1: % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%% LaTeX source for the paper: %%%%%%
3: %%%%%% %%%%%%
4: %%%%%% Light quark masses %%%%%%
5: %%%%%% by %%%%%%
6: %%%%%% M. Jamin, J.A. Oller and A. Pich %%%%%%
7: %%%%%% %%%%%%
8: %%%%%% Last modified: 18.1.02 by Matthias %%%%%%
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10:
11: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
12: \usepackage{a4wide,epsf,rotate,float,cite}
13:
14: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
15:
16: \newcommand{\zet}{\zeta_3}
17: \newcommand{\zef}{\zeta_5}
18: \newcommand{\wh}{\widehat}
19: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
20: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
21: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_{s}}
22: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}
23: \newcommand{\IM}{\mbox{\rm Im}}
24: \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
25: \newcommand{\mev}{\mbox{\rm MeV}}
26: \newcommand{\gev}{\mbox{\rm GeV}}
27: \newcommand{\geu}{\gamma_{{\rm E}}}
28: \newcommand{\smvs}{\vbox{\vskip 8mm}}
29: \newcommand{\MSb}{{\overline{\rm MS}}}
30: \newcommand{\sfrac}[2]{\mbox{$\frac{#1}{#2}$}}
31:
32: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
33: \newcommand{\newsection}[1]{\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
34:
35:
36: \begin{document}
37: %\bibliographystyle{../../aux/physics}
38:
39: \begin{titlepage}
40: \begin{flushright}
41: {\small\sf IFIC/01-52} \\[-1mm]
42: {\small\sf FTUV/01-1015} \\[-1mm]
43: {\small\sf HD-THEP-01-37} \\[-1mm]
44: {\small\sf FZ-IKP(TH)-01-20} \\[15mm]
45: \end{flushright}
46:
47: \begin{center}
48: {\LARGE\bf Light quark masses from scalar sum rules}\\[15mm]
49:
50: {\normalsize\bf Matthias Jamin${}^{1,*}$, Jos\'e Antonio Oller${}^{2}$
51: and Antonio Pich${}^{3}$} \\[4mm]
52:
53: {\small\sl ${}^{1}$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at
54: Heidelberg,} \\
55: {\small\sl Philosophenweg 16, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany}\\
56: {\small\sl ${}^{2}$ Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, Universidad de Murcia,
57: E-30071 Murcia, Spain}\\
58: {\small\sl ${}^{3}$ Departament de F\'{\i}sica Te\`orica, IFIC,
59: Universitat de Val\`encia -- CSIC,}\\
60: {\small\sl Apt. Correus 22085, E-46071 Val\`encia, Spain} \\[20mm]
61: \end{center}
62:
63:
64: {\bf Abstract:}
65: In this work, the mass of the strange quark is calculated from QCD sum
66: rules for the divergence of the strangeness-changing vector current. The
67: phenomenological scalar spectral function which enters the sum rule is
68: determined from our previous work on strangeness-changing scalar form factors
69: \cite{jop:01a}. For the running strange mass in the $\MSb$ scheme, we find
70: $m_s(2\,\gev)=99\pm 16\;\mev$. Making use of this result and the light-quark
71: mass ratios obtained from chiral perturbation theory, we are also able to
72: extract the masses of the lighter quarks $m_u$ and $m_d$. We then obtain
73: $m_u(2\,\gev)=2.9\pm 0.6\;\mev$ and $m_d(2\,\gev)=5.2\pm 0.9\;\mev$. In
74: addition, we present an updated value for the light quark condensate.
75:
76: \vfill
77:
78: \noindent
79: PACS: 12.15.Ff, 11.55.Hx, 11.55.Fv, 12.38.Lg
80:
81: \noindent
82: Keywords: Quark masses, sum rules, dispersion relations, QCD
83:
84: \vspace{4mm}
85: {\small ${}^{*}$ Heisenberg fellow.}
86: \end{titlepage}
87:
88:
89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
90: % Beginning of the paper
91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
92:
93: \newsection{Introduction}
94:
95: Together with the strong coupling constant, quark masses are fundamental QCD
96: input parameters of the Standard Model, and thus their precise determination
97: is of paramount importance for present day particle phenomenology. In the light
98: quark sector, the mass of the strange quark $m_s$ deserves particular interest,
99: because its present uncertainty severely limits the precision of current
100: predictions of the CP-violating observable $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. The
101: ratios of light quark masses are known rather precisely from chiral
102: perturbation theory $\chi$PT \cite{gl:84,gl:85}, and thus, once the absolute
103: scale is set by $m_s$, also the masses of the lighter up and down quarks can
104: be determined.
105:
106: Until today, two main methods have been employed to determine the strange quark
107: mass. QCD sum rules \cite{svz:79,rry:85,nar:89,shi:92} have been applied to
108: various channels containing strange quantum numbers, in particular the scalar
109: channel that will be the subject of this work \cite{nprt:83,jm:95,cdps:95,
110: cps:96,cfnp:97,jam:98,bgm:98,mal:99}, the pseudoscalar channel \cite{km:01},
111: the Cabibbo suppressed $\tau$-decay width \cite{pp:98,ckp:98,aleph:99,pp:99,
112: kkp:00,km:00,cdghpp:01}, as well as the total $e^+e^-$ cross section
113: \cite{nar:95,mal:98,mw:99,nar:99}. Also lower bounds on the strange mass have
114: been determined in the framework of QCD sum rules \cite{lrt:97,ynd:98,dn:98,
115: ls:98,km:01}. In addition, lattice QCD simulations for various hadronic
116: quantities have been used to extract the strange quark mass. For two recent
117: reviews where original references can be found, the reader is referred to
118: \cite{lub:00,gm:01}.
119:
120: The dispersive QCD sum rule approach makes use of the phenomenological
121: knowledge on the spectral functions associated with hadronic currents with
122: the corresponding quantum numbers. From the experimental point of view at
123: present the cleanest information comes from $\tau$ decays \cite{aleph:99};
124: however, up to now the Cabibbo-suppressed hadronic $\tau$-decay data has not
125: been resolved into separate $J=0$ and $J=1$ contributions and the theoretical
126: uncertainties associated with a bad perturbative behaviour of its scalar
127: component put a limit on the achievable accuracy \cite{pp:98,aleph:99,pp:99,
128: kkp:00,km:00,cdghpp:01}.
129:
130: The more standard analysis of the scalar or pseudoscalar currents provides a
131: large sensitivity to light quark masses. Unfortunately, the rather large
132: uncertainties of the $J=0$ data introduce important systematic errors in the
133: resulting quark mass determination, which are difficult to quantify. Previous
134: analyses have used phenomenological parameterisations based on saturation by
135: the lightest hadronic states with the given quantum numbers, sometimes improved
136: with Breit-Wigner and/or Omn\`es expressions \cite{nprt:83,jm:95,cdps:95,
137: cps:96,cfnp:97,jam:98,bgm:98,mal:99,km:01}.
138:
139: In two recent papers, we have presented very detailed analyses of S-wave $K\pi$
140: scattering \cite{jop:00} and the $K\pi$, $K\eta$ and $K\eta'$ scalar form
141: factors \cite{jop:01a}, which incorporate the experimental knowledge on the
142: $J=0$ $K\pi$ phase shifts as well as all known theoretical constraints from
143: chiral perturbation theory, short-distance QCD, dispersive relations, unitarity
144: and large-$N_c$ considerations. The output of these works is a rather reliable
145: determination of the scalar spectral function up to about $2\;\gev$. This
146: allows us to perform a considerable step forward in the QCD sum rule
147: determination of light quark masses through the scalar correlators.
148:
149: The central object which is investigated in the original version of QCD sum
150: rules \cite{svz:79} is the two-point function $\Psi(p^2)$ of two hadronic
151: currents
152: \begin{equation}
153: \label{psiq2}
154: \Psi(p^2) \;\equiv\; i \int \! dx \, e^{ipx} \,
155: \langle\Omega| \, T\{\,j(x)\,j(0)^\dagger\}|\Omega\rangle\,,
156: \end{equation}
157: where $\Omega$ denotes the physical vacuum and in our case $j(x)$ will be the
158: divergence of the strangeness-changing vector current,
159: \begin{equation}
160: \label{eq:1.2}
161: j(x) \;=\; \partial^\mu (\bar s\gamma_\mu q)(x) \; = \;
162: i\,(m_s-\hat m)(\bar s\,q)(x) \,.
163: \end{equation}
164: Since we work in the isospin limit, $q$ can be either an up- or down-type
165: quark, and $\hat m$ is the isospin average $\hat m=(m_u+m_d)/2$. To a good
166: approximation, $\Psi(p^2)$ is thus given by $m_s^2$ times the two-point
167: function of the scalar current.
168:
169: Up to a subtraction polynomial, $\Psi(p^2)$ satisfies a dispersion relation,
170: \begin{equation}
171: \label{disrel}
172: \Psi(p^2) \; = \; \Psi(0) + p^2\,\Psi'(0) + p^4\!\int\limits_0^\infty
173: \frac{\rho(s)}{s^2(s-p^2-i0)}\,ds \,,
174: \end{equation}
175: where $\rho(s)\equiv\IM\,\Psi(s+i0)/\pi$ is the spectral function corresponding
176: to $\Psi(s)$. To suppress contributions in the dispersion integral coming from
177: high invariant-mass states, it is convenient to apply a Borel (inverse Laplace)
178: transformation to eq.~\eqn{disrel} \cite{svz:79}, which furthermore removes the
179: subtractions. The left-hand side of the resulting equation is calculable in QCD,
180: whereas under the assumption of quark-hadron duality, the right-hand side can
181: be evaluated in a hadron-based picture, thereby relating hadronic quantities
182: to the fundamental QCD parameters.
183:
184: Generally, however, from experiments the phenomenological spectral function
185: $\rho_{ph}(s)$ is only known from threshold up to some energy $s_0$. Above this
186: value, we shall use the perturbative expression $\rho_{th}(s)$ also for the
187: right-hand side. This is legitimate if $s_0$ is large enough so that
188: perturbation theory is applicable. The central equation of our sum-rule
189: analysis for $m_s$ is then:
190: \begin{equation}
191: \label{sr}
192: u\,{\cal B}_u\Big[\Psi_{th}(p^2)\Big] \;\equiv\; u\,\wh\Psi_{th}(u) \;=\;
193: \int\limits_0^{s_0} \rho_{ph}(s)\,e^{-s/u}\,ds + \int\limits_{s_0}^\infty
194: \rho_{th}(s)\,e^{-s/u}\,ds \,,
195: \end{equation}
196: where ${\cal B}_u$ is the Borel operator, the hat denotes the Borel
197: transformation, and $u$ is the so-called Borel variable. The main ingredients
198: in this equation, namely the theoretical expression for the two-point function
199: as well as the phenomenological spectral function, will be discussed
200: below.\footnote{Further details on the approach can for example be found in
201: ref.~\cite{jm:95}.}
202:
203: In addition, it is instructive to investigate the sum rule which arises by
204: considering the Borel transform of $\Psi(p^2)/p^2$:
205: \begin{equation}
206: \label{sr0}
207: u\,{\cal B}_u\Biggl[\frac{1}{p^2}\Psi_{th}(p^2)\Biggr] \;\equiv\;
208: \wh\Phi_{th}(u) \;=\; \int\limits_0^{s_0} \frac{ds}{s}\,\rho_{ph}(s)\,
209: e^{-s/u} + \int\limits_{s_0}^\infty \frac{ds}{s}\,\rho_{th}(s)\,e^{-s/u} -
210: \Psi(0) \,.
211: \end{equation}
212: The sum rule \eqn{sr0} is constructed such that the subtraction constant
213: $\Psi(0)$ remains. However, from a Ward identity \cite{bro:81} this constant
214: is related to the following product of quark masses and quark condensates:
215: \begin{equation}
216: \label{ward}
217: \Psi(0) \;=\; (m_s-\hat m)\Big(\langle\Omega|\bar qq|\Omega\rangle -
218: \langle\Omega|\bar ss|\Omega\rangle\Big) \,.
219: \end{equation}
220: Note that the quark condensates in eq.~\eqn{ward} appear as non-normal-ordered
221: vacuum averages, and thus $\Psi(0)$ is not renormalisation group invariant
222: \cite{sc:88,jm:93,cdps:95,jam:02}. The corresponding renormalisation invariant
223: quantity involves additional quartic quark mass terms \cite{sc:88}. Because
224: of the dependence on $\Psi(0)$, analysing the sum rule of eq.~\eqn{sr0} would
225: enable us to obtain information on the quark condensates. As we shall show in
226: the next section, however, the perturbative expansion for $\wh\Phi_{th}(u)$
227: behaves very badly, and thus such an analysis appears to be questionable.
228: Additional discussion of $\Psi(0)$ can also be found in ref.~\cite{jam:02}.
229:
230: In the next two sections, we present expressions for the theoretical as well as
231: phenomenological two-point functions which are relevant for the sum rules under
232: investigation. In section 4, we then discuss the numerical analysis of the
233: strange mass sum rule. Finally, in our conclusions, we compare our results with
234: other recent determinations of $m_s$, calculate the light-quark masses $m_u$
235: and $m_d$ from mass ratios known from $\chi$PT, and update our current
236: knowledge of the quark condensate.
237:
238:
239: \newsection{Theoretical two-point function}
240:
241: In the framework of the operator product expansion the Borel transformed
242: two-point function $\wh\Psi_{th}(u)$ can be expanded in inverse powers of
243: the Borel variable $u$:
244: \begin{equation}
245: \label{psihat}
246: \wh\Psi_{th}(u) \;=\; (m_s-\hat m)^2\,u\,\biggl\{\,\wh\Psi_0(u)+\frac{\wh\Psi_2
247: (u)}{u}+\frac{\wh\Psi_4(u)}{u^2}+\frac{\wh\Psi_6(u)}{u^3}+\ldots\,\biggr\} \,.
248: \end{equation}
249: The $\wh\Psi_n(u)$ contain operators of dimension $n$, and their remaining $u$
250: dependence is only logarithmic. Below, we shall review explicit expressions
251: for the first two of these contributions.
252:
253: The purely perturbative contribution $\wh\Psi_0(u)$ is presently known up to
254: ${\cal O}(\as^3)$ \cite{bnry:81,gkls:90,che:96} and the expansion in the strong
255: coupling up to this order reads
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: \label{psihat0}
258: \wh\Psi_0(u) &\!\!=\!\!& \frac{3}{8\pi^2}\,\biggl[\,1+\Big(\sfrac{11}{3}+2\geu
259: \Big)a+\Big(\sfrac{5071}{144}-\sfrac{17}{24}(\pi^2-6\geu^2)+\sfrac{139}{6}
260: \geu-\sfrac{35}{2}\zet\Big)a^2+\Big(\sfrac{1995097}{5184}-\sfrac{\pi^4}{36}
261: \nn \\
262: \smvs
263: & & -\,\sfrac{695}{48}(\pi^2-6\geu^2)-\sfrac{221}{48}\geu(\pi^2-2\geu^2)+
264: \sfrac{2720}{9}\geu-\sfrac{475}{4}\geu\zet-\sfrac{61891}{216}\zet+
265: \sfrac{715}{12}\zef\Big)a^3\,\biggr] \nn \\
266: \smvs
267: &\!\!=\!\!& \frac{3}{8\pi^2}\,\Big[\,1+1.535\,\as+2.227\,\as^2+1.714\,\as^3\,
268: \Big] \,,
269: \end{eqnarray}
270: where $a\equiv\as/\pi$, $\geu$ is Euler's constant and $\zeta_z\equiv\zeta(z)$
271: is the Riemann $\zeta$-function. In this expression the logarithmic corrections
272: have been resummed to all orders, and thus the strong coupling $\as(u)$ should
273: be evaluated at the scale $u$. Higher order terms are also known in the
274: large-$N_f$ expansion \cite{bkm:00} and partial results are known at order
275: $\as^4$ \cite{bck:01}. Even for $\as(1\,\gev)\approx 0.5$ the last term in
276: \eqn{psihat0} is only about 20\% and the perturbative expansion displays a
277: reasonable convergence. Because the two-point function scales as $m_s^2$, the
278: resulting uncertainty for $m_s$ from higher orders is at most 10\%. In practice
279: it is much smaller since the average scale at which the sum rule is evaluated
280: lies around $1.5\,\gev$.
281:
282: The theoretical two-point function $\wh\Phi_{th}(u)$ of eq.~\eqn{sr0} has an
283: operator product expansion which is completely equivalent to eq.~\eqn{psihat},
284: and the corresponding perturbative contribution takes the form:
285: \begin{eqnarray}
286: \label{phihat0}
287: \wh\Phi_0(u) &\!\!=\!\!& \frac{3}{8\pi^2}\,\biggl[\,1+\Big(\sfrac{17}{3}+2\geu
288: \Big)a+\Big(\sfrac{9631}{144}-\sfrac{17}{24}(\pi^2-6\geu^2)+\sfrac{95}{3}
289: \geu-\sfrac{35}{2}\zet\Big)a^2+\Big(\sfrac{4748953}{5184}-\sfrac{\pi^4}{36}
290: \nn \\
291: \smvs
292: & & -\,\sfrac{229}{12}(\pi^2-6\geu^2)-\sfrac{221}{48}\geu(\pi^2-2\geu^2)+
293: \sfrac{4781}{9}\geu-\sfrac{475}{4}\geu\zet-\sfrac{87541}{216}\zet+
294: \sfrac{715}{12}\zef\Big)a^3\,\biggr] \nn \\
295: \smvs
296: &\!\!=\!\!& \frac{3}{8\pi^2}\,\Big[\,1+2.171\,\as+5.932\,\as^2+17.337\,\as^3\,
297: \Big] \,.
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: As is obvious from this expression, the perturbative expansion for
300: $\wh\Phi_0(u)$ behaves very badly. Even at a scale $\sqrt{u}=2\;\gev$, the
301: last two terms are of comparable size and individually both are larger than
302: 50\% of the leading term. If the logarithmic corrections are not resummed, the
303: perturbative expansion could be improved by taking a fixed scale $\mu$. This
304: would shift part of the corrections into the prefactor $(m_s-\hat m)^2$. In
305: this case one finds, however, that for $\sqrt{u}$ in the range $1-2\;\gev$ a
306: reasonable size of the higher orders is only obtained if $\mu$ is much less
307: than $1\;\gev$. But then the perturbative contribution is again questionable.
308: To conclude, the huge perturbative corrections for $\wh\Phi_0(u)$ prevent us
309: from performing a sum rule analysis of eq.~\eqn{sr0}.
310:
311: The next term in the operator product expansion $\wh\Psi_2(u)$ only receives
312: contributions proportional to the quark masses squared. Its explicit expression
313: reads
314: \begin{equation}
315: \label{psihat2}
316: \wh\Psi_2(u) \;=\; -\,\frac{3}{4\pi^2}\,\biggl\{\,\Big[\, 1 + \sfrac{4}{3}
317: (4+3\geu)\,a\,\Big](m_s^2+m_u^2) + \Big[\, 1 + \sfrac{4}{3}(7+3\geu)\,a\,\Big]
318: m_s m_u \,\biggr\} \,.
319: \end{equation}
320: Already at a scale of $u=1\,\gev^2$ the size of $\wh\Psi_2$ is less than 3\%,
321: decreasing like $1/u$ for higher scales. Although it has been included in the
322: phenomenological analysis, for the error estimates on the strange quark mass
323: it can be safely neglected.
324:
325: The same holds true for the dimension-four operators. In this case there are
326: contributions from the quark and gluon condensates as well as quark mass
327: corrections of order $m^4$. Again, at a scale of $u=1\,\gev^2$ the size of
328: $\wh\Psi_4$ is well below 1\% of the full two-point function, hence being
329: negligible for the strange mass analysis. Nevertheless, the dimension-four and
330: in addition also the dimension-six contributions $\wh\Psi_4$ and $\wh\Psi_6$
331: have been included in our numerical investigations. Analytic expressions for
332: these contributions are collected in section~2 of ref.~\cite{jm:95}.
333:
334: To calculate the perturbative continuum on the right-hand side of eq.~\eqn{sr},
335: we also need the theoretical spectral function $\rho_{th}(s)$ which is given by
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: \label{rhoth}
338: \rho_{th}(s) &\!\!=\!\!& \frac{3}{8\pi^2}\,(m_s-\hat m)^2 s\,\biggl[\, 1 +
339: \sfrac{17}{3}\,a + \Big(\sfrac{9631}{144}-\sfrac{35}{2}\zet-\sfrac{17}{12}\pi^2
340: \Big)a^2 \nn \\
341: \smvs
342: & & \hspace{36.6mm} +\,\Big(\sfrac{4748953}{5184}-\sfrac{91519}{216}\zet+
343: \sfrac{715}{12}\zef-\sfrac{229}{6}\pi^2-\sfrac{\pi^4}{36}\Big)a^3 \,\biggr] \\
344: \smvs
345: &\!\!=\!\!& \frac{3}{8\pi^2}\,(m_s-\hat m)^2 s\,\Big[\,1+1.804\,\as+3.228\,
346: \as^2+2.875\,\as^3\,\Big] \,. \nn
347: \end{eqnarray}
348: Again, the logarithms have been resummed, so that the coupling and masses are
349: running quantities evaluated at the scale $s$. It is possible to calculate the
350: relevant integral from $s_0$ to infinity in eq.~\eqn{sr} analytically. The
351: corresponding theoretical expressions can be found in ref.~\cite{jm:95}.
352:
353:
354: \newsection{Hadronic spectral function}
355:
356: The phenomenological spectral function is obtained by inserting a complete set
357: of intermediate states $\Gamma$ with the correct quantum numbers in the current
358: product of eq.~\eqn{psiq2},
359: \begin{equation}
360: \label{rhoph}
361: \rho_{ph}(s) \;=\; (2\pi)^3 \sum\limits_\Gamma\hspace{-5mm}\int\;
362: |\langle\Omega|j(0)|\Gamma\rangle|^2 \delta(p-p_\Gamma) \,,
363: \end{equation}
364: where $s=p^2$ and the integration ranges over the phase space of the hadronic
365: system with momentum $p_\Gamma$. In the case of the strangeness-changing scalar
366: current, the lowest lying state which contributes in the sum is the
367: $K\pi$-system in an S-wave isospin-$1/2$ state.
368:
369: Including also the $K\eta$ and $K\eta'$ states, the scalar spectral function
370: can be written as
371: \begin{equation}
372: \label{rhoS}
373: \rho_{ph}(s) \;=\; \frac{3\Delta_{K\pi}^2}{32\pi^2}\,\biggl[\,
374: \sigma_{K\pi}(s)|F_{K\pi}(s)|^2 + \sigma_{K\eta}(s)|F_{K\eta}(s)|^2 +
375: \sigma_{K\eta'}(s)|F_{K\eta'}(s)|^2 \,\biggr] \,,
376: \end{equation}
377: with $\Delta_{K\pi}\equiv M_K^2-M_\pi^2$. The two-particle phase space factors
378: $\sigma_{KP}(s)$ take the form
379: \begin{equation}
380: \label{sigma}
381: \sigma_{KP}(s) \;=\; \theta\Big(s-(M_K+M_P)^2\Big)\,\sqrt{ \Big(1-
382: \sfrac{(M_K+M_P)^2}{s}\Big) \Big(1-\sfrac{(M_K-M_P)^2}{s}\Big)} \,,
383: \end{equation}
384: where $P$ corresponds to one of the states $\pi$, $\eta$ or $\eta'$, and
385: the strangeness-changing scalar form factors $F_{KP}(s)$ are defined by
386: \begin{equation}
387: \label{FS}
388: \langle\Omega |\partial^\mu (\bar s \gamma_\mu u)(0) | KP \rangle \;\equiv\;
389: -\,i\,\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\;\Delta_{K\pi}\,F_{KP}(s) \,.
390: \end{equation}
391:
392: Experimentally, it has been shown that the S-wave isospin-$1/2$ $K\pi$ system
393: is elastic below roughly $1.3\;\gev$, and below $2\;\gev$, $K\eta'$ is the
394: dominant inelastic channel \cite{est:78,ast:88}. Thus including these two states
395: should give a good description of the scalar spectral function below $2\;\gev$.
396: For completeness, however, in eq.~\eqn{rhoS} we have also taken into account
397: the $K\eta$ state. Multiparticle states, the lightest of which is the
398: $|K\pi\pi\pi\rangle$ state, have been neglected in \eqn{rhoS}. Theoretically,
399: their contributions are suppressed both in the chiral and large-$N_c$
400: expansions. Nevertheless, since at an energy around $2\;\gev$ they should play
401: some role, we intend to investigate these contributions in the future. Owing to
402: the positivity of the scalar spectral function, these additional contributions
403: should slightly increase the value of the strange quark mass.
404:
405: In our previous work \cite{jop:01a}, the scalar form factors $F_{KP}(s)$
406: have been determined for the first time from a dispersive coupled-channel
407: analysis of the $K\pi$ system. As an input in the dispersion integrals, S-wave
408: $KP$ scattering amplitudes were used which had been extracted from fits to
409: the $K\pi$ scattering data \cite{est:78,ast:88} in the framework of unitarised
410: $\chi$PT with explicit inclusion of resonance fields \cite{jop:00}. The fact
411: that the $K\eta$ channel only gives a negligible contribution to the hadronic
412: spectral function was also corroborated in \cite{jop:01a}. Therefore, making
413: use of the results of ref.~\cite{jop:01a}, we are in a position to provide the
414: scalar spectral function in an energy range from threshold up to about
415: $2\;\gev$.
416:
417:
418: \newsection{Numerical analysis}
419:
420: \begin{figure}[htb]
421: \centerline{
422: \rotate[r]{
423: \epsfysize=15cm\epsffile{ms.eps} } }
424: \vspace{-4mm}
425: \caption[]{The strange mass $m_s(2\,\gev)$ as a function of $\sqrt{u}$.
426: Solid line: central parameters; long-dashed lines: (6.10K4) with $F_{K\pi}
427: (\Delta_{K\pi})=1.23$ (upper line), (6.10K3) with $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})=
428: 1.21$ (lower line); dashed lines: $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1205$ (lower line),
429: $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1165$ (upper line); dotted lines: $s_0=4.2\;\gev^2$ (upper
430: line), $s_0=5.8\;\gev^2$ (lower line).
431: \label{fig1}}
432: \end{figure}
433:
434: Evaluating the sum rule of eq.~\eqn{sr} with the theoretical two-point function
435: of section~2 and the hadronic spectral function of section~3, the resulting
436: values for the running strange quark mass $m_s(2\,\gev)$ as a function of
437: $\sqrt{u}$ are displayed in figure~\ref{fig1}. The solid line corresponds to
438: central values for all input parameters and constitutes our main result. For
439: $\hat m$, we have used $\hat m(2\,\gev)=4.05\;\mev$ which arises from our
440: analysis of the next section. From the region of maximal stability of the sum
441: rule (the extremum) which lies in the region of the $K_0^*(1430)$ resonance,
442: we extract our central value for the strange mass $m_s(2\,\gev)=99.4\;\mev$.
443: In the stability region, the continuum is only about 25\% of the full left-hand
444: side of eq.~\eqn{sr}, so that it should be under control. To give an estimation
445: of the uncertainties for $m_s$, let us discuss the inputs and their variation
446: in more detail.
447:
448: The dominant source of uncertainty for $m_s$ is the hadronic spectral function.
449: To obtain an estimate of the corresponding error, we have calculated $m_s$
450: from different fits for the scalar form factors of ref.~\cite{jop:01a}. Since
451: the $K\eta$ channel was found to be unimportant, we have only considered the
452: two-channel spectral functions with contributions from $K\pi$ and $K\eta'$.
453: As the fits for the form factors, we utilise here our best fits (6.10K3) and
454: (6.10K4) of \cite{jop:01a}.\footnote{The strange mass resulting from the fit
455: (6.11K4) of \cite{jop:01a} is practically identical to $m_s$ from the fit
456: (6.10K4). Thus, for this work, we have not considered this fit separately.}
457: As was discussed in detail in ref.~\cite{jop:01a}, however, these fits are
458: not unique, but can be parametrised by $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})$ which should
459: take the value $1.22\pm0.01$. The solid line in figure~\ref{fig1} then
460: corresponds to the central value $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})=1.22$ and an average
461: of the spectral functions for (6.10K3) and (6.10K4). Varying $F_{K\pi}
462: (\Delta_{K\pi})$ for both fits, the largest $m_s$ is obtained for (6.10K4)
463: with $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})=1.23$ and the smallest for (6.10K3) with
464: $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})=1.21$. Both cases are displayed as the long-dashed
465: lines in figure~\ref{fig1} and the variation of $m_s$ has been collected in
466: table~\ref{tab1}.
467:
468: \begin{table}[thb]
469: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
470: \begin{center}
471: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
472: \hline
473: Parameter & Value & $\Delta m_s$ [MeV] \\
474: \hline
475: $\rho_{ph}^{{\rm (6.10K4)}}(s)$ & $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})=1.23$ & $+14.3$ \\
476: $\rho_{ph}^{{\rm (6.10K3)}}(s)$ & $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})=1.21$ & $-11.6$ \\
477: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ & $0.1185 \pm 0.0020$ & ${}^{+5.0}_{-4.7}$ \\
478: ${\cal O}(\as^3)$ & ${}^{{\rm no}\;{\cal O}(\as^3)}_{2\times{\cal O}(\as^3)}$ &
479: ${}^{+3.3}_{-3.6}$ \\
480: $s_0$ & $4.2 - 5.8\;\gev^2$ & ${}^{+4.3}_{-3.5}$ \\
481: \hline
482: \end{tabular}
483: \end{center}
484: \caption{Values of the main input parameters and corresponding uncertainties
485: for $m_s(2\,\gev)$. For a detailed explanation see the discussion in the text.
486: \label{tab1}}
487: \end{table}
488:
489: The next-largest uncertainty for $m_s$ which is related to the perturbative
490: expansion results from two sources. On the one hand there is an error on the
491: input value for $\as$ and on the other hand, there are unknown higher order
492: corrections. For the strong coupling, we have used the PDG value \cite{pdg:00}
493: and varied $\as$ within its error. The corresponding variation of $m_s$ is
494: shown as the dashed line in figure~\ref{fig1} where the upper line is the case
495: with $\alpha_s(M_Z)= 0.1165$ and the lower line with $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1205$.
496: To estimate the second uncertainty, we have either completely removed the
497: ${\cal O}(\as^3)$ correction or doubled its value. The resulting errors for
498: $m_s$ are presented in table \ref{tab1}.
499:
500:
501: Another uncertainty for $m_s$ results from a variation of the continuum
502: threshold $s_0$. Our central value $s_0=4.75\;\gev^2$ has been chosen such
503: as to obtain a maximal stability of the sum rule in the region of interest.
504: As our range for $s_0$ we have chosen $s_0=4.2-5.8\;\gev^2$. The lower value
505: already lies close to the region of the $K_0^*(1950)$ resonance and around
506: the higher value the third scalar resonance would be expected from Regge
507: phenomenology. Thus the chosen range should be rather conservative and it is
508: gratifying that the most stable sum rule is reached for an $s_0$ within this
509: range. The dotted lines in figure \ref{fig1} show the corresponding variation
510: of $m_s$ with $s_0=4.2\;\gev^2$ (upper line) and $s_0=5.8\;\gev^2$ (lower line).
511: Again, the error on $m_s$ from the variation of $s_0$ is listed in table
512: \ref{tab1}. Because there is no stability for $s_0=4.2\;\gev^2$, as the
513: relevant value we have taken $m_s$ in the region around $1.6\;\gev$, where
514: stability occurs for the central parameters. For $\sqrt{u}\geq 2\;\gev$, the
515: continuum is larger than 50\% of the lhs of eq.~\eqn{sr}, and there the sum
516: rule becomes unreliable.
517:
518: Except for the quark condensate, which will be discussed in the next section,
519: the values of the condensate parameters have been taken according to ref.
520: \cite{jm:95}. However, as already stressed above, their relevance for the
521: $m_s$ determination is negligible and thus also the corresponding uncertainty.
522: Instanton contributions to the scalar and pseudoscalar two-point functions
523: have been considered in refs. \cite{shu:83,dk:90,gn:93,deks:97,ess:98}. In the
524: framework of the instanton-liquid-model \cite{ss:98}, in ref.~\cite{km:01} it
525: was shown that the prediction for $m_s$ from scalar Borel sum rules is only
526: lowered by $2\;\mev$. In view of the uncertainties from other sources, we have
527: therefore neglected instanton contributions.
528:
529: Adding the errors of table \ref{tab1} in quadrature, we arrive at our final
530: result for the strange quark mass:
531: \begin{equation}
532: \label{ms}
533: m_s(2\,\gev) \;=\; 99.4^{+16.1}_{-13.5} \;\mev \;=\; 99 \pm 16 \;\mev \,.
534: \end{equation}
535: To be more conservative, we have taken the larger of the errors as our final
536: uncertainty for the strange quark mass.
537:
538: In ref.~\cite{jm:95,jam:98} the strange mass was also calculated from
539: the first moment sum rule which arises by differentiating eq.~\eqn{sr} with
540: respect to $u$. Performing this exercise here, we find that the resulting sum
541: rule is less stable and the region of maximal stability is lowered to about
542: $1\;\gev$, where perturbative as well as power corrections are more important.
543: Nevertheless, for our central value of $s_0$, $m_s$ only decreases by less than
544: $3\;\mev$, and if a lower $s_0$ is chosen to get a more stable sum rule, the
545: resulting value for $m_s$ is in complete agreement with eq.~\eqn{ms}, providing
546: additional support to our result.
547:
548: \begin{figure}[htb]
549: \centerline{
550: \rotate[r]{
551: \epsfysize=15cm\epsffile{rho.eps} } }
552: \vspace{-4mm}
553: \caption[]{The theoretical as well as phenomenological spectral functions used
554: in our $m_s$ determination. Solid lines: central spectral functions; long-dashed
555: lines: $\rho_{ph}(s)$ for (6.10K4) with $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})=1.23$ and
556: $\rho_{th}(s)$ for $m_s=115\;\mev$; dotted lines: $\rho_{ph}(s)$ for (6.10K3)
557: with $F_{K\pi}(\Delta_{K\pi})=1.21$ and $\rho_{th}(s)$ for $m_s=83\;\mev$.
558: \label{fig2}}
559: \end{figure}
560:
561: To conclude this section, in figure~\ref{fig2}, we display a comparison of the
562: theoretical as well as phenomenological spectral functions used in our $m_s$
563: determination. The solid lines correspond to central spectral functions. The
564: long-dashed lines show $\rho_{ph}(s)$ and $\rho_{th}(s)$ corresponding to the
565: largest value of $m_s$, and the dotted lines to the smallest. In the
566: $K_0^*(1430)$ resonance region, the hadronic spectral functions differ by
567: almost a factor of two. Thus, if it would become possible to experimentally
568: measure the scalar spectral function or $F_{K\pi}(s)$ in this region with
569: smaller uncertainties, the strange mass determination from scalar sum rules
570: could still be improved.
571:
572:
573: \newsection{Conclusions}
574:
575: Let us now come to a comparison of our result \eqn{ms} for the strange quark
576: mass with other recent determinations of this quantity. A related approach to
577: the one followed here, also using the scalar sum rule, has been applied in
578: ref.~\cite{cfnp:97}, where $m_s(2\,\gev)=107\pm 13\;\mev$ was obtained. In this
579: work, however, the hadronic spectral function $\rho_{ph}(s)$ was estimated from
580: the single-channel Omn\`es form factor $F_{K\pi}^{\mbox{\tiny Omn\`es}}(s)$. In
581: view of our discussion about the dependence of the scalar $K\pi$ form factor
582: on the parametrisation of the corresponding S-wave $I=1/2$ phase shift in the
583: elastic, single channel case \cite{jop:01a}, the error in \cite{cfnp:97}
584: appears underestimated, although the central values are in good agreement.
585:
586: The older scalar sum rule analyses of refs. \cite{jm:95,cdps:95,cps:96}, on
587: the other hand, have parametrised the phenomenological spectral function with
588: a Breit-Wigner Ansatz which was normalised to the scalar form factor at the
589: $K\pi$ production threshold. As was discussed in detail in refs. \cite{bgm:98,
590: cfnp:97}, this parametrisation overestimates the scalar spectral function,
591: because in the scalar channel the resonance contribution interferes
592: destructively with the large non-resonant background. Therefore, the resulting
593: strange mass values turned out larger than our central result presented here,
594: and should be discarded in the future. Nevertheless, within the uncertainties
595: at the time, including ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ corrections the result $m_s(2\,
596: \gev)=130\;\mev$ \cite{jm:95} still was compatible with our present finding of
597: eq.~\eqn{ms}.
598:
599: Very recently, the determination of the strange mass from pseudoscalar finite
600: energy sum rules was reanalysed in ref.~\cite{km:01}. In this case, instanton
601: contributions play some role and have to be included. The resulting value
602: $m_s(2\,\gev)=100\pm 12\;\mev$ then is in perfect agreement to our finding of
603: eq.~\eqn{ms}. The status of the extraction of $m_s$ from the hadronic $e^+e^-$
604: cross section is less clear. Whereas ref.~\cite{nar:99} finds a value of
605: $m_s(2\,\gev)=129\pm 24\;\mev$, in \cite{mal:98} it is pointed out that large
606: isospin breaking corrections significantly lower the result for the strange
607: mass to about $m_s(2\,\gev)=95\;\mev$ and yield considerably larger
608: uncertainties of the order of $45\;\mev$. We therefore conclude that further
609: work in this channel is needed, before a definite conclusion can be reached.
610:
611: The most recent determination of $m_s$ from the Cabibbo suppressed $\tau$-decay
612: width gave $m_s(2\,\gev)=116^{+20}_{-25}\;\mev$ \cite{cdghpp:01}, in agreement
613: with \eqn{ms} within the quoted error bars, although yielding a somewhat larger
614: central value. In addition to experimental uncertainties and a sizeable
615: sensitivity to the quark-mixing parameter $V_{us}$,\footnote{The reader should
616: note that a slightly lower central value for $m_s$ is obtained if the value
617: $|V_{us}|=0.2207$ \cite{lr:84,cknrt:01}, and not the unitarity-constraint
618: fit $|V_{us}|=0.2225$ \cite{pdg:00}, is used in the $\tau$ sum rule.} the
619: precision of the $\tau$-decay value is limited by the bad perturbative
620: behaviour of the $J=0$ contribution. Our determination of the scalar spectral
621: function could be used to disentangle the $J=0$ and $J=1$ components of the
622: $\tau$ data, allowing for a more accurate determination of $m_s$ from the
623: theoretically well behaved $J=1$ contribution. In any case, whereas the
624: dominant uncertainty for $m_s$ from scalar sum rules arises from the
625: phenomenological part, in the $\tau$ decays it is due to the perturbative
626: expansion, and in this sense both determinations can be considered as
627: complementary.
628:
629: Two recent reviews of determinations of the strange quark mass from lattice QCD
630: have been presented in refs.~\cite{lub:00,gm:01}, with the conclusions $m_s(2\,
631: \gev)= 110\pm 25\;\mev$ and $m_s(2\,\gev)= 120\pm 25\;\mev$ respectively. The
632: error in these results is dominated by the uncertainty resulting from dynamical
633: fermions, whereas the calculations of $m_s$ in the quenched theory, based for
634: example on the Kaon mass, are already very precise. Generally, in unquenched
635: calculations the strange mass is found below $100\;\mev$. Nevertheless, the
636: agreement between lattice QCD and QCD sum rule determinations of $m_s$ is
637: already very satisfactory.
638:
639: Chiral perturbation theory provides rather precise information on ratios of
640: the light quark masses. Two particular ratios are \cite{leu:96}:
641: \begin{equation}
642: \label{mqrat}
643: R \;\equiv\; \frac{m_s}{\hat m} \;=\; 24.4\pm 1.5
644: \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
645: Q^2 \;\equiv\; \frac{(m_s^2-\hat m^2)}{(m_d^2-m_u^2)} \;=\; (22.7\pm 0.8)^2 \,.
646: \end{equation}
647: From these ratios, one further deduces $m_u/m_d=0.551\pm 0.049$ and
648: $m_s/m_d=18.9\pm 1.3$, where the uncertainties have been estimated by assuming
649: Gaussian distributions for the input quantities. Our central values are in
650: agreement with the results quoted in \cite{leu:96}, although we find somewhat
651: larger errors. The ratio $m_u/m_d$ has also been calculated in \cite{abt:01}
652: with the result $m_u/m_d=0.46\pm 0.09$. Within the uncertainties, this ratio
653: is compatible with the previous one. Using the former ratios, together with
654: our result \eqn{ms} for $m_s$, we obtain for $m_u$ and $m_d$:
655: \begin{equation}
656: \label{mumd}
657: m_u(2\,\gev) \;=\; 2.9 \pm 0.6 \;\mev
658: \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
659: m_d(2\,\gev) \;=\; 5.2 \pm 0.9 \;\mev \,.
660: \end{equation}
661: The resulting value for the sum of up and down quark masses, $(m_u+m_d)(2\,
662: \gev)=8.1\pm 1.4\;\mev$ is compatible with the finding $(m_u+m_d)(2\,\gev)=
663: 9.6\pm 1.9\;\mev$ \cite{bpr:95,pra:98}, and in good agreement with the result
664: $(m_u+m_d)(2\,\gev)=7.8\pm 1.1\;\mev$ \cite{km:01}, both obtained with finite
665: energy sum rules for the pseudoscalar channel.
666:
667: The knowledge of the light quark masses also allows for a determination of the
668: light quark condensate from the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation \cite{gmor:68}:
669: \begin{equation}
670: \label{gmor}
671: (m_u+m_d)\langle\Omega|\bar qq|\Omega\rangle \;=\;
672: -\,f_\pi^2 M_\pi^2\,( 1 - \delta_\pi ) \,.
673: \end{equation}
674: The term $\delta_\pi$ summarises higher order corrections in the chiral
675: expansion and also contains the renormalisation dependence mentioned in the
676: introduction \cite{jam:02}. Using a generous range $\delta_\pi=0.05\pm 0.05$
677: for this quantity \cite{jam:02}, together with the quark masses of eq.
678: \eqn{mumd} as well as $f_\pi=92.4\;\mev$ and $M_\pi=138\;\mev$, we arrive at:
679: \begin{equation}
680: \label{qq}
681: \langle\Omega|\bar qq|\Omega\rangle(2\,\gev) \;=\; -\,(267\pm 17\;\mev)^3 \,,
682: \end{equation}
683: which can be considered as an update of previous determinations of the light
684: quark condensate $\langle\bar qq\rangle$. Since it is still more common to
685: quote the quark condensate at a scale of $1\;\gev$ we also provide the
686: corresponding value: $\langle\bar qq\rangle(1\,\gev)=-\,(242\pm 16\;\mev)^3$.
687: This value can be compared with direct determinations of the quark condensate
688: from QCD sum rules \cite{dn:98}.
689:
690: To conclude, in this work we have determined the masses of the light up, down
691: and strange quarks. To this end, first the strange mass $m_s$ was evaluated
692: in the framework of QCD sum rules for the scalar correlator with the result
693: \eqn{ms}. Our work improves previous analyses of this system by calculating
694: the phenomenological spectral function which enters the sum rule through a
695: dispersive coupled-channel analysis of the contributing hadronic states, making
696: use of our recent work \cite{jop:01a} on strangeness-changing scalar form
697: factors. The masses of the up and down quarks $m_u$ and $m_d$ were then
698: calculated employing ratios of quark masses known from $\chi$PT, together with
699: our result \eqn{ms} for $m_s$. Our final values for $m_u$ and $m_d$ have been
700: presented in eq.~\eqn{mumd}.
701:
702:
703: \bigskip
704: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
705: This work has been supported in part by the German--Spanish Cooperation
706: Agreement HA97-0061, by the European Union TMR Network EURODAPHNE
707: (ERBFMX-CT98-0169), and by DGESIC (Spain) under the grant no. PB97-1261
708: and DGICYT contract no. BFM2000-1326. M.J. would like to thank the Deutsche
709: Forschungsgemeinschaft for support.
710:
711: \newpage
712: %\bibliography{ms}
713:
714: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
715:
716: \bibitem{jop:01a}
717: {\sc M.~Jamin}, {\sc J.~A. Oller}, and {\sc A.~Pich},
718: \newblock Strangeness-changing scalar form factors,
719: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B622} (2002) 279.
720:
721: \bibitem{gl:84}
722: {\sc J.~Gasser} and {\sc H.~Leutwyler},
723: \newblock Chiral perturbation theory to one loop,
724: \newblock {\em Ann. Phys.} {\bf 158} (1984) 142.
725:
726: \bibitem{gl:85}
727: {\sc J.~Gasser} and {\sc H.~Leutwyler},
728: \newblock Chiral perturbation theory: expansions in the mass of the strange
729: quark,
730: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B250} (1985) 465, 517, 539.
731:
732: \bibitem{svz:79}
733: {\sc M.~A. Shifman}, {\sc A.~I. Vainshtein}, and {\sc V.~I. Zakharov},
734: \newblock QCD and resonance physics,
735: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B147} (1979) 385, 448, 519.
736:
737: \bibitem{rry:85}
738: {\sc L.~J. Reinders}, {\sc H.~R. Rubinstein}, and {\sc S.~Yazaki},
739: \newblock Hadron properties from QCD sum rules,
740: \newblock {\em Phys. Rept.} {\bf 127} (1985) 1.
741:
742: \bibitem{nar:89}
743: {\sc S.~Narison},
744: \newblock {\em QCD spectral sum rules},
745: \newblock World Scientific, Singapore, 1989,
746: \newblock 527 p. (World Scientific lecture notes in physics, 26).
747:
748: \bibitem{shi:92}
749: {\sc {M.~A.~Shifman,~(ed.)}},
750: \newblock {\em Vacuum structure and QCD sum rules},
751: \newblock North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992,
752: \newblock 516 p. (Current physics: sources and comments, 10).
753:
754: \bibitem{nprt:83}
755: {\sc S.~Narison}, {\sc N.~Paver}, {\sc E.~{de Rafael}}, and {\sc D.~Treleani},
756: \newblock Light quark mass differences in quantum chromodynamics,
757: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B212} (1983) 365.
758:
759: \bibitem{jm:95}
760: {\sc M.~Jamin} and {\sc M.~M{\"u}nz},
761: \newblock The strange quark mass from QCD sum rules,
762: \newblock {\em Zeit. Phys.} {\bf C66} (1995) 633.
763:
764: \bibitem{cdps:95}
765: {\sc K.~G. Chetyrkin}, {\sc C.~A. Dominguez}, {\sc D.~Pirjol}, and {\sc
766: K.~Schilcher},
767: \newblock Mass singularities in light quark correlators: the strange quark
768: case,
769: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D51} (1995) 5090.
770:
771: \bibitem{cps:96}
772: {\sc K.~G. Chetyrkin}, {\sc D.~Pirjol}, and {\sc K.~Schilcher},
773: \newblock Order $\alpha_s^3$ determination of the strange quark mass,
774: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B404} (1997) 337.
775:
776: \bibitem{cfnp:97}
777: {\sc P.~Colangelo}, {\sc F.~{de Fazio}}, {\sc G.~Nardulli}, and {\sc N.~Paver},
778: \newblock On the QCD sum rule determination of the strange quark mass,
779: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B408} (1997) 340.
780:
781: \bibitem{jam:98}
782: {\sc M.~Jamin},
783: \newblock The strange quark mass from scalar sum rules updated,
784: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 64} (1998) 250,
785: \newblock Proc. of {\em QCD 97}, Montpellier, July 1997.
786:
787: \bibitem{bgm:98}
788: {\sc T.~Bhattacharya}, {\sc R.~Gupta}, and {\sc K.~Maltman},
789: \newblock Duality and the extraction of light quark masses from finite energy
790: and QCD sum rules,
791: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D57} (1998) 5455.
792:
793: \bibitem{mal:99}
794: {\sc K.~Maltman},
795: \newblock The strange quark mass from finite energy sum rules,
796: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B462} (1999) 195.
797:
798: \bibitem{km:01}
799: {\sc K.~Maltman} and {\sc J.~Kambor},
800: \newblock Decay constants, light quark masses and quark mass bounds from light
801: quark pseudoscalar sum rules,
802: \newblock (2001),
803: \newblock ZU-TH 26/01, hep-ph/0108227.
804:
805: \bibitem{pp:98}
806: {\sc A.~Pich} and {\sc J.~Prades},
807: \newblock Perturbative quark mass corrections to the $\tau$ hadronic width,
808: \newblock {\em JHEP} {\bf 06} (1998) 013.
809:
810: \bibitem{ckp:98}
811: {\sc K.~G. Chetyrkin}, {\sc J.~H. K{\"u}hn}, and {\sc A.~A. Pivovarov},
812: \newblock Determining the strange quark mass in Cabibbo suppressed $\tau$
813: lepton decays,
814: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B533} (1998) 473.
815:
816: \bibitem{aleph:99}
817: {\sc {ALEPH collaboration}},
818: \newblock Study of $\tau$ decays involving kaons, spectral functions and
819: determination of the strange quark mass,
820: \newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C11} (1999) 599.
821:
822: \bibitem{pp:99}
823: {\sc A.~Pich} and {\sc J.~Prades},
824: \newblock Strange quark mass determination from Cabibbo-suppressed $\tau$
825: decays,
826: \newblock {\em JHEP} {\bf 10} (1999) 004.
827:
828: \bibitem{kkp:00}
829: {\sc J.~G. K{\"o}rner}, {\sc F.~Krajewski}, and {\sc A.~A. Pivovarov},
830: \newblock Determination of the strange quark mass from Cabibbo suppressed tau
831: decays with resummed perturbation theory in an effective scheme,
832: \newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C20} (2001) 259.
833:
834: \bibitem{km:00}
835: {\sc J.~Kambor} and {\sc K.~Maltman},
836: \newblock The strange quark mass from flavor breaking in hadronic $\tau$
837: decays,
838: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 093023.
839:
840: \bibitem{cdghpp:01}
841: {\sc S.~Chen}, {\sc M.~Davier}, {\sc E.~G\'amiz}, {\sc A.~H{\"o}cker}, {\sc
842: A.~Pich}, {\em et~al.},
843: \newblock Strange quark mass from the invariant mass distribution of
844: Cabibbo-suppressed $\tau$ decays,
845: \newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C22} (2001) 31.
846:
847: \bibitem{nar:95}
848: {\sc S.~Narison},
849: \newblock Model independent determination of $m_s$ from $\tau$-like inclusive
850: decays in $e^+e^-$ and implications for the $\chi_{{\rm SB}}$ parameters,
851: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B358} (1995) 113.
852:
853: \bibitem{mal:98}
854: {\sc K.~Maltman},
855: \newblock Isospin breaking and the extraction of $m_s$ from the $\tau$ decay
856: like vector current sum rule,
857: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B428} (1998) 179.
858:
859: \bibitem{mw:99}
860: {\sc K.~Maltman} and {\sc C.~E. Wolfe},
861: \newblock Isospin-breaking vector meson decay constants from continuous
862: families of finite energy sum rules,
863: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 096003.
864:
865: \bibitem{nar:99}
866: {\sc S.~Narison},
867: \newblock On the strange quark mass from $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$-decay data, and
868: test of the SU(2) isospin symmetry,
869: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B466} (1999) 345.
870:
871: \bibitem{lrt:97}
872: {\sc L.~Lellouch}, {\sc E.~{de Rafael}}, and {\sc J.~Taron},
873: \newblock How small can the light quark masses be?,
874: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B414} (1997) 195.
875:
876: \bibitem{ynd:98}
877: {\sc F.~J. Yndurain},
878: \newblock Pure QCD bounds and estimates for light quark masses,
879: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B517} (1998) 324.
880:
881: \bibitem{dn:98}
882: {\sc H.~G. Dosch} and {\sc S.~Narison},
883: \newblock Direct extraction of the chiral quark condensate and bounds on the
884: light quark masses,
885: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B417} (1998) 173.
886:
887: \bibitem{ls:98}
888: {\sc R.~F. Lebed} and {\sc K.~Schilcher},
889: \newblock Consistency constraints on $m_s$ from QCD dispersion relations and
890: chiral perturbation theory in $K_{l3}$ decays,
891: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B430} (1998) 341.
892:
893: \bibitem{lub:00}
894: {\sc V.~Lubicz},
895: \newblock Quark masses on the lattice: Light and heavy,
896: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 94} (2001) 116.
897:
898: \bibitem{gm:01}
899: {\sc R.~Gupta} and {\sc K.~Maltman},
900: \newblock Light quark masses: A status report at DPF 2000,
901: \newblock (2001),
902: \newblock hep-ph/0101132.
903:
904: \bibitem{jop:00}
905: {\sc M.~Jamin}, {\sc J.~A. Oller}, and {\sc A.~Pich},
906: \newblock S-wave $K\pi$ scattering in chiral perturbation theory with
907: resonances,
908: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B587} (2000) 331.
909:
910: \bibitem{bro:81}
911: {\sc D.~J. Broadhurst},
912: \newblock Chiral symmetry breaking and perturbative QCD,
913: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B101} (1981) 423.
914:
915: \bibitem{sc:88}
916: {\sc V.~P. Spiridonov} and {\sc K.~G. Chetyrkin},
917: \newblock Nonleading mass corrections and renormalization of the operators
918: $m\bar\psi\psi$ and $G_{\mu\nu}^2$,
919: \newblock {\em Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 47} (1988) 522.
920:
921: \bibitem{jm:93}
922: {\sc M.~Jamin} and {\sc M.~M{\"u}nz},
923: \newblock Current correlators to all orders in the quark masses,
924: \newblock {\em Zeit. Phys.} {\bf C60} (1993) 569.
925:
926: \bibitem{jam:02}
927: {\sc M.~Jamin},
928: \newblock Flavour-symmetry breaking of the quark condensate and chiral
929: corrections to the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation,
930: \newblock (2002),
931: \newblock HD-THEP-0201, hep-ph/0201174.
932:
933: \bibitem{bnry:81}
934: {\sc C.~Becchi}, {\sc S.~Narison}, {\sc E.~{de Rafael}}, and {\sc F.~J.
935: Yndurain},
936: \newblock Light quark masses in quantum chromodynamics and chiral symmetry
937: breaking,
938: \newblock {\em Zeit. Phys.} {\bf C8} (1981) 335.
939:
940: \bibitem{gkls:90}
941: {\sc S.~G. Gorishny}, {\sc A.~L. Kataev}, {\sc S.~A. Larin}, and {\sc L.~R.
942: Surguladze},
943: \newblock Corrected three-loop QCD correction to the correlator of the quark
944: scalar currents and $\Gamma_{tot}(H^0\to{\rm hadrons})$,
945: \newblock {\em Mod. Phys. Lett.} {\bf A5} (1990) 2703.
946:
947: \bibitem{che:96}
948: {\sc K.~G. Chetyrkin},
949: \newblock Correlator of the quark scalar currents and $\Gamma_{tot} (H\to{\rm
950: hadrons})$ at $O(\alpha_s^3)$ in pQCD,
951: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B390} (1997) 309.
952:
953: \bibitem{bkm:00}
954: {\sc D.~J. Broadhurst}, {\sc A.~L. Kataev}, and {\sc J.~C. Maxwell},
955: \newblock Renormalons and multiloop estimates in scalar correlators, Higgs
956: decay and quark-mass sum rule,
957: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B592} (2001) 247.
958:
959: \bibitem{bck:01}
960: {\sc P.~A. Baikov}, {\sc K.~G. Chetyrkin}, and {\sc J.~H. K{\"u}hn},
961: \newblock The cross section of $e^+e^-$ annihilation into hadrons of order
962: $\alpha_s^4 N_f^2$ in perturbative QCD,
963: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88} (2002) 012001.
964:
965: \bibitem{est:78}
966: {\sc {P.~Estabrooks~et~al.}},
967: \newblock Study of $K\pi$ scattering using the reactions $K^\pm p \to
968: K^\pm\pi^+ n$ and $K^\pm p \to K^\pm\pi^- \Delta^{++}$ at 13 GeV/c,
969: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B133} (1978) 490.
970:
971: \bibitem{ast:88}
972: {\sc {D.~Aston~et~al.}},
973: \newblock A study of $K^-\pi^+$ scattering in the reaction $K^- p \to K^- \pi^+
974: n$ at 11 GeV/c,
975: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B296} (1988) 493.
976:
977: \bibitem{pdg:00}
978: {\sc {D.~E.~Groom et al.}},
979: \newblock Review of particle physics,
980: \newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C15} (2000) 1.
981:
982: \bibitem{shu:83}
983: {\sc E.~V. Shuryak},
984: \newblock Pseudoscalar mesons and instantons,
985: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B214} (1983) 237.
986:
987: \bibitem{dk:90}
988: {\sc A.~E. Dorokhov} and {\sc N.~I. Kochelev},
989: \newblock On the contribution of instantons to nucleon sum rules,
990: \newblock {\em Zeit. Phys.} {\bf C46} (1990) 281.
991:
992: \bibitem{gn:93}
993: {\sc E.~Gabrielli} and {\sc P.~Nason},
994: \newblock Instanton effects in the light quark masses determination from QCD
995: sum rules,
996: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B313} (1993) 430.
997:
998: \bibitem{deks:97}
999: {\sc A.~E. Dorokhov}, {\sc S.~V. Esaibegian}, {\sc N.~I. Kochelev}, and {\sc
1000: N.~G. Stefanis},
1001: \newblock Multi-instanton effects in QCD sum rules for the pion,
1002: \newblock {\em J. Phys.} {\bf G 23} (1997) 643.
1003:
1004: \bibitem{ess:98}
1005: {\sc V.~Elias}, {\sc F.~Shi}, and {\sc T.~G. Steele},
1006: \newblock Finite energy sum rules and instantons in the instanton liquid model,
1007: \newblock {\em J. Phys.} {\bf G24} (1998) 267.
1008:
1009: \bibitem{ss:98}
1010: {\sc T.~Sch{\"a}fer} and {\sc E.~V. Shuryak},
1011: \newblock Instnatons in QCD,
1012: \newblock {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 70} (1998) 323.
1013:
1014: \bibitem{lr:84}
1015: {\sc H.~Leutwyler} and {\sc M.~Roos},
1016: \newblock Determination of the elements $V_{us}$ and $V_{ud}$ of the
1017: Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix,
1018: \newblock {\em Zeit. Phys.} {\bf C25} (1984) 91.
1019:
1020: \bibitem{cknrt:01}
1021: {\sc V.~Cirigliano}, {\sc M.~Knecht}, {\sc H.~Neufeld}, {\sc H.~Rupertsberger},
1022: and {\sc P.~Talavera},
1023: \newblock Radiative corrections to $K_{l3}$ decays,
1024: \newblock (2001),
1025: \newblock hep-ph/0110153, to appear in {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C}.
1026:
1027: \bibitem{leu:96}
1028: {\sc H.~Leutwyler},
1029: \newblock The ratios of the light quark masses,
1030: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B378} (1996) 313.
1031:
1032: \bibitem{abt:01}
1033: {\sc G.~Amoros}, {\sc J.~Bijnens}, and {\sc P.~Talavera},
1034: \newblock QCD isospin breaking in meson masses, decay constants and quark mass
1035: ratios,
1036: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B602} (2001) 87.
1037:
1038: \bibitem{bpr:95}
1039: {\sc J.~Bijnens}, {\sc J.~Prades}, and {\sc E.~{de Rafael}},
1040: \newblock Light quark masses in QCD,
1041: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B348} (1995) 226.
1042:
1043: \bibitem{pra:98}
1044: {\sc J.~Prades},
1045: \newblock $m_u+m_d$ from QCD-hadron duality,
1046: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 64} (1998) 253.
1047:
1048: \bibitem{gmor:68}
1049: {\sc M.~Gell-Mann}, {\sc R.~J. Oakes}, and {\sc B.~Renner},
1050: \newblock Behavior of current divergences under SU(3)$\times$SU(3),
1051: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf 175} (1968) 2195.
1052:
1053: \end{thebibliography}
1054:
1055: \end{document}
1056:
1057: