1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}%style pour inserer figures en eps
3: \usepackage{here}%pour inserer figures et tables a emplacement
4: \textwidth 15.5cm
5: \textheight 22cm
6: \topmargin -1.5cm
7: %page de gauche: + agrandit la marge.
8: \oddsidemargin .2cm
9: %page de droite:pas actif si width et gauche deja fixes
10: \evensidemargin -1.0cm
11: %\begin{document}
12: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
14: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
17: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
18: \def\ve{\vert}
19: \def\bear{\begin{array}}
20: \def\ear{\end{array}}
21: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
22: \def\ga{\left(}
23: \def\dr{\right)}
24: \def\aga{\left\{}
25: \def\adr{\right\}}
26: \def\lb{\lbrack}
27: \def\rb{\rbrack}
28: \def\Bg{\Big{[}}
29: \def\Bd{\Big{]}}
30: \def\Bbg{\Bigg{[}}
31: \def\Bbd{\Bigg{]}}
32: \def\rar{\rightarrow}
33: \def\Lrar{\Longrightarrow}
34: \def\llrar{\longleftrightarrow}
35: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
36: \def\la{\langle}
37: \def\ra{\rangle}
38: \def\nin{
39: \vspace*{0.5cm}
40:
41: \noindent}
42: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
43: \def\ea{\end{array}}
44: \def\bm{\overline{m}}
45: \def\ind{\indexentry}
46: \def\c{\clubsuit}
47: \def\s{\spadesuit}
48: \def\b{\bullet}
49: \def\T{\mbox{\bf T}}
50: \def\TR{\mbox{\bf Tr}}
51: \def\als{\alpha_s}
52: \def\as{\ga \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\dr}
53: \def\asb{\ga \frac{\overline\alpha_s}{\pi}\dr}
54: \def\alsb{\overline{\alpha}_s}
55: \def\mb{\overline{m}}
56: \def\msb{\overline{MS}}
57: \def\eps{\epsilon}
58: \def\lam{\lambda}
59: \def\Lam{\Lambda}
60: \def\A{A^\mu(x)}
61: \def\G{G_{\rho\mu}}
62: \def\pr{\partial}
63: \def\hp{\hat{p}}
64: \def\gam5{\gamma_5}
65: \def\al{\alpha}
66: \def\be{\beta}
67: \newcommand{\lgm}{{\,\rm ln }}
68: \newcommand{\Break}{ \right. \nonumber \\ &{}& \left. }
69: %\makeindex
70: %\newcommand{\indexentry}[2]{#1, #2\\}
71: \begin{document}
72: \pagestyle{empty}
73: \begin{flushright}
74: PM 02/06
75: \end{flushright}
76: \vspace*{1cm}
77: %\begin{center}
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: \subsection*{LIGHT AND HEAVY QUARK MASSES,\\
80: FLAVOUR BREAKING OF CHIRAL CONDENSATES,
81: \\ MESON WEAK LEPTONIC
82: DECAY CONSTANTS IN QCD
83: \footnote{This review updates and completes the reviews
84: \cite{SNL,SNSRH} and some parts of the book \cite{SNB}. It
85: has been extracted from a chapter of the forthcoming book:
86: {\it QCD as a theory of hadrons: from partons to confinement} \cite{SNB02}.}}.
87: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
88: \vspace*{1.cm}
89: \nin
90: {\bf Stephan Narison} \\
91: %\vspace{0.3cm}
92: %\nin
93: Laboratoire de Physique Math\'ematique,
94: Universit\'e de Montpellier II,\\
95: Place Eug\`ene Bataillon,
96: 34095 - Montpellier Cedex 05, France\\
97: Email: qcd@lpm.univ-montp2.fr
98: \vspace*{1.cm}
99: \nin
100: {\bf Abstract} \\
101: %\end{center}
102: %\vspace*{2mm}
103: \noindent
104: We review the present status for the determinations of the light and
105: heavy quark masses, the
106: light quark chiral condensate and the decay constants of light and heavy-light
107: (pseudo)scalar mesons from QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR). Bounds
108: on the light quark running masses at 2 GeV are found to be (see
109: Tables \ref{tab: lowbound} and \ref{tab: upbound}): 6
110: MeV$<(\overline{m}_d+\bm_u)(2)<$11~MeV and 71 MeV$<\bm_s(2)<$148 MeV. The
111: agreement of the ratio $m_s/(m_u+m_d)=24.2$ in Eq. (\ref{eq: ms/mud})
112: from pseudoscalar sum rules with the one $(24.4\pm
113: 1.5)$ from ChPT indicates the consistency of the pseudoscalar sum
114: rule approach.
115: QSSR predictions from different channels for the light
116: quark running masses lead to (see Section \ref{sec: lsum}):
117: $\overline{m}_s(2)=(117.4\pm 23.4)$~MeV,
118: $(\overline{m}_d+\bm_u)(2)=(10.1\pm 1.8)$~MeV,
119: $(\bm_d-\overline{m}_u)(2)=(2.8\pm 0.6)$~MeV with the corresponding
120: values of the RG invariant masses.
121: The different QSSR predictions for the heavy quark masses lead to the
122: running
123: masss values: $\bm_c(\bm_c)=(1.23\pm 0.05)$ GeV and
124: $\bm_b(\bm_b)=(4.24\pm 0.06)$~GeV (see Tables
125: \ref{tab: mc} and \ref{tab: mb}), from which one can extract the
126: scale independent ratio $m_b/m_s=48.8\pm
127: 9.8$. Runned until $M_Z$, the $b$-quark mass becomes:
128: $\bm_b(M_Z)=(2.83\pm 0.04)$~GeV in good agreement with the average of
129: direct measurements
130: $(2.82\pm 0.63)$~GeV from three-jet heavy quark production
131: at LEP, and then supports the QCD running predictions based on the
132: renormalization group equation.
133: As a result, we have updated our old predictions of the weak decay constants
134: $f_{\pi'(1.3)}, ~f_{K'(1.46)}$,
135: $f_{a_0(0.98)}$ and $f_{K^*_0(1.43)}$ (see Eqs. (\ref{eq: fpseu})
136: and (\ref{eq: fscal})). We obtain from a global fit of the light
137: (pseudo)scalar and $B_s$
138: mesons, the flavour breakings of the {\it normal ordered} chiral
139: condensate ratio:
140: $\la\bar ss\ra/\la\bar uu\ra=0.66\pm 0.10$ (see Eq. (\ref{eq:
141: ssdd})). The last section is
142: dedicated to the QSSR determinations of
143: $f_{D_{(s)}}$ and
144: $f_{B_{(s)}}$.
145:
146: \vspace*{1.0cm}
147: \begin{flushleft}
148: PM 02/06\\
149: %\today
150: February 2002
151: \end{flushleft}
152: \vfill\eject
153: %\pagestyle{empty}
154: \setcounter{page}{1}
155: \pagestyle{plain}
156:
157: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
158: \section{Introduction}
159: One of the most important parameters of the standard model and chiral
160: symmetry is the light and heavy
161: quark masses. Light quark masses and chiral condensates are useful
162: for a much better understanding of the
163: realizations of chiral symmetry breaking
164: \cite{WEINBERG}--\cite{14} and for some eventual explanation of the origin of
165: quark masses in unified
166: models of interactions \cite{FRITZ}. Within some popular
167: parametrizations of the hadronic matrix
168: elements \cite{BURAS}, the strange quark mass can also largely
169: influence the Standard Model prediction of
170: the
171: $CP$ violating parameters
172: $\epsilon'/\epsilon$, which have been mesured recently
173: \cite{NA48}.
174: However, contrary to the QED case where leptons are observed, and
175: then the physical masses
176: can be identified with the pole of the propagator (on-shell mass
177: value)\footnote{For a first explicit definition of the
178: perturbative quark pole mass in the $\overline{MS}$-scheme, see
179: \cite{COQUE,TARRA1} (renormalization-scheme
180: invariance) and \cite{SN1} (regularization-scheme invariance).}, the
181: quark masses are difficult to define
182: because of confinement which does not allow to observe free quarks.
183: However, despite this difficulty, one can consistenly
184: treat the quark masses in perturbation theory
185: like the QCD coupling constant.They obey a differential equation, where
186: its boundary condition can be identified with the renormalized mass
187: of the QCD lagrangian. The corresponding solution is
188: the running mass, which is gauge invariant but renormalization scheme
189: and scale dependent, and the associated renrmalization group
190: invariant mass. To our knowledge, these
191: notions have been introduced for the first time in
192: \cite{FLORATOS}. In practice, these masses are conveniently defined
193: within the standard
194: $\overline{MS}$-scheme discussed in previous chapters. In addition to
195: the determination of the ratios of light quark
196: masses (which are scale independent) from current algebra
197: \cite{WEINBERG}, and from chiral perturbation theory (ChPT), its
198: modern version \cite{WEINChPT}--\cite{ChPT},
199: a lot of effort reflected in the literature
200: \cite{PDG} has been put into extracting directly from the data the
201: running quark masses
202: using the SVZ \cite{SVZ} QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR) \cite{SNB},
203: LEP experiments and lattice simulations.
204: The content of these notes is:
205: \begin{itemize}
206: \item a review of the light and heavy quark mass
207: determinations from the different QCD
208: approaches.
209: \item a review of the direct determinations of the quark
210: vacuum condensate using QSSR and an update of the analysis
211: of its flavour breakings using a global fit of the meson systems.
212: \item An update of the determinations of
213: the light (pseudo)scalar decay constants, which, in particular, are useful
214: for understanding the $\bar qq$ contents of the light scalar mesons.
215: \item A review of the determinations
216: of the weak leptonic decay of the heavy-light pseudoscalar mesons
217: $D_{(s)}$ and $B_{(s)}$.
218: \end{itemize}
219: This review develops and updates
220: the review papers \cite{SNL,SNSRH} and some parts of the book
221: \cite{SNB}. It also updates
222: previous results from original works.
223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
224: \section{Definitions of perturbative quark masses in QCD}
225: Let's remind the meaning of quark masses in QCD.
226: One starts from the mass term of the QCD lagrangian:
227: \beq
228: {\cal L}_m=m_i\bar\psi_i\psi_i~,
229: \eeq
230: where $m_i$ and $\psi_i$ are respectively the quark mass and field.
231: It is convenient to introduce the {\it dimensionless mass}
232: $x_i(\nu)\equiv m_i(\nu)/\nu$, where
233: $\nu$ is the renormalization scheme subtraction constant. The running
234: quark mass is a solution
235: of the differential equation:
236: \beq
237: \frac{d\overline{x}_i}{dt}=(1+\gamma(\alpha_s))\overline{x}_i(t)~:\overline{x}_i(t=0)=x_i(\nu)~.
238: \eeq
239: In the $\overline{MS}$-scheme, its solution to order $a_s^3$
240: ($a_s\equiv \alpha_s/\pi$) is:
241: \bea
242: \bm_i(\nu)&=&\hat{m}_i\ga -\beta_1 a_s(\nu)\dr^{-\gamma_1/\beta_1}
243: \Bigg\{1+\frac{\beta_2}{\beta_1}\ga \frac{\gamma_1}{\beta_1}-
244: \frac{\gamma_2}{\beta_2}\dr a_s(\nu)~
245: +\frac{1}{2}\Bigg{[}\frac{\beta_2^2}{\beta_1^2}\ga \frac{\gamma_1}
246: {\beta_1}-
247: \frac{\gamma_2}{\beta_2}\dr^2-
248: \frac{\beta_2^2}{\beta_1^2}\ga \frac{\gamma_1}{\beta_1}-
249: \frac{\gamma_2}{\beta_2}\dr\nnb\\&+&
250: \frac{\beta_3}{\beta_1}\ga \frac{\gamma_1}{\beta_1}-
251: \frac{\gamma_3}{\beta_3}\dr\Bigg{]} a^2_s(\nu)+
252: 1.95168a_s^3\Bigg\}~,
253: \eea
254: where $\gamma_i$ and $\beta_i$ are the ${\cal{O}}(a_s^i)$ coefficients of the
255: quark-mass anomalous dimension and $\beta$-function, which read
256: for $SU(3)_c\times SU(n)_f$:
257: \bea
258: \gamma_1&=&2~,~~~\gamma_2=\frac{1}{6}\ga {101\over 2}-{5n\over
259: 2}\dr~,~~~\gamma_3={1\over 96}\Big{[}3747-\ga 160\zeta_3-\frac{2216}{ 9}\dr n-
260: {140\over 27} n^2\Big{]}~\nnb\\
261: \beta_1&=&-{1\over 2}\ga 11-{2\over 3}n\dr~,~~~\beta_2=-{1\over 4}\ga
262: 51-{19\over 3}n\dr~,~~~\beta_3=-{1\over 64}\ga 2857-{5033\over
263: 9}n+{325\over 27}n^2\dr~.
264: \eea
265: The invariant mass $\hat{m}_i$ has been introduced for the first time
266: by \cite{FLORATOS} in connection
267: with the analysis of the breaking of the Weinberg sum rules by the
268: quark mass terms in QCD.
269: For the heavy quarks, one can also define a perturbative (short
270: distance) pole mass at the pole
271: of the propagator. The IR finiteness of the result to order $\als^2$
272: has been explicitly
273: shown in \cite{COQUE,TARRA1}. The independence of $M_{pole}$
274: on the choice of the regularization-scheme has been demonstrated
275: in \cite{SN1}.
276: The extension of the previous result to order $\als^2$ is: \cite{GRAY}:
277: \bea
278: M_{pole}&=&\mb(p^2)\Bigg{[}1+\ga\frac{4}{3}+\ln{\frac{p^2}{m^2}}\dr\as+\nnb\\
279: &&\Bigg{[}K_Q+\ga \frac{221}{24}-\frac{13}{36}n\dr
280: \ln{\frac{p^2}{m^2}}+\ga\frac{15}{8}-\frac{n}{12}\dr
281: \ln^2{\frac{p^2}{m^2}}\Bigg{]}\as^2\Bigg{]}~,
282: \eea
283: %\end{document}
284: where in the RHS $m$ is the running mass evaluated at $p^2$ and:
285: \beq
286: K_Q=17.1514-1.04137n+\frac{4}{3}\sum_{i\not=Q}\Delta\ga r\equiv
287: \frac{m_i}{M_Q}\dr.
288: \eeq
289: For $0\leq r\leq 1$, $\Delta(r)$ can be approximated, within an
290: accuracy of 1$\%$
291: by:
292: \beq
293: \Delta(r) \simeq \frac{\pi^2}{8}r-0.597r^2+0.230r^3~.
294: \eeq
295: It has been argued that the pole masses can be affected by
296: nonperturbative terms induced by the resummation of the QCD
297: perturbative series \cite{BENEKE} and alternative definitions free
298: from such ambiguities
299: have been proposed (residual mass \cite{POLE3} and 1S mass
300: \cite{HOANG}). Assuming that the QCD potential has no
301: linear power corrections, the residual
302: or potential-subtracted (PS) mass is related to the pole mass as:
303: \beq
304: M_{PS}=M_{pole}+{1\over 2}\int_{\vert\vec q\vert<\mu}\frac{d^3\vec
305: q}{(2\pi)^3}V(\vec q)~.
306: \eeq
307: The 1S mass is defined as half of the perturbative component to the
308: $^3S_1$ $\bar QQ$ ground state, which is half
309: of its static energy $ \la 2M_{pole}+V \ra$ \footnote{These definitions
310: might still be affected by a dimension--2 term advocated in
311: \cite{ZAKA,CNZ,SNZAK}, which might
312: limit their accuracy \cite{ZAKAP}.}.
313: The running and short distance pole mass defined at a given order of
314: PT series will be used in the following
315: discussions.
316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
317: \section{Ratios of light quark masses from ChPT}
318: %\begin{figure}[hbt]
319: %\begin{center}
320: %\includegraphics[width=7cm]{chpt.ps}
321: %\caption{$m_s/m_d$ versus $m_u/m_d$ from \cite{14}. }
322: %\label{fig:largenenough}
323: %\end{center}
324: %\end{figure}
325: %\nin
326: The ratios of light quark masses are well-determined from current
327: algebra \cite{WEINBERG}, and ChPT
328: \cite{WEINChPT}. In this approach, the meson masses are expressed
329: using a systematic expansion in terms of
330: the light quark masses:
331: \bea
332: M^2_{\pi^+}&=& (m_u+m_d){ B} +{\cal O}(m^2)+...\nnb\\
333: M^2_{K^+}&=& (m_u+m_s){ B} +{\cal O}(m^2)+...\nnb\\
334: M^2_{K^0}&=& (m_d+m_s){ B} +{\cal O}(m^2)+...
335: \eea
336: where {$ B\equiv -\la\bar\psi\psi\ra/f^2_K$ from the Gell-Mann, Oakes, Renner
337: relation \cite{GMOR}}:
338: \beq
339: m^2_\pi f^2_\pi\simeq -(m_u+m_d)\la\bar\psi\psi\ra +{\cal O}(m^2)~.
340: \eeq
341: However, only the ratio, which is scale independent can be well
342: determined. To leading order in $m$ \cite{WEINChPT}\footnote{In
343: Generalized ChPT, the contribution of the
344: $m^2$-term can be as large as the $m$ one \cite{GCHPT}, which
345: modifies drastically these ratios.}:
346: \bea
347: \frac{m_u}{m_d}& \approx&\frac{M^2_{\pi^+}-M^2_{K^0}+M^2_{K^+}}
348: {M^2_{\pi^+}+M^2_{K^0}-M^2_{K^+}}\approx 0.66\nnb\\
349: \frac{m_s}{m_d}&\approx&\frac{-M^2_{\pi^+}+M^2_{K^0}+M^2_{K^+}}
350: {M^2_{\pi^+}+M^2_{K^0}-M^2_{K^+}}\approx 20
351: \eea
352: Including the next order + electromagnetic corrections, the ratios of
353: masses are constrained on the ellipse:
354: \beq
355: \ga\frac{m_u}{m_d}\dr^2+\frac{1}{Q^2}\ga\frac{m_s}{m_d}\dr^2=1
356: \eeq
357: where: $Q^2\simeq (m^2_s-\hat{m}^2)/(m^2_d-m^2_u)=22.7\pm 0.8$ using
358: the value of the
359: $\eta\rar\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ from the PDG average \cite{PDG}, though
360: this value can well be in the range
361: 22--26, to be compared with the Dashen's formula \cite{DASHEN} of
362: 24.2; $\hat{m}\equiv (1/2)(m_u+m_d)$.
363: In the figure of \cite{14}\footnote{This figure will be shown in the
364: book version of the paper.},
365: one shows the range spanned by $R\equiv (m_s-\hat{m})/(m_d-m_u)$ and
366: the corrections to the GMO
367: mass formula $\Delta_M:~M^2_8=(1/3)(4M^2_K-m^2_\pi)(1+\Delta_M)$. The
368: Weinberg mass ratio \cite{WEINBERG} is
369: also shown which corresponds to the Dashen's formula and $R\simeq
370: 43$. At the intersection of
371: different ranges, one deduces \cite{14}:
372: \label{chpt}
373: \bea
374: &&\frac{m_u}{m_d}= 0.553\pm 0.043~,~\frac{m_s}{m_d}=
375: 18.9\pm 0.8,\nnb\\
376: &&\frac{2m_s}{(m_d+m_u)}= 24.4\pm 1.5.
377: \eea
378: The possibility to have a $m_u=0$ advocated in \cite{MANO} appears to
379: be unlikely as it
380: implies too strong flavour symmetry breaking and is not supported by
381: the QSSR results
382: from 2-point correlators of the divergences of the axial and vector
383: currents, as will be shown in the
384: next sections.
385:
386: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
387: \section{Bounds on the light quark masses}
388: In QSSR, the estimate and lower bounds of the sum
389: of the light quark masses from the
390: pseudoscalar sum rule have been
391: firstly done in \cite{43,PSEUDO}, while a bound on the quark
392: mass difference has been firstly derived in \cite{SCAL}. The
393: literature in this subject
394: of light quark masses increases with time \footnote{Previous works are
395: are reviewed in \cite{SNL,SNB}.}
396: %See also: \cite{SNP,SNP2,CHETDPS,JAMIN},\cite{PAVERTR}--\cite{OLLER}.}.
397: However, it is in
398: some sense quite disappointing that in most of the published papers
399: no noticeable progress
400: has been done since the previous pioneering works. The most
401: impressive progress comes from
402: the QCD side of the sum rules where new calculations have become
403: available both on the
404: perturbative radiative corrections known to order $\alpha_s^3$
405: \cite{43,LARIN,CHETDPS} and on the nonperturbative corrections
406: \cite{SVZ}--\cite{JAMIN2}
407: \footnote{See also the chapter on two-point functions where more
408: references to original works are
409: given.}. Another new contribution is due to the inclusion of the
410: tachyonic gluon mass as a
411: manifestation of the resummation of pQCD series
412: \cite{ZAKA,CNZ,SNZAK}. Alas, no sharp result is
413: available on the exact size of direct instanton contributions
414: advocated to be important in
415: this channel \cite{IOFFE}, while \cite{GABRIELLI} claims the
416: opposite. Though the
417: instanton situation remains controversial, recent analysis
418: \cite{STEELE01,KAMBOR} using the results of \cite{DORGHOV} based on
419: the ILM of \cite{SHURYAK} indicates that this effect is
420: negligible justifying the neglect of this effect in different
421: analysis of this channel. However, it might happen that
422: adding together the effect of the tachyonic gluon to the one of
423: direct instanton might also lead to a double counting in a
424: sense that they can be two alternative ways for parametrizing the
425: nonperturbative vacuum \cite{SNZAK}. In absence of
426: precise control of the origin and size of these effects, we shall
427: consider them as new sources of errors in
428: the sum rule analysis.
429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
430: \subsection{Bounds on the sum of light quark masses from pseudoscalar channels}
431: Lower bounds for $(\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_{d})$ based on moments
432: inequalities and the
433: positivity of the spectral functions have been obtained, for the first time,
434: in \cite{43,PSEUDO}.
435: These bounds have been rederived recently in
436: \cite{LEL,YNDBOUND} to order $\alpha_s$. As cheked in \cite{SNL} for
437: the lowest moment and redone in \cite{KAMBOR}
438: for higher moments,
439: the inclusion of the $\alpha_s^3$ term decrease by about 10 to 15\%
440: the strength of these bounds,
441: which is within the expected accuracy of the result. \\
442: For definiteness, we shall discuss in details the pseudoscalar
443: two-point function in the $\bar us$
444: channel. The analysis in the $\bar ud$ channel is equivalent. It is
445: convenient to start from the
446: second derivative of the two-point function which is superficially convergent:
447: \begin{equation}\label{eq:disp}
448: \Psi''(Q^2)=\int_{0}^{\infty} dt\frac{2}{(t+Q^2)^3}\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm
449: Im}\Psi(t).
450: \end{equation}
451: The bounds follow from the restriction of the sum over all
452: possible hadronic states which can contribute to the spectral
453: function to the state(s) with the lowest invariant mass.
454: The lowest hadronic state which contributes to the
455: corresponding spectral function is the $K$--pole. From eq.~(\ref{eq:disp})
456: we then have
457: \begin{equation}\label{eq:psi5}
458: \Psi_{5}''(Q^2)= \frac{2}{(M_{K}^2 +Q^2)^3}2f_{K}^2 M_{K}^4 +
459: \int_{t_{0}}^{\infty} dt
460: \frac{2}{t+Q^2)^3}\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im}\Psi_{5}(t),
461: \end{equation}
462: where $t_{0}=(M_{K}+2m_{\pi})^2$ is the threshold of the hadronic
463: continuum.
464: \\
465: It is convenient to introduce the moments $\Sigma_{N}(Q^2)$ of the hadronic
466: continuum integral
467: \begin{equation}\label{eq:contint}
468: \Sigma_{N}(Q^2)=\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty}dt\frac{2}{(t+Q^2)^3}\times
469: \left(\frac{t_0 +Q^2}{t+Q^2}\right)^{N}\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}\Psi_{5}(t).
470: \end{equation}
471: One is then confronted with a typical moment problem (see
472: e.g. Ref.~\cite{AhK62}.) The positivity of the continuum spectral function
473: $\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}\Psi_{5}(t)$ constrains the moments
474: $\Sigma_{N}(Q^2)$ and hence the l.h.s. of Eq. (\ref{eq:psi5}) where the light
475: quark masses appear. The most general constraints among the first three
476: moments for
477: $N=0,1,2$ are:
478: \begin{equation}
479: \Sigma_{0}(Q^2)\ge 0,\quad \Sigma_{1}(Q^2)\ge 0,\quad
480: \Sigma_{2}(Q^2)\ge 0;
481: \end{equation}
482: \begin{equation}\label{eq:diff}
483: \Sigma_{0}(Q^2)-\Sigma_{1}(Q^2)\ge 0,\quad
484: \Sigma_{1}(Q^2)-\Sigma_{2}(Q^2)\ge 0;
485: \end{equation}
486: \begin{equation}
487: \label{eq:quad}
488: \Sigma_{0}(Q^2)\Sigma_{2}(Q^2)-\left(\Sigma_{1}(Q^2)\right)^2\ge 0\,.
489: \end{equation}
490: The inequalities in Eq.~(\ref{eq:diff}) are in fact trivial
491: unless
492: $2Q^2< t_{0}$, which constrains the region in $Q^2$ to too small values
493: for pQCD to be applicable. The other inequalities lead however to
494: interesting bounds which we next discuss.
495: \\
496: The inequality $\Sigma_{0}(Q^2)\ge 0$ results in a first bound on the
497: running masses:
498: \begin{equation}\label{eq:1stbound}
499: \left[m_{s}(Q^2)+m_{u}(Q^2)\right]^2 \ge \frac{16\pi^2}{N_c}
500: \frac{2f_{K}^2 M_{K}^4}{Q^4}\times
501: \frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{M_{K}^2}{Q^2}\right)^3}
502: \frac{1}{\left[1+
503: \frac{11}{3}\frac{\alpha_{s}(Q^2)}{\pi} +\cdots\right]}~,
504: \end{equation}
505: where the dots represent higher order terms which have been
506: calculated up to
507: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$, as well as non--perturbative power corrections of
508: ${\cal O}\left({1}/{Q^4}\right)$ and strange quark mass corrections of
509: ${\cal O}\left({m_{s}^2}/{Q^2}\right)$ and
510: ${\cal O}\left({m_{s}^4}/{Q^4}\right)$ including ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$
511: terms~. Notice that this bound is non--trivial in the large--$N_c$ limit
512: ($f_{K}^2\sim{\cal O}(N_c)$) and in the chiral limit ($m_{s}\sim M_{K}^2$). The
513: bound is of course a function of the choice of the euclidean
514: $Q$--value at which the r.h.s. in Eq.~(\ref{eq:1stbound}) is evaluated. For
515: the bound to be meaningful, the choice of $Q$ has to be made sufficiently
516: large. In Ref.~\cite{LEL} it is shown that
517: $Q\geq 1.4\:{\rm GeV}$ is already a safe choice to trust the pQCD
518: corrections as such. The lower bound which follows from
519: Eq.~(\ref{eq:1stbound}) for
520: $m_u + m_s$ at a renormalization scale
521: $\mu^2=4\:{\rm GeV^2}$ results in the solid curves shown in
522: Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5a}
523: below.
524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
525: \begin{figure}[htb]
526: \begin{center}
527: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig5a1.ps}
528: \caption{Lower bound in {\rm MeV} to order $\als$ for
529: $(m_{s}+m_{u})$(2) versus $Q$ in GeV from
530: Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:1stbound}) for $\Lambda_3=290$ MeV (upper curve)
531: and 380 MeV (lower curve). Quark mass values below the
532: solid curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5a} are forbidden by the bounds.}
533: \label{fig:Fig5a}
534: \end{center}
535: \end{figure}
536: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
537: \nin
538: The resulting value of the bound at $Q=1.4$ GeV is:
539: \beq
540: (m_s+m_u)(2)\geq 80 ~{\rm MeV}~~~~\Lrar~~~~ (m_u+m_d)(2)\geq 6.6 ~{\rm MeV}~,
541: \eeq
542: if one uses either ChPT and the previous SR analysis for the mass ratios.
543: Radiative corrections tend to decrease the strengths of these bounds.
544: Their contributions to the
545: second moment of the two-point function are (see previous part of the book):
546: \beq
547: \Psi^{''}_5(q^2)=\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\frac{(\mb_u+\mb_s)^2}{Q^2}\Bigg{[}1+{11\over
548: 3}\asb+14.179\asb^2+77.368\asb^3\Bigg{]}
549: \eeq
550: At this scale, the PT series converges quite well and behaves as:
551: \beq
552: {\rm Parton}\Big{[}1+0.45+0.22+0.15\Big{]}~.
553: \eeq
554: Including these higher order corrections, the bounds become:
555: \beq\label{eq: lowest bound}
556: (m_s+m_u)(2)> (71.4\pm 3.7) ~{\rm MeV}~~~~\Lrar~~~~ (m_u+m_d)(2)>
557: (5.9\pm 0.3) ~{\rm MeV}~,
558: \eeq
559: The bound will be saturated in the extreme limit where the continuum
560: contribution to the spectral
561: function is neglected. \\
562: The quadratic inequality in Eq. (\ref{eq:quad}) results in improved lower
563: bounds for the quark masses which we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5b} below.
564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
565: \begin{figure}[htb]
566: \begin{center}
567: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig5b1.ps}
568: \caption{The same as in Fig. ~\ref{fig:Fig5a} but from the
569: quadratic inequality to order $\alpha_s$.}
570: \label{fig:Fig5b}
571: \end{center}
572: \end{figure}
573: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
574: \nin
575: The quadratic bound is saturated for a $\delta$--like spectral function
576: representation of the hadronic continuum of states at an arbitrary
577: position and with an arbitrary weight. This is certainly less restrictive
578: than the extreme limit with the full hadronic continuum neglected, and it is
579: therefore not surprising that the quadratic bound happens to be better than
580: the ones from
581: $\Sigma_{N}(Q^2)$ for
582: $N=0,1,$ and $2$. Notice however that the quadratic bound in
583: Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5b} is plotted at higher
584: $Q$--values than the bound in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5a}. This is due to the fact
585: that the coefficients of the perturbative series in $\als(Q^2)$ become
586: larger for the higher moments. In Ref~\cite{LEL} it is shown that for the
587: evaluation of the quadratic bound $Q\geq 2$ GeV is already a safe
588: choice.\\
589: Similar bounds can be obtained for $(m_{u}+m_{d})$ when one considers the
590: two--point function associated with the divergence of the axial current
591: \begin{equation}
592: \partial_{\mu}A^{\mu}(x)=(m_{d}+m_{u}):\!\!{\bar d}(x)i\gamma_{5}u(x)\!\!:.
593: \end{equation} The method to derive the bounds is exactly the same as the
594: one discussed above and therefore we only show, in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5c}
595: below, the results for the corresponding lower bounds which one obtains
596: from the quadratic inequality.
597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
598: \begin{figure}[hbt]
599: \begin{center}
600: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig5c1.ps}
601: \caption{Lower bound in MeV for
602: $(m_{d}+m_{u})$(2) from the quadratic inequality to order $\alpha_s$.}
603: \label{fig:Fig5c}
604: \end{center}
605: \end{figure}
606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
607: At $Q=2$ GeV, one can deduce the lower bounds from the quadratic
608: inequality:
609: \beq
610: (m_s+m_u)(2)> 105 ~{\rm MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~(m_u+m_d)(2)> 7 ~{\rm MeV}~
611: \eeq
612: The convergence of the QCD series is less good here than in the
613: lowest moment. It behaves as
614: \cite{KAMBOR}:
615: \beq
616: {\rm Parton}\Bigg{[}1+{25\over 3}\asb+61.79\asb^2+517.15\asb^3\Bigg{]}~,
617: \eeq
618: which numerically reads:
619: \beq
620: {\rm Parton}\Big{[}1+0.83+0.61+0.51\Big{]}~.
621: \eeq
622: This leads to the radiatively corrected lower bound to order $\als^3$:
623: \beq
624: (m_s+m_u)(2)> (82.7 \pm 13.3)~{\rm MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~(m_u+m_d)(2)>
625: (6\pm 1) ~{\rm MeV}~
626: \eeq
627: where the error is induced by the truncation of the QCD series which
628: we have estimated to be about the
629: contribution of the last known $\als^3$ term of the series
630: \footnote{In Ref. \cite{STEELE01}, alternative bound has been derived
631: using a H\"older type inequality. The
632: lower bound obtained from this method, which is about 4.2 MeV is
633: weaker than the one obtained previously.}.
634: From the previous analysis, and taking into account the uncertainties
635: induced by the higher order
636: QCD corrections, {\it the best lower bound} comes from the lowest
637: inequality and is given in
638: Eq. (\ref{eq: lowest bound}). The result is summarized in Table
639: \ref{tab: lowbound}.
640: \begin{table}[hbt]
641: \begin{center}
642: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
643: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
644: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4pc}
645: % -----------------------------------------------------
646: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241
647: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
648: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
649: % -----------------------------------------------------
650: \caption{Lower bounds on $\overline{m}_{u,d,s}$(2) in MeV}
651: \label{tab: lowbound}
652: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}rrrrr}
653: \begin{tabular}{c c l }
654: \hline
655: %\hline
656: && \\
657: Observables& Sources& Authors\\
658: &&\\
659: \hline
660: &&\\
661: { $\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_d$}&&\\
662: $6$&$\pi$ &{ LRT97\cite{LEL}, Y97\cite{YNDBOUND} (updated
663: here to order $\als^3$) }\\
664: % 7.3&$\pi$& { Y97\cite{YNDBOUND} }\\
665: 6.8&$\la\overline{\psi}\psi\ra$+GMOR& {
666: DN98\cite{DOSCHSN} (leading order)}\\
667: %&&\\
668: %\hline
669: &&\\
670: { $\overline{m}_d-\overline{m}_u$}&&\\
671: 1.1&$K\pi$& { Y97\cite{YNDBOUND} (updated here to order
672: $\als^3$) }\\
673: %&&\\
674: %\hline
675: &&\\
676: { $\overline{m}_s$}&&\\
677: $71.4$&$K$& { LRT97\cite{LEL} (updated here to order
678: $\als^3$) }\\
679: % 104&$K$& { Y97\cite{YND} }\\
680: 90&$\la\overline{\psi}\psi\ra$+ChPT& {
681: DN98\cite{DOSCHSN} (leading order)}\\
682: && \\
683: \hline
684: \end{tabular}
685: \end{center}
686: \end{table}
687: \nin
688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
689: \subsection{Lower bound on the light quark mass-difference from the
690: scalar sum rule}
691: As in \cite{SCAL}, one can extract lower bound on the light quark
692: mass difference
693: $(m_u-m_d)$ and $(m_u-m_s)$ working with the two-point function
694: associated to the divergence
695: of the vector current:
696: \beq
697: \partial _\mu V^\mu_{\bar uq}=(m_u-m_q):\bar\psi_u(i)\psi_q:~.
698: \eeq
699: The most recent analysis has been done in \cite{YNDBOUND}. We have
700: updated the result by
701: including the
702: $\alpha_s^3$-term. It is given in Table \ref{tab: lowbound}.
703: \begin{table}[hbt]
704: \begin{center}
705: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
706: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
707: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
708: % -----------------------------------------------------
709: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241
710: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
711: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
712: % -----------------------------------------------------
713: \caption{Upper bounds on $\overline{m}_{u,d,s}$(2) in MeV.}
714: \label{tab: upbound}
715: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}rrrrr}
716: \begin{tabular}{c c l }
717: \hline
718: %\hline
719: && \\
720: Observables& Sources& Authors\\
721: &&\\
722: \hline
723: &&\\
724: { $\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_d$}&&\\
725: 11.4&$\la\overline{\psi}\psi\ra$+GMOR& {
726: DN98\cite{DOSCHSN} (leading order)}\\
727: %&&\\
728: %\hline
729: &&\\
730: { $\overline{m}_s$}&&\\
731: 148&$\la\overline{\psi}\psi\ra$+ChPT&
732: DN98\cite{DOSCHSN} (leading order)\\
733: $147\pm 21$ &$e^+e^-+\tau$-decay& { SN99\cite{SNMS}
734: (to order
735: $\als^3$) }\\
736:
737: && \\
738: \hline
739: \end{tabular}
740: \end{center}
741: \end{table}
742: \nin
743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
744: \subsection{Bounds on the sum of light quark masses from the quark
745: condensate and $e^+e^-\rar
746: I=0$ hadrons data.} Among the different results in \cite{DOSCHSN}, we
747: shall use the range of
748: the chiral
749: $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra\equiv\la\bar uu\ra\simeq \la\bar dd\ra$ condensate from the
750: vector form factor of
751: $D\rar K^* l\nu$.
752: Using three-point function sum rules, the form factor reads to leading order:
753: \begin{eqnarray}\label{srv}
754: V(0) &=& \frac{m_c(m_D+m_{K^*})}{4 f_D f_{K^*} m_D^2 m_{K^*}}
755: \exp[(m_D^2-m_c^2)\tau_1 + m^2_{K^*} \tau_2]\\
756: &\times&\la\bar\psi\psi\ra\Bigg{\{} - 1 + M_0^2(-\frac{\tau_1}{3} +
757: \frac{m_c^2}{4}
758: \tau_1^2 +\frac{2 m_c^2- m_c\,m_s}{6}\tau_1\tau_2)\nonumber \\
759: &&-\frac{16 \pi}{9} \alpha_s \rho \la\bar\psi\psi\ra (\frac{2 m_c}{9}
760: \tau_1 \tau_2
761: -
762: \frac{m_c^3}{36} \tau_1^3 \nonumber \\
763: &&- \frac{2 m_c^3-m_c^2 m_s}{36}\tau_1^2 \tau_2
764: +\frac{-m_c}{9}\tau_1^2 + \frac{2 m_s}{9}\tau_2^2
765: +\frac{2}{9}m_s\tau_1\tau_2+
766: \frac{4}{9}\frac{\tau_2}{m_c})\nonumber \\
767: && + \frac{e^{m_c^2 \tau_1}}{
768: \la\bar\psi\psi\ra}\int_0^{s_{20}}ds_2
769: \int_{s_2+m_c^2}^{s_{10}}ds_1\, \rho_v(s_1,s_2) e^{-s_1 \tau_1 - s_2
770: \tau_2}\Bigg{\}}
771: \nonumber \\
772: {\rm with}&& \rho_v(s_1,s_2) = \frac{3}{4 \pi^2 \, (s_1-s_2)^3} \times
773: \\ &&\qquad \Big{\{}m_s((s_1+s_2)(s_1-m_c^2) - 2 s_1 s_2) + m_c((s_1 +
774: s_2) s_2 - 2 s_2
775: (s_1-m_c^2))\Big{\}}~. \nonumber
776: \end{eqnarray}
777: The factor $\rho\simeq 2\sim 3$ expresses the uncertainty in the
778: factorization of
779: the four quark condensate. In our numerical analysis,
780: we start from standard values of the QCD parameters
781: and use $f_{K^*} = 0.15~ {\rm GeV} (f_\pi=93.3~\rm{MeV})$.
782: The value of $f_D\simeq (1.35\pm 0.07)f_\pi$ is consistently
783: determined by a two-point function sum rule including radiative
784: corrections as we shall see
785: in the next chapter, where the sum rule expression can, e.g., be
786: found in \cite{SNB}.
787: The following parameters enter only marginally:
788: $m_s(1~{\rm GeV}) = (0.15\sim 0.19)~{\rm GeV},~ s_{10} = (5\sim 7)~
789: {\rm GeV}^2,~ s_{20} = (1.5\sim 2)~{\rm GeV}^2$.~
790: Using the conservative range of the charm quark mass: $m_c({\rm
791: pole})$ between 1.29 and 1.55
792: GeV (the lower limit comes from the estimate in \cite{SNB} and the
793: upper limit is 1/2 of the
794: $J/\Psi$ mass), one can deduce the running condensate value at 1 GeV
795: \cite{DOSCHSN}:
796: \beq\label{eq: psidosch}
797: 0.6\leq \la\bar\psi\psi\ra/[-225~\rm{MeV}]^3\leq 1.5.
798: \eeq
799: This result has been confirmed by the lattice \cite{VALDIKAS}. Using
800: the GMOR relation:
801: \beq
802: 2m^2_\pi f^2_\pi=-(m_u+m_d)\la\bar uu+\bar dd\ra +{\cal O}(m^2_q) ~.
803: \eeq
804: one can translate the upper bound into a lower bound on the sum of light
805: quark masses. The lower bound on the chiral condensate can be used in
806: conjonction with the
807: positivity of the $m^2_q$ correction in order to give an upper bound
808: to the quark mass
809: value. In
810: this way, one obtains:
811: \beq
812: 6.8~{\rm MeV}\leq (\bm_u+\bm_d)(2~{\rm GeV})\leq 11.4~{\rm MeV}~.
813: \eeq
814: The resulting values are
815: quoted in Tables
816: \ref{tab: lowbound} and
817: \ref{tab: upbound}. We expect that these bounds are satisfied within
818: the typical 10\% accuracy of the
819: sum rule approach.\\
820: We also show in Table \ref{tab: upbound} the upper bound obtained in
821: \cite{SNMS} by using
822: the positivity of the spectral function from the analysis of the
823: $e^+e^-\rar$ $I=0$ hadrons data
824: where the determination will be discussed in the next section.
825: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
826: \section{Sum of light quark masses from pseudoscalar sum rules}
827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
828: \subsection{The (pseudo)scalar Laplace sum rules}
829: The Laplace sum rule for the (pseudo)
830: scalar two-point correlator reads (see e.g. \cite{43}--\cite{JAMIN2}:
831: \beq\label{eq: srpseudo}
832: \int_0^{t_c}dt \exp{(-t\tau)}\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im}\Psi_{(5)}(t)\simeq
833: (\mb_u\pm \mb_d)^2\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\tau^{-2}
834: \Bigg{[}\ga 1-\rho_1\dr\ga 1+\delta^{(0)}_{\pm}
835: \dr+\sum_{n=2}^6\delta^{(n)}_{\pm}\Bigg{]}~,
836: \eeq
837: where the indices 5 and + refer to the pseudoscalar current.
838: Here, $\tau$ is the Laplace sum rule variable, $t_c$ is the
839: QCD continuum threshold
840: and $\mb_i$ is the running mass to
841: three loops,
842: \beq
843: \rho_1\equiv (1+t_c\tau) \exp(-t_c\tau)~.
844: \eeq
845: Using the results compiled in previous
846: Chapter
847: %\ref{chap: two point function}
848: , the perturbative QCD corrections read for n flavours:
849: \bea
850: \delta^{(0)}_{\pm}&=&\asb\Bigg{[}
851: \frac{11}{3}-\gamma_1\gamma_E
852: \Bigg{]}\nnb\\
853: &+&\asb^2\Bigg{[} \frac{10801}{144}-\frac{39}{2}\zeta(3)
854: -\ga \frac{65}{24}-\frac{2}{3}\zeta(3)\dr n\nnb\\
855: &-&\frac{1}{2}\ga 1-\gamma_E^2\dr
856: \Big{[}\frac{17}{3}\ga 2\gamma_1-\beta_1\dr+2\gamma_2\Big{]}\nnb\\
857: &+&\ga 3\gamma_E^2-6\gamma_E-\frac{\pi^2}{2}
858: \dr\frac{\gamma_1}{12}\ga 2\gamma_1-\beta_1\dr\Bigg{]}\nnb\\
859: \delta^{(2)}_{\pm}&=&-2\tau\Bigg{[} \Big{[}1+
860: \asb C_F(4+3\gamma_E)\Big{]}\ga
861: \mb^2_i+\mb^2_j\dr\nnb\\
862: &\mp& \Big{[}1+\asb C_F\ga 7+
863: 3\gamma_E\dr\Big{]}\mb_i\mb_j\Bigg{]}~,
864: \eea
865: where $C_F$=4/3
866: and $\gamma_E=0.5772...$ is the Euler constant; $\gamma_1,~\gamma_2$
867: and $\beta_1,~
868: \beta_2$ are respectively the mass anomalous dimensions
869: and $\beta$-function coefficients defined in a previous chapter. For
870: three colours and three flavours, they read:
871: \beq
872: \gamma_1=2~,~~~~~~~ \gamma_2=91/12~,~~~~~~~\beta_1=-9/2~,~~~~~~~\beta_2=-8~.
873: \eeq
874: In practice, the perturbative correction to the sum rule simplifies as:
875: \bea
876: \delta^{(0)}_{\pm}&=&4.82a_s+21.98a_s^2+53.14a_s^3+{\cal
877: O}(a_s^4)~~~:~~~ a_s\equiv \asb~.
878: \eea
879: Introducing
880: the RGI condensates defined in the previous chapter
881: , the non perturbative contributions are \cite{BNP}:
882: \bea
883: \delta^{(4)}_{\pm}&=&\frac{4\pi^2}{3}
884: \tau^2\Bigg{[}\frac{1}{4}\overline{\la
885: \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}G^2\ra}-\frac{\gamma_1}{\beta_1}\asb\sum_i
886: \overline{\la m_i\bar\psi_i\psi_i\ra}-
887: \frac{3}{8\pi^2}\frac{1}{({4\gamma_1+\beta_1})}
888: \sum_i\mb^4_i\nnb\\
889: &+&\Big{[}1+\asb C_F\ga\frac{11}{4}+\frac{3}{2}\gamma_E\dr\Big{]}\ga
890: \overline{\la m_j\bar\psi_j\psi_j\ra}+
891: \overline{\la m_i\bar\psi_i\psi_i\ra}\dr\nnb\\
892: &\mp&\Big{[}2+
893: \asb C_F\ga 7+3\gamma_E\dr\Big{]}\ga
894: \overline{\la m_i\bar\psi_j\psi_j\ra}+
895: \overline{\la m_j\bar\psi_i\psi_i\ra}\dr\nnb\\
896: &-&\frac{3}{2\pi^2}
897: \Bigg{[}\frac{1}{({4\gamma_1+\beta_1})}\Big{[}
898: \frac{\pi}{\alsb}+C_F\ga \frac{11}{4}+
899: \frac{3}{2}\gamma_E\dr+
900: \frac{1}{6}\ga 4\gamma_1+\beta_1\dr\nnb\\
901: &-&\frac{1}{4\gamma_1}
902: \ga 4\gamma_2+\beta_2\dr~
903: \Big{]}-\frac{1}{4}\ga 1-2\gamma_E\dr
904: \Bigg{]}\ga\mb_i^4+\mb_j^4\dr-\frac{3}{2\pi^2}\mb^2_j\mb^2_i\nnb\\
905: &\pm&\Bigg{[}\frac{1}{({4\gamma_1+\beta_1})}\Big{[}
906: \frac{2\pi}{\alsb}+\frac{1}{3}\ga 4\gamma_1+\beta_1\dr-\frac{1}{2\gamma_1}
907: \ga 4\gamma_2+\beta_2\dr
908: +C_F\ga 7+3\gamma_E\dr
909: \Big{]}\nnb\\
910: &+&\gamma_E\Bigg{]}\ga \mb^3_j\mb_i+\mb^3_i\mb_j
911: \dr\Bigg{]}~,\nnb\\
912: \delta^{(6)}_{\pm}&=&\mp\frac{8\pi^2}{3}\tau^3\Bigg{[}
913: \frac{1}{2}\Big{[} m_j\la\bar\psi_i
914: \sigma^{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}G^a_{\mu\nu}\psi_i\ra+
915: m_i\la\bar\psi_j
916: \sigma^{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}G^a_{\mu\nu}\psi_j\ra\Big{]}\nnb\\
917: &-&\frac{16}{27}\pi\alsb\Big{[}\la \bar\psi_j\psi_j\ra^2+
918: \la \bar\psi_i\psi_i\ra^2\mp 9\la \bar\psi_j\psi_j\ra
919: \la \bar\psi_i\psi_i\ra\Big{]}\Bigg{]}
920: \eea
921: Beyond the SVZ expansion, one can have two contributions:
922: \begin{itemize}
923: \item The direct instanton contribution can be obtained from
924: \cite{SHURYAK} and reads:
925: \beq
926: \delta^{inst}_+=\frac{\rho_c^2}{\tau^3}\exp\ga{-r_c}\dr\Big{[}
927: K_0(r_c)+K_1(r_c)\Big{]}
928: \eeq
929: with:
930: $
931: r_c\equiv{\rho_c^2/ (2\tau)}$;~ $\rho_c\approx 1/600$ MeV$^{-1}$
932: being the instanton radius;
933: $K_i$ is the Mac Donald function. However, one should notice that
934: analogous contribution
935: in the scalar channel leads to some contradictions (\cite{SHURYAK}
936: and private communication from Valya
937: Zakharov).
938: \item The tachyon gluon mass contribution can be deduced from \cite{CNZ}:
939: \beq
940: \delta^{tach}_\pm=-4\asb \lambda^2~,
941: \eeq
942: where $(\als/\pi)\lambda^2\simeq -0.06$ GeV$^2$ \cite{CNZ},
943: \end{itemize} which completes the different QCD contributions to the
944: two-point correlator.
945: %\end{document}
946: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
947: \subsection{The $\bar ud$ channel}
948: From the experimental side, we
949: do not still have a complete measurement of the pseudoscalar
950: spectral function. In the past
951: \cite{SNB}, one has introduced the radial excitation $\pi'$ of the
952: pion using a NWA where the decay
953: constant has been fixed from chiral symmetry argument \cite{14} and
954: from the pseudoscalar sum rule
955: analysis itself \cite{SNP2},\cite{PAVERTR},\cite{SNB}, through the quantity:
956: \beq
957: r_\pi\equiv{M^4_{\pi'}f^2_{\pi'}\over m^4_{\pi}f^2_{\pi}}~.
958: \eeq
959: Below the QCD continuum $t_c$, the spectral function is
960: usually saturated by the pion pole and
961: its first radial excitation and reads:
962: \beq
963: \int_0^{t_c}
964: dt\exp{(-t\tau)}\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im}\Psi_5(t)\simeq
965: 2m^4_\pi f^2_\pi\exp{(-m_\pi^2 \tau)}
966: \Bigg{[} 1+r_\pi\exp{\Big{[}\ga m^2_\pi-M^2_{\pi'}
967: \dr\tau\Big{]}}\Bigg{]}.
968: \eeq
969: The theoretical estimate of the spectral function enters through
970: the not yet measured ratio $r_\pi$. Detailed discussions of the
971: sum rule analysis can be found in \cite{SNB,SNP,SNP2}. However, this
972: channel is quite peculiar due to the
973: Goldstone nature of the pion, where the value of the sum rule scale
974: ($1/\tau$ for Laplace and
975: $t_c$ for FESR) is relatively large of about 2 GeV$^2$ compared with
976: the pion mass, where the
977: duality between QCD and the pion is lost. Hopefully, this paradox can be
978: cured by the presence of the new $1/q^2$
979: \cite{ZAKA,CNZ,SNZAK} due to the tachyonic gluon mass, which enlarges
980: the duality region to lower scale
981: and then minimizes the role of the higher states into the sum rule.
982: This na\"\i ve NWA parametrization has
983: been improved in \cite{LOEWE} by the introduction of threshold effect
984: and finite width corrections.
985: Within the advent of ChPT, one has been able to improve the previous
986: parametrization by imposing
987: constraints consistent with the chiral symmetry of QCD \cite{BIJP}.
988: In this way, the spectral function
989: reads:
990: \beq
991: \frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im}\Psi_5(t)\simeq
992: 2m^4_\pi f^2_\pi\Big{[}\delta(t-m^2_\pi)+\theta(t-9m^2_\pi)\frac{1}{(16\pi^2
993: f^2_\pi)^2}\frac{t}{18}\rho^{3\pi}(t)\Big{]}
994: \eeq
995: with:
996: \bea
997: \rho^{3\pi}(t)&=&\int_{4m^2_\pi}^{(\sqrt{t}-m_\pi)^2}\frac{du}{t}\sqrt{\lambda\ga
998: 1,{u\over
999: t},{m^2_\pi\over t}\dr}
1000: \sqrt{1-{4m^2_\pi\over u}}\Bigg{\{}5+\frac{1}{2(t-m^2_\pi)^2}\Big{[}{4\over
1001: 3}\big{[}t-3(u-m_\pi^2)\big{]}^2\nnb\\
1002: &&+{8\over 3}\lambda(t,u,m^2_\pi)\ga 1-{4m^2_\pi\over u}\dr+10m^4_\pi\Big{]}+
1003: \frac{1}{(t-m^2_\pi)}\big{[}3((u-m_\pi^2)-t+10m^2_\pi\big{]}\Bigg{\}}~,
1004: \eea
1005: where $\lambda(a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^2-2ab-2bc-2ca$ is the usual phase space factor.
1006: Based on this parametrization but including finite width corrections,
1007: a recent re-analysis of this sum rule
1008: has been given to order $\als^2$ \cite{BIJP}.
1009: Result from the LSR
1010: is, in general, expected to be more reliable than the one from the
1011: FESR due to the presence of
1012: the exponential factor which suppresses the high-energy tail of the
1013: spectral function, though the two
1014: analysis are complementary. In \cite{BIJP}, FESR has been used for
1015: matching by duality the phenomenological
1016: and theoretical parts of the sum rule. This matching has been
1017: achieved in the energy region around 2 GeV$^2$, where the
1018: optimal value of $m_u+m_d$ has been extracted.
1019: In \cite{SNL}, the LSR analysis has been updated by including the
1020: $\alpha_s^3$ correction
1021: obtained in \cite{CHETDPS}. In this way, we get:
1022: \beq
1023: (\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})= (9.3\pm 1.8)~\mbox{MeV}~,
1024: \eeq
1025: where we have converted the original result obtained at the {\it
1026: traditional} 1 GeV to the lattice
1027: choice of scale of 2 GeV through:
1028: \beq
1029: \overline{m}_i(1~{\rm GeV})\simeq (1.38\pm 0.06)~\overline{m}_i(2~{\rm GeV}),
1030: \eeq
1031: for running, to order $\alpha_s^3$, the
1032: results from 1 to 2 GeV. This number corresponds to the average value
1033: of the QCD scale
1034: $\Lambda_3\simeq (375\pm 50)$ MeV from PDG \cite{PDG} and
1035: \cite{BETHKE}. Analogous value of $(9.8\pm 1.9)$
1036: MeV for the quark mass
1037: has also been obtained in \cite{PRADES98} to order $\alpha_s^3$ as an
1038: update of the \cite{BIJP}
1039: result. We take as a final result the average from \cite{SNL} and
1040: \cite{PRADES98}:
1041: \beq
1042: (\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})= (9.6\pm 1.8)~\mbox{MeV}~,
1043: \eeq
1044: The inclusion
1045: of the tachyonic gluon mass term reduces this value to \cite{CNZ}:
1046: \beq
1047: \Delta^{tach}(\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})\simeq -0.5~\mbox{MeV}~.
1048: \eeq
1049: As already mentioned, adding to this effect the one of direct
1050: instanton might lead to a double counting
1051: in a sense that they can be alternative ways for parametrizing the
1052: nonperturbative QCD vacuum.
1053: Considering this contribution as
1054: another source of errors, it gives:
1055: \beq
1056: \Delta^{inst}(\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})\simeq -0.5~\mbox{MeV}~.
1057: \eeq
1058: Therefore, adding different sources of errors, we deduce from the analysis:
1059: \beq
1060: (\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})= (9.6\pm 1.8\pm 0.4 \pm 0.5\pm 0.5)~\mbox{MeV}~,
1061: \eeq
1062: leading to the conservative result for the sum of light quark masses:
1063: \beq\label{eq: sumud}
1064: (\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})= (9.6\pm 2.0)~\mbox{MeV}
1065: \eeq
1066: The first error comes from the SR analysis, the second one comes from
1067: the running mass evolution
1068: and the two last errors come respectively from the (eventual)
1069: tachyonic gluon and direct instanton
1070: contributions. This result is in agreement with previous
1071: determinations \cite{SNB},
1072: \cite{SNP}--\cite{LOEWE}, \cite{PSEU,BRAMON} though
1073: we expect that the errors given there have been underestimated. One
1074: can understand that the
1075: new result is lower than the old result \cite{SNB,SNP} obtained without the
1076: $\alpha_s^2$ and
1077: $\alpha_s^3$ terms as both corrections enter with a positive sign in
1078: the LSR analysis.
1079: However, it is easy to check that the QCD perturbative series
1080: converge quite well in the region
1081: where the optimal result from LSR is obained. Combining the previous
1082: value in Eq. (\ref{eq:
1083: sumud}) with the ChPT mass ratio, one can also deduce:
1084: \beq\label{eq: muchpt}
1085: \mb_s(2~\mbox{GeV})= (117.1\pm 25.4)~\mbox{MeV}~.
1086: \eeq
1087: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1088: \subsection{The $\bar us$ channel and QSSR prediction for the ratio
1089: $m_s/(m_u+m_d)$}
1090: Doing analogous analysis for the kaon channel, one can also derive
1091: the value of the sum $(m_u+m_s)$.
1092: The results obtained from \cite{SNP} updated to order $\alpha_s^3$
1093: and from \cite{DPS99} are shown in Table
1094: \ref{tab: ms} given in \cite{SNL} but updated. We add to the original
1095: errors the one from the tachyonic
1096: gluon (5.5\%), from the direct instanton (5.5\%) and the one due to
1097: the evolution from 1 to 2 GeV (4.4\%),
1098: which altogether increases the original errors by 8.9\%. Therefore,
1099: we deduce the (arithmetic) average from
1100: the kaon channel:
1101: \beq\label{eq: sumus}
1102: \mb_s(2~\mbox{GeV})= (116.0\pm 18.1)~\mbox{MeV}~,
1103: \eeq
1104: One should notice here that, unlike the case of the pion,
1105: the result is less sensitive to the contribution of the higher states
1106: continuum due to the relatively
1107: higher value of $M_K$, though the parametrization of the spectral
1108: function still gives larger errors
1109: than the QCD series.It is
1110: interesting to deduce from Eqs. (\ref{eq: sumud}) and (\ref{eq:
1111: sumus}), the sum rule prediction for the
1112: scale invariant quark mass ratios:
1113: \beq\label{eq: ms/mud}
1114: r_3\equiv\frac{2m_s}{m_u+m_d}\simeq 24.2~,
1115: \eeq
1116: where we expect that the ratio is more precise than the absolute
1117: values due to the cancellation of
1118: the systematics of the SR method. This ratio compares quite well with
1119: the ChPT ratio \cite{14}:
1120: \beq
1121: r_3^{CA}= 24.4\pm 1.5~,
1122: \eeq
1123: and confirms the self-consistency of the pseudoscalar SR approach.
1124: This is a non-trivial test of the SR
1125: method used in this channel and may confirm a posteriori the neglect
1126: of less controlled contributions
1127: like e.g. direct instantons.
1128: \begin{table}[H]
1129: \begin{center}
1130: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
1131: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
1132: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.2pc}
1133: % -----------------------------------------------------
1134: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241
1135: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
1136: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
1137: % -----------------------------------------------------
1138: \caption{QSSR determinations of $\overline{m}_s$(2) in MeV to order
1139: $\alpha_s^3$.
1140: Some older results have been updated by the inclusion of the higher
1141: order terms. The error
1142: contains the evolution from 1 to 2 GeV. In addition, the errors in
1143: the (pseudo)scalar channels contain
1144: the ones due to the small size instanton and tachyonic gluon mass.
1145: Their quadratic sum increases the original errors by 8.9\%.
1146: The estimated error in the average comes from an arithmetic average
1147: of the different errors.}
1148: \label{tab: ms}
1149: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lcl}
1150: \begin{tabular}{l l c l}
1151: %\hline
1152: \hline
1153: &&& \\
1154: Channels&$\overline{m}_s$ (2)&Comments& Authors\\
1155: &&&\\
1156: %\hline
1157: \hline
1158: &&&\\
1159: Pion SR + ChPT &$117.1\pm 25.4$&${\cal O}(\als^3)$ &
1160: SN99 \cite{SNL}
1161: Eq. (\ref{eq: muchpt})\\ &&&\\
1162: $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$+ ChPT &$129.3\pm 23.2$&$N,~B-B^*$ (l.o)& DN98
1163: \cite{DOSCHSN} Eq. (\ref{eq: msmix})\\
1164: &$117.1\pm 49.0$&$D\rar K^* l\nu$ (l.o)& DN98 \cite{DOSCHSN} Eq.
1165: (\ref{eq: qqmass2})\\
1166: &&&\\
1167: Kaon SR
1168: &$119.6\pm 18.4$& updated to ${\cal O}(\als^3)$&
1169: { SN89 \cite{SNP,SNB}}\\
1170: &$112.3\pm 23.2$& ${\cal O}(\als^3)$& {
1171: DPS99
1172: \cite{DPS99}}\\
1173:
1174: &$116\pm 12.8$&" &
1175: { KM01 \cite{KAMBOR}}\\
1176: % &$\bf 155\pm 25$& &\bf Largest Range\\
1177: &&&\\
1178: %\hline
1179: %&&&\\
1180: Scalar SR
1181: &$148.9\pm 19.2$&${\cal O}(\als^3)$ & {
1182: CPS97
1183: \cite{CPS97}}\\
1184: &$103.6\pm 15.4$&" & {
1185: CFNP97 \cite{COLAPAV}}\\
1186: &$115.9\pm 24.0$&" & {
1187: J98 \cite{J98}}\\
1188: &$115.2\pm 13.0$&" & {
1189: M99 \cite{M99}}\\
1190:
1191: &$99\pm 18.3$&" &
1192: { JOP01 \cite{OLLER}}\\
1193: % &$\bf 175\pm 48$& &\bf Largest Range\\
1194: &&&\\
1195: %\hline
1196: %&&&\\
1197: $ \tau$-like $\phi$ SR:~ $e^+$-$e^-$ $+\tau$-decay
1198: &$129.2\pm 25.6$&average: ${\cal O}(\als^3)$ &
1199: { SN99
1200: \cite{SNMS}}\\
1201: % &$127.5\pm 25.2$&$\Delta_{10}$ &
1202: %{ }\\
1203: % &$134.8\pm 25.2$&$\Delta_{1\phi}$ &
1204: %{ }\\
1205: % &$\bf 179\pm 39$& &\bf Largest Range\\
1206: % &$\leq 200\pm 28$& $R_\phi$+&positivity\\
1207:
1208: &&&\\
1209: %\hline
1210: %&&&\\
1211: $\Delta S=-1$ part of $\tau$-decay
1212: &$169.5^{+46.7}_{-57}$&${\cal O}(\als^2)$ &
1213: ALEPH99$^{*}$\cite{DAVIERS}\\
1214: &$144.9\pm 38.4$&"& CKP98
1215: \cite{CKP98}\\
1216: &$114\pm 23$& "& PP99 \cite{PP99}\\
1217:
1218: &$125.7\pm 25.4$&"&
1219: KKP00 \cite{KKP00}\\
1220: &$115\pm 21$&" & KM01 \cite{KM01}\\
1221:
1222: &$116^{+20}_{- 25}$&" &
1223: CDGHKK01\cite{CDGH01}\\
1224: &&&\\
1225: \hline
1226: &&&\\
1227: \multicolumn{1}{l}
1228: {\bf Average}& $117.4\pm 23.4~$&
1229: \\ &&&\\
1230: \hline
1231: \end{tabular}
1232: \end{center}
1233: {*} Not included in the average.
1234: \end{table}
1235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1236: \section{Direct extraction of the chiral condensate $\la\bar uu\ra$}
1237: As mentioned in previous section, the chiral $\bar uu$ condensate can be
1238: extracted directly from the nucleon, $B^*$-$B$ splitting and vector
1239: form factor of $D\rar K^*
1240: l\nu$, which are particularly sensitive to it and to the mixed condensate
1241: $\la\bar\psi\sigma^{\mu\nu}(\lambda_a/2)G^a_{\mu\nu}\psi\ra\equiv
1242: M^2_0\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$
1243: \cite{DOSCHSN}. We have already used the result from the $D\rar K^*
1244: l\nu$ form factor in order to derive upper and lower bounds on
1245: $(m_u+m_d)$. Here, we shall use the
1246: informations from the nucleon and from the $B^*$-$B$ splitting in
1247: order to give a more accurate
1248: estimate.
1249: In the nucleon sum rules \cite{DOSCH}--\cite{IOFFEBAR},
1250: \cite{SNB}, which seem, at first sight, a very good
1251: place for determining $ \la\bar\psi\psi\ra$, we have two
1252: form factors for which spectral sum rules can be constructed, namely
1253: the form factor $F_1$ which is proportional to the Dirac matrix
1254: $\gamma\,p$ and $F_2$ which is proportional to the unit matrix. In
1255: $F_1$ the four quark condensates play an important role, but these are
1256: not chiral symmetry breaking and are related to the condensate $
1257: \la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ only
1258: by the factorization
1259: hypothesis \cite{SVZ} which is known to be violated by a factor 2-3
1260: \cite{DOSCH,LNT,SNB}.
1261: The form factor $F_2$ is dominated by the condensate $
1262: \la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ and the mixed
1263: condensate $\la\bar{\psi} \sigma G \psi\ra$, such that the baryon mass is
1264: essentially determined by the ratio $M_0^2$ of the two condensates:
1265: \begin{equation}\label{mixed}
1266: M_0^2 = { \la\bar{\psi} \sigma G \psi\ra}/{ \la\bar\psi\psi\ra}
1267: \end{equation}
1268: Therefore from nucleon sum rules one gets a rather reliable
1269: determination of $M_0^2$ \cite{IOFFEBAR,DOJAMIN}:
1270: \begin{equation} \label{m0}
1271: M_0^2 = (.8\pm .1)~\rm{GeV}^2.
1272: \end{equation}
1273: A sum rule based on the ratio $F_2/F_1$ would in principle be
1274: ideally suited for a determination of $ \la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ but
1275: this sum rule is
1276: completely unstable \cite{DOJAMIN} due to fact that odd parity
1277: baryonic
1278: excitations contribute with different signs to the spectral
1279: functions
1280: of $F_1$ and $F_2$.
1281: In the correlators of heavy mesons ($B,B^*$ and $D,D^*$) the chiral
1282: condensate gives a significant direct contribution in contrast to
1283: the light meson sum rules \cite{SNB}, since, here, it is multiplied by the
1284: heavy quark mass. However, the dominant contribution to the meson mass
1285: comes from the heavy quark mass and therefore a change of a factor
1286: two
1287: in the value of $ \la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ leads only to a negligible
1288: shift of the mass. However, from the $B$-$B^*$ splitting one gets
1289: a precise determination of the mixed condensate
1290: $\la\bar{\psi} \sigma G \psi\ra $
1291: with the value \cite{SNMIXED}
1292: \begin{equation}\label{mixed2}
1293: \la\bar{\psi} \sigma G \psi\ra = -(9\pm 1)\times 10^{-3}~\rm{GeV^5}~,
1294: \end{equation}
1295: which combined with the value of $M_0^2$ given in Eq. (\ref{m0}) gives
1296: our first result for the value of $ \la\bar\psi\psi\ra$
1297: at the nucleon scale:
1298: \begin{equation}\label{result1}
1299: \la\bar\psi\psi\ra(M_N)= -[(225 \pm 9\pm 9)~\rm{MeV}]^3~,
1300: \end{equation}
1301: where the last error is our estimate of the systematics and higher
1302: order contributions.
1303: Using the GMOR relation,
1304: one can translate the previous result into a prediction on the sum of
1305: light quark masses. The
1306: resulting value is:
1307: \cite{DOSCHSN}:
1308: \beq\label{eq: qqmass}
1309: (\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})= (10.6\pm 1.8\pm 0.5)~\mbox{MeV}~,
1310: \eeq
1311: where we have added the second error due to the quark mass evolution.
1312: Combining this value
1313: with the ChPT mass ratio, one obtains:
1314: \beq\label{eq: msmix}
1315: \mb_s(2~\mbox{GeV})\simeq 129.3\pm 23.2~\mbox{MeV}~.
1316: \eeq
1317: Alternatively, one can use the central value of the range given in
1318: Eq. (\ref{eq: psidosch}) in order
1319: to deduce the estimate:
1320: \beq\label{eq: qqmass2}
1321: (\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})= (9.6\pm 4\pm 0.4)~\mbox{MeV}~~~~\Lrar~~~~
1322: \mb_s(2~\mbox{GeV})\simeq (117.1\pm 49.0)~\mbox{MeV}~.
1323: \eeq
1324: The results for $m_s$ are shown in Table \ref{tab: ms}.
1325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1326: \section{Final estimate of $(m_u+m_d)$ from QSSR and consequences on
1327: $m_u,~m_d$ and $m_s$}
1328: One can also notice the
1329: impressive agreement of the previous results from pseudoscalar and
1330: from the other channels.
1331: As the two results in Eqs. (\ref{eq: sumud}), (\ref{eq: qqmass}) and
1332: (\ref{eq: qqmass2}) come from
1333: completely independent analysis, we can take their geometric average and
1334: deduce {\it the final value from QSSR}:
1335: \beq\label{eq: finsumd}
1336: (\mb_u+\mb_d)(2~\mbox{GeV})= (10.1\pm 1.3\pm 1.3)~\mbox{MeV}~,
1337: \eeq
1338: where the last error is our estimate of the systematics.
1339: One can combine this result with the one for the light quark mass
1340: ratios from ChPT
1341: \cite{14}:
1342: \label{eq: chpt}
1343: \bea
1344: r_2^{CA}\equiv\frac{m_u}{m_d}= 0.553\pm 0.043~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1345: r_3^{CA}\equiv\frac{2m_s}{(m_d+m_u)}= 24.4\pm 1.5~.
1346: \eea
1347: Therefore, one can deduce the running masses at 2 GeV:
1348: \beq\label{eq: mumdrun}
1349: \mb_u(2)= (3.6\pm 0.6)~\mbox{MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~
1350: \mb_d(2)= (6.5\pm 1.2)~\mbox{MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~
1351: \mb_s(2)= (123.2\pm 23.2)~\mbox{MeV}~.
1352: \eeq
1353: Alternatively, we can use the relation between the invariant mass
1354: $\hat m_q$ and running mass $\mb_q(2)$
1355: to order
1356: $\alpha_s^3$ in order to get:
1357: \beq\label{eq: inv}
1358: \hat m_q=(1.14\pm 0.05)~\mb_q(2)~,
1359: \eeq
1360: for $\Lambda_3=(375\pm 50)$ MeV.
1361: Therefore, one can deduce the invariant masses:
1362: \beq\label{eq: mumdinv}
1363: \hat m_u= (4.1\pm 0.7)~\mbox{MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~
1364: \hat m_d= (7.4\pm 1.4)~\mbox{MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~
1365: \hat m_s= (140.4\pm 26.4)~\mbox{MeV}~.
1366: \eeq
1367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1368: \section{Light quark mass from the scalar sum rules}
1369: As can be seen from Eq. (\ref{eq: srpseudo}), one can also (in principle) use
1370: the isovector--scalar sum rule for extracting
1371: the quark mass-differences $(m_d-m_u)$ and $(m_s-m_u)$, and the
1372: isoscalar--scalar sum rules
1373: for extracting the sum $(m_d+m_u)$.
1374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1375: \subsection{The scalar $\bar ud$ channel}
1376: In the isovector channel, the analysis relies heavily on the less controlled
1377: nature of the
1378: $a_0(980)$ \cite{SNB,SNP,SNP2,SCAL} which has been speculated to be a
1379: four-quark state
1380: \cite{218}. However, it appears that its $\bar qq$ nature is favoured by
1381: the present data \cite{MONT}, and further tests are needed for confirming its
1382: real $\bar qq$ assignement.\\
1383: In the $I=0$ channel, the
1384: situation of the
1385: $\pi$-$\pi$ continuum is much more involved due to the
1386: possible gluonium nature of the low mass and wide $\sigma$ meson
1387: \cite{VENEZIA,HAD99,MONT}, which couples strongly to $\pi\pi$ and then
1388: can be missed in the quenched lattice calculation of scalar gluonia states.\\
1389: Assuming that these previous states are quarkonia states, bounds on
1390: the quark mass-difference
1391: and sum of quark masses have been derived in
1392: \cite{SCAL,LEL,YNDBOUND}, while an estimate
1393: of the sum of the quark masses has been recently derived in
1394: \cite{CP01}. However, in view
1395: of the hadronic uncertainties, we expect that the results from the
1396: pseudoscalar channels
1397: are much more reliable than the ones obtained from the scalar channel. Instead,
1398: we think that it is more useful to use these sum rules the other way
1399: around. Using the values of the quark masses from the pseudoscalar sum rules
1400: and their ratio from ChPT, one can extract their decay constants which are
1401: useful for testing
1402: the $\bar qq$ nature of the scalar resonances \cite{SNB,HAD99} (we shall come
1403: back to this point in the next
1404: section). The agreement of the values of the quark masses
1405: from the isovector scalar channel with the ones from the
1406: pseudoscalar channel can be interpreted as a strong indication for
1407: the $\bar qq$ nature of the
1408: $a_0(980)$. In the isoscalar channel, the value of the sum of light
1409: quark masses
1410: obtained recently in \cite{CP01}, though slightly lower, agrees
1411: within the errors with the one from the
1412: pseudoscalar channel. This result supports the maximal
1413: quarkonium-gluonium scheme for the broad low
1414: mass $\sigma$ and narrow $f_0(980)$ meson: the narrowness of the
1415: $f_0$ is due to a destructive
1416: interference, while the broad nature of the $\sigma$ is due to a
1417: contructive interference allowings its
1418: strong coupling with
1419: $\pi\pi$. These features are very important for the scalar meson
1420: phenomenology, and need to be tested
1421: further.
1422: \subsection{The scalar $\bar us$ channel}
1423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1424: Here, the analysis is mostly affected by the parametrization
1425: of the $K\pi$ phase shift data, which strongly affects the resulting
1426: value of the strange quark mass
1427: as can be seen from the different determinations given in the Table
1428: \ref{tab: ms}.
1429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1430: \section{Light quark mass-difference from \boldmath$(M_{K^+}-M_{K^0})_{QCD}$}
1431: The mass difference $(m_d-m_u)$ can be related to the QCD part of the kaon mass
1432: difference $(M_{K^+}-M_{K^0})_{QCD}$
1433: from the current algebra relation \cite{14}:
1434: \beq
1435: r_2^{CA}\equiv\frac{(m_d-m_u)}{(m_d+m_u)}=
1436: \frac{m_\pi^2}{M_K^2}\frac{(M^2_{K^0}-M^2_{K^+})_{QCD}}{M_K^2-m^2_\pi}
1437: \frac{m^2_s-\hat{m}^2}{(m_u+m_d)^2}=(0.52\pm 0.05)10^{-3}(r_3^2-1),
1438: \eeq
1439: where $2\hat{m}=m_u+m_d$; the QCD part of the $K^+-K^0$ mass-difference
1440: comes from the estimate
1441: of the electromagnetic term using the
1442: Dashen theorem including next-to-leading chiral corrections \cite{BIJP}.
1443: Using the sum rule prediction of $r_3$ from the ratio of $(m_u+m_d)$
1444: in Eq. (\ref{eq: finsumd})
1445: with the average value of $m_s$ in Table \ref{tab: ms} or the ChPT
1446: ratio given in
1447: the previous section, one
1448: can deduce to order $\als^3$:
1449: \beq\label{eq: massdif}
1450: (\overline{m}_d-\overline{m}_u)\ga{2~\mbox{GeV}}\dr=
1451: (2.8\pm 0.6)~\mbox{MeV}.
1452: \eeq
1453: Analogous result has been obtained from the heavy-light meson
1454: mass-differences
1455: \cite{ELETSKY}. We shall come back to the values of these masses at
1456: the end of this chapter.
1457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1458: \section{The strange quark mass from \boldmath$e^+e^-$ and
1459: \boldmath$\tau$ decays}
1460: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1461: \subsection{$e^+e^-\rar I=0$ hadrons data and the $\phi$-meson channel}
1462: Its extraction from the vector channel has been done in
1463: \cite{REIND,SNB} and more recently in \cite{SNMS}, while its estimate
1464: from an improved
1465: Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula, including the quadratic mass corrections,
1466: has been done in \cite{GMONARISON,BROAD,SNB}. More recently, the vector
1467: channel has been reanalysed in \cite{SNMS}
1468: using a $\tau$-like inclusive
1469: decay sum rule in a modern version of the Das-Mathur-Okubo (DMO) sum
1470: rule \cite{17}
1471: discussed in previous chapter.
1472: The analysis in this vector channel is
1473: interesting as we have complete data from $e^+e^-$ in this channel,
1474: which is not
1475: the case of (pseudo) scalar channels where some theoretical inputs
1476: related to the realization of chiral symmetry have to be
1477: used in the parametrization of spectral function.
1478: One can combine the $e^+e^-\rar I=0,~1$ hadrons and the rotated
1479: recent $\Delta S=0$
1480: component of the $\tau$-decay data in
1481: order to extract $m_s$. Unlike previous sum rules, one has the
1482: advantage to have a
1483: complete measurement of the spectral function in the region covered
1484: by the analysis.
1485: We shall work with:
1486: \bea
1487: R_{\tau,\phi}\equiv\frac{3|V_{ud}|^2}{2\pi\alpha^2}S_{EW}\int_0^{M^2_\tau}
1488: ds\ga 1-\frac{s}{M^2_\tau}\dr^2\nnb\ga
1489: 1+\frac{2s}{M^2_\tau}\dr\frac{s}{M^2_\tau}
1490: \sigma_{e^+e^-\rar \phi,\phi',...}~,
1491: \eea
1492: and the $SU(3)$-breaking combinations \cite{SNMS}:
1493: \beq
1494: \Delta_{1\phi}\equiv R_{\tau,1}-R_{\tau,\phi},
1495: ~~~~\Delta_{10}\equiv R_{\tau,1}-3R_{\tau,0}~,
1496: \eeq
1497: which vanish in the $SU(3)$ symmetry limit;
1498: $\Delta_{10}$ involves the difference of the isoscalar ($R_{\tau,0}$)
1499: and isovector ($R_{\tau,1}$)
1500: sum rules \`a la DMO. The PT series converges quite well at
1501: the optimization scale of about 1.6 GeV \cite{SNMS}. E.g, normalized
1502: to $\overline{m}^2_s$, one has:
1503: \bea
1504: \Delta_{1\phi}&\simeq& -12\frac{\mb_s^2}{M^2_\tau}\Big{\{}
1505: 1+\frac{13}{3}a_s+30.4a_s^2 +(173.4\pm
1506: 109.2)a_s^3\Big{\}}\nnb\\
1507: &&+36{\mb_s^4\over M^2_\tau}-36\als^2\frac{\la m_s\bar ss-m_d\bar
1508: dd\ra}{M^4_\tau}~.
1509: \eea
1510: The different combinations $\Delta_{1\phi}$ and $\Delta_{10}$ have
1511: the advantage to be free (to leading
1512: order) from flavour blind combinations like the tachyonic gluon mass
1513: and instanton contributions. We
1514: have checked using the result in \cite{CNZ} that, to non-leading in
1515: $m_s^2$, the tachyonic gluon contribution
1516: is also negligible. It has been argued in \cite{MALTMAN} that
1517: $\Delta_{10}$ can be affected by large $SU(2)$ breakings. This claim
1518: has been tested using some other
1519: sum rules not affected by these terms \cite{SNMS} but has not been
1520: confirmed. The average from different
1521: combinations is given in Table \ref{tab: ms}. An
1522: upper bound deduced from the positivity of $R_{\tau,\phi}$ is also
1523: given in Table \ref{tab: upbound}.
1524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1525: \subsection{Tau decays}
1526: Like in the case of $e^+e^-$, one can use tau decays for extracting
1527: the value of $m_s$. However, data
1528: from $\tau$ decays are more accurate than the one from $e^+e^-$. A
1529: suitable combination of sum rule sensitive to leading order to the
1530: $SU(3)$ breaking parameter is needed. It
1531: is easy to construct a such combination which is very similar to the
1532: one for $e^+e^-$. One can work with
1533: the DMO-like sum rule involving the difference between
1534: the $\Delta S=0$ and $\Delta S=-1$ processes \cite{DAVIERS}--\cite{CDGH01}:
1535: \beq
1536: \delta R_\tau^{kl}\equiv {R_{\tau,V+A}^{kl}\over
1537: |V_{ud}|^2}-{R_{\tau,S}^{kl}\over
1538: |V_{us}|^2}=3S_{EW}\sum_{D\geq
1539: 2}\Big{\{}\delta_{ud}^{kl(D)}-\delta_{us}^{kl(D)}\Big{\}}~,
1540: \eeq
1541: where the moments are defined as:
1542: \beq
1543: R_{\tau}^{kl}\equiv\int_0^{M^2_\tau}
1544: ds\ga 1-\frac{s}{M^2_\tau}\dr^k\ga \frac{s}{M^2_\tau}\dr^l{dR_\tau\over ds}~,
1545: \eeq
1546: with $R_{\tau}^{00}\equiv R_{\tau}$ is the usual $\tau$-hadronic width. The QCD
1547: expression reads:
1548: \beq
1549: \delta R_\tau^{kl}\simeq 24 S_{EW}\Bigg{\{}{\mb_s^2\over
1550: M^2_\tau}\Delta^{(2)}_{kl}
1551: -2\pi^2{\la m_s\bar ss-m_d\bar dd\ra\over M^4_\tau}\Delta^{(4)}_{kl}\Bigg{\}}~,
1552: \eeq
1553: where $\Delta^{(D)}_{kl}$ are perturbative coefficients known to
1554: order $\als^2$:
1555: \beq
1556: \Delta^{(D)}_{kl}\equiv
1557: \frac{1}{4}\Big{\{}3\Delta^{(D)}_{kl}\big{|}_{L+T}+\Delta^{(D)}_{kl}\big{|}_L\Big{\}}~,
1558: \eeq
1559: where the indices $T$ and $L$ refer to the tranverse and longitudinal
1560: parts of the
1561: spectral functions. For $D=2$, the $L$ piece converges quite badly while the
1562: $L+T$ converge quite well such that the combination has can still an
1563: acceptable convergence. For the lowest moments, one has:
1564: \bea
1565: \Delta^{(2)}_{00}&=&0.973+0.481+0.372+0.337+...\nnb\\
1566: \Delta^{(2)}_{10}&=&1.039+0.558+0.482+0.477+...\nnb\\
1567: \Delta^{(2)}_{20}&=&1.115+0.643+0.608+0.647+...
1568: \eea
1569: The authors advocate that though the convergence is quite bad, the
1570: behaviour of the series is
1571: typical for an asymptotic series close to their point of minimum
1572: snesistivity. Therefore, the
1573: mathematical procedure for doing a reasonable estimate of the series
1574: is to truncate the expansion
1575: where the terms reach their minimum value. However, the estimate of
1576: the errors is still arbitrary.
1577: The authors assume that the error is given by the last term of the
1578: series. The result of the
1579: analysis is given in Table \ref{tab: ms}. The different numbers given
1580: in the table reflects the difference of methods used to get $m_s$ but
1581: the results are consistent
1582: each others within the errors. Like in the case of the $e^+e^-$
1583: DMO-like sum rule, the combination
1584: used here is not affected to leading order by flavour blind
1585: contribution like the tachyonic gluon
1586: and instanton contribution. We have checked \cite{CNZ} that the
1587: contribution of the tachyonic
1588: gluon to order $m^2_s\alpha_s\lambda^2/M^2_\tau$ gives a tiny
1589: correction and does not affect the
1590: estimate done without the inclusion of this term.
1591:
1592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1593: \subsection{Summary for the estimate of light quark masses}\label{sec: lsum}
1594: Here, we summarize the results from the previous analysis:
1595: \begin{itemize}
1596: \item The sum $(\bm_u+\bm_d)$ of the running up and down quark masses
1597: from the pion sum rules is given in
1598: Eq. (\ref{eq: sumud}), while the one of the strange quark mass from
1599: the kaon channel is given in
1600: Eq. (\ref{eq: sumus}). Their values lead to the pseudoscalar sum
1601: rules prediction for the mass ratio in Eq.
1602: (\ref{eq: ms/mud}) which agrees nicely with the ChPT mass ratio.
1603: \item The sum $(\bm_u+\bm_d)$ of the running up and down quark masses
1604: averaged from the pseudoscalar sum rule and
1605: from a direct extraction of the chiral condensate $\la\bar uu\ra$
1606: obtained from a global fit of the nucleon,
1607: $B^*-B$ mass-splitting and the vector part of the $D^*\rar K^*l\nu$
1608: form factor is given in Eq.
1609: (\ref{eq: mumdrun}) and reads for $\Lambda_3=(375\pm 50)$ MeV:
1610: \beq
1611: (\bm_u+\bm_d)(2~{\rm GeV})=(10.1\pm 1.8)~{\rm MeV}~,
1612: \eeq
1613: implying with the help of the ChPT mass ratio $m_u/m_d$, the value:
1614: \beq
1615: \bm_u(2~{\rm GeV})=(3.6\pm 0.6)~{\rm MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~\bm_d(2~{\rm
1616: GeV})=(6.5\pm 1.2)~{\rm MeV}~,
1617: \eeq
1618: which leads to the invariant mass in Eq. (\ref{eq: mumdinv}):
1619: \beq
1620: \hat m_u=(4.1\pm 0.7)~{\rm MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~\hat m_d=(7.4\pm 1.4)~{\rm MeV}~,
1621: \eeq
1622: \item We have combined the result in Eq. (\ref{eq: finsumd}) with the
1623: sum rule prediction for $m_s/(m_u+m_d)$
1624: in order to deduce the quark mass-difference $(m_d-m_u)$ from the QCD
1625: part of the $K^0-K^+$ mass-difference.
1626: We obtain the result in Eq. (\ref{eq: massdif}):
1627: \beq
1628: (\bm_d-\bm_u)(2~{\rm GeV})=(2.8\pm 0.6)~{\rm MeV}~.
1629: \eeq
1630: This result indeed agrees with the one taking the difference of the
1631: mass given previously. The fact that
1632: $(m_u+m_d)\not= (m_d-m_u)$ disfavours the possibility to have $m_u=0$.
1633: \item We give in Table \ref{tab: ms} the different sum rules
1634: determinations of $m_s$. The results from the
1635: pion SR and $\la\bar\psi\psi\ra$ come from the determination of
1636: $(m_u+m_d)$ to which we have added the ChPT
1637: contraint on $m_s/(m_u+m_d)$. One can see from this table that
1638: different determinations are in good agreement
1639: each others. Doing an average of these different results, we obtain:
1640: \beq
1641: \bm_s(2~{\rm GeV})= (117.4\pm 23.4)~{\rm MeV}~~~~\Lrar~~~~ \hat
1642: m_s=(133.8\pm 27.3)~{\rm
1643: MeV}~.
1644: \eeq
1645: Aware on the possible correlations between these estimates, we have
1646: estimated the error as an arithmetic average
1647: which is about 10\% as generally expected for the systematics of the
1648: SR approach.
1649: \end{itemize}
1650: It is informative to compare the above results with the average of
1651: different quenched and unquenched lattice
1652: values
1653: \cite{LUBICZ}:
1654: \bea
1655: &&\bm_{ud}(2~{\rm GeV})\approx \frac{1}{2}(\bm_u+\bm_d)(2~{\rm
1656: GeV})=(4.5\pm 0.6\pm 0.8)~{\rm MeV}~,\nnb\\
1657: &&\bm_s(2~{\rm GeV})= (110\pm 15\pm 20)~{\rm MeV}~,
1658: \eea
1659: where the last error is an estimate of the quenching error. We show
1660: in the Table \ref{tab: mqunq}
1661: a compilation of the lattice unquenched results including comments
1662: on the lattice characterisitcs
1663: (action, lattice spacing $a$, $\beta$). Also shown is the ratio over
1664: $m_s/m_{ud}$ and quenched (quen) over
1665: unquenched (unq) results.
1666: %____________________________________________________________________
1667: \begin{table}[hbt]
1668: \caption{Simulation details and physical results of unquenched lattice
1669: calculations of light quark masses from
1670: \cite{LUBICZ}, where original references are quoted.}
1671: \label{tab: mqunq}
1672: \renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{0.3pc} % enlarge column spacing
1673: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % enlarge line spacing
1674: \begin{tabular}{lcccclccc}
1675: \hline
1676: \\
1677: & Action & $a^{-1}$[GeV] & $\#_{(\beta,K_{sea})}$ & $Z_m$ &
1678: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\bm_s(2)$} & ${m_s\over m_{ud}}$ &
1679: $\frac{\bm_s^{\mbox{quen}}}{\bm_s^{\mbox{unq}}}$
1680: \\
1681: \\ \hline
1682: \\
1683: SESAM 98 & Wilson & $ 2.3 $ & 4 & PT
1684: & $\, $ 151(30) &$(m_{K,\phi})$& 55(12) & 1.10(24)
1685: \\[8pt]
1686: MILC 99 & Fatlink & $ 1.9 $ & 1 & PT
1687: & $\begin{array}{l} 113(11) \\ 125(9) \end{array}$
1688: & $\begin{array}{c} (m_K) \\ (m_\phi) \end{array}$ & 22(4) & 1.08(13)
1689: \\[16pt]
1690: APE 00 & Wilson & $ 2.6 $ & 2 & NP-RI
1691: & $\begin{array}{l} 112(15) \\ 108(26) \end{array}$
1692: & $\begin{array}{c} (m_K) \\ (m_\phi) \end{array}$ & 26(2) & 1.09(20)
1693: \\[16pt]
1694: CP-PACS 00 & MF-Clover & $a \to 0$ & 12 & PT
1695: & $\begin{array}{l} 88^{+4}_{-6} \\ 90^{+5}_{-11} \end{array}$
1696: & $\begin{array}{c} (m_K) \\ (m_\phi)\end{array}$ & 26(2) &1.25(7)
1697: \\[16pt]
1698: JLQCD 00 & NP-Clover & $ 2.0 $ & 5 & PT
1699: & $\begin{array}{l} 94(2)^\dag \\ 88(3)^\ddag \\ 109(4)^\dag \\
1700: 102(6)^\ddag \end{array}$
1701: & $\begin{array}{c} (m_K) \\ \\ (m_\phi)\end{array}$ & --- & ---
1702: \\[16pt] \hspace{-0.3truecm}
1703: $\begin{array}{l} \mbox{\rm QCDSF +} \\ \mbox{\rm UKQCD 00 }
1704: \end{array}$ & NP-Clover & $ 2.0 $ & 6 & PT & $\, $ 90(5)
1705: & $(m_K)$ & 26(2) & --- \\\\
1706: \hline
1707: \end{tabular}\\[2pt]
1708: $^\dag$ From vector WI; $^\ddag$ from axial WI. The errors on the ratios
1709: $m_s/m_{ud}$ and
1710: $\bm_s^{\mbox{quen}}/\bm_s^{\mbox{unq}}$ are
1711: estimates based on the original data.
1712: \vspace*{-.3cm}
1713: \end{table}
1714: %___________________________________________________________________________
1715:
1716:
1717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1718: \section{Decay constants of light (pseudo)scalar mesons}
1719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1720: \subsection{Pseudoscalar mesons}
1721: Due to the Goldstone nature of the pion and kaon, we have seen that
1722: their radial excitations play an essential
1723: r\^ole in the sum rule. This unusual property allows a determination
1724: of the radial excitation parameters.
1725: In the strange quark channels, an update of the results in
1726: \cite{SNMS,SNP2,SNP,SNB,PAVERTR} gives:
1727: \beq
1728: r_K\equiv M^4_{K'}f_{K'}^2/M^4_{K}f_{K}^2 \simeq 9.5\pm 2.5\simeq r_\pi~,
1729: \eeq
1730: where $r_\pi$ has been defined previously. The optimal value has been
1731: obtained at the LSR
1732: scale $\tau\approx$ GeV$^{-2}$ and $t_c\simeq 4.5-6.5$ GeV$^2$ as
1733: shown in Fig. \ref{fig: rpi}.
1734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1735: \begin{figure}[hbt]
1736: \begin{center}
1737: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figrpi.ps}
1738: \caption{LSR analysis of the ratio $r_\pi\equiv
1739: M^4_{\pi'}f_{\pi'}^2/M^4_{\pi}f_{\pi}^2$. For a
1740: given value $r_\pi=9.5$, we show value of $(\bm_d+\bm_u)(2)$ for two
1741: values of the QCD continuum
1742: $t_c$.}
1743: \label{fig: rpi}
1744: \end{center}
1745: \end{figure}
1746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1747: This
1748: result implies for
1749: $\pi'(1.3)$ and $K'(1.46)$:
1750: \beq\label{eq: fpseu}
1751: f_{\pi'}\simeq (3.3\pm 0.6)~{\rm
1752: MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f_{K'}\simeq (39.8\pm 7.0)~{\rm
1753: MeV}~.
1754: \eeq
1755: It is
1756: easy to notice that the result satisfies the relation:
1757: \beq
1758: {f_{K'}\over f_{\pi'}}\approx {M^2_K\over m^2_\pi}\approx {m_s\over m_d}~,
1759: \eeq
1760: as expected from chiral symmetry arguments.
1761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1762: \subsection{Scalar mesons}
1763: We expect that the scalar channel is more useful for giving the decay
1764: constants of the mesons
1765: which are not well known rather than predicting the value of the
1766: quark masses. Such a programme has been
1767: initiated in \cite{SNP,SNP2,SNB}. Since then, the estimate of the
1768: decay constants has not mainly changed. The analysis is shown in
1769: Figs. \ref{fig: fa0} and \ref{fig: fK*0}.
1770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1771: \begin{figure}[hbt]
1772: \begin{center}
1773: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figfa0.ps}
1774: \caption{LSR analysis of the decay constant $f_{a_0}$ of the
1775: $a_0(.98)$ meson normalized as $f_\pi=92.4$ MeV.
1776: We use $(\bm_d-\bm_u)(2)=2.8$ MeV.}
1777: \label{fig: fa0}
1778: \end{center}
1779: \end{figure}
1780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1781: Recent estimate gives \cite{SNMS}:
1782: \beq\label{eq: fscal}
1783: f_{a_0}=(1.6\pm 0.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.25)~{\rm
1784: MeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~f_{K^*_0}\simeq (46.3\pm 2.5\pm 5\pm 5)~{\rm MeV}~,
1785: \eeq
1786: where the errors are due respectively to the choice of $t_c$ from 4.5
1787: to 8 GeV$^2$, the value of the quark
1788: mass-difference obtained previously and the one of $\Lambda_3$. The
1789: decay constants are normalized as:
1790: \beq
1791: \la 0|\pr_\mu V^\mu(x)|a_0\ra=\sqrt{2}f_aM^2_a,
1792: \eeq
1793: corresponding to $f_\pi=92.4$ MeV. We have used the experimental
1794: masses 0.98 GeV and 1.43 GeV in our analysis
1795: \footnote{The masses of the $a_0$ and $K^*_0$ are also nicely
1796: reproduced by the ratio of
1797: moments \cite{SRRY,SNB}.}. It is also interesting to notice that the
1798: ratio of the decay constants are:
1799: \beq
1800: {f_{K^*_0}\over f_{a_0}}\simeq 29\approx {m_s-m_u\over m_d-m_u}\simeq 40~,
1801: \eeq
1802: as na\"\i vely expected. We are aware that the values of these decay
1803: constants might have been overestimated due to
1804: the eventual proliferations of nearby radial excitations. Therefore, it will
1805: be interesting to have a direct measurement of these decay constants
1806: for testing these predictions. The values
1807: of these decay constants will be given like other meson decay
1808: constants in the table of the next chapter.
1809: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1810: \begin{figure}[hbt]
1811: \begin{center}
1812: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{FigfK0.ps}
1813: \caption{LSR analysis of the decay constant $f_{K*_0}$ of the
1814: $K^*_0(1.43)$ meson normalized as $f_\pi=92.4$
1815: MeV. We use $\bm_s(2)=117.4$ MeV.}
1816: \label{fig: fK*0}
1817: \end{center}
1818: \end{figure}
1819: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1820: \section{Flavour breakings of the quark condensates}
1821: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1822: \subsection{$SU(3)$ corrections to kaon PCAC}
1823: Let's remind that the (pseudo)scalar two-point function obeys the
1824: twice subtracted dispersion relation:
1825: \beq
1826: \Psi_{(5)}(q^2)=\Psi_{(5)}(0)+q^2\Psi'_{(5)}(0)+q^4\int_0^\infty{dt\over
1827: t^2(t-q^2-i\epsilon)}{\rm Im}
1828: \Psi_{(5)}(t)~.
1829: \eeq
1830: The deviation from kaon PCAC has been firstly studied
1831: in \cite{SNSU3} using the once subtracted
1832: peusdoscalar sum rule of the quantity:
1833: \beq
1834: {\Psi_{(5)}(q^2)-\Psi_{(5)}(0)\over q^2}
1835: \eeq
1836: sensitive to the value of the
1837: value of the correlator at $q^2=0$ \footnote{This sum rule has also
1838: been used in \cite{SPIN,SNSLOPE}for
1839: estimating the $U(1)_A$ topological suceptibility and its slope, and
1840: which has been checked on the
1841: lattice \cite{DIGIACOMO}.}. The Ward identity obeyed by the
1842: (pseudo)scalar two-point function leads to the
1843: low-energy theorem:
1844: \beq\label{eq: condnorm}
1845: \Psi_{(5)}(0)=-(m_i\pm m_j)\la \bar \psi_i\psi_i\pm \bar \psi_j\psi_j\ra~,
1846: \eeq
1847: in terms of the {\it normal ordered condensates.} However, as
1848: emphasized in different papers
1849: \cite{43,BROAD,JAMIN2,CHETDPS}, $\Psi_{(5)}(0)$ contains a
1850: perturbative piece which cancels the
1851: mass singularities appearing in the OPE evaluation of $\Psi_{(5)}(q^2)$. This leads
1852: to the fact that
1853: the quark condensate entering in Eq. \ref{eq: condnorm} are defined
1854: as a {\it non-normal ordered condensate},
1855: which has a slight dependence on the scale and renormalization
1856: scheme. This mass correction effect is only
1857: quantitatively relevant for the $\bar us$ channel but not for the
1858: $\bar ud$ one. To order
1859: $\alpha_s^3$ for the perturbative term and to leading order for the
1860: condensates, the
1861: (pseudo)scalar sum rule for the $\bar us$ channel reads, by
1862: neglecting the up quark mass:
1863: \bea
1864: &&\int_0^{t_c}\frac{dt}{t} \exp{(-t\tau)}
1865: \frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im}\Psi_{(5)}(t)\simeq\Psi_{(5)}(0)\nnb\\
1866: &&+(\mb_u\pm\mb_s)^2\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\tau^{-1}
1867: \Bigg{\{}\ga 1-\rho_0\dr\Big{[}1+
1868: 6.82\asb+
1869: 58.55\asb^2+537.6\asb^3\Big{]}\nnb\\
1870: &&+3.15\mb^2_s\tau\Big{[}1+3.32\asb\Big{]}\nnb\\
1871: &&-\Bigg{[} \frac{\pi}{3}\la \als G^2\ra-\frac{8\pi^2}{3}
1872: \Big{[}\ga \mb_s-{\mb_u\over 2}\dr\la\bar uu\ra\pm (u\leftrightarrow s)
1873: \Big{]}\Bigg{]}\tau^2\nnb\\
1874: &&+\frac{1}{2}\ga 2\mp 9\dr\ga\frac{128}{81}\dr\pi^3\rho\als\la\bar
1875: uu\ra^2\tau^3
1876: \Bigg{\}},
1877: \eea
1878: where we have neglected the $SU(3)$ breaking for the four-quark
1879: condensates. This assumption does not
1880: however affects the analysis due to the small contribution of this
1881: operator at the optimization
1882: scale.
1883: The analysis is shown in Fig. \ref{fig: kpcac}.
1884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1885: \begin{figure}[hbt]
1886: \begin{center}
1887: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figkpcac.ps}
1888: \caption{LSR analysis of the subtraction constant $\Psi_5(0)$. We use
1889: $\bm_s(2)=117.4$ MeV, $r_K=9.5$
1890: and $t_c=6$ GeV$^2$.
1891: The curves correspond to different truncations of the PT series: to
1892: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$: dotted-dashed;
1893: to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$: dashed; to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$: continuous.}
1894: \label{fig: kpcac}
1895: \end{center}
1896: \end{figure}
1897: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1898: Examining the different curves, on can notice that they deviate
1899: notably from the
1900: kaon PCAC prediction:
1901: \beq
1902: \Psi_5(0)\simeq 2M^2_Kf^2_K~,
1903: \eeq
1904: threfore confirming the early findings in \cite{SNSU3}.
1905: The
1906: LSR indicates a slight stability point at $\tau\approx (0.50\sim
1907: 0.75)$ GeV$^{-2}$, where:
1908: \beq
1909: \Psi_5(0)\simeq (0.5\pm 0.2)2M^2_Kf^2_K~.
1910: \eeq
1911: However at this scale,
1912: PT series has a bad convergence:
1913: \bea
1914: {\rm Pert}={\rm Parton}\times \Big{\{}1+2.17\als+5.93\als^2+17.34\als^3\Big{\}}
1915: \simeq{\rm Parton}\times \Big{\{}1 +0.86+0.92+1.06\Big{\}}~,
1916: \eea
1917: which might not be worrysome if one considers that asymptotic series
1918: close to its
1919: point of {\it minimum sensitivity} can be truncated when its reaches
1920: the extremum value and
1921: add the last term as truncation error \footnote{A similar argument
1922: has been used for the extraction
1923: of the strange quark mass from $\tau$-decay data discussed in the
1924: previous section, where the QCD
1925: series also has a quite bad behaviour.}.
1926: This convergence might {\it a priori} be improved if one works
1927: with the combination of sum rules which is less sensitive to
1928: the high-energy behaviour of the spectral function (and then to the
1929: perturbative contribution)
1930: than the former \cite{PAVERTR,BRAMON,SNP,SNB,SNMS}. The modified sum
1931: rule reads \cite{SNB} \footnote{Notice that we
1932: have not yet introduced the QCD continuum into the LHS of the sum rule.}:
1933: \bea
1934: &&\int_0^{\infty}\frac{dt}{t} \exp{(-t\tau)}
1935: \ga 1-t\tau\dr\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im}\Psi_{(5)}(t)\simeq\Psi_{(5)}(0)+
1936: (\mb_u\pm\mb_s)^2\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\tau^{-1}\times\nnb\\
1937: &&\Bigg{\{}2\asb\Big{[}1+18.3\asb+242.2\asb^2\Big{]}
1938: +5.15\mb^2_s\tau\Big{[}1+5.0\asb\Big{]}\nnb\\
1939: &&+2\Big{[} \frac{\pi}{3}\la \als G^2\ra-\frac{8\pi^2}{3}
1940: \mb_s\Big{[}\la\bar uu\ra\mp\frac{1}{2}\la\bar ss\ra
1941: \Big{]}\Big{]}\tau^2+\frac{3}{2}(2\mp
1942: 9)\ga\frac{128}{81}\dr\pi^3\rho\als\la\bar uu\ra ^2\tau^3
1943: \Bigg{\}}~.
1944: \eea
1945: The analysis also leads to a similar result. The LSR has been
1946: also studied recently in \cite{KAMALKAN}, by including threshold effects and
1947: higher mass resonances, which enlarge the region of stability in the
1948: LSR variable. Within the previous
1949: hadronic parametrization, one obtains:
1950: \beq
1951: \Psi_5(0)\simeq (0.56\pm 0.04\pm 0.15)2M^2_Kf^2_K~,
1952: \eeq
1953: where we have added the error due to our estimate of the truncation
1954: of the QCD PT series as deduced
1955: from Fig. \ref{fig: kpcac}.
1956: %\end{document}
1957: An alternative estimate is the uses of FESR \cite{PSEU}.
1958: Parametrizing the subtraction constant
1959: as:
1960: \beq
1961: \Psi_5(0)^u_s=2M_K^2f_K^2(1-\delta_K)~,
1962: \eeq
1963: one has the sum rule \cite{PSEU}:
1964: \beq
1965: \delta_K\simeq \frac{3}{16\pi^2}\frac{\overline{m}_s^2t_c}{f^2_KM^2_K}
1966: \aga 1+\frac{23}{3}a_s + {\cal{O}}(a^2_s)\adr
1967: -r_K\ga\frac{M_K}{M_{K'}}\dr^2~,
1968: \eeq
1969: which gives, after using the {\it correlated values} of the input
1970: parameters \cite{SNP,SNB,SNMS}:
1971: \beq
1972: \delta_K= 0.34^{+0.23}_{-0.17}~,
1973: \eeq
1974: leading to:
1975: \beq
1976: \Psi_5(0)\simeq (0.66\pm 0.20)2M^2_Kf^2_K~,
1977: \eeq
1978: confirming the large violation of kaon PCAC obtained from LSR.
1979: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1980: \subsection{Subtraction constant from the scalar sum rule}
1981: One can do a similar analysis for the scalar channel.
1982: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1983: \begin{figure}[hbt]
1984: \begin{center}
1985: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Figpsi0.ps}
1986: \caption{LSR analysis of the subtraction constant $\Psi(0)$. We use
1987: $\bm_s(2)=117.4$
1988: MeV, $f_{K*_0}=46$ MeV and $t_c=6.5$ GeV$^2$. The curves correspond
1989: to different truncations of
1990: the PT series: to
1991: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$: dotted-dashed; to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$:
1992: dashed; to ${\cal
1993: O}(\alpha_s^3)$: continuous.}
1994: \label{fig: psi0}
1995: \end{center}
1996: \end{figure}
1997: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1998: The analysis from LSR is shown
1999: in Fig. \ref{fig: psi0}. One can also see that there is a slight stability for
2000: $\tau\approx (0.50\sim 0.75)$ GeV$^{-2}$, which gives:
2001: \beq
2002: \Psi(0)\approx -10^{-3}~{\rm GeV}^4~,
2003: \eeq
2004: in agreement with previous results \cite{SNB,SNP,SNP2,PAVERTR}. In
2005: \cite{KAMALKAN}, using
2006: LSR, a similar result but from a larger range of LSR stability, has
2007: been obtained within an
2008: Omn\'es representation for relating the scalar form factor to the
2009: $K\pi$ phase shift data:
2010: \beq
2011: \Psi(0)\simeq -(1.06\pm 0.21\pm 0.20)10^{-3}~{\rm GeV}^4~,
2012: \eeq
2013: where the last term is our estimate of the error due to the
2014: truncation of the QCD series.
2015: %We
2016: %show the analysis in Fig. \ref{fig: kamal}.
2017: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2018: %\begin{figure}[hbt]
2019: %\begin{center}
2020: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Figkamal.ps}
2021: %\caption{LSR analysis of the subtraction constant $\Psi(0)$ versus
2022: the sum rule scale
2023: %using $K\pi$ phase shift data, from
2024: %\cite{KAMALKAN}.}
2025: %\label{fig: kamal}
2026: %\end{center}
2027: %\end{figure}
2028: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2029: %\nin
2030: One can use an alternative approach by working with FESR:
2031: \beq
2032: \Psi(0)^u_s=2M_{K^*_0}^2f_{K^*_0}^2-
2033: \frac{3}{16\pi^2}{\overline{m}_s^2t_c}
2034: \aga 1+\frac{23}{3}a_s + {\cal{O}}(a^2_s)\adr,
2035: \eeq
2036: which gives \cite{SNMS}:
2037: \beq
2038: \Psi(0)^u_s=-\ga 7.8^{+5.5}_{-2.7}\dr 10^{-4}~\mbox{GeV}^4.
2039: \eeq
2040: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2041: \subsection{${\la \bar ss \ra}/{\la \bar uu \ra}$ from the
2042: (pseudo)scalar sum rules}
2043: We take the arithmetic average of the previous determinations for our
2044: final estimate:
2045: \beq
2046: \Psi_5(0)\simeq (0.57\pm 0.19)2M^2_Kf^2_K~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2047: \Psi(0)\simeq -(0.92\pm 0.35)10^{-3}~{\rm GeV}^4~,
2048: \eeq
2049: Taking the ratio of the
2050: scalar over the pseudoscalar subtraction constants expressed in terms of
2051: the {\it normal-ordered} condensates, one can deduce:
2052: \beq\label{eq: ssdd5}
2053: {\la \bar ss \ra}/{\la \bar uu \ra} = 0.57\pm 0.12.
2054: \eeq
2055: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2056: \subsection{${\la \bar ss \ra}/{\la \bar uu \ra}$ from the $B_s$ meson}
2057: One can also extract the flavour breakings of the condensates from a
2058: sum rule analysis of the $B_s$
2059: and $B^*_s$ masses, which are senstive to the chiral condensate as it
2060: enters like $m_b\la \bar ss
2061: \ra$ in the OPE of the heavy light meson (see next section). The
2062: masses of the mesons are found to
2063: decrease linearly with the value of the chiral condensate. Using the
2064: observed value of the
2065: $B_s$ meson mass $M_{B_s}=5.375$ GeV, one can deduce from Fig 3 of
2066: \cite{SNMIXED}:
2067: \beq\label{eq: ssbs}
2068: {\la \bar ss \ra}/{\la \bar uu \ra}\simeq 0.75\pm 0.08~,
2069: \eeq
2070: where the error is the expected typical sum rule estimate. The effect
2071: of the strange quark mass is
2072: less important than this one here, such that the result given in
2073: \cite{SNMIXED} remains valid though
2074: obtained with slightly different values of $m_s$ and $\Lambda_5$.
2075: This estimate is expected to be
2076: more reliable than the one from the (pseudo)scalar light mesons,
2077: which are affected by the bad
2078: convergence of the PT QCD series. Using this value of ratio of the
2079: condensates in the curve of the
2080: $B^*_s$ mass, one can also predict:
2081: \beq
2082: B^*_s=5.64 ~{\rm GeV}~,
2083: \eeq
2084: which can be tested in $B$ factories.
2085: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2086: \subsection{Final sum rule estimate of ${\la \bar ss \ra}/{\la \bar uu \ra}$}
2087: Using the previous results, one can deduce that the sum rules from
2088: the light (pseudo)scalar and
2089: from the $B_s$ meson predict for the {\it normal ordered} condensate ratio:
2090: \beq\label{eq: ssdd}
2091: {\la \bar ss \ra}/{\la \bar uu \ra}\simeq 0.66\pm 0.10~,
2092: \eeq
2093: confirming earlier findings \cite{PAVERTR,SNB,SNP,SNMS} on the large
2094: flavour breaking of the chiral
2095: condensate.
2096: This number comes from the arithmetic average of the two values in
2097: Eqs. (\ref{eq: ssdd5}) and
2098: (\ref{eq: ssbs}).
2099: If
2100: one instead works with the {\it non-normal ordered} condensate, one
2101: should add to the expression in Eq.
2102: (\ref{eq: condnorm}) a small perturbative piece first obtained by Becchi et al
2103: \cite{PSEUDO} (see also
2104: \cite{SNB,BROAD,JAMIN}):
2105: \beq
2106: \la\bar ss\ra_{\msb}=\la\bar ss\ra-\frac{3}{2\pi^2}\frac{2}{7}\ga
2107: \frac{1}{a_s}-\frac{53}{24}\dr
2108: \overline{m}_s^3.
2109: \eeq
2110: This leads to the ratio of the {\it non-normal ordered} condensates:
2111: \beq
2112: {\la \bar ss \ra}/{\la \bar uu \ra}\vert_{\msb} = 0.75\pm 0.12.
2113: \eeq
2114: The previous estimates are in good agreement with the ones from
2115: chiral perturbation theory \cite{14} (see also \cite{JAMIN3}). They
2116: are also in fair agreement
2117: with the one from the baryonic sum rules
2118: \cite{DOSCH}--\cite{IOFFEBAR}, though we expect that the result from the latter
2119: is less accurate due to the complexity of the analysis in this channel
2120: (choice of the interpolating operators, eventual large effects of the continuum
2121: due to the nearby Roper resonances,...).
2122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2123: \subsection{$SU(2)$ breaking of the quark condensate}
2124: The $SU(2)$ breaking of the quark condensate has been studied
2125: for the first time in \cite{BRAMON}
2126: and in \cite{PSEU,SNB}. Using similar approaches, the estimate is
2127: \cite{SNB,SNP}:
2128: \beq
2129: \la \bar dd\ra/\la\bar uu\ra\simeq 1-9\times 10^{-3}~.
2130: \eeq
2131: The previous estimate is in good agreement with the one from FESR \cite{PSEU}.
2132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2133: \section{Heavy quark masses}
2134: In the previous part of this book, we have already discussed the
2135: different definitions of the
2136: heavy quark masses and given their values. Contrary to the light
2137: quark masses, the definition
2138: of pole quark masses $p^2=M^2_H$ can (in principle) be introduced
2139: perturbatively for heavy
2140: quarks
2141: \cite{COQUE,TARRA1,SN1} similarly to the one of the electron as here
2142: the quark mass is much
2143: heavier than the QCD scale $\Lambda$ such the perturbative approach
2144: makes sense. However, a
2145: complication arises due to the resummation of the QCD series
2146: \cite{BENEKE} such that the pole
2147: mass definition has an intrinsic ambiguity, which can be an obstacle
2148: for its improved
2149: accurate determination though the effect is relatively small.
2150: Alternative definitions free from such
2151: ambiguities have been proposed in the literature
2152: \cite{POLE3,HOANG}. In this section, we shall discuss the determinations of the
2153: perturbative running
2154: quark masses which do not have such problems.
2155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2156: \subsection{The quarkonia channel}
2157: Charmonium and bottomium are the standard channels for extracting
2158: the charm and
2159: bottom quark masses. Most of the sum rule analysis are based on the
2160: $Q^2=0$ moments (MOM)
2161: originally introduced by SVZ for the study of the charmonium systems:
2162: \beq
2163: {\cal M}_n\equiv \frac{1}{n!}\ga -{d\over dQ^2}\dr^n
2164: \Pi\Big{|}_{Q^2=0}=\int_{4m^2}^\infty{dt\over t^{n+1}}{1\over\pi}{\rm
2165: Im}\Pi(t)~,
2166: \eeq
2167: but convenient for the bottomium systems due to a much better
2168: convergence of the OPE. In
2169: \cite{SRRY}, the $Q^2\not= 0$ moments have been introduced for
2170: improving the convergence
2171: of the QCD series:
2172: \beq
2173: {\cal M}_n(Q^2_0)\equiv \frac{1}{n!}\ga -{d\over dQ^2}\dr^n
2174: \Pi\Big{|}_{Q^2=Q^2_0}=\int_{4m^2}^\infty{dt\over
2175: (t+Q^2_0)^{n+1}}{1\over\pi}{\rm
2176: Im}\Pi(t)~,
2177: \eeq
2178: The spectral function can be related to the $e^+e^-\rar Q\bar Q$
2179: total cross-section via
2180: the optical theorem:
2181: \beq
2182: {\rm Im}\Pi(t+i\epsilon)=\frac{1}{12\pi Q^2_Q}{\sigma (e^+e^-\rar Q\bar Q)\over
2183: \sigma (e^+e^-\rar \mu^+\mu^-)}~.
2184: \eeq
2185: $Q_Q$ is the heavy quark charge in units of e.
2186: The contribution to the spectral function is as usual saturated by
2187: the lowest few
2188: resonances plus the QCD continuum above the threshold $t_c$:
2189: \beq
2190: \mbox{Im} \Pi_Q(t) =\frac{3}{4\alpha^2}\frac{1}{Q^2_Q}
2191: \sum_{i}
2192: {\Gamma_i M_i} \delta (t-M^2_i)~~+~~
2193: \theta (t-t_c) \mbox{Im} \Pi^{QCD}_Q(t),
2194: \eeq
2195: where
2196: $\Gamma_i$ is the electronic width of the resonances with the value
2197: given in PDG \cite{PDG}. Retaining the observed resonances, the value of
2198: $\sqrt{t_c}$ fixed from stability analysis is about $(11\sim12)$~GeV for the
2199: $\Upsilon$-- and about 5 GeV for the $J\Psi$--families. However, the
2200: result will be
2201: practically independent from this choice of $t_c$ due to the almost
2202: complete dominance of
2203: the lowest ground state to the spectral function at the stability
2204: point. An alternative
2205: approach used in
2206: \cite{SN1,SN2} is the LSR:
2207: \beq
2208: {\cal L}(\tau)=\int_{4m^2}^\infty dt~\exp^{-t\tau}{1\over\pi}{\rm Im}\Pi(t)~.
2209: \eeq
2210: This sum rule is particularly convenient for the analysis of the charmonium
2211: systems as the corresponding OPE converges faster than the moment sum
2212: rules. It has been
2213: noticed in \cite{SN2} that the ratios of sum rules (and their finite
2214: energy sum rule
2215: (FESR) variants) are more appropriate for the estimate of the
2216: quark mass as these ratios equate {\it directly} the mass squared of
2217: ground state to that of the quark:
2218: \beq
2219: {\cal R}_n \equiv \frac{{\cal M}^{(n)}}{{\cal M}^{(n+1)}}~~~~~~~
2220: \mbox{and}~~~~~~~
2221: {\cal R}_\tau \equiv -\frac{d}{d\tau} \log {{\cal L}},
2222: \eeq
2223: They also eliminate, to leading order,
2224: some artefact dependence due to the sum rules (exponential weight factor
2225: or number of derivatives) and some other systematic errors appearing
2226: in each individual
2227: moments. For the perturbative part,
2228: we shall use (without expanding in 1/M)
2229: the Schwinger extrapolation formula to two-loops:
2230: \beq
2231: \mbox{Im} \Pi^{pert}_Q(t)
2232: \simeq \frac{3}{12\pi}v_Q\ga \frac{3-v^2_Q}{2} \dr
2233: \aga 1+\frac{4}{3}\als f(v_Q) \adr ,
2234: \eeq
2235: where:
2236: \beq
2237: v_Q= \sqrt{1-4M^2_Q/t}
2238: ~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2239: f(v_Q)=\frac{\pi}{2v_Q}-\frac{(3+v_Q)}{4}\ga \frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{3}{4\pi}
2240: \dr
2241: \eeq
2242: are respectively the quark velocity and the Schwinger function
2243: \cite{117}. We express this
2244: spectral function in terms of the running mass by using the
2245: two-loops relation given in previous chapter and including the
2246: $\als\log(t/M^2_Q)$-term appearing for off-shell quark.
2247: We shall add to this perturbative
2248: expression the lowest dimension $\la \als G^2 \ra $
2249: non-perturbative effect (it is known as explained in the previous
2250: part of the book
2251: %\ref{part: power corrections}
2252: that, for a heavy-heavy quark correlator, the heavy quark
2253: condensate contribution
2254: is already absorbed into the gluon
2255: one)
2256: which among the available higher dimension
2257: condensate-terms can only give a non-negligible contribution.
2258: The gluon condensate contribution to the moments ${\cal M}^{(n)}$ and
2259: so to ${\cal R}_n$ can be copied from the original work of SVZ \cite{SVZ}
2260: and reads:
2261: \beq
2262: {\cal M}^{(n)}_G=-{\cal M}^{(n)}_{pert} ~\frac{(n+3)!}{(n-1)!(2n+5)}
2263: \frac {4\pi}{9}\frac{\la \als G^2 \ra}{\ga 4M_Q^2 \dr^2},
2264: \eeq
2265: where ${\cal M}^{(n)}_{pert}$ is the lowest perturbative expression
2266: of the moments.
2267: The one to the Laplace ratio ${\cal R}_\tau $ can be also
2268: copied from the
2269: original work of Bertlmann \cite{BERTM}, which has been expanded
2270: recently in $1/M_Q$ by \cite{DOMPAV}. It reads:
2271: \beq
2272: {\cal R}^G_\tau \simeq (4M^2_Q)\frac{2\pi}{3}\la \als G^2 \ra \tau^2
2273: \ga 1+\frac{4}{3\omega}-\frac{5}{12\omega^2} \dr ,
2274: \eeq
2275: where $\omega \equiv 4M^2_Q \tau$. The results of the analysis from the
2276: ratios of moments and Laplace sum rules give the values of the running masses
2277: to order $\alpha_s$ \footnote{The inclusion of the
2278: $\alpha_s^2$ correction is under study.} :
2279: \beq
2280: \bm_c(\bm_c)=(1.23\pm 0.03\pm 0.03)~{\rm GeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2281: \bm_b(\bm_b)=(4.23\pm 0.04\pm 0.02)~{\rm GeV}~,
2282: \eeq
2283: where the errors are respectively due to $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118\pm
2284: 0.006$ and $\la \als
2285: G^2\ra=(0.06\pm 0.03)$ GeV$^4$ used in the original work. These
2286: running masses can be
2287: converted into the pole masses at this order. Non-relativistic
2288: versions of these sum rules
2289: (NRSR) introduced by \cite{VOLOSHIN} have also been used in
2290: \cite{SN1,SN2} for determining the $b$
2291: quark mass. These NRSR approaches have been improved by the inclusion
2292: of higher order QCD corrections
2293: and resummation of the Coulomb corrections from ladder gluonic
2294: exchanges. Some recent
2295: different determinations are given in Tables \ref{tab: mc} and \ref{tab: mb}.
2296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2297: \begin{table}[H]
2298: \begin{center}
2299: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
2300: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
2301: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.2pc}
2302: % -----------------------------------------------------
2303: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241
2304: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
2305: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
2306: % -----------------------------------------------------
2307: \caption{QSSR {\it direct determinations} of $\bm_c(\bm_c)$ in
2308: $\msb$-scheme and of the pole
2309: mass $M_c$ from $J/\Psi$-family, $e^+e-$ data and $D$-meson and
2310: comparisons with lattice results.
2311: Determinations from some other sources are quoted in PDG \cite{PDG}. The
2312: results are given in units of GeV. The estimated error in the SR
2313: average comes from an arithmetic average
2314: of the different errors. The average for the pole masses is given at
2315: NLO. The one
2316: of the running masses is almost unchanged from NLO to NNLO
2317: determinations. $\Longleftarrow$ means that
2318: perturbative relation between the different mass definitions have
2319: been used to get the quoted values.}
2320: \label{tab: mc}
2321: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lcl}
2322: \begin{tabular}{l l l l l}
2323: %\hline
2324: \hline
2325: &&& \\
2326: Sources&$\overline{m}_c (\bm_c)$&$M_c$&Comments& Authors\\
2327: &&&\\
2328: \hline
2329: &&&\\
2330: \boldmath $J/\Psi$\bf -family&&&&\\
2331: %&&&&\\
2332: MOM and LSR at NLO&$(1.27\pm 0.02)\Longleftarrow $&$(1.45\pm
2333: 0.05)$&$\Longleftarrow
2334: m(-m^2_c)=(1.26\pm 0.02)$&SN89
2335: \cite{SN1}\\ Ratio of LSR at NLO&$(1.23\pm 0.04)\Lrar $&$(1.42\pm
2336: 0.03)$&&SN94 \cite{SN2}\\
2337: NRSR at NLO&$(1.23\pm 0.04)\Longleftarrow $&$(1.45\pm 0.04)$&&SN94 \cite{SN2}\\
2338: SR at NLO&$(1.22\pm 0.06)\Longleftarrow $&$(1.46\pm 0.04)$&&DGP94
2339: \cite{DOMPAV}\\
2340: NRSR at NNLO&$(1.23\pm 0.09)$&$(1.70\pm 0.13)^* $&&EJ01 \cite{EIDEMUL}\\
2341: &&&\\
2342: \boldmath $e^+e^-$\bf data&&&&\\
2343: %&&&&\\
2344: FESR at NLO&$(1.37\pm 0.09)$&&&PS01 \cite{PS01}\\
2345: MOM at NNLO&$(1.30\pm 0.03)$&&&KS01 \cite{KS01}\\
2346: NLO&$(1.04\pm 0.04)\Longleftarrow$&$1.33\sim 1.4$&& M01 \cite{M01}\\
2347: &\\
2348: \boldmath $D$ \bf meson&\\
2349: %&\\
2350: Ratio of LSR at NNLO&$(1.1\pm 0.04) $&$(1.47\pm 0.04)$&&SN01 \cite{SNBC3}\\
2351: &&&\\
2352: \hline
2353: &&&\\
2354: {\bf SR Average}& $(1.23\pm 0.05)$&$(1.43\pm 0.04)$
2355: \\ &&&\\
2356: \hline
2357: &\\
2358: \bf Quenched Lattice&&&&\\
2359: %&&&&\\
2360: %&$(1.53\pm 0.13)$&&&APE98 \cite{ape98}\\
2361: &$(1.33\pm 0.08)$&&&FNAL98 \cite{fnal98}\\
2362: &$(1.20\pm 0.23)$&&&NRQCD99 \cite{nrqcd99}\\
2363: &$(1.26\pm 0.13)$&&&APE01 \cite{apemc}\\
2364: %&\\
2365: %\hline
2366: &&&\\
2367: \hline
2368: \end{tabular}
2369: \end{center}
2370: {* Not included in the average.}
2371: \end{table}
2372: \nin
2373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2375: \subsection{The heavy-light $D$ and $B$ meson channels}
2376: Heavy quark masses can also be extracted from the heavy-light quark
2377: channels because the corresponding
2378: correlators are sensitive to leading order to the values of these masses
2379: \cite{SNB,SNMIXED,SN2,SNBC2,SNBC3}. Again, we shall be concerned
2380: here with the LSR ${\cal L}(\tau)$ and
2381: the ratio ${\cal R}(\tau)$. The latter sum rule,
2382: or its slight modification, is useful, as it is equal to the
2383: resonance mass squared, in
2384: the simple duality ansatz parametrization of the spectral function:
2385: \beq
2386: \frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{ Im}\psi_5(t)\simeq f^2_DM_D^4\delta(t-M^2_D)
2387: \ + \
2388: ``\mbox{QCD continuum}" \theta (t-t_c),
2389: \eeq
2390: where $f_D$ is the decay constant analogue to \footnote{Notice that
2391: we have adopted here the lattice
2392: normalization for avoiding confusion. We shall discuss its
2393: determination in the next chapter.}
2394: $f_\pi=130.56$ MeV. The QCD side of the sum rule reads:
2395: \bea\label{eq: lsrlh}
2396: {\cal L}_{QCD}(\tau)
2397: &=& M^2_Q\Bigg{\{}\int_{M^2_Q}^{\infty}
2398: {dt}~\mbox{e}^{-t\tau}~\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\Bigg{[} 3 t(1-x)^2\ga
2399: 1+\frac{4}{3}\as f(x)\dr+\as^2 R{2s}\Bigg{]}\nnb\\
2400: &&~\,\, +\Big{[} C_4\la O_4\ra +C_6\la
2401: O_6\ra\tau\Big{]}~\mbox{e}^{-M^2_Q\tau}\Bigg{\}}~,
2402: \eea
2403: where $R{2s}$ is the new $\alpha_s^2$-term obtained semi-analytically
2404: in \cite{CHETP2} and is
2405: available as a Mathematica package program Rvs.m. Neglecting $m_d$,
2406: the other terms are:
2407: \bea
2408: x&\equiv& M^2_Q/t,\nnb\\
2409: f(x)&=&\frac{9}{4}+2\rm{Li}_2(x)+\log x \log (1-x)-\frac{3}{2}\log
2410: (1/x-1)\nnb\\
2411: & & -\log (1-x)+ x\log (1/x-1)-(x/(1-x))\log x, \nnb\\
2412: C_4\la O_4\ra&=&-M_Q\la \bar dd\ra +\la \als G^2\ra/12\pi\nnb\\
2413: C_6\la O_6\ra&=&\frac{M^3_Q\tau}{2}\ga 1-\frac{1}{2}M^2_Q\tau\dr
2414: g\la\bar d\sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}G_a^{\mu\nu}d\ra\nnb
2415: \\ &&-\ga\frac{8\pi}{27}\dr\ga
2416: 2-\frac{M^2_Q\tau}{2}-\frac{M^4_Q\tau^2}{6}\dr\rho\als \la \bar
2417: \psi\psi\ra^2~.
2418: \eea
2419: The previous sum rules can be expressed in terms of the running mass
2420: $\bar{m}_Q(\nu)$
2421: \footnote{It is clear that, for the non-perturbative terms which are
2422: known to leading order
2423: of perturbation theory, one can use either the running or the pole
2424: mass. However, we shall see
2425: that this distinction does not affect notably the present result.}.
2426: From this expression, one can
2427: easily deduce the expression of the ratio ${\cal R}(\tau)$, where the
2428: unkown decay constant
2429: disappears, and from which we obtain the running quark masses:
2430: \beq\label{mcrun}
2431: \bar m_c(m_c)=(1.10\pm 0.04)~{\rm GeV} ~.
2432: \eeq
2433: The analysis is shown in Fig. \ref{fig: mcfd}, where a simulataneous
2434: fit of the decay
2435: constant from ${\cal L}$ and of $\bm_c(\bm_c)$ from ${\cal R}$ is
2436: shown \footnote{We shall discuss
2437: the decay constant in the next section.}.
2438: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2439: \begin{figure}[hbt]
2440: \begin{center}
2441: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figfd.ps}
2442: \caption{Laplace sum rule analysis of $f_D$ and $\bm_c(\bm_c)$.}
2443: \label{fig: mcfd}
2444: \end{center}
2445: \end{figure}
2446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2447: \nin
2448: Our
2449: optimal results correspond to the case where both stability in $\tau$
2450: and in $t_c$ are reached.
2451: However, for a more conservative estimate of the errors we allow
2452: deviations from the stability
2453: points, and we take:
2454: \beq
2455: t_c\simeq (6\sim 9.5)~{\rm GeV}^2~,~~~~~~~~~~~~\tau\simeq (1.2\pm
2456: 0.2)~{\rm GeV}^{-2}~,
2457: \eeq
2458: and where the lowest value of $t_c$ corresponds to the beginning of
2459: the $\tau$-stability region. Values
2460: outside the above ranges are not consistent with the stability criteria.
2461: One can inspect
2462: that the dominant non-perturbative contribution is due to the dimension-four
2463: $M_c\la
2464: \bar dd\ra$ light quark condensate, and test that the OPE is not
2465: broken by high-dimension condensates
2466: at the optimization scale. However, the perturbative radiative
2467: corrections converge slowly, as the value of
2468: $f_D$ increases by 12\% after the inclusion of the
2469: $\alpha_s$ correction and the sum of the lowest order plus
2470: $\alpha_s$-correction increases by 21 \% after the
2471: inclusion of the
2472: $\alpha_s^2$ term, indicating that the total amount of corrections of
2473: 21\% is still a reasonnable
2474: correction despite the slow convergence of the perturbative series,
2475: which might be improved using a
2476: resummed series. However, as the radiative corrections are both
2477: positive, we expect that this slow
2478: convergence will not affect in a sensible way the final estimate. A
2479: similar analysis
2480: is done for the pole mass. The discussions presented previously apply also
2481: here, including the one of the radiative corrections. We quote the
2482: final result:
2483: \beq\label{mcpole}
2484: M_c=(1.46\pm 0.04)~{\rm GeV} ~,
2485: \eeq
2486: where the error is slightly smaller here due to the absence of the
2487: subtraction scale uncertainties.
2488: One can cross-check that the two values of $\bar m_c(m_c)$ and $M_c$
2489: give the ratio:
2490: \beq
2491: {M_c}/{\bar m_c(m_c)}\simeq 1.33~,
2492: \eeq
2493: which satisfies quite well the
2494: three-loop perturbative relation $M_c/\bar m_c(m_c)=1.33$. This could
2495: be a non-trivial result if one
2496: has in mind that the quark pole mass definition can be affected by
2497: non-perturbative corrections not
2498: present in the standard SVZ-OPE. In particular, it may signal that
2499: $1/q^2$ correction of the type discussed in \cite{ZAKA,CNZ,SNZAK}, if
2500: present, will only affect weakly the standard
2501: SVZ-phenomenology as observed explicitly in the light quark, gluonia
2502: and hybrid channels \cite{CNZ}.
2503: Using analogous analysis for the $B$ meson, we obtain at the
2504: optimization scale $\tau=0.375$
2505: GeV$^{-2}$ and $t_c=38$ GeV$^2$:
2506: \beq\label{mbrun}
2507: \bar m_b(m_b)=(4.05\pm 0.06)~{\rm GeV} ~,
2508: \eeq
2509: while using the pole mass as a free parameter, we get:
2510: \beq\label{mbpole}
2511: M_b=(4.69\pm 0.06)~{\rm GeV} ~,
2512: \eeq
2513: One can again cross-check that the two values of $\bar m_b(m_b)$ and
2514: $M_b$ lead to
2515: \beq
2516: {M_b}/{\bar
2517: m_b(m_b)}=1.16~,
2518: \eeq
2519: to be compared with 1.15 from the three-loop perturbative relation
2520: between $M_b$ and $\bm_b$, and
2521: might indirectly indicate the smallness of the $1/q^2$ correction if
2522: any. One can immediately notice
2523: the agreement of the results from quarkonia and heavy-light quark
2524: channels. Comparisons with other
2525: determinations are given in Tables \ref{tab: mc} and \ref{tab: mb}.
2526:
2527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2528: \begin{table}[hbt]
2529: \begin{center}
2530: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
2531: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
2532: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.2pc}
2533: % -----------------------------------------------------
2534: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241
2535: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
2536: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
2537: % -----------------------------------------------------
2538: \caption{The same as in Table \ref{tab: mc} but for the $b$-quark. }
2539: \label{tab: mb}
2540: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lcl}
2541: \begin{tabular}{l l l l l}
2542: %\hline
2543: \hline
2544: &&& \\
2545: Sources&$\overline{m}_b (\bm_b)$&$M_b$&Comments& Authors\\
2546: &&&\\
2547: \hline
2548: &&&\\
2549: \boldmath $\Upsilon$\bf -family&&&&\\
2550: %&&&&\\
2551: MOM and LSR at NLO&$(4.24\pm 0.05)\Longleftarrow $&$(4.67\pm
2552: 0.10)$&$\Longleftarrow
2553: m_b(-m^2_b)=(4.23\pm 0.05)$&SN89
2554: \cite{SN1}\\ Ratio of LSR at NLO&$(4.23\pm 0.04)\Lrar $&$(4.62\pm
2555: 0.02)$&&SN94 \cite{SN2}\\
2556: NRSR at NLO&$(4.29\pm 0.04)\Longleftarrow $&$(4.69\pm 0.03)$&&SN94 \cite{SN2}\\
2557: FESR at NLO&$(4.22\pm 0.05)\Longleftarrow $&$(4.67\pm 0.05)$&&SN95 \cite{SN2}\\
2558: &$(4.14\pm 0.04)\Longleftarrow $&$(4.75\pm 0.04)$&&KPP98 \cite{KPP98}\\
2559: NRSR at NNLO&$(4.20\pm 0.10)$&&&PP99, MY99 \cite{PEP99}\\
2560: MOM at NNLO&$(4.19\pm 0.06)$&&&JP99 \cite{JP99}\\
2561: NR at NNNLO&$(4.45\pm 0.04)$&&&PY00, LS00 \cite{PY00}\\
2562: NR at NNNLO&$(4.21\pm 0.09)$&&&P01 \cite{P01}\\
2563: NR at NNLO&$(4.25\pm 0.08)$&&$\Longleftarrow$ Residual mass&BS99 \cite{B99}\\
2564: NR at NNLO&$(4.20\pm 0.06)$&&$\Longleftarrow$ $1S$ mass&H00 \cite{H00}\\
2565: MOM at NNNLO&$(4.21\pm 0.05)$&&&KS01 \cite{KS01}\\
2566: &\\
2567: \boldmath $B$ \bf and \boldmath $B^*$ mesons&\\
2568: %&\\
2569: Ratio of LSR at NLO&$(4.24\pm 0.07)\Longleftarrow $&$(4.63\pm
2570: 0.08)$&&SN94 \cite{SN2}\\
2571: Ratio of LSR at NNLO&$(4.05\pm 0.06) $&$(4.69\pm 0.06)$&~~$B$-meson
2572: only&SN01 \cite{SNBC3}\\
2573: &&&\\
2574: \hline
2575: &&&\\
2576: %\multicolumn{1}{l}
2577: {\bf SR Average}& $(4.24\pm 0.06)
2578: $&$(4.66\pm 0.06)$&$\Lrar\bm_b(M_Z)=(2.83\pm 0.04)$\\ &&&\\
2579: \hline
2580: &\\
2581: \bf Average LEP &&&&\\
2582: %&&&&\\
2583: 3-jets at $M_Z$&$(4.23\pm 0.94) $&&$\Longleftarrow\bm_b(M_Z)=(2.82\pm
2584: 0.63)$&LEP
2585: \cite{RSB97}\\ &&&\\
2586: \bf Unquenched Lattice&&&&\\
2587: %&&&&\\
2588: &$(4.23\pm 0.09)$&&&APE00 \cite{APE00}\\
2589: &\\
2590: \hline
2591: \end{tabular}
2592: \end{center}
2593: %\thanks{* Not included in the average.}
2594: \end{table}
2595: \nin
2596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2597: \subsection*{Summary for the heavy quark masses and consequences}
2598: From Tables \ref{tab: mc} and \ref{tab: mb}, we conclude that the
2599: running $c$ and $b$ quark masses
2600: to order $\alpha_s^2$ from the different sum rules analysis are likely to be:
2601: \beq
2602: \bm_c(\bm_c)=(1.23\pm 0.05)~{\rm
2603: GeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\bm_b(\bm_b)=(4.24\pm 0.06)~{\rm GeV}~,
2604: \eeq
2605: where the estimated errors come from the arithmetical average of
2606: different errors. We have not tried
2607: to minimize the errors from weighted average as the correlations
2608: between these different determinations
2609: are not clear at all. However, as one can see in the tables, the
2610: quoted errors are typical for each
2611: individual determinations. These results are consistent with other
2612: determinations given in \cite{PDG}
2613: and in particular with LEP average from three-jet events and lattice
2614: values reported in the tables.
2615: Using the previous relation between the short distance perturbative
2616: pole and running masses, one
2617: obtains, to order
2618: $\alpha_s$:
2619: \beq
2620: M^{PT2}_c=(1.41\pm 0.06)~{\rm GeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M^{PT2}_b=(4.63\pm
2621: 0.07)~{\rm GeV}~,
2622: \eeq
2623: and to order $\alpha_s^2$:
2624: \beq
2625: M^{PT3}_c=(1.64\pm 0.07)~{\rm GeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M^{PT3}_b=(4.88\pm
2626: 0.07)~{\rm GeV}~,
2627: \eeq
2628: which are consistent with the average values to order $\alpha_s$
2629: quoted in the tables and
2630: in \cite{SN2}. However, one should notice the large effects due to
2631: radiative corrections which can
2632: reflect the uncertainties in the pole mass definition.
2633: From the previous values of the running
2634: masses, one can also deduce the values of the RG invariant masses to order
2635: $\alpha_s^2$:
2636: \beq
2637: \hat m_c=(1.21\pm 0.07)~{\rm GeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\hat m_b=(6.9\pm
2638: 0.2)~{\rm GeV}~.
2639: \eeq
2640: We have used $\Lambda_4=325\pm 40$ MeV and $\Lambda_5=225\pm 30$ MeV.
2641: Taking into account threshold
2642: effects and using matching conditions, we can also evaluate the
2643: running masses at the scale 2 GeV
2644: and obtains:
2645: \beq
2646: \bm_c(2)=(1.23\pm 0.05)~{\rm GeV}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\bm_b(2)=(5.78\pm
2647: 0.26)~{\rm GeV}~,
2648: \eeq
2649: Combining the values of $m_b$ and $m_s$ obtained in the previous
2650: section, one can deduce the
2651: scale independent mass ratio:
2652: \beq
2653: {m_b\over m_s}= 48.8\pm 9.8~,
2654: \eeq
2655: which is useful for model buildings.\\ One can also run the value of
2656: $m_b$ at the $Z$-mass, and obtains
2657: the value of $
2658: \bm_b(M_Z)$ quoted in the table:
2659: \beq
2660: \bm_b(M_Z)=(2.83\pm 0.04)~{\rm GeV}.
2661: \eeq
2662: This value compares quite well with the ones measured at $M_Z$ from
2663: three-jet heavy quark production
2664: at LEP where the average $(2.83\pm 0.04)$~GeV of different
2665: measurements \cite{RSB97} is given also in the table.
2666: This is a {\it first indication} for the running of $m_b$ in favour
2667: of the QCD predictions based
2668: on the renormalization group equation.
2669: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2671: \section{The weak leptonic decay constants\index{decay constant}
2672: $f_{D_{(s)}}$ and $f_{B_{(s)}}$}
2673: In this section \footnote{This is an extension and an update of the
2674: some parts of the reviews given
2675: in \cite{SNSRH}.}, we summarize the different results obtained from
2676: the QCD spectral
2677: sum rules (QSSR) on the leptonic decay constants of the $B$ and $D$
2678: mesons\index{meson} which are useful in
2679: the analysis of the leptonic decay and on the $B$-$\bar B$ mixings. Intensive
2680: activities have been devoted to this subject during the last few
2681: years using QSSR and lattice calculations.\\
2682: The leptonic constant of the pseudoscalar\index{pseudoscalar}
2683: $P\equiv D,~B$ meson\index{meson} is defined
2684: as:
2685: \beq
2686: \la 0|\partial_\mu A^\mu |P \ra = f_P M^2_P \vec{P}~,
2687: \eeq
2688: where $\vec{P}$ is the pseudoscalar\index{pseudoscalar}
2689: meson\index{meson} field and $f_P$ is the
2690: pseudoscalar\index{pseudoscalar} decay constant\index{decay constant}
2691: which controls the $P \rar l\nu$ leptonic
2692: decay width, normalized as $f_\pi=130.56$ MeV \footnote{In this
2693: chapter, we adopt this normalization used by
2694: the lattice and experimental groups. In the previous sections, we
2695: have used $f_\pi\equiv f_\pi/\sqrt{2}$ MeV.}. The
2696: current :
2697: \beq
2698: \partial_\mu A^\mu(x)^i_j=(m_i+M_j) \bar{\psi}_i (i\gamma_5)\psi_j~ ~
2699: (i\equiv u,~d,~s;~j\equiv c,b)~,
2700: \eeq
2701: is the divergence\index{divergence} of the axial current. In the sum
2702: rule analysis, we
2703: shall be concerned with the pseudoscalar\index{pseudoscalar}
2704: two-point correlator:
2705: \beq
2706: \Psi_5(q^2)= i\int d^4 x e^{iqx} \la 0|{\bf T} \partial_\mu
2707: A^\mu (x)^i_j
2708: \ga\partial_\mu A^\mu (0)^i_j\dr^\dagger |0\ra ~.
2709: \eeq
2710: In the case of the $B(\bar ub)$
2711: meson\index{meson}, the decay width into $\tau\nu_\tau$ reads:
2712: \beq
2713: \Gamma(B\rar\tau\nu_\tau~+~B\rar\tau\nu_\tau\gamma)=\frac{G^2_F|V_{ub}|^2}{4\pi}M_B\ga
2714: 1-\frac{M^2_\tau}{M^2_B}\dr^2M^2_\tau f^2_B~,
2715: \eeq
2716: where $M_\tau$ expresses the helicity suppression of the decay rate
2717: into light leptons
2718: $e$ and $\mu$. This expression shows that a good determination of
2719: $f_B$ will allow a
2720: precise extraction of the CKM mixing angle\index{mixing angle}
2721: $V_{ub}$. One the other
2722: hand,
2723: $f_B$ and the so-called bag parameter $B_B$ also control the matrix
2724: element of the $\Delta B=2$
2725: $B^0$-$\bar{B}^0$ mixing matrix, which is of a non-perturbative
2726: origin, as we shall discuss in another chapter.\\
2727: However, contrary to the case of the $\pi$ and $K$
2728: mesons\index{meson}, the leptonic
2729: width of the heavy meson\index{heavy meson}\index{meson} is small as
2730: the corresponding
2731: decay constant\index{decay constant}
2732: vanishes as $1/\sqrt{M_Q}$, while the presence of the neutrino in the
2733: final state renders difficult the reconstruction of the signal and the
2734: rejection of background. Moreover, the $B$ leptonic rate is Cabibbo suppressed,
2735: which makes it unreachable with present measurements.
2736: ($\sim |V_{ub}|^2$), while the $D_s$ leptonic rate is Cabbibbo favoured
2737: ($\sim |V_{cs}|^2$). Recent measurements of $f_{D_s}$ are given in
2738: Fig. \ref{fig: fds}, where
2739: the quoted average is \cite{JEFF}:
2740: \beq
2741: f_{D_s} \simeq (264\pm 37)~{\rm MeV}~.
2742: \eeq
2743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2744: \begin{figure}[hbt]
2745: \begin{center}
2746: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figfds.ps}
2747: \caption{Different measurements of $f_{D_s}$ compared with
2748: theoretical predictions from \cite{JEFF}.}
2749: \label{fig: fds}
2750: \end{center}
2751: \end{figure}
2752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2754: \subsection{Upper bound on the value of $f_D$}
2755: Within the QSSR framework, the decay constants\index{decay constant} of the $B$
2756: and $D$ mesons\index{meson}
2757: have been firstly estimated in \cite{102}, while the first upper bounds on
2758: their values have been derived in \cite{WSRQCD} and updated
2759: in the recent review \cite{SNSRH}.
2760: Indeed, a {\it rigorous}
2761: upper bound on these couplings\index{hadrons couplings} can be derived from the
2762: second-lowest superconvergent\index{superconvergent sum
2763: rules}\index{convergent} moment:
2764: \beq
2765: {\cal M}^{(2)} \equiv \frac{1}{2!}\frac{\partial^2 \Psi_5(q^2)}
2766: {\ga \partial q^2\dr^2} \Bigg{\vert} _{q^2=0}~,
2767: \eeq
2768: where for this low-moment, the OPE\index{Operator Product Expansion
2769: (OPE) } well behaves.
2770: Using the positivity of the higher-state contributions to the
2771: spectral function, one can deduce \cite{WSRQCD,BROAD}:
2772: \beq
2773: f_P \leq \frac{M_P}{4\pi} \aga 1+ 3 \frac{m_q}{M_Q}+
2774: 0.751 \bar{\alpha}_s+... \adr~,
2775: \eeq
2776: where one should not misinterpret the mass-dependence in this
2777: expression compared to the one expected from heavy-quark\index{heavy
2778: quark} symmetry.
2779: Applying this result to the $D$ meson\index{meson}, one obtains:
2780: \beq
2781: f_D \leq 2.14 f_\pi~,
2782: \eeq
2783: which is not dependent to leading order on the value of the
2784: charm\index{charm} quarkm mass.
2785: Although
2786: presumably quite weak, this bound, when combined with the recent
2787: determination of the $SU(3)_F$ breaking\index{$SU(3)_F$ breaking}
2788: effects to two loops on
2789: the ratio of decay constants\index{decay constant} \cite{SNFD}:
2790: \beq
2791: \frac{f_{D_s}}{f_D} \simeq (1.15 \pm 0.04)f_\pi~ ,
2792: \eeq
2793: implies
2794: \beq
2795: f_{D_s} \leq (2.46 \pm 0.09)f_\pi\simeq (321.2\pm 11.8)~{\rm MeV}~ ,
2796: \eeq
2797: which is useful for a comparison with the recent measurement of $f_{D_s}$,
2798: with the average value given previously.
2799: One cannot push, however, the uses
2800: of the moments to higher $n$ values in this $D$ channel, in order to
2801: minimize the continuum contribution to the sum rule with the aim to
2802: derive an estimate of the decay constant\index{decay constant} from
2803: this method, and to derive
2804: its ``correct" mass dependence, because the QCD series
2805: will not converge at higher $n$ values.
2806: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2807: \subsection{Estimate of the $D$ decay constant\index{decay constant} $f_D$}
2808: The decay constant $f_D$ can be extracted from the pseudoscalar
2809: Laplace sum rules given in Eq. (\ref{eq:
2810: lsrlh}) \footnote{For reviews, see e.g. \cite{DOMIREV}.}. Prior 1987,
2811: the different sum rules estimate of the
2812: decay constant\index{decay constant}
2813: $f_P$ have been inconsistent among each others. To our knowledge,
2814: the first attempt to understand such disrepancies has been done in
2815: \cite{SNFBI,SNF} (see also \cite{DOMINGUEZ}), where it has been
2816: shown, {\it for the
2817: first time} and a long time before the lattice results, that:
2818: \beq
2819: f_D\approx f_B \approx (1.2\sim 1.5)f_\pi~,
2820: \eeq
2821: which differs from that expected from the heavy quark symmetry scaling
2822: law \cite{HQSYM}:
2823: \beq
2824: f_B\approx \sqrt{\frac{M_D}{M_B}}f_D\ga
2825: \frac{\alpha_s(M_c)}{\alpha_s(M_b)}\dr^{-1/{\beta_1}}~,
2826: \eeq
2827: valid in the extreme case where the heavy quark mass\index{heavy
2828: quark mass}\index{quark mass} is infinite
2829: \footnote{Finite mass corrections to this formula will be dicussed later
2830: on.}.
2831: It has also been understood that the apparent disagreement among different
2832: existing QSSR numerical results in the literature is
2833: {\it not only} due to the choice of the continuum threshold
2834: $t_c$\index{threshold} [ its effect is $(7\sim
2835: 10)\%$ of the result when one moves $t_c$ from the one at the
2836: beginning of sum rule variable to the one
2837: where the $t_c$ stability is reached.]\footnote{In some papers in
2838: the literature, the value of $t_c$ is
2839: taken smaller than the previous range. In this case, the $t_c$ effect is
2840: larger than the one given here.} as
2841: misleadingly claimed in the literature. Indeed, the main effect is
2842: {\it also} due to the different values of the quark mass\index{quark
2843: mass}es used
2844: \footnote{A critical review on the
2845: discrepancy between different existing estimates is given in
2846: \cite{SNREV}.}, which is shown explicitly
2847: in the table of \cite{SNFD}.
2848: \\ In the
2849: $D$ channel, the most appropriate sum rule is the (relativisitc) Laplace
2850: sum rule\index{Laplace sum rule}, as the OPE\index{Operator Product
2851: Expansion (OPE) } of the
2852: $q^2=0$ moments does not converge for larger value of the number of
2853: derivatives $n$, at which the $D$ meson\index{meson} contribution to
2854: the spectral integral
2855: is optimized. The results from different groups are consistent with each
2856: others for a given value of the
2857: $c$-quark mass\index{quark mass}. For the $D$ meson\index{meson}, the
2858: optimal result is obtained for:
2859: \beq
2860: 6\leq t_c \leq 9.5~\mbox{GeV}^2~,~~~~~~~~~\tau\simeq (1.2\pm
2861: 0.2)~\mbox{GeV}^{-2}~.
2862: \eeq
2863: where the QCD corrections are still reasonnably small. The most
2864: recent estimate including $\alpha_s^2$
2865: corrections from a simultaneous fit of the set either
2866: ($f_D,\bm_c(m_c)$) or ($f_D, M_c^{pole}$) is given in
2867: Fig. \ref{fig: mcfd}. The obtained values of the quark masses have
2868: been quoted in Table \ref{tab:
2869: mc}. The resulting value of $f_D$ is \cite{SNBC3}:
2870: \beq
2871: f_D \simeq (203\pm 23)~{\rm MeV}~,
2872: \eeq
2873: in agreement with the recent evaluation $(195\pm 20)$ MeV at order
2874: $\alpha_s^2$ but using the
2875: pole mass as input \cite{STEIN01}.
2876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2877: \subsection{Ratio of the decay constants $f_{D_s}/f_D$ and $f_{B_s}/f_B$}
2878: The $SU(3)$ breaking ratios
2879: $f_{D_s}/f_D$ and $f_{B_s}/f_B$ have been obtained semi-analytically in
2880: \cite{SNFD}. In order to have a qualitative understanding of the size
2881: of these corrections, we strat from
2882: the global hadron-quark duality sum rule:
2883: \beq
2884: \int_0^{\omega_c}d\omega~ {\rm Im}\Psi_5^{res}(\omega)\simeq
2885: \int_0^{\omega_c}d\omega ~{\rm Im}\Psi_5^{\bar qQ}(\omega)~,
2886: \eeq
2887: where $\omega_c$ is the continuum energy defined as:
2888: \beq
2889: t=(E+M_Q)^2\equiv M^2_Q+\omega M_Q~.
2890: \eeq
2891: Keeping the leading order terms in $\alpha_s$ and in $1/M_Q$, it leads to:
2892: \beq
2893: R_P\simeq \rho_P\Bigg{\{}1+3\ga{m_s\over \omega_c}\dr\ga 1-{m_s\over M_Q}\dr
2894: -6\ga{m_s\over \omega_c}^2\dr-\ga{m_s\over M_Q}\dr \ga 1-{m_s\over
2895: M_Q}\dr\Bigg{\}}~,
2896: \eeq
2897: where:
2898: \beq
2899: \rho_P\equiv \ga{M_P\over M_{P_s}}\dr^2\ga 1+{m_s\over M_Q}\dr~.
2900: \eeq
2901: The value of $\omega$ is fixed from stability criteria to be
2902: \cite{SNFBI,SNREV,SNHQET2,SNHQET}:
2903: \beq
2904: \omega_c\simeq (3.1\pm 0.1)~{\rm GeV}.
2905: \eeq
2906: The sum rule indicates that the $SU(3)$ breaking corrections are of
2907: two types, the one $m_s/M_Q$ and the
2908: other $m_s/\omega_c$. More quantitatively, we work with the Laplace sum rule:
2909: \beq
2910: {\cal L}=\int_0^{\omega_c}d\omega~{\rm e}^{- \omega\tau}~{\rm
2911: Im}\Psi_5^{res}(\omega)
2912: \eeq
2913: Analogously the Laplace sum rule gives:
2914: \beq
2915: R_P^2\simeq \rho_P^2\Bigg{\{}1+2(2.2\pm 0.2)\ga{m_s\over
2916: \omega_c}\dr\ga 1-{m_s\over M_Q}\dr
2917: -2\ga 8.2\pm 1.6\dr\ga{m_s\over \omega_c}^2\dr\Bigg{\}}~,
2918: \eeq
2919: where the numerical integration includes a slight $M_Q$ dependence.
2920: Including $m_s\alpha_s$ and $m_s^2\alpha_s$-corrections, the
2921: resulting values of the ratio are:
2922: \beq
2923: R_D\equiv {f_{D_s}\over f_D}=1.15\pm 0.04~,~~~~~~~ R_B\equiv
2924: {f_{B_s}\over f_B}=1.16\pm 0.05~.
2925: \eeq
2926: This result implies:
2927: \beq
2928: f_{D_s} \simeq (235\pm 24)~{\rm MeV}~,
2929: \eeq
2930: which agrees within the errors with the data \cite{JEFF}
2931: and lattice \cite{LATTFB} averages both quoted in Fig.~\ref{fig: fds}.
2932: This feature increases the confidence in the uses of the QSSR method
2933: for predicting the not yet measured decay
2934: constant\index{decay constant} of the $B$ meson\index{meson}.
2935: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2936: \begin{table}[hbt]
2937: \begin{center}
2938: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
2939: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
2940: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4pc}
2941: % -----------------------------------------------------
2942: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241
2943: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
2944: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
2945: % -----------------------------------------------------
2946: \caption{Estimate of $f_{B_{(s)}}$ to order $\alpha_s^2$ and
2947: $f_{B_{s}}/f_{B}$ to order
2948: $\alpha_s$ from QSSR and comparison with the lattice.}
2949: \label{tab: fb}
2950: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lcl}
2951: \begin{tabular}{l l l l l l}
2952: %\hline
2953: \hline
2954: &&& \\
2955: Sources&$f_{B}$ [MeV]&$f_{B_{(s)}}/f_{B}$&$f_{B_s}$ [MeV]&Comments & Authors\\
2956: &&&\\
2957: \hline
2958: &&&\\
2959: \bf QSSR&&&&\\
2960: LSR&$203\pm 23$& $1.16\pm 0.04\Lrar$&$236\pm 30$&$M_{pole}$, $\bm_b$:
2961: output &SN01 \cite{SNBC3} \\
2962: &$210\pm
2963: 19$& &$244\pm 21$&$\bm_b$: input&JL01 \cite{JL01} \\
2964: HQETSR&$206\pm
2965: 20$& &&$M_{pole}$: input&PS01 \cite{STEIN01} \\
2966: %&&&&\\
2967: &&&\\
2968: \hline
2969: &&&\\
2970: {\bf SR Average}& $207\pm 21\Lrar$&&$ 240\pm 24$&
2971: \\ &&&\\
2972: \hline
2973: &&&\\
2974: \bf Unq. Lattice&&&&\\
2975: &$200\pm 30$& $1.16\pm 0.04\Lrar$&$232\pm 35$&average &LAT01\cite{LAT01}
2976: \\
2977: &\\
2978: \hline
2979: \end{tabular}
2980: \end{center}
2981: %\thanks{* Not included in the average.}
2982: \end{table}
2983: \nin
2984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2985: \subsection{Estimate of the $B$ decay constant\index{decay constant} $f_B$}
2986: For the estimate of $f_B$, one can either work with the Laplace, the
2987: moments or
2988: their non-relativistic variants because the $b$-quark
2989: mass\index{quark mass} is relatively
2990: heavy. The optimal result
2991: which we shall give here comes from the Laplace relativistic sum
2992: rules. They corresponds to the {\it conservative range} of parameters:
2993: \beq
2994: 0.6\leq E_c^{(b)}\equiv \sqrt{t_c}-M_B\leq 1.8~\mbox{GeV}~,
2995: ~~~~~~~~~\tau\simeq 0.38~\mbox{GeV}^{-2}~,
2996: \eeq
2997: which have been used in the previous section for getting the $b$-quark mass.
2998: As shown in the figure given in \cite{SNF1,SNF2}, the
2999: dominant corrections come from the $\la \bar uu\ra$ quark
3000: condensate\index{quark condensate}
3001: with the strengh $(30\sim
3002: 40)\%$ of the lowest order term in $f_B$, while the higher condensate
3003: effects are
3004: smaller, which are respectively $-(20\sim 30)\%~,~ +(5\sim 8)\%$ for the
3005: $d=5$ and 6 condensates. This shows, despite the large value of the quark
3006: condensate\index{quark condensate}
3007: contribution, that the OPE\index{Operator Product Expansion (OPE) } is
3008: convergent\index{convergent}. It has been noticed in \cite{SNF1,SNF2},
3009: that the convergence of the OPE\index{Operator Product Expansion (OPE) }
3010: is faster for the relativistic LSR\index{Laplace sum rule} than for the
3011: moments, such that the most precise result should from the
3012: LSR\index{Laplace sum rule} .
3013: In both cases the perturbative corrections are small.
3014: One obtains from the relativistic LSR\index{Laplace sum rule} , the
3015: results to order $\alpha_s^2$
3016: \cite{SNBC3}:
3017: \beq
3018: f_B \simeq (203\pm 23)~{\rm MeV}\simeq (1.55\pm 0.18)f_\pi ~,
3019: \eeq
3020: and to order $\alpha_s$ (see previous discussion) \cite{SNFD}:
3021: \beq
3022: \frac{f_{B_s }}{f_B}\simeq 1.16 \pm 0.04~.
3023: \eeq
3024: These values of $f_B$ and $f_D$ agree quite well with the previous QSSR
3025: findings in \cite{SNFD}, \cite{SNB} and \cite{DOMINGUEZ}. They also
3026: agree with the
3027: non-relativistic sum rules estimate in the full theory \cite{SNFBI}, in HQET
3028: \cite{GROZINB,STEIN01} and in \cite{SNHQET2,SNHQET}. However, unlike
3029: the relativistic sum rules, the HQET sum rule is strongly affected by the huge
3030: perturbative radiative corrections of about 100$\%$, which is
3031: important at the sum
3032: rule scale of about 1 GeV at which the HQET sum rule optimizes. These
3033: results are also
3034: in good agreement with the lattice average estimate given in Table
3035: \ref{tab: fb}.
3036: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3037: \subsection{Static limit and $1/M_b$-corrections to $f_B$}
3038: As noticed previously, the {\it first} result
3039: $f_B \simeq f_D$ in \cite{SNFD}, which has been confirmed by recent estimates
3040: from different approaches, shows a large violation of the scaling law
3041: expected from heavy-quark\index{heavy quark} symmetry. This result
3042: suggests that finite
3043: quark mass\index{quark mass} corrections are still huge at the $D$ and $B$
3044: meson\index{meson} masses. The first attempt to understand this
3045: problem analytically is
3046: in \cite{SNF} in terms of large corrections of the type $E_c/M_b$ if
3047: one expresses in this paper
3048: the continuum threshold $t_c$ in terms of the threshold energy $E_c$:
3049: \beq
3050: t_c\equiv (E_c+M_b)^2.
3051: \eeq
3052: Later on different approaches have been investigated for the estimate
3053: of the size
3054: of these corrections. \\
3055: In the lattice approach, these mass corrections have been estimated from
3056: a fit of the obtained value of the meson\index{meson} decay
3057: constant\index{decay constant}
3058: at finite and
3059: infinite (static limit\index{static limit}) values of the heavy quark
3060: mass\index{heavy quark mass}\index{quark mass} and
3061: by assuming that these corrections are polynomial in $1/M_Q$ up to
3062: log. corrections. A
3063: similar analysis has been done with the sum rule in the full theory
3064: \cite{SNF1,SNF2}, by studying numerically the quark mass\index{quark
3065: mass} dependence of
3066: the decay constant\index{decay constant} until the quark mass\index{quark mass}
3067: value ($M_Q\leq 15$ GeV) until
3068: which one may expect that the sum rule analysis is still valid. In so doing, we
3069: use the parametrization:
3070: \beq
3071: f_B \sqrt{M_B} \simeq \tilde{f}_B
3072: \alpha_s^{1/{\beta_1}}\aga 1-\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}-
3073: \frac{A}{M_b}+\frac{B}{M^2_b}\adr~,
3074: \eeq
3075: by including the quadratic mass corrections. The analysis gives
3076: \footnote{The numbers given in \cite{SNF1,SNF2} correspond to the
3077: quark mass\index{quark mass} $M_b=4.6$ GeV and should be rescaled
3078: until the meson\index{meson}
3079: mass $M_B$. In the following, we shall also work with $f_B$
3080: normalized to be $\sqrt{2}$ bigger than
3081: in the original papers.}:
3082: \beq
3083: \tilde{f}_B\equiv \ga f_B\sqrt{M_B}\dr_\infty\simeq
3084: (0.65 \pm 0.06)~\mbox{GeV}^{3/2}~,
3085: \eeq
3086: which one can compare with the results from the HQET Laplace sum
3087: rule\index{Laplace sum rule}
3088: \cite{GROZINB} and \cite{SNHQET,ZAL2}:
3089: \beq
3090: \tilde{f}_B\simeq
3091: (0.35 \pm 0.10)~\mbox{GeV}^{3/2}~,
3092: \eeq
3093: and from FESR\index{finite energy sum rule} \cite{SNHQET}:
3094: \beq
3095: \tilde{f}_B\simeq
3096: (0.57\pm 0.10)~\mbox{GeV}^{3/2}~,
3097: \eeq
3098: Taking the average of these three (independent) determinations,
3099: one can deduce:
3100: \beq
3101: \tilde{f}_B\simeq
3102: (0.58\pm 0.09)~\mbox{GeV}^{3/2}~,
3103: \eeq
3104: where we have done an arithmetic average of the errors.
3105: This result is in good agreement with the lattice value
3106: given in \cite{LATTFB,COLLINS} using nonperturbative clover fermions.
3107: One can translate
3108: this result into the value of $f_B$ in the static limit approximation:
3109: \beq
3110: f^{stat}_B\simeq (1.9\pm 0.3)f_\pi~.
3111: \eeq
3112: We can also use the previous value of $f^{stat}_B$ together with the previous
3113: values of $f_B$ and $f_D$ at the ``physical" quark mass\index{quark
3114: mass}es in order to determine
3115: numerically the coefficients $A$ and $B$ of the $1/M_b$ and $1/M^2_b$
3116: corrections.
3117: In so doing, we use the values of the quark "pole" mass\index{quark
3118: mass}es given in Tables
3119: \ref{tab: mc} and \ref{tab: mb}. Then, we obtain from a quadratic fit:
3120: \beq
3121: A\approx 0.98~
3122: \mbox{GeV}~~~~~\mbox{and}~~~~~ B \approx 0.35~\mbox{GeV}^2~,
3123: \eeq
3124: while a linear fit gives a large uncertainty:
3125: \beq
3126: A\approx (0.74\sim 0.91)~\mbox{GeV}~.
3127: \eeq
3128: One can notice that the fit of these coefficients depends strongly
3129: one the input values of $f_D$ and $f_B$. Indeed, using some other set of values
3130: as in \cite{SNF1,SNF2,SNHQET2}, one obtains values about 2 times
3131: smaller.Therefore,
3132: we consider as a conservative value of these coefficients an
3133: uncertainty of about 50\%:
3134: The value of A obtained is comparable with the one from HQET sum rules
3135: \cite{NEUBERT2} and \cite{SNF1,SNHQET2} of about $0.7\sim 1.2$ GeV.
3136: A similar value of $A$ has been
3137: also obtained from the recent NR lattice calculations with dynamical
3138: fermions and using
3139: a linear fit \cite{COLLINS}:
3140: \beq
3141: A\approx 0.7~\mbox{GeV}~.
3142: \eeq
3143: One can $qualitatively$ compare this result with the one obtained from
3144: the analytic expression of the moment in the full theory \cite{SNB},
3145: \cite{SNF,ZAL2}:
3146: \beq
3147: f_B^2 \approx \frac{1}{\pi^2}\frac{E^{3}_c}{M_b}
3148: \Bigg{[} 1-\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}-\frac{3(n+2)E_c}{M_b}+...
3149: -\frac{\pi^2}{2} \frac{\la \bar uu \ra}{E^3_c}+...\Bigg{]}~ .
3150: \eeq
3151: Here, one can notice that the size of the $1/M_b$ corrections depends on the
3152: number of moments, such that their estimate using literally the
3153: expression of the
3154: moments can be inconclusive. A qualitative estimate of these corrections can be
3155: done from the semilocal duality\index{local duality} sum rule, which has more
3156: intuitive physical meaning due
3157: to its direct connection with the leptonic width and total cross-section
3158: through the optical theorem. It corresponds to $n=-2$, and leads to the
3159: $interpolating~formula$
3160: \cite{ZAL2}:
3161: \beq
3162: \sqrt{2}f_B \sqrt{M_B} \approx \frac{E^{3/2}_c}{\pi} \alpha_s^{1/{\beta_1}}
3163: \ga \frac{M_b}{M_B}\dr^{3/2} \Bigg\{ 1-\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
3164: +\frac{3}{88}\frac{E^2_c}{M^2_b}
3165: -\frac{\pi^2}{2} \frac{\la \bar uu \ra}{E^3_c}+...\Bigg\}~,
3166: \eeq
3167: from which, one obtains:
3168: \bea
3169: A &\approx &\frac{3}{2}(M_B-M_b) \simeq 1~\mbox{GeV},\nnb \\
3170: B &\approx& \frac{3}{88}E_c^2+\frac{27}{32}(M_B-M_b)^2 \simeq 0.45~\mbox
3171: {GeV}^2~,
3172: \eea
3173: which is in good agreement with the previous numerical estimate.
3174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3175: \section{Conclusions}
3176: We have reviewed the determinations of the quark masses and leptonic
3177: decay constants of (pseudo)scalar mesons
3178: which are useful in particle physics phenomenology. The impressive
3179: agreements of the QSSR results with the data
3180: when they are measured and/or with lattice calculations in different
3181: channels indicate the self-consistency
3182: of the QSSR approach making it as one of the most powerful
3183: semi-analytical QCD nonperturbative approach
3184: available today. Applications of these results for studying the
3185: $B$-$\bar B$ mixings and $CP$-violation will be
3186: discussed in the next chapter.
3187: \section*{Acknowledgements}
3188: It is a pleasure to thank Valya Zakharov for the hospitality at the Max-Planck
3189: Institute f\"ur Physik (Munich) where this work has been completed
3190: and for some discussions.
3191: \input{bibq}
3192: \end{document}
3193: