1: \documentclass[aps,tightenlines,nofootinbib,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{eqnarray}}
8: \newcommand{\eear}{\end{eqnarray}}
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{Surviving the renormalon in heavy quark
12: potential}
13:
14:
15: \author{Taekoon Lee}
16: \email{tlee@muon.kaist.ac.kr}
17:
18: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Korea Advanced Institute of
19: Science and Technology, Daejon 305-701, Korea}
20:
21:
22:
23: %\date{\today}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We show that the Borel resummed
27: perturbative static potential at $N_f=0$ converges well, and is
28: in a remarkable agreement with the quenched lattice calculation at
29: distances $1/r\agt 660$ MeV. This shows that Borel resummation is
30: very good at handling the renormalon in the static potential (and in
31: the pole mass), and allows one to use the pole mass in perturbative
32: calculation of heavy quark physics.
33:
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36:
37: \pacs{}
38:
39: %\keywords{}
40:
41: \maketitle
42:
43:
44: \section{\label{sec1}Introduction}
45: The asymptotic freedom of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) allows one to calculate
46: the short distance physics accurately using perturbation. Unexpectedly,
47: however, the perturbative expansion of the static potential between
48: a quark-antiquark pair does not show a convergence even at very short
49: distances (see Fig. \ref{fig1}). Moreover, no agreement is seen with
50: the accurate lattice calculations of the static potential.
51: This led to a suggestion of nonperturbative linear potential at
52: short distance \cite{bali1},
53: which, if proven true, would violate the expectation
54: of the operator product expansion (OPE) that the nonperturbative effect
55: at short distance is at most a quadratic potential.
56:
57: On the other hand, the bad convergence
58: behavior of the perturbative expansion of the
59: potential is well understood to be caused by the infrared (IR) renormalon
60: which induces a constant nonperturbative
61: effect proportional to $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ \cite{al}.
62: This prompted several approaches to the problem.
63: One is based on the observation that the force between a pair of
64: static quarks is free from the leading
65: renormalon. The potential obtained
66: by integrating the force calculated in perturbation indeed agrees
67: quite well
68: at short distance with the lattice potential \cite{sommer1}, up to an
69: $r$ independent constant.
70: Another approach is the renormalon subtracted (RS) scheme \cite{pineda1},
71: in which one subtracts order by order the renormalon contribution
72: from the perturbative potential. The potential calculated
73: in this way also shows an improved convergence and agreement
74: with the lattice potential.
75: Another idea is to employ the cancellation of the renormalons in the
76: static potential and the pole mass of the heavy quark \cite{hoang,beneke-98}.
77: By expanding the pole mass and the static potential of a color singlet
78: quarkonium in the running coupling $\alpha_s(\mu)$
79: and a short distance mass $m(\mu)$ one can avoid the renormalon problem,
80: and indeed such an
81: expansion shows an improved convergence
82: \cite{sumino1,sumino-pt1,sumino-pt2}.
83:
84:
85: In this paper we show a more direct
86: approach to the problem is possible
87: via the Borel resummation of the perturbative potential.
88: Since one might believe that the presence of an IR renormalon
89: makes Borel resummation impossible, we state in advance that
90: it is perfectly possible in this case.
91: An IR renormalon in Borel resummation merely demands a corresponding
92: nonperturbative effect, and since in this case it is a constant,
93: the $r$ dependence of the potential can be resummed with no difficulty.
94: Moreover, this renormalon caused nonperturbative effect
95: could be computed in the framework introduced in \cite{lee1}
96: where the nonperturbative effect is determined based on its conjectured
97: analyticity in the complex coupling plane.
98: An obvious advantage of the direct resummation is
99: that the normalization of the potential can be fixed.
100: In the approaches based on the renormalon cancellation/absence
101: the potential can be fixed only up to an $r$ independent constant.
102:
103: As we shall see the Borel resummed potential at short distance
104: converges quickly, and agrees remarkably well
105: with the lattice calculation, in fact better than any other approach
106: introduced so far. The implication of this
107: is significant. In the perturbative
108: calculation of a heavy quark system one does not have to give up
109: the pole mass in favor of a short distance mass
110: to avoid the renormalon problem,
111: and still can have a tight control on
112: the perturbative expansion.
113:
114: Throughout the paper, unless stated otherwise, we consider pure
115: QCD with no active quark flavors ($N_f=0$), and the perturbative
116: expansions considered are assumed to be in the
117: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme. As for the renormalon, we restrict
118: our attention to the leading infrared renormalon that is closest
119: to the origin in the Borel plane.
120:
121: \begin{figure}
122: \includegraphics[angle=-90 , width=10cm
123: ]{Fig1.eps}
124: \caption{\label{fig1} % \footnotesize
125: The static potential at leading order (dotted), next-leading order (dashed),
126: and next-next-leading order (solid).
127: The data points denote lattice potential.}
128: \end{figure}
129:
130: \section{\label{sec2}Bilocal expansion of the Borel transform}
131:
132: In general the perturbative expansion in weak coupling constant is an
133: asymptotic expansion. When the large order behavior of the expansion
134: is sign alternating like in $\phi^4$ theory it may be Borel resummed.
135: However, when the expansion is of same sign at large orders Borel
136: resummation demands a more careful treatment \cite{justin0}.
137: In the case of the latter,
138: one can first do Borel resummation at an unphysical negative coupling,
139: at which the series is sign alternating,
140: and then do analytic continuation in the complex coupling plane
141: to the physical positive coupling.
142: The Borel resummed amplitude obtained in such a way, however,
143: turns out to have a cut along
144: the positive real axis in the coupling plane, and consequently has
145: an ambiguous imaginary part at a physical coupling.
146: In Borel integration this imaginary part arises
147: precisely from the infrared (IR) renormalon singularity
148: of the Borel transform on the integration contour.
149: This unphysical, ambiguous imaginary part then must be canceled by
150: the nonperturbative effect corresponding to the renormalon. For further
151: details we refer to \cite{lee1}.
152:
153: Thus the static inter-quark potential V(r)\footnote{Because of its infrared
154: sensitivity the static potential is dependent on the ultrasoft factorization
155: scale beginning at NNNLO \cite{ps1,ps2}, however, to the order we are
156: concerned (NNLO) this can be ignored.},
157: which has an IR renormalon,
158: can be written as the sum of the Borel integration with a
159: contour on the upper (or lower) half plane and the nonperturbative effect
160: \cite{lee1},
161: \be
162: V[r,\alpha_s(1/r)\pm i\epsilon]=\frac{1}{r\beta_0}
163: \int_{0\pm i\epsilon}^{
164: \infty\pm i\epsilon}
165: e^{-b/\beta_0\alpha_s(1/r)}\tilde V (b)\, d b
166: + V_{\rm NP}[r,\alpha_s(1/r)\pm i\epsilon]\,
167: \label{e1}
168: \ee
169: where $\beta_0$ is the one loop coefficient of the QCD $\beta$ function,
170: \bear
171: \beta(\alpha_s)&=&\mu^2\frac{d\alpha_s}{d \mu^2} \nonumber \\
172: &=&-\alpha_s^2(\beta_0 +\beta_1 \alpha_s +\beta_2 \alpha_s^2+{\ldots} )\,,
173: \label{e2}
174: \eear
175: and
176: $\tilde V(b)$ is the Borel transform that
177: is given by
178: \be
179: \tilde V(b)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{V_n}{n!}
180: \left(\frac{b}{\beta_0}\right)^n \,,
181: \label{e3}
182: \ee
183: with $V_n$ defined in the perturbative expansion of the potential,
184: \be
185: V(r,\alpha_s)=\frac{1}{r}\sum_n^\infty V_n \alpha_s^{n+1} \,.
186: \label{e4}
187: \ee
188: $V_{\rm NP}$ denotes the renormalon caused nonperturbative effect.
189: Since the imaginary parts in the first term in Eq. (\ref{e1})
190: and in $V_{\rm NP}$,
191: respectively, cancel, the potential can be written as
192: \be
193: V[r,\alpha_s(1/r)]=\frac{1}{r\beta_0}{\rm Re}\left[\int_{0\pm i\epsilon}^{
194: \infty\pm i\epsilon}
195: e^{-b/\beta_0\alpha_s(1/r)}\tilde V (b)\, d b\right]
196: + {\rm Re}\left\{ V_{\rm NP}[r,\alpha_s(1/r)\pm i\epsilon]\right\}\,.
197: \label{e5}
198: \ee
199: Since $V_{\rm NP}$ is an $r$ independent constant proportional to
200: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$
201: we can ignore it as far as the $r$ dependence of the potential
202: is concerned. However, a discussion on its determination will be
203: given later on.
204:
205: The cancellation of the imaginary parts in the integral term and $V_{\rm NP}$
206: in Eq. (\ref{e1})
207: determines the renormalon singularity in the Borel transform
208: $\tilde V(b)$.
209: By comparing the functional form of
210: \bear
211: V_{\rm NP} &\propto& \Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}} \nonumber\\
212: &\propto& \frac{1}{r}\alpha_s(1/r)^{-\nu}
213: e^{-1/2\beta_0\alpha_s(1/r)} \left[1
214: -\frac{1}{2}(\beta_2\beta_0-\beta_1^2)/\beta_0^3\alpha_s(1/r)
215: +{\ldots} \right]
216: \eear
217: with the
218: imaginary part of the Borel integration
219: term in (\ref{e1}), one can see $\tilde V(b)$ must have the singularity
220: \bear
221: \tilde V(b) = \frac{c_V}{(1-2b)^{1+\nu}}\left[
222: 1+c_1 (1-2b)+c_2(1-2b)^2+{\ldots}\right] + \text{ Analytic part}\,,
223: \label{e6}
224: \eear
225: where
226: the ``Analytic part'' denotes terms analytic around $b=1/2$.
227: The constants $\nu$ and $c_i$, which depend only on the
228: coefficients of the $\beta$ function, were first determined
229: in \cite{beneke1}, and can be computed up to
230: $c_2$ from the known four loop $\beta$ function \cite{betafunction}:
231: \bear
232: \nu &=& \frac{\beta_1}{2\beta_0^2}\,, \hspace{.25in}
233: c_1=\frac{
234: \beta_1^2-\beta_0\beta_2}{4\nu\beta_0^4}\,, \nonumber\\
235: c_2&=& \frac{
236: \beta_1^4 +4\beta_0^3\beta_1\beta_2
237: -2 \beta_0\beta_1^2\beta_2
238: +\beta_0^2(\beta_2^2-2\beta_1^3)-2\beta_3\beta_0^4}{
239: 32\nu(\nu-1)\beta_0^8} \,.
240: \eear
241:
242: The residue $c_V$ becomes the normalization constant of
243: the large order behavior of the expansion (\ref{e4}), and its exact value is
244: not known, but it can be determined perturbatively using the method
245: developed in \cite{lee2,lee3}.
246: Once $c_V$ is known, we can combine the two expansions of the Borel transform
247: (\ref{e3}) and (\ref{e6}) at $b=0$ and at $b=1/2$, respectively, to obtain an
248: improved description of the Borel transform in the region
249: between the origin and the renormalon location at $b=1/2$.
250: There are in principle an infinite number of ways to interpolate the two
251: expansions, but here we shall take a simple one which turns out to suffice
252: our purpose very well. We write the Borel transform as a two
253: point expansion, which we call a {\it bilocal expansion} \footnote{
254: This was first introduced in \cite{lee4} in a slightly different context.}:
255: \bear
256: \tilde V(b) &=&\lim_{N,M \to \infty} \tilde V_{\rm N,M} (b) \nonumber\\
257: &=& \lim_{N,M \to \infty}\left\{
258: \sum_{n=0}^N\frac{h_n}{n!} \left(\frac{b}{\beta_0}\right)^n
259: +\frac{c_V}{(1-2b)^{1+\nu}}\left[ 1 +\sum_{i=1}^M c_i (1-2b)^i\right]\right\}
260: \label{e8} \,.
261: \eear
262: By demanding that this bilocal expansion reproduce the expansion (\ref{e3})
263: around the origin
264: the coefficients $h_n$ can be determined in terms of
265: $V_n$ and $c_i$. This gives, for example, the first three coefficients as
266: \bear
267: h_0&=& V_0 -c_V(1+c_1+c_2) \,, \nonumber\\
268: h_1&=&V_1 -2c_V\beta_0[1-c_2+\nu(1+c_1+c_2)] \,,\nonumber\\
269: h_2&=& V_2-4c_V\beta_0^2[2+\nu(3+c_1-c_2)+\nu^2(1+c_1+c_2)]\,.
270: \eear
271: For the bilocal expansion to work it is essential to have
272: the residue $c_V$ calculated in a good accuracy, which is the subject
273: of the next section.
274:
275: \section{Renormalon residue}
276: The residue can be determined in perturbation using the method
277: developed in \cite{lee2,lee3}. It was shown in \cite{pineda2,pineda3,pineda1}
278: that the residue in the case of the static potential
279: can be calculated quite accurately.
280: For completeness, we repeat the calculation here, and
281: in the meantime obtain an improved estimate.
282:
283: To compute $c_V$ we first consider the function
284: \be
285: R(b)\equiv (1-2b)^{1+\nu} \tilde V(b)\,.
286: \ee
287: Then,
288: \be
289: c_V=R(\frac{1}{2})\,.
290: \ee
291: $R(b)$ has a cut, but is bounded, at $b=1/2$, and thus we can
292: write $c_V$ as a convergent series,
293: \be
294: c_V=\sum_{n=0}^\infty r_n \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^n\,,
295: \ee
296: where $r_n$ are the coefficients of the power expansion of
297: $R(b)$ at the origin.
298: The first three $r_n$ can be calculated from the known
299: $V_n$ up to next-next-leading order (NNLO) \cite{fischler,peter,schroder},
300: and this gives
301: \be
302: c_V\approx-1.33333 +0.49943-0.33844=-1.17234\,.
303: \ee
304: The convergence is not that rapid but the series is oscillating.
305: An important observation made in \cite{pineda2}
306: is that the reliability of this estimate can be checked by the
307: mutual cancellation of the renormalons in the static potential
308: and the pole mass.
309:
310: In perturbation theory the
311: heavy quark pole mass $m_{\rm pole}$ can be expanded as
312: \be
313: m_{\rm pole}[\alpha_s(m_{\overline {\rm MS}})]=
314: m_{\overline {\rm MS}}\left[
315: 1+ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
316: p_n \alpha_s(m_{\overline {\rm MS}})^{n+1}\right] \,,
317: \label{e14}
318: \ee
319: where $m_{\overline{\rm MS}}$ [$\equiv
320: m_{\overline {\rm MS}}(m_{\overline {\rm MS}})$] denotes the
321: $\overline {\rm MS}$ mass.
322: As in the case of the static potential the Borel resummed pole mass
323: can be written as
324: \bear
325: m_{\rm pole}[\alpha_s(m_{\overline {\rm MS}})\pm i\epsilon]
326: =&& m_{\overline {\rm MS}}\left[ 1 +\frac{1}{\beta_0}
327: \int_{0\pm i\epsilon}^{\infty \pm i\epsilon}
328: e^{-b/\beta_0\alpha_s(m_{\overline {\rm MS}}) } \tilde m_{\rm pole}
329: (b) \,db\right]
330: \nonumber \\
331: &&+ m_{\rm NP}[\alpha_s(m_{\overline {\rm MS}}) \pm i\epsilon]\,,
332: \label{e15}
333: \eear
334: where the Borel transform $\tilde m_{\rm pole}(b)$ has
335: the perturbative expansion
336: \be
337: \tilde m_{\rm pole}(b)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{p_n}{n!}
338: \left(\frac{b}{\beta_0}\right)^n\,,
339: \ee
340: and $m_{\rm NP}$ denotes the renormalon induced nonperturbative effect.
341: The renormalon ambiguity in the pole mass proportional to
342: $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}$ gives rise to a renormalon singularity that
343: has exactly the same form as Eq. (\ref{e6}) of the static potential,
344: \bear
345: \tilde m_{\rm pole}(b) = \frac{c_m}{(1-2b)^{1+\nu}}\left[
346: 1+c_1 (1-2b)+c_2(1-2b)^2+{\ldots} \right] + \text{ Analytic part}\,.
347: \eear
348: Now the
349: cancellation of the renormalons in $2m_{\rm pole}$ and
350: $ V(r)$ \cite{hoang,beneke-98} leads to
351: \be
352: c_V+2c_m=0\,.
353: \label{e18}
354: \ee
355:
356: We shall now compute the residue $c_m$ following the computation of
357: $c_V$. Using the known coefficients up to NNLO
358: \cite{massexpansion1,massexpansion2,massexpansion3}
359: of the expansion (\ref{e14}) we have
360: \be
361: c_m \approx 0.42441+ 0.17473+0.02289=0.62203
362: \label{e19}
363: \ee
364: This time the convergence is quite good.
365: With the two computed values we now have
366: \be
367: \frac{c_V+2c_m}{c_V-2c_m}= 0.02968 \,,
368: \label{e20}
369: \ee
370: which shows a remarkable cancellation of the two residues. This
371: gives an assurance on the accuracy of the
372: calculated residues.
373:
374: We shall now compute $c_m$ in a slightly different way.
375: As has been shown in solvable models \cite{lee1}, the knowledge on the
376: renormalon locations in the Borel plane
377: can be used in improving the residue calculation.
378: Since we are interested in the power expansion of $R(b)$ around the origin,
379: we can obtain in principle a better convergence
380: by expanding it in a new complex plane in which it is
381: smoother around the origin \cite{lee4}. This can be done by pushing
382: the renormalon singularities save the first one away from the
383: origin with a
384: conformal mapping. Let us consider the mapping \cite{lee4,lee5}
385: \be
386: w= \frac{\sqrt{1+b}-\sqrt{1-2b/3}}{\sqrt{1+b}+\sqrt{1-2b/3}}\,,
387: \label{e21}
388: \ee
389: which maps the first renormalon at $b=1/2$ to $w=w_0$, where
390: \be
391: w_0= \frac{1}{5}\,,
392: \ee
393: and all other renormalons (at $b=-n$ and $b=1/2+n$ where $n=1,2,3, {\ldots}$)
394: onto the unit circle.
395:
396: Expanding $R[b(w)]$ at the origin to $O(w^2)$ and evaluating it
397: at $w=w_0$ we have a new estimate of $c_m$
398: \be
399: c_m \approx 0.42441 +0.16774+0.03451=0.62667\,,
400: \label{e23}
401: \ee
402: which is quite close to the previous one (\ref{e19}). This stability is
403: reassuring that our computation is accurate.
404:
405: Now we shall quantitatively
406: estimate the error in the computed residue (\ref{e23}).
407: We do this by computing $c_m$ using an estimated NNNLO coefficient of the
408: expansion (\ref{e14}).
409: We first estimate the unknown NNNLO coefficient $p_3$ following the
410: method developed in \cite{lee5}.
411: First, expand $R[b(w)]$ to $O(w^3)$ with $p_3$ included.
412: This gives
413: \be
414: R[b(w)]=0.42441+0.83872 w+0.86284 w^2+(-129.2687+3.43505 \,p_3) w^3 \,.
415: \ee
416: Note that the $p_3$-independent constant term in the coefficient
417: of $w^3$ is much larger than the coefficients of the lower orders.
418: It turns out this is a generic feature of an asymptotic expansion
419: with rapidly growing coefficients, and it can be used in estimating
420: higher order unknown coefficients. From the pattern of the known
421: lower order terms
422: it appears quite reasonable to assume that
423: the fourth coefficient is bounded by
424: \be
425: |129.2687-3.43505\,p_3|<2 \,.
426: \ee
427: This gives an estimate on $p_3$
428: \be
429: p_3= 37.6322\pm 0.58223 \,.
430: \ee
431: With this result we can repeat the computation
432: of $c_m$ in $w$ plane, now at NNNLO, to obtain
433: \be
434: c_m= 0.62667\pm 0.02553\,.
435: \label{e27}
436: \ee
437: We thus conclude the error in the computed residue (\ref{e23})
438: is about 4\%.
439:
440: For the numerical analysis in Sec. \ref{sec5}
441: we use the exact relation (\ref{e18}) and the pole mass residue
442: (\ref{e23}) to compute $c_V$. Since the convergence
443: in the calculation of the pole mass residue is better than
444: that of the potential, we would have a more accurate value
445: this way. We thus have
446: \be
447: c_V= -1.25334 \pm 0.05106\,.
448: \label{e28}
449: \ee
450:
451: \section{Determination of the nonperturbative effect}
452:
453: In this section we give an evaluation of the renormalon caused
454: nonperturbative effect $V_{\rm NP}$
455: using the method developed in \cite{lee1}.
456: As mentioned in Sec. \ref{sec2}
457: the role of $V_{\rm NP}$ in Borel resummation
458: is to cancel the imaginary part arising from the renormalon singularity
459: in the Borel integration of the static potential.
460: This means that in principle the imaginary part of
461: $V_{\rm NP}$ is calculable from perturbation theory.
462: However, the real part, which is the physical quantity, cannot
463: be directly calculated perturbatively without a further input.
464:
465: The method for computing the real part
466: relies on the analyticity of $V_{\rm NP}$ in the
467: complex $\alpha_s$ plane.
468: As mentioned,
469: the potential obtained by Borel resumming the asymptotic expansion
470: has a cut along the positive real
471: axis in the $\alpha_s$ plane, and from this cut the imaginary part of the
472: perturbative term, the integral term in Eq. (\ref{e1}), arises.
473: To cancel this imaginary part
474: it is thus plausible to demand that $V_{\rm NP}(r,\alpha_s)$ also
475: have a cut only along the positive real axis in the coupling plane.
476: This then relates the real part to the perturbatively
477: calculable imaginary part (we refer to \cite{lee1} for details).
478: For convenience, we shall call this method of determining
479: the nonperturbative effect (along with the Borel integration of
480: the perturbation series) `analytic Borel resummation (ABR)'.
481: Some nonperturbative effects in solvable models were shown to be
482: calculable in ABR \cite{lee1}.
483:
484: For ABR to work it is essential to have the functional form of the
485: nonperturbative effect beforehand. In the case of the static
486: potential it is provided by the renormalization group equation.
487: Since $V_{\rm NP}$ in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme
488: should be a constant proportional to
489: $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}$, where
490: \bear
491: \Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}= \frac{1}{r} [\beta_0 \alpha_s(1/r)]^{-\nu}
492: e^{-1/2\beta_0\alpha_s(1/r)} \exp \left\{-\frac{1}{2}
493: \int_0^{\alpha_s(1/r)}\left[
494: \frac{1}{\beta(x)}+\frac{1}{\beta_0 x^2}-
495: \frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0^2 x}\right]\,dx\right\}\,,
496: \label{lambdams}
497: \eear
498: we can write, by demanding $V_{\rm NP}$ have a cut only along the positive
499: real axis,
500: \bear
501: V_{\rm NP}[r,\alpha_s(1/r)]=&&\frac{C}{r} [- \alpha_s(1/r)]^{-\nu}
502: e^{-1/2\beta_0\alpha_s(1/r)} \nonumber \\
503: &&\times \exp \left\{-\frac{1}{2}
504: \int_0^{\alpha_s(1/r)}\left[
505: \frac{1}{\beta(x)}+\frac{1}{\beta_0\alpha_s^2}-
506: \frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0^2 x}\right]\,dx\right\}\,,
507: \eear
508: with $C$ an undetermined real constant. Note that a cut can arise only from
509: the prefactor in Eq. (\ref{lambdams}) with a noninteger $\nu$.
510: Now the cancellation of the imaginary part in $V_{\rm NP}[r,\alpha_s(1/r)
511: \pm i \epsilon]$ with the corresponding imaginary part in the
512: Borel integration term in Eq. (\ref{e1}) fixes the constant $C$:
513: \be
514: C=\frac{c_V \Gamma(-\nu)}{(2\beta_0)^{1+\nu}}\,.
515: \ee
516: The real part of $V_{\rm NP}$ is then given by
517: \bear
518: {\rm Re} \left[ V_{\rm NP}(\alpha_s \pm i\epsilon)\right]
519: = \frac{c_V \Gamma(-\nu)}{2^{1+\nu} \beta_0} \cos(\nu\pi) \Lambda_{\overline
520: {\rm MS}}\,.
521: \label{nonp_v}
522: \eear
523: With the calculated residue $c_V$ in Eq. (\ref{e28}), we find at $N_f=0$
524: \be
525: {\rm Re} \left[ V_{\rm NP}(\alpha_s \pm i\epsilon)\right]
526: = 0.477 \Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}\,.
527: \label{e34}
528: \ee
529: In the numerical analysis in the next section we will combine
530: this result with the Borel integration of the perturbative
531: expansions.
532:
533:
534:
535:
536: \section{\label{sec5}Comparison with lattice calculation}
537:
538: The static potential in lattice calculation is extracted from the
539: Wilson line of a static quark-antiquark pair, computed in
540: Monte Carlo simulation. The recent calculations
541: \cite{lattice1,lattice2,lattice3,lattice4}
542: employing
543: large lattices up to $64^4$ achieved a remarkable accuracy, and
544: can probe a short distance where perturbative QCD should be applicable.
545: It is thus an ideal place where perturbative QCD can be
546: compared with lattice calculations.
547:
548: As we mentioned in Introduction, the truncated power series of the
549: perturbative expansion fails even at very short distance.
550: We shall now see this problem can be cured by Borel resummation.
551:
552: \begin{figure}
553: \includegraphics[angle=-90 ,width=10cm
554: ]{Fig2.eps}
555: \caption{\label{fig2} % \footnotesize
556: The lattice potential vs the Borel resummed potential
557: using $\tilde V_{0,2}$ (dotted), $\tilde V_{1,2}$(dashed),
558: and $\tilde V_{2,2}$ (solid).}
559: \end{figure}
560:
561:
562: The numerical integration of the Borel integral in Eq. (\ref{e5}) can be
563: done easily in $w$ plane defined by the mapping (\ref{e21}).
564: Using the Cauchy's theorem, the integration contour, for example,
565: on the upper half plane
566: in $w$ plane can be deformed to a ray off the origin
567: to the unit circle in the
568: first quadrant. This trick allows to avoid the renormalon
569: singularity on the integration contour, and makes
570: the computation easy. For details we refer to \cite{lee4}.
571:
572: For comparison with lattice
573: calculation we take the accurate data of the recent computation
574: employing large lattices \cite{lattice1}.
575: All the dimensional quantities are in units of
576: the Sommer scale $r_0$ $(\approx 0.5 \,{\rm fm})$ \cite{sommer3},
577: where $r_0$ in terms of $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}$ ($\approx
578: 238$\,MeV) is determined
579: in lattice computation \cite{alphagroup} to be
580: \be
581: r_0\Lambda_{\overline{ \rm MS}}=0.602(48) \,.
582: \ee
583: On the side of the perturbative potential,
584: the Borel integration in Eq. (\ref{e5}) was done using the
585: Borel transform $\tilde V_{0,\rm 2},
586: \tilde V_{1,\rm 2},$ and $\tilde V_{2,\rm 2}$ in the bilocal expansion
587: (\ref{e8}).
588: The coupling constant $\alpha_s(1/r)$ was computed by numerically solving
589: Eq. (\ref{lambdams}) employing the four loop $\beta$ function
590: \cite{betafunction}.
591: Because of the divergent quark self energy
592: the lattice potential is determined only up to an $r$ independent
593: constant, so we subtracted such a constant from the lattice data
594: so that the lattice potential and the NNLO perturbative potential
595: agree exactly at $r/r_0=0.30798$.
596:
597: The result is in Fig. \ref{fig2}.
598: Notice the rapid convergence of the resummed potential
599: at distances $r\alt 0.6r_0$ $[\approx (660$MeV)$^{-1}]$,
600: and the excellent
601: agreement of the NNLO potential with the lattice data.
602: The potential at leading order already
603: fits the lattice values quite well.
604: It is remarkable that perturbative QCD is applicable at
605: distances as large as $r=(660 {\rm MeV})^{-1}$.
606:
607:
608:
609: \section{Discussion and Summary}
610:
611: The first thing we can learn form our result is that
612: in the static potential
613: the leading renormalon is overwhelmingly dominant at short distances
614: and there cannot be any significant nonperturbative
615: effect other than that caused by the renormalon.
616: As already observed in \cite{sommer1,pineda1}, large linear
617: potentials at short distances like those
618: proposed in \cite{bali1,grz,simonov}
619: are excluded.
620:
621: The rapid convergence of the perturbative potential in ABR
622: allows one to use the pole mass in perturbative
623: calculation of heavy quarkonium physics.
624: Because of the bad convergence of the truncated power series of the
625: static potential, there was a limit in
626: the precision achievable with perturbative QCD in
627: quarkonium physics \cite{sumino3,sumino4}. But,
628: it was soon realized that the cancellation of renormalons in
629: the pole mass and the static potential can be used to alleviate the
630: problem \cite{hoang,beneke-98}.
631: Instead of using the pole mass directly,
632: one can achieve an improved convergence
633: by simultaneously expanding the
634: pole mass and static potential in the heavy quark Hamiltonian
635: in terms of the running coupling
636: $\alpha_s(\mu)$ and a short distance mass like
637: the $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass \cite{sumino-pt1,sumino-pt2}.
638: Although this approach {\it avoids}
639: the renormalon problem, there could be
640: large logs in the perturbative expansion which could in principle
641: spoil the convergence.
642: Since the expansion involves two far-separated scales,
643: the heavy quark mass and $1/r$ ($\approx mv$,
644: where $v$ is the heavy quark velocity) large logs
645: like $\ln(r\mu)$ and/or $\ln(m/\mu)$ could survive for any choice of $\mu$,
646: which in practice is typically taken values in-between the two scales.
647: With our resummation of the static potential, the convergence problem
648: at short distance
649: is solved, so the pole mass needs not be abandoned in favor of a short
650: distance mass.
651: Once the pole mass is extracted by comparing, say, a calculated
652: quarkonium spectrum to an experimental value, the $\overline{\rm MS}$
653: mass can be obtained from the pole mass
654: by resumming the quark mass
655: expansion (\ref{e14}) in ABR.
656: Since the renormalon in the pole mass is essentially
657: same as that in the static potential, we
658: can expect a rapid convergence of
659: the Borel resummation of the mass expansion, and we have checked
660: that this is indeed the case. As an example, for the bottom
661: quark ($N_f=4$) with
662: $\alpha_s(m_{\overline{\rm MS}})=0.22$ the `Borel resummed (BR)'
663: mass $m_{\rm BR}$,
664: which is defined as the real part of the integral term in Eq. (\ref{e15}),
665: converges as
666: \be
667: m_{\rm BR}=m_{\overline{\rm MS}}
668: (1+0.15769+0.00409-0.00028) \,.
669: \ee
670: Notice the rapid convergence.
671: The renormalon caused nonperturbative effect
672: $m_{\rm NP}$ in Eq. (\ref{e15})
673: can be determined in ABR, and its real part
674: equals to $-{\rm Re}[V_{\rm NP}]/2$ that is given
675: in Eq. (\ref{nonp_v}).
676: An obvious advantage of the direct resummation of the renormalons
677: is the separation of scales; The perturbative expansions for
678: the pole mass and the static potential are
679: resummed at their optimal scales $\mu=m_{\overline {\rm MS}}$ and
680: $\mu=1/r$, respectively, and there is no mixing of these scales
681: as in the above implementation of renormalon cancellation using a
682: short distance mass. The absence of large logs and the excellent
683: convergence of the resummed mass and potential are expected to provide
684: a new level of precision calculation for heavy quarkonium.
685:
686: \begin{figure}
687: \includegraphics[angle=-90 , width=10cm
688: ]{Fig3.eps}
689: \caption{\label{fig3} % \footnotesize
690: The strong couplings obtained by employing the four loop $\beta$ function
691: (solid) and
692: its [2/3] Pad\'e approximant (dashed).}
693: \end{figure}
694:
695:
696:
697: It is worthwhile to mention that the nonperturbative
698: effects $V_{\rm NP}$ and $m_{\rm NP}$ may actually decouple completely from
699: the quarkonium system. The renormalon cancellation between the pole mass
700: and the static potential means that the ambiguous imaginary parts in
701: these quantities cancel without the introduction of the nonperturbative
702: effects. This implies that the nonperturbative effects are actually
703: spurious, appearing only at an intermediate step in Borel resummation,
704: and physical observables are completely independent of them. Specifically,
705: we may write the Hamiltonian of a heavy quarkonium
706: system as
707: \be
708: H=2m_{\rm pole} +\frac{\roarrow{p}^2}{m_{\rm pole}} +V[r,\alpha_s(1/r)]\,.
709: \ee
710: Putting
711: \bear
712: m_{\rm pole}&=& m_{\rm BR}[m_{\overline {\rm MS}},\alpha_s(m_{\overline {\rm
713: MS}})]+{\rm Re} [ m_{\rm NP}]\,, \nonumber \\
714: V[r,\alpha_s(1/r)]&=&V_{\rm BR}[r,\alpha_s(1/r)] +{\rm Re} [ V_{\rm
715: NP}]\,,
716: \eear
717: where the BR potential $V_{\rm BR}$ denotes the real part of the
718: integral term in Eq. (\ref{e1}),
719: and using the cancellation of $2{\rm Re} [m_{\rm NP}]$ with
720: ${\rm Re}[V_{\rm NP}]$ in
721: ABR,\footnote{This cancellation is not automatic but a
722: feature of ABR.}
723: we can write $H$ in terms of the BR quantities only:
724: \bear
725: H= 2m_{\rm BR} + \frac{\roarrow{p}^2}{m_{\rm BR}}
726: +V_{\rm BR}[r,\alpha_s(1/r)] +
727: O(\roarrow{p}^2{\rm Re} [m_{\rm NP}]/m_{\rm BR}^2)\,.
728: \label{hamiltonian}
729: \eear
730: The remaining dependence on the nonperturbative effect suppressed by
731: an inverse power of the quark mass is expected to cancel when
732: higher order terms in quark mass expansion of the Hamiltonian
733: are taken into account.
734: This shows that the Hamiltonian in BR scheme is formally same
735: as that in the
736: on-shell scheme with the on-shell quantities
737: $m_{\rm pole}$ and $V(r)$
738: replaced by the corresponding BR quantities.
739: Thus for physical
740: observables the specific form of the nonperturbative effects
741: are not necessary.
742:
743: The perturbative potential and the lattice values in Fig. \ref{fig2}
744: begin to deviate
745: at $r\approx 0.6 r_0$, which we
746: regard as the failure of the perturbative potential at these distances.
747: It is interesting to observe that this deviation occurs approximately
748: at the same position where the four loop $\beta$ function fails.
749: The couplings $\alpha_s(1/r)$ obtained by running with the four loop $\beta$
750: function and its $[2/3]$ Pad\'e approximant, which differs from the former
751: only at orders higher than four loop,
752: are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig3}.
753: Notice that they begin to deviate approximately at the same distance
754: where the perturbative potential begins to fail. At $r= 0.6r_0$
755: [$\alpha_s(1/0.6r_0)=0.417$]
756: the $\beta$ function has the expansion
757: \be
758: \beta =-0.152 (1+0.308+0.143+0.097+{\ldots} )
759: \ee
760: which shows the convergence is quite slow at this distance.
761: It seems the coupling grows too fast at these distances,
762: since a more slowly growing coupling would fit the lattice data.
763: This simultaneous deviations could be a coincidence,
764: but a more plausible
765: explanation would be that the failure of the $\beta$ function at these
766: distances results in an unreliable coupling,
767: which then causes the deviation.
768: The $\beta$ function would not be all that
769: fails the perturbative potential.
770: Since there is a renormalon singularity at $b=3/2$ the bilocal
771: expansion (\ref{e8}) at a finite order
772: would certainly fail around $b\agt3/2$.
773: This does not cause any serious problem at small couplings, but
774: as the coupling increases this becomes problematic because
775: the Borel integral in Eq. (\ref{e5}) receives a sizable contribution
776: from the region far from the origin.
777: By varying the upper bound of the
778: integration in Eq. (\ref{e5}) one can easily check
779: that the resummed potential at $r\agt 0.6r_0$
780: is indeed sensitive on the Borel transform at $b\agt 3/2$.
781: This argument suggests that the applicability of the
782: Borel resummed perturbative potential could be extended
783: to larger distances once
784: we have a better control over the $\beta$ function and the Borel
785: transform at such distances.
786:
787: Lastly, we note that the convergence problem of the
788: truncated power series in the
789: perturbative potential is only one example, although a very
790: conspicuous one, of the problem of the QCD
791: expansions in general, especially, at
792: low energies of a few GeVs. The problem was not so visible
793: in these expansions, since many were considered at a fixed scale,
794: not like the perturbative potential considered here where a
795: continuum of scale is involved.
796: Conventionally, in the OPE approach,
797: in these low energy expansions the physical quantity
798: is organized as the sum of a truncated power series and
799: power corrections. Any difference between the truncated power series
800: and the (unknown) true value is swept over to
801: the power corrections. Clearly, this approach fails in the
802: static potential because the potential of the OPE approach
803: is just the truncated power series plus an $r$ independent constant, which
804: we know has a bad convergence and disagrees with the lattice calculation.
805: As already discussed more extensively in the Gross-Llewellyn Smith
806: sum rule \cite{lee6} the solution to the problem is
807: the Borel resummation that properly accounts for the renormalon.
808: Without Borel resummation the bad convergence in the
809: truncated power series results in wide fluctuations in the
810: power corrections as the order of perturbation varies, which is
811: observed in many cases. See \cite{yb,giz} for some examples.
812:
813: To summarize, we have shown that the Borel resummation with a proper
814: account of the renormalon singularity in the Borel plane
815: can resolve the convergence problem of the perturbative static
816: potential and the pole mass, and the potential obtained in such a way is in
817: an excellent agreement with the lattice calculation.
818: Consequently, any significant nonperturbative effect at short distance
819: other than the renormalon effect is excluded, and
820: the pole mass can be used in perturbative calculation
821: of heavy quarkonium physics. The advantages of the direct resummation
822: of the renormalons include rapid convergence of
823: the summations and
824: absence of large logs, and these can open a new level of precision
825: calculation for heavy quarkonium.
826: We also calculated in the framework of ABR the renormalon caused
827: nonperturbative effects in the static potential and the pole mass.
828: The resummation method developed here may be applied to the computation
829: of heavy quarkonium spectra in an approach similar to
830: that employed in \cite{sumino-spect}, where
831: the perturbative potential at short distance is combined with
832: the phenomenological potential at large distance.
833: Also it may be employed in the top threshold production.
834:
835:
836:
837:
838: \begin{acknowledgements}
839: The author is thankful to A.~Pineda for many helpful communications
840: and also to G.~Bali for a correspondence. This work was
841: supported in part by BK21 Core Project.
842:
843: \end{acknowledgements}
844:
845: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
846: %\bibliography{pot}
847:
848: \begin{thebibliography}{39}
849: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
850: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
851: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
852: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
853: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
854: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
855: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
856: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
857: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
858: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
859: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
860: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
861:
862: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bali}(1999)}]{bali1}
863: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~S.} \bibnamefont{Bali}},
864: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B460}},
865: \bibinfo{pages}{170} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
866: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9905387}.
867:
868: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aglietti and Ligeti}(1995)}]{al}
869: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Aglietti}} \bibnamefont{and}
870: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Ligeti}},
871: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B364}},
872: \bibinfo{pages}{75} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}),
873: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9503209}.
874:
875: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Necco and Sommer}(2001)}]{sommer1}
876: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Necco}} \bibnamefont{and}
877: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Sommer}},
878: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B523}},
879: \bibinfo{pages}{135} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),
880: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0109093}.
881:
882: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pineda}(2002)}]{pineda1}
883: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Pineda}}
884: (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0208031}.
885:
886: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hoang et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Hoang, Smith, Stelzer,
887: and Willenbrock}}]{hoang}
888: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~H.} \bibnamefont{Hoang}},
889: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~C.} \bibnamefont{Smith}},
890: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Stelzer}}, \bibnamefont{and}
891: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Willenbrock}},
892: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D59}},
893: \bibinfo{pages}{114014} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
894: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9804227}.
895:
896: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Beneke}(1998)}]{beneke-98}
897: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Beneke}},
898: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B434}},
899: \bibinfo{pages}{115} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}),
900: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9804241}.
901:
902: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brambilla et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Brambilla, Sumino,
903: and Vairo}}]{sumino1}
904: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Brambilla}},
905: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sumino}}, \bibnamefont{and}
906: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Vairo}},
907: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B513}},
908: \bibinfo{pages}{381} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),
909: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0101305}.
910:
911: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sumino}(2002)}]{sumino-pt1}
912: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sumino}},
913: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D65}},
914: \bibinfo{pages}{054003} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),
915: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0104259}.
916:
917: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Recksiegel and
918: Sumino}(2002{\natexlab{a}})}]{sumino-pt2}
919: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Recksiegel}} \bibnamefont{and}
920: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sumino}},
921: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D65}},
922: \bibinfo{pages}{054018} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{a}}),
923: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0109122}.
924:
925: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee}(2002)}]{lee1}
926: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.
927: Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{034027}
928: (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0104306}.
929:
930: \bibitem{justin0}
931: J.~Zinn-Justin, \textit{Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena},
932: (Clarendon, Oxford, 1989).
933:
934:
935: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brambilla et~al.}(1999)}]{ps1}
936: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Brambilla}},
937: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Pineda}},
938: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Soto}},
939: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Vairo}},
940: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D60}},
941: \bibinfo{pages}{091502} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
942:
943: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pineda and Soto}(2000)}]{ps2}
944: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Pineda}} \bibnamefont{and}
945: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Soto}},
946: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B495}},
947: \bibinfo{pages}{323} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
948:
949: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Beneke}(1995)}]{beneke1}
950: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Beneke}},
951: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B344}},
952: \bibinfo{pages}{341} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}),
953: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9408380}.
954:
955: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{van Ritbergen et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{van Ritbergen,
956: Vermaseren, and Larin}}]{betafunction}
957: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{van Ritbergen}},
958: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Vermaseren}},
959: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Larin}},
960: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B400}},
961: \bibinfo{pages}{379} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}),
962: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9701390}.
963:
964: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee}(1997)}]{lee2}
965: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.
966: Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1091}
967: (\bibinfo{year}{1997}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-th/9611010}.
968:
969: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee}(1999)}]{lee3}
970: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.
971: Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B462}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1}
972: (\bibinfo{year}{1999}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9908225}.
973:
974: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cvetic and Lee}(2001)}]{lee4}
975: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Cvetic}} \bibnamefont{and}
976: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}},
977: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D64}},
978: \bibinfo{pages}{014030} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),
979: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0101297}.
980:
981: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pineda}(2001{\natexlab{a}})}]{pineda2}
982: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Pineda}},
983: \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{06}}, \bibinfo{pages}{022}
984: (\bibinfo{year}{2001}{\natexlab{a}}),
985: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0105008}.
986:
987: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pineda}(2001{\natexlab{b}})}]{pineda3}
988: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Pineda}}, \bibinfo{journal}{AIP
989: Conf. Proc.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{602}}, \bibinfo{pages}{265}
990: (\bibinfo{year}{2001}{\natexlab{b}}),
991: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0107079}.
992:
993: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Peter}(1997)}]{peter}
994: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Peter}},
995: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{78}},
996: \bibinfo{pages}{602} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}),
997: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9610209}.
998:
999: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Schroder}(1999)}]{schroder}
1000: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Schroder}},
1001: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B447}},
1002: \bibinfo{pages}{321} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
1003: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9812205}.
1004:
1005: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fischler}(1977)}]{fischler}
1006: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Fischler}},
1007: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B129}},
1008: \bibinfo{pages}{157} (\bibinfo{year}{1977}).
1009:
1010: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gray et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Gray, Broadhurst,
1011: Grafe, and Schilcher}}]{massexpansion1}
1012: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Gray}},
1013: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Broadhurst}},
1014: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Grafe}}, \bibnamefont{and}
1015: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Schilcher}},
1016: \bibinfo{journal}{Z. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C48}},
1017: \bibinfo{pages}{673} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).
1018:
1019: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Melnikov and Ritbergen}(2000)}]{massexpansion2}
1020: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Melnikov}} \bibnamefont{and}
1021: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~v.} \bibnamefont{Ritbergen}},
1022: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B482}},
1023: \bibinfo{pages}{99} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}),
1024: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9912391}.
1025:
1026: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chetyrkin and Steinhauser}(2000)}]{massexpansion3}
1027: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~G.} \bibnamefont{Chetyrkin}}
1028: \bibnamefont{and}
1029: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Steinhauser}},
1030: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B573}},
1031: \bibinfo{pages}{617} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}),
1032: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9911434}.
1033:
1034: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jeong and Lee}(2002)}]{lee5}
1035: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~S.} \bibnamefont{Jeong}} \bibnamefont{and}
1036: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),
1037: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B550}},
1038: \bibinfo{pages}{166} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),
1039: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0204150}.
1040:
1041: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Necco and Sommer}(2002)}]{lattice1}
1042: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Necco}} \bibnamefont{and}
1043: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Sommer}},
1044: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B622}},
1045: \bibinfo{pages}{328} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),
1046: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-lat/0108008}.
1047:
1048: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bali et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Bali, Schilling, and
1049: Wachter}}]{lattice2}
1050: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~S.} \bibnamefont{Bali}},
1051: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Schilling}},
1052: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Wachter}},
1053: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D56}},
1054: \bibinfo{pages}{2566} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}),
1055: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-lat/9703019}.
1056:
1057: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Schilling and Bali}(1993)}]{lattice3}
1058: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Schilling}} \bibnamefont{and}
1059: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~S.} \bibnamefont{Bali}},
1060: \bibinfo{journal}{Int. J. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C4}},
1061: \bibinfo{pages}{1167} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}),
1062: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-lat/9308014}.
1063:
1064: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bali and Schilling}(1993)}]{lattice4}
1065: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~S.} \bibnamefont{Bali}} \bibnamefont{and}
1066: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Schilling}},
1067: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D47}},
1068: \bibinfo{pages}{661} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}),
1069: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-lat/9208028}.
1070:
1071: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sommer}(1994)}]{sommer3}
1072: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Sommer}},
1073: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B411}},
1074: \bibinfo{pages}{839} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}),
1075: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-lat/9310022}.
1076:
1077: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Capitani et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Capitani, Luscher,
1078: Sommer, and Wittig}}]{alphagroup}
1079: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Capitani}},
1080: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Luscher}},
1081: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Sommer}}, \bibnamefont{and}
1082: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Wittig}}
1083: (\bibinfo{collaboration}{ALPHA}), \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.}
1084: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B544}}, \bibinfo{pages}{669} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
1085: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-lat/9810063}.
1086:
1087: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gubarev et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Gubarev, Polikarpov,
1088: and Zakharov}}]{grz}
1089: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~V.} \bibnamefont{Gubarev}},
1090: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~I.} \bibnamefont{Polikarpov}},
1091: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~I.}
1092: \bibnamefont{Zakharov}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mod. Phys. Lett.}
1093: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{A14}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2039} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
1094:
1095: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Simonov}(1999)}]{simonov}
1096: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~A.} \bibnamefont{Simonov}},
1097: \bibinfo{journal}{JETP Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{69}},
1098: \bibinfo{pages}{505} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
1099: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9903532}.
1100:
1101: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jezabek
1102: et~al.}(1998{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Jezabek, Kuhn, Peter, Sumino, and
1103: Teubner}}]{sumino3}
1104: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Jezabek}},
1105: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Kuhn}},
1106: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Peter}},
1107: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sumino}}, \bibnamefont{and}
1108: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Teubner}},
1109: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D58}},
1110: \bibinfo{pages}{014006} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}{\natexlab{a}}),
1111: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9802373}.
1112:
1113: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jezabek
1114: et~al.}(1998{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Jezabek, Peter, and
1115: Sumino}}]{sumino4}
1116: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Jezabek}},
1117: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Peter}}, \bibnamefont{and}
1118: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sumino}},
1119: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B428}},
1120: \bibinfo{pages}{352} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}{\natexlab{b}}),
1121: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9803337}.
1122:
1123: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Contreras et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Contreras, Cvetic,
1124: Jeong, and Lee}}]{lee6}
1125: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Contreras}},
1126: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Cvetic}},
1127: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~S.} \bibnamefont{Jeong}}, \bibnamefont{and}
1128: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}},
1129: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D66}},
1130: \bibinfo{pages}{054006} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),
1131: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0203201}.
1132:
1133: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yang and Bodek}(1999)}]{yb}
1134: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.-K.} \bibnamefont{Yang}} \bibnamefont{and}
1135: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Bodek}},
1136: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}},
1137: \bibinfo{pages}{2467} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
1138: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9809480}.
1139:
1140: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Geshkenbein et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Geshkenbein,
1141: Ioffe, and Zyablyuk}}]{giz}
1142: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~V.} \bibnamefont{Geshkenbein}},
1143: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~L.} \bibnamefont{Ioffe}}, \bibnamefont{and}
1144: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~N.} \bibnamefont{Zyablyuk}},
1145: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D64}},
1146: \bibinfo{pages}{093009} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),
1147: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0104048}.
1148:
1149: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Recksiegel and
1150: Sumino}(2002{\natexlab{b}})}]{sumino-spect}
1151: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Recksiegel}} \bibnamefont{and}
1152: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sumino}}
1153: (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{b}}),
1154: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0207005}.
1155:
1156: \end{thebibliography}
1157:
1158: \end{document}
1159:
1160: ps1:pr:d60:091502
1161: ps2:pl:b495:323
1162: bali1:hep-ph/9905387
1163: pineda1:hep-ph/0208031
1164: sommer1:hep-ph/0109093
1165: sumino1:pl:b513:381
1166: sumino2:pr:d65:054003
1167: lee1:pr:d66:034027
1168: beneke1:pl:b344:341
1169: lee2:pr:d56:1091
1170: lee3:pl:b462:1
1171: lee4:pr:d64:014030
1172: pineda2:hep-ph/0105008
1173: pineda3:hep-ph/0107079
1174: hoang:hep-ph/9804227
1175: beneke-98:pl:b434:115
1176: lee5:hep-ph/0204150
1177: sommer2:hep-lat/9810063
1178: sommer3:hep-lat/9310022
1179: sommer4:hep-ph/0108008
1180: GRZ:mpl:a14:2039
1181: simonov:hep-ph/9903532
1182: sumino3:hep-ph/9802373
1183: sumino4:hep-ph/9803337
1184: lee6:pr:d66:054006
1185: yb:prl:82:2467
1186: giz:pr:d64:093009
1187: peter:prl:78:602
1188: schroder:pl:b447:321
1189: al:pl:b364:75
1190: betafunction:pl:b400:379
1191: fischler:np:b129:157
1192: massexpansion1:zp:c48:673
1193: massexpansion2:pl:b482:99
1194: massexpansion3:np:b573:617
1195: lattice1:hep-lat/0108008
1196: lattice2:pr:d56:2566
1197: lattice3:ijmp:c4:1167
1198: lattice4:pr:d47:661
1199: alphagroup:hep-lat/9810063
1200: sumino-pt1:hep-ph/0104259
1201: sumino-pt2:hep-ph/0109122
1202: sumino-spect:hep-ph/0207005
1203: justin0:book:zinn-justin:1989:quantum+field+theory+and+critical+phenomena
1204: