1: \documentclass[acus]{JAC2000}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
8: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \title{\centering QCD sum rule analysis of
12: {\boldmath $V$} and {\boldmath $A$} current correlators
13: from {\boldmath $\tau$}-decay data}
14:
15: \author{Konstantin N. Zyablyuk, ITEP, Moscow, Russia}
16:
17: \maketitle
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: 2-point correlators of vector and axial currents, obtained from
21: $\tau$-decay data, are studied
22: within the framework of perturbative QCD and Operator Product Expansion.
23: Various sum rules, obtained from
24: Borel transformation of the correlators in complex plane,
25: are used to separate the contributions of different operators
26: from each other. The analysis confirms the $Q^2$-dependence
27: of the correlators in the space-like region, predicted
28: by QCD+OPE. However the operator values are found to be in
29: certain disagreement with the estimations, obtained from other data.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \section{Objectives}
33:
34: Precise measurements of vector $V$ and axial $A$ spectral functions
35: in hadronic $\tau$-decays by ALEPH \cite{ALEPH2} and OPAL \cite{OPAL}
36: collaborations provide us with possibility to test
37: various QCD aspects. Perturbation Theory (PT) and
38: Operator Product Expansion (OPE) are the most well-established ones.
39: Here we shall compare theoretical predictions with the data
40: within the framework of sum rules. Particular details of this analysis
41: can be found in \cite{IZ, GIZ}.
42:
43: The 2-point correlators of charged vector and axial-vector
44: currents
45: $$
46: J=V,A: \qquad V_\mu=\bar{u}\gamma_\mu d \, , \quad
47: A_\mu=\bar{u}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 d
48: $$
49: can be parametrized by 2 polarization functions $\Pi(q^2)$:
50: $$
51: i\int e^{iqx}\left< J_\mu(x) J_\nu(0)^\dagger \right> dx = \hspace{20mm}
52: $$
53: \be
54: =(q_\mu q_\nu -g_{\mu\nu}q^2)\Pi_J^{(1)}(q^2)+q_\mu q_\nu\Pi_J^{(0)}(q^2)
55: \ee
56: For $q^2=s>0$ they have imaginary parts, the so-called spectral functions
57: \be
58: v_1/a_1(s)=2\pi\, {\rm Im}\,\Pi_{V/A}^{(1)}(s+i0)
59: \ee
60: which have been measured from hadronic $\tau$-decays for $0<s<m_\tau^2$,
61: the plots can be found in \cite{ALEPH2, OPAL}. The scalar axial
62: polarization function $\Pi_A^{(0)}$
63: is basically saturated by single pion decay channel.
64: Its imaginary part $a_0$ is delta-function, which can be easily
65: separated from $a_1/v_1$.
66:
67: It turns out to be convenient to consider the sum and
68: difference $v_1\pm a_1$ instead of $v_1$ and $a_1$ separately. Indeed,
69: the sum $v_1+a_1$ is known with better accuracy, while the difference
70: $v_1-a_1$ does not contain perturbative terms in
71: the massless quark limit. The QCD expressions for appropriate polarization
72: functions can be written in the following form:
73: \bea
74: \Pi_V^{(1)}(s)-\Pi_A^{(1)}(s) & = & \sum_{k\ge 2}{O_{2k}^{V-A}\over (-s)^k}
75: \label{pivma}\\
76: \Pi_V^{(1)}(s)+\Pi_A^{(1)}(s) & = & -{1\over 2\pi^2}\ln{-s\over \mu^2}+
77: \mbox{higher loops} \nonumber \\
78: & & + \sum_{k\ge 2}{O_{2k}^{V+A}\over (-s)^k} \label{pivpa}
79: \eea
80: The $2k$-dimensional constants $O_{2k}^{V,A}$ are the vacuum expectation
81: values of the operators, constructed from the quark and
82: gluon fields \cite{SVZ}.
83: They have been computed up to dimension $D=8$. The numerical values
84: of $O_{2k}$ cannot be determined within the perturbation theory.
85:
86: Obviously the expressions (\ref{pivma},\ref{pivpa}) are not valid for
87: all values of $s$. Exact polarization operator $\Pi(q^2)$ is known
88: to be an analytical function of $s=q^2$ with a cut along positive real
89: semiaxes. So it is convenient to study the QCD predictions
90: (\ref{pivma},\ref{pivpa}) in the whole complex $s$-plane.
91: These series are not valid for small $|s|$, where effective degrees
92: of freedom are hadrons rather than quarks. Moreover, the higher
93: loop perturbative terms in (\ref{pivpa}) have unphysical cut starting
94: from some $s=-Q_0^2<0$. The OPE series
95: with finite number of operators does not have a cut along positive real
96: semiaxis, but has very singular behavior at $s=0$. Based upon these
97: speculations one may draw schematic Figure \ref{pt_ope},
98: displaying the region
99: of validity of the series (\ref{pivma},\ref{pivpa}).
100:
101: \begin{figure}[b]
102: \centering
103: \includegraphics[width=70mm]{pt_ope.eps}
104: \caption{Region of validity of perturbation theory
105: and operator product expansion} \label{pt_ope}
106: \end{figure}
107:
108: Another drawback of QCD is that these series
109: are likely to be asymptotic, i.e. divergent for any fixed $s$.
110: The way to deal with divergent series is to apply Borel transformation
111: \be
112: {\cal B}_{M^2}\Pi = \mbox{pert. terms}+
113: \sum_{k\ge 2}{O_{2k}\over (k-1)!\, M^{2k}}
114: \label{bor0}
115: \ee
116: which improves the convergence by suppressing the higher terms.
117: It is not clear, whether it improves the perturbative
118: series, which is an expansion in inverse powers of $\ln{(-s)}$, rather
119: than $s$ itself. However the expansion in $1/\ln{M^2}$ might be convergent.
120:
121: The primary goal of the investigation is to find the numerical values
122: of input theoretical parameters, such as $\alpha_s(m_\tau^2)$ and few
123: operators of lowest dimensions. We shall compare the QCD result for
124: the Borel transform (\ref{bor0}) of the series (\ref{pivma},\ref{pivpa})
125: with the experimental values, computed by exploiting the analytical
126: properties of exact polarization functions. In order to separate the
127: operators from each other, we shall consider the Borel transform
128: (\ref{bor0}) at complex values of the argument $M^2 e^{i\phi}$.
129: This can be alternatively understood as the Borel transformation
130: applied to the polarization function, taken at the angle $\phi$
131: w.r.t. the real negative semiaxes in the $s$-plane, see Fig.~\ref{pt_ope}.
132: We shall also try to find the lowest value of the Borel mass $M^2$,
133: at which the comparison of QCD to the experiment can be made.
134:
135: \section{{\boldmath V-A} sum rules}
136:
137: We start the analysis from the $V-A$ case (\ref{pivma}) which is purely
138: nonperturbative. The dispersion relation for the difference of
139: polarization functions does not need subtractions and is written
140: in the following way:
141: $$
142: \Pi_V^{(1)}(s)-\Pi_A^{(1)}(s)= \hspace{20mm}
143: $$
144: \be
145: ={1\over 2\pi^2}\int_0^\infty {(v_1-a_1)(s')\over s'-s}ds' + {f_\pi^2\over s}
146: \label{vmadr}
147: \ee
148: The last term is the kinematic pole which is specific feature of
149: axial currents. Indeed, the r.h.s. has appropriate asymptotics:
150: at $s\to 0$ it matches the chiral theory prediction, while the
151: expansion at $s\to \infty$ starts from the operator of dimension $D=4$,
152: as it should be.
153:
154: Applying the Borel transformation to (\ref{vmadr}), one gets the following
155: sum rule:
156: $$
157: \int_0^\infty e^{-s/M^2} (v_1-a_1)(s) {ds\over 2\pi^2} =
158: $$
159: \be
160: =f_\pi^2 + \sum_{k\ge 2} {O_{2k}^{V-A}\over (k-1)! \, M^{2k-2}}
161: \label{bor0vma}
162: \ee
163: One may estimate the numerical values of the operators $O^{V-A}$ up to
164: dimension 8 from other data:
165: \bea
166: O_4^{V-A} & = & 2(m_u+m_d)\left<\bar{q}q\right> = - f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2
167: \nonumber \\
168: & & \mbox{negligible at} \; s\sim 1 \, {\rm GeV}^2,
169: \nonumber \\
170: O_6^{V-A} & = & - {64\over 9}\pi\alpha_s\left<\bar{q}q\right>^2
171: \approx -2\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm GeV}^6,
172: \nonumber \\
173: O_8^{V-A} & = & 8\pi\alpha_s m_0^2\left<\bar{q}q\right>^2
174: \approx 2\times 10^{-3}\, {\rm GeV}^8,
175: \label{opvma}
176: \eea
177: where
178: \be
179: m_0^2 = {\left<q\hat{G}q\right>\over i\left<\bar{q}q\right>} =
180: 0.8\pm 0.2 \, {\rm GeV}^2
181: \label{m02}
182: \ee
183: has been found from barionic sum rules \cite{BI}. In the numerical
184: estimation we assumed $m_u+m_d=12 \, {\rm MeV}$ and $\alpha_s=0.5$
185: at 1 GeV${}^2$. The factorization hypothesis was used in order to
186: bring the operators $O_{6,8}$ to the form (\ref{opvma}). It has internal
187: theoretical ambiguity $\sim 1/N_c^2$ among the $D=8$ operators,
188: see \cite{IZ}.
189:
190: QCD corrections to the operators
191: $O_6$ have been computed in \cite{AC}. They turn out to be large and
192: may increase the effective contribution of the $D=6$ operator by
193: about 50\%:
194: \bea
195: O_6^{V-A}& =& - {64\over 9}\pi\alpha_s\left<\bar{q}q\right>^2
196: \left[1+{\alpha_s\over \pi}\left({1\over 4}\ln{-s\over\mu^2}+c_6\right)
197: \right] \nonumber \\
198: & \approx & -3\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm GeV}^6
199: \label{o6num}
200: \eea
201: The coefficient $c_6$ is ambiguous:
202: two essentially different choices were presented in \cite{AC}. In the
203: numerical estimation (\ref{o6num}) we used more moderate one $c_6=89/48$.
204:
205: One sees, that the r.h.s. of (\ref{bor0vma}) has leading term $f_\pi^2$
206: and relatively small (but interesting) contributions of $O_{6,8}$ at
207: $M^2>0.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$. One way to kill $f_\pi^2$ is to differentiate
208: (\ref{bor0vma}) by $M^2$. This however inevitably increases the errors
209: of the experimental integral. It seems more effective to perform
210: another trick: one substitutes complex Borel mass $M^2e^{i\phi}$ into
211: (\ref{bor0vma}) and takes imaginary part of it. The result is:
212: $$
213: \int_0^\infty e^{-{s\over M^2}\cos{\phi}}
214: \sin{\left({s\over M^2}\sin{\phi}
215: \right)}(v_1-a_1)(s){ds\over 2\pi^2 M^2}
216: $$
217: \be
218: =\,-\sum_{k\ge 2}{\sin{\left((k-1)\phi\right)}\over (k-1)!}\,
219: {O_{2k}^{V-A}\over M^{2k}}
220: \label{bor1vma}
221: \ee
222:
223: \begin{figure*}[tb]
224: \centering
225: \includegraphics[width=60mm]{b_s1.eps} \hspace{25mm}
226: \includegraphics[width=61mm]{b_s2.eps}
227: \caption{Sum rule (\ref{bor1vma})
228: for $\phi=\pi/3$ (a) and $\phi=\pi/4$ (b). Dash lines display OPE
229: prediction with operators (\ref{vmafit}).} \label{sr1vma}
230: \end{figure*}
231:
232: Let us consider the angle $\phi=\pi/3$. The operator $O_8$ disappears from
233: the r.h.s. of (\ref{bor1vma}) and only $O_6$ is important in this case.
234: The l.h.s. of (\ref{bor1vma})
235: is shown in Fig.~\ref{sr1vma}a as shaded area (the upper integration
236: limit is $m_\tau^2$, since there are no data beyond this point). The
237: errors have local minimum at the point $M^2=0.8\,{\rm GeV}^2$. It happens
238: because the $\sin{(\ldots)}$ in the integral has zero at $s=m_\tau^2$ and
239: thereby suppresses large experimental errors. At this point we determine
240: the operator $O_6^{V-A}$ and plot the r.h.s. of (\ref{bor1vma}) with
241: this value in Fig.~\ref{sr1vma}a as dash line.
242:
243: Second interesting angle is $\phi=\pi/4$. Both $O_6$ and $O_8$ contribute,
244: but the next term with $O_{10}$ disappears. This means that one may
245: go to lower values of $M^2$ in order to reduce the experimental uncertainty.
246: Indeed, as can be seen from Fig.~\ref{sr1vma}b, the agreement can be
247: achieved down to $M^2=0.4\,{\rm GeV}^2$ in this case. At this point
248: we obtain the most accurate value of the operator $O_8$.
249:
250: The result of the fit:
251: \bea
252: O_6^{V-A} & = & -(6.8\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-3} \,{\rm GeV}^6 \nonumber \\
253: O_8^{V-A} & = & (7\pm 4)\times 10^{-3} \,{\rm GeV}^8
254: \label{vmafit}
255: \eea
256: (details of the fit and error estimations are discussed in \cite{IZ}).
257: The result for $O_6$ is twice larger than our estimation (\ref{o6num}).
258: It might have different explanations: overestimated $m_u+m_d$,
259: failure of factorization, large $\alpha_s$ corrections are the few ones
260: among them. But the mass $m_0^2$, obtained from (\ref{vmafit}) is in agreement
261: with (\ref{m02}).
262:
263: \section{Perturbative series}
264:
265: Before analyzing $V+A$ sum rules, we outline the basic features of
266: perturbative series. The QCD coupling $a\equiv \alpha_s/\pi$
267: is a function of the scale $Q^2$, determined by the renormalization
268: group equation:
269: \be
270: {d a\over d\ln{Q^2}}=-\beta(a)=-\sum_{k\ge 0} \beta_k a^{k+2}
271: \label{rge}
272: \ee
273: where the factors $\beta_k$ have been computed up to 4 loops
274: in $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme \cite{RVL}. In particular
275: $\beta_0=4/9$, $\beta_1=4$, $\beta_2=10.06$ and $\beta_3=47.23$
276: for 3 flavors. The solution of RG equation is
277: \be
278: \ln{Q^2\over \mu^2}=-\int_{a(\mu^2)}^{a(Q^2)} {da\over\beta{(a)}} \; ,
279: \qquad Q^2=-s
280: \ee
281: Since the integral is convergent at $\infty$ for any fixed order
282: (at least with positive $\beta_k$),
283: the coupling $a(s)$ has unphysical singularity at some negative
284: $s=-Q_0^2$, see Fig.~\ref{pt_ope}. The
285: properties of the solution of RG equation
286: can be understood by viewing on Fig.~\ref{alpha}.
287:
288: \begin{figure}[b]
289: \centering
290: \includegraphics[width=82mm]{alpha.eps}
291: \caption{Real and imaginary parts of
292: $\alpha_{\overline{\rm MS}}(s)/\pi$ as
293: exact numerical solution of RG equation (\ref{rge}) on real axes for
294: different number of loops. The initial condition is chosen
295: $\alpha_s=0.355$ at $s=-m_\tau^2$. Vertical dotted lines display the
296: position of the unphysical singularity at $s=-Q_0^2$ for
297: each approximation ($4\to 1$ from left to right).}
298: \label{alpha}
299: \end{figure}
300:
301: The polarization function is obtained by integrating the Adler
302: function, which is finite and has been computed up to N${}^3$LO term
303: in $\overline{\rm MS}$ \cite{SS}:
304: $$
305: D(Q^2)=-2\pi^2{d\Pi (Q^2)\over d\ln{Q^2}} \hspace{20mm}
306: $$
307: \be
308: =1+a+K_2a^2+K_3a^3+{\rm unknown}
309: \label{adler}
310: \ee
311: where $K_2=1.64$ and $K_3=6.37$ for 3 flavors. In our calculations
312: we shall take the theoretical uncertainty equal to the contribution
313: of the last term in (\ref{adler}), $\pm K_3 a^3$. Since we do not know
314: $K_4$, it is reasonable to use only 3-loop approximation also for the
315: $\beta$-function in (\ref{rge}).
316:
317: The polarization function constructed in this way has unphysical
318: cut from $s=-Q_0^2$ to $s=0$. It is an obvious indication of QCD
319: inapplicability at low $|s|$. However there are certain attempts
320: to construct the perturbative functions with appropriate analytical
321: properties on the whole $s$-plane, for instance by constructing
322: an analytical QCD coupling with help of dispersion relation \cite{ShSol1}
323: (subtractions assumed):
324: $$
325: \alpha_s(s)_{\rm an}={1\over \pi}\int_0^\infty { {\rm Im}\,
326: \alpha_s(s')\over s'-s}ds' \hspace{5mm}
327: $$
328: \be
329: ={\pi\over\beta_0}\left( {1\over \ln{(-s/\Lambda^2)}}-{\Lambda^2\over
330: \Lambda^2+s}\right)+\ldots
331: \label{alpan}
332: \ee
333: This way is not unique: one may write down the same dispersion relation
334: for the polarization function $\Pi(s)_{\rm an}$ as well. At the NLO level the
335: result will be the same as the substitution of (\ref{alpan})
336: into (\ref{adler}), but it is not the case for higher terms. In general,
337: the purely logarithmic terms in analytic approach are the same as
338: in conventional QCD, but the power terms are different, and there
339: appears $D=2$-like term $\sim 1/s$, absent in canonical OPE.
340:
341: QCD must give correct value of the hadronic $\tau$-decay branching
342: ration $R_\tau\sim 3(1+\delta^{(0)})$, which is measured with
343: rather high accuracy. It is also weakly sensitive to the
344: nonperturbative power corrections. The perturbative fractional correction
345: $\delta^{(0)}$ is given by well-known formula (e.g. \cite{BNP}):
346: $$
347: 1+\delta^{(0)}=1.206\pm 0.010 \hspace{35mm}
348: $$
349: \be
350: =2\pi i \oint_{|s|=m_\tau^2}
351: {ds\over m_\tau^2}\left(1-{s\over m_\tau^2}\right)^2
352: \left(1+2{s\over m_\tau^2}\right)\Pi(s)
353: \label{delta0}
354: \ee
355: $$
356: \mbox{where} \qquad \Pi=\Pi_V^{(1)}+\Pi_A^{(1+0)} \, .
357: $$
358: Notice, that the circle integral includes the contribution of
359: unphysical cut, while in any analytical approach it is thrown away.
360: The numerical results for (\ref{delta0}) in both approaches are shown
361: in Fig.~\ref{d0_fig}. It is seen, that analytical scheme predicts
362: very large $\alpha_s(m_Z^2)$ (at $Q^2=m_Z^2$ the difference between
363: both approaches is not important) and, therefore, fails to agree with
364: other data. So we shall not consider it anymore.
365:
366: \begin{figure}[t]
367: \centering
368: \includegraphics[width=82mm]{delta0.eps}
369: \caption{Correction $\delta^{(0)}$ versus $\alpha_s(m_\tau^2)$ and
370: $\alpha_s(m_Z^2)$ in conventional and analytic approach in
371: 3-loop approximation.}
372: \label{d0_fig}
373: \end{figure}
374:
375: It follows from Fig.~\ref{d0_fig}:
376: \be
377: \alpha_s(m_\tau^2)=0.355\pm 0.025
378: \label{alpha_f}
379: \ee
380: The error includes the theoretical uncertainty $\pm K_3a^3$ of Adler
381: function. This result is 3-loop, the 4-loop result with the estimation
382: $K_4=25-50$ would give us slightly less value within the error range.
383: We notice also, that there is second point on Fig.~\ref{d0_fig} where
384: the conventional curve crosses the experimental band. However it is
385: unstable under changes of various perturbative input parameters and
386: prescriptions and cannot be considered as reliable one.
387:
388:
389: \section{{\boldmath $V+A$} sum rules}
390:
391: The operators $O^{V+A}$ in (\ref{pivpa})
392: include purely gluonic condensates. In particular,
393: \be
394: O_4^{V+A}={\alpha_s\over 6\pi}\left<G_{\mu\nu}^a G_{\mu\nu}^a\right>
395: \ee
396: The $D=4$ gluonic condensate has been found from charmonium sum rules
397: \cite{SVZ}:
398: $$
399: \left< {\alpha_s\over \pi} G^2\right> = 0.012 \, {\rm GeV}^4
400: \qquad \eqno{({\rm SVZ})}
401: $$
402: The $D=6$ operator contains gluonic condensate $\sim \left< G^3 \right>$,
403: which is not known. The quark contribution after factorization get the form:
404: \be
405: O_6^{V+A}={128\over 81}\pi\alpha_s \left< \bar{q}q\right>^2
406: = (1.3\pm 0.5)\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm GeV}^6
407: \label{o6vpa}
408: \ee
409: For numerical estimation we used our $V-A$ fit (\ref{vmafit}) and added
410: additional error which might occur due to incomplete
411: cancellation of two relatively large term in the sum $V+A$ after
412: factorization. The $D=8$ operator cannot be obtained from other data,
413: but we estimate its upper limit as $|O_8^{V+A}|<10^{-3}\,{\rm GeV}^8$.
414: Details given in \cite{GIZ}. So $O_{6,8}^{V+A}$ are essentially
415: smaller than $O_{6,8}^{V-A}$ and perturbative terms dominate here.
416:
417: Now let us define the Borel transform of the polarization function
418: $\Pi_{V+A}$:
419: $$
420: B_{\rm exp}(M^2)=\int_0^{m_\tau^2}e^{-s/M^2}(v_1+a_1+a_0)(s){ds\over M^2}
421: $$
422: \be
423: = B_{\rm pt}(M^2)+2\pi^2 \sum_{k\ge 2}{O_{2k}^{V+A}\over (k-1)!\, M^{2k}}
424: \label{borvpa}
425: \ee
426: The perturbative part $B_{\rm pt}$ is computed numerically:
427: $$
428: B_{\rm pt}(M^2)=i\pi \oint e^{-s/M^2} \Pi_{\rm pt}(s){ds\over M^2}
429: $$
430: The integration contour goes counterclockwise from $s=m_\tau^2+i0$ to
431: $s=m_\tau^2-i0$ around the cut of the perturbative polarization function
432: $\Pi_{\rm pt}$ (including unphysical part).
433:
434: Since $O_8^{V+A}$ is small,
435: we shall be concerned with the $D=4,6$ operators. They can be conveniently
436: separated by taking the real part of the Borel transform (\ref{borvpa})
437: with complex argument:
438: $$
439: {\rm Re}\,B_{\rm exp}(M^2e^{i\phi})={\rm Re}\,B_{\rm pt}(M^2e^{i\phi})
440: $$
441: \be
442: +2\pi^2 \sum_{k\ge 2} {\cos{(k\phi)}\, O_{2k}^{V+A}\over (k-1)!\, M^{2k}}
443: \label{rebor}
444: \ee
445: At $\phi=\pi/6$ the operator $O_6$ disappears and at $\phi=\pi/4$
446: there is no $O_4$ in the r.h.s. Fig.~\ref{set1819}a,b displays both these
447: possibilities. Vertical bars correspond to ${\rm Re}\,B_{\rm exp}$,
448: while the solid line with shaded area around it, labeled with ``0.355''
449: mark, shows purely perturbative contribution ${\rm Re}\, B_{\rm pt}$
450: computed with initial condition $\alpha_s(m_\tau)=0.355$. The same is done
451: for $\alpha_s(m_\tau^2)=0.330$, which is the lowest possible value within
452: the error range (\ref{alpha_f}) (for a reason which will become
453: clear later).
454:
455: \begin{figure*}[t]
456: \centering
457: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{set18.eps} \hspace{5mm}
458: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{set19.eps}
459: \caption{Sum rule (\ref{rebor}) with $\phi=\pi/6$ (a) and $\phi=\pi/4$ (b).
460: The dash line is the contribution of the gluonic condensate equal to
461: the central value of (\ref{gc}) added to the 0.330-perturbative
462: curve.}
463: \label{set1819}
464: \end{figure*}
465:
466: Consider at first $\phi=\pi/4$. The gluonic condensate $\left<G^2\right>$,
467: and consequently $O_4^{V+A}$ must be positive. Therefore, the
468: perturbative curve must go below experimental one, if the discrepancy
469: is explained by OPE. However Fig.~\ref{set1819}a shows, that
470: the central value of 0.355-theoretical prediction goes above the experimental
471: band for $M^2<0.9 \, {\rm GeV}^2$. If we forget for a moment about
472: theoretical uncertainty and assume that the theory should work
473: for $M^2>0.6 \, {\rm GeV}^2$, as follows from our $V-A$ analysis,
474: this means that the condensate must be negative.
475: It rather contradicts to our expectations.
476:
477: But if we take slightly lower input $\alpha_s(m_\tau^2)$, the
478: perturbative curve will go down. The lowest possible value is
479: 0.330, as follows from (\ref{alpha_f}). Indeed, in this case the central
480: theoretical value is below experimental bars. If one takes
481: some point, say, $M^2=0.8\, {\rm GeV}^2$, then the following
482: values of the gluonic condensate are acceptable:
483: $$
484: \left<{\alpha_s\over \pi}G_{\mu\nu}^aG_{\mu\nu}^a\right>=
485: 0.006\pm 0.012 \, {\rm GeV}^4 \hspace{15mm}
486: $$
487: \be
488: \label{gc}
489: \mbox{for} \quad \alpha_s(m_\tau^2)=0.330 \quad
490: \mbox{and} \quad M^2>0.8\,{\rm GeV}^2
491: \ee
492: Theoretical and experimental errors are added together.
493: In principle our result (\ref{gc}) does not contradict SVZ
494: value. However, in order to achieve it, we must sit at ``the very edge
495: of errors'', which seems unlikely.
496:
497: Now we turn to $\phi=\pi/4$, Fig.~\ref{set1819}b. If $O_6^{V+A}$ is
498: positive, as OPE+factorization predict (\ref{o6vpa}), its contribution
499: to the r.h.s. of (\ref{rebor}) must be negative.
500: This however strongly disfavors our previous choice
501: $\alpha_s(m_\tau^2)=0.330$, motivated by the sign of the gluonic condensate.
502: So it seems rather difficult to make
503: both $\left<G^2\right>$ and $D=6$ operator positive simultaneously.
504: Here the OPE predictions are in certain disbalance with the data.
505:
506: This is not however a serious disagreement. First, both $O_4^{V+A}$
507: and $O_6^{V+A}$ are small enough. Available theoretical and experimental
508: accuracy is about $2-3\%$, which is not sufficient to specify the
509: values of both operators or to say something definite about their signs.
510:
511: Second, these operators are not rigorously defined objects in
512: perturbation theory. We do not have an algorithm to find their values
513: from the first principles. So any statement about their properties
514: should be considered with care. Moreover, it is not clear whether
515: one could define them independently of the perturbative series,
516: to which they are added. In fact, different prescriptions
517: to separate the so-called perturbative and nonperturbative terms may lead
518: to different results, at least at the level of 1\%.
519:
520:
521: \section{summary}
522:
523: \begin{enumerate}
524: \item
525: The $V-A$ polarization operator $\Pi^{(1)}_{V-A}(Q^2)$ is well described
526: by OPE series for $Q^2\ge 1\,{\rm GeV}^2$.
527: \item
528: The operator $O_6^{V-A}$ is approximately 2 times larger than what
529: expected from QCD and low energy theorems.
530: \item
531: The $V+A$ polarization operator $\Pi^{(1+0)}_{V+A}(Q^2)$ is well described
532: by purely perturbative terms for $Q^2>1\,{\rm GeV}^2$.
533: \item
534: Current theoretical and experimental accuracy is not sufficient to
535: determine the value of the gluonic condensate $\left<G^2\right>$. However
536: it is likely to be much lower than commonly accepted SVZ value.
537: \end{enumerate}
538:
539:
540: \section*{Acknowledgment}
541: Author thanks SLAC group for kind hospitality.
542: Work supported in part by Award No RP2-2247 of US Civilian Research and
543: Development Foundation for Independent States of Former Soviet Union
544: (CRDF), by Russian Found
545: of Basic Research grant 00-02-17808 and INTAS Call 2000, project 587.
546:
547:
548:
549:
550: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
551: \bibitem{ALEPH2}
552: ALEPH collaboration: R. Barate et al, Eur. J. Phys. {\bf C4} (1998) 409
553: \bibitem{OPAL}
554: OPAL collaboration: K. Ackerstaff et al, Eur. J. Phys. {\bf C7} (1999) 571
555: \bibitem{IZ}
556: B.L. Ioffe and K.N. Zyablyuk, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A687} (2000) 437
557: \bibitem{GIZ}
558: B.V. Geshkenbein, B.L. Ioffe and K.N. Zyablyuk, hep-ph/0104048
559: \bibitem{SVZ}
560: M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainstein and V.I. Zakharov,
561: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B147} (1979) 385
562: \bibitem{BI}
563: V.M. Belyaev and B.L. Ioffe, Sov.Phys. JETP {\bf 56} (1982) 493
564: \bibitem{AC}
565: L.-E. Adam and K.G. Chetyrkin, Phys. Lett {\bf B329} (1994) 129
566: \bibitem{RVL}
567: T. van Ritbergen, J.A.M. Vermaseren and S.A. Larin,
568: Phys. Lett. {\bf B400} (1997) 379
569: \bibitem{SS}
570: L.R. Surgaladze, M.A. Samuel,
571: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66} (1990) 560, e. ibid. 2416;
572: S.G. Gorishny, A.L. Kataev and S.A. Larin, Phys. Lett. {\rm B259} (1991) 144
573: \bibitem{ShSol1}
574: D.V. Shirkov and I.L. Solovtsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79} (1997) 1204
575: \bibitem{BNP}
576: E. Braaten, S. Narison and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B373} (1992) 581
577: \end{thebibliography}
578:
579:
580: \end{document}
581: