-ph/9910209].

1366: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910209;%%

1367: 

1368: \bibitem{amis} A.~V.~Manohar and I.~W.~Stewart,

1369: %``Renormalization group analysis of the QCD quark potential to order  v**2,''

1370: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 014033 (2000).

1371: %[hep-ph/9912226].

1372: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912226;%%

1373: 

1374: 

1375: \bibitem{amis2} A.V.~Manohar and I.W.~Stewart,

1376: %``The QCD heavy-quark potential to order v**2: One loop matching  conditions,''

1377: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D62}, 074015 (2000).

1378: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003032;%%

1379: 

1380: \bibitem{amis3}

1381: A.V.~Manohar and I.W.~Stewart,

1382: %``Running of the heavy quark production current and 1/k potential in QCD,''

1383: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63}, 54004 (2001).

1384: %hep-ph/0003107.

1385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003107;%%

1386: 

1387: \bibitem{PSstat}

1388: A.~Pineda and J.~Soto,

1389: %``The renormalization group improvement of the QCD static potentials,''

1390: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B495}, 323 (2000).

1391: %[hep-ph/0007197].

1392: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007197;%%

1393: 

1394: \bibitem{amis4} A.V.~Manohar and I.W.~Stewart,

1395: %``Logarithms of alpha in QED bound states from the renormalization group,''

1396: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 85}, 2248 (2000).

1397: %[hep-ph/0004018].

1398: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004018;%%

1399: 

1400: \bibitem{hmst}

1401: A.~H.~Hoang, A.~V.~Manohar, I.~W.~Stewart and T.~Teubner,

1402: %``A renormalization group improved calculation of top quark production  near threshold,''

1403: %Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, ?? (2001).

1404: hep-ph/0011254.

1405: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011254;%%

1406: 

1407: \bibitem{mss1} A.V.~Manohar, J. Soto, and I.W.~Stewart,

1408: %``The renormalization group for correlated scales: One-stage versus two-stage running,''

1409: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B486}, 400 (2000).

1410: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006096;%%

1411: 

1412: \bibitem{Peter} M.~Peter, 

1413: %``The static quark-antiquark potential in QCD to three loops,''

1414: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 78}, 602 (1997).

1415: %[hep-ph/9610209].

1416: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610209;%%

1417: 

1418: \bibitem{Schroeder} Y.~Schr\"oder, 

1419: %``The static potential in {QCD} to two loops,''

1420: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 447}, 321 (1999).

1421: %[hep-ph/9812205].

1422: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812205;%%

1423: 

1424: \bibitem{chen}

1425: Y.~Chen, Y.~Kuang and R.~J.~Oakes,

1426: %``On the spin dependent potential between heavy quark and anti-quark,''

1427: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D52}, 264 (1995).

1428: % [hep-ph/9406287].

1429: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406287;%%

1430: 

1431: \bibitem{MW} A.~V.~Manohar and M.~B.~Wise, 

1432: %``Heavy quark physics,'' 

1433: {\it Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, and Cosmology,

1434: Vol. 10}.

1435: 

1436: \bibitem{Gatheral}

1437: J.~G.~Gatheral,

1438: %``Exponentiation Of Eikonal Cross-Sections In Nonabelian Gauge Theories,''

1439: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B133}, 90 (1983).

1440: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B133,90;%%

1441: 

1442: \bibitem{FrenkelTaylor}

1443: J.~Frenkel and J.~C.~Taylor,

1444: %``Nonabelian Eikonal Exponentiation,''

1445: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B246}, 231 (1984).

1446: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B246,231;%%

1447: 

1448: \bibitem{ADM}

1449: T.~Appelquist, M.~Dine and I.~Muzinich, 

1450: %``The Static Potential In Quantum Chromodynamics,''

1451: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 69}, 231 (1977);

1452: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B69,231;%%

1453: T.~Appelquist, M.~Dine and I.~Muzinich, 

1454: %``The Static Limit Of Quantum Chromodynamics,''

1455: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17}, 2074 (1978).

1456: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D17,2074;%%

1457: 

1458: \bibitem{static1}

1459: N.~Brambilla, A.~Pineda, J.~Soto and A.~Vairo,

1460: %``The infrared behaviour of the static potential in perturbative {QCD},''

1461: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D60}, 091502 (1999).

1462: %[hep-ph/9903355].

1463: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903355;%%

1464: 

1465: \bibitem{Gries}

1466: H.W.~Griesshammer,

1467: %``Threshold expansion and dimensionally regularized NRQCD,''

1468: Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 094027 (1998).

1469: % hep-ph/9712467.

1470: %CITATION = PHRVA,D58,094027;%%

1471: 

1472: \bibitem{Fischler} W.~Fischler, 

1473: %``Quark - Anti-Quark Potential In QCD,''

1474: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 129}, 157 (1977).

1475: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B129,157;%%

1476: 

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{Beneke}

1479: M.~Beneke and V.A.~Smirnov,

1480: %``Asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals near threshold,''

1481: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B522}, 321 (1998).

1482: %  hep-ph/9711391.

1483: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B522,321;%%

1484: 

1485: \bibitem{Yndurain}

1486: S.~Titard and F.J.~Yndurain,

1487: %``Rigorous QCD evaluation of spectrum and ground state properties of heavy q

1488: %                  anti-q systems: With a precision determination of m(b)

1489: %                  M(eta(b)),''

1490: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49}, 6007 (1994).

1491: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,6007;%%

1492: 

1493: \bibitem{PY}

1494: A.~Pineda and F.~J.~Yndurain,

1495: %``Calculation of quarkonium spectrum and m(b), m(c) to order  alpha(s)**4,''

1496: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 58}, 094022 (1998);

1497: %[hep-ph/9711287].

1498: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711287;%%

1499: A.~Pineda and F.~J.~Yndurain,

1500: %``Comment on 'Calculation of quarkonium spectrum and m(b), m(c) to order  alpha(s)**4',''

1501: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 61}, 077505 (2000).

1502: %[hep-ph/9812371].

1503: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812371;%%

1504: 

1505: \bibitem{renorm1}

1506: A.~H.~Hoang, M.~C.~Smith, T.~Stelzer and S.~Willenbrock,

1507: %``Quarkonia and the pole mass,''

1508: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 114014 (1999).

1509: %[hep-ph/9804227].

1510: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804227;%%

1511: 

1512: \bibitem{renorm2}

1513: M.~Beneke,

1514: %``A quark mass definition adequate for threshold problems,''

1515: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 434}, 115 (1998).

1516: %[hep-ph/9804241].

1517: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804241;%

1518: 

1519: \bibitem{a5lna}

1520: N.~Brambilla, A.~Pineda, J.~Soto and A.~Vairo,

1521: %``The heavy quarkonium spectrum at order m alpha(s)**5 ln(alpha(s)),''

1522: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B470}, 215 (1999); 

1523: %[hep-ph/9910238].

1524: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910238;%%

1525: see also 

1526: %\bibitem{kp} 

1527: B.A.~Kniehl and A.A.~Penin, 

1528: %``Ultrasoft effects in heavy quarkonium physics,'' 

1529: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B563}, 200 (1999).

1530: %[hep-ph/9907489].

1531: 

1532: \end{references}

1533: } %end tighten (references & figure captions)

1534: 

1535: 

1536: 

1537: \end{document}

1538: 

1539: 

1540: 

1541: